Integrating Well and Seismic Data for Reservoir

Characterization: Risks and Rewards

Kevin Jarvis
Fugro-Jason Australia BV
kjarvis@fugro-jason.com

The recognition of errors in both seismic and well data is not a

straightforward process. Every geologic environment has well
SUMMARY and seismic data of different vintages and from different
contractors. Some rocks are more prone to washouts than
Developing accurate reservoir models is a key objective others and some geologic environments are more difficult to
of oil companies worldwide. A properly constrained obtain high-quality seismic data in. To properly integrate the
reservoir model can be used to quantify hydrocarbons in data the interpreter must recognize the good data and make
place and to optimize hydrocarbon production. The some type of correction or mitigation for the poor data. A
evaluation of the reservoirs is typically achieved using a technique to achieve integration is through seismic inversion.
combination of seismic and well data. Each of these data The inversion process uses both seismic and well data and
represents imperfect measurements with a certain level of generates results constrained by both data types.
error. The manner in which these errors are handled
affects the integration of the two data types and
METHODOLOGY
determines the quality of the final reservoir model.
There are four main elements to a good inversion workflow:
In this paper, I discuss one of the ways that well and
well log conditioning, seismic quality control and conditioning
seismic data can be combined to form a reservoir model.
(if necessary), wavelet extraction and low frequency modelling.
A logical workflow is proposed that consists of a
These elements are illustrated in Figure 1. Each of these
systematic progression from well data analysis, to rock
elements will be discussed separately with particular attention
physics analysis, to seismic inversion and finally
paid to the role of the interpreter in making key decisions and
reservoir property estimation. The workflow cannot be
parameter selection.
followed blindly and each reservoir characterization
problem must be handled in a unique manner. One of the
key elements to the seismic inversion component is the
development of a realistic low frequency model. A
sophisticated low frequency model has a significant
impact on the final reservoir model. Using a series of
simple examples and case histories I demonstrate that
significant benefits can be obtained from following a
workflow that is tailored to deal with the uncertainties
that impact on the results. I also show some of the pitfalls
that have the potential to create incorrect or ambiguous
results. The ultimate goal is better reservoir definition,
better reservoir management and higher drilling success. Figure 1. Inversion workflow for reservoir
characterization
Key words: Inversion, Data Integration, Rock Physics.
Well Log Conditioning

INTRODUCTION Well logs are a result of a physical measurement of the earth’s

There is an increasing need for reservoir characterization
technology within the oil and gas industry. The need is mostly
driven by economic realities: if reservoirs can be defined better
using available technology then the end result is higher drilling
success and fewer development wells. Reservoir
characterization technology requires the integration of all
available subsurface data. These data include well logs,
seismic trace and velocity data. The data are the result of
measurements carried out by sophisticated instrumentation and
processed using highly developed software. This technology
has advanced over the years and the accuracy has greatly
improved. However, the results are still subject to error and
these errors must be properly dealt with in order to use the data
for reservoir characterization.
properties taken within the confined space of a borehole. The
measurements are subject to borehole irregularities and to the
elapse of time between drilling and logging of the hole. The
primary goal in processing well log data is to obtain consistent
and accurate logs from well-to-well. In addition, the logs must
represent the rocks as seen by the seismic. Some type of
dispersion correction should be applied to account for the
differences in frequencies between logging tools and surface
seismic reflection data and fluid substitutions should be
performed if invasion effects are present.
A technique that has proven to be very powerful for
consistency checking is the development of a rock physics
model. The rock physics model can take many forms from
simple empirical relationships between properties to more
sophisticated rock physics models such as inclusion-based

