Advances in 3D Seismic

Interpretation
Satinder Chopra

ARCIS Seismic Solutions,

Calgary

Course conducted at Symposio Bolivariano, Cartagena, on 28 th July, 2012

What is coherence?
Measures the similarity of the seismic
waveform between adjacent traces.
Images discontinuities in your seismic data,
instead of reflections.
Reveals structural and stratigraphic changes
in your data, such as faults, channels, reef
edges

Coherence display convention

measurement of local waveform similarity within a
global aperture defined in space and time

gh coherence event ~ high values typically displayed as light co

ow coherence event ~ low values typically displayed as dark colo

What is coherence?
Coherence measures the similarity of the waveform
between neighbouring traces.

Seismic Time Slice

5 km

(Bahorich and Farmer, 1995)

Coherence Time Slice

salt

5 km

(Bahorich and Farmer, 1995)

Coherence Time Slices

Seismic (1184 ms)

Coherence (1184 ms)

The standout of channels on the time slice from

coherence volume demonstrates the clarity and detail
that coherence brings out.

cr
o

cr

ss
lin
e

os
sl
in
e

Coherence compares the waveforms of

neighboring traces

inline

inline

Cross correlation of 2 traces

Trace #1
lag:

Shifted windows
of Trace #2
-4

-2

0 +2

+4

Cross
correlation

40 ms

Maximum
coherence

AAA
high

Time slice
through average
absolute
amplitude

coh

high

Time slice
through
coherence
(early algorithm)

low

(Bahorich and Farmer, 1995)

Vertical slice
through seismic

amp
pos

neg

A
coh

high

Time slice
through
coherence
(later algorithm)

low

(Haskell et al. 1995)

Appearance faults perpendicular and parallel to strike

N

3 km

seismic

Alternative measures of waveform

similarity
Cross correlation
Semblance, variance
Eigenstructure
Gradient Structural Tensors (GST)

Semblance estimate of coherence

5. coherence

2. Calculate the average

wavelet within the
analysis window.

Analysis
window

1. Calculate energy of input traces

energy of average traces

energy of input traces

t-K t
dip

3. Estimate coherent traces by their average

4. Calculate energy of average traces

t+K t

Pitfall: Banding artifacts near zero crossings

8 ms

Solution: calculate coherence on the analytic

trace

Coherence of real trace

Coherence of analytic trace

Eigenstructure estimate of coherence

5. coherence

energy of coherent compt

energy of input traces

Analysis
window

1. Calculate energy of input traces 2. Calculate the wavelet that

best fits the data within the
analysis window.

t-K t
dip

3. Estimate coherent compt of traces

4. Calculate energy of coherent compt of traces

t+K t

Eigenstructure coherence:
Time slice through seismic

Eigenstructure coherence:
Time slice through total energy in 9 trace, 40 ms window

scour

salt

Eigenstructure coherence:
Time slice through coherent energy in 9 trace, 40 ms window

scour

salt

Eigenstructure coherence:
Time slice through ratio of coherent to total energy

faults
scour

salt

Coherence
algorithm
evolution
Seismic

Crosscorrelation
Canyon

Salt

Channels

Semblance

Eigenstructure

(Gersztenkorn and Marfurt, 19

Comparison of algorithm
performance

Semblance

Energy ratio

Eigen-decomposition

Comparison of algorithm
performance

Coherence
Coherence
(Eigen
(Energy ratio)
decomposition)
Time slices at 1342 ms

Comparison of algorithm performance

Coherence (Eigen-decomposition)

Coherence (Energy ratio)

Coherence (Eigen-decomposition)

Coherence (Energy ratio)

Time slices

Semblance without dip steering

Energy ratio with dip steering

Time slices (1308 ms)

Semblance without dip steering

Energy ratio with dip steering

Time slices (1360 ms)

Semblance without dip steering

Energy ratio with dip steering

Semblance without dip steering

Energy ratio with dip steering

Seismic

Coherence (Energy ratio)

30 - E

Time slices (1240 ms)

Coherence (semblance)

Correlation of seismic with coherence using 3D

visualization

(Data courtesy: OILEXCO, Calgary)

An inline from a seismic volume.

The same inline after conditioning. Notice the cleaner look of the
section after conditioning.

