2021
DOI: 10.1190/geo2020-0577.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Nonrepeatability effects on time-lapse 4D seismic full-waveform inversion for ocean-bottom node data

Abstract: Full waveform inversion (FWI) can be applied to time-lapse (4D) seismic data for subsurface reservoir monitoring. However, non-repeatability (NR) issues can contaminate the data and cause artifacts in the estimation of 4D rock and fluid property changes. Therefore, evaluating and studying the NR effects on the 4D data and FWI results can help, for instance, discriminate inversion artifacts from true changes, guide seismic survey design and processing workflow. Using realistic reservoir models, data and field m… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This occurs in cases where A i = A j for ∀i = j, or in situations where there is significant noise. This remarkable result was shown to hold for sparsity-promoting denoising of time-lapse field data , for various wavefield reconstructions of randomized simultaneous-source dynamic (towed-array) and static (OBC/OBN) marine acquisitions [Oghenekohwo and Herrmann, 2017b, Kotsi, 2020, Zhou and Lumley, 2021, and for wave-based inversion, including least-squares reverse-time migration and full-waveform inversion [Oghenekohwo, 2017, Oghenekohwo andHerrmann, 2017a]. The observed quality gains in these applications can be explained by improvements in the common component resulting from complementary information residing in non-replicated time-lapse surveys.…”
Section: Monitoring With the Joint Recovery Modelmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…This occurs in cases where A i = A j for ∀i = j, or in situations where there is significant noise. This remarkable result was shown to hold for sparsity-promoting denoising of time-lapse field data , for various wavefield reconstructions of randomized simultaneous-source dynamic (towed-array) and static (OBC/OBN) marine acquisitions [Oghenekohwo and Herrmann, 2017b, Kotsi, 2020, Zhou and Lumley, 2021, and for wave-based inversion, including least-squares reverse-time migration and full-waveform inversion [Oghenekohwo, 2017, Oghenekohwo andHerrmann, 2017a]. The observed quality gains in these applications can be explained by improvements in the common component resulting from complementary information residing in non-replicated time-lapse surveys.…”
Section: Monitoring With the Joint Recovery Modelmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…However, the issue of non-repeatability (NR) can introduce a significant challenge in obtaining suitable timelapse models (Borges et al, 2021). NR issues can cause false time-lapse anomalies, which may be mistakenly interpreted as alterations in the physical characteristics of the subsurface (Zhou and Lumley, 2021b). To address this challenge, the deployment of ocean bottom node (OBN) surveys has gained prominence, representing a practical solution to mitigate NR errors (Yang et al, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is important to emphasize that, owing to the inherent nonlinear characteristics of FWI, our investigation also delves into the nonlinear artifacts introduced by the data inversion process. These artifacts can introduce subsurface model changes unrelated to D r a f t reservoir variations, as highlighted in prior researches (Yang et al, 2015;Zhou and Lumley, 2021b;da Silva et al, 2023). The choice to employ FWI is rooted in its standing as a robust seismic inversion method that leverages the comprehensive physical principles embedded within a wave equation (Virieux and Operto, 2009).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The interesting conclusion was that although the data were unanimously considered easy to interpret, overconfidence in the interpreters led to variations in the interpretation, which in turn reflected considerable differences in volumetrics estimation. Apart from that, other uncertainties arising from non-repeatability effects [17], noise, and imaging are present in 4D seismic data. On the plus side, this can provide a great opportunity for the quantitative integration of 4D seismic data in history-matching workflows as it allows access to uncertainty quantification over model parameter estimates and fluid production forecasts analysis (e.g., [18][19][20][21]).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%