Research note: derivations of gradients in angle‐independent joint migration inversion

Sun, Yimin; Verschuur, Eric; Qu, Shaobo

doi:10.1111/1365-2478.12738

Cited by 11 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…; Sun et al . ). The redefined objective function in the whole solution space is as follows:

\begin{matrix} true \\ right J_{1} ((), z_{m}) & = & left \frac{1}{2} | | Δ p^{+} ((), z_{m}) {false| false|}_{2}^{2}, \\ right J_{2} ((), z_{m}) & = & left \frac{1}{2} | | Δ p^{-} ((), z_{m}) {false| false|}_{2}^{2}, \\ right J_{3} ((), z_{m}) & = & left \frac{1}{2} | | Δ q^{+} ((), z_{m}) {false| false|}_{2}^{2}, \\ right J_{4} ((), z_{m}) & = & left \frac{1}{2} | | Δ q^{-} ((), z_{m}) {false| false|}_{2}^{2}, \\ right J & = & left \sum_{m = 0}^{N_{z} - 1} {J_{1} (z_{m}) + J_{2} (z_{m}) + J_{3} (z_{m}) + J_{4} (z_{m})}, \end{matrix}

where four redatumed residual wavefields are as follows: the down‐going incoming residual wavefield

Δ {boldp}^{+} false(z_{m} false)

, the up‐going incoming residual wavefield

Δ {boldp}^{-} false(z_{m} false)

, the down‐going outgoing residual wavefield

Δ {boldq}^{+} false(z_{m} false)

…”

Section: Theory Of Joint Migration Inversionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…For one depth level, the reflectivity/transmission operators (

{boldR}^{\cup / \cap} false(z_{m} false)

{boldT}^{\pm} false(z_{m} false)

) are matrices with the dimension of

(N_{x} \times N_{x})

. The wavefields are connected by reflectivity and transmission effects (see also Berkhout ; Davydenko and Verschuur ; Sun, Verschuur and Qu ):

\begin{matrix} true \\ right q^{+} ((), z_{m}) & = & left s^{+} ((), z_{m}) + T^{+} ((), z_{m}) p^{+} ((), z_{m}) + R^{\cup} ((), z_{m}) p^{-} ((), z_{m}), \\ right q^{-} ((), z_{m}) & = & left s^{-} ((), z_{m}) + T^{-} ((), z_{m}) p^{-} ((), z_{m}) + R^{\cap} ((), z_{m}) p^{+} ((), z_{m}) . \end{matrix}

The transmission operator

{boldT}^{\pm} false(z_{m} false)

can be further written as follows:

{boldT}^{\pm} (z_{m}) = I + δ {boldT}^{\pm} (z_{m}),

where

boldI

is a unit matrix sharing the same size as the other operators and

δ {boldT}^{\pm} false(z_{m} false)

is the differential transmission in the down/up direction (Berkhout ).…”

Section: Theory Of Joint Migration Inversionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The four wavefields of two consecutive levels are connected by propagation operators (see also Berkhout ; Davydenko and Verschuur ; Sun et al . ):

\begin{matrix} true \\ left p^{+} ((), z_{m}) = boldW (() z_{m}, z_{m - 1}) q^{+} ((), z_{m - 1}), \\ left p^{-} ((), z_{m - 1}) = boldW (() z_{m - 1}, z_{m}) q^{-} ((), z_{m}) . \end{matrix}

We build the propagation operator in the frequency‐wavenumber domain first and then transform it back to the frequency–space domain. Within one layer, the dimension of the propagation operator is

(N_{x} \times N_{x})

.…”

Section: Theory Of Joint Migration Inversionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Simultaneous joint migration inversion for high‐resolution imaging/inversion of time‐lapse seismic datasets

