1887
Volume 54, Issue 6
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Static shifts from near‐surface inhomogeneities very often represent the key problem in the processing of seismic data from arid regions. In this case study, the deep bottom fill of a strongly degrades the image quality of a 2D seismic data set. The resulting static and dynamic problems are solved by both conventional and common‐reflection‐surface (CRS) processing. A straightforward approach derives conventional refraction statics from picked first breaks and then goes through several iterations of manual velocity picking and residual statics calculation. The surface‐induced static and dynamic inhomogeneities, however, are not completely solved by these conventional methods.

In CRS processing, the local adaptation of the CRS stacking parameters results in very detailed dynamic corrections. They resolve the local inhomogeneities that were not detected by manual picking of stacking velocities and largely compensate for the surface‐induced deterioration in the stack. The subsequent CRS residual statics calculations benefit greatly from the large CRS stacking fold which increases the numbers of estimates for single static shifts. This improves the surface‐consistent averaging of static shifts and the convergence of the static solution which removes the remaining static shifts in the 2D seismic data. The large CRS stacking fold also increases the signal‐to‐noise ratio in the final CRS stack.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2006.00572.x
2006-11-02
2020-08-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. De BazelaireE.1988. Normal moveout revisited – inhomogeneous media and curved interfaces. Geophysics53, 143–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. EwigE.2003. Theory and Application of Residual Static Correction by Means of CRS Attributes . Master's Thesis, University of Karlsruhe, Germany .
    [Google Scholar]
  3. GelchinskyB.1988. The common reflecting element (CRE) method (non‐uniform asymmetric multifold system). 6th Geophysical Conference, ASEG, Expanded Abstracts, 71–75.
  4. GierseG., PruessmannJ., LaggiardE., BoennemannC. and MeyerH.2003. Improved imaging of 3D marine seismic data from offshore Costa Rica by CRS processing. First Break21, 45–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. HubralP., ed. 1999a. Macro model independent seismic reflection imaging. Journal of Applied Geophysics42 (3,4). Special issue on Karlsruhe Workshop.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. HubralP.1999b. Seismic illumination. The Leading Edge18, 1269–1271.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. JägerR., MannJ., HöchtG. and HubralP.2001. Common‐Reflection‐Surface stack: Image and attributes. Geophysics66, 97–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. KoglinI.2005. Estimation of Residual Static Time Shifts by Means of the CRS Based Residual Static Correction Approach . Logos Verlag, Berlin .
    [Google Scholar]
  9. MannJ.2002. Extensions and Applications of the Common‐Reflection‐Surface Stack Method . Logos Verlag, Berlin .
    [Google Scholar]
  10. RonenJ. and ClaerboutJ.F.1985. Surface‐consistent residual statics estimation by stack‐power maximization. Geophysics50, 2759–2767.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. TrappeH., ComanR., GierseG., RobinsonS., OwensM. and Møller NielsenE.2005. Combining CRS technology and sparse 3D seismic surveys – a new approach to acquisition design, 67th EAGE Conference, Madrid , Spain , Extended Abstracts, P182.
  12. TrappeH., GierseG. and PruessmannJ.2001. The Common Reflection Surface (CRS) stack – structural resolution in Time Domain beyond the conventional NMO/DMO stack. First Break19, 625–633.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2006.00572.x
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2006.00572.x
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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