AccScience Publishing / JSE / Article
Submit to JSE
Cite this article
2
Download
79
Views
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
Forthcoming Issue
Current Issue
View All
News and Announcements
View All
ARTICLE

Why exactly do multiples need to be removed in direct seismic processing methods? And what about indirect methods?

ARTHUR B. WEGLEIN
Show Less
M-OSRP, Physics Department, University of Houston, 3507 Cullen Boulevard, Houston, TX. 77204, U.S.A.,
JSE 2022, 31(1), 1–18;
Submitted: 3 July 2021 | Accepted: 6 December 2021 | Published: 1 February 2022
© 2022 by the Authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Download PDF
Cite
XML
Abstract

Weglein, A.B., 2022. Why exactly do multiples need to be removed in direct seismic processing methods? And what about indirect methods? Journal of Seismic Exploration, 31: 1-18. This paper provides a new and detailed analysis on why multiples need to be removed in all current seismic processing methods - without any exception. We cast a wide and inclusive net - covering all direct methods and indirect methods. That includes methods that use multiples to estimate an image of an unrecorded primary, as well as within model-matching methods, for example, FWI. We include methods that require or do not require subsurface information. We conclude that all methods require multiples to be removed, either initially, or eventually within the method, and its application. A new migration method, Stolt-Claerbout III Migration for Heterogeneous and Discontinuous Media, plays an essential and fundamental role in that new insight, understanding and perspective. This is the first paper of a two-paper set, this one explaining “why” multiples are a pressing, and increasingly prioritized necessity and challenge, now and for the foreseeable future. The second paper describes “how” multiples are removed, with a tool- box perspective, and how to make cost-effective choices among options - and a recognition of both recent progress and challenges and open-issues.

Keywords
multiples
primaries
imaging
migration
direct and indirect
continuous and discontinuous velocity migration
FWI and smooth migration velocity
multiple removal
illumination
References
  1. Ben-Hadj-Ali et al. (2008, 2009), Biondi and Sava (1999), Biondi and Symes(2004), Brandsberg-Dahl et al. (1999), Chavent and Jacewitz (2011), Fitchner(2011), Guasch et al. (2012), Kapoor et al. (2012), Rickett and Sava (2002),
  2. Sava et al. (2005), Sava and Fomel (2003), Sirgue et al. (2009, 2010, 2012),
  3. Symes and Carazzone (1991), Tarantola (1987), Zhang and Biondi (2013).
  4. Many wrong velocity models can and will also satisfy a flat common-image-gather criterion, especially under complex imaging circumstances.
  5. Another type of indirect method, FWI, is a model matching methodologythat can input any data set, consisting of primaries, free surface multiplesand internal multiples. Among FWI references are Brossier et al. (2009),
  6. Crase et al. (1990), Gauthier et al. (1986), Nolan and Symes (1997), Pratt(1999), Pratt and Shipp (1999), Sirgue et al. (2010), Symes (2008), Tarantola(1984, 1986), Valenciano et al. (2006), Vigh and Starr (2008), Zhou et al.(2012). In practice, primaries are considered not enough, not full enough,and primaries and all multiples are apparently too much to match, a bit toofull. And matching primaries and free surface multiples, are the perfectdegree of fullness. Therefore, within current FWI practice, internalmultiples are first removed and then primaries and free surface multiples arematched. Hence, an internal multiple removal is called for in FWI.
  7. The output from FWI is (at best) a smooth velocitymodel, and all multiples need to be removed when migratingwith a smooth velocity model
  8. As was documented in a recent SEG/DGS Workshop on Velocity Model
  9. Building Saad et al. (2021) and the final/wrap-up presentation by Weglein(2021), FWI has been useful in providing an improved smooth velocity formigration. As we pointed out earlier in this paper, with a smooth migrationvelocity model, all multiples must be removed. Hence, within FWI todayinternal multiples need to be removed, and the use of the smooth velocityoutput from FYI, require all multiples to be removed in the use of thatvelocity in migration methods.
  10. Regarding AVO: AVO is a first term in a modeling equation for PP datarun backwards - and, hence, is not a direct method, and assumes that multipleshave been removed before the Zoeppritz equations are applied to estimate therelative changes in earth mechanical properties.
