MIGRATION in practice

version 1.0 released 29/1/99

Contents
• Introduction

• Migration Theory
○ Zero-offset Migration
○ Kirchhoff Migration
○ Time and Depth Migration
○ Downward Continuation
○ Finite-Difference (Implicit) Migration
○ FX (explicit) Migration
○ FK migration
○ Hybrid migrations
○ Modelling
○ Movement due to migration
○ Prestack Migration

• 3D Migration
• Migration Velocity Field
• Data Preparation
• Migration in Practice
○ Choice of algorithm
○ Kirchhoff Migration
○ Stolt Migration
○ Gazdag migration
○ Finite Difference migration
○ FX Migration

return to contents

INTRODUCTION
Migration of seismic data moves dipping events to their correct positions, collapses
diffractions, increases spatial resolution and is probably the most important of all
processing stages. Migration theory has been long established but restricted computer
power has driven the industry to a bewildering array of ingenious methods to perform
and enhance the accuracy of migration. It could be argued that much of the past research
has been directed towards doing migration less wrong rather than doing it right.
Certainly there has been more research into migration algorithms than the critical factor
of determining the correct velocity model to use. With today's availability of cheap
computer power modern practice tends towards doing migration as correctly as possible
rather than as cheaply as possible. Most migration algorithms have good points and bad
points and work better in some data areas than in others. As in much of processing the
choice of which migration algorithm to apply is rather subjective. In this section we
introduce the basic theory of migration and discuss the various methods and
terminology which have built up over the last 30 years. Yilmaz (1987) and Bancroft
(1998) contain many further details and examples of migration.
return to contents

BASIC THEORY
ZERO-OFFSET MIGRATION
The theory of zero-offset migration is important since the stacking process simulates a
zero-offset section as well as attenuating noise and multiples. The migration process is
referred to as poststack migration or zero-offset migration. If the stack does not produce
a good approximation to the zero-offset section then prestack migration must be
performed prior to stacking. Due to the data volumes involved, prestack migration takes
at least the fold of the data longer to compute than poststack migration.
 The
adjacent
figure (a)
shows a
zero-offset
seismic
experiment
conducted
over a
constant
velocity
medium.
Sources
and
receivers
are marked
by red dots.
The image
of dipping
reflector
dip β
results in
seismic
section (b)
where the
reflection
point is
plotted in
green
below the
receiver at
a time
equal to it's
reflection
time (t1-
t4). On the
seismic
section, the
dip α and position of the reflector are incorrect and an interpretation of this section
would be in error. The equation shown in (b) relates the dip before and after migration.
The maximum dip on the seismic section of 45o corresponds to a reflector dip of 90o. By
taking a semicircular arc equal to the travel time from each of the recorded positions
and constructing a line at tangent to the arcs the true migrated position of the reflector is
discovered (c). The process of migration makes the resulting image look like the true
geological structure. Migration is sometimes also called imaging. The migration process
has moved the reflection up-dip and the migrated segment (blue) is steeper and shorter
than the reflection segment (green). Frequencies will be lower on the migrated segment.
In the diagram the velocity is assumed to equal 1 so the vertical axis of time and depth
are interchangeable. For the migration to be correct (figure (a)) the vertical axis of (c)
would be in depth and would require the velocity to be known (in order to convert from
the recorded time section to the migrated depth section).
KIRCHHOFF MIGRATION
The earliest
methods of
migration by
hand used the
semicircular
construction
shown in the
adjacent figure
(a) for the
migration of a
single point
shown in green.
The migrated
result shown in
blue is a
semicircle in a
constant
velocity
medium. This
result is also
called the
impulse
response of a
process and is
especially
useful since a
seismic section
can be
considered to
consist of a
series of spikes
- the migrated
reflectors will
occur where the
semicircles
constructively
interfere. This
is called
Hagedoorn
migration where the amplitude of the spike on the input time section is distributed along
a semicircle on the output migrated time section. Destructive interference will cancel
out noise, but sometimes residual semicircular smiles are seen in the resulting section as
a result of noise.
In (b) of the adjacent figure the constant velocity semicircle construction is used to
migrate a hyperbolic diffraction curve (green) to it's migrated position (blue point)
where the semicircles interfere. An alternative method would be to sum the amplitudes
along the hyperbola and place the summed amplitude at the apex. This latter form of
migration formed the basis for the first computer algorithms and is called diffraction
summation, diffraction stack or more generally Kirchhoff migration. In the figure (c) a
Kirchhoff summation is illustrated for migration of a dipping event. The zero-offset
section is considered to be a superposition of diffractors at each time sample (Huygen's
Principal). The diffractors interfere to form coherent events and individual diffractions
may be visible at discontinuities such as faults. At each output time migrated position
(shown by the blue dots and line) the amplitudes of the input zero-offset time data
(green dots and line) are summed along a series of hyperbolas controlled by the velocity
field (some of which are illustrated). Maximum amplitudes will occur at the migrated
event, otherwise the amplitudes will be minimal.
return to contents

