calculation of footprint noise result of 3d seismic survey design for ahwaz oil field

نویسندگان

احسان پگاه

دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد ژئوفیزیک، گروه فیزیک زمین، مؤسسة ژئوفیزیک دانشگاه تهران، ایران عبدالرحیم جواهریان

استاد بازنشسته، گروه فیزیک زمین، مؤسسه ژئوفیزیک، دانشگاه تهران و استاد دانشکده مهندسی نفت دانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر، تهران، ایران داود نوروزی

کارشناس ارشد اکتشاف معدن، طراح ارشد عملیات‏های لرزه نگاری، مدیریت اکتشاف شرکت ملی نفت ایران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

any 3d seismic survey can have an acquisition footprint. acquisition footprint is an expression of the surface geometry (most common on land data) that leaves an imprint on the stack of 3d seismic data. often we recognize it as amplitude and phase variations on time slices, which of course display the amplitudes within our data set at a specified two way time (cordsen, 2004). on the other hand, acquisition footprint is often used to describe amplitude stripes that appear in time slices or horizon slices produced from 3d seismic data volumes. although acquisition design of a 3d survey has a major influence on the nature and severity of a footprint, improper data processing techniques such as the use of incorrect normal moveout (nmo) velocities can also create footprint (cordsen, et al., 2000). more seriously, on horizon slices, footprint can interfere with and confuse stratigraphic patterns. many different contributions to the generation of acquisition footprint are possible. these can be divided into two main categories: (1) geometry effects: line spacing, fold variations, wide versus narrow patch geometry, source generated noise and variations of offset and azimuth distribution. (2) non-geometry effects: topography, culture, weathers, surface conditions and processing artifacts. in this article we study the effects of these parameters for 3d seismic survey in ahwaz oil field and calculate acquisition footprint noise in this field. most of the time the acquisition footprint is based on the source and receiver line spacing and orientations. the larger the line spacing, the more sever the footprint. in land situations where access is very open and, therefore, the lines are very regularly spaced, we may be able to recognize the footprint very clearly. because the geometry is regular, the footprint also will have the same periodicity. fold variation themselves are the simplest form of an acquisition footprint. fold changes with offset (or rather mute distance from the source point); each offset range, therefore, has differing fold contributions (cordsen, 1995). because each individual bin of a 3d survey has changing offset distributions, the cmp stack of all traces in a bin will display bin-to-bin amplitude variations. this variation in itself can produce an acquisition footprint. generally it has been thought that acquisition footprint is far worse in the shallow part of the seismic and therefore, of course, the geological section, mainly because the fold is lower, and amplitude variations necessarily are far more dramatic. offset limited fold variations alone may produce a recognizable footprint. the higher the fold, the better the signal to noise ratio; therefore, less footprint is evident. wide recording patch geometries are far more accepted these days than narrow patch geometries (cordsen, et al., 2000). the reasons are numerous and ranges from reduction in acquisition footprint (particularly that due to back-scattered shot noise) to improved statics solutions and the availability of large channel capacities on seismic recording crews (also leading to higher fold). in addition to the impact of the fold variations, acquisition footprint is made worse by source generated noise trains that penetrate our data sets. the lower the signal to noise ratio is, the worse the footprint will be. unfortunately, the noise typically has a low frequency content that is much less affected by attenuation. therefore the noise becomes more prominent relative to the signal content deeper in the section. our experiences have shown that acquisition footprint problems can be just as prevalent in the deep section as they are in the shallower section. if surface access is poor because of topography variations, tree cover, towns, etc., we irregularize the geometry by moving source points to locations of easier access, and therefore mask the acquisition footprint. it is still present, however. the footprint is just so much harder to identify. weather and surface conditions may also impact the recorded amplitudes. one can model an acquisition footprint by creating a stack response on either synthetic or real data. we stack the data in a 3-d cube and display the resulting seismic data over a small time window. the best input is a single nmo and static corrected, offset sorted 2d (or 3d) cmp gather. these traces will be applied to each cmp bin in the recording geometry. in summary, we should attempt to minimize footprints by employing proper seismic acquisition and processing techniques, but if a footprint persists in the stacked data, there are ways to filter the data and mitigate its effect on geological interpretation. in this article we optimized acquisition parameters in order to minimize acquisition footprint noise for 3d seismic survey in ahwaz oil field and finally with 3d modeling by omni software we saw the intensity of this noise in our seismic sections.

برای دانلود باید عضویت طلایی داشته باشید

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

investigating the feasibility of a proposed model for geometric design of deployable arch structures

deployable scissor type structures are composed of the so-called scissor-like elements (sles), which are connected to each other at an intermediate point through a pivotal connection and allow them to be folded into a compact bundle for storage or transport. several sles are connected to each other in order to form units with regular polygonal plan views. the sides and radii of the polygons are...

simulation and experimental studies for prediction mineral scale formation in oil field during mixing of injection and formation water

abstract: mineral scaling in oil and gas production equipment is one of the most important problem that occurs while water injection and it has been recognized to be a major operational problem. the incompatibility between injected and formation waters may result in inorganic scale precipitation in the equipment and reservoir and then reduction of oil production rate and water injection rate. ...

