Seismic interpretation with new attributes extracted from a prestack multicube analysis
Olivier Voutay* and Frédérique Fournier, Institut Français du Pétrole, France
Jean-Jacques Royer, CNRS-CRPG, France
Summary
In this paper, we propose a multivariate statistical method
named Generalized Principal Component Analysis (GPCA)
that computes components describing relationships between
several sets of variables and also describing separately each
set, while reducing the number of significant variables.
GPCA is applied to three elastic parameters (P, S-
impedances and densities) obtained after a joint prestack
stratigraphic inversion of iso-angle cubes from a real
seismic data set. The components extracted from GPCA are
the new attributes representing the seismic character on the
reservoir window. These new attributes are used to filter
the initial parameters and are geologically interpreted with
a supervised pattern recognition algorithm. They appear
more relevant than more classical attributes extracted from
a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) applied to the same
data. First, the new attributes can be easily related to the
groups of variables and therefore physically interpreted.
Then, the three elastic parameters are better filtered
according to a more restricted number of attributes. Finally,
the geological interpretation is more stable and realistic
using the attributes extracted from GPCA.
Introduction
Lithoseismic interpretation is based on the analysis of
seismic attributes in order to extract geological and
reservoir properties from the seismic information. Standard
approaches involve pattern recognition and statistical
estimation techniques for calibrating relevant seismic
attributes with well information.
In the poststack domain, classical attributes are computed
from preserved amplitudes at the reservoir level, or from P-
impedances estimated with stratigraphic inversion. In the
prestack domain, the number of relevant attributes can
considerably increase. In this case, the attributes are either
raw amplitudes at different offsets or angles of incidence,
or parameters from a prestack stratigraphic inversion (P-
impedance, S-impedance, density, product of Lamé
parameters with density, …). A Principal Component
Analysis (PCA) can be applied to these attributes to analyse
their relationship and to reduce the number of significant
attributes. The principal components extracted from PCA
are new attributes which define an orthogonal basis of
vectors and are linear combinations of the initial ones. They
can be used in a pattern recognition algorithm, and
correspond to a multivariate filter of the initial seismic
information. But PCA does not take into account the notion
of groups of attributes and therefore, it is often difficult to
SEG International Exposition and 72nd Annual Meeting
give a physical interpretation to the principal components,
or to relate them clearly to the initial attributes.
This paper presents a multivariate statistical method, named
Generalized Principal Component Analysis (GPCA), that
allows to describe relations between several groups of
variables while summarizing each group (Casin, 2001). In a
second step, GPCA is applied to three elastic parameters P-
impedance, S-impedance and density obtained after a joint
prestack seismic inversion of iso-angle cubes from a real
data set. The three parameters are filtered according to a
restricted number of generalized principal components.
Finally, the generalized principal components are
geologically interpreted through seismic facies analysis
with a supervised pattern recognition algorithm.
Generalized Principal Component Analysis
Notations
Let X be a matrix of p juxtaposed tables Xj
X = {X1 ... X j ... X p } , X j = [X j,1 ... X j,k ... X j,m j ]
where Xj is a set of mj variables Xi,k of n observations. The
mj variables of a table Xj define a space denoted Sj and are
supposed centered. Let Dp be the diagonal matrix of
weights of observations.
Theory
The aim of the GPCA is both to describe proximities
between the p groups of variables and to describe
separately each group thanks to variables that are linear
combinations of initial ones. Thus, what is common to all
or to some groups, and therefore what is different, can be
found. GPCA allows to reduce the number of variables
used to describe a set of data and allows a multivariate
filtering. To reach this aim, the first component which is
computed, that we name Z(1), must be such that
(1) (1)
1. The p orthogonal projections Zj of Z on the spaces
Sj should be close to each other.
2. In each group j, the dispersion of the n points when
projected onto Zj(1) is maximum.
(1)
In other “words”, Z is computed such that
p
∑R 2 (1)
1. (Z(1) , Z j ) max
j=1
mj
∑ Cov (Z
2 (1)
2. ,X j,v ) max
v =1
j
Main Menu
 Seismic interpretation of new attributes

