STATICS CORRECTIONS -A TUTORIAL

by
Brian H. Russell, Hampson-Russell Software Services Ltd.
INTRODUCTION their elevation depends on topog- near surface effects, as well as by
Static corrections are important in raphy. The raypath for a single reflec- offset distance X. Since the seismic
the seismic processing flow for a num- tion on a seismic recording is shown travel path is continuous, we cannot
ber of reasons: in Figure I. From this figure, we can theoretically separate the near surface
see that the observed reflection time is effects from the deeper subsurface ef-
- They place source and receiver influenced by both topographic and fects. However, an approximate solu-
at a constant datum plane.
- They ensure that reflection
events on intersecting lines will ...
s~ ------x
be at the same time.
R
- They improve the quality of
other processing steps.
-------4------ SURFAcE
- They ensure the repeatibility of
seismic recording.
--~~----~===========~I:========DAT~M
Static corrections involve a con-
stant time shift of the seismic trace, as
opposed to dynamic corrections,
which involve a set of time variable
shifts. As with most seismic process-
ing steps, static corrections represent
a gross simplification of physical REf L£CTO!<
reality. However, despite the apparent
simplicity of static corrections, they Fig. J. A hypo/helical 1I0lIZero-ojjsel seismic /0 sho/ S. receiver R, reflec/ioll poill/ P, alld o.f[se/
have a dramatic effect on the final recordillg ShOll'illg a sillgle rej/ee/ioll raypa/h. We X.
quality of the seismic section if may slIbdil'ide Ihe raypa/h ill/a cOII/ribwiolls dlle
derived and applied correctly.
In this tutorial I shall discuss the
techniques for deriving such optimum
statics values, covering the three
RILEY'S
major approaches to statics computa-
tions: field statics, refraction statics,
and residual statics. Before discussing
these three computational techniques,
.SEISMIC
let us look at the basic statics model.

THE STATICS/NMO
MODEL
PROCESSORS
A division of Riley's Datashare International
Seismic energy travels through the
earth as a spherical wave. However,
for reasons of simplicity, we will use
ray theory in the derivations in this COMMITMENT TO QUALITY
paper. It should be pointed out that
ray theory is strictly valid only for a AND TURNAROUND
high frequency solution and neglects
such observable features as diffrac- Full range of seismic processing, including:
tions. However, we can usually treat • 3-D processing and design
these effects as part of the migration
problem and thus, in this tutorial, we
• automatic refraction statics
will consider only the steps that go • multiple suppression by inverse modelling
into producing an optimum un-
migrated trace.
The basic seismic recording invol-
ves a source and receiver which are
--~ DATASHARE
separated by a distance called the off- 1300, 510 - 5th St, S.w.
set distance. In marine recording, the Calgary, Alberta T2P 3S2
262-8800
source and receiver are at the same
datum elevation, but in land recording

--------------------16--------------------
tion is to separate the path into four
terms, so that
T = To + T s + T r + T x , (1)
where T = Total traveltime,
To = Seismic structural time,
T 5 = Shot "static" from
datum to surface,
T r = Receiver "static" from
datum to surface,
and Tx = "Dynamic" time shift
to correct for offset.
The term static can be interpreted
as "independent of record time",
whereas the term dynamic means "de-
pendent on record time". However, if
we consider two or more reflections,
we can see that neither term is precise-
ly correct. This is because the "static"
is different for each reflection due to
changes in the raypath, and the offset,
which defines the "dynamic" correc-
tion, depends on the points at which
the emerging rays intersect the datum.
Nonetheless, these are the assump-
tions that are used in the basic seismic
processing flow, and they can be
viewed in idealized form as seen in
Figure 2. In this figure, the travel path
of the rays is vertical from surface to
datum, and straight between the
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 17
datum and the reflecting point. These
assumptions are reasonable if the
velocities of upper layers are much
lower that those of the deeper layers,
which is often the case.
I+~-----X ----~.I
s underlying assumptions of the seismic
Ts
p tion can, in principle, be derived. This
Fig. 2. Idealized geometry for the statics/ NMO
model. Stalic corrections are vertical. II'hereas
N MO correi'liol1S are horizolllal. The seismic trace
is theoretica/~1' correi'led to mid-poilll M.
Using the assumptions shown in
Figure 2, the seismic processing flow
can be simplified to two fundamental
steps. We first derive a velocity versus
depth model, from which static cor-
rections are computed and then ap-
plied to the data. This is equivalent to
placing the shot and receiver at the
datum. Next, a dynamic, or NMO,
correction is appliced to the trace to
place the reflection below midpoint
M, at a time of To. In this simple
scheme, the static is a vertical cor-
rection, whereas the dynamic is a
horizontal correction. Although this
simple processing scheme is greatly
expanded in practice, these are the
processing method.
FIELD STATICS
From a knowledge of the topog-
raphy of our seismic line, the source
and receiver parameters, and the
velocities and thicknesses of the near
surface layers, a complete statics solu-
computation is referred to as the "field
static", to differentiate it from other
types of statics computations. Al-
though this static correction should
theoretically place the shot and
receiver at the same datum elevation,
we shall find that there are many fac-
tors that impede our ability to ac-
curately determine its value.
Let us start by assuming that our
problems in deriving an accurate near-
surface model have been overcome.
We shall consider the simple case of a
two layer near-surface, consisting of a
weathered layer of low velocity un-
_
 weathered material, and adding this to
the distance from the base of the
weathering to the datum divided by
the sub weathering velocity. The total
static is then the sum of the shot and
receiver components. In this formula-
tion, we have assumed that a buried
source has been used. For a surface
source, the source static would be
modified by adding a delay time for
DATlM the weathered layer.
In the previous example, we have
assumed that the thickness and
velocity of the weathered layer is
known. In fact, one of the biggest
problems we face is determining
these values. One technique used
to determine the near surface
where shot static, velocities and thicknesses is the
receiver static, velocity survey, illustrated in Figure 4.
Note in the figure that a correction has
depth of weathering,
been done to compensate for non-ver-
depth of shot, tical raypaths. One of the main
datu~ elevation, problems of this method is that well
velocity surveys are usually not done
E shot elevation, frequently enough along the line to
S
ER receiver elevation, determine the near surface structure at
each shot point. Another problem is
d = thickness from shot to datum, that there are usually not enough shal-
SD
d = thickness froM receiver to datum, low shots to determine the very near
RD
Fig. 4. The uphole or lI'elf shoo/ing me/hod.
V velocity of weathered layer,
w II'here (a) shOll'S the slln'e.\' i1self. lI'ith /he recei"ers
and V velocity of suhweathered layer. located ill/he lI'elf and sho/ is a/ the sllrlace. and (b)
sw sholl'S /he interpreted sllrvey. In this simple
example, /he. il1lerval velocities have been exactl\,
Fig. J. Field static computations by SIlIII 01 de/ermined.
lI'eathering alld subll'ea/hering delay.
1'IME (He.) -

