Title: Rock Physics Modelling (RPM) of tight reservoirs in Mesozoics
integrating Petrophysical characterization in Kutch Offshore Basin- A case
study
Authors:
G.D.D.Jyotsna1#; jyotsna_dd@[Link], CEWELL, ONGC, ORC-ID:0000-0001-9325-7830
Dushyant Rathore2#, Rathore_Dushyant@[Link], ONGC, ORCID: 0009-0001-0814-1583,
[Link] Singh G Desai ; bhawanigd@[Link], PDEU, ORC-ID:0000-0003-2851-7493
KV Sarma, CEWELL, ONGC, Yogesh Bahukhandi, CEWELL, ONGC
Keywords: Acoustic impedance modelled, RPM, Elastic logs, Pore geometry.
1.0 Abstract:
Rock physics modelling are new interface between Seismic and Well logging, and deals with
the relationships between geological properties and geophysical observations. This means that
geophysical observations can be predicted or interpreted in terms of rock properties by building
a model of the rock that is consistent with the known data. Different fluid saturations affect log
velocity of fluids present in the reservoir, modelling the magnitude of impedance change for a
steam flood, and interpreting inversion results as changes in mineralogy and porosity are all
applications for rock physics. In present study, an approach has been designed for Rock physics
modelling of Mesozoic sequences in Kutch offshore area for better understanding of varying
elastic properties at such deeper depths where we have limited seismic imaging techniques.
Rock physics helps to
link reservoir properties
to the seismic data and
infer the variation of
reservoir properties in a
lateral or vertical sense.
The complex
mineralogical
assemblage of
heterogeneous Mesozoic
formation with multi-
Figure.1: Study Area 1
stack pay sands has been successfully evaluated for petrophysical properties which in-turn
validated with rock physics modelling and predicted shear logs in wells, where it’s not
recorded, which facilitated generation of various seismic attributes.
2.0 Introduction: The Kutch basin is a pericratonic rift basin located on the Western margin of
India. The evolution of the western continental margin basins of India is related to the breakup
of eastern Gondwanaland from western Gondwanaland in the Late Triassic/Early Jurassic with
N-S extension until the Early Cretaceous. The potential gas prospects of Kutch offshore Basin
which are developed within Mesozoic formation consisting Mundra/Naliya, Bhuj and Jhuran
formation in the present study area comprises potential hydrocarbon layers which are being
explored. The study area is traversed by the dominant NW-SE trending, basin building, nearly
vertical faults, segmenting the area into parallel fault blocks. Numerous cross-faults are also
seen to be intersecting the main faults. Overall, the structures are deeper in the west and south
and are shallower in the east and north. Few drilled wells in this area, have proved presence of
hydrocarbon in targeted Mesozoic sand layers. Mesozoic sedimentary formations are deeply
deposited below thick trap sequence, this pose great limitation of poor seismic imaging. In such
a scenario, Rock physics modelling provides optimal for seismic imaging.
Study Area
Figure.2: Location map in Kutch Offshore Basin
2
Presence of high regional stress (~ 15000 psi) and low pore pressure (~ 6000 psi) affects the
reservoir quality. Recently gas discovery from Igneous intrusive (Dolerites) in one of the
Mesozoic wells gave impetus for exploration for Mesozoic sequence. Drilling of wells
penetrating Mesozoic units indicate that hydrocarbon entrapment is fault control and each fault
block requires independent assessment for hydrocarbon prospectivity.
2.1 General Geology and Stratigraphy of study area:
The source rock studies carried out by various authors have suggested that shale lithofacies
present in Mesozoic (Lower Bhuj and Jhumara) and Tertiary (Nakhatrana) have the potential of
generating hydrocarbons in the study area. The integrated study by Bordenave [Link] shows that
the Mesozoic sequences have re ached the gas generation stage in the area under study. The
difference in structural configuration within Mesozoic is because the Mesozoic sequence was
deposited both during syn-rift and post rift stages of basin formation whereas the Tertiary
sequence was deposited in the passive margin setup. The discovery of Oil and Gas in Tertiary
and Mesozoic sequences in Kutch offshore and fluorescence in different drilled wells suggest
that oil has been generated in the Kutch offshore region. This sequence remains well within the
peak oil generation window in both regions. Hence it is considered the principal source rock of
the area. The Study area is traversed by the dominant NW-SE trending, basin building, nearly
vertical faults, segmenting the area into parallel fault blocks. Numerous cross faults are also
seen to be intersecting the main faults. Overall, the structures are deeper in the west and south
and are shallower in the east and north. There is a difference in structural configuration within
Mesozoic which is clearly demonstrated in the structure maps. This difference is because the
Mesozoic sequence was deposited during syn rift and post rift stages of basin formation
whereas the Tertiary sequence was deposited in the passive margin setup.
