1Marfurt

Attribute Expression of the Mississippi Lime

Kurt J. Marfurt (The University of Oklahoma)

Attribute expression of the Mississippi Lime

• Lithology

• Fractures

o Strain

o Thickness

o Lithology

Diagenesis

Impedance

Curvature

Spectral components

Impedance

Textures

2Marfurt

Outline

• Correlation of fractures to curvature

o Clay models

o Outcrop analogues

o Hunton Limestone – seismic with image logs

A proposed workflow using post-stack data

o Kansas fractured carbonate

• Attribute images of Osage County surveys

• Recommendations for future seismic acquisition

Clay model experiments

(Staples, 2011)

kpos from

scanned

surface

photo

3Marfurt

(Staples, 2011)

photo

Clay model experiments

Clay model experiments

(Staples, 2011)

kpos from

scanned

surface

4Marfurt

Clay model experiments

(Staples, 2011)

Outline

• Correlation of fractures to curvature

o Clay models

o Outcrop analogues

o Hunton Limestone – seismic with image logs

A proposed workflow using post-stack data

o Kansas fractured carbonate

• Attribute images of Osage County surveys

• Recommendations for future seismic acquisition

5Marfurt

Deformation of mixed competency rocks (Glen Rose fm)

(Ferrill and Morris, 2008)

positivenegative

negative

Deformation of less competent rocks (e.g. Eagleford fm)

(Ferrill and Morris, 2008)

6Marfurt

Lidar correlation of fractures on outcrops to curvature (UK)

(Pearce et al., 2011)

Carboniferous Eelwell limestone

Lidar correlation of fractures on outcrops to curvature (UK)

(Pearce et al., 2011)

7Marfurt

Lidar correlation of fractures on outcrops to curvature (UK)

(Pearce et al., 2011)

“I endorse this correlation.”

(Saint Aiden)

Outline

• Correlation of fractures to curvature

o Clay models

o Outcrop analogues

o Hunton Limestone – seismic with image logs

A proposed workflow using post-stack data

o Kansas fractured carbonate

• Attribute images of Osage County surveys

• Recommendations for future seismic acquisition

8Marfurt

Hunton Limestone, Central OK

(Staples, 2011)

16

Hunton Limestone, Central OK

9Marfurt

Most-positive principal curvature, k1,

co-rendered with image log fracture density

(Staples, 2011)

Strike of most-positive principal curvature, k1,

co-rendered with image log fracture density

(Staples, 2011)

10Marfurt

Azimuthal Intensity Correlations to Fracture Density

Well Number AzimuthAzimuthal Intensity vs. Fracture Density

Correlation (r)

Measured Length Along

Wellbore (ft)

1 --- No correlation ---

2 45 0.69 5800 - 6290

3 75 0.77 5400-6230

3 45 0.88 7275-7605

4 75 0.80 7120-7560

5 45 0.70 7890-8495

5 -75 0.57 6405-6955

6 -75 0.66 7065-7505

7 -75 0.69 5800-6185

Correlation of fractures with curvature

(Staples, 2011)

Correlation of Geometric Attributes to Production

The problem• Geometric attributes are an indirect measure of the paleo

rather than the present-day stress regime

• Since the time of fracture initiation

• the direction of Shmax has probably rotated

• fractures may have been diagenetically altered

(cemented, filled, or enlarged)

11Marfurt

Seismic Depth Map of Top Mississippian

• Discovered in 1962

• Cumulative production >1.7 million bbl oil

• High water cut (>94%)

1 kmC.I. = 3 m

A

A’

1

2

3

4

Dickman Field (Kansas, USA)

(Nissen et al., 2005)

0.5 mile

Volumetric Curvature – Gilmore City HorizonFrequency-Azimuth Rose Diagram

Length-Azimuth Rose Diagram

fault

(Nissen et al., 2005)

12Marfurt

Shale-filled fractures intersected by horizontal well (Kansas, USA)

