Downloaded 10/08/14 to 199.189.110.30. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.

org/

1
Introduction
1.1

(1983), McQuillin et al. (1984), Telford et al. (1984, 1990),

Parasnis (1986), Waters (1987), Yilmaz (1987), Dobrin
and Savit (1988), Sheriff (1989), and Kearey and Brooks
(1991). Yilmaz (1987) includes some good data examples, especially of residual static corrections.
Over the years, many papers have been presented at
geophysical meetings or published in the literature on
the various aspects of static corrections, many of which
are included here as references. The majority are publications or extended abstracts of presented papers of the
Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) and the
European Association of Exploration Geophysicists
(EAEG).
Throughout this book, many references are made to
R. E. Sheriffs excellent Encyclopedic Dictionary of
Exploration Geophysics to ensure consistency of definitions. Sheriffs (1991) definition of static corrections, often
shortened to statics, is as follows:

DEFINITIONS

Within the geophysical profession, the word static is

associated with several diverse topics:
1. seismic reflection and refraction methods, in
which static corrections are normally applied to
surface topography and near-surface layers;
2. magnetotelluric method (MT), in which static
shifts are used to adjust the data for resistivity
inhomogeneities or topography; and
3. spontaneous potential (SP) logs, in which the static SP is a measure of the voltage between a thick,
clean, water sand and the shale line.
A general dictionary, however, is likely to state that
static refers to forces in equilibrium or to bodies at rest,
that is, the opposite of dynamic. This book addresses the
first of the geophysical topics listed abovestatic corrections within the context of seismic reflection and
refraction methods, with an emphasis on the reflection
method.
Static corrections are normally associated with land
and transition zone surveys. The majority of marine surveys have minimal static problems associated with the
near surface, but there are some areas where static corrections play an important part.
Static corrections are covered briefly, with varying
amounts of detail, in geophysical textbooks such as
Heiland (1940), Nettleton (1940), Jakosky (1950), Dobrin
(1976), Dix (1981), Griffiths and King (1981), Rogers
(1981), Sheriff and Geldart (1982, 1983, 1995), Kleyn

Corrections applied to seismic data to compensate

for the effects of variations in elevation, weathering
thickness, weathering velocity, or reference to a datum.
The objective is to determine the reflection arrival times
which would have been observed if all measurements
had been made on a (usually) flat plane with no weathering or low-velocity material present. These corrections
are based on uphole data, refraction first-breaks, and/or
event smoothing. (a) Uphole-based statics involve the
direct measurement of vertical traveltimes from a
buried source. This is usually the best static correction
method where feasible. (b) First-break based statics are
the most common method of making field (or first-esti-

Downloaded 10/08/14 to 199.189.110.30. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Static Corrections for Seismic Reflection Surveys

mate) static corrections, especially when using surface
sources. The ABC method and variations for more complex assumptions are used for this determination. (c)
Data-smoothing statics methods assume that patterns of
irregularity that most events have in common result
from near-surface variations and hence static-correction
trace shifts should be such as to minimize such irregularities. Most automatic statics-determination programs
employ statistical methods to achieve the minimization.
(d) Underlying the concept of static corrections is the
assumption that a simple time shift of an entire seismic
trace will yield the seismic record which would have
been observed if the geophones had been displaced vertically downward to the reference datum, an assumption not strictly true.

The various points listed in this definition are covered in detail in later chapters of this book. Static corrections are associated with data acquisition (datum or
field static corrections), data processing (residual static
corrections), and interpretation of the sections produced
(isopachs, general quality control, and critique of the
near-surface model). Thus, they do not belong specifically to any one of these three subdisciplines. However,
it is interesting to note that even the computation of the
field static corrections involves the planning and acquisition of data, followed by a limited amount of processing and interpretation, or in summary, the seismic technique in miniature.

1.2

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

To put static corrections into perspective, it is interesting to look at their development starting from the
early days of the seismic method. In a review discussing
the invention of the reflection seismograph, Karcher
(1987, 14) noted that at the end of the survey,
Experiments to determine methods to make time corrections for weathered sections of soil were undertaken
during December 1921. In a reference to development in
the 1920s, Weatherby (1940, 224) stated
The effect of weathering variations was recognized
very early in the work and additional weathering shots
were always taken in shallow shot holes near the recording spread. These gave in effect a short refraction profile
which was solved as a simple two layer case.