AESC2006, Melbourne, Australia. 1

models (e.g. Xu-White, 1995). The inclusion-based models
break the rock down to fundamental components such as clay,
quartz and calcite with pore space filled with brine, gas and oil
and then reconstruct the rock based on the proportions of the
components. These proportions can be estimated using
petrophysical analysis techniques. Ideally the rock physics
model will be robust enough that it can be used for fluid
substitutions and shear log synthesis. The consistency
checking from the rock physics model comes from the match of
the modelled and measured data using the same model
parameters for different wells.
The interpreters should be aware of the type of rock physics
model being used and the model parameters assigned. A
standard quality control plot is to overlay the measured and
modelled log curves and to generate statistics such as the cross
correlation between modelled and measured and standard
deviation of the differences. Model parameters such as pore
aspect ratio and clay density should make sense for a given
geologic environment. The goal of the rock physics modelling
is to create a consistent set of logs. The final consistency of all
well logs can be checked by a series of zonal-specific
crossplots and histograms. An example of consistent data
output from a rock physics model is shown in Figure 2. The
lower crossplot shows clear lithology and fluid trends from a
number of wells that are obscured in the uncorrected data due
to invasion, production and washout effects. A final check of
the conditioned well logs is the match of synthetics to the
seismic data.
Figure 2. Crossplots of P-Velocity and S-Velocity showing
well data before (top) and after (bottom) rock physics
modelling.
Seismic Quality Control
No seismic dataset is perfect. Every attempt is made during
acquisition and processing to choose optimum parameters.
Relative amplitudes must be preserved during processing both
vertically and spatially and stacking velocities must be
optimized to properly image the geology. Complex geology
requires proper migration, but so do amplitude anomalies from
discontinuous bodies. Some elements of the seismic processing
can be compensated by the wavelets and post-stack time
alignment, but in general these are best dealt with by careful
processing. Some errors in seismic data can be mathematically
quantified (e.g. signal to noise ratio) and these should certainly
be taken into consideration when using the data for inversion.
Other errors (e.g. multiples) are not readily quantified and
every effort should be made to remove them during processing
and to minimize their impact on the inversion results.
Wavelets
The wavelets link the seismic and well data. They are often
derived by inverting seismic data with the well data as the
primary constraint. They are sensitive to errors in both the
elastic well logs (sonic and density) and errors in the seismic
data. When multiple well ties exist the wavelet extraction
process can be carried out at each well individually or
collectively to obtain a multi-well optimized wavelet.
A common assumption for full-stack inversions is that the
seismic is zero-offset. No multi-channel seismic dataset is
truly zero-offset and angle-dependent effects are almost always
present. The angle ranges represented by the acquisition
geometry should be honoured when inverting seismic data for a
wavelet.
Do wavelets vary spatially? This assumption is often made
because wavelets extracted at different wells do not have the
same amplitude and/or phase spectra. An alternative
assumption is that the wavelets vary little but the well data are
inconsistent. If no obvious amplitude spectral variations occur
within the seismic data (e.g. shallow attenuative channel
deposits) the assumption of a constant wavelet derived using
multiple wells is often the most reasonable.
The interpreter should be aware of the wells that are used for
wavelet estimation and quality control the synthetic-to-seismic
ties using the extracted wavelets (both individual and multi-
well). Wells that exhibit poor synthetic-to-seismic matches
should not be used for wavelet extractions and there should be
a reason for the poor synthetic tie (older log data, washed out
borehole, etc). The ideal wavelet is compact with minimal
side-lobe energy and wavelets extracted from multiple angle
stacks should exhibit reasonable variations with increasing
angle and not show unusually large changes in spectral
amplitude or phase. The residuals between the seismic used
for the wavelet and the resultant synthetic should also be low.
How accurate must the wavelet phase be estimated? This is a
difficult question to answer but a simple example as shown in
Figure 3 may be illustrative. Figure 3 compares the
simultaneous inversion of synthetic data (created using a
known wavelet and low frequency model) with both the proper
wavelets and wavelets shifted 30 degrees for the near and far
stacks (the mid-stack wavelet is correct). The inversion
outputs of P-impedance and Vp/Vs are very close and certainly
the sand channel interpretation would not be that different on
the two results. This example is one indication that wavelet
phase does not have to be perfect to get usable inversion
results.
Low Frequency Modelling
The low frequency model in a constrained sparse-spike
inversion workflow (CSSI) represents the model, which fills
the frequency gap from zero to the low end of the seismic
bandwidth. This gap must be filled in with data which
matches the well logs and is representative of the geological
environment, in order to obtain the sharpest impedance image
(with reduced inversion side-lobes) and for quantitative
inversion results (e.g. reliable porosities or fluid prediction).
The low frequency model is built using a combination of all
available data, typically seismic stacking velocities, elastic
well data and time horizons from seismic interpretation.
Figure 3. Outputs from simultaneous inversion of three
