Analysis of Seismic Data Acquisition

Techniques, Parameters and Results in High

Velocity Layers of Iranian South West
Hydrocarbon Prospects
By:
SeyedMohsen SeyedAli

A THESIS SUBMITED IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT

FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE

Supervisors:
Dr. Mohammad Ali Riahi
Dr. Alireza Alizadeh Attar

Co-Advisor:
Roohollah Noemani

TEHRAN
MARCH 2009
Copyright © 2009 SeyedMohsen SeyedAli
All Rights Reserved
 This thesis is financially supported by
Research and Development of National Iranian Oil Company,
to which I am greatly indebted.
 To
My Parents
 ABSTRACT

Acquiring good images is a debatable challenge in seismic acquisition design. The

problem is more robust in areas where high degree of anisotropy and complex
structures are present. In excess of these problems, high attenuating formations will
reduce the energy content of received signals at the surface. Hence, having reliable
images is a challenge in such areas.
Conventional methods of data acquisition will result in all above mentioned problems.
So it is necessary to utilize more recent approaches in data acquisition strategies to
overcome such challenges.
One of the most problematic lithologies in seismic acquisition and processing
operations are salt layers and salt bodies. They cause several problems due to their
intrinsic properties such as high attenuation and high velocity. In addition their steep
flanks may cause to energy travels distant from the source location which it causes
lost of high amount of energy as a result of geometrical spreading and in some
situations there is the probability that the energy never be recorded due to
inappropriate estimation of Xmax or migration aperture in acquisition design.
Multi-component seismic recording captures the seismic wavefield more completely
than conventional single-element techniques. In the last several years, multi-
component surveying has developed rapidly, allowing creation of converted-wave or
P-S images. These make use of downgoing P-waves that convert on reflection at their
deepest point of penetration to upcoming S-waves. Survey design for acquiring P-S
data is similar to that for P-waves, but must take into account subsurface VP/VS values
and the asymmetric P-S ray path. P-S surveys use conventional sources, but require
several times more recording channels per receiving location.
This study analyzes the effectiveness of multi-component data acquisition in areas
where high velocity layers such as salt bodies and carbonates exist.

i
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First of all I would like to express my special appreciations to my thesis supervisor

Dr. Riahi for his great encouragements and guidance during my study.
I thank to my supervisor Dr. Attar whose ideas and valuable suggestions was the basis
for this study.
I thank to my co-advisor Mr. Noemani-Rad who provides me with all required
facilities for this project.
I also would like to express my best regards to Professor J.L. Mari who showed me
the way of thinking about mathematical problems in geophysics.
I acknowledge to NORSAR Innovation AS for providing me with trial license of
NORSAR2D software.

ii
 Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ...............................................................................................ii
Table of Contents..........................................................................................................iii
List of Figures................................................................................................................ v
CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Framework and objectives this thesis .................................................................2
1.2. Methodology .......................................................................................................2
1.3. Review of some affecting parameters in seismic data acquisition: ....................3
1.3.1. Attenuation:..................................................................................................3
1.3.2. Arrays...........................................................................................................5
1.3.3. Statistics .....................................................................................................10
1.4. Forward Modeling ............................................................................................10
CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................ 12
REVIEW OF SOME PREVIOUS SEISMIC DATA ACQUISITION JOBS IN
DEZFUL EMBAYMENT AND GEOLOGICAL STUDIES..................................12
2.1- Geological study of Dezful Embayment ..........................................................12
2.1.1. Stratigraphy of the Gachsaran Formation ..................................................14
2.1.2- Structural Geology of Gachsaran Formation.............................................17
2.1.2. Review of seismic challenges of Gachsaran formation .............................18
2.2. Review of some previous seismic data acquisition jobs in Dezful Embayment
..................................................................................................................................21
2.2.1. Seismic data acquisition on Gachsaran Formation (1971-1972) ...............22
2.2.2. Seismic Data Improvements Experiments (1972 and 1973)......................24
2.2.3. Conclusions................................................................................................25
CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................ 27
FORWARD MODELING AND RAY TRACING APPROACH .......................27
3.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................27
3.2. Ray Tracing Approach......................................................................................28
3.2.1. Fundamentals of Ray Tracing....................................................................28
3.2.2. Ray Tracing Techniques ............................................................................32
3.2.3. Limitations of ray tracing...........................................................................34
3.3. Modeling ...........................................................................................................36
3.3.1. Introduction................................................................................................36
3.3.2. Modeling Procedure...................................................................................37
3.3.3. Simple Model.............................................................................................38
3.3.4. Complex Model (Based on a real field data in Dezful Embayment).........44
CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................ 54
COMMON CONVERSION POINT MAPPING FOR 2D-3C SEISMIC DATA
ACQUISITION SURVEY DESIGN IN ANISOTROPIC MEDIA ............................ 54
4.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................54

iii
 4.2 Review of seismic anisotropy ............................................................................55
4.2.1 Anisotropy versus heterogeneity.................................................................56
4.2.2 VTI (Polar Anisotropy)...............................................................................57
4.3. Definition of Seismic Anisotropy Parameters ..................................................58
4.3.1. Elastic Tensor and Anisotropy Parameters ................................................58
4.3.2. Explanation of Thomsen Anisotropy Parameters ......................................61
4.4. Conversion Point Mapping ...............................................................................61
4.4.1. Introduction................................................................................................61
4.4.2. Theory ........................................................................................................63
4.5. Methodology .....................................................................................................64
4.6. Results and Discussion .....................................................................................66
CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................ 71
CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS....................................................... 71
5.1. Conclusions.......................................................................................................71
5.1.1 Affecting parameters according to previous jobs .......................................71
5.1.2. Forward modeling approach ......................................................................72
5.1.3. Common conversion point mapping..........................................................73
5.2. Recommendations.............................................................................................73
References.................................................................................................................... 74

iv
 List of Figures

Figure 1- 1: Schematic of a 2-D array ...........................................................................7

Figure 1- 2: Response curve of an array with twelve receivers and 0.5m receiver
interval ...........................................................................................................................8
Figure 1- 3: Response curve of an array with twenty four receivers and 0.5m receiver
interval ...........................................................................................................................8
Figure 1-4: Midpoint coverage for: a. a single source into a linear geophone array
(after Vermeer, 1998a), b. a linear source array into a linear geophone array, and c. a
single source into an areal geophone array. .................................................................10

Figure 2- 1: Tectonic map of Arabian and Iran plates and main structural subdivisions
of Zagros orogenic system (Abdolahiefard, 2006). .....................................................13
Figure 2- 2: Schematic Profile of subsurface layers in Dezful Embayment, Izeh and
High Zagros zones. Gachsaran Formation is shown by yellow color (Sherkati et al.
2004). ...........................................................................................................................15
Figure 2- 3: Stratigraphy column of Cenozoic Era in Lurestan, Dezful Embayment
and Fars area. ...............................................................................................................16
Figure 2- 4: Location of some Iranian oil field in Dezful Embayment and Abadan
plane.............................................................................................................................17

Figure 3- 1: Seismic Model..........................................................................................28

Figure 3- 2: Elements of kinematic ray tracing ...........................................................31
Figure 3- 3: Depiction of image and normal incident rays ..........................................33
Figure 3- 4: Un-smoothed model section (Left section) and smoothed model section
(Right section)..............................................................................................................35
Figure 3-5: Comparison of PP and PS results. Left figure shows the result of a PP data
acquisition, as it is obvious in this figure, gas cloud has obscured the crest of the
reservoir. Right figure shows the result of PS data acquisition that has resolved the top
of the reservoir and a largr fault in the flank[3]. ...........................................................37
Figure 3- 6: Three layer flat model ..............................................................................38
Figure 3- 7: Representation of traced rays...................................................................39
Figure 3- 8: PP (left) and PS (Right) sections..............................................................39
Figure 3- 9: Incoming reflection angles of PP rays (blue) and PS rays (red) ..............41
Figure 3- 10: Up-going reflection angles of PP rays (blue) and PS rays (red) ............41
Figure 3- 11: Variation of An-elasticity factor versus offset (PP rays (blue) and PS
rays (red)).....................................................................................................................42
Figure 3- 12: Geometrical Spreading versus offset (PP rays (blue) and PS rays (red))
......................................................................................................................................43
Figure 3- 13: AVO analysis (PP rays (blue) and PS rays (red)) ..................................43
Figure 3- 14: Model Blocks .........................................................................................45
Figure 3- 15: Main model ............................................................................................46
Figure 3- 16: Results of normal inident ray tracing on the model illurtrated in figure
(3-15) with Station spacing = 250 m ...........................................................................47

v
Figure 3- 17: Reflection from steep flanks ..................................................................47
Figure 3- 18: Results of normal inident ray tracing on the model illurtrated in figure
(3-15) with station spacing = 50 m ..............................................................................48
Figure 3- 19: Results of image ray tracing on the model illurtrated in figure (3-15)
with - migration aperture = 1km ..................................................................................49
Figure 3- 20) Results of image ray tracing on the model illurtrated in figure (3-15)
with - migration aperture = 4km ..................................................................................50
Figure 3- 21: Results of image ray tracing on the model illurtrated in figure (3-15)
with - migration aperture = 8km ..................................................................................50
Figure 3- 22: shot gather at X=10 km..........................................................................51
Figure 3- 23: Receiver locations versus mid-point, red crosses show the selected .....52
Figure 3- 24: Non- hyperbolic behavior at far offsets for CMP location of X=8 km..52
Figure 3- 25: Off-end survey. Snapshot from the source-receiver pair where source
located at X=5 km and receiver at X= 15 km. .............................................................53

Figure 4- 1: Anisotropy versus Heterogeneity.............................................................56

Figure 4- 2: Velocity distribution in VTI media can be represented by a cylinder. The
velocities on all directions within the horizontal plane are identical in amplitude......57
Figure 4- 3: Distinction between Ray (group) and Phase angles.................................60
Figure 4- 4: The conversion point traces a trajectory in the multi-layered model for a
certain offset, instead of locating on a vertical axis (Stewart et al., 1999). .................62
Figure 4- 5: Depiction of common conversion point and different angle in an
anisotropic media .........................................................................................................65
Figure 4- 6: Variation of displacement of common conversion point in aniotropic
media (VTI) versus offset of isotropic conversion point for three values of delta* and
epsilon equals to 0.2.....................................................................................................66
Figure 4- 7: Variation of conversion point in aniotropic media (VTI) versus ray angle
for three values of delta* and epsilon equals to 0.2......................................................67
Figure 4- 8: Variation of displacement of conversion point with variation of δ * and
ratio of isotropic conversion point offset to depth .......................................................68
Figure 4- 9: Variation of displacment of conversion point with variation of epsilon
( δ * = 0.2) ......................................................................................................................68
Figure 4- 10: Variation of displacement of conversion point in weakly Anisotropic
medium (blue dots: exact equation results, red dots: linearly approximated results)..69
Figure 4- 11: Variation of displacement of conversion point in strongly anisotropic
medium (blue dots: exact equation results, red dots: linearly approximated results)..70

vi
vii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

A good survey design achieves the geophysical objective while minimizing the cost
and time of acquisition and processing. Basic components of the seismic method of
hydrocarbon exploration are acquisition, processing, and interpretation. These three
rather compartmentalized areas are inextricably related. No amount of clever
processing can overcome some deficiencies in acquisition. No magical insight by the
interpreter can remedy some acquisition and processing mistakes. Survey design is
most effective when processing and interpretation are considered in the design.
Emphasis in the pioneer stage of seismic exploration was on acquisition. Later,
emphasis shifted to data processing. More recently, interpretation workstations have
been a focus of development (Stone, 1994).
Survey design is state of the art. Selecting the most efficient acquisition planning
plays an important role in optimizing the cost and the results. By sure, the best design
is the one that brings about the high resolution images of underground whilst
providing us with required data for reservoir characterization. Because the final target
of surface seismic surveys is exploring boundaries and its characterization.
Delineation of reservoir boundaries will be more difficult when complex structures
like salt bodies and tilted blocks exist. In such situations it is necessary to have a good
comprehension of wavefield state in media. The problem is stronger where sever
lateral velocity variation, high overburden and anisotropy are present. One of the best
tools of having such understanding is forward modeling through which we can

1
analyze the ray path (ray bending, transmission and reflection) and all other related
attributes. In addition it enables us to make choices of data processing steps.

