Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of wavelet estimation methods

  • Published:
Geosciences Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Wavelet estimation is a very important task in seismic data processing and analysis such as deterministic deconvolution, seismic-to-well tie, and seismic inversion, among others. We investigated the wavelets estimated from four different methods: (1) the wavelet estimated from the seafloor signal; (2) the wavelet estimated fully from well-log data; (3) the wavelet estimated using seismic and well-log data; and (4) the wavelet estimated from sparse-spike deconvolution. The wavelets estimated from 2-D seismic data using the four methods are quite comparable to one another. The results of the deconvolution and inversion of the 2-D seismic data using the four wavelets show that the wavelet estimated from the seafloor signal can be as effective as those estimated from the more rigorous methods.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Dey, A.K. and Line, L.R., 1998, Seismic source wavelet estimation and the random reflectivity assumption. CREWES Research Report, 10, 21-1–21-28.

    Google Scholar 

  • EERL (Earthworks Environment & Resources Ltd), 2006, Under-standing Stochastic Seismic Inversion. Earthworks Technical Note, 27 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgar, J.A. and van der Baan, M., 2011, How reliable is statistical wavelet estimation? Geophysics, 76, V59–V68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ikelle, L.T., Roberts, G., and Weglein, A.B., 1997, Source signature estimation based on the removal of first-order multiples. Geophysics, 62, 1904–1920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hampson-Russell, 1999, Strata Theory. Hampson-Russell, 64 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampson-Russell, 2007, Strata Guide 2007. CGGVeritas, 89 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, S.G., 1997, Catch the (seismic) wavelet. AAPG Explorer (March), 36–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaaresen, K.F. and Taxt, T., 1998, Multichannel blind deconvolution of seismic signals. Geophysics, 63, 2093–1207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kormylo, J.J. and Mendel, J.M., 1982, Maximum likelihood detection and estimation of Bernoullli-Gaussian processes. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 28, 482–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendel, J.M., 1983, Optimal seismic deconvolution: An estimationbased approach. Academic Press, New York, 254 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pendrel, J., 2006, Seismic inversion — a critical tool in reservoir characterization. Scandinavian Oil-Gas Magazine, 5/6, 19–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trantham, E.C., 1994, Controlled-phase acquisition and processing 64th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 890–894.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, R. and Simm, R., 2003, Tutorial: Good practice in well ties. First Break, 21, 75–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz, Ö., 2001, Seismic Data Analysis — Processing, Inversion, and Interpretation of Seismic Data Volume I. SEG, Investigations in Geophysics, 1000 p.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gwang H. Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yi, B.Y., Lee, G.H., Kim, HJ. et al. Comparison of wavelet estimation methods. Geosci J 17, 55–63 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12303-013-0008-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12303-013-0008-0

Key words

Navigation