Geophysical Prospecting, 2013, 61, 613629 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.2012.01115.

Seismic driven probabilistic classification of reservoir facies for static

reservoir modelling: a case history in the Barents Sea

Dario Grana1 , Enrico Paparozzi2 , Silvia Mancini3 and Cristiano Tarchiani2
1 Eni
E&P, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy (presently Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA), 2 Eni E&P, San Donato Milanese,
Milan, Italy, and 3 Eni Norge, Stavanger, Norway (presently Eni E&P, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy)

Received November 2011, revision accepted June 2012

ABSTRACT
In this paper we present a case history of seismic reservoir characterization where
we estimate the probability of facies from seismic data and simulate a set of reser-
voir models honouring seismically-derived probabilistic information. In appraisal and
development phases, seismic data have a key role in reservoir characterization and
static reservoir modelling, as in most of the cases seismic data are the only informa-
tion available far away from the wells. However seismic data do not provide any
direct measurements of reservoir properties, which have then to be estimated as a
solution of a joint inverse problem. For this reason, we show the application of a
complete workflow for static reservoir modelling where seismic data are integrated
to derive probability volumes of facies and reservoir properties to condition reservoir
geostatistical simulations. The studied case is a clastic reservoir in the Barents Sea,
where a complete data set of well logs from five wells and a set of partial-stacked
seismic data are available. The multi-property workflow is based on seismic inver-
sion, petrophysics and rock physics modelling. In particular, log-facies are defined
on the basis of sedimentological information, petrophysical properties and also their
elastic response. The link between petrophysical and elastic attributes is preserved
by introducing a rock-physics model in the inversion methodology. Finally, the un-
certainty in the reservoir model is represented by multiple geostatistical realizations.
The main result of this workflow is a set of facies realizations and associated rock
properties that honour, within a fixed tolerance, seismic and well log data and assess
the uncertainty associated with reservoir modelling.

Key words: Modelling, Petrophysics, Reservoir geophysics, Rock physics, Seismic.

voir properties (porosity, net-pay, permeability, etc.) but only

INTRODUCTION
One of the main goals of reservoir modelling is to describe
the complexity and heterogeneity of the reservoir. Usually,
in reservoir studies, the only recorded data available away
from well positions are seismic amplitudes; however seismic
data do not directly provide any measurements of the reser-
gives information related to the elastic contrasts in the sub-
surface. The uncertainty of the reservoir properties estimation
from seismic data is generally quite large, due to the accuracy
and resolution of seismic data, physical model approxima-
tions and natural variability of the rock. This uncertainty can
be assessed by probabilistic inversion methodologies and can
be represented by means of geostatistical methods, which are
simulation algorithms based on prior information and spa-

E-mail: dgrana@stanford.edu tial continuity models of the properties. Attributes derived


C 2012 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers 613
614 D. Grana et al.
from seismic data can then be used to condition geostatistical
simulations.
The scope of this work is to show the application to a
real study case in the Barents Sea of a workflow for reser-
voir characterization that integrates conditioning seismic data
and their uncertainty into traditional reservoir modelling. This
step is not trivial, because reservoir properties (facies and rock
properties) must be recovered from elastic attributes (veloc-
ities or impedances) commonly derived from seismic ampli-
tudes; and the solution of the inverse problem is not unique.
In this field application we applied the probabilistic inver-
sion methodology published in Grana and Della Rossa (2010)
to derive seismic driven facies classification and we show
here the results of the complete reservoir characterization
workflow.
The geological scenario of this field study is a complex clas-
tic reservoir that reflects similar features encountered in the
previously published literature referring to North Sea fields
(Avseth, Mukerji and Mavko 2005). The results of this case
history are presented step-by-step, first at the selected well
locations and then along 2D sections and horizon maps ex-
tracted from the 3D volume.
The workflow we adopt belongs to the category of multi-
step inversion approaches, where a 3D volume of facies and/or
volumes of the probability of facies are estimated from partial-
stack seismic data through two or more inversion steps as de-
scribed in Bosch, Mukerji and Gonzalez 2010. These methods
are generally based on the traditional Bayesian framework and
have been applied to problems related to uncertainty evalua-
tion in elastic inversion (Buland and Omre 2003) and litho-
fluid prediction from seismic data (Buland et al. 2008). The
so-obtained estimated volumes of the probabilities of reservoir
properties are then used to condition reservoir geostatistical
simulations (Mukerji et al. 2001 or Grana and Dvorkin 2011).
This kind of workflow is particularly suitable in fields in an
early development phase where only a few wells are available
and seismic data are the only information recorded far away
from the well. Statistical rock-physics models were also used
in Bachrach et al. (2004) and Spikes et al. (2008) for joint
estimation of reservoir parameters.
Another important family of inversion methods is based
on stochastic approaches, including sampling methodologies
such as Markov chain methods (see Eidsvik et al. 2004; Larsen
et al. 2006; Gunning and Glinsky 2007; Ulvmoen, Omre and
Buland 2010), or geostatistical methods such as multi-point
geostatistics (see for example Gonzalez, Mukerji and Mavko
2008). These techniques allow us to include prior geologi-
cal information and to condition reservoir models to seismic

C 2012 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 61, 613629
and well log data, but in many cases the required computa-
tional time is very high. Furthermore these methods require
a number of assumptions about prior geological information,
such as the training image in multi-point geostatistics and spa-
tial transition probabilities in Markov chain approaches. The
large computational cost is due to the number of stochastic re-
alizations that have to be generated to match the seismic data
set. Several geostatistical methods have been proposed to gen-
erate ensembles of reservoir property realizations: two-point
geostatistics (for example, sequential indicator and sequen-
tial Gaussian simulations, or pluri-Gaussian methods, Doyen
2007) and multi-point geostatistics methods (Gonzalez,
Mukerji and Mavko 2008) are the most common. Some
of these methods have been combined with optimization
techniques (such as simulated annealing, genetic algorithms,
gradual deformation, probability perturbation method and
ensemble Kalman filter) to obtain optimal models of reservoir
properties (see Sams and Saussus 2010a; Sams et al. 2011).
These methods have been applied to elastic inversion or si-
multaneous inversion of elastic and reservoir properties and
facies (see Sams et al. 1999; Contreras et al. 2005; Merletti
and Torres-Verdin 2006).
The workflow we propose in this paper combines a set of
well-known techniques such as cluster analysis, Bayes theory,
seismic inversion and rock physics modelling. Usually, these
methods are traditionally applied in seismic reservoir char-
acterization but they are not always included in a complete
workflow. Bayesian classification techniques, for example, are
often applied to classify facies from inverted seismic attributes
(Mukerji et al. 2001; Bachrach et al. 2004; Connolly and
Kemper 2007; Sams and Saussus 2010b), however log-facies
are typically derived from sedimentological and petrophysi-
cal information and they are not necessarily linked to elastic
properties. Similarly the rock-physics model is often used for
qualitative and quantitative analysis but in most of the com-
mon workflows it is not included in the inversion because
the solution of the inverse problem associated to the rock
physics estimation is not unique. The application of the com-
plete workflow is presented here in three sections: 1) facies
definition, which includes a preliminary sensitivity analysis
of well log data, formation evaluation analysis, rock physics
modelling and log-facies classification at the well locations; 2)
seismic facies classification, where we estimate the spatial dis-
tribution of facies and the associated rock properties, starting
from partial-stack seismic data; 3) geostatistical simulations
of reservoir properties, where the volumes of the seismic facies
probabilities are used as secondary information to condition
geostatistical simulations. The final result is a set of models
 Seismic driven probabilistic classification of reservoir facies 615
of facies and rock property realizations that are the reference
static model used for risk analysis and dynamic fluid flow
simulations.
The main advantage of the workflow presented here is that
the algorithm is very fast because it is based on trace-by-trace
inversion. The proposed methodology overcomes the com-
mon assumption of Gaussian distribution of rock properties
by means of more flexible Gaussian mixture models in or-
der to describe the multimodality of the data. A Gaussian
mixture model is a linear combination of Gaussian distribu-
tions. As in many practical applications where Gaussian mix-
tures have been used, the clusters of the linear combination
have a physical meaning: in rock physics and reservoir mod-
elling each cluster of the mixture represents a lithological en-
vironment (i.e., reservoir facies). In other words the weights
of the linear combination can be identified with the overall
proportions of the facies within the reservoir. Moreover the
so-obtained seismic facies volumes preserve the link to both
elastic data and petrophysical properties and their reciprocal
discriminability.
The main limitation of the proposed workflow is the resolu-
tion of the models estimated from seismic data, either facies or
petrophysical properties. As a matter of fact the probabilistic
inversion does not directly integrate geostatistical techniques
and does not account for the lateral correlation imposed by
the geological features. This issue is the drawback of the trace-
by-trace approach. However probabilistic inversion provides
not only the most probable model but also the probability
volumes of facies, elastic and petrophysical properties. Seis-
mic driven facies and the associated probabilities can be in-
tegrated as secondary information to condition geostatistical
simulations of the reservoir properties, by using two-point or
multi-point geostatistics methods (see for example Dubrule
2003; Doyen 2007). In our workflow we integrate the results
of the inversion with well-known geostatistical methods such
as sequential indicator and sequential Gaussian simulation to
generate high-resolution reservoir models.
FIELD APPLICATION
The studied case history is located in the Barents Sea, off-
shore Norway. The field is characterized by a clastic reservoir
channel system within a fluvio-deltaic environment of middle-
late Triassic age characterized by very complex heterogeneous
sand distributions. The reservoir fluid is oil. The basin, where
the field is located, has experienced significant subsidence and
uplift events. The most recent and important uplift occurred
in late Pliocene and was responsible for important erosion

C 2012 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 61, 613629
events. The uplift in the area is estimated to be approximately
7501000 m, estimated from vitrinite-reflectance data from
samples from the exploration well. The Barents Sea fluvio-
deltaic system is also characterized by complex structural fea-
tures, with high segmentation and a complex set of faults. The
field was covered by a marine multi-azimuth 3D seismic sur-
vey, which was processed for amplitude interpretation (Buia
et al. 2010). A complete well log data set with five wells and
a set of partial-stacked seismic volumes are available. Three
angle stacks were computed: the near stack corresponds to a
central angle of 17.5o , the mid stack to 32o and the far stack
to 45o .
The workflow we adopt here is schematically presented in
Fig. 1. The input data for the workflow are: well logs and
petrophysical curves computed in formation evaluation anal-
ysis and the set of the three angle stack seismic volumes.
A log-facies characterization based on petrophysical and
elastic properties (part 1) is first achieved via a multivariate
statistical technique applied to volumetric logs (mineral frac-
tions and effective porosity) obtained from quantitative log in-
terpretation and velocity data (P-wave, S-wave velocity and/or
V P /V S ratio) as input (see Maffioletti et al. 2010; Pirrone et al.
2011). The final result of the log-facies classification is a set
of log-facies with a distinguishable petrophysical and elastic
signature and a log-facies profile at the well locations.
The second part of the workflow (part 2 Fig. 1, left) is
based on a probabilistic methodology that consists in three
main steps: 2a) Bayesian linearized seismic inversion (Buland
and Omre 2003); 2b) probabilistic estimation of petrophysi-
cal properties (Grana and Della Rossa 2010); and 2c) seismic
facies classification (Grana and Della Rossa 2010). All these
steps are based on a Bayesian approach to inversion prob-
lems, where the physical-mathematical models used for the
likelihood estimates are: convolutional model and linear ap-
proximation of Zoeppritz equations (Aki and Richards 1980),
rock-physics model and log-facies classification based on sta-
tistical cluster analysis. This part is based on the assumption of
a Gaussian mixture distribution of the elastic and petrophysi-
cal properties. These properties are in general multimodal due
to the presence of different facies. Within each facies we can
assume that the properties are Gaussian, so that the overall
probability is a linear combination of different Gaussian dis-
tributions (i.e., Gaussian probability density functions with
different means and covariance matrices in each cluster). In
Fig. 2 we show an example of a bivariate Gaussian mix-
ture distribution with three components estimated in the
petro-elastic domain using P-impedance and effective poros-
ity curves measured at the well locations. Non-parametric
616 D. Grana et al.

Figure 1 Schematic workflow of the methodology.

Figure 2 Multimodal behaviour of well log data in the petro-elastic domain. On the left: P-impedance versus effective porosity, colour coded
by facies classification (sand in red, silty sand in orange, silty shale in green); on the right: estimated bivariate joint probability assuming a three
component Gaussian mixture model. The black curves on the left plot correspond to the probability contours of the pdf on the right.

distributions can be used as well to describe the multimodal
behaviour; however in the non-parametric case the posterior
distribution of the Bayesian inverse problem has to be numeri-
cally evaluated point-by-point, while in the Gaussian mixture
case the solution can be analytically computed (Grana and
Della Rossa 2010).
Finally geostatistical simulations (part 3 Fig. 1, right) are
performed using traditional two-point geostatistics methods,
such as sequential indicator simulation and sequential Gaus-
sian simulation (see for example, Dubrule 2003; Doyen 2007).
The outputs of the Bayesian inversion (part 2) are used to con-
dition facies and reservoir property simulations.
The results of the application of each part of the workflow
to the case history are shown and analysed in detail in the
following subsections.
Log-facies definition
The main target of this section is to derive a suitable facies
classification for seismic reservoir characterization by com-
bining rock physics modelling, formation evaluation analy-
sis and upscaling methods. Log-facies analysis is performed
at well locations, where petrophysical and elastic properties
are correlated with facies classification. First, a conventional


C 2012 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 61, 613629
 Seismic driven probabilistic classification of reservoir facies 617

Figure 3 Well log data set of well 1. From left to right: P- and S-impedances (the black curves represent the well log, i.e., the product of density
and P-wave and S-wave velocities respectively; red lines represent the impedance curves predicted by the rock-physics model); effective porosity;
volume of clay and muscovite; and oil saturation.

formation evaluation is carried out through a quantitative
log interpretation of well logs to derive a set of petrophys-
ical curves consisting of porosity, water and oil saturations
and volumes of mineral components, i.e., quartz, clay and
muscovite. In this field the clay is mainly made of illite. For-
mation evaluation analysis and quantitative log interpretation
were performed at each of the five well locations. However
the measured data at the well 5 location have poor quality
compared to the other wells and we decided to use only four
wells in the inversion and simulation workflow. In Fig. 3 we
show the data set related to well 1, which was selected as a
calibration well. A rock-physics model (Mavko, Mukerji and
Dvorkin 2009) is then applied to link elastic attributes to rock
properties: the model is firstly calibrated at the well location
by using petrophysical curves and sonic log data (velocities or
impedances). The choice of the rock-physics model depends
on the geological scenario we deal with. A well-known fam-
ily of rock-physics model is granular media models, based
on the Hertz-Mindlin contact theory (Mavko, Mukerji and
Dvorki 2009). In our application, the set of equations con-
sists in Reuss-Voigt-Hill averages for matrix properties (bulk
and shear moduli); Batzle-Wang relations for fluid proper-
ties (bulk modulus and density); Hertz-Mindlin formulas and
the Hashin Shtrikman modified bound for dry rock proper-
ties; and the Gassmann equation to include the effect of fluids
and estimate saturated rock elastic properties. Therefore, this
model allows us to compute saturated rock bulk and shear
moduli for the scenarios described by well log data and also
for fluid and lithology substitution sensitivity analysis. The
model is calibrated using wet velocities in order to avoid the
effect of hydrocarbons. For this reason a preliminary fluid
substitution of well log data is performed. The rock physics
template is superimposed to the well log data in Fig. 4. The pa-
rameters that characterize the model are then fixed so that the
model can be applied to different petrophysical scenarios, even
to those situations that are not sampled by the well log data.
Based on petrophysical curves obtained from formation
evaluation and the corresponding elastic properties computed
in rock physics modelling, a log-facies classification is derived
and four facies are discriminated in the petro-elastic domain:
sand, silty sand, silty shale and shale (interbedded reservoir
shale and non-reservoir shale). This classification does not
exactly match the traditional facies classification based on de-
positional and sedimentological models but it is a simplified
classification that can be used in the static reservoir model
to distribute reservoir properties, such as porosity and net-to-
gross.
The proposed log-facies classification accounts for both
petrophysical and elastic information and it is performed by
applying a multivariate statistical technique, namely cluster
analysis (Pirrone et al. 2011). Such classification is obtained
by applying Wards minimum variance linkage method (Ward


C 2012 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 61, 613629
618 D. Grana et al.

Figure 4 Rock-physics model calibrated at the well 1 location. The plots show P-impedance versus effective porosity (left) and S-impedance
versus effective porosity (right), colour coded by clay content. A preliminary fluid substitution was performed on well-log velocities. The
superimposed black curves represent the Hertz-Mindlin Hashin-Shtrikman model for different constant values of clay content (from right to
left, 0%, 20%, 40%, 60% and 80%).

Figure 5 Crossplots of litho-facies classification in the rock physics domain: (left) P-impedance versus effective porosity; (right) S-impedance
versus effective porosity. Four wells are shown. Data are colour coded by facies: sand in red; silty sand in orange; silty shale in light green; shale
in dark green.

