SONIC LOG INVERSION AND POROSITY DETERMINATION

Presented By: Deepjyoti Goswami Adm. No.-2009MC0035 3 year M.Sc.Tech, Applied Geophysics I.S.M.,Dhanbad.

CONTENTS:
INTRODUCTION THEORY MY WORK RESULT CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION:

Sonic log is a localized down-hole branch of geophysics which gives a wealthy of information about the formation properties basically about the matrix porosity or intergranular porosity of the formation . It helps us to determine the secondary porosity that is the fractured porosity or the vuggy porosity when it is combined with the density log which is very useful in mapping the carbonate reservoir. The measured porosity is also helps in deriving the apparent water resistivity when it is combined with the value of the true resistivity of the formation.This combination provides a quick and easy way to indentify the potentially productive zone .

THEORY
As the interval transit time (t) is a function of both lithology and porosity, so if formation matrix time is known,then it is used to determine the sonic porosity using Wyllie time-average equations = (1)

Where: s =sonic derived porosity ; tlog=interval transit time in the formation ; tfl=interval transit time in the fluid in the formation ; tma=interval transit time in the matrix.

But, the equation (1) is valid only for calculating the sonic porosity in consolidated sandstone and carbonates. In case of, unconsolidated sands, ,an empirical compaction factor (Cp) should be added to the Wyllie equation-

=
Where: Cp = compaction factor

(2)

The compaction factor is obtained from the following formula:

Cp = C (3)

Where:

tsh= interval transit time in a shale adjacent to the formation of interest.

C= a constant which is normally 1.0

EFFECT OF HYDROCARBON ON THE MEASUREMENT

The interval transit time (t) of a formation is increased due to the presence of hydrocarbons effect. If the effect of hydrocarbon is not corrected , the sonic derived porosity is too high. Hilchie suggests the following empirical corrections for hydrocarbon effect: = s 0.7 (for gas)

= s 0.9 (for oil)

MY WORK
This

work is done by using the sonic log data and the core information of the K.G. basin taken by British Gas for a number of wells.
is basically an inverse approach for determining the porosity of a the formation lithologies where first different ranges of porosities are taken to calculate transit time for the lithologies of formation.

It

Then, next work is to generate a number of sonic log from that calculated values to compare these with the logs that are prepared from the corrected sonic log data of the wells. The synthetic log which give the best correlation with that of the log obtained from the corrected data , gives the information of the approximate porosity of the formation lithologies as synthetic logs are generated by considering a known set of porosity for different lithologies of the formation.

Here, the work is shown for the well-6.In this well sonic log is carried out from the depth 505 ft to 2143 ft. The lithology that predominantly found from the core analysis along the depth profile of the well was sandstone and claystone and a small portion of limestone. Table below shows the synthetic transit time for different lithologies for a known set of porosity range: For sandstone lithology (taking tma=55.6 sec/ft)
Porosity 0.25 0.30 95.2 0.35 0.40 102 0.45 0.47 0.50 122

Transit time (sec/ft) 88.5

108.6 115.3 118

For claystone:(tma=47sec/ft)
Porosity Transit-time(sec/ft) 0.08 58.36 0.10 61.2 0.13 0.16 0.19 0.22 0.24

65.46 69.72 73.98 78.24 82.5

For limestone lithology (taking tma=47.6 sec/ft)

porosity 0.02 0.06 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.22 0.24 81.53

Transit time (sec/ft) 50.42

56.084 61.74 67.4

73.05 78.7

The transit-time versus depth log obtained from observed data is given below:

Fig 1: sonic log of the recorded data for well 6.

Now , comparison of the log obtained from the observed data with that of the log calculated

Fig 2 : comparison of observed log(red) with calculated log(black) considering porosities 25% for sandstone , 8% for claystone and 2% for limestone .

Fig 3: shows comparison of the observed log(red) with that of calculated log(black) considering porosities 30% for sandstone, 10% for claystone and 6% for limestone.

Fig 4: observed log (red) versus calculated log(black) for porosities 35% (sandstone), 13%(claystone) and 10% (limestone).

Fig 5: showing observed log(red) and calculated log(black) for porosities40% (sandstone), 16%(claystone) and 14% (limestone).

Fig 6: observed log (red) versus calculated log(black) for porosities 45% (sandstone), 19%(claystone) and 18% (limestone).

Fig 7: : observed log (red) versus calculated log(black) for porosities 47% (sandstone), 22%(claystone) and 22% (limestone).

Fig 8: comparison of observed log(red) with calculated log(black) considering porosities 50% for sandstone , 24% for claystone and 24% for limestone .

RESULT:
From the above plots, it is seen that both the logs show a better matching in the fig 6, where the porosity for the sandstone, claystone and limestone are respectively taken as 45%, 16% and 14%. We can consider this values as the approximate value of the porosities of the formation lithologies.

REASONS FOR WHICH THE TWO LOGS ARE NOT PERFECTLY MATCHING WITH EACH OTHER:
Three possible reasons for this is:

First, it is due to the error in distinguishing each and every lithological boundary perfectly from the available core information because the formation contains mixture of different lithologies layers, so it becomes very difficult to distinguish each layer of the formation perfectly from the available core information.

Secondly, some layers of the formation are not perfectly composed of only one lithology, it may also contains a small portion of other lithologies distributed randomly within that layer, in such a situation the lithology which is predominantly present with in that layer is considered and others are neglected, so this may be one of the reasons of the deviation of the two logs.
Thirdly, it may be due to the imperfect correction of the effect of hydrocarbon from the recorded transit time.

CONCLUSION:

Sonic log is a tool used to calculate one of the most important petrophysical parameter of the reservoir that is the matrix porosity. The technique that was used in this work is a new approach to calculate the approximate matrix porosity of the formation which has a wide range of applications in the field of reservoir characterization such as mapping of the carbonate reservoir by calculating the secondary porosity. Another most important application of it is to identify potentially productive zone as sonic porosity gives information about the apparent water resistivity of formation when it is combine with the true resistivity of formation. the the the the

Thank you