Natural Resources Research, Vol. 30, No.

1, February 2021 (Ó 2020)

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-020-09711-6

Original Paper

Quantitative Reservoir Characterization of Tight Sandstone

Using Extended Elastic Impedance

Ren Jiang ,1,2,3 Chenglin Liu,1,2,4 Jing Zhang,3 Qingcai Zeng,3 Pei He,3 Jiaqiang Huang,3
Bingyi Du,3 Weiwei He,3 Tao Hao,3 and Jianxin Zhang3

Received 2 April 2020; accepted 2 June 2020

Published online: 16 June 2020

Quantitative inversion of reservoir properties plays a crucial role in the efficient develop-
ment of tight sandstone reservoirs. Based on the theories of statistical rock physics and
extended elastic impedance (EEI), a complete workflow for quantitative prediction of
reservoir properties is developed and the key steps thereof are provided here. The square of
S-velocity to P-velocity ratio (K), which is consistent with geological setting of a study area,
is obtained from statistics of well data, the value of angle v most relevant to lithology and
porosity is produced automatically by evaluating correlations of reservoir parameters with
EEI, and the formulas that fit EEI with clay volume and with porosity are obtained. Then,
angle v is applied to relevant EEI reflection coefficient data from amplitude variation with
offset attribute cubes, the EEI related to clay volume and porosity is obtained through
model-based constrained inversion on these data cubes, fitting formulas from well analysis
are used to convert EEI data cubes to clay volume and porosity data cubes, and finally, the
parameters of a tight sandstone reservoir are predicted quantitatively. The prediction results
are consistent with production data from existing wells, indicating that the method proposed
here is reliable.
KEY WORDS: Extended elastic impedance, Tight sandstone, Quantitative reservoir characterization,
Model-based constrained inversion, AVO attributes.

INTRODUCTION history fitting by reservoir numerical simulation, for

Quantitative prediction of reservoir parameters
is a crucial part of establishing reservoir geological
model. Accurate prediction of reservoir parameters
is of great significance for improving the accuracy of
1
State Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resources and Prospecting,
China University of Petroleum, Beijing 102249, PeopleÕs
Republic of China.
2
College of Geosciences, China University of Petroleum,
Beijing 102249, PeopleÕs Republic of China.
3 can only provide the reservoir information around
Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development,
PetroChina, Beijing 100083, PeopleÕs Republic of China.
4
To whom correspondence should be addressed; e-mail:
43113044@qq.com
studying the distribution of remaining hydrocarbon
in the reservoir, and for formulating reservoir
development adjustment plan. Therefore, improving
the accuracy of quantitative reservoir description
through logging and seismic data is important.
There are many ways to obtain the parameters
of tight reservoirs from various logging curves, such
as gamma ray and SP curves, which can be used to
calculate clay volume, as well as compressional wave
interval transit time and density curves used for
porosity calculation. However, these logging curves
the wellbore, and it is required to perform seismic
reservoir characterization to identify the character-