2.2 Generalized Log characteristics of Sand layers: Sand layers are developed within
Mesozoic section in Mundra, Bhuj & Jhuran formation which mainly comprises of sandstone,
siltstone, claystone and argillaceous carbonate. The conventional logs of clean water sandstone
intervals display resistivity of 8-20 ohm-m and porosity 0.08-0.12 (v/v). Spectral gamma ray
log suggests that the sandstones are feldsparic at places. Shales are characterized by relatively
high resistivity (80-100 ohm-m) in Mundra & Bhuj formation whereas in Jhuran resistivities are
very high (100-2000 ohm-m) in sands & water bearing sandstones are having 30-100 ohm-m
3
and bulk densities up to 2.7 g/cc. In hydrocarbon bearing zones, sand layers are characterized
by resistivity 30-40 ohm m and 10-15 % porosity. Analysis of three wells namely; Well-8,
Well-12 & Well-14 have been taken as key wells for Petrophysical Evaluation & Rock physics
modelling.
2.3 Stratigraphy:
Table-1
Geological Age Formation Gross Lithology
Tertiary
Recent to Late Miocene Kandla Clay, Claystone, shell fragments with bands of
sandstone & siltstone
Middle Miocene Chhasra Mainly Claystone with minor fossiliferous
limestone and siltstone and fine grained sandstone
Early Miocene Godhra Predominantly Chalky limestone with minor
Claystone and siltstone
Late Oligocene Narayan Limestone with Claystone/siltstone alternations
Sarovar
Early Oligocene Tuna Limestone with minor shale
Late Eocene to Middle Fulra Limestone with minor shale
Eocene
Early Eocene Jakhau Limestone, sandstone, siltstone, shale and minor
coal.
Paleocene Nakhtarana Shale with siltstone and limestone with minor
coal.
Late Cretaceous Deccan Trap Basalt and Weathered Basalt
Mesozoic
Late Cretaceous Mundra Sandstone, siltstone and Shale with intermittent
thin Marl
Early Cretaceous Bhuj Sandstone and Shale
Jurassic Jhuran Sandstone, siltstone and Shale. Presence of
Igneous Intrusive.
2.4 Data availability
4
Availability of logs: Basic open-hole logs consisting of Resistivity, Sonic, Gamma Ray and
Neutron-Density logs are available in all the wells under study. Advanced/ Hi-tech log data
available in the studied wells are tabulated below in Table-2.
Table-2
Logs Available Well 14 Well-12 Well-8
Resistivity Deep (LLD) ✔ ✔ ✔
Density (RHOB) ✔ ✔ ✔
Neutron (NPHI) ✔ ✔ ✔
Gamma ray (GR) ✔ ✔ ✔
Sonic(DT) ✔ ✔ ✔
Advanced Logs
CMR ✔ ✖ ✔
Litho-scanner ✔ ✔ ✔
MDT ✔ ✖ ✔
Core Samples ✖ ✖ ✖
3.0 Petrophysical Evaluation & Model Building:
The litho facies and reservoir facies in Mesozoic section in the studied three wells Well-8,
Well-12 & Well-14 of the Mundra/Naliya, Bhuj & Jhuran are having complex mineralogical
variations from shale, silt, heavy minerals, iron bearing minerals to volcanoclastic intrusives.
Reservoir layers vary from tight low porous sand layers to clean sand with moderate porosities.
Jhuran formation of Jurassic primarily consists of Sandstone with occasional occurrence of
Shale, Siltstone or Basaltic fragments. Synrift section majorly consists of Sandstone with
Shale/SiltyShale. There are occasional Igneous Intrusive bodies in Jhuran section and those are
non reservoir or consists minor gas shows. Bhuj formation primarily consists of Sandstone,
with occasional occurrence of Marls, Calicite & Shale/SiltyShale. Naliya/Mundra Formation
belongs to Late Cretaceous and consists of Sandstone and Shale/SiltyShale & few calcitic
layers with low porosity.
