STATICS CORRECTIONS

-A

TUTORIAL

by
Brian H. Russell, Hampson-Russell Software Services Ltd.

INTRODUCTION
Static corrections are important in
the seismic processing flow for a number of reasons:
- They place source and receiver
at a constant datum plane.
- They ensure that reflection
events on intersecting lines will
be at the same time.
- They improve the quality of
other processing steps.
- They ensure the repeatibility of
seismic recording.
Static corrections involve a constant time shift of the seismic trace, as
opposed to dynamic corrections,
which involve a set of time variable
shifts. As with most seismic processing steps, static corrections represent
a gross simplification of physical
reality. However, despite the apparent
simplicity of static corrections, they
have a dramatic effect on the final
quality of the seismic section if
derived and applied correctly.
In this tutorial I shall discuss the
techniques for deriving such optimum
statics values, covering the three
major approaches to statics computations: field statics, refraction statics,
and residual statics. Before discussing
these three computational techniques,
let us look at the basic statics model.

THE STATICS/NMO
MODEL

their elevation depends on topography. The raypath for a single reflection on a seismic recording is shown
in Figure I. From this figure, we can
see that the observed reflection time is
influenced by both topographic and

near surface effects, as well as by

offset distance X. Since the seismic
travel path is continuous, we cannot
theoretically separate the near surface
effects from the deeper subsurface effects. However, an approximate solu-

------x

s~
...

-------4------ SURFAcE

--~~----~===========~I:========DAT~M

REf LCTO!<
Fig. J. A hypo/helical 1I0lIZero-ojjsel seismic
recordillg ShOll'illg a sillgle rej/ee/ioll raypa/h. We
may slIbdil'ide Ihe raypa/h ill/a cOII/ribwiolls dlle

/0

sho/ S. receiver R, reflec/ioll poill/ P, alld o.f[se/

X.

RILEY'S
.SEISMIC
PROCESSORS
A division of Riley's Datashare International

Seismic energy travels through the

earth as a spherical wave. However,
for reasons of simplicity, we will use
ray theory in the derivations in this
paper. It should be pointed out that
ray theory is strictly valid only for a
high frequency solution and neglects
such observable features as diffractions. However, we can usually treat
these effects as part of the migration
problem and thus, in this tutorial, we
will consider only the steps that go
into producing an optimum unmigrated trace.

Full range of seismic processing, including:

The basic seismic recording involves a source and receiver which are
separated by a distance called the offset distance. In marine recording, the
source and receiver are at the same
datum elevation, but in land recording

1300, 510 - 5th St, S.w.

Calgary, Alberta T2P 3S2

COMMITMENT TO QUALITY
AND TURNAROUND
3-D processing and design
automatic refraction statics
multiple suppression by inverse modelling

--~

DATASHARE

262-8800

--------------------16--------------------

tion is to separate the path into four

terms, so that
T = To

+ T s + T r + T x , (1)

where T = Total traveltime,

To = Seismic structural time,
T 5 = Shot "static" from
datum to surface,
T r = Receiver "static" from
datum to surface,
and
Tx = "Dynamic" time shift
to correct for offset.
The term static can be interpreted
as "independent of record time",
whereas the term dynamic means "dependent on record time". However, if
we consider two or more reflections,
we can see that neither term is precisely correct. This is because the "static"
is different for each reflection due to
changes in the raypath, and the offset,
which defines the "dynamic" correction, depends on the points at which
the emerging rays intersect the datum.
Nonetheless, these are the assumptions that are used in the basic seismic
processing flow, and they can be
viewed in idealized form as seen in
Figure 2. In this figure, the travel path
of the rays is vertical from surface to
datum, and straight between the

datum and the reflecting point. These

assumptions are reasonable if the
velocities of upper layers are much
lower that those of the deeper layers,
which is often the case.
I+~-----X ----~.I

s
Ts

M, at a time of To. In this simple

scheme, the static is a vertical correction, whereas the dynamic is a
horizontal correction. Although this
simple processing scheme is greatly
expanded in practice, these are the
underlying assumptions of the seismic
processing method.

FIELD STATICS

Fig. 2. Idealized geometry for the statics/ NMO

model. Stalic corrections are vertical. II'hereas
N MO correi'liol1S are horizolllal. The seismic trace
is theoretica/~1' correi'led to mid-poilll M.

Using the assumptions shown in

Figure 2, the seismic processing flow
can be simplified to two fundamental
steps. We first derive a velocity versus
depth model, from which static corrections are computed and then applied to the data. This is equivalent to
placing the shot and receiver at the
datum. Next, a dynamic, or NMO,
correction is appliced to the trace to
place the reflection below midpoint

