AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

© 2013, Science Huβ, http://www.scihub.org/AJSIR

ISSN: 2153-649X, doi:10.5251/ajsir.2013.4.3.272.276

Comparison of seismic processing and interpretation tradeoffs between

Kirchoff and finite-difference migrations, using poststack migrated data
in the west Niger Delta, Nigeria
Etim D. Uko1, Chibuogwu L. Eze2, and Godswill I. Alaminiokuma1
1
Department of Physics, 2Institute of Geosciences and Space Technology,
Rivers State University of Science and Technology, P.M.B.5080,
Nkpolu-Oroworukwo, Port Harcourt, Nigeria
ABSTRACT
The Kirchoff and Finite-Difference migrations were carried out on seismic data from the western
part of the Niger Delta of Nigeria. The survey for the acquisition of the data was oriented south-
o
west-north-east, at an angle of 45.4490 . The KIRCH and FXMIG seismic migration programs
were used to process and display the seismic sections. The sections were interpreted for
diffractions, faults, and structures. It was observed that the dipping structures were incorrectly
positioned downdip from the true reflection point. Prior to migration, the dipping structures were
steeper and longer. For both Kirchoff and Finite-Difference migrations, there was proper imaging
of the dipping structures. The structures were accurately moved updip and diffractions collapsed.
The faulting pattern is a growth fault system as is generally the case in the Niger Delta basin. The
reflectors became shorter, anticlines more clearly defined, and reflection events terminating at
fault planes. Finite-Difference migration is preferred because it is faster, handles velocity variation
and noise better, and events appearance is sufficiently distinctive for the interpreter to find traps,
seals and reservoirs.

Key words: Kirchoff, Finite-difference, migration, seismic, processing, interpretation, Niger Delta,
Nigeria

INTRODUCTION the identification of hydrocarbon traps by seismic

Migration is a procedure that repositions dipping
reflectors to their true subsurface locations and
collapses diffractions thereby delineating detailed
subsurface features such as fault planes. In regions of
complex geology, the stacked seismic section may
suggest a confusing and ambiguous interpretation of
the subsurface lithology. In this case, migration moves
each reflector element to a location appropriate to the
reflector. Thus, a migrated seismic section is used to
calculate: amount of horizontal movement, amount of
vertical movement, amount of shortening of the
dipping structure, collapses diffraction and changes
dip angle of anticlines (Gardner et al., 1974). Seismic
migration therefore provides image of the earth’s
subsurface for seismic interpreters to decide on
prospective location of hydrocarbon traps.
The objectives of this study are to compare the
tradeoffs of Kirchoff migration with that of Finite-
difference migration on seismic data. A good
understanding of both migration methods can aid in
interpreters.
Kirchoff migration model: Kirchoff migration is a
solution of the scalar wave equation that is analogous
to diffraction summation (Stolt and Benson, 1986;
Schneider, 1978). The integral solution of the scalar
wave equation gives the output wave field Pout (x, z, t)
at a subsurface location (x, z) from the zero-offset
wave field Pin (xin, z = 0, t), which is measured at the
surface (z = 0). The integral solution used in seismic
migration has two terms:
1  cos  r cos   r
2   r 2
Pout ( x, z, t )  dx Pin ( xin , z  0, t  )  Pin ( xin , z  0, t  )
v vr t v
(1)
Where  is the root-mean-square (rms) velocity at the
2 2
output point (x, z) and r = [(xin – x) + z ], which is the
distance between the input (xin, z = 0) and output (x, z)
points. This equation was used to obtain the migrated
section at an output time, τ, and was evaluated at z =
τ/2. Imaging principle was used by mapping
 Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2013, 4(3): 272-276

