In a variety of marine environments, seismic surveys are conducted to gain a better understanding of geological formations beneath a body of water. Marine seismic source arrays are used to generate acoustic pulses in the water, and hydrophones detect the reflected signals. Firing controllers are employed to trigger the firing of the acoustic source elements so the main pressure pulse of each element is synchronized in the farfield in the desired direction. For example, the triggering may be conducted such that the primary pulses of each element coincide in a vertical direction in the farfield. In some applications, the firing controller implements time delays to compensate for individual variations in the mechanical triggering mechanisms of the acoustic source elements. Triggering delays can also be used to compensate for geometric variations of the source array.
One approach to quantifying the mechanical triggering delay is to use a time-break sensor. The time-break sensor is positioned inside or proximate the acoustic source element, e.g., air gun, and a specific attribute is detected in the signal measured by the time-break sensor. For example, the attribute may comprise signal maximum amplitude, time of threshold, zero-crossing, or other suitable attributes. The time delay between sending the firing signal and the time of the detected attribute in the time-break signal is processed via a firing control algorithm to adjust the time of the next firing signal.
However, acoustic source element synchronization using air gun mounted time-break sensors provides only an indirect way of synchronizing the peak pressure of the emitted acoustic signals. The approach assumes a constant, source element independent, time offset between the detected attribute in the time-break signal and the time of peak acoustic pressure. In many applications, this assumption is not valid and the time-break synchronization results in sub-optimal alignment of peak acoustic pressure of the acoustic signals. Sometimes, the problem may be mitigated by using firing controllers that support tuning and measurements from nearfield hydrophones. However, with modern compact array configurations it is not possible to distinguish acoustic signals from adjacent air guns in the unprocessed nearfield hydrophone measurements.
Another problem with conventional air guns is the emission of significant acoustic amplitude outside of the frequency range of interest for seismic exploration. The out of band signal represents noise that can interfere with measurements and/or have an adverse affect on marine life.
In general, the present invention provides a methodology for obtaining seismic data in a marine environment. An array of acoustic sources is deployed in a marine environment. The array can be employed in creating acoustic pulses which are useful in obtaining data on subsea structures. The methodology enables optimization of acoustic source array performance to facilitate the collection of useful data during a seismic survey.
Certain embodiments of the invention will hereafter be described with reference to the accompanying drawings, wherein like reference numerals denote like elements, and:
In the following description, numerous details are set forth to provide an understanding of the present invention. However, it will be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that the present invention may be practiced without these details and that numerous variations or modifications from the described embodiments may be possible.
The present invention generally relates to a technique for use in obtaining seismic data in a marine environment. The technique aids in the optimization of acoustic source array performance with respect to acoustic source arrays employed in conducting seismic surveys. In one application, for example, the technique facilitates the attenuation of high frequency output from acoustic sources by desynchronizing the source triggering. In an alternate aspect of the technique, the acoustic sources may be synchronized using band-limited notional source signatures.
Referring generally to
In the example illustrated, seismic survey system 20 further comprises a plurality of pairs 26 of acoustic sources 28 and hydrophones 30. However, the seismic survey system 20 may be constructed in a variety of configurations that may comprise pairs 26 or other arrangements of hydrophones 30 and acoustic sources 28. Generally, the hydrophones 30 and acoustic sources 28 are selected such that there are at least as many hydrophone measurements as there are unknown notional sources. This enables computation of the notional source signatures. In the specific example illustrated, the acoustic sources 28 may each comprise an air gun (or air gun cluster) designed to emit pressure pulses at controlled points in time. The hydrophones 30 may be nearfield hydrophones that are each positioned above a corresponding acoustic source or at other suitable locations. The acoustic sources 28 and hydrophones 30 may be arranged in pairs 26 or other configurations that are, for example, suspended from a float 32 via appropriate suspension lines 34. Float 32 is designed to float along a surface 36 of the water in the marine seismic survey area 24.
A control system 40, such as a computer-based control system, may be used to process data from hydrophones 30 and/or to convey control signals to the acoustic sources 28. The control signals can be used to control the triggering of acoustic sources 28 to provide acoustic pulses used in conducting a seismic survey. Data flow between control system 40 and pairs 26 can be conducted over suitable communication lines 42. By way of example, control system 40 can be positioned on a suitable towing vessel or at other locations, such as directly on the acoustic source subarray 22.
The acoustic sources 28 and hydrophones 30 may be arranged in a variety of array configurations. In the embodiment illustrated in
The reflected acoustic signals detected by hydrophones 30 and the data processed by control system 40 are improved by optimizing acoustic source array performance, e.g., synchronization. According to one embodiment, the acoustic signals are time-aligned directly. By way of example, acoustic source synchronization can be achieved using band-limited notional source signatures. The general notional source theory is described in various publications, such as U.S. Pat. No. 4,476,553 (Ziolkowski et al.).
