Chapter 5
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Velocity Model Representation and Updating
Model-building techniques generally are divided
into two sequential phases: picking and inverting.
The errors and assumptions in these two phases are
quite distinct (Jones, 2003). In this chapter, we deal
primarily with the model-representation and pick-
ing aspects of model building. In Chapter 6, we
expand on picking, and in Chapter 7, we consider
the inversion aspects of model updating.
Picking can be performed (either manually or
using automation) on a single offset (or the stack)
or for a series of offsets in the gathers. Picking
also can be performed either before or after an ini-
tial migration. Picking can be done along horizons
or for a scatter of discontinuous events. For beam
migration, for example, the picking of local time
dips is performed concurrently in two domains
(e.g., shot and receiver). If picking is done before
migration, the picking error might be large because
tracking or distinguishing the various arrival
branches of diffraction hyperboloids is difcult
for complex environments.
Given the fact that manual picking can be tedi-
ous, various schemes have been developed for auto-
mating this part of the process. In addition, various
data-reduction schemes can be employed, such as
stacking, so that the picking need be done on only
one data volume (on the zero-offset cube, for exam-
ple) instead of on many nite-offset volumes. For
example, the trade-off associated with picking on
stacked data constitutes a speedup in the overall
inversion process, but by stacking, we lose infor-
mation. That is, the complexity we are trying to
397
recover in a complex model often will manifest
itself in the nonhyperbolicity of the moveout in the
prestack data. In normal moveout (NMO) stacking,
we assume hyperbolicity, so stacking destroys use-
ful information in that case.
Prior to the 1980s, most model-building tech-
niques implicitly assumed the earth to be a 1D (lay-
ered) medium. The papers in this reprint volume
concern our attempts to move beyond that restrictive
assumption so that geoscientists could address
lateral velocity variation, both in the model and in
the associated update schemes (e.g., Reshef, 1994;
Tieman, 1995).
Layer-based versus gridded models
Models themselves also fall into two major cate-
gories, thereby reecting the underlying geologic
environments: layer-based and nonlayer-based
(gridded) models. Examples of these representa-
tions and their associated problems can be found in
van Trier (1988, 1989), Wyatt et al. (1992), Wiggins
et al. (1993), and Yilmaz et al. (1994).
In layer-based models, velocity gradients and
vertical-compaction gradients are bounded by sedi-
mentary interfaces. There, it is sufcient to pick
seismic-reection events as the partitions to the
velocity regions in the model.
Some nonlayer-based models have velocity
regimes dominated by compaction gradients that
are subparallel to the seabed in the marine case. In
 398 Prestack Depth Migration and Velocity Model Building
the case of salt or shale tectonism, the scenario is
complicated by the presence of these irregular
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
bodies set within the background compaction-
gradient-driven velocity eld. For complex chalk
layers, such as those found in the North Sea, grid-
ded models also can be useful for capturing subtle
lateral changes in vertical velocity-compaction
gradients. In overthrust tectonic regimes such as
those found in the Canadian Foothills and Canadian
Rockies, the problem is complicated further by
anisotropy with a tilted axis. In that case, it can be
difcult to represent the axis of anisotropy because
a gridded model has no inherent layering with
which to dene surface normals.
Such diverse geologic environments present dif-
cult challenges in model building, and they present
challenges in the design of model-updating software
because the assumptions for layer-based techniques
differ signicantly from those for gridded tech-
niques (for example, in a layered technique, model
representation in the software might require the
presence of a continuous horizon across the whole
survey).
In addition to how we think of the geologic
aspects of the model, the issues of computational
representation of topology also exist, e.g., whether
we use a tetrahedral mesh or some polynomial
function to represent a surface. In this volume, we
have not dealt with these aspects because they
constitute an entire eld in themselves (see, for
example, the work of the GOCAD consortium:
Mallet, 1992, 2002).
Picking can be quite simple in a layer-based med-
ium when continuous coherent reectors are visible
because the update information simply can be picked
or autotracked along reector boundaries. The
situation is less evident when the velocity eld does
not follow visible reectors. In that case, we need an
a priori assumption of how the velocity eld behaves.
For example, we might need to estimate a compac-
tion gradient, which commences from a given depth
(usually the seabed). The compaction gradient and
the starting velocity generally vary spatially.
To update a gridded velocity eld, we still need
to pick information associated with reectors, but
the understanding is that the update derived from a
pick is not constrained to following a horizon. Thus,
we make a scatter of picks and input the resulting
cloud of values into the inversion scheme.
Hybrid approaches
The layer-based and the purely gridded are the
two extremes of model representation. However, a
more exible route is to adopt a hybrid approach in
which we combine the benets of both schemes:
the ability of a gridded route to capture the subtle
lateral velocity variation inherent to some strata
while keeping the sharp vertical breaks occasion-
ally present in the earth (such as at chalk and salt
boundaries (Jones et al., 2007).
The initial depth-interval velocity often is built
from the time-stacking velocity VS (smoothed
and converted to depth interval velocity, assuming
that VRMS VS [Al-Chalabi, 1974, 1994]). The
water bottom usually is picked and inserted in the
initial model as an explicit layer (sometimes picked
on a water-velocity ood migration, if the seabed
is rugose).
Following this, iterative model updating is per-
formed. In some schemes, this entails several
iterations, and in others (in which the tomography
iterates internally), fewer iterations of actual
preSDM are performed. For the purely gridded
approach, each iteration of the tomographic velocity
model update could consist of the following
steps:
1) 3D preSDM on a specied grid, outputting full-
offset (or angle) gathers
2) dense continuous automatic picking of the
prestack depth-migrated seismic gathers to
determine dip, coherency, and residual curvature
(velocity-error) elds
3) depth-domain tomographic inversion to update
the velocity model on the basis of the residual
moveout velocity and the local dip eld estimated
during autopicking
For the case in which we intend to perform a
structural update by picking a layered interface
(the hybrid approach), we run a new preSDM with
the latest update of the overburden velocity model,
and then we output a 3D image that is sampled
sufciently for horizon picking.
 Chapter 5: Velocity Model Representation and Updating
Density of picks and automation
Regardless of the technique employed, another
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
limitation has been the spatial sampling of the
information used to perform the velocity estima-
tion. Until recently, prior to 2000, prestack mig-
rated velocity information (usually in the form of
common-reection-point [CRP] gathers) was out-
put on a coarse grid, often 500 m 500 m.
To improve on the limitation of spatial sam-
pling, automated techniques for increasing the
statistical reliability of the velocity information to
be input into the chosen velocity-update scheme
have been introduced (Jones et al., 1997; Woodward
et al., 1998, Stinson et al., 2004, 2005). The auto-
mated nature of these techniques addresses the
problem of unreasonably high manpower time
needed to pick very dense velocity grids (Jones
et al., 2000). That high manpower time has limited
us severely in the past in our desire to obtain dense
velocity grids (Robein et al., 2003). Much work
on autopicking of kinematic attributes has been
conducted in recent years by Peter Hubrals group
at the University of Karlsrhe (e.g., Muller, 1998),
and their work has led to development of the
common-reection-surface stack concept (Hubral
et al., 1998).
With automation, we do not in any way improve
on the limitations of the underlying techniques
(whether that be vertical update or tomography).
We merely make the best possible use of the infor-
mation already available, by looking at a very
dense sampling of information. In other words,
when we estimate the velocity with many values,
we improve only the precision of that estimate but
not the accuracy. Thus, if the values coming out of
our velocity estimator were all erroneous but con-
sistently erroneous, then we would have simply a
very precise estimate of that inaccurate result.
Model updating
One of the rst questions to ask is what meas-
urements we are inverting against. If we are mak-
ing picks on unmigrated data, the picking phase
will suffer from considerable error. This is worse
399
for complex areas, where diffraction branches from
various arrivals will be difcult to distinguish and
especially difcult to pick with autotrackers.
For data that have undergone an initial migration,
the picking will be signicantly easier. However,
tomography often needs unmigrated times for the
inversion; consequently, the algorithm rst might
need to demigrate the picks in some way. Hence,
tomography based on migrated picks could be
working with data that have been modied and thus
could be in some way less accurate.
This limitation can be reduced by incorporating
the initial migration techniques within the forward-
modeling step. We would, for example, be com-
paring migrated data measurements with modeled
migrated arrival times (Sexton, 1998; Hardy and
Jeannot, 1999).
To achieve maximum reliability in tomography,
