1887
Volume 67 Number 6
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The application of blended acquisition has drawn considerable attention owing to its ability to improve the operational efficiency as well as the data quality and health, safety and environment performance. Furthermore, the acquisition of less data contributes to the business aspect, while the desired data density is still realizable via subsequent data reconstruction. The use of fewer detectors and sources also minimizes operational risks in the field. Therefore, a combined implementation of these technologies potentially enhances the value of a seismic survey further. One way to encourage this is to minimize any imperfection in deblending and data reconstruction during processing. In addition, one may derive survey parameters that enable a further improvement in these processes as introduced in this study. The proposed survey design workflow iteratively performs the following steps to derive the survey parameters responsible for source blending as well as the spatial sampling of detectors and sources. The first step is the application of blending and sampling operators to unblended and well‐sampled data. We then apply closed‐loop deblending and data reconstruction. The residue for a given design from this step is evaluated and subsequently used by genetic algorithms to simultaneously update the survey parameters related to both blending and spatial sampling. The updated parameters are fed into the next iteration until they satisfy the given termination criteria. We also propose a repeated encoding sequence to form a parameter sequence in genetic algorithms, making the size of problem space manageable. The results of the proposed workflow are outlined using blended dispersed source array data incorporating different scenarios that represent acquisition in marine, transition zone and land environments. Clear differences attributed solely to the parameter design are easily recognizable. Additionally, a comparison among different optimization schemes illustrates the ability of genetic algorithms along with a repeated encoding sequence to find better solutions within a computationally affordable time. The optimized parameters yield a notable enhancement in the deblending and data reconstruction quality and consequently provide optimal acquisition scenarios.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12701
2018-10-25
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BaardmanR. and van BorselenR.2013. A simulated simultaneous source experiment in shallow waters and the impact of randomization schemes. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 4382–4386.
  2. BakS.H., RaskN. and RisiS.2016. Towards adaptive evolutionary architecture. In: Evolutionary and Biologically Inspired Music, Sound, Art and Design (eds C.Johnson, V.Ciesielski, J.Correia and P.Machado), pp. 47–62. Springer International Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BeasleyC.J., RonaldE.C. and ZerongJ.1998. A new look at simultaneous sources. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 133–135.
  4. BerkhoutA.J.1982. Seismic Migration, Imaging of Acoustic Energy by Wave Field Extrapolation, Part A: Theoretical Aspects, 2nd edn. Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BerkhoutA.J.2008. Changing the mindset in seismic data acquisition. The Leading Edge27, 924–938.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BerkhoutA.J.2012. Blended acquisition with dispersed source arrays. Geophysics77, A19–A23.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. BerkhoutA.J. and BlacquièreG.2014. Limits of deblending. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 110–114.
  8. BouskaJ.2010. Distance separated simultaneous sweeping, for fast, clean, vibroseis acquisition. Geophysical Prospecting58, 123–153.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. CampmanX., TangZ., Jamali‐RadH., KuvshinovB., DanilouchkineM., JiY., et al. 2017. Sparse seismic wavefield sampling. The Leading Edge36, 654–660.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. CaporalM. and BlacquièreG.2015. Benefits of blended acquisition with dispersed source arrays (DSA). 77th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Madrid, Spain, Extended Abstracts, Tu N104 15.
  11. ChengJ. and SacchiM.D.2015. Separation and reconstruction of simultaneous source via iterative rank reduction. Geophysics80, V57–V66.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. CordsenA., GalbraithM. and PeirceJ.2000. Planning Land 3‐D Seismic Surveys. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. DarwinC.R.1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. John Murray, London.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. DaviesE., TewP., GlowackiD.R., SmithJ. and MitchellT.2016. Evolving atomic aesthetics and dynamics. In: Evolutionary and Biologically Inspired Music, Sound, Art and Design (eds C.Johnson, V.Ciesielski, J.Correia and P.Machado), pp. 17–30. Springer International Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. HennenfentG. and HerrmannF.J.2008. Simply denoise: Wavefield reconstruction via jittered undersampling. Geophysics73, V19–V28.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. HerrmannF.J.2010. Randomized sampling and sparsity: getting more information from fewer samples. Geophysics75, WB173–WB187.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. HollandJ.H.1975. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. IshiyamaT., AliM.Y., BlacquièreG. and NakayamaS.2017. Deblended‐data reconstruction for time‐lapse seismic monitoring. Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, November 2017, SPE‐188720‐MS. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. IshiyamaT., MercadoG. and BelaidK.2012. 3D OBC seismic survey geometry optimization offshore Abu Dhabi. First Break30, 51–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Jamali‐RadH., KuvshinovB., TangZ. and CampmanX.2016. Deterministically subsampled acquisition geometries for optimal reconstruction. 78th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, June 2016, Extended Abstracts, We STZ1 04.
