1887
Volume 66, Issue 4
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

High‐resolution three‐dimensional images are used in digital rock physics to numerically compute rock physical properties such as permeability and elastic moduli. These images are not widely available, and their preparation is both expensive and time consuming. All of these issues highlight the importance of alternative digital rock physics methods that are based on two‐dimensional images and use different approaches to compute effective properties of three‐dimensional samples. In addition, the scale of study in both standard and alternative digital rock physics is very small, which applications of its results are questionable at wells or reservoir scale. The aim of this study is to use two‐dimensional images and alternative digital rock physics techniques for computing seismic wave velocity and permeability, which are compared with well and laboratory data. For this purpose, data from one well in a reservoir located in the southwestern part of Iran are used. First, two clean (carbonate) and two cemented (limy sandstone) samples were collected from well cores at different depths. Then, two‐dimensional images by scanning electron microscope and conventional microscope were captured. In the next step, two alternative digital rock physics methods, namely, empirical relations and conditional reconstruction, have been employed to compute P‐wave velocity and permeability of a three‐dimensional medium. Results showed that, in clean (mono‐mineral) samples, velocity values were reasonably close to well data. However, permeability values are underestimated compared with laboratory data because laboratory data were obtained at ambient pressure, whereas alternative digital rock physics results are more representative of reservoir pressure conditions. Nevertheless, permeability–porosity trends are valid for both samples. In the case of cemented samples, a two‐scale procedure, along with a method for two‐scale computation and grain‐cement segmentation, is presented and developed. Results showed that P‐wave velocity is overestimated probably due to random sampling in this method. However, velocity–porosity trends are in agreement with well data. Moreover, permeability results obtained for cemented samples were also similar to those obtained for the clean samples.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12611
2018-03-01
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AdlerP., JacquinC. and QuiblierJ.1990. Flow in simulated porous media. International Journal of Multiphase Flow16, 691–712.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AhmadiM.M., MohammadiS. and HayatiA.N.2011. Analytical derivation of tortuosity and permeability of monosized spheres: a volume averaging approach. Physical Review E83, 026312.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. AndräH., CombaretN., DvorkinJ., GlattE., HanJ., KabelM.et al. 2013a. Digital rock physics benchmarks—Part I: Imaging and segmentation. Computers & Geosciences50, 25–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. AndräH., CombaretN., DvorkinJ., GlattE., HanJ., KabelM.et al. 2013b. Digital rock physics benchmarks—Part II: Computing effective properties. Computers & Geosciences50, 33–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BluntM.J., BijeljicB., DongH., GharbiO., IglauerS., MostaghimiP.et al. 2013. Pore‐scale imaging and modelling. Advances in Water Resources51, 197–216.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BubeckA., WalkerR., HealyD., DobbsM. and HolwellD.2017. Pore geometry as a control on rock strength. Earth and Planetary Science Letters457, 38–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. CnuddeV. and BooneM.N.2013. High‐resolution X‐ray computed tomography in geosciences: a review of the current technology and applications. Earth‐Science Reviews123, 1–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DerzhiN., SiskC. and KalamZ.2011. Application of digital rock physics for geophysical rock properties. 12th International Congress of the Brazilian Geophysical Society & EXPOGEF, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Extended Abstract, 1472–1475.
  9. DvorkinJ. and DerzhiN.2012. Rules of upscaling for rock physics transforms: composites of randomly and independently drawn elements. Geophysics77(3), WA129–WA139.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. DvorkinJ., ArmbrusterM., BaldwinC., FangQ., DerzhiN., GomezC.et al. 2008. The future of rock physics: computational methods vs. lab testing. First Break26(9), 63–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. DvorkinJ., DerzhiN., DiazE. and FangQ.2011. Relevance of computational rock physics. Geophysics76(5), E141–E153.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. FerreolB. and RothmanD.H.1995. Lattice‐Boltzmann simulations of flow through Fontainebleau sandstone. Transport in Porous Media20, 3–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. GarbocziE. and DayA.R.1995. An algorithm for computing the effective linear elastic properties of heterogeneous materials: three‐dimensional results for composites with equal phase poisson ratios. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids43, 1349–1362.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. GhaffariS.N. and KarimpouliS.2017. Improvement of fractal permeability‐porosity trends in digital rock samples. 2nd National Conference on Petroleum Geomechanics, Tehran, Iran (In Persian).
  15. GodelB.2013. High‐resolution X‐ray computed tomography and its application to ore deposits: from data acquisition to quantitative three‐dimensional measurements with case studies from Ni‐Cu‐PGE deposits. Economic Geology108, 2005–2019.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hernández‐PicoR.L., da FontouraS.A., RighettoG.L., PilottoD. and PaciornikS.2014. Mechanical tests on digital samples of carbonates obtained using X‐ray microtomography. ISRM Conference on Rock Mechanics for Natural Resources and Infrastructure‐SBMR 2014.
