Combination of surface and borehole seismic data for robust target-oriented imaging

A novel application of seismic interferometry (SI) and Marchenko imaging using both surface and borehole data is presented. A series of redatuming schemes is proposed to combine both data sets for robust deep local imaging in the presence of velocity uncertainties. The redatuming schemes create a virtual acquisition geometry where both sources and receivers lie at the horizontal borehole level, thus only a local velocity model near the borehole is needed for imaging, and erroneous velocities in the shallow area have no effect on imaging around the borehole level. By joining the advantages of SI and Marchenko imaging, a macrovelocity model is no longer required and the proposed schemes use only single-component data. Furthermore, the schemes result in a set of virtual data that have fewer spurious events and internal multiples than previous virtual source redatuming methods. Two numerical examples are shown to illustrate the workflow and to demonstrate the benefits of the method. One is a synthetic model and the other is a realistic model of a field in the North Sea. In both tests, improved local images near the boreholes are obtained using the redatumed data without accurate velocities, because the redatumed data are close to the target.

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

[2]  Matteo Ravasi,et al.  Internal multiple prediction and removal using marchenko autofocusing and seismic interferometry , 2015 .

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

[4]  Kees Wapenaar,et al.  Focusing the wavefield inside an unknown 1D medium: Beyond seismic interferometry , 2012 .

[5]  Evert Slob,et al.  Marchenko imaging: Imaging with primaries, internal multiples, and free-surface multiples , 2015 .

[6]  Evert Slob,et al.  Marchenko imagingMarchenko imaging , 2014 .

[7]  David Halliday,et al.  Virtual seismometers in the subsurface of the Earth from seismic interferometry , 2009 .

[8]  K. Wapenaar,et al.  Retrieving virtual reflection responses at drill‐bit positions using seismic interferometry with drill‐bit noise , 2016 .

[9]  J. Harvey,et al.  Time–distance helioseismology , 1993, Nature.

[10]  Lasse Amundsen,et al.  Decomposition of multicomponent sea floor data into upgoing and downgoing P- and S-waves , 1995 .

[11]  K. Wapenaar,et al.  A representation for Green's function retrieval by multidimensional deconvolution. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  W. Menke Geophysical data analysis : discrete inverse theory , 1984 .

[13]  A. Curtis,et al.  Generalised receiver functions and seismic interferometry , 2012 .

[14]  J. Hunziker,et al.  Seismic interferometry by crosscorrelation and by multidimensional deconvolution: a systematic comparison , 2010 .

[15]  O. Poliannikov Retrieving reflections by source-receiver wavefield interferometry , 2011 .

[16]  Kees Wapenaar,et al.  Design of one-way wavefield extrapolation operators, using smooth functions in WLSQ optimization , 2004 .

[17]  Evert Slob,et al.  A Comparison of Strategies for Seismic Interferometry , 2009 .

[18]  Maarten V. de Hoop,et al.  A novel application of time-reversed acoustics: Salt-dome flank imaging using walkaway VSP surveys , 2006 .

[19]  A. Curtis,et al.  Elastic extended images and velocity-sensitive objective functions using multiple reflections and transmissions , 2015 .

[20]  Lasse Amundsen Elimination of Free Surface-related Multiples Without Need of the Source Wavelet , 1999 .

[21]  Roel Snieder,et al.  Interferometry by deconvolution: Part 2 — Theory for elastic waves and application to drill-bit seismic imaging , 2008 .

[22]  Kees Wapenaar,et al.  Autofocus Imaging: Image reconstruction based on inverse scattering theory , 2014 .

[23]  Jan Thorbecke,et al.  Finite‐difference modeling experiments for seismic interferometry , 2010 .

[24]  K. Wapenaar,et al.  Point‐spread functions for interferometric imaging , 2015 .

[25]  Evert Slob,et al.  Practical Challenges in Adaptive Marchenko Imaging , 2015 .

[26]  Matteo Ravasi,et al.  Target-oriented Marchenko imaging of a North Sea field , 2016 .

[27]  Evert Slob,et al.  Autofocusing imaging: Imaging with primaries, internal multiples and free-surface multiples , 2014 .

[28]  J. Hunziker,et al.  rosscorrelation for crosswell seismic reflection data without orehole sources , 2011 .

[29]  Peter Gerstoft,et al.  Seismic interferometry-turning noise into signal , 2006 .

[30]  Jan Thorbecke,et al.  Finite-difference modeling experiments for seismic interferometry , 2011 .

[31]  Jon F. Claerbout,et al.  Synthesis of a layered medium from its acoustic transmission response , 1968 .

[32]  David Halliday,et al.  Source-receiver wave field interferometry. , 2010, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

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

[34]  J. Sheng,et al.  Interferometric/daylight seismic imaging , 2004 .

[35]  Kirchhoff‐Helmholtz downward extrapolation in a layered medium with curved interfaces , 1993 .

[36]  Evert Slob,et al.  Three-dimensional single-sided Marchenko inverse scattering, data-driven focusing, Green's function retrieval, and their mutual relations. , 2013, Physical review letters.

[37]  Lasse Amundsen,et al.  Wavenumber-based filtering of marine point-source data , 1993 .

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

[39]  A. Bakulin,et al.  Shallow virtual source redatuming by multi‐dimensional deconvolution , 2016 .