1887
Volume 73, Issue 6
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

Abstract

Considering the demand for lithology identification in quantitative seismic interpretation, I introduced ternary diagrams based on rock physics modelling to derive lithology from seismic data. For this purpose, physical and acoustic parameters of minerals were utilized to reconstruct the most common rocks in hydrocarbon reservoirs, including source, reservoir and caprock. Subsequently, the generated rocks were input into a ternary diagram based on easily obtained parameters from seismic data, including acoustic impedance, / ratio and lambda–mu–rho parameters. Next, two ternary diagrams were implemented according to the elastic parameters for reservoir (and source) and caprock identification. The theoretical results indicated that the proposed ternary diagrams can be applied for interpreting seismic inversion data to discriminate limestone from sandstone and shale using lambda–rho. Additionally, mu–rho can serve as a criterion to differentiate dolomite from limestone and anhydrite (or sandstone from shale and limestone). The obtained ternary diagram was validated using ultrasonic and well‐log data from blind wells and subsequently used to interpret 3D seismic data. For this purpose, acoustic impedance was calculated using a simultaneous inversion method from pre‐stack data and converted to elastic parameters, which were then input into the ternary diagrams. The validation procedures yielded promising results and demonstrated that ternary diagrams can effectively identify different lithologies compared to conventional binary cross‐plots. The advantage of the proposed diagrams lies in their comprehensiveness and generality, making them compatible with seismic limitations and applicable to a wide range of sedimentary rocks. The findings of this research can enhance the interpretation of seismic inversion results when mineral fraction or petrophysical interpretation is unavailable. Finally, the advantages and limitations of the methodology were discussed, and the impact of reservoir heterogeneities and fluid types on ternary diagrams was analysed. It was concluded that the proposed diagrams are not restricted to specific depositional settings and can be developed for the seismic interpretation of unconventional reservoirs and igneous rocks through the implementation of the mentioned methodology.

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

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70033
2025-07-09
2026-02-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70033
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agofack, N., Lozovyi, S. & Bauer, A. (2018) Effect of CO2 on P‐ and S‐wave velocities at seismic and ultrasonic frequencies. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 78, 388–399. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2018.09.010
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aguilera Bustos, J. & Adam, L. (2023) Experimental insights into factors influencing VP/VS ratios at the Nevado del Ruiz Volcano, Colombia. Volcanica, 6, 283–299.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Ba, J., Xu, W., Fu, L.‐Y., 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(3), 1949–1976. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JB013882
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bashir, Y., Siddiqui, N.A., Morib, Babasafari, A.A., Ali, S.H., Imran, Q.S. et al. (2024) Cohesive approach for determining porosity and P‐impedance in carbonate rocks using seismic attributes and inversion analysis. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 14, 1173–1187. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202‐024‐01767‐x
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Batzle, M. & Wang, Z. (1992) Seismic properties of pore fluids. Geophysics, 57, 1396–1408.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Brie, A., Pampuri, F., Marsala, A.F. & Meazza, O. (1995) Shear sonic interpretation in gas‐bearing sands. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Society of Petroleum Engineers. pp. 701–710.
