Arthur B. Weglein, A NEW SEISMIC PERSPECTIVE: ADVANCES & CHALLENGES (2025)
Posted on July 14, 2025
Dear Colleagues and Friends,
I hope that this note finds you very well.
All is well on this end: very busy and very happy.
In the link below please find a video presentation on June 24, 2025, with an update of recent Keynote addresses that provides “ A new perspective on advances and challenges in seismic exploration (2025)” . One conclusion is that multiples must be removed in all seismic processing methods, without exception. We detail exactly why and where multiples must be removed in every direct and indirect seismic processing method.
Video recording
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/0g9S3iXR0AQ?si=my8D3ktLcU-v035k
After this new perspective and framework is presented (in the video above)- we describe two types of challenges for seismic capability. The challenges arise from: (1) prerequisites and assumptions violated within seismic methods, and (2) assumptions on the capability, and integrity of academic and industrial seismic researchers and management.
We propose a response for each of these challenges- and suggest how to start a relevant research program that begins with identifying ( by communicating with those interpreting data and making drill decisions) and then responding to actual prioritized seismic problems and challenges.
Also, below please find references cited in the video presentation, the slide set of the presentation, and a few slides ( below in this e mail) from that presentation.
Separately, for your possible interest, positive news: the second volume of the two-volume set “ Seismic Imaging and Inversion: Application of Direct Non-Linear Inverse Theory” , co-authored with Bob Stolt, for Cambridge University Press is making good progress towards publication. We will keep you posted.
I hope that you find this communication to be interesting, informative, and worthwhile.
I look forward to staying in touch.
Warmest best wishes,
Art
Dr. Arthur Benjamin Weglein
Hugh Roy and Lillie Cranz Cullen Distinguished University Chair in Physics
Director, Mission-Oriented Seismic Research Program
Physics Department
University of Houston
Room 617 Science and Research Building 1
Houston, Texas 77204-5005
http://www.mosrp.uh.edu/people/faculty/arthur-weglein
REFERENCES CITED IN THE VIDEO PRESENTATION
antidote-final-tle32101192-E1.pdf
Arthur-Weglein-et-al-SEG-abstract-2016.pdf
Direct_and_indirect_inversion_and_a_new-ECOPETROL-PUBLISHED.pdf
Kristin-ISS-Field-Data-Depth-Imaging-JSE-SEISMIC_No21-1.pdf
Yanglei-Zou-Qiang-Fu-and-Arthur-Weglein-SEG-abstract-2017.pdf
Yi-Luo-et-al-TLE-August-2011.pdf
ZOU-Weglein-ISS-Q-comp-without-Q-10-23-002.pdf
geo2018-0411-1-Chao-Ma-et-al.pdf
segam2019-3215218-1-Yanglei-Zou.pdf
slide-set-I-v6-pdf2025-Keynote-slides.pdf
weglein-tle-interview-2004-2.pdf
Below please find a few slides from an updated Keynote presentation recorded on June 24, 2025
Slide I
Science and “Scientists” There is no shortage of examples that distinguish the difference between science and ‘scientists’- in every field of science and research.
Slide II
Within the discussion in this presentation: The indirect model matching methods like FWI are not the real problem, the method doesn’t have an ego or ambition, or is overpromising , promising everything, and now desperately grasping for anything… .. the “reasoning ” behind indirect methods like FWI, for example “why? ” we only match primaries and free surface multiples ( and exclude internal multiples, and yet call it full wave inversion ) and the only clear and honest answer is “why not? “…that’s the ‘no-theory”…you can model match anything…and its popular and accessible because it’s easy to understand and it’s easy to understand because there is nothing to understand…not only is there no theory behind indirect model matching methods like FWI , but they know exactly what needs to be done next ” buy bigger and faster computers” and” build new sources and receivers” …
Slide II
They don’t know what they are doing and they know exactly what needs to be done next…and due to the immense investment and commitment made with FWI , (and the research and management careers at stake)- it becomes ‘ too big to fail’ - the original claim that FWI was the ultimate and final solution for determining subsurface properties… and it will remove the need to migrate primaries and to remove multiples… well it never delivered its claims… and in desperation it took a giant step backwards in concept and capability and invented FWM … differentiating their ‘ smooth velocity ‘ … the latter ‘output’ of FWI assumes a good smooth starting velocity-and that requirement is basically asking for the hardest part of the ‘velocity’ to be input , and accurate, to then hopefully provide, “at best’ a slightly improved smooth velocity….that’s “quite a difference” from the original and oft repeated claim – that FWI is the final and ultimate method to determine subsurface properties…and the claim was that there will no longer be a need for removing multiples or migrating primaries…what an amazing waste of resource and intellectual capital….unfortunately, that marketing and selling ( in 2025) continues unabated. For some that might be attributed to the physics of obtaining and keeping your job.
