1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 67, Issue 5
  5. Article
Volume 67, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Extracting accurate common image angle gathers from pre‐stack depth migrations is important in the generation of any incremental uplift to the amplitude versus angle attributes and seismic inversions that can lead to significant impacts in exploration and development success. The commonly used Kirchhoff migration outputs surface common offset image gathers that require a transformation to angle gathers for amplitude versus angle analysis. The accuracy of this transformation is one of the factors that determine the robustness of the amplitude versus angle measurements. Here, we investigate the possibility of implementing an extended imaging condition, focusing on the space‐lag condition, for generating subsurface reflection angle gathers within a Kirchhoff migration. The objective is to determine if exploiting the spatial local shift imaging condition can provide any increase in angle gather fidelity relative to the common offset image gathers. The same restrictions with a ray‐based approach will apply using the extended imaging condition as both the offset and extended imaging condition method use travel times derived from solutions to an Eikonal equation. The aims are to offer an alternative ray‐based method to generate subsurface angle gathers and to understand the impact on the amplitude versus angle response. To this end, the implementation of the space‐shift imaging condition is discussed and results of three different data sets are presented. A layered three‐dimensional model and a complex two‐dimensional model are used to assess the space shift image gathers output from such a migration scheme and to evaluate the seismic attributes relative to the traditional surface offset common image gathers. The synthetic results show that the extended imaging condition clearly provides an uplift in the measured amplitude versus angle over the surface offset migration. The noise profile post‐migration is also improved for the space‐lag migration due to the double summation inside the migration. Finally, we show an example of a space‐lag gather from deep marine data and compare the resultant angle gathers with those generated from an offset migration and a time‐shift imaging condition Kirchhoff migration. The comparison of the real data with a well log shows that the space‐lag result is a better match to the well compared to the time‐lag extended imaging condition and the common offset Kirchhoff migration. Overall, the results from the synthetics and real data show that a Kirchhoff migration with an extended imaging condition is capable of generating subsurface angle gathers with an incremental improvement in amplitude versus angle fidelity and lower noise but comes at a higher computational cost.

© 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12760
2019-03-05
2024-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12760
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BaysalE., KosloffD.D. and SherwoodJ.W.C.1983. Reverse time migration. Geophysics48, 1514–1524.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. BeylkinG.1985. Imaging of discontinuities in the inverse scattering problem by inversion of a causal generalized Radon transform. Journal of Mathematical Physics26, 99–108.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BiondoB. and WilliamW.S.2004. Angle‐domain common‐image gathers for migration velocity analysis by wavefield‐continuation imaging. Geophysics69, 1283–1298.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. EhingerA., LaillyP. and MarfurtK.J.1996. Green's function implementation of common‐offset, wave‐equation migration. Geophysics61, 1813–1821.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. EttrichN., MertenD. and FossS.‐K.2008. True‐amplitude angle migration in complex media. EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Rome, Italy, Expanded Abstracts.
  6. GiboliM., BainaR.O., NicoletisL. and DuquetB.2012. Reverse time migration surface offset gathers part 1: a new method to produce ‘classical’ common image gathers. 82nd SEG Annual International Meeting, Expanded Abstracts.
  7. KorenZ. and RavveI.2011. Full‐azimuth subsurface angle domain wavefield decomposition and imaging: part I — directional and reflection image gathers. Geophysics76, S1–S13.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. KorenZ., XuS. and KosloffD.2002. Target‐oriented common reflection angle migration. 72nd SEG Annual International meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 1196–1199.
  9. JinH., McMechanG.A. and GuanH.2014. Comparison of methods for extracting ADCIGs from RTM. Geophysics79, S89–S103.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. JinH., McMechanG.A. and GuanH.2015. Removing smearing‐effect artifacts in angle‐domain common‐image gathers from reverse time migration. Geophysics80, U13–U24.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. LambaréG., HerrmannP., Toure. J.‐P., SuaudeauE. and LecerfD.2008. Computation of kinematic attributes for pre‐stack time migration. SEG Technical Program Annual meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 2402–2406.
  12. ObelczJ., BrothersD., ChaytorJ., RossS.W., BrinkU. and BrookeS.2014. Geomorphic characterization of four shelf‐sourced submarine canyons along the U.S. Mid‐Atlantic continental margin. Deep Sea Research II104, 106–119.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. O'BrienG.S., DelaneyS.J., IgoeM., DohertyJ. and ColhounA.2018. Investigating a time‐shift extended imaging condition in a Kirchhoff pre‐stack depth migration algorithm. Geophysical Prospecting66, 688–706.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. O'BrienG.S., IgoeM., DohertyJ., MahobJ.P. and MecklenburghR.2017. Offshore imaging with complex overburden: Understanding gather complexity and resulting attribute accuracy through synthetics. The Leading Edge36, 159–165.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. OpertoM.S., XuS. and Lambare´G.2000. Can we quantitatively image complex structures with rays?Geophysics65, 1223–1238.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. RickettJ.E. and SavaP.C.2002. Offset and angle‐domain common image point gathers for shot‐profile migration. Geophysics67, 883–889.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. SaengerE.H., GoldN. and ShapiroS.2000. Modelling the propagation of elastic waves using a modified finite‐difference grid. Wave Motion31, 77–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. SavaP., and FomelS.2004. Riemannian wavefield extrapolation, 74th SEG Annual International meeting, Denver, USA, Expanded Abstracts.
  19. SavaP. and FomelS.2005. Coordinate‐independent angle‐gathers for wave equation migration. 75th SEG Annual International meeting, Houston, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 2052–2055.
  20. SavaP. and FomelS.2006a. Time‐shift Imaging condition in seismic migration. Geophysics71, S209–S217.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. SavaP. and FomelS.2006b. Time‐shift imaging condition for converted waves. 76th SEG Annual International meeting, New Orleans, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 2460–2464.
  22. SchneiderW.A.1978. Integral formulation for migration in two and three dimensions. Geophysics43, 49–76.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. StolkC. and SymesW.2002. Artifacts in Kirchhoff common image gathers. 72nd SEG Annual International meeting, Salt City Lake, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 1129–1541.
  24. SunY., QinF., ChecklesS. and LeveilleJ.P.2000. 3‐D prestack Kirchhoff beam migration for depth imaging. Geophysics65, 1592–1603.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. van LeeuwenT., KumarR. and HerrmannF.J.2017. Enabling affordable omnidirectional subsurface extended image volumes via probing. Geophysical Prospecting65, 385–406.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. WhitcombeD.N., ConnollyP.A., ReaganR.L. and RedshawT.C.2002. Extended elastic impedance for fluid and lithology prediction. Geophysics67, 63–67.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. YangT. and SavaP.2013. 3D Image‐domain wavefield tomography using time‐lag extended images. 83rd SEG Annual International meeting, Houston, USA, Expanded Abstracts.
  28. XuS., ChaurisH., Lambare´G. and NobleM.2001. Common‐angle migration: a strategy for imaging complex media. Geophysics66, 1877–1894.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. ZhanG. and ZhangM.2014. Common‐image gathers in the offset domain from reverse time‐migration. Journal of Applied Geophysics103, 99–103.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. ZhangY., RatcliffeA., RobertsG. and DuanL.2014. Amplitude‐preserving reverse time migration: from reflectivity to velocity and impedance inversion. Geophysics79, S271–S283.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12760
Loading
Pre‐stack Kirchhoff depth migration local space‐shift imaging condition: synthetic and data examples
Geophysical Prospecting 67, 1184 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12760
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12760
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12760
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Imaging; Seismics; Theory

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