SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2013 2013
DOI: 10.1190/segam2013-0877.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Petrophysical Joint Inversion of seismic and EM attributes: A case study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Various schemes exist e.g. petrophysical joint inversion (PJI) of seismic and CSEM (Miotti et al, 2013), joint interpretation of CSEM and multivariate seismic attributes analysis (Alvarez et al, 2017), and the prospectivity evaluation approach (Baltar and Barker, 2015) where ATR and background are interpreted from inverted data and a Monte Carlo simulation defines probability distributions for hydrocarbon volume controlling parameters to provide volume range quantiles. The approach taken here is different and more labor and computationally intensive.…”
Section: Maturing a Framework For Csem Interpretationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Various schemes exist e.g. petrophysical joint inversion (PJI) of seismic and CSEM (Miotti et al, 2013), joint interpretation of CSEM and multivariate seismic attributes analysis (Alvarez et al, 2017), and the prospectivity evaluation approach (Baltar and Barker, 2015) where ATR and background are interpreted from inverted data and a Monte Carlo simulation defines probability distributions for hydrocarbon volume controlling parameters to provide volume range quantiles. The approach taken here is different and more labor and computationally intensive.…”
Section: Maturing a Framework For Csem Interpretationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…During the last few years, numerous methodologies have been presented to interpret CSEM data either qualitatively or quantitatively, and the most recent trend in that respect is the development of methods to integrate CSEM and seismic data in a common interpretation: qualitative interpretation (Escalera Alcocer et al, 2013); quantitative interpretation of CSEM and seismic based on rock physics relationship (Harris et al, 2009;Morten et al, 2011;Tomlinson et al, 2013); or full petrophysical joint CSEMseismic inversion (Miotti et al, 2013). The success of such joint approaches is based on the complementarity of these data: whereas seismic data are, in the best case, only sensitive in a qualitative way to the fluid content, CSEM is very sensitive to fluid saturation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%