Reviews

Exploiting Seismic Waveforms: Correlation, Heterogeneity and Inversion, by Brian L. N. Kennett and Andreas Fichtner, ISBN 978-1-108-82878-9, 2021, Cambridge University Press, 502 p. Hyperspectral Remote Sensing: Theory and Applications, by Prem Chandra Pandey et al., ISBN 978-0-081-02894-0, 2020, Elsevier, 506 p.

A reality check on full-wave inversion applied to land seismic data for near-surface modeling

We evaluate the performance of traveltime tomography and full-wave inversion (FWI) for near-surface modeling using the data from a shallow seismic field experiment. Eight boreholes up to 20-m depth have been drilled along the seismic line traverse to verify the accuracy of the P-wave velocity-depth model estimated by seismic inversion. The velocity-depth model of the soil column estimated by traveltime tomography is in good agreement with the borehole data. We used the traveltime tomography model as an initial model and performed FWI. Full-wave acoustic and elastic inversions, however, have failed to converge to a velocity-depth model that desirably should be a high-resolution version of the model estimated by traveltime tomography. Moreover, there are significant discrepancies between the estimated models and the borehole data. It is understandable why full-wave acoustic inversion would fail — land seismic data inherently are elastic wavefields. The question is: Why does full-wave elastic inversion also fail? The strategy to prevent full-wave elastic inversion of vertical-component geophone data trapped in a local minimum that results in a physically implausible near-surface model may be cascaded inversion. Specifically, we perform traveltime tomography to estimate a P-wave velocity-depth model for the near-surface and Rayleigh-wave inversion to estimate an S-wave velocity-depth model for the near-surface, then use the resulting pairs of models as the initial models for the subsequent full-wave elastic inversion. Nonetheless, as demonstrated by the field data example here, the elastic-wave inversion yields a near-surface solution that still is not in agreement with the borehole data. Here, we investigate the limitations of FWI applied to land seismic data for near-surface modeling.

Seismic solutions utilizing existing in-mine infrastructure for mineral exploration: A case study from Maseve platinum mine, South Africa

We demonstrate the application of seismic methods using in-mine infrastructure such as exploration tunnels to image platinum deposits and geologic structures using different acquisition configurations. In 2020, seismic experiments were conducted underground at the Maseve platinum mine in the Bushveld Complex of South Africa. These seismic experiments were part of the Advanced Orebody Knowledge project titled “Developing technologies that will be used to obtain information ahead of the mine face.” In these experiments, we recorded active and passive seismic data using surface nodal arrays and an in-mine seismic land streamer. We focus on analyzing only the in-mine active seismic portion of the survey. The tunnel seismic survey consisted of seven 2D profiles in exploration tunnels, located approximately 550 m below ground surface and a few meters above known platinum deposits. A careful data-processing approach was adopted to enhance high-quality reflections and suppress infrastructure-generated noise. Despite challenges presented by the in-mine noisy environment, we successfully imaged the platinum deposits with the aid of borehole data and geologic models. The results open opportunities to adapt surface-based geophysical instruments to address challenging in-mine environments for mineral exploration.

Direct shear-wave seismic survey in Sanhu area, Qaidam Basin, west China

The formation containing shallow gas clouds poses a major challenge for conventional P-wave seismic surveys in the Sanhu area, Qaidam Basin, west China, as it dramatically attenuates seismic P-waves, resulting in high uncertainty in the subsurface structure and complexity in reservoir characterization. To address this issue, we proposed a workflow of direct shear-wave seismic (S-S) surveys. This is because the shear wave is not significantly affected by the pore fluid. Our workflow includes acquisition, processing, and interpretation in calibration with conventional P-wave seismic data to obtain improved subsurface structure images and reservoir characterization. To procure a good S-wave seismic image, several key techniques were applied: (1) a newly developed S-wave vibrator, one of the most powerful such vibrators in the world, was used to send a strong S-wave into the subsurface; (2) the acquired 9C S-S data sets initially were rotated into SH-SH and SV-SV components and subsequently were rotated into fast and slow S-wave components; and (3) a surface-wave inversion technique was applied to obtain the near-surface shear-wave velocity, used for static correction. As expected, the S-wave data were not affected by the gas clouds. This allowed us to map the subsurface structures with stronger confidence than with the P-wave data. Such S-wave data materialize into similar frequency spectra as P-wave data with a better signal-to-noise ratio. Seismic attributes were also applied to the S-wave data sets. This resulted in clearly visible geologic features that were invisible in the P-wave data.

