IPA, 2006 - 26th Annual Convention Proceedings, 1998

Disc Contents

PA98
Contents

- 1 - 052

Search

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Twenty-Sixth Annual Convention, May 1998

WHERE IS M Y HOFUZONTAL WELL ?

USE OF BOREHOLE SEISMIC WHERE VELOCJTIES VARY LATERALLY
Agus Muharam"
Frank Musgmve"

ABSTRACT
Extended offset horizontal wells (out to a kilometer or
more) are becoming common in field developments.
In areas where overburden velocity varies laterally, it
becomes difficult to know where the well is relative
to the top of the reservoir away from the top reservoir
penetration point. This is important to know for depth
conversion and volumetrics and to know what part of
the reservoir is sampled by the well to build a good
simulation model for reservoir characterization.
We examine the use of the conventional offset VSP
method but it can only image reflectors below the
reservoirs in the well making receivers in the
horizontal section only good for imaging the base
reservoir. The top reservoir over the horizontal
section could only be imaged by a very far offset
source recorded by receivers in the vertical section
giving raypaths with too much moveout, poor signal
quality and little control on overburden velocity.
Instead, we have applied a checkshot solution to the
problem where we can use the seismic time and the
checkshot time to estimate borehole location relative
to the top reservoir and'the overburden velocity for
depth conversion.
Examples from onshore North Sumatra illustrate the
ideal and practical methods and the accuracy of our
estimates. The marine applications are very accurate
(2 20 feet in the estimate of well position relative to
the top reservoir) due to more homogeneous near
surface and the ability to easily locate the source
directly over the receiver. The land applications are
less accurate but still more accurate than no
information (260 feet), due to more variable near

Mobil Oil Indonesia, Inc.

surface statics, datuming velocities and the inability to

easily locate the source over the receiver.

INTRODUCTION
There are many reasons stated for not acquiring
borehole seismic data in development wells. They
usually consider that enough velocity information is
available in the field from wildcat and appraisal
control, velocity surveys, and development well
penetration points to make a reasonably accurate
depth conversion. Extended offset horizontal wells
have added a new complexity to the question that has
made us consider the value of additional data from the
development wells.
Mobil Oil Indonesia has operated the drilling of 20
highly deviated development wells in 1997 to develop
four Peutu limestone fields in North Sumatra. Seven
of these wells, in the SLS-A' & D fields, have offsets
of approximately 2,625 feet. After drilling each well,
we know the position of the whole well bore in depth
but we only know the depth of the top of the reservoir
where the well penetrates it. What we don't know is
the depth to the top of the reservoir over the
horizontal well bore. We only know that surface in
time from the surface seismic. If this were an area of
well behaved overburden velocity, it would be
sufficient to depth convert the top reservoir surface
with the velocity from the well penetration .points and
the wildcat velocity surveys. Unfortunately, this area
is an onshore area in the foothills of the Barisan
Uplift topography. Both statics and laterally varying
velocities are a problem. We would like to acquire
borehole seismic data that allow us to better know the
top reservoir surface in depth, the position of the
horizontal well bore relative to it, and which layers in
the reservoir have been sampled by the well bore (for

118
the simulator model). Figure 1 illustrates the time to
depth problem for a general case.

SOLUTIONS
The first solution we tried to model was whether a

VSP image of the Top reservoir (Top Peutu in this

case) would answer our questions. Figure 2 is a
model of the reflection points for a relatively near
offset VSP. Reflections can only be imaged where
the borehole is above the reservoir giving a very small
image of an area that is already well known from the
well penetration points in this case. The top re'servoir
surface above the horizontal well bore cannot be
imaged at this offset. We could move the source out
farther away from the surface location of the well but
the source would need to be approximately 2.5 km
from the well (assumes highest receiver half way up
well bore and reflection point at 2,625 feet offset).
This poses several problems such as weak signal from
long distance travel, energy arriving at high angle
from vertical, and lack of control on velocity needed
to migrate and depth convert the VSP data.
The second solution considered was a more reasonable
offset VSP to image the base of the reservoir (Figure
3). The first constraint here is that there must be a
good reflecting interface at the base *reservoir to
image. Second, the reservoir thickness must be
known. If there are reflectors at top and base
reservoir, the thickness could be estimated by applying
a reservoir interval velocity estimate (from vertical
wildcat sonic or checkshot data). But the horizontal
well is still a problem for VSP processing. The data
would look like Figure 4. The up-going and downgoing arrivals would only be dip separable for
receivers in the non-horizontal portion of the well
bore. Data from the horizontal section would show a
small time lag between the parallel direct and
reflected events. These events would be very difficult
to separate by deconvolution since there is no slope
difference. We did not try this method because of the
obvious problems and because there is not always a
good base reservoir reflector at SLS.
Next we examined the use of checkshot data. The
simplest case is that of a sources vertically above
receivers (Figure 5). We measure total travel time
and receiver depth only. Interval velocities of the
overburden and the reservoir can not be measured or

derived from this data bedause the top reservoir is

near horizontal and the well bore is near parallel with
the top reservoir (Smidt, 1996). The depth to the top
reservoir (Doverbllrden)
and the depth of the well below
can be derived from the two
the top reservoir (D,,,J
equations in Figure 5 (two equations, two unknowns)
only if we assume constant velocities for VoverbnrdeI,
and
Vyeut1,and if the two velocities are substantially
different. In the SLS case, the velocities are quite
different between the overburden shale and the
reservoir reefal limestone but the assumption of
constant overburden velocity is not well founded.
Statics and variable velocity in this thrusted
overburden have made considerable error in our depth
convcrsions and well prognoses of previous wells.
Where the overburden velocity is variable (the same
places we generally need checkshot information), we
must have another piece of information. Figure 6
shows a method that uses the seismic data time to the
top reservoir with the checkshot data. The depth to
the receiver in the borehole is known and the depth of
the top reservoir surface is calculated by subtracting
the delta D betwe& the receiver and the top reservoir
surface. Delta D is calculated from the difference
between the seismic time to top reservoir reflector and
checkshot time to borehole receiver divided by the
reservoir interval velocity (from sonic logs). The
obvious requirements for this method are a good top
reservoir reflector, known phase and polarity of
seismic and checkshot data, and a method to correct
both data sets to a common datum (knowledge of
shallow velocity structure).

If there is not a good top reservoir reflector to use this

method, the intcrprcter must revert to the previous
method that doesn't use the seismic data (Figure 5 ) .
When the seismic data is not used, calculated changes
in the depth of the borehole below the top reservoir
surface will have iarge error associated with them due
to the unknown magnitude of variation in Voverburdeli
but the method will still show large variations in the
depth o f the top reservoir over short distances (such
as faults) where the checkshot recorded time should
change sharply between receiver positions straddling
the fault (assumes large velocity difference between
overburden and reservoir as with carbonates overlain
by shale). This could be particularly useful for
reservoir characterization where the top reservoir
surface is not well imaged by seismic.

119
OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The marine case is optimal for doing checkshots over
horizontal wells (Figure 7). Airguns can be placed
directly over the receiver location (vertical travel path,
direct comparison to seismic stack trace) and very
close to the sea level datum (small correction from
source position to datum). The land case usually
presents more constraints. Topography, surface
conditions , ,physical, cultural, and environmental
obstacles often conspire to limit the possible source
locations. If dynamite is used, shot holes must be
drilled. If airguns are used, large pits must be
excavated. At SLS, we were only able to use one
airgun pit for each well. Due to the mountainous and
forested nature of the area, we always attempted to
dig the pit on or near to a road. We tried to find a
location as close as possible to the well TD position
to minimize the nonvertical ray path angle correction
error and as far away from the well penetration and
wildcat known control points as possible. The
nonvertical angle correction increases as the receiver
is moved away from the source position (Figure 8).

ACCURACY
The marine case has many less potential errors than
the land case. In marine acquisition, there is no angle
correction as the shot is vertically over the receiver.
Both the seismic data and the checkshot data have the
source airgun near the datum in the known velocity
water layer. Therefore there should be no difference
in statics or datum corrections. Measurement and
calculation errors are all small including :
1. Seismic time error due to inaccurate migration
velocity if top reservoir is not nearly flat,
2. Error in picking checkshot first break up to 2 ms
= 13 feet,
3 . Error in reservoir velocity
and

2 500

ft/sec

6 feet,

4. Only small error in picking seismic time if

polarity and phase are known.
Therefore in the ideal case of marine data, known
polarity and phase and nearly flat top reservoir locally,
the depth estimate should be accurate within k 20
feet. Potentially the largest error is in not knowing

the seismic polarity and phase well enough. If it is

picked '/4 wavelet off (90" out of phase) for a 20 Hz
dominant frequency wavelet and 8,000 ft/sec velocity,
an additional 50 feet error will be introduced.
Wavelet processing, analysis of shallow gas
'anomalies, water bottom, and other events of known
reflection coefficient should reduce the potential for
this error to occur. Also, we can compare the
checkshot data and seismic time picks at well
penetration points where the top reservoir depth is
known. A correction velocity can be calculated that
moves the checkshot data from the gun elevation to
the seismic datum and makes the seismic and
checkshot times equal at the well penetrations. The
most reasonable gun depth to datum correction
velocity will result from the comparison when the
correct wavelet polarity and phase are used for the
seismic pick.
The land case has ail of the same errors as the marine
case with the addition of statics and datuming errors
and non vertical raypath corrections for some receiver
positions (Figure 8). If we consider the receiver
positions where the raypath is near vertical, only the
statics and datuming will add error.
Figure 9
illustrates the problem in equating the seismic and the
checkshot experiments. The checkshot is a single
raypath experiment where the time must be adjusted
downward to the datum. The seismic trace is the
result of stacking a CDP set of traces that have
different elevations, correction velocities, and statics.
We must use a correction velocity for the checkshot
that makes the checkshot time best match that of the
seismic data at reservoir penetration points. It will be
an average of the correction velocities in the CDP set.
The best way to derive a range of velocities is by
making checkshots and seismic reflectors tie at area
wildcat wells and deviated well penetration points. If
the datum correction velocity can only be determined
to within 1000 ft/sec, there will be an additional 2 44
feet error associated with the delta D depth for the
SLS case. This is calculated where the datum is 200
feet and the velocity of the reservoir is 13,000 ft/sec.
The seismic to checkshot time comparison will have
a & 6.7ms one-way time error {(200ft/6,000ft/sec) (200ft/5,000ft/sec)}. The dep,th error is k 44 feet if the
middle datum correction velocity is used (.0067 x
13,000/2). If the reservoir is several hundred feet
thick, this level of accuracy would be sufficient to add
knowledge to the reservoir model and the volumetric
calculations.

120

CASE HISTORY
Checkshot data in some wells showed that the
overburden velocity was not highly variable and that
the data was not needed while others showed that the
velocity was quite variable and that the data added
value. The problem with this conclusion is that we
would not know this unless we had the data. One of
the wells that gave significant results was the SLSA10 well onshore 'B' Block North Sumatra. The
reflector at the top of the reef is a prominent peak on
this 3D data set (black, Figure 10) and is easily
interpreted over the well horizontal section and
appears to be almost flat. If the seismic top reservoir
surface had been depth converted with the velocity
from the well penetration, it would be nearly flat
(Figure 11). However, when the checkshot and
seismic data are used to calculate the depth of the
well bore below the top reservoir (delta D) and the
velocity of the overburden (by the method outline in
Figure 6, calculations Table 1) our depth estimates
would have been over 100 feet off (compare columns
K and L, Table 1 and graphically Figure 11). The
velocity decreases over the middle well section raising
the top reservoir in depth and then increases toward
the well TD depressing the top reservoir in depth.
Clearly, this information is valuable for depth
conversion, volumetrics and creation of a simulation
model.
We estimate that our top reservoir depths are accurate
to within approximately 2 50 feet. The datum
correction error has been minimized by using a
velocity (4,893 ft/sec) which makes the seismic time
(zero crossing, peak, minimum phase) and the
checkshot time equal at the well penetration point.
Physically, this is a very reasonable velocity for the
shallow overburden and it matches well with the
correction velocities calculated by a similar method in

the other wells of the field. Potentially the largest

error in this example is the slant path correction since
there was only one airgun pit. For locations away
from the source location, the seismic data traveled
sub-vertically whereas the checkshot data traveled a
slant path sampling a different velocity field. A
second VSP source at the other end of the borehole
would minimize these possible errors. Our opinion is
that the magnitudes of the velocity and depth changes
are not highly accurate but that the trends in velocity
and depth are real and meaningful.