TIME AND DEPTH MIGRATION

A major difference in migration algorithms arises from the way the velocity field is
utilised. In the early 1970's when migration algorithms were being developed the
computer power was so limited that several approximations were introduced in order to
get programs to run in anything like a reasonable time. These assumptions led to time-
migration - a process which collapses diffractions and moves dipping events toward the
true position but leaves the migrated image with a time axis which must be depth
converted at a later stage. Time migration assumes that the diffraction shape is
hyperbolic and ignores ray bending at velocity boundaries.
Depth Migration assumes that the arbitrary velocity structure of the earth is known and
will compute the correct diffraction shape for the velocity model. The data are then
migrated according to the diffraction shape and the output is defined with a depth axis
(although results are often stretched back to time to enable comparison with time
migrations). If the velocity model for the depth migration is incorrect then the migration
will be incorrect and the error may be difficult to detect if the migration is performed
post-stack. Prestack depth migration will provide an error estimate of the migrated
result. Depth migration typically takes 10 times longer to run than time migration and is
very sensitive to velocity errors (required to be within 1%) and may require many
iterations which further increases run time. Poststack depth migration is often
performed for reasons of economy but prestack depth migration is almost always
required since it is almost impossible to define an accurate velocity model using purely
poststack processing.
Historically the development of time migration proceeded in advance of depth
migration mainly because of computer technology. Also the sensitivity of depth
migration to the velocity model (basically you need to know the answer before you
start) can easily lead to very poor and misleading results. The time-migration is always
incorrect, but in practise the results turn out to be resilient to a large variation of
different velocity models and geological structures and can be very useful for an initial
interpretation such as for building models for depth migration. The interpreter will often
treat a time-migrated section as a geological image. While this is wrong it is often "fit
for purpose" in oil exploration. Depth migration may be considered to be an "appraisal
or development" technology whereas time migration may be considered an
"exploration" technology. A time-migration can also be easily compared to the input
stack section since they have the same vertical axis. Time migration is very fast and is
robust to errors (sometimes up to 10%) in the velocity model. Further, errors in the
shallow velocity model do not affect imaging of deeper structures.
 Judging the "correctness" of a time
migration is a rather arbitrary process
but lateral velocity variations will
cause positioning errors as indicated
by image rays. An image ray, as
shown in the adjacent figure for a
single diffraction point, is normal to
the recording surface and will show
the lateral positioning error due to time
migration. Unlike rays which indicate
the direction of propagation, the image
ray has no physical meaning. If an
interpreter is at all worried about the
positioning of data prior to drilling a
well then a depth migration should
always be performed. Surprises may
result - particularly in 3D where structures can change dramatically in depth.
Judging migration results should always be done in conjunction with an interpreter.
Note that with depth migration it is easier to force an incorrect interpretation into the
final migrated result - the so called "model in model out" problem. If suitable
constraints can be placed on the velocity model then depth migration will produce the
"correct answer", although this judgement is also subjective. A depth migrated section
should not tie the well data in depth because the correct migration velocity is not the
true earth velocity. However, the migrated depth section can be stretched vertically to
tie the well data whereas the time migration would require a lateral and vertical shift.
return to contents

DOWNWARD CONTINUATION

Modern migration techniques are solutions of the one-way scalar wave equation which
is a partial differential equation representing the rate of change of a pressure field in
space to changes in pressure over time. The equation does not allow for multiple
reflections, converted waves or noise although alternative wave-equations exist to cover
these modes of wave propagation. The exploding reflector technique is one way of
visualising zero-offset wave-propagation in which the sources are fictionally placed on
each reflector and are exploded simultaneously at time zero. The wavefield propagates
to the surface at half the true velocity. Using this model migration can be considered as
the reverse process where the wavefield at the surface is carried deeper into the earth
using the solution to the wave equation. This process of downward continuation is the
mathematical equivalent to lowering the receivers into the earth. After the first
downward stage the wavefield at t=0 is saved as the reflector shape at the particular
depth. This is called the imaging stage. The wavefield resulting from the first stage is
then downward continued and imaged. The method proceeds recursively until the
maximum depth. Consider a diffraction hyperbola. As the wavefield is continued into
the earth the diffraction will collapse as the apex is approached, the migrated image is
correct when the apex is reached.
Kirchhoff and phase-shift migrations are solutions of the scalar wave equation and can
also be considered mathematically as consisting of downward continuation and imaging
stages.
FINITE DIFFERENCE (IMPLICIT) MIGRATION
Finite difference solutions of the wave-equation can be used to efficiently implement
downward continuation and can handle laterally varying velocity fields. The method of
finite differences is simply a way to compute derivatives and second derivatives in a
computer. Several solutions to the wave-equation exist and contain different
mathematical approximations in order to obtain the solution. The approximations dictate
the characteristics of the migration when applied in practice. Finite differences can be
used to implement both steep dip depth migration solutions (by retaining the thin-lens
term of the scalar wave-equation solution) and dip-limited time migration solutions.
These latter are usually referred to as the 15 degree and 45 degree assumptions. A
further frequency domain solution provides a 65 degree dip limitation sometimes called
FX or omega-X migration. The run time increases with dip accuracy. The actual dip
limits migrated will depend on velocity, depth step, trace spacing and sampling interval.
Migrations may be cascaded so that several 15 degree migrations are run with
incremental portions of the velocity field and the results added to achieve dip limits of
nearly 80 degrees. The 15,45 and 65 degree solutions are called implicit solutions after
the method of solving the wave-equation developed by Claerbout.
Alternative steep dip depth migration schemes such as reverse time migration use a
finite difference solution to a two-way wave equation which can include multiples. The
full reverse time solution can be very accurate but very slow.
Dispersion is always associated with finite difference migration solutions and this can
further limit the dip accuracy of the method.
FX (EXPLICIT) MIGRATIONS
A category of modern high accuracy migrations which solve the wave-equation by
applying spatially varying convolution operators in the FX domain. These should not be
confused with the finite difference 65 degree approximation which is also sometimes
called FX or omega-X migration. The explicit solutions are usually applied to steep-dip
depth migration solutions, particularly for 3D migration.
return to contents

F-K MIGRATION
Migration in the F-K domain is an important method since it is by far the quickest
assuming constant velocity and is accurate to 90o. FK migration is also referred to as
Stolt migration after its inventor. In the previous discussion it was shown how events of
the same dip in the time domain map to radial lines in the FK domain. The method
works by transforming the data to the FK domain and applying the migration equation
tan(α )=sin(β ) which shifts the data vertically on the frequency axis only to transform
the data to the migrated dip. Following inverse transformation the migrated solution is
obtained. Stolt later introduced a method of accommodating vertical velocity variation
by stretching the time axis before migration to make the reflection events appear as if
they were recorded in a constant velocity medium. This process is called Stolt stretch.
In some implementations a lateral stretch is also employed which makes the FK
migration tend towards a depth migration. Sometimes a Cascaded FK Migration is
performed in which the input time data is FK migrated many times with constant
velocities and the results merged together.
Another migration implemented in the F-K domain is the phase shift or Gazdag
migration (after its inventor). This is a downward continuation algorithm in common
with finite-difference methods except the downward continuation is carried out by a
phase shift in the FK domain. As originally implemented the method can handle only a
vertically varying velocity. A phase-shift-plus interpolation or PSPI migration was later
introduced by Gazdag to handle lateral velocity variations. This method performs
several migrations with laterally constant velocities and interpolates the final migrated
results. Depth migration and imaging of turning rays is also possible.
return to contents

HYBRID MIGRATION ALGORITHMS

The commonest hybrid algorithm is a cascaded time migration technique sometimes
called Residual Migration and can be applied in 2D or 3D. The method exploits the
steep dip but constant velocity assumptions of FK migration with the dip-limited but
lateral velocity handling characteristics of a finite difference migration. The data are
first migrated with an FK migration using the lowest velocity found in the section (e.g.
1500m/s). The FK migration will partially collapse diffractions so the flanks are no
longer as steep. A residual migration is then run with the finite difference method using
a computed residual velocity which can vary laterally and vertically. This method can
be attractive in practise and fast.
Some hybrid or pseudo-depth migration algorithms exist which either apply
approximations of the thin-lens term (finite difference solution) or attempt to partially
shift the diffraction apex according to lateral velocity variations (Kirchhoff solution).
These algorithms are not used currently by contractors, but care should be taken with
older vintages of data which may have been migrated with these methods since they can
lead to unpredictable results.
return to contents

MODELLING
Modelling (creating a seismic section from a geological model) is often seen as the
inverse of migration.
return to contents

MOVEMENT DUE TO MIGRATION

For a constant velocity migrated time section it is possible to derive useful
relationships which indicate how far a point will move laterally in space or time. This is
illustrated in the adjacent figure where dip angle α is measured on unmigrated time
seconds in ms/trace, v is the medium velocity, dx is the horizontal displacement dt is
time displacement, and t is the two-way travel time to the dipping event. Yilmaz gives
further equations for migration angle β and time displacement dt.

The following table copied from Yilmaz summarises results for dips of 10ms/trace and
25m trace spacing.

t(s) v(m/s) dx(m) dt(m) α β

(ms/trace) (ms/trace)
1 2500 625 0.134 10 11.5

2 3000 1800 0.4 10 12.5

3 3500 3675 0.858 10 14

4 4000 6400 1.6 10 16.7

5 4500 10125 2.82 10 23.0

For the examples shown above the displacements can be quite large for example at 4s
the event moves more then 6km laterally following migration. Also since the horizontal
displacement is proportional to v2 then velocity errors quickly become critical. The
results indicate that the seismic section must be recorded to sufficient time and of
sufficient depth to record contributions of all events required in the final migrated
section. For example if only the beige area of the previous figure were recorded then
only a portion of the migrated reflector in blue would be correct or would stay on the
section following migration. In practice sections are recorded with a migration aperture
of several kilometres. The choice of migration aperture, particularly for 3D surveys, will
be a critical parameter decision as it can increase costs considerably. Usually previous
vintages of 2D data are used to determine likely dips and velocities to be encountered
and migration aperture and recording time calculated accordingly.
return to contents

BASIC THEORY: PRESTACK MIGRATION

As has been previously seen the stacking process does not perform correctly for dipping
reflections and smears events with consequent loss of resolution. Migration should
therefore be performed prestack for ultimate resolution.
return to contents

3D MIGRATION
Even if a 2D survey is acquired in a perfectly dip and strike direction for a 3D structure
there will always be a mistie between the migrated 2D and 3D structures. In addition for
moderate geological structure much of the energy on a 2D section will be recorded out
of the plane (sideswipe). Appropriate migration of a 3D survey will cancel any
sideswipe events and provide a clean image of geological structure to be interpreted.
Generally most of the 2D migration schemes can also be used in 3D. For a constant
velocity in 2D a point reflector will produce a hyperbolic diffractor. In a constant
velocity 3D medium a point reflector produces a hyperboloid diffraction volume which
yields a hyperbola when vertically cut in a 2D direction. The perfect impulse response
of a 2D migration is a semicircle, for 3D migration it is a hemisphere. A horizontal slice
through the hemisphere will be a circle - this technique is used to evaluate the
performance of 3D migration. In 3D a Kirchhoff migration can simply weight and sum
all the amplitudes and place them at the apex as in 2D migration. While accurate this
method is expensive so processors have, as ever, devised a series of approximations
which may be used to decrease run time and also, consequently, accuracy.
TWO-PASS MIGRATION
Until the early 1990's most 3D
surveys were migrated with the so
called two-pass method. For constant
velocity the data can be migrated in
the inline direction collapsing one
dimension of the hyperboloid to a
hyperbola. This is shown on the
adjacent figure by the light green
colour. The data are next migrated in
the orthogonal (crossline) direction
to collapse the residual hyperbola to
a point, shown blue on the adjacent
figure. Assuming constant velocity
any 2D time-migration method can
be used in a two-pass scheme, but
the commonest used was the 45
degree finite difference migration.
The data were usually interpolated in the crossline direction before the second migration
so that the crossline spacing is identical to that of the inline. Occasionally the first
migration was run in the crossline direction. For a vertically varying velocity field
errors are introduced with the two-pass method since during the first pass the deeper
parts of the diffractors will be migrated with velocities at the apex of the hyperbola not
the hyperboloid. For shallow dips and generally for time-migration these errors are not
severe, and may well be less than uncertainties in the velocity model. The method is
flexible since different velocity percentages can be used for each direction and velocity
testing is rapid since it is only performed in 2D. The two-pass method is now only of
historical interest.
ONE-PASS MIGRATION
A 3D migration which accommodates vertical and lateral velocity variations can be
accomplished by one-pass migration methods which became standard towards the mid
1990's as contractors learned to implement them cheaper than the 2-pass methods on
faster hardware with large memory. The commonest original method was a finite-
difference approach known as splitting in which the downward continuation was carried
out at each depth stage in the inline and crossline directions followed by the imaging
stage. The migration error in this method occurs at 45 degrees to the inline and crossline
directions which is also towards the dip limits of the finite difference migration. The
two-pass approach shows similar impulse response. Much research has been directed
towards developing a one-pass migration with a circular impulse response - a migration
with equal steep dip response at all azimuths. Methods include phase corrections at the
45 degree azimuths (Li correction implemented by CGG) or in the FX domain the use of
circular factorisation of impulse responses which are then convolved with the data
(Hale-MacLennan techniques). 1-pass phase shift and Kirchhoff migrations are also
available.
HYBRID-MIGRATIONS
A residual migration is also sometimes used in which a 1-pass FK migration is followed
by a 2-pass finite difference approach. The method retains the flexibility of 2-pass
migration velocity analysis and the accuracy of the one-pass scheme.
return to contents

