PROCEEDINGS, Thirty-First Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering

Stanford University, Stanford, California, January 30-February 1, 2006

SGP-TR-179

SEISMIC ATTRIBUTES IN GEOTHERMAL FIELDS

Bruno Kaelin, Moritz M. Fliedner and Dimitri Bevc

3DGeo Development Inc.

4633 Old Ironsides Drive, Suite 401
Santa Clara, CA, 95054, U.S.A.
E-mail: bruno@3dgeo.com

Francis C. Monastero

US Navy Geothermal Program Office

429 E Bowen Road, MS 4011
China Lake, CA, 93555, U.S.A.
E-mail: francis.monastero@navy.mil

From a variety of seismic attributes the offset stacks,

ABSTRACT
Large velocity contrasts are regularly encountered in
geothermal fields due to poorly consolidated and
hydro-thermally altered rocks. The appropriate
processing of seismic data is therefore crucial to
delineate the geological structure. To assess the
benefits of surface seismic surveys in such settings,
we applied different migration procedures to image a
synthetic reservoir model and seismic data from the
Coso Geothermal Field.
We have shown that the two-dimensional migration
of synthetic seismic data from a typical reservoir
model resolves the geological structure very well
despite the extremely strong and sharp velocity
contrasts. In addition, small fracture zones can be
inferred from the inspection of the common image
gathers.
After carefully preprocessing seismic data the 2-D
and 2.5-D pre-stack depth migration of line 109 in
the Coso Geothermal Field shows a well defined
reflector at about 16’000 ft depth. Compared to the
2-D pre-stack migrated image the 2.5-D pre-stack
migrated image resolves the deep reflector better,
which indicates that the subsurface shows significant
three-dimensional structures.
The 3-D pre-stack depth migration at the intersection
of line 109 and line 110 shows that the deep reflector
lies horizontally and recedes in the cross-line
direction of line 109. The results demonstrate that
three-dimensional surveys greatly improve the image
of the subsurface, where geological structures and
seismic velocities vary both vertically and laterally.
the energy and the frequency prove to be the most
powerful in the Coso Geothermal Field. The offset
stacks show that the deep reflections are strongest
and most continuous for 15’000 ft offset to 20’000 ft
offset. The far-offset stack combined with the energy
yields an almost perfect indication for the deep
reflector. The frequency power spectrum shows
distinct peaks, which may be related to the reflector
thickness.
INTRODUTION
Over the past decade seismic imaging methods in
hydrocarbon exploration have been greatly improved.
Pre-stack depth migration has become the preferred
tool to image complex geological structures. At the
same time three-dimensional seismic surveys have
proven to be indispensable to image salt bodies,
dipping sedimentary layers and other complex
geological structures. These newly developed
imaging techniques are mainly applied to
hydrocarbon exploration geophysics, though. In
geothermal fields we face similar challenges, which
make them an ideal candidate for the application of
three-dimensional pre-stack migration methods.
In geothermal fields large velocity contrasts and
complex geological structures are regularly
encountered. In many geothermal fields the
subsurface consist of rocks, which have been hydro-
thermally altered and exhibit abnormally strong
vertical and lateral velocity variation. In addition,
geothermal activity leads to many cracks and
fractures, which make seismic surveys even more
challenging due to strong scattering effects.
Bevc et al. (2002) demonstrated the feasibility of
improved seismic image resolution in geothermal
fields through the application of state-of-the-art
seismic data processing techniques. They processed
three representative two-dimensional seismic lines
from a dataset acquired in the Coso Geothermal
Field.

In this paper we investigate three different aspects of

seismic imaging methods in geothermal fields:

1) We investigate the feasibility to image

geothermal reservoirs with a two-
dimensional synthetic dataset from a typical
geothermal reservoir model.
2) We present the processing results from two
seismic lines from the Coso Geothermal
Field after 2-D, 2.5-D and 3-D processing,
respectively.
3) We compute seismic attributes from the Figure 2. Synthetic shot gathers in the center of the
seismic line 109 from the Coso Geothermal velocity model. Figure a) shows the shot
Field. gather without the fractured zone,
Figure b) shows the same gather with the
SYNTHETIC RESERVOIR MODEL fractured zone and Figure c) shows the
difference between the two gathers,
We computed the synthetic acoustic data with a finite respectively.
difference code based on a typical reservoir model
(Figure 1). The synthetic datasets consists of 67 shots
every 30 m, starting at 1000 m in-line coordinate.
The number and position of the geophones was kept
constant, starting from 500 m in-line coordinate with
10 m spacing. Each of the 100 traces per shot consists
of 1600 time samples with 1 ms sampling time.