Time slice at 1130 ms from coherence volume (a) before (b) after conditioning.

Seismic

Time
s l i ces

Seismic
With structure-oriented filtering

at
1232 ms

Coherence

Coherence

Coherence artifacts due to an efficient

calculation without search for structure

Coherence computed
along a time slice

Coherence computed
along structure

0.4 s

Seismic

0.6 s
A

t (s)

0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0

0.8 s

1.2
1.4
Seismic section

1.0 s

1.2 s
1.4 s

0.4 s

Coherence
without dip
search

0.6 s
A

t (s)

0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0

0.8 s

1.2
1.4
Coherence section

1.0 s

1.2 s
1.4 s

0.4 s

Coherence
with dip
search

0.6 s
A

t (s)

0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0

0.8 s

1.2
1.4
Coherence section

1.0 s

1.2 s
1.4 s

Impact of
lateral analysis
window
radius = 12.5 m

radius = 37.5 m

radius = 25 m

radius = 50 m

Impact of vertical analysis window

On a
stratigraphic
target
Temporal
aperture = 8 ms

Temporal
aperture = 32
ms

On a
structural
target
Temporal
aperture = 8 ms

Temporal
aperture = 40

Impact of vertical analysis window

(time slice at t = 1.586 s)

+/- 12
24
6 ms
ms

Time
slices vs.
horizon
slices

Coherence time
slice
(better for fault
and salt analysis)
salt
5 km

Coherence
horizon slice
(better for
stratigraphic
analysis)

time (ms)

5 km

Impact of
height of
analysis
window

+32
+24
+16
+8
0
-8
-16
-24
-32

analysis
window

time (ms)

5 km
+32
+24
+16
+8
0
-8
-16
-24
-32

analysis window

Coherence
1.164 s

1.256 s

1.200 s

(a)
1.164 s

1.200 s

1.256 s

(b)
(c)

3 km

Coherence
D
B

A
N
C
B

Coherence
3 km

(a)

(b)

(c)

Coherence
3k

0.926 s

0.6

0.928 s
Time (s)

0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4

0.930 s

0.930 s

48 - E
0.932 s

0.934 s

Coherence
N

1.616 s

1.618 s

1.620 s

1.622 s

1.624 s

1.626 s

1.6128 s

1.630 s

1.632 s

1.634 s

491.636
- Es

1.638 s

1.640 s

1.642 s

1.644 s

Coherence

1 km

92 ms

94 ms

96 ms

98 ms

100 ms

102 ms

104 ms

106 ms

108 ms

110 ms

1 km

Coherence
152 ms

148 ms

144 ms

140 ms

136 ms

132 ms

128 ms

124 ms

120 ms

116 ms

Channels - Western Canada

Coherence time slice

Amplitude time slice

Time slice from a coherence volume from British Columbia, Canada, showing faults at the lower half and channels in the upper
half. Because of the dip in the data the time slice is cutting through the stratigraphy and so portions of the features are seen.
(Data courtesy: Arcis Corporation, Calgary)

(a)

Strat-slice from coherence volume at a shallower level exhibiting faults clearly. Some channels are also seen in more or less their
complete disposition. (Data courtesy: Arcis Corporation, Calgary)

Strat- slice from coherence volume from British Columbia, Canada showing channels and faults clearly. The strat-slice is at
a deeper level than shown in the previous slide. (Data courtesy: Arcis Corporation, Calgary)

Coherence

Negative

Seismic

Positive

Low

Time slices (676 ms)

Coherence

High

Coherence

Negative

Seismic

Positive

Low

Time slices (1176 ms)

Coherence

High

Coherence

Strat-cubes

Coherence

Low

High

Coherence
Strat-cube (coherence)

Coherence

*
*
**

Strat-cube (coherence)

Cross faults on coherence strat-cube

Low

High

Coherence

Coherence

Coherence

Coherence

Reefs

Slice from coherence volume with

coherence amplitude envelope
superimposed

1112 ms

1114 ms

1116 ms

Slice from seismic volume

1118 ms

1120 ms

Slices from coherence volume depicting prominent

and isolated reefs in Northern Alberta.

