1887
Volume 73, Issue 4
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

Abstract

Structural information about the subsurface near the borehole can be obtained from reconstructed conductivity distributions. These distributions may be reconstructed via the inversion of deep‐sensing electromagnetic induction log data. Unfortunately, these complex media often display anisotropy and structural variations in both horizontal and vertical directions, making the three‐dimensional inversion computationally demanding and ill‐posed. To address these challenges, we introduce a sequential inversion strategy of deep‐sensing electromagnetic induction logging data that is measured while drilling. For the inversion at each logging position, we employ a matrix‐free implementation of the adjoint integral equation method and a quasi‐Newton algorithm. To tackle the ill‐posed nature of the problem, we regularize the inverse problem by employing a multi‐dimensional inversion parameter technique that shifts from zero‐ to three‐dimensional parameterization. The model derived from the inversion of the data at multiple positions is incrementally integrated by utilizing the sensitivity data at each logging position. To validate our approach, we tested our method on simulated data using an anisotropic model. These experiments show that this approach produces a good reconstruction of the true conductivity for the whole track while only doing the inversion at a single position at a time.

© 2025 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2025 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70017
2025-04-17
2026-02-09

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70017
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abubakar, A., Habashy, T., Druskin, V., Knizhnerman, L. & Alumbaugh, D. (2008) 2.5‐D forward and inverse modeling for interpreting low‐frequency electromagnetic measurements. Geophysics, 73(4), F165–F177.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Abubakar, A., Habashy, T.M., Druskin, V., Knizhnerman, L. & Davydycheva, S. (2006) A 3D parametric inversion algorithm for triaxial induction data. Geophysics, 71(1), G1–G9.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Alkhars, A., Achong, C., Fouda, M. & Bikchandaev, E. (2022) 3D inversion and 3D anisotropy analysis improve real‐time decision‐making process in complex clastic reservoirs. In International Petroleum Technology Conference . IPTC, D021S045R004.
  4. Antonsen, F., Danielsen, B.E., Jensen, K.R., Prymak‐Moyle, M., Lotsberg, J.K., Teixeira De Oliveira, M.E. & Constable, M.V. (2022) What next after a decade with significant advances in the application of ultradeep azimuthal resistivity measurements?. Petrophysics, 63(6), 762–780.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Barrett, R., Berry, M., Chan, T.F., Demmel, J., Donato, J., Dongarra, J., Eijkhout, V., Pozo, R., Romine, C. & Van der Vorst, H. (1994) Templates for the solution of linear systems: Building blocks for iterative methods. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Clegg, N., Eriksen, E., Best, K., Tøllefsen, I., Kotwicki, A. & Marchant, D. (2021) Mapping complex injectite bodies with multiwell electromagnetic 3D inversion data. Petrophysics, 62(1), 109–121.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Elkhamry, A., Clegg, N., Taher, A. & Bikchandaev, E. (2023) The first successful azimuthal well placement utilizing real‐time azimuthal resistivity measurements and ultra‐deep 3D inversion. In International Petroleum Technology Conference, D012S006R001. IPTC.
  8. Elkhamry, A., Taher, A., Bikchandaev, E. & Fouda, M. (2022) Real‐time 3d anisotropy analysis enables lithology identification at distance. In SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, D041S009R004. Houston, TX: SPWLA.
  9. Fang, S., Gao, G. & Verdin, C.T. (2006) Efficient 3D electromagnetic modelling in the presence of anisotropic conductive media, using integral equations. Exploration Geophysics, 37(3), 239–244.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Gao, G. (2006) Simulation of borehole electromagnetic measurements in dipping and anisotropic rock formations and inversion of array induction data. PhD thesis, The University of Texas at Austin.
  11. Gibson, W.C. (2021) The method of moments in electromagnetics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Greenhalgh, S., Zhou, B., Greenhalgh, M., Marescot, L. & Wiese, T. (2009) Explicit expressions for the Fréchet derivatives in 3D anisotropic resistivity inversion. Geophysics, 74(3), F31–F43.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Hesford, A.J. & Chew, W.C. (2010) Fast inverse scattering solutions using the distorted born iterative method and the multilevel fast multipole algorithm. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(2), 679–690.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Jahani, N., Torres‐Verdín, C. & Hou, J. (2024) Limits of three‐dimensional target detectability of logging while drilling deep‐sensing electromagnetic measurements from numerical modelling. Geophysical Prospecting, 72(3), 1146–1162.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Jahani, N., Torres‐Verdín, C., Hou, J. & Tveranger, J. (2023) Limits of 3D detectability and resolution of LWD Deep‐sensing borehole electromagnetic measurements acquired in the Norwegian Continental Shelf. In SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, D041S008R005. Houston, TX: SPWLA.
  16. Jakobsen, M., Ivan, E., Psencik, I. & Ursin, B. (2020) Transition operator approach to seismic full‐waveform inversion in arbitrary anisotropic elastic media. Communications in Computational Physics, 28(1), 297–327.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Jakobsen, M. & Tveit, S. (2018) Distorted Born iterative T‐matrix method for inversion of CSEM data in anisotropic media. Geophysical Journal International, 214(3), 1524–1537.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Jakobsen, M., Xiang, K. & van Dongen, K.W. (2023) Seismic and medical ultrasound imaging of velocity and density variations by nonlinear vectorial inverse scattering. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 153(5), 3151–3151.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Kong, W., Tan, H., Lin, C., Unsworth, M., Lee, B., Peng, M., Wang, M. & Tong, T. (2021) Three‐dimensional inversion of magnetotelluric data for a resistivity model with arbitrary anisotropy. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 126(8), e2020JB020562.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Liu, D.C. & Nocedal, J. (1989) On the limited memory BFGS method for large scale optimization. Mathematical Programming, 45(1), 503–528.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Moran, J. & Gianzero, S. (1979) Effects of formation anisotropy on resistivity‐logging measurements. Geophysics, 44(7), 1266–1286.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Newman, G.A. & Alumbaugh, D.L. (2002) Three‐dimensional induction logging problems, part 2: A finite‐difference solution. Geophysics, 67(2), 484–491.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Omar, S., Salim, D., Zaslavsky, M. & Liang, L. (2024) High‐resolution 3D reservoir mapping and geosteering using voxel‐based inversion processing of Udar measurements. In SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium. D041S016R001. Houston, TX: SPWLA.
  24. Pan, W., Innanen, K.A. & Liao, W. (2017) Accelerating Hessian‐free Gauss‐Newton full‐waveform inversion via L‐BFGS preconditioned conjugate‐gradient algorithm. Geophysics, 82(2), R49–R64.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 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(2), E111–E124.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Pek, J. & Santos, F.A. (2002) Magnetotelluric impedances and parametric sensitivities for 1‐D anisotropic layered media. Computers & Geosciences, 28(8), 939–950.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Petersen, K.B., Pedersen, M.S., et al., (2012) The matrix cookbook. Technical University of Denmark.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Rong, Z., Liu, Y., Yin, C., Wang, L., Ma, X., Qiu, C., Zhang, B., Ren, X., Su, Y. & Weng, A. (2022) Three‐dimensional magnetotelluric inversion for arbitrarily anisotropic earth using unstructured tetrahedral discretization. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 127(8), e2021JB023778.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Saad, Y. (2003) Iterative methods for sparse linear systems. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Saputera, D.H., Jakobsen, M., van Dongen, K.W., Jahani, N., Eikrem, K.S. & Alyaev, S. (2024) 3‐D induction log modelling with integral equation method and domain decomposition pre‐conditioning. Geophysical Journal International, 236(2), 834–848.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Saputra, W., Ambia, J., Torres‐Verdín, C., Davydycheva, S., Druskin, V., & Zimmerling, J. (2024) Adaptive multidimensional inversion for borehole ultra‐deep azimuthal resistivity. In SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, D041S013R005. Houston, TX: SPWLA.
  32. Shahriari, M., Rojas, S., Pardo, D., Rodríguez‐Rozas, A., Bakr, S.A., Calo, V.M. & Muga, I. (2018) A numerical 1.5 D method for the rapid simulation of geophysical resistivity measurements. Geosciences, 8(6), 225.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Sviridov, M., Kushnir, D., Mosin, A., Nemuschenko, D. & Rabinovich, M. (2023) High‐performance stochastic inversion for real‐time processing of LWD ultra‐deep azimuthal resistivity data. In SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, D041S014R009. Houston, TX: SPWLA.
  34. Van den Berg, P. & Van der Horst, M. (1995) Nonlinear inversion in induction logging using the modified gradient method. Radio Science, 30(5), 1355–1369.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Van den Berg, P.M. & Abubakar, A. (2001) Contrast source inversion method: state of art. Progress in Electromagnetics Research, 34(11), 189–218.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Van der Vorst, H.A. (1992) Bi‐CGSTAB: a fast and smoothly converging variant of bi‐cg for the solution of nonsymmetric linear systems. SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 13(2), 631–644.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Wang, B., Liu, J., Hu, X., Liu, J., Guo, Z. & Xiao, J. (2021) Geophysical electromagnetic modeling and evaluation: a review. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 194, 104438.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Wilson, G., Marchant, D., Haber, E., Clegg, N., Zurcher, D., Rawsthorne, L. & Kunnas, J. (2019) Real‐time 3D inversion of ultra‐deep resistivity logging‐while‐drilling data. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. OnePetro.
  39. Wu, H.‐H., Wu, D., Ma, J., Yan, T., Lozinsky, C. & Bittar, M. (2024) Enhancing local anisotropy characterization with ultra‐deep azimuthal resistivity measurements. In SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, D041S013R001. Houston, TX: SPWLA.
  40. Yang, P. (2023) 3D fictitious wave domain CSEM inversion by adjoint source estimation. Computers & Geosciences, 180, 105441.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Yin, C. (2000) Geoelectrical inversion for a one‐dimensional anisotropic model and inherent non‐uniqueness. Geophysical Journal International, 140(1), 11–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Zhdanov, M.S. (2009) Geophysical electromagnetic theory and methods. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Zwamborn, P. & Van Den Berg, P.M. (1992) The three dimensional weak form of the conjugate gradient FFT method for solving scattering problems. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, 40(9), 1757–1766.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70017
Loading
Sequential multi‐dimensional parameter inversion of induction logging data
Geophysical Prospecting 73, 1315 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.70017
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70017
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70017
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): anisotropy; electromagnetics; integral equation method; inversion; mathematical formulation; numerical study

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