Figure 3. Pre-stack wave-equation migration results

from the synthetic dataset. Stacked
migration image (left) and common image
gather (right). The top of the fractured
zone is visible as the diffraction at the
corresponding depth in the common
image.

Since we are purely interested in the structures below

Figure 1. Velocity model of a typical geothermal
reservoir. There is a fractured zone with
very low velocity in the center of the
model at about 1000 m depth.
The zone of interest consists of the slow velocity
fractured zone in the center of the velocity model at
about 1000 m depth. To investigate the feasibility of
imaging the small fractured zone as well as the
complex structure of the layers, we computed the
synthetics with the fractured zone and without the
fractured zone, respectively. Figure 2 shows that the
differences are significant, but they are hardly
noticeable in the shot gathers only.
500 m we restrict the seismic processing from this
depth downward. For imaging we applied the pre-
stack wave-equation migration without any additional
processing. The image in Figure 3 shows the clearly
defined interface between the two layers including all
structural features. The image of the fractured zone is
limited to the top of the zone itself. Due to the large
velocity contrast between the layers most of the
seismic energy is refracted and only little energy is
reflected from the fractured zone back to the surface.
However, pre-stack migration yields more
information in the common image gather, which
shows the diffraction from the top of the fractured
zone. Hence, the fractured zone can be inferred from
diffractions in the common image gather.
SEISMIC IMAGING OF THE COSO
GEOTHERMAL FIELD

Preprocessing
Detailed information about the seismic surveys in the
Coso Geothermal Field can be found in
Pullammanappallil et al. (2001) and Bevc. et
al. (2002).

Initial velocity models were generated based on the

picking of first breaks on pre-stack data using seismic
turning ray tracing and inverting the data to obtain
parameterized velocity tomograms (Pereyra, 2000).
The seismic data were preprocessed and statically
shifted to a floating datum, applying static
corrections and pre-stack energy enhancement
(Figure 4). The deeper part of the velocity model was
determined with Gamma-Scans and migration Figure 5. 2-D Kirchhoff pre-stack migration of
velocity analysis of the common image gathers. line 109 in the Coso Geothermal Field.
Clearly visible is the strong reflector at
about 16’000 ft depth.

Figure 4. Shot point 102 of Line 109 in the Coso

Geothermal Field: Raw data (left) and
preprocessed data (right) (from Bevc et
al., 2002).

Pre-stack Depth Migration

Based on previous studies line 109 in the Coso
Geothermal Field shows a deep reflector at about
16’000 ft, which may be interpreted as the local
brittle-ductile zone (Pullammanappallil et al., 2001;
Unruh et al., 2001). Hence, we focused our
investigation on this depth range only. Figure 6. 2.5-D Kirchhoff pre-stack migration of
line 109 in the Coso Geothermal Field.
2-D and 2.5-D Pre-Stack Depth Migration The main differences between the 2-D and
We applied Kirchhoff pre- stack migration on the the 2.5-D migration are indicated.
preprocessed data assuming two-dimensional
geometry. The results show the deep reflector at 3-D Pre-Stack Depth Migration
about 16’000 ft depth extending laterally for about Line 109 crosses line 110 at 11000 ft in-line
12000 ft (Figure 5). coordinate, which allows a 3-D migration for a small
image cube of 4000 ft in-line length and 4500 ft
Since the common mid points of line 109 show small cross-line length. However, the velocity model was
variable cross-line components, we decided to assumed to remain constant, because the data fold
process the data in 2.5-D with Kirchhoff pre-stack was too small for a three-dimensional velocity
migration. Compared to the 2-D migration the analysis.
stacked image resolves the deep reflector better,
which indicates that the subsurface shows significant
three-dimensional structures (Figure 6).
Figure 7. 3-D Kirchhoff pre-stack migration of a small image cube at the intersection of line 109 and line 110 in the
Coso Geothermal Field. The three-dimensional structure of the deep reflector becomes clearly visible.

