Report Reection Seismology Processing (ProMAX)

Benjamin Zuercher, Noel Ammann June 2, 2013

Contents
1 Introduction 2 General info about the data 3 Overview of the processing ow 4 Pre-stack processing 4.1 Editing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Amplitude scaling . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 True amplitude recovery 4.2.2 Automatic gain control . 4.3 Top mute . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 First break picking . . . . . . . 4.5 Refraction statics . . . . . . . . 4.6 Frequency ltering . . . . . . . 4.7 Deconvolution . . . . . . . . . . 5 Stack processing 5.1 CDP sort . . . . 5.2 Velocity analysis 5.3 NMO correction . 5.4 Stacking . . . . . 5.5 Residual statics . 5.6 Iterations . . . . 1 1 3 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 8 10 11 14 14 14 16 16 18 18 20 20 20 23 24 26

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

6 Poststack processing 6.1 Noise reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Time to depth conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Interpretation References

Introduction

In the context of the course Reection Seismology Processing at ETH Zurich, a seismic dataset was given to be processed with the software ProMax 2D Version 5000.0.3.3 from Landmark Graphics Corporation. The used Computer runs with Linux Red Hat. The goal of this course was to get an insight into seismic data processing with the given software, learn the tools behind the processing and nally get a realistic image of the subsurface of an area in Northern Germany. To do so, velocities of the dierent layers have to be reconstructed as accurate as possible by processing the raw data through dierent steps. Reections should be seen better after the processing due to an increased signal-to-noise ratio and an improvement of the resolution.

General info about the data

All important information about the geometry could be found on the recording sheet and had to be added to the data as a rst step. The seismic survey line has a length of 14200m in total and a spread length of 6100m. The recording consists of 120 channels with each having 24 geophones coupled. A gap of 200m between channel 60 and channel 61 needed to be added as well to the data (see gure 1)

Figure 1: Channel conguration for the data from Northern Germany. A total spread length of 6100 meters includes 120 channels. Every 50 meters one channel is located except between channel 60 and channel 61 where a gap of 200 meters is inserted. Every channel consists of 24 Geophones.

The spacing between each geophone is 2m, hence one channel spacing is 50m. A group of geophones is always connected in the center (see gure 2).

Figure 2: Geophone conguration of one channel. 24 geophones are coupled in the middle, each having 2 meter spacing to the next one. There was not one line with 24 geophones but two lines (0 meter horizontal spacing) with each 12 geophones and a geophone spacing of 4 meters.

The recording has 285 stations (101-385) in total. The recording length is 6s and the sampling rate is 2ms. A notch out lter with 50 Hz was applied. The position of the channels for all shots (the whole seismic line) can be seen in gure 3. The geophones stayed at the same place for the rst few and the last few shots. The boundary between yellow and red represents the place where the source was. Because the place of the source changed and the channels stayed at the same place at the beginning, one can say that the source is rolling in the seismic line. The same can be said for the end of the seismic line (roll out).

Figure 3: The seismic line showing the oset. Zero oset can be seen at the color boundary between yellow and red.

The CDP fold is at the beginning of the seismic line very small but the value increases fast (roll in) and reaches then a maximum of 35. The values do not much vary in the middle of the seismic line, increase then once again shortly and will then decrease a lot to the end of the seismic line (roll out). 2

Figure 4: Fold vs Common Depth Point

Overview of the processing ow

We can split our processing into four main steps. When the geometry is correctly set up, rst corrections for all the shots can be done. After a deconvolution is done, it will be stacked, analyzed and improved and nally a migration is applied before it will be converted from time into depth. The following points summarizes all the processing ows we used: Pre-stack processing Editing (Kill traces) Amplitude scaling (Correct for attenuation) Top mute (Get rid of insignicant waves) First break picking (Gets the information for a good velocity model) Refraction statics (Correct for weathered layer and topography) Frequency ltering (Get rid of ambient noise) Deconvolution (Improve resolution) Stack processing CDP sort (Reections are sorted into a CDP gather) 3

 Velocity analysis (Picking velocities at recognisable layers) NMO correction (Correct reection arrival times) Stacking (Summarizing into a single output) Residual statistics (Velocity corrections in the shallower part) Iterations (Iteration of the whole stack processing ow to improve the stack) Post-stack processing Noise Reduction / Image enhancement (Using a lter to reduce noise) Migration (Convert the reections into a more realistic geological image) Time to depth conversion (Convert the time-axis to a depth-axis) Interpretation

Pre-stack processing

Before we start with processing, an example shot gather is shown in gure 5.

