1887
Volume 73, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

Abstract

We examine the value of the nine‐component seismic survey by generating the Kirchhoff depth migration images of compressional wave (P‐wave), converted wave (PS‐wave) and horizontally polarized shear wave (SH shear wave) data simulated from the SEAM II Barrett unconventional model. We first utilize full waveform inversion to obtain a P‐wave velocity model from P‐wave data and an S‐wave velocity model from SH‐wave data. Both P‐wave and SH‐wave data are generated with the maximum frequency of 20 Hz while assuming that the subsurface is isotropic. To implement full waveform inversion, we use a two‐dimensional time‐domain finite‐difference method and the L2 norm to measure the data misfit. We use both refractions and reflections in P‐ and SH‐wave data to reconstruct the P‐ and S‐wave velocity models from the surface to the reservoir. The inverted P‐ and S‐wave velocities contain the main features of the model (e.g., major faults and channels) but have some difficulties in estimating high‐frequency velocity variation within the first 300‐m depth of the model due to the frequency constraint. We then use the inverted P‐ and S‐wave velocities to generate Kirchhoff depth migration gathers and images from the P‐, PS‐ and SH‐wave data. The flat P‐ and SH‐wave common‐image offset gathers suggest that SH‐ and P‐wave full waveform inversion can generate adequate S‐ and P‐wave velocities for migration. Flat PS‐wave gathers and the clear PS‐wave migration image are also obtained using the inverted P‐ and S‐wave velocities simultaneously. This result indicates that obtaining S‐wave velocities from SH‐wave data can aid PS‐wave data processing and imaging. Moreover, the SH‐wave images and S‐wave images of the radial component provide better delineation of fault planes and small‐scale geobodies within the reservoir since the wavelength of the S‐wave is smaller compared to P‐wave when similar frequency ranges are recorded. Therefore, our study shows that S‐wave velocities can be successfully constructed by the two‐dimensional full waveform inversion application of the SH‐wave data. The subsequent imaging of multicomponent seismic data improves the delineation of certain unconventional reservoirs compared to the traditional P‐wave imaging.

© 2025 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2024 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13533
2025-02-27
2026-02-06

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13533
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adwani, A., Danilouchkine, M., Al‐Siyabi, Q., Al‐Droushi, O., ten Kroode, F., Plessix, R.E. & Ernst, F. (2022) Onshore model building using elastic full‐waveform inversion on surface and body waves: a case study from Sultanate of Oman. Geophysics, 87(6), R413–R424.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Alkhalifah, T. & Plessix, R.É. (2014) A recipe for practical full‐waveform inversion in anisotropic media: An analytical parameter resolution study. Geophysics, 79(3), R91–R101.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Aragao, O. & Sava, P. (2020) Elastic full‐waveform inversion with probabilistic petrophysical model constraints. Geophysics, 85(2), R101–R111.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Asnaashari, A., Brossier, R., Garambois, S., Audebert, F., Thore, P. & Virieux, J. (2013) Regularized seismic full waveform inversion with prior model information. Geophysics, 78, R25–R36.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bhatnagar, P., Scipione, M., Verma, S. & Bianco, R. (2018) Characterization of mass transport deposit using seismic attributes: Spraberry Formation, Midland Basin, West Texas. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts 2018. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 1618–1622.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Boehm, G., Carcione, J.M. & Vesnaver, A. (1996) Reflection tomography versus stacking velocity analysis. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 35, 1–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bohlen, T. (2002) Parallel 3‐D viscoelastic finite difference seismic modelling. Computers and Geosciences, 28, 887–899.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bunks, C., Saleck, F.M., Zaleski, S. & Chavent, G. (1995) Multiscale seismic waveform inversion. Geophysics, 60(5), 1457–1473.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen, J., Zelt, C.A. & Jaiswal, P. (2017) Detecting a known near‐surface target through application of frequency‐dependent traveltime tomography and full‐waveform inversion to P‐ and SH‐wave seismic refraction data. Geophysics, 82(1), R1–R17.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Cheng, X., Jiao, K., Sun, D., Xu, Z., Vigh, D. & El‐Emam, A. (2017) High‐resolution radon preconditioning for full‐waveform inversion of land seismic data. Interpretation, 5(4), SR23–SR33.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Courant, R., Friedrichs, K. & Lewy, H. (1928) Uber die partiellen Differenzengleichungen der mathematischen Physik. Mathematische Annalen, 100, 32–74.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Cui, T., Rickett, J., Vasconcelos, I. & Veitch, B. (2020) Target‐oriented full‐waveform inversion using Marchenko redatumed wavefields. Geophysical Journal International, 223(2), 792–810.