The 3-D migrated image in Figure 7 shows that the

deep reflector extends horizontally and recedes in the
cross-line direction. More reflectors, which could not
be resolved by 2-D migration and 2.5-D migration,
become visible.

SEISMIC ATTRIBUTES
Seismic attributes are inferred physical quantities
from seismic data and are commonly used in
Figure 8. Line 109 in the Coso Geothermal Field:
hydrocarbon exploration and reservoir monitoring.
Near-offset stack (left) and far-offset stack (right).
The goal is to find attributes, which are characteristic
The deep reflector is visible in the far-offset stack
for a particular area. Hence, we investigated several
only.
commonly used attributes for the reflector at
16’000 ft in the Coso Geothermal field to
characterize this reflector. Energy
Figure 9 shows the energy at line 109 in the Coso
Near-Offset Stack and Far-Offset Stack Geothermal Field in the common image gather. The
energy was computed between 15’000 ft and
Near-offset stacks and far-offset stacks are preferred
18’000 ft by taking into account the lateral coherency
tools to characterize geological areas. We computed
of the reflections. Most of the energy is concentrated
the near-offset stack with 10’000 ft maximum offset
at far-offsets between 15’000 ft and 22’000 ft.
and the far-offset stack with 10’000 ft to 24’000 ft
offset (Figure 8). In the near-offset stack the deep
Since almost all the reflected energy is located in the
reflector is not visible at all, whereas the far-offset
far-offset data, we computed the energy of the far-
stack resolves it clearly. This may be due to the
offset data only (Figure 10). The computed energy
physical characteristics of the reflector, but it may
illuminates the deep reflector only, which makes the
also be the result of the seismic processing in this
combination of far-offset data combined with the
challenging environment.
energy a perfect attribute to locate similar reflectors.
Figure 9. Energy as a function of offset in the
common image gather. The far-offset data
contains most of the reflected energy.
Figure 11. Line 109 and line 110 in the Coso Geothermal Field: Energy attribute in a small 3-D cube at the
intersection of the two seismic lines.
Energy in 3-D
Seismic attributes are especially useful in three-
dimensional surveys, because they allow a better
visualization of geological structures. Figure 11
shows the energy attribute for a small image cube at
the intersection of line 109 and line 110 in the Coso
Geothermal Field. Compared to the initial migrated
Figure 10. Line109 in the Coso Geothermal Field:
Energy of the far-offset data with the
overlain seismic image. The deep reflector
is well illuminated.
image the energy attribute illuminates the three-
dimensional character of the reflector and the
heterogeneity of the subsurface much more clearly.
Frequency
The frequency power spectrum was computed from
15’000 ft to 18’000 ft depth. The spectrum shows
distinct single frequency peaks in the in-line direction
(Figure 12). Compared to the source frequency
content from 4 Hz to 30 Hz, the frequency content of
the reflector is smaller and lies between 4 Hz and
20 Hz.

Figure 13. Line 109 in the Coso Geothermal Field:

Reflectivity power spectrum from
15’000 ft to 18’000 ft depth. The spectrum
shows distinct single peaks in the in-line
direction.

Figure 12. Line 109 in the Coso Geothermal Field:

Frequency power spectrum from 15’000 ft
to 18’000 ft depth. The spectrum shows
distinct single peaks in the in-line
direction.

Reflectivity
For further investigation of the characteristic peaks of
the frequency power spectrum the power spectrum of
the reflection response must be computed. To extract
the reflectivity power spectrum we applied the
procedure:
1) compute the frequency spectrum,
2) divide the frequency spectrum by the source
spectrum to obtain the Green’s function,
3) compute the attenuation,
4) compute the Quality factor Q,
5) compensate for the intrinsic attenuation
between surface and reflector.
We obtained the source spectrum by stacking several
direct waves close to the source. The Quality factor Q
was computed with linear regression from 8 Hz
to 20 Hz with the spectra from 10’000 ft in-line
coordinate to 24’000 ft in-line coordinate. We found
that the Quality factor Q = 55 fits the data best
between the surface and the reflector at 16’000 ft.
The reflectivity power spectrum shows similar
features like the frequency power spectrum, but the
frequency band-with is increased and the frequency
peaks are slightly shifted to higher frequencies
(Figure 13). These changes become even more
apparent, when the spectra are stacked over the in-
line direction (Figure 14).
Figure 14. Line 109 in the Coso Geothermal Field:
Stacked power spectra along the in-line
direction from 15’000 ft to 18’000 ft
depth.
Single Layer Hypothesis
After analyzing the attributes we can make the
hypothesis that the deep reflection is caused by a
horizontal geological structure, which causes distinct
frequency peaks in the power spectrum. The simplest
model for such a reflector is a single horizontal layer
with thickness d. Such a layer produces reflection
peaks for λ/d = 1/4, 3/4, 5/4, …, where λ is the
seismic wavelength within the layer.
After analyzing the reflectivity power spectrum in the
in-line direction, we can conclude that there are
single peaks only at each location. Hence, we can
assume that the peaks represent the first maximum
reflection and therefore the ratio of wavelength and
layer thickness is one quarter at each location.
Table 1 shows the resulting reflector thickness
between 260 ft and 450 ft for the three dominant
frequencies.
Table 1. Coso Geothermal Field: Reflector
thickness at 16’000 ft depth for the three dominant
frequencies.
Frequency (Hz) 8 12 14
Wavelength (ft) 1800 1200 1035
Layer thickness (ft) 450 300 260
The maximum power of the reflection is determined
by the impedance contrast between the layer and the
surrounding rock. At 16’000 ft depth the density
differences are generally small compared to the
velocity differences. We therefore assume constant
density and compute the maximum reflection
coefficient for different velocities in Table 2. The
results show that lower velocities cause much
stronger reflections and can therefore more easily be
detected.
Table 2. Coso Geothermal field: Maximum
reflection coefficient for different velocities at
16’000 ft depth.
Velocity (ft/s) 8000 14500 20000
Reflection coefficient -0.29 0.00 +0.15
CONCLUSIONS
We have shown that the two-dimensional migration
of synthetic data from a typical reservoir model
resolves the geological structure very well despite the
extremely strong and sharp velocity contrasts. In
addition, the small fracture zone can be inferred from
the inspection of the common image gathers.
After carefully preprocessing seismic data the 2-D
pre-stack depth migration of line 109 in the Coso
Geothermal Field shows a well defined reflector at
about 16’000 ft depth. Since the common mid-points
of line 109 show small variable cross-line
components, we were able to process the data in
2.5-D with Kirchhoff pre-stack migration. Compared
to the 2-D migrated image the 2.5-D migrated image
resolves the deep reflector better, which indicates that
the subsurface shows significant three-dimensional
structures.
distinct peaks, which may be characteristic for the
reflector thickness.
REFERENCES
Bevc, D., Fliedner, M.M. and Pereyra, V. (2002),
"Increasing efficiency of geothermal energy
generation with high resolution seismic imaging”,
EISG Award Grant, Project 00-10, 33 pp.
Pereyra, V., Ray tracing methods for inverse
problems. Inverse Problems, 16:R1-R35 (2000).
Pullammanappallil, S., Honjas, W., Unruh, J., and
Monastero, F. (2001), "Use of advanced data
processing techniques in the imaging of the Coso
Geothermal Field”, 26th Workshop Geothermal
Reservoir Engineering, Proc. 26, 8 pp.
Unruh, J., Pullammanappallil, S., Honjas, W., and
Monastero, F. (2001), "New seismic imaging of the
Coso geothermal Field, Eastern California”, 26th
Workshop Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Proc.
26, 7 pp.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the California Energy
Commission (CEC) through the EISG Award 04-01-
05. We thank the US Navy Geothermal Program
Office for providing the seismic data from the Coso
Geothermal Field. We also thank John Queen and
Ernest L. Majer from Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory for providing the synthetic model of a
geothermal reservoir.
We would like to acknowledge the contributions of
Victor Pereyra and Robert W. Ferguson in the
preprocessing of the seismic data.

The 3-D pre-stack depth migration at the intersection

of line 109 and line 110 illuminates the three-
dimensional structure of the reflector. The results
demonstrate that three-dimensional surveys greatly
improve the image of the subsurface, where
geological structures and seismic velocities vary both
vertically and laterally.

From a variety of seismic attributes the offset stacks,

the energy and the frequency prove to be the most
powerful in the Coso Geothermal Field. The offset
stacks show that the deep reflections are strongest
and most continuous for 15’000 ft offset to 20’000 ft
offset. The far-offset stack combined with the energy
yields an almost perfect indication for the deep
reflector. The frequency power spectrum shows