Reservoir Characterization Using Amplitude Versus Offset (AVO) Analysis of Lakota Formation, Teapot Dome Field, Wyoming, USA

Nadia Samudera, Ida Herawati

Abstract


Lakota Formation is one of the prolific  formations at Teapot Dome Field. The objective of this study is to analyze hydrocarbon potential of Lakota Formation using Amplitude Versus Offset (AVO) analysis. AVO analysis is performed to determine AVO class, intercept (A) and gradient (B) values of Lakota reservoir. This study uses pre-stack 3D gather data and three wells, 17-WX-21, 48-X-28 and 41-2-X-3. The Lakota formation is known to be an oil-bearing sandstone reservoir which supported by log interpretation. Analysis of AVO modelling using well data by crossplotting reflectivity (R) with sin2 θ, shows that the Lakota Formation is in Class IIP for wells 17-WX-21 and 41-2-X-3 and Class II for well 48-X-28. An estimation of AVO intercept and gradient based on the seismic data show that the Lakota Formation is  class II AVO response. A-B plane shows that the pay zones of Lakota formation are fall within hydrocarbon zone, but very close to background trend (wet sands/shale). AVO attributes; A*B and scaled Poisson Ratio  at well location showing difficulty in differentiate the presence of oil and brine. Therefore, it can be concluded that AVO attributes can not distinguish between water and oil zone in Lakota Formation, and therefore we can not determine distribution of oil in the Lakota reservoir. 

Keywords


AVO attributes; intercept and gradient; Lakota Formation; Teapot Dome

Full Text:

PDF

References


Cooper, S.P., Goodwin, L.B., and Lorenz, J.C., “Fracture and fault patterns associated with basement-cored anticlines : The example of Teapot Dome, Wyoming”, AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 90, No.12, pp. 1903–1920, 2006.

Hilterman, F.J., Seismic Amplitude Interpretation. Society of Exploration Geophysicist and European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers, 2001.

Castagna, J.P., and Smith, S.W.,“Comparison of AVO indicators: A modeling study”, Geophysics, Vol. 59, No.12, pp. 1849-1855, 1994.

Smith, G.C., and Gidlow, P.M.,”Weighted stacking for rock property estimation and detection of gas”, Geophysical Prospecting, Vol. 35, No. 9, pp. 993-1014, 1987.

Aki, K., and Richards, P., Quantitive Seismology: Theory and Methods, Vol.1, Freeman and Company, 1980.

Shuey, R. T., “A simplification of the Zoeppritz equations”, Geophysics, Vol. 50, No.4, pp. 609-614, 1985.

Ostrander, W.J., “Plane-Wave Reflection Coefficients for Gas Sands at Non-Normal Angles of Incidence”, Geophysics, Vol. 49, No.10, pp.1637-1648, 1984.

Rutherford, S.R. and Williams, R.H., “Amplitude-Versus Offset Variations in Gas Sands”, Geophysics, Vol. 54, No.6, pp. 680–688, 1989.

Castagna, J. P., and Swan, H. W., “Principles of AVO crossplotting”, The Leading Edge, Vol.16, No.4, pp. 337-344, 1997.

Greenberg, M.L., and Castagna, J.P., “Shear-wavevelocity estimation in porous rocks: theoritical formulation, preliminary verification and application”, Geophysical Prospecting, Vol. 40, No.2, pp.195-209, 1992.

Castagna, J. P., Batzle, M. L., and Eastwood, R. L., “Relationships between compressional‐wave and shear‐wave velocities in clastic silicate rocks”, Geophysics, Vol.50, No.4, pp. 571–581, 1985.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.15408/fiziya.v7i1.38304 Abstract - 0 PDF - 0

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Web Analytics Made Easy - StatCounterView My Stats

Flag Counter

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a CC-BY-SAÂ