amplitudes of the resulting wave field at τ = 0 unto the Finite-Difference migration represents the process of
migrated section at output time, τ. lowering the shot/receiver positions down through the
earth. As we step down through the earth, we
Kirchoff migration uses the Kirchoff summation for
calculate the wave field which would have been
migration of dipping events. These methods are the
recorded if the shot/receiver were at that depth. The
summing of the amplitudes along the hyperbola and
finite difference migration critical parameter is the
placing it at its apex. The migration parameter of
depth step size. An optimum depth step size is the
Kirchoff migration is the aperture width. The aperture
largest depth step. It depends on temporal and spatial
width is the critical parameter in Kirchoff migration
sampling, dip velocity and frequency. It also depends
(Rastogi et al., 1997). A small aperture width causes
on the type of differencing scheme used in the
removal of steep dips preventing spatial aliasing. It
algorithm (Yilmaz, 2001).
generates spurious horizontal events, organizes the
random noise uncorrelated from trace to trace The advantages of Finite-difference method are: it
(Yilmaz, 2001; Yilmaz et al., 1987a and 1987b). makes no approximations to the acoustic equation and
o
in theory can migrate true dips to 90 ; there is no
The merits of Kirchoff migration method include full
dispersion out to Nyquist frequencies; it is inexpensive
wave equation solution, limited only by finite aperture
compared to other methods (Ristow and Ruhl, 1994;
size. The method performs well with steep dip, and
Guan-Guan et al., 1988).
weighting schemes can easily be applied to combat
noise. The method is also adaptable to migration The pitfalls in Finite-difference method are: it cannot
before stack. However, Kirchoff’s pitfalls include accommodate multivalued velocity points on section;
difficulty in handling lateral velocity variation. The distortion occurs where time-velocity functions vary
method is expensive and can also enhance noise rapidly; it has great difficulty honouring lateral changes
(Jain and deFigueiredo, 1982; Carter and Frazier, in velocity; noisy sections appear mixed or wormy; it is
1984). expensive because of data transfer operations in the
Table 1: Subjective summary
recursive algorithm (Jain and deFigueiredo, 1982).
Jain and deFigueiredo (1982) give a subjective
Space Finite- Kirc
summary that indicates the trade-offs in the two
difference hoff
techniques; 1 represents best performance, 3
Cost 2 3 represents worst performance:
Velocity variation 1 2 Geology of the niger delta: The Niger Delta is
situated at the West African margin of the Gulf of
Steep dip 3 1 Guinea. The stratigraphic sequence of the Niger Delta
Dispersion 3 2 basin has been described by Short and Stauble
(1967), Ofoegbu (1985), Uko et al. (1992) and other
Treatment of noise 1 3 workers. The Delta is composed of three major
Cosmetic appearance 1 2 structural Formations: Akata, Agbada and Benin (Fig.
1).
Before stack 3 1
Computer time 1 3

Finite-difference migration model: The migration is

based on an algorithm of the type “finite difference”
which solves the acoustic wave equation in the space-
frequency (x, f) domain. Finite-difference migration
uses the principle of downward continuation, based on
the differential solution to the scalar wave equation
(Yilmaz, 2001):

 2Q v 2  2Q
 (2)
t 8y 2 Fig. 1:Structural section of the Niger Delta
Complex showing Benin, Agbada and Akata
Where Q is the retarded wave field, t is the input time, formations (Short and Stauble, 1967; Weber and
τ is the output time, and y is the midpoint coordinates. Daukuru, 1973; Whiteman, 1982).

