1887
Volume 65 Number 1
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Multiple scattering is usually ignored in migration algorithms, although it is a genuine part of the physical reflection response. When properly included, multiples can add to the illumination of the subsurface, although their crosstalk effects are removed. Therefore, we introduce full‐wavefield migration. It includes all multiples and transmission effects in deriving an image via an inversion approach. Since it tries to minimize the misfit between modeled and observed data, it may be considered a full waveform inversion process. However, full‐wavefield migration involves a forward modelling process that uses the estimated seismic image (i.e., the reflectivities) to generate the modelled full wavefield response, whereas a smooth migration velocity model can be used to describe the propagation effects. This separation of modelling in terms of scattering and propagation is not easily achievable when finite‐difference or finite‐element modelling is used. By this separation, a more linear inversion problem is obtained. Moreover, during the forward modelling, the wavefields are computed separately in the incident and scattered directions, which allows the implementation of various imaging conditions, such as imaging reflectors from below, and avoids low‐frequency image artefacts, such as typically observed during reverse‐time migration. The full wavefield modelling process also has the flexibility to image directly the total data (i.e., primaries and multiples together) or the primaries and the multiples separately. Based on various numerical data examples for the 2D and 3D cases, the advantages of this methodology are demonstrated.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12360
2016-02-02
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AlshuhailA., StaalX. and VerschuurD.2014. Incorporating anisotropy in joint migration inversion. 84th SEG meeting, Denver, USA, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Expanded Abstracts.
  2. AlshuhailA. and VerschuurD.2015. Inverting for anisotropy in joint migration inversion. 77th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Madrid, Spain, Extended Abstracts.
  3. AminzadehF., BurkhardJ.M., NicoletisL., RoccaF. and WyattK.1994. SEG/EAGE 3‐D modeling project: 2nd update. The Leading Edge13(9), 949–952.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BerkhoutA.J.1982. Seismic Migration: Imaging of Acoustic Energy by Wave Field Extrapolation A: Theoretical Aspects, 2nd edn. Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BerkhoutA.J.2011. Combining full wavefield migration and full waveform inversion. 81st SEG meeting, San Antonio, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 3321–3325.
  6. BerkhoutA.J.2012. Combining full wavefield migration and full waveform inversion: a glance into the future of seismic imaging. Geophysics77(2) S43–S50.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. BerkhoutA.J.2014a. Review paper: an outlook on the future of seismic imaging, part III: Joint migration inversion. Geophysical Prospecting62(5), 950–971.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. BerkhoutA.J.2014b. Review paper: an outlook on the future of seismic imaging, part I: forward and reverse modelling. Geophysical Prospecting62(5), 911–930.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. BerkhoutA.J., BlacquiereG. and VerschuurD.J.2012. Multiscattering illumination in blended acquisition. Geophysics77(2), P23–P31.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. BremmerH.1951. The WKB approximation as the first term of a geometric‐optical series. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics4(1), 105–115.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. BrogginiF., SniederR. and WapenaarK.2013. Data‐driven Green's function retrieval and imaging with multidimensional deconvolution: numerical examples for reflection data with internal multiples. 83rd SEG meeting, Houston, USA, 4156–4161.
  12. BrownM.P. and GuittonA.2005. Least‐squares joint imaging of multiples and primaries. Geophysics70(5), S79.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. CarcioneJ.M., HermanG.C. and TenKroode A.2002. Seismic modeling. Geophysics67(4), 1304–1325.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. DaiW., WangX. and SchusterG.T.2011. Least‐squares migration of multisource data with a deblurring filter. Geophysics76(5), R135–R146.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. DavydenkoM., VerschuurD. and BerkhoutA.2014. Omnidirectional extension of full wavefield migration. 76th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  16. de Bruin, C.G.M., WapenaarC.P.A. and BerkhoutA.J.1990. Angle‐dependent reectivity by means of prestack migration. Geophysics55(9), 1223–1234.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. de HoopM.V., RousseauJ.H.L. and WuR.‐S.2000. Generalization of the phase‐screen approximation for the scattering of acoustic waves. Wave Motion31(1), 43–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. FleuryC. and SniederR.2012. Increasing Illumination and sensitivity of reverse‐time migration with internal multiples. 74th EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition, Copenhagen, Denmark, Expanded Abstracts, 4–7.
  19. GrayS.H.1983. On the convergence of the time‐domain bremmer series. Wave Motion5(3), 249–255.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. GuittonA.2002. Shot‐profile migration of multiple reflections. 72nd SEG Meeting, Salt Lake City, USA, 1296–1299.
  21. KinnegingN.K., BudejickyV., WapenaarC.P.A. and BerkhoutA.J.1989. Efficient 2D and 3D shot record redatuming. Geophysical Prospecting37(5), 493–530.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. LuS., WhitmoreD., ValencianoA. and CheminguiN.2014. Enhanced subsurface illumination from separated wavefield imaging. First Break32(11), 87–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. MalcolmA.E., UrsinB.R. and de HoopM. V.2009. Seismic imaging and illumination with internal multiples. Geophysical Journal International176(3), 847–864.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. NemethT., WuC. and SchusterG.T.1999. Least‐squares migration of incomplete reection data. Geophysics64(1), 208–221.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. SavaP.C. and FomelS.2003. Angle‐domain common‐image gathers by wavefield continuation methods. Geophysics68(3), 1065–1074.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. StaalX., VerschuurD. and BerkhoutA.2014. Robust velocity estimation by joint migration inversion. 76th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  27. TangY. and BiondiB.2009. Least‐squares migration/inversion of blended data. 79th SEG meeting, Houston, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 2859–2863.
  28. TuN. and HerrmannF.J.2015. Fast imaging with surface‐related multiples by sparse inversion. Geophysical Journal International201(1), 304–317.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. VerschuurD.J. and BerkhoutA.J.1994. Multiple technology, part 1: estimation of multiple reflections. 64th SEG meeting, Los Angeles, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 1493–1496.
  30. VerschuurD. and BerkhoutA.J.2011a. Seismic migration of blended shot records with surface‐related multiple scattering. Geophysics76(1), A7–A13.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. VerschuurD.J. and BerkhoutA.J.2011b. Seismic migration of blended shot records with surface‐related multiple scattering. Geophysics76(1), A7–A13.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. WapenaarK., BrogginiF., SlobE. and SniederR.2013. Three‐dimensional single‐sided Marchenko inverse scattering, data‐driven focusing, Green's function retrieval, and their mutual relations. Physical Review Letters110, 084301.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. WhitmoreN.D., ValencianoA.A. and SollnerW.2010. Imaging of primaries and multiples using a dual‐sensor towed streamer. 80th SEG meeting, Denver, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 3187–3192.
  34. WongM., BiondiB. and RonenS.2014. Imaging with multiples using least‐squares reverse time migration. The Leading Edge33(9), 970–976.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. ZhangD. and SchusterG.T.2013. Least‐squares reverse time migration of multiples. Geophysics79(1), S11–S21.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12360
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12360
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Full waveform; Imaging; Inversion; Modelling; Seismics

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