Exploration Geophysics

ISSN: 0812-3985 (Print) 1834-7533 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/texg20

Probabilistic reservoir characterisation using 3D

pdf of stochastic forward modelling results in
Vincent oil field

Junhwan Choi, Soyoung Kim, Bona Kim & Joongmoo Byun

To cite this article: Junhwan Choi, Soyoung Kim, Bona Kim & Joongmoo Byun (2020) Probabilistic
reservoir characterisation using 3D pdf of stochastic forward modelling results in Vincent oil field,
Exploration Geophysics, 51:3, 341-354, DOI: 10.1080/08123985.2019.1696151

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08123985.2019.1696151

Published online: 02 Dec 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 45

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=texg20
EXPLORATION GEOPHYSICS
2020, VOL. 51, NO. 3, 341–354
https://doi.org/10.1080/08123985.2019.1696151

Probabilistic reservoir characterisation using 3D pdf of stochastic forward

modelling results in Vincent oil field

Junhwan Choi a , Soyoung Kimb , Bona Kimc and Joongmoo Byuna

a RISE.ML (Reservoir Imaging with Seismic & EM technology. Machine Learning), Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea; b KOGAS (Korea Gas
Corporation), Daegu, Korea; c KIGAM (Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources), Daejeon, Korea

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Reservoir characterisation using a crossplot of elastic properties can be used to determine fluid Received 16 November 2019
and lithology in a seismic survey area. P-impedance and P-wave/S-wave ratios are commonly Accepted 16 November 2019
used as axis parameter for a 2D crossplot. To achieve this goal, the fluid and lithology must first
be identified using well log data. However, when the well log data are too sparse, they cannot
encompass the full suite of reservoir properties. Stochastic forward modelling (SFM) methods
have been developed to overcome the sparseness problem. However, when the results of SFM
are plotted on the 2D crossplot, the augmented data for different facies frequently overlap. To
overcome this problem, we propose a probabilistic reservoir characterisation using 3D crossplot-
ting of the SFM results. Axis-parameters of the 3D crossplot consist of the seismic attributes by
which the facies are distinguished. The acoustic impedance (Ip ), pseudo gamma ray (GR) log,
and pseudo water saturation (Sw ) log were used as the axis parameters of the 3D crossplot.
To perform SFM, pseudo GR and pseudo Sw log data must be expressed mathematically with
well log data. Linear multi-regression analysis was used to derive the mathematical relation-
ships of the different parameters. The probability distributions of the pseudo GR and pseudo
Sw logs were extracted using these relationships. Using the probability distributions of the Ip ,
pseudo GR log, and pseudo Sw log, the data were augmented by Monte Carlo simulation. The
trivariate probability density function (3D PDF) of each facies was determined by the mean
and covariance of the augmented data. The pseudo GR log and pseudo Sw log volumes were
extracted using a probabilistic neural network. Finally, a Bayesian inference was applied to calcu-
late the facies probabilities using the 3D PDFs. We confirmed that the proposed method is more
effective than the conventional reservoir characterisation method using 2D crossplot of SFM
results.

Introduction to determine the distribution of petrophysical facies.

Two-dimensional (2D) crossplotting of elastic proper-
ties, such as P-impedance (Ip ) and the P-wave/S-wave
ratio (V p /V s ), is commonly used to analyse the dis-
tribution of lithology and pore fluid around wells to
increase the possibility of success in the exploration
of hydrocarbon reservoirs, as it shows the geologi-
cal structure and indicates the presence of hydrocar-
bon. Various crossplotting methods including ampli-
tude variation with offsets analysis (Ross 2000; Chen
et al. 2001; Whitcombe and Fletcher 2001; Avseth, Muk-
erji, and Mavko 2005), have been developed. Chi and
Han (2009) predicted lithology and pore fluid distribu-
tion based on a rock physics template designed using
the 2D crossplot of Ip and V p /V s , which links the elas-
tic properties to petrophysical parameters such as water
saturation (Sw ), porosity (φ), and shale volume (V sh ).
Furthermore, Goodway, Chen, and Downton (1997)
and Close, Taylor, and Nixon (2015) used lambda–rho
(λρ) and mu–rho (µρ) as crossplot axis parameters
Goodway, Chen, and Downton (1997) introduced λρ,
µρ, and λ/µ from Ip and S-impedance (Is ) to improve
the discrimination of lithology and pore fluid distri-
bution and to extract quantitative information. Close,
Taylor, and Nixon (2015) and Reine (2014) predicted
lithology and pore fluid distribution using a rock physics
template depicted on a λρ–µρ crossplot. However, the
crossplotting method has an overlap problem of facies
clusters in the oil reservoir. To address the limitation,
the statistical methods of crossplot of seismic attributes
have been proposed to estimate the facies probabil-
ity and quantify the uncertainty (Gallop 2006; Ng et al.
2008; Michelena, Godbey, and Rodrigues 2010). Further-
more, to improve the separability of facies clusters, Ross
and Sparlin (2000) and Chopra, Alexeev, and Xu (2003)
expanded the 2D crossplot to a three-dimensional (3D)
crossplot, making the anomaly more distinguishable.
However, when well log data are too sparse on the
crossplot, they cannot encompass the variation in the

