RESERVOIR DELINEATION AND CHARACTERIZATION

USING EXTENDED ELASTIC IMPEDANCE, ROVUMA

BASIN, OFFSHORE MOZAMBIQUE

AGOSTINHO CHIBIELO

MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN APPLIED GEOPHYSICS

GRADUATE SCHOOL
CHIANG MAI UNIVERSITY
AUGUST 2015

RESERVOIR DELINEATION AND CHARACTERIZATION

USING EXTENDED ELASTIC IMPEDANCE, ROVUMA
BASIN, OFFSHORE MOZAMBIQUE

AGOSTINHO CHIBIELO

MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN APPLIED GEOPHYSICS

GRADUATE SCHOOL
CHIANG MAI UNIVERSITY
AUGUST 20

RESERVOIR DELINEATION AND CHARACTERIZATION USING

EXTENDED ELASTIC IMPEDANCE, ROVUMA BASIN,
OFFSHORE MOZAMBIQUE

AGOSTINHO CHIBIELO

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO CHIANG MAI UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL

FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN APPLIED GEOPHYSICS

GRADUATE SCHOOL, CHIANG MAI UNIVERSITY

AUGUST 2015
a

RESERVOIR DELINEATION AND CHARACTERIZATION USING

EXTENDED ELASTIC IMPEDANCE, ROVUMA BASIN,
OFFSHORE MOZAMBIQUE

AGOSTINHO CHIBIELO

THIS THESIS HAS BEEN APPROVED TO BE A PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN APPLIED GEOPHYSICS

Examination Committee:

Advisor:

Chairman

..

(Dr. Sarawute Chantraprasert)

(Assoc. Prof. Dr. Pisanu Wangpornchai)

..Member
(Dr. Siriporn Chaisri)
.Member
(Assoc. Prof. Dr. Pisanu Wangpornchai)

5 August 2015
Copyright by Chiang Mai University
b

To:
my daughter Shirley Chibielo
my sweetheart Elsa Mucavele
my mum Deolinda Chifuco

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am indebted to Instituto Nacional de Petrleo (INP) of Mozambique for offering me the

opportunity to pursue my Masters degree and for providing the necessary data and support
for this study. My sincere thanks to PTTEP for financial support of my study and CGG for
providing the software Hampson Russell Suite (HRS 10) used for this study.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Pisanu Wongpornchai my
supervisor, for assistance, advice, useful discussion and suggestions during the period of
this study. I am very grateful to all professors whose class I took especially Dr. Siriporn
Chaisri, Dr. Suwimom Udphuay, Ms. Chanpen Silawongsawat, Dr. Niti Mankhemthong,
and Dr. Stefan Back, and Dr. Roger Clarcks.
I am eternally grateful to Dr. Dag Helliksen, Advisor Geology at Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate for the support he has extended to me since we have known each other at INP,
for encouragement, advice, critics, patience and technical support through the period of this
study.
I keep on record my gratitude to Dr. Lars Jensen, Advisor Geophysics at Norwegian
Petroleum Directorate for short, sharp, and very useful recommendations.
My sincere thanks to Chiang Mai University, especially the Department of Geological
Sciences for providing all the required facilities to undertake this study.
I really appreciate all the members of my family for moral support during the period of my
studies, I love you all.
I extend my gratitude to all my classmates, all my friends and all the members of the
Department of Geological Science for encouragement while undertaking this study.
Agostinho Chibielo
d

( )

. .

(AVO)




( - well_1 - well_2)


( , , -,
-, , , )
(EEI) well_1





(well_2) 27
e



well_1 ( well_2)

Thesis Title

Reservoir delineation and characterization using extended elastic

impedance, Rovuma Basin, offshore Mozambique

Author

Mr. Agostinho Chibielo

Degree

Master of Science (Applied geophysics)

Advisor

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Pisanu Wongpornchai

ABSTRACT
Amplitude variation with offset (AVO) was successfully used to identify gas-sand
reservoirs in the study area, located within the Rovuma Basin offshore Mozambique.
However, in another case within the study area a dry well was drilled into porous clean
water sands that also produce AVO anomaly. In other to re-evaluate the prospectivity in
this area, well log interpretation was carried out in the present study to delineate and
characterize the identified gas-sand reservoirs and water-saturated sands in both wells (gassand well and dry well, designated as well_1 and well_2 respectively). Apart from well log
data interpretation, 3D pre-stack time migrated (PSTM) seismic gathers and generated
petrophysical and reservoirs parameters (Vp/Vs ratio, Poissons ratio, lambda-rho, mu-rho,
lambda/mu ratio, bulk modulus, shear modulus and porosity) were also used to perform
extended elastic impedance (EEI) inversion. The EEI inversion was calibrated using well
log data from well_1. The inverted EEI volumes resembling petrophysical and reservoirs
parameters above mentioned were scanned in the whole study area for identification of new
prospective targets with similar petrophysical and reservoir properties as the gas-sand
reservoir in the calibration well. The scanning result of the inverted EEI volumes has
shown that there are no prospects in the study area. However, gas anomaly was observed,
though insignificant for exploration.