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dellinger, J., Ross, A., Meaux, D., Brenders, A., Gesoff, G., Etgen, J., Naranjo, J., Openshaw, G. & Harper, M. (2016) Wolfspar, an “FWI‐friendly” ultralow‐frequency marine seismic source. In SEG International Exposition and Annual Meeting 2016. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 4891–4895.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Dokter, E., Köhn, D., Wilken, D., De Nil, D. & Rabbel, W. (2017) Full waveform inversion of SH‐ and Love‐wave data in near‐surface prospecting. Geophysical Prospecting, 65(S1), 216–236.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Fang, J., Zhou, H., Zhang, Q., Chen, H., Sun, P., Zhang, J. & Zhang, L. (2020) The effects of elastic data on acoustic and elastic full waveform inversion. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 172, 103876.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Gaiser, J.E. (1999) Applications for vector coordinate systems of converted waves obtained by multicomponent 3‐D data. In: Proceedings of the Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, May 1999.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Jeong, J., Tsang, L., Colliander, A. & Yueh, S. (2023) Full‐wave electromagnetic simulations of forests at L‐band by using fast hybrid method. Progress in Electromagnetics Research, 178, 111–127.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Köhn, D., De Nil, D., Kurzmann, A., Przebindowska, A. & Bohlen, T. (2012) On the influence of model parametrization in elastic full waveform tomography. Geophysical Journal International, 191(1), 325–345.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Komatitsch, D. & Martin, R. (2007) An unsplit convolutional perfectly matched layer improved at grazing incidence for the seismic wave equation. Geophysics, 72(5), SM155–SM167.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Kurzmann, A., Butzer, S., Jetschny, S., Przebindowska, A., Groos, L., Schäfer, M., Heider, S. & Bohlen, T. (2013) Acoustic and elastic full waveform tomography. In: High Performance Computing in Science and Engineering '13: Transactions of the High Performance Computing Center, Stuttgart (HLRS) 2013 (pp. 95–111). Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Li, Y., Guo, Q., Li, Z. & Alkhalifah, T. (2019) Elastic reflection waveform inversion with variable density. Geophysics, 84(4), R553–R567.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Li, Y.E. & Demanet, L. (2016) Full‐waveform inversion with extrapolated low‐frequency data. Geophysics, 81(6), R339–R348.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Liu, X., Zhu, T. & Hayes, J. (2022) Critical zone structure by elastic full waveform inversion of seismic refractions in a sandstone catchment, central Pennsylvania, USA. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 127, e2021JB023321. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JB023321
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Liu, Y. & Simmons, J. (2021) Feasibility study of fracture interpretation using multicomponent seismic data: SEAM phase II Barrett model. Interpretation, 9(4), T1183–T1196.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Liu, Y. & Simmons, J. (2024) Two‐dimensional SH‐wave and acoustic P‐wave full waveform inversion: A Midland Basin case study. Geophysical Prospecting, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13511
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Liu, Z. (1993) A Kirchhoff approach to seismic modeling and prestack depth migration. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts 1993. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 888–891.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Luo, S. & Hale, D. (2013) Separating traveltimes and amplitudes in waveform inversion. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts 2013. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 969–974.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Ma, Y., Ji, X., He, W., Fei, T. & Li, W. (2022) Estimate near‐surface velocity with reversals using deep learning and full‐waveform inversion: a field‐data‐driven method. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 206, 104822.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Marfurt, K.J. (1984) Accuracy of finite‐difference and finite‐element modeling of the scalar and elastic wave equations. Geophysics, 49(5), 533–549.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Mecking, R., Köhn, D., Meinecke, M. & Rabbel, W. (2021) Cavity detection by SH‐wave full‐waveform inversion ‐ a reflection‐focused approach. Geophysics, 86, WA123–WA137.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Mora, P. (1987) Nonlinear two‐dimensional elastic inversion of multioffset seismic data. Geophysics, 52(9), 1211–1228.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Mora, P. (1988) Elastic wave‐field inversion of reflection and transmission data. Geophysics, 53(6), 750–759.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Mora, P. & Wu, Z. (2018) Elastic versus acoustic inversion for marine surveys. Geophysical Journal International, 214(1), 596–622.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Métivier, L., Brossier, R., Mérigot, Q., Oudet, E. & Virieux, J. (2016) Measuring the misfit between seismograms using an optimal transport distance: application to full waveform inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 205(1), 345–377.