In an early paper on the seismic reflection method,

McDermott (1931) indicated that a representative thickness of the weathered layer was about 10 m (30 ft) and
that it had a low velocity of about 600 m/s (2000 ft/s)
compared to a velocity of about 2400 m/s (8000 ft/s) for
the unweathered layer beneath it. The method used to
compute the thickness of the weathered layer was the

refraction method, although on a miniature scale of its

use at that time, which was for the exploration of deep
targets. McDermott stated that there was a need to measure the weathering corrections accurately so that the
slope of the X2T2 plots (offset and time squared) for a
reflection could be used to compute the average velocity down to the reflector. This was then used, together
with any available well control, to estimate the reflector
depth. In a written discussion to this paper, G. H.
Westby stated (McDermott, 1931, 13311333) (see also
Leet, 1938, 401) the following:
Most of the relative errors in the determination of formation datum points by the reflection method are
results of the following causes:
I. Use of erroneous average velocity in calculations
II. Errors in the determination of the travel time of
reflected or direct impulses
III. Insufficient data accurately to correlate reflections from point to point.

Westby then detailed several points under each of

these three topics. The items associated with the near
surface were as follows:
II. Error in the determination of the travel time of
reflected or direct impulses may be caused by
the following:
1. Inability to read records more closely than
Seconds
a. Error in reading weathering record time
break:
0.001
b. Error in reading weathering shot arrival
time:
0.002
c. Error in reading time break of reflection
record:
0.001
d. Error in selecting and reading time of
reflected impulse:
0.001
Total
0.005
To this figure may be added 0.003 which from experience is the probable error in the weathering correction
method. However, as the probable error of the result is
equal to the square root of the sum of the squares of the
individual errors, the probable error from these causes is
0.004 sec or 25 [feet] at 5000 feet (8 m at 1500 m).

Leet (1938, 392) made the following point with

respect to the weathering: Treatment of the weathered
zone represents the most fundamental unsolved problem in reflection shooting from the standpoint of practical operating technique. Extension of results to the next
decimal of accuracy will have to begin with the
improvement of commercial methods for handling the
weathering correction. In his review of recent developments in seismic processing, Schneider (1971, 1047) stated, It is the opinion of the author that the general near-

Downloaded 10/08/14 to 199.189.110.30. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Chapter 1Introduction
surface correction problem is still a long way from being
solved adequately for the range of conditions encountered in seismic prospecting. About 25 years later (or 60
years in the case of Leet), these observations are still pertinent in many areas of the world. The underlying problem in many of these difficult areas is the rapid rate at
which the near surface changes spatially, and it is generally not so much a case of not knowing what to do, but
more of being able to do it economically.
Thus, the near surface has been recognized as a problem since the early days of the seismic method. The
uphole phone, for measuring the time from the dynamite charge in the hole to the surface, was introduced in
1931 (Sheriff and Geldart, 1982, 1995). Some surveys in
the 19351936 time frame successfully used buried geophones so that both sources and receivers were below
the weathered layer (Gaby and Solari, 1948). The invention of the common-depth-point (CDP) technique in
1950 (Mayne, 1956, 1962) and its subsequent introduction to the majority of crews by the mid-1960s did not
cause significant changes in the methods used to compute datum static corrections. They continued to be
computed by the field crew, often based on the refraction method. Analog display systems were upgraded
with moveable heads in the mid-1950s so that static corrections could be applied prior to the production of the
film display (Sheriff, 1985). When CDP techniques were
used, these corrections also included the application of
dynamic corrections prior to the formation of the
summed traces.
The introduction of digital recording and processing
in the 1960s meant that some work was done in the area
of residual static corrections using both manual and
automatic methods (e.g., Hileman et al., 1968). The manual techniques were very time consuming because they
involved picking arrival times for one or more reflections. The scatter of reflection times were then analyzed
and the averaged time shifts or residual static corrections
allocated to the appropriate source and receiver locations. This was often practical, as the standard mode of
recording at that time was 24-trace 6-fold, which meant
that comparatively few traces were recorded each day by
todays standards. The 1970s saw a large increase in the
number of recording channels, and the overall emphasis
moved away from datum or field static corrections to
residual static corrections. These residual corrections
were used to fix all problems, although it was recognized
that some situations were not totally solved by this
approach. This increase also meant that refraction-based
methods in the field, using all the recorded traces, would
have required a substantial increase in the number of
field seismologists allocated to the crew. In addition, the
quality of the field monitors was degraded slightly as
photographic systems were withdrawn and replaced by

