1887
Volume 66, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Although seismic sources typically consist of identical broadband units alone, no physical constraint dictates the use of only one kind of device. We propose an acquisition method that involves the simultaneous exploitation of multiple types of sources during seismic surveys. It is suggested to replace (or support) traditional broadband sources with several devices individually transmitting diverse and reduced frequency bands and covering together the entire temporal and spatial bandwidth of interest. Together, these devices represent a so‐called dispersed source array.

As a consequence, the use of simpler sources becomes a practical proposition for seismic acquisition. In fact, the devices dedicated to the generation of the higher frequencies may be smaller and less powerful than the conventional sources, providing the acquisition system with increased operational flexibility and decreasing its environmental impact. Offshore, we can think of more manageable boats carrying air guns of different volumes or marine vibrators generating sweeps with different frequency ranges. On land, vibrator trucks of different sizes, specifically designed for the emission of particular frequency bands, are preferred. From a manufacturing point of view, such source units guarantee a more efficient acoustic energy transmission than today's complex broadband alternatives, relaxing the low‐ versus high‐frequency compromise. Furthermore, specific attention can be addressed to choose shot densities that are optimum for different devices according to their emitted bandwidth. In fact, since the sampling requirements depend on the maximum transmitted frequencies, the appropriate number of sources dedicated to the lower frequencies is relatively small, provided the signal‐to‐noise ratio requirements are met. Additionally, the method allows to rethink the way to address the ghost problem in marine seismic acquisition, permitting to tow different sources at different depths based on the devices' individual central frequencies. As a consequence, the destructive interference of the ghost notches, including the one at 0 Hz, is largely mitigated. Furthermore, blended acquisition (also known as simultaneous source acquisition) is part of the dispersed source array concept, improving the operational flexibility, cost efficiency, and signal‐to‐noise ratio.

Based on theoretical considerations and numerical data examples, the advantages of this approach and its feasibility are demonstrated.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12584
2018-05-29
2020-05-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AminzadehF., BurkhardJ.M., NicoletisL., RoccaF. and WyattK.1994. SEG/EAGE 3D modeling project: second update. The Leading Edge13(9), 949–952.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. BerkhoutA.J. 1982. Seismic Migration, Imaging of Acoustic Energy by Wave Field Extrapolation, A: Theoretical Aspects, Elsevier
  4. BerkhoutA.J.2008. Changing the mindset in seismic acquisition. The Leading Edge27(7), 924–938.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BerkhoutA.J.2012. Blended acquisition with dispersed source arrays. Geophysics77(4), A19–A23.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BerkhoutA.J.2014a. Review paper: an outlook on the future seismic imaging, part I: forward and reverse modelling. Geophysical Prospecting62(5), 911–930.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. BerkhoutA.J.2014b. Review paper: an outlook on the future seismic imaging, part II: full‐wavefield migration. Geophysical Prospecting62(5), 931–949.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. CaporalM., BlacquièreG. and DavydenkoM.2016. 3D seismic acquisition with decentralized dispersed source arrays. 86th SEG annual international meeting, Expanded Abstracts.
  9. CosteE., GerezD., GroenaasH., HopperstadJ.F., Pramm LarsenO., LawsR.et al. 2014. Attenuated high‐frequency emission from a new design of air‐gun. 84th SEG annual international meeting, Expanded Abstracts.
  10. DavisD. and PatronisE.2006. Sound System Engineering, Focal Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. DavydenkoM. and VerschuurD.J.2017. Full‐wavefield migration: using surface and internal multiples in imaging. Geophysical Prospecting65(1), 7–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. DellingerJ., RossA., MeauxD., BrendersA., GesoffG., EtgenJ.T.et al. 2016. Wolfspar, an FWI friendly ultra‐low‐frequency marine seismic source. 86th SEG annual international meeting, Expanded Abstracts.
