Coordinated by Satinder Chopra Model-based Seismic Inversion: Comparing
ARTICLE
deterministic and probabilistic approaches
Dennis Cooke* and John Cant**
* Santos, Ltd. Adelaide, SA, Australia; ** Makaira Geotechnical, Perth WA, Australia
Introduction
The target audience of this article is the geoscientist who
desires to learn more about seismic inversion and its limita-
tions. The content is especially relevant to those using seismic
inversion to help build static reservoir models for field devel-
opment and/or estimate probabilities for presence of hydro-
carbons. The viewpoint and experience base of the authors (at
least the first author) is that of a consumer of seismic inver-
sion as opposed to a provider of inversion software or serv-
ices or a researcher in inversion. We have assumed that the
reader has some knowledge of AVO and statistics. Our treat-
ment of the probabilistic versus deterministic topic is not
detailed – we intentionally focus on concepts instead of
theory and equations. If we are successful in engaging the
reader in this topic, the reader will have many follow-up
questions.
In the title of this article, we have used the terms deterministic
and probabilistic to describe two different approaches to
seismic inversion. While the reader may not be familiar with
these terms used in the context of inversion, the geoscientists
that interpret seismic data, generate structure maps and esti-
mate hydrocarbon volumes of prospects and fields will be
familiar with deterministic and probabilistic reserve estimates.
The input variables in those reserve estimates – porosity,
water saturation, gross rock volume and recovery factor –
frequently have a range of values and probabilistic reserve
estimates attempt to deal with these uncertainties by repre-
senting field reserves as a distribution characterized by the
P10, P90 and mean reserve size. Contrasted with the proba-
bilistic approach is the deterministic field reserve method
where a geophysicist estimates a single reserve volume. The
deterministic method will commonly be used to give a ‘best
estimate’ or ‘most likely’ case, but it can also be used to
generate ‘high-side’ and ‘low-side’ hydrocarbon volumes.
Probabilistic and deterministic reserve estimates – and the
associated concepts about uncertainty – are a very good
analogue for dealing with the uncertainties inherent in
seismic inversion. This article shows how seismic inversion is
non-unique. A deterministic seismic inversion is any inver-
sion that outputs just ONE of many different acceptable
inversion solutions. An alternative inversion approach is to
search for ALL of the acceptable inversions (or more realisti-
cally, the statistics that characterize those inversions) which
we refer to here as a probabilistic inversion.
Inversion terminology
Before getting into a discussion of inversion and non-unique-
ness, it is helpful to define some of the terms we will use here.
There will be a more detailed technical discussion of these
terms later.
28 CSEG RECORDER April 2010
Forward model
Forward model refers to the algorithm used to generate
synthetic seismic data. As geophysicists, we have some very
complex forward models like a full elastic wave-equation and
simple models like the convolutional model. A common
forward model used in post-stack inversion consists of calcu-
lation of reflection coefficients from an impedance model and
convolution of those reflection coefficients with a source
wavelet. For pre-stack inversion, the forward model needs to
be expanded to include AVO effects – which is usually done
by use of Shuey’s equation.
Model-based inversion
A model-based inversion uses a forward model (see above) to
calculate synthetic seismic data as part of the inversion algo-
rithm. All of the inversion techniques discussed here – deter-
ministic inversion, probabilistic inversion, stochastic inversion
and GLI inversion – here are model-based inversions.
Property models: impedance model, Vp model, Vs model,
rhob model
Property models are the input to a forward model. They are
also the output of a seismic inversion. For a post-stack inver-
sion the property model is an impedance model. Pre-stack
inversions require input (Vp, Vs, and rhob) property models.
Relative and absolute inversion/ Relative and absolute
property models
Most inversion algorithms solve for absolute property models
(ie absolute impedance for a post-stack inversion) which are
comparable to impedances from well log data. Creating rela-
tive impedance is one method for dealing with non-unique
inversion results. Relative impedance models show – in a
relative sense – high and low impedances that correspond to
different lithologies, but those relative impedances are not are
not comparable to the absolute impedances of well logs. The
key difference between relative and absolute impedance is
that a relative impedance model is missing the low frequency
component (approximately 0-15 Hz) found in an absolute
impedances model.
GLI inversion
Generalized linear inversion (GLI) has been and probably
still is the most commonly used seismic inversion technique.
For each post-stack trace or pre-stack gather inverted, GLI
inversion requires that the user supply a single initial estimate
of the earth’s property model(s) which is iteratively refined
so as to give a synthetic (via the forward model) to match the
seismic data being inverted. GLI will output a single imped-
ance model for each trace or gather inverted.
Continued on Page 29

