Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Optimum designs for 2-D and 3-D seismic surveys via modeling and reverse-time migration: Pierce Junction Salt Dome, Texas

  • Published:
Surveys in Geophysics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Establishing effective seismic survey parameters in complex structural areas, such as salt domes, is of vital importance for accurate imaging. Shot and group intervals, maximum offset, recording time and profile length, to image the subsurface structures, are critical 2-D parameters. Geometry, aspect ratio of a recording patch and number of in-line and cross-lines are key additional parameters for 3-D seismic design. This study provides a workflow for determining optimal 2-D and 3-D seismic survey parameters as exemplified by a Texas salt dome case. The Pierce Junction oil field, in proximity to the salt dome, is located in Houston, Texas, and has been one of the most prolific hydrocarbon producers in the region. Engineered caverns in the salt dome itself are now used for fluid storage. Design parameters for the future seismic surveys are partially informed by previous seismic data shot over the structure (where the top of the salt is at about 290 m depth and overlying cap rock, 210 m). Existing 2-D seismic data, crossing the salt dome, are processed to extract the velocities of the salt, cap rock, and near-surface sediments. In the following step, 2-D and 3-D velocity models of the study area are constructed using legacy well data as well as gravity measurements which were acquired as part of this study. Synthetic shot gathers are next modeled with a finite difference method using the acoustic wave equation. To generate images of the constructed model, reverse time migration (RTM) is applied to the synthetic data. By assessing the coverage and continuity of the imaged salt boundaries using a variety of decimated input data sets, the optimal survey parameters are determined. In this case, 20 m group and 40 m shot interval, 3000 m maximum offset, and 8 km profile length with a 4 s recording time are found to be most favorable 2-D acquisition parameters. Using similar coverage and continuity criteria, group and shot intervals of a 3-D seismic survey are determined as 25 m and 50 m, respectively. The receiver and shot line intervals are chosen as 250 m in an orthogonal geometry with 33 in-lines and 33 cross-lines distributed in the 8 × 8 km2 survey area. The aspect ratio of any patch with 13 in-lines and 13 cross-lines is accepted as 1:1. This forward modeling and migration procedure, using a range of decimated data sets, can inform decisions on the final field parameters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

(modified from Glass 1953)

Fig. 3

(Modified from Glass 1953)

Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdelkhalek R, Calandra H, Coulaud O, Roman J, Latu G (2009) Fast seismic modelling and reverse time migration on a GPU cluster. In: International conference on high performance computing and simulation, Leipzig. pp 36–43

  • Ahmed I (2018) Diving wave illumination using RTM to analyze acquisition geometries for FWI. SEG Technical Program, Anaheim, CA. Expanded Abstracts, pp 1299–1303

  • Bain RC (2010) Hidden structure revealed by a simple 3-D velocity model-mcallen ranch field, Hidalgo County, Texas. Gulf Coast Assoc Geol Soc Trans 60:39–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Baysal E, Kosloff DD, Sherwood JW (1983) Reverse time migration. Geophysics 48:1514–1524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckman JD, Williamson AK (1990) Salt dome locations in the gulf coastal plain, south-central United States: US geological survey. Water-Resources Investigations Report, 90–4060

  • Bulcao A, Filho DMS, Alves GC, Moreira TV, van den Berg P, Gisolf D (2011) Improved RTM depth image with full waveform inversion. SEG Technical Program, San Antonio, TX. Expanded Abstracts, pp 2783–2787

  • Castagna JP, Batzle ML, Eastwood RL (1985) Relationships between compressional-wave and shear-wave velocities in clastic silicate rocks. Geophysics 50:571–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaouch A, Mari JL (2006) 3-D land seismic surveys: definition of geophysical parameter. Oil Gas Sci Technol Rev l’IFP 61:611–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordsen A, Galbraith M, Peirce J (2000) Planning land 3-D seismic surveys (vol. 9). In: Hardage BA (ed) Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa

  • Cornelius S, Castagna JP, Emmet PA (2018) Salt-body interval velocity variation in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. SEG-2018, Anaheim, Ca. Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, pp 774–778

  • Coskun S (2014) 3-D Seismic survey design via modeling and reverse time migration: Pierce Junction Salt Dome, Texas. M.S. Thesis, University of Houston, Texas, USA

  • Cvetkovic M, Farmer PA, Bloor RI (2013) The effects of marine data acquisition practices on imaging in complex geological setting—modeling study. In: Conference proceedings, 75th EAGE conference and exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC, cp-348–00665

  • Cvetkovic M, Calderón-Macías C, Farmer P, Watts G (2014) Efficient numerical modelling and imaging practices for aiding marine acquisition design and interpretation. First Break 32:95–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dai W, Schuster G (2013) Reverse time migration of prism waves for salt flank delineation. In: 83rd Annual international meeting, SEG, Houston, TX. Expanded Abstracts, pp 3861–3865

  • Diaz E, Sava P (2016) Understanding the reverse time migration backscattering: Noise or signal? Geophys Prospect 64:581–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelkemeir R, Khan SD (2007) Near-surface geophysical studies of Houston faults. Lead Edge 26:1004–1008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelkemeir R, Khan SD (2008) Lidar mapping of faults in Houston, Texas, USA. Geosphere 4:170–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelkemeir R, Khan SD, Burke K (2010) Surface deformation in Houston, Texas using GPS. Tectonophysics 490:47–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewing TE (1991) Structural framework. In: Salvador A (ed) Origin and development of the Gulf of Mexico basin. The Gulf of Mexico Basin, Boulder, pp 389–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewing TE, Tyler N, Morton RA (1983) Consolidation of geologic studies of geopressured geothermal resources in Texas. United States Department of Energy 1983 Annual Report, Contract No. ACOS-79ET27111

  • Fletcher RF, Fowler P, Kitchenside P, Albertin U (2005) Suppressing artifacts in prestack reverse-time migration. In: 75th Annual international meeting, SEG, Houston, TX. Expanded Abstracts, pp 2049–2051

  • Gajewski D, Tessmer E (2005) Reverse modelling for seismic event characterization. Geophys J Int 163:276–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glass NC (1953) Pierce Junction field Harris County Texas. Guidebook, field trip routes, oil fields, geology. Houston Geological Society, Houston

    Google Scholar 

  • Gore RH (1992) The Gulf of Mexico. Pineapple Press, Inc., Sarasota Florida, p 384

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzer TL, Bluntzer RL (1984) Land subsidence near oil and gas fields, Houston, Texas. Ground Water 22:450–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang ZY (2012) Multidisciplinary investigation of surface deformation above salt domes in Houston, Texas. M.S. Thesis, University of Houston, Texas, USA

  • Huang J, Nieuwenhuise DV, Khan SD (2015) Integrated fault and hazard analysis in downtown Houston, Texas. GCAGS J 4:147–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Huffman AC (2004) Salt diapirs in the gulf coast. U.S. Geological Survey, DS-90, ver 1.0

  • Jiao K, Huang W, Denes V, Kapoor J, Coates R, Starr EW, Cheng X (2012) Elastic migration for improving salt and subsalt imaging and inversion. In: 82nd Annual international meeting, society of exploration geophysicists

