** Next:** Acknowledgments
** Up:** Vlad: Velocity estimation for
** Previous:** Conclusions

The previous sections have proven that an inversion for
the velocity model that produces the FEAVO anomalies is possible. The
actual work of setting up such an inversion first for 2D, then for 3D,
remains to be done. While the functioning of the forward and the
inverse operators for the iterative inversion is being proved by the
work of Paul Sava, I have to replace his approach of constructing with my approach of extracting the
FEAVO anomalies.
I will also need to investigate ways to discriminate between absorption and
velocity caused FEAVO.
I plan to study the effects of the source directivity on
the amplitudes and to investigate a non-smoothing styling goal for the
inversion.
I would have to investigate ways to do
surface-consistent amplitude corrections that will account for surface
absorption variations, and to see whether that will not destroy the
FEAVO.

Finally,
I will perform geological interpretations of the data
with FEAVO removed,
and compare them with interpretations of the original data.
This should show that FEAVO removal and the new velocity model
made a difference in interpretation results.

**hatsim
**

Figure 6 **Left, from top to bottom:**
1. Wavefield recorded 6 km deep after propagation through constant
velocity; 2. Wavefield recorded 6 km deep after propagation through
velocity model in panel 6; 3. Difference between 1 and 2; **Right, from
top to bottom:** 4. Ratio between the maximum amplitudes in panel 2 and
panel 1, for each x location; 5. Difference between the times of the
maximum amplitudes in 1 and 2, for each x location; 6. Velocity model
for panel 2 - homogeneous with a lower velocity slab inserted.

** Next:** Acknowledgments
** Up:** Vlad: Velocity estimation for
** Previous:** Conclusions
Stanford Exploration Project

11/11/2002