Model-based Seismic Inversion: …
Continued from Page 28
Stochastic inversion
Stochastic inversion uses an alternate process of searching
through many different input model but refining none of them.
The searching process includes generating a synthetic (via the
forward model) and comparing the synthetic to the data being
inverted. The models corresponding to a ‘good fit’ between this
synthetic and the seismic being inverted are kept as output
inversion models. The ‘bad fit’ property models are discarded.
The input models are built using distributions of earth property
models generated from well data Stochastic inversion usually
outputs the average of all the ‘good fit’ property models but it
can output just the single best fit property model.
Deterministic inversion
Article Cont’d
inversion to help build a static reservoir model. With the first
column, we distinguish between inverting post-stack seismic
data for AI and the more complex task of inverting pre-stack data
for AI and Vp/Vs (or various other pairs of rock properties). The
point of this table is that deterministic inversions are more
appropriate for the simpler inversion applications in the upper
left, while the more quantitative inversion applications in the
lower right are better served by a probabilistic inversion. Other
factors that influence the decision to use probabilistic inversion
are its requirement for appropriate trend data from well logs
(discussed below) and the need for significantly more computer
power than that required for deterministic inversion.
Stratigraphic Scan for Risk hydrocarbon Build static
interpretation hydrocarbons presence model

Deterministic inversions will output just one earth property Post-stack Deterministic Deterministic Deterministic/ Probabilistic
model. GLI inversion is always a deterministic inversion. If inversion for AI Probabilistic
stochastic inversion is outputting only the best fit property
model it finds, then it is a deterministic inversion. Pre-stack Deterministic Deterministic/ Probabilistic Probabilistic
inversion for Probabilistic
Probabilistic Inversion AI & PR

Probabilistic inversion is a term we use here to denote those
inversion algorithms that combine stochastic inversion with
Bayes’ Theorem1 to give rigorous probabilistic estimates of reser-
voir properties and pore fluid (brine vs water vs gas).
Probabilistic inversion is expensive and difficult to use, but it can
solve a long-standing challenge in our industry; how to use
seismic attributes in a quantitative manner for risking exploration
and development prospects. Probabilistic inversion is an
evolving technology, both in a technical and commercial sense.
Geostatistical inversion
Geostatistical inversions are stochastic inversions that use vari-
ograms to prepare the input property models. The purpose of
those variograms is to ensure that the property models fit
expected spatial patterns (i.e. facies models). We will not discuss
geostatistical inversion here.
Probabilistic and deterministic inversions have different but
overlapping uses. Table 1 attempts to organize a high-level view
of where one might best apply deterministic and probabilistic
inversions. On the top row of Table 1 are some different applica-
tions for seismic inversion. These are: to facilitate interpretation
of geology and stratigraphy, as an initial scan for hydrocarbons,
calculating the probability of hydrocarbon presence and using
Table 1: Recommended applications for deterministic and probabilistic
inversion.
Figure 1 shows a line from a 3D seismic survey and the associ-
ated GLI/ deterministic inversion results. This GLI inversion
was used to interpret geology/ stratigraphy and to initially high-
light the presence of hydrocarbons. One discovery and two
delineation wells were drilled based on this inversion. These
deterministic results were followed up with probabilistic inver-
sions used to risk the presence of gas in near-by fault blocks, esti-
mate volumes of gas present and to help build static and
dynamic reservoir models. We will use this same data set to
calculate a probabilistic inversion later in this article. But before
we discuss the deterministic and probabilistic inversion of this
dataset, we first need to explain how GLI inversion can be non-
unique. That requires a bit of background on GLI inversion.
Deterministic/ GLI Inversion
How GLI inversion works
For this explanation of GLI inversion, we will simplify things by
assuming the forward model and input data are post-stack and
the property model being inverted for is thus an impedance
model2. The GLI impedance model is ‘parameterized’ using

Continued on Page 30

April 2010 CSEG RECORDER 29

Article Cont’d
Model-based Seismic Inversion: …
Continued from Page 29
blocky impedance layers. For each blocky layer in the model, model are parameterized in this manner. The objective of the
there are two parameters; one that describes the layer impedance inversion algorithm described below is to iteratively update these
and one that describes the layer thickness. Both the input user- impedance parameters so that a synthetic trace made from this
supplied initial impedance model and output final impedance impedance model matches the input seismic trace being inverted.

Figure 1. Deterministic-GLI inversion for AI and PR. Two separate gas reservoirs are indicated by the arrows.

Figure 2. Iterative loop used in model-based inversion. See text for a complete expla-
nation of each part of this algorithm. Note that the sensitivity matrix and the model
updates are calculated on band-pass filtered data (that is, data that has been filtered
with the seismic wavelet). Those updates thus do not have reliable information at
higher-than-seismic and lower-than-seismic frequencies.
Figure 3. Convergence of impedance models with successive iterations in GLI algo-
rithm. User-supplied initial estimate (in blue) and successive iterations converging
on the final answer (red).

