You are on page 1of 28

Report

2D SeisWorks Project

Group C:

Irfan Baig
Fernando Afonso Caliki
Sissel Grude
Marta Lanka

Seismic Interpretation
Preface
This report is part of the subject “seismic interpretation” at NTNU where we have learned the
process of seismic data interpretation from some seismic lines outside the west coast of
Norway. We will present out work through this report with the different seismic lines and our
result after horizon interpretation on these lines. The course in interpretation has given us an
insight in the practical ways of doing seismic interpretation and a deeper understanding of the
theory of rest of the course.

2
Table of contents:

Preface ................................................................................................................................ 2
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4
1. Geological history of area .......................................................................................... 5
1.1 Structural Settings .............................................................................................. 5
1.2 Stratigraphy of the Area ....................................................................................... 7
1.2.1 Reservoir Distribution in Northern Viking Graben ...................................... 8
2. Overview of area ...................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Seismic Lines ......................................................................................................... 10
3. Interpretation ............................................................................................................ 12
3.1 Horizons ................................................................................................................. 12
3.2 Terminations........................................................................................................... 13
3.2.1 Erosional truncation ........................................................................................ 13
3.2.2. Toplap............................................................................................................. 15
3.2.3 Clinoforms ....................................................................................................... 16
3.2.4 Downlaps ......................................................................................................... 17
3.2.5 Onlap ............................................................................................................... 18
3.2.6. Bowtie ............................................................................................................ 18
3.2.7. Probable mud volcanoes................................................................................. 19
3.3. Hydrocarbon indicators ......................................................................................... 20
3.3.1 Gas chimney .................................................................................................... 20
3.3.2 Shallow gas ..................................................................................................... 22
3.3.3. Flat spot .......................................................................................................... 22
3.4 Faults ...................................................................................................................... 23
3.4.1 Normal fault .................................................................................................... 23
3.4.2 Listric fault ...................................................................................................... 23
3.4.3 Synthetic fault ................................................................................................. 24
3.4.4 Antithetic fault................................................................................................. 25
4. Results of interpretation ........................................................................................... 25
5. Epilogue ................................................................................................................... 27
6. References ................................................................................................................ 28

3
Introduction

This document reports work done on seismic interpretation of North Viking Graben area in
the Northern North Sea, Norway. It is based on the interpretation of 2D reflection seismic data
with the help of the computer program SeisWorks. For this purpose nine 2D seismic lines in
different directions through the prospect area have been interpreted. Results from 2D seismic
interpretation clearly show presence of a potential hydrocarbon prospect in the area with all
its elements.

Objective

The objective of this project is to get some understanding of stratigraphic and structural
elements of the area, and to identify the different stratigraphic horizons, depositional patterns,
faults and direct hydrocarbon indicators on the seismic data.

4
1. Geological history of area

The northern Viking Graben forms part of the northern North Sea rift system, and is situated
between 60° and 62° (Fig. 1.1). It separates the Horda Platform in the east from the East
Shetland Basin in the west. The Viking Graben structure is dominated by faults with N-S,
NNW-SSE and NE-SW orientations, typically 15-20 km apart defining large tilted fault
blocks. The structure is asymmetrical in the north, between the Tampen Spur and the Horda
platform, where deformation took place mainly along east-dipping normal faults. To the south
between 61° and 60°30’ N, the structure becomes more symmetrical, and returns to an
asymmetric pattern further south. The geological framework of the North Viking Graben area
is described in two categories, which are structural geological setting and stratigraphical
geological setting.

