You must log in to edit PetroWiki. Help with editing

Content of PetroWiki is intended for personal use only and to supplement, not replace, engineering judgment. SPE disclaims any and all liability for your use of such content. More information


Seismic profiling

PetroWiki
Revision as of 13:55, 3 June 2015 by Denise Watts (Denisewatts) (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

In some reservoir applications, seismic data are acquired with downhole sources and receivers. If the receiver is stationed at various depth levels in a well and the source remains on the surface, the measurement is called vertical seismic profiling (VSP). This technique produces a high-resolution, 2D image that begins at the receiver well and extends a short distance (a few tens of meters or a few hundred meters, depending on the source offset distance) toward the source station. This image, a 2D profile restricted to the vertical plane passing through the source and receiver coordinates, is useful in tying seismic responses to subsurface geologic and engineering control.

If the source is deployed at various depth levels in one well and the receiver is placed at several depth stations in a second well, the measurement is called crosswell seismic profiling (CSP). Images made from CSP data have the best spatial resolution of any seismic measurement used in reservoir characterization because a wide range of frequencies is recorded. CSP data are useful for creating high-resolution images of interwell spaces and for monitoring fluid movements between wells. However, a CSP image is also a 2D profile with the image limited to the vertical plane that passes through the source and receiver coordinates. This article includes brief descriptions of the fundamentals of subsurface VSP and CSP technologies to complement the descriptions of surface-positioned seismic technology.

Vertical seismic profiling

In VSP, a seismic sensor is lowered to a sequence of selected depths in a well by wireline. Fig. 1 shows the source-receiver geometry involved in VSP. A wall-locked seismic sensor is manipulated downhole by wireline so that the receiver occupies a succession of closely spaced vertical stations. This receiver records the total seismic wavefield, both downgoing and upgoing events, produced by a surface-positioned energy source. Only 6 receiver stations are indicated here for simplicity, but a typical VSP consists of 75 to 100 receiver stations. The vertical spacing between successive stations is a few tens of feet. A common receiver spacing is 50 ft (15 m). The horizontal distance, X, between the surface source and the downhole receiver is the offset and can assume different magnitudes, depending on the specific VSP imaging application. Fig. 1 depicts a VSP measurement made in a vertical wellbore, but the VSP technique can also be implemented in deviated wells.[1]

Because the receiver stations are aligned vertically, the data-recording procedure is called VSP to distinguish the technique from conventional horizontal seismic profiling, in which seismic receivers are deployed across the surface of the Earth. In horizontal seismic profiling along the Earth surface, only upgoing seismic wavefields are recorded. The crucial information of the downgoing wavefields is not available to assist seismic data processors and interpreters. Seismic data recorded with a vertical receiver array have many valuable applications,[1][3] but the only uses stressed here are the abilities of such data to calibrate stratigraphic depth to specific waveform features of surface-recorded seismic reflection data and to provide an independent, high-resolution image of the subsurface in close proximity to the VSP receiver well.

Velocity check-shot data are recorded with the same source-receiver geometry used for VSP data recording (Fig. 1). However, the vertical distance between successive receiver stations is on the order of 500 ft (150 m) or more, compared with a smaller station spacing of approximately 50 ft (15 m) used to record VSP data. This order-of-magnitude difference in the spatial sampling of subsurface seismic wavefields is the principal difference between VSP and velocity check-shot data. The primary use of velocity check-shot data is to create a rigorous relationship between stratigraphic depth coordinates and seismic image-time coordinates. These depth-to-time relationships are critical for transforming log data and engineering data from the depth domain to the seismic image-time domain. This coordinate transformation allows critical geologic and engineering information to be associated with proper data windows in the seismic image.