Verschuur

2020

Geophysical Prospecting

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TThe current time-lapse practice is to exactly repeat well-sampled acquisition geometries to mitigate acquisition effects on the time-lapse differences. In order to relax the rigid requirements on acquisition effects, we propose simultaneous joint migration inversion as an effective time-lapse tool for reservoir monitoring, which combines a joint time-lapse data processing strategy with the joint migration inversion method. Joint migration inversion is a full-wavefield inversion method that explains the measured reflection data using a parameterization in terms of reflectivity and propagation velocity. Both the inversion process inside the imaging/inversion scheme and the extra illumination provided by including multiples in joint migration inversion makes the obtained velocity and reflectivity operator largely independent of the utilized acquisition geometry and, thereby, relaxes the strong requirement of non-repeatability during the monitoring. Because simultaneous joint migration inversion inverts for all datasets simultaneously and utilizes various constraints on the estimated reflectivities and velocity, the obtained time-lapse differences have much higher accuracy compared to inverting each dataset separately. It allows the baseline and monitor parameters to communicate with each other dynamically during inversion via a userdefined spatial weighting operator. In order to get more localized time-lapse velocity differences, we further extend the regular simultaneous joint migration inversion to a robust high-resolution simultaneous joint migration inversion process using the timelapse reflectivity difference as an extra constraint for the velocity estimation during inversion. This constraint makes a link between the reflectivity-and the velocity difference by exploiting the relationship between them. We demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed method with a highly realistic synthetic model based on the Grane field offshore Norway and a time-lapse field dataset from the Troll Field.

show abstract

“…; Sun et al . ). The redefined objective function in the whole solution space is as follows:

\begin{matrix} true \\ right J_{1} ((), z_{m}) & = & left \frac{1}{2} | | Δ p^{+} ((), z_{m}) {false| false|}_{2}^{2}, \\ right J_{2} ((), z_{m}) & = & left \frac{1}{2} | | Δ p^{-} ((), z_{m}) {false| false|}_{2}^{2}, \\ right J_{3} ((), z_{m}) & = & left \frac{1}{2} | | Δ q^{+} ((), z_{m}) {false| false|}_{2}^{2}, \\ right J_{4} ((), z_{m}) & = & left \frac{1}{2} | | Δ q^{-} ((), z_{m}) {false| false|}_{2}^{2}, \\ right J & = & left \sum_{m = 0}^{N_{z} - 1} {J_{1} (z_{m}) + J_{2} (z_{m}) + J_{3} (z_{m}) + J_{4} (z_{m})}, \end{matrix}

where four redatumed residual wavefields are as follows: the down‐going incoming residual wavefield

Δ {boldp}^{+} false(z_{m} false)

, the up‐going incoming residual wavefield

Δ {boldp}^{-} false(z_{m} false)

, the down‐going outgoing residual wavefield

Δ {boldq}^{+} false(z_{m} false)

…”

Section: Theory Of Joint Migration Inversionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…For one depth level, the reflectivity/transmission operators (

{boldR}^{\cup / \cap} false(z_{m} false)

{boldT}^{\pm} false(z_{m} false)

) are matrices with the dimension of

(N_{x} \times N_{x})

. The wavefields are connected by reflectivity and transmission effects (see also Berkhout ; Davydenko and Verschuur ; Sun, Verschuur and Qu ):

\begin{matrix} true \\ right q^{+} ((), z_{m}) & = & left s^{+} ((), z_{m}) + T^{+} ((), z_{m}) p^{+} ((), z_{m}) + R^{\cup} ((), z_{m}) p^{-} ((), z_{m}), \\ right q^{-} ((), z_{m}) & = & left s^{-} ((), z_{m}) + T^{-} ((), z_{m}) p^{-} ((), z_{m}) + R^{\cap} ((), z_{m}) p^{+} ((), z_{m}) . \end{matrix}

The transmission operator

{boldT}^{\pm} false(z_{m} false)

can be further written as follows:

{boldT}^{\pm} (z_{m}) = I + δ {boldT}^{\pm} (z_{m}),

where

boldI

is a unit matrix sharing the same size as the other operators and

δ {boldT}^{\pm} false(z_{m} false)

is the differential transmission in the down/up direction (Berkhout ).…”

