This website uses cookies to improve your experience. If you continue without changing your settings, you consent to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can disable cookies at any time.

×
Advanced search
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu

Previous
Next
No AccessGEOPHYSICSVolume 84, Issue 4

Regularized full-waveform inversion with automated salt flooding

Authors:
https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2018-0146.1

ABSTRACT

Full-waveform inversion (FWI) attempts to resolve an ill-posed nonlinear optimization problem to retrieve the unknown subsurface model parameters from seismic data. In general, FWI fails to obtain an adequate representation of models with large high-velocity structures over a wide region, such as salt bodies and the sediments beneath them, in the absence of low frequencies in the recorded seismic signal, due to nonlinearity and nonuniqueness. We alleviate the ill posedness of FWI associated with data sets affected by salt bodies using model regularization. We have split the optimization problem into two parts: First, we minimize the data misfit and the total variation in the model, seeking to achieve an inverted model with sharp interfaces; and second, we minimize sharp velocity drops with depth in the model. Unlike conventional industrial salt flooding, our technique requires minimal human intervention and no information about the top of the salt. Those features are demonstrated on data sets of the BP 2004 and Sigsbee2A models, synthesized from a Ricker wavelet of dominant frequency 5.5 Hz and minimum frequency 3 Hz. We initiate the inversion process with a simple model in which the velocity increases linearly with depth. The model is well-retrieved when the same constant density acoustic code is used to simulate the observed data, which is still one of the most common FWI tests. Moreover, our technique allows us to reconstruct a reasonable depiction of the salt structure from the data synthesized independently with the BP 2004 model with variable density. In the Sigsbee2A model, we manage to even capture some of the fine layering beneath the salt. In addition, we evaluate the versatility of our method on a field data set from the Gulf of Mexico.

