Quick
Search: 		  
advanced search
 GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help 
The Leading Edge Signup for GSW Email News
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Leading Edge; November 2009; v. 28; no. 11; p. 1388-1393; DOI: 10.1190/1.3259618
© 2009 Society of Exploration Geophysicists
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Guliyev, E.
Right arrow Articles by Michelena, R. J.

SPECIAL SECTION: The rocky Mountain region

Comparison of shear impedances inverted from stacked PS and SS data

Example from Rulison Field, Colorado

Eldar Guliyev

Occidental Petroleum Corporation

Reinaldo J. Michelena

iReservoir.com, Inc

Corresponding author: michelena{at}ireservoir.com

Abstract

The reason why acoustic and shear impedances inverted from seismic data have become popular seismic attributes is because, unlike other attributes, they can also be easily estimated at log scale. Log-scale impedances are easier to interpret because at log scale we have additional information that provides more insight about reservoir properties, and this insight can be used to help the interpretation of seismic-scale impedances. The joint interpretation of acoustic and shear impedances estimated from seismic data can help to understand rock, fluid, and fracture variability in the reservoir.






JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Society of Exploration Geophysicists