1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 62, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 62, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Scattering theory, a form of perturbation theory, is a framework from within which time‐lapse seismic reflection methods can be derived and understood. It leads to expressions relating baseline and monitoring data and Earth properties, focusing on differences between these quantities as it does so. The baseline medium is, in the language of scattering theory, the reference medium and the monitoring medium is the perturbed medium. The general scattering relationship between monitoring data, baseline data, and time‐lapse Earth property changes is likely too complex to be tractable. However, there are special cases that can be analysed for physical insight. Two of these cases coincide with recognizable areas of applied reflection seismology: amplitude versus offset modelling/inversion, and imaging. The main result of this paper is a demonstration that time‐lapse difference amplitude versus offset modelling, and time‐lapse difference data imaging, emerge from a single theoretical framework. The time‐lapse amplitude versus offset case is considered first. We constrain the general time‐lapse scattering problem to correspond with a single immobile interface that separates a static overburden from a target medium whose properties undergo time‐lapse changes. The scattering solutions contain difference‐amplitude versus offset expressions that (although presently acoustic) resemble the expressions of Landro (2001). In addition, however, they contain non‐linear corrective terms whose importance becomes significant as the contrasts across the interface grow. The difference‐amplitude versus offset case is exemplified with two parameter acoustic (bulk modulus and density) and anacoustic (P‐wave velocity and quality factor Q) examples. The time‐lapse difference data imaging case is considered next. Instead of constraining the structure of the Earth volume as in the amplitude versus offset case, we instead make a small‐contrast assumption, namely that the time‐lapse variations are small enough that we may disregard contributions from beyond first order. An initial analysis, in which the case of a single mobile boundary is examined in 1D, justifies the use of a particular imaging algorithm applied directly to difference data shot records. This algorithm, a least‐squares, shot‐profile imaging method, is additionally capable of supporting a range of regularization techniques. Synthetic examples verify the applicability of linearized imaging methods of the difference image formation under ideal conditions.

Copyright © 2014 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2014 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12105
2014-02-20
2024-04-29

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12105
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AbramowitzM. and StegunI.A.1972. Handbook of Mathematical Functions. Dover Books, 9th edition.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. AkiK. and RichardsP.G.2002. Quantitative Seismology. University Science Books, 2nd edition.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. AyeniG. and BiondiB.2010. Target‐oriented joint least‐squares migration/inversion of time‐lapse seismic data sets. Geophysics75, R61–R73.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BerkhoutA.J. and VerschuurD.J.2007. Time lapse processing in the inverse data space. in Proceedings of the 77th Annual Meeting of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists, San Antonio, TX, Society of Exploration Geophyicists.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BleisteinN., CohenJ.K. and StockwellJ.W.2000. Mathematics of multidimensional Seismic Imaging, Migration and Inversion. Springer‐Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. DenliH. and HuangL.2009. Double‐difference elastic waveform tomography in the time domain. SEG Expanded Abstracts. 28, 4064–4068.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. FomelS. and JinL.2009. Time‐lapse image registration using the local similarity attribute. Geophysics74, A7–A11.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. GrandiA., WauquierS., CummingH., DeplantéC., and HubansC.2009. Quantitative 4D time lapse characterization: Three examples. SEG Expanded Abstracts, Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
  9. GreavesR.J. and FulpT.J.1987. Three‐dimensional seismic monitoring of an enhanced oil recovery process. Geophysics52, 1175–1187.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. InnanenK.A.2011. Inversion of the seismic AVF/AVA signatures of highly attenuative targets. Geophysics. 76, R1–R11.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. InnanenK.A. and NaghizadehM.2011. A scattering description of time‐lapse seismic reflection data with an application to difference reflectivity inversion. Proceedings of the EAGE, Vienna, Austria, European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers.
  12. InnanenK.A., NaghizadehM. and KaplanS.T.2011. Direct inversion of differenced seismic reflection data for time‐lapse structural changes. Proceedings of the SEG, Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
  13. KaplanS.T., NaghizadehM. and SacchiM.D.2010a. Data reconstruction with shot‐profile least‐squares migration. Geophysics75.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. KaplanS.T., RouthP.S. and SacchiM.D.2010b. Derivation of forward and adjoint operators for least‐squares shot‐profile migration. Geophysics75.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. LandroM.2001. Discrimination between pressure and fluid saturation changes from time‐lapse seismic data. Geophysics66, 836–844.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. LindsethR.O.1979, Synthetic sonic logs–a process for stratigraphic interpretation. Geophysics. 44, 3–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. LumleyD.2001. Time‐lapse seismic reservoir monitoring. Geophysics. 66, 50–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. MatsonK.H.1996. The relationship between scattering theory and the primaries and multiples of reflection seismic data. Journal of Seismic Exploration, 5, 63–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. MinkoffS.E., StoneC.M., BryantS. and PeszynskaM.2004. Coupled geomechanics and flow simulation for time‐lapse seismic monitoring. Geophysics69, 200–211.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. OdebeatuE., ZhangJ., ChapmanM., LiuE. and LiX.Y.2006. Application of spectral decomposition to detection of dispersion anomalies associated with gas saturation. The Leading Edge2, 206–210.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. SarkarS., GouveiaW.P. and JohnstonD.H.2003. On the inversion of time‐lapse seismic data.Proceedings of the SEG, Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. WegleinA.B., AraújoF.V., CarvalhoP.M., StoltR.H., MatsonK.H., CoatesR.T. et al. 2003. Inverse scattering series and seismic exploration. Inverse Problems, R27–R83.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. WilliamsonP., CherrettA. and SextonP.2007. A new approach to warping for quantitative time‐lapse characterization. Proceedings of the EAGE, London, UK, European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. WinthaegenP.L.A., VerschuurD.J. and BerkhoutA.J.2004. Use of data‐driven focusing operators for a quantitative approach to time lapse seismic. Proceedings of the EAGE, Paris, France, European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. ZhangH.2006. Direct non‐linear acoustic and elastic inversion: Towards fundamentally new comprehensive and realistic target identification. PhD thesis, University of Houston.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12105
Loading
Perturbation methods for two special cases of the time‐lapse seismic inverse problem
Geophysical Prospecting 62, 453 (2014); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12105
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12105
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12105
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Perturbation; Scattering; Time lapse

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error