1963) to the petrophysical curves and rock physics veloci-
ties. Cluster analysis is a supervised-learning hierarchical ag-
glomerative algorithm that aims to find a reliable cluster dis-
crimination using previously established clusters. In order to
avoid the fluid effect on facies classification we performed
a fluid substitution on rock physics velocities (from reser-
voir conditions to wet conditions) and used velocity data
of rocks filled by water for the classification. In Fig. 5 we
present the facies classification in the petro-elastic domain
of the data set including four wells. The integration of rock
physics modelling in log-facies classification allows us to link
the classified log-facies to elastic properties inverted from seis-
mic data. The final result at the calibration well is shown in
Fig. 6, where we display the facies profile at the well 1 lo-
cation and the logs used to create the data set for cluster
analysis.
Log-facies classification is then usually integrated in seismic
reservoir characterization studies, where different scales and
different resolution data are combined in the inversion work-
flow. In reservoir characterization studies, log data are used at
a scale that is different from the one at which they were mea-
sured. A process of adjustment of the measured or derived
values is required to integrate them into a reservoir model:
this step is generally called upscaling (for details see Lake and
Srinivasan 2004). The vertical resolution of log interpretation
and rock physics modelling is representative of the well-log
scale. Thence, a change of scale (from log resolution to seis-
mic resolution) and domain (depth-to-time) is needed for the
correct integration of litho-facies into the classification of the
inverted 3D seismic volumes.
The change of scale and domain of log-facies classification
is a challenging task, since the variable that represents facies


C 2012 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 61, 613629
 Seismic driven probabilistic classification of reservoir facies 619

Figure 6 Log-facies classification at the well 1 location. Log-facies classification is based on effective porosity, volume of quartz, volume of clay
and V P /V S ratio in brine condition. Four facies were identified: sand (red); silty sand (orange); silty shale (light green); shale (dark green).

is categorical and not continuous. Traditionally this problem
is faced by applying Backus or arithmetic averaging to the
properties used to classify the facies in the time domain and
re-performing the facies classification in the time domain us-
ing the upscaled data. However since the mentioned upscaling
methods act as smoothing operators, the facies classification
could be biased, leading to an overestimation of the facies
with intermediate properties and underestimation of the other
facies. For this reason we implemented a methodology that al-
lows us to directly upscale the categorical variable. We tackle
the problem by using an approach based on the histogram
upscaling technique of categorical variables. The histogram
upscaling method allows upscaling the original log-facies pro-
file (fine scale in the depth domain) to the seismic scale (in
the time domain) and it is based on statistical computation
of the occurrence of the log-facies in a sliding window along
the profile. In other words, this method consists in calculating
the frequencies of facies (histogram) in a sliding window that
moves along the selected depth interval and maps the result in
the corresponding window in the time domain. In particular
the width of the moving window in the time domain is deter-
mined by seismic resolution (related to the seismic dominant
frequency) and vertical sampling. The width of the moving
window is not constant in terms of depth but in terms of time
increment: this means that the number of samples of the his-
togram can be different in each step, as it varies according
to velocity changes. The velocity used for the conversion, is
related to the time-to-depth function that links seismic and
log domains. The histogram upscaling provides a counting of
the samples (the occurrence) of the original log-facies curve
in the new support in the time domain. Once the change of
support is accomplished, facies occurrences are transformed
into proportions, which can be used to generate a probabil-
ity model (Stright et al. 2009), providing information on the
seismic-scale facies discrimination. We can also compute the
most probable facies at each point to derive a curve of esti-
mated log-facies in the time domain, which can be useful to
determine the optimal number of facies detectable at the seis-
mic scale. Moreover this result is important to better calibrate
the well-to-seismic tie correlation and for data comparison at
the seismic scale.
Net-to-gross (ntg) is defined at the well location as a fa-
cies dependent property. In particular, a net flag was gen-
erated at the log scale by assigning a discrete value 1 to
sand and silty sand facies and 0 to shale and silty shale
facies. The net flag was then upscaled from the log fa-
cies scale to the geocellular grid scale obtaining a net-
to-gross property, at the well location, with values be-
tween 01. This approach allows us to account for the
pay/non-pay facies ratio into the upscaled geocellular grid
property.
Log-facies are then used as a training data set to estimate the
rock physics likelihood function and classify seismic derived
attributes; but the number of uncertainty sources call for a sta-
tistical approach. We then perform the multi-step inversion of
seismic data, integrating in each step the related information:


C 2012 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 61, 613629
620 D. Grana et al.
seismic amplitudes, rock physics predictions, petrophysical
curves and log-facies.
Seismic facies classification
The petro-elastic properties inversion and facies classification
from seismic data are performed by applying three different
steps.
The first step (step a) of the inversion methodology is a
Bayesian linearized elastic inversion that allows us to obtain
a set of volumes of the probability of elastic properties (veloc-
ities or impedances) conditioned by the recorded seismic am-
plitudes. From these probability volumes, we infer the prob-
ability of petrophysical properties (porosity, clay content and
water saturation) in the whole 3D volume (step b), by intro-
ducing the so-called rock physics likelihood function, which
describes the conditional probability of petrophysical proper-
ties conditioned by elastic attributes. The final step (step c)
allows us to classify seismic scale reservoir-facies by using the
log-facies as a training data set for the likelihood and condi-
tional probabilities obtained in the previous steps. Each step
of the inversion method is based on a full Bayesian approach.
In what follows we describe the details of each step and we
summarize the mathematical formulation.
Bayesian linearized seismic inversion is a well-known tech-
nique that was presented by Buland and Omre (2003). The
probabilistic approach to traditional inversion based on the
convolutional method and linearized approximation of Zoep-
pritz equations, allows us to estimate, trace-by-trace, the pos-
Figure 7 Well-to-seismic tie at the well 1 location. From left to right: near, mid and far stacks (blue represents synthetic seismic data, red
represents real seismic data). The two black lines represent the top and bottom horizons and correspond to the 990 m and 1102 m depths in
Figs 3 and 6.

C 2012 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 61, 613629
terior probabilities of elastic properties conditioned by seis-
mic data. The advantage of such a technique compared to
deterministic inversion methods is that the Bayesian approach
provides, at each data point, the full distribution of the seis-
mic attributes, which means that measures of accuracy can be
inferred from pointwise distributions.
In this field application, three partial angle stacks were com-
puted from prestack seismic data, by selecting the following
angle ranges: 1025o for the near stack, 2539o for the mid
stack and 3951o for the far stack. The signal-to-noise ratio
(SNR) is defined as the ratio between the variance of the signal
and the variance of the noise, where the noise is the difference
between real and synthetic seismic data. The SNR was esti-
mated to be between 1.51.8 and it was computed during the
well-to-seismic tie and wavelet extraction step. The wavelets
and the inversions parameters were estimated independently
for each angle stack to deal with a varying seismic signature;
the well-to-seismic tie at the well 1 location is shown, as a ref-
erence, in Fig. 7. The results of the elastic inversion at the same
well location are shown in Fig. 8, where we compare the in-
verted attributes with the corresponding properties measured
at the well location and converted in the time domain. Even
though the quality of the seismic data is not excellent, the
result is quite satisfactory. We point out that the uncertainty
of density prediction is higher than the uncertainty associated
to impedance: this is consistent with previously published lit-
erature (Buland and Omre 2003); for this reason we decided
not to use the posterior probability of density derived from
seismic data in the facies classification.
 Seismic driven probabilistic classification of reservoir facies 621

Figure 8 Seismic inversion results at the well 1 location. Inverted profiles of P- and S-impedances and density (red) compared to the actual log
(blue). The distribution quantiles P25 and P75 are represented by red dashed lines. The prior model (green) is superimposed for completeness
of information.

