Equivalent Q Estimation Using a Deep-learning-based Decoupling Method

L. Xu, Z. Gao, S. Hu, C. Li, J. Gao
{"title":"Equivalent Q Estimation Using a Deep-learning-based Decoupling Method","authors":"L. Xu, Z. Gao, S. Hu, C. Li, J. Gao","doi":"10.3997/2214-4609.202112720","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In seismic exploration, Q model estimation from post-stack seismic data is an important problem since this model is a key prerequisite for reservoir identification and improving the vertical resolution of seismic data. The effects of Q are mainly manifested amplitude reduction and phase distortion of seismic data. In order to obtain high-resolution seismic data to describe oil and gas reservoirs, many Q factor estimation methods have been proposed. These methods can be roughly divided into direct estimation methods and inversion methods. Direct estimation methods, such as logarithmic spectral ratio method, frequency shift method, etc., usually use the attributes of seismic data to estimate Q, but it usually has disadvantages such as poor stability, dependence on source wavelet type, and the need for piecewise estimation of multi-layer Q model (Tonn, 1991). In contrast, the inversion methods regard Q factor as a model parameter and use the inversion algorithm to obtain the dynamic Q curve with traveltime or depth, which improves the calculation efficiency and stability, such as a novel method for Q analysis on reflection seismic data (Wang, 2004). However, the reflectivity and Q factor simultaneously affects the waveform of post-stack seismic data, leading to the fact that the Q model cannot be independently estimated without providing an accurate reflectivity model. The general approach for solving this problem is to simultaneously estimate these two parameters in an alternative iteration way (Wang et al., 2016). However, since neither the Q factor nor the reflectivity has a good initial model, the approach has no convergence guarantee.","PeriodicalId":143998,"journal":{"name":"82nd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"82nd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.202112720","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In seismic exploration, Q model estimation from post-stack seismic data is an important problem since this model is a key prerequisite for reservoir identification and improving the vertical resolution of seismic data. The effects of Q are mainly manifested amplitude reduction and phase distortion of seismic data. In order to obtain high-resolution seismic data to describe oil and gas reservoirs, many Q factor estimation methods have been proposed. These methods can be roughly divided into direct estimation methods and inversion methods. Direct estimation methods, such as logarithmic spectral ratio method, frequency shift method, etc., usually use the attributes of seismic data to estimate Q, but it usually has disadvantages such as poor stability, dependence on source wavelet type, and the need for piecewise estimation of multi-layer Q model (Tonn, 1991). In contrast, the inversion methods regard Q factor as a model parameter and use the inversion algorithm to obtain the dynamic Q curve with traveltime or depth, which improves the calculation efficiency and stability, such as a novel method for Q analysis on reflection seismic data (Wang, 2004). However, the reflectivity and Q factor simultaneously affects the waveform of post-stack seismic data, leading to the fact that the Q model cannot be independently estimated without providing an accurate reflectivity model. The general approach for solving this problem is to simultaneously estimate these two parameters in an alternative iteration way (Wang et al., 2016). However, since neither the Q factor nor the reflectivity has a good initial model, the approach has no convergence guarantee.
基于深度学习解耦方法的等效Q估计
在地震勘探中,叠后地震数据的Q模型估计是一个重要的问题,因为该模型是储层识别和提高地震数据垂向分辨率的关键前提。Q的影响主要表现为地震资料的幅度降低和相位畸变。为了获得高分辨率的地震数据来描述油气储层,人们提出了许多Q因子估计方法。这些方法大致可分为直接估计方法和反演方法。直接估计方法,如对数谱比法、频移法等,通常利用地震资料的属性来估计Q,但通常存在稳定性差、依赖源小波类型、需要对多层Q模型进行分段估计等缺点(Tonn, 1991)。而反演方法以Q因子为模型参数,利用反演算法获得随走时或深度变化的动态Q曲线,提高了计算效率和稳定性,如对反射地震资料进行Q分析的新方法(Wang, 2004)。然而,反射率和Q因子同时影响叠后地震数据的波形,导致如果不能提供准确的反射率模型,就无法独立估计Q模型。解决该问题的一般方法是以替代迭代的方式同时估计这两个参数(Wang et al., 2016)。然而,由于Q因子和反射率都没有一个好的初始模型,该方法没有收敛性保证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信