1122 ms
1124 ms

Chopra, 2001

Canadian Pinnacle Reef

Outer
limit
of
reef

Main reef
core

Outer reefal
area
containing
debris
from
reef

Chopra & Marfurt, 2007

3D View of a Pinnacle Reef using Coherence

Chopra & Marfurt, 2007

Series of Coherence Time Slices through a Pinnacle

Reef

TOP

BOTTOM

red = low coherence

blue = high coherence

Chopra & Marfurt, 2007

coherence

seismic
Chopra & Marfurt, 2007

Coherence for fault/fracture detection

Time slice from the seismic volume;

Time slice from seismic coherence

volume

Coherence slice (b) overlaid on

seismic slice (a)

(a)

(b)
Apart from the obvious E-W running prominent faults, it is difficult to
put faults on the seismic slice; coherence slice not only shows up
faults with clarity but also the intensively fractured region to the right.
Overlaying the coherence slices at different levels on the
corresponding seismic slices can help in transferring faults to the
seismic volume. 3D visualization could then be used to see the
disposition of fault planes in the 3D volume.

(c)
Chopra & Marfurt, 2007

time structure

coherence time slice

N

Abqaiq field , a domal structure, seen here cut by a coherence slice

Chopra & Marfurt, 2007

Seismic line showing the main horizons and the faults, extensional on the crest and
anomalous reverse faults on the left flank

Chopra & Marfurt, 2007

structure and fault map

prior to 3-D

3-D update

coherence update

Chopra & Marfurt, 2007

Polygonal fault patterns can be

seen on the surface as dried stream
beds, but subsurface patterns are
not seen on vertical seismic sections
or time slices

400 ms

Coherence volume makes the subsurface polygonal patterns

( e.g. as depicted by dewatered overpressured shales) stand out
400 ms

Chopra & Marfurt, 2007

Coherence as a bright spot indicator

Seismic

Coherence

Coh.envelope

Coherence + Coh.envelope

Chopra & Marfurt, 2007

Composite Displays

Coherence
127

Range of low
end impedance
values

127

90
Range of low
end impedance
values chosen to
merge with
coherence
coefficients

Range of
coherence
values

8000

5000

-128

-128

Impedance

Fig.3 : Mechanism of composite displays

Impedance on coherence

Composite displays of coherence and inversion

1.

3.

Coherence slice

508 ms

Slices 1 and 2 morphed 508 ms

2.

4.

High

High

Low end of
impedance

Coherence

Low

Low

Impedance Inversion slice 508 ms

Impedance range of interest in 2

508 ms
merged with coherence in 1

Chopra & Marfurt, 2007

High

1044 ms

Coherence on zero offset seismic

1044 ms

Low

Derived P impedance

Chopra 2001

High

Low
High

Time slices from

different data volumes
1044 ms

Coherence on P impedance

Low

Offshore West Africa

Se

or
o
l
aF

Hazards??
Chopra & Marfurt, 2007

Migrated Time slice

Chopra & Marfurt, 2007

Concentric faults

Fluid transport path?

Coherence Cube
Chopra & Marfurt, 2007

Coherence
Time slices (320 ms)

Without AMO

With AMO

Low

High

Coherence

Coherence
Time slices (1760 ms)

Without AMO

With AMO

Low

High

Coherence

Coherence
Time slices (1248 ms)

Without AMO

With AMO

Low

High

Coherence

Coherence
Time slices (1778 ms)

Without AMO

With AMO

Low

High

Coherence

Coherence
Time slices (1018ms) from coherence volumes before
and after AMO

Before AMO

After AMO

An inline from 3-D seismic volume before AMO

An inline from 3-D seismic volume after AMO

Strat-slices from coherence volumes before and

after AMO

Before AMO

After AMO

An inline from 3-D seismic volume before AMO

An inline from 3-D seismic volume after AMO

Coherence volume

Using coherence and seismic cubes together

(a)

(b)

(c)

Coherence

Conclusions
Adding the coherence dimension to your seismic
data enables you to see stratigraphic features,
faults and fractures better.
Adding the coherence dimension to your
seismic data enables you to see stratigraphic
features, faults and fractures better.
Bottomline:
Add the coherence dimension to your 3D
seismic data
If its worth doing well, its worth doing

ADD THE
ATTRIBUTE DIMENSION
to your data.
Interpretation done
accurately
and
coherently
is bound to be done well.

Jeopardy
Questions