A comparison of imaging conditions for wave-equation shot-profile migration

Schleicher, Jörg; Costa, Jessé C.; Novais, Amélia

doi:10.1190/1.2976776

Cited by 82 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The project was designed and implemented before many published literature insights became available. Advances in imaging conditions also have progressed that acceptably handle interference (cross-talk) noise, a problem that has plagued multiple-imaging techniques in the past (Guitton et al, 2007;Schleicher et al, 2008;Poole et al, 2010). Much can be learned from the results presented here and can be adapted to enhance future multiple-imaging applications.…”

Section: Project History and Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…Much effort has been expended in developing imaging conditions that lessen undesirable cross-talk artifacts within the seismic image (Muijs et al, 2007b;Poole et al, 2010;Lu et al, 2015). Guitton et al (2007), Schleicher et al (2008), Poole et al (2010), and Whitmore et al (2010) present excellent technical presentations highlighting the development of imaging conditions for shot-profile wave-equation migration. The essential advances relating to multiple imaging of dual-sensor wavefield data from these references is summarized below.…”

Section: Imaging Condition and Cross Talkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Wave-equation multiple imaging (WeMi) — Swimming between the flags

Bouloudas

2016

The Leading Edge

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deghosting dual-sensor streamer seismic data requires separation of the total recorded wavefield into upgoing and downgoing components during seismic preprocessing. Imaging of multiples exploits the wavefield separation process by using the downgoing wavefield at each receiver location as a virtual source. Multiple imaging has been shown to effectively remove shallow-acquisitionrelated artifacts commonly seen on wide-tow marine seismic surveys and improve imaging quality of the shallow overburden. Acquisition design factors, imaging condition, and cross-talk noise are the main factors that determine the effectiveness of separated wavefield imaging (SWIM) of dual-sensor streamer data. (SWIM is a common nontrademarked acronym used in the literature to describe multiple imaging of separated wavefields sampled from dual-sensor streamer data.) In a field trial, acquisition design did not allow for proper sampling of the total wavefield, with the result that multiple imaging did not prove to be as robust a technique as examples in the literature might imply. Understanding the effects of acquisition design parameters on image quality is essential to more successfully apply multiple-imaging techniques with greater relevance on the North West Shelf of Australia.

show abstract

Section: Project History and Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 71%

Section: Imaging Condition and Cross Talkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wave-equation multiple imaging (WeMi) — Swimming between the flags

Bouloudas

2016

The Leading Edge

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The combined imaging condition is not limited to the two imaging conditions used here: It may also be used to improve other imaging conditions, such as any of those proposed in Schleicher et al (2008). The method may also be extended by using other envelope methods; for example, for steeply dipping reflectors, the verticaltrace Hilbert transform may be replaced by the 2D Hilbert transform (Stark, 1971).…”

Section: Images Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attenuating multiple-related imaging artifacts using combined imaging conditions

Filho

Curtis

2016

GEOPHYSICS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of prestack depth migration is to position reflectors at their correct subsurface locations. However, migration methods often also generate artifacts along with physical reflectors, which hamper interpretation. These spurious reflectors often appear at different spatial locations in the image depending on which migration method is used. Therefore, we have devised a postimaging filter that combines two imaging conditions to preserve their similarities and to attenuate their differences. The imaging filter is based on combining the two constituent images and their envelopes that were obtained from the complex vertical traces of the images. We have used the method to combine two images resulting from different migration schemes, which produce dissimilar artifacts: a conventional migration method (equivalent to reverse time migration) and a deconvolution-based imaging method. We show how this combination may be exploited to attenuate migration artifacts in a final image. A synthetic model containing a syncline and stochastically generated small-scale heterogeneities in the velocity and density distributions was used for the numerical example. We compared the images in detail at two locations where spurious events arose and also at a true reflector. We found that the combined imaging condition has significantly fewer artifacts than either constituent image individually.

show abstract

“…Thus, the desirable qualities of an imaging condition would include: being able to accurately locate interfaces that are present, imaging no apparent interfaces where there are none, and ideally providing further information about the physical properties of the rock near the interfaces. Deconvolution imaging conditions ͑see Claerbout, 1971;Biondi, 2003, andSchleicher et al, 2008͒ offer improvements in all of these areas over standard crosscorrelation, imaging conditions ͑Claerbout, 1971͒. They allow interfaces to be better located because of the improved resolution they offer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deconvolution imaging conditions and cross-talk suppression

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deconvolution imaging conditions offer improved resolution over standard, crosscorrelation-based imaging conditions. Additionally, these imaging conditions produce a result more directly related to a reflection coefficient than do crosscorrelation-based imaging conditions. In simple analytical cases, deconvolution imaging conditions also offer the possibility of eliminating crosstalk ͑i.e., energy in the image due to reflected energy arriving at a location at the same time as incident energy that did not cause the reflected energy͒ when the full up-and down-going wavefields are used. This means that in such cases, surface-related multiples can be eliminated from the image, or that multiple shots could potentially be fired simultaneously without degrading the image. However, this cross-talk-suppression property is not observed in most situations. We show that this is due to a number of issues: the correct order of deconvolution must be used, stabilization causes imperfect deconvolution, finite apertures lead to some of the signal being lost, and an assumption of horizontal stratification is often not being met. Further, imperfect knowledge of the incident and reflected field due to such factors as anisotropy, poorly estimated velocity fields, and measurement noise can also lead to imperfect deconvolution. Thus, deconvolution imaging conditions should not be counted on to completely eliminate crosstalk from images.

show abstract

A comparison of imaging conditions for wave-equation shot-profile migration

Cited by 82 publications

References 13 publications

Wave-equation multiple imaging (WeMi) — Swimming between the flags

Wave-equation multiple imaging (WeMi) — Swimming between the flags

Attenuating multiple-related imaging artifacts using combined imaging conditions

Deconvolution imaging conditions and cross-talk suppression

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About