Seismic Attribute Mapping of Structure and Stratigraphy

Kurt J. Marfurt (University of Oklahoma)

Attribute Expression of Tectonic Deformation

6a-1

Course Outline
Introduction Complex Trace, Horizon, and Formation Attributes Multiattribute Display Spectral Decomposition Geometric Attributes Attribute Expression of Geology Impact of Acquisition and Processing on Attributes Attributes Applied to Offset- and Azimuth-Limited Volumes Structure-Oriented Filtering and Image Enhancement Inversion for Acoustic and Elastic Impedance Multiattribute Analysis Tools Reservoir Characterization Workflows 3D Texture Analysis
6a-2

Attribute expression of tectonic deformation
After this section you should be able to:
• Use coherence to accelerate the interpretation of faults on 3-D volumes, • Use volumetric attributes to provide a preliminary interpretation across multiple surveys having different amplitude and phase, • Identify the appearance and structural style of salt and shale diapirs on geometric attributes, • Use curvature to define axial planes, and • Use coherence and curvature as an aid to predicting fractures.

6a-3

N

Growth faults, Gulf of Mexico
W S
Moderate West dip Gentle North dip Moderate Southeast dip Northeast dip

E

Gentle South Dip

West
6a-4

East

Growth faults, Gulf of Mexico
0
W

N E S

2 Time (s) 4 6
6a-5

Identification of faults (Gulf of Mexico, USA)

Salt

Salt

6a-6

Identification of faults (Alberta, Canada)

6a-7

Identification of faults and stratigraphy
(Gulf of Mexico, USA)
1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

Time (s)

1.0

Time (s)

2.0

2.0 1.0

3.0 2.0

3.0 2.0

4.0 3.0
5 km

4.0 3.0
5 km

‘Ban ding ’

Seismic
6a-8

Coherence Faults ‘Stratigraphy’

Attribute imaging of faults and flexures

6a-9

Idealized growth fault

Idealized strike-slip fault

Fault seen on curvature. Seen on coherence.
6a-10

Fault not seen on curvature. Seen on coherence.

Fault with minimal offset

Fault with finite offset

Fault seen on curvature. Not seen on coherence.
6a-11

Fault seen on coherence. Not seen on curvature.

Folds and flexures

Infilled grabens

‘Fault’ seen on curvature. Not seen on coherence.
6a-12

Fault seen on coherence at depth. Infill/collapse seen on curvature shallow.

Basinwide Regional Interpretation across Heterogeneous Seismic Surveys

6a-13

Time/structure map of heterogeneous surveys
Time (s) 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

10 km N

Central Basin Platform, Texas, USA Top Devonian

6a-14

Coherence time slice on heterogeneous surveys
Coh 1.0

10 km N

0.8

Central Basin Platform, Texas, USA t=1.0 s

6a-15

(Data courtesy of BP, OXY, Burlington)

A large regional survey
Texas Louisiana

East Cameron West Cameron Vermillion South Marsh Island Vermillion South

Eugene Island

Ship Shoal

Gulf of Mexico
6a-16

(Biles et al, 2003).

Use of coherence to interpreter a large regional survey
Texas Louisiana

‘Coherence’ at 3.0 s
Gulf of Mexico
6a-17

(Biles et al, 2003).

Interpretation Workflows

6a-18

Workflow#1: Using attribute to delineate limits of fault zones
2 km N

low coh E

W

S N mid coh

W

E

S N high coh

W

E

S

6a-19

(Data courtesy of OXY)

Workflow#2: Using attribute time slices to help correlate horizons across faults 5 km
B′ ′

Salt
C A

N

Pick an arbitrary line that runs around faults

A′ ′

Coherence time slice. T=2.7 s (Green Canyon, GOM, USA)
B

6a-20

2.0 Time (s)

A

4 km

A′ ′

B

B′ ′

2.5

3.0 C 2.0 Time (s) C

2.5 C 3.0

Seismic ‘traverse’ chosen to avoid major faults

6a-21

(Data courtesy of BP)

N 3 km

Workflow #3: Using attributes to help fault naming and correlation

t=2.6 s

t=2.6 s

coherence

seismic

Northwest Louisiana, USA
6a-22

(Data courtesy of Seitel)

N N 3 km

1) Pick on coherence using seismic time slice as a guide. Try to avoid stratigraphic discontinuities and unconformities

3 s t=2.6km

t=2.6 s

coherence

seismic

6a-23

(Data courtesy of Seitel)

A N 3 km

A′ ′

2.0

A

A′ ′

Time (s)

tton Co Top alley V

2) Choose a seismic line perpendicular to the fault traces. Pick and assign faults as you normally would.

2.5
ey

t=2.6 s

3.0

coherence

seismic

Bo tto m

Co tt

on V

a ll

6a-24

(Data courtesy of Seitel)

B

B′ ′

2.0

3) Choose a 2nd EW seismic line further down the fault trace to begin forming a coarse fault grid.

B A

B′ ′ A′ ′ Time (s)

2.5

t=2.6 s

3.0

coherence

seismic

6a-25

(Data courtesy of Seitel)

C N 3 km

C

C′ ′

2.0

C′ ′

t=2.6 s

Time (s)

4) Pick a NS line and continue the process. If subtle discontinuities seen to be faults on seismic, track them on coherence.

2.5

3.0

coherence

seismic

6a-26

(Data courtesy of Seitel)

D

D

D′ ′

2.0

5) Pick additional NS lines and continue the process, forming a coarse grid.

