The common focal point and common reflection surface methodologies: subsets or complements?

Abstract

ABSTRACTThe common focal point (CFP) method and the common reflection surface (CRS) stack method are compared. The CRS method is a fast, highly automated procedure that provides high S/N ratio simulation of zero‐offset (ZO) images by combining, per image point, the reflection energy of an arc segment that is tangential to the reflector. It uses smooth parametrized two‐way stacking operators, based on a data‐driven triplet of attributes in 2D (eight parameters in 3D). As a spin‐off, the attributes can be used for several applications, such as the determination of the geometrical spreading factor, multiple prediction, and tomographic inversion into a smooth background velocity model. The CFP method aims at decomposing two‐way seismic reflection data into two full‐aperture one‐way propagation operators. By applying an iterative updating procedure in a half‐migrated domain, it provides non‐smooth focusing operators for prestack imaging using only the energy from one focal point at the reflector. The data‐driven operators inhibit all propagation effects of the overburden. The CFP method provides several spin‐offs, amongst which is the CFP matrix related to one focal point, which displays the reflection amplitudes as measured at the surface for each source–receiver pair. The CFP matrix can be used to determine the specular reflection source–receiver pairs and the Fresnel zone at the surface for reflection in one single focal point. Other spin‐offs are the prediction of internal multiples, the determination of reflectivity effects, velocity‐independent redatuming and tomographic inversion to obtain a velocity–depth model. The CFP method is less fast and less automated than the CRS method. From a pointwise comparison of features it is concluded that one method is not a subset of the other, but that both methods can be regarded as being to some extent complementary.