2000
DOI: 10.1190/1.1438549
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The fault shadow problem as an interpretation pitfall

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
4
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In this model, the illumination by wavefield improved the definition of reflectors beneath the Upar Fault associated with the branches in the blind imbricate fan (highlighted in magenta). Also, illuminated section for model 1 showed the same shadow zone beneath the Chusma Fault (polygon in dashed blue line) (Trinchero, 2000), which is attributed to the high dip in the Chusma Fault and the contrast between igneous, sedimentary rocks and the Saldaña Formation in the basement (De Freitas, 2000). The illuminated section in model 1 shows a non illumination zone under Saldaña Formation rocks in the SE.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 75%
“…In this model, the illumination by wavefield improved the definition of reflectors beneath the Upar Fault associated with the branches in the blind imbricate fan (highlighted in magenta). Also, illuminated section for model 1 showed the same shadow zone beneath the Chusma Fault (polygon in dashed blue line) (Trinchero, 2000), which is attributed to the high dip in the Chusma Fault and the contrast between igneous, sedimentary rocks and the Saldaña Formation in the basement (De Freitas, 2000). The illuminated section in model 1 shows a non illumination zone under Saldaña Formation rocks in the SE.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 75%
“…Table 1 -P-velocities definition for the geologic units of an inline in the study area for scenarios 1, 2 and 3. (Trinchero, 2000), showed inside a black rectangle in the figures 3 and 4. The inline was interpreted in depth domain generating two scenarios: the first with low dip faults similar to the interpreted faults in time domain (Figure 3); and the second, where the faults were interpreted with high dips, almost vertical dips (Figure 4).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…C) Velocities scenario 3 (maximum), Formation 1b 5,730 Km/sec. Stage 2: Depth to time conversion, to evaluate the pull-up effect: The position and geometry of the prospect area in time domain were evaluated, to analyze the seismic image low quality in the shadow zone beneath the faults 1, 2, 3 and 4(Trinchero, 2000), showed inside a black rectangle in the figures 3 and 4. The inline was interpreted in depth domain generating two scenarios: the first with low dip faults similar to the interpreted faults in time domain (Figure3); and the second, where the faults were interpreted with high dips, almost vertical dips (Figure4).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This issue is known as the fault shadow problem. Thereby, lateral velocity variations across the fault can disrupt, pull up, or pull down reflectors in the footwall of the fault and can be misinterpreted, for example, as fault bifurcation (Fagin, 1996;Trinchero, 2000;Couples et al, 2007). Usually, this problem is addressed by prestack depth migration, which 130.194.20.173.…”
Section: Study Site Ii: Speyerdorfmentioning
confidence: 99%