273

The Benin Formation is the upper alluvial coastal
plain depositional environment of the Niger Delta
Complex. It extends from the west Niger Delta across
the entire Niger Delta area and to the south beyond
the present coastline. The formation was deposited in
a continental fluviatile environment and composed
almost entirely of non-marine sandstone. It consists
of coarse-grained sandstones, gravel lignite streaks
and wood fragments with minor intercalation of
shales. Benin Formation is of Miocene to younger
age and has a variable thickness that exceeds 1820
m. In the subsurface, it is of Oligocene age in the
north becoming progressively younger southwards
but ranges from Miocene to Recent as generally
accepted. Very little hydrocarbon accumulation has
been associated with this formation (Short and
Stauble, 1967).
The Agbada Formation underlies the Benin
Formation. It was laid down in paralic brackish to
marine fluviatile, coastal environments. It is made up
mainly of alternating sandstone, silt and shale. The
sandstones are poorly sorted, rounded to sub-
rounded, slightly consolidated but majority are
unconsolidated. The sandstones grade into shale in
the lower part of the formation. Agbada Formation
ranges in age from Eocene in the north to Pliocene in
the south. The sandy parts of the formation are
known to constitute the main hydrocarbon reservoirs
of the delta oil fields and the shales constitute seals
to the reservoirs. The thickness of the formation
reaches a maximum of about 4500 m (Short and
Stauble, 1967).
Fig. 2: (a) Unmigrated, (b) Kirchoff-migrated, and (c) Finite-difference-migrated seismic section line 3310
Figs. 2b and 3b show Kirchoff-migrated sections.
The main faults are highlighted using the red lines in
274
Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2013, 4(3): 272-276
The Akata Formation is the lowest unit of the Niger
Delta complex. It is composed of mainly shale with
sandstones and siltstones locally interbedded. The
Formation becomes shalier with depth. It was
deposited in a marine environment and has a
thickness, which may reach 7000 m in the central
part of the delta. The Akata Formation outcrops
offshore in diapirs along the continental slope, and
onshore in the northeastern, where they are called
Imo Shale. The age of the Akata Formation ranges
from Eocene to Recent (Short and Stauble, 1967).
METHODOLOGY
For Kirchoff method, KIRCH software was used to
produce an interpretable seismic image of the
subsurface. This KIRCH package applies numerous
signal processing operations to the enormous
amount of raw seismic data. For Finite-difference
migration, FIXMIG package was also used on the
same seismic data to produce an interpretable
seismic image of the subsurface. The processed
sections were then interpretated for diffractions,
faults, and structures.
RESULTS FROM FIELD EXAMPLES AND
DISCUSSION
Figs. 2a and 3a show the unmigrated seismic
sections in which diffractions are not very
conspicuous but are subtly expressed in the areas
under the red circles. The dipping seismic reflection
events are observed to be incorrectly positioned.
The dipping events are steeper and longer.
Anticlines are also observed.
the figure. The fault planes are accurately positioned
and the fault blocks on the migrated section clearly

defined and delineated. Application of the Kirchoff
migration moves dipping events updip and collapses
Fig. 3: Unmigrated, Kirchoff-migrated, and Finite-difference-migrated seismic section Line 3340
On the seismic sections shown in Figs.2c and 3c,
Finite difference migration also clearly defines main
faults. There is also repositioning of dipping seismic
reflection events. Dipping event is steeper and
shorter. Here, the anticlines are located at their true
positions and the anticlines are narrower. But
comparing Kirchoff migration with Finite-difference
migration, it can be observed that the resolution of
Finite difference migration is better than that of
Kirchoff migration.
Comparing Figs. 2 and 3, it can be observed that the
Finite-difference migration has a better resolution
than the Kirchoff migration as follows:
(a) The discontinuities (faults) found along the
anticlines are sharper and well defined and
can be seen easily.
(b) The faulting pattern is a growth fault system
as is generally the case in the Niger Delta
basin.
(c) The length of the dipping events in the Finite-
difference is shorter than Kirchoff.
(d) Finite-difference has a higher frequency
content which shows up as the sharpness of
the reflectors.
(e) Finite difference yields more accurate
estimates of reflectors amplitudes in place of
lateral velocity variation.
(f) In the Kirchoff, the bottom simulating reflector
vanishes near the bottom simulating reflector.
But the finite difference images bottom
simulating reflector is better and is
275
Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2013, 4(3): 272-276
diffraction to an extent, thus allowing the delineation
of faults, and shortens the lengths of reflectors.
continuous and cuts across the bottom
simulating reflector and does not vanish.
The seismic sections shown in Figs. 2 and 3 are the
effects of the Kirchoff and Finite-difference migration
methods. An interesting part is the mid-section where
the amplitude tends to vanish. This would indicate the
presence of a signal anomaly. This shows the
presence of the appraisal units, which are placed to
drain the left flank of the reservoir. This would ensure
maximum draining of the optimal use of the natural
drive from the gas cap. Major faults tend to the right-
hand side of the reservoir units, while minor boundary
faults can also be seen.
CONCLUSION
The Kirchoff migration and Finite-Difference
migration have their individual significant
advantages. Kirchoff migration is based on the
integral solution to the scalar wave equation. It can
o
handle up to 90 but can be cumbersome in
handling lateral velocity variation.
Finite difference migration is based on the
differential solution of the wave equation. Finite-
Difference handles all types of velocity variation but
has different degrees of dip approximation.
Furthermore, differencing schemes if carelessly
designed can severely degrade the intended dip
approximation.
Kirchoff migration is the most flexible migration
algorithm and can be implemented in 2D and 3D, pre-
stack and post-stack as well as time or depth
migration. Kirchoff migration can also be implemented
to migrate shear and converted waves, dip filter and