Continued on Page 31

30 CSEG RECORDER April 2010


Model-based Seismic Inversion: …
Continued from Page 30
Figure 2 illustrates how the deterministic GLI inversion algo-
rithm works. This is an iterative algorithm that proceeds in the
clockwise direction as per Figure 2. In the upper right is an input
seismic trace to be inverted. In the upper left is a user-supplied
initial impedance model. The user also needs to supply a source
wavelet3. The input impedance model is an estimate of the true
earth impedance model and may have significant errors. A
forward modeling algorithm generates a synthetic trace from
this impedance model and source wavelet. For a simple inver-
sion example, the forward modeling algorithm just calculates
reflections coefficients from the impedance estimate and then
convolves those reflection coefficients with the source wavelet.
Other more sophisticated forward models could include multi-
ples and/or prestack AVO effects.
The next step is to subtract the synthetic trace from the real trace.
The result of this subtraction is called the ‘error trace’. At the
diamond shaped box, the algorithm checks for exit conditions
from this iterative loop. The main exit condition is the RMS
amplitude of the error trace. If this RMS amplitude is low
enough the algorithm exits from the loop. Other possible exit
conditions are that ‘enough’ iterations have occurred (usually 5
to 10) or that convergence has stopped – that is the RMS error is
not getting smaller with successive iteration.
If an exit condition has not been met, the inversion loop proceeds
to the ‘calculate sensitivity matrix’ step which explores the rela-
Article Cont’d
tionship between each impedance model parameter and the
current synthetic trace. In mathematical terms, this step calcu-
lates the partial derivatives of the current synthetic with respect
to each impedance model parameter (thicknesses and imped-
ance values of each blocky layer in the model). Each partial
derivative is a seismic trace or vector. The collection of these
partial derivative vectors constitutes the partial derivative
matrix or sensitivity matrix which has m rows and n columns,
where m is the number of samples in the input seismic trace
being inverted and n is the number of parameters in the imped-
ance model.
The next step calculates corrections or updates to the current
impedance model using the above error trace and the sensitivity
matrix. For the mathematically inclined, these updates come
from the truncated (linearized) Taylor-series approximation of
the forward model. This is rewritten as:
,
where:
I = the unknown vector of parameters that describe the real
earth’s impedance profile, IG = the user supplied ‘initial guess’
for I that will be iteratively refined in the inversion, F = the
forward model algorithm,
Continued on Page 32
April 2010 CSEG RECORDER 31
Article Cont’d
Model-based Seismic Inversion: …
Continued from Page 31
= the sensitivity matrix, and
(I – IG) = the vector of impedance model updates to be solved for.
Once (I-IG) is obtained, the desired result is
I = IG + (I-IG).
Usually, an exact solution to this equation does not exist, so a
least squared error technique is used to solve for the impedance
model updates term. Furthermore, since the above equation is a
truncated Taylor series expansion (i.e. an approximation), the
above equation needs to be applied iteratively.
Each pass through the inversion loop ends with adding the
above impedance model updates to the current impedance
model. Figure 3 shows how each successive iteration through
Figure 4. Frequency spectra of input seismic data being inverted (in black) and
output impedance model (in blue).
Figure 5. Two different impedance models. The model on the right can be described
with blocky layers, while the model on the left can not. The model on the left
contains two low-impedance reservoirs: the shallow one is a ‘coarsening-upwards’
reservoir and the deeper one is a ‘fining-upwards’ reservoir.
32 CSEG RECORDER April 2010
this loop will update the last iteration’s impedance model in a
manner that (hopefully) converges on a solution where the error
trace is all zeros. At that point, the inversion algorithm will move
onto the next input trace to be inverted and continue in this
manner until the entire seismic line or volume is inverted.
Discussion of frequency content and uniqueness
Following is a discussion of frequency content and uniqueness
explained in the context of GLI inversion, but these non-unique-
ness issues are also true for any one single inversion model output
from stochastic inversion. This is true because both GLI and
stochastic inversion have a mismatch between the frequency
content of the property model and the seismic data being inverted.
Figure 6. Two very similar synthetic seismograms (on the right) made from two
very different impedance models (on the left). Both impedance models describe a
reservoir thinner than the tuning thickness. Both synthetics have the same RMS
amplitude.
Figure 7. Two different impedance models are shown in black and blue on the left.
They differ only in their low frequency content (lower than the seismic band-pass),
which causes different absolute impedance values. Synthetic seismograms made
from these two models are shown on the right – and are essentially identical.
Continued on Page 33

