This website uses cookies to improve your experience. If you continue without changing your settings, you consent to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can disable cookies at any time.

×

The objective of this case study is to predict geologic properties of a shale reservoir interval to guide production and completion planning for successful development of the reservoir. The conditioning, analysis, and blending of the converted-wave (PS) seismic data into a quantitative interpretation (QI) workflow are described in detail, illustrating the successful integration of geologic information and multiple seismic attributes. A multicomponent 3D seismic survey, several wells with dipole sonic logs, and a multicomponent (3C) 3D vertical seismic profile are available for the study. For comparisons of the incremental value of PS data, the QI workflow is completed entirely using only PP data and then modified and redone to incorporate information from the PS data. Predictions of the geologic properties for both workflows are assessed for accuracy against the existing well log and core evidence. Determining reservoir properties of the shale units of interest is important to the successful placement of horizontal wells for efficient multistage hydraulic fracturing and maximum gas production. Although conventional interpretation of conventional seismic data can only provide reservoir geometry, the quantitative analysis of prestack multicomponent data in this study reveals detailed distinctions between reservoir units and relative measures of porosity and brittleness bulk properties within each unit. Using all of the elastic properties derived from the seismic data analysis allowed for the classification of lithological units, which were, in turn, subclassified based on unit-specific reservoir properties. The upper reservoir units (Muskwa and Otter Park) were shown to have more variability in brittleness than the lower reservoir unit (Evie). Validation at a reliable well control confirmed these distinctive units and properties to be very high resolution and accurate, particularly when the PS data were incorporated into the workflow. The results of this method of analysis provided significantly more useful information for appraisal and development decisions than conventional seismic data interpretation alone.

References

  • Aki, K., and P. Richards, 1979, Quantitative seismology: W. H. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
  • Andersen, E., and F. D. Gray, 2011, The evolving role of geophysics in exploration: From amplitudes to geomechanics: Presented at the 2011 Joint Convention, CSPG CSEG CWLS.Google Scholar
  • Avseth, P., T. Mukerji, and G. Mavko, 2005, Quantitative seismic interpretation: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • EIA (Energy Information Administration), 2011, World shale gas resources: An Initial Assessment of 14 Regions Outside the United States, accessed January 2018.Google Scholar
  • Fatti, J. L., G. C. Smith, P. J. Vail, and P. R. Levitt, 1994, Detection of gas in sandstone reservoirs using AVO analysis: A 3D seismic case history using the geostack technique: Geophysics, 59, 1362–1376, doi: 10.1190/1.1443695.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Goodway, W., T. Chen, and J. Downton, 1997, Improved AVO fluid detection and lithology discrimination using Lamé petrophysical parameters; “Lambda-Rho,” Mu-Rho,” & “Lambda/Mu fluid stack,” from P and S inversions: 67th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 183–186.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Hunt, L., S. Reynolds, S. Hadley, and J. Downton, 2012, Quantitative interpretation. Part I: Method: CSEG Recorder, 37, 7–17.Google Scholar
  • Iverson, A., M. Perez, and W. Goodway, 2013, Microseismic, 3D and 4D applications and its relation to geomechanics and completion performance: CSEG Recorder, 38, 32–37.Google Scholar
  • Lawton, D. C., and C. E. Howell, 1992, P-SV and P-P synthetic stacks: 62nd Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1344–1347.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Morgan, R., 2008, Horn River Basin, the shale gas rush is on: Canadian Discovery Digest, Exploration Review, 6, B1–B34.Google Scholar
  • Reine, C., and R. Tilson, 2016, Insights into converted-wave AVO and its use in inversion: Geoconvention 2016, Extended Abstracts.Google Scholar
  • Rickman, R., M. Mullen, E. Petre, B. Grieser, and D. Kundert, 2008, A practical use of shale petrophysics for stimulation design optimization: All shale plays are not clones of the Barnett shale: Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 115258.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Russell, B., D. Hampson, J. Schuelke, and J. Quirein, 1997, Multi-attribute seismic analysis: The Leading Edge, 16, 1429–1434, doi: 10.1190/1.1437466.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Shuey, R. T., 1985, A simplification of the Zoeppritz equations: Geophysics, 50, 609–614, doi: 10.1190/1.1441936.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Stewart, R. R., 2009, The measure of full-wave motion: An overview of multicomponent seismic exploration and its value: CSEG Recorder, 34, 34–38.Google Scholar
  • Todorov, T. I., and R. R. Stewart, 1998, 3-D converted wave inversion for shear velocity: University of Calgary, CREWES Research Report.Google Scholar
  • Weston Bellman, L. M., 2006, Nexen/Opti oil sands reservoir characterization: Luncheon abstract: CWLS Insight, 4, 33.Google Scholar
  • Weston Bellman, L. M., 2015, QI sound bytes. Part I: Well data requirements and analysis: Canadian Discovery Digest, 1, 93–120.Google Scholar
  • Weston Bellman, L. M., 2014, Incorporating 3-component seismic data quantitatively for enhanced geological detail in an oil sands reservoir: Interpretation, 2, no. 1, T177–T192, doi: 10.1190/INT-2014-0055.1.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Weston Bellman, L. M., and J. Leslie-Panek, 2014, Reading between the lines: A NEBC shale gas quantitative interpretation case study: Geoconvention, 2014, Extended Abstracts.Google Scholar
  • Weston Bellman, L. M., J. Leslie-Panek, P. Reid, and E. Von Lunen, 2016, Reading between the lines II: A NEBC shale gas quantitative interpretation case study incorporating multi-component data: CSEG Recorder, 41, 26–31.Google Scholar