See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/368674339

Inversion of seismic data to modeling the Interval Velocity in an Oilfield of SW

Iran

Article in Results in Geophysical Sciences · February 2023

DOI: 10.1016/j.ringps.2023.100051

CITATIONS READS

33 262

5 authors, including:

Pooria Kianoush Ghodratollah Mohammadi

Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch
85 PUBLICATIONS 263 CITATIONS 16 PUBLICATIONS 133 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Seyed Aliakbar Hosseini Nasser Keshavarz

Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch Research Institute of Petroleum Industry (RIPI)
54 PUBLICATIONS 242 CITATIONS 124 PUBLICATIONS 482 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Pooria Kianoush on 03 March 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Results in Geophysical Sciences 13 (2023) 100051

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Results in Geophysical Sciences

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/results-in-geophysical-sciences

Inversion of seismic data to modeling the Interval Velocity in an Oilfield of

SW Iran
Pooria Kianoush a, Ghodratollah Mohammadi a, *, Seyed Aliakbar Hosseini b,
Nasser Keshavarz Faraj Khah c, Peyman Afzal a
a
Department of Petroleum and Mining Engineering, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Petroleum, Materials and Mining Engineering, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
c
Geoscience Faculty, Research Institute of Petroleum Industry (RIPI), Tehran, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Seismic velocity is considered the best attribute related to formation pressure changes. Integrating seismic at­
Seismic attributes tributes and well-logging data through seismic inversion predicts the reservoir characteristics across the field
Post-stack data with the highest accuracy. This study especially presents seismic velocity for the whole south Azadegan Field in
Seismic inversion
SW Iran for carbonate formations. The considered dataset includes 3D seismic data, vertical seismic profiling
Vertical seismic profiling (VSP)
(VSP), logging data of 23 wells, and geological information. Here, we estimated the interval velocity using post-
Interval velocity cube
stack migration velocity, seismic inversion, and the relationship between the acoustic impedance (AI) model and
the sonic log to predict formation pressure. As a result, the correlation coefficient of 0.71 and a high inversion
accuracy (8.76% relative error) is concluded. The actual and predicted P-wave (Vp) correlation coefficient is
calculated as 0.74 and all sevens as 0.79 using an AI seismic attribute. Thus, the estimated Vp agrees with the
original well-log values. Inverted AI cubes in the deeper formations of the field are about 8000-15000 [(m/s)*(g/
cm3)], which could be referred to as calcareous formations. The correlation of the Vp cube resulting from the
Sequential Gaussian simulation (SGS) considering co-kriging with the AI, with the initial velocity cube using the
inverse distance weighted (IDW) method being 0.54 is more than the same method applied with interval
migration velocity trend in co-kriging. The anisotropy of the final Vp cube for the vertical variogram range is
96m, and for major and minor directions is 11850 m.

changes is velocity. Different methods exist to compute the interval

velocity, such as stacking velocities, reflection tomography, and velocity
1. Introduction
inversion. Seismic data are the best for predicting pore pressure before
drilling. Seismic velocity is an important attribute used to approach the
The object of seismic inversion is to convert the seismic interpreter’s
effective stress regarding Terzaghi et al. (1996), Bowers (1995), and
view of the earth’s reflections as a function of time to the geologist’s
Dutta (2002) equations. So, the accuracy of velocity models used for
view of the earth’s velocity as a function of depth. It is not easy seem
pore pressure determination is paramount (Riahi & Fakhari, 2022).
because seismic data measurements are taken at the earth’s surface and
One of the essential steps in seismic data analysis is establishing the
involve sending a sound pulse through the earth and recording the
relationship between seismic data and the geological information of a
echoes from each reflecting interface. Drilling and well logging tools
studied area (Avseth et al., 2005). Correlation between well logs and
gives much more information. However, the advantage of the seismic
seismic data results in identifying and making a correlation between the
method is that coverage can be made over large areas of the earth’s
seismic horizon and the stratigraphy of the reservoir. One of the
surface. It is especially true of the extensive three-dimensional surveys
essential steps before seismological analysis is the depth conversion of
that are now routinely being acquired. For this reason, seismic inversion
the seismic data. The seismic data are recorded in the time domain.
is a vital processing tool (Russell, 2017).
However, the well logs are in-depth domain. The standard method of
The appropriate attribute of seismic data that shows the pressure

* Corresponding author: Corner of Kausar Blvd., Deh Haghi (Ahang) St., Southern Nabard Blvd., Pirouzi St., Tehran, Iran, Postal code: 1777613651, Contact
number: +9821-33722831-7, Fax: +9821-33717140 http://fte.azad.ac.ir/
E-mail addresses: Pooria.kianoush@gmail.com (P. Kianoush), ghodratollah46@gmail.com (G. Mohammadi), saa.hosseini@srbiau.ac.ir (S.A. Hosseini),
keshavarzn@ripi.ir (N.K.F. Khah), P_Afzal@azad.ac.ir (P. Afzal).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ringps.2023.100051
Received 17 December 2022; Received in revised form 10 February 2023; Accepted 11 February 2023
Available online 20 February 2023
2666-8289/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
P. Kianoush et al. Results in Geophysical Sciences 13 (2023) 100051

Sometimes, a simple interval velocity model has good results and

Abbreviations matches with data well. Pore pressure estimation is essential for
exploration and drilling projects. During the exploration phase, pore
AI Acoustic impedance [(m/s)*(g/cm3)] pressure prediction can evaluate exploration risk factors, including the
AVO amplitude versus offset migration of formation fluids and seal integrity (Hearn & Meulenbroek,
BLI Band-limited impedance inversion 2011; Swarbrick et al., 2005). Interval velocity is an essential parameter
CMP Common midpoint in determining lithology, depth migration, reservoir characterization,
CRS Common-reflection-surface and even variation of fluid type in the oil reservoir. Interpretations that
HRS-8 Hampson-Russell 08 software need correct depth, such as fault, are more accurate and more accessible
IDW Inverse distance weighted where correct velocity distributions in the area are available (Shakiba
NMO Normal moveout et al., 2018).
PDF Probability density function Since the pioneering work by Pennebaker (1968), the literature of
RMS Root mean square many papers has begun to deal with pressure prediction before drilling.
SGS Sequential Gaussian simulation The fundamental theory of inversion geophysics data began with
SW South West Backus and Gilbert (1967). A decade later, the first application of
Vp Compressional velocity (m/s) seismic tomography appeared (Aki & Lee, 1976; Dziewonski et al.,
Vs Shear velocity (m/s) 1977). During the first two decades after the work by Aki and Lee
VSP Vertical seismic profiling (1976), the arrival times were calculated using ray tracing. However, the
σ Effective Stress (psi) wave phenomena as the diffraction dispersion, affect the arrival times,
especially in 3D models (Liu & Dong, 2012). Virieux (1986) suggests
calculating arrival times by simulating the seismic wave propagation
through a 3D elastic medium. Tong et al. (2014) review different for­
ward model methods and conclude that the wave propagation method
decreases error, but better results are achieved using seismograms.
Recently, some works have managed to invert the entire seismogram.
Chen et al. (2007); Fichtner and Trampert (2011), and Tape et al. (2010)
calculated the residuals of full synthetic seismograms against the ob­
servations, getting better results in different study regions. Yu (2010)
introduced two main approaches for estimating pore pressure: geolog­
ical using basing modeling and geophysical using seismic velocity.
Sompotan et al. (2011) estimated the interval velocity cube for a
southwestern oilfield in Iran. Maurya et al. (2020) published a book
about Post-stack data analysis. Moreover, Kadkhodaie and Kadkhodaie
(2022) presented a method to aid gas detection and delineation of
Fig. 1. Overlap range of Acoustic Impedance changes of some common rocks reservoir properties like Acoustic, density, and seismic attribute
(Abdollahie Fard, 2019). analysis.
In the cited previous research, there was all the required data for
interpreting seismic data is to use a synthetic seismogram to match well interval velocity calculations, and it mainly focused on predicting
logs with seismic data. Before any evaluation, corrections and depth acoustic impedance in limited reservoir formations. Since this study
evaluation of the synthetic seismogram are performed based on check­ required acoustic impedance in multi-reservoir formations, we faced
shots and well logs (Rahimi & Riahi, 2020). One of the usual methods is some limitations. The vast areal content of the Azadegan oil field (740
to compare seismic traces with the synthetic seismogram at the vertical Km2) and the deficiency of seismic data in some parts of surface for­
well locations. mations were the first constrain.
Acoustic impedance is the outcome of post-stack inversion. The post- In the studied area located in the south Azadegan Field in SW Iran,
stack seismic inversion technique is the most common approach where out of 42 wells available, 23 wells have the most selected information, of
high-resolution subsurface models are generated, and the effect of the which 17 wells located in the central, western, and southern parts have
wavelet is eliminated (Chen & Sidney, 1997). This work uses a effective pressure test data in the Ilam to Fahliyan reservoir Formations.
Model-based inversion (MBI) algorithm. MBI is based on the convolution It is discontinuous, but this data does not exist in the field’s side sections.
theory. A simple initial acoustic impedance model is convolved with the This log must be estimated for the wells in the side sections to calculate
wavelet to obtain a synthetic trace compared with the actual seismic the pore pressure gradient in the whole field. For this purpose, the initial
trace (Mallick, 1995). Then, this acoustic impedance model is changed data cube with geostatistical methods has been modeled by determining
iteratively until the resulting synthetic traces are in good agreement the relationships between the existing reservoir data. The reservoir data
with the actual traces (Rahimi & Riahi, 2020; Riahi & Fakhari, 2022; includes the parameters such as compressional and shear velocity,
Ronquillo Jarillo et al., 2018). density, gamma, porosity, fluid saturation logs, interval seismic migra­
Well information and seismic data are the most general information tion velocity, and seismic acoustic impedance inversion (AI). In this
for reservoir characterization. Well information such as logs prepare study, geological depth-domain horizons at the well have been selected,
adequate vertical resolution but leave a significant distance between the and then connect the wells to each well by picking the horizon. The
wells. In comparison, three-dimensional seismic data can prepare more South Azadegan Field formations are modeled with a simple network of
detailed reservoir characterization in the inter-well space (Abdolahi Petrel (2016) software. Seismic data are converted to the impedance
et al., 2022). Consequently, the integrated reservoir studies are more model using Hampson-Russell 08 software (HRS-8), and the velocity
frequently conducted utilizing geological, geophysical, and geo­ model is obtained by removing the density effect.
statistical datasets for reservoir evaluation (Adelu et al., 2019; Haque The combination of Sequential Gaussian Simulation (SGS) and co-
et al., 2022; Qadri et al., 2021; Radwan et al., 2021; Radwan et al., 2022; kriging with the seismic acoustic impedance inversion (AI) cube have
Radwan, 2021). been used to construct the final model of the compressional velocity
The methods for obtaining the interval velocity model for an area cube in the entire South Azadegan Field area for the first time. The
depend on the complexity of the subsurface structure in the area. seismic inversion process has been done with post-stack data and

