Over the past 10 years, ray-based postmigration grid tomography has become the standard model-building tool for seismic depth imaging. While the basics of the method have remained unchanged since the late 1990s, the problems it solves have changed dramatically. This evolution has been driven by exploration demands and enabled by computer power. There are three main areas of change. First, standard model resolution has increased from a few thousand meters to a few hundred meters. This order of magnitude improvement may be attributed to both high-quality, complex residual-moveout data picked as densely as [Formula: see text] to [Formula: see text] vertically and horizontally, and to a strategy of working down from long-wavelength to short-wavelength solutions. Second, more and more seismic data sets are being acquired along multiple azimuths, for improved illumination and multiple suppression. High-resolution velocity tomography must solve for all azimuths simultaneously, to prevent short-wavelength velocity heterogeneity from being mistaken for azimuthal anisotropy. Third, there has been a shift from predominantly isotropic to predominantly anisotropic models, both VTI and TTI. With four-component data, anisotropic grid tomography can be used to build models that tie PZ and PS images in depth.

Tilted transverse isotropy (TTI) is increasingly recognized as a more geologically plausible description of anisotropy in sedimentary formations than vertical transverse isotropy (VTI). Although model-building approaches for VTI media are well understood, similar approaches for TTI media are in their infancy, even when the symmetry-axis direction is assumed known. We describe a tomographic approach that builds localized anisotropic models by jointly inverting surface-seismic and well data. We present a synthetic data example of anisotropic tomography applied to a layered TTI model with a symmetry-axis tilt of 45 degrees. We demonstrate three scenarios for constraining the solution. In the first scenario, velocity along the symmetry axis is known and tomography inverts for Thomsen’s [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] parame-ters. In the second scenario, tomography inverts for [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and velocity, using surface-seismic data and vertical check-shot traveltimes. In contrast to the VTI case, both these inversions are nonunique. To combat nonuniqueness, in the third scenario, we supplement check-shot and seismic data with the [Formula: see text] profile from an offset well. This allows recovery of the correct profiles for velocity along the symmetry axis and [Formula: see text]. We conclude that TTI is more ambiguous than VTI for model building. Additional well data or rock-physics assumptions may be required to constrain the tomography and arrive at geologically plausible TTI models. Furthermore, we demonstrate that VTI models with atypical Thomsen parameters can also fit the same joint seismic and check-shot data set. In this case, although imaging with VTI models can focus the TTI data and match vertical event depths, it leads to substantial lateral mispositioning of the reflections.

Tomographic velocity model building has become an industry standard for depth migration. Anisotropy of the Earth challenges tomography because the inverse problem becomes severely ill-posed. Singular value decomposition (SVD) of tomographic operators or, similarly, eigendecomposition of the corresponding normal equations, are well known as a useful framework for analysis of the most significant dependencies between model and data. However, application of this approach in velocity model building has been limited, primarily because of the perception that it is computationally prohibitively expensive, especially for the anisotropic case. In this paper, we extend our prior work (Osypov et al., 2008) to VTI tomography, modify the process of regularization optimization, and propose an updated way for uncertainty and resolution quantification using the apparatus of eigendecomposition. We demonstrate the simultaneous tomographic estimation of VTI parameters on a real dataset. Our approach provides extra capabilities for regularization optimization and uncertainty analysis in anisotropic model parameter space which can be further translated into the structural uncertainty within the image.

Estimation of anisotropic parameters for depth models requires some type of joint inversion of seismic and borehole data. We demonstrate that conventional grid reflection tomography can be adapted to simultaneously invert for all parameters of a local 3D anisotropic model. Success requires three key ingredients: jointly invert seismic and well data, localize tomography to a small volume around the borehole, and steer the updates along seismic horizons with steering filters. We describe steering filters and demonstrate 3D anisotropic tomography regularized with steering-filter preconditioners on a synthetic data set.

Depth imaging with anisotropic models has been shown to deliver more geologically plausible models and accurate images. Deriving parameters that describe the anisotropic properties of the subsurface requires incorporating well information. There are, however, vast exploration areas around the world with very limited to no well control that do require high-quality anisotropic imaging to allow adequate interpretation of deeper targets below complex structures. We present a general workflow for building tilted transversely isotropic (TTI) models in areas of very limited well control. We incorporate published knowledge of the area and analysis of data anellipticity, with a derivation of Thomsen's δ in wells from adjacent areas. We use single regional Thomsen's parameter trends hung from the water bottom. Finally, we present a case study that applies this workflow to seismic data from the Kwanza basin offshore Angola where TTI models were built over more than 12000 km2 in two adjacent areas. By accounting for TTI anisotropy, we have produced geologically plausible and interpretable images from relatively old narrow-azimuth streamer data with only moderate offsets of 4.8 km.

Anisotropic depth imaging with ver-tical transversely isotropic (VTI) models has become the dominant practice in the industry. However, anisotropic parameters for these models continue to be derived by basic practices without the use of tomography. Hanging a single profile of Thomsen's parameters from the water bottom still remains the most common practice. In a simple structural setting, it is usually possible to focus the data and obtain a good image despite having a simple and unrealistic model for Thomsen's parameters. However, depth positioning of such images is usually suboptimal. Better positioning requires more geologically plausible models. In addition, imaging in complex settings may require tilted transversely isotropic (TTI) models.

We develop a concept of localized seismic grid tomography constrained by well information and apply it to building vertically transversely isotropic (VTI) velocity models in depth. The goal is to use a highly automated migration velocity analysis to build anisotropic models that combine optimal image focusing with accurate depth positioning in one step. We localize tomography to a limited volume around the well and jointly invert the surface seismic and well data. Well information is propagated into the local volume by using the method of preconditioning, whereby model updates are shaped to follow geologic layers with spatial smoothing constraints. We analyze our concept with a synthetic data example of anisotropic tomography applied to a 1D VTI model. We demonstrate four cases of introducing additionalinformation. In the first case, vertical velocity is assumed to be known, and the tomography inverts only for Thomsen’s [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] profiles using surface seismic data alone. In the second case, tomography simultaneously inverts for all three VTI parameters, including vertical velocity, using a joint data set that consists of surface seismic data and vertical check-shot traveltimes. In the third and fourth cases, sparse depth markers and walkaway vertical seismic profiling (VSP) are used, respectively, to supplement the seismic data. For all four examples, tomography reliably recovers the anisotropic velocity field up to a vertical resolution comparable to that of the well data. Even though walkaway VSP has the additional dimension of angle or offset, it offers no further increase in this resolution limit. Anisotropic tomography with well constraints has multiple advantages over other approaches and deserves a place in the portfolio of model-building tools.

No abstract