Register or Login To Download This Patent As A PDF
United States Patent Application 
20110134721

Kind Code

A1

Deffenbaugh; Max
; et al.

June 9, 2011

Method For Combining Seismic Data Sets
Abstract
A method is disclosed for combining seismic data sets. This method has
application in merging data sets of different vintages, merging data sets
collected using different acquisition technologies, and merging data sets
acquired using different types of sensors, for example merging hydrophone
and geophone measurements in ocean bottom seismic data. In one
embodiment, a desired data trace is to be determined from a set of
measured data traces, and the following steps are applied: (a) model
filters are constructed which express the deterministic relationship
between the desired data trace and each available measured trace that
depends on the desired data trace; (b) the noise properties associated
with each measured data trace are determined; (c) a sufficient statistic
for the desired data trace is formed by application of an appropriate
filter to each measured trace and summing the filter outputs; (d) the
sufficient statistic is further processed by a singleinput singleoutput
estimator to construct an estimate of the desired data trace from the
sufficient statistic.
Inventors: 
Deffenbaugh; Max; (Califon, NJ)
; Neelamani; Ramesh; (Houston, TX)

Serial No.:

028844 
Series Code:

13

Filed:

February 16, 2011 
Current U.S. Class: 
367/43 
Class at Publication: 
367/43 
International Class: 
G01V 1/36 20060101 G01V001/36; G01V 1/28 20060101 G01V001/28 
Claims
1. A computerimplemented method for combining at least two seismic data
sets to generate a subsurface image, comprising: (a) selecting at least
one measured data element from said at least two seismic data sets; (b)
determining a measurement model comprising a desired data element and,
for each selected measured data element, a filter that filters the
desired data element to produce as output the selected measured data
element with noise removed and a noise signal which, when added to the
filter output produces the measured data element; (c) determining an
estimator that receives as its inputs said measured data elements and
produces as its output an estimate of said desired data element, wherein
said estimate is a sufficient statistic for said desired data element and
where said estimate is based at least on the filters in said measurement
model and on at least one characteristic of said noise signals; and (d)
using said estimate for the desired data element to generate a subsurface
image; wherein at least one of (a)(d) is performed on a computer.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein determination of whether an estimate
forms a sufficient statistic for a desired data element assumes a
Gaussian probability distribution for measurement model noise.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the noise characteristics for each of
the measured data elements are expressed as a noise covariance matrix,
said matrix containing variances of each noise signal along its diagonal
and covariances between the noise signals for all pairs of measured data
elements as its offdiagonal terms; and the filters are determined using
at least one local parameter characteristic of the measured data
elements' measurement locations.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the noise covariance matrix of the
measured data elements comprises nonzero correlations between the data
elements.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one measured data element
is chosen from a group consisting of a seismic data trace, a portion of a
seismic data trace, a collection of portions of seismic data traces
deriving from nearby receiver locations, a collection of portions of
seismic data traces having at least one subsurface reflection point near
a common subsurface location, a collection of portions of seismic data
traces deriving from nearby source locations, and any combination
thereof.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the sufficient statistic is the minimum
variance unbiased estimate of the desired data element.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising processing the sufficient
statistic for the desired data element to form an estimate of the desired
data element.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the forming step and the processing
step are performed together in a single equivalent mathematical
operation.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein said at least two seismic data sets
differ in regard to age, or to acquisition technology, or to sensor type
employed for acquisition, or contain different source and receiver pairs.
Description
CROSSREFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION
[0001] This application is a divisional of U.S. application Ser. No.
12/330,449, filed Dec. 8, 2008, which is a continuation of U.S.
application Ser. No. 11/340,011, filed Jan. 24, 2006, which claims the
benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/654,693 filed on Feb. 18,
2005. Each of these applications is hereby incorporated herein by
reference in its entirety.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0002] This invention relates generally to the field of geophysical
prospecting and, more particularly, to seismic data processing.
Specifically, the invention is a method for merging two or more seismic
data sets that image overlapping subsurface regions.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0003] In the oil and gas industry, seismic prospecting techniques
commonly are used to aid in the search for and evaluation of subterranean
hydrocarbon reserves. A seismic prospecting operation consists of three
separate stages: data acquisition, data processing, and data
interpretation, and success of the operation depends on satisfactory
completion of all three stages.
[0004] In the data acquisition stage, a seismic source is used to generate
an acoustic impulse known as a "seismic wavelet" that propagates into the
earth and is at least partially reflected by subsurface seismic
reflectors, such as interfaces between underground formations having
different acoustic impedances. The reflected signals, known as "seismic
reflections", are detected and recorded by an array of seismic receivers
located at or near the surface of the earth, in an overlying body of
water, or at known depths in boreholes. The seismic energy recorded by
each seismic receiver is known as a "seismic data trace."
