1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 72, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 72, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

Abstract

The presence of the air–water interface (or free‐surface) creates two major problems in marine seismic data for conventional seismic processing and imaging: free‐surface multiples and ghost reflections. The attenuation of free‐surface multiples remains one of the most challenging noise attenuation problems in seismic data processing. Current solutions suffer from the removal of the primary events along with the multiple events especially when the primary and multiple events overlap (e.g., adaptive subtraction). The effective attenuation of ghost reflections (or ) requires acquisition‐ and/or processing‐related solutions which generally address the source‐side and receiver‐side ghosts separately. Additionally, an essential requirement for a successful implementation of free‐surface multiple attenuation and seismic dehosting is the requirement of dense seismic data acquisition parameters which is not realistic for two‐dimensional and/or three‐dimensional marine cases. We present a convolutional neural network approach for free‐surface multiple attenuation and seismic deghosting. Unlike the existing solutions, our approach operates on a single trace at a time, and neither relies on the dense acquisition parameters nor requires a subtraction process to eliminate free‐surface multiples, and it removes both the source ghost and receiver ghost simultaneously. We train a network using subsets of the Marmousi and Pluto velocity models and make predictions using subsets of the Sigsbee velocity model. We show that the convolutional neural network predictions give a correlation coefficient of 0.97 on average with the numerically modeled data for the synthetic examples. We illustrate the efficacy of our convolutional neural network–based technique using the Mobil AVO Viking Graben field data set. The application of our algorithm demonstrates that our convolutional neural network–based approach removes different orders of free‐surface multiples (e.g., first and second orders) and recovers the low‐frequency content of the seismic data (which is essential for, for instance, full‐waveform inversion applications and broadband processing) by successfully removing the ghost reflections while preserving and increasing the continuity of the primary reflection.

© 2024 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2023 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13443
2024-02-21
2025-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13443
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Almuteri, K. & Sava, P. (2021) A convolutional neural network approach for ghost removal. In: First international meeting for applied geoscience & energy expanded abstracts. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 2550–2554.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Amundsen, L. & Zhou, H. (2013) Low‐frequency seismic deghosting. Geophysics, 78, WA15–WA20.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Araújo, F.V., Weglein, A.B., Carvalho, P.M. & Stolt, R.H. (2005) Inverse scattering series for multiple attenuation: an example with surface and internal multiples. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts 1994, Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 1039–1041.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Backus, M.M. (1959) Water reverberations–their nature and elimination. Geophysics, 24, 233–261.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bishop, C.M. (2006) Pattern recognition and machine learning. Berlin: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Carlson, D.H., Long, A., Sollner, W., Tabti, H., Tenghamn, R. & Lunde, N. (2007) Increased resolution and penetration from a towed dual‐sensor streamer. First Break, 25, 71–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Das, V., Pollack, A., Wollner, U. & Mukerji, T. (2019) Convolutional neural network for seismic impedance inversion. Geophysics, 84, R869–R880.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Diebold, J.B. & Stoffa, P.L. (1981) The traveltime equation, tau‐p mapping, and inversion of common midpoint data. Geophysics, 46, 238–254.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Dix, C.H. (1948) The existence of multiple reflection. Geophysics, 13, 49–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Dondurur, D. (2018) Acquisition and processing of marine seismic data. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Dragoset, B., Verschuur, E., Moore, I. & Bisley, R. (2010) A perspective on 3D surface‐related multiple elimination. Geophysics, 75, 75A245–75A261.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Dragoset, W.H. & Jeričević, Z. (1998) Some remarks on surface multiple attenuation. Geophysics, 63, 772–789.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Ekman, M. (2021) Learning deep learning: Theory and Practice of neural networks, computer vision, NLP, and transformers using TensorFlow. Boston, MA: Addison‐Wesley Professional.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Ellsworth, T.P. (1948) Multiple reflection. Geophysics, 13, 1–18.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Fomel, S., Sava, P., Vlad, I., Liu, Y. & Bashkardin, V. (2013) Madagascar: open‐source software project for multidimensional data analysis and reproducible computational experiments. Journal of Open Research Software, 1, e8.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Géron, A. (2019) Hands‐on machine learning with Scikit‐Learn, Keras, and TensorFlow, 2nd edition. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Keys, R.G. & Foster, D.J. (1998) Comparison of seismic inversion methods on a single real data set: 1. A data set for evaluating and comparing seismic inversion methods. Tulsa, OK: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 1–12.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Kim, G.Y., Richardson, M.D., Bibee, D.L., Kim, D.C., Wilkens, R.H., Shin, S.R. & Song, S.T. (2004) Sediment types determination using acoustic techniques in the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Geosciences Journal, 8, 95–103.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Kiraz, M.S.R. (2023) Data‐driven and machine learning approaches for suppression of multiply reflected seismic waves. Ph.D. thesis. Golden, CO: Colorado School of Mines.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Kiraz, M.S.R. & Snieder, R. (2022) Marchenko focusing using convolutional neural networks. In: Second international meeting for applied geoscience & energy. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 1930–1934.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Kragh, E., Muyzert, E., Curtis, T., Svendsen, M. & Kapadia, D. (2010) Efficient broadband marine acquisition and processing for improved resolution and deep imaging. The Leading Edge, 29, 464–469.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Liner, C.L. (2016) General properties of waves. In: Elements of 3D seismology. 3rd edition. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 3–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Liu‐Rong, T., Jin‐Sheng, J., Hao‐Ran, R., Yue‐Ming, Y. & Bang‐Yu, W. (2021) The separation of seismic surface‐related multiples based on CAE‐SAGAN. In: First international meeting for applied geoscience & energy expanded abstracts. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 2914–2918.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Lumley, D.E., Nichols, D., Ecker, C., Rekdal, T. & Berlioux, A. (1998) Comparison of seismic inversion methods on a single real data set: 5. Amplitude‐preserved processing and analysis of the Mobil AVO data set. Tulsa, OK: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 75–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Madiba, G.B. & McMechan, G.A. (2003) Processing, inversion, and interpretation of a 2D seismic data set from the North Viking Graben, North Sea. Geophysics, 68, 837–848.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Mayne, W.H. (1962) Common reflection point horizontal data stacking techniques. Geophysics, 27, 927–938.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Moldoveanu, N., Combee, L., Egan, M., Hampson, G., Sydora, L. & Abriel, W. (2007) Over/under towed‐streamer acquisition: a method to extend seismic bandwidth to both higher and lower frequencies. The Leading Edge, 26, 41–58.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Ovcharenko, O., Baumstein, A. & Neumann, E. (2021) Surface‐related multiple elimination through orthogonal encoding in the latent space of convolutional autoencoder. In: First international meeting for applied geoscience & energy expanded abstracts. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 1355–1359.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Paffenholz, J., Stefani, J., McLain, B. & Bishop, K. (2002) Sigsbee_2a synthetic subsalt dataset ‐ image quality as function of migration algorithm and velocity model error. Houten, the Netherlands: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, pp. 2214–4609.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Plessix, R.‐E. (2006) A review of the adjoint‐state method for computing the gradient of a functional with geophysical applications. Geophysical Journal International, 167, 495–503.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Riley, D. & Claerbout, J. (1976) 2‐D multiple reflection. Geophysics, 41, 1942.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Siahkoohi, A., Louboutin, M., Kumar, R. & Herrmann, F.J. (2018) Deep‐convolutional neural networks in prestack seismic: two exploratory examples. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 2196–2200.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Siahkoohi, A., Verschuur, D.J. & Herrmann, F.J. (2019) Surface‐related multiple elimination with deep learning. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts, Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 4629–4634.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Soubaras, R. (2010) Deghosting by joint deconvolution of a migration and a mirror migration. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts, Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 3406–3410.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Soubaras, R. & Whiting, P. (2011) Variable depth streamer ‐ the new broadband acquisition system. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts, Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 4349–4353.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Stoughton, D., Stefani, J. & Michell, S. (2001) 2D elastic model for wavefield investigations of subsalt objectives, deep water Gulf of Mexico. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts, Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 1269–1272.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Verschuur, D.J., Berkhout, A.J. & Wapenaar, C. P.A. (1992) Adaptive surface‐related multiple elimination. Geophysics, 57, 1166–1177.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Versteeg, R. (1994) The Marmousi experience: velocity model determination on a synthetic complex data set. The Leading Edge, 13, 927–936.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Vrolijk, J.‐W. & Blacquière, G. (2021) Source deghosting of coarsely sampled common‐receiver data using a convolutional neural network. Geophysics, 86, V185–V196.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Weglein, A.B., Gasparotto, F.A., Carvalho, P.M. & Stolt, R.H. (1997) An inverse‐scattering series method for attenuating multiples in seismic reflection data. Geophysics, 62, 1975–1989.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Wu, X., Liang, L., Shi, Y. & Fomel, S. (2019) Faultseg3d: using synthetic data sets to train an end‐to‐end convolutional neural network for 3D seismic fault segmentation. Geophysics, 84, IM35–IM45.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Yilmaz, O. (2001) Seismic data analysis. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Zhang, D., de Leeuw, M. & Verschuur, E. (2021) Deep learning‐based seismic surface‐related multiple adaptive subtraction with synthetic primary labels. In: First international meeting for applied geoscience & energy expanded abstracts. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 2844–2848.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13443
Loading
Attenuating free‐surface multiples and ghost reflection from seismic data using a trace‐by‐trace convolutional neural network approach
Geophysical Prospecting 72, 908 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13443
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13443
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13443
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): attenuation; data processing; noise; seismics; 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