dry-write systems. This combination of additional traces

and decrease in quality of the monitors meant that the
field-based approach became impractical.
The 1960s and 1970s also saw the introduction of
many surface sources, such as weight-drop or Thumper
(tradename of Geosource Inc.), Dinoseis (tradename of
Arco Oil and Gas), and vibroseis, which meant that
uphole times from a dynamite charge were no longer
recorded. The other unfortunate consequence of this
(with respect to the near surface) was that in many
areas, the number of uphole surveys recorded to give
velocity and thickness information on the near-surface
layers was limited. This was often due to the extra effort
and cost of a drill crew and possibly dynamite which
had to be included in a surface source acquisition crew.
During the 1970s and early 1980s, the main emphasis
in the area of static corrections was placed on improving
methods for computing residual static corrections. In the
late 1980s, however, considerable efforts were spent on
methods to improve the accuracy of the original datum
or field static corrections. This has been achieved by
analysis of the refracted arrivals obtained on production
reflection records, just as was done up until the 1960s,
and in some areas, through the use of additional deep
uphole control. The use of these refracted arrivals is now
more practical than it was in the 1970s. This is a direct
consequence of the industry moving toward a higher
number of recording channels and a subsequent reduction in both group interval and group (array) length; this
results in less attenuation of the refracted arrivals. The
large number of traces recorded each day meant that full
analysis of these data was initially carried out in a data
processing center. However, it can be performed by the
data acquisition crew, either by limiting the amount of
the data to be analyzed or by allocating sufficient computer resources to the field crew. This is now a practical
proposition as a result of available computer technology.
The Delphi survey (Hewitt, 1983) examined technological forecasting in exploration geophysics for 56
events in the time period 19822000, including several
related to the near surface. For example, it was predicted that by 1995, 25% of seismic data acquisition will be
by individual seismometer recording (Hewitt, 1983,
22). Some experts consulted thought that this value was
too high. Others thought that it would require recording
systems with more than 2000 channels or that it will be
used to reduce noise, help imaging and statics. Another
event, that Near-surface joint refraction-reflection
analysis will be used by 25% of the exploration geophysicists (Hewitt, 1983, 28), was predicted to occur in
1990. Specific comments were dictated by closer group
spacing and single geophone recording and unlikely
to be of use in as much as 25% of exploration prospects.
My observation at the time of writing this book is that

Downloaded 10/08/14 to 199.189.110.30. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Static Corrections for Seismic Reflection Surveys

for land recording, the second event has been achieved.

This is on the basis that refraction data, recorded as part
of the reflection recording, are now frequently used to
assist in the computation of static corrections (see
Chapter 5). With respect to the first event, there is still
some way to go to achieve this prediction.
A large number of patents have been granted over
the years which identify basic methods for acquiring
near-surface information and datum static corrections
and for improvements in one or more facets of these
methods. Many of these are listed as references throughout this book. Since 1939, short summaries of U.S.
patents have been published in GEOPHYSICS. Early
patents for the seismic method (19071949) are listed in
Jakosky (1950, 930937).