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 17

From a knowledge of the topography of our seismic line, the source

and receiver parameters, and the
velocities and thicknesses of the near
surface layers, a complete statics solution can, in principle, be derived. This
computation is referred to as the "field
static", to differentiate it from other
types of statics computations. Although this static correction should
theoretically place the shot and
receiver at the same datum elevation,
we shall find that there are many factors that impede our ability to accurately determine its value.
Let us start by assuming that our
problems in deriving an accurate nearsurface model have been overcome.
We shall consider the simple case of a
two layer near-surface, consisting of a
weathered layer of low velocity un-

weathered material, and adding this to

the distance from the base of the
weathering to the datum divided by
the sub weathering velocity. The total
static is then the sum of the shot and
receiver components. In this formulation, we have assumed that a buried
source has been used. For a surface
source, the source static would be
modified by adding a delay time for
the weathered layer.
In the previous example, we have
assumed that the thickness and
velocity of the weathered layer is
known. In fact, one of the biggest
problems we face is determining
these values. One technique used
to determine
the
near surface
velocities and thicknesses is the
velocity survey, illustrated in Figure 4.
Note in the figure that a correction has
been done to compensate for non-vertical raypaths. One of the main
problems of this method is that well
velocity surveys are usually not done
frequently enough along the line to
determine the near surface structure at
each shot point. Another problem is
that there are usually not enough shallow shots to determine the very near

DATlM

shot static,

where

receiver static,
depth of weathering,
depth of shot,
datu~

E
S
ER

elevation,

shot elevation,
receiver elevation,

d = thickness from shot to datum,

SD
d = thickness froM receiver to datum,
RD
V
velocity of weathered layer,
and

w
V
sw

Fig. 4. The uphole or lI'elf shoo/ing me/hod.

II'here (a) shOll'S the slln'e.\' i1self. lI'ith /he recei"ers
located ill/he lI'elf and sho/ is a/ the sllrlace. and (b)
sholl'S /he interpreted sllrvey. In this simple
example, /he. il1lerval velocities have been exactl\,
de/ermined.

velocity of suhweathered layer.

Fig. J. Field static computations by SIlIII 01

lI'eathering alld subll'ea/hering delay.

consolidated material and a subweathered layer of more competent

lithology. We shall also assume that
the datum plane down to which we
wish to correct the data is in the subweathered layer. This situation is illustrated in Figure 3. If we know the
thickness of the weathered layer, the
elevations of the shot and geophone,
and the depth of shot, we can then
compute the static corrections. There
will be two components to the total
static: a shot component and' a
receiver component.
Although there are many methods
of computing field statics, the
simplest method is shown in Figure 3.
The computation of a time delay in
each layer can be found by dividing
the length of the vertical raypath in
each layer by the layer velocity. For
the two layer case shown in the figure,
the shot static is found by dividing the
distance from the base of the shot to
the datum by the subweathering
velocity. The receiver static is computed by dividing the weathering layer
thickness by the velocity of the
------------

1'IME (He.) (). O't 0,06 0.06

0.02

(')1

10

20
I

\I
I
I

(m)
~o

DEPfH 30

n-le..-Va I

Velocity

50

/~

60

Avr;'

'1e/ocHy '.

71)

500

/000

1500

2000

yf.l-DCr-ry (m/~c)'-'
(b)

(a)

Depth
(m)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70

18

Int.
Time (sec)

Con.

0.020
0.020
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
O.OOS;

Total Time
(sec)
0.020
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.075
0.080

Vel.
(m/sec)

llvg.

500
500
600
667
714
800
875

Int. V"l.
(m/sec)
500
500
1000
1000
1000
2000
2000

surface velocities.
A simpler method makes use of the
uphole time, which is the traveltime
from the shot to the surface as
measured by a geophone placed close
to each shot. The basic assumption is
that the shot hole is drilled just below
the weathered layer, and the uphole
time will therefore give us the velocity
of this layer. If the shot has been
drilled below the weathered layer, this
method can give erroneous values for
the weathering velocity and it is thus
advisable to check for uphole times
that deviate significantly from the
average value. Using the uphole time
simplification, the delay method
equations from Figure 3 can be rewritten so that the receiver static is simply
the sum of the shot static at the
receiver location plus the uphole time.

THE EFFECT OF THE

NEAR SURFACE
The effect of near surface geology
plays a major role in the accuracy of
the field statics computation. For example, let us consider the effects of
topography. Ideally, we would like to
to record data on a perfectly flat surface. If we are recording data in the
central plains of North America, we
are close to this ideal, since the effects
of topography are often insignificant.
However, if our recording takes place
in the overthurst belt of Wyoming, the
foothills of Alberta, a dune environment in Saudi Arabia, or some other
correspondingly rugged topography,
the effects of variations in elevation
can severely distort our data.

lOa

..

200

.",

. . . -- . .

- .

300

Fig. 5. n,e e/fect of surface lopography on

statics. An earth 1II0dei .sho\l'illg irregular surface
topography Il'ilh a .flat re.flector lI'il/ he "allticorrelated" \l'ilh the re.flector at depth.

tions are usually made. The first is

that, in general, the top layer of the
earth is made of unconsolidated
weathered material of variable thickness and low velocity called the
weathered layer. As previollsly discussed, the thickness of this layer is
often taken from uphole time measurements. This assumes that the shot
has been drilled slightly below the
weathered layer. Significant deviations in this near surface layer thickness can be caused by such geological
effects as meandering river channels,
variations in glacial till thickness, and
variations in the water table.

