Thm unrmaronabls
8UCCrr88 of
rrflmction
By FRANKLYN
Senior Research Scientisl
Exxon Production Research Co.
Houston, Texas
T he Nobel Laureate, Eugene Wigner, has often re-
marked on the unreasonable successof mathematics in
physics. Why, he has asked, should a discipline based
on consistency of man-made rules be so successful in
describing phenomena of the real world? A question
that intrigues and worries one of this century’s most
eminent scientistsis not one I shall presume to address.
However, there are shallow aspects of Professor
Wigner’s deep inquiry that concern those of us involved
with developing seismic techniques for geophysical ex-
ploration. In view of the known complexity of real earth
sections, why are the simple methods of exploration
seismologistsso successfulin picturing what lies beneath
our feet?
The question is not as trivial as it must seem to readers
of The Leading Edge. Before reflections were first re-
corded in the field, more than one well-known physicist
was convinced there was no chance of detecting
reflected energy at all. Successis a fine argument; signal
detection was established. Signal processing and inter-
pretation-the path that leads to the depiction of the
subsurface as a geologist seesthe subsurface-became
important. It is the successof processing and interpre-
tation but mostly processing that will concern us here.
For the first 30 years of reflection seismology most
practitioners thought of simple subsurfaces and rays
traversing those subsurfaces. There were exceptions of
course-Frank Rieber’s Sonograph processedcomplete
waveforms and an occasional paper based on wavefront
considerations was published, but those who were ex-
tracting travel times from field records usually thought
of energy traveling as rays through homogeneous
material, impinging on a plane interface, and returning
16 GEOPHYSICS: THE LEADING EDGE OF EXPLORATION DECEMBEK
mmimmoloqy
K. LEVIN
to a geophone on the surface.
T hose few corrections that were applied to data were
ray methods. Static corrections assumed rays delayed by
amounts that varied with the thickness of the weathered
material at the receiving station. Normal moveout cor-
rections assumedrays whose travel times plotted against
source-to-receiver separations gave hyperbolas.
Correction forms for wells shot with offset sourceswere
set up to handle straight ray paths. Shear waves were ig-
nored.
Logging, which matured along with reflection seis-
mology, showed real earth sectionsare bedded on scales
as fine as a sheet of paper and as gross as a one-story
building. Working in offices in small towns and camps
all over the world, geophysicistsknew the real earth was
complicated but nonetheless were content with an im-
aginary earth homogeneous down to a few reflecting
planes with a weathered zone to be removed before
mapping began.
W ere those interpreting reflection data stupid or stub-
born? They were neither. Readers of this paper, many
of whom sit down before a computer terminal as they
begin their day’s work, will have difficulty conceiving of
a time when data reached interpreters as 12 wiggly traces
on long strips of photographic paper, when reflection
times were counted off and picks marked by hand, when
data correction meant substituting into equations eval-
uated with the aid of tables, logarithms, or hand-
cranked calculators.
Frequency analysis, perhaps by repeated tracing of a
waveform as counters rotated on a sphere,was too labor-
ious to be routine. We need not ask why early inter-
preters of seismic data assumed simple earth models
1984
traversedby rays. The answeris obvious:interpreters
did what waspracticalwith the tools availableto them.
W e shouldaskdifferentquestions- why did the meth-
odsdevelopedby thegeophysical pioneers,methodsbased
on modelsthat bore only a faint resemblanceto earth
sectionsfound by logging,work so well? Why did such
obviouslycrudeapproximations to realityyieldmapsthat
led to reflectionseismology’sbecomingthe mostimpor-
tant tool of a petroleumexplorationist? Why weren’t the
grosslyincorrectmodelslong agotossedinto the dustbin
of outmodedtechnologyinsteadof retainedasthe basis
of popular processes routinely appliedto seismicdata?
Why did the methods developed by
the geophysical pioneers, methods
based on models that bore only a faint
resemblanceto earth sectionsfound by
logging, work so well?
1 offer some superficial answers.1 also await re-
joinders and commentsfrom readersmore skilled in
theory than I or with deeper physicalinsight than I
possess.Seismicwavelengthsare long, tens of meters
long. As a result, seismic pulses integrate across,
averageacrossthe rapid changesseenby loggingsondes.
Inhomogeneitiessmallcomparedwith the extent in the
earth of a seismicpulsehardly affect the energypassing
them.
I n addition, if the earth section reasonablycan be
representedas consistingof bedsseparatedby horizon-
tal interfaces, and if source-to-receiverseparations
aren’t large, Dix’s 1955paper showedthat indeedpro-
per averaging of velocities and thicknesseslets us
replacethe material above a reflectingplaneby homo-
geneousmaterial.The resultingtime-distancecurvewill
be hyperbolic.
A poor approximationto reality you say?Certainlya
poor approximationbut one good enoughto let rapid
velocity analysisand common midpoint stackingbe
among the most powerful of the processesapplied to
seismicdata. In detail the model often fails; time-dis-
tancedata scatterand fitting a hyperbolato them canbe
a triumph of faith over sense.Amplitudesdecaymore
rapidly than geometricspreadingpredictsor vary errati-
cally. Still, largestructuraltrapsare imagedwell enough
for thosewho drill wellseventhoughstratigraphictraps
may be missed.And we can justify static corrections,
sincewaves,traveling much more slowlyin weathered
materialthan in the rock below, bendnearly vertically.
Be fore continuing,let me wiggleon my hook a bit. I’ve
beenusingexpressions soimpreciseasto shocka careful
reader, expressionssuchas “reasonablyrepresented,”
“poor approximation,” “ good enough,” and the like.
The list will grow, for whenwe deal with earthsections,
we are involvedwith systemsthat rangefrom thosewell
GEOPHYSICS: THE LEADING
describedby the simplemodelsof early geophysicists to
systemspoorly approximated by those models but
systemsstill yielding data from which an experienced
interpretercan deducestructure.Quantitativeconsider-
ations, desirableas they are in technicalpapers,here
would cloudrather than clarify the discussion.
The field and processingtechniquesI have touched
upon are memoriesto someof us and talestold by old
mento youngerreadersof The Leading Edge. Today we
have massiveamountsof data processedwith the most
powerful computers that the market offers. What
modelsunderliethe processes routinelyappliedin com-
puter centers?
As mentionedbefore, unlike the wickedwizard in the
story of Aladdin, we don’t alwaysoffer new lampsfor
old. Static correctionsstill assumeenergypassingver-
tically throughthe weathering,or if not vertically,at an
angle not far from vertical. For common midpoint
stacking and velocity analysis rays may be traced
throughfairly complexsubsurfaces, subsurfaces where
not all interfacesare horizontal planes,but it’s not un-
commonto fall backon subsurfaces geophysicists active
years ago would recognize.Gaussianbeamsoffer one
way to add amplitude information to ray tracing.
However, many data processors are contentwith plane
wave reflection coefficients, perhapscoefficientsfor
reflectionfor planeinterfacesseparatingtwo solids.
When producingsyntheticseismograms for bedding
as detailedas that shownby logs, geophysicists don’t
evenray trace. They assumeplanewavesnormallyinci-
dent on bedsseparatedby interfacesas smoothas mir-
rors. Multiple reflectionsmay or may not be included,
dependingon an interpreter’sknowledge,prejudices,or
perhapswhat he learnedfrom a fortunecookie.Clearly,
the foundationsfor someprocesses commonlyapplied
Unlike the wicked wizard in the story
of Aladdin, we don’t always offer new
lamps for old. Static corrections still
assume energy passing vertically
through the weathering, or if not ver-
tically, at an angle not far from vertical.
to seismicdata are shaky;the modelson whichthe pro-
cessesare basedresemblereal earth sectionsonly in a
grosssense.Yet, applicationof the processes
produces
data sections geologists use and use successfully.
Wigner’s unreasonable successof mathematics in
physics is matched by the unreasonablesuccessof
assumedmodelsin explorationgeophysics.
H avethere, then, beenno real advancesin the models
that buttressroutine seismicdata processing? A great
step forward was taken when geophysicists began to
migratedata with wave equationmethods.Wave equa-
tionsdescribethe way elasticwavestravelin ideal fluids
and solids.Togetherwith initial conditionsthat givethe
stateof the systembefore the sourcewasactivatedand
EDGE OF EXPLORATION DECEMBER 1984 17
 boundary conditionsthat specify the systemin as great
detail as we wish, solutionsof the wave equation should
reproducepreciselywhat we record in the field. Should
reproduce precisely, but don’t reproducepreciselywhat
we record. Partly we fail becauseof finite resources.
Even today there is no computer large enough to rou-
tinely apply processesbased on the wave equation for
solidsto data from a three-dimensionalseismicsurvey
over a complex subsurface. Partly we fail becausewe
use too simplean equation, an equation that ignoresor
introduces incorrectly loss mechanisms, an equation
that doesn’t handle correctly the properties of weath-
ered material. And partly we fail becausewe really
can’t prescribeboundary conditions or treat deviations
from the material properties of ideal fluids and solids.

