Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
org/
1
Introduction
1.1
DEFINITIONS
Downloaded 10/08/14 to 199.189.110.30. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
The various points listed in this definition are covered in detail in later chapters of this book. Static corrections are associated with data acquisition (datum or
field static corrections), data processing (residual static
corrections), and interpretation of the sections produced
(isopachs, general quality control, and critique of the
near-surface model). Thus, they do not belong specifically to any one of these three subdisciplines. However,
it is interesting to note that even the computation of the
field static corrections involves the planning and acquisition of data, followed by a limited amount of processing and interpretation, or in summary, the seismic technique in miniature.
1.2
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
To put static corrections into perspective, it is interesting to look at their development starting from the
early days of the seismic method. In a review discussing
the invention of the reflection seismograph, Karcher
(1987, 14) noted that at the end of the survey,
Experiments to determine methods to make time corrections for weathered sections of soil were undertaken
during December 1921. In a reference to development in
the 1920s, Weatherby (1940, 224) stated
The effect of weathering variations was recognized
very early in the work and additional weathering shots
were always taken in shallow shot holes near the recording spread. These gave in effect a short refraction profile
which was solved as a simple two layer case.
Downloaded 10/08/14 to 199.189.110.30. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Chapter 1Introduction
surface correction problem is still a long way from being
solved adequately for the range of conditions encountered in seismic prospecting. About 25 years later (or 60
years in the case of Leet), these observations are still pertinent in many areas of the world. The underlying problem in many of these difficult areas is the rapid rate at
which the near surface changes spatially, and it is generally not so much a case of not knowing what to do, but
more of being able to do it economically.
Thus, the near surface has been recognized as a problem since the early days of the seismic method. The
uphole phone, for measuring the time from the dynamite charge in the hole to the surface, was introduced in
1931 (Sheriff and Geldart, 1982, 1995). Some surveys in
the 19351936 time frame successfully used buried geophones so that both sources and receivers were below
the weathered layer (Gaby and Solari, 1948). The invention of the common-depth-point (CDP) technique in
1950 (Mayne, 1956, 1962) and its subsequent introduction to the majority of crews by the mid-1960s did not
cause significant changes in the methods used to compute datum static corrections. They continued to be
computed by the field crew, often based on the refraction method. Analog display systems were upgraded
with moveable heads in the mid-1950s so that static corrections could be applied prior to the production of the
film display (Sheriff, 1985). When CDP techniques were
used, these corrections also included the application of
dynamic corrections prior to the formation of the
summed traces.
The introduction of digital recording and processing
in the 1960s meant that some work was done in the area
of residual static corrections using both manual and
automatic methods (e.g., Hileman et al., 1968). The manual techniques were very time consuming because they
involved picking arrival times for one or more reflections. The scatter of reflection times were then analyzed
and the averaged time shifts or residual static corrections
allocated to the appropriate source and receiver locations. This was often practical, as the standard mode of
recording at that time was 24-trace 6-fold, which meant
that comparatively few traces were recorded each day by
todays standards. The 1970s saw a large increase in the
number of recording channels, and the overall emphasis
moved away from datum or field static corrections to
residual static corrections. These residual corrections
were used to fix all problems, although it was recognized
that some situations were not totally solved by this
approach. This increase also meant that refraction-based
methods in the field, using all the recorded traces, would
have required a substantial increase in the number of
field seismologists allocated to the crew. In addition, the
quality of the field monitors was degraded slightly as
photographic systems were withdrawn and replaced by
Downloaded 10/08/14 to 199.189.110.30. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
(a)
R
Surface
Base of
weathering
Datum
Reflector
1.3
(b)
S
Datum
Reflector
Fig. 1-1. Schematic cross-section of the earth, with raypath from a source to a receiver, illustrating the principle
of datum static corrections. (a) Original data, source (S)
and receiver (R) on the surface (physical model). (b)
Pseudo-source (S) and pseudo-receiver (R) located on
the datum or reference plane (nonphysical model).
Downloaded 10/08/14 to 199.189.110.30. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Chapter 1Introduction
val, sample period, and frequency) are scaled appropriately. However, static corrections do not scale, and a 1ms static correction error is independent of the type of
survey and becomes more of a problem at higher frequencies; this is because it represents a greater fraction
of the dominant period of the data (Ziolkowski and
Lerwill, 1979). I discuss the impact of static correction
errors on the data in Chapter 6.
In some areas, more information is used in the generation of the near-surface model, such as additional geologic control or additional refraction information. The
refraction information is used to improve the sampling
of the data in the horizontal direction by, for example,
analysis of the refraction arrivals recorded as first arrivals
on the production reflection records. In some areas, it is
necessary for the deep uphole control to be such that the
hole is at a depth equal to or greater than the depth of
the shallowest reflection observed on the production
data. This implies that the data acquisition parameters
must be designed to allow for these shallow horizons to
be mapped.
The computation of datum static corrections is generally undertaken by the field seismologist on the data
acquisition crew. Regardless of where the static corrections are computed or by what method, the capability
must exist for them be recomputed or upgraded in the
data processing center. This applies to the computation
of any attributes that are subject to interpretive judgment and thus leads to the need for residual static corrections. In some areas, especially where low-spatial-frequency (long-wavelength) variations occur in the residual static corrections, a substantial input is often needed
by the interpreter. This reemphasizes the often interpretive nature of static corrections.