  • Khan SD (2005) Urban development and flooding in Houston Texas, inferences from remote sensing data using neural network technique. Environ Geol 47:1120–1127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konyukhov AI (2008) Geological structure, evolution stages, and petroliferous complexes of the Gulf of Mexico basin. Lithol Miner Resour 43:380–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lash CC (1980) Shear waves, multiple reflections, and converted waves found by a deep vertical wave test (vertical seismic profiling). Geophysics 45:1373–1411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller RD, Pullan SE, Steeples DW, Hunter JA (1994) Field comparison of shallow P-wave seismic sources near Houston, Texas. Geophysics 59:1713–1728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oezsen R (2004) Velocity modeling and prestack depth imaging below complex salt structures: a case history from on-shore Germany. Geophys Prospect 52:693–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pankratz HG, Sultan M, Abdelmohsen K, Sauck WA, Alsefry S, Alharbi H, Emil MK, Gebremichael E, Asaeidi A, Alshehri F, Hashim HI, Al-Shamrani HA, El-Sahly M (2021) Use of geophysical and radar interferometric techniques to monitor land deformation associated with the Jazan Salt Diapir, Jazan city, Saudi Arabia. Surv Geophys 42:177–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parra OJ, Collier HA (1997) Petrophysical properties and geology of selected intervals in the Frio formation, Stratton field for modeling interwell seismic logging responses. In: SPWLA 38th annual logging symposium

  • Prieto C (2000) Gravity/magnetic signatures of various geologic models-an exercise in pattern recognition. Geophys Ref Ser 8:20–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Querio CW (1974) Simultaneous storage of LPG and production of brine, pierce junction dome, Houston, Texas. In: Fourth symposium on salt, vol 2. Northern Ohio Geological Society, p 285

  • Salvador A (1991) Origin and development of the Gulf of Mexico basin. The Gulf of Mexico Basin, pp 389–444

  • Seni SJ, Mullican WF, Hamlin HS (1984) Texas salt domes-aspects affecting disposal of toxic-chemical waste in solution-mined caverns. Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer J (2021) The centennial of discovery (1921–2021) The pierce junction oil field, Harris County, Texas. HGS Bull 63:17–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone DG (1994) Designing seismic surveys in two and three dimensions, vol 5. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Strong S, Hearn S (2008) Multi-component seismic-resolution analysis using finite-difference acquisition modelling. Explor Geophys 39:189–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas RL, Gehle RM (2000) A brief history of salt cavern use. In: Proceedings of the 8th world salt symposium. Elsevier, pp 207–214

  • Willacy C, Kryvohuz M (2019) Reverse time migration of transmitted wavefields for salt boundary imaging. Geophysics 84:S71–S82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis ME, Lu R, Campman X, Toksoz MN, Zhang Y, Hoop MVD (2006) A novel application of time-reversed acoustics: salt-dome flank imaging using walkaway VSP surveys. Geophysics 71:A7–A11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright S (2003) Is the 3-D survey 'good enough?’. AAPG Explorer

  • Yoon K, Marfurt KJ, Starr W (2004) Challenges in reverse‐time migration. SEG Technical Program, Perth, Western Australia. Expanded Abstracts, pp 1057–1060

  • Yu J, Wang G, Kearns TJ, Yang L (2014) Is there deep-seated subsidence in the Houston–Galveston area? Int J Geophys 2014:942834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zong J, Stewart RR, Dyaur N, Myers MT (2017) Elastic properties of rock salt: laboratory measurements and Gulf of Mexico well-log analysis. Geophysics 82:D303–D317

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is partially based on the M.S. thesis of Suleyman Coskun. We are grateful to companies Paradigm, Schlumberger (GEDCO), and Geosoft for technical and software support in the course of thesis study of Suleyman Coskun in the University of Houston, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. Texas Brine Company is also thanked for providing AGL-UH the unique opportunity to work in their facility. The authors would like to extend their deep appreciations to Dr. Rycroft, Editor-in-Chief, for his kindly attention and to two anonymous reviewers for their constructive critiques and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Attila Aydemir.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coskun, S., Stewart, R.R., Baysal, E. et al. Optimum designs for 2-D and 3-D seismic surveys via modeling and reverse-time migration: Pierce Junction Salt Dome, Texas. Surv Geophys 42, 1171–1196 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-021-09659-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-021-09659-z

Keywords

Navigation