ARTICLE

SEISMIC ATTRIBUTES IN YOUR FACIES

Arthur E. Barnes
Landmark Graphics Corp., Englewood, Colorado, U.S.A.
Introduction
Imagine having a “seismic search engine”. Built into your seis-
mic data viewer, it would rapidly locate features in your seismic
data, like search engines help you locate information on the world-
wide web.
It could work like this. You are looking at a large 3-D seismic
survey for the first time. This survey covers a block adjacent to one
on which your company has a well, Richoil #1, that produces from
turbidites. You ask, Where are the turbidites? In a matter of min-
utes, the seismic search engine automatically identifies various tur-
bidites in your data. Encouraged, you then ask, Which of these
resembles the turbidites encountered in Richoil #1? Within seconds
the turbidities are ranked by similarity to this reference.
Investigating further, you automatically identify faults, channels,
deep marine shales, and more.
Hundreds of seismic attributes have been invented, computed
by a wide variety of methods, including complex trace analysis,
interval statistics, correlation measures, Fourier analysis, time-fre-
quency analysis, wavelet transforms, principal components, and
various empirical methods. Regardless of the method, attributes are
used like filters to reveal trends or patterns, or combined to predict
a seismic facies or a property such as porosity. While qualitative
interpretation of individual attributes has dominated attribute
analysis to date, the future belongs to quantitative multi-attribute
analysis for geologic prediction.
Seismic attribute analysis is in transition. Though marked, this
transition is but a step in a long evolution (Figure 1).

This fanciful tale describes future reality; some such tool will
become available within the next decade. Seismic pattern recogni-
tion has been developing quietly but steadily for twenty years, and
the first practical applications are now appearing. But no matter
how new and sophisticated the algorithm, seismic pattern recogni-
tion rests on an old and simple foundation: seismic attributes.

Seismic attributes
Seismic attributes describe seismic data. They quantify specific
data characteristics, and so represent subsets of the total informa-
tion. 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. Indeed, any quantity calculated from seismic data can
be considered an attribute. Consequently, attributes are of many
types: prestack, inversion, velocity, horizon, multi-component, 4-D,
and, the most common kind and subject of this review, attributes
derived from conventional stacked data (Table 1).

Method Representative Attributes

complex trace amplitude, phase, frequency, polarity, response phase,
response fequency, dip, azimuth, spacing, parallelism
time-frequency dip, azimuth, average frequency, attenuation, spectral
decomposition
correlation/covariance discontinuity, dip, azimuth, amplitude gradient
interval average amplitude, average frequency, variance, maxi-
mum, number of peaks, % above threshold, energy half-
time, arc length, spectral components, waveform
horizon dip, azimuth, curvature
miscellaneous zero-crossing frequency, dominant frequencies, rms
amplitude, principal compaonents, signal complexity
Figure 1. Timeline outlining the development of seismic attributes from
1950 to the present. Key attributes are shown italicized, and representative
papers are shown in diagonals.
History
From the first practical seismic reflection experiments in 1921
until the early 1960s, seismic reflection data interpretation was
largely a matter of mapping event times and converting these to
depth to determine subsurface geologic structure. Paper records
and analog magnetic tape recording lacked sufficient resolution to
go much beyond this. Structural interpretation ruled and strati-
graphic interpretation languished.

Table 1. Methods for computing poststack seismic attributes, with repre-

sentative attributes. Many attributes, such as dip and azimuth can be com- Continued on Page 42
puted many ways.