2
P. Kianoush et al.
Fig. 2. Seismic inversion workflow.
deterministic method in all 23 wells. The correlation matching was
99.6%, and the uncertainty described as the relative error was about
8.5%, which was unique due to the very high volume of data and the
very large number of wells. Also, other innovations of the present
research include using new capabilities of Petrel (2016) software for
conditional programming (e.g., sequential and nested conditional ex­
pressions to combine logs and cubes in a single model and remove out-
of-range values). Some conditional codes for complete Compressional
and Shear velocity logs are shown in Appendix A.
2. Methodology
2.1. Seismic reflections
Seismic reflections are some function of acoustic impedance (veloc­
ity in density), affecting reservoir pressure. On the other hand, the type
of formation fluid affects the sound wave velocity. Shear and compres­
sional waves (Vp and Vs) respond differently to fluids and rocks and
different reservoir pressures. This phenomenon can have the following
two uses:
1 Prediction of abnormal pressure from velocity data before drilling
2 Examining fluid movement and dynamic reservoir pressure changes
using 4D seismography (Diethart-Jauk & Gegenhuber, 2018;
Maurya et al., 2020).
2.2. Seismic Attributes
Seismic attributes are mathematical functions derived from seis­
mography that are used in the following areas from seismic data:
1 Time: structural information,
3
Results in Geophysical Sciences 13 (2023) 100051
2 Amplitude: stratigraphy information, acoustic impedance,
3 Frequency: information about the characteristics of the reservoir,
4 Energy absorption: fluid information and permeability (Rai et al.,
2020).
In reflection seismology, a seismic attribute is a quantity extracted or
derived from seismic data that can be analyzed to enhance the infor­
mation that might be more subtle in a traditional seismic image, leading
to a better geological or geophysical interpretation of the data (Kad­
khodaie & Kadkhodaie, 2022).
Seismic attributes of Post-stacking can be extracted on a time slice or
between two horizons. Each seismic attribute could be surfaced or
volumetric. Surface attributes are calculated on a surface or a horizon.
Volumetric attributes are calculated between two definite times or be­
tween two interpreted horizons. These attributes help us to interpret
seismic data from different structural and stratigraphic aspects. In this
way, they accompany us in a better understanding of reservoir charac­
teristics (Yadav et al., 2022). Acoustic impedance obtained from seismic
inversion can also be considered an attribute and was among the first
developed (Li & Liu, 2022). Common attributes include coherence, az­
imuth, dip, instantaneous amplitude, response amplitude, response
phase, instantaneous bandwidth, amplitude versus offset (AVO), and
spectral decomposition. A seismic attribute that can indicate the pres­
ence or absence of hydrocarbons is known as a direct hydrocarbon in­
dicator (Haque et al., 2022).
2.2.1. Acoustic Impedance (AI)
The essential seismic attribute that is prepared for a seismic section is
the acoustic impedance (AI). This attribute is one of the domain-derived
attributes and belongs to the group of surface attributes. Acoustic
impedance is the product of density multiplied by the velocity of the
wave through the layer. In other words, it can be said that acoustic
P. Kianoush et al.
Fig. 3. Post-stacking Inversion Workflow.
impedance is the resistance of rocks to the propagation of elastic waves.
These attributes represent the lithology of the layer and, to some extent,
indicate the reservoir fluid in the layers. As Fig. 1, different rocks have
different acoustic impedance values, but acoustic impedance values for
different rocks can overlap (Maurya et al., 2020).
Observing the changes in acoustic impedance (AI) inside a layer with
a specific lithological feature makes it possible to understand the
changes in the rock facies inside the layer. Thus the acoustic impedance
acts as a seismic attribute. Because the velocity of the wave passing
through the layers changes with increasing depth and the lithological
change, denser and stronger rocks increase the velocity of the wave
(Maurya et al., 2020).
On the other hand, increasing the porosity of the reservoir reduces
the wave velocity and the acoustic impedance. The effect of gas also has
a significant role in the P-wave velocity in the layers (Adelinet et al.,
2018; Maurya et al., 2020).
2.3. Seismic Inversion
Seismic inversion transforms seismic reflection data into a quanti­
tative rock-property description of a reservoir. It may be pre-stack, post-
stack, deterministic, random, or geostatistical, and typically includes
other reservoir measurements such as well logs and cores (Chen et al.,
4
Results in Geophysical Sciences 13 (2023) 100051
2016; Liu et al., 2022). Seismic inversion combines seismic and well data
to predict rock properties (lithology, fluid content, porosity) across a
survey. These rock properties can be used to identify hydrocarbon and
reservoir. Seismic inversion removes the imprints of the wavelet in the
seismic data by deconvolution and then by converting the result into
impedance (Lindseth, 1979; Veeken et al., 2020; Veeken & Da Silva,
2004). Seismic inversion workflow and mechanism are shown in Fig. 2
and Appendix Fig. B.1.
2.3.1. Wavelet estimation
The modern seismic inversion methods require seismic data and a
wavelet estimated from the data. Typically, a reflection coefficient series
from a well within the boundaries of the seismic survey is used to esti­
mate the wavelet phase and frequency. Accurate wavelet estimation is
critical to the success of any seismic inversion. The inferred shape of the
seismic wavelet may strongly influence the seismic inversion results
and, thus, subsequent assessments of the reservoir quality.
Wavelet amplitude and phase spectra are estimated statistically from
either the seismic data alone or from a combination of seismic data and
well control using wells with available sonic and density curves. After
the seismic wavelet is estimated, it is used to estimate seismic reflection
coefficients in the seismic inversion (Conzález-Veloza et al., 2020;
Fichtner & Trampert, 2011).
P. Kianoush et al.
Fig. 4. Pre-stacking Inversion Workflow.
Table 1
Differences and Similarities of Post and Pre-stack methods (Maurya et al., 2020).
Similarities Differences
The stratigraphic interpretation is easier P-impedance can be directly computed
on impedance data because P- and compared to well data.
impedance is a layer property. Relation between porosity and acoustic
High resolution of layers by reducing impedance.
wavelet effects, side lobes, and tuning. Color inversion can be used with or
without a well data and a background
model.
Post-stacking is cheap and easier to
process
Pre-stacking is more efficient to identify
lithology and fluid content
Pre-stacking identifies both acoustic
impedance and shear impedance
Pre-stacking is the best method to
estimate Vp/Vs ratio.
Post-stacking uses a single seismic trace
while Pre-stacking uses a linear model of
AVO.
When the estimated (constant) phase of the statistical wavelet is
consistent with the final result, the wavelet estimation converges more
quickly than when starting with a zero-phase assumption. Minor edits
and "stretch and squeeze" may be applied to the well to align the events
better. Accurate wavelet estimation requires the accurate tie of the
impedance log to the seismic. Once the wavelet is identified, seismic
inversion computes a synthetic log for every seismic trace. The inversion
result is convolved with the wavelet to produce synthetic seismic traces
compared to the original seismic to ensure quality (Chen et al., 2016;
5
Results in Geophysical Sciences 13 (2023) 100051
Fichtner & Trampert, 2011).
2.3.2. Components of Inversion
Inversion includes both seismic field data and well data, where well
data serves to add the high frequency below the seismic band and
constrain the inversion. Well-logs are first conditioned and edited to
ensure a harmonious relationship between impedance logs and the
desired properties. The logs are then converted to time, filtered to
approximate the seismic bandwidth, edited for borehole effects,
balanced, and classified by quality. Seismic data is band-limited,
reducing resolution and quality. Low-frequency data is derived from
log data, pre-stack depth or time migrated velocities, or a regional
gradient to extend the frequency band available. High frequency can be
derived from well-control or geostatistical analysis (Hosseini et al.,
2019).
Generally, the seismic inversion methods are classified based on their
input data and the parameter estimation methodology, which are pre-
stack and post-stack inversions with deterministic or stochastic meth­
odologies (Shahbazi et al., 2020). Usually, a post-stack migration
scheme is applied to the seismic data to improve the resolution by
restoring dipping reflectors to their proper position. As a result, the
migrated time sections are interpretable in subsurface features (Rointan
et al., 2021; Yu & Liu, 2022).
Pre-stack migration of noisy and low-quality data produces migrated
sections of comparably lower quality than the post-stack migration of
the common-reflection-surface (CRS) stack (Soleimani, 2016). Coherent
noise will be enhanced if the stack aperture is not set appropriately,
contaminating the subsequent post-stack migration section (Shahbazi
et al., 2016).
P. Kianoush et al. Results in Geophysical Sciences 13 (2023) 100051