consolidated material and a sub-

o 0.02 (). O't 0,06 0.06 (')·1
weathered layer of more competent
lithology. We shall also assume that 10
the datum plane down to which we
wish to correct the data is in the sub- 20
weathered layer. This situation is il- I
lustrated in Figure 3. If we know the \I
DEPfH 30 0 I n-le..-Va I
thickness of the weathered layer, the I
(m) Velocity
elevations of the shot and geophone, I
~o 0
and the depth of shot, we can then I
compute the static corrections. There J \
50
will be two components to the total 0
\
static: a shot component and' a
receiver component. 60 /~
Avr;' \
Although there are many methods '1e/ocHy '.
71)
of computing field statics, the 0
simplest method is shown in Figure 3. /000 1500 2000
0 500
The computation of a time delay in
yf.l-DCr-ry (m/~c)'-'
each layer can be found by dividing
(a) (b)
the length of the vertical raypath in
each layer by the layer velocity. For
Depth Con. Int. Total Time llvg. Vel. Int. V"l.
the two layer case shown in the figure, (m) Time (sec) (sec) (m/sec) (m/sec)
the shot static is found by dividing the
distance from the base of the shot to 10 0.020 0.020 500 500
20 0.020 0.040 500 500
the datum by the subweathering 30 0.010 0.050 600 1000
velocity. The receiver static is com- 40 0.010 0.060 667 1000
50 0.010 0.070 714 1000
puted by dividing the weathering layer 60 0.005 0.075 800 2000
thickness by the velocity of the 70 O.OOS; 0.080 875 2000

------------ 18 _
surface velocities.
A simpler method makes use of the
uphole time, which is the traveltime
from the shot to the surface as
measured by a geophone placed close
to each shot. The basic assumption is
that the shot hole is drilled just below
the weathered layer, and the uphole
time will therefore give us the velocity
of this layer. If the shot has been
drilled below the weathered layer, this
method can give erroneous values for
the weathering velocity and it is thus
advisable to check for uphole times
that deviate significantly from the
average value. Using the uphole time
simplification, the delay method
equations from Figure 3 can be rewrit-
ten so that the receiver static is simply
the sum of the shot static at the
receiver location plus the uphole time.
THE EFFECT OF THE
NEAR SURFACE
The effect of near surface geology
section, the estimation of static cor-
rections can be severely hampered by
irregular topography and rapidly
varying velocity and thickness changes
of the weathering and sub-weathering
layers. One of the best ways to es-
lOa .. - - - .
200 .", . . . -- . .
timate these changes is to analyze the
300
first breaks which result from refrac-
tions in the shallow low-velocity
layers. A plot showing such a set of
Fig. 5. n,e e/fect of surface lopography on
statics. An earth 1II0dei .sho\l'illg irregular surface
computer picked first breaks is shown
topography Il'ilh a .flat re.flector lI'il/ he "allti- in Figure 6.
correlated" \l'ilh the re.flector at depth. The key concept in seismic refrac-
tions are usually made. The first is
that, in general, the top layer of the
earth is made of unconsolidated
weathered material of variable thick-
ness and low velocity called the
TIME
weathered layer. As previollsly dis- (SECI o.s
cussed, the thickness of this layer is
often taken from uphole time meas-
urements. This assumes that the shot
has been drilled slightly below the
weathered layer. Significant devia-
tions in this near surface layer thick- 1.D

