1887
Volume 61 Number 6
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Uncertainty is inherent in every stage of the oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) business and understanding uncertainty enables mitigation of E&P risks. Therefore, quantification of uncertainty is beneficial for decision making and uncertainty should be managed along with other aspects of business. For example, decisions on well positioning should take into account the structural uncertainty related to the non‐uniqueness of a velocity model used to create a seismic depth image. Moreover, recent advances in seismic acquisition technology, such as full‐azimuth, long‐offset techniques, combined with high‐accuracy migration algorithms such as reverse‐time migration, can greatly enhance images even in highly complex structural settings, provided that an Earth velocity model with sufficient resolution is available. Modern practices often use non‐seismic observation to better constrain velocity model building. However, even with additional information, there is still ambiguity in our velocity models caused by the inherent non‐uniqueness of the seismic experiment. Many different Earth velocity models exist that match the observed seismic (and well) data and this ambiguity grows rapidly away from well controls. The result is uncertainty in the seismic velocity model and the true positions of events in our images. Tracking these uncertainties can lead to significant improvement in the quantification of exploration risk (e.g., trap failure when well‐logging data are not representative), drilling risk (e.g., dry wells and abnormal pore pressure) and volumetric uncertainties. Whilst the underlying ambiguity can never be fully eradicated, a quantified measure of these uncertainties provides a valuable tool for understanding and evaluating the risks and for development of better risk‐mitigation plans and decision‐making strategies.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12058
2013-08-19
2020-07-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al‐ChalabiM.1997. Time‐depth relationships for multilayer depth conversion. Geophysical Prospecting45, 715–720.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Al‐YahyaK.1986. Velocity analysis by prestack migration. 56th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 662–665.
  3. ArnoldiW.1951. The principle of minimized iterations in the solution of the matrix eigenvalue problem. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics9, 17–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BachrachR. and OsypovK.2008. Integrating seismic and geomechanical information: Principles and applications. SEG Expanded Abstracts27, 3535.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BachrachR., OsypovK., NicholsD., YangY., LiuY. and WoodwardM.2013. Application of deterministic and stochastic rock physics modeling to anisotropic velocity model building. Geophysical Prospecting61, 404–415.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BakulinA., WoodwardM., NicholsD., OsypovK. and ZdravevaO.2010b. Building tilted transversely isotropic depth models using localized anisotropic tomography with well information. Geophysics75, D27–D36.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. BakulinA., WoodwardM., ZdravevaO. and NicholsD.2010a. Application of steering filters to localized anisotropic tomography with well data. 80th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 4286–4290.
  8. BearL., DickensT., KrebsJ., LiuJ. and TrayninP.2005. Integrated velocity model estimation for improved positioning with anisotropic PSDM. The Leading Edge24, 622–634.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. BerrymanJ.2000. Analysis of approximate inverses in tomography I‐II: Resolution analysis of common inverse. Optimization and Engineering1, 87–115, 437–473.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. BowersG.L.1995. Pore pressure estimation from velocity data: Accounting for overpressure mechanisms besides undercompaction. SPE Drilling & Completion10(2), 89–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. ChavanneE., BrahmantioR., DouillardA. and IrvingA.2008. Structural uncertainty: A necessary step in geosciences risk analysis. 78th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 3564–3569.
  12. ClappR., BiondiB. and ClaerboutJ.2004. Incorporating geologic information into reflection tomography. Geophysics69, 533–546.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. ColesD., YangY., DjikpesseH., PrangeM. and OsypovK.2013. Optimal survey design for marine borehole seismicGeophysics (in press).
    [Google Scholar]
  14. CullumJ. and WilloughbyR.A.1986. A practical procedure for computing eigenvalues of large sparse nonsymmetric matrices. In: Large‐scale eigenvalue problems (eds. J.Cullum and R.A.Willoughby ), pp. 193–240. Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  15. DoyenP.M., MalinvernoA., PrioulR., HooymanP., NoethS., den BoerL. et al. 2003. Seismic pore pressure prediction with uncertainty using a probabilistic mechanical earth model. 73rdAnnual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 22, 13661369.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. DuijndamA.1988. Bayesian estimation in seismic inversion, Part II – Uncertainty analysis. Geophysical Prospecting, 899–918.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. DuttaN.C.2002. Geopressure prediction using seismic data: Current status and the road ahead. Geophysics67(6), 1–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. EatonB.A.1975. The equation for geopressure prediction from well logs. SPE 50th Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, paper # 5544, 11 pp.
