1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 69, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 69, Issue 2
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Focal beam analysis has built a bridge between the acquisition parameters on the surface and the image quality of underground targets. However, as a practical matter, it is still difficult to answer how to choose a proper acquisition geometry according to the complexity of medium, especially considering the contradictory effects of multiple reflections on spatial resolution as they can be considered to be either potential signal or additional noise, depending on the envisioned imaging technology. We introduce an order‐controlled, closed‐loop focal beam method in which the migration operator and the resolution function can be analysed in the process of the closed‐loop migration with full control over the order of the surface and internal multiples considered. This method highlights the effects of primary and different‐order multiple wavefields on the imaging resolution for different acquisition geometries and various overburden strata. We apply the method to analyse the predicted resolution of seismic acquisition geometries considering multiples as either noise or signal. Results show, in the acquisition geometry design, that when the primaries cannot provide a complete spatial illumination for the subsurface target, e.g. because of the limited‐aperture acquisition geometries or the complicated overburden, we should use the closed‐loop focal beam analysis to assess the contradictory effects of multiples as both signal and noise, in which the maximum order of multiples ought to be chosen according to the core aim of the acquisition analysis. We can apply the second‐order closed‐loop focal beam analysis to quantify the effects of acquisition geometries on multiple‐wave suppression and can also perform the high‐order closed‐loop focal beam analysis to quantify the effects of acquisition geometries on high‐resolution imaging (migration). This method can also be used to choose the optimal order of multiples in the closed‐loop migration.

© 2021 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2020 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13043
2021-01-16
2024-04-26