plays a major role in the accuracy of ness can be caused by such geological Fig. 6. A 1'101 of a seislllic profile displayillg a
the field statics computation. For ex- effects as meandering river channels, lI'eaiherillg tlllolllal.\'. The first arrivals hal'e heell
ample, let us consider the effects of variations in glacial till thickness, and picked l/sillg a cOlllpl/ter alld are ShOIl'1I as dashes.
variations in the water table. n1ese .first arril'ols are I'ery "clean". hili other
topography. Ideally, we would like to pro.files are IIIl/ch lIIure di(ficult to pick due 10 the
to record data on a perfectly flat sur- REFRACTION STATICS presence of lIoise. NOle reverse polarit)' trace. /4
face. If we are recording data in the As we discussed in the previous tracesfrolll the lefl.
central plains of North America, we
are close to this ideal, since the effects
of topography are often insignificant.
However, if our recording takes place
in the overthurst belt of Wyoming, the
foothills of Alberta, a dune environ-
ment in Saudi Arabia, or some other
correspondingly rugged topography,
the effects of variations in elevation
can severely distort our data.
It is an interesting exercise to con-
sider the effects on the stack if topog-
raphy is ignored, or if the elevations
are assigned incorrectly. In the case of
land data, the effect 'is that of a sub-
surface structure which is "anticorre-
lated" with the elevation profile of the
surface. That is, highs on the surface
are seen as lows on the reflector, and
vice versa. This is illustrated in Figure
5 for the simple case of a constant
velocity earth with an irregular topog-
raphy and a flat lying reflector. Notice
that the reflector is the inverse of the
topography since the travel time is
greater from the higher points on the
surface.
Next, let us consider the effects of GEOPHYSICAL MICRO COMPUTER
velocity and thickness variations in
the near-surface layers. This is the
APPLICATIONS (International) LTD.
least well known part of the problem "Practical Software with Solid Support. "
and will have the greatest effect on the 805,603 - 7 AVENUE S.w., CALGARY, ALBERTA
statics solutions. In the processing of T2P 2T5 TELEPHONE: (403) 261-4025
land data, several simplifying assump-

----------------- 19 _

TIME
REFRACTED WAVE
V1
Fig. 7. 77,e recording ala refraCled lI'ave along a
seismic spread. No refraCled energy reaches the
spread before the critical dislOllce Xc. 77,e refracted
tion is that when a seismic ray hits a
geological boundary, it is refracted or
'bent' by an amount depending on the
velocities of the two geological layers.
The amount of the refraction is
governed by Snell's Law, which states
that the ratio of the sines of the inci-
dent and refracted angles is equal to
the ratio of the velocities of the two
layers. As long as the velocity of the
lower layer is greater than the velocity
in the upper layer, there comes a point
where the refracted angle is equal to
ninety degrees, and a refracted wave
is set up which travels along the inter-
face between the layers at the velocity
of the lower layer. This is shown in
Figure 7, as well as the distance at
which the first refracted wave will
reach the receivers, called the critical
distance. A theoretical plot of first
breaks from a surface shot is also
shown in Figure 7. If we consider
the geometry of the ray from shot S to
receiver R in Figure 7, the total travel-
time can be shown to be
2 Zo cos ic X
T = Vo + ~, (2)
where ic = critical angle,
Vo
and sin ic = -
VI
The preceding equation is the equa-
tion for a straight line, where the first
term is the intercept time and the
second term contains the slope as the
inverse of the second layer velocity.
The intercept time will reveal the
depth 0 f the first layer, and the slope
of the line will reveal the velocity of
---------------------20--------------
, in velocity, the refraction will be
VI
SURFACE
BOUNDARY 1
lI'ave ol'ertakes the direct arrival at the distance
Xcro.u.
the second layer. This equation can be
generalized to more layers quite easily
by using the general form of Snell's
law.
Figure 7 assumed a shot on the
surface. The effect of a buried shot in
the first, or weathered, layer is to add
a delay which is equal to the up hole
time. In the figure, we also assumed
that the velocities of the near surface
layers increased with depth. If we have
CANJAY EXPLORATION (1975) LTD.
120 , 240 or 360 Channel Recording
1MS or 2MS Options
Track, Wheel Mounted
or Portable Operations
Telephone: 276-7566
#101, 4528 - 6A Street N.E.
Calgary, Alberta T2E 483
a situation in which a layer decreases
towards the normal, and there will be
no refraction from that particular
layer. This is called a low speed layer.
A related, and more common, situa-
tion is where either a layer is too thin
or has too small a velocity contrast to
be resolved by the refraction method.
This is called a 'hidden layer'.
Another complication is that of
dipping layers. In general, we can say
that the intercept time will be less at
the updip location than at the downdip
location, and that the slope of the first
breaks in the updip direction will be
less (and hence the velocity greater)
than in the downdip direction. How-
ever, the total traveltime is the same
in either the updip or downdip direc-
tions. This time is often referred to as
the reciprocal time.
REFRACTION
INTERPRETATION
PROCEDURES
Having looked at the basic theory
of seismic refraction, we are now in a
position to look at methods of inter-
pretation of refracted arrivals which
are based on this theory. This area of
research has been active since the early
days of seismic prospecting. General-
ly, we may classify the approaches
_
 Once we find the delay times, we
may compute the depths by simply
rearranging equation 3 for the depth
term. The difficult part is of course
finding the delay times for each in-
dividual receiver location. This is
done by finding the average intercept
time from both a forward and reverse
profile, and partitioning the intercept
time into its receiver and shot com-
ponents.

The Reciprocal Method

The reciprocal method in various
forms has been one of the most
popular methods of refraction inter-
pretation (Hawkins, 1961).
The basis of the method is the time-
depth term, which is virtually identical
in definition to the delay time. The
time-depth term is best understood by
referring to Figure 10.
From this diagram, we can define
time-depth as
ZG cos ic (4)
tG =
Vo
As you can see, this is identical in
form to the delay time. However, the
Fig. 8. A hand interpretation of a set of picked
first arrivals. Note that small wavelength anomalies
key difference is in how we find the
have been smoothed OUI. time-depth term. To find the time-
depth for a particular geophone, con-
that have been taken into the follow- The Delay Time Method
ing headings:
The delay time (Barry, 1967) is
- Slope/Intercept Method
defined as the time between the datum WE OFFER SEISMIC TELEMETRY
- Delay Time Methods and the refractor minus the normal WITH FIELD PROCESSING SYSTEM
projection of the raypath on the
- Reciprocal Methods IN OUR
refractor. Thus, the total travel path
- The Generalized Linear Inverse has two delay times associated with it,
(GLI) Method

CONFAC
for the shot and the receiver, which
- The Time-Term Method. are given by the general form:

Let us briefly consider each of these Zd cos ic

methods. td = (3)
Vo WE ALSO SUPPLY EQUIPMENT
The Slope/Intercept Method
where td = delay time below shot FOR:
This is the simplest method of in-
or receiver, • MICROSEISMIC
terpreting first breaks, and follows
and 2'd = depth below shot or
closely the theory that was discussed receiver.
• WELL LOGGING
in the previous section. The first step • ENGINEERING SEISMIC
is to fit slopes to a set of picked arrival These definitions can be seen in
Figure 9. • EDUCATION & RESEARCH
times, and thus find the seismic
velocities. Each slope is then extrapo- • SHEAR WAVE GENERATION
lated back to the shot location to find • VSP & SEISMIC TOMOGRAPHY
the intercept time, and hence the • IMPULSIVE SOURCE TECHNIQUE
depth to a particular layer.
Figure 8 shows a hand interpreta-
tion of a set of picked first arrivals,
and the resulting geological model.
Notice that the method has found only
the very smoothly-varying component
of the near-surface, and that smaller
variations, such as those indicated -at
~
J' TEK CANADA
(403) 250-2033
Fig. 9. The basic principles behind the delay time
locations 141 and 161, have not been method. Dip is assumed negligible in the vicinity of
accounted for correctly. the shot and receiver.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ _ 21 _
sider Figure 10 again. We simply add
the traveltimes from the bracketing
shot points, subtract the total time
from shotpoint to shotpoint (this is
defined as the reciprocal time), and
halve the result. In symbols, we can
define the time-depth as
tG = 1/2 (tSIG + tS2G - ts1S2) (5)
refractor surfaces. The key difference inverse, or GLI, method (Hampson
between GRM and the classical and Russell, 1984).
reciprocal method is that Palmer uses
a pair of geophones, which are
separated by a variable distance X,
rather than a single geophone. If the
distance X is zero, the method is iden-
tical to the reciprocal method.

The GLI Method

Fig. 10. 7111' basic concept of Ihe reciprocal
melhod. 7111' lime-deplh is defined as Ihe distallce
from Cia Pin Ihe diagram limes Ihe cosine of fhe
crilical all~le ie. divided by Ihe I'elocily of Va.
We can then transform the time-
depth into the depth to the refractor
by using equation 4.
A more advanced form of the
reciprocal method is the generalized
reciprocal method (or GRM),
developed by Derecke Palmer (198 I).
The method is basically an extension
of the classical reciprocal method, but
has the advantages of good dip han-
dling and recognition of very irregular
We have seen that all refraction
analysis methods assume some model
of the near-surface geology, and that
this model is normally a series of
layers whose thicknesses and
MODIFY NEAR·
velocities may vary both laterally and SURFACE MODEL
vertically. Since first arrival times
depend on thickness and velocity, the
direct approach is to perform some
calculation using the observed breaks
which yields the parameters themsel-
ves, such as the slope/intercept
Fig. I I. FlolI'chart \I·hich sholl's Ihe basic COllcepl
method, delay-time method, or of refraci iOIl anall'sis by generalized linear
reciprocal method. Since these i/ll'ersion (G LI) (Hampson alld Russell. 1984).
methods make restrictive assumptions
about the model, an alternative
method is to iteratively build a model Figure II illustrates the GLI
of the subsurface based on the infor- method in a non mathematical man-
mation provided by the first breaks. ner. The user inputs an initial guess of
This is called the generalized linear the near-surface model which tells the

_ Wellgo to the
ends tif the earth
for your business.

When the seismic information you need is buried deep beneath the
frozen arctic tundra or the silty bed of a winding river, imbedded in a moun-
tain of solid rock, or under marshy muskeg, there's only one place to call.
Sourcex Seismic. An established Canadian company with the special-
ized equipment, manpower and experience to get the job done-quickly,
accurately, completely.
With the help of multi-channel acquisition systems and the best
tracked equipment in the industry, our three fully qualified crews are
prepared to go to any extreme to get the data you need. Anytime.
Anywhere.

SDURCEE SEISMIC LTD.

Gordon Westwood. Brian Montgomery (403)272-2520
318 Monument Place S.E., Calgary, Alberta T2A 1X3 Fax: \4031 273·9193

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 22 _
program how many layers are ex- calculated by ray-tracing, compared is reached between observed and
pected and their approximate with the measured breaks, the model model first breaks.
velocities and thicknesses. The pro- is improved, and a new set of breaks
Let us look at the application of the
gram then performs a series of itera- calculated. This procedure is repeated
method to a real dataset, chosen be-
tions in which the model breaks are until some acceptable correspondence
cause it displayed both long and short
wavelength static anomalies. This is
demonstrated quite clearly in Figure
12, which is a brute stack of the line
1.0 with elevation and uphole corrections
applied. The long wavelength static
appears as a slowly varying structural
TIME component with a maximum variation
(SEC)
across the line of about twenty mil-
liseconds. The short wavelength com-
1.5
ponent results in loss of continuity on
some of the weaker reflectors, espe-
cially the data above 900 msec, and
also in a vertical swath to the left side
of the low coverage gap.
2.0
In Figure 13, we see the same stack
Fig. /2. A brute stack lI'itll elel'ation and upllole after automatic refraction analysis. In
corre("(ion onl)' (Hampson and Russell, 1984). this result, both the long and short
wavelength statics solutions have been
improved. The removal of the long
period static results in a more struc-
1.0 turally valid section without having to
resort to the artificial solution of flat-
tening on a particular event. Also, as
TIME
(SEC)
we shall discuss in the next section,
residual statics programs based on the
1.5 correlation of reflection zones are
theoretically unable to solve for this
long period static pattern.
The short period statics solution
results in improved data continuity,
2.0 both in the events at 900 msec and
above, and also in the vertical swath
Fig. 13. The same line as in Figl/re 12, bur after
of data in the central part of the line.
al/tomatic G LI refraction statics analysis
(Hampson a/l(1 Rllssell, 1984).
The Time-Term Method
Until now in our discussion, all of
the methods that we have considered
involved deriving a geological model
of the subsurface and then calculating
static corrections from this model.
However, it is possible to derive the
statics themselves from the first ar-
rivals without the intervening step of
deriving a model. Such methods have
been referred to as time-term. or least
squares, methods (Chun and
Jacewitz, 1981).
To begin with, we may rewrite the
basic travel time equation as

Tij == Si + Rj + Xij/V, (6)

where Si == shot static at shot i,
R j == receiver static at
receiver j,
Xij == offset from receiver to
Fig. /4. A seismic se("(ion be/ore and after tile 0/ Canadian data and (b) SlIr/ace consislent first
shot,
applicalion 0/ a sllr/ace consistent time term arrival statics-applied slOck. and Tij == total travel time from
analysis (Chlln and Jacell'itz, 1981); (a) BrUle slOck receiver to shot.

---------- 23 _
 Now the problem can be set up as
a series of linear equations and solved
by Gauss-Seidel iteration. The prob-
lem can be further simplified by first
removing a linear moveout (LMO)
function from the first breaks. The
third term in the preceding equation
then becomes a residual moveout
term. Indeed, if the LMO term repre-
sents the true velocity from the second
layer and we consider only terms
which refract in the second layer,
equation 6 can be simplified so that
the third term is ignored entirely. Fig-
ure 14 is an example of a statics solu-
tion using a modified time-term
method.
AUTOMATIC RESIDUAL
STATICS
In the previous sections on field
statics and refraction statics we have
assumed that the total component of
the static correction can be derived by
modeling the near-surface layer
velocities and thicknesses and com-
puting a time shift which will strip
away the effects of the near-surface.
However, despite our best efforts, the
statics that are derived using these
methods do not appear to solve the
complete problem.
Why is it that we cannot compute
our total statics solution in a deter-
ministic way? There are a number of
possible reasons for this. The most
obvious reason is that no matter how
well we think we know the velocities
and thicknesses of the near-surface,
the real earth is actually more complex
than our model tells us. The velocity
can vary both laterally and vertically
within a single layer due to changing
lithology. The thickness of the
weathered layer may vary rapidly due
to river deposition or glaciation. Thin
layers with abrupt lateral terminations
may have been left by terent localized
deposition patterns, or the water
table may have an effect on the
velocity distribution that is hard to
predict. Also, we know that the verti-
cal ray approximation used in the
statics model is incorrect. The devia-
tions of the raypath from vertical can
be quite significant and will impart an
error into the solution.
For the above reasons we need a
method for "fine-tuning" the statics
solution. Such a method was
developed in the late sixties and early
seventies using the technique of reflec-
tion correlation. That is, we assume
that by aligning the reflections within
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 24
a single CDP gather after NMO cor- side by side and their resulting sum or
rection we can account for subtle er- stack. The traces appear identical ex-
rors in the deterministic statics solu- cept for positive and negative time
tions. shifts. The result of summing these
three traces is that the individual
Correlation Statics events are now 'smeared' in time when
Figure 15 shows three seismic traces compared to the original traces.
In Figure 16 the result of cross-cor-
relating trace A with both trace Band
A 8 C A+B+C
C is shown. These cross-correlations
both look like auto-correlations ex-
cept that the zero lag value has been
shifted, by -10 msec in the first case
and + 10 msec in the second. If these
shifts are applied to the original
traces, the result is three traces which
are aligned with one another. The
resulting stacked trace shows no
'smearing' of the events.
This simple example illustrates the
basic idea behind computing residual
statics. Individual unstacked traces
are corrected for field static and
NMO, and are cross-correlated with
some reference trace to compute an
optimum time shift which will remove
Fig. 15. A Ihree Irace Slack. where Ihe /races are the static problem completely. The
out o{ alignl11ell/.
problem is in determining the refer-
ence trace to use and in deciding how
A+B+C
0Jenotes x -corr
A x 8
A@C
o lAG _--<i:=:....:.-.:t.l.ILJ----,
Fig. 16. The cross-correlation of traces A and B.
and A and C. and Ihe resulling Slack afler Ihe
indicaled shijis have been applied.
• Donald Good
PIONEER • Marinus Snyders
• Dallas Felix
EXPLORATION INC.
DFS V 120 TRACE, WHEEL OR BUGGIES
7032 Farrell Rd. S.E.
Calgary, Alberta T2H OT2 BUS. (403) 255-3353
_
 CROSS-eORRELATION STATICS EXAMPLE