Figure 5: Example shot number 45 before processing. The shot contains a lot of noise and bad coupled traces, hence the resolution is quite bad.

4.1

Editing

Bad traces were killed. They were good recognizable, because of their high noises before the rst breaks. If we not have them removed, the results from the rst break picking would have been random and incorrect at these traces. The high noise is probably the cause from bad coupled geophones or an ambient noise close to this geophone.

4.2
4.2.1

Amplitude scaling
True amplitude recovery

We need to apply an amplitude recovery due to attenuation and wavefront spreading eects [Yilmaz, 2001]. We use a mathematical function for this true amplitude recovery: A(t) = A0 (t) tn , where A(t) is the output, A0 (t) is the initial amplitude, t is the travel time and n is the exponential term which we will vary until we have a suitable result. We tested values for n between 1.5 and 2.2 and found the best value to be 1.6. This value was chosen, because the reections are now much better recognizable and if the n value is too high, the noise will be increased in the deeper parts and the upper reections are less clearer recognizable and we dont want that. The maximum application time was chosen to be 2800ms, because no more reections can be seen beneath this value.

Figure 6: Shot number 45 after applying true amplitude recovery. The inserted exponential term has the value 1.6. Reections are much more visible after this processing step.

4.2.2

Automatic gain control

Automatic Gain control is a similar operator like the one described before, because is tries to compensate the attenuation of a waves which are propagating trough a medium. But it only will be applied in a certain time gate. This time is dened by an operator length and is now to be found. The operator length was tested between 500ms and 1700ms and the optimal value for our data is 1500ms. A higher value will strengthen the reections and decrease the noise. Too high values will cause that deeper reections vanish again in the noise.

Figure 7: Shot number 45 after applying automatic gain control. An operator length of 1500ms was used and so this ow caused that the reections are now more highlighted than before.

4.3

Top mute

Basically, we are only interested in the reection waves and therefore rst arrival waves with high amplitudes can be removed from the screen with a top mute. The information will not be deleted, it just does not appear anymore on the screen when applying the top mute [ProMAX, 1999]. An example of a top mute is shown in gure 8.

Figure 8: Shot number 45 with a top mute. The green line is the boundary where all data above was removed.

4.4

First break picking

First breaks give us helpful information to get a good velocity model of the subsurface. Therefore it is important that these rst breaks are picked correctly. The inverse of the dierent slopes will give us the velocities. [Yilmaz, 2001]

Figure 9: The inverse of the slopes from the rst arrivals denes the velocities of the subsurface. V1 is the velocity from the rst layer, v2 is the velocity from the second layer.

First, a time gate needed to be dened to say in which zone the rst breaks are. A line was drawn along all channels approximately 50ms above and 100ms below the actual rst break. Then we had to pick the rst breaks for several shot gathers manually until the dataset was trained enough to apply the neural network to all shot gathers automatically. Each shot gather had then to be controlled and adjusted (gure 10). 7

Figure 10: The red line shows the rst breaks for one shot gather. First they were picked manually for several shot gathers and after they were trained enough, this was done automatically using neural network.

