Common Focus Point Research Articles

Common-focus point-based target-oriented imaging approach for continuous seismic reservoir monitoring

The ideal approach for continuous reservoir monitoring allows generation of fast and accurate images to cope with the massive data sets acquired for such a task. Conventionally, rigorous depth-oriented velocity-estimation methods are performed to produce sufficiently accurate velocity models. Unlike the traditional way, the target-oriented imaging technology based on the common-focus point (CFP) theory can be an alternative for continuous reservoir monitoring. The solution is based on a robust data-driven iterative operator updating strategy without deriving a detailed velocity model. The same focusing operator is applied on successive 3D seismic data sets for the first time to generate efficient and accurate 4D target-oriented seismic stacked images from time-lapse field seismic data sets acquired in a [Formula: see text] injection project in Saudi Arabia. Using the focusing operator, target-oriented prestack angle domain common-image gathers (ADCIGs) could be derived to perform amplitude-versus-angle analysis. To preserve the amplitude information in the ADCIGs, an amplitude-balancing factor is applied by embedding a synthetic data set using the real acquisition geometry to remove the geometry imprint artifact. Applying the CFP-based target-oriented imaging to time-lapse data sets revealed changes at the reservoir level in the poststack and prestack time-lapse signals, which is consistent with the [Formula: see text] injection history and rock physics.

Successive application of the layer-related CFP method for internal multiple removal

Internal multiples are very difficult to remove due to their complex raypaths and poor velocity discrimination with primaries. The layer-related common focus point (CFP) method has proven to be effective for internal multiple removal, however, single application leads to multiple leakage when there are several strong reflecting boundaries in the subsurface. In order to reduce this leakage, we propose successive application of the layer-related CFP method for internal multiple removal through cascaded processing of several time levels. In this paper, we concisely reformulate the theory of the boundary- and layer-related CFP methods and compare their robustness to velocity errors. For the layer-related version in particular, we illustrate the specific steps of the method using synthetic data examples. Finally, the successive layer-related CFP method is tested on Mississippi Canyon field data.

Review Paper: An outlook on the future of seismic imaging, Part I: forward and reverse modelling

ABSTRACTThe next generation of seismic imaging algorithms will use full wavefield migration, which regards multiple scattering as indispensable information. These algorithms will also include autonomous velocity‐updating in the migration process, called joint migration inversion. Full wavefield migration and joint migration inversion address industrial requirements to improve the images of highly complex reservoirs as well as the industrial ambition to produce these images more automatically (automation in seismic processing).In these vision papers on seismic imaging, full wavefield migration and joint migration inversion are formulated in terms of a closed‐loop, estimation algorithm that can be physically explained by an iterative double‐focusing process (full wavefield Common Focus Point technology). A critical module in this formulation is forward modelling, allowing feedback from the migrated output to the unmigrated input (‘closing the loop’). For this purpose, a full wavefield modelling module has been developed, which uses an operator description of complex geology. Full wavefield modelling is pre‐eminently suited to function in the feedback path of a closed‐loop migration algorithm.‘The Future of Seismic Imaging’ is presented as a coherent trilogy of papers that propose the migration framework of the future. In Part I, the theory of full wavefield modelling is explained, showing the fundamental distinction with the finite‐difference approach. Full wavefield modelling allows the computation of complex shot records without the specification of velocity and density models. Instead, an operator description of the subsurface is used. The capability of full wavefield modelling is illustrated with examples. Finally, the theory of full wavefield modelling is extended to full wavefield reverse modelling (FWMod−1), which allows accurate estimation of (blended) source properties from (blended) shot records.

