Anisotropy PSDM

Influence of seismic anisotropy on prestack depth migration
LANLAN YAN, LARRY R. LINES, and DON C. LAWTON, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
The structural geology of the Alberta Rocky Mountain

Foothills is dominated by thrust faults and complex folds,
often resulting in steeply dipping formations. In these fold
Downloaded 01/01/15 to 190.180.5.169. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
and thrust belt areas, hydrocarbon reservoirs are frequently

overlain by thick, dipping clastic sequences including shales
and thinly interbedded sandstones and shales. Shales exhibit
intrinsic seismic velocity anisotropy, which refers to the
variation of velocity with direction, with the main symme-
try axis perpendicular to bedding. The main physical rea-
sons for seismic anisotropy are due to aligned mineral grains,
aligned cracks, aligned crystals, and periodic thin layering.
In the Western Canadian sedimentary basin, especially
in the Foothills, extrinsic seismic velocity anisotropy is also
likely to exist within packages of interbedded shales and
sandstones. Folding and faulting can thrust these strati- Figure 1. Schematic display of a dipping anisotropic bed and its impact
graphic horizons to the surface with steep dip angles. In this on an underlying target structure. Note that time pull-up, misfocusing of
environment, we characterize the seismic velocity anisotropy target, and lateral shift of the target would occur if seismic anisotropy is
as transversely isotropic (TI) with a tilted symmetry axis not taken into account.
(called here TTI). The TTI model is very typical of overthrust
areas in the Canadian Foothills, where TI layers are often However, one difficulty in addressing anisotropy lies not
bent and thrusted to the surface due to tectonic processes. in the algorithms, but in the reliable estimation of anisotropic
Dips may exceed 45°. Gray et al. (2002) pointed out that parameters. Thomsen’s anisotropic parameters, ε and δ, are
many Foothills areas contain shale-dominated clastics that two main parameters required in a velocity model for PSDM
are typically anisotropic. imaging.
The presence of a TTI medium in overthrust areas may Thomsen (1986) defines a simple and useful method for
produce severe imaging problems and positioning errors if parameterizing a TI medium. The weak anisotropic approx-
anisotropic influences are not considered during migration imation using Thomsen’s parameters gives the phase veloc-
velocity analysis (MVA) and prestack depth migration ity, V(θ) as a function of phase angle, θ, from the symmetry
(PSDM). Figure 1 displays a dipping anisotropic bed and axis or bedding-plane normal:
its impact on an underlying target. The right side of the sec-
tion is to the east and the left side to the west. Obviously, V(θ)=V0(1 + δsin2θ cos2θ + ε sin4θ),
anisotropic dipping beds in the overburden will cause under-
lying events on the depth image to be poorly focused and where V0 is the velocity normal to bedding and ε and δ are
mispositioned. In addition, events beneath dipping defined by:
anisotropic beds on time sections will suffer time pull-up,
potentially obscuring the reservoir target. Figure 1 also ε = (V90-V0)/V0
shows the lateral shift of the target one can expect on a sub-
surface structure below a dipping anisotropic layer. Because δ = 4[(V45/V0)-1]-ε
the velocity parallel to bedding (V90) is higher than the veloc-
ity perpendicular to bedding (V0), rays from the eastern or Vestrum et al. (1999) concluded that δ is the important
updip side of the structure will travel generally in the fast parameter when dealing with anisotropic layers with near
direction and rays from the western or downdip side of the zero dip. In the case of steeper dips (> 30°), Vestrum et al.
structure will travel generally in the slow direction. The also mention that ε is the parameter that affects lateral posi-
least-time raypath will have a longer travel path in the fast tioning and δ becomes the parameter that affects depth con-
direction, as shown in this figure and predicted by the version. Obviously, both ε and δ affect the final seismic
anisotropic Snell’s law. If we process these data with an section in the dipping anisotropic case. Care must be taken
isotropic assumption, then the subsurface structure will in deriving a dipping anisotropic velocity model before
image in the updip direction of the anisotropic strata from accurate subsurface imaging is possible.
its correct position in the subsurface. Determining anisotropic parameters suitable for per-
Generally, isotropic PSDM corrects only for lateral veloc- forming anisotropic PSDM, though very challenging, can
ity heterogeneity; however, anisotropic PSDM algorithms be done in several ways. Thomsen’s anisotropic parameters
also correct for velocity changing with direction in the dip- ε and δ can be measured by laboratory experiments. Seismic
ping clastic overburden. Quite a few papers over the past surveys such as refraction surveys and multioffset VSP sur-
10 years illustrate the improvement in imaging when we take veys can also be employed to derive ε and δ through cal-
