1887
Volume 68, Issue 6
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Seismically derived amplitude‐versus‐angle attributes along with well constraints are the base inputs into inverting seismic into subsurface properties. Conditioning the common image gathers is a common workflow in quantitative inversion and leads to a more accurate inversion product due to the removal of post‐migration artefacts. Here, we apply a neural network to condition the post‐migration gathers. The network is a cycle generative adversarial network, CycleGAN, which was designed for image‐to‐image translation. This can be considered the same problem as translating an artefact rich seismic gather to an artefact free seismic gather. To assess the feasibility of applying the network to pre‐stack conditioning, synthetic data sets were generated to train different networks for different tasks. The networks were trained to remove white noise, residual de‐multiples, gather flattening and a combination of the above for conditioning. The results show that a trained network was able remove white noise providing a more robust amplitude‐versus‐offset calculation. Another network trained using synthetic gathers with and without multiples assisted in multiple removal. However, instability around primary preservation has been observed so the network works better as a residual de‐multiple method. For gather conditioning, a network was trained with the unpaired artefact‐rich and artefact‐free training data where the artefacts included complex moveout, noise and multiples. When applied to the test data sets, the networks cleaned the artefact‐rich test data and translated complex moveout into flat gathers whilst preserving the amplitude response. Finally, two networks are applied to real data where a gather based on the well logs is used to quantify the match between the conditioned gathers and the raw gathers. The first network used synthetic data to train the network and, when applied to real data, provided a better tie with the well. The second network was trained with synthetic gathers whose properties were constrained by real seismic gathers from near the well. As anticipated, the network trained on the representative training data outperforms the network trained using the unconstrained data. However, the ability of the first network to condition the gather indicates that a sweep of networks can be trained without the need for real data and applied in a manner analogous to the way parameters are adjusted in traditional geophysical methods. The results show that the different neural networks can offer an alternative or augmentation to the existing geophysical workflow for conditioning pre‐stack seismic gathers.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12951
2020-03-30
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aki, K. and Richards, P.G. (2002) Quantitative Seismology. Sausalito, CA: University Science Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexeenko, D. and Exley, R. (2019) Seismic data conditioning is an essential step for facies prediction. EAGE 81st Conference.
  3. Avseth, P., Mukerji, T. and Mavko, G. (2010) Quantitative Seismic Interpretation. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cahoj, M.P., Verma, S., Hutchinson, B. and Marfurt, K.J. (2016) Pitfalls in seismic processing: an application of seismic modeling to investigate acquisition footprint. Interpretation, 4, SG1–SG9.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen, Y. (2018). Automatic micro‐seismic even picking via unsupervised machine learning. Geophysics Journal International, 212, 88–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chopra, S. and Castanga, J. (2014) AVO: Investigations in Geophysics No.16. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
  7. Estrada, J., Aaron, P. and Eden, R. (2016) Target‐oriented data conditioning for prestack inversion in an unconventional reservoir: A Canadian case study. Interpretation4, SG11. https://doi.org/10.1190/INT-2015-0149.1
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Goodfellow, I., Pouget‐Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde‐Farley, D., Ozair, S., et al. (2014) Generative adversarial nets. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2672–2680.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Guitton, A., Wang, H. and Trainor‐Guitton, W.2017. Statistical imaging of faults in 3D seismic volumes using a machine learning approach. 87th SEG meeting. Houston, TX, Expanded Abstracts, 2045–2049.
  10. Hall, B. (2016) Facies classification using machine learning. The Leading Edge, 35, 906–909.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Jia, Y. and Ma, J. (2017) What can machine learning do for seismic data processing? An interpolation application. Geophysics, 82, V163–V177. https://doi.org/10.1190/GEO2016-0300.1.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Kumer, R., Bansal, P., Al‐Mutairi, T.A., Sayers, C., Hwa, P., Ng, D., et al. (2016) Seismic Data Conditioning for AVOAz Analysis: Case Study from a North Kuwait Unconventional Reservoir 86th SEG International Exposition.
  13. Lowney, B., Lokmer, I., O'Brien, G.S., Bean, C.J. and Igoe, M. (2019) Multi‐domain diffraction identification using deep learning. 81st EAGE Conference and Exhibition.
  14. Mosser, L., Kimman, W., Dramsch, J., Purves, S., De la Fuente, A. and Ganssle, G. (2018) Rapid seismic domain transfer: seismic velocity inversion and modeling using deep generative neural networks. 80th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2018. arXiv:1805.08826.
  15. Mutlu, O. and Marfurt, K. (2015) Improving seismic resolution of prestack time‐migrated data. Interpretation, 3, T245–T255. https://doi.org/10.1190/INT-2014-0260.1
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Naeini, E.Z. and Prindle, K. (2018) Machine learning and learning from machines. The Leading Edge, 37, 886–893. https://doi.org/10.1190/tle37120886.1.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Richardson, A. (2018) Generative adversarial networks for model order reduction in seismic full‐waveform inversion. arXiv:1806.00828.
  18. Röth, G. and Tarantola, A. (1994) Neural networks and inversion of seismic data. Journal of Geophysical Research, 99, 6753–6768. https://doi.org/10.1029/93JB01563.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Shalev‐Shwartz, S. and Ben‐David, S. (2014) Understanding Machine Learning: From Theory to Algorithms. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Singleton, S. (2009) The effects of seismic data conditioning on prestack simultaneous impedance inversion. The Leading Edge, 28, 772‐781.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Turquais, P., Asgedom, E. and WalterS.öllner, (2017) Coherent noise suppression by learning and analysing the morphology of the data. Geophysics, 82, V397–V411. https://doi.org/10.1190/GEO2017-0092.1
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Yilmaz, O. (2001) Seismic data analysis: processing, inversion, and interpretation of seismic data. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
  23. Zhang, B., Deshuang, C., Tengfei, L. and Marfurt, K.J. (2015) Improving the quality of prestack inversion by prestack data conditioning. Interpretation, 3, T5–T12. https://doi.org/10.1190/INT-2014-0124.1
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Zhang, B., Lin, T., Guo, S., Davogustto, O.E. and Marfurt, Kurt J. (2016) Noise suppression of time‐migrated gathers using prestack structure‐oriented filtering. Interpretation, 4, SG19–SG29. https://doi.org/10.1190/INT-2015-0146.1
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Zhu, J.‐Y., Park, T., Isola, P. and Efros, Alexei A. (2017) Unpaired Image‐to‐Image Translation using Cycle‐Consistent Adversarial Networks, in IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV).
  26. Zoeppritz, K. (1919) Erdbebenwellen VII. VIIb. Über Reflexion und Durchgang seismischer Wellen durch Unstetigkeitsflächen. Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch‐physikalische Klasse, 66–84.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12951
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12951
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): AVA; Gather conditioning; Image Gathers; Neural Nets

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