SPECIAL

B o r e SECTION:
h o l e g Be o
o rp ehhy o
s il ce s g e o p h y s i c s

6XEVDOW'963LPDJLQJDW'HLPRV)LHOGLQ
WKHGHHSZDWHU*XOIRI0H[LFR
TOM BURCH, BRIAN HORNBY, HANS SUGIANTO, and BERTRAM NOLTE, BP Exploration and Production

A t Deimos Field in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, surface

seismic imaging cannot fully image sedimentary structure
near the steeply dipping base of salt. 3D vertical seismic
profile (VSP) imaging was introduced to the deepwater
GOM to improve seismic imaging of complex structural
and stratigraphic features (Ray et al., 2003; Hornby et al.,
2006) and recently has been used for imaging “blind spots” in
surface seismic coverage (Hornby et al., 2005; Hornby et al.,
2007). With this method, 3D surveys are conducted using
a surface source vessel and downhole geophones. Here we
investigate the use of 3D VSP imaging to complement the
surface results with additional coverage beyond that of the
surface seismic adjacent to the complex salt body.
Deimos Field, approximately 130 miles SSE of New Or-
leans in the Mississippi Canyon protraction area, is a three-
well subsea tieback to the Mars platform and is operated by
Shell. Deimos Field was discovered in 2002, with first oil pro-
duction in 2007. The map in Figure 1 is a rendering of top
salt (green). Deimos is below salt immediately west of Mars
Field which lies in the open basin.
The seismic line in Figure 2 is from a 2007 ocean-bottom
seismic (OBS) node survey designed to image the subsalt De-
imos reservoirs. The survey was acquired with a 400 × 400-m
grid of 807 seafloor nodes and with a 50 × 50-m shot grid,
resulting in a data set with rich azimuths (Smit et al., 2008).
The receivers covered approximately 125 km2. Shot cover-
age extended up to 8 km outside the receiver area to cover
511 km2. Figure 2 is a wave-equation prestack depth migra-
tion displayed without vertical exaggeration. Key depths are:
seafloor = 3000 ft, top Antares salt = 7000 ft, and base An-
tares salt = 20,000 ft. Note the stacked Mars Field reservoirs
between the Venus and Antares salt bodies. The location of
Deimos Field is indicated by the oval below the Antares salt.
While the OBS survey has improved imaging for most of
Deimos, this line is selected from an area where the Deimos
image is still poor. This is an area where we hope 3D VSP will
help improve imaging of key reservoir horizons.
Finite-difference method (FDM) feasibility modeling
Before proceeding with the survey, a feasibility modeling ex-
ercise was undertaken to understand the best depth to place
sensors in the well, the maximum offset, and spacing of seis-
mic source required to obtain the necessary image (Van Ges-
tel et al., 2003). The 3D model was constructed with a veloc-

Figure 1. Deimos Field is located subsalt in the

Mississippi Canyon protraction area.

680 The Leading Edge June 2010

Downloaded 05 Jul 2010 to 202.173.88.4. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
 B o r e h o l e g e o p h y s i c s
Figure 2. Seismic dip line from 2007 OBS survey.
ity field derived from surface seismic imaging velocities and
a density model based on horizon interpretation and values
from well logs. The density layers were created to generate
reflection contrasts in sedimentary sections, while keeping
the original smooth velocity model.
Results of the 3D FDM modeling exercise using source
offsets up to 6.5 km from the wellbore are shown in Figure
3. This compares the input density model with migrated 3D
VSP model data using the anticipated acquisition parameters.
Displayed horizons are from interpreted isotropic migrated
surface seismic. To reduce the risk of sticking a recording tool
in the well, we planned to run the 3D VSP in a cased hole.
Therefore we modeled the receivers so that the lowest receiver
of the tool was at the same depth as the base of a planned in-
termediate casing. This planned casing was the closest to the
optimum tool setting determined from 2D modeling, 2500
ft above the imaging targets. Note the downdip limit for im-
aging as indicated by the shallow arrow on Figure 3. What
we see is no imaging from the downthrown side of the fault
(oval), steeply dipping noise, and poor imaging at the blue
horizon (deeper arrow). The modeling indicated that setting
receivers as indicated should image horizons up to the salt
flank. Based on these results, it was decided to go forward
Downloaded 05 Jul 2010 to 202.173.88.4. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
with the acquisition of data at the well.
3D VSP acquisition
For this survey, a single seismic vessel, the Fairfield New Ven-
ture was configured with a dual-source array spaced 300 ft
apart. Source volumes were 2160 in3 and source tow depth
was 13 ft. A spiral sail pattern was chosen as the most ef-
ficient shot geometry and 17,000 shots were acquired with
offsets up to 20,000 ft (Figure 4).
Data were recorded by Baker Atlas using a 30-level Avalon
Geochain three-component VSP tool with 100-foot spacing
between receivers, which are configured as geophone pods
with individual clamping arms to achieve coupling. Receiver
stations were between 16,350 and 19,250 ft measured depth
in the well.
Imaging results
Processing flows for the 3D VSP data are detailed in Shoshi-
taishvili et al. (2004) and Clarke et al. (2004). Initial pro-
cessing for this VSP consisted of data loading and quality
control, data editing and filtering, up- and downgoing wave
separation, shot-record migration of the z component, stack,
and postmigration processing. Initial migration of the 3D
June 2010 The Leading Edge 681
 B o r e h o l e g e o p h y s i c s

