4.5 Article

Bayesian inversion of time-lapse seismic data for the estimation of static reservoir properties and dynamic property changes

期刊

GEOPHYSICAL PROSPECTING
卷 63, 期 3, 页码 637-655

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1365-2478.12203

关键词

Time-lapse studies; 4D; Bayesian inversion; reservoir characterization; rock physics

资金

  1. School of Energy Resources
  2. Department of Geology and Geophysics
  3. Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering of University of Wyoming
  4. Stanford Rock Physics
  5. Borehole Geophysics group
  6. Stanford Center for Reservoir Forecasting

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Seismic conditioning of static reservoir model properties such as porosity and lithology has traditionally been faced as a solution of an inverse problem. Dynamic reservoir model properties have been constrained by time-lapse seismic data. Here, we propose a methodology to jointly estimate rock properties (such as porosity) and dynamic property changes (such as pressure and saturation changes) from time-lapse seismic data. The methodology is based on a full Bayesian approach to seismic inversion and can be divided into two steps. First we estimate the conditional probability of elastic properties and their relative changes; then we estimate the posterior probability of rock properties and dynamic property changes. We apply the proposed methodology to a synthetic reservoir study where we have created a synthetic seismic survey for a real dynamic reservoir model including pre-production and production scenarios. The final result is a set of point-wise probability distributions that allow us to predict the most probable reservoir models at each time step and to evaluate the associated uncertainty. Finally we also show an application to real field data from the Norwegian Sea, where we estimate changes in gas saturation and pressure from time-lapse seismic amplitude differences. The inverted results show the hydrocarbon displacement at the times of two repeated seismic surveys.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据