See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264858820

Integrated velocity model estimation for improved positioning with anisotropic

PSDM

Article  in  The Leading Edge · June 2005

DOI: 10.1190/1.1946219

CITATIONS READS
15 123

1 author:

Tom Dickens
ExxonMobil
24 PUBLICATIONS   185 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Full Waveform Inversion View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tom Dickens on 19 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Integrated velocity model estimation for improved positioning
with anisotropic PSDM
LORIE K. BEAR, THOMAS A. DICKENS, JEROME R. KREBS, JONATHAN LIU, and PETER TRAYNIN, ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company, Houston, USA
T here are many geologic settings
Downloaded 09/19/16 to 158.26.2.162. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
where anisotropic migration is neces-
sary to obtain accurate seismic images.
While this is well known, stable aniso-
tropic parameter estimation has posed
a serious challenge. Seismic data,
though extensive in coverage, cannot
constrain the anisotropy parameters
alone (Tsvankin and Thomsen, 1995).
The set of parameters is better con-
strained by integrating the seismic
information with certain types of well
data. However, the well data are gen-
erally sparse, so the parameters are
only constrained at a few locations.
Nonuniqueness is obviously a funda-
mental issue in our estimation prob-
lem. To produce stable and consistent
estimates for the anisotropy parame-
ters, we have developed an approach
that incorporates the following as-
sumptions:
• All available data should be inte-
grated into the model building
process.
• The model should only be as com-
plex as the data requires.
• The model should be geologically
reasonable.
• A priori geologic assumptions can
be used to constrain the model
where the data are inadequate. Figure 1. Interpretive workflow for integrated
model estimation.
There are three key requirements
for implementing our approach. First, we need a way to
assess the consistency of the model with many different
data types. Second, we must be able to easily adjust the
model to improve the fit. Third, we need a model repre-
sentation that allows values to be defined at sparse locations
and for those values to be spread through the rest of the
model in a way that is consistent with any geologic assump-
tions we have made.
In this paper, we will present our solution for meeting
these requirements. We will also present our model build-
ing procedure and three anisotropic prestack depth migra-
tion (APSDM) examples from marine sedimentary basins.
For each data set, we were able to fit all the available data
while producing geologically reasonable models. We also
observed improved positioning accuracy compared to
isotropic depth images.
Integrated velocity model estimation. Surface seismic reflec-
tions, surface seismic direct arrivals, well data, and prior geo-
logic information can be used to constrain a subsurface
velocity model. These various sources of subsurface veloc-
ity information have different strengths and weaknesses.
Integrating all available velocity information into a veloc-
ity model increases the accuracy of the model by offsetting
the weakness of one data type with the strengths of another.
622 THE LEADING EDGE JUNE 2005
We call the process of building a model
that integrates all data integrated veloc-
ity model estimation.
In this section we present our inte-
grated velocity model estimation solu-
tion. In particular, we will discuss
some hurdles that can make integra-
tion difficult and our solution to over-
come them. Our early attempts at
integrated velocity model estimation
led to some significant successes in
improved imaging. However, we
found that interpreters could not use
these images, because they usually had
structural artifacts associated with
velocity artifacts in the model. We
found that these artifacts were the
result of the following problems:
• apparent inconsistencies between
the various sources of velocity
information (this issue has gener-
ally been eliminated by including
anisotropy)
• instability in the methods used to
convert measured data to interval
velocity (e.g. Dix conversion mag-
nifying the errors in the measured
RMS velocity)
• localized velocity anomalies due to
the sparse coverage (and hence,
only local influence) of some data
types (e.g. well data)
• unnecessary variability added to
the model where the values were
not well constrained by the data
A common solution for integrated model estimation is
to use tomography. Each data type of interest is incorpo-
rated in the tomographic cost function along with geologic
constraints and appropriate weights. Tomography does
address some of the issues listed above. In particular, tomog-
raphy measures the model’s fit to the data in the data
domain. This avoids the instability that is always associated
with converting a field measurement to the model domain
(i.e. interval velocity). So, for example, check-shot traveltime
measurements are integrated into the model by comparing
forward-modeled with measured check-shot times. This is
as opposed to converting the check-shot measurements to
interval velocities and comparing those velocities to the
model’s velocity. Also, with attention to parameter “tweak-
ing,” the difficulty with sparse coverage of some data types
can be largely overcome in tomography.
We tested tomography as an approach to integration, and
found that it often produced large improvements in imag-
ing beneath velocity anomalies. However, geologic inter-
preters did not use these images, because they contained
structural artifacts. These artifacts were caused by variabil-
ity in the velocity model that was not necessary to fit the
data, but was added by the tomographic process. The arti-
 facts persisted even when we applied smoothness con-
straints to the model. Smoothness constraints did not work,
because the spatial scales of the actual subsurface velocity
variations and the velocity artifacts were similar. We could
not smooth out the artifacts without also removing the actual
subsurface velocity variations we were trying to capture.
This experience highlighted the importance of having
better control over the variability of the model. We conse-
Downloaded 09/19/16 to 158.26.2.162. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