seismic anisotropy into account and begin to correct for it. culating velocities at different directions such as V90, V45, and
This paper has demonstrated that higher-quality images of V0. We can also integrate well logs (interval velocity) and
both dipping and horizontal features in the overthrust areas surface seismic (root-mean square velocity) to approximate
are produced by PSDM algorithms capable of handling TTI ε and δ parameters. Isaac and Lawton (2000) proposed a
media. Anisotropic PSDM corrects for lateral shifts, cor- practical estimation of anisotropic parameters from surface
rectly positions events in depth, and properly focuses dif- P-wave seismic data. Their method was based on inversion
fraction energy. of three values: zero-offset arrival time, the difference in
30 THE LEADING EDGE JANUARY 2004 JANUARY 2004 THE LEADING EDGE 0000
Figure 2. Seismic interpretation based on the isotropic PSDM on Shaw-Basing survey.
Figure 3. Isotropic PSDM image with the P-wave velocity log attached on the section. Note that the well trajectory of Well B at the designated depth
interval between the BellyRiver Brazeau sandstone (approximate depth 1000 m on seismic section) and the Wapiabi shale (approximate depth 1350 m
on seismic section) is almost perpendicular to the imaged geologic bedding.
arrival time between a near-offset and a far-offset, and the PSDM image focusing analysis. The improved images from
difference in imaged location observed at these offsets. the Foothills example highlight the feasibility of the pro-
Grechka et al. (2001) showed anisotropic velocity analysis posed techniques, and also the advantage of performing
for TTI on a physical modeling data set by inverting P-wave anisotropic PSDM.
NMO velocities and zero-offset traveltimes for the slow
velocity V0 and the anisotropic parameters ε and δ. Field data example. The present study extends the isotropic
In this paper, we build an anisotropic velocity model (V0, PSDM and seismic interpretation given by Yan and Lines
ε, δ, θ) for performing PSDM on an Alberta Foothills struc- (2001) for the 2D surface seismic line from at the Shaw-Basing
tural data set from the Shaw-Basing area. Our velocity model area of the central Alberta Foothills. Figure 2 shows that
was obtained by integration of a variety of techniques. We structural characteristics in this study area include a major
constrain the model by using surface geology, well-control backthrust (Pedley thrust), steeply dipping Tertiary and
and anisotropy parameter scanning techniques. In estimat- Cretaceous strata, and complicated duplex or triangle zone
ing our velocity model, we especially emphasize the use of structures.
a e
b f
c g
d h
Figure 4. Prestack depth migrations with varying ε in the anisotropic overburden. Note the change in shape of the structures between panel (a) and
panel (g). The hanging wall strata indicated by A and two footwall strata indicated by B and C are obviously better resolved on panel (g). Also note the
lateral positioning changes as indicated by the spatially fixed red line on each section.
a e
b f
c g
d h
Figure 5. Prestack depth migrations with varying δ in the anisotropic overburden. Note the change in the imaged depth of the reflectors indicated by
dashed red line and yellow arrow below the TTI media with changing δ. Varying δ does not yield dramatic change in terms of wavelet character and
reflector continuity. The optimal image was interpreted from the suite of migrations as the one with δ=0.04.
Figure 6. Final depth migrated image using the isotropic velocity depth model. Note that several structural features highlighted by colored letters are
chosen for performing imaging comparison with anisotropic PSDM of Figure 7. They are: hangingwall strata of the pop-ups (yellow A), two footwall
strata of the pop-ups (red B and blue C, respectively), thrust sheet (orange D), basement reflectors (the seismic events inside green rectangular E), and
footwall cut-off (purple F).
Integration of the surface geology and seismic interpre- below the anisotropic overburden between panel (a) and
tation in the study area implies that shallow dipping layers panel (g). The hangingwall strata (A) and two footwall strata
of interbedded sandstones and shales of the Brazeau Group (B and C) are better focused and more interpretable on panel
overly deeper folds and thrust faults of the Wapiabi, (g). Also the lateral positioning of structures relative to a fixed
Cardium, and Nordegg formations. Figure 3 provides an red line can also be evaluated. Based on reflector continu-
isotropic PSDM image, with the attached P-wave velocity ity and interpretability of the section and anisotropic obser-
log. In this figure, the dipping strata in the upper part of vations from other data sets and measurements, a value of
the section are interbedded sandstone and shale formations ε=0.18 is chosen to be optimum. This ε value is similar to
that are anisotropic. The seismic interpretation was con- the value of 0.15 obtained by Leslie and Lawton (1999) for