Then, a statistical rock physics approach (Mukerji et al.
2001) is adopted to manage the uncertainties relating to lithol-
ogy, petrophysics and elastic properties estimated from seis-
mic data. In a clastic reservoir, we can assume that the set of
petrophysical properties is made by porosity, clay content and
water saturation and the set of elastic attributes consists in P-
and S-impedances. Typically in the Bayesian approach to rock
physics inverse modelling we have to introduce some assump-
tions about the prior distribution of the data. In our method-
ology, the prior distribution of the petrophysical variables,
as well as the rock physics likelihood function, is modelled
using a multivariate Gaussian mixture distribution instead of
a Gaussian model. The assumption that the joint probabil-
ity is distributed according to a Gaussian mixture model and
the analytical derivation of the linear inverse problem in the
Gaussian mixture case (Grana and Della Rossa 2010) allow
us to derive the conditional probability of petrophysical prop-
erties conditioned by impedance values. The workflow also
takes into account the change of scale and domain in the
probabilistic workflow. Thence, the conditional probabilities
of elastic properties are estimated at a coarse scale after apply-
ing the Backus average (Backus 1962) to rock-physics model
predictions, taking into account the uncertainty associated to
the scale change. This conditional probability is finally com-
bined with the probability of elastic properties obtained from
the Bayesian inversion to obtain the posterior probability of
petrophysical properties. Finally the posterior probability of
facies is numerically computed.
We summarize here the mathematical formulation to derive
the probability of seismic facies conditioned by partial-stack
seismic amplitudes (for a full description we refer the reader
to Grana and Della Rossa 2010). First of all we assume a
prior distribution of elastic attributes mc (seismic impedances,
where the superscript c indicates properties at a coarse/seismic
scale) and we compute the posterior distribution conditioned
by seismic data S, by assuming a log normal distribution
of mc :
P(mc | S) P(S | mc )P(mc ). (1)
The prior model of elastic properties P(mc ) is pointwise.
In particular the covariance matrix is estimated at the well
location and it is constant in the whole grid, whereas the
mean values are obtained from the background low-frequency
trend of elastic attributes. The low-frequency trend can be
obtained by using different methods; in our workflow we
applied collocated cokriging (Doyen 2007) using the stacking
velocity volume used for the processing of seismic amplitudes,
a density volume obtained by the Gardner relation and sonic


C 2012 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 61, 613629
622 D. Grana et al.
well-logs filtered at low frequency (12 Hz). Then we estimate
the probability of fine scale elastic attributes mf conditioned
by the elastic properties at coarse scale mc , namely P(m f |mc ),
from impedances of pseudo-log data. We then estimate the
probability of reservoir properties R as:
 
P(R | S) = P(R | m f )P(m f | mc )P(mc | S) dm f dmc , (2)
where P(R|m f ) is the rock physics likelihood estimated by
statistical rock physics modelling and it is assumed to be a
Gaussian mixture model:

L  
R| mf k(m f )N R; kR | m f ,  kR | m f . (3)
k=1
where L is the number of Gaussian components, k(m f ) are
the conditional weights, N represents the Gaussian probabil-
ity density function and kR|m f ,  kR|m f are respectively the con-
ditional means and covariance matrices of each component.
Finally the probability of seismic facies F is obtained as:
 distributions; nevertheless we observe in Fig. 9 that the fluc-
P(F | S) = P(F | R)P(R | S) d R (4)
where P(F |R) is the probability of facies given the rock prop-
erties.
For simplicity of notation we used scalar variables but the
formulation is still valid in the multi-variable case. In our field
application m = [IP , IS ] is the vector of elastic properties, i.e.,
P- and S-impedances, R = [, C, SW ] is the vector of rock
properties, i.e., porosity, clay content and water saturation
and F are the litho-fluid classes. In particular we estimate the
posterior probability of six litho-fluid classes: shale, silty shale,
water silty sand, oil silty sand, water sand and oil sand. The
posterior probabilities of water silty sand and oil silty sand are
summed to obtain the probability of silty sand facies. Similarly
probabilities of water sand and oil sand are summed to obtain
the probability of sand facies.
The prior probabilities of facies were estimated using the
facies classification combined with the saturation log at the
well locations. Sand, silty sand and silty shale have approxi-
mately equiprobable distributions, whereas the probability of
shale in the reservoir is lower. The parameters of the Gaus-
sian mixture models (weights, means and covariance matri-
ces of the Gaussian components) describing the rock-physics
likelihood functions in equations (2) and (4) were estimated
using petro-elastic property logs at the well locations as well.
Since at well locations the shale facies contains only a few
samples, we extended the training data set by using Monte
Carlo simulations and applying the rock-physics model (see
for example Avseth, Mukerji and Mavko 2005). In shale, the