0.5

TIME
(sec)

1.0

BEFORE AFTER

Fig. 17. A sel 0/600% CDP galhers be/ore and

ajier Ihe applicalion v/ corre/aliOlI slalics.
~HOT I
believable each shift is. Figure 17
shows a set of 600% COP gathers RECEIVER J'1

before and after the application of ~~-,""",,,-,SURfACE

correlation statics. Notice that the SHOT

STATIC
method has done a good job of lining BASE WEATHERING

up the events just below 0.7 sec. This

--:;L--},:---------\-----......:::"=t==~===-_I_----- DATUM
approach can be used for computing
our final statics, but it will not resolve
major lateral statics problems on our
line. In the next section we will look
at the more general surface-consistent
POSSIBLE
statics approach. RNMO

Linear Surface Consistent

Residual Statics Method
We often observe static patterns
that move with the same geophone
group spacing as the shot rollalong.
This is referred to as a surface consis-
tent static pattern. Since the same
static pattern will be spread over dif-
ferent CDP gathers, it cannot be
solved by simply computing the cross-
correlations of traces in a CDP gather
with the pilot traces derived from the
COP gather itself. Therefore, we must
derive both the shot and receiver com-
ponents of the statics in an inde-
pendent way. Figure 18 shows that
there are four possible sources for the
observed static: the shot component,
the receiver component, an RNMO
component, and a structural com-
ponent. The source and receiver terms
are referred to as the surface-consis-
tent components, and represent the
statics solution. The structure and
RNMO terms are subsurface consis-
---------------------25--
=~l'--- __::::REFlECTOR
STRUCTURE
CHANGE
Fig. 18. A simplified cross-seclion o/Ihe eOrlh
sholl'ing sllr/ace and subsurface consis/eJle)'.
tent and must not be included in the Equations like that shown in 7 are
statics solution. referred to as linear equations. These
To solve for the four components equations consist of a number of ob-
shown in Figure 18, we must set up an servations (the values Tij) from which
equation of the form the parameters (S, R. G, and M) must
be solved. Although we generally
Tj j = Sj + Rj + Gk + MkXi/, (7) think sets of linear equations in which
where Si shot static for ith shot,
= the number of parameters is equal to
Rj receiver static for jth
= the number of observations, in
receiver, geophysical problems we usually have
Gk = structure term for kth the situation in which the number of
COP position, unknowns is not equal to the number
Mk = time averaged RNMO of parameters. Wiggins et al (1976)
at kth COP, show that, in the statics problem, the
Xij = offset from shot i to number of parameters and observa-
receiver j, tions are always deficient by 13 equa-
and Tij = total static value. tions. This means that there is no
_
unique solution to the statics problem.
Howcver, by using the following
averaging technique, we can converge
to a rcasonable solution:
(I) First we sum over the com-
mon shot positions to get an es-
timate of the shot static.
(2) Next, we sum over the com-
mon receiver positions to get
an estimate of the receiver
static.
(3) Next, we sum over the CDP
~ e
traces to get the structural com-
ponent.
(4) Finally, to get the RNMO
values we sum over the CDP
traces after weighting them
with a factor equal to the
offset squared.
We then iterate tHrough this cal-
culation and measure the error after
each iteration, hopefully converging
to a solution. In practice it has been
found that three iterations through the
above proced ure is usually enough to
7 6 5 A
produce a satisfactory result. We
should also note that this procedure is
often referred to as Gauss-Seidel itera-
tion.
It should be noted that the surface
consistent approach, while producing
the best overall statics, does not
produce the best individual statics
within an individual CDP gather. For
this reason, it is often advisable to run
a final trim or correlation static com-
putation on your data prior to final
stack.
Figure 19 shows the effect of
statics in a particularly bad case.
Notice that there is a lack of any event
continuity on the line. Figure 20 shows
the result of applying a surface con-
sistent statics analysis to the line.