quently developed an approach that replaced the automated

optimization in tomography with a more easily controlled
interactive interpretation procedure. However, we kept as
much of the machinery from tomography in our interpre-
tive method as possible, so that we could mimic the ease
with which tomography integrates all data. In particular we
kept tomography’s measurement of the model’s fit to the
data in the data domain rather than in the model domain.
The workflow for our technique is shown in Figure 1.
Besides interactive control, we found that a specially
designed model representation vastly improved our control
of model variability. The important features of this repre- Figure 2. The 3D visualization display used for global quality control of
the model and for determining where to update the model next. This
sentation are that it can have spatially varying resolution, figure shows the fit to various data types for area A. Shown in this figure
and that it interpolates and extrapolates the nonuniformly are vertical check shots, offset check shots, and sonic logs. The check-shot
set values through the rest of the model in user-defined direc- data are color coded according to the difference between the measured and
tions. Since the model can be defined by many fewer points, forward-modeled times.
the representation is easy to edit. The user-defined inter-
polation directions can be used to bias the model towards
certain geological assumptions (e.g., compaction-driven sed-
iments).
The 3D visualization and model updating displays
shown in Figures 2 and 3 are central to our model building
procedure. The 3D visualization display (Figure 2) is used
to quality control the model’s global fit to the data, and to
determine where the model should next be updated. The
model updating display (Figure 3) is used to make adjust-
ments to fit the model to the data at a particular location.
Data are displayed as the difference between the actual mea-
surements and the predictions of forward modeling. In the
3D visualization display, this difference is often plotted by
color coding a symbol at the location of the measurement.
So, for example, a check-shot measurement is visualized by
a cube plotted at the location of the check-shot receiver. The
check-shot cube is color-coded according to the difference
between the measured and forward-modeled traveltimes.
The advantages of our integrated model updating pro-
cedure can be summarized as follows:

• The user is given direct control of the model, making it

easy to avoid artifacts in the model.
• Our model representation provides a mechanism for
incorporating spatially varying resolution and geologic
biases.
• Using forward modeling reduces model artifacts that can
result from unstable processes (i.e., Dix conversion) that
magnify small measurement errors. It also simplifies
the handling of more physically accurate representations
of the subsurface, such as anisotropy, that account for
more physical effects (Thomsen, 1986; Faria et al., 1994;
and Tsvankin et al, 1995).
• Model variability is controlled by the number and loca-
tion of model updating locations. Since the model is only
updated at locations which exhibit an inconsistency
between the model and data, variations will not be put
in the model that are not needed to match the data.
Typically we interpret less than 5% of the number of loca-
tions used in alternative model updating methods.
The disadvantage of our technique is that some forward
Figure 3. Two views of the vertical updating display. This display is used
to adjust model properties (vertical velocity and anisotropy parameters)
until the model is consistent with all data at a selected location. First
(top), the vertical velocity is adjusted to match the vertical information—
in this case, sonic logs and near-offset check shots (denoted by larger and
nearly vertical arrows in the ∆t plot). Then (bottom), the anisotropy
parameters are adjusted so that the offset information is matched—in this
case, the longer-offset check shots and the gathers. When the model is
adjusted, the program automatically moveout corrects the prestack depth
migrated gather by ray tracing through the new model, and recomputes
the traveltime difference between the check shots and the model.
modeling approximations are required to make the inter-
pretation perform at interactive speed (Figure 4). The approx-
imation used depends on the data type being analyzed.
There is usually a limited amount of direct arrival infor-
mation, from both surface seismic and offset check shots, so

JUNE 2005 THE LEADING EDGE 623


Downloaded 09/19/16 to 158.26.2.162. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Figure 4. Detailed diagram illustrating a portion of the workflow in more
detail than in Figure 1. In particular, this diagram shows the forward
modeling approximation used for each type of data that can be integrated
into the velocity model.
Figure 5. Area A seismic with (a) velocity and (b) η values. Solid black
line indicates where parameters are best constrained. The dashed black
line is parallel to the water bottom in this area, the dashed blue line
roughly indicates a constant value for the parameter. Note that the dashed
blue line is similar to the water bottom trend for V0, while it more closely
follows structure for η.
these data can be modeled with high accuracy using 3D ray
tracing. Interactive 3D forward modeling of surface seismic
reflections is more difficult, and therefore we make the
approximations that the velocity is locally laterally invari-
ant and that the reflections are horizontal.
While we are making some approximations, our method
is less approximate than many alternative methods, espe-
cially those that are based on Dix conversion. Furthermore,
we believe that the disadvantages imposed by our approx-
imations are mitigated to a large degree by the fact that we
are integrating all data into the model and by the stability
of our process (Yu et al., 2003; Bear et al., 2003).
Model building procedure. Our models are parameterized
by the VTI parameters V0, δ, and η, with
V(θ) ≈ V0 [1 + δ sin2 θ cos2 θ + ε sin4 θ]
(for weak anisotropy) and
η = (ε - δ)/(1 + 2δ)
where V(θ) is the phase velocity at the phase angle θ from
the vertical and η measures the departure of the velocity vari-
ation from ellipticity (Thomsen, 1986; Alkhalifah and
Tsvankin, 1995). A fast first-arrival traveltime algorithm,
based on Faria and Stoffa (1994) is used in the model build-
624 THE LEADING EDGE JUNE 2005
ing procedure to allow for rapid vertical updates of gather
moveout as we vary the velocity and anisotropy parame-
ters. A first-arrival algorithm is sufficient since these verti-
cal updates are performed only in areas where raypaths
would not encounter extreme lateral velocity variations
(e.g., adjacent to salt).
Our analysis procedure starts at the well locations, where
we have the most data. We first set V0 by matching com-
puted traveltimes to observed vertical check-shot or sonic
data (Figure 3). We next fix the anisotropy parameter δ,
which controls the deviation of measured short-spread NMO
velocities from V0, by adjusting it to flatten the near- to mid-
offsets of the migrated seismic gathers at the wells. We
finally pick the parameter η to remove any residual move-
out remaining at far offsets. If there is offset check-shot data,
we further adjust δ and η to obtain the best fit to these
highly constraining data. The interpreted values of the three
parameters are interpolated/extrapolated through the rest
of the model in user-defined directions, typically based on
either conformance to the water bottom or to subsurface
structure. We then move to other locations in the model and
adjust the parameters until the seismic gather data are suf-
ficiently flat over the entire area. Generally, we update V0
at the most locations, with the anisotropy parameters being
picked at many fewer locations. In particular, the parame-
ter δ can be picked only at well locations, since the mea-
sured NMO velocities are a combination of the true vertical
velocity V0 and δ (recall that in a homo-
geneous anisotropic medium).
We note the particularly strong constraint that offset
check-shot (OCS) data (Krebs et al., 1995) place on anisotropy
estimation. When gathered with long offsets (~2 times the
receiver depth), they contain traveltimes for rays that travel
both vertically and horizontally through the subsurface.
The horizontal portion of the ray path gives the sensitivity
to anisotropy that is unique to OCS data. Knowing the start-
ing and ending points of these rays provides the ability to
compare the measured and modeled traveltimes. Long-off-
set surface seismic data may have similar travel paths, but
the reflection point is unknown, so such a comparison is
impossible. OCS data can be thought of as a field measure-
ment of the Green’s function needed to produce an accu-
rate image. So although OCS data can only be acquired
sparsely or even at only one well, we have found it to be
the piece of data that allows us to build anisotropic models
which produce images having significantly more accurate
positioning than we have obtained using isotropic imaging.
Data examples. We now present examples taken from three
anisotropic PSDM projects carried out using the method
described above. The areas, to be called A, B, and C, are all
located in offshore sedimentary basins near salt bodies. All
had shown indications of anisotropy (incorrect PSDM
depths, “hockey-stick” moveout on far offsets in migrated
gathers). In each case we were able to build geologically rea-
sonable velocity/anisotropy models that fit all data and
that led to improvements in imaging and positioning when
