Velocity tomography using property scans

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 9977141
  • Patent Number
    9,977,141
  • Date Filed
    Wednesday, August 5, 2015
    9 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, May 22, 2018
    6 years ago
Abstract
Method for building a subsurface model of velocity or other elastic property from seismic reflection data using tomography. The method uses velocity scans to pick a focusing velocity model at each image point (40). The focusing velocities are used to pick depth errors from tables (60) generated using a tomographic inversion matrix (30) and a suite of different velocity models (10). The depth errors are then reconstructed at each image point from the velocity scans based on the difference between the base velocity model and the most coherent velocity from the scan (70). The reconstructed depth errors are used to compute the velocity model update (80).
Description
FIELD OF THE INVENTION

Technological Field


This disclosure relates generally to the field of geophysical prospecting and, more particularly, to seismic data processing. Specifically, this disclosure concerns a method for building a subsurface velocity model from seismic reflection data using tomography, where the velocity model will be used in subsequent processing of the seismic data to prospect for hydrocarbons.


Background of the Invention


Tomography may be defined as a method for finding the velocity and reflectivity distribution from a multitude of observations using combinations of source and receiver locations. (Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Geophysics, 4th Ed., R. E. Sheriff) Reflection tomography uses data from a seismic survey in which both sources and receivers were placed on the surface. In reflection tomography, migrated gathers (offset or angle gathers) are used for updating the velocity model, and the flatness of the gathers, which is measured by the depth differences of the same reflection event in the different traces of a gather, provides information whether the migration velocity model is correct or not. Typically, there is no depth difference of the same reflection event in all traces of each gather, when the migration velocity model is correct. Those depth differences are also called residual depth errors (“RDE”) because they describe the relative depths errors of the same reflection event in different traces of a gather. The velocity model may then be perturbed, with the objective of reducing the RDE, and the process is repeated iteratively to optimize the model.


The term velocity model or physical property model as used herein refers to an array of numbers, typically a 3-D array, where each number, which may be called a model parameter, is a value of velocity or another physical property in a cell, where a subsurface region has been conceptually divided into discrete cells for computational purposes.


Successful implementation of reflection tomography for velocity model building requires reliable measurement of the residual depth errors in a migrated subsurface image. (Migration, or imaging, is a data processing technique that moves subsurface reflectors to their correct locations.) Direct measurement of RDE is difficult in complex imaging areas, such as sub-salt. Velocity scanning provides an alternative way to update velocity model in complex imaging areas. A velocity scan, or velocity panel, may be defined as a display of the coherency when various normal moveouts, implying various velocities, are assumed. (Sheriff, op. cit.) The coherency may be judged, for example, according to which velocity model images a reflection point most nearly to the same depth, i.e. the flattest. Published methods to use velocity scanning in this way include the following.


Jiao, et al. (2006) proposed a1D vertical updating method. This method updates the velocity model from scans by using a formula based on a 1D assumption. A drawback of this method is inaccurate formulation for complex structures where the 1D assumption is invalid.


Wang, et al. (2006) disclosed a 3D kinematic demigration/remigration updating method. This method converts velocity scans into RDE by kinematic demigration and remigration. The estimated RDE will be used for model updating by tomography. A drawback of this method is that kinematic demigration/remigration is a complicated process in which stability and accuracy are difficult to achieve.


SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In one embodiment, the invention is a method for a scientific method for transforming seismic data into a subsurface physical property model, comprising constructing the subsurface physical property model by performing tomographic inversion of the seismic data, using a computer, with residual depth errors reconstructed using property scanning, wherein the residual depth errors are reconstructed using the following relationship at each imaging point DA (vm−vf) where A is a matrix built from ray tracing, vm is a base migration model of the property, vf is a model of the property as picked from a property scan of migrated seismic data, and deviation operator D is defined by its operation on an arbitrary n-dimensional vector a={aj},








(
Da
)

j

=


a
j

-



i




a
i

n








where indices i and j denote different source-receiver offsets among a total of n offsets present in the migrated seismic data.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The present invention and its advantages will be better understood by referring to the following detailed description and the attached drawings in which:



FIG. 1 is a flow chart showing basic steps in one embodiment of the present inventive method.





The invention will be described in connection with example embodiments. However, to the extent that the following detailed description is specific to a particular embodiment or a particular use of the invention, this is intended to be illustrative only, and is not to be construed as limiting the scope of the invention. On the contrary, it is intended to cover all alternatives, modifications and equivalents that may be included within the scope of the invention, as defined by the appended claims.


DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EXAMPLE EMBODIMENTS

Velocity tomography relies on reliable measurement of RDE, which may not be available in complex imaging areas. In the present invention, a formula is derived that allows one to directly reconstruct RDE from velocity scans. The reconstructed RDE can be imported into conventional tomographic inversion work flow, so that the model will be updated through velocity tomographic inversion. The derivation of the formula is based on the fact that a migrated gather at a reflection point (also called image point) is flat when the depth image is focused at this location, i.e. when the image was migrated using the velocity model that best focuses the image at this location. In other words, for each image point, a velocity scan is constructed, and the scan displays coherency, at that image point, for minimum RDE or maximum stacking power, for different migration images (gathers or stacked section), each representing a different velocity model.


A formula, for which the derivation is given in the Appendix, to reconstruct RDE from velocity scans can be expressed at each imaging point as:

Dzm=DA(vm−vf)  (1)

where Dzm is the reconstructed RDE, zm is migrated depth, D is an operator that may be called the deviation operator, A is a matrix that consists of the derivatives of the imaged depths with respect to parameters of the velocity model, vm is a vector containing the base migration velocity model parameters, and vf is a vector containing the parameters of the focusing velocity model picked from property scanning, i.e. from coherency comparison of two or more velocity models. The elements of the matrix A will depend on the model that is used to image the data. A velocity model parameter is the value of wave propagation velocity at a particular cell in the discrete model, typically in 3-D space. Base velocity refers to an initial or current velocity model, and the focusing velocity refers to the velocity model that gives the most coherent result in the velocity scan that is focused on the particular image point.


The validity of equation (1) is based on an assumption of a small perturbation. Thus, the difference between the base migration velocity vm and the velocity of picked from the velocity scan should be small, for example <10%. In other words, for the velocity scan, the user selects velocity models that differ from each other by less than some preselected tolerance.


For an n-dimensional vector a={aj}, Da is defined by











(
Da
)

j

=


a
j

-



i




a
i

n







(
2
)








where j is the offset index and the sum is over the number n of different offsets present in the data. Thus, equation (2) defines the operator D, i.e. Dz measures the difference for the imaged depths of the same reflection event at different offsets—in other words, a measure of how much error exists in the migration velocity model. The matrix A will be computed in a conventional tomographic inversion work flow; see, for example, Liu—Ref [2], which reference is incorporated herein in all jurisdictions that allow it. The deviation of equation (1) uses the fact of Dzf=0. After the RDE is reconstructed in equation (1) for each image point, an equation is formed to solve for a corresponding velocity model update, Δv:

(DAv=Dzm,  (3)

which equation must be solved by numerical methods, using a computer of course for any practical application. Invariably, no one model in the velocity panel will best focus every image point, and therefore equation (3) represents the synthesis of all the different focusing velocities to make the best update to the entire base velocity model. Equation (3) is the same velocity model update equation that is typically used in conventional tomography. The difference in the case of the present invention is that Dzm is given by equation (1).


Compared to a conventional tomographic inversion work flow, which estimates Dzm from migrated gathers that are generated using the base migration velocity, the present inventive method obtains a more reliable estimation of Dzm in complex imaging areas, and, therefore, is a more effective way for velocity updating.



FIG. 1 is a flow chart showing basic steps in one example embodiment of the present inventive method. It is not shown in the drawings, but a seismic data set is an input quantity required for steps 20 and 30. The seismic data may consist of, for example, common-offset gathers or common-shot gathers. In step 10, a suite of velocity models is selected, being mindful of the small perturbation assumption. In step 30, a base model is selected, typically one of the velocity models from step 10. (The term “model” as used in this illustrative example embodiment refers to a velocity model, but in the case of an anisotropic medium, this can be a model of a component of velocity, for example the vertical component or the horizontal component, or a model of any one or more of the anisotropy parameters, or the term can refer to any other property of the medium that affects a kinematic property of propagation of acoustic waves, for example the position of horizons that define a region in a velocity model.) The base model is the starting model for the iterative tomography inversion process. Also, the matrix A for the tomographic inversion is generated—see ref [2] for details. The matrix A operating on a velocity model will predict the depth of each image point according to that velocity model. In step 50, tables of the depth errors are generated for a plurality of image points (preferably all, but at least enough to make an image) for each model selected in step 10. The depth error for each image point is the difference in migrated depth as migrated by a velocity model from step 10 as compared to when migrated by the base migration model. A table of depth errors for a particular image point will thus show a value of depth error for each of various migration velocity models at that image point.


In step 20, migrated images are formed from the seismic data using each of the velocity models selected in step 10. In step 40, at each image point, a focusing velocity model is selected, i.e. the velocity model (picked from among the velocity models 10) that maximizes coherency. For example, each trace in a common-image gather (a gather of traces that have a common image point but different offsets) after migration using any one of the velocity models 10 will image a particular reflection point at a somewhat different depth. The selection in step 40 may be performed by picking the migration velocity model that generates the flattest (same depth) migrated gathers at the particular image point. The migrated gathers may, for example, be offset gathers generated by Kirchhoff or beam migration, or angle gathers generated by shot beam migration or wave equation based migration. As an alternative, data representing different offsets may be stacked (summed), and then migrated, and the picking might choose the best migrated stack response, e.g. the best stacked images as generated by Kirchhoff, beam, or wave equation based migration. It should be noted that the method used for picking a velocity model from velocity scan panels is not within the scope of the present inventive method. Any picking method may be used for purposes of the present invention.


In step 50, the depth error tables are generated. This is done by multiplying the tomographic inversion matrix A from step 30 by the difference between the base migration velocity model and, in turn, each of the suite of velocity models selected in step 10, where the velocity models are expressed as vectors.


In step 60, a depth error is obtained for each image point from the tables from step 50, by picking the error corresponding to the focusing velocity model. Then, in step 70, the depth errors from step 60 are reconstructed using the present inventive method, by applying equation (1) or some equivalent expression.


In step 80, the velocity model update is obtained by numerically solving equation (3) or an equivalent expression for Δv. The right-hand side of equation (3) is the reconstructed residual depth error from step 70, and the matrix A, which is composed of the gradients of imaged depth with respect to the model parameters, comes from step 30.


It may be noted that conventional tomographic inversion using measured RDE's can be represented just by step 30, a simplified step 70 specifying direct measurement of RDE, then steps 80 and 90. Steps 10-40 are common to previous attempts to use velocity scans to update the velocity model.


In an alternative embodiment of the invention, instead of using only the reconstructed residual depth errors in step 80, step 80 may be performed using the reconstructed residual depth errors combined with residual depth errors generated using the base migration velocity model.


The accuracy of the updated model can be improved by iterating the process (step 90), i.e. returning to the steps 10 and 20, and using the updated model as the base model in step 30. If the suite of velocity models 10 from the previous iteration is considered suitable to use again, the next iteration may skip steps 10, 20, and 40, and begin with step 30 and proceed to 50, 60 and beyond. Preferably, however, the suite of velocity models should be regenerated in step 10 using the new base model, for example with scaling factors.


Software for executing the present inventive method on a computer can be developed by adapting existing tomographic inversion software to incorporate the present inventive method for reconstructing residual depth errors. Existing software will, for example, generate the matrix A and solve an equation similar to equation (3), and perform other computational steps needed in tomographic inversion. The tomographic inversion used in the present inventive method may be ray-based or wave-based.


The foregoing description is directed to particular embodiments of the present invention for the purpose of illustrating it. It will be apparent, however, to one skilled in the art, that many modifications and variations to the embodiments described herein are possible. All such modifications and variations are intended to be within the scope of the present invention, as defined by the appended claims.


Appendix (Derivation of Equation 1)


Reflection tomographic inversion may be described by

AΔv=Δz  (A-1)

where A is a matrix built from ray tracing,

Δv=vm−vt
Δz=zm−zt

vm is the migration velocity, vt is the true velocity, zm is migration depth, corresponding to vm, and zt is the true depth corresponding to vt.


To eliminate zt, the deviation operator, D, may be applied over offset index on equation (A-1):

(DAv=Dzm  (A-2)

where Dzt=0 Is used. Deviation of a n-dimensional vector, z={z1}, is defined by











(
Dz
)

i




z
i

-


1
n





j



z
j








(

A


-


3

)








Equation (A-2) is used to update velocity from RDE in conventional tomographic inversion. A modified version of equation (A-1) is

A(vm−vf)=zm−zf  (A4)

Where vf is focusing velocity picked from velocity scans, and zf is focused migration depth corresponding to vf. Applying the deviation operator, D, to equation (A-4) yields

(DA)(vm−vf)=Dzm  (A-5)

where Dzf=0 Is used. Q.E.D.


It should be noted that the validity of equations (A-1) and (A-4) depends upon a linearized approximation, which assumes a small perturbation between velocity models.


