Geological Model - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 49
About This Presentation
Title:

Geological Model

Description:

Migration Result Using Crosscorrelation Imaging. 1.6. 0. 2.2. Time (s) 2.1. X (km) Too Simple? ... image. Application to SEG/EAGE model and the field data. Eliminating ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:125
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 50
Provided by: utamGeop
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Geological Model


1
Geological Model
X(km)
0
4
0
Depth(km)
3
2001 Year
2
Migration Result Using Crosscorrelation Imaging
X (km)
1.6
2.1
0
Too Simple?
Widen illumination?
Time (s)
If there are static errors in well?
2.2
3
Enhancing Illumination Coverage of VSP by
Crosscorrelation Migration
Jianhua Yu
University of Utah
4
Contents
Motivation
Crosscorrelation Migration
SEG/EAGE Model
2-D RVSP Exxon Data
Conclusions
5
Contents
Motivation
Crosscorrelation Migration
SEG/EAGE Model
2-D RVSP Exxon Data
Conclusions
6
What Affects VSP Imaging Quality?
7
Why uses Crosscorrelation Migration?
8
Why uses Crosscorrelation Migration?
9
Why uses Crosscorrelation Migration?
10
Why uses Crosscorrelation Migration?
11
Objectives
Investigate the crosscorrelation migration method
on
12
Contents
Motivation
Crosscorrelation Migration
SEG/EAGE Model
2-D RVSP Exxon Data
Conclusions
13
Well
Receiver
Source
VSP
14
Ghost Reflection Imaging Condition
g
s
x
15
After Crosscorrelation of Two Traces at Locations
g g
g
s
x
16
After Crosscorrelation of Two Traces at Locations
g g
g
s
x
17
After Crosscorrelation of Two Traces at Locations
g g
g
s
x
18
Why not sensitive to static errors in the well?
19
Crosscorrelogram Migration
20
Benefits from Crosscorrelation Migration
21
Contents
Motivation
Crosscorrelation Migration
SEG/EAGE Model
2-D RVSP Exxon Data
Conclusions
22
0
Depth (km)
SEG/EAGE Model
2
0
3
X (km)
23
Well
0
1 km
Depth (km)
2
0
3
X (km)
24
Depth (km)
0.2
0.9
0
CSG 160
Time (s)
3
25
Depth (km)
0.2
0.9
0
Ghosts (CSG 160)
Time (s)
3
26
Depth (km)
0.2
0.9
0
Primary (CSG 160)
Time (s)
3
27
X (km)
0
2.4
0
Time (s)
CRG 60
3
28
Kirchhoff Migration (45 degree)
0.5
Depth (km)
2.0
0.5
2.5
X (km)
29
Crosscorrelation Migration (45 degree)
0.5
Depth (km)
2.0
0.5
2.5
X (km)
30
Crosscorrelation Migration (15 degree)
0.5
Depth (km)
2.0
0.5
2.5
X (km)
31
Kirchh Mig (45)
0.5
Depth (km)
2.0
0.5
2.5
X (km)
32
0
Well Depth (m)
900
50
Raw Data
Static errors (ms)
-50
Static Errors at Well
33
Kirchhoff Migration
Static Error 0
0.5
Depth (km)
2.0
0.5
34
Crosscorrelation Migration
Static Error 0
0.5
Depth (km)
2.0
0.5
35
Contents
Motivation
Crosscorrelation Imaging Condition
SEG/EAGE Model
2-D RVSP Exxon Data
Conclusions
36
Depth (ft)
30
900
0
Exxon Raw Data(CRG15)
Time (s)
0.3
37
Depth (ft)
30
900
0
Ghosts (Exxon)
Time (s)
0.3
38
Depth (ft)
30
900
0
Primary(Exxon)
Time (s)
0.3
39
Exxon CSG 25
Trace No.
5
24
0.5
Raw data (muted)
Time (s)
1.4
40
X (ft)
0
400
200
Xcorr. mig
Depth (ft)
1300
41
X (ft)
0
400
200
Standard mig
Depth (ft)
1300
42
X (ft)
X (ft)
0
400
0
400
200
Standard mig
Cross. mig
Depth (ft)
1300
43
Exxon Data
Well data
Xcorr. Migration
0
Depth (ft)
1100
44
Exxon Data
Well data
Standard Migration
0
Depth (ft)
1100
45
Exxon Data
Standard
0
Depth (ft)
1100
46
Contents
Motivation
Crosscorrelation Migration
SEG/EAGE Model
2-D RVSP Exxon Data
Conclusions
47
Conclusions
Increase illumination coverage in the deeper part
of VSP image
48
Conclusions
Loss of some lateral resolution?
49
Acknowledgments
2003 UTAM sponsors
Exxon for 2-D field data
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com