CONTACT Joongmoo Byun jbyun@hanyang.ac.kr RISE.ML (Reservoir Imaging with Seismic & EM technology. Machine Learning), Hanyang
University, Seoul, Korea

© 2019 Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists

342 J. CHOI ET AL.
reservoir properties; thus, the accuracy of calibration
with seismic data is decreased, causing uncertainty in
the interpretation of the data.
SFM (i.e. data augmentation) methods have been
developed to address the problem of sparse well log
data (Lamont, Thompson, and Bevilacqua 2008). The
bivariate normal probability density function (2D PDF),
which provides probability information for each facies,
can be built from the augmented data. When 2D PDFs
and seismic inversion results, such as Ip and V p /V s ,
are applied to a Bayesian inference method (Doyen
2007), the facies probability can be calculated. Lam-
ont, Thompson, and Bevilacqua (2008) used stochas-
tically modelled multidimensional crossplots to build
2D PDFs (Ip versus V p /V s ) and quantify the uncertainty
in a gas reservoir field based on the Bayesian infer-
ence method. They applied the SFM method and used
a depth-dependent rock physics model to analyse the
depositional environment and burial history. They suc-
cessfully predicted the lithology and pore fluid distri-
bution away from well control in a way that effectively
quantifies risk. Nieto, Batlai, and Delbecq (2013) pre-
dicted facies in an unconventional reservoir probabilis-
tically using the Bayesian inference method. They cal-
culated the proportion of each facies in the well log
data to use as a priori probabilities. They built the bivari-
ate probability mass functions of the facies using the
well log data and adopted the confusion matrix, which
is a key tool for ensuring the quality of the prediction.
Pendrel, Schouten, and Bornard (2017) also performed
Bayesian facies estimation, using 3D priors defined from
the facies probability curves for wells for the Bayesian
method of the inversion properties. Grana (2018) used
Bayesian inference using 2D PDFs for facies and reser-
voir properties inversion. The 2D non-parametric PDFs
defined in elastic and petrophysical domains are used
as prior information.
However, the 2D PDFs of facies overlap on 2D cross-
plots, rendering a clear distinction of facies difficult
because of similar 2D PDF values in Vincent oil reser-
voirs. This problem increases uncertainty in the inter-
pretation of data. To overcome this problem, in this
study, we apply the probabilistic reservoir characteri-
sation method using 3D crossplots of SFM results and
compare the results with those of the conventional 2D
crossplotting method. A field data example from the
Vincent oil field is used to demonstrate the effective-
ness of the proposed method. Three parameters, Ip ,
pseudo gamma ray (GR) and pseudo Sw logs are used
as axis-parameters for 3D crossplot in this example. To
perform the SFM, the axis-parameters should be math-
ematically established with petrophysical and elastic
property logs. We use linear multi-regression analysis to
derive mathematical relationships between properties
and pseudo GR and Sw . And then, the probabilistic neu-
ral network (PNN) is applied to estimate the pseudo GR
and Sw volumes.
Figure 1. (a) Workflow of the conventional probabilistic reser-
voir characterisation using the two-dimensional crossplot of
SFM results and (b) the original data (upper panel); the aug-
mented data, where colours indicate the facies (middle panel);
and the bivariate probability density functions of the facies
(lower panel). Ip , P-impedance; V p /V s , P-wave/S-wave ratio.
Conventional approach of SFM
In areas where petrophysical analysis is difficult because
of sparse well log data, the conventional SFM method
using a rock physics model and Monte Carlo simulation
augments the known well log data (Lamont, Thompson,
and Bevilacqua 2008). This method is an extension of
rock physics modelling that predicts the V p , V s , and den-
sity (ρ) using petrophysical properties, such as φ, V sh ,
and Sw . More specifically, as shown in Figure 1(a), the
probability distributions of the petrophysical parame-
ters are used as input parameters for the rock physics
model. Monte Carlo sampling is then performed based
on the rock physics model to simultaneously augment
the multi-dimensional datasets such as V p , V s , ρ, Ip and
V p /V s (Figure 1(b), middle panel). When performing the
Monte Carlo simulation, the Iman–Conover technique
(Iman and Conover 1982), based on rank correlations,
simulates the correlation between Ip and V p /V s . The
Iman–Conover method provides a way of determining
reasonable associations and, thus, inducing correlation
between samples of variables (Mildenhall 2005). Assum-
ing that the data are normally distributed, the 2D PDF of
each facies can be built based on the mean and covari-
ance of the augmented data (Figure 1(b), lower panel).
The equation of the normal 2D PDF is written as follows
(Rose and Smith 2002):
 −1/2
1 
p(x |ci ) =  
2π  
i
 