[0005] During the data processing stage, the raw seismic data traces
recorded in the data acquisition stage are refined and enhanced using a
variety of procedures that depend on the nature of the geologic structure
being investigated and on the characteristics of the raw data traces
themselves. In general, the purpose of the data processing stage is to
produce an image of the subsurface from the recorded seismic data for use
during the data interpretation stage. The image is developed using
theoretical and empirical models of the manner in which the seismic
signals are transmitted into the earth, attenuated by subsurface strata,
and reflected from geologic structures.
[0006] The purpose of the data interpretation stage is to determine
information about the subsurface geology of the earth from the processed
seismic data. The results of the data interpretation stage may be used to
determine the general geologic structure of a subsurface region, or to
locate potential hydrocarbon reservoirs, or to guide the development of
an already discovered reservoir.
[0007] It is common for more than one set of seismic data to be available
in a region. This may occur when surveys of the same region have been
conducted at various times, for example, when new highresolution surveys
are acquired where older poorquality surveys already exist or where a
series of similar surveys are acquired over the production life an oil
field to detect unproduced resource, as in timelapse seismic. This may
also occur when surveys with different technologies overlap, such as
streamer and ocean bottom cable, and when different sensors are used to
record the same seismic signal in a single survey, as in ocean bottom
recordings when both hydrophones and geophones record the same seismic
signal. This commonly occurs within a single survey when more than one
sourcereceiver pair acquires reflections from essentially the same
subsurface location.
[0008] When more than one set of seismic data is available in a region, a
seismic image of that region can be formed by merging the information in
all available data sets. The quality of this merged image is generally
superior to the quality of an image formed by any one of the data sets
alone.
[0009] A generalpurpose optimal technique for merging seismic data sets
of various vintages, acquisition technologies, or sensor types has not
been previously described in a single publication. However, nonoptimal
techniques for merging restricted classes of seismic data sets have been
described. These techniques can be divided into several types: a)
techniques for merging data sets of various vintages; b) techniques for
merging data sets from different acquisition technologies; c) techniques
for merging data sets from different sensor types; and d) stacking
techniques for merging data from sourcereceiver pairs at different
locations. Each class of techniques is described below in greater detail.
[0010] Differing Ages. It is common in the seismic exploration industry to
acquire new surveys over prospective regions where older,
lowerresolution surveys are already available. Surveys of different
vintages may differ in the density and geometry of measurement locations.
Modern marine surveys typically have receivers positioned in a wide swath
behind a survey vessel by means of multiple towed streamers, creating
threedimensional subsurface images. Older surveys often had only a line
of receivers in a single streamer behind a survey vessel, creating a
twodimensional "slice" image of the subsurface. Marine surveys may
employ different air gun array configurations creating different source
wavelets, different hydrophone grouping and spacing within the streamer
creating different directional sensitivities, and different streamer
towing depths creating different "surface ghost" effects from
interference between the direct path and surface reflection. The
direction of acquisition may vary, making the distribution of reflection
azimuths different at subsurface reflection points. Noise levels may vary
between surveys, depending on weather conditions, the presence of other
vessels, or even other seismic activity. Newer surveys typically offer
improved signaltonoise ratio in the acquired data due to continuing
improvements in source and receiver technology. While a newer survey may
afford better image quality than an older one, both surveys contain
information. In principle, by merging the surveys a new image can be
formed which contains more information than was available in either
survey alone.
[0011] Rickett and Lumley (2001) published an example of merging data sets
of differing age in fourdimensional or timelapse seismic, where surveys
of the same region are taken at intervals of time during the production
of hydrocarbons from a field. The subsurface differences observed between
these surveys are due to the production of hydrocarbons and indicate
which portions of a subsurface reservoir are being drained during
production.
[0012] Differing acquisition technology. The least expensive technique for
acquiring marine seismic data is the towed streamer. However it is
difficult to safely operate towed streamer surveys in the vicinity of
obstacles, like offshore platforms. Streamer surveys will typically
divert around obstacles, and it is common practice to fill in the missing
coverage near the obstacle with ocean bottom cable surveys which can be
safely operated closer to obstacles.
[0013] Ikelle in two publications (1999, 2002) combines OBC data with
streamer data by convolving the data types with each other. This combined
data, which is shown to be an estimate of highorder multiples, is then
subtracted from the measured OBC data to achieve multiple attenuation.
Verschuur (1999) uses a similar approach where the data itself becomes a
filtering operator to accomplish multiple attenuation in OBC data.
[0014] Differing sensor type. Multiple reflections pose a serious problem
in marine seismic data processing. Colocated pressure and velocity
measurements made at the ocean bottom can be combinedand are combined
in industry practiceto produce seismic records with reduced multiple
levels. Various multiple suppression techniques have been proposed in the
literature based on combining bottom pressure and velocity measurements.
Classifications of these techniques include direct summation, summation
followed by filtering, filtering pressure and velocity records separately
then summing, muting methods, and databased surface related multiple
attenuation (SRME) methods. In direct summation techniques, the pressure
and velocity records are simply added together, possibly with different
weightings applied to the two data sets as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No.