  7. Buland, A., Kolbjørnsen, O., Hauge, R., Skjæveland, Ø. & Duffaut, K. (2008) Bayesian lithology and fluid prediction from seismic prestack data. Geophysics, 73(3), C13–C21. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2842150
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Carcione, J.M., Picotti, S., Gei, D. & Rossi, G. (2006) Physics and seismic modeling for monitoring CO2 storage. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 163, 175–207. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024‐005‐0002‐1
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Cole, K.S. & Cole, R.H. (1941) Dispersion and absorption in dielectrics I. Alternating current characteristics. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 9, 341–351.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Datta Gupta, S., Chatterjee, R. & Farooqui, M.Y. (2012) Rock physics template (RPT) analysis of well logs and seismic data for lithology and fluid classification in Cambay Basin. International Journal of Earth Sciences, 101(5), 1407–1426. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531‐011‐0736‐1
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Dewar, J. & Downton, J. (2002) Getting unlost and staying found—a practical framework for interpreting elastic parameters. In: CSEG Annual Conference, Expanded Abstracts, 1–4. https://old.cseg.ca/assets/files/resources/abstracts/2002/Dewar_J_Downton_J_Getting_unlost_and_staying_found_Poster.pdf
  12. Domínguez‐Cruz, M., España‐Pinto, A., Valdiviezo‐Mijangos, O. & Nicolás‐López, R. (2025) Petroelastic modeling of well logging and seismic inversion data combining rock physics templates and conventional petrophysical analysis for 1D, 2D, and 3D supervised reservoir characterization of the Stybarrow Field in Exmouth sub‐basin inner Carnarvon Basin, Australia. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 11(2), 97.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Ezeh, C.C. (2015) Using lame's petrophysical parameters for fluid detection and lithology determination in parts of Niger delta. Global Journal of Geological Sciences, 13, 23–33. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4314/gjgs.v13i1.4
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Fakhar, M., Rezaee, P. & Karimian Torghabeh, A. (2024) Investigating the reservoir quality of the Early Triassic succession with a new perspective on diagenesis and sequence stratigraphy in the center of the Persian Gulf, South Pars. Geoenergy Science and Engineering, 232, 212367. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoen.2023.212367
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Feng, H. & Bancroft, J.C. (2006) AVO principles, processing and inversion. Paper presented at the CREWES Research Report 18.
  16. Flemming, B.W. (2000) A revised textural classification of gravel‐free muddy sediments on the basis of ternary diagrams. Continental Shelf Research, 20(10), 1125–1137. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278‐4343(00)00015‐7
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Florez, J.M. & Kuzmin, S. (2015) Rock physics templates in AI‐GI and extended elastic impedance domains. In: 85th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts. Houston, TX, Society of Exploration Geophysicists. pp. 3295–3299. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2015‐5706854.1
  18. Folk, R.L. (1974) Petrology of sedimentary rocks. Austin: Hemphill Publishing Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Franzolin, E., Schmidt, M.W. & Poli, S. (2011) Ternary Ca–Fe–Mg carbonates: subsolidus phase relations at 3.5 GPa and a thermodynamic solid solution model including order/disorder. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology. Beitrage zur Mineralogie und Petrologie, 161, 213–227. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00410‐010‐0527‐x
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Gaafar, G.R. & Altunbay, M.M. (2019) Lithofacies classification based on open hole logging using ternary diagram techniques. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 9, 1695–1704. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202‐019‐0647‐4
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Gamero‐Diaz, H., Miller, C. & Lewis, R. (2013) sCore: a mineralogy based classification scheme for organic mudstones. In: Proceedings of SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, SPE166284, 3. Houston, TX, Society of Exploration Geophysicists. pp. 2465–2681. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2118/166284‐MS
  22. Gassmann, F. (1951) Uber die elastizit¨at por¨oser medien. Vierteljahrsschrift der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft Zürich, 96, 1–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Golikov, P., Avseth, P., Stovas, A. & Bachrach, R. (2013) Rock physics interpretation of heterogeneous and anisotropic turbidite reservoirs. Geophysical Prospecting, 61, 448–457. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2478.2012.01073.x
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Goodway, B. (2001) AVO and Lamé constants for rock parameterization and fluid detection. Recorder, 26(6), 39–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hampson, D.P., Russell, B.H. & Bankhead, B. (2005) Simultaneous inversion of prestack seismic data. In: 75th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts. Houston, TX, Society of Exploration Geophysicists. pp. 1633–1636. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2148008
  26. Johnston, J.E. & Christensen, N.I. (1995) Seismic anisotropy of shales. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 100(B4), 5991–6003. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1029/95JB00031
