This website uses cookies to improve your experience. If you continue without changing your settings, you consent to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can disable cookies at any time.

×

Offset vector tile domain wide-azimuth prestack seismic interpretation methods and applications

Authors:

The offset vector tile (OVT) is a special prestack seismic gather type, and OVT technology is a seismic processing technology suitable for wide-azimuth seismic (WAZ) exploration. Because current WAZ interpretation is not yet mature and because of the lack of key techniques and tools for OVT-domain seismic interpretation, abundant offset and azimuth information possessed in the OVT gathers has not been fully used. To take full advantage of the OVT gathers to achieve more accurate geologic, reservoir, and fluid information, we have developed an OVT-domain wide-azimuth prestack seismic interpretation technology and a typical workflow. The OVT-domain wide-azimuth prestack seismic interpretation technology is composed of five key prestack analysis and interpretation techniques focused on OVT gathers: (1) sensitive offset and azimuth analysis for choosing their sensitive offset and azimuth ranges, (2) template-based OVT gather optimization for improving their signal-to-noise ratio and quality, (3) multiscale and multiazimuth attribute analysis, (4) OVT domain amplitude versus incidence angle analysis, and (5) azimuthal anisotropy analysis. These technologies are used to extract seismic attributes that vary with offset and/or azimuth from OVT gathers facing on reservoir characterization, fluid detection, and fracture prediction. These technologies can form an OVT-domain prestack seismic interpretation workflow.

