Comparison of P‐ and S‐wave velocities and Q’S from VSP and sonic log data

Abstract

We compared P‐ and S‐wave velocities and quality factors (Q’S) from vertical seismic profiling (VSP) and sonic log measurements in five wells, three from the southwest San Joaquin Basin of California, one from near Laredo, Texas, and one from northern Alberta. Our purpose was to investigate the bias between sonic log and VSP velocities and to examine to what degree this bias might be a consequence of dispersion. VSPs and sonic logs were recorded in the same well in every case. Subsurface formations were predominantly clastic. The bias found was that VSP transit times were greater than sonic log times, consistent with normal dispersion. For the San Joaquin wells, differences in S‐wave transit times averaged 1–2 percent, while differences in P‐wave transit times averaged 6–7 percent. For the Alberta well, the situation was reversed, with differences in S‐wave transit times being about 6 percent, while those for P‐waves were 2.5 percent. For the Texas well, the differences averaged about 4 percent for both P‐ and S‐waves. Drift‐curve slopes for S‐waves tended to be low where the P‐wave slopes were high and vice versa. S‐wave drift‐curve slopes in the shallow California wells were 5–10 μs/ft (16–33 μs/m) and the P‐wave slopes were 15–30 μs/ft (49–98 μs/m). The S‐wave slope in sandstones in the northern Alberta well was up to 50 μs/ft (164 μs/m), while the P‐wave slope was about 5 μs/ft (16 μs/m). In the northern Alberta well the slopes for both P‐ and S‐waves flattened in the carbonate. In the Texas well, both P‐ and S‐wave drifts were comparable. We calculated (Q’s) from a velocity dispersion formula and from spectral ratios. When the two Q’s agreed, we concluded that velocity dispersion resulted solely from absorption. These Q estimation methods were reliable only for Q values smaller than 20. We found that, even with data of generally outstanding quality, Q values determined by standard methods can have large uncertainties, and negative Q’s may be common.