compared to isotropic migrations.
Our first example is from a producing field (area A). In
addition to a substantial number of sonic logs and vertical
check shots, this area also has an OCS survey that provides
strong constraints on the anisotropy parameters. This was
one of the first models built using our procedure, and we
chose to use a conservative geologic assumption that the val-
ues would be compaction-driven. Thus, the models for all
three parameters were created so that interpolation/ extrap-
olation of the values was performed in directions consistent
Downloaded 09/19/16 to 158.26.2.162. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Figure 6. Comparison of area A gamma logs to seismic for (a) isotropic
PoSDM, and (b) APSDM. No depth stretching has been applied to either
the logs or the seismic and the scale is roughly 1:1. Note the good tie to
the sands for the APSDM, even for the steepest dips.
Figure 7. Slices from vertical velocity and η models for Area B. The veloc-
ity follows a compaction trend, with a slight dip following the water
bottom, while η dips more steeply, following a shaly sequence.
with the water bottom trend (not local structure). The fit to
a subset of the available well data is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 5 shows that to fit all the data available, the ver-
tical velocity values generally did follow a compaction trend.
However, the trends for the anisotropy parameters can be
seen to be more consistent with structure (Figure 5 only
shows the values for η, but the values for δ are similar in
magnitude and distribution). Since the interpolation/extrap-
olation was biasing the anisotropy to follow the compaction
trend, this structural trend was solely due to efforts to match
the data—particularly the OCS data. Another interesting
observation is that the anisotropy values appeared to qual-
itatively match the shape of the gamma logs filtered to seis-
mic frequencies, at least to the depths constrained by the
check-shot data. This suggests that the anisotropy values are
not just structurally controlled, but are lithology dependent.
This is not particularly surprising (Alkhalifah and Rampton,
2001), but, again, this dependence appeared solely from try-
ing to match check-shot, sonic log, and seismic data.
Figure 6 shows the final APSDM result for area A, com-
pared to a previous isotropic poststack depth migration.
Gamma ray logs are overlaid on the section to illustrate the
accuracy of positioning of sands adjacent to the salt body.
Note that even the steepest sands are properly positioned.
In contrast, in a previous isotropic PSDM result, vertical
depth errors of 1000 ft were present.
Model building at Area B, another marine sedimentary
basin setting with an OCS survey, presented additional chal-
lenges because it has very few well locations. Since δ can
only be quantified at well locations, we were forced to
extrapolate it over relatively large distances, using either
compaction or structural trends. Initially, the water bottom
Figure 8. Difference between observed and computed OCS traveltimes for
anisotropic and isotropic models for area B. The isotropic model shows the
characteristic increase in error with offset (angle), while the anisotropic
model fits the observed times well to large offsets.
Figure 9. Well path overlying anisotropic PSDM result for area B. The
well, whose path was chosen based on the migrated data, encounters the
top and base of the reservoir within ±10 m of the depths predicted from
the seismic data.
was used as the extrapolation direction for both velocity and
anisotropy parameters; however, it became apparent that it
would be difficult to fit the seismic data while simultane-
ously selecting δ and η to correlate well with each other in
depth, as one would expect on physical grounds.
Changing the extrapolation direction for anisotropy
parameters to follow structure, we found that indepen-
dently picked η values correlated well with regions of non-
zero δ and with structure. Maps of the δ and η parameters
clearly show their areas of largest magnitude closely corre-
spond with a massive shale formation, while vertical veloc-
ity again follows a compaction trend. Figure 7 shows a slice
through the velocity and η models. Figure 8, a plot of the
difference between predicted and observed OCS travel-
times, illustrates that we were able to fit the OCS data out
to large offsets with the structurally interpolated anisotropy
models. (Note the extremely poor OCS fit obtained with an
isotropic velocity model.)
The APSDM data for Area B were used to plan the loca-
tion of a well. Figure 9 illustrates the positioning accuracy
we were able to obtain by incorporating anisotropy into the
velocity model. The figure shows the highly deviated well
path and the relatively steeply dipping reservoir (~ 30°); the
migrated section matches the formation tops marked on the
well path to within ±10 m, while previous work based on
isotropic prestack time migration led to depth errors of as
much as 80 m. It is clearly advantageous to include
JUNE 2005 THE LEADING EDGE 625