Karst-controlled

10-100 ft interval

Provide a barrier to fluid flow

(Nissen et al., 2005) Miissippian cave filled with Pennsylvanian shale, SW Missouri

Water production versus distance to nearest NW and NE lineaments

0.5 mile

No relationship

Increased water productionnear lineaments

(Nissen et al., 2005)

13Marfurt

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

distance to NE lineament (ft)

5 y

ea

r o

il p

rod

uc

tio

n (

x10

4 B

bl)

0.5 mile

Oriented lineaments -- Kansas Mississippian

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

distance to NW lineament (ft)

5 y

ear

wate

r p

rod

ucti

on

(x10

4 B

bl)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

distance to NW lineament (ft)

5 y

ea

r o

il p

rod

uc

tio

n (

x10

4 B

bl)

Lineament trend vs. production

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

distance to NE lineament (ft)

5 y

ea

r w

ate

r p

rod

uc

tio

n (

x10

4 B

bl)

(Nissen et al., 2005)

Distance to NW lineament (ft)Distance to NW lineament (ft)

Distance to NE lineament (ft) Distance to NE lineament (ft)

5-yr

wat

er p

rod

uct

ion

5-yr

wat

er p

rod

uct

ion

5-yr

oil

pro

du

ctio

n5-

yr o

il p

rod

uct

ion

Fault plane

(permeability, κ >>0)

Flow ~κ/r

Methodology

Hypothesize that an anomaly at a

given azimuth corresponds to

an open fracture

Assume flow goes as κ/r

Correlate flow to production to test

the hypothesis

(Guo et al., 2011)

14Marfurt

1.0

0.5

0.0 rmax0

Filt

er

Am

plit

ude

distance, r

Flow as a function of distance, r, from a

natural point “injector”

(Guo et al., 2011)

Azimuthally-

limited subset φ1

Azimuthally-

limited subset φj

… …

Fluid flow φ1 Fluid flow φNFluid flow φj

… …

Azimuthal

filtering

Azimuthally-

limited subset φN

User thresholds for scaling

Seismic data

Curvature computation

k1, Ψ1 k2, Ψ2

Dip scan

Inline dip Crossline dip

Convolve with 1/r Convolve with 1/r Convolve with 1/r

Workflow to calculate

hypothesized fluid flow

(Guo et al., 2011)

15Marfurt

Computing azimuthally-limited curvature volumes

-900 00 +900

1.0

0.0

0.5

Filt

er

Am

plit

ude

Strike

(Guo et al., 2011)

Time

(ms)

888

860

A

A’

B’

B

N

0.5 mi

B’B

A A’

Gilmore City

Top Mississippian

Time-structure map of Gilmore City horizon and two seismic lines(Guo et al., 2011)

16Marfurt

0 +0.002-0.002

k2

N

0.5 mi

Most negative structural curvature, k2 , through the Gilmore City(Guo et al., 2011)

we

igh

t

1

0

0 +0.002-0.002

k2

klower kupper

N

0.5 mi

“Skeletonized” image

obtained by interactively

adjusting the color bar

(Guo et al., 2011)

17Marfurt

0

N

0.5 mi

k2 modulated by ψ2

Azimuthψ N

E

S

W

(Guo et al., 2011)

R= -0.1467 R= - 0.0499 R= 0.0752 R= - 0.3720

R= - 0.2062 R= - 0.1115 R= 0.1180 R= 0.1119

R= 0.1193 R= 0.0633 R= 0.0294 R= -0.0350

1 mi

Intensitylow highfluid flow with oil production(Guo et al., 2011)

18Marfurt

R= -0.1619 R= - 0.2503 R= - 0.2190 R= - 0.1516

R= - 0.0465 R= - 0.1531 R= - 0.2217 R= - 0.0769

R= - 0.2040 R= 0.3406 R= 0.3350 R= 0.1891

1 mi

fluid flow with water productionIntensity

low high(Guo et al., 2011)

Cro

ss-c

orr

ela

tio

n c

oeff

icie

nt

Strike Strike

Oil production Water production

Unp

refe

rre

da

zim

uth

Pre

ferr

ed

azim

uth

(Guo et al., 2011)

19Marfurt

Outline

• Correlation of fractures to curvature

o Clay models

o Outcrop analogues

o Hunton Limestone – seismic with image logs

A proposed workflow using post-stack data

o Kansas fractured carbonate

• Attribute images of Osage County surveys

• Recommendations for future seismic acquisition

Attribute expression of the Mississippi Lime

• Lithology

• Fractures

o Strain

o Thickness

o Lithology

Diagenesis

Impedance

Curvature

Spectral components

Impedance

Textures

20Marfurt

2 mi

Original data Filtered data Rejected noise

Rejecting periodic components of seismic noise

A

600 ms

500 ms A’

A

A’

Original data Filtered data Rejected noise

Rejecting periodic components of seismic noise

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

Tim

e (

s)

A A’

2 mi

21Marfurt

Before data conditioning

Arbuckle horizon pick

0.600

0.580

0.620

Time (s)

After post stack data conditioning

Arbuckle horizon pick

0.600

0.580

0.620

Time (s)

22Marfurt

Top Mississipian SurfaceTime (s)

0.540

0.520

0.560

0.580

Top Mississipian Surface with k1 curvatureTime (s)

0.540

0.520

0.560

0.580

k1

Pos

Neg

0

Time slice at 0.6 s

23Marfurt

k1

Pos

Neg

0

Time slice at 0.6 s

k1 curvature

Time slice at 0.6 s

Coherence

k1

Pos

Neg

0

24Marfurt

k1 curvature co-rendered with coherence

Time slice at 0.6 s

k1

Pos

Neg

0

k1 curvature vs. strike co-rendered with coherence

Time slice at 0.6 sStrikeψ

N

E

S

W

25Marfurt

k1 curvature vs. strike

Time slice at 0.6 sStrikeψ

N

E

S

W

k1 curvature vs. strike

Time slice at 0.6 sStrikeψ

N

E

S

W

26Marfurt

Attribute expression of the Mississippi Lime

• Lithology

• Fractures

o Strain

o Thickness

o Lithology

Diagenesis

Impedance

Curvature

Spectral components

Impedance

Textures

Texture analysis and self-organizing maps

applied to satellite imagery

(Matos et al., 2011)

Satellite imageSelf-organizing map

27Marfurt

Vertical slices through texture

attributes, Osage Co., OK

(Matos et al., 2011)256 Cluster color bar

Tim

e (

ms)

0

100

poor

?

good

Texture analysis and self-organizing maps

applied to Mississippi Lime, Osage Co, OK

(Matos et al., 2011)

28Marfurt

Outline

• Correlation of fractures to curvature

o Clay models

o Outcrop analogues

o Hunton Limestone – seismic with image logs

A proposed workflow using post-stack data

o Kansas fractured carbonate

• Attribute images of Osage County surveys

• Recommendations for future seismic acquisition

Recommendations for future seismic acquisition

Acquire high density, but less sweeps (more traces/mi2)

• reduce coherent noise (e.g. ground roll, shallow diffractors, …)

• reduce acquisition footprint that overprints fractures

Acquire long offsets

• facilitate λρ-μρ inversion to map lithology (tripolite, dolomite, tight chert,…)

•

Acquire wide azimuth to facilitate AVAz and VVAz analysis

• map natural fractures

• map maximum/minimum horizontal stresses

Calibrate seismic predictions with image logs and microseismic data

These are fairly routine parameters in other resource plays (i.e. shale gas)

29Marfurt

Acknowledgements

For Financial Support

• AASPI consortium sponsors

For Seismic Data

• Spyglass LLC

• The Osage Nation

• Pathfinder LLC

• Mull Drilling Co.