1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 63, Issue 6
  5. Article
Volume 63, Issue 6
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The accurate estimation of sub‐seafloor resistivity features from marine controlled source electromagnetic data using inverse modelling is hindered due to the limitations of the inversion routines. The most commonly used one‐dimensional inversion techniques for resolving subsurface resistivity structures are gradient‐based methods, namely Occam and Marquardt. The first approach relies on the smoothness of the model and is recommended when there are no sharp resistivity boundaries. The Marquardt routine is relevant for many electromagnetic applications with sharp resistivity contrasts but subject to the appropriate choice of a starting model. In this paper, we explore the ability of different 1D inversion schemes to derive sub‐seafloor resistivity structures from time domain marine controlled source electromagnetic data measured along an 8‐km‐long profile in the German North Sea. Seismic reflection data reveal a dipping shallow amplitude anomaly that was the target of the controleld source electromagnetic survey. We tested four inversion schemes to find suitable starting models for the final Marquardt inversion. In this respect, as a first scenario, Occam inversion results are considered a starting model for the subsequent Marquardt inversion (Occam–Marquardt). As a second scenario, we employ a global method called Differential Evolution Adaptive Metropolis and sequentially incorporate it with Marquardt inversion. The third approach corresponds to Marquardt inversion introducing lateral constraints. Finally, we include the lateral constraints in Differential Evolution Adaptive Metropolis optimization, and the results are sequentially utilized by Marquardt inversion. Occam–Marquardt may provide accurate estimation of the subsurface features, but it is dependent on the appropriate conversion of different multi‐layered Occam model to an acceptable starting model for Marquardt inversion, which is not straightforward. Employing parameter spaces, the Differential Evolution Adaptive Metropolis approach can be pertinent to determine Marquardt information; nevertheless, the uncertainties in Differential Evolution Adaptive Metropolis optimization will introduce some inaccuracies in Marquardt inversion results. Laterally constrained Marquardt may be promising to resolve sub‐seafloor features, but it is not stable if there are significant lateral changes of the sub‐seafloor structure due to the dependence of the method to the starting model. Including the lateral constraints in Differential Evolution Adaptive Metropolis approach allows for faster convergence of the routine with consistent results, furnishing more accurate estimation of models for the subsequent Marquardt inversion.

Copyright © 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12281
2015-06-22
2024-04-16

