1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 63, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 63, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

State‐of‐the‐art 3D seismic acquisition geometries have poor sampling along at least one dimension. This results in coherent migration noise that always contaminates pre‐stack migrated data, including high‐fold surveys, if prior‐to‐migration interpolation was not applied. We present a method for effective noise suppression in migrated gathers, competing with data interpolation before pre‐stack migration. The proposed technique is based on a dip decomposition of common‐offset volumes and a semblance‐type measure computation via offset for all constant‐dip gathers. Thus the processing engages six dimensions: offset, inline, crossline, depth, inline dip, and crossline dip. To reduce computational costs, we apply a two‐pass (4D in each pass) noise suppression: inline processing and then crossline processing (or ). Synthetic and real‐data examples verify that the technique preserves signal amplitudes, including amplitude‐versus‐offset dependence, and that faults are not smeared.

Copyright © 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12235
2015-03-20
2024-04-26

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12235
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. CanningA. and GardnerG.1998. Reducing 3‐D acquisition footprint for 3‐D DMO and 3‐D prestack migration. Geophysics63, 1177–1183.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. GrayS.H.2013. Spatial sampling, migration aliasing, and migration amplitudes. Geophysics78, S157–S164.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. GulunayN., AjlaniG. and LevequeA.2008. Prestack seismic signal enhancement by dip detection and dip selection. 70th EAGE Conference, Extended Abstracts, P061.
  4. MailiE., BurnesS., JonesS., PradalieF., BaillonS. and VerneauD.2013. Maximizing the value of existing seismic data in the Bahrain Field with wide‐azimuth processing technology. First Break31(3), 51–58.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. PooleG.2011. Multi‐dimensional coherency driven denoising of irregular data. 73rd EAGE Conference, Extended Abstracts, G009.
  6. PorsaniM., UrsinB., SilvaM. and MeloP.2013. Dip‐adaptive singular‐value decomposition filtering for seismic reflection enhancement. Geophysical Prospecting61, 42–52.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. RossC.P. and KinmanD.L.1995. Nonbright‐spot AVO: Two examples. Geophysics60, 1398–1408.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. ShueyR.T.1985. A simplification of the Zoeppritz equations. Geophysics50, 609–614.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. TradD.2009. Five‐dimensional interpolation: recovering from acquisition constraints. Geophysics74, V123–V132.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. XiaoF., YangJ., LiangB., ZhangM., LiR., LiF.et al. 2014. High‐density 3D point receiver seismic acquisition and processing – a case study from the Sichuan Basin, China. First Break32(1), 81–90.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12235
Loading
Eliminating 3D pre‐stack migration artefacts by 6D filtering
Geophysical Prospecting 63, 626 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12235
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12235
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12235
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): 3D acquisition footprint; Noise elimination; Pre‐stack migration

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