Direct hydrocarbon detection using comparative P-wave and S-wave seismic sections

Geophysics ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 383-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
James D. Robertson ◽  
William C. Pritchett

Two field experiments in the Sacramento basin and one in the Green River basin demonstrate that comparative P-wave and S-wave CDP seismic sections can be used to detect gas directly in sandstone reservoirs. The lines in the Sacramento basin were shot over producing gas fields known to correlate with amplitude anomalies on P-wave sections. Reflections of comparable strength are present on the P-wave and S-wave sections at lithologic boundaries, but gas‐saturated zones correlating with P-wave bright spots show no equivalent S-wave amplitude anomalies. The responses are consistent with laboratory observations that P-wave velocity is more sensitive to the introduction of gas into liquid‐saturated pore space than S-wave velocity. The line in the Green River basin was shot over a relatively deep gas field producing from an overpressured reservoir not associated with a conventional P-wave bright spot. The P-wave reflection strength of the reservoir is about 50 percent greater than the S-wave reflection strength, whereas the P and S strengths of other major reflectors are comparable. The three field tests show that an S-wave section validates a P-wave bright spot attributed to gas saturation when there is no anomalous amplitude at the equivalent S-wave event and that the technique is useful for verification of subtle as well as strong amplitude anomalies.

Geophysics ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 712-726 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard C. Nolen‐Hoeksema ◽  
Zhijing Wang ◽  
Jerry M. Harris ◽  
Robert T. Langan

We conducted a core analysis program to provide supporting data to a series of crosswell field experiments being carried out in McElroy Field by Stanford University’s Seismic Tomography Project. The objective of these experiments is to demonstrate the use of crosswell seismic profiling for reservoir characterization and for monitoring [Formula: see text] flooding. For these west Texas carbonates, we estimate that [Formula: see text] saturation causes P‐wave velocity to change by −1.9% (pooled average, range = −6.3 to +0.1%), S‐wave velocity by +0.6% (range = 0 to 2.7%), and the P‐to‐S velocity ratio by −2.4% (range = −6.4 to −0.3%). When we compare these results to the precisions we can expect from traveltime tomography (about ±1% for P‐ and S‐wave velocity and about ±2% for the P‐to‐S velocity ratio), we conclude that time‐lapse traveltime tomography is sensitive enough to resolve changes in the P‐wave velocity, S‐wave velocity, and P‐to‐S velocity ratio that result from [Formula: see text] saturation. We concentrated here on the potential for [Formula: see text] saturation to affect seismic velocities. The potential for [Formula: see text] saturation to affect other seismic properties, not discussed here, may prove to be more significant (e.g., P‐wave and S‐wave impedance).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document