GulfofMexico coremeasurementsandaVSP...
Transcript of GulfofMexico coremeasurementsandaVSP...
Attenuation of rock salt:
Gulf of Mexico core measurements and a VSP survey
Jingjing Zong1,2, Robert R. Stewart2, Nikolay Dyaur2
1. National University of Singapore
2. University of Houston
Outline
Introduction and motivations
Field Q estimations
A VSP survey in Markham salt dome, TX
Conclusions
Ultrasonic lab Q measurementsGulf coast salt cores
2
Attenuation mechanism
Source
signal
• Geometrical spreading
• Scattering
• Intrinsic attenuation or anelasticity
Q: quality factor1
𝑄=
∆𝐸
2𝜋 ∙ 𝐸=
∆𝐴
𝜋 ∙ 𝐴
3
Motivations of the salt study
Seal rock
studyblue.com
Storage
© KBB Underground Technologies
Mining
saltassociation.co.uk
4
Attenuation modeling
P wave front
S wave front
sourcereceiver
5
Synthetic wave propagations in rock salt
0 m 6000
2500
Q estimation – spectral ratio method
𝐴 𝑓 = 𝐺 𝑥 𝑒−𝛼 𝑓 𝑥𝑒𝑖(2𝜋𝑓𝑡−𝑘𝑥)
(Johnston, 1978)
ln𝐴
𝐴0= −
𝝅𝒕
𝑸𝑓 + ln
𝐺
𝐺0
ln𝐴
𝐴0= −
𝝅
𝑸(𝒕𝟎 − 𝒕)𝑓 + ln(
𝐺
𝐺0)
Aluminum
𝑸𝟎 ≈ +∞
Sample
𝑸
𝑸
Measurement Slope Intercept
𝑙𝑛𝐴
𝐴0=
𝜋𝑡0𝑄0
−𝜋𝑡
𝑄𝑓 + 𝑙𝑛
𝐺
𝐺0
(a) Aluminum standard
(b) Multi travel lengths
6
GoM rock salt core
Examples of the measured rock salt samples
96.1%
NaCl
99.6%
NaCl
Hockley, TX Bayou Corne, LA
7
8
Experimental apparatus for ultrasonic measurements
Source transducer
Sample
Receiver transducer
Center frequency
1 MHz
gcts.com
Benchtop measurements:H1 - Qp: 32 ± 4 , Qs: 34 ± 3
H2 - Qp: 43 ± 6 , Qs: 34 ± 4
𝑄0 𝑄
𝑄0 ≈ +∞
Aluminum
ln𝐴
𝐴0= −
𝝅𝒕
𝑸𝑓 + ln
𝐺
𝐺0Measurement Slope Intercept
Attenuation of GoM rock salt – spectral ratio method
9
Attenuation of GoM rock salt – spectral ratio method
Aluminum
Benchtop measurementsQp: 57 ± 13 , Qs: 41 ± 2
ln𝐴
𝐴0= −
𝝅
𝑸(𝒕𝟎 − 𝒕)𝑓 + ln(
𝐺
𝐺0)
Measurement Slope Intercept
𝐴0
𝐴
𝑄
10
Temperature dependence – Bayou Corne, Louisiana
11
Relative Q variations under varying temperature
Pressure dependence – Bayou Corne, Louisiana
12
Relative Q variations under varying pressure
Attenuation – pressure and temperature dependence
Vp vs. Pressure, Temperature Qp vs. Pressure, Temperature
13
Pressure (psi) Pressure (psi)0 4000 8000 12000 0 4000 8000 12000
4.4
4.5
4.6
0
100
200
300
Vp
(km
/s)
Q
CT Scanning of the test sample
before and after pressure loading
Pressure healing & thermal cracking
before
after
Thermal cracks on the surface of rock salt under
increasing temperature (Chen et al., 2015)
14
50oC in oven, over 24h 110oC in oven, over 24h
140oC in oven, over 24h 200oC in oven, over 24h
4.4 4.45 4.5 4.55 4.6 4.65
Vp (km/s)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Qp
Q p vs. V p
23.9oC(75
oF)-Unloading 37.8
oC(100
oF) 65.6
oC(150
oF) 93.3
oC(200
oF)
Qp vs. Vp
𝑙𝑛𝑄𝑃 = 53 ∙ 𝑙𝑛𝑉𝑃 − 33𝑅2 = 0.84
Attenuation – pressure and temperature dependence
Qs vs. Vs
𝑙𝑛𝑄𝑠 = 28 ∙ 𝑙𝑛𝑉𝑠 − 10𝑅2 = 0.4
15
A typical GoM salt dome
© John Perez Graphics & Design LLC.16
Resistivity (ohmm) Density (g/cc) Temperature (̊C)
Gamma Ray (API)
Caliper (in)16 26
0 100
0.2 200 1.5 2.5 70 80
Well A (KB = 25.9 m)
Me
asu
re d
ep
th
fro
m K
B (
m)
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Top of
salt
Bottom
of salt
Heterogeneous
Layer
Neutron Porosity (%)55 -35
RadialDirect
S-w
ave
— Interval velocity
Check-shot data – velocity profile
S: ~2560 m/s
In saltP: ~4570 m/s
In salt
17
1 2
P-wave first arrival picking and
velocity profile
Check-shot data - Qp
247.7
-76.8
71.1
Flattened down-going P-waves Spectra ratio and
Q estimation
3 4 5
18
1 2
S-wave first arrival picking
and velocity profile
Check-shot data - Qs
31.6
10.9
-19.7
83.4
16.5
Flattened down-going S-waves Spectra ratio and
Q estimation
3 4 5
19
Qp vs. Vp
Attenuation – pressure and temperature dependence
20
Qs vs. Vs
Conclusions
• Increase pressure elevates both velocity and Q;
• Increase temperature decreases velocity and Q;
• Q vs. V: 𝑙𝑛𝑄𝑃 = 53 ∙ 𝑙𝑛𝑉𝑃 − 33; 𝑙𝑛𝑄𝑠 = 28 ∙ 𝑙𝑛𝑉𝑠 − 10.
21
✓A better understanding of the elastic behaviors of rock salt is provided;
✓Empirical values and relationships are summarized for direct application.
Arthur Cheng, Yunyue (Elita) Li, NUS;
Fred Hilterman and Geokinetics Inc., Houston;
Joel Warneke, Texas Brine Corp. and United Salt Corp.;
Di Jiao, Craig Whitney, Core Laboratories Inc.;
Scott Leaney, Alan Champbell, Ali Sayed, Schlumberger;
Stephan Gelinsky, Long Huang, Shell;
Leon Thomsen, Sharon Cornelius, Yukai Wo, UH;
Acknowledgements