where R2 is the squared multiple correlation coefficient and performed. In prestack interpretation, we need to jointly
Zj(1) is the projection of Z(1) on the space Sj normalized to define the seismic character on 3 cubes: P, S-impedances
(2)
one. Then, another variable Z is searched under the same and densities. The GPCA technique is particularly suitable
criteria. An orthogonal condition between the projections of for analysing the series of time values within the reservoir
the Z(i) variables belonging to a same group is added. The window for each cube. Each series will correspond to a
process is stopped when an orthogonal basis in each space group Sj of 19 variables. Therefore, GPCA will allow to
Sj is found. The number of Z(i) variables does not exceed the summarize the respective shapes of P, S-impedances and
greatest dimension of Sj spaces. density on the reservoir window, while accounting for the
correlations between these parameters.
How to solve the problem ?
Results of GPCA
The first component Z(1) is the normalized eigenvector of
the covariance matrix XXtDp corresponding to the largest GPCA is applied to the three groups Ip, Is and Rho of 19
eigenvalue. Z(1) is projected on the p spaces and, in each variables each. Out of the 19 new attributes obtained, 13
space Sj, the regression of the mj variables by Zj(1) is ones are sufficient to explain 100% of the total variance.
(2)
computed. The matrix of the p juxtaposed residuals Xj Table 1 gathers the proportions of variance (in percentages)
(j=1…p) defines the new space of study. This new space is explained by the projections of the eight first components
the initial space from which the influence of Zj(1) has been in the three groups. These projections are sufficient to
withdrawn in each group Sj. The mj variables of a table Xj(2) explain 87.4% of the P-impedance variance, 94.4% of the
define a subspace Sj(2) of Sj. The second component Z(2) is S-impedance variance and 88.4% of the density variance.
the normalized eigenvector of the covariance matrix
X(2)X(2)tDp of the residuals corresponding to the largest Z
(1)
Z(2) Z(3) Z(4) Z(5) Z(6) Z(7) Z(8) Σ
eigenvalue. Z(2) is projected on the p spaces Sj(2). And the Ip 23.4 24.5 6.3 13.1 9.8 3.1 3.8 3.4 87.4
regression of the mj variables by Zj(2) is computed in each
Is 26.6 14.2 15.2 12.6 5.7 7.2 5.8 7.1 94.4
space Sj(2). The regression carried out in each space Sj
ensures that the projection of Z(2) onto the space Sj(2) is Rho 16.9 14.1 13.6 10.2 8.0 9.4 10.1 6.1 88.4
orthogonal to the projection of Z(1) onto the space Sj. Table 1: Proportion of variance explained by the projections of the
(i)
Z variables (%)
GPCA has two important properties: the Z(i) attributes
define an orthogonal basis and, when the number of groups Table 2 shows the degree of proximity between the Z(i)
equals one, GPCA is similar to PCA. The first property variables and their projections in each group. The more the
allows to analyse and to graphically represent the groups all value is close to one, the more Z(i) is close to its projection,
together, and the second property highlights the main and therefore to the corresponding group. For example, Z(1)
difference between GPCA and PCA. is very close to Is and close to Rho, but far from Ip,
whereas Z(2) is close to Ip, but far from Is and Rho. Out of
Application the first eight Z(i) components, three are close to Ip alone,
two are close to Is and Rho, one is close to Is alone and two
Data Description are close to Rho alone. Thus, Ip and Is do not contain the
same information and a part of information contained in the
This study takes place in a deep-offshore turbiditic Is and Rho groups seems to be common.
environment. The seismic data under study are three cubes
(1)
of P-impedance (Ip), S-impedance (Is) and density (Rho) Z Z(2) Z(3) Z(4) Z(5) Z(6) Z(7) Z(8)
obtained after a joint prestack elastic inversion of 5 iso- Ip 0.48 0.79 0.38 0.72 0.71 0.24 0.02 0.30
angle cubes from a 3D seismic survey (Tonnellot et al., Is 0.91 0.43 0.86 0.53 0.36 0.59 0.09 0.73
2001). The reservoir area corresponds to 141 lines and 251 0.78 0.49 0.77 0.46 0.65 0.79 0.96 0.46
CDP. Three wells named W1 to W3 are available, W3 Rho
(i)
being deviated. Seismic facies analysis will be performed Table 2: Squared correlation between the Z variables and their
on a 38ms constant time window (19 time samples) projections
corresponding to the reservoir interval and defined from the
reservoir top seismic horizon. Classically, in the poststack For comparison, PCA was applied to all the variables
seismic facies interpretation, the seismic character is considered together (19×3=57 variables). 10 principal
captured by the series of impedances (or amplitudes) components are needed to explain 74% of the total
corresponding to the different time samples within the variance, and 28 to explain 100%. Therefore, GPCA
reservoir window. Before the seismic facies analysis, a appears more efficient than PCA to reduce the number of
PCA can be applied to the impedance series in order to relevant parameters. Moreover, the principal components
compact/filter this seismic information. In that case, the cannot be related clearly to the Ip or Is groups, and we do
principal components are the new attributes representing not know how much of each group can be filtered by the
the seismic character, and on which the facies analysis is different components.