REFERENCES



  • 1. Jiao, J., Lowrey, D., Willis, J., and Solano, D., “An improved methodology for sub-salt velocity analysis,” SEG Expanded Abstracts, 3105-3109 (2006).

  • 2. Liu, Z., “An analytical approach to migration velocity analysis,” Geophysics 62, 1238-1249 (1997).

  • 3. Wang, B., “A 3D subsalt tomography based on wave-equation migration-perturbation scans,” Geophysics 71, T129-T135 (2006).


Claims
  • 1. A scientific method for transforming seismic data into a subsurface physical property model, comprising: constructing the subsurface physical property model by performing tomographic inversion of the seismic data, using a computer, with residual depth errors reconstructed using property scanning;wherein the physical property is one of velocity, a vector component of velocity, one or more anisotropy parameters, and any other property of a medium that affects a kinematic property of propagation of acoustic waves,wherein the residual depth errors are reconstructed using the following relationship at each imaging point DA(vm-vf)where A is a matrix built from ray tracing, vm is a base migration model of the property, vf is a model of the property as picked from a property scan of migrated seismic data, and deviation operator D is defined by its operation on an arbitrary n-dimensional vector a={aj}:
  • 2. The tomographic method of claim 1, wherein the migrated seismic data are formed into gathers of traces with a common image point but different offsets.
  • 3. The tomographic method of claim 1, wherein matrix A comprises derivatives of imaged depths with respect to model parameters.
  • 4. The method of claim 1, further comprising updating the base migration model with the update and repeating the method for at least one iteration.
  • 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the suite of property models are generated based on the base migration model.
  • 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the property models in the suite of property models do not differ from the base migration model by more than a pre-selected tolerance.
  • 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the focusing property is picked based on flatness of the image points.
  • 8. The method of claim 7, wherein the migrated data are formed into offset gathers generated by Kirchhoff or beam migration, or angle gathers generated by shot beam migration or wave equation based migration.
  • 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the tables of depth errors are generated by multiplying the matrix A by the difference between the base migration model and a property model from the suite to simulate depth errors in the plurality of image points, and repeating for each property model in the suite, wherein each model is expressed as a vector.
  • 10. The method of claim 1, wherein the tomographic inversion is ray-based tomographic inversion or wave-based tomographic inversion.
  • 11. The method of claim 1, further comprising using the physical property model constructed from tomographic inversion for prospecting or producing hydrocarbons.
  • 12. A non-transitory computer usable medium having a computer readable program code embodied therein, said computer readable program code adapted to be executed to implement a scientific method for transforming seismic data into a subsurface physical property model, comprising: constructing the subsurface physical property model by performing tomographic inversion of the seismic data, with residual depth errors reconstructed using property scanning;wherein the residual depth errors are reconstructed using the following relationship at each imaging point DA(vm-vf)
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application 62/066,206, filed Oct. 20, 2014, entitled VELOCITY TOMOGRAPHY USING PROPERTY SCANS, the entirety of which is incorporated by reference herein.

