1887
Volume 72, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

Abstract

Recently, we established a blended‐acquisition method: temporally signatured and/or modulated and spatially dispersed source array that jointly uses various signaturing and/or modulation in the time dimension and dispersed source array in the space dimension. We acquired and processed the first pilot programme with our method onshore Abu Dhabi. In this paper, we review the resulting acquisition‐productivity enhancement in the time dimension and discuss it in the space dimension as well. We then review the deblended‐data‐reconstruction processing, followed by imaging processing, and discuss their performance and resulting data quality. We last establish a relationship between the acquisition productivity and the processing performance. We found that this method significantly enhances the acquisition productivity compared to conventional blending methods. For the processing performance, the deblended data can successfully be reconstructed from the blended data; afterwards, the subsurface sections can naturally be imaged from the deblended data. Furthermore, this method owns a relationship: The deblended‐data‐reconstruction performance increases with the acquisition time (i.e. the acquisition effort that is inversely proportional to the acquisition productivity) up to a plateau; the imaging processing improves the data quality as the flow makes progress and eventually reaches a high data quality after poststack processing, regardless of the acquisition effort.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13445
2024-02-21
2025-03-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Akama, K., Takahashi, I., Hagiwara, H. & Sultan, A. (2008) Data‐driven seismic repeatability evaluation on a carbonate reservoir offshore Abu Dhabi. 13th ADIPEC, November 3–6, N2008, Abu Dhabi, UAE (SPE‐118294‐MS).
  2. Bagaini, C., Daly, M. & Moore, I. (2012) The acquisition and processing of dithered slip‐sweep vibroseis data. Geophysical Prospecting, 60(4), 618–639.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Berkhout, A.J. (2012) Blended acquisition with dispersed source arrays. Geophysics, 77(4), A19–A23.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bouska, J. (2010) Distance separated simultaneous sweeping, for fast, clean, vibroseis acquisition. Geophysical Prospecting, 58(1), 123–153.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Caporal, M., Blacquiere, G. & Davydenko, M. (2016) 3D seismic acquisition with decentralized dispersed source arrays. 86th SEG Annual Meeting Technical Program Expanded Abstracts. Houston, TX, SEG. pp. 240–244.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dean, T. (2014) The use of pseudorandom sweeps for vibroseis surveys. Geophysical Prospecting, 62(1), 50–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Detomo, R. (2012) 4D time‐lapse seismic reservoir monitoring of African reservoirs. Houston, TX: SEG Honorary Lectures.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Herrmann, F. (2010) Randomized sampling and sparsity: getting more information from fewer samples. Geophysics, 75(6), WB173–WB187.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Howe, D., Foster, M., Allen, T., Taylor, B. & Jack, I. (2008) Independent simultaneous sweeping—a method to increase the productivity of land seismic crews. 78th SEG Annual Meeting Technical Program Expanded Abstracts. Houston, TX, SEG. pp. 2826–2830.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Ishiyama, T., Painter, D. & Belaid, K. (2010) 3D OBC seismic survey parameters optimization offshore Abu Dhabi. First Break, 28(11), 39–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Ishiyama, T., Ali, M., Ishikawa, S., Blacquiere, G. & Nakayama, S. (2019) Research note: deblended‐data reconstruction using generalized blending and deblending models. Geophysical Prospecting, 67(7), 1852–1866.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Ishiyama, T. (2022) Method and system for seismic acquisition using a dispersed source array and spectrally non‐overlapping sources, United States patent US11262466B2.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Ishiyama, T. (2023) Blended acquisition with temporally signatured/modulated and spatially dispersed source array: concept and method. Geophysical Prospecting, Online published. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13428
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kragh, E. & Christie, P. (2002) Seismic repeatability, normalized RMS, and predictability. The Leading Edge, 21(7), 640–647.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Li, P., Song, J., Zhang, S., Wang, W., Sun, P. & Ma, Y. (2019) Deblending by sparse inversion: case study on land data from Oman. 89th SEG Annual Meeting Technical Program Expanded Abstracts. San Antonio, TX, SEG. pp. 97–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Mosher, C., Li, C., Morley, L., Ji, Y., Janiszewski, F., Olson, R. & Brewer, J. (2014) Increasing the efficiency of seismic data acquisition via compressive sensing. The Leading Edge, 33(4), 386–391.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Takanashi, M., Kato, A., Kasahara, J. & Hasada, Y. (2014) Time‐lapse data acquisition of passive seismic and active seismic at the same time. 17th ADIPEC, November 10–13, 2014, Abu Dhabi, UAE (SPE‐171908‐MS).
  18. Takanashi, M., Nakamura, Y., Nakatsukasa, M. & Sakakibara, J. (2016) Crosstalk‐free simultaneous acquisition by arbitrary sweeps with amplitude modulation. 78th EAGE Conference & Exhibition Extended Abstracts, Utrecht, the Netherlands, EAGE. pp. 1–5.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13445
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13445
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): acquisition; blending; deblending; dispersed source array; modulation

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