References

  • Aki, K., and P. G. Richards, 1980, Quantitative seismology: Theory and method: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  • Bale, R., T. Marchand, K. Wilkinson, and J. Deere, 2013, The design and application of converted-wave offset vector tiles: 83rd Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 5141–5145.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Boelle, J., B. Paternoster, D. Lecerf, S. Navion, A. Belmokhta, and A. Ladmek, 2009, Azimuthal amplitude analysis on data processed in common offset vector domain: 79th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1172–1176.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Calvert, A., E. Jenner, R. Jefferson, R. Bloor, N. Adams, R. Ramkhelawan, and C. S. Clair, 2008, Preserving azimuthal velocity information: Experiences with cross-spread noise attenuation and offset vector tile preSTM: 78th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 207–211.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Cary, P. W., 1999, Common-offset-vector gather: An alternative to cross-spreads for wide-azimuth 3-D survey: 69th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1496–1499.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Cary, P. W., and X. Li, 2001, Some basic imaging problems with regularly-sampled seismic data: 71st Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 981–984.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Crampin, S., 1994, The fracture criticality of crustal rocks: Geophysical Journal International, 118, 428–438, 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1994.tb03974.x.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Fry, M., E. Martinez, G. Espinoza, G. Romero, S. Theisen, and M. Wallace, 2009, Design, acquisition and processing of wide azimuth 3D land seismic data utilizing offset vector tiles: 11th International Congress of the Brazilian Geophysical Society & EXPOGEF, 1170–1174.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gomez, C., and E. Angerer, 2004, Wide-azimuth processing for azimuthal anisotropy analysis: 74th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 167–170.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Hart, B. S., J. H. S. Macquaker, and K. G. Taylor, 2013, Mudstone (“shale”) depositional and diagenetic processes: Implications for seismic analyses of source-rock reservoirs: Interpretation, 1, no. 1, B7–B26, doi: 10.1190/INT-2013-0003.1.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Helbig, K., 1983, Elliptical anisotropy: Its significance and meaning: Geophysics, 48, 825–832, doi: 10.1190/1.1441514.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Hootman, B. W., 2014, Wide azimuth and broadband data analysis for unconventional reservoir exploration: 84th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 5169–5173.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Liu, Y., X. Yin, S. Zhang, G. Wu, and X. Tao, 2014, Recent advances in wide-azimuth seismic exploration: Oil Geophysical Prospecting (OGP), 49, 596–610.Google Scholar
  • Lu, J., 1993a, Kinematics of seismic waves, in The principle of seismic exploration: Petroleum University Press, 9–19.Google Scholar
  • Lu, J., 1993b, Stratigraphic lithology interpretation, in The principle of seismic exploration: Petroleum University Press, 241–290.Google Scholar
  • Ohlsen, F., and C. MacBeth, 1999, Elliptical anisotropy: Regression or advance?: 69th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1600–1603.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Ostrander, W. J., 1984, Plane waves reflection coefficients for gas sands at normal angles of incidence: Geophysics, 49, 1637–1648, doi: 10.1190/1.1441571.AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Pan, R., 2006, Intension and extension of AVO: Journal of Oil and Gas Technology, 24, 50–55.Google Scholar
  • Ruger, A., 1997, P-wave reflection coefficients for transversely isotropic models with vertical and horizontal axis of symmetry: Geophysics, 62, 713–722, doi: 10.1190/1.1444181.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Ruger, A., 1998, Variation of P-wave reflectivity with offset and azimuth in anisotropic media: Geophysics, 63, 935–947, doi: 10.1190/1.1444405.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Ruger, A., 2002, HTI media — The symmetry planes, in Reflection coefficients and azimuthal AVO analysis in anisotropic media: SEG, 63–82.Google Scholar
  • Ruger, A., and I. Tsvankin, 1997, Using AVO for fracture detection: Analytic basis and practical solutions: The Leading Edge, 16, 1429–1434, doi: 10.1190/1.1437466.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Rutherford, S. R., and R. H. Williams, 1989, Amplitude versus offset variations in gas sands: Geophysics, 54, 680–688, doi: 10.1190/1.1442696.AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Saltelli, A., 2002, Sensitivity analysis for importance assessment: Risk Analysis, 22, 579–590, doi: 10.1111/risk.2002.22.issue-3.RIANDF0272-4332CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Schervish, M. J., 1987, A review of multivariate analysis: Statistical Science, 2, 396–413, doi: 10.1214/ss/1177013111.STSCEP0883-4237CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Shuey, R. T., 1985, Amplification of the Zoeppritz equations: Geophysics, 50, 609–614, doi: 10.1190/1.1441936.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Silva, F., G. Vasconcellos, M. Gontijo, and M. Schinelli, 2013, First common offset vector processing workflow applied in Recôncavo basin: 13th International Congress of the Brazilian Geophysical Society & EXPOGEF, 1583–1586.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Stein, J. A., R. Wojslaw, T. Langston, and S. Boyer, 2010, Wide-azimuth land processing: Fracture detection using offset vector tile technology: The Leading Edge, 29, 1328–1337, doi: 10.1190/1.3517303.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Thomsen, L., 1986, Weak elastic anisotropy: Geophysics, 51, 1954–1966, doi: 10.1190/1.1442051.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Tsvankin, I., 1997, Reflection moveout and parameter estimation for horizontal transverse isotropy: Geophysics, 62, 614–629, doi: 10.1190/1.1444170.AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Vermeer, G. J. O., 1998, Creating image gathers in the absence of proper common offset gathers: Exploration Geophysics, 29, 636–642, doi: 10.1071/EG998636.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Vermeer, G. J. O., 2000, Processing with offset-vector-slot gathers: 70th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 5–8.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Vermeer, G. J. O., 2005, Processing orthogonal geometry: What is missing: 75th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2201–2204.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Vermeer, G. J. O., 2007, Reciprocal offset‐vector tiles in various acquisition geometries: 77th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 61–65.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Williams, M., and E. Jenner, 2002, Interpreting seismic data in the presence of azimuthal anisotropy; or azimuthal anisotropy in the presence of the seismic interpretation: The Leading Edge, 21, 771–774, doi: 10.1190/1.1503192.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Xie, C., X. Yong, W. Yang, C. Zhou, and W. Zhang, 2014, The comparison between the Cosine fitting and AVAZ in fracture detection: CPS/SEG Beijing 2014 International Geophysical Conference, 614–616.Google Scholar
  • Yang, X., B. Lou, M. Yao, J. Ma, and G. Ding, 2014, Application of OVT processing technology to 3D seismic data in Well block Maxi-1: Beijing 2014 International Geophysical Conference and Exposition, 238–241.Google Scholar
  • Zhang, Y., G. Yu, B. Liu, G. Hu, and X. Liang, 2015, The pre-stack gather conditioning techniques of OVT seismic data in shale gas play: Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, 430–434.CrossrefGoogle Scholar