2015

Mohamed Shihataa
SHAHIK
1/11/2015

Part I introduction for seismic bore hole

Table of Contents
Casing borne signal .......................................................................................................................................... 16
Tube wave arrivals ........................................................................................................................................... 17
Interface waves .............................................................................................................................................. 18
Borehole Seismic definition ............................................................................................................................. 19
Why borehole seismic? ................................................................................................................................... 19
More questions that BHS could answer: .................................................................................................... 22
Objectives of Well-Seismic Ties ....................................................................................................................... 23
Types of seismic borehole ............................................................................................................................... 25
Chapter 2: Acoustic well logging ......................................................................................................................... 27
Equipment and data acquisition...................................................................................................................... 27
A. Operations ............................................................................................................................................ 28
B. Calibration............................................................................................................................................. 28
C. Types of tool ......................................................................................................................................... 28
..................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Different types of logging tools................................................................................................................... 30
Presentation of acoustic log data ................................................................................................................... 33
( 1) propagation velocity, .......................................................................................................................... 35
(2) Attenuation, ........................................................................................................................................... 35
(3) Frequency ............................................................................................................................................... 35
A.

Estimation of velocity and integrated travel time (TTI)....................................................................... 35

Chapter 3: SEISMIC WELL SURVEYING................................................................................................................. 38

DATA ACQUISITION ......................................................................................................................................... 38
The well velocity survey technique ............................................................................................................. 38
Operation of a seismic well survey .............................................................................................................. 39
Check shot ....................................................................................................................................................... 40
Check shots notes ............................................................................................................................................ 41
Check Shot Surveys Interpretation .................................................................................................................. 41
Chapter 4: Vertical seismic profiling .................................................................................................................... 46
Introduction and history of VSPs ..................................................................................................................... 46
Vertical seismic profiles ................................................................................................................................... 47
VSP operations................................................................................................................................................. 48
VSP principles .................................................................................................................................................. 49
2

Identification and origin of primary reflections .......................................................................................... 49

Identification and origin of multiple reflections.......................................................................................... 50
VSP data Acquisition ........................................................................................................................................ 51
Field Equipment ........................................................................................................................................... 51
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF VSP RECEIVERS ............................................................................................ 59
MULTI-LEVEL RECEIVER ARRAYS .................................................................................................................. 65
Receiver choice notes: ................................................................................................................................. 68
Recording Equipment ...................................................................................................................................... 73
Why must there be these facilities? ............................................................................................................ 78
Sources ........................................................................................................................................................ 78
Onshore Sources.......................................................................................................................................... 87
Field Technique............................................................................................................................................ 92
Field Quality Control .................................................................................................................................... 95
CHAPTER 5 :VSP PROCESSING ........................................................................................................................... 103
VSP processing steps ......................................................................................................................................... 110
Data preparation and editing ........................................................................................................................ 111
ii) Use of source signature deconvolution for marine data ....................................................................... 112
(iii) Accurate alignment of records ............................................................................................................ 113
(iv) Summing ........................................................................................................................................... 114
(v) Amplitude recovery .............................................................................................................................. 115
(vi) Filtering ................................................................................................................................................ 115
Separation of upgoing and downgoing wavefields ....................................................................................... 117
Aliasing and VSP data ................................................................................................................................ 118
Wavefield separation methods.................................................................................................................. 121
Parametric wavefield separation............................................................................................................... 125
Wavefield separation in real data .............................................................................................................. 127
Noise and unwanted signal ........................................................................................................................... 138
(I) Mechanical/electrical ............................................................................................................................ 138
CHAPTER 6: ESPECIAL TOPICS......142
Types of VSP surveys ......................................................................................................................................... 142
3-component processing ................................................................................................................................... 144
Imaging of VSP data ........................................................................................................................................... 147
Walkaway VSP surveys ...................................................................................................................................... 150
3D-VSP Surveys .......................................................................................................................................... 153
Shooting Patterns ...................................................................................................................................... 155
4D-VSP Surveys .......................................................................................................................................... 155
Interpretation of rig-source VSPs ...................................................................................................................... 156
3

Dipping reflectors and diffractions ................................................................................................................ 156

Identification and origin of primary reflections ........................................................................................ 158
Identification and origin of multiple reflections........................................................................................ 160
VSP - seismic comparisons............................................................................................................................. 161

Chapter 1 introduction
Geophysical principles: Seismic method and response
Introduction
Conventional reflection seismic technology uses acoustic waves (sound) to image the subsurface
Conceptually, as shown below , we begin by generating a bang. The sound travels down into the earth,
some of it gets reflected off buried interfaces, and we record the reflected energy (echoes).
The distance from the surface to buried horizons is measured in time
(Two-way traveltime - TWT).
If we know the velocity of sound in the propagating medium we can derive true depths
In practice we need to determine the optimal source of acoustic energy for the situation at hand, there
is more than one interface in the subsurface and we need to repeat the exercise many times in order to
generate a seismic profile or volume
Ship-towed airguns used at sea
Dynamite or vibroseis used on land

Figure.1: generation of seismic wave

4

Seismic Waves
The principle of sound propagation, while it can be very complex, is familiar. Consider a pebble dropped
in still water. When it hits the waters surface, ripples can be seen propagating away from the center in
circular patterns that get progressively larger in diameter (Figure 1). A close look shows that the water
particles do not physically travel away from where the pebble was dropped. Instead they displace
adjacent particles vertically then return to their original positions. The energy imparted to the water by
the pebbles dropping is transmitted along the surface of the water by continuous and progressive
displacement of adjacent water particles. A similar process can be visualized in the vertical plane,
indicating that wave propagation is a three dimensional phenomenon.( Gadallah and Fisher,2009).

Figure.2: example of generation of seismic wave when drop pebbles in water

Wave ray path

In comparing seismic wave propagation to the wave generated around a pebble thrown in the water,
replace the pebble with a device such as an explosive or vibrator that introduces energy into the ground.
This energy initially propagates as expanding spherical shells through the earth. A photograph of the
traveling wave motion taken at a particular time would show a connected set of disturbances a certain
distance from the source. This leading edge of the energy is called a wave front.
Many investigations of seismic wave propagation in three dimensions are best done by the use of
wavefronts.
Beginning at the source and connecting equivalent points on successive wave fronts by perpendicular
lines, gives the directional description of wave propagation. The connecting lines form a ray, which is
a simple representation of a threedimensional phenomenon. Remember, when we use a ray diagram we
are referring to the wave propagation in that particular direction; that is, the wave fronts are
perpendicular to the ray at all points (see Fig. 3).

Figure.3: example of generation ray path and waveform

When we swim in sea we can feel the water wave push up and down (figure4). we can generated
seismic wave like water wave ; geoscientist can uses sources for generated seismic wave that wave shut
down into the earth that wave can measure after reflection from subsurface layers by geophones in land
and hydrophone in sea .

Figure.4: example of water wave that push up and down.

a)

Figure 5 steps for generation seismic wave, a) use sources to generate pulses ,b)seismic wave propagate
the earth surface ,c) returned wave measures by receivers.

Types of Seismic Waves

Sound propagates through the air as changes in air pressure. Air molecules are alternately compressed
(compressions) and pulled apart (rarefactions) as sound travels through the air. This phenomenon is
often called a sound wave but also as a compressional wave, a longitudinal wave, or a P-wave.
Figure 6 shows three types of seismic wave, P-waves can propagate in solids, liquids, and gasses. There
is another kind of seismic wave that propagates only in solids. This is called a shear wave or an S-wave.
The latter term is preferred in this book. Motion induced by the S-wave is perpendicular to the direction
of propagation, i.e. up and down or side-to-side, Surface waves are another kind of seismic waves that
exist at the boundary of the propagating medium. The Rayleigh wave is one kind of a surface wave. It
exhibits a retrograde elliptical particle motion
.

Figure.6: three types of seismic wave.

Figure7 illustrates P-wave propagation. Darkened areas indicate compressions.The positions of the
compression at times t1 through 6t1 are shown from top to bottom. Note that the pulse propagates a
distance dp over a time of 6t1 t1= 5t1. The distance traveled divided by the time taken is the
propagation velocity, symbolized Vp for P-waves

Figure.7: P wave propagation

Figure 8 illustrates propagation of an S-wave pulse. Note that the S-wave propagates a distance ds in
the time 5t1. The S-wave velocity, designated as Vs, is ds/5t1.
Since ds is less than dp, it can be seen that Vs, < Vp. That is, S-waves propagate more slowly than Pwaves.

Figure.8: S wave propagations

Figure 9 shows motion of a particle over one period as a Rayleigh waves propagates from left to right.
The Rayleigh wave is often recorded on seismic records taken on land. It is then usually called ground
roll. Love waves are similar surface wave in which the particle motion is similar to S-waves. However,
Love wave motion is only parallel to the surface

Figure.9: surface wave propagations

Reflection and Refraction

As a first departure from the simplest earth model, consider a layered earth. What happens when an
incident compressional wave strikes a boundary between two media with different velocities of wave
propagation and/or different densities? Answer: Part of the energy is reflected from the boundary and
the rest is transmitted into the next layer. The sum of the reflected and transmitted amplitudes is equal
to the incident amplitude. Figure.10: shows Interface Are the boundaries where the properties of the
earth media change depend on Particle structure , different of Density (), Wave Velocity (V)

Interface 1

Interface 3

Figure.10: shows Interfaces between three layers.

The relative sizes of the transmitted and reflected amplitudes depend on the contrast in acoustic
impedances of the rocks on each side of the interface. While it is difficult to precisely relate acoustic
impedance to actual rock properties, usually the harder the rocks the larger the acoustic impedance at
their interface.
The following equation defines the reflection coefficient (RC) in terms of AI for normal incidence of a
seismic pulse at an AI boundary:

The acoustic impedance of a rock is determined by multiplying its density by its P-wave velocity, i.e.,
V. Acoustic impedance is generally designated as Z. Consider a P-wave of amplitude A0 that is
normally incident on an interface between two layers having seismic impedances (product of velocity
and density) of Z1 and Z2 (See Figure.11). The result is a transmitted ray of amplitude A2 that travels
on through the interface in the same direction as the incident ray, and a reflected ray of amplitude A1
that returns to the source along the path of the incident ray.
The reflection coefficient R is the ratio of the amplitude A1 of the reflected ray to the amplitude Ao of
the incident ray,

The magnitude and polarity of the reflection coefficient depends on the difference between seismic
impedances of layers 1 and 2, Z1 and Z2. Large differences (Z2 Z1) in seismic impedances results in
relatively large reflection coefficients. If the seismic impedance of layer 1 is larger than that of layer 2,
the reflection coefficient is negative and the polarity of the reflected wave is reversed. Some Typical
values of reflection coefficients for near-surface reflectors and some good subsurface reflectors are
shown below:

Incident
Energy

Reflected
Energy
A

V 1
1
V2 2
10

Boundary/Reflector
Normal

Refracted / Transmitted

Figure.11: reflection and transmitted waves

When a P-ray strikes an interface at an angle other than 90, reflected and transmitted P-rays are
generated as in the case of normal incidence. In such cases, however, some of the incident P-wave
energy is converted into reflected and transmitted Swaves (see Fig. 3.6). The resulting S-waves, called
SV waves, are polarized in the vertical plane. The Zoeppritz equations are a relatively complex set of
equations that allow calculation of the amplitudes of the two reflected and the two transmitted Basic
waves as functions of the angle of incidence. The equations require P- and S-wave velocities (VP2,
VS2, VP1, and VS1 in Figure.12) plus densities on both sides of the boundary. The S-waves that are
called converted rays contain information that can help identify fractured zones in reservoir rocks but
this book will discuss compressional waves.

Figure. 12: Reflection and refraction of an incident Pwave. VP2 > VS2 > VP1 >VS1
1.3.1Snells Law
This relationship was originally developed in the study of optics. It does, however, apply equally well
to seismic waves. Its major application is to determine angles of reflection and refraction from the
incidence of seismic waves on layer boundaries at angles other than 90.
Snells law of reflection states that the angle at which a ray is reflected is equal to the angle of incidence.
Both the angle of incidence and the angle of reflection are measured from the normal to the boundary
between two layers having different seismic impedances.
The portion of incident energy that is transmitted through the boundary and into the second layer with
changed direction of propagation is called a refracted ray. The direction of the refracted ray depends
upon the ratio of the velocities in the two layers. If the velocity in layer 2 is faster than that of layer 1,
11

the refracted ray is bent toward the horizontal. If the velocity in layer 2 is slower than that of layer 1,
the refracted ray is bent toward the vertical (Figure.13).

Sin A =
Sin C
Incide
nt
V1
V2

V1
V2
Reflecte
d

Boundary/Reflect
or

2
Normal

Figure.13: Snell law explanation

Refracted / Transmitted
Energy

Critical Angle and Head Waves

When the P-wave velocity is higher in the underlying layer, the refracted P-ray is bent toward the
boundary. As the angle of incidence increases the refracted P-ray will be bent to where it is just below
and along the boundary, which means that the angle of refraction is 90. The particular angle of
critical angle is equal to the ratio of velocities across the boundary or interface. This wave, known as a
head wave, passes up obliquely through the upper layer

Figure.14: Critical refraction/head wave

The majority of seismic sources are designed to provide an energy pulse which propagates as a
compressional (P) wave. VSPs, however, usually exhibit other wave types with distinctive event
patterns. These need to be recognised either because they may provide additional useful information
12

concerning the geophysical or geological environment or because they may degrade the data with which
one is trying to work. In the first category are various types of shear (S) or distortional waves and in
the second are casing borne signals and tube waves which are dependent on the column of fluid in the
borehole. These categories are not absolute, useful information can be gleaned from the observation of
tube waves for example, likewise much of the shear wave activity in VSPs is not sufficiently consistent
to enable its use in any analytical studies

Shear (S) waves.

P-wave energy propagates with a particle motion that is coincident with the direction of propagation;
S-wave energy particle motion is perpendicular to the direction of propagation. In the absence of an Swave energy source at the surface, any S-wave motion detected by the downhole geophone is a result
of mode conversion at some interface from P- to S-wave, see figure 3.1. This conversion usually occurs
as the energy passes through an acoustic impedance contrast somewhere between the source and the
detector, although mode conversion on reflection is commonplace. The reverse mode conversion is also
possible and hence a large family of wave patterns may be propagating in the subsurface. To further
complicate matters, S-wave motions have both vertical and horizontal components which may
themselves be subject to conversion. Observation of S-wave arrivals in VSP data sets is therefore
sometimes complicated but can provide useful information about the formations surrounding
the

Figure.15:seismic wave propagation

13

Increase in data resolution

By definition:

P-wave velocity,

S-wave

velocity,

where: =
formation density
rigidity modulus of the medium (shear
=
bulk
of
the
medium
=
modulus)modulus
(incompressibility)

For a rock

is positive and thus:

This implies

VP > VS

(For a fluid

= 0 and so VS = 0)

Generally the S-wave velocity in a formation is 50% to 75% of the P-wave velocity. As a consequence
of this at the same frequency the wavelength of the S-wave will be shorter than that of the P-waves.
This leads one to the observation that for the same recorded bandwidth, a VSP S-wave image is capable
of better resolution than the corresponding P- wave image. It is possible, therefore, that a more detailed
study of the subsurface could be made using S rather than P- wave images. As with all such simple
statements the practical aspects of this are not as simple as one might imagine and few VSPs contain
sufficient mode-converted energy to provide a meaningful image over the majority of the well

Application of Vs wave
14

Detection of fracture zones

Highly fractured rock attenuates seismic waves, particularly S-waves, and their velocities are strongly
affected by lowering the rigidity or density of the medium.
STEWART et al (1984), demonstrated an application of VSP data recorded before and after a hydraulic
fracturing operation in Antrim oil shales in which they delineated the fracture zone near the borehole.
They basically observed a difference in the arrival times of the P- and S-waves in the VSP before and
after fracturing.
Another property which can be made use of in this application is shear wave birefringence (shear wave
splitting). A shear wave incident at a fractured zone, with a polarisation direction at an angle to the
predominant direction of the fractures, will experience a partitioning of the energy into two components
one parallel and one perpendicular to the fracture orientation. The propagation velocities of these two
polarisations will be different, the polarisation parallel to the fractures being close to that of the rock
matrix velocity, the other polarisation influenced to a greater extent by any fluid in the fractures.
Observation of the two polarisation can lead to a determination of the predominant fracture orientation,
and in reservoirs where the primary porosity and permeability are due to such micro-cracks, can lead to
a determination of the direction of principle stress. This information can then be of use in the future
development of the field.

2. Determination of lithological parameters

Recording P- and S-waves during a VSP survey provides reliable measures of the formation interval
velocities for each wave type. A direct application of this is that pore fluids have different effects on the
two velocities as well as on the rock matrix density. It follows that if the ratio of P- to S-wave velocities
can be derived from the VSP, the lithological parameter can be inferred or its equivalent expressed in
terms of Poisson's ratio (ratio of the transverse contraction to longitudinal extension) which can be
predicted as:

15

The ratio VP/VS is more reliable than the seismic P-wave interval velocities in identification of rock matrix type
(carbonate or sandstone) and fluid saturation in the rock pores. This applies particularly to gas reservoirs.

Observation of anisotropy in the subsurface

A medium which has the same physical properties regardless of the direction in which they are measured
is termed an ISOTROPIC medium. If there is any variation of the physical property depending on
direction then the medium is ANISOTROPIC. In terms of seismic energy propagation, anisotropy
denotes a difference between the measured velocities parallel and normal to the bedding. A practical
consideration arising from this is that the horizontally and vertically polarised S-waves (SH and SV
components) have different velocities. If both wave types are present in the VSP and can be separated
from one-another and the P-wave energy, information concerning the anisotropy can be obtained. Use
of this data for this purpose is not something that is generally undertaken as the results are by no means
clear in every case. This is particularly true if there is any shear wave splitting due to the presence of
fractured zones as the two phenomena are not easily distinguishable one from the other.
All the possibilities noted above are certainly of interest but do not form part of the general "production"
environment of the VSP survey.
In most cases one is preoccupied with the production of a P-wave reflection image and as such any Swave arrivals within the data are generally considered to be coherent noise, most of the processing of
which is concerned with their removal from the data set.
With this in mind, an important concern throughout all aspects of VSP processing and interpretation is
the reduction of all unwanted wavefields. Two important "noise" arrivals are those supported by the
casing in the well and the fluid column.

Casing borne signal

This is the result of energy travelling either laterally or vertically from the source to the well exciting the
metal casing set in the borehole to prevent its collapse. This excitation gives rise to the propagation of
an extensional wave along the length of the casing. On the face of it, this would appear to be an enormous
problem as most wells have at least one and as many as four or five strings of casing at the time the VSP
is recorded. Fortunately there are several factors which minimise the effect of these types of arrival.
Firstly the manner in which the casing is set has a great bearing on the incidence of casing arrivals. In
the majority of wells the casing is cemented in place effectively bonding the steel to the formations, this
cementing is also performed between successive strings of casing set one inside the other. If the
cementing is performed such that the bond is good for all parts of the well then any excitation of the
casing is almost immediately damped and energy does not propagate down the casing. This effect is also
achieved for single strings if the formation "fills back" around the casing.
The effect is most prevalent in the shallow sections of holes with multiple casing strings and is usually
as a result of poorly cemented sections of casing. These are quite a common occurrence as financial
constraints placed on the drilling operations usually mean only the minimum amount of cementing is
performed. The casing arrivals are very easy to recognise as they propagate at a velocity characteristic
of the steel of about 5300 m/s (17500 ft/s) and are generally high frequency events which occur before
the expected seismic direct arrival time. These arrivals are usually of high amplitude and generally
obscure the real seismic arrivals to the extent that if present on a geophone trace they will usually
preclude its inclusion in any VSP processing. Because the casing signal travels at such high velocities
16

and rarely persists for more than 100 to 200 ms, the majority of VSPs exhibiting such arrivals are not
affected over the area of interest, however, the conditions that permit the transmission of such arrivals
may of themselves degrade the VSP data. Figure 3.2 illustrates a typical casing arrival, it also indicates
that the arrivals are coherent between successive shots at a geophone level and therefore cannot be
removed by summation.

Tube wave arrivals

The tube wave is an energy mode that travels along the interface between the mud column and the
borehole wall. This class of arrivals can have a severe interference effect and must be successfully dealt
with in processing for any information to be derived from the part of the VSP affected in this manner.
Tube waves as with casing arrivals have a characteristic velocity, generally less than 1500 m/s (5000
ft/s) although the absolute value is fluid dependent. There is little variation of the velocity as one
progresses down the well, and the wavefield experiences no amplitude loss due to spherical divergence.
In general these arrivals are generated by laterally travelling energy exciting the fluid column in much
the same way as the air in an organ pipe is excited. The tube wave is more persistent than casing arrivals
and is therefore usually more troublesome when it occurs. The effects can sometimes be reduced by
changing the source location, by reducing the level of the fluid in the borehole to below the level at
which the excitation occurs (a solution not enamoured of drilling engineers!) or by fitting some means
of blocking the propagation of the energy. Figure 3.3 illustrates a particularly good example of a tube
wave.
All is not negative on the tube wave front. Energy impinging on fractured zones in open holes can under
certain circumstances give rise to both up and downward travelling tube waves whose point of generation
coincides with the fractured zone. From a very simplistic viewpoint this is caused by the fractures
undergoing a "squeezing" action, energy is removed from the advancing seismic wavefront and
transferred to the borehole fluids. If one uses a pressure sensitive (hydrophone) detector then the
occurrence of tube waves can be used to diagnose fractured regions within the well, see figure for an
example of this type of data.

Figure.15 tube wave

17

Interface waves
Pseudo-Rayleigh waves are reflected conical dispersive waves (B10t, 1952) At low frequencies
( <5 kHz), their phase and group velocities approach the S wave velocity of the formation,
while at high frequencies ( >25 kHz) their propagation
velocity becomes asymptotic
to the compressional wave velocity of the fluid This type of wave is only encountered in fast
formations Stoneley waves are scattered along mterfaces, in fast formations, they show group and
phase velocities at high frequencies that increase asymptotically towards the propagation
velocity in the fluid. In slow formations, these waves are more highly dispersed and are more
sensitive to parameters linked to S wave propagation At low frequencies, Stoneley waves are
analogous to the tube waves observed m VSP surveys.
Fluid waves are guided (or channel) waves, showing very little scattering, which are propagated
through the fluid located between the tool and the borehole wall.(figure.16).

Figure 16: stoneley wave

18

Borehole Seismic definition

The name given to seismic surveys, where the seismic sensors are normally lowered into the well bore.
The seismic sensors may be single component, 3 component, and could be deployed at single levels, or
several levels in the well bore

Why borehole seismic?

The comparison between a seismic section (in two-way time) and an acoustic log
(interval transit time versus depth ) leads to questions about the relations between the
two types of data and the possible
combination of their corresponding datasets
(Figure.. 17,18).

The acoustic log provides an obvious link between geophysics, seismic and well
logging data. Although covering different frequency bands (acoustic logs: in the order
of 10 kHz; seismic: ranging from about 10 to I 00 Hz), the two techniques are
based on the same Jaws of wave propagation but with different mythologies. Under
a certain number of conditions, the seismic measurements
collected at these
different frequencies can be compared and used to improve knowledge of reservoir
characteristics. Acoustic log has a very different vertical and lateral range of investigation
compared with seismic surveys (surface or borehole) (figure.19)..

Figure.17: surface wave measurement.

19

Figure.18: Well and surface data matching

figure.19: important of borehole seismic.

20

the depth-to-time conversion of well log data is carried out using the acoustic velocities of
formations obtained from acoustic logs (sonic logs), this method is insufficient to provide
an effective comparison between seismic and logging survey datasets.
There are
discrepancies between the acoustic velocities derived from logging and seismic surveys, it is
thus necessary to perform a sonic calibration for the depth-time conversion (figure.20).

Figure.20: tie between seismic time and log depths

21

The sonic log calibration involves establishing a time-depth relation consistent with the
seismic survey yielding the same vertical resolution provided by the sonic log. In other
words, the sonic log measurements are recalculated to be compatible with variations in fluid
and lithological composition, so the integrated travel time between two depth readings can
be matched with the corresponding data from well velocity surveys.

A well velocity (or check shot) survey is carried out by measuring the travel times of head
waves emitted from a surface shot by means of a geophone or an hydrophone placed at
various depths in a well. Check shot surveys are the predecessor of vertical seismic profiles.
Vertical seismic profiles (VSP) may use more sophisticated tools to record the entire seismic
wave train generated by surface source and transmitted through the earth filter downward. A
VSP survey is usually recorded at a much higher density of depth points but may not cover
the entire wellbore.

Once the calibration has been carried out and a corrected time-depth relation established, it
is possible to compare the well (logs) with surface seismic data. One technique employed
for this purpose is the creation of a synthetic seismogram using density and acoustic velocity
logs. Bulk density and acoustic velocity logs are used to create an acoustic impedance log.
After depth-time conversion, the reflection coefficients derived from the acoustic
impedance log are then convolved with an appropriate wavelet to produce the synthetic
seismic section (often referred to as a seismogram).

Seismic data obtained from the vertical seismic profile (VSP) with or without source offset,
are processed to provide seismograms at seismic frequencies that are directly comparable
with synthetic sections and surface seismic sections. Even though these data have a
poorer vertical resolution compared with well logging and a restricted frequency range,
they can be used to adjust profiles obtained from seismic reflection surveys carried out
at the surface. In addition, borehole seismic surveys can be used for defining appropriate

operators for stratigraphic deconvo lution and converting seismic sections to acoustic
impedance sections or logs.

More questions that BHS could answer:

Where is my reservoir top on my seismic section?
Are there faults near my borehole?
How far my reservoir laterally extends?
Where is my desired formation top in the well below TD?
Is there overpressure zone below TD?
I want to make synthetic seismograms!
I want to make a velocity model at the well location!
I need information to better process my surface seismic
data!

Figure.21: VSP applications

22

Objectives of Well-Seismic Ties

The objectives for performing a well-seismic tie are listed here

Wells, of course, are registered in units of depth feet or meters

Seismic data is recorded and usually worked with a vertical scale of 2-way travel time

To relate well data to seismic data, and vice versa, we have to handle this change in
vertical scale units (Figure23)

Thus:
Well-seismic ties allow well data, measured in units of depth, to be
compared to seismic data, measured in units of time
This allows us to relate horizon tops identified in a well with specific
reflections on the seismic section
We use sonic and density well logs to generate a synthetic seismic trace
The synthetic trace is compared to the real seismic data collected near the
well location

The well-seismic tie is the bridge we need to go from seismic wiggles to the rocks that
produced the wiggles and our interpretation of the subsurface geology (figure 22)

Figure.22: well tie example

23

o The purpose and required accuracy of a well-seismic tie varies with the stage of
our studies
o If we are doing regional mapping, e.g., mapping a significant erosional
unconformity or a flooding surface, then our tie does not need to be very precise,
within 1 or 2 seismic cycles (peaks or troughs) and the seismic data quality does
not have to be very good
o In the exploration stage, we would like to tie well data, e.g., the top of a
stratigraphic horizon/marker within a cycle

This requires good seismic data quality

o In the exploitation stage (development & production), we need to not only know
the seismic event within a cycle, but the shape of the real and modeled seismic
trace should be quite similar
For this, we need very good seismic data quality
If we obtain a good character (shape) tie between the real and synthetic
traces, then:

Figure.23: well tie usages

24

We would then be able to extract various seismic attributes

(measures of the seismic wavelets) to predict rock and fluid
properties

We may also be able to use a process called inversion to transform

the seismic data into an estimate of the rock properties in crosssection views or as a 3D volume (if we have 3D seismic data)

Types of seismic borehole

Acoustic well log

Check shot
VSP vertical seismic profiling
zero-offset VSP
Deviated wells: Vertical-incidence checkshot and walkabove VSP
Offset VSP, walkaway VSP, and walkaround VSP
Three-dimensional VSP
Salt-proximity survey
Crosswell VSP and reverse VSP
Borehole seismic while drilling
Drill-Bit Seismic survey
seismicVISIONservice while drilling
Borehole microseismic surve

Figure. 24: carton for bore hole seismic types

25

26

Chapter 2: Acoustic well logging

The use of acoustic well logging to determine the cornpressional wave velocity of a
formation ts a routine
and relatively
Long established practice (Summers and
Broding, 1952, Vogel, 1952) More recently, however, the full waveform is recorded
in order to determine the propagation velocities of the different types of waves
and
measure
certain
petrophysical properl!es with a view to obtaining
lithological information (Arditty et al , 1984, Matthieu and Toksoz, 1984, Paillet and
Turpening, 1984 ).

