1887
Volume 62, Issue 2
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

We present a novel method to enhance seismic data for manual and automatic interpretation. We use a genetic algorithm to optimize a kernel that, when convolved with the seismic image, appears to enhance the internal characteristics of salt bodies and the sub‐salt stratigraphy. The performance of the genetic algorithm was validated by the use of test images prior to its application on the seismic data. We present the evolution of the resulting kernel and its convolved image. This image was analysed by a seismic interpreter, highlighting possible advantages over the original one. The effects of the kernel were also subject to an automatic interpretation technique based on principal component analysis. Statistical comparison of these results with those from the original image, by means of the Mann‐Whitney ‐test, proved the convolved image to be more appropriate for automatic interpretation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12026
2013-08-29
2021-02-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AlBinHassanN.M., LuoY. and Al‐FarajM.N.2006. 3D edge‐preserving smoothing and applications. Geophysics71, 5–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AurnhammerM. and TönniesK.D.2005. A Genetic Algorithm for Automated Horizon Correlation Across Faults in Seismic Images. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation9, 201–210.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BahorichM. and FarmerS.1995. Seismic discontinuity for faults and stratigraphics features: The Coherence Cube. The Leading Edge14, 1053–1058.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BatesR.H.T.1982. Astronomical speckle imaging. Physics Reports90, 203–297.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BerthelotA., SolbertA.H.S., MorisbakE. and GeliusL.J.2011. Salt diapirs without well defined boundaries – a feasibility study of semi‐automatic detection. Geophysical Prospecting59, 682–696.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. ChopraS. and MarfurtK.2005. Seismic attributes – A Historical Perspective. Geophysics70, 3SO‐28SO.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. ChopraS. and MarfurtK.2008. Emerging and future trends in seismic attributes. The Leading Edge27, 298–318.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DopkinD., JamesH. and NeriP.2003. Automated Processes Opening New Possibilities in Geoscientific Interpretation. The American Oil & Gas Reporter.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. DumayJ. and FournierF.1988. Multivariate statistical analyses applied to seismic facies recognition. Geophysics53, 1151–1159.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. FaulknerK., KotreC.J. and LoukaM.1989. Veiling glare deconvolution of images produced by x‐ray image intensifiers. Third International Conference on Image Processing and its Applications, 669–673.
  11. FisherR.A.1925. Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh 1925, pp. 43. ISBN 0050021702.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. GelchinskyB. and ShtivelmanV.1983. Automatic picking of first arrivals and parameterization of traveltime curves. Geophysical Prospecting31, 915–928.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. GonzalezR.C. and WoodsR.E.1992. Digital Image Processing. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA. ISBN 0201508036.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. HallM.2007. Smooth operator: Smoothing seismic interpretations and attributes. The Leading Edge26, 16–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. HollandJ.1975. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. University of Michigan Press, Michigan, USA, 1975.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. HudecM.R. and JacksonM.P.A.2011. The salt mine: a digital atlas of salt tectonics. The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Udden Book Series No. 5; AAPG Memoir 99, 305 pp.
  17. JeongW.K., WhitakerR. and DobinM.2006. Interactive 3D seismic fault detection on the Graphics Hardware. International Workshop on Volume Graphics, 111–118.
  18. KundurD. and HatzinakosD.1996. Blind Image Deconvolution. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine13, 43–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. MallickS.1999. Some practical aspects of prestack waveform inversion using a genetic algorithm: an example from the east Texas Woodbine gas sand. Geophysics64, 326–336.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. MannH.B. and WhitneyD.R.1947. On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics18, 50–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. MarfurtK.J., SudhakerV., GersztenkornA., CrawfordK.D. and NissenS.E.1999. Coherency calculations in the presence of structural dip. Geophysics64, 104–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. McCormackM.D., StoisitsR.F., MacallisterD.J. and CrawfordK.D.1999. Applications of genetic algorithms in exploration and production. The Leading Edge18, 716–718.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. MullerJ.P.1988. Digital Image Processing in Remote Sensing. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, 226–269.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. NaghizadehM. and SacchiM.D.2010. Seismic data reconstruction using multidimensional prediction filters. Geophysical Prospecting58, 157–173.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. NikraveshM., AdamsR.D. and LeveyR.A.2001. Soft computing: tools for intelligent reservoir characterization (IRESC) and optimum well placement (OWP). Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering29, 239–262.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. NisensonP. and BarakatR.1987. Partial atmospheric correction with adaptive optics. Journal of the Optical Society of America A4, 2249–2253.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Orozco‐del‐CastilloM.G., Ortiz‐AlemánC., MartinR., Ávila‐CarreraR. and Rodríguez‐CastellanosA.2011a. Seismic data interpretation using the Hough transform and principal component analysis. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering8, 61–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Orozco‐del‐CastilloM.G., Ortiz‐AlemánC., Urrutia‐FucugauchiJ. and Rodríguez‐CastellanosA.2011b. Fuzzy logic and image processing techniques for the interpretation of seismic data. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering8, 185–194.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. PotterD., WrightJ. and CorbettP.1999. A genetic petrophysics approach to facies and permeability prediction in a Pegasus well. 61st Meeting European. Association of Geoscientists and Engineers, Session 2053.
  30. Rodríguez‐ZuñigaJ.L., Ortiz‐AlemánC., PadillaG. and GaulonR.1997. Application of genetic algorithms to constrain shallow elastic parameters using in situ ground inclination measurements. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering16, 223–234.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. RoggemannM.C.1991. Limited degree‐of‐freedom adaptive optics and image reconstruction. Applied Optics30, 4227–4233.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. SaggafM.M., Nafi‐ToksözM. and MarhoonM.I.2003. Seismic facies classification and identification by competitive neural networks. Geophysics68, 1984–1999.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. TurkM. and PentlandA.1991. Eigenfaces for recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience3, 71–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. VetriciD. and StewartR.1995. 3‐D seismic horizon map processing. CREWES Research Report, 7.
  35. WestB.P., MayS.R., EastwoodJ.E. and RossenC.2002. Interactive seismic facies classification using textural attributes and neural networks. The Leading Edge21, 1042–1049.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. WilsonT. and HewlettS.J.1991. Imaging strategies in three‐dimensional confocal microscopy. Biomedical Image Processing. Proceedings of SPIE 1245, eds Alan C.Bovik and William E.Higgins , pp. 35–45.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12026
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12026
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Interpretation , Inverse problem , Seismics and Signal processing
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