ROCK PHYSICS FOR THE REST OF US – AN INFORMAL DISCUSSION
Jan Dewar – Scott Pickford, a Core Laboratories Company
What is Rock Physics?
Rock Physics describes a reservoir rock by physical properties such as porosity, rigidity, compressibility;
properties that will affect how seismic waves physically travel through the rocks. The Rock Physicist
seeks to establish relations between these material properties and the observed seismic response, and to
develop a predictive theory so that these properties may be detected seismically.
Establishing relationships between seismic expression and physical rock properties therefore requires 1)
knowledge about the elastic properties of the pore fluid and rock frame, and 2) models for rock-fluid
interactions. This is the domain of Rock Physics.
Rock Physics / Petrophysics: What’s the difference?
Stated very simply, (and therefore with apologies to Rock Physicists and to Petrophysicists):
Rock Physics… Petrophysics …
Rock Physics uses sonic logs, density logs, and also Petrophysics uses all kinds of logs, core data and
dipole (shear velocity) logs if available. production data; and integrates all pertinent
information.
Rock Physics aims to establish P-wave velocity Petrophysics aims at obtaining the physical
(Vp), S-wave velocity (Vs), density, and their properties such as porosity, saturation and
relationships to elastic moduli κ (bulk modulus) and permeability, which are related to production
µ (rigidity modulus), porosity, pore shape, pore parameters.
fluid, temperature, pressure, etc. for given
lithologies and fluid types.
Rock Physics talks about velocities and elastic Petrophysics is generally less concerned with
parameters, because these are what link physical seismic, and more concerned with using wellbore
rock properties to seismic expression. measurements to contribute to reservoir description.
Rock Physics may use information provided by the Petrophysics can provide things like porosity,
Petrophysicist, such as shale volume, saturation saturation, permeability, net pay, fluid contacts,
levels, and porosity in establishing relations shale volume, and reservoir zonation.
between rock properties or in performing fluid
substitution analyses.
Rock Physics is the interest of Geophysicists (and Petrophysics is the interest of Petroleum Engineers,
maybe Physicists). Well Log Analysts, Core Analysts, Geologists and
Geophysicists.
Why do we need Rock Physics?
Accurate relations between rock properties and seismic attributes can to put “flesh on the bones” of a
seismic interpretation. That is, Rock Physics allows the interpreter to put “rock properties together with
seismic horizons.” (Peeters). Information about porosity, pore-fill, and lithology becomes available to
augment the seismic interpretation.
What can Rock Physics studies contribute?
Typical Rock Physics studies will answer questions such as:
• can porosity and saturation be obtained from (seismic) interval velocity?
• what are the velocity-porosity relations in various lithologies?
• is seismic AVO response sensitive to gas saturation levels in a particular play?
• how sensitive?
• what increments of gas saturation can be detected seismically?
• how robust would AVO seismic response be in situations of varying thickness?
• how robust would AVO seismic response be in situations of varying porosity?
• can an optimal processing strategy be determined for processing the seismic data for AVO analysis?
• what seismic characteristics or attributes may be useful to distinguish gas-sand from shale?
• what is the influence of gas saturation on velocities, density and reflectivity in a particular play?
• what is the influence of clay content?
• what is an appropriate mudrock line value for further AVO analysis of a particular play?
Rock Physics in Practice: some examples
Example 1: Cross-plotting well log data
A typical task in a Rock Physics study is to calculate AVO attributes from the well logs and cross-plot
various attributes from selected geologic units. These cross-plots are used to:
• understand how the rock properties are related
• determine the resolution of rock properties in various lithologies in the area
• determine the sensitivity of various attributes to fluid effects
• contribute velocity constraints such as mudrock line values to AVO analysis of seismic data.
• contribute to interpretation of attribute sections: which attribute(s) are best for describing a given
reservoir?
The following example is from a well log from western Canada. Data points from various depth intervals
are cross-plotted in various attribute spaces. Note how data from various depth intervals (lithologies)
cluster. Note also how the clusters are separated more easily in some attribute spaces than in others.
________________________________________________________________________
Rock Physics for the Rest of Us 2
base shale
Figure 1: Crossplots of parameters
calculated from wireline data. Such
crossplots indicate which attributes
will be helpful to discriminate gas
sands in a particular play.
________________________________________________________________________
Rock Physics for the Rest of Us 3
Example 2: Crossplotting seismic data
This example illustrates how crossplots can be used to see which attributes may show clear separation for
the zone of interest. In this case, the zone of interest is an oil-bearing sand.
