Skip to Main Content
Book Chapter

Repeatability requirements of seismic data

January 01, 1997


This section expands on some of the items listed in Section 2C. It is intended to impart a healthy suspicion of the effects of data processing parameters. These effects can be much reduced by well matching/wavelet extraction methods, but this should not be assumed. In differencing operations noise becomes much more of an issue!

Time-zero corrections and statics applications: The data must be repeatable in time. Just a millisecond of time shift allows root mean square (rms) amplitude differences of around 18% in a simple test. Fig. 4.A.1 shows a "final" processed migrated section from a 3D data volume. In the lower panel of the figure is a subtraction produced from the same section, time shifted from itself by 1 ms.

To show a more extreme example, consider the 4-ms shift shown in Fig. 4.A. 2. This produced a subtractive rms amplitude of 71% of the original data. We can conclude that time matching of seismic data is critical before its use as time-lapse data. Since many of our "final" sections exist at a sample interval of 4 ms, we have to ensure that any software used to compare several 3D data cubes has an interpolated time shift capability. Acquisition equipment and data processing time delays may easily impart a fraction of the final sampling interval

Mute applications: An early step in a processing sequence is often a first-break mute. This will be picked empirically from trial parameter tests and examination of the data. The effect of a small change

You do not currently have access to this article.

Figures & Tables


Society of Exploration Geophysicists Distinguished Instructor Series

Time-Lapse Seismic in Reservoir Management

Ian Jack
Ian Jack
Search for other works by this author on:
Society of Exploration Geophysicists
ISBN electronic:
Publication date:
January 01, 1997




Citing Books via

Close Modal
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal