1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 63, Issue 5
  5. Article
Volume 63, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

In certain seismic data processing and interpretation tasks such as spiking deconvolution, tuning analysis, impedance inversion, and spectral decomposition, it is commonly assumed that the vertical direction is normal to reflectors. This assumption is false in the case of dipping layers and may therefore lead to inaccurate results. To overcome this limitation, we propose a coordinate system in which geometry follows the shape of each reflector and the vertical direction corresponds to normal reflectivity. We call this coordinate system . We develop a constructive algorithm that transfers seismic images into the stratigraphic coordinate system. The algorithm consists of two steps. First, local slopes of seismic events are estimated by plane‐wave destruction; then structural information is spread along the estimated local slopes, and horizons are picked everywhere in the seismic volume by the predictive‐painting algorithm. These picked horizons represent level sets of the first axis of the stratigraphic coordinate system. Next, an upwind finite‐difference scheme is used to find the two other axes, which are perpendicular to the first axis, by solving the appropriate gradient equations. After seismic data are transformed into stratigraphic coordinates, seismic horizons should appear flat, and seismic traces should represent the direction normal to the reflectors. Immediate applications of the stratigraphic coordinate system are in seismic image flattening and spectral decomposition. Synthetic and real data examples demonstrate the effectiveness of stratigraphic coordinates.

Copyright © 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12224
2015-03-23
2024-04-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12224
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BienatiN. and SpagnoliniU.1999. Surface slice generation and interpretation: A review. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing39, 1287–1290.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. ClaerboutJ.F.1992. Earth Sounding Analysis: Processing Versus Inversion. Blackwell Science.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. ClaerboutJ.F.2006. Basic earth imaging. Stanford Exploration Project.
  4. FomelS., 2002. Applications of plane‐wave destruction filters. Geophysics67(6), 1946–1960.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. FomelS., 2010. Predictive painting of 3‐D seismic volumes. Geophysics75(4), A25–A30.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. FranklinJ.B. and HarrisJ.M.2001. A fast marching level set method for monotonically advancing fronts. Computational Acoustics91095–1109.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. GuoH. and MarfurtK.J.2010. Spectral decomposition along the travel path of signal wavelets. 80th SEG International Convention, Expanded Abstracts, 1478–1482.
  8. HoyesJ. and CheretT.2011. A review of “global” interpretation methods for automated 3D horizon picking. The Leading Edge30, 38–47.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. LiS. and FomelS.2013. Kirchhoff migration using eikonal‐based computation of traveltime source‐derivatives. Geophysics78(4), S211–S219.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. LiuG., FomelS. and ChenX.2011. Time‐frequency analysis of seismic data using local attributes. Geophysics76(6), P23–P34.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. LomaskJ., GuittonA., FomelS., ClaerboutJ. and ValencianoA.2006. Flattening without picking. Geophysics71(4), P12–P20.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. LuoS. and HaleD.2013. Unfaulting and unfolding 3D seismic images. Geophysics78(4), O45–O56.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. MalletJ.L.2004. Space‐time mathematical framework for sedimentary geology. Mathematical Geology36, A25–A30.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. ParksD.2010. Seismic image flattening as a linear inversion problem. Master thesis, Colorado School of Mines, USA.
  15. PartykaG.A. and LopezJ.1999. Interpretational applications of spectral decomposition in reservoir characterization. The Leading Edge18, 353–360.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. StarkT.J.2005. Generation of a 3D seismic “wheeler diagram” from a high resolution age volume. 75th SEG International Convention, Expanded Abstracts 9, 782–785.
  17. WolakJ., HemstraN., OchoaJ. and PelissierM.2013. Reconstruction of depocenter evolution through time using relative stratigraphic thickness. The Leading Edge32, 172–177.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. ZengH., HenryS.C. and RiolaJ.P.1998. Stratal slicing, part ii: real 3‐D seismic data. Geophysics63(2), 514–522.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12224
Loading
Stratigraphic coordinates: a coordinate system tailored to seismic interpretation
Geophysical Prospecting 63, 1246 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12224
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12224
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12224
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): interpretation frame work; Seismic image flattening; trace‐based attributes

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

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