Advertisement

Marine Geophysical Research

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 279–301 | Cite as

Practical approaches to maximizing the resolution of sparker seismic reflection data

  • J. KluesnerEmail author
  • D. Brothers
  • P. Hart
  • N. Miller
  • G. Hatcher
Original Research Paper

Abstract

Sparkers are a type of sound source widely used by the marine seismic community to provide high-resolution imagery of the shallow sub-bottom (i.e., < 1000 m). Although sparkers are relatively simple, inexpensive, and high-frequency (100–2500 Hz) sources, they have several potential pitfalls due to their complicated and unpredictable signature. In this study we quantify the source characteristics of several sparker systems and develop a suite of simple processing approaches for both single channel and multi-channel sparker data. In all cases, the results show improved vertical resolution and reflection coherency. Correcting for small static variations in multi-channel seismic (MCS) data is a critical first step to preserve the broad frequency content during stacking, and to reduce the shot-to-shot variability of outgoing and incoming signals. Application of predictive deconvolution to static-corrected, post-stack traces suppresses short-path multiples and restores the latent high-resolution reflection patterns. However, if shot-to-shot source signatures are recorded directly, pre-stack deterministic deconvolution followed by post-stack predictive deconvolution produces the most robust results. Processing sparker data without broadband techniques results in less confident or completely missed interpretations when compared to the broadband equivalent. If processed correctly, marine sparker data can provide exceptional sub-bottom imagery that rivals other more repeatable marine seismic sources (e.g., high-frequency air-guns).

Keywords

Marine seismic reflection Sparker Deconvolution Residual statics Source characterization 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the USGS Coastal and Marine Geology Program, USGS Innovation Center and Pacific Gas and Electric through the USGS Cooperative Research and Development Agreement. We would like to thank Carolyn Ruppel for discussions and feedback on this project. We also thank the captain and crews of the vessels described in Table 1 and USGS technicians Jackson Currie, Rob Wyland, and Tom O’Brien. In addition, we would like to thank Daniel Ebuna and Alicia Balster-Gee for helpful reviews of this manuscript. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

References

  1. Baldock S, Masoomzadeh H, Woodburn A et al (2013) Increasing the bandwidth of marine seismic data. Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia New Resources, April/May, 55–57Google Scholar
  2. Beeson JW, Johnson SY, Goldfinger C (2017) The transtensional offshore portion of the northern San Andreas fault: fault zone geometry, late Pleistocene to Holocene sediment deposition, shallow deformation patterns, and asymmetric basin growth. Geosphere 13:1173–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellefleur G, Duchesne MJ, Hunter J et al (2006) Comparison and processing of single and multi-channel high-resolution seismic data for shallow stratigraphy mapping in the St. Lawrence Estuary. Curr Res Geol Surv Can D2:1–10Google Scholar
  4. Brothers DS, ten Brink U, Andrews B, Chaytor J (2013) Geomorphic characterization of the US Atlantic continental margin. Mar Geol 337:53–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brothers DS, Ruppel C, Kluesner J et al (2014) Evidence for seabed fluid expulsion along the upper slope and outer shelf of the U.S. Atlantic margin. Geophys Res Lett 41:96–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brothers DS, Haeussler P, Liberty L et al (2016) A submarine landslide source for the devastating 1964 Chenega tsunami, southern Alaska. Earth Planetary Sci Lett 438:12–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brothers DS, Haeussler P, East A et al (2017) A closer look at an undersea source of Alaskan earthquakes. EOS.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2017EO079019 Google Scholar
  8. Brothers DS, Elliot J, Conrad JE et al (2018a) Strain partitioning in southeastern Alaska: is the Chatham Strait Fault active? Earth Planetary Sci Lett 481:362–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brothers DS, Maier KL, Kluesner JW et al (2018b) Repeated failure of uplifted basin sediment, Santa Cruz Basin, southern California. In: Marsaglia K, Schwalbach R (eds) California Continental Borderlands: from the Mountains to the Abyss, an SEPM Special Volume. Special Publication 110: SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology), Tulsa, Oklahoma.  https://doi.org/10.2110/sepmsp.110.05
  10. Brothers DS, Andrews BD, Walton M et al (2018c) Slope failure and mass transport processes along the Queen Charlotte Fault, southeastern Alaska, in subaqueous mass movements and their consequences: assessing geohazards, environmental implications. In: Campbell C, Lintern G, Bobrowski P (eds). Geological Society of London Special Volume, Special Publication, 477.  https://doi.org/10.1144/SP477.30
  11. Buogo S, Cannelli GB (2002) Implosion of an underwater spark-generated bubble and acoustic energy evaluation using the Rayleigh model. J Acoust Soc Am 6:2594–2600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cannelli GB, D’Ottavi E (1990) Bubble activity induced by high-power marine sources. In: Proceedings of the Oceans Conference Record (IEEE), pp 533–537Google Scholar
  13. Carlson D, Long A, Söllner W et al (2007) Increased resolution and penetration from a towed dual-sensor streamer. First Break 25:71–77Google Scholar
  14. Clarke GKC (1968) Time-varying deconvolution filters. Geophysics 43:125–132Google Scholar
  15. Conrad JE, Prouty NG, Walton MAL, Kluesner JW, Maier KL, McGann M, Brothers DS, Roland E, Dartnell P (2017) Seafloor fluid seeps on Kimki Ridge, offshore southern California: links to active strike-slip faulting. Deep-Sea Res II.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2017.11.001 Google Scholar
  16. Conrad JE, Brothers DS, Maier KL, Ryan HF, Dartnell P, Sliter RW (2018) Right-lateral fault motion along the slope-basin transition, Gulf of Santa Catalina, southern California. In: Marsaglia KM, Schwalbach R, Behl RJ (eds) From the Mountains to the Abyss: The California Borderland as an Archive of Southern California Geologic Evolution, Special Publication 110: SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology), Tulsa, Oklahoma.  https://doi.org/10.2110/sepmsp.110.07
  17. Crocker SE, Fratantonio FD (2016) Characteristics of sounds emitted during high-resolution marine geophysical surveys. Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division-Newport, Technical Report 12,203Google Scholar
  18. Duchesne MJ, Bellefleur G, Galbraith M et al (2007) Strategies for waveform processing in sparker data. Mar Geophys Res 28:153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Egorov A, Glubokovskikh S, Bóna A et al (2017) How rough sea affects marine seismic data and deghosting procedures. Geophys Prospecting 66:1–10Google Scholar
  20. Ford WT (1978) Optimum mixed delay spiking filters. Geophysics 43:125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forel D, Benz T, Pennington WD (2005) Seismic data processing with Seismic Un*x: A 2D seismic data processing primer. Society of Exploration Geophysicist, HoustonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gibson B, Larner L (1984) Predictive deconvolution and the zero-phase source. Geophysics 49:379–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gosh SK (2000) Deconvolving the ghost effect of the water surface in marine seismics. Geophysics 65:1831–1836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gutowski M, Breitzke M, Volkhard S (2002) Fast static correction methods for high-frequency multichannel marine seismic reflection data: a high-resolution seismic study of channel-levee systems on the Bengal Fan. Mar Geophys Res 23:57–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haeussler PJ, Parsons T, Finlayson DP et al (2014) New imaging of submarine landslides from the 1964 earthquake near Whittier, Alaska, and a comparison to failures in other Alaskan fjords. In: Krastel S et al (eds). Submarine mass movements and their consequences. Springer, Basel, pp 361–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haeussler PJ, Armstrong PA, Liberty LM et al (2015) Focused exhumation along megathrust splay faults in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Quat Sci Rev 113:8–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Henkart P (2018), SIOSEIS, software, Scripps Inst. of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA (available at http://sioseis.ucsd.edu)
