1887

Abstract

Summary

The common-reflection-surface stack was shown to be a powerful tool for data analysis and enhancement. While the increased signal-to-noise ratio and the regularization and interpolation capabilities are virtues on their own, the physically meaningful wavefront attributes acquired during the stack can be used for sophisticated subsequent processes such as wavefield characterization and separation. In this work, we review the largely data-driven normal-incidence-point (NIP) tomography, which likewise makes use of the wavefront parameter estimates. Whereas in previous works, NIP tomography has been applied mainly to reflection data, resulting in smooth velocity models suitable for migration of targets with moderately complex overburden, this work has the emphasis on using diffracted contributions in the wavefield for velocity inversion. Based on recently formulated diffraction symmetries, we motivate a two-step strategy, in which tomographic models gained via application to reflection data are subsequently refined using diffractions. Simple synthetics as well as an industrial field data example confirm the general finding that diffraction-based wavefront tomography can lead to increased lateral resolution in the velocity inversion.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201600833
2016-05-30
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bauer, A., Schwarz, B. and Gajewski, D.
    [2015] Prestack diffraction enhancement using a traveltime decomposition approach. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2015, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 3820–3824.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Billette, F. and Lambaré, G.
    [1998] Velocity macro-model estimation from seismic reflection data by stereotomography. Geophysical Journal International, 3(2), 671–690.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Dümmong, S., Meier, K., Gajewski, D. and Hübscher, C.
    [2008] Comparison of prestack stereotomography and NIP wave tomography for velocity model building: Instances from the Messinian evaporites. Geophysics, 73(5), VE291–VE302.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Duveneck, E.
    [2004] Velocity model estimation with data-derived wavefront attributes. Geophysics, 3(1), 265–274.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Jäger, R., Mann, J., Höcht, G. and Hubral, P.
    [2001] Common-reflection-surface stack: Image and attributes. Geophysics, 66, 97–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Paige, C.C. and Saunders, M.A.
    [1982] LSQR: An algorithm for sparse linear equations and sparse least squares. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS), 3(1), 43–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Schwarz, B., Vanelle, C. and Gajewski, D.
    [2014a] From zero-offset to common-offset with diffractions. In: 76th EAGE Conference and Exhibition - Workshops.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Schwarz, B., Vanelle, C., Gajewski, D. and Kashtan, B.
    [2014b] Curvatures and inhomogeneities: an improved common-reflection-surface approach. Geophysics, 79(5), S231–S240.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Tarantola, A.
    [1984] Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation. Geophysics, 3(8), 1259–1266.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Virieux, J. and Operto, S.
    [2009] An overview of full-waveform inversion in exploration geophysics. Geophysics, 74(6), WCC1–WCC26.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Walda, J. and Gajewski, D.
    [2015] Common-reflection-surface stack improvement by differential evolution and conflicting dip processing. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2015, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 3842–3847.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201600833
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201600833
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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