A unified framework for the deconvolution of traces of nonwhite reflectivity

One of the fundamental assumptions of conventional deconvolution methods is that reflection coefficients follow the white-noise model. However, analysis of well logs in various regions of the world confirms that in the majority of cases, reflectivity tends to depart from the white-noise behavior. The assumption of white noise leads to a conventional deconvolution operator that can recover only the white component of reflectivity, thus yielding a distorted representation of the desired output. Various alternative processes have been suggested to model reflection coefficients. In this paper, we will examine some of these processes, apply them, contrast their stochastic properties, and critique their use for modeling reflectivity. These processes include autoregressive moving average (ARMA), scaling Gaussian noise, fractional Brownian motion, fractional Gaussian noise, and fractionally integrated noise. We then present a consistent framework to generalize the conventional deconvolution procedure to handle reflection coefficients that do not follow the white-noise model. This framework represents a unified approach to the problem of deconvolving signals of nonwhite reflectivity and describes how higher-order solutions to the deconvolution problem can be realized. We test generalized filters based on the various stochastic models and analyze their output. Because these models approximate the stochastic properties of reflection coefficients to a much better degree than white noise, they yield generalized deconvolution filters that deliver a significant improvement on the accuracy of seismic deconvolution over the conventional operator.

[1]  Enders A. Robinson,et al.  Seismic time‐invariant convolutional model , 1985 .

[2]  E. Robinson,et al.  PRINCIPLES OF DIGITAL WIENER FILTERING , 1967 .

[3]  Sven Treitel,et al.  Geophysical Signal Analysis , 2000 .

[4]  Tadeusz J. Ulrych,et al.  Processing via spectral modeling , 1991 .

[5]  Benoit B. Mandelbrot,et al.  Fractal Geometry of Nature , 1984 .

[6]  R. Wiggins,et al.  A critique of seismic deconvolution methods , 1984 .

[7]  B. Mandelbrot,et al.  Fractional Brownian Motions, Fractional Noises and Applications , 1968 .

[8]  C. K. Yuen,et al.  Theory and Application of Digital Signal Processing , 1978, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[9]  George E. P. Box,et al.  Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control , 1977 .

[10]  O. G. Jensen,et al.  Gaussian scaling noise model of seismic reflection sequences: Evidence from well logs , 1990 .

[11]  Oliver G. Jensen,et al.  Scaling geology and seismic deconvolution , 1989 .

[12]  J. Hosking Modeling persistence in hydrological time series using fractional differencing , 1984 .

[13]  Richard A. Davis,et al.  Time Series: Theory and Methods , 2013 .

[14]  E. Robinson PREDICTIVE DECOMPOSITION OF SEISMIC TRACES , 1957 .

[15]  Andrew T. Walden,et al.  An investigation of the spectral properties of primary reflection coefficients , 1985 .

[16]  M. Nafi Toksöz,et al.  An analysis of deconvolution: Modeling reflectivity by fractionally integrated noise , 1999 .

[17]  N. A. Anstey,et al.  Reflections on AMPLITUDES , 1971 .

[18]  Fabio Rocca,et al.  Modeling seismic impedance with Markov chains , 1980 .

[19]  P. Welch The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: A method based on time averaging over short, modified periodograms , 1967 .