Fidelity and repeatability of wave fields reconstructed from multicomponent streamer data

Abstract

ABSTRACTWave field reconstruction – the estimation of a three‐dimensional (3D) wave field representing upgoing, downgoing or the combined total pressure at an arbitrary point within a marine streamer array – is enabled by simultaneous measurements of the crossline and vertical components of particle acceleration in addition to pressure in a multicomponent marine streamer. We examine a repeated sail line of North Sea data acquired by a prototype multicomponent towed‐streamer array for both wave field reconstruction fidelity (or accuracy) and reconstruction repeatability. Data from six cables, finely sampled in‐line but spaced at 75 m crossline, are reconstructed and placed on a rectangular data grid uniformly spaced at 6.25 m in‐line and crossline. Benchmarks are generated using recorded pressure data and compared with wave fields reconstructed from pressure alone, and from combinations of pressure, crossline acceleration and vertical acceleration. We find that reconstruction using pressure and both crossline and vertical acceleration has excellent fidelity, recapturing highly aliased diffractions that are lost by interpolation of pressure‐only data. We model wave field reconstruction error as a linear function of distance from the nearest physical sensor and find, for this data set with some mismatched shot positions, that the reconstructed wave field error sensitivity to sensor mispositioning is one‐third that of the recorded wave field sensitivity. Multicomponent reconstruction is also more repeatable, outperforming single‐component reconstruction in which wave field mismatch correlates with geometry mismatch. We find that adequate repeatability may mask poor reconstruction fidelity and that aliased reconstructions will repeat if the survey geometry repeats. Although the multicomponent 3D data have only 500 m in‐line aperture, limiting the attenuation of non‐repeating multiples, the level of repeatability achieved is extremely encouraging compared to full‐aperture, pressure‐only, time‐lapse data sets at an equivalent stage of processing.