4.6 Article

Quantitative log interpretation and uncertainty propagation of petrophysical properties and facies classification from rock-physics modeling and formation evaluation analysis

期刊

GEOPHYSICS
卷 77, 期 3, 页码 WA45-WA63

出版社

SOC EXPLORATION GEOPHYSICISTS
DOI: 10.1190/GEO2011-0272.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Stanford University
  2. Stanford Rock Physics and Borehole project
  3. Stanford Center for Reservoir Forecasting

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Formation evaluation analysis, rock-physics models, and log-facies classification are powerful tools to link the physical properties measured at wells with petrophysical, elastic, and seismic properties. However, this link can be affected by several sources of uncertainty. We proposed a complete statistical workflow for obtaining petrophsical properties at the well location and the corresponding log-facies classification. This methodology is based on traditional formation evaluation models and cluster analysis techniques, but it introduces a full Monte Carlo approach to account for uncertainty evaluation. The workflow includes rock-physics models in log-facies classification to preserve the link between petrophysical properties, elastic properties, and facies. The use of rock-physics model predictions guarantees obtaining a consistent set of well-log data that can be used both to calibrate the usual physical models used in seismic reservoir characterization and to condition reservoir models. The final output is the set of petrophysical curves with the associated uncertainty, the profile of the facies probabilities, and the entropy, or degree of confusion, related to the most probable facies profile. The full statistical approach allows us to propagate the uncertainty from data measured at the well location to the estimated petrophysical curves and fades profiles. We applied the proposed methodology to two different well-log studies to determine its applicability, the advantages of the new integrated approach, and the value of uncertainty analysis.

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

4.6
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