1.1. Framework and objectives this thesis

This project is subdivided into four main parts:

1- Review of seismic acquisition techniques in complex structures and analysis
of important parameters on data quality (attenuation, static variations, array
designing and etc.).
2- Review of some selected previous jobs on study area (Dezful Embayment).
3- Introducing multi-component seismic data acquisition technique in high
velocity complex structure areas and representation of forward modeling
approach as a clue of success in such regions.
4- Analysis of CCP locating and its importance as the base step of multi-
component seismic data acquisition design in anisotropic media.

1.2. Methodology

After some studies and analyses of seismic data acquisition challenges and their
results in Iranian SW hydrocarbon oilfields (Dezful Embayment), some typical
models will be generated respecting to general structures and petrophysical properties
of this area and different techniques of ray tracing will be used to extract several
attributes from output data using NORSAR2D software. These attributes will be
analyzed to obtain the most efficient techniques and parameters in designing surveys
in this area. As this study concerns with acquisition of converted waves in anisotropic
media, and most of the commercial softwares neglect the effect of anisotropy in
investigation of reflection points, I have generated a MATLAB code to inspect the
errors erecting due to neglecting the anisotropy factors in VTI media.

2
1.3. Review of some affecting parameters in seismic data acquisition:

1.3.1. Attenuation:

Reduction in amplitude or energy caused by the transmitting media or system is called

attenuation. It usually includes geometric divergence effects as waves spread out from
a source as well as conversion of energy into heat (absorption) and other factors
affecting amplitude, such as transmissivity losses and mode conversion.
Spherical Divergence is the decrease in wave strength (energy per unit area of wave-
front) with distance as a result of geometric spreading. A spherical wave traveling
through the body of a medium continually spreads out so that the energy density
decreases. For a point source the energy density decreases inversely as the square of
the distance the wave has traveled; this means that the amplitude deceases linearly
with the distance traveled. For energy which travels along a surface, the analogous
term is cylindrical divergence, where the energy varies inversely as the distance and
the amplitude as the square root of the distance (Sheriff, 2002).
Another type of energy loss happens at interfaces, while the wave-front hits the
interface. At the incident point location several phenomena such as mode conversion,
transmission and reflection cause to initial energy breaks down to some other types
which will result in attenuation of energy content in each type.
Energy loss due to conversion of energy to heat (energy absorption) is another type of
attenuation that is represented by attenuation factor (α) which is the exponential decay
constant of amplitude of plane wave is traveling in a homogenous medium. The
quality factor Q and its inverse Q-1, sometimes called the internal friction or
dissipation factor and ζ is the logarithmic decrement. These quantities are related as
follows:

1 αv ξ
= = (1-1)
Q πf π

Where v is the velocity and f is the frequency.

Attenuation coefficient and logarithmic decrement can be expressed as below:

3
 A1 αv
ξ = ln( )= (1-2)
A0 f
Where A0 is initial amplitude and A1 is the recorded amplitude.

Quality factor is the most common measure of attenuation and is a dimensionless

parameter. As an intrinsic property of rock, Q is the ratio of stored energy to
dissipated energy. Media with Q values higher than 10 assumed to have low energy
absorption coefficient. In some cases that the absorption coefficient takes higher
values Hamilton (1992) expressed this equation:
1 αv
= (1-3)
Q α 2v 2
πf −
4πf

α 2v 2
However under low-loss assumption (Q>10) the term is negligible and may be
4πf
dropped. Some other experimental equations relating quality factor to media
1 1000 2
velocities have expressed by others such as =( ) by Udias, 1991 and
Qp Vp

Qs 4 Vs 2
= [ ] by Waters, 1981.
Qp 3 V
p

Among these attenuation parameters geometrical spreading plays the most important
role while AVO variation analysis and comparison of P and S-waves. Although the
logarithmic decrement( ξ ) for S-waves in some cases are higher than corresponding
P-waves, but as the effect of this attenuation is applied exponentially as expressed in
equation (1-1) and according to Waters (1981) that shows the ratio of quality factors
Vs
for P and S-waves can be expressed respect to ratio, and respecting to the fact that
Vp

this ratio increases with depth and tends to unity in highly overburdened layers their
effects does not make too much differences in numerical modeling.
Another measure of attenuation is Loss-Angle (φ) which can be expressed as the
cotangent inverse of quality factor.
Mc Donald et al. (1958) examined the dependency of geometrical spreading and
energy absorption on wave frequency. Due to their experiments on a compact shale
formation in Colorado State, geometrical spreading is more effective in low

4
frequencies and short distances respect to absorption attenuation. By increasing the
distance and frequency, absorption increases until becomes more important.

Above explanations and terminologies are summarized in table (1-1).

Table 1-1: Attenuation terminologies and equations

Term Symbol Equation
Geometrical Spreading G I2 r
= ( 1 )2
I1 r2

Quality Factor Q 2πE ∆E

Absorption Coefficient Α (f v) ln( A1 A0 )

Logarithmic Decrement ξ ln( A1 A0 )

Loss Angle Φ cot-1(Q)

1.3.2. Arrays

Since early in the history of reflection seismic programs, it have tended to use
multiple geophone sensors to record each trace of information. Typically traces are
recorded sparsely (between 10 and 60 meter group intervals are typical). This has
been due largely to recording channel limitations and the need to record a broad range
of offsets. In the youth of seismic, it has been recognized that an organized spatial
distribution of analogue recording elements would form a wavenumber domain filter
when summed together. This lead to a popular practice of designing arrays to
attenuate coherent noise patterns (those with wavelengths generally shorter than the
array length). As broader bandwidth became a requirement for sharper imaging of
subtle stratigraphic plays, arrays fell into disfavor. Many geophysicists perceived that
conventional arrays were so long as to attenuate some of the high frequencies of the
far-offset, shallow reflections. This led to a period of insanity where many
geophysicists believed it wise to group or “pot” the geophones to eliminate that nasty
array effect (Cooper. N, 2002)

5
1.3.2.1. Basic Theory of Array filtering:

The filtering of a seismic function S, a succession of seismic impulses arriving spread

out over time, by an array consisting of '2n+1' detectors is a spatial filtering over
distance 'x'. At a given instance 't', the seismic function S(x,t) is written as S(x). If we
call the filter operator w(x), then at every time sample t, the filtered trace is written as:

G(x) = S(x)*w(x) (1-4)

The symbol * represents the convolution operator.

An array physically implemented by a series of detectors wired together at separation
of 'e'. The array filter is an analog filter. In seismic acquisition survey design array
filtering is sometimes called filtering by multiple geophones.
Mathematically, the signal G(x) which is summation of signals S(x) at '2n+1' receiver
locations separated by 'e' is written as:

G(x) = S(x – ne) + S(x – (n – 1)e) + … + S(x) + … + S(x + ne) (1-5)

In which

G(x) = S(x)*w(x) (1-6)

While

w(x) = [D(x - ne) + … + D(x) + D(x + ne)] (1-7)

And 'D' represents Dirac function.

The filter w is an analog filter in wavenumber space (k). For an in-line array
consisting of N=2n+1 detectors, Fourier Transform of the filter is written as:

+∞

∫ w( x)e
−2πik (( N −1) e )
W (k) = FT (w(x)) = (1-8)
−∞

Where x = (N-1)e,

6
Solving equation (1-12) numerically in discrete domain will result in:

W (k) = AeB (1-9)

In which A represents the module and B represents the phase. A and B are:

sin Nπke
A= , B = i(N-1)(πke) (1-10)
sin πke

If we plot the absolute value of A respect to k, for constant values of k and N, the
response of the filter will be appeared.
In figure 1-1 a schematic sketch of a 2-dimensional array has been represented. This
array contains nine receivers which are distributed by distance e. All the recorded
signals in these receivers will be stacked together and the result will be placed in the
center location of the array.
Figure 1-2 shows the response curve of an array with twelve receivers and 0.5m
receiver interval, as we can see array filtering favors the low wavenumbers associated
with reflected arrivals to the detriment of the higher wavenumbers associated with
groundrolls.
Increasing the number of receivers per array boosts the efficiency of array filtering.
Figure 1-3 shows another array containing twenty four receivers with the same
receiver interval.

e n=4

Figure 1- 1: Schematic of a 2-D array

7
 Figure 1- 2: Response curve of an array with twelve receivers and 0.5m receiver interval

Figure 1- 3: Response curve of an array with twenty four receivers and 0.5m receiver interval

8
Noise tests are essential in this step of acquisition design to acquire reliable
information about the origin and characteristics of noises such as groundrolls to
design an optimum array.
Array design in 3-D surveys requires careful consideration. If a receiver array is used,
it should be as simple as possible. Circles, box patterns, or in-line arrays are
commonly used today because of the ease and efficiency of their layout. A designer
may place a major emphasis on a complicated receiver array, but this message may be
hard to convey to the field personnel who may not understand the necessity of
carrying out instructions accurately. In such cases, the designer must work with the
field personnel directly to achieve meticulous placement of the arrays. In 3-D surveys,
source energy arrives from many directions. The array response varies dramatically
depending on the azimuth between point sources (e.g., dynamite) and receiver arrays.
If geophone arrays are laid in-line, the response from a point source fired from an in-
line position will be attenuated, while a broadside source into such an array will not
be affected by the array. Because of this variation, many companies prefer no arrays
at all when recording 3-D data with single-hole dynamite source points, and use omni-
directional arrays such as circles or clustered arrays. Field tests for linear versus
podded geophone arrays have indicated that there may be situations where arrays can
attenuate reflections more than groundroll does (Wittick, 1998). The tests included in-
line as well as cross-line recording, i.e., the wave-fields hit the geophone groups
linearly as well as broadside. Arrays in the source line direction should complement
arrays in the receiver line direction as much as possible (Vermeer, 1998a). Figure 1-4
shows the different array combinations that may be considered. Figure 1-4a is a single
source point being recorded by a linear receiver array, the series of midpoints
indicates possible smearing in the receiver line direction. Figure 1-4b shows the areal
midpoint sampling that might happen with a combination of linear source and receiver
arrays. This areal midpoint coverage is summed as one trace. Figure 1-4c indicates the
midpoint coverage that can be achieved with a single source and an areal receiver
array. The greater the number of elements in a receiver array, the larger is the areal
midpoint coverage.

9
Figure 1-4: Midpoint coverage for: a. a single source into a linear geophone array (after
Vermeer, 1998a), b. a linear source array into a linear geophone array, and c. a single source into
an areal geophone array.

As we can see in figure 1-4, using distributed shots (shot arrays) can be a solution to
reduce back-scattered noise.

1.3.3. Statistics

A major goal of reflection processing is to provide reflectivity images of the correct

reflector geometry. This goal can be prevented by the statics problem. The statics
problem is defined to be static time shifts introduced into the traces by, e.g. near-
surface velocity anomalies and/or topography. These time shifts distort the true
geometry of deep reflectors. Uneven topography can produce moveout delays in the
shot gathers that can also be interpreted as undulations in the reflector, even if the
reflector is flat. After an elevation statics correction (i.e., time shifts applied to traces)
the data appear to have been collected on a flat datum plane. Static shifts introduced
by topographic variations fall under the class of field statics, and those due to near-
surface lithological variations that occur within a cable length fall under the class of
residual statics. Correcting for static shifts in the traces can make a significant
difference in the quality of a migrated or stacked image. It is easy to determine
elevation static corrections, but not so easy to find the residual static corrections. One
means is to determine the near-surface velocity distribution by refraction tomography.

1.4. Forward Modeling

By properly modeling the subsurface, geophysicists can:

• Determine optimum acquisition parameters

10
 • Select proper processing techniques
• Produce superior seismic results

Relatively simple geometries are effective on flat layers and gently dipping surfaces.
In the presence of complex structures wavefield behavior becomes difficult to
analyze. Modeling would seem to be a way to improve the survey design. Model
based design using ray tracing technique can be a solution for analyzing the problems
of conventional designs and finding the optimum parameters of the survey.
The specific sequence for using a model in survey design would be:

2- Build a model of significant horizons using geological and previous seismic

data and filling in the model by appropriate petrophysical and seismological
properties. In this step we can examine several models.
3- Ray trace the model at an arbitrary source spacing and determine the optimum
locations of receivers.
4- Shooting the obtained survey and extract useful attributes
5- Analyzing the attributes to find the best solution for proper imaging.

The goal of this project is to utilize the ray tracing technique to find a method for
having more energy at receiving stations. Several attributes are candidates to be
analyzed for this purpose.

