practical migration, demigration and velocity modelingthe modeling study confirmed single source...
TRANSCRIPT
Practical Migration, deMigration and VelocityModeling
Scott Field
Bee Bednar
Panorama Technologies, Inc.14811 St Marys Lane, Suite 150
Houston TX 77079
July 11, 2013
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 1 / 66
Outline
1 Scott Field — UK North Sea
2 Fake Rocks
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 2 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Outline
1 Scott Field — UK North Sea
2 Fake Rocks
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 3 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Synopsis
This study from the Scott Field, North Sea represents an amalgamationof work over a ten year period during which three 3D data volumes wereacquired and data was almost continuously re-processed. High initialproduction rates but unexpected water breakthrough Early wells towardscrest were disappointing and required new 3d survey in 1996.
Here we overview some of the survey planning.
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 4 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Scott Field UKCS
Outer Moray FirthJurassic SandFault block
Four maincompartmentsSatellite fields
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 5 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Regional Seismic Line
Figure: Nearby regional seismic line from Hibbert and Mackertitch (1993) Showinggeneral tilted fault block trend and Jurassic stratigraphy
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 6 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
General Scott Seismic Cross-Section
Awarded in 1972Ivanhoe field 1975
8000 ft TVDSS
Initial well missedDiscovered in 1983
12,000 ft TVDSS
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 7 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
General Scott Seismic Cross-Section
The field structure, effectively a large southwards tilted fault block, iscompartmentalized into a series of four main pressure isolated fault blocks by midto late Jurassic faulting. The Kimmeridge Clay Formation provides both the topseal and the source of the trapped hydrocarbons
The Scott Field, Blocks 15/21a, 15/22, UK North Sea, Simon Guscott, KenRussell, Andrew Thickpenny & Robert Poddubiuk in GLUYAS, J. G. & HICHENS,H. M. (eds) 2003. United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields,CommemorativeMillennium Volume. Geological Society, London, Memoir, 20, 467D482.
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 8 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Scott Facts
Upper Jurassic reservoirs in a series of rotated fault blocksHighly compartmentalizedComplex structural evolution including multi-phase faulting and inversion
35 sq km area 43 well: 2 platformsUpdip production wells with injector downdip to maintain pressureCrestal areas originally avoided as the seismic data poor quality23 producers, 20 injectors, 2 reservoirs
Upper Piper and lower Scott (shore face) sand reservoirsSeparated by a regional transgression shaleBest quality reservoir (20% porosity) at crest
Production History220,000 STB in 1995.80,000 STB in 1999 with 60% water cut
Ultimate recoverable reserves ± 440 MMSTB (46%)Scott Field was one of the largest developments in UKCS during the 1990s
Operated by Hess, then Talisman, and now Nexen
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 9 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Scott Field
Outer Moray Firth, North SeaDiscovered 1983
From 2D time grid
First oil 1993, 7% UK production3D seismic
1985, 1990, 1996, 2001
OBC undershoot in 1996Full OBC in 2001
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 10 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Exploration History
1990 Exploration SurveyShot NW-SE in 2 phasesOne part single source 60 foldOne part dual source 40 foldMinimal navigation processingStrike to main bounding faultAppraisal, equity, and development6 1990 surveys limited resources
Exploration Surveys≈ $200 sq km (1990)Relaxed acquisition parametersRelaxed processing parametersFit for purpose?
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 11 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Initial Poststack data quality
1990/1991 ProcessingDesignatureDeconvolution Before StackDip Moveout (DMO)Stacking Velocity AnalysisStackDeconvolution After Stack2-Pass Time MigrationFilterScale
1992 Equity ProcessingNew Velocity Analysis1-Pass time ””high-dip”” timemigration
HDTMIG an implicit XT mig
Filter and Scale
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 12 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Mapping after Hibbert & Mackertich (1993)
3D data were used to extract isopach maps for the main geological units(Paleocene through to Jurassic)
Map time horizonsDepth convert using well data (V0 + kz)Maps illustrate the main tectonic elements and sedimentary depocenterspresent during these periods.
