| 00:05 | Folks. Can you see the Thank you. It's a little |
|
| 00:17 | I failed to give you one. people over here were saying we need |
|
| 00:23 | circuit, right? Honest, that's they said. I won't lie to |
|
| 00:31 | . Can you see the screen? . Ok. Good. Ok. |
|
| 06:24 | . Ok. Folks turn them in if you don't mind, let's get |
|
| 06:27 | in the email. Folks got about minute left. Okey dokey. We |
|
| 08:09 | be in the email folks by Thank you. Anybody want to give |
|
| 08:28 | an answer. Ok. It's the factor. Yes. Go ahead. |
|
| 08:50 | the fluid factor. OK. That I'll say that's good answer. That's |
|
| 08:57 | . And it's a hydrocarbon indicator. also tends to highlight like good reservoir |
|
| 09:03 | and while minimizing the the effect of hydrocarbon zones that fall along the shale |
|
| 09:10 | , the mud rock line. Anybody breath? OK. We, |
|
| 09:37 | we'll show another significance of it in lecture today. Ok. A little |
|
| 09:43 | different. And that's not the thing want now. Ok. Hey, |
|
| 10:40 | any chance do you have to see screen? Ok. Ok. Uh |
|
| 11:06 | six is uh attributes and that depends they depend a lot on our previous |
|
| 11:19 | . Ok. No, we're not fri, I, I put in |
|
| 11:24 | , it's, it's like a There's more in the textbook than you |
|
| 11:29 | cover. Um, I actually cover and the regular course, but we |
|
| 11:38 | more time in the regular course than do here. Even though it's supposed |
|
| 11:43 | be equivalent. Ours, it doesn't work out. So we just finished |
|
| 11:48 | and we're working on 6.1 now. on 6.1. I am sorry. |
|
| 11:53 | , we've uh the uh the last and three. well, we did |
|
| 12:01 | was four, we closed four up uh we didn't do a couple and |
|
| 12:08 | and skip five on the six, is our main chapter. As far |
|
| 12:17 | reservoir characterization, we're gonna look at attributes. A vo do some case |
|
| 12:28 | , quantitative interpretation. Again, Avio , conduct a phys analysis using seismic |
|
| 12:39 | . And so that means we will determine the processing fluid saturation and mineral |
|
| 12:45 | some say just Shiel shoe indicating its of different minerals. And so we |
|
| 12:57 | seismic petro physic analysis, seismic pathology and forth attribute by Sheriff, its |
|
| 13:09 | derived from seismic time, amplitude frequency or attenuation from prestack or post stack |
|
| 13:18 | data. And if you look on computer, now, if you have |
|
| 13:28 | interpretation 3D workstation, it, it has hundreds of different attributes, you |
|
| 13:34 | probably derive and even more than since it gives you mathematical equations, |
|
| 13:41 | can use to take three or four and actually put them together in some |
|
| 13:47 | of your mathematical mind. Now, quantitative analysis, uh the first public |
|
| 13:58 | I saw on qualitative attributes was at 1973. It was the same direct |
|
| 14:08 | symposium. Miller Corals from Petty Ray presented numerous processing attributes to enhance hydrocarbon |
|
| 14:18 | in response to a question about the basis of all these attributes. Mili |
|
| 14:26 | , then blink and I he just , we don't know yet all the |
|
| 14:31 | basis, but remember Penny Ray did them. So it it might sound |
|
| 14:37 | of comical. But the thing is lot of times we find an attribute |
|
| 14:42 | we're interpreting data, we don't know what it really means. But by |
|
| 14:47 | , it seems to work and very and we kind of stick with |
|
| 14:51 | Hopefully that sometime one of our folks the research will bend a little direction |
|
| 14:58 | our way and give us a helping or suggestion. Today, quantitative interpretation |
|
| 15:06 | I involves transferring attributes such as Miller's Petro physicals properties, porosity, poor |
|
| 15:14 | saturation, lithology, et cetera by with local crosslots trend statistics and other |
|
| 15:21 | , remote control. So we're using control in order to do the calibration |
|
| 15:28 | get seismic into the uh same resolution the WLOS reflection coefficients are mainly qualitative |
|
| 15:42 | attributes. Mainly they are normally converted quantitative layer attributes by inversion. And |
|
| 15:51 | you introduce inversion, you also introduce control, such as you give it |
|
| 15:58 | low frequency trend analysis, you give an initial velocity density and shear wave |
|
| 16:04 | analysis. Now, as we're going see, we're gonna actually start giving |
|
| 16:11 | control to the boundary attributes to see they change. So let's look at |
|
| 16:16 | familiar attributes. This is from Alistair's book. I forget what edition this |
|
| 16:23 | . He has about six or seven of his 3d interpretation book and he |
|
| 16:28 | a plot, something like this seismic . As far as attributes are concerned |
|
| 16:34 | be broken into the time frequency amplitude attenuation could be pre stack or it |
|
| 16:41 | be post stack just as a little . I drew a window here where |
|
| 16:47 | have drew a diagram where you have horizon or inversion. If we take |
|
| 16:53 | window, we can take gross total such as total absolute energy, total |
|
| 16:59 | MS value or you can select averse and do the same thing or getting |
|
| 17:05 | trough differences or you can get a . How are these is what type |
|
| 17:10 | distribution the bell shaped on things such ratio poor positive to negative members or |
|
| 17:18 | can do horizon analysis. Just look the reflection amplitude composite relative impedes or |
|
| 17:25 | the A vo attributes you associate with horizon. Now on still, even |
|
| 17:31 | it's post deck you can do an basically for acoustic and bees all the |
|
| 17:37 | represent horizon. The one green I sits over here on the inversion. |
|
| 17:48 | you can see this is just with . When you go frequency and |
|
| 17:52 | you can do the same thing. had a GSH Geophysical Society of Houston |
|
| 18:02 | symposium and the young research geophysicist He was on his own and he |
|
| 18:09 | offering processing software. And one of things he was proud of was his |
|
| 18:15 | . And they got up there in of the audience and said my system |
|
| 18:19 | you to generate 840 different attributes. with that, you could hear a |
|
| 18:24 | moan from the audience and some guy God, I hope my boss isn't |
|
| 18:30 | to this and try them all fred of attributes to a petro phys property |
|
| 18:42 | based on local crosslots or other That's what we'll see today. Some |
|
| 18:49 | the early attributes were developed by J the name of Tory Tanner f Tanner |
|
| 18:55 | . And she and one of the that he was famous for was a |
|
| 19:01 | trace analysis where he gave us the such as reflection strength that he define |
|
| 19:15 | frequency and apparent polarity. And what have are three of the same section |
|
| 19:25 | gonna look at on the bottom, look for this event and that's a |
|
| 19:31 | shell deposits where this becomes a bright zone, instantaneous frequency, you can |
|
| 19:38 | a low frequency shadow underneath the zone interest. Oh by the way, |
|
| 19:44 | often is dying was associated with the convolution operator. In other words, |
|
| 19:51 | very little low frequency and the seismic . So the decon operator tries to |
|
| 19:58 | it up. And what you're looking is strength in the decon evolution |
|
| 20:02 | Right here. The instantaneous frequency, say it picked it up apparent polarity |
|
| 20:13 | , It shows to be negative They don't know whether it is |
|
| 20:17 | They don't know. Now these attributes we showed here were not directly related |
|
| 20:24 | petros properties. They were more of , this is what your anonymous should |
|
| 20:35 | structural interpretation. We've seen this and asking for a qualitative interpretation. |
|
| 20:42 | that's a big amplitude but we don't the composition yet. What's the Q |
|
| 20:49 | ? That's what we're after. Here's of the earlier earlier techniques that were |
|
| 20:56 | for quantum data, take a seismic , pick the cyan horizon and then |
|
| 21:05 | that, take a section, it's be your baseline for normalizing amplitude within |
|
| 21:15 | trace. And what does that What we're trying to do is quantified |
|
| 21:23 | amplitude here using what's called the amplitude the anomaly over the amplitude of the |
|
| 21:30 | . This is a over B this not intercept and slope that some folks |
|
| 21:37 | . So what's the amplitude of the of the background immediately? We have |
|
| 21:44 | . What's the amplitude of the In order to answer that since each |
|
| 21:49 | of these traces here process, you see like separately. We can be |
|
| 21:55 | and take that trace and find the MS value. Does anybody know what |
|
| 22:00 | MS value is one head shaking. is an R value? Summer |
|
| 22:13 | Yeah. Root me squirt. How you do that? Great. I |
|
| 22:24 | the so OK, so each sample this reg race, you can take |
|
| 22:33 | sample and square it, then add all together, divide by two and |
|
| 22:38 | take the square root or divide by number of samples. Excuse me, |
|
| 22:45 | by the number of samples and take square root. OK. Now here's |
|
| 22:49 | hard question is that a plus value you take the square or minus |
|
| 22:56 | Well, it can't be minus and military conversation. No, I, |
|
| 23:08 | always put a plus. Yeah. if I take a bunch of negative |
|
| 23:13 | , all negative square them by, the numbers we take the square |
|
| 23:19 | shouldn't they get a negative number? being a root? Mean square it |
|
| 23:31 | . We lost something, right? does it look? What I was |
|
| 23:35 | to ask? We lost the sign the amplitude is the root mean |
|
| 23:42 | We lost the and that's an important . You lose half something. So |
|
| 23:48 | keep that in mind. So I'll the root mean square of all |
|
| 23:56 | And that's gonna be my B for trace A, we just measure the |
|
| 24:02 | here and here is the major amplitude here divided shown by a, divided |
|
| 24:12 | B. So a little cartoon that made says that if you had |
|
| 24:18 | that value should have been four oil two. And if it turned out |
|
| 24:24 | be 1, 1/1, that, means that's just the background. So |
|
| 24:31 | , 1st method, so let's take look now how we're gonna do it |
|
| 24:37 | a bo we would like to get , what's called an Avio inversion, |
|
| 24:45 | seismic data. And that means eventually gonna need to know what the angle |
|
| 24:53 | and that angle can be cut, computed a couple different ways. One |
|
| 24:59 | just a straight ray theory that is down here, reflect off the |
|
| 25:05 | go back out, you know the velocity that'll give you the depth of |
|
| 25:11 | . And I know the separation between source and receiver that's gonna allow me |
|
| 25:15 | compute the angle theta that's one another way is to take into account |
|
| 25:24 | bending rays that you have on And when you do that, you |
|
| 25:31 | have something called the sign of this . And that requires several things. |
|
| 25:38 | interval velocity right here. You need know it, you need to know |
|
| 25:43 | R MS velocity all the way down the zone of interest and back |
|
| 25:48 | that's that X that's all set V gotcha T zero. That's the travel |
|
| 25:55 | down and back again, offset equals . And X always we have |
|
| 26:03 | Now that's gonna give you a more measurement of theta except for one thing |
|
| 26:12 | sensitive to a little bit of just a little bit. How sensitive |
|
| 26:25 | ever heard of the Dick's equation? Dick's equation says take the R MS |
|
| 26:46 | to this boundary right here, get R MS value to that boundary from |
|
| 26:55 | surface style. Knowing these 22 R values, I can get the interval |
|
| 27:03 | . So that's how I'm gonna get interval velocity. And let me just |
|
| 27:16 | , I'm gonna give you a stacking chart or you get a bull's |
|
| 27:23 | bull's eye. Now the bull's another bull's eye and you wanna get |
|
| 27:33 | , this is time going down You wanna find the interval velocity between |
|
| 27:39 | two horizons. So what you do you came in there and you build |
|
| 27:47 | box, OK? Now the interval , a good estimate is this, |
|
| 28:05 | the V interval right there. A estimate. Now, the equation that |
|
| 28:13 | can get to do this too. the reason I show this is you |
|
| 28:18 | appreciate something and that is what if missed this value right here? What |
|
| 28:26 | I dismissed it by a little it should be over here. Should |
|
| 28:32 | just over? Well, that means that I don't wanna get an interval |
|
| 28:46 | that's bigger than the previous yet done , that little distance, it was |
|
| 28:55 | a little bit. So a little in the R MS velocity can be |
|
| 29:02 | bigger in the interval velocity and the velocity is what's needed right here. |
|
| 29:12 | , although more accurate, it's highly to any error that you might have |
|
| 29:21 | it goes all over the spot. rather be inaccurate but stable and see |
|
| 29:29 | relative difference in the A vo Now are three equation Shui Smith and Gidlow |
|
| 29:41 | another call it conventional, these are different linear approximations that are being |
|
| 29:50 | And remember theta is the average value the incident and transmitted. And those |
|
| 29:58 | equations lead to this here are our inversion equations. Reflection coefficient equals normal |
|
| 30:08 | plus Pr and that's myself and Richard , that's one conversion. The other |
|
| 30:15 | is A which is nothing but N and B that's shy. And then |
|
| 30:21 | , the Smith and Gidlow N IP the co sign fit there and a |
|
| 30:29 | that's a Smith. So they all , even though we have one, |
|
| 30:40 | different parameters, we can get there's two independent parameters. So if you |
|
| 30:46 | N I and pr know that, you know any other value A B |
|
| 30:55 | et cetera, it's easy to compute is the same as N IP except |
|
| 31:04 | put the P wave velocity, put shear wave velocity there and that will |
|
| 31:09 | you. So let's do it. is Smith and Glow and Smith and |
|
| 31:20 | are the ones who developed the fluid and they needed NIS and their |
|
| 31:34 | Now I'm gonna take that equation and change it a little bit. Let's |
|
| 31:39 | rid of the cosine term here because looking at that equation, it reminds |
|
| 31:47 | a lot of a straight line If I plot this value is a |
|
| 31:58 | against this value right here, I'm taking this as meaning why. And |
|
| 32:11 | and that cosign bit that happens to my xi just transform it into an |
|
| 32:22 | equation. When I look at then I thought oh this is N |
|
| 32:29 | minus nis. That's what this is out to be because my equation is |
|
| 32:40 | coefficient N IP divided by person and a minus two nis. So how |
|
| 32:51 | it then see these magic dots, blue, I'm gonna come up to |
|
| 32:59 | one right here and I know what it is. If I know the |
|
| 33:07 | I can get the angle by the plot. So I know what two |
|
| 33:14 | squared sine squared is. I know just by knowing the offset and the |
|
| 33:17 | and the velocity I take the amplitude get right in here and then divide |
|
| 33:24 | by a multiply by cosine squared. then I can plot the value I |
|
| 33:32 | the next point and I can plot value pretty soon after 14 points, |
|
| 33:39 | can draw a straight line and the is this value here and your intercept |
|
| 33:45 | N IP. So knowing N IP I come over here and I put |
|
| 33:52 | point right there. That was the IP and that was the N I |
|
| 33:57 | just computed. Then I come down I said now go down to the |
|
| 34:01 | sample down here and gave me another IP and NIS define after going through |
|
| 34:09 | whole record came in here, take crayon and draw the N IP and |
|
| 34:16 | NIS curve. So very simple straight equation in order to get NIB in |
|
| 34:30 | . So the intercept right over here turned out to be N IP and |
|
| 34:35 | slope trace is the minus NIS. . Let's take a look at |
|
| 34:56 | Geoscientists are too honest, you know , yeah, it took us 30 |
|
| 35:07 | to learn how to steal off of physis. This is a classic paper |
|
| 35:15 | by a George Pickett Dick Pickett and published it and it's basically P wave |
|
| 35:25 | versus shear wave velocity. And he out it's delta T compression, delta |
|
| 35:33 | sheer. Same thing. He points when you do this dolemite separates from |
|
| 35:43 | , separates from salt, separate from sandstones. And what sandstones all of |
|
| 35:57 | sudden I have separation of pathology in of pore fluid. This from that |
|
| 36:09 | all on the same crossbow something we start doing until the late eighties, |
|
| 36:17 | eighties. Nineties, good 20 years they, they started it. So |
|
| 36:23 | are the possible attributes we could cross ? Now, I know we showed |
|
| 36:29 | and hundreds but we're gonna try some properties and penances and reflectivity. Now |
|
| 36:38 | rock properties that's velocity density impedances that be acoustic impedance sheer imps even something |
|
| 36:52 | a gradient in peds or there could reflectivity, normal incidence, poison |
|
| 37:01 | A B rock properties, rock properties layer properties, reflectivity or binary |
|
| 37:18 | Let's take a lot of the data we have literature. Uh Good, |
|
| 37:26 | majority of that is from day. on from U of a rock property |
|
| 37:34 | , Tony Bji Landy, I for don't know yet. But all this |
|
| 37:41 | , all the processes that they all in a straight line. It shows |
|
| 37:49 | increasing clay or pro or pore pressure go in the same direction. |
|
| 37:56 | this must be solved looks like you know, normally there, then |
|
| 38:04 | do it again. And this time than water, let's put gas in |
|
| 38:11 | see what happens. All of a you have this value here, water |
|
| 38:19 | goes to that one over there. it is gas saturated, you have |
|
| 38:25 | difference that we could measure. Now difference becomes very obvious as you get |
|
| 38:34 | to low p wave velocities that goes there. When you get way up |
|
| 38:42 | , there is no difference. You up to 6000 m per 2nd. |
|
| 38:49 | . There's no difference between water, or gas. They're about the |
|
| 39:01 | So let's take a look at some them. We have P wave velocity |
|
| 39:17 | density. Can I tell the difference what r saturating gas poor fluid? |
|
| 39:29 | I tell the difference using P wave ? Well, let's come down here |
|
| 39:33 | class three. Here's the gas here's the P wave with velocity. |
|
| 39:42 | shale. Wow. Gas stands out itself. I think I can tell |
|
| 39:48 | difference between a 5000 and a 7000 per second difference by some type of |
|
| 39:58 | . But I think that'll show Ok. How about class one come |
|
| 40:04 | to class one and look at Both of these have about the same |
|
| 40:11 | wave velocity. So for this particular that I've built class one, this |
|
| 40:19 | not gonna give us except that one not separate the, the uh poor |
|
| 40:25 | content by using a P wave So it looked like TV velocity didn't |
|
| 40:32 | us anything there. Well, it somewhat friend because if you looked, |
|
| 40:41 | have a lithology discrimination P wave velocity a different velocity for shale than for |
|
| 40:51 | wet or gas charged sands. When in last one, knowing a little |
|
| 40:57 | of rock, it helps. the one that we have to stop |
|
| 41:03 | is the sheer way. And in sheer wave, I wanna say if |
|
| 41:09 | know the shear wave velocity or can use a shear wave velocity to tell |
|
| 41:14 | difference between class 32 and one wet gas and all these the inches. |
|
| 41:23 | , because the blue and the red about the same horizontal point shear wave |
|
| 41:32 | does not help us determine what the saturation is. Well, these properties |
|
| 41:46 | and velocity, they're kind of hard get out of seismic data. You |
|
| 41:51 | say, oh I'm gonna invert to not robustly or not. And that's |
|
| 41:57 | be tough. So what we do robust are things like acoustic and |
|
| 42:05 | shear and beads poisons ratio. So look at Poisson's ratio on all three |
|
| 42:13 | one through three. Do we get separation between water and gas saturation with |
|
| 42:25 | ratio? There's the wet and there's gas. And so that's a significant |
|
| 42:32 | right there. And yes, if extract voice songs rich, I think |
|
| 42:36 | could be good enough to notice. , a wet versus a gas. |
|
| 42:42 | down here on class one, it out that little separation that we have |
|
| 42:49 | is enough to probably discriminate what the ratio is. It is not the |
|
| 42:57 | but it's there. Now, I all of you had your eye centered |
|
| 43:03 | the lower right. This one right it says Lodi be Hodi. Look |
|
| 43:10 | this gas versus what it says. you do an inversion for the lambda |
|
| 43:27 | times of density lambda row, it's called, you're gonna be able to |
|
| 43:35 | these values, that value or that . So you go ahead, you |
|
| 43:40 | an inversion for Lambda road. So the numbers are, how to do |
|
| 43:47 | and remember what class are you If you're in a class one, |
|
| 43:52 | know what you're looking for, you know something, then you should be |
|
| 43:56 | to tell if it's wet or But even to class two, the |
|
| 44:02 | distance between the wet and the gas for all three of those. And |
|
| 44:11 | say not no. When you do with your data, you're not gonna |
|
| 44:27 | it plotted like I did here. take a look at this lower right |
|
| 44:34 | side. These are the three shell that I put in here. What |
|
| 44:40 | gonna see is you're gonna have shall around here. You're gonna have a |
|
| 44:46 | of nothing but shell values and then gonna see a cluster of what sand |
|
| 44:55 | the cluster of where the gas sans be. And now we're gonna plot |
|
| 45:10 | and it's going to be the normal and that happens to be on the |
|
| 45:16 | axis versus Poisson's reflectivity which is on Y axis in the middle. We |
|
| 45:26 | the mud line that John calls This is shall upon, shall we |
|
| 45:33 | have the wet sand reflection. If class one, this is where you |
|
| 45:37 | oh but you got oh you got down here too. So a reflection |
|
| 45:44 | of shale on to a sand. that sand has gas in it, |
|
| 45:52 | it would be this. Why do got that value there? And |
|
| 45:58 | Oh, I see. So the of the bed going shill into a |
|
| 46:06 | sand is this one that's the Then shell sand going into the shell |
|
| 46:14 | . That's this value right here. you're gonna have two values one when |
|
| 46:22 | on the top and one where it's the bottom. Again, as you |
|
| 46:28 | see these really are in clusters, you have no shale because we're plotting |
|
| 46:37 | coefficients. There's about 203 100 wells into this northern West Cameron off of |
|
| 47:01 | at depths between 8 to 10,000 We measured three or 480 reflection coefficients |
|
| 47:12 | these reflection coefficient is are theoretical, from wet and they're from the gas |
|
| 47:18 | right there. The coincidence in the b easily separated, not hard, |
|
| 47:27 | at all. Now, p wave density. Oh These are layer |
|
| 47:36 | these are reflection coefficients. And then , Sheeran Pedes versus acoustic and bees |
|
| 47:45 | that the density attribute is not It doesn't tell us actually what, |
|
| 47:58 | we have. It could be a shell or gas sand. But over |
|
| 48:05 | , if I gave you these one these values right there, if I |
|
| 48:10 | you the intercept slope in normal you know, that's a gas in |
|
| 48:15 | . If I gave you the P in the density. You'd still be |
|
| 48:21 | . Interesting. You can put the , the density and it doesn't seem |
|
| 48:26 | be enough acoustic and pains of gas . What sense and chill now, |
|
| 48:39 | not separated by either one. But gonna do a rotation on that and |
|
| 48:44 | that into a method where you can one attribute to define which one of |
|
| 48:50 | three it is here. I have give you two values. I gotta |
|
| 48:54 | you shearing pens and I gotta tell they were the Pia pens is in |
|
| 48:58 | to tell what mythology and poor But it's possible to do that with |
|
| 49:04 | one attribute, velocity density layer Remember the uh 3D imaging of the |
|
| 49:23 | that we did? Are you, you way back over there too? |
|
| 49:32 | ? Remember when you, we ask to volunteer thrust to image your brain |
|
| 49:41 | ? Do you remember that Carlos? said? Yes. You know, |
|
| 49:47 | actually tried it. Yeah, we . But you're a young guy. |
|
| 49:52 | put that helmet on you. We 300 receivers stuck to your head and |
|
| 50:02 | monitoring them man. Your ideas went . I mean they were freaking |
|
| 50:09 | You go way over there, bounce around your brain. We didn't know |
|
| 50:13 | you were doing. We said, , we gotta put Carlos asleep so |
|
| 50:19 | gotta put him in a deep Do you know how we put him |
|
| 50:24 | a deep sleep? 20 minutes after , folks. It's more than 20 |
|
| 50:33 | after lunch and you haven't gone into sleep. Let's just stand up and |
|
| 50:37 | our first break. Ok. Thanks for that. Helping the lab back |
|
| 50:47 | and, oh, Kelly, can hear me? Ok, thank |
|
| 51:08 | Let's go and, and do one thing here. Well, log versus |
|
| 51:14 | resolution and I think we saw a of this before. Uh this is |
|
| 51:21 | zone that we've seen before uh where had gas fizz and water saturation. |
|
| 51:34 | we made some a vo plots normal but the A VO plots, we |
|
| 51:42 | ahead and started to look at the attributes that we can get from |
|
| 51:47 | And let's take a look at the versus VP A I versus Si Landau |
|
| 51:58 | . Remember lambda is very much like bulk modulus me of course, is |
|
| 52:07 | rigidity. And on all these, can see the zone that's highlighted up |
|
| 52:17 | at the box is being cross parted yellow or the s what sense that |
|
| 52:24 | not being go entering into either the let me say it another way. |
|
| 52:32 | the gas sands, fluid substitute. get the blue, the yellow or |
|
| 52:37 | the other sands in their water The shell is the gray, all |
|
| 52:45 | them have nice separations of the gas the big bulk of everything else. |
|
| 52:55 | pointing out this is using the well 1 ft sampling and if we go |
|
| 53:04 | the well log at 1 ft to seismic response of using one millisecond, |
|
| 53:11 | would be a 500 Hertz down to seismic resolution of only 50 Hertz. |
|
| 53:17 | this is the ideal up here. if we had the really, really |
|
| 53:22 | resolution, we're able to get this you go from 1 ft to one |
|
| 53:30 | , that's probably a 10 to 1 for every 10 samples up in the |
|
| 53:35 | . I have one at a Then you take that time and |
|
| 53:40 | well, that was nice. It's 500 HZ. Let's see, 1/10 |
|
| 53:44 | that at 50 HZ. And you you've got this little bitty rtty right |