  11. Therefore, either initially or ultimately all multiples must be removed inall indirect seismic methods.We suggest the videos in the link belowhttp://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL41Tzy Y 3tP VenlpnBQRJKurk Sbvmw6X Wsto complement the above analysis and conclusions.CONCLUSIONS
  12. All current migration velocity analysis methods can (at best) produce asmooth continuous migration velocity model. For direct seismic methods,that require subsurface information, for example, migration with a smoothvelocity model, all multiples will cause false images that can masquerade asor interfere with structure - and need to be removed. To clearly analyze therole of primaries and multiples in imaging requires a new form of migration(that we label Stolt Claerbout III for heterogeneous media) that can image ina discontinuous medium without artifacts. With an accurate discontinuousvelocity model, the new Stolt-Claerbout HI Migration for heterogeneousmedia, we showed that multiples cause no harm and provide no benefit. If(in the future) we could find an accurate discontinuous velocity model andused the Stolt-Claerbout III Migration for discontinuous media, we wouldhave no reason to remove multiples. However, currently and for theforeseeable future, we are confined to (at best) improving a smoothapproximate velocity, (e.g., output from FWI) and hence the absolute needto remove all multiples, before migration for structure and amplitudeanalysis, remains in place and of very high priority.
  13. To use a recorded multiple to estimate the RTM image of an unrecordedprimary, we assume the recorded multiple consists of two subevents, onerecorded and the other not recorded. Let’s further assume that the un-recorded subevent is an unrecorded primary. Then the recorded multiple, andthe recorded subevent of the multiple, are used to estimate the image of anunrecorded primary subevent of the multiple. To satisfy the latterassumption, unrecorded subevents of the recorded multiple, that are (notunrecorded primaries but rather) unrecorded multiples, must be removed - sincethe unrecorded event is migrated with a form of RTM using a smooth velocitymodel. Furthermore, the original recorded multiple must be removed to imagerecorded primaries, again with a smooth velocity model. Hence, recordedand unrecorded multiples must be removed to image recorded andunrecorded primaries, respectively.
  14. The inverse scattering series is the only direct inversion method for amulti-dimensional earth, and in addition it doesn’t require any subsurfaceinformation (including velocity) to be known, estimated or determined. Itcontains distinct isolated task subseries that remove free surface and internalmultiples. Only primaries are called for in task specific subseries for structuredetermination, parameter estimation and Q compensation, the latter withoutknowing, estimating or determining Q. If multiples were needed in the onlydirect multidimensional inverse method, the inverse scattering series, toachieve imaging and parameter estimation and Q compensation, it would notcontain isolated task subseries whose sole purpose and existence is designedto remove them. Direct methods are purposeful, and do not remove eventsthat are needed to carry out its purposes.
  15. For indirect methods, based on satisfying a criterium that only relate toprimaries, e.g., CIG flatness, multiples must first be removed.
  16. FWI is model matching of primaries and multiples and currently is able(at best) to output a smooth velocity model for migration. Multiples must beremoved when using a smooth velocity for migration. For the smoothmigration velocity output of FWI to be useful, for imaging and inversion,multiples must first be removed.
  17. Hence, all direct and indirect seismic processing methods require allmultiples to be removed, either initially or eventually.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
  18. We appreciate the encouragement and support of M-OSRP sponsors.
  19. Dr. J.D. Mayhan is thanked for his assist in preparing this paper. Dr. Jose
  20. Eduardo Lira and Dr. Jingfeng Zhang provided useful and constructivecomments and suggestions.REFERENCES
  21. Anderson, J.E., Tan, L. and Wang, D., 2012. Time-reversal checkpointing methods forRTM and FWI. Geophysics, 77(4): S93-S103.
  22. Baumstein, A., Anderson, J.E., Hinkley, D.L. and Krebs, J.R., 2009. Scaling of theobjective function gradient for full-wavefield inversion. Expanded Baster., 79th Ann.Internat. SEG Mtg., Houston: 2243-2247.
  23. Ben-Hadj-Ali, H., Operto, S. and Virieux, J., 2008. Velocity model building by 3Dfrequency-domain, full-waveform inversion of wide-aperture seismic data. Geophysics,73(5): VE101-VE117.