Fig. 5. Structural map of the Abadan Plain. Major anticlines appear as elongated domes. The location of maps and seismic profiles discussed are outlined (Abdollahie
Fard, 2019).

removing the wavelet from seismic data, we assist in the creation of a

high-resolution image of the subsurface (Maurya et al., 2020).
The most important post-stacking methods are model-based, and
Band-limited impedance inversion. In the Model-based method, the
seismic trace (initial model) is convoluted with a wavelet to get a syn­
thetic seismic trace (Appendix Fig. B.2). Then the impedance is con­
fronted with many iterations until the difference between the inverted
trace and the initial trace is reduced to a limit value (Eq. (1)). It starts
with an initial model and ends with a residual model. The initial model is
processed by iteration (Veeken & Da Silva, 2004).
Seismic trace = (wavelet ∗ Reflectivity) + noise (1)
Band-limited impedance inversion (BLI) changes post-stack seismic
data into impedance, density, and P-wave velocity. This method is
defined by the relationship between the seismic trace and seismic
impedance Eqs. (2) and ((3)).
Fig. 6. Defining the geological network of the project along with I and J axes Zi+1 − Zi
ri = (2)
(field boundaries). Zi+1 + Zi
( )
2.3.3. Post-stacking Inversion j
∑
Zi+1 = Z1 exp γ Sk (3)
Post-Stacking inversion is the most common approach used for k=1
inversion. This technique transforms a single seismic information vol­
ume into an acoustic impedance volume using seismic data, well data, Where Zi is layer seismic impedance and ri is the Zi-th and Zi+1-th
and basic knowledge in stratigraphy for interpretation (Fig. 3). By interface seismic reflectivity.

6
P. Kianoush et al. Results in Geophysical Sciences 13 (2023) 100051

Fig. 7. Three-dimensional geological model of South Azadegan Field using seismic sections and drilling data along with the location of used wells.

Eq. (3) integrates the seismic traces (Sk) and exponentiates the result interval velocity of the depth-time pairs is calculated using an inversion
to provide impedance traces. Variable γ is a scaling factor for the method designed to minimize errors in the travel time selection.
approximation in BLI. Applying this recursive equation enables seismic Assuming that si =1/vi is the interval slowness of layer i, vi is the interval
data to be directly inverted for acoustic impedance. However, these velocity of layer i, and ti is the measured travel time of the receiver to the
algorithms have various problems (Lindseth, 1979; Maulana et al., 2016; depth of zi (i = 1, 2… N); ti, si, and zi are related by the following linear
Russell, 2017). relation (Eq. (4)).
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤
t1 Z1 0 … 0 S1
2.3.4. Pre-stacking Inversion ⎢ t2 ⎥ ⎢ Z1 Z2 … 0 ⎥⎢ S2 ⎥
Pre-stacking inversion changes seismic into P-impedance, S-imped­ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢
⎢ . ⎥ ⎢ . . . . ⎥⎢ . ⎥
⎥⎢ ⎥
ance, and density by integrating well and seismic data (Dufour et al., ⎢ ⎥=⎢
⎢ . ⎥ ⎢ . . . . ⎥⎢ . ⎥
⎥⎢ ⎥ (4)
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
2002). The two techniques used for pre-stacking are simultaneous and ⎣ . ⎦ ⎣ . . . . ⎦⎣ . ⎦
elastic inversion. Note that those technics required global wavelets and a tN Z1 Z2 … ZN SN
background model (Fig. 4). Differences and Similarities of Post and
Pre-stack methods are shown in Table 1. The interval velocity is found by reversing the travel time of the
borehole velocity taken from the well by minimizing the absolute value
of x2-1 (Cordier, 1985).
2.4. Seismic Wave Velocity Resources
( )2
1 ∑N
timeasured − tipredicted
Seismic velocities are usually considered to be seismic properties. In x2 = (5)
N i=1 σi
the Earth’s upper crust, however, these are influenced strongly by
confining stresses, pore pressures, fluid saturations, temperature, and Here, the measured t-time is predicted to be the transition time
porosity, to name only a few. This contribution focuses on how these recorded at depth zi, and the predicted t-time transition is predicted
different factors interact, resulting in a seismic velocity that will finally using Eq. (5).
be observed. Some seismic velocity resources are Vertical Seismic For estimating the pore pressure with velocity data, the relationship
Profiling (VSP), Sonic Log, Stacking velocity, tomography, and acoustic between effective stress and velocity in sediments under normal pres­
impedance (AI) inversion. The following two seismic velocities used in sure has been proposed by Bowers (1995) as Eqs. (6) and (7):
this study are examined (Bahmaei & Hosseini, 2020; Etminan et al.,
2012; Rointan et al., 2021). V = V0 + Aσ B (6)

[ ]1
2.4.1. Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP) V − V0 B
σ= (7)
Vertical seismic profiling is one of the seismic methods in which A
seismic waves generated at the ground surface are recorded by geo­
Where V0 is the velocity of unconsolidated fluid-saturated sediments,
phones located at different depths of the well. The VSP method is based
and A and B describe the variation in velocity with increasing effective
on seismic wave propagation in heterogeneous environments theories
stress (σ) and can be derived from offset well data (Bowers, 1995; 2002).
and can reconstruct the seismic wave propagation field and calculate
seismic data at the wellbore. This method can also be used to imagine
2.4.2. Acoustic impedance inversion
around the well or to reconstruct between several wells.
One of the essential steps for acoustic impedance inversion is to build
Also, using the information from Sonic and density logs, subsurface
an initial model. This model is based on sonic logs (Bahmaei & Hosseini,
construction models can be prepared. In this method, the transmission
2020); also, acoustic impedance is one of the critical properties of rock
time of the seismic wave is less than the surface seismic surveys, so the
that can be obtained from seismic data during inversion. Seismic
signal-to-noise ratio increases because the receivers are close to the
inversion is a method of restoring lost frequency data by eliminating the
reflective surface. The resolution of reflective data is higher than that of
wavelet effect and completely reconstructing the earth’s frequency
seismic data. However, zero-offset data is slightly spread around the
band. Seismic inversion is to convert limited band seismic data to
well, and its data is usually suitable for drilling information (Paul et al.,
broadband acoustic impedance grids at each normal move-out (NMO) or
2021).
common midpoint (CMP) survey. Therefore, seismic inversion is a pro­
cess that tries to estimate the acoustic impedance model close to the
2.4.1.1. Determine interval velocity using velocity data in wells. The

