1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 71, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 71, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

Abstract

Accounting for an accurate noise model is essential when dealing with real data, which are noisy due to the effect of environmental noise, failures and limitations in data acquisition and processing. Quantifying the noise model is a challenge for practitioners in formulating an inverse problem, and usually, a simple Gaussian noise model is assumed as a white noise model. Here we propose a pragmatic approach to use an estimated seismic wavelet to capture the correlated noise model (coloured noise) for the processed reflection seismic data. We assess the proposed method through a direct inversion of post‐stack seismic data associated with a carbonate reservoir of an oil field in southwest Iran to porosity, using a probabilistic sampling‐based inversion algorithm. In the probabilistic formulation of the inverse problem, we assume eight different noise models with varying bandwidth and magnitude and investigate the corresponding posterior statistics. The results indicate that if the correlated nature of the noise samples is ignored in the noise covariance matrix, some unrealistic features are generated in porosity realizations. In addition, if the noise magnitude is underestimated, the inversion algorithm overfits the data and generates a biased model with low uncertainty. Furthermore, by considering an imperfect bandwidth for the noise model, the error is propagated to the posterior realizations. Assuming the correlated noise in a probabilistic inversion resolves these issues significantly. Therefore, for inverting real seismic data where the estimation of the magnitude and correlations of the noise is not straightforward, the wavelet, which is estimated from the real seismic data, provides a good proxy for describing the correlation of the noise samples or equivalently the bandwidth of the noise model. In addition, it might be better to overestimate the noise magnitude than to underestimate it. This is true especially for an uncorrelated noise model and to a lesser degree also for the correlated noise model.

© 2023 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2022 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13312
2023-02-17
2024-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13312
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

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(5), 926–948.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aleardi, M., Ciabarri, F. & Gukov, T. (2018) A two‐step inversion approach for seismic‐reservoir characterization and a comparison with a single‐loop Markov‐chain Monte Carlo algorithm. Geophysics, 83(3), R227–R244.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Aleardi, M. & Salusti, A. (2020) Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms for target‐oriented and interval‐oriented amplitude versus angle inversions with non‐parametric priors and non‐linear forward modellings. Geophysical Prospecting, 68(3), 735–760.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Amini, H. (2018) Calibration of minerals’ and dry rock elastic moduli in sand‐shale mixtures. In: 80th EAGE conference and exhibition 2018 (Vol. 2018, No. 1). European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, pp. 1–5.
  5. Aster, R.C., Borchers, B. & Thurber, C.H. (2018) Parameter estimation and inverse problems. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Cordua, K.S., Nielsen, L., Looms, M.C., Hansen, T.M. & Binley, A. (2009) Quantifying the influence of static‐like errors in least‐squares‐based inversion and sequential simulation of cross‐borehole ground penetrating radar data. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 68(1), 71–84.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Emami Niri, M., Mehmandoost, F. & Nosrati, H. (2021) Pore‐type identification of a heterogeneous carbonate reservoir using rock physics principles: a case study from south‐west Iran. Acta Geophysica, 69(4), 1241–1256.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Goovaerts, P. (1997) Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Grana, D. (2020) Bayesian petroelastic inversion with multiple prior models. Geophysics, 85(5), M57–M71.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Grana, D., de Figueiredo, L. & Mosegaard, K. (2022) Markov chain Monte Carlo for petrophysical inversion. Geophysics, 87(1), M13–M24.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Li, K., Yin, X., Zong, Z. & Grana, D. (2022) Estimation of porosity, fluid bulk modulus, and stiff‐pore volume fraction using a multitrace Bayesian amplitude‐variation‐with‐offset petrophysics inversion in multiporosity reservoirs. Geophysics, 87(1), M25–M41.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Geman, S. & Geman, D. (1984) Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distributions, and the Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PAMI‐6(6), 721–741.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Gunning, J. & Sams, M. (2018) Joint facies and rock properties Bayesian amplitude‐versus‐offset inversion using Markov random fields. Geophysical Prospecting, 66(5), 904–919.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Hansen, T.M., Cordua, K.S., Jacobsen, B.H. & Mosegaard, K. (2014) Accounting for imperfect forward modeling in geophysical inverse problems—exemplified for crosshole tomography. Geophysics, 79(3), H1–H21.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Hansen, T.M., Cordua, K.S., Looms, M.C. & Mosegaard, K. (2013) SIPPI: a Matlab toolbox for sampling the solution to inverse problems with complex prior information: part 2—Application to crosshole GPR tomography. Computers & Geosciences, 52, 481–492.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Hansen, T.M., Cordua, K.S. & Mosegaard, K. (2012) Inverse problems with non‐trivial priors: efficient solution through sequential Gibbs sampling. Computational Geosciences, 16(3), 593–611.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Heidari, H., Hansen, T.M., Amini, H., Niri, M.E., Madsen, R.B. & Amini, N. (2022) Single‐step probabilistic inversion of 3D seismic data of a carbonate reservoir in Southwest Iran. Geophysics, 87(2), B159–B177.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Heidari, A., Amini, N., Amini, H., Niri, M.E., Zunino, A. & Hansen, T.M. (2020) Calibration of two rock‐frame models using deterministic and probabilistic approaches: application to a carbonate reservoir in south‐west Iran. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 192, 107266.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Isaaks, E.H. & Srivastava, R.M. (1989) An introduction to applied geostatistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Jakobsen, A.F. & Hansen, H.J. (2019) Exploring noise models in approximate Bayesian inversion for facies. In: 81st EAGE conference and exhibition 2019 (Vol. 2019, No. 1). European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, pp. 1–5.
  21. Madsen, R.B. & Hansen, T.M. (2018) Estimation and accounting for the modeling error in probabilistic linearized amplitude variation with offset inversion. Geophysics, 83(2), N15–N30.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Madsen, R.B., Nørmark, E. & Hansen, T.M. (2018) Accounting for processing errors in AVO/AVA data. In: 80th EAGE conference and exhibition 2018 (Vol. 2018, No. 1). European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, pp. 1–5.
  23. Madsen, R.B., Zunino, A. & Hansen, T.M. (2017) On inferring the noise in probabilistic seismic AVO inversion using hierarchical Bayes. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts 2017. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 601–606.
  24. Malinverno, A. & Parker, R.L. (2006) Two ways to quantify uncertainty in geophysical inverse problems. Geophysics, 71(3), W15–W27.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Mosegaard, K. & Tarantola, A. (1995) Monte Carlo sampling of solutions to inverse problems. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 100(B7), 12431–12447.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Mosegaard, K. & Tarantola, A. (2002) Probabilistic approach to inverse problems. International Geophysics Series, 81(A), 237–268.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Mosegaard, K. & Sambridge, M. (2002) Monte Carlo analysis of inverse problems. Inverse Problems, 18(3), R29.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Oliver, D.S., Fossum, K., Bhakta, T., Sandø, I., Nævdal, G. & Lorentzen, R.J. (2021) 4D seismic history matching. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 207, 109119.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Proakis, J.G. (2001) Digital signal processing: principles algorithms and applications. Delhi: Pearson Education India.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Rahmani, F., Emami Niri, M. & Jozanikohan, G. (2022) Construction of 2D and 3D rock physics templates for quantitative prediction of physical properties of a carbonate reservoir in SW of Iran. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 1–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Ravalec, M.L., Noetinger, B. & Hu, L.Y. (2000) The FFT moving average (FFT‐MA) generator: an efficient numerical method for generating and conditioning Gaussian simulations. Mathematical Geology, 32(6), 701–723.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Scales, J.A. & Snieder, R. (1998) What is noise. Geophysics, 63(4), 1122–1124.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Sen, M.K. & Stoffa, P.L. (1996) Bayesian inference, Gibbs' sampler and uncertainty estimation in geophysical inversion. Geophysical Prospecting, 44(2), 313–350.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Sengupta, M., Zhang, H., Zhao, Y., Jervis, M. & Grana, D. (2021) Direct depth‐domain Bayesian amplitude‐variation‐with‐offset inversion. Geophysics, 86(5), M167–M176.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Soares, A. (2001) Direct sequential simulation and cosimulation. Mathematical Geology, 33(8), 911–926.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Tarantola, A. (2005) Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation. Philadelphia: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Tarantola, A. & Valette, B. (1982) Inverse problems = quest for information. Journal of Geophysics, 50(1), 159–170.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Ulrych, T.J. & Sacchi, M.D. (2005) Information‐based inversion and processing with applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Yilmaz, Ö. (2001) Seismic data analysis: processing, inversion, and interpretation of seismic data. Tulsa: Society of exploration geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13312
Loading
Assessment of the impact of noise magnitude and bandwidth variations on a probabilistic inversion of reflection seismic data
Geophysical Prospecting 71, 443 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13312
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13312
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13312
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): noise; probabilistic inverse problem; reservoir geophysics; uncertainty quantification

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