Editor’s note: The following text is the first of two consecutive companion articles presented as the thirteenth installment
of lZE’s SEISMIC INTERPRETATION series. The second article begins on page 15.
I. Layer cake depth conversion
By DAVE MARSDEN
Amoco (U.K.) Exploration Company
London, England
I n areasof uniform lithologywhichhave not undergonetectonic
inversionor severestructuraldeformation,depthconversioncan
often be performed according to some simple mathematical
function (e.g., averagevelocity as a linear functionof depth).In
areaswherethereare dramaticchangesof velocity, suchas thick
carbonateor evaporiteunits alternatingwith thick elasticunits (as
thosefoundin thesouthernNorth Seabasin),thensimplefunctions
cannotadequatelycopewith the inherentvelocity inversionsand
are inadequatefor depthconversion.
The simplestmethodof layer cakedepthconversionis to treat
eachlithologicunit separatelyand define eachunit by a different
mathematicalfunction-for example,expressinginterval velocity
as a function of depthof burial. This techniquefails in areasof
complexstructure,tectonicinversionor lateral lithology change
where insufficient well control exists to adequatelydefine the
velocity variationsin the different lithologicunits by mathemati-
cal functions.In thesecircumstances wherethe well controlis in-
adequate,the techniquecan be extendedby the useof seismically
derived velocitiesto help interpolatethe well velocity data and
define the velocity field. Using seismicvelocitiesto aid in depth
conversionis full of pitfalls, but if adequatecare is taken, the
resultingdepthmapsand well prognosescan be quite accuratein-
deed.
This article examinesvery briefly layer cakedepthconversion
by functionsand illustratessomefailings of the method.It con-
tinueswith a discussionof how seismicallyderivedvelocitiescan
be used,someof the pitfallsassociated with this form of data,and
the variouscoursesof actionby whichthe interpretercan improve
the dataquality and reliability. The article concludeswith an ex-
aminationof the techniquesavailablefor manipulatingthatdatato
obtaindepthmapsand estimatesof the associated errors.
D epth conversion by functions. For layer cake depth
conversion,the simplestfunctionsof all assumethateachlithologic
unit has a constant but different interval velocity. However,
experienceprovesthis is not so, and thereforewe seeksomething
more elaborate.
Figure 1 showsa crosssectionthrougha well in an area of
severevelocityvariations.The interval velocitiesderivedfrom the
well are shownfor a numberof lithologicunits. The sectionitself
demonstrates how rapidly the thicknessesof someof theseunits
changein the immediateareaof the well. The crossplotshownin
Figure2 illustrateshowthe intervalvelocityof thefirst layervaries
in the area and is a functionof bed thickness.
The next most complex functionsare empirical. These are
basedon observationof the dataand, withoutbeing theoretically
10 GEOPHYSICS:THE LEADING EDGE OF EXPLORATION JANUARY 1989
exact, relatethe two-waytraveltimeto thickness.Thesefunctions
are calculatedby plottingthetwo-waytraveltimein any givenlayer
(obtained from the integratedsonic log, check shot, or VSP)
againstthe isopachfor a numberof wells in the mappingareaand
then fitting a regressionline to the data points. Empirical func-
tionsoften work well within a restrictedareabut are not theoreti-
cally exact. The formulasderived generally predict some finite
bed thickness(possiblynegative)when the two-way traveltimeis
zero.
To overcomesuchtheoreticalinexactitudes,numeroustypesof
functionshave been proposedin the literatureover the years. In
someof the mostcommonmethods,the interval velocity is con-
sidereda linear function of depthof burial (or reflectiontime),
and then, dependingon the assumptionmadeaboutthe behavior
of the instantaneous velocity within the layer, a number of dif-
ferent functionsmay be obtainedwhich expressbed thicknessas
a function of traveltime. The regressionof interval velocity on
depthof burial or bedthicknessdeterminesthe constantsrequired
in the function for estimatingdepth or bed thicknessfrom the
traveltime. This techniquemay be useful in restrictedareaswith
goodwell control.
The data pointsin Figure 2 were fitted with a functionof the
type discussedabove. The functionobtainedwas
Vi = 0.8287tl + 2460.16,
where Vi is the interval velocity and tl is the two-way reflection
time from the surfaceto the baseof the layer.
A different setof wells givesrise to a differentsetof functions
so that depthconversionsin adjacentareasusing functionsbased
on differentdata setswill not tie. This problem is relatedto tec-
tonic historyof the areaand is overcomeby usingdifferent func-
tions for fault blockswhich exhibit different tectonichistories.
The scatterof data points aboutthe regressionlines in all of
the abovemethods(andtypified in Figure 2) leadsto errorsin the
depthconversion.The scatteris causedby geologicfactorssuch
as varying lithology (e.g., changingsand/shaleratios), pressure
regimes,and tectonichistory. Wells whosedatapointsdo not lie
exactlyon the regressionline will be mistiedby the resultingmap.
Given sufficientwell control, the disturbingfactorscan be inves-
tigatedand taken into accountin the formulas. Multiple linear
regressionmay be usedto includeterms, for example, for loca-
tion and sandpercentage.Depth mapsgeneratedfrom thesemul-
tivariateformulastie thewells betterthanmapsmadefrom singular
variable formulas.
Functionscanbe usedwheregoodcontrolexists.The variables
for the crossplotusedin deriving a functionshouldbe selectedso
 Layer 1