7
P. Kianoush et al. Results in Geophysical Sciences 13 (2023) 100051

Table 2 seismic data from the Azadegan anticline demonstrate the un­
Division of South Azadegan Field based on the average cubic thickness of conformities and erosional surfaces due to the uplifting of basement-
geological layers. cored horsts.
Row Formation Formation Formation Average Dominant
Top (m) Base (m) Thickness Lithology 3.2. Constructing of the structural geological model
(m)

1 Aghajari 0 1272.3 1272.3 Marl and After defining the network range, horizontal (I) and vertical (J) axes,
sandstone number of nodes, and well’s layout, the 3D geological structure of the
2 Gachsaran 1272.3 1630.65 358.35 Anhydrite
field was modeled. (Fig. 6). Then, the In-line and X-line ranges of the
and
Claystone amplitude values were added, and a seismic cube with post-stack data
3 Asmari and 1630.65 2368.25 737.6 Sandstone was created by the arithmetic seismic resampling method of Petrel
Pabdeh and (2016) Software.
Limestone The Studied field formations are modeled based on the interpretation
4 Gurpi 2368.25 2590.05 221.8 Limestone
5 Tarbur 2590.05 2757.85 167.8 Limestone
of time-domain seismic horizons data and correlated with drilling
(Member) and marl geological information. Depth-domain seismic horizons have been
6 Ilam and 2757.85 2866.05 108.2 Limestone constructed as separate surfaces from the Aghajari to the Gotnia For­
Laffan and mations. Due to the lack of complex fault systems in the area, the
claystone
geological model has been built with a simple network of Petrel (2016)
7 Sarvak 2866.05 3506.9 640.85 Limestone
8 Kazhdumi 3506.9 3733.95 227.05 Shale, software (Fig. 7 and Table 2).
Limestone
and 4. Results
Sandstone
9 Dariyan 3733.95 3896 162.05 Limestone
4.1. VSP interval velocity model
and marl
10 Gadvan 3896 3966.55 70.55 Marl, shale
and The interval velocity model was prepared using the relationship
limestone between checkshots and Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP) velocity data
11 Khalij 3966.55 4071 104.45 Sandstone
and with depth changes in wells with information according to Eq. (8),
(member) and
Limestone
and the coefficients V0 and K were determined with a correlation coef­
12 Upper 4071 4228.05 157.05 Limestone ficient of 0.95 (Fig. 10).
Fahliyan
13 Lower 4228.05 4589.1 361.05 Limestone V = V0 + K ∗ Z (8)
Fahliyan
In this relation, K is the constant conversion factor of changing deep
14 Garau 4589.1 4783 193.9 Limestone
and horizon layers to the average interval velocity, and V0 is the surface
claystone layer velocity.
15 Gotnia 4783 4931 148 Anhydrite The data from Ilam, Sarvak, Kazhdumi, Gadvan, Fahliyan, and Garau
and
Formations (from the upper Cretaceous to the Jurassic horizon) has been
limestone
16 Najmeh 4931 4959 28 Anhydrite used to match the data of deep seismic horizons.
and
V = V0 = Vint (9)
limestone
17 Sargelu 4959 5068 109 Limestone In order to convert the depth seismic horizon layers to average ve­
and shale
18 Alan 5068 5107 39 Anhydrite
locity, due to the lack of surface seismic horizon in the surface Aghajari
and layer used Eq. (9) and for other layers from Eq. (8) with constant values
limestone of V0 = 1984.61 and K = -0.3721 calculated according to the table
19 Muss 5107 5199 92 Limestone below. Finally, the average velocity of each formation is calculated using
20 Neyriz 5199 5590 391 Limestone
Eq. (10), and the average velocity map of each layer is prepared sepa­
and
anhydrite rately; its results are summarized in the table below.
(m)
Vavg = 2000 ∗ Z (m)/TWT (ms) (10)
s
actual earth model based on the initial seismic models and estimated
wavelets (Vicêncio et al., 2022). In this formula, TWT is the wave travel time in milliseconds, Z is the
depth in meters, and Vavg is the average layer velocity in meters per
3. Geological Setting second. A VSP Log and initial model sample in the Azadegan Field are
shown in Figs. 8 and 9.
3.1. Geological model based on seismic interpretation Based on this, the average velocity of the surface Aghajari Formation
with a constant rate of 1984.6 m/s has been calculated, the highest
The Azadegan oilfield is located in the transition zone between the average velocity in the range of 2760- 2900 m/s in the northeast side is
Arabian plate and the Zagros basin (Fig. 5). The Zagros orogeny has related to the Gotnia Formation, and the lowest is related to the Gach­
changed the shape and fracture of the subsurface layers due to the saran Formation with 2180-2250 m/s in the southwest direction of the
presence of shale and marl in the Cenozoic formations and the reduction studied area (Table 3). An example of the layer velocity maps in the
of tectonic stress. Although they still have a sealing role in restraining lower Fahliyan Formation is presented in Fig. 11.
the migration and vertical loss of oil (Du et al., 2016). The seismic profile According to Fig. 14, the average velocity of the lower Fahliyan
across Azadegan high shows a steep fault system in the Jurassic and Formation is between 2330 and 2760 m/s, and the highest values of that
underlying sedimentary rocks (Abdollahie Fard, 2019; Morgan, 1999). are visible in the northeast with red contour and the lowest in the
The Azadegan dome is a complex horst. Seismic data of the Azadegan southwest with purple contour.
structure show steep faulting in the core of the anticline. These faults die
up in the upper Jurassic Gotnia Formation. Exploratory drilling and

8
P. Kianoush et al. Results in Geophysical Sciences 13 (2023) 100051

Fig. 8. a) VSP travel times (Two Way Time), b) Average and Interval Velocity of Well A-001.

Fig. 9. Location of studied wells along with initial model of exploratory wells with VSP data in South Azadegan Field.

4.2. Construction of seismic acoustic impedance (AI) inversion cube
As explained in the methodology, seismic data inversion is a process
that tries to estimate the acoustic impedance model close to the real
earth model based on the primary seismic models and the estimated
wavelets.
Petrel (2016) software (Fig. 12.a). In the next step, by using the data of
checkshots control points and vertical seismic profiling (VSP) in seven
wells with information on velocity and depth relationships in terms of
V=V0+KZ (Eq. (8)) with a correlation coefficient of 0.95, and using the
software of Petrel (2016), seismic data is converted from time-domain to
depth-domain data (Fig. 12.b).

4.2.1. Converting post-stack seismic data from time domain to depth
domain
In order to perform the inversion with deterministic method, first,
the post-stack seismic data as time-domain were outputted from the
Hampson Russell 08 software (HRS-8, 2010 model) and entered into the
4.2.2. Construction of depth-domain seismic data cube
At this stage, by determining the In-line and X-line ranges of the
amplitude values and using the Geometrical Modeling section and the
“Arithmetic Seismic Resampling” method of Petrel (2016) software, a
post-stack seismic data cube has been created.

9
P. Kianoush et al. Results in Geophysical Sciences 13 (2023) 100051

Fig. 10. Correlation coefficient of average velocity data of check-shot and VSP points and depth to determine coefficients of velocity model.

Based on the obtained results, the acoustic impedance inversion

Table 3 values in the lower depths are mainly in the range of 8000-15000 [(m/s)
Minimum and maximum average layer velocities based on VSP and seismic *(g/cm3)], which according to Fig. 1 in the methodology, are in the
horizons data. range of calcareous formations. The surface Aghajari Formation with a
Formation Min. Vavg Min. Vavg Max. Max. Vavg value of less than 8,000 [(m/s)*(g/cm3)] is placed in the range of Marley
(m/s) direction Vavg (m/ direction and Shale formations, and the obtained results are in high correlation
(degree) s) (degree) with the geological samples during drilling. In the next step, correlating
Aghajari 1984.6 Constant 1984.6 Constant values, relative error, and the difference between actual values and
Gachsaran 2150 Southwest (SW) 2280 Northwest (NW) inversion resulting from synthetic seismic mapping will be presented.
Asmari 2200 SW 2340 NE and NW
Gurpi 2330 SW 2460 NE and NW
Tarbur 2370 SW 2480 NE and NW 4.2.5. Calculation of acoustic impedance inversion error values
(Member)
Ilam and Laffan 2410 SW 2510 NE and NW 4.2.5.1. Correlation matching. Based on the diagram and map of corre­
Sarvak 2430 SW 2530 NE and NW
lating values of synthetic inversion data and original data at the location
Kazhdumi 2530 SW 2630 NE and NW
Dariyan 2560 SW 2670 NE and NW of exploratory wells, the highest correlating rate is 99.61%. Also, the
Gadvan 2590 SW 2700 NE and NW lowest correlation rate is 97.45%, and the average correlating rate of
Khalij 2600 SW 2710 NE and NW primary data and synthetic inversion seismic data is 99.61%.
(member)
Upper Fahliyan 2620 SW 2730 NE and NW
Lower Fahliyan 2630 SW 2760 Northeast (NE) 4.2.5.2. Relative Error. Based on this, the highest relative error is
to Garau 22.1%, the lowest is 6.61%, and the average relative error of primary
Gotnia to 2760 SW 2900 NE and synthetic inversion seismic data is 8.76%.
Neyriz