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Khadem, B., Saberi, M.R., Krief, M. & Abbasi, H.R. (2024) Investigating the analytical relationship between pore geometry and other pore space properties in carbonate rocks. Petroleum Geoscience, 30(1), 2023–2028. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2023‐02
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Kuster, G.T. & Toksöz, M.N. (1974) Velocity and attenuation of seismic waves in two‐phase media: part I. Theoretical formulations. Geophysics, 39, 587–606. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1440450
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Leisi, A. & Shad Manaman, N. (2025) Geomechanical characterization of Asmari formation in the Dezful embayment via simultaneous inversion and extended elastic impedance techniques, SW Iran. Earth Science Informatics, 18, 337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145‐025‐01853‐6
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Liang, C., Yingchang, C., Jiang, Z., Wu, J., Song, G. & Wang, Y. (2017) Shale oil potential of lacustrine black shale in the Eocene Dongying depression: implicationsfor geochemistry and reservoir characteristics. AAPG Bulletin, 11, 1835–1858. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1306/0125171524
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Luheshi, M.N., Ahsvihare, S.G. & Evans, J. (1996) Using 3D seismic and attribute analysis to track fluid movement in the subsurface. In: Paper presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas Paper Number: OTC‐7963‐MS, Richardson, TX, OnePetro. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4043/7963‐MS
  32. Ma, R., Ba, J., Carcione, J. & Lebedev, M. (2021) P‐wave scattering by randomly distributed aligned cracks in fractal media. Geophysical Journal International, 229(2), 900–914. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggab450
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Markus, U.I., Ba, J., Carcione, J.M., Zhang, L. & Pang, M. (2022) 3‐D rock‐physics templates for the seismic prediction of pore microstructure in ultra‐deep carbonate reservoirs. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 47(6), 1–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Mavko, G., Mukerji, T. & Dvorkin, J. (2009) The rock physics handbook: tools for seismic analysis of porous media. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Mikhaltsevitch, V., Lebedev, M. & Gurevich, B. (2014) A laboratory study of the elastic and anelastic properties of the sandstone flooded with supercritical CO2 at seismic frequencies. Energy Procedia, 63, 4289–4296.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Mohammed Sajed, O.K., Glover, P.W.J. & Collier, R.E.L. (2021) Reservoir quality estimation using a new ternary diagram approach applied to carbonate formations in north‐western Iraq. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 196, 108024. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2020.108024
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Motiei, H. (1993) Stratigraphy of Zagros. Tehran: Geological Survey of Iran.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Muhammad, A., Ashraf, U., Zhu, P., Ma, H., Jiang, R., Lei, G. et al. (2023) Quantitative characterization of shallow marine sediments in tight gas fields of middle indus basin: a rational approach of multiple rock physics diagnostic models. Processes, 11, 323. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11020323
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Nicolás‐López, R. & Valdiviezo‐Mijangos, O.C. (2016) Rock physics templates for integrated analysis of shales considering their mineralogy, organic matter and pore fluids. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 137, 33–41. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2015.11.009
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Nooraiepour, M., Mondol, N.H., Hellevang, H. & Bjørlykke, K. (2017) Experimental mechanical compaction of reconstituted shale and mudstone aggregates: investigation of petrophysical and acoustic properties of SW Barents Sea cap rock sequences. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 80, 265–292.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Ødegaard, E. & Avseth, P. (2003) Interpretation of elastic inversion results using rock physics templates. In: 65th annual international conference and exhibition, EAGE, extended abstracts, E‐17. Utrecht, European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3997/2214‐4609‐pdb.6.E17
  42. Pan, H.‐J., Wei, C., Yan, X.‐F., Li, X.‐M., Yang, Z.‐F., Gui, Z.‐X. et al. (2024) 3D rock physics template‐based probabilistic estimation of tight sandstone reservoir properties. Petroleum Science, 21(5), 3090–3101. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petsci.2024.04.010
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Pendrel, J. (2015) Low frequency models for seismic inversions: strategies for success. In: 85th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts. Houston, TX, Society of Exploration Geophysicists. pp. 2703–2707.
  44. Pettijohn, F.J. (1957) Sedimentary rocks, 2nd edition, New York: Harper and Bros.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Rahmani, F., Emami Niri, M. & Jozanikohan, G. (2023) 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, 13, 449–470. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202‐022‐01560‐8
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Rickman, R., Mullen, M., Petre, E., Grieser, B. & Kundert, D. (2008) A practical use of shale petrophysics for stimulation design optimization: all shale plays are not clones of the barnett shale. In: Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Paper Number: SPE‐115258‐MS. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2118/115258‐MS
