1887
Volume 72, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

Abstract

Seismic inversion is an important tool for reservoir characterization. The inversion results are significantly impacted by a reliable initial model. Conventional well interpolation methods are not able to meet the needs of seismic inversion for lateral heterogeneous reservoirs. Inspired by the sequence modelling network and seismic inversion in the Laplace–Fourier domain, we propose an initial model‐building method using semi‐supervised learning strategy. The proposed method considers spatial information to ensure the horizontal continuity of the initial model. Based on the fact that the low‐frequency components of seismic signals in the Laplace–Fourier domain are easier to obtain, we use the forward model in the Laplace–Fourier domain to replace the time‐domain forward model. The proposed workflow was validated using the Marmousi II model. Although the training was carried out on a small number of low‐frequency impedance traces, the proposed workflow was able to build low‐frequency model for the entire Marmousi II model with a correlation of 98%. Field data examples demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed method. For lateral heterogeneous reservoirs, the proposed method performs better than the well interpolation method. By utilizing the model obtained by the proposed method as the initial low‐frequency model of the conventional inversion method, it is possible to estimate better inversion results. The results of different combinations of training sets demonstrate the stability of the proposed method. This method may still be a viable choice if there is lateral heterogeneity underground but not much well‐logging label data.

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

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13491
2024-05-21
2026-01-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13491
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alfarraj, M. & AlRegib, G. (2019) Semisupervised sequence modeling for elastic impedance inversion. Interpretation, 7(3), SE237–SE249. https://doi.org/10.1190/INT‐2018‐0250.1
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Araya‐Polo, M., Jennings, J., Adler, A. & Dahlke, T. (2017) Deep‐learning tomography. The Leading Edge, 37(1), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1190/tle37010058.1
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Biswas, R., Sen, M.K., Das, V. & Mukerji, T. (2019) Prestack and poststack inversion using a physics‐guided convolutional neural network. Interpretation, 7(3), SE161–SE174. https://doi.org/10.1190/INT‐2018‐0236.1
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Cao, D., Su, Y. & Cui, R. (2022) Multi‐parameter pre‐stack seismic inversion based on deep learning with sparse reflection coefficient constraints. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 209, 109836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2021.109836
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen, Y. & Saygin, E. (2021) Seismic inversion by hybrid machine learning. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 126(9), e2020JB021589. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JB021589
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Das, V. & Mukerji, T. (2020) Petrophysical properties prediction from prestack seismic data using convolutional neural networks. Geophysics, 85(5), N41–N55. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2019‐0650.1
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Das, V., Pollack, A., Wollner, U. & Mukerji, T. (2019) Convolutional neural network for seismic impedance inversion. Geophysics, 84, R869–R880. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2018‐0838.1
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Dhara, A., Sen, M.K. & Biswas, R. (2023) Facies‐constrained transdimensional amplitude versus angle inversion using machine learning assisted priors. Geophysical Prospecting, 71(4), 590–613. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365‐2478.13339
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Di, H. & Abubakar, A. (2021) Estimating subsurface properties using a semisupervised neural network approach. Geophysics, 87(1), IM1–IM10. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2021‐0192.1
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Fabien‐Ouellet, G. & Sarkar, R. (2019) Seismic velocity estimation: a deep recurrent neural‐network approach. Geophysics, 85(1), U21–U29. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2018‐0786.1
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Gunning, J. & Glinsky, M.E. (2004) Delivery: an open‐source model‐based Bayesian seismic inversion program. Computers & Geosciences, 30(6), 619–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2003.10.013
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Hu, W., Jin, Y., Wu, X. & Chen, J. (2020). Physics‐guided self‐supervised learning for low frequency data prediction in FWI. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2020, 875–879. https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2020-3423396.1
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Huang, L., Dong, X. & Clee, T.E. (2017) A scalable deep learning platform for identifying geologic features from seismic attributes. The Leading Edge, 36(3), 249–256. https://doi.org/10.1190/tle36030249.1