Equipment and data acquisition

The different features of acoustic logging tools are outlined below
(I) By usmg tools with multiple transmitters and receivers it ts possible to create stacks similar to
surface seismic reflection survey stacks, common shot point, common reflection point and common
receiver point. These data can be processed in a similar way to seismic surveys.
(2) When tools are equipped with a large number of transmitters and receivers, data acquisition is
performed sequentially by interrogating each transmitter-receiver pair m tum With a limited
number of transmitters and receivers. data acquisiuon can be earned out simultaneously from the
same some pulse using several receivers.
(3) The transrmtter-receiver "offset" and the mter receiver "spacing" determine respectively the
depth of mvestigatron and vertical resolution of the log The vertical resolution is generally
taken to be the receiver spacing ( 15-30 cm).
(4) The depth of investigation will be determined by optimising the path between transmitter and
receiver m the mud column, invaded or altered zone and the virgin zone Depending on the
acoustic parameters of the media and of the tool geometric, the depth of mvesngation can then
vary from 2 cm to l meter Thus. m the usual case where the invaded zone is damaged and
hence "slower", a short spacing tool will g r ve a greater Llt than a Jong spac mg tool which
may read deeper into the formation.
(5) Sonic tools with long transrrutter-recerver spacings enable a good time discrimination of
the different arrivals, provided that the source rs sufficiently powerful and the attenuation of the
traversed media is not excessively high.
(6) The dominant frequency of the transmitter pulse (approximately 10 kHz) and the frequency
bandwidth of the receiver (the ceramics used have a very wide frequency response 100 Hz 20 kHz) are important charactensllcs
of the available tools.
(7) The time sampling step is generally a few microseconds for a listening
milliseconds.
27

period

of a few

(8) Tools display different mechanical charac teristics , some may be rrgid
avoid wave propagation via the tool body) while others are flexible.

(machined to

A. Operations
For conventional operations and small diameter boreholes { < 5 m) generally dnlled in the oil
industry, sonic logs are run with axially symmetric tools that are centred in liquid-filled wells {mud
or water). The presence of gas bubbles in the mud usually leads to a mediocre quality of recording. In
large-diameter boreholes, the tool maintained in an off center poison in order to avoid excessive
dispersion of waves m the mud The logging speed rs usually 10-15 meters per minute

B. Calibration
Strictly speaking, the acoustic log does not require any calibration since the measurement of time is
based on a quartz crystal with a precisely defined oscillation frequency, thus leading to almost no
error m the calculated velocity Several sequences of pulses are used in order to provide a
measurement 6 inch intervals. Even though the lime measurement relatively precise, the first arrival
detection technique can lead to significant errors

C. Types of tool
1. Monopole tools
The conventional some logging tool has an axial symmetry and ts equipped with multidirectional
receivers. A compressional wave rs generated m the fluid by the transmitter, thus giving nse to
a compres sionnal wave (P wave) and a shear wave (S wave) m the surrounding formation at the
critical angles of refraction (see Fig. 25)

Figure:25: Conventional acoustic logging sketch showing generation of P and

et al., 1984)

S waves. (Williams

In a vertical well, this type of tool enables the recording of five modes of wave propagation (see
following section, Presentation of acoustic log).
28

( l) refracted P waves,
(2) Refracted S waves, only in fast formations, (3) fluid waves,
(4) Two types of dispersed tube waves, corresponding to the pseudo-Rayleigh and Stonely waves

2. Tools with dipole-typs source

Information on S wave propagation in both slow and fast formations may be obtained through the use of
tools equipped with polarised transmitters and receivers. This type of tool generates P waves that are
polarised at right angles to the axis of the well. The P waves create flexure modes at the borehole
walls which give rise to pseudo shear waves travelling through the formation parallel to the axis of
the well Figure 26 illustrates the principle of operation of this type of tool.

Figure.25: Sketch showing asymmetric transmitter used for generation of S waves.

(After Williams et al., 1984)
Mobil Oil has developed a dipole source tool known as SWAL (Shear Wave Acoustic Logging tool;
Zemanek et al., 1984) where the transmitters and receivers are constructed using a technology based on
the work of Sims (1968). In a SWAL tool, the transmitter and receivers are linked by a 7-conductor
cable. The distance separating the transmitter and the nearest receiver may vary from 6 to 15 feet, while
the distance between the two receivers is 3-5 feet. The transmitter frequencies are in the band 1-3 kHz.

29

Schlumberger proposes a LOOI of rhe same type known as DSIT (Dipole Sonic Imaging Tool)
which has the un ique feature of being able lo operate in both monopole and dipole modes.
Figure 20 presents a comparison between logs obtained by LSAL (long Spaced Acoustic
Log, - also a Mobil monopole tool) and SWAL tools in a seisrnically slow formation (Figure.26)

Figure.26: Comparison between Long Spaced Acoustic Log (LSAL)and Shear Wave Acoustic Log
tSWAL1 recorded in unconsolidated Miocene formations.(Williams N al .. 1984)

Different types of logging tools

The acoustic logging wvl~ used by different contractors (Fig. 1.12) provide either realtime measurements of compressional wave velocity or are designed for full waveform data
acquisition. The following examples arc taken from the various available products:

Monopole source or conventional

sonic tools:

the BHC sonic and LSS (Long Spacing Sonic) tools of Schlumberger. tne acoustolog of
Atlas Wireline and the Full Wave Sonic Tool of Halliburton Logging services.
a sonde developed
by the Society d'Erudes de Me sures et de Maint enunce (SEMM). which
is a flexible tool equipped for simulaneous data acquisition
on either the two nearest or the
two farthest receivers, Mobil's flexible LSAL tool (Long Spaced Acoustic Logging:, William,
ct al.. 1984). with transmitter-receiver and inter-receiver connections being made by cable,
30

The flexible tool. a product of El] Aquitaine, the Array Sonic (SDT-A/C r. first proposed
by Schlumberger in 1984 (Morns el al., 1984).
2) S wave dipole emitter tools
Mobil's SWAL tool
(3) Mixed type tools (operating both in single-pole and dipole modes)
Schlumberger' DSIT,
The MAC tool of Atlas Wireline Services
Figure 21 illustrates the main features of some these tools (see manufacturers
more detailed information).

Figure.27: Some examples of acoustic

31

logging tools

specifications

for

32

Presentation of acoustic log data

The standard way of presenting acoustic data is m the form of depth logs, the most common
presentation is the t (interval transit time or slowness) versus depth for P waves, which
can equally be used for Sor Stoneley waves. In addtion, the integrated P wave transit time (also
termed TII Transit Time Integrated, Figure.28 ) is also indicated on the log.

Figure.28: example of a sonic log, showing interval(t),combine with GR log.

Full waveform data can also be plotted
as common-offset sections, or alternatively a,
gathers of common source or receiver points. Which are analogous to the sections utilized
33

in seismic surveying. A common-offset section is made up of a set of sonic recordings plotted as a

function of depth, the measurements being obtained with a constant transmitter-receiver distance
roftseu. Full waveform darn may also be presented as a VDL Variable Density Log) ,which is
a continuous plot of the z-axis of the waveform with the amplitude Variations being coded in
grey scales.
The series of common-offset sections presented below serve to illustrate
the different wave
propagation modes. With single-pole sources, the most commonl observed mode- an due to
refraction between the well fluid and the furma1ion: in fast formations. Compressional and
shear waves are encountered as well as interface waves of the Stoneley or pseudo Rayleiuh pc..
Figure.29 is an example of a common-offset section showing clearly distinct modes of propagation
that was obtained with a 3 m transmitter and receiver distance.

figure.29: Common-offset acoustic section.

34

Obtaining acoustic parameters from log data

The following acoustic parameters are obtained from some logging surveys
( 1) propagation velocity,
(2) Attenuation,
(3) Frequency
These physical quantities refer to the main wavesets observed, notably the refracted P and
S modes (only in fast formations, recorded with single-pole axially symmetric tool) as well as
Stoneley waves.
The measurements thus obtained from sonic logs can then be used to derive other parameters
such as rock mechamcal properties (e.g. Poisson coefficient, bulk and shear moduh, etc )
and porosity, as well as indications of permeability, degree of fracturing and lithology .
The acoustic parameter conventionally acquired in real time rs the P wave velocity, expressed
in terms of transit time L1t (units of s per foot), which is obtained by picking the refracted P
wave arrivals

A. Estimation of velocity and integrated travel time (TTI)

Measurement of the travel time between receivers enables a determination of the slowness L1t
of a formation, the reciprocal of acoustic wave velocity. The mtegratron of L1t over depth yields
the integrated travel time (also known as TI1 Transit Time Integrated), which corresponds to
the time taken for a wave to travel over a certain distance (Figure.30). It is generally represented
by bars marking out l ms intervals of time, with IO ms between longer bars.

Figure.30: Integrated travel time indicated on sonic log.

35

I) Estimation of slowness ( t or Dt) using standard tools

With conventional some tools, the transit time measurement of the P or compressional wave, L1t
(sift), is obtained by subtracting the travel times between a transmitter and 2 receivers usually
spaced2 feet apart. This technique theoretically removes the effects of the wellbore, provided
the tool is centered in a perfectly cylindrical hole.Detection of the first arrival (generally belonging
to the P waveset) rs performed using a nurnrnum energy threshold (bias) (Figure.31).

Figure.31: Detection of arrival using threshold filter

In practice, conventional systems are compensated for borehole effects and for the tool-hole
configuration, so transmitter-receiver pairs (or system incorporating automatic storage of transmitter
receiver transit times) are used to ensure a more reliable measurement
of travel time. The
compensation procedure involves averaging the transit times over the same depth interval from different
receiver pairs.

II) Estimation of slowness ( t or Dt) using transmitter/receiver array tools

For the more recent types of full wave recording tools (e.g. Array sonic, EVA, etc.), signal processing
techniques are used which are similar to those employed in seismic data processing These techniques
make it possible to attribute an interval transit-time (or slowness) to each of the wave propagation
modes, i.e. refracted P and S waves, and Stoneley-type mterface waves.
36

The mean slowness of propagation of a wave across a given mterval corresponds to the time delay
acquired by the wave over this interval. The delay can be calculated by measuring the different
arrival times at each receiver (or from different transmitter positions) located in the depth mterval of
interest for a common depth of transmitter (or receiver). As a consequence, the slowness of a
particular formation may be estimated by measuring the delay m wave propagation by making
use of sorted acoustic waveform data. This can be achieved by gathering data derived either from
a common transmitter point or from a common receiver point. In this way, the average of the two
delays provides a slowness value which is compensated for borehole effects.

37

Chapter 3: SEISMIC WELL SURVEYING

DATA ACQUISITION
The well velocity survey technique
A well velocity survey is a type of seismic well operation performed to determine the vertical
propagation time of a wave emitted at the surface by a seismic source, and then recorded by a geo phone.
In practice, since the source and the well geophone are not generally situated on the same vertical, the
distance separating the verticals which pass through the well geophone and through the source must be
taken into account. (Fig. 32).
The surface seismic data obtained from seismic reflection survey are set with respect to a referenceWell
geophone

Figure.32: Implementation of seismic well velocity survey.

Plane (DP datum plane) and the vertical travel time estimated by the well velocity survey set to the same
reference plane. In land seismic surveys, the reference plane is generally chosen at the base of the
weathered zone.For well velocity shooting, the assumption can be made that the raypath is vertical as far
as the reference plane, but is oblique and rectilinear from the reference plane to the well geophone.
A borehole seismic survey operation is per formed using a seismic source, a well geophone, a reference
geophone or hydrophone placed near the source and a recording laboratory (Fig. 33).
The processing equipment does not require a large number of seismic channels, but must have good
recording and precision dynamics as well as a short sampling interval (0.25, 0.5 or l ms).
The tool must be small, light and equipped with a good clamping system and a seismic cartridge
including either a vertical geophone or a set of three geophones arranged in a triaxialconfiguration.
The source (Figure. 27) used must be repetitive, preferable emitting a short signal with a clearly defined
initial pulse and a wide spectral range: an airgun is generally used in offshore operations. Onshore, the
following kinds of source can be used: offshore-type sources in a mud pit, low charge explosives
38

and dropped weight impulsive sources. The use of vibrator sources is widespread despite their being
unfavourable for the picking of first arrivals.The reference receiver is either a hydrophone for offshore
operations, a geophone or mud pit hydrophone for onshore operations

Figure.33:Implementation
Schlumberger)

of seismic

well velocity survey (source configurations).(Courtesy of

Operation of a seismic well survey

After setting the zero datum at the rotary table or at ground level. a well velocity survey at a given
depth cornorises the following steps:
( 1) Checking the depth of the tool in the well.
The depth is chosen in relation lo the position of the velocity and density contrasts obtained on
the well logs and according to the quality of the hole. h is important not to position the tool in a
zone where caving has occurred. ft is essential to have a measuring point at the starting and
finishing depths of the sonic log. The intermediate points are chosen close to the markers.
preferably situated beneath them so as 10 avoid interference between the downgoing wave and
the upgoing wave reflected off the marker.
(2) Clamping the tool and :,,luckcni.ng the cable.
If the tool moves. the position of the measuring point has to be modified. The cable must be slack to
avoid cable waves. Clamping is critical to obtain good signal to noise ratio.
39

(3) Recording of seismic data.

Seismic measurements are made up from the recording of several surface shots using ampli fication
factors and filters at different frequencies as to obtain field records wilh a signal to noise ratio
optimized at the first arrival,
(4) Picking of first arrivals on the well geephonc TG and oo the reference receiver TR, and verifying
the con ...istency of the arrival times,
(5) Tightening the cable.

Check shot
The Checkshot is the very basic type of Borehole seismic survey. In the case of a vertical well it involves
positioning the source at a single fixed zero offset position, usually relatively close to the well bore. The
Borehole receiver tool is positioned at various stations throughout the well, e.g. every 500-ft, formation
tops and sonic log points. At least 3 shots are fired at each station. We are only interested in the first
arrival time (time it takes for the signal from the source to arrive at the downhole receiver), this time
enables us to obtain time/depth information used for correlation of the Surface Seismic and for the
calibration of acoustic type logging tools (figure34).

Figure.34: check shot survey

Geophysicists are familiar with the velocity survey's one-way acoustic travel time as a critical component
that is necessary to help convert surface seismic's two-way travel time to depth. In the absence of the
check shot velocity survey, accurate velocity information can sometimes be extracted from the tried and
true sonic log. Relying solely on sonic logs, however, may entail considerable risk involving interval
velocity errors (figure.35).
What may not be clearly acknowledged are how limited check shot data are -- and how very limited
sonic logs travel times are inconsistently aiding the time to depth conversion process. The sonic log
excels as a formation boundary and indirect porosity measurement log, but it can only see one-two feet
40

into the formation under good downhole conditions and can be subject to cycle skipping and washedout zones.

Figure.35:check shot survey and velocity relation.

Check shots notes

It involves the recording of first arrivals along a well that penetrates fairly deep target layers.
Objective is estimating the velocity and thickness of subsurface layers.
It is performed using receivers that are placed in the borehole at known depths and a source that
is placed near the well head.
It is similar to a downhole survey but using a deeper well and larger receiver spacing.

Check Shot Surveys Interpretation

Interpretation of a check-shot survey data includes the following steps:
1. Picking the first arrivals from each depth level
2. Applying any necessary corrections to these times
3. Calculating the interval velocity between each successive receivers
4. Computing the RMS velocity profile
5. Correction from slant to vertical times may be neglected because depths are large compared to shot
offset.
The interval velocity between two successive receivers (Ri, Ri+1) is calculated as:

Z:
receivers
41

receiver spacing Tvi: difference in vertical time from datum to

(Ri, Ri+1)

Borehole seismic data are the most effective correlation bridge available between the well bore and the
surface seismic data. Borehole seismic data that include the check shot velocity survey and the VSP can
measure large volumes of rock -- and will indicate the presence of velocity anomalies, which may be
totally missed by the sonic log. These velocity anomalies must be measured and dealt with accurately
when mapping the velocity fields that are so critical to an effective surface-seismic time to drill-depth
conversion process (figure.36,37).
The RMS velocity to the bottom of the Nth layer is calculated as:

Vi: interval velocity within the ith interval

Tvi: vertical time within the ith interval
This RMS profile is comparable to the RMS profile found by velocity analysis of surface seismic data.

Figure 36: rms velocity calculated from check shot

A check shot velocity survey measures a much larger cylindrical volume of rock compared to the relative
soda straw volume measured by the sonic log. The check shot survey and the more precise vertical
seismic profile (VSP) should at least be considered in the logging program of every exploration and key
development well being planned to minimize or eliminate the ever-present and costly danger of surface
seismic time to depth conversion error (figure.38)
42

Figure.37: check shot raw data and how to convert to interval and rms velocity
When the sonic log is used to produce a synthetic seismogram for surface seismic correlation purposes,
one hopes that a check shot velocity survey is available from the same well to calibrate the sonic log.
Calibration and correction of the sonic log often may be needed because the production of a synthetic
43

seismogram from a sonic log is a hybridization and transform process that can introduce seismic travel
time error if cycle skipping, tool sticking, and washed-out zone effects are present in the sonic log. The
sonic log is also of very limited use in identifying interval velocity inversions -- or any abrupt rock
density and velocity change that are an appreciable distance from the well (Figure40).
The check shot velocity survey can be used to produce a corrected sonic log, allowing sonic log pitfalls
to be alleviated by enabling a data processing analyst to correlate effectively and more accurately through
questionable zones that were traversed by the sonic logging tool downhole.
A check-shot-corrected sonic log also makes it easier to determine interval velocities between key
formations, since familiar formation boundaries can be readily recognized from the sonic log. If density
log information is also available, a more accurate synthetic seismogram log integration usually results.

Figure 38: comparison between VSP and checkshot

44

Figure.39: Comparison between surface seismic and well data.

Figure.40: Time depth chart calculations methods (calibrated with sonic, not calibrated with sonic, sonic
used to calculate time depth).

45

Chapter 4: Vertical seismic profiling

Introduction and history of VSPs
Although VSPs are generally considered to be a somewhat specialised discipline, they essentially form
simply an extension to the surface seismic reflection method with a different configuration of sources
and receivers. In the normal surface seismic method, the sources are generally in-line horizontally along
the surface of the earth. In the simplest of the VSP cases, the rig-source VSP in a vertical borehole, they
are in-line - or nearly so - vertically above some subsurface feature of interest. The detectors will have
been placed in a borehole drilled with the specific intention of investigating this feature. The basic
configuration is illustrated in figure 1.1 and the correspondence between the two survey types can be
clearly seen. A point to bear in mind is that in the surface seismic method the receiver array will in
general experience energy arrivals predominantly from beneath the array, whereas the VSP array arrivals
will be predominantly into the ends of the array and this has important consequences in the processing
of such surveys.
The VSP configuration has considerable advantages over the surface method in that the seismic response
of the geological section from surface to the deepest point drilled - and beyond, see section 12 - can be
observed as functions of time and depth. Thus the propagation of seismic energy can be continuously
monitored and important information concerning the origins of primary and multiple reflections, the
nature of signal attenuation, and the presence of discontinuities etc. can be determined.
Up until the Second World War, geophone observations in boreholes were made almost exclusively for
the measurement of travel times from surface to specified stations in the borehole so that a seismic
velocity distribution for that location could be derived. From then until the mid 1950s, some work was
performed, mainly by research departments, to study wave propagation and absorption in addition to the
regular velocity (check shot) surveys. With the advent of the continuously recorded acoustic velocity log
(CVL) at about this time, the emphasis on the use of borehole geophone observations shifted to the
calibration of these logs and until about 1970 this remained the primary use for such surveys.
During this time and almost unnoticed by the West, geophysicists in the Soviet Union were developing
the new technology of vertical seismic profiling, building up a very large body of technical data and
literature. It wasn't until the early 1970s that western explorationists began to take notice of this new tool
and even with the (now) considerable volume of information available the method was slow to gain
favour in the West. It is a matter of historical fact that the USSR opened a gap of about 20 years in the
development of this technology which is only now being closed. This is due in part to the easy availability
of much faster computing technology to western geophysicists enabling a faster rate of development of
the necessary computational tools. A possible explanation for the initial lack of interest in the technique
is that the western geophysicists were preoccupied during this period with the development of CVL
techniques and the derivation of synthetic seismogram data derived from them. In doing so they
overlooked that real seismogram data were easily available by simply extending the standard velocity
surveys. Additional factors inevitably played a part, probably the most significant of which being the
differences between the two economic systems and the way these affected the real costs of drilling wells
and providing the technical services for them.
Since the mid to late 1970s, the need for ever more cost-efficient methods of exploration for and
development of oil resources, has meant an upsurge in interest in methods that would initially have been
considered as interesting theoretical ideas. A case in point is the VSP survey. It was realised early on
that the VSP gave the industry the opportunity to record real seismic data that provided a direct
46

comparison between the information gained from the drilling results and the surface seismic data. This
leads to a much more accurate assessment of the results of the well with regard to the original seismic
interpretation upon which the decision to drill was based. In addition, migration algorithms were being
developed along with sophisticated ray-trace modelling routines and these allowed for a more rigorous
treatment of VSP data recorded using more "exotic" source and receiver configurations. These
techniques were able to exploit the intrinsic properties of the VSP survey (i.e. low noise, and proximity
of the receiver to the target horizon) to provide small scale seismic images in the vicinity of the well. It
was recognised fairly early in the history of the VSP that there were two inter related properties of the
VSP that could be of particular interest to the geophysicist.
As the geophone is placed deeper in the borehole its earliest recorded reflection comes from ever deeper
reflecting boundaries. It is not, however, only the shallow primary events that are lost; the whole of the
long reverberant tail which follows each of the shallow reflections is also lost. In other words the deeper
the reflections are recorded within the earth, the less they are obscured by multiple events. Also the
nature of the recorded wavefields in the VSP provides a very effective means of removing
(deconvolving) the multiple tail associated with each reflector. In general this provides a multiple-free
data set which can be used to "calibrate" or aid in re-processing the surface derived data. It is also possible
to use data thus processed to predict ahead of the current drilled location of the well, a technique that has
saved many wells from the disastrous consequences of high pressure blow outs etc.

Vertical seismic profiles

The operation of vertical seismic profiles (VSP) is very similar to a check shot survey (well velocity
survey) at the operational level. A VSP is a downhole seismic operation where a seismic signal
emitted at surface is recorded by a geophone situated suc cessively at different depths in the
well, with the source kept always on the same vertical as the geophone whatever the depth of
the geophone.
If the well is drilled vertically, the source has a fixed position close to the wellhead. If the well is
deviated, the source has a variable horizontal position so as to maintain the transmitter and receiver
on the same vertical. The VSP can be regarded as an acoustic log at seismic frequencies. Its lateral
resolution is limited to the diameter of Fresnel's first zone, while the lateral investigation is
a function of the source offset in relation to the well-head and the structural geometry of the strata.
In the case of a horizontal tabular medium, the lateral investigation is equivalent to the lateral
reso lution for a vertical well (approx. 100 m) (Fig. 40a).
For a deviated well, this lateral investigation is equal to the well's deviation (horizontal distance
separating the extreme positions of the well geophone) (Fig. 40).
A possible way of increasing the lateral inves tigation consists of offsetting the source in relation
to the wellhead and downhole geophone (Fig. 40c). The lateral investigation in this case is equal
to appro ximately half the horizontal offset of the source.
The choice of offset depends on the depth of the target. It is limited by the fact that the incident
waves must have an angle of incidence of less than 30 with the markers to satisfy the assumption of
near-normal incidence for the calculation of the reflection coefficient and to avoid guided and
refracted modes.
In practice, the offset D must be less than three quarters of the depth of the principal geological
target H (D 3/4 H).

47

Figure. 40 Lateral range of investigation (LI) and lateral resolution (LR) in a vertical seismic profile.

VSP operations
The procedure for a VSP operatiot is identical to that carried out in well velocity surveying. However,
the depth sampling interval is set at closer and more regular intervals. The maximum spacing
between the successive depths depends on the minimum velocity (Vmin)
of the formation and
the maximum frequency (Fmax) that must be recorded in order to respect the Z sampling theorem
(Shannon, 1949) needed to avoid aliasing and ensure high-quality data processing.
The maximum sampling L1Zmax (two samples in one wavelenght) is given by the relationship:
Zmax = Vmin / 2F max
For example, if : Vmin = 1 500 mis,
and: Fmax = 150 Hz,
then: Zmax=5 m
The VSP recording is composed of upgoing and downgoing body waves of the P and/or S type,
as well as guided t,nterface modes linked to the well and the well fluid. The guided modes, usually
termed tube waves, are dispersive waves of the Stoneley type.
The upgoming bod y waves are primary or multiple reflected waves. Only the primary reflected
waves intersect the first arrivals. The downgoing body waves comprise waves emitted by the source
forming the direct arrivals, and all the multiple events created by seismic markers situated above the well
geophone.
Figure 41 shows a compressional wave VSP with a complex set of tube waves labelled TWI to TW6.
A simple way (although not always practical) of attenuating the tube waves created by surface
noisengenerated by the seismic source consists of lowering the column of mud in the well and/or
deviating themsource in relation to the wellhead.

48

Fig. 41 Example of VSP recording. (TW: tube waves). TWl, TW3 and TW6 are downgoing; TW2, TW4
and TWS are upgoing.
(Courtesy of Gaz de France and /FP)

VSP principles
Identification and origin of primary reflections
Primary events are easily identified in a VSP data set by the simple fact that they intersect the time-depth
curve. If the primary has been generated by a horizontal reflector, then it should appear as a horizontal
event across the VSP display aligned at two-way time. Such an event may lose continuity into the body
of the data due to multiple interference and possible worsening signal to noise ratio. This is caused by
the longer propagation paths associated with shallower geophone plants. Deconvolution will generally
improve the continuity of these events by removing the multiple activity. If the horizon is dipping then,
the event will appear with moveout into the body of the data. The identification of the event as a primary
and the determination of its lithologic origin is still secure, however, providing it cuts the time depth
curve.
Figure 42 illustrates VSP upgoing events at two-way time generated by horizontal or near horizontal
reflectors at the borehole. it is clear that the upgoing primary events intersect the time-depth curve which
49

is marked on the display, the depth at which the reflection originates is confirmed by the calibrated
velocity log to the left of the figure. As displayed the data has not yet been deconvolved and therefore
contains multiple activity and additionally the wavelet contains source components. It is unclear
therefore as to the exact relationship between the seismic events and the lithological changes. This is
alleviated by deconvolution and figure 5.8 shows the same comparison but this time using the
deconvolved upgoing data. The resident wavelet of this data is now zero phase, the centre of the wavelet
for any event occurring at the exact time of that event.
At SEG Normal polarity as displayed, an upgoing compressional arrival appears as a white trough, the
centre of which identifies the position of the reflector. Once the phase of the wavelet is known, a precise
correlation can be determined as the VSP and calibrated velocity log are tied to the same time
measurements. The lithologic significance of any primary event can, therefore, be assessed.

