Amplitude Recovery and Deconvolution of Chirp and Boomer Data for Marine Geology and Offshore Engineering

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

   I have appreciated your paper. It is clear and well written. I have just a small suggestion to do. Being an "Article", it is necessary to improve the Introduction section with more background info related to both Chirp and Boomer applications. I can suggest to take a look to these references and, particularly, the literature therein:

i) https://www.jstor.org/stable/4300050?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

ii) https://www.southampton.ac.uk/assets/imported/transforms/content-block/UsefulDownloads_Download/11C8552CFA2248D68788C18B3A94E9F8/MGDAPAI-guidance-notes.pdf

iii) https://cmgds.marine.usgs.gov/catalog/science.php?thcode=2&term=2054 

Author Response

We extended the Introduction by adding several further references, as suggested.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is well written, but it lacks in the presentation form. The two compared methods are explained in the text only. There should be some illustrations with graphs or tables.

Please provide at least two graphical illustrations of the two compared approaches.

The attached manuscript is referring to 11 Figures. However, I can not see them. That is my point. Where can I find those figures? The authors should be able to provide a PDF with those images.

Author Response

We added a diagram (new Figure 7) and a new paragraph detailing the processing flow.

Strangely, the system did not help getting our figures, which were submitted together with the text. We hope that in the revised version this drawback might be solved.

Reviewer 3 Report

This article is globally well written and very interesting. In particular the fact that attenuation of the seismograms in the sediments can be taken into account directly in the deconvolution of the frequency spectra envelopes of the data. The method will help to merge heterogeneous surveys with different frequency contents like the Chirp and Boomer datasets.

But the section 4 about the application to real geophysical data (Chirp and Boomer data) is not extremely clear. A table with the best coefficients alpha (attenuation) and beta and the errors of associated geological interface (horizons) recoveries etc...should be added and  could help to understand much better all the discussion and results of that section 4, etc... and how the different choices of coefficients alpha and beta should be made to improve horizon recoveries etc... 

Besides, the main problem in this manuscript is that the figures are not provided at all ! Authors should resubmit the paper and provide them at the end of the manuscript.

When these figures will be added to the manuscript then I will be able to give a final decision on the manuscript.

 

Best regards

 

The reviewer

Author Response

The new Figure 7 and the related caption and comments in the text might clarify our proposed approach.

            The different values for the a and b coefficients do not change the travel time (and so the estimated depth) of seismic signals, but only their relative amplitude. The only way to validate them is by well logs, which are practically never available – (unlike for the oil industry, with quite different resources!). We mentioned it in the text. A practical criterion remains the visual interpretability of the reflected signals. However, standard methods for gain recovery as AGC are extremely subjective, while those ones based of travel-time powers rely on physical properties.

We hope that the submission of the revised text will work better for the figures …

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have made correct revisions. I recommend publication as it is.

 

Best regards

The reviewer