  24. Ben-Hadj-ali, H., Operto, S. and Vireux, J., 2009. Efficient 3D frequency-domain full-waveform inversion (FWD with phase encoding. Extended Abstr., 71st EAGE Conf.,Amsterdam: P004.
  25. Biondi, B. and Sava, P., 1999. Wave-equation migration velocity analysis. Expanded
  26. Abstr., 69th Ann. Internat. SEG Mtg., Houston: 1723-1726.
  27. Biondi, B. and Symes, W., 2004. Angle-domain common-image gathers formigration velocityanalysis by wavefield-continuation imaging. Geophysics, 69: 1283-1298.
  28. Brandsberg-Dahl, S., de Hoop, M. and Ursin, B, 1999. Velocity analysis in the commonscattering-angle/azimuth domain. Expanded Abstr., 69th Ann. Internat. SEG Mtg.,Houston: 1715-1718.
  29. Brossier, R., Operto, S. and Virieux, J., 2009. Robust elastic frequency-domain full-waveform inversion using the Zi norm. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36 (20): L20310.
  30. Chavent, G. and Jacewitz, C., 1995. Determination of background velocities by multiplemigration fitting. Geophysics, 60: 476-490.
  31. Claerbout, J.F., 1971. Toward a unified theory of reflector mapping. Geophysics, 36: 467-
  32. Crase, E., Pica, A., Noble, M., McDonald, J. and Tarantola, A., 1990. Robust elasticnonlinear waveform inversion: Application to real data. Geophysics, 55: 527-538.
  33. Fitchner, A., 2011. Full S seismic Waveform M modeling and Inversion. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
  34. Gauthier, O., Virieux, J. and Tarantola, A. 1986. Two-dimensional nonlinear inversion ofseismic waveforms. Geophysics, 51: 1387-1403.
  35. Guasch, L., Warner, M., Nangoo, T., Morgan, J., Umpleby, A., Stekl, I. and Shah, N.,
  36. Elastic 3D full-waveform inversion. Expanded Abstr., 82nd Ann. Internat. SEGMtg., Las Vegas: 1-5.
  37. Kapoor, S., Vigh, D., Li, H. and Derharoutian, D., 2012. Full-waveform inversion fordetailed velocity model building. Extended Abstr., 74th EAGE Conf., Copenhagen:W011.
  38. Liang, H., Ma, C. and Weglein, A.B., 2013. General theory for accommodating primariesand multiples in internal multiple algorithm: Analysis and numerical tests. Expanded
  39. Abstr., 83rd Ann. Internat. SEG Mtg., Houston: 4178-4183.
  40. Liu, F. and Weglein, A.B., 2014. The first wave equation migration RTM with dataconsisting of primaries and internal multiples: theory and 1D examples. J. SeismicExplor., 23: 357-366.
  41. Liu, F., Zhang, G.Q., Morton, S.A. and Leveille, J.P., 2011. An effective imagingcondition for reverse-time migration using wavefield decomposition. Geophysics,76(1): S29-S39.
  42. Lu, S.P., Whitmore, N.D., Valenciano, A.A. and Chemingui, N., 2011. Imaging ofprimaries and multiples with 3D SEAM synthetic. Expanded Abstr., 81st Ann. Internat.SEG Mtg., San Antonio: 3217-3221.
  43. Ma, C. and Zou, Y.L., 2015. A clear example using multiples to enhance and improveimaging: Comparison of two imaging conditions relevant to this analysis. The LeadingEdge, 34: 814-816.
  44. Nolan, C. and Symes, W., 1997. Global solution of a linearized inverse problem for thewave equation. Comm. Part. Differ. Eqs., 22 (5-6): 127-149.
  45. Pratt, R.G., 1999. Seismic waveform inversion in the frequency domain, Part 1: Theory andverification in a physical scale model. Geophysics, 64: 888-901.
  46. Pratt, R.G. and Shipp, R.M., 1999. Seismic waveform inversion in the frequency domain,
  47. Part 2: Fault delineation in sediments using crosshole data. Geophysics, 64: 902-914.
  48. Rickett, J. and Sava, P., 2002. Offset and angle-domain common image-point gathers for shot-profile migration. Geophysics, 67: 883-889.
