1887

Abstract

Summary

Until recently in offshore engineering projects, geophysical data has mostly been used to define interfaces between geological units to correlate with geological and geotechnical data; with the intervening acoustic character only typically used in a qualitative sense. Seismic inversion provides an opportunity to make use of valuable information between mappable seismic reflections, such as frequency content. Here we provide an end-user's view of how we think seismic inversion can be useful (in geohazards assessment and in geotechnical engineering), some of the potential shortcomings and prioritised areas for development, and outline the need to involve back seat drivers (geologists and geotechnical engineers) on a journey that is currently steered largely by geophysicists. It is crucial that end-users are engaged during the development of seismic inversion models, provide steer on the selection of parameters to be predicted (and on the acceptable levels of uncertainty), provide input to in any model training and conditioning, in order that they can feel confident in the end outputs. If this can be achieved, and uncertainties can be effectively communicated and quantified, then there is a promising future for seismic inversion as part of the broader toolbox available for offshore geotechnical engineering and geohazards assessment.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201901924
2019-06-03
2020-05-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Azpiroz-Zabala, M., Cartigny, M.J., Talling, P.J., Parsons, D.R., Sumner, E.J., Clare, M.A., Simmons, S.M., Cooper, C. and Pope, E.L.
    , 2017. Newly recognized turbidity current structure can explain prolonged flushing of submarine canyons. Science advances, 3(10), p . e1700200.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bonar, D. and Sacchi, M.
    , 2012. Denoising seismic data using the nonlocal means algorithm. Geophysics, 77(1), pp. A5–A8.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Campbell, K.J.
    , 1984, January. Predicting offshore soil conditions. In Offshore Technology Conference. Offshore Technology Conference.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Evans, T.G.
    , 2010. A systematic approach to offshore engineering for multiple-project developments in geohazardous areas. Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics II, pp. 3–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Hamilton, I.W., Hartley, B., Angheluta, C. and Digby, A.
    , 2004, January. Turning High Resolution Geophysics Upside-down: Application of Seismic Inversion to Site Investigation and Geohazard Problems. In Offshore Technology Conference. Offshore Technology Conference.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Liingaard, M.A., Mygind, M., Thomas, S., Clare, M. and Pickles, A.
    , 2012, January. Evidence of tertiary instrusive Rock at the West of Duddon Sands Offshore Wind Farm. In Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics: Integrated Technologies-Present and Future. Society of Underwater Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Mallick, S. and Dutta, N.C.
    , 2002. Shallow water flow prediction using prestack waveform inversion of conventional 3D seismic data and rock modeling. The Leading Edge, 21(7), pp. 675–680.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Morgan, E.C., Vanneste, M., Lecomte, I., Baise, L.G., Longva, O. and McAdoo, B.
    , 2012. Estimation of free gas saturation from seismic reflection surveys by the genetic algorithm inversion of a P-wave attenuation model. Geophysics, 77(4), pp. R175–R187.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Pinson, L.J., Henstock, T.J., Dix, J.K. and Bull, J.M.
    , 2008. Estimating quality factor and mean grain size of sediments from high-resolution marine seismic data. Geophysics, 73(4), pp. G19–G28.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Provenzano, G., Vardy, M.E. and Henstock, T.J.
    , 2017. Pre-stack full waveform inversion of ultra-high-frequency marine seismic reflection data. Geophysical Journal International, 209(3), pp. 1593–1611.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Roth, M. and Holliger, K.
    , 1999. Inversion of source-generated noise in high-resolution seismic data. The Leading Edge, 18(12), pp. 1402–1406.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Soubaras, R. and Dowle, R.
    , 2010. Variable-depth streamer–a broadband marine solution. first break, 28(12).
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Vanneste, M., Sultan, N., Garziglia, S., Forsberg, C.F. and L'Heureux, J.S.
    , 2014. Seafloor instabilities and sediment deformation processes: the need for integrated, multi-disciplinary investigations. Marine Geology, 352, pp. 183–214.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Vardy, M.E., Vanneste, M., Henstock, T.J., Clare, M.A., Forsberg, F. and Provenzano, G.
    , 2017. State of the art remote characterisation of shallow marine sediments: the road to a fully integrated solution. Near Surface Geophysics, 15(4), pp. 387–402.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Vardy, M.E., Clare, M.A., Vanneste, M., Forsberg, C.F. and Dix, J.K.
    , 2018, April. Seismic Inversion for Site Characterization: When, Where and Why Should We Use It?. In Offshore Technology Conference. Offshore Technology Conference.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201901924
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201901924
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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