(a)
R

Surface

Base of
weathering

Datum

Reflector

1.3

NEAR-SURFACE AND STATIC

CORRECTIONS

The principle behind static corrections is illustrated in

Figure 1-1a, which depicts a simple field experiment
and shows the raypath from a source at location S to a
receiver at location R. Two layers are shown: the weathered layer between the surface and the base of weathering and another layer down to the reflector; the reference
plane or datum is also shown. The raypath in the weathered layer is close (~15) to the vertical and then changes
direction at the base of the weathered layer, where the
velocity typically increases appreciably. The transmitted
or refracted angle is defined by Snells Law.
The concept of static corrections implies that the
experiment in Figure 1-1a is replaced with another one
in which the source is vertically beneath S on the datum
plane (at point S in Figure 1-1b) and a receiver is vertically beneath receiver R (at point R). The raypaths in
the layer beneath the base of the weathered layer are
now slightly different from the original experiment in
Figure 1-1a. This illustrates the problem identified in
point (d) of Sheriffs (1991) definition of static corrections (see Section 1.1), that a simple time shift of the seismic trace, by the appropriate static correction, does not
yield the same seismic record that would have been
recorded if the source and receiver were physically
moved down to the reference datum. The discrepancy in
travel paths down to the reflector are minimized if the
raypaths in the weathered layer are close to vertical or if
the datum is close to the base of the weathered layer.
Since the various near-surface layers each have a specific velocity, the question becomes whether it would be
more appropriate to handle all the variations with a
velocity or dynamic correction. Occasions occur when
this may be the preferred route, such as in a wave-equation datuming approach, which I discuss in Chapter 6.

(b)
S

Datum

Reflector

Fig. 1-1. Schematic cross-section of the earth, with raypath from a source to a receiver, illustrating the principle
of datum static corrections. (a) Original data, source (S)
and receiver (R) on the surface (physical model). (b)
Pseudo-source (S) and pseudo-receiver (R) located on
the datum or reference plane (nonphysical model).

At several places in the book, I mention that there is an

overlap of when an anomaly should be considered as a
static or a velocity anomaly. As a result, several colleagues have commented that it might have been preferable for a book to be written on velocity, with static corrections included as just one section! The simplified
approach for datum static corrections, as shown in
Figure 1-1a, works well in most areas; however, certain
steps must be taken to minimize errors introduced as a
result of this simplified approach. These are mainly concerned with the computation of the stacking velocity
and subsequent application of the correct moveout correction, which are discussed in Chapters 3 and 6.
The methods traditionally used to compute datum
static corrections are based on a comparatively simple
near-surface model consisting of the surface elevation,
the base of the weathered layer, and the velocities in and
below the weathered layer. The base of the weathered
layer is normally interpolated between control points
obtained from deep upholes and/or by a special refrac-

Downloaded 10/08/14 to 199.189.110.30. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Chapter 1Introduction

tion weathering (low-velocity layer or LVL) crew. I show

later that the interpolation is interpretive; different seismologists can be expected to produce different interpolated values between control points in many areas or situations, a point that cannot be overemphasized.
As shown in Chapter 2, the near surface changes
rapidly in some areas, both in the horizontal and vertical
directions; this means that in many cases near-surface
information is undersampled. Near-surface velocities
must be understood in order to map the deeper layers, a
thought stressed by Goupillaud (1961, 757) who stated

val, sample period, and frequency) are scaled appropriately. However, static corrections do not scale, and a 1ms static correction error is independent of the type of
survey and becomes more of a problem at higher frequencies; this is because it represents a greater fraction
of the dominant period of the data (Ziolkowski and
Lerwill, 1979). I discuss the impact of static correction
errors on the data in Chapter 6.

We conclude by stressing again the importance of

near-surface velocity information, so rarely available
with our present techniques, hoping that, when this
information is properly used, the efficiency of the seismic
method will be increased sufficiently to make it applicable to a new range of exploration problems.

Where appropriate, each chapter in this book

includes descriptions of both compressional- and shearwave surveys; 2-D, crooked-line, and 3-D surveys; and
land and marine surveys. My view on future trends and
a brief summary of static corrections can be found at the
end of this chapter. The key topics in each of the following chapters are summarized below. Also, a complete
listing of headings in each chapter is included in the
Contents at the beginning of this book.