11
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF SOME PREVIOUS SEISMIC DATA ACQUISITION

JOBS IN DEZFUL EMBAYMENT AND GEOLOGICAL STUDIES

This chapter is subdivided into two main parts:

1- Geological review of south west regions of Iran with special attention to

problematic layers and formations from geophysical point of view. As it is
mentioned earlier high attenuation lithologies such as salt and anhydrite due to
some intrinsic properties cause to energy is not recorded at the surface with
acceptable energy content. Hence, as one of the most developed formations
which plays the role of cap rock for plenty of reservoirs in Dezful Embayment
is Gachsaran formation, this will be discussed in more details.
2- Review of some selected seismic data acquisition jobs which have done in this
region, and discussion about the results and parameters.

2.1- Geological study of Dezful Embayment

The Zagros basin is defined by a 7–14 km thick succession of cover sediments

deposited over an extraordinary wide and long region along the north–northeast edge
of the Arabian plate (Fig. 2.1; Bahroudi, 2004; Sepehr, 2003). Since the end of
Precambrian times, this region has evolved through a number of different tectonic
settings. Like other fold–thrust belts, it shows intense shortening close to the suture
which becomes less intense toward the foreland. It is dominated by NW–SE trending

12
folds and thrusts, which swing into a NE orientation as they approach the Strait of
Hormuz. The thick sedimentary sequences of the Zagros basin contain rocks ranging
in age from Cambrian to Recent. The Zagros basin was part of the stable super
continent of Gowndwana in Paleozoic times. The geological evidence suggests that
the region was a passive continental margin in the Cambrian-Carboniferous and
subsequently underwent rifting in the Permo-Trias and collision in the Late Tertiary
(Berberian & King, 1981; Beydoun, Hughes Clarke, & Stoneley, 1992; Sepehr, 2003;
Stocklin, 1974).

Figure 2- 1: Tectonic map of Arabian and Iran plates and main structural subdivisions of Zagros
orogenic system (Abdolahiefard, 2006).

13
Sherkati et al. (2004) suggest a Middle to Post Miocene shift of sedimentary
depocenter to the southwest allowed rapid subsidence and thick accumulation of the
Fars group in the Dezful Embayment. These consist of the Lower Fars Gachsaran, the
Middle Fars Mishan, and the Upper Fars Aghajari Formations. Each of these was
restricted to a new foreland basin in front of the evolving Zagros Fold-Thrust Belt
(ZFTB) (Bahroudi, 2004). Near the end of early Miocene, the evaporatic environment

in the Zagros basin led to sedimentation of Mid Miocene Gachsaran Formation. In

Farsi, “Gach” covers anhydrite, gypsum and salt and, although the Gachsaran
Formation contains mainly of evaporites, it also contains marls, limestones, and
shales. Salt of the Gachsaran Formation was considered as the thickest basin-centre
facies (Falcon, 1958; Gill & Ala, 1972; Kashfi, 1980).
Gachsaran Formation is one of the most important seals for hydrocarbon reservoirs
(especially in the Asmari Limestone) in one of the richest habitats for hydrocarbon in
the world (Beydoun, 1991; Beydoun, Hughes, & Stoneley, 1992; Colman-Sadd, 1978;
Dunnington, 1968; Edgell, 1996; James & Wynd, 1965; Motiei, 1993; Murris, 1980;
O’Brien, 1957; Stöcklin, 1968).
Gachsaran formation is particularly deposited in the area of Izeh, Lurestan, and
Dezful Embayment. The Early Cambrian Hormuz salt located at the base sedimentary
column and the Gachsaran Formation higher in the Zagros stratigraphic column as
thickest and most wide-spread evaporatic units have acted as important detachment
horizons in the southwestern region of the ZFTB (Sherkati et al., 2005).
O'Brien (1950) introduced diapirism in the Gachsaran Formation to explain
decoupling between competent and incompetent units. In addition, the divergence
within the Gachsaran Formation used to be interpreted by thrusting of the upper
members of the Gachsaran Formation over the incompetent members.

2.1.1. Stratigraphy of the Gachsaran Formation

Detailed stratigraphic studies of the Gachsaran Formation report rhythmic bedding

(Dunnington, 1968; James & Wynd, 1965; Stöcklin, 1968) with 22 distinct cycles in
the Pusht-e-Kuh (Lorestan) province (Gill & Ala, 1972) and 14 cycles in the Kirkuk
embayment (see Dunnington, 1968). Each rhythmic unit consists of bluishgreen marl,
overlain in turn by limestone, dolomite and anhydrite, and with/without bedded salt
(Dunnington, 1968; Gill & Ala, 1970; Motiei, 1993; Slinger & Crichton, 1959).

14
Figure 2- 2: Schematic Profile of subsurface layers in Dezful Embayment, Izeh and High Zagros
zones. Gachsaran Formation is shown by yellow color (Sherkati et al. 2004).

15
Figure 2- 3: Stratigraphy column of Cenozoic Era in Lurestan, Dezful Embayment and Fars
area.

The geologists of Iranian Oil Operating Companies (I.O.O.C.) for the first time
reduced the order of the complexities of the Gachsaran Formation in 1946
(Setudehnia, 1977).
James and Wynd (1965) modified the subdivisions of former workers in seven
members; however, a distinct location as type section was not introduced for the
Gachsaran Formation. The stratigraphic description of the Gachsaran Formation is
based on results of the Gachsaran Oilfield wells in the Dezful Embayment.
Member 1, also called Cap Rock, consists of interbedded anhydrite and limestone
associated with bituminous shale. This member lies conformably on the Asmari
Formation (Setudehnia, 1977) and acts as an important seal for the Asmari reservoir.
Member 2 is mainly composed of salt with some anhydrate and limestone
intercalations. Member 3 consists of thick anhydrate with subordinate salt. Members
4-6 are composed of mainly anhydrate with intercalation of marl, salt, and limestone.
Thick salt beds are the main constituents of the Member 4, while, exposure of the salt
beds at surface is rare (Motiei, 1993). Member 7 is overlain conformably by the Mid
Miocene Mishan Formation. This member consists of alternating anhydrate, marl and
limestone (Setudehnia, 1977). Previously, Mbr7 was considered as Stage 3, Mbr 6 as
Stage 2 and Mbrs 1-5 as Stage 1 (Motiei, 2003).

16
 Figure 2- 4: Location of some Iranian oil field in Dezful Embayment and Abadan plane

In geophysical point of view, Gachsaran usually considered as geological unit, mainly

composed of 4 main lithologies. (Table 2-1)

Table 2-1: List of main lithologies of Gachsaran Formation in geophysical ponit of view
(Tamimi.N, 2007).
Lithology Abbr. Constituent
Anhydrite An Anhydrite + Gypsum
Marl Ml Gray Marl + Red Marl
Claystone Clst Red Claystone + Gray Claystone + Shale
Salt Salt Salt
Limestone Lst Limestone

2.1.2- Structural Geology of Gachsaran Formation

Because of tectonic mobility of members 2 to 5, they act as an incompetent unit with

disharmonic folding between members 1 and 6.

17
The maximum expected thickness of the Gachsaran Formation is 1800 meters based
on drilling in the Gachsaran Field. Whereas, drilling of some other fields showed that
the thickness of Gachsaran Formation exceeds 3000 meters. For example, in the well
Zeloi 5 the Gachsaran Formation outcropped at surface and its measured thickness is
3447 meters. This abnormal increase in thickness is supposed to be related to
tectonism as the thickness of the Gachsaran Formation usually varies over short
distances (Bahroudi and Koyi, 2004).
Bahroudi and Koyi (2004) consider salt of the Gachsaran Formation as the thickest
basin-centre facies, whereas, salt deposited throughout the local basins (with
minimum thickness variations) and with other incompetent sediments are displaced by
tectonic activities in later stages. Layer parallel thrusts were forced to propagate as
ramps above the anticlines.
Of significance is that; the thickness of the Gachsaran Formation steadily reduces
towards the SW and it changes laterally to a more competent unit in the Abadan Plain.
Therefore, the Gachsaran Formation is not acing as a well-developed detachment
horizon in the Abadan Plain. However, few observations that confirm thrusting in this
otherwise regional detachment level may also be due to lower strain in the frontal
ZFTB compared to more extensive shortening in the Dezful Embayment.

2.1.2. Review of seismic challenges of Gachsaran formation

Tamimi. N, 2007, reviewed the velocity challenges and their causes in Gachsaran
formation. The preceding explanations are based on his researches and analysis.
The natural complexities of petroleum reservoirs systems continue to provide a
challenge to geoscientists. Reliance on classic methods and current technologies
without adequate understanding about problems is becoming less satisfactory.
Understanding and characterization of challenges is an inevitable solution to decrease
the risk of exploration in new prospects.
Seismic imaging as the most important geophysical method is commonly used to
evaluate subsurface. Different seismic methods aim at evaluation and subsurface from
two points of view: Geological Structure and Geological Stratigraphy. In order to
achieve above-mentioned goals, quality of seismic image plays an important role.

18
Obviously, quality of acquisition and processing directly affect the quality of seismic
data and consequently the quality of interpretation.
Geophysical studies of overlying layers are as much important as reservoir intervals.
Plastic and incompetent formations (e.g. evaporites) are the major group of overlying
cap rocks. Plastic formations quiet often make serious challenges in exploration of
new prospects due to high structural deformation, abrupt lateral velocity variation,
non-ideal elastic properties and high wave energy attenuation. Gachsaran Formation,
as an overlying formation of most important oilfields in Dezful and Kirkuk
embayments, is selected for this study. Gachsaran Fm. shows all the above-mentioned
limitations and challenges related to plastic and incompetent formations.
The tectonic incompetency of the Gachsaran Formation is a remarkable indication for
a seismic interpreter in the study area. In some cases, which relevant well data such as
geological markers and well velocities are note available, the Cap Rock (Gachsaran
Member 1) is detectable based on divergency of reflectors (Abdolahie Fard, 2006).
The top Cap Rock is usually conformable with the lower reflectors, whereas, the
incompetent members show chaotic reflector pattern. The chaotic pattern is seen in
the southern flank of the main anticlines, where incompetent units are moved from the
crest of underling anticlines and accumulated there.
The incompetent members of the Gachsaran Formation are mainly combination of
anhydrate, shale, and salt. The dominant rock governs the velocity of the whole
swelling part. Thickness of salt within the Gachsaran Formation increases in the SW
of the Mountain Front Fault, whereas shale content of the Gachsaran Formation is
more than salt in SW of the Dezful Embayment. In area where quantity of anhydrate
or salt is high, then, high interval velocity is expected for the Gachsaran Formation.
On the contrary, dominancy of shale leads to lower interval velocity.
Therefore, high velocity anomalies within the Gachsaran Formation cause velocity
pull-up effects on the underling reflectors in the seismic sections processed in time
domain. In contrast, lower interval velocities show opposite results. Both cases affect
the seismic quality of surrounding area especially the southern flank of the main
anticlinal structure.
Usually conventional time-migrated seismic sections are distorted and obscure due to
accumulation of incompetent units of the Gachsaran Formation. Lateral velocity
variations lead to complicated seismic ray-path and such seismic imaging is proved to
be more challenging as precise velocity analysis and advanced seismic processing

19
techniques are needed. For example, pre-stack seismic migration is required to image
and correctly position the steep flanks of the underling anticlines. This technique is
considered to be the appropriate method for imaging targets in the presence of
overburden, especially in the presence of a salt body (Oezsen, 2004). However, the
quality of seismic data depends to the acquisition parameters. Due to structural
complexity, it is necessary to use larger offsets (distance between seismic source and
farthest receiver) to reach a correct illumination of the whole salt mass (Mougenot
and Al-Shakhis, 1999). In addition, 2D seismic technique is unable to image properly
anomalies within the Gachsaran due to scattering ray paths and interferences with out-
of plane reflections. In such complicated case, 3D seismic migration is needed to
avoid interferences of side effects and focus seismic energy.
High fluctuations of layer thickness have been recognized in geological sections and
seismic profiles especially in northern and eastern area of Dezful Embayment. In
some cases, the variation of Gachsaran thickness reaches to thousands of meters just
for 1km away. The high variations in thickness effectively cause complexity of study
of wave propagation through the medium. Moreover, steep reflectors do not reflect
wave significantly and it makes some problems in acquisition and processing steps. It
resembles to the case of salt flanks and maybe has the same solution.
Also, the existences of thrust faults in Gachsaran exert abnormal lithostatic pressure
on shales and because of low permeability; it causes high pore pressure in marly and
shaly layers in Gachsaran. High pore pressure decreases p-wave velocity significantly
and add more geophysical complexity to Gachsaran. Such complexities disable us to
introduce a confident velocity for Gachsaran Formation.
As mentioned previously, Gachsaran was precipitated where affected by high tectonic
activity. Folding and incompetent layer causes high lateral lithology variation. Ideally,
high lateral lithology variation leads to high lateral velocity variation. In complex
situations, high lateral velocity variations cause non-hyperbolic components to be
added to the CMP gathers (Alaei, 2005). In order to get the correct laterally varying
velocity field, analysis in the pre-stack domain can resolve the non-hyperbolic
moveout component. A variety of techniques have been proposed for using pre-stack
reflection multi-coverage surface seismic data to perform velocity analysis in complex
areas with lateral velocity variation (Bishop et al., 1985; Faye and Jeannot, 1986;
Etgen, 1990; Van Trier, 1990; Stork and Clayton, 1991; Stork, 1992; Kosloff et al.,