3D horizon dip was also extracted as an attributeThese attribute maps show the dominant fault/lineament trends that transecteach seismic horizon.Integrated with the isopach maps they show dominant fault trends anddepositional influence through time.
Little else was normally extracted from 3D data at this time
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 13 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Geophysical Objectives
Jurassic reservoir, 3-4s, 20 degreemaximum dipsReservoir beneath variablethickness chalk layerNo near surface gas problems, butchannelsReservoir acoustically transparentso 4D not relevant ?Main objective:
structural resolutionimprove upon 1990 data
Secondary:AVO/attributes/porosity4D effects ?
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 14 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Scott Shooting Direction
Dip versus Strike?Topic of some concern in 1990(WATS Today)
If the structure is polarized; e.g,.salt wall, then
Strike shooting may reducenon-hyperbolic moveoutDip shooting may be easier toidentify structures
Easier velocity picking andmultiple suppression
Mother Earth is 3DNo defined dip direction
3D modeling to assess shootingdirection
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 15 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Scott Modeling Approaches
3D model required for all methodsRay tracing
Fast.Basis of many survey planningpackagesHigh frequency approximation
Poor Amplitudes
Usually a single arrival method
Waveform: finite differenceAccurate
Cost proportional to F 4
Very slow (hence expensive)No longer true (GPU’s)16km cubes in 20 minutes20,000 shots in a few days
Generates all arrivals3D no longer expensive
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 16 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Scott Modeling Approaches
Waveform: Phase ScreenIntroduce by Wu (1994)
Modeling and Migration10 times as fast as FD
But limited to 90 degreePoor amplitudesUseful took for quick analysis
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 17 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Scott Modeling Shot Records
Split-Spread 12km gathers50 m shot intervalGathers edited to 4,500 km cables25 m group interval
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 18 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Exploding Reflectors
2d or 3d model can be compared toreal world data to address problemsin acquisition, processing orinterpretation.Here we initially used post-stackmodeling to verify the model andtest post-stack migration algorithmsExamples
Post-stack processing parametersResolution studiesImaging, time versus depth,algorithm comparison studies
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 19 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Exploding Reflectors
2d or 3d model can be compared toreal world data to address problemsin acquisition, processing orinterpretation.Here we initially used post-stackmodeling to verify the model andtest post-stack migration algorithmsExamples
Post-stack processing parametersResolution studiesImaging, time versus depth,algorithm comparison studies
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 19 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Exploding Reflectors
2d or 3d model can be compared toreal world data to address problemsin acquisition, processing orinterpretation.Here we initially used post-stackmodeling to verify the model andtest post-stack migration algorithmsExamples
Post-stack processing parametersResolution studiesImaging, time versus depth,algorithm comparison studies
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 19 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Exploding Reflectors
2d or 3d model can be compared toreal world data to address problemsin acquisition, processing orinterpretation.Here we initially used post-stackmodeling to verify the model andtest post-stack migration algorithmsExamples
Post-stack processing parametersResolution studiesImaging, time versus depth,algorithm comparison studies
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 19 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Exploding Reflectors
2d or 3d model can be compared toreal world data to address problemsin acquisition, processing orinterpretation.Here we initially used post-stackmodeling to verify the model andtest post-stack migration algorithmsExamples
Post-stack processing parametersResolution studiesImaging, time versus depth,algorithm comparison studies
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 19 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Exploding Reflectors
2d or 3d model can be compared toreal world data to address problemsin acquisition, processing orinterpretation.Here we initially used post-stackmodeling to verify the model andtest post-stack migration algorithmsExamples
Post-stack processing parametersResolution studiesImaging, time versus depth,algorithm comparison studies
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 19 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Synthetic vs Real Migrations
(a) 3D Poststack Time (b) 3D Beam Stack PSDM
Modeling can be used to determine data qualityModel data can be used to illustrate optimum processing e.g. foramplitude, phase, resolution and imaging studiesOnce the post-stack modeling was deemed a success we could move to3D prestack modeling
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 20 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Stack and Poststack Processing
Multiple free dataStackedFK Time migrated
Data with multiplesStacked and compared tomultiple free dataMultiple contamination ofreservoir is clear
Focus on optimal imaging
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 21 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Prestack Imaging Comparison
(c) Stacked Section Picked Velocities (d) DMO/Gazdag PSTM
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 22 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Prestack Imaging Comparison
(e) PSPI PSDM (f) Kirchhoff PSDM
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 23 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Migration Cost-Benefit Analysis
Analysis used to study effect ofdifferent processing and imagingschemes on modeled dataBecause we know the answer this isone of the few methods we can use toattempt to quantify seismicprocessing results
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 24 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Summary of Proposed Parameters
The modeling study confirmedSingle sourceLonger offsetsNot shown: Rock physics modelingillustrated that AVO/4D analysiswould have limited value
Confirmed by Nexen, 2009
Survey direction changeAs much as a result of logistical asgeological factors
OBC data was chosen as part of theplatform undershoot
Existing Proposed1990 1996Dual source Single Source50m shot 25m Shot30 fold 90 fold3km Cable 4.5km CableNo Platform OBCNW-SE N-S
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 25 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Reshooting: Business Case
In field development cases the following arguments may assist in judgingthe ””business case”” – is this seismic stuff going to change my welllocations and make me more money ?