1.1 Structural Settings

The northern North Sea is generally believed to have been influenced by at least two main
phases of extension after the thinning and regional stretching of the thickened Caledonian
crust in the Devonian. The first of these is a Permo-Triassic phase that is poorly defined on
seismic data from the northern North Sea. The Viking Graben was established during this
phase, and was later overprinted by a roughly E-W-stretching phase in the latest Middle
Jurassic to earliest Cretaceous. The faults studied in this area occur in Jurassic rocks, and are
thus a product of the latter extension phase only. A regional unconformity separates rotated
Triassic and Lower-Middle Jurassic sediments from mainly unfaulted and flat-lying
Cretaceous and later deposits. This unconformity represents a time gap of up to 100 Ma on
structurally high areas like the Gullfaks Field. The post-Jurassic history of the North Sea is
characterized by basin subsidence and continuous sedimentation.
The extensional tectonics have controlled the development of North Viking Graben structure
resulted in sagging with normal faulting and block rotation in the western part of structure,
whereas the eastern part remained as an elevated horst structure. Between the eastern and
western region there is a transitional accommodation zone (graben system) which is identified
as a modified fold structure. The main faults in the area are formed in mostly consolidated
rocks, and only the uppermost part of the fault planes what were poorly consolidated
sediments. (Fig. 1.1 & 1.2).

5
Fig. (1.1) Structural Map of the area

6
Fig. (1.2) Geological Cross Section across the main structure. Picture from millennium atlas.

1.2 Stratigraphy of the Area

Stratigraphically the Triassic is the eldest most important age in the area in which Hegre
Group (Tiest, Lomvi and Lunde formations) was deposited in a relatively quiet phase and
consists of interbedded intervals of shale, claystone and sandstone which is interpreted as
continental fluvial deposits, followed by the deposition of Statfjod Formation in a changed
climatic condition.
Brent Group (Broom, Rannoch, Etive, Ness and Tarbert Formations) was deposited in the
middle Jurassic in a marginal marine to deltaic setting followed by the deposition of upper
Jurassic Viking Group (a shale sequence of Heather and Draupne Formations) in a
transgressive setting. The open marine argillaceous Shetland Group was deposited in Late
Cretaceous followed by muddy marine Rogaland Group (Lista, Sele and Balder Formations)
deposited in Paleocene to Early Eocene.
Smectite clay dominated Hordaland Group was deposited from Early Eocene to Mid Miocene
followed by sediment starved, argillaceous Nordland Group in Early middle Miocene (Fig.
1.3).

7
Fig (1.3) Stratigraphy of the North Viking Graben. Picture from presentation of Institute of
Geology. University of Bergen

1.2.1 Reservoir Distribution in Northern Viking Graben

The stratigraphy of the reservoir rocks in this area is shown in Fig. 1.4; reservoirs occur in the
Frigg, Cod, Statfjord, and Brent Formations. A significant unconformity occurs at the base of
the Cretaceous (Fig. 1.4). Jurassic synrift sediments are unconformably overlain by
Cretaceous and Tertiary basin fill deposits. The primary reservoir objectives in the North
Viking Graben are Jurassic synrift clastic sediments (lying below the unconformity). Jurassic

8
strata in the North Sea area occur, for the most part, in fault-bounded basins related to the
development (through regional extension) of the graben system.
The Jurassic transgressive system has periods of regression that provided the coarse clastic
input that forms the reservoir intervals; these reservoirs are sometimes vertically stacked and
are separated by deepwater shales. The Jurassic was a period of active faulting; hydrocarbon
traps are usually fault-bounded structures, but some are associated with stratigraphic
truncation at the BCU. The depositional environments of the Jurassic reservoirs range from
fluvial to deltaic and shallow marine.
A second reservoir target in the North Viking Graben is Paleocene deepwater clastics. The
Paleocene interval is undisturbed by the rift tectonism, and dips gently into the basin (Fig.
1.4). Over much of the basin, the Paleocene section was deposited in a slope environment
(and so contains turbidites or slump sediments); sandstone reservoirs are associated with
regressive pulses. Hydrocarbon traps are usually depositionally mounded structures or
stratigraphic pinch outs.

Fig (1.4) Stratigraphic column for northern North Sea reservoir rocks (after Parsley, 1990).

9
2. Overview of area
2.1 Seismic Lines

We have chosen to interpret the strike- and diplines illustrated in Fig. (2.1). The main reasons
for our choice of lines are:
• Good coverage of the area.
• Many of the lines cross each other in several places; this can be used in the
interpretation to make sure that our horizons are continuous.
• The horizons we wanted to interpret were strongest in these lines.
• We can see a clear geological trend between the diplines, so one line can be used for
better understanding of other lines.

Fig (2.1) our strike and dip lines are marked red.