Model-based Seismic Inversion: …
Continued from Page 32
The astute observer may notice that in GLI inversion, the output
impedance model appears to have frequency content that is not
found in the input seismic trace. In Figure 4, we compare the
frequency spectra of input trace and the resultant output inver-
sion model. Clearly, the output impedance model has frequency
content below and above that found in the input seismic data.
Where did this ‘extra’ frequency content come from? Is the infor-
mation content of these frequencies reliable? One insight to these
‘extra’ frequencies comes from Figure 2 which shows that the
impedance model updates are calculated from real and synthetic
seismic data which has limited band-pass, while the impedance
model has a much wider band-pass. Most importantly, the
higher-than-seismic frequencies and the lower-than-seismic
frequencies are filtered out before the ‘calculate sensitivity
matrix’ and ‘solve for updates’ steps.
High frequency issues
The higher-than-seismic frequencies in the output impedance
model are imposed upon that model by the assumption that the
earth’s impedance can be described using blocky impedance.
The blocky model assumption contains the high frequencies –
not the input data. This is the core assumption of GLI inversion
and it is not always valid. Figure 5 shows some reservoirs with
impedance models can be described with a blocky model
assumption, as well as the coarsening upwards or fining
upwards sands that can not be described with blocky layers.
Even if one assumes the earth can be described accurately with
the blocky layer assumption, there is the issue of uniqueness for
inversion of thin reservoirs (thinner than the seismic tuning
thickness). For any reservoir thinner than the tuning thickness,
there are an infinite number of reservoir thickness & impedance
combinations that give the same seismic amplitude. This is illus-
trated in Figure 6 which shows two impedance models – both of
Figure 8. The dots represent porosity-impedance data from well logs. The heavy
solid line represents an impedance-to-porosity transform developed from the well
log data. This solid heavy line is frequently used to transform absolute impedance
inversion results into porosity. When the impedance inversion has low frequency
errors (as in Figure 7), the absolute impedance results are non-unique. The thin
vertical and horizontal lines show how non-unique absolute impedances translate
into porosity errors.
Article Cont’d
which are thinner than the tuning thickness – that have very
similar synthetic seismograms. For reservoirs thinner than the
tuning thickness, GLI and stochastic inversions can not resolve
this thickness-impedance uniqueness problem. What combina-
tion of impedance and thickness will model-based inversion
output for such thin reservoirs? A GLI inversion will output the
first impedance and thickness combination it finds that meets the
exit conditions in Figure 2. A stochastic inversion should, in
theory, output all of the acceptable property models (or a repre-
sentative distribution of those models).
Low frequency issues
As with the higher-than-seismic frequencies, the lower-than-
seismic frequencies in the output impedance model are prob-
lematic. As mentioned above, the iterative inversion loop of
Figure 2 filters out the lower-than-seismic frequencies before
calculating the sensitivity matrix and impedance model updates.
Figure 7 illustrates the ambiguity that results from filtering these
low frequencies. The two impedance models of this figure differ
in their low-frequency content (and their absolute impedance
values) but have the same synthetic seismic trace. Clearly, the
model-based seismic inversion of this trace is non-unique.
Where do the lower-than-seismic frequencies in the output
impedance model come from? The simple answer is that the low
frequencies largely come from the user-supplied initial imped-
ance model. The GLI impedance model updates will occasionally
change those low frequencies, but it is difficult to predict when
this will happen or how significant the change to low frequencies
will be. The low frequencies in the output impedance model are
dominated by the low frequencies in the user-supplied initial
impedance model which is normally interpolated and extrapo-
lated from well control. That interpolation/ extrapolation step
can miss important low frequency anomalies not sampled by the
well control – for example over-pressure cells and the associated
velocity reductions.
Figure 9. The absolute impedance model on the right is filtered back to the seismic
band-pass to give the relative impedance model on the left. The x-axis scale refers
only the absolute impedances. Relative impedances have no low frequencies and will
oscillate about zero impedance.
Continued on Page 34
April 2010 CSEG RECORDER 33
Article Cont’d
Model-based Seismic Inversion: …
Continued from Page 33
What is the practical impact of non-unique low frequencies in the
impedance model output by deterministic inversion? If an inver-
sion is being used to interpret stratigraphic boundaries and
geometries, then the impact is not significant. If the inversion is
being used to scan for gas, then this low frequency non-unique-
ness could cause problems but only if the interpretation of gas is
based on the absolute impedance value (as opposed to an inter-
pretation based on changes impedance or relative impedance).
And if the impedance inversion is being using to calculate
porosity (perhaps for a static model) then those porosity values
will be non-unique as shown in Figure 8.
Above we have discussed possible impedance errors at high and
low frequencies. There are two possible ways to deal with these
errors: the relative impedance approach and the probabilistic
impedance approach.
Relative Inversion
The relative impedance approach recognizes that while a GLI
inversion has problems with the lower-than-seismic and higher-
than-seismic frequencies, the impedance inversion is reliable
and unique over the seismic bandwidth – and can be filtered
back to the seismic band-pass. Figure 9 shows the relative
impedance model that corresponds to the absolute impedance
models in Figure 7. The relative impedance ‘solution’ ensures
that the GLI impedance inversion results are not be misused.
However, the relative inversion approach is perhaps overly
conservative and certainly does not help those who are trying to
use seismic impedance inversion to build a reservoir static
model that has thin blocky reservoir intervals populated with
absolute porosity values.

