ARTICLE

TRUE DEPTH CONVERSION: MORE THAN A PRETTY PICTURE

Edward L. Etris, Nick J. Crabtree, Jan Dewar
Scott Pickford, A Core Laboratories Company

A good seismic image is not enough for an exploration or interpretation in the time domain is a riskier business.
field development interpretation. Good well ties and reliable Interpreting structure in the time domain means accepting
depth conversion are also required. The authors have found the risk of assuming a constant velocity model, or that all
that geologists and geophysicists tend to approach the depth possible velocity aberrations can be caught by the
conversion process quite differently. interpreter. Further, even simple geology can produce false
The geologist says, “If I don’t have “True Depth”: highs (or can obscure true highs) - a ‘velocity anomaly’ is
wells, how can I do depth?” - often the actual not required in order to have a time structure. A thick zone
unaware that seismically-derived depth in the of high velocity material can masquerade in the time domain
velocities exist. The geophysicist subsurface. as an evenly deposited layer of rock overlying a structural
says, “I have all these velocities from high (Figure 1). Many good interpreters have fallen into this
my seismic,” - and needs to be cautioned that these imaging classic pitfall! Similarly, structures can be concealed by the
velocities are not right for true depth conversion. overburden, and a good depth conversion can show
structures where none were thought to exist, revealing
We have also seen that there is sometimes confusion about potentially bypassed reserves.
what the deliverables of a depth conversion project are.
These can be 1) seismic data volume (SEG-Y) in depth Depth conversion is a way to remove the structural
instead of time, 2) maps and/or computer grids of depth from ambiguity inherent in time and verify structure.
the seismic and wells, 3) a velocity model in the form of a Explorationists need to verify structures to confirm the
2D profile or 3D cube data volume (SEG-Y), 4) another presence of a structural trap when planning an exploration
possible deliverable is an uncertainty analysis on the final well, or to determine the spill point and gross thickness of a
‘best’ result. prospect to establish volumetrics for economic calculations,
or to define unswept structural highs to drill with infill wells
Recently we have also seen confusion over the meanings of to tap attic oil.
“depth migration” and “depth conversion,” which are two
different processes. Migration is an imaging issue; What’s more, there is an increasing use of seismically-
conversion is a calibration issue (although some blurring of derived rock property data in reservoir studies. Geological
the lines has arisen recently with the advent of anisotropic, and engineering reservoir modeling studies are inherently in
pre-stack depth migration, or APSDM). The differences are depth. By translating seismic interpretations from time to
discussed later in this article. depth, we enable the integration of the seismic asset with
geologic, petrophysical, and production data.
This article will describe various methods to perform depth
conversion, including how much sophistication is needed for
various objectives. We will discuss accounting for real
geologic structure and stratigraphy, proper calibration of
seismic velocities, proper honouring of well data versus
seismic data, and suitability to meet time and cost
constraints.

First things first: why depth?

One thing there is no confusion about is that subsurface

rocks exist in depth. Seismic reflection data portray this
subsurface in recorded two-way time. Most seismic
interpretation is done in the time domain, which is quick and
is acceptable for many situations. Stratigraphic interpretation
in the time domain is usually fine for seismic facies and Figure 1: The perils of interpreting time sections.
sequence stratigraphy analyses, because their interpretation
remains largely the same with changing structure. Structural
Continued on Page 12

November, 2001 CSEG Recorder 11

ARTICLE Cont’d
TRUE DEPTH CONVERSION: MORE THAN A PRETTY PICTURE
Continued from Page 11

There are many methods to convert seismic times to depths, “I did a depth migration, haven’t I converted to depth?”
too many to cover in one article. Depth conversion methods
can be separated into two broad categories: direct time-depth This commonly asked question is a good one because it
conversion, and velocity modeling for depth conversion. forces us to examine our understanding of imaging. The
Whichever method is selected, an accurate and reliable depth truth is that depth migrated data sets are not depth converted.
conversion is one that will 1) tie the existing wells, and 2)
accurately predict depths at new well locations. Whenever the subsurface layers that we are trying to image
seismically are not flat-lying, the reflected image we see on
A word to the geophysicist: imaging is not depthing an unmigrated section will not correspond to the real
position of the structure.
Recognizing that simple vertical ‘stretching’ of seismic
times to depth cannot correct for lateral position errors that On the unmigrated seismic section, for example:
may be present in the seismic image, we must ensure that a ◆ The observed dip of a sloping reflector will be less than
suitable image be produced before we attempt a depth the true dip.
conversion. This is largely an independent step from the
◆ Synclines will appear narrower than they really are.
depth conversion, and is called ‘imaging’. Imaging
◆ Severe synclines will appear as ‘bow-ties’.
addresses the proper focusing and lateral positioning of
reflectors. Depthing addresses the vertical positioning of ◆ Anticlines will appear wider than they really are.
seismic times to true depth, using true vertical propagation ◆ Any abrupt structural edge acts as a point scatterer and
velocities. will appear as hyperbolic diffraction.

