Value of information analysis and Bayesian inversion for closed skew-normal distributions: Applications to seismic amplitude variation with offset data

Geophysics ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 79 (4) ◽  
pp. R151-R163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javad Rezaie ◽  
Jo Eidsvik ◽  
Tapan Mukerji

Information analysis can be used in the context of reservoir decisions under uncertainty to evaluate whether additional data (e.g., seismic data) are likely to be useful in impacting the decision. Such evaluation of geophysical information sources depends on input modeling assumptions. We studied results for Bayesian inversion and value of information analysis when the input distributions are skewed and non-Gaussian. Reservoir parameters and seismic amplitudes are often skewed and using models that capture the skewness of distributions, the input assumptions are less restrictive and the results are more reliable. We examined the general methodology for value of information analysis using closed skew normal (SN) distributions. As an example, we found a numerical case with porosity and saturation as reservoir variables and computed the value of information for seismic amplitude variation with offset intercept and gradient, all modeled with closed SN distributions. Sensitivity of the value of information analysis to skewness, mean values, accuracy, and correlation parameters is performed. Simulation results showed that fewer degrees of freedom in the reservoir model results in higher value of information, and seismic data are less valuable when seismic measurements are spatially correlated. In our test, the value of information was approximately eight times larger for a spatial-dependent reservoir variable compared with the independent case.

Geophysics ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. N1-N13
Author(s):  
Humberto S. Arévalo-López ◽  
Uri Wollner ◽  
Jack P. Dvorkin

We have posed a question whether the differences between various [Formula: see text] predictors affect one of the ultimate goals of [Formula: see text] prediction, generating synthetic amplitude variation with offset (AVO) gathers to serve as a calibration tool for interpreting the seismic amplitude for rock properties and conditions. We address this question by evaluating examples in which we test several such predictors at an interface between two elastic layers, at pseudowells, and at a real well with poor-quality S-wave velocity data. The answer based on the examples presented is that no matter which [Formula: see text] predictor is used, the seismic responses at a reservoir are qualitatively identical. The choice of a [Formula: see text] predictor does not affect our ability (or inability) to forecast the presence of hydrocarbons from seismic data. We also find that the amplitude versus angle responses due to different predictors consistently vary along the same pattern, no matter which predictor is used. Because our analysis uses a “by-example” approach, the conclusions are not entirely general. However, the method of comparing the AVO responses due to different [Formula: see text] predictors discussed here is. Hence, in a site-specific situation, we recommend using several relevant predictors to ascertain whether the choice significantly affects the synthetic AVO response and if this response is consistent with veritable seismic data.


2021 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-58
Author(s):  
Domenic Di Francesco ◽  
Marios Chryssanthopoulos ◽  
Michael Havbro Faber ◽  
Ujjwal Bharadwaj

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gert J. van der Wilt ◽  
Janneke P. C. Grutters ◽  
Angela H. E. M. Maas ◽  
Herbert J. A. Rolden

Geophysics ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 60 (5) ◽  
pp. 1426-1436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wojciech Dȩbski ◽  
Albert Tarantola

Seismic amplitude variation with offset data contain information on the elastic parameters of geological layers. As the general solution of the inverse problem consists of a probability over the space of all possible earth models, we look at the probabilities obtained using amplitude variation with offset (AVO) data for different choices of elastic parameters. A proper analysis of the information in the data requires a nontrivial definition of the probability defining the state of total ignorance on different elastic parameters (seismic velocities, Lamé’s parameters, etc.). We conclude that mass density, seismic impedance, and Poisson’s ratio constitute the best resolved parameter set when inverting seismic amplitude variation with offset data.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document