On the other hand, the EEI results were tested on the second well (well_2) located
approximately 27 km away from the calibration well. As a result the water-saturated sands
identified from well log interpretation were highlighted. This observation lead to the
following conclusion: if EEI inversion had been conducted after drilling well_1 (or before
drilling well_2) the targeted prospects identified using AVO analysis could have been derisked and consequently downgraded.

CONTENTS
Page

Acknowledgement

Abstract in Thai

Abstract in English

List of Tables

List of Figures

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Problem statement

1.2 Research objectives

1.3 Data inventory

1.4 Methodology

1.5 Geology of the study area

Chapter 2 Background theory

11

2.1 Amplitude variation with offset

11

2.2 Seismic inversion

15

2.3 Elastic impedance

17

2.4 Extended elastic impedance

19

Chapter 3 Well log interpretation

22

3.1 Resistivity

25

3.2 Gamma ray log

25

3.3 Density log

26

3.4 Neutron-porosity log vs density log

31

3.5 Caliper log

32
i

3.6 P-wave velocity log

32

3.7 S-wave velocity log

34

3.8 Generate new logs

37

3.8.1 Vp/Vs ratio

39

3.8.2 Poissons ratio

42

3.8.3 Bulk modulus and Shear modulus

43

3.8.4 Water saturation

44

3.8.5 Lambda-mu-rho

47

3.8.6 Volume of shale

56

Chapter 4 Extended elastic impedance analyses

63

4.1 Seismic to well tie

66

4.2 Extended elastic impedance inversion

69

Chapter 5 Discussion and conclusions

90

5.1 Discussion

90

5.2 Conclusions

96

Reference

97

Appendix

106

Appendix A

106

Appendix B

107

Appendix C

109

Appendix D

119

Curriculum Vitae

129

LIST OF TABLES
Page

Table 1.1 Well database

Table 3.1 Observed high velocity spikes within gas-sand reservoir and water
saturated sands for well_1 and well_2 respectively
Table 3.2 Typical rock velocities

31
33

Table 3.3 Some reported mineral properties. Mineral velocities are averaged to
represent zero-porosity isotropic aggregates

41

Table 3.4 Some interpreted clay velocities. These data are extrapolations to 100%
clay from mixed lithologies

41

Table 3.5 Parameters used to estimate water saturation, resistivity of the formation
water and porosity in both well_1 and well_2

46

Table 4.1 Chi () angles for different target log estimated from cross correlation
analysis for well_1 and well_2

71

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1.1 Map showing the current concessions in Mozambique (left) and
highlight of the Rovuma Basin and the discoveries in Area 1 and
Area 4 (right)

Figure 1.2 Map showing the location of 3D seismic survey that defines the study
area, outlined by the white rectangle. The blue lines are the inlines
(South North) and crosslines (East West) profiles used in this
research. The green arrow indicates northern direction

Figure 1.3 Pre-stack time migrated (PSTM) gathers converted to super gathers to
suppress some noise effect. The displayed window corresponds to XL
6025, 6029, 6033 and 6037, between 1950 ms and 3450 ms around the
well_2 location. The red line is the P-wave velocity for well_2. Evident
bias effect can be seen at ultrafar offsets from 2500 and 3300ms

Figure 1.4 EEI inversion workflow used in this study

Figure 1.5 Rovuma Basin structural framework

Figure 1.6 Rovuma Basin generalized stratigraphy

10

Figure 2.1 Zoeppritz P-wave reflection coefficients for a shale-gas sand interface
for a range of reflectivity coefficients at normal incidence values. The
Poissons ratio and density of the shale were assumed to be 0.38 and 2.4
g/cm3, respectively. The Poissons ratio and density of the gas sand
were assumed to be 0.15 and 2.0 g/cm3, respectively

