Initial - Model - Velocity and Future Work

J. Earth Syst. Sci.
(2021)130:61 Ó Indian Academy of Sciences

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-020-01543-5 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789(
).,-volV)
Application of model based post-stack inversion

in the characterization of reservoir sands containing
porous, tight and mixed facies: A case study
from the Central Indus Basin, Pakistan
MUHAMMAD TOQEER1, AAMIR ALI1,* , TIAGO M ALVES2, ASHAR KHAN1,

ZUBAIR3 and MATLOOB HUSSAIN1
1
Department of Earth Sciences, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad 45320, Pakistan.
2
3D Seismic Lab, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, CardiA University, CardiA CF10 3AT, UK.
3
Software Integrated Solutions, Schlumberger, Pakistan.
*Corresponding author. e-mail: aamirali.geo@gmail.com aakgeo82@qau.edu.pk
MS received 7 May 2020; revised 1 November 2020; accepted 10 November 2020
Porosity is a key parameter for reservoir evaluation. Inferring the porosity from seismic data is often
challenging and prone to uncertainties due to number of factors. The main aim of this paper is to show the
applicability of seismic inversion on old vintage seismic data to map spatial porosity at reservoir level.
3D-seismic and wireline log data are used to map the reservoir properties of the Lower Goru productive
sands in the Gambat Latif block, Central Indus Basin, Pakistan. The Lower Goru formation was inter-
preted with the help of seismic and well data. Interpreted horizons are thus further used in model-based
seismic inversion techniques to map the spatial distribution of porosity. Well-log data are used in the
construction of low acoustic impedance models. Calibration of reservoir porosity with inverted acoustic
impedance is achieved through well-log data. The results from model-based inversion reasonably estimate
the porosity distribution within the C-sand interval of the Lower Goru Member. After post-stack
inversion, the porosity values at wells Tajjal-01, Tajjal-02 and Tajjal-03 are 10%, 8% and 12%, respec-
tively. Porosity values calculated from post-stack inversion at the corresponding well locations are in good
agreement with the borehole-derived porosity.
Keywords. Indus basin; post-stack inversion; model-based inversion; reservoir modelling.
1. Introduction (Chen and Sidney 1997; Lindseth 1979; King 1990;

Hearts et al. 2002; Chopra and Marfurt 2007).
Reservoir characterization comprises the estima- Interpolations and other geostatistical techniques
tion of key reservoir properties such as porosity, also help to eDciently link seismic, well-log, core
permeability, upper and lower reservoir bound- data to Beld observations, improving our under-
aries, their lateral and vertical extent, hetero- standing of the local geology (Caers et al. 2001;
geneity, and type and volume of subsurface Cuids Mukerji et al. 2001; Walls et al. 2004; Bosch et al.
(Avseth et al. 2005; Bacon et al. 2007). Seismic and 2010; Azevedo et al. 2017).
well-log data are typically used to estimate reser- Seismic inversion techniques are used to retrieve
voir properties at different scale(s) of investigation acoustic impedance from seismic reCection proBles
61 Page 2 of 21 J. Earth Syst. Sci. (2021)130:61
and 3D volumes, spatial distribution of deposi- (de Terra et al. 1936; Williams 1959; Quadri 1986;
tional facies, local petrophysical properties and Zaigham and Mallick 2000). The presence of the
distinct reservoir parameters (Angeleri and Carpi Lower Goru Formation, a proven reservoir, has
1982; Yao and Gan 2000; Walls et al. 2004; Bosch been demonstrated in the region. However,
et al. 2009; Grana and Dvorkin 2011). Seismic, important variations in the thickness and reservoir
well-log and inversion data are later combined to properties of the Lower Goru Formation are also
derive the different physical parameters (i.e., reported within the Indus Basin (Khattak et al.
porosity and lithological information) of key 1999).
reservoir intervals (Landa et al. 2000; Yao and Gan The aim of this paper is to map the spatial
2000; Leite and Vidal 2011; Simm and Bacon porosity of a reservoir interval using a limited
2014). dataset. Old vintage 3D-seismic data are used to
The beneBts of seismic inversion include an accomplish this task. Certain uncertainties associ-
improved seismic resolution (Delaplanche et al. ated with porosity estimation include the inherent
1982), and better seismic interpretation owing to limitation of seismic techniques, i.e., seismic reso-
the fact that layer-oriented impedance displays lution, applied seismic data processing algorithms,
more complete constraints for reservoir models limitations of seismic inversion techniques them-
(Ashcroft 2011). For post-stack data, the main selves, and the seismic character of the local geol-
inversion techniques are sparse-spike, model-based ogy. The only control points are the sparse well
and coloured inversion, which are based on differ- data used to validate the inversion process. The
ent algorithms (Silva et al. 2004; Veeken and Silva results thus obtained are subjective to discussion
2004; Veeken and Rauch-Davies 2006; Veeken and criticism, but the inversion process we present
2007; Ashcroft 2011; Wang 2017). leads to the best results when compared to all the
Post-stack seismic inversion methods utilize available techniques.
post-stack seismic data. Appropriate processing Seismic data was used to map key seismic-
parameters are required for amplitude and phase stratigraphic horizons, and to delineate structural
preservation with higher signal-to-noise ratios and stratigraphic features of relevance in the study
(Simm and Bacon 2014). Filtered lower frequencies area, the Gambat-Latif block of the Central Indus
in the processed data should be compensated by Basin (Bgure 1). Seismic and well-log information
incorporating low frequency models for inversion from three distinct wells, Tajjal-01, Tajjal-02 and
(Sams and Carter 2017). Likewise, the absence of Tajjal-03 (Bgure 2) were used to complete our
higher frequencies due to absorption should also be inversion method. Well-log data comprised gamma
considered (Vecken and Da Silva 2004). Due to the ray, resistivity, caliper, density, and sonic logs.
band-limited nature of post-stack seismic data, the Well-log data were used to tie seismic to well
absence of higher and lower frequencies may result information, and to document the spatial vari-
in ambiguities when resolving thin beds and esti- ability of the main reservoir interval (Lower Goru
mating local elastic properties (Zhang et al. 2012; Sand). A geo-statistical relationship was also
Rosa 2018). Nevertheless, despite the inherent established, at the three well locations, between
limitations of post-stack inversion techniques, their acoustic impedance and porosity. Model-based
applicability and popularity are growing for a post-stack impedance and geo-statistical relation-
range of geophysical and geological studies (Li ships are thus used in this work as ‘external’
2014; Verma et al. 2018; Gogoi and Chatterjee attributes to estimate reservoir porosity.
2019; Singha et al. 2019; Teixeira and Maul 2020).
Seismic inversion techniques are often applied in
the different basins worldwide to Bnd the acoustic 2. Geological setting
impedance and reservoir parameters (Alavi 2004;
Leite and Vidal 2011). In several Asian basins Geologically, the Gambat-Latif block is part of the
seismic inversion techniques have been successfully Central Indus Basin of Pakistan, as shown in the
applied to characterize hydrocarbon bearing strata tectonic map in Bgure 1. It is located in the
(Karbalaali et al. 2013; Sinha and Mohanty 2015; Khairpur district of Sindh, Pakistan. The spatial
Kumar et al. 2016; Das et al. 2017; Iravani et al. coverage of the 3D seismic data interpreted in this
2017; Jafari et al. 2017). paper, and the relative location of wells Tajjal-01,
Owing to its hydrocarbon potential, the Indus Tajjal-02 and Tajjal-03, are shown in Bgure 2. The
basin has been extensively studied since the 1930’s study area comprises a series of horst and graben
J. Earth Syst. Sci. (2021)130:61 Page 3 of 21 61
Figure 1. Generalized tectonic map of the study area (modiBed from Kazmi and Rana 1982). The study area, the Gambat–Latif
block with marked well locations (Tajjal-01, Tajjal-02 and Tajjal-03), is part of the Central Indus Basin, Pakistan.
Figure 2. Spatial coverage of seismic and well-log data used in this study. The coordinate system used is the Universal
Transverse Mercator 42N.
structures at Paleocene level, extending into the Lower Goru Formation of Cretaceous age
Cretaceous strata. The main reservoirs intervals of (Bgure 3). The Lower Goru Formation is further
the Central and Lower Indus Basin are part of subdivided into ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ intervals.
interpretation (Akhter et al. 2015), to rock physics