TIME MIGRATION VELOCITY FIELD

All migration algorithms require a velocity model. Choice of the velocity model is
critical and may differ between algorithms. For poststack migration the optimum
velocity model is particularly subjective since it is difficult to judge the quality of the
migrated results. Time migration will tolerate a certain amount of error in the velocity
model. The commonest way to build a velocity model for time migration is to take the
picked stacking velocities (assuming they are equal to Vrms) and smooth them
sufficiently that the interval velocity model (from DIX conversion) is smooth and
approximately resembles the geological structure. Almost always in modern processing
DMO or prestack time migration will have been applied to attempt to remove the dip-
dependence of stacking velocities. For time migration to be worthwhile the velocity
model can vary smoothly in depth and very slowly laterally.
Once the velocity model has been constructed, trial lines are migrated with the velocity
model and arbitrary percentages of it and the interpreter will pick the most appealing
section. Typically percentages will vary from 90% to 105% of the original velocity
model. For a 3D survey the best method is to migrate the entire volume with the
different velocity percentages although many contractors will attempt to only migrate
2D sections. Costs for the full 3D process are reduced by bandlimiting the data to 40Hz
and migrating on a coarse (e.g. 50m) grid. Alternative methods exist for 3D data but are
all approximations and should be avoided.
In 2D or 3D the processor and interpreter will inspect the different sections and pick the
optimum velocity percentage which may vary spatially for time migration as long as the
variation is smooth. Things to look out for are collapse of diffractions, imaging of faults
(breaks should be sharp not smeared) and meaningful geological features such as
synclines or anticlines. There is no substitute for experience. The best way to begin is to
compare the 90% velocity migration with the 110% migration. The former should be
undermigrated and the latter should be overmigrated - the correct answer should be
somewhere between the two. Undermigrated sections will show uncollapsed diffractions
and overmigrated sections should show more smearing and smiles. A synthetic showing
a horizontal event, dipping event and diffractor in a constant velocity medium follows.

In the previous diagram three constant velocities are tested in order to obtain the
optimum velocity. The red line shows that spatial mis-positioning will occur if an
incorrect migration velocity is used. As previously shown this mis-positioning will be
greater for higher velocities and steeper dips. Note that the migration is not perfect even
with the correct velocity. This is because the aperture of the diffraction is limited. For a
portion of a 2D section, migration with a suite of constant velocities may be a viable
way of determining optimum migration velocity, but this method is rarely used in
practise since it is expensive. Click here for a movie which shows an example dataset
migrated with a suite of constant velocities.
In practice for the North Sea stacking velocities are usually picked too fast and optimum
migration is achieved by 95% or 97% of the smoothed stacking velocities. Sometimes
however a slow velocity trend may have been picked and 105% provides the optimum
migration result. As ever, testing is required. Note also that the same migration
algorithm for velocity testing should be used for the production migration since
different algorithms treat the velocity field in different ways. This is particularly true of
finite-difference migration which tends to leave the data with an undermigrated
appearance.
Velocity model building for depth migration is a more complex procedure and is
discussed in a further section (yet to be completed).
return to contents

