
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Evans, B.J. 
A1  - Oke, B.F. 
A1  - Urosevic, M. 
A1  - Chakraborty, K. 
T1  - A COMPARISON OF PHYSICAL MODEL WITH FIELD DATA OVER OLIVER FIELD, VULCAN GRABEN
JF  - The APPEA Journal
JO  - The APPEA Journal
Y1  - 1995
VL  - 35
IS  - 1
SP  - 26
EP  - 43
KW  - 
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1071/AJ94002 
N2  - Physical models representing the three dimensional geology of oil fields can be built from materials such as plastics and resins. Using ultrasound transmitters and receivers, 2D and 3D seismic surveys can be simulated to aid in the survey design of field work, provide insight into data processing, and can test interpretation concepts. Such modelling simulates most aspects of both land and marine seismic.In 1993 BHP Petroleum, on behalf of the AC/P6 Joint Venture, contracted Curtin University&apos;s Geophysics Group to build a 1:40,000 scale, 11-layer, 2.5D model of the Oliver Field so that 2D and 3D field data acquisition and processing could be simulated. A 2.5D model is invariant in the strike direction, but can answer most of the questions of a true 3D model at a fraction of the effort and cost. This was the first such model built in Australia, and one of the most complex physical models ever built.Of interest was the quality of imaging under the fault shadow near reservoir level, and whether the application of dip or strike 3D acquisition and processing approaches could improve the seismic data quality. Consequently, both dip (2D) and strike (2.5D) seismic data were acquired over the model using similar parameters to those used in conventional offshore acquisition. The data were processed to migration stage and compared with the field seismic data. Numerical model and field VSP data were also processed and compared with the field and physical model seismic data.The good agreement between processed physical model seismic and field seismic shows that physical modelling of geology has application in both two and three dimensional interpretation, acquisition planning, and processing testing and optimisation.This physical model experiment proved conclusively that shallow faults with a relatively large velocity contrast across them cause &apos;back&apos; faults on the seismic data which do not exist in reality. Furthermore, this experiment proved for the first time using a physical model that strike 3D marine recording is preferable to dip 3D marine recording. 
ER  -

