1887
Volume 65, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a comparison between subsurface impedance models derived from different deterministic and geostatistical seismic inversion methodologies applied to a challenging synthetic dataset. Geostatistical seismic inversion methodologies nowadays are common place in both industry and academia, contrasting with traditional deterministic seismic inversion methodologies that are becoming less used as part of the geo‐modelling workflow. While the first set of techniques allows the simultaneous inference of the best‐fit inverse model along with the spatial uncertainty of the subsurface elastic property of interest, the second family of inverse methodology has proven results in correctly predicting the subsurface elastic properties of interest with comparatively less computational cost. We present herein the results of a benchmark study performed over a realistic three‐dimensional non‐stationary synthetic dataset in order to assess the performance and convergence of different deterministic and geostatistical seismic inverse methodologies. We also compare and discuss the impact of the inversion parameterisation over the exploration of the model parameter space. The results show that the chosen seismic inversion methodology should always be dependent on the type and quantity of the available data, both seismic and well‐log, and the complexity of the geological environment versus the assumptions behind each inversion technique. The assessment of the model parameter space shows that the initial guess of traditional deterministic seismic inversion methodologies is of high importance since it will determine the location of the best‐fit inverse solution.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12489
2017-01-23
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AvsethP., MukerjiT. and MavkoG.2005. Quantitative Seismic Interpretation. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AzevedoL., NunesR., CorreiaP., SoaresA., GuerreiroL. and NetoG.S.2013a. Multidimensional scaling for the evaluation of a geostatistical seismic elastic inversion methodology. Geophysics79(1).
    [Google Scholar]
  3. AzevedoL., NunesR., SoaresA. and NetoG.S.2013b. Stochastic seismic AVO inversion. 75th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, pp. 10–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. AzevedoL., NunesR., SoaresA., MundinE.C. and NetoG.S.2015. Integration of well data into geostatistical seismic amplitude variation with angle inversion for facies estimation. Geophysics80(6).
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BoschM., MukerjiT. and GonzálezE.F.2010. Seismic inversion for reservoir properties combining statistical rock physics and geostatistics: a review. Geophysics75(5), 75A165.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Buland, A., & Omre, H.2003. Bayesian linearized AVO inversion. Geophysics, 68(1), 185–198.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. GranaD. and Della RossaE.2010. Probabilistic petrophysical‐properties estimation integrating statistical rock physics with seismic inversion. Geophysics75(3), O21–O37.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. GonzálezE.F., MukerjiT. and MavkoG.2008. Seismic inversion combining rock physics and multiple‐point geostatistics. Geophysics73(1), R11–R21.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. HampsonD., RussellB. and BankheadB.2005. Simultaneous inversion of pre‐stack seismic data. Expanded Abstracts, 1633–1638. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
  10. NunesR., SoaresA., NetoG.S., DillonL., GuerreiroL., CaetanoC.et al. 2012. Geostatistical inversion of prestack seismic data . In: Ninth International Geostatistics Congress, Oslo, Norway, 1–8.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. RussellB. and HampsonD.1991. Comparison of poststack seismic inversion methods. 61st SEG annual international meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 876–878.
  12. SambridgeM.1999. Geophysical inversion with a neighborhood algorithm—I. Searching a parameter space. Geophysical Journal International138(2), 479–494.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. SenM.K. and StoffaP.L.1991. Nonlinear one dimensional seismic waveform inversion using simulated annealing. Geophysics56(10), 1624–1638.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. SoaresA.2001. Direct sequential simulation and cosimulation. Mathematical Geology33(8), 911–926.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. SoaresA., DietJ.D. and GuerreiroL.2007. Stochastic inversion with a global perturbation method. EAGE Conference on Petroleum Geostatistics, Cascais, Portugal, pp. 10–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. TarantolaA.2005. Inverse Problem Theory and Methods for Model Parameter Estimation. SIAM.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12489
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12489
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error