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

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,
too many to cover in one article. Depth conversion methods
can be separated into two broad categories: direct time-depth
conversion, and velocity modeling for depth conversion.
Whichever method is selected, an accurate and reliable depth
conversion is one that will 1) tie the existing wells, and 2)
accurately predict depths at new well locations.
A word to the geophysicist: imaging is not depthing
Recognizing that simple vertical ‘stretching’ of seismic
times to depth cannot correct for lateral position errors that
may be present in the seismic image, we must ensure that a
suitable image be produced before we attempt a depth
conversion. This is largely an independent step from the
depth conversion, and is called ‘imaging’. Imaging
addresses the proper focusing and lateral positioning of
reflectors. Depthing addresses the vertical positioning of
seismic times to true depth, using true vertical propagation
velocities.
“I did a depth migration, haven’t I converted to depth?”
This commonly asked question is a good one because it
forces us to examine our understanding of imaging. The
truth is that depth migrated data sets are not depth converted.
Whenever the subsurface layers that we are trying to image
seismically are not flat-lying, the reflected image we see on
an unmigrated section will not correspond to the real
position of the structure.
On the unmigrated seismic section, for example:
◆ The observed dip of a sloping reflector will be less than
the true dip.
◆ Synclines will appear narrower than they really are.
◆ Severe synclines will appear as ‘bow-ties’.
◆ Anticlines will appear wider than they really are.
◆ Any abrupt structural edge acts as a point scatterer and
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 rvesely@ca.cgg.com 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
for depth migration, is not sufficiently accurate to
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
component is often faster, and commonly makes
the well depth markers come in at a shallower depth
than the corresponding seismic reflection event.”
Another reason for the mistie is nonuniqueness: there are
many velocity models that will produce an equivalent image
(Tieman, 1994; Ross, 1994). Even in totally isotropic media,
therefore, unless well data are incorporated into the velocity
model (Alkhalifah & Tsvankin, 1995), there will probably
Figure 3: A good approach to depth conversion. This will
accomplish lateral positioning and vertical positioning to
achieve actual depths.
Depth Conversion Methods
Once a suitable seismic image is obtained, the depthing step
can commence. There is no single method by which this is
done, but rather many methods exist and are in use today,
not all of which are published in the literature. Each method
has its own advantages and disadvantages, and the choice of
method is often a subjective one, or dictated by time and
cost constraints. This is because no single method can be
shown to be superior in all cases.

Continued on Page 15
14 CSEG Recorder November, 2001

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
the ones used to develop the prediction equation in the first
place. Even the cross-validation method (common in
geostatistics), which witholds a given well from the
interpolation and then compares the prediction at the
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
little idea of the validity of the time-depth translation
relationship between the wells. We can therefore have only
as much confidence in these depths as our well control
allows, which is usually weak. Moreover, this method
prevents the incorporation of any velocity data from seismic,
which may provide valuable additional information between
well control.
The authors describe this approach as “direct time-depth
conversion” because the velocity modeling step is essentially
implicit - that is, velocity is not truly modeled, but rather
reduced to a translation function. This translation function is
fit so as to result in a predicted depth that either minimizes
the error or is back-calculated to tie the well depth exactly.
Why is this not truly velocity modeling? Because it is hiding
many error factors within this translation function. One of
the major causes of error in depth predictions is misties in
time between seismic horizons and the corresponding
geologic well pick in time. Direct methods hide these errors
by forcing the wells to tie, thus altering the velocity provided
independently by the well and creating (fudging) a new
back-calculated velocity to ensure a correct tie. This means
that the translation function is now no longer simply a model
of the true velocity in the ground - it is a composite
correction factor (Figure 4).
Although direct conversion can be done so as to guarantee
exact well ties, which are desirable, the loss of independence
means that the reliability of predicted depths where no wells
have yet been drilled is compromised.
ARTICLE Cont’d
Figure 4: The paradox of velocity modeling: (a) when one
minimizes the error at the tie point (direct conversion) the
model can become unrepresentative of the true function, but
when one honors the true function the error at the tie point
increases (b).
Velocity modeling for depth conversion
Different kinds of velocity models are required for different
purposes (e.g., stacking, migration, depth conversion). When
velocity modeling is done as an explicit intermediate step in
time-depth conversion, the goal is to derive a robust model
that accurately predicts true vertical velocity at and between
wells by leveraging knowledge about velocity as an
additional tool. In velocity modeling, the description of
velocities is the goal, and then the depth conversion falls into
place. In direct conversion methods, depths that tie at the
wells are the goal, and the velocity is a by-product. In
velocity modeling, unlike direct conversion, the ability to
predict depth to a minimal or zero error is something that is
checked after the modeling, as a test, rather than as a
constraint on the procedure itself (Figure 4).
Velocity modeling is a step forward beyond direct
conversion because velocity information adds two features
to the conversion to depth. First, the velocity model can be
evaluated numerically, visually, and intuitively for
reasonableness (i.e., tested independently of its ability to
predict depth, thus increasing its reliability), something that
cannot be done with a global time-depth correlation. Second,
velocity modeling enables the use of velocity information from
both seismic and wells, providing a much broader data set
for critical review and quality control.
Nonetheless, a direct time-depth conversion is often the
preferred approach in certain circumstances. It usually
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
to be repeated again soon when more data are available. Or,
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?
The most reliable velocity model possible is one that is 1)
geologically consistent, 2) uses appropriately detailed
velocities, and 3) incorporates all available velocity
information, weighting different types (seismic and wells)
properly.
Geologically consistent means building a velocity model that
follows the appropriate layering scheme: in hard rock
environments this usually means following the true
geological structure, taking into account lithological
contrasts (e.g., bedding), folding, and faulting; in soft rock
environments the layering may simply parallel the structure
of the topography or bathymetry, because velocity may be
mainly a function of depth of burial (Schultz, 1999).
In a multi-layer depth conversion, the section is divided into
separate geological layers, each of which likely has a
different, but internally consistent, interval velocity or
velocity versus depth function (Figure 5). A separate
velocity model is built for each layer, and results in a depth
prediction of the base of the layer, given the top of the layer
from the previous calculation. For example, the top of the
first layer is usually the seismic datum, then the base of that
layer becomes the top of the next layer and the conversion is
repeated, layer by layer, down to the last horizon of interest.
These layers may not be of exploration interest on their own,
but are important because they form the overburden above
the zones of interest and may contain significant velocity
variation.
There are three levels of detail in modeling velocity,
depending on how the velocity behaves with depth. The
simplest level is average velocity, where we ignore the
layering and just go straight to the target horizon (Figure 5a).
This single-layer approach has the advantage of being
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
16 CSEG Recorder November, 2001
as a lack of consistency in the pattern of velocity behavior
with depth, or a lack of easily definable horizons.
Figure 5
Adding more detail, we can move on to using interval
velocities. Here, we assign a constant velocity to each layer
within a given well (Figure 5b). Using average or interval
velocities allows spatial variation of velocity between well
locations. We can accomplish this by cross-plotting interval
velocity versus midpoint depth, for example, or we can
contour our well average or interval velocities – perhaps
contour them geostatistically using seismic processing
velocities at distances far from the wells.
Adding still more detail, we would like our model layer
velocities to include variation with depth in some cases,
because velocities often increase with greater degrees of
compaction caused by thicker overburden (Figure 5c). For
these situations we wish to have an instantaneous velocity
data set to model, such as a time-depth curve from a vertical
seismic profile, or check shot survey, or an integrated sonic
log. This type of curve provides velocity variation over very
small depth increments, hence “instantaneous” velocity.
The simplest way to describe such variation is to model
instantaneous velocity as a linear function of depth: V(z) =
V0 + kZ, where V(z) is the instantaneous velocity at depth Z,
and V0 and k are the intercept and slope of the line.
Numerous other functions have also been proposed
(Kaufman, 1953; Al-Chalabi, 1997b), some linear and some
curvilinear. These functions are fit separately for each layer
to ensure geological consistency. The authors advocate using
the simplest model that fits the data acceptably well. So,
interval velocity is used where appropriate (i.e., no
consistent increase in velocity with depth), then preferably a
linear model, and finally a curvilinear model only if
necessary.
Continued on Page 17
 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
discrepancy values for each pairing are contoured. Each iso-
discrepancy contour delimits a region in the parameter space
inside which any (V0, k) combination produces a function
that fits the well velocity data more closely than the value of
that de-limiting contour. The area within an iso-discrepancy
contour is an area of equally good parameter pairs. The
discrepancy contour corresponds to a margin of tolerance.
