Time vs Depth Migration Insensitive to v(z) model Sensitive to v(z) model Time migration uses best fit hyperbola Depth migration uses best guess moveout.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Time vs Depth Migration Insensitive to v(z) model Sensitive to v(z) model Time migration uses best fit hyperbola Depth migration uses best guess moveout.
Advertisements

Making CMP’s From chapter 16 “Elements of 3D Seismology” by Chris Liner.
Warping for Trim Statics
Accommodation space, Coluvial wedge. Even in this image, throw is hard to interpret however, there is still geologic insight to be gained. Surface expression.
Processing and Binning Overview From chapter 14 “Elements of 3D Seismology” by Chris Liner.
Processing: zero-offset gathers
Computational Challenges for Finding Big Oil by Seismic Inversion.
GG450 April 22, 2008 Seismic Processing.
I.1 Diffraction Stack Modeling I.1 Diffraction Stack Modeling 1. Forward modeling operator L 1. Forward modeling operator L d (x) = (x |x’) m(x’) dx’ ModelSpace.
Sensitivity kernels for finite-frequency signals: Applications in migration velocity updating and tomography Xiao-Bi Xie University of California at Santa.
Seismic Reflection Processing/Velocity Analysis of SAGE 2007 Data Andrew Steen Team Members; Stan, Tim, Josh, Andrew.
First Arrival Traveltime and Waveform Inversion of Refraction Data Jianming Sheng and Gerard T. Schuster University of Utah October, 2002.
Reverse Time Migration Reverse Time Migration. Outline Outline Finding a Rock Splash at Liberty Park Finding a Rock Splash at Liberty Park ZO Reverse.
Prestack Migration Deconvolution Jianxing Hu and Gerard T. Schuster University of Utah.
Convolution, Edge Detection, Sampling : Computational Photography Alexei Efros, CMU, Fall 2006 Some slides from Steve Seitz.
Wave-equation MVA by inversion of differential image perturbations Paul Sava & Biondo Biondi Stanford University SEP.
Wave-equation migration velocity analysis Paul Sava* Stanford University Biondo Biondi Stanford University Sergey Fomel UT Austin.
Loading of the data/conversion Demultiplexing Editing Geometry Amplitude correction Frequency filter Deconvolution Velocity analysis NMO/DMO-Correction.
Joint Migration of Primary and Multiple Reflections in RVSP Data Jianhua Yu, Gerard T. Schuster University of Utah.
Bedrock Delineation by a Seismic Reflection/Refraction Survey at TEAD Utah David Sheley and Jianhua Yu.
Arbitrary Parameter Extraction, Stationary Phase Migration, and Tomographic Velocity Analysis Jing Chen University of Utah.
Analytical image perturbations for wave-equation migration velocity analysis Paul Sava & Biondo Biondi Stanford University.
Applications of Time-Domain Multiscale Waveform Tomography to Marine and Land Data C. Boonyasiriwat 1, J. Sheng 3, P. Valasek 2, P. Routh 2, B. Macy 2,
Basic Seismic Processing INPUT FILTER CMP Gather NMO STACK MIGRATE DISPLAY GEOM VEL ANAL STATICS MUTE.
Filters  Temporal Fourier (t f) transformation  Spatial Fourier (x k x ) transformation applications  f-k x transformation  Radon (-p x ) transformation.
Application of Digital Signal Processing in Computed tomography (CT)
Goals For This Class Quickly review of the main results from last class Convolution and Cross-correlation Discrete Fourier Analysis: Important Considerations.
Multisource Least-squares Reverse Time Migration Wei Dai.
Body Waves and Ray Theory
Automatic Wave Equation Migration Velocity Analysis Peng Shen, William. W. Symes HGRG, Total E&P CAAM, Rice University This work supervised by Dr. Henri.
Making the Most from the Least (Squares Migration) G. Dutta, Y. Huang, W. Dai, X. Wang, and Gerard Schuster G. Dutta, Y. Huang, W. Dai, X. Wang, and Gerard.
Geology 5660/6660 Applied Geophysics 18 Feb 2014 © A.R. Lowry 2014 For Wed 20 Feb: Burger (§ ) Last Time: Reflection Data Processing Step.
Seismic Reflection Data Processing and Interpretation A Workshop in Cairo 28 Oct. – 9 Nov Cairo University, Egypt Dr. Sherif Mohamed Hanafy Lecturer.
Migration In a Nutshell Migration In a Nutshell Migration In a Nutshell D.S. Macpherson.
SAMPLE IMAGE December 10th 2007 Software Product Management Massy 1 TIKIM “Kirchhoff pre-stack time migration” Overview (Jean-Claude LANCELOT) Meeting.
Prestack Migration Intuitive Least Squares Migration Green’s Theorem.
EXPLORATION GEOPHYSICS. EARTH MODEL NORMAL-INCIDENCE REFLECTION AND TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENTS WHERE:  1 = DENSITY OF LAYER 1 V 1 = VELOCITY OF LAYER.
Wave-equation migration velocity analysis Biondo Biondi Stanford Exploration Project Stanford University Paul Sava.
Basic Seismic Processing INPUT FILTER CMP Gather NMO STACK MIGRATE DISPLAY GEOM VEL ANAL STATICS MUTE.
T 2 = T X 2 /V 2. It is a hyperbola with apex at X = 0 and T 0 = 2H/V. – –V and H are the layer velocity and thickness. T 2 -X 2 plot is a straight.
Reflection seismograms
Introduction to Seismic Reflection Imaging References: J.M. Reynolds, An Introduction to Applied and Environmental Geophysics, John Wiley & Sons,
Wave-Equation Waveform Inversion for Crosswell Data M. Zhou and Yue Wang Geology and Geophysics Department University of Utah.
Migration Velocity Analysis of Multi-source Data Xin Wang January 7,
1 Prestack migrations to inversion John C. Bancroft CREWES 20 November 2001.
 = 0.5  j  r j (  kk’ (  m kk’ /  z) 2  m ii’ =  j  r j  r j /  m ii’ + (  kk’  m kk’ /  m ii’  m kk’ /  z) (1) m 11 m 12.
Non-local Means (NLM) Filter for Trim Statics Yunsong Huang, Xin Wang, Yunsong Huang, Xin Wang, Gerard T. Schuster KAUST Kirchhoff Migration Kirchhoff+Trim.
Lee M. Liberty Research Professor Boise State University.
Geology 5660/6660 Applied Geophysics 12 Feb 2016
Reverse Time Migration Reverse Time Migration ? ?.
Lee M. Liberty Research Professor Boise State University.
MD+AVO Inversion: Real Examples University of Utah Jianhua Yu.
Reverse Time Migration
LSM Theory: Overdetermined vs Underdetermined
Zero-Offset Data d = L o ò r ) ( g = d dr r ) ( g = d
R. G. Pratt1, L. Sirgue2, B. Hornby2, J. Wolfe3
Primary-Only Imaging Condition And Interferometric Migration
SEISMIC DATA GATHERING.
Non-local Means (NLM) Filter for Trim Statics
Multiple attenuation in the image space
Overview of Multisource and Multiscale Seismic Inversion
Direct horizontal image gathers without velocity or “ironing”
I.1 Diffraction Stack Modeling
Making CMP’s From chapter 16 “Elements of 3D Seismology” by Chris Liner.
I.1 Diffraction Stack Modeling
Review of Coherent Noise Suppression Methods
3D Seismic Processing Eric Verschuur AES 1530.
—Based on 2018 Field School Seismic Data
Processing and Binning Overview
EXPLORATION GEOPHYSICS
Presentation transcript:

