1887
Volume 71, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

Well logs are geophysical measurements of rock properties acquired continuously along a borehole. Because of the physics underlying their operation, borehole logging instruments perform local spatial averages of rock properties in the vicinity of the borehole, yielding well logs that are often affected by tool design, layer boundaries, borehole environmental conditions and mud‐filtrate invasion. Such environmental effects are ubiquitous and can lead to errors in petrophysical–property estimations from well logs if not accounted for in the interpretation. Separate well‐log inversion mitigates environmental effects by matching well logs with their numerical simulations. The latter simulations rely on specific assumptions about the relative geometry of the borehole and the rocks penetrated by the well. For vertical wells penetrating horizontal layers, it is common to assume piecewise‐constant layer properties that we collectively refer to as the earth model; some of these properties have a direct relationship to well logs (e.g. resistivity, gamma ray, density and acoustic slowness). Well‐log inversion is traditionally approached with deterministic methods such as the Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm to minimize the differences between well logs and their numerical simulations, often without accounting for the relationship between measurement noise and model uncertainty. Bayesian inversion, on the other hand, yields the posterior probability distribution of estimated properties and intrinsically quantifies their uncertainty. However, Bayesian Well‐log inversion usually involves the implementation of Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling, which requires a prohibitive number of forward simulations and is therefore not suitable for rapid petrophysical and/or elastic and mechanical evaluations of rocks. We introduce an efficient Bayesian Well‐log inversion method using a gradient‐based Markov chain Monte Carlo method. Gradient‐based Markov chain Monte Carlo is a group of relatively new Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms that combine gradient updates with Hessian‐based sampling. gradient‐based Markov chain Monte Carlo draws samples efficiently from the posterior probability distribution using the gradient information to guide samples towards high‐probability regions and the Hessian to approximate the posterior probability distribution locally. We verify the gradient‐based Markov chain Monte Carlo inversion method with the inversion of synthetic well logs, including gamma ray, resistivity, density, neutron porosity, photoelectric factor and compressional/shear‐wave slowness. Results show that gradient‐based Markov chain Monte Carlo decreases the computational cost by more than 90% compared to conventional Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling. Next, gradient‐based Markov chain Monte Carlo inversion is applied to a field example from the Central North Sea, where conventional interpretation methods yield shale concentration, sandstone porosity and water saturation with errors up to 19.2%, 14.9% and 48.8%, respectively. Gradient‐based Markov chain Monte Carlo inversion products satisfactorily reproduce the available measurements with only a modest increase in computational cost compared to deterministic inversion approaches.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13311
2023-02-17
2024-04-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/gpr/71/3/gpr13311.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13311&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aleardi, M. (2021) A gradient‐based Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm for elastic pre‐stack inversion with data and model space reduction. Geophysical Prospecting, 69, 926–948.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alpak, F.O., Torres‐Verdín, C. & Habashy, T.M. (2008) Estimation of in‐situ petrophysical properties from wireline formation tester and induction logging measurements: a joint inversion approach. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 63, 1–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aster, R.C., Borchers, B. & Thurber, C.H. (2013) Parameter estimation and inverse problems. Waltham: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bardsley, J.M., Solonen, A., Haario, H. & Laine, M. (2014) Randomize‐then‐optimize: a method for sampling from posterior distributions in nonlinear inverse problems. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 36, A1895–A1910.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bennis, M. & Torres‐Verdín, C. (2019) Estimation of dynamic petrophysical properties from multiple well logs using machine learning and unsupervised rock classification. In: SPWLA 60th annual logging symposium.
