1887
Volume 72, Issue 9
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

Time‐lapse seismic data processing is an important technique for observing subsurface changes over time. The conventional time‐lapse seismic exploration has been conducted using a large‐scale exploration system. However, for efficient monitoring of shallow subsurface, time‐lapse monitoring based on the small‐scale exploration system is required. Small‐scale exploration system using a sparker source offers high vertical resolution and cost efficiency, but it faces challenges, such as inconsistent waveforms of sparker sources, inaccurate positioning information and a low signal‐to‐noise ratio. Therefore, this study proposes a data processing workflow to preserve the signal and enhance the repeatability of small‐scale time‐lapse seismic data acquired using a sparker source. The proposed workflow has three stages: pre‐stack, post‐stack and machine learning–based data processing. Conventional seismic data processing methods were applied to enhance the quality of the sparker seismic data during the pre‐stack data processing stage. In the post‐stack processing stage, the positions and energy correction were performed, and the machine learning–based data processing stage attenuated random noise and applied a matched filter. The data processing was performed using only the seismic signals recorded near the seafloor, and the results confirmed the improvement in the repeatability of the entire seismic profile, including that of the target area. According to the repeatability quantification results, the predictability increased and the normalized root mean square decreased during data processing, indicating improved repeatability. In particular, the repeatability of the data was greatly improved through vertical correction, energy correction and matched filtering approaches. The processing results demonstrate that the data processing method proposed in this study can effectively enhance the repeatability of high‐resolution time‐lapse seismic data. Consequently, this approach could contribute to a more accurate understanding of temporal changes in subsurface structure and material properties.

© 2024 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2024 The Author(s). Geophysical Prospecting published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13600
2024-10-11
2026-02-06

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13600
    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/72/9/gpr13600.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13600&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Alali, A., Kazei, V., Altaf, B., Zhang, X. & Alkalifah, T. (2020) Time‐lapse cross‐equalization by deep learning. In: 82nd EAGE annual conference & exhibition. Utrecht, the Netherlands, EAGE, pp. 1–5.
  2. Alali, A., Kazei, V., Sun, B. & Alkhalifah, T. (2022) Time‐lapse data matching using a recurrent neural network approach. Geophysics, 87(5), V405–V417.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Almutlaq, M.H. & Margrave, G.F. (2013) Surface‐consistent matching filters for time‐lapse seismic processing. Geophysics, 78(5), M29–M41.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Baytok, S., Selek, B. & Özdemir, H. (2017) Cross‐equalization and prestack seismic inversion of time‐lapse land seismic data, Central Thrace Basin, Turkey. The Leading Edge, 36(7), 588–597.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bertrand, A. & MacBeth, C. (2005) Repeatability enhancement in deep‐water permanent seismic installations: a dynamic correction for seawater velocity variations. Geophysical Prospecting, 53(2), 229–242.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Cho, Y. & Jun, H. (2021) Estimation and uncertainty analysis of the CO2 storage volume in the Sleipner field via 4D reversible‐jump Markov‐chain Monte Carlo. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 200, 108333.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Dondurur, D. (2018) Acquisition and processing of marine seismic data. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Duchesne, M.J., Bellefleur, G., Galbraith, M., Kolesar, R. & Kuzmiski, R. (2007) Strategies for waveform processing in sparker data. Marine Geophysical Researches, 28, 153–164.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S. & Sun, J. (2016) Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 27–30 June 2016, Las Vegas, NV, USA. New York City, IEEE. pp. 770–778.
  10. Helgerud, M.B., Tiwari, U., Woods, S., Homonko, P., Bucki, A., Laugier, B. et al. (2011) Optimizing seismic repeatability at Ringhorne, Ringhorne East, Balder and Forseti with QC driven time‐lapse processing. In: SEG international exposition and annual meeting, SEG‐2011. Houston, TX, SEG. pp. 4180–4184.
  11. Hoeber, H., Butt, S., Davies, D., Campbell, S. & Ricketts, T. (2005) Improved 4D seismic processing: Foinaven case study. In: SEG International Exposition and Annual Meeting, SEG‐2005. Houston, TX, SEG. pp. 2414–2417.
  12. Isaenkov, R., Pevzner, R., Glubokovskikh, S., Yavuz, S., Shashkin, P., Yurikov, A. et al. (2022) Advanced time‐lapse processing of continuous DAS VSP data for plume evolution monitoring: stage 3 of the CO2CRC Otway project case study. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 119, 103716.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Jun, H. & Cho, Y. (2022) Repeatability enhancement of time‐lapse seismic data via a convolutional autoencoder. Geophysical Journal International, 228(2), 1150–1170.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Jun, H., Jou, H.T., Kim, C.H., Lee, S.H. & Kim, H.J. (2020) Random noise attenuation of sparker seismic oceanography data with machine learning. Ocean Science, 16(6), 1367–1383.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Jun, H., Kim, C.‐H. & Kim, H.‐J. (2021) Machine‐learning based noise attenuation of field seismic data using noise data acquisition. Journal of the Korean Society of Mineral and Energy Resources Engineers, 58(5), 408–417.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Jun, H. & Kim, H.J. (2024) Loss functions in machine learning for seismic random noise attenuation. Geophysical Prospecting, 72(3), 978–995.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Jun, H., Shin, J. & Shin, C. (2018) Application of full waveform inversion algorithms to seismic data lacking low‐frequency information from a simple starting model. Exploration Geophysics, 49(4), 434–449.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Kim, Y.J., Koo, N.H., Riedel, M., Namgoong, H., Lee, J.M., Cheong, S. et al. (2017) A case study on swell correction of Chirp sub‐bottom profiler (SBP) data using multi‐beam echo sounder (MBES) data. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 145, 100–110.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Kim, Y., Hardisty, R. & Marfurt, K.J. (2019) Seismic random noise attenuation in f‐x domain using complex‐valued residual convolutional neural network. In: SEG technical program expanded abstracts 2019. Houston, TX, SEG. pp. 2579–2583.
  20. Kluesner, J., Brothers, D., Hart, P., Miller, N. & Hatcher, G. (2019) Practical approaches to maximizing the resolution of sparker seismic reflection data. Marine Geophysical Research, 40(3), 279–301.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Kragh, E.D. & Christie, P. (2002) Seismic repeatability, normalized rms, and predictability. Leading Edge, 21(7), 640–647.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Liu, D., Wang, W., Chen, W., Wang, X., Zhou, Y. & Shi, Z. (2018) Random noise suppression in seismic data: what can deep learning do? In SEG international exposition and annual meeting, SEG‐2018. Houston, TX, SEG. pp. 2016–2020.
  23. Liu, B., Yue, J., Zuo, Z., Xu, X., Fu, C., Yang, S. et al. (2021) Unsupervised deep learning for random noise attenuation of seismic data. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 19, 1–5.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Mougenot, D. (2018) Marine, seabed, and land seismic equipment for broadband acquisition: a review. Geophysical Prospecting, 66(5), 922–933.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Mitra, P.P. (2024) 4D seismic for reservoir management. In: Developments in structural geology and tectonics, vol. 6. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier, pp. 285–326.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Nasser, M., Ronen, S. & Stammeijer, J. (2016) Introduction to this special section: 4D seismic. The Leading Edge, 35(10), 828–830.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Nguyen, P.K., Nam, M.J. & Park, C. (2015) A review on time‐lapse seismic data processing and interpretation. Geosciences Journal, 19(2), 375–392.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Pevzner, R., Shulakova, V., Kepic, A. & Urosevic, M. (2011) Repeatability analysis of land time‐lapse seismic data: CO2CRC Otway pilot project case study. Geophysical Prospecting, 59(1), 66–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Queißer, M. & Singh, S.C. (2013) Full waveform inversion in the time lapse mode applied to CO2 storage at Sleipner. Geophysical Prospecting, 61(3), 537–555.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Rickett, J.E. & Lumley, D.E. (2001) Cross‐equalization data processing for time‐lapse seismic reservoir monitoring: a case study from the Gulf of Mexico. Geophysics, 66(4), 1015–1025.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Roach, L.A., White, D.J. & Roberts, B. (2015) Assessment of 4D seismic repeatability and CO2 detection limits using a sparse permanent land array at the Aquistore CO2 storage site. Geophysics, 80(2), WA1–WA13.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P. & Brox, T. (2015) U‐Net: convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In: International conference on medical image computing and computer‐assisted intervention. Cham, Springer, pp. 234–241.
  33. Røste, T., Landrø, M. & Hatchell, P. (2007) Monitoring overburden layer changes and fault movements from time‐lapse seismic data on the Valhall Field. Geophysical Journal International, 170(3), 1100–1118.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Si, X. & Yuan, Y. (2018) Random noise attenuation based on residual learning of deep convolutional neural network. In: SEG international exposition and annual meeting, SEG‐2018. Houston, TX, SEG. pp. 1986–1990.
  35. Um, E.S., Alumbaugh, D., Lin, Y. & Feng, S. (2022) Real‐time deep‐learning inversion of seismic full waveform data for CO2 saturation and uncertainty in geological carbon storage monitoring. Geophysical Prospecting, 72(1), 199–212.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Waage, M., Bünz, S., Landrø, M., Plaza‐Faverola, A. & Waghorn, K.A. (2019) Repeatability of high‐resolution 3D seismic data. Geophysics, 84(1), B75–B94.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Yang, Z., Wang, X., Hao, X., Qian, H. & Chen, X. (2022) Research on combined processing techniques of air gun and sparker source towed streamer seismic data. Marine Geophysical Research, 43(2), 18.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Yilmaz, Ö. (2001) Seismic data analysis: processing, inversion, and interpretation of seismic data. Houston, TX: Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Yuan, C., Zhang, X., Jia, X. & Zhang, J. (2020) Time‐lapse velocity imaging via deep learning. Geophysical Journal International, 220(2), 1228–1241.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Zhang, K., Zuo, W., Chen, Y., Meng, D. & Zhang, L. (2017) Beyond a Gaussian denoiser: residual learning of deep CNN for image denoising. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 26(7), 3142–3155.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Zheng, Y., Yuan, Y. & Si, X. (2020) The improved DnCNN for linear noise attenuation. In: SEG 2019 workshop: mathematical geophysics: traditional vs learning. Global meeting abstracts, Beijing, China. Houston, TX, SEG. pp. 56–59.
  42. Zhu, D., Fu, L., Kazei, V. & Li, W. (2023) Diffusion model for DAS‐VSP data denoising. Sensors, 23(20), 8619.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13600
Loading
Cross‐equalization for time‐lapse sparker seismic data
Geophysical Prospecting 72, 3258 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13600
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13600
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13600
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): data processing; monitoring; seismics; time lapse

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