Figure 10. Example of well data trend analysis. Dots are shale P-wave velocities from 9 different well logs. Green solid line is the average shale velocity as a function of depth.
Green dashed lines indicated the trend +/- two standard deviations. The yellow solid line indicates the sand P-wave velocity trend. Sand data points are not shown on this
plot. The sand trend is shown here to indicate how the velocity difference between sand and shale decreases with depth. Overpressure at deeper depths cause velocities to slow
down. Sand and shale trends are for normally pressured section only.

Continued on Page 35

34 CSEG RECORDER April 2010

 Article Cont’d
Model-based Seismic Inversion: …
Continued from Page 34

Probabilistic/stochastic inversion trend analysis for sand and shale. (This figure is from a location
different from Figures 1, 11, 12 and 13. This well trend data set
The relative inversion solution discussed above is one way of was chosen to illustrate how sand and shale trends converge
dealing with non-unique inversion results. Relative inversion with depth and how pressure impacts velocity.) Note that the
essentially filters out all of the non-unique – and potentially average Vp trend and its standard deviation are defined in this
misleading – information. This filtering may be a bit drastic as the analysis. These trends are defined as a function of depth and
blocky layer assumption for thin reservoirs is frequently correct, apply to an inversion over any depth interval. Once the depth
as is the lower-than-seismic portion of the input initial model. An coordinate of the inversion is specified, a distribution of Vp
alternate way of dealing these non-unique solutions is stochastic (mean plus standard deviation) can be extracted from this trend.
or probabilistic inversion which attempts to find ALL of the A similar process is done for Vs and rhob, however, Vs and rhob
acceptable earth impedance models (or the statistics that repre- trends are developed as a function of Vp, not as a function of
sents all acceptable impedance models).
The motivation for doing many
different inversions on the same input
trace is the recognition that a single
model-based inversion result has non-
unique high and low frequency content
(discussed above). The high/ low
frequency content of an inversion solu-
tion is influenced by the high/ low
frequency of the initial impedance
model – so the input models for proba-
bilistic/stochastic inversion are chosen
to sample the range of range of possible
input models.

The major components of probabilistic

inversion are:

1) Review/interpret well data. Extract

property trends (for Vp, Vs and
rhob) and their standard deviation

2) Stochastically sample above trends

searching for property models that
match (via the forward model) the
input seismic data being inverted.

3) Use Bayes’ Theorem to calculate

probabilities

We explain each of these three aspects

of probabilistic inversion in more
detail below.

Well data trend analysis

Probabilistic/stochastic inversion
needs information about the distribu-
tion of properties (Vp, Vs, rhob) in the
input models. These distributions are
generated prior to the inversion using
local well log data. This is a somewhat
interpretive step called trend analysis.
Well data trend analysis starts with
selecting relevant wells (we usually
need a minimum of three to five wells)
and manually interpreting/ picking a
lithology flag. The lithology flag just
indicates which intervals should be in
the sand trend analysis and which
intervals should be in the shale trend.
Figure 10 shows an example output Vp

Continued on Page 36

April 2010 CSEG RECORDER 35

Article Cont’d
Model-based Seismic Inversion: …
Continued from Page 35

Figure 11a. PDFs for fluid factor AVO attribute from 400 stochastically simulated layer models. Red PDF is for gas only models. Blue PDF is for brine only models. Figure
11b shows the same PDFs, but scaled to reflection the prior probability of gas = 0.33. Note probability values of ‘b’ and ‘g’ for fluid factor = 0.25. Figure 11c shows calcu-
lated posterior probability of gas and probability of brine as a function of fluid factor. For each fluid factor, probability = g/(b+g) where b and g are taken from Figure 11b.

depth. This allows linking the stochastically simulated values of

Vs and rhob to the simulated value of Vp. Trend analysis can be
time consuming and rather interpretive, but results are a regional
database that can be applied to inversion of many different
seismic datasets in the same basin.

Generate and evaluate the input models

A stochastic inversion will generate many different input (Vp,

Vs, rhob) models from the above distributions, generate
synthetic seismic data from each model, and keep the models
with a ‘good fit’ (i.e. low RMS (data – synthetic trace)) with the
input seismic data being inverted. The input models are
frequently called prior models or priors and the good fit output
models are called posterior models. For a stochastic inversion to
output statistically correct models, it must sample the above
input property distributions in a fair manner. As an example of
an ‘unfair’ process, consider property models that are generated
only using the slow velocities in the above input well data distri-
butions. The ‘good fit’ models output from that stochastic inver-
sion will have correspondingly slow velocities and will not
accurately represent reality. The more sophisticated stochastic
inversions use a process called Markov Chain Monte Carlo
(MCMC) sampling to ensure fair sampling of input distributions.