Identification and origin of multiple reflections

it was noted that upgoing multiples terminate within the body of the VSP as the geophone moves below
the last reflector in the multiple path. The downgoing wavefield contains information with regard to
multiple patterns generated above the geophone. Interbed multiples will be added to the downgoing
wavefield as the geophone moves below the first primary involved in the interbed generation.
The downgoing wavefield, observed at any point, will appear in the upgoing wavefield as the tail of a
reflection at the same point. Finally after deconvolution, the data will provide a display from which the
reverberants will have been removed. One therefore, has three separate but interconnected means of
identifying multiple activity and determining its origin, the three approaches should be used together for
a complete analysis of primary-multiple relationships and their lithologic origin. If one examines the
model shown in figure 42, shifting the event diagram to two-way time (figure 43), provides one with an
indication as to how multiple patterns will appear in the VSP data. Only multiples up to the third order
are displayed.

Figure .43: Multiples in VSP

50

One may extend the identification of multiple events away from the VSP to encompass the surface
seismic record. The approach is essentially the same, although the choice of comparison trace is slightly
different. If the downwave is extremely stable, it is unlikely that any difference would be noticeable
between the comparisons of any trace with the surface record. If, on the other hand, there is a variation
in the downgoing wavefield with depth, one must ensure that the downwave used is compatible with the
data being analysed. To this end, the downwave trace for the level with the same two-way first arrival
time as the time of the reflector on the seismic record, should be used. Again the polarity of the
downwave first arrival must match that of the reflection event examined; any positive correlation
between the tail of the downwave and events beneath the primary then implies residual multiple activity
in the surface record.
Figure 34, is of a typical display provided by VSP contractors for correlation with surface data. The
direct correlations would be achieved using the transposed or corridor displays, the full deconvolved
panel would then be used for any detailed interpretation. If the VSP contains considerably more high
frequency energy than the surface seismic, then a second version of this display would be produced, with
the processing optimised for the data as recorded. This would preserve the information present in the
field data and provide the geophysicist with a high resolution data set upon which to base his
interpretation. The seismic bandwidth data would then simply form a control data set to guide the initial
assessment of the well results. A point to note here, is that the transposed display, although preserving
evidence of dip, cannot be used for dip calculations.
A practical example of VSP interpretation is presented as a work study with these course notes.

VSP data Acquisition

Field Equipment
The fundamental requirement of any measurement system, including recording of borehole data, is that
changes between measurements are due to a single variable. The equipment and techniques used in
recording VSP data are designed with this in mind so that a major consideration is consistency in all
aspects of the data acquisition energy source, receivers and recording equipment.
It is also important that the instrumentation is fit for purpose with adequate dynamic range and minimum
distortion.
Receiver
The most common VSP receivers, or tools, have retractable, motor-driven, locking arms. Specific tools
differ primarily with regard to how many locking arms they have, where the arms are positioned, how
much lateral locking force the arms generate, as well as the length, diameter, and mass of the total
receiver package.
Let us examine two possible tool-to-formation coupling mechanisms. The design shown in Figure44
(Example of a VSP tool with a motor-driven locking arm mechanism) has a locking arm that we can
extend and retract via electrical commands from the surface. Coupling mechanism between the geophone
module and the mother tool is designed so that once the module is pressed to the borehole wall, the
geophones are decoupled from the mother tool. Other logging tools can then be physically combined
with the seismic receiver without adversely affecting the geophone-to-formation coupling.
The tool's construction must be capable of protecting all internal components (particularly the
electronics) when external pressure can be as high as 20,000 psi (137.9 MPa) and the temperature as
high as 200 degrees Celsius. In order to operate in all types of boreholes, the coupling mechanism should
51

be adaptable to arms of different lengths so the tool can lock in well diameters ranging from 10 to 50 cm
(about 4 to 20 inches). Slim-hole tools with diameters of 5 cm (2 inches) or less are required if the
receiver must pass through production tubing. Slim-hole tools are also used to record data in the bottom
portion of ultra-deep wells that have been drilled with small bits.
VSP data should be acquired as quickly as possible, so that we can minimize rig standby cost. The
locking arm must therefore extend and retract quickly. Most tool designs similar to those in the two
previous graphics enable the receiver to lock fully in 30 seconds or less. In order to expedite recording,
some VSP engineers do not retract the arm as the tool is raised from level to level. Instead, they simply
decrease the locking force and maintain a modest arm-to-formation contact as the tool is raised. Then
they quickly relock the tool at the next depth level.
Since VSP tools need regular maintenance, it is essential that both service companies and clients insist
on tool designs that are quick and easy to maintain. Too often, components have to be replaced by tired
field crews, after midnight, in adverse weather and poor light. Neither the paying client nor the service
company engineer wants an unnecessary loss of time due to required tool maintenance.
Because of the hostile nature of the environment encountered by the downhole detector, the receiver
employed for such surveys requires significantly greater design expertise and manufacturing capability
than standard surface geophones (Figure.45). The downhole tool has to be able to survive up to - and in
some cases beyond - 20000 p.s.i. or 1380 bar (ie equivalent to 6 cars for every sq.in.) of pressure and
maximum downhole temperatures of more than 200C (392F). It is not possible to deploy a standard
geophone spread cable downhole to provide the exact analogy of a surface seismic survey; the geophones
must possess a mechanism for anchoring to the borehole wall and this will usually be powered and
controlled from the surface. The cable used to deploy any downhole tool must be strong enough to
support its own weight plus the weight of the downhole equipment, it must also be able to survive a
considerable amount of over-pull should equipment become stuck in the hole. The downhole
environment also often contains corrosive substances and all tools and cables must be able to resist attack
from these corrosive materials. Standard cables used by the majority of logging contractors consist of an
outer armoured section with seven conductor strands within the body of the cable. High tech cables
with fibre-optic conductors possessing much wider transmission bandwidth are available, but have yet
to establish themselves in the industry. This is mainly due to their significantly higher cost and the
increased difficulty of operation using these cables but also because of the unavailability of the required
high temperature electronics and the difficulties in terminating the cable at the tools.

52

Figure .44: receiver componenet

Figure .45:The design in (Remotely deployed lightweight VSP geophone package) has a lightweight
geophone module that can be extended from, and retracted into, a mother tool.
53

Geophones
Velocity-sensitive geophones are the most common transducer elements used to record VSP data.
o
o

A transducer is a device which converts one form of energy into another.

A velocity-sensitive geophone converts the mechanical motion of the earth into electrical
voltage.

Transducer Geometry
We usually position these geophones in a VSP tool in one of two geometrical arrangements. The
geophones may be linearly oriented along the axis of the tool, or they may be arranged in an orthogonal,
three-component configuration.
In vertical boreholes, an axial alignment of geophones measures only the vertical component of particle
motion. If this type of geophone is used in a deviated hole, the geophone elements should be gimbalmounted, which uses gravity to orient them vertically.
Although we can record valuable VSP data with vertically oriented geophones, several important
applications of vertical seismic profiling require the X, Y, and Z components of particle motion to be
measured. for example, we can estimate the reflection and transmission properties of shear waves, the
energy mode conversions that occur at impedance boundaries, and determine fracture orientation only
by recording subsurface particle motion in three mutually orthogonal directions. To record threecomponent particle motion, the downhole VSP receiver must contain non-vertical geophone elements.
Figure46 (Gimbal-mounted geophones) illustrates an XYZ, three-component, gimbal-mounted package
ofgeophones.

Figure.46: geophones in three mutually orthogonal directions This particular design ensures that all
three geophones remain in an orthogonal XYZ configuration, even if the tool is rotated as much as 90
degrees from vertical.
54

Accelerometers
Accelerometers measure the acceleration of the mechanical ground motion rather than the velocity.
Accelerometers have a number of advantages. They can be designed to measure signals down to nearly
zero frequency (typically geophones measure down to around 5 Hz with a natural frequency of 10-13hz).
The accelerometers can also be tilted without changing the response. Thus they do not need gimballed
mountings to maintain X, Y and Z components horizontal and vertical.
The disadvantage is that they are usually less sensitive than velocity phones, producing less electrical
energy for the same mechanical energy. However, mass loaded velocity phones, which have the effect
of differentiating the velocity function to measure acceleration, are used in some VSP tools and do not
have to be gimballed.
The VSI Versatile Seismic Imager
The Versatile Seismic Imager (VSI) represents the latest available technology in the acquisition of
seismic waves generated by a seismic source. The VSI employs three-axis single sensor seismic
hardware and software and advanced telemetry for efficient transmission of the data from the borehole
to the surface. It consists of three parts (a power cartridge, a control cartridge, and the measurement
sonde) and takes its measurements by means of a three-axis gimbaled accelerometer package in the
sonde.
Each sensor package delivers high-quality wavefields by using three-axis geophone omnitilt
accelerometers, which are acoustically isolated from the main body of the tool and provide a flat response
from 3 to 200 Hz. The configuration of the tool (number of sensor packages, sensor spacing, and type of
connection (stiff or flexible) varies to provide the maximum versatility of the array. A maximum of 20
shuttles can be used, though only one has been used so far in ODP and IODP.three-axis single-sensor
seismic hardware and software and advanced wireline telemetry for efficient data delivery from the
borehole to the surface. Each sensor package delivers high-fidelity wavefields through the use of threeaxis geophone accelerometers, which are acoustically isolated from the main body of the tool. The
number of sensors, intersensor spacing, connection type (either stiff or flexible), and tool diameter are
field configurable to ensure the maximum (Figure.34)

Figure.47: VSI tools.

55

Versatility of the array.

Regardless of configuration, the tool is used to collect seismic data by anchoring in the hole at the desired
depth using a caliper arm. When anchored, the accelerometer package is pressed firmly against the
formation while remaining decoupled acoustically from the body of the shuttle. Air guns deployed from
the rig by crane then provide the necessary source pulse, and the resulting acoustic wave is recorded
downhole on all three axes. On the JOIDES Resolution, the guns are typically held in one location
relative to the borehole while the tool is moved to each of the desired depth stations within the hole. The
anchoring, size, and acoustic isolation of the sensors allow for suppression of the tool harmonic noise
and removal of tube waves from the borehole-seismic band. Furthermore, digitization close to the sensor
package helps reduce signal distortion (Figure.48).
Among the benefits of using the VSI tool are the increased operating efficiency (rapid mechanic
deployment and reduced time between stations), the short shot-cycle time during remote source surveys,
and the real-time quality control and data processing.
The VSI tool can be combined with a gamma ray tool for accurate depth control and an inclinometry
tool for spatial orientation. For the sake of avoiding excess noise in the data and damage to the tool due
to excessive weight in case of high heave, it is standard practice to run the VSI with only a basic gamma
ray sensor and telemetry, normally both provided by the EDTC-B.
The VSI design focus on data fidelity and quick adaptation to changing survey needs avoids the
compromise in data quality that typically results from efficiency limitations. The result is sharper, more
accurate images and reduced operating logistics, which are fundamental elements for achieving complex
surveys in a cost effective manner and with timely delivery of answer products (Figure.49).
The operating efficiency of the VSI tool is enhanced by
rapid mechanical deployment
Very little time between stations
short shot-cycle time during remote source surveys (walkaway, offset vertical seismic profile [VSP])
real-time quality control and data processing. Applications
Applications:

56

Integrated processing for inter- pretation of borehole and surface seismic data
Images for reservoir definition
Images ahead of the bit
Three-dimensional (3D) VSPs
Pore pressure predictions
Planning for well placement
Simultaneous surface and bore- hole seismic recording for high- definition images
Shear wave processing and analysis

Figure 48. VSI tools field configuration.

Figure.49: compareson between convention seismic imager (CSI) and Versatil seismic imager.

57

Desirable geophone Amplitude/Phase Behavior

In three-component data recording, the horizontal geophones must exhibit an amplitude and phase
response identical to that of the vertical geophone. If the geophones record the phase relationships or the
frequency content of the horizontal signal components in a way that differs from the way the geophone
records the vertical component, then precise three-component data analyses are difficult to perform. If
the amplitude or phase response of any one of the three orthogonal geophones differs from that of the
other two, then we must determine a numerical operator that corrects the amplitude/phase behavior of
the errant geophone, and then apply that operator to all data recorded by the anomalous geophone. After
this numerical equalization, we can assume that any amplitude and phase effects observed in the data are
caused by geology, and not by instrumentation.
In order to minimize frequency and phase differences in three-component receivers, the wall-locking
device that couples the geophone tool to the borehole wall must mechanically couple all three orthogonal
geophones to the formation in the same way. Thus the locking arm must generate a large, laterally
directed locking force for the horizontal geophones to couple properly to the formation. A horizontal
force that is too low will create anomalous phase shifts and amplitude distortions in the horizontal
component data. If these distortions go unrecognized, we may erroneously attribute them to geological
causes. The amplitude responses of the XYZ geophones of the three-component tool shown in Figure.36
(Remotely deployed VSP module) made after the tool was coupled to the formation.
Figure. 50 shows Amplitude spectra of vertical and horizontal geophones from remotely deployed VSP
module, these response curves show no undesirable mechanical resonances for any of the three receivers
up to the test limit of 150 Hz. These results are adequate for almost all VSP work.

Figure.50: Amplitude spectra of vertical and horizontal geophones from remotely deployed VSP module

58

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF VSP RECEIVERS

There are several fundamental requirements for a good-quality VSP geophone tool.
Locking Force
A strong locking force is probably the more important receiver characteristic, one that greatly affects
VSP data quality -particularly the quality of data recorded by non-vertical geophones. The lateral locking
force, f, created by modern VSP receivers. Figure.40 shows the Principal design features of a VSP
geophone that is significantly greater than the locking forces exerted by earlier geophone designs.
The weakest acceptable horizontal locking force is generally defined to be the same as the weight of the
tool. Most receiver designs now allow for the lateral force to be as great as two -four times the total tool
weight (in air) (Figure.51).

Figure.51: Principal design features of a VSP geophone

Depth Correlated
In order to correlate VSP data with the subsurface geological properties interpreted from wireline logs,
we must record VSP traces at the same depths as the log data to which they are being correlated. The
repetitive up and down cable motion we use to position a VSP receiver at each sequential recording
depth often creates a cumulative depth error as data acquisition proceeds. Consequently, we must be able
to determine VSP receiver depths relative to logging depths without depending totally on wireline
odometer readings. For this reason, we should deploy VSP receivers in combination with a gamma-ray
or resistivity tool, Figure.52 shows the Oriented, 3-component VSP data are recorded with a gyro and
gamma ray tool mounted on the VSP logging string to confirm geophone depths.
59

Figure. 52: 3-component VSP data are recorded with a gyro and gamma ray tool
An isolation subassembly is used to ensure that these added tools do not introduce undesirable resonances
into the geophone response. These logging tools provide a log curve which we can depth-correlate with
log curves recorded before or after the VSP data acquisition. A gamma-ray tool is usually more desirable
than a resistivity tool since we can record a gamma-ray response even in cased boreholes, whereas
resistivity tools provide no correlation inside casing. By correlating equivalent log curves (e.g., a gammaray curve recorded in an open hole logging run and one recorded during a VSP data-acquisition run), we
can often correlate VSP depths and logging depths to within 1 or 2 feet.
When running a depth-correlation logging tool in combination with a VSP receiver, we must be careful
to seismically isolate the geophone package from the logging tool so that the added mass and length do
not create geophone resonances within the seismic signal band. Some service companies have developed
isolation subs for this purpose to effectively attenuate frequencies above 1 or 2 Hz. The geophone module
deployment mechanism, Figure 53 shows remotely deployed VSP geophone that serves as an isolation
sub for the mother tool of a VSP receiver.

60

Figure .53: remotely deployed VSP geophone

Geophone-to-Formation Coupling Measurement
Despite the powerful lateral-locking forces generated by VSP geophone tools today, it is still helpful to
make an independent, in-situ measurement of the geophone-to-formation transfer function at each
recording depth. This function defines the relative amplitude and phase of each seismic frequency
component transmitted from the formation into each VSP geophone element.
We can make this coupling measurement by installing a surface-controlled mechanical oscillator in the
receiver. After the tool is locked in place, the oscillator shakes the VSP geophone over a range of
frequencies to span the seismic recording band. We can also measure the coupling by including in the
downhole package a small, remotely activated mass that mechanically impulses the geophones after
they are coupled to the formation. An internal mechanical oscillator is used in the geophone module
diagrammed. Figure 40shows the oscillator sweep that produced the spectral comparisons in
Amplitude spectra of vertical and horizontal geophones from remotely deployed VSP module) is
shown immediately above the spectra.
We must calibrate any coupling measurement system so that it accurately generates known amplitude
and phase inputs to the geophones over the complete range of temperature and tool-inclination angles
that might be encountered in VSP boreholes.
Three-Point Support
The three-point support for a down hole receiver. Figure54 shows Downhole receiver -plan view at right
to prevent horizontal rotation of the tool about the fulcrum point established by the contact pad of the
locking arm, A. The locking arm is one of the three contacts. The other two contact points (labeled S)
are usually some type of machined standoffs. These contacts are positioned approximately 120 degrees
in each horizontal direction from the locking arm, and extend a short distance away from the outer barrel
of the tool. The force vectors produced at these three points stabilize the tool and prevent rotation about
its longitudinal axis.
61

Figure. 54: 3-point clamping

Downhole Digitizer and Telemetry System
For a standard, seven-conductor wireline, two wires are needed for each analog signal. Thus, we can
send only three independent, simultaneous analog geophone signals up hole on conventional wireline
systems. One advantage of downhole digitizing and telemetry is that more data can be transmitted up
hole by digital multiplexing than by analog signals. Downhole digitizing is required if we use multilevel,
three-component VSP receiver systems in conjunction with a seven-conductor wireline. The
digitizing/telemetry system can be external to the geophone package ( Figure.55)

62

Figure.55: down hole instruments

Gimbal-mounted Geophones
Modern VSP receivers record three-component particle motion in order to analyze the total seismic
wavefield as it propagates through the earth. If we record VSP data in a deviated borehole using velocity
sensitive geophones, the geophone tool should be equipped with a gimbal-mounted geophone package
that responds to gravity. Gimbal-mounted geophones provide an orthogonal XYZ orientation of the
internal geophone elements, with one geophone always being vertical, regardless of the tool's angle of
repose in the borehole. In general, however, fixed-axis geophones are slightly quieter than gimbalmounted geophones. Figure 56 shows Gimbal-mounted geophones that one design of a gimbal-mounted
geophone system.
In this particular design, the gimbal package fits in the geophone tool so that the same horizontal
geophone remains in the plane in which the locking arms move. The orientation of the internal geophone
elements is then always known relative to an obvious external feature of the tool i.e., the locking arm.
This feature makes it convenient to connect the geophone tool to a gyro tool .We then know exactly how
the horizontal geophone orientation should be indexed relative to the gyro reading of the azimuth
direction.

63

Figure.56: 3-C geophones package

Temperature and Tilt Angle Calibration of Geophones
A VSP geophone can be subjected to extreme changes in temperature while recording data. Temperatures
can range from 200 degrees Celsius or more at the bottom of a well to 0 degrees Celsius or less at the
surface. Some geophones change their resonance behavior over such large temperature ranges. We must
be aware of these behavioral changes in order to accurately calculate important geological properties
from VSP data.
The tilt angles of fixed (not gimbal-mounted) sensors depend on the deviation of the well bore. In vertical
holes, the tilt angle is negligible, but in long-reach wells, tilt angles can be as great as 70 degrees. Highfrequency velocity-sensitive geophones are preferred by some VSP users because they are less sensitive
to tilt angle than are low-frequency geophones. Oven tests of VSP geophone resonance behavior should
therefore be made over wide temperature and tilt ranges.
If accelerometers are used, then tilt is not an issue during acquisition because they have a constant
response along each axis regardless of the inclination of that axis.

64

MULTI-LEVEL RECEIVER ARRAYS

The continual quest to decrease the amount of time required to record VSP data led to the development
of multilevel VSP receiver arrays. Such arrays couple receivers to the formation simultaneously at
several different depths. If we require 20 hours to record a VSP with a single-level tool, then, in theory,
we should need only four hours to record the same VSP with a five-level array which acquires data at
five depth points simultaneously. This time-saving is appealing to oil companies because it decreases
the standby costs of the idled drilling rig while the VSP data are recorded. Subsequently, the consistency
that multi-level receivers offer for walkaways has proved very beneficial. Also passive monitoring of
microseismicity requires multiple receiver locations (Figure.57)

FIGUR.57: multiple receiver locations

Design options for multilevel receivers range from an eight-level device with only vertical geophones,
to a twenty-level system with three-component accelerometers. We usually prefer to use these tools in
cased portions of a well (particularly when deviated), because it is difficult and risky to deploy a long,
flexible, multilevel system in an uncased, rugose, highly deviated wellbore. Some multilevel systems
lock by magnetic clamping and therefore can only be used in casing or with bowsprings to push the
receivers against the side of the open wellbore. If more than three independent signals are to be
recorded via standard wireline, the data must be digitized downhole and sent to the surface by
telemetry because of the limitations of analog transmission through a seven-conductor system.
Otherwise, we must use a special wireline with conductors to handle the number of analog signals
recorded (Figure.58).

65

Figure 2
Figure .58 : Array tool with twenty, three-component receivers compares the length of an array to the
height of the Eiffel Tower.
This gives a clear indication, not only of the extra-ordinary length of the array, but also of the length of
borehole that can be interrogated by a single shot. The array shown has a variable receiver spacing
between 2.5m and 20m and three-component accelerometers with 24 bit ADC downhole. Each receiver
is independently locked using an electro-mechanically driven arm. The detectors are isolated from the
receiver body after locking as described previously in the CSI single receiver tool.

1.Analogue seismic receiver

Using analogue transmission of data on a standard wireline cable, one is limited to six live plus one
common conductor, this means that six independent geophone channels can be recorded equating to a
two-station 3-component geophone. An obvious method of transmitting more data up the same cable is
to use downhole analogue to digital conversion with associated digital telemetry. Current technology
allows for the provision of a maximum of 32 3-component receivers at a 4ms sample rate (Geochain
Array Tool) for real-time data transmission. More geophone elements can be accommodated if one
allows for a degree of buffering of the data downhole, with transmission to surface during the dead
time between shots. A limiting factor on transmission rates is the high frequency attenuation of
electrical signals in the wireline cable although it can be accommodated to a great extent by applying
electrical load matching or equalisation in the surface equipment (figure.59).

66

Figure.59: analogue seismic receiver.

Although in theory any recording system The last point is in fact the easiest to accommodate, the simplest
solution being to place the geophones in a cylindrical barrel of sufficient thickness to stand expected
borehole pressures. This simple solution is the one generally adopted but it brings with it further
problems, one of the most obvious being that the performance of the geophone elements is immediately
compromised. In isolation, geophone elements easily surpass the performance requirements for
a downhole tool; as soon as they are encased in a barrel, however, their response is modified by the
physical properties of the housing. For instance large tool housings will possess many mechanical
resonances, some of which are coincidentally resident in the middle of the seismic pass-band.
Tool operation is very much complicated by the need to couple the sensors to the borehole wall in order
to receive the seismic energy in a manner that does not lead to distortion of the wavefield. Coupling is
usually accomplished by providing the tool with an arm mechanism that extends from the body of the
geophone housing until it contacts the side of the borehole. This forces the body of the tool against the
opposite side of the well anchoring the device to the borehole walls. The arm mechanisms are generally
hydraulically or electro-mechanically operated, the particular design adopted having a direct bearing on
the size of the tool. An alternative locking mechanism employs a magnetic clamping device with the
provision of a rotatable permanent magnet in the tool body, the obvious limitation to this method of
operation is that the tool can only be deployed in cased sections of hole. Additionally even with a very
high magnetic clamping forces, there is a possibility of micro-slippage of the tool as the device has only
one contact point with the borehole wall.
With each added piece of equipment the mechanical resonances become more troublesome and some
ingenious solutions have been adopted to ensure that they do not appreciably affect the recorded data
quality.

67

What then are the factors to be considered in the design of an ideal downhole tool?
A. Short, lightweight and rigid

Moves mechanical resonances out of seismic passband

B. Mechanically coupled

Tool may be deployed in open or cased holes

C. 3-component geophones

Allows the recording of the full vector seismic

wavefield providingmore accurate wavefield
partitioning in processing

D. Gimbal mounted geophones

Allows optimum deployment in deviated boreholes.

Alignment ofcomponents to borehole trajectory

E. Ends tapered and narrow diameter

Presents as small an acoustic impedance contrast as

possible toborehole borne arrivals (e.g. tube wave)

F.

Increased fidelity of recording seismic energy

coupled with rejectionof fluid borne arrivals

High locking force

G. On board coupling tester

Ability to check tool performance in-hole

H. Analogue or digital data transmission

Provides flexible and scaleable deployment options

I.

Allows for ease of maintenance

Modular construction

Some of these considerations are, to a certain extent, mutually incompatible. For example the
requirement for rigidity conflicts with the necessity of providing as small a diameter tool as possible, a
short-fat tool is inherently more rigid than a long thin tool. Choice of the appropriate geophone sensor
type is also of paramount importance as each of the three sensing axes must possess the same
performance characteristics. There are specific types of geophone for horizontal and vertical sensing,
which differ in the method of suspension of the sensing coil, optimising the suspension for the designated
sensing axis.

Receiver choice notes:

3. The main requirement of a downhole seismic receiver, is that it record the motion of the
subsurface rock matrix - in response to the passage of a seismic disturbance - with the minimum
possible distortion (or alternatively with maximum fidelity). To this end it is necessary for there
to be no undue resonances of the mechanical housing of the sensor(s) that would introduce
anomalies into the response of the tool over the seismic bandwidth. The simplest way of
achieving this in conceptual terms is to accept that any mechanical system will possess
resonances and to reduce the effect of those resonances on the recorded data. The ideal way of
accomplishing this is to ensure that the resonances that are present will occur at frequencies
outside the pass-band of interest (for standard seismic data acquisition this can be taken as
between 0 and 200Hz although there are some applications that require a wider bandwidth). To
achieve this, it is necessary to reduce as much as possible the mass of the sensor housing by either
reducing the materials involved or by using materials of high strength but low density (e.g.
titanium). The design should also be intrinsically rigid to further reduce the effects of the
resonances.
4. To optimize the transfer function for seismic energy between the rock matrix and the receiver, it
is essential that the tool be coupled directly to the formations through which the well has been
drilled. This entails the use of a coupling device that allows the tool to move in sympathy with
any displacements of the rock matrix. Ideally the design should use a mechanical device to enable
the tool to be used in both open and cased hole environments.
68

5. For an accurate definition of the complete seismic wavefield, it is essential to record data using
some form of three dimensional sensor, usually 3 orthogonally mounted geophones forming a
cartesian co-ordinate system. There are other options available but these either require specific
sensing elements or software manipulation to retrieve the seismic wavefield.
6. The use of gimbal mounted geophone sensors is preferred for deviated wells, this allows
automatic optimisation of the sensing geometry for the three sensors if the tool is not vertical i.e.
the vertical sensing element is always vertical and the horizontal elements are always horizontal.
In vertical holes, the gimbal mounting is not necessary and indeed can be detrimental to the
treatment of the data. It is desirable therefore to be able to use fixed sensing elements in these
instances. For maximum flexibility the gimballed sensors could be lockable, either on the surface
or remotely using some downhole mechanism. This is not easy to achieve in practical terms and
most contractors will supply either fixed or gimballed sensor cartridges according to the survey
parameters.
7. In many wells there can be a significant amount of energy transmitted down the mud column in
the form of a tube wave. There are still discussions as to the exact manner in which this energy
propagates down the well, but most authorities agree that the disturbance associated with this
energy travels in the annulus of the interface between the borehole fluids and walls. If one
reduces the cross-section of the tool and applies a taper to its ends, one can minimise the
interaction between this energy and the tool. The problem is that the resultant tool parameters
are then incompatible with the requirements.
8. High locking forces serve three interrelated purposes. Firstly and most basically, if the locking
force is significantly greater than the tools weight, the tool will tend to stay in position. Secondly
a high locking force will mean that the device is more securely held to the formation, such that
as far as the seismic pulse is concerned, it is acoustically indistinguishable from the formation.
Thirdly, if securely locked to the borehole walls, the tool will be less susceptible to fluid borne
arrivals.
9. It would be useful to check the effectiveness of the lock to the formation prior to recording data,
this has great potential benefits for data quality. In practical terms, devices to perform such tests
are difficult to calibrate and generally increase the complexity of the tool. Most contractors use
a variation on the theme of the pulse test. A geophone sensor is excited by an electrical pulse,
the subsequent decay of signal from the elements indicating the quality of lock (this can be
extended to the use of a swept frequency signal applied to a geophone element and some tools
possess additional elements specifically for this purpose). Although an item to be included on a
wish list, in practical terms the use of such a system is generally superfluous and time
consuming. This is particularly true if the tool is fitted with a calibrated locking force sensor, a
consistent locking force providing in most cases a better indication of data quality and
consistency.
10. It is still a fact that digital electronics components have a lower temperature tolerance than
analogue. To be able to run in extremely hot environments, therefore, the receiver tool should
possess some means of overcoming temperature limitations. This can be accomplished by using
69

insulating techniques (such as flasking) and/or Peltier semiconductor heat pumps or more
simply by designing the system to work with either digital or analogue electronics. In analogue
mode there will inevitably be a price to pay in the volume of data recorded per shot due to the
limitation of two three component sensors on seven conductor wireline cable.
11. It is essential for the tools to be easy to maintain in the field in order to maximise the survey
efficiency and minimise any possible downtime. The easiest way of achieving this is to design
the tool to be as modular as possible. Any failures would then be rectified using spare modules
rather than attempting a physical repair of a defective unit under field conditions.
12. The following figures illustrate a couple of the possible solutions that are currently available.
Figure 60 illustrates the concept of Baker Atlas SST 500 downhole receiver array; this is a fully
digital system capable of deploying up to 12 four component (three geophones plus hydrophone)
satellite receivers. Figure 61shows a photograph of some elements of the SST array. Figure 62is
a photograph of the BSR-2 analogue tool from Baker Atlas. This is capable of deployment in
vertical or deviated holes and can be supplied in variants capable of running continuously at
200C and 20000 p.s.i. (1380 bar).

70

Figure 60: SST500 system schematic (baker)

71

W inch unit

Figure. 61: SST 500 Satellites

Figure.62: BSR-2 Downhole seismic receiver

72

Recording Equipment
After the downhole receiver the most critical part of the VSP acquisition system is undoubtedly
the recording equipment itself. Unlike the downhole receiver, however, the aspect of performance
that is most important is not the physical capability of the system (current electronics have capabilities
in excess of what is required for high fidelity recording of the seismic data) but more the quality control
facilities built into associated computer software. Audio CD technology for example requires a sample
rate of just over 44kHz at a rough approximation this generally equates to a data transfer rate of
approximately 1.4Mbaud (1.4 million bits per second), the maximum data transfer rate available from
current downhole systems is 512 kbaud. Continuing the comparison, audio technology requires a
bandwidth between 0 and 20kHz, seismic signals occupy approximately 0 to 200Hz, it is clear,
therefore, that the electronics to enable adequate recording of seismic data from downhole surveys are
readily available at the surface!
The limiting factor for seismic recording thereby reduces to what the contractor can achieve when
assessing the quality of the signals received by the system. Borehole seismic recording systems should
therefore be capable of at least the following functions:

Display (in real time) of all data recorded

Ability to stack common depth data to help decide how many shots to take for each level
Provision of adequate analysis of data to allow accurate assessment of any problems during
the survey
Provision of accurate images and hard copy of all data
Provision of velocity-depth relationship at the well

These options will provide information for the acquisition engineer to make a valid assessment of the
data quality for an offshore survey or for onshore surveys using impulsive sources. It only allows,
however, the assessment of the data to be based on the signal quality of the direct propagating
downgoing wavefield. In the majority of instances this may be sufficient although it does not allow
for an easy assessment of the data contained in the upgoing wavefield. An indication of the arrival
quality for this can be obtained if the data are plotted as a VSP sectional plot i.e. the traces displayed
adjacent to each other in a manner similar to surface seismic trace displays. To further enhance the
quality control of the survey, the system software should be capable of processing the data such that at
least a first approximation of the upgoing wavefield can be generated. The use of vibrators as a source
for onshore data acquisition requires the additional ability to assess the signal after correlation with the
pilot sweep. The capabilities of the recording system must therefore be increased over the basic
requirements noted above by at least the following:
Provision of real-time full precision correlation for Vibrator source data
Provision of seismic plotting capabilities
Provision of in-field processed results for quick evaluation of survey data
In many ways the QC processing performed in the field is essential for the true assessment of data
quality - particularly with regard to the upgoing wavefield. It has additional benefits for the oil
company in that fast preliminary results will be available within an extremely short time frame; this
allows decisions to be made at the well site based on the results of the VSP.

73

Each VSP contractor possesses some variation on this theme of in-field processing. As this document
is prepared by Baker Atlas, examples of that contractors in field VSProwess QC capabilities are
shown in figures 63 to 69.
The VSProwess system hardware consists of a mixture of off-the-shelf items coupled to a proprietary
acquisition controller and associated software. The recording system itself - i.e. the computer and
media support - is based around two standard Intel processor based PC computers. These run
standard multi-tasking operating systems and are networked together with all disk and peripheral
devices shared between the two machines. One of the computers is dedicated to the task of data
acquisition with the other used for any data processing although the roles of each are interchangeable.
The computers are interfaced to an acquisition controller unit which either acts as a digital receiving
station for downhole digital array tools, or as surface located analogue to digital converters for analogue
downhole systems. The acquisition controller acts as an interface between the system control software
and the geophone surface control panel, this enables complete control of all aspects of the survey
acquisition and geophone deployment from a single device (the acquisition PC). The system illustrates
what can be achieved with modern equipment and by taking advantage of proven existing technology.
Furthermore with the adoption of standard PC technology, there is an almost guaranteed upgrade path
into the future should the need arise.

Figure 63: Display of record from 6 element four component downhole receiver

74

Figure 64: Display of vertical component geophone traces from 6 receiver array

Figure 65: Time-depth, velocity and first arrival amplitude plots

75

Figure.66: Display of raw data for vertical, horizontal X and horizontal Y channels

Figure .67: Display of data in FK domain

76

Figure .68: Display of raw upwave without enhancement

Figure 69: Display of VSP data inverted to velocity

77

Why must there be these facilities?

The engineer must be able to control all aspects of data quality, he must be able to see any noise on a
signal, recognise instrument-related problems (for example DC offset) and be able to use tools that
can indicate possible corrective measures. For example if the overall amplitude of a geophone signal
is falling and the character of the associated wavelet is changing, there may well be a problem with
the source output. The engineer should then have the capability of being able to examine the source
signature and to either alter the source control (e.g. re-synchronise an array) or to have enough
information available to decide to change the source.
If a problem can be identified during the survey there is a chance of doing something about it whereas
if the problem is not discovered until after the survey it will be too late.
If a survey is being recorded with the express intention of examining a specific region in the well, it is
quite possible for the engineer to take the data from the area of interest, apply processing, separate
wavefields and examine the quality of the extracted upgoing energy. All this can be accomplished
whilst recording the data for the next few levels; any decisions that are made concerning data quality
can then be acted upon prior to the conclusion of the survey. Such actions can range from re-shooting
a single level to the complete re-run of the survey with, for example, different source parameters.
Interactive assessment of data in this manner allows the optimum use of the rig downtime associated
with the survey. This approach also goes some way to being able to guarantee a specific level of data
quality and, at the very least, provides the contractors clients with a degree of confidence in the results
that they may not have possessed when commencing the survey.

Sources
Due to the nature of VSP operations, source requirements are generally different from those
encountered with surface seismic work. Notwithstanding this, any seismic source can be used to record
a VSP survey. Figure 61 lists some of the sources that have been used for VSP surveys. It should be
obvious that some sources are specific to either marine or onshore operations although there are some
that can be used for either. Dynamite, although frowned
upon these days due to its destructive nature, can be used in
both environments although will almost always be a last
resort. Recent years have also seen the introduction of
several designs of marine vibrator. In theory such a device
would probably provide the best possible source for marine
VSPs, it being possible to tailor the output to provide any
required energy spectrum in the same manner as for land
vibrators. These sources, however, have problems of
energy output and reliability, are cumbersome and expensive
to deploy and thus far except for some experimental wellshoots, have not been generally available.
An alternative shooting method uses a source placed
downhole and records the VSP response either with a surface
spread of detectors (reverse or inverse VSP), detectors in
an adjacent well (cross-hole VSP) or with detectors in the
same hole (co-well surveys). These surveys can have
advantages but suffer from the need to provide a nondestructive downhole source - or alternatively disposable
boreholes!
78

Figure 70: VSP sources

The requirements of an ideal source can be summarised as in figure 72. Most of the sources in use
in the marine environment can satisfy the majority of the requirements listed in this figure, but
some will require a modification to their mode of deployment to obtain the best results.
A brief discussion of this list is probably in order. The
consequences of the first point are obvious; if the source
lacks energy then seismic impulses will be attenuated to such
an extent that reflections from the subsurface will disappear
into noise. The second point is related to the bandwidth
of the seismic signal. Signal theory indicates that an
impulse of zero time duration contains equal contributions
from all frequencies, i.e. it possesses a white spectrum. It
follows, therefore that the closer a signal gets to that of an
impulse, the whiter its spectrum and by implication the
narrower the wavelet associated with the energy pulse. The
width of the pulse defines the minimum separation in time
that two reflections can be in order for them to be resolved in
the seismic image. The narrower the signal wavelet the
greater the resolution and it follows, therefore, that the ideal
source should be impulsive.

Figure 71:Ideal source requirements

The third requirement comes from the fact that single or multi-channel processes can be applied to the
data, i.e. several traces can contribute to the result for the trace being processed. It is obvious that
changes in the data from trace to trace caused by variability in the earths response will need to be
retained. It is not at all easy, however, to design an algorithm that will preserve these changes and
reject changes brought about by other means. Specifically this means that changes in character caused
by variations in source output will be detrimental to the overall quality of the processed data image and
should be avoided if possible. As was shown in chapter 4, with marine wells (or indeed any wells
where there can be an accurate measure of the source signature) a signature deconvolution procedure
can be applied to data to remove source variations. In many cases however, particularly onshore, it is
not possible to provide a consistent recording of the signature.
In recent years there has been a commendable shift in attitude toward safety and environmental aspects
of operations within the oil industry. Safety has always figured highly in the seismic industry, possibly
prompted by the fact that the earliest seismic sources were explosives! It has long been a requirement
of the industry, therefore, that the sources employed must be as safe as possible and those that are
intrinsically dangerous should be used in a safe manner. In some circumstances this can lead to
particular sources being excluded from specific operations if the degree of risk is considered too high
for them to be employed.
Most VSP surveys are small-scale operations when compared to their surface seismic brethren. The
need to be able to easily deploy the source against the background of restricted facilities and space, has
led to the design of small compact airgun arrays. The need to access remote locations, possibly in
jungle or swamp environments requiring that the source dimensions are as small as possible for a given
energy output. This limitation on size severely restricts the maximum power output from VSP sources;
were it not for the fact that the detector is positioned in a quiet environment close to the reflectors, this
would probably result in a restriction in the applicability of VSP operations.
The final two points of fig 61 are linked, a source that cannot be repaired or serviced easily will not be
cost effective. A source that is expensive to operate will not provide sufficient benefits to outweigh its
cost of deployment for VSP surveys as the volume of data acquired for each operation is generally
small and provides specific information for a given survey configuration
79

Offshore sources

As the majority of offshore VSP surveys will be performed using some kind of airgun source, it is worth considering in

some detail the various factors influencing the performance of these devices. There are three main
types of airgun in common use and these can be typified by the conventional system (as manufactured
by Bolt technologies), the Sleeve Airgun and variations on these themes (for example the G and
GI guns manufactured by Sodera use a similar mechanism to the sleeve gun but have additional
deployment options).
The basic method of operation is identical for all these devices in that a volume of high pressure
compressed gas is rapidly vented to the water volume surrounding the gun, the method by which this
is accomplished marking the difference between the two main types. Figures 72 and 73 illustrate the
operation of the Bolt (conventional) and Sleeve airguns, the bolt gun is used here to provide a generic
description of their method of operation.
Referring to figure 72, high pressure air is fed into the gun via the connection adjacent to the solenoid
valve housing, this builds up the pressure in chamber A which is connected via the central passage in
the shuttle to the firing chamber B. Once charged the pressures of the gas in the top and bottom halves
of the gun are equal and the gun is kept sealed by the pressure applied to the top of the piston (the
surface area of the top of the piston in chamber A is greater than that of the bottom of the piston in the
firing chamber B). The gun is fired by venting some of the air in the top chamber to the underside of
the top of the piston via a solenoid valve, this reduces the pressure in the top chamber and increases
the effective surface area of the bottom sides of the piston. The resultant pressure in the lower chamber
now exceeds that in the top, hence the force experienced by the lower surfaces of the piston exceeds
that experienced by the top and the shuttle is pushed upwards. Once the piston is displaced, the
apparent pressure difference between the two chambers increases and the motion of the piston
becomes self-perpetuating - the shuttle moving quickly upwards venting the stored gas in the firing
chamber. The gas vents to the surroundings via four diametrically opposed ports in the body of the
gun forming an expanding bubble of gas in the water in which the gun is placed.

Figure 72: operation of the conventional airgun

80

Figure 73: Operation of the sleeve airgun

After firing the solenoid valve is reset, the pressure in the top chamber is replenished by the gas supply,
the piston is forced downwards and eventually the gun re-seals. The speed with which the firing action
is effected means that the gas bubble still surrounds the gun when the piston re-seals, avoiding water
ingress into the firing chamber, indeed there is a constant flow of compressed gas into the gun
throughout the firing sequence. The sleeve gun differs in essentially only one regard. In this device
the enclosed shuttle and pistons are replaced by an external sleeve that slides up over the body of the
tool to expose the exhaust port which in this case is a single 360 circumferential opening in the gun
body.
Figure 65 illustrates the typical pressure response of the output from an airgun as a function of time.
Perhaps the most striking feature of the response is the oscillatory nature of the signal - this is obviously
moving away from the preferred impulsive signature. The oscillations are caused by the bubble of gas
that is produced when the device is fired and the mechanism is easy to explain. As the gun is fired and
the stored gas begins to vent from the ports the pressure outside the gun begins to rise until the first
pressure maximum is reached. This occurs after approximately a millisecond or so, the period being
referred to as the rise time. This maximum pressure is only maintained for a very short period after
which the rate of venting of the gas begins to fall; during this period the gas bubble is expanding.
As the bubble expands its pressure falls until the external pressure associated with the hydrostatic
head of the surrounding water
Equals or exceeds the pressure within the bubble. The bubble continues to expand due to the inertia
associated with the water displaced by the expanding gas, the hydrostatic pressure outside the bubble
now working to slow its expansion. At this time there is no appreciable feeding of the bubble from the
gun and the inertia of the water is eventually overcome. The bubble is now at its maximum volume
and the pressure within at a minimum, thereafter the external hydrostatic pressure causes the bubble to
start collapsing. The process now reverses; the contents of the bubble are forced inwards the inertial
effects of the water now compress the gas which because of its compliance, reduces to a smaller volume
and higher pressure than the equilibrium values. This continues until the build up of pressure inside the
81

bubble overcomes the inertia of the water, at this point the bubble has reached its minimum volume
(and its second maximum pressure) after which the process repeats.

Figure 74: Airgun pressure signature

The bubble, therefore, forms a resonant system caused by the compliance of the gas and the reaction
of the water mass with energy being exchanged between compressed gas and displaced water. This
is an important point and has implications for output pulse shaping.
What causes the bubble oscillations to decay? As with any resonant system, energy is lost to anelastic
effects (e.g. friction - dissipated as heat) and to radiation of energy - in this case acoustic. These cause
a damping effect which after a time (generally around 500ms) reduce the bubble activity to near-zero
(in addition the gas bubble will tend to rise and will eventually break the surface of the water). It has
been estimated that in general only 7-15% of the stored potential energy in the compressed gas is
radiated to the far field as acoustic energy. The part of the waveform between the time when the gas
is first vented to the water and the second zero crossing is referred to as the initial pulse. The first
pressure minimum is seen on the waveform as a pronounced peak, the amplitude of this event is
augmented by interference from the surface reflection and has a significant effect on the far field
transmitted signal.
The factors that determine the rate at which the gas is vented into the surrounding water and hence
the source signature are:
Operating pressure
Chamber volume
Port area
Gun depth
Radiation resistance
It is instructive to examine the effects of these factors. If one understands the mechanisms involved in
the operation of these devices, it is far easier to design a source configuration that will provide the
optimum input to the earth for a specific subsurface target.Modelling software can be used to simulate the
responses of different gun arrays to help in the choice of source

82

Operating pressure
The part of the waveform that is of most interest to the seismic data processor is the initial pulse. Ideally
this will be of short duration and contain all of the available energy input to the earth -- the majority of
effort expended on the design of individual airguns is directed toward the realisation of this ideal. How
then is the waveform affected by the operating pressure of the gun?
Figure 8.21 illustrates the effect of increasing the pressure within the gun. Not surprisingly, it is clear
that the peak output of the first impulse seen by the near field monitor is very nearly directly proportional
to the firing pressure used. Interestingly increasing the gun pressure correspondingly lengthens the
bubble period.
It is intuitively obvious that this should be the case as the water displaced by the higher energy stored
in the bubble will be accelerated to greater velocities it therefore taking longer to be overcome by the
ambient hydrostatic pressure. A further point to note is that the ratio of the amplitudes of the initial peak
and the bubble oscillation appear to decrease with increasing pressure. This is again an intuitive effect
in that the bubble will be expanding and contracting for longer periods and may therefore lose a greater
percentage of its energy (due to frictional losses etc.) than the less energetic bubbles from lower
pressures.
It is obvious from these figures that the higher the gun pressure the more closely the signature of the
airgun comes to resemble the ideal impulsive input. It is also obvious that there is a considerable way
to go before the output can be considered as satisfying the requirements of figure 73. There are also
some practical considerations to apply. For example the design of airguns is such that they will only
survive a given maximum operating pressure. If one repeatedly exceeds the manufacturers stated limits
then the device will eventually fail either through ruptured seals or through a catastrophic failure of
the gun body - something that would certainly undermine the safety of using the source.
In the diagrams in figures 75 and 76, the first pressure maximum is shown as a downward displacement.
Although this first event corresponds to an increase in pressure (and is labelled as such on the axes) it
has been a matter of historical preference that VSP first arrivals be displayed as downbreaks by the
majority of VSP contractors. It is interesting also that in accordance with the SEG polarity convention,
a display of a pressure sensor in this manner (hydrophones are used for these illustrations) corresponds
to SEG Normal polarity (a pressure increase giving rise to a negative voltage output by the sensor).

83

Figure 75:
pressure

Signature vs. chamber

Figure76: Signature vs. chamber

volume

Chamber volume
It has often been stated that larger chamber volumes provide greater energy and in the past it has been
quoted that the peak pressure output is proportional to the cube root of the chamber volume. Whereas
the initial statement may indeed be true in that there is a greater amount of energy stored in a larger
volume of gas at the same pressure, it is quite easy to show by experiment that the latter is not.That the
peak pressure increases with chamber volume can be seen in figure 67, if one measures the amplitudes
in this figure, however, it is obvious that the cube root relationship does not hold. The explanation for
this is really quite easy to see; if the energy associated with the gas was released instantaneously, there
would indeed be a strong relation between volume and peak pressure. When the gun is fired, however,
the gas is not released as quickly as one would possibly expect as it is vented via the ports of the gun
which by their nature have a limited area and in turn restrict the maximum rate at which the gas can be
discharged.
The rate of discharge is what determines the size of the maximum pressure peak associated with a
particular gun. What can be seen on the oscillograms in figure 67 is that increasing the chamber volume
increases the bubble period, this means that the extra energy associated with the additional volume of
compressed gas is being used by the system to feed the bubble. That there is more energy is
undisputed, but this energy is distributed over a longer time frame and dissipated more by frictional
effects than by radiation of acoustic energy. This smearing of the energy over a longer time period
means that guns with larger chamber volumes tend to exhibit a greate.
Port Area
This is possibly the most important aspect of gun operation, the port area defines how much gas can
pass from the interior of the gun to the surrounding volume of water in a given time. If one restricts the
size of the port it is intuitively obvious that the rate at which the gas can escape will be reduced; with a
large port area, the rate will be increased.
Hence the first statement that can be made is that the larger the port area, the greater the amount of
energy that can be expended in a given time. It follows therefore that if the rate at which the energy is
released increases, then there will be a greater high frequency content to the energy pulse. The
combination of these two effects tend to shape the pressure pulse such that it becomes narrower (HF)
and higher amplitude (energy). As more gas is released in the earlier part of the signature, the bubble
will tend to expand further due to the inertial effects of the higher energy water displacement, frictional
losses will therefore increase within the bubble. As less gas is available to feed the bubble, this will
tend to reduce the relative amplitude of the oscillatory contribution to the signature and increase the
period of oscillation. This effect, however, is not the only one working on the bubble. The lowered
rate of release for smaller ports means that there is more gas available to feed the bubble, this tends to
mean that the vented gas will tend to expand for longer. If the rate of injection of the gas exactly
balances the rate at which the pressure reduces as the inertial effects are overcome, the bubble will
reach equilibrium pressure prior to collapse and the oscillatory tail of the signature will be removed.
What then are the consequences of these effects? Firstly feeding the bubble has more effect on bubble
period than the increase in the inertia of the moving water, overall then one sees a reduction in bubble
activity for small ports with an associated lowering of peak energy and output bandwidth. Very large
port areas provide a high peak energy with moderate contributions from the bubble and wide
bandwidth. For intermediate port sizes, peak energy and bandwidth will exhibit values between the
extremes.
84

A great number of computer models have been constructed to describe the operation of an airgun. In
most cases these have been adequately tested by reference to recorded gun outputs to provide an
accurate prediction of gun and array performance without the necessity to measure the proposed
configuration under field conditions. It is convenient here to use one of these models to illustrate the
effects of port area on gun output, this example (figure 77) is taken from an article published in
Geophysics by Dragoset (1984).

Figure 77 Signature vs. port area

It is clear from the foregoing discussion and the data displayed in figure 8.23, that in order to provide
the maximum peak pressure output from the gun coupled with the widest bandwidth, the port area
should be a large as possible. Indeed the greatest single limiting factor controlling output from the
Bolt-type airguns is that the ports are in fact quite small (this can have advantages, however, when
operating in marshy environments as it restricts the ingress of contaminants into the gun
mechanism). Such observations as these led to the development of the Sleeve Airgun. As noted
previously the basic operation of this device is the same as for the Bolt, but the design effectively
turns the gun inside out. Instead of an internally housed piston and shuttle arrangement, the sleeve
gun has an external sleeve (hence the name!) that slides up exposing a large circumferential port. This
is much larger in area than the Bolt ports and as such is associated with a commensurate increase in
performance with regard to bandwidth and peak pressure output.
Gun Depth
The depth of the gun determines the ambient hydrostatic pressure under which the gun is going to
operate. This has a profound effect on the performance of the gun and its output waveform. The
general effects can be seen in figure 78 and summarised as follows the initial pulse increases slightly in
amplitude with depth As depth increases the bubble period shortens
The initial pulse broadens slightly with depthmDeeper guns experience a longer delay between the first
pressure maximum and the ghost reflection from surface
85

Figure 78 Signature vs. gun depth

Taking the last point first, it is clear that the energy output from an airgun source is not confined to
specific directions. Indeed a single airgun can be considered as a point source with energy output
distributed over a spherically expanding surface. This means that energy will be travelling in all
directions, the important one here being upwards toward the sea surface. At surface, there is a large
acoustic impedance contrast, the value associated with the air above the water being much smaller than
that of water, the reflection coefficient associated with a change in acoustic impedance is:

Going from water (1v1 )to air (2v2) means that the expression above tends toward -1, hence
almost all energy reaching the surface will be reflected back downwards with a 180 phase shift (i.e.
reverse phase). This produces a dipole effect and inevitably leads to interference between the main
source output and the secondary virtual (ghost) source. The consequence of this is that the
interference leads to notches in the source spectrum, these ghost notches can be large and effectively
define the usable bandwidth of the source. A complication of this phenomenon for VSP processing
concerns the adoption of signature deconvolution procedures using near-field measurements of the
source output. It is readily seen that for a near field monitor positioned (say) 1m from the airgun, the
ghost energy will have travelled from gun to surface and back to the source monitor; directly
propagating energy to the monitor will, however, have travelled only the 1m gun to monitor separation.
As the energy is distributed over a spherically expanding surface, the ghost will have experienced a
relatively high reduction in amplitude when compared to the direct energy and the effect of the ghost
reflection will be reduced. In the far field, however, the propagation paths are of similar length, the
amplitudes of the ghost and direct wavefields being therefore comparable. The result is that the spectra
recorded in the near field will not be affected to the same extent as the far field by the ghost arrivals.
In addition if the monitor is positioned above the source, the path length differences are not the same
between near and far field recordings and it is intuitively obvious that the cancellation effects will be
at different frequencies. It is worth noting that although there is cancellation of selected frequencies
caused by the ghost effect, there is also a degree of enhancement of energy at

86

Onshore Sources
Dynamite
Dynamite is what one might term the traditional seismic source. In early seismic exploration it was
the only source that provided sufficient energy for usable data to be recorded on the instrumentation
of the day. Environmental and safety concerns mean that the use of dynamite has steadily declined
and in general it is only used today when other sources are impractical or there are specific problems
that require extremely high energy inputs to the ground.
Surface seismic operations still make use of explosive sources in environmentally less sensitive areas,
VSP operations, however, seldom do. Although in some ways the ideal source (high energy and
impulsive), it generally exhibits too variable a signature on a shot to shot basis - due to variations in
source environment - to allow effective use of the multi-channel operators employed in VSP
processing. It is also rare these days to find a rig operator that relishes the thought of explosives being
detonated alongside the rig.
Vibrators
Vibrators on land provide what is perhaps the ideal source for VSP acquisition from the standpoint of
data quality and flexibility. The features which make the vibrator source so suitable for VSP data are
that it is repeatable and that it can be controlled in such a manner as to be able to tailor the seismic
input to the earth for each specific well location and environment. For example if it is known that a
particular well location is associated with poor penetration at high frequencies, the vibrator sweep can
be modified to input more energy at these frequencies. Conversely - depending on the survey
objectives - the sweep can be designed to completely ignore this part of the seismic bandwidth and
concentrate in optimising the energy within the unaffected pass band. The various methods for
controlling vibrator output and the subsequent scope for an almost infinitely variable input to the earth,
make the flexibility of the vibrator source one of its most pleasing attributes (Figure.79).
One draw-back with the source is that spreading the energy over a range of frequencies distributed
over time, means that we move away from the ideal impulsive signature. Indeed to recover a dataset
that looks anything like a seismic image one must first cross-correlate the recorded data with a
reference signal derived at the vibrator. This reference sweep serves to define the seismic input to
the earth and the correlated output looks and behaves like data recorded using an impulsive source
(provided a sufficiently wide frequency band has been included in the sweep definition). However, a
benefit of correlation is that it rejects random noise and improves the signal to noise ratio (Figure.80).
A problem associated with vibrator derived VSP data is that for accurate processing a reliable transit
time from source to receiver is required. In concept this is not difficult, in practice, however, because
the final shape of the wavelet (bandwidth and phase response) is defined both by the correlation process
and earth filtering, there is a degree of uncertainty with regard to the precise values obtainable from
the data. That said, it is a relatively simple matter to provide an additional impulsive reference source
to control the results from the vibrator survey.
An additional advantage to the use of vibrators is their low impact on the environment and their
inherently higher safety of operation when compared to explosive or even airgun sources. The units
are usually mounted on off-road all-terrain buggy vehicles, there are few locations (assuming the
ground conditions support the vehicle) that they cannot reach, they are non-destructive in operation
and require no special site preparations to perform satisfactorily. Both P and S wave vibrators are
available and this source is one of the (very) few available that allows a controlled generation of
shear waves at or near the surface.
87

Figure 79: Buggy and truck mounted vibrator unit

Figure 80: The vibroseis recording system

88

Land Airgun
This device is an attempt to make use of the repeatable impulsive nature of the airgun source signature
in an onshore environment. By its nature, the airgun must be operated in a marine environment. It is
possible to fire such a source in air, however there is little coupling of the source to the earth and the
lack of lubrication means that the seals in the gun rapidly deteriorate. The land airgun attempts
(quite successfully) to re-create marine deployment conditions by providing the gun with its own
portable marine environment. The most commonly used version is the LSS-3 from Bolt technologies.
This consists of a cage which supports a water-filled bell housing in which is positioned a small bolt
airgun of typically 60 cu.in capacity, the complete unit mounted on a truck. When in use, the bell
housing is hydraulically lowered onto the ground such that the rear of the truck is jacked up clear of
the surface and supported by the bell. The weight of the truck effectively pre-loads the base (pan)
of the LSS-3 onto the ground providing the reaction mass required to input energy to the subsurface
(Figue.81).
On firing the airgun (typically at a pressure of 2000 p.s.i.), the release of the compressed gas into the
bell, expands an elastomeric diaphragm stretched across its base, driving the pan downward against the
ground. The resultant upward reaction of the main assembly within the cage is damped by the catch
cylinders - essentially large shock-absorbers - and the unit is gently lowered back into its rest position
ready for re-firing. The damping of the system is essential to avoid the device generating secondary
seismic impulses. The spent compressed gases pass through a separator and once vented from the
system the unit is ready to fire again, cycle time is typically of the order of 6 seconds.
The land airgun provides a clean and impulsive source signature without any of the bubble effects that
are seen when airguns are deployed in a truly marine environment. Depending on the size of the units
a range of energy outputs are available. The largest units easily provide sufficient energy to penetrate
to depths of 4500m (15000ft) although these units are rarely - if ever - deployed outside the domestic
U.S.A. Throughout the rest of the world the units fielded, particularly in the European theatre, are
capable of providing penetration to around 2400-2700m (8-9000 ft). In very favourable conditions
penetrations of up to 3700m (12000ft) can be achieved, although the energy at this depth is low and
the data recorded with a single shot of dubious quality for VSP processing. It is interesting to note,
however, that with the repeatable signature and short cycle time, it is possible to record a great many
shots at a depth station for stacking.

