1887
Volume 67, Issue 2
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The idea of curvature analysis has been widely used in subsurface structure interpretation from three‐dimensional seismic data (e.g., fault/fracture detection and geomorphology delineation) by measuring the lateral changes in the geometry of seismic events. However, such geometric curvature utilizes only the kinematic information (two‐way traveltime) of the available seismic signals. While analysing the dynamic information (waveform), the traditional approaches (e.g., complex trace analysis) are often trace‐wise and thereby fail to take into account the seismic reflector continuity and deviate from the true direction of geologic deposition, especially for steeply dipping formations. This study proposes extending the three‐dimensional curvature analysis to the waveforms in a seismic profile, here denoted as the waveform curvature, and investigates the associated implications for assisting seismic interpretation. Applications to the F3 seismic dataset over the Netherlands North Sea demonstrate the added values of the proposed waveform curvature analysis in four aspects. First, the capability of the curvature operator in differentiating convex and concave bending allows automatic decomposition of a seismic image by the reflector types (peaks, troughs and zero crossings), which can greatly facilitate computer‐aided horizon interpretation and modelling from three‐dimensional seismic data. Second, the signed minimum curvature offers a new analytical approach for estimating the fundamental and important reflector dip attribute by searching the orientation associated with least waveform variation. Third, the signed maximum curvature makes it possible to analyse the seismic signals along the normal direction of the reflection events. Finally, the curvature analysis promotes the frequency bands of the seismic signals and thereby enhances the apparent resolution on identifying and interpreting subtle seismic features.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12719
2018-12-14
2024-03-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al‐DossaryS. and MarfurtK.J.2006. 3D volumetric multispectral estimates of reflector curvature and rotation. Geophysics71(5), P41–P51.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AlfarrajM., DiH. and AlRegibG.2017. Multiscale fusion for seismic geometric attribute enhancement. 87th SEG Annual Meeting, Houston, Texas, USA, Expanded Abstract, 2310–2314.
  3. BarnesA.1991. Instantaneous frequency and amplitude at the envelope peak of a constant‐phase wavelet. Geophysics56, 1058–1060.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BarnesA.1996. Theory of 2‐D complex seismic trace analysis. Geophysics61, 264–272.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BergbauerS., MukerjiT. and HenningsP.2003. Improving curvature analyses of deformed horizons using scale‐dependent filtering techniques. AAPG Bulletin87, 1255–1272.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BerglerS., HubralP., MarchettiP., CristiniA. and CardoneG.2002. 3D common‐reflection‐surface stack and kinematic wavefield attributes. The Leading Edge21, 1010–1015.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. BlumentrittC.H., MarfurtK.J. and SullivanE.C.2006. Volume‐based curvature computations illuminate fracture orientations—Early to Mid‐Paleozoic, Central Basin Platform, west Texas. Geophysics71(5), B159–B166.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cepheus
    Cepheus. 2006. Osculating circle for curvature. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Osculating_circle.svg
  9. ChakrabortyA. and OkayaD.1995. Frequency‐time decomposition of seismic data using wavelet‐based methods. Geophysics60, 1906–1916.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chavez‐PerezS. and Centeno‐MirandaM.A.2013. Does frequency enhancement imply vertical resolution improvement? 83rd SEG Annual Meeting, Houston, Texas, USA, Expanded Abstract, 1487–1491.
  11. ChopraS. and MarfurtK.J.2010. Integration of coherence and volumetric curvature images. The Leading Edge29, 1092–1107.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. ChopraS. and MarfurtK.J.2013. Structural curvature versus amplitude curvature. The Leading Edge32, 178–184.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. ClaerboutJ.F.1976. Fundamentals of Geophysical Data Processing. Blackwell Scientific Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. ColeouT., PouponM. and AzbelK.2003. Unsupervised seismic facies classification: A review and comparison of techniques and implementation. The Leading Edge22, 942–953.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. CraseE., WidemanC., NobleM. and TarantolaA.1992. Nonlinear elastic waveform inversion of land seismic reflection data. Journal of Geophysical Research97(B4), 4685–4703.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. DanielM. and BarskyB.1997. Discrete Gaussian curvature for analysis of a B‐spline modeled cornea. SIAM Conference on Geometric Design, Nashville.
