2012
DOI: 10.2516/ogst/2011167
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Experimental Verification of the Petroelastic Model in the Laboratory – Fluid Substitution and Pressure Effects

Abstract: Ce modèle doit prendre en compte à la fois les effets de substitution de fluides et les effets de variation de pression sur les paramètres sismiques mesurés (vitesses, impédances). Cet article décrit une vérification expérimentale au laboratoire de ce modèle. Concernant les effets de substitution de fluides, le modèle de Biot-Gassmann est le plus utilisé. Ce modèl considère que le module de cisaillement est indépendant de la nature du fluide saturant, quand celui-ci est non visqueux, et relie les variations de… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
13
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
(35 reference statements)
3
13
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Contrary to the first break picking that leads to overestimated acoustic velocities, the computation of the phase velocity allows the minimization of heterogeneity effect. The measured phase velocities are more representative of the sample macroscopic behaviour and thus more consistent with the poromechanical approach leading to Gassmann's equation (Rasolofosaon and Zinszner 2012).…”
Section: A L T E R a T I O N I M P A C T O N T H E P E T R O A C O U supporting
confidence: 78%
“…Contrary to the first break picking that leads to overestimated acoustic velocities, the computation of the phase velocity allows the minimization of heterogeneity effect. The measured phase velocities are more representative of the sample macroscopic behaviour and thus more consistent with the poromechanical approach leading to Gassmann's equation (Rasolofosaon and Zinszner 2012).…”
Section: A L T E R a T I O N I M P A C T O N T H E P E T R O A C O U supporting
confidence: 78%
“…Careful examination of both data sets shows that values of the bulk modulus of the solid‐filled rock at seismic and ultrasonic frequencies are very close, but the Ciz‐Shapiro predictions are different due to substantial difference between the seismic and ultrasonic drained moduli. We believe that the drained bulk modulus measured at low frequencies is more reliable, since it is the true drained modulus of a fluid‐saturated rock, whereas the ultrasonic modulus was measured on the dry rock, and hence could be altered by the drying process and depends on relative humidity (Rasolofosaon & Zinszner, ; Yurikov et al, ). Conversely, the shear moduli of the dry and drained rock are very close, but for solid‐filled rock the ultrasonic shear modulus is higher than low‐frequency modulus (by about 4 GPa).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is particularly true in Earth sciences, in the area of gas and oil recovery [Doornhof et al, 2006], groundwater management [Novakowski and Gillham, 1988], CO 2 sequestration [JafarGandomi and Curtis, 2011], and geothermal energy extraction [Jaya et al, 2008]. As the elastic properties of reservoir rocks are highly sensitive to the nature of the fluids saturating the pore space [Mavko et al, 2009;Rasolofosaon and Zinszner, 2012], remote seismic monitoring has been proposed as a tool to characterize fluid substitution processes in reservoirs [Rasolofosaon and Zinszner, 2004]. Successful laboratory studies were conducted by Wulff and Mjaaland [2002] looking at reflected seismic waves in a block of sandstone flooded by water and by [Stanchits et al, 2011] in fluid injection experiments with acoustic emissions recording and ultrasonic monitoring.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%