The seismic acquisition is from outside the west coast of Norway. See fig (2.2). This can be
seen from the wells that are on the map view in fig (2.1). The wells from the areas 33/5, 35.9

10
and 30/7 are the other limits for our seismic. The area is roughly marked as a big red ring in
fig (2.2)

Fig(2.2) Map of project area. The picture is from npd.no.

11
3. Interpretation

Our method of interpretation was to follow the horizons as far as possible; we looked in
multipannel display to make sure that they were continuous. We interpreted in loops, so if we
did a mistake, only parts became wrong, and not the entire horizon. Some areas were difficult
to interpret because the quality of the data was not good. Then we evaluated the thickness of
the layer, and compared it to other layers. We could not interpret in some areas because the
data quality was not good, so we could not see the horizons.

We have divided our interpretation into three parts, the first part is about seismic stratigraphy
and structural features. The second part is related to hydrocarbons indicators. The third part is
different fault types.

3.1 Horizons
We have chosen to interpret 6 different horizons which are illustrated in fig (3.1).

Fig (3.1) the horizons we have interpreted are marked A to F. This picture is from dipline 1.

12
We chose these horizons because we considered them as interesting. They are quite
clear and most of them are continuous through out the project area.

Interesting parts of our horizons:

A. This looks like an unconformity. We can see many erosional truncations going
up into it. (These erosional truncations are illustrated and described further
below). This horizon is terminating towards west, and can only be seen in the
eastern part of the diplines, and only in strikeline1.
Part B, C, D and E are similar in many ways. All fill in the big graben and are
thicker in the middle part and thinning toward eastern and western parts. See Fig.
(3.2)
B. Above this layer we can see sequences that are truncating down on it in the
western section, and in the eastern section this horizon is terminating at the top
horizon A.
C. This looks like horizontal deposition into the graben. This is top of paleocene.
D. Similar to C, but older. This horizon marks the top of upper cretaceous.
E. Similar to C and D, but not that horizontal, because it is more affected by
BCU, which has big changes in topography. This horizon marks the top of
lower cretaceous.
F. This horizon marks the base cretaceous unconformity (BCU). Below there are
many faults, which can be seen in Fig. (3.2). Above is the infill sediments of
the graben.

Fig(3.2) Illustrates how layer B,C,D and E fill in the graben. This picture is from dipline 1.
This line are horizontally compressed to clarely illustrate the difference in thickness.

3.2 Terminations

3.2.1 Erosional truncation – this is represented by termination of strata against on


overlying erosional surface (erosional truncation of reflectors on seismic). Implies the
development of erosional relief or an angular unconformity. Toplaps often terminates beneath
erosional truncation. The upper line on Fig.(3.3) illustrates toplaps, and Fig.(3.4) is an
example of toplaps which we have observed in dipline 2 in our seismic, they are marked with
colors in Fig.(3.5)

13
Fig (3.3) Erosional truncation. Illustration from”Introduction to Seismic Stratigraphy”.
Geological Institute from Krakow.

Fig (3.4) Erosional truncation, from dipline 2

Fig (3.5) Erosional truncation, from dipline 2

14
3.2.2. Toplap - Termination of strata against an overlying surface mainly as a result of non
deposition with perhaps only minor erosion. Occurs where there is progradation but no
aggradation (when relative sea-level is static). Sediments bypass the zone of toplap to be
deposited further basinward (successive terminations lie progressively basinward). Toplap is
evidence of a non depositional hiatus. An illustration of toplaps are given in Fig. (3.6) and
examples of toplaps from our seismic are marked in Fig. (3.7) with arrows.

Marginal marine setting:


- Represents a change from slope deposition-marine or shallow marine bypass or erosion.
– Toplap surface is an unconformity.

Deep marine setting


– Represents, most likely, a marine erosion surface.
– This surface is localized and rarely flat over large areas.

