ADAPS optimized stack of line 401 (no inversion or integration).

Please toggle with conditioned version

I start with the Paige optimized stack v.s. the stack of the conditioned gathers. Once more, if one believes the remarkable line-up on the latter, one should expect near perfection on that stack. In other words this display (of my approach) should be a poor loser, since no other processing is involved.

Stack of “conditioned” gathers from line 401 (no inversion or integration).

Please toggle back to the Paige version.

I start with the Paige optimized stack v.s. the stack of the conditioned gathers. Once more, if one believes the remarkable line-up on the latter, one should expect near perfection on that stack. In other words this display (of my approach) should be a poor loser, since no other processing is involved.

Of course the opposite is true. Notice in particular the poor quality of the shallower section. Also note how spotty the deeper stuff is.

ADAPS final inversion/integration from optimized stack on line 401.

Please toggle with conditioned version

The quality of the input affects the iterative convergence in the ADAPS inversion/integration. For this reason I let the process go to completion on both gather types to judge the effect.

ADAPS final inversion/integration from stack of conditioned gathers on line 401.

Please toggle back to the Paige version.

The quality of the input affects the iterative convergence in the ADAPS inversion/integration. For this reason I let the process go to completion on both gather types to judge the effect.

ADAPS did have more trouble handling this conditioned gather version. Again particularly note the apex of the intrusion and the general shallow section. Also the intense spottiness. Take some time on the toggling.

ADAPS optimized stack of line 403 (no inversion or integration).

Please toggle with conditioned version

Again I start with the Paige optimized stack v.s. the stack of the conditioned gathers, this time on line 403. Once more, if one believes the remarkable line-up on the latter, one should expect near perfection on that stack. In other words this display (of my approach) should be a poor loser, since no other processing is involved.

Stack of “conditioned” gathers from line 403 (no inversion or integration).

Please toggle back to the Paige version.

Again the opposite is true.

ADAPS final inversion/integration from optimized stack on line 403.

Please toggle with conditioned version

This looks pretty good to me but I am not here to sell the merits of the ADAPS inversion/deconvolution.

ADAPS final inversion/integration from simple stack of conditioned gathers on line 403.

Please toggle back to the Paige version.

This is so bad I have gone back multiple times to make sure these gathers had an equal chance.

This is a set of raw gathers randomly picked from line 401 – we stay with this depth point.

Notice the stack at the bottom. You can see the events looking through the random noise.

The same set of gathers after my form of optimization.T

This trace display option repeats the original stack you saw at the bottom of the last slide. It then shows the stack of this modified set. If you look closely you will see reasonable improvements. Note how the 50 CPS chatter has been cut under point X.

X

Here is their magically conditioned gather set on the same depth point.

X

I suggest you pick one of the strong events, go to the previous slide, then find a completely dead spot at that general time slot. Coming back, ask yourself how the devil their logic could honestly create the pattern you see on this slide (in place of the nothing they had to start).

The next logical exercise has to do with the really remarkable event pattern continuity we see here. If it is real, then it should extend to the next depth point and beyond. On the next slide you will find another example showing this is far from true. This is a powerful argument.

X marks the spot where we noted 50 CPS chatter being cut out by ADAPS pre-stack optimization. We see their logic picking it up and propagating it into the gathers as signal.

To cap it off –

The upper section (from the conditioned gathers) was supposed to be best by far. That is if we are naïve enough to believe the magical line-ups on the previous slide). Of course we can see the opposite is true. The green lines show more or less where all the gather sets come from, so you can toggle backwards to the raw data and then evaluate the statements I have made along the way.

Why it matters -

an extraordinary amount of effort has been put on seismic attribute analysis that use gathers as the parameter source. This prospect contains the standard mix of AVO searches. Of course what I have laid out in this study obviates those works.

Return to intro –

Go to ADAPS router –

Email me directly =

Conditioned gather stack

Paige’s version