This website uses cookies to improve your experience. If you continue without changing your settings, you consent to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can disable cookies at any time.

×
Advanced search
Skip main navigation

Previous
Next
No AccessGEOPHYSICSVolume 82, Issue 3

Low-cost time-lapse seismic with distributed compressive sensing — Part 1: Exploiting common information among the vintages

Authors:
https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2016-0076.1

ABSTRACT

Time-lapse seismic is a powerful technology for monitoring a variety of subsurface changes due to reservoir fluid flow. However, the practice can be technically challenging when one seeks to acquire colocated time-lapse surveys with high degrees of replicability among the shot locations. We have determined that under “ideal” circumstances, in which we ignore errors related to taking measurements off the grid, high-quality prestack data can be obtained from randomized subsampled measurements that are observed from surveys in which we choose not to revisit the same randomly subsampled on-the-grid shot locations. Our acquisition is low cost because our measurements are subsampled. We have found that the recovered finely sampled prestack baseline and monitor data actually improve significantly when the same on-the-grid shot locations are not revisited. We achieve this result by using the fact that different time-lapse data share information and that nonreplicated (on-the-grid) acquisitions can add information when prestack data are recovered jointly. Whenever the time-lapse data exhibit joint structure — i.e., they are compressible in some transform domain and share information — sparsity-promoting recovery of the “common component” and “innovations,” with respect to this common component, outperforms independent recovery of the prestack baseline and monitor data. The recovered time-lapse data are of high enough quality to serve as the input to extract poststack attributes used to compute time-lapse differences. Without joint recovery, artifacts — due to the randomized subsampling — lead to deterioration of the degree of repeatability of the time-lapse data. We tested this method by carrying out experiments with reliable statistics from thousands of repeated experiments. We also confirmed that high degrees of repeatability are achievable for an ocean-bottom cable survey acquired with time-jittered continuous recording.