20
1996). High velocity variation not only reduces quality of depth-migrated image but
also the reliability of depth-converted seismic image.
Beside high velocity variation, the most noticeable fact about seismic of Gachsaran
which directly affect quality of acquisition of seismic data is high attenuation in
incompetent layers. Such phenomena highly attenuate reflected waves and amplitude
of reflection in Gachsaran is very low. Weak reflection can not be used as good
criteria in making velocity model from seismic reflection. Also, interpretation of
reflectors in and below Gachsaran is very difficult due to this high attenuation.
Sometimes in thick Gachsaran, the problem becomes critical. It has been guessed that
main lithology which causes high attenuation is Salt.
Thick layers of salt in Eastern and Northern areas of Dezful Embayment made too
many problems for interpreters, processors and field men. In addition, salt exhibits
plastic deformation and creeping. Plastic deformation characteristic make non-
hyperbolic reflection where thick layers of salt exit. Interpretation and making
velocity model from velocity spectrum in non-hyperbolic condition is too hard and
erroneous.
Marl is another lithology in Gachsaran and shows low seismic velocity. Thin to
medium beds of marl in anhydrite and salt layers with high velocity add more
difficulty to wave propagation and velocity model. In geological term, marl is made
of limestone and shale which are different in velocity (limestone characterized by
high velocity and shale exhibits low velocity medium). Thus seismic characteristic of
marl depends on its constituent and we can not consider marl as unique lithology.

2.2. Review of some previous seismic data acquisition jobs in Dezful

Embayment

Several seismic data acquisition surveys have been performed in various fields of
Dezful Embayment. Some of them which are more problematic are selected and their
acquisition parameters and conclusions are analyzed.

21
2.2.1. Seismic data acquisition on Gachsaran Formation (1971-1972)

2.2.1.1. Introduction

Reflection profiles shot in this Area over surface outcrops of the Gachsaran Formation
had not often produced usable seismic sections, whatever field techniques were used.
Geologically the Gachsaran Formation of the Miocene Fars Group in the “oilfields
area” is described by James and Wynd (Stratigraphic Nomenclature of Iranian Oil
Consortium Agreement Area, 1965) as having “a mobile and saliferous nature” and
containing Anhydrites, Salt, Marl and thinly bedded limestones. Geophysically these
rock types can be expected to transmit energy at high velocity and being incompetent
may give great dispersion and refraction off strata which dips steeply or is overturned,
with faulting adding further complications. Consequently where Gachsaran is thick,
energy absorption and dispersion can be expected, preventing deeper reflections from
being recorded at the surface.
The results and analysis of previous jobs showed that Surface noises to be in the range
of 40 meters to 90 meters and wave-length with sixty meters predominating. Noise
creates bad effects particularly near steeply dipping surface beds. Large shot patterns
and possibly smaller geophone station intervals gave better results, but as single cover
and six-fold stacking usually gave poor or no results, it was difficult to make
comparisons. Sometimes six fold cover shows some improvement over single cover
and the one twelve-fold stacked line was a little better.
Surface patterns proved best when used with an offset of about 1200 meters using a
star pattern of large area with 150 lbs. charge divided into separate 2.5 lb charges;
there seemed to be no advantage when reducing the sizes of individual charges below
2.5 lbs. Geophone station intervals of 50 m. or 60 m. were normally used, though 25
m. gave better definition on some lines, 24 to 48 geophones per trace, 8 meters or
more apart with 30 meters between strings looked better than patterns with smaller
area, Of the various recording filters used the high cut filter did not seem critical so
long as it was above 50 Hz., but on the low cut side, since some reflections of interest
have a 10 to 16 Hz. content, a setting of 8 Hz. seemed suitable.

22
2.2.1.2. The 1971 Experiment

This series of experiments was designed to analyses the coherent noise, compare
different field parameters by altering only one at a time and using these results, to
design suitable field configurations for shooting the line a number of times. The noise
test analyses showed coherent noise to be almost entirely in-line and not as strong as
might be expected. Response curves for the shot and geophone patterns showed good
theoretical attenuation and it was concluded that coherent noise was not responsible
for the poor results usually obtained when shooting on Gachsaran outcrops.
Comparisons of charge size and patterns were made using the field monitors and the
in-line patterns were seen to be better than the “star patterns. Large charges in-line
seemed to be best and offset comparisons were made using these parameters and 1225
meter for offset was selected as giving the best overall data. The processed section
suggested, however that the larger in-line charge sizes were very much better and that
a longer offset might also have given improvement.
A number of field filter tests suggested an 8 to124 Hz range to be reasonable and the
processed data confirmed this to be so. From these experiments it was decided to
shoot the line using 50 meter station intervals, then using 25 meter station intervals
each with appropriate geophone patterns. Finally the better of these two techniques
would be selected and the necessary additional shots made to convert the original six-
fold cover into twelve-fold cover.
From the field monitors the 25 meter interval was thought to be best and this
technique was used to produce the twelve-fold stacked section. A general comparison
of the six fold versions obtained so far showed that none of them had recorded any
useable data under the thick Gachsaran.
The use of deconvolution did not greatly improve the data, but did enable better
application of residual statics by “sharpening” the data.

2.2.1.3. The 1972 Experiments

The experiments showed that although coherent noise could be troublesome from
some shot points it was not the main cause of the poor data usually obtained. Random
noise combined with absorption of input energy by the highly folded and faulted

23
rocks together with rough topography would appear to be responsible for lack of
results when shooting on Gachsaran. Useful reflections were obtained on some parts
of one of the lines where nothing had been seen previously and poor reflections had
been greatly improved on this line. A number of factors combined to give this
improvement some of which were in the field recording technique and some in the
data processing.
The field parameters which helped to give great improvement were the increase in
area and number of elements of the multi-element shot and geophone patterns, the use
of longer offsets combined with the “right” spread length and the use of end-on
stacking, all these being combined and used to produced greater multiplicity of cover.
In the processing of the data, residual statics particularly the method using a dip
selective approach produced the greatest improvement, but the ability to apply time
variant processes such as deconvolution, filtering and equalization were also useful.

2.2.2. Seismic Data Improvements Experiments (1972 and 1973)

2.2.2.1 Introduction

During the seismic season September 1972 to May 1973 a number of field and
processing experiments were carried out with the aim of improving the data quality of
seismic reflection work. The experiments were aimed at following up the leads given
by the 1971-1972 ’Gachsaran Experiments’ and areas with poor or bad data quality
were chosen for the field work.
In order to investigate charge parameters a number of comparisons were made in
Deh-Dasht area including the use of tapered patterns. Further experiments were made
by altering shot patterns during the shooting of twelve fold lines in order to obtain two
sets of six fold sections for comparison.
No stacked comparisons were made between different geophone patterns, since
operationally it is easier to compare shot patterns and the results should be valid for
the geophone patterns as well.
Residual statistics were used on most lines where the signal to noise ratio was good
enough to the operator be effective.

24
2.2.2.2. Improvements in poor data areas

Although the Gachsaran Experiment had been aimed primarily at obtaining data
under outcrops of Gachsaran, the parameters which contributed to the improvement
also improved poor data where other formations outcrop. Usually lines shot on
Bakhtyari Formation and alluvium outcrops obtain fair to good results, but this area is
an exception.
Increasing the fold of coverage and charge size while other parameters kept constant
resulted in noticeable improvements in data quality.

2.2.2.3. Deh-Dasht Experiment

The experiments in this area included an in-line noise spread together with two charge
patterns shot into part of the noise spread. The noise test was analyzed in the field for
frequency and wavelength and results were used to select charge patterns for the
comparison. In this area the main noise had wavelength of between 140 meter and
220 meter and appear to be associated with the near surface refractions.
The charge comparisons showed that near traces (1-24) were not contributing much, if
any useful signal, but data quality was so poor that this type of experiment has limited
value in such an area. It was concluded that where long offsets were needed to get
better results, but at the same time fairly shallow data was required.
Charge tests show that in this area using a specific amount of dynamite spread over a
large area might produces better results.
Mixing was also tried over poor data, but this did not help very much and could not be
used when steep dips occurred.

2.2.3. Conclusions

Considerable improvement was achieved during the 1972-1973 season by increasing

the fold of multi-cover together with the use of off-end shooting with longer offsets
and larger shot and geophone patterns. In addition due to mountainous nature of this

25
area (ZFTB) residual static correction seems to be very crucial for obtaining better
images.

26
 CHAPTER 3

FORWARD MODELING AND RAY TRACING

APPROACH

3.1. Introduction

Forward seismic modeling is the process, through which a subsurface geologic

(acoustic impedance) model, in one- two- or three-dimensions, is transformed into a
synthetic seismic record of one, two or three dimensions. Vertical depths within the
geologic model are converted to two-way transit time. Acoustic impedance contrasts
within the geologic model are converted to reflection amplitudes. Often, the
relationships between geologic models and corresponding synthetic seismic records
can be readily deduced through visual examination. Synthetic seismic records are
typically generated both before and after the acquisition of seismic field data.
Synthetic seismic records generated before field acquisition are used to determine if
an intended geologic target will generate an interpretable signature on output
processed reflection seismic data. Synthetics can also be a valuable tool with respect
to the design of an acquisition program. Synthetic records generated after acquisition
and processing of seismic field data facilitate the interpretation of the processed field
data. Synthetics make the confident correlation of the observed reflections and
geologic interfaces possible, and verify that the seismic responses of interpreted

27
conceptual geologic models are consistent with the actual seismic data. They are
essential interpretation tools.

3.2. Ray Tracing Approach

In this study, NORSAR2D is used for forward modeling purposes via 2D ray tracing.
In preceding part, the ray tracing parameters, requirements and theories (Advanced
mathematical theories have been excluded) have been introduced for better
understanding of this concept.

3.2.1. Fundamentals of Ray Tracing

3.2.1.1. Seismic Model

Seismic model consists of three basic types of elements which are represented in
figure 3-1.

Figure 3- 1: Seismic Model

1- Interfaces, representing the discontinuity surfaces between the rock properties.

28
2- Blocks (layers) defined by the volumes (areas) between the interfaces.
3- Material properties, assigned to each block. In this context, the material properties
are seismic P- and S- velocities and densities, and optionally the P and S Q-factors
characterizing the an-elastic damping of the medium.
The interfaces, as well as the material properties, shall be represented by continuous
and smooth functions. The only discontinuities in material properties occur when
crossing an interface.

3.2.1.2. Ray Code

Ray Codes are the instructions telling the ray tracing process what to do after a ray
has hit an interface in the model. The ray may be reflected back to the incident block
or transmitted into the adjacent block. The mode of the ray may also change from P to
S (i.e., from longitudinal to transversal particle displacement, so-called mode
conversion), or vice versa. A ray may initially start off as P or S.

3.2.1.3. Ray tracing with given initial point, ray direction, and ray
code

3.2.1.3.1. Introduction

Ray tracing is a process by which one can calculate important quantities tied to
seismic wave propagation through a layered medium (i.e., a seismic model as
described above). Ray tracing may be classified as an approximate solution of the
seismic wave equation, valid for high frequencies. For a comprehensive description of
the ray methods, is referred to Cerveny (1985). The ray theoretical aspects discussed
here pertain to so-called geometrical rays, i.e. rays following the geometrical law of
reflection or transmission (Snell’s law) at all interfaces.
Another ray family are diffracted rays, which follow Keller’s law of edge diffraction
at a pre-defined diffraction point, i.e. a point where two of the model interfaces
intersect. Diffracted rays consist of three geometrical portions; a geometrical ray from
the ray start point (shot) to the diffraction point, a geometrical ray from the diffraction
point to the end point (receiver), and finally, a geometrical ray path describing a so-

29
called shadow boundary. The ray theory described below applies separately to each of
the geometrical ray portions.

