1887

Abstract

Summary

In this case study, we investigate how the use of different information derived from a seismic dataset improves the understanding of a complex gas reservoir in a development context. We are adapting a versatile imaging algorithm (the generalized radon transform) to create seismic images with enhanced S/N ratios and enhanced diffractions. These are better suited to the interpretation challenges of the reservoir.

On one hand, the S/N enhanced images and gathers were used as clean and detailed input to an elastic seismic inversion. These complemented the structural interpretation and led to a better understanding of reservoir properties and connectivity in the main part of the reservoir. On the other hand, the diffraction images were incorporated in a more standard interpretation workflow as high-resolution input to seismic geomorphology in order to predict the quality at the fringe of the reservoir. This was not possible with conventional input and methods.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700901
2017-06-12
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bai, Y., Sun, Z., Chen, L. and Yang, H.
    2011. Seismic diffraction separation in 2D and 3D space. 73rd EAGE meeting, Expanded Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Benfield, N. R., Guise, A. and Chase, D.
    2016. Diffraction imaging. — a tool to reduce exploration and development risk. First Break. Vol 34, 57–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brandsberg-Dahl, S., de Hoop, M. V, and Ursin, B.
    , 2003. Focusing in dip and AVA compensation on scattering-angle/azimuth gathers. Geophysics, 68, 232–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Chopra, S. and Marfurt, K. M.
    , 2007. Seismic attributes for prospect ID and reservoir characteristics. SEG publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Koren, Z., and I.Ravve
    , 2011, Full-azimuth subsurface angle domain wavefield decomposition and imaging Part I: Directional and reflection image gathers, Geophysics, 76 (1), S1–S13.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Landa, E., S.Fomel, and M.Reshef
    , 2008, Separation, imaging, and velocity analysis of seismic diffractions using migrated dip-angle gathers: SEGExpanded Abstracts, 2176–2180
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Neidell, N.
    , 1997. Perceptions in seismic imaging Part 2: Reflective and diffractive contributions to seismic imaging. The Leading Edge, 16(8), 1121–1123.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. SturzuI., A.M.Popovici, M.A.Pelissier, J.M.Wolak and T.J.Moser
    2014, Diffraction imaging of the Eagle Ford shale, First Break, 32, 49–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Tsingas, C., El MarhfoulB., SattilS., and DajanilA.
    , 2011. Diffraction imaging as an interpretation tool, First Break, 29, 57–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Tyiasning, S., Merzlikin, D., Cooke, D., and Fomel, S.
    2016. A comparison of diffraction imaging to incoherence and curvature. The Leading Edge, 35(1), 86–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Van Bemmel, P. and Pepper, R.E.F.
    , SEISMIC SIGNAL PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING A CUBE OF VARIANCE VALUES, U.S. Patent number 6,151,555, 2000.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700901
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700901
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error