1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 72, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 72, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

Abstract

In many subsurface studies, facies and petrophysical properties are two important reservoir parameters that are closely correlated. They are routinely used in well interpretation, hydrocarbon reserve calculation and production profile prediction. These two parameters have commonly been determined in two separate tasks because of their mathematical differences (facies are discrete, and petrophysical properties are continuous). However, this is incorrect because facies and petrophysical properties are often strongly correlated. Therefore, we propose a new joint inversion method of facies and petrophysical properties based on a bi‐level optimization model. In the bi‐level optimization model, the upper‐level problem is the petrophysical property inversion while the lower‐level problem can identify the facies and add a facies‐related constraint for the upper‐level optimization. We also develop a new genetic algorithm for the discrete‐continuous inversion problem based on the bi‐level optimization model because the inversion problem usually has multiple local solutions. In addition, rock physics and statistics are combined in the inversion process. A rock physics model is used to establish the basic relationships between the petrophysical and elastic parameters, and the statistical approach is used to describe the intrinsic connection among the multiple reservoir parameters based on well log data. The numerical experiments indicate that the traditional separate prediction method and the new joint inversion method can quickly obtain more accurate results. In the application examples of real data, the inversion results can be matched to the well log data within the limits of the input data resolution, which further verifies the reliability and application potential of this new method.