September, 2001 CSEG Recorder 41

ARTICLE Cont’d
SEISMIC ATTRIBUTES IN YOUR FACIES
Continued from Page 41
A few intrepid visionaries recognized that seismic reflection
character contained valuable clues to stratigraphy. Foremost
amongst them was Ben Rummerfield. In 1954 he published his
famous paper on mapping “reflection quality” to reveal subtle
stratigraphic changes (Rummerfield, 1954). Lindseth (1982, p. 9.2)
considers this a forerunner of the bright spot concept, but it is as
much a forerunner of seismic attribute analysis in general.
Rummerfield was remarkably prescient, for he foresaw that with
improvements in seismology one could deduce fluid content,
porosity, and facies changes from reflection character. Other vision-
aries, such as Eduardo Merlini, Carl Savit, and Otto Koefoed,
explored the tantalizing possibilities of recording seismic energy
and true amplitudes. But these exceptions only prove the rule;
overall geophysicists paid little attention to seismic amplitude or
character.
This changed dramatically in 1963 with the introduction of dig-
ital recording of exploration seismic data in the field (Dobrin, 1976,
p. 68). Its acceptance was so rapid that by 1968 fully half of all new
seismic recording was digital, and by 1975 nearly all was digital
(Sheriff and Geldart, 1989, p. 21, 26, 170). Digital recording so great-
ly improved the dynamic range of seismic data that it became fea-
sible to routinely investigate amplitude variations. This led straight
to the discovery of the first direct hydrocarbon indicators, bright
spots.
Much of the early research on bright spots was published in the
Soviet Union in the late 1960s, but this was little known in the West
and consequently had negligible influence. Instead, the ideas were
developed independently in secrecy amongst oil companies and
seismic contractors exploring in the Gulf of Mexico in the late 1960s
and early 1970s. By 1971 the technique was widespread through-
out the industry and by 1972 it was out in the open (Dobrin 1976, p.
339; Sheriff and Geldart, 1989, p. 21). Even then, little about bright
spots was ever published because the technology remained confi-
dential and jealously guarded.
The stunning success of bright spot prospecting quickly estab-
lished it as a key tool of exploration geophysics. Its chief contribu-
tion, however, lay in convincing geophysicists to look at variations
in reflection character and stratigraphy as well as reflection times
and geologic structure. In this way, bright spots laid the cornerstone
for attribute analysis.
Thus the first seismic attribute was reflection amplitude.1 In
numerous guises, it remains the most important attribute today.
With expectations inflated by the easy success of bright spots,
researchers sought other direct hydrocarbon indicators. Their
search led immediately to frequency. They were encouraged by the
idea that anomalous attenuation in a seismic signal that passed
through a gas reservoir can be detected as a shift to lower frequen-
cies. This effect is the celebrated “low frequency shadow.” The
fondest hope was that shadows could permit attenuation to be
quantified, from which the rock property Q could be inferred
(Dobrin, 1976, p. 289).
42 CSEG Recorder September, 2001
Oil company researchers in the late 1950s and 1960s sought
these frequency changes and a corresponding means to display
them in color. A.H. Balch was the first to publish results (Balch,
1971). He developed color “sonograms” using a simple filter-bank
to quantify the time-variant average frequency of stacked seismic
data. His interest lay in detecting frequency changes rather than in
interpreting their origin, but to keep oil-finders hopeful he suggest-
ed that his technique might detect attenuation due to gas-filled
reefs. Balch’s paper is chiefly remembered as the first published in
Geophysics to display seismic data in color.
Balch’s work was closely followed by Nigel Anstey’s innovative
study of seismic attributes, published in two internal reports for
Seiscom Delta and presented at the 1973 SEG annual meeting
(Anstey, 1972, 1973a, 1973b). His chief attribute was an amplitude
measure he called reflection strength, which he developed for bright
spot analysis (Figure 2). He deliberately chose a descriptive yet
technically vague name to emphasize meaning over mathematics.
Figure 2. Isometric display of reflection strength (figure from Anstey,
1972). This display compares well with modern displays and was far
superior to its contemporary competition. Unfortunately, a limited pub-
lication muted the influence of Anstey’s work.
Reflection strength cast seismic amplitude in a form free of the dis-
torting influences of reflection polarity and wavelet phase, permit-
ting fairer comparisons. Anstey also invented apparent polarity
and differential frequency, and showed interval velocity, frequency,
cross-dip2, and stack-coherence attributes. His color technique was
costly but greatly improved upon Balch’s. His method for display-
ing seismic attributes has been employed ever since: simultaneous-
ly plot the attribute in color and the original seismic data in black
variable area. He considers this his most valuable contribution to
attribute analysis as it allowed the stratigraphic information of the
attribute to be directly related to the structural information of the
seismic data.
Anstey’s reports remain surprisingly fresh and insightful.
Unfortunately they also remain inaccessible, as only a handful of
copies were made due to the great expense of the early color plots.
It was his colleagues, Turhan Taner, Robert Sheriff, and Fulton
Koehler, who, inheriting his work upon his departure from Seiscom
Continued on Page 44
ARTICLE Cont’d
SEISMIC ATTRIBUTES IN YOUR FACIES
Continued from Page 42
Delta 1975, popularized his ideas. In place of his various empirical
