Abstract
AbstractThe conventional seismic response of a thin bed approximates the time derivative of the incident wavelet, whereas the pseudo‐impedance response approximates the incident wavelet. Consequently the pseudo‐impedance response of a geological sequence composed of thin beds is simpler and easier to interpret than the conventional response.By calibrating the sonic log data with check‐shot data and performing zero‐phase seismic processing, the fit of the sonic log and pseudo‐velocity section is improved. Discrepancies in amplitude and phase, however, generally remain.A five‐step processing and interpretation procedure, which benefits from multichannel interpretation along the model seismic section generated from the sonic logs, is described.The method has been tested with field data. In the test the detection of thin beds and the estimation of the natural gas content was more reliable with the proposed procedure than with the conventional method.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
