Application of the tau-p transform (slant-stack) in processing seismic reflection data

Tatham, Robert H.; Keeney, Joe; Noponen, IIkka

doi:10.1071/eg983163

Cited by 25 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on traveltime arguments, the theoretically correct range of application is thus extended from normal incidence to non‐normal incidence over plane horizontal layers. This is equivalent to predictive deconvolution in the τ– p domain ( Tatham, Keeney and Noponen 1983; Tatham 1989).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marine seismic wavefield measurement to remove sea‐surface multiples

Ziolkowski

Taylor

Johnston

1999

Geophysical Prospecting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose a new method for removing sea‐surface multiples from marine seismic reflection data in which, in essence, the reflection response of the earth, referred to a plane just above the sea‐floor, is computed as the ratio of the plane‐wave components of the upgoing wave and the downgoing wave. Using source measurements of the wavefield made during data acquisition, three problems associated with earlier work are solved: (i) the method accommodates source arrays, rather than point sources; (ii) the incident field is removed without simultaneously removing part of the scattered field; and (iii) the minimum‐energy criterion to find a wavelet is eliminated. Pressure measurements are made in a horizontal plane in the water. The source can be a conventional array of airguns, but must have both in‐line and cross‐line symmetry, and its wavefield must be measured and be repeatable from shot to shot. The problem is formulated for multiple shots in a two‐dimensional configuration for each receiver, and for multiple receivers in a two‐dimensional configuration for each shot. The scattered field is obtained from the measurements by subtracting the incident field, known from measurements at the source. The scattered field response to a single incident plane wave at a single receiver is obtained by transforming the common‐receiver gather to the frequency–wavenumber domain, and a single component of this response is obtained by Fourier transforming over all receiver coordinates. Each scattered field component is separated into an upgoing wave and a downgoing wave using the zero‐pressure condition at the water‐surface. The upgoing wave may then be expressed as a reflection coefficient multiplied by the incident downgoing wave plus a sum of scattered downgoing plane waves, each multiplied by the corresponding reflection coefficient. Keeping the upgoing scattered wave fixed, and using all possible incident plane waves for a given frequency, yields a set of linear simultaneous equations for the reflection coefficients which are solved for each plane wave and for each frequency. To create the shot records that would have been measured if the sea‐surface had been absent, each reflection coefficient is multiplied by complex amplitude and phase factors, for source and receiver terms, before the five‐dimensional Fourier transformation back to the space–time domain.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marine seismic wavefield measurement to remove sea‐surface multiples

Ziolkowski

Taylor

Johnston

1999

Geophysical Prospecting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also in tau-p processing exploiting the hyperbolic nature of subsurface reflections as a means of additional wave type separation is possible. This hyperbolic velocity filtering, reported in Tatham et al (1983b) and proposed in Keeney and Noponen (1986), will further improve the separation of S-and Pwave energy based upon differences in NMO velocity.…”

Section: The Reflection Hyperbolas Which Have a Continuously Varying mentioning

confidence: 92%

5. Multicomponent Seismic Processing

Tatham¹,

McCormack²

1991

Multicomponent Seismology in Petroleum Exploration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionComputer processing of multicomponent seismic data is substantially more complex than conventional P-wave seismic data processing. The increase in processing complexity is greater than the nine-fold increase in data volume would suggest. This arises because of the need to process the different components in a mutually compatible fashion since much of the interpretative value of multicomponent data derives from the comparison of reflection arrival times and amplitudes on different components. For example, a lateral change in reflection strength of an event on a P-P wave component that correlates with a SH-SH wave event whose reflection amplitude is not changing could signal a change in pore fluid type within a reservoir IF one is certain that the amplitude variations are indicative of changes in geology, and not the result of processing the seismic data using erroneous analysis parameters or procedures. Thus, the goal of multicomponent data processing can be stated as follows:The similarities and differences in reflection amplitudes, phases, and arrival times in the processed P-and S-wave sections should be indicative of the similarities and differences in the propagation of P-and S-waves in the earth, and not simply artifacts of data processing.Of course, one can validly argue that this statement should also hold true for conventional P-wave data processing, but, in fact, we often deviate from this dictum to enhance certain features in a data set to improve the accuracy of the final interpretation (e.g., complex trace attributes). The rationale for the above statement as applied to multicomponent seismic data is that the joint interpretation of P-wave and S-wave data for rock properties is based upon a comparison of reflection character and arrival times from common geologic interfaces. Ideally the observed character of common S-and P-wave events 123 Downloaded 08/22/15 to 155.69.4.4. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/ 124 Multicomponent Seismology in Petroleum Explorationshould contain only information about the region at and near the reflection boundary. The differences in waveform character between any two components of the multicomponent data set should not be the result of mismatched processing parameters or processes, if the subsequent interpretation is to be reliable. When a multicomponent data set has been processed to meet the stated objective, the final task of interpretation is to translate the similarities and differences in reflection amplitude, phase, and arrival time into parameters of interest to the explorationist, such as lithology, porosity, or pore fluid. Such interpretation is the subject of the final sections of this volume.Currently many new concepts in multicomponent seismic data processing are being developed by oil companies and seismic contractors, and are thus proprietary. Many discussions about multicomponent seismic processing in the open literature describe processing schemes in which the individual componen...

show abstract

“…Applications of the Radon transform have been well documented in tomography and in seismic signal processing such as the separation of reflections, refractions, and ground roll (Tatham et al, 1982), coherent noise reduction (Noponen and Keeney, 1983), and inversion of common midpoint data (Diebold and Stoffa, 1981). It is envisaged that the set of results presented here will lead to more informed use of the Radon transform.…”

Section: The Last Two Examples Inmentioning

confidence: 92%