Figure 3. Finite-difference input density model (left) and model imaging results (right).

VSP with an isotropic velocity model

provided fair sediment imaging. Subse-
quent migration of the 3D VSP utilized
a VTI anisotropic velocity model which
was developed for the Deimos area from
multi-azimuth surface seismic (Stopin
et al., 2008). The anisotropic migration
uses a one-way wave-equation algorithm
(Nolte, 2008). As shown in Figure 5,
the imaging results are greatly improved
with the anisotropic migration. Reflec-
tion continuity is increased and posi-
tioning relative to salt has changed as il-
lustrated by the arrows on Figure 5. Well
to 3D VSP reflection depth correlations
were greatly improved with the anisotro-
pic migration.
Figure 6 shows a vertical section
comparison of 3D FDM, 3D VSP, and
OBS with the same isotropic surface
seismic horizons. The field data were mi-
grated with the same imaging algorithm
and using the same VTI anisotropy ve-
locity model for both the VSP and the
OBS survey. Note good agreement of the
extent of reflections between the model
and 3D VSP, both in downdip limits and
loss of continuity with depth at the blue Figure 4. Map of shots acquired in a spiral pattern for the 3D VSP.
horizon. Steeply dipping noise present
on the actual 3D VSP can be identified in the model (dip- on the downthrown (left) side of the fault. The 3D image
ping arrow) and horizontal noise can also be seen on both is comparable to the OBS image at the orange horizon; yet
the model and actual 3D VSP just above the orange horizon better continuity is seen at the pink horizon on the 3D VSP
as indicated by the second arrow. Note there is no imaging (oval). The 3D VSP also images horizons further up dip un-

682 The Leading Edge June 2010

Downloaded 05 Jul 2010 to 202.173.88.4. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
 B o r e h o l e g e o p h y s i c s

Figure 5. Comparison of vertical sections between isotropic (left) and anisotropic (right) migration results for Deimos 3D VSP.

Figure 6. Comparison of vertical sections of 3D FD model (left, 14 Hz maximum), 3D VSP (center, 40 Hz maximum), and OBS (right, 35
Hz maximum).

der salt than the surface seismic. Note that each image was
migrated with differing maximum frequencies, as indicated
on the figures.
Figure 7 shows results of the 3D VSP as a maximum
negative amplitude slice taken in a small window centered
on the orange horizon in the center of the sections in Figure
6 and includes comparisons with the FDM model and the
OBS survey. The amplitude distribution and extent from the
3D VSP is in good agreement with the model prediction. At
this horizon, the 3D VSP illuminates an area with a radius of
5000 ft from the well. Note that the maximum amplitude is
in the same area on all three slices (white and yellow in Figure
7). Based on the FDM model image, this maximum ampli-
tude is influenced by focused illumination since the input
model impedance was nearly uniform for this horizon. The
focused illumination is likely caused by the geometry of the
overlying salt.
Further comparison of imaging results is shown in Figure
8, where the 3D VSP is compared with the Deimos OBS.
Both sets of data were migrated with the same VTI anisotro-
pic velocity model. Across the top of the display is a dip line
comparison of the 3D VSP (left) with the OBS. Note more
coherent reflections on the 3D VSP adjacent to salt, just be-
low the green horizon as shown in the oval. Across the bottom

June 2010 The Leading Edge 683

Downloaded 05 Jul 2010 to 202.173.88.4. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
 B o r e h o l e g e o p h y s i c s

Figure 7. Horizon amplitude slice comparison of 3D VSP model (left, 14 Hz maximum) 3D VSP (center, 40 Hz maximum), and OBS (right,
35 Hz maximum). Location of Figure 6 seismic line is in yellow.

