S E I S M I C S

Rekindling Interest in Seismic While Drilling

Seismic while drilling promises elegant solutions to some limitations of conventional borehole seismics.

But so far, it has failed to grab a significant slice of the market. Recent advances may create new opportu-

nities for the technique.

Richard Meehan
Douglas Miller
Cambridge, England

Jakob Haldorsen
Masahiro Kamata
Bill Underhill
Hannover, Germany

For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Andrew nThe concept: to image the subsurface using normal bit noise and surface geophone.
Kurkjian, Schlumberger Wireline Services, Houston,
Texas, USA.
In this article, TOMEX is a mark of Western Atlas Interna-
tional, Inc.
The aim is to turn conventional borehole example, in jungle roads built specially to
1. The principles, history and use of borehole seismics
are covered by: seismics on its head. Instead of locating seis- accommodate sources. Despite these
Hardage BA: “Vertical Seismic Profiling. Part A: Prin- mic sources on the surface and conveying advantages, a widely-used seismic-while-
ciples,” Handbook of Geophysical Exploration, Sec-
tion 1. Seismic Exploration vol.14A, Helbig K and Tre-
receivers downhole, seismic while drilling drilling service has so far proved elusive.
itel S (eds): London, England: Geophysical Press, uses bit vibrations as a downhole source and This article outlines the principles of seis-
1983. surface geophones to measure signals (above ). mic while drilling and its potential uses,
Oristaglio ML: “A Guide to Current Uses of Vertical This inversion promises timely seismic looks at developments to date, and exam-
Seismic Profiles,” Geophysics 50 (December 1985):
2473-2479. information without interrupting drilling and ines how recent research initiatives are
2. Babour K, Joli F, Landgren K and Piazza J-L: “Ele- without deploying any downhole hardware. rekindling interest in the technique.
ments of Borehole Seismics Illustrated With Three Further, the service may be employed in
Case Studies,” The Technical Review 35, no. 2 (April
1987): 6-17. environmentally sensitive areas where sur-
3. Oristaglio M, Beylkin G and Miller D: “The General- face seismic sources are disruptive—for
ized Radon Transform: A Breakthrough In Seismic
Migration,” The Technical Review 35, no. 3 (July
1987): 20-27.