In
Even though the primary pressure pulses of individual acoustic sources cannot be distinguished by individual hydrophones, implementation of the notional source method enables calculation of the acoustic signals from the individual acoustic sources 28. The individual contributions are the notional source signatures. Accordingly, control system 40 may comprise a processing system, e.g., a computer-based system, used to calculate the acoustic signals from individual acoustic sources based on the notional source method. The control system 40 is further used to process the data and to determine triggering delays with respect to acoustic sources 28 by time-aligning the notional source signatures. It should be noted that in many applications, the notional source signatures can be range or band limited to a frequency range of interest. As a result, the acoustic sources can be synchronized directly rather than relying solely on indirect synchronization from acoustic source mounted time-break sensors.
However, another embodiment of the methodology utilizes a synchronization method that combines the use of notional source signature attributes and attributes associated with time-break sensor signals. In this embodiment, pairs 26 can incorporate time-break sensors mounted to, for example, acoustic sources 28. As described above, the time-break sensors are used to detect an attribute associated with a time-break sensor signal. The attribute is used to estimate a time delay with respect to triggering individual acoustic sources to optimize the collection of data during a seismic survey. In this embodiment, control system 40 is used to compare processed time delays based on detection of the attribute through time-break sensors with the direct synchronization time delays. The direct synchronization time delays are obtained through the calculation of notional source signatures and the determination of triggering delays by time-aligning the notional source signatures. The comparison can provide validation or checks regarding the actual triggering delays implemented.
In one example, the synchronization of an air gun array is optimized by computing an additional synchronization delay that relates a time-break sensor to an emitted notional source signature, where the notional source signature is band limited to the frequency range of interest. By way of example, the data can be band limited to approximately 0-128 Hz, however other desired seismic bands or ranges can be employed. The synchronization of notional source signatures also can be employed in other applications. For example, the approach can be used in applications that utilize an emitted acoustic signal at frequencies outside the seismic band. The approach also can be used in applications that do not necessarily aim to synchronize the primary pressure pulse emitted by the acoustic source elements of the acoustic array.
According to another embodiment of the methodology, the array synchronization may be optimized by desynchronizing the triggering of the acoustic sources 28. This allows the power spectrum of the seismic array 44 to be attenuated at out of band frequencies, i.e., the frequencies outside of a desired seismic frequency range/band. Additionally, the output within the desired seismic frequency band is substantially unaffected.
Attenuation of the out of band signal is accomplished by deliberately desynchronizing the acoustic source triggering as controlled by control system 40. When acoustic sources 28 are used to provide primary pressure pulses, the desired emission direction of the superpositioned wavefield can be described by:
Where Sn(ω) are the notional source signatures of the N source elements, ω is the angular frequency, τn,geo are the synchronization delays that compensate for the position of the source elements relative to the desired farfield emission direction, and τn,sync are the time delays that result from imperfect synchronization due to the random nature of the mechanical triggering together with sub-optimal performance of the synchronization control algorithm. It should be noted τn,sync=0 for the idealized case of perfect synchronization. Furthermore, τn,sync generally have a non-zero mean when the seismic array 44 is synchronized using time-break sensors, while a seismic array synchronized using the notional source signatures has τn,sync values with zero mean.
In the presently described embodiment, an additional time delay, τn,scatter, is introduced to deliberately desynchronize the alignment of the primary pressure pulses, such that:
The additional time delays, τn,scatter, are chosen so the out of (seismic) band amplitude is attenuated, while the amplitude within the desired seismic band/range is substantially unaffected. Guidelines for the choice of τn,scatter values can be found by analysing the power spectrum of the normalised scattering function:
Referring generally to
where ƒ is the linear frequency.
Additional examples of the power spectrum are illustrated graphically in
Accordingly, the out of band amplitude of the signal can be attenuated by deliberately scattering the acoustic source synchronization such that the time delays τn,scatter in the equation:
have non-zero values. In many applications, these scattering delays are confined to a window of length, L, of greater than 1 millisecond and the scattering delays, τn,scatter, are chosen such that the combined delay of the synchronization error, τn,sync, and the scattering delays conform to a chosen statistical distribution. In the examples in
In some embodiments, the deliberate desynchronization is achieved by scattering the triggering times of the acoustic sources 28, however the deliberate desynchronization also can be achieved by scattering the position of the acoustic source elements. In the latter example, the acoustic sources are scattered such that the resulting perturbation to the propagation time in the desired emission direction equals the prescribed scattering time delays. One example of the power spectrum arising from the deliberate desynchronization through scattering of firing/triggering times of the acoustic sources is illustrated in
The systems and methodology for optimizing acoustic source performance/synchronization can vary from one seismic survey application to another. However, one operational example is illustrated by the flowchart of
The notional source signatures are determined via, for example, control system 40 based on data from nearfield hydrophone measurements, as represented by block 56. The notional source signatures are used to establish triggering delays by time-aligning the notional source signatures, as indicated by block 58. By establishing appropriate triggering delays, the collection of seismic data during the survey is effectively optimized. In some applications, optional time-break sensors also are utilized to detect an attribute associated with the time-break sensor signal, as represented by block 60. Detection of the attribute by the time-break sensors enables determination of related time delays that can be compared to the time delays that result from processing the notional source signatures, as represented by block 62. The processing of data and the comparison of time delays can be conducted on computer-based control system 40.
