Potential risks when using seismic attributes
as predictors of reservoir properties
Downloaded 08/10/13 to 128.83.63.20. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
CYNTHIA T. KALKOMEY, Mobil E&P Technical Center, Dallas, Texas
T he advance of our ability to generate seismic attrib-
utes and the growing emphasis on production geo-
physics has led to the widespread use of seismic attrib-
utes as predictors of reservoir properties. In many
cases, we can show — using seismic modeling or rock
physics — a physically justifiable relationship between
a seismic attribute and the reservoir property of inter-
est. When this is true, we are able to greatly reduce
the uncertainty of interwell predictions of reservoir
properties.
The simple flow diagram in Figure 1 illustrates the
basic process. The first critically important step is accu-
rately tying the well and seismic — both vertically and
areally. We then must choose which seismic attributes
we believe to be related to the reservoir property. Using
that attribute or set of attributes, we use the dense seis-
mic data to guide the prediction of reservoir properties
between sparse well data. A number of methods can be
used for the prediction step — linear or nonlinear
regression, geostatistics, or neural networks. The pur-
pose is estimating in-place hydrocarbon volumes or
making reservoir management decisions — such as
location and number of wells, depletion strategy, or gas
and water injection operations. The problem with the
process is: How do we identify which seismic attribut-
es to use?
The problem. All of the prediction methods (regres-
sion, geostatistics, and neural networks) require mak-
ing inference from seismic data at a small number of
wells to a larger population which we assume is rep-
Figure 1. Simple flow diagram showing use of seismic
attributes to predict reservoir properties.
resented by that sample. Enthusiastic practitioners can
now generate 10s — even 100s — of seismic attributes.
An all too common practice is identifying which seis-
mic attributes to use solely on the strength of their
observed correlations with reservoir properties mea-
sured at the wells. Often these correlations are esti-
mated by a very small number of observations. As with
any parameter, when the sample size is small, the
uncertainty about the value of the true correlation can
be quite large.
To get an idea of how large this uncertainty can be,
consider a sample correlation (r) of 0.80 calculated from
10 data points. The 95% confidence interval estimate of
the true correlation is [0.34, 0.95]. The only statement
we can make with (95%) confidence is that the true cor-
relation between the reservoir property and seismic
attribute is between 0.34 and 0.95. If we have only five
data points instead of 10, the 95% confidence interval
widens to [-0.28, 0.99]. Since this interval contains zero,
we cannot say with confidence that there is any corre-
lation between the reservoir property and the seismic
attribute.
Most practitioners are already aware that the small-
er the sample, the greater the uncertainty about the
true value of the correlation. A lesser known phenom-
ena is something statisticians call experiment-wise
error rates. This just means that as we generate an ever
increasing number of attributes, the greater the chance
of observing at least one spuriously large sample cor-
relation. You can get the idea of this if you consider an
experiment where you draw a small number of obser-
vations from two completely unrelated variables —
say the annual birthrate of elephants and pounds con-
sumed of a food substance. If we randomly select five
years and observe the birthrate of elephants and
pounds of sugar consumed, we would probably cor-
rectly infer that there is no relationship between the
two variables. But if we continue to test this for all pos-
sible food types, by chance alone we will likely find at
least one food type that appears, on the basis of the
sample correlation, to be related to the birthrate of ele-
phants. When this happens, we say we’ve encoun-
tered a spurious correlation.
Definition: A spurious correlation is a sample
correlation that is large in absolute value purely by
chance.
For seismic attributes and reservoir properties this
means we have happened to sample at locations that
yield a large sample correlation when in truth they are
MARCH 1997 THE LEADING EDGE 247
 Table 1. Probability of spurious correlation between a measurements of both the reservoir property and the
reservoir property and a single seismic attribute seismic attribute, and t is distributed as a Student’s t
variate with n-2 degrees of freedom.
Sample size Note that the probability of a spurious sample cor-
relation depends only on R (the magnitude of the spu-
R 5 10 15 20 25 35 50 75 100 rious sample correlation) and n (the number of well
0.1 0.87 0.78 0.72 0.67 0.63 0.57 0.49 0.39 0.32 measurements). An assumption of this relationship is
0.2 0.75 0.58 0.47 0.40 0.34 0.25 0.16 0.09 0.05 that the n observations are drawn randomly. The rea-
0.3 0.62 0.40 0.28 0.20 0.15 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.00 son for a random sample is to insure that the sample
Downloaded 08/10/13 to 128.83.63.20. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

