1887
Volume 64, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

We have previously applied three‐dimensional acoustic, anisotropic, full‐waveform inversion to a shallow‐water, wide‐angle, ocean‐bottom‐cable dataset to obtain a high‐resolution velocity model. This velocity model produced an improved match between synthetic and field data, better flattening of common‐image gathers, a closer fit to well logs, and an improvement in the pre‐stack depth‐migrated image. Nevertheless, close examination reveals that there is a systematic mismatch between the observed and predicted data from this full‐waveform inversion model, with the predicted data being consistently delayed in time. We demonstrate that this mismatch cannot be produced by systematic errors in the starting model, by errors in the assumed source wavelet, by incomplete convergence, or by the use of an insufficiently fine finite‐difference mesh. Throughout these tests, the mismatch is remarkably robust with the significant exception that we do not see an analogous mismatch when inverting synthetic acoustic data. We suspect therefore that the mismatch arises because of inadequacies in the physics that are used during inversion. For ocean‐bottom‐cable data in shallow water at low frequency, apparent observed arrival times, in wide‐angle turning‐ray data, result from the characteristics of the detailed interference pattern between primary refractions, surface ghosts, and a large suite of wide‐angle multiple reflected and/or multiple refracted arrivals. In these circumstances, the dynamics of individual arrivals can strongly influence the apparent arrival times of the resultant compound waveforms. In acoustic full‐waveform inversion, we do not normally know the density of the seabed, and we do not properly account for finite shear velocity, finite attenuation, and fine‐scale anisotropy variation, all of which can influence the relative amplitudes of different interfering arrivals, which in their turn influence the apparent kinematics. Here, we demonstrate that the introduction of a non‐physical offset‐variable water density during acoustic full‐waveform inversion of this ocean‐bottom‐cable field dataset can compensate efficiently and heuristically for these inaccuracies. This approach improves the travel‐time match and consequently increases both the accuracy and resolution of the final velocity model that is obtained using purely acoustic full‐waveform inversion at minimal additional cost.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12336
2015-10-25
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BorisovD., StopinA. and PlessixR.E.2014. Acoustic pseudo‐density full waveform inversion in the presence of hard thin beds. 76th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Extended Abstracts.
  2. GardnerG.H.F., GardnerL.W. and GregoryA.R.1974. Formation velocity and density—the diagnostic basics for stratigraphic traps, Geophysics39, 770–780.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. GranliJ.R., ArntsenB., SollidA. and HildeE.1999. Imaging through gas‐filled sediments using marine shear‐wave data. Geophysics64, 668–677.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. GuaschL., WarnerM., NangooT., MorganJ., UmplebyA., SteklI.et al. 2012. Elastic full‐waveform inversion. 82nd SEG meeting, Las Vegas, USA, Expanded Abstracts.
  5. KapoorS., VighD., WiardaE. and AlwonS.2013. Full waveform inversion around the world. 75th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, London, U.K., Extended Abstracts.
  6. LuR., LazaratosS., WangK., ChaY.H., ChikichevI. and ProsserR.2013. High‐resolution elastic FWI for reservoir characterization. 75th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, London, U.K., Extended Abstracts.
  7. LuaK.W.H., WhiteR.S. and ChristieP.A.F.2007. Low‐frequency source for long‐offset, sub‐basalt and deep crustal penetration. Leading Edge28, 36–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. MorganJ.V., WarnerM., BellR., AshleyJ., BarnesD., LittleR.et al. 2013. Next‐generation seismic experiments: wide‐angle, multi‐azimuth, three‐dimensional, full‐waveform inversion. Geophysical Journal International195, 1657–1678.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. MulderW.A. and PlessixR.E.2008. Exploring some issues in acoustic full waveform inversion. Geophysical Prospecting56, 827–841.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. NangooT., WarnerM., MorganJ., UmplebyA., Stekl, I. and BertrandA.2012. Full‐waveform Seismic Inversion at Reservoir Depths, 74th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Copenhagen, Denmark, Extended Abstracts, W015.
  11. PlessixR.E. and PerkinsC.2010. Full waveform inversion of a deep‐water ocean bottom seismometer data set. First Break28, 71–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. RatcliffeA., WinC., VinjeV., ConroyG., WarnerM., UmpleblyA.et al. 2011. FWI: A North Sea OBS case study. 81st SEG meeting, San Antonio, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 2384.
  13. ShahN., WarnerM., NangooT., UmplebyA., SteklI., MorganJ.et al. 2012. Quality assured full‐waveform inversion: Ensuring starting model adequacy. 74th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Copenhagen, Denmark, Extended Abstracts.
  14. SilvertonA., WarnerM., UmplebyA., MorganJ. and IraborK.2014. Non‐physical water density as a proxy to improve data fit during acoustic FWI. 76th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Extended Abstracts.
  15. SirgueL., BarkvedO.I., DellingerJ., EtgenJ., AlbertinU. and KommedalJ.H.2010. Full waveform inversion: the next leap forward in imaging at Valhall. First Break28, 65–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. VighD., JiaoK. and WattsD.2012. Elastic full‐waveform inversion using 4C data acquisition. 82nd SEG meeting, Las Vegas, USA, Expanded Abstracts.
  17. VighD., KapoorJ. and LiH.2011. Full‐waverform inversion application in different geological settings. 81st SEG meeting, San Antonio, USA, Expanded Abstracts.
  18. WarnerM., RatcliffeA., NangooT., MorganJ.V., UmplebyA., ShahN.et al. 2013. Anisotropic full waveform inversion. Geophysics78, R59–R80.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. WarnerM., MorganJ.V., UmplebyA., SteklI. and GuaschL.2012. Which physics for full‐wavefield inversion. 74th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Copenhagen, Denmark, Extended Abstracts, W029.
  20. WarnerM., UmplebyA., SteklI. and MorganJ.2010. 3D full‐wavefield tomography: imaging beneath heterogeneous overburden. 72nd EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Barcelona, Spain, Extended Abstracts.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12336
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12336
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): 3D; Full‐waveform inversion; Inversion; Seismic; Velocity

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error