Seismic Reservoir Characterization

I
SEISMIC RESERVOIR
CHARACTERIZATION

Prepared by \
Ramy mohammed Fahmy Abo-Alhassan

Supervisor professor \
Ahmed Sayed Abu El-Ata

Geophysics Department
4th Group
II
Reservoir Characterization
A model of a reservoir that incorporates all the characteristics of
the reservoir those are pertinent to its ability to store hydrocarbons and
also to produce them. Reservoir characterization models are used to
simulate the behavior of the fluids within the reservoir under different
sets of circumstances and to find the optimal production techniques that
will maximize the production.

III
Seismic Reservoir Characterization
Seismic data, in particular 3-D seismic data, are a mainstay of the
petroleum industry. These geophysical data provide subsurface images
and other information that may be used by geophysicists, geologists and
engineers alike to identify and effectively drain hydrocarbon reservoirs.
Seismic data should not be interpreted in a stand-alone fashion.
Geological, geophysical and engineering expertise and data need to be
included in a “complete” interpretation. This report will emphasize the
use of seismic data for reservoir evaluation. The objectives are to provide
a basic tool set and workflow for interpretation.

IV
 The primary tool for probing the entire reservoir is 3-D reflection
seismic surveying. While 3-D seismic data cover the entire reservoir
volume. Well logs and core measurements usually are made on the scale
of 0.1-1.0 m. Although the scale of resolution is quite fine, the volume of
investigation is small, confined to within a few metres of the borehole. To
fill in the “missing wavelengths” between borehole data and surface
seismic data, we can acquire borehole seismic data. Such data, gathered
by using seismic sources and receivers to fill the wavelength gap, would
include vertical seismic profiling and cross-borehole seismic surveys. The
key is to characterize the reservoir’s physical properties by integrating the
various data sets with different wavelengths.

V
Acknowledgment
First and foremost, I would like to thank ALLAH for all that I have
been given. I thank my father, my mother and all my family for keeping
me going through all of those stressful times with their motivation.

Lot of thanks to my friends’ with a great appreciates to

Mr. Emad Eid Fahmy.

A special thank you with a special appreciates to

Professor. Dr\ Ahmed Sayed Abu El-Ata and Professor .Dr\ Abdel
Moktader.

VI
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
List of figures.............................................................IX
Introduction..............................................................XII
1.0 Amplitude variations with offset (AVO)
1.1 Seismic Energy partitioning at boundaries……………………1
1.2 AVO Model- Zoeppritz Equations…………………….…..…..
1.3 Mechanics of quantitative AVO analysis………………...……
1.4 Example quantitative AVO analysis…………………………..
1.5 Fatti Methodology………………………………………..........
1.6 Lambda/Mu-Rho………………………………………………
1.7 AVO to Carbonate Reservoirs......................................….......10
2.0 Seismic Attributes
2.1 Seismic Attributes………………………………………….…11
2.1.1 Some about Seismic Attributes……………………………..
2.1.2 The Classification of Attributes…………………………….
2.1.3 Some Basic Attributes and Its Characteristics………..…….
2.2 Quantitative Use of Seismic Attributes Reservoir
Characterization………………………………………………15
2.2.1 Does the Data Warrant the Use of Attributes?
2.2.2 What Seismic Measures and What We Require for
Reservoir Characterization………………………………….
2.2.3 Seismic Attributes - Property Predictors or False? ................
2.2.4 Predict porosity using seismic acoustic impedance…......…..
2.2.5 What about using Linear Regression? ………………....……
2.3 Enhancing Fault Visibility Using Bump Mapped Seismic
Attribute
2.3.1 Shaded relief of the coherency…………………………….18
2.3.2 Bump Mapping Attributes…………………………………
2.3.3Bump Mapping Coherency……………………………..….20
3.0 Reservoir Characterization
3.1 pore-pressure prediction……………………….....………….21
3.1.1 Methodology………………………………………......….21
High-resolution velocity analysis (step 1)…………….…....….
Pore-pressure and effective-stress prediction (step 2)….......….
Multi-attribute seismic inversion (step 3)……………….....…..
Lithofacies classification using σeff, IP, and IS (step 4)…........
3.2 Reservoir Characterization and Heavy Oil Production
3.2.1 Methodology………………….............................................
3.2.2 Results………………………………..........................…...30

VII
4.0 Time-Lapse
4.1 Reservoir Surveillance.............................................................31
4.1.1 The concept…………………………………...,,.....……….
4.1.2 The Physical Basis………………………….....,..........……
4.1.3 Seismic Repeatability…………………..…….............……
4.1.4 4-D Interpretation……………………………...............…..
4.2 Detecting flow-barriers with 4D seismic
4.2.1 Fault analysis…………….........……………………...........35
4.2.2 Combining 4D seismic and reservoir simulation…….…….
4.2.3 Fault sealing analysis………………………………........…
4.2.4 (4-D) fluid saturation mapping techniques……….……40

5.0 Seismic Inversion

5.1 The Post-Stack Inversion Method……………..…………….41
5.2 The Details - Constraints, QC, Annealing, Global and
Colored Inversion………………….……................……….
5.3 AVO Inversion………………………………..……………..
5.4 Geostatistical Inversion………………………..........……….
5.3 Merging Technologies ..............................……....…………..
5.4 Stochastic Seismic Inversion……………………………......50
6.0 Application
to Reservoir characterization by combining time-lapse
seismic analysis with reservoir simulation
6.1 Introduction……………………….……………...........……51
6.2 Reservoir simulation………………………......…….…..….
6.3 Synthetic seismic section………………….....................…..
6.4 Discussion………………………..........................................
6.5 Result….................................................................................55
7.0 Case study
Fractured Reservoir Characterization using AVAZ on
the Pinedale Anticline,Wyoming……………………….....…56
7.1 Introduction……………………………………….......…….
7.2 AVAZ Method………………………….......................……
7.3 Results……………………………...................................….
7.4 Fractured Reservoir Characterization……………….............60
Conclusion..................................................................*
Reference....................................................................**
Appendix........................................................................................A

VIII
 LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1-1 Think of a seismic wavefront hitting a reflector. The physical properties are
different on either side of the reflector.................................................................11
1-2 Plot of reflection amplitude versus offset showing the different classes of
AVO response....................................................................................................44
1-3 the amplitudes at each time sample are analyzed linearly and two AVO
attributes are extracted the intercept and slope of the best-fit straight line….....55
1-4 This velocity model was compiled from regional and gas wells from the
study area. The point to note about it is that even though the seismic that
will be derived from it is synthetic, the rock physics as measured in the
boreholes, is real..................................................................................................6 6
1-5 The Fatti ‘P’ (normal-incidence P reflectivity) & ‘S’ displays extracted
from pre-stack seismic gathers………………………………………………..7 7
1-6 The scheme of the LMR™ (Rock Property Inversion) method. Post-stack
inversion of P and reflectivities……………………………………………….8 8
1-7 The LambdaRho™ and MuRho displays for our model………………………9 9
1-8 AVO responses of gas charged and brine-saturated dolomite reservoir……..1010

2-1 images illustration of the integration of geological features.............................1212

2-2 Input seismic data..............................................................................................1313
2-3 Instantaneous Phase...........................................................................................1313
2-4 Instantaneous Frequency...................................................................................1313
2-5 Instantaneous Dip Azimuth...............................................................................1414
2-6 Wavelet Apparent Polarity.................................................................................1414
2-7 Isometric display of reflection strength..............................................................1414
2-8 Reflection parallelism........................................................................................1414
2-9 Reflection divergence........................................................................................1515
2-10 Scatterplot of porosity percent and seismic acoustic impedance at 7 well
locations............................................................................................................1616
2-11 Map of seismic acoustic impedance and porosity percent at 7 well.................16 16
2-12 Scatter plot of measure porosity versus predicted porosity..............................17 17
2-13 The map of porosity based on a regression relation.........................................17 17
2-14 Variable density time slice of a faulted seismic section...................................18 18
2-15 Coherency slice of the same data shown in Figure (2.14)................................18 18
2-16 Shaded relief of the seismic amplitude time slice shown in Figure (2.14).......19 19
2-17 Composite density (bump mapped) display using the variable density............19 19
2-18 Shaded relief of the coherency slice.................................................................20 20
2-19 Composite density display using the variable density display.........................20 20
2-20 Close-up coherency of the faulted region using shaded relief..........................20 20
2-21 using the bump mapped....................................................................................20 20

IX
3-1 Structural framework of the study area with wells (the orange surface
Represents the top of salt)..................................................................................C
3-2 (a) High-resolution seismic velocity (in ft/s). (b) Final high-resolution
C
velocity after trend-kriging with well data (in ft/s)............................................22
3-3 (a) Final pore-pressure volume (in units of psi). (b) Final effective stress
22
Volume in units of psi for the same cross section............................................23
23
3-4 Reservoir characterization workflow.................................................................24
24
3-5 Absolute IP (top) and IS (bottom) along an inline.............................................24
24
3-6 Schematic plot of IP compaction trend with respect to effective stress ............D
D
3-7 Maps of the (pdf) at different effective stress intervals.................................... D
D
3-8 Hydrocarbon sand probability...........................................................................26
26
3-9 Effective stress and hydrocarbon sand probability values................................26
3-10 Hydrocarbon sand probabilities posted on a horizon without using
26
Effective stress (left) and with effective stress (right)................................... 27
27
3-11 a possible flow diagram for reservoir characterization...................................28
28
3-12 Difference seismogram for seismic surveys in heavy oil field.......................28
28
3-13 Difference of synthetic seismograms..............................................................29
29
3-14 Time-lapse seismic survey over cold production field...................................30
30
3-15 Difference in isochron maps for heavy oil cold production fields.................30
30
4-1 Illustration of time-lapse seismic......................................................................31
31
4-2 Dependence of 4-D (COS) on detectability and repeatability..........................33
33
4-3 Time-lapse seismic data from the Jotun Field..................................................35
35
4-4 Example of a property cube (instantaneous attenuation)..................................36
36
4-5 Statistical reservoir volume analysis on the baseline survey............................38
38
4-6 Shows a seismic saturation change map...........................................................39
39
4-7 4-D interpretation from Shell’s Gannet-C study...............................................40
40
4-8 This figure shows the saturation ..................................................................... 40
40
5-1 seismic section and shows a post-stack, mixed-norm inversion.......................43
43
5-2 Above is the post-stack seismic inversion of the overlain seismic reflection...43
43
5-3 The inversion in Figure (5.2) has been converted to depth...............................44
44
5-4 using the observed distribution of sandstone impedances ................................44
5-5 The two panels compare interpretations done from the seismic using
44
traditional methods and from the inversion......................................................45
45
5-6 The two panels show slices of P Impedance and Vp/Vs...................................45
45
5-7 Vp/Vs from AVO Inversion is shown in perspective view...............................46
5-8 The logs in the left panel from a heavy oil play were used to compute the
46
synthetic PP and PS gathers in the 2nd and 3rd panels....................................46
46
5-9 Geostatistical simulation of porosity.................................................................48
5-10 This is a perspective view showing the results of the simultaneous
48
geostatistical simulation of density and lithotype..........................................48
48

X
5-11 The upper panel shows the results of an AVO Inversion at Blackfoot............49 49
5-12 Schematic depiction of the stochastic inversion process.................................5050
5-13 Input seismic data volume...............................................................................5050
5-14 Recursive inversion result................................................................................5050
5-15 Stochastic inversion result...............................................................................5050

6-1 Reservoir model geometry.................................................................................5252

6-2 Temperature distributions from the reservoir simulations ................................52 52
6-3 Pressure distributions from the reservoir simulations........................................53 53
6-4 Velocity and density model for seismic modeling.............................................53 53
6-5 the synthetic seismic difference section (bottom) and the seismic survey.........55 55
6-6 Gas saturation in the three layers versus the synthetic.......................................55 55
6-7 Pressure in the three layers versus the synthetic seismic difference section......55 55.
6-8 Temperature in the three layers versus the synthetic seismic ............................55 55

7-1 Map of the Lance Sand Depositional Fairway over the Pinedale Anticline.......EE
7-2 Geologic formations in the Pinedale Anticline...................................................EE
7-3 Cretaceous and Tertiary stratigraphic column....................................................EE
7-4 Time structure of the Lower-Lance horizon interpreted.....................................FF
7-5 Map of the migrated Crack Density estimates calculated using the AVAZ.......F F
7-6 Estimated crack density by the migrated stack & by shear-wave stack.............58 58
7-7 visualization of fracture swarms around the well...............................................5858
7-8 View from the north end of the Pinedale Anticline showing well traces ..........58 58
7-9 output of SUREFrac ,new well, Riverside 4-10, is added & is the output
using all attributes including the A VA Z attributes..........................................6060
60
7-10 AVA Z crack density results along a dip line ...................................................60
7-11 Dip line from 3D volume after fractured reservoir characterization.................60 60
2.1 Table (2.1) structure, stratigraphic targets (Sheriff, 1992).....................................A
2.2 Table 2.2 structure, stratigraphic targets (Sheriff, 1992).......................................B
2.3 Table 2.3 flow simulation model factors (Sheriff, 1992)......................................... C

XI
Introduction
In this article, we’ll examine the basics of amplitude variations
with offset (AVO) and rock properties derived from them. First we’ll
look at the physical cause for AVO behavior. We’ll then discuss the
quantitative methodologies for calculating attributes which describe the
AVO behavior of pre-stack seismic data. At the same time, we’ll show
methods of interpreting these attributes and how they can help to
differentiate between regional geology and hydrocarbon reservoirs. We
will then introduce some great efforts have been made to apply AVO
analysis to carbonate reservoir characterization.
ARTICLE
Since their introduction in the early 1970’s, Complex Seismic
Trace Attributes have gained considerable popularity, first as a con-
venient display form, and later, as they were incorporated with other
seismically-derived measurements, they became a valid analytical tool for
lithology prediction and reservoir characterization. The amplitude content
of seismic data is the principal factor for the determination of physical
parameters which useful for seismic attribute. In this article we will
discuss the Complex Trace Attributes, their classification and their
characteristics. Then review issues related to selecting and using seismic
attributes quantitatively in reservoir characterization projects, rather than
to describe or classify them, with some example to predict porosity.
Finally, we introduced the technique of using two separate attributes for
the shaded relief and coloring of a bump mapped time slice to enhancing
fault visibility.