|
| 53:48 | that represents all this right here. this is the lack of resolution you |
|
| 53:55 | as you go from depth to the sampling rate to your seismic is gonna |
|
| 54:00 | sitting in there. And so you say, well, there's one right |
|
| 54:08 | . But yeah, that's, but has a lot of water samples right |
|
| 54:14 | it. OK. Case histories building Phys templates. If you have a |
|
| 54:35 | and it's separating a sand in the . She on top and the bottom |
|
| 54:48 | you reflect off the top of the and it's what that's the point you're |
|
| 54:53 | get for the post ons reflectivity and norm reson its value. If it's |
|
| 55:00 | charged off the top, you get value right here. You notice the |
|
| 55:07 | incidents goes from a positive to the . Now, when you reflect off |
|
| 55:13 | bottom, do, do just draw right through the center. It's the |
|
| 55:19 | . So both of these properties are in that it, it's plus one |
|
| 55:26 | , it will be minus the Now, we won't get this because |
|
| 55:35 | I Fred Hilsman can get this because can send a spike into the |
|
| 55:43 | It'll spike refi off of the, spike off of the boundary and get |
|
| 55:48 | to the surface of the spike. being common folks have to put up |
|
| 55:55 | a wavelet that I just put on socks. Let me tell you. |
|
| 55:59 | so you don't get that ee exciting point out there that I can |
|
| 56:06 | you get all these and you're gonna to be careful always to pick the |
|
| 56:12 | and the piece. But when you toward the middle here, user beware |
|
| 56:19 | crisscrosses. So you can't use this . You have to look at the |
|
| 56:25 | . No, let's see what this . I gave you an equation reflection |
|
| 56:42 | equal A plus B sign squared slightly than the one that I gave |
|
| 56:48 | The one I gave you was pr pr reflection coefficient functions, the is |
|
| 56:59 | incidence cosine squared plus 2.25 delta poisons seri. So Poisson's reflectivity, there's |
|
| 57:12 | of porcelain's ratio. That equation I you has rock properties in it. |
|
| 57:19 | normal incidence is acoustic impedance. The is Poisson's ratio. Let's look at |
|
| 57:27 | equation A plus B sine squared. look what B is B is. |
|
| 57:36 | , not so simple as the difference pois 2.25 the difference in Poisson's |
|
| 57:42 | That's why I like the Poisson's It has the rock properties buried right |
|
| 57:48 | there, right close to the front . So most folks though use |
|
| 57:54 | let's take a look at this right and see how it works. If |
|
| 58:02 | gave you an example of shale over , you would know what the upper |
|
| 58:13 | lower properties are. So you could a right here. All these and |
|
| 58:20 | is B and this is a curvature , see which is a higher |
|
| 58:27 | which is going to be ignored. , I have 380 wells up here |
|
| 58:35 | it's West Cameron Northern and we break down to 200 ft intervals. So |
|
| 58:42 | 16,000 intervals, then I look at depths of, of interest 9000 to |
|
| 58:51 | ft. And I ask, what a wet sand reflection look like versus |
|
| 58:56 | gas sand? And this is what gives you good separation. So here's |
|
| 59:08 | model I have shall and green. the same shall on both sides, |
|
| 59:16 | and bottom. I gave you the sand and the gas in with all |
|
| 59:25 | you can make a model, you actually get this model here. And |
|
| 59:30 | is the zero degree at each end , zero degree. And with the |
|
| 59:37 | there, it allows me to compute parameters here to find B and that |
|
| 59:46 | associated with this one point right in middle. And I'm going from zero |
|
| 59:54 | to 40 degrees. That's the reflection of the what's, and this is |
|
| 60:01 | reflection of the gas in. I, once I computed these A |
|
| 60:09 | A B I can come up here A as normal incident B is the |
|
| 60:15 | and the gas sand in what sand this point right here? And this |
|
| 60:22 | and B which is right there. that point right there. Now, |
|
| 60:29 | about the rest of the values? look at the Avio response for a |
|
| 60:37 | thick wet S and here it's a thick gas san reflection off of the |
|
| 60:44 | reflection off the top. Let's go and look at the reflection of the |
|
| 60:52 | right here. Let's do that. I look at the area that has |
|
| 60:59 | gray rectangle and for the wet see the points right here, these |
|
| 61:08 | are cross plots of the A and B that we're gonna get there, |
|
| 61:14 | slope and innocent. Now, that's off the top. Notice that the |
|
| 61:22 | response is perpendicular to the wet But how about the base? This |
|
| 61:31 | only the top, how about the of the wet sand of the uh |
|
| 61:35 | ? OK. Let's put the basin now you have a symmetrical type of |
|
| 61:42 | here sitting in here and this is very thick sand. If I say |
|
| 61:54 | it a thin bed, make this thin, then I go from these |
|
| 62:01 | responses being separated. Now in a bed, they're gonna be right on |
|
| 62:05 | of one another. But still look the cross plot, the cross plot |
|
| 62:12 | this right here, which is the sand is what's shown right there. |
|
| 62:17 | look where the wet sand fold. the wet sand. And I cross |
|
| 62:22 | . If I get A and B each one of those, how do |
|
| 62:24 | get that slope intercept, plot the base of the slope of the |
|
| 62:31 | And these would be the points that get the A and B for each |
|
| 62:36 | signal. Each sample going across right . Each sample gives me a point |
|
| 62:41 | plot. It's A and the B that's if I had a 30 ft |
|
| 62:49 | , if the bed is 15 ft watch right around there, no, |
|
| 62:59 | where that red, the red dash . There's nothing there. Now, |
|
| 63:04 | something there. Oh, that's something the 15 ft bed. Look over |
|
| 63:12 | . That's with the 15 ft Take it away. That's with a |
|
| 63:15 | ft bed by itself. So we how the template reacts when you have |
|
| 63:20 | sands. It's still a bunch of . Here I go from 18% ferocity |
|
| 63:29 | 28 Now, we're gonna see how this cross plot indicate porosity? If |
|
| 63:39 | sand has 18% porosity here is where gas point would plot. Here's where |
|
| 63:47 | what sand point would plot if I ahead and he had 20% ferocity, |
|
| 63:55 | 30 22 24 2628 you'll notice as ferocity increases, my cross pot position |
|
| 64:07 | that ferocity line and this would be cluster of points indicating ferocity is increasing |
|
| 64:19 | that direction. Let's talk about compressibility is where the wet sand is going |
|
| 64:32 | the way from 18 to 28%. I go from a wet sand to |
|
| 64:37 | gas sand, look the, look the way these points move, they |
|
| 64:44 | like that. If I change what happens? Well, right |
|
| 64:55 | these are 30 ft apart in the and the bottom are 30 ft |
|
| 65:00 | But if I make the top and bottom only 15 ft apart, then |
|
| 65:06 | point right here would plot right This point would plot over there. |
|
| 65:13 | means your thickness arrow goes from here there for 15 ft and continue getting |
|
| 65:23 | and bigger arrow as your thickness Let's use it now, which Avio |
|
| 65:38 | is more sensitive for discriminating between thickness and water saturation. He drilled |
|
| 65:51 | dry hole. Why is it Well, it's low gas saturation, |
|
| 66:00 | only that small prosy and it wasn't thick. So you're not gonna be |
|
| 66:12 | disappointed you're gonna say, but we a lot of seismic data. What |
|
| 66:18 | the Avio look like? If we better gas got more thickness than |
|
| 66:27 | Where would, how would, how these change? You just drilled? |
|
| 66:32 | just drilled this point right there. we put our scent, you drilled |
|
| 66:40 | . How's it gonna change with thickness process change? So we go |
|
| 66:46 | we take a look. These are arrows that indicated it. If your |
|
| 66:55 | changes, if you ask, where I have to go? If you |
|
| 66:59 | a porosity increase? This point here have to move up to there. |
|
| 67:07 | what if you want a thickness then you follow the green arrow. |
|
| 67:12 | point would have to move over to . If you wanted a water |
|
| 67:18 | you wanted more gas. This point would have to follow the blue |
|
| 67:25 | So as it turns out, looking this, you can increase the |
|
| 67:33 | increase the gas saturation and you can't the difference because they're all gonna move |
|
| 67:43 | this vector line. It might But I can't say that's thickness or |
|
| 67:48 | that gas saturation has changed. So we look at this, the |
|
| 67:57 | we might be able to tell It says you have a good we |
|
| 68:04 | gas separation on this formation. He , but you have poor vector discrimination |
|
| 68:16 | you can't tell thickness from water Well, let's look at a class |
|
| 68:24 | . When we look at a class , when thickness changes, memory start |
|
| 68:29 | the origin and you draw a line your point like this. So if |
|
| 68:34 | get a thickness change this point we'll move over to there. If |
|
| 68:40 | get a pros change, this point up in this direction. And if |
|
| 68:46 | get a water saturation, it moves this direction. All of a sudden |
|
| 68:51 | got good that discrimination. if this your base point, that's the base |
|
| 68:58 | and you're at a will and well, you are at will. |
|
| 69:03 | gonna ask, what will the seismic like? This helps you tell what |
|
| 69:07 | gonna look like where the points would . So you got good wet and |
|
| 69:13 | separation and you got a good Now the other one is the class |
|
| 69:21 | and then the class one, you kind of poor separation between the wet |
|
| 69:28 | the gas. Those points are awful together your vector separation. It's |
|
| 69:36 | It's not bad. Problem is you tell the difference between ferocity and thickness |
|
| 69:43 | of the longest, same vector right but not bad except he don't have |
|
| 69:53 | separation. They don't move far, move in the right direction but not |
|
| 69:59 | . So that's your winner. Class is the one that's gonna give you |
|
| 70:05 | best sensitivity for doing a phhysical Put it all together, there's an |
|
| 70:16 | that I gave you by foster that very good giving you a description of |
|
| 70:22 | petro physicals templates and it shows what gonna examples would be so all on |
|
| 70:30 | . We showed you the one where you have a change from what the |
|
| 70:38 | , it's called poor fluid compressibility, move outwards in this direction. If |
|
| 70:44 | have a change in good porosity, going in this direction. If you |
|
| 70:53 | volume of shall change. I asked Foster when we first looked at the |
|
| 71:00 | , if he could put that volume shell in there. Yeah, he |
|
| 71:03 | , I like that. So he , I'm starting here with the clean |
|
| 71:09 | . And as I add clay, first thing it's gonna do is go |
|
| 71:15 | the pore space and that's gonna increase stiffness of the rock and then it's |
|
| 71:21 | start to get in the grains and gonna make it go down and look |
|
| 71:27 | a true shield now. So that a attribute, a petro physicals |
|
| 71:44 | So building it, we'll show you some real data. We're gonna do |
|
| 71:49 | here. Here's what's necessary to do . You do a petro physic analysis |
|
| 71:54 | the world data at well lo resolution that, you go ahead, you |
|
| 72:04 | the process mineralogy and water saturation, invert well, log inversion, you |
|
| 72:10 | that. You get what the grain and density are for each mineral. |
|
| 72:17 | the sheer mars? What's the P Marinus in a density? You then |
|
| 72:25 | the well log curves based on this phys analysis and these rock properties and |
|
| 72:36 | mathematical model, you then vary the volume of sand, water saturation, |
|
| 72:45 | get new N IP and I it velocity for P sheer and density, |
|
| 72:53 | , new, new Avio synthetics, now make a phys template, a |
|
| 73:00 | plot. Typically you're gonna make Avio for about 1615, 16,000 A V |
|
| 73:11 | , but it's, it's quick and all based on one. So you're |
|
| 73:18 | end up with something like this. B your slope, a normal |
|
| 73:24 | Here's gonna be a cluster of where , what points are your oil, |
|
| 73:31 | gas from 10% to 30% ferocity. you have other minerals, it'll be |
|
| 73:37 | the cross plop. So here's, an example at the start of the |
|
| 73:48 | , we have a will and we a petro physicals analysis vo a sh |
|
| 73:55 | water saturation. We got the log PS and row, we put this |
|
| 74:00 | here and we're going to use CREE and, and I gave you a |
|
| 74:08 | and that tells you how to compute P wave velocity if you have the |
|
| 74:17 | and the density green properties and the that's actually don here. But then |
|
| 74:23 | Gasman Equation void roost mass balance type equations that allow us to go ahead |
|
| 74:34 | reconstruct the log. And you can here, it doesn't do a bad |
|
| 74:39 | . The black or the measured and red are the reconstructed density VP. |
|
| 74:45 | vs and here is the mineralogy, simultaneous inversion is done which we will |
|
| 75:00 | we have the, this uh uh wave inversion, the sheer wave inversion |
|
| 75:11 | the density for the whole seismic Then we go ahead and get the |
|
| 75:19 | of sand and the porosity from those properties. PPSN density. OK. |
|
| 75:33 | , well, we don't start we take a look at this area |
|
| 75:38 | build a gradient in the normal wi . And we get one where the |
|
