Post Stack Acoustic Impedance (AI) Inversion: "Basics and Usage

"By Ajay Badachhape "Seismic Analysis roup

Seismic Imaging !echnology "enter #$amples 1. Seismic Amplitude vs. AI Inversion section for deepwater GOM amplitude anomaly: Grand Canyon 2. T e Comparison of Seismic Amplitude! "ecursive Trace Inte#ration! and Sparse Spi$e Inversion sections for Stratton %ield! Sout Te&as
3.

"eservoir 'roperties from Inverted AI "esults: 'orosity from Inverted AI for t e (ellow Sand interval in t e )rsa field

Basics and Usage 1. Overview 2. T e *avelet +. %unctionality ,. 'ractical Concerns and -imitations .. /istorical Met odolo#y 0. "eservoir 'roperties from Inverted "esults

%vervie&
On a basin-wide scale seismic data is the best tool currently available to predict subsurface properties of rocks and fluids. It has the resolution and depth of imaging to provide valuable information that can be used to predict reservoir properties. Acoustic impedance (AI) inversion is a term used to designate methodologies that attempt to compute or estimate rock properties directly from measured (e.g., seismic) data. AI is the only rock property (or combination of rock properties velocity multiplied by density) that can be directly estimated from seismic data.
!"his is an estimate since modeled results do not necessarily produce a uni#ue match to the measured seismic data.

"he convolutional model for seismic reflection data assumes the measured seismic trace is composed of the earth reflectivity convolved with the seismic wavelet. "he earth reflectivity is generated by interfaces which have acoustic impedance contrasts given by the following basic e#uation$ Rc =
v 2 2 v 2 2

v 1 1 v 1 1

where Rc is the reflection coefficient for the interface between layers % and &, which have velocities and densities given respectively by
v %

, 1 and v&, 2 .

!he 'avelet
"he wavelet is a key part of the inversion and well log calibration process. It is the transfer function that provides the link between well log acoustic impedance and the seismic data. "he wavelet is scaled and spectrally shaped so that when it is convolved with the reflectivity series derived from the acoustic impedance log, it produces synthetic seismic traces of the appropriate fre#uency content and amplitude to match the seismic trace(s) closest to the well. In a given data set ('( volume, &( line, or set of &( lines ac#uired and processed at the same time and in the same manner), one single wavelet typically may be used to tie all the well logs to the seismic data and produce a good match between the synthetic trace and nearest seismic trace for each well. )ome of the assumptions for this to be true include the following$ )imilar range of depths, times (not too steep structurally so that one well is at %*** ms. and another is at &+** ms.), and geologic strata so that the fre#uency content of the seismic data will be similar, )imilar range of seismic amplitudes so that the wavelet from one well with low amplitude reflections near it would produce a wavelet with a low peak amplitude while another one in a -one of larger amplitude reflections would result in a wavelet with a high peak amplitude, .o large artifacts present in the seismic data at one or a few of the wells only this includes fault shadow, salt diffractions, out of plane energy, multiples, etc.

If all assumptions are met, but similar wavelets are not produced from each of the wells, typically, the log data for some or all the wells are #uestionable and additional log processing will be necessary to edit the acoustic logs (sonic and density) prior to use for inversion. (etermining the wavelet is e/tremely critical since most of the newer inversion methods e/tract a wavelet from the well log and seismic data, then assume the wavelet is known and use it to invert for the acoustic impedances (opposite of creating a synthetic from the well). 0e are now going to assume the wavelet is constant and for each seismic trace, solve for an impedance model that produces a reflectivity series that when convolved with the known wavelet, produces a synthetic that matches the seismic trace). An e/ample of a wavelet e/traction and synthetic1seismic comparison is seen in 2igure %. Once the wavelet amplitude, fre#uency content, and phase have been e/tracted from the seismic data over the inversion time gate as accurately as possible, the inversion algorithm can automatically account for tuning and sidelobe events. 3/tra events that are due to constructive interference from wavelet sidelobes as well as tuning responses are purely wavelet phenomena. Once the wavelet has been accurately e/tracted, inversion can essentially eliminate these seismic artifacts. 2or this reason, maps of inverted AI anomalies usually represent the true location of anomalies and are of different si-e and shape (typically) than the seismic amplitude anomalies.

