How thin is a thin bed? An alternative perspective
How thin is a thin bed? An alternative perspective
Leading Edge (Tulsa, OK) (October 2009) 28 (10): 1192-1197
- amplitude
- Atlantic Ocean
- case studies
- Cenozoic
- clastic rocks
- elastic waves
- fluvial environment
- frequency
- geophysical methods
- geophysical profiles
- geophysical surveys
- guided waves
- Gulf of Mexico
- high-resolution methods
- lithologic controls
- Louisiana
- Miocene
- Neogene
- North Atlantic
- offshore
- oil and gas fields
- Rayleigh waves
- reservoir properties
- sandstone
- sedimentary rocks
- seismic methods
- seismic profiles
- seismic waves
- signal-to-noise ratio
- surface waves
- surveys
- Tertiary
- thickness
- United States
- wavelets
- Starfak Field
The resolution limit of seismic data is a complex issue that involves not only wavelet frequency, phase characters, and data quality (S/N), but also criteria on how to measure resolvability. In his classic 1973 paper "How thin is a thin bed?", Widess discussed the effect of bed thickness on re-flection character and timing using a symmetrical wavelet and suggested that lambda /8 be the resolution limit, or the minimum distance at which a composite waveform stabilized as the derivative of the waveform from an individual reflection. However, this definition has more theoretical than practical impact because of the difficulties in judging waveform stabilization. A more workable and widely accepted definition of resolution limit corresponds to Rayleigh's criterion of peak-to-trough separation at lambda /4 (Kallweit and Wood, 1982). This point is also a "tuning point", at which composite amplitude reaches a maximum if an opposite-polarity (at top and bottom) thin bed is involved.