1887

Abstract

Summary

Probabilistic one-step (or direct) inversion methods are now being used frequently in the industry to infuse geophysical and geological spatial information into the inverse problem with the added benefit/complexity of solving for probabilities of the variables of interest. The inherent ambiguity of the inverse problem can be addressed by solving for probability density functions, and the Bayesian method is the natural framework for assimilating data, modelling and prior soft or hard knowledge/information. The approximate local likelihood method is a fast method that can solve direct probabilistic inversion problems taking spatial information accurately into account. The method is very flexible and has few limitations wrt spatial models and RP models which can be analytical or rule based models. However all applications so far has used the linear Aki-Richards reflectivity model which simplifies the problem. In the study we will use an extension of the method to solve the nonlinear Zoeppritz reflectivity model and apply it to a challenging AVO problem of coals where the Zoeppritz equation would be more appropriate since the small contrast assumption of the Aki-Richards equation no longer holds.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202037034
2020-10-26
2021-01-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. JullumM. and KolbjørnsenO.
    [2016] A Gaussian-based framework for local Bayesian inversion of geophysical data to rock properties, Geophysics81, R75–R87. doi:10.1190/geo2015‑0314.1
    https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2015-0314.1 [Google Scholar]
  2. HansenH.J. and JakobsenA.F.
    [2018] Local probabilistic inversion of seismic AVO data, Conference Proceedings, 80th EAGE Conference & Exhibition 2018 Workshop Programme. doi: 10.3997/2214‑4609.201801888
    https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201801888 [Google Scholar]
  3. JakobsenA.F. and HansenH.J.
    [2019] Exploring Noise Models in Approximate Bayesian Inversion for Facies, 81st EAGE Conference & Exhibition 2019, Conference Proceedings. doi:10.3997/2214‑4609.201901139
    https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201901139 [Google Scholar]
  4. TyiasningS. and CookeD.
    [2015] A comparison of competing amplitude variation with offset techniques applied to tight gas sand exploration in the Cooper Basin of Australia, Interpretation3, 3. doi:10.1190/INT‑2014‑0262.1
    https://doi.org/10.1190/INT-2014-0262.1 [Google Scholar]
  5. DowntonJ.E. and UrsenbachC.
    [2006] Linearized amplitude variation with offset (AVO) inversion with supercritical angles, Geophysics71, E49–E55. doi: 10.1190/1.2227617
    https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2227617 [Google Scholar]
  6. SambridgeM. and MosegaardK.
    [2002] Monte Carlo methods in geophysical inverse problems, Reviews of Geophysics40, 3. doi: 10.1029/2000RG000089
    https://doi.org/10.1029/2000RG000089 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202037034
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202037034
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