Direct Hydrocarbon Indicators
Direct Hydrocarbon Indicators
Direct Hydrocarbon Indicators
Seismic Problems
In identifying a potential reservoir, we need to define such parameters as
geographic location
rock type
porosity
permeability
Seismic data can help us determine these parameters in anticipation of the drill bit, but only when we have other,
more direct subsurface information (i.e., well data). Thus, we must begin to systematically build information
bridges, by which seismic data will provide the answers it promises. Wellbore-to-seismic correlations and
geoseismic modeling are among the primary tools for such syntheses.
Industry pundits unanimously agree that "advanced seismic technology" is essential for profitability and even for
survival in the face of relatively unpredictable oil and gas prices. Unfortunately, the marketing and presentation of
seismic products and services offers a bewildering variety of recently developed processes, procedures and
practices, including AVO, DMO, VSP, 3-D, 2 1/2-D, turning waves, multi-component, shear waves, inversion,
tomography, and so on.
Of these processes, it is clear that DMO processing and 3-D seismic data have attained to the status of routine or
nearly routine technology. Others are still considered research or quasi-research tools. But it is not clear how any
one such piece of technology relates to any othernor what it is intended to providenor where the whole ensemble
is going.
In addressing this topic, we need to single out practical and currently advanced seismic technologies that can be of
benefit in finding and defining hydrocarbon reservoirs. The first step is to identify and examine seismic responses
that may be related to the presence of hydrocarbons. We know these as bright spots, flat spots, dim spots, time sags,
velocity slow-downs, amplitude variations and so on.
At present, there are two mainstream applications of seismic methods:
better defining known reservoirs, and working out and away from them
The latter category of methods is the more recently developed one, and has given rise to the term development
geophysics, which is to be distinguished from the former (and more familiar) category of exploration geophysics.
Both applications draw on the same seismic technology, although they do so in different ways.
From our approach to seismic technology, it is likely that new reservoirs will be found and defined principally
because we are now able to solve key seismic technical problems. Hence, discussions of seismic developments
should relate to such problems and the nature of the reservoirs which have been overlooked. At the same time, we
should look more closely at what seismic methods might teach us about such reservoirs and their properties both
now and in the future.
Historical Perspective
Anyone involved with seismic technology -- whether in acquisition, processing, interpretation, or merely as an
investor; and whether this involvement has lasted for two years, or twenty years -- has seen many changes in seismic
technology. It has certainly not been a static technology; instead, it is overwhelmingly dynamic. In fact, it will "leave
you in the dust" if you don't keep up with it.
Let's look at some recent developments in seismic technology as they relate to direct hydrocarbon indicators.
affectionately know him as a "doodlebugger"), the "new geophysicist" specialized in acquisition...or processing...or
interpretation. From this time on, only the acquisition expert went out to the field; the processor stayed at the
computer center, and the interpreter stayed in the office.
In 1973, Tucker and Yorston released their classic work Pitfalls of Seismic Interpretation. This pamphlet presented
twenty-three examples describing a series of problems that an unwary seismic interpreter might encounter to great
regret. While the specific seismic data quality for the illustrations left something to be desired, the messages were
clear. The pamphlet presented guidelines both for understanding each of the effects and further making a correct
interpretation. Of special interest was the fact that all the interpretive difficulties were placed into just three
categories:
velocity
geometry
recording and processing
This pamphlet places the responsibility for addressing these pitfalls squarely on the interpreter, based on his or her
skills, experience and intellect -- it offers few "crutches" beyond doing careful work and gaining as much experience
as possible.
It is interesting that only three years later, Neidell expressed a somewhat different interpretive philosophy, which the
AAPG later documented in a set of published course notes (Neidell, 1984). Based on this work, we can set forth an
interpretation procedure for handling seismic data that begins with a processed seismic section. For the moment, we
will suspend all questions or doubts about the effectiveness of the data processing, and interpret the section based on
the following assumptions:
Each trace of the section represents only primary reflections from the subsurface, having locations
immediately below where we have shown them to be plotted.
Individual reflection events can be identified, and their amplitude is diagnostic of the change in acoustic
impedance across the boundary causing the reflection.
In this ideal world, we may simply state the objectives and procedures of both seismic and stratigraphic
interpretation. Figure 1 (relationship between lithology, propogating wavelet and seismic response) shows a portion
of a lithology log and a corresponding acoustic impedance log.
Figure 1
Each contrast in acoustic impedance is marked by a reflection event having a simple waveform. The polarity or
sense of the reflection and its size indicate the nature of the contrast. Individual reflection events for the model are
shown, along with their summation in the resulting seismic trace.
Interpretation begins, then, with the development from each trace of an acoustic impedance log or, equivalently, a
reflectivity series. We correlate these results trace-to-trace to provide the structural considerations, and correlate
them also with whatever geologic information is available. Using geological principles and insights appropriate to
the region, we infer lithologic estimates, and from these estimates and the indicated trace-to-trace changes, geometry
and depositional patterns, we interpret sequences and history.
The question of the wavelet's shape is worth considering, as Figure 2 demonstrates.
Figure 2
As we can see, the same sequence of lithology viewed as an ideal normal incidence synthesized seismic trace is
extraordinarily difficult to interpret on the basis of untreated waveforms.
Motivation for this approach followed from new developments in estimating seismic waveforms and converting
them effectively to the simple zero-phase symmetric form shown in Figure 3 .
Figure 3
The individual superimposed waveforms are also shown to provide some reasonable perspective for understanding
the superposition.
As with many significant developments, the control of seismic wavelets only represented one added element in the
extraction of subsurface information from seismic data. In fact, during that same period, the role of seismic
modeling as a quantitative bridge to subsurface parameters, and the use of seismic patterns for discerning lithology,
depositional setting and other stratigraphic components was introduced in systematized form by Vail and the Exxon
school of seismic stratigraphers (1977). In Figure 4 , regional geology and borehole measurements are presented in
relation to their expression as patterns which may be seen in the seismic view.
Figure 4
In the 1970s, we learned that (1) the pitfalls which might be encountered might have analytic treatments via seismic
data processing or special field practices, and (2) that more information might be recoverable from seismic data than
previously appreciated. The use of seismic patterns for interpretive purposes and the lessons from seismic modeling
testified for the second goal.
As noted earlier, a respect for the information contained in the seismic response evolved. When particularly learned,
the value of seismic amplitude and that retention of accurate amplitude information is a must. Rather than arbitrarily
increasing the amplitude to maximize the structural content, we learned that maintaining "true" amplitudes (also
called "relative" amplitude processing or RAP) could tell us much about certain qualities of the subsurface. And we
found that when we did this, we noticed anomalously high amplitudes, or "bright spots," that we equated to qualities
of oil and/or gas.
1980s- A critique
In the 1970s, we noticed the importance of bright spots and built a well-defined link between seismic interpretation
and the role of data processing (and, to a lesser extent, acquisition). The 1980s saw increased efforts to perfect
seismic imaging and extract as much subsurface information as possible. It became clear, for instance, that in an
appropriate geologic setting, a porous, gas-filled Pleistocene or Pliocene sand on a properly processed and imaged
seismic section would be readily recognizable. For example, we can identify an offshore Gulf Coast sand in Figure 5
Figure 5
The prominent trough denoting the sand top is labeled as is the gas-water contact and indicated by the essentially flat
sequence of strong peaks.
For this same data, Dedman, Lindsey and Schramm (1975) interpreted most of the sands in the subsurface column
between 1.0 and 1.8 seconds. Similarly, sands were identified by means of well log measurements, and plotted on a
two-way travel time scale for direct comparison with the seismic data. The results are shown in Figure 6 .
Figure 6
In assessing the remarkable agreement, it is important to note that the top of a sand corresponds in each case to a
trough, negative amplitude or "white event", while the base is defined by a peak, positive amplitude or "black
event."
Hence, the waveforms inherent in our seismic data are more amenable to interpretation once we manipulate and
transform them to simpler waveforms. We can now accomplish these transformations, in principle, for all reflection
seismic data, and attain correlations between seismic data and geological inputs to produce more definitive results.
Figure 7 demonstrates the improved correlations of seismic images with subsurface data, this time using an
elementary model, the synthetic seismogram.
Figure 7
A seismic section over a North Sea oil field has been separated at the well location, and several repetitions of the
synthetic seismic signature computed from the velocity and density logs have been inserted. A common waveform is
used in the actual processed data and the synthetic traces. Such agreements clearly enable correlations to be made
which enable one to work away from the well control with a good degree of confidence.
Let's now look at a processed seismic section from the offshore Texas Miocene ( Figure 8 ).
Figure 8
In this case, the Miocene sands are associated with peak reflections, as distinct from the previous association of
reflections from sands as troughs. The fact that sand reflections may be signaled by both peaks or troughs is rarely
mentioned in the literature describing seismic technology (Rutherford and Williams (1989), Neidell and Berry
(1989), and Neidell and Lefler (1992)). It certainly was not mentioned at all prior to 1989. Obviously, such a
fundamental matter deserves to play a role in our thinking relating to seismic data, since some 50 percent of global
hydrocarbon production relates to sands and sandstones.
The prominent Gulf Coast gas sand of Figure 5 could also have been confirmed via seismic modeling as a
companion to the log correlations performed by Dedman et al (1975), which were also previously shown in Figure 6
. For such a study, we could apply two-dimensional seismic modeling.
In Figure 9 (synthetic seismograms developing a two-dimensional model of partially gas gilled sand anticline - band
pass zero phase symmetric wavelet versus actual contractor wavelets A and B),
Figure 9
the model shows a mildly structurally closed sand unit of relatively uniform thickness. The upper 60 ft [18 m] of this
120 ft [36 m] sand is gas-saturated. Field seismic data exhibited a "bright spot" about the amplitude relief shown in
the figure. This model was originally computed with theoretically derived rock velocities and densities for the sand
and shale values from data calibrated to nearby well logs. An amplitude increase of only 25% was obtained using
these values, and the model was altered to have the values shown in the figure. These were derived by assigning a .
04 reflection coefficient to the shale-water sand interface and adjusting the gas sand velocity to provide the
amplitude increase shown on seismic data. Densities were included in the reflection calculation and generally follow
Gardner's equation. For a detailed discussion of Gardner's investigations, refer to Carter and Siraki (1993).
First, we computed model responses for two different but documented marine basic wavelets. These might be
thought of as coming from two different contractors. It is not our position to choose between these two wavelets. It
is apparent that the seismic sections look quite different, and if they were members of a grid of data on the same
prospect, it would be difficult to tie them.
For conventionally processed data, it is generally unreliable to attempt picking the top and bottom of the gas-sand
for thickness estimates. However, it would be possible to detect the probable presence of the sand and to place it on
the map. Wavelet B might leave us wondering if we have one sand or two, while wavelet A causes us to wish for
some higher frequencies in the hopes more detail as to the exact stratigraphy could be seen.
Both wavelets A and B have a bandwidth approximately equal to the 8-32 Hz response shown in the figure. Thus,
this model response is what each of the other two could have been converted to, with appropriate processing. No
problems of tying data between the two data sets would then exist.
We should in fact have become quite suspect at this point, in that even this simple application of modeling required
us to force parameter values to achieve an acceptable fit. Strictly speaking, our model should also have included
multiples, as the North Sea synthetic seismogram should have ( Figure 7 ). Experience has taught us that including
all multiples in model calculations (of any type) degrades our fits substantially, although from time to time we can
document the presence of a multiple or two.
Unfortunately, our quest for added information from seismic data forced us to face circumstances in which the
available tools could not solve the problem. Figure 10 and Figure 11 clearly illustrate this point.
Figure 10
These figures were developed from the Rocky Mountain area, and exemplify the problem of distinguishing between
a coal seam and a partially gas-filled sand encased in a sandy shale.
Figure 11
Simulated time sections (with and without noise, using a fairly typical bandwidth) suggest that in practical terms, it
is not likely that this distinction could be reliably accomplished using normal seismic displays and techniques.
The 1980s saw the introduction of new forms of HCIs. In the early eighties, seismic inversions became a popular
means of directly identifying subsurface hydrocarbons. In this method, the seismic trace is converted to a synthetic
impedance well log. When we apply inversion to a series of adjacent seismic traces, we then produce a synthetic
impedance section. We interpret the impedance section as if we had a series of closely spaced acoustic, or sonic well
logs.
The late 1980s also saw the use of amplitude data develop as an alternative. Using equations of energy partitioning,
we began relating changes in amplitude as a function of distance from source to receiver (or offset) to changes in
fluid type. Depending on the circumstances, we observed that seismic amplitudes either increase or decrease
according to the fluid content. This type of HCI is called amplitude versus offset, or simply AVO. Using this
method, the problems of discrimination shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11 could possibly be resolved.
At the same time, we must clearly define (even on a global basis) the geological relationships between lithology and
their characteristic reflections. Also, we must carefully scrutinize the models we employ and the theoretical
equations on which we rely. We have already seen major discrepancies between such models and the behavior they
predict (for example the prediction of the presence or absence of multiple reflections and the ability to predict
seismic amplitude levels). If there is to be real progress, we cannot tolerate blind spots of such basic importance.
Just as the early 1990s brought us to new high resolution in the horizontal domain in the form of 3-D seismic, we
will see new revolutions in the vertical domain in the late 1990s. At that time, no longer will a 2 ms sample rate and
20 ft resolution be the norm, but we will routinely see 0.1 ms data and 1 ft vertical resolution.