1887
Volume 68, Issue 6
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478
PDF

Abstract

ABSTRACT

In recent years, a variety of Marchenko methods for the attenuation of internal multiples has been developed. These methods have been extensively tested on two‐dimensional synthetic data and applied to two‐dimensional field data, but only little is known about their behaviour on three‐dimensional synthetic data and three‐dimensional field data. Particularly, it is not known whether Marchenko methods are sufficiently robust for sparse acquisition geometries that are found in practice. Therefore, we start by performing a series of synthetic tests to identify the key acquisition parameters and limitations that affect the result of three‐dimensional Marchenko internal multiple prediction and subtraction using an adaptive double‐focusing method. Based on these tests, we define an interpolation strategy and use it for the field data application. Starting from a wide azimuth dense grid of sources and receivers, a series of decimation tests are performed until a narrow azimuth streamer geometry remains. We evaluate the effect of the removal of sail lines, near offsets, far offsets and outer cables on the result of the adaptive double‐focusing method. These tests show that our method is most sensitive to the limited aperture in the crossline direction and the sail line spacing when applying it to synthetic narrow azimuth streamer data. The sail line spacing can be interpolated, but the aperture in the crossline direction is a limitation of the acquisition. Next, we apply the adaptive Marchenko double‐focusing method to the narrow azimuth streamer field data from the Santos Basin, Brazil. Internal multiples are predicted and adaptively subtracted, thereby improving the geological interpretation of the target area. These results imply that our adaptive double‐focusing method is sufficiently robust for the application to three‐dimensional field data, although the key acquisition parameters and limitations will naturally differ in other geological settings and for other types of acquisition.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12964
2020-06-08
2020-08-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/gpr/68/6/gpr12964.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12964&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Broggini, F., Snieder, R. and Wapenaar, K.2012. Focusing the wavefield inside an unknown 1D medium: Beyond seismic interferometry. Geophysics77, A25–A28.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cypriano, L., Marpeau, F., Brasil, R., Welter, G., Prigent, H., Douma, H., et al. 2015. The impact of interbed multiple attenuation on the imaging of pre‐salt targets in the Santos basin off‐shore Brazil. 77th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2015. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
  3. Dragoset, B., Verschuur, E., Moore, I. and Bisley, R.2010. A perspective on 3D surface‐related multiple elimination. Geophysics75, 75A245–75A261.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Esmersoy, C. and Oristaglio, M.1988. Reverse‐time wave‐field extrapolation, imaging, and inversion. Geophysics53, 920–931.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Foster, D.J. and Mosher, C.C.1992. Suppression of multiple reflections using the Radon transform. Geophysics57, 386–395.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Griffiths, M., Hembd, J. and Prigent, H.2011. Applications of interbed multiple attenuation. The Leading Edge30, 906–912.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Hampson, D.1986. Inverse velocity stacking for multiple elimination. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 1986. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 422–424.
  8. Herrmann, F.J., Wang, D. and Verschuur, D.J.2008. Adaptive curvelet‐domain primary‐multiple separation. Geophysics73, A17–A21.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Jakubowicz, H.1998. Wave equation prediction and removal of interbed multiples. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 1998. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 1527–1530.
  10. Krueger, J., Donno, D., Pereira, R., Mondini, D., Souza, A., Espinoza, J. and Khalil, A.2018. Internal multiple attenuation for four presalt fields in the Santos Basin, Brazil. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2018. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 4523–4527.
  11. Meles, G.A., Wapenaar, K. and Curtis, A.2016. Reconstructing the primary reflections in seismic data by Marchenko redatuming and convolutional interferometry. Geophysics81, Q15–Q26.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Moore, I. and Dragoset, B.2008. General surface multiple prediction: A flexible 3D SRME algorithm. First Break26, 89–100.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Pereira, R., Mondini, D. and Donno, D.2018. Efficient 3D Internal Multiple Attenuation in the Santos Basin. 80th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2018. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
