4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Heterogeneity and seismic scattering in exploration environments

Journal

TECTONOPHYSICS
Volume 472, Issue 1-4, Pages 264-272

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.tecto.2008.04.001

Keywords

Seismic scattering; Heterogeneity; Numerical modeling; Mineral exploration

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Seismic scattering and the corresponding reduction in signal to noise ratio is a severe limitation to seismic exploration in crystalline environments. In this paper, we summarize recent elastic numerical modeling of scattering regimes and discuss the implications for seismic exploration in shallow, hardrock environments. The resulting synthetic seismograms range from relatively transparent to highly reflective depending on the ratio of seismic wavelength to heterogeneity scale length. We note that the Archean Canadian Shield is characterized by large scale lengths, typical for crystalline environments, which translates to moderately reflective seismic sections exhibiting scattering features that are coherent over large distances. In contrast, the highly fractured footwall of the Sudbury impact structure in the Canadian Shield translates to a medium with small to moderate scale lengths, resulting in seismic sections that can in places be highly reflective or relatively transparent. From the perspective of mineral exploration in Sudbury, we find that the possible detection of massive sulfide targets is dependent not only on the shape and size of the deposit but on the scattering nature of the background as well. With information about the petrophysical properties and the distribution of heterogeneity within an exploration area, acquisition parameters such as source frequencies and minimum receiver spacing can be adjusted in order to survey within the scattering regime that will produce the least amount of noise. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available