What is the Best Seismic Attribute for Quantitative Seismic Reservoir Characterization?

Dennis Cooke*1, Arcangelo Sena 2, Greg O'Donnell 3 , Tetang Muryanto 4 and Vaughn Ball 4 . 1 ARCO Alaska, 2 ARCO Exploration Technology, 3 ARCO Indonesia, 4 Matador Petroleum formerly ARCO Exploration Technology
Summary It is possible to generate at least 30 different seismic attributes from a given seismic data set. This presentation addresses the question of which of those post-stack attributes is most appropriate to use for a quantitative seismic reservoir characterization. Our conclusion is that an absolute impedance inversion is the best attribute in theory, but, in practice, a relative impedance inversion is much more practical. Introduction Reservoir characterization is the process of mapping a reservoir's thickness, net-to-gross ratio, pore fluid, porosity, permeability and water saturation. Traditionally, this has been done in a field development environment using data from well logs. Within the past few years, it has become possible to make some of these maps using seismic attributes when those attributes are calibrated with available well control. The advantage of using wells and seismic instead of just wells alone, is that the seismic data can be used to interpolate and extrapolate between and beyond sparse well control. There is a multitude of different seismic attributes that can be generated from a given seismic data set. A quick review of one popular seismic interpretation package shows that one can generate at least 30 different seismic attributes from an input seismic survey. Some of these attributes are much better than others for reservoir characterization, but there has not been much discussion of this in the geophysical literature. The objective of this presentation is to try to classify seismic attributes and show which ones work best for reservoir characterization. One way to organize and understand seismic attributes is to separate them into the following four categories: 1)Qualitative attributes such as coherency - and perhaps instantaneous phase or instantaneous frequency - are very good for highlighting spatial patterns such as faults or facies changes. It is difficult if not impossible to relate these attributes directly to a logged reservoir property like porosity or thickness, and thus these attributes are not normally used to quantify reservoir properties. 2)Quantitative attributes: The simplest quantitative attributes are the amplitude (of a peak or a trough) on zero phase data, relative impedance data or absolute impedance data. In our opinion, these three attributes (zero phase amplitude, relative impedance and absolute impedance) are the most useful for quantitative reservoir characterization. 3)Interval attributes are those that are used to quantify a window of seismic data usually containing more than one peak or through. Most seismic attributes fall into this category. Examples of interval attributes are number of zero crossings, average energy and dominant frequency. These attributes are frequently used when a reservoir's seismic reflection(s) are so discontinuous that it is impossible 'pick' the same peak or trough on all traces. An interval attribute is analogous to a well log cross section with a number of thin, discontinuous sands that can not be correlated with any certainty. For this reservoir, a net-togross sand ratio map is made instead of individual sand (flow) unit thickness maps. A seismic reservoir characterization is always improved if all peaks and troughs over the reservoir interval can be 'picked' individually and thus have quantitative attributes extracted. If this is not possible, the use of interval attributes is warranted. 4)AVO attributes are those that are generated using a reflection's pre-stack amplitudes. Examples of pre-stack attributes are AVO gradient, AVO intercept, near amplitude and far amplitude. 3D pre-stack attributes have only become available recently with the advent of affordable pre-stack time migrations. Pre-stack attributes have a lot of promise, but are beyond the scope of this presentation. This talk will focus on the three main quantitative attributes (zero phase, relative impedance and absolute impedance) and address their respective advantages and disadvantages. Zero Phase Amplitudes All seismic attributes are calculated from the final migrated zero phase dataset (or what is believed to be zero phase). Clearly, the easiest, fastest, least expensive attribute is the zero phase amplitude. The convolutional model and the reflection coefficient formula show that a reflector's zero phase amplitude can be directly related to the reservoir's impedance. A thin-bed tuning curve model shows that zero phase amplitude is also directly related to reservoir thickness. Additionally, gas substitution modeling shows that a reservoir's zero phase amplitude can be influenced by changes in pore fluids. A solid theoretical conclusion is that

What is the Best Seismic Attribute for Reservoir Characterization?

