See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/307879985

A novel approach comparison of curved pseudoelastic impedance in rock physics

analysis

Conference Paper · September 2016

DOI: 10.1190/segam2016-13850446.1

CITATIONS READS
0 257

4 authors, including:

Kadek Hendrawan Palgunadi Ida Bagus Suananda Yogi

King Abdullah University of Science and Technology Lampung University
13 PUBLICATIONS 35 CITATIONS 20 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Aceh-Pidie Mw 6.5 Earthquake Aftershock 2016 Monitoring View project

Research & Development on Micro-earthquake (MEQ) Method for Geothermal Monitoring View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kadek Hendrawan Palgunadi on 19 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Novel Approach Comparison of Curved Pseudo Elastic Impedance in Rock Physics Analysis
Palgunadi*, Kadek Hendrawan, I. Viantini, I.B Suananda Yogi., Sony Winardhi
Geophysical Engineering
Downloaded 09/10/16 to 132.239.1.231. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Summary
Seismic methods either post-stack or pre-stack have been
commonly used to characterize the reservoir. The common
used rock physics attributes to help for screening reservoir
sandstone hydrocarbon is Extended Elastic Impedance
(EEI). However, the EEI trends are close to linear, whereas
the background rock-physics model is quite curved and
linear. Instead of using EEI attribute, we will estimate the
non-linear curve of rock physic model with Curved Pseudo-
Elastic Impedance (CPEI). The earlier study of CPEI have
used Avseth’s polynomial or logarithmic equation to find the
best correlation with the distribution of water saturation and
rock physics template. This method is not quite effective
since there should be a unique equation for different field
study. There is a new approaching method using simpler
equation which is can be applied to some different fields. In
this study we introduce the simpler equation to approach the
maximum correlation due to the rock physic template model.
The result is then compared with Avseth’s solution and
successfully approached. The approximation of the simpler
equation be able to distinguish gas and water saturation by
cross-plotting between Acoustic Impedance (AI) and Vp/Vs,
χ angle of 70 has managed to give CPEI approach that
correlates well with water saturation.
Keywords: Curved Pseudo Elastic Impedance, Avseth’s
equation, Extended Elastic Impedance
Introduction
Decreasing uncertainty in seismic exploration, both
qualitative and quantitative analysis should takes into
account to identify anomalies from background trend from
reservoir target’s properties. Several author have suggested
several quantitative attributes method to analyze seismic
anomalies that associated with hydrocarbon. There are fluid
factor in seismic AVO data, elastic impedance, simultaneous
AVO inversion, and extended elastic impedance.
Whitcombe et al. (2002) introduce extended elastic
impedance (EEI) that can be tuned using different χ (chi)
angle value to be approximately proportional to a number of
elastic parameters. This leads to the identification of
different areas of EEI space that tend to be optimum for fluid
and lithology imaging. Moreover, the data-driven approach
of EEI is attractive, simple, and in the way it can be
correlated to various geologic and physical properties. EEI
represent a linear trend in the AI versus Vp/Vs cross plot and
that varying χ represent a rotation in the AI versus Vp/Vs
domain. Avseth et al. (2014) have compared with random
© 2016 SEG
SEG International Exposition and 87th Annual Meeting
generated number in a rock physics template (RPT) cross
plot, covering a wide range of Vp, Vs, and density value.
However, as previous the EEI trends are close to linear,
whereas the background rock physics model is quite curve
and nonlinear. We should careful in using EEI to estimate
map fluid or lithology from seismic data in area with large
variability in burial depth or compaction.
Avseth et al., (2014) have introduced a method to approach
the attributes that complies with RPT that takes into account
both compaction and cementation, the method called curve
pseudo elastic impedance (CPEI), which is the attribute that
sensitive with fluid saturation. CPEI attribute defined as the
distance away from a brine-saturated sandstone model in
RPT domain (Avseth et al., 2015). By CPEI method,
separated content of fluid could be revealed well (Avseth et
al., 2014, 2015). They have approached RPT by a unique
equation included logarithmic or polynomial equation as a
function of physical properties such as acoustic impedance
and Vp/Vs. However, they have a drawback there is every
reservoir should has their own equation as differences of
physical properties from the target area, for instance bulk
modulus mineral, shear modulus mineral, and also should
predict the sedimentation condition of the target area.
In this work we introduce simpler method to identify
reservoir fluid using previous work, both the concept of EEI
and CPEI itself.
Methodology
Avseth et al., (2014) used mathematical function to fit with
RPT sandstone model in the AI and Vp/Vs domain. Using
Avseth equation CPEI concept we had found the equation in
well TERRA by:
CPEI=1.18-0.002*( exp((0.0002* ln(AI)4 ) -
(0.0143* ln(AI)3 )+(0.1485* ln(AI)2 )-
Vp
(3.2162* ln(AI)) +12.5769)- ) (1)
Vs
The RPT model shows in figure 1. Figure 1 shows the
comparison between RPT model of well TERRA and curve
fit line using unique equation (1).
By using Avseth CPEI model to approach curve equation in
RPT model, with the same concept we try to create fitted
curve equation using trigonometrical function (figure 2). We
used sines and cosines function.
f(x)=A cos (χ) +B sin (χ) (2)
Page 3448
 Where χ is chi angle in EEI, it represents rotation angle and
will rotate in the AI versus Vp/Vs domain. A and B are the
physical properties of reservoir target zone. We use
properties of Vp, Vs, and density, in this work there are
acoustic impedance and Vp/Vs. By empiric, we have found
Downloaded 09/10/16 to 132.239.1.231. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

VP VS
that A is AI* and B is AI* . Choosing the right chi angle,
VS VP
equation (2) should have correlated with water saturation.

Figure 3. Shows the distribution of the data, sandstone had

range of dominant porosity about 0.06-0.14.

In figure 4, we are cross plotting CPEI using equation (2), it

represents the correlation with water saturation in every chi
angle iterations.

Figure 1. Rock physics template of TERRA’s well. Line blue

represents RPT model and dashed red line shows curve-fit
line of equation (1)

Figure 4. CPEI rotation using equation 2 with the correlation

value every equation.

The selected value of chi angel is the best correlation with

water saturation, shows in figure (4). The value of each
iterations represent in figure (5).

Figure 2. Plotting line of sines and cosines function

(equation 2)

Demonstration on well data

An example of CPEI from the equation (2), using tight

sandstone reservoir, with the distribution well data shows in
figure 2. While, mostly the sandstone taken place at low
porosity with the high Vp. It means sediment condition is
nearly cemented well.

Figure 5. Correlation value in every iteration of chi angle.

Chi angel -50 selected to the equation.

© 2016 SEG Page 3449

SEG International Exposition and 87th Annual Meeting
 After analyze the best value of chi angle, figure 5 represents
-50 had the best correlation with value 0.691. Figure 6
illustrated the CPEI cross plot and correlated well with water
saturation as represented the fluid sensitivity.
Downloaded 09/10/16 to 132.239.1.231. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Figure 6. Crossplot CPEI in the domain of AI versus Vp/Vs
with chi angle 80. Color represent CPEI (above) and water
saturation (below).
Figure 7 displayed the CPEI attribute plotted with depth, and
juxtaposed with other log including acoustic impedance,
Vp/Vs, and gamma ray. Note that, CPEI attribute anomaly
correlate well with the hydrocarbon zone that had been
known as gas reservoir.
© 2016 SEG
SEG International Exposition and 87th Annual Meeting
Figure 7. Well log data from Well TERRA. Gas zone
represent in the red line.
Application to seismic inversion data
Figure 8. CPEI inversion by simpler equation of TERRA
Formation, the gas column clearly seen by green to yellow
and superimposed with water saturation.
Figure 8 shows the result from a seismic section intersecting
a well (Well TERRA). By CPEI attribute, we clearly identify
the gas discovery encountered by water saturation in Well
TERRA intersected by the seismic section. The lower value
shows with green to yellow color indicate the gas zone. By
using simpler equation we could express gas column and
well data match very well.
Conclusion
Avseth’s equation could be approached by simpler equation.
Our equation could obtained nearly same result and figure
out gas column which was match very well with log data. By
this equation we can perform more quickly to identify the
distribution of gas or fluid in exploration stage. The CPEI
attribute has also limitations, this equation has only be
Page 3450
 proven in sandstone but for the further result need to test in
another rock models.

Reference

Avseth, P. and Ivan Lehocki, 2015, Quantitative

Downloaded 09/10/16 to 132.239.1.231. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

interpretation of rock stiffness and hydrocarbon softening

from seismic inversion data using rock physics template,
2015 SEG Annual Meeting, New Orleans, pp 585-589

Avseth, P., T. Mukerji, and G. Mavko, 2005, Quantitative

seismic interpretation - Applying rock physics tools to
reduce interpretation risk: Cambridge University

Avseth P., 2014, Seismic screening for hydrocarbon

prospects using rock-physics attributes, The Leading Edge
ed. March 2014, Special Edition : Rock Physics, pp 266-
274.

Whitcombe, D. N., P. A. Connolly, R. L. Reagan, and T. C.

Redshaw, 2002, Extended elastic impedance for fluid and
lithology prediction: Geophysics, 67, no. 1, 63-67.

© 2016 SEG Page 3451

SEG International Exposition and 87th Annual Meeting
 EDITED REFERENCES
Note: This reference list is a copyedited version of the reference list submitted by the author. Reference lists for the 2016
SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts have been copyedited so that references provided with the online
metadata for each paper will achieve a high degree of linking to cited sources that appear on the Web.

REFERENCES
Downloaded 09/10/16 to 132.239.1.231. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Avseth, P., and Ivan Lehocki, 2015, Quantitative interpretation of rock stiffness and hydrocarbon
softening from seismic inversion data using rock physics template: 85th Annual International
Meeting, SEG, 585–589, http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2015-5839092.1.
Avseth, P., T. Mukerji, and G. Mavko, 2005, Quantitative seismic interpretation — Applying rock
physics tools to reduce interpretation risk: Cambridge University,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511600074.
Avseth, P., 2014, Seismic screening for hydrocarbon prospects using rock-physics attributes, The Leading
Edge, 33, 266–274, http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/tle33030266.1.
Whitcombe, D. N., P. A. Connolly, R. L. Reagan, and T. C. Redshaw, 2002, Extended elastic impedance
for fluid and lithology prediction: Geophysics, 67, 63–67, http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1451337.

© 2016 SEG Page 3452

SEG International Exposition and 87th Annual Meeting
View publication stats