3.1 Formation Water Resistivity:
5
The Formation Water Resistivity has been corroborated by the salinity of water produced
during exploratory phase drilling. Formation Water Salinity for Mesozoic sediments are having
low salinity (30-35gpl) and are comparatively fresher as compared to tertiary. Thick trap layer
acts as barrier in between Tertiary & Mesozoic sediments. The salinity value of Mesozoic
suggests the influence of marine processes in the depositional area. These sands could be tidal
channels and the depositional area may have continuously undergone reworking by waves
which resulted in rounded and well sorted nature of grains and less argillaceous matter. It could
also be inferred that the sedimentation deposition energy is high. The salinity values are in
brackish range, thus indicating a mixing of marine and fluvial waters and transitional deposition
environment.
3.2 Lithology and Mineralogy studies: Clay typing; Mineral identification using cross plot
analysis & core reports:
Mineralogical model is based on various cross plots of wells which has been used for
processing of Mundra/Naliya, Bhuj and Jhuran formations. Quartz, Silt, feldspar (High gamma
ray in sand), Special Mineral (SM-1) High gamma & High density, Heavy/iron bearing
minerals –Low gamma & High density: (High density ferruginous mineral), calcite and clay
minerals Clay1 & Clay2 are used for compensating High density and porosity minerals. The
established model has been propagated in all the three wells for petrophysical evaluation in the
study area and validated from Lithological cross plot DT vs GR for clay mineralogy
identification in Mesozoic section suggesting mixed clay.
6
Elemental Capture Spectroscopy (ECS) log and Litho scanner logs are available in wells taken
for study. Mineral outputs from processed volumes of Geochemical logs are incorporated in
order to substantiate the mineralogy. Efforts have been made to retain the default values for the
various parameters associated with different minerals and fluids, to evaluate realistic model.
Formation Water Resistivity has been corroborated by the salinity of water from testing data.
Formation Water Salinity used for analysis and evaluation was equivalent to 30- 35 gpl as NaCl.
3.2 Model selection
The model selection for petro-physical evaluation of log data is based on the inferences from
log responses, cutting information, various cross-plots from conventional logs and the
laboratory study on sidewall & conventional cores. Working model has been framed up by
integrating all the information with Quartz, Calcite and special mineral SM1 as matrix minerals
and Clay1 & Clay2 as clay minerals for Mundra, Bhuj & Jhuran formations. Gas (Well-8, Well-
12 & Well-14) and water have been taken as fluids in the model.
7
3.3 RPM model used for Mesozoic formation:
The “Xu and White” clay-sand mixture model is a physical model for velocities in shaly-sand
rocks developed from the Kuster-Tokscjz (1974), DEM (Bruner 1976; Cheng and Toksciz
1979) and Gassmann (1951) theories. The inputs required by the model comprise the densities
and elastic moduli of the sand grains, clay particles and the pore fluid, the porosity and clay
content of the rock frame, and two aspect ratios, one (as) for pores associated with sand grains
and one (ac) for pores associated with clay minerals (including bound water). Shale volume
replaces clay content in well-log applications. Details of how these parameters are determined
are included with the discussion of practical examples but, apart from the aspect ratios, they
come from tabulated values and log or laboratory measurements. The aspect ratios cannot be
measured directly and their estimation relies on a best fit to 1og or laboratory observations.
The inputs used for rock-physics modelling were total porosity, volume of clays which are
WCS1 and WCS2 for Mundra, Bhuj & Jhuran formations , water saturation, volume of quartz
along with SM1 (K-feldspar/Mica/glauconite) and volume of calcite obtained from petro
physical evaluation. Bulk and shear modulus of matrix minerals (which are Quartz along with
SM1 and calcite) and clay minerals have been defined. Aspect ratio is also a crucial parameter
in RPM. In our model, shale aspect ratio has been taken in the range of 0.05-0.1 & grain aspect
ratio in the range of 0.10-0.14.
The developed rock physics model is successfully applied to 3 wells and compressional and
Shear velocity along with density has been predicted for Mundra, Jhuran & Bhuj formations.
3.4 Methodology: In the present analysis an approach was adopted to establish an improved
petro-physical model for Mesozoic formation and bring out hydrocarbon bearing zones during
evaluation followed by Rock Physics Modelling (RPM) for the generation and reconstruction of
elastic logs in Mesozoic section of three wells located in Kutch offshore area.