  6. Dachanuwattana, S., Jin, J., Zuloaga‐Molero, P., Li, X., Xu, Y., Sepehrnoori, K. et al. (2018) Application of proxy‐based MCMC and EDFM to history match a Vaca Muerta Shale oil well. Fuel, 220, 490–502.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Deng, T., Ambia, J. & Torres‐Verdín, C. (2019) Fast Bayesian inversion method for the generalized petrophysical and compositional interpretation of multiple well logs with uncertainty quantification. In: SPWLA 60th annual logging symposium. Society of Petrophysicists and Well‐Log Analysts.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Deng, T., Ambia, J. & Torres‐Verdín, C. (2020a) Bayesian method for rapid multi‐well interpretation of well logs and core data in unconventional formations. In: SPWLA 61st annual logging symposium. Society of Petrophysicists and Well‐Log Analysts.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Deng, T., Ambia, J. & Torres‐Verdín, C. (2020b) Multi‐well interpretation of wireline logs and core data in the Eagle Ford Shale using Bayesian inversion. In: Proceedings of the 8th unconventional resources technology conference, SPE/AAPG/SEG.
  10. Dobróka, M., Szabó, N.P., Tóth, J. & Vass, P. (2016) Interval inversion approach for an improved interpretation of well logs. Geophysics, 81, D155–D167.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dosso, S.E. & Wilmut, M.J. (2008) Uncertainty estimation in simultaneous Bayesian tracking and environmental inversion. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124, 82–97.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Ellis, D.V. & Singer, J.M. (2007) Well logging for earth scientists. Dordrecht: Springe.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Escobar Gómez, J.D. & Torres‐Verdín, C. (2018) Permeability sensitivity functions and rapid simulation of hydraulic‐testing measurements using perturbation theory. Water Resources Research, 54, 1977–1998.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gao, G. & Torres‐Verdín, C. (2003) Fast inversion of borehole array induction data using an inner‐outer loop optimization technique. In: SPWLA 44th annual logging symposium.
  15. Gaymard, R. & Poupon, A. (1968) Response of neutron and formation density logs in hydrocarbon bearing formations. The Log Analyst, 9, (05).
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Haario, H., Saksman, E. & Tamminen, J. (2001) An adaptive Metropolis algorithm. Bernoulli, 7, 223.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hastings, W.K. (1970) Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications. Biometrika, 57, 97–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Heidari, Z. & Torres‐Verdín, C. (2012) Estimation of dynamic petrophysical properties of water‐bearing sands invaded with oil‐base mud from the interpretation of multiple borehole geophysical measurements. Geophysics, 77, D209–D227.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Heidari, Z., Torres‐Verdín, C. & Preeg, W.E. (2012) Improved estimation of mineral and fluid volumetric concentrations from well logs in thinly bedded and invaded formations. Geophysics, 77, WA79–WA98.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Huang, S. & Torres‐Verdín, C. (2016) Inversion‐based interpretation of borehole sonic measurements using semianalytical spatial sensitivity functions. Geophysics, 81, D111–D124.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Huang, S., Matuszyk, P.J. & Torres‐Verdín, C. (2015) Spatial sensitivity functions for rapid numerical simulation of borehole sonic measurements in vertical wells. Geophysics, 80, D459–D480.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Huang, S., Yang, Q., Matuszyk, P.J. & Torres‐Verdín, C. (2013) High‐resolution interpretation of sonic logging measurements using stochastic inversion with spatial slowness sensitivity functions. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts 2013. pp. 524–528.
