Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Paper On Geophysics by Arthur Weglein
Paper On Geophysics by Arthur Weglein
Paper On Geophysics by Arthur Weglein
Journal:
GEO-2014-0486
r
Fo
Manuscript ID:
Geophysics
Manuscript Type:
Date Submitted by the Author:
Area of Expertise:
12-Nov-2014
Weglein, Arthur; University of Houston, Physics;
Pe
Keywords:
Technical Paper
er
Note: The following files were submitted by the author for peer review, but cannot be converted to
PDF. You must view these files (e.g. movies) online.
ew
vi
Re
Figures.zip
Page 1 of 66
r
Fo
Pe
Abstract
There has been considerable recent interest and activity (for ex-
er
Re
vi
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
solid physics based migration process, originally pioneered and provided by Jon Claerbout, and an accurate discontinuous velocity and
density model, that only the recorded primaries enter migration and
migration-inversion. We explain and help clarify that those who claim
to migrate multiples are, in fact, not migrating multiples, but are
actually using a recorded multiple and a recorded primary subevent of
the multiple, to predict an unrecorded primary subevent of that multiple. The multiple is being used to predict an unrecorded primary.
The recorded primaries and the unrecorded primaries, that are (ap-
GEOPHYSICS
r
Fo
Pe
Introduction
er
Re
To begin, signal within the context of exploration seismology, and for the
purpose of this paper, refers to the events in seismic recorded data used
vi
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 2 of 66
seismic data. Methods that employ the wave equation for migration have
two ingredients: (1) a wave propagation concept and (2) an imaging condition. Claerbout (1971) pioneered and developed three imaging conditions
for seismic migration. He combined these imaging conditions with one-way
wave propagation concepts to determine structure at depth. Claerbouts
three landmark imaging conditions are: (1) the exploding reflector model,
(2) the space and time coincidence of up and down waves, and (3) the pre-
Page 3 of 66
r
Fo
subsurface location. That experiment would have its own recorded events,
the primaries and multiples for that predicted experiment. Stolt and his colleagues (Clayton and Stolt, 1981; Stolt and Weglein, 1985; Stolt and Benson,
Pe
1986; Weglein and Stolt, 1999; Stolt and Weglein, 2012) then provided the
extension, for one way waves, of the Claerbout source and receiver experi-
er
ment imaging condition (Imaging condition III) to allow for non coincident
source and receiver at time equals zero, to realize both structural and inver-
Re
sion objectives. Due to causality, the offset dependence, at time equals zero,
is highly localized about zero offset. The character of that singular function, sharply peaked in offset, is smooth in offset wave-number, where the
vi
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
GEOPHYSICS
gating waves. The latter method of imaging based on Imaging condition III
for a medium with two way propagating waves, plays a central role in the
analysis of this paper. The predicted experiment, in the volume is realized
by calling upon Greens theorem and a Greens function that along with its
normal derivative vanishes on the lower portion of the closed surface.
All current RTM methods, for two way waves, are extensions and/or
r
Fo
variants of the second of Claerbouts imaging conditions, and do not correspond to Claerbouts imaging condition III a source and receiver experiment
at depth.
Pe
er
One doesnt have to look very far to find an example of the need for a
predicted experiment at depth at points in a volume where there is two
Re
vi
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 4 of 66
to locate and to determine the reflection coefficient from above, and, separately, from below, a single reflector requires predicting a source and receiver
experiment inside a volume with two way propagating waves two way wave
migration, since the reflection data is upgoing (to a source and receiver experiment located) above the reflector and is downgoing (to that experiment
when the source and receiver are located) below the reflector. Of course,
the addition of, for example, multiples and/or diving waves also represent
examples of two way wave propagation in the region where you want to
Page 5 of 66
r
Fo
zero imaging condition for its peerless clarity, generality and quantitative
information value. In the next section, we describe the evolution of the
prediction of the source and receiver experiment component of Claerbout
Pe
er
Re
The elastic and firm mathematical physics foundation for predicting a wavefield inside a volume from (measured) values on the surface bounding the
vi
volume was provided by Green (1828) as variants of what we now call Greens
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
theorem. In the next several sections, we describe the evolution and application of Greens theorem for predicting the source and receiver experiment
at depth, since that is an essential step in tracing the realization and application of Claerbouts imaging condition III. In that evolution, we will begin
with: (1) the original infinite hemisphere volume model, then (2) the reasoning, need for, and description of finite volume model for one way waves, and
finally, (3) the need for and description of the finite volume model prediction
of the source and receiver experiment for two way waves.
5
GEOPHYSICS
r
Fo
municating.
Pe
er
Re
vi
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 6 of 66
are several problems with the infinite hemispherical migration model. That
model assumes: (1) that all subsurface properties beneath the measurement
surface (MS) are known, and (2) that an anticausal Greens function (e.g.,
Schneider (1978)), with a Dirichlet boundary condition on the measurement
surface, would allow measurements (MS) of the wavefield, P , on the upper
plane surface of the hemisphere to determine the value of P within the
hemispherical volume, V . The first assumption leads to the contradiction
that we have not allowed for anything that is unknown to be determined
Page 7 of 66
in our model, since everything within the closed and infinite hemisphere
is assumed to be known. Within the infinite hemispherical model there is
nothing and/or nowhere below the measurement surface where an unknown
scattering point or reflection surface can serve to produce reflection data
whose generating reflectors are initially unknown and being sought by the
migration process.
r
Fo
Pe
er
Re
ew
vi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
We begin with a space and time domain Greens theorem. Consider two
wavefields P and G0 that satisfy
(2
1 2
)P (r, t) = (r, t)
c2 t
(1)
GEOPHYSICS
and
(2
1 2
)G0 (r, t, r0 , t0 ) = (r r0 )(t t0 ),
c2 t
(2)
r
Fo
t+
P (r, t) =
dt
0 0
dr0 (r0 , t0 )G+
0 (r, t, r , t ),
Pe
(3)
+
where G+
0 is the causal whole space solution to equation 2 and t = t +
er
Re
vi
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 8 of 66
sources and produces the field at all points of space and time. No additional
boundary or initial conditions are required in equation 3.
