AVO detection of gas-producing dolomite trends in nonproducing limestone

MOHAMED A. EISSA, Tanta University, Egypt JOHN P. CASTAGNA, University of Oklahoma, Norman, U.S. ALAN LEAVER, East Resources

The AVO technique has been suc-

cessful in hydrocarbon exploration for gas-sand reservoirs such as those in the Texas Gulf Coast, the North Sea, and West Africa, but there are limited examples of successful AVO application in carbonate exploration. Commonly in carbonate reservoirs, dolomitized zones have better reservoir quality than limestones. Because dolomite has a lower Poissions ratio than limestone, AVO might be able to detect dolomite trends. In this paper, we use AVO analysis to detect gas-producing dolomite in the nonproducing Black River limestone. The available data are: (1) NMOcorrected CDP gathers for three 2D lines (lines 1, 2, and 3); (2) log data for five wells: A (a gas dolomite well @ CDP 376) and B (a dry limestone well @ CDP 114) on line 1; C (gas dolomite well @ CDP 486) and D (dry limestone well @ CDP 410) on line 2; and E (dry limestone well @ CDP 148) on line 3. The main zone of interest is the high impedance Lower Ordovician Black River carbonate (Figures 1-3) at depths greater than 8000 ft. This reservoir is believed dolomitized by hydrothermal fluids moving through the host limestone along fractures associated with faults. Well-log data show that the dolomitized reservoir porosity averages about 5%. The limestone is very tight with average porosity less than 2%. Figures 4-8 show the well-log characters of the Black River carbonate in the available wells.

Figure 1. Line 1 showing Black River reflector.

Figure 2. Line 2 showing Black River reflector.

Figure 3. Line 3 showing Black River reflector.

AVO modeling. Modeling was performed to determine expected AVO behavior for dolomite and limestone. Figures 9-13 show NMO-corrected AVO synthetics for wells A, B, C, D, and E tied to their location on the lines. Shear-wave velocity was calculated using Castagnas mudrock equation in clastic intervals but other equations were used for carbonate intervals. VP/VS for limestone and dolomite were assumed to be 1.9 and 1.7, respectively. Only minor log editing was performed. Although not affecting the normal incidence tie at the target, spikes on the sonic log and washouts on the density log had to be edited in order to achieve
462 THE LEADING EDGE MAY 2003

good AVO synthetics. Sonic log spikes cause ray-traced incident P-waves to go critical in the modeling algorithm. There was an acceptable qualitative character tie between the synthetic and real seismic gather. In general, the synthetic AVO responses show the same general trend as the real data although differing in detail. Dolomite and limestone AVO curves for synthetics and real data show that the intercept (P) and the sign of the gradient (G) can be used to detect gas-saturated dolomite (Figure 14). Gas-saturated dolomite has a smaller intercept than tight limestone and exhibits a small positive gradient while tight limestone shows larger negative gradient. Parabolic radon filtering (frequency

range 5-90 Hz and maximum residual moveout from -10 to +10 ms) was applied to NMO-corrected gathers for noise reduction and light AGC for amplitude balancing was applied using a 1000-ms gate. AVO analysis. Our main goal is to establish a robust intercept (P) versus gradient (G) criteria for gas-saturated dolomite and tight limestone from the well location to locate gas-saturated dolomite intervals. A velocity model derived from stacking velocities was used to calculate local angle of incident to generate gradient stack sections for each line. Then the intercept (P) versus gradient (G) plots were generated at the wells and for the entire line. Figures

Figure 4. Sonic velocity, density, gamma ray, photoelectric, and neutron porosity curves for the Black River Formation in well A. Pe curve (yellow) indicates dolomite lithology.

Figure 5. Sonic velocity, density, gamma ray, photoelectric, and neutron porosity curves for the Black River Formation in well B. Pe curve (yellow) indicates limestone lithology.

Figure 6. Sonic velocity, density, gamma ray, photoelectric, and neutron porosity curves for the Black River Formation in well C. Pe curve (yellow) indicates dolomite lithology.

MAY 2003

THE LEADING EDGE

463

Figure 7. Sonic velocity, density, gamma ray, photoelectric, and neutron porosity curves for the Black River Formation in well D. Pe curve (yellow) indicates limestone lithology.

Figure 8. Sonic velocity, density, gamma ray, photoelectric, and neutron porosity curves for the Black River Formation in well E. Pe curve (yellow) indicates limestone lithology.

Figure 9. NMOcorrected AVO synthetic for well A. The near-offset tie is better than the AVO tie.

464

THE LEADING EDGE

MAY 2003

Figure 10. NMOcorrected AVO synthetic for well B. The near-offset tie is better than the AVO tie.

Figure 11. NMOcorrected AVO synthetic for well C. The near-offset tie is better than the AVO tie.

Figure 12. NMOcorrected AVO synthetic for well D. The near-offset tie is better than the AVO tie.

MAY 2003

THE LEADING EDGE

465

Figure 13. NMOcorrected AVO synthetic for well E. The near-offset tie is better than the AVO tie.

Figure 14. AVO for synthetics (red) and real data (blue) in limestone wells (left) and dolomite wells (right) for top of the Black River carbonate. Synthetic and real limestone data show an amplitude decrease with offset; as the gas-filled dolomite show an amplitude increase with offset.

Figure 15. Intercept (P) versus gradient (G) plots and intercept (P) sections at well B (dry limestone) (left) and at well A (gas dolomite) (right).

466

THE LEADING EDGE

MAY 2003

MAY 2003

THE LEADING EDGE

0000

Figure 16. Intercept (P) versus gradient (G) plot (top) and intercept (P) section (bottom) for line 1, showing limestone and dolomite trend.

Figure 17. Intercept (P) versus gradient (G) plots (top) and intercept (P) sections at well D (dry limestone) (left) and at well C (gas dolomite) (right).

Figure 18. Intercept (P) versus gradient (G) plot (top) and intercept (P) section (bottom) for line 2, showing limestone and dolomite trend.

MAY 2003

THE LEADING EDGE

467

Figure 19. Intercept (P) versus gradient (G) plot (top) and intercept (P) section (bottom) at well E (dry limestone).

Figure 20. Intercept (P) versus gradient (G) plot (top) and intercept (P) section (bottom) for line 3, showing limestone and dolomite trend.

15, 17, and 19 show the intercept (P) versus gradient (G) plots and the intercept section at the well locations for lines 1-3. It is obvious that the gas-saturated dolomite has different intercept (P) versus gradient (G) behavior than tight limestone. Gas-saturated dolomite tends toward a lower intercept (P) than tight limestone and tends toward a low positive gradient (G) while tight limestone usually has higher negative gradient (P). Points representing tight limestone are red, and points representing gas-dolomite are yellow. Figures 16, 18, and 20 show the intercept (P) versus gradient (G) plots and intercept (P) section for lines 1-3 with zones of dolomite (yellow) and limestone (red).
468 THE LEADING EDGE MAY 2003

Conclusion. AVO modeling and analysis enable discrimination of gas-producing dolomite and tight dry limestone in the Black River carbonate. AVO intercept (P) versus gradient (G) attribute plotting is particularly effective. Gas-saturated dolomite tends toward lower intercept than tight limestone while exhibiting low positive gradient as compared to high negative gradient for tight limestone.
Suggested reading. AVA analysis and interpretation of a carbonate reservoir: northwest Java basin, Indonesia by Adriansyah and McMechan (GEOPHYSICS, 2001). Rock physicsthe link between rock properties and AVO response by Castagna et al. (in Offset Dependent Reflectivity: Theory and Practice of AVO

Analysis, SEG, 1993). Recent advances in application of AVO in carbonate reservoirs: Calibration and interpretation by Li et al. (SEG 2002 Expanded Abstracts). Comparison of P-wave AVO techniques for locating zones of fractured dolomite within nonreservoir limestone by Ho et al. (SEG 1992 Expanded Abstracts). AVO and Devonian reef exploration: Difficulties and possibilities by Lu and Lines (TLE, 1995). Direct determination of carbonate reservoir porosity and pressure from AVO inversion by Pigott et al. (SEG 1990 Expanded Abstracts). TLE
Acknowledgments: The authors thank with gratitude Fortuna Energy for releasing the data for this publication. Corresponding author: castagna@ou.edu