Uncertainty Analysis of Two Methods in Hydrocarbon Prediction under Different Water Saturation and Noise Conditions
Source abstract
Abstract
The uncertainty of two recently proposed methods, “new fluid factor” and “delta K”, is analyzed under different water saturation and noise conditions through Monte Carlo modelling. The new fluid factor performs reliably (all metric parameters are above 0.9) when the water saturation is up to 95%. The delta K has better performance (all metric parameters are close to 1) such that it is able to distinguish hydrocarbon from brine without the interference of high water saturation. The results prove the performances of the two methods are stable in a high water-saturation scenario. The analysis of noise indicates the methods are sensitive to noise in the input data in that the performance is excellent when the noise is relatively low (−20 dB) and decreases with increasing noise energy. The new fluid factor, which is in the interface domain, is more sensitive than delta K in the impedance domain. The metric parameters of the new fluid factor and delta K are in the range of 0.5 to 0.8 when the noise is high (−7 dB). High-quality input data and integration with other geophysical methods can effectively reduce these risks. In addition, two widely used traditional methods (fluid factor and Lambda-Rho) are analyzed as comparisons. It turns out the new fluid factor and delta K have better performance than traditional methods in both high water saturation and noise conditions.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Seismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques · Hydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis · Reservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Centre of Excellence in Subsurface Seismic Imaging & Hydrocarbon Prediction, Universiti Teknologi Petronas, Seri Iskandar 32610, Malaysia
References (21)
Show source-provided references
1. Weighted stacking for rock property estimation and detection of gas10.1111/j.1365-2478.1987.tb00856.x ↗
2. Relationships between compressional-wave and shear-wave velocities in clastic silicate rocks10.1190/1.1441933 ↗
3. A new fluid factor and its application using a deep learning approach: A new fluid factor and its application10.1111/1365-2478.12712 ↗
4. A new seismic attribute for ambiguity reduction in hydrocarbon prediction: Seismic attribute for reducing ambiguity10.1111/1365-2478.12367 ↗
5. Seismic attributes add a new dimension to prospect evaluation and geomorphology offshore Malaysia10.1190/tle33050536.1 ↗
6. Ødegaard, E., and Avseth, P. (2003, January 2–5). Interpretation of Elastic Inversion Results Using Rock Physics Templates. Proceedings of the 65th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Stavanger, Norway.10.3997/2214-4609-pdb.6.E17 ↗
7. Goodway, B., Chen, T., and Downton, J. (1997). Improved AVO Fluid Detection and Lithology Discrimination Using Lamé Petrophysical Parameters; “λρ”, “μρ” & “λ/μ Fluid Stack”, from P and S Inversions, Society of Exploration Geophysicists. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 1997.10.1190/1.1885795 ↗
8. Jing, B., Ren, J., and Qin, X. (2015). Inversion of Reservoir Properties: Quantitative Hydrocarbon Seismic Identification in Tight Carbonate Reservoirs, Society of Exploration Geophysicists. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2015.10.1190/segam2015-5827853.1 ↗
9. Characterization of shallow high-amplitude seismic anomalies in the Hoop Fault Complex, Barents Sea10.1190/INT-2017-0054.1 ↗
10. Liu, X., Chen, Z., Liu, H., and Zhang, W. (2019, January 26–28). Oil Detection Based on Layer Buried-Depth Corrected Elastic Inversion in Deepwater of the Pearl River Basin. Proceedings of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Beijing, China.10.2523/19157-MS ↗
11. Liu, C., Ghosh, D., Salim, A.M.A., and Chow, W.S. (2019, January 26–28). Fluid Discrimination Using Bulk Modulus and Neural Network. Proceedings of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Beijing, China.10.2523/IPTC-19317-MS ↗
12. The issue of numerical uncertainty10.1016/S0307-904X(01)00058-0 ↗
13. Why the Monte Carlo method is so important today10.1002/wics.1314 ↗
14. A Monte Carlo approach to the joint estimation of reservoir and elastic parameters from seismic amplitudes10.1190/1.2783766 ↗
15. Monte Carlo reservoir analysis combining seismic reflection data and informed priors10.1190/geo2014-0052.1 ↗
16. Monte Carlo data-driven tight frame for seismic data recovery10.1190/geo2015-0343.1 ↗
17. Seismic inversion and uncertainty quantification using transdimensional Markov chain Monte Carlo method10.1190/geo2016-0594.1 ↗
18. Mavko, G., Mukerji, T., and Dvorkin, J. (2009). The Rock Physics Handbook: Tools for Seismic Analysis in Porous Media, Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511626753 ↗
19. An introduction to ROC analysis10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010 ↗
20. Avseth, P., Mukerji, T., and Mavko, G. (2010). Quantitative Seismic Interpretation: Applying Rock Physics Tools to Reduce Interpretation Risk, Cambridge University Press.
21. Geophysical issues and challenges in Malay and adjacent basins from an E & P perspective10.1190/1.3378307 ↗