Journal of Geophysics and Engineering

Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2020) 17, 89–96 doi:10.1093/jge/gxz093

Identifying and predicting multiples based on

spread of velocity spectrum
Xiaofeng Dai *, Lideng Gan and Hao Yang
Research Institute of Petroleum E&D, PetroChina, Beijing 100083, China

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/17/1/89/5614456 by guest on 12 September 2021

*Corresponding author: Xiaofeng Dai. E-mail: dawnpeak0101@163.com

Received 20 April 2019, revised 28 August 2019

Accepted for publication 16 October 2019

Abstract
The genesis of internal multiples is complicated and identification is difficult as their velocities
are similar to the velocity of primaries, so their residual time is short. The existing conventional
methods for identifying multiples are mainly used on a single-common mid-point (CMP) or
single line, so the result is indistinct and inaccurate. The concept of velocity spread is proposed,
whereby multiples are identified by obtaining the lateral spread of energy clusters on the velocity
spectrum. The proposed method uses image segmentation to binarise the velocity spectrum,
obtain the spread of velocity, and identify and predict multiples on the plane via attribute spread
slicing. In a 3D seismic of Sichuan, the multiples predicted are in good agreement with the known
wells. The case shows that velocity spread analysis can quantitatively identify and predict
multiples interference, and is complementary to the existing multiples identification method. It
can be used to monitor the multiples suppression effect in seismic processing and analyse the
interference of multiples in interpretation. In addition, the method has good practicability for
evaluating the reliability of reservoir prediction results and reduces the risk of well location
deployment during exploration.
Keywords: seismic velocity spectrum, velocity spread, image segmentation, internal multiples

1. Introduction the reliability of seismic inversion and subsequent seismic

interpretation.
In seismic exploration, seismic waves propagate through sub-
Due to the complexity of internal multiples, it is difficult
surface formations. When there is more than one strong
to identify and attenuate multiples in seismic data process-
reflective interface, such as the surface of bedrock, uncon-
ing (Giovanni et al. 2015). Residual multiples have an even
formity or igneous rock, internal multiples usually occur
greater impact on the quality of seismic data and generate
(Berkhout & Verschuur 1997; David 2011).
great risks in oil and gas exploration and development. As
Under normal circumstances, internal multiples occur in
such, it is necessary to identify and evaluate the distribution
various exploration areas in China, especially in the Sichuan,
of internal multiples.
Tarim and Ordos Basins where there are many strong re-
At present, seismic processors and interpreters usually
flection interfaces, and multiples interference occurring be-
identify multiples or evaluate their suppression effect based
tween layers is more serious. Multiples interference makes it
on the velocity and periodic characteristics of the velocity
difficult to determine the velocity spectrum; it degrades im-
spectrum, stack profile and seismic pre-stack gathers (Song
age quality (Malcolm et al. 2007); it distorts the amplitudes,
et al. 2014). For example, in the pre-stack stage, there are low-
frequencies and phases of primaries and it decreases im-
velocity energy clusters in the velocity spectrum. Besides,
age resolution. It also affects seismic attribute extraction and
as the offset increases, pull-down events drop down on the

© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Sinopec Geophysical Research Institute. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of 89
the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2020) 17, 89–96
gathers due to insufficient normal moveout (NMO). In the
post-stacking stage, multiples can be identified in the seis-
mic stack profile by their similar travel periods, and the struc-
tures of their strong reflection interfaces and of the underly-
ing strong reflection interface.
In recent years, data-driven multiple prediction and recog-
nition methods have developed rapidly, such as Surface-
related multiple elimination (SRME) (Dragoset et al. 2010),
inverse-scattering (Weglein et al. 1997) and Marchenko
(Meles et al. 2015). However, these methods are still in their
early stages as a whole, and the reliability and practicability of
them need to be researched and tested further. So, it is diffi-
cult to apply to real seismic data effectively on a large scale.