13

Figure 2.2 Classification of AVO responses, previously discussed by (Rutherford

and Williams 1989) with addition of class IV

14

Figure 2.3 Intercept (A) versus gradient (B) crossplot with classification of AVO
responses and their position taking in account the background trend
Figure 2.4 General workflow for seismic inversion
l

14
17

Figure 2.5 General workflow for EI inversion

18

Figure 2.6 General workflow for EEI inversion

20

Figure 2.7 Comparison between elastic parameters (red) and equivalent EEI curves
(blue), showing high degree of correlation. The EEI function is defined
as a function of the angle , not the reflection angle

21

Figure 2.8 Map generated using EEI data sets using values turned to optimize the
imaging of lithology ( = -51.3) and fluid ( = 12.4) respectively

22

Figure 3.1 View of the logs from well_1 in the depth interval of interest before
check shot correction; From left to right: caliper, gamma ray, resistivity,
density, neutron-porosity, P-wave velocity, S-wave velocity. The red
rectangles indicate the location of gas sand reservoirs to be characterized
in this study

23

Figure 3.2 View of the logs from well_2 in the depth interval of interest before
check shot correction; From left to right: caliper, gamma ray, resistivity,
density, neutron-porosity, P-wave velocity, S-wave velocity. The blue
rectangles indicate the location of water saturated sand to be
characterized in this study

24

Figure 3.3 Combination of caliper, gamma ray, density, neutron-porosity and

resistivity logs to discriminate different lithologies intervals in well_1
after check shot correction. The yellow rectangles indicate the UGR and
LGR and the blue rectangles indicate the UWS1 and LWS1

28

Figure 3.4 Combination of caliper, gamma ray, density, neutron-porosity and

resistivity logs to discriminate different lithologis in well_2 after check
shot correction. The blue rectangle indicates the UWS2

29

Figure 3.5 Combination of caliper, gamma ray, density, neutron-porosity and

resistivity logs to discriminate different lithologies in well_2 after check
shot correction. The blue rectangle indicates the LWS2
Figure 3.6 Plot of Vp vs. Vs data for (left) water-saturated sadstones, (right) gasand water-saturated sandstones, with porosities ( ) ranging from 4% to
m

30

40%, effective pressures 5-50 MPa, clay fraction 0-50%. Arrow shows
the direction of increasing porosity, clay fraction 0-50%

34

Figure 3.7 Vs vs Vp crossplot (left) and curve display (right) for well_1. The colors
indicate gas-saturated sand (yellow), tight gas-saturated sand (light
green), shale (green) and limestone (blue). The red arrow shows the
direction of increasing porosity in gas sand and the blue arrow shows the
mudrock line and the direction of increasing clay

36

Figure 3.8 Crossplot of Vs vs Vp for well_1. Claystone (blue) interpreted as

limestone in previous sections and

the blue arrow represents the

mudrock line and the direction of increasing clay. There is no gassaturated sand in well_2

37

Figure 3.9 Generated petrophysical reservoir parameter logs for (well_1). From left
to right: Vp/Vs ratio, bulk modulus (k), shear modulus (), poisson ratio
(), porosity () water saturation (Sw) and volume of shale (Vsh)

38

Figure 3.10 Generated petrophysical reservoir parameter logs for (well_2). From left
to right: Vp/Vs ratio, bulk modulus (k), shear modulus (), poisson ratio
(), porosity () water saturation (Sw) and volume of shale (Vsh)

39

Figure 3.11 P-impedance vs Vp/Vs ratio crossplot for well_1. The gas-sand reservoir
(yellow) is separated from shale and water-saturated sand. There is no
clear separation between wet sands and shale

42

Figure 3.12 P-impedance vs Vp/Vs ratio crossplot for well_2. There is no gas-sand
in this well

42

Figure 3.13 Resistivity of NaCl solution chart from Schlumberger

47

Figure 3.14 Estimated Lam petrophysical parameters for well_1. From left to right:
lambda_rho (), mu-rho (), lambda-mu difference (- ) and
lambda/mu ratio (/)

49

Figure 3.15 Estimated Lam petrophysical parameters for well_2. From left to right:
lambda_rho (), mu-rho (), lambda-mu difference (- ) and
lambda/mu ratio (/)

50
n

Figure 3.16 Lambda-rho vs mu-rho interpretation template guide

52

Figure 3.17 Rho(lambda-mu) difference vs lambda/mu ratio interpretation template

guide

52

Figure 3.18 Lambda-rho vs mu-rho crossplot (left) and curve view (right) for well_1.
The dashed lines represent the cut-off for different lithologies saturated
with different fluids according to (Goodway, 2001). The colors represent
gas sand (yellow), tight-gas sand (light blue), shale + wet sands (green)
and limestone (dark blue) respectively. No clear separation between wet
sand and shale