Now consider the integral
Z
t+
dt
Z
=
dr0 (P 02 G0 G0 02 P )
V
t+
dt
0
dr0 0 (P 0 G0 G0 0 P ),
(4)
Page 9 of 66
t+
dr0 0 (P 0 G0 G0 0 P )
dt
t+
dt0
dS 0 n
(P 0 G0 G0 0 P ).
(5)
r
Fo
Pe
1 02
G0 + (r r0 )(t t0 )
c2 t
1 02
P + (r0 , t0 ),
c2 t
0 G 0 =
2
0 P
er
(6)
(7)
and assume that the out variables (r, t) are in the intervals of integration: r
Re
t+
dt0
dr0
t+
dt
0
1
(P t20 G0 G0 t20 P ) + P (r, t)
c2
ew
vi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
(8)
GEOPHYSICS
dr
t+
0
Z
1 t+
2 0
dr0 [P t0 G0 G0 t0 P ]
c t =0 V
Z
Z t+
0
dS 0 n
(P 0 G0 G0 0 P ).
dt
+
V
r
Fo
(9)
Pe
will differ with different choices of G0 , but the sum of the three terms will
always be the same, P (r, t).
er
Re
+
+
0
+
and t0 G+
0 are zero at t = t . The causality of G0 and t0 G0 causes only
+
dr0 [P t0 G+
0 G0 t0 P ].
ew
1 t+
2 0
c t =0
vi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 10 of 66
(10)
If we let the space and time limits in equation 9 both become unbounded,
i.e., V and the t0 interval becomes [, 0], and choose G0 = G+
0 , the
whole space causal Greens function, then by comparing equations 3 and 9
10
Page 11 of 66
t+
+ 0
dS 0 n
(P 0 G+
0 G0 P )
dt
1 t+
2
c
+
dr0 [P t0 G+
0 G0 t0 P ] = 0.
(11)
V = means a volume that spans all space, and V means all points in
r
Fo
that are outside the volume V . For r in and any time t from equation 3
we get
t+
0 0
dt0 (r0 , t0 )G+
0 (r, t, r , t )
Pe
P (r, t) =
dr
dr
dr0
t+
0 0
dt0 (r0 , t0 )G+
0 (r, t, r , t )
er
Z
0 0
dt0 (r0 , t0 )G+
0 (r, t, r , t )
Z
+
dr
Re
0 0
dt0 (r0 , t0 )G+
0 (r, t, r , t ).
(12)
vi
Z
V
0
Z
+
dr
V
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
+
dr0 [P t0 G+
0 G0 t0 P ]
0 0
dt0 (r0 , t0 )G+
0 (r, t, r , t )
0
0 0
dt0 (r0 , t0 )G+
0 (r, t, r , t )
11
(13)
GEOPHYSICS
and
Z
t+
dS 0 n
[P 0 G0 G0 0 P ]
dt
dr
=
V
t+
0 0
dt0 (r0 , t0 )G+
0 (r, t, r , t ).
(14)
The solution for P (r, t) in equation 3 expresses the fact that if all of the
r
Fo
factors that both create the wavefield (active sources) and that subsequently
influence the wavefield (passive sources, e.g., heterogeneities in the medium)
are explicitly included in the solution as in equation 9, then the causal
Pe
er
From equations 13 and 14 the role of boundary and initial conditions are
Re
vi
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 12 of 66
due to sources earlier than time t0 = 0, both inside and outside V , to the
solution in V during [0, t] and (3) a surface integral, enclosing V , integrated
from t0 = 0 to t+ that gives the contribution from sources outside V during
the time [0, t+ ] to the field, P , in V for times [0, t+ ]. Succinctly stated,
initial conditions provide contributions from sources at earlier times and
surface/boundary conditions provide contributions from outside the spatial
volume to the field in the volume during the [0, t] time interval. If all sources
for all space and all time are explicitly included as in equation 3, then there
12
Page 13 of 66
r
Fo
Pe
(2 + k 2 )P (r, ) = (r, )
(15)
(2 + k 2 )G0 (r, r0 , ) = (r r0 ),
(16)
er
Re
and the causal all space and time solution analogous to equation 3 is
Z
P (r, ) =
vi
0
dr0 (r0 , )G+
0 (r, r , ),
dr (P G0 G0 P ) =
V
(17)
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
dS 0 n
(P 0 G0 G0 0 P ).
(18)
13
GEOPHYSICS
where
it dt
P (r, t)e
= P (r, ) we find
dr P (r , )(r r ) =
V
(19)
r
Fo
Pe
er
Z
+
V
G+
0.