However, existing methods for identifying and predicting
multiples have significant deficiencies. First, these methods
mainly identify multiples based on the shape and appearance
of seismic reflections on seismic profiles, which are subjec-
tive, and the results are not convincing. Second, all the above
methods can only identify multiples at a single observation
point (a common mid-point (CMP) gather or velocity spec-
trum) or an observation line (a seismic stack profile), so it is
impossible to determine the degree of occurrence and distri-
bution of multiples on the entire plane of 3D seismic area. In
fact, in some exploration areas, lateral transformation of the
underground structure and stratigraphy happens very fast,
and the multiples on the plane are characterised by strong
heterogeneity. Obviously, the results of a certain CMP or a
single seismic line cannot represent the entire 3D seismic
area. In addition, compared to surface multiples, the velocity
of internal multiples is similar to the primary velocity and
the residual time is short. The multiples seriously inter-
fere with deep primaries, which makes identification more
difficult.
As such, the current method for identifying multiples has
low accuracy and cannot determine the development and
distribution of multiples on the plane of an entire 3D seismic
area. It is very difficult to meet the requirements of internal
multiples identification during seismic data processing and
interpretation.
Considering these difficulties and the deficiencies of exist-
ing methods, we propose a new method for identifying mul-
tiples based on the seismic velocity spectrum, which enables
prediction of the development and scope of multiples on a
plane based on the velocity spread along the layers.
Compared with the previous method for identifying mul-
tiples, our proposed method is highly efficient, is subject to
little human interference, provides intuitive results and can
identify and predict the degree of development and distri-
bution of multiples for an entire seismic area. The proposed
velocity spread identification method improves the ability
to identify multiples, enhances the method of multiples
identification and process monitoring, and demonstrates
good practicability.
90
Dai et al.
2. Principle
The velocity spectrum usually refers to the stacked velocity
spectrum of the multiple coverage technique used in seis-
mic exploration. According to the principle of NMO in seis-
mic wave reflection, a series of velocities are used to scan,
and the NMO of the traces in the CMP gather are calcu-
lated and corrected to obtain a time–velocity–stack energy
matrix. When the scanning velocity is correct, the NMO cor-
rection of the primaries is complete. Meanwhile, the traces in
the CMP gather are stacked without moveout, so the stacking
energy is the strongest, and the velocity at this time is called
the optimal stacking velocity. In contrast, the stacking energy
is weakened when the NMO velocity is not suitable.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/17/1/89/5614456 by guest on 12 September 2021
An effective application of the velocity spectrum is the
analysis of multiples. The type and intensity of these multi-
ples can be roughly judged by the low-velocity abnormal en-
ergy clusters on the velocity spectrum. However, this method
can only be used to analyse a single seismic velocity spectrum
and its multiples on pre-stack gathers, so it cannot give the
overall degree of development and distribution of the multi-
ples on the plane of a 3D seismic area.
2.1. Velocity spread concept
Normally, multiples and primaries have different propagation
velocities. Therefore, when there is interference by multiples
in the seismic data, the velocity spectrum usually indicates
that the energy cluster is unfocused, and the velocity trend
along the time axis is not unique.
Figure 1 shows the velocity spectrum of a CMP in the Or-
dos Basin, which shows that the multiples are not developed
in the shallow area above 2.0 s, the primary energy clusters
are well focused, the energy is concentrated and the range
of the stacking velocity corresponding to the energy clus-
ters is narrow. For the time gate below 2.0 s, multiples grad-
ually develop. In the velocity spectrum, the energy gradually
diverges and shows both a low-velocity trend (black dotted
line), which indicates the reflection of multiples, and a high-
velocity trend (red dashed line), which indicates the primary
effective reflection.