53

Figure 3.19 Lambda-rho vs mu-rho crossplot (left) and curve view (view) for well_2.
The blue dashed lines represent the cut-off for different lithologies
saturated with different fluids according to (Goodway, 2001). The color
represent tight-wet sand (red) claystone (blue) and shale + wet sand
(green respectively. No clear separation between wet sand and shale

54

Figure 3.20 Rho(lambda-mu) difference vs lambda/mu ratio crossplot (bottom) and

showing fluid and lithology discrimination in well_1. The colored
circles represent gas sand (yellow), tight-gas sand (light green), shale
(dark green), wet sand (light blue) and limestone (dark blue). Shale was
easily separated from wet-sand because it plots away from sandstone
line (blue line)

55

Figure 3.21 Rho(lambda-mu) difference vs lambda/mu ratio crossplot showing fluid

and lithology discrimination in well_2. The colored circles represent
tight-wet sand (red) and limestone (dark blue) respectively. The blue line
is the sandstone line

56

Figure 3.22 Gamma ray log from well_1 used to estimate the gamma ray index (blue
curve in track 2), and shale volume (red curve). Gamma ray index
overestimate volume of shale

59

Figure 3.23 Gamma ray log from well_2 used to estimate the gamma ray index (blue
in track 2), and volume of shale (red). Gamma ray index overestimate
volume of shale..61
Figure 3.24 Shale volume vs gamma ray crossplot (bottom) and curve view (top) for
well_1 showing the three different lithologies zonation: the clean sand
(yellow), shaly sand (gray) and shale (green) respectively

61

Figure 3.25 Volume of shale vs gamma ray crossplot (bottom) and curve view (top)
for well_2 showing the three different lithologies zonation: the clean
sand (yellow), shaly sand (gray) and shale (green) respectively

62

Figure 4.1 Angle gathers (0 30 degrees) used for EEI analysis, derived from
PSTM gathers. The red curve is the P-wave velocity for well_1. An
increase of amplitude with angle can be observed at about 1630 ms (red
rectangle)

64

Figure 4.2 Angle gathers (0 30 degrees) used for EEI analysis, derived from
PSTM gathers. The gray curve is the P-wave velocity for well_2

65

Figure 4.3 Statistically extracted wavelet from angle gathers around well_1 location
and its frequency spectra (top), and the parameters used for extraction
(bottom)

68

Figure 4.4 Angle gathers calibrated to well log. The green and red lines show the
top and bottom of UGR and LGR correlated to angle gathers

69

Figure 4.5 EEI log spectrum (A) well_1 (B) well_2 for every angle between -90o
90o

70

Figure 4.6 Cross-correlation between EEI log and gamma ray (blue), porosity
(green) and shale volume (volumetric) (red) for well_1. Maximum
negative correlation is observed for all the three logs

71

Figure 4.7 Cross-correlation between EEI log with mu-rho (blue) and S-impedance
(green) for well_1. Both logs have the same angle (-46), despite their
different maximum correlation

72

Figure 4.8 Calculated EEI petrophysical logs superimposed on the target logs for
well_1. A very good match, except for a scaling factor, indicates that the
petrophysical logs derived from well data through EEI can be used for
quantitative interpretation

74

Figure 4.9 Calculated EEI petrophysical logs superimposed on the target logs for
well_2. A very good match, except for a scaling factor, indicates that the
petrophysical logs derived from well data through EEI can be used for
quantitative interpretation

75

Figure 4.10 Expanded view of EEI Vp/Vs ratio (=57) along the IL-1675 (top) and
XL-4049 (bottom), through well_1. The black curve is the Vp/Vs ratio
log. The extension of UGR and LGR away from the well location is well
defined by low elastic impedance (green and yellow). Note that these
limits were set considering the other attributes as shown in the following
figures

78

Figure 4.11 Time slice of EEI Vp/Vs ratio (=57) at 1630ms with 8ms fixed window
size through well_1. Very low elastic impedance (green) corresponding
to low Vp/Vs ratio is observed at UGR. The scale bar represents 2000
meters

79

Figure 4.12 Expanded view of EEI bulk modulus (=17) along the IL-1675 through
well_1. The black curve is the bulk modulus log. The extension of UGR
away from the well location is well defined by low elastic impedance
(green); however, no clear definition of LGR