we need dense input information, so we need to
rely on autopickers, especially for prestack data.
Thus, picking on migrated data is benecial.
Some techniques employ picking that is performed
on gathers or images produced by migrating with a
suite of perturbed models and picking of the best
member of the scan (i.e., the sharpest image or at-
test gather in the scan). The update to the model
made on the basis of such picks might be tomo-
graphic or simply 1D.
Most techniques invert to produce a velocity
model and in some way try to resolve the ambiguity
between velocity and depth (Lines, 1993). However,
some techniques deal only with traveltimes and
do not explicitly produce a velocity eld for
example, the Delphi common-focusing-point (CFP)
method (Berkhout, 1997a (reprinted in Chapter 6);
Berkhout and Verschuur, 2001).
Anisotropic parameter estimation
Much interest has been shown recently in aniso-
tropic migration and the associated problem of ani-
sotropic parameter estimation (e.g., Levin, 1978;
Armstrong et al., 2002). For time imaging, one
additional parameter () is required (Alkhalifa, 1997).
For depth imaging, two additional parameters (
and ) are required (Thomsen, 1986).
 400 Prestack Depth Migration and Velocity Model Building
In Thomsens notation and for the simple case of
a at-lying (1D) medium, the vertical and horizon-
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
tal velocities are related to the surface seismic
near-offset moveout velocity (Vnmo) by
Vnmo = Vv (1 + 2d ) Vv (1 + d ) (1)
Vh = Vv (1 + 2e ) Vv (1 + e ) (2)
and
Vh = Vnmo (1 + 2h) Vnmo (1 + h) (3)
where Vnmo is the near-offset velocity estimated
from stacking velocity analysis, Vv is the vertical
velocity seen in well logs (after calibration to the
seismic band width), and Vh is the horizontal com-
ponent of velocity (to which we do not usually
have access).
Alkhalifahs parameter can be related to
Thomsens and formulation via = ( )/ solution for anisotropic parameter estimation, we
(1 + 2 ).
Unless we rst have obtained a reliable estimate
of the vertical velocity-compaction gradients, the
anisotropy parameter estimates will be in error
(Jones et al., 2002). However, assuming this has
been done, we usually estimate from well ties
(Reilly, 1993) and determine from higher-order
moveout estimates or during tomographic inver-
sion incorporating long-offset data. No reliable
inversion scheme based on surface seismic meas-
urements has yet been demonstrated for obtaining
, although some methods have been discussed
(e.g., Isaac and Lawton, 2002). A serious restric-
tion on anisotropic parameter estimation from
surface seismic data in the past was the absence
of long-offset information (i.e., the maximum ac-
quired offset was usually less than the depth of
the target horizons; consequently, anisotropic
higher-order moveout effects were not manifest
in the data).
In analyzing long-offset data, we actually meas-
ure a cumulative e, which must be inverted to
yield the interval values of (analogously to rms
inversion to obtain interval velocity). Once the
interval values are obtained, then can be deter-
mined for use in depth migration.
For a 1D medium, Alkhalifah and Tsvankin
(1995) and Alkhalifah (1997) described a cumula-
tive effective anisotropy that incorporates various
nonhyperbolic moveout effects:
t j v 4j (1 + 8h j )
1 j
heff (To ) = 4
- 1 , (4)
8 T0 Vnmo
where vj is the vertical interval velocity derived
from short-offset NMO velocities Vnmo using a Dix
inversion, tj is the two-way vertical time in the jth
layer, and T0 is the total vertical time to the layer.
We must invert this equation to recover the interval
values of .
It is also possible to incorporate inversion of
these parameters into a tomography (e.g., Sexton
and Williamson, 1998). By using a tomographic
can deal with a complex model rather than being
limited to 1D anisotropic assumptions.
Addressing the full wavefield
Migration and model building for shear-wave
and converted-wave data are still immature. Al-
though migrating a shear-wave recording inde-
pendently is relatively straightforward, we still
have the difcult problem of obtaining reliable
parameter estimates. Scanning techniques have
been presented, for example, that correlate images
obtained from different shooting directions to
estimate the depth-varying ratio VP:VS. However,
those techniques are restricted by 2D assumptions
(Audebert et al., 1999).
A major challenge in dealing with converted-
wave data is identifying the same events on both
the P and S (or PS) seismic sections. Because of
changes in their respective reectivities, horizons
of interest often are absent in one section. Thus,
relying on codepthing of events to constrain the
model building can be problematic. We really need
 Chapter 5: Velocity Model Representation and Updating
to be able to identify such pairs of events to compute
VP /VS over a known geologic interval.
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Progress also has been made in the joint inver-
sion of P-wave and converted-wave velocity picks
(Herrenschmidt et al., 2001; Brown et al., 2002;
