1887
  1. Home
  2. Conferences
  3. Conference Proceedings
  4. 81st EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2019
  5. Conference paper

Abstract

Summary

Seismic stratigraphy and geomorphology interpretation (SSGI) and AVO interpretation are conducted as separate workflows in current common practices. It is a compelling argument to integrate SSGI and AVO interpretation since they interpret essentially the same seismic dataset despite different methodologies used. The main obstacle for the integration to be efficiently executed is the complexity of handling pre-stack data, which arises due to complex AVO responses from real rocks and non-perfect pre-stack gather formed by image migration. Here we propose a new method that effectively bridges volumetric flattening with pre-stack data. With sparse interpretation picked on pre-stack gathers, this method automatically morphs flattened cubes to adapt to angle/offset variations. It honours true AVO signals rather than apparent moveout in the gather. Application to field data showed the benefit of this method in integrated SSGI and AVO interpretation with much improved quality and highly efficient turnaround time.

© EAGE Publications BV
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201900685
2019-06-03
2024-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201900685
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Castagna, J. P., Oyem, A., Portniaguine, O. and Aikulola, U.
    [2016] Phase decomposition. Interpretation4(3), SN1–SN10.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Davies, R.J., Posamentier, H.W., Wood, L.J. and Cartwright, J.A. (eds)
    [2007] Seismic Geomorphology: Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 277, 1–14.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Lomask, J. and Guitton, A.
    [2007] Volumetric flattening: an interpretation tool. The Leading Edge, 26, 888–897.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Parks, D.
    [2010] Seismic image flattening as a linear inverse problem. M.S. thesis, Colorado School of Mines.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Wang, K., Wei, K., Deal, K. and Wilkinson, D.
    [2015a] A new method of generating horizons from seismic images with geologic constraints. 77th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Extended Abstracts.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. [2015b] 3D Seismic horizon extraction with horizon patch constraints. 85th SEG Annual Meeting, Extended Abstracts, 1754–1758.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Wu, X. and Hale, D.
    [2014] Horizon volumes with interpreted constraints. 84th SEG Annual International Meeting, Extended Abstracts, 1506–1511.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Zeng, H.
    [2018] What is seismic sedimentology? A tutorial. Interpretation, 6(2), SD1–SD12.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201900685
Loading
Integrated Pre-Stack Seismic Interpretation Through Volumetric Flattening
Conference Proceedings 2019, 1 (2019); https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201900685
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201900685
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201900685
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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