1887

Abstract

Summary

Methods for the inversion of seismic amplitudes have been available since the 1970s but their track record of delivering useful results has been, at best, mixed. The realisation of the shortcoming of each method, for example,the failure to account for AVO effects or the ignoring of a key source of uncertainty, has been followed by a change of direction and a new inversion framework, until that one too proved to be inadequate. But perhaps the most recent class of inversion applications, to estimate facies probabilities, will prove to be an approach that can deliver a reliable product. There is still much work to be done to improve the performance of these algorithms; analysis of the inversion problem within this framework more clearly demonstrates the difficulty, but this time the effort could result in successful outcomes.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202037003
2020-10-26
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Avseth, P., A.Janke and F.Horn, 2016. AVO inversion in exploration — Key learnings from a Norwegian Sea prospect: TLE.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bosch, M., T.Mukerji and E.Gonzalez, 2010. Seismic inversion for reservoir properties combining statistical rock physics and geostatistics: A review: Geophysics75.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Buland, A., and H.Omre, 2003. Bayesian linearized AVO inversion: Geophysics, 68.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Coléou, T., F.Allo, R.Bornard, J.Hamman and D.Caldwell, 2005. Petrophysical Seismic Inversion: SEG Extended Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Connolly, P. A. and M. J.Hughes, 2016. Stochastic inversion by matching to large numbers of pseudo-wells: Geophysics, 81.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Doyen, P. M., 2007. Seismic reservoir characterization: An earth modelling perspective: EAGE Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Eide, A., B.Ursin and H.More, 1997. Stochastic simulation of porosity and acoustic impedance conditioned to seismic data and well data: SEG Extended Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Grana, D., L.Azevedo and M.Liu, 2020. A comparison of deep machine learning and Monte Carlo methods for facies classification from seismic data: Geophysics85.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Grana, D., and E. DellaRossa, 2010. Probabilistic petrophysical-properties estimation integrating statistical rock physics with seismic inversion: Geophysics, 75.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Kemper, M. and J.Gunning, 2014. Joint impedance and facies inversion – Seismic inversion redefined: First Break, 32.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kolbjørnsen, O., A.Buland, R.Hauge, P.Røe, M.Jullum, R. W.Metcalfe and Ø.Skjæveland, 2016. Bayesian AVO inversion to rock properties using a local neighborhood in a spatial prior model: TLE.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Lindseth, R. O., 1979. Synthetic sonic logs – a process for stratigraphic interpretation: Geophysics, 44.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Paramo, P., A.Chauhan, S.Grant and M.Hughes, 2019. Using One Dimension Stochastic Inversion to Characterize Reservoir Facies in a Deep Water Turbidite Field: EAGE Annual Conference.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Riise, O., J.Elgenes, J.M.Frey-Martinez, Ø.Kjøsnes & A.Buland, 2012. Detailed Lithology and Fluid Mapping of the Asterix Gas Discovery Using Bayesian Inversion Methodology: EAGE Conference.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Thore, P., 2015. Uncertainty in seismic inversion: What really matters?: TLE.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Zhang, R. and J.Castagna, 2011. Seismic sparse-layer reflectivity inversion using basis pursuit decomposition: Geophysics76.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202037003
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202037003
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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