Because equivalent source-receiver recording geometries are used, velocity check-shot data can provide a rigorous relationship between stratigraphic depth and seismic travel-time, just as VSP data do. One shortcoming of check-shot data, however, is that they do not provide an independent seismic image that can be correlated with surface-recorded seismic reflection images. Such a correlation can verify the precise amount of time shift that should be imposed to bring subsurface stratigraphy into exact phase agreement with a surface-recorded 3D seismic image. To a seismic interpreter, two images are in phase agreement when the peaks and troughs of the two sets of wiggle-trace data occur at the same time coordinates over a window of interest and the waveshapes of key events in the two images are similar over that window. In contrast to check-shot data, VSP data provide an independent seismic image, and this VSP image is the unique feature of the VSP technique that allows subsurface stratigraphy to be inserted into 3D seismic image volumes at precise seismic travel-time coordinates.[2]

Back to top

Synthetic seismograms

Some seismic interpreters argue that a synthetic seismogram made from sonic and density log data can provide an independent image that can be used to determine the proper time shift between surface-recorded seismic data and check-shot-positioned stratigraphy encountered in the check-shot well. Fig. 2 illustrates the steps taken to create a synthetic seismogram and to use that synthetic model in interpretation.

First, sonic log data and density log data recorded in a chosen calibration well are multiplied to create a log of the layer impedances penetrated by the well (left three curves of Fig. 2). Eq. 1 describes this calculation. Either before or after this multiplication, these log data have to be converted from functions of depth to functions of vertical seismic travel time. Such a transformation is done with a simple equation:

RTENOTITLE....................(1)

RTENOTITLE ....................(2)

The velocity function in this equation is provided by the sonic log used in the calculation. Sonic log data usually have to be adjusted by small percentage amounts so that the integrated sonic log time agrees with seismic check-shot time. With Eq. 3, the time-based layer impedance wave is converted to a time series of reflection coefficients, and an estimated seismic wavelet is convolved with this reflectivity series. The result is the synthetic seismogram trace shown in Fig. 2. The interpretation step is done by comparing the synthetic seismogram with real seismic traces near the calibration well (last step of Fig. 2). During this comparison, the synthetic trace is shifted up and down in time to determine what time shift, if any, is required to create an optimal alignment of reflection peaks and troughs between the synthetic and real traces. Most geophysicists would describe the wiggle-trace alignment shown in Fig. 2 as a good phase tie.

RTENOTITLE ....................(3)

Back to top

There are instances in which synthetic seismograms are a poor match to seismic data. When there are only a few well penetrations, this can be a problem best addressed with VSP data. As the number of wells increase and greater areal coverage is provided, poor synthetic data can be eliminated and reliable synthetic seismograms can be used to leverage a limited number of VSP surveys. There are several reasons that synthetic seismograms sometimes fail to provide the reliability needed for calibrating thin-bed stratigraphy with seismic reflection character.[4] The more common failures are usually related to one or more of the following factors:

  • The log-determined velocity and density values used in a synthetic seismogram calculation represent petrophysical properties of rocks that have been mechanically damaged by drilling and altered by the invasion of drilling fluids. In addition, irregular changes in borehole diameter sometimes induce false log responses. As a result, well log determinations of rock velocity and density, which are the fundamental data used to produce the reflection coefficients needed for a synthetic seismogram calculation, may not represent the velocity and density values in undrilled rocks near the logged well, which are the fundamental rock properties that determine the reflection waveshape character of seismic data recorded at the wellsite.
  • A synthetic seismogram represents an estimate of the seismic image that would result if the imaging raypath traveled vertically downward from a source and then reflected vertically upward along that same travel path to a receiver located exactly at the source position. In contrast, each trace of an actual seismic profile is a composite of many field traces that represent wavefield propagation along a series of oblique raypaths between sources and receivers that are laterally displaced from each other, with each of these raypaths reflecting from the same subsurface point. These two images (synthetic seismogram and actual seismic trace) thus involve raypaths that travel through different portions of the Earth.
  • Even when log-determined velocity and density values (and any synthetically calculated seismic reflectivity derived from these log data) represent the correct acoustic impedances of a stratigraphic succession, that stratigraphy may be localized around the logged well and not be areally large enough to be a reflection boundary for a surface-generated seismic wavefield. This situation may be more common in heterogeneous rock systems than many interpreters may appreciate.
  • The effects of the near surface are not included in a synthetic seismogram calculation because logs are not recorded over shallow depths. At some wellsites, the near surface can induce significant effects into the waveform character of surface-recorded seismic data. In contrast, near-surface effects, such as peg-leg multiples, frequency absorption, and phase shifting, are included in VSP data because VSP wavefields propagate through the total stratigraphic section, including the near surface, just as surface-recorded seismic wavefields do.

