1887
Volume 65, Issue 2
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The seismic industry is increasingly acquiring broadband data in order to reap the benefits of extra low‐ and high‐frequency contents. At the low end, as the sharp low‐cut decay gets closer to zero frequency, it becomes harder for a well tie to estimate the low‐frequency response correctly. The fundamental difficulty is that well logs are too short to allow accurate estimation of the long‐period content of the data. Three distinctive techniques, namely parametric constant phase, frequency‐domain least squares with multi‐tapering, and Bayesian time domain with broadband priors, are introduced in this paper to provide a robust solution to the wavelet estimation problem for broadband seismic data. Each of these techniques has a different mathematical foundation that would enable one to explore a wide range of solutions that could be used on a case‐by‐case basis depending on the problem at hand. A case study from the North West Shelf Australia is used to analyse the performance of the proposed techniques. Cross‐validation is proposed as a robust quality control measure for evaluating well‐tie applications. It is observed that when the seismic data are carefully processed, then the constant phase approach would likely offer a good solution. The frequency‐domain method does not assume a constant phase. This flexibility makes it prone to over‐fitting when the phase is approximately constant. Broadband priors for the time‐domain least‐squares method are found to perform well in defining low‐frequency side lobes to the wavelet.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12433
2016-07-26
2021-07-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BaetenG., De MaagJ.W., PlessixR.‐E., KlaassenR., QureshiT., KleemeyerM.et al. 2013. The use of low frequencies in a full‐waveform inversion and impedance inversion land seismic case study. Geophysical Prospecting61(4), 701–711.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BrandtS.1976. Statistical and Computational Methods in Data Analysis. North Holland Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. DenisonD.G.T, HolmesC.C., MallickB.K. and SmithA.F.M.2002. Bayesian Methods for Nonlinear Classification and Regression. John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. DeutschC.V. and JournelA.G.1997. GSLIB ‐ Geostatistical Software Library and User's Guide. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. DoumaJ. and Zabihi NaeiniE.2014. Application of image‐guided interpolationto build low frequency background model prior to inversion. 76th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Extended Abstracts, We G106 05.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. GunningJ. and GlinskyM.2006. WaveletExtractor: A Bayesian well–tie and wavelet extraction program. Computers and Geosciences32, 681–695.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. HamonB.V. and HannonE.J.1974. Spectral estimation of time delay for dispersive and non‐dispersive systems. Applied Statistics23, 134–142.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. JolleyL.W.B.1961. Summation of Series. Dover Publications Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. NielsenA.K., KlemmH. and CherrettA.J.2015. Joint well‐tie and wavelet extraction in the impedance domain. 77th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Madrid, Spain, Extended Abstracts, Th N102 11.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. PapoulisA.1973. Minimum bias windows for high resolution spectral estimates. IEEE Transaction on Information Theory19(1), 9–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. PooleG., DavisonC., DeedsJ., DaviesK. and HampsonG.2013. Shot‐to‐shot directional designature using near‐field hydrophone data. 83rd SEG Meeting, Houston, USA, Extended Abstracts, 4236–4240.
  12. RiedelK.S. and SidorenkoA.1995. Minimum bias multiple taper spectral estimation. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing43(1), 188–195.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. ReiserC., BirdT. and WhaleyM.2015. Reservoir property estimation using dual‐sensor seismic data—a case study from the West of Shetlands, UKCS. First Break33(10), 93–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. ten KroodeF., BerglerS., CorstenC., de MagJ.W., StrijbosF. and TijhofH.2013. Broadband seismic data—the importance of low frequencies. Geophysics78(2), WA3–WA14.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. ThomsonD.J.1982. Spectrum estimation and harmonic analysis. Proceedings of the IEEE70, 1055–1096.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. WaldenA. and WhiteR.1998. Seismic wavelet estimation: a frequency domain solution to a geophysical noisy input–output problem. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing36(1), 287–297.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. WhiteR.E.1980. Partial coherence matching of synthetic seismograms with seismic traces. Geophysical Prospecting28, 333–358.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. WhiteR.E.1984. Signal and noise estimation from seismic reflection data using spectral coherence methods. Proceedings of the IEEE72(10), 1340–1356.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. WhiteR.E. and SimmR.2003. Tutorial: good practice in well ties. First Break21(10), 75–83.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. WhiteR.E. and Zabihi NaeiniE.2014. Broad‐band well tie. 76th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Extended Abstracts, Tu EL12 10.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Zabihi NaeiniE.2014. Quantitative interpretation of broadband seismic data – challenges and solutions. 2nd EAGE/SBGf workshop, Rio, Brazil, Expanded Abstracts, We E06.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Zabihi NaeiniE. and HaleD.2015. Image‐ and horizon‐guided interpolation. Geophysics80(3), V47–V56.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12433
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12433
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): broadband seismic , inversion , wavelet and well tie
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