79

Figure 4.13 Expanded view of EEI lambda-rho (=19) along the IL-1675 through
well_1. The black curve is the lambda-rho log. The extension of UGR
away from the well location is well defined by low elastic impedance
(green); however, no clear definition of LGR
Figure 4.14 Expanded view of EEI mu-rho (=-46) along the IL-1675 through
well_1. The black curve is mu-rho log. The extension of UGR away

80

from the well location is well defined by very high elastic impedance
(pink, blue and red). Relative high mu-rho (red) is observed at LGR

80

Figure 4.15 Expanded view of EEI Poisson ratio (=54) along the IL-1675 through
well_1. The black curve is the Poisson ratio log. The extension of UGR
and LGR away from the well location is well defined by very low elastic
impedance (green and yellow)

81

Figure 4.16 Expanded view of EEI lambda/mu (=56) along the IL-1675 through
well_1. The black curve is the lambda/mu ratio log. The extension of
UGR and LGR away from the well location is well defined by very low
elastic impedance (green and yellow)

81

Figure 4.17 Expanded view of EEI porosity (=-20) along the IL-1675, around
well_1. The black curve is the porosity log. High porosity in UGR
compared to the surrounding non-reservoir rocks is highlighted by high
elastic impedance (red and blue), and relatively low porosity (yellow) is
observed at LGR

82

Figure 4.18 Crossplot matrix of different EEI attributes volumes. The green points
represent the UGR and LGR, and the greyed out points represent the
non-reservoir rocks within the selected interval. At top-right of this
figure the filter parameters are displayed

84

Figure 4.19 Crossplot between EEI Vp/Vs ratio and EEI lambda/mu ratio along the
IL 1675 at 1630 ms. The UGR is highlighted by the red polygon used as
the cut-off parameter for gas sand discrimination in the study area

85

Figure 4.20 Inline 1675 cross section view of the selected cut-off polygon, with
Vp/Vs ratio log from well_1 overlapped. The UGR is highlighted. A
small gas anomaly can be seen at the right most part of UGR and
shallow gas sand at 1145 ms, top left of UGR. A baffle zone was
identified within UGR considering the selected cut-off

85

Figure 4.21 Cross section view (crossline 4049) of the selected cut-off polygon, with
Vp/Vs ratio log from well_1 overlapped. The UGR and LGR are
highlighted. Possible gas leakage is observed near UGR. A baffle zone
was also identified within UGR considering the selected cut-off

86

Figure 4.22 Time slice of EEI porosity (=-20) at 1630 ms with 8 ms fixed window
size through well_1. Very high elastic impedance (pink) corresponding
to high porosity is observed at UGR. The scale bar represents 2000
meters

87

Figure 4.23 Inline 1843 (top) and crossline 5545 (bottom) cross section view of the
selected cut-off polygon along the location of the identified possible
prospect P-1

88

Figure 4.24 Inline 1763 (top) and crossline 3977 (bottom) cross section view of the
selected cut-off polygon along the location of the identified possible
prospect P-2

89

Figure 5.1 Time slice of EEI Porosity (=-20) at 1872 ms with 8 ms fixed window
size through prospect-1 (P-1). Very high elastic impedance (pink)
corresponding to high porosity is observed at P-1. The scale bar
represents 3000 meters

92

Figure 5.2 Time slice of EEI Porosity (=-20) at 1872 ms with 8 ms fixed window
size through prospect-2 (P-2). Very high elastic impedance (pink)
corresponding to high porosity is observed at P-2. The scale bar
represents 2000 meters.

93

Figure 5.3 Time slice of EEI porosity (=-20) at 1780 ms with 8 ms fixed window
size through gas anomaly. Very high elastic impedance (pink)
corresponding to high porosity is observed at the gas anomaly. The scale
bar represents 2000 meters

93

Figure 5.4 Inline 1843 section view of the angle gathers at P-1 location. Smearing
of the amplitude is observed from 1680 to 1840 ms

94

Figure 5.5 Inline 1763 section view of the angle gathers at P-2 location. Smearing
of the amplitude is observed from 1760 to 1900 ms

94

Figure 5.6 Crossplot between EEI Vp/Vs ratio and EEI lambda/mu ratio along the
IL 1675 at 1630 ms. The UGR is highlighted by the red polygon used as
the cut-off parameter for gas send discrimination in the study area. The
blue polygon represents the second cut-of introduced for water samples

95

Figure 5.7 Inline 2543 cross section view of the selected cut-off polygons along
well_2

96