modelling (Azeem et al. 2017; Toqeer and Ali
2017), AVA analyses (Ali et al. 2016; Anwer et al.
2017) and seismic inversions (Ali et al. 2018).
3. Methodology
For this study only 3D seismic and well-log data

are available. 3D seismic data was acquired during
2005 by BGP International via a Vibroseis source
for data acquisition. The processed 3D data set has
a bin spacing of 25925 m, with sampling at 2 ms
and a dominant frequency of 35 Hz at reservoir
level. The processed 3D seismic data are time-
migrated and zero-phased. The acquisition and
processing parameters are outlined in the table 1.
Well-log data from three wells are used in this
work. These wells were drilled to variable total
depths in the years 2007–2008. The total drilled
depth of Tajjal-01 is 4506 m, Tajjal-02 is 3836 m
and Tajjal-03 well is 3800 m, respectively. Only
Tajjal-01 well is producing gas at present, while
Tajjal-02 and Tajjal-03 are reported suspended and
abandoned. Prior to well-log data analysis the
quality of data was checked based on the analysis
Figure 3. SimpliBed stratigraphic chart for the Lower Indus of their calliper logs. The necessary corrections
Basin. The studied reservoir interval (C-sand) is part of the were made prior the successive calculations. The
Lower Goru Formation, which is Early Cretaceous in age.
Stratigraphic chart is modiBed from Abbasi et al. (2016).
methodology can be divided into three parts. A
comprehensive summary of main steps involved in
this study is given as follows.
These sandy intervals are proven reservoirs
(Ahmed et al. 2004), and are limited to the east and
west by regional NW-trending extensional faults 3.1 Seismic interpretation
(Kazmi and Abbasi 2008).
A regional stratigraphic chart for the Central Seismic interpretation is the starting point in
and Lower Indus Basins is displayed in Bgure 3. reservoir characterization (Simm and Bacon 2014).
The Cretaceous stratigraphic succession comprises It is paramount to tie well to seismic information to
the Sembar, Goru, Parh, MoghalKot, Fort Munro correctly interpret any relevant stratigraphic hori-
and Pab Formations (Afzal et al. 2009; Abbasi zons. A well tie not only correlates the geology with
et al. 2016). The Sembar Formation is a proven seismic data but also assists zero-phase checking,
source rock throughout the Indus Basin (Robison horizon identiBcation and wavelet extraction,
et al. 1999; Wandrey et al. 2004; Aziz et al. 2018). amongst other parameters (White 2003; Bacon et al.
In addition, the Intra Lower Goru shales of Cre- 2007; Simm and Bacon 2014; Liner 2016). For these
taceous age have shown secondary, but important, reasons, synthetic seismograms were produced in
source potential (Wandrey et al. 2004). this work by convolving reCectivity from the digi-
Depositional environments, diagenetic changes, tised acoustic and density logs from well Tajjal-01
shale intercalations and shale distribution styles with the extracted seismic wavelet. The resulting
are key factors generating reservoir heterogeneity synthetic seismogram is correlated with seismic
within the Lower Goru Formation (Berger et al. inline 1459 at the exact location of the Tajjal-01 well
2009; Ali et al. 2016). Hence, reservoir properties in (Bgure 4). In addition, horizon picking, and fault
the Lower Goru Formation have been estimated interpretation helped to characterize the spatial
in the published literature using a multitude of distribution of horizons and structural features in
techniques, from detailed structural/stratigraphic the study area (Bgure 5). In this work, the 3D seismic
Table 1. Key recording and processing parameters of the 3D seismic dataset used in this study.
Key 3D seismic data acquisition parameters

Source Recording parameters
Vibroseis 4 Sampling interval 2 ms
No. of sweeps 4 Record length 6s
Sweep frequency sweep length 8–80 Hz Geometry
Sweep type 16 s Receiver line interval 300 m
Sweep taper Linear Source line onterval 350 m
Receiver parameters
Number of geophones 2912
Geophone array Rectangular
Processing parameters
Vibroseis minimum phase conversion Q phase and amplitude compensation 3D prestack migration velocity analysis
Amplitude adjustment 3D surface consistent spiking deconvolution 3D full isotropic prestack time migration
Static correction Spectral Cattening (6–80 Hz) Foot print noise attenuation
3D FK coning Blter in cross Velocity analysis 3D FXY Random noise attenuation
spread domain
Amplitude vs. oAset corrections 3D surface consistent residual static Filter equivalent spectral balancing
computation and application to preserve amplitude
3D surface consistent OAset regularization DMO Time variant Blter
amplitude corrections
interpretation was performed and used as a geolog- a