Back to top

Calibrating seismic image time to depth

VSP recording geometry causes the stratigraphy at the VSP well, where sequence boundaries are known as a function of depth from well log and core control, to be locked to the VSP image. This stratigraphy, in turn, is also known as a function of VSP reflection time. This fixed relationship between stratigraphy and the VSP image results because VSP receivers are distributed vertically through the seismic image space. This data-recording geometry allows both stratigraphic depth and seismic traveltime to be known at each receiver station. The dual-coordinate domain (depth and time) involved in a VSP measurement means that any geologic property known as a function of depth at the VSP well can be accurately positioned on, and rigidly welded to, the time-coordinate axis of the VSP image.

Fig. 3 illustrates the VSP depth-to-time calibration. VSP data are unique in that they are the only seismic data that are recorded simultaneously in the two domains critical to geologic interpretation: stratigraphic depth and seismic reflection time (Fig. 3a). As a result, specific stratigraphic units, known as a function of depth from well log data, can be positioned precisely in their correct VSP-image time windows (Fig. 3b). Each numbered stratigraphic unit shown in Fig. 3b is a thin-bed reservoir penetrated by the VSP well. When the VSP image is shifted up or down to correlate better with a surface-recorded seismic reflection image that crosses the VSP well, the VSP-defined time window that spans each stratigraphic unit should be considered to be welded to the VSP data. This causes the stratigraphy to move up and down in concert with the VSP image during the VSP-to-surface seismic correlation process. The seismic time scale involved in the depth-to-time calibration illustrated here is VSP image time, which may be different from the image time for surface-recorded reflection data. Fig. 4 illustrates the transformation of stratigraphy from VSP image time to 3D seismic image time.

Back to top

The reverse situation is also true; that is, the VSP image could be positioned on, and welded to, the depth-coordinate axis of the stratigraphic column at the VSP wellsite. This option of transforming a VSP image to the stratigraphic depth domain is not often done because the common objective of seismic interpretation is to insert stratigraphy into 3D seismic data volumes that are defined as functions of seismic traveltime, not as functions of stratigraphic depth.

The concept of a welded bond between a VSP image and the stratigraphy at the VSP wellsite means that whenever a VSP image is moved up to better correlate with a 3D seismic image, the stratigraphy moves up by that same amount of time in the 3D image. If the VSP image has to be moved down to create a better waveform character match with the 3D data, then the stratigraphy shifts down by the same amount in the 3D data volume. The fact that VSP data provide an independent image that can be moved up and down to find an optimal match between VSP and 3D reflection character is the fundamental property of the VSP-to-seismic calibration technique, which establishes the correct time shift between 3D seismic reflection time and VSP reflection time.