| 75:44 | one right here tells us this is shale, this is where sand would |
|
| 75:49 | . This will tell you where the falls for 16%. So we're the |
|
| 75:54 | spot. You want sand, sweet up here. I pros hy prosody |
|
| 76:02 | sin. Here's the most likely gas you use it as an attribute, |
|
| 76:11 | can search your data and this is it pulls on the by making all |
|
| 76:17 | attributes you're able to, to pull out as a GEO body uh from |
|
| 76:23 | 3d volume. Here is the another little channel sitting right in there and |
|
| 76:34 | GEO body also of another channel send all these sort of automatic and you |
|
| 76:42 | get the percentage of how accurate they . OK? Let's put a little |
|
| 76:54 | more interpretation in it. And this one most folks probably love and haven't |
|
| 77:05 | this is done with Poisson's reflectivity and incidence. So this is plus poisons |
|
| 77:14 | minus normal incidence. If you look this, this says dim spots. |
|
| 77:21 | class one. Anything that falls down is class one. This is the |
|
| 77:27 | of the bed. This is the of the bed reflecting off, sitting |
|
| 77:33 | beneath that is your class two, call it some that's reflection off the |
|
| 77:40 | . This is a reflection of the in class three fall right in here |
|
| 77:48 | class three. No. Before we to shell over shell, you have |
|
| 77:56 | go through a wet sand. All were gas charged and this was |
|
| 78:03 | That's the wet sand here. And were all gas charged. Then they |
|
| 78:08 | to a very scratch of sand and the over on the left hand side |
|
| 78:13 | the application. What is done? size may trace was brought in and |
|
| 78:20 | seismic trace you you got a attribute pr with the whole trace and he |
|
| 78:31 | the attribute of N I for the trace. Now each one of these |
|
| 78:38 | can take apr value, I could an N I value and I can |
|
| 78:43 | that where it fall. Oh right . So wherever this time was right |
|
| 78:49 | , it gave me an indication it be brown. So I come over |
|
| 78:54 | and says, oh, this is that sample was taken from right |
|
| 78:57 | That's why what's indicated brown on that . So red over blue means that |
|
| 79:09 | inverted traces for each one of they fell somewhere in this plot right |
|
| 79:16 | . That was the top. Then base is sitting over here. So |
|
| 79:21 | is the typical class two a vo the top and the base. |
|
| 79:27 | meanwhile, up here, we look that and it's a yellow by |
|
| 79:33 | That means that's a wet sand most that is a wet sand. Uh |
|
| 79:40 | interval down over here, we look we have a blue over a red |
|
| 79:50 | a blue over a red is gonna a heart streak, something like |
|
| 79:59 | So that's what that indicates. you have a method of going ahead |
|
| 80:04 | putting it into pathology and the poor both into one, a single |
|
| 80:12 | Now what has to be done too this has a scale and there's a |
|
| 80:20 | of a bell shaped curve here. bell shaped curve here and what happens |
|
| 80:29 | this is normal. This is this poison's reflectivity going in that direction. |
|
| 80:36 | this point right here that happens to two sigma two standard deviations. So |
|
| 80:46 | this whole range in here, you out what's the standard deviation of all |
|
| 80:52 | poison's reflectivity. And you make it that point of that bell shaped |
|
| 80:58 | So that bell shaped curve is derived this plot and you make it two |
|
| 81:05 | deviations. It's gonna be a Belgian an example. This is the well |
|
| 81:12 | was drilled just off of Hoover Hoover field is in Amenas Canyon. |
|
| 81:22 | the dry hole you in banks drilled . Nice wet spot gas on |
|
| 81:32 | I follow this time. Keep following . Keep following it. Now go |
|
| 81:38 | ft in that direction and I wanna the field that has oil in it |
|
| 81:45 | there. This is the 30 degree on the Hoover Field. This is |
|
| 81:56 | one that was just drilled sand with . This is the lots the field |
|
| 82:03 | had oil in it much higher amplitude but still red over blue. The |
|
| 82:14 | was this one's dry and this one gas. So let's go ahead and |
|
| 82:23 | the classification scheme of using a VO and using a VO we use the |
|
| 82:28 | chart. We don't, we don't the chart all we do. We |
|
| 82:34 | sure that when we look at the poisons reflectivity section right in there, |
|
| 82:42 | make a two standard deviations here, standard deviations right there as the value |
|
| 82:48 | the plot in between the same for this the bell shape on that |
|
| 82:54 | you get the normal incidence and make two times the standard deviation of the |
|
| 83:03 | . And likewise here, when we that, we see that the line |
|
| 83:10 | had the wet sand on it does have anything in their red or |
|
| 83:16 | orange or pink indicating hydrocarbons that is . Meanwhile, the oil sand, |
|
| 83:23 | was nice and, and showing a over blue, red, over blue |
|
| 83:31 | that's where the oil pay was. the Avio was a class two. |
|
| 83:39 | existed in deep water and you're able say this was a gas or oil |
|
| 83:48 | sand. And notice too, there's wiggle lines. The Avio color scheme |
|
| 83:59 | allows you to pick the horizons. is the Keller Cross Plot. This |
|
| 84:08 | um presented publicly for the first time Jim De Sienna. He worked at |
|
| 84:18 | DC to my managing director of Give it to a PG oh |
|
| 84:24 | We just got so excited. He's geophysicist. He got the best paper |
|
| 84:31 | the A APG convention out of you , 10, 12,000 people poor flow |
|
| 84:43 | , template estimated water saturation and poor type. Take a look at that |
|
| 84:53 | factor again and see what, what it's meaning is and how to |
|
| 84:57 | it. Now, we want to a borehole to seismic quantification. What |
|
| 85:06 | here? Yeah, the fluid factor a boundary attribute. You had the |
|
| 85:26 | for A P reflection for a sheer and peas is a layer attribute. |
|
| 85:36 | dere is another layer attribute. What gonna do is map gas and oil |
|
| 85:47 | in the depleting field. Using these seismic attributes, a boundary attribute. |
|
| 85:55 | the prestack time migrated data amplitude a attribute. In version you do an |
|
| 86:03 | impedes, that's a layer attribute looks a seismic trace. I I have |
|
| 86:09 | stupid question real quick. Uh Jason the last slide uh at the bottom |
|
| 86:17 | have PST M. You said that's migration. What do people use for |
|
| 86:21 | abbreviation for post that? Yeah. It's a good question. It's uh |
|
| 86:33 | OS T P OS TM or PR for pre, but that's great. |
|
| 86:42 | a great question because most people post is a, a fast application quick |
|
| 86:53 | dirty and it's only considered a dry to make sure nothing is tremendously |
|
| 87:03 | For instance, your jam J got confused and the priest stack, the |
|
| 87:13 | stack migration might catch that or other small problems uh problems with gain problems |
|
| 87:23 | the velocity analysis. Gotcha. It's, it's more of a quality |
|
| 87:30 | check now. OK? I need vote. Everybody got a vote. |
|
| 87:39 | that or take a course, I'll . OK? I thought you would |
|
| 87:43 | Andre attribute. This is a seismic . This is a layer attribute sitting |
|
| 87:52 | there. The question I have is one of those better quantifies the |
|
| 88:05 | No. Here you see two reflections and the positive, the acoustic |
|
| 88:16 | You get the wiggle line, the just put on to emphasize it. |
|
| 88:20 | look at the wiggle line. It you decrease acoustic and bes come |
|
| 88:26 | you increase it, you're flat. then you have a ramp and that's |
|
| 88:34 | of hard to come in here and who it's, it's a just by |
|
| 88:38 | acoustic competes is going down, it's up, then it's flat, then |
|
| 88:43 | ramps like that. So the finding lithology in correlating from trace to |
|
| 88:55 | this seems pretty good, doesn't And it's kind of makes it easy |
|
| 89:01 | would probably give it first place. , does anybody want to disagree with |
|
| 89:08 | stand forth and forever help? And was that going? The marriage |
|
| 89:15 | Anybody has something to, they don't these two folks to get married. |
|
| 89:23 | what happens if we changed some of ground rules which had to be better |
|
| 89:35 | quantify geological properties? Well, when started this, I kind of gave |
|
| 89:46 | a base line on what the acoustic peas or the should say the P |
|
| 89:54 | velocity was sitting in there. He it a guess. So what happens |
|
| 90:00 | the boundary attributed this? If they're the geology, what what would we |
|
| 90:07 | out of that? So let's go and do that and see which Abuna |
|
| 90:13 | better. That one was first OK. Seismic modeling. This is |
|
| 90:25 | to be for the fluid factor. have gas, oil water. When |
|
| 90:38 | get done with this, he say gonna drill. Now, the biggest |
|
| 90:47 | turns out to be from the wet a dip. It turns out that |
|
| 90:57 | are weaker, weaker amplitudes as I before, management does not like drilling |
|
| 91:10 | deeper attributes. Uh amplitude, bigger , especially down dip when they're looking |
|
| 91:19 | something up dip to be drilling So let's see. Gotta change management |
|
| 91:26 | here. So we go to Smith Glow and also far and we're gonna |
|
| 91:32 | N IP and NIS. We'll do for Avion version, the reflection |
|
| 91:40 | it's gonna be N IP divided by sine square minus two NISS square. |
|
| 91:46 | what we are trying to get out this, I want an N |
|
| 91:51 | I don't want a NIS. So each one of these positions, I |
|
| 91:59 | ahead and I generate a CDP gather from that CD P gather, I |
|
| 92:06 | to extract N IP and NIS. let's make a seismic section that gives |
|
| 92:16 | the N IP and NIS. And they are. How do we do |
|
| 92:23 | again? In order to get this , I had to have a CD |
|
| 92:28 | gather, maybe of 10 traces, them together, then it put it |
|
| 92:34 | to the inversion, Avio inversion and NIT and N I SI. What |
|
| 92:41 | I do with that? Well, Smith and Gidlow, they said go |
|
| 92:46 | dip, take that section and I you to identify a fluid factor and |
|
| 92:57 | fluid factor is N IP minus gamma . And I want you to get |
|
| 93:05 | gamma from field data so that when go ahead and let it be in |
|
| 93:16 | brine section down here, this fluid is gonna be zero. Now when |
|
| 93:25 | get into a gas saturated section here's gonna happen. Your N IP, |
|
| 93:32 | course, it's gonna be N IP saturated. But the interesting thing is |
|
| 93:38 | NIS NIS doesn't depend too much on in the PO floor. So this |
|
| 93:49 | when I multiply it by gamma, going to be N IP. Remember |
|
| 94:18 | went and found the gamma so that IP minus gamma, NIS is equal |
|
| 94:28 | zero where you're in a brain. gamma is 1.8 is a value. |
|
| 94:36 | got that from these two sections. now we go ahead and we apply |
|
| 94:47 | IP minus gamma which was 0.56 And there's the stack and now here's |
|
| 94:53 | fluid factor. Notice the only events get are those that have some type |
|
| 95:01 | hydrocarbon in them. That's the flow anything that's water saturated disappeared. Leaving |
|
| 95:11 | . No, we're not happy yet they want us to say where, |
|
| 95:17 | the gas and where's the oil? was the original objective of this |
|
| 95:25 | So we got to calibrate the fluid to discriminate water from gas and oil |
|
| 95:33 | gonna get a bonus. We're gonna how to discriminate fizz from full economic |
|
| 95:39 | saturated with with this. Now we to make this. So any interpreters |
|
| 95:47 | have a 3D workstation can apply this having to buy any software. Make |
|
| 95:53 | simple. Here's a database of about wells. All these wells has been |
|
| 96:04 | . All this was have a special of sampling and that I'm gonna take |
|
| 96:17 | wells and take this box and vi , I'm gonna break into 200 ft |
|
| 96:25 | . 0 to 202 104 104 106 forth. And in that interval, |
|
| 96:32 | wanna find out where are the clean ? Where are the Shelly sands? |
|
| 96:38 | shale? What's the percentage of clean , Shelly sand? What's the percentage |
|
| 96:44 | shale? What's the resistivity? What's resistivity of clean? All these are |
|
| 96:49 | that? 12 or four? Now me what is the reflection coefficient when |
|
| 96:55 | water wet? What's the reflection coefficient it's gas? What's reflection coefficient when |
|
| 97:00 | oil still? All part? But , the key of this is in |
|
| 97:06 | 200 ft interval, I'm taking the properties minus the sand to compute my |
|
| 97:15 | coefficient. I'm not losing a So with that, here's 100 and |
|
| 97:24 | wells in that interval, we have kinds of statistics in each 200 ft |
|
| 97:34 | , we then have a depth range 9500 to 11 5 in that |
|
| 97:39 | I'll have 200 I have 183 200 intervals. And you consider that as |
|
| 97:48 | sampling one samples, here's a plot the sand versus the shale density. |
|
| 97:59 | you see any overlap in those trends 0 to 14,000 ft? Any |
|
| 98:07 | Yeah. So question there is your within that interval, right? |
|
| 98:22 | I wanna know how much of that sand denser than chill. How many |
|
| 98:32 | these red dots that we have are than shell if you look at this |
|
| 98:40 | plot? Oh OK. Here, I ask it for Don deep during |
|
| 98:45 | interval where the shale and sand histograms it any insight. So if I |
|
| 98:53 | a histogram of density for this interval here, I'm going to have an |