3.2.1.3.2. Geometrical ray tracing

Here we will divide ray tracing in two basic parts, that is:
• Kinematic ray tracing,
• Dynamic ray tracing.
Kinematic ray tracing calculates the location of the ray paths and the travel-time along
these ray paths. For a number of applications in seismics only the travel-times are of
interest. The kinematic ray tracer only needs the wave velocity in the model blocks,
i.e., P-velocity and/or S-velocity depending on which wave modes are of interest.
Dynamic ray tracing also calculates the dynamic properties of the seismic wave field,
such as the geometrical spreading factors, wavefront curvature, and amplitude
coefficients along the ray paths. In addition to the seismic P- and S- velocities, the
dynamic ray tracer makes use of the density functions. By using a full dynamic ray
tracing, one has enough information about the wave field to calculate synthetic
seismograms in receivers located close to the rays.

3.2.1.3.3. Kinematic ray tracing

When tracing a single ray into a model, the following elements must be given (Figure
3-2):
• The initial point of the ray
• The initial direction of the ray (ray tangent)
• A ray code (i.e., rules determining which ray to follow next when hitting an
interface (reflected or transmitted P or S)).

30
 Figure 3- 2: Elements of kinematic ray tracing

The ray path and travel-times along a ray within a continuous block of the model are
calculated by solving a system of differential equations (the kinematic ray tracing
system). The velocity function in the block determines the ray behavior, for example,
a constant velocity (homogenous layer) gives straight ray paths, whereas a linear
velocity gives circular rays. When a ray is about to leave a block, the intersection
point with the interface is calculated. At the interface, the ray bends (changes
direction) according to the ray’s angle of incidence at the interface, and the velocity
contrast across the interface. This change in ray direction is calculated by the well-
known Snell’s law, and the ray path can be calculated through the next block. Thus,
the ray path is calculated successively for block after block by alternating use of a
block tracer, an intersection algorithm, and Snell’s law. At each ray or interface
intersection point the ray code is checked to determine what ray type to follow
through the next block (reflected or transmitted, P or S). The ray code also contains a
stop criterion for finishing the ray tracing, for example, when a certain travel-time is
exceeded.

3.2.1.3.4. Dynamic ray tracing

When the ray path and travel-times have been calculated by the kinematic ray tracer,
one may optionally use a dynamic ray tracer to calculate dynamic ray quantities (ray
attributes). This calculation is performed along the already found ray path, using a
similar system of equations as in the kinematic ray tracer. In this approach of ray

31
tracing several factors such as geometrical spreading factors and wavefront
conversion are included.

3.2.1.3.5. Ray tracing from shot to given receivers (two-point ray

tracing)

The ray tracing method described in the previous section is based on initial conditions
making possible a “direct” calculation of the ray path and its associated attributes;
when the start point and start direction of the ray are given. However, in many (most)
cases we have a number of specified receiver positions in which we want the ray
paths to end, that is, we want to find ray paths between given shots and receiver
positions. Unfortunately, for a general structural model with curved interfaces and/or
varying layer velocities, there is no a priory way of knowing what initial ray direction
will make the ray arrive in a pre-specified receiver point. As a consequence of this, a
search procedure must be used in order to calculate the proper ray path. This “trial and
error” procedure can be designed in various ways - we use a technique referred to as
the “shooting method”. The procedure consists of “shooting” out a fan of rays having
a large coverage of ray directions, and on basis of those rays passing close to some
specified receiver point, repeating the shooting for nearby directions until the ray hits
within a certain capture radius of the receiver.

3.2.2. Ray Tracing Techniques

3.2.2.1. Normal Incident Ray Tracing

In this technique, rays trace with Normal Incidence Paths with respect to selected
interfaces. The travel-times may simulate interpretations of stacked un-migrated data.
The survey is zero offset, i.e., for each shot there is one and only one associated
receiver situated at the same position. The shot-receiver points, also termed SR points,
are regularly distributed along a horizontal line. The SR points may be projected
vertically to a reference interface. Rays are traced from the selected reflectors to all
shot-receiver points.

32
3.2.2.2. Image Ray Tracing

The travel-times from ray tracing in this module may simulate interpretations of
migrated data. In the survey, rays are traced from start points regularly distributed
along a horizontal line. The rays start off in a vertical direction. Two-way travel-times
are calculated every time an interface is intersected. Rays are traced until they reach
the model box or encounter supercritical reflections. The important criterion in this
technique is Migration Aperture. As this technique simulates the post stack migrated
section selection of this parameter plays very important role on quality of migrated
resulting section. Migration aperture in ray modeling can be expressed as the search
distance respect to initiation of image ray in which traced normal incident rays from
each horizon are taken into account for migration.
In fact, while an image ray traces the incident points of the ray-path and interfaces
records in a dataset. Then after at each incident location Normal Incident ray will be
traced and the resulting travel time doubles and records as the zero-offset migrated
time of that location in Image ray source location. As it is depicted in figure 3-3
choosing insufficient migration aperture value may leads in lack of sampling in some
locations, especially where steep flanks are present which cause to ray travels to long
distance.

2.75 km

Normal Incident
Rays

Image

Figure 3- 3: Depiction of image and normal incident rays

33
3.2.2.3. Common Shot Ray Tracing

This technique simulates ordinary horizontal surveys. Shots are regularly distributed
along a horizontal line. The receivers are specified as fixed or relative to the shots.
This general definition is valid for all shots, hence each shot has a related sequence of
receivers. The receivers all lie along a horizontal line, which may differ from the shot
line. Both shots and receivers may be projected vertically to a reference interface.
Rays are traced from the shots to the related receivers.

3.2.3. Limitations of ray tracing

3.2.3.1. Frequency Limitations

As mentioned in the previous section the ray tracing technique is based on an

approximation to the general wave equation - strictly valid for high frequency signals
only. Mathematically, this means that the theory is valid for indefinitely high
frequencies, or put in another way, for indefinitely short wavelengths. What does this
really mean in practice? For real applications this makes restrictions with respect to
the seismic model in which we want to do ray tracing. This means that the seismic
wavelength L must be considerably shorter than the “length of the smallest details in
the model”. In practical terms, L must be considerably smaller than quantities such as:

• The radius of curvature of the interfaces

• The length of the interfaces
• The block size
• Measures of the inhomogeneity of the material property in a block (i.e., expressions
v
of the type ).
| grad (v) |
It means that for example having a media with compressional velocity of 2500m/s,
after ray tracing performed and pulses created, if we choose a wavelet of 20 Hz
frequency, the seismic wavelength will be 125 meter. It means that in this analysis we
will not be able to image features smaller than this value. In practice, the model
dimensions must be at least four times larger than wavelength. A common way of

34
expressing the smoothness criterion in ray tracing is to say that you should prepare a
macro model, i.e., a model containing only the large scale features (implicitly
referring to the seismic wavelength dimension).

3.2.3.2. Lack of smoothness

A very typical pitfall when building a seismic model for ray tracing is that the model
interfaces are too detailed, that is, not smooth enough. Especially, when importing
interfaces from seismic interpretation systems or digitizing tables, they tend to be
much too oversampled, and to lack the necessary smoothness to directly fulfill the ray
tracing criteria. In most cases the small insignificant “ripples” on the interfaces can be
avoided.
This problem causes to algorithm fall into mistake while estimating angle of reflection
or transmission on an interface. This error affects on reflection and transmission
coefficient values and overally will result in unexpected amplitudes in final section.
Figure 3-4 shows two sections obtained by shooting on the same model with same
parameters in one smoothing ignored and in another one model has been smoothed.
Sudden variations of amplitude in un-smoothed model section are obviously seen in
the left section.

Figure 3- 4: Un-smoothed model section (Left section) and smoothed model section (Right
section)

35
3.3. Modeling

3.3.1. Introduction

In this part of project I have tried to find some solutions for seismic data acquisition
under complex structures while high velocity layers with high degree of attenuation
present.
First of all an approximate model of study area has been built. For this target several
models and time interpretations have been reviewed and the common features
extracted. In addition petrophysical properties have been modeled by statistical
techniques. Relevant data from different wells which are drilled in this area have been
utilized and in some cases core data and laboratory measurements have been applied.
The main characteristics of this area (Dezful Embayment) are the presence of thrust
systems, existence of plastic layers which are highly attenuative such as Gachsaran
formation as the cap rock in many cases, existence of steep flanks and lateral property
variations.
One of the probable solutions for seismic data acquisition in such area is multi-
component data acquisition. There are several reasons to recommend this technique:

1- As it is mentioned in chapter 2, one of the most important problems in areas in

which thick sediments of Gachsaran formation are present is the record of
acceptable energy. Hence, as S-waves has lower velocity than P-waves,
according to Snell's Law they will be reflected with lower angle, so they can
be recorded in shorter offsets, this fact not only may cause to records of higher
amplitudes, but also can provide us with some records of energy from
reflection points whose P-reflections never could be recorded in the surface,
because they travel to very long offsets which maybe far beyond the length of
our spread.
2- S-waves are not affected by gas or other kind of fluids. Based on reservoir
engineering, after production of oil for a long time and declining the pressure
of the reservoir, gas expels from the oil and forms a gas cap at the crest of the
reservoir. This gas affects the resolution of P-waves and may obscure the
structural features and variations in the crest of anticlines in images resulted

36
 from this kind of data (PP). But as S-waves are not affected with the gases,
they can bring out better images from structural features (figure 3-5). In
addition V p Vs ratio can be used as a reliable indicator of fluid content.

3- In the case of thrusting systems, in some situations P-reflections from

underlying horizons hit the thrust with critical or over critical angles. In such
circumstances the incident rays will be reflected down again and no energy
can be recorded from underlying layers of the thrust, while S-converted waves
are capable of passing through the thrust and bringing energy to receivers.

Figure 3-5: Comparison of PP and PS results. Left figure shows the result of a PP data
acquisition, as it is obvious in this figure, gas cloud has obscured the crest of the reservoir. Right
figure shows the result of PS data acquisition that has resolved the top of the reservoir and a
largr fault in the flank[3].

3.3.2. Modeling Procedure

The modeling has been performed in two steps:

1- Construction of a simple horizontal layers model to compare some attributes

of PP and PS reflections.
2- Construction of a complex model based on common structural and
petrophysical features of Dezful Embayment for analyses of acquisition
parameters in such areas.

In each step after the construction of the models, ray tracing is performed and from
the results, some attributes have been extracted and analyzed.

37
3.3.3. Simple Model

At the first step of this study a simple model has been utilized. The geometrical and
petrophysical properties of this model is based on simplification and averaging of
geometrical and properties of several well logs, core data and interpreted sections in
Dezful Embayment. Heterogeneity and anisotropy have been neglected in this model,
but plasticity which is one of the main properties of attenuating formations of this area
has been considered.
The model is depicted in figure 3-6.

Figure 3- 6: Three layer flat model

Properties used for this modeling are represented in table 3-1.

Table 3-1- Block properties

Thickness V p (km/s) Vs (km/s) Density(gr/cm3) Qp Qs
(km)
Block 1 2.500 5.3 2.944 2.19 22 18
Block 2 .491 5.85 3.900 2.68 35 30
Block 3 1.009 6.2 4.133 2.75 30 28

For the purpose of our analysis Shot Gather Ray Tracing has been used. One shot has
been laid at x = 20 km and the receivers have been spread with split spread geometry
with maximum offset of 10 km on each side.
Figure 3-7 shows the overlaid PP and PS reflection of traced rays.

38
 Figure 3- 7: Representation of traced rays

As it is illustrated in figure 3-7 the difference between the last CDP (common depth
point) and last CCP (common conversion point) on the second reflector which are
recorded by the same receivers is about 3km. This is another advantage of multi-
component data acquisition by which it is possible to record data from deeper and/or
more distant targets using the same length of spread (Xmax).
Recorded events from ray tracing which play the role of reflectivity series, can be
easily converted to seismic amplitudes by convolving them into a wavelet. The 50 Hz
Zero-Phase Ricker Wavelet has been utilized in this part.
PP and PS resulted seismic sections after AGC correction have been separated and
represented in figure 3-8. It is expectable to record converted waves with a time delay
respect to P-waves. Moreover as it is seen in the figure there is no energy at zero
offset for converted waves.

