1887
Volume 14, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Accurate localization of shallow subsurface seismic events recorded by an array of receivers might be challenging given the near‐surface complexity and its inadequate spatial sampling, low velocities, and limited frequency content. A novel approach that performs a joint localization and velocity analysis is presented. In this study, we utilize non‐conventional migrated common image gathers as a tool for velocity and location analysis, based on the diffractive nature of the source. Only when the correct velocity model is used energy from all receivers is coherently focused at the true subsurface location. However, if the used model or CIG location is wrong, the migrated event does not have a flat moveout. The effectiveness of this technique is greatly improved by the use of vertical arrays of receivers. Through synthetic and real data examples, we show the usefulness of the method in a fully automatic workflow.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2016012
2015-12-01
2024-04-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BaiC.‐Y. and KennettB.L.N.2000. Automatic phase‐detection and iden’tification by full use of a single three‐component broadband seismogram. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America90(1), 187–198.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BaiY., SunZ., ChenL., and YangH.2011. Seismic diffraction separation in 2D and 3D space. 73rd EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, May 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BardainneT. and GaucherE.2010. Constrained tomography of realistic velocity models in microseismic monitoring using calibration shots. Geophysical Prospecting58(5), 739–753.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BiondiB.2006. 3D Seismic Imaging. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. DafniR. and ReshefM.2012. Interval velocity analysis using multipa‐rameter common image gathers. Geophysics77(4), U63.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. EarleP.S. and ShearerP.M.1994. Characterization of global seismo‐ grams using an automatic‐picking algorithm. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America84(2), 366–376.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. KomatitschD. and TrompJ.1999. Introduction to the spectral element method for three‐dimensional seismic wave propagation. Geophysical Journal International139(3), 806–822.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. KorenZ. and RavveI.2011. Full‐azimuth subsurface angle domain wavefield decomposition and imaging Part I: Directional and reflec‐tion image gathers. Geophysics76(1), S1–S13.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. MaxwellS. and UrbancicT.2001. The role of passive microseismic monitoring in the instrumented oil field. The Leading Edge20(6), 636–639.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. RavveI. and KorenZ.2011. Full‐azimuth subsurface angle domain wavefield decomposition and imaging: Part 2 ‐ Local angle domain. Geophysics76(2), S51–S64.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. ReshefM., LipzerN., DafniR. and LandaE.2012. 3D post‐stack interval velocity analysis with effective use of datuming. Geophysical Prospecting60(1), 18–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. ReshefM. and RügerA.2008. Influence of structural dip angles on interval velocity analysis. Geophysics73(4), U13.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2016012
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2016012
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