1887
Volume 74, Issue 1
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Accurate estimation of seismic velocity and density models is essential for subsurface imaging and characterisation. We propose a global optimisation framework to estimate non‐linked P‐wave velocity () and density () for post‐stack seismic data, and , and S‐wave velocity () for pre‐stack data, by minimising the misfit between non‐corrected normal moveout (non‐NMO) observed and synthetic seismic gathers. We demonstrate that a non‐linear, underdetermined and complex problem can be addressed by introducing an additional constraint on one of the parameters, using non‐linear forward modelling combined with global optimisation algorithms. The synthetic seismic gathers are iteratively generated by randomly and simultaneously updating initial models. Updates are accepted on the basis of the simulated annealing method, a global optimisation technique that helps to prevent entrapment in local minima. Optimisation is performed by minimising an L2‐norm misfit function. For the pre‐stack case, the observed seismic data are a real gather. For the post‐stack case, the observed gather is formed from the full stacked seismic trace, taken as a near trace, and the reflectors are spread along moveout curves that are computed from the smoothed log of . A two‐parameter search (, ) is launched in the post‐stack case, whereas a three‐parameter search (, and ) is used when pre‐stack data are available, with both starting from smoothed initial models. To reduce the number of iterations by at least one order of magnitude and to increase computational efficiency, initial estimates of the and models can first be obtained from the post‐stack process using well logs. Then, the full three‐parameter search is performed, starting with initially estimated models for , and smoothed . The proposed methodologies offer an approach for estimating elastic properties and for overcoming the limitations of conventional seismic inversion. The approach eliminates reliance on regression techniques, which often oversimplify the complex, nonlinear relationships between seismic data and subsurface properties; avoids linearisation of the inversion process, which can introduce errors again due to the inherently nonlinear nature of geological properties; and bypasses the need for normal moveout (NMO) correction, which can cause amplitude stretching and distort critical amplitude information, because the algorithm utilises the moveout. By working with fully migrated 1D gathers, we assume a constant velocity across all offsets, which allows us to bypass full wave‐equation modelling while maintaining acceptable accuracy. Additionally, the framework supports the implementation of alternative global optimisation strategies.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70124
2026-01-13
2026-02-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aki, K., and P. G.Richards. 1980. Quantitative Seismology: Theory and Method. Vol. 1. W.H. Freeman.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Avseth, P., T.Mukerji, and G.Mavko. 2010. Quantitative Seismic Interpretation: Applying Rock Physics Tools to Reduce Uncertainty. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Doyen, P. M.2007. Seismic Reservoir Characterization: An Integrated Approach. EAGE Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Durrani, M. M., and M.Khan. 2020. “Application of Post‐Stack Rune Inversion for Reservoir Rock Properties Estimation in Comparison With Conventional Seismic Attribute Analysis: A Case Study From the Paleocene Formation, Middle Indus Basin, Onshore Pakistan.” First Break38: 49–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Feng, H., and J. C.Bancroft. 2006. “AVO Principles, Processing, and Inversion.” CREWES Research Report18: 1–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Finogenova, A., V.Kalashnikova, B. E.Klein, et al. 2025. “Revealing the Salt Tectonic Puzzle: Mesozoic Base of the Norwegian North Sea.” First Break43: 67–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Geman, S., and D.Geman. 1984. “Stochastic Relaxation, Gibbs Distributions, and the Bayesian Restoration of Images.” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence6, no. 6: 721–741.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Geosoftware . 2021. “Hampson‐Russell Software (10.0.1) [Software].” Geosoftware. https://www.geosoftware.com.
  9. Goffe, W. L., G. D.Ferrier, and J.Rogers. 1994. “Global Optimization of Statistical Functions With Simulated Annealing.” Journal of Econometrics60, no. 1–2: 65–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hanyga, A., and H. B.Helle. 1995. “Synthetic Seismograms From Generalized Ray Tracing.” Geophysical Prospecting43, no. 6: 735–752.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kalashnikova, V. E.2024. “Lithology and Fluid Prediction Using AI Algorithms Around the Shrek Area in the Norwegian Sea.” In 12th Geophysical Congress, BGS. EAGE. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214‐4609.202449BGS16.
  12. Kalashnikova, V., M.Izergin, R.Øverås, and V.Sopivnik. 2022. “Digital Exploring With Artificial Intelligence From the Start to the End: Cloud‐Based “Cooking”.” In DIGEx Conference. GeoPublishing.
  13. Kalashnikova, V., R.Øverås, T.Nekrasova, C. F.Gyllnehammar, and I.Meisingset. 2025. “Sand‐Clay Distribution and Best Quality Sand Thickness in the Våle and Lista Formations of Rogaland Group: Comparison of Stratigraphic Reference Maps and AI‐based Inversion Results in the Norwegian North Sea Elephant Database.” First Break43: 49–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kalashnikova, V., and B.Klein. 2022. Magic or Mathematics? Geo365.no. https://geo365.no/magic‐or‐mathematics/.
  15. Ogagarue, D. O., and A. C.Chukwuocha. 2010. “Application of Cross‐Correlation for Global Velocity Quality Control in Seismic Imaging.” Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences4, no. 10: 4696–4703.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Øverås, R., and V.Kalashnikova. 2022. Method for seismic inversion using artificial kinematic constraints. Norway Patent No. 20210133. https://search.patentstyret.no/Home/OpenFile?docnr=0901670881b0c9d9&appid=01‐04&fileType=pdf.
  17. Russell, B. H.1988. Introduction to Seismic Inversion Methods, SEG Course Notes Series. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Ryan, H.1994. “Ricker, Ormsby, Klauder, Butterworth—A Choice of Wavelets.” CSEG Recorder19, no. 7: 8–9. Retrieved from https://csegrecorder.com/articles/view/ricker‐ormsby‐klauder‐butterworth‐a‐choice‐of‐wavelets.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Sen, M. K., and P. L.Stoffa. 2013. Global Optimization Methods in Geophysical Inversion. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Shuey, R. T.1985. “A Simplification of the Zoeppritz Equations.” Geophysics50, no. 4: 609–614.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Tarantola, A.2005. Inverse Problem Theory and Methods for Model Parameter Estimation. SIAM.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Thomsen, L.1986. “Weak Elastic Anisotropy.” Geophysics, 51, no. 10: 1954–1966.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Tsvankin, I., and L.Thomsen. 1994. “Nonhyperbolic Reflection Moveout in Anisotropic Media.” Geophysics59: 1290–1304.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Ulrych, T. J., M. D.Sacchi, and A. D.Woodbury. 2001. “A Bayesian Approach to Inverse Problems.” Geophysics66, no. 1: 55–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Yilmaz, Ö.2001. Seismic Data Processing. SEG.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Zoeppritz, K.1919. “Über Reflexion und Durchgang Seismischer Wellen durch Unstetigkeitsflächen.” Göttinger Nachrichten1: 66–84.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70124
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70124
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): inverse problem; inversion; seismic; velocity

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