8
Figure.5: Workflow adopted for Rock Physics Modelling for Mesozoic section
The Mesozoic formation is highly heterogeneous in nature in terms of lithology as per the core
data analysis, cuttings information and lab studies. The simultaneous presence of minor calcite,
mica, feldspar, silt, glauconite along with heavy minerals like siderite and pyrite makes it
difficult for petrophysical processing and proper RPM. Unified petrophysical model was built
based on the inferences from log responses, cutting information, extensive cross-plots and
petrographic studies with dominant minerals
The bulk density, compressional and shear velocities estimated from the developed RPM model
showed a good match with the corresponding recorded logs in almost all the wells, except in
bad borehole sections. Rock physics analysis suggests wide scale overlapping of P-imp for
reservoirs/non-reservoirs. However, in the Vp/Vs ratios, a refined modelled data separates
hydrocarbon/reservoir sands in the low Vp/Vs zone (≤ 2.6), even though there is some
overlapping of hydrocarbon / reservoir sands with non-reservoir and shale (which separated out
for higher values of VP/Vs). The range of acoustic impedance and VpVs ratio for shales is 5-12
MPa.s/m and 2.6-1.2 respectively. Similarly for gas bearing layers, PIMP is in the range of 6.5-
8.5 MPa.s/m while VpVs ratio is about 1.5 – 1.96.
9
3.5 Discussion & Results:
1) Well-14
In WELL-14, where recorded shear data is available was taken as key well for development of
rock physics model in studied area. After integrating petrophysical model and rock physics
model, the effect of lithology and fluids are improved in modelled data as compared to recorded
data as shown in the crossplot of Vp/Vs vs. AI (Fig: 6). The RPM results were calibrated against
clean water bearing sands as well as in the shales by comparison of recorded logs and modelled
outputs. The crossplot of the Vp/Vs against acoustic impedance is clearly discriminating fluids
and lithology shown in Fig. 13b. In this plot VP/Vs ratio is high for shale as compared to sand
and Vp/Vs ratio is lower for hydrocarbon than brine because P-wave velocity is more sensitive to
fluid changes than the S -wave velocity. Different Lithologies, e.g. shale, sand and calcite and
different fluids viz. hydrocarbon, water depict good separation of properties in modelled P-
impedance versus Vp/Vs domain, segregated into different clusters. Figure: 12 shows a good
match between modelled and recorded VpVs vs AI, in the model well WELL-14.
Fig.6 Vp Vs vs AI modelled plot in for well WELL-14
10
2) Well-12
Fig.7 Vp Vs vs AI modelled plot in for well WELL-12
In Well-12, the crossplot of the Vp/Vs against acoustic impedance is clearly discriminating
fluids and lithology shown in Fig. 7. High density pyritic shale is decipherable from
conventional shale layer, reservoir fluid are also depicting good separation of properties in
modelled P-impedance versus Vp/Vs domain, segregated into different clusters.
3) Well-8
In Well-8, reservoir fluids are interpreted to be oil bearing as identified from MDT fluid
analyzer at X246m depth. The sand layer is having presence of oil which are clustered as
separate trend in the VpVS vs Acoustic Impedance plot. Lithological (sand & shale) and fluid
segregation (oil & water) are plotted as clusters having good match with the modelled data.
11
Figure: 9 shows a good match between
modelled and recorded RHOB in well
WELL-14, 12 and 8 with a regression
coefficient of 78%.
The RPM model was validated by propagating the model to other wells viz. WELL-14, WELL-
12 and WELL-8 with recorded shear data, in the study area. The propagated model results in
these wells showed a good match between predicted and recorded compressional slowness, shear
slowness and bulk density logs within the clean water bearing intervals. Predicted P-sonic and S-
sonic data is also improved in quality as compared to recorded data.
Figure: 10 shows a good match between
modelled and recorded Vp in wells WELL-14,
12 and 8 with a regression coefficient of 75%.
12
4.0 Results and Conclusions:
An integrated study was carried out involving petro-physical and rock physics modelling
of Mundra, Bhuj & Jhuran formations (Mesozoic section) in Kutch offshore Basin. The
wells consists many different sand layers with varying lateral extension and some of them
are developed with argillaceous characteristics having very high density > 3.5 gm/cc &
high resistivity ranging 100-2000 ohm-m in Jhuran formation.
Tight reservoirs are usually characterized by complex pore structure and fluid
distribution. Based on a series of assumptions, these reservoirs are simplified for RPM to
a partially connected porous medium. The theoretical trends fit well with data points,
which means this model is suitable for describing the elastic behavior of tight reservoirs
Depositional environment, pore geometry & overburden of rocks pose limitation to the
modelled elastic parameters and a match to an extent of 80-85% which was observed
between measured and modelled data for Vp, RHOB & DTCO in the present case can be
taken as the representative RPM Model.