  21. KontakisA. and VerschuurD.J.2015. Combined focal and coherency‐based deblending strategy. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 4667–4672.
  22. KramerO.2016. Machine Learning for Evolution Strategies. Springer International Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. KutschaH. and VerschuurD.J.2012. Data reconstruction via sparse double focal transformation: an overview. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine29, 53–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. LiC., MosherC.C., MorleyL.C., JiY. and BrewerJ.D.2013. Joint source deblending and reconstruction for seismic data. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 82–87.
  25. LiebanaD.P., DieskauJ., HunermundM., MostaghimS. and LucasS.M.2015. Open loop search for general video game playing. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, Madrid, Spain, July 2015, pp. 337–344. Association for Computing Machinery.
  26. LinT.T.Y. and HerrmannF.J.2009. Designing simultaneous acquisitions with compressive sensing. 71st EAGE Conference and Exhibition Extended Abstracts, S006.
  27. MahdadA., DoulgerisP. and BlacquièreG.2011. Separation of blended data by iterative estimation and subtraction of blending interference noise. Geophysics76, Q9–Q17.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. MonteagudoA. and ReyesJ.S.2015. Evolutionary optimization of cancer treatments in a cancer stem cell context. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, Madrid, Spain, July 2015, pp. 233–240. Association for Computing Machinery.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. MooreI., DragosetB., OmmundsenT., WilsonD., WardC. and EkeD.2008. Simultaneous source separation using dithered sources. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 2806–2810.
  30. MosherC.C., KaplanS.T. and JaniszewskiF.D.2012. Non‐uniform optimal sampling for seismic survey design. 74th EAGE Conference and Exhibition Extended Abstracts.
  31. NakayamaS., BelaidK. and IshiyamaT.2013. Seeking efficient OBC survey designs that still satisfy established geophysical objectives. First Break31, 65–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. NakayamaS., MercadoG., BensonM., BelaidK. and GardenM.2015. Field‐wide implementation of time and distance separated source techniques on a 3D OBC survey offshore Abu Dhabi, UAE. First Break33, 47–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. RegoneC.J.2007. Using 3D finite‐difference modeling to design wide‐azimuth surveys for improved subsalt imaging. Geophysics72, SM231–SM239.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. ScireaM., TogeliusJ., EklundP. and RisiS.2016. Metacompose: A compositional evolutionary music composer. In: Evolutionary and Biologically Inspired Music, Sound, Art and Design (eds C.Johnson, V.Ciesielski, J.Correia and P.Machado), pp. 202–217. Springer International Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. TyackP.L. and ClarkC.W.2000. Communication and acoustic behavior of dolphins and whales. In: Hearing by Whales and Dolphins (eds W.W.L.Au, R.R.Fay and A.N.Popper), pp. 156–224. Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. VermeerG.J.O.2012. 3D Seismic Survey Design, 2nd edn. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. VerschuurD.J., VrolijkJ.W. and TsingasC.2012. 4D reconstruction of wide azimuth (WAZ) data using sparse inversion of hybrid Radon transforms. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 1–5.
  38. WuS., BlacquièreG. and GroenestijnG.V.2015. Shot repetition: An alternative approach to blending in marine seismic. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 48–52.
  39. XuS., ZhangY., PhamD. and LambaréG.2005. Antileakage Fourier transform for seismic data regularization. Geophysics70, V87–V95.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12701
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12701
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Iterative scheme; Sampling; Seismic acquisition

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