Foss et al., 2004). However, we are still some way
from a full vector eld migration (i.e., a single run
of the migration inputting the P, Sv, and Sh measure-
ments; e.g., Wapenaar et al., 1987).
Moving beyond inversion of just traveltime infor-
mation, full-waveform inversion (e.g., Pratt et al.,
2002, 2008; Sirgue et al., 2008; Warner et al., 2008)
offers promising results by addressing both the kine-
matic and dynamic aspects of the recorded data.
Discussion
Most techniques can yield an adequate starting
model for depth imaging. However, for an area
with moderate to complex structural geology or
an area with rapidly changing velocities, tomo-
graphic techniques are benecial. Tomography has
the advantage of attempting to reconcile errors
(arising both from measurements and from under-
lying assumptions) throughout a 3D volume. A
tomographic solution also permits us to deal more
readily with anisotropy parameter estimation for
geology that is not at. In contrast, 1D updating
schemes, which are discussed in more detail in
Chapter 6, deal with each measurement in isolation
from all others.
Spatial resolution of the velocity is a function
of the number of rays that the inversion uses to
sample each element of the subsurface. Thus, in
order of increasing resolving power, we would have:
the vertical Dix update, the zero-offset normal-ray
update, two-point parametric tomographic inversion,
and multioffset tomographic inversion. Naturally,
increasing the spatial sampling of any of these
techniques would improve its precision but not
its accuracy.
Most available tomographic solutions can be
formulated for either gridded or layered models.
Both layered and gridded model representations
have strengths and weaknesses, and ideally, a
401
exible hybrid-model builder should permit use of
both types of representations. Perhaps the most
important elements to keep in mind are that the
processes of picking and then of inverting those
picks are quite distinct.
In the selection of papers reprinted with this
chapter, we have not distinguished between tech-
niques that result in layered models and those that
result in gridded models, nor have we dealt with
azimuthal anisotropy. However, we have separated
the reprints into four categories:
1) general considerations about velocity error and
representation of the velocity eld
2) papers that deal primarily with getting reliable
data to pick (as opposed to concentrating on
how to invert those picks to update the velocity
model)
3) works that deal with the updating procedure
(mostly tomographic updating)
4) papers that deal with anisotropy in the model
update.
References
Al-Chalabi, M., 1974, An analysis of stacking rms
average and interval velocities over a horizontally
layered ground: Geophysical Prospecting, 22, 458
475.
Al-Chalabi, M., 1994, Seismic velocity A critique:
First Break, 12, no. 12, 589596.
Alkhalifah, T., 1997, Velocity analysis using nonhyper-
bolic moveout in transversely isotropic media: Geo-
physics, 62, 18391854.
Alkhalifah, T., and I. Tsvankin, 1995, Velocity analysis
for transversely isotropic media: Geophysics, 60,
15501566.
Armstrong, T., S. Merlin, K. Hawkins, 2002, Seismic
anisotropy from VSP PreSDM in Pierce eld,
central North Sea: 64th Annual Conference and
Exhibition, EAGE, paper B31.
Audebert, F., P. Y. Granger, and A. Herrenschmidt, 1999,
CCP-scan technique: True common conversion point
sorting and converted-wave velocity analysis solved
by PP-PS prestack depth migration: 69th Annual
International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts,
11861189.
 402 Prestack Depth Migration and Velocity Model Building
Berkhout, A. J., 1997, Pushing the limits of seismic
imaging, Part I: Prestack migration in terms of double
dynamic focusing: Geophysics, 62, 937953.
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Berkhout, A. J., and D. J. Verschuur, 2001, Seismic
imaging beyond depth migration: Geophysics, 66,
18951912.
Brown, G., R. Bloor, T. Gasiorowski, E. Schmidt, 2002,
Anisotropic multicomponent 3D prestack depth
migration: Proceedings of PESGB PETEX biennial
meeting.
Foss, S.-K., B. Ursin, and M. de Hoop, 2004, Depth-
consistent P- and S-wave velocity reection tomo-
graphy using PP and PS seismic data: 74th Annual
International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts,
23632366.
Hardy, P., and J. P. Jeannot, 1999, 3D reection
tomography in time-migrated space: 69th Annual
International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts,
12871290.
Herrenschmidt, A., P.-Y. Granger, F. Audebert, C. Gerea,
G. Etienne, A. Stopin, M. Alerini, S. Lebegat,
G. Lambar, P. Berthet, S. Nebieridze, and J.-L.
Boelle, 2001, Comparison of different strategies for
velocity model building and imaging of PP and PS
real data: The Leading Edge, 20, 984995.
Isaac, J. H., and D. C. Lawton 2002, Practical determi-
nation of anisostropy P-wave parameters from sur-
face seismic data: Annual Meeting, Canadian Society
of Exploration Geophysicists, Expanded Abstracts,
paper ANI-1.
Jones, I. F., 2003, A review of 3D preSDM velocity model
building techniques: First Break, 21, no. 3, 4558.