An analysis of the distribution characteristics of the en-
ergy clusters indicates that the velocity spectrum shows a
certain change rule due to the different degrees of multiples
interference. When there are no multiples or only weak
multiples interference, the energy cluster is unique, the
concentration is good and the energy cluster is narrow in
the lateral direction. For example, at 2.0 s in figure 1, the
energy cluster’s velocity ranges from 2230 to 2450 m s−1 ,
for a velocity difference of 220 m s−1 . When the multiples
and primaries velocities are close in value, the two energy
clusters are either superimposed or partially overlapped,
the focus deteriorates and the width of the energy clusters
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2020) 17, 89–96
Figure 1. Seismic velocity spectrum of a CMP in the Ordos Basin.
broadens. For example, the velocity range corresponding to
the energy clusters at 2.3 s in figure 1 is 2600–2920 m s−1 ,
for a velocity difference of 320 m s−1 . When the velocity
difference in multiple and primary increases, the two energy
clusters separate. For example, at 3.0 s in figure 1, the velocity
range of the two energy clusters is from 2000 to 3200 m s−1 ,
for a velocity difference increase of 1200 m s−1 .
When there is multiples interference, the stacking ve-
locity range corresponding to the energy clusters on the
velocity spectrum is widened. As the velocity difference
between the multiple and primary increases, the stacking
velocity range widens. This feature can be used to identify
multiples. For the convenience of explanation, in this paper,
we define the velocity interval corresponding to the effec-
tive energy cluster on the velocity spectrum as the velocity
spread.
2.2. Basic principle
For a set of seismic traces at a CMP, the velocity spectrum can
be represented by a two-dimensional arrayA(t, v), where t is
time, v is velocity and A is the velocity spectrum value (stack-
ing energy or correlation coefficient).
The start and end velocities corresponding to the effective
energy cluster are searched at the same time in the velocity
spectrum A(t, v). So, the velocity interval between the two is
the velocity spread at that moment.
The key to calculating velocity spread is determining how
to identify the effective energy cluster. The simplest method
91
Dai et al.
is to use the threshold value for this determination. If it is
greater than a certain value, it is the effective energy, and vice
versa if it is invalid energy. However, due to the acquisition,
processing and techniques applied, the energy and signal-
to-noise ratios (SNRs) of the seismic data will change both
in the horizontal and vertical directions. The quality of the
velocity spectrum also varies greatly. Currently, if a single
threshold value method is applied to an entire 3D seismic
area, lots of errors are generated. As such, a more efficient
image binarisation method is needed for velocity spectrum
classification.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/17/1/89/5614456 by guest on 12 September 2021
3. Method for predicting multiples velocity spread
3.1. Velocity spectrum classification
In the image binarisation process, a binarised image is ob-
tained in which the overall and local features of the image
can be identified by selecting grayscale images with differ-
ent brightness levels depending on the threshold selection.
To obtain an ideal binary image, a closed, connected bound-
ary is generally used to define a non-overlapping region, and
all pixels with grayscales greater than or equal to the selected
threshold are determined to be a specific object, the other
pixels excluded from the object region are considered to be
background or excluded object areas.
A 2D array of the velocity spectrum A(t, v) for any CMP
can be treated as grayscale image data. Using the chosen im-
age segmentation algorithm, the image segmentation thresh-
old is determined, and the velocity spectrum is binarised and
divided into background and target categories to realise class
segmentation of the velocity spectrum. The target category is
assigned a value of 1, which indicates that the seismic reflec-
tion forms an effective energy cluster along the velocity spec-
trum; the background category is assigned a value of 0, which
indicates background values that include random noise and
abnormal values.
In this paper, we use the Otsu algorithm (Otsu 1979) as
an example of the binarization process.
The Otsu algorithm uses the interclass variance between
the target and background to determine the class. The seg-
mentation with the largest variance between classes has the
smallest probability of misclassification. The interclass vari-
ance is calculated by setting each gray value as a thresh-
old, and then the largest interclass variance use this as the
threshold.
The detailed calculation steps are as follows:
(1) Sort the CMP velocity spectrum A(t, v) by value in
ascending, and record ci , i = 1, 2, ... , N as gray values;
N being the total number of grid points, N = m × n,
where m is the number of time sample points and n is
the number of velocity sample points.
