1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 66, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 66, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Multiparameter inversion for pre‐stack seismic data plays a significant role in quantitative estimation of subsurface petrophysical properties. However, it remains a complicated problem due to the non‐unique results and unstable nature of the processing; the pre‐stack seismic inversion problem is ill‐posed and band‐limited. Combining the full Zoeppritz equation and additional assumptions with edge‐preserving regularisation can help to alleviate these problems. To achieve this, we developed an inversion method by constructing a new objective function that includes edge‐preserving regularisation and soft constraints based on anisotropic Markov random fields and is intended especially for layered formations. We applied a fast simulated annealing algorithm to solve the nonlinear optimisation problem. The method directly obtains reflectivity values using the full Zoeppritz equation instead of its approximations and effectively controls the stability of the multiparameter inversion by assuming a sectionally constant S‐ and P‐wave velocity ratio and using the generalised Gardner equation. We substituted the inverted parameters, i.e., the P‐wave velocity, the fitting deviation of S‐wave velocity, and the density were inverted instead of the P‐wave velocity, the S‐wave velocity, and the density, and the generalised Gardner equation was applied as a constraint. Test results on two‐dimensional synthetic data indicated that our substitution obtained improved results for multiparameter inversion. The inverted results could be improved by utilising high‐order anisotropic Markov random field neighbourhoods at early stages and low‐order anisotropic Markov random field neighbourhoods in the later stages. Moreover, for layered formations, using a large horizontal weighting coefficient can preserve the lateral continuity of layers, and using a small vertical weighting coefficient allows for large longitudinal gradients of the interlayers. The inverted results of the field data revealed more detailed information about the layers and matched the logging curves at the wells acceptably over most parts of the curves.

© 2018 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2017 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12555
2017-10-09
2024-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12555
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AkiK. and RichardsP.G.1980. Quantitative Seismology: Theory and Methods. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. AuneE., EidsvikJ. and UrsinB.2013. Three‐dimensional non‐stationary and non‐linear isotropic AVA inversion. Geophysical Journal International194(2), 787–803.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BaeH.S., PyunS., ChungW., KangS.G. and ShinC.2012. Frequency‐domain acoustic‐elastic coupled waveform inversion using the Gauss–Newton conjugate gradient method. Geophysical Prospecting60(3), 413–432.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. ChapmanM., LiuE. and LiX.Y.2006. The influence of fluid sensitive dispersion and attenuation on AVO analysis. Geophysical Journal International167(1), 89–105.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. CharbonnierP., Blanc‐FéraudL., AubertG. and BarlaudM.1997. Deterministic edge‐preserving regularization in computed imaging. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing6(2), 298–311.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. CheminguiN. and BiondiB.2002. Seismic data reconstruction by inversion to common offset. Geophysics67(5), 1575–1585.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. ChiappaF. and MazzottiA.2009. Estimation of petrophysical parameters by linearized inversion of angle domain pre‐stack data. Geophysical Prospecting57(3), 413–426.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. DescombesX., MorrisR.D., ZerubiaJ. and BerthodM.1999. Estimation of Markov random field prior parameters using Markov chain Monte Carlo maximum likelihood. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing8 (7), 954–963.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. EmotoK., SatoH. and NishimuraT.2013. Envelope synthesis of a cylindrical outgoing wavelet in layered random elastic media based on the Markov approximation. Geophysical Journal International194(2), 899–910.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. FattiJ.L., SmithG.C., VailP.J., StraussP.J. and LevittP.R.1994. Detection of gas in sandstone reservoirs using AVO analysis: a 3‐D seismic case history using the Geostack technique. Geophysics59(59), 1362–1376.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. FomelS.2007. Shaping regularization in geophysical‐estimation problems. Geophysics72(2), R29–R36.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. GélisC., VirieuxJ. and GrandjeanG.2007. Two‐dimensional elastic full waveform inversion using Born and Rytov formulations in the frequency domain. Geophysical Journal International168(2), 605–633.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. GemanD. and ReynoldsG.1992. Constrained restoration and the recovery of discontinuities. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence14(3), 367–383.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. GemanD. and YangC.1995. Nonlinear image recovery with half‐quadratic regularization. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing4(7), 932–946.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. GhoshS.K.2000. Limitations on impedance inversion of band‐limited reflection data. Geophysics65(3), 951–957.