shirtshasem.blogg.se - Hampson russell seismic interpretation

Hampson russell seismic interpretation verification#
Hampson russell seismic interpretation series#

GPPRAR 0016-8025 Crossref Web of Science Google Scholar

Hampson russell seismic interpretation verification#

Castagna, 1992, Shear-wave estimation in porous rocks: Theoretical formulation, preliminary verification and applications: Geophysical Prospecting, 40, 195–209, doi: 10.1111/j. Goodway, 1999, Bridging the gap: Using AVO to detect changes in fundamental elastic constants: 69th Annual International Meeting, SEG, 852–855. Downton, 1997, Improved AVO fluid detection and lithology discrimination using Lamé petrophysical parameters: 67th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 183–186. Vail, 1992, Hydrocarbon detection using fluid factor traces: A case history: Joint SEG/EAEG Summer Research Workshop on “How Useful is Amplitude-Versus-Offset (AVO) Analysis?”, Expanded Abstracts, 78–89. Swan, 1993, A closer look at hydrocarbon indicators: 63rd Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 731–733. GPYSA7 0016-8033 Abstract Web of Science Google Scholar Levitt, 1994, Detection of gas in sandstone reservoirs using AVO analysis: A 3-D seismic case history using the geostack technique: Geophysics, 59, 1362–1376, doi: 10.1190/1.1443695. Hunt, 2011, Azimuthal Fourier coefficients: CSEG Recorder, 36, 22–36. Eastwood, 1985, Relationships between compressional-wave and shear-wave velocities in clastic silicate rocks: Geophysics, 50, 571–581, doi: 10.1190/1.1441933. Lawton, 2002, A proposed polarity standard for multicomponent seismic data: Geophysics, 67, 1028–1037.

Bortfeld, R., 1961, Approximations to the reflection and transmission coefficients of plane longitudinal and transverse waves: Geophysical Prospecting, 9, 485–502, doi: 10.1111/j.

Grechka, 2000, Estimation of fracture parameters from reflection seismic data - Part I: HTI model due to a single fracture set: Geophysics, 65, 1788–1802, doi: 10.1190/1.1444863. Richards, 2002, Quantitative seismology, 2nd ed.: W.H. Although I will largely focus on isotropic methods, the last part of the tutorial will extend the analysis to anisotropic reservoirs. The techniques will be illustrated using a 2D seismic example over a gas sand reservoir from Alberta. The objective of this tutorial is thus to make sense of all of these methods and show how they are interrelated. Seismic impedance methods include: independent and simultaneous P and S-impedance inversion, lambda-mu-rho analysis, Poisson impedance inversion, elastic impedance, and extended elastic impedance inversion. Seismic reflectivity methods include: near and far trace stacking, intercept versus gradient analysis, and the fluid factor analysis. Those techniques that are based on the seismic reflection coefficient series, or seismic reflectivity for short, are called amplitude variation with offset methods, and those that are based on the seismic impedance are referred to as prestack amplitude inversion methods.

Hampson russell seismic interpretation series#

I show that these techniques can be classified as being based on the computation and analysis of either some type of seismic reflection coefficient series or seismic impedance. In this tutorial, I present an overview of the techniques that are in use for prestack seismic amplitude analysis, current and historical.