Slide III
There are two types of assumptions within algorithms- those that are mild and whose violation cause a diminution of capability, but the algorithm retains some usefulness- and others that are critical- where the violation of an assumption shuts down the method- and the method doesn’t produce anything of value. The assumptions listed today as ‘issues’ with FWI, often as a casual aside and an informal ‘by-the-way’ are in fact critical assumptions- their violation shuts the method down- and that reality calls into question whether FWI qualifies ( in any sense) as a method.
Slide IV
The Stolt Claerbout III migration ( please see the attached SEG Abstracts and published papers on SCIII )locates where any property changes and only requires an adequate smooth velocity… and depends on only the time ( the phase) of events… this FWM derives from FWI that cares about amplitude and phase and model space and all properties ( not average quantities) above the target…and outputs something that even in principle is less than conventional migration… conventional migration outputs where any property ( or properties) changes- FWM if it ever happens- doesn’t image density or shear velocity or a absorption change… FWM proves that FWI is a sham…it’s obvious if FWI worked you wouldn’t need FWM… The so-called elite universities- around the world - are frequently the centers of this absence of thought, and lock step group think …and developing ‘ methods ‘ like Marchenko de multiple without once stating ( in the volumes published on that topic, and with ‘editors’ and associate editors, with a challenged understanding or a Marchenko bias, refusing to consider, let alone ask that essential question) ….the question: what was one capability or anything missing in the multiple removal toolbox that Marchenko was adding…the answer: nothing…..Jakubowicz and Marchenko methods are fundamentally, intrinsically and practically less capable than ISS multiple removal methods…
Please see the multiple removal toolbox published JSE paper ( provided above) co-authored with Fred Melo and Jing Wu of Schlumberger/Western-Geco and John Etgen of BP….
Slide V
Again, the indirect model matching methods like FWI are not the real problem, the method doesn’t have an ego or ambition, or is overpromising , promising everything, and now desperately grasping for anything… .. …and due to the immense investment and commitment made with FWI , (and the careers at stake)- it becomes ‘ too big to fail’ - the original claim that FWI was the ultimate and final solution for determining subsurface properties… and it was repeatedly announced that FWI will remove the need to migrate primaries and to remove multiples… well it never delivered its claims… and in desperation it took a giant step backwards in concept and capability and invented FWM … differentiating the ‘ smooth velocity ‘ … Their smooth velocity output in FWI requires a good smooth velocity model as input- that is , for FWI to provide any benefit it must be provided that hardest part of the inversion solution- a good and accurate smooth velocity model- that requirement has been and remains a largely unsolved problem, in general, and especially with rapidly (lateral) varying heterogeneous media- where the real and pressing challenge to seismic imaging resides.
Heterogeneity is more significant than anisotropy for seismic waves- but the former is more difficult to address and to solve than the latter( anisotropy in homogeneous media) - and rapid heterogeneity remains an open issue, a prioritized challenge, and an elephant in the room.
ISS methods that do not require any subsurface information to be known, estimated, or determined are worth pursuing , to continue their delivery of stand-alone capability and effectiveness started with the removal of free surface and internal multiples- extended to the imaging and direct inversion and Q compensation of primaries( please see several papers here on those subjects).