REFERENCES

  • Alkhalifah, T., 2014, Scattering-angle based filtering of the waveform inversion gradients: Geophysical Journal International, 200, 363–373, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggu379.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Alkhalifah, T., B. B. Sun, and Z. Wu, 2018, Full model wavenumber inversion: Identifying sources of information for the elusive middle model wavenumbers: Geophysics, 83, no. 6, R597–R610, doi: 10.1190/geo2017-0775.1.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Alkhalifah, T., and Z. Wu, 2016, Multiscattering inversion for low-model wavenumbers: Geophysics, 81, no. 6, R417–R428, doi: 10.1190/geo2015-0650.1.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Anagaw, A. Y., and M. D. Sacchi, 2012, Edge-preserving seismic imaging using the total variation method: Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 9, 138–146, doi: 10.1088/1742-2132/9/2/138.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Billette, F., and S. Brandsberg-Dahl, 2005, The 2004 BP velocity benchmark: 67th Annual International Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts, B035.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bunks, C., F. M. Saleck, S. Zaleski, and G. Chavent, 1995, Multiscale seismic waveform inversion: Geophysics, 60, 1457–1473, doi: 10.1190/1.1443880.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Choi, Y., and T. Alkhalifah, 2012, Application of multi-source waveform inversion to marine streamer data using the global correlation norm: Geophysical Prospecting, 60, 748–758, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.2012.01079.x.GPPRAR0016-8025CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Choi, Y., and T. Alkhalifah, 2015, Unwrapped phase inversion with an exponential damping: Geophysics, 80, no. 5, R251–R264, doi: 10.1190/geo2014-0498.1.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Dellinger, J., A. J. Brenders, J. Sandschaper, C. Regone, J. Etgen, I. Ahmed, and K. Lee, 2017, The garden banks model experience: The Leading Edge, 36, 151–158, doi: 10.1190/tle36020151.1.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Esser, E., L. Guasch, F. J. Herrmann, and M. Warner, 2016a, Constrained waveform inversion for automatic salt flooding: The Leading Edge, 35, 235–239, doi: 10.1190/tle35030235.1.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Esser, E., L. Guasch, T. van Leeuwen, A. Y. Aravkin, and F. J. Herrmann, 2016b, Total-variation regularization strategies in full-waveform inversion: ArXiv preprint arXiv:1608.06159.Google Scholar
  • Farmer, P., D. Miller, A. Pieprzak, J. Rutledge, and R. Woods, 1996, Exploring the subsalt: Oilfield Review, 8, 50.OIREE70923-1730Google Scholar
  • Fomel, S., P. Sava, I. Vlad, Y. Liu, and V. Bashkardin, 2013, Madagascar: Open-source software project for multidimensional data analysis and reproducible computational experiments: Journal of Open Research Software, 1, e8.Google Scholar
  • Goldstein, T., and S. Osher, 2009, The split Bregman method for L1-regularized problems: SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 2, 323–343, doi: 10.1137/080725891.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Guitton, A., 2012, Blocky regularization schemes for full-waveform inversion: Geophysical Prospecting, 60, 870–884, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.2012.01025.x.GPPRAR0016-8025CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Hou, J., and W. Symes, 2016, Approximate Gauss-Newton iteration for full-waveform inversion: 86th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1163–1168, doi: 10.1190/segam2016-13878327.1.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Huang, Y., M. K. Ng, and Y.-W. Wen, 2008, A fast total variation minimization method for image restoration: Multiscale Modeling and Simulation, 7, 774–795, doi: 10.1137/070703533.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Jones, I. F., 2012, Tutorial: Incorporating near-surface velocity anomalies in pre-stack depth migration models: First Break, 30, 47–58, doi: 10.3997/1365-2397.2011041.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Jones, I. F., and I. Davison, 2014, Seismic imaging in and around salt bodies: Interpretation, 2, no. 4, SL1–SL20, doi: 10.1190/INT-2014-0033.1.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Kadu, A., T. van Leeuwen, and W. A. Mulder, 2017, Salt reconstruction in full-waveform inversion with a parametric level-set method: IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging, 3, 305–315, doi: 10.1109/TCI.2016.2640761.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Kalita, M., and T. Alkhalifah, 2017, Efficient full waveform inversion using the excitation representation of the source wavefield: Geophysical Journal International, 210, 1581–1594.GJINEA0956-540XCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kalita, M., and T. Alkhalifah, 2018, Multiscale full-waveform inversion using flux corrected transport: 88th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1153–1157, doi: 10.1190/segam2018-2985338.1.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Kalita, M., and T. Alkhalifah, 2019, Flux-corrected transport for full-waveform inversion: Geophysical Journal International, 217, 2147–2164, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggz105.GJINEA0956-540XCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kazei, V., and T. Alkhalifah, 2018, Time-lapse waveform inversion regularized by spectral constraints and Sobolev space norm: 88th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 5487–5491, doi: 10.1190/segam2018-w12-04.1.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Kazei, V., M. Kalita, and T. Alkhalifah, 2017, Salt-body inversion with minimum gradient support and Sobolev space norm regularizations: 79th Annual International Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.201700600.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kazei, V., E. Tessmer, and T. Alkhalifah, 2016, Scattering angle-based filtering via extension in velocity: 86th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1157–1162, doi: 10.1190/segam2016-13870908.1.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Lailly, P., 1983, The seismic inverse problem as a sequence of before stack migrations: Conference on Inverse Scattering: Theory and Application, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 206–220.Google Scholar
  • Lewis, W., B. Starr, and D. Vigh, 2012, A level set approach to salt geometry inversion in full-waveform inversion: 82nd Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, doi: 10.1190/segam2012-0737.1.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Lewis, W., and D. Vigh, 2016, 3D salt geometry inversion in full-waveform inversion using a level-set method: 86th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1221–1226, doi: 10.1190/segam2016-13968419.1.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Lin, Y., and L. Huang, 2015, Acoustic- and elastic-waveform inversion using a modified total variation regularization scheme: Geophysical Journal International, 200, 489–502, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggu393.GJINEA0956-540XCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lin, Y., B. Wohlberg, and H. Guo, 2010, UPRE method for total variation parameter selection: Signal Processing, 90, 2546–2551, doi: 10.1016/j.sigpro.2010.02.025.SPRODR0165-1684CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Loris, I., and C. Verhoeven, 2012, Iterative algorithms for total variation-like reconstructions in seismic tomography: GEM-International Journal on Geomathematics, 3, 179–208, doi: 10.1007/s13137-012-0036-3.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • McCann, D., A. Comas, G. Martin, A. McGrail, and J. Leveille, 2014, Seismic data processing empowers interpretation: A new methodology serves to mesh processing and interpretation: Harts E&P.Google Scholar
