1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 63, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 63 Number 4
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Seismic data acquired in hardrock environment pose a special challenge for processing. Frequent lack of clear coherent events hinders imaging and interpretation. Additional difficulty arises from the presence of significant amount of cultural noise associated with production and processing of ore, which often remains in the processed, stacked data. Motivated by those challenges, we developed an efficient workflow of denoising 3D post‐stack seismic data by using 2D discrete curvelet transform aimed at improving signal‐to‐noise ratio of the data. Our approach is based on the adjustment of the thresholds according to scales and angles in the curvelet domain, making parameterization flexible. We demonstrate effectiveness of our method using 3D post‐stack volumes from the three different mining camps in Canada, which were characterized by variable data quality. Remarkable signal enhancement, confirmed by the improvements in the mean signal‐to‐noise ratio of the dataset, is obtained not only due to random energy attenuation but also by removal of certain features corrupting the data (e.g., acquisition footprint). Comparison with the F‐X/F‐XY deconvolution results shows the superiority of our algorithm in respect to signal enhancement, signal preservation, and amount of the removed noise. Imaged structures, even if initially dominated by random energy, are easier to follow after curvelet denoising and enhanced for interpretation. Therefore, our approach can significantly reduce interpretation uncertainties when dealing with the seismic data acquired in the hardrock environment.

Copyright © 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers Copyright © 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12234
2015-03-13
2024-04-26