Fig (3.6) Terminations, illustration from Seismic stratigraphy Interpretation – Christopher


Juhlin

Fig (3.7) Toplaps from dipline 2

15
3.2.3 Clinoforms - A sedimentary deposit that has a sigmoidal (or S) shape. They can range
in size from centimetres (like sand dunes) to kilometres (such as entire continental shelves),
and can grow horizontally in response to sediment supply and physical limits on sediment
accumulation. An illustration of clinoforms are given in Fig.(3.8), with an example from our
seismic in Fig.(3.9), where the upper picture is an illustration of the seismic and the
clinoforms are painted on the lower picture. This picture only illustrates the lower part of a
clinoform, the upper part is eroded.

Fig(3.8) Clinoforms

Fig (3.9) Clinoforms from dipline 2

16
3.2.4 Downlaps - A base-discordant relation in which relatively steeply inclined strata
terminates downdip against an older surface, which may be horizontal or shallowly inclined.
Downlap is associated with progradation. Prograding units may not terminate abruptly at the
downlap surface but extend basinwards as a thin veneer. As a result, the downlap surface is
associated with a condensed interval.

Downlap:
- Normally seen at the base of prograding clinoforms.
- Usually represents the progradation of a basin-margin slope system into deep water.
- A change from slope deposition to condensation or non-deposition.
- Very difficult to generate downlap in a nonmarine environment.

Marine downlap surfaces:


-Important surface is the top lowstand fan.
-Occurs at the base of the clinoforms of the lowstand prograding wedge.
-Facies below this downlap surface are basinal deposits.

Fig.(3.10) below illustrates an downlap and Fig. (3.11) is an example from our seismic, where
the downlap is marked with arrows.

Fig (3.10) Downlap, illustration from Schlumberger glossary

Fig (3.11) Downlaps from dipline 2

17
3.2.5 Onlap

The termination of shallow dipping, younger strata against more steeply dipping, older strata,
or the termination of low-angle reflections in seismic data against steeper reflections. Onlap is
a particular pattern of reflections in seismic data that, according to principles of sequence
stratigraphy, occurs during periods of transgression. This is illustrated in fig.(3.3) Fig.(3.12) is
an example from our seismic with the onlap marked on.

Fig (3.12)Onlap is marked on the picture. From dip line 4

3.2.6. Bowtie

A concave-upward event in seismic data produced by a buried focus and corrected by proper
migration of seismic data. The focusing of the seismic wave produces three reflection points
on the event per surface location. The name was coined for the appearance of the event in
unmigrated seismic data. Synclines, or sags, commonly generate bow ties. Fig. (3.13) is an
illustration of how bow-ties look, and how they are created. Fig. (3.14) is an example from
our seismic, where they are inside the red box.

18
Fig (3.13) Bowtie from Schlumberger glossary

Fig (3.14) (Dipline 4, SPN=1700, 1700 ms) It could be amplitude anomaly, “bow tie”

3.2.7. Probable mud volcanoes

It looks like very unstable material which was going to the top because of overburden
pressure.
Fig (3.15) and (3.16) may be related to the same unstable deposits.

19
Fig (3.15) (Dipline 4, SPN 828, 940ms)

Fig (3.16) it could be many small post- deposition faults which were created inside very
unstable deposits under overburden pressure. When we are looking on the map of these faults,
they could look like polygons (Dipline 4)

3.3. Hydrocarbon indicators

3.3.1 Gas chimney


A subsurface leakage of gas from a poorly sealed hydrocarbon accumulation. The gas can
cause overlying rocks to have a low velocity. Gas chimneys are visible in seismic data as
areas of poor data quality or push-downs. Fig. (3.18) is an illustration of a gas chimney.

20
Fig (3.17) Gas chimneys and their possible effects on gas-hydrate stability, illustration
from” www.nature.com/nature/journal”

Fig. (3.18) it could be gas chimneys, and can also illustrate shallow gas. From strike line
1.

21
3.3.2 Shallow gas
Gas that is trapped in the shallow sediments usually originates from deeper gas reservoirs but
can also come from biogenic activity in the shallow sediments. Shallow gas can only be
confidently interpreted from high resolution seismic data that has been digitally processed and
displayed in true amplitude. Fig.(3.18) can look like shallow gas, but we are not sure.

3.3.3. Flat spot


Discordant flat reflector (esp. gas/oil or oil/water contact) . May be large enough to give a
fairly strong flat reflection that may stand out on the seismic records.