Although both imaging and depthing require velocity, the

type of velocity used is different (Al-Chalabi, 1994; Schultz,
1999). Imaging uses velocities designed to flatten gathers
during stacking, or derived from migration. (Here the
authors adopt the terminology of Al-Chalabi (1994), who
suggests the term “provelocities” to
refer to imaging velocities obtained “Provelocities”:
from seismic processing.) Depthing, imaging
on the other hand, requires true velocities
vertical propagation velocities, obtained from
such as are obtained from well seismic
measurements (Table 1). processing. Figure 2. a) Syncline feature in depth. b) Resultant bow tie
reflection event in time (before migration). c) Seismic section
A depth conversion consists of imaging first, to obtain the after migration. d) Before migration.
best image, then depthing, to tie wells and predict depths
away from the wells. Migration is a seismic processing step to reposition reflections
under their correct surface location (Figure 2).

Table 1

Continued on Page 13
12 CSEG Recorder November, 2001
 ARTICLE Cont’d
TRUE DEPTH CONVERSION: MORE THAN A PRETTY PICTURE
Continued from Page 12

Migration collapses diffractions. Migration puts the reflected Is this unsettling? Intuitively, geophysicists feel that there
energy back where it came from. must be an actual velocity at which the seismic wavefront
travels through the ground. Over the years, though, velocity
These simple geometric examples listed above show that the terminology has suffered casual use and often misuse.
need for migration arises when reflectors are dipping. The
need for migration also arises when the subsurface velocities
vary laterally, as variations in velocity will also cause
reflections to be recorded at surface positions different from
the subsurface positions.
Continued on Page 14
Time migration is strictly valid only for
vertically varying velocity; it does not
account for ray bending at interfaces.
Depth migration accounts for ray bending at
interfaces but requires an accurate velocity
model. Depth migration is typically called
for when there is significant lateral variation
Gain deeper insight
of velocities.

Imaging addresses the proper lateral position- GeoVista, CGG’s depth imaging service, now
ing of reflectors, but does not result in a true includes new technologies, such as anisotropy
depth data set, even if depth migration is used and preserved amplitude, to help you detect
(Al-Chalabi, 1994; Schultz, 1999). Depth and characterize even the smallest reservoir
migration ‘depths’ often mistie known well concealed under the most complex structure.
depths; errors of over 100 metres are still com- Feeling better already?
mon after depth migration (Haskey et al.,
1998). The “depth” in “depth migration” is
not true depth. Why? Because provelocities,
those that do the best job of NMO and migra-
tion, are not the same as true vertical propa-
gation velocities. Seismic energy, after all,
does not travel vertically. There is a strong
horizontal element to the travel path of ener-
gy that we record in any seismic surface data
(Reilly, 1993; Schultz, 1999). Even if you do a
zero-offset survey, and you send the source
signal down vertically, the raypaths refract in
accordance with Snell’s law whenever veloci-
ty variations are encountered. Because of
Snell’s law and ray-bending, the signal that
departed vertically will be unlikely to travel
vertically. It is compelled to travel along at
directions that are bent away from vertical.

Nonetheless, provelocities are the right val- The right treatment

ues to use for imaging. What makes them so in the right hands.
fit for their purpose, though, makes them
unfit for the purpose of true depth conver-
sion, because they are designed to correct a
different problem. You neither want to use
vertical propagation velocities to do depth
migration, nor use provelocities to do depth CGG Canada Services Ltd.
Suite 700, 404-6th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 0R9
conversion (Table 1). (403) 266-1011 [email protected] www.cgg.com

November, 2001 CSEG Recorder 13

ARTICLE Cont’d
TRUE DEPTH CONVERSION: MORE THAN A PRETTY PICTURE
Continued from Page 13

Unfortunately, what is commonly called ‘velocity’ obtained be misties - especially due to the tendency to pick on the
from seismic processing: fast side when picking processing velocities so as to
discriminate against multiples.
“has the dimensions of velocity but is generally or
only remotely or vaguely related to the actual A good approach to depth conversion, especially in a
velocity in the ground. The most common type of complex geological environment, is first to perform a depth
such ‘velocity’ is what in the industry is migration with a velocity model optimized for structural
commonly known as stacking velocity. ... Its real imaging, second to render the resulting laterally positioned
significance is that it is the parameter that depth image to time using the provelocities, and finally to
produces optimum alignment of the primary convert the depth-migrated seismic data - now in the time
reflection on the traces of the CMP gather, purely domain - to true depth using a true vertical velocity model
that. Similarly, ‘velocities’ obtained via pre-stack (Schultz, 1999; Crabtree et al., 2001). (Figure 3).
migration velocity analysis techniques are
primarily parameters that produce optimum Perhaps ‘Depth Migration’ should more accurately be called
imaging of migrated energy. In general, they are ‘Lateral Imaging Migration’ - food for thought.
quite unrepresentative of velocity in the ground.”
(Al-Chalabi, 1994, p. 589) To summarize: imaging first, to accomplish lateral
positioning; then true depth conversion using vertical
Transverse isotropy (seismic waves traveling horizontally propagation velocities.
through a geologic layer will normally travel at a higher
velocity than a similar wave traveling vertically) is often the
cause of the disparity between the best depth-imaging
velocities and the best depth-conversion velocities (Schultz,
1999). Provelocities are generally very different from the
true vertical velocity field. For this reason, pre-stack depth
migration (PSDM) does not provide the correct depth of
events and should just be used for lateral positioning, not for
depthing (Al-Chalabi, 1994).

Depth migration output is in the depth domain, but does not

result in accurate depths of reflectors because the velocities
used are provelocities. This is why depth migration results
do not tie wells accurately. Schultz (1999, pp. 2-7 and 2-8)
says:

“Even though velocity model-building and depth

imaging create a seismic depth volume, their main
contribution is an improved image. The depth
rendering, via the [imaging] velocity model used Figure 3: A good approach to depth conversion. This will
for depth migration, is not sufficiently accurate to accomplish lateral positioning and vertical positioning to
achieve actual depths.
tie the wells. A major reason for the misties is
velocity anisotropy. The migration velocity
analysis measures the horizontal component of
velocity, and the depth conversion requires the
vertical component of velocity. The horizontal Depth Conversion Methods
component is often faster, and commonly makes
the well depth markers come in at a shallower depth Once a suitable seismic image is obtained, the depthing step
than the corresponding seismic reflection event.” can commence. There is no single method by which this is
done, but rather many methods exist and are in use today,
Another reason for the mistie is nonuniqueness: there are not all of which are published in the literature. Each method
many velocity models that will produce an equivalent image has its own advantages and disadvantages, and the choice of
(Tieman, 1994; Ross, 1994). Even in totally isotropic media, method is often a subjective one, or dictated by time and
therefore, unless well data are incorporated into the velocity cost constraints. This is because no single method can be
model (Alkhalifah & Tsvankin, 1995), there will probably shown to be superior in all cases.

Continued on Page 15
14 CSEG Recorder November, 2001
 ARTICLE Cont’d
TRUE DEPTH CONVERSION: MORE THAN A PRETTY PICTURE
Continued from Page 14

Direct time-depth conversion

The simplest approach is to convert a time horizon to depth

directly - that is, without regard to the structure of velocity
variations. Direct time-depth essentially says, “I know the
answer (I know the depth at the well); let me come up with a
translation function to predict that answer.” This can consist
of applying a fixed translation equation, as regression
models do, or a spatially-oriented function, as geostatistical
procedures do.

The depths calculated via the direct time-depth conversion

method can only be assessed by calculating the prediction
error at known well locations (1D), but this is a potentially
flawed QC method because the depths being predicted are
Figure 4: The paradox of velocity modeling: (a) when one
the ones used to develop the prediction equation in the first minimizes the error at the tie point (direct conversion) the
place. Even the cross-validation method (common in model can become unrepresentative of the true function, but
geostatistics), which witholds a given well from the when one honors the true function the error at the tie point
interpolation and then compares the prediction at the increases (b).
location to the real data, is not fully independent in that all
the wells were used to develop the interpolation parameters.
The direct time-depth conversion method leaves us with Velocity modeling for depth conversion
little idea of the validity of the time-depth translation
relationship between the wells. We can therefore have only Different kinds of velocity models are required for different
as much confidence in these depths as our well control purposes (e.g., stacking, migration, depth conversion). When
allows, which is usually weak. Moreover, this method velocity modeling is done as an explicit intermediate step in
prevents the incorporation of any velocity data from seismic, time-depth conversion, the goal is to derive a robust model
which may provide valuable additional information between that accurately predicts true vertical velocity at and between
well control. wells by leveraging knowledge about velocity as an
additional tool. In velocity modeling, the description of
The authors describe this approach as “direct time-depth velocities is the goal, and then the depth conversion falls into
conversion” because the velocity modeling step is essentially place. In direct conversion methods, depths that tie at the
implicit - that is, velocity is not truly modeled, but rather wells are the goal, and the velocity is a by-product. In
reduced to a translation function. This translation function is velocity modeling, unlike direct conversion, the ability to
fit so as to result in a predicted depth that either minimizes predict depth to a minimal or zero error is something that is
the error or is back-calculated to tie the well depth exactly. checked after the modeling, as a test, rather than as a
Why is this not truly velocity modeling? Because it is hiding constraint on the procedure itself (Figure 4).
many error factors within this translation function. One of
the major causes of error in depth predictions is misties in Velocity modeling is a step forward beyond direct
time between seismic horizons and the corresponding conversion because velocity information adds two features
geologic well pick in time. Direct methods hide these errors to the conversion to depth. First, the velocity model can be
by forcing the wells to tie, thus altering the velocity provided evaluated numerically, visually, and intuitively for
independently by the well and creating (fudging) a new reasonableness (i.e., tested independently of its ability to
back-calculated velocity to ensure a correct tie. This means predict depth, thus increasing its reliability), something that
that the translation function is now no longer simply a model cannot be done with a global time-depth correlation. Second,
of the true velocity in the ground - it is a composite velocity modeling enables the use of velocity information from
correction factor (Figure 4). both seismic and wells, providing a much broader data set
for critical review and quality control.
Although direct conversion can be done so as to guarantee
exact well ties, which are desirable, the loss of independence Nonetheless, a direct time-depth conversion is often the
means that the reliability of predicted depths where no wells preferred approach in certain circumstances. It usually
have yet been drilled is compromised. offers the quickest solution, and it may be the only one
acceptable within the project’s budget or time constraints.

Continued on Page 16

November, 2001 CSEG Recorder 15

ARTICLE Cont’d
TRUE DEPTH CONVERSION: MORE THAN A PRETTY PICTURE
Continued from Page 15

The conversion may only be an intermediate step, intended as a lack of consistency in the pattern of velocity behavior
to be repeated again soon when more data are available. Or, with depth, or a lack of easily definable horizons.
guaranteeing well ties in the immediate vicinity of the wells
may be the primary goal of the conversion, regardless of the
accuracy away from the wells. From a technical perspective,
provelocities may be unavailable, or too noisy or
untrustworthy to be of use, and time-depth curves from wells
may not be available.

In other words, choice of a conversion method depends

partly on the data available and partly on the objectives of
the study.

What makes a velocity model robust?

Figure 5

The most reliable velocity model possible is one that is 1)

geologically consistent, 2) uses appropriately detailed
velocities, and 3) incorporates all available velocity Adding more detail, we can move on to using interval
information, weighting different types (seismic and wells) velocities. Here, we assign a constant velocity to each layer
properly. within a given well (Figure 5b). Using average or interval
velocities allows spatial variation of velocity between well
Geologically consistent means building a velocity model that locations. We can accomplish this by cross-plotting interval
follows the appropriate layering scheme: in hard rock velocity versus midpoint depth, for example, or we can
environments this usually means following the true contour our well average or interval velocities – perhaps
geological structure, taking into account lithological contour them geostatistically using seismic processing
contrasts (e.g., bedding), folding, and faulting; in soft rock velocities at distances far from the wells.
environments the layering may simply parallel the structure
of the topography or bathymetry, because velocity may be Adding still more detail, we would like our model layer
mainly a function of depth of burial (Schultz, 1999). velocities to include variation with depth in some cases,
because velocities often increase with greater degrees of
In a multi-layer depth conversion, the section is divided into compaction caused by thicker overburden (Figure 5c). For
separate geological layers, each of which likely has a these situations we wish to have an instantaneous velocity
different, but internally consistent, interval velocity or data set to model, such as a time-depth curve from a vertical
velocity versus depth function (Figure 5). A separate seismic profile, or check shot survey, or an integrated sonic
velocity model is built for each layer, and results in a depth log. This type of curve provides velocity variation over very
prediction of the base of the layer, given the top of the layer small depth increments, hence “instantaneous” velocity.
from the previous calculation. For example, the top of the
first layer is usually the seismic datum, then the base of that The simplest way to describe such variation is to model
layer becomes the top of the next layer and the conversion is instantaneous velocity as a linear function of depth: V(z) =
repeated, layer by layer, down to the last horizon of interest. V0 + kZ, where V(z) is the instantaneous velocity at depth Z,
These layers may not be of exploration interest on their own, and V0 and k are the intercept and slope of the line.
but are important because they form the overburden above Numerous other functions have also been proposed
the zones of interest and may contain significant velocity (Kaufman, 1953; Al-Chalabi, 1997b), some linear and some
variation. curvilinear. These functions are fit separately for each layer
to ensure geological consistency. The authors advocate using
There are three levels of detail in modeling velocity, the simplest model that fits the data acceptably well. So,
depending on how the velocity behaves with depth. The interval velocity is used where appropriate (i.e., no
simplest level is average velocity, where we ignore the consistent increase in velocity with depth), then preferably a
layering and just go straight to the target horizon (Figure 5a). linear model, and finally a curvilinear model only if
This single-layer approach has the advantage of being necessary.
simple and quick to implement. The obvious disadvantage is
that such a model does not describe the subsurface in detail,
so our confidence in the depths predicted may be reduced.
There may be good reasons to ignore the detail, though, such