(Figure 7)
Figure 8
If a single region of overlap can be found, then the reliability
of the model is high since it applies to all wells used in the
analysis. Thus, predicted values between the wells should be
reliable. If the wells don’t all overlap, but instead break into
clusters (Figure 9), it may indicate that there are several
different sub-areas within the overall area. These are often
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

There is no single parameter pairing that can be considered
the ‘exact’ solution, especially where a single well is
concerned. A given parameter combination may, however,
satisfy the data from more than one well. By making a
composite discrepancy overlap plot of the discrepancy
contours for the same layer in two wells (or three wells, or
many wells), the region of overlap between the contours
represents the (V 0,k) pairs that would produce a V(z)
function that would fit both wells to within the appointed
margin of tolerance. That is, any such parameter
combination would provide a single function that applies to
18 CSEG Recorder November, 2001
Figure 9
The discussion thus far has focussed on calculating velocity
models from wells. The patient reader has been waiting for
the discussion to open up to the possibilities that seismic
data offer to velocity modeling. The despairing reader may
even have seismic but no well data. Are the benefits of
velocity modeling still available in this situation? The
following sections show that velocity modeling, including
instantaneous velocity modeling, is still available even when
only provelocities are available.
Continued on Page 19

TRUE DEPTH CONVERSION: MORE THAN A PRETTY PICTURE
Continued from Page 18
Use all available velocity data to build a robust
velocity model for depth conversion
While no-one would disagree with the advice, “Use all
available data”, we must bear in mind that different types of
data have different degrees of certainty, particularly well data
versus seismic data. Well data can consist of vertical seismic
profiles (VSP), check shot surveys, sonic logs, or some
combination of these in several wells. VSP and check shots
may be used directly, but sonic logs require corrections for
“drift” to be comparable to a VSP or check shot survey in the
same well (Reilly, 1993). Generally speaking, VSP are
preferred most, then check shots, then integrated sonic logs,
but the more wells available the better, even if it means
mixing different types of time-depth curves.
Well data are hard measures of depth - not completely
without error, but the well depth measurements carry
relatively low uncertainty. However, wells present us with
velocity information that is spatially sparse, often clustered,
and limited by well total depth. Further, well data over-
represent anomalous locations, such as structural highs.
Seismic data offer a spatially dense, regular, and objective
sampling, and cover the entire depth range evenly throughout
the survey area. These traits offer the opportunity to overcome
many of the limitations of using well data alone. However,
seismic data are a measure of time rather than depth or
velocity directly, and the provelocities derived from seismic
are imaging velocities, not vertical propagation velocities such
as in wells.
Any effort that undertakes to combine hard (well) data (high
certainty and low sampling density) and soft (seismic) data
(low certainty and high sampling density) must honour the
higher certainty of the well data. Geostatistics (spatial
statistics) is the proper way to combine these two diverse
types of data and retain proper weighting of well control, as
well as to capture and maintain spatial trends (Chambers et
al., 2000). For instance, kriging (which here is taken to include
the various versions of kriging and cokriging) is a method of
interpolation that uses specially-weighted combinations of
data observed at known locations (such as wells) to predict
unknown values at other locations. Kriging also provides
estimates of the accuracy of the predicted values.
The field of geostatistics presents many interesting techniques
for integrating and mapping velocity, and analyzing spatial
structures of velocity. We must restrict the scope of this short
article to the topic at hand - depth conversion - and simply
note that geostatistical analysis offers us tools to combine all
available velocity data.
ARTICLE Cont’d
Extending the velocity model to make use of
velocities from seismic
How can we extract good quality vertical propagation
velocity information from seismic data? Recall our earlier
discussion that the provelocities used in processing the
seismic data to a stacked, migrated, laterally focused picture
of the subsurface reflectors are not the same entity as true
vertical propagation velocities in the same ground, which
are what we require for depthing. We can correct them
substantially, however. The provelocities require corrections
for anisotropy (depthing demands the vertical velocity, and
provelocities contain a horizontal velocity element), for
heterogeneity (due to lateral facies changes and such), and for
ray bending (Al-Chalabi, 1994). These corrections produce
closer estimates of the true vertical velocities for accurate
depthing.
Although provelocities will always have more error and
uncertainty than well velocities, we can at least calibrate them
to the wells and then benefit from their added spatial
coverage. Calibrated provelocities can be converted either to
average or to interval velocities, and then combined with well
average or interval velocities, preferably using an appropriate
geostatistical approach (e.g., kriging with external drift,
collocated cokriging, etc.). This approach is often very useful
in the first layer of a multi-layer depth conversion, where
instantaneous well velocities are often limited or absent (due
to no logging behind surface casing), and where average
provelocities handle the overburden and provide extensive,
unbiased areal coverage.
Perhaps more usefully, though, provelocities can also be used
for instantaneous velocity modeling, using several different
approaches. In one such approach, well data are used to
derive the gradient parameter (k) in the V0,k function, and
interval velocities extracted from seismic and converted to V0
are used in combination with well V0 values in a V0 map.
Another approach is to derive the V0 from the provelocities
after they have been converted into “pseudo wells,” described
next.