REFRACTION STATICS
As we discussed in the previous

section, the estimation of static corrections can be severely hampered by

irregular topography and rapidly
varying velocity and thickness changes
of the weathering and sub-weathering
layers. One of the best ways to estimate these changes is to analyze the
first breaks which result from refractions in the shallow low-velocity
layers. A plot showing such a set of
computer picked first breaks is shown
in Figure 6.
The key concept in seismic refrac-

TIME
(SECI

o.s

1.D

Fig. 6. A 1'101 of a seislllic profile displayillg a

lI'eaiherillg tlllolllal.\'. The first arrivals hal'e heell
picked l/sillg a cOlllpl/ter alld are ShOIl'1I as dashes.
n1ese .first arril'ols are I'ery "clean". hili other
pro.files are IIIl/ch lIIure di(ficult to pick due 10 the
presence of lIoise. NOle reverse polarit)' trace. /4
tracesfrolll the lefl.

It is an interesting exercise to consider the effects on the stack if topography is ignored, or if the elevations
are assigned incorrectly. In the case of
land data, the effect 'is that of a subsurface structure which is "anticorrelated" with the elevation profile of the
surface. That is, highs on the surface
are seen as lows on the reflector, and
vice versa. This is illustrated in Figure
5 for the simple case of a constant
velocity earth with an irregular topography and a flat lying reflector. Notice
that the reflector is the inverse of the
topography since the travel time is
greater from the higher points on the
surface.

GEOPHYSICAL MICRO COMPUTER

APPLICATIONS (International) LTD.

Next, let us consider the effects of

velocity and thickness variations in
the near-surface layers. This is the
least well known part of the problem
and will have the greatest effect on the
statics solutions. In the processing of
land data, several simplifying assump-

-----------------

"Practical Software with Solid Support. "

805,603 - 7 AVENUE S.w., CALGARY, ALBERTA
T2P 2T5
TELEPHONE: (403) 261-4025

19

,
VI
TIME

SURFACE

BOUNDARY 1
REFRACTED WAVE

V1
Fig. 7. 77,e recording ala refraCled lI'ave along a
seismic spread. No refraCled energy reaches the
spread before the critical dislOllce Xc. 77,e refracted

tion is that when a seismic ray hits a

geological boundary, it is refracted or
'bent' by an amount depending on the
velocities of the two geological layers.
The amount of the refraction is
governed by Snell's Law, which states
that the ratio of the sines of the incident and refracted angles is equal to
the ratio of the velocities of the two
layers. As long as the velocity of the
lower layer is greater than the velocity
in the upper layer, there comes a point
where the refracted angle is equal to
ninety degrees, and a refracted wave
is set up which travels along the interface between the layers at the velocity
of the lower layer. This is shown in
Figure 7, as well as the distance at
which the first refracted wave will
reach the receivers, called the critical
distance. A theoretical plot of first
breaks from a surface shot is also
shown in Figure 7. If we consider
the geometry of the ray from shot S to
receiver R in Figure 7, the total traveltime can be shown to be
2 Zo cos ic
X
T =
Vo
+ ~, (2)
where ic = critical angle,
Vo

and sin ic = VI
The preceding equation is the equation for a straight line, where the first
term is the intercept time and the
second term contains the slope as the
inverse of the second layer velocity.
The intercept time will reveal the
depth 0 f the first layer, and the slope
of the line will reveal the velocity of

a situation in which a layer decreases

in velocity, the refraction will be
towards the normal, and there will be
no refraction from that particular
layer. This is called a low speed layer.
A related, and more common, situation is where either a layer is too thin
or has too small a velocity contrast to
be resolved by the refraction method.
This is called a 'hidden layer'.
Another complication is that of
dipping layers. In general, we can say
that the intercept time will be less at
the updip location than at the downdip
location, and that the slope of the first
breaks in the updip direction will be
less (and hence the velocity greater)
than in the downdip direction. However, the total traveltime is the same
in either the updip or downdip directions. This time is often referred to as
the reciprocal time.

lI'ave ol'ertakes the direct arrival at the distance

Xcro.u.

the second layer. This equation can be

generalized to more layers quite easily
by using the general form of Snell's
law.
Figure 7 assumed a shot on the
surface. The effect of a buried shot in
the first, or weathered, layer is to add
a delay which is equal to the up hole
time. In the figure, we also assumed
that the velocities of the near surface
layers increased with depth. If we have

REFRACTION
INTERPRETATION
PROCEDURES
Having looked at the basic theory
of seismic refraction, we are now in a
position to look at methods of interpretation of refracted arrivals which
are based on this theory. This area of
research has been active since the early
days of seismic prospecting. Generally, we may classify the approaches

CANJAY EXPLORATION (1975) LTD.

120 , 240 or 360 Channel Recording

1MS or 2MS Options
Track, Wheel Mounted
or Portable Operations

Telephone: 276-7566

#101, 4528 - 6A Street N.E.

Calgary, Alberta T2E 483

---------------------20--------------

Once we find the delay times, we

may compute the depths by simply
rearranging equation 3 for the depth
term. The difficult part is of course
finding the delay times for each individual receiver location. This is
done by finding the average intercept
time from both a forward and reverse
profile, and partitioning the intercept
time into its receiver and shot components.