Seismic technically poor e.g. multiples, imaging, resolutionLocation of sealing faults criticalFaults in simulation do not match those on seismic so could be missingopportunity to drain parts of field4D effects, obviously if they can be backed up by rock physics modeling (notan issue for Scott).
Timing of the survey is always criticalSometimes easier to justify new or ””high technology”” e.g. OBCPolitical considerations
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 26 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Business Case: NPV of 7 Prospects
If 7-8 wells are to be drilled with an NPV of $70M then even an expensive$10M new OBC seismic may be justified
Opportunity Reserves NPV NPVMMbbls No Seismic $MM With Seismic $MM
1 4-6) 0 24-302 3 0 183 5 0 264 2-3 10-16 12-185 2-3 10-16 12-186 2-3 10-16 12-187 2-3 10-16 12-188 2-3 10-16 12-18
TOTAL 21-28 50-80 128-144
Prospects 1, 2 & 3 are deemed too risky to drill without new seismic
Half the NPV cannot be realized without the new seismic
For a $10M well, new survey data maybe more valuable if prospects arediscarded !
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 27 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Decision Tree
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 28 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Data Value for Single Prospect (Well)
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 29 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Scott Field: Development 1996
Development Survey 19966 cables single source4.5 km streamersProblems with rigsPlatform area undershot using2-component OBC
GenerallyFor development/appraisalcare must be taken to ensurethat the survey has themaximum shelf lifeStaff resources dedicatedUsually means more moneySince 1995 all surveys havesome 4D potential asamplitudes may be preserved.
Still issues with data quality andprocessing !!!
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 30 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Scott Data Quality
(g) inLine (h) xLine
Inline and Crossline are of gooddata quality (which is which ?)Timeslice shows merged OBC dataand acquisition footprint.
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 31 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
PSTM vs PSDM Migrations
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 32 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
PSTM vs PSDM Migrations Detail
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 33 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Scott OBC Data
Data quality much improved over 1990 data
OBC with three cables was shotto undershoot the platform area.Only second ever OBC surveyin the North Sea and theworldOs deepest at that time(140m water)Issues with data quality andsampling.Note also the hole due to rigactivity in the SW
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 34 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
OBC Gathers and Stack
Poor dataqualityOBC databut deepwaterStrongmultiplesfocusedover targetcrestalarea.Fold islowest heredue toplatform.
