Surface‐consistent deconvolution in the log/Fourier domain

Abstract

In the surface‐consistent hypothesis, a seismic trace is the convolution of a source operator, a receiver operator, a reflectivity operator (representing the subsurface structure) and an offset‐related operator. In the log/Fourier domain, convolutions become sums and the log of signal amplitude at a given frequency is the sum of source, receiver, structural, and offset‐related terms. Recovering the amplitude of the reflectivity for a given frequency is then a linear problem (very similar to a surface‐consistent static correction problem). However, this linear system is underconstrained. Thus, among the infinite number of possible solutions, a particular one must be selected. Studies with real data support the choice of a spatially band‐limited solution. The surface‐consistent operators can then be calculated very efficiently using an inverse Hessian method. Applications to real seismic data show improvement compared with previous techniques. Surface‐consistent deconvolution is robust and fast in the log/Fourier domain. It allows the use of long operators, improves statics estimation, and removes the amplitude variations due to source or receiver coupling.

Surface-consistent matching filters for time-lapse processing

“…Midpoint terms are assumed to be the normal incidence reflectivity where all traces at the same midpoint location contain the same subsurface information (Taner and Koehler, 1981). This normal incidence process is well approximated by applying corrections such as field statics (land data), spherical divergence, and normal moveout (Taner and Koehler, 1981;Claerbout, 1986;Cambois and Stoffa, 1992 Chapter 3 in Cox (1999) discusses the details of how to compute datum statics (also known as field statics as they can be computed by field crews). They are the time shifts needed at shot and receiver locations to correct traces to appear as though they were collected with the shots and receivers at a new datum level.…”

“…On the other hand, many others chose to work in the log/Fourier domain stating that it is simpler and the prob-30 lem reduces to a linear system (Taner and Koehler, 1981;Morley and Claerbout, 1983;Cambois and Stoffa, 1992;Cary and Lorentz, 1993).…”

“…Although this model is not exact, it has proven to be successful in many applications of seismic data processing, such as: static corrections Taner et al (1974) and Wiggins et al (1976), deconvolution (Morley and Claerbout, 1983;Levin, 1989;Cambois and Stoffa, 1992;Cary and Lorentz, 1993), amplitude balancing (Yu, 1985;Taner and Koehler, 1981), phase rotation (Taner et al, 1991;Cambois and Stoffa, 1993), and multiple attenuation (Nedlin, 1985). These applications are available in commercial processing software and are commonly used in seismic data processing workflows.…”

Application of Global Optimization to the Estimation of Surface-Consistent Residual Statics

“…Other significant contributions to the literature on residual statics include: Marcoux (1981), Taner (1981), Morley (1983), Caklovic (1985), Levy (1987), Levin (1989), Normark (1991), Cambois (1992), Cambois (1993), Normark (1993), and Wilson (1994).…”

Suppressing near-receiver scattered waves from seismic land data

“…For the simultaneous estimation of amplitude and time anomalies, surface-consistent deconvolution methods have been developed (Cambois and Stoffa, 1993;Perkins and Calvert, 2001, e.g.). Using the principle of surface consistency, they are essentially based on the same assumptions as statics methods, resulting in single-channel corrections.…”