Qualitative and quantitative reservoir characterization using seismic inversion based on particle swarm optimization and genetic algorithm: a comparative case study

Accurate reservoir characterization is necessary to effectively monitor, manage, and increase production. A seismic inversion methodology using a genetic algorithm (GA) and particle swarm optimization (PSO) technique is proposed in this study to characterize the reservoir both qualitatively and quantitatively. It is usually difficult and expensive to map deeper reservoirs in exploratory operations when using conventional approaches for reservoir characterization hence inversion based on advanced technique (GA and PSO) is proposed in this study. The main goal is to use GA and PSO to significantly lower the fitness (error) function between real seismic data and modeled synthetic data, which will allow us to estimate subsurface properties and accurately characterize the reservoir. Both techniques estimate subsurface properties in a comparable manner. Consequently, a qualitative and quantitative comparison is conducted between these two algorithms. Using two synthetic data and one real data from the Blackfoot field in Canada, the study examined subsurface acoustic impedance and porosity in the inter-well zone. Porosity and acoustic impedance are layer features, but seismic data is an interface property, hence these characteristics provide more useful and applicable reservoir information. The inverted results aid in the understanding of seismic data by providing incredibly high-resolution images of the subsurface. Both the GA and the PSO algorithms deliver outstanding results for both simulated and real data. The inverted section accurately delineated a high porosity zone ( \(>20\%\) $>20\%$ ) that supported the high seismic amplitude anomaly by having a low acoustic impedance (6000–8500 m/s \(*\) $\ast$ g/cc). This unusual zone is categorized as a reservoir (sand channel) and is located in the 1040–1065 ms time range. In this inversion process, after 400 iterations, the fitness error falls from 1 to 0.88 using GA optimization, compared to 1 to 0.25 using PSO. The convergence time for GA is 670,680 s, but the convergence time for PSO optimization is 356,400 s, showing that the former requires \(88\%\) $88\%$ more time than the latter.