Figure 8. Imaging results using anisotopic velocity model for 3D VSP (left) and OBS (right). Dip (top) and strike (bottom) profiles are
compared.

is a strike comparison of the 3D VSP and OBS results. The
green arrow points to additional reflections imaged at depth
on the 3D VSP not seen on the OBS. Well penetrations are
marked above the orange horizon. The well on the right was
targeted at the furthest extent of a reflection as seen on the
OBS, but the subsequent 3D VSP shows a greater extent to
the right (between the yellow arrows). Production in this well
indicates that it is compartmentalized. A discontinuity can be
interpreted between the wells on the 3D VSP, which is not
evident on the OBS (dashed line). This discontinuity could
be the cause of the compartmentalization.
Conclusions
In a development well in the Deimos Field, deepwater Gulf

684 The Leading Edge June 2010

Downloaded 05 Jul 2010 to 202.173.88.4. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/
 B o r e h o l e g e o p h y s i c s

of Mexico, a large 3D VSP was successfully used to image

sedimentary structure near a complex salt body. The result-
ing imaged area agrees with the image extent predicted by
presurvey modeling. Wave-equation migration using a VTI
anisotropy model improved both reflection continuity and
positioning. The 3D VSP image helped to fill gaps in the sur-
face seismic illumination and can aid in future development
well targeting.

References
Clarke, R. A., J. Dellinger, E. Shoshitaishvili, S. Rothe, and H. Sugi-
anto, 2004, Vector fidelity correction with VSP Data, 66th Annual
Convention and Exhibition, EAGE.
Hornby, B., T. Fitzpatrick, F. Rollins, H. Sugianto, and C. Regone,
2005, 3D VSP used to image near complex salt structure in the
deep water GOM: 67nd Annual Convention and Exhibition,
EAGE, Extended Abstracts, E022.
Hornby, B. E., J. Yu, J. A. Sharp, A. Ray, Y. Quist, and C. Regone,
2006, VSP: Beyond time-to-depth: The Leading Edge, 25, 446–
454.
Hornby, B. E., J. A. Sharp, J. Farrelly, S. Hall, and H. Sugianto, 2007,
3D VSP in the deep water Gulf of Mexico fills in sub-salt “shadow
zone”: First Break, 25, 83–88.
Muerdter, D., M. Kelly, and D. Ratcliff, 2001, Understanding subsalt
illumination through ray-trace modeling, part 2: Dipping salt bod-
ies, salt peaks, and nonreciprocity of subsalt amplitude response:
The Leading Edge, 20, 688–697.
Nolte, B., 2008, Fourier finite-difference depth extrapolation for VTI
media, 70th Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Ab-
stracts, P285.
Ray, A., B. Hornby, and J. Gestel, 2003, Largest 3D VSP in the deep
water of the Gulf of Mexico to provide improved imaging in the
Thunder Horse South Field: 73rd Annual International Meeting,
SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 422–425.
Shoshitaishvili, E., H. Sugianto, R. A. Clarke, B. Nolte, and B. Horn-
by, 2004, Processing Flow for 3D VSP Imaging: 66th Meeting and
Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts, C002.
Smit F., C. Perkins, L. Lepre, K. Craft, and R. Woodard, 2008, Seis-
mic data acquisition using ocean bottom seismic nodes at the Dei-
mos Field, Gulf of Mexico: 78th Annual International Meeting,
SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2755–2756.
Stopin, A., M. McRae, L. Lepre, and B. Gaudin, 2008, Constructing
an anisotropic velocity model for ocean bottom seismic node data:
78th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts,
993–997.
Van Gestel, J., B. Hornby, D. Ebrom, J. Sharp, and C. Regone, 2003,
Effects of changing the receiver array settings on VSP images:
73rd Annual Interantional Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts,
2278–2281.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank BP and Shell for support and

permission to present this work. Baker Atlas provided VSP services.
We thank Cemal Erdemir for modeling and imaging support.

Corresponding author: brian_hornby@yahoo.com

June 2010 The Leading Edge 685

Downloaded 05 Jul 2010 to 202.173.88.4. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/