VSP: An In-Depth Seismic Understanding

Robert R. Stewart
DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY & GEOPHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY, CALGARY, CANADA

SEP 2001 | VOL. 26 NO. 07 | VIEW ISSUE

Summary
Vertical seismic pro ling has been a useful measurement to obtain rock properties (velocity,
impedance, attenuation, anisotropy) in depth as well as to provide a seismic image of the
subsurface. The VSP can also give insight into seismic wave propagation and provide processing
and interpretive assistance in the analysis of surface seismic data. New multi-level receivers and
hydrophone strings have improved the acquisition e ciency of the survey. Detailed
interpretation, phase-matching work, AVO e orts, and elastic-wave analysis can all bene t from
VSP information. 3-D images from an area of sources recorded in a VSP show considerable
promise. Similarly, the use of borehole seismic measurements to monitor hydraulic fracturing and
perform repeated surveys is developing rapidly.

Introduction

Drilling a well indicates a signi cant interest in the subsurface of an area. Hopefully, the drilling
results support the original enthusiasm. The well might have been a stratigraphic test, a step-out
development well, an expensive o shore well, or a land exploration borehole. It will likely have
been logged with various tools. Whatever the well’s type, its location will often have been selected
on the basis of seismic images. In most cases (even the embarrassing ones), we will want to derive
as much information from the borehole as possible - either to nd more (or less) of the same. The
vertical seismic pro le is both a well log and a seismic imaging tool. As such, it can help in the
geophysical appraisal of the region around a well. The VSP has four important roles to play in
assessing the rock and uids close to the borehole: 1) to provide in situ rock properties in depth,
particularly seismic velocity, impedance, anisotropy, and attenuation, 2) to assist in understanding
seismic wave propagation (e.g., source signatures, multiples, and conversions), 3) to make well
understood re ectivity images in depth, and 4) to use all of the above in further surface seismic
data processing and interpretation.
The basic components of a VSP survey are a seismic source, wireline and downhole receiver array,
and a recording/wireline truck (shown schematically in Figure 1).

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of a VSP survey indicating a survey well, seismic source,
receiver, wireline and recording trucks (from DiSiena et al., 1984).

A photograph of a VSP survey in progress, at the Pikes Peak heavy oil eld in Saskatchewan, is
shown in Figure 2. If a single source position is used within several tens of metres of the borehole,
then the survey is called a, “zero-o set” VSP. The typical objectives of the zero-o set survey are to
provide a seismic time-to-depth relationship, interval velocities in depth, and a normal-incidence
re ectivity trace. If there are a number of regularly o set sources from the well-head, then the
survey is often called a “walkaway” VSP. The walkaway VSPs are usually conducted to determine
AVO behavior or to create a 2-D re ectivity image away from the borehole. Several sources
deployed at various o sets might be just called a multi-o set VSP or if at di erent directions from
the well, a multi-azimuth survey. These surveys would give 2-D sections away from the well.
 Figure 2. Conducting a VSP survey in the Pikes Peak heavy oil eld, Saskatchewan. A
vibrator source is in the foreground with wireline/recording truck and support vehicles in
the background. A crane is used to deploy the wireline and tool in the well.

A full areal set of shots on the surface would constitute a 3-D VSP. The 3-D VSP can be
accomplished very economically if shot in conjunction with a 3-D surface seismic survey. The goal
of both the VSP and surface seismic surveys then would be to make a full volumetric picture of
the subsurface. A schematic diagram of 2-D and 3-D con gurations is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Ray-tracing models of 2-D and 3-D VSP surveys showing the acquisition
geometries and re ection coverage.

Acquisition
Downhole seismic data are typically acquired using tools containing three-component geophones
clamped to the borehole wall. A typical geophone tool will have 5 levels, although there are tools
with up to 80 levels of 3-C geophones that can clamp to the borehole wall. VSP surveys can be
conducted in open as well as cased holes, but cased holes are often preferred due to magnetic
clamping tools and avoidance of borehole stability problems. Schlumberger Canada’s 5-level 3-C
tool is shown in Figure 4. In practice, the tool is usually lowered to the bottom of the well and
records a source shot or shake. The tool will be moved its length up the hole and the source is
reactivated. This continues up the hole until time or budgets expire. Recording over the whole
vertical range of the well is advantageous to provide the most complete depth and o set
coverage. The cost of the VSP is assessed according to factors that include: the number of depth
levels recorded, total vertical aperture of the operation, number and type of source o sets, time
on site, tool rental, and of course mob/demobilization costs. We note that hydrophone receiver
strings can also be e ectively used in VSP surveys. This form of acquisition has the advantage that
many receivers can be deployed with minimal e ort. Borehole waves are a major source of noise
with hydrophone cable surveys, but much of this noise can be removed with various ltering
operations.

Figure 4. Photograph of Schlumberger Canada’s 5-level three-component geophone tool.

This tool magnetically clamps to a cased borehole.