|
| 99:03 | and that's 33 samples were sand is be faster than the shell, right |
|
| 99:14 | . And so that's about 18%. now we're gonna look at the, |
|
| 99:20 | gonna look at the samples differently. is, I think you'll notice this |
|
| 99:25 | is a little bit different on the axis. It says what sand density |
|
| 99:35 | the vertical axis. It says what's density shall and what's sand density? |
|
| 99:47 | , this point right here is a value and this point right here as |
|
| 99:56 | sand value, if we come over on this side, that's the shield |
|
| 100:03 | and that's the sand density scale and density all done on one axis. |
|
| 100:13 | notice that the horizontal axis says the sand density. Oh so it's this |
|
| 100:21 | here brings you down to here. other words, when we get |
|
| 100:27 | these are all gonna have the same sand densities in this column sitting in |
|
| 100:34 | . And that's why you get a line when I look at this. |
|
| 100:42 | it's a different interpretation. Anything above blue line, a shell denser than |
|
| 100:52 | , there's only two samples where sand denser than shale. And so these |
|
| 101:01 | coupled reservoir properties. I'm taking the in the two info interval. When |
|
| 101:10 | plot this shell value right here, came from the same 200 ft |
|
| 101:16 | Is that sand density? Why take average over there when I got it |
|
| 101:21 | where the well is, that's where reflection is gonna occur. So you |
|
| 101:26 | a much lower scramble of data when use couple reservoir properties. And we're |
|
| 101:36 | use that concept again, let's compute normal incidence, sweat gas and |
|
| 101:47 | And in doing so we're gonna use same 183 blocks. This blue line |
|
| 101:55 | here is the normal incidence wet 105 the equivalent oil and gas charge are |
|
| 102:10 | behind it and it's on the 0.05 line. It's the normal instance. |
|
| 102:21 | ? So it, it shows it's same interval we done. Now looking |
|
| 102:25 | this, we have three best estimated . The normal incidence oil. Here's |
|
| 102:34 | equation high correlation 0.94. Here's the . Now, I'd like you to |
|
| 102:44 | me to do something a little. just some tricky algebra. I'm gonna |
|
| 102:49 | this value right here and move it the other side. OK. That's |
|
| 102:55 | equation. Take this value right here move it to the other side and |
|
| 103:01 | this equation. Now, the tricky I'm gonna pretend that value is just |
|
| 103:09 | , just one. Hm. So don't need the one out here. |
|
| 103:13 | just one oil minus normal incidence. gas ma normal incidence. What oil |
|
| 103:31 | no incidence wet its sad vector right but no one since hy hydro carb |
|
| 103:42 | no one. Since what is the factor? You have a quantity that |
|
| 103:52 | that you can look for in your data. This is the value if |
|
| 103:59 | happen to have oil and your data . Now let's take another look at |
|
| 104:08 | notice. All these red values that's wide range from zero to minus 0.2 |
|
| 104:17 | coefficient of gas oil the same So they vary significantly each value but |
|
| 104:29 | we to guess and water wet the are pretty much the same for all |
|
| 104:39 | data. Oh, that's interesting. , that means it's not s uh |
|
| 104:47 | to that. What else does it the reservoir porosity here was 10 to |
|
| 104:55 | . And yet you get that nice nice result. Hey, so these |
|
| 105:04 | are fairly insensitive to rosy. the shield that we used in here |
|
| 105:13 | 2600 to 4200 m per second. yet we still get this nice |
|
| 105:20 | the standard. So it's insensitive this factor to shell values. It's |
|
| 105:30 | it's insensitive, it has sensitive but due to porosity. Now, how |
|
| 105:38 | this compare the Smith and Gidlow we're able to actually quantify it |
|
| 105:46 | with a little bit of world Let's see how we quantify it. |
|
| 105:59 | fluid factor is a function of time the normal incidence P minus gamma, |
|
| 106:06 | normal incidence S that's Smith and Glo's , we force this to go to |
|
| 106:14 | in wet zones. No, when force this to go to zero, |
|
| 106:22 | actually getting N IP gas minus N wet at the top of the |
|
| 106:29 | Mm Let's plot, let's plot the IP versus the NIS. And I |
|
| 106:39 | an equation for this N IP N is equal to minus 0.72 NIS minus |
|
| 106:49 | . So the fluid factor says give N IP gas. OK. We're |
|
| 106:57 | tell you what del give me, me the N I PM NIS. |
|
| 107:02 | there's the fluid factor but I'm going here use the linear expression of N |
|
| 107:15 | from NIS. What's in the In other words, this is the |
|
| 107:19 | wet data. You want to find what's necessary up here to make that |
|
| 107:24 | to zero. It's this equation right . That's the straight line equation for |
|
| 107:29 | sandstone. When I say that is fluid factor, that's gonna ensure that |
|
| 107:37 | I get one of these points on , it's gonna go to zero. |
|
| 107:41 | it another way you got an N , you got an NIS for every |
|
| 107:49 | in here. See that point right that has a certain N IP, |
|
| 107:54 | has a certain NIS. Take that IP. Put it in here, |
|
| 107:59 | that NIS, put it in this little point right there. Then |
|
| 108:06 | to right over there. Do all other points and look how they line |
|
| 108:12 | . Now you have one parameter N minus this resistance minus this so much |
|
| 108:23 | NIS plus a shift. The shift not necessary, but it does put |
|
| 108:29 | to absolute zero here. Now one , we'll go ahead and tell you |
|
| 108:35 | it's gas oil or if it's what is called a coordinate rotation and it |
|
| 108:49 | the risk leading to a fluid Let's compare, look at other fluid |
|
| 108:59 | . We're gonna apply this, we'll by applying this. Still here are |
|
| 109:03 | popular discriminators for poor fluid. The factor, this was the equation. |
|
| 109:10 | and Glo poisons and peas. It's same but a new factor from weld |
|
| 109:17 | in lamb the row, it's the except this is another one you get |
|
| 109:22 | the wel data. All these are factor discriminators. These are layer, |
|
| 109:35 | is a boundary. OK? N gas minus N I wet is equal |
|
| 109:55 | the fluid factor N I gas minus I web normal incidents over gassing shell |
|
| 110:05 | gassing, normal incidents over what's in over what sin take those two, |
|
| 110:12 | them. You get gas sand over sand? What is that? That |
|
| 110:19 | ? There, if you look at , that's the gas water contact. |
|
| 110:24 | all the fluid factor is, is gas water contact. And we take |
|
| 110:31 | look at the gas water contact. the shale? There's no shell shells |
|
| 110:38 | here. Shells down here, put a gas water contact. It's independent |
|
| 110:43 | the shale. Oh, now I that. Why? Surprising. And |
|
| 110:51 | is the brines going into the What we have on this is basically |
|
| 110:59 | man's equation trying to find case of which was the bulk largest of the |
|
| 111:06 | lord. That's what it's looking So if you equate at this |
|
| 111:17 | a no coincidence, what is the of these two move that around a |
|
| 111:24 | bit? And you can see water contact is N I gas minus |
|
| 111:31 | plus and I what? And that's the negative of the fluid factor. |
|
| 111:36 | we see just by the cartoon, fluid factor is the gas water |
|
| 111:42 | You can do it numerically as we right there. Show it. |
|
| 111:54 | Let's just continue. Let's look at uh the problem now and let's take |
|
| 112:05 | little break before we delve into this of trying to find out how much |
|
| 112:12 | and how much oil is left in reservoir. Senator One, what is |
|
| 112:21 | objective? My objective is to find much hydrocarbons are left. It's oil |
|
| 112:27 | how much is, is gas. do you want to do with |
|
| 112:31 | Debater. Number two, we want delete all the methane from this. |
|
| 112:36 | we're gonna require them all to have caps on top of their wells. |
|
| 112:41 | . That's enough of that public broadcasting off. That is for enjoyment of |
|
| 112:47 | that weren't here in the debate in the present time, in, |
|
| 112:50 | this room. Ok. Here was whole deal. There are 10 wells |
|
| 112:58 | this area that were drilled during the seventies in 1995 96. This was |
|
| 113:07 | of the ocean bottom survey by So they've been drilling for at least |
|
| 113:12 | years in producing. So to take well data and the properties and trying |
|
| 113:21 | associate it with reflection synthetic seismograms is pretty tough. And seven, |
|
| 113:29 | is it? Seven, no, of the wells are already plugged and |
|
| 113:37 | guess we had more than it's 89, 1011, 11 wells. |
|
| 113:47 | These are all oil wells that are , two active oil wells and one |
|
| 113:51 | gas. Well, the seismic if you look at it closely, |
|
| 113:57 | notice there's a fault a a prime in here and underneath the fault |
|
| 114:04 | we see a little disturbance and that reflectors are not as crisp as they |
|
| 114:12 | . Don Depp of me and dip the up throne side. And this |
|
| 114:18 | not unusual. And here the little because we have a velocity gradient, |
|
| 114:25 | a velocity difference right between the right the left side of the fall. |
|
| 114:32 | that can give you some little misalignment the fault. If we did a |
|
| 114:40 | migration, maybe it would have been little better aligned. So here's the |
|
| 114:49 | map on the horizon of interest. then right beside is a depth map |
|
| 114:57 | just the depth we got from these . And when we go ahead and |
|
| 115:05 | at well, 56 and nine, basically on the same time interval, |
|
| 115:13 | 56 and nine look like the the lines perpendicular going through an |
|
| 115:21 | And the way that these become perpendicular there is a velocity problem, there |
|
| 115:30 | a velocity variation going in between So we know there's a velocity problem |
|
| 115:37 | by the timing since we have a simple time, 2660 yet a |
|
| 115:45 | velocity is necessary. Now, what like to do is go ahead and |
|
| 115:56 | if we can't extract some of this IP NIS and et cetera like |
|
| 116:02 | Well, it turns out we have near stack and a far stack. |
|
| 116:09 | if you look at these constants right , if you use these constants right |
|
| 116:15 | , you're gonna get an estimate of N IP at this depth. And |
|
| 116:21 | NIS comes from this radio. Those I told you that the near far |
|
| 116:30 | inis A and B they're all related and forth. And in the text |
|
| 116:38 | Jenny Joe and myself, we, show illustrate how to get these constants |
|
| 116:45 | any you, you give what the is or the angle in the N |
|
| 116:51 | and NAS constants are given. So kind of an easy way. And |
|
| 116:59 | gives us the map that is shown the bottom. This is the seismic |
|
| 117:05 | of N IP. And what I to tell you is we took a |
|
| 117:12 | , let's say north of the last up in here and said there's no |
|
| 117:18 | in there. Let's just call that . We're gonna assume that that's a |
|
| 117:22 | portion. It, it's ok. it, it's not wet, it's |
|
| 117:25 | show up and bite us a little on. And here's the N I |
|
| 117:30 | . Are we satisfied with what we ? Well, not quite. It |
|
| 117:37 | that this oil well is near the blue done in here while the scar |
|
| 117:50 | , is nearer to a lighter meaning the well, well as the |
|
| 117:59 | reflection coefficient than the gas. And IP and I don't like |
|
| 118:06 | I expect a major highest reflection coefficient be assi assigned to the gas. |
|
| 118:15 | , not the orwell, it's more . So let's go ahead and uh |
|
| 118:27 | a little calibration. Let's calibrate the to the well lo data. So |
|
| 118:37 | going to take the Z values and that is, take the normal incidence |
|
| 118:46 | seismic minus the norm minus the uh me, let me get my tongue |
|
| 118:54 | backwards. A Z value is a incidence P value from that map subtract |
|
| 119:03 | it. The mean value of the in a standard deviation of the |
|
| 119:10 | When you do that, what you done is you can view it computed |
|
| 119:17 | seismic that has a deviation, standard of one and a mean value of |
|
| 119:26 | . So I've now converted all all this seismic data down in |
|
| 119:33 | I have the ability to convert So if I make an average value |
|
| 119:39 | zero, if I look at the deviation, it's one, then I |
|
| 119:53 | the Z values and calibrate them to well. So the normal incidence P |
|
| 120:04 | it, I'm gonna take the normal seismic rate in here eventually through the |
|
| 120:09 | and then multiply it by the standard that I get from the well wet |
|
| 120:15 | the mean from the well wet. these are histograms made from the well |
|
| 120:22 | and the bottom of the histograms made the seismic data that allows us to |
|
| 120:31 | plot the calibrated normal incidence B against calibrated normal incidence. S these are |
|
| 120:39 | to the well log data. I pull out, where was that |
|
| 120:44 | section? It's right up here. exactly where I expect to find wet |
|
| 120:49 | gas. You expect the wind to no, no its value higher than |
|
| 120:55 | of the gas, which it we can get an equation for all |
|
| 121:04 | data which is shown this found this right here, then becomes the fluid |
|
| 121:15 | . I have the norm. Winston calibrated. I have the norm. |
|