methods, they introduced a single mathematical framework for
attribute computation, complex seismic trace analysis.
Complex seismic trace analysis debuted at the 1976 SEG annual
meeting and was subsequently published in the two seminal papers
that launched seismic attributes into prominence, Taner and Sheriff
(1977), and Taner et al. (1979). The timing was especially propitious.
Against the background of the gathering boom in exploration driv-
en by the energy crisis of the 1970s, complex seismic trace analysis
appeared alongside seismic stratigraphy, one of the great advances
in reflection seismology. The first practical color plotters followed
soon after, and suddenly color attribute plots became affordable.
This combination of money, science, and color proved irresistible:
complex trace attributes were enthusiastically received and quickly
became established as aids to seismic interpretation.
Taner and Sheriff introduced five attributes: instantaneous ampli-
tude, instantaneous phase, instantaneous polarity, instantaneous fre-
quency, and weighted average frequency. Instantaneous amplitude
is patterned after Anstey’s reflection strength and so adopted its
name. Instantaneous polarity likewise followed Anstey’s design. For
these two attributes, mathematics follows meaning.
In contrast, instantaneous phase and frequency were new attrib-
utes that fell out of the mathematics of the complex trace. Their
geologic meanings had to be inferred empirically. These two attrib-
utes have proven very useful, but they established the unhappy
precedent of subordinating meaning to mathematics.
It was no accident that complex seismic trace analysis first
appeared with seismic stratigraphy. Peter Vail and his colleagues at
Exxon, who developed seismic stratigraphy, learned of the new
attributes and were enthralled by the possibilities they offered.
They expected that additional attributes would soon quantify their
seismic facies parameters. And so it was that these two methods
were published together in the famous AAPG Memoir 26 in 1977.
Seismic stratigraphy greatly boosted seismic attributes, providing
them a scientific framework for combining attributes to predict
geology, as well as endowing them with a gloss of scientific
respectability.
New attributes proliferated in the 1980s: zero-crossing frequen-
cy, perigram, cosine of the phase, dominant frequencies, average
amplitude, homogeneity - and many others. Most of the new
attributes lacked clear geologic significance. This was not neces-
sarily a problem. To the extent that attributes reveal meaningful
patterns in the seismic data, they have value. But determining
whether patterns are truly meaningful is often problematic.
This prompted efforts to make more sense of seismic attributes.
Several studies related complex trace seismic attributes to Fourier
spectral averages, which yielded clues to wavelet properties and
led to “response attributes” (e.g., Robertson and Nogami, 1984;
Bodine, 1986). Work also began on seismic pattern recognition, or
“multi-attribute analysis” (e.g., de Figueiredo 1982; Sonneland,
1983; Conticini 1984; Justice et al. 1985; see Figure 3). While the driv-
44 CSEG Recorder September, 2001
ing force was to automatically determine seismic facies, there also
arose the curious idea that attributes might somehow make sense in
combination even if they didn’t make any sense individually.
These efforts failed to provide the geologic insights that seismic
interpreters so keenly sought, nor could they prevent the inevitable
disillusionment bred of expectations set too high. Doubts grew and
enthusiasm waned; by the mid-1980s, seismic attributes had lost
their gloss of scientific respectability. Excerpts from the literature
Figure 3. Basic flow chart of seismic pattern recognition (multi-attribute
analysis). A set of attributes are fed into a black-box algorithm, which could
contain a neural network. The black-box classifies the input data at each
data point. If additional information is given, the classification is super-
vised; otherwise it is unsupervised. The output is typically a prediction of
seismic facies or a physical property such as porosity.
record this fall from grace. Roy Lindseth (1982, p. 9.15) observed, “...
except for amplitude, they have never become very popular, nor are
they used extensively in interpretation. The reason for this seems
to lie in the fact that most of them cannot be tied directly to geolo-
gy ...” Regarding complex trace attributes, Hatton et al. (1986, p.
25) opined, “... this concept is a little difficult to grasp intuitively ...
While these functions do provide alternative and sometimes valu-
able clues in the interpretation of seismic data, cf. Taner et al. (1979),
it is probably fair to say that their usage has not been as widespread
as it might have been due to their somewhat esoteric nature.”
Yilmaz (1987, p. 484) cautiously wrote, “The instantaneous fre-
quency may have a high degree of variation, which may be related
to stratigraphy. However, it also may be difficult to interpret all this
variation.” Robertson and Fisher (1988) added, “The mix of mean-
ingful and meaningless values is probably the major factor that has
frustrated interpreters looking for physical significance in the actu-
al numbers on attribute sections.”
If the experts didn’t know what to make of seismic attributes, is
it any wonder that the rest of us were confused?
Even as attributes fell into neglect, work continued on new tech-
niques that would restore them to favor. Chief amongst these was
3-D discontinuity.
A number of two-dimensional continuity and dip attributes
appeared in the 1980s (e.g., Conticini, 1984; Scheuer and
Oldenburg, 1988; Vossler, 1989). These met with an indifferent
Continued on Page 45
 ARTICLE Cont’d
SEISMIC ATTRIBUTES IN YOUR FACIES
Continued from Page 44

