High-dimensionality 3D seismic data visualization and

interpretation: Simultaneous interpretation of nine co-rendered

volumes
Heloise Lynn1, Ping Chen2, and Chenyi Hu3
1. Lynn Incorporated, Houston TX;
2. University of Houston, Houston, TX
3. University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AK
Jun 2003 | VOL. 28 No. 06 | View Issue

Abstract

Many 3D volumes of attributes derived from travel times or amplitude measurements are useful
for geologic insights when wide-azimuth, or multicomponent surveys are processed for the
attribute value itself and the azimuthal characteristics of the value. For wide-azimuth 3D PP data,
Vrms PP, Vint PP, AVO, and their elliptical variations with azimuth are best interpreted together.
Typically Vrms, Vint, and AVO each yield four volumes: the maximum value, the azimuth of the
maximum value, the azimuthal variation in the value, and the error associated in expressing the
variation as an ellipse. These twelve volumes, plus the migrated image section, and the zero-offset
amplitude volume constitute 14 volumes to interpret. The challenge is to use the high-
dimensionality seismic data successfully and efficiently to obtain reservoir properties. The solution
we are using is co-rendering the necessary meaningful information. Intelligent filtering
(transformation) of the co-rendered data could provide a single 3D volume that can be mapped to
reservoir properties. Multi-component 3D data also provide additional volumes, which can be co-
rendered with the PP data, using these techniques.

Introduction

The 3D co-rendering of nine attribute volumes can be illustrated by means of a 2D horizon map,
which is of course simply a slice through any given 3D volume filled with nine-dimensional
numbers. Figure 1 shows the interval velocity (Vint) for the reservoir unit, a fractured shale about
100 m thick that produces gas, with hydraulic stimulation. Warmer colours are slower Vint; colder
colours are faster Vint. Figure 2 shows the azimuth of the fast interval velocity, with yellow being
east, red being NE (parallel to the major fault that trends from lower left to upper right), blue being
SE; purple pink is north. Figure 3 shows the azimuthal variation in interval velocity, with cold
colours being minimal variation and hot colours being maximum variation. The time contours to
the top of the reservoir are superimposed.
Figure 1. Vint, reservoir layer.
Figure 2. Az. Of Fast Vint.

Figure 3. Azimuthal variation Vint.

Method

The above three maps are co-rendered here in Figure 4. The coloured arrows represent three
numbers: the colour is the magnitude of the interval velocity; the arrow direction is the fast interval
velocity direction, and the length of the arrow is the magnitude of the azimuthal variation in
interval velocity. By using two more icons, each holding three numbers (magnitude, direction and
azimuthal variation), we can co-render nine attributes. Surfer is the off-the-shelf software package
from Golden Software that co-rendered the three velocity quantities into one icon, plus one map
that is the structure map (rendered by grey shading or contours). The sun angle is the SE corner,
45 degrees off the horizontal plane. Thus the map at the left holds only 4 numbers for each
designated “bin”.
 Figure 4.

Amplitude

PP reflection amplitude is, in general, a six-dimensional quantity. The values of interest are: the
zero-offset intercept amplitude; the maximum AVO gradient; the azimuth of the large AVO
gradient, the azimuthal variation of the gradient (Max Gradient minus (Minimum gradient), the
error (deviation between the ellipse fit and the field data), and the third AVO term (if long offsets
are acquired). The azimuthal variation of the third term (the nonlinear portion of the AVO curve)
is not well understood, in part because so few field datasets have acquired the proper coverage to
systematically analyze it.

Despite amplitude being a six-dimensional number, we are currently using an icon that holds only
three numbers, due to our software limitation. It is easy to understand how to construct an icon
that holds the six desired numbers, and this represents one avenue of our efforts, to start using
icons that hold six dimensional numbers, since velocity is also a 6-D number.

Figure 5 illustrates the co-rendering of nine attributes using three icons. The coloured arrow
represents Vint, the coloured triangle represents 5-30 degree angles of incidence AVO gradient,
and the coloured bar represents 5-45 degrees angle of incidence. The amplitude icon uses colour
to hold the AVO gradient (warm is large, cold colour is small), length to hold the azimuthal
variation in AVO (long is large variation, short is small variation), and azimuth to indicate the
large AVO gradient azimuth. By inspection of the map, we see where we get the same answer for
both ranges of incident angles; and areas where we get different answers for 0- 30 versus 0-45
degrees angle of incidence. Also, we see areas wherein the fast direction is also the bright direction
(a large gradient): for example, the red icons in the oval labeled A. Other areas show the fast
direction perpendicular to the bright (large gradient) direction: for example, in the oval labeled B.
Modeling indicates that the former (the bright direction is the fast direction) is likely to be a higher
crack density in the reservoir, while the latter (the bright direction is perpendicular to the fast
direction) is more likely to be a higher crack density beneath the reservoir. As is well known, the
azimuthal variation in the AVO gradient is influenced by the contrast in the shear-wave splitting
(shear-wave birefringence) between the two media at the boundary (and the contrast in delta).
While it may be tempting to ascribe the azimuthal variation in the AVO gradient of the base of
reservoir reflection to a high crack density in the reservoir itself, it is necessary to remember to
look for alternative (outside) indicators of relative crack density in the upper medium and the lower
medium. We suggest either multi-component data would serve such a purpose (some split S-wave
measurements in and of themselves). But in the lack of such, then PP Vint characterizations (as
displayed by 3- or 6- dimensional numbers) are absolutely necessary. The contrast in delta is
challenging to determine, but if it does not vary spatially through out the survey, then its effect is
simply a constant.