  14. Pereira, R., Ramzy, M., Griscenco, P., Huard, B., Huang, H., Cypriano, L. and Khalil, A.2019. Internal multiple attenuation for OBN data with overburden/target separation. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2019. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 4520–4524.
  15. Reinicke, C., Dukalski, M. and Wapenaar, K.2019. Do we need elastic internal de‐multiple offshore Middle East, or will acoustic Marchenko suffice? SEG/KOC Workshop: Seismic Multiples ‐ The Challenges and the Way Forward, Kuwait. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
  16. Staring, M., Dukalski, M., Belonosov, M., Baardman, R., Yoo, J., Hegge, R., van Borselen, R. and Wapenaar, K.2019. Adaptive Marchenko multiple removal on Arabian Gulf OBC data. SEG/KOC Workshop: Seismic Multiples ‐ The Challenges and the Way Forward, Kuwait. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
  17. Staring, M., Pereira, R., Douma, H., van der Neut, J. and Wapenaar, K.2018a. Source‐receiver Marchenko redatuming on field data using an adaptive double‐focusing method. Geophysics83, S579–S590.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Staring, M., van der Neut, J. and Wapenaar, K.2018b. Marchenko redatuming by adaptive double‐focusing on 2D and 3D field data of the Santos basin. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2018. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 5449–5453.
  19. van der Neut, J., Brackenhoff, J., Staring, M., Zhang, L., de Ridder, S., Slob, E. and Wapenaar, K.2018. Single‐and double‐sided Marchenko imaging conditions in acoustic media. IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging4, 160–171.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. van der Neut, J., Vasconcelos, I. and Wapenaar, K.2015a. On Green's function retrieval by iterative substitution of the coupled Marchenko equations. Geophysical Journal International203, 792–813.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. van der Neut, J. and Wapenaar, K.2016. Adaptive overburden elimination with the multidimensional Marchenko equation. Geophysics81, T265–T284.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. van der Neut, J., Wapenaar, K., Thorbecke, J., Slob, E. and Vasconcelos, I.2015b. An illustration of adaptive Marchenko imaging. The Leading Edge34, 818–822.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Verschuur, D.J.2013. Seismic Multiple Removal Techniques: Past, Present and Future. EAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Wang, M. and Hung, B.2014. 3D Inverse Scattering Series Method for Internal Multiple Attenuation. 76th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2014. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
  25. Wang, P. and Nimsaila, K.2014. Fast progressive sparse Tau‐P transform for regularization of spatially aliased seismic data. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2014. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 3589–3593.
  26. Wang, P., Ray, S., Peng, C., Li, Y. and Poole, G.2013. Premigration deghosting for marine streamer data using a bootstrap approach in Tau‐P domain. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2013. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 4221–4225.
  27. Wapenaar, K., Thorbecke, J., Van Der Neut, J., Broggini, F., Slob, E. and Snieder, R.2014. Marchenko imaging. Geophysics79, WA39–WA57.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Wapenaar, K., van der Neut, J. and Slob, E.2016. Unified double‐ and single‐sided homogeneous Green's function representations. Proceedings of Royal Society A472, 20160162.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Ware, J.A. and Aki, K.1969. Continuous and discrete inverse‐scattering problems in a stratified elastic medium. I. Plane waves at normal incidence. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America45, 911–921.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Weglein, A.B., Gasparotto, F.A., Carvalho, P.M. and Stolt, R.H.1997. An inverse‐scattering series method for attenuating multiples in seismic reflection data. Geophysics62, 1975–1989.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Wu, X. and Hung, B.2015. High‐fidelity adaptive curvelet domain primary‐multiple separation. First Break33, 53–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Zhang, L. and Staring, M.2018. Marchenko scheme based internal multiple reflection elimination in acoustic wavefield. Journal of Applied Geophysics159, 429–433.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Zhou, B. and Greenhalgh, S.A.1994. Wave‐equation extrapolation‐based multiple attenuation: 2‐D filtering in the fk domain. Geophysics59, 1377–1391.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12964
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12964
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Acoustics , Data processing and Seismics
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