395
1520-7439/21/0200-0395/0 Ó 2020 International Association for Mathematical Geosciences
396
istics of lateral distribution of reservoir properties.
At first, seismic inversion has been carried out based
on reconstructed curves. However, in tight sand-
stones, it is difficult to distinguish a reservoir from
the surrounding rock using the P-impedance without
any other additional information from post-stack
seismic data. For this reason, geophysicists have
reconstructed more reservoir-sensitive logging
curves that can distinguish between reservoirs and
non-reservoirs and have carried out relevant inver-
sion based on combining these pseudo-curves with
seismic data (Wan et al. 2015; Jiang and Qi 2016;
Wang et al. 2017; Zhu 2017; Yu et al. 2019). How-
ever, due to the lack of physical basis and poor
interpretation performance, this method has been
abandoned largely with the increasing popularity of
pre-stack seismic data.
Quantitative seismic interpretation is the ulti-
mate goal of favorable zone evaluation and reservoir
characterization. Currently, three methods are uti-
lized widely. The first method is seismic multi-at-
tribute inversion of petrophysical properties (Song
et al. 2002; Wu et al. 2004; Yang et al. 2005; Wu et al.
2008; Wu et al. 2011a, b). The idea of this method is
to determine quantitatively linear or nonlinear
relationship between petrophysical properties and
seismic attributes and then to calculate petrophysi-
cal properties by multiple linear regression or neural
networks. The second method is geostatistical
petrophysical property inversion (Sun and Peng
2007; Liu et al. 2009). This method performs petro-
physical property inversion based on stochastic
simulation in geostatistics. The deficiency of this
method lies in that (a) its rock physics mechanism is
unclear and (a) massive logging data are required to
build the linear and nonlinear relationship. The third
method is petrophysical property inversion based on
rock physics (Mukerji et al. 2001). Originally, this
method combines rock physics with pre-stack seis-
mic inversion to estimate petrophysical properties of
reservoirs. Bachrach (2006) further used a rock
physics model for inversion of porosity and fluid
saturation. Spikes et al. (2007) proposed a proba-
bilistic seismic inversion method to estimate the
petrophysical properties of reservoirs using well and
seismic data. Larsen et al. (2006) presented a fluid
inversion method based on the Markov chain. Grana
and Rossa (2010) built upon the previous research
achievements to perform inversion of reservoir
properties by combining rock physics with Bayesian
inversion, which produced convincing results. Zhang
et al. (2020) proposed a linearized rock physics
R. Jiang et al.
inversion for estimation of petrophysical parame-
ters.
Owing to its solid rock physics basis, the
method of quantitative seismic interpretation based
on the rock physics template (RPT), which builds
links between reservoir properties and seismic data,
has become popular (O Degaard and Avseth 2003;
Chi and Han 2009; Gupta et al. 2012; Hermana et al.
2016; Li et al. 2019; Yuan et al. 2019a, b). However,
the accuracy of results obtained from this method
usually depends on the reliability of the rock physics
model used; therefore, for example, huge quantities
of rock physics model needed to be developed for
tight sandstone (Ba et al. 2016, 2017). In practice,
this method is often difficult to operate for two
reasons. Firstly, rock physics modeling is very com-
plex. To deliver good results, several adjusting
parameters, such as compressional velocity, shear
velocity, density and pore aspect ratio for pure
quartz and clay mineral, need to be optimized, but
pore aspect ratio, as an important factor affecting
elastic parameters, is often unavailable in the field.
Secondly, due to the diversity of rock physics mod-
els, it is required to calibrate from massive logging
data and laboratory testing data in order to deter-
mine the reliability of RPT and to select the
appropriate model for specific geological setting.
To predict reservoirs, elastic impedance (EI)
inversion has been used widely in the industry
(Connolly 1999; Avseth et al. 2010) because EI can
be obtained by performing a process similar to post-
stack acoustic impedance inversion on partial stack
seismic data given a certain angle of incidence.
However, EI is problematic because its value chan-
ges drastically with incident angle, which greatly
restricts its application in reservoir characterization.
Whitcombe et al. (2002) fixed the range variability
problem by normalization of EI values. The ex-
tended elastic impedance (EEI) method, which
combines partial stack seismic data, compressional,
shear velocity and density logging curves, has been
used widely for qualitative fluid detection and
reservoir characterization (Syed et al. 2015; Pranata
et al. 2017). The application of EEI has also been
recently extended to anisotropic media to derive
anisotropic elastic impedance for fracture and fluid
detection (Pan et al. 2019).
Geophysicists have also done a lot of work on
fluid detection in tight sandstones. Yang et al. (2017)
used the compression coefficients extracted from
seismic data to perform qualitative fluid detection in
tight sandstones. Jiang et al. (2017) analyzed the
Quantitative Reservoir Characterization of Tight Sandstone
feasibility of using the Russell fluid factor for fluid
detection in tight sandstones based on forward
modeling and applied it to real data, delivering
reliable detection. Yuan et al. (2019a, b) adopted the
propagator matrix forward modeling and rock phy-
sics constraints to develop a pre-stack stochastic
frequency-dependent velocity inversion method and
derived associated hydrocarbon attributes to indi-
cate tight sandstone gas reservoirs.
Tight sandstone has weak amplitude variation
with offset (AVO) response due to its extremely low
porosity, which makes it very difficult for conven-
tional AVO analysis to reflect a reservoirÕs porosity
and fluid variations. Therefore, to capture weak
AVO response, it is essential to develop a quanti-
tative AVO characterization method to predict
reservoir properties from pre-stack seismic data. In
this paper, a relatively complete, convenient and
practicable workflow was designed for quantitative
prediction of reservoir parameters such as clay vol-
ume and porosity. This workflow combines statisti-
cal rock physics analysis with the EEI theory. It is
suitable not only for quantitative characterization of
tight reservoir parameters, but it is also worthy of
extended application for characterization of other
types of reservoir.
GEOLOGIC SETTING
Regional Geology
The Sichuan Basin has the largest proven re-
serves and highest cumulative production of con-
ventional natural gas (Dai et al. 2014) and tight gas
(Zou et al. 2018) in China. Multiple tectonic move-
ments have taken place in this basin, creating the
five current structural systems, namely the South-
west Sichuan intermediate fold belt, the West Si-
chuan intermediate fold belt, the Middle Sichuan
weak fold belt, the East Sichuan strong fold belt and
the North Sichuan weak fold belt (Shen et al. 2007).
The study area in AnYue Gas Field (Fig. 1), one of
the most important tight gas fields with enormous
geologic reserves in the Sichuan Basin, is located in
the Middle Sichuan weak fold belt (Zhao et al.
2013). The area has a monoclinal structure with NE–
SW inclination (Fig. 2). There is no obvious corre-
lation between natural gas production and structure
in this area. Several high-production wells are lo-
cated in upper structures, and many such wells also
exist in lower structures. For this reason, it is crucial
397
to predict reservoir properties quantitatively to
provide reliable reference for well deployment.
Sedimentary Geology
It has been revealed in previous studies that the
Sichuan Basin is a composite and complicated basin
(Zhao and Zhang 2003). During the Upper Triassic
sedimentary period in the central Sichuan Basin, the
structure is featured with relatively flat regional
structural relief, and the shallow water continental
lake basin was developed widely with coal-bearing
strata, forming a ‘‘sandwich’’ structure of source
rock and reservoir inter-bedding each other (Jiang
et al. 2007; Xu et al. 2007). Such sandwich structure
resulted in multi-reservoir–caprock association in
the Triassic strata (Bian et al. 2009). The target layer
of this study is in the Upper Triassic Xu2 section
(Fig. 3) with total strata thickness of 70–100 m, but
the thickness of effective reservoir is very thin,
namely 3–10 m. The effective reservoir has devel-
oped mainly in the high-energy channel of delta
plain sub-facies, and the rock types include mainly
feldspathic lithic sandstone, lithic arkose and quartz
lithic sandstone (Yang et al. 2007).
SEISMIC AND WELL DATA
More than 100 wells with complete drilling and
production data have been drilled in the study area.
The logging curves for these wells have gamma ray,
caliper, compensated neutron log, density, deep
resistivity, shallow resistivity and P-sonic and S-sonic
delta time curves. Part of the area covered by 3D
seismic survey is about 800 km2. The main in-lines
extend along NE–SW direction, the direction of
cross-lines is approximately N–S, and the bin size is
25 9 25 m (Fig. 2). Primitive gathers have been
undergone static, velocity spectrum analysis, normal
move-out, dip move-out, pre-stack time migration to
obtain AVO preserved pre-stack gather, and gather
conditioning procedure such as mute and trim statics
in the study area, satisfying the conditions for per-
forming pre-stack seismic inversion.
METHODOLOGY AND WORKFLOW
When the compressional and shear wave
velocities (Vp, Vs) and density (q) are known from
398 R. Jiang et al.

