Marine seismic data application for similar to shale reservoir properties forecasting and horizontal well path design on the shelf of gulf of Guinea

2017 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 106-121
Author(s):  
A. O. Verpahovskaya ◽  
V. N. Pilipenko ◽  
Е. V. Pylypenko

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lourenildo W.B. Leite ◽  
J. Mann ◽  
Wildney W.S. Vieira

ABSTRACT. The present case study results from a consistent processing and imaging of marine seismic data from a set collected over sedimentary basins of the East Brazilian Atlantic. Our general aim is... RESUMO. O presente artigo resulta de um processamento e imageamento consistentes de dados sísmicos marinhos de levantamento realizado em bacias sedimentares do Atlântico do Nordeste...


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian W.D. Dalziel ◽  
◽  
Robert Smalley ◽  
Lawrence A. Lawver ◽  
Demian Gomez ◽  
...  

Geophysics ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. O9-O17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Upendra K. Tiwari ◽  
George A. McMechan

In inversion of viscoelastic full-wavefield seismic data, the choice of model parameterization influences the uncertainties and biases in estimating seismic and petrophysical parameters. Using an incomplete model parameterization results in solutions in which the effects of missing parameters are attributed erroneously to the parameters that are included. Incompleteness in this context means assuming the earth is elastic rather than viscoelastic. The inclusion of compressional and shear-wave quality factors [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] in inversion gives better estimates of reservoir properties than the less complete (elastic) model parameterization. [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] are sensitive primarily to fluid types and saturations. The parameter correlations are sensitive also to the model parameterization. As noise increases in the viscoelastic input data, the resolution of the estimated parameters decreases, but the parameter correlations are relatively unaffected by modest noise levels.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 4874
Author(s):  
Milan Brankovic ◽  
Eduardo Gildin ◽  
Richard L. Gibson ◽  
Mark E. Everett

Seismic data provides integral information in geophysical exploration, for locating hydrocarbon rich areas as well as for fracture monitoring during well stimulation. Because of its high frequency acquisition rate and dense spatial sampling, distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) has seen increasing application in microseimic monitoring. Given large volumes of data to be analyzed in real-time and impractical memory and storage requirements, fast compression and accurate interpretation methods are necessary for real-time monitoring campaigns using DAS. In response to the developments in data acquisition, we have created shifted-matrix decomposition (SMD) to compress seismic data by storing it into pairs of singular vectors coupled with shift vectors. This is achieved by shifting the columns of a matrix of seismic data before applying singular value decomposition (SVD) to it to extract a pair of singular vectors. The purpose of SMD is data denoising as well as compression, as reconstructing seismic data from its compressed form creates a denoised version of the original data. By analyzing the data in its compressed form, we can also run signal detection and velocity estimation analysis. Therefore, the developed algorithm can simultaneously compress and denoise seismic data while also analyzing compressed data to estimate signal presence and wave velocities. To show its efficiency, we compare SMD to local SVD and structure-oriented SVD, which are similar SVD-based methods used only for denoising seismic data. While the development of SMD is motivated by the increasing use of DAS, SMD can be applied to any seismic data obtained from a large number of receivers. For example, here we present initial applications of SMD to readily available marine seismic data.


Geophysics ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 48 (7) ◽  
pp. 854-886 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ken Larner ◽  
Ron Chambers ◽  
Mai Yang ◽  
Walt Lynn ◽  
Willon Wai

Despite significant advances in marine streamer design, seismic data are often plagued by coherent noise having approximately linear moveout across stacked sections. With an understanding of the characteristics that distinguish such noise from signal, we can decide which noise‐suppression techniques to use and at what stages to apply them in acquisition and processing. Three general mechanisms that might produce such noise patterns on stacked sections are examined: direct and trapped waves that propagate outward from the seismic source, cable motion caused by the tugging action of the boat and tail buoy, and scattered energy from irregularities in the water bottom and sub‐bottom. Depending upon the mechanism, entirely different noise patterns can be observed on shot profiles and common‐midpoint (CMP) gathers; these patterns can be diagnostic of the dominant mechanism in a given set of data. Field data from Canada and Alaska suggest that the dominant noise is from waves scattered within the shallow sub‐buttom. This type of noise, while not obvious on the shot records, is actually enhanced by CMP stacking. Moreover, this noise is not confined to marine data; it can be as strong as surface wave noise on stacked land seismic data as well. Of the many processing tools available, moveout filtering is best for suppressing the noise while preserving signal. Since the scattered noise does not exhibit a linear moveout pattern on CMP‐sorted gathers, moveout filtering must be applied either to traces within shot records and common‐receiver gathers or to stacked traces. Our data example demonstrates that although it is more costly, moveout filtering of the unstacked data is particularly effective because it conditions the data for the critical data‐dependent processing steps of predictive deconvolution and velocity analysis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document