reception. But when in the mid-1990s they were three-dimensional- (a)

ized and continuity was recast as discontinuity, they took the explo-
ration world by storm (e.g., Bahorich and Farmer, 1995). The
excitement was reminiscent of that of bright spots, for, like ampli-
tude, 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 (e.g.,
Oliveros and Radovich, 1997; Randen et al., 1998; Randen et al.,
2000; Marfurt and Kirlin, 2000; Figures 4 and 5).

The late 1980s and early 1990s also saw the introduction of hori-
zon attributes (Dalley et al., 1989), interval attributes (Sonneland et
al., 1989; Bahorich and Bridges, 1992), and attributes extracted
along a horizon from a volume (Figure 6). Presented as maps and
offering superior resolution and computational efficiency, these
were quickly and widely adopted and have become the most

(b)

Figure 5. Reflection divergence, a seismic stratigraphic attribute. It is

quantified as the degree to which successive reflections diverge looking
Figure 4. Reflection parallelism, a seismic stratigraphic attribute. It is
downdip. Yellow indicates divergent reflections and blue indicates conver-
quantified as the local degree of variation of reflection dip from the average.
gent. (a) Vertical view; (b) 3-D opacity view. The analysis window cap-
Parallel reflections indicate a lower-energy depositional environment, sug-
tured only small-scale divergence, such as that in the channel fill, thereby
gestive of shales; nonparallel reflections indicate a higher-energy deposi-
revealing the extent of the channel.
tional environment, suggestive of sands.