Pore pressure and effective stress overpressured sediments are

predicted by some steps, we firstly show how high-resolution seismic
velocities were used for thsis purpose. Effective stress allows mapping
nonstationary sedimentary compaction in space and is used as an
additional attribute to allow for consistency between well and seismic
data and stratigraphic layers, geostatistical mapping (trend-kriging)
techniques were applied using several key horizons. The final trend-
kriged model is constrained by the structural framework and the geology
of the basin. Finally we will introduce how these informations can utilize
to allow comparison of the hydrocarbon probability.
In order to optimize production from heavy oil fields, its as primary
application for reservoir characterization. Effective reservoir

XII
characterization and production will require teamwork between
geosciences and engineering. This is especially true in the development
of heavy oil fields where there are dozens (possibly hundreds) of wells to
be combined with 3-D seismic data sets. We focus on the combined use
of engineering and geoscience, while reviewing past results and
forecasting future directions.

Time-lapse 3-D, or 4-D, seismic technology was first introduced in

the early 1980s but has gained widespread interest and use only in the
past 5 years. For some companies, 4-D seismic programs are now an
essential part of their global reservoir management strategy. Reservoir
surveillance during production is a key to meeting goals of reduced
operating costs and maximized recovery. Differences between actual and
predicted performance are typically used to update the reservoir's
geological model and to revise the depletion strategy. The fluid flow
depends mainly on the efficiency of the reservoir seals. The primary
objective of this article is to present fault characterization at the reservoir
scale combined with 4D seismic.

The principle objective of seismic inversion is to transform seismic

reflection data into a quantitative rock property, descriptive of the
reservoir. In its most simple form, acoustic impedance logs are computed
at each CMP. In other words, if we had drilled and logged wells at all
CMP’s, what would the impedance logs have looked like? Compared to
working with seismic amplitudes, inversion results show higher
resolution and support more accurate interpretations. This, in turn
facilitates better estimations of reservoir properties such as porosity and
net pay.
An integration time lapse seismic method with reservoir
simulation is image a steam front and by-passed oil. Two seismic 2D
surveys, acquired in 1991 and 2000, respectively, had been reprocessed to
preserve amplitudes. The results indicate that the present reservoir model
is reasonably good at describing the reservoir. finally ,It has been shown
that open, fluid- (or gas-) filled fractures can be identified through the use
of Amplitude Versus Angle and Azimuth (AVAZ) analysis on seismic
data. This technique uses variations in the amplitudes of the long shot-
receiver offsets of P-wave seismic data to determine the intensity and
orientation of the fractures. It assumes that the fracturing generates a rock
medium. This method can be modified to produce attributes that may be
useful in the identification of fractures between wells.

XIII
1.0 Amplitude variations with offset
(AVO)

1.1 Seismic Energy partitioning at boundaries

Amplitude variation with offset comes about from something called
‘energy partitioning’. When seismic waves hit a boundary, part of the
energy is reflected while part is transmitted. At a boundary where the
incident angle is zero (normal incidence) there is no mode conversion. For
example, a downward moving P-wave only generates reflected and
transmitted P-waves and a normally incident S-wave only generates
reflected and transmitted S-waves. At a boundary where the incident angle
is not zero (non-normal incidence) the seismic energy typically generates
four waves, at the boundary by splitting (mode conversion): reflected P-
wave and S-wave and transmitted P-wave and S-wave (Figure 1-1).
Most reflections are a superposition of events from a series of layers and
will have a more complex behavior than what is shown here.

Figure (1-1) Think of a seismic wavefront hitting a reflector. The physical properties
are different on either side of the reflector. The part of the P wave striking at a
particular angle-of-incidence (represented by a ray) will have its energy divided into
reflected and transmitted P and S waves. Another part of the incident wave with a
different angle-of-incidence (represented by the second ray) will have its energy
broken up into P and S waves too. How this ‘energy partitioning’ happens depends on
the contrast in properties and also on the angles-of-incidence.

The amplitudes of the reflected and transmitted energy depend on

the contrast in physical properties across the boundary. For us seismic
people, the important physical properties in question are compressional

1
wave velocity (Vp), shear wave velocity (Vs) and density (ρ). But, the
important thing to note is that reflection amplitudes also depend on the
angle-of-incidence of the original ray. So if we know how the amplitudes
of a reflector from a CDP change with angle-of-incidence, we can figure
out something about how the physical properties of the rocks are changing
across the boundary. How amplitudes change with angle-of-incidence for
elastic materials is described by the quite complicated ‘Zoeppritz
equations’. But there are many different simplifications of these equations
that make analysis of amplitudes with angle much easier. One thing to
point out now is that ‘amplitude variation with offset’ is not always an
appropriate term. For proper analysis, we need to examine ‘amplitude
variation with angle’.

1.2 AVO Model- Zoeppritz Equations

Zoeppritz equations can be used to determine the amplitude of
reflected and refracted waves at this boundary for an incident P-wave. The
original equations are valid for any incident waves but only the P-wave is
presented here and used in this study. The reflection and transmission
coefficients depend on the angle of incidence and the material properties
of the two layers. The angles for incident, reflected, and transmitted rays
at a boundary are related by Snell’s l aw. The variation of reflection and
transmission coefficients with incident angle and corresponding increasing
offset is referred to as offset-dependant-reflectivity and is the fundamental
basis for AVO.

Zoeppritz (1919) equations provide a complete solution for

amplitudes of transmitted and reflected P- and S- waves for both incident
P- and S- waves.
Zoeppritz Equation: R(θ) = A + Bsin2(θ)
Where:
R (θ) = Reflection coefficient (function of θ)
θ = Angle of incidence
A = Zero-offset reflection coefficient (AVO intercept)
B = Slope of amplitude (AVO Gradient)

A is the normal incidence reflection coefficient. B describes the

variation at intermediate offsets and is called the AVO gradient or slope
factor which is a function of average values of Poisson’s ratio,
compressional velocity and density. A and B are both highly dependant on
the properties of the reservoir and the overlying formation. In general, P-
wave velocity is dependant on both lithology (rock type) and fluid

2
content. S-wave velocity is dependant on lithology, but not sensitive to
fluid content. S-wave velocities are not generally measured directly so the
Vp/Vs ratio or Poisson’s ratio is used to determine the shear velocity from
the compres-sional velocity.

This commonly used form of Zoeppritz equations has the

interpretation that the near-offset traces reveal the P-wave impedance, and
the intermediate-offset traces image contrasts in Poisson’s ratio.

Amplitude variation with offset, or more simply amplitude versus-

offset (AVO), computes the seismic response of an interface between two
beds from the contrast in elastic properties between the overlying and
underlying formations. A normal incident, or zero offset, reflection (Ro) is
readily found from the contrast in acoustic impedance.

Where:
Ro = Reflection Coefficient
r1 = Density of medium 1
r2 = Density of medium 2
V1 = Velocity in medium 1
V2 = Velocity in medium 2

The change in amplitude of the reflection coefficient with offset is

a function of the contrast in elastic properties across the interface where
the AVO response is divided into three classes, Figure 1-2:
1.) A Class I AVO response has a large positive reflection at zero offset
and become smaller with increasing offset.
2.) A Class II AVO response has a small positive reflection at zero offset
and becomes very small or even negative with increasing offset.
3.) A Class III AVO response has a negative reflection at zero offset and
increasingly large negative reflections at increasing offsets. This is the
classical AVO behavior. For example, a sand-shale interface often
displays a negative reflection response that is increasingly large with
offset.

3
Figure (1-2) Plot of reflection amplitude versus offset showing the different classes of
AVO response.

1.3 Mechanics of quantitative AVO analysis

Quantitative AVO analysis are done on common-midpoint-gathers
(or super-gathers, or common-offset gathers, or as they’re called in the
AVO business ‘Ostrander gathers’. At each time sample amplitude values
from every offset in the gather are curve-fit to a simplified, linear AVO
relationship (Figure 1-3). A better way of saying this is that we fit a best
fit straight line to a plot of amplitude versus some function of the angle of
incidence. This yields two AVO attributes basically the slope and
intercept of a straight line - which describes, in simpler terms, how the
amplitude behaves with angle of incidence.
There are a lot of equations that have been used over the last 15 years or
so, but all of them, no matter what interpretation is given to the ‘intercept’
and ‘slope’, work in this same way.

The NIP is simply an estimate of the normal incidence reflectivity while

the gradient indicates whether the amplitude is increasing or decreasing
with offset and how strongly.

4
 Figures (1-3) the amplitudes
a at each time sample are
analyzed linearly and two
AVO attributes are extracted
essentially the intercept and
slope of the best-fit straight
line. These two attributes give
us the basic description of the
AVO behavior. The intercept
of the best fit straight line is
interpreted as the ‘normal
incident P’ value describes the
“normal-incidence P-
reflectivity” (NIP) and the
slope is the gradient, or how
the NIP (amplitude) changes
with angle.
Shuey (1985) presented
another approximation to
Zoeppritz equations were
the AVO gradient is
expressed in terms of
Poisson’s ratio and it
extremely useful for
application.
b

1.4 Example data set of quantitative AVO analysis

In order to examine a couple of the methodologies available for
quantitative AVO analysis, we’ll use a model that was constructed from
real well logs from the western Canada basin (Figure (1-4). In this
example we have Bluesky and Halfway gas sand reservoirs. There are
two things to note about AVO and this data set. First, though the seismic
response is synthesized, the physical properties, as measured in well-
bores, are real and so then are the AVO responses. Second, even though
the examples are clastic gas reservoirs, the basic concepts can be applied
to many different lithologies and reservoir types including carbonates.

The Bluesky gas sand is higher impedance than the encasing shales
(this is a Class I anomaly in the classification scheme of Rutherford and
others, 1989 as above figure (1-2). This means that on gathers, we would
see a peak which dims with offset.

5
Figure (1-4) This velocity model was compiled from regional and gas wells from the
study area. The point to note about it is that even though the seismic that will be
derived from it is synthetic, the rock physics as measured in the boreholes, is real.

The Halfway gas sand is lower impedance than the encasing evaporites
and carbonates (a Class III AVO anomaly). This means that we see a
trough that increases in amplitude with offset on gathers. This is the
classic “bright spot” anomaly we’ve all heard of.

1.5 Fatti Methodology

The Fatti methodology (Fatti and others, 1994) is a more
complicated amplitude-vs.-angle relationship than is the Shuey equation.
Though it does not look particularly linear, there are only two unknowns,
the P and S reflectivities that we solve for.

This methodology not only is more accurate to higher angles-of-

incidence, but is independent of any assumption of density and allows any
meaningful Vp/Vs as a constraint. Also, the two attributes that we can
solve for, normal-incidence P and S impedance reflectivities (Figure 1-5)
are much more intuitively accessible to interpreters. We can also easily
calculate other meaningful interpretive displays from these attributes. For
instance, a ‘fluid display’ combines both the P and S reflectivities to
highlight areas that are anomalous with respect to the regional Vp/Vs
trend (the regional ‘mudrock line’).

6
Figure (1-5) The Fatti ‘P’ (normal-incidence P reflectivity) and ‘S’ (normal-incidence
S reflectivity scaled to P arrival time) displays extracted from pre-stack seismic
gathers. The top right hand panel is the ‘Fluid’ stack derived from the P and S values
and the bottom right is a cross-plot of the P and S reflectivities showing how the
different regions can be differentiated.

One thing to note is that the calculated S reflectivities have P travel

times. This is due to the fact that we are dealing with S reflectivity
estimates derived from P wave seismic gathers. We’d also like to point out
that those who still use Shuey commonly estimate S reflectivities from the
gradient (and other assumptions). It is a valid method, but not necessarily
as reliable as Fatti.

One of the most powerful techniques of AVO interpretation is

crossplotting (Figure 1-5). Here we are taking P reflectivity values (Rp),
sorting them and plotting them against the corresponding S reflectivity
values (Rs). We can easily see the Bluesky regional and gas sands and
Halfway regional and gas sands display different trends, making them
easily distinguished. In interpretational practice, modeling and well
templating help to define the type of trends an interpreter should be
looking for.

7
1.6 Rock Properties from AVO attributes:
Lambda/Mu-Rho
We can go even further to analyze the rocks and fluids within them.
With the Fatti P and S impedance, we can estimate the layer impedances
by post-stack impedance inversion.

