A working method for estimating dynamic shear velocity in the montney formation.

Sochi C Iwuoha, Per K Pedersen, Christopher R Clarkson, Ian D Gates
Author Information
  1. Sochi C Iwuoha: Department of Geosciences, University of Calgary, Canada.
  2. Per K Pedersen: Department of Geosciences, University of Calgary, Canada.
  3. Christopher R Clarkson: Department of Geosciences, University of Calgary, Canada.
  4. Ian D Gates: Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary, Canada.

Abstract

In this paper, we present a customized method for estimating sonic shear velocity (Vs) from compressional velocity (Vp) logs in the Montney Formation, in wells lacking dipole sonic data. Following a multi-scenario analysis that comprised of assessing empirical Vs estimation relations [including lithology, porosity (Ø), and volume of clay (V)-based Vs estimation techniques], bivariate statistics, and machine learning, we found that the Greenberg & Castagna (1992) shale lithology constants yield Vs log estimates that best match the measured Montney Formation Vs in our study area, with a regional correlation coefficient of 0.8. We have therefore customized the Vs estimation method in our study to use the Greenberg & Castagna (1992) shale lithology constants. Our working method: •Improves the efficacy of Vs log estimation from Vp logs in the study area•Demonstrates the importance of calibrating empirical relations for Vs estimation to a specific formation, and•Provides a more accurate complementary Vs log dataset for subsequent regional reservoir characterization studies.

Keywords

Correlation DTP, sonic log – compressional slowness DTS, sonic log – shear slowness Dynamic shear velocity estimation from compressional velocity logs in the Montney Formation GR, gamma ray log Log analysis NNE, neural network estimation RCW, reservoir characterization workflow RHOB, bulk density SSTVD, subsea true vertical depth in meters Shale Siltstone Tight reservoir Velocity Vp, compressional sonic velocity Vs DOL, shear velocity log estimated using Greenberg-Castagna [1] Dolomite lithology constants Vs LST, shear velocity log estimated using Greenberg-Castagna [1] Limestone lithology constants Vs MDRK, shear velocity log estimated using Castagna et al. [5] Mudrock lithology constants Vs MJ Clavier, shear velocity log estimated using Marion & Jizba [11] method with Clavier et al. [12] fractional clay volume correction Vs MJ Larionov, shear velocity log estimated using Marion & Jizba [11] method with Larionov [13] fractional clay volume correction Vs MJ Stieber, shear velocity log estimated using Marion & Jizba [11] method with Stieber [14] fractional clay volume correction Vs SH, shear velocity log estimated using Greenberg-Castagna [1] Shale lithology constants Vs SST, shear velocity log estimated using Greenberg-Castagna [1] Sandstone lithology constants Vs, shear sonic velocity VsANN, shear velocity log estimated using artificial neural network techniques VsRegress, shear velocity log estimated from the bivariate analysis of dipole sonic Vp and Vs logs Vsh, Clavier, Clavier et al. [12] fractional clay volume correction Vsh, Larionov, Larionov [13] fractional clay volume correction Vsh, Stieber, Stieber [14] fractional clay volume correction

References

Methods Mol Biol. 2008;458:v [PMID: 19065801]

Word Cloud

Similar Articles

Cited By