Nonlinear Surface Consistent

Residual Statics
An interesting approach to the solu-
tion of large statics anomalies has
been proposed by Daniel Rothman
(1985, 1986). The algorithm which he
proposed, called simulated annealing,
uses a Monte Carlo optimization tech-
nique which solves the statics problem
Fig. 19. A II illpur swck hefore swrics applicatioll in a way that is similar to sudden
(Wififiim el a/. /976). crystallization in a melt. Keeping up

SUPPLYING THE GEOPHYSICAL PROFESSION

compU*STAR
(403) 259-4131

Asr Premium/286 Asr Premium/386

• 6, 8, or 10M Hz Opcration • 20 MHz, 80386 Processor

• 80286 Based Processor • I MB High Speed RAM
• MS-DOS® and GW-BASIC® • MS-DOS® and GW-BASIC®
• I MB High Speed RAM • Compatible With AST
• 14" Enhanced Color Monitor MS-OS/2. XENITH 386
• 42 M B Hard Drive and Windows 386
• 14" Enhanced Color Monitor
• 80 M B Hard Drive
Call for Corporate Pricing

A Iso Available
AST Premium1386 - 25 M Hz Systems
Math Co-Processors, MONOICGA/EGA/VGA Monitors, 9 & 24-Pin Printers,
1200/2400 Baud Internal & External Modems. Laser Printers. and Lap-Top Computers
105,5720 Macleod Trail South. Calgary, Alberta T2H OJ6

---------------------26------- _
this physical analogy, the statics are
like molecules, and the algorithm al-
lows the "temperature" of the system
to change while keeping the
"molecules" in thermal equilibrium.
Although this method is nonlinear, it
preserves the surface consistent ap-
proach of the other methods.
Rothman also uses the concept of
stack power, introduced by Ronen
and Claerbout (1985), to measure the
effectiveness of his method. Stack
power is a po\\'(~r estimate based on the
sum of the squared amplitudes of the
CMP section. The best estimate of the
statics is thus the solution which max-
imizes stack power. This method util-
izes the stack power concept by first
randomly generating sets of statics.
After the random statics have been
generated, they are applied to the Fig. 20. 7711' sallie s/llck as in Fif;ure 19. hUI afier
data. and a stack is generated. If stack Ihe applicOlion ofsurface colISislent residual Slalics
(11 'iggillS 1'1 01, 1976).
power is plotted as a function of itera-
tion, a point is reached at which the
InpuL St.ack 1000 It.eraLion. 1835 It.eraLion.
true statics suddenly crystallize. This o 100 o 100 o 100
is best illustrated by an example. The
example is taken from the overthrust
belt of Wyoming. Figure 21 (a) shows
the input stack with no statics applied.
Figure 21 (b) shows the result after
1000 iterations of the method, and the
result is actually worse than the first
stack. However, Figure 21 (c) shows the
final result after 1835 iterations, and is a
dramatic improvement. The "crystaliza-
tion" of the solution happened at about
1200 iterations, as can be seen by the
stack power in Figure 22.

INTERPRETATIVE
CONSIDERATIONS Fig. 21, Results 0/ the sillll/lated annealing (a). T1Iis lI'as ajier 1000 iterations of Ihe melhod.
algorill/ln: (a) An inpm slOck lI'ith 110 statics (Rolhman. 1985)0/111 (c) Final Slack flfler Ihe 1835
Now that we have looked at the nuts applied. (Rolhman. 1985): (b) The result of Ihe ilerations of Ihe silllulaled annealing algorill/ln
and bolts of static corrections, we silllulaled annealing lIIethod applied 10 the Slack of (Rothman. 1985).
shall consider how to make sure that
a good statics solution has been ob-
tained on the final stack. There are
three reasons why we would like a
Stack Power
LJ)
good static solution. These are:
eto obtain a correct structural ...•
interpretation,
eto obtain a good stratigraphic
interpretation, and
eto optimize the overall quality
of the seismic reflections. ....
"-
CD
oQ.
It is important to realize that any
one of the above criteria can be met
without satisfying the other two. That
is. we may have obtained a very good
long period static solution without the
equivalent improvement in the short
period static solution. Or we may have o 500 1000 1500 2000
obtained the short period static solu- i terot ion
tion without the long period solution.
Or, finally, we may have obtained Fig, 22. A pial oflhe slOck po\l'erfor rhe results of
good alignment within each CDP Figure 21