0.4 0.50 0.25 0.14 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 is representative of the population under study and
0.5 0.39 0.14 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 that the amount of independent information available
0.6 0.28 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.7 0.19 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
to estimate the true correlation is maximized. If in fact
0.8 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 the data are spatially correlated, the relationship gives
0.9 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a conservative estimate of the probability of a spurious
correlation. This is because the effective sample size will
be smaller than the actual sample size; and as n
actually uncorrelated. How likely is it that this could decreases, the probability of a spurious correlation
occur? increases. Table 1 shows the probability of observing
a spurious correlation for different magnitudes of the
Probability of observing a spurious correlation. Con- sample correlation (R) and different sample sizes (n).
sider a single seismic attribute as a possible predictor. Now that we’ve quantified the probability of a spu-
The probability of observing the absolute value of the rious correlation when considering a single seismic
sample correlation (r) greater than some constant (R) attribute, we can calculate the probability of at least one
given the true correlation (r) is zero can be found from spurious correlation when considering a set of k inde-
pendent attributes. The probability of observing at least
æ R n-2ö
( )
p sc = Pr r ³ R = Prç t ³ ÷
one spurious correlation when considering a set of k
independent attributes is simply 1 minus the probabili-
è 1- R2 ø
ty that none of the sample correlations are spurious. This
where n is the sample size or number of locations with can be expanded to the summation

Tables 2-5. Probability of observing at least one spurious sample correlation from a
given number of independent seismic attributes.

Table 2. Five independent seismic attributes Table 3. Ten independent seismic attributes

Sample size Sample size

R 5 10 15 20 25 35 50 75 100 R 5 10 15 20 25 35 50 75 100
0.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.92 0.86 0.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98
0.2 1.00 0.99 0.96 0.92 0.87 0.76 0.59 0.36 0.21 0.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.94 0.83 0.59 0.38
0.3 0.99 0.92 0.80 0.67 0.54 0.34 0.16 0.04 0.01 0.3 1.00 0.99 0.96 0.89 0.79 0.57 0.29 0.09 0.02
0.4 0.97 0.77 0.53 0.34 0.22 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.4 1.00 0.95 0.78 0.57 0.39 0.16 0.04 0.00 0.00
0.5 0.92 0.53 0.26 0.12 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.5 0.99 0.78 0.45 0.22 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.6 0.81 0.29 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.6 0.96 0.50 0.17 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.7 0.65 0.12 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.7 0.88 0.22 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.8 0.42 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.8 0.67 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.9 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.9 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Table 4. Twenty independent seismic attributes Table 5. Forty independent seismic attributes

Sample size Sample size

R 5 10 15 20 25 35 50 75 100 R 5 10 15 20 25 35 50 75 100
0.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.83 0.61 0.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.85
0.3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.96 0.81 0.50 0.16 0.05 0.3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.75 0.30 0.09
0.4 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.81 0.62 0.29 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.86 0.50 0.15 0.01 0.00
0.5 1.00 0.95 0.70 0.39 0.20 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.5 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.63 0.36 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00
0.6 1.00 0.75 0.31 0.10 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.6 1.00 0.94 0.52 0.19 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.7 0.98 0.39 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.7 1.00 0.62 0.14 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.8 0.89 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.8 0.99 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.9 0.53 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.9 0.78 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

