1887
ASEG2012 - 22nd Geophysical Conference
  • ISSN: 2202-0586
  • E-ISSN:

Abstract

Summary

In the last decade converted-wave (PS-wave) seismic reflection studies have successfully demonstrated that a more complete geological interpretation can be obtained by integrated interpretation of P-wave and S-wave information, at both the petroleum and coal scales. Full 3D implementation of PS reflection presents particular challenges at the coal scale, because relative offsets and dominant frequencies are both large compared to petroleum-scale reflection.

One of the most difficult steps in the PS processing sequence is estimation of the S-wave receiver statics. Statics are time delays caused by variations in the weathering layer, and changes in source and receiver elevation. These time errors can significantly degrade CMP stack quality, and the final geological interpretation of seismic images. Static errors tend to be much more significant in PS surveys since the S wave travels more slowly through the weathering layer and is therefore more likely to be affected by variations within this layer.

In this presentation we evaluate of a number of different approaches for estimating 3D PS statics solutions. These include a surface-consistent inversion algorithm (analogous to the residual-statics method used in conventional P-wave processing), a so-called 'robuststatistical' method, and PPS refraction analysis. The methods are evaluated using a coal-scale 3D-3C survey acquired in the Bowen Basin. This has been used to examine the comparative performance, and the influence of various algorithmic and geological factors.

The results indicate that the surface-consistent inversion method can fail under some weathering conditions. When this occurs the refraction based method or a robust statistical method are preferred.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1071/ASEG2012ab223
2012-12-01
2026-01-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Brzostowski M., Zhu X., Altan S., Thomsen L., Barkved O., Rosland B. 1999. 3D Converted-Wave Processing over the Valhall field. SEG Expanded Abstracts, 18, 695-698
  2. Hanson R., Macleod M., Bell C., Thompson C., Somod J. 1999. Multi-Component seismic interpretation: data integration issues, Alba field, North Sea. SEG Expanded Abstracts, 18, 808-811
  3. Hearn S., Meulenbroek A. 2011. Ray-path concepts for converted-wave seismic refraction: in press Exploration Geophysics 2011.
  4. Macleod M., Hanson R., Hadley M., Reynolds K., Lumley D., Mchugo S., Probert T. 1999. The Alba field OBC seismic survey. SEG Expanded Abstracts, 18, 725-727.
  5. Meulenbroek A., Hearn S. 2011. Analysis of convertedrefractions for shear statics and near surface characterisation: in press Exploration Geophysics 2011.
  6. Reiter L., 1970, An investigation into the time term method in refraction seismology, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 60 (1), 1853-1854.
  7. Simin V., Harrison M.P., Lorentz G.A. 1996. Processing the Blackfoot 3C-3D seismic survey. CREWES Research Report, 8 (39).
  8. Stewart R.R., Gaiser J.E., Brown J., Lawnton D.C. 2002. Tutorial: Converted-wave seismic exploration: Methods. Geophysics, 67, 1348 – 1363.
  9. Velseis. 2003. Final Report - #C10020: Converted-wave seismic reflection for improved resolution of coal structures. ACARP Report, C10020
  10. Velseis. 2007. Final Report - #C13029: Integrated P/PS seismic imaging for improved geological characterisation of coal environments. ACARP Report, C13029
/content/journals/10.1071/ASEG2012ab223
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): PS wave; Refraction statics,; Residual statics
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