When the time shift between these two images is determined, the correct time shift between the 3D seismic image and the stratigraphy at the VSP-calibration well is also defined because that stratigraphy is welded to the VSP traveltime scale and moves up and down in concert with the VSP image time coordinate. Fig. 4 shows a specific example of a VSP-based stratigraphic calibration of a 3D data volume. The rigid welding of stratigraphic depth to VSP traveltime as described in Fig. 3 is repeated here as Fig. 4a. In this example, the VSP image must be advanced (moved up) by 18 milliseconds to optimally align with the 3D seismic image at the VSP well (Fig. 4b). Because the stratigraphy penetrated by the VSP well is welded to the VSP image, the positions of the targeted thin-bed time windows in the 3D image also move up by 18 milliseconds to align with their positions in the VSP image. The VSP technique provides not only a time-vs.-depth calibration function but also an independent reflection image that can be time shifted to correlate with a surface-recorded image in the manner shown here. This is the unique feature that makes a VSP calibration of stratigraphy to 3D seismic image time more reliable than a check-shot-based stratigraphic calibration.[2]

Back to top

This VSP image was produced from a large-offset VSP survey in which the offset distance, X (Fig. 1), was a little more than 2,000 ft (600 m). In Fig. 4, the VSP-based interpretation procedure leads to the conclusion that although the tops of thin-bed reservoirs 19C and 15 are positioned at VSP travel times of 1.432 and 1.333 seconds, they have to be inserted into the 3D data volume at 3D seismic travel times of 1.414 and 1.315 seconds.

Three-dimensional VSP data can be acquired when many source stations encircle a receiver well. Technically, there is no barrier to 3D VSP imaging. The major industry objection to 3D VSP technology is the relatively high cost of data acquisition and processing compared with the cost of conventional 3D surface-based seismic imaging. In special cases that have justified the cost, 3D VSP imaging has been done to create high-resolution images around a receiver well. To date, only a few such surveys have been done worldwide.

Crosswell seismic profiling

Fig. 5[5] shows distinctions among the source-receiver geometries involved in vertical seismic profiling (VSP), reverse vertical seismic profiling (RVSP), and crosswell seismic profiling (CSP). Fig. 5a shows the field geometry used in conventional VSP. Source S is positioned on the surface of the Earth, and seismic receiver R is lowered into the well where the data are to be recorded. The direct arrival path is SR, and the reflected travel path is SPR. The position of reflection point P can be varied by moving either source S or receiver R. If the source is directly above the receiver, the measurement is called a zero-offset VSP. If the source is not directly above the receiver, the measurement is called an offset VSP.

In RVSP, the positions of the source and receiver are exchanged. As Fig. 5b shows, receiver R is on the surface for an RVSP, and source S is located in the well. The offset in this diagram has the same meaning as it does for a conventional VSP. (Offset is the lateral distance between a vertical line passing through the source position and a vertical line passing through the receiver position.) In a vertical well, offset can be measured relative to the wellhead, if desired. In nonvertical wells, offset must be measured strictly between the coordinates of the source and the receiver. Three-dimensional RVSP data can be acquired at rather low cost because it is not difficult to distribute a large number of receiver stations on the Earth’s surface in an areal pattern around a source well.

In a CSP measurement, both the source and the receiver are below the surface and in separate wells, as Fig. 5c shows. The direct travel path is again SR, and the reflected path is SPR. One of the attractions of CSP data is that no part of either path SR or path SPR passes through the near-surface weathered layer, as occurs when VSP and RVSP data are recorded. As a result, crosswell data do not suffer a significant loss of the higher-frequency components of the source wavefield. These components are usually attenuated as they pass through the surface weathered layer to complete any of the VSP-type travel paths. Because spatial resolution improves as the frequency content of the signal is increased, crosswell data reveal greater reservoir detail than do either type of VSP measurement.

Back to top

In crosswell data acquisition, two types of source-receiver offsets can be considered, depending on whether the direct or the reflected wavefield is being analyzed. These two offsets are transmission offset and reflection offset, respectively. Transmission offset in a crosswell geometry (Fig. 5c) is measured orthogonal to the direction in which reflection offset (Figs. 5a and 5b) is measured and can be defined as the vertical distance between a horizontal line passing through the source position and a horizontal line passing through the receiver position.