  49. Saad, A., ten Kroode, F., Jahdhami, M., Al Shuhail, A., Mansour, A., Vigh, D.,
  50. Verschuur, E., Schuster, G., Etgen, J., Vargas, J.E., Belaid, K., Delaijan,K, Guillaume,
  51. P., Al Kalbani, R. and Burley, T., 2021. SEG DGS workshop: Challenges & newadvances in velocity model building. In: Virtual Workshop. SEG Conf. Web Page.https://seg.org/Events/V elocity-Model-Building.
  52. Sava, P. and Fomel, S., 2003. Angle-domain common-image leathers by wavefieldcontinuation methods. Geophysics, 68: 1065-1074.
  53. Sava, P., Biondi, B. and Etgen, J., 2005. Wave-equation migration velocity analysis byfocusing diffractions and reflections. Geophysics, 70(3): U19-U27.
  54. Sirgue, L., Barkved, O.I., van Gestel, J.P., Askim, O.J. and Kommedal, J.H., 2009. 3Dwaveform inversion on Valhall wide-azimuth OBC. Extended Abstr., 71st EAGEConf., Amsterdam: U038.
  55. Sirgue, L., Barkved, O.I., Dellinger, J., Etgen, J., Albertin, U. and Kommedal, J.H., 2010.
  56. Full-waveform inversion: The next leap forward in imaging at Valhall. First Break, 28:65-70.
  57. Sirgue, S., Denel, B. and Gao, F., 2012. Challenges and value of applying FWI to depthimaging projects. Workshop: From kinematic to waveform inversion - where are weand where do we want to go? A tribute to Patrick Lailly. 74th EAGE Conf.,Copenhagen.
  58. Stolt, R.H. and Weglein, A.B., 1985. Migration and inversion of seismic data.Geophysics, 50: 2458-2472.
  59. Stolt, R.H. and Weglein, A.B., 2012. Seismic Imaging and Inversion: Application of
  60. Linear Inverse Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  61. Symes, W.W., 2008. Migration velocity analysis and waveform inversion. Geophys. Prosp.,56: 765-790.
  62. Symes, W.W. and Carazzone, J.J., 1991. Velocity inversion by differential semblanceoptimization. Geophysics, 56: 654-663.
  63. Tarantola, A. 1987. Inverse Problem Theory: Method for Data Fitting and Model Parameter
  64. Estimation. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam.
  65. Tarantola, A., 1984. Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation.Geophysics, 49: 1259-1266.
  66. Tarantola, A., 1986. A strategy for nonlinear elastic inversion of seismic reflection data.Geophysics, 51: 1893-1903.
  67. Valenciano, A., Biondi, B. and Guitton, A.,2006. Target-oriented wave-equationinversion. Geophysics, 71(4): A35-A38.
  68. Vigh, D. and Starr, E.W.,2008. 3D prestack plane-wave, full-waveform inversion.Geophysics, 73(5): VE135-VE144.
  69. Weglein, A.B., 2021. Wrap-up. Presentation given at the SEG(DGS Workshop:
  70. Challenges & New Advances in Velocity Model Building, Virtual Workshop,https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mwcO9feU41Bk_mPVkk7DHWA9ufqgveGj?usp=sharing.
  71. Weglein, A.B., Mayhan, J.D., Zou, Y.L., Fu, Q., Liu, F., Wu, J., Ma, C., Lin, X.L. and Stolt,
  72. R.H., 2016. The first migration method that is equally effective for all acquiredfrequencies for imaging and inverting at the target and reservoir. Expanded Abstr., 86thAnn. Internat. SEG Mtg., Dallas: 4266-4272.
  73. Weglein, A.B., 2013. A timely and necessary antidote to indirect methods and so-called P-wave FWI. The Leading Edge, 32: 1192-1204.
  74. Weglein, A.B., 2016. Multiples: Signal or noise? Geophysics, 81(4): V283-V302.
  75. Weglein, A.B., 2017. A direct inverse method for subsurface properties: The conceptualand practical benefit and added value in comparison with all current indirect methods,for example, amplitude-variation-with-offset and full-waveform inversion. Interpretation,5(3): SL89-SL107.