SEG International Exposition and 72nd Annual Meeting Main Menu

 Seismic interpretation of new attributes

Multivariate filtering
The three parameters Ip, Is and Rho can be reconstituted
with a small number of components - or new attributes -
extracted after GPCA. Figures 1 and 2 show the initial
values, the filtered values with eight components of GPCA
and the corresponding residuals of Ip and Is for the line
going through the well W2. The filtered Ip and Is are very
close to their corresponding initial values. This is
confirmed by the small values of residuals.
W2 CDP
1 40 65 90
0 200
Time (ms)
turbidites has been defined near W3. Moreover, no well is
available for the hemipelagic environment that exists in the
studied area: another virtual well corresponding to this
geological facies has been added. Figure 3 shows the
location of the three classes of training traces
corresponding to the geological a priori. Each class consists
of 121 traces (11×11). The traces around well W2 are used
for defining class 1 training samples. Well W1 traces
(class1 also) are left out of the training process for a blind
test purpose. Line
250
W1
115 140 165

(a) Class 1 : sand turbidites

Class 2 : mud turbidites
36 C 150
Class 3 : hemipelagite
0 D
Time (ms)

P 100
(b)
500 meters
36
50 W3

< 3500 4550

3
≥5600 W2
(g/cm . m/s)
0 1
10 50 90 130
Time (ms)

(c) Fig. 3: location of training samples for supervised analysis

36
The results of facies analysis are presented on figure 4. The
< -300 0
3
≥300 seismic facies map on the left shows that the well W1 is
(g/cm . m/s)
correctly assigned to the same facies than the well W2. The
Fig. 1: (a) Ip, (b) filtered Ip, (c) Ip residuals
well W3 is located at the border between the facies 1 and 2,
W2 CDP
1 40 65 90 115 140
which also makes sense. The facies 2 is distributed along a
165
0 channel-shape lineament. The map on the right of the figure
Time (ms)

(a) shows that the results are stable: few traces have a
36 probability of assignment less than 80%. Very similar
0 results were obtained by using the well W1 as a training
Time (ms)

well and the well W2 as a blind test.

(b)
36 Line Line
250 250
< 1400 2150 ≥2900 W1
3
(g/cm . m/s)
0 200 200
Time (ms)

(c)
36
150 150
C
< -200 0 ≥200
3
(g/cm . m/s) D
P
Fig. 2 : (a) Is, (b) filtered Is , (c) Is residuals 100 100