Continued on Page 17
16 CSEG Recorder November, 2001
 ARTICLE Cont’d
TRUE DEPTH CONVERSION: MORE THAN A PRETTY PICTURE
Continued from Page 16

Instantaneous velocity modeling instantaneous velocity with depth precisely - nor should it,
because its purpose is not to describe the geology in that specific
For those cases best suited to a velocity versus depth function, well, but rather the typical velocity within the geological unit
the issue arises of how to choose the best function. overall. The goal is not to find a function that is an exact fit to the
A simple way to check the correctness of a V(z) function is velocity vs. depth data for that layer for any one specific well; the
to calculate the depth it predicts for a given geologic top at a goal is to find a specific parameter combination that produces a
well location, where the top depth is known. However, it closer fit than any other combination for all wells, and that fits
can quickly be seen that many different V(z) models will
calculate the correct depth of a given geologic marker. Continued on Page 18
Which is the best V(z) from among the possible candi-
dates? The best one is the one that will effec-
tively predict depths at locations away from
the wells, which is the one that best fits the
actual V(z) curve over the entire depth range
for the given layer, not just the one with the
best tie at the well (i.e., the base of the geo-
logical layer) (Figure 4b). But how can we
evaluate goodness of fit? There is a unique
quantitative method for determining the accu-
racy of the fit of the models. The authors call
this approach “discrepancy analysis.” It was
derived and patented by Al-Chalabi (1997a),
and has been used extensively for several
years. What follows is a discussion of Al-
Chalabi’s approach.

This approach makes use of the fact that most

analytic expressions of velocity variation with
depth, whether a linear or curvilinear
expression, have two parameters. (The ideas
presented here are extendible to functions
with more than two parameters. For simplicity,
the two parameter case is discussed.) For
GEDCO
example, in the commonly used linear
equation of the form V(z)= V0 + kZ, the two REPEAT FROM SEPTEMBER 2001 ISSUE
free parameters are V0 and k. Within a given
rock layer, the variation of velocity with depth
can be described equally well by a range of V0 PAGE 15
and k parameter values. These analytic
functions describe a smooth variation of
velocity with depth, much smoother than the
high frequency fluctuations observed on sonic
logs (Figure 6).

Figure 6

In practice no analytic function could repre-

sent the actual high frequency flutter of

November, 2001 CSEG Recorder 17

ARTICLE Cont’d
TRUE DEPTH CONVERSION: MORE THAN A PRETTY PICTURE
Continued from Page 17

the real functions adequately. How do we assess which the whole area adequately and correctly. Through the use of
parameter pair is the best to use, among the range of possible discrepancy overlap plots the range of acceptable parameter
parameter pairs? pairings can be reduced, thus increasing the confidence in the
The goodness-of-fit between the well velocity data and the applicability of the parameters over a large area. (Figure 8)
calculated function curve can be calculated. Both parameters
are varied and the goodness-of-fit calculated for each pairing,
which is termed “discrepancy.” The value of the discrepancy
at each parameter pairing is given by
m (V – C )q 1/q

[
F(V0, k) = ∑ ––––––––
i=1
i
m
i
],

(4) from Al-Chalabi (1997a)

where Vi and Ci denote the ith actual (observed) and function

velocity values respectively, m is the number of sampled
depth points, and q is the norm (q=2 in this case).

In the crossplot space of the two free parameters (V0, k), the Figure 8
discrepancy values for each pairing are contoured. Each iso-
discrepancy contour delimits a region in the parameter space If a single region of overlap can be found, then the reliability
inside which any (V0, k) combination produces a function of the model is high since it applies to all wells used in the
that fits the well velocity data more closely than the value of analysis. Thus, predicted values between the wells should be
that de-limiting contour. The area within an iso-discrepancy reliable. If the wells don’t all overlap, but instead break into
contour is an area of equally good parameter pairs. The clusters (Figure 9), it may indicate that there are several
discrepancy contour corresponds to a margin of tolerance. different sub-areas within the overall area. These are often
(Figure 7) different fault blocks, or different facies associations. These
situations can be handled by holding one parameter constant,
such as k, and then solving for the other, allowing it to vary.
Once calculated for all wells, it can then be mapped,
providing a map of anticipated differences in uplift or facies.

