Estimating Anisotropy from Deviated Wells offshore Malaysia

(Ikon Science and Murphy)

Introduction

All rocks are anisotropic to some degree. Sedimentary basins worldwide comprise 80% of shales.
Shales are anisotropic usually with vertically transverse isotropy (VTI). The rocks in many of the
basins of the Asia Pacific region have been measured to have strong anisotropy (> 20%). Anisotropy
can be measured through detailed core analysis, walk away VSPs, crosshole data and specialised
sonic logging. However, these measurements are not collected very often. Anisotropy can be
estimated from seismic velocity analysis and comparison of sonic velocities in wells with different
deviations. Using the seismic velocities provides a low resolution estimate of anisotropy and this
method of estimation can only resolve for p-waves. Estimating anisotropy from wells with a range of
deviations presents its own practical problems. This study looks at the estimation of anisotropy from
vertical and deviated wells to highlight a workflow and it’s limitations, and the correction of sonic
logs for anisotropy and the quality control.

Study Area

The data used in this study is from Offshore Malaysia. In total, 13 wells were incorporated in this
study and these wells have well trajectory angles ranging from 8 degrees to 70 degrees. The main
producing targets are sands of Cycle I to Cycle IV/V with the geological age ranging from Early to
Mid-Miocene. The Early Miocene is a highstand system tract whereas the Mid-Miocene is a
transgressive system tract. Sediments in this area are highly siliciclastic. The predominant lithologies
in this area consist of interbedded sand-shale, coal beds and minor limestone streaks. Depositional
environment in this area is generally a lower coastal plain setting.

Method

The method to estimate anisotropy is to plot velocities (p- and s-velocity) against well deviation
angles. The variations are modelled by fitting parametric curves (Thomsen’s formula) through the
data. Prior to applying the Thomsen’s equation we need to first know if the s-sonic is measuring
vertically or horizontally as the formula differs. In this case, we assume the shear wave to be
horizontally polarized. Since anisotropy is expected to be a function of clay content (volume of shale)
it is important to derive a consistent petrophysical analysis across all wells. In addition, the anisotropy
is expected to vary as a function of depth as shales tend to go through compaction. The compaction of
shale occurs in two phases; first mechanically and then chemically. The shale compaction changes the
properties of shale (porosities, clay platelet orientation, and mineralogy). Therefore it is important
when estimating anisotropy, that comparison is made between rocks equivalent in terms of shale
content and same level of compaction.

APGCE 2015
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 12 - 13 October 2015
www.apgce.com
Figure 1 The figure above shows sonic velocities versus well deviation angles. The data are modelled
by fitting the parametric Thomsen’s formula. The plots were made comparing equivalent rocks in
terms of shale content and level of compaction).

Figure 2 The figure above shows Thomsen’s equations relating measured velocity at an angle to the
vertical velocity in a VTI medium. For horizontally polarized shear, the third equation is used.

Results

The results indicate that the uncertainties in the estimated anisotropy parameters are dependent on the
highest angles available. This means there is greater uncertainty in the shallow intervals as the range
of angular data is limited. As mentioned previously, it is important that comparison is made to rocks
with equivalent shale content and same level of compaction. Hence, anisotropy parameters were
estimated for shales with total porosities of 25pu, 20pu and 15pu. In addition, by doing this we are
able to understand the variation of anisotropy with depth. With the increase of burial depth and
decreasing porosities, the gamma estimated shows a decrease. Its values range from 0.37 to 0.24. The
delta values which are generally low becomes more negative with decreasing porosity. Epsilon stays
fairly constant at approximately 0.3.
Correction for anisotropy to generate vertical velocities for use in quantitative seismic interpretation
workflows must take into account the degree shaliness as clean sands are expected to have close to
zero VTI anisotropy. Testing indicated that the degree of anisotropy is not linearly related to
shaliness. The best fit empirical model found was a 2nd order polynomial variation of anisotropy with
shaliness.

Figure 3 The figure above shows the anisotropy parameters (epsilon, gamma and delta) for a highly
deviated well (68.4 degrees). The gamma and delta decreases with depth whereas the epsilon is fairly
constant. The measured (black) and anisotropy corrected (red) p- and s-velocity logs are also
displayed in the figure above.
APGCE 2015
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 12 - 13 October 2015
www.apgce.com
Discussion
Quality control has been applied through a comparison between the anisotropy corrected logs and
vertical velocities predicted from a rock physics model. The rock physics model allowed for the
prediction of the p- and s-velocities from the petrophysical interpretation logs calibrated to data from
vertical wells. This provides more of a consistency check rather than a confirmation of the estimated
anisotropy parameters. Two wells with different extents of deviation angles were compared. The
deviation angles in these wells are 30.20 degrees and 68.40 degrees respectively. The anisotropy
correction in the highly deviated well is quite significant. The correlations between the two sets of
sonic logs show a high degree of internal consistency, thus further supporting the process applied.

Figure 4 The figure above shows the p- and s-velocity logs for two wells with different deviation
angles. The one on the left has a deviation angle of 30.20 degrees whereas the one on the right has a
deviation angle of 68.40 degrees. The predicted logs based on rock physics model calibrated to data
from vertical wells are in red whereas the anisotropy corrected logs are in blue. The logs show high
consistencies.

The impact of anisotropy on the reflectivity is assessed. In this case, the AVO response of the top
sand does not vary much between the isotropic and anisotropic conditions for small anlges. This is
due to the particular estimated Thomsen’s parameter, the delta. The estimated delta is close to zero
and the since near angle effects of anisotropy are dominated by the variations in delta, the impact is
quite low for angles below 30 degrees even though the overall anisotropy (epsilon) is quite high. Only
at angles greater than 50 degrees do the effects of anisotropy become significant.

APGCE 2015
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 12 - 13 October 2015
www.apgce.com
Figure 5 The figure above shows the AVO response for the anisotropic and isotropic conditions. The
large negative delta causes the anisotropic amplitudes to be slightly lower at angles of 30 degrees
compared to the isotropic reflectivity.

Conclusions
Anisotropy has been estimated from a group of wells with a range of deviations. The uncertainty in
this process is large where the angle range is limited. For the character of anisotropy derived (low
delta, but high epsilon) angles greater than 40 degrees are required to provide reasonably accurate
estimates. When estimating anisotropy, it is important that rocks equivalent in terms of volume of
shale and level of compaction are used, which requires consistent petrophysical interpretation across
all wells. It is found that the anisotropy is not a linear function of shale content, but drops more
rapidly with increased sand content. The AVO analysis suggests that the impact of anisotropy of these
rocks on the reflectivity is low over limited acquisition angle ranges, but acts to improve the
reflectivity contrasts between sands and shales.

APGCE 2015
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 12 - 13 October 2015
www.apgce.com