1 / 27

Waveform Tomography using Refracted Arrivals: EAGE 2004 Benchmark Study

Explore the effectiveness of waveform tomography with refracted arrivals, highlighting key findings and challenges faced in salt and sub-salt modeling. Learn about the strengths and weaknesses of the methodology employed by Queen’s University.

sbryan
Download Presentation

Waveform Tomography using Refracted Arrivals: EAGE 2004 Benchmark Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Frequency Domain Waveform Tomography Using Refracted Arrivals (2D Velocity Benchmark – Blind Test – EAGE 2004) R Gerhard Pratt and Drew Brenders (formerly Queen’s University)

  2. Traveltime Tomography Image

  3. Processing: Traveltime tomography (FAST)

  4. Final Waveform Tomography Image Total number of shots: 167 (every 400 m) Total number of receiver locations: 823 (every 100 m) Maximum offset: 15,000 m Minimum offset: 2,000 m Frequency range: 1 – 7.5 Hz Modelling grid: 1668 x 241 (50 m interval)

  5. Velocity Profiles

  6. Preprocessing: Original data

  7. Preprocessing: Reduced, picked data

  8. Preprocessing: Filtered data (7.5 Hz)

  9. Preprocessing: Windowed data (3 sec)

  10. Processing: Source estimate

  11. Processing: Model data in traveltime tomogram

  12. Processing: Model data in final result

  13. Processing: Final windowed “real” data

  14. Final Waveform Tomography Image Total number of shots: 167 (every 400 m) Total number of receiver locations: 823 (every 100 m) Maximum offset: 15,000 m Minimum offset: 2,000 m Frequency range: 1 – 7.5 Hz Modelling grid: 1668 x 241 (50 m interval)

  15. Final Waveform Tomography Image Top: original imageBottom: removal of low wavenumbers

  16. Exact model

  17. Waveform Tomography

  18. Conclusions • Waveform tomography using refracted arrivals is very effective • Low frequencies and large offsets are critical • Larger offsets (eg OBS data) would allow the entire target to be imaged • Sparse source and receiver coverage is sufficient

  19. Challenges 1/3 Salt 1 - Shot migration no SRME complex overhangs rugose top salt sediment inclusion overpressure zones Complex/broken reflectivity

  20. Challenges 2/3 Salt 2 - Shot migration no SRME multiples shallow HV anomaly channels steep dips poorly imaged flanks

  21. Challenges 3/3 Extra salt - Shot migration with SRME shallow gas mud volcano shallow LV anomalies HV anomalies on structure flanks

  22. Exact density model

  23. Exact model

  24. Queen’s University

  25. Queen’s University: strengths + • Good long & short wavelength updates in the shallow section. • Impressive resolution for some shallow anomalies. • Good image of the top salt without interpretation. • Good delineation of the overhangs without interpretation. • See glimpses of the base salt.

  26. Queen’s University : weaknesses - • Deep part of the model not estimated. • Variable velocity in salt. • Too high frequency. Regularization/smoothing issues? • Imaging issues with several targets, even shallow.

  27. Ranking Quality of salt and sub-salt model building Tier 3 Tier 2 Tier 1 D B H Tier 1 F Accuracy of extra-salt sediment update J I C A Tier 2 K E L Tier 3

More Related