1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 52, Issue 6
  5. Article
Volume 52, Issue 6
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The common focal point (CFP) method and the common reflection surface (CRS) stack method are compared. The CRS method is a fast, highly automated procedure that provides high S/N ratio simulation of zero‐offset (ZO) images by combining, per image point, the reflection energy of an arc segment that is tangential to the reflector. It uses smooth parametrized two‐way stacking operators, based on a data‐driven triplet of attributes in 2D (eight parameters in 3D). As a spin‐off, the attributes can be used for several applications, such as the determination of the geometrical spreading factor, multiple prediction, and tomographic inversion into a smooth background velocity model. The CFP method aims at decomposing two‐way seismic reflection data into two full‐aperture one‐way propagation operators. By applying an iterative updating procedure in a half‐migrated domain, it provides non‐smooth focusing operators for prestack imaging using only the energy from one focal point at the reflector. The data‐driven operators inhibit all propagation effects of the overburden. The CFP method provides several spin‐offs, amongst which is the CFP matrix related to one focal point, which displays the reflection amplitudes as measured at the surface for each source–receiver pair. The CFP matrix can be used to determine the specular reflection source–receiver pairs and the Fresnel zone at the surface for reflection in one single focal point. Other spin‐offs are the prediction of internal multiples, the determination of reflectivity effects, velocity‐independent redatuming and tomographic inversion to obtain a velocity–depth model. The CFP method is less fast and less automated than the CRS method. From a pointwise comparison of features it is concluded that one method is not a subset of the other, but that both methods can be regarded as being to some extent complementary.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00451.x
2004-11-02
2024-04-29

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00451.x
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Van BarneveldI.B.1998. Multivalued focusing operators . Master's thesis, Delft University of Technology, Laboratory for Acoustic Imaging and Sound Control .
  2. BerglerS., HöchtG., ZhangY. and HubralP.2001. Common‐reflection surface stack for common offset: Practical aspects. 63rd EAGE conference, Amsterdam , The Netherlands , Extended Abstracts, P076.
  3. BerkhoutA.J.1992. Areal shot record technology. Journal of Seismic Exploration1, 251–264.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BerkhoutA.J.1997a. Pushing the limits of seismic imaging, Part I: Prestack migration in terms of double dynamic focusing. Geophysics62, 937–953.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BerkhoutA.J.1997b. Pushing the limits of seismic imaging, Part II: Integration of prestack migration, velocity estimation and AVO analysis. Geophysics62, 954–969.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BerkhoutA.J.1999. Multiple removal based on the feedback model. The Leading Edge18, 127–131.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. BerkhoutA.J. and VerschuurD.J.2000. CFP‐approach to multicomponent imaging. 70th SEG meeting, Calgary , Canada , Expanded Abstracts, 774–777.
  8. BerkhoutA.J. and VerschuurD.J.2001. Seismic imaging beyond depth migration. Geophysics66, 1895–1912.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. BolteJ.F.B.2003. Estimation of focusing operators using the Common Focal Point method . PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology .
  10. BolteJ.F.B., PreinR.J., VerschuurD.J., ThorbeckeJ.W. and WinthaegenP.L.A.2000. Volume visualization and automatic tracking in CFP‐related processing. 70th SEG meeting, Calgary , Canada , Expanded Abstracts, 529–532.
  11. BolteJ.F.B. and VerschuurD.J.2000. Use of the focal point matrix for CFP operator travel time estimation. 70th SEG meeting, Calgary , Canada , Expanded Abstracts, 770–773.
  12. BolteJ.F.B. and VerschuurD.J.2001. Applications of the 3D Common Focal Point matrix in pre‐stack data analysis for migration aperture and acquisition design. 63rd EAGE conference, Amsterdam , The Netherlands , Extended Abstracts, P164.
  13. BolteJ.F.B., VerschuurD.J. and HeggeR.F.1999. CFP operator estimation and inversion demonstrated on a field data set – Part I: operator updating. 69th SEG meeting, Houston , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 1711–1714.
  14. BortfeldR.1989. Geometrical ray theory: Rays and traveltimes in seismic systems (second‐order) approximations of the traveltimes. Geophysics54, 342–349.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. CoxB.E.2001. Tomographic inversion of focusing operators. 63rd EAGE conference, Amsterdam , The Netherlands , Extended Abstracts, A023.
  16. CoxB.E.2004. Tomographic inversion of focusing operators . PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology .
  17. CoxB.E. and VerschuurD.J.2001. Data‐driven tomographic inversion of focusing operators. 71st SEG meeting, San Antonio , Texas , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 722–725.
  18. CruzJ.C.R., HubralP., TygelM. and SchleicherJ.2000. The common reflecting element (CRE) method revisited. Geophysics65, 979–993.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. DuveneckE.2004. Velocity model estimation with data‐derived wavefront attributes. Geophysics69, 265–274.DOI: 10.1190/1.1649394
     [Google Scholar]
  20. GelchinskyB.1988. The common‐reflecting element (CRE) method (non‐uniform asymmetric multifold system). Exploration Geophysics19, 71–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. GelchinskyB., BerkovitchA. and KeydarS.1999a. Multifocusing homeomorphic imaging, Part 1. Basic concepts and formulas. Journal of Applied Geophysics42, 229–242.DOI: 10.1016/S0926-9851(99)00038-5
     [Google Scholar]
  22. GelchinskyB., BerkovitchA. and KeydarS.1999b. Multifocusing homeomorphic imaging, Part 2. Multifold data set and multifocusing. Journal of Applied Geophysics42, 243–260.DOI: 10.1016/S0926-9851(99)00039-7
     [Google Scholar]
  23. GelchinskyB. and KeydarS.1999. Homeomorphic imaging approach – theory and practice. Journal of Applied Geophysics42, 169–228.DOI: 10.1016/S0926-9851(99)00037-3
     [Google Scholar]
  24. HeggeR.F.2000. Seismic macro model estimation by inversion of focusing operators . PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology .
  25. HindriksC.O.H. and VerschuurD.J.2001. Common focus point approach to complex near surface effects. 71st SEG meeting, San Antonio , Texas , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 1863–1866.
  26. HöchtG., De BazelaireE., MajerP. and HubralP.1999. Seismics and optics: Hyperbolae and curvatures. Journal of Applied Geophysics42, 261–268.DOI: 10.1016/S0926-9851(99)00040-3
     [Google Scholar]
  27. HubralP.1983. Computing true amplitude reflections in a laterally inhomogeneous earth. Geophysics48, 1051–1062.DOI: 10.1190/1.1441528
     [Google Scholar]
  28. HubralP.
    (ed.) 1999. Macro‐model‐independent reflection imaging. Journal of Applied Geophysics42 (Special Issue).
     [Google Scholar]
  29. HubralP., SchleicherJ., TygelM. and HanitzschC.1993. Determination of Fresnel zones from traveltime measurements. Geophysics58, 703–712.DOI: 10.1190/1.1443454
     [Google Scholar]
  30. KelamisP.G., EricksonK.E., VerschuurD.J. and BerkhoutA.J.2002. Velocity‐independent redatuming: A new approach to the near‐surface problem in land seismic data processing. The Leading Edge21, 730–735.DOI: 10.1190/1.1503185
     [Google Scholar]
  31. KelamisP.G., VerschuurD.J., BerkhoutA.J. and EricksonK.E.1999. Velocity‐independent datuming of seismic data. 69th SEG meeting, Houston , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 441–444.
  32. MannJ., HubralP., TraubB., GerstA. and MeyerH.2000. Macro‐model independent approximative prestack time migration. 62nd EAGE conference, Glasgow , Scotland , Extended Abstracts, B52.
  33. MüllerT.1999. The common reflection surface stack method . PhD thesis, Universität Karlsruhe .
  34. PerroudH., HubralP. and HöchtG.1999. Common‐reflection‐point stacking in laterally inhomogeneous media. Geophysical Prospecting47, 1–24.DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2478.1999.00119.x
     [Google Scholar]
  35. RietveldW.E.A.1995. Controlled illumination in prestack seismic migration . PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology .
  36. RietveldW.E.A., BerkhoutA.J. and WapenaarC.P.A.1992. Optimum seismic illumination of hydrocarbon reservoirs. Geophysics57, 1334–1345.DOI: 10.1190/1.1443200
     [Google Scholar]
  37. SchleicherJ., HubralP., TygelM. and JayaM.S.1997. Minimum apertures and Fresnel zones in migration and demigration. Geophysics62, 183–194.DOI: 10.1190/1.1444118
     [Google Scholar]
  38. SchleicherJ., TygelM. and HubralP.1993. Parabolic and hyperbolic paraxial two‐point traveltimes in 3D media. Geophysical Prospecting41, 459–513.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. ThorbeckeJ.W.1997. Common focus point technology . PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology .
  40. TygelM., MüllerT., HubralP. and SchleicherJ.1997. Eigenwave based multiparameter traveltime expansions. 67th SEG meeting, Dallas , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 1770–1773.
  41. VerschuurD.J. and BerkhoutA.J.2000. CFP‐approach to internal multiple removal: Field data examples. 70th SEG meeting, Calgary , Canada , Expanded Abstracts, 782–785.
  42. VerschuurD.J., WinthaegenP.L.A. and BerkhoutA.J.2002. Estimation of P‐wave and S‐wave focusing operators using the CFP technology. 64th EAGE conference, Florence , Italy , Extended Abstracts, F32.
  43. ViethK.U.2001. Kinematic wavefield attributes in seismic imaging . PhD thesis, Universität Karlsruhe .
  44. WapenaarC.P.A., FokkemaJ.T. and ThorbeckeJ.W.1997. Inverse wavefield extrapolation revisited: Limitations of single‐ and multi‐valued operators. 67th SEG meeting, Dallas , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 1509–1512.
  45. Van WijngaardenA.J.1998. Imaging and characterization of angle‐dependent seismic reflection data . PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology .
  46. WinthaegenP.L.A. and VerschuurD.J.2002. Using the CFP‐methodology for PP and PS angle dependent reflectivity analysis. 72nd SEG meeting, Salt Lake City , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 265–268.
  47. ZaskeJ.2000. Identification and attenuation of multiple reflections using wavefront characteristics . PhD thesis, Universität Karlsruhe .
  48. ZhangY., BerglerS. and HubralP.2001a. Common‐reflection‐surface (CRS) stack for common offset. Geophysical Prospecting49, 709–718.DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2478.2001.00292.x
     [Google Scholar]
  49. ZhangY., BerglerS. and HubralP.2001b. Common‐reflection surface stack for common offset: Theoretical aspects. 63rd EAGE conference, Amsterdam , The Netherlands , Extended Abstracts, P078.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00451.x
Loading
The common focal point and common reflection surface methodologies: subsets or complements?
Geophysical Prospecting 52, 523 (2004); https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00451.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00451.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00451.x
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

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