(20)
ew
G+
0
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 14 of 66
For r in V the second term on the right hand side of equation 19 (with
G0 = G+
0 ) equals the second term in equation 20, i.e.,
Z
V
dr0 G+
0 =
I
S
+ 0
dS 0 n
(P 0 G+
0 G0 P ).
(21)
14
Page 15 of 66
+ 0
dS 0 n
(P 0 G+
0 G0 P ),
(22)
provides the contribution to the field, P , inside V due to sources outside the
volume V .
r
Fo
What about the large |r| contribution of the surface integral to the field
inside the volume? We use Greens theorem to predict that the contribution
to the physical/causal solution P in V from the surface integral in Greens
theorem, in general, and also
Pe
I
{P
P
G+
0
G+
}dS,
0
n
n
(23)
er
Re
P
G
0
G
}dS,
0
n
n
P (r, ) =
r in V
dr (r
V
0
, )G
0 (r, r , )
I
+
S
ew
(24)
vi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
dS 0 {P
G
P
0
G
}
0
n
n
(25)
from the second term on the right hand side of equation 25 to P in V must
15
GEOPHYSICS
0
dr0 (r0 , )G+
0 (r, r , ),
(26)
dS 0 {P
ZS
=
G
P
0
G
}+
0
n
n
r
Fo
V
0
dr0 (r0 , )G
0 (r, r , )
0
dr0 (r0 , )G+
0 (r, r , ) + 0,
so
I
(27)
Pe
{P
P
G
0
G
}dS
0
n
n
er
ZS
0
0
0
0
=
[G+
0 (r, r , ) G0 (r, r , )](r , )dr 6= 0
(28)
Re
for all time. Hence, the large distance surface contribution to the physical field, P , within V with the surface values of the physical field P and
vi
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 16 of 66
0
dr0 (r0 , )G
0 (r, r , ),
(29)
16
Page 17 of 66
(30)
r
Fo
(31)
Pe
er
models of migration. That combined with the fact the infinite hemisphere
model assumes the entire subsurface, down to infinite depth is known,
Re
suggests the need for a different model. That model is the finite volume
model (see, e.g., Weglein et al., 2011a,b).
vi
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
The finite model for migration assumes that we know or can adequately
estimate earth medium properties (e.g., velocity) down to the reflector we
seek to image. The finite volume model assumes that beneath the sought
after reflector the medium properties are, and will remain, unknown. The
finite volume model corresponds to the volume within which we assume
the earth properties are known and within which we predict the wavefield
from surface measurements. We have moved away from the two issues of the
17
GEOPHYSICS
infinite hemisphere model, i.e., (1) the assumption we know the subsurface
to all depths and (2) that the surface integral with an anticausal Greens
function has no contribution to the field being predicted in the earth.
The finite volume model removes both of the problematic assumptions
behind the infinite hemisphere model. However, we are now dealing with
a finite volume V , and with a surface S, consisting of upper surface SU ,
r
Fo
Pe
er
two-way propagation in V , from contributions only on SU , is a new contribution (Weglein et al., 2011a,b) that allows Claerbout Imaging III to be
Re
vi
amplitude of the RTM image. The new Greens function is neither causal,
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 18 of 66
Page 19 of 66
the Greens functions that allow for two-way propagation (for RTM application) without the need for measurements on the lower boundary of the
closed surface in Greens theorem.
Finite volume model for migration (Claerbout Imaging Condition III): Greens theorem for predicting
r
Fo
Pe
er
z =a
{P (z 0 , )
Re
dP
dG0
(z, z 0 , ) G0 (z, z 0 , ) 0 (z 0 , )}
0
dz
dz
ew
(32)
vi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
G0 (z, z 0 , ) = (z z 0 )
(33)
for z and z 0 in V . We can easily show that for an upgoing wave, P = Reikz ,
0
19
GEOPHYSICS
sense since information on the lower surface z 0 = b will move with the upwave
into the region between a and b, with a forward propagating causal Greens
0
function, G+
0 . At the upper surface z = a, the anticausal G0 will predict
r
Fo
Pe
is labeled GD
0 ,
er
0
GD
0
eik|zz |
=
2ik
eik|zI z |
2ik
Re
!
,
(34)
vi
and that
P (z) =
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 20 of 66
dGD
0
0
(z,
z
,
)
0 P (a) = eik(za) P (a),
0
dz
z =a
(35)
in agreement with a simple Stolt FK phase shift for predicting an upward propagating wave in a volume. Please note that P (z, )
D
0
0
0
dGD
0 /dz (z, z , )|z 0 =a P (a, ) back propagates P (z = a, ), not G0 . The
20
Page 21 of 66
(x0g , yg0 , zg0 , xg , yg , zg ; )D(x0g , yg0 , zg0 , x0s , ys0 , zs0 ; )dx0g dyg0 dx0s dys0
dzg
Z
r
Fo
= M (xs , ys , zs , xg , yg , zg ; )
= M (xm , ym , zm , xh , yh , zh ; ),
(36)
Pe
where xg + xs = xm , yg + ys = ym , zg + zs = zm , xg xs = xh , yg ys = yh ,
er
Re
to non-zero offset at time equals zero, and is ready for subsequent AVO
analysis in a multi-D subsurface (see e.g. Clayton and Stolt (1981), Stolt
vi
The Greens function for two-way propagation that will eliminate the
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
need for data at the lower surface of the closed Greens theorem surface is
found by finding a general solution to the Greens function for the medium in
the finite volume model and imposing both Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions at the lower surface.