4.2.3. Entering seismic horizons into Petrel (2016) software
Interpreted sections, geological data at the top and base of the for­
mations, and the wells’ layout have been entered, and correlations have
been studied in seismic sections (Fig. 13).
Since the data of seismic horizons are in depth-domain data, in order
to inversion all input data to HRS-8 software, they must be in the format
of depth-domain data. The required data include depth seismic data
cube, depth seismic horizons, completed velocity and density logs from
the ground’s surface to the end of the well, the updated wavelet, and the
post-stack data analysis are based on the model base method. After
converting to point data, deep seismic horizons have been exported from
Petrel software and entered into HRS-8 software.
4.2.4. Entering converted time-domain to depth-domain seismic data and
performing inversion
After determining the coordinate range in UTM-WSG84 and zone
39S, the converted depth-domain seismic data cube has been entered
into the HRS-8 software as separate depth-domain seismic horizons.
In the next step, after entering the corrected logs into the HRS-8
software, the time and frequency graph of the time-dependent wavelet
has been updated (Fig. 14).
An example of the acoustic impedance (AI) cross-section obtained
from synthetic seismic mapping from the surface of the Aghajari to the
Gotnia Formations is presented in Fig. 15.
4.2.5.3. The root mean square (RMS) error. Based on this, the highest
RMS error (difference between actual values and synthetic data) of
acoustic impedance is 3669.5 [(m/s)*(g/cm3)] in A-025 well, and the
lowest is 1326.43 in the well A-018. The total RMS error is 2305.8, with
a correlating rate of 99.61%.
Table 4 shows the correlating matching, relative, and the RMS error
values of the inverted acoustic impedance (AI) for synthetic inversion
data and original data at the location of exploratory wells.
4.2.6. Acoustic impedance inversion analysis
At this stage, to analyze the inversion of acoustic impedance (AI), the
seismogram of the degree of correlation and error between the artificial
seismic log and the original seismic data, along with the modified time-
dependent wavelet in the studied wells, is drawn separately. Based on all
the relative error values, the compatibility and RMS error of the inver­
sion with the Post-stack data in the studied wells are within the
acceptable range. Therefore the accuracy of the inversion has been
confirmed. For example, the seismogram of the error values of Wells A-
010 and A-025 are presented in Fig. 16.a and 16b.
Thus, the seismic inverted AI cube with the highest degree of cor­
relation and the lowest relative error between the Vp and density with
synthetic seismic mapping is constructed. Then the above data is used to
model the interval velocity cube by the Sequential Gaussian simulation
(SGS) method and co-kriging with the cube of the seismic acoustic
impedance.

10
P. Kianoush et al. Results in Geophysical Sciences 13 (2023) 100051

Fig. 11. Average velocity map of the lower Fahliyan Formation based on seismic horizons and VSP data.

Fig. 12. a) Primary seismic data transferred from HRS-8 to Petrel (2016) as time-domain, b) Seismic data conversion from time-domain to depth-domain.

11
P. Kianoush et al.
Fig. 13. An example of a depth-domain section of seismic data with entering formations’ top, depth-domain seismic sections, and the location of exploratory wells in
the studied field.
Fig. 14. Wavelet time response, amplitude and phase response and history of a) Initial wavelet (Wave 0 on the left sides), and b) Constructed wavelet (Wave 1 on the
right sides).
4.2.7. Entering AI inversion as depth-domain data into Petrel (2016)
software
After entering the acoustic impedance data obtained from the syn­
thetic seismogram inversion with the highest correlation and the lowest
acceptable error, using the Geometrical Modeling command and the
Seismic Resampling method of Petrel (2016) software, the initial cube of
the acoustic impedance is made according to the depth data. In the next
step, the out-of-range model data, which were values less than 4000
[(m/s)*(g/cm3)], have been removed. The initial acoustic impedance
model resulting from a seismic inversion with depth-domain data and
the modified model with removing out-of-range values is presented in
Fig. 17.
In order to complete the acoustic impedance model resulting from
seismic inversion, The empty parts of the inverted acoustic impedance
(AI) cube have been completed using the acoustic impedance cube ob­
tained from the compressional velocity and density logs with a corre­
lation coefficient of 0.7 (Figs. 18 and 19). Based on the results obtained,
12
Results in Geophysical Sciences 13 (2023) 100051
the final values of inverted acoustic impedance at low depths are mostly
in the range of 8000-15000 [(m/s)*(g/cm3)], which can be in the range
of calcareous formations. The Aghajari surface Formation, with a value
of less than 8000 [(m/s)*(g/cm3)], is located in the Marley and shale
formations, the results of which are highly consistent with the geological
samples during drilling. The highest acoustic impedance values are in
the field’s lower part in the range of the lower Fahliyan Formations to
Gotnia.
4.3. Seismic migration interval velocity model
After entering the post-stack seismic data and constructing the
relevant petro-physical model, data points of interval seismic migration
velocity were calculated with Petrel (2016) software. Finally, a seismic
migration velocity cube was constructed. Most variations of migration
velocity data are in the 5500-600m/s (Fig. 20.a and 20b). The AI and
interval migration cubes were used to select the final velocity model.
P. Kianoush et al. Results in Geophysical Sciences 13 (2023) 100051

Fig. 15. Examples of seismic acoustic impedance inversion (AI) section using HRS-8 software in a) Aghajari to Pabdeh Formations, b) Kazhdumi to Got­
nia Formations.

Table 4
The correlating machine, relative, and the RMS errors values of the inverted acoustic impedance (AI) for synthetic inversion data and original data at the location of
exploratory wells.
Type of Error Wells Minimum Maximum Average

Correlation matching 23 97.45% 99.61% 99.6%

Relative Error 23 6.61% 22.1% 8.76%
RMS 23 1326.4 3669.5 Total: 2305.8
[(m/s)*(gr/cm3)] [(m/s)*(gr/cm3)] [(m/s)*(gr/cm3)]

4.4. Estimating compressional velocity (Vp) and density with seismic
attributes
Emerge module of HRS-8 software was used to estimate the well
parameters, including compressional velocity (Vp) and density, and
finally, their multiple products as acoustic impedance (AI). After inte­
grating well logs and seismic data, the Emerge module, using seismic
attributes, determines a suitable set of attributes to determine the
seismic velocity in the well area.
What is analyzed here is not the seismic data but a set of multiple
seismic attributes extracted from these data. Using a set of attributes is
more beneficial than using raw seismic data. After that, these data can
train the system to estimate the P-wave velocity property.
The present studies have been carried out using post-stack seismic
data, sonic, and density log data of four important wells, A-001, A-002,
A-004, and A-006, in the studied fields.
4.4.1. Estimating compressional velocity (Vp)
The Emerge module of HRS-8 software extracts suitable attributes for
estimating compressional velocity from seismic data. Then, it was
necessary to select the optimal number of seismic attributes. For this
purpose, the validation diagram was used, and some suitable attributes
were selected. Seven attributes were suitable due to the reduction of the
estimation error by increasing each attribute to the previous attributes
(Fig. 21 and Table 5).
The correlation coefficient of the cross-sectional diagram of the
actual and predicted P-wave (target diagram) using an AI seismic
attribute has been calculated as 0.74 and all seven attributes as 0.79.
Hence, the increase of the correlation coefficient of +0.05 shows the
improvement of the relationship. It means that the estimated values of P-
wave velocity are in good agreement with the original Well log values.
4.4.2. Estimating density from seismic data
Suitable attributes for estimating density (gr/cm3) from seismic data
are extracted by the Emerge module of HRS-8 software. Like what was
mentioned about P-wave estimation from seismic data, density is also
estimated from seismic data and based on the analysis of suitable at­
tributes. According to Table 6 and Fig. 22, by evaluating the training and
validation curve, it was found that the first three seismic attributes of the
selected attributes are suitable for density estimation. Therefore, the
density volume was estimated using these three seismic attributes and
density on the seismic data cube.
Analyzing and checking the validation curve in density estimation
shows that the three attributes in Fig. 23 are among the selected attributes
suitable for density estimation. The estimation was done based on single
attribute analysis and then multi-attribute analysis. Fig. 23.a shows the
cross plot of density against the attribute of inverse acoustic impedance
(1/AI); As seen in the figure, the correlation coefficient is 0.57.