DATA PREPARATION
Prior to migration the data are expected to have been
pre-processed to minimise noise and multiples. High
levels of noise or spikes may be a particular problem
and will cause smiles on the resulting section.
Amplitudes of the deeper 500ms and edge 100 or so
traces are often tapered to zero prior to migration to
avoid edge effects and the migration aperture.
Sometimes trace padding is also applied by adding
zero samples to the ends of traces. Some processing
systems perform padding and tapering within the
migration process and on others it must be applied
separately. Some migration algorithms are very robust
to quite high noise levels (particularly in 3D) so noise
reduction such as dip filtering may not be required. In
many cases noise reduction can be carried out
effectively following migration.
Migration is particularly prone to problems with
spatial-aliasing since the dip-reversal affect of aliased
data means the migration does not know which way to
move the data. Some is moved in the true up-dip direction but some of the energy will
be moved or dispersed in the down-dip direction. Data should be recorded at sufficient
trace spacing to prevent aliasing prior to migration. A 12.5m CMP spacing is
commonest and this is adequate for most frequencies and dips encountered in the North
Sea. Data with 25m CMP spacing (such as a crossline in a 3D survey) may be
interpolated to one with a 12.5m spacing prior to migration (a variety of methods may
be used). Finite difference migration typically requires finer trace spacing to prevent
additional dispersion caused by approximations within the migration operator itself.
return to contents

MIGRATION ALGORITHMS
CHOICE OF ALGORITHM
Choice of migration algorithm is data and contractor dependant and usually is
extensively tested to obtain optimum results. Many migration algorithms exist and some
are be more expensive than others to apply. Explicit FX, Phase shift or Kirchhoff
algorithms are the best for time migration, and Kirchhoff migration is preferred for
prestack depth migration.
return to contents
KIRCHHOFF MIGRATION IN PRACTICE
The previous theory
section introduced
migration as a process
which moves dipping
events by summation
of diffractions in an
easily understood
method called
Kirchhoff Migration.
Kirchhoff Migration is
the most flexible
migration algorithm
and can be implemented in 2D and 3D, pre- and poststack and as a time or depth
migration. Kirchhoff migration can also be implemented to migrate shear and converted
waves, dip filter and interpolate the input data, and cope with spatially aliased data.
Most sane people understand migration algorithms by reference to Kirchhoff migration.
The adjacent figure shows the test synthetic section migrated with the Kirchhoff
migration. Click here for an example section migrated with the Kirchhoff algorithm.
Despite the migrations high accuracy and flexibility, the Kirchhoff migration is rarely
used by contractors for time migration. This is because other techniques can be run
cheaper - but sometimes at the expense of accuracy. Almost all prestack depth migration
is performed using the Kirchhoff technique.
To preserve the amplitude and phase of the input data it must be corrected for
geometrical divergence, a directivity factor (to correct for angle dependence of
amplitudes) and a wave shaping factor prior to migration. For 2D data the latter is a
filter with a 45o phase shift and amplitude spectrum proportional to square root of
frequency (square-root derivative). For 3D data the shift is 90o with amplitude
proportional to frequency (derivative). Most Kirchhoff implementations (e.g.
PROMAX) apply these corrections internally within the migration process. When using
the AHC Simon processing system the data should be pre-processed with the DIFR
routine to apply the appropriate corrections.
For a velocity function which smoothly varies vertically the diffraction hyperbolas
should be constructed using Vrms at the apex and this also tolerates moderate lateral
velocity variations. For complex velocity variations a depth-migration is required and
the diffraction curves are calculated by ray-tracing.
The principal parameters for Kirchhoff Migration are trace spacing, summation aperture
and dip limit. These can all be tested on test sections before production migration is
carried out. Some implementations also request frequency limits.
TRACE SPACING: is the CMP spacing for zero-offset or stacked seismic data.
DIP-LIMITS: The correct impulse response up to 90o is given by a semi-circle,
however the migration can be limited to shallower dip angles if required. This may be
used to speed computation time and filter dipping noise.
APERTURE: In theory diffractions extend to infinite time and distance. In practice the
useable amplitude is much less than infinite so an aperture is chosen over which to
make the summation. The aperture or half-aperture may be measured in distance or
traces and should be large enough to encompass the largest lateral movement envisaged
from the highest velocity and steepest dip in the section. Insufficient aperture will cause
dip limitation. Too wide an aperture will slightly increase run time and may introduce
noise shallower in the section from deeper in the section. Too wide an aperture is
preferred to one that is too small.
ANTI-ALIAS FILTERING: Many Kirchhoff migration algorithms (such as those in
PROMAX) contain anti-alias filters which are defined by the trace spacing of the input
or output data, whichever is the coarser.
INTERPOLATION: Many Kirchhoff algorithms allow output of data at a finer
spacing than the input by using the migration operator as an interpolator. In addition the
operator itself should be interpolated onto the input time grid.
MIGRATION BEYOND 90o ?
Kirchhoff depth migrations may provide an option to include turning rays.
LATERAL VELOCITY VARIATION (DEPTH MIGRATION)
return to contents

