Model‐uncertainty quantification in seismic tomography: method and applications
Количественная оценка неопределенности модели в сейсмической томографии: метод и приложения
2013-08-19
SCID: 54.1/rqgxnvwc
Discuss with AI
model uncertainty quantificationseismic depth imagingseismic tomographyseismic velocity modelsstructural uncertainty
Figures from the paper
Abstract (AI)
ABSTRACT Uncertainty is inherent in every stage of the oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) business and understanding uncertainty enables mitigation of E&P risks. Therefore, quantification of uncertainty is beneficial for decision making and uncertainty should be managed along with other aspects of business. For example, decisions on well positioning should take into account the structural uncertainty related to the non‐uniqueness of a velocity model used to create a seismic depth image. Moreover, recent advances in seismic acquisition technology, such as full‐azimuth, long‐offset techniques, combined with high‐accuracy migration algorithms such as reverse‐time migration, can greatly enhance images even in highly complex structural settings, provided that an Earth velocity model with sufficient resolution is available. Modern practices often use non‐seismic observation to better constrain velocity model building. However, even with additional information, there is still ambiguity in our velocity models caused by the inherent non‐uniqueness of the seismic experiment. Many different Earth velocity models exist that match the observed seismic (and well) data and this ambiguity grows rapidly away from well controls. The result is uncertainty in the seismic velocity model and the true positions of events in our images. Tracking these uncertainties can lead to significant improvement in the quantification of exploration risk (e.g., trap failure when well‐logging data are not representative), drilling risk (e.g., dry wells and abnormal pore pressure) and volumetric uncertainties. Whilst the underlying ambiguity can never be fully eradicated, a quantified measure of these uncertainties provides a valuable tool for understanding and evaluating the risks and for development of better risk‐mitigation plans and decision‐making strategies.
Key Findings
1
Although the underlying ambiguity cannot be eliminated, explicit uncertainty measures support improved risk-mitigation planning and decision-making.
2
High-resolution velocity models are required for full-azimuth, long-offset acquisition and reverse-time migration to produce reliable images in complex geological settings.
3
Model uncertainty increases rapidly away from well controls, producing uncertainty in velocity estimates and the true positions of subsurface events.
4
Quantifying velocity-model uncertainty can improve assessment of exploration, drilling, and volumetric risks, including trap failure, dry wells, abnormal pore pressure, and reserve uncertainty.
5
Seismic velocity models remain non-unique even when seismic observations are supplemented with well and other non-seismic data.
Research Object
Earth velocity models used in seismic depth imaging
Research Subject
Uncertainty arising from the non-uniqueness of seismic velocity models and its implications for event-position, exploration, drilling, and volumetric risk
Publication Details
Publication Date
2013-08-19
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Access Type
Author Information
Download PDF
Subscribe to digest