13
P. Kianoush et al.
Fig. 16. Analysis the seismogram of relative error, correlation, and RMS error values of the inversion with post-stack data in a) Well A-010, b) Well A-025.
By adding the number of attributes (using the multi-attribute tech­
nique), the correlation coefficient between density and attributes (three
attributes of "1/AI", "Quadrature Trace", and "Integrated Absolute
Amplitude") reaches 0.60 (Fig. 23.b). The density volume is estimated by
applying this relationship between seismic data (seismic attributes) and
density on the seismic data cube.
5. Discussion
5.1. Determining the final velocity model by combining SGS and co-
kriging methods
For determining the final velocity model, the completed data of
compressional velocity (Vp) logs are re-modeled using a sequential
Gaussian simulation (SGS) combined co-kriging with acoustic
14
Results in Geophysical Sciences 13 (2023) 100051
impedance inversion cubes as seismic migration velocity cubes sepa­
rately. Both have been re-modeled after calculating the correlation co­
efficients of their cubes with the initial Vp cube modeled with the
inverse distance weighted (IDW) method (Appendix Fig. B.3 and
Fig. 24).
As a result, the correlation coefficient of compressional velocity cube
(Vp) resulting from SGS (combined with the co-kriging method with the AI
inverse seismic cube) and the initial velocity cube using the inverse dis­
tance weighted (IDW) method is 0.54 (Appendix Fig. B.4.a), as well as the
correlation coefficient of the Vp cube resulting from SGS (combined with
co-kriging with the interval seismic velocity cube) and the initial velocity
cube using the IDW method, is 0.51 (Appendix Fig. B.4.b). Therefore, to
model the effective pressure using the Bowers method, it is recommended
to use the compressional velocity cube obtained from SGS combined with
co-kriging with the seismic acoustic impedance (AI) cube method.
P. Kianoush et al. Results in Geophysical Sciences 13 (2023) 100051

Fig. 17. Removal of out-of-range values of the primary Geometrical Modeling of Seismic AI (values less than 4000 [(m/s)*(g/cm3)].

Fig. 18. Determining acoustic impedance (AI) correlation coefficient from seismic inversion and log data.

Fig. 19. Final AI cube resulting from seismic inversion and log data integration with r of 0.7.

15
P. Kianoush et al. Results in Geophysical Sciences 13 (2023) 100051

Fig. 20. a) Calculating point’s data of migration velocity, b) Interval migration velocity cube based on seismic post-stack data.

16
P. Kianoush et al. Results in Geophysical Sciences 13 (2023) 100051

Fig. 21. Training and validation errors of P-wave velocity data of studied field wells.

Table 5
A number of suitable attributes for compressional velocity (Vp) estimation.
Row Target Final Attribute Training Error Validation Error

1 P-Wave AI 438.528 457.013

2 (m/s) Filter 5/10-15/20 426.679 444.331
3 Amplitude Weighted Frequency 422.096 442.128
4 Integrate 418.267 440.528
5 Quadrature Trace 408.694 431.376
6 Derivative 401.345 424.474
7 Average Frequency 400.046 426.256

Table 6
A number of suitable attributes for density (gr/cm3) estimation.
Row Target Final Attribute Training Error Validation Error

1 Density 1/AI 77.526 82.262

2 (gr/cm3) Quadrature Trace 76.289 81.839
3 Integrated Absolute Amplitude 75.624 81.537
4 Average Frequency 74.235 83.085
5 Apparent Polarity 74.052 83.572
6 Amplitude Envelope 73.811 83.816
7 Amplitude Weighted Frequency 73.579 85.381
8 Amplitude Weighted Phase 73.403 85.459

5.2. Anisotropic spatial variation of final compressional velocity cube

For evaluating anisotropy variations in the final VP cube (combined

SGS and co-kriged with AI) model, experimental variograms with the
Gaussian method were created in three directions: vertical, major hor­
izontal azimuth of zero degrees, and the minor azimuth of 270 degrees.
In the vertical Variogram, the sill is 0.34, and in major and minor is 0.96.
Anisotropy range based on Petrel (2016) software computations for
vertical variogram range is 96, and for major and minor directions, it is
11850 meters. The experimental calculations and anisotropy range are
shown in Tables 7 and 8.

6. Conclusions

Seismic inversion is a process that tries to estimate the acoustic

Fig. 22. Training and validation errors of density data of studied field wells.
impedance model close to the actual earth model based on the initial AI
models and estimated wavelets. Also, Acoustic impedance is the most
important and applicable seismic attribute used for estimating P-wave
(Vp) and density volumes. The seismic data analysis is considered as the
only method to predict the pore pressure in the pre-drilling stage by
estimating the pore pressure based on the effect of wave velocity. As a
result of relative error and correlation values of inversion with post-

17
P. Kianoush et al. Results in Geophysical Sciences 13 (2023) 100051

Fig. 23. Cross plot of actual and predicted density using a) a single seismic attribute of reverse acoustic impedance (1/AI) with a correlation coefficient of 0.57, b)
multiple attributes (1/AI, Quadrature Trace, and Integrated Absolute Amplitude) with a correlation coefficient of 0.60.

Fig. 24. Secondary compressional velocity cube by SGS method and co-kriged with a) acoustic impedance (AI) cube resulting from seismic inversion, b) interval
seismic migration velocity cube.

Table 7
Experimental Variogram computation for final velocity cubes.
Direction Azimuth Dip Number of lags Lag distance Search radius Band width Tolerance angle Lag tolerance Thickness

Vertical NA 90 8 25 200 50 45 50 0.001

Major 0 0 8 250 2000 200 45 50 0.001
Minor 270 0 8 250 2000 200 45 50 0.001

Table 8
Results of Gaussian Variogram of compressive velocity cube obtained by combining SGS and Co-kriging methods with acoustic impedance (AI) in studied field.
Direction Nugget Sill Range Number of Pairs Anisotropy range (m)

Vertical 0.659 0.341 1000 13374251 Vertical: 68

Major azimuth 0 0.0351 0.965 7766.6 11367363 Major direction:11850
Minor azimuth 270 0.0341 0.966 7611.4 11058663 Minor direction:11850

stack data, the uncertainty described as the average relative error was
8.76%.
The correlation coefficient of actual and predicted P-wave (target
diagram) using only AI as attribute has been calculated as 0.74 while
considering seven seismic attributes the correlation increased to 0.79.
The same approach applied to estimate density logs out of well locations,
presents correlation improvement from 0.57 to 0.60.
The highest average velocity in the range of 2760-2900 m/s in the
northeast of the study area is related to the Gotnia Formation, and the
lowest is related to the Gachsaran Formation with 2150-2280 m/s in the
southwest direction of the study area. Cube values of inverted acoustic
impedance in deeper formations of the field (Gotnia Formation) are
often in the range of 8000-15000 [(m/s)*(g/cm3)], which could be
referred as calcareous lithology. The computed acoustic impedance
obtained from predicted Vp and density cubes shows a good correlation
with the inverted acoustic impedance of the well-data as r=0.71 and the
relation used for infilling well properties which well logs do not exist. As
a result, the correlation coefficient of the Vp cube resulting from SGS
(combined with a co-kriged with the AI inverse cube) and the initial
velocity cube using the IDW method is more than the same method with
seismic interval migration velocity. It is suggested to use SGS (combined
with a co-kriged with the AI inverse cube) in similar oilfields to validate

18
P. Kianoush et al. Results in Geophysical Sciences 13 (2023) 100051

the interval velocity model accuracy in the future studies. Acknowledgment

Declaration of Competing Interest The present work is from a Ph.D. dissertation on Mining Engineering-
Mineral Exploration from Islamic Azad University, South Tehran
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Branch, hosted by the Research Institute of Petroleum Industry (RIPI).
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence The authors consider it necessary to express their sincere gratitude to the
the work reported in this paper. esteemed experts of the RIPI and Exploration Directorates of the Na­
tional Iranian Oil Company (NIOC).
Data availability

The authors do not have permission to share data.

Supplementary materials

Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.ringps.2023.100051.

