1887
Volume 72, Issue 9
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

Abstract

The extension of the seismic bandwidth to lower frequencies enhances impedance contrasts that can be poorly represented by the broadband acquisition wavelet. Furthermore, long filters that are used to shape the wavelet of processed data can cause issues with noise, phase and interference between seismic events. In this paper, we use a mathematical technique known as mollification to resolve impedance variations with the highest detail allowed by the bandwidth of the data. The mollifier is integrated and windowed to match the low‐frequency content of the data to yield a convenient conversion to relative impedance. Synthetic data created from wedge models show that the windowed mollifier provides an improved representation of the impedance profile. This is replicated by application to an acoustic well log and a regular seismic dataset recorded in the Southern North Sea as well as a broadband dataset recorded in the North Sea.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13613
2024-10-11
2026-02-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahmadi, Z.M., Sawyers, M., Kenyon‐Roberts, S., Stanworth, C.W., Kugler, K.A., J, K. & Fugelli, E.M.G. (2003) The Millennium atlas: Petroleum geology of the Central and Northern North Sea. London: The Geological Society of London.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Berkhout, A. (1982) Seismic migration: Imaging of Acoustic Energy by Wave Field Extrapolation (2 ed.). Development in Solid Earth Geophysics Series, volume 14A. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Blick, C. & Eberle, S. (2021) A survey on multiscale mollifier decorrelation of seismic data. GEM ‐ International Journal on Geomathematics, 12, 16.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brettle, M. (2018) The mariner field: more than thirty years in the making. In Advances in production geoscience as an enabler for maximising economic recovery and ensuring a future for the UKCS. London: Geological Society, pp. 56–57.
  5. Equinor (2022) Revision to mariner reserves. https://www.equinor.com/news/archive/20220112‐mariner.
  6. Hampson, A.J. & Russell, B. (1985) Maximum‐likelihood seismic inversion. In National Canadian CSEG meeting.
  7. Jager, J.D. (2012) The discovery of the Fat Sand play. Geologie en Mijnbouw Netherlands Journal of Geosciences, 91, 609–619.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Lancaster, S.J. & Connolly, P.A. (2007) Fractal layering as a model for coloured inversion and blueing. In 69th EAGE conference & exhibition. Houten, the Netherlands: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, cp‐27‐00205.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Mcfadzean, P.J. (2016) The mapping the basal Tertiary Maureen Fm. at the mariner field with isometrix broadband data. In Proceedings of the 78th EAGE conference & exhibition. Houten, the Netherlands: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Volume 2016, pp. 1–5.
  10. Ostmo, S. (2014) Improved reservoir characterisation by multisensor towed streamer seismic data at the mariner field. In Proceedings of the 76th EAGE conference & exhibition. Houten, the Netherlands: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, pp. 16–19.
  11. Pavlis, G.L. & Wang, Y. (2015) Shaping wavelet effects in scattered wave imaging of P to S conversion data. Geophysical Journal International, 203, 373–383.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Piotrowska, J., Miller, J.M. & Schnetter, E. (2019) Spectral methods in the presence of discontinuities. Journal of Computational Physics, 390, 527–547.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Plessix, R.E. & Li, Y. (2013) Waveform acoustic impedance inversion with spectral shaping. Geophysical Journal International, 195, 301–314.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Roy, S., Zimmermann, N., Cooke, A., Hutchinson, N., Harrington, S., Thompson, O., McArdle, N., Cooke, N., Mispel, J. & Sundøy, K. (2021) Revisiting mariner: value of multicomponent and multimeasurement data for model building. In 82nd EAGE annual conference & exhibition, volume 2021. Houten, the Netherlands: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, pp. 1–5.
  15. Shang, X., Kryvohuz, M., Baeten, G., Macintyre, H., Perkins, C., Tang, Z., Theriot, C., Wang, K., Allemand, T., Aznar, J., Herrmann, P., Large, J., Laroche, S. & Ronen, S. (2023) Imaging with a low frequency source. In 84th EAGE annual conference & exhibition. Houten, the Netherlands: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, volume 2023, pp. 1–5.
  16. Tellier, N. & Herrmann, P. (2023) MEMS‐based OBN: lessons learnt from the largest OBN survey worldwide. First Break, 41, 71–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ten Kroode, F., Bergler, S., Corsten, C., de Maag, J.W., Strijbos, F. & Tijhof, H. (2013) Broadband seismic data ‐ the importance of low frequencies. Geophysics, 78, WA3–WA14. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2012‐0294.1.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Zijp, M.H.A.A., Huijgen, M.A., Wilpshaar, M., Bouroullec, R. & Ter, J.H. (2018) Stringers in salt as a drilling risk. TNO report TNO2018 R10975. Utrecht, The Netherlands: TNO.
  19. Ziolkowski, A., Underhill, J.R. & Johnston, R.G. (1998) Wavelets, well ties, and the search for subtle stratigraphic traps. Geophysics, 63, 297–313.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13613
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13613
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): interpretation; inversion; seismics; signal processing

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