Reservoir lithology classification based on seismic inversion results by Hidden Markov Models: Applying prior geological information

Abstract Hidden Markov Models (HMMs) have been applied to predict reservoir lithologies using seismic inversion results as inputs. This approach takes into account the conditional probabilities between different lithologies, i.e. the vertical transitions in sedimentary sequences. These properties are used as prior geological information. In order to relate the seismic inversion results to the true well-log data, HMMs need to be trained based on the Expectation-Maximization theory. Application of the resulting model on a synthetic example from the Book Cliffs (Utah, USA) showed that most lithologies are classified correctly, even for some thin layers. A comparison with point-wise methods in which data samples are treated independently from each other, such as k-means and fuzzy logic classifiers, leads to the conclusion that the spatial correlation in HMMs allows better lithological predictions because the prior information accounts for the geological depositional processes. A real case study with data from the Vienna Basin (Austria) is performed, in which lithologies in a 3D cube are obtained based on properties from seismic inversions, via trained HMMs. While the vertical sequences are shown to be reasonably well predicted, the horizontal continuities are not. This indicates that the future research should focus on the lateral geological relationships.

[1]  Trevor Hastie,et al.  The Elements of Statistical Learning , 2001 .

[2]  Henning Omre,et al.  Improved resolution in Bayesian lithology/fluid inversion from prestack seismic data and well observations: Part 1 — Methodology , 2010 .

[3]  Dries Gisolf,et al.  Acoustic nonlinear full-waveform inversion on an outcrop-based detailed geological and petrophysical model (Book Cliffs, Utah) , 2014 .

[4]  R. Plessix Three-dimensional frequency-domain full-waveform inversion with an iterative solver , 2009 .

[5]  Dinghui Yang,et al.  Inversion of reservoir porosity, saturation, and permeability based on a robust hybrid genetic algorithm , 2015 .

[6]  D. Grana,et al.  Quantitative log interpretation and uncertainty propagation of petrophysical properties and facies classification from rock-physics modeling and formation evaluation analysis , 2012 .

[7]  O. Abdullatif,et al.  Seismic inversion as a predictive tool for porosity and facies delineation in Paleocene fluvial/lacustrine reservoirs, Melut Basin, Sudan , 2017 .

[8]  R. G. Pratt,et al.  Two‐dimensional velocity models from wide‐angle seismic data by wavefield inversion , 1996 .

[9]  Lawrence R. Rabiner,et al.  A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition , 1989, Proc. IEEE.

[10]  Arild Buland,et al.  Improved resolution in Bayesian lithology/fluid inversion from prestack seismic data and well observations: Part 2 — Real case study , 2010 .

[11]  Mathias Harzhauser,et al.  Sequence stratigraphy in a classic pull-apart basin (Neogene, Vienna Basin). A 3D seismic based integrated approach , 2006 .

[12]  Michel Dekking,et al.  A Markov Chain Model for Subsurface Characterization: Theory and Applications , 2001 .

[13]  Hugo Lewi Hammer,et al.  Lithology and fluid prediction from prestack seismic data using a Bayesian model with Markov process prior , 2012 .

[14]  Arild Buland,et al.  Bayesian Monte Carlo method for seismic predrill prospect assessment , 2010 .

[15]  Mike Warner,et al.  Next-generation seismic experiments: wide-angle, multi-azimuth, three-dimensional, full-waveform inversion , 2013 .

[16]  Jean Virieux,et al.  An overview of full-waveform inversion in exploration geophysics , 2009 .

[17]  David Volent Lindberg,et al.  Petro-Elastic Log-Facies Classification Using the Expectation–Maximization Algorithm and Hidden Markov Models , 2015, Mathematical Geosciences.

[18]  R. Shipp,et al.  Two-dimensional full wavefield inversion of wide-aperture marine seismic streamer data , 2002 .

[19]  M. Warner,et al.  Anisotropic 3D full-waveform inversion , 2013 .

[20]  D. Jennette,et al.  Traps and turbidite reservoir characteristics from a complex and evolving tectonic setting, Veracruz Basin, southeastern Mexico , 2003 .

[21]  Przemyslaw Dymarski,et al.  Hidden Markov Models, Theory and Applications , 2011 .

[22]  P. Haffinger,et al.  Non-linear Full Wavefield Inversion Applied to Carboniferous Reservoirs in the Wingate Gas Field (SNS, Offshore UK) , 2014 .

[23]  Dries Gisolf,et al.  Obtaining a high-resolution geological and petrophysical model from the results of reservoir-orientated elastic wave-equation-based seismic inversion , 2017, Petroleum Geoscience.

[24]  M. Warner,et al.  Next-generation seismic experiments – II: wide-angle, multi-azimuth, 3-D, full-waveform inversion of sparse field data , 2016 .

[25]  P. Mora Nonlinear two-dimensional elastic inversion of multioffset seismic data , 1987 .

[26]  Swapan Chakrabarti,et al.  Comparison of four approaches to a rock facies classification problem , 2007, Comput. Geosci..

[27]  Mojtaba Asoodeh,et al.  Fuzzy ruling between core porosity and petrophysical logs: Subtractive clustering vs. genetic algorithm–pattern search , 2013 .

[28]  P. Switzer,et al.  Estimation of Geological Attributes from a Well Log: An Application of Hidden Markov Chains , 2004 .

[29]  S. P. Lloyd,et al.  Least squares quantization in PCM , 1982, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[30]  A. Tarantola Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation , 1984 .

[31]  Muhammad M. Saggaf,et al.  A fuzzy logic approach for the estimation of facies from wire-line logs , 2003 .

[32]  Yumei Li,et al.  Facies identification from well logs: A comparison of discriminant analysis and naïve Bayes classifier , 2006 .

[33]  Arild Buland,et al.  Bayesian lithology/fluid prediction and simulation on the basis of a Markov-chain prior model , 2006 .

[34]  Tapan Mukerji,et al.  Quantitative Seismic Interpretation: References , 2005 .