01

MARCH
INTRODUCCIÓN AL CURSO DE INVERSIÓN SÍSMICA Y AVO (H. ZUCCHI)

BY HECTOR ZUCCHI //

ALL, TRAINING //
COMMENTS (0) //

LIKES (1) //

El material presentado a continuación es una breve introducción al curso de inversión

sísmica y AVO en español ofrecido por CAYROS

Inversión Sísmica

Inversión es el proceso de extraer, a partir de datos sísmicos, la geología subyacente

que a dado origen a los mismos.

Desde el enfoque matemático puede entenderse como el conjunto de operaciones que

permiten transformar una serie de Amplitudes Sísmicas en una Serie de Coeficientes
de Reflexión.

Tradicionalmente ha sido aplicada al tratamiento de sísmica sumada, con el objetivo de

obtener salidas en Impedancia Acústica.
 Posteriormente se ha extendido al procesamiento de sísmica no sumada (Gathers) a fin
de generar volúmenes de ambos tipos de impedancia, acústica y de corte.

Finalmente y con la posibilidad de extraer la componente Densidad, el análisis se

extiende a predicción de propiedades petrofísicas como saturación y porosidad.

Como posibles métodos de Inversión se incluyen

 Inversión simultánea de datos no sumados: absoluta y relativa.

 Inversión de datos sumados, cuyos principales algoritmos son:
o Model Based
o Sparse spike
o Colored
o Band limited

La Inversión simultánea, de sísmica no sumada, es de gran utilidad para el análisis de

datos con anomalías AVO. La típica entrada para este procesamiento son gathers en
ángulo corregidos por NMO.

Los procesos de Inversión Simultánea son estabilizados incluyendo las relaciones entre
Impedancia Acústica, Impedancia de Corte y Densidad. Estas relaciones son obtenidas
gráficamente a partir de datos de pozo existentes en el área.
 Es posible realizar la inversión en cada posición donde existe un pozo, superponiendo
los registros originales con los derivados de esta. Lo anterior,

Permite comparar las trazas sintéticas, obtenidas a partir de los resultados

sos, respecto de la sísmica original.
Constituye un método rápido y exacto de calibración entre resultados de la
sión y los registros de pozo.
Provee control de calidad y estimación de parámetros óptimos antes de correr la
inversión en el volumen total.

En la siguiente gráfica se muestra la relación genética entre salidas de Inversión

Simultánea:
La combinación de las salidas de la inversión para obtener las constantes de Lame
permiten predecir zonas con potencial presencia de hidrocarburos

Una clara muestra de las ventajas de la Inversión Simultánea, respecto de la tradicional

sólo en Impedancia Acústica, se observa en la siguiente figura:
AVO
AVO significa “Amplitud Versus Offset” (también denominado “Variación de Amplitud
con Offset”) y se refiere al efecto de la variación del apartamiento, en la amplitud de la
señal.

Los programas de AVO analizan

datos símicos no sumados para identificar y evaluar anomalías y determinar el

contenido de fluidos de las rocas. Dado que el contenido de fluidos modifica la
velocidad y densidad de los medios, influye en las impedancias y en consecuencia en
los coeficientes de reflexión. Las amplitudes sísmicas son consecuencia directa de
 estos últimos, de ahí la posibilidad de usar sus variaciones para investigar la presencia
de hidrocarburos.

Acondicionamiento del Dato Sísmico: Se asume en AVO que la sísmica pre stack ha
sido optimamente procesada. Significa que se encuentra libre de ruidos, con
amplitudes preservadas y correctamente posicionada en tiempo. En caso de no cumplir
estas condiciones se dispone de herramientas que permiten llevarla a tal estado.

Dentro de los programas de Análisis y Acondicionamiento se encuentran:

 Angle Gather
 Super Gather
 Offset Mute
 Angle Mute
 Inverse Q
 Trim Statics
 Parabolic Radon (INVEST)
 RNMO & NMO Correction
 CDP Stack
 Angle Stack
 Range Limited Stack
 AVO synthetic modeling
 AVO Attribute Volumes
 Gradient Analysis
 AVO Offset Scaling
Modelado: Permite diferenciar las respuestas vinculadas a uno o más escenarios de
presencia de hidrocarburos. Es un modo eficiente de reconocer potenciales anomalías
de hidrocarburos en el dato sísmico.
Conduce a la edición de los registros simulando diferentes condiciones de saturación y
porosidad. En base a estos registros se obtienen gathers sintéticos que son
comparados con el dato real.

Cálculo de Volúmenes de Atributos: Estabilizadas las amplitudes presentes en los

gathers es posible calcular volúmenes y mapas de atributos. Con base en los
volúmenes pueden obtenerse cross plots que caracterizan las diversas clases y
aproximarse mediante el modelado al contenido litológico.
Estos volúmenes pueden ser desplegados y analizados como datos sísmicos. Para
cada campo o yacimiento podrán definirse los mejores atributos que describan sus
particulares propiedades, en especial las de saturación.

