Mayl 2008. NOISE and errors in interpretation-

Seismic noise almost always exists, especially on land and shallow water prospects. It is often so serious that existing interpretations are not valid.

Even on clean data, what you see on a section is a complex mix of "tuned" primary events and this algebraic mixing can fool AVO logic and create misleading dips.

So - just because older tries failed, don't give up too soon. Economics have changed, and we know how to do things better now. The fact is, more bad interpretations are out there than good ones.

"Hands on" processing is my specialty and it is what I talk about inside this extensive series. Of course the fact that my non-linear inversion logic does the best job might also interest you.

(I did quite well on this noisy data.)

 

Many old leases with missed reservoirs exist, where the data should be re-processed and new interpretations made. This includes much recent 3D shooting done on land and shallow water.   

How many good prospects lie in waiting? Probably a bunch. Is reprocessing easy? No it is not, and it takes a deep knowledge of the reflection process to make it worth while. 

By looking at the raw data using advanced display tools coherent noise can be evaluated and removed. Effective non-linear inversion can then be applied to greatly improve seismic resolution.

At the very minimum you should know what the problems are!  So - I am asking you to let me and my software loose on your old interpretations. What is there to lose in today's economic environment?

Coherent noise, wavelet development, tuning effect on AVO theory, interpretation fallacies & non-linear inversion are topics covered inside. To fully understand one subject, one must be familiar with the others. Seismic results depend on an intricate set of intertwined factors, and I do my best to integrate them.  I use many PowerPoint shows to illustrate my points. The goal of noise removal is better inversion, and I keep trying.

For many visitors the discussions cover more than they want to know, but there are a lot of pictures. 

for the full discussion  Click here            dpaige1@sbcglobal.net

While the cost of preliminary analysis is not trivial, it is a small price to pay. It does require access to the raw field data however.  Once the noise is identified, rational decisions on reprocessing can be made. 

If you plan to bookmark, do it here. It gets complicated inside. 

If you don't go on, a favor please. Since it will have cost me from $.41 to $1.00 to get you this far, I'd love to know why you are not interested. I will throw away your email address unless you tell me not to. Negative responses are welcome, since being ignored is even worse.. 

       

Pass it on - the odds are that you are the only one in your group that has gotten through the maze on the net! While I can't pay you, I sure would appreciate the favor.