Differences may indicate different fault

Figure 7 blocks or changing facies

Figure 9
There is no single parameter pairing that can be considered
the ‘exact’ solution, especially where a single well is The discussion thus far has focussed on calculating velocity
concerned. A given parameter combination may, however, models from wells. The patient reader has been waiting for
satisfy the data from more than one well. By making a the discussion to open up to the possibilities that seismic
composite discrepancy overlap plot of the discrepancy data offer to velocity modeling. The despairing reader may
contours for the same layer in two wells (or three wells, or even have seismic but no well data. Are the benefits of
many wells), the region of overlap between the contours velocity modeling still available in this situation? The
represents the (V 0,k) pairs that would produce a V(z) following sections show that velocity modeling, including
function that would fit both wells to within the appointed instantaneous velocity modeling, is still available even when
margin of tolerance. That is, any such parameter only provelocities are available.
combination would provide a single function that applies to
Continued on Page 19
18 CSEG Recorder November, 2001
 ARTICLE Cont’d
TRUE DEPTH CONVERSION: MORE THAN A PRETTY PICTURE
Continued from Page 18

Use all available velocity data to build a robust Extending the velocity model to make use of
velocity model for depth conversion velocities from seismic

While no-one would disagree with the advice, “Use all How can we extract good quality vertical propagation
available data”, we must bear in mind that different types of velocity information from seismic data? Recall our earlier
data have different degrees of certainty, particularly well data discussion that the provelocities used in processing the
versus seismic data. Well data can consist of vertical seismic seismic data to a stacked, migrated, laterally focused picture
profiles (VSP), check shot surveys, sonic logs, or some of the subsurface reflectors are not the same entity as true
combination of these in several wells. VSP and check shots vertical propagation velocities in the same ground, which
may be used directly, but sonic logs require corrections for are what we require for depthing. We can correct them
“drift” to be comparable to a VSP or check shot survey in the substantially, however. The provelocities require corrections
same well (Reilly, 1993). Generally speaking, VSP are for anisotropy (depthing demands the vertical velocity, and
preferred most, then check shots, then integrated sonic logs, provelocities contain a horizontal velocity element), for
but the more wells available the better, even if it means heterogeneity (due to lateral facies changes and such), and for
mixing different types of time-depth curves. ray bending (Al-Chalabi, 1994). These corrections produce
closer estimates of the true vertical velocities for accurate
Well data are hard measures of depth - not completely depthing.
without error, but the well depth measurements carry
relatively low uncertainty. However, wells present us with Although provelocities will always have more error and
velocity information that is spatially sparse, often clustered, uncertainty than well velocities, we can at least calibrate them
and limited by well total depth. Further, well data over- to the wells and then benefit from their added spatial
represent anomalous locations, such as structural highs. coverage. Calibrated provelocities can be converted either to
Seismic data offer a spatially dense, regular, and objective average or to interval velocities, and then combined with well
sampling, and cover the entire depth range evenly throughout average or interval velocities, preferably using an appropriate
the survey area. These traits offer the opportunity to overcome geostatistical approach (e.g., kriging with external drift,
many of the limitations of using well data alone. However, collocated cokriging, etc.). This approach is often very useful
seismic data are a measure of time rather than depth or in the first layer of a multi-layer depth conversion, where
velocity directly, and the provelocities derived from seismic instantaneous well velocities are often limited or absent (due
are imaging velocities, not vertical propagation velocities such to no logging behind surface casing), and where average
as in wells. provelocities handle the overburden and provide extensive,
unbiased areal coverage.
Any effort that undertakes to combine hard (well) data (high
certainty and low sampling density) and soft (seismic) data Perhaps more usefully, though, provelocities can also be used
(low certainty and high sampling density) must honour the for instantaneous velocity modeling, using several different
higher certainty of the well data. Geostatistics (spatial approaches. In one such approach, well data are used to
statistics) is the proper way to combine these two diverse derive the gradient parameter (k) in the V0,k function, and
types of data and retain proper weighting of well control, as interval velocities extracted from seismic and converted to V0
well as to capture and maintain spatial trends (Chambers et are used in combination with well V0 values in a V0 map.
al., 2000). For instance, kriging (which here is taken to include Another approach is to derive the V0 from the provelocities
the various versions of kriging and cokriging) is a method of after they have been converted into “pseudo wells,” described
interpolation that uses specially-weighted combinations of next.
data observed at known locations (such as wells) to predict
unknown values at other locations. Kriging also provides The advantage of these approaches is that the wells provide
estimates of the accuracy of the predicted values. the necessary detail in the vertical direction (k gradient), the
seismic provides the necessary detail in the lateral directions
The field of geostatistics presents many interesting techniques (V0 map), and geostatistics ties them together with proper spa-
for integrating and mapping velocity, and analyzing spatial tial weighting.
structures of velocity. We must restrict the scope of this short
article to the topic at hand - depth conversion - and simply Pseudo-wells from seismic
note that geostatistical analysis offers us tools to combine all
available velocity data. One of the unique things that can be done with provelocities
is to compute “pseudo-wells.”

Continued on Page 20

November, 2001 CSEG Recorder 19

ARTICLE Cont’d
TRUE DEPTH CONVERSION: MORE THAN A PRETTY PICTURE
Continued from Page 19

From provelocities that have been calibrated to true vertical Summary

velocities, time-depth curves (T-D curves) are computed at
each stacking location. (T-D curves are just another way of In this article we have touched on a number of issues with
representing velocity-depth functions.) Then T-D curves can regards to translating seismic from time to true depth. Seismic
imaging is a separate step and must be addressed before
depth conversion. No depth conversion can correct for
improper lateral positioning of events, because depth conver-
sion is a vertical process only. Depth migration is currently the
ultimate tool for lateral imaging, but it does not calibrate the
seismic to true depth, because it does not use true vertical
propagation velocities. This is not an error - imaging is a
separate issue from true depth calibration.