There are three techniques by which the interwell space of a reservoir system can be investigated using CSP data:

  • Attenuation tomography, for which the basic measurement is the amplitude of the direct seismic arrival wavelet
  • Velocity tomography, for which the principal measurement is the traveltime required for the direct seismic arrival to propagate across the interwell space
  • Elastic wavefield imaging

In velocity and attenuation tomography, the only information in the crosswell wavefield that is used are the travel times and amplitudes of the seismic direct arrival. In elastic wavefield imaging, the complete seismic wavefield is used. The major imaging contributions come from the scattered wavefield that occurs after the direct arrival.

Tomographic data are used to infer spatial distributions of rock and fluid properties in interwell spaces. Velocity tomograms are more widely used than are attenuation tomograms. Table 1- Geological influences on acoustic impedance. lists several reservoir properties (lithological variations, porosity, pore fluid) that affect seismic wave velocity. In concept, crosswell velocity tomograms can define the spatial patterns of these properties in the 2D vertical plane passing through the source and receiver wells.

Elastic wavefield imaging of CSP data provides more information about interwell conditions than do velocity tomograms because the images are presented in wiggle-trace format similar to surface-recorded seismic data. Interpreters can use standard seismic interpretation software to analyze these images, calculate amplitude and frequency attributes, and map stratal surfaces.

Because CSP technology provides data with signal frequencies as high as 1000 to 2000 Hz, some CSP data have dominant wavelengths as short as 3 m [10 ft]. Thus, CSP technology provides a better spatial resolution of reservoir properties than does surface-based seismic technology. By acquiring CSP data in a time-lapse sequence (usually 12 to 15 months between surveys), engineers can often track fluid movements in interwell spaces to determine if secondary recovery processes are performing as planned.

Back to top

Fig. 6 gives a visualization of the portions of a crosswell wavefield that are involved in these approaches to CSP imaging. In this measurement, a source was kept at the depth labeled "Source" in a well that was 1,800 ft [550 m] away from the receiver well in which the data were recorded. A wall-clamped 3C geophone was then positioned in the receiver well at depth stations 25 ft apart, starting at a depth of 6,100 ft and extending up to a depth of 500 ft. Fig. 6 displays the response of the vertical geophone in the top wavefield, and the bottom wavefield shows the summed response of both horizontal geophones. It is probably not wise to sum the responses of the two horizontal geophones into a single wavefield because then the SV and SH shear modes cannot be distinguished. As a result of this summation, all shear events in Fig. 6 are labeled as S, not as SH or SV.

The compressional (P) wavefield arrives first and is followed by the shear (S) wavefield. The arrival times of these wavefields are labeled on the shallow geophone trace. The S wavefront has more curvature than the P wavefront because S velocity is less than P velocity. CSP data record both downgoing reflection events (when the reflecting interface is above the receiver depth) and upgoing reflection events (when the reflecting interface is below the receiver depth). The opposite traveling reflection events create a crisscross pattern in the data, an effect that is pronounced in the S wavefield. The depth at which each S reflection occurs can be determined by extending each of these crisscrossing events back to its point of origin on the S first-arrival wavefront. Many P reflection events exist in the data at times later than the P first-arrival wavefront, but they are difficult to see in these unprocessed data. The labeled linear events sloping up and down behind the P first-arrival wavefront are SV events created by P-to-SV mode conversions at stratal interfaces. These events are better seen on the display of the horizontal-geophone data. The depth at which a reflection occurs can be determined by extrapolating a linear event to intersect the P-wave first arrival. The interpreted reflector depths can then be compared with the depths of rock and fluid interfaces defined by logs recorded in the receiver well and with the formation depths calculated from surface-recorded seismic data.

For a velocity tomography analysis of the interwell space illuminated by the wavefields in Fig. 6, the P and S first-arrival times can be picked at each depth station. These travel times then can be used to synthesize the interwell velocity structure by some type of iterative travel-path reconstruction technique. The particular downhole source used in this instance was a vibrator that produced a symmetrical wavelet. In this example, the data are not deconvolved to reduce the wavelet side lobes; thus, the arrival times would be the center point of the long, ringing, symmetrical direct arrivals.