1  −1
 i )T
exp − (x − μ (x − μ
 i) ,
2
i
i = 1,2, · · · N, (1)

where N is the number of facies, ci is the facies (e.g.

sand), x = (Ip , Vp /Vs ) is a seismic attribute vector, and
i and μ  i are the variance–covariance matrix (2 × 2)
and mean vector (1 × 2) of the seismic attributes in the
ith class, respectively. When the 2D PDF and seismic
inversion results are applied to the Bayesian inference
method, the probability of each facies can be calculated.
Bayesian inference (Doyen 2007) is used to calculate the
probability of a particular facies, given a particular set of
seismic attributes, as follows:
p(x |ci ) · p(ci )
p(ci |x ) = , (2)
p(x )
where p(ci |x ) is the posterior probability, p(ci ) is the prior
probability for ci (e.g. the probability of obtaining sand,
in general), and p(x ) is the probability of the seismic
attribute vector. In Bayes’ theorem, the probability, p(x ),
is a normalisation factor that is computed so that the
conditional probabilities of all facies to sum to 1:

N ical relationships between the elastic or petrophysical
p(x ) = p(ci ) · p(x |ci ). (3)
i=1
The posterior probability, p(ci |x ) is what we are trying
to calculate (see Equation (2)). Finally, the calculation
of the most probable facies is performed by determin-
ing the highest probability in each seismic grid. How-
ever, the effectiveness of this method is limited when
the 2D PDFs calculated from the augmented data are
not clearly distinguishable on the 2D crossplot, espe-
cially for oil reservoirs. For example, the distinction of
the facies at the location marked by a black star on the
lower panel of Figure 1(b) is difficult because the 2D
PDFs overlap. These similar facies probabilities result in
increased interpretation uncertainty.
Figure 2. Workflow of the new probabilistic reservoir characterisation method using the three-dimensional crossplot of the SFM
results (modified from Choi et al. 2017). GR, gamma ray; Sw , water saturation; 3D PDF, trivariate probability function; Ip , P-impedance;
Is , S-impedance; V p /V s , P-wave/S-wave ratio; ρ, density.
EXPLORATION GEOPHYSICS 343
Effective reservoir characterisation using the
3d crossplot of stochastic forward modelling
(SFM) results
To overcome the limitation of conventional probabilis-
tic reservoir characterisation using 2D crossplots of SFM
results, we propose a new approach using 3D crossplots
of SFM results. The workflow of the proposed method
is shown in Figure 2. The main points of the proposed
method are as follows:
(1) Instead of using the 2D crossplot, we use the 3D
crossplot composed of three parameters. Thus, a 3D
PDF is built instead of 2D PDF.
(2) The proposed method uses parameters that can
separate the facies more clearly. The parameters
used in this study are Ip , pseudo GR log, and pseudo
Sw log because these are sensitive to φ, lithology,
and pore fluid, respectively.
To perform SFM based on the probability distributions
of the Ip , pseudo GR log, and pseudo Sw log, which
are the axis parameters of the 3D crossplot, mathemat-
logs and pseudo GR or pseudo Sw logs must first be
built. There are many methods for estimating GR and
Sw logs like petrophysical inversion (Bosch, Zamora,
and Utama 2002; Grana 2018) and extended elastic
impedance (Whitcombe, Connolly, and Reagan 2002). In
this study, the linear multi-regression method was used
to establish mathematical relationships due to simplic-
ity and efficiency. Based on these derived mathemat-
ical relationships, SFM should be performed on a 3D
crossplot. Thus, the data are augmented based on the
probability distributions of the Ip , pseudo GR log, and
pseudo Sw log, and the 3D PDF of each facies has to be
built.
From seismic data, the Ip , Is , and ρ volumes are
calculated using seismic inversion. Using these values,
344 J. CHOI ET AL.
Figure 3. Location map of Exmouth Sub-basin and Vincent field (modified from Loro et al. 2015).
elastic property volumes, such as λρ, µρ, Young’s mod-
ulus, and Poisson’s ratio, are computed. Using these
volumes, pseudo GR and pseudo Sw log volumes are
extracted using a PNN (Hampson, Schuelke, and Quirein
2001). The reservoir characterisation can then be per-
formed probabilistically based on the Bayesian infer-
ence method using 3D PDFs generated from well log
data and Ip , pseudo GR log, and pseudo Sw log volumes
extracted from seismic data.
Establishment of mathematical relationships for
SFM
To perform SFM, the mathematical relationships bet
ween target logs (in this study, GR and Sw logs) and
elastic or petrophysical logs must be established. In
the conventional SFM method, Ip and V p /V s are gen-
erally used for the 2D crossplot, and probability distri-
butions of these parameters are easily calculated from
the probability distributions of V p , V s , and ρ that are
derived from the rock physics model. However, in this
study, pseudo GR and pseudo Sw logs were used for the
axes of the 3D crossplot with Ip , and the relationships
between well logs and pseudo GR and pseudo Sw logs
had to be established. Linear multi-regression analysis
was adopted to estimate these target logs using the
mathematical combination of elastic and petrophysi-
cal logs (Hampson, Schuelke, and Quirein 2001). Linear
multi-regression models a target log as a linear combi-
nation of several elastic and petrophysical logs using
the following formulas, which can be solved using a
standard least squares approach:
n
GRpseudo = wGR,0 + wGR,i A(t), (4)
i=1
n
Swpseudo = wSw ,0 + wSw ,i B(t), (5)
i=1
where w0 is a constant value of each equation, wi is a
weighting value of the ith well logs, A(t) are the nonlin-
ear transformed well logs for estimation of the pseudo
GR log (GRpseudo ). B(t) are the nonlinear transformed
well logs for estimation of the pseudo Sw log (Swpseudo ).
The weighting values can be derived by minimising
the mean squared prediction error (Hampson, Schuelke,
 EXPLORATION GEOPHYSICS 345