Downloaded 09/19/16 to 158.26.2.162. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Figure 10. Slice through the vertical velocity and anisotropy model η for
area C, showing the conformance to a compaction driven trend of the
velocity, and the fit to structure of anisotropy. The structural trend of
anisotropy was not used as an a priori constraint.
Figure 11. Comparison of migrated seismic sections from area C for (a)
isotropic PSDM, and (b) APSDM. Note the clean terminations of the
footwall steeply dipping events and the overall better image quality of the
APSDM data.
Figure 12. Comparison of anisotropy parameters δ and η from neighbor-
ing areas B and C. The overall trends and values are very similar, show-
ing that our parameter estimation approach is physically reasonable.
anisotropic effects when migrating data to be used for plan-
ning development of steeply dipping reservoirs, since their
correct positioning depends critically on knowledge of the
horizontal velocity.
Our final example, area C, is from an area that includes
a number of wells with vertical check-shot and sonic log
data, but has no OCS data. We used a similar model build-
ing strategy as for area B, starting with compaction-driven
interpolation directions for both velocity and anisotropy.
However, in this example, the interpolation direction for the
anisotropy parameters was never changed to follow struc-
ture. Figure 10 shows velocity and η slices from the model
built for area C. The large values of the η parameter can be
seen to correspond well to a non-reflective massive shale
sequence. Again, this correspondence was not forced upon
626 THE LEADING EDGE JUNE 2005
the model by hand, but arose naturally from our fitting all
the available data.
Figure 11 shows a comparison of isotropic PSDM and
APSDM results for area C. The isotropic migration exhibits
depth errors of up to 220 m, and the dip angle of the shal-
low fault has been clearly overestimated. The anisotropic
PSDM provides a crisper image of the fault plane and sur-
rounding terminations.
Areas B and C are located within the same general vicin-
ity, so it is instructive to compare the two anisotropy mod-
els. Figure 12 compares the behavior of VTI anisotropy
parameters δ and η at areas B and C, for locations with sim-
ilar water depth. In both cases, the depth range of nonzero
anisotropy corresponds well with a massive shale forma-
tion, and the parameter values take on similar magnitudes.
This correspondence was not forced upon the model by
hand, but arose naturally from our integrated model build-
ing approach. Combined with the tendency for the aniso-
tropy parameters to trend along structure, this suggests that
the strongest control on the anisotropy values is lithology.
Since the model building at areas B and C was done com-
pletely separately, the similarity in both functional forms and
maximum values indicates a distinct regional similarity that
could be taken advantage of in future APSDM projects in
this area. It also suggests that our methodology produces
stable results.
In all cases, the anisotropy models we developed exhib-
ited a decrease to zero as depth increased. This behavior fit
the available data. Given the moderate offsets available in
the seismic data, and the depth limits of the available well
data, we are unable to determine whether this decrease is