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Liu, X., Li, B., Li, J., Chen, X., Li, Q. & Chen, Y. (2021) Semi‐supervised deep autoencoder for seismic facies classification. Geophysical Prospecting, 69(6), 1295–1315. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365‐2478.13106
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Michel, L., Lafet, Y. & Coffin, J. (2013) Variable depth streamer: benefits for rock property inversion. In International petroleum technology conference, cp‐350‐00290, Bunnik: European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609-pdb.350.iptc16804
  16. Nishitsuji, Y. & Exley, R. (2019) Elastic impedance based facies classification using support vector machine and deep learning. Geophysical Prospecting, 67, 1040–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365‐2478.12682
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Ovcharenko, O., Kazei, V., Alkhalifah, T.A. & Peter, D.B. (2022) Multi‐task learning for low‐frequency extrapolation and elastic model building from seismic data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2022.3185794
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Röth, G. & Tarantola, A. (1994) Neural networks and inversion of seismic data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 99(B4), 6753–6768. https://doi.org/10.1029/93JB01563
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Shin, C. & Cha, Y.H. (2008) Waveform inversion in the Laplace domain. Geophysical Journal International, 173(3), 922–931. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐246X.2008.03768.x
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Shin, C. & Ho Cha, Y. (2009) Waveform inversion in the Laplace–Fourier domain. Geophysical Journal International, 177(3), 1067–1079. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐246X.2009.04102.x
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Sun, J., Innanen, K.A. & Huang, C. (2021) Physics‐guided deep learning for seismic inversion with hybrid training and uncertainty analysis. Geophysics, 86(3), R303–R317. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2020‐0312.1
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Wang, J., Xiao, Z., Liu, C., Zhao, D. & Yao, Z. (2019) Deep learning for picking seismic arrival times. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 124(7), 6612–6624. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JB017536
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Wang, M., Xu, S. & Zhou, H. (2020). Self‐supervised learning for low frequency extension of seismic data. SEG technical program expanded abstracts 2020, 1501–1505. https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2020-3427086.1
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Wu, R.‐S., Luo, J. & Wu, B. (2014) Seismic envelope inversion and modulation signal model. Geophysics, 79(3), WA13–WA24. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2013‐0294.1
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Wu, X., Liang, L., Shi, Y. & Fomel, S. (2019) FaultSeg3D: using synthetic data sets to train an end‐to‐end convolutional neural network for 3D seismic fault segmentation. Geophysics, 84(3), IM35–IM45. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2018‐0646.1
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Wu, X., Yan, S., Bi, Z., Zhang, S. & Si, H. (2021) Deep learning for multidimensional seismic impedance inversion. Geophysics, 86(5), R735–R745. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2020‐0564.1
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Yuan, S., Liu, J., Wang, S., Wang, T. & Shi, P. (2018) Seismic waveform classification and first‐break picking using convolution neural networks. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 15(2), 272–276. https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2017.2785834
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Zhou, R., Yao, X., Hu, G. & Yu, F. (2021) Learning from unlabeled real seismic data: fault detection based on transfer learning. Geophysical Prospecting, 69(6), 1218–1234. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365‐2478.13097
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Zong, Z., Wang, Y., Li, K. & Yin, X. (2018) Broadband Seismic Inversion for low‐frequency component of the model parameter. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 56(9), 5177–5184. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2018.2810845
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Zong, Z., Yin, X. & Wu, G. (2012) AVO inversion and poroelasticity with P‐ and S‐wave moduli. Geophysics, 77(6), N17–N24. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2011‐0214.1
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Zwartjes, P. & Yoo, J. (2022) First break picking with deep learning—evaluation of network architectures. Geophysical Prospecting, 70(2), 318–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365‐2478.13162
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13491
Loading
Building initial model for seismic inversion based on semi‐supervised learning
Geophysical Prospecting 72, 1800 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13491
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13491
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13491
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): interpretation; inversion; modelling; reservoir geophysics; seismics

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