Time vs Depth Migration Insensitive to v(z) model Sensitive to v(z) model Time migration uses best fit hyperbola Depth migration uses best guess moveout curve Incoherent summation if guess is wrong Coherent summation Time Migration Depth Migration CMP Gather time time Easy calculation of v(z) Expensive calculation of t(x,y,z) False Structures True Structures

Time Migration Depth Migration Stacked Section time time M(x,T) M(x,z) False structure Low-velocity zone zoneLow-velocity

Depth Migration -> Time Migration We know 2z/c=T so m(x,z) =  g d (g, 4[(x-g)/c] + (2z/c) ) 22 z 2-way vertical traveltime d (g, 4[(x-g)/c] + T ) M(x,T) =  g 22 Depth Migration: Maps data into function(x,z) Time Migration: Maps data into function(x,T) m(x,z(T)) =  g d (g, 4[(x-g)/c] + T ) 22

Prestack Time Migration m(x,z) =  g,s g,s d (g,s, [(x-g)/c] + (z/c) 2 2 Depth Migration: Maps data into function(x,z) [(x-s)/c] + (z/c) ) [(x-s)/c] + (z/c) ) 22+ [(x-s)/c] + T [(x-s)/c] + T d (g,s, [(x-g)/c] + T ) M(x,T) =  g,s g,s 2222+

Time Migration for c(T) d (g, 4[(x-g)/c(T)] + T ) M(x,T) =  g 2 2 Time Migration: Maps data into function(x,T) v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 v6 T c(T) More generally, c(T) is a function of T!

MATLAB ZO Depth Migration d (g, )  xgxgxgxg m(x,z) =  g for ixtrace=1:ntrace; for ixtrace=1:ntrace; for ixs=istart:iend; for ixs=istart:iend; for izs=1:nz; for izs=1:nz; r = sqrt(4*(ixtrace*dx-ixs*dx )^2+(2*izs*dx)^2); r = sqrt(4*(ixtrace*dx-ixs*dx )^2+(2*izs*dx)^2); time = 1 + round( r/c/dt ); time = 1 + round( r/c/dt ); mig(ixs,izs) = mig(ixs,izs)/r + data(ixtrace,time); mig(ixs,izs) = mig(ixs,izs)/r + data(ixtrace,time); end; end; end; end; Traveltime Loop over x in model Loop over z in model Traveltime Table

