1887
Volume 63, Issue 6
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

We present a structural smoothing regularization scheme in the context of inversion of marine controlled‐source electromagnetic data. The regularizing hypothesis is that the electrical parameters have a structure similar to that of the elastic parameters observed from seismic data. The regularization is split into three steps. First, we ensure that our inversion grid conforms with the geometry derived from seismic. Second, we use a seismic stratigraphic attribute to define a spatially varying regularization strength. Third, we use an indexing strategy on the inversion grid to define smoothing along the seismic geometry. Enforcing such regularization in the inversion will encourage an inversion result that is more intuitive for the interpreter to deal with. However, the interpreter should also be aware of the bias introduced by using seismic data for regularization. We illustrate the method using one synthetic example and one field data example. The results show how the regularization works and that it clearly enforces the structure derived from seismic data. From the field data example we find that the inversion result improves when the structural smoothing regularization is employed. Including the broadside data improves the inversion results even more, due to a better balancing between the sensitivities for the horizontal and vertical resistivities.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12294
2015-08-13
2019-12-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AbubakarA., HabashyT.M., DruskinV.L., KnizhnermanL. and AlumbaughD.2008. 2.5D forward and inverse modeling for interpreting low‐frequency electromagnetic measurements. Geophysics73, F165–F177.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BrownV., KeyK. and SinghS.2012. Seismically regularized controlled‐source electromagnetic inversion. Geophysics77, E57–E65.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. CommerM. and NewmanG.2009. Three‐dimensional controlled‐source electromagnetic and magnetotelluric inversion. Geophysical Journal International178, 1305–1316.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. EidesmoT., EllingsrudS., MacGregorL.M., ConstableS., SinhaM.C., JohansenS.et al. 2002. Sea bed logging (SBL): a new method for remote and direct identification of hydrocarbon filled layers in deepwater areas. First Break20, 144–152.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. GribenkoA. and ZhdanovM.2007. Rigorous 3D inversion of marine CSEM data based on the integral equation method. Geophysics72, WA73–WA84.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. HansenK.R. and MittetR.2009. Incorporating seismic horizons in inversion of CSEM data. 79th SEG Meeting, Houston, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 694–698.
  7. IskeA. and RandenT.2005. Mathematical Methods and Modelling in Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production (Mathematics in Industry). Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. LøsethL.O., WiikT., OlsenP.A. and HansenJ.O.2014. Detecting Skrugard by CSEM ‐ pre well prediction and post well evaluation. Interpretation2, SH67–SH77.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. LovatiniA., MedinaE. and PezzoliM.2012. Seismic geobody‐driven 3D controlled‐source electromagnetic modeling. EAGE 74th Conference & Exhibition, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  10. MaaøF.A.2007. Fast finite‐difference time‐domain modeling for marine‐subsurface electromagnetic problems. Geophysics72, A19–A23.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. MackieR., WattsD.M. and RodiW.2007. Joint 3D inversion of marine CSEM and MT data. 77th SEG meeting, San Antonio, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 574–578.
  12. MasnaghettiL. and CeciF.2010. Analysis of the sensitivity to anisotropy of CSEM data using 2.5D modeling and inversion. 80th SEG meeting, Denver, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 614–618.
  13. McOwenR.1996. Partial Differential Equations: Methods and Applications. Prentice‐Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. MittetR. and GabrielsenP.T.2013. Decomposition in upgoing and downgoing fields and inversion of marine CSEM data. Geophysics78, E1–E17.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. MortenJ.P., BjørkeA.K. and StørenT.2009. CSEM data uncertainty analysis for 3D inversion. 79th SEG meeting, Houston, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 724–728.
  16. NewmanG.A., CommerM. and CarazzoneJ.J.2010. Imaging CSEM data in the presence of electrical anisotropy. Geophysics75, F51–F61.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. NocedalJ. and WrightS.J.2006. Numerical Optimization. Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. PlessixR.‐E. and MulderW.A.2008. Resistivity imaging with controlled‐source electromagnetic data: depth and data weighting. Inverse Problems24, 034012.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. SasakiY.2013. Three‐dimensional inversion of marine CSEM and MT data: an approach to shallow‐water problem. Geophysics78, E59–E65.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. TikhonovA.N. and ArseninV.Y.1977. Solution of Ill‐Posed Problems. W.H. Winston and Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. WiikT., LøsethL., UrsinB. and HokstadK.2011. TIV contrast source inversion of mCSEM data. Geophysics76, F65–F76.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. ZhdanovM., GribenkoA. and CumaM.2007. Regularized focusing inversion of marine CSEM data using minimum vertical‐support stabilizer. 77th SEG meeting, San Antonio, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 579–583.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12294
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12294
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): CSEM , inversion and Seismic constraints
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