F¼ ; ð3Þ
ical model for seismic inversion. um
where a is a constant and m is cementation factor,
3.2 Petrophysical analysis and interpretation respectively. The values of a and m are taken to be
respectively equal to 1 and 2 for sandstones. Once
Petrophysical analyses for the C-sand interval of
S w is calculated, hydrocarbon saturation (S h ) can
the Lower Goru Member were carried out in this
be calculated as (Tiab and Donaldson 2015)
work to determine the relevant reservoir parame-
ters. Different reservoir parameters such as volume Sh ¼ 1 Sw : ð4Þ
of shale (V sh ), eAective porosity (ue ), water satu-
ration (S w ), etc., were estimated by using empirical Table 2 outlines the distinct reservoir para-
relationships from well-log data. EAective porosity meters calculated with the help of petrophysical
ue is calculated using the following mathematical analyses.
equation (Tiab and Donaldson 2015)
ue ¼ utot ð1 Vsh Þ; ð1Þ
3.3 Seismic inversion
where utot denotes the total porosity calculated form
sonic, density and neutron porosity logs, Seismic inversion is the process of transforming
respectively. V sh is calculated using the gamma seismic interface properties into layer properties.
ray log. Similarly, S w is calculated using Archie’s Hence, seismic inversion greatly helps the inter-
equation as given below (Tiab and Donaldson 2015) pretation and quantiBcation of reservoir properties
and their spatial distribution (Yilmaz 2001; Ash-
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
n FRw
croft 2011). The generalised workCow for seismic
Sw ¼ : ð2Þ inversion applied in this study is based on Ali et al.
Rt
(2018). Caveats associated with our approach are
In equation (2), Rw and Rt denote the resistivity brieCy discussed in Lindseth (1979), and Olden-
of water and true resistivity of the formation burg et al. (1983, 1986).
calculated from resistivity logs. F is referred to as For this study we applied a model-based inver-
formation factor as calculated from the following sion (Russell and Dommico 1988), which is a type
equation (Tiab and Donaldson 2015) of deterministic inversion. Model-based inversion is
Figure 4. Synthetic seismogram at the location of the Tajjl-01 well, superimposed on seismic inline 1459.
Figure 5. Time-structure map of the C-sand interval of the Lower Goru Formation interpreted from 3D seismic data. The well
locations are marked on the map. Fault polygons are drawn along with contours to highlight the main structural trends in the
Gambat–Latif block. The colour bar shows time values in seconds.
a broadband inversion technique that uses an ini- The generalised workCow employed for model-
tial acoustic impedance model based on well-log based seismic inversion is adapted from Simm and
data together with seismic-driven velocity infor- Bacon (2014).
mation and interpreted seismic horizons. This
initial acoustic impedance model is changed, com- 3.4 Inversion methodology
pared to the original seismic data, and sequentially
updated until the misBt between the synthetic The model-based post stack seismic inversion
seismogram (obtained from convolving the wavelet applied in this study used seismic and well-log
with acoustic impedance), and seismic data is data. A standard seismic data processing sequence,
minimised (Veeken 2007; Ashcroft 2011; Simm and aimed at true amplitude preservation, was app-
Bacon 2014). Several constraints are applied to lied. The output was time-migrated, zero-phase
restrict the inversion solution in a geological sense. seismic data with a 35 Hz dominant frequency.
Log-to-seismic calibration was completed by using
(3640–3660 m)
check-shot and sonic logs.
Zone 2
10.2%
7.4%
27%
37%
63%
The essential steps of this method involved the
completion of well-to-seismic ties, seismic inter-
Tajjal-03
pretation, the preparation of an initial acoustic

impedance model, and wavelet extraction from
(3500–3540 m)
seismic data for use in subsequent signal inversion.

Zone 1
0.071 X-m
Well data were used to construct the initial model
14.3%
318oF
through the inclusion of a low-frequency trend.
9.2%
70oF
36%
33%
67%
Well ties were used for wavelet scaling (e.g., Simm
and Bacon 2014) and to complete the necessary
(3680–3730 m)
adjustments to well ties for a range of stratigraphic

Zone 3
9.8%
6.8%
28%
42%
58%
intervals. The top and base of horizons were sup-
plied to the inversion process to avoid any tuning
eAects and to properly map the spatial variability
of stratigraphic features; otherwise the sparse well-
(3620–3640 m)
log coverage in the study area would result in the

Tajjal-02
Zone 2
11.2%
6.4%
‘tuning’ of relevant stratigraphic features into

42%
35%
65%
single seismic reCections.

Since the gathering of accurate wavelet shapes
(and scales) is very important for reliable and
(3530–3570 m)
realistic inversion results (Edgar and van der Baan

Table 2. Petrophysical properties of selected zones in the C-sand interval of the Lower Goru Formation.
Zone 1
0.088 X-m
2009; Ziolkowski et al. 1998), extracted wavelets

were carefully selected and averaged to their phase
10.7%
315oF
6.8%
69oF
36%
47%
53%
and amplitude. As the spatial variability and depth

of the interval of interest are relatively small, it
(3625–3650 m)
was reasonable to use an averaged wavelet in this

Zone 3
work.
10.3%
11.5%
26%
16%
23%
77%
Low-frequency models were built by using well-

log data and interpreted horizons from seismic
proBles or volumes. Low-frequency merging was
(3570–3600 m)
performed to better characterize realistic strati-

Tajjal-01
graphic features, their lateral extension and

Zone 2
12.1%
13.1%
39%
28%
72%
8%
boundaries in the background geological model, a

step necessary to achieve realistic impedance
inversions (Sams and Saussus 2013; Li and Zhao
2014). It is worth stressing that band-limited seis-
(3480–3500 m)
mic data do not contain the original low frequency

Zone 1
0.069 X-m
spectrum of the acquired signal, as it is Bltered out

14.6%
10.5%
322oF
(‘cut-oA’) during processing (Ray and Chopra

82oF
27%
12%
27%
73%
2015; Azevedo and Soares 2017). Without this

lower frequency content, the quantitative predic-
Average hydrocarbon saturation (Sh)
tion of reservoir properties is somewhat inaccurate

Average eAective porosity (PHIE)
Resistivity of mud Bltrate (RmB)
Maximum recorded temperature
and non-unique (Pendrel 2015; Sams and Carter

Average sonic porosity (PROS)
Average water saturation (Sw)

Average volume of shale (Vos)
2017).
Surface temperature (ST)
Average porosity (PHIT)
Low-frequency models can also be prepared by

converting seismic velocities into acoustic impe-
Zone/Rock property
dance and density data (Dutta and Khazanehdari

2006). However, the low frequency models con-
structed using seismic velocities are susceptible to
important interpretation biases because of the
(BHT)
noisy nature of seismic velocity (Bacon et al. 2007).

Also, they require the definition of a calibration
factor between wells that cross the interpreted interval of Lower Goru member (Bgure 6). Differ-
seismic volumes or proBles (Sams and Saussus ent petrophysical properties for each zone are listed
2013). in table 2. The volume of shale varies within the
Due to the unavailability of pre-stack data, it multiple sandy intervals of the Lower Goru For-
was impossible to prepare a realistic velocity model mation. These zones exhibit variable porosity val-
in this work. Hence, a broadband impedance model ues due to the presence of shale intercalations.
was prepared using well-log data and interpreted Zone 3 is only delineated in the Tajjal-01 and
horizons on the 3D seismic volume, thus helping Tajjal-02 well. Since shale intervals within the
to interpolate any relevant information between sands can be of the laminated, structural, dispersed
wells. types, or any combination of these aforementioned
Seismic inversion resulted in the generation of types, their distribution greatly aAects the porosity
acoustic impedance proBle, which was further used of the C-sand interval (Ali et al. 2016).
as an input to estimate the desired reservoir The cross-plot of eAective porosity, volume of
attributes, i.e., porosity. For the model-based shale and acoustic impedance in Bgure 7 shows
inversion method, a starting model constructed important details about the lithology of the C-sand
by interpolating well data along the interpreted interval in all three interpreted wells. Overall, sand
seismic horizons, is changed and iteratively layers are composed of porous (sand), tight (sand)
checked against the seismic data. The estimated and mixed facies (sand-shale intercalations)
impedance was convolved with the extracted (Bgure 7). High eAective porosity and low impe-
seismic wavelet. The comparison of modelled and dance are representative of hydrocarbon-bearing
seismic trace yielded the error. The inversion porous sandstone. Sands record low eAective
procedure is stopped in case of small calculated porosity with relatively high acoustic impedance,
errors, otherwise the initial model could be whereas low eAective porosity and an intermediate
updated until the calculated error was small range in acoustic impedance represent intercala-
enough. tions of sand and shale (Bgure 7).
We have also applied the Lambda–Mu–Rho
(LMR) cross-plot technique to eDciently discrimi-
3.5 Geostatistical analyses nate between different facies (Goodway et al. 1997;
Das and Chatterjee 2018). In particular, Lamb-
Geostatistical techniques relate different parame- da–Rho corresponds to the bulk impedance (in-
ters of interest to reservoir characterization. compressibility) and Mu–Rho corresponds to the
Reservoir parameters derived from different data shear impedance (rigidity), and both are highly
sets, and of different scales, are compared to reach sensitive to the eAect of Cuid. In hydrocarbon
a meaningful geological interpretation (Kelkar sands, Lambda-Rho shows low incompressibility
and Perez 2002). The spatial distribution of values (Goodway et al. 1997; Das and Chatterjee
reservoir parameters is usually computed and 2018). Figure 8 represents the result from the
quantiBed by geostatistical techniques (Pyrcz and application of the LMR cross-plot technique on
Deutsch 2014). A linear relationship between well- Tajjal-01, Tajjal-02 and Tajjal-03. Gas sand, tight
and seismic-driven attributes, namely acoustic sand, shaly gas sand and shale facies are identiBed
impedance and porosity, was established in this based on the cut-oA values of Lambda–Rho and
work to quantify the spatial distribution of Mu-Rho (Goodway et al. 1997; Bgure 8).
porosity in the entire seismic cube (Doyen 1988;
Grana and Dvorkin 2011). Afterwards, estimated
porosity was calibrated at the corresponding well
locations. 4.2 Model-based seismic inversion
The generalised workCow for our model-based