  47. Russell, B. (2015) Visualizing inversion results with rock physics templates. CREWES Research Report 27.
  48. Sharifi, J. (2025) Geophysical monitoring of CO2 storage using rock physics template. Geoenergy Science and Engineering, 250, 213808. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoen.2025.213808
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Sharifi, J. (2024) Prism‐shaped rock‐physics template. Geophysics, 89(4), IM31–IM40. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2023‐0661.1
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Sharifi, J. (2023) Implications of static low‐frequency model on seismic geomechanics inversion. Geophysics, 88(1), 1–39. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2021‐0797.1
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Sharifi, J. (2022a) Multi‐pore rock physics model: an intelligent approach for carbonate rocks. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 218, 111002. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2022.111002
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Sharifi, J. (2022b) Intelligent pore type characterization: improved theory for rock physics modelling. Geophysical Prospecting, 70(5), 921–937. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365‐2478.13204
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Sharifi, J., Moghaddas, N.H., Saberi, M.R. & Mondol, N.H. (2023a) A novel approach for fracture porosity estimation of carbonate reservoirs. Geophysical Prospecting, 71, 664–681. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365‐2478.13321
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Sharifi, J., Nooraiepour, M., Amiri, M. & Mondol, N.H. (2023b) Developing a relationship between static Young’s modulus and seismic parameters. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 13, 203–218, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202‐022‐01546‐6
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Sharifi, J., Moghaddas, N.H., Lashkaripour, G.R., Javaherian, A. & Mirzakhanian, M. (2019) Application of extended elastic impedance in seismic geomechanics. Geophysics, 84(3), R429–R446. Available from: https://library.seg.org/doi/abs/10.1190/geo2018‐0242.1
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Shepard, F.P. (1954) Nomenclature based on sand‐silt‐clay ratios. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 24, 151–158.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Tucker, M.E. (2001) Sedimentary petrology: an Introduction to the origin of sedimentary rocks, 3rd edition, Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Science Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Walpole, L.J. (1966) On bounds for the overall elastic moduli of inhomogeneous systems—II. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 14(5), 289–301. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022‐5096(66)90025‐1
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Wang, G. & Carr, T.R. (2012) Methodology of organic‐rich shale lithofacies identifi‐cation and prediction: a case study from Marcellus Shale in the Appalachian basin. Computers & Geosciences, 49, 151–163. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2012.07.011
     [Google Scholar]
  60. White, R.E. (1980) Partial coherence matching of synthetic seismograms with seismic traces. Geophysical Prospecting, 28(3), 333–358. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2478.1980.tb01230.x
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Winkler, K.W. (1986) Estimates of velocity dispersion between seismic and ultrasonic frequencies. Geophysics, 51, 183–189.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Wood, A.W. (1941) A textbook of sound. New York: McMillan Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Wubing, D. & Morozov, I.B. (2018) Mechanical interpretation and generalization of the Cole‐Cole model in viscoelasticity. Geophysics, 83, MR345–MR352. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2017‐0821.1
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Xu, S. & White, R.E. (1995) A new velocity model for clay–sand mixtures. Geophysical Prospecting, 43, 91–118. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2478.1995.tb00126.x
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Xu, S. & Payne, M.A. (2009) Modeling elastic properties in carbonate rocks. The Leading Edge, 28, 66–74. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3064148
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Yenwongfai, H.D., Mondol, N.H., Faleide, J.I. & Lecomte, I. (2017) Prestack simultaneous inversion to predict lithology and pore fluid in the Realgrunnen Subgroup of the Goliat Field, southwestern Barents Sea. Interpretation, 5(2), SE75–SE96. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1190/INT‐2016‐0109.1
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Yurikov, A., Pervukhina, M., Beloborodov, R., Delle Piane, C., Dewhurst, D.N. & Lebedev, M. (2021) Modeling of compaction trends of anisotropic elastic properties of shales. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 126, e2020JB019725. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JB019725
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Zhukov, V., Kuzmin, Y., Tikhotsky, S., Egorov, N. & Fokin, I. (2022) Changes in the fracture and intergranular porosity in rock fracture preparation. Seismic Instruments, 58, 379–388. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3103/S0747923922040090
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70033
Loading
Interpretation of seismic inversion using ternary diagram: Seismic lithology identification
Geophysical Prospecting 73, e70033 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.70033
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70033
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70033
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): interpretation; inversion; lithology identification; rock physics; ternary diagram

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