Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Reservoir Characterization
1. Definition
Up to now, there is no standard definition about Seismic
Inversion. The author defines the seismic inversion as :
Seismic inversion is the technique for creating sub-surface
geological model using the seismic data as input and well data
as controls
Figure 1-3 show simple illustration on inversion method
compared to the conventional seismic records
FORWARD MODELLING
Input
Process
Output
INVERSE MODELLING
(INVERSION)
SEISMIC
RESPONSE
EARTH MODEL
MODELING
ALGORITHM
SEISMIC
RESPONSE
MODELING
ALGORITHM
Model
control
EARTH MODEL
Figure 2a. Illustration on the differences between forward and inverse modeling
Seismic Inversion for Reservoir Characterization
By : Sigit Sukmono
Earth
The Making
of Seismic
Section
Wavelet
= Seismic Section
BUM
AI
Seismic
Inversion
Process
AI
EARTH
Seismic Inversion
For Reservoir
Characterization
SEISMIC
INVERSION METHOD
PRE-STACK
INVERSION
TOMOGRAPHY
TIME
INVERSION
POST-STACK
INVERSION
INVERSION
AMPLITUDE
(AVO)
BANDLIMITED
AMPLITUDE
INVERSION
SPARSE
SPIKE
WAVEFIELD
INVERSION
MODELBASED
(1)
(2)
(3)
where E
RC
AI1
AI2
= Energy
= reflection coefficient
= upper layer acoustic impedance
= lower layer acoustic impedance
10
11
12
Figure 5. The effects of various factors on seismic wave velocity (Hiltermann, 1977)
Seismic Inversion for Reservoir Characterization
By : Sigit Sukmono
13
14
Figure 7. (a) Velocity-porosity data from laboratorium result (b) The effects of various factors on porosity (Sheriff, 1980)
15
16
17
The seismic inversion technique has been known by the oilgas industry since 1980s. But, could not gain popularity well
because it was considered to be very complicate and difficult
to applied.
In 1990s, the fast development of computer technology
makes the inversion technique become a practical
methodology. Currently, its not considered as a special
method anymore.
18
19
In Figure 11, for Fm. Bekasap case, which layer is the most
porous ? Delineates its distribution ?
Figure 12 shows another example of seismic section on
exploration field. Give a comment about the exploration well
position. What type of trap developed here ?
On each section, show the porous and non porous layer. On
each porous layer, analyze further the internal heterogeneity
aspect. Discuss the differences between the AI and
conventional sections capability for analyzing internal
heterogeneity aspect.
Seismic Inversion for Reservoir Characterization
By : Sigit Sukmono
20
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
Figure 9. The reflectivity section of Line A. The main source-rock interval is shown as box in the well.
21
sb-y
mfs
sb-x
Figure 10a. The AI section of Line A. The main source rock interval is shown as box in the well.
22
sb-y
mfs
sb-x
Figure 10b. The AI section of Line B. Determinate the main reservoir rock distribution
Seismic Inversion for Reservoir Characterization
By : Sigit Sukmono
23
Figure 11. In the Bekasap formation, delineate the most porous layer . Seismic section from Hantoro (2001)
24
Figure 12. The conventional amplitude (above) and AI (below) section . The bright color shows lower AI value.
25
Figure 13. The AI vs conventional section. The bright color shows higher AI value.
26
13
18
Top
Boundary
Bottom
Boundary
field to be developed
Figure 14. The AI section of Figure 15. The bright color shows lower AI value
27
13
18
28
29
30
31
(5)
32
33
S(f)
W(f)
R(f)
f
= Fourier transformation of st
= Fourier transformation ofwt
= Fourier transformation of rt
= frequency
34
35
c i = a jb i
j =0
36
Reflectivity
Synthetic
Figure 16. The convolution model by using closely spaced reflectivity from the well (center). The wavelet is shown
in the left, while synthetic trace in the right.