Figure 3- 8: PP (left) and PS (Right) sections

Having these reflection amplitudes, we are ready to extract some attributes for further
analysis. The attribute which are used in this study are:
1- Incoming ray angle at first point of reflection.
2- Outgoing ray angle at first point of reflection.

39
 3- An-elasticity Factor which is the quantity telling the loss of wave energy to
heat. This factor is frequency dependent (see chapter one).
s( X r )
ds
If, t = ∫
*
, in which "s" represents the ray path from source to receiver
s( X s )
v( s )Q( s )

and Q is quality factor, then the frequency dependent amplitude factor is:
*
A( f ) = e −π × f ×t , hence, the more the an-elasticity factor, the less the amplitude
factor.
4- Total Geometrical Spreading which is the measure of total effect of
geometrical spreading on rays. The more this value, the lower the attenuation
amount of the energy.
5- Amplitude Coefficients variations for P-P and PS reflected rays versus offset.
In below figures, red dots represents the events belong to PS reflections and blue dots
related to PP reflections.
Figures 3-9 and 3-10 illustrate the incoming and upcoming angles in reflection points.
These graphs are very useful when we are going to analyze reflections in angle
domain. By the way, in this study we are just going to represent the reasons which
cause to receiving converted waves have more energy respect to corresponding P-
waves. Lower reflection angles which are subsequent of lower converted wave
velocities, confirm existence of smaller ray-path for these rays which will result in
lower geometrical spreading and absorption attenuation in a plastic media.
An-elasticity factor is a property which is not in favor of PS reflection in comparison
with PP ones. In most of cases quality factor of media for P-wave is higher than
corresponding S-wave, by the way according to Waters (1981) and other experimental
Qs V V
practices, ratio is proportional to [ s ]2 ratio, and as this ratio ( s ) tends to unity
Qp Vp Vp

Qs
versus depth, also tends to unity at deep targets. In this model, as illustrated in
Qp

table 3-1, because of plastic nature of Gachsaran formation quality factors are higher
for P-waves.

40
 Figure 3- 9: Incoming reflection angles of PP rays (blue) and PS rays (red)

Figure 3- 10: Up-going reflection angles of PP rays (blue) and PS rays (red)

Figure 3-11 shows the variation of An-elasticity factor versus offset.

41
 Figure 3- 11: Variation of An-elasticity factor versus offset (PP rays (blue) and PS rays (red))

The next parameter which plays very important role in amplitude variations is
Geometrical Spreading. As mentioned earlier, S-waves undergo lower geometrical
spreading attenuation effect as a result of their lower velocity.
For having more precise comparison of PP and PS result it is necessary to compare
the recorded amplitudes from the same reflection point, not from the same offset. As
it is depicted in figure 3-7, the last receiver records data corresponding to P and S
reflections from two different points that are about 3km far from each other.
Obviously the traveled path will be much more for that S-ray.
Figure 3-12 shows the variation of geometrical factor versus offset from the first
horizon. Although the above mentioned criterion has not been included, however S-
waves show better result.
According to the figure, as the offset increases, the effect of geometrical factor
decreases (because of inverse proportionality of energy and distance). It is clear that
all over the 10 km offset, the geometrical factor is higher for S-wave.
The last comparison is AVO comparison. Figure 3-13 shows the variation of
amplitude versus offset for both PP and PS reflections.

42
Figure 3- 12: Geometrical Spreading versus offset (PP rays (blue) and PS rays (red))

In the most of offsets the recorded amplitude of S-reflections are higher than its
corresponding P-reflections. The novelty of this figure is that several factors including
absorption, an-elasticity, reflection coefficients and geometrical effects have been
considered for computations.

Figure 3- 13: AVO analysis (PP rays (blue) and PS rays (red))

According to the first step of modeling in this study it can be concluded that multi-
component data acquisition technique, not only can result in better images of
subsurface features in areas with high attenuating layers, but also this technique will

43
 Vp
provide us with some auxiliary data (such as ratio and S-wave polarizations)
Vs
which can be used for pore fluid identification, fracture detection and anisotropy
modeling.

3.3.4. Complex Model (Based on a real field data in Dezful

Embayment)

3.3.4.1. Introduction

Structural interpretations of reflection seismic data in foreland fold belts are

dependent on structural styles (Bally, 1983; Mitra and Fisher, 1992). The quality of
Reflection seismic profile from the Zagros foreland fold thrust belt of southwest Iran,
like other mountain belts (e.g. Canadian Rockies) are typically not good enough to
draw the complete configuration of thrusted folds especially in deeper levels. The
reliance on structural styles is necessary in view of the fact that the quality of the
seismic images of fold and thrust structures is poor. Parts of the stratal geometry
maybe clearly shown while other parts show either a lack or a confusing
overabundance of reflection signals (Lingrey, 1991).
Structural problems in such areas generate some seismic signatures that are not taken
into account in processing. Ray tracing techniques enable us to find better
understanding of wave propagation and ray paths in underground horizons. This
matter can help us in setting appropriate acquisition and processing parameters.
Moreover, some seismic signatures such as diffraction patterns can guide the
interpreter to find the more exact locations of thrust faults and other ambiguous
seismic features.
In the second step of modeling, different method of ray tracing techniques are applied
to investigate the problems of imaging under complex structures and thrusting
systems. Three different techniques of ray tracing have been used for specific
purposes. The techniques are:
1- Normal Incident Ray Tracing Technique
2- Image Ray Tracing
3- Common Shot Ray Tracing

44
3.3.4.2. Model Building

The first model of this part has been built based on some depth migrated sections and
the properties obtained from well logs and distributed base on geostatistical methods.
This model shows three anticlines which are related together by two thrust faults
(figure 3-14).

Gypsum and Anhydrite

Figure 3- 14: Model Blocks

As it is illustrated in the figure overlying layer mainly contain gypsum and anhydrite.
Due to the plastic and incompetent nature of such lithologies they can flow during
folding and their structure does not obey from underlying layers. In addition lateral
velocity changes cause to ray path bending. To respect these properties the overlying
layer which plays the role of cap rock has been subdivided into some narrower
members with different petrophysical properties. Figure 3-15 shows the resulting
model.

45
 Figure 3- 15: Main model

3.3.4.3. Ray Tracing

As it stated before, three different techniques of ray tracing are utilized for analysis in
this part.
The first approach is Normal Incident Ray Tracing. In figure 3-16, 251 source-
receiver pairs are spread on the surface from the location of 2.5 km in model reference
coordinates until 15 km. Normal rays traced from each horizon and after some basic
corrections the following section has been obtained. The red rectangle in figure 3-16
may be interpreted as diffraction pattern, but the fact is that it is nothing but a
signature that is as a consequence of existence of steep flanks. Figure 3-17 shows how
the normal incident rays go travel far from its reflecting point. Red arrow shows a
possible simple path for traveling of the ray from location of 10 km and recording at
some locations around 6 km after about 3 seconds.

46
Figure 3- 16: Results of normal inident ray tracing on the model illurtrated in figure (3-15) with
Station spacing = 250 m

Figure 3-18 shows the result of denser sampling (station interval equals to 50 m). It is
obvious that no improvement has been met.

Figure 3- 17: Reflection from steep flanks

In such conditions increasing the number of channels does not make any difference,
because this energy must be focused just by migration operator. A probable solution
in such cases is the use of multi-component data acquisition, because reflected S-
waves can be recorded at much closer distances.

47
Figure 3- 18: Results of normal inident ray tracing on the model illurtrated in figure (3-15) with
station spacing = 50 m

To correct the above problems especially for better positioning of thrust faults, Image
Ray Tracing approach has been utilized.
In the first attempt a dense sampling spread over 12.5 km (from 2.5 to 15 km) has
been chosen. The migration aperture for migration of normal incident rays is equal to
1 km. As it is shown in figure 3-19 neither the left flank of the structures nor the
thrust planes are been recorded. In such cases may seem that PSDM in the only
solution of imaging of such complex structures, but increasing the migration aperture
which implies the increase of spread length can be a solution to this problem.

48
 A B

Figure 3- 19: Results of image ray tracing on the model illurtrated in figure (3-15) with -
migration aperture = 1km

Figure 3-20 shows the same survey except for migration aperture value which has
been increased to 4 km. There are some improvements in left structure (A) and
moreover the left thrust fault is completely imaged. For the right structure (B), there
are some improvements in illumination of the top of the reservoir, but the relating
thrust can not be seen at all. This is due to high degree of steepness of this flank. In
such cases reflecting P-waves achieve critical angle while hitting the flank of such
over-turned structures and can not refract into the structure and arrive to surface. But
S-waves which travel with lower velocities will hit the structure with lower angle, and
easily bring the energy to the surface.
In the next survey (Figure 3-21), migration aperture has been increased to 8 km, and it
has resulted in better illumination of overturned flak layers which end on thrust plane.
We can conclude that in thrusting systems long offset survey result in higher
resolution images, but when attenuating layers such as salt and anhydrite present, P-S
data acquisition is preferred (see 3.3.3)

49
 A B

Figure 3- 20) Results of image ray tracing on the model illurtrated in figure (3-15) with -
migration aperture = 4km

Figure 3- 21: Results of image ray tracing on the model illurtrated in figure (3-15) with -
migration aperture = 8km

The last ray-tracing mode applied, is the shot gather offset modelling. This resembles
the real acquisition. Shot gathers, or common shot gathers are traces recorded at a

50
series of receivers propagating from a single source. This is the way data are collected
and its results could be useful in evaluation and design of seismic surveys (Fagin,
1991). At this stage, the focus is more on the events and not on the image from
subsurface. One of the important applications of ray-tracing methods is the modelling
and identification of specific events on seismic records (Carcione et al., 2002).

At first a survey with following parameters has been designed.

Table-3.2
Spread Type Split Spread
First shot coordinate 5 km
Shot interval 0.25 km
Number of shots 25
Max Offset 6 km
Receiver Interval 0.25 km
Number of channels per shot 48
Maximum Fold 24

A section from shot at location of 10 km is illustrated at figure 3-22.

Figure 3- 22: shot gather at X=10 km

The red arrow in figure 3-22 shows the effect of fault bend folding. In such cases
CMP sorted data do not show the hyperbolic behavior. To show this event, the

51
reflections from top of the first reservoir (the first layer underlying the gypsum and
anhydrite in figure 3-14) has been selected and illustrated in figure 3-24.

Figure 3- 23: Receiver locations versus mid-point, red crosses show the selected

Figure 3- 24: Non- hyperbolic behavior at far offsets for CMP location of X=8 km

The non-hyperbolic-behavior in this section can be regarded to the complexity of

structures. In such situations higher order velocity analysis is recommended, because
simple second order equation can not take this behavior into account.
In addition results of off-end spread survey confirms the effect of offset in recording
the energy from steep flanks, so as single-ended spread creates longer offsets, in such

52
areas this type of spread is recommended. Figure 3-25 shows that most of the energy
from the crest of the reservoir is recorded at offset of 10 km.

Figure 3- 25: Off-end survey. Snapshot from the source-receiver pair where source located at
X=5 km and receiver at X= 15 km.

Another recommendation which takes more time and expense is using pre-stack
depth migration.
Comparing all analysis in this chapter, it can be concluded that P-S data acquisition is
a volunteer for imaging of complex structures especially in reservoirs having gas caps
like Iranian south west hydrocarbon prospects.
As P-S data acquisition is recommended for this region, the basic part of such
surveying which is positioning of common conversion points have been discussed in
the next chapter as the start point of 3 component data acquisition.

53
 CHAPTER 4

COMMON CONVERSION POINT MAPPING FOR 2D-3C

SEISMIC DATA ACQUISITION SURVEY DESIGN IN
ANISOTROPIC MEDIA

4.1. Introduction

Converted waves are being more and more widely used in seismic exploration, for
they can provide high-quality images where conventional images are poor (Stewart et
al., 1999). It has been proven that the location of the conversion point is critical to P-S
seismic survey design (Lawton and Cary, 2000). Also the P-S conversion point
location is of great importance to P-S data binning and Common Conversion Point
(CCP) stacking and NMO corrections. In isotropic media, the location of the P-S
conversion point can be calculated by using the Snell’s law. It then can be simplified
by using asymptotic binning (Tessmer and Behle, 1988). However, it is well known
that the earth’s crust is inhomogeneous and anisotropic. Almost all conventional
seismic surveys and processing procedures have not taken anisotropy into
consideration. This isotropy assumption could lead to large errors in NMO correction,
stacking and migration, which have been shown by many authors (e.g. Alkhalifah and
Larner, 1994).
Anisotropy has less influence on P-waves than on S- (or converted) waves. In an
anisotropic case, due to the difference between the group velocities and phase

54
velocities and the difference between the ray angles and phase angles, there could be a
difference in the P-S conversion point location between anisotropic and isotropic
cases. The most commonly considered anisotropic medium is the Vertical Transverse
Isotropy (VTI) case. When the formation is shown to be VTI, the location of the
conversion point will depart horizontally from that in an isotropic case, and it cannot
be approximated by the isotropic case. Therefore, the horizontal position of the
conversion point on the reflector has to be calculated specifically for VTI media.
However, this requires knowledge of VP, VS, and anisotropy parameters. Otherwise,
it will lead to problems in NMO correction and stacking which could cause traces that
do not contain reflector energy to be summed, and those that do contain reflector
energy not to be summed (Tessmer et al., 1990).