C 2012 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 61, 613629
effective porosity is near zero, so the rock-physics model re-
duces to the computation of velocities and the density of a
matrix made of wet clay, by means of the Voigt-Reuss-Hill
average and we obtain a good approximation of the velocities
in shale.
The inversion workflow was first applied at the well loca-
tions to verify the results and test the associated assumptions.
In Fig. 9 we show the results of the estimation of porosity
and facies classification at the calibration well location (well
1). The results in terms of facies prediction are not perfect: in
particular there are misclassifications between sand and silty
sand and between silty sand and silty shale. These misclassi-
fications were partially expected because of the low quality
of the seismic data and the overlap between different facies
observable in the rock physics templates (Fig. 6). However
we want to point out that the maximum a posteriori of the
posterior probability of facies is not an exhaustive estima-
tor especially for inverse problems with wide spread posterior
tuations of the probability curves estimated from seismic data
have a good match with the upscaled profile. We then per-
formed the same inversion to another well data set available
in the field, namely well 2 (Fig. 10): the results are quite satis-
factory if we compare the estimated seismic facies profile with
the upscaled facies classification at the well location. Simi-
larly we observe that the extracted statistical estimator of the
property (in our case we chose the mode of facies probabil-
ity and the median of porosity distribution) is not exhaustive.
However, the methodology also provides the pointwise full
probability distribution that can be used to describe the local
variability of the property. We recall that in this case history
we have not used the typical Gaussian assumption but we
used a linear combination of Gaussian models to describe the
multimodality of the data. With multimodal data, traditional
parameter estimators, such as the mean or the median do not
provide exhaustive information; however we notice that the
main trend is correctly captured (Figs. 9 and 10).
We finally applied the inversion methodology to the whole
seismic survey. A 2D section of the seismic data set is shown in
Fig. 11. The corresponding inverted sections of elastic proper-
ties (P- and S-impedances) are shown in Fig. 12, whereas the
predicted porosity and the classified seismic facies are shown
in Fig. 13. Porosity is actually the median of the pointwise
probability distribution obtained from the probabilistic petro-
physical properties estimation; on the other hand, the seismic
facies section was obtained as the maximum of the posterior
probability of seismic facies (Fig. 14). The final results of the
inversion for the reservoir layer are shown in Fig. 15, where
 Seismic driven probabilistic classification of reservoir facies 623

Figure 9 Facies inversion and porosity estimation results at the well 1 location: from left to right, actual facies classification at the well, upscaled
classification, seismic facies probabilities, maximum a posteriori of estimated facies probabilities and estimated porosity (red represents the
actual curve at the well location, blue represents the median of the probability estimated from seismic data).

Figure 10 Facies inversion and porosity estimation results at the well 2 location: from left to right, actual facies classification at the well,
upscaled classification, seismic facies probabilities, maximum a posteriori of estimated facies probabilities and estimated porosity (red represents
the actual curve at the well location blue represents the median of the probability estimated from seismic data).

we show the estimated data along the map of one of the lay-
ers, extracted from the 3D volume. We point out that the
volumes of the probability of seismic facies, the correspond-
ing volume of the most probable seismic facies and the vol-
ume of median porosity are depth converted and re-sampled
within the corner point grid of the geological model (geocel-
lular grid). To guarantee a correct re-sampling of both con-
tinuous and categorical data we used a method that averages
each input cell of the seismic grid within cells of the geological
grid. All seismic cells intersecting the selected geological cell


C 2012 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 61, 613629
624 D. Grana et al.

Figure 11 Partial stack seismic data. From top to bottom: near, mid and far angle stacks. The vertical black line represents the well 1 location.
The greyscale bar represents seismic amplitudes.

Figure 12 Inverted sections of P- and S-impedances corresponding to the seismic section of Fig. 11.

contribute to average values of reservoir properties (facies and data, whereas for categorical data the most frequent value is
rock properties) and their values are weighted by the frac- chosen.
tion of the output cell volume occupied by each input seis- The application of the methodology is straightforward and
mic cell. The arithmetic average is computed for continuous the results of the inversion of the 3D volume can be obtained


C 2012 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 61, 613629
 Seismic driven probabilistic classification of reservoir facies 625
Figure 13 Inverted sections of effective porosity (top) and seismic facies classification (bottom), depth converted in the geocellular model.
in a small amount of time. As the approach is trace-by-trace,
the inversion of the 3D seismic volume can be parallelized
(or simply split in subvolumes). In our application the seis-
mic survey was made by 1 260 499 traces and the inversion
was performed in less than a day. The final result of this
part of the workflow consists in the probability volumes of
seismic facies (Fig. 15). The best estimate, in the maximum
probability sense, can be an interesting result especially in ex-
ploration stage fields where not enough wells are available
to reliably perform geostatistical algorithms. However, the
resolution of the so-obtained model is the same as the reso-
lution of the input seismic data, which calls for an integrated
approach with geostatistical methods (Dubrule 2003; Doyen
2007). The seismically derived properties and their probabili-
ties can then be used as a constraint for geostatistical simula-
tions, for example in variogram based methods. Alternatively
Markov chain Monte Carlo methods could be used to sam-
ple from equation (4) by including spatial correlation; how-
ever these methodologies are generally more computationally
demanding.
Geostatistical simulations of reservoir properties
The results of Bayesian classification are finally integrated
into the static reservoir modelling of facies and petrophysical
parameters. Sequential simulation methods (Dubrule 2003;

C 2012 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 61, 613629
Doyen 2007) are adopted for high-resolution facies simula-
tion: the previously obtained probability volumes of seismic
facies are used as 3D low-frequency trend data to condition
geostatistical simulations within the geocellular grid. The use
of seismic information to derive facies probabilities allows
us to reduce the uncertainty associated to the prior geosta-
tistical model and to coherently propagate the uncertainty
assessed from seismic data. Another important advantage of
this approach is related to non-stationarity. Geostatistical al-
gorithms generally assume stationarity in the whole data set;
however, in many practical applications, data are severely af-
fected by trends, especially in the vertical direction for the
effect of burial depth. Depth trends of rock properties (gen-
erally porosity depth trends describing the compaction effect)
are then introduced to condition geostatistical simulations and
account for non-stationarity.
The algorithm we used to generate facies realizations is the
sequential indicator simulation (Doyen 2007). The input data
are: log-facies profiles (in the following named hard data) at
well locations, upscaled in the geocellular grid; 3D variograms
describing facies spatial continuity; prior probability of facies;
and 3D probability volumes of seismic facies (in the following
named soft data). Sequential indicator simulation produces
high-resolution realizations of facies by sequentially visiting
the grid cells along a random path. At each cell, we use the lo-
cal facies probability distribution, derived from seismic data,
626 D. Grana et al.