inversion is adapted from Simm and Bacon (2014).
4. Results Wavelet extraction is a fundamental step in seis-
mic inversion; hence, wavelets at their corre-
4.1 Petrophysics sponding well locations were extracted from the
C-sand interval of the Lower Goru Formation. The
In this study, complete suites of wire-line data are shape and characteristic amplitude (and phase) of
used to delineate reservoir zones within the C-sand wavelets do not change within the area of interest
Figure 6. Well-log display and petrophysical analysis of the C-sand interval of the Lower Goru Formation encountered in the
Tajjal-01, Tajjal-02 and Tajjal-03 wells. Different reservoir intervals within the Lower Goru Formation are marked by the red
rectangles. In each well-log panel, the Brst track represents lithological data, the second track represents the resistivity data, and
the third track represents the porosity data. The remainder of the tracks present derived petrophysical properties such as the
volume of shale, porosity, and water saturation. The high values of the deep laterolog (LLD) curve suggest that water saturation
is low and hydrocarbon saturation is high despite the moderate values of eAective porosity estimated in this work.
Figure 7. Cross-plot of acoustic impedance vs. eAective porosity (in fraction) for the C-sand interval based on all available
well-log data. Different types of reservoir sands and sand shale facies are recognized based on the gamma ray information.
(Bgure 9). Therefore, it was thought reasonable to at the well locations, prepared by convolving the
use an average wavelet (based on our extracted average wavelet with the corresponding acoustic
wavelets) in the post-stack seismic inversion. impedance, are superimposed to the seismic proBle
The average wavelet is shown in the right in Bgure 10.
column of Bgure 9 together with amplitude and Figure 11 shows the low frequency model used
phase spectrum. The shape of the average wavelet for the model-based inversion implemented in this
resembles that of the extracted wavelet. Figure 10 study. This low frequency model assures the
shows an arbitrary seismic line passing through the inversion is consistent with the background geo-
three interpreted wells. The synthetic seismograms logical information by including sub-seismic
A comparison of acoustic impedance derived

from well- and model-based inversions is shown in
Bgure 12. The acoustic impedance match is good
within the C-sand interval; hence, the inverted
acoustic impedance can be used to quantify reser-
voir properties in the study area.
Figure 13 shows the inverted acoustic impedance
for a cross-section joining the three exploration
wells considered in this work. The upper part of the
Lower Goru Formation shows very high impe-
dance. The B- and D-sand intervals show higher
acoustic impedance when compared to the C-sand
interval (Bgure 13). The spatial variation of
Figure 8. Cross-plot of Lambda–rho vs. Mu–Rho for the acoustic impedance within the C-sand interval is
C-sand interval utilizing all available well-log data. Different also characteristically smooth (Bgure 13).
types of facies are recognized based on the cut-oA values of In a density section extracted along the arbitrary
Lambda–rho vs. Mu–Rho.
line (Bgure 14), the light green and light blue
colours are representative of density values of
frequencies in the Bnal computation. This stabilizes
2.5–2.6 g/cm3, typical of porous sand layers. A
the inversion workCow by introducing temporal
sand layer with high density (*2.8 g/cm3) is
limits and spatial variations to the interpreted
observed in the upper part of the Lower Goru
seismic horizons (Dutta and Khazanehdari 2006;
Formation. It is observed that density is low in the
Pendrel 2015; Azevedo and Soares 2017). Due to
B- and C-sand intervals at Tajjal-01, while it
the non-uniqueness of seismic inversion, higher-
gradually increases laterally to show relatively
than and lower-than-real seismic frequencies will
higher values in the vicinity of wells Tajjal-02 and
appear in the inverted data. Therefore, it is nec-
Tajjal-03. These two wells consequently show a
essary to use a band-pass Blter before one compares
relative decrease in porosity. Density is low in the
the inverted outputs (Veeken 2007; Li and Zhao
vicinity of Tajjal-01 and increases eastwards, likely
2014).
Figure 9. Wavelet extracted from the seismic data at the respective well locations. The column to the right shows the average of
corresponding wavelets, power spectrum and phase spectrum. Despite the fact that the main lobes of wavelets appear similar,
whereas their side lobes are more variable. All wavelets show similar characteristics in their corresponding power spectrum and
phase spectrum plots (2nd and 3rd rows).
Figure 10. Well-to-seismic ties extracted along the traverse crossing the Tajjal-01, Tajjal-02 and Tajjal-03 wells. Synthetic
seismograms were constructed in this Bgure by using an average wavelet. The average wavelet is good approximation for the
seismic wavelet, as shown by the very good match between the synthetic seismic wavelets and the seismic section.
Figure 11. Low frequency model input for model based seismic inversion applied in this work along a seismic line crossing the
three interpreted wells.
in association with harder lithologies. High density logs is required to plot acoustic impedance against
may represent large matrix volumes, i.e., a smaller eAective porosity and generate a geostatistical
percentage of pores; hence, a low eAective porosity function. Upscaling reduces the number of samples
may exist but Blled with saline water or mineral in the well logs. The best-Bt line, in a least-square
Cuids, instead of oil and gas. sense, shows a good correlation. The inverse linear
relationship between acoustic impedance and
porosity is well established in the geological con-
4.3 Porosity estimation
text of the Indus Basin. This linear relationship is
Figure 15 shows acoustic impedance cross-plot also valid on a seismic scale. The linear relationship
against eAective porosity. An upscaling of the well between normalized acoustic impedance and ue
Figure 12. Comparison between post-stack inversion (red) and Bltered acoustic impedance (blue) derived from wells Tajjal-01,
Tajjal-02 and Tajjal-03. Black curves on the right-hand side of each panel show the difference in acoustic impedance amongst
well-log and model-based inversions.
Figure 13. Model-based inverted acoustic impedance proBle extracted through wells Tajjal-01, Tajjal-02 and Tajjal-03. The
position of key stratigraphic markers is shown.
with a correlation coefBcient (R) value of 0.75 or intervals along an arbitrary line. The inverted
75% is, for the study area: cross-section for eAective porosity in Bgure 16
shows variations in eAective porosity from top to
ue ¼ 0:39 AI þ 0:40: ð5Þ bottom, with relatively high values within the
C-sand interval, i.e., *10% at Tajjal-01, decreas-
Here, AI is the inverted impedance from the ing in the Tajjal-02 and Tajjal-03 wells. Different
model-based inversion. The root mean square ranges of porosities are also clear for the C-sand
(RMS) error of Btting is 0.0162 and computed by interval. These lower porosities are indicative of
using the relationship from Barnston (1992). tight sandy intervals with shale intercalations,
Acoustic impedance is further used to estimate whereas in other zones porosity is relatively high
the eAective porosity for the different sandy within the C-sands.
Figure 14. Density section extracted through wells Tajjal-01, Tajjal-02 and Tajjal-03.
Figure 15. A cross-plot of normalized acoustic impedance and eAective porosity (in fraction) based on all available well-log data
(Tajjal-01, Tajjal-02 and Tajjal-03) to develop a linear geostatistical relationship. The normalized acoustic impedance is
calculated by dividing each sample of acoustic impedance by the maximum of the absolute value. Such a normalized value is used
to limit dynamic range of acoustic impedance from 1 to 1.
5. Discussion Since well and seismic data map different aspects