interpolate the input data and cope with spatially
aliased data.
Finite-Difference is more efficient and will perform
better in the presence of velocity variation. This
includes lateral velocity variations with greater
accuracy than phase shift or Kirchoff implementation.
Although, the goal of both Kirchoff and Finite-
difference wave equation migrations is to properly
image the subsurface, they differ in many ways. The
first difference is that the two migrations are in
separate domains. The Kirchoff migration is in the
offset domain while the wave equation is in the angle
domain (Larner and Hatton, 1990).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are very grateful to the Geosolutions
Department, Shell Petroleum Development Company
of Nigeria for provision of data.
REFERENCES
Berkhout, A. J (1980). Seismic migration. Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Carter, J. A and Frazier, l. N (1984). Accommodating lateral
velocity changes in Kirchoff migration by means of
Fermat’s principle. Geophysics, 49, 46 - 53.
Gardner, G. H. F., French, W. S and Matzuk, T (1974).
Elements of migration and velocity analysis.
Geophysics, 39, 811 - 825.
Guan-Quan, Z., Shu-Lun, Z., Ying-Xiang, W and Chau-
Ying, L (1988). A new algorithm for finite-difference
migration of steep dips. Geophysics, 53 (2), 167 - 175.
Jain, K. C and deFigueiredo, R. J. P (1982). Concepts and
Techniques in oil and gas exploration. SEG, Tulsa,
USA, pp. 115 - 157.
276
Am. J. Sci. Ind. Res., 2013, 4(3): 272-276
Larner, Ken and Hatton, Les (1990). Wave equation
migration: two approaches. First Break, 8, no. 12, 433 -
448.
Rastogi, R., Yerneni, S and Phadke, S (1997). Aperture
width selection criterion in Kirchoff migration.
Ristow, D and Ruhl, T (1994). Fourier finite-difference
migration. Geophysics, 59, No. 12, 1882 - 1893.
Schneider, W. A (1978). Integral formulation for migration in
two and three dimensions: Geophysics, 43, 49 - 73.
Short K. C. and Stauble, A (1967). Outline of Geology of
Niger Delta, America Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bull., 51, 761 – 779.
Ofoegbu, C. O (1985). A review of the geology of the
Benue Trough, Nigeria, J. Afr. Earth Sci., 3, 283 – 291.
Stolt, R. H and Benson, A (1986). Seismic Migration:
Theory and Practice: in Handbook of Geophysical
Exploration, Volume 5. Geophysical Press, London,
UK.
Uko, E. D., Ekine, A. S., Ebeniro, J. O., and Ofoegbu, C. O
(1992). Weathering structure of east central Niger
Delta, Nigeria, Geophysics, 57 (9), 1228 – 1233.
Weber, K. J., Daukuru, E. M (1975). Petroleum geological
aspects of the Niger Delta, Journal of Mining Geology,
12, 9 – 12.
Whiteman, A (982). Nigeria: Its petroleum geology,
resource and potential, London.
Yilmaz, O (2001). Seismic data processing, Society of
Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK.
Yilmaz, O., Chambers, R., Nichols, D and Abma, R
(1987a). Part 1 - Fundamentals of three-dimensional
migration. The Leading Edge, 6, No. 11, 22 - 30.
Yilmaz, O., Chambers, R., Nichols, D and Abma, R
(1987b). Fundamentals of three-dimensional migration
part 2. The Leading Edge, 6, No. 12, 26 - 33.