The exact details of how a stochastic inversion builds prior

models impacts the inversion’s the ease of use and reliability of
the results. To help the reader understand this important step
we describe the model building process used by just one proba-
bilistic inversion: Delivery4 (Gunning and Glinsky, 2004).
Delivery requires the user to specify a generic layer input model
that includes all of the possible lithologic layers for the seismic
data being inverted. The user must also supply a structural
interpretation from which to ‘hang’ this generic model. The
generic model needs to include the sealing shale units above
and below the reservoir and all sands, shale breaks and hard
streaks within the reservoir interval. Delivery can/will give
Figure 12. erroneous results if this generic input model can not describe

Continued on Page 37

36 CSEG RECORDER April 2010


Model-based Seismic Inversion: …
Continued from Page 36
the real earth. An example of this would be if the real earth has
a significant shale break not included in the input model. There
will typically be three to a dozen layers in a generic input
model. Reservoir layers have an additional parameter that indi-
cates pore fluid (brine/ low saturation gas/ gas/ oil). Initially,
the properties (Vp, Vs, rhob and thickness) of each layer in this
generic input model layer are not assigned. A MCMC process is
used to sample well data trends, assign layer properties to create
hundreds of prior models. Those prior models will included
brine or pay in the reservoir layers. (more detail about this in the
section on Bayes’ Theorem below). Gassman-Biot fluid substitu-
tion is used to change the Vp, Vs and rhob of reservoir layers as
the pore fluid changes.
Bayes’ Theorem and probability estimates
Bayes’ Theorem is frequently written as:
Where P(a|b) is shorthand for ‘probability of event a being true
given b’, and P(a) is ‘probability of a’. P(a) in the numerator is
usually called a prior probability. It is much easier to explain
Bayes’ Theorem if we rewrite it in terms of gas probabilities for a
prospect that has an observed seismic attribute as below. The
seismic attribute is AVO fluid factor in this example, but we
could use any other seismic attributes instead of fluid factor.
Where P(gas| ff=0.25) means the probability of finding gas given
our prospect has an fluid factor=0.25. For this first simple
example, we assume this prospect can be modeled by a single
blocky sand between 2 shales where the properties of the shale
and wet sand (Vp, Vs and rhob) have distributions that are known
from local well data. Gas sand properties are calculated using
Gassman-Biot fluid substitution. Well control also supplies a
distribution of expected reservoir thicknesses. To generate the
term P(ff=0.25| gas) in the numerator, we stochastically simulate
Figure 13.
Article Cont’d
many gas charged reservoir models, generate a pre-stack synthetic
from each model and calculate the AVO fluid factor for the top of
the reservoir for each model. The red curve in Figure 11a shows
the probability density function (PDF) of calculated fluid factors
for these gas simulations. This curve is generated assuming gas is
present (i.e. P(ff|gas)) so the area under the curve equals 1. In this
figure we have also generated and displayed a PDF for fluid factor
assuming that the reservoir sand is wet (blue curve).
Figure 11b shows the wet and gas fluid factor PDFs again, but
this time we have scaled the P(ff|gas) and P(ff|brine) curves
using the prior information that – for this one example – the
probability of gas is 1/3 and the probability of brine is 2/3. The
scaled gas curve is equivalent to P(ff|gas) x P(gas) in the numer-
ator of Bayes’ Theorem. In this simple example we excluded the
possibility of oil filled reservoir.
The denominator in Bayes’ Theorem refers to the probability of
observing a fluid factor=0.25 and needs to includes both true
positives (gas is present) and false positives (brine is present).
Using the values g and b denoted on the vertical axis in Figure
11b, the denominator in Bayes’ Theorem is then g + b. And the
probability of finding gas for a fluid factor= 0.25 is:
Figure 11c shows probability of gas calculated for all fluid factors
values.
The above example of Bayes’ Theorem was worked through
using a single seismic attribute (fluid factor). This workflow is
becoming more common in companies that wish to quantify
hydrocarbon risk using attributes, but instead of using a single
attribute (like stack amplitude or fluid factor) many companies
are using 2-dimensional PDFs made with inverted AI and
inverted PR or some other set of AVO attributes.
In the above example, we have ‘inverted’ seismic data for gas
probability and explained Bayes’ Theorem when the observed
Continued on Page 38
April 2010 CSEG RECORDER 37
Article Cont’d
Model-based Seismic Inversion: …
Continued from Page 37
seismic data is a single number (fluid factor=0.25). This work
flow works quite well when ‘inverting’ a map of fluid factors (or
other seismic attributes) – but we have assumed a simple single
blocky sand reservoir. A more sophisticated probabilistic inver-
