Comparison of Borehole Velocity-Prediction Models and Estimation of Fluid Saturation Effects: From Rock Physics to Exploration Problem
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract We analyzed three types of elastic-wave velocity-prediction models by means of well-log synthetics and seismic-section ties by considering fluid saturation in five wells, including clastic and carbonate reservoirs. The elastic moduli of a formation are functions of the elastic moduli of the solid matrix and the fluid components, as well as the pore geometry. By using the volumes of different minerals and fluids obtained from log analysis, we calculated the elastic moduli of the matrix and fluid. Changes in velocities between invaded and uninvaded zones are quite signifi cant and often ignored in well-to-seismic ties. We applied three different models (time-average, Gassmann, and Kuster-Toks?z), seeking a best velocity-prediction model. The time-average equation is not recommended for velocity prediction and is especially inaccurate for gas-reservoir intervals. The Gassmann equation is usually the most appropriate for low-frequency seismic data. The Kuster-Toks?z model is best for high-frequency data. Also, because it takes pore geometry intoccount, it should be considered when the pore shape is signifi - cant in determining formation velocity (pore aspect ratio < 0.3). There can be a trade-off between low-frequency dispersion effects, favouring the Gassmann application, and pore geometry effects, favouring the Kuster-Toks?z application. Our exploration case study indicates that the high-frequency (Kuster-Toks?z) model may usually be a better choice. This case study yields good agreement between the predicted pore aspect ratio (0.12) and that from a laboratory measurement (0.166) in the study area. Comprehensive research encompassing borehole-velocity prediction models, laboratory study of core such as pore geometry statistics, well-log analysis, and study of seismic response is required. Introduction A question of considerable interest in seismic lithology studies is how best to predict elastic-wave velocities, both compressional (or P, sonic, or acoustic) and shear (or S), for composite media (e.g., porous rocks) in cases where there are no velocity logs available. Nuclear logs have sometimes been used to derive sonic and shear logs(1) but, unfortunately, estimation of velocities by thisalgorithm is quite inaccurate. For one thing, it does not take intoccount fluid saturation. For wells in western Canada, sonic logs re commonly available but shear logs are rarely available. And S wave logs are often required in seismic lithology studies that seek to understand the effects of reservoir fluid content, such as in AVO studies. The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, by comparing different velocity-prediction models for composite media, it tries to find a best model to predict P-wave and S-wave velocities, VP and VS. Second, by considering fluid-saturation effects, it applies predictions to exploration problems by tying into field seismic data with synthetic seismograms that incorporate velocities predicted from different porous-rock models. Laboratory studies show that there are significant changes in elastic-wave velocities in a porous rock depending on whether it is dry, gas-saturated, water-saturated, or oil-saturated(2-6). Figureshows P- and S-wave velocity comparisons between laboratory measurements and predictions from rock-physics models(7, 8).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».