1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 69, Issue 8
  5. Article
Volume 69, Issue 8-9
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478
PDF

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Seismic data are traditionally acquired based on spatial sampling requirements, noise properties and budgetary constraints. However, designing a survey without taking into account the complexity of the subsurface may result in an image without the expected quality. Also, the subsequent preprocessing and processing steps may exploit or misuse the acquired data. The design should therefore incorporate the complexity of the subsurface and the (pre)processing steps that will be followed. We propose an analysis method that evaluates if the proposed combination of survey design, preprocessing and processing for a specific subsurface model fulfils a pre‐defined quality criterion. With our method, we estimate a set of point‐spread functions that correspond to the chosen combination, and we analyse their resolution and illumination‐detection properties in the spatial and wavenumber domains, respectively. The estimated point‐spread functions include the scattering and propagation effects generated by the subsurface, including internal multiples. We show that in some cases, the use of internal multiples in imaging can improve amplitude and resolution compared with the use of primaries only. The proposed analysis method is also used to evaluate the effect of blending noise when blended acquisition is carried out.

© 2021 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2021 The Authors. Geophysical Prospecting published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13128
2021-10-08
2024-04-16

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13128
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/gpr/69/8-9/gpr13128.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13128&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Beasley, C.J., Chambers, R.E. and Jiang, Z. (1998) A new look at simultaneous sources. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, pp. 133–135.
  2. Berkhout, A.J.G. (2014) Review Paper: An outlook on the future of seismic imaging, Part I: forward and reverse modelling. Geophysical Prospecting, 62 (5), 911–930. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12161.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Berkhout, A.J. (1982) Seismic Migration, Imaging of Acoustic Energy by Wave Field Extrapolation, A. Theoretical Aspects. Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Berkhout, A.J. (1984) Seismic Resolution: A Quantitative Analysis of Resolving Power of Acoustical Echo Techniques. London/Amsterdam:Geophysical Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Berkhout, A.J., Blacquière, G. and Verschuur, E. (2008) From simultaneous shooting to blended acquisition. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 27(1), 2831–2838. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3063933.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Berkhout, A. J., Ongkiehong, L., Volker, A.W.F. and Blacquière, G. (2001) Comprehensive assessment of seismic acquisition geometries by focal beams—Part I: Theoretical considerations. Geophysics, 66 (3), 911–917. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444981.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Beylkin, G. (1985) Imaging of discontinuities in the inverse scattering problem by inversion of a causal generalized Radon transform. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 26(1), 99–108.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bouska, J. (2010) Distance separated simultaneous sweeping, for fast, clean, vibroseis acquisition. Geophysical Prospecting, 58(1), 123–153.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, M.P., Guitton, Antoine (2005) Least‐squares joint imaging of multiples and primaries. Geophysics, 70 (5), S79–S89. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2052471.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Davydenko, M. (2016) Full Wavefield Migration: Seismic Imaging Using Multiple Scattering Effects, PhD Thesis, Delft University of Technology. https://doi.org/10.4233/uuid:1cda75d5-8998-49fe-997e-b38c9b7f8b8b
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Kumar, A. (2015) 3‐D seismic acquisition geometry design and analysis, PhD Thesis, Technische Universiteit Delft. https://doi.org/10.4233/uuid:392ff377-0133-473c-9796-32ce61535aca
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Lecomte, I. (2008) Resolution and illumination analyses in PSDM: a ray‐based approach. The Leading Edge, 27(5), 650–663.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Mahdad, A., Doulgeris, P. and Blacquiere, G. (2011) Separation of blended data by iterative estimation and subtraction of blending interference noise. Geophysics, 76 (3), Q9–Q17. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3556597.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Malcolm, A.E., Ursin, B., de Hoop and M.V. (2009) Seismic imaging and illumination with internal multiples. Geophysical Journal International, 176 (3), 847–864. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246x.2008.03992.x.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Singh, S., Snieder, R., Behura, J., van der Neut, J., Wapenaar, K. and Slob, E. (2015) Marchenko imaging: Imaging with primaries, internal multiples, and free‐surface multiples. Geophysics, 80 (5), S165–S174. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2014-0494.1.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Singh, S., Snieder, R., van der Neut, J., Thorbecke, J., Slob, E. and Wapenaar, K. (2017) Accounting for free‐surface multiples in Marchenko imaging. Geophysics, 82 (1), R19–R30. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2015-0646.1.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Staal, X. (2015) Combined imaging and velocity estimation by Joint Migration Inversion, PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Delft. https://doi.org/10.4233/uuid:f9cfa765-dac4-4954-9b6b-01b8c7345018
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Tu, N. and Herrmann, F.J. (2015) Fast imaging with surface‐related multiples by sparse inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 201 (1), 304–317. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggv020.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. van Veldhuizen, E.J., Blacquière, G. and Berkhout, A.J. (2008) Acquisition geometry analysis in complex 3D media. Geophysics, 73 (5), Q43–Q58. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2972029.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Vermeer, G.J.O. (1999) Factors affecting spatial resolution. Geophysics, 64 (3), 942–953. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444602.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Vermeer, G.J.O. (2012) 3D Seismic Survey Design, number 2 in Geophysical References Series, 2nd ed. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. von Seggern, D. (1991) Spatial resolution of acoustic imaging with the Born approximation. Geophysics, 56 (8), 1185–1202. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1443139.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Wapenaar, K., Thorbecke, J., van der Neut, J., Broggini, F., Slob, E. and Snieder, R. (2014) Marchenko imaging. Geophysics, 79 (3), WA39–WA57. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2013-0302.1.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Zhang, D. and Schuster, G.T. (2014) Least‐squares reverse time migration of multiples. Geophysics, 79 (1), S11–S21. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2013-0156.1.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13128
Loading
Acquisition geometry analysis with point‐spread functions
Geophysical Prospecting 69, 1606 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13128
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13128
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13128
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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