physical or simply a product of our inability to resolve the
parameters at depth. The key point is that these models pro-
duce traveltimes that fit the observations. Lack of well data
and insufficient seismic offset leads to a significant
nonuniqueness in the estimated parameters at depth
(Tsvankin and Thomsen, 1995).
Summary. Integrated model building is distinguished by its
ability to integrate all available data into the velocity model.
Integration is critical for producing subsurface images that
accurately position reflections both horizontally and verti-
cally. Several hurdles must be overcome when integrating
all data into a velocity model. These problems can be solved
using an interpretive updating method that is similar to
tomography. The interpretive method replaces tomogra-
phy’s automated optimization with 3D visualization of the
global fit to the data, and an interactive display for updat-
ing the model locally at selected locations.
Integrating all available seismic, well, and geologic infor-
mation into the anisotropic velocity model building process
leads to anisotropy models that simultaneously flatten mi-
grated gathers and match steep dip raypaths associated with
significant anisotropy effects. This results in images with
much improved positioning—particularly when compared
to isotropic depth migration results. Our experiences with
parameter estimation in sedimentary basins, as represented
by the three examples above, suggest that vertical velocity
values generally follow compaction trends. However, in
contrast, the largest control on anisotropy values appears
to be lithology. Being able to interpolate/extrapolate
anisotropy values along structural trends simplified the
model building process, but the trend direction was dictated
by the data, not the model representation.
Suggested reading. “Seismic anisotropy in Trinidad: A new tool
(Continued on p. 634)
 (Bear, from p. 626)
for lithology prediction,” by Alkhalifah and Rampton (TLE,
2001). “Seismic data processing in vertically inhomogeneous
TI media” by Alkhalifah (GEOPHYSICS, 1997). “Incorporating
nonseismic information for improved positioning with
anisotropic PSDM” by Bear et al. (SEG 2003 Expanded Abstracts).
“Traveltime computation in transversely isotropic media” by
Faria and Stoffa (GEOPHYSICS, 1994). “Accurate migration using
Downloaded 09/19/16 to 158.26.2.162. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

offset check-shot surveys” by Krebs et al. (SEG 1995 Expanded

Abstracts). “Integrated velocity model estimation for accurate
imaging” by Krebs et al. (SEG 2003 Expanded Abstracts). “Weak
elastic anisotropy” by Thomsen (GEOPHYSICS, 1986). “Inversion
of reflection traveltimes for transverse isotropy” by Tsvankin
and Thomsen (GEOPHYSICS, 1995). “Imaging below shallow gas
with pre-SDM —a west Africa case study” by Yu et al. (SEG
2003 Expanded Abstracts). TLE

Acknowledgments: We thank ExxonMobil, Sonangol, and other coven-

turers for permission to publish this paper. We also thank the numerous
ExxonMobil and former ExxonMobil software developers and geophysi-
cists who contributed to the development of this tool; in particular,
M. Hobby, W. J. Lin, I. L. Lu, M. Tsenn, K. Hagler, E. W. Peikert, H.
Wong, and M. Thornton.

Corresponding author: tom.a.dickens@exxonmobil.com

634 THE LEADING EDGE JUNE 2005

View publication stats