US Referenced Citations (221)
Number Name Date Kind
3812457 Weller May 1974 A
3864667 Bahjat Feb 1975 A
4159463 Silverman Jun 1979 A
4168485 Payton et al. Sep 1979 A
4545039 Savit Oct 1985 A
4562650 Nagasawa et al. Jan 1986 A
4575830 Ingram et al. Mar 1986 A
4594662 Devaney Jun 1986 A
4636957 Vannier et al. Jan 1987 A
4675851 Savit et al. Jun 1987 A
4686654 Savit Aug 1987 A
4707812 Martinez Nov 1987 A
4715020 Landrum, Jr. Dec 1987 A
4766574 Whitmore et al. Aug 1988 A
4780856 Becquey Oct 1988 A
4823326 Ward Apr 1989 A
4924390 Parsons et al. May 1990 A
4953657 Edington Sep 1990 A
4969129 Currie Nov 1990 A
4982374 Edington et al. Jan 1991 A
5260911 Mason et al. Nov 1993 A
5469062 Meyer, Jr. Nov 1995 A
5583825 Carrazzone et al. Dec 1996 A
5677893 de Hoop et al. Oct 1997 A
5715213 Allen Feb 1998 A
5717655 Beasley Feb 1998 A
5719821 Sallas et al. Feb 1998 A
5721710 Sallas et al. Feb 1998 A
5790473 Allen Aug 1998 A
5798982 He et al. Aug 1998 A
5822269 Allen Oct 1998 A
5838634 Jones et al. Nov 1998 A
5852588 de Hoop et al. Dec 1998 A
5878372 Tabarovsky et al. Mar 1999 A
5920838 Norris et al. Jul 1999 A
5924049 Beasley et al. Jul 1999 A
5999488 Smith Dec 1999 A
5999489 Lazaratos Dec 1999 A
6014342 Lazaratos Jan 2000 A
6021094 Ober et al. Feb 2000 A
6028818 Jeffryes Feb 2000 A
6058073 VerWest May 2000 A
6125330 Robertson et al. Sep 2000 A
6219621 Hornbostel Apr 2001 B1
6225803 Chen May 2001 B1
6311133 Lailly et al. Oct 2001 B1
6317695 Zhou et al. Nov 2001 B1
6327537 Ikelle Dec 2001 B1
6374201 Grizon et al. Apr 2002 B1
6381543 Guerillot et al. Apr 2002 B1
6388947 Washbourne et al. May 2002 B1
6480790 Calvert et al. Nov 2002 B1
6522973 Tonellot et al. Feb 2003 B1
6545944 de Kok Apr 2003 B2
6549854 Malinverno et al. Apr 2003 B1
6574564 Lailly et al. Jun 2003 B2
6593746 Stolarczyk Jul 2003 B2
6662147 Fournier et al. Dec 2003 B1
6665615 Van Riel et al. Dec 2003 B2
6687619 Moerig et al. Feb 2004 B2
6687659 Shen Feb 2004 B1
6704245 Becquey Mar 2004 B2
6714867 Meunier Mar 2004 B2
6735527 Levin May 2004 B1
6754590 Moldoveanu Jun 2004 B1
6766256 Jeffryes Jul 2004 B2
6826486 Malinverno Nov 2004 B1
6836448 Robertsson et al. Dec 2004 B2
6842701 Moerig et al. Jan 2005 B2
6859734 Bednar Feb 2005 B2
6865487 Charron Mar 2005 B2
6865488 Moerig et al. Mar 2005 B2
6876928 Van Riel et al. Apr 2005 B2
6882938 Vaage et al. Apr 2005 B2
6882958 Schmidt et al. Apr 2005 B2
6901333 Van Riel et al. May 2005 B2
6903999 Curtis et al. Jun 2005 B2
6905916 Bartsch et al. Jun 2005 B2
6906981 Vauge Jun 2005 B2
6927698 Stolarczyk Aug 2005 B2
6944546 Xiao et al. Sep 2005 B2
6947843 Fisher et al. Sep 2005 B2
6970397 Castagna et al. Nov 2005 B2
6977866 Huffman et al. Dec 2005 B2
6999880 Lee Feb 2006 B2
7046581 Calvert May 2006 B2
7050356 Jeffryes May 2006 B2
7069149 Goff et al. Jun 2006 B2
7027927 Routh et al. Jul 2006 B2
7072767 Routh et al. Jul 2006 B2
7092823 Lailly et al. Aug 2006 B2
7110900 Adler et al. Sep 2006 B2
7184367 Yin Feb 2007 B2
7230879 Herkenoff et al. Jun 2007 B2
7271747 Baraniuk et al. Sep 2007 B2
7330799 Lefebvre et al. Feb 2008 B2
7337069 Masson et al. Feb 2008 B2
7373251 Hamman et al. May 2008 B2
7373252 Sherrill et al. May 2008 B2
7376046 Jeffryes May 2008 B2
7376539 Lecomte May 2008 B2
7400978 Langlais et al. Jul 2008 B2
7436734 Krohn Oct 2008 B2
7480206 Hill Jan 2009 B2
7584056 Koren Sep 2009 B2
7599798 Beasley et al. Oct 2009 B2
7602670 Jeffryes Oct 2009 B2
7616523 Tabti et al. Nov 2009 B1
7620534 Pita et al. Nov 2009 B2
7620536 Chow Nov 2009 B2
7646924 Donoho Jan 2010 B2
7672194 Jeffryes Mar 2010 B2
7672824 Dutta et al. Mar 2010 B2
7675815 Saenger et al. Mar 2010 B2
7679990 Herkenhoff et al. Mar 2010 B2
7684281 Vaage et al. Mar 2010 B2
7710821 Robertsson et al. May 2010 B2
7715985 Van Manen et al. May 2010 B2
7715986 Nemeth et al. May 2010 B2
7725266 Sirgue et al. May 2010 B2
7791980 Robertsson et al. Sep 2010 B2
7835072 Izumi Nov 2010 B2
7840625 Candes et al. Nov 2010 B2
7940601 Ghosh May 2011 B2
8121823 Krebs et al. Feb 2012 B2
8248886 Neelamani et al. Aug 2012 B2
8428925 Krebs et al. Apr 2013 B2
8437998 Routh et al. May 2013 B2
8547794 Gulati et al. Oct 2013 B2
8688381 Routh et al. Apr 2014 B2
8781748 Laddoch et al. Jul 2014 B2
20020049540 Beve et al. Apr 2002 A1
20020099504 Cross et al. Jul 2002 A1
20020120429 Ortoleva Aug 2002 A1
20020183980 Guillaume Dec 2002 A1
20040199330 Routh et al. Oct 2004 A1
20040225438 Okoniewski et al. Nov 2004 A1
20060235666 Assa et al. Oct 2006 A1
20070036030 Baumel et al. Feb 2007 A1
20070038691 Candes et al. Feb 2007 A1
20070274155 Ikelle Nov 2007 A1
20080175101 Saenger et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080306692 Singer et al. Dec 2008 A1
20090006054 Song Jan 2009 A1
20090067041 Krauklis et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090070042 Birchwood et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090083006 Mackie Mar 2009 A1
20090116336 Summerfield May 2009 A1
20090164186 Haase et al. Jun 2009 A1
20090164756 Dokken et al. Jun 2009 A1
20090187391 Wendt et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090248308 Luling Oct 2009 A1
20090254320 Lovatini et al. Oct 2009 A1
20090259406 Khadhraoui et al. Oct 2009 A1
20100008184 Hegna et al. Jan 2010 A1
20100018718 Krebs et al. Jan 2010 A1
20100039894 Abma et al. Feb 2010 A1
20100054082 McGarry et al. Mar 2010 A1
20100088035 Etgen et al. Apr 2010 A1
20100103772 Eick et al. Apr 2010 A1
20100118651 Liu et al. May 2010 A1
20100142316 Keers et al. Jun 2010 A1
20100161233 Saenger et al. Jun 2010 A1
20100161234 Saenger et al. Jun 2010 A1
20100185422 Hoversten Jul 2010 A1
20100208554 Chiu et al. Aug 2010 A1
20100212902 Baumstein et al. Aug 2010 A1
20100246324 Dragoset, Jr. et al. Sep 2010 A1
20100265797 Robertsson et al. Oct 2010 A1
20100270026 Lazaratos et al. Oct 2010 A1
20100286919 Lee et al. Nov 2010 A1
20100299070 Abma Nov 2010 A1
20110000678 Krebs et al. Jan 2011 A1
20110040926 Donderici et al. Feb 2011 A1
20110051553 Scott et al. Mar 2011 A1
20110075516 Xia et al. Mar 2011 A1
20110090760 Rickett et al. Apr 2011 A1
20110103187 Albertin May 2011 A1
20110131020 Meng Jun 2011 A1
20110134722 Virgilio et al. Jun 2011 A1
20110182141 Zhamikov et al. Jul 2011 A1
