1887
Volume 42 Number 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

Abstract

Minimization of seismic residuals does not guarantee uniqueness of the model, and this implies ambiguities in the inversion. Amplitude vs. offset (AVO) inversion does not lead to a unique solution of single elastic interface parameters unless converted and S‐wave or critical angle reflections are available. Given the ambiguity of AVO inversion, this paper discusses the interaction between AVO and velocity estimation. The number of independent parameters necessary to describe an isolated reflection with AVO behaviour and residual velocity error is determined. Statistical analysis allows the establishment of an approximate equivalence of the effects of AVO and slight velocity variations; this equivalence cannot be solved without geological information (kinematic equivalence). The data are then decomposed into compound events (i.e. sequences of interfaces that follow each other at a fixed time lag). The decomposition is obtained by extrapolating the results of the analysis from narrowband to wideband data. Compound events decomposition demonstrates that AVO inversion is ambiguous, not only in the physical parameter space (P‐ and S‐wave velocities, and density) but also kinematically. As an example of compound event decomposition, a medium is derived. This medium is geologically implausible but is kinematically equivalent.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1994.tb00208.x
2006-04-27
2020-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. de HaasJ.C. and BerkhoutA.J.1990. On the information content of P‐P, P‐SV, SV‐SV and SV‐P reflections. 60th SEG meeting, San Francisco, Expanded Abstracts, 1190–1194.
  2. FolstadG. and SchoenbergM.1992. Use of equivalent anisotropic medium theory to calculate synthetic AVO response. SEG/EAEG workshop, Big Sky, Montana, USA, August 1992, Expanded Abstracts, 614–621.
  3. GolubG.H. and Van LoanC.F.1989. Matrix Computations. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore , MD
    [Google Scholar]
  4. HerbertW.S.1991. Amplitude‐versus‐Offset measurement errors in a finely layered medium. Geophysics56, 41–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. KolbP., CollinoF. and LaillyP.1986. Pre‐stack inversion of a 1‐D medium. Proceedings of the IEEE74, 498–508.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. ShueyR.T.1985. A simplification of the Zoeppritz equations. Geophysics50, 609–614.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. SprattS.1987. Effect of Normal Moveout errors on amplitude versus offset‐derived shear reflectivity. 57th SEG meeting, New Orleans, Expanded Abstracts, 634–637.
  8. TarantolaA.1986. A strategy for nonlinear elastic inversion of seismic reflection data. Geophysics51, 1893–1903.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. TarantolaA.1987. Inverse Problem Theory. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Amsterdam
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Van RijssenE.P.F. and HermanG.C.1991. Resolution analysis of band‐limited and offset‐limited seismic data for plane‐layered subsurface models. Geophysical Prospecting39, 61–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. WaldenA.T.1991. Making AVO sections more robust. Geophysical Prospecting39, 915–942.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1994.tb00208.x
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
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