IPA13-SG-057

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Thirty-Seventh Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2013

SEISMIC TIME TO DEPTH CONVERSION AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS FOR

HORIZON PREDICTION IN A PROPOSED WELL-SITE OF SUNGAI GELAM
FIELD, JAMBI SUBBASIN

Muhamad Wildan P.*

Imam Muda Gunawan**
Andry Pujiriyanto**
Sudarmaji*

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

Seismic time to depth conversion is an important
part of seismic interpretation work flow. This
research was conducted to determine the best
method of depth conversion as a tool for horizon
prediction in a proposed well-site KYT well. In
this research, the seismic time to depth conversion
process was divided into nine different methods
clustered into two groups of methods. The
difference in those methods lies on the variation of
velocity model building. The velocity model
building was built from two velocity sources:
checkshot velocity and seismic stacking velocity.
Those two velocity sources were processed using a
geostatistical approach to obtain the velocity model.
As the process results in several numbers of time-
converted data, it needs to be uncertainty analyzed
to obtain the best method and the best depth values.
The uncertainty analysis in this method was applied
to four horizon Sand reservoirs (Top ARC, Top
ASH, Base ASH, and Top TALC) by using the
percentile classification approach, where the nine
time-converted data were classified into three
percentiles: 10th percentile (P10) or Low Case, the
50th percentile (P50) or Base Case, and the 90th
percentile (P90) or High Case.
The results of the process show that the time-depth
conversion method using the velocity model of the
seismic stacking velocity with moving average
interpolation shows the best result. This is justified
by the minimum value of the horizon depth error to
the same horizon in the well marker data. This
uncertainty analysis is an effective and relatively
inexpensive tool to guide and to predict horizon
depth in a drilling process to minimize the error.
* University of Gadjah Mada
** Energi Mega Persada
The recording method of seismic reflection data is
in the domain of time (mostly in two-way time)
(Sismanto a, 1996), whereas the interpretation of
seismic data generally demands results using the
depth. Therefore, the seismic time to depth
conversion is one of the most important parts in the
flow of the overall seismic data interpretation. In
determining the value of depth, slope, thickness of a
reflective plane (reflector) understanding seismic
wave velocity is essential (Sheriff, R.E., and L.P.
Geldart, 1995). One key aspect in the conversion of
seismic data into depth is velocity modeling, which
determines the relationship between the depth and
the seismic time (TWT) (Etris, E.L. et al., 2001). A
velocity model can be developed using many
different methods depending on the purpose and the
availability of existing data sources. In seismic data,
processing in the form of migration also involves
velocity modeling, but the migration process is not
a process of conversion into the depths. One
migration process aims to eliminate diffraction
effects that can lead to misinterpretation. By
undertaking this process, the best structural seismic
section is obtained. Modeling the velocity of the
migration process usually only involves the stacking
velocity derived from the NMO (normal moveout),
whereas the velocity data is not obtained from
measurements (hard data), but from the NMO
correction of trial and error (Sismanto b, 1996).
Thus, to obtain the results of the seismic section in
the depths, a process of its own, namely the
conversion to depth using a velocity model that
involves stacking velocity, checkshot velocity (well
velocity measurement), and a combination of both
is used (Nam, N. and Lee, H.S., 2008). Converting
depth can also be used to eliminate the ambiguity
inherent in the structure of time and to test the
validity of the structural pattern appearance.

,3$WK$QQXDO&RQYHQWLRQ3URFHHGLQJV
In the process, velocity modeling for depth
conversion can be derived using a variety of input
data, such as checkshot velocity, stacking velocity,
and a combination of both, and can be based on
certain geostatistics principles, linear velocity
estimation, and interpolation (Abrahamsen, P.,
1996). No single method is the main option in the
depth conversion process. Each method has its own
advantages and disadvantages as seen from several
aspects, such as data availability, time constraints,
cost, and so on. With that, ambiguity can arise in
the process of converting the depth because the
depth obtained by different methods often shows
varying results. Therefore, we need to undertake
analysis to minimize the errors that can be caused
by the differences in the results obtained from the
various methods. One method that can be used to
solve such problems is the method of uncertainty
analysis to obtain the classification percentile of the
results obtained from the method used in the depth
conversion process. For their analysis, the depth
map can be specified for a particular target horizon
that is considered the most likely value.
METHODS
a. Velocity Model
The target of this research is in the Gelam field and
focused on a two-way time (TWT) of 11001460
ms. Reservoir rocks are found in the Air Benakat
formation, which consists of shaly sands. The fault
traps are present in this target zone, with two major
faults. The horizon targets are divided into four
sections: Top ARC, Top ASH, ASH Base, and Top
TALC (Figure 1). In the case of velocity modeling,
two main sources of velocity data were used:
checkshot velocity (well velocity) and seismic
velocity (stacking velocity, with the sampling time
250 ms). A velocity model was made of each source
and the combination of both. Figure 2 shows the
velocity modeling flow chart. The block of this
research has six productive wells: X-A, X-B, X-C,
X-D, X-E, and X-F (see Figure 3). The checkshot
velocity was measured originally only in well X-B,
while the checkshot velocity in other wells was
generated by a well-seismic tie process. Generally,
two groups of velocity models are divided into nine
types of models (namely method A, B, C, D, E, F,
G, H, and I). Velocity model group 1 (checkshot
velocity) was derived from mathematical equations
generated by the relationship of the T-D curve
(Time-Depth curve) and the T-V curve (Time-
Velocity curve) of the six wells. The mathematical
equations for each curve are the main source for
converting the seismic time data derived by using
the linear regression. The form of equations derived
by T-D curve is:
Z(t) = Xt + C (1)
where t is the TWT of the seismic horizons, and Z is
the horizons depth (Figure 4). There are two ways
to convert a seismic time map into a depth map by
the T-D curve derived equation: the first one is the
direct conversion, where the equation from the T-D
curve is used directly to obtain the depth horizon by
substituting Equation (1) to obtain the depth map
(Z). Two velocity models are obtained by this
method (namely, method A and B) are dissimilar in
the limit of the plotted data. The second way to
convert a seismic time map into a depth map using
the T-D curve is to build the three-dimensional (3D)
velocity model from Equation (1). The velocity is
obtained by the following relation:
Vavg (t) = 2000 .. (2)
where the Vavg(t) is the average velocity, Z is the
horizon depth, and t is the seismic TWT (Figure 5).
Two velocity models are obtained by this method
(method C and D). In the case of the T-V curve, the
mathematical equations are determined by plotting
the Time versus Velocity (average velocity) data of
the six wells, and the equation is derived similar to
the T-D curve by using the linear regression
method. The general form is shown in the following
equation:
Vavg (t) = Xt + C ....(3)
where the Vavg(t) is the average velocity, and t is
the seismic two way time (TWT). Figure 5 shows
the velocity model built in the 3D cube by
extracting Equation (3). This method also results in
two velocity models: methods E and F. The
difference in those methods lies on the limit of the
plotted data, where in the E method, well data
(average velocity versus TWT) plotted from the
datum (zero) to the lowest horizon, Top TALC,
whereas, in the F method, the data are plotted from
the highest horizon Top ARC to the Top TALC
horizon. In the other case, the method of the
velocity model in group 2 (seismic stacking
velocity) uses a geostatistical approach to make the
velocity model cube. In this group, the velocity
cube was built by using three principles of
geostatistics: simple kriging (method G), moving
average (method H), and collocated cokriging
(method I). The checkshot data are also needed in
this group, as they are used as guidance for the
vertical velocity interpolation when building the
model. Therefore, this second group is a