20110182144 Gray Jul 2011 A1
20110191032 Moore Aug 2011 A1
20110194379 Lee et al. Aug 2011 A1
20110222370 Downton et al. Sep 2011 A1
20110227577 Zhang et al. Sep 2011 A1
20110235464 Brittan et al. Sep 2011 A1
20110238390 Krebs et al. Sep 2011 A1
20110246140 Abubakar et al. Oct 2011 A1
20110267921 Mortel et al. Nov 2011 A1
20110267923 Shin Nov 2011 A1
20110276320 Krebs et al. Nov 2011 A1
20110288831 Tan et al. Nov 2011 A1
20110299361 Shin Dec 2011 A1
20110320180 Al-Saleh Dec 2011 A1
20120010862 Costen Jan 2012 A1
20120014215 Saenger et al. Jan 2012 A1
20120014216 Saenger et al. Jan 2012 A1
20120051176 Liu Mar 2012 A1
20120073824 Routh Mar 2012 A1
20120073825 Routh Mar 2012 A1
20120082344 Donoho Apr 2012 A1
20120143506 Routh et al. Jun 2012 A1
20120215506 Rickett et al. Aug 2012 A1
20120218859 Soubaras Aug 2012 A1
20120275264 Kostov et al. Nov 2012 A1
20120275267 Neelamani et al. Nov 2012 A1
20120290214 Huo et al. Nov 2012 A1
20120314538 Washbourne et al. Dec 2012 A1
20120316790 Washbourne et al. Dec 2012 A1
20120316844 Shah et al. Dec 2012 A1
20130060539 Baumstein Mar 2013 A1
20130081752 Kurimura et al. Apr 2013 A1
20130238246 Krebs et al. Sep 2013 A1
20130279290 Poole Oct 2013 A1
20130282292 Wang et al. Oct 2013 A1
20130311149 Tang Nov 2013 A1
20130311151 Plessix Nov 2013 A1
20140350861 Wang et al. Nov 2014 A1
20140358504 Baumstein et al. Dec 2014 A1
20140372043 Hu et al. Dec 2014 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (21)
Number Date Country
2 796 631 Nov 2011 CA
1 094 338 Apr 2001 EP
1 746 443 Jan 2007 EP
2 390 712 Jan 2004 GB
2 391 665 Feb 2004 GB
WO 2006037815 Apr 2006 WO
WO 2007046711 Apr 2007 WO
WO 2008042081 Apr 2008 WO
WO 2008123920 Oct 2008 WO
WO 2009067041 May 2009 WO
WO 2009117174 Sep 2009 WO
WO 2010085822 Jul 2010 WO
WO 2011040926 Apr 2011 WO
WO 2011091216 Jul 2011 WO
WO 2011093945 Aug 2011 WO
WO 2012024025 Feb 2012 WO
WO 2012041834 Apr 2012 WO
WO 2012083234 Jun 2012 WO
WO 2012134621 Oct 2012 WO
WO 2012170201 Dec 2012 WO
WO 2013081752 Jun 2013 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (162)
Entry
Mora, P. (1987), “Elastic Wavefield Inversion,” PhD Thesis, Stanford University, pp. 22-25.
Mora, P. (1989), “Inversion = migration + tomography,” Geophysics 64, pp. 888-901.
Nazarian, S. et al. (1983), “Use of spectral analysis of surface waves method for determination of moduli and thickness of pavement systems,” Transport Res. Record 930, pp. 38-45.
Neelamani, R., (2008), “Simultaneous sourcing without compromise,” 70th Annual Int'l. Conf. and Exh., EAGE, 5 pgs.
Neelamani, R. (2009), “Efficient seismic forward modeling using simultaneous sources and sparsity,” SEG Expanded Abstracts, pp. 2107-2111.
Nocedal, J. et al. (2006), “Numerical Optimization, Chapt. 7—Large-Scale Unconstrained Optimization,” Springer, New York, 2nd Edition, pp. 165-176.
Nocedal, J. et al. (2000), “Numerical Optimization—Calculating Derivatives,” Chapter 8, Springer Verlag, pp. 194-199.
Ostmo, S. et al. (2002), “Finite-difference iterative migration by linearized waveform inversion in the frequency domain,” SEG Int'l. Expo. & 72nd Ann. Meeting, 4 pgs.
Park, C.B. et al. (1999), “Multichannel analysis of surface waves,” Geophysics 64(3), pp. 800-808.
Park, C.B. et al. (2007), “Multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW)—active and passive methods,” The Leading Edge, pp. 60-64.
Pica, A. et al. (2005), “3D Surface-Related Multiple Modeling, Principles and Results,” 2005 SEG Ann. Meeting, SEG Expanded Abstracts 24, pp. 2080-2083.
Plessix, R.E. et al. (2004), “Frequency-domain finite-difference amplitude preserving migration,” Geophys. J. Int. 157, pp. 975-987.
Porter, R.P. (1989), “Generalized holography with application to inverse scattering and inverse source problems,” In E. Wolf, editor, Progress in Optics XXVII, Elsevier, pp. 317-397.
Pratt, R.G. et al. (1998), “Gauss-Newton and full Newton methods in frequency-space seismic waveform inversion,” Geophys. J. Int. 133, pp. 341-362.
Pratt, R.G. (1999), “Seismic waveform inversion in the frequency domain, Part 1: Theory and verification in a physical scale model,” Geophysics 64, pp. 888-901.
Rawlinson, N. et al. (2008), “A dynamic objective function technique for generating multiple solution models in seismic tomography,” Geophys. J. Int. 178, pp. 295-308.
Rayleigh, J.W.S. (1899), “On the transmission of light through an atmosphere containing small particles in suspension, and on the origin of the blue of the sky,” Phil. Mag. 47, pp. 375-384.
Romero, L.A. et al. (2000), Phase encoding of shot records in prestack migration, Geophysics 65, pp. 426-436.
Ronen S. et al. (2005), “Imaging Downgoing waves from Ocean Bottom Stations,” SEG Expanded Abstracts, pp. 963-967.
Routh, P. et al. (2011), “Encoded Simultaneous Source Full-Wavefield Inversion for Spectrally-Shaped Marine Streamer Data,” SEG San Antonio 2011 Ann. Meeting, pp. 2433-2438.
Ryden, N. et al. (2006), “Fast simulated annealing inversion of surface waves on pavement using phase-velocity spectra,” Geophysics 71(4), pp. R49-R58.
Sambridge, M.S. et al. (1991), “An Alternative Strategy for Non-Linear Inversion of Seismic Waveforms,” Geophysical Prospecting 39, pp. 723-736.
Schoenberg, M. et al. (1989), “A calculus for finely layered anisotropic media,” Geophysics 54, pp. 581-589.
Schuster, G.T. et al. (2010), “Theory of Multisource Crosstalk Reduction by Phase-Encoded Statics,” SEG Denver 2010 Ann. Meeting, pp. 3110-3114.
Sears, T.J. et al. (2008), “Elastic full waveform inversion of multi-component OBC seismic data,” Geophysical Prospecting 56, pp. 843-862.
Sheen, D-H. et al. (2006), “Time domain Gauss-Newton seismic waveform inversion in elastic media,” Geophysics J. Int. 167, pp. 1373-1384.
Shen, P. et al. (2003), “Differential semblance velocity analysis by wave-equation migration,” 73rd Ann. Meeting of Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 4 pgs.
Sheng, J. et al. (2006), “Early arrival waveform tomography on near-surface refraction data,” Geophysics 71, pp. U47-U57.
Sheriff, R.E.et al. (1982), “Exploration Seismology”, pp. 134-135.
Shih, R-C. et al. (1996), “Iterative pre-stack depth migration with velocity analysis,” Terrestrial, Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences 7(2), pp. 149-158.
