About This Item
- Full text of this item is not available.
- Abstract PDFAbstract PDF(no subscription required)
Share This Item
The AAPG/Datapages Combined Publications Database
Houston Geological Society Bulletin
Abstract
Abstract: Grayson Field Jurassic Smackover Reservoir:
A Case Study Using Leading-Edge
Reservoir Characterization
Seismic
Processing
of 3D
Seismic
Data
Seismic
Processing
of 3D
Seismic
Data
By
Hill Geophysical Consulting
Shreveport, LA
The discovery well at Grayson Field was drilled on a four-way
dip closure defined by three 2D
seismic
lines. Investors were
hoping to find a maximum of 20 feet of
pay. After the discovery of 158 feet of pay
at 8000 feet measured depth in the Jurassic
Smackover limestone in January 1993, the
participants decided that a 3D
seismic
program was needed. The objective of the
3D
seismic
program was to define the
structural and stratigraphic limits of the
new field.
Specific processing and interpretive tools
will be illustrated in this presentation with many different
seismic
displays. Evidence will be presented that 1) relative
amplitude of the Smackover reflector does not define the reservoir’s
stratigraphic parameters, 2) attributes of the acoustic
impedance
data
(
inversion
) show good statistical correlation to
key reservoir parameters, 3) A.V.O. shows a hydrocarbon indicator
over the reservoir and 4) reservoir characterization
data
(petrophysical volumes generated with Hampson-Russell
Emerge software) generated with the 3D
seismic
data
delineate
the production.
In July 1995 gas injection was begun in the field. In February
1998 a water flood program replaced the gas injection. In-fill
drilling and 3D
seismic
data
was needed to optimize the production.
The resolution of the reservoir was not really clear enough
on the original processing.
Seismic
data
was reprocessed with
“state-of-the-art” parameters such as detailed editing of each
shot record, pre-stack time migration, and post-stack
inversion
(acoustic impedance), and A.V.O. and petrophysical volumes.
Tuning thickness of the wavelet at the Smackover level is 9 milliseconds
(approximately 54 feet). Identification of the upper and
lower pay intervals is very difficult
because the upper zone is thinner than
tuning. The two pay zones appear to
merge into one thick, high-amplitude
seismic
event.
Sonic and density logs from the wells were
used to calibrate and generate an acoustic
impedance
data
volume. This multi-linear
regression technique yields a
data
volume that better defines the two layers
within the reservoir. The acoustic impedance (velocity) of the
upper 100 feet of the Smackover was evaluated with different
attributes to see if there was a correlation to the overall reservoir.
Cross-plots of certain
seismic
attributes exhibit a good statistical
fit with the reservoir’s porosity and pore-volume maps generated
from well information.
The Grayson Field Smackover reservoir is a low-velocity zone encased within high velocity rocks. This is a classic Type III AVO case. A positive AVO P*G (primary times gradient) response is seen at the producing wells, while no AVO P*G response is observed in the non-producing areas.
The difficulty of identifying the thin upper pay interval was overcome
by making deep induction, and gas effect “
seismic
”
volumes that could be used in conjunction with the relative
amplitude, AVO, and acoustic impedance volumes.
End_Page 25---------------
Conclusion
3D
seismic
data
was a significant asset in the development of
Grayson field. The 3D
seismic
data
allowed Petro-Chem
Operating Company to drill the best structural locations within
the field. Reprocessing the 3D
seismic
data
brought out the
stratigraphic nuances of the field. The relative amplitude strength
of the top Smackover reflector does not define any reservoir
parameters. The acoustic impedance
data
volume shows a good
statistical correlation to the gross reservoir parameters of the
upper 100 feet of the Smackover. Multi-attribute
inversion
using
an artificial neural network algorithm (Emerge) successfully
computed the deep induction, density porosity and neutron
porosity volumes. “
Seismic
” volumes of gas effect, water saturation,
and hydrocarbon saturation clearly delineate the reservoir.
New wells drilled using these 3D
seismic
volumes greatly
increased the production rate and ultimate recoverable reserves
in the field. Recent drilling proves that the 3D
seismic
effort and
expense was well worth the money.
Figure 1. Grayson Field
Seismic
Lines Showing Response to Petrophysical Rock Properties.
End_of_Record - Last_Page 27---------------