Premium
An approach to combined rock physics and seismic modelling of fluid substitution effects
Author(s) -
Johansen Tor Arne,
Drottning Åsmund,
Lecomte Isabelle,
Gjøystdal Håvar
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
geophysical prospecting
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.735
H-Index - 79
eISSN - 1365-2478
pISSN - 0016-8025
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-2478.2002.00304.x
Subject(s) - geology , seismic wave , reflection (computer programming) , hydrogeology , bulk modulus , amplitude , fluid dynamics , mineralogy , petrology , mechanics , geotechnical engineering , seismology , physics , thermodynamics , computer science , programming language , quantum mechanics
The aim of seismic reservoir monitoring is to map the spatial and temporal distributions and contact interfaces of various hydrocarbon fluids and water within a reservoir rock. During the production of hydrocarbons, the fluids produced are generally displaced by an injection fluid. We discuss possible seismic effects which may occur when the pore volume contains two or more fluids. In particular, we investigate the effect of immiscible pore fluids, i.e. when the pore fluids occupy different parts of the pore volume. The modelling of seismic velocities is performed using a differential effective‐medium theory in which the various pore fluids are allowed to occupy the pore space in different ways. The P‐wave velocity is seen to depend strongly on the bulk modulus of the pore fluids in the most compliant (low aspect ratio) pores. Various scenarios of the microscopic fluid distribution across a gas–oil contact (GOC) zone have been designed, and the corresponding seismic properties modelled. Such GOC transition zones generally give diffuse reflection regions instead of the typical distinct GOC interface. Hence, such transition zones generally should be modelled by finite‐difference or finite‐element techniques. We have combined rock physics modelling and seismic modelling to simulate the seismic responses of some gas–oil zones, applying various fluid‐distribution models. The seismic responses may vary both in the reflection time, amplitude and phase characteristics. Our results indicate that when performing a reservoir monitoring experiment, erroneous conclusions about a GOC movement may be drawn if the microscopic fluid‐distribution effects are neglected.