1887
Volume 68, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

In geophysical inverse problems, the posterior model can be analytically assessed only in case of linear forward operators, Gaussian, Gaussian mixture, or generalized Gaussian prior models, continuous model properties, and Gaussian‐distributed noise contaminating the observed data. For this reason, one of the major challenges of seismic inversion is to derive reliable uncertainty appraisals in cases of complex prior models, non‐linear forward operators and mixed discrete‐continuous model parameters. We present two amplitude versus angle inversion strategies for the joint estimation of elastic properties and litho‐fluid facies from pre‐stack seismic data in case of non‐parametric mixture prior distributions and non‐linear forward modellings. The first strategy is a two‐dimensional target‐oriented inversion that inverts the amplitude versus angle responses of the target reflections by adopting the single‐interface full Zoeppritz equations. The second is an interval‐oriented approach that inverts the pre‐stack seismic responses along a given time interval using a one‐dimensional convolutional forward modelling still based on the Zoeppritz equations. In both approaches, the model vector includes the facies sequence and the elastic properties of P‐wave velocity, S‐wave velocity and density. The distribution of the elastic properties at each common‐mid‐point location (for the target‐oriented approach) or at each time‐sample position (for the time‐interval approach) is assumed to be multimodal with as many modes as the number of litho‐fluid facies considered. In this context, an analytical expression of the posterior model is no more available. For this reason, we adopt a Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm to numerically evaluate the posterior uncertainties. With the aim of speeding up the convergence of the probabilistic sampling, we adopt a specific recipe that includes multiple chains, a parallel tempering strategy, a delayed rejection updating scheme and hybridizes the standard Metropolis–Hasting algorithm with the more advanced differential evolution Markov chain method. For the lack of available field seismic data, we validate the two implemented algorithms by inverting synthetic seismic data derived on the basis of realistic subsurface models and actual well log data. The two approaches are also benchmarked against two analytical inversion approaches that assume Gaussian‐mixture‐distributed elastic parameters. The final predictions and the convergence analysis of the two implemented methods proved that our approaches retrieve reliable estimations and accurate uncertainties quantifications with a reasonable computational effort.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12876
2019-09-30
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adriansyah and McMechanG.A.2001. AVA analysis and interpretation of a carbonate reservoir: northwest Java basin, Indonesia. Geophysics66, 744–754.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AkiK. and RichardsP.G.1980. Quantitative Seismology: Theory and Methods, p. 801. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. AleardiM., CiabarriF. and GukovT.2018a. A two‐step inversion approach for seismic‐reservoir characterization and a comparison with a single‐loop Markov‐chain Monte Carlo algorithm. Geophysics83, R227–R244.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. AleardiM.2018. Analysis of different statistical models in probabilistic joint estimation of porosity and litho‐fluid facies from acoustic impedance values. Geosciences8, 388.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. AleardiM., CiabarriF. and GukovT.2018b. Reservoir characterization through target‐oriented AVA‐petrophysical inversions with spatial constraints. Pure and Applied Geophysics176, 901–924.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. AleardiM., CiabarriF. and MazzottiA.2017. Probabilistic estimation of reservoir properties by means of wide‐angle AVA inversion and a petrophysical reformulation of the Zoeppritz equations. Journal of Applied Geophysics147, 28–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. AleardiM. and MazzottiA.2014. A feasibility study on the expected seismic AVA signatures of deep fractured geothermal reservoirs in an intrusive basement. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering11, 065008.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. AleardiM. and MazzottiA.2017. 1D elastic full‐waveform inversion and uncertainty estimation by means of a hybrid genetic algorithm – Gibbs sampler approach. Geophysical Prospecting65, 64–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. AsterR.C., BorchersB. and ThurberC.H.2011. Parameter Estimation and Inverse Problem. Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. BetancourtM.2017. A conceptual introduction to Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. arXiv:1701.02434 [stat.ME].