Shin, C. et al. (2001), “Waveform inversion using a logarithmic wavefield,” Geophysics 49, pp. 592-606.
Simard, P.Y. et al. (1990), “Vector Field Restoration by the Method of Convex Projections,” Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing 52, pp. 360-385.
Sirgue, L. (2004), “Efficient waveform inversion and imaging: A strategy for selecting temporal frequencies,” Geophysics 69, pp. 231-248.
Soubaras, R. et al. (2007), “Velocity model building by semblance maximization of modulated-shot gathers,” Geophysics 72(5), pp. U67-U73.
Spitz, S. (2008), “Simultaneous source separation: a prediction-subtraction approach,” 78th Annual Int'l. Meeting, SEG Expanded Abstracts, pp. 2811-2815.
Stefani, J. (2007), “Acquisition using simultaneous sources,” 69th Annual Conf. and Exh., EAGE Extended Abstracts, 5 pgs.
Symes, W.W. (2007), “Reverse time migration with optimal checkpointing,” Geophysics 72(5), pp. P.SM213-SM221.
Symes, W.W. (2009), “Interface error analysis for numerical wave propagation,” Compu. Geosci. 13, pp. 363-371.
Tang, Y. (2008), “Wave-equation Hessian by phase encoding,” SEG Expanded Abstracts 27, pp. 2201-2205.
Tang, Y. (2009), “Target-oriented wave-equation least-squares migration/inversion with phase-encoded Hessian,” Geophysics 74, pp. WCA95-WCA107.
Tang, Y. et al. (2010), “Preconditioning full waveform inversion with phase-encoded Hessian,” SEG Expanded Abstracts 29, pp. 1034-1037.
Liu, Z., “An analytical approach to migration velocity analysis,” Geophysics 62(4), pp. 1238-1249 (Jul. 1, 1997).
Gao, H. et al. (2008), “Implementation of perfectly matched layers in an arbitrary geometrical boundary for leastic wave modeling,” Geophysics J. Int. 174, pp. 1029-1036.
Gibson, B. et al. (1984), “Predictive deconvolution and the zero-phase source,” Geophysics 49(4), pp. 379-397.
Godfrey, R. J. et al. (1998), “Imaging the Foiaven Ghost,” SEG Expanded Abstracts, 4 pgs.
Griewank, A. (1992), “Achieving logarithmic growth of temporal and spatial complexity in reverse automatic differentiation,” 1 Optimization Methods and Software, pp. 35-54.
Griewank, A. (2000), Evaluating Derivatives: Principles and Techniques of Algorithmic Differentiation, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 49 pgs.
Griewank, A. et al. (2000), “Algorithm 799: An implementation of checkpointing for the reverse or adjoint mode of computational differentiation,” 26 ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, pp. 19-45.
Griewank, A. et al. (1996), “Algorithm 755: A package for the automatic differentiation of algorithms written in C/C++,” ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 22(2), pp. 131-167.
Haber, E. et al. (2010), “An effective method for parameter estimation with PDE constraints with multiple right hand sides,” Preprint—UBC http://www.math.ubc.ca/˜haber/pubs/PdeOptStochV5.pdf.
Hampson, D.P. et al. (2005), “Simultaneous inversion of pre-stack seismic data,” SEG 75th Annual Int'l. Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 1633-1637.
Heinkenschloss, M. (2008), :“Numerical Solution of Implicity Constrained Optimization Problems,” CAAM Technical Report TR08-05, 25 pgs.
Helbig, K. (1994), “Foundations of Anisotropy for Exploration Seismics,” Chapter 5, pp. 185-194.
Henmann, F.J. (2010), “Randomized dimensionality reduction for full-waveform inversion,” EAGE abstract G001, EAGE Barcelona meeting, 5 pgs.
Holschneider, J. et al. (2005), “Characterization of dispersive surface waves using continuous wavelet transforms,” Geophys. J. Int. 163, pp. 463-478.
Hu, L.Z. et al. (1987), “Wave-field transformations of vertical seismic profiles,” Geophysics 52, pp. 307-321.
Huang, Y. et al. (2012), “Multisource least-squares migration of marine streamer and land data with frequency-division encoding,” Geophysical Prospecting 60, pp. 663-680.
Igel, H. et al. (1996), “Waveform inversion of marine reflection seismograms for P impedance and Poisson's ratio,” Geophys. J. Int. 124, pp. 363-371.
Ikelle, L.T. (2007), “Coding and decoding: Seismic data modeling, acquisition, and processing,” 77th Annual Int'l. Meeting, SEG Expanded Abstracts, pp. 66-70.
Jackson, D.R. et al. (1991), “Phase conjugation in underwater acoustics,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 89(1), pp. 171-181.
Jing, X. et al. (2000), “Encoding multiple shot gathers in prestack migration,” SEG International Exposition and 70th Annual Meeting Expanded Abstracts, pp. 786-789.
Kennett, B.L.N. (1991), “The removal of free surface interactions from three-component seismograms”, Geophys. J. Int. 104, pp. 153-163.
Kennett, B.L.N. et al. (1988), “Subspace methods for large inverse problems with multiple parameter classes,” Geophysical J. 94, pp. 237-247.
Krebs, J.R. (2008), “Fast Full-wavefield seismic inversion using encoded sources,” Geophysics 74(6), pp. WCC177-WCC188.
Krohn, C.E. (1984), “Geophone ground coupling,” Geophysics 49(6), pp. 722-731.
Kroode, F.T. et al. (2009), “Wave Equation Based Model Building and Imaging in Complex Settings,” OTC 20215, 2009 Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, TX, May 4-7, 2009, 8 pgs.
Kulesh, M. et al. (2008), “Modeling of Wave Dispersion Using Continuous Wavelet Transforms II: Wavelet-based Frequency-velocity Analysis,” Pure Applied Geophysics 165, pp. 255-270.
Lancaster, S. et al. (2000), “Fast-track ‘colored’ inversion,” 70th SEG Ann. Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 1572-1575.
Lazaratos, S. et al. (2009), “Inversion of Pre-migration Spectral Shaping,” 2009 SEG Houston Int'l. Expo. & Ann. Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 2383-2387.
Lazaratos, S. (2006), “Spectral Shaping Inversion for Elastic and Rock Property Estimation,” Research Disclosure, Issue 511, pp. 1453-1459.
Lazaratos, S. et al. (2011), “Improving the convergence rate of full wavefield inversion using spectral shaping,” SEG Expanded Abstracts 30, pp. 2428-2432.
Lecomte, I. (2008), “Resolution and illumination analyses in PSDM: A ray-based approach,” The Leading Edge, pp. 650-663.