The advantage of these approaches is that the wells provide
the necessary detail in the vertical direction (k gradient), the
seismic provides the necessary detail in the lateral directions
(V0 map), and geostatistics ties them together with proper spa-
tial weighting.
Pseudo-wells from seismic
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
velocities, time-depth curves (T-D curves) are computed at
each stacking location. (T-D curves are just another way of
representing velocity-depth functions.) Then T-D curves can
Figure 10
be amalgamated (averaged) into pseudo-wells to be used in
instantaneous velocity function modeling just as the T-D curves
from wells are used for instantaneous velocity modeling,
albeit at a coarser time sampling (Figure 10). The averaging
is used to smooth the error inherent in stacking velocity
analysis.
It can quickly be seen that even if we have seismic only and no
well data or sparse wells, we can derive pseudo-wells and do instan-
taneous velocity modeling for our depth conversion. In this way we
can use V(z) gradient functions to model velocity even if we
are using seismically-derived velocities. In order to do this,
though, seismic velocities need to be sufficiently detailed
vertically to allow a robust V(z) curve to be derived. An
approach to pre-stack velocity analysis has been developed to
produce “geologically consistent velocities” in seismic pro-
cessing (Crabtree, et al., 2000). In addition to providing a finer
spatial sampling along the time axis, this technique forces a
closer fit to well velocities and generally reduces the arti-
facts that are typically present in provelocities.
Because of the greater areal coverage of seismic, one of the
significant uses of pseudo-wells is to create many wells spread
out across a study area and perform discrepancy contouring
and overlap plots to look for clustering of pseudo-wells into
areas of different velocity behavior. This points out areas of
major facies changes or differences in uplift caused by
faulting. The pseudo-well technique is a geological tool as
well as a velocity modeling tool for time-depth-conversion. It
can be used for the detection and evaluation of anomalously-
pressured geological units, such as geopressured units
(Gordon et al., 2000) that must be dealt with during drilling
(or avoided), and basin-centered gas accumulations (Surdam,
1997).
20 CSEG Recorder November, 2001
Summary
In this article we have touched on a number of issues with
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
extents, but it is inappropriate for depth conversion - or
“depthing” - because depthing requires strictly actual vertical
propagation velocity (“true” velocity). True velocity is best
obtained from vertical seismic profiles, check shot surveys, or
calibrated sonic logs.
Depthing can be done via a wide range of existing methods,
too many to cover in any article, but which can be separated
into two broad categories: 1) direct time-depth conversion,
and 2) velocity modeling for time-depth conversion.
Direct time-depth conversion ignores the structure (spa-
tial patterns) of velocity, and operates at known depth
points only (i.e., at wells) by forcing an exact or minimal
error match between actual and predicted depths.
Moreover, direct conversion only involves seismic times at
well points - velocity information from seismic, and all
the spatial benefits that go with it, cannot be used.
Velocity modeling for time-depth conversion involves
building a true velocity model using all available velocity
data. This modeling may include various types of well
velocities only, or calibrated provelocities only, or both.
Modeling may use simple average velocity (single layer), or
interval velocity (multi-layer), or instantaneous velocity (vari-
ation of velocity with depth). The goal is to determine a
model that has some likelihood of working adequately
between the known depth points, in addition to matching the
known points. Some techniques can be used involving con-
ditions other than final depth prediction accuracy, and can
then be tested against the known points to determine their
effectiveness. This is an independent way to predict depth
because it uses velocity functions as the input rather than
horizon depth and time at wells, and because it can involve
provelocities in addition to or even instead of well velocities.
Continued on Page 22
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
on the depthing process. Direct methods are fast and accurate at
the wells, which may be all that is required. Some forms of
velocity modeling can also be fast and exact, whereas other
forms require significant data resources, modeling expertise,
and time to administer, yet offer greater confidence in the
results, particularly between well control, where it really counts.
References & Further Reading
Al-Chalabi, M., 1997a, Parameter nonuniqueness in velocity versus depth
functions, Geophysics, 62, no. 3, 970-979.
Al-Chalabi, M., 1997b, Time-depth relationships for multilayer
depth conversion, Geophysical Prospecting, 45, 715-720.
Al-Chalabi, M., 1994, Seismic velocities - a critique, First Break, 12, no.
12, 589-596.
Alkalifah, T., Tsvankin, I., 1995, Velocity analysis for transversely isotropic
media, Geophysics, 60, no. 5, 1550-1566.
Chambers, R. L., Yarus, J. M, Hird, K.B, 2000, Petroleum geostatistics for
non-geostatisticians, The Leading Edge, May 2000 (Part 1), June
2000 (Part 2).
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.