The Reciprocal Method

The reciprocal method in various
forms has been one of the most
popular methods of refraction interpretation (Hawkins, 1961).
The basis of the method is the timedepth term, which is virtually identical
in definition to the delay time. The
time-depth term is best understood by
referring to Figure 10.
From this diagram, we can define
time-depth as
(4)
ZG cos ic
tG =
Vo
As you can see, this is identical in
form to the delay time. However, the
key difference is in how we find the
time-depth term. To find the timedepth for a particular geophone, con-

Fig. 8. A hand interpretation of a set of picked

first arrivals. Note that small wavelength anomalies
have been smoothed OUI.

that have been taken into the following headings:

- Slope/Intercept Method
- Delay Time Methods
- Reciprocal Methods
- The Generalized Linear Inverse
(GLI) Method
- The Time-Term Method.
Let us briefly consider each of these
methods.

The Slope/Intercept Method

This is the simplest method of interpreting first breaks, and follows
closely the theory that was discussed
in the previous section. The first step
is to fit slopes to a set of picked arrival
times, and thus find the seismic
velocities. Each slope is then extrapolated back to the shot location to find
the intercept time, and hence the
depth to a particular layer.
Figure 8 shows a hand interpretation of a set of picked first arrivals,
and the resulting geological model.
Notice that the method has found only
the very smoothly-varying component
of the near-surface, and that smaller
variations, such as those indicated -at
locations 141 and 161, have not been
accounted for correctly.

The Delay Time Method

The delay time (Barry, 1967) is
defined as the time between the datum
and the refractor minus the normal
projection of the raypath on the
refractor. Thus, the total travel path
has two delay times associated with it,
for the shot and the receiver, which
are given by the general form:
td =

Zd cos

ic

WE OFFER SEISMIC TELEMETRY

WITH FIELD PROCESSING SYSTEM
IN OUR

CONFAC

(3)

Vo
where td = delay time below shot
or receiver,
and 2'd = depth below shot or
receiver.
These definitions can be seen in
Figure 9.

WE ALSO SUPPLY EQUIPMENT

FOR:
MICROSEISMIC
WELL LOGGING
ENGINEERING SEISMIC
EDUCATION & RESEARCH
SHEAR WAVE GENERATION
VSP & SEISMIC TOMOGRAPHY
IMPULSIVE SOURCE TECHNIQUE

J'

TEK CANADA
(403) 250-2033

Fig. 9. The basic principles behind the delay time

method. Dip is assumed negligible in the vicinity of
the shot and receiver.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ _ 21

sider Figure 10 again. We simply add

the traveltimes from the bracketing
shot points, subtract the total time
from shotpoint to shotpoint (this is
defined as the reciprocal time), and
halve the result. In symbols, we can
define the time-depth as
tG = 1/2 (tSIG

tS2G - ts1S2) (5)

refractor surfaces. The key difference

between GRM and the classical
reciprocal method is that Palmer uses
a pair of geophones, which are
separated by a variable distance X,
rather than a single geophone. If the
distance X is zero, the method is identical to the reciprocal method.

inverse, or GLI, method (Hampson

and Russell, 1984).

The GLI Method

Fig. 10. 7111' basic concept of Ihe reciprocal

melhod. 7111' lime-deplh is defined as Ihe distallce
from Cia Pin Ihe diagram limes Ihe cosine of fhe
crilical all~le ie. divided by Ihe I'elocily of Va.

We can then transform the timedepth into the depth to the refractor
by using equation 4.
A more advanced form of the
reciprocal method is the generalized
reciprocal
method
(or GRM),
developed by Derecke Palmer (198 I).
The method is basically an extension
of the classical reciprocal method, but
has the advantages of good dip handling and recognition of very irregular

We have seen that all refraction

analysis methods assume some model
of the near-surface geology, and that
this model is normally a series of
layers
whose
thicknesses
and
velocities may vary both laterally and
vertically. Since first arrival times
depend on thickness and velocity, the
direct approach is to perform some
calculation using the observed breaks
which yields the parameters themselves, such as the slope/intercept
method, delay-time method, or
reciprocal method. Since these
methods make restrictive assumptions
about the model, an alternative
method is to iteratively build a model
of the subsurface based on the information provided by the first breaks.
This is called the generalized linear

MODIFY NEAR
SURFACE MODEL

Fig. I I. FlolI'chart \Ihich sholl's Ihe basic COllcepl

of refraci iOIl anall'sis by generalized linear
i/ll'ersion (G LI) (Hampson alld Russell. 1984).

Figure II illustrates the GLI

method in a non mathematical manner. The user inputs an initial guess of
the near-surface model which tells the

Wellgo to the
ends tif the earth

for your business.

When the seismic information you need is buried deep beneath the
frozen arctic tundra or the silty bed of a winding river, imbedded in a mountain of solid rock, or under marshy muskeg, there's only one place to call.
Sourcex Seismic. An established Canadian company with the specialized equipment, manpower and experience to get the job done-quickly,
accurately, completely.
With the help of multi-channel acquisition systems and the best
tracked equipment in the industry, our three fully qualified crews are
prepared to go to any extreme to get the data you need. Anytime.
Anywhere.

SDURCEE SEISMIC LTD.