In some areas, more information is used in the generation of the near-surface model, such as additional geologic control or additional refraction information. The
refraction information is used to improve the sampling
of the data in the horizontal direction by, for example,
analysis of the refraction arrivals recorded as first arrivals
on the production reflection records. In some areas, it is
necessary for the deep uphole control to be such that the
hole is at a depth equal to or greater than the depth of
the shallowest reflection observed on the production
data. This implies that the data acquisition parameters
must be designed to allow for these shallow horizons to
be mapped.
The computation of datum static corrections is generally undertaken by the field seismologist on the data
acquisition crew. Regardless of where the static corrections are computed or by what method, the capability
must exist for them be recomputed or upgraded in the
data processing center. This applies to the computation
of any attributes that are subject to interpretive judgment and thus leads to the need for residual static corrections. In some areas, especially where low-spatial-frequency (long-wavelength) variations occur in the residual static corrections, a substantial input is often needed
by the interpreter. This reemphasizes the often interpretive nature of static corrections.
In dealing with the near surface and with datum static corrections, the objectives of the survey must be analyzed. If the target is very shallow, such as for engineering purposes, the static corrections probably refer only
to the shallow portion of the near surface. For deeper
targets, such as used in most oil exploration surveys,
even the shallow target of the engineering survey can be
treated as part of the near surface. When dealing with
these different scales, most parameters (e.g., group inter-

1.4

CHAPTER SYNOPSES

Chapter 2. The nature of the near surface is

described, both in terms of topography and the weathered layer. Some near-surface parameters are shown to
be time variant. Near-surface velocities and their variability, both horizontally and vertically, are described.
Chapter 3. Here I describe the numerical computation of datum static corrections to demonstrate the simplicity of the procedure, providing an appropriate nearsurface model has been defined. This includes comments on the appropriate reference plane or datum
plane and replacement velocity. An overview is given of
various geophysical techniques (including nonseismic)
that can be used to derive near-surface information. The
need to integrate all available information and the interpretive nature of spatial interpolation are discussed. I
also stress the importance of labeling the final section
and archiving the near-surface information.
Chapter 4. This chapter covers the description of
uphole surveys, including their purpose, various methods of data acquisition, sampling requirements, and
interpretation of the results. Extension of the analysis
away from the borehole using offset recording or holeto-hole surveys is discussed.
Chapter 5. Refraction surveys are described here,
including basic theory, acquisition techniques, and
methods used to pick and interpret refraction data. I
describe the conversion of refraction times to depth,
including error analysis due to the uncertainty of nearsurface velocities.

Downloaded 10/08/14 to 199.189.110.30. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Static Corrections for Seismic Reflection Surveys

Chapter 6. The concept of static corrections is examined, which shows that this is not a good approximation
in some situations and that a technique such as waveequation datuming should be used instead. Techniques
to differentiate between surface and subsurface features
are described, as are the impact of static errors on velocity estimates and various data processing techniques.
Chapter 7. Here I describe the methods used to compute residual static corrections, including the basis of
manual approaches used. This includes those analyzed
in the common source, receiver, midpoint, and offset
domains. The extension to long spatial wavelengths (low
frequency) and phase corrections is described, as are
more recent techniques such as stack power, simulated
annealing, and genetic algorithms. The last section in the
chapter is on the important topic of quality control (QC).
Chapter 8. The role of interpretation is covered here.
Various schemes are described that can be used when
static anomalies are still present or suspected in the final
seismic section. I also list the various factors that can
cause sections to mis-tie.

1.5

FUTURE TRENDS

Major changes have occurred in the seismic reflection

method since the mid-1960s, which saw the introduction of digital technology and common-midpoint (CMP)
recording. These include an increase in the number of
recording channels and associated group interval reduction, 3-D surveys, new processing techniques, and a
rapid decrease in computer costs for specific seismic
processes. For static corrections in land and transition
zone surveys, a balanced approach is now generally
used, with an emphasis on obtaining a good set of
datum static corrections, followed by residual static corrections. However, static corrections, including residual
static corrections, are applied only to a few marine surveys. There is now more recognition of the value of
uphole surveys which are used to gain additional detail
about the near surface; their usage should minimize the
number of false structures that are drilled.
In my view, too many geophysicists see datum and
residual static corrections as purely an array of numbers,
with no geologic significance. In reality, their magnitude
depends on the near-surface geology. An example of this
lack of understanding is that many believe that if the reference datum is close to the surface, there is less need for
near-surface control. This implies that static corrections
just represent the time from the surface down to datum.
This may be appropriate in a few areas, but not on a general basis (as indicated later in point 5 in Section 1.6). I
hope that this book will help many to obtain a broader
understanding of the subject.

