1887
Volume 72, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

Deghosting is an important technique in the marine seismic industry, as it plays a crucial role in mitigating the effects of ghost reflections from the sea surface, which can significantly impact the accuracy and resolution of subsurface imaging. In recent years, various acquisition‐based techniques have been developed to tackle the challenge of removing receiver–ghost reflections, which is the focus of our paper. These state‐of‐the‐art approaches, such as dual‐sensor or multicomponent towed streamer acquisitions, have demonstrated exceptional accuracy by combining pressure and particle motion data. However, such methods face limitations when dealing with low frequencies due to heavy noise contamination in the particle motion data. Consequently, ghost‐free data reconstruction at low frequencies typically relies on processing‐based approaches, which exclusively utilize recorded pressure data. This study presents a novel deghosting method for low‐frequency applications based on parabolic dictionary learning, which relies solely on recorded pressure data. The proposed method has the advantage of being applicable directly in a compressed domain, eliminating the need for data decompression prior to the deghosting process when compression is applied before the processing steps. This not only reduces costs related to data storage and transfer but also provides a cost‐effective alternative to conventional deghosting by operating directly on the compressed data format, which is smaller in size. The effectiveness of the proposed method was evaluated using both synthetic and field datasets. The results obtained from a synthetic data example indicate that the proposed method achieves similar results to an industry‐standard frequency–wavenumber method, while achieving a compression rate of over 7. Furthermore, the method was tested using a field dataset consisting of a full sail‐line of marine seismic acquisition. The comparison of 2D pre‐stack migrated images between the proposed method and the industry‐standard frequency–wavenumber method revealed insignificant differences, while achieving a compression ratio higher than 5 when our method was used.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13475
2024-05-21
2025-11-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/gpr/72/5/gpr13475.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13475&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aharon, M., Elad, M. & Bruckstein, A. (2006) K‐SVD: an algorithm for designing overcomplete dictionaries for sparse representation. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 54, 4311–4322.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Amundsen, L. (1993) Wavenumber‐based filtering of marine point‐source data. Geophysics, 58, 1335–1348.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Amundsen, L. & Zhou, H. (2013) Low‐frequency seismic deghosting. Geophysics, 78, WA15–WA20.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Asgedom, E., Orji, O. & Söllner, W. (2007) Rough‐sea deghosting of single‐sensor seismic data using the knowledge of the sea surface shape. Journal of Seismic Exploration, 26, 105–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Aytun, K. (1999) The footsteps of the receiver ghost in the FK domain. Geophysics, 64, 1618–1626.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Beckouche, S. & Ma, J. (2014) Simultaneous dictionary learning and denoising for seismic data. Geophysics, 79, A27–A31.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bruckstein, A.M., Donoho, D.L. & Elad, M. (2009) From sparse solutions of systems of equations to sparse modeling of signals and images. SIAM Review, 51, 34–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Day, A., Klüver, T., Söllner, W., Tabti, H. & Carlson, D. (2013) Wavefield‐separation methods for dual‐sensor towed‐streamer data. Geophysics, 78, WA55–WA70.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Elad, M. (2010) Sparse and redundant representations: from theory to applications in signal and image processing, 1st edition, New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Faouzi Zizi, M.O. & Turquais, P. (2022) A dictionary learning method for seismic data compression. Geophysics, 87, V101–V116.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Faouzi Zizi, M.O., Turquais, P., Day, A., Pedersen, M.W., Gelius, L.J. (2023) Dual‐sensor wavefield separation in a compressed domain using parabolic dictionary learning. Geophysical Prospecting, 71(5), 792–810.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Ghosh, S.K. (2000) Deconvolving the ghost effect of the water surface in marine seismic. Geophysics, 65, 1831–1836.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gomez, J.L. & Velis, D.R. (2020) Footprint removal from seismic data with residual dictionary learning. Geophysics, 85, V355–V365.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Huffman, D.A. (1952) A method for construction of minimum redundancy codes. Proceedings of the IRE, 40, 1098–1101.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Klüver, T. & Day, A. (2011) Processing 3‐D dual‐sensor towed streamer data using local crossline slowness estimates [Expanded abstracts]. 81st Annual International Meeting. Houston, TX, SEG. pp. 3556–3560.
  16. Mairal, J., Bach, F., Ponce, J. & Sapiro, G. (2009) Online dictionary learning for sparse coding. 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning. New York, NY: ACM. pp. 689–696.
  17. Masoomzadeh, H. & Woodburn, N. (2013) Broadband processing of conventional streamer data—optimized de‐ghosting in the tau‐p domain [Extended abstracts]. 75th EAGE Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC. London, UK, cp‐348‐00591.