248 THE LEADING EDGE MARCH 1997

Downloaded 08/10/13 to 128.83.63.20. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
a)
Figure 2. Probability of observing at least one spurious sample correlation of magnitude (a) Æ 0.6, and (b) Æ 0.4
when actually the well data and seismic attributes are uncorrelated.
Figure 3. Possible outcomes when selecting a seismic
attribute as a predictor of a reservoir property.
k
( i -1)
1 - (1 - p sc ) = å p sc (1 - p sc )
k
i =1
where psc is the probability of a spurious correlation for
a single attribute and k is the number of independent
seismic attributes considered.
From the summation we can see that the penalty for
increasing the number of attributes considered from k-1
to k is
( k -1)
p sc (1 - p sc ) . shows the probability of observing at least one sample
Tables 2-5 give the probability of observing a spuri-
ous sample correlation for one or more seismic attrib-
utes from a set of k = 5, 10, 20, and 40 independent
attributes. Each table gives the probability of observing
a sample correlation greater than or equal to 0.1 to 0.9
when the reservoir property is actually uncorrelated
with the attributes, given a sample size of 5, 10, 15, 20,
25, 35, 50, 75, or 100. Note, we are assuming that the
seismic attributes are independent. If in fact the attrib-
utes considered are correlated with each other, then the
probabilities of observing at least one spurious correla-
tion shown in the tables will be too large. This is because
the effective number of independent seismic attributes will
be smaller than the actual number of attributes consid-
ered and as k decreases, the probability of at least one
b)
spurious correlation decreases. To avoid this, one
should use the table where k equals the number of inde-
pendent linear combinations of the set of seismic attrib-
utes considered.
These tables can be used to assess the risk of select-
ing a seismic attribute that is actually uncorrelated with
the reservoir property being predicted. For example,
look at the column headed 5 and row labeled 0.60 of
Table 3. We see that, given we have only five well mea-
surements, there is a 96% chance of observing a sample
correlation coefficient of 0.60 for at least one of the 10
seismic attributes considered, when no correlation actu-
ally exists between the attributes and the property. If we
double the number of wells to 10, the probability of at
least one spurious correlation of magnitude 0.6 or more
drops to 0.50.
What happens if we increase the number of inde-
pendent seismic attributes considered from 10 to 20?
Table 4 shows that the chance of observing at least one
sample correlation of 0.60 or more in absolute value
from a sample of size five, when no correlation actually
exists between the attributes and the reservoir property,
is almost 100% (it’s actually 0.999). Even if we double the
number of wells to 10, in this case there is still a 75%
chance of at least one spurious correlation.
Factors influencing the probability of a spurious cor-
relation. Figure 2 reveals the factors that influence the
probability of observing spurious correlations. Figure 2a
correlation greater than or equal to 0.6 when the actual
correlation is zero. Figure 2b presents the same results
for an observed sample correlation of 0.4.
From Figure 2, we see that the probability of observ-
ing one or more spurious correlation increases as
• the number of independent well measurements
decreases, or
• the number of independent seismic attributes con-
sidered as potential predictors increases, or
• the absolute value of the observed sample correla-
tion decreases.
Associated risks. Statistical decision theory defines risk
as the expected loss due to our uncertainty about the true
state of nature under the possible decision alternatives
or actions. Figure 3 illustrates the possible outcomes
which must be considered in order to assess the risk
MARCH 1997 THE LEADING EDGE 249
Downloaded 08/10/13 to 128.83.63.20. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

a) b)
Figure 4. Scatter plot of porosity versus seismic ampli-
tude at the 10 well locations. Figure 5. True spatial distributions. (a) True distribu-
tion of porosity ranging from 0 (dark blue) to 20%
(red). Well locations are indicated are indicated by
black dots. (b) Seismic attribute over the same area.
p
o
r
o
s
i
t
y

a) b)
seismic attribute
Figure 8. Estimation errors. (a) Areas overestimated by
Figure 6. (above) more than five porosity units. (b) Areas underestimat-
Scatter plot of ed by more than five porosity units.
porosity versus
seismic amplitude requires additional assumptions about the true magni-
at all tude of the correlation between the well property and
locations. the seismic attribute.) To quantitatively assess risk, we
would have to assign the cost or economic consequence
of each of the four possible outcomes. The costs will
obviously be situation dependent; however, we can gen-
Figure 7. (right) eralize the cost in a qualitative sense.
Estimate of poros- The cost of a Type I Error (using a seismic attribute
ity generated to predict a reservoir property when actually uncorre-
using collocated lated) is:
cokriging with the • Inaccurate prediction biased by the attribute.
seismic attribute • Inflated confidence in the inaccurate prediction —
as the covariate. apparent prediction errors are small.

