2D single channel seismic interpretation
Elina Muzanima
Gerhard Diephuis
Elina, good afternoon
Your question is quite a large one for any starting professional! And that on a basis of a single-fold 2D line – not easy to say the very least indeed.
Since there are just a few textbooks – see below – on the topic of interpretation of which the large majority is based on 3D data. Hence courses are the most obvious way to get to grips with interpretation.
A few remarks on the displayed line. I do realize the inherent limitations of single-fold data, yet in my opinion there are a few processing steps which might give a better idea of the subsurface beyond the first sea-bottom multiple. There are clear short-period multiples present, which can effectively be removed using gapped deconvolution with an appropriate operator length. Seabottom multiples pose a problem – gapped deconvolution with a long operator tends to be less effective in removing long-period multiples, yet single-fold data does not offer the application of a suitable technique.
I had a close look at the data between traces ± 1720 and ± 1820. At first glance it looks like an artefact because of the sudden drop in (multiple) refections, but as the sebottom itself does not exhibit that, I presume it concerns a 3D effect. A pronounced dipping channel @ seabed, about perpendicular to the line of the section, could be the cause. A typical 2D issue.
At the current stage, primary reflection data are almost only present in the section directly below seabed, down to the time of the first sebottom multiple. Decon – see above – will help you to clear the image somewhat. Looking at the inclined reflection pattern, I have the impression of an outbuilding sedimentary system.
The nature of the dipping ( to the left) sequence is enigmatic – I am not sure what that represents.
A personal note. I am truly puzzled by the use of single-fold data. The last time I heard about it was in the very beginning of my career in the mid seventies. A national oil company had shot 2 2D survey over a hydrocarbon province, and NOT processed the data for costs reasons……..
Hopefully this is of some use to you – please do not hesitate to contact me directly if anything is not clear or in case of more questions
Best regards
Gerhard Diephuis
PS the only (small) booklet on interpretation techniques is by Don Herron (2011) available from SEG. It deals with 2D, yet it is rather focussed on the Gulf of Mexico
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpendTect Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to users+un...@opendtect.org.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/opendtect.org/d/msgid/users/4667b86b-46e1-4121-a495-a814e3645281n%40opendtect.org.
Paul de Groot
- A volunteer from this user group comes forward. This person is willing to run this workflow (and optionally a few other tests) and collaborate with Marieke van Hout to blog about the results. We will provide a temporary license key and I will be happy to advise.
- You share the data with this person and grant permission to publish about it.
| Special Adviser |
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- dGB Earth Sciences | |||||||
| |||||||
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/opendtect.org/d/msgid/users/43EF00E7-319D-41A0-BB88-8061CD84494D%40xs4all.nl.
MICK
I can volunteer Paul.
From: Paul de Groot [mailto:paul.d...@dgbes.com]
Sent: Friday, 17 April 2026 8:16 PM
To: us...@opendtect.org
Subject: Re: [OpendTect_Users] 2D single channel seismic interpretation
Hi Elina,
I agree with Gerhard's recommendation: taking a course is the best way to learn seismic interpretation. Alternatively, please consider OpendTect's self-study course. This consists of a training manual with step-by-step exercises, a video catalog with recorded exercises, and a 3D dataset on which to run these.
Regarding your 2D line, I believe it is possible to remove the waterbottom-multiple using a Machine Learning model called SimpleHmult. This model has learned to suppress horizontal multiples. Although the model is 3D, it can also be applied to 2D data. As the multiple in your data is not horizontal, the workflow would be as follows: 1) map the waterbottom, 2) flatten on the waterbottom, 3) apply SimpleHmult, and 4) unflatten the data.
Having seen your line, I think this could be a good case to demonstrate the usefulness of SimpleHmult. Assuming the results are good, and we get your permission to blog about this, we can do the following:
- A volunteer from this user group comes forward. This person is willing to run this workflow (and optionally a few other tests) and collaborate with Marieke van Hout to blog about the results. We will provide a temporary license key and I will be happy to advise.
- You share the data with this person and grant permission to publish about it.
Please let us know if this is feasible. If so, who is volunteering?
Best regards,
Paul.
--
Paul de Groot
Special Adviser |
Paul de Groot
| Special Adviser |
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- dGB Earth Sciences | |||||||
| |||||||
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/opendtect.org/d/msgid/users/000001dcce75%2440ab0ec0%24c2012c40%24%40bigpond.com.
Elina Muzanima
Dear Gerhard and Paul,
Good afternoon, and thank you very much for your helpful feedback and valuable suggestions. I truly appreciate the time you took to review the data and share your recommendations.
I will start working on your suggestions right away and also explore the recommended learning materials and workflows.
I would like to mention that I am not the custodian of this dataset. I will contact the relevant data custodians regarding permissions and additional information, and I will revert to you as soon as I receive their feedback.
Thank you once again for your support.
Best regards,
Elina