STOLT MIGRATION IN PRACTICE

Stolt migration is rarely used in modern processing schemes except in some cases as a
constant velocity prestack migration or as part of a hybrid or residual migration. The
degree of Stolt Stretch applied for a vertically varying velocity field is controlled by a
complicated parameter W which varies from 0 to 2 with a value of 1 indicating no
stretch. Smaller values tend to undermigrate data and larger W values to overmigrate
data. Stolt stretch is not a good way to handle vertical velocity variations. Click here for
a section migrated with a Stolt migration and velocity of 3500m/s.
return to contents

GAZDAG MIGRATION IN PRACTICE

Gazdag or Phase shift
migration is a
commonly used
technique for time
migration because it is
fairly fast, accurate for
steep dips and handles
velocity variations
allowed by time
migration constraints
without introducing
artifacts. The 3D implementation is fast and accurate for all azimuths. A depth
migration solution is also commonly used. The adjacent figures shows the results of the
migration for the test synthetic. Click here for an example section migrated with the
phase shift migration.
DIP LIMITS: The migration can handle dips up to 90 degrees but may be dip limited
to reduce noise. This does not affect run time. The time migration algorithm can be
modified to exceed 90 degrees (turning ray migration).
DEPTH STEP SIZE: Is usually selected to be around 20ms. Coarser depth steps may
reduce run time, but lead to kinks in steep dips. Some implementations automatically
choose depth step based on the chosen frequency range.
return to contents

FINITE DIFFERENCE MIGRATION IN PRACTICE

The majority of migrations performed in the past have used finite difference
migration solutions despite their general lack of dip accuracy. This is because the
methods were efficient and could handle lateral velocity variations with greater
accuracy than phase-shift or Kirchhoff implementations. The 15 degree equation is
generally considered good up to 35 degrees but on modern systems the 45 degree or 65
degree FX (also called omega-x or ω -x) migrations are more commonly used. The
approximations inherent within the solution by approximating differential operators
with finite differences lead to dispersive noise which accompanies undermigrated
energy at steep dips. Dispersion is always present but can be reduced by interpolating
data to a finer trace spacing and sampling interval. To reduce dispersion finite-
difference migration typically requires the data to be sampled finer than other methods
and trace interpolation is almost always required. In this authors opinion finite
difference migrations are more trouble then they are worth and should be avoided unless
part of a residual migration. Click here for an example dataset migrated with the 15
degree algorithm and here for the section migrated with the 45 degree algorithm.
DEPTH STEP: is the most fundamental parameter for finite difference migrations.
Large depth steps cause further undermigration. Around 20ms is the commonest used
for time migration, sometimes 2ms is required for steep-dip depth migration. Smaller
depth steps do not always increase the accuracy of the result. Some implementations
automatically compute the depth step.
VELOCITY ERROR: Because finite-difference migration inherently undermigrates
data it is actually more robust to velocity error than other migration types and lateral
movements are limited. However, while these may look more pleasing too the eye they
are still incorrect.
return to contents

STEEP DIP EXPLICIT MIGRATION IN PRACTICE

The steep dip explicit time migration solution in PROMAX produces a good result
as seen in the adjacent figure and here for the example section. However it is extremely
slow to run.
Parameters include maximum frequency and dip. The PROMAX option can also vary
memory usage which may speed up application. This type of migration is rarely used by
contractors for 2D migration although it is commonly used for 3D post-stack depth
migration.
return to contents