Fig (3.19) DHI – Direct Hydrocarbons Indicators, illustration from a presentation of direct
hydrocarbon indicators.

22
Fig (3.20) It could be a flatspot (Dipline 6, SPN 2100.500 – 1800, 1630 ms)

3.4 Faults

3.4.1 Normal fault

The main type of fault in our area is the normal fault. This is defined as the hanging wall is
moving downwards and the footwall upwards. Most of the faults are truncating at the BCU.
Fig.(3.21) illustrates a normal fault, and fig.(3.20) is an example of a normal fault from dip
line 6, the fault looks like sealing fault.

Fig.(3.21) illustration of a normal fault from geomaps.

3.4.2 Listric fault

One fault type in our area is the listic fault. This is a curved normal faults in which the fault
surface is concave upwards; its dip decreases with depth. Hanging wall blocks are rotating
and slide along the fault plane. Fig.(3.22) illustrates the listric fault, and fig.(3.23) is a listric
fault from our seismic.

23
Fig.(3.22) Illustration of listric fault from geomaps.

Fig(3.23) A listric fault from dipline 6 is marked.

3.4.3 Synthetic fault

A type of minor fault whose sense of displacement is similar to its associated major fault.
Illustrated in fig.(3.24)

Fig (3.24) Illustrates synthetic fault. (dip line 4)

24
3.4.4 Antithetic fault

One of a set, whose sense of displacement is opposite to its associated major and synthetic
faults. Antithetic-synthetic fault sets are typical in areas of normal faulting. Is illustrated in
fig(3.25), and fig(3.23) is an example from our seismic.

Fig(3.25) Illustrates synthetic and antithetic faults.

4. Results of interpretation

We made some time contour maps which illustrates how our interpretation looks in
timedomain. This is illustrated in Fig. (4.1), (4.2) and (4.3)

Fig (4.1) Time contour map of horizon B.

25
Fig (4.2) Time contour map of horizon C.

Fig (4.3) Time contour map of horizon D.

26
Fig (4.4) Time map of horizon E

5. Epilogue

During this project we have learned a lot about the software SeisWorks and about seismic
interpretation. Least as important; we have observed how easily mistakes are done, and how
one little mistake can lead to big errors.

Seismic interpretation is a discipline you learn by doing, and the discipline it is in constant
change. It takes time to understand the geology of an area, and see the link between geology
and seismic. We learned a lot during this introduction to this discipline, but will need years
before we really learn it.

27
6. References
• http://www.bbm.me.uk/OU/S369/S369_SR_Glossary.pdf
• http://www.geofys.uu.se/cj/seis_strat/notes/pdf/seis_strat_interp_notes_web.pdf
• http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com
• http://www.bairdpetro.com/shallow_gas.htm
• http://www.npd.no/NR/rdonlyres/D9549B8C-F895-44AD-A1D9-
20375E5446A5/18093/ODsokkelkart2008GullfaksStatfjordSnorre.pdf
• Powerpoint presentation ”Introduction to Seismic Stratigraphy”. Geological Institute
in Krakow.
• www.nature.com/nature/journal
• M. Ter Voorde, R. Ravnas, R. Faerseth and S. Cloetingh (1997). Tectonic modeling of
the Middle Jurassic synrift stratigraphy in the Oseberg-Brage area, northern Viking
Graben. Basin Research (1997) 9, 137.
• Gislain B. Madiba and George A. McMechan (2003). Processing, inversion, and
interpretation of a 2D seismic data set from the North Viking Graben, North Sea.
GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 68, NO. 3 (MAY-JUNE 2003), 838-839
• Millenium Atlas, Petroleum Geology of Central and Northern North Sea.
• http://www.geologi.uio.no/for_skolen/jpn-oljerikdom.pdf
• http://homepages.see.leeds.ac.uk/~earsro/SOEE5154/All_Slides/SOEE5154_12-
Direct_Hydrocarbon_Indicators.pdf
• http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/deform/normalfault.gif
• http://www.geosci.usyd.edu.au/users/prey/Teaching/ACSGT/EReports/eR.2003/G
roupD/Report2/images/rollover%20anticline.gif
• http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/DisplayImage.cfm?ID=197

28