1887
Volume 38 Number 3
  • ISSN: 0263-5046
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2397

Abstract

Abstract

In this paper we demonstrate the imaging capabilities of a newly developed 3D Gauss-Newton inversion algorithm for marine controlled source electromagnetic (CSEM) data by inverting synthetic data generated from a known salt resistivity model. We show that the high resistivity contrast between salt and background sediments can be utilized to reconstruct reliable images of the salt structure without the use of any a-priori information which could bias the outcome. Further, we re-invert a CSEM data set acquired in 2012 in the Salina basin in the Gulf of Mexico, using the same 3D Gauss-Newton inversion algorithm. The resulting resistivity model is compared to the initial salt interpretation based on seismic data. The top salt boundary in the inverted resistivity model correlates well with the initial interpretation. However, the base salt geometry, which is often difficult to map with seismic data alone, is imaged very differently. The CSEM inversion result is robust and independent of other geophysical data and therefore very valuable in a salt imaging workflow to support seismic interpretation and velocity model building.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2020017
2020-03-01
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abubakar, A., Habashy, T., Li, M. and Liu, J.
    [2009]. Inversion algorithms for large-scale geophysical electromagnetic measurements, Inverse Problems, 25 (12), 123012.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Hansen, K., Panzner, M., Shantsev, D. and Mohn, K.
    [2018]. Comparison of TTI and VTI 3D Inversion of CSEM Data.80th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Extended Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Jones, I.F. and Davison, I.
    [2014]. Seismic imaging in and around salt bodies, Interpretation, 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Maaø, F.A.
    [2007]. Fast finite-difference time-domain modeling for marine-subsurface electromagnetic problems, Geophysics, 72, A19.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Mittet, R. and Morten, J.P.
    [2012]. Detection and imaging sensitivity of the marine CSEM method, Geophysics, 77 (6), E411–E425.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Morten, J.P., Twarz, C., Ricoy-Paramo, V. and Sun, S.
    [2013]. Improved Resolution Salt Imaging from 3D CSEM Anisotropy Inversion.75th EAGE Conference Exhibition, Extended Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Nguyen, A.K., Nordskag, J.I., Wiik, T., Bjørke, A.K., Boman, L., Pedersen, O.M., Ribaudo, J., and Mittet, R.
    [2016]. Comparing large-scale 3D Gauss--Newton and BFGS CSEM inversions, SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, Expanded Abstracts, 872–877.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Panzner, M., Morten, J.P., Weibull, W.W. and Arntsen, B.
    [2016]. Integrated seismic and electromagnetic model building applied to improve subbasalt depth imaging in the Faroe-Shetland Basin.Geophysics, 81, E57–E68.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Shantsev, D.V. and Maaø, F.A.
    [2014]. Rigorous interpolation near tilted interfaces in 3-D finite-difference EM modelling.Geophysical Journal International, Oxford University Press, 745–757.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2020017
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2020017
Loading

Data & Media 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