Tomography of diffraction-based focusing operators

Diffractions carry the same kinematic information provided by common focus point operators (CFPOs). Thus CFPO and diffraction time trajectories may be used separately, or combined into a single unified tomography for velocity analysis. Velocity estimation by tomography of CFPOs reduces the depth-velocity ambiguity compared to two-way time tomography. CFPO estimation is complicated where there are event discontinuities and diffractions. This problem is overcome by using the kinematic information in diffractions in near-offset common-offset gathers. The procedure is illustrated using synthetic data, and a single-channel field seismic profile from the Blake Ridge (off the east coast of the United States). The results show the effectiveness of the proposed method for estimation of velocity from single channel seismic data, and for refinement of the velocity field from multichannel data. Both applications are cost-competitive.

Simultaneous determination of refractive index and thickness of moderately thick plane-parallel transparent glass plates using cyclic path optical configuration setup and a lateral shearing interferometer

We present a simple technique for simultaneous determination of refractive index and thickness of moderately thick plane-parallel transparent glass plates (GPs) using a cyclic path optical configuration (CPOC) setup and a wedge shear plate as lateral shearing interferometer. The CPOC setup is used to simultaneously focus the counterpropagating converging beams at a common point at its hypotenuse arm. The apparent thickness and real thickness of the test GP are determined by observing three retrocollimation positions of the GP surfaces with respect to the common focus point. The RI is obtained by dividing the real thickness with apparent thickness of the GP. Presented in this paper are the results obtained for a test GP with a thickness of 14.983 mm and a RI of 1.515.

Influence factors of polarization-independent focusing by octagonal photonic quasicrystal

The focusing property of electromagnetic wave is investigated by a flat slab made of octagonal photonic quasicrystal. We obtain polarization-independent focusing by use of the all-dielectric photonic quasicrystal. The influence of geometrical factors of photonic quasicrystal on the focusing property for TM and TE polarizations is explored in detail. The results show that two orthogonal polarizations have a common focus point only under certain proper condition. Our results may be a useful guidance for the fabrication of lens devices capable of polarization-independent focusing by photonic quasicrystal.

Depth migration anisotropy analysis in the time domain

ABSTRACTIn areas of complex geology such as the Canadian Foothills, the effects of anisotropy are apparent in seismic data and estimation of anisotropic parameters for use in seismic imaging is not a trivial task. Here we explore the applicability of common‐focus point (CFP)‐based velocity analysis to estimate anisotropic parameters for the variably tilted shale thrust sheet in the Canadian Foothills model. To avoid the inherent velocity‐depth ambiguity, we assume that the elastic properties of thrust‐sheet with respect to transverse isotropy symmetry axis are homogeneous, the reflector below the thrust‐sheet is flat, and that the anisotropy is weak. In our CFP approach to velocity analysis, for a poorly imaged reflection point, a traveltime residual is obtained as the time difference between the focusing operator for an assumed subsurface velocity model and the corresponding CFP response obtained from the reflection data. We assume that this residual is due to unknown values for anisotropy, and we perform an iterative linear inversion to obtain new model parameters that minimize the residuals. Migration of the data using parameters obtained from our inversion results in a correctly positioned and better focused reflector below the thrust sheet. For traveltime computation we use a brute force mapping scheme that takes into account weakly tilted transverse isotropy media. For inversion, the problem is set up as a generalized Newton's equation where traveltime error (differential time shift) is linearly dependent on the parameter updates. The iterative updates of parameters are obtained by a least‐squares solution of Newton's equations. The significance of this work lies in its applicability to areas where transverse isotropy layers are heterogeneous laterally, and where transverse isotropy layers are overlain by complex structures that preclude a moveout curve fitting.