4 Oilfield Review
Standard VSP
Source

Reflector

Downgoing multiple

Direct wave

Geophone position Time

1
2
3
4
5
Subsurface Reflected primary
reflector Reflected upgoing multiple

Walkway VSP
Source positions
Well S1 S2 S3 S4
Geophone
Fault
Well S
1 S2 S3 S
4 S5
The Principles
Well location is usually selected using sur-
face seismic images. Once drilling is under-
way, it is useful to know the bit’s position
relative to the seismic section. However, this
information is not easily available because
the vertical axis of the seismic section is
measured not in distance but in “two-way
time”—the time the seismic waves take to
travel through the earth, bounce off a sub-
surface reflector and return to surface.
To relate the position of the bit to the seis-
mic section, it is necessary to convert the
vertical axis from time to depth. This con-
version requires knowledge of the velocity
January 1993
S5 S6
nConventional mics. Good quality data, sampled finely and
borehole seismics. in sufficient depth, enable a vertical reflec-
A basic vertical tion image or vertical seismic profile (VSP)
seismic profile
(VSP) survey to be created. In a basic VSP survey, the
employs a static seismic source is static and the geophone is
seismic source moved to different levels in the well. The
while the geophone image may be displayed either in time, to
is moved to differ-
match the surface seismic section, or in
ent levels in the
well (top). To create depth, to match wireline logs.2
a lateral image of Alternatively, the geophone location may
the formation, be fixed and the surface source moved
walkaway VSP uses along a line that “walks away” from the rig.
Hyperbolic a fixed geophone
S6 direct arrival location and a sur- Walkaway VSP produces an image of the
face source that is subsurface with lateral coverage that is typi-
moved along a line cally between half and a quarter the well
that extends from depth (left ). In deviated wells, various com-
the well (bottom).
binations of VSP and walkaway VSP may be
employed to provide the required images.3
Today, borehole seismics delivers a range
of high-resolution images. However, like all
wireline-delivered services, drilling must
stop and the drillstring must be removed
prior to running the survey. Therefore, bore-
hole seismics is typically carried out during
openhole logging, usually just before casing
is run. The results certainly offer useful
of seismic waves through the formation. information, but this may be too late. The
Velocity varies significantly with rock type well may already be in the wrong
and usually has to be measured, rather than place—for example, on the wrong side of a
modeled, using a combination of sonic logs fault subsequently revealed by walkaway
and borehole seismics of a well after it has VSP—and a costly sidetrack may be
been drilled. needed. Furthermore, it may be expensive
The theory of borehole seismics has been or impossible to locate sufficient surface
known for many decades.1 At its simplest, a sources to create a satisfactory walkaway
geophone deployed on wireline records the VSP image.
time that seismic waves take to travel from a In seismic while drilling, compressional
surface source to a receiver at known depth waves emitted by the active bit radiate both
in the well. These times are doubled to tie directly to surface and downward from the
in with two-way time on the surface seismic bit, reflecting off formation boundaries. By
section. This simple service is known as a
“checkshot” survey.
But there are subtleties that add signifi-
cantly to the usefulness of borehole seis-
5
using surface geophones to detect this
sound, the inverse of checkshot, VSP and
walkaway VSP surveys may be obtained.
These techniques offer several advantages
over conventional borehole seismics:
drilling need not stop and, because the
measurements are made continuously, the
information allows well trajectory decisions
to be made before it is too late. Further,
using the bit as a source may make it practi-
cal to perform large-scale borehole seismic
jobs where surface sources are impracti-
cal—for example in towns or environmen-
tally sensitive areas.
However, seismic while drilling presents
significant technical challenges. The signal
emitted by conventional seismic sources is
well controlled—either an impulsive explo-
sion or a sweep from a vibrator of known
signature—making the time between its
emission and detection relatively easy to
determine. On the other hand, the bit’s sig-
nal is essentially continuous and uncontrol-
lable. A geophone on surface records con-
tinuous seismic radiation as it is transmitted
through the ground.
In addition, the environment around a
drilling rig is very noisy. The comparatively
low-level energy of the drillbit seismic signal
is often completely submerged in noise.
Onshore, the geophone traces include sev-
eral noise components. Some noise that cor-
relates with the seismic signal is caused by
bit vibrations travelling up the drillstring and
the fluid-filled annulus and then “rolling”
along the air-ground interface to the geo-
phones—this is called correlated ground roll.
Uncorrelated ground roll comes from the
vibrations of surface equipment like the mud
pumps and engines. Random noise is caused
by events like a passing truck or train.
The challenge is to recognize the unknown
and variable signature of the bit, to improve