In another operational example, acoustic sources 28 are initially deployed, as indicated by block 64 of the flowchart illustrated in
The examples discussed above are just a few of the configurations and procedures that can be used to control acoustic source synchronization in a manner that optimizes data collection during a seismic survey. For example, the number and arrangement of acoustic sources as well as the number and arrangement of hydrophones can vary from one application to another. Similarly, the type of control system and the location of the control system can be adapted to specific equipment and/or applications. Furthermore, the determination and use of notional source signatures can be established according to various paradigms depending on, for example, system factors, environmental factors, sensor types, and other factors. Additionally, the desired frequency ranges/bands can vary between seismic exploration applications. Techniques for generating acoustic inputs also may change depending on the environment and available equipment.
Although only a few embodiments of the present invention have been described in detail above, those of ordinary skill in the art will readily appreciate that many modifications are possible without materially departing from the teachings of this invention. Accordingly, such modifications are intended to be included within the scope of this invention as defined in the claims.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/465,699 filed May 7, 2012; which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/337,118 filed Dec. 17, 2008, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,174,927 issued May 8, 2012; both of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entireties.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3569922 | Parr, Jr. | Mar 1971 | A |
4300653 | Cao et al. | Nov 1981 | A |
4476550 | Ziolkowski et al. | Oct 1984 | A |
4476553 | Ziolkowski et al. | Oct 1984 | A |
4608673 | Lazear | Aug 1986 | A |
4644507 | Ziolkowski | Feb 1987 | A |
4739858 | Dragoset, Jr. | Apr 1988 | A |
4800538 | Passmore et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4809235 | Dragoset, Jr. | Feb 1989 | A |
H000656 | Huizer | Jul 1989 | H |
4868794 | Ziolkowski et al. | Sep 1989 | A |
4960183 | Young, II | Oct 1990 | A |
5134590 | Garotta | Jul 1992 | A |
5184329 | Regnault et al. | Feb 1993 | A |
5469404 | Barber et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
5677893 | de Hoop et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5841733 | Bouyoucos et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5864307 | Henley | Jan 1999 | A |
5933789 | Byun et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
6256589 | Gallotti Guimaraes | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6587055 | Turner et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6859734 | Bednar | Feb 2005 | B2 |
7218572 | Parkes | May 2007 | B2 |
7415401 | Calvert et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7440357 | Hopperstad | Oct 2008 | B2 |
8174927 | Hopperstad et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8582396 | Hopperstad | Nov 2013 | B2 |
20020064089 | Ambs | May 2002 | A1 |
20020172094 | McCall | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030078734 | Ozbek | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030202423 | Clayton | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20040013037 | Vaage | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040022125 | Clayton | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040032794 | Clayton | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040109387 | Jenner et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040228214 | Tulett | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050027454 | Vaage et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050128874 | Herkenhoff et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050195686 | Vaage et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050259513 | Parkes | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060034151 | Iranpour | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060158962 | Jeffryes | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060193204 | Davies et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060256651 | Sanders et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060256658 | Christie et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070115757 | Soerli et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070153627 | Tulett et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070159924 | Vook et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070258322 | Hopperstad | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070263489 | Vaage | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070286019 | Love et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080011540 | Moldoveanu et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20090092005 | Goujon et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20120218860 | Hopperstad et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1300042 | Jun 2001 | CN |
101013155 | Aug 2007 | CN |
2702281 | Sep 1994 | FR |
2460865 | Dec 2009 | GB |
2460874 | Dec 2009 | GB |
Entry |
---|
Extended European Search Report of European Application No. 09836789.9 dated Nov. 13, 2013: pp. 1-8. |
Steinberg, “Principles of Apenture and Array System Design,” Wiley, 1976: pp. 142-144. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/067756 dated Aug. 2, 2010. |
Examination Report issued in related AU Application No. 2009333378 mailed Jul. 7, 2014 (3 pages). |
Notice of Acceptance issued in related AU Application No. 2009333378 mailed Oct. 27, 2014 (2 pages). |
Office Action issued in related CN Application No. 200980150759.5 mailed Nov. 30, 2012, with English translation by agent (17 pages). |
Office Action issued in related CN Application No. 200980150759.5 mailed Aug. 15, 2013, with English translation agent (6 pages). |
Office Action issued in related CN Application No. 2009801507595 mailed Feb. 8, 2014, with English translation by agent (7 pages). |
Office Action issued in related CN Application No. 200980150759.5 mailed Jul. 24, 2014, with English translation by agent (7 pages). |
Office Action issued in related CN Application No. 201410177810A mailed Jan. 27, 2016, with English translation by agent (11 pages). |
Office Action issued in related MX Application No. MX/a12011/006620 mailed Aug. 3, 2012, with partial English translation by agent (4 pages). |
Office Action issued in related ID Application No. W00201102175 mailed Jun. 24, 2013, with partial English translation by agent (3 pages). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140036625 A1 | Feb 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13465699 | May 2012 | US |
Child | 14047664 | US | |
Parent | 12337118 | Dec 2008 | US |
Child | 13465699 | US |