Removal of internal multiples with the common-focus-point (CFP) approach: Part 2 — Application strategies and data examples

In the past, the surface-multiple-removal method based on the feedback model has been successfully applied to many different field data sets. The extension of surface to internal multiples can be made by replacing shot records with common-focus-point (CFP) gathers, a CFP gather representing focused data with one source in the subsurface and all receivers at the surface (or vice versa for a receiver gather). The internal-multiple-removal algorithm can be formulated in terms of boundary-related and layer-related versions. In the boundary-related version, the internal multiples are removed for one downward-scattering reflector at a time. In the layer-related version, the internal multiples are removed for a sequence of downward-scattering reflectors at a time. An exact velocity model is not required, but proper muting is critical; muting becomes straightforward in the CFP domain. The strategy for applying the two versions of the multiple-removal algorithm is demonstrated on physical-model and field data. One can conclude that the layer-related version is the most appropriate in most situations because it requires less user action and does not need exact knowledge of the multiple-generating boundary.

Removal of internal multiples with the common-focus-point (CFP) approach: Part 1 — Explanation of the theory

Removal of surface and internal multiples can be formulated by removing the influence of downward-scattering boundaries and downward-scattering layers. The involved algorithms can be applied in a model-driven or a data-driven way. A unified description is proposed that relates both types of algorithms based on wave theory. The algorithm for the removal of surface multiples shows that muted shot records play the role of multichannel prediction filters. The algorithm for the removal of internal multiples shows that muted CFP gathers play the role of multichannel prediction filters. The internal multiple removal algorithm is illustrated with numerical examples. The conclusion is that the layer-related version of the algorithm has significant practical advantages.

Seismic imaging beyond depth migration

If seismic imaging is formulated in terms of two focusing steps—focusing in emission and focusing in detection (or vice versa)—the output of the first focusing step yields a new type of seismic gather, the common‐focus‐point (CFP) gather, which is available for data analysis and information extraction. One important consequence of this novel option is that the involved focusing operators can be updated without updating the underlying velocity model. Introducing the concept of “dynamic focusing,” it is proposed to verify the validity of focusing operators by comparing the “gather of focus‐point responses” with the “gather of focusing operators.” Compared with velocity‐driven time and depth migration, operator‐driven CFP migration can be considered as the most general approach to seismic imaging: it does not require a velocity model, and it automatically takes into account unknown complex propagation effects such as conversion, anisotropy, and dispersion. In addition, in CFP migration, the second focusing step can be extended to produce both angle‐averaged reflection information and angle‐dependent reflection information. The CFP approach to seismic migration allows new solutions in the situation of complex near‐surface layers, subsalt targets, multicomponent processing, and time lapse analysis.

Comprehensive assessment of seismic acquisition geometries by focal beams—Part I: Theoretical considerations

The starting point for a relatively simple approach to data acquisition design can be found in the common focus point (CFP) philosophy, which describes seismic migration as a double focusing process. The migration output is presented as the combined result of focused source beams and focused detector beams for a given velocity model, revealing the potential amplitude accuracy and spatial resolution of a specific field geometry. In addition, any noise model can be fed into the input, and the subsequent beam‐forming operations can be applied to predict the potential noise suppression rate. The economical optimization comes from the possibility of balancing the source and detector efforts as well as the acquisition and processing efforts.

Common focus point velocity estimation for laterally varying velocities

First BreakVolume 19, Issue 2 p. 75-83 Common focus point velocity estimation for laterally varying velocities B. E. Cox, B. E. CoxSearch for more papers by this authorP. L. A. Winthaegen, P. L. A. WinthaegenSearch for more papers by this authorD. J. Verschuur, D. J. VerschuurSearch for more papers by this authorK. Roy-Chowdhury, K. Roy-ChowdhurySearch for more papers by this author B. E. Cox, B. E. CoxSearch for more papers by this authorP. L. A. Winthaegen, P. L. A. WinthaegenSearch for more papers by this authorD. J. Verschuur, D. J. VerschuurSearch for more papers by this authorK. Roy-Chowdhury, K. Roy-ChowdhurySearch for more papers by this author First published: 21 December 2001 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0263-5046.2001.00140.xCitations: 2 Correspondence: Netherlands Institute of Applied Geoscience TNO – National Geological Survey, PO Box 80015, 3508 TA Utrecht, the Netherlands. 2 Delft University of Technology, PO Box 5046, 2600 GA Delft, the Netherlands. 3 Utrecht University, Budapestlaan 4, 3584 CD Utrecht, the Netherlands. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume19, Issue2February 2001Pages 75-83 RelatedInformation