Lee, S. et al. (2010), “Subsurface parameter estimation in full wavefield inversion and reverse time migration,” SEG Denver 2010 Annual Meeting, pp. 1065-1069.
Levanon, N. (1988), “Radar Principles,” Chpt. 1, John Whiley & Sons, New York, pp. 1-18.
Liao, Q. et al. (1995), “2.5D full-wavefield viscoacoustic inversion,” Geophysical Prospecting 43, pp. 1043-1059.
Liu, F. et al. (2007), “Reverse-time migration using one-way wavefield imaging condition,” SEG Expanded Abstracts 26, pp. 2170-2174.
Liu, F. et al. (2011), “An effective imaging condition for reverse-time migration using wavefield decomposition,” Geophysics 76, pp. S29-S39.
Maharramov, M. et al. (2007) , “Localized image-difference wave-equation tomography,” SEG Annual Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 3009-3013.
Malmedy, V. et al. (2009), “Approximating Hessians in unconstrained optimization arising from discretized problems,” Computational Optimization and Applications, pp. 1-16.
Marcinkovich, C. et al. (2003), “On the implementation of perfectly matched layers in a three-dimensional fourth-order velocity-stress finite difference scheme,” J. of Geophysical Research 108(B5), 2276.
Martin, G.S. et al. (2006), “Marmousi2: An elastic upgrade for Marmousi,” The Leading Edge, pp. 156-166.
Meier, M.A. et al. (2009), “Converted wave resolution,” Geophysics, 74(2):doi:10.1190/1.3074303, pp. Q1-Q16.
Moghaddam, P.P. et al. (2010), “Randomized full-waveform inversion: a dimenstionality-reduction approach,” 80th SEG Ann. Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 977-982.
Mora, P. (1987), “Nonlinear two-dimensional elastic inversion of multi-offset seismic data,” Geophysics 52, pp. 1211-1228.
Abt, D.L. et al. (2010), “North American lithospheric discontinuity structured imaged by Ps and Sp receiver functions”, J. Geophys. Res., 24 pgs.
Akerberg, P., et al. (2008), “Simultaneous source separation by sparse radon transform,” 78th SEG Annual International Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 2801-2805.
Aki, K. et al. (1980), “Quantitative Seismology: Theory and Methods vol. I—Chapter 7—Surface Waves in a Vertically Heterogenous Medium,” W.H. Freeman and Co., pp. 259-318.
Aki, K. et al. (1980), “Quantitative Seismology: Theory and Methods vol. I,” W.H. Freeman and Co., p. 173.
Aki et al. (1980), “Quantitative Seismology, Theory and Methods,” Chapter 5.20, W.H. Freeman & Co., pp. 133-155.
Amundsen, L. (2001), “Elimination of free-surface related multiples without need of the source wavelet,” Geophysics 60(1), pp. 327-341.
Anderson, J.E. et al. (2008), “Sources Near the Free-Surface Boundary: Pitfalls for Elastic Finite-Difference Seismic Simulation and Multi-Grid Waveform Inversion,” 70th EAGE Conf. & Exh., 4 pgs.
Barr, F.J. et al. (1989), “Attenuation of Water-Column Reverberations Using Pressure and Velocity Detectors in a Water-Bottom Cable,” 59th Annual SEG meeting, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 653-656.
Baumstein, A. et al. (2009), “Scaling of the Objective Function Gradient for Full Wavefield Inversion,” SEG Houston 2009 Int'l. Expo and Annual Meeting, pp. 224-2247.
Beasley, C. (2008), “A new look at marine simultaneous sources,” The Leading Edge 27(7), pp. 914-917.
Beasley, C. (2012), “A 3D simultaneous source field test processed using alternating projections: a new active separation method,” Geophsyical Prospecting 60, pp. 591-601.
Beaty, K.S. et al. (2003), “Repeatability of multimode Rayleigh-wave dispersion studies,” Geophysics 68(3), pp. 782-790.
Beaty, K.S. et al. (2002), “Simulated annealing inversion of multimode Rayleigh wave dispersion waves for geological structure,” Geophys. J. Int. 151, pp. 622-631.
Becquey, M. et al. (2002), “Pseudo-Random Coded Simultaneous Vibroseismics,” SEG Int'l. Exposition and 72th Annl. Mtg., 4 pgs.
Ben-Hadj-Ali, H. et al. (2009), “Three-dimensional frequency-domain full waveform inversion with phase encoding,” SEG Expanded Abstracts, pp. 2288-2292.
Ben-Hadj-Ali, H. et al. (2011), “An efficient frequency-domain full waveform inversion method using simultaneous encoded sources,” Geophysics 76(4), pp. R109-R124.
Benitez, D. et al. (2001), “The use of the Hilbert transform in ECG signal analysis,” Computers in Biology and Medicine 31, pp. 399-406.
Berenger, J-P. (1994), “A Perfectly Matched Layer for the Absorption of Electromagnetic Waves,” J. of Computational Physics 114, pp. 185-200.
Berkhout, A.J. (1987), “Applied Seismic Wave Theory,” Elsevier Science Publishers, p. 142.
Berkhout, A.J. (1992), “Areal shot record technology,” Journal of Seismic Exploration 1, pp. 251-264.
Berkhout, A.J. (2008), “Changing the mindset in seismic data acquisition,” The Leading Edge 27(7), pp. 924-938.
Beylkin, G. (1985), “Imaging of discontinuities in the inverse scattring problem by inversion of a causal generalized Radon transform,” J. Math. Phys. 26, pp. 99-108.
Biondi, B. (1992), “Velocity estimation by beam stack,” Geophysics 57(8), pp. 1034-1047.
Bonomi, E. et al. (2006), “Wavefield Migration plus Monte Carlo Imaging of 3D Prestack Seismic Data,” Geophysical Prospecting 54, pp. 505-514.
Boonyasiriwat, C. et al. (2010), 3D Multisource Full-Waveform using Dynamic Random Phase Encoding, SEG Denver 2010 Annual Meeting, pp. 1044-1049.
Boonyasiriwat, C. et al. (2010), 3D Multisource Full-Waveform using Dynamic Random Phase Encoding, SEG Denver 2010 Annual Meeting, pp. 3120-3124.
Bunks, C., et al. (1995), “Multiscale seismic waveform inversion,” Geophysics 60, pp. 1457-1473.
Burstedde, G. et al. (2009), “Algorithmic strategies for full waveform inversion: 1D experiments,” Geophysics 74(6), pp. WCC17-WCC46.
Chavent, G. et al. (1999), “An optimal true-amplitude least-squares prestack depth-migration operator,” Geophysics 64(2), pp. 508-515.
Choi, Y. et al. (2011), “Application of encoded multisource waveform inversion to marine-streamer acquisition based on the global correlation,” 73rd EAGE Conference, Abstract, pp. F026.
Choi, Y et al. (2012), “Application of multi-source waveform inversion to marine stream data using the global correlation norm,” Geophysical Prospecting 60, pp. 748-758.
Clapp, R.G. (2009), “Reverse time migration with random boundaries,” SEG International Exposition and Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 2809-2813.