| 121:19 | sheer calibrated. And the fluid factor just from those calibrated values that within |
|
| 121:25 | cross block. I like it now now the gas well is sitting right |
|
| 121:35 | the maximum uh fluid factor minus In fact is, if we go |
|
| 121:52 | , bear with me, folks, get tired and I fall asleep at |
|
| 121:56 | time and you can run off. . It is. This is the |
|
| 122:06 | factor for gas. It's minus 0.088 oil. It's minus point 52052. |
|
| 122:34 | that's essentially what we're getting here for gas. We're assuming this is gas |
|
| 122:41 | in there. Well, here is baying classification. Uh the fluid factor |
|
| 122:51 | we know management doesn't like to make . They would like to know where's |
|
| 122:57 | , where's oil and what's wet. , using that classification sitting in |
|
| 123:04 | here's where the gas fell and here's the oil sands falling and the |
|
| 123:12 | This is the fluid factor. The is sitting right there sort of in |
|
| 123:18 | midst of the gas sands. All rest sitting in there is where the |
|
| 123:24 | sand falls and it, it kind follows that oil sand. It's kind |
|
| 123:31 | following the depth contours of what. we repeat it the same experiment but |
|
| 123:40 | a layer and that's the poisons and . And we did that lo and |
|
| 123:47 | the gas well, wasn't beside the poisons and peas when it should have |
|
| 123:55 | . And then we remembered, yeah, to do the poisons and |
|
| 124:00 | . What you need to do is sign, a low, a starting |
|
| 124:06 | for the poisons of peas. You to get a velocity map and we |
|
| 124:12 | problems with the velocity and that is of the reasons that this I think |
|
| 124:18 | tie as nicely. If we look the fluid factor, we have three |
|
| 124:25 | wells. The oil wells are in oil zone. The gas well is |
|
| 124:31 | the gas zone. Here we have oil well, it was correctly |
|
| 124:41 | The gas sounds is correct. The zone is not correctly placed on the |
|
| 124:46 | on the fi the boundary after at fluid factor is more accurate than the |
|
| 124:54 | fluid discriminator, which is a layer boy sons of peas. In this |
|
| 125:00 | , boundary better than layer other the fluid factor is independent of the |
|
| 125:09 | properties. It's independent on a reservoir's . It's independent of the wave |
|
| 125:18 | Did I ask you at all? me a wavelet. Every inversion requires |
|
| 125:24 | known wavelet and it's the same on offices. Oh, I lie, |
|
| 125:30 | did use a wavelet. I picked trough. I picked an event and |
|
| 125:34 | the event is I picked a certain of the wavelet. So that does |
|
| 125:40 | not knowledge of it. But the use of it, we related to |
|
| 125:47 | normal incidence of the hydrocarbon water That was what the fluid factor |
|
| 125:56 | So we predicted oil and gas zones measured from near and far angle |
|
| 126:04 | We had no inversion of impedance. didn't have to take an impedance and |
|
| 126:10 | it. No A avian versions to IP and NIS. This is done |
|
| 126:16 | angle stacks which are already computed seismically to regional trend. None of those |
|
| 126:24 | wells, none of the wells in field went into the calibration. They |
|
| 126:29 | bad because the seismic was the seismic run after the fact. So this |
|
| 126:37 | a regional type of a trend. it's valid. The reflect attributes can |
|
| 126:42 | generated and can be quantified and normally less time and expense to generate than |
|
| 126:50 | inversion. It's one that you can on your own machine. So looking |
|
| 126:55 | this question, what's better a boundary a layer attribute? I think we |
|
| 127:02 | the first place and kind of probably it into the middle. Remember why |
|
| 127:07 | the fluid factor work? Because we it geological information about the boundary. |
|
| 127:14 | never did that, but we did for the layer. Now for the |
|
| 127:18 | time we do it from the so allows us to quantify. |
|
| 127:25 | Any comments or questions. What's No, something else about this. |
|
| 127:43 | kind of referred to a little bit you look at the attributes slope and |
|
| 127:57 | of fizz, it's very close to . So if we can discriminate in |
|
| 128:06 | example, oil from fizz, we discriminate fizz from full gas because oil |
|
| 128:16 | fist had the same properties. we're trying to get it discriminated from |
|
| 128:20 | same thing, economic gas. And this says it has a chance of |
|
| 128:26 | it, this type of technique using properties. Now, we were fortunate |
|
| 128:34 | be able to do it because we all these 6000 walls that were edited |
|
| 128:41 | then made the 200 ft intervals. a couple of days work. The |
|
| 128:49 | was, it's 20 years of work get 6000 wells ready and uh a |
|
| 128:57 | of expense. Ok. Anybody have guitar? Do you have a |
|
| 129:12 | Ok. Do you have an acoustic or an electric guitar? Electric, |
|
| 129:24 | ? Ok. So you want the probably? Ok. Electric to |
|
| 129:33 | I should say an elastic guitar. there such a thing as an elastic |
|
| 129:39 | ? Not as far as I know ever hear the elastic guitar? These |
|
| 129:46 | in here think I'm sick together, . Let's look at the acoustic |
|
| 129:52 | Then whenever you string the, the guitar, you get a note that |
|
| 130:00 | call the normal incidents. Ok. that's the difference of acoustic impedance of |
|
| 130:06 | lower number two minus the upper then the sum. No, we can |
|
| 130:15 | out that lower acoustic impedance in terms the upper acoustic impedance. Oh So |
|
| 130:24 | can get a reflection coefficient. you got reflection coefficient to your seismic |
|
| 130:29 | . Yeah, I can do And then just go ahead and guess |
|
| 130:36 | the first acoustic at being. So would I do that? We shot |
|
| 130:39 | water? That's 5000 times one. a good your beats and that would |
|
| 130:45 | start that way. OK. So saying that I can get the next |
|
| 130:52 | impedes at N plus one if I the one acoustic of ps just previous |
|
| 130:59 | I have the reflection co and the is yes. So here we have |
|
| 131:07 | acoustic and beans right here and we the normal incidence trace and I have |
|
| 131:13 | starting acoustic beads and I have this right there and that's gonna lead to |
|
| 131:21 | acoustic beings. Not here. I have the next amplitude come down |
|
| 131:28 | , this next amplitude and in can to this acoustic and be and so |
|
| 131:35 | . Now, similarly, there's a impedes you can derive by inverting the |
|
| 131:42 | , but we just got the acoustic beans. So we say seismic conversion |
|
| 131:46 | take this velocity yet a reflection sequence , boom, boom, put a |
|
| 131:53 | on it and then take that and it to see if you can't get |
|
| 131:59 | to the original data. That's our technique simple. And we showed the |
|
| 132:08 | by a very simplistic method right Now Rosemary Latimer had leading edge article |
|
| 132:23 | pointed something out. So the other other folks did also is, would |
|
| 132:34 | like a resolution? Do you like in your seismic data? High |
|
| 132:43 | So when we do this inversion looks we'd like to have high frequency, |
|
| 132:49 | ? Uh I think that sounds good me, Fred. Well, let's |
|
| 132:53 | what happens. We start with, gonna start with a wiggle trace like |
|
| 133:03 | and I'm going to invert it and gonna use seismic frequencies from 8 to |
|
| 133:15 | Hertz. And then when I estimate I, I get this orange feature |
|
| 133:23 | then I say, well, let's ahead and go to 500 Hertz all |
|
| 133:31 | you want. And I get this acoustic and beans and it looks like |
|
| 133:38 | one over here except it's a little . And I asked myself, am |
|
| 133:47 | satisfied? No, because the answer I'm looking for is right up |
|
| 133:56 | I, I have a good idea the acoustic opinion is, but I |
|
| 134:01 | it to fill that gap like it down at the bottom right here. |
|
| 134:06 | how did it fill the gap down the bottom? It took the 10 |
|
| 134:11 | , it was missing, it goes 0 to 10, but it still |
|
| 134:15 | 80. It's that low frequency we preserve that is what's given us the |
|
| 134:24 | better fit. And that is what on acoustic compete in version. They're |
|
| 134:36 | ask it, what is the trend start. In other words, they're |
|
| 134:40 | ask you what's your answer that you to get all of my folks? |
|
| 134:46 | , that's where it comes out to . Um 0 to 8 Hertz is |
|
| 134:55 | they say not on seismic data. the truth. So if I give |
|
| 134:59 | that 0 to 8 Hertz, what ? You fill that gap up? |
|
| 135:06 | simple. So are you really solving if you have to give the answer |
|
| 135:15 | you start? And this is why like Kota are sitting there trying to |
|
| 135:20 | out how can I get the best of velocities sheer N or P |
|
| 135:28 | So that conversions such as this are meaningful, it's not necessary that |
|
| 135:34 | it's that low frequency that is really . Are you using your low |
|
| 135:41 | Absolutely to get as deep as you dig? Right? OK. Here's |
|
| 135:54 | quotes on why to use tracing The broader bandwidth of the impedance data |
|
| 136:02 | vertical resolution and minimizes tuning effects. bless you interpreting volumes rather than surfaces |
|
| 136:12 | more geologically intuitive. It simplifies litho and stratigraphic identification and supports static reservoir |
|
| 136:22 | of any complexity. So it basically it doesn't like boundaries or surfaces, |
|
| 136:29 | wants vibes and that's true. You , really, really do want that |
|
| 136:37 | the data is no longer zero, the dynamic range in any given uh |
|
| 136:42 | bullshit that one excuse me, calibrated impedes predicts correlated phys properties like ferocity |
|
| 136:51 | content and net to growth throughout the volumes. With the constraint that you |
|
| 136:59 | at the beginning that's shown by this . I wished it says go ahead |
|
| 137:13 | find channels. And when you look this, you see that this channel |
|
| 137:19 | inside channel right over here, it's to see sitting over here. But |
|
| 137:30 | you come right over here and continue right there, if you input that |
|
| 137:39 | one of your parameters, the surface and you input these other surface |
|
| 137:45 | then what do you do? You a well log rate in here that |
|
| 137:50 | the acoustic and PSS to these boundaries that yet another, well log sitting |
|
| 137:58 | here. And then when he he got the acoustic and fiances from |
|
| 138:11 | wells there and he just interpret it between these wells falling into the |
|
| 138:16 | So you, you get a color you can see just like this before |
|
| 138:21 | even invert. It fact is this blue kind of tells you everything up |
|
| 138:26 | here was colored light blue as a in Likewise Don here that looks like |
|
| 138:36 | that's been colored in the background. a very big cynic when it comes |
|
| 138:45 | interpretation. I'm terrible because I always it's wrong. Now, prove to |
|
| 138:53 | it's right. And that is an that says if it, if |
|
| 138:59 | I beat away all those negative, good. And I like it. |
|
| 139:02 | believe me to just sitting with alto kept asking me questions and he |
|
| 139:07 | why are you doing that? So just trying to beat in my mind |
|
| 139:10 | I like it. And I, it's a nice idea. Yes. |
|
| 139:18 | . Here's another little uh tool that can use. Anybody ever hear of |
|
| 139:26 | 48 transform P 48. I went school with him. Yeah. It |
|
| 139:33 | back at the time of the applause songs. We all hung around |
|
| 139:37 | Yeah, mid 18 hundreds. What is the reflectivity? You |
|
| 139:54 | I bet I can think of that my seismic race maybe reflectivity. It |
|
| 140:16 | it's a continuous expression of the reflection . The reflectivity is the derivative of |
|
| 140:25 | natural log of acoustic and beans sit there and the natural log of acoustic |
|
| 140:32 | beans. Therefore, if I if I want this the natural log |
|
| 140:37 | acoustic and beans to get acoustic and , I look at this equation here |
|
| 140:41 | say integrate it and integrate it. integrating RT DT, that's gonna give |
|
| 140:48 | acoustic and be all righty. So reflectivity function is gonna give me a |
|
| 140:56 | times acoustic and piece. Oh just a second. Now, I |
|
| 141:01 | my seismic data might be this. , I do too. That's an |
|
| 141:06 | . OK. So what can I ? Well, if you wanna get |
|
| 141:10 | natural log of acoustic at beans, to competes right here or Gusta |
|
| 141:16 | Here's what you do. You integrated it says right here. Uh Don't |
|
| 141:23 | get me anywhere near calculus? If say that word, people are gonna |
|
| 141:27 | me out of the club. What would they like? Well, you're |
|
| 141:32 | to say faith, you're allowed to face change. OK. So the |
|
| 141:40 | right here can be really done by phase change. So you got a |
|
| 141:47 | works. Uh huh. Uh huh . Click on face. Put 270 |
|
| 141:52 | there and it'll change your seismic data that's the first estimate of your acoustic |
|
| 142:00 | beans. No, if it turns you have enough high frequency, you |
|
| 142:08 | to then do one over omega. gonna be sort of part of the |
|
| 142:13 | but one over Omega that can be also real quick because almost all of |
|
| 142:20 | have a filtering and orange be is of them. So you have a |
|
| 142:27 | frequency 5 to 8 but then you to 10, then go to the |
|
| 142:32 | high frequency like 65. Compare this your typical orange B filter. You |