Gordon Westwood. Brian Montgomery
318 Monument Place S.E., Calgary, Alberta T2A 1X3

(403)272-2520
Fax: \4031 2739193

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 22

program how many layers are expected

and
their
approximate
velocities and thicknesses. The program then performs a series of iterations in which the model breaks are

calculated by ray-tracing, compared

with the measured breaks, the model
is improved, and a new set of breaks
calculated. This procedure is repeated
until some acceptable correspondence

1.0

TIME
(SEC)

1.5

2.0

is reached between
model first breaks.

observed

and

Let us look at the application of the

method to a real dataset, chosen because it displayed both long and short
wavelength static anomalies. This is
demonstrated quite clearly in Figure
12, which is a brute stack of the line
with elevation and uphole corrections
applied. The long wavelength static
appears as a slowly varying structural
component with a maximum variation
across the line of about twenty milliseconds. The short wavelength component results in loss of continuity on
some of the weaker reflectors, especially the data above 900 msec, and
also in a vertical swath to the left side
of the low coverage gap.
In Figure 13, we see the same stack
after automatic refraction analysis. In
this result, both the long and short
wavelength statics solutions have been
improved. The removal of the long
period static results in a more structurally valid section without having to
resort to the artificial solution of flattening on a particular event. Also, as
we shall discuss in the next section,
residual statics programs based on the
correlation of reflection zones are
theoretically unable to solve for this
long period static pattern.

Fig. /2. A brute stack lI'itll elel'ation and upllole

corre("(ion onl)' (Hampson and Russell, 1984).

1.0

TIME
(SEC)

1.5

The short period statics solution

results in improved data continuity,
both in the events at 900 msec and
above, and also in the vertical swath
of data in the central part of the line.

2.0
Fig. 13. The same line as in Figl/re 12, bur after
al/tomatic G LI refraction statics analysis
(Hampson a/l(1 Rllssell, 1984).

The Time-Term Method

Until now in our discussion, all of
the methods that we have considered
involved deriving a geological model
of the subsurface and then calculating
static corrections from this model.
However, it is possible to derive the
statics themselves from the first arrivals without the intervening step of
deriving a model. Such methods have
been referred to as time-term. or least
squares,
methods
(Chun
and
Jacewitz, 1981).
To begin with, we may rewrite the
basic travel time equation as
Tij == Si

Fig. /4. A seismic se("(ion be/ore and after tile

applicalion 0/ a sllr/ace consistent time term
analysis (Chlln and Jacell'itz, 1981); (a) BrUle slOck

----------

0/ Canadian

data and (b) SlIr/ace consislent first

arrival statics-applied slOck.

23

+ Rj + Xij/V,

(6)

where Si == shot static at shot i,

R j == receiver static at
receiver j,
Xij == offset from receiver to
shot,
and
Tij == total travel time from
receiver to shot.

Now the problem can be set up as

a series of linear equations and solved
by Gauss-Seidel iteration. The problem can be further simplified by first
removing a linear moveout (LMO)
function from the first breaks. The
third term in the preceding equation
then becomes a residual moveout
term. Indeed, if the LMO term represents the true velocity from the second
layer and we consider only terms
which refract in the second layer,
equation 6 can be simplified so that
the third term is ignored entirely. Figure 14 is an example of a statics solution using a modified time-term
method.

a single CDP gather after NMO correction we can account for subtle errors in the deterministic statics solutions.

Correlation Statics
Figure 15 shows three seismic traces
A

In Figure 16 the result of cross-correlating trace A with both trace Band

C is shown. These cross-correlations
both look like auto-correlations except that the zero lag value has been
shifted, by -10 msec in the first case
and + 10 msec in the second. If these
shifts are applied to the original
traces, the result is three traces which
are aligned with one another. The
resulting stacked trace shows no
'smearing' of the events.

A+B+C

AUTOMATIC RESIDUAL
STATICS
In the previous sections on field
statics and refraction statics we have
assumed that the total component of
the static correction can be derived by
modeling the near-surface layer
velocities and thicknesses and computing a time shift which will strip
away the effects of the near-surface.
However, despite our best efforts, the
statics that are derived using these
methods do not appear to solve the
complete problem.
Why is it that we cannot compute
our total statics solution in a deterministic way? There are a number of
possible reasons for this. The most
obvious reason is that no matter how
well we think we know the velocities
and thicknesses of the near-surface,
the real earth is actually more complex
than our model tells us. The velocity
can vary both laterally and vertically
within a single layer due to changing
lithology. The thickness of the
weathered layer may vary rapidly due
to river deposition or glaciation. Thin
layers with abrupt lateral terminations
may have been left by terent localized
deposition patterns, or the water
table may have an effect on the
velocity distribution that is hard to
predict. Also, we know that the vertical ray approximation used in the
statics model is incorrect. The deviations of the raypath from vertical can
be quite significant and will impart an
error into the solution.
For the above reasons we need a
method for "fine-tuning" the statics
solution. Such a method was
developed in the late sixties and early
seventies using the technique of reflection correlation. That is, we assume
that by aligning the reflections within

side by side and their resulting sum or

stack. The traces appear identical except for positive and negative time
shifts. The result of summing these
three traces is that the individual
events are now 'smeared' in time when
compared to the original traces.