Layer 2 4040 m/s

4367 m/s

Layer 3

4628 m/s
Layer 4

Layer 5

Figure 1. Structural crosssection from the southern North Sea with well velocities.

that the data points exhibit very little scatteraboutthe regresslon

line. As far as possible, the functions shouldbe used to map the
area encompassedby the well control points and not extrapolate I” I I I
3200
I
beyond them except to some local geologic boundary.

Se elsmically derived velocities. To overcome some of the

problems encounteredwith depth conversion by functions. the
interpreter may use seismically derived velocities to interpolate
and extrapolate sparse well control. The most commonly used
seismicallyderived estimatesof velocity are stacking “velocity” x
(not a velocity at all!) andthe Dix interval velocity which is derived
from it. For a completeunderstandingof stackingvelocity and its
relationshipto other commonly used velocities, refer to Velocir?
withouttears by Don Hughes (February 1985 TLQ.
There are severalfactorsand techniquesto be aware of in order
to use stackingvelocities for depth conversion. These techniques
are always applicable, but whenever stackingvelocities are used
for depthconversion,it is necessaryto have as much input as pos-
sible in selectingthe locationsat which the velocity functionsare
to be derived, the techniquesand parametersused, and finally the x
quality control checks employed. In choosing the locations at
which to obtain the stackingvelocity functions, it is importantto
avoid, as much as possible,areaswith irregular surfaceconditions
becausethesezonescauseraypathdistortionswhich affect the func-
tion valuesselected.(SeeErrors in stackingvelocity-true veloch x
conversionover cornp1e.x geologicsituutionsby Gregory Black- x
burn, GEOPHYSICS 1980.) Such areas include irregular weathered
zonesor water bottomareas, buried channels,shallowgascharged x
areas and areas of deeper complex geology (faults, truncations.
etc.). Brute stacks should be employed where possible to pick
suitablelocationsfor stackingvelocity function analyses. Figure 2. Crossplotof interval velocitiesagainst seismicreflec-
The reliability of velocity analysescan be improved in various tion times to the base of layer 1. Values derived from VSP sur-
ways. For example, areas of poor signal-to-noiseratio shouldbe veys in wells.

