1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

MSc. Research Proposal:

Seismic Illumination Study Using Focal Beam Incorporating Multiple Data

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

27
28
30
31
32
34
35
36
38

Author:
Zulfadhli Bin Mohd Zaki

29

33

Propose Main Supervisor:

A.P. Wan Ismail Wan Yusoff

37

39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

54
55Universiti Teknologi Petronas,
57Bandar Seri Iskandar,
5931750, Tronoh,
61Perak Darul Ridzuan.
56

58

60

Propose Co-Supervisor:
Abdul Halim Abdul Latiff

62INTRODUCTION
63
64

65

Seismic illumination study has becomes a new approach by the industry to improve the

66seismic data quality in recent years. The complexity of geology has resulting in improper
67illumination on the reflector surface, thus giving rise to the problem of poor data quality on a
68certain area with low illumination. Given the fact that seismic illumination study can be
69conducted in small amount of time with relatively cheaper cost than acquiring 3D seismic
70survey, it is an new industry approach to solve the poor data quality problem in complex
71geology. The ability to 'guest' the seismic data quality of the survey area before and during the
72acquisition thus give an advantage to acquisition survey be conducted economically and
73effectively by changing the array geometry of source and receiver to give the best illumination
74on the whole area or seismic infill for the local area with low quality image.
75
76

The objective of this study is to conduct a seismic illumination study using a local area

77(propose target area is zone of poor image quality resulting from shallow gas cloud) solely on
78focal beam method to a multiply scattered wave. Conventional seismic processing eliminated the
79multiple as geophysicist regards the multiples as 'noise'. However, if multiple are consider as
80scattered wave which later recorded by the detector which reflected on a surface reflector, it
81increase the illumination of seismic wave especially in the zone which are poorly illuminated (i.e
82shallow gas cloud) by the primary wave. The idea is to use the multiple as the illumination from
83below of the target zone. Using the double focusing beam, it does not required to change the
84migration algorithm but rearranging source and receiver array distribution at the designed target
85area with minimal cost possible.
86
87

The poor image quality of the shallow gas cloud would be a good study area for a focal

88beam method as the gas cloud effect seismic imaging is localized. A gas cloud, as defined by
89Sheriff (2001), is an overburden region of low-concentration gas, escaping and migrating
90upward from a gas accumulation. The reflected events in this region appear with lower
91amplitude and frequency content. In addition, strong reflection amplitude anomalies, phase
92variations along seismic reflections and areas of acoustic blanking where no reflectors can be
93seen below the gas. The effects are probably caused by incoherent scattering, absorption and
94poor stacking because of non-hyperbolic normal moveout. Example in figure 1 shows the effect
95of gas cloud resulting in misinterpreted of fault due to absorption and internal scattering of wave.

96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116

117
118
119

120

121

122

FIGURE 1. Shallow gas cloud anomalies resulting in misinterpreted fault. The wave is
subjected to internal scattering and absorption due to properties of gas cloud.
.
An illumination studies prove to give the optimum acquisition for the poor quality

123region and be compensated through seismic infill. One of the ways is to prove it is the
124illumination could increase if the shooting direction is change as shown in figure 2. The studies
125focusing on the use of focal beam method for illumination studies on the shallow gas region
126using multiply scattered wave which reflected on horizon reflector beneath the target area as the
127primary wave to image the subsurface from above and below the target area.
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146

147
FIGURE
1482. Seismic illumination of the same location with different sail line. There is significance
149difference in seismic illumination of the target area.

150
151LITERATURE REVIEW
152
153

154
155

Illumination in seismic term is the "seismic wave energy falling on a

156reflector and be reflected" (Laurain et al, 2004). It is importance to note that in

157real case not all of the seismic waves illuminating the subsurface will be
158recorded by the receiver. As example, in the complex structure, the Common
159Midpoint Gather (CMP) could no longer be equal to Common Reflection Point
160(CRP). These create a different intensity of energy or hit-count on a reflector
161surface as shown by the figure 3. Seismic illumination method can be
162classified into two categories; global method and local method. The global
163methods are based on the information on the whole area while local methods
164are based on the information on a target area.
165

166
167 FIGURE 3. (a) CMP represents the CRP in a horizontal layer with same
168 elevation of source and receiver (b) The CRP shifted due to different
169
elevation of receiver elevation (c) CRP shifted due to dipping of the
170
reflecting bed. (Lauraun et al, 2014)
171
172

