1 / 90

Overview of Utah Tomography and Modeling/Migration (UTAM)

Overview of Utah Tomography and Modeling/Migration (UTAM). Chaiwoot B., T. Crosby, G. Jiang, R. He, G. Schuster, J. Sheng, J. Yu, M. Zhou and Xiang Xiao. 2004 UTAM Consortium. ($24 K/year). Aramco BP-Amoco BGP Geotomo Chevron-Texaco Conoco-Phillips. IMP INCO Sisimage Unocal

allistair-mckay
Télécharger la présentation

Overview of Utah Tomography and Modeling/Migration (UTAM)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Overview of Utah Tomography and Modeling/Migration(UTAM) Chaiwoot B., T. Crosby, G. Jiang, R. He, G. Schuster, J. Sheng, J. Yu, M. Zhou and Xiang Xiao

  2. 2004 UTAM Consortium ($24 K/year) Aramco BP-Amoco BGP Geotomo Chevron-Texaco Conoco-Phillips IMP INCO Sisimage Unocal Veritas Western-Geco

  3. UTAM • Started 1988 • Goal: Innovative Imaging/Modeling • 10-18 sponsors/year • $24,000/year membership • Benefits: Yearly meeting: Feb. 3-4 Annual+midyr Report Software

  4. Interferometric Imaging below Salt And Overburden Jianhua Yu, Min Zhou Gerard T. Schuster University of Utah

  5. Outline Motivation Interferometric Imaging Synthetic Data Conclusions

  6. Outline Motivation Interferometric Imaging Synthetic & Field Data Conclusions

  7. Salt v(x,y,z) not known Static errors ? Problems with VSP or CDP Salt Imaging Quality?

  8. Outline Motivation Interferometric Imaging Synthetic & Field Data Conclusions

  9. How do you remove kinematic effects of propagating through unintersting parts of medium? Uninteresting Part of Medium

  10. Pick Direct Arrival Time T and shift all Traces by T T M { M M M

  11. T M { Shifting Traces Removes Kinematic Effects Of Propagating through Uninteresting Parts of Medium M

  12. Shifting Traces Removes Kinematic Effects Of Propagating through Uninteresting Parts of Medium M

  13. Kirchhoff Migrate psuedo-shot gathers m(x) = (g, t + t ) gx gx Mx M g M Shifting Traces Removes Kinematic Effects Of Propagating through Uninteresting Parts of Medium. . Source Moved to Depth Can replace time-shifted traces by crosscorrelograms M

  14. Kirchhoff Migrate psuedo-shot gathers m(x) = (g, t + t ) gx gx Mx M g M Can replace time-shifted traces by crosscorrelograms M

  15. Kirchhoff Migrate psuedo-shot gathers m(x) = (g, t + t ) gx gx Mx M g M Can replace time-shifted traces by crosscorrelograms M

  16. Kirchhoff Migrate psuedo-shot gathers m(x) = (g, t + t ) gx gx Mx M g M Can replace time-shifted traces by crosscorrelograms M

  17. Kirchhoff Migrate psuedo-shot gathers m(x) = (g, t + t ) gx gx Mx M g M Can replace time-shifted traces by crosscorrelograms M

  18. Kirchhoff Migrate psuedo-shot gathers m(x) = (g, t + t ) gx gx Mx M g M Can replace time-shifted traces by crosscorrelograms M

  19. Kirchhoff Migrate psuedo-shot gathers m(x) = (g, t + t ) gx gx Mx M g M Can replace time-shifted traces by crosscorrelograms M

  20. Eliminates source statics and uninteresting parts of the medium. Lower source to be near target.   Interferometric Summary

  21. Eliminates source+rec statics and uninteresting parts of the medium. Lower source+rec. to be near target.   Interferometric Summary Reference layer

  22. Outline Motivation Interferometric Imaging Synthetic CDP Data & Field Data Conclusions

  23. X (km) 3 0 0 Depth (km) Shots: 280 Shot interval: 10 m Receivers: 300 Receiver interval: 10 m Temporal interval:1ms 1.8 Salt model

  24. X (km) 0 3 0 Depth (km) 1.8 True velocity model

  25. X (km) 0 3 0 Pick Traveltime Subsalt Reference Reflection Time (s) 3 CSG 100

  26. X (km) 0 3 0 Depth (km) 1.8 Kirmig with inaccurate salt dome boundary

  27. X (km) 0 3 0 Depth (km) 1.8 RT migration with inaccurate salt dome boundary

  28. X (km) X (km) X (km) 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 Depth (km) 1.8 Standard mig Correct velocity Standard mig Incorrect velocity RT mig