4,979,150, Barr (1999), and Bale (1998). In summation followed by
filtering, the pressure and velocity records are added together in such a
way that the summed data set can then be filtered to remove additional
multiple energy. U.K. Patent No. 2,338,302 discloses a summation followed
by filtering technique and U.S. Pat. No. 5,835,451, Paffenholz (1998),
and Soubaras (1996) disclose techniques involving filtering pressure and
velocity records separately, then summing. In muting methods, certain
arrivals are identified as dominantly multiplerelated by comparing the
polarity of pressure and velocity measurements, and then simply muted and
are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,678,207 and 5,621,700. Finally, Matson
(2002) discloses a databased surface related multiple attenuation (SRME)
methods, where a nonlinear process of autoconvolution and subtraction of
the data is performed.
[0015] Differing SourceReceiver Pairs. Seismic surveys commonly obtain
seismic signals from different sourcereceiver pairs which image
essentially the same subsurface location. These signals are commonly
combined to enhance the image of the common subsurface location. This
combination is accomplished by aligning the reflections from the common
subsurface locations in time, an operation called "moveout correction",
and then summing the signals, an operation called "stacking". (Mayne,
1967) However, such a technique provides the optimal unbiased image of
the subsurface location only when the moveout correction does not
significantly alter the signal and when the noise in all the signals is
uncorrelated, Gaussian, and of equal variance. In (Robinson, 1970), the
author analyzed stacking and proposed using a SNRbased weighted stack to
further minimize the noise. In addition to reducing random noises,
stacking of signals from sensors at different offsets has the benefit of
attenuating multiples (Cassano and Rocca, 1973; Schoenberger, 1996). In
(Cassano and Rocca, 1973), the authors first filter the signal from each
receiver before stacking In (Schoenberger, 1996), the author proposes a
weighted stack, with the weights determined by solving a set of
optimization equations.
[0016] The filtering and summing operations involved in merging data sets
can be performed temporally in time or frequency domain and spatially in
offset or wavenumber domain as disclosed in Mundsen (2001), Amundsen and
Ikelle (2001), Yan (2001), and Schalkwijk (2001). The use of the term
"filtering" in this disclosure will include filtering operations in
frequency domain and in frequency/wavenumber domain.
[0017] In Lehman (1999), the term "sufficient statistic" is defined and
its significance in estimating a set of parameters from a set of
measurements described. A "sufficient statistic" is a new set of
(typically fewer) numerical values which are derived from the
measurements through mathematical operations and contain all the
information about the parameters which was originally in the
measurements. Whether a particular transformation of measurements creates
a sufficient statistic for the parameters depends on the "measurement
model" assumed to relate the measurements to the parameters.
[0018] In the prior art, the methods for combining seismic data sets are
not designed to form a sufficient statistic for the desired data set.
Accordingly, there is a need for a method that optimally merges two or
more seismic data sets of the same subsurface region using a sufficient
statistic. The present invention satisfies this need.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0019] A method is disclosed for combining seismic data sets. In one
embodiment, for each desired data element the following steps are
applied: (a) filters are determined which express the deterministic
relationship between the desired data element and each available measured
data element that depends on the desired data element; (b) the noise
properties associated with each measured data element are determined; (c)
a sufficient statistic for the desired data element is formed by
application of an appropriate filter to each measured data element and
summing the filter outputs; (d) the sufficient statistic is further
processed by a singleinput singleoutput estimator to construct an
estimate of the desired data element from the sufficient statistic.
[0020] A second embodiment of the method for combining seismic data sets
is disclosed. For each desired data element, the following steps are
applied: (a) a set of measured data elements are obtained which contain
information about the desired data element; (b) the local parameters of
the measured data elements are determined, including at least water
depth, bottom reflection coefficient, streamer depth, and source depth;
(c) the model filters are computed from the local parameters which
express the deterministic relationship between the desired data element
and each available measured data element that depends on the desired data
element; (d) the noise properties associated with each measured data
element are determined from the local parameters and the measured data
elements themselves; (e) a multiinput singleoutput (MISO) filter is
applied to form a sufficient statistic for the desired data element from
the measured data elements; (f) the sufficient statistic is further
processed by a singleinput singleoutput (SISO) estimator to construct
an estimate of the desired data element from the sufficient statistic.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0021] FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of the measurement model assumed to
capture the essential properties of the measurements in the first
embodiment;
[0022] FIG. 2 shows a block diagram of the process described in the first
embodiment;
[0023] FIG. 3 is a flow chart of the first embodiment of the invention;
[0024] FIG. 4 is a flow chart of the second embodiment of the invention;
[0025] FIGS. 5(a), 5(b), and 5(c) respectively illustrate graphs of
density, compressional velocity, and shear velocity versus
reflectiontime for a hypothetical subsurface region;
[0026] FIGS. 6(a) and 6(b) illustrate common depth point (CDP) gathers of
pressure and vertical velocity seismic data traces respectively;
[0027] FIG. 7(a) illustrates a velocity spectrum and the interpolated
velocity profile based on travel time;
[0028] FIG. 7(b) illustrates moveout curves for the selected velocity
spectrum peaks;
[0029] FIG. 8(a) illustrates the averaged autocorrelation function of the
nearoffset pressure seismic data traces within a time window;
[0030] FIG. 8(b) illustrates the relationship between the ratio of largest
negative peak amplitude to zerodelay peak amplitude to the bottom
reflection coefficient, and the inferred bottom reflection coefficient;
[0031] FIG. 9(a) illustrates the sufficient statistic CDP gather derived
from the pressure and vertical velocity CDP gathers;
[0032] FIG. 9(b) illustrates the resulting CDP gather from application of
the minimum mean squared error estimator to the sufficient statistic CDP
gather.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0033] In the following detailed description, the invention will be
described in connection with its preferred embodiment. However, to the
extent that the following description is specific to a particular
embodiment or a particular use of the invention, this is intended to be
illustrative only. Accordingly, the invention is not limited to the
specific embodiment described below, but rather, the invention includes
all alternatives, modifications, and equivalents falling within the true
scope of the appended claims.