Throughout this time, attributes continued to multiply in chaot-

important format for presenting attributes. Interval attributes are
usually computed as a statistic in an interval about an interpreted
horizon. Seismic waveform mapping is a notable exception, as it
based on unsupervised classification. This popular new attribute
tracks facies changes (Addy, 1997; Figure 6d).
Multi-attribute analysis progressed slowly but surely through
the late 1980s and 1990s. Attribute cross-plotting was added to
visually relate two or three attributes (e.g., White, 1991). Clustering
algorithms were employed to classify sets of attributes as maps or
volumes. Since the mid-1990s, neural networks have largely sup-
planted clustering (e.g., Russell et al., 1997; Addy, 1997; De Groot
and Bril, 1999; Walls et al., 1999). The newer supervised classifica-
tion algorithms automatically integrate seismic and nonseismic
information in their solutions, increasing their prediction power.
ic profusion. Brave workers endeavored to bring order to the chaos
by classifying attributes according to function (e.g., Brown, 1996;
Chen and Sidney, 1997). But could it be that these noble efforts are
most valuable precisely because many attributes are not? The geo-
logic meanings of some attributes are so obscure we can only guess
at them.3 Other attributes duplicate each other; amplitude attrib-
utes are especially redundant (Figure 7). We do not need all the
seismic attributes.
Do we need any?
Continued on Page 46
September, 2001 CSEG Recorder 45
ARTICLE Cont’d
SEISMIC ATTRIBUTES IN YOUR FACIES
Continued from Page 45
Figure 6. Attribute maps computed for the same horizon. (a) RMS ampli-
tude computed in a 40 ms window about the horizon; (b) instantaneous
dip extracted along the horizon; (c) dip computed in the direction of the
arrow and extracted along the horizon, so that the seismic data looks like
terrain illuminated by light from the top; (d) map of waveform produced
by fuzzy clustering with 10 classes, computed in a 40 ms window about
the horizon. Attribute maps conveniently present a wide variety of infor-
mation.
Future
You may not need seismic attributes today, but you will need
them in the future.
The future will see more multidimensional attributes with geo-
logic significance and a greater reliance on multi-attribute analysis.
These trends are leading to automatic pattern recognition tech-
niques for seismic facies analysis, able to rapidly characterize large
volumes of data, or retrieve subtle details hidden in the data. In
short, the future will see seismic search engines.
So how would our seismic search engine work? The idea is sim-
plicity itself (the devil is truly in the details). A template stores the
characteristics that describe the reference turbidite of Richoil #1 as
imaged in our seismic data. These characteristics are defined by
specific attribute values. These attributes are hidden behind the
characteristics: our template describes our reference turbidite as
moderately nonparallel and quantifies it as 63%, but we don’t care
how parallelism is computed as long as it is satisfactory. The tem-
plate is stored in a template database. Collectively, the templates
describe many geologic features, including a number of turbidites.
The search engine retrieves our turbidite template from the data-
base and scans the data for patterns that resemble it.
46 CSEG Recorder September, 2001
Parts of this are already available (e.g., De Groot and Bril, 1999).
To progress further, we need better attributes to describe reflection
patterns with stratigraphic significance, we need better attributes
for describing boundaries (faults, sequences, etc.), we need to inte-
grate these with well logs, production reports, and other informa-
tion, and we need to build databases of observed seismic patterns
for use with advanced pattern recognition algorithms.
Figure 7. Cross-plots of common amplitude attributes. The simple linear
and parabolic relationships illustrate that these attributes all contain the
same information.
Automated seismic data characterization - based on seismic
attributes - will rewrite the rules of seismic data interpretation.
Geophysical prophets foresaw the wondrous possibilities. In 1983
Lars Sonneland could write (Sonneland, 1983), “Finally, automated
interpretation techniques might release the interpreter from tedious
parts of the interpretation and thereby contribute to faster turn-
around.” Going back even farther to 1973, Nigel Anstey boldly
wrote (Anstey, 1973a), “We are saying, then, that we are entering a
new age of seismic prospecting - one that yields a new insight into
the geology, one that makes the seismic method far more quantita-
tive, and one which requires a whole new arsenal of seismic inter-
pretation skills”.
You will have seismic attributes in your facies - and you will
like it.
Acknowledgements
I thank Nigel Anstey for graciously presenting me photocopies
of his impossible-to-find classic studies, Seiscom ‘72 & Seiscom ‘73,
and for his insightful recollections of the early history of seismic
attributes. I thank Grant Geophysical for permission to reproduce
1 Reflection time was really the first seismic attribute.
2 This is arguably the first 3-D attribute.
3 If you can’t tell what an attribute means from its name, then you prob-
ably don’t need it.
Continued on Page 47

