Workshop 19

Convenors

• Billy Revelo (bp)
• Eric Verschuur (Delft University of Technology)
• James McLeman (DUG)
• Andrew Ratcliffe (Viridien)
• John Brittan (TGS)

Description

All imaging and inversion algorithms leverage the same physics, acoustic/elastic versions of the wave equation, but it seems they cannot consistently utilise the full wavefield at a production scale to improve results. Why is this? Why do multiples often need to be removed for optimal full-waveform inversion (FWI) results? Why does least-squares migration typically only use primary reflections when least-squares velocity model inversion (FWI) can utilise more of the wavefield complexity? In this workshop, we aim to discuss and identify if issues like these are caused by limitations in the input data, the modelling, the underlying theory, or something else…

Sub-Topics that will be covered in the workshop:

1. Limitations of input data: implications of sampling and acquisition geometry for handling different parts of the wavefield – transmitted arrivals, primary and multiple reflections
2. Role of multiples in least-squares imaging: balancing the benefits of additional illumination against the risks of leakage and crosstalk.
3. Strategies for using transmitted waves versus reflections in FWI. In the case of multiple reflections, when do they enhance results, and when should they be suppressed? If they need to be suppressed, what physics have we failed to capture?

Participant Profile

This workshop will attract researchers and practitioners in the field of geophysics to discuss the gaps we currently see between theoretical and practical applications of common seismic imaging algorithms (i.e., migration, least-squares migration, and least-squares velocity model inversion).