the signal-to-noise ratio and to convert a
continuous emission to one in which dis-
crete seismic events may be recognized.
The History
The idea of using drill bit vibrations as an
energy source for subsurface investigation
dates back to the 1930s. The original con-
cept was proposed for cable drilling, which
6 Oilfield Review
made processing more straightforward
because it applies force to the formation
through discrete impacts creating a pulsed
signal. The technique failed to mature as
rotary drilling became the norm.
Three decades later, rollercone bit vibra-
tions were analyzed, initially to assess their
effects on the drillstring and the rig. But this
work also showed that the vibrations pos-
sess sufficient energy and bandwidth to be
used as a seismic source.4 Then, in 1985,
Société Nationale Elf Aquitaine, Paris,
France, patented “instantaneous acoustic
logging in a wellbore” using a drill bit as
source. The technique overcomes the con-
tinuous nature of the source by relating the
signal measured by surface geophones to a
signal measured on the drillstring using a
crosscorrelation technique.5
Geophones near the rig measure the seis-
mic signal and an accelerometer at the top
of the drillpipe measures bit vibrations
transmitted through the drillstring. The
accelerometer receives a continuous signal
similar to that reaching the geophones. But
the speed of the signal through the drillstring
is different from that through rock, so the
two traces will be time shifted. By using
crosscorrelation, the value of this shift may
be estimated.
If the time shift and the velocity of the sig-
nal through the drillstring are known, the
travel time of the signal in rock may be cal-
culated. But components in the drill-
string—drill collars, stabilizers and tool
joints for example—affect propagation of
the signal, distorting the signature and mak-
ing drillstring velocity difficult to calculate.
One proposal by Elf exploits differences in
drillstring travel time before and immedi-
ately after a new joint of pipe has been con-
nected to the string. A crosscorrelation
between the accelerometer and geophone
signals is made before the connection.
Another crosscorrelation is made after the
connection but before any hole has been
drilled. These two crosscorrelations are then
crosscorrelated with each other, giving a
time shift attributed to the extra joint of
drillpipe. By successively combining these,
the drillstring velocity may be calculated.
Since the initial Elf patent was filed, a seis-
mic-while-drilling-service has been devel-
oped and offered under license as the
TOMEX survey by Western Geophysical.
Time-to-depth conversions have been car-
ried out and images comparable to VSP sur-
veys have been produced.6 Despite these
results, seismics while drilling has so far
failed to capture a significant share of the
potential market.
New Systems
Given the promising potential of seismic
while drilling, Schlumberger researchers
have developed two prototype real-time sys-
tems that mirror conventional techniques of
borehole seismics and may promote more
widespread use of the technology.
First, this article looks at an experimental
continuous checkshot system designed to be
permanently on site delivering time-to-
depth conversions. Then, it examines an
imaging-while-drilling system being devel-
oped to deliver an image comparable to
walkaway VSP. This system uses a large
array of geophones and is designed to be on
site for only a few days.
Continuous checkshot: A key to a viable
continuous checkshot service is cost-effec-
tiveness. If large quantities of equipment and
many people are permanently required on
site, costs are generally high. No matter how
good the product, it will be too expensive.
With this in mind, GECO-PRAKLA Engi-
neering, Hannover, Germany, is testing a
fully automated system that keeps the num-
ber of data-gathering channels to a mini-
mum. Currently undergoing research trials
in the field, the system also employs new
processing techniques to ensure that perfor-
mance and real-time product delivery are
not sacrificed when hardware is simplified.
The system employs 12 or fewer geo-
phones, deployed radially starting about
200 m [656 ft] from the rig. There are two
accelerometers on the swivel—the lowest
part of the drilling equipment not rotating.
Data are transferred via cable to the rig-
based recording unit. Reducing the number
of geophones improves system economics
and makes automation feasible, but presents
a signal processing challenge.
Uncorrelated noise has traditionally been
reduced by summing the responses from a
large number of independent receivers—an
irreversible process. With sufficient traces,
the in-phase signal is satisfactorily reinforced
and the out-of-phase noise attenuated—the
bigger the array, the better the data. Corre-
lated ground roll is more troublesome. But,
by deploying sufficient geophones in arrays
with carefully chosen directions, correlated
noise may be attenuated.7
However, the effectiveness of this direc-
tional attenuation technique is limited, par-
ticularly when there are few geophones. To
facilitate more sophisticated noise removal,
the continuous checkshot system preserves
individual geophone data, rather than
instantly summing them (next page).
The first task in this method is to remove
ground roll from the individual geophone
 Accelerometer signal