89

Figure 81: Operation of LSS-3 and examples of units deployed on Unimog and MOL chassis
Airgun in Pit / Buried Airgun
The airgun in pit is perhaps the traditional onshore VSP source after dynamite. Although there are
many factors involved in its deployment that are less than ideal for VSP data acquisition, it has the
overriding advantage that it is easy to use in an efficient manner and provides a generally high energy
input to the earth. As with the land airgun, the deployment attempts to re-create the marine
environment, this time in the most direct fashion, by placing the gun in a water filled hole in
the ground. There are several problems involved with this method The most obvious of these is
that water in the pit will tend to leak away over the course of the survey unless some method of
waterproofing is used. The simplest method employed is to line the pit with a tough impermeable
polythene membrane. In some critical well- shoots where other sources for whatever reason were not
available, it has been known for the oil company to construct concrete or steel lined pits.
It is important that the pit should be constructed in a manner that allows for a good definition of the
source environment, particularly in terms of the way in which this is modified during the survey.
The energy output by the gun will interact with the pit walls. In the case where the walls are not
strengthened i.e. are simply formed from the soil of the hole, the energy will tend to produce a collapse
of the pit. In the worst-case scenario (an unlined pit), the material from the collapsed wall will mix
with the fluid in the pit creating a low velocity medium between the airgun and the base of the pit.
90

A modification to the seismic transit times of up to 7 or 8ms one-way has been seen in pits where
this collapse has been allowed to proceed, it is obvious therefore that the pit conditions have a great
influence on the data recorded.
A rule of thumb for pit construction is illustrated in
figure 82, the dimensions of 3m cube are in fact a
compromise in favour of ease of construction. Ideally
the gun should be considered as an isolated source and
be positioned as far as possible from the walls of the pit
to minimise interaction with what is after all a strong
acoustic impedance contrast. It is theoretically possible
for the walls of the pit to act as secondary sources of
predominantly shear wave energy. This effect can be
minimised by placing the source as central to the pit as
possible such that the contributions from opposite sides
are cancelled.
If shear energy is required, however, it may be possible
in some cases to maximise its input by placing the gun
adjacent to one of the walls. If this is attempted, one
should be aware that although the airgun is not an
explosive source, the peak energies associated with the
pressure pulse created are more than enough to damage
even concrete walls.
Figure. 82: Airgun in pit
A variation on the theme of the pit airgun is the buried airgun. This is an attempt to avoid the major
problem associated with the traditional method i.e. pit collapse and at the same time improve the energy
input to the earth by placing the source beneath (or at least close to) the base of the weathered layer. It
is a well known fact of seismic life that due to its un-consolidated nature, the shallowest part of the
subsurface will generally form an extremely lossy region with respect to seismic energy. If the source
can be positioned beneath this layer, the resultant energy input will be greatly improved. The buried
airgun operation therefore places the source at the bottom of a purpose-drilled hole of slightly wider
diameter than the gun at depths of up to 30 or more metres. The depth of deployment is basically
limited to the available length of airlines etc. Except for the region in which the gun is to be positioned,
the hole is cased with plastic retrievable casing (to prevent collapse during the survey) and filled with
water

91

Field Technique
Figure 83above illustrates what could be considered the standard operational arrangement for a the
majority of simple rig source VSP surveys. It can be extended to more complex survey configurations
by the simple expedient of an additional source controller unit at a remote source location. In all cases
the recording equipment configuration differs little from that shown although each VSP contractor
possesses equipment unique to his operation. Generically there are two variants in the surface
equipment chain and the selection of the appropriate system is primarily determined by the type
(analogue or digital) of downhole tool.

Figure .83: Schematic of field operational set up

92

The method of source deployment for

the majority of rig source VSPs is simply a matter of suspending

the source over the side using a rig crane. This is in fact the easiest and possibly the safest method of
deployment from stationary structures and is generally applicable to boats used as the source platform
for stationary offset sources. If the remote source is required to move as in walkaway surveys, then
additional means of dynamically positioning the source may be desirable (for example hydroplanes
fitted to a gun array).
After setting up the VSP equipment the contractor will perform a complete set of electrical and
mechanical instrument tests on both the surface and downhole equipment; only after the equipment has
been shown to be working on the surface will any instruments be placed in the well. Once the testing
cycle has been completed the tool will be run into the hole. On running in, the VSP engineer will
select certain depths where he will stop the tool, activate the locking mechanism and shoot a number
of records. These records taken on the way into the hole serve two purposes; firstly they ensure that
the equipment is still functioning correctly. This is a test of paramount importance. Although the
downhole tool may be working perfectly on the surface, there is always the possibility that the
conditions downhole may highlight faults that were not apparent with the tool on the deck of the rig.
This factor is a consequence of the harsh operating environments encountered downhole and does not
reflect on the general reliability of the contractor's equipment. The second reason for taking records
as one runs into the hole is to provide control points for the data recorded later in the survey after the
geophone may have been in the well for many hours. Any change in response may be noted and
hopefully remedied and any depth problems with the wireline unit will be highlighted before the survey
is completed and the tool pulled out of the hole. With some systems an additional control of the depth
monitoring process is performed using a passive gamma ray tool coupled to the VSP sonde. The output
from this device during station changes is used to tie depths from earlier electric logging runs.
The records taken on the way into the hole also provide the engineer with an opportunity to modify
certain parameters prior to commencing the survey proper (for example it would be possible to tune the
output of a source array to provide the best compromise between energy and bandwidth).
Once the tool has reached TD of the well, the survey can begin in earnest. There are many ways of
recording a standard VSP, the simplest and most widely adopted method being to shoot at a regular
measured depth increment along the hole. In general the increment will be no more than 30 m (100
ft) and is nowadays typically 15 m (50 ft) with smaller increments used for high resolution surveys.
The spacing of the stations, along with the velocity of the medium, determines the maximum usable
frequency that can be recorded prior to spatial aliasing during processing. This means that for a variable
velocity profile, the different velocity regions will exhibit different alias frequencies. One should,
however, not place too much emphasis on this as processing methods and routes can be adapted to
ensure that aliasing effects are minimal. In general the sensitivity if the data to the aliasing phenomenon
can be reduced by the use of non- linear operators (for example the median) although care has to be
taken in the design of the appropriate processing route.
If one is intending to use predominantly linear operators during processing, however, this approach
may lead to slight problems. F-K operators can be reduced in efficiency if one requires them to be
applied to data recording variable velocities. A simple (in theory) way of avoiding some of these
problems is to record the data at a fixed time increment defined by reference to the velocity profile of
the well. If one now views the recorded data, each event will display the same moveout per trace
irrespective of the velocity of the rocks at any particular depth. This makes F-K processing simpler as
each wavefield will possess its own characteristic moveout and wavefield separation becomes easy.
The disadvantage is that the survey becomes more difficult and time consuming to acquire and more
prone to errors (for example the time increments have to be derived from somewhere and this is usually
from an uncorrected integrated acoustic velocity log). Remember also that it is quite easy to fool FK methods by shifting data to align so that a particular wavefield appears stationary in the data. The
93

final problem with this method is that the conventional VSP display of depth against time is now
visually unappealing and therefore difficult to interpret.
Use of interpolation methods with the recorded data to provide traces at the requisite intervals is also
possible and can be an effective tool to use when time for processing is short. Use of this technique,
although quite common in surface data processing (to add in missing traces) can lead to problems in the
precise location of events in the VSP.
There is considerable scope for flexibility in the station interval use for a particular VSP survey. Much
work has been done regarding wavefield separation techniques, with the result that virtually any station
interval can be processed without undue difficulty. For example, when shooting a vertical incidence
survey in a deviated well, the simplest method is to shoot on constant measured depth interval. This
means that the resultant image will exhibit a variable trace spacing if the data are plotted on offset. The
survey can also be shot using depth stations calculated to give a constant offset spacing. Alternatively
the constant time increment method can be adopted; each method will process to approximately
the same standard, but each will behave in a slightly different fashion. Processing methodology is
sufficiently advanced for the general approach to be to use the shooting method that provides the
most cost-effective way of acquiring the data for the survey. That the data conforms to the requirements
of the survey objectives is still of
paramount importance; the point here is that there may be several methods of providing the same
dataset. With modern techniques, the only real reason (in general - there are exceptions) to choose one
method over another is that of expense.
A VSP survey will generally be shot from the deepest station to the shallowest. This procedure is
adopted to provide the greatest depth control accuracy due to the wireline cable always being under
tension when moving the geophone between stations. This avoids the possibility of recording erroneous
data if the tool becomes temporarily hung up whilst running into the hole.
At each depth the tool is locked to the formation by activating the locking mechanism. Once this has
fully engaged and the tool is supporting its own weight, slack can be applied to the wireline cable - to
avoid wireline conveyed energy. In recent times the need for slack has been reduced by the
development of tools capable of providing a high locking force to weight ratio (some deployments
from certain semi-submersible rigs in poor weather conditions, may still experience heave which the
compensation mechanisms cannot fully accommodate, in these cases applying slack is essential). The
tool is then allowed to settle. This last point is to ensure that any vibrations induced when pulling the
tool up the hole have time to damp out before the record is taken. Once the engineer is satisfied with
his geophone plant, he will then take several shots at the level in question to ensure good signal to
noise performance on stacking; the tool will then be unlocked and pulled to the next station. If more
than one source location is being used, data will in general be acquired from each source position before
the tool is moved, this removes the necessity of multiple runs into the well, thereby saving time and
money. This also means that there will be no variability between geophone plants between surveys,
important if one is comparing results from sources placed on opposite sides of the well for example.
With remote source configurations, it is desirable that the control and monitoring of all sources be
centralised at the recording location, usually the rig. A remote control device, for example Baker Atlas
RSS unit, is therefore required; this equipment should also act as a synchronising device between guns
in an array. Such units generally operate in pairs with a remote unit acting as a slave to one at the rig.
All information concerning the remote source, including a near- field monitor signal, is gathered by
the slave device and transmitted via a dedicated radio telemetry link to the master unit, where it is
passed to the recording equipment for writing to permanent storage media.

94

The positioning of a source is of prime importance to the processing of the data generated by its
operation. In the onshore case this is almost a trivial exercise in that all the required locations can be
surveyed in prior to the operation. In the offshore case, although the required positions are known, the
instantaneous position of the source at each shot must be monitored and the location of each individual
firing position noted for future quality control and use by the processing personnel. Some sort of
dynamic positioning equipment is therefore required. There are many systems available to the industry;
traditionally such surveys were recorded using the Artemis range-bearing system to record the
navigation fixes, this system possessing an accuracy of 3m in 6km (0.05% error).
In recent years although providing the accuracy required for a VSP survey, the use of this equipment
has declined in favour of the GPS system (for example the Tasman system) which uses the network of
positioning satellites in earth orbit. The accuracy of this system is currently similar to that which can
be achieved with Artemis. In practical terms, however, Artemis does have a disadvantage when
compared to GPS solutions, in particular, it has the limitation of being a line of sight system. Any
obstacles between the stations on the rig and the source boat will degrade the performance of the system
and indeed the need for base stations on both rig and boat can have its drawbacks. GPS on the other
hand can be utilised if necessary using a single receiver station at the source, can be extended to larger
offsets than line of sight allows and is less sensitive to physical obstructions obscuring the satellite
signals (assuming a minimum number of satellites in view)

Field Quality Control

Probably one of the most vital factors in the successful recording of any VSP survey is the knowledge
and experience of the field engineers. They have to be able to recognise any problems with the data
and be able to correct any possible deficiencies in the field. This means that not only do they need to
fully understand the equipment they are using, but they also need an appreciation of the geophysics
involved. Access to sophisticated in field quality control facilities ensures that geophysical aspects of
the data can be adequately assessed.
In the early days of VSP surveys, in field QC was performed almost exclusively using hard-copy
camera records. The first arrival was examined to ensure that there was sufficient signal to noise
performance (to enable accurate transit time picking) but further analysis was limited to a qualitative
assessment based on experience alone. The first arrival times were recorded, the time-depth curve
plotted to ensure that there were no apparently anomalous velocities but little else of a quantitative
nature could be done. Current technology, however, provides the tools to provide a much more
rigorous treatment and assessment of the data and allows true VSP processing at the rig location.
What then should be the criteria used to determine the overall quality of the data? There are several
problems that can be easily identified on location and many of these can be rectified by the judicious
adjustment of recording parameters, configurations, or discussions with the rig crew. In the final
analysis, however, the only real measure of the quality of the data lies in the processed VSP image.
Some common problems (and their remedies) associated with data acquisition are detailed in the
following section. To a large extent the impact these problems have on the data quality and usability
are discussed in chapters 3 and 4, what follows is intended to provide an insight into the mechanics of
assessing their effects in the field.

95

Casing Arrivals
In general terms, when casing is set in a well only the minimum necessary cementing will be performed
to keep down costs and rig time. Although this approach can save money, it can have major
repercussions with regard to the quality of the data from a VSP survey. If casing is not cemented to
the formation, or the rocks have not filled back into the annulus surrounding the tubing, any energy
arriving at the hole can set the casing resonating. Energy then propagates down the metal of the
casing as described in section 3, swamping the true seismic arrivals. The situation can be
considerably worsened if there is more than a single string of casing in the hole. In this case, other
than anchoring the successive strings together, there is usually no need to provide a full cement bond
for the whole of the well. In practice this means that if there is more than one string in the borehole,
there is a strong likelihood of recording casing arrivals at some point in the well. Even if the tubing is
not excited into ringing, if there is no coupling between successive strings, very little of the seismic
energy is likely to be transmitted to the downhole tool in such a section of the well.
Unfortunately there is very little that can be done in the field to alleviate the problems of casing
arrivals. The arrival wavelets of this energy are coherent between successive shots at a level. This is
true because for each level there will be a unique depth or set of depths at which the casing is excited,
these will be consistent from shot to shot and hence will give rise to consistent arrivals at the geophone.
Although consistent for a particular depth station, it is not necessarily the case that they will be
consistent between stations hence it is not possible to suppress them using standard wavefield separation
techniques (in the way that tube waves can be attenuated). In general casing arrivals possess a high
frequency characteristic, this can be exploited to a degree by applying a low pass filter to the data,
thereby reducing their overall contribution to the dataset.
It must be stated that there is no processing method capable of completely or even adequately removing
casing arrivals. In general therefore when casing arrivals are seen in a VSP, the section over which they
occur is usually of little use.
What then of the field engineer? In general if casing arrivals are present this will be seen as a warning
that the limit of usable data has probably been reached. The engineer will therefore advise the client
representative that there is little point in continuing with the survey. He will, however, have satisfied
himself that the arrivals are not an isolated problem caused by a short section of un-cemented tubing.
In many instances, casing arrivals need only be evident over a short section of the well where local
conditions have dictated that the cement bond has been less than 100% effective. Once the geophone
tool has left this region and the bonding of the casing has improved, the metal-borne arrivals will be
damped out by the material surrounding the casing and the VSP will again yield valid results.
Tube Waves
Tube waves consist of energy travelling along the well-bore within the borehole fluids and it is
generally accepted that the energy propagates along the interface between the borehole fluids and the
borehole walls. Unlike a seismic pulse, where the propagating energy is distributed over a spherically
expanding wave-front, the tube wave energy as its name implies is restricted to the confines of the
borehole. In general, therefore, the only attenuation experienced by the tube wave is that associated
with frictional losses in the borehole fluids, as a consequence these arrivals are extremely persistent
when compared with true seismic arrivals.
How are tube waves generated? There are a variety of points in the borehole where a tube wave can
be produced, the traditional source of these arrivals is from horizontally travelling energy from the
source interacting with the well- bore at or near the surface. This excites the borehole fluid column
in a similar manner to that seen in the air column of an organ pipe. Additionally, however, any
discontinuities in borehole diameter or conditions (for example the end of a casing string or a significant
96

change in lithology), can give rise to secondary sources of tube wave activity. In these cases the change
in the borehole acts so as to refract energy from the seismic wavefront into the borehole. In open hole
sections through fractured zones, the fluids in the fractures may be in communication with the borehole
fluids. Seismic energy incident at the fractured zones will instantaneously squeeze the fractures,
generating an effective motion of the fracture fluids into the borehole fluids. This means that there will
be an exchange of energy from the seismic pulse to the borehole fluids and the subsequent generation
of tube waves. Such events, however, can be used to assess the presence and strength of the fractures
- not every aspect of tube wave activity is negative (see figure 3.4).
The effects of tube waves can be alleviated to a degree by placing some obstruction to their propagation
in the borehole (there are a number of projects underway investigating the possibilities), or an
improvement may be achieved by changing the survey configuration to modify the energy propagation
paths. In many cases slightly moving the source location can significantly reduce the amount of tube
wave generated. On land it may be possible to further reduce the amount of tube wave by placing a
physical barrier to horizontally travelling energy, for example digging a trench between the source
location and the wellhead. This works because the energy most likely to induce tube waves during
onshore surveys is ground-roll. Another method that, not surprisingly, has had a limited applicability
involves lowering the mud column so as to remove the coupling between the well fluids and the ground
roll energy. This method has worked well when attempted, but is expensive in time and materials
requiring as it does, that the mud weight be increased to maintain well equilibrium. In offshore wells,
the interaction between the seismic energy and some part of the seabed drilling equipment often
generates tube waves. If this is the case it is unlikely that any reduction in the intensity of the arrivals
can be effected.
If the engineer has not been able to reduce the level of the tube wave energy by applying one of the
possible remedies, then his function becomes to provide an assessment as to whether the arrivals will
preclude the production of a usable upwave dataset. In most cases, providing that the arrivals are
consistent, the energy will be removable during processing, indeed the latest generation of field
processing software from some contractors (e.g. the Baker Atlas VSProwess system), can easily
provide this process at the well site. If the arrivals cannot be removed at source, then the engineer
must ensure that the survey parameters are kept as constant as possible to ensure that the character of
the data remains consistent. In doing so he will greatly enhance the effectiveness of software based
removal strategies.
Random Noise
This phrase covers a whole range of phenomena, all of which exhibit a lack of periodicity or coherence
between successive traces. By the fact of being randomly distributed throughout the data, the general
level of this noise can be reduced by the simple technique of stacking successive shots at the same
geophone level. If the noise has a predominance of high frequencies, the data may be further
improved by applying spectral filtering. Although random noise can be attenuated, it is usually almost
impossible to eradicate; it is after all, random in nature and provides no clues to enable the engineer
to determine from where it originates.
The only approach available to the field engineer is to systematically shut down all possible sources of
noise at the rig site. This will eventually lead to a reduction in the noise levels when the offending
process has been terminated; it may be the case, however, that the offending arrivals have no
relationship to the rig-site machinery. For example, if the drilled formations are soft it may be possible
that some of the noise is a function of the formation deforming after the tool has locked. This give
will reach a limit after a period of time, hence the effects may be minimised by allowing a longer
settling time for the tool at each station before taking the first shot. It may be the case that the cycle
time between shots has to be increased for a similar reason.
97

Some boreholes are affected by micro-seismicity of the rocks, either due to natural seismic activity in
regions of high tectonic activity, or the release of stress from the environs of the borehole walls. This
latter phenomenon can either be induced by the drilling operation itself, or by naturally stored
energy finding a channel for release via the well. Whatever the reason, the effects cannot be predicted
and hence cannot be prevented, indeed there are techniques available that make use of such arrivals to
monitor stress releases in a reservoir. Another possible cause of this noise is the presence of gas. Even
with the most diligent attention to detail in the sealing of reservoir formations, if gas is present it
will seep into the borehole fluids and the bubbles thus formed will behave as small acoustic sources
each radiating stored energy.
In the final analysis, an engineer faced with high levels of random noise, must ensure that sufficient
shots are taken at each level to provide a realistic reduction of the noise by stacking. As
mentioned in chapter 4 the statistical improvement in signal to noise performance is proportional to
the square root of the number of shots taken. To achieve an improvement of 4:1, therefore requires a
total of 16 shots. To achieve a 5:1 improvement requires 25 shots, an increase of approximately 70%.
It is clear, therefore, that there is a limit as to the practical reduction of noise levels by stacking. Indeed
if to get any reasonable signal requires shooting more than 16 shots, then it will generally not be
possible to shoot the VSP economically and the engineer will recommend terminating the survey.
The engineer will make use of the ability of modern acquisition equipment to generate and modify stacks
on the fly to determine the optimum data for recording and inclusion in the survey dataset. This
together with spectral analyses of the recorded signals allows the effects of random noise to be
examined, quantified and the effects on the survey data reduced such that the final image is not
degraded.
Systematic Noise
The most common sources of non-random noise are electrical pick-up from cable leakage (usually
monotonic, 50 or 60
Hz oscillations depending on the frequency of the rig power supply), mechanical or electrical
activities from the rig crew and machinery, or local induced seismic activity (e.g. a nearby surface
seismic survey).
The first cause is the only one that can be easily addressed. Although it may involve considerable
trouble shooting to find the source, simple re-siting of equipment or re-routing of cables solves the
majority of cases. The second cause can be attacked in the same manner as for random noise, by
shutting down all non-essential activities on the rig until the noise is removed from the data. This
rather hit and miss operation usually results in some noise reduction, but can be very frustrating. The
reduction of noise from nearby seismic operations will depend on how successful the company
representative is in negotiating a time share agreement with the seismic survey. If this is not possible,
however, it is sometimes enough to time the VSP shots to coincide with the dead time between shots
from the seismic vessel depending on shot interval. Varying the time delay between shots such that the
offending wavefield appears at different (pseudo-random) times in the data can also be tried, the noise
reduction then achieved by stacking.
VariableSource Signature
This and subsequent QC sections are concerned with possible problems associated with the VSP
acquisition systems. As these problems are directly concerned with the equipment used to record a
survey, it is logical and quite correct to assume that the recording engineer can exercise more
control over these aspects of the operation. The first consideration under this umbrella is that of
source output. In the days when the borehole seismic survey was used primarily to provide velocity
information, all that was required of the source was that it provide a high amplitude impulsive first
pressure peak to enable accurate determination of travel times. There was no interest in what followed
98

this peak and in fact the source could possess all manner of secondary pulses without degrading the
primary data. VSP processing, however, requires that the waveform within the data remains constant
- or nearly so - from level to level in order to adequately separate the up and downward travelling
wavefields.
The use of airguns provides the capability of very stable source signatures, and hence stable seismic
wavefields, assuming the operational parameters of the guns are kept constant throughout the survey.
With a single airgun this is in fact generally easy to accomplish in good conditions, all the engineer
has to monitor is that the pressure to which the gun is charged remains constant and that a constant
hydrostatic head of pressure is maintained (i.e. the gun remains at a constant depth). As a further
safeguard he can make periodic checks of the signature by viewing the near field monitor traces, and
analysing their spectra.
On fixed installations (e.g. platforms and jack-up rigs) the source can be deployed at a constant depth
relative to the sea bed without too much difficulty, however, in a heavy sea state the height of water
above the gun can vary considerably. It is possible to alleviate this effect by using a height switch.
This arrangement uses two switches, attached to the airgun support, positioned a fixed distance apart
and which are activated by the movement of water past the switch. These can be adjusted so that the
gun can be fired only when there is a specific height of water over the gun. This arrangement may not
however provide adequate results when a remote source is deployed from a boat (i.e. not a fixed
installation). In this case using buoys to support the source will preserve the source character,
unfortunately this means that the absolute height of the gun above sea bed is then variable leading to
inaccuracies in transit time determination - this is particularly troublesome in poor weather conditions
with appreciable swell.
A further complication to the source output is the use of arrays. Modern airgun control systems can
be constructed to ensure timing accuracies of 0.1 ms. Unfortunately these systems cannot take into
account mechanical variations of the array between shots, they are of necessity after the event
synchronising systems. Fortunately the manufacturing tolerances of sources in use today are of a
very high order, once a delay is set into a firing circuit, there will be little drift. Nevertheless,
automatic monitoring and updating of individual firing delays is desirable and the engineer will
constantly monitor the output of an array, if there appears to be any change in output will re-synchronise
the individual array elements. Figure 84 illustrates the effect of poorly synchronised array elements.
The use of an array allows a more impulsive signature and a shorter reverberant tail. With either single
guns or arrays, the near field monitor provides a reference for the source output and provided a record
of every shot is made, can be used to design designature operators to remove the associated source
effects. In a sense this allows one to be less rigorous in the treatment of the source in that after
designature, the VSP data will have been normalised, on a trace by trace basis, to the output of each
shot. The far field effects of earth filtering will then have far greater impact on the recorded VSP than
variations in source output. To be rigorous, however, it is preferable even when using designature
processes, to keep the source variations to a minimum.

