1887

Abstract

Summary

Reverse time migration (RTM) is a popular seismic imaging technique.

Unfortunately, RTM computational cost scales linearly with the number of shots migrated, where that number can run into hundreds of thousands.

One can mitigate this challenge computing a smaller number of linear combinations (or encodings) of shot records, and then migrate blended shot records. Although the shot-encoding approach can reduce RTM’s cost significantly, the final image inevitably contains cross-talk effects introduced by the encoding process.

Alternatively, blind decimation of the shots avoids this cross-talk issue.

However, one could easily conceive of scenarios where decimation is not good enough. For instance, consider a model where most of the “interesting” features are localized in a small region of interest.

In this paper, we introduce two adaptive, data-driven strategies for shot selection in RTM. Informally, given a budget parameter B, our high-level goal is to deduce the optimal subset of at most B shot locations that will produce an acceptable image of a given (user-specified) region in the subsurface. This problem is computationally intractable, and hence we propose two heuristics based on greedy optimization techniques. We report the results that demonstrate improvement over conventional decimation in terms of image quality and computing performance.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201413308
2015-06-01
2020-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bear, G., Lu, C.P., Lu, R., Willen, D. and Watson, I.
    [2000] The construction of subsurface illumination and amplitude maps via ray tracing. Leading Edge, 19(7), 726–728.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Godwin, J. and Sava, P.
    [2011] A comparison of shot-encoding schemes for wave-equation migration. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 32–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Kaelin, B. and Guitton, A.
    [2006] Imaging condition for reverse time migration. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 2594–2598.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Liu, S., Geng, J. and Feng, W.
    [2005] Controlled illumination and seismic acquisition geometry for target-oriented imaging. Applied Geophysics, 2(4), 230–234.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Pati, Y., Rezaiifar, R. and Krishnaprasad, P.
    [1993] Orthogonal matching pursuit: recursive function approximation with applications to wavelet decomposition. Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, 40–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Romero, L., Ghiglia, D., Ober, C. and Morton, S.
    [2000] Phase encoding of shot records in prestack migration. Geophysics, 65(2), 426–436.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Schmidt, L., Indyk, P., St-Cyr, A., Chen, C. and Hohl, D.
    [2013] Shot encoding with random projections. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. van den Berg, E. and Friedlander, M.P.
    [2007] SPGL1: A solver for large-scale sparse reconstruction. http: http://www.cs.ubc.ca/labs/scl/spgl1.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201413308
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201413308
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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