Fig. 15. A Ihree Irace Slack. where Ihe /races are

out o{ alignl11ell/.

This simple example illustrates the

basic idea behind computing residual
statics. Individual unstacked traces
are corrected for field static and
NMO, and are cross-correlated with
some reference trace to compute an
optimum time shift which will remove
the static problem completely. The
problem is in determining the reference trace to use and in deciding how

0Jenotes x -corr
A x 8

A+B+C

A@C

o lAG

_--<i:=:....:.-.:t.l.ILJ----,

Fig. 16. The cross-correlation of traces A and B.

and A and C. and Ihe resulling Slack afler Ihe
indicaled shijis have been applied.

PIONEER
EXPLORATION INC.

Donald Good
Marinus Snyders
Dallas Felix

DFS V 120 TRACE, WHEEL OR BUGGIES

7032 Farrell Rd. S.E.
Calgary, Alberta T2H OT2

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 24

BUS. (403) 255-3353

CROSS-eORRELATION STATICS EXAMPLE

0.5

TIME

(sec)

1.0

BEFORE

AFTER

Fig. 17. A sel 0/600% CDP galhers be/ore and

ajier Ihe applicalion v/ corre/aliOlI slalics.

believable each shift is. Figure 17

shows a set of 600% COP gathers
before and after the application of
correlation statics. Notice that the
method has done a good job of lining
up the events just below 0.7 sec. This
approach can be used for computing
our final statics, but it will not resolve
major lateral statics problems on our
line. In the next section we will look
at the more general surface-consistent
statics approach.

~HOT

I
RECEIVER J'1
~~-,""",,,-,SURfACE

SHOT
STATIC

BASE WEATHERING

--:;L--},:---------\-----......:::"=t==~===-_I_-----

POSSIBLE
RNMO

Linear Surface Consistent

Residual Statics Method
We often observe static patterns
that move with the same geophone
group spacing as the shot rollalong.
This is referred to as a surface consistent static pattern. Since the same
static pattern will be spread over different CDP gathers, it cannot be
solved by simply computing the crosscorrelations of traces in a CDP gather
with the pilot traces derived from the
COP gather itself. Therefore, we must
derive both the shot and receiver components of the statics in an independent way. Figure 18 shows that
there are four possible sources for the
observed static: the shot component,
the receiver component, an RNMO
component, and a structural component. The source and receiver terms
are referred to as the surface-consistent components, and represent the
statics solution. The structure and
RNMO terms are subsurface consis-

DATUM

=~l'---

__::::REFlECTOR

STRUCTURE
CHANGE

Fig. 18. A simplified cross-seclion o/Ihe eOrlh

sholl'ing sllr/ace and subsurface consis/eJle)'.

tent and must not be included in the

statics solution.
To solve for the four components
shown in Figure 18, we must set up an
equation of the form
Tj j = Sj

where Si
Rj

and

Rj

Gk

MkXi/, (7)

shot static for ith shot,

receiver static for jth
receiver,
Gk = structure term for kth
COP position,
Mk = time averaged RNMO
at kth COP,
Xij = offset from shot i to
receiver j,
Tij = total static value.
=
=

---------------------25--

Equations like that shown in 7 are

referred to as linear equations. These
equations consist of a number of observations (the values Tij) from which
the parameters (S, R. G, and M) must
be solved. Although we generally
think sets of linear equations in which
the number of parameters is equal to
the number of observations, in
geophysical problems we usually have
the situation in which the number of
unknowns is not equal to the number
of parameters. Wiggins et al (1976)
show that, in the statics problem, the
number of parameters and observations are always deficient by 13 equations. This means that there is no

unique solution to the statics problem.

Howcver, by using the following
averaging technique, we can converge
to a rcasonable solution:
(I) First we sum over the common shot positions to get an estimate of the shot static.

(3) Next, we sum over the CDP

e

(4) Finally, to get the RNMO

values we sum over the CDP
traces after weighting them
with a factor equal to the
offset squared.
We then iterate tHrough this calculation and measure the error after
each iteration, hopefully converging
to a solution. In practice it has been
found that three iterations through the
above proced ure is usually enough to

(2) Next, we sum over the common receiver positions to get

an estimate of the receiver
static.

traces to get the structural component.

produce a satisfactory result. We

should also note that this procedure is
often referred to as Gauss-Seidel iteration.

It should be noted that the surface

consistent approach, while producing
the best overall statics, does not
produce the best individual statics
within an individual CDP gather. For
this reason, it is often advisable to run
a final trim or correlation static computation on your data prior to final
stack.
Figure 19 shows the effect of
statics in a particularly bad case.
Notice that there is a lack of any event
continuity on the line. Figure 20 shows
the result of applying a surface consistent statics analysis to the line.

Nonlinear Surface Consistent

Residual Statics
An interesting approach to the solution of large statics anomalies has
been proposed by Daniel Rothman
(1985, 1986). The algorithm which he
proposed, called simulated annealing,
uses a Monte Carlo optimization technique which solves the statics problem
in a way that is similar to sudden
crystallization in a melt. Keeping up

Fig. 19. A II illpur swck hefore swrics applicatioll

(Wififiim el a/. /976).