© 2024 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2023 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13450
2024-02-21
2025-04-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13450
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ashcroft, W. (2011) A petroleum geologist's guide to seismic reflection. John Wiley & Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Avseth, P., Mukerji, T. & Mavko, G. (2005) Quantitative seismic interpretation: applying rock physics tools to reduce interpretation risk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Azevedo, L., Grana, D. & de Figueiredo, L. (2020) Stochastic perturbation optimization for discrete‐continuous inverse problems. Geophysics, 85, M73–M83.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Ba, J., Cao, H., Yao, F., Nie, J. & Yang, H. (2008) Double‐porosity rock model and squirt flow in the laboratory frequency band. Applied Geophysics, 5, 261–276.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Ba, J., Xu, W., Fu, L., Carcione, J.M. & Zhang, L. (2017) Rock anelasticity due to patchy saturation and fabric heterogeneity: a double double‐porosity model of wave propagation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 122, 1949–1976.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Biot, M.A. (1956a) Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a fluid‐saturated porous solid. II. higher frequency range. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 28, 179–191.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Biot, M.A. (1956b) Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a fluid‐saturated porous solid. I. low frequency range. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 28, 168–178.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bishop, C.M. & Nasrabadi, N.M. (2006) Pattern recognition and machine learning. Cham: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bosch, M., Mukerji, T. & Gonzalez, E.F. (2010) Seismic inversion for reservoir properties combining statistical rock physics and geostatistics: a review. Geophysics, 75, 75A165–75A176.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Boschetti, F., Dentith, M.C. & List, R.D. (1996) Inversion of seismic refraction data using genetic algorithms. Geophysics, 61, 1715–1727.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Brown, A.R. (2011) Interpretation of three‐dimensional seismic data. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists and American Association of Petroleum.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Buland, A. & Omre, H. (2003) Bayesian linearized avo inversion. Geophysics, 68, 185–198.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Carcione, J.M., Gurevich, B. & Cavallini, F. (2000) A generalized Biot–Gassmann model for the acoustic properties of shaley sandstones. Geophysical Prospecting, 48, 539–557.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. de Figueiredo, L.P., Grana, D., Santos, M., Figueiredo, W., Roisenberg, M. & Schwedersky Neto, G. (2017) Bayesian seismic inversion based on rock‐physics prior modeling for the joint estimation of acoustic impedance, porosity and lithofacies. Journal of Computational Physics, 336, 128–142.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Dolberg, D.M., Helgesen, J., Hanssen, T.H., Magnus, I., Saigal, G. & Pedersen, B.K. (2000) Porosity prediction from seismic inversion, Lavrans Field, Halten Terrace, Norway. The Leading Edge, 19, 392–399.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Doyen, P.M. (1988) Porosity from seismic data: a geostatistical approach. Geophysics, 53, 1263–1275.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Doyen, P.M. (2007) Seismic reservoir characterization: An earth modelling perspective. Houten, the Netherlands: EAGE Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Dupuy, B., Garambois, S. & Virieux, J. (2016) Estimation of rock physics properties from seismic attributes ‐ part 1: strategy and sensitivity analysis. Geophysics, 81, M35–M53.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Dvorkin, J. & Nur, A. (1993) Dynamic poroelasticity: A unified model with the squirt and the Biot mechanisms. Geophysics, 58, 524–533.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Fang, Z. & Yang, D. (2015) Inversion of reservoir porosity, saturation, and permeability based on a robust hybrid genetic algorithm. Geophysics, 80, R265–R280.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Feng, R. (2020) Estimation of reservoir porosity based on seismic inversion results using deep learning methods. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 77, 103270.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Feng, R., Balling, N. & Grana, D. (2020) Lithofacies classification of a geothermal reservoir in Denmark and its facies‐dependent porosity estimation from seismic inversion. Geothermics, 87, 101854.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Fjeldstad, T., Avseth, P. & Omre, H. (2021) A one‐step Bayesian inversion framework for 3D reservoir characterization based on a Gaussian mixture model — a Norwegian Sea demonstration. Geophysics, 86, R221–R236.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Fukunaga, K. (1990) Introduction to statistical pattern recognition. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Gassmann, F. (1951) Elastic waves through a packing of spheres. Geophysics, 16, 673–685.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Givens, G.H. (2013) Computational statistics (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Goldberg, D.E. (1990) A note on Boltzmann tournament selection for genetic algorithms and population‐oriented simulated annealing. Complex Systems, 4, 445–460.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Grana, D. (2018) Joint facies and reservoir properties inversion. Geophysics, 83, M15–M24.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Grana, D. (2020) Bayesian petroelastic inversion with multiple prior models. Geophysics, 85, M57–M71.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Grana, D. (2022) Bayesian rock‐physics inversion with Kumaraswamy prior models. Geophysics, 87, M87–M97.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Grana, D., Azevedo, L., de Figueiredo, L., Connolly, P. & Mukerji, T. (2022) Probabilistic inversion of seismic data for reservoir petrophysical characterization: review and examples. Geophysics, 87, M199–M216.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Grana, D., Azevedo, L. & Liu, M. (2020) A comparison of deep machine learning and Monte Carlo methods for facies classification from seismic data. Geophysics, 85, WA41–WA52.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Grana, D. & Della Rossa, E. (2010) Probabilistic petrophysical‐properties estimation integrating statistical rock physics with seismic inversion. Geophysics, 75, O21–O37.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Gunning, J. & Sams, M. (2018) Joint facies and rock properties Bayesian amplitude‐versus‐offset inversion using Markov random fields. Geophysical Prospecting, 66, 904–919.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Guo, Q., Ba, J. & Carcione, J.M. (2022) Multi‐objective petrophysical seismic inversion based on the double‐porosity Biot–Rayleigh model. Surveys in Geophysics, 43, 1117–1141.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Huang, P. (2009) Optimal theories and methods. Tsinghua, China: Tsinghua University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Keys, R.G. & Xu, S. (2002) An approximation for the Xu‐White velocity model. Geophysics, 67, 1406–1414.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Li, K., Yin, X. & Zong, Z. (2020) Facies‐constrained prestack seismic probabilistic inversion driven by rock physics. Science China‐Earth Sciences, 63, 822–840.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Mallick, S. (1999) Some practical aspects of prestack waveform inversion using a genetic algorithm; an example from the East Texas Woodbine gas sand. Geophysics, 64, 326–336.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Mavko, G., Mukerji, T. & Dvorkin, J. (2009) The rock physics handbook. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. McCormack, M.D., Stoisits, R.F., MacAllister, D.J. & Crawford, K.D. (1999) Applications of genetic algorithms in exploration and production. The Leading Edge, 18, 716–718.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Mukerji, T., Jørstad, A., Avseth, P., Mavko, G. & Granli, J.R. (2001) Mapping lithofacies and pore‐fluid probabilities in a north sea reservoir: seismic inversions and statistical rock physics. Geophysics, 66, 988–1001.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Nawaz, M.A., Curtis, A., Shahraeeni, M.S. & Gerea, C. (2020) Variational Bayesian inversion of seismic attributes jointly for geologic facies and petrophysical rock properties. Geophysics, 85, MR213–MR233.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Nie, J., Yang, D. & Yang, H. (2008) A generalized viscoelastic Biot/squirt model for clay‐bearing sandstones in a wide range of permeabilities. Applied Geophysics, 5, 249–260.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Pang, M., Ba, J. & Carcione, J.M. (2021) Characterization of gas saturation in tight‐sandstone reservoirs with rock‐physics templates based on seismic Q. Journal of Energy Engineering, 147, 04021011.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Russell, B., Hampson, D. & Bankhead, B. (2006) An inversion primer. CSEG Recorder, 31, 96–103.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Shao, J. (2003) Mathematical statistics. Berlin: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Simm, R., Bacon, M. & Bacon, M. (2014) Seismic amplitude: An interpreter's handbook. New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Wang, J. & Cao, J. (2022) Deep learning reservoir porosity prediction using integrated neural network. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 47, 11313–11327.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Wang, Y., Niu, L., Zhao, L., Wang, B., He, Z., Zhang, H., Chen, D. & Geng, J. (2021) Gaussian mixture model deep neural network and its application in porosity prediction of deep carbonate reservoir. Geophysics, 87, M59–M72.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Wen, J., Cheng, Y., Yang, D., Qu, Z. & He, X. (2022) Joint two‐step inversion of porosity and saturation based on the BISQ model with mutli‐phase fluids. Geophysics, 87, M99–M110.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. White, J.E. (1975) Computed seismic speeds and attenuation in rocks with partial gas saturation. Geophysics, 40, 224–232.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Yang, J., Yang, D., Han, H., Qiu, L. & Cheng, Y. (2020) A wave propagation model with the Biot and the fractional viscoelastic mechanisms. Science China‐Earth Sciences, 64, 364–376.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Yang, L., Yang, D. & Nie, J. (2014) Wave dispersion and attenuation in viscoelastic isotropic media containing multiphase flow and its application. Science China‐Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 57, 1068–1077.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Yu, X. & Gen, M. (2010) Introduction to evolutionary algorithms. Berlin: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Zhang, B., Yang, D., Cheng, Y. & Zhang, Y. (2019) A unified poroviscoelastic model with mesoscopic and microscopic heterogeneities. Science Bulletin, 64, 1246–1254.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Zhang, B.Y., Yang, D.H. & He, X.J. (2022) A unified model including non‐darcy flow and viscoelastic mechanisms in tight rocks. Geophysics, 87, MR189–MR199.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Zhao, H., Wu, B. & Gao, J. (2021) Effects of petrophysical parameters on attenuation and dispersion of seismic waves in the simplified poroelastic theory: comparison between the Biot's theory and viscosity‐extended theory. Geophysical Prospecting, 69, 204–219.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13450
Loading
Joint inversion for facies and petrophysical properties based on a bi‐level optimization model
Geophysical Prospecting 72, 1074 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13450
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13450
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13450
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): interpretation; inverse problem; parameter estimation; rock physics

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