1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 54, Issue 6
  5. Article
Volume 54, Issue 6
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

In the case of onshore data sets, the acquired reflection events can be strongly impaired due to rough top‐surface topography and inhomogeneities in the uppermost low‐velocity layer, the so‐called weathering layer. Without accounting for these influences, the poor data quality will make data processing very difficult.

Usually, the correction for the top‐surface topography is not perfect. The residuals from this correction and the influence of the weathering layers lead to small distortions along the reflection events. We integrated a residual static correction method into our data‐driven common‐reflection‐surface‐stack‐based imaging workflow to further eliminate such distortions. The moveout‐corrected traces and the stacked pilot trace are cross‐correlated to determine a final estimate of the surface‐consistent residual statics in an iterative manner.

As the handling of top‐surface topography within the common‐reflection‐surface stack is discussed in a separate paper in this special issue, the corresponding residual static correction will be explained in more detail. For this purpose, the results obtained with a data set from the Arabian Peninsula will be presented.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2005.00562.x
2006-11-02
2024-04-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2005.00562.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. ChiraP., TygelM., ZhangY. and HubralP.2001. Analytic CRS stack formula for a 2D curved measurement surface and finite‐offset reflections. Journal of Seismic Exploration10, 245–262.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. CoxM. J. G.1999. Static Corrections for Seismic Reflection Surveys . Society of Exploration Geophysicists , Tulsa , USA .
    [Google Scholar]
  3. DuveneckE.2004. Tomographic Determination of Seismic Velocity Models with Kinematic Wavefield Attributes . Logos Verlag, Berlin .
    [Google Scholar]
  4. HeilmannZ.2003. Extensions of the common‐reflection‐surface stack considering the surface topography and the near‐surface velocity gradient. 8th International Congress, Soc. Bras. Geofísica (SBGf) , Rio de Janeiro , Extended Abstracts,
  5. HeilmannZ., MannJ. and KoglinI.2006. CRS‐stack‐based seismic imaging considering top‐surface topography. Geophysical Prospecting54,
     [Google Scholar]
  6. HubralP. and KreyT.1980. Interval Velocities from Seismic Reflection Traveltime Measurements . Society of Exploration Geophysicists , Tulsa , USA .
    [Google Scholar]
  7. JägerC.2005. Minimum‐Aperture Kirchhoff Migration with CRS Stack Attributes . Logos Verlag, Berlin .
    [Google Scholar]
  8. KoglinI.2005. Estimation of Residual Static Time Shifts by means of the CRS‐based Residual Static Correction Approach . Logos Verlag, Berlin .
    [Google Scholar]
  9. KoglinI. and EwigE.2003a. Residual static correction by means of CRS attributes. 73rd SEG Meeting, Dallas , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 1889–1892.
  10. KoglinI. and EwigE.2003b. Residual static correction by means of kinematic wavefield attributes. 65th EAGE Conference, Stavanger , Norway , Extended Abstracts, D18.
  11. MannJ.2002. Extensions and Applications of the Common‐Reflection‐Surface Stack Method . Logos Verlag, Berlin .
    [Google Scholar]
  12. MannJ. and DuveneckE.2004. Event‐consistent smoothing in generalized high‐density velocity analysis. 74th SEG Meeting, Denver , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 2176–2179.
  13. MannJ., DuveneckE., HertweckT. and JägerC.2003. A seismic reflection imaging workflow based on the common‐reflection‐surface stack. Journal of Seismic Exploration12, 283–295.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. MarsdenD.1993a. Static corrections–a review: Part I. The Leading Edge12, 43–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. MarsdenD.1993b. Static corrections–a review: Part II. The Leading Edge12, 115–120.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. MarsdenD.1993c. Static corrections–a review: Part III. The Leading Edge12, 210–216.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. NeidellN. S. and TanerM. T.1971. Semblance and other coherency measures for multichannel data. Geophysics36, 482–497.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. RonenJ. and ClaerboutJ. F.1985. Surface‐consistent residual statics estimation by stack‐power maximization. Geophysics50, 2759–2767.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Von StehtM., HeilmannZ., KlüverT. and SpinnerM.2005. CRS‐stack‐based seismic imaging considering top‐surface topography. 67th EAGE conference, Madrid , Spain , Extended Abstracts,P012.
  20. TanerM. T., KoehlerF. and AlhilaliK. A.1974. Estimation and correction of near‐surface time anomalies. Geophysics39, 441–463.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. TrappeH., GierseG. and PruessmannJ.2001. Case studies show potential of common reflection surface stack – structural resolution in the time domain beyond the conventional NMO/DMO stack. First Break19, 625–633.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. WigginsR. A., LarnerK. L. and WisecupR. D.1976. Residual static analysis as a general linear inverse problem. Geophysics41, 922–938.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. ZhangY.2003. Common‐Reflection‐Surface Stack and the Handling of Top Surface Topography . Logos Verlag, Berlin .
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2005.00562.x
Loading
CRS‐stack‐based residual static correction
Geophysical Prospecting 54, 697 (2006); https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2005.00562.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2005.00562.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2005.00562.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