associated with choosing seismic attributes to predict a
reservoir properties.
A Type I Error occurs if no relationship truly exists
between the seismic attribute and the reservoir proper-
ty of interest, yet we select the seismic attribute as a pre-
dictor. A Type II Error occurs if a physical relationship
does exist between the seismic attribute and the reser-
voir property of interest, but we fail to use the seismic
attribute as a predictor.
The previous section quantified the probability of a
Type I Error occurring when the selection criteria is
based solely on the magnitude of the sample correlation
between a seismic attribute and a reservoir property.
(Calculating the probability of a Type II Error occurring
The cost of a Type II Error (rejecting a seismic attribute
for use in predicting a reservoir property when in fact
they are truly correlated) is:
• Less accurate prediction than if we’d used the seismic
attribute.
• Larger prediction errors than if we’d used the attribute.
I believe that for most cases the economic conse-
quences of making highly confident but inaccurate pre-
dictions are more severe than the consequences of a Type
II Error.
A simple example. To illustrate the consequences of a
Type I Error, consider a simple example. Suppose you
have measurements of porosity and a seismic attribute

250 THE LEADING EDGE MARCH 1997

 extracted at 10 wells. Figure 4 shows a scatter plot of
porosity versus the seismic attribute with a sample cor-
relation of 0.82. It could be very tempting to proceed
with the prediction using this relationship.
The true spatial distribution of porosity over the
area is shown in Figure 5a; Figure 5b shows a seismic
attribute over the same area. If we look at the complete
scatter plot over the entire area shown in Figure 6 we
see a shotgun pattern indicating the true correlation of
Downloaded 08/10/13 to 128.83.63.20. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
zero. By happenstance, the field has been drilled in
locations which makes it appear that there is a strong
relationship between this attribute and porosity when
in fact there is none. We have observed a spurious sam-
ple correlation.
If we use this attribute for prediction, our resulting
estimate of porosity will bear a strong resemblance to
the seismic attribute — regardless of whether we used
regression, geostatistics or neural networks. Figure 7
shows such an estimate, generated using collocated
cokriging.
This prediction results in large actual estimation
errors. Figure 8a highlights areas where the porosity is
overestimated by 5-12 porosity units. Figure 8b shows
areas where the porosity is underestimated by 5 -12
porosity units. As you can imagine, drilling locations
chosen on the basis of this prediction will be less than
optimal. This could also be disastrous for other reser-
voir management decisions. For example, if an injec-
tion strategy was designed on the basis of this predic-
tion, it would likely be chosen about 90˚ from the opti-
mal orientation.
Conclusions. There are two main points to remember
from this work. First, the probability of observing spu-
rious sample correlations between a seismic attribute
and well data can be quite large if the number of inde-
pendent well measurements is small or the number of
independent attributes considered is large.
Secondly, when the probability of a spurious cor-
relation is large, then selection of seismic attributes
based solely on empirical evidence is risky — it can
lead to highly confident, but highly inaccurate predic-
tions and thus poor business decisions. Therefore, it is
strongly recommended, especially when the number
of wells is small, that only those seismic attributes
that have a physically justifiable relationship with
the reservoir property be considered as candidates for
predictors. LE
Cynthia Kalkomey received a doctorate in statistics from Southern
Methodist University (1991). She joined Mobil in 1979 and is cur-
rently manager of Reservoir Characterization, Mobil Exploration and
Producing Technical Center.
Corresponding author: Cynthia Kalkomey, Mgr., Reservoir Char-
acterization, Mobil Exploration and Producing Technical Center,
13777 Midway Rd., Dallas, TX 75244; phone 972-851-8598; fax
972-851-8703.
MARCH 1997 THE LEADING EDGE 251