Innovate challenge:

Sub-basalt exploration
Additional material

Peter Hanssen
 Geo-scientific classification of basalts

Planke & Haugen, 2001, SeismicImaging and Interpretationof Volcanic Constructions.

Single basalt flow
Vp (km/s)
2 4 6
Characteristic Properties of Subaerial Flood Basalts
Altered Flow Top
(ODP Sites 642/917)
Zone
Upper Transition
Average Vp = 4.0 km/s
Vp/Vs = 1.8-2.0

Massive Seismic Anisotropy = 10-25%

Interior
Average Density = 2.5 Mg/m3

2-15 m Average basalt thickness = 6-7 m

Single flow not a problem => Corrib

Zone
Lower Transition
Shoulder

Planke& Haugen, 2001, Seismic Imaging and Interpretation of Volcanic Constructions.

Several basalt flows
•  Usual flow thickness in the several
meter scale
•  Often sedimentary rocks in between
single flows / eruptions
•  Lava cools fast from top, less fast from

Planke & Haugen, 2001, SeismicImaging and Interpretationof Volcanic Constructions.

bottom of a single flow
•  Gradient to the core of the flow
Additional erosion on top
•  Velocities correlated with resistivity,
density and mostly porosity
•  Can form reservoir and cap rock
•  Connection of inter-basalt reservoirs
questionable
•  Main targets are sediments below
the basalt sequence
 P-wave velocity over flow thickness
•  The thicker the single basalt
of
flow, the higher its velocity
Average ristic
5 Ch aracte istributio n
D •  Is there a general trend and
2 Velocity
is the relation the same for
different provinces?

Planke & Haugen, 2001, SeismicImaging and Interpretationof Volcanic Constructions.

4 YT-2: VSP Average

•  In which cases can we use

Vp (km/s)

+
4 917A: MCS Average average velocities for the
3
642E: VSP Average whole basalt sequence?
1

642E: Fine Grained Flows

3 1 917A Logging Unit 1 (V p-stc)
+ 917A - all Logging Units (Vp-stc)

0 5 10 15 20 25
Unit Thickness (m)
 Vp/Vs ratio

Planke & Haugen, 2001, SeismicImaging and Interpretationof Volcanic Constructions.

Iceland VSP summary

•  The average VSP velocity down to 1.8 km is typically 4.5-5.1 km/s below
the weathering layer. The measured velocity is close to the expected velocity
of >4.5 km/s for basalt flows of ~15 m average thickness.
•  There are no good correlations between interpreted refraction interfaces
and major geological and/or interval velocity changes in the boreholes.
•  Horizontal refraction velocities are consistently higher than the measured
VSP velocities. Measured anisotropy is 6-18% (typically 10%), and increases
with depth due to increased ray path bending of diving waves.
•  Dikes act as high-velocity wave-guides and lead to increased heterogeneities
and more complex wave propagation.
Step-back function of diving-waves

•  At very far offsets the diving wave reaches

the base of the basalt sequence
•  Due to the lower velocity of the underlying
sediments the diving wave discontinues
•  This can be observed as a step-back function
as shown on the left at around 18km offset
•  Can this be used to construct the general
structure of the area?
•  And why do refracted and reflected wave
velocities often not convert? Is this only
explainable by anisotropy?

Richardson et al., 1999, Petro. Geosci., Vol. 5.

Are locally-converted waves feasible?

•  Is there a chance to utilize body waves

which are converted to shear waves only
on their way through the basalt sequence?
•  Should we record PS or pure S-waves
on the seabed?
•  How do we combine different P and
S-waves during the processing?
•  Should we use sources on the seabed?
•  And how do we broaden the frequency
response from beneath the basalts?

Hanssen, 2002, PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.

Any solutions?
•  Low frequency response <30Hz from sub-basalt sequence
•  Short term:
–  Low-frequency setup of airguns and streamers
–  Deep towed streamers and bigger/deeper airguns or bubble tuning
are common practice

•  Long term:
–  Are new offshore source-designs for frequencies below 3Hz feasible?
•  Do electromagnetic methods help to improve the seismic image?
•  What is the best way to jointly invert gravity and seismic data?
•  Are there other methods, survey designs or instrumentation more suitable
for sub-basalt imaging around?
•  Next to demultiple and preserving low-frequencies, are there other
important processing steps?
 Thank you.

Sub-Basalt Imaging
– Additional Material

Peter Hanssen
Principal Geophysicist
PetHan@Statoil.com
www.statoil.com