of reservoir properties at different scale, their
Although well data provide high vertical resolution direct calibration might lead to unsatisfactory
and the best estimates for reservoir porosity, the results. Uncertainties may occur if the lithofacies
sparse coverage of wells makes it hard to reason- within depositional facies are not well recognized
ably estimate porosity in between wells. Seismic and incorporated in subsequent stages of data
inversion helps to estimate the spatial distribution integration. In this study, post-stack seismic
of eAective porosity in reservoir intervals con- inversion shows good result because absolute
strained by well data (Pyrcz and Deutsch 2014). acoustic impedance can capture the variations in
The integration of petrophysics, geo-statistics, sand-shale distribution. The accuracy of the result
seismic surface data and seismic inversion addres- is judged around the well locations; away from the
ses the problem of porosity estimation (Dolberg well location the uncertainty will creep into the
et al. 2000; Avseth et al. 2005; Grana and Dvorkin results depending on the pattern and distribution
2011; Adekanle and Enikanselu 2013; Das and of lithofacies. Sorting, grain distribution, reservoir
Chatterjee 2016). connectivity and compartmentalization may
Figure 16. Porosity section based on model-based acoustic impedance inversion along a proBle crossing wells Tajjal-01, Tajjal-02
and Tajjal-3. Porosity values are represented in terms of fraction.
Figure 17. Acoustic impedance (AI) map of C-sand derived from the seismic inversion results for the Gambat–Latif block.
further result in additional uncertainty. Since in detail also helps to quantify reservoir compart-
our case sands are regularly distributed, though mentalization, sand distribution and porosity
their thickness varies, our post-stack results are variations.
reliable. By using an established geostatistical relation-
Figure 17 is the main result of the model-based ship (Bgure 15) the estimated acoustic impedance
inversion completed in this study. This Bgure is of the C-sand interval (Bgure 17) was converted
constrained by well-log data, and shows a good Bt into porosity values (Bgure 18). Porosity in the
between borehole-derived and inversion-derived C-sand varies from 1% (cyan colour) to 16% (yel-
acoustic impedance at consecutive wells. The lat- low colour) which is in agreement with the porosity
eral continuity of the C-Sand interval is well cap- values estimated from well-log data. The porosity
tured by the inversion methodology. Furthermore, distribution varies considerably at the three well
porosity distribution estimated from inversion locations considered in this study, but there is an
within the reservoir interval is realistic when excellent match between the petrophysical- and
compared to the geology of the area. The latter inversion-based porosities in the Tajjal-01 and
Figure 18. Porosity distribution within the C-sand derived from the seismic inversion results for the Gambat–Latif block. The
porosity is represented in terms of fraction.
Figure 19. Cross-plot between acoustic impedance and porosity reCectivity with a linear regression Bt based on all available
well-log data. The correlation coefBcient for this cross-plot is 84% and value of n (slope) is -0.095641.
Figure 20. Acoustic impedance and porosity wavelet. The porosity wavelet is obtained by multiplying the value of n to the
acoustic impedance wavelet, and shows opposite trend to acoustic impedance wavelet.
Figure 21. Porosity proBle based on the direct seismic inversion porosity estimation technique of Kumar et al. (2016) extracted
in a cross-section along wells Tajjal-01, Tajjal-02 and Tajjal-3. The porosity is represented in terms of fraction.
Tajjal-02 wells. Within the C-sand interval, the

porosity varies from 4% to 16%, with narrow pat-
ches of lower porosity (tight sand) occurring in its
interior.
We also used a direct inversion to estimate
porosity in post stack seismic data, a technique
proposed by (Rasmussen and Maver 1996). The
mathematical details and procedure to accomplish
the results is outlined in Kumar et al. (2016) and
Rasmussen and Maver (1996). This technique lin-
early maps the porosity, and requires the compu-
tation of acoustic impedance reCectivity (r z ) and
porosity reCectivity (r u ) obtained via equations (5
and 6) of Kumar et al. (2016). In particular, r u is
calculated by utilizing the porosity derived from
the porosity logs as given by Figure 22. Porosity distribution in the C-sand derived from
the direct seismic inversion porosity estimation technique of
1 uiþ1 ui Kumar et al. (2016) for the Gambat–Latif block. The porosity
ru ¼ log log ; ð6Þ
2 1 uiþ1 1 ui is represented in terms of fraction.
where the numerators and denominators of each