Crabtree, N.J., Etris, E.L, Eng, J., Brewer, G., and Dewar, J., 2000,
Geologically consistent seismic processing velocities improve time to
depth conversion, poster session presentation at GeoCanada2000
combined Conference of the CSPG , CSEG, CGU, CWLS, MAC,
GAC, Calgary, Alberta, May 29-June 2, 2000
Gordon, G., et al., Integrated science to predict overpressure in a new
deep-water frontier area - NW Europe, Overpressure 2000
Workshop, London, UK, April 2000.
Haskey, P., Faragher, J. R., Raymondi, M. J., Dangerfield, J. A. and
Fjeld, O., 1998, Embla: An interpretive case history: Depth imaging
with well controlled signal estimation, 68th Ann. Internat. Mtg: Soc. of
Expl. Geophys., 1174-1177
Kaufman, H., 1953, Velocity functions in seismic prospecting, Geophysics,
18, 289-297.
Reilly, M., 1993, Integration of well and seismic data for 3D velocity model
building, First Break, 11, no. 6, 247-260.
Ross, W. S., 1994, The velocity-depth ambiguity in seismic traveltime data,
Geophysics, 50, no. 5, 830-843.
Schultz, P., 1999, The Seismic Velocity Model as an Interpretation Asset,
1999 Distinguished Instructor Short Course, Distinguished
Instructor Series, No. 2, SEG.
Surdam, R.C., 1997, A New Paradigm for Gas Exploration in Anomalously
Pressured “Tight Gas Sands” in the Rocky Mountain Laramide Basins,
in R.C. Surdam, ed., Seals, traps and the petroleum system: AAPG
Memoir 67, 283-298.
Tieman, H.J., 1994, Investigating the velocity-depth ambiguity of reflection
traveltimes, Geophysics, 59, no. 11, 1763-1773.
For Further Reading
Yarus, J.M. and Chambers, R.L. (editors), 1994, Stochastic Modeling and
Geostatistics, AAPG Computer Applications in Geology No. 3,
1994. R
22 CSEG Recorder November, 2001
EDWARD L. ETRIS
Edward (Ned) Etris received M.Sc.
(1987) and Ph.D. (1991) degrees in geology
from the University of South Carolina,
specializing in quantitative sedimentol-
ogy. Ned is currently Manager of Geology
at Scott Pickford Canada. He is an experi-
enced reservoir characterization geologist
and numerical reservoir model developer,
with particular strengths in the evaluation
and integration of core, log, and seismic
data, including statistical and geostatisti-
cal analysis. He came to Canada in 1991 to work for Canadian
Hunter Exploration Ltd., then later Ranchmen’s Resources Ltd. and
Crestar Energy Inc., gaining a wide range of production company
experience in Western Canada. His work has ranged from research
to development drilling and pool exploitation, and from regional
prospecting to detailed reservoir characterization. Since joining Scott
Pickford in 1999 he has directed work on time-depth conversion, 3D
geological modeling, petrophysical evaluations, and tight gas sand
evaluations, and played a key role in integrated geophysical-geolog-
ical-engineering studies within Scott Pickford’s Reservoir Modeling
Group. Ned has numerous papers and professional presentations to
his name, and has taught industry courses on geostatistics.
NICK J. CRABTREE
Nick Crabtree received an M.A.
(Hons) Natural Sciences (Geological
Sciences) degree in 1992 from Jesus
College, Cambridge, UK. (The college,
part of the University of Cambridge, was
founded in 1496!) Nick is currently
Technical Manager of Depthing Research
and Services, at Scott Pickford’s Croydon
UK office. He has worked on the
“Velocity Modeling Using Statistical
Analysis of Seismically Derived
Velocities” project; served as technical lead on the development of
VELIT, Scott Pickford’s velocity modeling software; and presented
numerous papers at the SEG, CSEG, and EAGE. In 1999, after a
year in snowy Calgary, Nick returned to the Croydon office to
head up the RISKIT research project studying uncertainty and sen-
sitivity analysis of velocity modeling and depth conversion. He
provides technical support and mentoring in the areas of depth
conversion, velocity modeling and reservoir characterization.
Nick’s professional interests also include seismic attribute analy-
sis, reservoir characterization, integration, and mapping.
JAN DEWAR
Jan Dewar graduated from the
University of Alberta in 1981 with a B.Sc.
in Physics. Jan is currently working with
Scott Pickford in Calgary, with a special
enthusiasm for communicating technical
concepts including AVO, Inversion,
Modeling, VSP and Transfer Filter pro-
cessing, Rock Physics, and just about
anything else that can be puzzling to the
average bear. jdewar@scopica.com