Velocity as an attribute: continuous velocity estimation from 3D preSDM CRP gathers

Jones, Ian F.; Baud, Huibert

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2397.2001.00136.x

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Azimuthal Velocity Differences Between the Two Surveys1

Introduction1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2002

2015

Publication Types

Select...

Article5

Other1

Relationship

Self Cite1

Independent5

Authors

Journals

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Taking the CRP gathers from the two surveys, after final migration with a common velocity model, we ‘backed‐out’ the migration velocity field, by applying inverse NMO to the otherwise flat CRP gathers. A dense velocity analysis technique ( Adler 1999; Jones & Baud 1999) was then used to yield independent velocity estimates on an 18.75 m × 12.5 m grid. The percentage differences in velocity for the base chalk event are shown in Fig.…”

Section: Azimuthal Velocity Differences Between the Two Surveysmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of acquisition direction on preSDM imaging

et al. 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Azimuthal Velocity Differences Between the Two Surveysmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of acquisition direction on preSDM imaging

et al. 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Previously, one of us (Jones & Baud 2001) demonstrated the potential of using a dense velocity estimate as a high-resolution tool for visualizing subtle changes not clearly discernable in the seismic amplitude response. (The success of such techniques depends to a large part on the data being correctly pre-stack migrated, so that all the diffraction energy is correctly collapsed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%