REFERENCES

  • Baron, D., M. F. Duarte, M. B. Wakin, S. Sarvotham, and R. G. Baraniuk, 2009, Distributed compressive sensing: CoRR, arXiv preprint arXiv:0901.3403.
    Google Scholar
  • Beasley, C. J., R. E. Chambers, R. L. Workman, K. L. Craft, and L. J. Meister, 1997, Repeatability of 3-D ocean-bottom cable seismic surveys: The Leading Edge, 16, 1281–1286, doi: 10.1190/1.1437782.
    Google Scholar
  • Beyreuther, M., J. Cristall, and F. J. Herrmann, 2005, Computation of time-lapse differences with 3-D directional frames: 75th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2488–2491.
    Google Scholar
  • Brown, G., and J. Paulsen, 2011, Improved marine 4D repeatability using an automated vessel, source and receiver positioning system: First Break, 29, 49–58.
    Google Scholar
  • Candès, E. J., J. K. Romberg, and T. Tao, 2006, Stable signal recovery from incomplete and inaccurate measurements: Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 59, 1207–1223, doi: 10.1002/cpa.20124.
    Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Candès, E. J., and T. Tao, 2006, Near-optimal signal recovery from random projections: Universal encoding strategies: IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 52, 5406–5425, doi: 10.1109/TIT.2006.885507.
    Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Candès, E. J., and M. B. Wakin, 2008, An introduction to compressive sampling: IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 25, 21–30, doi: 10.1109/MSP.2007.914731.
    Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Donoho, D. L., 2006, Compressed sensing: IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 52, 1289–1306, doi: 10.1109/TIT.2006.871582.
    Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Eggenberger, K., P. Christie, D.-J. van Manen, and M. Vassallo, 2014, Multisensor streamer recording and its implications for time-lapse seismic and repeatability: The Leading Edge, 33, 150–162, doi: 10.1190/tle33020150.1.
    Google Scholar
  • Eiken, O., G. U. Haugen, M. Schonewille, and A. Duijndam, 2003, A proven method for acquiring highly repeatable towed streamer seismic data: Geophysics, 68, 1303–1309, doi: 10.1190/1.1598123.
    Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Fanchi, J. R., 2001, Time-lapse seismic monitoring in reservoir management: The Leading Edge, 20, 1140–1147, doi: 10.1190/1.1487246.
    Google Scholar
  • Hennenfent, G., and F. J. Herrmann, 2008, Simply denoise: Wavefield reconstruction via jittered undersampling: Geophysics, 73, no. 3, V19–V28, doi: 10.1190/1.2841038.
    Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Herrmann, F. J., 2010, Randomized sampling and sparsity: Getting more information from fewer samples: Geophysics, 75, no. 6, WB173–WB187, doi: 10.1190/1.3506147.
    Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Herrmann, F. J., and G. Hennenfent, 2008, Non-parametric seismic data recovery with curvelet frames: Geophysical Journal International, 173, 233–248, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03698.x.
    Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Herrmann, F. J., and X. Li, 2012, Efficient least-squares imaging with sparsity promotion and compressive sensing: Geophysical Prospecting, 60, 696–712, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.01041.x.
    Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Herrmann, F. J., P. Moghaddam, and C. C. Stolk, 2008, Sparsity- and continuity-promoting seismic image recovery with curvelet frames: Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 24, 150–173, doi: 10.1016/j.acha.2007.06.007.
    Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Koster, K., P. Gabriels, M. Hartung, J. Verbeek, G. Deinum, and R. Staples, 2000, Time-lapse seismic surveys in the north sea and their business impact: The Leading Edge, 19, 286–293, doi: 10.1190/1.1438594.
    Google Scholar
  • Kragh, E., and P. Christie, 2002, Seismic repeatability, normalized rms, and predictability: The Leading Edge, 21, 640–647, doi: 10.1190/1.1497316.
    Google Scholar
  • Landrø, M., 2001, Discrimination between pressure and fluid saturation changes from time-lapse seismic data: Geophysics, 66, 836–844, doi: 10.1190/1.1444973.
    Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Li, X., 2015, A weighted l1-minimization for distributed compressive sensing: M.S. thesis, The University of British Columbia.
    Google Scholar
  • Lumley, D. E., 2001, Time-lapse seismic reservoir monitoring: Geophysics, 66, 50–53, doi: 10.1190/1.1444921.
    Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Lumley, D., 2010, 4D seismic monitoring of CO2 sequestration: The Leading Edge, 29, 150–155, doi: 10.1190/1.3304817.
    Google Scholar
  • Lumley, D., and R. Behrens, 1998, Practical issues of 4D seismic reservoir monitoring: What an engineer needs to know: SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, 1, 528–538, doi: 10.2118/53004-PA.
    Google Scholar
  • Maharramov, M., and B. Biondi, 2014, Joint full-waveform inversion of time-lapse seismic data sets: 85th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 954–959.
    Google Scholar
  • Mansour, H., H. Wason, T. T. Lin, and F. J. Herrmann, 2012, Randomized marine acquisition with compressive sampling matrices: Geophysical Prospecting, 60, 648–662, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.2012.01075.x.
    Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Mosher, C., C. Li, L. Morley, Y. Ji, F. Janiszewski, R. Olson, and J. Brewer, 2014, Increasing the efficiency of seismic data acquisition via compressive sensing: The Leading Edge, 33, 386–391, doi: 10.1190/tle33040386.1.
    Google Scholar
  • Oghenekohwo, F., R. Kumar, E. Esser, and F. J. Herrmann, 2015, Using common information in compressive time-lapse full-waveform inversion: 77th Annual International Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.201413086.
    Google Scholar
  • Porter-Hirsche, J., and K. Hirsche, 1998, Repeatability study of land data acquisition and processing for time lapse seismic: 68th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 9–11.
    Google Scholar
  • Rickett, J., and D. Lumley, 2001, Cross-equalization data processing for time-lapse seismic reservoir monitoring: A case study from the Gulf of Mexico: Geophysics, 66, 1015–1025, doi: 10.1190/1.1487049.
    Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Ross, C. P., and M. S. Altan, 1997, Time-lapse seismic monitoring: Some shortcomings in nonuniform processing: The Leading Edge, 16, 931–937, doi: 10.1190/1.1437701.
    Google Scholar
  • Schonewille, M., A. Klaedtke, A. Vigner, J. Brittan, and T. Martin, 2009, Seismic data regularization with the anti-alias anti-leakage Fourier transform: First Break, 27, 85–92.
    Google Scholar
  • Spetzler, J., and Ø. Kvam, 2006, Discrimination between phase and amplitude attributes in time-lapse seismic streamer data: Geophysics, 71, no. 4, O9–O19, doi: 10.1190/1.2208942.
    Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Symes, W. W., 2010, IWAVE: A framework for wave simulation, http://www.trip.caam.rice.edu/software/trip/iwave/doc/html/index.html, accessed 16 January 2016.
    Google Scholar
  • Tegtmeier-Last, S., and G. Hennenfent, 2013, System and method for processing 4D seismic data: U.S. Patent 13/804,029.
    Google Scholar
  • Tu, N., T. T. Lin, and F. J. Herrmann, 2011, Sparsity-promoting migration with surface-related multiples: 73rd Annual International Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.20149208.
    Google Scholar
  • Van Den Berg, E., and M. P. Friedlander, 2009, Probing the Pareto frontier for basis pursuit solutions: SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 31, 890–912, doi: 10.1137/080714488.
    Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Wang, D., R. Saab, Ö. Yilmaz, and F. J. Herrmann, 2008, Bayesian wavefield separation by transform-domain sparsity promotion: Geophysics, 73, no. 5, A33–A38, doi: 10.1190/1.2952571.
    Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Wason, H., and F. J. Herrmann, 2013, Time-jittered ocean bottom seismic acquisition: 83rd Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1–6.
    Google Scholar
  • Wason, H., F. Oghenekohwo, and F. J. Herrmann, 2015, Compressed sensing in 4-D marine — Recovery of dense time-lapse data from subsampled data without repetition: 77th Annual International Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.201413088.
    Google Scholar
  • Wason, H., F. Oghenekohwo, and F. J. Herrmann, 2017, Low-cost time-lapse seismic with distributed compressive sensing — Part 2: Impact on repeatability: Geophysics, 82, this issue, doi: 10.1190/GEO2016-0252.1.
    Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Xiong, Z., A. D. Liveris, and S. Cheng, 2004, Distributed source coding for sensor networks: IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 21, 80–94, doi: 10.1109/MSP.2004.1328091.
    Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Xu, S., Y. Zhang, D. Pham, and G. Lambaré, 2005, Antileakage Fourier transform for seismic data regularization: Geophysics, 70, no. 4, V87–V95, doi: 10.1190/1.1993713.
    Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Yang, D., A. Malcolm, and M. Fehler, 2014, Time-lapse full waveform inversion and uncertainty analysis with different survey geometries: 76th Annual International Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.20141120.
    Google Scholar