Dai, W. et al. (2010), “3D Multi-source Least-squares Reverse Time Migration,” SEG Denver 2010 Annual Meeting, pp. 3120-3124.
Delprat-Jannuad, F. et al. (2005), “A fundamental limitation for the reconstruction of impedance profiles from seismic data,” Geophysics 70(1), pp. R1-R14.
Dickens, T.A. et al. (2011), RTM angle gathers using Poynting vectors, SEG Expanded Abstracts 30, pp. 3109-3113.
Donerici, B. et al. (1005), “Improved FDTD Subgridding Algorithms Via Digital Filtering and Domain Overriding,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 53(9), pp. 2938-2951.
Downey, N. et al. (2011), “Random-Beam Full-Wavefield Inversion,” 2011 San Antonio Annual Meeting, pp. 2423-2427.
Dunkin, J.W. et al. (1973), “Effect of Normal Moveout on a Seismic Pluse,” Geophysics 38(4), pp. 635-642.
Dziewonski A. et al. (1981), “Preliminary Reference Earth Model”, Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 25(4), pp. 297-356.
Ernst, F.E. et al. (2000), “Tomography of dispersive media,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am 108(1), pp. 105-116.
Ernst, F.E. et al. (2002), “Removal of scattered guided waves from seismic data,” Geophysics 67(4), pp. 1240-1248.
Esmersoy, C. (1990), “Inversion of P and SV waves from multicomponent offset vertical seismic profiles”, Geophysics 55(1), pp. 39-50.
Etgen, J.T. et al. (2007), “Computational methods for large-scale 3D acoustic finite-difference modeling: A tutorial,” Geophysics 72(5), pp. SM223-SM230.
Fallat, M.R. et al. (1999), “Geoacoustic inversion via local, global, and hybrid algorithms,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105, pp. 3219-3230.
Fichtner, A. et al. (2006), “The adjoint method in seismology I. Theory,” Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 157, pp. 86-104.
Forbriger, T. (2003), “Inversion of shallow-seismic wavefields: I. Wavefield transformation,” Geophys. J. Int. 153, pp. 719-734.
U.S. Appl. No. 14/329,431, filed Jul. 11, 2014, Krohn et al.
U.S. Appl. No. 14/330,767, filed Jul. 14, 2014, Tang et al.
Jiao, J. et al. (2006), “An improved methodology for sub-salt velocity analysis,” SEG/New Orleans 2006 Annual Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 3105-3109.
Liu, Z. (1997), “An analytical approach to migration velocity analysis,” Geophysics 62(4), pp. 1238-1249.
Wang, B. et al. (2006), “A 3D subsalt tomography based on wave-equation migration-perturbation scans,” Geophysics 71(2), pp. E1-E6.
Tarantola, A. (1986), “A strategy for nonlinear elastic inversion of seismic reflection data,” Geophysics 51(10), pp. 1893-1903.
Tarantola, A. (1988), “Theoretical background for the inversion of seismic waveforms, including elasticity and attenuation,” Pure and Applied Geophysics 128, pp. 365-399.
Tarantola, A. (2005), “Inverse Problem Theory and Methods for Model Parameter Estimation,” SIAM, pp. 79.
Tarantola, A. (1984), “Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation,” Geophysics 49, pp. 1259-1266.
Trantham, E.C. (1994), “Controlled-phase acquisition and processing,” SEG Expanded Abstracts 13, pp. 890-894.
Tsvankin, I. (2001), “Seismic Signatures and Analysis of Reflection Data in Anisotropic Media,” Elsevier Science, p. 8.
Valenciano, A.A. (2008), “Imaging by Wave-Equation Inversion,” A Dissertation, Stanford University, 138 pgs.
van Groenestijn, G.J.A. et al. (2009), “Estimating primaries by sparse inversion and application to near-offset reconstruction,” Geophyhsics 74(3), pp. A23-A28.
van Manen, D.J. (2005), “Making wave by time reversal,” SEG International Exposition and 75th Annual Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 1763-1766.
Verschuur, D.J. (2009), Target-oriented, least-squares imaging of blended data, 79th Annual Int'l. Meeting, SEG Expanded Abstracts, pp. 2889-2893.
Verschuur, D.J. et al. (1992), “Adaptive surface-related multiple elimination,” Geophysics 57(9), pp. 1166-1177.
Verschuur, D.J. (1989), “Wavelet Estimation by Prestack Multiple Elimination,” SEG Expanded Abstracts 8, pp. 1129-1132.
Versteeg, R. (1994), “The Marmousi experience: Velocity model determination on a synthetic complex data set,” The Leading Edge, pp. 927-936.
Vigh, D. et al. (2008), “3D prestack plane-wave, full-waveform inversion,” Geophysics 73(5), pp. VE135-VE144.
Wang, Y. (2007), “Multiple prediction through inversion: Theoretical advancements and real data application,” Geophysics 72(2), pp. V33-V39.
Wang, K. et al. (2009), “Simultaneous full-waveform inversion for source wavelet and earth model,” SEG Int'l. Expo. & Ann. Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, pp. 2537-2541.
Weglein, A.B. (2003), “Inverse scattering series and seismic exploration,” Inverse Problems 19, pp. R27-R83.
Wong, M. et al. (2010), “Joint least-squares inversion of up- and down-going signal for ocean bottom data sets,” SEG Expanded Abstracts 29, pp. 2752-2756.
Wu R-S. et al. (2006), “Directional illumination analysis using beamlet decomposition and propagation,” Geophysics 71(4), pp. S147-S159.
Xia, J. et al. (2004), “Utilization of high-frequency Rayleigh waves in near-surface geophysics,” The Leading Edge, pp. 753-759.
Xie, X. et al. (2002), “Extracting angle domain information from migrated wavefield,” SEG Expanded Abstracts21, pp. 1360-1363.
Xie, X.-B. et al. (2006), “Wave-equation-based seismic illumination analysis,” Geophysics 71(5), pp. S169-S177.
Yang, K. et al. (2000), “Quasi-Orthogonal Sequences for Code-Division Multiple-Access Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 46(3), pp. 982-993.
Yoon, K. et al. (2004), “Challenges in reverse-time migration,” SEG Expanded Abstracts 23, pp. 1057-1060.
Young, J. et al. (2011), “An application of random projection to parameter estimation in partial differential equations,” SIAM, 20 pgs.
Zhang, Y. (2005), “Delayed-shot 3D depth migration,” Geophysics 70, pp. E21-E28.
Ziolkowski, A. (1991), “Why don't we measure seismic signatures?,” Geophysics 56(2), pp. 190-201.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20160109589 A1 Apr 2016 US
Provisional Applications (1)
Number Date Country
62066206 Oct 2014 US