multiplied with the extracted acoustic impedance
logarithmic terms represent the porosities and
wavelet to obtain the porosity wavelet, as shown in
matrix of the respective sample points within the
Bgure 20. This porosity wavelet is further utilized for
well. The relation between rz and ru is given as
the direct porosity estimation using the model-based
(Kumar et al. 2016):
inversion technique described in this paper (Bgures 21
rz ¼ nru : ð7Þ and 22). A comparison in terms of actual and
predicted porosities obtained by both inversion
Here, n is the correlation factor (slope) obtained via techniques, together with their RMS errors, is also
Btting a linear regression relation in a cross-plot presented in Bgures 23 and 24 for each well.
between r u and r z . Figure 19 shows the cross-plot It is important to mention that porosity and its
between the r u and r z with a correlation coefBcient of spatial distribution is governed by geological fac-
84% and a slope of –0.095641. The value of n is then tors. Depositional setting, sediment Cux (type and
Figure 23. Comparison between actual porosity (black) derived from wells Tajjal-01, Tajjal-02 and Tajjal-03, and predicted
(inverted) porosity (red) using the acoustic impedance wavelet and model-based inversion techniques. Black curves on the right-
hand side of each panel show the porosity difference from well-log and model-based inversion results. The RMS error is also
presented for each well.
Figure 24. Comparison between actual porosity (black) derived from wells Tajjal-01, Tajjal-02 and Tajjal-03 and predicted
(inverted) porosity (red) using the direct seismic inversion porosity estimation technique of Kumar et al. (2016). Black curves on
the right-hand side of each panel show the porosity difference between well-log and model-based inversion results. The RMS error
is also presented for each well.
amount of sediment) and post depositional pro- RMS errors between the actual and predicted
cesses are the main factors controlling porosity. In porosity, which further improves our conBdence on
the study area, there is a pronounced and appre- the inverted results (Bgures 23 and 24). Moreover,
ciable range in porosity values due to aforemen- it can be observed that both our inversion tech-
tioned factors. The porosity in the wells, few niques map the low porosity (tight sands)
kilometres apart from each other, is highly vari- encountered in the Tajjal-02 and Tajjal-03 wells
able. Overall, both the inversion techniques (suspended and abandoned) and the relatively high
applied in this study show the reasonably small porosity at Tajjal-01 (gas-producing well).
It is imperative to mention that, to recognize and University, Islamabad, Pakistan, CardiA Univer-
address the uncertainties related with spatial sity, UK for providing the basic requirements to
porosity mapping, multiple point simulation and complete this work. We are thankful to the
stochastic inversion techniques may be applied. reviewers/Associate Editor of this manuscript for
However, these are not within the scope of this critically reviewing and improving the manuscript.
study; they require lithofacies modelling, concep-
tual geological modelling, and additional data.
This might result in better estimation and uncer- Author statement
tainty quantiBcation but at the cost of additional
human and computational resources. Thus, the Dr Muhammad Toqeer perceived the idea and
spatial porosity mapping in this study may be used partially executed this idea of the research. Dr
as an input for further sophisticated modelling. Aamir Ali took the idea and proposed the
methodology and implemented it with the help of
his student Mr Ashar Khan. Mr Ashar Khan has
contribution in terms of collection of the literature
6. Conclusions and raw data. Dr Tiago M Alves have given the
support in terms of modern research methods and
Spatial porosity estimation and mapping is a chal- helped in the interpretation of the data. Mr Zubair
lenging task, especially in the case where limited data has given the software and data support and
of different scales is available. In this work, spatial computed the maps. Dr Matloob Hussain has
porosity is estimated and mapped in the Gam- contributed in interpretation and Bnalization of the
bat–Latif block in the Central Indus Basin, Pakistan manuscript.
by using model based post-stack seismic inversion.
The estimated porosity values range from 1 to 16% in
the studied reservoir zone. Variations in the spatial References
distribution of porosity within the C-sand interval of
the Lower Goru Formation are due to the presence of Abbasi S, Kalwar Z and Solangi S 2016 Study of structural
styles and hydrocarbon potential of Rajan Pur Area,
shale, and to the style(s) of shale distribution within Middle Indus Basin, Pakistan; BUJ ES 1 36–41.
sand intervals. These uncertainties associated with Afzal J, Williams M and Aldridge R 2009 Revised stratigraphy
spatial porosity mapping are difBcult to capture and of the lower Cenozoic succession of the Greater Indus Basin
quantify due to resolving power of seismic, datasets of in Pakistan; J. Micropalaeontol. 28 7–23.
different scales and the geostatistical relationships Ahmed N, Fink P, Sturrock S, Mahmoo T and Ibrahim M 2004
Sequence stratigraphy as predictive tool in Lower Goru
that are valid in the vicinity of wells. The initial low
Fairway, Lower And Middle Indus Platform, Pakistan,
frequency model, constructed from seismic and well Pakistan Association of Petroleum Geoscientists, Annual
data interpretation, is a crucial parameter for the Technical Conference, Islamabad, pp. 17–18.
inversion workCow. It may be concluded that poros- Akhter G, Ahmed Z, Ishaq A and Ali A 2015 Integrated
ity mapping by post-stack seismic inversion was interpretation with Gassmann Cuid substitution for opti-
deemed reliable in this study, and may be so in similar mum Beld development of Sanghar area, Pakistan: A case
study; Arab. J. Geosci. 8 7467–7479.
scenarios. It is hoped that this case study will Adekanle A and Enikanselu P A 2013 Porosity prediction from
encourage further studies to use other techniques, i.e., seismic inversion properties over ‘XLD’Field, Niger Delta;
multipoint Geostatistical simulations and stochastic Am. J. Sci. Indus. Res. 4(1) 31–35.
inversions to Bnd a more realistic geological consis- Alavi M 2004 Regional stratigraphy of the Zagros fold–thrust
tent models for porosity distributions. However, the belt of Iran and its proforeland evolution; Am. J. Sci. 304
1–20, https://doi.org/10.2475/ajs.304.1.1.
latter methods demand more data, their scaling, and
Ali A, Alves T M, Saad F A, Ullah M, Toqeer M and Hussain
further human and computational resources. M 2018 Resource potential of gas reservoirs in South
Pakistan and adjacent Indian subcontinent revealed by
post-stack inversion techniques; J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 49
Acknowledgements 41–55.
Ali A, Hussain M, Rehman K and Toqeer M 2016 EAect of
The authors would like to thank Directorate shale distribution on hydrocarbon sands integrated with
anisotropic rock physics for AVA modelling: A case study;
General of Petroleum Concessions (DGPC), Pak-
Acta Geophys. 64 1139–1163.
istan, for allowing the use of seismic and well-log Angeleri G P and Carpi R 1982 Porosity prediction from
data for research and publication purposes and seismic data; Geophys. Prospect 30 580–607, https://doi.
Department of Earth Sciences, Quaid-i-Azam org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1982.tb01328.x.
Anwer H M, Ali Alves T M and Zubair A 2017 EAects of sand- Das B, Chatterjee R, Singha D K and Kumar R 2017 Post-
shale anisotropy on amplitude variation with angle (AVA) stack seismic inversion and attribute analysis in shallow
modelling: The Sawan gas Beld (Pakistan) as a key case oAshore of Krishna-Godavari basin, India; J. Geol. Soc.
study for South Asia’s sedimentary basins; J. Asian Earth India 90 32–40, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-017-0661-
Sci. 147 516–531, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2017.07. 4.
047. de Terra H, de Chardin P T and Paterson T T 1936 Joint
Ashcroft W 2011 A Petroleum Geologist’s Guide to Seismic geological and prehistoric studies of the late Cenozoic in
ReCection, Wiley–Blackwell. India; Science 83 233–236.
Avseth P, Mukerji T and Mavko G 2005 Quantitative seismic Delaplanche J, Lafet Y and Sineriz B 1982 Seismic reCection
interpretation: Applying rock physics tools to reduce inter- applied to sedimentology and gas discovery in the Gulf of
pretation risk, Cambridge University Press, https://doi. Cadiz; Geophys. Prospect. 30 1–24.
org/10.1017/CBO9780511600074. Dolberg D, Helgesen J, Hanssen T, Magnus I, Saigal G and
Azeem T, Chun W, Khalid P and Qing L 2017 An integrated Pedersen B 2000 Porosity prediction from seismic inversion,
petrophysical and rock physics analysis to improve reser- Lavrans Field, Halten Terrace, Norway; Lead Edge 19
voir characterization of Cretaceous sand intervals in Middle 392–399, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1438618.
Indus Basin, Pakistan; J. Geophys. Eng. 14 212–225. Doyen P 1988 Porosity from seismic data: A geostatistical
Azevedo L, Amaro C, Grana D, Soares A and Guerreiro L 2017 approach; Geophysics 53 1263–1275, https://doi.org/10.
Coupling geostatistics and rock physics in reservoir mod- 1190/1.1442404.
elling and characterization; Soc. Petrol. Eng., https://doi. Dutta N and Khazanehdari J 2006 Estimation of formation
org/10.2118/188470-MS. Cuid pressure using high-resolution velocity from inversion
Azevedo L and Soares A 2017 Geostatistical methods for of seismic data and a rock physics model based on
reservoir geophysics: Advances in oil and gas exploration & compaction and burial diagenesis of shales; Lead Edge 25
production, Springer, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 1528–1539, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2405339.
3-319-53201-1. Edgar J and van der Baan M 2009 How reliable is statistical
Aziz O, Hussain T, Ullah M, Bhatti A S and Ali A 2018 wavelet estimation. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded
Seismic based characterization of total organic content from Abstracts 2009, Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
the marine Sembar shale, Lower Indus Basin, Pakistan; pp. 3233–3237, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3255530.
Mar. Geophys. Res; 39(4) 491–508. Gogoi T and Chatterjee R 2019 Estimation of petrophysical
Bacon M, Simm R and Redshaw T 2007 3-D seismic parameters using seismic inversion and neural network
interpretation, Cambridge University Press, https://doi. modelling in Upper Assam basin, India; Geosci. Frontiers
org/10.1017/CBO9780511802416. 10(3) 1113–1124, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2018.07.
Barnston A G 1992 Correspondence among the correlation, 002.
RMSE, and Heidke forecast veriBcation measures: ReBne- Goodway B, Chen T and Downtown J 1997 Improved AVO