In the future, seismic surveys are likely to be used to

search for more subtle and smaller features. This will
require higher frequency data, along with more precision in data acquisition and processing. There are likely
to be more areas explored where the uncertainty in the
near surface is equivalent to, or larger than, the structural relief at the target level. To minimize the impact of
this problem, current practices must be improved so
that errors are reduced. It would be beneficial to have a
better and more cost-effective way of obtaining layer
thicknesses and velocities which could be used to define
a near-surface model. With the techniques currently
available, such a detailed model can be obtained, but it
is expensive to produce.
With this as general background, I envisage the following changes in the area of static corrections. They are
conservative in that they are in the realm of continuing
development rather than radically new ideas.
1. The current approach artificially splits the corrections associated with the velocity field, from the earths
surface to a given horizon, into static corrections and
dynamic corrections based on the stacking velocity. This
is convenient, but it is only an approximation and therefore, in a strict sense, incorrect. The future will see a
move toward a more integrated approach, such that
datum static corrections will eventually be treated as
part of the velocity field and will be consistent with the
wave equation. Wave-equation datuming (described in
Section 6.2.3) is part of this refinement. Similarly, modelbased ray-traced or dynamic static corrections are also a
step in the right direction (see Section 6.2.4). This change
will be implemented where the more accurate output
can justify the additional cost and is likely to be applied
to only a subset of all surveys in the next decade or so.
The fine-tuning of original estimates with residual static
corrections is likely to continue as a separate process.
The implication of no datum static corrections does
not mean that we can forget the near surface. This is
because the near-surface velocity field will need to be
sampled adequately with about the same requirements
as for datum static corrections, with possibly more
detailed spatial sampling. The current move to prestack
depth migration, for example, highlights the need for a
good earth model, and this includes the near surface.
Thus, the need for near-surface information, from both
geologic and geophysical observations, will continue.
2. Static corrections are computed only for a few
marine surveys, such as large offshore delta systems or
where the water bottom is extremely irregular. For the
latter case, the move to a wave-equation treatment of the
near surface (as defined in point 1 above and in Section
6.2.3) is appropriate. With a requirement of higher frequency data, the number of areas where static correc-

Downloaded 10/08/14 to 199.189.110.30. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Chapter 1Introduction
tions are applied will increase significantly. Thus, application of residual static corrections, currently done in a
few surveys, would become routine for all marine surveys. Unlike land surveys, there should be no need to
cycle through several iterations of residual static corrections and velocity analyses. One run of residual static
corrections, apart from lines where the corrections are
significant, will normally be sufficient.
3. The current practice of surface consistency in the
evaluation of residual static corrections will continue to
be eroded when the combination of signal-to-noise ratio
of the data and available surface redundancy are sufficient. This will allow for time shifts that are dependent
on time, offset or angle, and azimuth. That is, there will
be more recognition of the raypaths traveled for each
combination of source and receiver positions.
4. It is likely that development will continue for
residual static correction analysis routines for both
short- and long-wavelength anomalies. This may, for
example, involve analysis on a model-dependent basis
using an inversion approach. The introduction of data
processes that move data laterally, such as dip moveout
(DMO) or prestack migration, must be placed correctly
in the processing sequence. This is to ensure that the
assumption of surface consistency (or close to surface
consistency) in residual static corrections is maintained.
5. Recall from Section 1.2 that one forecast in the
Delphi survey was that 25% of seismic data acquisition
will be by individual seismometer recording (Hewitt,
1983, 22) and that this would most likely occur by 1995. I
noted that there is still some way to go to achieve this
prediction. One aspect of this point is the changing treatment of coherent noise attenuation. Initially, this was
achieved with appropriate source and receiver arrays
during data acquisition, which were generally long. This
has now been changed to a balanced approach between
acquisition and processing, with the shorter wavelength
noise attenuated in the field and the longer wavelengths
by a processing technique (see Section 6.6.1).
Because the arrays used during acquisition are
reduced in length with this approach, the problems of
intra-array static corrections are reduced. However, this
is often more than offset by the requirements of preserving higher frequency data. Intra-array static corrections
must therefore be accommodated during data processing (e.g., array forming), together with differential
moveout to minimize the attenuation of higher frequency data. If the lateral extent of the arrays is further
reduced, and in the limit the array consists of a single
receiver, then this procedure can still be used, although
a larger volume of data must be recorded. The alterna-