Figure 1. Regional tectonic background and location of the study area in the ChuanZhong weak fold belt. The study area of AnYue gas
field is a reputable gas field in China.

well logs, the other parameters and EEI can be

where AI ¼ qVP , AI0 ¼ qVP0 , and GI ¼
calculated as in Eq. (1). This formula includes two
   
adjustable parameters: v and K. It is also important 8K  4K  2
q
to optimize these two parameters, because they af- AI0 VVP0P VVS0S q where K ¼ Vs
Vp , the K
0

fect directly the ability of EEI to predict reservoir value being set frequently to be a constant; AI0 , VP0 ,
properties. VS0 , q0 are the average values of compressional
"    # impedance, compressional velocity, shear velocity
AI cos v GI sin v
EEIðhÞ ¼ AI0 ð1Þ and density in the target layer, respectively, which
AI0 GI0 were estimated by statistical analysis of each
parameter; and tan v ¼ sin2 h, where h is the incident
angle.
Quantitative Reservoir Characterization of Tight Sandstone 399

Figure 4 shows an integrated workflow for the

prediction of clay volume and porosity, as well as the
optimization of v and K. The detailed steps of this
workflow are the following.

1. Calculate values of EEI for varying angles v

from the Vp, Vs, density curves of wells.
Draw the cross-plots EEI for different angles
and reservoir parameters (clay volume and
porosity), and then obtain correlation coef-
ficient (CC) and fitting formula through lin-
ear fitting.
2. Find automatically the maximum CC and the
corresponding angle vi by scanning values of
CC derived from step 2.
3. Extract P and G attributes from pre-stack
gather by fitting the AVO curves, and cal-
Figure 2. Subsea depth map of the study area overlaid with culate EEI reflection cubed from the P and
gas production bar charts. Gas production increases with
length of bars.

Figure 3. Stratigraphy of Triassic and Jurassic units in the study area.

400 R. Jiang et al.

Well data Select pre-stack seismic Load horizons

Horizons spike
Vp, Vs, density curves Pre-stack seismic
elimination & smooth

Select or create log of AI, Vs/Vp etc. elastic logs

calculation Gather conditioning
property Pi

EEI calculation with

different χ Create angle gather

Cross-correlate Pi and EEI Create P&G attribute volumes

with different χ
Linear fitting

Correlation values Fitting formula Calculate χ reflectivity

No Yes
The largest value?

EEI log for Pi

Build initial model

EEI model inversion

EEI volume

Quantitative reservoir
parameters estimation

Figure 4. Workflow for quantitative reservoir parameters inversion.

G attributes using the best angle vi calcu-
lated in step 2.
4. Load the horizon, perform spike elimination
and smoothing on the horizon, conduct high
cut filtering of the existing well EEI( vi )
curve, and then build the initial model con-
strained by structure framework from hori-
zons and well interpolation.
5. Perform model-based inversion to obtain
EEI( vi ) cubes using the initial model built in
step 4.
6. Convert EEI( vi ) cubes to reservoir param-
eters for reservoir characterization using the
formula obtained in step 1.
EEI ANALYSIS ON WELLS
Whitcombe et al. (2002) stated that different
values of v could yield EEI expressions for S-wave
impedance, bulk modulus, LaméÕs parameter, shear
modulus and Vp/Vs ratio. Inappropriate values of K
Quantitative Reservoir Characterization of Tight Sandstone
Figure 5. Histograms of different elastic parameters from logging data.
will lead to great errors between the EEI and
Zoeppritz formulas (Abbasi et al. 2018), the ability
of EEI to characterize reservoirs varies with v, and
thus, it is important to find the optimum value of v
and K before EEI inversion. Here, average values of
AI, GI, Vp, Vs, Vs/Vp ratio and density (Fig. 5, Ta-
ble 1) were obtained through statistical rock physics
analysis of well data, and then, the value of K was
deduced from the average value of Vs/Vp ratio. Thus,
0.6063 was used here as the value of K, which is
distinct from the value given by Connolly (1999).
The optimum values of vi for clay volume and
porosity prediction were found, respectively, by
analyzing values of CC among the reservoir
parameters and EEI.
After the value of K was obtained, with each
known variable on the right-hand side of Eq. (1), the
values of EEI corresponding to different angles, v,
were calculated (Fig. 6). On this basis, values of EEI
for different v angles and reservoir parameters were
cross-plotted, and the least squares method was used
for linear fitting of these two variables. The CC and
401
regression formula for different angles were ob-
tained, and then, the optimum angle vi correspond-
ing to the maximum correlation coefficient was
found for the purpose of generating EEI reflection
data volume.
The optimum v angle reflecting lithology and
porosity was found by cross-plotting CC vs.
v(Fig. 7). Values of EEI for different angles were
cross-plotted with reservoir parameters as well, and
CCs were obtained through linear fitting (Fig. 8).
The regression equations for reservoir parameters
and EEI at optimum v angle were obtained by linear
fitting. Thus, the EEI can be converted into clay
volume and porosity as follows:
Vclay ¼ 4:6365  105  EEIðvi¼68 Þ  0:14794 ð2Þ
Por ¼ 3:104  105  EEIðvi¼12 Þ þ 0:43579 ð3Þ
where Vclay is the clay volume and EEIðvi¼68 Þ is the
EEI when v is equal to 68; Por is the porosity and
EEIðvi¼12 Þ is the EEI when v is equal to 12.
402 R. Jiang et al.