D′ ′

t=2.6 s

Time (s)

2.5

3.0

coherence

seismic

6a-27

(Data courtesy of Seitel)

6) Pick a new time slice through the coherence volume

t=2.5 s

t=2.7 s

coherence

coherence

6a-28

(Data courtesy of Seitel)

7) Use the crossposted fault picks from the vertical seismic to guide your interpretation on the seismic coherence slices

t=2.5 s

t=2.7 s

coherence

coherence

6a-29

(Data courtesy of Seitel)

Structural Deformation

6a-30

Offshore Trinidad Time Slice (t=1.2 s)
N

Galeota Ridge

Complex faulting difficult to detect on seismic

Coherence shows lateral continuity of faults

2 km

2 km

Seismic
6a-31

Coherence (Gersztenkorn et al., 1999)

Coherence Time Slice (1.1 s)
N

W

N

Dip / Azimuth Time Slice (1.1 s)

2 km

D

S

E

D

E

E′

E

E′

D′

D′

6a-32

(Gersztenkorn et al., 1999)

Seismic Data
D 0.9 Time (s) 2 km D′

1.1 1.3 E E′

0.7 Time (s)

1.1 1.5

6a-33

(Gersztenkorn et al., 1999)

Teapot Dome (WY, USA)
R′ ′ Q Q R′ ′ Q R’

P′ ′

P′ ′

P’

P Coh 1.0 R

P R

P Curv neg

R

0 Q′ ′ Q′ ′ Q′ ′

0.8

pos

Coherence

Most Positive Curvature

Most Negative Curvature

6a-34

Teapot Dome (WY, USA)
0.5 P P′ R ′ R′ ′ Q Q′ ′

Time (s)

1.0

1.5

6a-35

(Data courtesy of RMTOC)

Reverse Faulting (Alberta, Canada)
A A’ A

A’

Neg

0

Pos

Low

High

6a-36

(Chopra and Marfurt, 2007b)

Coherence Strat Slices

Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

Line 4

Line 5 Line 6

6a-37

(Chopra and Marfurt, 2007b)

Most-Positive Curvature Strat Slices

Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

Line 4

Line 5 Line 6

6a-38

(Chopra and Marfurt, 2007b)

Most-Negative Curvature Strat Slices

Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

Line 4

Line 5 Line 6

6a-39

(Chopra and Marfurt, 2007b)

1000 ms

1600 ms

Line 1 1000 ms

Line 2

Line 3

Line 4 Faults that appear as discontinuities (seen on both coherence and curvature horizon slices)

Neg

0

Pos Flexures seen on most positive curvature horizon slice that do not appear coherence slice

6a-40

1600 ms

Line 5

Line 6

(Chopra and Marfurt, 2007b)

Salt and Shale Diapirism

6a-41

Vertical seismic section through the La Rue salt dome, East Texas, USA
3 mi

PECAN GAP
1.0

CHALK
4350

AUSTIN CHALK

Time (s)

La Rue Salt Dome
JA ME S LIM E
COTTO N
3.0

BUDA LIME
Depth (ft)

JAMES LIME
11300

2.0

VALLEY

LIME
20900

LOUANN SALT

.

SALT WELD

6a-42

(Maione, 2001)

Isochron contour map of the interval between the James and Buda Limestones
>1300 ms

SALT WITHDRAWAL BASIN
~ 600 ms

8 km
1.4 s 1.9 s
6a-43

(Maione, 2001).

Time slice through La Rue Salt Dome, East Texas, USA

6a-44

Ring faults difficult to see on seismic data, easier to see on coherence

(Maione, 2001).

Time slice through coherence volume
Time slice at 1.232 s

La Rue Salt Dome

Salt Dome

Salt Dome
8 km

6a-45

(Maione, 2001).

Time slice through coherence volume
Time slice at 1.400 s

La Rue Salt Dome

Salt Dome

Salt Dome
8 km

6a-46

(Maione, 2001).

Time slice through coherence volume
Time slice at 1.636 s

La Rue Salt Dome

Salt Dome

Salt Dome
8 km

6a-47

(Maione, 2001).

Coherence volume, looking South, showing concentric ring fault patterns and stratigraphic thickening
N

La Rue Salt Dome
8k m

6a-48

(Maione, 2001).

Vertical section between two salt withdrawal basins 3 km
1.0

1.5

2.0

Seismic
6a-49

Coherence
(Maione, 2001).

Mapping Folds and Flexures

6a-50

Central Basin Platform, Texas, USA
high

high

0

low

Seismic amplitude

5 km

Coherence
high

Horizon slices along Devonian
0

Most positive curvature
6a-51

(Blumentritt et al., 2006)

Methodology

Pick lineaments seen on curvature
high

0

2 km

6a-52

(Blumentritt et al., 2006)

Interpretation of Lineaments Red and Blue lines: Readily observable faults

Green lines: Subtle geologic features

Deformation model

6a-53

(Blumentritt et al., 2006)

What is the geologic explanation of these lineaments?

Application

2 km

6a-54

(Blumentritt et al., 2006)

Buckling in Competent Rocks?

Application

6a-55

(Blumentritt et al., 2006)

Structural Deformation
In Summary:
• In general, time slices show better fault images (with less interpreter bias) than horizon slices. • Geometric attributes are relatively insensitive to the seismic source wavelet, such that they are useful in visualizing geologic features that span surveys subjected to different acquisition and processing. • Geometric attributes allow us to quickly define and name a coarse fault network. • Volumetric curvature allows us to map subtle folds and flexures associated with tectonic deformation. • Volumetric curvature also illuminates faults that are inaccurately imaged or have small vertical throw. • Geometric attributes allow us to visualize plastic deformation in ductile shales and brittle deformation in more competent carbonates and sandstones.
6a-56

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful