English
 
Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
Add to Basket
  Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released
Conference Paper

Cross-correlation Time-lapse Static Corrections Versus Refraction Static Corrections on 4D Land Seismic CO2 Monitoring

Authors

Kashubin,  A.

/persons/resource/bergmann

Bergmann,  P.
CGS Centre for Geological Storage, Geoengineering Centres, GFZ Publication Database, Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum;

Ivandic,  M.

Juhlin,  C.

/persons/resource/slueth

Lueth,  S.
CGS Centre for Geological Storage, Geoengineering Centres, GFZ Publication Database, Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum;

/persons/resource/aivanova

Ivanova,  Alexandra
CGS Centre for Geological Storage, Geoengineering Centres, GFZ Publication Database, Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum;

Lundberg,  E.

Zhang,  F.

External Ressource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in GFZpublic
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Kashubin, A., Bergmann, P., Ivandic, M., Juhlin, C., Lueth, S., Ivanova, A., Lundberg, E., Zhang, F. (2013): Cross-correlation Time-lapse Static Corrections Versus Refraction Static Corrections on 4D Land Seismic CO2 Monitoring - Proceedings, 75th EAGE Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2013 (London, United Kingdom 2013) (London, UK 2013).
https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.20130985


Cite as: https://gfzpublic.gfz-potsdam.de/pubman/item/item_321316
Abstract
Difficulties encountered during the processing of the timelapse 3D land-seismic data at the CO2 geological storage site at Ketzin, Germany, were to a large extent attributed to changes in near-surface velocities. Two workflows for processing of the 4D data were tested. The first one included re-calculation of the refraction static corrections based on new information about the near-surface from first breaks. This workflow showed that the near-surface changes could only imperfectly be resolved by new refraction static corrections. The second workflow included cross-correlation of the traces acquired at the same locations but during different campaigns and calculation of the prestack time shifts between the surveys. Both workflows demonstrated their capability to minimize the time-lapse noise and enhance the time-lapse reservoir signature. They provide similar time-lapse results, except that the cross-correlation workflow is quicker, more accurate and displays less time-lapse noise.