Seismic Inversion for Reservoir Characterization
By : Sigit Sukmono
37
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0
100
50
150
200
250
Hz
100
50
150
200
250
Hz
100
50
150
200
250
Hz
Figure 17. The convolutional model in frequency domain by using three components as on the Figure 16
38
Figure 18. The convolution process in time and frequency domains. Notice how the low frequency component start to be effected by
the sampling effect of RC and convolution of wavelet and RC (Jason Geosystem, 1999)
39
40
Figure 20. The difference of resolution content between seismic, well and inversion result (Jason Geosystem, 1999)
41
Figure 21. Illustration showing various frequency contents of well data (Jason Geosystem, 1999)
Seismic Inversion for Reservoir Characterization
By : Sigit Sukmono
42
43
b 0 b1
a 0 a0b0 a0b1
a1 a1b0 a1b1
a 2 a2b0 a2b1
b2
a0b2
a1b2
a2b2
44
45
5 30
7 42
2 12
4
2
6
10
14
4
4
12
20
28
8
46
2.
3.
The next page shows the log Vp, log , log AI and wavelet
data. The wavelet can be written as the matrix :
[W] = [-20 70 -20]
By using the Robinson and Treitel (1980) method, construct
the synthetic seismogram (St) on the given zone in figure,
where St = RCt*Wt
Compare your synthetic seismogram with the computer
calculation result.
47
48
49
80000000
amplitude
60000000
40000000
20000000
0
20
40
60
80
100 ms
-20000000
-40000000
Figure 22. The wavelet used, simplified into a matrix form [Wt] = [-20 70 -20]
50
Figure 23. The velocity, density and AI logs. Construct St = Wt*RCt on the right diagram.
51
Compute
RC & AI
Seismic
Synthetic
52
i +1Vi +1 iVi AI i +1 AI i
RCi =
=
i +1Vi +1 + iVi AI i +1 + AI i
AIi+1 = AIi (1+RCi) / (1-RCi)
(8)
(9)
53
1 + RCi
AI n = AI1
1
RC
i =1
i
n 1
(10)
Exercise
If we know that the AI1 = 1, RC1 = 2/4, RC2 =1/7, and RC3 =
-3/5. Compute AI4 using equation 10.
54
55
56
SEISMIC SECTION
SCALED TO
REFLECTIVITY
ENTER LOW FREQ COMPONENT
INVERT TO
PSEUDO - IA
CONVERT TO
PSEUDO - VELOCITY
CONVERT TO
DEPTH
DISPLAY
57
58
59
Following is the discussion on the application of this GaussJordans elimination. For example, the following equation
needs to be solved :
2x1 - 7x2 + 4x3 = 9
x1 + 9x2 6x3 = 1
-3x1 + 8x2 + 5x3 = 6
In Gauss-Jordans elimination technique, the equation can be
written as :
60
2 7 4 9 1 0 0
1
9 6 1 0 1 0
5 6 0 0 1
3 8
61
62
47/5
94/5 7/5 1/5 1
0 0
63
1/47
5/47
0 0 1 2 7/47
64
80000000
amplitude
60000000
40000000
20000000
0
20
40
60
80
100 ms
-20000000
-40000000
Figure 26. The wavelet used, simplified into matrix [Wt ]= [-2 7 2]
65
Seismic
Synthetic
Figure 27. The synthetic seismogram created by computer, simplified into [St] = [17 6 3]
Seismic Inversion for Reservoir Characterization
By : Sigit Sukmono
66
67
68
69
SEISMIC
TRACE
MODEL
TRACE
EXTRACT
WAVELET
COMPUTE
ERROR
ERROR OK?
ESTIMATE
IMPEDANCE
REVISE
IMPEDANCE
No
Yes
SOLUTION =
ESTIMATE
DISPLAY
70
71
2. Stretch and squeeze the log data in the control points to tie
to the seismic data by using reflectivity convoluted with
wavelet from seismic data (Figure 29-31).
3. Add the lateral control of main seismic reflector by picking
and develop the interpolation of well log in such away, so
it match to the reflector. This stage is also known as the
initial model development stage (Figure 32).
72
73
74
Zero-phase
wavelet
from seismic
& well
(b) Wavelet
fasa konstan
dengan spektrum
amplitudo dari
seismikdata
& sumur
75
Figure 30. Example of stretch & squeeze process in well-seismic tie (Russel, 1997)
76
Figure 31. Example of stretch & squeeze final result (Russel, 1997)
Seismic Inversion for Reservoir Characterization
By : Sigit Sukmono
77
78
Figure 33. Initial model construction without lateral control (Russel, 1997)
79
Figure 34. Initial model construction with sequence stratigraphy and well data controls (Russel, 1997)
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
Figure 35. The example of inversion result : a) Bandlimited, b) Constrained model-based, c) Stochastic model
based, and d) sparse-spike MLH. Analyze the difference of each method and give the explanation. The example is
taken from Arief (2001)
87
88
Figure 37. Illustration showing the iteration number effect to the error value which become constant on iteration
11(from Subekti, 2001)
Seismic Inversion for Reservoir Characterization
By : Sigit Sukmono
89
90
91
92
Figure 38 illustrates the fundamental assumption of maximumlikelihood deconvolution, which is that the earths reflectivity is
composed of a series of large events superimposed on a
Gaussian background of smaller events. This contrasts with
spiking decon, which assumes a perfectly random distribution of
reflection coefficient. The sonic-log reflectivity at the bottom of
figure shows that in fact this model is quite logical.
93
94
to
the
95
Figure 38. The fundamental assumption of the maximum-likelihood method (Russel, 1997)
Seismic Inversion for Reservoir Characterization
By : Sigit Sukmono
96
Figure 39. The Single Most Likely Addition (SMLA) algorithm illustrated for a simple reflectivity model (Russel, 1997)
97
Initial
Wavelet
Estimate
Estimate
Sparse
Reflectivity
Improve
Wavelet
Estimate
Figure 40. Component used for solving both reflectivity and wavelet. Iterate around the loop until converge.
98
Figure 41. The procedure for updating the wavelet in the maximum-likelihood method (Russel, 1997)
99
Figure 42a. The initial seismic model using extracted wavelet (Russel, 1997)
100
Figure 42b. Final deconvolved seismic using zero-phase wavelet (Russel, 1997)
101
Figure 43. The philosophy of sparse spike inversion method using L1 norm which update the reflectivity until small error
between real data seismic and the model obtained (Jason Geosystem, 1999)
102
Figure 44. The flow-chart of Constraint Sparse Spike inversion method in frequency domain (Jason Geosystem, 1999)
103
Figure 45. Filter design for final inversion result. Based on the figure, 0-5 Hz range of low frequency from geology method and 5-50
Hz range from inversion result are taken to get the final acoustic impedance result (the example taken from Kahar, 2000)
104
Wavelet 1
Figure 46. The estimation result of wavelet-1 using seismic data and the quality control (Kahar, 2000)
105
Wavelet 2
Figure 47. The estimation result of wavelet-2 using seismic data, well data and also the quality control (Kahar, 2000)
Seismic Inversion for Reservoir Characterization
By : Sigit Sukmono
106
Figure 48. The tying process of well data B2 to seismic data using wavelet-1 (Kahar, 2000)
Seismic Inversion for Reservoir Characterization
By : Sigit Sukmono
107
Figure 49. The tying process of well data B2 to seismic data using wavelet-2 (Kahar, 2000)
Seismic Inversion for Reservoir Characterization
By : Sigit Sukmono
108
Figure 50. Example of residual error plot using wavelet 1 and 2 (Kahar, 2000). Which wavelet gives better result ?
109
Figure 51. Illustration of seismic stratigraphy control in the initial model construction (Pendrel & Riel, 2000)
110
Figure 52. The geology impedance model. Log AI from the well is interpolated by following the control horizon
in Figure 51 (Pendrel & Riel, 2000)
Seismic Inversion for Reservoir Characterization
By : Sigit Sukmono
111
Figure 53. Low frequency (0-10 Hz) component from impedance model in Figure 52. This frequency component will be united with
the inversion result to the get sub-surface image with complete frequency spectrum (Pendrel & Riel, 2000)
112
Figure 54. Illustration on how to control the hard constraint. The constraint range determine how far the solution can be varied against
the well data (Pendrel & Riel, 2000)
113
Figure 55. The illustration of final inversion result compared to the AI log (Pendrel & Riel, 2000)
114
Figure 56. The illustration of final inversion result after combined with low frequency model (Pendrel & Riel, 2000). Determine
which layer in the reef potential to be developed
115
116
117
118
119
Figure 57. Reflectivity and its AI sections. Give comment about the AI section quality and explanation.