MATLAB ZO Time Migration for ixtrace=1:ntrace; for ixtrace=1:ntrace; for ixs=istart:iend; for ixs=istart:iend; for iT=1:nT; for iT=1:nT; time = sqrt(4*([ixtrace*dx-ixs*dx]/c(iT))^2+(iT*dt)^2); time = sqrt(4*([ixtrace*dx-ixs*dx]/c(iT))^2+(iT*dt)^2); time = 1 + round( time/dt ); time = 1 + round( time/dt ); mig(ixs,iT) = mig(ixs,iT)/r + data(ixtrace,time); mig(ixs,iT) = mig(ixs,iT)/r + data(ixtrace,time); end; end; end; end; Traveltime Loop over x in model Loop over iT in model M(x,T) =  g 22 d (g, 4[(x-g)/c(T)] + T ) Note: c(iT) or c(ixtrace,iT) for ixtrace=1:ntrace; for ixtrace=1:ntrace; for ixs=istart:iend; for ixs=istart:iend; for izs=1:nz; for izs=1:nz; r = sqrt(4*(ixtrace*dx-ixs*dx )^2+(2*izs*dx)^2); r = sqrt(4*(ixtrace*dx-ixs*dx )^2+(2*izs*dx)^2); time = 1 + round( r/c/dt ); time = 1 + round( r/c/dt ); mig(ixs,izs) = mig(ixs,izs)/r + data(ixtrace,time); mig(ixs,izs) = mig(ixs,izs)/r + data(ixtrace,time); end; end; end; end; Traveltime Loop over x in model Loop over z in model Traveltime Table

MATLAB ZO Time Migration for ixtrace=1:ntrace; for ixtrace=1:ntrace; for ixs=istart:iend; for ixs=istart:iend; for iT=1:nT; for iT=1:nT; time = sqrt(4*([ixtrace*dx-ixs*dx]/c(iT))^2+(iT*dt)^2); time = sqrt(4*([ixtrace*dx-ixs*dx]/c(iT))^2+(iT*dt)^2); time = 1 + round( time/dt ); time = 1 + round( time/dt ); mig(ixs,iT) = mig(ixs,iT)/r + data(ixtrace,time); mig(ixs,iT) = mig(ixs,iT)/r + data(ixtrace,time); end; end; end; end; Traveltime Loop over x in model Loop over iT in model M(x,T) =  g 22 d (g, 4[(x-g)/c(T)] + T ) Note: c(iT) or c(ixtrace,iT)

Time Migration vs Depth Migration Insensitive to c(z) model Time migration uses best fit hyperbola  d (g, 4[(x-g)/c] + T ) M(x,T) = 2 2

Time Migration vs Depth Migration Insensitive to v(z) model Time migration uses best fit hyperbola  d (g, 4[(x-g)/c] + T ) M(x,T) = 2 2

Time Migration vs Depth Migration Insensitive to v(z) model Time migration uses best fit hyperbola  d (g, 4[(x-g)/c] + T ) M(x,T) = 2 2

Time Migration vs Depth Migration Insensitive to v(z) model Time migration uses best fit hyperbola  d (g, 4[(x-g)/c] + T ) M(x,T) = 2 2

Summary: Time Migration vs Depth Migration Insensitive to v(z) model Sensitive to v(z) model Time migration uses best fit hyperbola Depth migration uses best guess moveout curve  d (g, 4[(x-g)/c] + T ) M(x,T) = 2 2  d (g, t ) M(x,z) = gxgxgxgx Incoherent summation if guess is wrong Coherent summation Cheaper: no ray tracing More expensive: ray tracing Uniform wavelet thickness Stretched wavelet thickness =c/f1/f Best focusing if v(x,z) correct Best focusing if v(x,z) really wrong Good focusing if v(x,z) smooth

Depth Migration in Deep GOM is only Way to Go if V(x,y,z) Correct Depth Migration in Deep GOM is only Way to Go if V(x,y,z) Correct Therefore, spend time to get v(x,y,z) Correct: Tomography, MVA, Waveform Inversion Therefore, spend time to get v(x,y,z) Correct: Tomography, MVA, Waveform Inversion Conclusions

NMO Velocity Analysis CMP Time x T c d (g, 4[(x-g)/c] + T ) M(x,T) = 2 2 C(T)

Nyquist Sampling Frequency & Aliasing Data Aliasing Problem  t > T/2 Aliasing Solution Low-pass filtering data Fancy Interpolation Finer time spacing digital signal High freq. masqerade as low freq.

Migration Aliasing Data Aliasing Problem  x > x /2 Aliasing Solution Low-pass filtering data Fancy Interpolation Finer rec-src spacing 2D dot product of migration Operator and d(g,t) No data aliasing: (dx/dt) min T min /2 >  x x /2 x /2

Operator Aliasing (m(x)=dot product data by mig. Operator) 2D dot product of migration Operator and d(g,t) (dx/dt) min T min /2 >  x