21
GEOPHYSICS
r
Fo
2
+ 2 0 0 0
c (x , y , z )
02
G0 (x0 , y 0 , z 0 , x, y, z, )
(37)
Pe
er
2
+ 2 0 0 0
c (x , y , z )
P (x0 , y 0 , z 0 , xs , ys , zs , )
Re
(38)
As a first step, we want to predict P for a point (x, y, z) in the volume V , for
vi
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 22 of 66
and 0 G0 n
0 to be zero for (x0 , y 0 , z 0 ) on the lower surface SL and the walls
SW of the finite volume. The solution for G0 in V and on S can be found by a
numerical modeling algorithm where the source is at (x, y, z) and the field,
G0 , and G0 n
at (x0 , y 0 , z 0 ) are both imposed to be zero on SL and SW .
Once that model is run for a source at (x, y, z) for G0 (x0 , y 0 , z 0 , x, y, z, ) [for
every eventual predicted receiver point, (x, y, z), for P ] where G0 satisfies
Dirichlet and Neumann conditions for (x0 , y 0 , z 0 ) on SL and SW we output
G0 (x0 , y 0 , z 0 , x, y, z, ) for (x0 , y 0 , z 0 ) on SU (the measurement surface).
22
Page 23 of 66
Step (2) Predict the receiver experiment at depth (with the original/actual
source at (xs , ys , zs ))
P (x, y, z, xs , ys , zs , )
Z DN
G0
=
(x, y, z, x0 , y 0 , z 0 , )P (x0 , y 0 , z 0 , xs , ys , zs , )
z 0
P 0 0 0
DN
0 0 0
(x
,
y
,
z
,
x
,
y
,
z
,
)G
(x,
y,
z,
x
,
y
,
z
,
)
dx0 dy 0 ,
s s s
0
z 0
r
Fo
(39)
where z 0 = fixed depth of the cable and (xs , ys , zs ) = fixed location of the
source. This predicts the receiver at (x, y, z), a point below the measurement
Pe
Step (3) Now predict the experiment corresponding to the receiver and
the source at depth
er
Re
P (xg , yg , z, x, y, z, )
Z DN
G0
=
(x, y, z, xs , ys , zs , )P (xg , yg , z, xs , ys , zs , )
zs
P
DN
(xg , yg , z, xs , ys , zs , )G0 (x, y, z, xs , ys , zs , ) dxs dys .
zs
(40)
ew
vi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
GDN
0
(x, y, z, xs , ys , zs , )P (xg , yg , z, xs , ys , zs , )
zs
P
DN
23
(41)
GEOPHYSICS
and Fourier transform over xm , xh , ym , yh to find Pe(kxm , kxh , kym , kyh , kzm , zh =
0, t = 0). Equation 41 corresponds to Claerbout imaging condition III migration for a general v(x, y, z) velocity configuration, within a volume that
allows two way wave propagation.
r
Fo
Pe
er
Re
D(at depth) =
Ss
GD
0
zs
Z
Sg
GD
0
D dSg dSs ,
zg
ew
vi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 24 of 66
(42)
24
Page 25 of 66
downward continuation:
"
GDN
D DN
0
D(at depth) =
D+
G
dSg
zg
zg 0
Ss
Sg
#
Z DN
G
D
0
+ GDN
D+
GDN dSg dSs ,
0
zs Sg
zg
zg 0
Z
GDN
0
zs
(43)
r
Fo
Pe
er
surface and the walls. If we want to use the anticausal Greens function of
the two-way propagation with Dirichlet boundary conditions at the mea-
Re
vi
propagation that doesnt need data at depth and on the vertical sides/walls,
that requires a non-physical Greens function that vanishes along with its
derivative on the lower surface and walls.
25
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
GEOPHYSICS
1
2
+
z 0 (z 0 ) z 0 (z 0 )c2 (z 0 )
r
Fo
D(z 0 , ) = 0,
(44)
where a z 0 b is the depth, and (z 0 ) and c(z 0 ) are the density and
velocity fields, respectively. In exploration seismology, we let the shallower
Pe
er
the finite volume model for migration, the details of which can be found
in Weglein et al. (2011a). We measure D at the measurement surface z 0 = a,
Re
vi
2
1
+
z 0 (z 0 ) z 0 (z 0 )c2 (z 0 )
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 26 of 66
G0 (z, z 0 , ) = (z z 0 ),
(45)
where z is the location of the source, and a < z 0 < b and z increase in a
downward direction. Abbreviating G0 (z, z 0 , ) as G0 , the solution for D in
26
Page 27 of 66
0
G0
D(z 0 , ) z =b
0
D(z , ) 0 G0
0 ,
z
z 0
z =a
(46)
where a and b are the shallower and deeper boundaries, respectively, of the
volume to which the Greens theorem is applied. It is identical to equa-
r
Fo
tion (43) of Weglein et al. (2011a), except for the additional density contribution to the Greens theorem. Interested readers may find the derivation
of equation (46) in section 2 of Liu and Weglein (2014).