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13043
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Berkhout, A.J. (1982) Seismic Migration, Imaging of Acoustic Energy by Wave Field Extrapolation: A. Theoretical Aspects. Elsevier Science.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Berkhout, A.J. (1997) Pushing the limits of seismic imaging, Part I: Prestack migration in terms of double dynamic focusing. Geophysics, 62, 937–953.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Berkhout, A.J. (2012) Combining full wavefield migration and full waveform inversion: a glance into the future of seismic imaging. Geophysics, 77(2), S43–S50.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Berkhout, A.J. (2014) Review paper: an outlook on the future of seismic imaging. Part II: Full‐wavefield migration. Geophysical Prospecting, 62, 931–949.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Berkhout, A.J. (2016) Utilization of multiple scattering: the next big step forward in seismic imaging. Geophysical Prospecting, 65, 106–145.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Berkhout, A.J. (2018) Closed‐loop multiple‐scattering imaging with sparse seismic measurements. Geophysical Journal International, 212, 1766–1790.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Berkhout, A.J., OngKiehong,L. , Volker,A.W.F. and Blacquiere,G. (2001) Comprehensive assessment of seismic acquisition geometry by focal beams—Part I: Theoretical considerations. Geophysics, 66(3), 911–917.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Beylkin, G. (1985) Imaging of discontinuities in the inverse scattering problem by inversion of a causal generalized Radon transform. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 26, 99–108.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Blacquiere, G., Debeye, H.W.J., Wapenaar,C.P.A. and Berkhout,A.J. (1989) 3‐D table‐driven migration. Geophysical Prospecting, 37, 925–958.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Cao, J. and Wu,R.S. (2009) Full‐wave directional illumination analysis in the frequency domain. Geophysics, 74(4), S85–S93.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen, G., Fu,L.Y., Wei,W. and Sun,W. (2017) Wavefield interpolation in 3D large‐step Fourier wavefield extrapolation. Geophysical Prospecting, 66, 311–326.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Cordsen, A., Galbraith, M. and Peirce, J. (2000) Planning Land 3‐D Seismic Surveys. SEG.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Davydenko, M. and Verschuur, D. (2016) Full‐wavefield migration: using surface and internal multiples in imaging. Geophysical Prospecting, 65, 7–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Davydenko, M. and Verschuur, D. (2018) Including and using internal multiples in closed‐loop imaging—field data example. Geophysics, 83, R297–R305.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. De Bruin, C.G.M., Wapenaar, C.P.A. and Berkhout, A.J. (1990) Angle‐dependent reflectivity by means of prestack migration. Geophysics, 55, 1223–1234.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Fu, L.Y. (2006) Comparison of different one‐way propagators for wave forward propagation in heterogeneous crustal wave guides. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 96, 1091–1113.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Gibson, R.L. and Tzimeas,C. (2002) Quantitative measures of image resolution for seismic survey design. Geophysics, 67, 1844–1852.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Huang, Y. and Schuster,G.T. (2014) Resolution limits for wave equation imaging. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 107, 137–148.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Ishiyama, T., Blacquière,G. and Mulder,W.A. (2017) The impact of surface‐wave attenuation on 3‐D seismic survey design. Geophysical Prospecting, 65, 86–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Jurick, D., CoddJ., Hoxha,F., Naumenko,J. and Kessler,D. (2003) Gulf of Suez acquisition design using 2D and 3D full‐wave equation simulation. 73rd Annual International Meeting, SEG. Expanded Abstracts, 2136–2139.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Kumar, A., Blacquière,G., Pedersen,M.W. and Goertz,A. (2016) Full‐wavefield marine survey design using all multiples. Geophysics, 81(3), P15–P26.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Kumar, A., Blacquière,G. and Verschuur,D.J. (2015). Extending illumination using all multiples: application to 3D acquisition geometry analysis. Geophysical Prospecting, 1–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Liu, Y.K., Chang,X., Jin,D.G., He,R.Q., Sun,H.C. and Zheng,Y.C. (2011) Reverse time migration of multiples for subsalt imaging. Geophysics, 76(5), Wb209–Wb216.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Lopez, G.A. and Verschuur,D.J. (2015) Closed‐loop surface‐related multiple elimination and its application to simultaneous data reconstruction. Geophysics, 80(6), V189–V199.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Lu, S., Whitmore,D.N., Valenciano,A.A. and Chemingui,N. (2015) Separated‐wavefield imaging using primary and multiple energy. The Leading Edge, 34(7), 770–772, 774–776, 778–778.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Nemeth, T., Wu,C. and Schuster,G.T. (1999) Least‐squares migration of incomplete reflection data. Geophysics, 64, 208–221.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Regone, C.J. (2006) A modeling approach to wide‐azimuth design for subsalt imaging. The Leading Edge, 25(12), 1467–1475.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Schuster, G.T., Dutta,G. and Li,J. (2017) Resolution limits of migration and linearized waveform inversion images in a lossy medium. Geophysical Journal International, 209(3), 1612–1621.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Thorbecke, J.W., Wapenaar,C.P.A. and Swinnen,G. (2004) Design of one‐way wavefield extrapolation operators, using smooth functions in WLSQ optimization. Geophysics, 69, 1037–1045.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Tu, N. and Herrmann,F.J. (2015) Fast imaging with surface‐related multiples by sparse inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 201, 304–317.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Van Veldhuizen, E.J., Blacquière,G. and Berkhout,A.J. (2008) Acquisition geometry analysis in complex 3D media. Geophysics, 73, Q43–Q58.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Vermeer, G.J.O. (1999) Factors affecting spatial resolution. Geophysics, 64(3), 942–953.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Vermeer, G.J.O. (2012) 3‐D Seismic Survey Design. SEG.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Verschuur, D.J. and Berkhout,A.J. (1994) Multiple technology. Part 1: Estimation of multiple reflections. Annual International Meeting, SEG. Expanded Abstracts, 1493–1496.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Volker, A.W.F., Blacquière,G., Berkhout,A.J. and OngKiehong,L. (2001) Comprehensive assessment of seismic acquisition geometry by focal beams—Part II: Practical aspects and examples. Geophysics, 66, 918–931.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Wapenaar, C.P.A. (1998) Short note – reciprocity properties of one‐way propagators. Geophysics, 63(5), 1795–1798.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Wapenaar, K.,Thorbecke, J. van der Neut, J., Broggini, F., Slob, E. and Snieder, R. (2014) Marchenko imaging. Geophysics, 79(3), WA39–WA57.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Wei, W. and Fu,L.Y. (2014) On horizontal resolution for seismic acquisition geometries in complex 3D media. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 108, 43–52.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Wei, W., Fu,L.Y. and Blacquière,G. (2012) Fast multi‐frequency focal beam analysis for 3D seismic acquisition geometry. Geophysics, 77(2), P11–P21.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Wu, R.S. and Chen,L. (2006) Directional illumination analysis using beamlet decomposition and propagation. Geophysics, 71, S147–S159.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Xie, X.B., Jin,S. and Wu,R.S. (2006) Wave‐equation‐based seismic illumination analysis. Geophysics, 71, S169–S177.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Yan, Z. and Xie,X.B. (2016) Full‐wave seismic illumination and resolution analyses: a Poynting‐vector‐based method. Geophysics, 81(6), S447–S458.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13043
Loading
Order‐controlled closed‐loop focal beams and resolution comparison of primary and multiple reflections for seismic acquisition geometries
Geophysical Prospecting 69, 289 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13043
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13043
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13043
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Acquisition; Imaging; Noise; Numerical study

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