SYNTHETIC CASE STUDY

INTEGRATED APPROACH TO SUBSALT

DEPTH IMAGING

Group 3
Helena OLIVEIRA
Kamal KAMALOV
Lecturers: Anne Jardin

GEO13: ADVANCE SEISMIC INTERPRETATION March 2015

 Outline
 Introduction
 Data setting Parameters
 Depth imaging with a known velocity model
 Depth imaging using Prestack Depth migration
 Depth imaging using Poststack Depth migration
 Results
 Depth Imaging with an unknown velocity model
 Comparison of models
 Conclusions

2
 Outline
 Introduction
 Data setting Parameters
 Depth imaging with a known velocity model
 Depth imaging using Prestack Depth migration
 Depth imaging using Poststack Depth migration
 Results
 Depth Imaging with an unknown velocity model
 Comparison of models
 Conclusions

3
 Introduction

 The aim of this paper was to address the reasons, why the Prestack Depth Migration become almost
mandatory tool to imaging areas with complex geology such as Salt body, Subsalt reflectors, Faults,
Synclines, etc.

 Understanding the problem of depth imaging in a complex areas, taking into account both models
 Depth model building
 Depth migration (is assumed known)

 Their approach was Integration of different technique such as multifocusing time imaging, traveltime
velocity inversion, prestack wavefield datuming and depth migration which are well known into one
technological chain, it might guarantee the successful results

4
 Outline
 Introduction
 Data setting Parameters
 Depth imaging with a known velocity model
 Depth imaging using Prestack Depth migration
 Depth imaging using Poststack Depth migration
 Results
 Depth Imaging with an unknown velocity model
 Comparison of models
 Conclusions

5
 Data Setting parameters

Consists of a salt body with very

complex geometrical characteristics
in a relatively low differentiated
velocity sedimentary section.

Sigsbee 2A synthetic model.(Source from THE LEADING EDGE DECEMBER 2002)

6
 Outline
 Introduction
 Data setting Parameters
 Depth imaging with a known velocity model
 Depth imaging using Prestack Depth migration
 Depth imaging using Poststack Depth migration
 Results
 Depth Imaging with an unknown velocity model
 Comparison of models
 Conclusions

7
 Deep imaging with a known velocity model
 The first goal is to compare prestack and poststack depth migration in cases in which poststack
migration is applied to the multifocusing stack instead of the conventional CMP stacked section;
 The second goal was to check if it’s possible to obtain reasonable depth imaging using poststack
migration.

Correct migration velocity field

8
 Outline
 Introduction
 Data setting Parameters
 Depth imaging with a known velocity model
 Depth imaging using Prestack Depth migration
 Depth imaging using Poststack Depth migration
 Results
 Depth Imaging with an unknown velocity model
 Comparison of models
 Conclusions

9
 Depth imaging using Prestack Depth migration

Prestack Kirchhoff depth migration using the correct Prestack finite-difference migration using the
velocity model correct velocity model.

 FD Prestack depth migration does produce a much better image of the subsurface model including salt
shape, faults, and subsalt reflector (however application to real-sized data sets is still limited by present
computing power);

 On the other hand, ray-based Kirchhoff migration, which offers an interesting compromise between
accuracy and computer efficiency, requires accurate calculations of the Green’s function.

10
 Outline
 Introduction
 Data setting Parameters
 Depth imaging with a known velocity model
 Depth imaging using Prestack Depth migration
 Depth imaging using Poststack Depth migration
 Results
 Depth Imaging with an unknown velocity model
 Comparison of models
 Conclusions

11
 Depth imaging using Poststack Depth migration

Kirchhoff Poststack depth migration using zero-

Zero-offset section
offset section.

 Using FD migration scheme, the results showed that the image of the salt bottom and the subsalt events
in the model are very poor.
 Even the salt top is incorrectly positioned in the syncline area, this is because the zero-offset illumination
of the syncline at the tops of the salt is poor.

