1887

Abstract

Summary

We demonstrate the compatibility of modern far-field signature estimation with triple source acquisition and the resilience of this estimation in the face of drop-outs. Our results are based on data acquired with a two-string, 2965 cubic inch source array, and with a de-tuned 2415 cubic inch variant of that array which exhibits reduced peak amplitude and lower primary-to-bubble ratio. Modelled signatures were compared with those derived by least-squares inversion of near-field hydrophone measurements, according to the method discussed in ) and, after examining different choices of ghosting parameters, we derive de-signature operators and apply these to seismic shot records. We find that the de-tuned 2415 array gives comparable results to the full array after de-signature, which is encouraging for robustness of signature estimation in the face of drop-outs. We note improved de-signature results using a frequency-dependent sea-surface reflection coefficient which is smaller than predicted based on the sea state reported during acquisition. This suggests energy loss mechanisms are significant in the vicinity of the source array.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201800742
2018-06-11
2024-04-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Hampson, G.
    [2017]. Notional ghost. 86th Annual SEG Meeting Expanded Abstracts
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Hargreaves, N., Grion, S. and Telling, R.
    [2015]. Estimation of air-gun array signatures from near-gun measurements - least-squares inversion, bubble motion and error analysi. 85th SEG Meeting Expanded Abstracts, 149–153.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Hargreaves, N., Telling, R., Grion, S.
    [2016]. Source deghosting and directional designature using near-field derived airgun signature. 78th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Extended Abstracts
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Hatton, L.
    [2007]. An empirical relationship between surface reflection coefficient and source array amplitud. www.leshatton.org
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Jovanovich, D.B, Sumner, R.D. and Atkins-Easterlin, S.L.
    [1983]. Ghosting and marine signature deconvolution. Geophysics, 48 (11) 1468–1485.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Kryvohuz, M. and Campman, X.
    [2017]. Source-side up-down wavefield separation using dual NFHs, 79th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Extended Abstracts
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Kryvohuz, M
    [2016]. Optimization of sea-surface reflection coefficient and source geometry in conventional dual source flip/flop marine seismic acquisitio. 86th Annual SEG Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 188–192
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Landro, M., Ni, Y. and Amundsen, L.
    [2016]. Reducing high-frequency ghost cavitation signals from marine air-gun arrays, Geophysics, 81, P33–P46
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Ni, Y., Niang, C., Siliqi, R.
    [2012]. Monitoring the stability of airgun source array signatur. 82nd Annual SEG Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 1–5
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Orji, O., Sollner, W. and Gelius, L.J.
    [2013]. Sea surface reflection coefficient estimation. 83rd Annual SEG Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 51–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Parkes, G.E., Ziolkowski, A., Hatton, L. and Haugland, T.
    [1984]. The signature of an airgun array: computation from near-field measurements including interactions — Practical considerations. Geophysics, 49, 105–111
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Parkes, G. and Hatton, L.
    [1986] The Marine Seismic Souc. D. Reidel, Dordrecht
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Ziolkowski, A., Parkes, G., Hatton, L. and HauglandT.
    [1982]. The signature of an air gun array: Computation from near-field measurements including interactions. Geophysics, 47 (10), 1413–1421.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ziolkowski, A.
    [1987]. The determination of the far-field signature of an interacting array of marine seismic sources from near-field measurement — results from the Delft air gun experiment. First Break, 5(1), 15–29
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201800742
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201800742
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