Rock physics helps to link reservoir properties to the seismic data and infer the variation
of reservoir properties in a lateral or vertical sense. The complex mineralogical
heterogeneous Mundra, Bhuj and Jhuran formation with multi-stack pay sands has been
successfully evaluated for petrophysical properties which in-turn validated with rock
physics modelling. RPM successfully predicts shear logs in wells, where it’s not
recorded, that facilitates generation of various seismic attributes.
5.0 Technical Contributions: RPM for Mesozoic formation is a novel approach in Kutch
offshore area, It is helpful to build significant synthetic seismic wavelets up scaling computed
elastic parameters from calibrated log data. Absence of core data poses limitation, validation of
13
these results in seismic processing with testing results of well data will provide impetus to
Hydrocarbon exploration in this area.
6.0 References:
1) Introduction to Seismic Petrophysics and Rock Physics Modelling, CGG.
2) R.G. Keys and S. Xu, 2002, An approximation for the Xu-White velocity model,
Geophysics, vol 67, 1406-1414.
3) S.J. Abe⁎, M.T. Olowokere, P.A. Enikanselu, Development of model for predicting
elastic parameters in ‘bright’ field, Niger Delta using rock physics analysis.
4) Well Completion Reports & Formation Evaluation Reports, Geo-lab and Petrophysical
Laboratory reports of WELL- & WELL wells.
5) Benefits of Integrating Rock Physics with Petrophysics, CGG.
6) Bhawanisingh G. Desai and Sanjib K. Biswas. \Postrift deltaic sedimentation in western
Kachchh Basin: Insights from ichnology and sedimentology". In: Palaeogeogra- phy,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 504 (2018), pp. 104 {124. issn: 0031-0182. doi: https :
/ / doi . org / 10 . 1016 / j . palaeo . 2018 . 05 . 013. url: http : / / www .
[Link]/science/article/pii/S0031018217309495.
7) Kutch Basin. [Link] Accessed: 15-03- 2019.
8) CEWELL Report Depositional Environment through integrated studies of image logs and
laboratory data for Mesozoic sediments in Kutch Offshore Authors Pothana Prasad &
Subash Kushwaha
9) References:
10) Avseth P, Mukerji T, Mavko G (2005) Quantitative seismic interpretation: applying rock
physics to reduce interpretation risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 359
11) Avseth P, Mukherji T, Mavko G (2006) Quantitative seismic interpretation. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
12) Balan KC, Banerjee B, Pati LN, Shilpkar KB, Pandey MN, Sinha MK, Zutshi PI (1997)
Quantitative genetic modeling of Upper Assam Shelf. In: Proceedings of second
international petroleum conference and exhibition, PETROTECH-97, New Delhi, vol 1,
pp 341–349
13) Bateman RM (1985) Open-hole log analysis and formation evaluation Schlumberger Inc.
In: Log interpretation principles. Schlumberger education services, Houston, USA
14) Batzle ML, Wang ZJ (1992) Seismic properties of pore fluids. Geophysics 57:1396–1408
15) Berryman JG (1980) Long-wavelength propagation in composite elastic media II
ellipsoidal inclusions. J Acoust Soc Am 68:1820–1831
16) Berryman JG (1999) Origin of Gassmann’s equations. Geophysics 64:1627–1629
17) Biot MA (1956) Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a fluid-saturated porous solid.
J Acoust Soc Am 28:168–191
18) Brie A, Pampuri F, Marsala AF, Meazza O (1995) Shear sonic interpretation in gas-
bearing sands. Soc Pet Explor (SPE) 30595:701–710
14
19) Chang HC, Kopaska-Merkel DC, Chen HC (2002) Identification of lithofacies using
Kohonen self organizing maps. Comput Geosci 28:223–229
20) Datta Gupta S, Chatterjee R, Farooqui MY (2012) Rock physics template (RPT) analysis
of well logs and seismic data for lithology and fluid classification in Cambay basin. Int J
Earth Sci 101(5):1407–1426
21) Dresser A (1981) Well logging and interpretation techniques. Dresser Industries Inc.,
Addison
22) Ellis DV (1987) Well logging for earth scientists. Elsevier, New York
23) Gassmann F (1951a) Elastic waves through a packing of spheres. Geophysics 16:673–685
24) Gassmann F (1951b) Elasticity of porous media. Uberdie elastizitatporosermedien,
Vierteljahrsschrift der NaturforschendenGesselschaft 96:1–23
25) Gaymard R, Poupon A (1968) Response of neutron and formation density logs in
hydrocarbon bearing formations. Log Anal 9(5):3–12
15