Figure 14 Seismic facies probabilities estimated by Bayesian inversion. From top to bottom: posterior probability of sand, silty sand, silty shale
and shale. The 2D section corresponds to the section shown in Fig. 11.

to condition the simulations. This procedure is repeated for
all the cells of the 3D volume. At each cell, the simulated value
depends on the prior distribution and on the previously sim-
ulated cell values in the neighbourhood of the given cell. The
variograms ensure the control of the facies spatial continuity
in the 3D space.
Within each facies, relevant sets of petrophysical properties
are finally simulated by sequential Gaussian simulation, con-
ditioned by the probabilities of petrophysical properties esti-
mated from the seismic volume. Typically, porosity is first sim-
ulated through sequential Gaussian simulation (Doyen 2007);
then other properties, such as net-to-gross and permeability,
can be further co-simulated using facies or porosity realiza-
tions as conditioning information.
In our application, the probability volumes are used to
condition the distributions of reservoir parameters according


C 2012 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 61, 613629
 Seismic driven probabilistic classification of reservoir facies 627
Figure 15 3D view of the posterior probability of seismic facies along a layer within the reservoir. From top left to bottom right: sand, silty
sand, silty shale and shale.
to sequential indicator and sequential Gaussian simulations
methods. The simulations we performed are also conditioned
by hard data, represented by the collocated facies profile at
the well log locations. To account for non-stationarity, the
reservoir was subdivided into 9 sub-layers, corresponding to
different geological sequences. The sub-layering was estab-
lished by correlating the stratigraphic sequences at the well
locations. In each sub-layer different variogram models were
used. We assumed a 3D exponential variogram model, with
different parameters in each sub-layer and for each facies. For
example in the central zone of the reservoir we used the fol-
lowing parameters: correlation ranges (10000, 2000, 8) for
sand, (3000, 1500, 2) for silty sand, (3500, 2000, 4) for silty
shale and (3500, 3500, 4) for shale (where each set of numbers
represents the maximum and minimum horizontal range and
the vertical range of the variogram). The vertical ranges were
estimated at the well locations, while the lateral parameters
come from prior geological knowledge of the field and nearby
or analogue field information since there are only five wells
in this field. In particular, the simulation of porosity for each
facies is performed independently of the simulations for other
facies; each simulation is performed over the whole 3D grid,
then the simulations are re-assembled into the final simulated
porosity realization according to the facies classification.
The integration of geostatistics allowed us to generate a
set of 200 stochastic realizations of the reservoir properties,
in particular porosity and facies. This ensemble of reservoir
models is used to represent the geological uncertainties due to

C 2012 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 61, 613629
the natural variability and heterogeneity of the rocks within
the reservoir. Dynamic reservoir properties, such as perme-
ability, were also subsequently co-simulated creating different
connectivity models within the reservoir. For each reservoir
model we computed the total net-pay and the total oil in
place and the corresponding posterior statistics. The realiza-
tion shown in Fig. 16 is the one with a total oil-in-place value
closer to the ensemble average of the set of realizations. This
realization was selected as the reference model (static model)
to run dynamic fluid flow simulations within the reservoir
simulator.
This study was crucial to update the original reservoir model
previously obtained using a traditional characterization work-
flow. In particular, the advanced techniques used in formation
evaluation analysis and rock physics modelling and the pro-
cessing methods used for seismic data allowed improving the
quality and the reliability of the final model. This case history
was performed using a limited amount of wells. The reservoir
model and all the physical relations used to build the model
could be eventually updated when new data sets are available
from new wells. The rock-physics model used in this study is
similar to the model used for many studies in the North Sea. If
the new wells confirm that the described rock-physics model
can be easily adapted to the reservoir in the Barents Sea, this
model could also be used in exploration settings. Compared
to previous studies performed on the same area using tradi-
tional methods, the so-obtained reservoir model gives similar
results in terms of net-pay and total oil-in-place but shows
628 D. Grana et al.
Figure 16 Reservoir model obtained by simulating facies distribution conditioned by the seismic facies probability obtained by the proposed
methodology. The 2D section labelled A shows porosity estimated from seismic data; the 2D section labelled B shows the simulated porosity
(obtained by sequential Gaussian simulation).
different features in terms of continuity and connectivity. In
particular, according to prior geological information, the final
reservoir model better honours the length of the sand geobod-
ies and the continuity of the reservoir properties within each
geobody, which could produce a quite significant difference
in the dynamic model results. In future activities, these results
should be validated using history matching during produc-
tion, by comparing production data at well locations with
production estimates obtained from the reservoir simulator.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper illustrates the application of a complete workflow
to a case history related to a complex clastic reservoir in the
Barents Sea characterized by sparse well data. This workflow
consists in the integration of four different disciplines: seismic
inversion, rock physics, reservoir facies modelling and geo-
statistical simulations and it aims to strengthen the reservoir
description based on seismic information. The main advantage
of the proposed workflow is that it provides reliable proba-
bility volumes of petrophysical properties and reservoir fa-
cies throughout a straight integration of elastic attributes and
petrophysical parameters. These volumes can be used both
in quantitative seismic interpretation and reservoir modelling
since log-facies estimated at well locations are consistent both
in geological and geophysical domains. In this field applica-
tion, we used the set of probability volumes as a low-frequency
trend in geostatistical simulations in order to reduce the un-
certainty associated to the prior geostatistical model and to
coherently propagate the uncertainty related to seismic data.