To produce an estimate of the spatial distribution of seismic attenuation properties of the interwell space, amplitudes of the P and S direct arrivals have to be analyzed with other factors such as the consistency of the receiver couplings, the shot-to-shot energy levels, and the geometric shapes of the source radiation and receiver antenna patterns.

To produce P and S seismic images of the interwell space, the reflection portions of the wavefields that are noted need to be processed with interwell velocities determined by the velocity tomography analysis to position each reflection wavelet at its subsurface point of origin. The vertical axis of images created from CSP data is true stratigraphic depth, not image time, because the source and receiver stations are distributed over known depth coordinates. CSP images can be correlated to surface-based seismic images only if the surface data are transformed from the image-time domain to the depth domain.

Back to top

Nomenclature

I = seismic impedance, (g•m)/(cm3•sec)
D = depth, L, ft or m
t = seismic traveltime, t, second
v = velocity, L/t
V = velocity of seismic wave propagation, L/t
R = seismic reflection coefficient or seismic receiver
ρ = bulk density of the rock, m/L3, g/cm3

Back to top

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Hardage, B.A. 2000. Vertical Seismic Profiling—Principles, third edition. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Hardage, B.A. 1997. A Practical Use of Vertical Seismic Profiles—Stratigraphic Calibration of 3-D Seismic Data, Geological Circular 97–4. Austin, Texas: Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas.
  3. Balch, A.H. and Lee, M.W. 1984. Vertical Seismic Profiling—Technique, Applications, and Case Histories. Boston, Massachusetts: Intl. Human Resources Development Corp.
  4. Geotz, J.F., Dupal, L., and Bowler, J. 1979. An Investigation Into Discrepancies Between Sonic Log and Seismic Check-Shot Velocities. Australian Petroleum Exploration Assoc. J. 19 (1): 131–141.
  5. 5.0 5.1 Hardage, B.A. 1992. Crosswell Seismology and Reverse VSP. London: Geophysical Press.

Noteworthy papers in OnePetro

Grech, G. K., & Lawton, D. (2000, September 1). A Multi-Offset Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP) Experiment for Anisotropy Analysis and Imaging. Petroleum Society of Canada. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.2118/00-09-00

Hirata, A., Sasao, H., Yamazoe, M., Obara, Y., & Kaneko, K. (2000, November 19). Compact Vertical Seismic Profiling System And Its Application In Underground Excavation. International Society for Rock Mechanics. OnePetro

Kowalsky, M. B., Nakagawa, S., & Moridis, G. (2010, September 1). Feasibility of Monitoring Gas-Hydrate Production With Time-Lapse Vertical Seismic Profiling. Society of Petroleum Engineers. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.2118/132508-PA

Li, G., Burrowes, G., Majer, E., & Davis, T. (2001, January 1). Weyburn Field Horizontal-to-horizontal Crosswell Seismic Profiling: Part 3 - Interpretation. Society of Exploration Geophysicists. OnePetro

Sleeper, K., Lowrie, A., Bosman, A., Macelloni, L., & Swann, C. T. (2006, January 1). Bathymetric Mapping and High-Resolution Seismic Profiling by AUV in MC 118 (Gulf of Mexico). Offshore Technology Conference. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.4043/18113-MS

Washbourne, J. K., Li, G., & Majer, E. (2001, January 1). Weyburn Field Horizontal-to-horizontal Crosswell Seismic Profiling: Part 2 - Data Processing. Society of Exploration Geophysicists. OnePetro

External links

Google search - images

Google search - videos

See also

Seismic data acquisition equipment

Seismic wave propagation

Seismic interpretation

Designing 3D seismic surveys

Geological influences on acoustic impedance

PEH:Fundamentals_of_GeophysicsBack to top