combination of checkshot velocity data and seismic
velocity data in the process of velocity model
building.
b. Uncertainty Analysis
From the results of nine types of velocity models,
nine different types of depth map for each horizon
were obtained. Therefore, uncertainty analysis was
performed to classify the results of the nine depth
maps for each horizon to obtain the most reliable
value. The percentile classification method has been
used to classify the overall results of the depth maps
of each seismic horizon. Percentile classification
was divided into three groups:
1. P10 or Low Case, to the deepest depths of the
classification results,
2. P50 or the Base Case, the classification results
for the depth which is considered the most
likely, and
3. P90 or High Case, the classification results for
the shallowest depths.
c. Proposed Well
The main purpose of this research is to predict the
certain horizon depth in the proposed well location.
This well, named the KYT well, is located in the
upper part of the field. This proposed well is a
distance of about 250 m to the east from the nearest
well, the X-D well (see Figure 2). The uncertainty
analysis was performed for the depth map results
within this well location. This uncertainty analysis
is a method to determine the most reliable result
derived from the above criteria (percentile
classification). A justification of the results was also
performed by carrying out a blind test to calculate
the deviation between the depth map result obtained
by the depth conversion process in the existing
wells and the marker data of such wells.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
The depth structure maps derived from the same
group methods show similar results and
characteristics (Figures 68). The results of the
depth map in the same group of methods, group-1
and group-2, will show a similar structure (closure),
whereas, the closure outcomes between different
groups do not have such a striking resemblance.
This is closely related to the velocity modeling
process. Each group has its own step that is
different for group 1 and group 2, so only the depth
maps are included in the same group that will show
identical results.
The area of this study is approximately 25 km2 and
consists of six wells (X-A, X-B, X-C, X-D, X-E,
and X-F). But the wells tend to cluster near each
other. In conjunction with the velocity modeling,
this is a disadvantage because the estimated value of
the velocity model that uses input data, such as the
well velocity, the point, or area whose position is
far from the location of the well, tends to have a low
accuracy. This is evidenced by the results obtained
from the several methods. Figure 6 is an example of
the depth structure map on horizon Top ASH.
Methods A and F (Figure 6) are the methods by
which the velocity model is based on checkshot
velocity, while method G uses the velocity data
calibration between wells (checkshot) and the
seismic velocity data (Vstacking). The red circle on
the index is the area far away from the location of
wells. Method G returned depth values ranging
13601400 m (yellow closure). Methods A and F in
the same area produced a map of the structure with
a depth range between 14001480 m. This is
obviously due to the different velocity values in
each velocity model (methods A, F, and G). Unlike
the case with the area near the well site, the results
of the three methods suggest identical closures
(greenyellow), which indicate the velocity input
data are in the same range.
The depth structure maps of the method results of
the same group show identical closure. Figure 7 for
method A and method B for the Top TALC horizon
shows the results of the depth map of the same
group with a closure resemblance.
Figure 7 (a) is the depth structure map obtained
from method A of the horizon Top TALC, and (b)
is the depth structure map derived by method B, the
same mathematical function but with a different
data limit (starting point).
Methods A and B have identical closure, but show
different depths. For method A, the western and
eastern zones, show values of approximately 1560
1580 m, meanwhile for method B in the same area,
depths range from 16001680 m. The different
results from are caused by the velocity model
obtained from the wells, and in zones far from the
well, the velocity value has a lower accuracy.
Figure 8 shows the results of the methods G and H
(group 2) displaying identical closure, but also
similar values in the depth in almost all zones. That
is understandable because the velocity model is
based on seismic velocity, and the data points are
scattered throughout the whole horizon area. Thus,
estimating the velocity value in an unknown zone
can be done by interpolating the velocity with a
higher resolution of sampled data than the methods
for group 1.
The appearance of similarities of the closure
patterns, differences, and similarities of depth
values always appears consistent in almost
horizons. Such consistency is derived from
characteristics of the methods used in this study.
Methods A and B, with the percentile results that
tend to fall into percentiles P10 and P50, show the
results of the horizon depth map within the KYT
well has a high degree of risk. Method F, based on
percentile classification, tends to obtain the P50 or
the base case, which can be interpreted as the result
with the highest degree of probability of truth. In
addition, the results of the blind tests, method H
(moving average) have relatively small deviations
and are consistent across all horizons. Table 3
shows the deviation values of each method
generated from the blind test for horizon Top ASH
within the X-A and X-D wells. The X-A and X-D
wells are located from the KYT wells as far as 1.6
km and 260 m, respectively. Table 4 shows the
deviation value of method H (moving average) and
the method F is relatively small in the Top TALC
horizon. However, in the case of the depth map
result, method H has a relatively more accurate
depth distribution than the result obtained by
method F (checkshot velocity only) in an area away
from the well. This is because the velocity
estimation of model H has more tightly sampled
data.
Percentile Classification
The previous section describes that the standard
deviation value is used as the control to determine
the relationship between the results obtained for the
depth of each horizon. The results indicate that the
value of the depth of the nine methods has a good
relationship, and this can be seen from the small
standard deviation on each horizon. Table 1 shows
the overall results for the nine methods along with
standard deviations for each horizon. The results in
Table 1 show that the percentile distribution is not
specific for certain methods, but that this
classification can be used to view the characteristics
of the overall results for each group of methods.
Table 2 shows the overall percentile classification
results for all four horizons.
From these results, it appears that methods A and B
in group 1 are likely grouped into percentiles P10
and P90, which show the depth results obtained are
the highest and lowest limits. The depth map results
of such class are assumed high-risk results. Methods
F and H tend to produce the P50 percentile, which
means having the most likely depth value.
CONCLUSIONS
From the results, several conclusions can be
derived. In the case of this study, where there are
only a few well data and the wells are located close
one to another, group method 2, namely the method
of seismic velocity model with moving average
interpolation (method H) is the best method to use.
This is because it produces a small deviation and
consistent data at all horizons. It is also important to
be note that the uncertainty analysis of several
different velocity models derived from various
methods in terms of data sources (checkshot
velocity data, seismic velocity data, and
combination of both) and in terms of the steps taken
(using mathematical equations and geostatistical
approach) is a good method to classify the horizon
depth maps by performing percentile classification.
This uncertainty analysis method can be used as a
tool to predict the depth of the horizon and as the
controller in the drilling process of new wells to
minimize the errors.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are very grateful to Mr. Aris Setiawan
as the General Manager of TAC Pertamina EP
EMP Gelam who gave us permission to use the data
for accomplishing this paper and the facility for the
authors to complete the research.
The authors would also like to thank to Mr. Imam
Muda Gunawan as their supervisor and Mr. Andri
Pujiriyanto (EMP Malacca Strait) for giving many
corrections and advices to the authors. We also
thank the entire management and employees of P.T
EMP Gelam who give their support to the authors to
finish the research.
REFERENCES
Abrahamsen, P., 1996, Geostatistic for Time to
Depth Conversion, Norwegian Computing Center,
Box 114 Blindren, N-0314, Oslo, Norway.
Etris, E.L., et al., 2001, True Depth Conversion:
More Than A Pretty Picture, Core Laboratories
Company, CSEG Recorder.
Nam, N. and Lee, H.S., 2008, Rapid Multiple-
Scenario Depth Structure Risk Analysis Case Study
In Cuulong Basin, Vietnam, Proceedings,
Indonesian Petroleum Association, Thirtieth Annual
Convention & Exhibition.
Sheriff, R.E., and L.P. Geldart, 1995, Exploration
Seismology, 2nd edition, Cambridge University
Press.
Sismanto a, 1996, Akuisisi Data Seismik, Modul
Kuliah, Geophysics Laboratory, Faculty of
Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Gadjah Mada
University, Yogyakarta.
Sismanto b, 1996, Pengolahan Data Seismik, Modul
Kuliah, Geophysics Laboratory, Faculty of
Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Gadjah Mada
University, Yogyakarta.
 TABLE 1

