Search

Heterodyne distributed vibration sensing (hDVS) and, more generically, distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) are technologies that rely on traditional fibre-optic cables to provide inline strain measurement. In recent years, hDVS has found application in seismic monitoring; in particular vertical seismic profiling (VSP) greatly benefits from the advantage of using permanent fibres cemented behind casing (Mateeva et al., 2013). VSP measurements were also demonstrated using fibre installed on production tubing (Barberan et al., 2012) and deployed within a wireline cable (Hartog et al., 2014). Another potential application for hDVS is flow monitoring, where, owing to the fibre’s large spatial coverage, it is possible to monitor vibrations and waves along the length of the well. Baihly et al. (2015) offered an insight on this use of hDVS. Furthermore, Molteni et al. (2016) evaluated microseismic monitoring as another compelling hDVS application. This paper evaluates the viability of using hDVS for distributed dynamic pressure sensing in marine seismic acquisition while reviewing the readiness of hDVS technology for this application. An initial concept of including hDVS in a streamer was disclosed by Kragh et al. (2012). Here, a possible design of a towed streamer using hDVS was discussed along with experimental results showing the potential of the technology to acquire pressure measurements in marine seismic surveys. We show the results of using hDVS to measure the pressure wavefield in two different experiments, and the results are compared with reference data acquired with traditional hydrophones. The use of a distributed measurement in towed streamers would provide a new type of measurement. The characterization of the pressure wavefield would be continuous along the cable with a denser spatial sampling. Similarly, straight fibres deployed along the streamer could characterize the tugging noise with increased spatial resolution. Furthermore, the use of cost-effective and lightweight fibres would greatly reduce the electronics embedded in the streamer and the total weight of the cable. The use of hDVS would also have new challenges – for example in how to segment the streamer into shorter sections without the fibre-optic connectors compromising the quality of the backscattered hDVS signal.

Marine seismic vibrators are considered to be more environmentally friendly than air guns and this has prompted a resurgence of interest in their use. However, these devices have novel features that are potentially of great benefit to seismic imaging and that have not yet been exploited - in particular, we can control the phase. With marine vibrators, the emitted waveform can be chosen freely, provided that it lies within the envelope of what the device can emit. Typically, the waveform is a swept-frequency sinusoid. In this paper, we show how the sweep phase can be used to suppress the residual shot noise (RSN) and to separate simultaneous sources of high multiplicity. This work is also described by Laws and Halliday (2013) and is closely related to that of Laws (2012). The control of phase is a benefit of marine vibrators that can be exploited to great effect. First, we look at the RSN situation. The conventional wisdom is that roughly a 10s shot-time interval is required in marine seismic data acquisition so that the RSN is acceptably small relative to the signal. Because both signal and RSN originate from the seismic source, the ratio of signal/RSN is not improved by using a larger source (pace Landro, 2008). We show a simple case of RSN attenuation using alternating sine and cosine sweeps. That is to say, the sequence of source phases goes, for successive shots, [0° 90° 0° 90° 0° 90° 0° 90°... and so on]. We show schematically how this ‘phase sequencing’ leads to a dramatic attenuation of the RSN. It does so by moving the RSN into parts of the frequency-wavenumber spectrum where there is no signal. We then use frequency-wavenumber filtering to remove the RSN. This can be done with simple filtering up to the limit imposed by spatial aliasing and beyond that limit by using wavefield reconstruction methods, such as generalized matching pursuit (Ozbek et al., 2010; Vassallo et al., 2010). Reconstruction methods decompose the seismic wavefield into a set of basis functions that allow the signal and RSN to be identified and separated. Then, we look at the simultaneous source situation. The RSN removal problem can be considered as a special case of the more general simultaneous source separation problem. As an example, in the case of two simultaneous sources, one source can be swept with consistent phase, while the other source is swept with alternating phase, i.e., the sequence of relative phases is [0° 180° 0° 180° 0° 180° 0° 180°... and so on]. The simultaneous source separation is demonstrated using the same type of reconstruction method as described above for the RSN. See also Moore et al. (2008) and Ji et al. (2012). The use of phase sequencing opens up possibilities for simultaneous source separation using large numbers of sources. By having complete control over the phases of all the sources it is possible, in certain domains, to make simultaneous source data look similar to aliased data from a single source. This opens the door to using many established wavefield interpolation and dealiasing-techniques to perform high-multiplicity simultaneous source separation.