Figure 4. Inversion results section, which includes the Vincent 1 and Vincent 3 wells: (a) P-impedance; (b) S-impedance; and (c)
density.

and Quirein 2001), as follows: data on the 3D crossplot, it must be expressed as 3D

PDF. The 3D PDF is defined as follows (Rose and Smith
1 
N M
2
EGR = (GRlog − wGR,0 − wGR,j Aj (t))2 , (6) 2002):
N  −1/2
i=1 j=1

1  
1
N  M P(x |ci ) = 3/2  
2
ESw = (Swlog − wSw,0 − wSw,j Bj (t))2 , (7) (2π ) 
i
N
i=1 j=1  
1 T
−1
exp − (x − μ  i) (x − μ
 i) ,
where GRlog and Swlog are real GR and Sw logs at the 2
i
well, respectively.
Therefore, the weights can be expressed in matrix i = 1, 2, · · · N, (10)
form as shown below:

wGR = [AT A]-1 AT GRlog , (8) where x =(Ip , GRpseudo , and Swpseudo ), and  i and μ
i
are the components of the variance–covariance matrix
wsw = [BT B]-1 BT Swlog . (9) 
(3 × 3) and mean vector (1 × 3) of x in the ith class,
respectively. The shape of the 3D PDF on the 3D cross-
3D crossplotting (3D PDF) of SFM results plot is an ellipsoid and its projection onto any plane
made by two axis parameters is an ellipse, which is the
The advantage of 3D crossplotting over the 2D method shape of the 2D PDF on the 2D crossplot. Therefore, by
is that SFM results can be separated more clearly. To using more axes on the crossplot, the PDFs can avoid
define the probability distribution of the augmented overlap.
346 J. CHOI ET AL.

Table 1. Weighting of the values of the nonlinear transformed

dependent variables for gamma ray log prediction.
Variables Nonlinear transform Weight
Porosity (φ) Square root −225.636
µρ Square −40.1271
P-wave (V p ) Square 228.7914
S-wave (V s ) 1/X 83.65727
Resistivity None −12.5427
P-impedance (Ip ) Square −143.303
λρ 1/X 1.147085
S-impedance (Is ) Square 102.7628
V p /V s Square 162.0432
Density (ρ) 1/X −36.031
Constant −138.738

Table 2. Weighting of the values of the nonlinear transformed

dependent variables for water saturation log prediction.
Variables Nonlinear transform Weight
Resistivity Log −0.25443
Porosity (φ) Square −1.30283
λρ 1/X −0.13016
µρ Square −0.28723
P-impedance (Ip ) Square 0.622253
S-impedance (Is ) None 0.620334
V p /V s 1/X −0.11866
Density (ρ) Square −0.54554
S-wave (V s ) Square −0.48685
P-wave (V p ) 1/X 0.170768
Constant 0.158722