Appendices

Appendix A: Conditional programming for complete Compressional and Shear velocity logs data

Conditional programming with petrel (2016) software to calculate the empty part values (U)1 of compressional velocity for surface Aghajari to
Gotnia Formations in all the 23 exploratory wells studied in the South Azadegan Field.
Vp temp = 29.83 ∗ GR + 2911 (A.1)

V2 = if (Vp = U, Interval velocity VSP, Vp) (A.2)

Vp Full = If (Vp = U, Vp temp, Vp) (A.3)

Vp Full2 = − 753.5 + 2062.45 ∗ RHOB Full (A.4)

Vp Full Final = If (Vp Full = U, Vp Full2, If (V2 = U, Vp temp, if (Vp = U, Interval velocity VSP, Vp))) (A.5)
Conditional programming by Petrel (2016) software to calculate the shear velocity by combining Litho_base (measured in Japan’s TRC laboratory)
and DSI logs.
Dominant Limestone lithology : Vs = − 0.01068Vp2 + 1.5106Vp − 2.2008 (A.6)

Dominant Sandstone lithology : Vs = 0.738Vp − 0.5653 (A.7)

Dominant Limestone
(A.8)
Marl and Shale lithology : Vs = 0.5243Vp + 0.0451

Sample Lithological_base shear velocity for a well:

Vs Litho base = If(DEPT < 1290, (0.738 ∗ Vp Full Final/1000 − 0.5653) ∗ 1000, If(DEPT >= 1290 and
DEPT < 2330, (0.5243 ∗ Vp Full Final/1000 + 0.0451) ∗ 1000, If(DEPT >= 2330And DEPT < 3300, ( − 0.1068∗
(A.9)
Pow(Vp Full Final/1000, 2) + 1.5106 ∗ Vp Full Final/1000 − 2.2008) ∗ 1000, If(DEPT >= 3300 and
DEPT < 3890, (0.5243 ∗ Vp Full Final/1000 + 0.0451) ∗ 1000, If(DEPT >= 3890andDEPT < 4640, ( − 0.1068∗
Pow(Vp Full Final/1000, 2) + 1.5106 ∗ Vp Full Final/1000 − 2.2008) ∗ 1000, U)))))

Vs Full Final = If (Vs Litho base < > Vs DSI, Vs DSI, Vs Litho base) (A.10)

Appendix B

Supplementary modeling steps

1
U: Undefined

19
P. Kianoush et al. Results in Geophysical Sciences 13 (2023) 100051

Fig. B.1. Mechanism of Seismic Inversion (Russell, 2017).

Fig. B.2. Model-based inversion starts with an initial model that is updated iteratively until the residual trace is minimized to a threshold value (Veeken & Da
Silva, 2004).

Fig. B.3. Method of constructing secondary compressional velocity cube (Vp) using SGS method combined with co-kriging with a) acoustic impedance cube (AI)
resulting from seismic inversion and b) seismic interval migration velocity cube.

20
P. Kianoush et al. Results in Geophysical Sciences 13 (2023) 100051

Fig. B.4. a) Correlation coefficient of Vp1 cube (resulting from combined SGS and co-kriged with AI cube) and initial velocity cube with IDW method, b) Correlation
coefficient of Vp2 cube (resulting from SGS and co-kriged with migration velocity cube method) and initial velocity cube with IDW method in the south Azade­
gan Field.

References Conzález-Veloza, J.F., Duitama-Leal, A., Castillo-López, L.A., Gil-Gómez, J.H.,

Esquivel, R.E., 2020. Seismic Inversion for the Calculation of Velocities Using the
Generalized Inverse Linear Matrix, the Wave Equation, and a Non-Reflective-
Abdolahi, A., Chehrazi, A., Kadkhodaie, A., Babasafari, A.A., 2022. Seismic inversion as a
Boundaries Condition. Tecnura 24 (66), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.14483/
reliable technique to anticipating of porosity and facies delineation, a case study on
22487638.15995.
Asmari Formation in Hendijan field, southwest part of Iran. J. Pet. Explor. Prod.
Cordier, J., 1985. Calculation of Interval Velocities. In: Velocities in Reflection
Technol. 12 (11), 3091–3104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-022-01497-y.
Seismology, Vol. vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-
Abdollahie Fard, I. (2019). Abadan Plain Exploration Potential Evaluation Project. NIOC
3641-1_10.
Exploration Directorate, Published report in Farsi.
Diethart-Jauk, E., Gegenhuber, N., 2018. Shear weakening for different lithologies
Adelinet, M., Domínguez, C., Fortin, J., Violette, S., 2018. Seismic-refraction field
observed at different saturation stages. J. Appl. Geophys. 148, 107–114. https://doi.
experiments on Galapagos Islands: A quantitative tool for hydrogeology. J. Appl.
org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2017.11.011.
Geophys. 148, 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2017.10.009.
Du, Y., Chen, J., Cui, Y., Xin, J., Wang, J., Li, Y.-Z., Fu, X., 2016. Genetic mechanism and
Adelu, A.O., Aderemi, A.A., Akanji, A.O., Sanuade, O.A., Kaka, S.I., Afolabi, O.,
development of the unsteady Sarvak play of the Azadegan oil field, southwest of
Olugbemiga, S., Oke, R., 2019. Application of 3D static modeling for optimal
Iran. Pet. Sci. 13 (1), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12182-016-0077-6.
reservoir characterization. J. Afr. Earth. Sci. 152, 184–196. https://doi.org/
Dufour, J., Squires, J., Goodway, W.N., Edmunds, A., Shook, I, 2002. Integrated
10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2019.02.014.
geological and geophysical interpretation case study, and lame rock parameter
Aki, K., Lee, W.H.K., 1976. Determination of three-dimensional velocity anomalies under
extractions using avo analysis on the Blackfoot 3c-3d seismic data, southern Alberta,
a seismic array using first P arrival times from local earthquakes: 1. A homogeneous
Canada. GEOPHYSICS. https://library.seg.org/doi/pdf/10.1190/1.1451319.
initial model. J. Geophys. Res. 81 (23), 4381–4399. https://doi.org/10.1029/
Dutta, N.C., 2002. Geopressure prediction using seismic data: Current status and the road
JB081i023p04381.
ahead. GEOPHYSICS 67, 2012–2041. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1527101.
Avseth, P., Mukerji, T., Mavko, G., 2005. Quantitative Seismic Interpretation: Applying
Dziewonski, A.M., Hager, B.H., O’Connell, R.J, 1977. Large-scale heterogeneities in the
Rock Physics Tools to Reduce Interpretation Risk. Cambridge University Press.
lower mantle. J. Geophys. Res. 82 (2), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1029/
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511600074.
JB082i002p00239.
Backus, G.E., Gilbert, J.F., 1967. Numerical Applications of a Formalism for Geophysical
Etminan, M., Jamali, J., Riahi, M.A., 2012. Formation Pore Pressure Prediction Using
Inverse Problems. Geophys. J. Int. 13 (1-3), 247–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Velocity Inversion in Southwest Iran. Pet. Sci. Technol. 30 (1), 28–34. https://doi.
j.1365-246X.1967.tb02159.x.
org/10.1080/10916461003752538.
Bahmaei, Z., Hosseini, E., 2020. Pore pressure prediction using seismic velocity
Fichtner, A., Trampert, J., 2011. Resolution analysis in full waveform inversion:
modeling: case study, Sefid-Zakhor gas field in Southern Iran. J. Pet. Explor. Prod.
Resolution in full waveform inversion. Geophys. J. Int. 187 (3), 1604–1624. https://
Technol. 10 (3), 1051–1062. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-019-00818-y.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05218.x.
Bowers, G.L., 1995. Pore pressure estimation from velocity data: Accounting for
Haque, A.E., Qadri, S.T., Bhuiyan, M.A.H., Navid, M., Nabawy, B.S., Hakimi, M.H., Abd-
overpressure mechanisms besides undercompaction. SPE Drill. Complet 10 (02),
El-Aal, A.K., 2022. Integrated wireline log and seismic attribute analysis for the
89–95. https://doi.org/10.2118/27488-PA.
reservoir evaluation: A case study of the Mount Messenger Formation in Kaimiro
Bowers, G.L., 2002. Detecting high overpressure. The leading edge 21 (2), 174–177.
Field, Taranaki Basin, New Zealand. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 99, 104452 https://doi.
https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1452608.
org/10.1016/j.jngse.2022.104452.
Chen, P., Zhao, L., Jordan, T.H., 2007. Full 3D Tomography for the Crustal Structure of
Hearn, S., Meulenbroek, A., 2011. Ray-path concepts for converted-wave seismic
the Los Angeles Region. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97 (4), 1094–1120. https://doi.org/
refraction. Explor. Geophys. 42 (2), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1071/EG10030.
10.1785/0120060222.
Hosseini, E., Gholami, R., Hajivand, F., 2019. Geostatistical modeling and spatial
Chen, Q., Sidney, S., 1997. Seismic attribute technology for reservoir forecasting and
distribution analysis of porosity and permeability in the Shurijeh-B reservoir of
monitoring. GEOPHYSICS 16, 445–450.
Khangiran gas field in Iran. J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol. 9 (2), 1051–1073. https://
Chen, Y., Chen, H., Xiang, K., Chen, X., 2016. Geological structure guided well log
doi.org/10.1007/s13202-018-0587-4.
interpolation for high-fidelity full waveform inversion. Geophys. J. Int. 207 (2),
Kadkhodaie, A., Kadkhodaie, R., 2022. Acoustic, density, and seismic attribute analysis
1313–1331. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggw343. November 2016.
to aid gas detection and delineation of reservoir properties. Sustainable Geoscience