GEOPHYSICS: THE LEADING EDGE OF EXPLORATION JANUARY 1989 II

 avoided since these will lead to errors in picking the functions.
Poor sign&to-noise ratios can be causedby gas clouds, multiple
interfereWe, coherent noise, etc., and these problems shouldbe
minimizedbefore velocity analysis.Brute stackshelp identify such
problems and so might previous surveys in the area under con-
sideration. Other factors which may degrade the value of the
velocity analysisare too coarsea sampleinterval both in velocity
and time and too large a contour interval for the coherencyor
semblanceplot.
In areasof complexgeology(irregular near surfaceconditions,
steep dip, etc.), partial prestackmigration (dip moveout) should
be appliedprior to velocity analysisso that reflectorsof arbitrary
curvature can be treated in the manner of horizontal layers for
velocity estimation.When dip moveoutcannotbe applied. the in-
terval stackingvelocitiesshouldbe dip correctedbecauseincrcas-
ing dip will increasethe difference between stackingvelocity and
root mean squarevelocity. I recommendthe algorithm given by
I.E. Everett in Obtain interval velocity porn stack velocity in
presence of dip (from Geophysical Prospecting 1974).
To help guide the picking of the velocity analysis functions,
picked brute stacksshould be provided so that points defining the
function may be determinedto coincide with the eventsof inter-
est. This results in less interpolationlater in the process and im-
proved accuracy in the interval stacking velocities. The picked
functionsshould be quality controlledby the interpreterto deter-
mine which functionsor parts of functionsshouldbe re.jectedfor
depth conversionpurposes. Figure 3. Map of interval velocity for layer 1 derived by using
Finally, in extremely complexareaswhere thedifferencesfrom interval stacking velocity to interpolate and extrapolate inter-
one stacking velocity function to the next are too dramatic for val velocitiesin the wells.
depth mapping purposes, such techniquesas horizon velocity
analysiscan be successful.
Seismicallyderived velocities are used in three separateways taken in deriving the stacking velocity and interval stacking
to aid in depth conversion. First, they are used to augmentwell velocity maps, it is bestto smooththe maps before usingthem to
velocitydata whendeterminingthe constantsfor mathematicalfor- guide the interpolationand extrapolationof the averageand inter-
mulas. Second,they are assumedto be an estimatefor the spatial val velocities. Smoothing algorithms which use a radius of in-
distributionof averagevelocity. Third, they are used to map the clusionto derive a weighted mean value at the centerof the circle
interval stackingvelocities as an estimateof the spatial distribu- are the most acceptablemethod of smoothingthe maps. Some-
tion of the interval velocities. times, when great care is taken in deriving the stackingvelocities,
The first use is trivial. When all the wells in an area (which it is unnecessaryto smooth the maps. Smoothingalways carries
exhibitsmuch structuralrelief) have been drilled on the highsand the risk that variationsin the mapsdue to the geologywill be in-
one has need of depth conversionon the flanks of the structures advertentlysmoothedout.
and in the interveningsynclines,the seismicallyderived velocities The stackingvelocity map or interval stackingvelocity map is
in the vicinity of the wells may be calibrated to the wells. The usedto interpolateand extrapolatethe averagevelocity and inter-
samecalibrationis applied to the seismicallyderived velocitiesin val velocity values obtained from the area wells. It is preferable
the synclines.The velocity estimatesso derived can be usedin the to includeseismicties to wells beyondthe limits of the main body
crossplotsof velocity againsttime (to extend the range of data of the survey in order to minimize the problems associatedwith
pointsfrom the clusterof well values)for regressionanalysiswhen extrapolation.The adjustedaveragevelocity map, togetherwith
deriving a function. the reflectiontime map, can be usedto producea depthmapdirect-
ly. Alternatively. the adjustedintervalvelocity maps,togetherwith
the isochron maps, can be used to produce a series of isopach
V elocity mapping. The technique of using spatially varying mapswhich (when addedtogether)will give a seriesof depthmaps.
velocities was first suggestedby Larry Gardner in 19.55.Only in Figure 3 (a portion of a more extensive regional map) shows
the last few years, however, has it been practical to realize the a map of the interval velocity of the first layer of the cross sec-
method on the computer. Stacking velocity functions are most tion of Figure 1. The position of the crosssection is the line AB
commonly used to estimate average velocity or to generatethe on the map. Three of the wells from the graph of Figure 2 lie
interval stacking velocities which are then used to control the within the area of the illustration, althoughthe location of only
interpolationand extrapolationof the velocities measuredin the one of them is actually shown. The seismicdata in the area are a
wells. 1984 112km grid. and in this instancethe stackingvelocity func-
In many instancesthe stackingvelocity functionsavailable to tionswere not pickedwith depth conversionin mind. Consequent-
the interpreterhave not been derived with sufficient care for the ly, the original version of the velocity map was somewhatnoisy,
use suggestedhere. The first step, then, is to control the quality and the values were smoothedto obtain the map shown. The
of the functions and delete those which are badly located with smoothingwas carried out using a radius-of-inclusiontechnique
respectto disturbingfeaturesor which are obviously in error. In with a radiusof 2.5 km.
most cases, the area1distributionof the function locationsis not Averagevelocity is usedto generatethe depth map for the first
optimal, nor do the time-velocity pairs exist at the same times as horizon. Ideally, this horizon will lie at a depth of l/2 s to 1 s
the events picked by the interpreter. Some interpolation of the (two-way traveltime). Thereafter the computationof the isopachs
values is thus necessary. via theadjustedinterval velocitiesproducesgoodresults-provided
Interval stackingvelocitiesare next computedfrom the quality the ischronsof the intervals in general exceed 200 ms. For thin-
controlled, interpolated stacking velocities. Despite all the care ner beds. the computationof the intervalstackingvelocity by Dix’s

12 GEoPHmcs:THE LEADING EDGE OFEXPLORATION JANUARY 1989

Figure 4. Structure in time map of layer 5. Contour interval Figure 5. A depth conversion of the time map using six func-
is 25 ms. The block is approximately 9 x 9.3 km. tions for the layers in Figure 1. Layer 2 in the figure has been
subdivided into 2, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 6. A depth conversion of the time map using five inter- Figure 7. A depth conversion of the time map using the average
val velocity maps for the five layers in Figure 1. velocity down to layer 5.

