Introduction

Many explorationists consider velocity the most underutilized and overabused of all the geophysical
parameters in petroleum exploration. Yet, velocity is the bridge between time and depth, between
milliseconds and feet, between timing lines and drill stem. We routinely use velocities to stack seismic
data, to migrate seismic data, and to convert time-recorded seismic sections to depth sections and time
maps to depth maps. We also use velocities in more sophisticated ways, such as in attempts to predict
porosity, geologic age, lithology, fracturing, fluid content, geopressure, and even drill-bit wear.

Velocity data contain an enormous amount of information. However, we must use extreme care and
understanding when handling velocity data. For example, when stacking seismic data, we can be
successful, or reasonably successful, using velocities that can vary as much as 20 percent from the true
normal-moveout (NMO) velocity. Although the stacking process can tolerate such a high degree of velocity
variation and still be effective, the techniques we use to predict porosity, fracturing, fluid content, or other
critical parameters may not. A 20 percent change in a porosity prediction can mean the difference between
a tight formation and a dry well, or a porous formation and a producer.

In 1968, E. S. Pennebaker was one of the first to use velocities as an interpretation tool. Being a drilling
engineer and not a geoscientist, Pennebaker naturally was interested in engineering problems such as drill-
bit wear and abnormal pressures. From his study, Pennebaker was also able to propose techniques for
predicting fracture gradients, geologic age, and gross changes in lithology. Since then, many geoscientists
have analyzed the information contained in velocity data and have developed new techniques for presenting
and interpreting this information. New computer hardware and software and larger databases have refined
or replaced the old Pennebaker techniques, but his geopressure prediction method is still used today
throughout the world.

Like Pennebaker, if we make an intelligent effort and go beyond simply stacking or migrating seismic data,
velocity data can tell us much about the earth and its hidden characteristics.

The Nature of Velocity Data

We often encounter exploration situations where simple time-data maps are not adequate or appropriate and
could even cause us to drill a dry hole. For example, a time map may indicate a structural closure, when in
reality, there is a velocity gradient present and the true structure is a dipping nose. Time data alone are also
unreliable when a deep, steeply sloping water bottom exists. In this case, a time map is inaccurate unless
we take the effect of the water layer into account.

Handling velocity data is a process of integration. The first step is to collect the best data available. These
data will come from geologists, geophysicists, well log engineers, petroleum engineers, and petrophysicists.
We must then ensure the quality of the data. Poor data lead to poor interpretations. We then use normalized
interval velocities to determine lithology. When we can satisfactorily correlate a normalized interval
velocity to a particular lithology, we can then be confident that our average velocity calculation and depth
conversion will be accurate. This does not mean that this conversion will be error-free, but at least the
statistical error will be minimized.

Do not trust the data blindly. This is the first rule that we must learn when working with velocities. We
must check and re-check the data. We should look at all possible sources of velocity information, including
seismic reflection and refraction surveys, well logs, checkshot surveys, and vertical seismic profiles
(VSPs). But we should trust none of them. Be suspicious of the data until the final report is complete and
all the data support the conclusion.
There are several ways to check the validity of the data without having to go back to the original source.
For example, we can easily identify velocity errors by plotting families of interval velocity curves and
simply making a visual comparison. Erroneous data points will stand out from the valid data.

Perhaps the most trustworthy sources of velocity data are well depths from vertical boreholes and isochrons
or isopachs from properly stacked and migrated seismic sections. Well depths are by far the most reliable
since they are simple and direct measurements. We prefer to use vertical wells rather than directional wells,
since vertical wells do not require us to geometrically correct for the slant in the deviation. The use of
isochrons reduces or even eliminates near-surface problems that will cause the absolute time to be in error.

We know that velocity data provide the basis for seismic time-to-geological depth conversion techniques.
They also provide the basis for lithologic prediction techniques. If we obtain the best velocity information,
and in particular the best interval velocity data, we have made the first step toward a good depth conversion
and lithologic determination.

We need a method that expresses the interval velocity in a format that will allow us to smooth and contour
the data control points without the loss of structural information. If we are successful, we can then use these
data to perform the depth conversion and to check its reliability. Depth-normalized interval velocity
techniques give us this capability.

Average Velocity
Average velocity, Va, is a simple concept, one that we all learned in elementary mathematics and physics
class. Average velocity is simply the total distance traveled divided by the total time traveled.

We can easily explain and understand average velocity using an everyday example. If we were to drive a
car from city A to city B, which are exactly 200 miles apart, and we were to travel at a constant speed of 40
miles per hour for the first two hours and a constant speed of 60 miles per hour for the second two hours,
then the average velocity for the trip would be 50 miles per hour. This average velocity value is obtained by
dividing the total distance traveled (200 miles) by the total time traveled (4 hours).

What is the average velocity of the trip after traveling three hours?

After three hours, the total distance traveled is 140 miles (40 miles the first hour, 40 miles the second hour
and 60 miles the third hour). Dividing 140 miles by three hours yields an average velocity of 46.7 miles per
hours.

If we wanted to return to city A traveling at 60 miles per hour for the first three hours and at 40 miles per
hour for the remainder of the trip, how much time will it take to return and what will be our average
velocity?

After three hours we would have traveled 180 miles. Therefore, the remaining 20 miles would take one-half
of an hour at 40 miles an hour and the total time traveled would be 3.5 hours. The average velocity for the
return trip would be 57.1 miles per hour (200 miles / 3.5 hours).