4eduction of most of the tuning and sidelobe responses places the anomalies in their proper position.

(igure ): 'avelet e$traction and seismic to synthetic tie

A single wavelet is ade#uate in almost all cases. Occasionally, a very long time gate is to be inverted (e.g., typically more than & seconds of data), in which case two or more inversion time windows may have to be run separately and smoothly merged later. 5aterally varying wavelets are a tricky problem since the wavelets are estimated at the well positions (typically, but not always), and simple linear e/trapolation between the well1wavelet positions is not ade#uate to properly model where the wavelet changes actually take place. "hese

wavelet changes may be due to e/tremely anisotropic areas, gas chimneys, salt, faults, comple/ geologic areas such as overthrusts, etc. (typically areas where the lateral seismic fre#uency content changes drastically). "hese situations can be modeled fairly well using inversion, but the approaches necessarily vary by situation and need to be handled on an individual basis.

(unctionality AI inversion is useful for a variety of reasons, including the following$ 3nhances resolution compared to seismic data, 6rovides a geologically consistent, layer-based cube or section of acoustic impedance data from seismic data, 6rovides the ability to detect small lateral changes in acoustic impedance within layers, 6rovides the ability to delineate possible reservoir -ones more accurately than seismic data (due to removal of wavelet effects such as tuning and false events caused by sidelobe interference), 3nhances fault detection and delineation, 3nhances delineation of fluid contacts, (epicts data as layer information rather than interface data, 6rovides the ability to use '( visuali-ation techni#ues on inverted data to view reservoir geometries, 7akes interpretation1tracking of events in low amplitude (and other difficult) -ones easier, 6rovides the ability to convert AI to other parameters such as porosity, net sand, )w, etc., (providing that crossplot analysis of well log data show appropriate trends to 8ustify a conversion). As an illustration, 2igure %.% shows a seismic section with two potential targets indicated as trough-peak pairs with amplitude anomalies. "he deeper target has better trough development, but the

following peak is not as strong as in the upper target. 2igure %.& shows the inversion results for the same section. "he upper target is a thicker, porous sand, and the lower target is actually two thin sands that are not as porous and have a fairly thick shale interval in between. "he base of the second sand in the lower target is below the interpreted base of the sand from the seismic. "he inversion illustrates that the most anomalous part of the section is the very hard (acoustically) shale in between the two targets. "his (presumably dewatered) shale has an e/tent that closely corresponds to the area in which the upper sand is seen to be lower in acoustic impedance and most porous. It should also be noted that the inversion has now produced information about the layers, not 8ust the interfaces. "he tracked hori-ons on the seismic are the centers of the trough-peak pairs that comprise the interpreted targets. "he inversion results show each hori-on tracked on a trough to be the top of the sand units, while the hori-ons tracked on the peaks are the bases of the sands (the second sand in the lower target was not resolved in the seismic). "he intervening hard shale is not identifiable as such on the seismic it is manifested as strong peak development at the bottom of the upper target, and as strong trough development at the top of the lower target due to constructive interference which increased the strength of the amplitude anomalies.

Practical "oncerns and *imitations "he AI inversion results may be thought of as 9pseudo-logs9, which can only be calibrated at well locations. :owever, since AI inversion results are modeled rather than measured data, they can be prone to some problems. 2or e/ample, the bandlimited nature of the input (seismic) data produces results that are non-uni#ue i.e., many AI 9pseudo-logs9 produce reflectivity traces that can be convolved with the wavelet to produce e#ually valid synthetic1seismic correlations. "his is especially true given the bandlimited nature of seismic data (and therefore the inverted results) and emphasi-es the need for a valid low- fre#uency model and appropriate, geologically reasonable constraints (if the inversion method incorporates the use of limits on the results). "he AI constraints placed upon the inversion results and the accuracy of the low-fre#uency AI model away from the wells is crucial to producing the best possible results. AI inversion results are therefore not a magic bullet. 4esults have to be analy-ed to ensure that the data falls within ranges that are geologically feasible and make sense when compared to the available well data, velocity trends, or other data. "he inversion method also has to take into account the results of other methods of analysis, including A;A1amplitude analysis techni#ues. 0hen inversion results do not agree with another method such as A;A analysis, there should be a geologic reason for the discrepancy (e.g., presence of a hard shale above or below the target -one which complicates the reflection image but was not accounted for in the other method).

