1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 66, Issue 5
  5. Article
Volume 66, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

In marine acquisition, reflections of sound energy from the water–air interface result in ghosts in the seismic data, both in the source side and the receiver side. Ghosts limit the bandwidth of the useful signal and blur the final image. The process to separate the ghost and primary signals, called the deghosting process, can fill the ghost notch, broaden the frequency band, and help achieve high‐resolution images. Low‐signal‐to‐noise ratio near the notch frequencies and 3D effects are two challenges that the deghosting process has to face. In this paper, starting from an introduction to the deghosting process, we present and compare two strategies to solve the latter. The first is an adaptive mechanism that adjusts the deghosting operator to compensate for 3D effects or errors in source/receiver depth measurement. This method does not include explicitly the crossline slowness component and is not affected by the sparse sampling in the same direction. The second method is an inversion‐type approach that does include the crossline slowness component in the algorithm and handles the 3D effects explicitly. Both synthetic and field data examples in wide azimuth acquisition settings are shown to compare the two strategies. Both methods provide satisfactory results.

© 2018 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2017 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12614
2018-05-29
2024-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12614
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AmundsenL.1992. Wavenumber‐based filtering of marine point source data. 62nd SEG annual international meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 1104–1107.
  2. BerkhoutA.J. and BlacquièreG.2015. Deghosting by echo‐deblending. Geophysical Prospecting64(2), 406–420.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. CarlsonD.A., LongW., TobtiH., TenghamnR. and LundeN.2007. Increased resolution and penetration from a towed dual‐sensor streamer. First Break25(12), 71–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. GrionS., TellingR. and BarnesJ.2015. De‐ghosting by kurtosis maximization in practice. 85th SEG annual international meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 4605–4609.
  5. 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 annual international meeting, 4615–4619.
  6. 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]
  7. KingS. and PooleG.2015. Hydrophone‐only receiver de‐ghosting using a variable see surface datum. 85th SEG annual international meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 4610–4614.
  8. MasoomzadehH. and WoodburnN.2013. Broadband processing of conventional streamer data‐optimized de‐ghosting in the Tau‐P domain. 75th EAGE Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC, London, UK, Expanded Abstracts.
  9. MasoomzadehH. and HardwickA.2016. Broadband processing of 3D towed streamer data: a critical analysis of 2D and 3D plane wave decomposition. 86th SEG annual international meeting, Expanded Abstract, 4746–4750.
  10. MonkD. and ByerleyG.2016. What does “broadband” mean to an interpreter. 86th SEG annual international meeting, Expanded Abstract, 5113–5118.
  11. OrjiO., SollnerW. and GeliusL.J.2013. Sea surface reflection coefficient estimation. 83rd SEG annual international meeting, Expanded Abstract, 51–55.
  12. ÖzbekA., VassalloM., ÖzdemirK., ManenD. and EggenbergerK.2010. Crossline wavefield reconstruction from multicomponent streamer data: Part 2—Joint interpolation and 3D up/down separation by generalized matching pursuit. Geophysics75(6), WB69–WB85.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. ÖzdemirA., CarprioliP., ÖzbekA., KraghE. and RobertssonJ.2008. Optimized deghosting of over/under towed‐streamer data in the presence of noise. The Leading Edge27(2), 190–199.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. PooleG.2013Pre‐migration receiver de‐ghosting and re‐datuming for variable depth streamer data. 83rd SEG annual international meeting, Expanded Abstract, 4216–4220.
  15. PosthumusB.J.1993. De‐ghosting using a twin streamer configuration. Geophysical Prospecting41(3), 267–286.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. RickettJ.E., ManenD.J., LoganathanP. and SymourN.2014. Slanted‐streamer data‐adaptive deghosting with local plane waves. 76th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Expanded Abstracts.
  17. RiyantiC., van BorselenR.G., van den BergP.M. and FokkemaJ.T.2008. Pressure wave‐field deghosting for non‐horizontal streamers. 68th SEG annual international meeting, Expanded Abstract, 2652–2656.
  18. RobertssonJ. and AmundsenL.2014. Deghosting of arbitrarily depth‐varying marine hydrophone streamer data by time‐space domain modelling. 84th SEG annual international meeting, Expanded Abstract, 4248–4542.
  19. SoubarasR.2012. Pre‐stack de‐ghosting for variable‐depth streamer data. 74th EAGE Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC, Copenhagen, Denmark, Expanded Abstracts.
  20. TellingR., RiddallsN., AzmiA., GrionS. and WilliamsR.2014. Broadband processing of west of Shetland data. First Break32(9), 97–103.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. TradD., UlrychT. and SacchiM.2003. Latest views of the sparse Radon transform. Geophysics68(1), 386–399.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. WangP., RayS. and NimsailaK.2014. 3D joint de‐ghosting and crossline interpolation for marine single‐component streamer data. 84th SEG annual international meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 3594–3598.
  23. ZhangZ., WuZ., WangB. and JiJ.2015. Time variant de‐ghosting and its applications in WAZ data. 85th SEG annual international meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 4600–4604.
  24. ZhouZ., CvetkovicM., XuB. and FontanaP.2012. Analysis of a broadband processing technology applicable to conventional streamer data. First Break30(10), 77–82.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12614
Loading
Evolution of deghosting process for single‐sensor streamer data from 2D to 3D
Geophysical Prospecting 66, 975 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12614
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12614
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12614
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Data processing; Deghosting; Noise; 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