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. GuittonA.2012. Blocky regularization schemes for full waveform inversion. Geophysical Prospecting60(5), 870–884.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. HammerH., KolbjørnsenO., TjelmelandH. and BulandA.2012. Lithology and fluid prediction from prestack seismic data using a Bayesian model with Markov process prior. Geophysical Prospecting60(3), 500–515.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. HongT. and SenM.K.2009. A new MCMC algorithm for seismic waveform inversion and corresponding uncertainty analysis. Geophysical Journal International177(1), 14–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. HuR. and FahmyM.M.1992. Texture segmentation based on a hierarchical Markov random field model. Signal Processing26(3), 285–305.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. IngberL.1989. Very fast simulated re‐annealing. Mathematical and Computer Modeling12(8), 967–973.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. KirkpatrickS., GelattC.D. and VecchiM.P.1983. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science220, 671–680.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. LarsenA.L., UlvmoenM., OmreH. and BulandA.2006. Bayesian lithology/fluid prediction and simulation on the basis of a Markov‐chain prior model. Geophysics71(5), R69–R78.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. MaY. and HaleD.2013. Wave‐equation reflection traveltime inversion with dynamic warping and full‐waveform inversion. Geophysics78(6), R223–R233.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. MalinvernoA.2002. Parsimonious Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo inversion in a nonlinear geophysical problem. Geophysical Journal International151(3), 675–688.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. OwusuJ.C., PodgornovaO., ChararaM., LeaneyS., CampbellA., AliS.et al. 2016. Anisotropic elastic full‐waveform inversion of walkaway vertical seismic profiling data from the Arabian Gulf. Geophysical Prospecting64(1), 38–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. PrattR.G., ShinC. and HicksG.J.1998. Gauss–Newton and full Newton methods in frequency–space seismic waveform inversion. Geophysical Journal International133(2), 341–362.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. RimstadK. and OmreH.2010. Impact of rock‐physics depth trends and Markov random fields on hierarchical Bayesian lithology/fluid prediction. Geophysics75(4), R93–R108.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. SenM.K. and StoffaP.L.1996. Bayesian inference, Gibbs' sampler and uncertainty estimation in geophysical inversion. Geophysical Prospecting44(2), 313–350.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. SenM.K. and RoyI.G.2003. Computation of differential seismograms and iteration adaptive regularization in prestack waveform inversion. Geophysics68(6), 2026–2039.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. ShueyR.T.1985. A simplification of the Zoeppritz equations. Geophysics50(50), 609–614.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. TarantolaA.2005. Inverse Problem Theory and Model Parameter Estimation . SIAM.
  32. TarantolaA. and ValetteB.1982. Generalized nonlinear inverse problems solved using the least squares criterion. Review of Geophysics20(20), 219–232.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. TerzopoulosD.1986. Regularization of inverse visual problems involving discontinuities. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence8(4), 413–424
     [Google Scholar]
  34. TikhonovA.H. and ArseninV.Y.1977. Solutions of Ill‐Posed Problems. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. VarelaC.L., StoffaP.L. and SenM.K.1998. Background velocity estimation using non‐linear optimization for reflection tomography and migration misfit. Geophysical Prospecting46(1), 51–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. WangK., SunZ. and DongN.2015. Prestack inversion based on anisotropic Markov random field‐maximum posterior probability inversion and its application to identify shale gas sweet spots. Applied Geophysics12(4), 533–544.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. YanZ. and GuH.2013. Non‐linear prestack seismic inversion with global optimization using an edge‐preserving smoothing filter. Geophysical Prospecting61(4), 747–760.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. ZhangH., ShangZ. and YangC.2007. A non‐linear regularized constrained impedance inversion. Geophysical Prospecting55(6), 819–833.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. ZhangH., ShangZ. and YangC.2009. Adaptive reconstruction method of impedance model with absolute and relative constraints. Journal of Applied Geophysics67(2), 114–124.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. ZhangY., XiongH. and ChenC.W.2012. A novel Slepian‐Wolf decoding algorithm exploiting geometric regularity constraints with anisotropic MRF modeling. IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, 137–140.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. ZhangZ. and HuangL.2013. Double‐difference elastic‐waveform inversion with prior information for time‐lapse monitoring. Geophysics78(6), R259–R273.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12555
Loading
A nonlinear method for multiparameter inversion of pre‐stack seismic data based on anisotropic Markov random field
Geophysical Prospecting 66, 461 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12555
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12555
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12555
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Nonlinear inversion; Optimization; Prestack

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