If we were able to specify our subsurfacein detail and

knew the physicalpropertiesof every chunk of rock, we
wouldn’t have needed the seismicsurvey. Becausewe
have limited resources, use equations that are overly
simple, and lack complete knowledgeof earth sections,
even wave equation processesimply modelsdiffering in
major respectsfrom reality.
Those of us who remember seismicdata of 30 years
ago marvel at the beauty of today’s fully migrated,three-
dimensional data sections and time slices. But mar-
velous as today’s processing is, the processing can
never be perfect, for it is basedon imperfect models. By
any reasonable standard, the successof reflection
seismologyis remarkable but the successis not com-
pletely reasonable. C
Franklyn K. Levin obtained his BS in physicsfrom Purdue
Universityin 1943and hb PhD from the Universityof W,%consin
in 1949.He thenjoined Carter Oil, now Exxon, wherehe holds
the highesttechnicalpositionas seniorresearchscienttit.Levins‘
numerous papers in Geophysics merited two co-authored
Best PaperAwards.In 1976 he wasSEC’s Distinguished Lec-
turer.As one of the Society’smostactivemembers,he hasserved
on various committees and has been representativeat the
American Associationfor the Advancement of Science,and
specialeditor of the SEC Reprint Series,since1975 and 1977,
respectively.An SEC Honorary Member since1978, Levin will
receivethis year’s ReginaldFessendenAward.

18 GEOPHYSICS: THE LEADING EDGE OF EXPLORATION DECEMBER 1984