On the following page are crossplots from AVO Attribute sections derived from pre-stack seismic data.
The highlighted data points are taken from data at well locations A, B, C, and D, over the zone of interest
(as interpreted on the AVO Attribute time sections). Note differences in separation of clusters in the Ip
versus Is (P-Impedance versus S-Impedance) crossplots as compared to the Lambda*Rho versus Mu*Rho
crossplots. This set of crossplots illustrates how, at least in this study area, good sand may be
distinguished from coal, shale, wet sand, and regional wet sand by crossplotting AVO attributes or elastic
rock properties, and that various attributes are available for crossplotting.
One could then use this knowledge of crossplot cluster patterns at known wells to further investigate
cluster patterns at various other well locations, and at potential locations beyond.
________________________________________________________________________
Rock Physics for the Rest of Us 4
regional
regional
________________________________________________________________________
Rock Physics for the Rest of Us 5
Example 3: S- wave velocity prediction
Shear wave velocities are required for most AVO analyses. However, the S-wave velocities are not
commonly logged, and often must be predicted from P-wave sonic logs. This is another typical task
of the Rock Physics study.
In this example from northern Mexico, the P-wave velocity model was built by calibrating the
interval velocities obtained from NMO analysis of the seismic data with the sonic velocities. The
mud-rock line, estimated from the well’s P- and S- velocities, and shown in the figure below, was
used to scale and shift the P-wave velocities to obtain the S-wave velocity field.
Figure 3: Vp vs Vs Graph. The S-wave velocity function was
obtained from the mud-rock line estimated from the well’s dipole
sonic log. The green points, which correspond to the gas sand were
not included in the linear fit.
________________________________________________________________________
Rock Physics for the Rest of Us 6
Example 4: Fluid substitutions
Another practical application of Rock Physics is to perform fluid substitutions in well log data, to
assess ‘what if’ possibilities. For example, the gas-charged zone of a well log can be edited to
simulate the wet well case. Fluid substitutions should not be considered to be trivial matters because
fluid type plays an influence on many properties. For instance, one cannot simply lower the P-
velocity to substitute gas for brine, the density will also be affected when gas is substituted for brine.
The main point here is that fluid substitution studies cannot be approached casually.
Figure 4;In this example from a carbonate play, the effects of porosity and fluid content have been
investigated. This particular example, shows that Lambda*Rho is decreased by gas, and the gas
effect is greater at low porosities. Mu*Rho may be increased or decreased, but is generally
relatively unchanged by the presence of gas.
In addition to fluid substitutions, sensitivity to thickness of a rock layer may be examined by
perturbing the well logs to alter the thickness, or even to remove the layer. Attributes can be
calculated from the modified wells to simulate seismic response to the various thickness increments.
Similarly, porosity, saturation, or other physical properties could be incrementally changed by
editing the logs, then calculate Vp, Vs, density, and elastic moduli relationships to investigate seismic
response. This is illustrated in the next example.
Example 5: 1.5D pre-stack seismic modeling
Reservoir rocks have physical material properties. Pre-stack seismic modeling means calculating the
synthetic pre-stack seismic gather that would result from these rock properties. Pre-stack seismic
modeling essentially presents similar information as does cross-plotting, but since synthetic seismic
wiggle traces are output, one has the added benefit of being able to view seismic expression for the
modeled earth properties, not just well logs or crossplots.
Synthetic seismic gathers are generated by calculating how the wavefield would pass through an earth
model. The earth model is first constructed by using sonic, density, and shear wave logs to form a
description of the subsurface depth.
There are two main modeling algorithms: Zoeppritz and Elastic wave equation. The Zoeppritz
equations modeling uses ray tracing and approximates the source signal as a plane wave propagating
through our earth model. The more computationally intensive Elastic Wave Equation modeling
________________________________________________________________________
Rock Physics for the Rest of Us 7
provides a more sophisticated result by using the full wave equation to propagate the spherical
wavefront through the depth model. It accounts for peg-leg multiples, surface multiples, absorption,
transmission losses, and converted waves.
The synthetic pre-stack gather can then be processed in the same way as one would process any real
pre-stack gathers. This includes extracting AVO attributes and Lame’s parameters from modeled
synthetic gathers in just the same way as one extracts these from real pre-stack data. In this way one
can predict from the model those attributes, if any, which will be useful AVO hydrocarbon indicators
for actual seismic data.
As mentioned earlier, one can vary reservoir properties such as the fluid type, porosity, thickness, to
study the resulting seismic AVO response and investigate possible non-unique physical causes of the
observed seismic response. We can also study the sensitivity of the seismic to acquisition parameters,
signal to noise ratio, bandwidth, and processing parameters.