Note that in equation (46), the field values on the closed surface of
Pe
the volume V are necessary for predicting the field value inside V . The
surface of V contains two parts: the shallower portion z 0 = a and the
er
Re
vi
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
27
GEOPHYSICS
r
Fo
Pe
note the Greens function with vanishing Dirichlet and Neumann boundary
conditions at the deeper boundary.
er
Re
vi
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 28 of 66
wavefield (i.e., receivers) in the subsurface. It can also be used to predict the
sources in the subsurface by taking advantage of reciprocity: the recording
is the same after the source and receiver locations are exchanged.
Assuming we have data on the measurement surface: D(zg , zs ) (the
dependency is ignored), we can use GDN
0 (z, zg ) to predict it from the receiver
28
Page 29 of 66
GDN
(z, zg )
D (zg , zs ) DN
0
G0 (z, zg ) D (zg , zs )
zg
zg
.
(47)
Taking the
zs
r
Fo
2 D (zg , zs ) DN
D (zg , zs ) GDN
(z, zg )
0
G0 (z, zg )
zg zs
zs
zg
.
(48)
Pe
With equations (47) and (48), we predict the data D and its partial
er
Re
vi
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
E (z, z) =
29
GEOPHYSICS
Depth Range
(, a1 )
(a1 , a2 )
(a2 , )
Velocity
c0
c1
c2
Density
0
1
2
r
Fo
zs
operation on
Pe
1
E (z, z) =
(zs )D(z, zs )
GDN
(z, zs )
DN
0
+ ikG0 (z, zs ) .
zs
(50)
er
Numerical examples
Re
As an example, for a 2-reflector model (with an ideal impulsive source located at zs , the depth of receiver is zg > zs , the geological model is listed in
vi
Table 1), the data and its various derivatives can be expressed as:
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 30 of 66
0 x1
y + y 1 ,
2ik
D(zg , zs )
0 1
= x
y y 1 ,
zg
2
D(zg , zs )
0
= x1 y + y 1 ,
zs
2
2
D(zg , zs )
0 k 1
=
x
y y 1 ,
zg zs
2i
D(zg , zs ) =
30
(51)
Page 31 of 66
where x = eikzs , y = eikzg , = eikz , = eik(2a1 ) R1 + (1 R12 ) , and =
P
c2 2 c1 1
0 0
(1)n R1n R2n+1 eik1 (2n+2)[a2 a1 ] . And R1 = cc11 11 c
+c0 0 , and R2 = c2 2 +c1 1
n=0
The predicted experiment above the first reflector for Claerbout Imaging Condition III
r
Fo
eik(zzg ) eik(zg z)
2ik
1 1 x
GDN
(z, zs ) = 0 x
0
Pe
GDN
(z,zg )
0
zg
GDN
(z,zs )
0
zs
= 0
=
2ik
y 1 + 1 y
2
= 0 y
1 1 y
2ik
(52)
1 + 1 x
0 x 2
.
er
Re
1 + eik(2a1 2z) R1 + (1 R12 )
E(z, z) =
.
2ik/0
(53)
vi
The result above can be Fourier transformed into the time domain to
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
have:
E(z, z, t)
=H(t) + R1 H (t t1 ) + (1 R12 )
0 c0 /2
(54)
n=0
where t1 =
2a1 2z
c0
and t2 =
(a2 a1 )
.
c1
This factor is present in the incident wave, i.e., causal Greens function for a homogeneous medium with density 0 and velocity c0 .
31
GEOPHYSICS
t) =
data after removing the direct wave is denoted as D(z,
2
0 c0 E(z, z, t)
H(t):
t) =R1 H (t t1 )
D(z,
+ (1 R12 )
(55)
n=0
r
Fo
Pe
lim
t0+
t)
lim D(z,
za
1
er
where
a
1 = a1 1
0+
= 0 + 2
= R1 ,
1 > 0,
Re
(56)
(57)
2 > 0,
and we obtained the image of the first reflector at the actual depth a1 with
vi
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 32 of 66
Page 33 of 66
c1 .
into equation (51), and transforming the aforementioned result into the time
domain, we have:
n=1
r
Fo
+
n=0
(59)
n=0
Pe
Balancing out the 1 c1 /2 factor, the data after removing the direct
t) =
wave is denoted as D(z,
t) =2
D(z,
Re
n=0
vi
H(t):
n=1
2
1 c1 E(z, z, t)
er
n=0
(60)
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
R1
t) =
D(z,
0
R2
if (z = a1 + 1 )
(61)
if (z = a2 2 )
33
GEOPHYSICS
approach a1 from above. In this section we image below the first reflector
at a1 , the amplitude of the image is R1 when z approaches a1 from below,
as it should.
Predicting the source and receiver experiment below the second reflector
r
Fo
1
2ik2 (1 + R1 )(1 + R2 )/2
(62)
Pe
er
Re
vi
n=0
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 34 of 66
(63)
(64)
34
Page 35 of 66
(65)
r
Fo
t) =
D(z,
R2
if (z = a2 + )
if (a2 < z)
(66)
Pe
where 0+ . Note that in the previous section, i.e., to image between the
first and second reflectors, we obtain the amplitude R2 when z approach
er
Re
vi
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
GEOPHYSICS
cident source and receiver experiment at each depth, and then (2) the time
equals zero imaging condition evaluation of that experiment.
The example we present provides for the first time an analysis that starts
with and follows how surface recorded data (with primaries and free surface
and internal multiples) influences and contributes to the subsequent experiment and imaging at each depth level, and specifically: (1) how each
r
Fo
Pe
er
the time equals zero imaging condition. Please see three cases we examine in
the three videos (http://mosrp.uh.edu/events/event-news/multiples-signal-
Re
vi
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 36 of 66
internal multiples. That single primary is the sole contributor to the events
in the experiment above and below that single reflector. When the time
equals zero condition is applied, the recorded primary is the only recorded
event contributing to the experiment at depth and to the image, both below
and above the reflector.
The second case has a single primary and a free surface multiple (please
see Figures 10-12). The predicted experiment above the reflector has two
surface event contributions, from the primary and the free surface multi36
Page 37 of 66
ple. When the time equals zero imaging condition is applied then only the
recorded primary contributes to the image. Below the reflector the predicted experiment has two events, a primary that has a downward reflection
at the reflector, and a primary from the source to the free surface and then
down to the predicted receiver. The original free surface multiple in the
recorded data became a primary in the predicted experiment below the re-
r
Fo
flector. Hence, the primary and free surface multiple in the recorded data
became two primaries for the experiment below the reflector. However, once
the time equals zero imaging condition is applied to the predicted experi-
Pe
ment, only the recorded primary contributes to the image and the recorded
multiple does not.
er
Re
As you focus on the history that each individual event in the recorded data
follows and then contributes to, first in the experiment at depth and then
to the image at each depth, you reach the following conclusion. Recorded
vi
primaries and free surface multiples and internal multiples all contribute
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
GEOPHYSICS
at any depth.
Hence, for the purposes of imaging and inversion, primaries are signal
and multiples are not. Multiples are not evil, or bad or irresponsible, they
are simply not needed for locating and identifying targets.
The methods that seek to use multiples today as signal are really seeking to supply primaries that have not been recorded, due to limitations in
r
Fo
acquisition, and to address the subsequent limited illumination that missing primaries can cause. They are not really using the multiple itself as an
event to be followed into the subsurface for imaging purposes. The figure
Pe
er
event is also recorded. The idea is to extract and predict the smaller offset,
and not recorded primary from the recorded multiple and the recorded longer
Re
offset primary. All the various incarnations that are using multiples as
signal are actually, and entirely after removing a recorded longer offset
primary to have the output as a shorter offset unrecorded primary. Its
vi
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 38 of 66
The recipe of taking the multiples back in time and the primaries forward
in time and arranging for Imaging Condition II (not III) produces that
output.
In a Recent Advances and the Road Ahead presentation, Multiples:
signal or noise?, Weglein (2014b) (please see https://vts.inxpo.com/
scripts/Server.nxp?LASCmd=L:0&AI=1&ShowKey=21637&LoginType=0&InitialDisplay=
1&ClientBrowser=0&DisplayItem=NULL&LangLocaleID=0&RandomValue=1415030021699)
showed a field data example, from PGS, where there was clear added-value
38
Page 39 of 66
demonstrated from actual primaries, plus primaries predicted from multiples, compared to the image from the original primaries.
There is another issue: in order to predict a free surface or internal
multiple, the primary sub-events that constitute the multiple must be in the
data, for the multiple prediction method to recognize an event as a multiple.
If the short offset primary is not recorded, the multiple that is composed of
r
Fo
the short and long offset multiple will not be predicted as a multiple. That
issue and basic contradiction within the method is recognized by those who
practice this method, and instead of predicting the multiple, they use all
Pe
the events in the recoded data, primaries and multiples, and the multiples
can be useful for predicting missing primaries but the primaries in the data
er
will cause artifacts. There are other artifacts that also come along with this
method that have been noted in the literature.
Re
The reality of todays methods for using multiples to predict missing primaries are aimed at structural improvement, at best, and are not claiming,
seeking or delivering the amplitude and phase fidelity of the predicted pri-
vi
mary. Those who go so far as to advocate using fewer sources and/or more
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
GEOPHYSICS
Imaging Condition III) is ultimately based on the idea from Green (1828)
that to predict a wave (an experiment) inside a volume you need to know
the properties of the medium in the volume.
There is an alternative view: The inverse scattering series methods communicates that all processing objectives can be achieved directly and without subsurface information. The inverse scattering series treat multiples as a
r
Fo
form of coherent noise, and provide distinct subseries to remove free surface
and internal multiples before the inverse scattering subseries for imaging and
inversion achieve their goals using only primaries. If the inverse scattering
Pe
er
Re
vi
Hence, primaries are signal and multiples can be useful, at times, for pre-
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 40 of 66
dicting missing primaries. But its primaries that are signal, that we use for
structure and inversion.
Primaries are signal for all methods that seek to locate and identify
targets.
The above three examples assumed you had an accurate discontinuous velocity and density model. Given an accurate discontinuous velocity
and density model, and data with primaries and multiples, then we have
convincingly demonstrated that only primaries contributed to the images at
40
Page 41 of 66
every depth. If you predicted the source and receiver experiment at depth
with a smooth velocity, it is possible to correctly locate (but not invert)
each recorded primary eventbut with a smooth velocity model every free
surface and internal multiple will then produce a false image/artifact/event.
If you removed the multiples first you can correctly locate structure from
recorded primaries using a smooth velocity model.
r
Fo
Pe
for the foreseeable future. Thats why multiples need to be removed before
imaging. Multiples can at times be useful for creating missing primaries, but
er
Re
Many things are useful for creating primaries: money, the seismic boat,
the air-guns, the observer, the cable, computers, etc., but we dont call all
useful things signal.
vi
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
and encouraged. Those methods include: (1) advances in and more complete acquisition, (2) interpolation and extrapolation methods, and (3) using
multiples to predict missing primaries. However, a recorded primary is still
the best and most accurate way to provide a primary, and the primary is
the seismic signal.
A multiple can be useful, at times, for providing an unrecorded synthesized primary that is a subevent of the multiple. Given a data set consisting of: (1) the recorded primaries, (2) the synthesized primaries, (3) the
41
GEOPHYSICS
free surface multiples, and (4) internal multiples, the practical necessity of
using a smooth continuous velocity for migration demands that all multiples be removed before migration. In exploration seismology, migration and
migration-inversion are methods we employ to locate and identify structure.
Claerbout Imaging Condition III is the most definitive and quantitative migration concept and procedure. This paper demonstrated that Claerbout
r
Fo
Imaging Condition III clearly communicates that primaries are signal and
multiples are noise.
Pe
Acknowledgements
M-OSRP sponsors are thanked for their encouragement and support. The
er
author would like to thank Nizar Chemingui, Dan Whitmore and Alejandro
Valenciano (PGS), Bob Stolt (ConocoPhillips, retired), Clement Kostov and
Re
vi
acknowledges PGS for showing how multiples can be used to predict un-
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 42 of 66
42
Page 43 of 66
References
Amundsen, L., 1994, The propagator matrix related to the KirchhoffHelmholtz integral in inverse wavefield extrapolation: Geophysics, 59,
19021910.
Berkhout, A. J., and D. J. Verschuur, 1994, Multiple technology: Part 2, Migration of multiple reflections: 64th Annual International Meeting, SEG,
r
Fo
Pe
, 2012, Full wavefield migration - utilization of multiples in seismic migration: Presented at the 74th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Extended
Abstracts.
er
Claerbout, J. F., 1971, Toward a unified theory of reflector mapping: Geophysics, 36, 467481.
Re
vi
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
, 2013b, Full wavefield migration without dip limitation - using duplex waves in the imaging with multiples: Presented at the 75th EAGE
Conference & Exhibition, Extended Abstracts.
Fleury, C., and R. Snieder, 2011, Reverse-time-migration of multiply scattered seismic waves: 81st Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded
43
GEOPHYSICS
Abstracts, 33823387.
, 2012, Increasing illumination and sensitivity of reverse-time migration with internal multiples: Presented at the 74th EAGE Conference &
Exhibition, Extended Abstracts.
Green, G., 1828, An essay on the application of mathematical analysis to
the theories of electricity and magnetism: Privately published. (Avail-
r
Fo
able at http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.yl131n;view=
1up;seq=9).
Liu, F., and A. B. Weglein, 2013, The first wave theory RTM, examples with
Pe
a layered medium, predicting the source and receiver at depth and then
imaging, providing the correct location and reflection amplitude at every
er
depth location, and where the data includes primaries and all internal
multiples.: M-OSRP 2012-2013 Annual Report, 284335.
Re
, 2014, The first wave equation migration RTM with data consisting
of primaries and internal multiples: theory and 1D examples: Journal of
Seismic Exploration, 23, 357366.
vi
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 44 of 66
Page 45 of 66
r
Fo
Pe
er
Re
Schneider, W. A., 1978, Integral formulation for migration in two and three
dimensions: Geophysics, 43, 4976.
ew
vi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
Soni, A. K., X. Staal, and E. Verschuur, 2012, VSP imaging using all multiples: Full wavefield migration approach: 72nd Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 16.
Stolt, R. H., 1978, Migration by Fourier transform: Geophysics, 43, 2348.
Stolt, R. H., and A. K. Benson, 1986, Seismic migration: theory and practice: Geophysical Press.
Stolt, R. H., and A. B. Weglein, 1985, Migration and inversion of seismic
data: Geophysics, 50, 24582472.
45
GEOPHYSICS
r
Fo
Pe
er
Re
Weglein, A. B., R. H. Stolt, and J. D. Mayhan, 2011a, Reverse-time migration and Greens theorem: Part I The evolution of concepts, and setting
vi
the stage for the new RTM method: Journal of Seismic Exploration, 20,
ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 46 of 66
7390.
Page 47 of 66
r
Fo
er
Figures
Pe
Re
ew
vi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
GEOPHYSICS
Figure 8:
Figure 9:
Figure 10:
Figure 11:
Figure 12:
Figure 13:
r
Fo
Figure 14:
Figure 15:
Figure 16:
Figure 17:
Figure 18:
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 48 of 66
48
ew
vi
Re
49
Figure 1: The infinite hemispherical migration model. The measurement surface is denoted by MS.
er
Pe
||
r
Fo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
MS
Page 49 of 66
GEOPHYSICS
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
50
r
Fo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 50 of 66
r
Fo
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
51
Page 51 of 66
Re
Unknown
Known
Unknown
Unknown
ew
Approximately Known
vi
52
er
Pe
Known
r
Fo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
Page 52 of 66
53
c2,2
R1
R2
R2
R1
z=b
z=b+
P(z,z;t=0)
z=a+
P(z,z;t=0)
P(z,z;t=0)
P(z,z;t=0)z=a
dataP(zg,zs,t)
Figure 5: Greens theorem predicts the wavefield at an arbitrary depth z between the shallower depth a and deeper
depth b.
c1,1
ew
vi
Re
c0,0
er
Pe
zg=zs
r
Fo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 53 of 66
GEOPHYSICS
54
c2,2
R1
R2
R2
R1
dataP(zg,zs,t)
z=b
z=b+
P(z,z;t=0)
z=a+
P(z,z;t=0)
P(z,z;t=0)
P(z,z;t=0)z=a
Figure 6: Imaging with primaries and internal multiples. A double Greens theorem is utilized with the data, and a
Greens function that along with its normal derivative vanishes on the lower surface (and on the walls, in multi-D).