Slide VI
Again, the Stolt Claerbout III migration locates where any property changes and only requires an adequate smooth velocity… and depends on only the time ( the phase) of events… in contrast, FWM derives from FWI that cares about amplitude and phase and model space and all properties ( not average quantities) above the target…and outputs something that even in principle is less than conventional migration… conventional migration outputs where any property ( or properties) changes- FWM if it ever happens- doesn’t image density or shear velocity or a rapid change in absorption …many reflectors are density only or density dominant changes … FWM proves that FWI is a sham… if FWI worked you wouldn’t need FWM…
The so-called elite universities- around the world - are very often the centers of this absence of thought, lock step group think …and again developing ‘ methods ‘ like Marchenko de multiple without once stating what was missing in the multiple removal toolbox that Marchenko was supplying and adding…there are volumes of papers published on Marchenko demultiple (with Editors and Associate Editors or Workshop organizers that never raise let alone address that essential question)….
Slide VII
The Inverse Scattering (ISS) distinct subseries for eliminating free surface multiples, and for attenuating and eliminating internal multiples are the current high water mark of multiple removal capability….they are the only methods that do not require any subsurface information to be known, estimated or determined…and no interpreter intervention or reference levels or reflectors, …the ISS internal multiple algorithms not only don’t require any subsurface information , they incorporate the most capable water speed migration a Stolt-Claerbout III migration , that automatically accommodates flat, curved or pinch out reflectors ( as multiple generators) ….the Jakubowicz and Marchenko de-multiple methods do not satisfy one let alone both of those critically important properties…hence they are intrinsically and practically less capable and effective than the ISS multiple removal methods…
Slide VIII
Again a method is only a method, and all methods have issues-and model matching has no shortage of conceptual and practical problems- however, the real problem resides in those who oversell, and market and support and join and protect the academic and industrial lock-step , group think orthodoxy…that takes the oxygen out of the air, the overselling and false claims causes harm to the reputation of research overall, and stifles method development that have a firm mathematical and physics foundation and theory…for example, direct methods.
From slides after VIII
If FWI achieved what it advertised and marketed itself as the final and ultimate seismic method that will determine all subsurface properties- and that with FWI producing those maps of all properties, and where those properties rapidly changed- that removing multiples and imaging primaries will no longer be needed let alone necessary. Well, the reality is after a huge industry wide investment in capital and resources FWI never came close to delivering anything of value- it’s overstated and marketing campaign produced SEG RC Workshops, Special Topic Sections of Geophysics Journals, and SEG awards - and could at most provide a slight improvement in a smooth velocity if the hardest part of the smooth velocity was given as a starting point. Now in desperation for the researchers and managers whose careers depended on that oversell , and all the elite universities in the world who fostered and supported that group think- and now in desperation, grasping for anything- the thought of FWM by differentiating the smooth velocity- represents another sham and a huge step backwards in concept and capability in comparison with the current high water mark of conventional seismic migration, Stolt Claerbout III migration for homogeneous or smooth or discontinuous medium.(Weglein et al 2016). The latter produces an image where any physical property rapidly changes and can automatically image flat, curved, pinch-out boundaries with subsequent amplitude analysis. FWM doesn’t satisfy one let alone all of these properties –it represents a major step backwards in concept and capability.
Also, please find in the link below an extended version of the Keynote Address at the 2022 SEG Workshop on ‘FWI/FWM and New Concepts in Imaging’ on September 1, 2022, at the George S. Brown Convention Center in Houston, Texas, USA.
M-OSRP | A view on why the petroleum industry does not support relevant directed fundamental hydrocarbon/seismic research - Arthur B. Weglein , 9/14/2024
https://mosrp.uh.edu/news/a-view-on-why-the-petroleum-industry-does-not-support-relevant-directed-fundamental-hydrocarbon-or-seismic-research-arthur-b-weglein-9-14-2024
The golden era at CCNY and its physics department, a Montblanc pen, and ‘The Emperor’s New Mind’- Roger Penrose
https://mosrp.uh.edu/news/the-golden-era-at-ccny-and-its-physics-department-and-a-montblanc-fountain-pen
Dr. Arthur Benjamin Weglein
Hugh Roy and Lillie Cranz Cullen Distinguished University Chair in Physics
Director, Mission-Oriented Seismic Research Program
Physics Department
University of Houston
Room 617 Science and Research Building 1
Houston, Texas 77204-5005
http://www.mosrp.uh.edu/people/faculty/arthur-weglein