Fast full-wavefield seismic inversion using encoded sources

Full-wavefield seismic inversion (FWI) estimates a subsurface elastic model by iteratively minimizing the difference between observed and simulated data. This process is extremely computationally intensive, with a cost comparable to at least hundreds of prestack reverse-time depth migrations. When FWI is applied using explicit time-domain or frequency-domain iterative-solver-based methods, the seismic simulations are performed for each seismic-source configuration individually. Therefore, the cost of FWI is proportional to the number of sources. We have found that the cost of FWI for fixed-spread data can be significantly reduced by applying it to data formed by encoding and summing data from individual sources. The encoding step forms a single gather from many input source gathers. This gather represents data that would have been acquired from a spatially distributed set of sources operating simultaneously with different source signatures. The computational cost of FWI using encoded simultaneous-source gathers is reduced by a factor roughly equal to the number of sources. Further, this efficiency is gained without significantly reducing the accuracy of the final inverted model. The efficiency gain depends on subsurface complexity and seismic-acquisition parameters. There is potential for even larger improvements of processing speed.

[1]  K. Marfurt.  Accuracy of finite-difference and finite-element modeling of the scalar and elastic wave equations , 1984 .

[2]  A. Tarantola.  Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation , 1984 .

[3]  A. Tarantola.  Inverse problem theory : methods for data fitting and model parameter estimation , 1987 .

[4]  P. Mora.  Nonlinear two-dimensional elastic inversion of multioffset seismic data , 1987 .

[5]  R. Pratt,et al.  INVERSE THEORY APPLIED TO MULTI‐SOURCE CROSS‐HOLE TOMOGRAPHY.: PART 1: ACOUSTIC WAVE‐EQUATION METHOD1 , 1990 .

[6]  C. Bunks,et al.  Multiscale seismic waveform inversion , 1995 .

[7]  R. Pratt.  Seismic waveform inversion in the frequency domain; Part 1, Theory and verification in a physical scale model , 1999 .

[8]  Stephen J. Wright,et al.  Numerical Optimization , 2018, Fundamental Statistical Inference.

[9]  Louis A. Romero,et al.  Phase encoding of shot records in prestack migration , 2000 .

[10]  Kim B. Olsen,et al.  On the implementation of perfectly matched layers in a three‐dimensional fourth‐order velocity‐stress finite difference scheme , 2003 .

[11]  R. Gerhard Pratt,et al.  Efficient waveform inversion and imaging: A strategy for selecting temporal frequencies , 2004 .

[12]  Patrick R. Amestoy,et al.  3D Frequency-domain Finite-difference Modeling of Acoustic Wave Propagation Using a Massively Parallel Direct Solver: a Feasibility Study , 2005 .

[13]  Barbara Romanowicz,et al.  Towards global earth tomography using the spectral element method: a technique based on source stacking , 2005 .

[14]  Cornelis Vuik,et al.  A Novel Multigrid Based Preconditioner For Heterogeneous Helmholtz Problems , 2005, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[15]  Cornelis Vuik,et al.  A new iterative solver for the time-harmonic wave equation , 2006 .

[16]  F. Herrmann,et al.  Simply denoise: Wavefield reconstruction via jittered undersampling , 2008 .

[17]  Mike Warner,et al.  Efficient and Effective 3D Wavefield Tomography , 2008 .

[18]  Ramesh Neelamani,et al.  Simultaneous Sourcing Without Compromise , 2008 .

[19]  A. Morelli.  Inverse Problem Theory , 2010 .