Optimizing design of 3D seismic acquisition by CRS trace interpolation

Land seismic data acquisition in most of cases suffers from obstacles in fields which deviates geometry of the real acquired data from what was designed. These obstacles will cause gaps, narrow azimuth and offset limitation in the data. These shortcomings, not only prevents regular trace distribution in bins, but also distorts the subsurface image by reducing illumination of the target formatio...

متن کامل

an application of equilibrium model for crude oil tanker ships insurance futures in iran

با توجه به تحریم های بین المملی علیه صنعت بیمه ایران امکان استفاده از بازارهای بین المملی بیمه ای برای نفتکش های ایرانی وجود ندارد. از طرفی از آنجایی که یکی از نوآوری های اخیر استفاده از بازارهای مالی به منظور ریسک های فاجعه آمیز می باشد. از اینرو در این پایان نامه سعی شده است با استفاده از این نوآوری ها با طراحی اوراق اختیارات راهی نو جهت بیمه گردن نفت کش های ایرانی ارائه نمود. از آنجایی که بر...

fabrication of new ion sensitive field effect transistors (isfet) based on modification of junction-fet for analysis of hydronium, potassium and hydrazinium ions

a novel and ultra low cost isfet electrode and measurement system was designed for isfet application and detection of hydronium, hydrazinium and potassium ions. also, a measuring setup containing appropriate circuits, suitable analyzer (advantech board), de noise reduction elements, cooling system and pc was used for controlling the isfet electrode and various characteristic measurements. the t...

منابع من

با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید


عنوان ژورنال:
فیزیک زمین و فضا

جلد ۳۸، شماره ۱، صفحات ۱۴۵-۱۶۰

کلمات کلیدی
any 3d seismic survey can have an acquisition footprint. acquisition footprint is an expression of the surface geometry (most common on land data) that leaves an imprint on the stack of 3d seismic data. often we recognize it as amplitude and phase variations on time slices which of course display the amplitudes within our data set at a specified two way time (cordsen 2004). on the other hand acquisition footprint is often used to describe amplitude stripes that appear in time slices or horizon slices produced from 3d seismic data volumes. although acquisition design of a 3d survey has a major influence on the nature and severity of a footprint improper data processing techniques such as the use of incorrect normal moveout (nmo) velocities can also create footprint (cordsen et al. 2000). more seriously on horizon slices footprint can interfere with and confuse stratigraphic patterns. many different contributions to the generation of acquisition footprint are possible. these can be divided into two main categories: (1) geometry effects: line spacing fold variations wide versus narrow patch geometry source generated noise and variations of offset and azimuth distribution. (2) non geometry effects: topography culture weathers surface conditions and processing artifacts. in this article we study the effects of these parameters for 3d seismic survey in ahwaz oil field and calculate acquisition footprint noise in this field. most of the time the acquisition footprint is based on the source and receiver line spacing and orientations. the larger the line spacing the more sever the footprint. in land situations where access is very open and therefore the lines are very regularly spaced we may be able to recognize the footprint very clearly. because the geometry is regular the footprint also will have the same periodicity. fold variation themselves are the simplest form of an acquisition footprint. fold changes with offset (or rather mute distance from the source point); each offset range therefore has differing fold contributions (cordsen 1995). because each individual bin of a 3d survey has changing offset distributions the cmp stack of all traces in a bin will display bin to bin amplitude variations. this variation in itself can produce an acquisition footprint. generally it has been thought that acquisition footprint is far worse in the shallow part of the seismic and therefore of course the geological section mainly because the fold is lower and amplitude variations necessarily are far more dramatic. offset limited fold variations alone may produce a recognizable footprint. the higher the fold the better the signal to noise ratio; therefore less footprint is evident. wide recording patch geometries are far more accepted these days than narrow patch geometries (cordsen et al. 2000). the reasons are numerous and ranges from reduction in acquisition footprint (particularly that due to back scattered shot noise) to improved statics solutions and the availability of large channel capacities on seismic recording crews (also leading to higher fold). in addition to the impact of the fold variations acquisition footprint is made worse by source generated noise trains that penetrate our data sets. the lower the signal to noise ratio is the worse the footprint will be. unfortunately the noise typically has a low frequency content that is much less affected by attenuation. therefore the noise becomes more prominent relative to the signal content deeper in the section. our experiences have shown that acquisition footprint problems can be just as prevalent in the deep section as they are in the shallower section. if surface access is poor because of topography variations tree cover towns etc. we irregularize the geometry by moving source points to locations of easier access and therefore mask the acquisition footprint. it is still present however. the footprint is just so much harder to identify. weather and surface conditions may also impact the recorded amplitudes. one can model an acquisition footprint by creating a stack response on either synthetic or real data. we stack the data in a 3 d cube and display the resulting seismic data over a small time window. the best input is a single nmo and static corrected offset sorted 2d (or 3d) cmp gather. these traces will be applied to each cmp bin in the recording geometry. in summary we should attempt to minimize footprints by employing proper seismic acquisition and processing techniques but if a footprint persists in the stacked data there are ways to filter the data and mitigate its effect on geological interpretation. in this article we optimized acquisition parameters in order to minimize acquisition footprint noise for 3d seismic survey in ahwaz oil field and finally with 3d modeling by omni software we saw the intensity of this noise in our seismic sections.

میزبانی شده توسط پلتفرم ابری doprax.com

copyright © 2015-2023