1887
Volume 10 Number 6
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Geological characterization of the near‐surface is challenging because often shallow layers are unconsolidated and their properties have rapid and significant variations in vertical and lateral directions. This creates challenges for a majority of geophysical methods, which have limitations in the presence of a complex distribution of physical properties and that give optimal results over limited depth intervals, which are different for the different methods. The shallow near‐surface depth region is often problematic for standard seismic exploration methods. As a result, geological characterization through individual measurements is often compromised. The solution proposed here is the integration of multiple measurements of surface and deep subsurface properties, with the goal of generating a geologically meaningful lithostructural model of the near‐surface.

The underlying idea is based on the observation that deep subsurface structural features often leave an impression on the surface. This provides an opportunity for structural mapping at the surface and below the bottom of the near‐surface zone to guide the processing and interpretation of data from the near‐surface.

We show how the integration of multiple data sets from the measurement of different physical properties can be used to generate and enhance specific near‐surface products such as drilling risk maps or P‐wave velocity models for static corrections or for velocity modelling. The analysis proves that integration of multiple data sets can provide a solution when individual measurements, such as refraction traveltimes, do not provide sufficient information to characterize the lithostructure of the near‐surface. Satellite surface imagery and deep seismic data can provide the structural framework for the processing and interpretation of shallow seismic data. Simultaneous joint inversion of shallow P‐ and S‐wave data reveals the vertical and lateral velocity structures in the near‐surface, which are usually concealed when only refraction data are used. Finally, the correlation of multiple data sets in a correct spatial reference provides a quality control for the data set and allows for the lithostructural interpretation of data in the near‐surface.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2012008
2012-03-01
2020-02-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AlkalikhM.Y., SalibM.S. and ZakariaM.H.2011. Integration of potential geophysical field methods to locate shallow subsurface geological structures in Al Jaww Plain. 6th Congress of Balkan Geophysical Society, Budapest 3–6 October 2011, paper R08.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AlsharhanA.S. and SalahM.G.1995. Geology and hydrocarbon habitat in rift setting: Northern and central Gulf of Suez, Egypt. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology43(2), 156–176.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BubeckA.A., VsemirnovaE.A., JonesR.R. and WilkinsonW.W.2011. Combining GPR and terrestrial LiDAR to produce 3D virtual outcrop models. Near Surface 2011 – 17th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Leicester, 12–14 September 2011, paper P41.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. ChopraS. and MarfurtJ.2007. Seismic Attributes for Prospect Identification and Reservoir Characterization. Specifically: Chapter 8; Structureoriented filtering and image enhancement, in section I: Geometric attributes – Their physical basis and sensitivity to seismic signal and noise. Society of Exploration Geophysicists. Geophysical Developments11, Tulsa2007.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. ChopraS. and MarfurtK.J.2008. Emerging and future trends in seismic attributes. The Leading Edge27(3), 298–318.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. DemirD., BilinF., AydemirA. and AtesA.2011. Integration of geological and geophysical data in Thrace Basin, Turkey and modelling of gravity anomalies. 6th Congress of Balkan Geophysical Society, Budapest 3–6 October 2011, paper B12.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. GallardoL.A. and MejuM.A.2004. Joint two‐dimensional DC resistivity and seismic travel time inversion with cross‐gradient constraints. Journal of Geophysical Research109, 1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. GuoH., LewisS. and MarfurtK.J.2008. Mapping multiple attributes to three‐ and four‐component colour models – A tutorial. Geophysics73, W7–W19.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. LaakeA., SheneshenM., StrobbiaC., VelascoL. and CuttsA.2011. Integration of surface/subsurface techniques reveals faults in Gulf of Suez oilfields. Petroleum Geoscience17, 165–179.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. LaakeA, StrobbiaC. and CuttsA.2008. Integrated approach to 3D near surface characterization in desert regions. First Break26, 109–112.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. PaillouP., FarrT., RosenqvistA. and LopezS.2008. A PALSAR mosaic of Sahara to map subsurface geology. 2008 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Boston July 6–11, 2008.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. PedersenS.I., RandenT., SonnelandL. and SteenO.2002. Automatic fault extraction using artificial ants. 72nd Annual International Meeting, 5–11 October 2002, Salt Lake City, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 512–515.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. PedersenS.I., SkovT., HetlelidA., FayemendyP., RandenT. and SonnelandL.2003. New paradigm of fault interpretation. 73rd Annual Meeting, 26-31 October 2003, Dallas, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 350–353.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. RobinsonC.A., El‐BazF., Al‐SaudT.S.M. and JeonS.B.2006. Use of radar data to delineate palaeo‐drainage leading to the Kufra Oasis in the eastern Sahara. Journal of African Earth Sciences44 (2), 229–240.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. ReS., StrobbiaC., De StefanoM. and VirgilioM.2010. Simultaneous joint inversion of refracted and surface waves. SEG Denver 2010 Annual Meeting, 1914–1918.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. SabinsF.1996. Remote Sensing, Principle and Interpretation. 3rd edn., W.H. Freeman & Co, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. ShortN.M. and BlairR.W.Jr.1982. The Landsat Tutorial Workbook, Basics of Satellite Remote Sensing. NASA Reference Publication 1078, Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. SkovT., PedersenS.I., ValenT.S., FaymendyP., GroenlieA., HansenJ.O.et al. 2003. Fault system analysis using a new interpretation paradigm. EAGE 65th Conference and Exhibition, 2–5 June 2003, Stavanger, paper B–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. StrobbiaC., LaakeA., VermeerP.L. and GlushchenkoA.2011. Surface waves – use them then lose them. Surface wave analysis, inversion and attenuation in land reflection seismic surveying. Near Surface Geophysics9, pp. 503–514, doi: 10.3997/1873-0604.2011022
    [Google Scholar]
  20. StrobbiaC., VermeerP., LaakeA., GlushchenkoA. and ReS.2010. Surface waves: Processing, inversion and removal. First Break28, 85–91.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2012008
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2012008
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