strained by this log and three other well logs projected onto similar strata.
the surface seismic line. Note that the trajectory of well B at Once ε is picked, the data were migrated with ε=0.18 and
the designated depth interval between the Brazeau sand- δ varied to produce the images shown on Figure 5. Note the
stone/shale and the Wapiabi shale is almost perpendicular change in the imaged depth of the target reflectors with
to the local imaged geologic bedding. This observation leads changing δ indicated by the red dashed line and the yellow
us to investigate the nature and magnitude of velocity arrow below the anisotropic overburden. Unlike some case
anisotropy by integrating the information from well log and history examples published in the literature, varying δ does
surface seismic data. The region between depths 0 – 3500 m not yield a dramatic change in wavelet character and reflec-
and between CDPs 2000 – 2420 in Figure 3 is the target of tor continuity. However the optimal image is interpreted
interest for investigating the impact of seismic anisotropy from the suite of migrations, [panel (a) to panel (h)] as
on the PSDM image. δ=0.04. This value is also similar to the value of d=0.038
To perform an anisotropic PSDM, the four parameters approximated by applying the method of Jones et al. (2002).
(V0, ε , δ, θ) are all required in the anisotropic velocity model. This result indicates that δ < ε, and this is consistent with
The parameter estimation method used requires execution other studies.
of a series of prestack depth migrations, spanning a solu- When employing the parameter scanning technique to
tion set for possible ε and δ. The velocity model parameters determine optimum anisotropic parameters, we emphasize
are interpretively selected from the suite of seismic sections the focusing improvement of the target reflector beneath
based on the best geologic image, reflector continuity, and anisotropic overburden on each section. In addition, inspec-
wavelet character. tion of the prestack image gathers from the resulting
Figure 4 shows images obtained after the parameter anisotropic PSDM directs modification of the anisotropic
scanning technique which are used to pick ε. Each depth- velocity model. Image gather analysis for anisotropic PSDM
migrated image has a different value of ε ranging from 0.0 is similar to the analysis used commonly in isotropic PSDM,
to 0.20 while δ remains zero. The progressive improvement except that additional parameters in the velocity model are
in image quality with varying ε in the anisotropic overbur- estimated.
den can be clearly observed from panel (a) to panel (h). Note
the change in shape and continuity of the target reflectors Imaging improvement through anisotropic PSDM. With
Figure 7. Final depth migrated image using the derived anisotropic velocity depth model with ε=0.18, δ=0.04. Note the improvement in continuity of
footwall strata B’ and C’ over that for B and C, the improved overall imaging quality of hangingwall strata A’ over that for A, the enhanced focusing of
thrust sheet D’ over that for D, and the improved sharpening of footwall cut-off F’ over that for F. Moreover, the significant healing of the broken base-
ment reflectors can be clearly seen by comparing the continuity of seismic events inside E’ and E.
Figure 8. Correlation of geologic depths from well logs (Well A and Well B) to seismic depths using anisotropic depth migration. The more focused and
better resolved footwall strata of the pop-ups (highlighted by red B) obviously excludes the presence of a normal fault there because the imaged structure
after incorporating anisotropic influence is showing smoothly continuous seismic events. In addition, the application of anisotropic PSDM makes a
thrust-fault (highlighted by dashed orange line) beneath footwall strata B more interpretable.
the derived anisotropic parameters based on the optimum the advantages of anisotropic PSDM, and interpret struc-
imaging quality and consistent flat image gathers, we per- tural features.
form the final isotropic PSDM and anisotropic PSDM simul- A comparison between the final isotropic PSDM and the
taneously to compare the image difference, to summarize final anisotropic PSDM is seen in Figures 6 and 7, respectively.
Differences observed between the sections are attributed only al. (CSEG Recorder, 2002). “Velocity analysis for tilted transversely
to differences between the isotropic and anisotropic migrations. isotropic media: A physical modeling example” by Grechka et al.
To emphasize imaging improvements from anisotropic PSDM (GEOPHYSICS, 2001). “A new method for the estimation of
when compared to isotropic depth migration, we selected anisotropy parameters from surface P-wave seismic data” by
several structural features shown on Figure 7: hangingwall of Isaac and Lawton (SEG 2000 Expanded Abstracts). “Anisotropic
a pop-up (A’), footwall strata of the pop-up (B’ and C’), thrust ambiguities” by Jones et al. (CSEG 2002 meeting). “A refraction-
fault (D’), basement reflectors enclosed within green rectan- seismic field study to determine the anisotropic parameters of