Section: Theory Of Joint Migration Inversionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The four wavefields of two consecutive levels are connected by propagation operators (see also Berkhout ; Davydenko and Verschuur ; Sun et al . ):

\begin{matrix} true \\ left p^{+} ((), z_{m}) = boldW (() z_{m}, z_{m - 1}) q^{+} ((), z_{m - 1}), \\ left p^{-} ((), z_{m - 1}) = boldW (() z_{m - 1}, z_{m}) q^{-} ((), z_{m}) . \end{matrix}

We build the propagation operator in the frequency‐wavenumber domain first and then transform it back to the frequency–space domain. Within one layer, the dimension of the propagation operator is

(N_{x} \times N_{x})

.…”

Section: Theory Of Joint Migration Inversionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Simultaneous joint migration inversion for high‐resolution imaging/inversion of time‐lapse seismic datasets

Verschuur

2020

Geophysical Prospecting

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Starting with the surface-recorded wavefield p − 0 (z 0 ), the backward propagation scheme (Staal, 2015;Sun et al, 2019) reconstructs the wavefields q − 0 (z 1 ) and p − 0 (z 1 ) as follows:…”

Section: N V E R S E P Ro Pag At I O N I N 1 5 -D I M E N S I O Na L a M P L I T U D E -V E R S U S -O F F S E T J O I N T M I G R At I mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Note the traditional JMI (Berkhout, 2014b;Verschuur et al, 2016;Sun et al, 2019 adopts conditions similar to equations ( 14) and ( 15).…”

Section: 5 -D I M E N S I O Na L a M P L I T U D E -V E R S U S -O F ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Research note: Inverse propagation in 1.5‐dimensional amplitude‐versus‐offset joint migration inversion

Sun

Verschuur

2021

Geophysical Prospecting

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The state-of-the-art joint migration inversion faces the so-called amplitude-versusoffset challenge, due to adopting over-simplified one-way propagation, reflection and transmission operators to avoid over-parameterization in the inversion process. To overcome this challenge, we apply joint migration inversion to horizontally layered media (or 1.5-dimensional media) and parameterize the solution space via density and velocity models. In this scenario, one-way propagation, reflection and transmission operators required by the joint migration inversion process can be analytically and correctly derived from the subsurface models, so the amplitude-versus-offset challenge is successfully overcome. We introduce a new concept, which is named 'inverse propagation', into our 1.5-dimensional amplitude-versus-offset joint migration inversion. It can correctly reconstruct subsurface wavefields by using a surface-recorded receiver wavefield with all the influence of transmission, reflection and multiples accounted for. A synthetic example is used to demonstrate the correctness of the inverse propagation. This work is the foundation to further develop the 1.5-dimensional amplitude-versus-offset joint migration inversion technology.

show abstract

Joint migration inversion: features and challenges

Sun¹,

Kim

et al. 2020

Journal of Geophysics and Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Joint migration inversion is a recently proposed technology, accommodating velocity model building and seismic migration in one integrated process. Different from the widely accepted full waveform inversion technology, it uses imaging parameters, i.e. velocities and reflectivities of the subsurface, to parameterize its solution space. The unique feature of this new technology is its explicit capability to exploit multiples in its inversion scheme, which are treated as noise by most current technologies. In this paper, we comprehensively evaluate the state-of-the-art joint migration inversion technology from various angles: we first benchmark its performance, on both velocity model building and seismic imaging, against that of the well-accepted workflow comprising full waveform inversion and reverse-time migration using a fully controlled 2D realistic synthetic dataset. Next, we demonstrate its application on a 2D field dataset. Last, we use another 2D synthetic dataset to clearly illustrate the challenges the current joint migration inversion technology is facing. With this paper, we transparently reveal the pros of cons of the current joint migration inversion, and we will also point out the imminent research directions joint migration inversion technology should focus on in the next phase for it to be more widely accepted by the geophysics community.

show abstract

Research note: derivations of gradients in angle‐independent joint migration inversion

Cited by 11 publications

References 14 publications

Simultaneous joint migration inversion for high‐resolution imaging/inversion of time‐lapse seismic datasets

Simultaneous joint migration inversion for high‐resolution imaging/inversion of time‐lapse seismic datasets

Research note: Inverse propagation in 1.5‐dimensional amplitude‐versus‐offset joint migration inversion

Joint migration inversion: features and challenges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About