[0034] In one embodiment, the inventive method applies to combining
seismic data sets which image overlapping subsurface locations. It is
applicable when all the data sets may be regarded as being derived from
the same desired subsurface image through filtering of that image and the
addition of noise. This assumption about how the data sets are related to
the desired subsurface image is called the "measurement model."
[0035] The processing of a large seismic data set is usually accomplished
consecutively, operating on smaller units of data at a time. In the
following, those smaller units of data are called data elements. The data
elements are typically a seismic data trace, a portion of a seismic data
trace, or a collection of portions of seismic data traces having a common
feature. The common feature shared by the seismic data traces represented
in a data element is typically a common receiver location, nearby
receiver locations, a common subsurface reflection point, nearby
subsurface reflection points, a common source location, or nearby source
locations.
[0036] FIG. 1 illustrates the measurement model upon which the first
embodiment of the invention depends. The measurement model 110, expresses
the dependence of the measured data elements 140 on the desired data
element 100. The desired data element is the desired outcome from
application of the inventive method. In the first embodiment, the
measured data elements 140, may be regarded as being formed by filtering
the desired data element 100 with a set of linear timeinvariant filters,
120, where a different filter is applied to form each data set. The
filtered subsurface information is then regarded as being contaminated
with additive noise 130 to form the measured data elements 140. The
additive noise 130 is regarded as having a known frequency spectrum,
which may be different for each measured data element. The measurement
model assumes that the noises are not entirely independent between data
elements, so that at each frequency a covariance matrix between the noise
in the various measured data elements must also be specified to fully
characterize the noise.
[0037] FIG. 2 illustrates the estimator 200 constructed according to the
first embodiment of the invention. The measured data elements 140 are
assumed to have the structure imparted by the measurement model of FIG.
1. Separate linear time invariant filters 220 are applied to each
measured data element, and the filter outputs are summed 230 in such a
way as to form a sufficient statistic 240 for the desired data element.
Finally, the sufficient statistic may be processed by a singleinput
singleoutput system (SISO) system 250 to produce an estimate 260 of the
desired data element. Here the term SISO indicates that a single data
element is input into the system 250 and a single data element 260 is
output by the system.
[0038] The first embodiment will now be described. With reference to FIG.
3, this embodiment involves procedures to combine at least two seismic
data sets to form improved images of the subsurface. As illustrated in
FIG. 3, the model filters are determined by relating each measured data
element to the desired data element (step 301). The noise characteristics
are determined from the measured data (step 302). The data sets are
combined to form the sufficient statistic (step 303). The sufficient
statistic is processed to form a desired data set (step 304).
[0039] Step 301 is calculation of the model filters for each data element.
The inventive method assumes that the measured data elements are well
described by the application of linear time and/or space invariant
filters to the desired data element plus the addition of noise to the
filtered desired data element. The model filters are typically different
for each of the measured data elements and may also vary between
individual measurement values within a data element. If the desired data
element is a data trace which is a multiplefree version of measured data
traces, the model filters may be determined from local parameters
associated with the location of the desired trace, such as the water
depth and the bottom reflection coefficient. If the desired data element
is a data trace which has a particular wavelet shape, while the measured
data traces have different wavelet shapes, the model filters may simply
be filters that transform the desired wavelet shape into the measured
wavelet shapes. If the desired data element is a stacked trace while the
measured data elements are moveoutcorrected traces of various offsets,
the model filters may approximate the stretch applied to the wavelet by
the moveout correction as well as the impulse response applied to the
measured data by multiples as they vary with offset. With such
descriptions of how the measured and desired data elements are related,
persons of ordinary skill in the art will recognize how to specify model
filters that relate the data sets. The model filter response transforming
the desired data element into the ith measured data element is written in
frequency domain as the complexvalued function M.sub.i(f), where f is
frequency. It is convenient to write the set of these model frequency
responses at frequency f as a complexvalued column vector
M(f)=[M.sub.1(f), M.sub.2(f), . . . , M.sub.P(f)].sup.T, where P is the
number of measured data elements that will contribute to the estimate of
each desired data element. Note that if the data elements are gathers of
data traces rather than a single trace or trace portion, then the model
frequency responses are typically specified in frequencywavenumber
domain instead of simply in frequency domain.