changes in zero phase amplitude are a function of changes in reservoir impedance, thickness and pore fluid. This conclusion has been proven by many successful quantitative reservoir characterizations done with zero phase amplitude. Absolute Impedance and its Advantages The absolute impedance attribute can be generated with either a Seislog type impedance inversion (one that includes a low frequency background model) or a modelbased inversion such, as that first described in Cooke and Schneider (1983). There are two major motivations for using absolute impedance for reservoir characterization: 1)The amplitudes on an absolute impedance dataset describe the impedance of the rocks, where the amplitudes on a zero phase dataset describe the impedance contrast between rocks. Put another way, the impedance attribute is related to the geology while the zero phase attribute is related to the derivative of the geology. The importance of this difference can not be overstated for the case where the impedance of both the reservoir and the surrounding rock are changing laterally. Consider Figure 1 which shows the distribution of impedance for both cap rock and reservoir rock (gas filled and oil filled) at Prudhoe Bay Field. These distributions can be input into the reflection coefficient formula which leads to the reflection coefficient distributions of Figure 2. Figure 1 corresponds to absolute impedance data and Figure 2 would correspond to zero phase data (without a seismic wavelet). Clearly, the ability to discriminate between oil filled reservoir and gas filled reservoir is enhanced in the absolute impedance case. oil sand. The cap rock impedance varies due to lateral lithology changes and because it is a waste rock and contains some oil and/or gas.

Figure2: Reflection coefficient probability distribution. Calculated using the impedances in Figure 1 and the formula: RC = (Z2-Z1)/(Z2+Z1) where Z1 and Z2 are the impedances of the cap and reservoir rock.

2)The second major motivation for using absolute impedance instead of zero phase amplitude concerns the amplitude scale and format problem that occurs with zero phase data. Consider an undrilled gas prospect on one 3D survey, with a second 3D survey that covers a nearby gas discovery. With zero phase seismic data, the prospect's amplitudes and the gas discovery's amplitudes can not be compared (unless a similar empirical scaling has been applied to both). Furthermore, the gas discovery's logs can not be compared the amplitudes on the zero phase seismic data. When both 3Ds are converted to absolute impedance, the seismic amplitudes can be compared to each other and to the impedance logs from the gas well. Disadvantages of Absolute Impedance Absolute impedance inversions can be very expensive in terms of both money and time delays. Frequencies in the inversion above the seismic bandpass will be non-unique. And since the input zero phase seismic data does not contain frequencies below the seismic bandpass (which are required for inversion), information at these frequencies must be supplied by the processor. The work that is done to prepare and constrain the low frequency portion of inversions can be very subjective and interpretive. Most often, this work on the low frequencies is not done by the interpreter, but by others who may not communicate to the interpreter the subjective nature of the low frequencies. A good way to understand the problem with the low frequencies in absolute impedance inversion is to consider a hypothetical inversion between two wells as in Figures 3A and 3B. Wells A and B at structural highs have tight

Figure 1: Probability density functions for the acoustic impedance of Sadlerochit reservoir and Shublik cap rock at Prudhoe Bay Field.

The data in Figure 1 are taken from a gas well and an oil well. As expected, the gas sand has slower impedance that

What is the Best Seismic Attribute for Reservoir Characterization?

and thin reservoir (marked in yellow). A prospective location exists between the wells, but it is not clear if the reservoir there is better or worse than on the highs (and this is why the inversion is being done). The inversion process requires input of a low frequency (below seismic bandwidth) impedance for all traces. At wells A and B, this low frequency is taken from the well control. At all other locations, the processor must interpolate, interpret or guess at this low frequency input. At the proposed location, this low frequency guess could take the form of a linear interpolation between wells A and B (shown in black in 3A). Alternatively, the low frequencies at this location could be modified to fit the structure of the reservoir (i.e. shifted down to tie the yellow horizon). Additionally, the low frequency input could be modified to fit hypothetical depositional models. Two possible depositional models: Depositional Model 1): The package of sediments that surrounds the reservoir it is a predominantly fluvial system. This implies that locations A and B would have preferentially received thin, shaley over-bank deposits and the proposed location would have received more sand. Assuming that sands have a slower velocity than the shales here, this depositional model implies that the proposed location needs a low frequency input that is lower than that found at wells A and B. This model's low frequency input is shown in blue in Figure 3B. Depositional Model 2): This is a predominantly shallow water marine system and the package of sediments at the proposed location have more shale than at A and B. Again, if the sands are slower than the shales, the proposed location would needs a low frequency input that is faster than found at wells A and B. This low frequency input is shown in red in Figure 3B. Each of these three different low frequency models are just as correct as the others. And, if their frequency content is below the seismic bandwidth, three separate inversions using them would lead to three significantly different results for the full bandwidth absolute inversion. Since inclusion of the low frequencies can lead to such confusion, perhaps the best approach is to not include them at all. This leads to an inversion that is restricted to the bandwidth of the input seismic - also called a relative impedance inversion. Relative Impedance Inversion The high cost and uncertain nature of absolute impedance inversions are the result of including the low frequencies in that inversion. If the low frequencies are not used, these problems go away, but the absolute impedance inversion becomes a relative impedance inversion.
Figure 3B: Three different low frequency impedance trends for the proposed location in Figure 3A.

Figure 3A. Hypothetical inversion example.

There are numerous ways to calculate a relative impedance inversion from the zero phase dataset. Perhaps the simplest method is based on Lindseth (1979) who rewrites the reflection coefficient formula to express impedance as the integral - or running sum - of the reflection coefficients. This running sum can also be expressed as a convolutional filter where the phase spectrum is a 90 degree rotation and the amplitude spectrum has a -6dB/octave filter. One very easy way to generate an relative impedance dataset is to use this 90 degree phase rotation filter. There are two advantages to absolute inversion listed earlier: 1) geology vs. derivative of geology and 2) the scale problem of zero phase dataset. The relative impedance dataset does just as good of a job as the absolute impedance on the first problem. However, on first inspection, the relative impedance inversion appears to have the same scale problem as the zero phase dataset it

What is the Best Seismic Attribute for Reservoir Characterization?

was generated from. This implies that relative impedances from different 3D surveys and from well data can not be quantitatively compared. There are two ways one can address the scale problem associated with relative impedance. The first way only scales a reservoir's relative impedance map and not the entire relative impedance dataset. When doing any reservoir characterization project where a number of wells are available, the reservoir's impedance at the well locations should always be cross plotted against the reservoir's well log properties. This cross-plotting step indicates whether or not the impedances are related to the well log properties, and if they are, the cross plot supplies the information needed to calibrate relative impedance and remove its scale problem. For example, if a cross plot between a reservoir's relative impedance and reservoir porosity-feet shows a linear trend of the sort: porosity-feet = A*(relative impedance) + B then a map of the reservoir's relative impedance can be transformed into porosity-feet by multiplying by A and adding B. This solves the relative impedance scale problem. Note that for an absolute impedance dataset, the inversion step incorporates the low frequency information and 'scales' the input data to absolute impedance, but it is then rescaled to porosity-feet with the cross-plotting. The first scale step for absolute impedance dataset is thus redundant. The second method to scale a relative impedance dataset is used when there are not a sufficient wells to make a cross plot and/or the cross plot does not give a linear trend. This method simply rescales the relative impedance data so that its RMS amplitude for over a large user-defined depth and map window is constant (usually = 1.0). This RMS rescale is only valid if the earth's impedance averaged over a large window is also constant. This scale process allows comparison of amplitudes on the relative inversion with relative impedance amplitudes from well models. An example of this is shown in figure 4 which comes from Cooke and Muryanto (1999). Another quantitative tool that is available with this type of scaling is to apply it to all the seismic data over known oil and/or gas reservoirs for a basin. This allows one to build a database that can be sorted by fluid type or reservoir or reservoir thickness. This database tool can be very useful for quantifying exploration risk. Conclusion A quantitative seismic reservoir analysis needs to be done using a seismic dataset whose format allows easy comparison between well data and different seismic datasets. This can be done with absolute impedance data, scaled impedance data or scaled zero phase data. The absolute impedance data is theoretically the best option, but it has drawbacks related to its low frequency content. If the low frequencies are removed, the result is a relative impedance dataset, which is in practice the best seismic attribute. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank ARCO Alaska, ARCO Exploration Technology and Operations, and ARCO Indonesia for permission to publish this work. The interpretations and conclusions discussed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Prudhoe Bay Unit Working Interest Owners. References Cooke, D.A. and Schneider W.A., Generalized Linear Inversion of Reflection Seismic Data, Geophysics, Vol. 48, No. 6 (June 1983) P. 665-676 Cooke D.A. and Muryanto, T., Reservoir Quantification of B Field, Java Sea via Statistical and Theoretical Methods, Submitted for presentation at the 1999 SEG International Exposition and Meeting, Houston, TX USA Lindseth, R. , 1979 Synthetic Sonic Logs - A process for Straigraphic Interpretation: Geophysics, 44, 3-26.

Figure 4. Tuning curves made from synthetic relative impedance data scaled to match amplitudes with 3D survey.