Azimuthal anisotropy analysis of both velocity and reflection amplitude variations for land seismic data has gained popularity over the last twenty years following the advent of wide-azimuth and long-offset data acquisition (Lynn et. al., 1996: Mallick, 1996). These types of seismic data allow us to estimate the magnitude and orientation of azimuthal anisotropy of the reflection amplitudes and kinematic variations. Using a suitable geomechanical interpretation, we can link these seismic attributes to fracture density, fracture orientation, and the in-situ stress. This is important because these can be used to aid in hydraulic fracturing, design, and horizontal well placement. Generally, there are two techniques to evaluate azimuthal anisotropy: azimuthal velocity analysis and azimuthal amplitude analysis and inversion. Over the last twenty-five years, numerous publications describe successes of these techniques, such as Narhari et. al. (2015) and Lynn et. al. (2014a, 2014b). But, recently, there have been some opposing opinions as well (Rauch-Davies et. al., 2019: Van De Coevering et. al., 2019). The claim is that these effects are very subtle and often lost in the noise and data processing required to produce good images. Furthermore, azimuthal variations can appear to be geologic, but have nothing to do with the geology at the reservoir. With this in mind, we began our study of the SEAM Phase II model and synthetic with the goal of discovering what factors control the success and failure of various analyses.
Presentation Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2020
Session Start Time: 8:30 AM
Presentation Time: 8:30 AM
Location: 361A
Presentation Type: Oral