  29. Outline Motivation Interferometric Imaging Synthetic HSP Data & Field Data Conclusions

  30. HSP Interferometric Imaging Salt Model HSP Shot Gather 0 km 0 km 1.2 km 1.2 s 0 km 5 km Mig. Image+Corr. Vel. 0 km 0 km 0 km 5 km 1.2 km 1.2 km 0 km 1.2 km 0 km 1.2 km

  31. HSP Interferometric Imaging Salt Model HSP Shot Gather 0 km 0 km 1.2 km 1.2 s 0 km 5 km Mig. Image+Corr. Vel. 0 km 0 km 0 km HSP Interferometric Imaging 5 km 1.2 km 1.2 km 0 km 1.2 km 0 km 1.2 km

  32. HSP Interferometric Imaging Salt Model HSP Shot Gather 0 km 0 km 1.2 km 1.2 s 0 km 5 km Mig. Image+Corr. Vel. HSP Image 0 km 0 km 0 km 5 km 1.2 km 1.2 km 0 km 1.2 km 0 km 1.2 km

  33. HSP Interferometric Imaging Salt Model HSP Shot Gather 0 km 0 km 1.2 km 1.2 s 0 km 5 km Mig. Image+Corr. Vel. HSP Image SWI-HSP Image 0 km 0 km 0 km Garbage 5 km 1.2 km 1.2 km 0 km 1.2 km 0 km 1.2 km

  34. HSP Interferometric Imaging Salt Model HSP Shot Gather 0 km 0 km 1.2 km 1.2 s 0 km 5 km Mig. Image+Corr. Vel. HSP Image SWI-HSP Image 0 km 0 km 0 km No Need for V Garbage 5 km 1.2 km 1.2 km 0 km 1.2 km 0 km 1.2 km

  35. Outline Motivation Interferometric Imaging Synthetic VSP Data & Field Data Conclusions

  36. VSP Data Image Below Salt Without Knowing Salt Velocity 0 km2 km 0 km 3 km

  37. Interferometric Image X (m) 1000 1400 950 Depth (m) 1950

  38. Well 256 Sources V = 1.5 - 3.0 km/s 0 Depth (km) SEG/EAGE Model 2 0 X (km) 3

  39. X (km) 1.4 2.4 Xcross 60 X (km) 0 2.4 0 Time (s) CRG 60 3

  40. Xcorr Mig (45) Xcorr. Mig(15’) Kirchh Mig (45) 0.5 Depth (km) 2.0 0.5 2.5 0.5 2.5 0.5 2.5 X (km)

  41. Outline Motivation Interferometric Imaging Synthetic VSP Data & Field Data Conclusions

  42. Depth (ft) 30 900 0 Raw Data(CRG15) Time (s) 0.3

  43. Depth (ft) 30 900 0 Ghosts Time (s) 0.3

  44. X (ft) X (ft) 0 400 0 400 200 Standard mig Xcorr. mig Depth (ft) 1300

  45. Salt + Overburden SUMMARY • Interferometric Tomography • Interferometric Imaging: Kinematically equivalent to sources-receivers below datum • True wave equation statics w/o V(x,y,z) • HSP, VSP and CDP data

  46. SUMMARY • Interferometric Tomography • Interferometric Imaging: Kinematically equivalent to sources-receivers below datum • True wave equation statics w/o V(x,y,z) • HSP, VSP and CDP data Salt + Overburden

  47. Increased illumination coverage in the VSP image. VSP ->CDP Eliminate the static errors in the well No need to know source (RVSP) or receiver location (VSP) Half sensitivity to velocity migration errors than mult. migration by “mirrors”. Crosscorrelogram Migration Conclusions

  48. Xcorr Kirchhoff Be careful about virtual multiple Ghost is weaker than primary Extra summation compared to KM vs Narrow Angle Wide Angle Conclusions Loss of some lateral resolution?

  49. Outline Motivation Crosscorrelation Migration SEG/EAGE Model 2-D RVSP Field Data Conclusions

  50. Well 256 Sources V = 1.5 - 3.0 km/s 0 Depth (km) SEG/EAGE Model 2 0 X (km) 3

More Related