Seismic quality monitoring during processing: what should we measure?

A Global-scale AVO-based Pre-stack QC Workflow - An Ultra-dense Dataset in Tunisia

“…The diagnostic QC can take various forms. As explained in Araman and Paternoster (2014), it can focus on pre-stack consistency, stability of the wavelet or gather alignment, depending on the processing step to be investigated. In our case, a local AVO analysis of pre-stack gathers is enough to diagnose the issue of the trimstatics highlighted by our global QC.…”

“…Indeed, the AVO trend could be incorrectly modified or damaged especially during noise reduction, demultiple or amplitude corrections. Therefore, it must be monitored at critical steps (Araman & Paternoster, 2014). However, an extra QC that demands a careful diagnosis on the whole survey pre-stack can be costly.…”

Maximizing the value of 3D seismic vintage through state of art land depth imaging and quantitative quality controls - A case study at Yucal Placer field, Venezuela

“…As our primary objective was to deliver amplitude preserved Angle Substack volumes, data processing was monitored using a procedure of Quantitative Quality Controls, QQC (Paternoster et al 2009, Araman et al 2014. For each substack and for every bin, up to ten quantifiable seismic attributes were spatially computed along time windows centered on the top reservoir P7 featuring a robust seismic reflector everywhere in the volume.…”