All imaging processes use a category of velocity that is more

properly called “provelocity,” although “imaging velocity” or
“seismic velocity” suffice as well. Provelocity is appropriate
for imaging because seismic acquisition and processing
involve both vertical and horizontal velocity to varying
Figure 10 extents, but it is inappropriate for depth conversion - or
“depthing” - because depthing requires strictly actual vertical
be amalgamated (averaged) into pseudo-wells to be used in propagation velocity (“true” velocity). True velocity is best
instantaneous velocity function modeling just as the T-D curves obtained from vertical seismic profiles, check shot surveys, or
from wells are used for instantaneous velocity modeling, calibrated sonic logs.
albeit at a coarser time sampling (Figure 10). The averaging
is used to smooth the error inherent in stacking velocity Depthing can be done via a wide range of existing methods,
analysis. too many to cover in any article, but which can be separated
into two broad categories: 1) direct time-depth conversion,
It can quickly be seen that even if we have seismic only and no and 2) velocity modeling for time-depth conversion.
well data or sparse wells, we can derive pseudo-wells and do instan-
taneous velocity modeling for our depth conversion. In this way we Direct time-depth conversion ignores the structure (spa-
can use V(z) gradient functions to model velocity even if we tial patterns) of velocity, and operates at known depth
are using seismically-derived velocities. In order to do this, points only (i.e., at wells) by forcing an exact or minimal
though, seismic velocities need to be sufficiently detailed error match between actual and predicted depths.
vertically to allow a robust V(z) curve to be derived. An Moreover, direct conversion only involves seismic times at
approach to pre-stack velocity analysis has been developed to well points - velocity information from seismic, and all
produce “geologically consistent velocities” in seismic pro- the spatial benefits that go with it, cannot be used.
cessing (Crabtree, et al., 2000). In addition to providing a finer
spatial sampling along the time axis, this technique forces a Velocity modeling for time-depth conversion involves
closer fit to well velocities and generally reduces the arti- building a true velocity model using all available velocity
facts that are typically present in provelocities. data. This modeling may include various types of well
velocities only, or calibrated provelocities only, or both.
Because of the greater areal coverage of seismic, one of the Modeling may use simple average velocity (single layer), or
significant uses of pseudo-wells is to create many wells spread interval velocity (multi-layer), or instantaneous velocity (vari-
out across a study area and perform discrepancy contouring ation of velocity with depth). The goal is to determine a
and overlap plots to look for clustering of pseudo-wells into model that has some likelihood of working adequately
areas of different velocity behavior. This points out areas of between the known depth points, in addition to matching the
major facies changes or differences in uplift caused by known points. Some techniques can be used involving con-
faulting. The pseudo-well technique is a geological tool as ditions other than final depth prediction accuracy, and can
well as a velocity modeling tool for time-depth-conversion. It then be tested against the known points to determine their
can be used for the detection and evaluation of anomalously- effectiveness. This is an independent way to predict depth
pressured geological units, such as geopressured units because it uses velocity functions as the input rather than
(Gordon et al., 2000) that must be dealt with during drilling horizon depth and time at wells, and because it can involve
(or avoided), and basin-centered gas accumulations (Surdam, provelocities in addition to or even instead of well velocities.
1997).

Continued on Page 22
20 CSEG Recorder November, 2001
ARTICLE Cont’d
TRUE DEPTH CONVERSION: MORE THAN A PRETTY PICTURE
Continued from Page 20