tive approach is to perform the array forming in the

field, as currently practiced on some marine surveys.
This would require the estimation and application of
differential time corrections. Efficient techniques that
could compute these corrections would be required and
would need to address the possibility of significant
coherent noise on the recorded data.
6. There is likely to be an increase in the number of
multicomponent surveys. The implication of this to static corrections is a significant amount of additional work
because (as shown in Section 3.7) there is no simple relationship between P-wave and S-wave velocities of nearsurface layers. In addition, the near-surface model can
be dramatically different between the two types of surveys. Furthermore, there is the possible added complexity of converted-wave surveys, in which the conversion
point should ideally be known if the correct time shifts
are to be applied.
Trying to predict future trends depends on the quality of the crystal ball available. It will therefore be interesting to look back in 20 years and analyze the changes
that have actually taken place.

1.6

SUMMARY

The following points state the underlying principles

and summarize some of the practical issues associated
with static corrections. They are the key messages that
should be remembered from this book; later chapters
cover these points in detail.
1. Static corrections are based on a simple model,
namely, vertical travel in the near surface. The
correct approach is to treat the near surface as a
velocity anomaly.
2. Considerable effort is often required to obtain an
adequate near-surface model; this should not be
made too complex unless dictated by the available data.
3. There is no universal method for the computation
of datum static corrections. (Refraction data
together with uphole control is often used.)
4. Although static corrections are normally considered to be applicable only to land and transition
zone surveys, they can be important on some
marine surveys.
5. Datum static corrections are generally interpretive and are not sacrosanct. They must accommodate all anomalous near-surface layers regardless
of the reference datum elevation.
6. Good static corrections are required for a good

Downloaded 10/08/14 to 199.189.110.30. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Static Corrections for Seismic Reflection Surveys

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

stacking velocity analysis and vice versa. A floating or intermediate datum should be used for
moveout corrections, especially when the datum
static corrections are large.
Most residual static correction approaches are
best at solving small time corrections with wavelengths up to about one spreadlength. This
implies that good or accurate datum static corrections are required.
Wave-equation datuming or layer replacement
may need to be used when vertical travel in the
near-surface layers is a poor approximation; this
technique also requires a well-defined near-surface model.
The final seismic section should include details
on how the static corrections were computed,
including the near-surface model and a display of
the datum and residual static corrections.
Static corrections are the concern of acquisition,
processing, and interpretation staff. Good communication among the relevant technical specialists
performing the different tasks on a survey is
therefore required.
Static corrections, especially their long-wavelength (low-frequency) component, affect the
structural picture.
The interpreter must know what was done to the
data. The seismic section must be analyzed in
conjunction with the near-surface information.

REFERENCES
Dix, C. H., 1981, Seismic prospecting for oil: Internat. Human
Res. Dev. Corp.
Dobrin, M. B., 1976, Introduction to geophysical prospecting:
McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Dobrin, M. B., and Savit, C. H., 1988, Introduction to geophysical prospecting: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Gaby, P. P., and Solari, A. J., 1948, Geophysical history of the
McDonald Island gas field, San Joaquin County,
California, in Nettleton, L. L., Ed., Geophysical case histories: Soc. Expl. Geophys., 1, 602607.
Goupillaud, P. L., 1961, An approach to inverse filtering of
near surface layer effects from seismic records:
Geophysics, 26, 754760. Reprinted, 1988, in Lines, L. R.,
Ed., Inversion of geophysical data: Soc. Expl. Geophys.,
168174.
Griffiths, D. H., and King, R. F., 1981, Applied geophysics for
geologists and engineers: Pergamon Press, Inc.
Heiland, C. A., 1940, Geophysical exploration: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.
Hewitt, M. R., 1983, Delphi survey: The Leading Edge, 2, No.
6, 1831.
Hileman, J. A., Embree, P., and Pflueger, J. C., 1968,
Automated static corrections: Geophys. Prosp., 16,
326358.

