Seismic Attributes for Stratigraphic Feature Characterization

Satinder Chopra*
Arcis Corporation, Calgary, AB
[email protected]

and

Kurt Marfurt
University of Oklahoma, Norman, TX, United States

Summary / Introduction
Among the various geophysical techniques available for characterizing faults/fractures and other
subtle stratigraphic features, 3D seismic attributes are particualrly useful for identifying these
features and zones amenable to fractures that fall below seismic resolution. A very useful feature of
3D seismic is the fine sampling of data over the region of interest, giving a more accurate
representation of the areal extent of the features. Also, while seismic amplitude changes associated
with the features of interest may not be readily noticeable on vertical sections, horizontal sections
(time or horizon slices) may yield distinctive patterns that the human interpreter is able to recognize
and associate with well-established geologic models… Through such models, seismic attributes
allow an interpreter to reconstruct a paleo depositional environment and/or deformation history. In
this paper we discuss the application of poststack attributes for detection of faults and fractures.
Dip-magnitude, dip-azimuth and coherence attributes have been used for the detection of
faults/fractures and other stratigraphic features for the past 10-15 years. We will demonstrate the
how volumetric curvature, which measures lateral changes in dip and azimuth provide additional
insight.
Discontinuity attributes
Seismic attributes that highlight discontinuities in the seismic data are useful for fault and fracture
characterization.
Dip-magnitude and dip-azimuth
Rijks and Jaufred (1991) showed that horizon-based dip-magnitude and dip-azimuth are useful in
delineating subtle faults whose displacements measure only a fraction of a seismic wavelet. A
skilled interpreter recognizes alignments of such subtle offsets in map view as being either faults or
artifacts.
Coherence
Bahorich and Farmer (1995) introduced the coherence attribute which computes coherence
coefficients from seismic amplitudes on adjacent traces using a crosscorrelation technique.

AAPG Search and Discovery Article #90170©2013 CSPG/CSEG/CWLS GeoConvention 2008, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, May 12-15, 2008
Subsequent algorithms based on semblance and eigenstructure led to more accurate coherence
computation than initially demonstarted.
The coherence images clearly reveal buried deltas, river channels, reefs and dewatering features.
The remarkable detail with which stratigraphic features show up on coherence displays, with no
interpretation bias and some previously unidentifiable even with close scrutiny, appeal to
interpreters.
Example: In Figures 1a and b, we show a comparison horizon slices 36 ms below a flattened
marker extracted through the seismic amplitude and coherence volumes. The coherence volume
was generated using a semblance algorithm.. Notice the clarity with which the channel system
stands out on the coherence display, which would be difficult to decipher from the seismic alone.
Curvature
Lisle (1994) demonstrated the correlation of a curvature measure (Gaussian) with open fractures
measured on outcrops. Though the exact relationship between the open fractures, paleostructure
and present-day stress is not yet clearly understood, different (Roberts, 2001; Hart et al., 2002;
Sigismondi and Soldo, 2003; Massafero et al., 2003) have demonstrated the use of seismic
measures of reflector curvature to map subtle features and predict fractures. A significant
advancement in this direction has been the multispectral volumetrjc computation of curvature (Al-
Dossary and Marfurt, 2006). By first estimating the volumetric reflector dip and azimuth that
represents the best single dip for each sample in the volume , followed by computation of curvature
from adjacent measures of dip and azimuth, a full 3D volume of curvature values is produced.
There are many curvature measures that can be computed, but the most-positive and most-
negative curvature measures are perhaps the most useful in that they tend to correlate most directly
with conventional interpretation work flows. An attractive feature of curvature computation is the
ability to be able to perform multi-spectral analysis of curvature which depicts different features at
different scales of analysis (Chopra and Marfurt, 2007).
Example : Figure 2 shows a comparison of chair displays with the seismic profiles (vertical)
intersecting the coherence, most-positive and most-negative curvature volumes, for a 3D seismic
volume from Alberta. Notice that while the coherence display is featureless in the areas of high
coherence (white) areas, the most-positive curvature shows the fault/fracture detail at that level. Any
interpretation carried out on the curvature attribute needs to be correlated with the seismic, to make
sure that the attribute makes geologic sense, which is why these chair displays werte created. In
Figure 3 we show a chair display for seismic (vertical) and a time slice from the most positive and
negative curvature volumes. The localized fault/fracture detail seen on the curvature displays is
more than seen on the coherence and can also be clearly be correlated with the seismic.
Conclusions
Seismic attributes are very useful for characterization of faults and fractures in 3D seismic data
volumes. Coherence measure lateral changes in waveform. Sobel filters measure lateral changes in
amplitude. Curvature measures lateral changes in dip and azimuth. In general, which attribute best
illuminates a given geologic feature depends as much on the underlying geologic textures and
lithologies as on the seismic data quality. However, we find that most-positive and most-negative
curvature attributes offer provide better illumination of faults and fractures than other attributes.
Acknowledgements

We thank Rally Energy, Calgary for the show right for images in Figure 3 and also thank Arcis
Corporation for the permission to publish and present this work.

AAPG Search and Discovery Article #90170©2013 CSPG/CSEG/CWLS GeoConvention 2008, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, May 12-15, 2008
References
Al-Dossary, S., and K. J. Marfurt, 2006, 3D volumetric multispectral estimates of reflector curvature and rotation: Geophysics,71,
no. 5, P41–P51.
Bahorich, M. S., and S. L. Farmer, 1995, 3-D seismic discontinuity for faults and stratigraphic features: The coherence cube: The
Leading Edge, 14, 1053–1058.
Chopra, S., 2002, Coherence cube and beyond: First Break, 20, 27–33.
Chopra, S., and K. J. Marfurt, 2007, Multispectral volumetric curvature adding value to 3D seismic data interpretation: Presented at
the CSPG/CSEG Convention.
Gersztenkorn, A., and K. J. Marfurt, 1999, Eigenstructure-based coherence computations as an aid to 3-D structural and
stratigraphic mapping: Geophysics, 64, 1468–1479.
Hart, B. S., R. Pearson, and G. C. Rawling, 2002, 3-D seismic horizon-based approaches to fracture-swarm sweet spot definition
in tight-gas reservoirs: The Leading Edge, 21, 28–35.
Lisle, R. J., 1994, Detection of zones of abnormal strains in structures using Gaussian curvature analysis: AAPG Bulletin, 78,
1811–1819.
Marfurt, K. J., R. L. Kirlin, S. L. Farmer, and M. S. Bahorich, 1998, 3-D seismic attributes using a semblance-based coherency
algorithm: Geophysics, 63, 1150–1165.
Marfurt, K. J., V. Sudhaker, A. Gersztenkorn, K. D. Crawford, and S. E. Nissen, 1999, Coherency calculations in the presence of
structural dip: Geophysics, 64, 104–111.
Masaferro, J. L., M. Bulnes, J. Poblet, and M. Casson, 2003, Kinematic evolution and fracture prediction of the Valle Morado
structure inferred from 3-D seismic data, Salta Province, northwest Argentina: Bulletin, 87, 1083–1104.
Rijks, E. J. H., and J. C. E. M. Jauffred, 1991, Attribute extraction: An important application in any detailed 3-D interpretation study:
The Leading Edge, 10, 11–19.
Roberts, A., 2001, Curvature attributes and their application to 3-D interpreted horizons: First Break, 19, 85–99.
Sigismondi, M., and J. C. Soldo, 2003, Curvature attributes and seismic interpretation: Case studies from Argentina basins: The
Leading Edge, 22, 1122–1126.

Figure 1: Horizon slices 36 ms below a flattened marker through (a) a seismic data volume from northern
Alberta, (b) the computed coherence volume Notice that as compared with the amplitude slice, the coherence
slice very nicely shows the channel system at this level. (Data courtesy of Arcis Corporation, Calgary)

AAPG Search and Discovery Article #90170©2013 CSPG/CSEG/CWLS GeoConvention 2008, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, May 12-15, 2008
 Figure 2: Chair displays showing seismic profiles intersecting (a) coherence, (b) most-positive curvature, and (c) most-negative
curvature strat-cubes. Notice that except the prominent ones, the fault indications seen on the seismic are not revealing enough
on the coherence strat-cube. The most-positive curvature (Figure 2b and most-negative curvature strat-cubes however indicate
the fault information, the red lineaments (on the most-positive curvature display) and the blue lineaments (most-negative curvature
display), show the upthrown and the downthrown signatures on these displays.. (Data courtesy of Arcis Corporation, Calgary)

Figure 3: Chair displays showing seismic profiles intersecting (a) coherence, (b) most-positive curvature, and
(c) most-negative curvature time slices. Notice the fault/fracture detail seen on the curvature displays is a lot
more than seen on the coherence display. (Data courtesy of Rally Energy, Calgary)

AAPG Search and Discovery Article #90170©2013 CSPG/CSEG/CWLS GeoConvention 2008, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, May 12-15, 2008