Pushing the limits of seismic imaging, Part II: Integration of prestack migration, velocity estimation, and AVO analysis

The author proposes an operator‐driven prestack migration scheme that is based on the synthesis of common focus‐point (CFP) gathers. Each CFP gather represents the response of a synthesized source array that aims at the illumination of one subsurface gridpoint (focus point). The involved synthesis operator is referred to as the focusing operator. If the time‐reversed focusing operator and its related focus‐point response have equal traveltimes, then the underlying macro velocity model is correct and the focus‐point response in the CFP gather is stacked by weighted addition along the common traveltime curve (CFP‐stacking), yielding the prestack migration result at the subsurface grid point under consideration. If the time‐reversed focusing operator and its related focus‐point response have different traveltimes, then the underlying macro velocity model is incorrect and the correct focusing operator can be derived from the two traveltime curves. A simple updating procedure is proposed. The total CFP migration process of synthesis, updating, and stacking is repeated for all subsurface grid points of interest, leading to the prestack migration result in one‐way image time together with a distribution of updated focusing operators. In a postprocessing step, all operator traveltime information can be used to derive a velocity model for the time‐to‐depth conversion process. Hence, in the presented “CFP technology” the author proposes to estimate the velocity model from the correct focusing operators by a global inversion process after the migration process has been carried out (“beyond depth migration”). For each subsurface grid point, the amplitudes along the pairs of updated traveltime curves provide amplitude‐versus‐offset (AVO) information. In addition, by introducing the grid‐point gather with the aid of an extension of the second focusing process, the author shows that this gather leads to the extraction of pre‐ and postcritical amplitude‐versus‐ray parameter (AVP) information at each grid point. Finally, just as a velocity model can be estimated from all grid‐point‐oriented traveltime information, a lithology model can be estimated from all grid‐point—oriented amplitude information by a postimaging global inversion process.

Pushing the limits of seismic imaging, Part I: Prestack migration in terms of double dynamic focusing

In this paper, the author proposes to extend the synthesis of areal sources (controlled emission) to the synthesis of areal detectors (controlled detection) such that the concept of numerical focusing can be formulated as a special version of target‐oriented synthesis. As a consequence, the insight in the complex prestack migration process can be improved significantly by making use of the concepts “focusing in emission” and “focusing in detection.” Focusing in emission transforms shot records into so‐called common focus‐point (CFP) gathers. Focusing in detection transforms CFP gathers into the prestack migration result. If structural information is sought, the focus point in emission is chosen equal to the focus point in detection: confocal version of CFP migration. If rock and pore information is required as well, the focus point in emission is chosen different from the focus point in detection: bifocal version of CFP migration. Errors in the underlying macro velocity model can be better analysed than before by using CFP gathers as an intermediate migration output. The error analysis involves a comparison between each CFP gather and its related focusing operator. The quality (amplitude accuracy, noise content, resolution) of prestack migration results can be evaluated effectively at each subsurface grid point by analysing the two focused beams involved (pre‐evaluation) and by analyzing the so‐called grid‐point gather (post‐evaluation). The proposed pre‐evaluation method may lead to an improved way of coping with “acquisition footprints” of relatively sparse source and receiver coverage.

Apparatus for producing time‐staggered shock waves

A shock wave tube generates a plane shock wave which is divided into two partial waves by means of a splitting device, such as a cone. Adjacent the cone are first and second reflectors. The reflectors have different parabolic curvatures and different distances from the cone. Their respective foci coincide at a common point, where a concrement is located. The partial waves require different transit times to reach the common focus point. Time-staggered shock waves are obtained in the concrement with the use of a single shock wave tube.