SUPPLYING THE GEOPHYSICAL PROFESSION

compU*STAR
(403) 259-4131

Asr Premium/286

Asr Premium/386

6, 8, or 10M Hz Opcration
80286 Based Processor
MS-DOS and GW-BASIC
I MB High Speed RAM
14" Enhanced Color Monitor
42 M B Hard Drive

20 MHz, 80386 Processor

I MB High Speed RAM
MS-DOS and GW-BASIC
Compatible With AST
MS-OS/2. XENITH 386
and Windows 386
14" Enhanced Color Monitor
80 M B Hard Drive
Call for Corporate Pricing

A Iso Available
AST Premium1386 - 25 M Hz Systems
Math Co-Processors, MONOICGA/EGA/VGA Monitors, 9 & 24-Pin Printers,
1200/2400 Baud Internal & External Modems. Laser Printers. and Lap-Top Computers
105,5720 Macleod Trail South. Calgary, Alberta T2H OJ6

---------------------26-------

this physical analogy, the statics are

like molecules, and the algorithm allows the "temperature" of the system
to change while keeping the
"molecules" in thermal equilibrium.
Although this method is nonlinear, it
preserves the surface consistent approach of the other methods.
Rothman also uses the concept of
stack power, introduced by Ronen
and Claerbout (1985), to measure the
effectiveness of his method. Stack
power is a po\\'(~r estimate based on the
sum of the squared amplitudes of the
CMP section. The best estimate of the
statics is thus the solution which maximizes stack power. This method utilizes the stack power concept by first
randomly generating sets of statics.
After the random statics have been
generated, they are applied to the
data. and a stack is generated. If stack
power is plotted as a function of iteration, a point is reached at which the
true statics suddenly crystallize. This
is best illustrated by an example. The
example is taken from the overthrust
belt of Wyoming. Figure 21 (a) shows
the input stack with no statics applied.
Figure 21 (b) shows the result after
1000 iterations of the method, and the
result is actually worse than the first
stack. However, Figure 21 (c) shows the
final result after 1835 iterations, and is a
dramatic improvement. The "crystalization" of the solution happened at about
1200 iterations, as can be seen by the
stack power in Figure 22.

INTERPRETATIVE
CONSIDERATIONS
Now that we have looked at the nuts
and bolts of static corrections, we
shall consider how to make sure that
a good statics solution has been obtained on the final stack. There are
three reasons why we would like a
good static solution. These are:
eto obtain a correct structural
interpretation,
eto obtain a good stratigraphic
interpretation, and
eto optimize the overall quality
of the seismic reflections.
It is important to realize that any
one of the above criteria can be met
without satisfying the other two. That
is. we may have obtained a very good
long period static solution without the
equivalent improvement in the short
period static solution. Or we may have
obtained the short period static solution without the long period solution.
Or, finally, we may have obtained
good alignment within each CDP

----------

Fig. 20. 7711' sallie s/llck as in Fif;ure 19. hUI afier

Ihe applicOlion ofsurface colISislent residual Slalics
(11 'iggillS 1'1 01, 1976).
InpuL St.ack
100

1000 It.eraLion.
100

Fig. 21, Results 0/ the sillll/lated annealing

algorill/ln: (a) An inpm slOck lI'ith 110 statics
applied. (Rolhman. 1985): (b) The result of Ihe
silllulaled annealing lIIethod applied 10 the Slack of

1835 It.eraLion.
100

(a). T1Iis lI'as ajier 1000 iterations of Ihe melhod.

(Rolhman. 1985)0/111 (c) Final Slack flfler Ihe 1835
ilerations of Ihe silllulaled annealing algorill/ln
(Rothman. 1985).

Stack Power
LJ)

...

....

"CD

oQ.

500

1000
i terot ion

1500

2000

Fig, 22. A pial oflhe slOck po\l'erfor rhe results of

Figure 21

27

gather without taking proper care to

make sure that each stacked trace has
the proper physical relationship with
the other stacked traces.
Let us first look at the structural
problem. The fact that near surface
effects can cause problems in the long
period statics solution suggests that
these long period anomalies can be
propagated through the seismic section. In most cases, the fact that the
same structure is visible on all
horizons will indicate to the interpreter that the structure is due to a
static. However, the structure could
be the result of a very late intrusion,
and therefore it would be preferable to
remove the apparent structure if it is
indeed due to statics.
As we have seen, the best way to
remove such a structure is to perform
a refraction statics analysis, since
reflection statics can not resolve any
static with a period longer than a cable
length. Figures 12 and 13 showed the
removal of an apparent structure
using such a refraction statics method.
Notice that the seismic events are now
reasonably flat. While this is quite
uninteresting, it is highly preferable to
drilling an incorrect structure.
Next, consider the stratigraphic
case. Stratigraphic interpretation involves the interpretation of subtle
changes in reflection character. We
often consider that the main processing consideration for a stratigraphically correct interpretation is the
wavelet processing technique used.
Equally important is the high frequency statics solution. If this solution is
not correct, there will be a misalignment of the reflections across each
CDP gather, resulting in the destructive interference of reflection character. A poor alignment of the traces
within a CDP gather can result in loss
of reflection continuity, and therefore
a loss in interpretibility of the section.
Figure 23 shows a simple example of
this loss of reflection continuity.
Finally, how do we check to see if
our statics solutions is correct? There
are three main ways in which to check
the validity of the solution:
- By looking at the statics themselves. The receiver and shot
statics should contain the same
information at the same surface
locations. That is, the solution
should be surface-consistent.
-By looking at the prestack data.
Events should be flat prior to
stack.