Table 1. Rock physics parameters statistics EEI INVERSION

Parameter Average value
Generation of EEI Reflection Coefficient Data
Vp (m/s) 4815.9 Cube from Pre-stack Gather
Vs (m/s) 2919
Density (g/cc) 2.65368
Vs/Vp 0.6063 AVO intercept and gradient were obtained by
AI (m/s * g/cc) 12,237 linear fit of AVO curve from PP pre-stack gather
GI (m/s * g/cc) 12,847 (Fig. 9) based on the Shuey formula (Shuey 1985),
the P attribute is the intercept of the fitted line, and
the G attribute is the gradient of the same fitted line.

Figure 6. Logging curve sections.

Quantitative Reservoir Characterization of Tight Sandstone
Figure 7. Search of the optimum value of angle v (CC stands for correlation coefficient). (a) Plot of EEI-Vclay CC vs. v. (b) Plot of EEI-
porosity CC vs. v. The red point in (a) shows that the optimum v angle based on the clay volume curves is 68° and the corresponding CC
is 0.63047. The red point in (b) shows that the optimum v angle based on the porosity curves is 12° and the corresponding CC is 0.84468.
The intercept and gradient attributes from AVO
analysis can also be combined to calculate additional
AVO attributes for reservoir characterization, such
as pseudo-S-wave, fluid factor and PoissonÕs ratio
contrast (Smith and Gidlow 1987; Ross 2002; Stovas
et al. 2006; Veeken and Rauch-Davies 2006; Wu
et al. 2011a, b). Based on the calculation of P and G,
the reflection coefficient data cube for the most
sensitive angle v was calculated according to Eq. (4)
and used for subsequent sensitive EEI inversion.
Rðvi Þ ¼ P  cosðvi Þ þ G  sinðvi Þ
Model-Based Seismic Inversion
Based on the input well EEI curve, horizon,
seismic wavelet and EEI reflection coefficient cube,
constrained model-based EEI inversion was per-
formed (Russell and Hampson 1991). The detailed
process of such inversion is as follows. Based on the
dedicated well to seismic tie, depth domain well data
were transformed to that in the time domain, and
the reliable wavelets were extracted from well and
seismic data. Under the constraint of interpretation
horizon, the well curve was filtered and interpolated
for a low-frequency model, which was used as an
initial guess model. The model was perturbed taking
into account the rock physics limit, and the corre-
sponding synthetic seismic was generated after each
403
model perturbation and compared with real seismic
to find the error. When such error was greater than
the given value, model perturbation was continued
until the error became smaller than the given value,
at which point the iteration is stopped, and the final
EEI model was output as the inversion result.
As shown in Figure 10, the black line represents
the initial model, the red line represents the inver-
sion result, the blue line is the EEI curve from the
well, and the synthetic (red wiggle) record from the
inversion result is very close to the real seismic data
ð4Þ
(black wiggle). As shown in Figure 10, the EEI
inversion result is close to the EEI calculated from
well logs and these two parameters fall on the per-
fect fitting line in close proximity to each other
(Fig. 11).
RESERVOIR PARAMETERS CONVERSION
FROM EEI CUBE
Clay volume and porosity cubes (Figs. 12 and
13) were calculated from the EEI inversion results
using Eqs. (3) and (4). Comparisons of clay volume
and porosity derived from EEI inversion with the
well data are shown in Figure 14. As shown in the
figure, predicted values of clay volume and porosity
of wells are positively correlated with the corre-
sponding values obtained from well logs, indicating
404 R. Jiang et al.

Figure 8. Cross-plots of EEI vs. reservoir parameters (CC = correlation coefficient). (a) EEI (x-axis) vs. clay volume (y-axis). (b) EEI (x-
axis) vs. porosity (y-axis). The red line in each cross-plot is the fitting line.
Quantitative Reservoir Characterization of Tight Sandstone 405

Figure 11. Cross-plot from EEI inversion and well logs.

Figure 9. Diagram of intercept and gradient attributes fitted from
pre-stack gather.
Figure 15 shows thickness planar distribution
maps for sandstones and porous sandstones, and the
overlaid bar charts represent gas production. These
two maps indicate that thicker and more porous
sandstones (porosity > 5%) are distributed in the
northeastern parts of the study area, and the pre-
dicted results are consistent with production data
from the drilled wells. High-production wells have
been drilled to thicker and more porous sandstones.

