1887
Volume 66 Number 1
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Most seismic processing algorithms generally consider the sea surface as a flat reflector. However, acquisition of marine seismic data often takes place in weather conditions where this approximation is inaccurate. The distortion in the seismic wavelet introduced by the rough sea may influence (for example) deghosting results, as deghosting operators are typically recursive and sensitive to the changes in the seismic signal. In this paper, we study the effect of sea surface roughness on conventional (5–160 Hz) and ultra‐high‐resolution (200–3500 Hz) single‐component towed‐streamer data. To this end, we numerically simulate reflections from a rough sea surface using the Kirchhoff approximation. Our modelling demonstrates that for conventional seismic frequency band sea roughness can distort results of standard one‐dimensional and two‐dimensional deterministic deghosting. To mitigate this effect, we introduce regularisation and optimisation based on the minimum‐energy criterion and show that this improves the processing output significantly. Analysis of ultra‐high‐resolution field data in conjunction with modelling shows that even relatively calm sea state (i.e., 15 cm wave height) introduces significant changes in the seismic signal for ultra‐high‐frequency band. These changes in amplitude and arrival time may degrade the results of deghosting. Using the field dataset, we show how the minimum‐energy optimisation of deghosting parameters improves the processing result.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12535
2017-05-25
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AmundsenL., RøstenT., RobertssonJ.O.A. and KraghE.2005. Rough‐sea deghosting of streamer seismic data using pressure gradient approximations. Geophysics70(1), V1–V9.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BrodtkorbP.A., JohannessonP., LindgrenG., RychlikI., RydenJ. and SjöE.2000. WAFO‐a Matlab toolbox for analysis of random waves and loads. Proceedings of the 10th International Offshore and Polar Engineering conference, Seattle, WA, 3, 343–350.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. DayA., KlüverT., SöllnerW., TabtiH. and CarlsonD.2013. Wavefield‐separation methods for dual‐sensor towed‐streamer data. Geophysics78(2), WA55–WA70.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. DenisovM.S. and FirsovA.E.2016. Statistical source‐ and receiver‐side deghosting. 78th EAGE meeting, Vienna, Austria, Extended Abstracts, We P1 02.
  5. DragosetB., HargreavesN. and LarnerK.1987. Air‐gun source instabilities. Geophysics52, 1229–1251.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. GrionS., TellingR. and HollandS.2016. Phase‐shift de‐ghosting. 78th EAGE meeting, Vienna, Austria, Extended Abstracts, We SRS3 09.
  7. HardwickA., CharronP., MasoomzadehH., AiyepekuA., CoxP. and LahaS.2015. Accounting for sea surface variation in deghosting – a novel approach applied to a 3D dataset offshore west Africa. 85th SEG Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Expanded Abstracts, 4615–4619.
  8. HasselmannK., BarnettT., BouwsE., CarlsonH., CartwrightD., EnkeK.et al. 1973. Measurements of wind‐wave growth and swell decay during the Joint North Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP). Deutsche Hydrographische Zeitschrift, Reihe A (8)12, 1–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. JovanovichD.B., SumnerR.D. and Akins‐EasterlinS.L.1983. Ghosting and marine signature deconvolution: a prerequisite for detailed seismic interpretation. Geophysics48, 1468–1485.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. KingS. and PooleG.2015. Hydrophone‐only receiver deghosting using a variable sea surface datum. 85th SEG meeting, New Orleans, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 4610–4614.
  11. KraghE. and LawsR.2006. Rough seas and statistical deconvolution. Geophysical Prospecting54, 475–485.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. LawsR. and KraghE.2002. Rough seas and time‐lapse seismic. Geophysical Prospecting50, 195–208.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. LawsR. and KraghE.2006. Sea surface shape derivation above the seismic streamer. Geophysical Prospecting54, 817–828.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. LokshtanovD., DenisovM. and KurinE.2007. Wave‐equation prediction of multiples—Different strategies for different conditions. 69th EAGE meeting, London, United Kingdom, Extended Abstracts, P022.
  15. NeumaierA.1998. Solving ill‐conditioned and singular linear systems: a tutorial on regularization. SIAM Review40, 636–666.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. OgilvyJ.A.1991. Theory of Wave Scattering from Random Rough Surfaces. Taylor & Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. OrjiO., SöllnerW. and GeliusL.J.2010. Imaging the sea surface using a dual‐sensor towed streamer. Geophysics75(6), V111–V118.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. OrjiO., SöllnerW. and GeliusL.J.2012. Effects of time‐varying sea surface in marine seismic data. Geophysics77(3), 33–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. PerzM.J. and MasoomzadehH.2014. Deterministic marine deghosting: tutorial and recent advances. FOCUS GeoConvention Abstracts.
  20. PiersonW.J. and MoskowitzL.1964. A proposed spectral form for fully developed wind seas based on the similarity theory of SA Kitaigorodskii. Journal of Geophysical Research69, 5181–5190.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. PirogovaA., TokarevM. and GlubokovskikhS.2015. AVA‐study of shallow marine unconsolidated sediments using UHR multichannel seismoacoustic dataset acquired with a deep‐towed system. 85th SEG meeting, New Orleans, LA, Expanded Abstracts, 2327–2331.
  22. RobertssonJ.O.A. and AmundsenL.2014. Wave equation processing using finite‐difference propagators. Part 2: deghosting of marine hydrophone seismic data. Geophysics79(6), T301–T312.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. RobertssonJ.O.A. and KraghE.2002. Rough‐sea deghosting using a single streamer and a pressure gradient approximation. Geophysics67, 2005–2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. RobertssonJ.O.A., LawsR., ChapmanC., VilotteJ.‐P. and DelavaudE.2006. Modelling of scattering of seismic waves from a corrugated rough sea surface: a comparison of three methods. Geophysical Journal International167, 70–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. RobertssonJ.O.A., MooreI., VassalloM., ÖzdemirK., van ManenD.J. and ÖzbekA.2008. On the use of multicomponent streamer recordings for reconstruction of pressure wavefields in the crossline direction. Geophysics73(5), A45–A49.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. RychlikI., JohannessonP. and LeadbetterM.R.1997. Modelling and statistical analysis of ocean‐wave data using transformed Gaussian processes. Marine Structures10, 13–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. SanchisC. and ElbothT.2014. Multicomponent streamer noise characteristics and denoising. 84th SEG meeting, Denver, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 4183–4187.
  28. ScalesJ.A.1995. Theory of seismic imaging. Springer‐Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. ThorsosE.I.1988. The validity of the Kirchhoff approximation for rough surface scattering using a Gaussian roughness spectrum. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America83, 78–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. TokarevM., KuzubN., PevznerR., KalmykovD. and BouriakS.2008. High resolution 2D deep‐towed seismic system for shallow water investigation. First Break26(4), 77–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. WigginsJ.W.1988. Attenuation of complex water‐bottom multiples by wave‐equation‐based prediction and subtraction. Geophysics53, 1527–1539.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. YilmazO. and BaysalE.2015. A robust xt domain deghosting method for various source/receiver configurations. 85th SEG meeting, New Orleans, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 4515–4519.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12535
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12535
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Ghost waves; Rough seas; Signal processing

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error