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Murphy, G., Brown, V. & Vigh, D. (2020) Land FWI in the Delaware Basin, West Texas: a case study. The Leading Edge, 39(5), 324–331.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Naeini, E.Z., Alkhalifah, T., Tsvankin, I., Kamath, N. & Cheng, J. (2016) Main components of full‐waveform inversion for reservoir characterization. First Break, 34, 37–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Nocedal, J. & Wright, S.J. (2006) Numerical optimization. Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering. Springer, New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Operto, S. & Miniussi, A. (2018) On the role of density and attenuation in three‐dimensional multiparameter viscoacoustic VTI frequency‐domain FWI: an OBC case study from the North Sea. Geophysical Journal International, 213(3), 2037–2059.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Oristaglio, M. (2015) Elastic anisotropy in SEAM Phase II models. Leading Edge, 34(8), 964–970.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Pan, W. & Innanen, K.A. (2016) A summary of several challenges facing multi‐parameter elastic full waveform inversion. CSEG Recorder, 41, 36.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Pan, W., Innanen, K.A., Geng, Y. & Li, J. (2018) Interparameter trade‐off quantification for isotropic‐elastic full‐waveform inversion with various model parameterizations. Geophysics, 84, 1–74.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Pertuz, T. & Malehmir, A. (2023) Ultrahigh‐resolution shear‐wave reflection imaging of vertical‐component data in a quick‐clay prone to landslide area in southwest Sweden. Geophysics, 88(3), B121–B133.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Plessix, R.E. (2006) A review of the adjoint‐state method for computing the gradient of a functional with geophysical applications. Geophysical Journal International, 167(2), 495–503.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Plessix, R.E. & Mulder, W.A. (2004) Frequency‐domain finite‐difference amplitude‐preserving migration. Geophysical Journal International, 157(3), 975–987.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Schmelzbach, C., Sollberger, D., Greenhalgh, S., Horstmeyer, H., Maurer, H. & Robertsson, J. (2016) 9C seismic data acquisition for near‐surface applications: recording, waveform reciprocity and 4C rotation. In: 78th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2016, volume 2016. Houten, the Netherlands: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, pp. 1–5.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Sedova, A., Leblanc, O., Allemand, T., Lambaré, G., Pellerin, S. & Donno, D. (2022) Elastic FWI application to a land data set in the Middle East. In: Second International Meeting for Applied Geoscience & Energy. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 2389–2393.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Sedova, A., Messud, J., Prigent, H., Masclet, S., Royle, G. & Lambaré, G. (2019) Acoustic land full waveform inversion on a broadband land dataset: the impact of optimal transport. In: 81st EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2019. Houten, the Netherlands: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, pp. 1–5.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Simmons, J. (2004) Multicomponent prestack modeling in isotropic/anisotropic media. In: CSEG National Convention. Calgary, CSEG, S083.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Simmons, J. & Backus, M. (2001) Shear waves from 3‐D‐9‐C seismic reflection data: Have we been looking for signal in all the wrong places?Leading Edge, 20(6), 604–612.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Simmons, J. & Backus, M.M. (1994) AVO modeling and the locally converted shear wave. Geophysics, 59(8), 1237–1248.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Simmons, J.L. & Backus, M.M. (1996) Waveform‐based AVO inversion and AVO prediction‐error. Geophysics, 61, 1575–1588.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Simmons, J.L. (2009) Converted‐wave splitting estimation and compensation. Geophysics, 74(1), D37–D48.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Singh, S., Tsvankin, I. & Naeini, E.Z. (2021) Facies‐based full‐waveform inversion for anisotropic media: a North Sea case study. Geophysical Prospecting, 69(8‐9), 1650–1663.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Singh, S., Tsvankin, I. & Zabihi Naeini, E. (2020) Full‐waveform inversion with borehole constraints for elastic VTI media. Geophysics, 85(6), R553–R563.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Stopin, A., Édouard Plessix, R. & Abri, S.A. (2014) Multiparameter waveform inversion of a large wide‐azimuth low‐frequency land data set in Oman. Geophysics, 79(3), WA69–WA77.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Sun, X., Salmon, N.A., Zhuge, X. & Miao, J. (2023) The effects of obscuration in passive 3‐D millimeter‐wave imaging for human security screening. Progress in Electromagnetics Research, 177, 53–73.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Tang, Y., Gaines, D., Hefti, J., Every, S., Neumann, E. & Pharis, R. (2021) Land full‐wavefield inversion for addressing complex near‐surface challenges in the Delaware Basin. In: First International Meeting for Applied Geoscience & Energy Expanded Abstracts. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 702–706.