SPECIAL
C a r b SECTION:
o n a t e C
r aersb e
ona artce h
r e si ena r C
c hh iinn C
Two promising approaches for amplitude-preserved
resolution enhancement
SAM ZANDONG SUN, YINGZHE BAI, SHIYING WU, and DI WANG, China University of Petroleum (Beijing)
HONGLIANG GAO, BING JING, and JIANFA HAN, Tarim Oilfield Company, CNPC
I n western China, carbonate reservoirs are deeply buried and
the surface is very loose. Due to Earth filtering, the high-
frequency component of seismic waves is seriously absorbed.
This causes a decrease in the dominant frequency and a
narrowing of the frequency bandwidth of the seismic signals
from a deep target. In the Tarim Basin, the most prospective
reservoirs are below 6000 m. The seismic data recorded in
these areas always show weak energy, low frequency, and phase
distortion. Additionally, due to the desert surface, the energy
of the seismic waves suffers serious absorption.
Figure 1 shows a seismic section from western China and
the spectra of three selected areas from shallow to deep. The
target of this area is below 4000 ms. It is obvious that the
bandwidth of the seismic signal becomes narrow; meanwhile,
the dominant frequency decreases as depth increases. At the
target area, the resolution is 50–100 m, not good enough for
lithologic reservoir prediction. So it is important to compen-
sate for the attenuation and enhance the resolution at this
deep area in an amplitude-preserved way.
Q migration
The first method of amplitude-preserved resolution enhance-
ment introduced is Q migration which is based on Kirchhoff
migration. The key characteristic of Q migration is to com-
pensate for absorption along every raypath.
Method. In visco-acoustic media, phase velocity is a com-
plex number. Let v(x,t) be a frequency-dependent complex
velocity where x is the spatial variable. Under the assumption
of small attenuation, the complex velocity can be written as
, (1)
where v0(x) is the velocity in acoustic media, Q(x) is the fre-
quency-independent quality factor representing attenuation,
and t0 is a reference frequency (Keers et al., 2001). The com-
plex and frequency-dependent traveltime can be calculated by
, (2)
where T(x) is the traveltime with acoustic velocity v0(x), and
T*(x) is the Q-related traveltime representing attenuation. It
can be written as
, (3)
(Traynin et al., 2008). Substituting Equation 2 into the Kirch-
hoff integral gives
(4)
, tenuation without the Q model. Nonstationary deconvolu-
where xS, xR are the spatial variables on the record surface,
206 The Leading Edge February 2012
Downloaded 15 Feb 2012 to 41.224.248.253. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
ah i n a
w(xS,xR,x) is the true-amplitude weighting factor, H(t)
is a phase shifting factor depending on dimensions, and
U(xS,xR,t) is the recorded data in the frequency domain.
The last two terms which contain T*(x) allow Q migration
to compensate for the amplitude loss and phase distortion.
Equation 4 cannot be transformed into a form of con-
volution in the time domain because it has a positive power
term. In most practical cases, field seismic records in Tarim
Basin have low signal-to-noise ratio in their high-frequency
components. So the algorithm presented above is not robust
enough to be implemented in this area. In practice, a critical
frequency tm must be determined. Beyond this frequency, a
decreasing function can be applied to control high-frequency
noise. If that function is applied, Equation 4 can be trans-
formed to the time domain and Q migration can be com-
puted as a time-domain convolution to reduce computational
costs.
In the LG34 area in the Tarim Basin, carbonate dissolu-
tion caves and fractures develop. Figure 2 shows two migrated
CRPs at the area of interest, one generated by Kirchhoff mi-
gration and the other by Q migration. The spectra are shown.
Through comparison of the spectra, it is obvious that the Q-
migration gather has wider bandwidth and higher dominant
frequency, and contains more detailed information. The up-
per arrow points to an extra thin event which is covered by
side lobes in the traditional gather. However, by Q migration,
the wavelet is compressed and the side lobes are reduced. A
weak event, indicated by the lower arrow, is not clear in the
traditional gather. In Q-migration gather, the energy is recov-
ered and the event is more obvious. All these phenomena can
also be found in stacked sections.
The consistency of wavelets at different depths is impor-
tant for quality control of Q migration. Consequently, wave-
lets are extracted from the gathers of both two methods in
three different depths (Figure 3) and compared. The wavelet
of traditional Kirchhoff migration (upper row of Figure 3)
becomes fatter and the phase distorted with increasing depth.
Those from Q migration (lower row of Figure 3) remain al-
most the same, thus enhancing resolution. The technique ac-
counts for true amplitude and phase loss, both of which are
recovered in exactly the same way. So the resolution of Q
migration is reliable.
Improved nonstationary deconvolution
Q migration is an exact way of Q compensation and resolu-
tion enhancement with the correct Q model. However, the
Q model is not easy to obtain and always has some errors.
So we must find some measurements to compensate Q at-
tion may be a good choice. This method is based on a time-
 C a r b o n a t e r e s e a r c h i n C h i n a

Figure 1. A section from area TZ45 in Tarim Basin. The spectra on the right are extracted from the three rectangular areas (from shallow to
deep). The event selected by the deepest rectangle is the top of carbonate which is the exploration target. If we choose an eighth of the wavelength as
the resolution, it is easy to calculate that the resolution is 9.45 m at 800 ms and 18.5 m at 2500 ms. At 4000 ms, where we are most interested,
we can only recognize a layer with a thickness of 41.65 m.

frequency analysis. Nonstationary deconvolution is presented in relation with

Margrave (1998) presented nonstationary convolution
for the seismic trace as
. (5)
The continuous Gabor transform of our nonstationary trace
Vgs(o, f ) is approximately equal to the product of the Fourier
transform of the source signature w(f ), the constant Q trans-
fer function _Qof )and the continuous Gabor transform of
the reflectivity Vgr(o, f ).
Because all seismic data are nonstationary, this convolution
can only be a local approximation and the term wavelet must
be taken to mean the propagating wavelet as it has evolved
from the source to the time zone of interest. That is the wavelet
must be roughly the product,
, (6)
where orefers to the center of the zone of interest. Then, if we
take a single Gabor window that spans the entire zone of inter-
est, the Gabor transform is simply the Fourier transform and
we write Equation 5 as
. (7)
nonstationary theory described in Equation 7 (Margrave,
2002). Considering just the absolute values of the Gabor spec-
trum, we obtain
. (8)
In order to estimate the reflectivity from the trace, we must
first estimate the wavelet. Assuming that the reflectivity se-
ries has the statistical properties of random white noise such
that |Vgs(o,f )|, a smoothed version of the magnitude the Ga-
bor spectrum of the seismic signal will give an estimate of the
wavelet:
. (9)
In practice, the reflectivity is non-white, so we cannot esti-
mate it from Equation 8. Taking the logarithm of both sides of
Equation 8 will yield the logarithmic Gabor spectrum form of
the nonstationary convolution:
. (10)
Equation 10 means that, in the logarithm domain, the Ga-
bor transform of a seismic trace is approximately equal to the

February 2012 The Leading Edge 207

Downloaded 15 Feb 2012 to 41.224.248.253. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
 C a r b o n a t e r e s e a r c h i n C h i n a

sum of the Gabor transform of the wavelet and the reflectiv-

ity. Because the wavelet is slowly varying, while the reflectivity
is rapidly varying, the primary trend of the spectrum of the
seismic trace mainly consists of the wavelet, detail section of
the spectrum mainly is composed of the reflectivity spectrum.
Smoothing the logarithmic Gabor spectrum of the seismic
trace can eliminate the non-white noise reflectivity and give
the wavelet shown in the following equation

. (11)

Examples. In order to verify this method, we produce a

Figure 2. Comparison of gathers and spectra between traditional
Kirchhoff migration (a) and Q migration (b). The Q-migration gather
has a dominant frequency of 35 Hz and the tradition gather’s is 25
Hz. In addition, the frequency bandwidth is wider in the Q-migration
section.
non-white noise sequence of reflection coefficients, and convo-
lute with a Ricker wavelet and the attenuated Ricker wavelet,
respectively, forming the synthetic unattenuated seismic trace
and the synthetic attenuated seismic trace. Then the improved
nonstationary deconvolution is applied in both cases and the
results compared with those from traditional methods.
First of all, we apply the two methods on the synthetic non-
stationary seismic trace. The amplitude spectrum of reflectivity
series of white noise is shown in Figure 4b. Figure 4a illustrates
a reflection and Figure 4b shows that it has a non-white ampli-
tude spectrum. The minimum-phase source signature (20 Hz
dominant frequency) was convolved with the reflectivity mod-
el. This represents the input trace before deconvolution (Fig-
ure 4c). In the nonstationary deconvolution of this synthetic
seismic trace, we need 51 Gabor windows to factor the seismic

Figure 3. Comparison of wavelets extracted from traditional Kirchhoff migration gather (a),(b),(c) and Q-migration gather (d), (e), (f ) at
depths of 2000 ms (a), (d), 3500 ms (b), (e) and 5000 ms (c), (f ). The wavelets of Q migration are “thinner” than those of traditional Kirchhoff
migration. That means increased resolution. And the waveforms, magnitudes and phases are stable from shallow to deep in the Q migration,
because it can recover the attenuation.

