Wave‐equation velocity replacement of the low‐velocity layer for overthrust‐belt data

Abstract

Seismic land data are commonly plagued by nonhyperbolic distortions induced by a variable near‐surface, low‐velocity layer (LVL). First‐arrival refraction analysis is conventionally employed to estimate the LVL geometry and velocities. Then vertical static time shifts are used to replace the LVL velocities with the more uniform, faster velocities that characterize the underlying refracting layer. This methodology has earned a good reputation as a geophysical data processing tool; however, velocity replacement with static shifts assumes that no ray bending occurred at the LVL base and that waves propagated vertically through the LVL (even though conventional refraction analysis methods, which are used to derive LVL models from seismic data, are less restrictive). These assumptions often are inadequate in thick, complex LVL situations, where resulting errors may considerably hamper a statics‐based velocity replacement procedure. Wave‐equation datuming may be used to perform LVL velocity replacement when statics are inadequate. This method extrapolates the seismic data from the surface to the LVL base with the LVL velocities. Then it extrapolates the data from the LVL base to an arbitrary datum, with the replacement velocity field. The marine analog of such a procedure has been well documented in the geophysical literature, where the object is to remove distortions caused by an irregular water layer. Application of wave‐equation datuming to land data is more difficult because of certain common characteristics of land data (irregular shooting, large data gaps, and crooked line geometry, combined with lower signal/noise) and because the LVL estimation procedure is considerably more difficult. We demonstrate wave‐equation velocity replacement on land data from a western U.S. overthrust belt. The LVL in this region was particularly thick and complicated and ideal for a wave‐theoretical velocity‐replacement procedure. Standard refraction analysis techniques were employed to estimate the LVL, then wave‐equation datuming was used to perform the velocity replacement. Our derived LVL model was not perfect, so some imaging errors were expected because wave‐equation datuming is highly dependent upon the LVL model. Nevertheless, our results show that wave‐equation datuming generally allowed better shallow reflector imaging than could be achieved with conventional statics processing.