+istorical ,ethodology AI inversion in a basic sense may be thought of as taking -ero-phase seismic data and applying a <* o phase rotation so that interfaces become -ero crossings, troughs become low-impedance -ones, and peaks become high-impedance -ones (assuming the polarity is set so that an increase in impedance creates a peak on the original -erophase seismic data). 3arly inversion methods simply integrated the seismic data (assuming -ero-phase data going in), a process which produces a <*o phase rotation inherently, and then (usually) introduced a low-fre#uency model which was typically derived from the stacking velocities. "his is the basic element behind =onoco>s )uper )aile and )hell>s 4un)um methodology as well, but internally they often apply other processing tools as well. "race integration is e/tremely fast and cheap. 3/ample & compares the original seismic data (2igure&.%) with filtered recursive trace integration (2igure &.&) and sparse spike trace inversion results (2igure &.'). "hese figures show that the recursive trace integration transforms the seismic into layer-based acoustic impedances that lack the low-fre#uency data shown in 2igure &.'. "he low fre#uencies in 2igure &.' are derived from an 3arth7odel created from the acoustic impedance well logs e/trapolated using the interpreted hori-ons as a stratigraphic framework. "here is a gradual increase in the background AI seen in 2igure &.' that is missing in 2igure &.&. 2igure &.' also shows higher fre#uency content and resolution than observed in 2igures &.% or &.&.

Another method that appro/imates inversion is simple bandpass filtering and phase rotation (which can be cascaded to apply to the entire time window), which may or may not also be merged with a low-fre#uency AI model. 2iltering is the fastest and cheapest method, however, neither filtering nor trace integration methods e/tend the bandwidth or resolution beyond the seismic band. "he introduction of low fre#uencies e/tends the bandwidth on the low-fre#uency side so that geologic trends are introduced, but nothing more is gained.

-eservoir Properties .rom Inverted -esults )ince the results of inversion are models of physical properties of the earth, analysis of well data in the area can be used to produce estimates of other properties that can be derived from acoustic impedance. 2or e/ample, 2igure '.% shows a crossplot with a clear trend between acoustic impedance and density (which is easily translated to density porosity) and 2igure '.& shows a map of the results of converting acoustic impedance to porosity for one -one in an area. 2or comparison purposes, 2igure '.' shows the minimum seismic amplitude (ma/imum trough development) for the same interval. 2igure '.& shows the effects of removal of tuning and sidelobe events the anomalies are correctly positioned, they have changed in si-e and shape, and they provide better fault resolution of what is now apparent as fault-bounded porous sand bodies. =onversion of inverted data to other properties is only as good as the inverted results plus the trend used for conversion. =areful analysis of the inverted results and the information used to create the formula or trend (crossplots or trend curves from wells in the area, etc.) used to convert the impedances to another property must be done. It is easy to produce dubious results from data that do not form clear trends. =alibration to well data and comparison with results from other methods or geologic information is critical. 0hen used in concert with all available data, AI inversion can be a valuable tool. 4ecognition of its strengths and weaknesses is necessary to properly utili-e it and compare1supplement it with other analysis methods.