21
P. Kianoush et al.
for Natural Gas Subsurface Systems 51–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-
85465-8.00007-8.
Li, C., Liu, X., 2022. Three-term AVO inversion using group total variation regularization.
J. Appl. Geophys. 207, 104854 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2022.104854.
Lindseth, R.O., 1979. Synthetic sonic logs – A process for stratigraphic interpretation.
GEOPHYSICS 44, 3–26. https://library.seg.org/doi/abs/10.1190/1.1440922?journa
lCode=gpysa7.
Liu, G., Zhang, L., Wang, Q., Xu, J., 2022. Data-driven seismic prestack velocity inversion
via combining residual network with convolutional autoencoder. J. Appl. Geophys.
207, 104846 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2022.104846.
Liu, Y., Dong, L., 2012. Influence of wave front healing on seismic tomography. Sci.
China Earth Sci. 55 (11), 1891–1900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-012-4441-0.
Mallick, S., 1995. Model-based inversion of amplitude-variations-with-offset data using a
genetic algorithm. GEOPHYSICS 60, 939–954.
Maulana, Z.L., Saputro, M.D., Latief, F., 2016. In: New Modified Band Limited Impedance
(BLIMP) Inversion Method Using Envelope Attribute IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ.
Maurya, S.P., Singh, N.P., Singh, K.H., 2020. Post-stack Seismic Inversion. In: Maurya, S.
P., Singh, N.P., Singh, K.H. (Eds.), Seismic Inversion Methods: A Practical Approach.
Springer International Publishing, pp. 39–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
45662-7_3.
Morgan, P., 1999. Azadegan Field Geophysical Interpretation [Technical]. ConocoPhillips
UK LTD.
Paul, S., Ali, M., Chatterjee, R., 2021. Prediction of velocity, gas content from neural
network modeling and estimation of coal bed permeability from image log in coal
bed methane reservoirs: Case study of South Karanpura Coalfield, India. Results
Geophys. Sci. 7, 100021 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ringps.2021.100021.
Pennebaker, J.E.S., 1968. Seismic data indicate depth magnitude of abnormal pressures.
Spring meeting of southern district 184–191.
Qadri, S.M.T., Islam, M.A., Shalaby, M.R., El-Aal, A.K.A., 2021. Reservoir quality
evaluation of the Farewell sandstone by integrating sedimentological and well log
analysis in the Kupe South Field, Taranaki Basin-New Zealand. J. Pet. Explor. Prod.
11 (1), 11–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-020-01035-8.
Radwan, A.A., Nabawy, B.S., Abdelmaksoud, A., Lashin, A., 2021. Integrated
sedimentological and petrophysical characterization for clastic reservoirs: A case
study from New Zealand. Gas Sci. Eng. 88, 103797 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jngse.2021.103797.
Radwan, A.A., Nabawy, B.S., Shihata, M., Leila, M., 2022. Seismic interpretation,
reservoir characterization, gas origin and entrapment of the Miocene-Pliocene
Mangaa C sandstone, Karewa Gas Field, North Taranaki Basin, New Zealand. Mar.
Pet. Geol. 135, 105420 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2021.105420.
Radwan, A.E., 2021. Modeling pore pressure and fracture pressure using integrated well
logging, drilling based interpretations and reservoir data in the giant El Morgan oil
field, Gulf of Suez, Egypt. J. Afr. Earth. Sci. 178, 104165 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jafrearsci.2021.104165.
Rahimi, M., Riahi, M.A., 2020. Static reservoir modeling using geostatistics method: a
case study of the Sarvak Formation in an offshore oilfield. Carbonates Evaporites 35
(2), 62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13146-020-00598-1.
Rai, N., Singha, D.K., Shukla, P.K., Sain, K., 2020. Delineation of discontinuity using
multi-channel seismic attributes: An implication for identifying fractures in gas
hydrate sediments in offshore Mahanadi basin. Results Geophys. Sci. 1-4, 100007
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ringps.2020.100007.
Riahi, M.A., Fakhari, M.G., 2022. Pore pressure prediction using seismic acoustic
impedance in an overpressure carbonate reservoir. J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-022-01524-y.
22
View publication stats
Results in Geophysical Sciences 13 (2023) 100051
Rointan, A., Soleimani Monfared, M., Aghajani, H., 2021. Improvement of seismic
velocity model by selective removal of irrelevant velocity variations. Acta Geod.
Geophys. 56 (1), 145–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40328-020-00329-x.
Ronquillo Jarillo, G., Markova, I., Markov, M, 2018. Acoustic reflection log in
transversely isotropic formations. J. Appl. Geophys. 148, 1–7. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jappgeo.2017.11.005.
Russell, B.H., 2017. Introduction to Seismic Inversion Methods: Society of Exploration
Geophysicists [Research]. SEG Library. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560802303.
Shahbazi, A., Ghosh, D., Soleimani, M., Gerami, A., 2016. Seismic imaging of complex
structures with the CO-CDS stack method. Stud. Geophys. Geod. 60 (4), 662–678.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11200-015-0452-6.
Shahbazi, A., Soleimani Monfared, M., Thiruchelvam, V., Ka Fei, T., Babasafari, A.A.,
2020. Integration of knowledge-based seismic inversion and sedimentological
investigations for heterogeneous reservoir. J. Asian Earth Sci. 202, 104541 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2020.104541.
Shakiba, S., Asghari, O., Khah, N.K.F., 2018. A combined approach based on MAF
analysis and AHP method to fault detection mapping: A case study from a gas field,
southwest of Iran. J. Appl. Geophys. 148, 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jappgeo.2017.11.003.
Soleimani, M., 2016. Seismic imaging by 3D partial CDS method in complex media.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jseaes.2020.104541.
Sompotan, A.F., Pasasa, L.A., Sule, R., 2011. Comparing models GRM, refraction
tomography and neural network to analyze shallow landslide. J. Eng. Technol. Sci.
43, 161–172.
Swarbrick, R.E., Seldon, B., Mallon, A.J., 2005. Modelling the Central North Sea pressure
history. Petroleum Geology Conferences Ltd.
Tape, C., Liu, Q., Maggi, A., Tromp, J., 2010. Seismic tomography of the southern
California crust based on spectral-element and adjoint methods. Geophys. J. Int. 180
(1), 433–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04429.x.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., Mesri, G., 1996. Soil mechanics in engineering practice, 3rd Ed
ed. John Wiley & Sons.
Tong, P., Zhao, D., Yang, D., Yang, X., Chen, J., Liu, Q., 2014. Wave-equation-based
travel-time seismic tomography - Part 1: Method. Solid Earth 5 (2), 1151–1168.
https://doi.org/10.5194/se-5-1151-2014.
Veeken, P., Kashubin, A., Curia, D., Davydenko, Y., Priezzhev, I., 2020. From data
conditioning, depth imaging and reservoir characterization to machine learning.
First Break 38 (6), 71–77.
Veeken, P.C.H., Da Silva, M., 2004. Seismic inversion methods and some of their
constraints. First Break 22, 47–70.
Vicêncio, H., Teves-Costa, P., Caetano, P.S., 2022. Seismic site effects in Setúbal county
(Portugal) using remi technique. Results Geophys. Sci. 9, 100037 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ringps.2021.100037.
Virieux, J., 1986. P-SV wave propagation in heterogeneous media: Velocity-Stress finite-
difference method. GEOPHYSICS 51 (4), 889–901.
Yadav, A., Mondal, S., Chatterjee, R., 2022. Geophysical analysis to delineate a Class-I
AVO prospect in the offshore east coast of India: A case study. J. Appl. Geophys. 206,
104794 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2022.104794.
Yu, G. (2010). Method improve pore pressure prediction. The American oil and gas
Reporter. www.aogr.com.
Yu, Z., Liu, Y., 2022. A robust migration velocity analysis method based on adaptive
differential semblance optimization. J. Appl. Geophys. 207, 104851 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jappgeo.2022.104851.