Quick
Search: 		  
advanced search
 GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help 
The Leading Edge Don't get GSW? Talk to your librarian.
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Leading Edge; September 2001; v. 20; no. 9; p. 1048-1052; DOI: 10.1190/1.1487311
© 2001 Society of Exploration Geophysicists
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Margrave, G. F.
Right arrow Articles by Larsen, J. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Joint PP and PS seismic inversion

Gary F. Margrave and Robert R. Stewart

Crewes, University of Calgary

Jeffrey A. Larsen

Husky Energy, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Corresponding author: G. Margrave, gary@geo.ucalgary.ca

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

We present a case history of joint inversion of PP and PS reflection seismic data using a weighted stacking technique. Our example comes from Blackfoot Field, owned and operated by PanCanadian Petroleum, in southeastern Alberta, Canada. The exploration target at Blackfoot is a Lower Cretaceous channel system approximately 1.4 km deep (Figure 1).


Figure Removed (Available Only in the Full Text)
View larger version (46K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. The Glauconitic channel system at Blackfoot Oil Field, Alberta, is a sequence of sand and shale filled valleys incised into Lower Cretaceous and Mississippian carbonates. The Blackfoot interpretation has an upper and lower channel that are prospective and separated by a nonporous lithic channel.

 
These Glauconitic channels, with sand or shale fill, are found throughout the region, and, as there were many episodes of channel formation, can be stacked on top of one another. At Blackfoot, the channel interval is about 40 m thick and 100 m wide. There tends to be good porosity in an upper channel and a lower channel that are separated by a tight, lithic channel. The upper channel, where present, is usually gas-prone, while the lower channel is generally oil-prone. When the pore fluid in the channel sands is a compressible hydrocarbon instead of incompressible water, the bulk compressibility is reduced and this modifies the signature of seismic reflection data. Because pressure waves and shear waves sense different rock and pore-fluid properties, joint use of PP and PS data can provide superior lithologic discrimination.


   PP and PS reflections
 
The conversion of one elastic wave, either P or S, into another upon reflection or transmission at an interface is described by the Zoeppritz equations. These equations are algebraically quite complex and it is not practical to reproduce them here. Instead, we will present useful concepts and approximate forms. (We invite the reader to visit our Web site, http://www.crewes.org, and interactively examine the equations . . . [Full Text of this Article]




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Petroleum Geology Conference seriesHome page
P. KRISTIANSEN and J. WAGGONER
Using multicomponent seismic data to better characterize and manage reservoirs
Geological Society, London, Petroleum Geology Conference series, January 1, 2005; 6(0): 1377 - 1384.
[Abstract] [PDF]


JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Society of Exploration Geophysicists