Inverting the P and S reflectivities gives us P and S impedances for

the geological layers. Taking the common equations for Vp and Vs (which
depend on Lame’s parameter, modulus of rigidity and density), we can
arrive at simple equations that combine the impedances to arrive at
estimates of the elastic properties of the rock. We cannot isolate the
density term, but are left with attributes which characterize the
incompressibility (LambdaRho™) and the rigidity (MuRho) of the rocks
and the fluids in their pore spaces (Figure 1-6). Note that while the
common

Figure (1-6) The scheme of the LMR™ (Rock Property Inversion) method. Post-stack
inversion of P and S reflectivities gives us layer impedances (pseudo well logs) which can be
combined into rock properties (LambdaRho™ and MuRho) by the Vp and Vs relationships.

LMR and LambdaRho technique is also known as ‘Rock Property

Inversion’ (RPI) as well as by other commercial names.
What does this all mean for interpreters?
Generally, sandstones are more incompressible than shales. Water filled
sandstones are more incompressible than gas filled sandstones. Shales
have less rigidity than sandstones. Carbonates can have considerably
different incompressibilities and rigidities depending on such things as
amount and type of porosity. Changes in fluid would not affect rigidity.

8
Figure (1-7) The LambdaRho™ and MuRho displays for our model. Note low values
of lambda and relatively unchanged values of mu for the gas sands.

For our model example, we’ve calculated LambdaRho™ and

MuRho (Figure 1-7). As we might expect, the gas sands show relatively
lower values of LambdaRho™ and relatively little variation in MuRho.
Here, the interpretation is straight forward, but the real world can often be
more perversely difficult.

1.7 Recent Advances in Application of AVO to

Carbonate Reservoirs
Until recently, the seismic analysis of data from carbonate
reservoirs relied mainly on interpreting zero-offset (stacked) seismic
volumes. Common knowledge within the world of AVO suggests that
zero-offset information is often insufficient to differentiate shale from
carbonate porosity, or to discriminate gas-saturated from brine-saturated
reservoirs. In the last few years, great efforts have been made to apply
AVO analysis to carbonate reservoir characterization. In addition to this,
a lack of carbonate rock property information is considered as one of the

9
obstacles in applying AVO to carbonate reservoir characterization. So the
differences between clastic AVO and carbonate AVO need to be
clarified.

In contrast to clastic rocks, Vp/Vs ratio experiences an increase

with increasing velocity or decreasing porosity. Also gas sands have a
relatively low Vp and low Vp/Vs ratio in comparison with brine-saturated
sandstone. Fluid effects in carbonates, especially the gas effect, are
contentious but of great interest. Common wisdom is that fluids have
little or no effects on carbonate rock properties as these rocks have very
high elastic moduli. Put another way, the high velocity of the carbonate
rock matrix causes seismic waves to travel primarily through the matrix
with less influence from pore fluids. However, an analysis of the
dolomite data indicates that gas does influence carbonate rock properties
and its effect is significant. Notice that the behavior of dolomite rocks
due to gas saturation is similar to that of sandstones. Namely, P-wave
velocity and Vp/Vs ratio decrease, and S-wave velocity increases slightly
due to decrease of density. The results of limestone are not shown. In
General, sensitivity to fluid increases with increasing porosity. In general
they are similar to dolomites except less sensitive to fluid.

Due to the complexity of clastic reservoirs, making a one-to-one

comparison between clastic AVO and carbonate AVO is rather difficult.
An apparent difference is that class I AVO represents a tight reservoir in
carbonates, whereas in clastics it represents the wet “mudrock”
background or a reservoir with higher impedance. Another unique
character is that amplitude for brine-saturated reservoirs has little
variation until at large offsets. These unique characters of the AVO
response in carbonate reservoirs remind us that clastics and carbonates
should be treated differently.
Synthetic gathers for the gas charged reservoir and its brine
substituted case were then generated and shown in Figure (1-8). There is
a class III AVO response at the base of the gas charged reservoir that
changes to a weak class II AVO after brine substitution.

Figure (1-8). AVO responses of gas charged and brine-saturated dolomite reservoir.

10
2.0 Seismic Attributes
The Oxford Dictionary defines an attribute as, “A quality ascribed
to any person or thing”. Seismic attributes describe seismic data. They
quantify specific data characteristics, and so represent subsets of the total
information. Seismic attributes should be unique andSeismic attributes
should not vary greatly in response to small changes in the data.

2.1 Seismic Attributes

2.1.1 Some about Seismic Attributes

Seismic Attributes are all the information obtained from seismic
data, either by direct measurements or by logical or experience-based
reasoning. In effect, attribute computations decompose seismic data into
constituent attributes. This decomposition is informal in that there are no
rules governing how attributes are computed or even what they can be.
The attributes discussed here are the outcome of the work relating to the
combined use of several attributes for lithology prediction and reservoir
characterization.

The study and interpretation of seismic attributes provide us with

some qualitative information of the geometry and the physical parameters
of the subsurface. It has been noted that the amplitude content of seismic
data is the principal factor for the determination of physical parameters,
such as the acoustic impedance, reflection coefficients, velocities,
absorption etc. The phase component is the principal factor in
determining the shapes of the reflectors, their geometrical configurations.

2.1.2 The Classification of Attributes

Attributes can be computed from prestack or from poststack data.
The procedure is the same in all of these cases. For detailed studies, pre-
stack attributes may be incorporated. Attributes can be classified in many
different ways. Here we will introduce a classification based on by their
computational characteristics:

Instantaneous Attributes
Instantaneous attributes are computed sample by sample, and
represent instantaneous variations of various parameters. Instantaneous
values of attributes such as trace envelope, its derivatives, frequency and
phase may be determined from complex traces.

11
Wavelet Attributes
This class comprises those instantaneous attributes that are
computed at the peak of the trace envelope and have a direct relationship
to the Fourier transform of the wavelet in the vicinity of the envelope peak.

Physical Attributes
Physical attributes relate to physical qualities and quantities. The
magnitude of the trace envelope is proportional to the acoustic impedance
contrast; frequencies relate to bed thickness, wave scattering and
absorption. Instantaneous and average velocities directly relate to rock
properties.

Geometrical Attributes
Geometrical attributes describe the spatial and temporal
relationship of all other attributes. Lateral continuity measured by
semblance is a good indicator of bedding similarity as well as
discontinuity. Bedding dips and curvatures give depositional information.
Geometrical attributes are also of use for stratigraphic interpretation since
they define event characteristics and their spatial relationships.
Integrating Geometrical Attributes shown in (Figure 2.1) which
illustrates the integration of geological features. The image on the left
represents a time slice through a 3D seismic amplitude cube. The image
shows the presence of channel-like features, and their reproduces the
shapes, locations, and orientations of the channel-like features in the
seismic amplitude data. The center image depicts a conceptual model of
the channels, in this case, a meandering channel system, with a user
specified wavelength, sinuosity, etc. The right image is one of many
possible pixel-based simulations. The advantage of this method is the
easy implementation and conditioning to well data, regardless of the
number of wells, unlike object-based modeling.
Figure (2.1) these images illustrate the
integration of geological features. The left
image is seismic amplitude data showing
channel-like features, the center image is
the conceptual model, and the right image
is one pixel-based realization.

2.1.3 Some Basic Attributes and Its Characteristics

Instantaneous Phase. Because wave fronts are defined as lines of
constant phase, the phase attribute is also a physical attribute and can be
effectively used as a discriminator for geometrical shape classifications:

12
(Figure 2.2) shows a 3-D section display of original seismic data. (Figure
2.3) is the corresponding instantaneous phase display.

Figure 2.2 Input seismic data Figure 2.3 Instantaneous Phase

Instantaneous phase is:
• Good indicator of lateral continuity,
• Relates to the phase component of wave-propagation.
• Used to compute the phase velocity,
• Devoid of amplitude information, hence all events are represented,
• Detailed visualization of stratigraphic elements.

Instantaneous Frequency. It has been shown that the

instantaneous frequency attribute relates to the centric of the power
spectrum of the seismic wavelet (Figure 2.4). The instantaneous
frequency attribute responds to both wave propagation effects and
depositional characteristics, hence it is a physical attribute and can be
used as an effective discriminator. Its uses include:
• Hydrocarbon indicator by low frequency anomaly.
• Fracture zone indicator, may appear as lower frequency zones.
• Bed thickness indicator. Higher frequencies indicate sharp interfaces
such as exhibited by thinly laminated shales, lower frequencies are
indicative of more massive bedding geometries. Another piece of
information we can extract from the seismic data are the locations where
instantaneous frequencies jump or exhibit a negative sign. These sign
reversals are caused by closely-arriving reflected wavelets.

Figure (2.4) Instantaneous Frequency

13
 instantaneous dip azimuth is shown in (Figure 2.5). The colors
indicate various dip azimuths as measured from North. A wavelet
attribute example, the apparent polarity is shown in (Figure 2.6) Red
shows the positive and blue shows the negative apparent polarities.

Figure (2.5) Instantaneous Dip Azimuth Figure (2.6) Wavelet Apparent Polarity

Reflection strength. Attribute was an amplitude measure, which he

developed for bright spot analysis (Figure 2.7). Reflection strength cast
seismic.

(Figure 2.7) Isometric display of reflection strength.

The excitement was reminiscent of that of bright spots, for, like
amplitude, discontinuity had clear meaning and enabled interpreters to
see something they couldn’t easily see before. This success breathed new
life into attribute analysis. Other multi-dimensional attributes soon
followed, such as parallelism and divergence (figure 2.8 & 2.9).
Figure (2.8) Reflection parallelism, a
seismic stratigraphic attribute.
It is quantified as the local degree of
variation of reflection dip from the
average. Parallel reflections indicate
a lower-energy depositional
environment, suggestive of shales;
nonparallel reflections indicate a
higher-energy deposi-tional
environment, suggestive of sands.

14
 A B

Figure (2.9) Reflection divergence, a seismic stratigraphic attribute. It is quantified

as the degree to which successive reflections diverge looking downdip. Yellow
indicates divergent reflections and blue indicates convergent. (a) Vertical view; (b)
3D opacity view. The analysis window captured only small-scale divergence, such as
that in the channel fill, thereby revealing the extent of the channel

2.2 Quantitative Use of Seismic Attributes Reservoir

Characterization
2.2.1 Does the Seismic Data Warrant the Use of Attributes?
Before dashing headlong into the computation of numerous
attributes, look at quality of the data, determine the processing workflow.
Too often we have seen that the data simply does not warrant use beyond
a basic structural interpretation because of poor signal quality, low
frequency content at the reservoir level, and improper processing. Data
can be processed for structural interpretation using a minimum phase
wavelet and a gain to enhance structural surfaces. Processing seismic data
for stratigraphic and rock and fluid properties requires zero-phase, true
amplitude, and migrated data, which is more costly and time consuming,
but necessary if most attribute studies are to succeed. Perhaps geometrical
attributes describing spatial and temporal continuity do not require such
rigorous processing. for example, the purpose is acoustic impedance
inversion, the data must be zero-phase, with true-amplitude recovery.
Success depends on zero-phase, true-amplitude seismic data.

2.2.2What Seismic Measures and What We Require for

Reservoir Characterization
The parameters measurable from the seismic data are (1) travel
time, (2) amplitude, (3) the character of events, and (4) the patterns of
events. From this information we often compute a lot of structure,
stratigraphic targets (Sheriff, 1992):
(See APPEDIX; table 2.1 to 2.3 pages A, B&C)

15
2.2.3Seismic Attributes — Property Predictors or False
Prophets?
For our purposes we consider a seismic attribute as any seismically
derived parameter computed from prestack or poststack data, before or
after migration. Amplitude, phase, and frequency are fundamental
parameters of the seismic wavelet and from these few all other attributes
are derived, either singly or in combinations, and many of the new
attributes duplicate each other because of the nature of the computations.
One principle should be kept in mind when using attributes; the physical
basis for the correlation with properties measured at the wells.
Unfortunately there is a common practice of selecting attributes based
solely on the strength of their observed correlations with properties
measured at the wells, but with little thought given to the validity of the
correlation, except that it looks good.

2.2.4 Predict porosity using seismic acoustic impedance

Following example illustrates some of these principles. The
seismic attribute is acoustic impedance derived from zero-phase, true
amplitude, and 58-fold 3D seismic data. Inversion to acoustic impedance
followed the method using sonic and density logs from three wells to
calibrate the inversion. The objective of this example is to use seismic
acoustic impedance to predict porosity away from the wells.
(Figure 2.10) shows a scatter plot of seismic acoustic impedance
and porosity measured at 7 well locations. The negative correlation
coefficient is expected because acoustic impedance (AI) varies inversely
with the magnitude of porosity. Even with these high correlations, we
assume that the pattern displayed by the seismic AI (Fig. 2.11) is related
to the true distribution of porosity and that the high correlation isn't
serendipitous.

(Figure 2.10) Scatterplot of (Figure 2.11) Map of seismic

porosity percent and seismic acoustic impedance and porosity
acoustic impedance at 7 well percent at 7 well locations.
locations
16
 (Figure 2.12) illustrates the value of integrating a seismic attribute
when mapping porosity using only 7 porosity values. For this study we
had the advantage of knowing the porosity values at 48 other well
locations, thus we can test the accuracy of using the seismic attribute as a
predictive variable. Of the 48 'new' locations, only 9 were misclassified
using the criterion of finding porosity > 9 percent. The wells shown as
open circles are the values for the 7 wells and are predicted perfectly,
because colocated cokriging is an exact interpolator, like kriging (the red
line shows the perfect line of correlation).

(Figure 2.12) Scatter

plot of measure porosity
(Y-axis) versus
predicted porosity (X-
axis). Nine wells were
misclassified out of the
48 'new' wells.

