Surface-consistent deconvolution using reciprocity and waveform inversion

Source and receiver responses must be equalized when their behavior or coupling changes with location within a given survey. Existing surface-consistent deconvolution techniques that account for these effects assume that common-midpoint (CMP) gathering is valid — the seismic trace is decomposed into a source function, a receiver response, a normal-incidence reflectivity term, and an offsetrelated component that is laterally shift invariant. As a result, the performance of existing surface-consistent deconvolution techniques is best when applied to primary reflection data only, since the offset dependency of ground roll and multiples varies laterally in media with lateral variations. We have developed an alternative method for surfaceconsistent deconvolution that is applicable to the entire seismic trace and is therefore essentially a raw-data preprocessing step. The method is based on reciprocity of the medium response. Assuming that conditions for applicability of reciprocity are met, we can attribute differences between normal and reciprocal recordings to the source and receiver perturbations. Contrary to existing surfaceconsistent deconvolution methods, this approach uses the full description of the wavefield and is therefore ideally suited for prestack processing. We have applied this technique to single-sensor data acquired in Manistee County, Michigan. At this site, nearsurface conditions vary, and this significantly affects data quality. The application of the new deconvolution procedure substantially improves S/N ratio on both prestack and poststack data, and these results compare favorably to those obtained using existing surface-consistent deconvolution techniques, since they require subjective data scaling to obtain acceptable results. The obtained source corrections are correlated to changes in near-surface conditions — in this case, to changes in water-saturation levels. We do not observe such a correlation for the receiver corrections, which vary rapidly along the spread. Finally, the receiver response does not agree with the generally accepted damped harmonic oscillator model. For frequencies below 100 Hz, the retrieved receiver variations are larger than predicted by this model, and we cannot explain the receiver response using a single resonant frequency for the geophone-ground coupling.