Seismic Attribute Mapping of Structure

and Stratigraphy
Kurt J. Marfurt (University of Oklahoma)

Attribute Expression of Tectonic Deformation

6a-1
 Course Outline
Introduction
Complex Trace, Horizon, and Formation Attributes
Multiattribute Display
Spectral Decomposition

Geometric Attributes
Attribute Expression of Geology

Impact of Acquisition and Processing on Attributes

Attributes Applied to Offset- and Azimuth-Limited Volumes
Structure-Oriented Filtering and Image Enhancement
Inversion for Acoustic and Elastic Impedance

Multiattribute Analysis Tools

Reservoir Characterization Workflows
3D Texture Analysis

6a-2
 Attribute expression of tectonic deformation

After this section you should be able to:

• Use coherence to accelerate the interpretation of faults on 3-D

volumes,

• Use volumetric attributes to provide a preliminary interpretation

across multiple surveys having different amplitude and phase,

• Identify the appearance and structural style of salt and shale

diapirs on geometric attributes,

• Use curvature to define axial planes, and

• Use coherence and curvature as an aid to predicting fractures.

6a-3
 N

Growth faults, Gulf of Mexico

W E

Moderate
West dip

Gentle
North
Gentle dip
South
Moderate
Dip
Southeast
dip

Northeast
dip

West East
6a-4
 N
Growth faults, Gulf of Mexico
W E
0
S

2
Time (s)

6
6a-5
 Identification of faults (Gulf of Mexico, USA)

Salt

Salt

6a-6
 Identification of faults (Alberta, Canada)

6a-7
 Identification of faults and stratigraphy
(Gulf of Mexico, USA)

1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0

2.0 2.0
Time (s)

Time (s)
1.0 1.0

3.0 3.0
2.0 2.0

4.0 4.0
3.0 3.0
5 km

5 km
‘Ban
ding
’
Seismic Coherence
Faults
‘Stratigraphy’
6a-8
 Attribute imaging of faults and flexures

6a-9
 Idealized
growth Idealized
fault strike-slip
fault

Fault seen on Fault not seen

curvature. on curvature.
Seen on Seen on
coherence. coherence.
6a-10
 Fault with Fault with
minimal finite
offset offset

Fault seen on Fault seen on

curvature. coherence.
Not seen on Not seen on
coherence. curvature.
6a-11
 Folds and Infilled
flexures grabens

‘Fault’ seen Fault seen on coherence

on curvature. at depth. Infill/collapse
Not seen on seen on curvature
coherence. shallow.
6a-12
 Basinwide Regional Interpretation across
Heterogeneous Seismic Surveys

6a-13
 Time/structure map of heterogeneous surveys

Time (s)
0.8
10 km

N 1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

Central Basin
Platform,
Texas, USA
Top Devonian

6a-14
 Coherence time slice on heterogeneous surveys

Coh
10 km 1.0

0.8
Central Basin
Platform,
Texas, USA
t=1.0 s

(Data courtesy
of BP, OXY,
6a-15 Burlington)
 A large regional survey

Texas
Louisiana

East
Cameron Eugene Island
West
Vermillion
Cameron South
Marsh Ship Shoal
Island

Vermillion
South

Gulf of Mexico

6a-16 (Biles et al, 2003).

 Use of coherence to interpreter a large regional survey
Texas
Louisiana

‘Coherence’ at 3.0 s
Gulf of Mexico

6a-17 (Biles et al, 2003).