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2020) 17, 89–96
(2) Calculate interclass variance 𝜎k of the CMP velocity
spectrum using equation (1):
( N )2
(N − k)k ∑ ci ∑k
ci
𝜎k = − . (1)
N2 i=k+1
N − k i=1 k
In equation (1), ci is the gray value, N is the total num-
ber of grid points and k is the order number.
When 𝜎k has its maximum value, the corresponding
gray value is the threshold value, which is Ck .
(3) Using the gray value Ck as the threshold, divide the ve-
locity spectrum into two categories, background 0 and
target 1, using equation (2):
{ reflects the degree of multiples suppression achieved. It also
1 Ai,j ≥ Ck
Ti,j = . (2)
0 Ai,j < Ck
In equation (2), Ti,j is the velocity spectrum category,
Ai,j is the velocity spectrum value, Ck is the thresh-
old value and i, j indicate the number of time sampling
points and velocity sampling points, respectively.
3.2. Calculate velocity spread
For the velocity spectrum class Ti,j gathers, the velocity
spread is calculated point by point in chronological order.
For each time i, a one-dimensional array is composed of
Ti,1 , Ti,2 , Ti,3 , ... , Ti,n .
The following calculation method is used to obtain the ve-
locity spread at each point in time in the array: for the array
Ti,1 , Ti,2 , Ti,3 , ..., Ti,n , the positions of the initial and final cat-
egory 1 values are recorded, and the velocity difference be-
tween these positions is the velocity spread at that time.
3.3. Velocity spread identification of multiples
For the velocity spread volume, the velocity spread attribute
is obtained for a certain time window. After the spread slice
is obtained, the multiples on the plane are identified and a
prediction is made.
The primary reflection is mainly affected by stratum fac-
tors. Therefore, in the same geological layer, the seismic data
have similar reflection characteristics, the velocity spectra
have good similarity and the velocity spreads are similar. If
there are multiples originating from the shallow interface,
in the seismic velocity spectrum, energy clusters are also
formed in a low-velocity region that is lower than the primary
velocity, so that the lateral distance increases between en-
ergy clusters in the velocity spectrum and the velocity spread
increases. Moreover, the greater the variation of the spread,
the greater the difference between the multiples and the pri-
maries velocity.
92
Dai et al.
Therefore, in seismic interpretation researches, a velocity
spread slice can be used to analyse the overall degree of de-
velopment and distribution of multiples in the seismic data.
The wider the range of the velocity spread slice, the greater
the development of the multiples. The region with a large
spread value on the plane indicates the development of multi-
ples. Therefore, based on the velocity spread, it is possible to
distinguish areas where seismic data are unreliable, provide a
valuable reference for the reliability of interpretation results
and reduce the risk associated with the identification of well
deployment locations during exploration, thereby facilitating
oil and gas exploration and development.
In addition, in seismic data processing, a comparison
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/17/1/89/5614456 by guest on 12 September 2021
of the spread slices of pre- and post-multiples suppression
assists in the analysis of the processing of multiples suppres-
sion, and guides the optimisation of the processing parame-
ters to effectively suppress multiples in seismic data, reduce
uncertainty, realise parameter optimisation, enable quantita-
tive monitoring and improve the SNR and imaging effects.
3.4. Model test and analysis
In this paper, model calculation is performed by the seismic
forward modelling of a known well, which is then used to
analyse the influence of multiples on the velocity spectrum
and the characteristics of velocity spread.
The frequency-domain reflectivity is a useful forward
modelling method (Gan et al. 2018). In addition to the pri-
maries, multiples and converted waves can be considered si-
multaneously. Using the logs of a well in the Sichuan Basin,
we simulated the pre-stack primary and full-wave gathers
(primary + multiple) by the frequency-domain reflectivity
method. Figure 2 shows the forward modelling gathers of the
well. Next, the velocity spectra were calculated separately and
the velocity spread computed. We note that primary veloc-
ity spectra only exist above 2.45 s, since the logging ends at
2.45 s.