CONCLUSIONS
VSP and checkshot methods have been examined for
application to highly deviated and horizontal wells.
VSP data does not meet the objectives of providing
control on the velocity and depth to the top reservoir
surface. There is, however, utility in the checkshot
method. If a good top reservoir reflection exists, the
seismic time and checkshot time can be compared to
estimate the depth that the top reservoir surface is
above the well bore. If a good top reservoir reflector
does not exist, the overburden velocity must be
assumed constant and only changes in depth across
faults and the like can be observed in the data.
The method we employ should be accurate to within
f 20 feet for marine data and f 60 feet for the land
data case. Results from seven horizontal development
wells show that significant volumetric error would
have resulted if we had not acquired the checkshot
data.

REFERENCES
Smidt, J.M., 1996, A limitation of well velocity
surveys in highly deviated wells drilled parallel to
bedding, Geophysics, 61, 627-630.

= (144 ft) / (4,893 ftlsec) = 29.4 ms; where 144 ft is the difference between

shot depth and datum depth.

Angle, source-receiver (F) = arc Tan (E/B)
Vertical Time (G)
= D *cos (F)
Top Peutu to Well Thickness { I ) = (G H) * 13.5 ; (Vpeutu = 13,500 fVsec)
(J) = (B - I) / (H/I 000)
Overburden Velocity
Top Peutu w/o checkshot (K) = (H/IOOO) * Jp, where Jp is overburden velocity from well penetration point.
Top Peutu with checkshot (L) = (H/1000)* 4

Notes : Datum Corretction

TOP PEUTU DEPTH CALCULATED WITH AND WITHOUT VELOCITY

CHECKSHOT SURVEY ON SLS - A10 DEVELOPMENT HORIZONTAL WELL

TABLE 1

PROBLEM

Vertical WC Control

FIGURE 1 - Schematic cross section of the knowns and unknowns for a horizontal well and a layered reservoir.

Solution Possibility Try VSP for l o p Peutu

FIGURE 2

Schematic cross section of single offset source VSP raypaths Eor a horizontal well to image the
Top Peutu reservoir.

123

Solution Possibility Try VSP for Base Peutu

FIGURE 3

Schematic cross section of single ofiCset source VSP raypaths to image the Base Peutu reservoir
at a horizontal well.

Schematic VSP Data

_____)

Increasing Depth

-b Horizontal Section

Time

FIGURE 4

Schematic VSP data of up and down going waves in a horizontal well.

124

Solution Possibility Vertical Checkshots

FIGURE 5

Schematic cross section of vertical checkshot raypaths to a horizontal well illustrating the
calculations when overburden and Peutu velocities are assumed constant.

Solution Possibility Vertical Checkshots with Seismic Time

GL

SL

Tchecknhot
i
Known in Depth and Time
Known in llme

born SL (seismic)

Welt path
known in depth

Vertical WC Control

FIGURE 6

Schematic cross section of a vertical checksbqt raypath illustrating the calculations when the
seismic time is also used.

12s

Operations Marine

SL
Time Vertical

E:
I

Time hypotenus x Sin [Tan

-(

TVDreoevla

! 8,000ft

Known in Deoth and Tlme

nriowii iii

tiiiw

from SL (seismic)

Horizontal Offset

weii pain
known in depth

Vertical WC Control

FIGURE 8 - Schematic cross section of the desired source and receiver locations for land operations when only
one source location is used.

126

Accuracy Land

FIGURE 9 - Diagram of the single source to Ceceiver raypath for the VSP experiment and the CDP set of traces
used to create a stacked trace. The average GL and Vdatum of the CDP set may be different than
the VSP encountered.

128