The additional 48 wells were drilled in a typical west Texas 40-acre 5-

spot pattern. If seismic data had been available when designing the
original in-fill program, we can see that many wells should not have been
drilled using the porosity cutoff criteria.

2.2.5 What about using Linear Regression?

Reviewing the scatterplot shown in (Figure 2.10) and recalling that
the correlation coefficient is -0.95, it would seem logical to simply use
linear regression to predict porosity from seismic acoustic impedance.
The map can be made using the following regression equation: Y= c-bX.
Porosity = 62.13 - (0.00157 * AI)
Where c is the intercept and b is the slope.
Figure (2.13) The map of porosity
based on a regression relation.The map
of porosity based on a regression
relation is shown in (Figure 2.18). The
fact that regression uses only one data
point during the estimation is valid,
because traditional regression assumes
data independence. Although the
results seem fine, the b term (slope of
the function) imparts a spatial linear
bias (trend) in the estimates during the
mapping process.

17
2.3 Enhancing Fault Visibility Using Bump Mapped
Seismic Attributes
2.3.1 Shaded relief of the coherency
Seismic coherency is a measure of the consistency of a seismic
section. Where events are continuous, coherency is high. But where
events are terminated either by faulting or stratigraphy, there is a loss of
continuity, which is clearly evident as dark lines on coherency displays.
Coherence is calculated directly from the seismic data and thus provides
an unbiased view of the faulting in a section. Consider (Figures 2.14 and
2.15), which show the time slice and coherency slice for a region around
a series of prominent faults. The faults are evident on the vertical section
but on the time slice of (Figure 2.14) they are difficult to follow spatially.
If all we had to go on were the time slices, interpreting even the major
faulting would be a time consuming task.

Fig (2.14) Variable density time slice of Fig (2.15) Coherency slice of the same
a faulted seismic section. data shown in Figure (2.14).

Notice how difficult it is to follow Notice how much clearer and

more distinct the faulting is. But the faults from the vertical section onto
the time slice.

The faults show up very clearly, however, on the corresponding

coherency slice shown in (Figure 2.15). On this display the
discontinuities (faults) show up as dark lineations making their spatial
interpretation a simpler task. Coherency has become one of the staples of
fault interpretation.

As useful as coherence displays are, they are not perfect. They

show discontinuities but without the seismic amplitude data it is difficult
to assign relevance to what we are seeing. To interpret a coherency slice
correctly we need to make continual reference back to the amplitude data
which is a time consuming and less than optimum task.

18
2.3.2 Bump Mapping Attributes
For example, (Figure 2.16) is a shaded relief image of the time
slice shown in (Figure 2.14) with the vertical seismic removed for
simplicity. The variable density display of (Figure 2.14) shows the gross
features of the time slice but it lacks any direct mechanism for identifying
the actual structure. We cannot tell intuitively what is high and what is
low. We can make continual reference back to the color palette, which in
this case shows, red-yellow as high amplitude and blue-gray as low but
we have no inbuilt mechanism for automatically equating these colors to
structure. If we didn’t know the color palette we would have no idea what
the time slice represented.

The shaded relief display (Figure 2.16) shows how the amplitude
structure of the time slice would reflect light. It is a map of reflectivity
and the highs and lows are now obvious. This is because the visual cortex is
proficient at interpreting these patterns of light and dark. We don’t need any other
information here to see the structure – it is intuitively obvious.
From an interpretation perspective, however, (Figure 2.17) is
incomplete. It shows us the structure of the data but without the variable
density coloring it is still hard to interpret.

. Fig (2.17) Composite density (bump

Fig (2.16). Shaded relief of the seismic
amplitude time slice shown in Figure mapped) display using the variable
(2.14). The vertical section has been density of Figure 2.14 and the shaded
removed for clarity. Notice the relief of Figure 2.15. Notice that the 3-
pronounced 3-D effect produced by the D effect visible on Figure 2.15 persists.
Compare this now with (Figure 2.17), which is the bump mapped
shading.

2.3.3Bump Mapping Coherency

Having seen the improvements in perceptibility brought about by
bump mapping we can ask the question, “What would happen if we used
a different attribute for the shaded relief”. (Figure 2.17) uses a shaded
relief of the seismic amplitudes to modulate the colors of the variable
density display (again of the seismic amplitudes). We are not restricted,

19
however, to using the same attribute for the light source that we use for
the variable density component. In this section we use the shaded relief of
a coherency slice to modulate the variable density seismic amplitudes.

Fig (2.18) Shaded relief of the Fig (2.19) Composite density display
coherency slice shown in Figure (2.15) using the variable density display of
Note how much clearer and sharper the Figure (2.14) and the shaded relief of
discontinuities are than on Figure 2.15 Figure (2.18).
The discontinuities now appear as pronounced ridges whereas the
bulk of the seismic amplitudes remain unaffected.
Notice again how distinct the discontinuities

(Fig 2.20) Close-up coherency Fig (2.21) Same close-up as Figure

of the faulted region using shaded (2.20) but using the bump mapped
relief. image of Figure (2.19).

Consider (Figure 2.18), the shaded relief image of the coherency

slice shown in (Figure 2.15) Here we see that viewing the coherency slice
as shaded relief has, by itself, an immediate benefit. The discontinuities,
on (Figure 2.15), are now more clearly defined and easier to follow.
Consider now Figures (2.19) and 2.21) where we used the shaded relief of
(Figure 2.18) to bump map the seismic amplitude time slice of (Figure
2.14). The shaded relief coherency now appears as ridges on the
amplitude time slice and clearly relates the discontinuities back to the
amplitude data.Considering that coherency provides an unbiased view of
discontinuities, (Figures 2.19 and 2.21) could be thought of almost as
automatically interpreted time slices.

20
3.0 Reservoir Characterization

3.1 pore-pressure prediction

(A combined geomechanics-seismic inversion workflow using trend-
kriging techniques in a deepwater basin)

To optimize drilling decisions and well planning in over pressured

areas, it is essential to carry out pore-pressure predictions before drilling.
Knowledge of pore pressure implies knowledge of the effective stress,
which is a key input for several geomechanics applications. It is also a
required input for 3D and 4D seismic reservoir characterization. (Figure
3.1- see appendix) shows the structural framework associated with the
geostatistical mapping

3.1.1 Methodology

The four components that comprise the joint workflow are a high-
resolution velocity analysis, a porepressure and effective-stress
prediction, a multi-attribute seismic inversion, and a Bayesian lithofacies
classification using IP, IS, and effective stress.

High-resolution velocity analysis (step 1).

The interval velocities in the present study were obtained using a
method that maximizes the stacking power of spatially continuous events
in prestack gathers. The initial interval velocity model wasn't built by
inversion of it and it's regularized using a semblance-based interactive
velocity analysis system.

The velocity model, thus obtained, went through geostatistical

mapping (trend-kriging) using the upscaled welllog velocities within
several key stratigraphic layers. The kriging is done within a stratigraphic
framework, to ensure consistency between the interpreted horizons and
geology.

(Figures 3.2a and b) show the velocity model before (Figure 3.2a)
and after trend-kriging (Figure 3.2b). Note that near the wells (within the
correlation length) the resolution approaches the well-log resolution and
the data are influenced more by the well-log data.

21
Figure (3.2) (a) High-resolution seismic velocity (in ft/s). (b) Final high-resolution
velocity after trend-kriging with well data (in ft/s).

Pore-pressure and effective-stress prediction (step 2).

Most methods for pore-pressure prediction are based a principle
which implies that the elastic wave velocities are a function of the
effective stress tensor, which is defined as the difference between the
total stress tensor and the pore pressure p. In the study presented here, it
is assumed that the elastic-wave velocity is a function only of the vertical
effective stress σeff (weight of the rock matrix and the fluids in the pore
space overlying the interval of interest).
σeff = S – p
S is calculated by integrating the bulk density from the surface to
the specific depth:
S = g ∫ ρ(Z) dZ
where ρ(z) is the density at depth z below the surface and g is the
acceleration due to gravity.

The velocity-to-pore-pressure transform was derived from data

from wells in the area of interest or offset wells. The formation pore
pressure is assumed to be represented by the mud weights used for
drilling these wells, because during drilling operations mud weights are
increased to prevent fluid and gas influxes from the formation into the
wellbore; therefore these relevant mud weights can provide a reasonably
close estimate of formation pressure. By inverting to the available pore
pressure data in these nearby wells in order to calibrate the velocity to-
pore-pressure transform, the normal velocity can be accurately defined,
allowing identification of possible shallow overpressures. This method
contrasts with current methods that fit a trend line to velocity data as a

22
function of depth below mudline. This trend is often referred to as a
“normal trend” which captures the expected velocity variation with depth
when the pore pressure is hydrostatic.

The calibrated velocity-to-effective-stress transform was

then applied to the trend-kriged velocities. To apply the pore-pressure
transform, it is necessary to determine density at all locations so that a 3D
volume of total vertical stress can be calculated. To do this, a density
cube was built by geostatistically mapping the available well-log data in
the area, constrained by depth horizons and a 3D trend. The geostatistical
mapping (trend-kriging) of the upscaled density log data is guided by a
3D density-trend volume. This density- trend cube was resampled into 3D
curvilinear stratigraphic grids representing stratigraphic layers for use as
a 3D trend (local mean). The upscaled density log data were then kriged
in each layer assuming a geostatistical model consisting of a single
spherical structure with a given vertical correlation length and an
isotropic lateral correlation length (parallel to bedding). Integration of the
density cube using Equation 2 thus allows the total vertical stress to be
determined anywhere in the model.

Note that the velocity model went through geostatistical mapping

(trend-kriging) using the upscaled well-log velocities within several key
stratigraphic layers, similar to the method applied in creating the density
model. The use of horizons helped to maintain consistency of the well
data and the geologic structure. The velocity-to-pore-pressure transform,
which is established from nearby well data, is then applied to this trend-
kriged velocity volume. The final volumes of pore pressure and effective
stress are shown in (Figures 3.3a and b).

Figure (3.3) (a) Final pore-pressure volume (in units of psi). (b) Final effective stress
volume in units of psi for the same cross-section.

23
Multi-attribute seismic inversion (step 3).
The multi-attribute seismic inversion process has been presented
previously. The workflow is schematically shown in (Figure 3.4). The
processes enclosed in the light blue rectangles describe the needed
modification in the workflow for incorporation of the effective stress. The
background models for IP and IS were derived from the trend-kriged
velocity and density volumes. This step is important, because all
attributes used in the model must have a common background model and
follow a consistent set of assumptions. (Figure 3.5) shows absolute IP
and IS along an inline, derived from multi-attribute seismic inversion
after low-frequency compensation.

Figure (3.4)- Reservoir characterization workflow. The multi-attribute seismic

inversion includes effective stress and background model from seismic velocity. SCVA
stands for surface-consistent velocity analysis. VMB stands for velocity model
building.

Figure (3.5). Absolute IP (top) and IS (bottom) along an inline from multiattribute
seismic inversion. Color bar is in AMO units.

24
Lithofacies classification using effective stress, IP, and IS (step 4).
The key to using effective stress as an attribute for reservoir
characterization is to understand the underlying behavior of the elastic
parameters (IP and IS) with respect to lithology and effective stress.
(Figure 3.6a see Appendix) shows a schematic relationship between IP
versus effective stress for shale and brine-filled sand representing
sediment compaction in clastic basins. In general, IP will increase with
effective stress for shales (black line) and brine sands (green line). It is
clear that the presence of hydrocarbons in the pore space will reduce IP,
as both VP and density will be lower than in the brine-filled case. The
scatter of shale and brine sands around the compaction trend is used to
derive a probability density function (pdf). It is clear that discriminating
between oil and gas in this system is very difficult due to the scatter of
the data. Therefore, the oil sands and gas sands are included in a single
“hydrocarbon” class.
The scatterplot allows the discrimination of three lithofacies
classes that were used for inversion in the basin: shale, brine sand, and
hydrocarbon sand. The derived 4D pdf P(IP, IS, σeff, Lithoclass) is
plotted at different effective stress intervals. Note that the ability to
discriminate shale, brine sand, and hydrocarbon sand changes as a
function of the effective stress according to the compaction model.
Furthermore, the effective stress is spatially varying, as seen clearly in
(Figure 3.3). Thus, to correctly classify a lithology type, knowledge of IP
and IS is necessary, and the spatially varying effective stress is needed.
This allows defining the position with respect to the compaction curve
The class probability values were obtained for each set of IP, IS,
and effective stress for each seismic data sample and effective stress
value by deriving the posterior pdf P (Lithoclass IP, IS, σeff. From
(Figure 3.7) it is clear that the ability to correctly identify the pay zone is
related also to the vertical effective stress, and not only to the seismic
attributes.
(Figure 3.8) shows the computed hydrocarbon sand probability
values along an inline using the method described above. A control well
shows good agreement between a saturation log and high hydrocarbon
probability. (Figure 3.9) shows another inline, which allows comparison
of the hydrocarbon probability and effective stress at the same location.

25
Figure (3.8) Hydrocarbon sand probability along an inline derived from IP, IS, and effective
stress attributes. The magenta line is a measured saturation log at a control well location.

Figure (3.9) Effective stress and hydrocarbon sand probability values along another
inline (see Figure 3.8).

In (Figure 3.10), hydrocarbon sand probability values are posted on

a horizon with and without effective stress as an attribute. As is evident
from (Figure 3.7), without effective stress the results are not as clear as

26
when effective stress is used, because the probability functions are
“smeared.” Furthermore, if effective stress is not taken into account, only
the shallower events are identified as potential hydrocarbon sands. This
can be seen in the left of (Figure 3.10), where potential hydrocarbons are
visible only in the structurally shallower part of the horizon. If effective
stress is included as an attribute (right of Figure 3.10), however, the
hydrocarbon probabilities in the deeper, more compacted areas, can be
mapped as well. The good match between the well and seismic (shown in
Figure 3.8) is possible because the effective stress “riding” on IP and IS
efficiently captures the spatial variation in the rock model (both vertically
and laterally) for lithofacies class discrimination.

Figure (3.10) Hydrocarbon sand probabilities posted on a horizon without using

effective stress (left) and with effective stress (right).

3.2 Reservoir Characterization and Heavy Oil

Production
3.2.1 Methodology
We will focus primarily on how geophysics will fit into the
reservoir development strategy of heavy oil fields. Generally, we try to
resolve the changes in the reservoir as a function of the production
processes. Hence, we repeat the seismic survey, keeping the acquisition
and processing parameters as constant as possible so that changes in the
seismic response will reflect reservoir changes (no pun intended) during
the production process. Seismic surveys must generally be acquired over
producing fields during the production processes. Here the goal was to
map steam injection fronts during the production of heavy oil from the
Formation. The time-lapse seismic method becomes an enhanced oil
recovery tool in which production processes such as infill drilling and
steam injection can be adjusted according to reservoir changes.

27
 The role of geophysics and reservoir simulation in reservoir
characterization is illustrated in (Figure 3.11). Much of our geophysical
work involves the acquisition, processing and interpretation of seismic
data. Generally, the seismic surveys are repeated so that we may see the
changes in the reservoir. The repetition of seismic surveys results in “4-
D” or time-lapse seismology, where we examine differences in the
seismic data over time. Hopefully, these differences exhibit reservoir
changes. Eventually we wish to produce a seismic model whose response
(the synthetic seismogram) matches the time-lapse seismic data. These
models of seismic velocity and density can then be converted into earth
models of porosity, permeability and temperature change. Ultimately, we
would hope to link together the seismic data, the seismic model and the
reservoir model.

Figure (3.11) a possible flow diagram for reservoir characterization.

3.2.2 Results
As illustrated by (Figures 3.12 and 3.13), we see encouraging
results in the area of heavy oil field reservoir characterization. (Figure
3.12) shows a seismic reflectivity difference section. This difference
section from the heavy field was obtained by differencing seismic surveys
completed in nine years in order to show the effects of steam injection
into the heavy oil sands. A large difference is seen in the circled zone of
interest.

Figure (3.12) Difference seismogram for seismic surveys in heavy oil field,
illustrating that the zone of greatest change is in the steam flood zone.

28
 (Figure 3.13) shows the differencing of synthetic seismograms for
nine years seismic models. The encouraging agreement between the
model responses and the real data indicates that our seismic model is
probably realistic. Following a successful modeling of the seismic data
then developed a reservoir steam flow model. In essence, this is the goal
of the reservoir characterization procedure shown in (Figure 3.11).

Figure (3.13) Difference of synthetic seismograms for nine years seismic models; the
seismic model is created by the fluid substitution based on steam zones.

Our research in heavy oil fields has involved the use of seismic
monitoring over fields that involve both hot and cold flow production. In
both cases, we see a growing need for extensive use of multicomponent
time-lapse seismology. In the case of monitoring steam injection, there
are several methods of seismic monitoring, including reflectivity
differencing, impedance differencing, and the computation of Vp/Vs
ratios from multicomponent data. A case is made for the extensive use of
multicomponent methods for mapping sand content and steam fronts.

In cold production of heavy oil, seismic monitoring can be used for

mapping both wormholes and foamy oil production then we can show the
seismic anomalies. There are some geoscientists have describes the
physics of cold production footprints and have laid the groundwork of
reservoir characterization in cold production problems. Although much
remains to be done in the integration of petrophysical and geophysical
methods to map subsurface changes, the initial findings of geoscientists
suggests that multicomponent seismology holds considerable promise.
Some intriguing examples of the effects of cold production on seismic
responses, in which reservoir production is related to seismic anomalies,
are shown by geoscientists.

(Figure 3.14) shows a subtle contrast between seismic sections

recorded in nine years over an Upper sand channel for other field. There
appears to be a time delay in the later survey as a result of the cold

29
production process. This delay is confirmed by isochron maps for the
interval between the Top of two reflectors as indicated on Figure 4. If the
isochron maps are differenced for the two data, we note travel time delays
for the wells under production, as shown in (Figure 3.15). The time delay
can be attributed to the presence of foamy oil or wormholes created by
the cold production process. Both of these effects will tend to decrease
the P wave velocity, as shown.

In both hot and cold production, it shown that we need to integrate

geophysics and reservoir simulation models for a complete description of
the reservoir. Reservoir characterization is an evolving science. There is
a constant need for integration and “closing the loop” between geoscience
and reservoir engineering. Developments that have occurred in recent
years include the following:
• Integration of borehole and seismic information in the development of
reservoir simulation models.
• Increased use of AVO (amplitude variation with offset) methods.
• Optimized use of multicomponent seismology.
• Development of reservoir simulation models from geophysical and
geological data.

Figure (3.14) Time-lapse seismic survey over cold production field.

Figure (3.15) Difference in isochron maps for heavy oil cold production fields.
Zones of greatest time delay (blue polygon) are near the best producing wells. The
wells circled in black have a cumulative production of over 15,000 cubic metres.

An exciting feature of reservoir characterization is that we are

continuously able to prove or disprove our models due to the dynamic
flow of information from production.

30
4.0 Time-Lapse
The changes in reservoir fluid saturation, pressure, and temperature
that occur during production also induce changes in the reservoir acoustic
properties of rocks that under favorable conditions may be detected by
seismic methods.

The key to seismic reservoir surveillance is the concept of

differential imaging using time-lapse or 4-D measurements and mapping
of faults are important for the prediction of fluid flow in many reservoir
types.

4.1 Reservoir Surveillance.

4.1.1 The concept

Time-lapse seismic methods are usually based on differences in

seismic images that minimize lithologic variations and emphasize
production effects. The concept is illustrated in (Figure 4.1), where a base
3-D survey acquired before production is compared with a monitor 3-D
survey acquired at a later time, dependent on the recovery process to be
monitored.

Figure (4.1) Illustration of time-lapse seismic.

31
 The difference between the seismic surveys can then be interpreted
in terms of the production-related changes in reservoir properties. Time-
lapse seismic data have been shown to increase reserves and recovery by:
• Locating bypassed and undrained reserves.
• Optimizing infill well locations and flood patterns.
• Improving reservoir characterization by identifying reservoir
compartmentalization and permeability pathways.

Four-D also can decrease operating costs by:

• Reducing initial development well counts.
• Optimizing phased developments using early field-wide surveillance
data.
• Reducing reservoir model uncertainty.
• Reducing dry holes and targeting optimal completions.
As a result of these benefits, many oil companies are aggressively
pursuing the application of time-lapse seismic data.

4.1.2 The Physical Basis

Seismic velocity and density changes in a producing reservoir

depend on rock type, fluid properties, and the depletion mechanism.
Time-lapse seismic responses may be caused by:
• Changes in reservoir saturation. Displacement of oil by gas cap
expansion, gas injection or gas exsolution resulting from pressure decline
below bubble point; these decrease velocity and density. Water sweep of
oil increases velocity and density.
• Pore fluid pressure changes during fluid injection or depletion.
Injection will increase fluid pressure, decreasing the effective stress
acting on the rock frame and lowering seismic velocities. Compaction
during depletion reduces porosity and increases velocity and density.
• Temperature changes. An increase in temperature increases fluid
compressibility, and as a result decreases reservoir seismic velocities and
density.

Reservoir factors that affect the seismic detectability of production

changes can be evaluated in order to determine which geological settings
and production processes are most suited for reservoir monitoring. Each
field is unique, and modeling of the seismic response to production, based

32
on reservoir flow simulation, is used to evaluate the interpretability of
seismic differences and to determine how early in field life a time-lapse
survey can be used to monitor reservoir changes.
The optimal times for repeat seismic surveys depend on detectability and
the field's development and depletion plan. Planning for repeat surveys in
the context of field surveillance will maximize the value of the data.

4.1.3 Seismic Repeatability

The difference between two seismic surveys is not only sensitive to
changes in reservoir rock properties but also to differences in acquisition
and processing. As suggested in (Figure 4.2), the chance of success for a
4-D project depends on both detectability and seismic repeatability. Some
of the factors that affect repeatability include:
• Acquisition geometry differences such as sail line orientation and
heading, source-receiver spacing, streamer feather, and coverage due to
obstructions.
• Near-surface conditions resulting in statics and receiver coupling
variations.
• Sea level, sea state and swell noise, water temperature and salinity.
• Residual multiple energy.
• Ambient and shot-generated noise.
• Geological factors such as shallow gas and steep geological dip.

Figure (4.2)-Dependence of 4-D chance of success (COS) on detectability and

repeatability.

33
4.1.4 4-D Interpretation

The interpretation of time-lapse seismic differences in terms of

reservoir changes requires integration of the data with detailed reservoir
characterization, fluid flow simulation, petrophysics, and conventional
reservoir surveillance data. Many companies use a 4-D interpretation
workflow, where seismic differences are compared to predicted
differences based on seismic modeling of history-matched reservoir flow
simulations.

The interpretation process is one of comparing, contrasting,

reconciling and validating these two images of the production process.
This approach is used because 4-D seismic interpretations are non-
unique.
• A lack of change between the baseline and monitor seismic surveys
can be interpreted as unswept reservoir or as an area of no reservoir.
• Four-D measurements taken once every few years can be aliased in
time. Rapid changes in saturations and pressures found in some recovery
processes can require more rapid seismic repeat intervals.
An example of 4-D interpretation is from the North Sea Jotun Field,
where oil is being depleted through a strong natural water drive. Water
sweep in the reservoir results in a 10-12 percent increase in the seismic
impedance.

(Figure 4.3) compares the results of inverting the seismic

difference acquired after three years of production to obtain impedance
change with the oil saturation change predicted by the reservoir flow
simulation. At this location, the simulator suggests that the reservoir is
fully swept but the seismic data show that only one reservoir zone has
been swept and that internal shales act as barriers or baffles to flow. This
results in a flank rather than bottom water drive.
Infill or sidetrack opportunities are found where there is no change in the
seismic data and where reservoir characterization suggests there is high
net-to-gross sand. As a result of the 4-D survey at Jotun, three successful
infill wells were drilled and a potential dry hole was avoided.

34
Other published 4-D case studies show that seismic data can image
production changes in a variety of geological settings and production
scenarios, including water and gas sweep, pressure changes and
compaction, and enhanced recovery. Further, 4-D interpretation is
evolving toward a more quantitative analysis of the data. By
incorporating time-lapse shear wave information, either from AVO
analysis, elastic inversion, or PS data, it is possible to estimate saturation
and pressure changes in the reservoir. These estimates can be a strong
history match constraint on reservoir simulations. More predictive
simulations will result in more efficient reservoir management.

Figure (4.3)-Time-lapse seismic data from the Jotun Field, Norway, compared to
reservoir flowsimulation predictions.

4.2 Detecting flow-barriers with 4D seismic

4.2.1 Fault analysis

Improved spatial mapping of the transmissibility of fault systems
will allow a better prediction of the fluid flow pattern. The fault analysis
approach consists of two steps: 1) extract all the faults from a given
reservoir layer down to the resolution of the seismic and 2) apply a
structural characterization. The mapping of the faults can be based on
seismic attribute grids. This means that attribute-responses related to
faults are extracted along key interpreted horizons in the reservoir
interval. Attribute cubes (figure 4.4) and property cubes contains a large
amount of information that needs to be classified and validated. To
precondition the data for the fault extraction filtering of the dipping noise

35
is typical. The automatically extracted fault systems are generally
validated with well log information. Logs from horizontal wells are of
special value because of the lateral extent.

(Figure 4.4) Example of a property cube (instantaneous attenuation) that can be used
for automatic detection of faults in 3D.

4.2.2 Combining 4D seismic and reservoir simulation

The saturation distributions from the 4D seismic measurement

offer an alternative to reservoir simulation. The reservoir simulated
distributions rely on an accurate knowledge of the flow properties of the
reservoir. This accurate knowledge is only available in the wells and
hence 4D seismic results might be combined with the reservoir
simulations to reduce the uncertainties in the saturation distributions. A
new methodology for a composite analysis is beeing developed named
Statistical Reservoir Volume Analysis. The basis for the method is to
compute the total change in saturation composition per reservoir
compartment accounting for the influx of water and the production of
hydrocarbons in the time period between the surveys.

The reservoir simulated results are history matched and the input
and output fluid-flux has been included in the modelled fluid-
distributions. Taking advantage of this fact the hydrocarbon volume can
be thresholded for the specific saturation level gives a seismic attribute
response detectable by the classification system. Together with the top
reservoir interface and the fault planes the thresholded interface can be
thought of as a closed geometric "container" for hydrocarbons above a
certain saturation level.

36
The hydrocarbon volume in such a "container" might be expressed:

VHC = (I–SW ) Ф h A

where SW is the average saturation of water in percentage, Ф is the

average reservoir porosity, A is the height of the oil column over which
the averages are made and is the area of reservoir compartment filled with
hydrocarbon.

If the same procedure is applied to the 4D seismic results

VHC' = (I–SW ) Ф h` A`

where SW the saturation and the average porosity Ф is assumed to be

identical in the two situations. If the hydrocarbon volumes VHC and VHC`
have been "material balanced" as explained above:

VHC = VHC'

implying that the volume of hydrocarbons in a given compartment

computed from the 4D seismic and the reservoir simulation have to be
equal. However the geometric shape of the "container" as defined by
might be different.

Statistical Reservoir Volume Analysis is the methodology that

allows the user to assess the match between 4D results and the simulation
results in a statistical framework. The probability of the match between
the hydrocarbon distribution as seen by the 4D and the geometric
"container" as predicted by the simulation is computed with a cost
function per reservoir compartment (figure 4.5).

37
 Figure (4.5) Statistical reservoir volume analysis on the baseline survey. a) Top
reservoir "container". b) Hydrocarbon distribution as predicted from seismic (red =
HC, blue = water). c) Connected reservoir compartments colour coded with the
goodness of match. The warm colours (red to light green) represent good match and
the cold colours (blue) indicate a poor match. d) Normalized total reservoir volume
estimate for each reservoir compartment.

4.2.3 Fault sealing analysis

The understanding of how flow-units of the reservoir are connected

represents crucial information for optimal depletion of the hydrocarbons.
The sealing capacity of the fault network is a typical problem in this
context. Basically the saturation changes during production from the 4D
seismic are combined with the information of the fault network and
checked if the changes have taken place across the faults. The output for
such an analysis is displayed in (figure 4.6).

In the context of the statistical reservoir volume analysis the fault sealing
analysis might be looked at as a situation where there is a mismatch
between changes of the shapes of hydrocarbon "containers" derived from
the 4D seismic and from the reservoir simulator. If the 4D shows a
saturation change across a fault that has been modelled as sealing it will
be colour-coded as non-sealing and the reservoir flow model might be
updated and the simulator rerun.

38
(Figure 4.6) Shows a seismic saturation change map where red indicates large
differences in the seismic response and blue indicates no difference in the seismic
response while figure 2b) shows the faults characterized after their sealing capacity.
The red colour indicates sealing faults, while blue indicates non-sealing faults. This
result will in turn be used to update the flow units in the reservoir model.

4.2.4 4-D fluid saturation mapping techniques

Quantitative 4-D fluid saturation mapping techniques which using

attributes, allow calibration of 4-D seismic responses coupled with flow
simulator models. As part of a major drive to improve recovery from
Statoil’s Gullfaks field in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea, time-
lapse seismic data have been used to guide quantitative mapping of oil
saturation changes. Maps were generated (Figures 4.7 & 4.8) showing the
probability of an area being drained, partially drained or undrained
according to various oil saturation changes. The maps reduce the
uncertainty in further development because they are quantitative and
provide more powerful input to simulation models.

39
Figure (4.7) 4-D interpretation from Shell’s Gannet-C study gives insight into
structure and production but is qualitative in nature.

Figure (4.8) This figure shows the saturation mapping results for Statoil’s Gullfaks
field.1.

40
5.0 Seismic Inversion

5.1 The Post-Stack Inversion Method

The modern era of seismic inversion started in the early 80’s when
algorithms which accounted for both wavelet amplitude and phase spectra
started to appear. Previously, it had been assumed that each and every
sample in a seismic trace represented a unique reflection coefficient,
unrelated to any other. The trace integration method was a popular
approximation. At the heart of any of the newer generation algorithms is
some sort of mathematics - usually in the form of an objective function to
be minimized.

Let’s look at each of these terms, starting with the seismic. It says
that synthetics computed from the inversion impedances should match the
input seismic. This is usually (but not always) done in a least squares
sense. Invoking this term also implies knowledge of the seismic wavelet.
Otherwise, synthetics could not be made. At this point, life would be
good except for one thing. The wavelet is band-limited and any
broadband impedances that would be obtained using the seismic term
only would be non-unique. Said another way, there is more than one
inversion impedance solution which, when converted to reflection
coefficients and convolved with the wavelet would match the seismic. In
fact, there are an unlimited number of such inversions. Enter the simple
term. Every algorithm has one. It could not care less about matching the
seismic data, preferring instead to create an inversion impedance log with
as few reflection coefficients as possible.

What about the “Match the Logs” term? When turned on, it makes
the inversion somewhat model-based. Sounds reasonable - the inversion
impedances should agree or a least be consistent with an impedance
model constructed from the well logs. The primary use of the model term
should be to help control those frequencies below the seismic band. When
it is used to add high frequency information above the seismic band, great
care should be exercised. High frequencies from a model will be
unaddressed and unchanged by the input seismic when they are above the
seismic band. They can then appear in the output inversion, even though
they are completely model driven.

41
5.2 The Details – Constraints, QC, Annealing, Global
and Colored Inversion

There are other strategies in seismic inversion which control the

way in which the output impedances are obtained. It is common to define
high and low limits on the output impedances. These are supposed to
keep the inversions physical and consistent with known analogues and
theories. Could the inversions be then critically dependent upon
inaccurate horizons interpreted from seismic data? This potential problem
can be addressed in two ways. In the first pass of inversion, the
constraints are relaxed to allow for inaccuracies. The horizons are then re-
evaluated against the initial inversion, before a final pass with tighter
constraints. Second, the re-evaluation can be done on an inversion
without the model-based low frequencies added in at all. We call this the
relative inversion and it is by definition, free from any inaccuracies in the
input model.

Another technique introduced recently is the so-called Colored

Inversion. It trades computation speed for resolution. Phase is first
assumed to be known. Then the spectrum of the reservoir impedances is
assumed to be a straight line on a log frequency cross-plot. The slope of
the line is determined from available logs. Then, an operator is designed
which transforms the seismic spectrum to the desired log spectrum.

Putting it all together, seismic inversion can play the central role in
an improved understanding of the reservoir. In Figure 1, upper panel, the
facies are an alternating sequence of sands and shales. Interpretation is
problematic due to the close vertical positioning of contrasting layers
within half of a wavelet length. The result is severe interference (tuning)
and a general complication of the seismic section. The interpretation of
the yellow reservoir event is particularly difficult. (Figure 5.1), lower
panel, shows the inversion result. It is generally simpler and the
interpretation of the yellow event is obvious. It is now interpreted as a
sequence boundary which is overlain by incised valley sand.

The value of the inversion process is illustrated again in (Figure

5.2). The facies of interest are sandstones as indicated. The figure shows
the original seismic, the inversion in colour with smoothed P Impedance

42
logs overlain. Well cross-plot analyses showed that the best sandstones
should be resolvable by P Impedance alone.

(Figure 5.1) The upper panel is a seismic section from southeast Asia and represents
a sequence of sands and shales. The Yellow horizon interpretation has not been
completed. It is made difficult by the close proximity of events and the structure. The
lower panel shows a post-stack, mixed-norm inversion. It is a much simpler section
due to the attenuation of wavelet side-lobes. The completion of the Yellow horizon is
now easy. The low impedance region above the Yellow, in the middle of the figure has
been interpreted to be a valley fill.

Figure (5.2)-Above is the post-stack seismic inversion of the overlain seismic

reflection. Smoothed well logs are also shown. Good sandstones are represented by
the cyan colour. Note the shale in the region of interest at well 121-16. It is not
obvious from the seismic (partially hidden by the logs in this figure). To the west, the
inversion indicates different episodes of sandstone deposition.

These are revealed upon converting to depth and preparing

impedance slices (Figure 5.3). The probability of sandstone deposition
can also be formalized for any inversion (post-stack or AVO), as
demonstrated in (Figure 5.4). In 3D probability space, is the likelihood of
occurrence of single sandstone? (Figure 5.5) is a comparison of
interpretations from the seismic and the inversion. There is better
definition of channeling in the inversion and the authors judge that the
accuracy of net pay estimates were improved by a factor of at least two.

43
5.3 AVO Inversion
Instead of a single full-stack, we have a set of partial offset or
angle stacks, each with their own wavelets. In addition to a P Impedance
model for the low frequencies, we now need two more – S Impedance
and Density. We also want to include two more “keep it simple” terms for
S Impedance and Density. After that, it is pretty much the same. The
Zoeppritz equations dictate the range of allowable solutions. Alternate
parameterizations are possible, P Impedance, Vp/Vs and Density being
popular.
The example in (Figure 5.6) illustrates the classic problem of separating
sandstones from shales when discrimination is not possible from P
Impedance alone. In (Figure 5.6) are slices of P Impedance and Vp/Vs
from a Simultaneous AV O Inversion. The two reservoir properties are
indeed different. Regional and valley shales dominate the P Impedance
slice. The major feature of the Vp/Vs slice is the sandstone valley itself,
brighter in the south due to the presence of gas. (Figure 5.7) is a 3D
perspective of the Vp/Vs volume where it can be seen that the valley
development is essentially defined by Vp/Vs. The LambdaRho-MuRho
(LMR) technology can offer advantages to interpretation by optimally
separating fluid and rock effects. LMR volumes are easily computed from
any AVO Inversion.

Figure (5. 3)-The inversion in Figure (5.2) has been converted to depth and mapped
using time slices. These results reinforce the ideas of different episodes of deposition.

Figure (5.4) Using the observed distribution of sandstone impedances from logs and
probability analysis, a sandstone probability volume was computed. Here the

44
probability of sand -stone exceeding 88% is shown for a particular portion of the
survey.

Figure (5.5) The two panels compare interpretations done from the seismic using
traditional methods and from the inversion. The authors judge that the accuracy of
net pay estimations was improved by a factor of two with the inversion.

The so called Joint inversions are variants of this technology. The theory
readily accommodates PP-PS or any other possible combination. We have
already noted the importance of accurate alignment and the correct
alignment of PS modes to PP takes these challenges to a new level.
Nevertheless, this technique contains the potential for density estimation
at low angles, as illustrated by the heavy oil synthetic example in (Figure
5.8). The figure shows PP and PS gathers and their simultaneous
inversion to P Impedance, Vp/Vs and Density. The maximum angle used
to make the synthetic gathers shown was only 35 deg. The band of the PP
gather was 10-60 Hz while that of the PS was restricted to 10-35 Hz.
Comparing the overlain logs to the inversion results shows that density
information can be extracted.
Curiously, Joint Inversions find application to 4D projects. When the low
frequencies below the seismic band are believed to be constant, then a
Joint PP inversion of all vintages will provide the most stable baseline,
against which to measure differences. The method also works for 4D
AVO.

Figure 5.6. The two panels show slices of P Impedance and Vp/Vs from a
Simultaneous AVO Inversion of the Blackfoot data. Note the predominance of off-s t r
u c t u r e and off-valley shales in the P Impedance map. The upper valley sandstone
is clearly imaged on the Vp/Vs map.

45
Figure (5.7) Vp/Vs from AVO Inversion is shown in perspective view. The two
episodes of sandstone deposition are clearly visible.

Figure (5.8) The logs in the left panel from a heavy oil play were used to compute the
synthetic PP and PS gathers in the 2nd and 3rd panels. The background colours in
the next three panels are the Joint Simultaneous AVO Inversions for P Impedance,
Vp/Vs and Density. Smoothed logs are overlain in each panel. The wavelet band was
10-60 Hz for the PP data and 10-35 Hz for the PS. Despite the fact that the maximum
angle was only 35 deg., density information was recovered.

5.4 Geostatistical Inversion

Geostatistical simulation differs from all of the other methods in

one respect. There is no objective function and hence no need for a
simplicity term to stabilize it. Rather, property solutions (impedance,
porosity, etc) are drawn from a probability density function (pdf) of
possible outcomes. The pdf is defined at each grid point in space and
time. A priori information comes from well logs and spatial statistical
property and lithology distributions. As in the other model-based
methods, the logs are assumed to represent the correct solution at the well

46
locations. It is useful to run a mixed-norm inversion first, to establish this.
Historically, away from wells, geostatistics has had problems. It is the
inversion aspect of geostatistics which has finally guaranteed its use as a
modern inversion tool. The geostatistical inversion algorithm simply
accepts or discards simulations at individual grid points depending upon
whether they imply synthetics which agree with the input seismic. The
decision to accept or reject simulations can optionally be controlled by a
simulated annealing strategy. The inversion option results in a tighter set
of simulations, the variation of which can be used to estimate risk or
make probability maps. The simulations can be done at arbitrary sample
intervals. Close to wells, resolution beyond the seismic band can
reasonably be inferred. Away from wells, the absence of a simplicity term
in the simulation and the statistical conditioning hold the possibility of
resolution beyond that of traditional inversion methods.
Important end results of 3D Geostatistical modelling are property
probability volumes. A set of volume simulations of porosity, for
example, can be modelled as a Normal probability density function at
each grid point in time and space. From these, volumes can be
constructed giving the probability that the porosity lies within a specified
range. (Figure 5.9) shows an example of this for simulations of porosity.
Twenty simulations were used to generate a probability volume for the
occurrence of porosity above 10%. This volume was then viewed in 3D
perspective and probabilities less than 80% were set to be transparent.
The tops and bottoms of the viewable remainders were picked
automatically. It is the thickness of one of these high-probability bodies
which is mapped in (Figure 5.9). The colours represent the thickness,
within which, the probability of 10% or greater porosity exceeds 80%. In
this way, uncertainty can be formally measured and input directly into
risk management analyses.
In geostatistical modelling, property and indicator (facies) simulations
can be combined to produce both property (eg impedance) and facies
volumes. This is illustrated in (Figure 5.10). The green patches are sand
bodies from a single simulation. Favourable locations for new wells were
determined by integrating the sand volume at each CMP for a set of
simulations. The results of this development programme showed a
definite improvement in sand detection. Accumulated production has
been up to three times the field average in some instances, more than
justifying the effort and expense of the inversion.