SEISMIC ATTRIBUTES IN YOUR FACIES
Continued from Page 46
the reflection strength figure from Anstey’s 1972 report. I also
thank Landmark Graphics Corporation for permission to present
the other displays of seismic attributes.
References
Addy, S.K., 1997, Attribute analysis in Edwards limestone in Lavaca county,
Texas: 67th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded
Abstracts, 737-740.
Anstey, N., 1972, Seiscom ‘72. (Seiscom Limited internal report)
Anstey, N., 1973a, Seiscom ‘73. (Seiscom Limited internal report)
Anstey, N.A., 1973b, The significance of color displays in the direct detection of
hydrocarbons: 43rd Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophysics.
Bahorich, M.S., and Bridges, S.R., 1992, Seismic sequence attribute map
(SSAM): 62nd Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded
Abstract, 227-230.
Bahorich, M., and Farmer, S., 1995, 3-D seismic discontinuity for faults and
stratigraphic features: The coherence cube: 65th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc.
Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 93-96.
Balch, A.H., 1971, Color sonograms — a new dimension in seismic data interpre-
tation: Geophysics, 36, 1074-1098.
Bodine, J.H., 1986, Waveform analysis with seismic attributes: Oil and Gas J., 84,
no. 23, 59-63.
Brown, A.R., 1996, Seismic attributes and their classification: The Leading Edge,
15, 1090.
Chen, Q., and Sidney, S., 1997, Seismic attribute technology for reservoir fore-
casting and monitoring: The Leading Edge, 16, no. 5, 445, 447-448, 450.
Conticini, F., 1984, Seismic facies quantitative analysis: New tool in stratigraphic
interpretation: 54th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded
Abstracts, 680-682.
Dalley, R.M., Gevers, E.C.A., Stampfli, G.M., Davies, D.J., Gastaldi, C.N.,
Ruijtenberg, P.A., and Vermeer, G.J.O., 1989, Dip and azimuth displays for
3D seismic interpretation: First Break, 7, 86-95.
De Groot, P.F.M., 1999, Volume transformation by way of neural network map-
ping: 61st Mtg., Eur. Assn. Geosci. Eng., Extended Abstracts, 3-37.
de Figueiredo, R. J. P., 1982, Pattern recognition approach to exploration, in
deFigueiredo, R. J. P., Ed., Concepts and techniques in oil and gas explo-
ration: Soc. Expl. Geophys., 267-286.
Dobrin, M.B., 1976, Introduction to geophysical prospecting, 3rd Ed.: McGraw-
Hill, Inc.
Hatton, L., Worthington, M.H., and Makin, J., 1986, Seismic data processing:
Theory and practice: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Justice, J.H., Hawkins, D.J., Wong, G., 1985, Multidimensional attribute analy-
sis and pattern recognitions for seismic interpretation: Pattern Recognition,
18, 391-407.
Lindseth, R.O., 1982, Digital processing of geophysical data: A review: Soc. Expl.
Geophys.
Marfurt, K.J., and Kirlin, R.L., 2000, 3-D broad-band estimates of reflector dip
and amplitude: Geophysics, 65, 304-320.
Oliveros, R.B., and Radovich, B.J., 1997, Image-processing display techniques
applied to seismic instantaneous attributes on the Gorgon gas field, North West
Shelf, Australia: 67th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded
Abstracts, 2064-2067.
Randen, T., Monsen, E., Signer, C., Abrahamsen, A., Hansen, J.O., Sæter, T.,
Schlaf, J., and Sonneland, L., 2000, Three-dimensional texture attributes for
seismic data analysis: 70th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys.,
Expanded Abstracts, 668-671.
Randen, T., Reymond, B., Sjulstad, H.I., and Sonneland, L., 1998, New Seismic
attributes for automated stratigraphic facies boundary detection: 68th Ann.
Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 628-631.
Robertson, J.D., and Nogami, H.H., 1984, Complex seismic trace analysis of thin
beds: Geophysics, 49, 344-352.
ARTICLE Cont’d
Robertson, J.D., and Fisher, D.A., 1988, Complex seismic trace attributes: The
Leading Edge, 7, no. 6, 22-26.
Rummerfield, B.F., 1954, Reflection quality a fourth dimension: Geophysics, 19,
684-694.
Scheuer, T.E., and Oldenburg, D.W., 1988, Local phase velocity from complex
seismic data: Geophysics, 53, 1503-1511.
Sheriff, R.E., and Geldart, L.P., 1989. Exploration seismology volume 1: History,
theory, and data acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
Sonneland, L., 1983, Computer aided interpretation of seismic data: 53rd Ann.
Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 546-549.
Sonneland, L. Barkved, O., Olsen, M., and Snyder, G., 1989, Application of
seismic wavefield attributes in reservoir characterization: 59th Ann. Internat.
Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 813-817.
Taner, M.T., Koehler, F., and Sheriff, R.E., 1979, Complex seismic trace analysis:
Geophysics, 44, 1041-1063.
Taner, M.T., and Sheriff, R.E., 1977, Application of amplitude, frequency, and
other attributes to stratigraphic and hydrocarbon exploration, in Payton, C.E.,
Ed., Seismic stratigraphy - Applications to hydrocarbon exploration:
Am. Assn. Petr. Geol. Memoir 26, 301-327.
Vossler, D.A., 1989, Automatic delineation of lateral facies changes in clastic envi-
ronments: 59th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded
Abstracts, 803-804.
Walls, J.D., Taner, M.T., Guidish, T., Taylor, G., Dumas, D., and Derzhi, N.,
1999: North Sea reservoir characterization using rock physics, seismic attrib-
utes, and neural networks; a case history: 69th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl.
Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 1572-1575.
White, R.E., 1991, Properties of instantaneous seismic attributes: The Leading
Edge, 10, no. 7, 26-32.
Yilmaz, Ö., 1987, Seismic data processing: Soc. Expl. Geophys. R
ARTHUR E. BARNES
Art Barnes earned a B.Sc. in physics
in 1974 from Denison University in
Ohio, an M.Sc. in geophysics in 1980
from the University of Arizona in
Tucson, Arizona, and a Ph.D. in geo-
physics in 1990 from Cornell University
in Ithaca, New York. Belatedly realizing
his mistake in 1995, he took a course in
C++ object oriented programming at
Ohio University to become employable.
Art entered the oil industry in the halcyon days of 1980 when
one could get a job by spelling geophysix. He worked on a marine
seismic crew and in seismic data processing. In 1986, encouraged
by market fundamentals to seek new opportunities, he re-entered
academics. He worked in the COCORP deep seismic exploration
project at Cornell, becoming an expert in seismic noise.
Speculating that the paucity of reflections was the fault of the sed-
imentary cover, he joined Lithoprobe at Ecole Polytechnique de
Montréal to work on data from the Canadian shield. During this
time, he pursued research in attribute analysis and seismic signal
processing, publishing his results in leading journals and mislead-
ing journals.
In 1995, Art returned to the oil industry as a software engineer.
He joined Landmark Graphics in Denver in 1997. He maintains a
product for interpretive seismic data processing to which he is
adding new attribute functionality. Don’t blame him for limita-
tions in other software products. He is a member of the SEG,
EAGE, and - last but not least - the CSEG.
September, 2001 CSEG Recorder 47