The choice of a depthing method depends on data availability

and quality, depthing objectives, and time and cost constraints EDWARD L. ETRIS
on the depthing process. Direct methods are fast and accurate at Edward (Ned) Etris received M.Sc.
the wells, which may be all that is required. Some forms of (1987) and Ph.D. (1991) degrees in geology
velocity modeling can also be fast and exact, whereas other from the University of South Carolina,
specializing in quantitative sedimentol-
forms require significant data resources, modeling expertise, ogy. Ned is currently Manager of Geology
and time to administer, yet offer greater confidence in the at Scott Pickford Canada. He is an experi-
results, particularly between well control, where it really counts. enced reservoir characterization geologist
and numerical reservoir model developer,
References & Further Reading with particular strengths in the evaluation
and integration of core, log, and seismic
Al-Chalabi, M., 1997a, Parameter nonuniqueness in velocity versus depth data, including statistical and geostatisti-
functions, Geophysics, 62, no. 3, 970-979. cal analysis. He came to Canada in 1991 to work for Canadian
Al-Chalabi, M., 1997b, Time-depth relationships for multilayer Hunter Exploration Ltd., then later Ranchmen’s Resources Ltd. and
depth conversion, Geophysical Prospecting, 45, 715-720. Crestar Energy Inc., gaining a wide range of production company
experience in Western Canada. His work has ranged from research
Al-Chalabi, M., 1994, Seismic velocities - a critique, First Break, 12, no. to development drilling and pool exploitation, and from regional
12, 589-596. prospecting to detailed reservoir characterization. Since joining Scott
Alkalifah, T., Tsvankin, I., 1995, Velocity analysis for transversely isotropic Pickford in 1999 he has directed work on time-depth conversion, 3D
media, Geophysics, 60, no. 5, 1550-1566. geological modeling, petrophysical evaluations, and tight gas sand
evaluations, and played a key role in integrated geophysical-geolog-
Chambers, R. L., Yarus, J. M, Hird, K.B, 2000, Petroleum geostatistics for
ical-engineering studies within Scott Pickford’s Reservoir Modeling
non-geostatisticians, The Leading Edge, May 2000 (Part 1), June
Group. Ned has numerous papers and professional presentations to
2000 (Part 2).
his name, and has taught industry courses on geostatistics.
Crabtree, N., Hill, D., Veltmeijer, H., 2001, Depth prediction from a
prestack depth image: a Dutch North Sea case study, SEG Annual
Meeting, San Antonio, September 2001.
NICK J. CRABTREE
Crabtree, N.J., Etris, E.L, Eng, J., Brewer, G., and Dewar, J., 2000,
Nick Crabtree received an M.A.
Geologically consistent seismic processing velocities improve time to
(Hons) Natural Sciences (Geological
depth conversion, poster session presentation at GeoCanada2000
Sciences) degree in 1992 from Jesus
combined Conference of the CSPG , CSEG, CGU, CWLS, MAC,
College, Cambridge, UK. (The college,
GAC, Calgary, Alberta, May 29-June 2, 2000
part of the University of Cambridge, was
Gordon, G., et al., Integrated science to predict overpressure in a new founded in 1496!) Nick is currently
deep-water frontier area - NW Europe, Overpressure 2000 Technical Manager of Depthing Research
Workshop, London, UK, April 2000. and Services, at Scott Pickford’s Croydon
Haskey, P., Faragher, J. R., Raymondi, M. J., Dangerfield, J. A. and UK office. He has worked on the
Fjeld, O., 1998, Embla: An interpretive case history: Depth imaging “Velocity Modeling Using Statistical
with well controlled signal estimation, 68th Ann. Internat. Mtg: Soc. of Analysis of Seismically Derived
Expl. Geophys., 1174-1177 Velocities” project; served as technical lead on the development of
VELIT, Scott Pickford’s velocity modeling software; and presented
Kaufman, H., 1953, Velocity functions in seismic prospecting, Geophysics, numerous papers at the SEG, CSEG, and EAGE. In 1999, after a
18, 289-297. year in snowy Calgary, Nick returned to the Croydon office to
Reilly, M., 1993, Integration of well and seismic data for 3D velocity model head up the RISKIT research project studying uncertainty and sen-
building, First Break, 11, no. 6, 247-260. sitivity analysis of velocity modeling and depth conversion. He
provides technical support and mentoring in the areas of depth
Ross, W. S., 1994, The velocity-depth ambiguity in seismic traveltime data,
conversion, velocity modeling and reservoir characterization.
Geophysics, 50, no. 5, 830-843.
Nick’s professional interests also include seismic attribute analy-
Schultz, P., 1999, The Seismic Velocity Model as an Interpretation Asset, sis, reservoir characterization, integration, and mapping.
1999 Distinguished Instructor Short Course, Distinguished
Instructor Series, No. 2, SEG.
Surdam, R.C., 1997, A New Paradigm for Gas Exploration in Anomalously JAN DEWAR
Pressured “Tight Gas Sands” in the Rocky Mountain Laramide Basins,
in R.C. Surdam, ed., Seals, traps and the petroleum system: AAPG Jan Dewar graduated from the
Memoir 67, 283-298. University of Alberta in 1981 with a B.Sc.
in Physics. Jan is currently working with
Tieman, H.J., 1994, Investigating the velocity-depth ambiguity of reflection Scott Pickford in Calgary, with a special
traveltimes, Geophysics, 59, no. 11, 1763-1773. enthusiasm for communicating technical
concepts including AVO, Inversion,
For Further Reading Modeling, VSP and Transfer Filter pro-
Yarus, J.M. and Chambers, R.L. (editors), 1994, Stochastic Modeling and cessing, Rock Physics, and just about
Geostatistics, AAPG Computer Applications in Geology No. 3, anything else that can be puzzling to the
1994. R average bear. [email protected]

22 CSEG Recorder November, 2001