99

Figure. 84: Effects of poor array synchronisation

Poor Geophone Lock (coupling to formation)
There are several degrees of poor locking but in general all result in data that is unsuitable for VSP
processing. The most obvious and catastrophic occurs when the locking mechanism fails to operate or
does not provide sufficient force to hold the geophone in position (in an oversized section of hole for
example). If this happens, the tool will remain hanging from the wireline and any seismic energy
arriving at the geophone will set the tool oscillating. In these cases there may well be, at best, only
minimal contact with the borehole walls and these oscillations will not be damped producing a
ringing signal. In such circumstances the direct arrival time may sometimes be derived depending on
the nature of the signal, although there may be ambiguities as to the exact point on the signal to pick.
A point to note here is that locking the tool to the formation is not necessary if the recording devices
in use are hydrophones. Geophones and accelerometers are velocity sensitive devices and as such
need to be excited by the motion of the medium through which the energy is travelling. Hydrophones
an the other hand, are pressure sensitive devices, and in the downhole environment require the energy
incident at the borehole to be transmitted via the borehole fluids. The fluid then becomes the medium
with which the sensor must be coupled.
If the tool locks to the formation, it may be possible to test the security of lock of some tools using an
onboard shaker or pinger. These devices provide a mechanical excitation of the tool, the speed
with which the induced vibrations die away being indicative of the quality of lock. More recently with
3-component geophones, mechanical testing has given way to electrical pulsing of the individual
components, the induced oscillations used in a similar manner. These devices are a convenient plus
point as a diagnostic tool although the experienced engineer will be able to recognise from the form of
the VSP signal whether the tool has securely locked.
Sometimes although the quality of lock is apparently good, the build up of energy with time at the tool
in response to a particular shot suddenly gives rise to micro-slippage of the device. This usually
happens around 100 to 200 ms after the direct arrivals and generally exhibits itself as ringing arrivals
which swamp the real seismic data at this point in the signal. With the quality of current locking
devices the occurrence of this distortion is usually confined to regions of the hole where the locking
100

mechanism is working at the limits of its operating range. It is interesting to note, however, that the test
methods outlined above will not necessarily perform as expected under these conditions.
Poor locking may also be apparent when running in casing. This occurs for the same reason (i.e. poor
cementing) as gives rise to casing arrivals, although the record may not be affected by casing borne
energy. The effect, in many cases, may be extremely localised although in some wells the poor coupling
may extend for the whole casing string (Figure.85).
Whatever the reason for the poor coupling, the field engineer has two alternatives available to him.
When running in open hole, if the station is particularly important (for example at a formation top),
then the first course of action would be to unlock, then re-lock the tool. In many cases the slight
relocation of the arm and tool body are sufficient to ensure a good lock. In some cases the lock may
improve to a degree but an additional unlock/lock cycle may further improve the coupling. If this
operation does not work, or if the time available for the survey is limited, then the second course of
action is simply to move the tool by a short distance (e.g. 10 ft or 3 m), to a region that is not affected
by whatever is causing the original data degradation.

Figure 85: Good vs. poor geophone locking

Most instances of poor lock outside casing are due to the hole being out of gauge, (both over and
undersized). It is therefore prudent to examine any calliper log available prior to the survey in an attempt
to identify any possible problem zones in advance. An obvious extension to this is that if available the
CBL (cement bond log) should also be examined for the cased section. If no CBL is available,
examination of calliper logs recorded prior to casing may be useful, oversized sections can often give
rise to poorly cemented regions.
Positionng
With any remote source survey, it is of paramount importance that the exact location of the source be
known for each shot. It is also very important for the majority of survey types to keep the position of
the source constant for every shot at a particular level. Although it is theoretically possible to process
the data for each shot record separately using independent co-ordinates, it is time consuming and not to
101

be recommended. It is not possible to accurately stack such data (due to differences in arrival times and
ray path variations) without considerable manipulation of the data.
The lateral positioning of a source can be monitored quite easily using navigation systems. As far as
field QC is concerned, the locations of every shot are available to the VSP crew and can be compared
with the target positions. The differences in travel path and hence arrival times of events can tolerate
reasonably wide errors in position without adversely affecting the quality of the VSP image (although
see paragraph above). A more serious source of errors arises out of uncertainties as to the depth of the
source. With a constantly changing gun depth, the absolute seismic transit time will be constantly
varying in sympathy. With vertical ray paths (rig source, vertical well or vertical incidence survey,
deviated well) the time difference between the direct arrivals and the reflections remain constant (figure
86). This means that, ignoring the absolute value of the direct arrival time, if the first arrivals for records
with different gun depths are shifted to occur at the same time, events within the data will stack in phase.
The derivation of the exact transit time can then be taken as an average of the values recorded for each
shot at the geophone station. This in fact involves little error as the height distribution should be random
in nature unless the engineer is
depth on VSP events

Figure 86: Effects of source depth on VSP events

102

CHAPTER 5 : VSP PROCESSIN

Basic VSP Processing Sequence
stacked trace comparable to a synthetic seismic record without multiples, or a set of seismic traces
comprising a high-resolution seismic section in the immediate vicinity of the well.Whatever the
acquisition geometry, the processing of a VSP survey can be subdivided into different stages.
The first step of processing consists of:
( 1) demultiplexing the data,
(2) Correlation, if the seismic source is a vibrator,
(3) Correction for the signature fluctuation effect,
(4) Correction for tool rotation and well deviation
(3 axes borehole geophone are required),
(5) Elimination of poor quality recordings,
(6) Stacking of recordings made at the same geo
phone position,
(7) Corrections for spherical divergence and absorption,
The second processing step includes the picking of first arrival times, using the same techniques as
those used in well velocity surveying in order to establish a time vs. Depth relation T = F(Z) and a
Velocity model at the well.
The third processing step consists of separating compressional from shear waves, and upgoing from
downgoing wavefields, using velocity filters and polarization filters.
Shear waves have lower velocities than compres sional waves, exhibiting a particle-movement
direction (vibration) at right angles to the propa gation direction. Compressional waves have a
vibration direction parallel to the propagation direction. The shear waves are of two kinds: SH
(vibration perpendicular to the propagation plane) and SV (vertical vibration in the plane of propa
gation). The downgoing waves are characterised by positive apparent velocities and the upgoing waves
by negative apparent velocities.
The separation of the two wavefields can be per formed by the application of apparent velocity filters
in either the space-time domain or the frequency domain. In the frequency domain, upgoing and
downgoing waves are divided into sets with nega tive and positive wavenumbers (k'). A simple way of
extracting them is to retain in the (f, k) plane only those energies that are found in f the positive or
negative halves of the wavenumber field. In the space-time domain, separation of the two wavefields
can be achieved by the application of filters based on the average or anti-average principle (Lamer
1982, Coppens 1982 and Hardage 1985). This type of algorithm extracts the desired signal by
subtracting a noise model that has been estimated as accurately as possible. In the case of VSP, the noise
model actually corresponds to the downgoing wavefield and the desired signal is the upgoing
wavefield.
One way of estimatingthe downgoingwavefieldis to apply a static time shift to all the VSP traces, using
a value which is equal to the first arrivaltime but with a change in sign. Then, a filter can be used to
recover only the infinite apparent velocities(e.g. by means of compositing or median filtering).
Numerous specific algorithms have been developed to separate the upgoing and downgoing waves,
including trace pair filtering (point-to-pointpredictive filter) (Mari et al., 1986 and 1989) and various
multi-channel algorithms, of which one of the best known is from to Seeman and Horowicz(1983).

103

After wave separation, the choice of processing differs according to the acquisition geometry, well
profile and geological structure.
If the source and receiver can be considered as being on the same perpendicular as the reflectors (the
simplest case is that of a vertical well in hori zontal strata with the source situated close to the wellhead)
the processing steps are as follows:
(1) Deconvolution of the upgoing by the down going waves. Application of a deconvolution operator
at each geophone position allows the removal of both source signal and downgoing multiples.
(2) Flattening of the deconvolved upgoing waves is carried out at each depth point by the application
of a static correction equal to the first arrival time measured at the geophone position under
consideration. This operation renders the VSP recording comparable in time (two-way travel
time) to a recording obtained by surface seismic reflection.
(3) Obtaining a VSP stacked trace. The deconvol ved and flattened upgoing waves are stacked
in a corridor which is placed immediately after the first arrival . This restricted vertical
summation known as a corridor stack gives a trace in the seismic frequency bandwidth
without any assumption about the source signature.
After deconvolution,
the seismic
signal is a zero-phase signal.
The VSP stacked trace is comparable to a synthetic seismic record obtained from sonic
and density log data. A stacked trace obtained in this way may contain upgoing multiples.
To remove the effects of multiples, a narrow stacking corridor is chosen in order to accept
only the reflected signal received just after the first arrival.
Thus, the corridor stack is analogous to a syn thetic seismic record - without multiples - in
the frequency band of the received signal. In this way, it is comparable to a surface seismic CDP
stacked trace(Figure87).

Figure. 87 : Stacking corridor applied to processed VSP data, with resulting stacked trace. (Mari and
Coppens, 1987)
104

 If the source and receiver cannot be considered as being on the same perpendicular as the reflec tors
(the simplest case would be a vertical well in a horizontally layered medium where the source is offset
from the wellhead), the data processing is as follows
(1) Deconvolution of the upgoing waves. The deconvolution operator is unique. Since it is extracted
from traces recorded at the bottom of the well, a source signature is not required
(2) Moveout correction of the deconvolved upgoing waves. These corrections are carried out by
introducing a velocity model derived from the first arrival times, or a model based on ray tracing
techniques designed to take account of the acquisition geometry.
(3) Flattening of deconvolved upgoing waves after move-out correction. This is performed by the
application of static corrections at each geophone position. The static correction corresponds to the first
arrival time reduced to the vertical.
(4) Migration. The method most commonly used in VSP is the one proposed by Wyatt and Wyatt (1982).

Figure 88 shows an example of processing of VSP data recorded between 1045 and 105 m, the source
being slightly offsetted (30 m) from the wellhead.The spacing between successivegeophone positions
varied from 3 to 23 m. The figure presents a VSP after editing, showing both downgoing and upgoing
waves. Upgoing waves were deconvolved
After deconvolution of the upgoing waves by the downgoing waves, the VSP trace obtained in the
stacking corridor is utilized to match the seismic surface survey with the downhole data as illustrated
in Fig. 89. The fit is obtained by using a deconvolution technique applied to surface seismic which
takes account of the source signature while attenuating the effect of multiples

105

Fig. 88 Example of VSP data processing. Time (s) vs. depth (m) sections, with Llz indicating
distance between two successive geophone positions. (Ga; de France-IF? document)

106

Figure. 89 Matching of surface seismic survey with VSP data. (After Mari et al., 1987).
The section (Fig. 90 7a) represents the data obtained on the vertical component Z of the well
geophone. Those obtained on the horizontal cornponent X are oriented m the plane passing through
the source and the well. A strong field of downgoing SV waves can be seen on the horizontal
component at 0.6 s and l s for geophone depths of 930 m and 1600 m.
In the example shown in Fig. 2. l 7b, the use of polarization filtering has led to a separation of
the P and SV waves (vibration direction included in the source-well plane) and to obtain VSP
sections in P and SV waves (Fig. 90 b).

107

Fig.90 VSP horizontal (X) and vertical (Z) components of the well geophone recording. (Mari and
Coppens, 1989), b)VSP separation of P and SV waves. (Mari and Coppens, 1989)

108

The presence of residual compressional ~aves may be noted on the SV wave section. The separate
processing of the VSP data in terms of P and SV wavefields makes it possible to obtain migrated VSP
seismic sections (Fig. 91).
The SV wave migratedsectionis shown with a time scale half of that used for the P wave section (200
ms in S = 100 ms in P), corresponding to a V,JVs ratio of 2. Correlation of the two sections cannot
be achieved by eye on thJ basis of seismic features. Instead, the depths and times of primary reflections
have been identifiedin the upgoing P and SV wave fields, after their separation and before migration
(Fig. 91a), using the time-depthrelations Tp = Fp(Z) and Ts= Fs(Z) obtainedby pickingfirst arrivals.

Figure. 91 Processing of offset VSP: a) extraction of upgoing SV and P waves,

on migrated P and SV waves. (Mari and Coppens, 1989)

109

b) VSP section based

VSP processing steps

Although we will consider only the basic rig-source VSP recorded in a vertical hole the basic processing
sequences for all VSP types are broadly similar and generally entail the use of exactly the same
processes for the majority of the processing route. The sequence can be conveniently sub- divided into
five sections as follows:
Data preparation and editing
Separation of upgoing and downgoing wavefields
Deconvolution (multiple suppression) of upgoing wavefield
Enhancement of upgoing wavefield
Suppression of noise and unwanted signal
Figure 92 is an example of a typical VSP flow chart which illustrates most of the main divisions
described below.

Figure92 Simple VSP processing route

110

Data preparation and editing

The data for any VSP survey usually consists of a (variable) number of repeated observations performed
at a series of different geophone stations within a borehole. The signal to noise ratio (S/N) and
sometimes the signal form can vary between each of these observations at a geophone station and from
level to level within the well. The variation between levels is usually not of consequence unless caused
by changes in source output, indeed the form of the signal is expected to change as one progresses down
the well. Differences between successive shots at the same level, however, are not desirable and can
lead to a degradation in final image quality and should be dealt with in the initial stages of processing.
The object of part of the data preparation process is to edit the field data to a stage where the geophone
records are as consistent as possible in signal content between successive shots at a level, and to ensure
that any variation between levels is caused by variations in travel path or geology. This process should
also be used to obtain the best possible S/N for each level. The tools generally available at this stage
are:
(I)Exclusion of poorly recorded data
(ii) Use of source signature deconvolution for marine data
(iii)Accurate alignment in time of records at any one level
(iv)Summing
(v) Amplitude recovery
(vi)Band limiting and notch filtering
(I) Exclusion of poorly recorded data
It is the nature of well geophone data, that records at any one level can exhibit remarkably different
noise or signal characteristics. These may be caused by a battery of reasons from noise "bursts" from
the borehole or its environs, to rig noise or micro-slippage of the wall-coupled geophone tool.
Figure 93 shows a series of geophone records made at a single geophone station and illustrates this sort
of variation in signal content and quality. The first record illustrates the effects of micro-slippage of
the tool, this occurs when the downhole tool is not properly coupled to the formation (the methods of
locking can vary but usually comprise a mechanical arm which protrudes from the side of the geophone
housing see section 9.1) and manifests itself as high amplitude, low frequency variations in signal.
These are due to the tool casing resonating after being excited by the incident seismic energy pulse. A
geophone that is well coupled to the formation will not exhibit these resonances, they will be effectively
damped through the contact of the tool casing with the borehole. This particular record was generated
by not allowing the locking arm to couple to its rated locking force.
For the third and subsequent traces the geophone has been fully locked, although it is quite obvious that
there is a degree of variation in S/N performance between shots, probably as a result of changes in the
general conditions in the environment. These records were recorded in a "quiet" hole using a relatively
low energy seismic source.
Bad records, in this case the first two, should be excluded from subsequent processing and in cases
where all records at a level are thus affected, it may be necessary to exclude the complete level from the
VSP.

111

Figure 93 Variation in data quality caused by variable coupling to the format

ii) Use of source signature deconvolution for marine data

The use of this technique is only applicable where a source signature representative of the transmitted
seismic pulse is available. This usually means that this process is restricted to marine locations due to
the difficulties in recording an accurate source monitor signal for onshore wells. There are two reasons
for applying this technique. Firstly it is desirable to remove any source effects from the VSP (for
example when using airgun sources, the contributions from the source bubble to the image should be
112

minimised), and secondly in the case of a varying source output, the process can be used to stabilise the
source signature from record to record. If the source has been so designed as to provide as impulsive a
signature as possible - without the presence of a bubble-tail - this process may be considered
superfluous.
If the source output is varying between shots, it is considered essential to apply a signature
deconvolution process. The variation in source character will be seen to add at best a degree of random
noise to the data reducing the inherent resolution, and at worst may add a non random element which
may confuse and mislead the interpretation of the data.
Figure 94 demonstrates the effect of applying a signature deconvolution technique to data acquired
using a single airgun as the source. In general this process can be applied before or after summing of
records at the same level, the trade off being in computational overhead. It is generally preferable,
however, to apply the process prior to summation.

Figure 94 Effects of signature deconvolution.

(iii) Accurate alignment of records

Times from well geophone records are usually derived as the interval between the first arrival at a near
field monitor and the first arrival at the downhole geophone. These times can be picked either "break
to break" or "trough to trough" and can be achieved manually or by the use of automatic timing routines.
113

Automatic routines can be applied using various methods; for example, threshold, cross correlation and
polynomial fit. The threshold technique works well for break picking provided the data possesses a
high S/N, cross correlation techniques work well for trough picking - even in the presence of noise and
polynomial fitting works well for either break or trough and does not require that the signal envelope
under analysis is consistent from trace to trace. It should be noted, however, that the cross correlation
can be adversely affected if there is any variation in the signature from record to record - see point (ii)
- or if there is not consistent coupling of the geophone to the formation.
In order to achieve the optimum stack of common depth records it is necessary to remove time variations
within a level before summing. This can be achieved by calculating the average first arrival time of the
traces to be summed and then shifting the individual first arrival times to this average time before
summing.

(iv) Summing
This process has been alluded to in preceding paragraphs and is usually the final stage in data
preparation prior to actual signal processing. In this process all available records after editing (as above)
are summed for each record with a common source-receiver configuration. This process effectively
reduces any random noise evident in the data. It is important, however, for some applications that
the absolute amplitude of the data be preserved and amplitude corrections depending on the number
of records summed have to be made. Figure 79 demonstrates the application of this technique to a
particularly noisy set of records. Statistically the improvement in S/N for such data is defined by the
square root of the number of records in the stack so for 4 records in the stack there will be a 2:1
improvement in S/N, Figure 95Improvement in signal / noise ratio by summing.

Figure .95: Improvement in signal / noise ratio by summing

114

(v) Amplitude recovery

The recorded trace decreases in amplitude with time due to three main effects; spherical divergence,
transmission loss and absorption. The amplitude of events within the VSP are reduced to a degree
where later arrivals cannot be seen on the display. Therefore the purpose of the amplitude recovery
processing is to restore the amplitude of the events so that they correspond to the amplitudes expected
from each of the reflecting interfaces i.e. all amplitude ratios are preserved.
Spherical divergence is a function of the seismic energy being distributed over the surface of a
spherically expanding wavefront. As the wavefront progresses through the earth the energy density at
its surface decreases as a function of the expanding area. Transmission losses occur as the wavefront
traverses an acoustic impedance contrast (a reflector). In this instance the seismic energy is partially
reflected and the remaining energy transmitted will of necessity be at a lower level than immediately
above the reflector. The final mechanism arises out of the fact that the earth is not a truly elastic
medium. The molecules comprising the rock matrix form the basis of a natural attenuator and there will
be selective absorption of energy depending on rock type, depth of burial, tectonic history etc.For
surface seismic data in a homogeneous medium, the recorded amplitude is proportional to T the
reflection time. All the effects together can be expressed as Tn, where n2.
For VSP data it is found empirically that n = 1.5 gives a good basis for amplitude recovery in many
cases and in practice values between 1 and 1.5 are used. In theory to provide an accurate amplitude
recovery the amplitude function applied to the downgoing wavefield should be different to that applied
to the upgoing wavefield as a single recovery function applied down the trace will not properly account
for the spreading seen by the upwave. In general, however, the application of separate functions
depends on the purpose for which the data has been acquired. If straightforward correlation with the
surface seismic data is the prime reason then the single function is adequate. If a process requiring the
exact preservation of relative amplitudes is to be performed, then more thought is required on the part
of the processor. Figures 96 and 97 illustrate VSP data before and after application of such an amplitude
function.

(vi) Filtering
The choice of any band-limiting or notch filter is best made by inspection of F-K transformed data i.e.
data after the application of a fourier transform operator (transformed from time-depth to frequencywavenumber space). Any noise bands are immediately visible on data thus processed and in addition it
is usually quite an easy task to identify the usable bandwidth of the propagating up and downgoing
wavefields. Figure 98 is of the raw VSP data from figure 80 after transformation and one can clearly
estimate the highest usable frequency by observing the limits of the coherent section of the respective
wavefields.
The filtering process should be utilised at various stages of the processing route and there are three main
stages that require such processing as a necessity. The first filter is applied at the initial inspection stage
to effectively set the primary bandwidth of the data. The second is applied after deconvolution (removal
of multiples) to cater for any spectral anomalies and noise introduced by the deconvolution operation.
Finally the data should be filtered.

115

Figure .96: Data prior to amplitude recovery

Figure.97:Data after amplitude recovery

116

Figure.98:F-K transform of raw VSP data aligned at one-way time

Separation of upgoing and downgoing wavefields

When the data from a conventional rig source VSP are plotted the downgoing and upgoing events
are seen as overlying wavefields which display an equal but opposite dip through the section.
Separation of these wavefields is necessary for the further processing of the data for the following
reasons:
The upgoing wavefield contains information concerning the subsurface in terms of acoustic
impedance and structure; indeed it is the wavefield that one is trying to retain and enhance. The
downgoing wavefield due to its shorter travel paths in the subsurface, is of higher amplitude than
the upgoing wavefield and thereby obscures to a large extent the information that one is trying
to recover.
117

(ii) The downgoing wavefield contains information concerning the multiple activity present in
the upgoing wavefield. It follows, therefore, that although the "target" wavefield consists of the
primary upgoing events, a necessary step in the isolation of these data is the identification of the
downgoing wavetrains from which to design the deconvolution operators
There are various methods for wavefield separation but whatever the method adopted it will be
subject to the effects of spatial aliasing. For VSP data there exists a fundamental alias frequency
which is defined by the travel time between adjacent geophone stations. Other bands of aliased
energy occur at the harmonics (multiples) of this frequency and at zero frequency. A common
misconception is that the resolution of VSP data after wavefield separation is limited by this
fundamental alias frequency. This in fact is not so, the band of frequencies affected in each alias
band is relatively small and it can be shown that the small distortions caused by spatial aliasing
are quite acceptable. The use of non-linear operators in processing (such as the median) can,
under certain circumstances, lead to aliasing effects that are almost negligible. This aside there
are occasions when the aliasing effects can down-grade the VSP performance, for example Pand S-wave partitioning using 3-component data - of which more later.
Synthetic data is used for the purposes of this discussion as it is essential to know the exact form
of the wavefields before the separation process is applied so that the quality of the wavefields
after separation may be assessed.
The use of just two reflected events is quite justifiable when linear operators are employed (i.e.
if the effect of wavefield separation on a number of reflections is exactly the same as the addition
of the responses of the individual reflections after wavefield separation). For non-linear processes
such as the median or coherency type operators, the situation is not quite so straightforward.
Figure 99 illustrates the subsurface model employed throughout this discussion.

Figure 99 Synthetic model

Aliasing and VSP data

118

The data from a standard rig source VSP survey form a two dimensional wavefield for which
the dimensions are depth and time. Both are discretely sampled but with different consequences.
(a)
For time sampling, anti-alias filters are included in the recording system to attenuate
energy above the Nyquist frequency (i.e. the frequency above which alias effects occur, this is
equal to half the sampling frequency). If this energy were not suppressed it would "fold into"
the useful seismic frequency band and cause distortion. Correct use of the recording instrumentation will
therefore eliminate temporal aliasing.

It is not possible to provide in the VSP sense a continuous depth record and additionally it
is not possible to "filter" depth. It is not therefore possible to remove depth contributions that
may lead to aliasing effects and as a consequence spatial aliasing effects will be introduced
whenever multichannel processes (again, for example, the median operator) are applied to the
data.
(b)

Broadly speaking the downgoing and upgoing data form two distinct wavefields. Under
spatial aliasing, these are indistinguishable at certain narrow frequency bands and these are
referred to as aliased or folded frequencies.
The fundamental alias frequency can be deduced from the relative dips of the wavefields in the
time-depth domain (T-X space). If the relative dip is T seconds per trace, then the fundamental
alias frequency of an event is 1/T Hz; further aliasing occurs at harmonics (multiples) of this
frequency i.e. 2/T, 3/T Hz etc. bands of such energy can be identified on figures 48 and 85.
The alias bands (apart from zero frequency) can be increased to beyond the useable bandwidth
of the VSP data by simply reducing T i.e. by decreasing the separation of the geophone
stations. Although close spacing is a sufficient condition for effective wavefield separation,
it is not a necessary one, this should become apparent from the following examples.

119

Figure.011: Wavefield separation using F-K fan filters

120

Wavefield separation methods

(i) F-K filters
(a) Fan filter
Consider the model illustrated in figure 99. The expected response of this model to both down
and upward travelling energy is plotted in figure 011panel (a). It is obvious from this display
that the instantaneous dips of the wavefields vary according to the velocity of the medium in
which the sensor is positioned. Such variations in the wavefields make their estimation more
complex as they are not defined with one dip but are resident over a range of dip values.
Panel (b) of this figure shows the energy distribution in F-K space. A conventional solution
to wavefield separation is to apply a fan filter in its reject mode to the data (in F-K space)
with downwave alignment. In this case, however, the fan has such a wide spread that a large
proportion of the upgoing wavefield is removed along with the downgoing. This is especially
true at higher frequencies where, after folding, the fan becomes very wide indeed. Panel (c)
illustrates what is left of the upgoing energy after application of the fan filter and it is easily
seen that there is no significant energy over
50 Hz remaining in the data with a significant gap in the spectrum between 25 and 40 Hz
depending on the upwave alignment.
The application of the fan filter has obviously distorted the upwave spectrum to an
unreasonable extent. Panel (d) illustrates the resultant upgoing wavefield estimate in T-X
space and the lack of high frequency content is easily apparent in the broadening of the
wavelet.
(b) Wavenumber filter
It is clear from the foregoing example that the majority of the problems in the use of the F-K
transformed data for wavefield separation originate from the width of the filter applied. A very
convenient and simple way of avoiding these problems is to force one of the subject wavefields
to have constant dip. It is a property of the VSP that the downwave is almost spatially invariant
down the array of geophones in real data sets and is therefore an ideal candidate for this type
of treatment. A simple method of ensuring constant dip is to shift the traces toward time zero
by an amount corresponding to their respective measured first arrival times. The first
arrivals will then exhibit zero dip between traces and due to the invariance of the downgoing
multiple train, the downgoing reverberants will also exhibit zero dip.
Figure 010 panel (a) illustrates this alignment using the same synthetic data set as for the fan
filter example. Panel (b) shows the F-K transform of this data; the horizontally aligned
downwave is transformed to a narrow vertical band of energy in F-K space with an alignment
at K=0. The upgoing energy still folds across the downgoing at regular intervals which
correspond exactly to the frequencies seen with the data aligned at recorded times, the first
121

intersection occurs at zero frequency, the next at 25 Hz with subsequent intersections at higher
frequencies. This first intersection (above zero Hz) defines the fundamental alias frequency of
the steeply dipping upgoing events seen in panel (a). The shallower dipping event has its own
set of alias frequencies the first of which occurs at about 60 Hz.
This discussion implies that the preferred method of suppressing the downgoing wavefield in
F-K space is a narrow wavenumber reject filter whose band limits just encompass the
downgoing energy. As with the fan filter, wavenumber filtering also rejects segments of the
upgoing energy and although these segments are very much smaller, the upwave spectrum is
still left with small "bites" taken out of its spectrum; these can easily be seen in panel (c) of
this figure.

122

The transformation of the wavefield back to the T-X domain provides the estimated upgoing
wavefield. A cursory inspection of the data suggests that the resolution has been retained and
that there has been no significant distortion of the VSP wavelet.

