SPECIAL SECTION INTRODUCTION
PSDM 2, The Sequel
The first special section on prestack depth migration
(PSDM) was published in May 2001. The papers provided
a synopsis of the state of PSDM at that time. In fact, some
Downloaded 06/02/17 to 132.239.1.231. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
issues limiting greater employment of PSDM described in
that special section are still prevalent todayi.e., poor data
quality, improper geologic models and velocity fields, inac-
curate processing algorithms, anisotropy, near surface effects,
lack of true amplitude preservation, and relatively high
computing costs to run the full wave equation PSDM algo-
rithms. However, the industry has since made great strides
to resolve these issues because of the rapid growth in com-
puting power and development of more efficient migration
algorithms. It was due to these advances that TLE decided
to revisit this depth imaging technology and quickly pub-
lish a sequel.
This special section contains eight articles that pinpoint
some improvements made over the last 18 months. The first
two articles by Guo and Fagin describe the velocity model
building process as it is commonly practiced today and how
this ultimately dictates the quality of the final depth image.
The articles are written with the depth imager and interpreter
in mind because the most precise PSDM image will result
from the successful interaction of these two individuals.
The first paper presents the advantages accrued by evolv-
ing from time migration to depth migration and, thus, the
necessity to do so. The second paper explains the entire inter-
active velocity model-building process and the necessary
steps required to determine or evaluate accurate velocity
fields.
Glogovsky et al. address the problem of depth imaging
in structurally complex geologic settings. Using the Sigsbee
2A synthetic data set, their approach includes integration
of multifocusing time imaging, traveltime velocity inversion,
prestack wavefield datuming, and depth migration. They
also illustrate an approach for time and depth imaging in
complex areas using an iterative wavefield datuming tech-
nique.
The next three papers respectively address different
PSDM approaches with examples from the U.S. Gulf Coast
and the Gulf of Mexico. Dai et al. compare results of the 3D
Kirchhoff and wave equation solutions as applied to an
onshore hanging salt body along the U.S. Gulf Coast. In the
suprasalt environment, each method has advantages and dis-
advantages concerning the imaging of shallow sediments.
However, in the subsalt environment, the wave equation
method is a much better solution; it clearly enhanced the
subsalt structures, improving the prospectivity of this pro-
ducing property. Their wave equation method employs the
phase-shift and split-step Fourier plus interpolation (SSFPI)
algorithms. The phase shift is used in constant velocity
areas, and SSFPI in sediments with varying velocities. This
dual computational approach can address numerical
anisotropy errors and is accurate at wide angles.
In the West Delta area of the Gulf of Mexico, Schneider
et al. compare PSDM salt dome imaging results using
Kirchhoff and a finite difference, common shot-based wave
equation migration. The Kirchhoff results produced clear
images of the salt body, but not subsalt. The finite differ-
ence approach imaged subsalt reflectors, but not the steep
dips along the salt flanks. The authors suggest a more com-
pute-intensive migration operator is needed to image the
steeper dips.
1204 THE LEADING EDGE DECEMBER 2002
Likewise, Fliedner et al. show results of their work,
based on a deepwater Gulf of Mexico prospect, using the
standard Kirchhoff and the common azimuth wave equa-
tion migration methods. They demonstrate that velocity
model building by iterative wavefield continuation migra-
tion is crucial for an optimal image. As expected, the wave
equation (common azimuth) migration method reveals more
details of the top salt topography and suppresses migration
artifacts generated from the sharp corners of the salt body,
when compared to the Kirchhoff depth images.
The last two papers specifically address the amplitude
preservation component of PSDM and how it affects AVO
information. Baina et al. show the accuracy and relevance
of preserved amplitude processing in 3D synthetic and real
cases. They compare what they call geometrical spreading
correction and kinematic PSDM (the more conventional
approach) to their preserved amplitude PSDM (PAPsDM)
scheme. The PAPsDM approach produced more accurate
AVA (amplitude versus angle) results which were substan-
tiated by comparing various AVO attribute characteristics.
Purnell et al. present a case study in which OBC data
were collected over the Teal South Field in the Gulf of
Mexico, using 24 sparsely spaced 4C receiver groups. They
invoke the reciprocity rule to swap the source and receiver
roles in order to apply a shot-based wave equation migra-
tion to each common receiver gather (CRG). Because the sur-
vey consists of only 24 CRGs, the 3D shot-based wave
equation migration is more efficient than the conventional
streamer surveys. Subsequently, useful AVO attributes were
extracted from the final migrated volume.
Prestack depth migration is one of the most active areas
of geophysical development in our industry today. It is due
to this high level of interest that PSDM technology is advanc-
ing rapidly and impressive strides have been made in the
past year or so. As the papers in this special section issue
indicate, different wave equation algorithms are starting to
become more commonplace because multinode computer
clusters are lowering the price/performance ratio to levels
where it is viable to employ these complex and compute-
intensive algorithms. These wave equation migration algo-
rithms are providing more accurate depth images, and can
handle anisotropy and laterally varying velocity fields. Also,
the industry is addressing the amplitude preservation com-
ponent of prestack depth migration. The importance of
amplitude preservation becomes very significant when AVO
and AVA techniques are used to define reservoir character-
istics and the presence of hydrocarbons. And finally, the suc-
cessful interaction between the depth imager and interpreter
continues to play a significant role in producing accurate
PSDM depth images of the subsurface. After all, the earth
is measured in depth, not time. TLE
ROCKY RODEN
LAWRENCE M. GOCHIOCO