  • Métivier, L., R. Brossier, Q. Mérigot, E. Oudet, and J. Virieux, 2016, Measuring the misfit between seismograms using an optimal transport distance: Application to full waveform inversion: Geophysical Supplements to the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 205, 345–377, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggw014.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Oh, J.-W., M. Kalita, and T. Alkhalifah, 2017, 3D elastic full waveform inversion using P-wave excitation amplitude: Application to OBC field data: Geophysics, 83, no. 2, 1–87, doi: 10.1190/geo2017-0236.1.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Ovcharenko, O., V. Kazei, D. Peter, and T. Alkhalifah, 2018a, Variance-based model interpolation for improved full-waveform inversion in the presence of salt bodies: Geophysics, 83, no. 5, R541–R551, doi: 10.1190/geo2017-0575.1.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Ovcharenko, O., V. Kazei, D. Peter, X. Zhang, and T. Alkhalifah, 2018b, Low-frequency data extrapolation using a feed-forward ANN: 80th Annual International Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.201801231.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Paffenholz, J., J. Stefani, B. McLain, and K. Bishop, 2002, Sigsbee 2A synthetic subsalt dataset — Image quality as function of migration algorithm and velocity model error: 64th Annual International Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts, B019.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Plessix, R.-E., 2006, A review of the adjoint-state method for computing the gradient of a functional with geophysical applications: Geophysical Journal International, 167, 495–503, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246x.2006.02978.x.GJINEA0956-540XCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Plessix, R.-E., G. Baeten, J. W. de Maag, M. Klaassen, Z. Rujie, and T. Zhifei, 2010, Application of acoustic full waveform inversion to a low-frequency large-offset land data set: 80th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 930–934, doi: 10.1190/1.3513930.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Portniaguine, O., and M. S. Zhdanov, 1999, Focusing geophysical inversion images: Geophysics, 64, 874–887, doi: 10.1190/1.1444596.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Pratt, R. G., 1990, Inverse theory applied to multi-source cross-hole tomography: Geophysical Prospecting, 38, 311–329, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.1990.tb01846.x.GPPRAR0016-8025CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Pratt, R. G., C. Shin, and G. Hick, 1998, Gauss-Newton and full Newton methods in frequency-space seismic waveform inversion: Geophysical Journal International, 133, 341–362, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-246X.1998.00498.x.GJINEA0956-540XCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Prieux, V., R. Brossier, S. Operto, and J. Virieux, 2013, Multiparameter full waveform inversion of multicomponent ocean-bottom-cable data from the Valhall field. Part 1: Imaging compressional wave speed, density and attenuation: Geophysical Journal International, 194, 1640–1664, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggt177.GJINEA0956-540XCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Ramos-Martinez, J., K. Zou, S. Kelly, and B. Tsimelzon, 2013, Reflection FWI from fully deghosted towed-streamer data: A field data example: 83rd Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 887–891, doi: 10.1190/segam2013-1333.1.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Routh, P., J. Krebs, S. Lazaratos, A. Baumstein, S. Lee, Y. H. Cha, I. Chikichev, N. Downey, D. Hinkley, and J. Anderson, 2011, Encoded simultaneous source full-wavefield inversion for spectrally shaped marine streamer data: 81st Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2433–2438, doi: 10.1190/1.3627697.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Routh, P., R. Neelamani, R. Lu, S. Lazaratos, H. Braaksma, S. Hughes, R. Saltzer, J. Stewart, K. Naidu, H. Averill, V. Gottumukkula, P. Homonko, J. Reilly, and D. Leslie, 2017, Impact of high-resolution FWI in the western Black Sea: Revealing overburden and reservoir complexity: The Leading Edge, 36, 60–66, doi: 10.1190/tle36010060.1.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Rudin, L. I., S. Osher, and E. Fatemi, 1992, Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms: Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 60, 259–268, doi: 10.1016/0167-2789(92)90242-F.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Shen, X., I. Ahmed, A. Brenders, J. Dellinger, J. Etgen, and S. Michell, 2018, Full-waveform inversion: The next leap forward in subsalt imaging: The Leading Edge, 37, 67b1–67b6, doi: 10.1190/tle37010067b1.1.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Sirgue, L., and R. G. Pratt, 2004, Efficient waveform inversion and imaging: A strategy for selecting temporal frequencies: Geophysics, 69, 231–248, doi: 10.1190/1.1649391.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Solo, V., 1999, Selection of regularisation parameters for total variation denoising: IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 1653–1655.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Sun, B., and T. Alkhalifah, 2018, The application of an optimal transport to a preconditioned data matching function for robust waveform inversion: 88th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 5168–5172, doi: 10.1190/segam2018-2995285.1.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Tarantola, A., 1984, Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation: Geophysics, 49, 1259–1266, doi: 10.1190/1.1441754.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Vigh, D., W. Starr, and K. K. Dingwall, 2009, 3D prestack time domain full waveform inversion: 71st Annual International Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.201400400.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Virieux, J., and S. Operto, 2009, An overview of full-waveform inversion in exploration geophysics: Geophysics, 74, no. 6, WCC1–WCC26, doi: 10.1190/1.3238367.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Warner, M., and L. Guasch, 2016, Adaptive waveform inversion: Theory: Geophysics, 81, no. 6, R429–R445, doi: 10.1190/geo2015-0387.1.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Warner, M., A. Ratcliffe, T. Nangoo, J. Morgan, A. Umpleby, N. Shah, V. Vinje, I. Štekl, L. Guasch, C. Win, G. Conroy, and A. Bertrand, 2013, Anisotropic 3D full-waveform inversion: Geophysics, 78, no. 2, R59–R80, doi: 10.1190/geo2012-0338.1.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Yang, Y., and B. Engquist, 2017, Analysis of optimal transport and related misfit functions in FWI: Geophysics, 83, no. 1, A7–A12, doi: 10.1190/geo2017-0264.1.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar