Two‐dimensional controlled source electromagnetic inversion algorithm based on a space domain forward modeling approach

References

1. Abubakar, A., Habashy, T.M., Druskin, V.L., Knizhnerman, L. & Alumbaugh, D. (2008) 2.5 D forward and inverse modeling for interpreting low‐frequency electromagnetic measurements. Geophysics, 73(4), F165–F177.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Anderson, W.L. (1989) A hybrid fast Hankel transform algorithm for electromagnetic modeling. Geophysics, 54(2), 263–266.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Anderson, C. & Mattson, J. (2010) An integrated approach to marine electromagnetic surveying using a towed streamer and source. First Break, 28(5).
4. Chave, A.D. (1983) Numerical integration of related Hankel transforms by quadrature and continued fraction expansion. Geophysics, 48(12), 1671–1686.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Chesley, C., Naif, S., Key, K. & Bassett, D. (2021) Fluid‐rich subducting topography generates anomalous forearc porosity. Nature, 595(7866), 255–260.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Constable, S. (2010) Ten years of marine CSEM for hydrocarbon exploration. Geophysics, 75(5), 75A67–75A81.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Constable, S., Kannberg, P.K. & Weitemeyer, K. (2016) Vulcan: a deep‐towed CSEM receiver. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 17(3), 1042–1064.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Dehiya, R. (2021) 3D forward modeling of controlled‐source electromagnetic data based on the radiation boundary method. Geophysics, 86(2), E143–E155.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Dehiya, R., Singh, A., Gupta, P.K. & Israil, M. (2017) Optimization of computations for adjoint field and Jacobian needed in 3D CSEM inversion. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 136, 444–454.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Engebretsen, K.W., Zhang, B., Fiandaca, G., Madsen, L.M., Auken, E. & Christiansen, A.V. (2022) Accelerated 2.5‐D inversion of airborne transient electromagnetic data using reduced 3‐D meshing. Geophysical Journal International, 230(1), 643–653.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Gabrielsen, P.T., Brevik, I., Mittet, R. & Løseth, L.O. (2009) Investigating the exploration potential for 3D CSEM using a calibration survey over the Troll Field. First Break, 27(6).
12. Halbouty, M.T. (1992) Giant oil and gas fields of the decade 1978‐1988. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir, Volume 54.
13. Hoversten, G.M., Newman, G.A., Morrison, H.F., Gasperikova, E. & Berg, J.I. (2001) Reservoir characterization using crosswell electromagnetic inversion: A feasibility study for the Snorre field, North Sea. Geophysics, 66(4), 1177–1189.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Key, K. (2016) MARE2DEM: a 2D inversion code for controlled‐source electromagnetic and magnetotelluric data. Geophysical Journal International, 207(1), 571–588.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Key, K. & Ovall, J. (2011) A parallel goal‐oriented adaptive finite element method for 2.5‐D electromagnetic modelling. Geophysical Journal International, 186(1), 137–154.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Kong, F.N., Johnstad, S.E., Røsten, T. & Westerdahl, H. (2008) A 2.5 D finite‐element‐modeling difference method for marine CSEM modeling in stratified anisotropic media. Geophysics, 73(1), F9–F19.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Li, G., Duan, S., Cai, H., Han, B. & Ye, Y. (2020) An improved interpolation scheme at receiver positions for 2.5 D frequency‐domain marine controlled‐source electromagnetic forward modelling. Geophysical Prospecting, 68(5), 1657–1675.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Long, Z., Cai, H., Hu, X., Zhou, J. & Yang, X. (2024) 3D inversion of CSEM data using finite element method in data space. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 62, 1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Martí, A. (2014) The role of electrical anisotropy in magnetotelluric responses: from modelling and dimensionality analysis to inversion and interpretation. Surveys in Geophysics, 35, 179–218.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Mcgillivray, P.R. & Oldenburg, D.W. (1990) Methods for calculating Fréchet derivatives and sensitivities for the non‐linear inverse problem: a comparative study 1. Geophysical Prospecting, 38(5), 499–524.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Schenk, O. & Gärtner, K. (2004) Solving unsymmetric sparse systems of linear equations with PARDISO. Future Generation Computer Systems, 20(3), 475–487.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Spitzer, K. (2024) Electromagnetic modeling using adaptive grids—error estimation and geometry representation. Surveys in Geophysics, 45(1), 277–314.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Wang, B., Liu, J., Hu, X., Liu, J., Guo, Z. & Xiao, J. (2021) Geophysical electromagnetic modeling and evaluation: a review. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 194, 104438.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Weiss, C.J. & Constable, S. (2006) Mapping thin resistors and hydrocarbons with marine EM methods, Part II‐modeling and analysis in 3D. Geophysics, 71(6), G321–G332.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Weitemeyer, K., Gao, G., Constable, S. & Alumbaugh, D. (2010) The practical application of 2D inversion to marine controlled‐source electromagnetic data. Geophysics, 75(6), F199–F211.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Wheelock, B., Constable, S. & Key, K. (2015) The advantages of logarithmically scaled data for electromagnetic inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 201(3), 1765–1780.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Wu, Z., Fan, Y., Wang, J., Zhang, R. & Liu, Q.H. (2019) Application of 2.5‐D finite difference method in logging‐while‐drilling electromagnetic measurements for complex scenarios. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 17(4), 577–581.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Xiao, L., Fiandaca, G., Zhang, B., Auken, E. & Christiansen, A.V. (2022) Fast 2.5 D and 3D inversion of transient electromagnetic surveys using the octree‐based finite‐element method. Geophysics, 87(4), E267–E277.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Xue, G., He, Y., Chen, W., Wu, X. & Song, W. (2023) 3‐D Inversion based on the particle swarm optimization‐quasi‐newton hybrid algorithm for SOTEM. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 61, 1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Yavich, N. & Zhdanov, M.S. (2020) Finite‐element EM modelling on hexahedral grids with an FD solver as a pre‐conditioner. Geophysical Journal International, 223(2), 840–850.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Zeng, S., Chen, F., Li, D., Chen, J. & Chen, J. (2018) A novel 2.5 D finite difference scheme for simulations of resistivity logging in anisotropic media. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 150, 144–152.
    [Google Scholar]