Seismic 9 525
Tuesday Afternoon
Downloaded 12/04/16 to 101.127.195.194. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
INTERVAL time WSECS)
FIG.3. Intervaltime-thicknessrelationshipsat 10 localwells.
Straightline correspondsto half-velocityof 6344 fffs.
Drilling resultsand conclusions
The IOGC 1 Snodgrasswas drilled to a total depthof 4500
ft and loggedin April 1984. The results comparedwith our
geophysicalpredictionwere that the anhydrite came in 1I ft
from prognosisand the Fort Scott-anhydrite interval was
off by only 9 ft from the estimate made at the nearest
shotpoint.Since the precisionwith which thesedata can be
reliably interpreted, (even from a noise-free synthetic seis-
mogrammade from the sonic log at the well) is about 2 ms,
the demonstratedaccuracyof the techniquemore than met
our expectations.Geophysicalpredictionsat 10 wells have
now been testedand accuracyat 8 has been within the 2-ms
precision. We feel confident that the method has proven
both reliable and cost-effectivein routine explorationin this
part of Kansas. Structureswith 40-50 ft (6-8 ms) of closure
at the Fort Scott level should be good exploration targets
with acceptablestructuralrisk. Additional risk existsin that
the Fort Scott structure may not drape simply over Ihe
Mississippian.The variable character of the Mississippian
reflectorcomplex in the area makesthis problem geophysi-
tally intractable.Nevertheless,recoverablefield reservesof
500,000 barrels at depthsof less than 5000 ft may make the
play economically attractive especially if the geophysical
accuracy continues to match the precision already estab-
lished.
Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to International Oil & Gas Corp..
PecosEnergy Corp., and PreussagOil and Gas Exploration
Corp. for permission to publish this paper. Much of the
original work that resulted in this project was carried out
while the author was geophysicalmanagerat Zenith Petro-
leum Corp. W. M. Hennington introducedthe author to the
intricacies of Kansas geology and shared his extensive
successfulMidcontinent experience.The seismicdata were
acquiredthroughcontractby Reliable ExplorationInc. They
did a thoroughand professionaljob under particularly ad-
verse field conditions. June Whitfield drafted the figures
competently and quickly, and Betty Bailey produced a
polished, finished typescript. To all the above, the author
wishesto express his gratitude.
Seismic Processing IV
Random Noise Reduction s10.1
Luis L. Canales, Digicon Geophysical Inc., England
We present a method to reduce incoherent noise from
seismicdata. The signalis definedin termsof a simplemodel
that separatesthe time and spacevariablesso that the signal
is formed by a sum of complex exponentialsiti the (w, x)-
domain. For a given frequency, we show that the signal is
predictableas a function of x. We then use the Wienei filter
theory to obtain a least-squaresapproximationof the under-
lying signal.The methodhas been testedon noisy data with
very good results, the removed noise is of random appear-
ance and the methoddoesnot producethe syntheticappear-
ance common in many mixing schemes.
Theoreticaldevelopment
Our starting model is a trace ensemble U(r, x) that is
composedof delayed impulsesas defined by:
U(t, XI = $ Ai6(r - Xj(x)),
,= I
where Uj is the arbitrary coefficientrepresentingthe strength
of the N impulse,and g,p,(.r)
is the delay function that defines
the shapeof the events. After Fourier transformationwith
respectto time the equationbecomes:
where w is the angularfrequency. In the (0, x)-domain, our
model then turns out to be a sum of sines and cosinesin
which the argumentis a function of o and X.
Linear approximation
We now consideronly events that are nearly linear with
respectto X. That is, the functionsg,(x) shouldbe linear. The
linearity requirementmeansthat we needto considersuben-
semblesof traces, so that events are nearly linear within the
subensemble.
With the linearity assumption,our model equationsare
U(W, X) = 5 Cje-hg,
j=l
where cj is the complex constant that depends on the
strengthand bulk shift, and bj is a measureof the events
slopes.The equationshowsthatunder the linearity assump-
tion, the function U(O, X) is strictly sinusoidalin X.
Frequency-dependent
model
The model illustrates the main idea of the method, but
thereis no reasonto limit ourselvesto impulsiveevents. We
can assumethe events have an arbitrary wavelet convolved
with the impulsesso that U(t, x) becomes
 Seismic 10
Downloaded 12/04/16 to 101.127.195.194. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
FIG. 1. Stack withoutnoisefilter.
w, -4 = i Y,[t - g,(x)1
j=l
for the @,x)-domain,and
U(w, x) = 5 vj(o)e-iw~J(*)
j=l
for the (0, x)-domain where V)(r) is the arbitrary wavelet
associatedwith each event, and V,(w) is their respective
Fourier transform.
For the linear model the last equationbecomes
N
j=l
showingoncemore that the modelsuggestspurely sinusoidal
complexfunctions.
ComplexWiener filtering
The above section showsthat our model for the signalis
made by summing complex exponentials of the spatial
variableX. Appendix A showsthat the signalis also charac-
terized by the fact that it is predictablewith a one-step-ahead
convolutionalprediction filter.
The predictablecharacterof the signal permits us to use
the complex predictionWiener filter theory to estimatea
FIG. 2. Stack with one pass of noisefilter.
FIG. 3. Noise removedwith one pass of noisefilter.
least-squaresapproximationof the predictablepart of U(w,
x) for eachparticularfrequencyw. A transformationback to
the (t, x)-domain yields the desiredenhancedsection,
Appliqations
Figure (1) shows a seismic section of land data. The
sectionis clearly contaminatedby random noise. Figure (2)
shows the same data after the random noise has been
attenuated.The improvementis very significant.Note that
the processdoes not create events nor does it produce a
mixed appearance. Figure (3) shows the noise that was
removedfrom the data, its randomnessis very reassuringas
it showsthat we are not removing coherentevents.