A comparison of the primary and full-wave gathers shows
that the multiples are mainly developed below 2.1 s, and the
energy of the multiples within the local range of 2.3–2.45 s is
strong (shown in the rectangle in figure 2). In the time win-
dow of multiples development, a low-velocity anomalous en-
ergy cluster is evident on the velocity spectrum of the full-
wave gathers. Compared with the primary velocity spectrum,
the focus of the energy cluster is poor and the stacking ve-
locity range is widened, which are typical features of a multi-
ple velocity spectrum. Correspondingly, the full-wave veloc-
ity spread value is significantly larger than that of the primary
during the time window of multiples development. Figure 2c
shows the residual curve of the primary and full-wave veloc-
ity spread. This curve directly reflects the stacking velocity
of the multiples by subtracting the velocity of the primary.
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2020) 17, 89–96
Figure 2. Comparison of primaries and multiples forward modelling of a well.
Therefore, in theory, on the residual spread curve, there is
no multiples region and the residual is zero, whereas in the
region where multiples develop the residual is positive. The
results of this model test calculation prove that the velocity
spread value can better indicate the region of multiples de-
velopment and enable quantitative prediction.
4. Application example
4.1. Geological background
The three-dimensional (3D) seismic area of this study is lo-
cated in the central Sichuan Basin. High-yield and enriched
carbonate karst gas reservoirs have been discovered recently
in the Sinian Dn Fm. in this area. The top of the Dn Fm. is at
a depth of 5000 m, and the thickness of the Dn Fm. is about
800 m.
This area is dominated by marine carbonate rock plat-
form deposits from the Sinian to Middle Triassic. During this
age, four sets of low-velocity shale and high-velocity carbon-
ate rock were developed and strong reflective interfaces were
formed. Studies have shown that these strong reflection inter-
faces cause strong multiples interference in the vicinity of the
Dn Fm. and the Lower Cambrian Qzs Fm. Due to the strong
multiples interference, the similar velocities of the multiples
93
Dai et al.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/17/1/89/5614456 by guest on 12 September 2021
and primaries make it difficult to identify and suppress the
multiples and the SNR of the seismic data is low (Yang et al.
2017; Dai et al. 2018; Dai & Xu 2018).
4.2. Workflow
First, the CGG seismic processing system is used to obtain
the velocity spectrum gathers of the 3D seismic area in an
SGY format and the grid of the velocity spectrum analysis is
400 × 400 m (the actual trace interval is 20 × 20 m).
Figure 3 shows the velocity spectrum of a CMP in the
study area. The color in the figure indicates the correlation
coefficient value, which ranges from 0 to 1; the abscissa is the
relative velocity percentage, which ranges from 80–120% and
the relative velocity change interval is 1%. That is, the lateral
velocity grid number m = 41; the ordinate is time, the time
interval is 4 ms and the time period ranges from 1.2 to 3 s. The
number of longitudinal time grids is n = 450. Therefore, the
velocity spectrum at this CMP includes 41 × 450 = 18 450
grid point values.
Next, we classify the velocity spectrum by the above
method to obtain a velocity spectrum class gather. Figure 4
shows the results of the velocity spectrum classification at
the CMP. In the figure, the white grid points represent
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2020) 17, 89–96
Figure 3. Seismic velocity spectrum of a CMP.
Figure 4. Velocity spectrum classification of a CMP.
category 1 and the effective energy clusters on the velocity
spectrum; the black grid points represent category 0, which
indicate background noise.
Next, using the velocity spectrum class gathers, we cal-
culate the velocity spread of all the CMPs, and obtain the
velocity spread volume of the 3D area. Figure 5 shows the
velocity spread for the same CMP. As shown in figure 5, as
time increases, the velocity spread gradually increases. The
maximum spread occurs between 2.4 and 2.8 s, which means
that there are different energy clusters and multiples develop-
ments in this time range at this CMP. This result is consistent
94
Dai et al.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/17/1/89/5614456 by guest on 12 September 2021
Figure 5. Velocity spread of a CMP.
