Agreement DE-FC26-02NT15342, Seismic Evaluation of ...

Figures:
Figure 1. Relationship of various rock and fluid properties important for Direct
Hydrocarbon Indicators. ........................................................................................... 15
Figure 2. Test Sites, Gulf of Mexico ………………………………………………... 16
Figure 3. Workflow: Conventional and new for Sw and poroosityinversion………… 17
Figure 4. Velocity versus pressure and modulus versus pressure..................................... 18
Figure 5. The soft margin loss setting for a linear SVM (from Smola and Scolkopf, 2004)
................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 6. The saturation logs (original and regressed from seismic trace with SVM). .... 23
Figure 8. The cross sections of estimated water saturation from King Kong (left) and Lisa
Anne (right)............................................................................................................... 24
Figure 9. Dry-bulk and grain density as a function of porosity for the shallow (12000 ft)
and deep (17700 ft ) sands ........................................................................................ 26
Figure 10. thin section for a deepwater clean unconsolidated fine sand sample. ............. 26
Figure 11. permeability versus porosity for the shallow and deep sands and shales........ 27
Figure 12. Total pore volume reduction is around 1.5% porosity unit for deepwater sands
with no relation to porosity. There is much high porosity reduction for shaley sands
and shales.................................................................................................................. 28
Figure 13. Measured dry and brine saturated P and S wave velocities on a typical
deepwater sand sample (for about 12, 000 ft) as function of differential pressure... 29
Figure 14. (a) measured dry Vp versus porosity . (b) Measured dry Vs versus porosity. 30
Figure 15. The HP (deep) sands have much higher shear modulus than those of the VHP
(shallow) sands.......................................................................................................... 31
Figure 16. Measured dry and brine saturated bulk and shear modulus of BHP sand
samples in comparison to modulus calculated with Gassmanns’s equation............. 31
Figure 17. Derived gain function porosity. Low bound of the gain function for deepwater
sands is around 2.5.................................................................................................... 34
Figure 18. Water saturated P- and S- wave velocity versus porosity with modeled
velocity/porosity trend. ............................................................................................. 34
Figure 19. measure dry and brine saturated Vp/Vs ratio for the shallow VHP and deep HP
sands.......................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 20. Pore fluid bulk modulus for wet and gas formation derived from log data. ... 35
Figure 21. An example realization of each of the model types, one without spatial
correlation, and two with the von Karman and Gaussian spatial correlations defined
in the text................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 22. Statistics of the reflection coefficients for composite reflection coefficients
generated using the three spatial correlation functions and for the Backus average
versions of each model. In each case, 50 realizations were considered. Error bars
corresponding to one standard deviation are displayed for the stochastic models,
though not for Backus average results which have negligible scatter on the scale of
these plots.................................................................................................................. 40
Figure 23. AVO parameters, the intercept and gradient, displayed for each of the three
classes of models for which we computed composite reflection coefficients. ......... 41
Agreement DE-FC26-02NT15342, Seismic Evaluation of Hydrocarbon Saturation 7