12
 Depth imaging using Poststack Depth migration

High signal- to-noise ratio

Multifocusing stack section

Kirchhoff Poststack depth migration of
multifocusing stack

 In order to add the additional information from other than zero-offset traces
the they did it by Computing a multifocusing time section (MFS) that was supposed to provide additional
information about the model by coherent stacking traces from all offsets;
 As expected, correct image of the salt body, a better image of the diffractors at 25 000 ft.

13
 Outline
 Introduction
 Data setting Parameters
 Depth imaging with a known velocity model
 Depth imaging using Prestack Depth migration
 Depth imaging using Poststack Depth migration
 Results
 Depth Imaging with an unknown velocity model
 Comparison of models
 Conclusions

14
 Results – Models Comparison
Prestack finite-difference migration using the correct
Kirchhoff Poststack depth migration of multifocusing
velocity model.
stack

 Area with complex geology, even optimal summation of

seismic traces to zero offset cannot provide the illumination
benefit of multioffset prestack-migrated data,

Prestack Kirchhoff depth migration using the correct

15 velocity model
 Outline
 Introduction
 Data setting Parameters
 Depth imaging with a known velocity model
 Depth imaging using Prestack Depth migration
 Depth imaging using Poststack Depth migration
 Results
 Depth Imaging with an unknown velocity model
 Comparison of models
 Conclusion

16
 Imaging with an unknown velocity model  Workflow
 Input seismogram downward to 5000 ft  used Kirchhoff datuming algorithm type
 Estimated Velocity-Depth model above the top of the salt
 Picked 3 visible time horizons and velocity analysis along the picked T0 times
MF stacked section
Position of horizons
1
2 obtained by well-
known zero-offset
3 ray migration

1
2
Estimated
velocities
3
Velocity coherency panel

 Redaturm the prestack seismograms to the top of the salt

The salt bottom is imaged

almost perfectly

Salt velocity = 14 800 ft/s

Avoid drastic ray bending
on the top of the salt
 Imaging with an unknown velocity model  Workflow
 Estimated layered velocity model for the left side of the section up to depth of 17 220 ft

Horizon position

nonhyperbolic reflection
1
2
5
6

7
3
8
Estimated velocities 1
5 6 2
7

3
8
Input data original zero-offset MF stack
CMP gather after datuming beneath the salt

after before

HVA spectrum

Many subsalt
reflectors appear
as strong and
reliable events Moveout-corrected
CMP gather

MFS section obtained from the redatumed data

18
 Final Velocity Model
 Final velocity model for subsalt reflectors using inversion procedure
 Input data Zero-offset times for selected horizons and stacking velocities along them

1
2

5
6
7
3
8 4

Final velocity model

9
10 for depth migration
11
Final depth model obtained by
three partial estimated models COMPARISON

The final depth section

Original model
Poststack depth migration image
of the “partial” MFS section

19
 Outline
 Introduction
 Data setting Parameters
 Depth imaging with a known velocity model
 Depth imaging using Prestack Depth migration
 Depth imaging using Poststack Depth migration
 Results
 Depth Imaging with an unknown velocity model
 Comparison of models
 Conclusions

20
 Comparison of models

Final image obtained by merging the three partial images

from the different depth levels

Kirchhoff prestack depth migration of the original data using the Prestack FD depth migration using the derived velocity model
derived velocity model

21
 Outline
 Introduction
 Data setting Parameters
 Depth imaging with a known velocity model
 Depth imaging using Prestack Depth migration
 Depth imaging using Poststack Depth migration
 Results
 Depth Imaging with an unknown velocity model
 Comparison of models
 Conclusions

22
 Conclusion
 Optimum stack to zero offset (multifocusing) followed by poststack depth migration is not equivalent
to prestack depth migration.

 In the case of complex overburden, prestack depth migration may not produce sufficient results even in
case where the correct velocity model is known

 The proper application of multifocusing stack for accurate zero-offset calculation, kinematic inversion
for velocity model estimation, wavefield datuming for avoiding raypath bending, and depth migration
is a powerful combination for accurate subsurface imaging even in such complex situation

 The example shown here is an illustration of the failure mode of conventional Kirchhoff prestack depth
migration in cases with complex overburden and shows as how it can be overcome in principle

23
 Thank you for your attention!

Questions????

24