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Tarantola, A. (1984) Linearized inversion of seismic reflection data. Geophysical Prospecting, 32(6), 998–1015.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Tarantola, A. (1986) A strategy for nonlinear elastic inversion of seismic reflection data. Geophysics, 51(10), 1893–1903.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Tarantola, A. (1987) Inverse problem theory: Methods for data fitting and model parameter estimation. Philadelphia, PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Thomas, J.T., Phillips, T., Werth, K. & Lindsey, C. (2019) A comparison of 3D multi‐component (9C) data image volumes acquired with conventional and simultaneous source techniques (KWP Phase II). In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts 2019. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 27–31.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Tsvankin, I. (2012) Seismic signatures and analysis of reflection data in anisotropic media, 3rd edition. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Tsvankin, I., Gaiser, J., Grechka, V., Van der Baan, M. & Thomsen, L. (2010) Seismic anisotropy in exploration and reservoir characterization: an overview. Geophysics, 75(5), 75A15–75A29.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Tsvankin, I. & Grechka, V. (2011) Seismology of azimuthally anisotropic media and seismic fracture characterization. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Tuppen, C.A. (2019) Nine‐component seismic amplitude inversion: a case study in the Eagle Ford shale. Master of Science thesis, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Tura, A., Simmons, J., Daneshvar, S., Copley, M. & Stitt, J. (2022) Improving reservoir characterization and time‐lapse seismic through joint inversion of PP‐wave and PS‐wave seismic data. Interpretation, 10(2), T341–T350.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Vasconcelos, I. & Tsvankin, I. (2006) Non‐hyperbolic moveout inversion of wide‐azimuth P‐wave data for orthorhombic media. Geophysical Prospecting, 54(5), 535–552.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Virieux, J., Asnaashari, A., Brossier, R., Métivier, L., Ribodetti, A. & Zhou, W. (2017) An introduction to full waveform inversion. In: Encyclopedia of exploration geophysics. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. R1–1–R1–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Virieux, J., Etienne, V., Cruz‐Atienza, V., Brossier, R., Chaljub, E., Coutant, O. et al. (2012) Modelling seismic wave propagation for geophysical imaging. In Seismic Waves ‐ Research and Analysis, chapter 13. InTech, Jan 2012. https://doi.org/10.5772/30219
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Virieux, J. & Operto, S. (2009) An overview of full‐waveform inversion in exploration geophysics. Geophysics, 74(6), WCC1–WCC26.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Wang, X. & Tsvankin, I. (2009) Estimation of interval anisotropy parameters using velocity‐independent layer stripping. Geophysics, 74(5), WB117–WB127.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Wittkamp, F., Athanasopoulos, N. & Bohlen, T. (2019) Individual and joint 2‐D elastic full‐waveform inversion of Rayleigh and Love waves. Geophysical Journal International, 216(1), 350–364.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Yan, Y., Wang, Z., Li, J., Huai, N., Liang, Y., Song, S., Zhang, J. & Zhang, L. (2020) Elastic SH‐ and Love‐wave full‐waveform inversion for shallow shear wave velocity with a preconditioned technique. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 173, 103947.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Yanke, A. (2016) Feasibility of isotropic inversion in orthorhombic media: the Barrett unconventional model. Master's thesis, University of Texas at Austin.
  75. Yao, G., Wu, D. & Wang, S.X. (2020) A review on reflection‐waveforminversion. Petroleum Science, 17, 334–351.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Zhan, Q., Sun, Q., Ren, Q., Fang, Y., Wang, H. & Liu, Q.H. (2017) A discontinuous Galerkin method for simulating the effects of arbitrary discrete fractures on elastic wave propagation. Geophysical Journal International, 210(2), 1219–1230.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Zhang, Z. & Alkhalifah, T. (2019) Regularized elastic full‐waveform inversion using deep learning. Geophysics, 84(5), R741–R751.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Zhou, C., Yin, W., Yang, J., Nie, H. & Li, X. (2022) Reverse time migration imaging using sh shear wave data. Applied Sciences, 12(19), 9944.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Zhu, X., Sixta, D.P. & Angstman, B.G. (1992) Tomostatics: Turning‐ray tomography + static corrections. The Leading Edge, 11(12), 15–23.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13533
Loading
Depth imaging of multicomponent seismic data through the application of 2D full‐waveform inversion to P‐ and SH‐wave data: SEAM II Barrett model study
Geophysical Prospecting 73, 795 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13533
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13533
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13533
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): full waveform inversion; migration; multicomponent

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