[0040] Step 302 is calculation of the noise properties of each measured
data element, which is labeled as item 130 in FIG. 1. The noise
properties are typically captured by specifying a frequencydependent
noise covariance matrix which represents the spectral content of the
noise as well as the correlations between noises in the measured data
elements. This information may be obtained, for example, by using the
quiet part of a data trace prior to the first break or a "noise strip"
recorded at the time of data acquisition. The noise spectra could also be
approximated in various ways, including assuming that the noise has a
white amplitude spectrum or has an amplitude spectrum formed by filtering
white noise, optionally specifying that the noise filter is the seismic
wavelet. The noise covariances between different measured data elements
may also be inferred from local parameters such as the bottom reflection
coefficient and the water depth. The computation of the frequency
dependent noise covariance matrices would also include accounting for
effects of prior processing, for example moveout corrections, on the
noise in the originally recorded signals. Persons of ordinary skill in
the art will recognize other methods by which the noise covariance matrix
between the measured data elements may be estimated from the data. These
methods are also within the scope of this invention.
[0041] The noise in the jth measured data element will be written in
frequency domain as the complexvalued function n.sub.j(f). It is
convenient to write the complex noise amplitudes at frequency f for all P
measured data elements that will contribute to the estimate of the
desired data element as a complexvalued vector n(f)=[n.sub.1(f),
n.sub.2(f), . . . , n.sub.P(f)].sup.T. The covariance matrix of the P
noise signals at frequency f is then R(f)=E[n(f)n.sup.H(f)], where the
superscript H signifies the Hermitian (or complex conjugate transpose)
and E signifies the statistical expectation operator. Note that if the
data elements are gathers of data traces rather than a single trace or
trace portion, then the noise is typically specified in
frequencywavenumber domain instead of simply in frequency domain.
[0042] Step 303 is calculation of the sufficient statistic. In one
embodiment, the sufficient statistic can be created by a MISO linear time
and/or space invariant filter to the measured data elements. Such a MISO
linear time invariant filter can be represented by the complexvalued row
vector G(f)=[G.sub.1(f), G.sub.2(f), . . . , G.sub.P(f)], where
G.sub.i(f) is the singleinput singleoutput filter to be applied to the
ith measured data element prior to summing all the filtered measured data
elements that will contribute to the estimate of the desired data
element. One example of such a MISO filter which forms a sufficient
statistic for Gaussian measurement noise is the minimum variance unbiased
estimator,
G(f)=(M.sup.H(f)R.sup.1(f)M(f)).sup.1M.sup.H(f)R(f).sup.1 (1)
[0043] Persons of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that other MISO
filters which are trivially related to the minimum variance unbiased
estimator will also form sufficient statistics from the measured data
elements. Consider an alternative MISO filter G'(f),
G'(f)=h(f)G(f), (2a)
where h(f) is a SISO filter. So long as h(f) does not have zero frequency
response at any frequencies where Gi(f) is nonzero for at least one i,
then G'(f) will also form a sufficient statistic. Additionally, all such
G'(f) will have the same signaltonoise ratio at every frequency. Such
filters G'(f) which can be generated from G(f) in this way are within the
scope of this invention. The preferred embodiment for forming the
sufficient statistic for Gaussian measurement noise is,
G'(f)=M.sup.H(f)R(f).sup.1, (2b)
which is preferred over the result of equation 1a because it does not
require a potentially unstable matrix inversion. Note that if the data
elements are gathers of data traces rather than a single trace or trace
portion, then the sufficient statistic is typically formed by filtering
in frequencywavenumber domain instead of simply in frequency domain.
[0044] Step 304 is subsequent processing of the sufficient statistic data
element by a singleinput singleoutput (SISO) estimator to improve the
estimate of the desired data element. This improvement may involve
incorporating additional information about the energy or structure of the
desired data element or about the noise. For example, if a certain set of
basis functions (such as a wavelet basis) is thought to efficiently
represent the desired data element, then the sufficient statistic can be
filtered in the appropriate domain at this step. Additionally, an
estimate that minimizes a particular error measure can be formed here by
operating on the sufficient statistic from the previous step. Other
filtering and processing schemes may be applied in this step depending on
how the data elements are defined and depending on assumptions about the
structure and statistical properties of the desired data element and the
noise. These other filtering and processing schemes may include, but are
not limited to, filtering in a curvelet domain, filtering in a complex
wavelet domain, processing in taup or radon transform domain, processing
in frequencywavenumber domain, processing in frequency domain, and
processing in time domain.
[0045] There has been significantly less research on MISO estimation than
on SISO estimation. A significant aspect of the inventive method is that
it transforms a MISO estimation problem into a SISO estimation problem
which can then be solved using one of the wide variety of published
methods. Furthermore, because the multiple measured data elements are
combined into a single data element which is a sufficient statistic, all
information that the original measurements contained about the desired
data element is in the single sufficient statistic data element. As a
result, any optimality properties (e.g., "minimum mean squared error") of
the SISO estimator employed in step 304 are also enjoyed by the MISO
estimator composed of the combination of steps 303 and 304.
[0046] Persons of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that steps 303
and 304 can be merged into a single MISO operation in such a way as to
produce a mathematically equivalent result. All mathematical operations
for combining the data elements that can be executed with equivalent
result as separate and distinct steps 303 and 304 are within the scope of
this invention. Unlike this inventive embodiment, current industry
methods cannot be equivalently written as the formation of a sufficient
statistic (based on the assumed measurement model) (step 303) followed by
a SISO processing step (step 304).
[0047] A second embodiment will now be described. As illustrated in FIG.
4, at least two measured data elements containing information about the
same desired data element are obtained (step 401), the local parameters
are determined which influence the deterministic relationship between the
desired data element and the measured data elements (step 402), the model
filters are calculated using the local parameters (step 403), noise
spectra and crosscorrelations are determined using the measured data
elements and the local parameters (step 404), a MISO filter is applied to
form a sufficient statistic data element from the measured data elements
(step 405), and a SISO estimator is applied to the sufficient statistic
to generate an estimate of the desired data element (step 406).
[0048] Step 401 is to obtain at least two measured data elements which
contain information about the desired data element. Persons of ordinary
skill in the art will recognize how to obtain measured data elements
which contain information about the desired data element.
[0049] Step 402 is to determine the local values of the measurement model
parameters. For example, when the goal is to suppress multiples in the
desired data element, the relevant local parameters are typically the
relative scaling of the pressure and vertical velocity measurements,
sound velocity in water, the water depth, the water bottom reflection
coefficient, and stacking velocities. Example embodiments of how these
may be estimated are discussed below.
[0050] The sound velocity in water is typically estimated to be
approximately 1500 m/s. Alternatively, it may be determined more
accurately by direct measurement of water temperature and salinity by the
seismic survey vessel.
[0051] The water depth may be determined from the sound velocity and the
water bottom reflection time. A variety of methods are available for
determining the water bottom reflection time, including observing the
delays in the autocorrelation of the seismic traces or direct measurement
from the first bottom reflection.
[0052] A variety of methods are available for determining the water bottom
reflection coefficient. Examples of such methods include observing peak
amplitudes in the autocorrelation of the seismic data or direct
measurement from the first bottom reflection.
[0053] The determination of the stacking velocities for the primaries as a
function of time is commonly made as an earlier step in the processing of
seismic data. This determination utilizes standard industry methods known
to persons of ordinary skill in the art.
[0054] In cases where different acquisition geometries are used, data
acquisition parameters such as the source depth and streamer depth are
known by positioning methods. Such positioning methods are familiar to
persons of ordinary skill in the art.
[0055] Step 403 is to calculate the model filters from the local
parameters. The choice of appropriate model filters depends on the
details of the data sets to which the inventive method is applied. Town
representative examples are given below:
[0056] One example utilizes Filters for multiple suppression in prestack
dual sensor (hydrophone and geophone) ocean bottom cable data in
frequency/offset domain. In this example, V.sub.W is the sound velocity
in water, d is the water depth, R.sub.B is the water bottom reflection
coefficient, and V.sub.RMS is the moveout velocity of the primary energy
at time T(0) in the zero offset seismic trace. The multiple filter for
the hydrophone and geophone data respectively are,
M 1 ( f ) = 1  2.pi. f t W ( 1
+ R B 2.pi. f t W ) 2 . ( 3 )
M 2 ( f ) = 1  2.pi. f t W ( 1 +
R B 2.pi. f t W ) 2 . ( 4 )
##EQU00001##
The time between multiple reflections t.sub.W(T(0),X) as a function of
primary time and offset can be found from the Dix equations (Dix, 1955)
by adding an additional water layer to represent the extra leg of the
multiples which is within the water column. If the offset is X, and the
primaries arrive at time T(0) on the zero offset seismic trace,
t W ( T ( 0 ) , X ) = ( T ( 0 ) + 2 d
V W ) 2 + X 2 V M 2  T 2 ( 0 ) + X 2 V RMS
2 . ( 5 ) ##EQU00002##
Where,
[0057] V M 2 = T ( 0 ) V RMS 2 + 2 dV W T
( 0 ) + 2 d V W . ( 6 ) ##EQU00003##
A second example utilizes model filters for combining data sets acquired
with different wavelets. If W.sub.0(f) is the frequency spectrum of the
desired wavelet, and W.sub.1(f) and W.sub.2(f) are frequency spectra of
the actual wavelets in measured data traces 1 and 2 respectively,
M 1 ( f ) = W 1 ( f ) W 0 ( f ) . ( 7
) M 2 ( f ) = W 2 ( f ) W 0 ( f ) .