sion will need to invert a full seismic trace instead of an attribute.
For that case, Bayes’ Theorem is implemented thus: some of the
input (prior) property models have brine in the reservoir and
some have hydrocarbons. The exact ratio of hydrocarbon models
to brine models in the prior models is determined by the prior
estimates of gas- i.e. P(gas) in the numerator of Bayes’ Theorem.
The stochastic inversion will generate synthetics and keep only
those which prior models fit the seismic data; these models are
the posterior models. The revised Bayesian probability of gas is
the ratio of number posterior hydrocarbon models to the sum of
number of posterior hydrocarbon models + number of posterior
brine models.
For both the trace-based and map-based probabilistic inversion,
P(gas) is a required user input that specifies a prior estimate for
presence of gas. This prior usually comes from traditional
prospect risking workflows where P(gas) = P(reservoir) x P(seal)
x P(hydrocarbon charge) x P(structure).
A comparison of deterministic and probabilistic
results
Figures 12 and 13 show typical results from a probabilistic inver-
sion. The input seismic data to this inversion was the same set of
3D gathers as for the deterministic inversion in Figure 1. For the
probabilistic inversion, the generic input property model had 5
layers covering ~100ms of data (plus the ‘half-spaces’ above and
below). The required well log trends were developed using eight
wells within 30km. There are two wells on this line; the informa-
tion from them was input to the trend analysis, but the exact log
data was not known to the probabilistic inversion. Figure 12
shows the probabilistic inversion’s posterior model distributions
for sand thickness and reservoir fluid. These distributions are for
just one layer at one gather. Similar distributions also exist (but
Figure 14.
38 CSEG RECORDER April 2010
are not shown) for porosity, sand/shale ratio, P-impedance and
Vp/Vs for each model layer at each CMP5. These inversion solu-
tions (the posterior solutions) consist of approximately 2000
property models that provide a good fit to the seismic data for
each input gather in a 3D survey. This is a very large amount of
data that is best displayed and interpreted using cumulative
probability statistics ( P10, P50 and P90) as in done Figure 136.
In Figure 13 we compare the deterministic inversion P-imped-
ance results of Figure 1 to the probabilistic P-impedance (P10 P50
P90 displays). There is a common user expectation that the P50
probabilistic result should be equal to the deterministic result. In
our opinion, the deterministic and P50 probabilistic inversion
results will always be equal only if both are filtered back to the
seismic band-pass and if the probabilistic results have a normal
distribution. In Figure 13 we can see that the deterministic and
P50 probabilistic results are equal for the upper gas
reservoir(arrows denote gas reservoirs), but not for the lower gas
reservoir. What are causing these differences for the lower reser-
voir? Possible answers are:
• The probabilistic inversion is restricted to 5 layers, while this
deterministic inversion algorithm has much finer layer
sampling.
• The non-unique low frequencies are treated differently in the
two inversion algorithms. The deterministic inversion uses a
low frequency model that is interpolated between well
control. The probabilistic inversion does not know about this
spatially variable low frequency model; it only knows about
an average P-impedance and its standard deviation.
We think the major driver behind the different inversion results
for the lower reservoir is that the deterministic inversion
performed a narrow (and incomplete?) search for solutions. Its
search started with a user-supplied low frequency trend from a
nearby well and stopped with the first solution it found. The
probabilistic inversion searched for all solutions suggested from
trend data from eight wells.
Probabilities for gas can also be calculated from deterministic
inversion via a workflow that uses Bayesian logic to compare
inversion results to well data much like the section on Bayes’
Theorem above. Figure 14 shows the probabilistic inversion’s
probability of gas and compares it to a similar prediction from
the deterministic inversion. Again, these results are the same for
the upper reservoir and different for the lower reservoir – and
again we think the differences are expected due to the different
treatment of the low frequency model.
Summary and Conclusions
There are many ambiguities inherent in inverting seismic reflec-
tion data to log data. A deterministic model-based inversion will
output just one earth impedance model that ‘fits’ the seismic
data being inverted, and the user of that deterministic inversion
has a risk of being proven wrong by the drill bit. With a proba-
bilistic model-based inversion, all acceptable earth impedance
models are output.
The section above hints at some rather interpretive aspects
regarding probabilistic inversion and low frequencies: what
weight should be applied to existing prior information about low
Continued on Page 39