Jakosky, J. J., 1950, Exploration geophysics: Trija Publ. Co.

Karcher, J. C., 1987, The reflection seismograph: its invention
and use in the discovery of oil and gas fields: The Leading
Edge, 6, No. 11, 1019.
Kearey, P., and Brooks, M., 1991, An introduction to geophysical exploration: Blackwell Scientific Publications, Inc.
Kleyn, A. H., 1983, Seismic reflection interpretation: Applied
Science Publ. Ltd.
Leet, L. D., 1938, Practical seismology and seismic prospecting, in Mather, K. F., Ed., The century earth science series:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.
Mayne, W. H., 1956, Seismic surveying: United States Patent
2 732 906; (abstract): Geophysics, 21, 856.
Mayne, W. H., 1962, Common reflection point horizontal
stacking techniques: Geophysics, 27, 927938. Reprinted,
1985, Geophysics, 50, 18561867.
McDermott, E., 1931, Application of seismography to geological problems: AAPG Bull., 15, 13111334. Reprinted, 1947,
in Early geophysical papers of the Society of Exploration
Geophysicists: Soc. Expl. Geophys., 2952.
McQuillin, R., Bacon, M., and Barclay, W., 1984, An introduction to seismic interpretation, reflection seismics in petroleum exploration: Graham & Trotman Ltd.
Nettleton, L. L., 1940, Geophysical prospecting for oil:
McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Parasnis, D. S., 1986, Principles of applied geophysics:
Chapman and Hall.
Rogers, A. W., 1981, Determination of static corrections, in
Fitch, A. A., Ed., Developments in geophysical exploration
methods, No. 2: Applied Science Publ. Ltd., 136.
Schneider, W. A., 1971, Developments in seismic data processing and analysis (19681970): Geophysics, 36,
10431073.
Sheriff, R. E., 1985, History of geophysical technology
through advertisements in Geophysics: Geophysics, 50,
22992410.
Sheriff, R. E., 1989, Geophysical methods: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Sheriff, R. E., 1991, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Exploration
Geophysics: Soc. Expl. Geophys.
Sheriff, R. E., and Geldart, L. P., 1982, Exploration seismology,
Vol. 1, History, theory and data acquisition: Cambridge
Univ. Press.
Sheriff, R. E., and Geldart, L. P., 1983, Exploration seismology,
Vol. 2, Data-processing and interpretation: Cambridge
Univ. Press.
Sheriff, R. E., and Geldart, L. P., 1995, Exploration seismology:
Cambridge Univ. Press.
Telford, W. M., Geldart, L. P., Sheriff, R. E., and Keys, D. A.,
1984, Applied geophysics: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Telford, W. M., Geldart, L. P., and Sheriff, R. E., 1990, Applied
geophysics: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Waters, K. H., 1987, Reflection seismology, a tool for energy
resource exploration: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Weatherby, B. B., 1940, The history and development of seismic prospecting: Geophysics, 5, 215230. Reprinted, 1948,
in Nettleton, L. L., Ed., Geophysical case histories: Soc.
Expl. Geophys., 1, 720.
Yilmaz, O., 1987, Seismic data processing: Soc. Expl.
Geophys.
Ziolkowski, A., and Lerwill, W. E., 1979, A simple approach
to high resolution seismic profiling for coal: Geophys.
Prosp., 27, 360393. Reprinted, 1986, in Buchanan, D. J.,
and Jackson, L. J., Eds., Coal geophysics: Soc. Expl.
Geophys., 154187.