( 8 ) ##EQU00004##
These examples of model filters for typical applications are illustrative
only and are not limiting on the scope of the invention. Persons of
ordinary skill in the art with the benefit of the disclosure herein will
recognize appropriate model filters for combining other types of data
sets.
[0058] Now referring to Step 404 of FIG. 4, the frequencydependent noise
covariance matrix between the measured elements is determined. This can
be accomplished by the method described in step 302 above.
[0059] Step 405 of FIG. 4 applies a MISO filter to the measured data
elements to form a sufficient statistic data element. This can be
accomplished by the method described in step 303 above.
[0060] In step 406 of FIG. 4, a SISO estimator is applied to the
sufficient statistic to form an estimate of the desired data element. The
preferred embodiment depends on the character of the desired data
element. Several examples are given below:
[0061] In one example, if the desired data element is a data trace which
contains a reflectivity series which is wellcharacterized as a Gaussian
random process with variance .sigma.x.sup.2(f) at frequency f, the
preferred embodiment would typically be to form the minimum mean squared
error estimate of the reflectivity series using the SISO filter. For
example, if the sufficient statistic in step 405 was formed according to
equation 1, then the preferred embodiment of the SISO filter would be:
S ( f ) = ( M H R  1 M + 1 .sigma. X 2 )
 1 ( M H R  1 M ) ( 9 ) ##EQU00005##
In a second Example, if the desired data element is a data trace which
contains a reflectivity series based on a discontinuous impedance profile
(spiky reflectivity series), the preferred embodiment of step 406 is
wavelettransform based denoising of the signal comprising a)
transforming the noisy signal to the wavelet domain, b) adaptively
shrinking each wavelet coefficient to attenuate the noise and extract the
signal, and c) inverting the wavelet transformation to retrieve the
improved estimate. Optionally, this denoising can be preceded by adaptive
Fourier filtering of the data to eliminate excessive noise from some
frequencies. For discontinuous signals, formally described by the Besov
signal class, this waveletbased estimator has the property that as the
noise variance decreases, the estimator's error decays no slower than
that of any other estimator. Consequently, for discontinuous signals, no
other linear or nonlinear estimator can significantly improve upon the
asymptotic error performance as disclosed in Neelamani (2004).
Example
[0062] The inventive method is now demonstrated using hypothetical seismic
data. The subsurface is assumed to be composed of horizontal layers.
FIGS. 5(a), 5(b) and 5(c) show the density (rho) 51, compressional
velocity (Vp) 53, and shear velocity (Vs) 55 respectively versus
zerooffset reflection time. Not shown is a 50 m deepwater layer at the
top of the model (rho=1 g/cc and Vp=1500 m/s) which is bounded above by a
pressure release surface. The measured data elements will be two common
depth point (CDP) gathers of synthetic ocean bottom cable data collected
with colocated hydrophone and vertical geophone sensors on the water
bottom. The CDP for pressure 61 and vertical velocity 63 gathers are
respectively shown in FIGS. 6(a) and 6(b). The inventive method will be
applied to combine the CDP gathers to form a new CDP gather with reduced
multiple levels.
[0063] The synthetic seismic data used in this demonstration was created
using software which solves the elastic wave equation by the wavenumber
integration technique. In commercial application of the inventive method,
the data would come from a seismic survey acquired using techniques
familiar to persons of ordinary skill in the art (as described in step
401 of FIG. 4).
[0064] Now, corresponding to step 402 in FIG. 4, the local parameters were
determined. The necessary parameters in this example are the stacking
velocities as a function of depth, the bottom reflection coefficient,
reverberation time, and the sound velocity in water. First, the stacking
velocities were determined as a function of depth. This was accomplished
by computing a velocity spectrum of the geophone gather (which generally
has less multiplerelated energy than the pressure data) and
interpolating a profile from the dominant peaks in this spectrum. This
method is commonly known and applied in the seismic exploration industry.
FIG. 7(a) illustrates the velocity spectrum 71 and the interpolated
velocity profile 73 as it varies with zerooffset travel time. FIG. 7(b)
illustrates the moveout curves 75 for the selected velocity spectrum
peaks 77.
[0065] The reverberation time and bottom reflection coefficient were
obtained by performing an autocorrelation on the near offset pressure
traces. FIG. 8(a) illustrates the average autocorrelation function 88 of
the ten nearestoffset pressure traces in the time window from 2.5 to 4.5
seconds. The zerodelay peak 81 and largest negative peak 83 are both
identified. The time delay 84 associated with the largest negative peak
83 of the autocorrelation was taken to be the reverberation time and the
relative amplitude of the second multiple peak 82 to the first multiple
peak 83 was used to infer the bottom reflection coefficient. FIG. 8(b)
illustrates the relationship 85 between the ratio of second multiple peak
to first multiple peak amplitude and bottom reflection coefficient. This
ratio 86 and the inferred bottom reflection coefficient 87 are indicated.