One of the local method mentions mention by Laurain, et al. is focal

173beam analysis as introduced by Berkhout et al. (2001a) and Berkhout et al

174(2001b). This method required a full prestack migration of the target zone and
175it will give results on image quality based on the acquisition geometry. A
176WRW model introduced by Berkhout (1982) is the key for framework for focal
177beam analysis. It explain the wavefield simulation as double step of
178extrapolation, an extrapolation of downward propagation of wave from source
179to target surface and a downward propagation extrapolation from receiver to
180target surface. It is formulated as:
181

+ ( z m , z 0 )
( z 0 , z m ) R ( z m ) W
W Sn( z0 )
Pn ( z0 , z 0 )=D[ n] ( z 0 )

182

(1)

183
184

where, Pn is the reflection response, as the results of four matrix

185multiplication. The D matrix does represent the detector array. W represents

186the wavefield propagation. The positive or negative sign tells the direction of
187the propagation of the wave, where negative sign representing the downward
188propagation of wave from source to a depth level of z m, and positive sign
189representing upward propagation of wave from depth level of z m to detector.
190The S matrix represents the source array. The R matrix represents the angle
191dependent reflection coefficient at the depth level z m. The reflectivity matrix, R
192could have positive and negative sign. The up going wavefield at depth level
193zm are transformed into additional down going wavefield thus creating multiple
194which latter will be discuss. These directly explained that there are two type of
195focusing operator, which is focusing in the detecting
196

Pj ( z m , z 0) =F j (z m , z 0 ) P( z 0 , z 0) ,

(2)

197
198where row vector

Pj ( z m , z 0)

199component. Row vector

is CFP gather of single frequency

Fj ( z m , z 0 )

represents focusing operator. For

200focusing in emitting
201

P jj ( z m , z m ) =[ Fj ( z m , z 0 ) P ( z 0 , z0 ) ] F j ( z 0 , z m) ,

(3)

202
203where scalar
204column vector

P jj ( z m , z m ) gridpoint trace of one frequency component and

F j (z 0 , z m )

is the focusing operator. The focusing operator

205is directly be relates by the source and detector geometry with the wavefield
206propagation to a certain target point of z m. Based on equation (2) and equation
207(3), the analysis of source and receiver geometry can be done in two steps
208manner. The expressions later translated for two focal beams: the focal
209detector beam

210 D j ( z m , z k ) =D(z 0)W ( z 0 , z m)

211
212And the focal source beam,
213

S j ( z k , z m ) =W (z k , z0 ) S ( z 0 , z m )

214
215Where k = 1,2,.., M
216
217

A special situation where the detector matrix is the same for all shots

218arise when all the shot are fired in the same receiver spread. The situation
219could describe stationary acquisition geometry. The data matrix will contain
220non zero elements. In order to cover the whole survey area with high fold data
221to suppress noise, the roll along technique had been introduced (Shock, 1963).
222The systematic or random noise characters at various offset are well
223recognizable, significantly increase the signal to noise ratio. Figure 4
224illustrates the data matrix due to roll along technique. The diagonal of the
225matrix will contain the geometry information while elsewhere is zero.

226
227 FIGURE 1.

Data matrix schematic representation. Berkhout (2001)

228
229

The relationship between acquisition design and seismic migration

230clearly describe by Berkhout (1997a) and Berkhout (1997b). The two steps
231migration operation is introduced in these paper which according to the WRW
232framework. The technique describe by Berkhout required to eliminate the
233acquisition and propagation effect and left the reflectivity information as the
234end results. If the expression are translated into WRW framework, the DW235and W+S are removed and leaving R which contain angle dependence
236reflection coefficient information. By applying focusing operator, the focusing
237in emission transform the shot gather into common focus point (CFP). The
238second focusing step, focusing in detection, transforms the CFP gather into
239prestack migrated section. The migration algorithm is shows in the following
240expression
241
242

P jj ( zm , z m )=I j ( z m ) R ( z m ) I j ( z m ) =R jj ( z m )
Where

243

+(z m , z 0) S ( z 0) F j (z 0 , z m )
I j ( z m )=W

244

(z m , z 0)
I ( z m )=F j ( z 0 , z m ) D (z 0) W

245
246

Where

Fj

and

F j is the focusing operator.