ment of the Heidke score; Wea. Forecast. 7(4) 699–709. Cuid detection and lithology discrimination using Lame
Berger A, Gier S and Krois P 2009 Porosity-preserving petrophysical parameters, 67th Annual international Meet-
chlorite cements in shallow–marine volcaniclastic sand- ing, SEG Expanded Abstracts, pp. 183–186.
stones: Evidence from Cretaceous sandstones of the Sawan Grana D and Dvorkin J 2011 The link between seismic
gas Beld, Pakistan; AAPG Bull. 93 595–615. inversion, rock physics, and geostatistical simulations in
Bosch M, Carvajal C, Rodrigues J, Torres A, Aldana M and seismic reservoir characterization studies; Lead Edge 30
Sierra J 2009 Petrophysical seismic inversion conditioned to 54–61, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3535433.
well-log data: Methods and application to a gas reservoir; Hearts J R, Nelson P H and Paillet F L 2002 Well Logging for
Geophysics 74 O1–O15, https://doi.org/10.1190/1. Physical Properties: A Handbook for Geophysicists, Geol-
3043796. ogists and Engineers, 2nd edn, John Wiley & Sons,
Bosch M, Mukerji T and Gonzalez E F 2010 Seismic inversion Chichester.
for reservoir properties combining statistical rock physics Iravani M, Rastegarnia M, Javani D, Sanati A and Hajiabadi S
and geostatistics: A review; Geophysics 75 75A165, H 2017 Application of seismic attribute technique to
https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3478209. estimate the 3D model of hydraulic Cow units: A case
Caers J, Avseth P and Mukerji T 2001 Geostatistical study of a gas Beld in Iran; Egypt. J. Pet., https://doi.org/
integration of rock physics, seismic amplitudes, and geo- 10.1016/j.ejpe.2017.02.003.
logic models in North Sea turbidite systems; Lead Edge 20 Jafari M, Nikrouz R and Kadkhodaie A 2017 Estimation of
308, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1438936. acoustic-impedance model by using model-based seismic
Chen Q and Sidney S 1997 Seismic attribute technology for inversion on the Ghar Member of Asmari Formation in an
reservoir forecasting and monitoring; Lead Edge 16 oil Beld in southwestern Iran; Lead Edge 36 487–492.
445–448, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1437657. Kadri I 1995 Petroleum geology of Pakistan, Pakistan
Chopra S and Marfurt K J 2007 Seismic attributes for prospect Petroleum Limited, Karachi.
identiBcation and reservoir characterization; Geophys. Dev. Karbalaali H, Shadizadeh S and Riahi M 2013 Delineating
Ser. 11 465, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560801900. hydrocarbon bearing zones using elastic impedance inver-
Das B and Chatterjee R 2016 Porosity mapping from inversion sion: A Persian Gulf example; Iran. J. Oil. Gas. Sci. Tech. 2
of post–stack seismic data; Georesursy 18(4) 306–313. 8–19.
Das B and Chatterjee R 2018 Well log data analysis for Kazmi A and Abbasi I 2008 Stratigraphy & Historical Geology
lithology and Cuid identiBcation in Krishna–Godavari of Pakistan, Department & National Centre of Excellence in
Basin, India; Arab. J. Geosci. 11(10) 231. Geology, Peshwar, Pakistan.
Kazmi A H and Rana R A 1982 Tectonic map of Pakistan Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 3398–3402,
1:2000000: Map showing structural features and tectonic https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2015-5851713.1.
stages in Pakistan, Geological survey of Pakistan. Robison C R, Smith M A and Royle R A 1999 Organic facies in
Kelkar M and Perez G 2002 Applied Geostatistics for Cretaceous and Jurassic hydrocarbon source rocks, South-
Reservoir Characterization, Society of Petroleum ern Indus basin, Pakistan; Int. J. Coal Geol. 39 205–225,
Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-5162(98)00046-9.
Khattak F, Shafeeq M and Mansoor A 1999 Regional trends in Rosa A L R 2018 The seismic signal and its meaning; In: The
porosity and permeability of reservoir horizons of Lower seismic signal and its meaning, Society of Exploration
Goru Formation, Lower Indus Basin, Pakistan; J. Hydro- Geophysicists, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560803348.
carb. Res. 11 37–50. Russell B and Dommico S 1988 Introduction to seismic
King D E 1990 Incorporating geological data in well log inversion methods, SEG.
interpretation; In: Geological Applications of Wireline Sams M and Carter D 2017 Stuck between a rock and a
Logs, pp. 45–55, https://doi.org/10.1144/gsl.sp.1990.048. reCection: A tutorial on low-frequency models for seismic
01.06. inversion; Interpretation 5 B17–B27.
Kumar R, Das B, Chatterjee R and Sain K 2016 A method- Sams M and Saussus D 2013 Practical implications of low
ology of porosity estimation from inversion of post-stack frequency model selection on quantitative interpretation
seismic data; J. Nat. Gas Sci. 28 356–364. results; SEG Tech. Progr. Expand. Abstr., pp. 3118–3122.
Landa J L, Horne R N, Kamal M M and Jenkins C D 2000 Silva M Da, Rauch-Davies M and Cuervo A 2004 Data
reservoir characterization constrained to well-test data: A conditioning for a combined inversion and AVO reservoir
Beld example; SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 3 325–334, https:// characterisation study, 66th EAGE Conf.
doi.org/10.2118/65429-PA. Simm R and Bacon M 2014 Seismic Amplitude: An inter-
Leite E P and Vidal A C 2011 3D porosity prediction from preter’s handbook, Cambridge University Press.
seismic inversion and neural networks; Comput. Geosci. 37 Singha D K, Shukla P K, Chatterjee R and Sain K 2019 Multi-
1174–1180, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2010.08.001. channel 2D seismic constraints on pore pressure- and
Li M and Zhao Y 2014 Chapter 6 – Seismic inversion vertical stress-related gas hydrate in the deep oAshore of
techniques. In: Geophysical Exploration Technology Appli- the Mahanadi Basin, India; J. Asian Earth Sci., https://
cations in Lithological and Stratigraphic Reservoirs, Else- doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2019.103882.
vier, Oxford, pp. 133–198, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0- Sinha B and Mohanty P 2015 Post stack inversion for reservoir
12-410436-5.00006-X. characterization of KG Basin associated with gas hydrate
Lindseth R O 1979 Synthetic sonic logs – a process for prospects; J. Ind. Geophys. Union 19 200–204.
stratigraphic interpretation; Geophysics 44 3, https://doi. Teixeira L and Maul A 2020 Quantitative and stratigraphic
org/10.1190/1.1440922. seismic interpretation of the evaporite sequence in the
Liner C 2016 Elements of 3D seismology, investigations in santos basin, Elsevier, https://www.sciencedirect.com/
geophysics; Society of Exploration Geophysicists, https:// science/article/abs/pii/S0264817220304736.
doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560803386. Tiab D and Donaldson E 2015 Petrophysics: Theory and
Mukerji T, Avseth P, Mavko G, Takahashi I and Gonz alez E F Practice of Measuring Reservoir Rock and Cuid Transport
2001 Statistical rock physics: Combining rock physics, Properties, Gulf Professional Publishing.
information theory, and geostatistics to reduce uncertainty Toqeer M and Ali A 2017 Rock physics modelling in reservoirs
in seismic reservoir characterization; Lead Edge 20 313, within the context of time lapse seismic using well log data;
https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1438938. Geosci. J. 21 111–122.
Oldenburg D, Levy S and Stinson K 1986 Inversion of band- Veeken P C H 2007 Seismic Stratigraphy, Basin Analysis and
limited reCection seismograms: Theory and practice; Proc. Reservoir Characterisation, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
IEEE 74 487–497. Veeken P C H and Rauch-Davies M 2006 AVO attribute
Oldenburg D, Scheuer T and Levy S 1983 Recovery of the analysis and seismic reservoir characterization; First Break
acoustic impedance from reCection seismograms; Geo- 24 41–52, https://doi.org/10.3997/1365-2397.2006004.
physics 48 1318–1337. Veeken P C H and Da Silva M 2004 Seismic inversion methods
Pendrel J 2015 Low frequency models for seismic inversions: and some of their constraints; First Break 22 47–70.
Strategies for success. In: SEG Technical Program Verma S, Bhattacharya S, Lujan B, Agrawal D and Mallick S
Expanded Abstracts 2015, Society Exploration Geophysi- 2018 Delineation of early Jurassic aged sand dunes and
cists, pp. 2703–2707, https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2015- paleo-wind direction in southwestern Wyoming using seis-
5843272.1. mic attributes, inversion, and petrophysical modelling; J.
Pyrcz M and Deutsch C V 2014 Geostatistical Reservoir Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 60 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Modelling, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press. jngse.2018.09.022.
Quadri S V 1986 Hydrocarbon prospects of southern Indus Walls J, Dvorkin J and Carr M 2004 Well logs and rock
basin, Pakistan; Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull. 70 730–747. physics in seismic reservoir characterization; OAshore
Rasmussen K B and Maver K G 1996 Direct inversion for Technol. Conf., https://doi.org/10.4043/16921-MS.
porosity of post stack seismic data. NPF/SPE European Wandrey C, Law B and Shah H 2004 Sembar Goru/Ghazij
3-D Reservoir Modelling Conference, pp. 235–246, https:// composite total petroleum system, Indus and Sulai-
doi.org/10.2523/35509-ms. man–Kirthar geologic provinces, Pakistan and India; In:
Ray A and Chopra S 2015 More robust methods of low- Petroleum Systems and Related Geologic Studies in Region
frequency model building for seismic impedance inversion. 8, South Asia (ed.) Wandrey C J, United States Geological
In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2015, Survey Bulletin, 2208-C.
Wang Y 2017 Seismic Inversion: Theory and Applications, geophysics; Society of Exploration Geophysicists, https://
Wiley Blackwell. doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560801580.
White R 2003 Tying well-log synthetic seismograms to seismic Zaigham N and Mallick K 2000 Prospect of hydrocarbon
data: The key factors; In: SEG Technical Program associated with fossil-rift structures of the southern
Expanded Abstracts 2003, Society Exploration Geophysi- Indus basin, Pakistan; AAPG Bull. 84 1833–
cists, pp. 2449–2452, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1817885. 1848.
Williams M D 1959 Stratigraphy of the Lower Indus Basin, Zhang R, Sen M K, Phan S and Srinivasan S 2012 Stochastic
West Pakistan; In: 5th, New York. Proc, World Petroleum and deterministic seismic inversion methods for thin-bed
Congress, pp. 377–394. resolution; J. Geophys. Eng. 9(5) 611–618, https://doi.org/
Yao F and Gan L 2000 Application and restriction of seismic 10.1088/1742-2132/9/5/611.
inversion; Pet. Explor. Dev. 27 53–56. Ziolkowski A M, Underhill J R and Johnston R G K 1998
Yilmaz O € 2001 Seismic data analysis: Processing, inversion, Wavelets, well-ties, and the search for stratigraphic traps;
and interpretation of seismic data, investigations in Geophysics 63 297–313.
Corresponding editor: ARKOPROVO BISWAS