The kind of data that are recorded are shown in Figure 5. These are the vertical channel
recordings for a six-source VSP survey in the Pikes Peak heavy oil eld, Saskatchewan. The source
o sets were 23m, 90m, 180m, 270m, 360m, and 450m.

Note the relatively straight line of the rst arrivals with depth. Moving to farther o sets the
shallow rst arrivals are actually upcoming refractions. We interpret the curved arrivals later in
the data to be source-generated shear waves - which are fairly common even on the vertical
geophones!
 Figure 5. Vertical channel VSP data from six o sets of a survey in the Pikes Peak heavy
oil eld, Saskatchewan.

Analysis

Once we have acquired our borehole seismic data, we need to extract the properties of interest
from it as well as make some kind of image. The most basic information that we will want from
the VSP is a seismic time-to-depth relationship. This information is acquired by just picking the
rst-breaking energy of the zero-o set survey. The time-depth curve may be used in sonic log
calibration or stretching surface seismic data into depth. From the time-to-depth picks, we can
also extract an actual seismic interval velocity. This velocity might be used in building a rock
physics data base, surface seismic imaging, or as a constraint for seismic inversion. In addition, by
nding an angular dependence of velocity (or split shear waves), we may be able to estimate
anisotropy in the rock.
This anisotropy might be attached to the state of stress in the formations or fracture intensity and
direction. We can also use the frequency loss, in the rst few cycles of the downgoing energy, over
several levels to calculate an attenuation. This absorption or Q factor can be used as a rock
property or in a Q-compensation technique with surface seismic data (Figure 6).

Figure 6. The logartithmic spectral ratio plot to determine a Q value from a 90 m o set
VSP survey in the Pikes Peak heavy oil eld, Saskatchewan (from Xu et al., 2001).

The next level of sophistication would have us process a zero-o set survey for its re ectivity. In
this case, the VSP is really providing a one-dimensional image. However, we do know quite a bit
about this single trace. It can be made largely multiple free and zero-phase. We’re con dent with
the zero-phase estimate because we have measured the downgoing wave and can thus
accomplish a deterministic (signature-type) deconvolution. In addition, via the composite or L plot,
the VSP provides a unique mapping between seismic re ectivity in time and rock properties in
depth.

If we have a source or sources o set from the well-head then we can make a lateral re ectivity
section from the data. One such image is shown below (Figure 7), where we used a 48-level
vertical hydrophone cable and regularly spaced dynamite shots, to o sets of 1500 m, to create an
image a Glauconitic reservoir at a depth of 1500m.

Figure 7. Re ectivity section generated from a vertical hydrophone cable and surface
dynamite shots (from Gulati, 1998).

We note that the gamma ray and sonic logs are in depth (600m-1800m) as is the horizontal scale
of the VSP. The VSP however, is also in two-way time on the vertical axis. This allows a direct
correlation of surface seismic data as well as synthetic data to the well logs in depth. Because this
particular VSP used an o set source, we have created an o set image - both for P waves and
converted (PS) waves. These VSP images can also be correlated and integrated into the
interpretation.

Figure 8. A composite plot including well logs, VSP (depth and time), synthetic
seismogram, VSP extracted trace (VET-a stack of the depth and time plot), a section of
surface seismic data, and o set VSP section (in o set distance and time), a stack of
converted-wave VSP data, and a PS VSP section. The data are from Rolling Hills, Alberta.
 Figure 9. Composite plot from measurements in the Cold Lake area. Note the very high
frequency content of the VSP as compared to the slice of surface seismic section (from
Sun, 1999).

Various other geometries can be employed to create speci c pictures. For example, having
receivers in a deviated or horizontal well can provide a high-resolution image below the borehole.

3-D VSP

By using an areal distribution of shots (perhaps from a simultaneously conducted 3-D surface
seismic survey), we can create a 3-D image. Such a 3C-3D VSP was acquired over the Blackfoot oil
eld in Alberta, Canada. This 3-D VSP was recorded simultaneously with a surface 3C-3D seismic
program. Dynamite shots (4 kg at 18 m) from the surface 3C-3D seismic survey, that fell within
2200m o set from the recording well were used in the VSP analysis (Figure 10). As these 431
shots for the surface 3-D seismic were being taken, a 5-level borehole tool moved seven times
(75m each) recording over a receiver depth range from 400m to 910m.
 Figure 10. Map of the Blackfoot surveys showing shot points for the surface 3C-3D and
the 3C-3D VSP. A previous broad-band and a recent high-resolution 3-C line are also
shown in the gure (modi ed from Margrave et al., 1998).

The 3-D VSP data were processed using basic VSP processing techniques that included hodogram
analysis, wave eld separation using median lters, and VSP deconvolution. The nal P-P and P-S
image volumes were obtained by VSPCDP stacking the upgoing wave elds in 3-D cells followed by
f-xy deconvolution (Figure 11). The P-P and P-S sections from the 3-D VSP correlate well with those
from the surface 3C-3D seismic survey.
 Figure 11. P-wave section (north-south line) after VSPCDP stack, trace equalization, time-
variant spectral whitening, and f-xy deconvolution (from Gulati, 1998).

