1 / 24

Seismic attributes of the Barnett and Bakken shales

Seismic attributes of the Barnett and Bakken shales. Bode Omoboya 16 th May, 2013. Introduction Bakken Shale Case Study Barnett Shale Case Study Other Forward Modeling Projects. Bakken Shale Quick Facts. VTI Anisotropy. Isotropic or HTI Anisotropy Due Open Vertical Fractures.

ira
Download Presentation

Seismic attributes of the Barnett and Bakken shales

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Seismic attributes of the Barnett and Bakken shales Bode Omoboya 16th May, 2013 Introduction Bakken Shale Case Study Barnett Shale Case Study Other Forward Modeling Projects

  2. Bakken Shale Quick Facts VTI Anisotropy Isotropic or HTI Anisotropy Due Open Vertical Fractures VTI Anisotropy Most oil in the Bakken petroleum system resides in open fractures in the Middle Member (Pitman et al, 2001). Source: USGS

  3. Bakken Shale – Core Samples and Well Logs Upper Shale MD= 9100 ft Middle Member MD= 9250 ft Lower Shale Well: NELSON Core Image from NDIC

  4. Bakken Shale – Shale Volume 200 ft. Interval 80% Vsh 1000 ft. Interval 40% – 60% Vsh Steiber, 1970 Data Courtesy of Hess Corporation

  5. Bakken Shale – Non-Hyperbolic Moveout t=700 ms X/D=1 4500ft (offset) t=1800 ms X= 15000 ft X= 0 ft V=16000ft/s V=3000ft/s from Core = 0.341 from Seismic ≈ 0.32 Jones and Wang, 1981

  6. Bakken Shale – Forward Modeling Project After Post-stack Migration Before Post-stack Migration Model C1 Physical modeling of anisotropic domains: Ultrasonic imaging of laser-etched fractures in glass (Geophysics, 2013 ) Robert. R. Stewart Nikolay Dyaur Bode Omoboya J.J.S de Figueiredo Mark Willis Samik Sil

  7. Bakken Shale – Forward Modeling Project Model C3 Model C10 Model C9 “BAKKEN MODEL” Schematic of NMO eta scan experiments on glass models

  8. Bakken Shale – Forward Modeling Project 𝞰= 0.3 𝞰= -0.3 𝞰= 0.3 𝞰= -0.3 Model C10 VTI Model Model C3 Max 𝞰 = 0.0 Blank Model Model C9 Azimuth 0 Max 𝞰 = 0.14 VTI+HTI+VTI Model C9 Azimuth 0 t = 350 ms t = 350 ms Model C9 Azimuth 45 Model C10 Max 𝞰 = 0.23 VTI Model Model C9 Azimuth 45 Max 𝞰 = 0.08 VTI+HTI+VTI t = 350 ms Model C9 Azimuth 90 Model C3 Blank Model t = 350 ms Model C9 Azimuth 90 Max 𝞰 = -0.06 VTI+HTI+VTI t = 350 ms

  9. Barnett Shale Quick Facts N-S structural cross section through the Newark Field in the Fort Worth Basin. Modified after Burna and Smosna, 2011

  10. Barnett Shale – Top Ellenberger – Maximum Curvature Attribute Well Y Well X Data Courtesy of Marathon Oil

  11. Barnett Shale – CDP Gathers after Time Processing and Migration

  12. Barnett Shale – Migrated Stack + FXY Decon t = 0s t = 1.5s

  13. Barnett Shale – Residual eta (h) Volume h = -0.2 t = 0s t = 1.5s h = 0.2

  14. Barnett Shale – Seismic to well tie Well Y

  15. P-Impedance Volume t = 0.55ms Base Marble Falls Top Barnett Top Ellenberger t = 0.85ms

  16. Density Volume t = 0.55ms Base Marble Falls Top Barnett Top Ellenberger t = 0.85ms

  17. Mu-Rho Volume t = 0.55ms Base Marble Falls Top Barnett Top Ellenberger t = 0.85ms

  18. Barnett Shale – Forward Modeling Project Experimental study of the influence of fluids on seismic azimuthal anisotropy. (Geophysical Prospecting, 2013, submitted, under review) Bode Omoboya Emrah Pacal J.J.S de Figueiredo Nikolay Dyaur Robert. R. Stewart • Constituent Materials: • Resin • Plexiglass (polycarbonate) • Copper tubes

  19. Barnett Shale – Forward Modeling Project Vs (Z) m/s

  20. Barnett Shale – Forward Modeling Project C11 C33 C13 C44 C55 C11 C33 C13 C44 C55

  21. Forward Modeling Examples: Source Frequency VS Anisotropy ɛ = Hudson, 1981 Model M1 Reference Model Model M2 Crack Density = 4.5 % Model M3 Crack Density = 4.0 % Shear wave anisotropy from aligned inclusions: ultrasonic frequency dependence of velocity and attenuation (Geophysical Journal International, 2013) J.J.S de Figueiredo Nikolay Dyaur Bode Omoboya Robert. R. Stewart

  22. Forward Modeling Examples: Source Frequency VS Anisotropy

  23. Forward Modeling Examples: Source Frequency VS Anisotropy Thomsen, 1986

  24. Acknowledgement • Dr. Steve Peterson – Marathon Oil • Michelle Simon – Hess Corporation • Dr. Edip Baysal – Paradigm • Schlumberger (For VISTA Processing Software)

More Related