Processing

Geophones

Deconvolved signal—
reflections removed

Geophone
signals

Drillstring image
nDrillstring image.
Drillstring vibra-
tions measured at
surface are used to
Filtered signal
calculate the
Adaptive filter changes in
impedance that
the vibrations
Crosscorrelation encounter as they
travel from the bot-
tom of the drill-
string to the top.
By deciding what
Time shift bit part of the image
Bit
corresponds to the
bit, it is then possi-
ble to work out the
drillstring travel
time.

Time of signal Time of signal

in formation Computation
through drillstring

4. Deily FH, Dareing DW, Paff GH, Ortloff JE and Lynn
RD: “Downhole measurements of Drill String Forces
and Motions,” Transactions of the American Society
of Mechanical Engineering for Industry (1968): 217-225.
Lutz J, Raynaud M, Gstalder S, Quichaud C, Raynal J
and Muckelroy JA: “Instantaneous Logging Based on a
Dynamic Theory of Drilling,” Journal of Petroleum
Technology 24 (June 1972): 750-758.
January 1993
5. Staron P, Arens G and Gros P: “Method for Instanta- 7. Hardage BA: Crosswell Seismology and Reverse VSP,
neous Acoustic Logging Within a Wellbore,” Interna- vol. 1. London, England: Geophysical Press Limited
tional Patent Application under the Patent Coopera- (1992): 79-101.
tion Treaty No. WO 85/05696 (May 20, 1985).
6. Rector JW: “Utilization of Drill Bit Vibrations as a
Downhole Seismic Source,” PhD dissertation submit-
ted to Stanford University Department of Geophysics,
September 1990.
Rector JW and Marion BP: “MWD VSP and Check-
shot Surveys Using the Drill Bit as a Downhole Energy
Source,” paper OTC 6024, presented at the 21st
Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
Texas, USA, May 1-4, 1989.
Rector JW and Marion BP: “The Use of Drill-Bit
Energy as a Downhole Seismic Source,” Geophysics 7
56 (May 1991): 628-634.
traces. Signal processing experts at Schlum-
berger Cambridge Research (SCR), Cam-
bridge, England, have developed adaptive
noise filters to do this. Adaptive filters have
been used for many purposes since the
1970s—current examples include telephone
channel equalization to prevent echoes on
long-distance telephone lines and antinoise
systems to reduce environmentally undesir-
able sounds.8
For seismic while drilling, the filter
exploits differences in the moveout of com-
ponents within the traces. Ground roll
Cutting Noise with an Adaptive Filter
Adaptive
Geophone 1 signal
d time are then used to compute the forma-
Ground roll
nAn adaptive filter at work.
To illustrate how an adaptive filter removes
unwanted noise, consider an array of two geo-
phones (above). The seismic signal from the drill
bit arrives at both geophones virtually simultane-
ously. But the wave front of the ground roll arrives
at the geophone closest to the rig before it arrives
at the second geophone. Therefore, the trace from
the first geophone contains an advanced version
of the ground roll with respect to the trace from
the second geophone. The size of this advance
depends on the speed of the wavefront and the
separation of the geophones.
To remove the ground roll component from the
second trace, the output from the first geophone
is delayed by a short time d—where d is less
than the advance. Now the trace from the first
geophone contains a delayed version of the seis-
mic signal compared to the second geophone, but
still has an advanced version of the ground roll.
8 Oilfield Review
approaches the geophones from the side
and exhibits moveout across the array.
However, the wavefront of the seismic sig-
nal approaches the array from below, has
zero moveout and is in phase (next page,
bottom). By using these differences in move-
out to distinguish between different parts of
the trace, the adaptive filter effectively atten-
uates the ground roll, while allowing the
seismic signal to pass (see “Cutting Noise
with an Adaptive Filter,” below ).
Random noise may be removed by cross-
correlating the individual geophone traces
Filtered signal
filter
Geophone 2 signal
The time-delayed first trace is then weighted
by an adaptive filter and subtracted from the sec-
ond trace. Because the filter input contains an
advanced version of the ground roll, it can suc-
cessfully remove ground roll from the second
geophone. But because it contains only a delayed
version of the seismic signal, the signal in the
second geophone’s trace cannot be removed. The
filter weights are adapted so that the total power
of the output signal is minimized. When the mini-
mum power has been achieved, as much of the
ground roll as possible has been removed.
A similar technique may be used even if the
seismic signals do not arrive simultaneously, so
long as the seismic signal has a different move-
out across the array compared to the ground roll.
And for the continuous checkshot system, the fil-
ter is extended to cover all the geophones and not
just two.
with the average of the two traces measured
by the accelerometers on the drillstring. This
crosscorrelation also gives the time shift
between accelerometer and geophone sig-
nals—the difference in signal velocity
through the drillstring and formation. The
time shift is then used to calculate the signal
velocity through the formation.
Determining formation velocity also
requires knowing the drillstring travel time.
As already noted, the many components in
the string complicate calculation of this
travel time and a number of methods have
been proposed—like Elf’s double crosscor-
relation process.
The continuous checkshot system uses a
new technique called drillstring imaging,
also devised at SCR, to model changes in the
acoustic impedance of the drillstring, giving a
better understanding of the velocity of the
signal through the drillstring (next page,
top). The time shift and the drillstring travel
tion travel time.
Imaging while drilling: The continuous
checkshot system employs a relatively small
number of geophones to gather data
throughout drilling. It is not designed to
deliver complex images like those produced
by walkaway VSP. This requires a large
data-gathering exercise employed for a short
time and different processing techniques.
Researchers at both SCR and GECO-
PRAKLA Engineering are constructing com-
plex images using long data records
obtained by large arrays of surface geo-
phone at a range of radial offsets. The scale
of data gathering rivals that used for con-
ventional 2D surface seismics, employing
arrays of 40 to 220 stations with up to 48
geophones per station.
The imaging technique is based on
research started at Schlumberger-Doll
Research, Ridgefield, Connecticut, USA.
8. Widrow B, Glover JR, McCool JM, Kaunitz J,
Williams CS, Hearn RH, Zeidler JR, Dong E and
Goodlin RC: “Adaptive Noise Cancelling: Principles
and Applications,” Proceedings of the Institution of
Electrical and Electronic Engineering 63 no. 12
(December 1975): 1692-1716.
9. Desler JF, Farmer PA and Haldorsen J: “Method of
and Array for Vertical Seismic Profiling,” European
Patent No. 0 294 158 A2 (May 31, 1988).
Miller D, Haldorsen J and Kostov C: “Methods for
Deconvolution of Unknown Source Signatures from
Unknown Waveform Data,” U.S. Patent No.
4,922,362 (May 1, 1990).
10. Oristaglio M, Beylkin G and Miller D, reference 3.
Miller D, Oristaglio M and Beylkin G: “A New Slant
on Seismic Imaging: Migration and Integral Geome-
try,” Geophysics 52 (July 1987): 943-964.
 Geophones

Ground roll Seismic signal

nContinuous checkshot data gathering and processing. Geophone

signals are filtered and crosscorrelated with the deconvolved
accelerometer signal. This yields the time shift—the difference in
travel time taken by the signal through the formation and its time
up the drillstring. The accelerometer signal is also used to create
a drillstring image. The time shift and the image may then be used
to compute the time the signal takes to travel through the formation.

The processing capitalizes on the relative nHow geometry

abundance of geophone data and tracks the affects moveout.
Ground roll
wavefront as it travels through the forma- approaches the
Power

tion, potentially estimating the bit signal and geophones from the
the earth’s response without using side and exhibits
accelerometer data.9 However, by employ- moveout across the
ing the accelerometer input, data may be array—the wave
front reaches the
compressed, making it feasible to store the geophone nearest
Frequency
massive volume of information collected to the rig first, then
over three or four days. travels to the next
Each trace contains a common bit signa- Surface geophone and so
equipment forth. The wave-
ture, and noise that varies from trace to front of the seismic
trace. With time-delay curves, stacking and signal approaches
deconvolution filtering, new signals are cre- the array from
ated that represent what the traces would below. Because the
have looked like if the source had been a distance between
Drillpipe the nearest and far-
noiseless pulse—the earth impulse thest geophone is
response. This converted form is then small—typically
migrated to create an image (see “Spiking about 20 m [66 ft]—
the Traces,” page 10).10 relative to the
Time

depth of the well,

The feasibility of imaging while drilling the seismic signal
has been demonstrated by a number of arrives at each geo-
research experiments. For example, in phone virtually
Mulmshorn, Germany, in 1991, images Heavyweight simultaneously.
drillpipe
were created using 240 groups of 24 geo-

Bottomhole
assembly

Change in impedance

January 1993 9
 Walkaway VSP Drill bit seismic
–500 m 500 m –500 m
3500
Depth, m
Gamma ray log
4500
5500
nWalkaway VSP image (left) and a seismic-while-drilling image
(right) obtained using similar processing, from a research experi-
ment carried out in Germany in 1991—the gamma ray log is
shown for reference. The strong reflector at about 4700 m is the
Zechstein salt formation. The reservoir is in the thin sands visible
in the gamma ray log at about 5000 m. Hints of the sands may be
seen in both images. However, the reflector directly above the
Zechstein is better revealed by the seismic-while-drilling image
although this may be partially a function of the different source
array employed for the wireline survey.
phones that compare very favorably with
walkaway VSP images of the same interval
(above ).11
A rigorous way of assessing the resolution
of seismic images is to analyze the distribu-
tion of the signal across the frequency range
0 to 100 hertz. Four types of seismic image
resulting from the Mulmshorn experiment
have been compared. The spectrum from a
conventional VSP-derived image was
almost uniformly distributed—the ideal. The
spectrum for walkaway VSP was almost as
Frequency, hertz
good. Both surface and seismic-while-
drilling surveys show some deficiencies at
the higher frequencies, although the images
are still acceptable (right ).
A subsequent test, at Voelkersen, Ger-
many, further revealed the scope of the
technique. In March 1992, an experiment
11. Haldorsen JBU, Miller DE, Walsh JJ and Zoch H-J:
“Multichannel Approach to Signature Estimation and
Deconvolution for Drill Bit Imaging,” paper BG5.5,
presented at the 62nd Annual International Meeting
and Exposition of the Society of Exploration Geo- 100
physicists, New Orleans, Louisana, USA, October
25-29, 1992.
nComparing the spectra of four seismic
techniques used on the same well.
10
500 m
Spiking the Traces
Starting with signals created by a noisy continu-
ous source, the objective is to create the earth
impulse response—the traces that would result if
the source had been a noiseless pulse. This
involves a number of steps (next page, left).1
Estimation of source signal—In contrast to the
continuous checkshot system where the seismic
signal arrives virtually simultaneously at a short
array of geophones, the imaging system uses an
array spanning a large distance—kilometers—so
the signal does not arrive at each geophone at
the same time. Each trace measurement contains
a replica of the source signal that must be time
shifted to make them appear to arrive at surface
simultaneously. These shifted traces may then be
stacked to create a single trace, which represents
an estimate of the source signal.
Finding the time delays assumes that the bit
Surface VSP Walkaway Drill bit signal travels to surface as an approximate spher-
seismic VSP seismic
ical wave and is received by the array as an
0
approximate hyperbola. Best-fit analysis may be
used to find the hyperbola that fits the data. How-
ever, if geophone data are correlated with
accelerometer data, the signal-to-noise ratio is so
improved that the time-delay curve is much more
obvious, making best-fit analysis redundant.
Deconvolution and filtering—Once the traces
have been shifted and stacked, a process called
deconvolution is carried out. This removes the
source signature and reduces each signal’s first
arrival to a spike. Additional copies of the source
signature are present in the data because of
reflections in the earth. A single filter is applied
to all the traces, so these additional signals are
also converted into spikes, with amplitude and
time delay relative to the first arrivals. The spikes
provide the basis for the seismic-while-drilling
image.
The deconvolution filter is similar to a conven-
tional noise-reducing Wiener filter and is data-
Spectral distribution
adaptive—its nature changes according to the
data.2 Wiener deconvolution requires an estimate
Oilfield Review
 -200 0 200
0
of the noise. In this case, because the filter is Refining the result—The earth impulse response
optimized to work uniformly on all traces, noise may be refined using an improved time-delay
1 estimation is carried out implicitly by considering curve obtained by picking new break times on the
Time, sec