Figure 010 Wavefield separation using F-K wavenumber filter

The wavenumber filter discussed in the previous section was applied with a "box-car" shaped
accept band; in T-X space this is equivalent to a Sinc function ( sin x / x ) acting as a filter or
123

smoothing operator across the traces (both of these approaches introduce side lobes to the
wavelet and in the case of the wavenumber filter these can be reduced by applying a cosine
taper to the pass-band).
Median filter
An alternative approach in T-X space would be the use of a running average across the trace,
the results would be similar to the box-car wavenumber filter. A disadvantage of the average
(mean) function is a tendency to "smear" energy between traces; a more effective separation
can be achieved by the use of the median operator.
For the estimation of the downwave the median behaves in a similar manner to the running
average because the downgoing wavefield tends to be spatially invariant (this property
providing near enough identical samples to work on between traces). The strength of the
operator, however, lies in its treatment of the upgoing wavefield. For a randomly distributed
reflectivity sequence the overall effect of the median is similar to the wavenumber filter in that
bands of aliased energy are included in the downwave estimate. For an isolated reflection
event, the median effectively "ignores" the upwave in its estimation of the downwave, see
figure 102r(right) for an explanation of the operation of the median.
Returning to the synthetic model, the median operator is applied horizontally across the data
aligned at zero time to provide the downwave estimate. This estimate is then subtracted from
the original data leaving the upgoing events with the high frequency response preserved. The
action of this filter on the synthetic data is illustrated in figure 102(left).
If there is a genuine change in the character of the wavefield being enhanced, another important
property of the median is that it will preserve the change. Any running average or F-K filtering
will tend to "smooth over" the transition and hence will produce a distorted image over that
section of the data.It should be noted that the so-called upgoing wavefield derived in this way
actually contains all wavefields except downgoing and requires enhancement to isolate the
upgoing wavefield (see 4.4).

124

Figure 102.,The operation of the median(right),Wavefield separation using median filters (left)

Parametric wavefield separation

Another approach is parametric wavefield separation. In this method wavefields are
parameterised according to a particular characteristic (for example moveout, apparent velocity
etc.), these parameters are then used to guide a coherency estimate of the wavefield across the
data, the idea here is that the required wavefield will occupy the specified alignment and can
therefore be directly estimated using the specified measure of coherency.
This method has the advantage that all data is taken into account in the separation process which
is done in one pass however many wavefields are being separated.
This differs from the median method where wavefields are enhanced and subtracted in turn. At
each subtraction, aliasing between wavefields can potentially result in degradation of the results.
Additionally, the upgoing wavefield output from this method should contain upgoing arrivals
only and rarely needs further enhamcement.
So what is the distortion introduced by spatial aliasing? The foregoing discussions imply that
there is very little distortion for the wavenumber or median filtering but significant amounts for
the fan filter.
A detailed examination of the events on trace 45 of the synthetic data set before and after
wavefield separation reveals the changes. Figure 103 shows the comparison for each
separation type . It is immediately apparent from these traces that the fan filter has considerably
distorted the wavelet and lowered the effective bandwidth of the data. Both the wavenumber
and median filters have basically preserved the bandwidth of the data although the wavenumber
125

filter has introduced low amplitude events into the precursor and tail of the wavelet. The median
filtered trace shows no evidence of wavelet distortion of the upgoing energy and clearly for these
isolated events has done a better job than the wavenumber filter. As hinted above, this is
not always the case, if there were a significant number of upgoing events the distortions for both
the wavenumber and median filters would be similar and the only strong reason for using one
technique over the other would be a saving of computational time for the median operator.
As with all such statements the situation in the real world is not as straightforward as this and
other considerations must be borne in mind. For example, the median operator is not a linear
process and the application of a spectral filter prior to the median operator will not necessarily
produce the same image as applying the spectral filter after the median operator.
The proven conventional wavefield separation policy can be summarised as:
(i) Shift the traces to zero time, then either
(b)
Estimate the downgoing energy with a narrow accept wavenumber filter.Estimate the
upgoing energy using the same narrow band wavenumber filter in its reject mode (to suppress
the downgoing energy)

Figure .103: Comparison between resulting wavelets from F-K and median wavefield separation
126

Wavefield separation in real data

Synthetic data examples are of great use in developing techniques or arguments but the proof
of any technique comes when one applies the processes to real data sets. For the purpose of this
demonstration data from a well in the North sea are used. The survey was recorded using a fixed
geophone station increment of 25m and the source (a single Bolt airgun) was suspended from
the rig at a depth of 9m.
Figure 104 shows the data at one-way times sub datum; the data have been stacked, an amplitude
recovery function applied, and the panel has been filtered to remove any high frequency noise
that may be present in the VSP. Figure 90 shows the data after downwave alignment, that is
with the traces shifted toward time zero by their first arrival times. The wavefield separation
applied to this data set has been accomplished by using the median separation technique
described above and figures 105, 106 and 107 show the data after downwave enhancement, data
after downwave subtraction and then shifting to two way arrival times respectively. This VSP
is the same data set as that shown in figure 108 where the raw wavefields prior to separation
were displayed at two-way time. For comparison purposes this figure has been reproduced here
as figure 109, and one can immediately see the improvement in clarity of the upgoing wavefield.

Figure. 104: VSP data at one-way time sub datum

127

Figure. 105:0Data after downwave alignment

128

Figure. 106 :Data at downwave alignment after downwave enhancement

129

Figure 107: Data at downwave alignment after downwave subtraction

130

Figure 108: Data after downwave subtraction aligned at two-way time

131

Figure.109:Data aligned at two-way time without downwave subtraction

132

Median filter
An alternative approach in T-X space would be the use of a running average across the trace, the
results would be similar to the box-car wavenumber filter. A disadvantage of the average (mean)
function is a tendency to "smear" energy between traces; a more effective separation can be
achieved by the use of the median operator and this is discussed below.
For the estimation of the downwave the median behaves in a similar manner to the running
average because the downgoing wavefield tends to be spatially invariant (this property providing
near enough identical samples to work on between traces). The strength of the operator, however,
lies in its treatment of the upgoing wavefield. For a randomly distributed reflectivity sequence
the overall effect of the median is similar to the wavenumber filter in that bands of aliased energy
are included in the downwave estimate. For an isolated reflection event, the median effectively
"ignores" the upwave in its estimation of the downwave.
Returning to the synthetic model, the median operator is applied horizontally across the data
aligned at zero time to provide the downwave estimate. This estimate is then subtracted from the
original data leaving the upgoing events with the high frequency response preserved. The action
of this filter on the synthetic data is illustrated in figure 110
If there is a genuine change in the character of the wavefield being enhanced, another important
property of the median is that it will preserve the change. Any running average or F-K filtering
will tend to "smooth over" .

Figure 110 Wavefield separation using median filters

Deconvolution of upgoing wavefield
In VSP data the strongest wavefield is always the downgoing one. This is because it comprises
the direct arrivals and even-order reverberants, the majority of which being generated in the near
surface where reflection coefficients tend to be large. The upgoing wave, by contrast, as it
consists of odd-order reflections is always scaled down by at least one reflection coefficient
133

compared to the downgoing wave at the same time. It follows, therefore that the major
contribution to the form of any upgoing primary reflection event will be from the downgoing
wavefield and to a first approximation the upgoing wavefield at any point in the subsurface will
consist of a scaled version of the downgoing wavefield measured at the same point. The
downgoing wavefield, therefore, contains a description of the reverberant systems that are
appearing in the upgoing wavefield and can be used in the design of deconvolution (multiple
suppression) operators.
The downgoing wavefield will consist of two components, the reverberant system which will be
minimum phase and a source generated component which may not. Two approaches can be taken
in the design of the deconvolution operators. The first approach involves the design of a gapped
operator which will "collapse" the reverberant tail and then to separately apply a wave-shaping
operator to produce the desired final wavelet.
The alternative approach is to design a single operator containing both the multiple and source
generated components separately assessing the minimum and maximum phase portions of the
signal.. The results are similar to the two stage operation described above.The deconvolution
operators designed from the downgoing wavefield are applied on a trace by trace basis and
applied to the equivalent upgoing wavefield. Figure 111 illustrates the application of this type of
deconvolution.
In general the use of the downwave derived operators as described here, produces a more
effective deconvolution. The use of longer operator lengths gives a more complete removal of
the longer period reverberants and the ability to use long operator lengths of the same order as
the design window comes from the deterministic nature of this type of deconvolution. As the
downwave can be precisely measured, providing the reverberant tail of the upgoing wavefield
mirrors that of the down, the deconvolution is also precise.
As an aside: Conventional deconvolution techniques which use statistical methods to derive the
operators cannot make use of long operators. These techniques rely on the assumption that the
reflectivity sequence of the earth is essentially random and the autocorrelation functions of the
upwaves are inspected for any non-random events within a specified design window. These nonrandom effects are then attributed to multiple activity and the operator designed accordingly; the
operator lengths are therefore of necessity shorter than the design windows. The basic
assumption of the random aspect of the reflection sequence is not rigorous and can lead to errors
in operator estimation, the deterministic downwave deconvolution process makes no such
assumptions.
As described above, the downgoing wavefield at any point in the borehole can be used to
deconvolve the upgoing wavefield at the same point. This process will, however, only
deconvolve reverberants that have been generated by at least one primary above the point at
which the downwave is being observed. The application of a single operator will therefore not
deconvolve any interbed multiples that have been generated by at least two primaries below the
point of observation, indeed it will not remove any upward travelling reverberants. If one
remembers that the amplitude of the primary upgoing wavefield is smaller than the downgoing
by one reflection coefficient, it should be obvious that the contributions from upgoing

134

Figure 111: VSP data after deterministic downwave deconvolution

Enhancement of upgoing wavefield
After the upgoing wavefield has been isolated it is generally necessary to enhance it against the
general noise background so that a detailed study may be made of its form and variation. In
general the same techniques as were used to isolate the downgoing wavefield can be used to
135

enhance the upgoing, albeit with important differences. In most VSP data the reverberant events
in the downwave are near-consistent, at least in the early part of the data, from trace to trace.
This is a function of the majority of the downgoing arrivals being generated in the near surface,
where the lithology is often close to horizontal. As one progresses into the earth structural effects
can become more pronounced. In the presence of structure the upgoing events will show moveout
in time from trace to trace due to migration effects and these effects can become significant at
depth. Any processing that attempts to enhance the events in the upgoing wavefield must
therefore be capable of preserving and indeed clarifying any events thus affected. In particular,
the length of any spatial operator should be short enough to preserve any changes in moveout or
terminations of the events within the body of the VSP, but long enough to ensure that local
variations in the events do not prejudice the overall continuity of the data.
Figure 001 the results after the application of a median based point spatial filter designed to
recognise only horizontal or close to horizontal events. Much of the lithology at this well is
horizontal and therefore this form of enhancement has been reasonably successful in rejecting
noise and enhancing the desired arrivals. Similar results can be obtained for data exhibiting
dipping arrivals by defining the median operator to accept arrivals that display a particular
moveout within the data. This will be more effective in enhancing dipping events but will suffer
from similar limitations as the horizontal operator, in that noise arrivals may still be enhanced if
they occur at alignments close to that of the filter limits.
Figure 001 shows the same data as 001but in this case an alternative enhancement filter has been
applied. The filter is still based on the median operator, still has the same number of sample
points but is now applied in two passes. In the first pass a range of slope values are examined
and the median value for each slope alignment calculated. The slope with the largest median
value within the scan range is then stored along with the value. The second pass examines the
stored values; if the slope lies within a predetermined range of slopes, then the stored value is
output as the value for that sample. If the stored values lie outside this accept range, then the
sample is zeroed. This filter has the characteristic of enhancing any upgoing energy in the
specified window (as these events will usually possess a reasonable amplitude), but ignoring any
coherent noise arrivals, statistically more of which exist outside of the expected upwave
alignment than along it.
F-K techniques can also be used to enhance the upgoing data. Fan and wavenumber filters are
the most popular types in use by the industry and any enhance/reject window can be applied to
the data, as such these filters can be very flexible in use. It is more difficult, however, to define
exactly the portion of F-K space to which one wants to apply the process and in practice the
specification of slope when using the median operator is far simpler. Other operators such as
mean or semblance can be applied to the data, the appropriate choice depending very much on
the individual data sets although the industry as a whole tends to favour either median or F-K
methods.

136

Figure 001: Deconvolved upgoing wavefield after application of horizontal median operator

137

Figure 001: Deconvolved upgoing wavefield after application of noise rejection filter enhancing
dips of up to 1ms/trace

Noise and unwanted signal

Noise within VSP data sets can be attributed to many factors. The two main classes of noise are
(a) noise generated by the recording equipment or techniques, and (b) unwanted seismic arrivals.
The first classification can be subdivided into two further categories:

(I) Mechanical/electrical
(ii) Physical (eg tube wave and casing arrivals)
In category (i), the main generating mechanisms are functions of the electrical and mechanical
properties of the recording equipment, and category (ii) arrivals are generally due to the
configuration of the survey.
138

(I) Mechanical/electrical
The electrical noise generated by the recording equipment with present day technology is of a
very low order and this is illustrated by the fact that most of today's seismic recorders have
dynamic ranges in excess of 120 dB. There are forms of electrical interference other than
component noise, the most prevalent of which is mains pick-up. This is where the signal leads
from the downhole tool or monitor transducers are for some reason inadequately shielded from
stray magnetic and electrical fields originating form the rig's power supply system. This noise is
usually present as 50 or 60 Hz sine wave interference depending on supply type. Problems of
this nature can usually be isolated in the field but in some instances no remedy can be found (a
point to note here is that if all the signal path uses digital information transfer, the likelihood of
this type of noise is much reduced). There are two methods of removing this noise, firstly a very
narrow band reject (notch) filter can be applied to the data if the noise is monotonic, although
this should be avoided if at all possible as it distorts the VSP wavelet. The second method is
simply stacking shots at a level where the noise appears anti-phase, the subsequent cancellation
effects effectively removing the offending "arrivals".
There are also a number of causes of mechanical noise, the most common of which are tool
resonances induced by poor locking of the geophone to the formation. In this case the degradation
of the signal is easily apparent via the surface QC system and if necessary, the location of the
tool can be altered to provide a good lock. Again in modern tools the majority of mechanical
resonances have generally been reduced to a minimum, either in the design stage or by judicious
application of damping devices in the field.

(ii) Physical
The mechanisms for the generation of tube or casing arrivals have been dealt in last chapter ,but
it was noted there that the possibility of reducing their effects in the field are somewhat limited.
These classes of arrivals must be removed using some of the processing techniques noted
throughout.
Casing arrivals: as noted earlier these exhibit an apparent velocity within the data characteristic
of the steel that is transmitting them. They usually occur in the vicinity of the first arrivals and
tend to mask the real direct arrivals. As they form a coherent set of arrivals, they show the same
character from shot to shot and cannot therefore be reduced by the summation of shots at a level.
These arrivals, however, usually show a spectral content which is of higher frequency than the
seismic arrivals and can therefore be attenuated by the application of a low-pass filter.
Tube arrivals are more problematic. They do not usually lend themselves to attenuation via
spectral filtering due to the variability of the arrivals for different geophone locations. The quality
of the geophone lock has a direct bearing on the expression of any tube arrival at a particular
geophone station. In many ways a tube wave is analogous to the seismic arrivals that are the aim
of the survey. As such they can be attenuated to a great extent, by treating them as a separate
class of arrivals and applying wavefield separation techniques. Both median and F-K approaches
139

are valid and the mechanism is exactly the same as for downwave subtraction, the initial
alignment however has the tube waves positioned to present zero moveout of events between
traces. Figure 114 is of a VSP which suffers from tube wave interference, figures 115show the
data after tube wave subtraction using median estimates of the tube wave. The separation
techniques were applied as for downwave subtraction. There is a small amount of residual energy
present this being an unavoidable function of the variability of arrivals between geophone
stations. In this particular case, however, the effects of the residual tube wave are confined to
high frequencies and can be removed quite effectively by spectral filtering.
Another class of arrivals which can be considered as noise are mode-converted S-waves. These
can be used to gain useful geophysical information but more often than not interfere with the
upgoing P- wave to an unacceptable degree. Again similar separation techniques can be applied,
although due to their close association with the P-wave are not usually 100% effective. All the
foregoing discussions assume that a single geophone sensing element with its axis placed
vertically has been used for the acquisition. In the majority of cases these days, a 3-component
geophone with sensors placed in a cartesian coordinate system is used to record the VSP and
these allow a more rigorous separation of P- and S-mode energy fields

140

Figure 98 VSP with tube wave arrivals

Figure .115: VSP after tube wave subtraction using median techniques

141

CHAPTER 6: ESPECIAL TOPICS

Types of VSP surveys
Figure116 illustrates the five most widely used VSP configurations. The rig source VSP (panel
A) in areas of zero dip illuminates the subsurface in the immediate environs of the borehole,
contributions to the reflection image originating from the fresnel zone centred at the well. Panels
B and C from this figure show the effect of offsetting the source from the receiver location. In
the case of both the offset source and the rig source into a deviated well, it can be seen that the
propagation history of the energy allows reflections to be received from locations away from the
borehole. It is a small step thereafter to deduce that this will allow for the generation of subsurface
images away from the well location.
If one extends the treatment of deviated wells, panel D illustrates that by positioning the source
vertically above each geophone station, the resulting ray paths provide exact equivalents to the
normal incidence surface seismic trace (note that this is only strictly true for regions of zero dip).
This survey is perhaps one of the most useful VSP configurations in that a two-dimensional
seismic record can be produced with a very simple processing route; this geometry is sometimes
referred to as a "Walkabove" survey.
The final commonly used survey type is that of the "Walkaway" VSP. Whereas for the majority
of the surveys noted above, the source is held stationary and successive records are taken after
the geophone has been relocated, the Walkaway survey as its name implies, holds the geophone
station constant and "walks" the source away from the well location. In practice the source is
generally shot along a line through the wellhead in a direction to provide a two-dimensional
subsurface image over a particular subsurface feature. In theory this survey type allows for a
large amount of data to be acquired in a short period of time whilst also providing a reasonably
even cover of the subsurface around and beneath the well location.
Although the offset source and Walkaway options are shown in vertical boreholes they are
equally applicable in deviated wells although the processing route may be subject to slight
modification.
Further VSP designs (see figure 117) address particular applications. The "Walkalong" VSP
(panel A) is the "oblique incidence" equivalent to the Walkabove survey and is appropriate for a
borehole deviated in an arbitrary direction in an area of constant dip and strike -- although the
imaging of such a survey is far from trivial! Both the "Walkaskew" and "Walkaround" have
applications in the study of rock properties. The former attempts to maintain a constant angle of
incidence at the target, so that lateral changes in rock properties can be inferred from lateral
changes in reflectivity. The Walkaround is the circular equivalent of the Walkaway and could be
used to study changes in reflectivity in a area of low dip. Its main potential use, however, is the
study of azimuthal anisotropy through the analysis of the direct compressional and shear wave
arrivals.
Walkaway and Walkaround surveys are subsets of the 3D VSP, recorded with an areal spread of
source positions. Such surveys have only recently become commercially viable with the
development of borehole geophone "strings" allowing simultaneous acquisition of several
geophone stations.
A further variation on the theme is the Reverse VSP. Any of the configurations noted above can
be reversed with the source positioned downhole with a surface spread of receivers. This
142

arrangement can have cost and logistic advantages on land but presupposes either expendable
boreholes (explosive sources) or non-destructive sources.

Figure 116 VSP survey types

Figure 117 Further VSP designs

143

In every instance it is advantageous to know approximately what results to expect from a given
survey configuration. Indeed in many cases, just to know whether the proposed survey will even
have a chance of fulfilling the stated objectives, is an item of information that is not always
apparent from common-sense considerations. Some means of simulating the results of surveys
is therefore required.
Before leaving the topic of survey configurations, a general set of surveys that are gaining more
and more interest with increasing levels of technology is that of the so called 3D VSP. These are
the direct analogy of the 3D surface seismic dataset with the proviso that the array used to record
the data is limited to a single location in the subsurface and hence the redundancy of data seen
in the 3D VSP is not fully emulated. The surveys do, however, provide very detailed cover in the
vicinity of the well and, in theory at least, provide the opportunity for extremely high resolution
of detailed structure about the well. Figure 118 illustrates the generic form of the survey and they
will be discussed in more detail after the section on walkaway surveys.

Figure 118 Generic 3D VSP design

3-component processing
"Traditional" VSP recording techniques relied, until the mid 1980s, almost exclusively on the
use of single-axis borehole geophones. The instruments were deployed in a manner that ensured
that the sensing element had a maximum response to seismic energy where the associated particle
motion was in the vertical direction (see figure 119). It was assumed that the major elements of
the seismic wavefield were up and downward propagating P-wave energy fields. For the rig
source VSP in the vertical hole and the vertical incidence VSP in a deviated hole this assumption
usually proves adequate, providing the local structure has low dip and is not complicated by
faulting or intrusions.
If there are to be significant offsets of the source from the geophone, or in regions of high
dip/complex structure, this assumption is no longer valid. In the simplest case of a purely
compressional wavefield, the oblique angle of arrival of the energy at the downhole detector
gives rise to an effective reduction in amplitude of the recorded signal. In general, geophone
sensitivity reduces proportional to the cosine of the angle between the direction of arrival and
the geophone axis. Consequently P-wave arrivals will not be recorded with correct amplitudes
unless incident in a direction precisely along the geophone axis (figure 119).
Further to these considerations, when the source is laterally offset from the receiver, the
propagation paths are no longer perpendicular to the bedding planes and there is therefore a
component of particle motion along the acoustic interface. This means that in addition to the
transmitted P-wave energy at an interface, some of the energy can be mode-converted to S-wave
and transmitted as such with possible re-conversion at subsequent interfaces etc., moment's
144

thought allows the deduction that with some configurations and dips, S-wave energy could be
maximally recorded by a vertically polarised geophone with a minimum recording of the P-wave
energy. In the more general case of a more even split in energy between the wave-modes, it is
quite often the case that the spatial proximity of the P- and S-wave arrivals gives rise to
unacceptable aliasing effects, if filters depending solely on apparent differences in velocity are
used to partition the wavefields.
If the VSP wavefield is recorded using a "3-component" downhole geophone many of these
problems can be avoided. In the majority of 3-component tools, three geophones are arranged to
be mutually orthogonal, forming the standard x,y,z axes of a cartesian co-ordinate system. With
such an arrangement the full 3-dimensional particle-motion vector can be recorded. With a
knowledge of the particle motion one can exploit to the full the differences between the P- and
S- propagation modes and accurately partition the two wavefields for separate processing. In
certain circumstances (usually where there is only one significant mode-conversion interface)
the S-wave data can be processed to provide an alternative subsurface image to that provided by
the P-wave.
One problem that must be overcome before any 3-component data can be processed is that of
geophone alignment. As the geophone is suspended down the hole by means of a wireline cable
(figure 120) it is clear that the tool is free to rotate in the borehole between successive stations
depending on the torque experienced by the cable. It is obvious also that unless there is some
means of referencing the orientation of the sensing elements, the horizontal component
information will be of little use.
There are basically two ways to overcome this problem. The most obvious method is to find
some method of directly measuring the tool orientation, and this can be accomplished by
incorporating some form of gyroscopic measuring device in the downhole tool. This method
provides the most accurate solution and allows the simultaneous acquisition of a borehole
directional survey with the VSP. This approach is not always possible and very difficult to
achieve with current technology if strings of downhole geophones are employed.
If this route is not possible then all is not lost as the second method utilises the amplitude
information recorded by the geophones by making a couple of simple assumptions.
The assumptions made are:
a) The first arrival at the geophone is the directly propagating P-wave and
(b) The direction of arrival lies in the source-receiver plane.
The P-wave energy usually travels with the highest seismic velocity and will arrive before any
other wavemode, unless one is extremely unlucky with unexpected refraction effects. The
direction of arrival is slightly trickier but again the least-time path between source and receiver

145

Figure 119Sensitivity of geophone

Figure 120Transformed co-ordinate system

The combination of these factors means that the amplitude of the arrival as measured by each of
the sensing elements will be a function of the angle the associated particle motion makes with
the sensing element and hence for P-waves, the direction of arrival. As the direction of arrival is
defined by the source receiver plane it is now a trivial exercise to derive the tool orientation and
most processing approaches use either a power analysis of the direct arrivals, or using particle
motion diagrams (hodograms) These computational methods produce results that generally agree remarkable well with those
from direct measurement but there are instances when this approach is not feasible, for example:
(1) The first arrivals are not direct downward travelling P-waves
(2) The first arrivals are P-waves but are contaminated with other arrivals (eg casing)
(3) The directions of arrival are not coincident with the source direction for all the levels in the
VSP due to subsurface structure etc
(4) The signal to noise ratio of the horizontal components is poor
(5) The source is not offset from the geophones.
Fortunately, as implied above, items 1 to 4 do not usually play a significant part. Item 5, however,
is unavoidable with a rig source data set in a vertical well, the only secure method of orientation
in this case being the gyro measurement.

146

Imaging of VSP data

As recorded the VSP contains no readily accessible information regarding the spatial positioning
of the reflection data. How then is it possible to derive a two-dimensional subsurface image from
data that are recorded as a function of depth and time?
Figure 120 is a very simple schematic illustration of an offset source survey. A horizontally
layered earth of uniform velocity (so that refraction effects can be ignored) is modelled and
several reflection paths from the offset source to the downhole geophone are shown, one for each
of the reflecting interfaces. If the reflection points for every interface are joined it can be seen
that the locus of the reflection points describes a smooth curve starting at the geophone and
moving away from the well with increasing depth.
.

Figure 120 Raypath and reflection point locus plot

It is quite easy to infer that for a series of geophone (and/or source) locations a family of
reflection point loci can be constructed (figure 6.10). What can one deduce from this
information? Firstly, if the velocity profile at the well is known, it is possible to construct a twodimensional velocity field in the vicinity of the well. This can be extrapolated away from the
well using dip and other information from drilling or rig source VSP information etc. It is now
possible to define to a first approximation the positions occupied by the reflection point loci as
noted above. One can then overlay the time-recorded VSP for a particular source-geophone pair
on the plot of the locus for that pair. This is not as straightforward as it might appear as one has
to preserve the time structure of the trace and this involves the application of a variable "stretch"
function to the time trace. This process is analogous to the normal moveout correction (NMO)
applied to surface seismic data. Figure 121 illustrates this technique applied to one trace and
147

figure 122 shows the effect of its application to a series of traces where the reflection image
begins to be obvious.