In dealing with the near surface and with datum static corrections, the objectives of the survey must be analyzed. If the target is very shallow, such as for engineering purposes, the static corrections probably refer only
to the shallow portion of the near surface. For deeper
targets, such as used in most oil exploration surveys,
even the shallow target of the engineering survey can be
treated as part of the near surface. When dealing with
these different scales, most parameters (e.g., group inter-
1.4
CHAPTER SYNOPSES
Downloaded 10/08/14 to 199.189.110.30. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Chapter 6. The concept of static corrections is examined, which shows that this is not a good approximation
in some situations and that a technique such as waveequation datuming should be used instead. Techniques
to differentiate between surface and subsurface features
are described, as are the impact of static errors on velocity estimates and various data processing techniques.
Chapter 7. Here I describe the methods used to compute residual static corrections, including the basis of
manual approaches used. This includes those analyzed
in the common source, receiver, midpoint, and offset
domains. The extension to long spatial wavelengths (low
frequency) and phase corrections is described, as are
more recent techniques such as stack power, simulated
annealing, and genetic algorithms. The last section in the
chapter is on the important topic of quality control (QC).
Chapter 8. The role of interpretation is covered here.
Various schemes are described that can be used when
static anomalies are still present or suspected in the final
seismic section. I also list the various factors that can
cause sections to mis-tie.
1.5
FUTURE TRENDS
Downloaded 10/08/14 to 199.189.110.30. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Chapter 1Introduction
tions are applied will increase significantly. Thus, application of residual static corrections, currently done in a
few surveys, would become routine for all marine surveys. Unlike land surveys, there should be no need to
cycle through several iterations of residual static corrections and velocity analyses. One run of residual static
corrections, apart from lines where the corrections are
significant, will normally be sufficient.
3. The current practice of surface consistency in the
evaluation of residual static corrections will continue to
be eroded when the combination of signal-to-noise ratio
of the data and available surface redundancy are sufficient. This will allow for time shifts that are dependent
on time, offset or angle, and azimuth. That is, there will
be more recognition of the raypaths traveled for each
combination of source and receiver positions.
4. It is likely that development will continue for
residual static correction analysis routines for both
short- and long-wavelength anomalies. This may, for
example, involve analysis on a model-dependent basis
using an inversion approach. The introduction of data
processes that move data laterally, such as dip moveout
(DMO) or prestack migration, must be placed correctly
in the processing sequence. This is to ensure that the
assumption of surface consistency (or close to surface
consistency) in residual static corrections is maintained.
5. Recall from Section 1.2 that one forecast in the
Delphi survey was that 25% of seismic data acquisition
will be by individual seismometer recording (Hewitt,
1983, 22) and that this would most likely occur by 1995. I
noted that there is still some way to go to achieve this
prediction. One aspect of this point is the changing treatment of coherent noise attenuation. Initially, this was
achieved with appropriate source and receiver arrays
during data acquisition, which were generally long. This
has now been changed to a balanced approach between
acquisition and processing, with the shorter wavelength
noise attenuated in the field and the longer wavelengths
by a processing technique (see Section 6.6.1).
Because the arrays used during acquisition are
reduced in length with this approach, the problems of
intra-array static corrections are reduced. However, this
is often more than offset by the requirements of preserving higher frequency data. Intra-array static corrections
must therefore be accommodated during data processing (e.g., array forming), together with differential
moveout to minimize the attenuation of higher frequency data. If the lateral extent of the arrays is further
reduced, and in the limit the array consists of a single
receiver, then this procedure can still be used, although
a larger volume of data must be recorded. The alterna-
1.6
SUMMARY
Downloaded 10/08/14 to 199.189.110.30. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
stacking velocity analysis and vice versa. A floating or intermediate datum should be used for
moveout corrections, especially when the datum
static corrections are large.
Most residual static correction approaches are
best at solving small time corrections with wavelengths up to about one spreadlength. This
implies that good or accurate datum static corrections are required.
Wave-equation datuming or layer replacement
may need to be used when vertical travel in the
near-surface layers is a poor approximation; this
technique also requires a well-defined near-surface model.
The final seismic section should include details
on how the static corrections were computed,
including the near-surface model and a display of
the datum and residual static corrections.
Static corrections are the concern of acquisition,
processing, and interpretation staff. Good communication among the relevant technical specialists
performing the different tasks on a survey is
therefore required.
Static corrections, especially their long-wavelength (low-frequency) component, affect the
structural picture.
The interpreter must know what was done to the
data. The seismic section must be analyzed in
conjunction with the near-surface information.
REFERENCES
Dix, C. H., 1981, Seismic prospecting for oil: Internat. Human
Res. Dev. Corp.
Dobrin, M. B., 1976, Introduction to geophysical prospecting:
McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Dobrin, M. B., and Savit, C. H., 1988, Introduction to geophysical prospecting: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Gaby, P. P., and Solari, A. J., 1948, Geophysical history of the
McDonald Island gas field, San Joaquin County,
California, in Nettleton, L. L., Ed., Geophysical case histories: Soc. Expl. Geophys., 1, 602607.
Goupillaud, P. L., 1961, An approach to inverse filtering of
near surface layer effects from seismic records:
Geophysics, 26, 754760. Reprinted, 1988, in Lines, L. R.,
Ed., Inversion of geophysical data: Soc. Expl. Geophys.,
168174.
Griffiths, D. H., and King, R. F., 1981, Applied geophysics for
geologists and engineers: Pergamon Press, Inc.
Heiland, C. A., 1940, Geophysical exploration: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.
Hewitt, M. R., 1983, Delphi survey: The Leading Edge, 2, No.
6, 1831.
Hileman, J. A., Embree, P., and Pflueger, J. C., 1968,
Automated static corrections: Geophys. Prosp., 16,
326358.