Evalutation of sea bottom features from seismic calibration data: A case history

David J. Monk*, Energy Innovations; Randal Flud, Louisiana Land and Exploration;
and Mike Plumlee, Western Geophysical SAl.4

Introduction
During 1992 a seismic survey was conducted in
the West Delta area of the gulf of Mexico. The
water depth in the area of the survey varied from
approximately 20 feet to over 200 feet, and for
this reason, seismic acquisition using a bottom
cable technique was selected. Additionally the use
of hydrophones and geophone was chosen,
because of the potential to minimize ghost and
reverberation effects associated with the variable
water layer. It was known prior to the
commencement of the survey, that in some areas,
the “hard” water bottom was overlain by soft mud
flows with remarkable physical properties
including velocity in some cases of less than 1000
feet/sec. ( ref. Meeder et.al. (1988) ).It was
anticipated that the mud flows may present
significant problems in both acquisition and
processing of the seismic data, and an attempt was
made prior to the seismic survey, to map the sea
floor features as part of a hazard survey, and some
aspects of the seismic acquisition and processing
were specifically aimed at trying to resolve the sea
floor features.
Seismic data
The quality of seismic data acquired in the survey
area was extremely variable. In some areas of the
survey, where there were large accumulations of
soft mud on the bottom, the seismic records were
so weak that only direct arrivals on the near traces
were visible when displayed at the same gain as
other records where the data amplitudes appeared
normal, the mud layers led to large absorption of
the seismic energy. Additionally there were at
least eight different types of noise regularly
observed in the seismic data, and the shallow mud
layers resulted in to trace to trace statics which on
occasions approached 100 msec.
Calibration Data.
Vertical incidence “calibration” data was collected
as a separate part of the acquisition effort.
Calibration data offers one approach to the
processing of hydrophone and geophone data for
bottom referenced systems, and can be used to
determine a scalar, appropriate for application to
the geophone component of the seismic data, prior
to summation with the hydrophone data, in order
to optimally attenuate ghost energy and water
bottom reverberations. (ref. Barr and Sanders
1989 ). Other methods of optimally combining
bottom referenced hydrophone and geophone data
have been proposed, but in this case the
calibration data offered an early opportunity to
resolve some of the sea bottom features. Note that
while the conventional seismic data was in general
noisy for a variety of reasons, the calibration data
was of very high quality, since only the direct
arrivals are examined, and in this seismic data set
the source is positioned as close as possible to the
receivers ( vertically over each receiver on the
bottom ). An example of the calibration data for a
set of receivers is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 : Calibration data example

865
2 Evaluation of sea bottom features
In this figure each pair of traces represents the
signal from a hydrophone and geophone group,
co-located on the water bottom, in response to a
seismic source fired ( close to ) directly above
each receiver pair.
Subsurface features
In this survey, the seismic calibration data was
examined in detail, to determine additional
information about the sea floor. For this particular
survey, the arrival times of the direct arrivals on
the data were examined to see if they coincided
with the known water depth. This might normally
be a test to examine whether receivers are
suspended above the water bottom, having been
caught on an obstruction, or suspended across a
narrow channel. In this survey it was considered
possible that some of the detectors on the sea
floor, may have sunk in the unconsolidated mud
areas, and may have been positioned beneath the
sea bottom as indicated from the fathometer
information.
Buried ‘phones were indicated by a mistie between
the depth indicated from a fathometer, and the
depth indicated by depth conversion of first
arrival time picks on the vertical incidence
calibration data.
Initial interpretation did show evidence of some
receivers having arrival times which were
inconsistent with the fathometer indicated depths.
Additionally it was found that these receivers had
weaker arrivals (as would be expected if buried in
an absorbing layer). Subsequent analysis of the
reflectivity at these reflectors indicated a
reflectivity of zero, which would be expected if
the receivers did not lie on a reflecting interface,
but were instead suspended in a “mud” layer.
Additionally, since the reflectivity of the
surrounding area of the water bottom was
examined, and found to be consistent with the
bottom being composed of soft muds. Using
appropriate velocity information, burial depths of
up to 60 feet were indicated on some receivers. In
addition to being able to verify the bottom
features in the survey area, and the impact that
this might be expected to have in subsequent
processing, the calibration data also proved to be a
valuable quality control check on each receiver
866
station in the survey, for finding dead, polarity
reversed, phase distorted detectors.
Hydrophone geophone combination.
The vertical incidence calibration data was
recorded for the purpose of determining the
reflectivity of the water bottom. It is expected that
the amplitude of a single down-going wavefield is
related on the two receiver types by the
reflectivity on the bottom ( see Barr and Sanders (
1989 ) for details ), which can subsequently be
computed and mapped. Understanding of the
reflectivity at the bottom for each receive1
location gives rise to the potential for removal or
attenuation of water bottom multiples from the
seismic data. In other areas of the survey
described here, exceptionally hard water bottoms
are expected, which would probably be associated
with a high level contamination of the seismic
data with water bottom multiple energy.
Reflectivity
The area covered by this survey shows sea floor
reflectivity variations which are perhaps as great
as could be determined any where in the world,
having a range between +0.4 and - 0.4.. These
reflectivity values suggest ( as expected ) bottom
conditions which vary from an extremely hard
water bottom to a very soft unconsolidated water
bottom. The raw reflectivity values computed
from field data ( without subsequent corrections
for non vertical incidence ). are shown in Figure 2.
In general, the extent of the mud ares which are
dominantly in the Eastern part of the survey area
is clearly shown. Note in particular the two mud
channels indicated by the areas of negative
reflectivity in the Southern part of the survey.
Subsequent processing of this data produced a
result which was an improvement over the initial
map of reflectivity, and represented an accurate
interpretation of the features on the sea bottom in
the survey area. The correlation between the
reflectivity values and the bottom conditions
proved valuable in the processing of the bulk
seistnic data that was acquired in the survey, and
the tie between the total statics and the reflectivity
maps, confirms the extent and spatial distribution
of many of the mud features on the water bottom..
 E v a l u a t i o n o f s e a b o t t o m f e a t u r e s 3

Figure 2 : Reflectivity map for survey area.

Conclusions.
In this survey the vertical incidence calibration References :
data was used to map out the sea floor features in Fred J. Barr and Joe I. Sanders ( 1989 ) ”
a complex sea bottom environment. In addition to Attenuation of water column reverberations using
providing a valuable insight into the fidelity of pressure and velocity detectors in a water bottom
signals recorded by each bottom located receiver, cable”. Proceedings of the 59th Annual SEG
the data proved easy to examine, and provided meeting (Dallas).
valuable information to seismic processing by
identification of receivers which were buried in Mccdcr C.A., May J.A.. Tinkle A.R., and Wener
soft mud layers. In this survey, the calibration data K.R. ( 1988 ) ” Seismic No-Data Zone, Offshore
was recorded as a method of computing the Mississippi Delta : Part III Modeling Statics
reflectivity at the water bottom, to ensure that Corrections” Proceedings of the 20th Annual
pressure and velocity data could hc optimally OTC.
combined in processing. However, examination of
the calibration data also allowed mapping of the
reflectivity and revealcd the extent of the mud
features on the sea floor, at an early stage of the
seismic evaluation, which aided in statics and
v e l o c i t y w o r k i n t h e subsequent seismic
processing.

867