Interval velocity analysis in the dip-angle domain

Geophysics ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 73 (5) ◽  
pp. VE353-VE360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moshe Reshef

When interval velocity analysis is conducted over complex geologic regions, scattering-angle gathers may cause significant inaccuracies. These inaccuracies are related to the loss of structural dip information when generating common-image gathers (CIGs). In this study, the idea of performing interval velocity analysis in the dip-angle domain was examined and demonstrated with synthetic and real data examples. The effects of migration velocity errors and their identification in this domain were analyzed in detail. Carrying the analysis directly on dip-angle gathers is practically impossible. The ability to perform a standard analysis based on flattening the events in the CIGs is achieved by replacing the dip-angle measure with an equivalent offset measure. This equivalent offset provides higher sensitivity to velocity errors and may improve the accuracy of the resultant velocity model.

Geophysics ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 80 (2) ◽  
pp. U1-U12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raanan Dafni ◽  
Moshe Reshef

We have developed a new approach for migration velocity analysis by ray-based reflection tomography, formulated according to more than a single dip direction. It is suggested to use a summation-free subsurface imaging system in the angle domain for generating multiparameter common image gathers through depth migration. Each gather associated with this system comprised dip-dependent opening-angle images contributed from the prestack data. Independent moveout information, coming from either a specular or nonspecular dip direction, was extracted inside these gathers to allow the entire scattered field to be involved in the velocity model optimization. By obeying the linear tomographic principle, a multidip tomography system was set to include imaging errors from specular and nonspecular directions. The updated velocity model was reconstructed by a least-squares inverse solution of the multidip tomographic equation system. Providing additional moveout from the migration’s dip, other than the specular one, was believed to be essential because the seismic data were misplaced in the image space while applying depth imaging by an erroneous velocity model. It might make the determination of a clear specular orientation, usually from the seismic image itself, misleading or ambiguous. The conversion of depth moveout into traveltime error along nonspecular rays was done according to an analytic mechanism, derived in the angle domain. The proposed analysis of migration errors by a multiple dip-angle orientation is demonstrated via the multidip tomography formulation by 2D synthetic and real data examples. It seems to be more efficient, as accurate and reliable as the conventional analysis, and to be better able to determine the ill-posed conditioning of the tomographic inversion.


Geophysics ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-50
Author(s):  
German Garabito ◽  
José Silas dos Santos Silva ◽  
Williams Lima

In land seismic data processing, the prestack time migration (PSTM) image remains the standard imaging output, but a reliable migrated image of the subsurface depends on the accuracy of the migration velocity model. We have adopted two new algorithms for time-domain migration velocity analysis based on wavefield attributes of the common-reflection-surface (CRS) stack method. These attributes, extracted from multicoverage data, were successfully applied to build the velocity model in the depth domain through tomographic inversion of the normal-incidence-point (NIP) wave. However, there is no practical and reliable method for determining an accurate and geologically consistent time-migration velocity model from these CRS attributes. We introduce an interactive method to determine the migration velocity model in the time domain based on the application of NIP wave attributes and the CRS stacking operator for diffractions, to generate synthetic diffractions on the reflection events of the zero-offset (ZO) CRS stacked section. In the ZO data with diffractions, the poststack time migration (post-STM) is applied with a set of constant velocities, and the migration velocities are then selected through a focusing analysis of the simulated diffractions. We also introduce an algorithm to automatically calculate the migration velocity model from the CRS attributes picked for the main reflection events in the ZO data. We determine the precision of our diffraction focusing velocity analysis and the automatic velocity calculation algorithms using two synthetic models. We also applied them to real 2D land data with low quality and low fold to estimate the time-domain migration velocity model. The velocity models obtained through our methods were validated by applying them in the Kirchhoff PSTM of real data, in which the velocity model from the diffraction focusing analysis provided significant improvements in the quality of the migrated image compared to the legacy image and to the migrated image obtained using the automatically calculated velocity model.


Geophysics ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 61 (6) ◽  
pp. 1846-1858 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudio Bagaini ◽  
Umberto Spagnolini

Continuation to zero offset [better known as dip moveout (DMO)] is a standard tool for seismic data processing. In this paper, the concept of DMO is extended by introducing a set of operators: the continuation operators. These operators, which are implemented in integral form with a defined amplitude distribution, perform the mapping between common shot or common offset gathers for a given velocity model. The application of the shot continuation operator for dip‐independent velocity analysis allows a direct implementation in the acquisition domain by exploiting the comparison between real data and data continued in the shot domain. Shot and offset continuation allow the restoration of missing shot or missing offset by using a velocity model provided by common shot velocity analysis or another dip‐independent velocity analysis method.


Geophysics ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claude F. Lafond ◽  
Alan R. Levander

Prestack depth migration still suffers from the problems associated with building appropriate velocity models. The two main after‐migration, before‐stack velocity analysis techniques currently used, depth focusing and residual moveout correction, have found good use in many applications but have also shown their limitations in the case of very complex structures. To address this issue, we have extended the residual moveout analysis technique to the general case of heterogeneous velocity fields and steep dips, while keeping the algorithm robust enough to be of practical use on real data. Our method is not based on analytic expressions for the moveouts and requires no a priori knowledge of the model, but instead uses geometrical ray tracing in heterogeneous media, layer‐stripping migration, and local wavefront analysis to compute residual velocity corrections. These corrections are back projected into the velocity model along raypaths in a way that is similar to tomographic reconstruction. While this approach is more general than existing migration velocity analysis implementations, it is also much more computer intensive and is best used locally around a particularly complex structure. We demonstrate the technique using synthetic data from a model with strong velocity gradients and then apply it to a marine data set to improve the positioning of a major fault.


Geophysics ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. U13-U18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moshe Reshef ◽  
Andreas Rüger

Common scattering-angle and traditional common-offset gathers can be of limited use for interval velocity analysis in regions with complex geologic structures. In the summation process, which occurs when generating each trace in the common-image gather, vital information about structural dip is lost during prestack depth migration. This inadvertently lost data can provide important input to moveout-based velocity-updating algorithms. Maintaining this crucial dip information can improve the quality of the velocity analysis and imaging processes.


1989 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 301
Author(s):  
P.D. Grant

The Puffin Field is located within the Vulcan Sub-basin of the Timor sea, off the Northwest Coast of Australia. It lies within the offshore exploration permit AC/P2, operated by BHP Petroleum and its co-venturers. It is situated on the Ashmore Platform, an old Triassic horst which is normal faulted against the Swan Graben, a major Mesozoic depocentre and the regional source area. Three wells were drilled in the 1970's. Puffin-1 and Puffin-3 encountered oil in "FIT" tests from within the Maastrichtian 100 ft sand, and Puffin-2 flowed over 4000 barrels of oil per day from a slightly younger 4 m sand. On examination of the results of the Puffin wells, it was evident that there were severe velocity anomalies and differing oil water contacts in the Puffin field. The top of the 100 ft reservoir sand is at 2031.4 m subsea in Puffin-1, 2045 m subsea at Puffin-2 and 2074 m subsea at Puffin-3. The two way times to these events were 1392 ms, 1328 ms and 1398 ms respectively. The interpreted oil water contacts in Puffin-1 and Puffin-3 were 2033 and 2077 ms subsea respectively with no contact seen at Puffin-2. In an attempt to resolve these anomalies the AC/P2 joint venture undertook a detailed seismic reprocessing project of the 1980 data with special emphasis on detailed velocity analysis. This 1987 reprocessing effort involved two passes of velocity filtering and velocity analysis at every 600 m. Velocity analyses were picked on a horizon-consistent basis, such that variations in interval velocity for key horizons could be established for later use in depth conversion. Although sceptical in using stacking functions as the input velocities to depth conversion, they were used, as no viable alternative was feasible. Data quality was reliable to the top of the Palaeocene Calcilutite, and six horizons were picked with their respective velocities to this level. Analysis of the data indicated that the two major units exhibiting interval velocity variation were the Pliocene "low velocity layer" and the Eocene carbonates. Using the smoothed stacking velocity down to the Top Palaeocene Calcilutite the three wells tied the depth conversion with an accuracy of 0.5%. Below this horizon two constant interval velocities were used from well data as the quality of the seismic pick were not as reliable. To verify this model BHPP also undertook a "layer-cake" velocity approach which, although confirming the anomalous zones, could not be used laterally away from the three wells, which unfortunately all lay in a straight line. Two wells, Puffin-4 and Parry-1 were drilled in 1988 to test the resultant interpretation. The wells intersected the Top Palaeocene Calcilutite within 1% of prognosis at Puffin-4 and within 2.2% of prognosis at Parry-1, therefore confirming the stacking velocity model used in depth conversion. However, both wells came in deep to prognosis at the deeper, objective level as a result, in the case of Puffin-4, of being on the downthrown side of a small fault, and at Parry-1 due to a thickening of the Paleocene section and seismic mispicking of the Top Palaeocene Calcilutite. Had the mispick at Parry-1 been avoided then the tie would have been less than 1.0%. Both these mis-interpretations were made in the part of the section where the quality of seismic was poorest. These two results suggest that even though the depth conversion to the Top Paleocene Calcilutite is accurate to within 1%, the magnitude of the velocity variation is larger than the magnitude of the independent depth closure. The Puffin Field requires both better quality seismic below the Base Palaeocene Calcilutite, or the means to resolve the lateral extent and possible thickness of a 4 m sand away from Puffin-2. Until such a method of obtaining either better quality seismic to the objective level, or to be able to define the seismic resolution of the differing sand bodies of a minimum size of 4 m, the Puffin Field will remain a Geophysical enigma.


Geophysics ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
John L. Toldi

Conventionally, interval velocities are derived from picked stacking velocities. The velocity‐analysis algorithm proposed in this paper is also based on stacking velocities; however, it eliminates the conventional picking stage by always considering stacking velocities from the point of view of an interval‐velocity model. This view leads to a model‐based, automatic velocity‐analysis algorithm. The algorithm seeks to find an interval‐velocity model such that the stacking velocities calculated from that model give the most powerful stack. An additional penalty is incurred for models that differ in smoothness from an initial interval‐velocity model. The search for the best model is conducted by means of a conjugate‐gradient method. The connection between the interval‐velocity model and the stacking velocities plays an important role in the algorithm proposed in this paper. In the simplest case, stacking velocity is assumed to be equal to rms velocity. For the more general case, a linear theory is developed, connecting interval velocity and stacking velocity through the intermediary of traveltime. When applied to a field data set, the method produces an interval‐velocity model that explains the lateral variation in both stacking velocity and traveltime.


Geophysics ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 72 (6) ◽  
pp. U75-U88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jintan Li ◽  
William W. Symes

The differential semblance method of velocity analysis flattens image gathers automatically by updating interval velocity to minimize the mean square difference of neighboring traces. We detail an implementation using hyperbolic normal moveout correction as the imaging method. The algorithm is fully automatic, accommodates arbitrary acquisition geometry, and outputs 1D, 2D, or 3D interval velocity models. This variant of differential semblance velocity analysis is effective within the limits of its imaging methodology: mild lateral heterogeneity and data dominated by primary events. Coherent noise events such as multiple reflections tend to degrade the quality of the velocity model estimated by differential semblance. We show how to combine differential semblance velocity analysis with dip filtering to suppress multiple reflections and thus improve considerably the accuracy of the velocity estimate. We illustrate this possibility using multiple-rich data from a 2D marine survey.


Geophysics ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 604-609 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Mihai Popovici ◽  
James A. Sethian

Recently, fast marching methods (FMM) beyond first order have been developed for producing rapid solutions to the eikonal equation. In this paper, we present imaging results for 3‐D prestack Kirchhoff migration using traveltimes computed using the first‐order and second‐order FMM on several 3‐D prestack synthetic and real data sets. The second order traveltimes produce a much better image of the structure. Moreover, insufficiently sampled first order traveltimes can introduce consistent errors in the common reflection point gathers that affect velocity analysis. First‐order traveltimes tend to be smaller than analytic traveltimes, which in turn affects the migration velocity analysis, falsely indicating that the interval velocity was too low.


2010 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 723
Author(s):  
Sergey Birdus ◽  
Erika Angerer ◽  
Iftikhar Abassi

Processing of multi and wide-azimuth seismic data faces some new challenges, and one of them is depth-velocity modelling and imaging with azimuthal velocity anisotropy. Analysis of multi-azimuth data very often reveals noticeable fluctuations in moveout between different acquisition directions. They can be caused by several factors: real azimuthal interval velocity anisotropy associated with quasi-vertical fractures or present day stress field within the sediments; short-wavelength velocity heterogeneities in the overburden; TTI (or VTI) anisotropy in the overburden; or, random distortions due to noise, multiples, irregularities in the acquisition geometry, etcetera. In order to build a velocity model for multi-azimuth pre-stack depth migration (MAZ PSDM) taking into account observed azimuthal anisotropy, we need to recognise, separate and estimate all the effects listed above during iterative depth-velocity modelling. Analysis of seismic data from a full azimuth 3D seismic land survey revealed the presence of strong spatially variable azimuthal velocity anisotropy that had to be taken into consideration. Using real data examples we discuss major steps in depth processing workflow that took such anisotropy into account: residual moveout estimation in azimuth sectors; separation of different effects causing apparent azimuthal anisotropy (see A–D above); iterative depth-velocity modelling with azimuthal anisotropy; and, subsequent MAZ anisotropic PSDM. The presented workflow solved problems with azimuthal anisotropy in our multi-azimuth dataset. Some of the lessons learned during this MAZ project are relevant to every standard narrow azimuth seismic survey recorded in complex geological settings.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document