Figure 121 Moveout corrected trace

148

Figure 122 Moveout corrected traces

This display can be of great use in that the origin of much of the reflection image can be easily
seen and much of the amplitude information for each event is preserved. It is quite difficult,
however, to directly compare this display with a standard set of seismic traces. This is solved by
using a "binning" algorithm to partition the energy back into a conventional array of seismic
traces. This example is based on a horizontally layered model although, as hinted above, the
approach can be extended to include structure. This approach is generally referred to as
"mapping" or sometimes as the VSP CDP transform.
An alternative method is to use standard seismic migration algorithms to image the data. A
velocity profile is again needed and again ideally this should be applied taking into account the
possible dips expected etc. (A point to bear in mind for both approaches is that the subsurface
image produced will depend very much on how the velocity model is used to constrain the data.
If structural discontinuities (eg faults) are entered, then they will of necessity "imprint"
themselves on the recorded data).
The most commonly used migration schemes are based around variations on the Kirchhoff
integral, the basic physical operation of which can be easily appreciated. The routines take each
sample of each recorded trace and calculate a locus of points from where that sample could have
originated using the supplied velocity profile; all points on the calculated locus are then given
the value of the sample. The method works because at positions of real reflection points the
amplitudes from the loci will be coherent and add constructively. Away from reflection points
the contributions from each sample will be random and effectively cancel. A direct corollary to
this is that by its very nature contributions from random noise events will also cancel thereby
reducing the overall noise content of the subsurface image.
The simplest way of applying either the mapping or migration methods is to use a horizontally
layered, laterally invariant velocity profile. It is intuitively obvious that this will lead to a degree
of inaccuracy in the resultant image although the errors introduced will be smaller for the
migration approach. This is because unlike the mapping approach, the model used sets no limits
as to the position of the reflection points and hence the image should provide a reasonable
estimate of dip assuming a realistic velocity model. With the ray-trace based mapping methods,
the position of the reflection point is fixed by the velocity model and this may not correspond to
the recorded position of the event within the data.
If the subsurface model is known with a degree of certainty, then this information can be
incorporated in the model and the accuracy of this approach can be improved.
In general the migration approach is to be preferred over ray-trace schemes unless there are
amplitude problems within the data (for example strong angle-dependency of reflection
coefficients), or the subsurface is very disjointed. In this case there is ample scope for applying
mapping schemes in an iterative fashion. The subsurface is first modelled using a ray-trace
package, the results of the modelling are then be used to generate a synthetic VSP data set which
is compared with the recorded data. The results of the comparison are then used to update the
149

model and the process run again until there is a convergence of the modelled and synthetic
results.
Examples of the different imaging techniques as applied to a real data set are shown in figure
123. This is derived from a rig source VSP from a deviated well in the North Sea. Four panels
are illustrated, the first is the original surface seismic data, the second is the mapped data using
a reasonably refined but horizontal subsurface model. The third is of the results using a migration
approach but with the same velocity model and the fourth shows the seismic section with the
migrated data spliced in along the well location. The migration approach has clearly better
imaged the dipping beds near TD of the well and the overall noise level is also much lower. It is
also interesting to note that the apparent zone of illumination is much smaller with the migration
approach, this indeed is a more accurate description of what to expect from this survey. The
cover indicated by the mapped data could be constrained by refining the model further to allow
for structural effects, the final result of which would be close in appearance to that from the
migration. It is obvious, however, that the migration has not been as severely constrained by the
velocity model and can produce a very reliable image with less detailed knowledge of the
subsurface.

Figure 123 Migration versus mapping, deviated well rig source VSP

Walkaway VSP surveys

The walkaway VSP by its very nature requires the largest departure from the rig source
processing route of any configuration mentioned so far. It is instructive to examine the reasons
for this and see how the different considerations that have to be made for this survey type affect
the handling of the data. Figure 6.14 shows the basic survey configuration; a geophone is secured
150

at depth in the well and the source is fired at a series of positions along a line through the wellhead
location. Some of the expected travel paths are shown on this diagram and the shaded area
indicates the expected zone of subsurface illumination. Figure 011 shows the ray paths for one
shot point and one receiver location with both down and upgoing ray paths annotated. Note that
for long source offsets the path lengths for both classes of arrival will be of similar length
especially for a deep geophone location.

Figure.124:Subsurface illumination from a Walkaway VSP

Figure 125 Downgoing and upgoing Walkaway wavefields

Figure 126 illustrates the events expected from this model from two geophone stations. The top
part of the panel illustrates a geophone placed shallow in the subsurface and the bottom part
illustrates a deep-placed geophone. Note that as one no longer has a change in geophone location
151

between shots (i.e. the distance between the geophone and a reflecting interface remains
constant), both up and downgoing wavefields display the same form of moveout. Both
wavefields produce a hyperbolic arrival within the data with the downgoing arrivals displaying
more curvature than the upgoing. For a deep geophone the downgoing events occur later than for
a shallow geophone, whereas the upgoing events occur at shorter times.

Figure 126 Manifestation of Walkaway wavefields

Although the downgoing wavefield displays greater moveout than the upgoing, the degree of
moveout is not constant throughout the data. Both wavefields exhibit less moveout toward
shorter source offsets; this in turn means that the spatial separation of the alignments of the up
and downgoing wavefields decreases toward the centre traces of the panel. It is obvious,
therefore, that there is an immediate problem when one comes to isolating the upgoing from the
downgoing energy. The normal methods of separation (eg. velocity filters) depend on there being
a large apparent difference in velocities between the wavefields; this is no longer the case and if
one was to attempt to separate the wavefields from such data, an unacceptable degree of spatial
aliasing would occur.
The solution to the problem is really very simple and is achieved by recording a series of
geophone stations from each source location. If these are now gathered together according to
shot point rather than geophone location, it can be seen that each shot has associated with it a
conventional albeit limited VSP data set, with the up and downwaves displaying their
conventional expected VSP moveout. Each source location can therefore be thought of as
providing an independent VSP displaying all the qualities required for effective wavefield
separation. The initial stages of walkaway processing therefore involve the sorting of the data
from common geophone gathers (CGGs) into the smaller more manageable common shot point
(CSP) gathers.

152

With this in mind, the majority of wavefield manipulation (i.e. separation of up and downgoing,
P- and S-wavefields etc.) for walkaway surveys, is accomplished with the data sorted according
to CSP gathers. After all such processing has been completed, the data are re-sorted back to
CGGs, further processing including imaging etc. then performed in the CGG domain. It is worth
noting that although removal of coherent events or wave-mode partition of wavefields is
accomplished in the CSP domain, the removal of random noise can be attempted in either CSP
or CGG domains with equal success. Equally enhancement of the partitioned upgoing wavefields
can be achieved if necessary using conventional velocity filtering techniques within the CSP
domain. Alternatively, however, as there are several independent estimates of the upgoing
wavefield (one available from each CGG), it is possible to image all the available data from each
CGG separately. One can then improve data quality by stacking these images; this method is in
fact the closest one can get in VSP processing to producing multi-fold cover in the true surface
seismic sense.
The modifications to the standard VSP processing route noted above, would appear at first sight
to be almost trivial, after all almost all are concerned with simple data manipulation rather than
processing. The main limitations with this type of survey occur when one considers the imaging
of the data. A moment's thought indicates that although the mechanics behind the imaging
process are relatively simple their application in practice is far more complex. Either method of
imaging can be performed on walkaway data. In some locations, however, where there is marked
angle dependency of reflection strength, the migration approach can provide unpredictable
results due to the wide variation in reflection angle seen between the near and far offset traces.
An important consideration is the velocity/acoustic impedance field used to image the data. Due
to the variability of the travel paths, anisotropy and lateral velocity variations, no two shot pointgeophone pairs experience the same velocity field; this is, of course, true for every VSP survey
although the effect is more pronounced with the walkaway. A static offset VSP can be designed,
for example, such that the difference between propagation histories is far less problematic.
In a sense the walkaway VSP is nothing more than a special case of the offset source VSP survey.
Whilst there are practical considerations to be made, from a processing viewpoint, that are
different to those required by static offset source data, the image presented to the oil company
interpreter has the same properties as one from a static offset source. Where the walkaway really
scores over the standard offset source VSP is in the acquisition stage.

3D-VSP Surveys
In many ways the 3D VSP is simply an extension of the walkaway VSP survey. It is obvious that
with the high cost of rigs and drilling operations, the 3D VSP must be performed in the shortest
possible time in order to maximise any economic advantage that might be hoped to be achieved
from running such a survey.
The question of why one would wish to perform a 3D VSP survey must be asked. It has already
been intimated that the VSP is a tool that can obtain images from the subsurface from regions
not illuminated by surface seismic surveys; in addition there is the benefit, always encountered
with VSP surveys that the seismic energy has suffered less modification by the earth due to its
reduced travel path length. These two factors, when combined, allow the operator to plan surveys
to provide a true 3D solution from the borehole derived dataset whilst being able to avoid some
of the pitfalls (for example by undershooting velocity anomalies etc.) associated with surface
datasets.
The 3D VSP only becomes viable, however, if sufficient data can be acquired to provide adequate
statistics for the various processes to be applied. This obviously would not be a problem if time
and money were unlimited, if this were the case any downhole receiver tool could be used to
153

(eventually) record all the data required. This is patently not the case in the majority of well
scenarios. The only manner in which this type of survey can be economically recorded, is by
using a downhole receiver array thereby reducing the number of traverses of the source. Ideally
data should be recorded with as few variations in survey parameters as possible. For example, it
is physically impossible in the offshore case to exactly re-occupy a source position, this means
that for different placements of the downhole receiver for successive passes of the source boat,
there may be considerable differences in the source conditions and the associated recorded travel
time. Whereas it is possible to account for much of the variation during processing, it is time
consuming and not always successful. The direct consequence of this is that image quality is
compromised.
The obvious solution is to acquire as much data as physically possible with the same source
conditions i.e. to use a downhole receiver array. As noted above the greater the number of
geophone stations recorded, the better the results should be. It follows, therefore, that the best
results would be obtained by the array that provides the greatest number of array stations, ideally
allowing the survey to be recorded in a single pass of the source. As a rule of thumb it has always
been considered that the minimum number of geophone stations required for adequate processing
is at least seven and preferably nine (odd numbers are required if median filters are to be used in
the processing route), it is clear, therefore, that the ideal 3D VSP geophone array should possess
at least this number of geophone stations if one is contemplating such a survey.
Another important consideration for both 3D VSP and 2D walkaway surveys is that of aliasing.
Temporal aliasing can in most cases be discounted in that all available field systems are capable
of providing a sufficiently time-sampled dataset to make such effects inconsequential. The
effects of spatial aliasing, however, can be considerable and should be avoided if at all possible.
The most deleterious effect is produced by the spatial separation of elements of the receiver array.

Note 5 m spacing gives 25 to 180 Hz

15 m spacing gives 8.3 to 60 Hz
It is clear from the foregoing that probably the most convenient general purpose separation is
around 10 m and that any large receiver array tool if optimised for 2D/3D walkaway surveys
should ideally possess this spacing.
154

Shooting Patterns
In theory, it makes little difference as to the shooting pattern adopted for recording 3D VSP
surveys. There are very few of the shooting limitations encountered in surface seismic data in
that there is only one receiver location to be considered. In practice, however, there may be
distinct advantages to using a specific shooting programmers (figure.127)

Figure 127 3D VSP shooting patterns

Consider figure 127; the simplest options a and b, are ideally suited to a low tech shooting
vessel where a single source is towed behind the boat and a regular rectangular grid of shot points
recorded. Option c is similar but uses two sources positioned either side of the boat for flipflop shooting, recording two lines for each pass of the boat. Item d is the idealised spiral shoot
providing the same shooting grid as a or b, this is obviously not a viable scenario and any such
circular/spiral shoot will be performed either as options e or f. In e the shoot is performed in
concentric circles with a radial shooting pattern, this manner of shooting can provide a simple
method of extracting 2D sections through the receiver location although does require a varying
shot point interval thereby complicating the shooting of the survey. Option f is easier to shoot in
that pops are taken at a constant separation around the spiral.
The shooting pattern adopted depends very much on the requirements of the survey and the
capabilities of the shooting vessel and her crew.

4D-VSP Surveys
An extension to the 3D VSP survey, uses the data recorded in such an operation to monitor the
development of the reservoir over time. This so-called 4D survey (time being the 4th dimension)
requires complete repeat shooting of the 3D VSP survey.
As the differences between repeat surveys are likely to be small, the source and receiver positions
should ideally be precisely reoccupied in order to remove as many degrees of freedom as possible
from the operation. This from the source viewpoint is not possible to achieve in practice with the
current levels of technology, receiver array positioning is a far more precise activity but even
here it is possible to introduce errors. It is important, therefore, to have an independent reference
for the survey (in the form of a seismic marker above the reservoir) that is unlikely to be affected
by changes in reservoir characteristics. If this is possible, the precise re-positioning becomes less
important in that the processing applied to the data can be performed using the reference horizon
as a control.Standard processing of the survey to provide subsurface images can therefore
proceed using data that are recorded with less than perfect repeatability. The knowledge of the
155

actual positions is still of paramount importance, however, in order to produce the most accurate
image during each survey.
Where the requirement for complete accuracy of re-occupation of positions is essential, is if there
is a necessity for precise analysis of data using the same travel paths (for example performing
repeated AVO analyses of specific reflection points). Whether this latter type of processing is
even feasible, however, is as yet uncertain.
A 4D VSP may be used on its own as a valid tool for monitoring a reservoir, however it is more
likely to be used in conjunction with repeat 3D surface seismic operations. The main drawback
to the 4D approach using the VSP alone, is that there is a limited amount of subsurface
illumination available from such a configuration. Surface seismic on the other hand is more
difficult to calibrate than the VSP. The marriage of the two technologies has the potential of
providing the most accurate approach to large scale seismic reservoir monitoring by using the
VSP surveys as the calibration control for the surface seismic data.

Interpretation of rig-source VSPs

So far only horizontally layered, laterally continuous reflecting horizons have been considered.
The real earth rarely, if ever, exhibits these characteristics, how then do departures from this ideal
situation manifest themselves within the VSP data? The following sections are concerned with
the identification of dipping reflectors and diffraction phenomena within a standard VSP data set
and illustrate how useful information can be derived. After this, other aspects of VSP
interpretation are considered and the section concludes with example interpretation exercises.

Dipping reflectors and diffractions

Figure 5.1 illustrates a simple dipping reflector with the ray propagation paths associated with
four geophone stations. The dipping reflector intersects the well at geophone station G1, at which
point a horizontal reflector also cuts the well. Ray path plots are not shown for the horizontal
reflector in the interests of clarity. It can be seen quite easily that as the geophone moves further
away from the dipping reflector, the reflection point associated with the respective ray path
migrates up-dip from the well. The limit is reached when both source and detector are positioned
at the surface, and the ray path in this case is normally incident at the reflector. At geophone
station G1, the reflected and direct arrivals for both reflector geometries are coincident in time
and depth.
The right hand panel of this figure, shows the manner in which these arrivals will manifest
themselves within the two-way time VSP image. The horizontal reflector appears - not
surprisingly - horizontal and cuts the first arrival curve at a depth corresponding to G1. The
dipping reflector on the other hand, although cutting the first arrival curve at the same location,
displays a hyperbolic moveout pattern toward shorter reflection times for shallower geophone
locations. The amount of moveout relative to the distance moved by the geophone, allows the
degree of dip to be calculated. If the dipping reflector terminates or turns over up-dip from the
well, before the normal incidence point is reached, then the event in the VSP will also terminate.
Reflection energy from the horizontal reflector will originate from close to the borehole and will
provide no information concerning the reflector away from the well.

156

A point to note here is that although the degree of dip can be calculated, with the source
positioned at the wellhead, there is no way of determining dip azimuth. This is easily
demonstrated if one considers the case of dip in the opposite direction to that in figure 5.1; the
ray paths associated with this will be a mirror image of those shown in the figure and the time
response will therefore be identical.
The computation of the angle of dip is very straightforward, but involves making two
assumptions:
(1) The dipping reflector is a planar, uniform surface.
(2) The velocity of the material above the reflector can be regarded as constant.
The first assumption is reasonably secure in regions of "well behaved" structure, and does not
significantly affect the accuracy of the calculations. The second assumption may not be as
reliable particularly in regions where there may be significant velocity changes in the near
surface. If the dips are generally below 30 degrees, however, the errors introduced are again
minimal; the basic consideration here is that the reflection points remain reasonably close to the
well location. Even in areas of great structural variation and high dip, accurate calculations can
be performed if geophone stations close to the reflector are chosen for the calculations.

Figure 128 Dipping reflectors in the VSP

Having considered the manifestation of dipping and diffraction events in the VSP, how then does
a fault appear within the data set? For this illustration (figure 5.6), a vertical component geophone
has been assumed, which means that the diffraction seen will consist of S-wave energy.
Additionally, the event diagram has been displayed at two-way time as this is the most likely
coordinate system to be encountered by the interpreter. The most obvious feature, is that the
diffraction associated with the fault boundaries, do not coincide with the terminations of the
reflector within the data. This is a fact that is overlooked by many interpreters and can lead to
erroneous conclusions. Another point to note, which is not easy to illustrate on such a diagram,
is that the reflection events do not terminate suddenly. As one approaches the discontinuity, the
fresnel zone for the reflection point (the area from which contributions to the reflection
originate), effectively decreases in size due to the termination. What one sees in the VSP
therefore, is that there is a slight ambiguity of perhaps one or two traces as to the exact position
of the termination.
Although this illustration is how one would expect the fault to appear in the ideal situation, the
real world does not fulfil this requirement. In practice, therefore, one would normally see the
reflection event but in general little diffraction energy would be visible, particularly if the socalled diffraction point was not sharply defined.

157

Figure 129 Fault in VSP

Identification and origin of primary reflections

Primary events are easily identified in a VSP data set by the simple fact that they intersect the
time-depth curve. If the primary has been generated by a horizontal reflector, then it should
appear as a horizontal event across the VSP display aligned at two-way time. Such an event may
lose continuity into the body of the data due to multiple interference and possible worsening
signal to noise ratio. This is caused by the longer propagation paths associated with shallower
geophone plants. Deconvolution will generally improve the continuity of these events by
removing the multiple activity. If the horizon is dipping then, as noted in section 5.1, the event
will appear with moveout into the body of the data. The identification of the event as a primary
and the determination of its lithologic origin is still secure, however, providing it cuts the time
depth curve.
Figure 130 illustrates VSP upgoing events at two-way time generated by horizontal or near
horizontal reflectors at the borehole. it is clear that the upgoing primary events intersect the timedepth curve which is marked on the display, the depth at which the reflection originates is
confirmed by the calibrated velocity log to the left of the figure. As displayed the data has not
yet been deconvolved and therefore contains multiple activity and additionally the wavelet
contains source components. It is unclear therefore as to the exact relationship between the
seismic events and the lithological changes. This is alleviated by deconvolution and figure 131
shows the same comparison but this time using the deconvolved upgoing data. The resident
wavelet of this data is now zero phase, the centre of the wavelet for any event occurring at the
exact time of that event.
At SEG Normal polarity as displayed, an upgoing compressional arrival appears as a white
trough, the centre of which identifies the position of the reflector. Once the phase of the wavelet
is known, a precise correlation can be determined as the VSP and calibrated velocity log are tied
to the same time measurements. The lithologic significance of any primary event can, therefore,
be assessed

158

Figure 130 VSP upgoing wavefield, at two-way time alignment, with velocity log

Figure 131 VSP deconvolved upgoing wavefield, at two-way time alignment, with velocity log

159

Identification and origin of multiple reflections

it was noted that upgoing multiples terminate within the body of the VSP as the geophone moves
below the last reflector in the multiple path. The downgoing wavefield contains information with
regard to multiple patterns generated above the geophone. Interbed multiples will be added to
the downgoing wavefield as the geophone moves below the first primary involved in the interbed
generation. The downgoing wavefield, observed at any point, will appear in the upgoing
wavefield as the tail of a reflection at the same point. Finally after deconvolution, the data will
provide a display from which the reverberants will have been removed. One therefore, has three
separate but interconnected means of identifying multiple activity and determining its origin, the
three approaches should be used together for a complete analysis of primary-multiple
relationships and their lithologic origin. If one examines the model, shifting the event diagram
to two-way time (figure 132), provides one with an indication as to how multiple patterns will
appear in the VSP data. Only multiples up to the third order are displayed

Figure 132 Multiples in VSP

The main multiple generators in most VSP data sets are associated with the surface, sea-bed or
weathered layers and the complete shallow reverberant system is recorded at depth in the well.
It is possible to derive information concerning the reflection sequence back to the surface from
such data. The downwave can be used, therefore, to analyse the reverberant system of shallow
primaries. This means that if the sea-bed or weathering multiples give problems, their position
in time, their character and strength can be established by reference to the recorded VSP
downwave. For example, if one aligns the appropriate trace from the downgoing wavefield
against its counterpart from the upgoing data, such that the first arrival of the downwave
coincides with the primary of interest, a visual correlation can be made of the reverberant system
associated with that primary. In making this comparison, one must be careful to ensure that the
160

appropriate polarity display is used i.e. white troughs are matched with white troughs. This is
simplified if the data used has been signature deconvolved when the resident wavelet has been
considerably simplified.
In the horizontally layered earth, multiples will appear parallel to the primaries giving rise to
them. If there is considerable dip present, although the multiples will still exhibit termination
within the data, the events may not appear parallel to the generating primary and their period will
therefore not be consistent from trace to trace. The downgoing multiple tail will also exhibit
moveout between traces and care should then be taken when designing deconvolution operators
from the downwave to be applied to the upwave, as the respective periodicities will not
necessarily be the same.
One may extend the identification of multiple events away from the VSP to encompass the
surface seismic record. The approach is essentially the same, although the choice of comparison
trace is slightly different. If the downwave is extremely stable, it is unlikely that any difference
would be noticeable between the comparisons of any trace with the surface record. If, on the
other hand, there is a variation in the downgoing wavefield with depth, one must ensure that the
downwave used is compatible with the data being analysed. To this end, the downwave trace for
the level with the same two-way first arrival time as the time of the reflector on the seismic
record, should be used. Again the polarity of the downwave first arrival must match that of the
reflection event examined; any positive correlation between the tail of the downwave and events
beneath the primary then implies residual multiple activity in the surface record.

VSP - seismic comparisons

The VSP can be compared to the surface seismic data in two basic ways. Firstly the two data sets
can be compared purely from the point of determining a litho-seismic correlation. Secondly they
can be compared with the object of determining extra information via the VSP to aid in the
interpretation of the prospect. It is an unfortunate fact, that the majority of VSP data sets are still
recorded with the sole purpose of making a simplistic comparison between the response of the
surface record with data recorded in the well. Although the VSP is a valuable tool in this respect,
it does mean that all the other useful information that can be derived is essentially ignored.
To satisfy the demand for simple correlation, it is useful to process the VSP such that its
appearance matches that of the character of the seismic record. The most obvious parameter to
modify to achieve this end is to band limit the VSP to the same frequencies as the surface seismic.
This will provide two data sets with ostensibly the same general character but will ignore the
potentially much wider bandwidth of the VSP. Another factor to bear in mind is that the wavelet
resident in the deconvolved VSP is as near to zero phase as seismic processing can reliably be,
without a wavelet shaping operation. The surface record, however, will at best possess a "mixed
phase" characteristic and the correlation between a seismic event and a known lithological event
can be uncertain. It is possible to alleviate this to a certain extent, by applying a wavelet matching
and shaping process to either of the data sets, although as the phase of the VSP is known this
should act as the control. In general, however, it is not usually necessary to perform wavelet
matching for a straightforward correlation exercise, a sufficiently robust comparison being
possible from the standard data.
Figures 133 and 134 are the results of filtering the VSP to the same bandwidth as the seismic
record. As should be painfully obvious, much of the detail has been lost and hence possible
161

information concerning any thinly bedded strata has been lost. This aside, however, the VSP can
now be compared much more easily with the seismic record; figure 135 illustrates such a
comparison. The same well data is used as before, but now the degree of similarity between the
data sets can be assessed. Moving from left to right on the display the panels are:
Acoustic impedance log derived from wireline logs
Transposed undeconvolved upgoing VSP wavefield
Surface seismic data at the well location
Transposed deconvolved upgoing VSP wavefield

Figure 133 Upgoing wavefield

162

Figure 134 Deconvolved upgoing wavefield

163

Figure 135 Comparison velocity log/VSP/seismic section (seismic bandwidth)

The successive traces of the transposed displays are formed by taking corridors of data from the
traces at or about the direct arrival curve from the respective VSP display (see figure 136) this
provides a more easily correlated display. The origin of the reflection events can now be easily
inferred by reference to the borehole logs, and the respective lithology posted on the surface
derived data.
164

Figure 136 Derivation of transposed VSP display.

Figure 137, is of a typical display provided by VSP contractors for correlation with surface data.
The direct correlations would be achieved using the transposed or corridor displays, the full
deconvolved panel would then be used for any detailed interpretation. If the VSP contains
considerably more high frequency energy than the surface seismic, then a second version of this
display would be produced, with the processing optimised for the data as recorded. This would
preserve the information present in the field data and provide the geophysicist with a high
resolution data set upon which to base his interpretation. The seismic bandwidth data would then
simply form a control data set to guide the initial assessment of the well results. A point to note
here, is that the transposed display, although preserving evidence of dip, cannot be used for dip
165

calculations. A practical example of VSP interpretation is presented as a work study with these
course notes.

Figure 137 Interpreter's composite display

Necessarily conform to the ideals of interpretation as outlined in the preceding sections. The
example (figure 138), illustrates that the identification of primary or multiple events is not always
as straightforward as may have been implied by the foregoing discussions. This data set was
recorded in a vertical hole with a rig source, and for the majority of the well the results of the
survey tie very well with the drilling results. The velocity log recorded in the hole is displayed
as a function of time to the left of the VSP panel and most of the VSP events can be easily
correlated between the two panels.
All is well with this comparison until one enters the section of salt from approximately 2.05
seconds. The top of the salt can be identified as the small "white" event at 2.05 seconds (this
display is plotted at SEG normal polarity), but as one advances into the salt mass the expected
response from the large anhydrite layer at 2.2 seconds, appears to be missing. Additionally there
is a large "white-black" event, labelled "A", at 2.1 seconds on the right of the VSP display, which
moves to longer times toward the time-depth curve. This appears to have no direct counterpart
166

in the log data and indeed apparently terminates within the panel before reaching the time-depth
curve. Using the conventional wisdom outlined in the preceding sections, this event would appear
to be a multiple reflection, although it is not immediately obvious as to which primary could give
rise to the event.
On closer inspection, the event does not actually terminate, but tails off in amplitude toward the
first arrival curve just failing to intersect the well location. This, however, still does not answer
the question as to where the large anhydrite event on the log has disappeared in the VSP. Looking
in even more detail at the VSP display, reveals a further broken "white-black" event which occurs
over about 14 traces (labelled "B"), 20 ms beneath the event discussed above. Further still, an
extremely weak event at the well location at approximately 2.2 seconds is visible (labelled "C"),
which appears to tie the anhyhrite formation. What then can be made of these observations?
That event A is dipping, is quite obvious from the time moveout exhibited, and this corresponds
to a dip angle of 11 degrees. Event B is also dipping, although in this instance the dip is much
higher and equates to an angle of approximately 30 degrees. It is not possible to ascertain to what
degree event C is dipping due to its very low amplitude and small lateral extent. From its
manifestation in the data, however, it is almost certain that the event exhibits a degree of dip,
why one asks should this be the case? The easiest and most likely explanation of the shape of
these events, is that the bed cuts the well, but only just, the bed terminating up-dip, extremely
close to the well location (event C). The termination is effected by a fault in the bed which
decreases the depth of the bed (event B); the bed is then faulted again, raising the event higher
and possibly positioning it closer to the well location. In the normal run of events, this scenario
would be considered somewhat unlikely to say the least, when one considers the resultant shape
of the subsurface model, a representation of which is provided at the bottom of figure 5.16. As
the well was drilled through a salt swell, however, this interpretation is quite possible due to the
mobility of the salt material.
A further point to notice is that there may be a slight problem with the deconvolution applied to
this data set. If one looks further into the data, it is possible to see a spatially extensive black
event occurring at approximately 2.25 seconds, this exhibits much the same moveout and lateral
extent as the anhydrite event, indeed it appears to terminate in much the same manner within the
data as the event of interest. It is possible to interpret this event as a multiple from the anhydrite
and it is still resident in the data probably due to an incompatibility of propagation paths between
the downwave and upwave. Further drilling in a deviated hole near and to the right the location
of the subject well, indicates a high degree of support for this interpretation. The anhydrite layer
was encountered shallower than in the first well with approximately 10 degrees of dip
.It is clear from this example, that one must be careful in areas of complex or unusual structure,
not to push the interpretation of a VSP past its useful limits. Inferences from the data may well
be made quite easily on the basis of the common-sense application of the simple rules for
identifying primary and multiple events, but the complexity of the structure may entail a distinct
"bending" of these rules.

167

Figure 138 VSP interpretation example 1

168