  11. BodinT. and SambridgeM.2009. Seismic tomography with the reversible jump algorithm. Geophysical Journal International178, 1411–1436.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. BodinT., SambridgeM., TkalčićH., ArroucauP., GallagherK. and Rawlinson, N. (2012). Transdimensional inversion of receiver functions and surface wave dispersion. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth117, B02301.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. BoschM., CaraL., RodriguesJ., NavarroA., and DíazM.2007. A Monte Carlo approach to the joint estimation of reservoir and elastic parameters from seismic amplitudes. Geophysics72, O29–O39.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. BoschM., MukerjiT. and GonzalezE.F.2010. Seismic inversion for reservoir properties combining statistical rock physics and geostatistics: a review. Geophysics75, 165–176.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. BulandA. and OmreH.2003. Bayesian linearized AVO inversion. Geophysics68, 185–198.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. de FigueiredoP.L., GranaD., Luis BordignonF., SantosM., RoisenbergM. and RodriguesB.B.2018. Joint Bayesian inversion based on rock‐physics prior modeling for the estimation of spatially correlated reservoir properties. Geophysics83, 1–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. de FigueiredoL.P., GranaD., SantosM., FigueiredoW., RoisenbergM. and NetoG.S.2017. Bayesian seismic inversion based on rock‐physics prior modeling for the joint estimation of acoustic impedance, porosity and lithofacies. Journal of Computational Physics336, 128–142.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. DossoS.E., DettmerJ., SteiningerG. and HollandC.W.2014. Efficient trans‐dimensional Bayesian inversion for geoacoustic profile estimation. Inverse Problems30, 114018.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. DossoS.E., HollandC.W. and SambridgeM.2012. Parallel tempering for strongly nonlinear geoacoustic inversion. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America132, 3030–3040.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. DoyenP.2007. Seismic Reservoir Characterization: An Earth Modelling Perspective. Houten: EAGE Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. FalcioniM. and DeemM.W.1999. A biased Monte Carlo scheme for zeolite structure solution. The Journal of Chemical Physics110, 1754–1766.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. GelmanA., CarlinJ.B., SternH.S. and RubinD.B.1995. Bayesian Data Analysis. London: Chapman & Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. GelmanA. and RubinD.B.1992. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science7, 457–472.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. GongT. and McMechanG.A.2016. Target‐oriented linear least squares and nonlinear, trust‐region Newton inversions of plane waves using AVA and PVA data for elastic model parameters. Geophysics81, R325–R338.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. GranaD. and Della RossaE.2010. Probabilistic petrophysical‐properties estimation integrating statistical rock physics with seismic inversion. Geophysics75, O21–O37.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. GranaD.2018. Joint facies and reservoir properties inversion. Geophysics83, M15–M24.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. GrionS., MazzottiA. and SpagnoliniU.1998. Joint estimation of AVO and kinematic parameters. Geophysical Prospecting46, 405–422.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. GunningJ. and SamsM.2018. Joint facies and rock properties Bayesian amplitude‐versus‐offset inversion using Markov random fields. Geophysical Prospecting66, 904–919.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. HaarioH., SaksmanE. and TamminenJ.2001. An adaptive Metropolis algorithm. Bernoulli7, 223–242.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. HolmesC., KrzysztofL. and PompeE.2017. Adaptive MCMC for multimodal distributions.
  31. KennedyW.J. and GentleJ.E.2018. Statistical Computing. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Le RavalecM., NoetingerB. and HuL.Y.2000. The FFT moving average (FFT‐MA) generator: an efficient numerical method for generating and conditioning Gaussian simulations. Mathematical Geology32, 701–723.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. MacKayD.J.2003. Information Theory, Inference and Learning Algorithms. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. MadsenR.B. and HansenT.M.2018. Estimation and accounting for the modeling error in probabilistic linearized amplitude variation with offset inversion. Geophysics83, N15–N30.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. MadsenR.B., ZuninoA. and HansenT.M.2017. On inferring the noise in probabilistic seismic AVO inversion using hierarchical Bayes. In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2017 (pp. 601–606). Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. MalinvernoA.2002. Parsimonious Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo inversion in a nonlinear geophysical problem. Geophysical Journal International151, 675–688.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. MatheronG., BeucherH., De FouquetC., GalliA., GuerillotD. and RavenneC.1987. Conditional simulation of the geometry of fluvio‐deltaic reservoirs: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, SPE, Extended Abstracts, SPE‐16753‐MS.
  38. MazzottiA. and RavagnanG.1995. Impact of processing on the amplitude versus offset response of a marine seismic data set. Geophysical Prospecting43, 263–281.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. MazzottiA. and ZamboniE.2003. Petrophysical inversion of AVA data. Geophysical Prospecting51, 517–530.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. SabetiH., MoradzadehA., ArdejaniF.D., AzevedoL., SoaresA., PereiraP. and NunesR.2017. Geostatistical seismic inversion for non‐stationary patterns using direct sequential simulation and co‐simulation. Geophysical Prospecting65, 25–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. SambridgeM.2013. A parallel tempering algorithm for probabilistic sampling and multimodal optimization. Geophysical Journal International196, 357–374.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. SambridgeM.2014. A parallel tempering algorithm for probabilistic sampling and multimodal optimization. Geophysical Journal International196, 357–374.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. SambridgeM. and MosegaardK.2002. Monte Carlo methods in geophysical inverse problems. Reviews of Geophysics40, 3‐1‐3‐29.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. SenM.K. and StoffaP.L.1996. Bayesian inference, Gibbs' sampler and uncertainty estimation in geophysical inversion. Geophysical Prospecting44, 313–350.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. TarantolaA.2005. Inverse Problem Theory and Methods for Model Parameter Estimation. Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. ter BraakC.J. and VrugtJ.A.2008. Differential evolution Markov chain with snooker updater and fewer chains. Statistics and Computing18, 435–446.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. TierneyL. and MiraA.1999. Some adaptive Monte Carlo methods for Bayesian inference. Statistics in Medicine18, 2507–2515.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. VrugtJ.A.2016. Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation using the DREAM software package: Theory, concepts, and MATLAB implementation. Environmental Modelling & Software75, 273–316.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. ZhuX. and McMechanG.A.2012. Elastic inversion of near‐ and postcritical reflections using phase variation with angle. Geophysics77, R149–R159.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12876
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12876
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): AVA; Bayesian inversion; Reservoir characterization

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