Los volúmenes posibles de estimar incluyen:

Intercept , Gradient , Curvature, AVO products, Reflectivities, Scaled S-wave,

Reflectivity, Fluid Factor, Polarization values, Delta attributes, Poisson’s Ratio, Scaled
Poisson’s Ratio.
Como un ejemplo del proceso de análisis se presenta el crossplot de INTERCEPT vs.
GRADIENTE, que busca diferenciar zonas con potencial contenido de hidrocarburos de
la tendencia asignable al agua

En la siguiente figura se presenta una sección sísmica en donde se define

volumétricamente las áreas de interés establecidas mediante el cross plot de intercept
vs. Gradiente.
Hector Zucchi
CAYROS group
Hector Zucchi es un geólogo con especialización en Geofísica Aplicada y 35 años de
experiencia en la industria petrolera (México, Argentina, Colombia, USA, Trinidad,
Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela). A partir de 1987 inicia su contacto con técnicas de
detección directa (Inversión de Trazas) que enfoca durante sus tareas en Veritas
(actual CGG), Schlumberger y posteriormente como consultor independiente para
diversas empresas agregando procesamiento AVO y Multicomponente.
 04
APRIL
CAPILLARY PRESSURE DATA
INTEGRATION HELPS DEFINING
CARBONATES RESERVOIR
COMPARTMENTALIZATION (F.
CAYCEDO)

BY FRANCISCO CAYCEDO //

ALL, GEOSCIENCE //
COMMENTS (0) //

LIKES (1) //

This post is about an interesting example of

how the capillary pressure data integrated
with other information helped to understand
the compartmentalization of a carbonate
field that was under water injection.
One of the potential problems affecting the
efficiency of water injection techniques is the
areal variation of the rock quality. In this
case study, a permeability barrier was
preventing that one part of the field benefits
from the waterflooding influence. No faulting
or any other structural feature was observed
in the seismic.
Quick Field Description
The structure of this Mesozoic carbonates
reservoir can be described as an anticline
limited by a system of faults in one flank. In
the below to the right are presented the top
and base surfaces and the main faults
interpreted in the seismic.
Several cores were cut in different wells of
the field and capillary pressure, porosity and
permeability were measured among other
properties.

As a reference, in the picture to the below is

presented the petrophysical analysis of one
of the wells. Track 1 shows GR, track 2 water
saturation and irreducible water saturation
estimation (blue), tracks 3 and 4 porosity
(including core data), track 5 mineralogy,
track 6 rock typing and track 7 permeability
functions (including core data).
The dashed blue line crossing all the tracks
represents the computed Free Water Level
(FWL).

Free Water Level (FWL) Calculation

FWL was calculated in several wells using
saturation height modeling based on
capillary pressure curves and Leverett J-
Function (1). The general workflow is
described below and some other details
related to the process are presented at the
end of this post (Appendix A).

Capillary pressure curves were validated,
corrected (conformance correction), and
converted to the same system (air-mercury)
and units.

Rock typing analysis was performed to
classify capillary pressure (Pc) curves in
groups according to porosity, permeability
and pore throat radius. In this specific case,
porosity ranges segregated very well Pc
curves, but this varies from reservoir to
reservoir.

Leverett J-Functions were computed for
each Pc curve: J = 0.2166 * [Pc/(σ *
Cos(Θ))] * (K/PHI)^0.5

Wetting phase Saturation vs. J-Function
was plotted (Log-Log) and regressions
performed considering the points within each
rock type to obtain equations of the form: J =
a * Sw ^ b. These equations were rearranged
to Sw= ( J / a ) ^ (1/b).

In the previous step sometimes wetting
phase Saturation needs to be normalized by
Swirr in order to get a better fit. In this case
the resulting equations in the regression
have the following form: Swn= ( J / a ) ^
(1/b) and a de-normalization function is
required later to compute Sw. The de-
normalization function is a equation that
correlates Swirr with other parameter like
PHI, log(PHI), log(K) or log(Ri).
An example of de-normalization function
based on log(PHI) is
Swirr= -1.13892 * Log(PHI) + 1.24808
Sw = Swirr + Swn * (1 – Swirr)

