A 3‐D prestack depth migration case history with a velocity model update in the Gulf of Suez

Author(s):  
Ilkka T. Noponen ◽  
John H. Anderson
Geophysics ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 1226-1237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina Apostoiu‐Marin ◽  
Andreas Ehinger

Prestack depth migration can be used in the velocity model estimation process if one succeeds in interpreting depth events obtained with erroneous velocity models. The interpretational difficulty arises from the fact that migration with erroneous velocity does not yield the geologically correct reflector geometries and that individual migrated images suffer from poor signal‐to‐noise ratio. Moreover, migrated events may be of considerable complexity and thus hard to identify. In this paper, we examine the influence of wrong velocity models on the output of prestack depth migration in the case of straight reflector and point diffractor data in homogeneous media. To avoid obscuring migration results by artifacts (“smiles”), we use a geometrical technique for modeling and migration yielding a point‐to‐point map from time‐domain data to depth‐domain data. We discover that strong deformation of migrated events may occur even in situations of simple structures and small velocity errors. From a kinematical point of view, we compare the results of common‐shot and common‐offset migration. and we find that common‐offset migration with erroneous velocity models yields less severe image distortion than common‐shot migration. However, for any kind of migration, it is important to use the entire cube of migrated data to consistently interpret in the prestack depth‐migrated domain.


1996 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 751-753 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. C. Kim ◽  
C. M. Samuelsen ◽  
T. A. Hauge

Geophysics ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 68 (6) ◽  
pp. 1782-1791 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Graziella Kirtland Grech ◽  
Don C. Lawton ◽  
Scott Cheadle

We have developed an anisotropic prestack depth migration code that can migrate either vertical seismic profile (VSP) or surface seismic data. We use this migration code in a new method for integrated VSP and surface seismic depth imaging. Instead of splicing the VSP image into the section derived from surface seismic data, we use the same migration algorithm and a single velocity model to migrate both data sets to a common output grid. We then scale and sum the two images to yield one integrated depth‐migrated section. After testing this method on synthetic surface seismic and VSP data, we applied it to field data from a 2D surface seismic line and a multioffset VSP from the Rocky Mountain Foothills of southern Alberta, Canada. Our results show that the resulting integrated image exhibits significant improvement over that obtained from (a) the migration of either data set alone or (b) the conventional splicing approach. The integrated image uses the broader frequency bandwidth of the VSP data to provide higher vertical resolution than the migration of the surface seismic data. The integrated image also shows enhanced structural detail, since no part of the surface seismic section is eliminated, and good event continuity through the use of a single migration–velocity model, obtained by an integrated interpretation of borehole and surface seismic data. This enhanced migrated image enabled us to perform a more robust interpretation with good well ties.


Geophysics ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
pp. 1053-1070 ◽  
Author(s):  
Einar Iversen

The isochron, the name given to a surface of equal two‐way time, has a profound position in seismic imaging. In this paper, I introduce a framework for construction of isochrons for a given velocity model. The basic idea is to let trajectories called isochron rays be associated with iso chrons in an way analogous to the association of conventional rays with wavefronts. In the context of prestack depth migration, an isochron ray based on conventional ray theory represents a simultaneous downward continuation from both source and receiver. The isochron ray is a generalization of the normal ray for poststack map migration. I have organized the process with systems of ordinary differential equations appearing on two levels. The upper level is model‐independent, and the lower level consists of conventional one‐way ray tracing. An advantage of the new method is that interpolation in a ray domain using isochron rays is able to treat triplications (multiarrivals) accurately, as opposed to interpolation in the depth domain based on one‐way traveltime tables. Another nice property is that the Beylkin determinant, an important correction factor in amplitude‐preserving seismic imaging, is closely related to the geometric spreading of isochron rays. For these reasons, the isochron ray has the potential to become a core part of future implementations of prestack depth migration. In addition, isochron rays can be applied in many contexts of forward and inverse seismic modeling, e.g., generation of Fresnel volumes, map migration of prestack traveltime events, and generation of a depth‐domain–based cost function for velocity model updating.


Geophysics ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 64 (5) ◽  
pp. 1546-1552 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary E. Murphy ◽  
Samuel H. Gray

Prestack depth migration needs a good velocity model to produce a good image; in fact, finding the velocity model is one of the goals of prestack depth migration. Migration velocity analysis uses information produced by the migration to update the current velocity model for use in the next migration iteration. Several techniques are currently used to estimate migration velocities, ranging from trial and error to automatic methods like reflection tomography. Here, we present a method that combines aspects of some of the more accurate methods into an interactive procedure for viewing the effects of residual normal moveout corrections on migrated common reflection point (CRP) gathers. The residual corrections are performed by computing traveltimes along raypaths through both the current velocity model and the velocity model plus suggested model perturbations. The differences between those sets of traveltimes are related to differences in depth, allowing the user to preview the approximate effects of a velocity change on the CRP gathers without remigrating the data. As with automatic tomography, the computed depth differences are essentially backprojected along raypaths through the model, yielding a velocity update that flattens the gathers. Unlike automatic tomography, in which an algebraic inverse problem is solved by the computer for all geologic layers simultaneously, our method estimates shallow velocities before proceeding deeper and requires substantial user intervention, both in flattening individual CRP gathers and in deciding the appropriateness of the suggested velocity updates in individual geologic units.


1998 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Henry ◽  
A. Strachan ◽  
I. F. Jones ◽  
M. Gainski ◽  
J. Kommedal

Geophysics ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xianhuai Zhu ◽  
Burke G. Angstman ◽  
David P. Sixta

Through the use of iterative turning‐ray tomography followed by wave‐equation datuming (or tomo‐datuming) and prestack depth migration, we generate accurate prestack images of seismic data in overthrust areas containing both highly variable near‐surface velocities and rough topography. In tomo‐datuming, we downward continue shot records from the topography to a horizontal datum using velocities estimated from tomography. Turning‐ray tomography often provides a more accurate near‐surface velocity model than that from refraction statics. The main advantage of tomo‐datuming over tomo‐statics (tomography plus static corrections) or refraction statics is that instead of applying a vertical time‐shift to the data, tomo‐datuming propagates the recorded wavefield to the new datum. We find that tomo‐datuming better reconstructs diffractions and reflections, subsequently providing better images after migration. In the datuming process, we use a recursive finite‐difference (FD) scheme to extrapolate wavefield without applying the imaging condition, such that lateral velocity variations can be handled properly and approximations in traveltime calculations associated with the raypath distortions near the surface for migration are avoided. We follow the downward continuation step with a conventional Kirchhoff prestack depth migration. This results in better images than those migrated from the topography using the conventional Kirchhoff method with traveltime calculation in the complicated near surface. Since FD datuming is only applied to the shallow part of the section, its cost is much less than the whole volume FD migration. This is attractive because (1) prestack depth migration usually is used iteratively to build a velocity model, so both efficiency and accuracy are important factors to be considered; and (2) tomo‐datuming can improve the signal‐to‐noise (S/N) ratio of prestack gathers, leading to more accurate migration velocity analysis and better images after depth migration. Case studies with synthetic and field data examples show that tomo‐datuming is especially helpful when strong lateral velocity variations are present below the topography.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document