Program StudiTeknik Geologi Dr. Ir.

Eko Widianto, MT
FakultasTeknologi Kebumian dan Energi Semester Ganjil_2015 - 2016
UniversitasTrisakti
 LECTURE MATERIALS
1 Introduction: Level of Petroleum Investigation (All)
2 Geophysics and Reservoir Management (EW)
3 Fields Discovery, Delineation and Development Problem (EW)
4 DHI and Seismic Pitfalls (EW)
5 Seismic Attributes (BN)
6 Seismic Inversion (BN)
7 AVO Analysis (BN)
8 Reservoir Modeling (BN)
9 Reservoir Monitoring (EW)
10 4D Seismic and Gravity: Cases History (EW)
11 Reservoir Geophysics and Emerging Technology (EW)
2
Oil and gas operational phases and Technology Involvement
Project Critical subsurface information Technology
phase Involvement
1) Exploration Proven Petroleum System and Play Concepts Geophysics
Resources and Reserves information Geology Concept
Drilling
2) Delineation Total hydrocarbon volume Geophysics
Areal limits of petroleum reservoir Geology Concept
Deliverability Drilling
Reservoir
3) Development Compartmentalization Geophysics
Bypass Oil Development Geology
Exact locations of development wells Drilling
Reservoir
4) Production Hydrocarbon saturation and pressure changes Production
Flow restrictions and channeling Reservoir
Geophysics

7/9/14 3
 Re-Mapping of Sedimentary Basins of
Indonesia

Define the Petroleum System and

Exploration Play Concepts of each Sub-
Basins of Indonesia

Define the Oil and Gas Resources of entire

Basins of Indonesia

Prove the resources to be reserves,

including the areas where seismic method
doesnt work

Build reservoir model accurately

Monitor and image the dynamic properties

of reservoir until field termination
Optimize production and Improve Recovery
Factor
Reduce CO2 Emission

7/9/14 4
The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Exploration
Geophysics defines a direct hydrocarbon indicator
as "a seismic measurement which indicates the
presence of hydrocarbon accumulation" (Sheriff,
1973).

These measurements may be in the form of "bright

spots", "dim-outs", flat spots, polarity reversals,
velocity sags, frequency changes, increases of
amplitude with offset and P-wave versus S-wave
ratios, among others. We commonly abbreviate
"direct hydrocarbon indicator" as DHI or HCI.
What Are DHIs?
DHI = Direct Hydrocarbon Indicator

Seismic DHIs are anomalous seismic responses

related to the presence of hydrocarbons
Acoustic impedance of a porous rock decreases as
hydrocarbon replaces brine in pore spaces of the rock,
causing a seismic anomaly (DHI)
There are a number of DHI signatures; we will look at
a few common ones:
Amplitude anomaly
Fluid contact reflection
Fit to structural contours

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWS 2005 L12 Data Analysis

Typical Impedance Depth Trends

In general: 5 10
IMPEDANCE x 103
15 20 25
3
Oil sands are lower impedance
than water sands and shales 4 SHALE
OIL
SAND
Gas sands are lower 5 Looking for
shallow gas

DEPTH x 103 FEET

impedance than oil sands
6

The difference in the

7
impedance tends to decrease
with depth 8
Looking for
The larger the impedance 9
deep oil

difference between the HC

sand and its encasing shale, 10
Data for Gulf Of Mexico Clastics
the greater the anomaly
Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWS 2005 L12 Data Analysis
DHIs: Amplitude Anomalies
Anomalous amplitudes

Change in amplitude
along the reflector

Low High Amplitude

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWS 2005 L12 Data Analysis

DHIs: Fluid Contacts

Hydrocarbons are Thicker Reservoir

lighter than water

and tend to form flat
events at the gas/oil
contact and the Fluid contact
oil/water contact. event

Thinner Reservoir

Fluid contact
event

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWS 2005 L12 Data Analysis

DHIs: Fit to Structure

Since hydrocarbons are

lighter than water, the
fluid contacts and
associated anomalous
seismic events are
generally flat in depth
and therefore conform
to structure, i.e., mimic
a contour line

Courtesy of ExxonMobil FWS 2005 L12 Data Analysis

Push Down Effect
Gas Chimney
Dim Spot of gas bearing porous carbonate
ngeboran

Extracted Seismic Amplitude Map

mbar 5. Peta amplitudo yang diekstrak dari data seismik menunjukan adany
 Figure reprinted through courtesy of Chevron USA, Inc.

A horizon slice of the productive sand. The high amplitudes against

the salt dome and noted in yellow indicates minor amounts of gas
in solution downdip. And the red (high amplitudes) along the major
fault is interpreted as gas migrating toward the trap after migrating
up the fault.
 Hydrocarbon Indicator Validation

General Guidelines
In looking at various types of hydrocarbon indicators, we
become aware that what may appear to be a true bright
spot, flat spot, etc., may turn out be a false indicator. This,
along with our experiences of drilling dry holes, tells us that
seismic responses are non-unique. We therefore need to
develop criteria for validating the seismic anomaly, and
determine as best we can whether the anomaly is a "true"
or "false" HCI.
Brown (1991) and Sheriff (1992) independently published
questions an interpreter should address in an effort to
validate observed hydrocarbon indicators. Below is a
composite of those questions, along with some that we
have added:
QUESTIONS
1. Is the reflection from the suspect reservoir anomalous in
amplitude? Is it a local increase in amplitude (bright spot) or a
local decrease in amplitude (dim spot)? Is the bright spot a result
of tuning of thin beds? Does this amplitude fit the geology?
Within what Zone is the anomaly?
2. Is the amplitude anomaly structurally consistent? Is it on a
structural crest or against a fault? Is it within a fault shadow? Do
you see it on several seismic lines and not just one? Is it map
able?
3. Is there one reflection from the top of the amplitude anomaly and
one from the base? Are they consistent with the expected limits
of the reservoir?
4. Are the polarities consistent such that the amplitudes of the top
and base reflections vary in unison? Do the amplitudes behave
consistently at the limits of the reservoir?
5. Is there a reflection that is discordant (flat) to the structurally
dipping reflections that is obviously not a multiple? Is the flat spot
map able?
6. Is the flat spot truly flat or its it dipping consistently due to the
presence of low-velocity conditions above it?
7. Is the flat spot located at the down dip limit of bright or dim
amplitude?
8. Are the data zero phase?
9. Does the reflection change wave shape and go through a polarity
reversal? Is this phase change consistent from line to line?
10. Is there a sag in the reflection below the amplitude anomaly
indicating the presence of low-velocity hydrocarbons?
11. Is there evidence of a velocity drop in the trace inversion display?
Does is make geologic sense? Does the velocity drop correlate to a
drilling break and/or well log measurements?
12. Is there an anomaly in the moveout velocities or the calculated interval
velocities? Is the anomaly present on more than one seismic line? Are
you certain that the reflection is a primary event and not a multiple?
13. Does direct modeling support the geologic concept(s) and match the
observed seismic response? Are there other feasible models that yield
the same seismic response?
14. Is there a low-frequency shadow below the suspect reservoir?
15. Is there an increase in the amplitude versus offset? Is it supported by
AVO modeling? Could the increase in amplitude be the result of a
lithologic change?
16. Are shear-wave data available which also exhibit an anomalous
measure? Is there a VS/VP anomaly?
 Geophysical concepts
Interpretation pitfalls
Seismic sections resemble geologic cross sections only in
areas of simple geology.
Direct interpretation of seismic sections in complex areas
may result in serious errors due to interpretation pitfalls
(i.e., false effects).
Interpretation pitfalls can be produced by:
I. Geometrical effects: They are present on unmigrated time seismic
sections and can produce the following false effects:
1. Sharper and narrower anticlines due to updip migration of dipping
events. Opposite is true for synclines.
2. Bowties over synclines.
3. Nonconformable dip sets due to sideswipes (offline reflections) on 2-
D sections.
Validity check for all geometrical effects: Migrate seismic
sections (using 3-D migration, if possible) before interpretation.
 Geophysical concepts
Interpretation pitfalls
II. Near-surface effects: due to lateral velocity and/or thickness
changes in near-surface layers producing false:
1. Lows below low-velocity and/or thick near-surface zones
2. Highs below high-velocity and/or thin near-surface zones.
Validity check: Anomaly follows near-surface velocity and/or
thickness profiles.
III. Deep effects: due to velocity changes in overburden caused by
structural and/or stratigraphic features producing false:
1. Downdip thinning of reflections due to velocity increase with depth.
Validity check: Thinning effect increases with burial depth.
2. Lows beneath normal faults and highs beneath reverse faults due to
juxtaposition of different-velocity layers.
Validity check: Anomaly only exists beneath the fault.
3. High or low beneath reefs or channels due to high or low velocity of
reef or channel.
Validity check: Anomaly coincides with reef or channel.
 Geophysical concepts
Interpretation pitfalls
III. Deeper effects (continued):
4. Lows beneath shale diapirs due to low velocity of shale and highs
beneath salt diapirs due to high velocity of salt.
Validity check: Anomaly only exists beneath the diapir.
5. Thinning of reflections on downthrown side of vertical and normal
faults due to velocity increase with depth.
Validity check: Thinning is confined to downthrown side of fault.
IV. Acquisition and Processing effects: due to improper selection of
acquisition and/or processing parameters producing false:
1. Conformable and nonconformable dip sets due to multiples generated
in the near-surface layer.
Validity check: Velocities of primary and multiple are the same.
2. Bedding over unconformity due to multi-cycle wavelet (e.g., bubble
effect).
Validity check: Estimate source wavelet from clean part of section.

Reading Assignment
 Pitfalls in Seismic Interpretation

In doing seismic interpretation, it must be remembered, it still contains

noises which is any reflection unrelated to geology objects.
Common noises which are multiples, diffraction and velocity anomaly.
This noises can act as pitfalls for interpreter, and thus need to be
recognized.

1.Multiple

Multiple occurs when the wavefront is reflected more than one time.

Data acquisition parameters can be designed to minimize multiple,

mainly by using stacking and deconvolution technique
However, multiple still often appear in the record even though the data
have been intensively processed
 source geophone
surface

2t Seismic reflector

1st multiple
t = two way time

Figure 1. Illustration of simple multiple

REFLECTION

LONG PATH
LONG PATH

MULTIPLE
MULTIPLE
PRIMARY

SURFACE
PEG LEG GHOST GHOST

reflector
Seismic
Figure 2. General type of multiple
 WBM
sideswipe

WBM

Figure 5. Examples of multiple : WB water bottom multiple, IBM-interbed multiple and sideswide
2.Diffraction

Diffraction occurs due to the sharp change of reflector

plane geometry, for examples due to the faults, instrusion,
karst, etc (Figure 9). The sharp plane refract energy to all
direction and recorded as hyperbolic trace with diffraction
source as its apex. The position of fault plane can be
estimated by joining the apexes (Figure 10).

Even though diffraction can be minimized using migration

technique, they still appear in seismic records and
interfere interpretation.
 Geophone Source

Diffraction from fault

Assumed mid-point locationst Sketch showing a diffraction from a fault.

The hyperbolic form of diffractions arises from the
assumption made by the CMP method that
reflections arise from mid-point locations between
the source and geophone

Figure 9 . Illustration of diffraction effect due to fault plane (Badley, 1985)

(a)

(b)
Figure 10d. Seismic examples of a burried focus. (a) Stacked section showing the bow-tie effect.
(b) Migrated section, revealing the true synclinal shape of the reflector (courtesy Norsk Hydro)
3.Velocity Effect

Changes of rock properties, for instances due to formation thickness and facies can
create velocity change. The change can give distortion between the stacked time
section and the real thickness and depth.

Down-dip apparent thinning occurs due to the increasing interval velocity with
depth for a constant thickness bed. This makes the bed become thinner to the
depth in time section (Figure 11). Apparent thinning can also accure along fault
plane due to the change of rock velocity across the fault plane (Figure 12).

Velocity anomaly also often occurs beneath low-angle dip fault plane like in the
case of thrust and lystric normal fault because of the lateral velocity change due to
the faulting (Figure 13-14)

Pull-up velocity anomaly will also develop under salt structure, and high-velocity
carbonate or channel (Fig.15-17). On the contrary, push down velocity anomaly
can occur beneath shale diapir or carbonates with lower velocity than the
surroundings (Figure 18). Extreme change of water depth can also cause severe
velocity anomaly (Figure 19).
SEISMIC SECTION SEISMIC SECTION

SEISMIC SECTION SEISMIC SECTION

Velocity anomaly beneath carbonate reef.

(a) and (b) Pull-up.
(b) (c) and (d) pull-down (Badley, 1985)
 surface

The effect of increasing velocity with depth

on the seismic expression of a dipping
unit.
(a) Geological model of a thick dipping
sandstone unit. The sandstone s
Depth interval velocity increases with depth
(a) due to diagenesis, but its thickness
remains constant.
(b) Seismic expression : The sandstone
unit appears to thin. It takes less time
for the seismic signal to travel through
the sandstone as its interval velocity
increase.
Time Interval thins in time
(b)

Figure 11. Apparent bed thinning due to velocity effect (Badley, 1985)
 Downbending of reflections into a fault.
V1
V1
This can occur when low-velocity
material is faulted by a dipping fault. In
V2 the zone beneath the fault plane,
downbending of reflections can occur
V2
due to the lower velocities (and, there-
V3 for, longer traveltimes) in lower-velocity
V3 downthrown rocks.

V = Velocity
V3>V2>V1

Downbending of
reflection

Figure 12. Apparent downbending effect due to the velocity effect (Badley, 1985)