Introduction to this special section: Seismic acquisition

In the life cycle of a seismic product, the lion's share of the budget and personnel hours is spent on acquisition. In most modern seismic surveys, acquisition involves hundreds of specialized personnel working for months or years. Seismic acquisition also must overcome potential liabilities and health, safety, and environmental concerns that rival facility, pipeline, construction, and other operational risks. As only properly acquired data can contribute effectively to processing and interpretation strategies, a great deal of importance is placed on acquisition quality. Arguably, many of the advances the seismic industry has experienced find their origin arising from advances in acquisition techniques. Full-waveform inversion (FWI), for example, can reach its full potential only when seismic acquisition has provided both low frequencies and long offsets.

Memorial

Hengchang Dai, 1957–2021

The Wolfspar experience with low-frequency seismic source field data: Motivation, processing, and implications

The promise of fully automatic full-waveform inversion (FWI) — a (seismic) data-driven velocity model building process — has proven elusive in complex geologic settings, with impactful examples using field data unavailable until recently. In 2015, success with FWI at the Atlantis Field in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico demonstrated that semiautomatic velocity model building is possible, but it also raised the question of what more might be possible if seismic data tailor-made for FWI were available (e.g., with increased source-receiver offsets and bespoke low-frequency seismic sources). Motivated by the initial value case for FWI in settings such as the Gulf of Mexico, beginning in 2007 and continuing into 2021 BP designed, built, and field tested Wolfspar, an ultralow-frequency seismic source designed to produce seismic data tailor-made for FWI. A 3D field trial of Wolfspar was conducted over the Mad Dog Field in the Gulf of Mexico in 2017–2018. Low-frequency source (LFS) data were shot on a sparse grid (280 m inline, 2 to 4 km crossline) and recorded into ocean-bottom nodes simultaneously with air gun sources shooting on a conventional dense grid (50 m inline, 50 m crossline). Using the LFS data with FWI to improve the velocity model for imaging produced only incremental uplift in the subsalt image of the reservoir, albeit with image improvements at depths greater than 25,000 ft (approximately 7620 m). To better understand this, reprocessing and further analyses were conducted. We found that (1) the LFS achieved its design signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) goals over its frequency range; (2) the wave-extrapolation and imaging operators built into FWI and migration are very effective at suppressing low-frequency noise, so that densely sampled air gun data with a low S/N can still produce useable model updates with low frequencies; and (3) data density becomes less important at wider offsets. These results may have significant implications for future acquisition designs with low-frequency seismic sources going forward.

Geophysics Bright Spots

Welcome to the latest installment of Geophysics Bright Spots. There are a number of interesting research articles in the latest issue of Geophysics. Here is a list of what piqued the editors’ interests.

Unlocking ultra-high-density seismic for CCUS applications by combining nimble nodes and agile source technologies

In the quest for denser, nimbler, and lower-cost seismic surveys, the industry is seeing a revolution in the miniaturization of seismic equipment, with autonomous nodes approaching the size of a geophone and sources becoming portable by crews on foot. This has created a paradigm shift in the way seismic is acquired in difficult terrains, making zero-environmental-footprint surveys a reality while reducing cost and health, safety, and environmental risk. The simplification of survey operation and the new entry price of seismic surveys unlocked by these technologies are already benefiting industries beyond oil and gas exploration. High trace density seismic has become accessible to industries playing a key role in the net-zero era, such as geothermal and carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS), to which a good understanding of the subsurface geology is crucial to their success. We describe these benefits as observed during an ultra-high-density seismic survey acquired in June 2020 through a partnership between STRYDE, Explor, and Carbon Management Canada over the Containment and Monitoring Institute site. The smallest and lightest source and receiver equipment in the industry were used to achieve a trace density of 257 million traces/km2 over this test site dedicated to CCUS studies. We discuss the operational efficiency of the seismic acquisition, innovative techniques for data transfer and surveying, and preliminary results of the seismic data processing with a focus on the near-surface model and fast-track time migration.

Seismic Soundoff: The major opportunities and challenges for SEG

In this episode, SEG President Anna Shaughnessy discusses the major opportunities and challenges facing SEG and the geosciences in the years ahead. She discusses the recently formed Strategic Options Task Force and Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) Committee, offers words of wisdom to young geoscientists, and showcases the Geophysical Sustainability Atlas. Hear the full episode at https://seg.org/podcast/post/13633 .