  76. Weglein, A.B., 2018. Direct and indirect inversion and a new and comprehensiveperspective on the role of primaries and multiples in seismic data processing forstructure determination and amplitude analysis. Ciencia, Tecnol. Futuro, 8(2): 5-21.
  77. Weglein., 2019a. A new perspective on removing and using multiples - they have the sameexact goal - imaging primaries - recent advances in multiple removal. Presentation atthe SEG KOC Workshop: Seismic Multiples - The Challenges and the Way Forward.Kuwait City, Kuwait.http://mosrp.uh.edu/news/ extended-version-weglein-key-note-20 19-seg-koc-workshop.
  78. Weglein, A.B., 2019b. A new perspective on removing and using multiples they have thesame exact goal imaging primaries, recorded and unrecorded primari¢s recentadvances in multiple removal. Inkited key-note address for the SEG/KOC Workshop:
  79. Seismic Multiples, the Challenges andthe way forward. Kuwait City, Kuwait.https://youtu.be/ sD89_418h1A.
  80. Weglein, A.B., 2020. YouTube video with interview of Arthur B. Weglein for the Bahia,Brazil student chapter of the EAGE.https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=iir4cuk50Cw&feature=youtu.
  81. Weglein, A.B., Aratijo, F.V., Carvalho, P.M., Stolt, R.H. Matson, K.H., Coates, R-T.,
  82. Corrigan, D., Foster, D.J. Shaw, S.A. and Zhang, H., 2003. Inverse scattering seriesand seismic exploration. Inverse Probl., 19(6): R27-R83.
  83. Weglein, A.B., Liu, F., Li, X., Terenghi, P., Kragh, E., Mayhan, J.D, Wang, Z.Q., Mispel,
  84. J., Amundsen, L., Liang, H., Tang, L. and Hsu, S.-Y., 2012. Inverse scattering seriesdirect depth imaging without the velocity model: First field data examples. J. SeismicExplor., 21: 1-28.
  85. Whitmore, N.D., Valenciano, A.A., Lu, S.P. and Chemingui, N., 201la. Imaging ofprimaries and multiples with image space surface related multiple elimination. ExtendedAbstr.,73rd EAGE Conf., Vienna.
  86. Whitmore, N.D., Valenciano, A.A., Lu, S.P. and Chemingui, N., 2011b. Deep waterprestack imaging with primaries and multiples. 12th Internat. Congr. Brazil. Geophys. Soc.,Rio de Janeiro.
  87. Zhang, H. and Weglein, A.B., 2009a. Direct nonlinear inversion of 1D acoustic media usinginverse scattering subseries. Geophysics, 74(6): WCD29-WCD39.
  88. Zhang, H. and Weglein, A.B., 2009b. Direct nonlinear inversion of multiparameter 1Delastic media using the inverse scattering series. Geophysics, 74(6): WCD15—-WCD27.
  89. Zhang, Y. and Biondi, B., 2013. Moveout-based wave-equation migration velocityanalysis. Geophysics, 78(2): U31-U39.
  90. Zhou, H., Amundsen, L. and Zhang, G., 2012. Fundamental issues in full-waveforminversion. Expanded Abstr., 82nd Ann. Internat. SEG Mtg., Las Vegas.
  91. Zou, Y.L. and Weglein, A.B., 2018. ISS Q-compensation without knowing, estimating ordetermining Q and without using or needing low and zero frequency data. J. SeismicExplor., 27: 593-608.
  92. Zou, Y.L., Fu, Q. and Weglein, A.B., 2017. A wedge resolution comparison between RTMand the first migration method that is equally effective at all frequencies at the target:tests and analysis with both conventional and broadband data. Expanded Abstr., 87thAnn. Internat. SEG Mtg., Houston: 4468-4472.
  93. Zou, Y.L., Ma, C. and Weglein, A.B., 2019. A new multidimensional method thateliminates internal multiples that interfere with primaries, without damaging theprimary, without knowledge of subsurface properties, for offshore and on-shoreconventional and unconventional plays. Expanded Abstr., 89th Ann. Internat. SEG Mtg.,San Antonio: 4525- 4529.
Share
Back to top
Journal of Seismic Exploration, Print ISSN: 0963-0651, Published by AccScience Publishing
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here
Accept