10

100

300

4-00

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 23. n,l' effect ofhighji'equellcy slatics Oil/he

stacked trace. where (a) is a twe/l'e trace gatlrerafter
NMO. hili wi/Ir sla/ics. (b) is tire stack of (a)

(repealed six tillles). alld (c) is tire stack with 110

statics (repeated six tillles). Notice the phase
diSTOrtion 011 tire stacked traces ill (b).

-By looking at the stacked data.

Structural and stratigraphic
validity should be upheld.

are not too large and may have to use

some datum other than a perfectly flat
one, such as a floating datum, in complex areas. In extremely complex
areas, the approximations inherent in
the vertical static correction may be
too great, and we may have to use a
wave-equation datuming method
(Berryhill, 1979, 1984, 1986). This
method, which was not discussed in
this paper, is commonly used in the
case of a complex marine water bottom.
A second key point is that no one
method that we have discussed can
solve the complete statics problem. If
we look at this from an historical
perspective, there have been different
periods of time in which geophysicists
thought the problem was solved. For
example, in predigital days, field
statics and refraction statics were considered to be the complete solution.
Then, in the wake of the success that
residual statics programs had when
they were first developed (mid to
late 1970's), it was felt that the statistical methods alone were the answer.
However, the consensus now is that

SUMMARY AND
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we have had a brief
look at the subject of statics corrections in seismic processing. We have
reviewed the assumptions behind the
statics correction, the methods used to
compute these corrections, the
problems encountered with our assumptions and procedures, and the
effectiveness of statics corrections in
the overall processing flow. Let us
summarize the key points.
First of all, the assumption that the
static correction is a vertical shift of
the seismic trace is an approximation
to reality. This is equally true of the
NMO or dynamic correction, which is
the companion to the static correction. Despite the approximate nature
of the static correction, however, it
works quite well. We must be careful
to pick a datum that is close to the
surface so that the statics corrections

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _29

each method has its own place in adding to the complete statics solution.
Field and refraction statics supply the
long wavelength component, whereas
residual methods supply the shorter
wavelength part of the solution.
In summary, no single technique
will completely solve the statics problem. It is only by iterating through a
number of methods, and by carefully
interpreting the solutions, that a
geologically valid seismic section can
be produced which will aid the interpreter in his or her quest for the
geophysical holy grail, finding oil!

Rothman, D.H., 1985. Nonlinear inversion, statistical mechanics, and

residual
statics
estimation:
Geophysics, V 50, p. 2784-2796
_ _~1986. Automatic estimation
of large residual
statics correc-

tions: Geophysics, V 51, p. 332346.

Wiggins, R.A., Lamer, K.L., and
Wisecup, R.D., 1976.
Residual
statics analysis as a general linear
problem:
Geophysics, V 41, p.
922-938.

REFERENCES
Barry, K. M., 1967. Delay time
and its application to refraction
profile intelpretation, in Seismic
Refraction
Prospecting: A. W.
Musgrave, Ed., S.E. G., Tulsa, p.
348-361.
Bel'lyhi//, J.R., 1979. Wave-equation
datuming: Geophysics. V 44, p.
1329-1344.
1984.
Wave-equation
datuming
before
stack:
Geophysics, V 49, p. 2064-2066
_ _ _ _ _ _---!.1986.
Submarine
canyons: Velocity replacement by
wave-equation datuming before
stack: Geophysics, V 51, p. 15721579.

Chun, J.H., and Jacewitz, CA.,

1981. The first arrival time surface and estimation of statics:
Presented at the 51st
Annual
Meeting of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Los Angeles.
Hampson, D., and Russell, B., 1984.
First-break
intelpretation using
generalized lineal' inversion: Journal of the C.S.E.G., V 20, p. 4554.

TE

ORKANDTECHNOLOGY
COMBINING TO PRODUCE
STATE OF THE ART

/
/
,,

EISMIC DATA PROCESSING

-INVEST-SIERRA WORKSTATION-

-FULL 2D AND 3D SEISMIC PROCESSING-GREEN MOUNTAIN REFRACTION STATICS

Hawkins, L. V, 1961. The reciprocal

method of routine shallow seismic
refraction
investigations:
Geophysics, V 26, p. 806-819.
Palmer, D., 1981. The generalized
reciprocal method of
seismic
refraction intelpretation: S.. G.,
Tulsa.
Ronen, J., and Claerbout, J.F., 1985.
Swface-consistent residual statics
estimation by stack-power maximization: Geophysics, V 50, p.
2759-2767.

-LASER

.~~~

SCANNING-

~=..:.
~=
-- - -

~~.==.====

~=

TECHNDI OGY INC.

237-9313

400, 540 . 5th Avenue SW.

Calgary, Alberta T2P OM2

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 30