Jones, I. F., F. Audebert, S. Martin, and K. Ibbotson,
1997, Continuous 3-D preSDM velocity analysis:
67th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded
Abstracts, 18191821.
Jones, I., N. Bernitsas, P. Farmer, J. M. Leslie, and
M. Bridson, 2002, Anisotropic ambiguities: 72nd
Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Ab-
stracts, 121124.
Jones, I. F., M. J. Sugrue, and P. B. Hardy, 2007, Hybrid
gridded tomography: First Break, 25, no. 4, 3541.
Levin, F. K., 1978, The reection, refraction, and dif-
fraction of waves in media with elliptical velocity
dependence: Geophysics, 43, 528537.
Mallet, J. L., 1992, Discrete smooth interpolation in
geometric modeling: Computer Aided Design, 24,
no. 4, 178191.
Mallet, J. L., 2002, Geomodeling: Oxford University
Press.
Muller, T., 1998, Common reection surface stack
versus NMO/stack and NMO/DMO/stack: 60th An-
nual Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended
Abstracts, Session 01-20.
Pratt, R. G., 2008, Waveform tomography Successes,
cautionary tales, and future directions: 70th Annual
Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, paper W011.
Pratt, R. G., F. Gao, C. Zelt, and A. Levander, 2002, A
comparison of ray-based and waveform tomography
Implications for migration: 64th Annual Conference
and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts, B023.
Reilly, J. M., 1993, Integration of well and seismic data
for 3D velocity model building: First Break, 11, no. 6,
247260.
Robein, E., I. F. Jones, and E. de Bazelaire, 2003, High-
density high-resolution seismic velocity analysis:
Where are we and for what benet?: First Break, 21,
no. 1, 1214.
Sexton, P. A., 1998, 3D velocity-depth model building
using surface seismic and well data: Ph.D. thesis,
University of Durham, U. K.
Sexton, P. A., and P. R. Williamson, 1998, 3D anisotropic
velocity estimation by model-based inversion of pre-
stack traveltimes: 68th Annual International Meeting,
SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 18551858.
Sirgue, L., J. T. Etgen, and U. Albertin, 2008, 3D fre-
quency domain waveform inversion using time
domain nite difference methods: 70th Annual
Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, paper F022.
Stinson, K. J., W. K. Chan, E. Crase, S. Levy, M. Reshef,
and M. Roth, 2004, Automatic imaging: Velocity
veracity: 66th Annual Conference and Exhibition,
EAGE, Extended Abstracts, C018.
Stinson, K., W.-K. Chan, E. Crase, and S. Levy, 2005,
Optimized determination of migration velocities:
Recorder, 30, no. 8, 516.
Thomsen, L, 1986, Weak elastic anisotropy: Geophysics,
51, 19541966.
van Trier, J., 1988, Migration-velocity analysis using
geological constraints: 58th Annual International Meet-
ing, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, Session S9.4.
van Trier, J., 1989, Structural-velocity analysis using
migrated seismic data: 59th Annual International
Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 12251228.
Wapenaar, C. P. A., N. A. Kinneging, and A. J. Berkhout,
1987, Principle of prestack migration based on the
full elastic two-way wave equation: Geophysics,
52, 151173.
Warner, M., I. Stekl, and A. Umpleby, 2008, Efcient
and effective 3D waveeld tomography: 70th
 Chapter 5: Velocity Model Representation and Updating
Annual Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, paper
F023.
Woodward, M. J., P. Farmer, D. Nichols, and S. Charles,
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
1998, Automated 3-D tomographic velocity analysis of
residual moveout in prestack depth migrated common
image point gathers: 68th Annual International Meeting,
SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 12181221.
Yilmaz, ., P. Farmer, A. Pieprzak, and B. Godfrey, 1994,
Estimation of velocity-depth models for structural
targets: A case history from the North Sea: 64th Annual
International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts,
12501252.
Reprints
Hubral, P., G. Hcht, and R. Jger, 1998, An introduc-
tion to the common reection surface stack: 60th
Annual Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended
Abstracts, Session 01-19.
403
Jones, I. F., H. Baud, K. Ibbotson, F. Audebert, 2000,
Continuous 3D preSDM velocity analysis: The Lead-
ing Edge, 19, 263269.
Lines, L., 1993, Ambiguity in analysis of velocity and
depth (short note): Geophysics, 58, 596597.
Reshef, M., 1994, The use of 3D pre-stack depth imaging
to estimate layer velocities and reector positions
(short note): Geophysics, 62, 206210.
Tieman, H. J., 1995, Migration velocity analysis: Ac-
counting for the effects of lateral velocity variations:
Geophysics, 60, 164175.
Wiggins, W., U. Albertin, and G. Stankovic, 1993,
Building 3-D depth migration velocity models with
topological objects: 63rd Annual International Meet-
ing, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 170173.
Wyatt, K. D., S. K. Towe, J. E. Layton, S. B. Wyatt,
D. H. von Seggern, and C. A. Brockmeier, 1992,
Ergonomics in 3D depth migration: 62nd Annual
International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts,
944947.
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