[0066] The sound velocity in water was assumed to be known accurately. In
field operations, this information would typically be computed from
shipboard measurements of temperature (and sometimes salinity) profiles.
The source depth and sensor offsets were also assumed to be known
accurately.
[0067] Now, corresponding to step 403 in FIG. 4, the model filters were
generated and corresponding to step 404, the noise statistics were
characterized. As illustrated in FIG. 9(a) and corresponding to step 405,
the sufficient statistic 91 was created.
[0068] Now, corresponding to step 406, a SISO operation was applied, in
this case transforming the sufficient statistic into the minimum mean
squared error estimate of the multiplefree gather. FIG. 9(b) illustrates
the results of the minimum mean squared error estimate 93. Note that the
random noise level is less in FIG. 9(b) when compared to the sufficient
statistic 91 in FIG. 9(a).
REFERENCES
[0069] L. Amundsen, "Elimination of freesurface related multiples
without need of the source wavelet," Geophysics, vol. 66, no. 1, 327341,
2001. [0070] L. Amundsen, L. T. Ikelle, L. E. Berg, "Multidimensional
signature deconvolution and freesurface multiple elimination of marine
multicomponent oceanbottom seismic data," Geophysics, vol. 66, no. 5,
15941604, 2001. [0071] R. Bale, "Plane wave deghosting of hydrophone and
geophone OBC data," Proceedings of the Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, 1998. [0072] [Barr U.S. Pat. No. 4,979,150] F. J. Barr,
"System for attenuation of watercolumn reverberations," U.S. Pat. No.
4,979,150, 1990. [0073] F. J. Barr and J. I. Sanders, "Attenuation of
watercolumn reverberations using pressure and velocity in a waterbottom
cable," ", Proceedings of the Soc.iety of Exploration Geophysicists,
653656, 1989. [0074] F. J. Barr, "Attenuating water column
reverberations in marine seismic prospecting," U.K. Patent 2338302, 1999.
[0075] Cassano, E., and Rocca, F., Multichannel linear filters for
optimal rejection of multiple reflections, Geophysics, vol. 38, p.
10531061, 1973. [0076] R. E. Duren, "Trapped water bottom multiple and
pegleg multiple suppression for ocean bottom seismic data," U.S. Pat.
No. 6,678,207, 2004. [0077] L. T. Ikelle, "Combining two seismic
experiments to attenuate freesurface multiples in OBC data", Geophys.
Prosp., 47, 179193, 1999. [0078] L. T. Ikelle, L. Amundsen,
"Noniterative multiple attenuation methods: Linear inverse solutions to
nonlinear inverse problems", The Leading Edge, 350355, April 2002.
[0079] E. L. Lehmann and G. Casella, Theory of point estimation,
Springer, 1999 [0080] K. H. Matson, G. Xia, "Combining freesurface
multiple attenuation with wavefield continuation to attenuate 3D
freesurface multiples on multicomponent oceanbottom seismic data,"
Proceedings of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2002. [0081]
Mayne, W. H., Common reflection point horizontal data stacking
techniques, Geophysics, vol. 32, p. 225229, 1967. [0082] N. Moldoveanu,
"Method for attenuation of reverberations using a pressurevelocity
bottom cable," U.S. Pat. No. 5,621,700, 1996. [0083] R. Neelamani, H.
Choi, and R. Baraniuk, ForWaRD: Fourierwavelet regularized deconvolution
for illconditioned systems, IEEE transactions on signal processing, vol.
52, No. 2, pg. 418433. [0084] J. Paffenholz, "Receiverghost utilization
for random noise in OBC dual sensor processing", EAGE Conference and
Technical Exhibition, 1998. [0085] J. E. Rickett and D. E. Lumley,
"Crossequalization data processing for timelapse seismic reservoir
monitoring: A case study from the Gulf of Mexico." Geophysics, vol. 66,
no. 4, pg. 10151025. [0086] Robinson, J. C., Statistically Optimal
Stacking of Seismic Data, Geophysics, vol. 35, p. 436446, 1970. [0087]
K. M. Schalkwijk, D. J. Verschuur, C. P. A. Wapenaar, "A decomposition
and multiple removal strategy for multicomponent OBC data," Proceedings
of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2001. [0088] Schoenberger,
M., Optimum weighted stack for multiple suppression, Geophysics, vol. 61,
p. 891901, 1996. [0089] R. Soubaras, "Ocean bottom hydrophone and
geophone processing," ", Proceedings of the Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, 2427, 1996. [0090] R. Soubaras, "Offshore seismic
prospecting using a hydrophonegeophone pair," U.S. Pat. No. 5,835,451,
1998. [0091] D. J. Verschuur, E. I. Neumann, "Integration of OBS data and
surface data for OBS multiple removal", Proceedings of the Soc.iety of
Exploration Geophysicists, 1999. [0092] Y. Yan, R. J. Brown, "The
suppression of watercolumn multiples by wavefield separation and
crosscorrelation," Proceedings of the Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, 2001.
* * * * *