Figure 5. Linear multi-regression application using 10 nonlin-

ear transformed well logs. The original gamma ray logs are
Application shown in black and the predicted logs are shown in red.
Vincent oil field is adjacent to the North West Cape of
Western Australia. The Vincent field is located in the
Exmouth Sub-basin (Figure 3), which is the southern-
most rift basin within the Carnarvon Basin, containing
Jurassic to Early Cretaceous sediments (Blazak et al.
2015). The Vincent structure is confirmed as a three-
way dip/fault closure at the base of the Muderong Shale.
The claystone of the Muderong Shale serves as the top
seal for the Lower Barrow Group, which is the reservoir
of the Vincent field. The API of the oil is 17.3, meaning
that it is classified as heavy oil. Four partial-angle stack
seismic data sets (8°–19°, 19°–30°, 30°–41°, and 41°–52°)
and three wells (Vincent 1, Vincent 2, and Vincent 3)
were used. The seismic survey area containing the wells
is 6.25 by 5 km. A simultaneous inversion (Hampson,
Russell, and Bankhead 2005) was performed with angle-
dependent wavelets to yield the elastic property vol-
umes (Figure 4). The Vsh and Sw log curves were used
to define the facies: shale, water sand, and hydrocarbon
sand.
Prior to linear multi-regression analysis to establish
the mathematical relationships for the pseudo GR and
pseudo Sw logs, well log data were normalised to deter-
mine the stable weighting values. The types of well
log used as dependent variables in the linear multi-
regression analysis were Ip , Is , V p , V s , ρ, λρ, µρ, V p /V s , φ,
Figure 6. Linear multi-regression application using 10 nonlin-
and resistivity. Nonlinear (e.g. non, root, square, log, and ear transformed well logs. The original water saturation logs are
inverse) transformations of well logs were performed shown in black and the predicted logs are shown in red.
first. The nonlinear transformed dependent variables
 EXPLORATION GEOPHYSICS 347

Table 3. Correlation coefficients and average relative errors between original logs and predicted logs.
Correlation coefficients Average relative errors

Vincent 1 Vincent 2 Vincent 3 Vincent 1 (%) Vincent 2 (%) Vincent 3 (%)

GR 0.84 0.93 0.97 GR 14.24 9.69 6.94
Sw 0.98 0.94 0.93 Sw 5.77 5.04 6.56
Note: GR, gamma ray; Sw , water saturation.

Figure 7. Augmented data (left) and trivariate probability density functions (right) of each facies on the three-dimensional crossplot
of P-impedance (Ip ), pseudo gamma ray (GR), and pseudo water saturation (Sw ). Shale data are shown in grey, water sand data are
shown in yellow, and oil sand data are shown in green.

correlate better with the target log when the relation-
ship between the target log and the dependent variable
is nonlinear. Stepwise regression was performed to find
the best single dependent variable, then the best pair
of dependent variables, then the best trio, etc. The best
√
dependent variable set for the pseudo GR log was { φ,
µρ 2 , Vp 2 , 1/V s , resistivity, Ip 2 , 1/λρ, Is 2 , (V p /V s )2 , 1/ρ},
and the best variable set for the pseudo Sw log was
{log(resistivity), φ 2 , 1/λρ, µρ 2 , Ip 2 , Is , 1/(V p /V s ), ρ 2 , Vs 2 ,
1/V p }. The components of the variable sets are arranged
in decreasing order of the strength of correlation with
the target logs. The weighting value of each dependent
variable (Tables 1 and 2) was derived by minimising the
mean squared prediction error. Figures 5 and 6 show the
results of applying linear multi-regression to the well log
data. As shown in these Figures, the predicted pseudo
GR and pseudo Sw logs generally match the original
well logs, except for the high-frequency components at
some depth intervals. The correlation coefficients and
average relative errors are shown in Table 3. Note that
the correlation coefficients were high and the average
relative errors were low in all cases.

Figure 8. Augmented data (left) and bivariate probability density functions (right) of each facies on the two-dimensional crossplot
of P-impedance (Ip) and the P-wave/S-wave ratio (V p /V s ). Shale data are shown in grey, water sand data are shown in yellow, and oil
sand data are shown in green.
348 J. CHOI ET AL.
Figure 9. PNN application using eight nonlinear transformed
elastic properties at the well locations. The scaled gamma ray
(GR) log is shown in black and the predicted GR is shown in
red.
A rock physics model based on Gassmann’s equation
(Smith, Sondergeld, and Rai 2003) was built to pre-
dict the probability distributions of V p , V s , and ρ
using the distributions of petrophysical parameters.
The input parameters used in this rock physics model
Figure 11. Pseudo gamma ray section, which includes the Vincent 1 and Vincent 3 wells, extracted using the PNN.
Figure 10. PNN application using eight nonlinear transformed
elastic properties at the well locations. The scaled water satura-
tion (Sw ) log is shown in black and the predicted Sw is shown in
red.
were Vsh , quartz volume, φ, Sw , shear modulus, and
dry rock bulk modulus. The probability distributions of
the input parameters were then calculated from the
well data. To estimate the properties of the pore fluid
and the matrix, Wood’s equation (Wood 1955) and the
 EXPLORATION GEOPHYSICS 349

Figure 12. Pseudo water saturation (Sw ) section, which is the same inline section as that in Figure 10, extracted using the PNN.