Finally, Figure (4) shows the same section after two
applicationsof the process,yielding an extra improvement.
The sectionwas balancedbetween applicationsto account
for amplitudereduction in the noisy areas.
Conclusions
We have presenteda methodfor reducingrandomnoisein
seismicdata. It was developedasa linear predictionproblem
in the (w, x)-domain, so that Wiener filters could be easily
implemented.The potential of the method is quite remark-
able. The results show the method to be ,successfulin
attenuatingthe randomnoisein seismicdatawithout produc-
ing any noticeablelateral mixing.
. :d
a--
FIG. 4. Stack with two passes of noisefilter.
 Seismic 10
References
Claerbout,J. F. (1976),Fundamentals
of geophysicaldataprocess-
ing:McGrawHill BookCo.
JamesandJames(1968).Mathematics dictionary(thirded.):D. Van
Nostrand Co.
Downloaded 12/04/16 to 101.127.195.194. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
AppendixA
We prove here that a time serieswith impulsive spectrum
is perfectly predictable with a one-step-aheadprediction
filter. That is, there is predictionerror filter (PEF) a(t), such
that when convolved with the. time series the result is
identically zero. The z-transformof the PEF is:
A(z) = 1 t 01 Z + U2 Z* + . . ., + aNZN.
Becausethe spectrumis impulsive, the zeroesof A(zJ are
locatedin the unit circle. The 0th coefficientis related to the
productof all zeroes(seeJamesand James,1968)sothat luNl
= 1. The last term of the PEF is the last reflectioncoefficient
and becauseit is of unit magnitudethe prediction error is
identically zero (Claerbout, 1976).
Suppression of Seismic Interference SlO.2
Noise on Gulf of Mexico Data
Koray Akbulut, Odd-Kuure Saeland, Paul Farmer, and
Tony Curtis. GECO Geophysical Co., Inc.
Seismic data recorded in the Gulf of Mexico are often
contaminatedwith interference from the energy sourcesof
other vesselsoperatingin the same area. These interfering
waves have coherent noise patterns with linear movement
and high amplitudes.They can cause inferior spectralbal-
ancingof the data and they can survive the stackingprocess
despitethis being a powerful processingmethodin suppres-
sion of a variety of noise types.
We have developed a noise suppressiontechnique to
apply at the earliest stage of processing.It is based on a
noise pick reduction scheme which first, forms reference
traces from interference-free shot records, then. discrimi-
nates the high-energy_ interfering events by comparingthe
rms levels of the seismictraces with thoseof the reference
traces, and finally, attenuates them by a multiplier deter-
mined from the rms levels. In this paper, we summarizethe
results of our investigationof the seismicinterference and
the developmentof the new noise suppressionmethod.
Introduction
Seismic interference has become a severe problem in
recent Gulf of Mexico surveys. The amplitudes of these
interferingwavesare often higherthan the acceptablelevels
in the industry. Solution of this problem during the acquisi-
tion of data is limited to a scheduledtime-sharingplan. If this
plan is not strictly carriedout by all parties,interferencecan
cause substantial downtime in operations. Therefore, we
analyzedseismicinterfering noisein the data and developed
a methodto suppressit via processingprocedures.
Seismicdata with interfering noise
We acquired and processeda 2.2 km long experimental
line offshoreLouisianaby the Main Passblock. On this line,
we collected source records continuously as if we were
shootinga regular line. Since no noise was fired by the
GECO vessel, these records represent interfering seismic
energyin the area. On Figure 1, we illustrate a typical noise
527
0.0 0.0
1.0
1.0
2.0 2.0
3.0 3.0
4.0 4.0
5.0 5.0
6.0 6.0
7.0 7.0
8.0 8.0
9.0 9.0
10.0 10.0
II
FIG. 1.
recordacquiredduring the survey. This recordis dominated
by the organizedlinear patternsof events. There are three
events with different apparentvelocities, of which peak-to-
peak amplitudescan vary up to 60 microbar.
On Figure 2, a portion of the stacked data is shown to
demonstrate that interference has occurred continuously
during the data acquisition. No NM0 correctionsor other
processingwas applied to thesedata prior to stacking.This
figurealso illustratesthat the interferenceis alignedagainin
pattern\ with linear moveout.
Figure 3 illustratesa 4800 percentCDP gatherof a regular
seismicline acquiredin the area, where relative amplitudes
are preservedwithin the gather. An rms energy plot of this
gatheris displayedon the right side. The traceswith seismic
interference are clearly identified with their high energy
levels. This particular gather contains I7 traces (or 35
percent) contaminatedwith interferencebelow 5.0 s. They
are randomly distributedand have very high rms measure-
ments. Figure 4 shows a portion of relative amplitude
preserved(RAP) stackedsectionof the line. A linear pattern
of coherentnoise dominatesthis section.
If seismic interference noije is not removed at an early
stagein the processingsequence,it will be amplifiedby the
geometricalgain recovery process.Noise events arriving at
later times on the section will have very high relative
amplitudes, since the gain application in the process in-
creaheswith time Another problemassociatedwith process-
ing seismicdata contaminatedw-ifh interference occurs in
the computation of autocorrelationestimates used in the
deconvolutionprocess.Our tests indicate that autocorrela-
tion functionsof tracesincludinginterferenceenergy exhibit
largediKerence>from thosetraceswith no interference.As a
result ofthi pn~blem,dcconvolutloncannot act to improve
the reflcctitrnc\avcl~~rmand continuity.