120
121
9900
8500
7100
5700
7000
AI
8000
122
9400
8400
7400
Figure 59. The reflectivity and its AI sections. Give comment about the AI quality and explanation.
123
Exercise 7
AI for Channels Sandstone Reservoir Mapping-Exploration
Field Case
This exercise is taken from Syarif s (2000). Figure 60 is the
example of well-seismic tie on Well-1. The reservoir mapped
here is sand-1.
Figure 61 shows the correlation between well AI and seismic
AI. Figure 62 shows correlation between AI and seismic
amplitude, while Figure 63 shows correlation between well AI,
depth and type of lithology.
124
125
Sand-1
20 ms
126
127
128
shale-1
coal-1
sand-1
129
-20000
-17500
-15000
-12500
-10000
-7500
-5000
-2500
0
Figure 64. Minimum amplitude of sand-1 with 20 ms window. The blue box shows area where the inversion process was held
130
131
132
Figure 66. The cross-plot between AI and density (Verdin, 1999) for overall compartment.
133
Figure 67. The reflectivity (right) and its AI (left) sections. The Log shows sandstone fraction . This line is about 7 km (Verdin, 1999)
134
Figure 68. The density section converted from AI section. As a comparison, the AI section is given at background. The black wiggle
shows original seismic trace (Verdin, 1999). Show the porous sandstone, tight sands and clay/tuff.
135
Exercise 8
Seismic Inversion for Delineating Development Well Location
Figure 69 shows the AI and the porosity conversion chart.
Figure 70 showing porosity, NES and oil-isopach from well data
charts.
Delineate development well location based on these figures.
Compare if you dont have the inversion result for this analysis.
136
Figure 69. The average seismic AI (left) and AI porosity (right). Low AI and porosity values are shown in bright colors.
137
Figure 70. a) Effective isoporosity (PhiE), b) oil isopach from well data. High value is shown by bright color.
138
Exercise 9
Seismic Inversion for Reservoir Carbonate CharacterizationExploration Field Case
Figure 71. Example of well-seismic tie in Well-1. the target
reservoir interval is shown.
Figure 72. Time structure map of top X.
Figure 73. Check-shot data.
Figure 74. Depth structure map of top X.
Figure 75. Cross-plot of AI vs porosity.
Figure 76. Average AI with 10 ms window width below the top
X.
Figure 77. The AI section through Well-1
Seismic Inversion for Reservoir Characterization
By : Sigit Sukmono
139
Questions
1.
2.
140
top X
bottom X
141
142
Figure 73. The check-shot data which used to convert the time structure map into depth structure map
Seismic Inversion for Reservoir Characterization
By : Sigit Sukmono
143
144
145
Figure 76. The average AI with window width of 10 ms below the top X
146
Well-1
Top X
Bottom X
147
References
1. Angeleri, G.P. and Carpi, R., 1982, Porosity Prediction
from Seismic Data : Geophysical Prospecting, v.30, 580607.
2. Brown, A.R., 1991, Interpretation of Three-Dimensional
Seismic Data, AAPG Memoir 42, 3rd ed., AAPG.
3. Galbraith, J.M., and Millington, G.F., 1979, Low
Frequency Recovery in The Inversion of Seismograms :
Journal of CSEG, v. 15, p.30-39.
4. Johnston, D.H., 1992, Introduction to Reservoir
Management in Reservoir Geophysics, ed : R.E. Sheriff :
SEG
Seismic Inversion for Reservoir Characterization
By : Sigit Sukmono
148
149
150
151
152