  19. EatonB.A. and EatonT.L.1997. Fracture gradient prediction for the new generation. World Oil218(10), 93–100.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. EsmersoyC., YangY., SayersC.M., ParekhC., WoodwardM., OsypovK. et al. 2012. Pore‐pressure estimation ahead of the bit while drilling by seismic and well data integration. SEG Expanded Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. EtrisE., NickJ., CrabtreeJ.D. and PickfordS.2001. True depth conversion: More than a pretty picture. CSEG Recorder, November, 12–22.
  22. FoleyL., BallL., HurstA., DavisJ. and BlockleyD.1997. Fuzziness, incompleteness and randomness; Classification of uncertainty in reservoir appraisal. Petroleum Geoscience3(3), 203–209.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. FournierA., IvanovaN., YangY., OsypovK., YarmanC.E., NicholsD. et al. 2013a. Quantifying E&P value of geophysical information using seismic uncertainty analysis. 75th EAGE Conference & Exhibition Paper We‐17–06.
  24. FournierA., BachrachR., IvanovaN., YangY., and OsypovK. 2013b. Value of imperfect information: A use of geoscience uncertainty in E&P decision making. SEG Summer Research Workshop.
  25. FriedenB.R.2004. Science from Fisher Information. Cambridge University Press, 490 pp.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. GolubG. and Van LoanC.1996. Matrix Computations. The John Hopkins University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. GrubbH., TuraA. and HanitzschC.2001. Estimating and interpreting velocity uncertainty in migrated images and AVO attributes. Geophysics66, 1208–1216.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. HansenP.C.2008. Regularization tools: A Matlab package for analysis and solution of discrete ill‐posed problems. Report, Technical University of Denmark.
  29. HansenP.C. and O'LearyD.P.1993. The use of the L‐curve in the regularization of discrete ill‐posed problems. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing14, 1487–1503.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. IvanovaN.L. and AverbukhA.G.2004. Modeling structural mapping errors for stochastic estimation of geologic risk. 66th Conference & Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts.
  31. JacksonD.1972. Interpretation of inaccurate, insufficient, and inconsistent data. Journal of the Royal Astronomy Society28, 97–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. KalscheuerT. and PedersenL.2007. A nonlinear truncated SVD variance and resolution analysis of two‐dimensional magnetotelluric models. Geophysical Journal International169, 435–447.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. KaneJ.A., RodiW., BubeK.P., NemethT., MedwedeffD. and MikhailovO.2004. Structural uncertainty and Bayesian inversion. 74th Annual Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1511–1514.
  34. KollerG.R.2000. Risk Modeling for Determining Value and Decision Making. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. LanczosC.1950. An iteration method for the solution of the eigenvalue problem of linear differential and integral operators. Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards45, 255–282.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. LandaE., ThoreP., SorinV. and KorenZ.1991. Interpretation of velocity estimates from coherency inversion. Geophysics56, 1377–1383.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. LinesL. and TreitelS.1984. Tutorial: A review of least squares inversion and its application to geophysical problems. Geophysical Prospecting32, 159–186.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. LiuW., KrebsJ., LiuJ. and AndersonJ.2004. Mitigation of uncertainty in velocity and anisotropy estimation for prestack depth imaging. 74th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2387–2390.
  39. MaY.Z.2010. Uncertainty analysis in reservoir characterization and management: How much should we know about what we don't know? In: Uncertainty analysis and reservoir modeling, Vol 96(eds. Y.Z.Ma and P.R.La Pointe ), pp. 1–15. AAPG Memoir.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. MalinvernoA. and ParkerR.2006. Two ways to quantify uncertainty in geophysical inverse problems. Geophysics71, W15–W27.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. MalinvernoA., SayersC.M., WoodwardM.J. and BartmanR.C.2004. Integrating diverse measurements to predict pore pressure with uncertainties while drilling. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. MeurantG.2006. The Lanczos and conjugate gradient algorithms: From theory to finite precision computations. SIAM.
  43. MinkoffS.1996. A computationally feasible approximation resolution matrix for seismic inverse problems. Geophysical Journal International126, 345–359.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. NoletG., MontelliR. and VirieuxJ.1999. Explicit, approximate expressions for the resolution and a posteriori covariance of massive tomographic systems. Geophysical Journal International138, 36–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. OsypovK., NicholsD., WoodwardM. and YarmanC.2008b. Tomographic velocity model building using iterative eigendecomposition. Annual Meeting Abstracts, EAGE.
