Seismic Characterization of Carbonate Platforms and Reservoirs: an Introduction and Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on September 25, 2021 Seismic characterization of carbonate platforms and reservoirs: an introduction and review James Hendry1,2*, Peter Burgess3, David Hunt4, Xavier Janson5 and Valentina Zampetti6 1Iapetus Geoscience Ltd, Unit 7, Watson & Johnson Centre, Mill Road, Greystones, Co. Wicklow, Ireland 2School of Earth Sciences, University College Dublin, Bellfield, Dublin 4, Ireland 3School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, Brownlow Street, Liverpool L69 3GP, UK 4Equinor, Sandsliveien 90, Sandsli, N-5234, Norway 5Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78713, USA 6Shell Global Solutions, Lange Kleiweg 40, 2288 ER Rijswijk, The Netherlands JH, 0000-0002-8448-6057; DH, 0000-0003-1911-9389 *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Improved seismic data quality in the last 10–15 years, innovative use of seismic attribute combina- tions, extraction of geomorphological data and new quantitative techniques have significantly enhanced under- standing of ancient carbonate platforms and processes. 3D data have become a fundamental toolkit for mapping carbonate depositional and diagenetic facies, and associated flow units and barriers, giving a unique perspective on how their relationships changed through time in response to tectonic, oceanographic and climatic forcing. Sophisticated predictions of lithology and porosity are being made from seismic data in reservoirs with good borehole log and core calibration for detailed integration with structural, palaeoenvironmental and sequence stratigraphic interpretations. Geologists can now characterize entire carbonate platform systems and their large-scale evolution in time and space, including systems with few outcrop analogues such as the Lower Cre- taceous Central Atlantic ‘pre-salt’ carbonates. The papers introduced in this review illustrate opportunities, workflows and potential pitfalls of modern carbonate seismic interpretation. They demonstrate advances in knowledge of carbonate systems achieved when geologists and geophysicists collaborate and innovate to max- imize the value of seismic data from acquisition, through processing to interpretation. Future trends and devel- opments, including machine learning and the significance of the energy transition, are briefly discussed. Fundamental advances in seismic imaging of car- can now be determined from seismic images, their bonate strata over the past decade have revolution- attributes interpreted using modern software, and ized scientific understanding of carbonate sediment correlated to information from boreholes or other accumulation and modification, with implications geophysical surveys. Seismic attributes, singly and from hydrocarbon exploration to geomorphology in combination, determined by the physics of and palaeoclimate change. These advances have acoustic-wave interaction with solid-rock matrix been driven by oil and gas exploration and produc- and its fluid-filled porosity are providing a novel tion, given the fact that carbonates are believed to toolbox with enormous potential to map heterogene- host more than 60% of the world’s oil reserves and ity within carbonate systems, and to improve under- 40% of the gas reserves (e.g. https://www.slb. standing of depositional and diagenetic processes at com/technical-challenges/carbonates), but the data scales rarely achievable from surface exposures. obtained are also increasingly being used to funda- Whilst 2D seismic provides key evidence of car- mentally reassess paradigms of carbonate platform bonate platform development and morphology in development, architecture and post-depositional previously unexplored basins and stratigraphic inter- modification. Study of present-day or outcrop ‘time- vals, improvements in acquisition, processing and snapshots’ do not reveal how carbonate platform filtering of 3D seismic data in basins with higher development on millennial timescales and kilometric data density, as well as improved user-friendly inter- length scales was forced by long-term eustatic, pretation software, have led to significant advances oceanographic or tectonic factors, yet this forcing in carbonate geology. For example, seismic From: Hendry, J., Burgess, P., Hunt, D., Janson, X. and Zampetti, V. (eds) Seismic Characterization of Carbonate Platforms and Reservoirs. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 509, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP509-2021-51 © 2021 The Author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Published by The Geological Society of London. Publishing disclaimer: www.geolsoc.org.uk/pub_ethics Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on September 25, 2021 J. Hendry et al. geomorphology, a concept first employed with spec- from exhausted easy-to-find large fossil fuel reserves tacular results in passive-margin siliciclastic subma- towards a sustainable energy source future. As a log- rine fan settings with strong sand–shale impedance ical extension, 4D seismic data will be essential to contrasts and simple overburden geology (Posa- monitor CO2 fronts in sequestration projects build- mentier et al. 2007), is now applicable to carbonate ing on technology that has already been demon- platform systems in a variety of basin contexts strated for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects (e.g. Ahlborn et al. 2014; Saqab and Bourget 2016; (e.g. Wang et al. 1998; Li 2003; Raef et al. 2005), Wang et al. 2016; Paumard et al. 2017; Rankey as well as more recent research (e.g. Yenugu et al. 2017; Rinke-Hardkopf et al. 2018; Grant et al. 2015; Nuwara 2020). 2019). Indeed, 3D seismic has become a fundamen- This Special Publication illustrates some recent tal toolkit for mapping carbonate depositional and advances in the seismic characterization of carbonate diagenetic facies and associated flow units and barri- platforms and reservoirs, and demonstrates substan- ers: for example, reticulate reef networks, lagoons, tial advances in data quality and visualization made shoals or beach ridges, slope-collapse scars and toe since the last compilation of seismic imaging and of slope mass-flow deposits. interpretation in carbonate systems (Eberli et al. At a reservoir scale, the heterogeneity of carbon- 2004). That previous collection of papers was pub- ate pore systems, which result from complex deposi- lished when 3D seismic data on carbonate platforms tional fabrics and their susceptibility to significant and reservoirs were becoming more widely available diagenetic modification, has long been recognized but before many of the major improvements in as a challenge for successfully appraising, develop- seismic acquisition (e.g. increased bandwidth and ing and managing hydrocarbon fields. Accurate illumination), processing (noise, ghost and multiple extrapolation of flow units between widely spaced removal, velocity modelling), resolution and visual- wells has usually relied on conceptual models and ization (attribute extraction and co-rendering, colour analogues, or purely stochastic models that assume blends), and interpretation (autotracking, geobody the geology is too complex to predict in a more deter- extraction, stratal slicing and machine learning ministic manner. In a standout paper, Yose et al. methods such as neural networks) that have featured (2006) demonstrated the potential for 3D seismic in the past decade (e.g. Chandoola et al. 2020). Many data to discriminate platform facies and flow units, more carbonate platforms of diverse ages have been and to populate them into a sequence stratigraphic imaged globally, including some shallow carbonate framework for reservoir model building. Similar systems spectacularly imaged above deeper reservoir workflows have since become established practice. targets, such as the Neogene carbonates above the Inversion of seismic data, relationships of rock typ- regional Cretaceous seal in the Browse and Carnar- ing to rock physics and seismic resolution of deposi- von basins (discussed below). There have also tional geometries now permit a more deterministic been substantial advances in quantitative seismic and iterative approach to reservoir modelling that is interpretation, including inversion, fluid detection geologically conditioned and reduces uncertainty, and rock-physics modelling (e.g. see Avseth et al. allowing more accurate prediction of the inter-well 2014). These constitute a technical discipline in volume (e.g. Rodrigues et al. 2016; Liu and Wang their own right but still pose some of the greatest 2017; Ferreira and Lupinacci 2018; Lupinacci challenges in predicting reservoir properties from et al. 2020; Ghon et al. 2021). Further insights can seismic data, especially where well data for model be drawn in producing fields from integrating calibration are lacking. Because seismic interpre- dynamic data with seismic characteristics and bore- tation is only the first stage in understanding car- hole log and core information (e.g. Warrlich et al. bonate reservoir potential in the subsurface, this 2019). This approach can be augmented by cross- contribution complements and should be considered well seismic, especially where vertical imaging is alongside Geological Society, London, Special Pub- complicated by overburden effects (Beavington- lications, Volume 406 (Agar and Geiger 2015). Penney et al. 2019). Major diagenetic porosity–per- As the ability to extract additional quantitative