---------- 27 _
gather without taking proper care to
10 5 1 5 1 5
make sure that each stacked trace has o
the proper physical relationship with
the other stacked traces.
Let us first look at the structural
problem. The fact that near surface
effects can cause problems in the long
period statics solution suggests that 100 -
these long period anomalies can be
propagated through the seismic sec-
tion. In most cases, the fact that the
same structure is visible on all
horizons will indicate to the inter-
preter that the structure is due to a
static. However, the structure could
be the result of a very late intrusion,
and therefore it would be preferable to
remove the apparent structure if it is
indeed due to statics.
As we have seen, the best way to
remove such a structure is to perform 300 -
a refraction statics analysis, since
reflection statics can not resolve any
static with a period longer than a cable
length. Figures 12 and 13 showed the
removal of an apparent structure
using such a refraction statics method.
Notice that the seismic events are now 4-00
reasonably flat. While this is quite
uninteresting, it is highly preferable to (a) (b) (c)
drilling an incorrect structure.
Next, consider the stratigraphic Fig. 23. n,l' effect ofhighji'equellcy slatics Oil/he (repealed six tillles). alld (c) is tire stack with 110
case. Stratigraphic interpretation in- stacked trace. where (a) is a twe/l'e trace gatlrerafter statics (repeated six tillles). Notice the phase
volves the interpretation of subtle NMO. hili wi/Ir sla/ics. (b) is tire stack of (a) diSTOrtion 011 tire stacked traces ill (b).
changes in reflection character. We
often consider that the main process-
ing consideration for a stratigraphi- -By looking at the stacked data. are not too large and may have to use
cally correct interpretation is the Structural and stratigraphic some datum other than a perfectly flat
wavelet processing technique used. validity should be upheld. one, such as a floating datum, in com-
Equally important is the high frequen- plex areas. In extremely complex
cy statics solution. If this solution is areas, the approximations inherent in
not correct, there will be a misalign-
SUMMARY AND
the vertical static correction may be
ment of the reflections across each CONCLUSIONS too great, and we may have to use a
CDP gather, resulting in the destruc- In this paper we have had a brief wave-equation datuming method
tive interference of reflection charac- look at the subject of statics correc- (Berryhill, 1979, 1984, 1986). This
ter. A poor alignment of the traces tions in seismic processing. We have method, which was not discussed in
within a CDP gather can result in loss reviewed the assumptions behind the this paper, is commonly used in the
of reflection continuity, and therefore statics correction, the methods used to case of a complex marine water bot-
a loss in interpretibility of the section. compute these corrections, the tom.
Figure 23 shows a simple example of problems encountered with our as- A second key point is that no one
this loss of reflection continuity. sumptions and procedures, and the method that we have discussed can
effectiveness of statics corrections in solve the complete statics problem. If
Finally, how do we check to see if
the overall processing flow. Let us we look at this from an historical
our statics solutions is correct? There
summarize the key points. perspective, there have been different
are three main ways in which to check
the validity of the solution: First of all, the assumption that the periods of time in which geophysicists
static correction is a vertical shift of thought the problem was solved. For
- By looking at the statics them- the seismic trace is an approximation example, in predigital days, field
selves. The receiver and shot to reality. This is equally true of the statics and refraction statics were con-
statics should contain the same NMO or dynamic correction, which is sidered to be the complete solution.
information at the same surface the companion to the static correc- Then, in the wake of the success that
locations. That is, the solution tion. Despite the approximate nature residual statics programs had when
should be surface-consistent. of the static correction, however, it they were first developed (mid to
-By looking at the prestack data. works quite well. We must be careful late 1970's), it was felt that the statis-
Events should be flat prior to to pick a datum that is close to the tical methods alone were the answer.
stack. surface so that the statics corrections However, the consensus now is that
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _29 _
each method has its own place in ad- Rothman, D.H., 1985. Nonlinear in- tions: Geophysics, V 51, p. 332-
ding to the complete statics solution. version, statistical mechanics, and 346.
Field and refraction statics supply the residual statics estimation: Wiggins, R.A., Lamer, K.L., and
long wavelength component, whereas Geophysics, V 50, p. 2784-2796 Wisecup, R.D., 1976. Residual
residual methods supply the shorter
statics analysis as a general linear
wavelength part of the solution. _ _~1986. Automatic estimation problem: Geophysics, V 41, p.
In summary, no single technique of large residual statics correc- 922-938.
will completely solve the statics prob-
lem. It is only by iterating through a
number of methods, and by carefully
interpreting the solutions, that a
geologically valid seismic section can
be produced which will aid the inter-
preter in his or her quest for the
geophysical holy grail, finding oil!

REFERENCES
Barry, K. M., 1967. Delay time
and its application to refraction
profile intelpretation, in Seismic
Refraction Prospecting: A. W.
Musgrave, Ed., S.E. G., Tulsa, p.
348-361.
Bel'lyhi//, J.R., 1979. Wave-equation
datuming: Geophysics. V 44, p.
1329-1344.
1984. Wave-equation
datuming before stack:
Geophysics, V 49, p. 2064-2066
_ _ _ _ _ _---!.1986. Submarine
canyons: Velocity replacement by TE ORKANDTECHNOLOGY
wave-equation datuming before
stack: Geophysics, V 51, p. 1572- COMBINING TO PRODUCE
1579.
STATE OF THE ART
/
Chun, J.H., and Jacewitz, CA.,
1981. The first arrival time sur- EISMIC DATA PROCESSING
,,
/
face and estimation of statics:
Presented at the 51st Annual
Meeting of the Society of Explora-
tion Geophysicists, Los Angeles.

Hampson, D., and Russell, B., 1984. -INVEST-

First-break intelpretation using
generalized lineal' inversion: Jour- -SIERRA WORKSTATION-
nal of the C.S.E.G., V 20, p. 45- -FULL 2D AND 3D SEISMIC PROCESSING-
54.
-GREEN MOUNTAIN REFRACTION STATICS·
Hawkins, L. V, 1961. The reciprocal
method of routine shallow seismic -LASER SCANNING-
refraction investigations:
Geophysics, V 26, p. 806-819.

Palmer, D., 1981. The generalized

reciprocal method of seismic
.~~~
~=..:. ~=
refraction intelpretation: S.£. G.,
-
-- - -
Tulsa.
~~.==.====
~= - 237-9313
TECHNDI OGY INC.
Ronen, J., and Claerbout, J.F., 1985.
Swface-consistent residual statics 400, 540 . 5th Avenue SW.
estimation by stack-power maxi- Calgary, Alberta T2P OM2
mization: Geophysics, V 50, p.
2759-2767.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 30 _