  13. DuncanA.J., WeilgartL., LeaperR., JasnyM. and LivermoreS.2017. A modeling comparison between received sound levels produced by a marine vibroseis array and those from an airgun array for some typical survey scenarios. Marine Pollution Bulletin119(1), 277–288.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. ErbeC., SisnerosJ., ThomsenF., HawkinsA. and PopperA.2016. Overview of the 4th international conference on the effects of noise on aquatic life. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 27, p. 040006.
  15. European Union
    European Union . 2008. Directive 2008/56/ec of the european parliament and of the council of 17 june 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (marine strategy framework directive). Official Journal of the European UnionL 164, 19–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. FontanaP.M. and ZickermanP.2010. Mitigating the environmental footprint of towed streamer seismic surveys. First Break28(12), 57–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. KraghE., LawsR., HopperstadJ.F. and KireevA.2012. Reducing the size of the seismic source with a 4C towed‐marine streamer. 74th EAGE annual international meeting, Expanded Abstracts.
  18. KuncH.P., McLaughlinK.E. and SchmidtR.2016. Aquatic noise pollution: implications for individuals, populations, and ecosystems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, Vol. 283, pp. 20160839.
  19. LaioloP.2010, The emerging significance of bioacoustics in animal species conservation. Biological Conservation143, 1635–1645.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. LawsR. and KraghE.2002. Rough seas and time‐lapse seismic. Geophysical Prospecting50(2), 195–208.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. LawsR.M., KraghE. and MorganG.2008. Are seismic sources too loud? 70th EAGE annual international meeting, Expanded Abstracts.
  22. MadsenP.T., JohnsonM., MillerP.J.O., SotoN.A., LynchJ. and TyackP.2006. Quantitative measures of air‐gun pulses recorded on sperm whales (physeter macrocephalus) using acoustic tags during controlled exposure experiments. Journal Acoustical Society of America120(4), 2366–2379.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. MSFD
    MSFD . 2014. Monitoring guidance for underwater noise in European seas. In: JRC Scientific and policy reports. Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) ‐ Technical Subgroup on Underwater Noise.
  24. NilandR.A.1989. Optimum oversampling. Journal Acoustical Society of America86(5), 1805–1812.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. NOAA
    NOAA . 2016. Technical guidance for assessing the effects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammal hearing: underwater acoustic thresholds for onset of permanent and temporary threshold shifts. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS‐OPR‐55. US Department of Commerce and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
  26. NowacekD.P., ThorneL.H., JohnstonD.W. and TyackP.L.2007. Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic noise. Mammal Review37(2), 81–115.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. OrjiO.C., SöllnerW. and GeliusL.J.2012. Effects of time‐varying sea surface in marine seismic data. Geophysics77(3), P33–P43.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. ParkesG. and HattonL.1986. The Marine Seismic Source. Reidel.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. PetersenK.B. and PedersenM.S.2012. Matrix Cookbook. Technical University of Denmark.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. ReustD.K., JohnstonO.A., GilesJ.A., and BallingerS. 2015. Very low frequency seismic source. 85th SEG annual international meeting, Expanded Abstracts.
  31. ShannonG., McKennaM.F., AngeloniL.M., CrooksK.R., FristrupK.M., BrownE.et al. 2016. A synthesis of two decades of research documenting the effects of noise on wildlife. Biological Reviews91, 982–1005.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. ShenH., ElbothT., TianG., WarszawskiJ. and LiljaD.2014, Theoretical study on multilevel source design. Geophysical Prospecting62(6), 1337–1352.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. SouthallB.L., BowlesA.E., EllisonW.T., FinneranJ.J., GentryR.L., GreeneJr. C.R.et al. 2007. Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals33(4), 411–521.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. TannerW.P.1958. What is masking? Journal Acoustical Society of America30(10), 919–921.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. ten KroodeF., BerglerS., CorstenC., de MaagJ.W., StrijbosF. and TijhofH.2013. Broadband seismic data—The importance of low frequencies. Geophysics78(2), WA3–WA14.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. TsingasC., KimY.S. and YooJ.2016. Broadband acquisition, deblending, and imaging employing dispersed source arrays. The Leading Edge35(4), 354–360.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12584
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12584
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Acquisition , Inversion and Seismic
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