  23. Ijasan, O., Torres‐Verdín, C. & Preeg, W.E. (2013a) Inversion‐based petrophysical interpretation of logging‐while‐drilling nuclear and resistivity measurements. Geophysics, 78, D473–D489.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Ijasan, O., Torres‐Verdín, C. & Preeg, W.E., (2013b) Fast modeling of borehole neutron porosity measurements with a new spatial transport‐diffusion approximation. Geophysics, 78, D151–D168.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Loke, M.H. & Barker, R.D. (1996) Rapid least‐squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudosections by a quasi‐Newton method1. Geophysical Prospecting, 44, 131–152.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Maalouf, E. & Torres‐Verdín, C. (2018) Inversion‐based method to mitigate noise in borehole sonic logs. Geophysics, 83, D61–D71.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Martin, J., Wilcox, L.C., Burstedde, C. & Ghattas, O. (2012) A stochastic Newton MCMC method for large‐scale statistical inverse problems with application to seismic inversion. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 34, A1460–A1487.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Mavko, G., Mukerji, T. & Dvorkin, J. (2020) The rock physics handbook. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Mendoza, A., Torres‐Verdín, C. & Preeg, B. (2010) Linear iterative refinement method for the rapid simulation of borehole nuclear measurements: Part I — Vertical wells. Geophysics, 75, E9–E29.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A.W., Rosenbluth, M.N., Teller, A.H. & Teller, E., (1953), Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 21, 1087–1092.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Neal, R. (2011) MCMC using Hamiltonian dynamics. In: Brooks, S., Gelman, A., Jones, G. & Meng, X.L. (Eds.) Handbook of Markov chain Monte Carlo. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Oliver, D.S. (2017) Metropolized randomized maximum likelihood for improved sampling from multimodal distributions. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 5, 259–277.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Ortega, E., Luycx, M., Torres‐Verdín, C., Preeg, W.E. (2017) Joint petrophysical interpretation of multidetector nuclear measurements in the presence of invasion, shoulder‐bed, and well‐deviation effects. Geophysics, 82, D13–D30.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Pardo, D. & Torres‐Verdín, C. (2015) Fast 1D inversion of logging‐while‐drilling resistivity measurements for improved estimation of formation resistivity in high‐angle and horizontal wells. Geophysics, 80, E111–E124.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Pardo, D., Matuszyk, P.J., Puzyrev, V., Torres‐Verdín, C., Nam, M.J. & Calo, V.M. (2021) Modeling of resistivity and acoustic borehole logging measurements using finite element methods. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Poupon, A. & Leveaux, J. (1971) Evaluation of water saturation in shaly formations. In: SPWLA 12th annual logging symposium. Society of Petrophysicists and Well‐Log Analysts.
  37. Salazar, J.M., Torres‐Verdín, C. (2009) Quantitative comparison of processes of oil‐ and water‐based mud‐filtrate invasion and corresponding effects on borehole resistivity measurements. Geophysics, 74, E57–E73.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Schroeder, C. & Torres‐Verdín, C. (2019) Experimental method for time‐lapse micro‐CT imaging of mud‐filtrate invasion and mudcake deposition. Petrophysics, 60, 620–630.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Skelt, C. (2004) Fluid substitution in laminated sands. The Leading Edge, 23, 485–493.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Smith, T.M., Sondergeld, C.H. & Rai, C.S. (2003) Gassmann fluid substitutions: a tutorial. Geophysics, 68, 430–440.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Szabó, N.P., Dobróka, M. (2020) Interval inversion as innovative well log interpretation tool for evaluating organic‐rich shale formations. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 186, 106696.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Thomas, E.C. & Stieber, S.J. (1975) The distribution of shale in sandstones and its effect upon porosity. In: SPWLA 16th annual logging symposium. Society of Petrophysicists and Well‐Log Analysts.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Voss, B., Torres‐Verdín, C., Gandhi, A., Alabi, G. & Lemkecher, M. (2009) Common stratigraphic framework to simulate well logs and to cross‐validate static and dynamic petrophysical interpretations. In: SPWLA 50th annual logging symposium. Society of Petrophysicists and Well‐Log Analysts.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Wang, G.L., Torres‐Verdín, C., Salazar, J.M. & Voss, B. (2009) Fast 2D inversion of large borehole EM induction data sets with an efficient Fréchet‐derivative approximation. Geophysics, 74, E75–E91.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Yang, Q. & Torres‐Verdín, C. (2011) Efficient 2D Bayesian inversion of borehole resistivity measurements. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts 2011. pp. 427–431.
  46. Zhao, Z. & Sen, M.K. (2020) A gradient based Markov chain Monte Carlo method for full waveform inversion and uncertainty analysis. Geophysics, 86, R15–R30.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13311
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13311
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): borehole geophysics; interpretation; inversion; modelling; petrophysics

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