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12234
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AdamE., L'HeureuxE., BongajumE. and MilkereitB.2008. 3D seismic imaging of massive sulfides: seismic modeling, data acquisition and processing issues. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2008, pp. 3621–3624. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. AdamE., PerronG., ArnoldG., MatthewsL. and MilkereitB.2003. 3D seismic imaging for VMS deposit exploration, Matagami, Quebec. In: Hardrock Seismic Exploration (eds D.W.Eaton , B.Milkereit , and M.H.Salisbury ), pp. 229–246. Society of Exploration Geophysicists. ISBN: 978–1–56080–114–6.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Al‐BannagiM.S., FangK., KelamisP.G. and DouglassG.S.2004. Acquisition footprint suppression via the truncated SVD technique. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2004, pp. 1957–1960. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. CandèsE.J., DemanetL., DonohoD.L. and YingL.2006. Fast discrete curvelet transforms. Multiscale Modeling and Simulation5, 861–899.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. CandèsE.J. and DonohoD.L.1999. Curvelets —a surprisingly effective non adaptive representation for objects with edges. In: Curves and Surface Fitting: Saint‐Malo 1999 (eds A.Cohen , C.Rabut , and L.Schumaker ), pp. 105–120. Vanderbilt University Press. ISBN: 0826513573.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. CheraghiS., MalehmirA. and BellefleurG.2011. Crustal‐scale reflection seismic investigations in the Bathurst Mining Camp, New Brunswick, Canada. Tectonophysics506, 55–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. CheraghiS., MalehmirA. and BellefleurG.2012. 3D imaging challenges in steeply dipping mining structures: new lights on acquisition geometry and processing from the Brunswick no. 6 seismic data, Canada. Geophysics77(5), 109–122.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. CristallJ., BeyreutherM. and HerrmannF.J.2004. Curvelet processing and imaging: 4‐D adaptive subtraction. In: CSEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2004.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. DashB.P. and ObaidullahK.A.1970. Determination of signal and noise statistics using correlation theory. Geophysics35, 24–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. DoumaH. and De HoopM.V.2007. Leading‐order seismic imaging using curvelets. Geophysics72, S231–S248.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. DrummondJ. (Jock) M., BuddA.J.L. and RyanJ.W.2000. Adapting to noisy 3D data ‐ attenuating the acquisition footprint. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2000, pp. 9–12. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. EatonD.W., MilkereitB. and SalisburyM.H.2003. Hardrock Seismic Exploration. Society of Exploration Geophysicists. ISBN: 978–1–56080–114–6.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. GórszczykA., AdamczykA. and MalinowskiM.2014. Application of curvelet denoising to 2D and 3D seismic data – practical considerations. Journal of Applied Geophysics105, 78–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. GulunayN., BenjaminN. and MagesanM.2006. Acquisition footprint suppression on 3D land surveys. First Break24, 71–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. HennenfentG., ColeJ. and KustowskiB.2011. Interpretative noise attenuation in the curvelet domain. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2011, pp. 3566–3570. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. HerrmannF.J., MoghaddamP. and StolkC.C.2008. Sparsity‐ and continuity‐promoting seismic image recovery with curvelet frames. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis24, 150–173.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. HerrmannF.J., WangD., HennenfentG. and MoghaddamP.2008. Curvelet‐based seismic data processing: a multiscale and nonlinear approach. Geophysics73, A1–A5.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. IkelleL.T. and AmundsenL.2005. Characterization of seismic signals by statistical averages. In: Introduction to Petroleum Seismology, pp. 181–232. Society of Exploration Geophysicists. ISBN: 978–1–56080–129–0.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. KongS.M., PhinneyR.A. and Roy‐ChowdhuryK.1985. A nonlinear signal detector for enhancement of noisy seismic record sections. Geophysics50, 539–550.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. KumarV., OueityJ., ClowesR.M. and HerrmannF.J.2011. Enhancing crustal reflection data through curvelet denoising. Tectonophysics508, 106–116.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. MilkereitB. and SpencerC.1990. Noise suppression and coherency enhancement of seismic data. In: Statistical Applications in the Earth Sciences (eds F.P.Agterberg and G.F.Bonham‐Carter ), pp. 243–248. Geological Survey of Canada. ISBN: 0–660–13592.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. MalehmirA. and BellefleurG.2010. Reflection seismic imaging and physical properties of base‐metal and associated iron deposits in the Bathurst Mining Camp, New Brunswick, Canada. Ore Geology Reviews38, 319–333.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. MalehmirA., DurrheimR., BellefleurG., UrosevicM., JuhlinC., WhiteD.J.et al. 2012. Seismic methods in mineral exploration and mine planning: a general overview of past and present case histories and a look into the future. Geophysics77, 173–190.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. NeelamaniR., BaumsteinA.I., GillardD.G., HadidiM.T. and SorokaW.L.2008. Coherent and random noise attenuation using the curvelet transform. The Leading Edge27, 240–248.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. SoubarasR.2002. Attenuation of acquisition footprint for non‐orthogonal 3D geometries. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2002, pp. 2142–2145. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. StarckJ., CandèsE.J. and DonohoD.L.2002. The curvelet transform for image denoising. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing11, 670–684.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. UrosevicM., KepicA., JuhlinC. and StolzE.2008. Hard rock seismic exploration of ore deposits in Australia. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2008, pp. 3613–3614. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. WhiteD.J., SecordD. and MalinowskiM.2012. 3D seismic imaging of volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits in the Flin Flon mining camp, Canada: Part 1 — Seismic results. Geophysics77, 47–58.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. WoiselleA., StarckJ.L. and FadiliJ.2010. 3‐D data denoising and inpainting with the low‐redundancy fast curvelet transform. Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision39, 121–139.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. YarhamC. and HerrmannF.J.2008. Bayesian ground‐roll separation by curvelet‐domain sparsity promotion. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2008, pp. 3662–3666. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. YingL., DemanetL. and CandèsE.J.2005. 3D discrete curvelet transform. In: Proceedings of the International Society for Optical Engineering 5914. Wavelets XI. 591413.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12234
Loading
Enhancing 3D post‐stack seismic data acquired in hardrock environment using 2D curvelet transform
Geophysical Prospecting 63, 903 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12234
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12234
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12234
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): 3D hardrock data; Adaptive thresholding; Curvelet denoising; Random energy attenuation; Signal enhancement

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