Click
to article in PDF format.
GCDepth Registration of P-Wave and S-Wave Images*
By
Bob A. Hardage and I.J. Aluka
Search and Discovery Article #40186
Posted February 7, 2006
*Adapted from the Geophysical Corner column, prepared by the authors and entitled, “Depth Registration Has Pitfalls,” in AAPG Explorer, February, 2006. Editor of Geophysical Corner is Bob A. Hardage. Managing Editor of AAPG Explorer is Vern Stefanic; Larry Nation is Communications Director.
1Senior research scientist, Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas ([email protected] )
2Professor of physical science, Prairie View A&M University, Prairie View, Texas
Introduction
Hardage and Aluka
(2006) introduced the concept of elastic wavefield
seismic
stratigraphy, a
seismic
interpretation technology that expands traditional P-wave
seismic
stratigraphy into the emerging world of multicomponent
seismic
technology.
Two assumptions are involved
in elastic wavefield
seismic
stratigraphy:
-
Across some stratigraphic intervals, one mode of an elastic wavefield will exhibit different
seismic
sequences and/or
seismic
facies than will its companion wave modes. -
S-wave
seismic
sequences and
facies are just as important in geologic interpretation as are traditional
P-wave
seismic
sequences and facies.
Once these two assumptions
are accepted, a serious interpretational challenge is immediately encountered:
Depth registration of P and S images. An interpreter must be confident a
targeted data window in P-wave image space is depth equivalent to a data window
selected from S-wave image space before the
seismic
sequences and facies in
these respective windows can be used in an elastic wavefield
seismic
stratigraphy analysis. Until depth-equivalent P and S data windows are defined,
no meaningful geological interpretation of P and S
seismic
sequences or facies
can be done.
Techniques
seismic
stratigraphers use to define depth-equivalent coordinates in P-wave and S-wave
image spaces include:
-
P-wave and S-wave synthetic seismograms.
-
Multicomponent VSP data.
-
Map and section views of P and S images of structure and stratigraphy.
Only the latter two options are discussed here.
|
uIntroductionuFigure captionsuMulticomponent VSP datauMap & section viewsuAcknowledgmentuReference
uIntroductionuFigure captionsuMulticomponent VSP datauMap & section viewsuAcknowledgmentuReference
uIntroductionuFigure captionsuMulticomponent VSP datauMap & section viewsuAcknowledgmentuReference
|
Multicomponent VSP Data
Multicomponent
The depth origin of a Examples of nine-component (9-C) VSP data used to define depth origins of P, SH, and SV reflections across an interval of Morrow channel deposition are shown in Figure 1. These data are examples of depth-based VSP imaging.
The three VSP wells shown in
Figure 1 are in
three different states: Texas, Kansas, and Colorado. The images show
that at each well, each elastic wave mode produces a reflection sequence
and a Map Views and Section Views of P and S Stratigraphy
An example of horizontal time slices through P
and S coherency volumes used to define depth-equivalent stratigraphy is
illustrated as panels (a) and (b) of Figure 2. The P-P image shows a
system of several intertwined channels. The P-SV image shows only one
channel, but that channel tracks one of the P-P channels, leading to the
conclusion that the P-P and P-SV data are imaging the same stratigraphy.
The channel architecture shown on these two images persists for a narrow
Two important conclusions can be made:
This latter conclusion is a fundamental
premise of elastic wavefield
Shown in panels (c) and (d) of
Figure 2 are
Using only
These examples lead us to the conclusion that
map views of thin stratigraphy can be a rather precise option for depth
registering two elastic mode images, whereas depth registration is
usually more difficult using
Reference
Hardage, Bob A., and I.J. Aluka, 2006, Elastic wavefield |