The discovery of PanCanadian Petroleum’s Blackfoot oil eld was assisted by anomalies on P-wave
3-D seismic slices (from a 1993 survey). These anomalies may be related to gas in the upper
reservoir. However, many non-reservoir anomalies exist, too. A3C- 3D seismic survey was
conducted in 1995 to attempt to di erentiate reservoir from non-reservoir rock using converted
waves. Figure 12 shows time slices at the reservoir (channel level) from the resultant P and
converted-wave volumes of the surface seismic survey. Both show a north-south trend of the
interpreted Blackfoot Glauconitic channel body. The box on the time slices in Figure 12 indicates
the area of coverage of the 3-D VSP. The time slices in Figure 13 of the 3-D VSP indicate anomalies
(reds and oranges are interpreted as sand indicators) and possible additional targets for drilling.
 Figure 12. P-wave time slice at the channel level from the 3-D surface seismic (modi ed
from Margrave et al., 1998). The black rectangle in the Figure shows the outline of the
region mapped by the 3-D VSP survey.

Figure 13. Time slices from the 3-D VSP, (a) P-P VSP time slice and (b) P-S VSP time slice at
the channel level. We interpret the red and orange colours (amplitude values) as sand
indicators and blues as indicative of shales.

Monitoring
There have been some remarkable images developed from borehole sensors that monitor
hydraulic fractures. Earthquake hypocentral location techniques are used to plot the fractures as
they occur in time. This can give an excellent indication of the extent of a hydraulic fracture.
Furthermore, the is great promise in permanently emplacing motion sensors in a well to
repeatedly monitor fracturing or image the area of interest for uid and pressure changes.
Conclusions

Borehole seismic measurements can be used for a number of purposes including the estimation
of rock property values, seismic propagation understanding, interpretive assistance, and
standalone imaging. The use of hydrophone receivers promises faster and cheaper acquisition as
do many-level geophone tools. The VSP is continuing to develop as a sophisticated seismic log (for
in situ values including anisotropy). Converted-wave analysis is considerably helped by 3-C VSP
measurements. 3-D VSP imaging is providing some very useful images. Permanently emplacing
downhole sensors may provide a whole new realm of reservoir monitoring.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Husky Energy Inc., Calgary, especially Larry Mewhort, for expert counsel and
support of the Pikes Peak e ort as well as AOSTRA (Project #1296) for its assistance. The Blackfoot
Seismic Project and PanCanadian Petroleum Ltd. made the 3C-3D seismic surveys possible.
Finally, I thank sponsors of the CREWES Project for their continued technical and nancial
support.

About the Author(s)

Robert R. Stewart graduated from the University of Toronto with a B.Sc. in physics and
mathematics and completed a Ph.D. in geophysics from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. He has been employed with the Chevron Oil Field Research Company in La Habra,
California; Arco Exploration and Production Research Centre in Dallas, Texas; Veritas Software
Ltd., Calgary, and since 1987 has run his own geophysical consulting company, GENNIX
Technology Corp.

Rob is a professor of geophysics at the University of Calgary and held the Chair in Exploration
Geophysics from 1987-1997. He is the director of the CREWES Project, an industry-university
consortium studying advanced seismic methods in exploration that was honored with APEGGA’s
Achievement Award in 1993 and NSERC’s University-Industry Synergy Award in 1999.

Rob is a past editor of the Canadian Journal of Exploration Geophysics, past associate editor for
GEOPHYSICS, and a lecturer for the SEG Continuing Education Program. Rob and colleagues have
received Best Presentation, Paper, and Poster Awards from the CSEG and SEG. He was the CSEG
Convention Technical Chairman in 1992 and subsequently awarded the CSEG Medal. Rob was
President of the CSEG in 1997-98 and completed the SEG’s inaugural Distinguished Educator
Program: a 6-month world lecture tour of 12 countries in 1999.

He is a member of the Canadian Space Agency’s Space Exploration Advisory Committee, the SEG’s
Continuing Education Committee, APEGGA’s Council, and belongs to a number of organizations
including Sigma Xi, AGu, and the EAGE.
Rob’s current professional interests include: motion sensor design, exploration seismology,
borehole geophysical methods, geostatistics, and natural hazards.

References
DiSiena, J.P., Byun, B.S., Fix, J.E., and Gaiser, J.E., 1984, , in Eds.
Toksoz, N.M. and Stewart, R.R., Vertical Seismic Pro ling, Part B-Advanced Concepts, Geophys.
Press.

Gulati, J.S., 1998, Borehole seismic surveying: : M.Sc.

Thesis, University of Calgary.

Margrave, G.F., Lawton, D.C., and Stewart, R.R., 1998,

: The Leading Edge, 4, 509-513.

Sun, Z., 1999, : Ph.D. Thesis,

University of Calgary.

Xu, C., Stewart, R.R., and Osborne, C.A., 2001,

: Presented at the CSEG 2001 Ann. Nat. Convention, Calgary, Alberta.

Appendices