Figure 13. Probability volumes of (a) shale, (b) water sand, and (c) oil sand facies obtained using bivariate probability density
functions in the same section as that in Figure 10.
350 J. CHOI ET AL.
Figure 14. Probability volumes of (a) shale, (b) water sand, and (c) oil sand facies obtained using trivariate probability density
functions in the same section as that in Figure 10.
Voigt–Reuss–Han equation (Wang and Nur 1989) were
applied. Based on the rock physics model, the proba-
bility distribution of the Ip can be estimated using the
distributions of V p and ρ. From the mathematical rela-
tionships determined using linear multi-regression as
described above, the probability distributions of the
pseudo GR and pseudo Sw logs were estimated using
the distributions of the elastic and petrophysical prop-
erties. Finally, using the probability distribution of the
Ip , pseudo GR log, and pseudo Sw log, Monte Carlo sim-
ulation was performed to augment the data (Figure 7).
The 3D PDFs were determined by the mean and the
covariance–variance matrix of each facies, calculated
from the augmented well data (Figure 7). To verify the
effectiveness of the proposed method, the PDFs of the
facies on the 3D crossplot were compared with those
on the general 2D crossplot (Ip versus V p /V s ). As shown
in Figure 7, the distributions of each of the facies in
the 3D crossplot are clearly distinct compared with
those on the 2D crossplot (Ip versus V p /V s ; Figure 8).
Facies are difficult to distinguish in the area of the
2D crossplot where the facies probabilities are simi-
lar, which increases uncertainty in the interpretation of
the data; however, this problem is resolved on the 3D
crossplot.
Elastic property volumes, such as V p , V s , λρ, and
µρ, were calculated from the Ip , Is , V p /V s , and ρ vol-
umes. In total, eight elastic property volumes were
used for the PNN input data. Before applying the
PNN, nonlinear transformations of the elastic prop-
erty volumes were performed, and the best variable
set of nonlinear transformed elastic property volumes
was calculated by stepwise regression, as applied in
the linear multi-regression analysis. Furthermore, the
convolutional operator was used to more correctly
estimate the target (GR and Sw ) logs, which typically
have higher-frequency contents than those of the elas-
tic properties (Hampson, Schuelke, and Quirein 2001).
The convolutional operator is a process that predicts
each sample of the target logs using a group of neigh-
bouring samples on the elastic property logs, rather
than using only one sample. PNN was performed to
derive the pseudo GR and pseudo Sw log volumes. Fig-
ures 9 and 10 show the predicted pseudo GR and Sw logs
obtained using the PNN with scaled well logs at the well
locations. The cross-correlation coefficient between the
 EXPLORATION GEOPHYSICS 351

Figure 15. The most probable facies, identified by determining the highest probability of each seismic grid among the probabilities
> 0.7 using the 3D crossplotting method. Shale data are shown in grey, water sand data are shown in yellow, and oil sand data are
shown in green.

Figure 16. The most probable facies volumes, identified by determining the highest probability of each seismic grid among the
probabilities > 0.7 using the 2D crossplotting method. Shale data are shown in grey, water sand data are shown in yellow, and oil
sand data are shown in green.

scaled GR log and predicted pseudo GR log for all wells predicted pseudo Sw log for all wells was 0.95 and the
was 0.92 and the training error was 7.74. The cross- error was 0.049. Figures 11 and 12 show the pseudo GR
correlation coefficient between the scaled Sw log and and pseudo Sw log sections in the same inline section,
352 J. CHOI ET AL.

Figure 17. 3D view of the facies cube generated using the 3D crossplotting method in the Vincent oil field. Shale data are shown in
grey, water sand data are shown in yellow, and oil sand data are shown in green.

which includes the Vincent 1 and Vincent 3 wells. Com- Conclusions

paring the superimposed well logs at the Vincent 1 and
A 2D crossplotting method using well log and seismic
Vincent 3 well locations, the pseudo GR and pseudo Sw
data has commonly been used to identify hydrocar-
logs generally match the scaled well logs, except for the
bon reservoirs. However, when well log data are too
GR log at depth intervals corresponding to interbedded
sparse on the 2D crossplot, the data cannot fully rep-
shale in the Vincent 3 well.
resent reservoir variation, reducing the accuracy of cal-
The Bayesian inference method was applied to the
ibration with seismic data. SFM (data augmentation)
full 3D seismic volume to calculate the probability
methods have been applied to overcome the prob-
volume for each facies and the most probable facies vol-
lem of well log data sparseness. From the mean and
ume using the facies probability distribution. Figure 13
covariance of the augmented data, we can build 2D
shows the probability volumes from the conventional
PDFs and probabilistically estimate the distribution of
2D PDFs (2D crossplot of Ip and V p /V s ), and Figure 14
facies. However, in many cases, the overlap in the dis-
shows the probability volumes from the 3D PDFs (3D
tributions of facies on the 2D crossplot makes the iden-
crossplot of Ip , pseudo GR log, and pseudo Sw log).
tification of the facies for a given seismic data set dif-
The probability volumes calculated using the 2D PDFs
ficult and leads to increased uncertainty in interpre-
have intermediate values because the 2D PDFs over-
tation. To solve this overlap problem, we propose a
lapped on the 2D crossplot. Compared with the results
3D crossplotting method using SFM results to separate
obtained using the conventional 2D PDFs, the proba-
the PDFs. In the proposed solution, expansion of the
bility volume of each facies using the 3D PDFs is either
crossplot dimensions from 2D to 3D and the attributes
high or low, meaning that the 3D probability distribu-
selected clearly separate the distribution of each facies.
tions of the facies are well separated. To make a more
In this study, we used Ip , pseudo GR log, and pseudo Sw
effective comparison, the most probable facies volumes
log, which are sensitive to φ, lithology, and pore fluid,
were calculated using 3D PDFs and 2D PDFs, and proba-
respectively, as the axis parameters of the 3D crossplot.
bility values less than 0.7 were replaced by 0. The results
To perform SFM based on the probability distributions
are shown in Figures 15 and 16, respectively. The white
of the Ip , pseudo GR log, and pseudo Sw log (indepen-
areas indicate the regions in which all facies probabili-
dent variables), the mathematical derivation equations
ties are less than 0.7. The white area in the 2D PDF result
for these variables must be defined using the well logs
is larger than that in the 3D PDF result, demonstrating
(dependent variables). The probability distribution of
greater uncertainty in the interpretation of the results
the Ip was extracted from the probabilities of V p and
obtained using 2D PDFs than of those obtained using
ρ, which were calculated using a rock physics model.
3D PDFs. A 3D facies cube with facies logs at the well
To establish the derivation equations of the pseudo
locations is shown in Figure 17. Note that the oil sands
GR and pseudo Sw logs, a linear multi-regression anal-
are distributed below the shale, which is the seal rock of
ysis was adopted. Using the probability distributions
the reservoir, and that the sand is interbedded with the
of the Ip , pseudo GR log, and pseudo Sw log, the data
shale in other areas.

were augmented by Monte Carlo simulation and 3D
PDFs were determined by the mean and covariance
of the augmented data. A PNN was used to compute
the pseudo GR and pseudo Sw logs from seismic data
using the elastic property attributes of the seismic data.
Finally, using the probability distributions of the facies
and inverted seismic volumes, Bayesian classification
was applied to calculate the facies probabilities. The
effectiveness of our method was demonstrated using
a field data example with shale, water sand, and oil
sand facies. The facies are clearly distinguishable on
a 3D crossplot from 3D PDFs compared with conven-
tional 2D PDFs on a 2D crossplot, because of the overlap
in the probability distributions of the facies in the 2D
crossplot. However, with the 3D crossplotting method,
because of the clearly distinguishable 3D PDFs on the
3D crossplot, the facies probabilities were close to 0 or
1, decreasing the interpretation uncertainty.
Acknowledgements
We thank Schlumberger for providing Petrel and Techlog soft-
ware, and CGG for providing Hampson–Russell software. We
are also grateful to SK innovation for providing the seismic
data.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the Human Resources Program
in Energy Technology of the Korea Institute of Energy Tech-
nology Evaluation and Planning, granted financial resources
from the Ministry of Trade Industry and Energy Korea [grant
numbers 20164010201120 and 20182510102470].
ORCID
Junhwan Choi http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4987-9469
References
Avseth, P., T. Mukerji, and G. Mavko. 2005. Quantitative seismic
interpretation: applying rock physics tools to reduce interpre-
tation risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blazak, D., G. Smith, D. Baker, C. Falconer, J. DePledge, C. McNa-
mara, B. Jury, G. Johnston, and R. Gupta. 2015. Vincent
multi-lateral drilling: use of 4D seismic, scenario analysis
and deep directional resistivity for geo-steering, comple-
tions and anti-collision analysis to re-develop a thin oil
field, offshore Carnarvon sub-basin, Australia: International
Conference and Exhibition, Melbourne, Australia, 510.
Bosch, M., Zamora, M., and Utama, W. 2002. Lithology dis-
crimination from physical rock properties. Geophysics 67(2):
573–81.
Chen, H., J.P. Castagna, R.L. Brown, and A.C. Ramos. 2001.
Three-parameter AVO crossplotting in anisotropic media.
Geophysics 66 no. 5: 1359–63.
Chi, X.G., and D.H. Han. 2009. Lithology and fluid differentia-
tion using a rock physics template. The Leading Edge 28 no.
1: 60–65.
EXPLORATION GEOPHYSICS 353
Choi, J., B. Kim, S. Kim, and J. Byun. 2017. Probabilistic facies
analysis using 3D crossplot of stochastic forward-modeling
results. 87th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded
Abstracts, 3077–81.
Chopra, S., V. Alexeev, and Y. Xu. 2003. 3D AVO crossplotting?
An effective visualization technique. The Leading Edge 22
no. 11: 1078–89.
Close, D., R. Taylor, and S. Nixon. 2015. Rock physics and quanti-
tative interpretation using lambda–mu–rho in the Shipwreck
Trough, Otway Basin: ASEG, Extended Abstracts, 1–4.
Doyen, P.M. 2007. Seismic reservoir characterization: an earth
modelling perspective, EAGE.
Gallop, J. 2006. Facies probability from mixture distributions
with non-stationary impedance errors. 76th Annual Interna-
tional Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1801–4.
Goodway, B., T. Chen, and J. Downton. 1997. Improved AVO
fluid detection and lithology discrimination using Lamé petro-
physical parameters: “λρ”, “µρ”, & “λ/µ fluid stack”: from P
and S inversions. 67th Annual International Meeting, SEG,
Expanded Abstracts, 183–6.
Grana, D. 2018. Joint facies and reservoir properties inversion.
Geophysics 83 no. 3: M15–24.
Hampson, D.P., B.H. Russell, and B. Bankhead. 2005. Simultane-
ous inversion of prestack seismic data. 75th Annual Interna-
tional Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1633–7.
Hampson, D.P., J.S. Schuelke, and J.A. Quirein. 2001. Use of
multiattribute transforms to predict log properties from
seismic data. Geophysics 66 no. 1: 220–36.
Iman, R.L., and W.J. Conover. 1982. A distribution-free app
roach to inducing rank correlation among input variables.
Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation
11 no. 3: 311–34.
Lamont, M., T. Thompson, and C. Bevilacqua. 2008. Drilling
success as a result of probabilistic lithology and fluid pre-
diction: a case study in the Carnarvon Basin, WA. The APPEA
Journal 48 no. 1: 31–42.
Loro, R., R. Hill, M. Jackson, and T. Slate. 2015. Technologies
that have transformed the Exmouth into Australia’s premier
oil producing basin. The APPEA Journal 55 no. 1: 233–46.
Michelena, R.J., K.S. Godbey, and P.E. Rodrigues. 2010.
Facies probabilities from multidimensional crossplots of seis-
mic attributes. 80th Annual International Meeting, SEG,
Expanded Abstracts, 1377–81.
Mildenhall, S.J. 2005. Correlation and aggregate loss distri-
butions with an emphasis on the Iman–Conover Method.
Report of the research working party on correlations and
dependencies among all risk sources, Casualty Actuarial
Society.
Ng, S., P. Dahle, R. Hauge, and O. Kolbjørsen. 2008. Estimation
of facies probabilities on the Snorre Field using geostatisti-
cal AVA inversion. 78th Annual International Meeting, SEG,
Expanded Abstracts, 1971–1974.
Nieto, J., B. Batlai, and F. Delbecq. 2013. Seismic lithology pre-
diction: a Montney shale gas case study. CSEG Recorder 38:
34–42.
Pendrel, J., H. Schouten, and R. Bornard. 2017. Bayesian estima-
tion of petrophysical facies and their applications to reservoir
characterization. 87th Annual International Meeting, SEG,
Expanded Abstracts, 3082–6.
Reine, C. 2014. Quantitative interpretation guided by rock–
physics templates: examples from unconventional reservoirs.
83rd Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abs
tracts, 2397–402.
Rose, C., and M.D. Smith. 2002. Mathematical statistics with
mathematica. Berlin: Springer.
Ross, C.P. 2000. Effective AVO crossplot modeling: a tutorial.
Geophysics 65 no. 3: 700–11.
354 J. CHOI ET AL.
Ross, C.P., and M.A. Sparlin. 2000. Improved crossplot analysis
using visualization techniques. The Leading Edge 19 no. 11:
1188–99.
Smith, T.M., C.H. Sondergeld, and C.S. Rai. 2003. Gassmann
fluid substitutions: a tutorial. Geophysics 68 no. 2: 430–40.
Wang, Z., and A.M. Nur. 1989. Seismic and acoustic velocities
in reservoir rock: recent development. Society of Exploration
Geophysicists 10.
Whitcombe, D.N., P.A. Connolly, and R.L. Reagan. 2002.
Extended elastic impedance for fluid and lithology predic-
tion. Geophysics 67 no. 1: 63–67.
Whitcombe, D.N., and J.G. Fletcher. 2001. The AIGI crossplot as
an aid to AVO analysis and calibration. 71st Annual Interna-
tional Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 219–22.
Wood, A.W. 1955. A textbook of sound. New York: The MacMil-
lan Co.