synthetic stacks (with noise) using the correct wavelets on
the left and an inversion with near and far stack wavelets
shifted by plus and minus 30 degrees (respectively) on the
right. P-impedance is on top and Vp/Vs below.
The most obvious assumption is that the amplitude spectrum
gap must be filled in. More importantly, the phase spectrum
must also be addressed. Without addressing the phase spectral
gap, the inversion results will be sub-optimum. The phase
spectrum is defined by the lateral continuity of geologic
horizons. This is often approximated by the interpretation of
the seismic reflection events suitably tied to consistent
geologic markers at the different well locations. Assuming
different stratigraphic relationships (e.g. onlap, offlap or
conformable) provide additional sophistication.
The horizon interpretation represents the boundaries along
which the well properties are interpolated and/or extrapolated.
The end result must follow the geology. This does not
necessarily follow the seismic. Noise that is present in all
seismic data can introduce trace-to-trace variations that should
not be honoured by the horizons. Rapid changes from one
trace to another imply discontinuities that will result in phase
spectrum variations. The goal is to replicate the local geology.
Horizons should be smooth where the geology is expected to
be slowly changing and should honour geologic discontinuities
(e.g. faults) where they exist.
The general horizon interpretation does not have to be detailed
vertically as long as the stratigraphy can be reasonably
approximated. The most important consideration is the
consistency of the intersections of the horizons to the time-
converted well data. In some areas the geology that must be
part of the low frequency model is not present in the wells
either due to erosion, facies change or non-deposition. Careful
consideration must be given as to how and with what data
these zones are populated.
Detail is required in the definition of the lateral extent of
discontinuous bodies. A discontinuous body of primary
interest is the reservoir itself. Many reservoir rocks,
particularly those with hydrocarbons, have distinct elastic
properties, compared to non-reservoir rocks and this must be
addressed in the low frequency model building process. One
possible scenario is to interpret the first-pass inversion results
as part of an iterative inversion workflow. A simple low
frequency model can be used with the goal of outputting
bandlimited inversion products (e.g. bandpass P-Impedance
and bandpass Vp/Vs). Changes in both lithology and fluid can
often be qualitatively interpreted on bandlimited products. The
goal of the first-pass interpretation is to more precisely locate
lithologic boundaries and to map out the extent of
discontinuous bodies. This detailed interpretation then serves
as the basis for properly interpolating the well data and
creating an improved low frequency model for reliable full
bandwidth inversion results.
Figure 4 compares inversions, which use different low
frequency models; an iterative inversion workflow with
property substitution and simple well interpolation. The more
sophisticated low frequency model gives results that closely
match the input model, whereas the simple low frequency
model gives a very poor subsurface image with potentially
misleading results.
The interpreter should be involved with all aspects of the low
frequency model. The horizons are the most obvious inputs
that are provided by the interpreter but the modification of
horizons on bandlimited inversion results and the definition of
potential reservoir bodies both require interpretive input. The
final low frequency model should be quality controlled in both
section and map view (time or horizon slices). Section view
reveals the implied stratigraphic relationships and map view
can be used to identify unusual features such as “bullseyes”
around wells. The low frequency model can also be quality
controlled after the completion of any full bandwidth inversion
by simply filtering back the inversion output to remove all
seismic frequencies. This is generally good practice in the
quality control of inversions where statistical techniques are
used to populate the model (often as part of the inversion
process) and it may be the only way to identify potential bias in
the low frequency model.
CONCLUSIONS
The application of seismic inversion technology has its
rewards: better reservoir definition, improved resource
estimates and better reservoir management. A well-planned
workflow will address the quality control and conditioning of
the input data, the extraction of reliable wavelets and the
creation of a properly constrained low frequency model. The
errors in the input data cannot be simply ignored and must be
addressed as part of the workflow. The goal is to replicate the
geological variations using the well control and to
acknowledge the physics of the seismic experiment in the
inversion processing.
REFERENCES
Xu, S., and White, R.E., 1995, A new velocity model for clay-
sand mixtures.: Geophysical Prospecting 43, 91-118.
Figure 4. Synthetic model of P-impedance (top) and Vp/Vs (bottom) shown in left panels that are used to create three synthetic
angle stacks with noise (0-35 degrees). The model is meant to represent gas sands isolated in shale. The input models are
created at an accuracy of 1ms. The middle panels show the output of simultaneous inversion of the three stacks using an
iterative inversion where the sand body properties are replaced after a first-pass simple trend (shale-only) inversion followed
by substitution of gas-sand properties. The right panels show the simultaneous inversion (one-pass) outputs using a low
frequency model created from one well (Synth2). The extent of the larger channel is not properly defined and the smaller
channel does not show the correct properties. The only difference in the workflows is the sophistication of the low frequency
model.

AESC2006, Melbourne, Australia. 4