the ratio of coherent energy—the signal that is deconvolved data. Stacking and deconvolution may
aligned across the array—and the total energy at then be repeated using the new time-delay curve.
2
each frequency.
Processing—These traces may then be processed
The filter enhances everything coherent with
3 as normal walkaway VSP data using conventional
the signal—like reflections—and suppresses
migration.
incoherent noise, while preserving relative arrival
Offset, m
times (below). Built into the filter is a natural 1. Haldorsen J, Walsh J, Miller D and Zoch H-J: “Optimal Array
Time shifting to
noise suppressor, attenuating the energy at fre- Focusing in Deconvolution for VSP,” to be presented at the 55th
align direct Annual Meeting and Technical Exhibition of the European Associ-
arrivals quencies where the signal-to-noise ratio is poor. ation of Exploration Geophysicists, Stavanger, Norway, June 7-
Shifting Once the traces have been spiked, the filter 11, 1993
0 2. Wiener N: Extrapolation, Interpolation and Smoothing of Station-
automatically reverses the shift to create the ary Time Series. New York, New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons,
earth impulse response. 1949.
1
Time, sec

2 Stack of 302 one-minute field Deconvolved data from five

correlated records hours of recording
West East West East
3 –1000 m Well 1000 m –1000 m Well 1000 m
0

Applying the
deconvolution
Time, sec

filter

-200 0 200
0

1
1
Time, sec

4 2
Offset, m
nThe deconvolution process.
nBefore and after deconvolution. The left image shows the equivalent of five
hours of data. Some 302, one-minute bit-noise records have been correlated,
truncated and stacked—representing a compression of more than four orders
of magnitude of the drill bit waveform. These data have then been treated
using the deconvolution filter (right). This removes noise incoherent with the
source signature, leaving a sharp direct arrival together with additional sharp
arrivals from subsurface reflectors and coherent seismic sources.

January 1993 11
 was carried out using 7 kilometers (km) [4
miles] of surface geophones in a suburban
area (left ). Data were collected over four
days, during which a rollercone bit drilled
89 m [292 ft] of formation to a depth of
3075 m [10,090 ft]. A preliminary image
was produced in the field after only 25 m
[82 ft] of drilling and within a couple of
hours of acquiring the data.
The target for this well was about 5 km [3
miles] deep. Sand layers below the Zech-
stein salt are typically porous and gas-filled.
However, wells completed close to faults
have proved unproductive because of low
permeability. The available 2D surface-seis-
mic data had been interpreted showing a
graben below the Zechstein, but the image
was not clear. The goal of the experiment
was to obtain a better image of the target
zone to clarify the structure and guide
drilling to potentially productive locations.
–1500 m West
1.5
2.0
Time, sec
nGeophone locations used for the Voelk-
ersen experiment. If conventional borehole
seismics had been used, seismic sources,
rather than geophones would have been
deployed in this suburban environment. 2.5
3.0
nSeismic-while-drilling image superimposed on the conventional surface seismic
12
The geophones were laid out in three sur-
face lines. There were 140 channels, each
consisting of 24 vertical geophones (next
page). Information from two accelerometers,
mounted on the rig swivel, was used to
compress the sampled data by crosscorrela-
tion. Before processing, data were stacked
for each 1-m [3-ft] interval that was
drilled—except for 11 m [36 ft] of drilling
where seismic-while-drilling data could not
be collected. The 78 stacked records,
deconvolved and corrected for time delay,
were then imaged using standard VSP
migration. The images show good agree-
ment with the surface seismic sections, but
also increased detail (below ). This detail
allowed the driller to plan the well location
with greater precision.
So far, the feasibility of both continuous
checkshot and imaging while drilling has
been demonstrated, but only in a few envi-
Well East 1500 m
Oilfield Review
ronments. To date, the systems are limited to As researchers gather field experience, it
onshore applications in wells with low devi- will be possible to better define the limits of
ation being drilled through hard formations the technology. This may then allow
with rollercone bits, without topdrives and deployment of systems that minimize poten-
without mud motors. tially costly missed targets and subsequent
Some other environments and applica- sidetracks, and identify possible hazards
tions are not expected to cause too many ahead of the bit. For the explorationist, these
problems. Offshore use will necessitate systems offer the chance to refine the final
rethinking of hardware requirements and target while the well is being drilled and
different processing, but these are not before it is too late. —CF
expected to be insurmountable. And, while
topdrives have not been used yet, no major
problems are anticipated.
However, other cases are more daunting.
Polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) bits
do not produce the same signal as roller-
cone bits. Horizontal wells will need a dif-
ferent arrangement of sensors and new pro-
cessing techniques. And operating with mud
motors is an unknown quantity.