 Interpretation Workflows

6a-18
 Workflow#1: Using attribute to delineate limits
of fault zones

2 km
N
low coh

W E

N mid coh

W E

N
high coh

W E

6a-19 (Data courtesy of OXY)

 Workflow#2: Using attribute time slices to help
correlate horizons across faults
5 km B′′

Salt N
Pick an arbitrary
line that runs
C around faults
A A′′

Coherence time
slice. T=2.7 s
(Green Canyon,
GOM, USA)

B
6a-20
 4 km
A A′′ B B′′
2.0
Time (s)

2.5

3.0

C C
2.0
Time (s)

Seismic ‘traverse’
2.5 chosen to avoid
major faults
C
3.0
6a-21 (Data courtesy of BP)
 Workflow #3:
N
Using
3 km
attributes to
help fault
naming and
correlation

t=2.6 s t=2.6 s

coherence seismic
Northwest Louisiana,
USA
6a-22 (Data courtesy of Seitel)
 N
N 1) Pick on coherence
using seismic time
3 km
slice as a guide. Try
to avoid
stratigraphic
discontinuities and
unconformities

t=2.6 s
3 km t=2.6 s

coherence seismic

6a-23 (Data courtesy of Seitel)

 A A′′

N 2) Choose a seismic
line perpendicular to
3 km
2.0 the fault traces. Pick
and assign faults as
n
you normally would.
C otto
Top alley
V

Time (s)
A A′′
2.5

ey
a ll
V
tton
Co
m
tto
3.0
t=2.6 s

Bo
coherence seismic

6a-24 (Data courtesy of Seitel)

 B B′′
3) Choose a 2nd EW
seismic line further
2.0
down the fault trace
to begin forming a
coarse fault grid.
B B′′

Time (s)
A A′′
2.5

t=2.6 s 3.0

coherence seismic

6a-25 (Data courtesy of Seitel)

 C C C′′

N
4) Pick a NS line and
continue the
3 km
2.0
process. If subtle
discontinuities seen
to be faults on
seismic, track them
on coherence.

Time (s)
2.5

C′′

t=2.6 s 3.0

coherence seismic

6a-26 (Data courtesy of Seitel)

 D D D′′
5) Pick additional NS
lines and continue
2.0
the process, forming
a coarse grid.

Time (s)
2.5

D′′

t=2.6 s 3.0

coherence seismic

6a-27 (Data courtesy of Seitel)

 6) Pick a new time
slice through the
coherence volume

t=2.5 s t=2.7 s

coherence coherence

6a-28 (Data courtesy of Seitel)

 7) Use the cross-
posted fault picks
from the vertical
seismic to guide
your interpretation
on the seismic
coherence slices

t=2.5 s t=2.7 s

coherence coherence

6a-29 (Data courtesy of Seitel)

 Structural Deformation

6a-30
 Offshore Trinidad Time Slice (t=1.2 s)

Galeota Ridge

Complex Coherence
faulting shows
difficult to lateral
detect on continuity
seismic of faults

2 km 2 km
Seismic Coherence
6a-31 (Gersztenkorn et al., 1999)
 Coherence Dip / Azimuth
Time Slice (1.1 s) W N Time Slice (1.1 s)

N
2 km S E
D D

E E′ E E′

D′ D′

6a-32 (Gersztenkorn et al., 1999)

 Seismic Data
2 km
D D′
0.9

Time (s) 1.1

1.3

E E′
0.7
Time (s)

1.1

1.5

6a-33 (Gersztenkorn et al., 1999)

 Teapot Dome (WY, USA)
R′′ R′′ R’
Q Q Q

P′′ P′′ P’

P P P
Coh Curv
1.0 neg
R R R

0
Q′′ Q′′ Q′′

0.8 pos

Coherence Most Positive Most Negative

Curvature Curvature

6a-34
 Teapot Dome (WY, USA)

Q Q′′
0.5 P P′′ R R′′
Time (s)

1.0

1.5

6a-35 (Data courtesy of RMTOC)

 Reverse Faulting (Alberta, Canada)

A A’
A

A’

Neg 0 Pos

Low High

6a-36 (Chopra and Marfurt, 2007b)

 Coherence Strat Slices

Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

Line 4

Line 5

Line 6

6a-37 (Chopra and Marfurt, 2007b)

 Most-Positive Curvature Strat Slices

Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

Line 4

Line 5

Line 6

6a-38 (Chopra and Marfurt, 2007b)

 Most-Negative Curvature Strat Slices

Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

Line 4

Line 5

Line 6

6a-39 (Chopra and Marfurt, 2007b)

1000 ms

1600 ms Line 1 Line 2 Line 3 Line 4

1000 ms

Faults that appear as

discontinuities (seen
on both coherence
and curvature horizon
slices)
Neg 0 Pos

Flexures seen on most

positive curvature
horizon slice that do
not appear coherence
slice

6a-40 1600 ms Line 5

(Chopra and Marfurt, 2007b)
Line 6
 Salt and Shale Diapirism

6a-41
 Vertical seismic section through the
La Rue salt dome, East Texas, USA
3 mi
PECAN GAP
CHALK
AUSTIN CHALK
1.0 4350
BUDA LIME
La Rue

Depth (ft)
Salt
Time (s)

Dome
JA JAMES
ME LIME
S LIM
2.0 11300
E

COTTO
N
VALLEY LIME
SALT WELD
3.0
LOUANN SALT
. 20900

6a-42
(Maione, 2001)
 Isochron contour map of the interval between the
James and Buda Limestones

>1300 ms

SALT

WITHDRAWAL
~ 600 ms
BASIN

8 km
1.4 s

1.9 s

6a-43 (Maione, 2001).

 Time slice through La Rue Salt Dome, East Texas, USA

Ring faults difficult to see on seismic data, easier to see on

6a-44
coherence
(Maione, 2001).
 Time slice through coherence volume
Time slice at 1.232 s

La Rue Salt
Salt Dome
Dome

Salt
Dome
8 km

6a-45 (Maione, 2001).

 Time slice through coherence volume
Time slice at 1.400 s

La Rue Salt
Salt Dome
Dome

Salt
Dome
8 km

6a-46 (Maione, 2001).

 Time slice through coherence volume
Time slice at 1.636 s

La Rue Salt
Salt Dome
Dome

Salt
Dome
8 km

6a-47 (Maione, 2001).

 Coherence volume, looking South, showing concentric ring fault
patterns and stratigraphic thickening
N

La Rue
Salt
Dome

8k
m

6a-48 (Maione, 2001).

 Vertical section between two salt withdrawal
basins 3 km
1.0

1.5

2.0

Seismic Coherence

6a-49 (Maione, 2001).

 Mapping Folds and Flexures

6a-50
 Central Basin Platform, Texas, USA
high high

0 low

Seismic amplitude 5 km Coherence

high

Horizon slices along

Devonian

Most positive curvature

6a-51 (Blumentritt et al., 2006)
 Methodology

Pick lineaments seen on curvature

high

2 km

6a-52 (Blumentritt et al., 2006)

 Interpretation of
Lineaments

Red and Blue

lines: Readily
observable faults

Green lines:
Subtle geologic
features
Deformation
model

6a-53 (Blumentritt et al., 2006)

 Application
What is the geologic explanation of these
lineaments?

2 km

6a-54 (Blumentritt et al., 2006)

 Application
Buckling in Competent Rocks?

6a-55 (Blumentritt et al., 2006)

 Structural Deformation

In Summary:
• In general, time slices show better fault images (with less interpreter bias) than
horizon slices.

• Geometric attributes are relatively insensitive to the seismic source wavelet,

such that they are useful in visualizing geologic features that span surveys
subjected to different acquisition and processing.

• Geometric attributes allow us to quickly define and name a coarse fault

network.

• Volumetric curvature allows us to map subtle folds and flexures associated

with tectonic deformation.

• Volumetric curvature also illuminates faults that are inaccurately imaged or

have small vertical throw.

• Geometric attributes allow us to visualize plastic deformation in ductile shales

and brittle deformation in more competent carbonates and sandstones.

6a-56