(i) OBC Gathers (j) OBC Stack
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 35 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
1996 PSTM
Original processing: streamerWave-equation multiplesuppressionRadon multiple suppressionMerge with obcPSTM (MovesTM type)
Original processing: OBC dataSum hydrophone/geophoneRadon multiple suppressionMerge with streamer dataPSTM (MovesTM type)
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 36 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
1996 PSDM
Original re-processing of OBC portionResum hydrophone/geophone
Soubaras, 1996
Radon multiple suppressionPSDMAggressive Radon multiple suppressionHorizon based multiple suppression
ImprovementsAll multiplesuppressionefforts failed
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 37 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Conclusions and Updates
Development drilling, which had been suspended in early 1997, wasresumed in mid-1998 as results of the 1996 3D seismic survey becameavailable. The new data were a significant improvement over the 1993dataset, although parts of the field crest were still poorly imaged. Theimaging problem results from a weak acoustic impedance contrastbetween the oil-bearing sandstones and the overlying Kimmeridge ClayFormation mudstones at the crest, coupled with the presence of strongseabed and interbed seismic multiples.One notable success of the new drilling campaign was drilled on thewestern flank of structural Block I the well encountered a full reservoirsection, with the Scott Sandstone at near virgin pressures. When the wellcame onstream initial production rates were close to 25 000 STB/day ofdry oil but these rates ultimately declined due to lack of pressure support.The well produced c. 3 MMSTB solely under depletion drive until 1999when an injector was drilled.
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 38 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Conclusions and Updates
Development drilling was suspended in mid-1999, resumed in 2000 andfocused on economically locating and exploiting bypassed oil. Pre-stackdepth migration of the 1996 3D seismic data indicate that it hassignificantly improved imaging over much of the field.A new 3D (full OBC) was shot in 2001 and operatorship changed toTalisman and now Nexen.In a 2009 paper Nexen reported:
Autumn 2008 had produced 400 M barrels.70 wells (drilling paused in 2004 after poor margin well results)2003 PSDM of 2001 OBC plus new interpretation and remapping. 2006post-stack freq enhance PSDM2005-2007 infill drilling with less focus on high risk, bypassed attic oil nearfaults. 6 successful wells.Still problems with crestal multiples, minor faulting ! Seismic reported as””significant”” value to asset adding production and reserves).
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 39 / 66
Scott Field — UK North Sea
Conclusions and Updates
What’s different today?Cost effective full waveform modeling and imaging
Anisotropic30,000 VTI shots over 16km cubes in 48 hoursMulti-cable extraction and imaging over a variety of direction
Nearly interactive hypothesis testingAVO/AVAAttributesExploding reflector models
Surface Related Multiple SuppressionBut only with proper data acquisitionRegularization is still an issue
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 40 / 66
Fake Rocks
Outline
1 Scott Field — UK North Sea
2 Fake Rocks
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 41 / 66
Fake Rocks
Emerging Solutions
An emerging general approach to resolution of of a varitey of hydrocarbonexploitation problems involves
Construction of an accurate and realistic subsurface modelConsistent with existing geologic interpretationsWith a sufficient number of horizons to capture detailed structureWhich includes Anisotropy when and where requiredHas sufficiently realistic reflectivity to provide a reasonable analysis platformComposed of reservoir properties for assessing reservoir characterizationpotential
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 42 / 66
Fake Rocks
Emerging Solutions
Synthesis of high quality full waveform wide azimuth (WATS, OBC,Nodes) dataExtraction and migration of realistic acquisition styles for
Cost/benefit analysisAssessment of amplitude accuracyQuantification of attribute predictabilityQuantification of seismic inversions
Application of various multiple elimination scenarios forQuantification of acquisition limitations on multiple suppressionAssessing the degree to which multiple suppression is important
Providing an initial model for full waveform inversion (FWI)
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 43 / 66
Fake Rocks
Initial Model
(k) Horizons and Data
Figure: The initial Scott horizons and depth migration of the merged data.
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 44 / 66
Fake Rocks
Initial Model
(a) Horizons and Vp
Figure: The acoustic velocity model and interpreted horizons used to construct it.
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 45 / 66
Fake Rocks
A Modern TTI Model
Constructing a modern TTI includesInterpretation of a suite of realistic geologic horizonsHorizon based estimation of interval velocity between the horizons
Map demigration and migration was used to properly register the horizonsbetween iterative steps
Computation via Gardner-Gregory of a background density volume fromthe estimated velocity modelFull two-way reverse time migration of the Scott data
Using a true-amplitude angle domain imaging condition
Estimation of a reflectivity model from the background density andtrue-amplitude RTM of the Scott dataEstimation of δ and ε at selected well locationsHorizon based interpolation of the estimated δ and ε
Horizon based interpolation of horizons based dip estimates to providesymmetry angled for TTI extrapolation
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 46 / 66
Fake Rocks
The VTI model
(a) Structural Surfaces with Reflectivity
Figure: A geologically consistent VTI Earth model derived from existing borehole andthree-dimensional seismic data.