  28. Hill JC, Brothers DS, Craig BK et al (2017) Geologic controls on submarine slope failure along the central U.S. Atlantic margin: insights from the Currituck Slide Complex. Mar Geol 385:114–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson SY, Watt JT (2012) Influence of fault trend, bends, and convergence on shallow structure and geomorphology of the Hosgri strike-slip fault, offshore central California. Geosphere 8:1632–1656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnson SY, Hartwell S, Dartnell P (2014) Offset of latest Pleistocene shoreface reveals slipe rate on the Hosgri strike-slip fault, offshore central California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104:1650–1662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson SY, Cochrane GR, Golden NE (2017a) The California Seafloor and Coastal Mapping Program—providing science and geospatial data for California’s State Waters. Ocean Coast Manag 140:88–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson SY, Hartwell S, Sorlien CC (2017b) Shelf evolution along a transpressive transform margin, Santa Barbara Channel, California. Geosphere 13:2041–2077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jones LE (2013) High frequency enhancement of sparker sub bottom profiles with multichannel reflection processing. In: International geophysical conference and exhibition (ASEG-PESA), pp 1–4Google Scholar
  34. Knudsen WC (1961) Elimination of secondary pressure pulses in offshore exploration. Geophysics 26:425–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leinbach J (1995) Weiner spiking deconvolution and minimum-phase wavelets: a tutorial. Lead Edge 14:189–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liberty LM, Flinn SP, Haeussler PJ et al (2013) Megathrust splay faults at the focus of the Prince William Sound asperity, Alaska. J Geophys Res: Solid Earth 118:5428–5441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maier KL, Paull CK, Brothers DS et al (2017) Investigation of San Gregorio Fault Zone late Pleistocene and Holocene activity on the continental slope north of Monterey Canyon, offshore central California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107:1094–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maier KL, Roland EC, Walton MA et al (2018) The tectonically controlled San Gabriel channel-lobe transition zone, Catalina Basin, southern California borderland. J Sedimentary Res 88:924–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mosher DC, Simpkin PG (1999) Status and trends of marine high resolution seismic reflection profiling: data acquisition. Geosci Can 26:174–188Google Scholar
  40. Parkes G, Hegna S (2011) An acquisition system that extracts the earth response from seismic data. First Break 29:81–87Google Scholar
  41. Robinson EA (1954) Predictive deconvolution of time series with applications to seismic exploration. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  42. Ronen J, Claerbout JF (1985) Surface-consistent residual statics estimation by stack-power maximization. Geophysics 50:2759–2767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rothman DH (1985) Nonlinear inversion, statistical mechanics, and residual statics estimations. Geophysics 50:2784–2796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Russell BH (1989) Statics corrections—a tutorial. Canadian Soc Explor Geophys Recorder: 16–30Google Scholar
  45. Scheuer T, Oldenberg DW (1988) Aspects of time-variant filtering. Geophysics 53:1399–1409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sheriff RE (2005) Encyclopedic dictionary of applied geophysics. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, TulsaGoogle Scholar
  47. Sheriff RE, Geldart LP (1995) Exploration seismology I: History, theory, and data acquisition. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sliter RW, Triezenberg PJ, Hart PE, Watt JT, Johnson SY, Scheirer DS (2009 revised 2010) High-resolution seismic reflection and marine magnetic data along the Hosgri Fault Zone, central California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009—1100, version 1.1, https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1100/
  49. Sliter RW, Conrad JE, Brothers DS, Balster-Gee AF (2017) Multichannel minisparker seismic-reflection data of field activity 2014-645-FA; Santa Cruz and Catalina Basins, offshore southern California from 2014 to 11-12 to 2014-11-25. U.S. Geol Surv Data Release.  https://doi.org/10.5066/F7CV4FW6 Google Scholar
  50. Stockwell JW (1997) Free software in education: A case study of CWP/SU: Seismic Un*x. Leading Edge 16:1045–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Verbeek NH, McGee TM (1995) Characteristics of high-resolution marine reflection profiling sources. J Appl Geophys 33:251–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Widmaier M, Fromyr E, Dirks V (2015) Dual-sensor towed streamer: from concept to fleet-wide technology platform. First Break 33:83–89Google Scholar
  53. Wilson WG, Laidlaw WG, Vasudevan K (1994) Residual statics estimation using the genetic algorithm. Geophysics 59:766–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yilmaz O (2001) Seismic data analysis: processing, inversion, and interpretation of seismic data. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, HoustonCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pacific Coastal and Marine Science CenterUS Geological SurveySanta CruzUSA
  2. 2.Woods Hole Science CenterUS Geological SurveyWoods HoleUSA

Personalised recommendations