2019
DOI: 10.1007/s11600-019-00343-w
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An iterative inversion of Dual Induction Tool logs from thin-bedded sandy–shaly formations of the Carpathian Foredeep using a modified simulated annealing method

Abstract: In thin-bedded sandy-shaly Miocene formations of the Carpathian Foredeep, the main source of errors in gas saturation evaluation is the underestimation of resistivity of thin, hydrocarbon-bearing beds, which is the result of the low vertical resolution of induction logging tools. This problem is especially visible in older boreholes drilled in times where the Dual Induction Tool (DIT) was the primary induction tool used for determining the formation resistivity, and in shallowest depth intervals of newer boreh… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 10 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To overcome such problems of the linearized inversion methods, optimization techniques utilizing random search have been developed in the past decades. Some of the most commonly used global optimization methods in geophysics are simulated annealing and the genetic algorithm (Sen and Stoffa 2013;Wilkosz and Wawrzyniak-Guz 2019). Particle swarm optimization used in this study can also eliminate the starting model dependence of the inverse problem.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To overcome such problems of the linearized inversion methods, optimization techniques utilizing random search have been developed in the past decades. Some of the most commonly used global optimization methods in geophysics are simulated annealing and the genetic algorithm (Sen and Stoffa 2013;Wilkosz and Wawrzyniak-Guz 2019). Particle swarm optimization used in this study can also eliminate the starting model dependence of the inverse problem.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%