nHow the Voelk-

ersen geophones
N were laid out. Two
parallel 3-kilometer
(km) [1.9-mile]
strike lines were
joined by a 1-km
[0.6-mile] dip line.
The dip line ran
radially from the
rig from about 600
m [1970 ft]. At 50-m
[164-ft] intervals
along these lines,
there were 140
channels, each
consisting of 24 ver-
tical geophones
placed every 2 m
[6.5 ft].

Well site

500 m

January 1993 13
 S E I S M I C S

Going For The Play:

Structural Interpretation in Offshore Congo

Nigel Platt Stewart Walter

Peter Philip ARK Geophysics Limited
Woking, England Milton Keynes, England

Petroleum exploitation begins nThe coastline of

the Congo, show-
with geologists and geophysicists Gabon ing survey lines

Kouilou
(red) of the deep-
exploring unknown territory with water nonpropri-
10
0m etary survey run
20

er
few wells for guidance and no visi- Riv by GECO-PRAKLA
0m

Congo
in 1990 and lines
ble sign of oil and gas. Their task from a previous
survey (blue) run
is to uncover the best prospects two years earlier.
100
0m Current offshore
and decide whether oil companies fields are near the
coast in water
should commit to millions of 2000m depths less than
100 m [330 ft]. Line
exploration dollars. A key tool is Pointe direction for the
Noire deepwater survey
structural interpretation of seismic was chosen mostly
perpendicular to
data. A survey shot in deep waters Cabinda the coast—that is,
(Angola) parallel to the
off the Congo mainland shows how regional dip, the
direction most
geologists apply this technique. likely to give
insight into struc-
ture and plays.
Orthogonal lines
Producing fields parallel to regional
For help in preparation of this article, thanks to John strike completed
Booth, Amerada Hess, Libreville, Gabon, and 0 km 50 seismic coverage.
Dominique Pajot and Phil Trayner, GECO-PRAKLA, Sta- Zaire
vanger, Norway.

Given the difficulty of finding oil and gas, it
is strange that the spirit of exploration geol-
ogy is captured by the word play. No
connection here with frivolous wanderings
through exotic lands by geological super-
sleuths. Play in the exploration context
describes a geological configuration that
favors the accumulation of hydrocarbons.
Plays and their associated prospects are
what exploration geologists spend most of
their professional lives looking for.
Until oil or gas is discovered, plays exist
mostly in the mind. Focusing on one or
another of the earth’s basins, explorationists
search for that seemingly impossible con-
catenation—source rock, migration path,
reservoir and seal.1 Each vital ingredient
must be present, both at the correct physical
location and at the right time.