|
| 142:39 | say five inch slope for the lower here than 5 55 65. But |
|
| 142:47 | they're asking for one over Omega, just go 5 to 8, five |
|
| 142:54 | over to eight down to 10 and 65. And that'll look somewhat like |
|
| 143:00 | over Omega in this range right Bottom line, how do I do |
|
| 143:09 | take your seismic data? Put a shift on. First look at bring |
|
| 143:16 | acoustic competing serve up from your well data. Plot it right beside that |
|
| 143:22 | say is that close enough? OK. Now one of Omega put |
|
| 143:27 | OK. What is that? just use this right here and you |
|
| 143:33 | your seismic data with the filter with face shift and you filter also the |
|
| 143:39 | and bees with this type of right . And when you get done, |
|
| 143:45 | should be able to correlate those If that procedure is gonna be |
|
| 143:51 | give it a shot. It works lot of times it's very quick and |
|
| 143:55 | and easy to do. There's no lost in something like that. Here's |
|
| 144:08 | synthetic with an orange V filter phase zero. I'm gonna go ahead and |
|
| 144:20 | that well, take the, take data right in here and put on |
|
| 144:29 | 200 degree space shift and that filter , 1065. And there is the |
|
| 144:43 | I went once again, took that and transformed it to what you see |
|
| 144:47 | here. And then we compare with well log and that's not too bad |
|
| 144:54 | what the well logged in some It's fairly good. So it's, |
|
| 144:58 | quick and dirty and that a lot times that's enough. Now down on |
|
| 145:03 | deep, we just don't have that frequency, any comment or questions who |
|
| 145:19 | the beer this week? Oh, was actually gonna stop for Kolaches this |
|
| 145:28 | . I was, but I didn't to get rained on also. |
|
| 145:36 | they're good. Oh, man, are really good coaches. They're about |
|
| 145:42 | size of a baseball and they filled scrambled eggs and you can get it |
|
| 145:49 | bits of bacon or sausage and cream or cheese in it also. I |
|
| 145:58 | find any. It was just all eggs. I was thinking of young |
|
| 146:02 | back there. No ham or anything that in there. And, |
|
| 146:10 | they didn't have this and I didn't him any help. Hello, folks |
|
| 146:15 | there. You missed out on the that I didn't get. We did |
|
| 146:19 | kolaches last week and they were They should shut the ships down |
|
| 146:25 | on, uh, what's the name Scott Street? Anybody ever hear of |
|
| 146:37 | British people? They, they have . Yes, they have geophysics and |
|
| 146:49 | invented it. It's called Elastic Pat Connolly. And it's quite a |
|
| 146:56 | little idea trick that they had when did that and that they had some |
|
| 147:02 | guys over there and gals that, , apply it to. And it's |
|
| 147:09 | versatile. And what's the versatility? ? Well, the versatility that I |
|
| 147:15 | is you have a little button and can twist this little button on the |
|
| 147:21 | . You know, it, it's slide bar. But I think as |
|
| 147:24 | twist it, it goes from section from acoustic and beans, the bulk |
|
| 147:31 | , the sheer rigidity to land the , all these attributes suddenly appear. |
|
| 147:37 | screen is a seismic section of acoustic be now turn it a little |
|
| 147:44 | it becomes lamb the row a little sheer rigidity. Each one of them |
|
| 147:50 | to a Pacific lithology or fluid like . So let's start off what we |
|
| 147:57 | . We have three algorithms that are used for Avion version elastic and |
|
| 148:05 | this is BP and we have independent . So let's start with independent |
|
| 148:14 | It says take prestack gathers to derive P wave shear wave in arly density |
|
| 148:24 | volumes. That's what you like to . Then with these activities derive the |
|
| 148:39 | impedes sheer appearance beads and density. basically, we take the gathers and |
|
| 148:54 | go ahead and get uh N IP NIS, that's the P wave reflectivity |
|
| 149:03 | the sheer wave reflectivity. Then we integrate them and we give Kous |
|
| 149:08 | good beat two steps. Simultaneous inversion start with the cries that gathers and |
|
| 149:16 | all the way to acoustic competence without enemy step. Bypass the reflectivity. |
|
| 149:25 | also an additive process. And this the section that I have, I |
|
| 149:33 | have skipped it on in uh well inversion, well inversion, but we'll |
|
| 149:43 | it. We don't really need Poisson's for this example. And so it's |
|
| 149:55 | I store it from somebody I can rid of it. OK. My |
|
| 150:02 | output is the blue but here's my . So I want to go from |
|
| 150:08 | input to that blue. But before start the blue, I'm going to |
|
| 150:16 | ahead and I need to give it starting sample. A starting model. |
|
| 150:23 | my starting model are these smooth acoustic sheer and beans and density curves. |
|
| 150:35 | , Fred, what's to stop me putting those over here? You don't |
|
| 150:43 | that blue curve. What would happen I did that? Well, if |
|
| 150:50 | did that, the blue curve would over to fit beside it. That's |
|
| 150:57 | happens to fit right within it. missed it. You got to know |
|
| 151:04 | little bit extra that I said that frequency and that's what we're putting in |
|
| 151:08 | low frequency. We're, we're guessing it. So I'm gonna take these |
|
| 151:18 | see if I can iterate on I take the red, all these |
|
| 151:24 | values and I go ahead and I make me an Avio model. |
|
| 151:32 | the model that you make is going look like this right here. My |
|
| 151:38 | run is going to be that these such smooth curves that there's no way |
|
| 151:45 | gonna get a good reflection. So was our first. But after we |
|
| 151:51 | this 50 times or so, they reach this nice red curve that represents |
|
| 151:59 | blue very nicely. And so when make a model, when they take |
|
| 152:07 | red and make an A vo they what's shown right here. And compared |
|
| 152:14 | the input data, we do a , it's a pretty good match. |
|
| 152:21 | please remember that, that red was important that went in at the very |
|
| 152:30 | . Now, the whole game that to be played here is I drilled |
|
| 152:38 | well and I got 100 and 50 of gas. Hey, don't |
|
| 152:44 | Now, Fred. Keep it going . Ok. So I drilled on |
|
| 152:48 | other side of the fall and I got 80 ft of gas. Not |
|
| 152:53 | good, Fred. Ok. Then went down, dip a bit |
|
| 152:57 | dip and I got 100 and 40 wet sand. You didn't do very |
|
| 153:02 | . Fred can't do that. I don't wanna drill wet sands |
|
| 153:08 | I sure like to get more than half of 80 ft when I got |
|
| 153:12 | 150 ft before. So I wanna able to predict where the sand is |
|
| 153:18 | especially the porosity and the fluid So we have all this data. |
|
| 153:24 | go ahead and get what's called a curve. Hay, hay, difficult |
|
| 153:34 | do. The density is extremely unstable it's unrealistic to expect it to |
|
| 153:46 | And that's shown in that the wall and version uh chapter I have but |
|
| 153:51 | we do a threat and what Well, we have some wells that |
|
| 153:55 | knew of. So I come to one, well, that had 100 |
|
| 154:00 | 50 ft and I look at and it screened. Now over here |
|
| 154:06 | my color bar and it's a pro density color bar and dark green that |
|
| 154:15 | got right at the, well, dark green that is a low |
|
| 154:22 | suggesting a lot of gas sitting in . Then I go across the fault |
|
| 154:30 | there's a well, there and it medium prosy sitting there, medium density |
|
| 154:38 | that might have a little less And then finally I go to the |
|
| 154:43 | hole and it's pretty dense material, all grains, 2.65. But I |
|
| 154:50 | be guessing that one there. We back and said, dang, this |
|
| 154:55 | good. And I got it all you realize, you know how unfortunate |
|
| 155:04 | guy was right here. He drilled dry hole, you know, it |
|
| 155:10 | a drive. So if we had prediction beforehand, all he would have |
|
| 155:15 | have done is moved 100 and 50 east and he would have got a |
|
| 155:19 | of gas. And then looked down , this guy that got 100 and |
|
| 155:27 | ft of gas. Thankfully, he go north 100 and 50 ft or |
|
| 155:33 | would have had no gas or much . So all of a sudden these |
|
| 155:42 | eyes and that are very suggestive, know, does that have something to |
|
| 155:48 | with the parameterization of it? This here and the answer is yes, |
|
| 155:55 | the correlative, another correlative distance. do they call that distance and |
|
| 156:01 | Um It's, it says basically here's will and I'm up here, how |
|
| 156:17 | away are you? And there's a that you get that says that's the |
|
| 156:25 | away. This is a value If you're, if you're within 40 |
|
| 156:32 | , use of value is 9/10 of well valued and 1% or 10% of |
|
| 156:42 | seismic data out here, you use of seismic data and 1% 10% of |
|
| 156:49 | weld data. So, so by time you get to this distance, |
|
| 156:53 | not using any weld data at all 100 and 50 ft. It's a |
|
| 157:01 | number that you use. I don't to. But even talking to the |
|
| 157:06 | that did this, uh Brian he says, no, you |
|
| 157:11 | Fred, the density is our suggestion management forces us to put it |
|
| 157:20 | The gas and poor fluid measurement. is Fritz Gassman S equation. And |
|
| 157:40 | we put a dry rock in there , this value is 1.63 and in |
|
| 157:49 | fluid, if I come over here just make that water value like 2.2 |
|
| 157:58 | wanna get 5.5 right up here for whole fluid term. So adding 163 |
|
| 158:08 | 55 like 714. So the velocity like taking a square root of 714 |
|
| 158:15 | 169, I would be able to water from gas for the more consolidated |
|
| 158:24 | to do the same thing. It out I get 77 and 75. |
|
| 158:30 | are so close. I take the root. What's the problem? The |
|
| 158:35 | is this guy right here. That is so big, he overwhelms the |
|
| 158:41 | . Well, why don't we do ? Why don't we just take them |
|
| 158:44 | the other side of the equation? , you will notice that for unconsolidated |
|
| 158:50 | , I'm going to be able to the difference in these two values. |
|
| 158:53 | , I could do that or even a consolidated rock still, it's the |
|
| 158:58 | . Wow, all you have to is get a seismic attribute that satisfies |
|
| 159:05 | criteria where this number, it's the raw portion, but it, it's |
|
| 159:15 | k there a dry rock portion and seismic attribute that we want, it's |
|
| 159:26 | to be our poor fluid attribute and is gonna be lamb the Ro |
|
| 159:33 | Bill Goodway actually came in and I when he did that, he's a |
|
| 159:40 | has to be in the I think nineties, the bottom line, Bill |
|
| 159:51 | . And this equation he's suggested turns that's the gas man's flu discriminate. |
|
| 160:00 | it is a poor fluid. that number right here. Actually, |
|
| 160:10 | take well data now like we did of the other find a straight |
|
| 160:15 | straighten it out and come up with concept like this is not really |
|
| 160:19 | It's supposed to be 1.32 for Well, but it still is a |
|
| 160:25 | fluid attribute. OK. Let's uh another break of about 10 minutes, |
|
| 160:37 | back around 20 minutes to four. . Folks, we were looking at |
|
| 160:55 | the database to compare various attributes. just had a gas man's um them |
|
| 161:11 | expression as P and P and squared sheer and P and squared with some |
|
| 161:20 | to be determined by plotting data, wells as before. And we're gonna |
|
| 161:28 | at Lamb Dere and find out that this particular example and all those wells |
|
| 161:39 | we want a better best fit type Lambda, so that if you happen |
|
| 161:47 | be in water wet section, it's have a value of zero here is |
|
| 161:56 | equation to use. And instead of for your constant up here, like |
|
| 162:05 | there at the top, it's 2.42 it kinda gives you nice vertical separation |
|
| 162:15 | gas, the red from oil, wet blue and the shale sitting in |
|
| 162:22 | examples. This is from our Uh Bob Tatum professor at UT used |
|
| 162:31 | head up research at Texaco when there a Texaco and in this particular GA |
|
| 162:39 | , he was shown Lamb Doro with particular value and showed that in the |
|
| 162:45 | that he's interrogating, which he outlines the two red sections that the gas |
|
| 162:52 | contact is right down here. And could see the seismic Lauro predicted that |
|
| 162:59 | nicely. And then the blue happens be the continuation of the water wet |
|
| 163:06 | little example. And there are plenty those in the literature or something like |
|
| 163:11 | right here. Extended elastic impedes Connolly Connelly. Remember our British she a |
|
| 163:29 | decided that oh, by the this was in the pub too, |
|
| 163:36 | he's talking to the rep some of guys and he said, you know |
|
| 163:40 | guys team? He says, I , really like the way you can |
|
| 163:47 | the normal incidence reflection coefficient in terms natural log of acoustic of beans, |
|
| 163:58 | natural log of the upper acoustic of . II, I really like |
|
| 164:04 | He said, you know, I really wish I could do the |
|
| 164:07 | like this and say reflection coefficient at degrees and have something very similar, |
|
| 164:18 | like that. And as soon as said that that was the important |
|
| 164:27 | He said, I wanna compute reflection at any angle and I need, |
|
| 164:37 | give you an elastic property that I , but I, I don't know |
|
| 164:41 | elastic property, but I wanna so when I use it just like the |
|
| 164:47 | incidents, I can select whatever angle want and put that angle in elastic |
|
| 164:54 | . And lo and behold, I the reflection at 30 degrees. He |
|
| 164:59 | I, I like that. I like that ugly ZR equation. That |
|
| 165:05 | goes on forever. There's no intuition it either Bord Feld gave us a |
|
| 165:10 | bit but still missing a lot. , what's that? There's a young |
|
| 165:18 | over there that went to Oxford and says, let me handle that. |
|
| 165:23 | says, let me sh show me that Bord Feld equation is and they |
|
| 165:28 | the Mon Richards equation and he came and he says, yep, couple |
|
| 165:34 | later. He said, I know that elastic and be says, here's |
|
| 165:39 | it's made. Here's the P wave , sheer wave velocity density K. |
|
| 165:47 | this VP over vs or vsovp. uh that'll work so he can calibrate |
|
| 165:57 | lasting beams from the wall all Now, remember the elastic impedes at |
|
| 166:07 | degrees is like the acoustic. It at by itself. I guess this |
|
| 166:16 | where I got the idea of an guitar and an elastic impedes, you |
|
| 166:23 | , sort of rhymes you, we have a, well, let's see |
|
| 166:28 | happens here. We have the three that are gonna be necessary to fill |
|
| 166:39 | equation and get us elastic and You can put the in and |
|
| 166:53 | let's see, we need, we got, we got poisons |
|
| 166:57 | So we got sheer in summer. we could just take this, these |
|
| 167:01 | right near and come over here and can compute the regular a vo type |
|
| 167:08 | response. Oh Look at these big , big amplitudes over there. That's |
|
| 167:16 | . And here's the elastic impedance. says, here's our zone of interest |
|
| 167:22 | happened to has hydrocarbon in it. when you compute elastic and bees, |
|
| 167:28 | have a computed for zero degrees. is the A I do do, |
|
| 167:33 | , do we have a computer for degrees? Do, do, |
|
| 167:37 | do? Wow, look at 40 elastic and PS, at 40 degrees |
|
| 167:43 | and PS, that's at zero Well, let's see. This elastic |
|
| 167:51 | 40 degrees. It's different from zero . Let's go back a slide. |
|
| 167:59 | Look at 40 degrees. Look at amplitude down here compared to right |
|
| 168:06 | No wonder this is no response hardly all. Nothing compared to what's on |
|
| 168:12 | degrees. Same here. Here's the compete at 40 degrees compared to |
|
| 168:19 | Wow, 40 is big. Now do you get the reflection coefficient? |
|
| 168:24 | easy, Fred, you take this right there and you subtract from it |
|
| 168:30 | right there. So it's this, excuse me, it's this amplitude minus |
|
| 168:35 | , that distance. That's the reflection basically just like acoustic can be but |
|
| 168:42 | nothing big there. That's right. So when we look at it, |
|
| 168:51 | see that reflection coefficient. If we at it, it's normally expressed as |
|
| 168:57 | I plus B sine squared. Theta B right in here is the |
|
| 169:06 | Now we know and I, and can be expressed as a difference of |
|
| 169:13 | and beans. While B the slope gonna be the difference of the gradient |
|
| 169:19 | peas, the gradient in beans is up here. What does it all |
|
| 169:25 | down to? It comes down to some cross plots. I can get |
|
| 169:31 | gradient and feeds right here. I get that from p sheer density. |
|
| 169:42 | this is for we data so I compute this for we data acoustic |
|
| 169:46 | I can get from we data. I can take and make a cross |
|
| 169:52 | of all this data right in here what of gas wet and shall |
|
| 170:03 | And I'm trying to discriminate them and pretty hard. So what I'm going |
|
| 170:08 | do is an axis rotation. I'm put Y prime and X prime here |
|
| 170:14 | . And I'm just gonna take what's this and this rotated. So this |
|
| 170:20 | now gonna be perpendicular right there to X prime axis. So I can |
|
| 170:27 | a single attribute that would separate the from the wet. That's what I'm |
|
| 170:35 | to do. If I go ahead blow that up, I'm trying to |
|
| 170:42 | a separation in here. No, the rotated axis is actually the natural |
|
| 170:50 | of the call. They extended elastic the extent of elastic impede says take |
|
| 170:59 | acoustic and beans and take the cosine kai and take G I and the |
|
| 171:06 | of chi. Now what was A inversion of your N I? What |
|
| 171:14 | G I, the inversion of your ? So how does that work |
|
| 171:26 | Fred it works out that if you seismic data, you can compute the |
|
| 171:35 | and field, you know how to that. You just take the reflect |
|
| 171:39 | seismic data and invert it. What is A I zero? That's |
|
| 171:45 | average, just go through an average . Acoustic beans over 2030 samples. |
|
| 171:51 | what's G I? Well, G is very similar to acoustic and |
|
| 171:57 | A I came from the normal incident I comes from B So B is |
|
| 172:07 | uh what's gonna give us a GG by integration? And we'll have a |
|
| 172:16 | that can vary and that Kai is elastic and beads and that can be |
|
| 172:24 | seismically like this. But what is elastic and fees in that time? |
|
| 172:34 | you set time in that equation, can set it from 90 degrees to |
|
| 172:40 | 51 stop, Fred go back. ? I'm going to give you an |
|
| 172:52 | and it's an equation for what's called elastic impedance, the extended elastic and |
|
| 172:59 | with the angle. Kai I know A I is G I is similar |
|
| 173:06 | that was from normal incidents. This from the slope. OK. Ace |
|
| 173:11 | zero. That's just an average of of five. OK. That leaves |
|
| 173:17 | to be explained the elastic impedes from angle right there. OK. Let's |
|
| 173:23 | back. Now, we'll see what tells us. BP says if you |
|
| 173:29 | that Chi value equal to 90 you're gonna get the gradient of beads |
|
| 173:35 | you put that elastic and beans at high value at minus 51 that's |
|
| 173:41 | give us the sheer rigidity. just a second here. How about |
|
| 173:47 | one? Right. Oh, Lambda. That's a good attribute for |
|
| 173:52 | or fluid. If you put chi equal to 19.8 degrees. What's that |
|
| 173:58 | do? It's gonna give us acoustica beans. She and beans a |
|
| 174:04 | variety of them. Well, how that work? You have seismic |
|
| 174:14 | You pick the horizon, say this right here. Now you're gonna use |
|
| 174:20 | and you have a little rotating button you can change the channel on what |
|
| 174:24 | want here. We have Turbos coming and we want them to show. |
|
| 174:31 | we want lithology to show. So get back up to our chart and |
|
| 174:37 | do we pick for lithology? Well, we can pick a over |
|
| 174:53 | that's V PV S VPs is related poisons ratio and Poisson's great ratio is |
|
| 175:00 | to the lithology. So by pulling that kind lo and behold, this |
|
| 175:09 | the seismic section that you will And then it's about what has, |
|
| 175:17 | has a fluid in there. if you set the kind for 12.34 |
|
| 175:25 | that happens to be lambda, then gonna get the difference between wet and |
|
| 175:33 | a response. All of it, of this, it's just one surface |
|
| 175:42 | we're looking at with different angles and can begin to see even a little |
|
| 175:48 | tortuosity, meandering streams coming down here the lithology. And that's really neat |
|
| 175:56 | this is instantaneous. You're just turning parameter and you're seeing Mythology Portal and |
|
| 176:03 | just pop up on the screen So you pick horizons in that, |
|
| 176:08 | the button. What do you want look for? Mythology you look for |
|
| 176:12 | what? So elastic competes has a of good values and value in |
|
| 176:17 | Now, there little subtleties in there they didn't tell you about such as |
|
| 176:24 | elastic and pens that you predict is this magenta and you really want it |
|
| 176:30 | be the blue. So you have have adjustment factors for each one of |
|
| 176:35 | and that's slowly varying range. That's not difficult but something you gotta |
|
| 176:44 | So reservoir what we had here, and the pains are the main attributes |
|
| 176:50 | reservoir characterization. Mythology and poor fluid orthogonal and A B. Cross Floop |
|
| 177:00 | two D matrix provides separation for lithology four fluid clusters. We showed you |
|
| 177:08 | to 11 design, one section had poor fluid and mythology in it. |
|
| 177:17 | factor can be quantified in the reflectivity . And the other thing, it |
|
| 177:23 | the ability to separate fizz from economic , another attribute and we've tried that |
|
| 177:31 | and it does work. No, total success but it works. Lambro |
|
| 177:38 | is equivalent to Gasman fluid modulus which separate from the dry, rough on |
|
| 177:51 | . The A IG I extended elastic beams illustrates that two elastic constants A |
|
| 177:59 | and G I can generate other elastic from seismic data. It's similar to |
|
| 178:09 | that Bach merges in sheer rigidity can all of these poisons ratio and other |
|
| 178:16 | of attributes. But IIBP did a job back in the nineties or late |
|
| 178:25 | putting this together. So the interpreters a really neat tool uh that once |
|
| 178:32 | get their horizons mapped in that, they can now look for lithology and |
|
| 178:37 | fluid fairly simply. Mhm It's often there are various inversions. When should |
|
| 178:52 | use them? Well, any exploration or the development. And this is |
|
| 179:00 | opinion of Rocky Road. Once that's the Pete Ross Consortium for Risk |
|
| 179:09 | . And the one that we talked and pains, they sit in the |
|
| 179:17 | of exploitation, simultaneous inversion exploitation, development inversions. He kind of has |
|
| 179:33 | . It's simultaneous inversion. GEOS statistic he's right here development. You gotta |
|
| 179:41 | a lot of wealth in order to these work. Um And I don't |
|
| 179:49 | comfortable with them because GEOS statistical inversion you the high frequency things that aren't |
|
| 179:55 | there. Oh You can filter it off and you get back to your |
|
| 179:59 | data. But I just have a time saying how am I gonna use |
|
| 180:15 | ? OK. That's all I have this section. 61 are there any |
|
| 180:29 | ? Ok. Audience oversees any Ok. Um ok. I don't |
|
| 180:49 | any more. I think I've beat in D for today, you |
|
| 180:56 | after seven hours, 6.5 hours, , it, it's kind of tough |
|
| 181:01 | take new, more material. Um will cover some more next Friday, |
|
| 181:09 | then I like to spend time for that has questions on the quiz and |
|
| 181:17 | take time to go over that. I'm especially gonna work on things that |
|
| 181:28 | have to write out since you can't the program tips anymore. Some of |
|
| 181:37 | , some of you don't have real . You had that funny thing called |
|
| 181:41 | and oranges? I don't know. kidding. Just kidding. No, |
|
| 181:46 | not. I'm serious, folks. you have anything in here in the |
|
| 181:54 | participation? Anything you wanna share with overseas? Yes. The one thing |
|
| 181:59 | want to share is this room It has for moving air. It's |
|
| 182:08 | most stuffy room. Uh, we down the other end of the hall |
|
| 182:15 | it's colder and it's so much easier you down there. Oh, everybody |
|
| 182:23 | sleep here. At least I Ok, folks. Uh, I'll |
|
| 182:28 | here for a little bit if you any questions. We're glad to answer |
|
| 182:33 | . Uh Hey, hey, I'm sorry. So you, you |
|
| 182:37 | , uh, you want us to on the study guide and try to |
|
| 182:42 | those questions the next week you will a time aside to go over any |
|
| 182:47 | we have from doing. Absolutely. why I gave it to you. |
|
| 182:51 | . Uh, usually give it a earlier than I did this one at |
|
| 182:56 | time. I apologize. I got , uh, on some work |
|
| 183:01 | Uh, uh, you know, companies want to work but they don't |
|
| 183:05 | to pay me. But that's And then will we have a quiz |
|
| 183:11 | Friday on the last handout? You a quit next? No, |
|
| 183:21 | I'm not gonna give you a Friday. Ok. Because yeah, |
|
| 183:26 | like one more handout to read but read it. No, it's, |
|
| 183:29 | well read it because it's part of might be on the quiz, |
|
| 183:34 | the final for final. Yeah, particular in chapter seven, you're gonna |
|
| 183:39 | something about rotating axis. In other , I'm gonna move a particular Avio |
|
| 183:52 | into a class two from a class type of thing. Uh, and |
|
| 183:59 | kind of a neat little trick to at. It's basically what I've been |
|
| 184:03 | rotating the axis. You're trying uh get to the wet response and |
|
| 184:12 | , that happens by getting into the quadrant, read the article. It's |
|
| 184:19 | , um, it's an article by Ver and myself. I think it |
|
| 184:28 | . I think that's the one you to read. What is the reading |
|
| 184:33 | ? So, I think, I that was the one we did for |
|
| 184:36 | week. And then there's one more was Foster and Keys. What, |
|
| 184:41 | the, what's the reading assignment for variety? Foster and Keys? |
|
| 184:46 | And what, what else? That's . What discs, disc seven? |
|
| 184:55 | , it doesn't say any disc. , it might be in chapter |
|
| 185:12 | I'll take a look at it and you know. So I'll be |
|
| 185:17 | There's just so much data. so, so much information. All |
|
| 185:28 | . Take care. drive carefully, safe. Thank |
|