  17. de GrootP., HuckA., de BruinG. and HemstraN.2010. The horizon cube: A step change in seismic interpretation. The Leading Edge29, 1048–1055.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. DiH., AlfarrajM. and AlRegibG.2017. 3D curvature analysis of seismic waveform and its interpretational implications. 87th SEG Annual Meeting, Houston, Texas, USA, Expanded Abstract, 2255–2259.
  19. DiH. and AlRegibG.2017. A new method for dip estimation based on seismic waveform curvature/flexure analysis. 87th SEG Annual Meeting, Houston, Texas, USA, Expanded Abstract, 2260–2264.
  20. DiH. and GaoD.2014a. A new analytical method for azimuthal curvature analysis from 3D seismic data. 84th SEG Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, USA, Expanded Abstract, 1634–1638.
  21. DiH. and GaoD.2014b. A new algorithm for evaluating 3D curvature and curvature gradient for improved fracture detection. Computers & Geosciences70, 15–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. DiH. and GaoD.2016a. Improved estimates of seismic curvature and flexure based on 3D surface rotation in the presence of structure dip. Geophysics81(2), IM13–IM23.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. DiH. and GaoD.2016b. Efficient volumetric extraction of most positive/negative curvature and flexure for improved fracture characterization from 3D seismic data. Geophysical Prospecting64, 1454–1468.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. DiH. and GaoD.2017. Nonlinear gray‐level co‐occurrence matrix texture analysis for improved seismic facies interpretation. Interpretation5(3), SJ31–SJ40.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. DiH., GaoD. and AlRegibG.2018. 3D structural‐orientation vector guided auto‐tracking for weak seismic reflections: A new tool for shale reservoir visualization and interpretation. Interpretation6(4), SN47–SN56.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. FarakliotiM. and PetrouM.2004. Horizon picking in 3D seismic data volumes. Machine Vision and Applications15, 216–219.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. FomelS.2002. Applications of plane‐wave destruction filters. Geophysics67, 1946–1960.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. GaoD.2011. Latest developments in seismic texture analysis for subsurface structure, facies, and reservoir characterization: A review. Geophysics76(2), W1–W13.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. GaoD.2012. Implications of the Fresnel‐zone texture for seismic amplitude interpretation. Geophysics77(4), O35–O44.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. GaoD.2013. Integrating 3D seismic curvature and curvature gradient attributes for fracture characterization: Methodologies and Interpretational implications. Geophysics78(2), O21–O31.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. HarriganE., KrohJ., SandhamW. and DurraniT.1992. Seismic horizon picking using an artificial neural network. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, San Francisco, CA, USA, 3, 105–108.
  32. HartB.S.2006. Seismic expression of fracture‐swarm sweet spots, Upper Cretaceous tight‐gas reservoirs, San Juan Basin. AAPG Bulletin90, 1519–1534.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. HartB.S., PearsonR.A. and RawlingG.C.2002. 3‐D seismic horizon‐based approaches to fracture‐swarm sweet spot definition in tight‐gas reservoirs. The Leading Edge21, 28–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. HartB.S. and SaganJ.2005. Curvature for visualization of surface morphology. AAPG Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Search and Discovery Article 90039.
  35. HuangK.Y.1997. Hopfield neural network for seismic horizon picking. 67th SEG Annual Meeting, Dallas, Texas, USA, Expanded Abstract, 562–565.
  36. JoshiS.C., WangJ., MillerM.I., van EssenD.C. and GrenanderU.1995. Differential geometry of the cortical surface. SPIE's 1995 International Symposium on Optical Science, Engineering, and Instrumentation, San Diego, California, USA, Vision Geometry IV 2573, 304–311.
  37. KarimiP. and FomelS.2015. Stratigraphic coordinates: A coordinate system tailored to seismic interpretation. Geophysical Prospecting63, 1246–1255.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. LeggettM., SandhamW.A. and DurraniT.S.1996. 3‐D horizon tracking using an artificial neural networks. First Break14, 413–418.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. LisleR.J.1994. Detection of zones of abnormal strains in structures using Gaussian curvature analysis. AAPG Bulletin78, 1811–1819.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. LiuJ. and MarfurtK.J.2007. Instantaneous spectral attributes to detect channels. Geophysics72(2), P23–P31.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. MarfurtK.J.2006. Robust estimates of 3D reflector dip and azimuth. Geophysics71(4), P29–P40.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Marfurt, K.J. and AlvesT.M.2015. Pitfalls and limitations in seismic attribute interpretation of tectonic features. Interpretation3(1), SB5–SB15.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. MarfurtK.J. and KirlinR.L.2001. Narrow‐band spectral analysis and thin‐bed tuning. Geophysics66 (special section), 1274–1283.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Marfurt, K.J., SudhakerV., GersztenkornA., CrawfordK.D. and NissenS.E.1999. Coherency calculations in the presence of structural dip. Geophysics64, 104–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. NeffD.B., RunnestrandS.A. and ButlerE.L.2001. Multi‐attribute seismic waveform classification. US Patent 6,223,126.
  46. PartykaG.A., GridleyJ.A. and LopezJ.A.1999. Interpretational applications of spectral decomposition in reservoir characterization. The Leading Edge18, 353–360.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. PatelD., BrucknerS., ViolaI. and GrollerM.E.2010. Seismic volume visualization for horizon extraction. IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 73–80.
  48. PeytonL., BottjerR. and PartykaG.A.1998. Interpretation of incised valleys using new 3‐D seismic techniques: A case history using spectral decomposition and coherency. The Leading Edge17, 1294–1298.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. PrattR.G.1999. Seismic waveform inversion in the frequency domain, Part 1: Theory and verification in a physical scale model. Geophysics64, 888–901.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. RobertsA.2001. Curvature attributes and their application to 3D interpreted horizons. First Break19, 85–100.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. RobertsonJ. and NogamiH.1984. Complex seismic trace analysis of thin beds. Geophysics49, 344–352.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. SenM.K. and StoffaP.L.1991. Nonlinear one‐dimensional seismic waveform inversion using simulated annealing. Geophysics56, 1624–1638.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. SilvaP.M., MartinsL., PampanelliP. and FaustinoG.2016. Why curvature attribute delineates subtle geologic features? A mathematical approach. 86th SEG Annual Meeting, Dallas, Texas, USA, Expanded Abstract, 1913–1918.
  54. SirgueL. and PrattR.G.2004. Efficient waveform inversion and imaging: A strategy for selecting temporal frequencies. Geophysics69, 231–248.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. SullivanE.C., MarfurtK.J., LacazetteA. and AmmermanM.2006. Application of new seismic attributes to collapse chimneys in the Fort Worth Basin. Geophysics71(4), B111–B119.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. TanerM.T., KoehlerF. and SheriffR.E.1979. Complex seismic trace analysis. Geophysics44, 1041–1063.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. WidessM.B.1973. How thin is a thin bed? Geophysics38, 1176–1180.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. WoodJ.D.1996. The geomorphological characterization of digital elevation models. PhD Thesis, University of Leicester, UK.
  59. WuX. and HaleD.2015. Horizon volumes with interpreted constraints. Geophysics80(2), IM21–IM33.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. YuY., KelleyC. and MardanovaI.2011. Automatic horizon picking in 3D seismic data using optical filters and minimum spanning tree (patent pending). 81st SEG Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 965–969.
  61. ZengH.2004. Seismic geomorphology‐based facies classification. The Leading Edge23, 644–688.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12719
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12719
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Interpretation; Seismic; Signal processing

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error