1&ample 1
Seismic Amplitude vs. AI Inversion section for deepwater GOM amplitude anomaly: Grand Canyon

(igure )/): Seismic section over amplitude anomaly/ !&o stacked amplitude anomalies are delineated 0y the tracked hori1ons as trough2peak pairs/

(igure )/3: Inversion results over amplitude anomaly/ !his is a 0road 0and inversion result in &hich the #arth,odel .rom 423 +1/ is derived .rom the &ell log and the 3254 +1/ data is dra&n .rom inversion results using the 6ason eoscience 'ork0ench7s "onstrained Sparse Spike inversion algorithm/ !he upper seismic anomaly (0lue to green hori1ons) is sho&n to 0e due to the presence o. a thick8 porous sand/ !he lo&er seismic anomaly (yello& to cyan hori1ons) is t&o thinner sands &ith a signi.icant shale 0reak 0et&een/ !he second sand in this deeper target is

0elo& the original ma$imum peak that &as tracked on the seismic as 0eing the 0ase o. the anomaly/ !his inversion result sho&s that the most anomalous event in the section is the high impedance shale 0et&een the t&o target anomalies/ !he high impedance shale is presuma0ly a de&atered shale that has appro$imately the same lateral e$tent as the porous sand development/ !he high impedance shale caused constructive inter.erence o. 0oth anomalies and 0rightened them on the seismic data/

Example 2
The Comparison of Seismic Amplitude, Recursive Trace Integration, and Sparse Spike Inversion sections for Stratton ield, South Texas

Areas o. interest include the sections 0elo& the green ())/) hori1on (just a0ove )/5 seconds) &here resistivity spikes (cyan &iggle) indicate hydrocar0on presence/ !he magenta &iggle is the impedance log that sho&s &hich log events created the seismic events/ Figure 2.2: Recursive Trace Integration results for cross-line 154.

The trace integration process has transforme interface ata into la!er ata. This process oes not increase resolution an oes not incorporate lo" fre#uenc! $vertical tren % information.

2igure &.'$ )parse )pike Inversion results for cross-line %+?. "he inversion results closely match the well results. )and morphology and lateral porosity changes are evident. A greater amount of detail is observable for a given layer compared to 2igures &.%-&.&. "he background acoustic impedance has a low-fre#uency trend that is seen as a gradual increase in acoustic impedance with depth.

Example !
Reservoir "roperties from Inverted AI Results# $A%I&'()CE'TER)"orosit* rom Inverted AI for the +ellow Sand interval in the ,rsa field

Figure 3.1: &rossplot of 'coustic Impe ance, (ensit!, an )amma Ra! $color%. This crossplot from a eviate "ell in the eep"ater )*+ ,rsa fiel sho"s a clear san tren that is ifferent from the shale tren . The san s $"hite to !ello" to orange, re , an green colors% are lo"er in acoustic impe ance an ensit! than the shales $green to -lue% in the upper right of the plot. 'n impe ance of a-out 23,... g/cc0ft/sec can -e use as a cutoff -et"een fairl! clean to clean san s versus san ! shales to shales. Impe ances -elo" 23,... g/cc0ft/sec can -e cali-rate on the -asis of a linear tren -et"een 'I an ensit! $"hich is easil! converte to ensit! porosit!%. This tren can -e use to compute porosit! from 'I.

Figure 3.2: +ap of 1orosit! compute from Inverte 'I an &rossplot ata. This porosit! map for the 2ello" san reservoir in the ,rsa fiel sho"s clear patterns that in icate the san s are fault -oun e an have t"o provenances 3 the san s in the lo"er half of the plot pro-a-l! came from the east-northeast, "hile the san s in the upper half pro-a-l! came from the north-north"est. The porosit! tren s closel! match the "ell ata. The 'I anomalies have -een correctl! positione ue to the removal of most of the "avelet phenomena $e.g., tuning an si elo-e events%. &onversion of the 'I ata to porosit! for a given 4one provi es a itional information a-out the #ualit! of the san s.

(igure 9/9: ,inimum Seismic Amplitudes over target 1one/ !he seismic amplitude anomalies are not in the same position nor the same si1e and shape as the inversion results indicate/ !he .aults are not as clearly de.ined and the sands to the south do not appear to 0e .ault 0ounded/

)pecial thanks to (r. 4obert =orbin for editing and to 4e/ 7c@inley for reviewing this article.