  17. JingY., ArmstrongR.T. and MostaghimiP.2017. Rough‐walled discrete fracture network modelling for coal characterisation. Fuel191, 442–453.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. JingY., ArmstrongR.T., RamandiH.L. and MostaghimiP.2016. Coal cleat reconstruction using micro‐computed tomography imaging. Fuel181, 286–299.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. JouiniM., VegaS. and MokhtarE.2011. Multiscale characterization of pore spaces using multifractals analysis of scanning electronic microscopy images of carbonates. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics18(6), 941–953.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. JouiniM.S., VegaS. and Al‐RatroutA.2015. Numerical estimation of carbonate rock properties using multiscale images. Geophysical Prospecting63, 405–421.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. KarimpouliS. and MalehmirA.2015. Neuro‐Bayesian facies inversion of prestack seismic data from a carbonate reservoir in Iran. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering131, 11–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. KarimpouliS. and TahmasebiP.2016. Conditional reconstruction: an alternative strategy in digital rock physics. Geophysics81(4), D465–D477.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. KarimpouliS. and TahmasebiP.2017. A hierarchical sampling for capturing permeability trend in rock physics. Transport in Porous Media116, 1057–1072.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. KarimpouliS., MalehmirA., HassaniH., KhoshdelH. and Nabi‐BidhendiM.2015. Automated diffraction delineation using an apex‐shifted Radon transform. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 12(2), 199–209.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. KarimpouliS., TahmasebiP., RamandiH.L., MostaghimiP. and SaadatfarM.2017. Stochastic modeling of coal fracture network by direct use of micro‐computed tomography images. International Journal of Coal Geology179, 153–163.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. KeehmY., MukerjiT. and NurA.2004. Permeability prediction from thin sections: 3D reconstruction and lattice‐boltzmann flow simulation. Geophysical Research Letters31(4), L04606.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. LieK.‐A.2015. An Introduction to Reservoir Simulation Using MATLAB: User Guide for the MATLAB Reservoir Simulation Toolbox (MRST) . SINTEF ICT, p. 383.
  28. LiuJ., PereiraG.G., LiuQ. and Regenauer‐LiebK.2016. Computational challenges in the analyses of petrophysics using microtomography and upscaling: a review. Computers & Geosciences89, 107–117.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. LopezO., MockA., ØrenP.E., LongH., KalamZ., VahrenkampV.et al. 2012. Validation of fundamental carbonate reservoir core properties using digital rock physics. International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts, Aberdeen, UK, SCA2012‐19.
  30. LubisL. and HarithZ.2014. Pore type classification on carbonate reservoir in offshore sarawak using rock physics model and rock digital images. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science19, 012003.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. MadonnaC., AlmqvistB.S. and SaengerE.H.2012. Digital rock physics: numerical prediction of pressure‐dependent ultrasonic velocities using micro‐CT imaging. Geophysical Journal International189, 1475–1482.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. MavkoG., MukerjiT. and DvorkinJ.2009. The Rock Physics Handbook: Tools for Seismic Analysis of Porous Media. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. MostaghimiP., ArmstrongR.T., GeramiA., HuY., JingY., KamaliF.et al. 2016. Pore scale characterisation of coal: An unconventional challenge. Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, SPE‐182411‐MS.
  34. MostaghimiP., BluntM.J. and BijeljicB.2013. Computations of absolute permeability on micro‐CT images. Mathematical Geosciences45, 103–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. NarváezA., ZaunerT., RaischelF., HilferR. and HartingJ.2010. Quantitative analysis of numerical estimates for the permeability of porous media from lattice‐Boltzmann simulations. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2010, P11026.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. OkabeH. and BluntM.J.2007. Pore space reconstruction of vuggy carbonates using microtomography and multiple‐point statistics. Water Resources Research43(12), W12S02.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. RamandiH.L., MostaghimiP., ArmstrongR.T., SaadatfarM. and PinczewskiW.V.2016. Porosity and permeability characterization of coal: a micro‐computed tomography study. International Journal of Coal Geology154–155, 57–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. SaengerE.H., LebedevM., UribeD., OsornoM., VialleS., DudaM.et al. 2016a. Analysis of high‐resolution x‐ray computed tomography images of bentheim sandstone under elevated confining pressures. Geophysical Prospecting64, 848–859.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. SaengerE.H., VialleS., LebedevM., UribeD., OsornoM., DudaM.et al. 2016b. Digital carbonate rock physics. Solid Earth7, 1185–1197.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. SaxenaN. and MavkoG.2016. Estimating elastic moduli of rocks from thin sections: digital rock study of 3D properties from 2D images. Computers & Geosciences88, 9–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. TahmasebiP. and SahimiM.2012. Reconstruction of three‐dimensional porous media using a single thin section. Physical Review E85, 066709.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. TahmasebiP. and SahimiM.2013. Cross‐correlation function for accurate reconstruction of heterogeneous media. Physical Review Letters110, 078002.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. TahmasebiP. and SahimiM.2015. Geostatistical simulation and reconstruction of porous media by a cross‐correlation function and integration of hard and soft data. Transport in Porous Media107, 871–905.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. TahmasebiP., HezarkhaniA. and SahimiM.2012. Multiple‐point geostatistical modeling based on the cross‐correlation functions. Computational Geosciences16, 779–797.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. TahmasebiP., JavadpourF. and SahimiM.2015a. Multiscale and multiresolution modeling of shales and their flow and morphological properties. Scientific Reports5, 16373.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. TahmasebiP., JavadpourF. and SahimiM.2015b. Three‐dimensional stochastic characterization of shale SEM images. Transport in Porous Media110, 521–531.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. TahmasebiP., JavadpourF., SahimiM. and PiriM.2016. Multiscale study for stochastic characterization of shale samples. Advances in Water Resources89, 91–103.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. VegaS. and JouiniM.S.2015. 2D multifractal analysis and porosity scaling estimation in lower cretaceous carbonates. Geophysics80(6), D575–D586.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12611
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12611
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error