gle (E’), and a footwall cut-off, (F’). shales” by Leslie and Lawton (GEOPHYSICS, 1999). “Weak elastic
The image improvements in Figure 7 over the isotropic anisotropy” by Thomsen (GEOPHYSICS, 1986). “Imaging struc-
PSDM in Figure 6 can be observed. Anisotropic parameters tures below dipping TI media” by Vestrum et al. (GEOPHYSICS,
used were ε=0.18 and δ=0.04. The overall image quality of A’ 1999). “Seismic imaging and velocity analysis for an Alberta
is superior to that of A shown on the isotropic migration with Foothills seismic survey” by Yan and Lines (GEOPHYSICS, 2001).
the hangingwall strata of the pop-up more interpretable. In “Seismic imaging and migration velocity analysis of Alberta
addition, we see the improvement in event continuity of B’ Foothills structural data sets” by Yan (PhD thesis, University of
and C’ over that for B and C. Note the enhanced focusing of Calgary, 2003). TLE
thrust fault D’ over that for D, and the sharpening of cut-off
F’ over F. Moreover, basement reflectors are more continuous Acknowledgments: We would like to thank ExxonMobil Canada (previously
in E’ compared to E. Mobil Oil Canada) for providing access to the Shaw-Basing surface seismic
Figure 8 illustrates a correlation of geologic depths from data. We also thank Helen Isaac and Deborah Spratt at Fold and Fault
Well Aand Well B to seismic depths in the anisotropic prestack Research Project, University of Calgary, for providing invaluable sugges-
depth migration section. It is quite encouraging that the for- tions on anisotropy investigations and seismic interpretations on the field
mation tops from both wells tie the seismic depths from data set. We thank Joan Embleton for editing. Financial support for this work
anisotropic migration very well. The anisotropic PSDM moves by sponsors of the Fold-Fault Research Project (FRP) and NSERC grants
the image of the target event (B), toward the downdip direc- to Lines and Lawton. CSEG and SEG scholarships awarded to Yan are also
tion of the overburden and provides a more focussed and bet- greatly acknowledged. Norsar, Landmark, and Veritas are thanked for the
ter resolved seismic image of (B). In addition, the application TTI raytracing, isotropic migration velocity analysis, and anisotropic prestack
of anisotropic PSDM makes a thrust fault (highlighted by an depth migration software, respectively.
orange dashed line) beneath B more interpretable.
Corresponding author: lrlines@ucalgary.ca; Lanlan.Yan@shell.ca
Discussions and conclusions. The presence of TTI media
yields serious image distortions when using conventional
migration velocity analysis and applying standard isotropic
PSDM in complicated overthrust areas. For the Shaw-Basing
field data example, the integration of surface geology and well
logs, helps to constrain our anisotropic model. Although
Thomsen’s anisotropic parameter solutions suffer from
nonuniqueness, we can still select values based on image
focusing and residual moveout of image gathers to make it
geologically and geophysically reasonable.
The Thomsen parameters are based on more information
than the 2D seismic line which is shown here—although the
dip line that we have analyzed shows more variation than seis-
mic lines in the strike direction. Our anisotropic parameter esti-
mates are similar to those from other sources of information
such as refraction surveys, VSPs rock property measurements,
and 3D anisotropic imaging in this area. Our ε parameter
value of 0.18 is similar to the several measurements, cited by
Yan (2003), and the δ value of 0.04 is supported by applying
the method of Jones (2002). Moreover, compared with the pre-
viously measured anisotropic parameters of the Wapiabi shales
(ε=0.14±0.05; δ =0.00±0.08) in Jumping Pound Creek and Long
View, (Leslie and Lawton, 1999), the derived anisotropic para-
meters (ε=0.18; δ=0.04) using the technique of parameter scan-
ning are reasonable.
The advantage of anisotropic PSDM over isotropic PSDM
is emphasized by the improved seismic imaging, the correct
positioning of the reservoir targets, and the sharply increased
focusing of some small structural features. By incorporating
a geologically plausible and geophysically consistent
anisotropic velocity model (V0, ε, δ, θ) into the PSDM routine,
the overall image quality has improved our ability to inter-
pret complex Foothills structures.
Suggested reading. “Velocity analysis and imaging in trans-

versely isotropic media: Methodology and a case study” by
Alkhalifah et al. (TLE, 1996). “Using advanced seismic imaging
tools to see the invisible beneath Foothills structures” by Gray et

Anisotropy PSDM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anisotropy PSDM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Influence of seismic anisotropy on prestack depth migration

The structural geology of the Alberta Rocky Mountain

and thrust belt areas, hydrocarbon reservoirs are frequently

Figure 2. Seismic interpretation based on the isotropic PSDM on Shaw-Basing survey.

Suggested reading. “Velocity analysis and imaging in trans-

You might also like