A Saturation Height model was defined
by Combining the equations previously
described with the general Capillary Pressure
equation for each rock type: Pc = (rhoW –
rhoH) * h / 703.07, where h represents the
FWL
Eq.1 Sw= ( J / a ) ^ (1/b)
Eq.2 J = 0.2166 * [Pc/(σ * Cos(Θ))] *
(K/PHI)^0.5
Eq.3 Pc = (rhoW – rhoH) * FWL / 703.07
Sw = {(0.2166 * [((rhoW-rhoH) * FWL /
703.07) / (σ*Cos(Θ))]
*(K/PHI)^0.5)/a}^(1/b) Eq.4
This equation is defined by each rock type by
changing the a and b variables (calculated in
the Sw vs. J-function regression).
Pc = capillary pressure, psi
σ = system interfacial tension,
dynes/cm
Θ = contact angle, degrees
K = permeability, mD
PHI = porosity, v/v
h = free water level (FWL),
meters
rhoW = water density, Kg/m3
 rhoH = hydrocarbon density, Kg/m3
Sw = wetting phase saturation,
fraction
Swn = wetting phase saturation
normalized by Swirr, fraction
Swirr = irreducible wetting phase
saturation, fraction
Ri = pore throat radius, microns

Finally, because continuous porosity,
permeability and water saturation curves
were previously calculated during the
petrophysical analysis, FWL was iterated
until getting the best match between the SW
computed from well logs and the one
computed in the Saturation Height model
(Eq.4)

Free Water Level (FWL) Analysis and Results

Using the workflow explained in the previous
section, the FWL was calculated in 13 wells.
The most interesting observation was that
two different FWL were estimated in the
group of wells. For a group of 7 wells the FWL
required to have a good match between the
water saturation calculated from the well
logs and the calculated from the saturation
height modeling was -2,820 m. For the other
group of 6 wells the required FWL was -2,870
m.
In the picture below is presented an example
of the FWL estimation in one of the wells. At
the left side is shown that a FWL=-2,820 m
produces a poor match. At the right side is
shown that a FWL=-2,870 m produces a
good match.

In the picture below is presented another

example where the best match is obtained
by using a FWL=-2,820 m.
When the 2 groups of wells were displayed in
a map, all the 6 wells with deeper FWL were
located to the north of the group of 7 wells
with shallower FWL (see picture below – left
side).
The presence of 2 different FWL suggested
compartmentalization in the reservoir and
helped to better understand the dynamic
behaviour and the effect of the waterflooding
process in some wells.
The picture below (right side) shows a Phi*H
map filtered by porosity higher than 6%,
suggesting that the barrier is probably
caused by a change in rock quality, given
that not structural features were observed in
the seismic.

As a final comment, a geological model was

built integrating the all the data presented in
this post (including rock typing and water
saturation from the saturation height model),
followed by numeric simulation with
excellent history match.
Appendix A
Capillary Pressure Conformance Correction
Within the corrections applied to the mercury
injection capillary pressure data is the
conformance correction. It refers to the
amount of mercury that conforms to the
exterior shape of the plug and the contact
between the plug and its enclosing holder.
This “apparent” intrusion of mercury into the
sample must be discounted or corrected and
it’s critical for some calculations like
permeability estimation from MICP data.
Picture below shows an example of the
graphs used in the correction of one of the
samples analyzed in this case study.

Rock Typing for Saturation Height Modeling

As mentioned in the general workflow
description, Rock-typing analysis was
performed to classify capillary pressure (Pc)
curves in families or groups according to
porosity, permeability and pore throat radius.
Then a saturation height equation was
derived for each rock type. This is a very
important step when using Levertt J-Function
methodology.
In the picture below are shown examples of
capillary pressure data from 3 different
reservoirs. In the example to the left,
permeability ranges allowed to group the Pc
curves with similar behaviour. In the example
presented in the middle, porosity ranges
effectively group Pc curves with similar
characteristics. Finally, in the example to the
right the Pc curves are grouped by pore
throat radius (R45 port).

There are several options when grouping Pc

curves by pore throat radius. One of the
most common procedures consists in finding
the most representative Winland or Pittman
equation (2). This could be done by:

Computing the pore throat aperture (R)
at Pc values corresponding to different
saturations (ports), using the Young-Laplace
equation: R = (2σ * Cos(Θ))/ Pc

Computing the different Winland and
Pittman apparent radius (R10, 15, 20, 25,…
75)

Plotting Critical Pore Aperture (Young-
Laplace equation) vs. Winland/Pittman
Apparent Radius for each port (saturation)
and finding the combination with better
correlation.

Plotting Porosity vs Permeability data
(colouring points by Critical Pore Aperture),
displaying selected Winland/Pittman
correlation overlay lines, and comparing the
results. Points within a specific group of
critical pore aperture should be in agreement
with the corresponding Winland/Pittman
lines.

Apex plots (Non-wetting phase saturation
vs. Saturation/Capillary pressure) and Pore
Throat Size Distribution plots are also helpful
diagnostic tools.
 References
1. Leverett, M.C.: “Capillary behaviour in
porous solids” Petroleum Transactions of
AIME 142 (1941)
2. Pittman, E.D.: “Relationship of Porosity
and Permeability to Various Parameters
Derived from Mercury Injection-Capillary
Pressure Curves for Sandstone,” AAPG Bull.,
vol. 76, No. 2 (February 1992)