4.5

Refraction statics

We need to do some refraction statics because the weathered surface layer may have velocity variations and together with the topography, it may cause some false delay times and therefore it will give troubles during further processing steps. Hence it should be corrected that it will not be interpreted wrong [Yilmaz, 2001, ProMAX, 1999]. To do all this we needed to change the server to one which provides a 8-bit Pseudo-color diplay. As a rst step, it had to be dened which rst breaks belong to which layer. Therefore a velocity had to be chosen (see gure 11) but this velocity is just a help for further steps. Only the end points of the drag lines were used as layer boundaries [ProMAX, 1999]. Then we corrected the velocities in the refractor velocity mode to prevent velocities to be completely wrong at some stations. It was important that the value of the velocity v1 was always higher than the v0 velocity, otherwise it had to be corrected (see gure 12). As a next step, the receiver delay times were displayed for the whole line. There are three dierent static solution methods and they behave dierently, as it can be seen in gure 13. The GRM method had some more errors than the DRM and the STD methods. Thats why the diminishing residual matrices (DRM) method was chosen to be the most useful one. 8

After the refractor depth model was displayed and checked, the output statics was added to the database.

Figure 11: Dening a velocity as a help for further steps and layer boundaries in the refraction statics. The black line was drawn and a resulting velocity of 1657 m/s was found.

Figure 12: Refractor velocity was corrected in a way, that no more crossing between the two velocities v0 and v1 existed.

Figure 13: Three dierent statics solutions are shown. DRM, GRM and STD

4.6

Frequency ltering

We used an Ormsby bandpass lter to get rid of ambient noise. Our data contains still disturbing noise (e.g. ground roll), hence the typical range of frequencies where noise appears, is not useful for us and can be removed. Our lter looked as follow: 18-27-80110. After applying it (gure 14), the shot gathers looked much better than before. High noisy amplitudes were removed, hence reections are much clearer to see now.

Figure 14: Shot number 45 after applying an Ormsby bandpass lter (18-27-80-110). High amplitude in the middle are removed and therefore reections ar much better to identify.

10

4.7

Deconvolution

We applied deconvolution to improve the resolution and get rid of multiples. This is realized by compress the wavelet and trying to get the whole energy at the beginning of a reection. We do that by estimating all eects from the earth, put these information into a linear lter and then design and apply inverse lters. [Yilmaz, 2001, ProMAX, 1999] There are three dierent kinds of deconvolution we used: Spiking deconvolution: The wavelet has to be minimum phase (energy is at the beginning of the wavelet) and a zero-lag spike (turning the source into a specic frequency content) is used as an output. The used lter is called Wiener-Levinson. [Yilmaz, 2001, ProMAX, 1999] Predictive deconvolution: It implies that the wavelet has minimum phase. The desired output is a time-advanced form of the input series. When x(t) is an input, x(t + a) will be the output, where a is the prediction lag. The used lter type is the same as for the spiking deconvolution. Actually, if the prediction lag is equals zero, the predictive deconvolution is nothing else than the spiking deconvolution. [Yilmaz, 2001, ProMAX, 1999] Time variant spectral whitening: The TVSW algorithm operates in the frequency domain and these frequencies are balanced with the purpose to obtain a better resolution. As the name says, the whitening can vary in time. In theory it works like that the dataset is transformed into the frequency domain, multiplied by the lter spectrum (bandpass) and then transformed back to time. An automatic gain control scalar is applied to all the traces and then both are added together. [Yilmaz, 2001, ProMAX, 1999] As a rst step, the autocorrelation was analyzed to dene the best values for the decon operator length (how much of the autocorrelation is used) for the spiking and predictive deconvolution and the prediction lag for the predictive deconvolution. Several parameter were tested and the decon operator length was then chosen to be 128ms, because the higher amplitudes needed to be in the upper part and this was achieved best at this value. The prediction lag was chosen where the rst zero crossing was for all channels more or less the same and this was found at 12ms (see gure 15). The sprectral balancing scalar length for the TVSW method was set to 11ms and the sprectral balancing frequencies are 15,22,125,170. Figure 16 shows the frequencies before and after the three deconvolutions and it explains quite good, that the deconvolution tries to atten the frequency spectrum.

11

Figure 15: Autocorrelation for the predictive deconvolution using a prediction lag of 12ms and an operator length of 128ms.

Figure 16: Frequency spectrum (top left) before deconvolution (top right) after spiking deconvolution (bottom left) after predictive deconvolution (bottom right) after TVSW

We had to choose from one of the above describes methods and therefore a comparison is done. Figure 17 shows the spiking and the predictive deconvolution, Figure 18 the TVSW method and the shot before deconvolution. It is clearly seen that the predictive deconvolution generated the strongest reection amplitudes and the most attened frequency spectrum, if it is compared to the other methods. The reections in the spiking deconvolution and the TVSW method can be seen as well, but the endings of the lines disappear in the noise, hence it is more dicult to see the reections. Therefore we decided to use the predictive deconvolution for our further processing. 12

Figure 17: top: spiking deconvolution (operator length 128ms), bottom: predictive deconvolution (perator length 128ms, prediction lag 12 ms)

Figure 18: top: TVSW method, bottom: before deconvolution

13

Stack processing

Stacking is used to improve the overall quality of the data and is basically nothing else than adding together traces from a processed seismic record to increase the S/N ratio. [Yilmaz, 2001] Here we produced a rst stack of the subsurface through CDP (common midpoint) sorting, velocity analysis using the volume viewer and NMO (normal moveout) correction. To improve the quality of the stack, residual statics were applied and the velocity model of the subsurface was updated. We repeated these steps twice to get two dierent stacks which we then could compare.

5.1

CDP sort

Before stacking, the seismic data is organized into a CDP gather, the 2D Supergather. This Supergather combines many CDPs. The result from a CDP sort is that the reections carry the information on the same common midpoint below the subsurface. [ProMAX, 1999]

5.2

Velocity analysis

Velocity analysis is an interactive tool which uses the above described CDP sort and it is used to determine the stacking velocities. The picked velocities should then improve the subsurface model. [ProMAX, 1999] The screen is divided into panels (see gure 19), hence the velocity can be picked by several criteria. We picked clear reections which were correlated to high semblance values (red colored areas on the left side of the screen) and were in a good agreement with the gather panel and the dynamic stack. A velocity was taken for the shallower part of the subsurface which we had determined in the refraction statics (1700 m/s). A velocity model (gure 20) was computed after picking the stacking velocity.

14

Figure 19: Interactive display of the stacking velocity analysis. From left to right: Semblance panel, gather panel, dynamic stack, velocity function stack panels

Figure 20: Velocity model computed by the stacking velocities.

15

5.3

NMO correction

When collecting seismic data with a recording instrument, a reection typically arrives rst at the nearest receiver station from the source. But an increasing oset between source and receiver results in a delay in the arrival time of the reection (hyperbolic shape in a seismogram). The NMO correction is used in the processing to remove this oset dependency [Yilmaz, 2001, ProMAX, 1999]. An example of such a correction is shown in gure 21.

Figure 21: Normal move out correction

5.4

Stacking

After a CDP sorting, a velocity analysis and a NMO correction, the whole seismic data is summarized into a single output trace called stack 1 (gure 22). This is the rst image of our subsurface and especially the left part of the image shows quite good reection horizons. However the image can still be improved a lot because some areas are still fuzzy and cant be clearly identied.

16

Figure 22: Stack 1

17

5.5

Residual statics

The velocities in the shallow part of the subsurface contain irregularities. As mentioned above, reections have a hyperbolic shape. Residual statics corrects shifts in the velocity irregularities that led to non-hyperbolic shapes of the reections and brings the travel times to align better [Yilmaz, 2001, ProMAX, 1999]. Both methods of Maximum Power Autostatics and Correlation Autostatics were tested on the non-stacked input data and Correlation Autostatics was the best suitable method. This method measures time shifts and tries to partition it into source and receiver statics [ProMAX, 1999].

5.6

Iterations

All the steps described above were repeated to improve stack 1. Figure 23 shows the velocity model after picking the velocities the second time in the velocity analysis. Stack 1 and the position of the picked velocities is seen in the background. From the new velocity model we got stack 2 as a result. It is shown in gure 24 and an overall improvement can be seen. The structure in the middle got a clearly visible top, which wasnt the case before. The reections are sharper, especially on the right. Discontinuities of incoherent horizons got corrected and the dipping events are more visible.

Figure 23: Velocity model after residual statics 1 and velocity analysis 2. Stack 1 is displayed in the background and the location of the picked velocities is represented by the blue circles

18

Figure 24: Stack 2

19

6
6.1

Poststack processing
Noise reduction

The stacked section still contains noise which obscures information. So it has to be reduced as much as possible without losing the seismic signals. That is why the data will be transformed into a domain, where noise and signal can be separated. Two types of noise reduction (F-X deconvolution and eigenvector lter) were tested. The F-X deconvolution with 9 lter samples and a horizontal window length of 90 ms improved the coherency of the reections best, hence it was applied to the stack.

6.2

Migration

One of the last step in reection processing is migration. It converts the seismic image to a more realistic geological subsurface image, it improves spatial resolution. For example dipping reector move to their true subsurface position and diractions collapse [Yilmaz, 2001]. There are several types of migration, three of them were used: Kirchho migration: It is a technique that uses the integral form of the wave equation. Its implementation represents stacking of the data along curves that trace the arrival time of energy scattered by image points in the Earth. It needs a (smoothed) root-mean-square input velocity in order to solve the integral form of the wave equation (Kirchho equation). As to say, it uses the diraction summation technique that sums seismic amplitudes along diraction hyperbola and stores the energy in its apex. [Schlumberger, 2013] FD migration: Downward continuation is a method that helps estimating the values of seismic data in the studied subsurface, with the assumption of continuity of the eld. FD Migration implements just this principle of downward continuation by solving the dierential wave equation (in opposite to the Kirchho migration). There are two dierent ways (fast or steep) to do this migration. Fast FD migration needs only little computational time but can only handle at dips, therefore steep FD migration is used because it can also handle steep dips. [Yilmaz, 2001, ProMAX, 1999] FK migration (phase-shift): The FK migration (downward continuation in the f-k domain) has the characteristics that it is very accurate for constant velocities but fails to image steep dips where large velocity variations occur. Due to the fact that a single velocity function is needed as data input, this migration method works very fast compared to others. [Yilmaz, 2001, ProMAX, 1999] 20

Figure 25-27 are showing the three tested migrations. Finally, we decided to apply the steep FD migration to the stack because it contained smother structures and less artefacts than the others.

Figure 25: Stack 2 applied with the steep FD migration

21

Figure 26: Stack 2 applied with the Kirchho migration

Figure 27: Stack 2 applied with the FK migration (phase shift)

22

6.3

Time to depth conversion

Figure 28: Migrated stack converted into depth

23

Interpretation

The time to depth conversion was the last step in our processing, hence we can see now structures of the subsurface from Northern Germany. These structures can now be interpreted as geological layers and fractures and of course the geological history can be guessed. Figure 29 shows the migrated stack with some interpretation in it. The green line shows a layer boundary at 1100m depth. The layer is broken in the middle (red line shows a fracture zone), a horst was built due to a thrust fault. The next clear layer boundary is drawn yellow at 1800 m and it shows a anticlinal structure in the middle. The purple lines are dipping layers and beneath them, the structures are not so clear any more, hence it was summarized as one shape (blue). Salt layers were created (probably in a chemical process in a drying out aquatic area) and afterwards, it was covered by clastic sediments. Due to buoyancy, caused by variation in density, the salt layer built a dome in the middle and this had an eect on the purple layers. They were pulled down at some points. After that, we had some erosion and new sediments were deposited. The salt dome had then once again a buoyancy which caused the anticlinal structure (yellow) and the fracture in the green layer. Finally, it was lled up with sediments again.

24

Figure 29: Interpretation of the migrated stack.

25

References
ProMAX. Promax manual. Process help les, 1999. Schlumberger. glossary. http://www.glossary.oileld.slb.com/, 2013. Ozdo gan Yilmaz. Seismic data analysis: processing, inversion, and interpretation of seismic data. Number 10. SEG Books, 2001.

26