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 this case study we consider the seismic processing of a challenging land data set from the Arabian Peninsula. It suffers from rough top‐surface topography, a strongly varying weathering layer, and complex near‐surface geology. We aim at establishing a new seismic imaging workflow, well‐suited to these specific problems of land data processing. This workflow is based on the common‐reflection‐surface stack for topography, a generalized high‐density velocity analysis and stacking process. It is applied in a non‐interactive manner and provides an entire set of physically interpretable stacking parameters that include and complement the conventional stacking velocity.

The implementation introduced combines two different approaches to topography handling to minimize the computational effort: after initial values of the stacking parameters are determined for a smoothly curved floating datum using conventional elevation statics, the final stack and also the related residual static correction are applied to the original prestack data, considering the true source and receiver elevations without the assumption of nearly vertical rays. Finally, we extrapolate all results to a chosen planar reference level using the stacking parameters. This redatuming procedure removes the influence of the rough measurement surface and provides standardized input for interpretation, tomographic velocity model determination, and post‐stack depth migration. The methodology of the residual static correction employed and the details of its application to this data example are discussed in a separate paper in this issue.

In view of the complex near‐surface conditions, the imaging workflow that is conducted, i.e. stack – residual static correction – redatuming – tomographic inversion – prestack and post‐stack depth migration, leads to a significant improvement in resolution, signal‐to‐noise ratio and reflector continuity.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2005.00565.x
2006-11-02
2024-04-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2005.00565.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. BerglerS.2001. Common‐reflection‐surface stack for common offset – theory and application . Master's thesis, Karlsruhe University .
    [Google Scholar]
  2. ČervenýV.2001. Seismic Ray Theory . Cambridge University Press, New York .
    [Google Scholar]
  3. ChiraP., TygelM., ZhangY. and HubralP.2001. Analytic CRS stack formula for a 2D curved measurement surface and finite‐offset reflections. Journal of Seismic Exploration10(1–3), 245–262.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. DuveneckE.2004. Velocity model estimation with data‐derived wavefront attributes. Geophysics69, 265–274.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. GierseG., PruessmannJ., LaggiardE., BoennemannC. and MeyerH.2003. Improved imaging of 3D marine seismic data from offshore Costa Rica with CRS processing. First Break21(12), 45–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. GurevichB., KeydarS. and LandaE.2001. Multifocusing imaging over an irregular topography. Geophysics67, 639–643.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. HeilmannZ.2002. The common‐reflection‐surface stack under consideration of the acquisition surface topography and of the near‐surface velocity gradient . Master's thesis, Karlsruhe University . http://www‐gpi.physik.uni‐karlsruhe.de/pub/wit/Downloads/diplthesis‐zheilmann.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 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 , Expanded Abstracts.
  9. HeilmannZ., MannJ., DuveneckE. and HertweckT.2004. CRS‐stack‐based seismic reflection imaging – a real data example. 66th EAGE Conference, Paris , France , Extended Abstracts, Session P211.
  10. HertweckT.2004. True‐amplitude Kirchhoff Migration: Analytical and Geometrical Considerations . Logos Verlag, Berlin .
    [Google Scholar]
  11. HertweckT., MannJ. and KlüverT.2005. Event‐consistent smoothing in the context of the CRS stack method. Journal of Seismic Exploration14(2‐3), 197–215.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. HubralP.1983. Computing true amplitude reflections in a laterally inhomogeneous earth. Geophysics48, 1051–1062.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. HubralP. (ed.) 1999. Macro‐model independent seismic reflection imaging. Journal of Applied Geophysics42(3,4), 137–348.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. HubralP. and KreyT.1980. Interval Velocities from Seismic Reflection Traveltime Measurements . Society of Exploration Geophysicists .
    [Google Scholar]
  15. HubralP., SchleicherJ., TygelM. and HanitzschC.1993. Determination of Fresnel zones from traveltime measurement. Geophysics, 58, 703–712.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. JägerC., HertweckT. and SpinnerM.2003. True‐amplitude Kirchhoff migration from topography. 73rd SEG Meeting, Dallas , USA , Expanded Abstracts, Session MIG 2.1.
  17. JägerR., MannJ., HöchtG. and HubralP.2001. Common‐reflection‐surface stack: Image and attributes. Geophysics66, 97–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. KoglinI.2005. Estimation of Residual Static Time Shifts by Means of the CRS‐based Residual Static Correction Approach . Logos Verlag, Berlin .
    [Google Scholar]
  19. KoglinI. and EwigE.2003. Residual static correction by means of kinematic wavefield attributes. 65th EAGE Conference, Stavanger , Norway , Extended Abstracts, Session D18.
  20. KoglinI., MannJ. and HeilmannZ.2006. CRS‐stack‐based residual static correction. Geophysical Prospecting54, 697–707.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. MannJ.2002. Extensions and Applications of the Common‐Reflection‐Surface Stack Method . Logos Verlag, Berlin .
    [Google Scholar]
  22. MannJ. and DuveneckE.2004. Event‐consistent smoothing in generalized high‐density velocity analysis. 74th SEG Meeting, Denver , USA , Expanded Abstracts, Session ST1.1.
  23. 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]
  24. MannJ., JägerR., MüllerT., HöchtG. and HubralP.1999. Common‐reflection‐surface stack – a real data example. Journal of Applied Geophysics42(3,4), 301–318.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. MüllerT.1999. The Common‐Reflection‐Surface Stack Method – Seismic Imaging without Explicit Knowledge of the Velocity Model . Der andere Verlag, Bad Iburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. NeidellN. S. and TanerM. T.1971. Semblance and other coherency measures for multichannel data. Geophysics36, 482–497.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. RonenJ. and ClaerboutJ. F.1985. Surface‐consistent residual statics estimation by stack‐power maximization. Geophysics50, 2759–2767.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. SchleicherJ., TygelM. and HubralP.1993. Parabolic and hyperbolic paraxial two‐point traveltimes in 3D media. Geophysical Prospecting41, 495–514.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. UrsinB.1982. Quadratic wavefront and traveltime approximations in inhomogeneous layered media with curved interfaces. Geophysics47, 1012–1021.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. YilmazÖ.2001. Seismic Data Analysis , Vols 1 and 2. Society of Exploration Geophysicists .
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 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.1365-2478.2005.00565.x
Loading
CRS‐stack‐based seismic imaging considering top‐surface topography
Geophysical Prospecting 54, 681 (2006); https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2005.00565.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2005.00565.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2005.00565.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