  46. OsypovK., NicholsD., WoodwardM., ZdravevaO. and YarmanC.E.2008a. Uncertainty and resolution analysis for anisotropic tomography using iterative eigendecomposition. 78th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 3244–3249.
  47. OsypovK., NicholsD., YangY., QiaoF., O'BriainM. and ZdravevaO.2010. Anisotropic model building with uncertainty analysis. Case study. 72nd Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts.
  48. OsypovK., O'BriainM., WhitfieldP., NicholsD., DouillardA., SextonP. and JousselinP.2011. Quantifying Structural Uncertainty in Anisotropic Model Building and Depth Imaging – Hild Case Study. 73rd Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts.
  49. OsypovK. and ScalesJ.1996. Data‐based regularization in traveltime tomography. 66th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Extended Abstracts, 2003–2006.
  50. ParlettB.1980. A new look at the Lanczos algorithm for solving symmetric systems of linear equations. Linear Algebra Applied29, 323–346.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. PritchardD.M. and LacyK.D.2011. Deepwater well complexity – The new domain. Deepwater Horizon Study Group Working Paper.
  52. SaadY.2003. Iterative methods for sparse linear systems. SIAM.
  53. SayersC.M., den BoerL., NagyZ.R. and HooymanP.J.2006. Well‐constrained seismic estimation of pore pressure with uncertainty. The Leading Edge25, 1524–1526.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. ScalesJ.1987. Tomographic inversion via the conjugate gradient method. Geophysics52, 179–185.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. ScalesJ.A., DochertyP. and GersztenkornA.1990. Regularization of nonlinear inverse problems: Imaging the near‐surface weathering layer. Inverse Problems6, 115–131.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. ScalesJ. and TenorioL.2001. Prior information and uncertainty in inverse problems. Geophysics66, 389–397.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. SimpsonG.S., LambF.E., FinchJ.H. and DinnieN.C.2000. The application of probabilistic and qualitative methods to asset management and decision making. SPE 59455.
  58. SorensenD.1992. Implicit application of polynomial filters in a k‐step Arnoldi method. SIAM Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications13, 357–385.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. StunffY., GrechkaV. and TsvankinI.1999. Depth‐domain velocity analysis in VTI media using surface P‐wave data: Is it feasible? 69th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1604–1607.
  60. TarantolaA.1987. Inverse Problem Theory. Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. ThoreP., ShtukaA., LecourM., Ait‐EttajerT. and CognotR.2002. Structural uncertainties: Determination, management, and applications. Geophysics67, 840–852.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. TikhonovA. and ArseninV.1977. Solutions of Ill‐posed Problems. John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. VascoD., JohnsonL. and MarquesO.2003. Resolution, uncertainty, and whole Earth tomography. Journal of Geophysical Research108, 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. WhitcombeD.N. and CarrollR.J.1994. The application of map migration to 2‐D migrated data. Geophysics59, 1121–1132.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. WoodwardM., NicholsD., ZdravevaO., WhitfieldP. and JohnsT.2008. A decade of tomography. Geophysics73, VE5–VE11.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. YaoZ.S., OsypovK.S., RobertsR.G.1998. Traveltime tomography using regularized recursive least squares. Geophysical Journal International134, 545–553.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. YorkP., PritchardD., DodsonJ.K., DodsonT., RosenbergS., GalaD. and UtamaB.2009. Eliminating non‐productive time associated with drilling trouble zones. Offshore Technology Conference paper20220.
  68. ZdravevaO., WoodwardM., NicholsD. and OsypovK.2011. Building Anisotropic Models for Depth Imaging: Comparing different approaches. 12th International Congress of the Brazilian Geophysical Society, Extended Abstracts.
  69. ZhangJ. and McMechanG.A.1995. Estimation of resolution and covariance for large matrix inversions. Geophysical Journal International121(2), 409–426.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. ZhangH. and ThurberC.H.Estimating the model resolution matrix for large seismic tomography problems based on Lanczos bidiagonalization with partial reorthogonalization. Geophysical Journal International170(1), 337–345.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12058
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12058
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Anisotropy , Pore‐pressure prediction , Rock physics , Uncertainty and Velocity model building
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