404
Prestack Depth Migration and Velocity Model Building
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Chapter 5: Velocity Model Representation and Updating

405
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

406
Prestack Depth Migration and Velocity Model Building
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Chapter 5: Velocity Model Representation and Updating

407
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

408
Prestack Depth Migration and Velocity Model Building
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Chapter 5: Velocity Model Representation and Updating

409
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

410
Prestack Depth Migration and Velocity Model Building
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Chapter 5: Velocity Model Representation and Updating

411
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

412
Prestack Depth Migration and Velocity Model Building
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Chapter 5: Velocity Model Representation and Updating

413
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

414
Prestack Depth Migration and Velocity Model Building
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Chapter 5: Velocity Model Representation and Updating

415
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

416
Prestack Depth Migration and Velocity Model Building
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Chapter 5: Velocity Model Representation and Updating

417
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

418
Prestack Depth Migration and Velocity Model Building
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Chapter 5: Velocity Model Representation and Updating

419
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

420
Prestack Depth Migration and Velocity Model Building
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Chapter 5: Velocity Model Representation and Updating

421
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

422
Prestack Depth Migration and Velocity Model Building
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Chapter 5: Velocity Model Representation and Updating

423
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

424
Prestack Depth Migration and Velocity Model Building
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Chapter 5: Velocity Model Representation and Updating

425
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

426
Prestack Depth Migration and Velocity Model Building
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Chapter 5: Velocity Model Representation and Updating

427
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

428
Prestack Depth Migration and Velocity Model Building
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Chapter 5: Velocity Model Representation and Updating

429
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

430
Prestack Depth Migration and Velocity Model Building
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Chapter 5: Velocity Model Representation and Updating

431
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

432
Prestack Depth Migration and Velocity Model Building
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Chapter 5: Velocity Model Representation and Updating

433
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

434
Prestack Depth Migration and Velocity Model Building
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Chapter 5: Velocity Model Representation and Updating

435
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

436
Prestack Depth Migration and Velocity Model Building
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Chapter 5: Velocity Model Representation and Updating

437
Downloaded 07/02/14 to 134.153.184.170. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

438
Prestack Depth Migration and Velocity Model Building