Interpretation: SEG 5 (2):B17-B27 (2017)
Abstract |
Predicting the low-frequency component to be used for seismic inversion to absolute elastic rock properties is often problematic. The most common technique is to interpolate well data within a structural framework. This workflow is very often not appropriate because it is too dependent on the number and distribution of wells and the interpolation algorithm chosen. The inclusion of seismic velocity information can reduce prediction error, but it more often introduces additional uncertainties because seismic velocities are often unreliable and require conditioning, calibration to wells, and conversion to S-velocity and density. Alternative techniques exist that rely on the information from within the seismic bandwidth to predict the variations below the seismic bandwidth; for example, using an interpretation of relative properties to update the low-frequency model. Such methods can provide improved predictions, especially when constrained by a conceptual geologic model and known rock-physics relationships, but they clearly have limitations. On the other hand, interpretation of relative elastic properties can be equally challenging and therefore interpreters may find themselves stuck — unsure how to interpret relative properties and seemingly unable to construct a useful low-frequency model. There is no immediate solution to this dilemma; however, it is clear that low-frequency models should not be a fixed input to seismic inversion, but low-frequency model building should be considered as a means to interpret relative elastic properties from inversion.
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories |
No categories specified (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1190/int-2016-0150.1 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Unsupervised Machine Learning Using 3D Seismic Data Applied to Reservoir Evaluation and Rock Type Identification.Marwa Hussein, Robert R. Stewart, Deborah Sacrey, Jonny Wu & Rajas Athale - 2021 - Interpretation 9 (2):T549-T568.
Seismic Inversion of a Carbonate Buildup: A Case Study.Mark Sams, Paul Begg & Timur Manapov - 2017 - Interpretation: SEG 5 (4):T641-T652.
Full-Waveform Inversion for Imaging and Geologic Interpretation: A Deepwater Gulf of Mexico Case Study.Yannick Cobo, Carlos Calderón-Macías & Shihong Chi - 2019 - Interpretation 7 (2):SB11-SB21.
Similar books and articles
Hydrate Quantification: Integrating Full-Waveform Inversion, Seismic Attributes, and Rock Physics.P. Jaiswal - 2016 - Interpretation: SEG 4 (1):SA55-SA71.
Generalized Definitional Reflection and the Inversion Principle.Peter Schroeder-Heister - 2007 - Logica Universalis 1 (2):355-376.
Seismic Screening of Rock Stiffness and Fluid Softening Using Rock-Physics Attributes.Per Avseth & Tor Veggeland - 2015 - Interpretation: SEG 3 (4):SAE85-SAE93.
Spectrum Inversion Without a Difference in Representation is Impossible.Jeff Speaks - 2011 - Philosophical Studies 156 (3):339-361.
Tutorial: Tying a Well to Seismic Using a Blocked Sonic Log.Donald A. Herron - 2014 - Interpretation: SEG 2 (2):SD1-SD7.
Backend Framework and Software Approach to Compute Earthquake Parameters From Signals Recorded by Seismic Instrumentation System.Raman K. Attri - manuscript
Inversion by Definitional Reflection and the Admissibility of Logical Rules: Inversion by Definitional Reflection.Wagner De Campos Sanz - 2009 - Review of Symbolic Logic 2 (3):550-569.
Rock-Physics-Based Double-Difference Inversion for CO2 Saturation and Porosity at the Cranfield CO2 Injection Site.Russell W. Carter & Kyle T. Spikes - 2015 - Interpretation: SEG 3 (2):SM23-SM35.
Valuing Seismic at the Drilling Program Level for Sweet Spot Identification in Unconventional Resource Plays — A Tutorial Via a Representative Example.Ellen Coopersmith, Kent Burkholder & Jan Schulze - 2013 - Interpretation: SEG 1 (2):SB125-SB130.
The Tutorial History of Rome to 14 A.D. (A. H. Allcroft and W. F. Mason. Univ. Corr. Coll. Tutorial Series).R. J. G. Mayor - 1893 - The Classical Review 7 (10):471-.
Inversion of Multicomponent 3D Vertical Seismic Profile Data for Porosity and CO2saturation at the Cranfield Injection Site, Cranfield, MS. [REVIEW]Russell W. Carter, Kyle T. Spikes & Thomas Hess - 2014 - Interpretation: SEG 2 (2):SE77-SE89.
Inversion by Definitional Reflection and the Admissibility of Logical Rules.Wagner Campos Sanz & Thomas Piecha - 2009 - Review of Symbolic Logic 2 (3):550-569.
Ray-Based Seismic Modeling of Geologic Models: Understanding and Analyzing Seismic Images Efficiently.Isabelle Lecomte, Paul Lubrano Lavadera, Ingrid Anell, Simon J. Buckley, Daniel W. Schmid & Michael Heeremans - 2015 - Interpretation: SEG 3 (4):SAC71-SAC89.
Pitfalls in Prestack Inversion of Merged Seismic Surveys.Sumit Verma, Yoryenys Del Moro & Kurt J. Marfurt - 2013 - Interpretation: SEG 1 (1):A1-A9.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2017-03-26
Total views
11 ( #852,267 of 2,506,442 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #277,420 of 2,506,442 )
2017-03-26
Total views
11 ( #852,267 of 2,506,442 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #277,420 of 2,506,442 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads