Interferometry by deconvolution: Part 2 — Theory for elastic waves and application to drill-bit seismic imaging

Deconvolution interferometry successfully recovers the impulse response between two receivers without the need for an independent estimate of the source function. Here we extend the method of interferometry by deconvolution to multicomponent data in elastic media. As in the acoustic case, elastic deconvolution interferometry retrieves only causal scattered waves that propagate between two receivers as if one acts as a pseudosource of the point-force type. Interferometry by deconvolution in elastic media also generates artifacts because of a clamped-point boundary condition imposed by the deconvolution process. In seismic-while-drilling (SWD) practice, the goal is to determine the subsurface impulse response from drill-bit noise records. Most SWD technologies rely on pilot sensors and/or models to predict the drill-bit source function, whose imprint is then removed from the data. Interferometry by deconvolution is of most use to SWD applications in which pilot records are absent or provide unreliable estimates of bit excitation. With a numerical SWD subsalt example, we show that deconvolution interferometry provides an image of the subsurface that cannot be obtained by correlations without an estimate of the source autocorrelation. Finally, we test the use of deconvolution interferometry in processing SWD field data acquired at the San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth (SAFOD). Because no pilot records were available for these data, deconvolution outperforms correlation in obtaining an interferometric image of the San Andreas fault zone at depth.

[1]  K. Wapenaar,et al.  Unified Green's function retrieval by cross-correlation; connection with energy principles. , 2007, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[2]  F. Poletto Energy balance of a drill-bit seismic source, part 1: Rotary energy and radiation properties , 2005 .

[3]  Luca Bertelli,et al.  Drill-bit signal separation for RVSP using statistical independence , 2000 .

[4]  K. Wapenaar General representations for wavefield modeling and inversion in geophysics , 2007 .

[5]  M. Zoback,et al.  A multiscale study of the mechanisms controlling shear velocity anisotropy in the San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth , 2006 .

[6]  Reciprocity Theorems for Diffusion, Flow, and Waves , 2004 .

[7]  Ilya Tsvankin,et al.  Seismic Signatures and Analysis of Reflection Data in Anisotropic Media , 2001 .

[8]  Kees Wapenaar,et al.  Green's function retrieval by cross‐correlation in case of one‐sided illumination , 2006 .

[9]  Robert W. Clayton,et al.  Source shape estimation and deconvolution of teleseismic bodywaves , 1976 .

[10]  Mickael Tanter,et al.  Correlation of random wavefields: An interdisciplinary review , 2006 .

[11]  Jon F. Claerbout,et al.  Imaging the Earth's Interior , 1985 .

[12]  Douglas E. Miller,et al.  Walk-away VSP using drill noise as a source , 1995 .

[13]  K. Wapenaar Retrieving the elastodynamic Green's function of an arbitrary inhomogeneous medium by cross correlation. , 2004, Physical review letters.

[14]  G. Schuster,et al.  Autocorrelogram migration: IVSPWD test , 2003 .

[15]  Partha S. Routh,et al.  Wavelet deconvolution in a periodic setting using cross-validation , 2006, IEEE Signal Processing Letters.

[16]  N. Nahman,et al.  Deconvolution of causal pulse and transient data , 1990, 7th IEEE Conference on Instrumentation and Measurement Technology.

[17]  P. Malin,et al.  A Look Inside the San Andreas fault at Parkfield Through Vertical Seismic Profiling , 2003, Science.

[18]  B. Ursin,et al.  Direct multichannel predictive deconvolution , 2007 .

[19]  Kees Wapenaar,et al.  Seismic Interferometry – Reconstruction of the Earth’s Reflection Response , 2006 .

[21]  Roel Snieder,et al.  Equivalence of the virtual-source method and wave-field deconvolution in seismic interferometry. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[22]  L. Petronio,et al.  Seismic interferometry with a TBM source of transmitted and reflected waves , 2006 .

[23]  Gerard T. Schuster,et al.  Autocorrelogram migration: Theory , 2003 .

[24]  Bob A. Hardage,et al.  Radiation pattern and seismic waves generated by a working roller-cone drill bit , 1992 .

[25]  Roel Snieder,et al.  Interferometry by deconvolution. Part 1 -Theory for acoustic waves and numerical examples , 2008 .

[26]  K. Wapenaar,et al.  Green's function representations for seismic interferometry , 2006 .

[27]  J. Rector,et al.  The use of drill‐bit energy as a downhole seismic source , 1991 .

[28]  Andrey Bakulin,et al.  The virtual source method: Theory and case study , 2006 .

[29]  Fabiana Rios Poletto,et al.  Seismic While Drilling: Fundamentals of Drill-Bit Seismic for Exploration , 2004 .

[30]  Ben A. van der Pluijm,et al.  Mineralogical characterization of protolith and fault rocks from the SAFOD Main Hole , 2006 .

[31]  Umberta Tinivella,et al.  Seismic‐while‐drilling by using dual sensors in drill strings , 2004 .

[32]  Leonard S. Rodberg,et al.  Introduction to the Quantum Theory of Scattering , 1968 .

[33]  Kees Wapenaar,et al.  Spurious multiples in seismic interferometry of primaries , 2006 .

[34]  Milton J. Porsani,et al.  Mixed-phase deconvolution and wavelet estimation , 2000 .

[35]  P. Sava,et al.  Broadside interferometric and reverse‐time imaging of the San Andreas Fault at depth , 2007 .

[36]  Philip Armstrong,et al.  Drilling Optimization Using Drill-bit Seismic in the Deepwater Gulf of Mexico , 2000 .