Identification of Pay Zones Using Compressional Wave Velocity and Shear Wave Velocity Data in Sandstone Reservoirs

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
G.M. Hamada
2015 ◽  
Vol 63 (5) ◽  
pp. 1231-1243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saeed Parvizi ◽  
Riyaz Kharrat ◽  
Mohammad R. Asef ◽  
Bijan Jahangiry ◽  
Abdolnabi Hashemi

2017 ◽  
Vol 101 ◽  
pp. 05010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Windu Partono ◽  
Masyhur Irsyam ◽  
Sri Prabandiyani Retno Wardani

Geophysics ◽  
1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (5) ◽  
pp. 985-996 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edwin L. Hamilton

The objectives of this paper are to review and study selected measurements of the velocity of shear waves at various depths in some principal types of unlithified, water‐saturated sediments, and to discuss probable variations of shear velocity as a function of pressure and depth in the sea floor. Because of the lack of data for the full range of marine sediments, data from measurements on land were used, and the study was confined to the two “end‐member” sediment types (sand and silt‐clays) and turbidites. The shear velocity data in sands included 29 selected in‐situ measurements at depths to 12 m. The regression equation for these data is: [Formula: see text], where [Formula: see text] is shear‐wave velocity in m/sec, and D is depth in meters. The data from field and laboratory studies indicate that shear‐wave velocity is proportional to the 1/3 to 1/6 power of pressure or depth in sands; that the 1/6 power is not reached until very high pressures are applied; and that in most sand bodies the velocity of shear waves is proportional to the 3/10 to 1/4 power of depth or pressure. The use of a depth exponent of 0.25 is recommended for prediction of shear velocity versus depth in sands. The shear velocity data in silt‐clays and turbidites include 47 selected in‐situ measurements at depths to 650 m. Three linear equations are used to characterize the data. The equation for the 0 to 40 m interval [Formula: see text] indicates the gradient [Formula: see text] to be 4 to 5 times greater than is the compressional velocity gradient in this interval in comparable sediments. At deeper depths, shear velocity gradients are [Formula: see text] from 40 to 120 m, and [Formula: see text] from 120 to 650 m. These deeper gradients are comparable to those of compressional wave velocities. These shear velocity gradients can be used as a basis for predicting shear velocity versus depth.


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 3207-3226
Author(s):  
R. Yazdanfar ◽  
N. Hafezi Moghadas ◽  
H Sadeghi ◽  
MR Ghayamghamian ◽  
◽  
...  

Geophysics ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 56 (12) ◽  
pp. 2129-2138 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. A. Payne

In an effort to understand better the amplitude variation with offset for reflections from an oil sand and the sensitivity of the AVO response to shear‐wave velocity variations, I studied synthetic and field gathers collected from an onshore field in the Gulf of Mexico basin. A wave‐equation‐based modeling program generated the synthetic seismic gathers using both measured and estimated shear‐wave velocities. The measured shear‐wave velocities came from a quadrupole sonic tool. The estimated shear‐wave velocities were obtained by applying published empirical and theoretical equations which relate shear‐wave velocities to measured compressional‐wave velocities. I carefully processed the recorded seismic data with a controlled‐amplitude processing stream. Comparison of the synthetic gathers with the processed field data leads to the conclusion that the model containing the measured shear‐wave velocities matches the field data much better than the model containing the estimated shear‐wave velocities. Therefore, existing equations which relate shear‐wave velocities to compressional‐wave velocities yield estimates which are not sufficiently accurate for making quantitative comparisons of synthetic and field gathers. Even small errors in the shear‐wave velocities can have a large impact on the output. Such errors can lead to an incomplete and perhaps inaccurate understanding of the amplitude‐versus‐offset response. This situation can be remedied by collecting shear‐wave data for use in amplitude‐versus‐offset modeling, and for building databases to generate better shear‐wave velocity estimator equations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document