Figure 6. Dn Fm.’s spread-attribute map of 3D area.
with the current understanding of the strong multiples inter-
ference in the Cambrian and Sinian Dn Fm. in the study area.
Finally, we calculated the average spread value along the
Dn Fm., performed median filtering to suppress any abnor-
mal values and obtained the velocity spread attribute slice.
4.3. Effectiveness
The spread-attribute map of the Dn Fm. in the study
area (figure 6) shows that the velocity spread has strong
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2020) 17, 89–96
Figure 7. Well W6 synthetic seismogram calibration
Note: ∈1 q-Cambrian Qzs Fm. and Z2 d-Sinian Dn Fm.
heterogeneity on the plane, which indicates an uneven spatial
distribution. Near the gas enrichment area of the Dn Fm., the
strong multiples interference is mainly located around wells
W2 and W6, where the velocity spread is higher than 8.
To verify the reliability of the multiple prediction, we cal-
ibrated the seismic with wells and compared the velocity
spread attributes and correlation coefficients of the seismic
well. If there was no multiples interference near the well loca-
tion, the seismic data would have a high SNR, the synthetic
seismograms of the well and the seismic data should be in
good agreement and have a high correlation coefficient. Con-
versely, if multiples develop, the synthetic seismograms of the
well and the seismic data would be poorly matched and have
a low correlation coefficient.
As an example for analysis, we take well W6 near where a
strong multiples interference zone has been predicted based
on the velocity spread. This well is in the south part of the
study area at a depth of 5455.0 m. Based on a caliper mea-
surement, the log quality of the deep portion of the well is
good and the sonic and density curves of the well are reliable.
Figure 7 shows a calibration diagram of well W6, where
figure 7a shows the impedance curve of the W6 well calcu-
lated from the sonic and density logs; figure 7b shows the
11 seismic traces near W6, with the blue dotted line showing
the drilling trajectory; figure 7c is well W6’s synthetic seismo-
gram obtained by the convolution of seismic wavelet and the
reflection coefficients calculated from the impedance curve;
and figure 7d shows the correlation coefficients obtained by
the cross-correlation of the 11 seismic traces in the figure 7b
and c synthetic seismograms of the well. Comparing figure 7b
95
Dai et al.
Figure 8. Cross-plot of correlation coefficient of well–seismic data and ve-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/17/1/89/5614456 by guest on 12 September 2021
locity spread.
and c, at 2.1 s, the consistency of the event characteristics of
the synthetic seismogram and the actual seismic trace deteri-
orates gradually. This occurs especially in the vicinity of the
Dn Fm. Except effective comparison of the Cambrian bottom
(∈1 q) peak, the time, energy and phase of other events is dif-
ficult to correlate (the position indicated by the blue arrow in
figure 7). The calibration below 2.2 s is very poor, with a cor-
relation coefficient of only 0.14. The well calibration results
indicate that the seismic data contain strong multiples inter-
ference, which is consistent with the highest velocity spread
at the well location.
We verified the result of the multiples prediction based
on the velocity spread by well–seismic data calibration of all
wells in the 3D area region. The synthetic seismograms of
all 10 wells are not highly correlated with the actual seismic
traces, having an average correlation coefficient of only 0.56.
The variation between wells is great, with the correlation co-
efficient ranging from 0.14 to 0.75 (figure 8). This demon-
strates that the multiples interference in the Dn Fm. is seri-
ous and the lateral distribution is uneven, which is consistent
with the overall plane rules of the multiples predicted by the
velocity spread. The correlation of well–seismic and the ve-
locity spread have a good negative linear correlation, with a
coincidence rate as high as 87% (figure 8). The greater the
velocity spread value, the more intense the multiples inter-
ference and the poorer the match between the seismic data
and the synthesis. This result provides sufficient proof that
the velocity spread can effectively predict the level of multi-
ples interference.
