4D‐ready marine seismic data

Morice, S.; Christie, P. A. F.; Özbek, Ali; Curtis, Tony; Martin, James E.; Combee, L.; Svendsen, Morten Bo Søndergaard

doi:10.1190/1.1815721

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, residual differences in the repeated time-lapse data that do not represent changes in the subsurface geology impact the effectiveness of the method. Optimisation of repeatability has been a key objective in the development of point receiver acquisition systems 9 , with shotby-shot signature estimation and active streamer positioning to monitor and control as many acquisition parameters as possible. Such factors may be regarded as contributing to the time-lapse noise and any effort designed to improve the timelapse signal-to-noise ratio must address the quantifiable repeatability of the seismic survey 4,5 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring and Improving Time-Lapse Seismic Repeatability.

Christie

Pickering²,

Kragh

2004

All Days

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Time-lapse, or 4D, seismic seeks to image changes in the reservoir and/or the overburden caused by production. Confidence in interpreting seismic changes depends on good seismic repeatability in areas unaffected by production, driving ever-greater control over seismic acquisition parameters. We show that two repeatability metrics, normalized root-mean-square error and predictability, have complementary sensitivities to causes of data mis-match and are therefore useful for monitoring both our ability to repeat seismic acquisition and to guide the processing of the data volumes. We review the properties of the two metrics and illustrate their properties and interpretation using numerical and real data examples.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%