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12281
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ChenJ.S., HoverstenG.M., VascoD., RubinY. and HouZ.S., 2007. A Bayesian model for gas saturation estimation using marine seismic AVA and CSEM data. Geophysics72(2), WA85–WA95.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. ConnellD. and KeyK., 2013. A numerical comparison of time and frequency‐domain marine electromagnetic methods for hydrocarbon exploration in shallow water. Geophysical Prospecting61(1), 187–199.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. ConstableS.2010. Ten years of marine CSEM for hydrocarbon exploration. Geophysics75(5), X75A67–75A81.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. ConstableS.C., ParkerR.L. and ConstableC.G., 1987. Occam's inversion: A practical algorithm for generating smooth models from electromagnetic sounding data. Geophysics52(3), 289–300.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. DiksC.G.H. and VrugtJ.A., 2010. Comparison of point forecast accuracy of model averaging methods in hydrologic applications. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment24(6), 809–820.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. EdwardsR.N., 1997. On the resource evaluation of marine gas hydrate deposits using sea‐floor transient electric dipole‐dipole methods. Geophysics62(1), 63–74.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Gehrmann, R.A.S., Dettmer, J., Schwalenberg, K., Engels, M., Dosso, S.E. and Keil, H.2015. Trans‐dimensional Bayesian inversion of controlled source electromagnetic data in the German North Sea. Submitted to this special issue of Geophysical Prospecting on CSEM.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Gelman, A. and Rubin, D.B.1992. Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences pp. 457–472.
  9. GrandisH., MenvielleM. and RoussignolM., 2002. Thin‐sheet electromagnetic inversion modelling using Monte Carlo Markov chain (MCMC) algorithm. Earth Planets and Space54(5), 511–521.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Heim, S., Lutz, R., Nelskamp, S., Verweij, H., Kaufmann, D. and Reinhardt, L.2013. Geological Evolution of the North Sea: cross‐border basin modelling study on the Schillground high. In: Energy Procedia, vol. 40, pp. 222–231.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. HeppD.A., HebbelnD., KreiterS., KeilH., BathmannC., EhlersJ. et al., 2012. An east‐west‐trending Quaternary tunnel valley in the south‐eastern North Sea and its seismic‐sedimentological interpretation. Journal of Quaternary Science27(8), 844–853.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Hinnell, A.C., Ferr, T.P.A., Vrugt, J.A., Huisman, J.A., Moysey, S., Rings, J.et al. 2010. Improved extraction of hydrologic information from geophysical data through coupled hydrogeophysical inversion. Water Resources Research46(4).
     [Google Scholar]
  13. KeyK., 2009. 1D inversion of multicomponent, multifrequency marine CSEM data: Methodology and synthetic studies for resolving thin resistive layers. Geophysics74(2), F9–F20.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Kudraß, H.R., Bönnemann, C., Gaedicke, C., Ladage, S., Neben, S., Reinhardt, L.et al. 2003. BGR03‐AUR Nordsee, MV‐Aurelia, 16th Sep.‐ 9th Oct. 2003, Federal Institute for Geoscience and Natural Resources .
  15. Laloy, E., Linde, N. and Vrugt, J.A.2012. Mass conservative three‐dimensional water tracer distribution from Markov chain Monte Carlo inversion of time‐lapse ground‐penetrating radar data. Water Resources Research48(7).
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Laloy, E. and Vrugt, J.A.2012. High‐dimensional posterior exploration of hydrologic models using multiple‐try DREAM (ZS) and high‐performance computing. Water Resources Research48(1).
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Linde, N. and Vrugt, J.A.2013. Distributed soil moisture from crosshole ground‐penetrating radar travel times using stochastic inversion. Vadose Zone Journal12(1).
     [Google Scholar]
  18. MarquardtD.W., 1963. An algorithm for least‐squares estimation of nonlinear parameters. Journal of the Society for Industrial & Applied Mathematics11, 431–441.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. MinsleyB.J., 2011. A trans‐dimensional Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm for model assessment using frequency‐domain electromagnetic data. Geophysical Journal International187(1), 252–272.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. MittetR. and MortenJ.P., 2013. The marine controlled‐source electromagnetic method in shallow water. Geophysics78(2), E67–E77.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. MoghadasD., AndreF., SlobE.C., VereeckenH. and LambotS., 2010. Joint full‐waveform analysis of off‐ground zero‐offset ground penetrating radar and electromagnetic induction synthetic data for estimating soil electrical properties. Geophysical Journal International182(3), 1267–1278.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Moorkamp, M., Jones, A.G. and Eaton, D.W.2007. Joint inversion of teleseismic receiver functions and magnetotelluric data using a genetic algorithm: Are seismic velocities and electrical conductivities compatible? Geophysical Research Letters34(16).
     [Google Scholar]
  23. OhS.H. and KwonB.D., 2001. Geostatistical approach to bayesian inversion of geophysical data: Markov chain Monte Carlo method. Earth Planets and Space53(8), 777–791.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. RamillienG., 2001. Genetic algorithms for geophysical parameter inversion from altimeter data. Geophysical Journal International147(2), 393–402.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. RayA., AlumbaughD.L., HoverstenG.M. and KeyK., 2013. Robust and accelerated Bayesian inversion of marine controlled‐source electromagnetic data using parallel tempering. Geophysics78(6), E271–E280.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Rosas‐CarbajalM., LindeN., KalscheuerT. and VrugtJ.A., 2013. Two‐dimensional probabilistic inversion of plane‐wave electromagnetic data: Methodology, model constraints and joint inversion with electrical resistivity data. Geophysical Journal International196(3), 1508–1524.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. SantosF.A.M., 2004. 1‐D laterally constrained inversion of EM34 profiling data. Journal of Applied Geophysics56(2), 123–134.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. SchamperC., RejibaF. and GuerinR., 2012. 1D single‐site and laterally constrained inversion of multifrequency and multicomponent ground‐based electromagnetic induction data‐Application to the investigation of a near‐surface clayey overburden. Geophysics77(4), WB19–WB35.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Scholl, C.2010. Resolving an Onshore Gas‐Hydrate Layer with Long‐Offset Transient Electromagnetics (LOTEM). In M.Riedel , E. C.Willoughby , and S.Chopra , editors, Geophysical Characterization of Gas Hydrates, pp. 163–177. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Schwalenberg, K. and Engels, M.2011. HYDRA ‐ A new towed electromagnetic seafoor system. In: European Geoscience Union (EGU), General Assembly, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 13, EGU2011‐12525.
  31. Schwalenberg, K. and Scientific Party of M88/2 . 2013. Geopotenzial Deutsche Nordsee (GPDN) ‐ CSEM.METEOR ‐ Cruise Report M88/2.
  32. SiemonB., AukenE. and ChristiansenA.V., 2009. Laterally constrained inversion of helicopter‐borne frequency‐domain electromagnetic data. Journal of Applied Geophysics67(3), 259–268.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. TriantafilisJ. and SantosF.A.M., 2009. 2‐Dimensional soil and vadose‐zone representation using an EM38 and EM34 and a laterally constrained inversion model. Australian Journal of Soil Research47(8), 809–820.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. ViezzoliA., ChristiansenA., AukenE. and SørensenK., 2008. Quasi‐3D modelling of airborne TEM data by spatially constrained inversion. Geophysics73(3), F105–F113.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. VrugtJ.A., terBraak C.J.F., ClarkM.P., HymanJ.M. and RobinsonB.A., 2008. Treatment of input uncertainty in hydrologic modelling: Doing hydrology backward with Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation. Water Resources Research44(12), W00B09.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. VrugtJ.A., TerBraak C.J.F., DiksC.G.H., RobinsonB.A., HymanJ.M. and HigdonD., 2009. Accelerating Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation by differential evolution with self‐adaptive randomized subspace sampling. International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation10(3), 273–290.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. WeideltP., 2007. Guided waves in marine CSEM. Geophysical Journal International171(1), 153–176.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. WeissC.J., 2007. The fallacy of the “shallow‐water problem” in marine CSEM exploration. Geophysics72(6), A93–A97.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12281
Loading
1D joint multi‐offset inversion of time‐domain marine controlled source electromagnetic data
Geophysical Prospecting 63, 1334 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12281
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12281
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12281
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

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