1887

Abstract

Summary

Marine seismic data acquired in rough sea conditions present a challenge to successful processing due to the time- and space-dependent perturbations introduced at the source and the relative timing of the ghost at the receivers. It is possible to partially correct for these perturbations via stochastic treatments based on an assumed sea-state, but a more complete deterministic correction requires that we obtain the height profile of wind-driven waves at the surface or some approximation to it. Here we make a comparison of known methods for the estimation of such a profile and discuss some of the practical aspects and limitations in the context of receiver-side de-ghosting. We derive surfaces from a 3D shot record via ghost interference and via low-frequency signal and use these to de-ghost the data. We find generally good correlation between surfaces and in both cases there is uplift in de-ghosting quality when comparing to a flat-sea assumption. The interference method gives greatest improvement at the event from which it is derived but is not suited to generalizing for all times and offsets. The low-frequency method has the advantage in this respect. We propose a hybrid methodology to overcome some of the limitations identified.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201701399
2017-06-12
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Cavaleri, L.
    [1980]. Wave measurement using pressure transducer. Oceanologica Acta3(3).
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Grion, S., Telling, R. and Barnes, J.
    [2015]. De-ghosting by kurtosis maximization in practice, 85th SEG Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 4605–4609.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Grion, S., Telling, R. and S.Holland
    [2016]. Phase shift de-ghosting, 78th EAGE Conference, Extended Abstracts, We SRS3 09.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Hardwick, A., Charron, P., Masoomzadeh, H., Aiyepeku, A., Cox, P. and S.Laha
    [2015]. Accounting for sea surface variation in deghosting - a novel approach applied to a 3D dataset offshore West Africa. 85th Annual SEG Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 4615–4619.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. King, S. and Poole, G.
    [2015]. Hydrophone-only receiver deghosting using a variable sea surface datum. 85th Annual SEG Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 4610–4614.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Jovanovich, D. B, Sumner, R. D. and Atkins-Easterlin, S. L.
    [1983]. Ghosting and marine signature deconvolution. Geophysics, 48 (11) 1468–1485.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Kragh, E., Laws, R. and Combee, L.
    [2002]. Sea-surface shape derivation above the seismic streamer, 64th EAGE Conference, Extended Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. KinsmanB.
    [1965]. Wind Waves. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood, Cliffs, New Jersey.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Kragh, E., Robertsson, J., Laws, R., Amundsen, L., Rosten, T., Davies, T., Zerouk, K. and Strudley, A.
    [2004]. Rough-sea deghosting using wave-heights derived from low-frequency pressure recordings, A15 - A case study. 74th Annual SEG Meeting, Expanded Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Laws, R. and Kragh, E.
    [2006] Sea surface shape derivation above the seismic streamer, Geophysical Prospecting, 54, 817–828
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201701399
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201701399
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