FT Chadbourne UPDATED Xplots

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

maybe yes

Citation preview

  • FT_CHADBOURNE_3D

  • NomenclatureAI Ft/S*Gm/C3 Acoustic ImpedanceBRIT - Brittleness (Function of Youngs Modulus and PR) BVW V/VBulk Volume Water (PHIE * SWE)DIFFND V/V Difference NPHI and DPHIDLRMR GPA*Gm/C3Difference LambdaRHO MuRHODPHI V/VDensity PorosityDTC US/FCompressional Interval Travel TimeEI** Ft/S*Gm/C3Elastic Impedance at ** DegreesERHO GPA*Gm/C3Youngs Modulus * RHOB (Older slides used RHOYM instead of ERHO)LAMBDA GPAIncompressibility (Lame) LAMDA_RHO GPA*Gm/C3Incompressibility attributesMU GPARigidity (shear modulus)MURHO GPA*Gm/C3Rigidity attributesNPHIV/VNeutron PorosityPE* Barns/ElectronPhoto Electric EffectPHIE V/VEffective PorosityPHIT V/VTotal PorosityPR-Poissons RatioRATIOND -Ratio of NPHI to DPHI RHOB Gm/C3Bulk DensityRLM -Ratio of incompressibility to rigidity SI Ft/S*GmC3Shear ImpedanceSWE V/VEffective Water Saturation (Shaly-Sand model)SWT V/VTotal Water Saturation (Shaly-Sand model)U_MAA Barns/C3Apparent Matrix Volumetric Cross SectionVELC Ft/SCompressional velocityVELS Ft/SShear velocityVOL_** V/VVolumes of various minerals (from MultiMin models)VPVS -Ratio of VELC and VELSYOUNG_MOD6PsiDynamic Youngs Modulus

  • Lame Constants

  • Lame ConstantsLambda Mu Difference

    Lambda/MuPorous GasSandsWetSandsCarbonatesLMR analysisSandstone Line60-202.6.5Shales

  • REFERENCESPassey, Q.R., S. Creaney, J.B. Kulla, F.J. Moretti, and J.D. Stroud, 1990, A practical model for organic richness from porosity and resistivity logs: AAPG Bulletin, v. 74, p. 1777-1794.Krief, M., Garat, J., Stellingwerff, J. and Ventre, J., 1990, A petrophysical interpretation using the velocities of P and S waves (full-waveform sonic): The Log Analyst, 355-369.The Magic of Lam, Bill Goodway, SEG 2009 LectureRick Rickman, Mike Mullen, etal. A Practical Use of Shale Petrophysics for Stimulation Design Optimization: All Shale Plays Are Not Clones of the Barnett Shale: SPE 115258

  • Well Location

  • FCOLU_01_86

  • FCOLU_01_86: PR vs AI

  • FCOLU_01_86: Lambda_Rho vs Mu_Rho

  • FCOLU_01_86: DLRMR vs RLM

  • FCOLU_01_86: PR vs ERHO

  • FCOLU_08_27

  • FCOLU_08_27: PR vs AI

  • FCOLU_08_27: Lambda_Rho vs Mu_Rho

  • FCOLU_08_27: DLRMR vs RLM

  • FCOLU_08_27: PR vs ERHO

  • FCOLU_08_30

  • FCOLU_08_30: PR vs AI

  • FCOLU_08_30: Lambda_Rho vs Mu_Rho

  • FCOLU_08_30: DLRMR vs RLM

  • FCOLU_08_30: PR vs ERHO

  • FCOLU_08_31

  • FCOLU_08_31: PR vs AI

  • FCOLU_08_31: Lambda_Rho vs Mu_Rho

  • FCOLU_08_31: DLRMR vs RLM

  • FCOLU_08_31: PR vs ERHO

  • FCOLU_26_18

  • FCOLU_26_18: AI vs PR

  • FCOLU_26_18: Lambda_Rho vs Mu_Rho

  • FCOLU_26_18: DLRMR vs RLM

  • FCOLU_26_18: PR vs ERHO

  • FCOLU_51_32

  • FCOLU_51_32: PR vs AI

  • FCOLU_51_32: Lambda_Rho vs Mu_Rho

  • FCOLU_51_32: DLRMR vs RLM

  • FCOLU_51_32: PR vs ERHO

  • FCOLU_A_107

  • FCOLU_A_107: PR vs AI

  • FCOLU_A_107: Lambda_Rho vs Mu_Rho

  • FCOLU_A_107: DLRMR vs RLM

  • FCOLU_A_107: PR vs ERHO

  • FCOLU_A_110

  • FCOLU_A_110: PR vs AI

  • FCOLU_A_110: Lambda_Rho vs Mu_Rho

  • FCOLU_A_110: DLRMR vs RLM

  • FCOLU_A_110: PR vs ERHO

  • Theodore_1

  • Theodore_1: PR vs AI

  • Theodore_1: Lambda_Rho vs Mu_Rho

  • Theodore_1: DLRMR vs RLM

  • Theodore_1: PR vs ERHO

    Plot showing relationship between Mu RHO and Lambda Rho, oil sand would fall between gas and wet sands.Plot showing relationship between Lambda/Mu and Lambda Mu difference.