4.2 Review of seismic anisotropy

The subject of anisotropy has a long history but now has come to be a central feature
of geophysics to explore hydrocarbons (Thomsen 2002). "It can be said that any
process which involves the concept of scalar velocity field is subject to error if, in
fact, the actual velocity is a vector whose magnitude depends upon its
direction."(Tsvankin, 1999). By definition, anisotropy means the variation of a
physical property depending on the direction in which it is measured. In the field of
our interest, seismic anisotropy is defined to be the dependence of seismic velocity on
either the direction of travel or the direction of polarization (Sheriff, 2002). Seismic
velocity here includes not only the P-waves, but also the other waves (e.g. S-waves).
Accounting for the effects of anisotropy of the earth begins with understanding the
geologic foundations of anisotropy. Anisotropy in sedimentary rocks may be caused
by various factors (Thomsen 1986 and 2002):
(a) Thin isotropic or anisotropic layers
(b) Preferred orientation of anisotropic mineral grains
(c) Preferred orientation of cracks and flat pores (sandstones)
These attributes can exist in the rocks independently or in combination. Carbonates
can display anisotropy due to the oriented distribution of cracks.

55
4.2.1 Anisotropy versus heterogeneity

Anisotropy is easily to be confused with heterogeneity by many people since both

terms are used to characterize velocity variation within rock formations. The
distinction between these two terms has to be made clear. Heterogeneity is defined as
the variation of a certain physical property from point to point. However, the
anisotropy means the directional variation of a certain physical property at one point.
The figure 4-1 shows the distinction between heterogeneity from anisotropy.
However, heterogeneity may be related to anisotropy by using different scales. For
example, a rock sample, sandstone or shale, is heterogeneous at the grain scale. The
grains can have an order, a fabric or a texture, which makes the rock block appears to
be anisotropic. This order may be caused by sedimentation. It is this ordered
heterogeneity on the small scale, which causes seismic anisotropy on the large scale.
Anisotropy and heterogeneity may coexist. There are four possible conditions:
isotropic and homogeneous, isotropic and heterogeneous, anisotropic and
homogeneous, and anisotropic heterogeneous. The real earth is known as being both
heterogeneous and anisotropic.

Homogenous and Isotropic Heterogeneous and Isotropic

Homogenous and Anisotropic Heterogeneous and Anisotropic

Figure 4- 1: Anisotropy versus Heterogeneity

56
The standard of large or small scale means whether the seismic wavelength is larger
or smaller than the heterogeneity scale. When the seismic wavelength is large
compared to the size of the heterogeneous object, the object can be considered as a
homogeneous, anisotropic one (Backus, 1962). In this case, the waves obey the laws
of anisotropic wave propagation (Thomsen, 2002).

4.2.2 VTI (Polar Anisotropy)

In seismic exploration, the most commonly considered type of anisotropy is polar

anisotropy, which is also called Transverse Isotropy (TI). It has a symmetry axis and
typically the axis is perpendicular to bedding. The velocities on the plane normal to
this axis are identical. When this symmetric axis is vertical, the medium is called
Vertical Transversely Isotropic (VTI) and isotropy is limited within the horizontal
plane. For example, a set of horizontal thin-bed shale belongs to VTI case. The
velocity distribution in VTI can be shown schematically by a cylinder (Figure 4-2).
This type of anisotropy is important in sedimentary basins, and is also the media that
this thesis going to discuss.

Figure 4- 2: Velocity distribution in VTI media can be represented by a cylinder. The velocities
on all directions within the horizontal plane are identical in amplitude.

When the symmetry axis is not vertical, the case is termed as Tilted Transversely
Isotropic (TTI). When the symmetry axis is horizontal, it is called Horizontal
Transversely Isotropic (HTI), or horizontal polar anisotropy. In this case, the isotropy
is constrained within the vertical plane. HTI media corresponds to the vertical tilted
beds or to the case of vertical fractures in isotropic formation.

57
4.3. Definition of Seismic Anisotropy Parameters

4.3.1. Elastic Tensor and Anisotropy Parameters

A linear elastic material is defined as one in which each component of stress σ ij is

linearly dependent upon every component of strain ε kl (Nye, 1957). Since each

directional index may assume values of 1, 2, 3, (representing directions x, y, z), there

are nine such relations, each involving one component of stress and nine components
of strain. These nine equations may be written compactly as:
3 3
σ ij = ∑ ∑ C ijkl ε kl , i, j = 1,2,3, (4-1)
k =1 l =1
where the 3 × 3 × 3 × 3 elastic modulus tensor Cijkl completely characterizes the
elasticity of the medium. Because of the symmetry of stress (σij = σji), only six of
these equations are independent. Because of symmetry of strain ( ε kl = ε lk ), only six of

the terms on the right side of each set of equations (4-1) are independent (Thomsen,
1986).
Hence without loss of generality, the elasticity may be represented more compactly
with a change of indices, following the Voigt recipe:

(4-2)

So that the 3 × 3 × 3 × 3 tensor Cijkl may be represented by the 6 × 6 matrix Cαβ. Each
symmetry class has its own pattern of nonzero, independent components Cαβ. In
practical cases it is not possible to measure all 36 components, so assuming some
symmetry in media cause to simplification of matrix.
The simplest type of symmetry which is called Isotropic case assumes the symmetry
in all directions and can be expressed by three components which two of them are
independent. Equation (4-3) shows the isotropic matrix:

58
 ⎡ C33 C33 − 2C 44 C33 − 2C 44 ⎤
⎢C − 2C C33 C33 − 2C 44 ⎥
⎢ 33 44 ⎥
⎢C − 2C 44 C33 − 2C 44 C33 ⎥
Cαβ = ⎢ 33 ⎥ (4-3)
⎢ C 44 ⎥
⎢ C 44 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣⎢ C 44 ⎦⎥

These components can be expressed by Lame Parameters and Bulk modulus:

4
C33 = λ+ 2µ = K +
µ and C44 = µ (4-4)
3
The simplest anisotropic case of broad geophysical applicability has one distinct
direction (usually, but not always, vertical), while the other two directions are
equivalent to each other. This case- called transverse isotropy.
The elastic modulus matrix has five independent components among twelve nonzero
components, giving the elastic modulus matrix the form of:

⎡ C11 C11 − 2C 66 C13 ⎤

⎢C − 2C C11 C13 ⎥
⎢ 11 66 ⎥
⎢ C13 C13 C 33 ⎥
Cαβ =⎢ ⎥ (4-4)
⎢ C 44 ⎥
⎢ C 44 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ C 66 ⎥⎦

where the three-direction (z-axis) is taken as the unique axis. It is significant that the
generalization from isotropy to anisotropy introduces three new elastic moduli, rather
than just one or two (Thomsen, 1986).
Daley and Hron (1977) give a clear derivation of the directional dependence of the
three phase velocities:

ρv p 2 (θ ) =
1
2
[
C 33 + C 44 + (C11 − C 33 ) Sin 2 (θ ) + D(θ ) ] (4-5)

ρv sv 2 (θ ) =
1
2
[
C 33 + C 44 + (C11 − C 33 ) Sin 2 (θ ) − D(θ ) ] (4-6)

ρv sh 2 (θ ) = C 66 Sin 2 (θ ) + C 44 Cos 2 (θ ) (4-7)

With,

59
 [ [ ] [ ]
D(θ ) = (C33 − C44 ) 2 + 2 2(C13 + C44 ) 2 − (C33 − C44 )(C11 + C33 − 2C44 ) Sin2 (θ ) + (C11 + C33 − 2C44 ) 2 − 4(C13 + C44 ) 2 Sin4 (θ ) ]
0.5

(4-8)

Where ρ is density and θ represents the phase angle which is the angle between the
wavefront normal and the unique (vertical) axis (Figure 4-3).

Figure 4- 3: Distinction between Ray (group) and Phase angles

And vertical sound speeds for P - and S-waves are, respectively:

C 33
v p (0) = α 0 = (4-9)
ρ

C 44
v sv (0) = v sh (0) = β 0 = (4-10)
ρ

And horizontal sound speeds for P - and S-waves are, respectively:

C11
v p (90) = α 0 = (4-11)
ρ

C 44
v sv (90) = β 90 = (4-12)
ρ

C 66
v sh (90) = (4-13)
ρ

60
Thomsen (1986) rearranged the elastic components and combined some common
expressions in phase velocity equations to derive the anisotropy parameters. ε is used
to describe the fractional difference between vertical and horizontal P velocities and γ
corresponds to the conventional meaning of “SH anisotropy”:

C11 − C 33 v p (90) − α 0
ε= = (4-14)
2C 33 α0
C 66 − C 44 v sh (90) − β 0
γ= = (4-15)
2C 44 β0

δ* =
1
2
[2(C
13 + C 44 ) 2 − (C 33 − C 44 )(C11 + C 33 − 2C 44 ) ] (4-16)
2C 33

4.3.2. Explanation of Thomsen Anisotropy Parameters

The Thomsen parameter epsilon and delta are dimensionless parameters that describe
the deviation of a media from isotropy. When the medium is isotropic, both
parameters are zero. If the absolute values are around 0.10 or smaller, the medium is
weakly anisotropic. If the absolute values are larger than 0.20, the medium is strongly
anisotropic. In most rocks epsilon is from -0.05 to 0.30 and delta is between -0.20 and
0.30.Epsilon is the fractional difference between the P-velocity along the axis of
symmetry and the velocity orthogonal to the axis. Delta controls the anisotropy in
directions close to the axis of symmetry, and in particular the P-wave NMO velocity.

4.4. Conversion Point Mapping

4.4.1. Introduction

Tessmer and Behle (1988) showed that in multi-layered strata, the actual P-S
conversion point is not a constant offset from the source, but traces a trajectory that
moves towards the receiver as the depth decreases (Figure 4-4). The conversion points

61
moves towards the receiver when the offset/depth ratio increases. The asymptote of
this trajectory, at large offset/depth is defined by equation (4.17):
X
Xc = (4.17)
v
1+ ( s )
vp

Where X is the source-receiver offset, and X c is the conversion point offset from the

source.
As S-wave velocity is smaller than P-wave velocity, in Common Conversion Point
mapping, conversion point lays further respect to source position.

Figure 4- 4: The conversion point traces a trajectory in the multi-layered model for a certain
offset, instead of locating on a vertical axis (Stewart et al., 1999).

For larger offsets (or shallow depths), Tessmer and Behle (1988) expressed the
trajectory equation in single layer explicitly as:
2
⎡⎛ X c ( X − X c ) ⎞⎤ ⎡ 2 (2τ ) 2 X ⎤
⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎥ + ⎢ X c − X ( X c − )⎥ = 0 (4.18)
⎣⎝ z ⎠⎦ ⎣ τ −1
2
2 ⎦

Where X c is the conversion point offset and X is the source receiver offset.

τ represents the P-S velocity ratio.

As these equations are just based on geometrical calculation and algebraic
approximations, they will not be reliable for anisotropic media. In the next section the
theory of anisotropic CCP binning is explained.

