Multiscale Reflection Phase Inversion with Migration Deconvolution
KAUST DepartmentCenter for Subsurface Imaging and Fluid Modeling
Earth Science and Engineering Program
Physical Science and Engineering (PSE) Division
Online Publication Date2019-09-14
Print Publication Date2020-01-01
Permanent link to this recordhttp://hdl.handle.net/10754/660205
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractReflection full waveform inversion (RFWI) can recover the low-wavenumber components of the velocity model along with the reflection wavepaths. However, this requires an expensive least-square reverse time migration (LSRTM) to construct the perturbation image and RFWI also suffers from cycle-skipping problems. As an inexpensive alternative to LSRTM, we propose the use of migration deconvolution (MD) with RFWI. To mitigate cycle-skipping problems, we introduce a multiscale reflection phase inversion (MRPI) strategy which boosts the low-frequency data and only needs to explain the phase information in the recorded data, not its amplitude spectrum. To mitigate cycle-skipping problems, we use the rolling-offset strategy which gradually extends the offset range of data with an increasing number of iterations. Numerical results show that the MRPI + MD method can efficiently recover the low-wavenumber components of the velocity model and is less prone to getting stuck in local minima compared to conventional RFWI.
CitationChen, Y., Feng, Z., Fu, L., AlTheyab, A., Feng, S., & Schuster, G. (2019). Multiscale Reflection Phase Inversion with Migration Deconvolution. GEOPHYSICS, 1–61. doi:10.1190/geo2018-0751.1
SponsorsThe research reported in this paper was supported by the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) in Thuwal, Saudi Arabia. We are grateful to the sponsors of the Center for Subsurface Imaging and Modeling (CSIM) Consortium for their financial support. For computer time, this research used the resources of the Supercomputing Laboratory at KAUST. We thank them for providing the computational resources required for carrying out this work. The authors would like to thank Statoil ASA and the Volve license partners ExxonMobil E&P Norway AS and Bayerngas Norge AS, for the release of the Volve data. The views expressed in this paper are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Statoil ASA and the Volve field license partners.
PublisherSociety of Exploration Geophysicists