Rock Physics Constraints on Seismic

Signatures of Fractures
Contract Number: DE-AC26-99FT40692 DOE

Gary Mavko
Rock Physics Laboratory
Stanford University
 Objective
Relate seismic attributes to fractures,
by quantitatively integrating
Multi-attribute seismic
Well logs
Geology
using Rock Physics
Why Worry About Fractures?
They dominate permeability:
Can make tight gas economical
 What do we need to know?

Where to find Sweet Spots for drilling

Fracture location
Fracture intensity
Fracture orientation
Gas, oil, or water?
Permeability
 Rock Physics
Discover, understand relations between
Seismic Attributes:
Velocity, Impedance
AVO, Reflectivity
Attenuation
Rock and Fluid Properties:
Fractures
Gas vs. Oil vs. Water
Rock type, porosity, mineralogy
Stress, Pore, Pressure, Temperature
 Fractures Can Have
Many Seismic Attributes
Low P- and S-wave velocities
Anomalous reflectivity (Impedance)
Low Q (high seismic attenuation)
Low Poissons Ratio (Vp/Vs ratio)
Anomalous AVO
Azimuthal variation in velocity, AVO

the optimum choice will vary from site

to site
Site-to-site variations result from:
Rock type
Fracture geometries
Fluids
Acquisition geometries
Business objective/constraints

there is no silver bullet that works

everywhere.
Seismic Velocity
Velocity Indicator of Fractures
6
Fractured
BedfordLimestone
Limestone
Water-saturated
Sat.
5
V

(km/s)
P
Dry

Velocity (km/s)
4

More fractures
Velocity
3 Dry

Sat. V
2
Saturated S

1
0 100 200 300
Effective Pressure (bars)
Effective Pressure (bars)

Adding Fractures:
Lowers Seismic Velocities
Change Seismic Vp/Vs ratio
Seismic Attenuation
Attenuation Indicator of Fractures
Unfractured Fractured

Adding Fractures: changes amplitude & frequency

 Frequency/Amplitude
Tight Sands - Powder River Basin
Line 2: Surface-consistent RMS Amplitude (event at 2.5 seconds)
Stacking-chart display of the center frequencies of the pre-stack P-wave data on line 2.

1601 Low Frequency

source station numbers

1601 Low Amplitude

CDP 3004

- more fractures Area CDP 2928

1501 1501
CDP 2816

Source Station Numbers

CDP 2666

1401 1401

11

40 9

1301 1301
7
35
High Frequency High Amplitude 5

1201
Area 30
1201 Area
3

1
25Hz
1101
1101 1101 1201 1301 1401 1501 1601
1101 1201 1301 1401 1501 1601 Receiver Station Numbers

receiver station numbers

Seismic Facies
Fractures Often Prefer Certain
Lithofacies
Joint Sheared Joint
 Seismic Indicator of
Fracture-Prefered Lithofacies
Fractures prefer rocks with
higher Vp, Impedance

Vp

Few fractures:
Lower Vp, Impedance
Vs

and we might detect the facies

more easily than the fractures
Seismic Amplitude
Amplitude Indicator of Fractures

Fractures elastically soften the rock, changing the

elastic impedance, and lowering reflectivity.
 Tight Limestone
Anomalous Stack Amplitude at Fracture clusters
3D Seismic VSP
Azimuthal Attributes
 Azimuthal Seismic Attributes
3D Surveys yield azimuthal variations in:
NMO N-S

Amplitude E-W
Frequency/Q
 Tight Gas - Powder River Basin
Azimuthal variations at a CMP Superbin
Far offset azimuthal P-
Azimuth Traveltime variation

Fracture
Azimuth
Sussex

Niobrara Fracture
1st Frontier Intensity
bottom

t between top Sussex and

Far Offset (25-30o) P-wave bottom first Frontier sands
Rock Physics
Workflows
 Rock Physics Workflow
Logs:
Site-specific
Rock properties
Specify Compute
Fractures seismic
Fluids signatures
Lithology

Fractured Interval
Properties
 Unfractured
Fracture Details Rpp
Fractured
below Seismic
Resolution
Incidence Angle

Anomalous Amplitude
at Fracture clusters
 AVO
Computed Anomaly: Gas-filled Fractures
Offset Offset

Fracture indicator
 Will We See the Fractures?

gas

at this site, AVO can distinguish gas-

filled fractures, but not water-filled.
Can We Distinguish Fractures
from Shale?

Increasing
fractures
Increasing
shalines

at this site, AVO can distinguish gas-

filled fractures from unfractured shale
 A Few
Interpretation Pitfalls
How are Faults and Fractures
distributed?
 Joints
Intermediate Faults

Fault Zones Sheared Joints

Incipient Faults
Courtesy, Juan-Mauricio Florez-Nino
 x y

Fracture
Strike

Excellent Fractures
along dip. Gas
cdx = .1
cdy = 0
gas
 x y

Fracture
Strike

Excellent Fractures
along strike. Gas
cdx = .02
cdy = .08
gas
 x y
?
z

Gas-filled
Fracture Water-filled
Strike? Fractures!

Excellent Fractures
along dip,
but, with Water!
cdx = .1
cdy = 0
gas
 x y

No Anisotropy
No Fractures?
Two Fracture sets!

cdx = .05
cdy = .05
gas
Quantify Signatures of
Fractured reservoir, gas
Various Fracture Styles

xx yy

zz
Integration
Methodology
 Independent Constraints
Seismic amplitude Geologic rule

Interpreted fault

Time slice at the top of the Prior spatial distribution for the
reservoir mean values of crack density
 Integration Methodology
Well Log Fracture
modeling & Condition on
Vp Stochastic PP reflectivity
Prior simulations from seismic
Geological data
Info
Rpp
P(e) Vs P(e|Rpp)

E [P(e)] = 0.05
Rpp
e: fracture E [P(e|Rpp)] = 0.02
density

Crack Density
Prior crack density distribution
Updated crack density distribution
Observed Reflectivity anisotropy
800 ft subperbins
Fracture distribution from AVAZ
800 ft subperbins
Comparison with FMI data
 Conclusions
No Silver Bullet for fracture detection;
Anisotropy alone might not be the answer
Fracture mapping has many pitfalls
Rock physics can help reduce risk, by:
Quantifying signatures of fracture scenarios
Exploring effects of rock types, fluids
Integrating well log and seismic constraints
Finding optimum attributes