247
248

Illumination assessment of the 3D acquisition geometry with known

249macro velocity model for the prestack migrated target z m can be done using the
250source and receiver beam as expression (4) and (5). The evaluation is done
251separately from the source geometry and receiver geometry. By using these
252double focusing beams, the migrated data is use for further analysis by
253resolution function and AVP function. The resolution can be modelled by
254multiplication of source beam and receiver beam in the space frequency
255domain. The computation of AVP function can be done by transforming the
256source and receiver beam into radon domain. Latter, the source and receiver
257beam are multiplied. The assessment of focal function is useful for designing

258optimum acquisition geometry.

259
260

Van Veldhuizen and Blacquiere (2003) previously has done an

261illumination studies on subsalt survey configuration by investigating the

262acquisition geometry influence on illumination angle and angle dependent
263reflection amplitude. Abdul Latiff, et al. (2013) and Abdul Latiff, et al. (2014)
264has using the illumination analysis to incorporate the poor seismic quality data
265resulting from a shallow gas cloud. Although the acquisition geometry propose
266are not realistic, though the given studies can improves the seismic quality
267beneath the gas cloud. The illumination studies are focusing on one of the local
268method which is focal beam method.
269

270
271

Interestingly, this model framework could extend for multiple

272reflection (Berkhout, 1982; Verschuur, 1991) based on WRW model. The

273wavefield extrapolation method for WRW framework is determined by
274multiples from the surface (z 0) to depth level (zm) with pre-set n-th order of
275multiple.

276

+ ( z m , z 0 )
n+1

(1)n

277
278Based on this expression, it is possible for the migration the multiple
279(Berkhout and Verschuur, 2004) to a primary reflector based on so called focal
280transform method. The idea of using multiple to image the low illumination
281zone has been done by Berkhout & Vershuur (2006), Malcolm, Ursin, & de
282Hoop (2009), and Kumar, Blacquiere, & Verschuur, (2014). Malcolm, Ursin, &
283de Hoop (2009) converting the multiples wave into a primary wave through
284interferometry with condition of having a smooth reflector beneath the target
285area. The multiply scattered wave still treated as one way wave equation which
286requires multipass approach of generalized Bremmer series. Kumar,
287Blacquiere, & Verschuur, (2014) had use multiple to image a zone beneath a
288high velocity zone relative to surrounding area model. The results from poor
289data quality beneath the area are compensated by the multiple waves

290illuminates from below the target area using modified WRW model by
291Berkhout, et al. (2001).

292METHODOLOGY
293
294
The illumination study will require a poor quality subsurface image specifically a
295shallow gas cloud problem anywhere in the Malay Basin. The component of data needed is:
296
297

3D Volume of Post-Stack Migrated Unscale Seismic Data

298

299

Navigation Data

301

Acquisition Report

303

Velocity Data, Check Shots, Sonic & Dipole, Density & Lithology Information

300

302

304
305The model building will involve using previously seismic interpretation and velocity model from
306migration data. Selection of interest horizon must be beneath the gas cloud and it must be a
307smooth reflector (possibly no dipping).
308
309

In order to determine the optimum acquisition geometry, illumination studies on the

310conventional acquisition will be conducted by using full-offset ray tracing by the given
311coordinate. The ray tracing must be following the WRW model modified after Kumar and
312Blacquiere to convert the multiple waves as the primary wave.
313
314

Several of acquisition geometry is simulated using ray tracing method by the appropriate

315software. Later, the results will be compared to the conventional acquisition illumination results.
316Several parameters will be added to ensure the studies are as realistic as possible.
317

318CONCLUSION
319
320Seismic illumination studies require special attention to reduce the acquisition expenditure
321resulting from current technique; CMP does not full represent CFP. Different acquisition design
322could have impact on the illumination of the subsurface. The focal beam analysis is used in the
323studies because the WRW model explained that wavefield extrapolation could directly relate the
324detector and receiver array geometry with propagation of the wave. The focal function such as
325resolution function and AVP function are used as the tools to evaluate optimum acquisition
326design. The geological model proposed to use is a complex geology with the presents of gas
327cloud, which the geology beneath the gas chimney recently are poorly been illuminated due to
328the properties of the gas inside the subsurface. The studies could provide an optimum acquisition
329design to reduce the cost fot the operating companies such as PETRONAS.
330

331
332Reference
333
334
335

336Abdul Latiff, A. A., Ghosh, D. P., & Tuan Harith, Z. Z. (2013). Seismic illumination analysis of
337different shallow gas cloud velocities by focal beam method. IOGSE 2013.
338
339Abdul Latiff, A. A., Ghosh, D. P., & Tuan Harith, Z. Z. (2014). An Integrated Method of
340Subsurface Illumination Analysis for Shallow Gas Anomaly Data. International Petroleum
341Technology Conference. doi:10.2523/17356-MS.
342
343Berkhout, A. J., 1982, Seismic migration, imaging of acoustic energy by wavefield extrapolation,
344A: Theoretical aspects: Elsevier
345
346Berkhout, A. J., & Vershuur, D. J. (2006). Imaging of multiple reflections. Geophysics , 71 (4).
347
348Berkhout, J. A., Ongkiehong, Volker, O., A, W. F., & Blacquiere, G. (2001). Comprehensive
349assessment of seismic acquisition geometries by focal beamsPart I: Theoretical considerations.
350Geophysics, 66 , 911-917.
351
352Volker, A. W. F., G. Blacquire, A. J. Berkhout, and L. Ongkiehong, 2001, Comprehensive
353assessment of seismic acquisition geometries by focal beams Part II: Practical aspects and
354examples:
Geophysics,
66,
918931, http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1444982.
356
357Kumar, A., Blacquiere, G., & Verschuur, D. J. (2014). Optimizing Illumination Using Multiples 358Application to Seismic Acquisition Analysis. 76th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2014 .
359EAGE.
360
361Laurain, R., Gelius, J. L., Vetle, V., & Lecomte, I. (2004). A Review of 3D Illumination Studies.
363Journal of Seismic Exploration, 13 , 17-37.
364
365Malcolm, A. E., Ursin, B., & de Hoop, M. V. (2009). Seismic imaging and illumination with
366internal multiples. Geophysical Journal International 3 , 847-864.
367
368Sheriff, R. E. (2001). Encyclopedic dictionary of applied geophysics (4th ed.). Society of
369Exploration.
370
371van Veldhuizen, E. J., & Blacquire, G. (2003). Acquisition Geometry Analysis Using
372Quantitative Measures For Image Quality. 2003 SEG Annual Meeting. Dallas, Texas: Society of
373Exploration Geophysicists.
374
375
376Berkhout, A., & Verschuur, D. (2004). Imaging multiple reflections, the concept. SEG
377Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2004
378
379Shock, L. (1963). RollAlong And DropAlong Seismic Techniques. Geophysics,
380XXVIII(5, Part II), 831-841.
381
362

382Berkhout, A. (1997a). Pushing the limits of seismic imaging, Part I: Prestack migration
383in terms of double dynamic focusing. Geophysics, 62, 937-953.
384
385
386Berkhout, A. (1997b). Pushing the limits of seismic imaging, Part II: Integration of
387prestack migration, velocity estimation, and AVO analysis. Geophysics, 954-969.

Appendix A: Workflow of Research

388
389
390
391
392

393
Velocity Data

Migrated Seismic
Data

Lithology Data

394
395
396

397
398
399
400

Build velocity model

with shallow gas
anomaly

401
402

403
Design acquisition survey
area
Ray Trace from Shot to
Receivers of Processed
Data

Simulate acquisition design

404
405

406

Calculate Amplitude
Distribution

Ray Tracing

Finite Difference

407

408
409
410
411

412
413
414

415
416

Illumination comparison
of real and
synthetic data

Develop optimum survey method

417
418
419
420

421
422
424
425
426
427
428
429

423

Propose Solution /
Recommendation

Background
Studies/
Literature
Review
Data & Software
Request /
Installation
Development of
Model
Simulate
Acquisition
Design &
Analysis
Propose
Optimum
Solution
Thesis Writing
431

Appendix B: Gantt chart

432
433
434Key Milestones
435December 2015

: Research Proposal Defence

436July 2016 March 17

: Two Paper Submission / Presentation in any available conference

437July 2017

: Submission of Thesis and VIVA

438

Feb 17

Jan 17

Dec 16

Nov 16

Oct 16

Sep 16

Aug 16

July 16

June 16

May 16

Apr 16

Marc 16

Feb 16

Jan 16

Dec 15

Nov 15

Oct 15

Sep 15

Timeline

Aug 15

430