208 The Leading Edge February 2012

Downloaded 15 Feb 2012 to 41.224.248.253. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
 C a r b o n a t e r e s e a r c h
Figure 4. (a) The spectrum of the reflectivity series. (b)The reflectivity.
(c) The unattenuated synthetic trace. (d) The result of traditional
nonstationary deconvolution. (e) The result of the improved
deconvolution. (f ) The comparison of the wavelets extracted by the
traditional method and the new method at 0.2 s. (g) The comparison
of the correlation curves of the wavelets extracted by the two methods.
trace, so we could obtain 51 different wavelets. By comparing
these 51 wavelets and the model wavelet, we form a correlation
curve. The higher degree of correlation between the obtained
wavelet and model wavelet, the more accurate the extracted
wavelet. Figure 4e displays curves from the two methods, and
the correlation of the new method is higher, Figure 4d, a com-
parison of the two wavelets at 0.2 s obtained by two methods,
shows that wavelet obtained by the new method is closer to the
model wavelet. The difference between the deconvolution re-
sults of the two methods can be observed by comparing Figure
4f (the traditional method) with Figure 4g (the new method).
The resolution of the deconvolution result obtained by the new
method is higher.
In order to compare the effect of the two methods when
applied to an attenuated trace, the synthetic seismic trace (Fig-
Downloaded 15 Feb 2012 to 41.224.248.253. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
i n C h i n a
Figure 5. (a) The reflectivity series. (b) The unattenuated synthetic
trace. (c) The result of the traditional nonstationary deconvolution.
(d) The result of the improved deconvolution. (e) Comparison of the
wavelets extracted by the traditional method and the new method. (f )
Comparison of the correlation curves of the wavelets extracted by the
two methods.
ure 4c) is attenuated with a constant Q filter (Q = 100). This
represents the input trace (Figure 5b) before deconvolution.
The number of the wavelets is the same as the above example.
The difference between the two methods of deconvolution can
be observed by comparing Figure 5c (the traditional method)
with Figure 5d (the new method). The resolution of the decon-
volution obtained by the new method is higher. Figure 5e, a
comparison of the two wavelets at 0.2 s obtained by two meth-
ods, illustrates that the wavelet obtained by the new method
is closer to the attenuated model wavelet. Figure 5f displays
curves resulting from the two methods, and correlation with
the result of the new method is higher.
Figure 6a is a poststack seismic profile. The seismic profiles
processed by the traditional method (Figure 6b) and the new
method (Figure 6c), both identify large features but the meth-
February 2012 The Leading Edge 209
 C a r b o n a t e r e s e a r c h
Figure 6. Comparison of the two methods when applied to real data. (a) Raw data. (b) Result of the traditional method. (c) Result of the
improved method.
od proposed here can identify the fault shown in the red circle,
and the traditional method cannot. Furthermore, the resolu-
tion of the profile obtained by the proposed method is higher
than that of the other two.
Conclusions
1) Q migration is based on Kirchhoff migration, and can com-
pensate for attenuation along every migration raypath. So
this method can exactly recover amplitude, phase and fre-
quency, and widen bandwidth to eventually enhance seis-
mic resolution.
2) The improved nonstationary decovolution is based on a
joint time-frequency analysis, and works on non-white re-
flectivity. It enhances seismic resolution by compensating
for amplitude and frequency loss without a Q model.
3) Q migration considers both amplitude and phase, and ac-
curately preserves amplitudes. The improved nonstationary
deconvolution assumes a minimum-phase wavelet, but it
works without a Q model. So it is robust.
References
Cheng, P. and G. F. Margrave, 2009, Color correction for Gabor de-
convolution and nonstationary phase rotation: 2009 CSPG CSEG
CWLS Convention, 396–399.
Keers, H., D. W. Vasco, and L. R. Johnson, 2001, Viscoacoustic cross-
well imaging using asymptotic waveforms: Geophysics, 66, no. 3,
861–870, doi:10.1190/1.1444975.
210 The Leading Edge February 2012
Downloaded 15 Feb 2012 to 41.224.248.253. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
i n C h i n a
Margrave, G. F., 1998, Theory of nonstationary linear filtering in the
Fourier domain with application to time-variant filtering: Geophys-
ics, 63, no. 1, 244–259, doi:10.1190/1.1444318.
Margrave, G. F. and M. P. Lamoureux, 2002, Gabor deconvolution:
CREWES Annual Research Report, 13.
Montana, C. A. and G. F. Margrave, 2005, Color correction in Gabor
deconvolution: CREWES research report, 17.
Traynin, P., J. Liu, and J. M. Reilly, 2008, Amplitude and bandwidth
recovery beneath gas zones using Kirchhoff prestack depth Q mi-
gration: 76th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Ab-
stracts, 2412–2416.
Wu, S., S. Z. Sun, and Z. Wang, 2011, Improved nonstationary decon-
volution: 73rd EAGE Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE
EUROPEC.
Yu, Y., R. Lu, and M. Deal, 2002, Compensation for the effects of shal-
low gas attenuation with viscoacoustic wave-equation migration:
72nd Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts,
2062–2065.
Acknowledgments: We thank Laboratory for Integration of Geology
and Geophysics, China University of Petroleum for the authoriza-
tion to present this work. We also appreciate that Exploration and
Development Research Institution in Tarim Oil Field provided the
data used in this research. We are grateful to Yu Zhang, Wenbo Sun,
Lifeng Liu, and Lulu Cai for helpful discussions.
Corresponding author: szd@cup.edu.cn