Land 3D-seismic data: Preprocessing quality control utilizing survey design specifications, noise properties, normal moveout, first breaks, and offset

Abstract

The recent proliferation of the 3D reflection seismic method into the near-surface area of geophysical applications, especially in response to the emergence of the need to comprehensively characterize and monitor near-surface carbon dioxide sequestration in shallow saline aquifers around the world, justifies the emphasis on cost-effective and robust quality control and assurance (QC/QA) workflow of 3D seismic data preprocessing that is suitable for near-surface applications. The main purpose of our seismic data preprocessing QC is to enable the use of appropriate header information, data that are free of noise-dominated traces, and/or flawed vertical stacking in subsequent processing steps. In this article, I provide an account of utilizing survey design specifications, noise properties, first breaks, and normal moveout for rapid and thorough graphical QC/QA diagnostics, which are easy to apply and efficient in the diagnosis of inconsistencies. A correlated vibroseis time-lapse 3D-seismic data set from a CO₂-flood monitoring survey is used for demonstrating QC diagnostics. An important by-product of the QC workflow is establishing the number of layers for a refraction statics model in a data-driven graphical manner that capitalizes on the spatial coverage of the 3D seismic data.

Keywords

preprocessing / quality control / 3D seismic / 4D seismic / trace header / geometry / vertical stacking

References

[1] Arts R., Winthaegen P.. Monitoring Options for CO₂ Storage: Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep Geologic Formations, 2005, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science 1001-1013.

[2] Bachrach R., Mukerji T.. Portable Dense Geophone Array for Shallow and Very Shallow 3D Seismic Reflection Surveying: Part 1—Data Acquisition, Quality Control, and Processing. Geophysics, 2004, 69(6): 1443-1455.

[3] Burger P., Garott A. R., Granger P.. Improving Resolution and Seismic Quality Assurance through Field Preprocessing. The Leading Edge, 1998, 17(11): 1562-1569.

[4] Damen K., Faaij A., Turkenburg W.. Health, Safety and Environmental Risks of Underground CO₂ Storage—Overview of Mechanisms and Current Knowledge. Climate Change, 2006, 74: 289-318.

[5] Jin L., Chen X., Li J.. New Quality Control Method for Time-Lapse Seismic Processing. SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2004, 23(1): 2315-2318.

[6] Li J., Chen X., Zhao W., . Purposeless Repeated Acquisition Time-Lapse Seismic Data Processing. Petroleum Science, 2008, 5(1): 31-36.

[7] Li R., Urosevic M., Dodds K.. Prediction of 4D Seismic Responses for the Otway Basin CO₂ Sequestration Site. SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2006, 25(1): 2181-2185.

[8] Thomas J. W., Hufford J. M., Hoover G. M., . Acquisition/Processing-Teepee Technology Applied to the Design of P-Wave Acquisition, Part 1—Introduction and Tutorial. The Leading Edge, 2004, 23(1): 16-19.

[9] Widmaier M., Moe J., Brittan J., . Case Studies in Quality Control for 4D Seismic Processing. SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2002, 21(1): 2090-2093.

[10] Yilmaz O.. Seismic Data Processing, 1987, Tulsa: Society of Exploration Geophysicists