Since the commercialization of Full waveform inversion (FWI) after 2010, there has been a continual evolution to overcome the dual challenges of using reflections and mitigating cycle-skipping, as successful implementations would save both time and money. Using reflections allows a greater diversity of applications while mitigating cycle skipping simplifies the starting point and produces more accurate models and reliable subsurface images.
FWI minimizes the difference between acquired seismic data and a synthetic equivalent. The synthetic data is modeled using a wavelet that replicates the seismic source, and earth models. If the models used in FWI do not accurately represent real subsurface velocities, there will be a kinematic misalignment between the synthetic and acquired data. FWI uses this difference, called a residual, to update the models used to generate the synthetic data in the inversion. If the misalignment is greater than half a waveform period, then ‘cycle-skipping’ may occur. The minimization scheme in the inversion may result in the wrong waveforms aligning, leading to an erroneous update, and uncertainty in the imaging when using the model.
Using reflections in FWI is more challenging than using refractions or diving waves, but if reflections are used then the updates are no longer limited to the depth of penetration of the refracted energy.
Reflectivity isochrones form an image in a wave-equation migration, but contaminate the velocity sensitivity kernels in FWI and force the velocity updates to occur at discrete layer boundaries. TGS FWI implementation solves this problem by using an inverse scattering imaging condition, which removes the reflectivity isochrones, allowing backscattered energy to drive the velocity update.
Another hurdle for reflection FWI is to minimize the kinematic difference of the same reflection events. To generate all the needed reflections in the synthetic data, we need contrasts in the earth models. The reflectivity seen in the seismic data may relate to contrast in either velocity or density. The velocity model may not be well resolved when FWI is started, and it is often difficult to create an accurate survey-wide density model. Therefore, modeling all the necessary reflections for FWI can be a problem.
TGS has developed solutions to both challenges. Cycle-skipping mitigation uses dynamic time-warping (DTW), and reflections are used by reformulating the acoustic variable density wave-equation in terms of vector reflectivity.
Including reflections in FWI requires hard boundaries in either the input velocity or the density models. These simulate backscattered energy and generate the appropriate velocity sensitivity kernels. Imposing hard boundaries in either the velocity or the density models may be difficult, especially if dense and accurate measures of density are not available, or the velocity model is immature or inaccurate.
A costly and less accurate alternative is to use first-order approximations to decompose the seismic wavefields into background and perturbations in the wave-equation. Rather than use this approach, TGS uses the wave equation, formulated in terms of vector reflectivity, to produce reflections in the modeled data. The vector reflectivity wave-equation is derived by parametrizing the variable density wave-equation. As the reflectivity is derived from the seismic data, TGS FWI no longer needs a speculative density function.
Data from the Tablelands survey in Canada’s Orphan Basin showcases the benefits of TGS’ new reflection-driven FWI. Refracted waves dominate the shallow FWI update. The basin has a two-km water-column and TGS acquired the seismic data with a maximum offset of eight km. Refraction-driven FWI is difficult beyond the top Cretaceous, which occurs at approximately four-km depth.
Vector reflectivity FWI accurately resolved the model deeper than the top Cretaceous. Using reflections with frequencies up to 25 Hz produces a high-resolution FWI model, three km beyond the maximum penetration depth of the refracted waves.
The first image displays the FWI difference co-rendered on the reflectivity model. The under-corrected input migrated gathers (bottom left) show a slower velocity is required. After reflection-driven FWI, the gathers are much flatter (bottom right – yellow arrows).
The second image shows a depth slice at 5.6 km, with the initial velocity model (B) and the final FWI model (C). The final reflectivity-driven FWI velocity model has enhanced spatial resolution, conformable with the structure.