GEOPHYSICS: THE LEADING EDGE OF EXPLORATION JANUARY 1989 13

 equation becomes error-prone and ought to be avoided. Finally,
the average velocity should be used to generate a second depth
map to any target horizon. The difference between the two depth
maps provides an estimated accuracy of the depth conversion.
Figure 4 is a time structure map with a contour interval of 25
ms (two-way reflection time) to layer 5 of Figure 1 over the same
area as Figure 3. To illustrate the methods of depth conversion
discussedin this article, this horizon-the target horizon-has been
depth converted in several ways.
Figure 5 shows the effect of depth converting using a set of
functions derived from well control in the area. The contour in-
terval is 50 m. The first function was given earlier to illustrate the
nature of these functions. The effect of this depth conversion has
been to enhance the low trend running east/west along the lower
part of the block.
Figure 6 showsthe effect of depth converting the horizon using
seismically derived interval velocity maps between the five layers
labeled in Figure 1. Once again the contour interval is 50 m. The
interval velocity map of the first layer is illustrated in Figure 3.
Although subtle differences exist between this map and the map
of Figure 5, they both tie the existing well control. Detailed ex-
amination of the maps shows that the areas of closure, although
grossly the same, are neverthelesssufficiently different in several
places due to regional velocity gradients introduced from the seis-
mic data. Such shifts in emphasis in depth mapping can be very
important if the structure is the subject of a unitization agreement.
Finally, Figure 7 shows the result of depth converting the area
using an average velocity map. The stacking velocities to layer 5
of Figure 1 were smoothed and used to interpolate and extrapo-
late the average velocities to layer 5 in the wells. The resulting
average velocity map was very smooth, showing variations of only
f 100 m/s over the area. Notice that much of the map closely
resembles the time map and the trends seen in the other two depth
maps. This one, however, introduces (near end B of the line of
cross section) an extra high trend not seen in the other maps and
which should be regarded with suspicion.
Of the three maps, the first two are clearly the most similar
and one would consequentlyplace more faith in them than in Figure
7. The latter is, however, relatively easy to make and serves as a
quality control check on the depth conversion. It can also be used
to estimate the magnitudeof error in any prognosisfor future drill-
ing in the area.
0 ne of the major advantagesof this technique is that the seismic
time horizons, the stacking velocities, and the well velocities are
held in separate files-each of these being a separate basic data
set. Any of the files may be revised as new information becomes
available (e.g., after a new well has been drilled) and the process
reiterated to produce a new series of depth maps.g
Acknowledgments:The author would like to expresshis thanks to
Amoco (U.K.) Exploration Companyfor permissionto publish this
paper; to his many colleagues there for assistancein preparing
the manuscript;but perhaps mostof all to Denis Corlessand Chris
Pearsefor their technical work in preparing the material for the
illustrations.
Dave Marsden obtainedhis Ph.D. from the
University of Leeds in 1972. He worked
with Texaco and Agip before joining, in
1976, Amoco (U.K.) Exploration where he
is now geophysicalmanager. Marsden has
spent most of his career working in the
Northwest European shelf area and has
been actively involved in the developments
of computersystemsfor the interpreter. He
is a member of SEG and EAEG.

If you’re not ready to buy

GeophysicalInstruments,

Seismographs Magnetometers Borehole Loggers

If you’re doing shallow
geologic investigations for
mining, depth to bedrock
weathering corrections, or
construction-there is a
Geometries seismograph
for the job.
Whatever your applica-
lion -geologic mapping,
mineral or petroleum ex-
plorations, engineering
geology, or hazardous
waste studies -we have
the right magnetometer.
Whether you’re conduct-
ing groundwater surveys,
engineering studies, min-
era1 exploration, or shal-
low oil and gas-rent
your logger from us.

try renting.
We have new low daily rental rates, seismic interpretation software,
and rental credit towards purchase. So if you need geophysical
instruments NOW, call or write EG&G Geometries, 395 Java Drive, &!,!, EGzG GEOMETRKS
Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA; Telephone: (408) 734-4616; Telex 357-435;
Fax: (408) 745-6131.

14 GEOPHYSICS: THE LEADING EDGE OF EXPLORATION JANUARY 1989