Quality control of surface-consistent deconvolution on land dynamite data

Abstract

Seismic data with reliable amplitude and phase can significantly impact drilling programs by providing valuable descriptions of the reservoir and overburden, especially for complicated or subtle plays. Processing steps such as velocity tomography and amplitude-preserving migration are critical for producing high-quality seismic images, but equally important are surface-related premigration processing steps that can significantly alter seismic amplitude and phase information, such as deconvolution. During land dynamite seismic acquisition, source and receiver responses are affected by surface conditions and inhomogeneous weathering layers. For example, even with the exact charge size, the response from each shot can vary greatly as the medium around the charge changes. Receiver recordings are affected similarly by nearsurface conditions. An improper correction or a lack of correction for near-surface anomalies during seismic preprocessing will reduce the subsurface resolution and negatively bias subsurface descriptions that are dependent on reliable amplitude and phase information. Surface-consistent deconvolution can help to attenuate surface-consistent biases. There are several ways to quality-control (QC) this processing step. Different consequences result from various choices of deconvolution parameters.

Signal Stability and the Height-Correction Method for Ground-Penetrating Radar In Situ Asphalt Concrete Density Prediction

“…The waveform of the transmitted signal can affect the resistance of the signal to surrounding or internal noises. Signals with zero phase in frequency domain are more resistant to phase distortion than non-zero-phase signals ( 33 , 34 ). A Ricker wavelet has a higher signal-to-noise ratio and spatial resolution as well as a lower power loss ( 31 ) than other wavelet shapes, such as Gaussian wavelet, Sine wavelet, and Raised cosine.…”

A practical acoustic full waveform inversion workflow applied to a 3D land dynamite survey

“…In our workflow, the source wavelet is estimated from the surface-consistent deconvolution (Taner et al, 1981;Garceran et al, 2012;Zhang et al, 2015). In surfaceconsistent deconvolution, the recorded seismogram can be modeled as:…”

“…Figure 1 shows the zero-lag cross-correlation of one crossspread between field data and synthetics based on FWI models up to 10 Hz. The similarity between the field data and the corresponding synthetic data is improved when two-term deconvolution (Zhang et al, 2015) is applied to the input field data prior to FWI.…”