CONCLUSIONS

EEI-based inversion provides a new idea for

quantitative prediction of reservoir parameters. The
relationships between reservoir parameters and EEI
are established from statistical analysis of well data
and are extended to EEI data volume obtained from
seismic inversion. This provides a convenient and
quick way to predict reservoir parameters quantita-
tively. This method is applicable not only for
exploration areas with few wells, but also for
development areas with abundant wells.
Figure 10. Quality control on EEI inversion. The values of v and K obtained from well
analysis are the keys to accurate prediction of
reservoir parameters. The EEI at a certain large v
angle mainly reflects lithologic information, while
that the calculation results are reliable, and there-
the EEI at a certain small v angle is better correlated
fore, reservoir parameters such as clay volume and
with porosity. Because v is proportional to the inci-
porosity can be determined effectively through EEI
dent angle, it is essential to collect seismic data with
inversion.
long offset for the sake of predicting the reservoir
properties. However, the ability of the proposed
406 R. Jiang et al.

Figure 12. Clay volume section derived from EEI inversion.

Figure 13. Porosity section derived from EEI inversion.

Figure 14. Comparison of reservoir parameters derived from EEI inversion (predicted clay volume, predicted porosity) and
those obtained from well logs: (a) clay volume from well logs (Vclay) vs. predicted clay volume; (b) porosity from well logs
(Por) vs. predicted porosity.
Quantitative Reservoir Characterization of Tight Sandstone 407

Figure 15. Thickness planar distribution maps for (a) sandstones and (b) porous
sandstones. Overlaid on the maps are gas production bar charts; gas production
increases with length of bars (see also Fig. 2).
408
method to identify thin layers is still relatively finite
due to the limited resolution of deterministic inver-
sion. In the future, EEI geostatistical inversion will
be trialed for improvement to identify thin reser-
voirs.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The study was funded by the Chinese National
Science and Technology Major Project (Grant
Number 2016ZX05047002). I am grateful to Petro-
China Southwest Oil and Gas Field Company for
providing the research data and samples.
REFERENCES
Abbasi, S. S., Liu, J., Hameed, N., & Ehsan, M. (2018). A modi-
fied approach for elastic impedance inversion due to the
variation in value of K. Earth Sciences Research Journal, 22,
205–213.
Avseth, P., Mukerji, T., & Mavko, G. (2010). Quantitative seismic
interpretation: Applying rock physics tools to reduce inter-
pretation risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ba, J., Xu, W., Fu, L., Carcione, J. E. M., & Zhang, L. (2017).
Rock anelasticity due to patchy saturation and fabric
heterogeneity: A double double-porosity model of wave
propagation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth,
122, 1949–1976.
Ba, J., Zhao, J., Carcione, J. E. M., & Huang, X. (2016). Com-
pressional wave dispersion due to rock matrix stiffening by
clay squirt flow. Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 6186–6195.
Bachrach, R. (2006). Joint estimation of porosity and saturation
using stochastic rock-physics modeling. Geophysics, 71, O53–
O63.
Bian, C., Wang, H., Yin, P., & Lin, H. (2009). Formation condi-
tions of large-scale gas accumulation in the Xujiahe forma-
tion of GuangÕan gas field. Natural Gas Industry, 29, 19–22.
Chi, X., & Han, D. (2009). Lithology and fluid differentiation
using a rock physics template. The Leading Edge, 28, 60–65.
Connolly, P. (1999). Elastic impedance. The Leading Edge, 18,
438–452.
Dai, J., Yu, C., Huang, S., Gong, D., Wu, W., Fang, C., et al.
(2014). Geological and geochemical characteristics of large
gas fields in China. Petroleum Exploration and Development,
41, 1–13.
Grana, D., & Rossa, E. (2010). Probabilistic petrophysical-prop-
erties estimation integrating statistical rock physics with
seismic inversion. Geophysics, 75, O21–O37.
Gupta, S. D., Chatterjee, R., & Farooqui, M. Y. (2012). Rock
physics template (RPT) analysis of well logs and seismic data
for lithology and fluid classification in Cambay Basin. Inter-
national Journal of Earth Sciences, 101, 1407–1426.
Hermana, M., Lubis, L. A., Ghosh, D. P., & Sum, C. W. (2016).
New rock physics template for better hydrocarbon predic-
tion. In Offshore technology conference Asia.
Jiang, Y., Guo, G., Chen, H., Tao, Y., & Liu, H. (2007). Origin of
high-quality reservoirs of the second and fourth member
sand-stones, Xujiahe Formation, Upper Triassic in the center
R. Jiang et al.
of Sichuan Basin. Petroleum Geology and Recovery Effi-
ciency, 14, 18–21.
Jiang, R., Ouyang, Y., Zeng, Q., Huang, J., He, P., & Ba, J. (2017).
Application of the Russell fluid factor in tight sandstone gas
detection. Natural Gas Industry, 37, 76–81.
Jiang, Z., & Qi, Y. (2016). Application of curve reconstruction
inversion to lateral prediction of unconventional reservoir.
Marine Geology Frontiers, 32, 64–70.
Larsen, A. L., Ulvmoen, M., Omre, H., & Buland, A. (2006).
Bayesian lithology/fluid prediction and simulation on the
basis of a Markov-chain prior model. Geophysics, 71, R69–
R78.
Li, H., Zhang, J., Cai, S., & Pan, H. (2019). 3D rock physics
template for reservoirs with complex pore structure. Chinese
Journal of Geophysics, 62, 2711–2723.
Liu, B., Li, J., Wei, X., & Zheng, S. (2009). The application of
stochastic seismic inversion in reservoir the application of
stochastic seismic inversion in reservoir prediction. Progress
in Geophysics, 24, 581–589.
Mukerji, T., Jørstad, A., Avseth, P., Mavko, G., & Granli, J. R.
(2001). Mapping lithofacies and pore-fluid probabilities in a
North Sea reservoir: Seismic inversions and statistical rock
physics. Geophysics, 66, 988–1001.
O Degaard, E., & Avseth, P. (2003). Interpretation of elastic
inversion results using rock physics templates. In 65th EAGE
conference and exhibition.
Pan, X., Zhang, G., & Cui, Y. (2019). Azimuthal attenuation
elastic impedance inversion for fluid and fracture character-
ization based on modified linear-slip theory. Geofluids, 2019,
1–18.
Pranata, G. D., Rosid, M. S., & Martian, D. (2017). Optimization
of distribution and characterization of sand reservoir by using
extended elastic impedance method in ‘‘G’’ old field. In AIP
conference proceedings, 1862. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.499
1294.
Ross, C. P. (2002). Comparison of popular AVO attributes, AVO
inversion, and calibrated AVO predictions. The Leading
Edge, 21, 244–252.
Russell, B., & Hampson, D. (1991). Comparison of poststack
seismic inversion methods.
Shen, C., Mei, L., Xu, Z., & Tang, J. (2007). Architecture and
tectonic evolution of composite basin-mountain system in
Sichuan basin and its adjacent areas. Geotectonica et Metal-
logenia, 31, 288–299.
Shuey, R. T. (1985). A simplification of the Zoeppritz equations.
Geophysics, 50, 609–614.
Smith, G. C., & Gidlow, P. M. (1987). Weighted stacking for rock
property estimation and detection of gas. Geophysical
Prospecting, 35, 993–1014.
Song, W., Wang, X., Du, Y., & Fu, J. (2002). Inversion of reservoir
parameters by integrative application of seismic attribution
and logging data. Oil Geophysical Prospecting, 37, 491–494.
Spikes, K., Mukerji, T., Dvorkin, J., & Mavko, G. (2007). Prob-
abilistic seismic inversion based on rock-physics models.
Geophysics, 72, R87–R97.
Stovas, A., Landrø, M., & Avseth, P. (2006). AVO attribute
inversion for finely layered reservoirs. Geophysics, 71, C25–
C36.
Sun, S., & Peng, S. (2007). Inversion of geostatistics based on
simulated annealing algorithm. Oil Geophysical Prospecting,
42, 38–43.
Syed, I. A., Seth, K., & Furuya, K. (2015). Volcanic rock char-
acterisation using the concept of Extended Elastic Im-
pedance: A case study from a Middle Jurassic gas reservoir in
offshore Western Australia. In ASEG extended abstracts.
Veeken, P. C., & Rauch-Davies, M. (2006). AVO attribute anal-
ysis and seismic reservoir characterization. First Break, 24,
41–52.
Quantitative Reservoir Characterization of Tight Sandstone
Wan, X., Wang, L., Liu, J., Jian, X., & Chai, W. (2015). Porosity
prediction of Mesozoic sandstone and mudstone with over-
lapped wave impedance: A case study of 9 block in North
Yellow Sea Basin. Xinjiang Petroleum Geology, 36, 545–549.
Wang, W., Lv, Y., Fu, G., Sun, T., Wang, C., Liu, Z., et al. (2017).
New method of using quasi-acoustic inversion for calculating
the shale content and its application in evaluation of lateral
sealing ability of fault. Progress in Geophysics, 32, 737–744.
Whitcombe, D. N., Connolly, P. A., Reagan, R. L., & Redshaw, T.
C. (2002). Extended elastic impedance for fluid and lithology
prediction. Geophysics, 67, 63–67.
Wu, M., Fu, L., & Li, W. (2008). A high-resolution nonlinear
inversion method of reservoir parameters and its application
to oil/gas exploration. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 51,
546–557.
Wu, F., Li, Y., Wang, D., Chen, H., & Yao, M. (2011a). Appli-
cation of AVO attribute to the detection of tight sandstone
reservoirs. Natural Gas Industry, 31, 55–57.
Wu, D., Li, Y., Wu, Z., Xiong, Y., You, W., & Li, X. (2004).
Research on the neural network algorithm of joint inversion
of seismic and log data. Natural Gas Industry, 24, 55–57.
Wu, Q., Wu, Y., & Wang, Y. (2011b). Reservoir parameter pre-
diction by multi-attribute based on hybrid learning algorithm
of feed-forward network. Journal of Southwest Petroleum
University (Science & Technology Edition), 33, 68–72.
Xu, W., Yang, H., & Chen, Z. (2007). Characteristics of the sixth
member of Xujiahe formation gas reservoirs in GuangÕan
area and its development tactics. Natural Gas Industry, 27,
19–21.
Yang, H., Wang, D., Zhang, M., Wang, Y., Liu, L., & Zhang, M.
(2017). Seismic prediction method of pore fluid in tight gas
reservoirs, Ordos Basin, NW China. Petroleum Exploration
and Development, 44, 544–551.
Yang, H., Yan, Q., Li, M., & Zhang, J. (2005). Predicting reservoir
parameters by applying the modified neural network learning
method. Natural Gas Industry, 25, 37–39.
409
Yang, X., Zhao, W., Zou, C., Li, W., & Tao, S. (2007). Compar-
ison of formation conditions of ‘‘sweet point’’ reservoirs in
Sulige gas field and Xiangxi group gas field in the central
Sichuan Basin. Natural Gas Industry, 27, 4–7.
Yu, W., Feng, L., & Du, Y. (2019). Application of the wave im-
pedance inversion based on the characteristic curve recon-
struction in the complex reservoir prediction. Science
Technology and Engineering, 19, 58–65.
Yuan, S., Liu, Y., Zhang, Z., Luo, C., & Wang, S. (2019a). Pre-
stack stochastic frequency-dependent velocity inversion with
rock-physics constraints and statistical associated hydrocar-
bon attributes. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters,
16, 140–144.
Yuan, S., Wang, S., Luo, Y., Wei, W., & Wang, G. (2019b). Im-
pedance inversion by using the low-frequency full-waveform
inversion result as an a priori model. Geophysics, 84, R149–
R164.
Zhang, J., Yin, X., Zhang, G., Gu, Y., & Fan, X. (2020). Predic-
tion method of physical parameters based on linearized rock
physics inversion. Petroleum Exploration and Development,
47, 59–67.
Zhao, W., Bian, C., & Xu, Z. (2013). Similarities and differences
between natural gas accumulations in Sulige gas field in Or-
dos Basin and Xujiahe gas field in central Sichuan Basin.
Petroleum Exploration and Development, 40, 400–408.
Zhao, W., & Zhang, G. (2003). Basic features of petroleum
geology in the superimposed petroliferous basins of China
and their research methodologies. Petroleum Exploration and
Development, 30, 1–8.
Zhu, G. (2017). Application of acoustic curve reconstruction in
reservoir prediction. Computing Techniques for Geophysical
and Geochemical Exploration, 39, 383–387.
Zou, C., Zhao, Q., Chen, J., Li, J., Yang, Z., Sun, Q., et al. (2018).
Natural gas in China: Development trend and strategic
forecast. Natural Gas Industry, 38, 1–11.