Automatic velocity analysis via shot profile migration

We described an implementation of differential semblance velocity analysis based on shot-profile migration, and illustrated its ability to estimate complex, strongly refracting velocity fields. The differential semblance approach to velocity analysis uses waveform data directly: it does not require any sort of traveltime picking. The objective function minimized by the differential semblance algorithm can measure either focusing of the image in offset or flatness of the image in (scattering) angle. We showed that the offset variant of differential semblance yields somewhat more reliable migration velocity estimates than does the scattering angle variant, and we explain why this is so. We observed that inconsistency with the underlying model (Born scattering about a transparent background) can lead to degraded velocity estimates from differential semblance, and we showed how to augment the objective function with stack power to enhance ultimate accuracy. A 2D marine survey over a target obscured by the lensing effects of a gas chimney provides an opportunity for direct comparison of differential semblance with reflection tomography. The differential semblance estimate yields a more data-consistent model (flatter angle gathers) than does reflection tomography in this application, resulting in a more interpretable image below the gas cloud.

[1]  B. Ursin,et al.  Depth‐consistent P‐ and S‐wave velocity reflection tomography using PP and PS seismic data , 2004 .

[2]  W. A. Mulder,et al.  Automatic velocity analysis by differential semblance optimization , 2002 .

[3]  Christiaan C. Stolk,et al.  Kinematics of shot-geophone migration , 2009 .

[4]  C. Stolk,et al.  Kinematics of Prestack Shot-geophone Migration , 2005 .

[5]  John Toldi,et al.  Velocity analysis without picking , 1989 .

[6]  R. Plessix.  A review of the adjoint-state method for computing the gradient of a functional with geophysical applications , 2006 .

[7]  W. A. Mulder,et al.  Automatic velocity analysis by differential semblance optimization , 2002 .

[8]  Stephen J. Wright,et al.  Numerical Optimization , 2018, Fundamental Statistical Inference.

[11]  H. Chauris,et al.  Two-dimensional velocity macro model estimation from seismic reflection data by local differential semblance optimization: applications to synthetic and real data sets , 2001 .

[12]  Robert Soubaras,et al.  Velocity model building by semblance maximization of modulated-shot gathers , 2007 .

[13]  Paul Sava,et al.  Angle-domain common-image gathers by wavefield continuation methods , 2003 .

[14]  Maarten V. de Hoop,et al.  SEISMIC INVERSE SCATTERING IN THE DOWNWARD CONTINUATION APPROACH , 2006 .

[15]  Roelof Versteeg,et al.  Sensitivity of prestack depth migration to the velocity model , 1993 .

[16]  Robert Soubaras,et al.  Velocity model building by semblance maximization of modulated‐shot gathers , 2006 .

[17]  Roelof Versteeg,et al.  Velocity model determination using differential semblance optimization , 1993 .

[18]  William W. Symes,et al.  Migration velocity analysis and waveform inversion , 2008 .

[19]  Christiaan C. Stolk,et al.  Kinematic artifacts in prestack depth migration , 2004 .

[20]  Use of refraction, reflection, and wave-equation-based tomography for imaging beneath shallow gas: A Trinidad field data example , 2008 .

[21]  William W. Symes,et al.  Interval velocity estimation via NMO-based differential semblance , 2007 .