That is what wave-equation migration means for waves that are two-way propagating in the medium.
c1,1
ew
vi
Re
c0,0
Pe
zg=zs
r
Fo
er
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
Page 54 of 66
Reflector
r
Fo
ew
vi
Re
55
Figure 7:
er
Pe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
GEOPHYSICS
Case1:aprimaryfromasinglereflector(recordeddata)
Page 55 of 66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
56
Blue event:primary
ew
vi
Figure 8:
Re
Coincidentsourceand
receiveratdepthforalltimes
er
Blue event:primary
R1
Coincidentsourceand
receiveratdepthfort=0
Pe
Above thereflector(predictedexperimentatdepth)
r
Fo
Case1:aprimaryfromasinglereflector
GEOPHYSICS
Page 56 of 66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
57
Blue event:primary
ew
vi
Figure 9:
Re
Coincidentsourceand
receiveratdepthforalltimes
er
Blue event:primary
R1
Coincidentsourceand
receiveratdepthfort=0
Pe
Below thereflector(predictedexperimentatdepth)
r
Fo
Case1:aprimaryfromasinglereflector
Page 57 of 66
GEOPHYSICS
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
58
Figure 10:
Redevent:primary
Blueevent:freesurfacemultiple
Reflector
r
Fo
Freesurface
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Case2:aprimaryandafreesurfacemultiple
(recordeddata)
GEOPHYSICS
Page 58 of 66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
59
Redevent:primary
Blueevent:freesurface
multiple
ew
vi
Figure 11:
Re
Coincidentsourceand
receiveratdepthforalltimes
er
Redevent:primary
R1
Coincidentsourceand
receiveratdepthfort=0
Pe
Above thereflector(predictedexperimentatdepth)
r
Fo
Case2:aprimaryandafreesurfacemultiple
Page 59 of 66
GEOPHYSICS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
60
Redevent:primary(downward
reflectionatthereflector)
Blueevent:primary(downward
reflectionatthefreesurface)
ew
vi
Figure 12:
Re
Coincidentsourceand
receiveratdepthforalltimes
er
Redevent:primary(downward
reflectionatthereflector)
R1
Coincidentsourceand
receiveratdepthfort=0
Pe
Below thereflector(predictedexperimentatdepth)
r
Fo
Case2:aprimaryandafreesurfacemultiple
GEOPHYSICS
Page 60 of 66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
61
Figure 13:
Redevent:primaryfromthefirstreflector
Blackevent:primaryfromthesecondreflector
Blueevent:internalmultiple
Reflector2
Reflector1
r
Fo
Case3:twoprimariesandaninternalmultiple
(recordeddata)
Page 61 of 66
GEOPHYSICS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
62
Redevent:primaryfromthe
firstreflector
Blackevent:primaryfromthe
secondreflector
Blueevent:internalmultiple
ew
vi
Figure 14:
Re
Coincidentsourceand
receiveratdepthforalltimes
R1
Coincidentsourceand
receiveratdepthfort=0
Redevent:primaryfromthe
firstreflector
er
Pe
Above thefirstreflector(predictedexperimentatdepth)
r
Fo
Case3:twoprimariesandaninternalmultiple
GEOPHYSICS
Page 62 of 66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
63
Redevent:primaryfromthe
firstreflector
Blackevent:primaryfromthe
secondreflector
Blueevent:internalmultiple
ew
vi
Figure 15:
Re
Coincidentsourceand
receiveratdepthforalltimes
R1
Coincidentsourceand
receiveratdepthfort=0
Redevent:primaryfromthe
firstreflector
er
Pe
Below thefirstreflector(predictedexperimentatdepth)
r
Fo
Case3:twoprimariesandaninternalmultiple
Page 63 of 66
GEOPHYSICS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
64
Redevent:primaryfromthe
firstreflector
Blackevent:primaryfromthe
secondreflector
Blueevent:internalmultiple
ew
vi
R2
Coincidentsourceand
receiveratdepthfort=0
Black event:primaryfromthe
secondreflector
Figure 16:
Re
Coincidentsourceand
receiveratdepthforalltimes
er
Pe
Above thesecondreflector(predictedexperimentatdepth)
r
Fo
Case3:twoprimariesandaninternalmultiple
GEOPHYSICS
Page 64 of 66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
65
Blue event:primaryfromthe
firstreflector
Blackevent:primaryfromthe
secondreflector
ew
vi
R2
Coincidentsourceand
receiveratdepthfort=0
Black event:primaryfromthe
secondreflector
Figure 17:
Re
Coincidentsourceand
receiveratdepthforalltimes
er
Pe
Below thesecondreflector(predictedexperimentatdepth)
r
Fo
Case3:twoprimariesandaninternalmultiple
Page 65 of 66
GEOPHYSICS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
er
Pe
ew
vi
Re
66
Figure 18:
r
Fo
GEOPHYSICS
Page 66 of 66