Figure 5: Pre-Stack Synthetic gather. The depth model is a well from western Canada;
the well data is shown here in two-way time.
Example 6: 2D pre-stack modeling
Using horizon based interpolation, several well logs can be used to construct a 2D geologic earth
model and generate an interpolated ‘2D Line’ of synthetic pre-stack gathers. One can stack this ‘line’
of modeled pre-stack gathers to study the stack response. One can also extract pre-stack AVO
attributes and assess the relative importance of attributes before investing time and effort in an AVO
analysis of actual field seismic data.
________________________________________________________________________
Rock Physics for the Rest of Us 8
Figure 6: 2D Modeled (Lambda*Rho - Mu*Rho) Difference Section. The pre-stack modeling is
based on well log data and rock physics analyses.
Digging Deeper: Where does all this come from?
Two approaches: Theoretical and Empirical
Equations that attempt to describe the relationships between
seismic velocities and lithology, porosity, pore fluid, etc. are
either theoretical or empirical. Theoretical relationships start
with underlying physical principles and attempt to propose a
universal relationship (at least for the assumptions they may be
forced to make). One of the amazing things about many
theoretical relationships in Physics is how well they can work.
But they all break down at some point or in some particular
circumstances when assumptions, sometimes hidden, are
violated.
Empirical relationships are derived from experiment. Physical
properties of a suite of rock samples are measured, analysed,
graphed, and a mathematical function (often a linear equation of
the form y = mx + b) is fit to the data points. Sometimes a linear
fit is natural (the data points are linear for the most part, but in
some manner fall away from a linear trend, often near the end
points). Sometimes measured data points fit to non-linear
equations. Empirical relations most often work very well for the data they were derived from, but can be
difficult to compare from one research project to the next. With empirical relations one must be careful
about ascribing physical meaning to what are essentially generic mathematical formulae.
________________________________________________________________________
Rock Physics for the Rest of Us 9
Zhijing Wang summarizes the tension between theoretical and empirical approaches this way:
Most direct measurements are carried out either in the laboratory or inside a borehole, whereas
most theoretical calculations are based on the Gassmann equation (Gassmann, 1951) because of
its simplicity and ease of use. Direct laboratory measurements are carried out uncontrolled,
simulated reservoir environments and provide accurate effects of pore fluids on seismic
properties. Direct borehole measurements, however, are often affected by uncontrollable factors
such as stress concentration, hole washout, mud invasion/filtration, and saturation conditions. In
both laboratory and borehole measurements, the wave frequencies are higher than seismic
frequencies.
Theoretical calculations such as those using the Gassmann equation require input parameters that
have to be directly measured in the laboratory. In fact, some theories require input parameters
that are often hard to obtain with a reasonable precision. On the other hand, some theories,
particularly the Gassmann equation, are based on frequencies comparable to seismic wave
frequencies. Therefore, a direct comparison of laboratory results with theoretical calculations
often involves the dispersion problem, where dispersion means that seismic velocities are
functions of the wave frequency. (Wang, 2000, p 8)
The crux of all this is that there are a great number of relationships between seismic velocities (and
constituent elastic properties) and rock parameters that are all valid to some degree but not valid always,
and many that do not illuminate the physical principles involved. The trick is to try to gain a fundamental
understanding so that, on a practical basis, the different relationships can be evaluated for their
applicability to solving specific problems.
Gassman equations: an overview
Gassman’s (1951) equations provide a way to calculate the bulk modulus of a fluid-saturated porous
medium using the known bulk moduli of the solid matrix, of the frame, and of the pore fluid. For a rock,
the solid matrix consists of the rock-forming minerals, the frame refers to the rock sample with empty
pores (dry rock), and the pore fluid can be a gas, oil, water, or a mixture. The equations also express that
the shear modulus is not affected by fluid saturation.
Assumptions in Gassman’s equations
“The rock-fluid system is so complicated that virtually all the theories for such a system have to make
major assumptions to simplify the mathematics. “ (Wang 2000, pp 9,10)
The basic assumptions in the Gassmann equation. What does this mean?
(The devil is in the details)
1. The rock (both the matrix and the frame) is This common assumption ensures that the wavelength is
macroscopically homogeneous and isotropic. long compared to the grain and pore sizes. Most rock
can generally meet this assumption for seismic (20-200
Hz) to laboratory frequencies (100 kHz – 1 MHz).
2. All the pores are interconnected or communicating. This implies that porosity and permeability are high. The
reason behind this assumption is to ensure full
equilibrium of the pore fluid flow induced by the
passing wave can be attained within the time frame of
half a wave period. For seismic waves, only
________________________________________________________________________
Rock Physics for the Rest of Us 10
unconsolidated sands can approximately meet this
assumption because of the finite wavelength.
3. The pores are filled with a frictionless fluid (liquid, The viscosity of the saturating fluid is zero. The purpose
gas, or mixture). of this assumption again is to ensure full equilibrium of
the pore fluid flow. In reality, because all fluids have
finite viscosities and all waves have finite wavelengths,
most calculations using the Gassmann equation will
violate this assumption.
4. The rock-fluid system under study is closed For a lab rock sample, this means that the rock-fluid
(undrained). system is sealed so that no fluid can flow in or out of the
rock’s surface.
For a reservoir rock, the volume v which is under study
must be part of a much larger volume V, and be located
far enough from the surface of V that the passing
seismic wave does not cause any appreciable flow
through the surface of v.
5. When the rock is excited by a wave, the relative This key assumption is the essence of the Gassmann
motion between the fluid and the solid rock is equation. It requires that wavelength be infinity (or the
negligibly small compared to the motion of the frequency be zero). It is also perhaps the reason why the
whole saturated rock itself. measured bulk modulus or velocity are usually higher
than those calculated by the Gassmann equation. This is
because at high frequencies, relative motion between the
solid matrix and pore fluid will occur so that the waves
are dispersive.
6. The pore fluid does not interact with the solid in a In reality, the pore fluid will interact with the rock’s
way that would soften or harden the frame. solid matrix to change the surface energy. When a rock
is saturated by a fluid, the fluid may either soften or
harden the matrix.
So what can be said about the uses and limitations of Gassmann’s equation?
The Gassmann equation works reasonably well for rocks with interconnected high aspect-ratio pores such
as unconsolidated clean sands and sandstones at high effective pressures. (“works reasonably well” means
little difference exists between the Gassmann-calculated and laboratory-measured seismic velocities).
Carbonate rocks have strong elastic frames and very different pore systems compared to siliciclastic rocks.
Because many pores in carbonate rocks are not well connected, the Gassmann equation is in general
inadequate for carbonate rocks.
For rocks with flat pores, cracks, or fractures, and rocks saturated with high-viscosity fluids, Assumption 5
cannot be satisfied, so the Gassmann-calculated Vp is always less than the measured Vp. This is because
such pore shapes do not allow room for the fluid to equilibriate in the half-wavelength time period
required by the equation.
At high pressures, the flat pores, cracks, or fractures are closed, so then the Gassmann-calculated
velocities agree better with the measured values.
In unconsolidated or poorly consolidated sands, the measured shear modulus of the dry frame usually has
high uncertainty because of high shear wave attenuation. A 10% uncertainty in dry frame shear modulus
yields a 2% uncertainty in the Gassmann-calculated Vp.
Biot
Gassman’s equations are not adequate to calculate frame moduli in the high frequency range of laboratory
data. Biot’s (1956) theory includes the entire frequency range up to the point where the grain scattering
________________________________________________________________________
Rock Physics for the Rest of Us 11
becomes important and the rocks can no longer be considered homogeneous. Gassmann’s equations are
the low frequency limit of Biot’s more general relationships. Note that for the case of perfect coupling,
Biot’s equations reduce to the zero-frequency case (Gassmann’s Assumption #5 is met).
Further Refinements
Much of the ongoing research work in Rock Physics is to approach physical reality more closely. For
example, the Biot equations say that the fluid must participate in the solid’s motion by viscous friction and
inertial coupling, but it is known that fluid also squirts out of pores when deformed by a passing seismic
wave. Traditionally, the Biot mechanism has been treated macroscopically, and the squirt-flow
mechanism at the individual pore level. Work by Dvorak and Nur (1992) offers a model which treats both
mechanisms as coupled processes and relates Vp and attenuation to macroscopic parameters: the Biot
poroelastic constants, porosity, permeability, fluid compressibility and viscosity, and a new microscopic-
scale parameter – a fundamental and measurable characteristic squirt-flow length. Such local flow models
are representative of current work to extend Gassmann’s description to include more realistic portrayals of
rocks, and to relative poroelastic behavior to macroscopic measurable parameters such as permeability,
porosity, saturation, pore-fluid compressibility, density, and viscosity). Please see ‘For Further Reading’
for some excellent papers in this regard.
Issues in Rock Physics
The challenge of scale
The scales at which Geophysics and Petrophysics work are very different. Logs and cores give resolution
less than 0.3 metres, while seismic resolution is often no better than 15 metres. This may be expressed in
terms of the frequency ranges used:
• The range of seismic frequencies is typically considered to be 20 – 200 Hz (and more
realistically 10 - 80 Hz)
• Logging frequencies are around 10 kHz
•Laboratory frequencies have traditionally been 100 kHz – 1 MHz. Also note that in the lab, it has
been nearly impossible to carry out wave propagation measurements at low (seismic realm)
frequencies as the sample length is required to be at least half a wavelength. For a rock with
4000m/s Vp, a 50Hz wave would require a 40m sample. However, recent promising advances in
Rock Mechanics have succeeded in velocity measurements in the lab at the 100Hz range, which is
very promising indeed (Lewis Lacy, Director of Geomechanics, CoreLab Rock Mechanics Lab,
personal communication).
The challenge of focus
Advances in computing power mean that efforts are turning from the traditional seismic task of getting an
accurate image of subsurface structures to extracting more and more rock property information from the
seismic wavelet. Computing power also benefits Reservoir Modeling, and as more complex dynamic
simulations become possible, real integration of seismic and reservoir characterization gets closer.
Establishing accurate relations between rock properties and acoustic parameters is becoming more
imperative. “If the trend in computering power continues, a 3-D earth model with geological,
petrophysical, and geophysical data in all grid-blocks will be available soon. This ‘unified model’ would
have the resolution of cores near the well bore; of logs in most other places; and will be used for both
static and dynamic modeling.” (Peeters)
The challenge of calibration
Seismic sections that show rock and fluid properties will be more meaningful if they can be calibrated
with forward modeling from accurate rock properties measured at seismic frequencies. There is a huge
________________________________________________________________________
Rock Physics for the Rest of Us 12
difference between a 50 Hz seismic wavlet (approximately 40 m resolution) and a 10 kHz sonic wireline
tool (20 cm). Which high frequency results can be extrapolated to the seismic realm?
The lack of measured shear velocities
Dipole logs are not commonly performed, and estimates of Vs carry uncertainty, particularly in
unconsolidated sediments.
The promise of the prize
Just a few of the problems facing the geoscientist are mentioned above.There are plenty of issues and
shortcomings with Rock Physics, as with any discipline handling complex physical processes.
Nonetheless, the Rock Physics effort is progressing in a valid direction. The achievement of rock
properties from seismic data, integrated with wireline, petrophysical, and geologic knowledge is a goal
that is becoming more attainable. Rock physics draws together the disciplines of Geophysics and
Petrophysics, bringing the possibility of a unified 3-dimensional earth model within reach.
Acknowledgments
I am indebted to my colleagues Yongyi Li, Alvaro Chaveste, and Michael Burianyk for their assistance.
References & Further Reading
Biot, 1956, Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a fluid saturated porous solid, 1. Low frequency range, J.
Acoust. Soc. Am., 28, 179-191.
Castagna, J., 1993, AVO Analysis – Tutorial and Review, Chapter one of Offset-dependent reflectivity –
theory and practice of AVO analysis, Investigations in Geophysics No. 8, SEG.
Castagna, J.,Han, D., & Batzle, M.L., 1995, Issues in rock physics and implications for DHI interpretation, The
Leading Edge, August 1995.
Dvorkin, J., & Nur,A., 1993, Dynamic poroelasticity: A unified model with the squirt and the Biot
mechanisms, Geophysics 58, 524-533.
Dvorkin, J., Nolen_Hoeksems, R. & Nur, A., 1994, The squirt-flow mechanism: Macroscopic description,
Geophysics, 59, 428-438.
Gassmann,F., 1951, Elastic waves through a packing of spheres: Geophysics, 16, 673-685.
Kelder, O., & Smeulders, D.M.J., 1997, Observation of the Biot slow compressional wave in water-saturated
Nivelsteiner sandstone, Geophysics, 62, p 1794.
Peeters, Ir. M., Physical Reservoir Models: From Pictures to Properties, an address presented at the
commencement of the Baker Hughes Distinguished Chair of Petrophysics and Borehole Geophysics,
Colorado School of Mines, http://www.geophysics.mines.edu/max/Resmod.html
Wang, Z., 2000, The Gassmann equation revisited: Comparing laboratory data with Gassmann’s predictions,
Seismic and Acoustic Velocities in Reser voir Rocks, Vol. 3, Recent Developments, SEG Reprint Series,
pp 1-23.
________________________________________________________________________
Rock Physics for the Rest of Us 13
