A COUPLED PETROPHYSICAL AND GEOMECHANICAL WORKFLOW TO INTERPRET DIPOLE SONIC VELOCITIES FOR IN-SITU STRESS

Abstract

Petrophysicists often find sonic velocities difficult to interpret, especially when choosing values for the mineral and fluid endpoints. This difficulty is always caused by stress sensitive formations where dipole sonic velocities vary with stress, even when the petrophysical properties are constant. The goal of this coupled workflow is to quantify the compositional influences of porosity, mineralogy, and fluids, while isolating and quantifying the geomechanical influence of stress. I first estimate the petrophysical properties using a standard multi-mineral petrophysical solver void of sonic inputs. This allows one to independently observe and quantify variations in both compressional and shear velocities with variations in petrophysical properties. I then normalize the sonic velocities to an idealized formation having compositional properties constant with depth by applying both matrix and fluid substitution algorithms. If these normalized velocities are constant with depth, then the formations are insensitive to stress, and I apply the standard petrophysical workflow using the measured sonic inputs. In addition, the standard geomechanical workflow that assumes linear elasticity is appropriate to estimate the in-situ stresses. However, if the normalized velocities vary with depth, the formations are sensitive to stress, which requires modifications to both the standard petrophysical and geomechanical workflows. Specifically, one must quantify and remove the velocity variations due to stress or else misinterpret velocity changes due to stress for changes in petrophysical properties. For formations sensitive to stress, I quantify the stress sensitivity by using the observed change in normalized velocity with depth with an estimate of the change in stress with depth. I then compute a second velocity normalization that quantifies and removes the acoustical sensitivity to stress in favor of a constant reference stress. I can now more accurately quantify the petrophysical properties by including the stress normalized velocities in the multi-mineral petrophysical solver. At this point in the workflow, there are two methods for quantifying the in-situ horizontal stress. The first method uses the velocities normalized to the constant reference stress to compute the dynamic elastic moduli. These dynamic elastic moduli are now appropriate to input into the standard geomechanical workflow. The second method uses the velocities normalized for the changing petrophysical properties, together with the stress sensitivity coefficients, to directly invert the velocities for the in-situ horizontal stresses. A comparison between the two methods supplies a consistency check. I emphasize both methods require in-situ horizontal stress calibration data for correct results. To clearly illustrate the workflow, this paper specifies the mathematical formulations with example calculations. This coupled workflow is novel because it highlights and clarifies improper assumptions while acknowledging the rock physics of stress sensitive formations. In the process, it improves the accuracy of both the derived petrophysical properties and geomechanical stresses.