OVERALL RESULTS FOR EACH HORIZON

Top Top Base Top

No Method ARC ASH ASH TALC
(m) (m) (m) (m)
1 Method A [Direct Conversion] 1356.8 1416 1452 1530
2 Method B [Direct Conversion] 1330 1410 1457.7 1562
3 Method C [Function Model Z(t)] 1331 1411.4 1446 1561
4 Method D [Function Model Z(t)] 1330.3 1411 1445 1562
5 Method E [Function Model Vavg(t)] 1332 1406.6 1438 1563
6 Method F [Function Model Vavg(t)] 1330.4 1410 1444 1564.5
7 Method G [Simple Kriging] 1330.5 1406.4 1439 1562
8 Method H [Moving Average] 1330.6 1406 1438 1562
9 Method I [Colocated Cokriging] 1333.7 1403 1436 1563.3
Difference between the lowest and the highest value 26.8 13 21.7 34.5
Standard Deviation 8.7 3.8 7.2 10.4

Group Method 1 Group Method 2

TABLE 2

PERCENTILE CLASSIFICATION OF THE TOTAL RESULTS

Top Top Base Top

No Method
ARC ASH ASH TALC
1 Method A [Direct Conversion] P10 P10 P90
2 Method B [Direct Conversion] P90 P10
3 Method C [Function Model Z(t)]
4 Method D [Function Model Z(t)]
5 Method E [Function Model Vavg(t)] P10
6 Method F [Function Model Vavg(t)] P50 P50 P50
7 Method G [Simple Kriging]
8 Method H [Moving Average] P50
9 Method I [Colocated Cokriging] P90 P90
 TABLE 3

DEVIATION VALUES OF EACH METHOD GENERATED FROM

THE BLIND TEST FOR HORIZON TOP ASH WITHIN X-A WELL AND X-D WELL.

Deviation in Deviation in
No Method
X-A (m) X-D (m)
1 Method A [Direct Conversion] 12 3
2 Method B [Direct Conversion] 18 13
3 Method C [Function Model Z(t)] 20 12
4 Method D [Function Model Z(t)] 20 13
5 Method E [Function Model Vavg(t)] 11 16
6 Method F [Function Model Vavg(t)] 3 4
7 4 3
Method G [Simple Kriging]
8 4 4
Method H [Moving Average]
9 3 3
Method I [Colocated Cokriging]

TABLE 4

DEVIATION VALUES OF EACH METHOD GENERATED FROM

THE BLIND TEST FOR HORIZON TOP TALC WITHIN X-A WELL AND X-D WELL.

Deviation in Deviation in
No Method
X-A (m) X-D (m)
1 Method A [Direct Conversion] 37 35
2 Method B [Direct Conversion] 13 5
3 Method C [Function Model Z(t)] -10 -5
4 Method D [Function Model Z(t)] -4 -4
5 Method E [Function Model Vavg(t)] -10 -5
6 Method F [Function Model Vavg(t)] -2 12
7 Method G [Simple Kriging]
-1 -2

8 Method H [Moving Average]

-3 -5

9 Method I [Colocated Cokriging]

-2 -2
Figure 1 - Four horizon targets (time structures, TWT), from the shallowest to the deepest,
respectively: Top ARC, Top Ash, Base ASH, and Top TALC. A major fault separates the
northern and southern zones.
Figure 2 - The Flow Chart of the Research. The main sources used in this study are the checkshot
velocity data, seismic stacking velocity, well tops data (marker), and the seismic time
structure (horizons). The process of velocity model building is divided into two groups.
Figure 3 - Location of the six wells and proposed well KYT. The most wells are clustered in the
northern part of the block (X-B, X-D, X-E, and X-F), with a major fault separating the
south and the north.
 Depth (Z) versus Time (TWT)

-200 X-F
X-E
-400 X-D
-600
X-C
X-B
-800 X-A
Z (m)

Top ARC
-1000 Top TALC
-1200

-1400

-1600

-1800
-1600 -1400 -1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0

TWT (ms)

Figure 4 - TD Curve. The relation of Depth (Z) against two way time (TWT) of the six wells. The
colored dots (red and green) are the position of the shallowest and the deepest horizons.

Figure 5 - TV Curve. The relationship of the average velocity (Vavg) of the six wells against a two
way time (TWT). The colored dots (red and green) are the positions of the shallowest and
deepest horizons.
Figure 6 - A comparison of method A (equation derived from checkshot), method F (3D cube model
extracted from checkshot), and method G (velocity model from seismic velocity). The red
circle indicates the difference of the closure and depth values between the results.
Figure 7 - Figure (a) is the depth structure map obtained from method A of the horizon Top TALC,
and (b) is the depth structure map derived from method B. The two methods result in a
similar structure but different depth ranges.

Figure 8 - (a) is the depth structure map obtained from method G (simple kriging interpolation), and
(b) is the depth structure derived from method H (moving average interpolation). Both of
them show an identical structure (the closure) and similar values of depth in almost all
zones.