Advertisement

Applied Geophysics

, Volume 15, Issue 3–4, pp 491–499 | Cite as

Poststack internal multiples attenuation based on virtual events

  • Meng Chen
  • Jia-Hui LiuEmail author
  • Yong-Fu Cui
  • Tian-Yue Hu
  • Fei-Xu Chen
  • Wei-Kang Kuang
  • Zhen Zhang
Article
  • 16 Downloads

Abstract

The attenuation of prestack internal multiples based on virtual seismic events is computationally costly and hinders seismic data processing. We propose a multiples attenuation method for poststack seismic data by approximating conventional virtual events. The proposed method is iterative. The proposed method is tested using 2D synthetic and the field poststack seismic datasets. Compared with the conventional virtual events method, the proposed method does not require data regularization and offers higher computation efficiency. The method requires to know the travel time of the primary reflection waves. The results of the application to 2D field datasets suggest that the proposed method attenuates the internal multiples while highlighting the deep primaries.

Keywords

Virtual events poststack internal multiple land seismic data 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. An, S., Hu, T., Liu, J., and Peng, G., 2017, Scheme of applying virtual event method for internal multiples on land seismic data: CGS/SEG International Geophysical Conference, SEG, Extended Abstracts, 391–394.Google Scholar
  2. Berkhout, A. J., and Verschuur, D. J., 1997, Estimation of multiple scattering by iterative inversion, Part I: Theoretical considerations: Geophysics, 62(5), 1586–1595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berkhout, A. J., and Verschuur, D. J., 2005, Removal of internal multiples with the common–focus–point (CFP) approach: Part 1–Explanation of the theory: Geophysics, 70(3), V45–V60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brookes, D., 2011, Case studies in 3D interbed multiple attenuation: The Leading Edge, 30(8), 914–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Guitton, A., and Verschuur, D. J., 2004, Adaptive subtraction of multiples using the L1–norm: Geophysical Prospecting, 52(1), 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ikelle, L. T., 2006, A construct of internal multiples from surface data only: the concept of virtual seismic events: Geophysical Journal International, 164(2), 383–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ikelle, L. T., Erez, I., and Yang, X., 2009, Scattering diagrams in seismic imaging: More insights into the construction of virtual events and internal multiples: Journal of Applied Geophysics, 67(2), 150–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jakubowicz, H., 1998, Wave equation prediction and removal of interbed multiples: 68th SEG Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1527–1530.Google Scholar
  9. Keydar, S., Lande, E., Gurevich, B., and Gelchinsky, B., 1997, Multiple prediction using wavefront characteristics of primary reflections: 59th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Expanded Abstracts.Google Scholar
  10. Liu, J., and Hu, T., 2017a, Internal Multiple Attenuation by Iterative Construction of Virtual Events: 79th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Expanded Abstracts.Google Scholar
  11. Liu, J., and Hu, T., 2017b, Inversion based internal multiple attenuation study: CGS/SEG International Geophysical Conference, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 561–564.Google Scholar
  12. Lopez, G. A., and Verschuur, D. J., 2015, Closed–loop surface–related multiple elimination and its application to simultaneous data reconstruction: Geophysics, 80(6), V189–V199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. van Borselen, R., 2002, Data–driven interbed multiple removal: Strategies and examples: 72nd SEG Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2106–2109.Google Scholar
  14. van Groenestijn, G. J., and Verschuur, D. J., 2009, Estimating primaries by sparse inversion and application to near–offset data reconstruction: Geophysics, 74(3), A23–A28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Verschuur, D. J., and Berkhout, A. J., 2005, Removal of internal multiples with the common–focus–point (CFP) approach: Part 2—Application strategies and data examples: Geophysics, 70(3), V61–V72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Verschuur, D. J., and Berkhout, A. J., 2015, From removing to using multiples in closed–loop imaging: The Leading Edge, 34(7), 744–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wang, D. K., Liu, H. S., Tong, S. Y., and Zhu, W. Q., 2015, Ocean–bottom cable data multiple suppression based on equipoise pseudo–multichannel matching filter: Applied Geophysics, 12(2), 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wu, J., Wu, Z., Hu, T., He, Y., Wang, P., Yan, G., and Li, L., 2013, Seismic internal multiple attenuation based on constructing virtual events: Chinese Journal of Geophysics (in Chinese), 56(3), 985–994.Google Scholar
  19. Ypma, F., and Verschuur, D. J., 2013, Estimating primaries by sparse inversion, a generalized approach: Geophysical Prospecting, 61(s1), 94–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zhou, Y., Wang, R., Yuan, Y., Wang, S., Huang, W., Zhou, Y., and Chen, X., 2017, Attenuation of internal multiples with mathematical morphology filtering: 87th SEG Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 4844–4848.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Editorial Office of Applied Geophysics and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meng Chen
    • 1
  • Jia-Hui Liu
    • 2
    Email author
  • Yong-Fu Cui
    • 1
  • Tian-Yue Hu
    • 2
  • Fei-Xu Chen
    • 1
  • Wei-Kang Kuang
    • 2
  • Zhen Zhang
    • 1
  1. 1.Tarim Oilfield Company, PetroChina, KorlaXinjiangChina
  2. 2.School of Earth and Space SciencesPeking UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations