You are on page 1of 16

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.

org/

Introduction'to

Seismic Inversion

Methods

Brian Russell

PART 4 - SEISMIC PROCESSINGCONSIDERATIONS

Part 4 - Seismic Processing Considerations

Page 4 -

ntroduction

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

4.1

to Seismic nverson Methods

B.r.ian Russell

Introduction

Havinglookedat a simple model'of the seismic trace, anu at the


recursire inversion alogorithmin theory, we will nowlook at the problem of

processingreal seismiceata in order to get the best results fromseismic


inversion. We may group the key processingproblemsinto the following
categories:

( i ) Amp
1i tu de recovery.
(i i) Vertical

resolution

improvement.

(i i i ) Horizontal resol uti on improvement.


(iv)

Noise elimination.

Amplitudeproblemsare a majorconsiderationat the early processing


stagesandwewill look at both deterministicamplitude
recoveryandsurface
consistent

residual static time corrections.

Vertical resolution improvement

will involve a discussion of aleconvolution and wavelet processing techniques.

In

our discussion of horizontal resolution we will look at

the resolution

improvement
obtained in migration, using a 3-D example.Finally, wewill
consider several approaches
to noiseelimination, especially the elimination
of multi pl es.

Simply stateu, to invert our seismic data we usually assume the


And to arrive at an
one-dimensional model given in the previous section.
approximationof this model (that is, that each trace is a vertical,
band-limited reflectivity
function) we must carefully process our data with
these

considerations in minU. Figure 4.1 showsa processing flow which could

be useUto do preinversion processing.

Part 4 - Seismic Processing Considerations

Page 4 -

Introduction

to Seismic Inversion

Methods

Brian Russell

INPUT RAW DATA

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

DETERMINISTIC
AMPLITUDE

CORRECTIONS

,.

SURFACE-CONSI STENT
AMPt:ITUDE ANAL'YSIS

_m

mlm

SURFACE-CONS ISTENT

DECONVOLUTIO,
NFOLLOWED

BY HI GH RESOIJUTI.ON DECON
i

SURFACE-CONSISTENT
STATI CS ANAIJYSIS

VELOCITY ANAUYSIS

APPbY STATICS AND VEUOCITY

MULTIPLE

ATTENUATION

STACK

MI GRATI ON
,

Fig.

ll

'

Simpl
i fiedi nversi
onprocessing
flow.

4.1.

11

Part 4 - Seismic Processing Considerations

--

,11

Page 4 -

Inl;roducl:ion 1:oSeJsmlc Invers1on Nethods

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

4.2

BrJan Russell

Am.p'l
i tu.de..P,.ecovery

The most dJffJcult job in the pocessing of any seismic line

is

econstuctingthe amplJtudes
of the selsmJc
taces as they wouldhavebeenJf
thee

were no dJs[urbJnginf'luences present.

We normally make the

simplJficationthat the distortionof the seJsmic


amplJtudes
maybe put into
three main categories'spheJcaldivergence, absorptJon,and tansmJssion
loss.

Based on a consideration of

these three factors, we maywrJte aownan

approximatefunctJonfor the total earth attenuation-

At: AO*
(b

/ t) * exp(-at),
where

anU

Thus, if
data,
formula.

the

= time,

At = recorded
amplitude,
A0 = true ampl
i tude,
a,b

= constants.

we estimate the constants in the above equation from the seismic

true amplitudesof the data coulUbe recoveredby using the inverse


The deterministic

amplitude correction and trace

to

trace

mean

scaling will accountfor the overall gross changesin amplitude. However,


there may still be subtle (or even not-so-subtle) amplitude problems
associatedwith poorsurface conditions or other factors. To compensate
for
these effects, it is often advisable to computeand apply surface-consistent

gain corrections. This correction involves computing


a total gain value for
each trace and then decomposing
this single value in the four components

Aij=
SixRjxG
kxMkX
j,
where A = Total amplitude factor,

M = Offset

component,

S = Shot component,

X = Offset

distance,

R:

i,j

Receiver

component,

G = CDP component, and

Part 4 - Seismic Processing Considerations

= shot,receiver

pos.,

k = CDP position.

Page 4 -

Introduction to Seismic .Inversion Methods

Brian Russell

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

SURFACE
SUEF'A

AND

CONSIb'TEh[O{

T |tVE :

,RiL-rER

Fig.

4.2.

Surface and sub-surface geometryand


surface-consistent decomposition. (Mike Graul).
,

Part 4 - SeismicProcessing
Considerations

Page 4 -

Introduction

to Seismic Inversion Methods

Figure 4.g

Brian Russell

(from Mike Graul's unpublished course notes) shows the

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

geometryusedfor this analysis. Notice that the surface-consistent


statics
anti aleconvolutionproblemare similar. For the statics problem,the averaging

can be 1oneby straight summation.For the amplitude problemwemust


transform the above equation into additive form using the logarithm:

InAij=
InSi +InRj+InGk+lnkMijX.
The

problem can then be treated exactly the same way as in the

statics

case. Figure 4.3, fromTaner anti Koehler (1981), showsthe effect of doing
surface consistent amplitude and statics corrections.

4.3 Imp.
rov.
ement_
o.[_Ver.
t.i.ca.1..Resoluti
on
Deconvolution

is

process by which an attempt is made to

seismic wavelet from the seismic trace,

remove the

leaving an estimate of reflectivity.

Let us first discussthe "convolution"part of "deconvolution" starting with


the equation for the convolutional model

st--wt* r t

st= the seismictrace,

where

wt= the seismicwavelet,


rt= reflection coefficient series,
* = convolution operation.
In

the

frequency domain
S(f)

The

procedure
reflection

deconvol ution

and consists
coefficients.

W(f) x R(f)

process

of

is

simply the

reverse

of the convolution

"removing" the wavelet shape to

reveal

the

We must design an operator to do this, as in the

fol 1owlng equati on-

rt: st* o

whereOr--operator-- inverseof wt .

Part 4 - Seismic Processing Considerations


,

Page 4 -

Introduction

to Seismic

Inversion

Methods

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

ii

Brian

Russell

11

1'

ii

'..,' ,

,"

"

"

d.

Preliminary
stack
bet'ore
surface
consistent
static
andomplilude corrections.

Fig.

4.3.

Stacks with and without

Stockwith surfaceconsistent
staticand amplitudecorrections.

surface-consi stent

corrections. (TaneranuKoehler,1981).

Part 4 - Seismic Processing Considerations

Page4 - 7

Introduction

to Seismic Inversion Methods

Brian Russell

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

In the frequency domain,this becomes


R(f) = W(f) x 1/W(f) .

After this extremely simple introduction, it

may appear that the

deconvolutionproblemshouldbe easy to solve. This is not the case, and the


continuing research into the problem testifies to this. There are two main
problems. Is our convolutionalmodelcorrect, and, if the modelis correct,
can we derive the

true

wavelet

from the

data?

The

answer to the first

questionis that the convolutionalmodelappearsto be the best modelwe have


comeup with so far. The main problem is in assuming
that the wavelet does
not vary with time. In our discussionwe will assumethat the time varying
problemis negligible within the zoneof interest.

The secondproblemis much more severe, since it requires solving the


ambiguousproblemof separatinga wavelet and reflectivity sequencewhenonly
the seismic trace is known. To get around this problem, all deconvolution or

wavelet estimation programsmakecertain restrictive assumptions,either about


the wavelet or

the

reflectivity.

There are

methods: those which make restrictive

two classes of deconvolution

phase assumptions and can be considered


,

true wavelet processingtechniquesonly whenthese phaseassumptionsare met,


and those

which do not

make restrictive

phase assumptions and can be

consideredas true wavelet processingmethods. In the first category are


(1) Spiking deconvolution,
(2) Predictive

deconvolution,

(3) Zero phase deconvolution, and


(4) Surface-consi stent deconvoluti on.

Part 4 - Seismic Processing Considerations

Page 4 -

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Introduction

to Seismic Inversion Methods

Brian Russell

(a)

Fig.

A comparison of non surface-consistent and surface-consistent


decon on pre-stack data. {a) Zero-phase deconvolution.
{b) Surface-consistent soikinB dconvolution.

4.4

(b),
Fig. 4.5

Surface-consistent decon comparisonafter stack.


(a) Zero-phase aleconvolution. (b) Surface-consistent
deconvol ution.

'--'-

,t

_ _

,,

Part 4 - .Seismic
Processing
Consioerations

,_

Page4 -

Introduction

to Seismic Invers.ion Methods

Brian Russell

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

In the second category are found


(1) Wavelet estimation using a well 1og (Strat Decon).

(Hampson
and Galbraith 1981)
(2) Maximum-1ikel ihood aleconvolution.

(Chi et al,
Let

us

illustrate

the

lg84)
effectiveness

surface-consi

stent

aleconvolution.

surface-consi

stent

scheme involves

components.
di recti

ons-

must therefore

We
common

con,non offset

Referring

the

of

one

of.

to Figure 4.,

convolutional

average

source, commonreceiver,

over

four

notice

proauct

different

ways to perform it.

that

of four
geometry

common depth point (CDP), and

(COS). The averaging must be performed iteratively

are several different

the methods,

and there

The example in Figures 4.4 ana 4.5

shows an actual surface-consi stent case study which was aone in the following
way'

(a) Computethe autocorrelations

of each trace,

(b) average the autocorrelations in each geometry eirection to get four


average autocorrel ati OhS,

(c) derive and apply the minimum-phase


inverse of each waveform, and
() iterate through this procedure to get an optimumresult.
Two points to note

when you are

looking

at

the

case study are the

consistent definition of the waveform


in the surface-consistentapproachan
the subsequent improvementof the stratigraphic

interpretability

We can compareall of the above techniques

page.

of the stack.

using Table 4-1 on the next

The two major facets of the techniques which will

be comparedare

the

wavelet estimation procedure and the wavelet shaping procedure.

Part 4 - Seismic Processing Considerations

Page 4 -

10

Introduction to Seismic Inversion Methods

Table

4-1

Comparison of Deconvolution MethoUs

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

METHOD

Spiking

Brian Russell

WAVELET ESTIMATION

WAVELETSHAPING

Min.imum
phase assumption
Randomrefl ecti vi ty

Ideally shapedto spike.


In practice, shapedto minimum

assumptions.

phase,higherfrequencyoutput.

Predi cti ve

No assumptions about

Does not whiten data well.

Deconvol uti on

wavelet

Removes
short andlong period

Deconvol ution

multiples.

Does not affect

phaseof wayelet for long lags.


..1_,

Zero

Phase

Deconvol utton

Zero phaseassumption.
Randomrefl ectt vi ty

Amplitude spectrumi$

assumption.

whi tened.

Phase is not altered.

Canshapeto desired output.


Surface-cons.

Deconvolution

Minimumor zero phase.


Randomreflecti vi ty

Ampli rude spectrum i s

assumption.

whitenedless than in single

Phasecharacteri s improved.

trace

methods.

Stratigraphic

No phase assumption.

Phase of wavelet is zeroed.

Deconvol ution

However, well must match

Amplitude
spectrum
not

sei smi c.

whi tened.

Maximum-

No phase assumption.

Phase of wavelet is zeroed

L ik el i hood

Sparse-spike assumption.

Amp
1i rude spectrumi s

deconvol ution

Part 4 - Seismic Processing Considerations

whi tened.

Page 4

11'

Introduction

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

4.4

to Seismic

Lateral

Inversion

Methods

Brian

Russell

Resol uti on

The complete three-dimensional (3-D) diffraction problemis shownin


Figure 4.6 for a modelstudy taken fromHerman,et al (1982). Wewill look'at
line 108, which cuts obliquely across a fault and also cuts across a reef-like
structure.

Note that

it misses the second reef

structure.

Figure 4.7 shows the result of processing the line.


In the stacked
section we maydistinguish two types of diffractions, or lateral events which
do not represent true geology.

The first

type are due to point reflectors

the plane of the section, and include the


corners at the base of the reef structure

secondtype are out-of-te-plane

in

sides of the fault and the sharp

which was crossed by the line.

diffractions,

The

often called "side-swipe". This

is most noticeable by the appearance of energy from the second reef booy which
was not crossed. In the two-dimensional (2-D) migration, we have correctly
removed

the

2-D

out-of-the-plane
problems.

diffraction

diffractions.

The final

patterns,

but

are

The full

3-D

migration

migrated section has also

still

bothere

the

corrects for these

accounted for

positioned evehts such as the obliquely dipping fault.

by

incorrectly

This brief summaryhas

not been intended as a complete summaryof the migration procedure, but rather

as a warning that
structural

migration {preferably 3-D) mustbe performedon complex

lines for the fol 1 owing reasons:

(a)

To correctly position dipping events on the seismic section, and

(b)

To remove

diffracted

Although migration

events.

can compensatefor someof the

lateral

resolution

problems, we must rememberthat this is analogous to the aleconvolution problem


in that not all of the interfering

be aware that the

interference,

true

effects may be removed. Therefore, we must

one-dimensional

seismic trace,

free of any lateral

is impossible to achieve.

Part 4 - Seismic Processing Considerations

Page 4 -

12

Introduction

to Seismic Inversion Methods

Brian Russell

71

lol

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

131

101

131

(a] 3-

108

D MODEL

..................................

LINE
.............................

.........................................

....................................

{hi 880
Fig.
i

4.6.

LAYOU

3-D model experiment.


mm

ml

(Herman
et al, 1982).

mm

Part 4 Seismic Processing Considerations

Page 4 -

13

Introduction

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

4.5

Notse

to Seismic Inversion Methods

Attenuation

As we' discussed in an earlier

either

Brian Russell

andom 'or coherent.

section, seismic noise can be classified

Random noise

is

as

reduced by the stacking process

quite well unlessthe signal-to-noise ratio dropsclose to one. In this case,


a coherencyenhancement
programcan be used, which usually involves sometype
of trace mixing or FK filtering.
However,the interpreter mustbe aware that
any mixing of the data will "smear" trace amplitudes, makingthe inversion
result on a particular trace less reliable.
Coherent

noise

is much more difficult

sources of coherent noise is multiple

Two of

to eliminate.

One of

major

interference, explained in section 2.4.

the major methodsused in the elimination of multiples

filtering

the

are

the FK

method,and the newerInverse Velocity Stacking method. The Inverse

VeiocityStackingmethod
involvesthe followingsteps:
(1) Correct the data using the proper NMOvelocity,
(2) Model the data as a linear

sumof parabolic shapes,

(This involves transforming to the Velocity domain),

(3) Filter outthe parabolic


components
with a moveout
greaterthansome
pre-determined
limit (in the order of 30 msec),and
(4) Perform the inverse transform.

Figure 4.8, taken from Hampson


(1986), showsa comparisonbetweenthe two
methodsfor a typical multiple problemin northernAlberta. The displays are
all' coon offset stacks.

Notice

that

although both methods have performed

well on the outside traces, the Inverse Velocity Stacking methodworks best on

the inside traces. Figure4.9, also fromHampson


(1986), showsa comparison
of
final

stacks with and without multiple attenuation.

It is obvious 'from this

comparison
that the result of inverting the section whichhas not had multiple
attenuation

would be to introduce spurious velocities

into the solution.

The

importanceof multiple elimination to the preprocessingflow cannot therefore


be overemphasized.

Part 4 - Seismic Processing Consideration

,=m__

Page -

14

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Introduction to Seismic Inversion Methods

Brian Russell.

!lilt
tiiti
ll!1111iitt
i)tt
iltli
ii/lit
tttl
ill

(b] LINEld8 - 2-D MIGRATION

IIIIIIll!!1111111111111it
I!1111111
I!11111111111illl
illIiIIIIIIIIIil!111111tllilil!illlllll!111illlll
[1111111111111111111111111
III!!1111
I!111111111111111
IIIIIIIilllllllll!111111111111111111111
?111[i
IIIIIIIII
!1111111111111111
IIII!IIIiillilllllillllllllllliillllllllllllh

.,

}!l!iilll
lllllilllllll
i!iiJ
:illllllllllllilitiilillit!illllll
,o

111lllllllllllllllllllll1111llllll
Iilllllll!ll!llll
I111
illllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllii{lilllllllllllll

"fillllllllll!1111illi!111
IIIIIIIII
IIIIIII1111111111
IIIIIlillilllllll!1111!1!111111111
'
Col LINE 108 - 3-D MIGRATION

Fg. 4.7. Migrationof modeldata shown


in Fg. 4.6.

- -(Hermanet al, 1982).


Part 4 - Seismic ProcessingConsiderations

Page 4 -

15

Introduction

to Seismic

Inversion

Methods

Brian

AFTER

AFTER

F-K MULTIPLE

INVERSE VELOCITY STACK


MULTIPLE ATTENUATION

INPUT

ATTENUATION
J. '

Downloaded 09/21/14 to 199.6.131.16. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Russell

"

' ')'%':!!t!'!11!1'1

';.m,:'!:',./--l- r'm--

"';;:.m;: .... ,;lliml;..

all

m#l

Fig, 4.8.

Commonoffset

stacks

calculated

from data before multiple

attenuation,
after inverse velocity
and after F-K multiple attenuation.

stack multiple attenuation,


(Hampson, 1986)

888

Zone d
Interest

1698
-4
Secondreal-dataset conventional
stackwithout
multiple
attenuation.

'", ......

,,t./:,.t.,.

lee

,ii%' .t

---';-'
"" ""

).

;,<,:u(:'J,.J
L,..,!I',,',
,'; ,
,
, ,

.% '.

' "'

"'"t"

1%';J
'
'

,,,,

I ,,,,,..... '1"' ',''...;t(' ,)",'.m,,"".


,,, ';

t,

..'t,..'"'i'

.... -....

; -'".' ,..'....
'. 2>.': '..', ;,%"'1

'" "'

Zone of

,,, .tiill).);l',"P,')'"'".r'"mm"""P"
")r'"
,,..,.,,..,,,_.
,,.,.....,...,..,...,..,...,....,,,.,.,..
gt'
..,,,. ' '" - ..... ,

Interest

.. ,,,
,,p}h?.,.,,
r.,.
.}.U.,..,
,nm,
";'
........
,,,,
../.
,.', .'-%....
,'......._
,,,,.,.,,,,,..,
.l,
), .,
' ,,{.
,,m,l,,
.''
','...r'
....
'.""::"''""""="'"""
Fig. 4.9.

Second real data stack after inverse velocity


multiple attenuation.
(Hampson, 1986)

Part 4 - Seismic Processing Considerations

stack

Page 4 -

16