[First Hit]

Datapages, Inc.Print this page

AAPG GEO 2010 Middle East
Geoscience Conference & Exhibition
Innovative Geoscience Solutions – Meeting Hydrocarbon Demand in Changing Times
March 7-10, 2010 – Manama, Bahrain

Previous HitMigrationNext Hit Previous HitVelocityNext Hit Previous HitAnalysisNext Hit Using the Common Image Cube

Saleh M. Al-Saleh1

(1) Saudi Aramco, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

Downward-continuation methods are very sensitive to Previous HitvelocityNext Hit models (Berkhout, 1982; Yilmaz and Chambers, 1984; Claerbout, 1985; Al-Yahya, 1989; Deregowski, 1990; Liu and Bleistein, 1994; Varela et al., 1998). Using inaccurate Previous HitvelocityNext Hit models in these methods can generate low quality images. Their sensitivity to Previous HitvelocityNext Hit errors, however, makes them a good tool for Previous HitvelocityNext Hit Previous HitanalysisNext Hit. Using Previous HitmigrationNext Hit methods for estimating velocities is generally known as Previous HitmigrationNext Hit Previous HitvelocityNext Hit Previous HitanalysisNext Hit (MVA).

Previous HitMigrationNext Hit Previous HitvelocityNext Hit Previous HitanalysisNext Hit consists of the domain in which it is carried out, and the inversion scheme used to update the Previous HitvelocityNext Hit model. There are different domains and inversions schemes for MVA. In this paper, some well known domains for Previous HitmigrationNext Hit Previous HitvelocityNext Hit Previous HitanalysisNext Hit will be presented and linked to each other. These domains include residual curvature Previous HitanalysisNext Hit (RCA, Al-Yahya, 1989), depth focusing Previous HitanalysisNext Hit (DFA, Faye and Jeannot, 1986), and the common focus point (CFP, Berkhout, 1997.a) Previous HitanalysisNext Hit. Presenting them using the same Previous HitmigrationNext Hit method, shot profile Previous HitmigrationNext Hit, makes them easier to understand and compare. I then show how different aspects of the RCA, DFA, and CFP methods can be combined into a unified domain for Previous HitmigrationNext Hit Previous HitvelocityNext Hit Previous HitanalysisNext Hit. I will call this approach the common image cube Previous HitanalysisNext Hit (CICA). Instead of just taking the zero-lag cross-correlation at each depth level as in RCA, all the cross-correlation lags are stored. The result is a cube that contains more prestack information than the other methods.

This cube was first mentioned by Faye and Jeannot (1986). More recently, different slices of this cube were shown by Wang et al. (2005) to relate focusing errors to Previous HitvelocityNext Hit updates using tomography. The CFP approach offers more prestack information than the RCA and DFA approaches, but less prestack information than the CICA approach. Since the RCA, DFA, and CFP approaches have been shown by numerous authors (see e.g. Al-Yahya, 1989; Faye and Jeannot, 1986; Berkhout, 1997b; Berkhout, 2001) as appropriate domains for MVA, the CICA is also expected to do so, since it is just the integration of different aspects of these methods. In fact, the traveltime tomography that is currently used in CFP (Cox, 2001; Thorbecke, 1997; Berkhout, 1997b; Berkhout, 2001) can be used in CICA to update the Previous HitvelocityTop model. The CICA is a promising tool for MVA, but requires developing some software in order to compare it with other approaches.