Initial - Model - Velocity and Future Work

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Initial - Model - Velocity and Future Work

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Initial - Model - Velocity and Future Work

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J. Earth Syst. Sci.

(2021)130:61 Ó Indian Academy of Sciences

Application of model based post-stack inversion

MUHAMMAD TOQEER1, AAMIR ALI1,* , TIAGO M ALVES2, ASHAR KHAN1,

MS received 7 May 2020; revised 1 November 2020; accepted 10 November 2020

1. Introduction (Chen and Sidney 1997; Lindseth 1979; King 1990;

interpretation (Akhter et al. 2015), to rock physics

For this study only 3D seismic and well-log data

Key 3D seismic data acquisition parameters

interpretation was performed and used as a geolog- a

Log-to-seismic calibration was completed by using

pretation, the preparation of an initial acoustic

seismic data for use in subsequent signal inversion.

through the inclusion of a low-frequency trend.

adjustments to well ties for a range of stratigraphic

log coverage in the study area would result in the

‘tuning’ of relevant stratigraphic features into

single seismic reCections.

realistic inversion results (Edgar and van der Baan

2009; Ziolkowski et al. 1998), extracted wavelets

and amplitude. As the spatial variability and depth

was reasonable to use an averaged wavelet in this

Low-frequency models were built by using well-

performed to better characterize realistic strati-

graphic features, their lateral extension and

boundaries in the background geological model, a

mic data do not contain the original low frequency

spectrum of the acquired signal, as it is Bltered out

(‘cut-oA’) during processing (Ray and Chopra

2015; Azevedo and Soares 2017). Without this

tion of reservoir properties is somewhat inaccurate

and non-unique (Pendrel 2015; Sams and Carter

Average water saturation (Sw)

Average porosity (PHIT)

Low-frequency models can also be prepared by

dance and density data (Dutta and Khazanehdari

noisy nature of seismic velocity (Bacon et al. 2007).

The generalised workCow for our model-based

A comparison of acoustic impedance derived

5. Discussion Since well and seismic data map different aspects

Tajjal-02 wells. Within the C-sand interval, the

where the numerators and denominators of each

Corresponding editor: ARKOPROVO BISWAS

You might also like