Welcome to Petroleum Geology Forums

This is a free online community that aims to bring petroleum professionals and geologists together and share valuable knowledge. Registration is easy so become a member now for instant free access.
  • Petroleum Geologists can stay up to date with industry related topics and exchange ideas and concepts.
  • Upstream Oil and Gas Consultants get a chance to share their expertise and gain exposure to land future projects.
  • Geology students and graduates can join the discussion and get into contact with potential future employees.

  >> Register Now





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Marine electromagnetic inverse solution appraisal and... 
Author Message

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:00 pm
Posts: 14670
Post Marine electromagnetic inverse solution appraisal and...
Geophysical Prospecting: Marine electromagnetic inverse solution appraisal and uncertainty using model‐derived basis functions and sparse geometric sampling

We summarize, for marine electromagnetic inverse problems, a newly developed inverse solution appraisal and non‐linear uncertainty estimation method based on parameter reduction techniques and efficient posterior model space sampling. This method uses model compression methods to decorrelate parameters in an inverse solution and represent all feasible posterior models as linear combinations of a small number of model‐derived basis vectors and corresponding coefficients. This allows us to reduce the posterior sampling problem by orders of magnitude. We further contract this reduced‐dimensional posterior space by confining all acceptable models to a set of bounds mapped from our original parameter space. As a final step to increase efficiency, we implement a geometric sampling scheme that we use to approximate our restricted posterior by generating feasible models on adaptive, optimally‐sparse grids. The sampled equi‐feasible models are accepted according to a data misfit threshold and constitute an optimally‐sparse representation of the restricted posterior model space. Although very efficient, our method imposes a bias in the posterior space by truncating the basis expansion during the model reduction step. To investigate this, we compare two types of fast and scalable bases, the discrete cosine transform and singular value decomposition. We demonstrate that while the choice of base does influence the type of models sampled and the model rejection rates, the posterior statistics are generally compatible between the methods providing confidence in the uncertainty estimations. For the marine electromagnetic problem, we show that a representative ensemble of equivalent inverse solutions can be generated for realistically‐sized inverse problems and that solution appraisal and uncertainty inference follow directly from ensemble statistics.

Go to Article


Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:53 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 





Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


Content on EPGeology.com is intended for personal use only and to supplement, not replace, professional judgment. EPGeology.com disclaims any and all liability for your use of its content. As most of our content is supplied by our users we can not check copyright, and stress that copyright remains at the original owner. If you suspect copyright infringement please use the contact form to report it.
Contact || © EPGeology.com. || Powered by phpBB Asteroid Mining

phpBB SEO