Supervised seismic facies analysis

50 W3 50
Using the eight first components from GPCA as new
seismic attributes, seismic facies are detected based on a W2
1 1
supervised pattern recognition approach. The seismic facies 10 50 90 130 10 50 90 130
are thus defined from the simultaneous analysis of P, S and 500 meters
Rho characteristics at the reservoir level, as they are Fig. 4: supervised approach - GPCA – Facies map (left) - Facies
captured by the GPCA components. The supervised map with good assignment ≥ 80% (right)
approach is based on discriminant analysis. A priori
geological information is introduced in the facies detection Figure 5 shows the typical traces associated with the 3
through seismic traces in the vicinities of typical wells. In seismic facies. These traces are defined in terms of vertical
the case under study, the two wells W1 and W2 show close variations of P, S-impedances and densities within the
geological characteristics: they correspond to sand reservoir interval. Actually, these typical traces correspond
turbidites. The well W3 corresponds to fine-grained and to the median of the traces assigned to a same seismic
mud turbidites. But its location is not totally certain (highly facies. The P-impedance shape is very different from one
deviated well). A virtual well corresponding to the mud facies to another. It is also the case but to a less extend, of

SEG International Exposition and 72nd Annual Meeting Main Menu

 Seismic interpretation of new attributes

the S-impedance and density shapes. This illustrates that border between the red, blue and orange facies. This
the three parameters fully participate to the seismic facies convergence of results is another validation of the
identification. supervised interpretation.
Top of
0
4500 5000 4500 5000 4500 5000 2000 2500 2000 2500 2000 2500 2.2 2.25 2.2 2.25 2.2 2.25 Line Line
reservoir 250 250
W1
8

200 200
Time (ms)

18

150 150
28 C
D
P
36 100 100
Ip Is Rho
(g/cm3 . m/s) (g/cm3 . m/s) (g/cm3)
50 W3 50
Fig. 5: median traces of Ip, Is, Rho per facies
W2
1 1
For comparison, a supervised facies analysis using the ten 10 50 90 130 10 50 90 130
first principal components from PCA was carried out. The 500 meters
results are shown on figure 6. The facies map obtained (left Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5
of figure 6) is not as satisfying as the facies map based on
Fig. 7: unsupervised approach - GPCA – Facies map (left) –
the GPCA components. Some traces are assigned to facies Facies map with good assignment ≥ 80% (right)
2 whereas facies 3 was expected (for example in the north-
west of the map). Too few traces are assigned to the sand
Conclusions
turbidites in the north of the map, particularly around well
W1. Also, the results are not very stable, with several large
We have presented a multivariate statistical method named
homogeneous areas showing very low probabilities of good
Generalized Principal Components Analysis (GPCA) that
assignment. Especially, the well W1 is assigned to facies 2
allows to describe relations between several groups of
rather than to facies 1, with a probability of good
variables while summarizing each group. The components
assignment of 34% only.
can be easily related to the groups, and therefore physically
Line Line
250 250 interpreted. The initial variables can also be filtered with a
W1 small number of relevant components. The application to
multicube seismic data shows that our method is more
200 200
efficient than a classic PCA to reduce the number of
significant variables and that the geological interpretation
150 150 of the new attributes extracted from GPCA is more stable
C and realistic. This method can be applied to all types of
D
P
multicube data: 3D iso-offset or iso-angle surveys, prestack
100 100 parameters or 4D surveys. In the last case, GPCA would
allow to take into account the correlation structure within
W3
several surveys acquired at different calendar times and the
50 50
relationships between these surveys.
W2
1 1 References
10 50 90 130 10 50 90 130

500 meters
Fig. 6: supervised approach - PCA - Facies map (left) - Facies
Casin, Ph., 2001, A generalization of principal component
map with good assignment ≥ 80% (right)
analysis to K sets of variables, Computational Statistics &
Data Analysis, 35, 417-428.
Finally, an unsupervised pattern recognition approach was
run for defining the seismic facies. It uses the same Tonellot, T., Macé, D. and Richard, V., 2001, Joint
attributes than for the unsupervised analysis : eight first stratigraphic inversion of angle-limited stacks, 71st Ann.
components from GPCA. The facies map presented on the Internat. Mtg.: Soc. Of Expl. Geophys., 227-230.
left of figure 7 is very close to the map obtained with the
supervised approach. The blue facies mainly seems to have Acknowledgements
been divided in three facies: the dark blue, the light blue
and the green facies. The wells W1 and W2 are assigned to We want to thank TotalFinaElf for permission to present
the same facies, and the well W3 is still located at the these results.

SEG International Exposition and 72nd Annual Meeting Main Menu