  18. Orji, O., Söllner, W. & Gelius, L.J. (2010) Imaging the sea surface using a dual‐sensor towed streamer. Geophysics, 75. V111–V118.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Pati, Y.C., Rezaiifar, R. & Krishnaprasad, P.S. (1993) Orthogonal matching pursuit: recursive function approximation with applications to wavelet decomposition. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers. New York City, IEEE. pp. 40–44.
  20. Poole, G., King, S. & Cooper, J. (2018) Recent advances in hydrophone‐only receiver deghosting [Extended abstracts]. 80th EAGE Conference and Exhibition. Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 1–5.
  21. Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T. & Flannery, B.P. (2007) Numerical recipes: the art of scientific computing, 3rd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Provenzano, G., Henstock, T.J., Bull, J.M. & Bayrakci, G. (2020) Attenuation of receiver ghosts in variable‐depth streamer high‐resolution seismic reflection data. Marine Geophysical Research, 41, 11.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Robertsson, J. & Amundsen, L. (2014) Deghosting of arbitrarily depth‐varying marine hydrophone streamer data by time‐space domain modelling [Expanded abstracts]. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts. Houston, TX, SEG. pp. 4248–4542.
  24. Robertsson, J., Moore, I., Vassallo, M., Özdemir, K., van Manen, D.‐J. & Özbek, A. (2008) On the use of multicomponent streamer recordings for reconstruction of pressure wavefields in the crossline direction. Geophysics, 73, A45–A49.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Robinson, E. & Treitel, S. (2008) Digital imaging and deconvolution: the ABCs of seismic exploration and processing. Tulsa: Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Rubinstein, R., Zibulevsky, M. & Elad, M. (2008) Efficient implementation of the K‐SVD algorithm using batch orthogonal matching pursuit. Technion report CS‐2008‐08.
  27. Söllner, W., Day, A. & Tabti, H. (2008) Space frequency domain processing of irregular dual‐sensor towed streamer data. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, vol. 27. Houston, TX, SEG. pp. 1078–1083.
  28. Soubaras, R. (2013) Optimization of the streamer shape in variable‐depth streamer acquisitions. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts. Houston, TX, SEG. pp. 77–81.
  29. Tabti, D., Day, A., Schade, T., Lesnes, M. & Høy, T. (2009) Conventional versus dual‐sensor streamer data de‐ghosting: a case study from a Haltenbanken survey. First Break, 27, 101–108.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Ten Kroode, F., Bergler, S., Corsten, C., De Maag, J.W., Strijbos, F. & Tijhof, H. (2013) Broadband seismic data—the importance of low frequencies. Geophysics, 78, WA3–WA14.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Turquais, P., Asgedom, E.G. & Sollner, W. (2017) A method of combining coherence‐constrained sparse coding and dictionary learning for denoising. Geophysics, 82, V137–V148.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Turquais, P., Asgedom, E.G., Söllner, W. & Gelius, L.‐J. (2018) Parabolic dictionary learning for seismic wavefield reconstruction across the streamers. Geophysics, 83, V263–V282.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 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]
  34. Wang, Y., Ramirez, A.C. & Nag, S. (2016) A 3D deghosting solution for pressure‐only measurements of conventional towed streamer data [Extended abstracts]. 78th Annual International Conference and Exhibition. Utrecht, the Netherlands, EAGE. p. We‐SRS3‐15.
  35. Wang, Y., Ramirez, A.C. & Osen, A. (2017) A low‐frequency deghosting method: analysis and numerical tests. Geophysics, 82, V285–V296.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Zhang, Z., Masoomzadeh, H. & Wang, B. (2018) Evolution of deghosting process for single‐sensor streamer data from 2D to 3D. Geophysical Prospecting, 66, 975–986.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Zhang, Z., Wu, Z., Wang, B. & Ji, J. (2015) Time variant de‐ghosting and its applications in WAZ data. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts. Houston, TX, SEG. pp. 4600–4604.
  38. Zhang, Z., Seher, T., Baldock, S., Yang, C., Dong, S., Drewell, S. et al. (2021) 3D deghosting in shallow water for deep‐towed hydrophone‐only streamers [Expanded abstracts]. First International Meeting for Applied Geoscience & Energy. Houston, TX, SEG. pp. 2784–2788.
  39. Zhivomirov, H. (2019) Inverse short‐time Fourier transform with MATLAB. MATLAB Central File Exchange. Available at: https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fleexchange/45577‐inverse‐short‐time‐fourier‐transform‐istft‐with‐matlab
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13475
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13475
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): compression; data processing; dictionary learning; 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