5. Conclusion
The concept of velocity spread is proposed in this paper. The
degree of multiples occurring on the plane can be predicted
by calculating the lateral velocity spread of the energy clus-
ters on the seismic velocity spectrum. The approach over-
comes the deficiencies of single-point, single-line multiples
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2020) 17, 89–96
identification, which is complementary to the multiple iden-
tification and prediction method.
The work flow of velocity spread analysis technology in-
cludes: first, binarisation processing the velocity spectrum
by using the image segmentation technique; second, obtain-
ing the volume of the velocity spread and last, predicting the
quantitative distribution of multiples on the plane by extract-
ing spread-attribute slice.
With the application of real seismic data, velocity spread
analysis technology is demonstrated with higher accuracy
and practicability. It can be used to monitor multiples sup-
pression to eliminate multiples better at the seismic data pro-
cessing stage, and it can be used to analyse multiples interfer-
ence of seismic data at the seismic interpretation stage, which
helps to evaluate the reliability of reservoir prediction results
and reduce the risks associated with well deployment.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Key R&D project of
China (2018YFC0603706) and CNPC project (2017D-3503). We
would like to thank the E&D Research Institute of PetroChina
Southwest Oil & Gas field for providing the seismic data.
Conflict of interest statement. None declared.
References
Berkhout, A.J. & Verschuur, D.J., 1997. Estimation of multiple scattering
by iterative inversion, Part 1. Theoretical considerations, Geophysics, 62,
1586–1595.
96
Dai et al.
Brookes, D., 2011. Case studies in 3D interbed multiple attenuation, The
Leading Edge, 30, 914–918.
Dai, X.F., Liu, W.D. & Gan, L.D., 2018. The application of radon trans-
form to suppress interbed multiples in Gaoshiti-Moxi area, Acta Petrolei
Sinica, 39, 1028–1036.
Dai, X.F. & Xu, Y.P., 2018. The suppression of Meso-NeoProterozonic
deep multiples in central Sichuan, Chinese Journal of Engineering Geo-
physics, 15, 189–194.
Dragoset, B., Verschuur, E. & Moore, I., 2010. A perspective on 3D surface-
related multiple elimination, Geophysics, 75, 245–261.
Gan, L.D., Xiao, F.S. & Dai, X.F., 2018. Breakthrough and signif-
icance of technology on internal multiple recognition and sup-
pression: a case study of Sinian Dengying Formation in Central
Sichuan Basin, SW China, Petroleum Exploration and Development, 45,
960–971.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/17/1/89/5614456 by guest on 12 September 2021
Giovanni, A.M., Katrin, L. & Matteo, R., 2015. Internal multiple prediction
and removal using Marchenko autofocusing and seismic interferometry,
Geophysics, 80, A7–A11.
Malcolm, A.E., De Hoop, M.V. & Calandra, H., 2007. Identification of im-
age artifacts from internal multiples, Geophysics, 72, S123–S132.
Meles, G.A, Löer, K & Ravasi, M., 2015. Internal multiple prediction
and removal using Marchenko autofocusing and seismic interferometry,
Geophysics, 80, A7–A11.
Otsu, N., 1979. A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms,
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-9, 62–
66.
Song, J.W., Verschuur, D.J. & Chen, X.H., 2014. Research status and
progress in multiple elimination, Progress in Geophysics, 29, 240–
247.
Weglein, A.B., Gasparotto, F.A. & Carvalho, P.M., 1997. An inverse-
scattering series method for attenuating multiples in seismic reflection
data, Geophysics, 62, 1975–1989.
Yang, H., Dai, X.F. & Gan, L.D., 2017. Reflectivity forward modeling and
application of multiples recognition - a case study of Central Sichuan
Basin, CPS 2017 Geophysical Technology forum, 310–313.