Model-based Seismic Inversion: …
Continued from Page 38
frequencies? Should the nearest well have higher weight than
trends established by a population of wells? We note that this is
a problem that geostatistics is well posed to answer. We also note
the technique of using migration velocities to constrain low
frequency trends. Migration velocities might supply the required
low frequency velocities, or – due to the fact that imaging veloc-
ities are not the same as true velocity – the migration velocities
may be ‘misinformation’.
The promise of a probabilistic model-based inversion is not that
it resolves the inherent ambiguities, but instead it quantifies
them. The accuracy of that quantification is linked to applica-
bility of the input trend data. Assuming the trend data is appli-
cable, the quantification of unknowns can be quite helpful when
making investment decisions on expensive oil and gas wells.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Santos, Ltd for supporting the
ongoing effort to study this topic and for permission to publish
this article.
Suggested further reading
More details on GLI inversion can be found in the paper:
Generalized linear inversion of reflection seismic data, by Cooke
and Schneider (Geophysics , 1983) which can be downloaded
from the SEG website: http://www.seg.org/
More details on stochastic inversion and geostatistical inversion
can be found in the paper: Geostatistical inversion: a sequential
method of stochastic reservoir modelling constrained by seismic
data. A Haas, O Dubrule – First break, 1994.
More details on what we call probabilistic inversion can be found
in the paper: Delivery: an open-source model-based Bayesian
seismic inversion program by Gunning and Glinsky (Computers
& Geosciences, 2004). This paper can be downloaded at:
http://www-old.dpr.csiro.au/StochasticSeismicInversion
/DeliveryPaper.pdf
Available Probabilistic software and/or service
One of the more experienced providers of probabilistic inversion
software and services is Fugro-Jason: www.fugro-jason.com.
Fugro-Jason’s ‘probabilistic’ software is named Stratmod MC.
CSIRO – an Australian public research institution – has worked
with BHP Petroleum to write the open-source probabilistic inver-
sion software named Delivery. Delivery can be downloaded at
http://www.csiro.au/products/Delivery.html. Delivery has a
very steep learning curve and CSIRO is not set up to provide
user support. One possible way to come up that learning curve
is to use the services Down Under Geophysics (DUG) at :
http://www.dugeo.com/ DUG is experienced with Delivery as
well as the well data trend analysis required as input to Delivery.
Both Delivery and Stratmod MC stochastically simulate
sand/shale ratio and porosity for reservoirs. In order to do this,
their input well trend data needs to be for clean sand and shale.
Reservoir Vp is then calculated by ‘mixing’ clean sand and shale
using the stochastically simulated reservoir properties
sand/shale ratio and porosity . Both Delivery and Stratmod MC
Article Cont’d
will also model the noise observed on input seismic data which
requires that the user quantify that noise.
Stratmod MC is a geostatistical inversion; it uses variograms to
impose expected geologic patterns on solutions. Delivery inverts
each input gather independently without regard for possible
spatial geologic patterns – but there is an associated module that
imposes geologic patterns on the inversion results. Both
Stratmod MC and Delivery are full waveform inversions.
Hampson-Russell http://www.cggveritas.com/hampson-
russell.aspx?cid=646 sells a program named AFI that uses
‘Gassman-Biot fluid substitution, Bayesian estimation and
Monte Carlo simulation to build fluid probability maps. AFI is
not a full-waveform inversion like Delivery and Stratmod MC,
but it can be used to ‘invert’ a seismic attribute map into fluid
probabilities. R
In the presence of random noise or a noisy wavelet, deterministic
model-based inversion can not resolve this impedance model
ambiguity.
1 Other authors have referred to a combination of stochastic inversion with
Bayesian logic as stochastic inversion. We think that the combination of
stochastic inversion and Bayesian logic is significant and warrants a separate
name.
2 For pre-stack GLI inversion, the algorithm and ambiguities are very similar, but
they apply to a (Vp, Vs, rhob) model instead of to an impedance model. Figure
1 is actually from a GLI pre-stack inversion.
3 GLI inversion algorithms need to account for the arbitrary gain processors have
applied to the data being inverted. This gain can be incorporated in the user
supplied source wavelet.
4 Delivery is the name of an open-source software package, not the name of the
inversion technique. Gunning and Glinsky call Delivery a ‘Bayesian seismic
inversion program’. We call Delivery probabilistic inversion because it combines
stochastic inversion with Bayesian logic.
5 See the section below on available software for a explanation of how porosity
and sand/shale ratios are obtained.
6 P90 denotes point on a distribution where 90% of the distribution (area under
the curve) is still to the right. P50 is the ‘middle’ of a distribution and P10 has
only 10% of the area to the right. Some E&P companies define the P10 and P90
values interchanged.
Dennis Cooke is the Chief Geophysicist for
Santos, Australia's largest domestic gas
producer with interests throughout Australia
and in Indonesia, Viet Nam, Bangladesh, India
and PNG. Dennis has a PhD from the
Colorado School of Mines and in the course of
his career he has done geophysical research,
seismic processing and seismic interpretation.
His geographical experience includes N
America, Indonesia, Alaska and SE Asia. His current interests are
probabilistic inversion, imaging, and seismic characterization of
fractured reservoirs.
John Cant is the Senior Geophysical
Consultant for Makaira Geotechnical, a small
independent company providing Quantitative
Interpretation and seismic processing QC serv-
ices based in Perth, Australia. Previously he
has worked as Centre Manager in Perth for
Veritas DGC and prior to that Geophysical
Operations Co-ordinator Australia/Asia for
BHP Petroleum. He graduated from
University of New South Wales in 1984 and
has worked as interpreter, seismic QC, processing QC and VSP
processing before concentrating on AVO, seismic inversion, rock
physics and processing / imaging issues and their interaction and
resulting effects upon Quantitative Interpretation.
April 2010 CSEG RECORDER 39