C 2012 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 61, 613629
The methodologies applied in the workflow, in particular the
probabilistic inversion of seismic data and the geostatistical
simulations, are generally very efficient and can be applied to
complex real field applications.
Our case history shows good results both for the inversion,
classification and simulation tasks, in a complex geological
scenario where the quality of the data, in terms of noise and
vertical resolution, is not optimal.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We acknowledge Eni E&P, Eni Norge and Statoil for permis-
sion to publish this paper. We would also like to thank Ernesto
Della Rossa (Eni E&P) for helpful comments and suggestions.
REFERENCES
Aki K. and Richards P.G. 1980. Quantitative Seismology: Theory and
Methods. Vol. 1. W.H. Freeman and Co.
Avseth P., Mukerji T. and Mavko G. 2005. Quantitative Seismic
Interpretation. Cambridge University Press.
Bachrach R., Beller M., Ching Liu C., Perdomo J., Shelander D., Dutta
N. and Benabentos M. 2004. Combining rock physics analysis, full
waveform prestack inversion and high-resolution seismic interpre-
tation to map lithology units in deep water: A Gulf of Mexico case
study. The Leading Edge 23, 378383.
Backus G.E. 1962. Long-wave elastic anisotropy produced by hor-
izontal layering. Journal of Geophysical Research 67, 4427
4440.
Bosch M., Mukerji T. and Gonzalez E.F. 2010. Seismic inversion
for reservoir properties combining statistical rock physics and geo-
statistics: A review. Geophysics 74(2), O1O15.
 Seismic driven probabilistic classification of reservoir facies 629
Buia M., Cirone C., Leutscher J., Tarran S. and Webb B. 2010.
Multi-azimuth 3D survey in the Barents Sea. First Break 28, 65
69.
Buland A., Kolbjrnsen O., Hauge R., Skjveland O. and Duffaut K.
2008. Bayesian lithology and fluid prediction from seismic prestack
data. Geophysics 73 (3), C13C21.
Buland A. and Omre H. 2003. Bayesian linearized AVO inversion.
Geophysics 68 (1), 185198.
Connolly P. and Kemper M. 2007. Statistical uncertainty of
seismic net pay estimations. The Leading Edge 26, 1284
1289.
Contreras A., Torres-Verdin C., Kvien K., Fasnacht T. and Chesters
W. 2005. AVA stochastic inversion of pre-stack seismic data and
well logs for 3D reservoir modeling. 67th EAGE Conference &
Exhibition, Expanded Abstracts, F014.
Doyen P. 2007. Seismic Reservoir Characterization. EAGE Publica-
tions.
Dubrule O. 2003. Geostatistics for Seismic Data Integration in Earth
Models. EAGE Publications.
Eidsvik J., Avseth P., Omre H., Mukerji T. and Mavko G. 2004.
Stochastic reservoir characterization using prestack seismic data.
Geophysics 69, 978993.
Gonzalez E.F., Mukerji T. and Mavko G. 2008. Seismic inver-
sion combining rock physics and multiple-point geostatistics. Geo-
physics 73 (1), R11R21.
Grana D. and Della Rossa E. 2010. Probabilistic petrophysical prop-
erties estimation integrating statistical rock physics with seismic
inversion. Geophysics 75 (3), O21O37.
Grana D. and Dvorkin J. 2011. The link between seismic inversion,
rock physics, and geostatistical simulations in seismic reservoir
characterization studies. The Leading Edge 30, 54.
Gunning J. and Glinsky M. 2007. Detection of reservoir quality using
Bayesian seismic inversion. Geophysics 72 (3), R37R49.
Lake L.W. and Srinivasan S. 2004. Statistical scale-up of reservoir
properties: Concepts and applications. Journal of Petroleum Sci-
ence & Engineering 44, 2739.
Larsen A.L., Ulvmoen M., Omre H. and Buland A. 2006. Bayesian
lithology/fluid prediction and simulation on the basis of a Markov-
chain prior model. Geophysics 71 (5), R69R78.
Maffioletti F., Bardini S., Grana D., Paparozzi E., Ruvo L., Sala C. and
Tarchiani C. 2010. Changing scale and domain of a petrophysical

C 2012 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 61, 613629
and elastic properties based log-facies classification. SEG Expanded
Abstracts 29, 24062410.
Mavko G., Mukerji T. and Dvorkin, J. 2009. The Rock Physics Hand-
book. Cambridge University Press.
Merletti G. and Torres-Verdn C. 2006. Accurate detection and spatial
delineation of thin-sand sedimentary sequences via joint stochastic
inversion of well logs and 3D pre-stack seismic amplitude data.
Society of Petroleum Engineers 102444-PA.
Mukerji T., Jrstad A., Avseth P., Mavko G. and Granli J.R. 2001.
Mapping lithofacies and pore-fluid probabilities in a North Sea
reservoir: Seismic inversions and statistical rock physics. Geo-
physics 66, 9881001.
Pirrone M., Grana D., Maffioletti F. and DAgosto C. 2011. Monte
Carlo Simulation and Uncertainty Evaluation of Log-facies Classi-
fication Based on Petroelastic Properties. 73rd EAGE Conference
& Exhibition.
Sams M.S., Atkins D., Said N., Parwito E. and van Riel P. 1999.
Stochastic inversion for high resolution reservoir characterisation in
the Central Sumatra Basin. Society of Petroleum Engineers 57260.
Sams M.S., Millar I., Satriawan W., Saussus D. and Bhattacharyya S.
2011. Integration of geology and geophysics through geostatistical
inversion: A case study. First Break 29 (8), 4756.
Sams M.S. and Saussus D. 2010a. Comparison of lithology and net
pay uncertainty between deterministic and geostatistical inversion
workflows. First Break 28, 3544.
Sams M.S. and Saussus D. 2010b. Uncertainties in the quantitative
interpretation of lithology probability volumes. The Leading Edge
29, 576583.
Spikes K., Mukerji T., Dvorkin J. and Mavko G. 2008. Probabilistic
seismic inversion based on rock-physics models. Geophysics 72 (5),
R87R97.
Stright L., Bernhardt A., Boucher A. and Mukerji T. 2009. Revisit-
ing the use of seismic attributes as soft data for subseismic facies
prediction: Proportion versus probabilities. The Leading Edge 28,
14601469.
Ulvmoen M., Omre H. and Buland A. 2010. Improved resolution in
Bayesian lithology/fluid inversion from prestack seismic data and
well observations: Part 2 Real case study. Geophysics 75 (2),
B73B82.
Ward J.H. Jr. 1963. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective
function. Journal of American Statistical Association 58, 236244.
Copyright of Geophysical Prospecting is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.