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 47 / 66
Fake Rocks
The VTI model
(a) Vp
Figure: A geologically consistent VTI Earth model derived from existing borehole andthree-dimensional seismic data.
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 48 / 66
Fake Rocks
The VTI model
(a) δ
Figure: A geologically consistent VTI Earth model derived from existing borehole andthree-dimensional seismic data.
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 49 / 66
Fake Rocks
The VTI model
(a) ε
Figure: A geologically consistent VTI Earth model derived from existing borehole andthree-dimensional seismic data.
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 50 / 66
Fake Rocks
The VTI model
(a) Reflectivity
Figure: Reflectivity derived from a reverse-time-true-amplitude migration of theexisting three dimensional North Sea survey
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 51 / 66
Fake Rocks
The VTI model
(a) 3D Shot
Figure: 3D WAZ Shot.
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 52 / 66
Fake Rocks
WATS Acquisition
(a) WATS Acquisition
Figure: Cross Line 8356 from the full WATS acquisition.
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 53 / 66
Fake Rocks
WATS Acquisition
(a) Cross Line NAZ Acquisition
Figure: Cross Line 8356 from a NAZ (EW) acquisition.
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 54 / 66
Fake Rocks
WATS Acquisition
(a) In Line NAZ Acquisition
Figure: Inline NAZ (NS) acquisition.
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 55 / 66
Fake Rocks
WATS Acquisition
Inline NAZ (NS) acquisition. There are insignificant amplitude differencesbetween the two NAZ images, but the WATS image differs considerable fromthe other two.
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 56 / 66
Fake Rocks
WATS Acquisition
(a) WATS Acquisition
Figure: Top reservoir from the full WATS acquisition
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 57 / 66
Fake Rocks
WATS Acquisition
(a) Cross Line NAZ Acquisition
Figure: Top reservoir from the Cross Line Acquisition.
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 58 / 66
Fake Rocks
WATS Acquisition
(a) In Line NAZ Acquisition
Figure: Top reservoir from the NAZ inline (NS) acquisition.
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 59 / 66
Fake Rocks
WATS Acquisition
(a) In Line MAZ Acquisition
Figure: Top reservoir from the and a MAZ acquisition
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 60 / 66
Fake Rocks
WATS Acquisition
In General WATS image amplitudes are more consistent with model basedreflectivity, the faults are much clearer and the multiples less destructive thencomparable events on the other three images. The best competitor to theWATS is the multi-azimuth MAZ image.
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 61 / 66
Fake Rocks
WATS Acquisition
(a) WATS Acquisition
Figure: Piper illumination amplitudes from a full waveform (RTM) migration of the fullWATS acquisition.
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 62 / 66
Fake Rocks
WATS Acquisition
(a) NAZ In Line Acquisition
Figure: Piper illumination amplitudes from a full waveform (RTM) migration of the InLine NAZ acquisition.
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 63 / 66
Fake Rocks
WATS Acquisition
(a) NAZ Cross Line Acquisition
Figure: Piper illumination amplitudes from a full waveform (RTM) migration of theCross Line NAZ acquisition.
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 64 / 66
Fake Rocks
WATS Acquisition
There are significant amplitude differences between all three images, but thetwo NAZ images differ considerable from the WATS image. Experience hasshown that the WATS image is the more accurate of the three. In this case,the acoustic transparency of the Jurassic sand may render the analysis mootbut it is worth noting that when amplitudes cannot be ignored, full azimuthdata may be required for optimization extraction.
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 65 / 66
Fake Rocks
Questions?
Bee Bednar (Panorama Technologies) Practical Migration, deMigration and Velocity Modeling July 11, 2013 66 / 66