62
4.4.2. Theory

As discussed in previous sections Thomsen (1986) introduced anisotropy parameters

by which it is possible to model the seismic velocities in each direction in anisotropic
media. According to equations (4-5) - (4-8) and (4-14) - (4-16), we can write:

v 2 p (θ ) = α 0 [1 + εSin 2θ + D * (θ )]
2
(4-19)

α02 α02 *
v sv (θ ) = β 0 [1 + 2 εSin θ − 2 D (θ )]
2 2 2
(4-20)
β0 β0

v 2 sh (θ ) = β 0 [1 + 2γSin 2 (θ )]
2
(4-21)

with
⎧⎡ β 2
⎤
0.5
⎫
⎪⎢ 4 (1 − 0
+ ε )ε ⎥ ⎪
1 ⎛⎜ β 2
⎞⎪⎪⎢ 4δ *
α 2
⎪
D * (θ ) = 1− 02 ⎟⎨ 1 + Sin 2 (θ )Cos 2 (θ ) + 0
Sin 4 (θ )⎥ − 1⎬
⎜
2 ⎝ α0 ⎟ ⎢ ⎥
⎠⎪⎢ 1 − β 0 β
2 2

1− 02 ⎥ ⎪
⎪⎢ α0 2
α0 ⎥⎦ ⎪
⎪⎩⎣ ⎭
(4-22)

Where α 0 , β 0 are P- ad S- wave velocity along vertical axis in VTI media

respectively.
The ray angle ( φ (θ ) ) and associated ray velocity ( v φ (θ ) ) can be expressed as:

(tan(θ ) + ( 1 )(dv ))
tan(φ (θ )) = v dθ (4-23)
1− ( tan(θ ) )( dv )
v dθ
And
dv 2
v 2 (φ (θ )) = v 2 (θ ) + ( ) (4-24)
dθ

Using Taylor expansion for ε , γ , δ * Thomsen simplified D * (θ ) as:

δ*
D * (θ ) ≈ Sin 2 (θ )Cos 2 (θ ) + εSin 4 (θ ) (4-25)
1 − β0 α0
2 2

63
Substitution of equation (4-25) into above equations cause to derivates calculated
analytically and equations simplify to:

v p (θ ) = α 0 [1 + δSin 2θCos 2θ + εSin 4 (θ )] (4-26)

α02
v sv (θ ) = β 0 [1 + (ε − δ ) Sin 2θCos 2 (θ )] (4-27)
β0 2

v sh (θ ) = β 0 [1 + γSin 2 (θ )] (4-28)

Defining a new parameter δ as below:

1 δ*
δ = (ε + ) (4-29)
1 − β0 α 0
2 2
2

The associated equations for ray angle of P- and converted-waves can be written as:

tan(φ p ) = tan(θ p )[1 + 2δ + 4(ε − δ ) Sin 2 (θ )] (4-30)

α02
tan(φ sv ) = tan(θ sv )[1 + 2 2 (ε − δ )(1 − 2 Sin 2 (θ sv ))] (4-31)
β0
tan(φ sh ) = tan θ sh (1 + 2γ ) (4-32)

According to above equations, it is possible to calculate to ray behavior in a VTI

media. In preceding section the methodology of these calculations are described.

4.5. Methodology

According to the discussed equations in previous section, I have used an algorithm to

find the variation of common conversion point respect to variation of anisotropy
parameters, depth of reflection and some other variables.
This algorithm has been implemented by MATLAB and results are presented in the
next section.
Figure 4-5 is the basis of calculations.

64
 Figure 4- 5: Depiction of common conversion point and different angle in an anisotropic media

According to figure 4-5 the following procedure has been applied to determine the
ccp location and its difference with corresponding isotropic media.
1- A fan of phase angles has been created at an specific depth (Z)
2- Corresponding phase velocities and in consequence ray parameters are obtained
Sinθ s
3- Solving the following equation: p(ray parameter) = for calculation of
vs
appropriate phase angles for converted wave corresponding to each P-wave phase
angle.
4- Calculating corresponding converted wave velocities
5- Substituting in equations (4-23) and (4-24) to find group (ray) angles and
velocities
6- Using simple trigonometric relationship for finding the conversion point.
7- Repeating above procedure for isotropic case and obtaining corresponding
conversion points
8- Subtracting the results of steps of 6 and 7 to find the difference
In the next section this algorithm has been applied and results have been presented.

65
4.6. Results and Discussion

The model which is used for this numerical modeling is the one represented in figure
3-6, with the properties of table 3-1.
Figure 4-6 show the variation of conversion point from isotropic media with variation
of δ * where epsilon is constant and equals to 0.2. This figure is the result of the
solution of exact Thomsen equations. As it is shown, by increasing the value of δ * ,
the variation of conversion point from its corresponding in isotropic media increases
to a certain offset. But this trend reverses after that offset which is dependent on the
petrophysical properties of the medium.

Figure 4- 6: Variation of displacement of common conversion point in aniotropic media (VTI)

versus offset of isotropic conversion point for three values of delta* and epsilon equals to 0.2.

Figure 4-7 shows the displacement versus ray angle of incident P-wave.
The general form of these displacement variations respects to variation of δ * has been
demonstrated in figure 4-8. It can be deduced that by increasing of the δ * common
conversion point displacement has larger rate of increment up to certain offsets and
after that the rate of deviation increases for smaller values of δ * .

66
Figure 4-9 represents the effect of epsilon on conversion point displacement which is
resulted from solution of exact Thomsen's equations. It is obvious that there is a direct
relationship between these two variables.

Figure 4- 7: Variation of conversion point in aniotropic media (VTI) versus ray angle for three
values of delta* and epsilon equals to 0.2

67
Figure 4- 8: Variation of displacement of conversion point with variation of δ* and ratio of
isotropic conversion point offset to depth

Figure 4- 9: Variation of displacment of conversion point with variation of epsilon ( δ = 0.2)

*

68
The next analogy examines the effectiveness of linear approximated and exact
equations in different media. Figures 4-10 and 4-11 compare the result of linear
approximated and exact equations in two different media. The anisotropy parameters
are listed in table 4-1.

Epsilon Delta*
Strongly Anisotropic
0.3 0,22
Medium
Weakly Anisotropic
0.05 0.03
Medium
Table 4-1: Anisotropy parameters for two media one with weak and another with
strong anisotropy

Figure 4- 10: Variation of displacement of conversion point in weakly Anisotropic medium (blue
dots: exact equation results, red dots: linearly approximated results)

69
Figure 4- 11: Variation of displacement of conversion point in strongly anisotropic medium (blue
dots: exact equation results, red dots: linearly approximated results)

The figures 4-10 and 4-11 obviously show that the divergence of results (exact and
linearly approximated) for strongly anisotropic medium is much higher than weakly
isotropic case. So it is recommended that in the multi-component seismic data
acquisition design in media with strong anisotropy like where carbonates and
evaporates present, exact equations utilized for common conversion point binning.
It is noticeable that solving the exact equations is a time consuming process and
results of commercial softwares like NORSAR2D is very close to the results of
linearly approximated equations. So care must be taken in such cases.

70
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS

This study can be subdivided into three main parts:

1- Review of some previous jobs in the study area and analysis of the geological
and seismological features of this region to find the data acquisition
parameters which are important in recording of the energy. According to this
step, the main problems have been detected.
2- Finding the solutions for above problems by optimizing the involving
parameters using forward modeling and investigation of multi-component data
acquisition effectiveness.
3- Discussing about common conversion point mapping as the key step of multi-
component data acquisition survey design process and analyzing the effect of
anisotropy in displacement of common conversion points.

5.1. Conclusions

5.1.1 Affecting parameters according to previous jobs

1- Attenuation is the one of the most affecting parameters on data quality in this
region. Due to the presence of steep flanks energy travels to distant locations
that even may exceed from the length of acquisition spread. In such cases
geometrical spreading and energy absorption are the most attenuating agents
of energy respectively. Because of the presence of plastic formations such as
Gachsaran formation which is mainly composed of salt and anhydrite,
utilizing a method which causes to shorter ray-path can result in better energy
records at the surface.

71
 2- Arrays are another affecting factor that can improve data quality if designed
properly. In this case, experiments show that using source arrays (distributed
shots) can attenuate back scattering noises. In addition while using receiver
arrays on complex structures it is very important to decrease the size of the
arrays to prevent severe static problems.
3- Applying iterative static corrections in processing unit with more reliable
velocity model can improve the quality of the data.

5.1.2. Forward modeling approach

1- Forward modeling can be used for better understanding of ray's behavior at

underground levels. This technique enables the survey designer to simulate the
pseudo real data acquisition for determination of more suitable acquisition
parameters.
2- According to the results of ray tracing (forward modeling) by Image Ray Method
in the study area on the complex structure, it can be concluded that increasing
length of the migration aperture and/or the spread length cause to having better
image from study area. Hence using the off end spread is recommended instead
of split spread in 2D acquisition surveys.
3- In addition forward modeling by Normal Incident Method showed that denser
sampling does not improve the image quality if spread length does meet the
appropriate length.
4- Results of simulated field data acquisition by Common Shot Ray Tracing Method
illuminated that there are some non-hyperbolic behavior in CMP sorted data at
far offsets. Hence, conventional second order velocity analysis will not lead in
correct answer in such cases.
5- Having all above mentioned problems, utilizing multi-component data
acquisition technique can result in better results. Because in this method not only
the attenuation effect are less due to shorter travel path of the rays between
source and receivers, but also as S-waves are not affected by gas effects, this
method can image in a more efficient manner the target reflectors.

72
5.1.3. Common conversion point mapping

Common conversion point mapping is the key step of multi-component data

acquisition survey design. According to the results in chapter four, below conclusions
can be made:

1- Neglecting the anisotropy factor in common conversion point mapping

process cause to severe errors appears in CCP binning that influences on real
fold of coverage of the acquired data.
2- According to the results of the solutions of the exact and linearly
approximated anisotropy equations of Thomsen (1982), it can be concluded
that using linearly approximated equations although leads in faster
calculations but generates a large value of error in mapping of conversion
points at far offsets.

5.2. Recommendations
As it was the first time that forward modeling is applied for analysis of data
acquisition parameters, techniques and results in Dezful Embayment area, some
recommendations have been presented for next jobs.

1- Recording of S-velocity in well logs for construction of more reliable

geological models which must be used in forward modeling technique.
2- Performing three dimensional ray modeling for optimizing 3D data acquisition
design parameters.
3- Utilizing more sophisticated softwares than what have been used in our
industry for seismic survey design purposes and ray modeling such as
NORSAR2D and NORSAR3D.

73
 References

1. Abdollahie Fard, I., 2006. Structural models for the South Khuzestan area
based on reflection seismic data, Ph.D., Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran.
2. Alaei, B., 2005. Seismic forward modelling of two fault- related folds from
the dezful embayment of the iranian zagros mountains, Journal of Seismic
Exploration, 14, 13-30.
3. Barkved, O., 2004, Many Facets of Multicomponent Seismic Data,
Schlumberger Oilfield Review, Vol. 16, No. 2.
4. Cordsen, A., Galbraith, M., Peirce, J., 2000, Planning Land 3-D Seismic
Surveys, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
5. Mari, J. L., 1999, Signal Processing for Geologists and Geophysicists,
Editions Technip.
6. NORSAR-2D User’s Guide - Version 5.1 rev. 0, 2007.
7. NORSAR-3D User’s Guide - Version 5.3 rev. 0, 2008.
8. Robert Lewis, J. E., 1972, Gachsaran Experiment 1971-1972, Report No.
1201.
9. Robert Lewis, J. E., 1972, Gachsaran Seismic data improvement experiments
September 1972 - May 1973, Report No. 1211.
10. Robert Lewis, J. E., 1972, Gachsaran Seismic data improvement experiments
September 1973 - May 1974, Report No. 1244.
11. Stone, D. G., 1995, Designing Seismic Surveys in Two and Three
Dimensions, Society of Exploration Geophysics, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
12. Sherkati, S., 2004. Tectonic style and kinematics of folding in the Iranian
Zagros (Izeh zone): with special emphasis on petroleum systems, Ph.D.,
Université de Cergy Pontoise.
13. Sherrif, R., 1989, Encyclopedic dictionary of exploration geophysics: Society
of Exploration Geophysics.
14. Taksoz, M., 1981, Seismic Wave Attenuation, Society of Exploration
Geophysics.
15. Tamimi, N., 2008, Analysis of Seismic Wave Velocities in Incompetent and
Plastic Gachsaran Formation, Petroleum University of Technology.

74
16. Thomsen, L., 1986, Weak elastic anisotropy: Geophysics, Vol.51, No.10,
1954-1966.
17. Vermeer, G., 2002, 3-D Seismic Survey Design, Society of Exploration
Geophysics, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
18. Walker, D. J., 1976, Experiment Seismic Survey Sulabedar, Report No. 1263.
19. Yang, J., 2003, Numerical and physical modeling of P-S converted waves in
VTI media, MSc, University of Calgary.

75