The average velocity for the round trip is 400 miles divided by 7.5 hours or 53.3 miles per hour.

From these examples, we can see that the average velocity varies according to when and how it is
measured. We can apply these same concepts to calculate average velocity within the earth.
The average seismic velocity is the distance traveled by a seismic wave from the source location to some
point on or within the earth divided by the recorded traveltime. If we are concerned with the distance and
time from the surface of the earth to a point at depth, then we use the one-way distance and time. The
average velocity in this case is simply Z/t. If we are concerned with the distance from the surface of the
earth to a point at depth and back to the surface, then we use two-way distance and traveltime, and average
velocity equals 2Z/T. So, we can express average velocity as

(1)
where
t = one-way traveltime, and

T = two-way traveltime

Figure 1 shows the average-velocity equations for four seismic ray paths in a simple, two-layered earth
model.

Figure 1
Figure 2 shows a typical time-depth curve for a particular point on the earth.

Figure 2

Note in this figure that if the time or depth changes by a small amount, the slope of the curve and the
average velocity also change only by a small amount. The significance of this observation is that if we
move up or down in our seismic interpretations, the change in average velocity will be quite small. In fact,
there may be no change depending on the slope of the average velocity curve.

Interval Velocity
We define interval velocity, Vi, as the thickness of a particular layer divided by the time it takes to travel
from the top of the layer to its base.

To an explorationist, the interval velocity is ÆZ, the thickness of a stratigraphic layer, divided by Æt, the
time it takes to travel from the top of the layer to its base. The equation for interval velocity is:

(1)
The thickness ÆZ is also equal to the isopach value of the interval.

Figure 1 shows a typical interval-velocity-versus-time curve.

 Figure 1

Note the "layer cake" appearance of the interval-velocity curve versus the smooth appearance of the
corresponding average-velocity curve. The discrete boundaries in the interval-velocity curve indicate
stratigraphic and velocity differences between two contiguous layers.

We can determine the average velocity by averaging the weighted summation of the interval velocities. If
we sum the interval velocities for a series of rock layers, and weight them according to the two-way
traveltime within each layer, ÆT, the average value would be equal to the average velocity. The equation
for average velocity, Va, in terms of interval velocity is:

(2)
where ÆZ is the interval thickness or isopach.

Root-Mean-Square (RMS) Velocity

The root-mean-square (RMS) velocity is also a weighted average. We use a weighting process where the
amount of weighting is determined by the value of the interval velocities. The weighting is accomplished
by squaring the interval velocity values. So, in this approach, greater weight is given to the greater interval
velocities.

The equation for RMS velocity is:

(1)
                      (2)

When we compare Equation 1 to Equation 2, we see that the RMS velocity is always greater than the
average velocity. The reader should verify this statement. Figure 1 shows a graphical comparison between
the two curves.

Figure 1

Note that Equation 1 does not contain a horizontal distance (X) term, i.e., there is no seismic offset or cable
spread-length term. Regardless of whether the distance from source to receiver is zero, 2,000, or 10,000
feet, the RMS velocity values will be the same for a given depth, traveltime, and interval velocity. We must
remember that RMS velocity is strictly a mathematical weighted average and has no intrinsic meaning.

Normal-Moveout Velocity
In contrast to RMS velocity, the normal-moveout (NMO) velocity, or stacking velocity, Vnmo, does have a
horizontal component (X) in its equation. Therefore, it is dependent on the offset, depth, and spread length.
Seismic records with source-to-receiver distances of zero, 2,000, and 10,000 feet will yield three different
NMO velocity values.

The equation for NMO velocity is:

 (1)
where
X = the offset distance from source to receiver,

Tx = the two-way traveltime of a seismic wave reflected off a particular interface and
recorded at the receiver location, and

T0 = the two-way traveltime of the seismic wave reflected off the particular interface at
the zero-offset location.

In this equation, note that while all other variables remain the same, the NMO velocity increases as the
value of X increases.

The NMO correction, ÆTnmo, not to be confused with the NMO velocity, is defined as the time shift that is
applied to each seismic event within a common midpoint (CMP) gather in order to make al! the reflected
events from a particular interface equal in time. We apply the NMO correction so that seismic events can
be summed, or stacked, thus enhancing the desired seismic signal while suppressing the random noise.

We can calculate the NMO correction, ÆTnmo, from the average velocity ( Figure 1 ).
 Figure 1

From the Pythagorean Theorem, we know that

(2)
We also know that Va = 2ÆZ/T0 and Va =2d/T. By substituting these values into the above equation, we
obtain

(3)
Simplifying, we get

(4)
Solving for Va, we find that

(5)
If we know the normal-movement velocity, we can relate it to the average velocity using the equation T =
T0 + ÆTnmo. We can then approximate the NMO correction as a function of average velocity:

(6)

For a single-layered earth model, the above approximation becomes an equation.

The NMO correction can also be approximated from the RMS velocity. In this case,

(7)
or,

(8)
Dix's equation converts RMS velocity to interval velocity:
(9)
where the subscripts 1 and 2 indicate the upper and lower boundaries of the subject interval, respectively.
In practice, we often use Dix's equation to calculate interval velocities by substituting normal-moveout
velocity (Vnmo) values obtained from seismic velocity analyses in place of RMS velocities. In fact, when
the horizontal offset X is considerably smaller than the depth Z, Vnmo equals Vrms. So, by substituting Vnmo
values in place of Vrms values in Equation 9, we can generally obtain a good approximation of interval
velocity, Vi.