Figure 5.

One of the most useful and preferred icon maps is the one termed the “canonical” icon map, since
it holds the Velocity, Reflector Amplitude, Velocity, for the Upper medium, the reflector, and the
Lower medium. Figure 6 displays the canonical icon map with Vint of the upper medium (the shale
reservoir) as the arrow icon, the AVO of the base of reservoir as the triangle (the boundary), and
the Vint of the lower medium (the carbonate) as the bar icon. The size of the triangle icon (the
amplitude) used the stacked amplitude, although zero-offset intercept would have been preferable.
The darker the shade of gray background, the larger the azimuthal variation in the AVO. Our next
generation of icons should be capable of holding the five necessary numbers, so that the
background can hold the structural contours. The oval indicates a region where the velocities show
fast NE and the amplitude is bright NE: the interpretation is that the upper (reservoir) medium is
more likely to have the higher crack density. The box indicates a region where the velocities show
fast N/S and the amplitude is bright E/W: the interpretation is that the lower medium (the
carbonate) is likely to have the greater fracture density. Thus from the map, the relative apparent
azimuthal anisotropy of the upper medium and the lower medium is deduced from the two velocity
icons (arrow and bar), and compared to the amplitude icon (triangle). Warmer colours are more
likely to be associated with hydrocarbons, colder colours are less likely to be associated with
hydrocarbons.
Figure 6.

All seismic from areas of thick-layers is built of interval, reflector, interval, reflector, etc. To
understand the reflector amplitude (AVOA), knowledge of the interval above and the interval
below is surely advisable. This is true for PP and for PS and for joint PP&PS.

A further modeling challenge is to handle a change in the apparent fracture azimuth at a boundary
of interest – that is, a change in the azimuth of the fast interval velocity direction, at a boundary.
At this point, the relative magnitude of the azimuthal anisotropy as well as the relative orientations
therein must be taken into account, with the expectation that the largest of the magnitudes will tend
to dominate the answer. However, modeling is of course the preferred way to proceed with
interpretation.

All the icon maps shown thus far are just 2D slices through a 3D volume filled with icons.
Although three icons are used here, the only limit to the number of icons is what the interpreter
can handle. What the icon holds is up to the interpreter: multi-component interpreters will of course
load their icons (rendered in PP time or depth) to hold PS ampl., PP ampl., S velocity, P velocity,
and VP/VS ratio –like numbers, each of which could vary with offset and azimuth. The ability to
co-render and interpret all at once nine, eighteen, or thirty-six volumes is proposed as our
industry’s next step up. Being able to see our data is the requirement to being able to interpret our
data. Obviously, data mining and neural network techniques should be employed to tell the
computer which parts of our data we display co-rendered. If all the data is displayed co-rendered,
the opacity problem prevents us from seeing anything.

Figure 7 is a screen capture from VIS9D, the prototype 3D volume visualization software package,
wherein rectangles, cones, and rhomboids fill a 3-D volume shown on the computer screen, with
tilt, swivel, and zoom capabilities. The opacity problem is handled by the user selecting the values
of the icons that are desired to be seen.
 Figure
7.

Obviously, interpreters would prefer rock icons, rather than confetti-like arrows, bars, and
triangles. Rock icons, covered in a pending Lynn Inc patent, display sandstones, shales, limestones,
and dolomites in their well known geologic symbols, with indicated porosity, pore fill, fracture
density, and fracture azimuth as glyphs on the icon. Well control plus seismic can help guide the
initial construction of the icon, and rock physics will guide how the high-dimensionality seismic
data are transformed into rock icons. The 3D volume will display in an intuitively simple fashion
the desired quantities of Structure, Lithology, Porosity, Pore fill (water, gas, or oil, or mixture
thereof), uncertainty, fracture azimuth, fracture density, and fracture fill using icons.

Conclusion

Nine-dimensional numbers can be portrayed in map and 3D form, with structure, for interpretation
of co-rendered attribute volumes. Efficiency and completeness are better attained when all the
relevant and important data can be viewed at the same time.

Acknowledgements

Devon Energy is gratefully acknowledged for permission to show their field data. Vest3D is the
pc-based 3D seismic interpretation software Lynn Inc uses. Surfer from Golden Software, Golden,
Colorado, is the off-the-shelf software package which enables a user to co-render nine maps (ten
maps with structure) into an icon map, with each icon holding three numbers — although woefully
inadequate, everyone has to start somewhere. VIS9D is the software prototype package written by
Ping Chen that runs on a laptop.

Join the Conversation