47
Figure (5.9) Geostatistical simulation of porosity was done over a Western Canadian
Devonian reef. At each point in time and space, the set of simulations was modelled
by probability density function (pdf). Then a volume was created, the elements of
which were probabilities that the porosity was in excess of 10%. Next, the pro b a
bilities themselves was viewed in 3D perspective, and values less than 80% made
transparent. Finally, the remaining visible probability bodies were automatically
interpreted. A small area of the final map of (probability body thickness) is shown
here. The colours are the thickness (ms) of bodies which should have greater than
10% porosity, 80% of the time.

Figure (5.10) - This is a perspective view showing the results of the simultaneous
geosta -tistical simulation of density and lithotype (shale, tight sand, porous sand).
The green bodies are low density sands. A set of simulations were computed and
integrated at each CMP to establish the probability of occurrence of sand. Wells
drilled on these analyses have shown significantly higher production rates.

5.3 Merging Technologies – The New Inversions

Concatenating seismic inversion with other technologies, such as

neural nets, seismic attributes or pattern recognition has been a strategy
employed by some explorationists over the years. The idea has been to try
and extract every last bit of information from the input data sets. We are
now seeing disparate technologies beginning to be combined within the
same algorithm. (Figure 5.11) is such an example from Blackfoot. It
brings together aspects of pattern recognition and post-stack and AVO

48
Inversion. The top is a traditional Simultaneous AVO Inversion for
Vp/Vs while the bottom is the new high resolution technology. It was run
in a “blind-to-the-wells” mode, so the agreement to the logs is not perfect.
As resolution is pushed to its limits, we must understand that there can be
no single answer, only a collection of probable answers. The new
technologies recognize this and in fact, the bottom panel in (Figure 5.11)
is an average of six such realizations. The variability between the
realizations could have been used to compute a probability of occurrence
for the low Vp/Vs sandstones. All of this sounds very geostatistical,
although upon closer examination, there are differences.

Figure (5.11)-The upper panel shows the results of an AVO Inversion at Blackfoot.
The lower panel shows a high resolution AVO inversion using a technologies which
brings together aspects of pattern recognition and inversion within a geosta -tistical
type of framework.

5.4 Stochastic Seismic Inversion

Stochastic seismic inversion is one method that can provide the

vertical resolution sufficient to generate detailed 3D reservoir property
models. The log data (sonic and density) are used in the simulation of
pseudo-logs at each trace within the seismic survey (figure 5.12). A
synthetic seismogram is generated from the pseudo-impedance log and is
compared with the actual seismic trace at that location. The simulation
that produces the best match between the synthetic seismogram and the
actual seismic trace, as defined by some quantitative measure of goodness
of fit, is retained as the inversion solution at that location. The vertical
resolution of the simulated log data is determined by the selection of the
vertical cell size (determined by the user), not by the frequency content of
the seismic data (as determined by Mother Nature).

49
 The enhanced resolution of the stochastic inversion process is
evident from a visual examination of the seismic data cubes displayed in
(figures 5.13-5.15). (Figure 5.13) displays the input seismic volume.
(Figure 14) is the result of inversion. This inversion result displays a
resolution similar to that of the input data. That is to be expected, as the
vertical resolution is derived from the seismic data, and is therefore
subject to the inherent limitations of seismic resolution. (Figure 15)
depicts the stochastic inversion cube, which displays a much finer vertical
resolution than is observed in the input data or the recursive inversion
result (figures 13 and 15).

Fig (5 13) Input seismic data volume

Fig.(5.14) Recursive inversion result.

Note that vertical resolution is similar
to that of the input data.

Figure (5.12) Schematic depiction of

Fig.(5.15). Stochastic inversion result.
the stochastic inversion process.
Note that the vertical resolution is
significantly improved.

50
6.0 Application to Reservoir
characterization by combining time-lapse
seismic analysis with reservoir simulation

6.1 Introduction

Here we introduce the integration of time lapse seismic methods

with reservoir simulation to image steam front and by-passed oil heavy
oil. Two seismic 2D surveys, acquired in 1991 and 2000, respectively,
had been reprocessed to preserve amplitudes. A flow simulation model
was constructed for the region around the seismic profile. The simulator
was run from the start of production in 1981 until 2000. The porosity,
saturation, pressure and temperature of the reservoir zone were extracted
from the flow simulation outputs for the early production condition in
1991 and for 2000, almost 10 years later. Comparing the seismic
difference results of 1991 and 2000 and reservoir simulation outputs
indicated that the gas saturation changes caused the largest change in the
simulated seismic response. Seismic difference sections showed that thick
zones of gas saturation caused greater time delays in sub-reservoir
reflections due to the lower velocity within the reservoir zone. The
simulated seismic response difference section was compared to the
measured seismic response difference section. The results indicate that
the present reservoir model is reasonably good at describing the reservoir.

Reservoir simulation is often used to help understand the changes

in reservoir conditions with the stages of production. Reservoir
simulation is based on models that are created from well information,
seismic data and geologic maps. The results around wells are controlled
by engineering data but the results between or beyond wells cannot be
verified by engineering data. Seismic surveys can be used to interpolate
or extrapolate reservoir information between or beyond wells. Through
rock physics equations, seismic properties such as velocity and density
can be estimated from the output of reservoir simulation for use in
seismic modelling.

51
6.2 Reservoir simulation
The reservoir grid geometry, well locations, and time-lapse seismic
line location are shown in (Figure 6.1). The seismic lines are in the
middle of the reservoir model in the north-south direction. The grid
dimension of the reservoir model is 20 x 20 m horizontally. There are
three vertical layers with varying thicknesses. To date we have
considered the three layers having individually uniform but distinctive
properties that correspond to two upper shale and sand interbedded layers
and a lower homogenous sand layer.

CSS started in the southern part of the reservoir in 1983 at well

1D2-6. Average steam injection duration was 10 to 30 days followed by 5
to 10 months of soak and production. The temperature front moves about
5 m to 8 m per year. It spreads faster in the north-south direction than in
the east-west direction (Figure 6.2). Pressure spreads much quicker than
temperature (Figure 6.3).

Figure (6.1). Reservoir model geometry. The arrows indicate the location of the time-
lapse seismic line (yellow dashed line) and Well 1D2-6.

Figure (6.2). Temperature distributions from the reservoir simulations at 1981, 1991
and 2000 time steps.

52
Figure (6.3) Pressure distributions from the reservoir simulations at 1981, 1991 and
2000 time steps.

6.3 Synthetic seismic section

Since the time-lapse seismic surveys were acquired in February 1991 and
March 2000, we did seismic modelling only for these two time steps. We
constructed velocity and density models using well logs for regions above
the reservoir and calculated the velocity and density within the reservoir
using reservoir simulation outputs. The velocity and density model is
shown in (Figure 6.4). The seismic modelling was performed using point
sources and shot gathers for better simulation results.

Figure (6.4) Velocity and density model for seismic modelling.

6.4 Discussion
(Figure 6.5) shows the synthetic difference section (bottom) and seismic
survey difference section (top) between time steps 2000 and 1991. The
overall match between the seismic survey difference section and the
synthetic seismic difference section is very good. Seismic difference
banding effects are apparent in both difference sections around the CSS
wells. The large difference energy between well V5 and V10 around the

53
Top Cambrian appears on both difference sections. The simulated gas
saturation, reservoir pressure and temperature distributions are plotted in
(Figures 6.6, 6.7 and 6.8), respectively, for the three reservoir layers at
1981, 1991 and 2000 time steps. Gas saturation in 1981 was zero. The gas
saturation here is for a gas phase constituted of different components such
as water vapor and methane. The marked wells are those within 60 m
around the seismic line.
According to historical data, wells 1D2-6 and 3B1-6 have been in CSS
operation since 1983 and well L8 was in CSS operation fro m 1983 to
1997. Wells L8 and 1D2-6 were shut in from 1988 to 1992; therefore in
1991 the reservoir in this part was heated up somewhat but was not at a
high temperature. Wells 3C1-6, T3, V5 and V10 have been in CSS since
1992, 1995, 1996 and 1997, respectively. Large seismic difference energy
appears around the area of these wells because they were not active in
1991. The W wells started CSS in late 1999; not long enough to have an
impact on the seismic differences. We can see that t h e r e is little
temperature change between 1991 and 2000 on the left side of well 1D2-
6. We also found gas saturation corresponding to pressure decrease even
at low temperatures (CDPs 40 to 80). Difference energy is visible around
600 ms and 750 ms at C D P locations 100 to 200 but is restricted to the
top of the reservoir at other CDP locations (CDPs 40 to 80).

6.5 result
By comparing the saturation, temperature and pressure results from the
reservoir simulation with the synthetic difference (Figures 12 to 14), we
derived the following conclusions:
1. The areas with gas saturation differences between the two compared
time steps show seismic differences because the presence of gas reduces
the bulk modulus and bulk density of the saturated rock.
2. Thicker gas zones correspond with larger traveltime delays in the
seismic section. The thin gas zones only induce large reflectivity and do
not have enough time delay to cause a strong seismic difference in the
deeper regions below the reservoir zone (CDPs 40 to 80 on the synthetic
seismic difference section).
3. High temperature regions also correlate with areas having seismic
energy differences but the correlation is not as strong as the correlation
with the gas saturation differences.
4. Pressure spreads very quickly and its value depends on whether the
location is in the injection or production stage. The pressure dependence
of the seismic data is due to the influence of pressure on gas saturation.

54
 Figure (6.5) the synthetic seismic
difference section (bottom) and the
seismic survey

(Figure 6.6) Gas saturation in the (Figure 6.7) Pressure in the three
three layers versus the synthetic. layers versus the synthetic seismic
seismic difference section difference section.

(Figure 6.8)
Temperature in
the three layers
versus the
synthetic seismic
difference
section.

55
7.0 Fractured Reservoir
Characterization using AVAZ on the
Pinedale Anticline,Wyoming, USA
David Gray, Sean Boerner, Dragana Todorovic-Marinic and Ye
Zheng, Veritas DGC, Calgary

7.1 Summary

The Pinedale Anticline in Wyoming, USA, has become an area of

particular interest since the recent success of several wells that have
produced significant volumes of gas from its tight sandstone reservoirs.
The best production rates appear to come from reservoirs that have had
their permeability enhanced by natural fractures. A new seismic attribute
uses azimuthal variations in the amplitudes of seismic data at long shot-
receiver offsets to identify the presence of open natural fractures. The
results have been incorporated into a fractured reservoir characterization
run for this field.

7.2 Introduction

The reservoirs currently of interest in the Pinedale Anticline are the tight
sands of the Lance and Mesaverde Formations. These units were
deposited during a period of rapid sedimentation in the late Cretaceous.
Sediments were eroded off the western upland and carried by fluvial
systems flowing to the east. As a result, the areal extent of these
reservoirs tends to be limited, and individual reservoirs may not be
commercial. However, when several of these sand bodies are stacked
vertically, an amalgamated package can be as thick as 100 feet, and
viable commercial wells may be drilled into these stacked sands. Through
the entire sequence of more than 3000 feet, a vertical well may encounter
up to 100 individual sandstone units. The Lance and Mesaverde were
buried by up to 8000 feet of Tertiary section, which compressed these
sands so that they are now tight sandstones with low permeability. The
reservoir rocks have moderate porosity ranging from 8-12% and usually
have low permeability unless enhanced by natural fractures. The key to
economically producing from these formations in the Pinedale Anticline
is to find areas where open natural fractures enhance the low permeability
of the reservoir rocks. (See appendix figures. (7.1 to 7.3) for Geology
background).

56
7.3 AVAZ Method

It has been shown that open, fluid- (or gas-) filled fractures can be
identified through the use of Amplitude Versus Angle and Azimuth
(AVAZ) analysis on seismic data. This technique uses variations in the
amplitudes of the long shot-receiver offsets of P-wave seismic data to
determine the intensity and orientation of the fractures. It assumes that the
fracturing generates a rock medium that is Horizontally Transverse
Isotropic (HTI) – meaning one open set of near-vertical, fluid-filled (or
gas-filled) fractures. The method used is based on the Azimuthal
Amplitude versus Incident Angle equation. This method can be modified
to produce attributes that may be useful in the identification of fractures
between wells.

The attributes we choose to output are:

1. Estimated Anisotropic Gradient
2. Estimated Azimuth of Anisotropic Gradient Minimum
3. Estimated P-wave Reflectivity
4. Estimated S-wave Reflectivity

These attributes are useful because they each contain different

information that may be relevant to identification of fracturing. The
anisotropic gradient is closely related to seismic crack density. The
azimuth of the anisotropic gradient is the strike of the fractures in a HTI
medium overlain by an isotropic medium. If the reservoir meets this HTI
criterion, then this azimuth is the strike of the fractures in the reservoir.
The P-wave reflectivity is the response of the rock to compression by the
seismic wave and includes information on the rock’s lithology and fluid
content. The S-wave reflectivity is the response of the rock to shearing by
the seismic wave and is comprised primarily of information about the
lithology. This is also one of the first times that the envelope of the
Anisotropic Gradient has been used. This attribute is similar to the
seismic amplitude envelope, in that it removes the effects of the phase of
the data. This should result in a more robust estimate of the crack density
and better vertical definition of the extent of fractured bodies.

7.4 Results

(Figure 7.4, see appendix) shows the structural time-interpretation

of the Lower Lance over the study area. (Figure 7.5, see appendix) shows
AVAZ results for a zone below the Lower Lance and depicts zones of
high intensity fracturing along the top of the anticline. These fractures

57
correspond to an expected zone of more intense fracturing caused by
increased stress near the top of the anticline. The highly fractured zones
are cut at the fault, west of the crest (Figure 7.6). Interestingly, in (Figure
7.5), areas of high AVAZ crack density values can be seen extending east
down the flank of the anticline in the northern part of the study area.
(Figure 7.7) shows the visualization of the results of geobody detection
used on zones of high seismic anisotropy that intersect a well-bore. These
zones probably indicate swarms of intense fracturing. This visualization
technique provides a good estimate of the drainage area of these
reservoirs. The drainage area appears quite anisotropic and varies for
each geobody Extending this analysis throughout the 50 square miles
analyzed for AVAZ in the Pinedale 3D, it can be seen in (Figure 7.8) that
the majority of these fractured sandstones exist to the west of the top of
the anticline, where few wells have been drilled.

(Figure7. 6b)
Estimated crack
density overlaid
by the estimated
shear-wave
stack. The shear-
wave stack is
estimated using
the AVO method.

(Figure 7.6a) Estimated crack density overlaid by the migrated stack.

More intense fracturing occurs in zones of high stress where the rocks are
bent the most for example, around the fault on the west side of the
anticline, on the crest of the anticline and down the right flank of the
anticline near the inflection point in the structure.

(Figure 7.8) View from

the north end of the
Pinedale Anticline
showing well traces and
geobodies of high crack
density between the top
of the Upper Lance
formation and the top of
the Mesaverde formation.

(Figure 7.7) An example of the visualization of fracture swarms around the well
track of a good gas well in the Pinedale field. The text along the well track indi-
cates the top and bottom of zones of hydraulic fracture treatments performed in
this well.

58
7.5 Fractured Reservoir Characterization

Recently, it has become possible to incorporate AVAZ attributes

into reservoir characterization. This result is extremely important because
it allows for better determination of fracture information between the
wells and thus a better understanding of fluid flow in the reservoir.
Historically, fractured reservoir characterization has been done with well
information and indirect measures of fracturing between the wells, such
as curvature, distance from faults and lithology. The seismic AVAZ
results provide a direct measurement of the effects of fractures between
the wells. However, these results have been difficult to tie to well control
in the past due to the paucity of direct fracture indications at the wells.
This causes difficulty in relating the seismic anisotropy measurements to
the fractures because of this limited well control. Boerner et al (2003) use
the SUREFrac neural network reservoir characterization to predict the
fracturing in the Pinedale Anticline reservoir, incorporating the AVAZ
attributes with those mentioned above.
Based on the best ranked of these attributes, multiple realizations of
reservoir simulations were generated by the SUREFrac neural network.
Realizations were created both with and without the AVAZ attributes,
with all other attributes remaining the same.
Based on this fractured reservoir characterization, we predicted that Ultra
Petroleum’s Riverside 4-10 well, then being drilled, would be among the
best producers from the Pinedale Anticline Field. The Riverside 4-10 well
had initial. Thus the production from the Riverside 4-10 well confirms
our prediction. Furthermore, the reservoir characterization using AVAZ
(shown on the right of Figure 7.9) suggests the high FI indicated at the
Riverside 4-10 well may continue to the excellent wells, including
Riverside 1-4, just outside our study area to the North. Incorporation of
the production from this well shifts the major production to the west
between the top of the anticline and the western fault. Through the
incorporation of the AVAZ crack density attribute, which is high in the
region where this well has been drilled, the neural network has been able
to extrapolate the successes on the top of the structure down-flank to
where this well has been drilled.

59
Figure (7.9) On the left is the output of SUREFrac using all attributes except those
from A VAZ. In the centre the new well, Riverside 4-10, is added. On the right is the
output using all attributes including the A VA Z attributes. The successful Riverside 4-
10 well drilled by Ultra Petroleum in July 2002 is highlighted as the large white
circle in the upper left of the displays.

Figure (7.10) AVA Z crack density results along a dip line intersecting the Riverside
4-10 well location. Note the stacked A VA Z crack density anomalies (red) at the
location of this successful well.

A
(Figure 7.11) Dip line from 3D volume after fractured reservoir characterization
showing variations of the Fracture Indicator with depth

60
Conclusion
Amplitude variations with offset seen on seismic data are due to
contrasts in elastic rock properties. These amplitude responses can be
easily described by linear AVO attribute extraction and can be used to
infer changes in the rocks. Seismic attributes can be important qualitative
and quantitative predictors of reservoir properties and geometries when
correctly used in reservoir characterization studies. Geostatistical data
methods, such as colocated cokriging and colocated cosimulations, offer
attractive means to integrate seismic attribute and well information,
without an estimation bias, and account for the scale (support) differences
between the two data types. By using bump mapping, it clearly enhances
an interpreter's ability to identify faults and other discontinuities on time
slices. The discontinuities evident on the shaded relief coherency display
appear as clearly defined ridges on the final bump mapped image.
haracterization. The effective stress used in this case study (along with IP
and IS as attributes in the lithofacies classification was derived from
high-resolution seismic velocity analysis. The results were used
successfully in low-frequency background model building for multi-
attribute seismic inversion and for a high quality lithofacies prediction
using effective stress as an attribute. An exciting feature of reservoir
characterization is that we are continuously able to prove or disprove our
models due to the dynamic flow of information from production. 4D
seismic data can image production changes in a variety of geological
settings and production scenarios, including water and gas sweep,
pressure changes and compaction, and enhanced recovery. The statistical
reservoir volume analysis the fault sealing analysis might be looked at as
a situation where there is a mismatch between changes of the shapes of
hydrocarbon "containers" derived from the 4D seismic and from the
reservoir simulator . Interpreters need to consider seismic inversion
whenever interpretation is complicated by interference from nearby
reflectors or when the end result is to be a quantitative reservoir property
such as porosity. By comparing the saturation, temperature and pressure
results from the reservoir simulation with the synthetic difference, we
derived the areas with gas saturation differences between the two
compared time steps. AVAZ analysis has been shown by many authors to
provide good estimates of fracture azimuth and intensity at the locations
of wells Because the results appear to be reasonable at well locations, it is
inferred the AVAZ attributes can be trusted to estimate these parameters
between wells.

*
References
Terra E.Bulloch, 1999, The Investigation of Fluid Properties and Seismic
Attributes for Reservoir Characterization, Michigan Technological
University (P.37-42).

Michael Burianyk, Scott Pickford, Calgary, November 2000, Amplitude-

Vs-Offset and Seismic Rock Property Analysis: A primer, CSEG Recorder.

Yongyi Li, Bill Goodway, and Jonathan Downton, March 2003, Recent
Advances in Application of AVO to Carbonate Reservoirs, Core
Laboratories Reservoir Technologies Division, Calgary; EnCana
Corporation, Calgary, CSEG RECORDER.

M. Turhan Taner, September, 2001, Seismic Attributes, Rock Solid Images,

Houston, U.S.A, CSEG RECORDER.

Arthur E. Barnes, September, 2001, Seismic Attributes in Your Facies,

Landmark Graphics Corp., Englewood, Colorado, U.S.A, CSEG
RECORDER.

Richard L. Chambers and Jeffrey M. Yarus, June 2002, Quantitative Use of

Seismic Attributes Reservoir Characterization, Quantitative Geosciences,
Inc. Broken Arrow, U.S.A, Houston, Texas, U.S.A, CSEG RECORDER.

Steven Lynch, 2005, Enhancing Fault Visibility Using Bump Mapped

Seismic Attributes, Divestco Inc and CREWES, John Townsley, Michael
Dennis, Chris Gibson, Divestco Inc, CSEG National Convention.

Ran Bachrach, Sheila Noeth, Niranjan Banik, Mita Sengupta, George

Bunge, Ben Flack, Randy Utech, Colin Sayers, Patrick Hooyman and
Lennert Den Boer, Schlumberger, Houston, USA, Lei Leu, Bill Troyer and
Jerry Moore, Nexen Petroleum USA, Dalls, MAY 2007, From pore-pressure
prediction to reservoir characterization: A combined geomechanics-seismic
inversion workflow using trend-kriging techniques in a deepwater basin, p
(590- 595), THE LEADING EDGE
**
Larry Lines, Ying Zou, and Joan Embleton,January 2005, Reservoir
Characterization and Heavy Oil Production, Department of Geology and
Geophysics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada, CSEG RECORDER.

David H. Johnston, February 9, 2005, Time-Lapse 4-D Technology:

Reservoir Surveillance, Search and Discovery Article #40142 (2005),
Adapted from the Geophysical Corner column in AAPG Explorer.

Lars Sønneland, Claude Signer, Helene Hafslund Veire, Toril Sæter, Juergen
Schlaf, Detecting flow-barriers with 4D seismic, European Union’s Thermie
Research program (OG 117/94 UK)

Steve Pickering works in reservoir services for WesternGeco in Gatwick,

United Kingdom. John Waggoner is a senior reservoir engineer for
WesternGeco in Houston, Texas, March 2003, Time-lapse has multiple
impacts, RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT, Advanced 4-D tools are helping
operators reap measurable rewards. Hart’s E&P

John Pendrel, January 2006, Seismic Inversion - Still the Best Tool for
Reservoir Characterization, Jason Geosystems , Fugro-Jason Canada,
Calgary, CSEG RECORDER.

Gary Robinson, January 2001, Stochastic Seismic Inversion Applied To

Reservoir Characterization, Englewood, Colorado, USA, CSEG
RECORDER

Ying Zou, Laurence Bentley and Laurence Lines, January 2005, Reservoir
characterization by combining time-lapse seismic analysis with reservoir
simulation, Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Calgary,
Calgary, Canada, CSEG RECORDER.

David Gray, Sean Boerner, Dragana Todorovic-Marinic and Ye Zheng,

June 2003, Fractured Reservoir Characterization using AVAZ on the
Pinedale Anticline, Wyoming, Veritas, Calgary, Canada, CSEG
RECORDER.
***
 From
Compute

Depth maps of important horizons

traveltimes (and velocity information)

Velocity
Differences in traveltime between
source and receiver

Contrast in rock properties

Measurements of reflection amplitude

Locations of faults and

stratigraphic changes

Discontinuities in reflection patterns

Dip and discontinuities

Differences in traveltimes along a surface

Table (2.1) structure, stratigraphic targets (Sheriff, 1992):

A
 From

Velocity Compute lithology, fluid

content, abnormal
pressure, or
temperature

Lateral amplitude changes

Hydrocarbon locations, changes in
porosity, lithology, or thickness

Seismic data patterns

Depositional environments, or
faults and fractures

Changes in measurement
direction Velocity anisotropy or fracture
orientation

Time-lapse measurements
(4D seismic) Locations of changes in hydrocarbon
distribution or bypassed pay

Table 2.2 structure, stratigraphic targets (Sheriff, 1992):

B
 For the flow simulation model the reservoir
engineer
N
E
E
D

1 nature of the fluids and their

2 Temperature
3 Locations of thief zones (high permeability layers)
4 saturations
5 Pressure
6 Permeability
Locations of barriers to flow (sealing and non-sealing faults
7
stratigraphic barriers, etc.)
The amount and spatial (vertical and horizontal) distribution
8
of porosity

Table 2.3 flow simulation model factors (Sheriff, 1992):

(Figure 3.1) Structural framework of the study area with wells (the orange surface
represents the top of salt).

C
Figure (3.6a) Schematic plot of IP compaction trend with respect to effective stress
showing the seismic signature of sedimentary compaction in clastic basins. Shale
trend and brine-sand trends are solid lines. The dotted line represents the fluid effect.
(b) Scatterplot showing the expected behavior of lithofacies units as a function of IP,
IS, and effective stress. Data points are generated using the scatter around the
effective stress trends as observed in well-log data.

Figure (3.7) Maps of the probability distribution function (pdf) at different effective
stress intervals.

D
(Figure 7.1) Map of the Lance Sand Depositional Fairway over the Pinedale
Anticline.

(Figure 7.2) Geologic formations in the Pinedale Anticline.

(Figure 7.3) Cretaceous and Tertiary stratigraphic column.

E
Figure (7.4) Time
structure of the
Lower-Lance
horizon interpreted
from Veritas’ 3D
multi-client survey.
(Figure 7.5) Map of
the migrated Crack
Density estimates
calculated using the
A VA Z technique
below the Lower-
Lance horizon.

F
 (2008-02-11)
Ramy Mohamad Fahmy Abou-Alhassan
is 4th group, geophysical student at
Ain-Shams Uni. Faculty of science,
Geophysical Dept. The essay about
Seismic Reservoir Characterization, Which it's very
simple complete essay to any geoscientist's level. May
be its advanced article but I'm thanking (ALLAH)
because I'm understand it. I finished from my new
research with title " determination of fault throw
without any contours, strikes or any elevation points"
in field or on map by using easy method. It is single
work. It's very useful in case of earth sciences (geology)
and I'm asking (ALLAH) to publish it. My currently is
study faulted plunging fold to obtain next information
from the map: *depping of plunging folds **detecting
types of faults *** determination the throw of the faults.