14 Oilfield Review
 Source rocks rich enough in organic
material must have been buried and heated
to sufficiently high temperature and long
enough to form petroleum. Petroleum
migrates upward, so there must have been a
conduit to guide it. And a porous, perme-
able reservoir rock capped by impermeable
rocks is required to receive and trap the
fluid. Finally, the ensuing geological evolu-
tion—commonly several tens or even hun-
dreds of million years—must have left the
reservoir and seal intact.
As explorationists focus on a sedimentary
basin, this juxtaposition of geological coin-
cidence occupies the mind. Every scrap of
evidence is used to refine the notion of how
the basin might have evolved and whether
the structural and sedimentary history might
favor a play. Outcrop geology, satellite
imagery, magnetic and gravity surveys, and
especially seismic data contribute to the
interpretation process. This article shows
how various plays in offshore Congo crystal-
lized in the minds of GECO-PRAKLA geolo-
gists as they reviewed a nonproprietary seis-
mic survey shot in West African waters.
Geologists first became interested in the
Congo in 1928, attracted by tar seepages
near Pointe Noire on the coast and knowl-
edge that the subsurface contained thick
deposits of salt—salt intrusions provide a
classic trapping mechanism for hydrocarbon
accumulation (previous page ). The salts had
been identified in numerous boreholes
nSatellite gravity map of West African coast and mid-Atlantic,
showing dense oceanic crust (red) to the left and less dense fill of
drilled for potash mining exploration. sedimentary basins (blue) along the coast. The southwest-north-
Oil was discovered at Pointe Indienne, 20 east lineations are transform faults accommodating the differen-
kilometers [12 miles] north of Pointe Noire, tial spread of the mid-Atlantic and African plates. The map was
derived from satellite measurements of mean ocean height, a
in 1959. But further onshore exploration parameter dependent on the cumulative mass distribution and
proved fruitless—some oil shows, but noth- density of the underlying rock. Dense rock such as basement
ing of commercial value. In the late 1960s, attracts water from the surroundings and creates a bulge in the
an Elf/AGIP partnership discovered oil off- ocean, increasing ocean height. Less dense rocks such as sedi-
shore. Further successes yielded five off- ments give rise to a depression in the ocean surface. (Courtesy of
ARK Geophysics Limited.)
shore fields and oil production from the
Congo now exceeds 115,000 barrels per
day. Recoverable reserves are currently esti- ration wells where precise lithological data West African geological history, briefly
mated at more than a billion barrels. would be available. described here:
The GECO-PRAKLA nonproprietary sur- In preparation for designing and then The offshore basins of the Congo form
vey of 1990, which forms the basis of the interpreting the survey, the GECO-PRAKLA part of the West African Salt Basin, a large
interpretation described in this article, cov- interpreters amassed and absorbed an enor- collection of basins stretching 2000 km
ered 15,000 square kilometers [5800 square mous variety of data, including satellite sur- [1250 miles] from south Cameroon to
miles]. The survey ventured from shallow veys showing the gross underlying structure Angola. The salt was deposited during
water at the edge of the continental shelf, extending from the African continent to the Aptian times about 120 million years ago
where oil plays were known to exist, to mid-Atlantic, and data from wells in the when the rifting of South America from
depths up to 2000 m [6560 ft]. This is area (above). Gravity and magnetic surveys
deeper than the current limit of commercial helped determine regional fault patterns and 1. For more on petroleum plays:
exploitation, but the deepwater data were thus the optimal directions for seismic sur- North FK: Petroleum Geology. Boston, Massachusetts,
USA: Unwin Hyman, 1985.
nevertheless crucial for elucidating basin veying. Estimates of geothermal gradients
Allen PA and Allen JR: Basin Analysis: Principles and
structure and migration pathways from deep through geological time were made avail- Applications. Oxford, England: Blackwell Scientific
in the basin. The survey lines were designed able for evaluating the thermal history of Publications, 1990.
to connect with previous surveys conducted organic-rich formations and the consequent
closer to the coast and intersect any explo- probability of hydrocarbon generation.
Finally, the interpreters had to bone up on

January 1993 15
 Structural History of West Africa

SW NE
Structural history of offshore Congo illustrating basin evolution during
Pre-rift

the last 150 million years, with three paleogeographic maps—rift in the
Late Jurassic, transition in the Aptian and drift in the Late Cretaceous—
Early extension and sequence of southwest-northeast transects from ancient to present
(transect position marked red on maps).
From “Hydrocarbon Potential of the West
African Salt Basin, Regional Exploration
Report, Volume III: Congo.” Pinner, England,
Early rift

Cratonic rifting 1987. Courtesy of Fairway Exploration Ltd.

North
Nigerian Lake
Shield Chad
Rift subsidence: lacustrine and fluvio-deltaic deposition Western African Shield
Chaillu
Massif

o
Guiana Paranaiba Afro-Brazil

ng
Basin

Co
Shield Sag

R.
Basins
San
on

Congo
az

Francisco
Guapore Basin
Am
Late rift

Basin
Major rifting Shield
R.

Parana
Kalahari
Basin
Basin

Lacustrine marl deposition and clastic infill Pacific

120 to 150 million years

West Africa gradually evolved into a full-
fledged drift. Later salt movement would
create anticlinal folds capable of trapping
hydrocarbons.
The story, however, begins thirty million
years earlier during the Late Jurassic (see
“Structural History of West Africa,” above ).
At this time, extensional faulting and subsi-
dence took place in the part of the Gond-
wana supercontinent that would eventually
become both the east coast of South Amer-
ica and the west coast of Africa. Further
stretching or extension in the Early Creta-
ceous led to the formation of a large-scale
rift along the future western African and
eastern Brazilian margins. A modern paral-
lel is the Great Rift Valley extending from
the Red Sea to the Zambesi River.
Initially, the rift and its basins were above
sea level and isolated from the ocean. Large
lakes formed in which sandstone and shales
accumulated. Some shales were deposited
in oxygen-deficient water, allowing preser-
vation of organic matter. These formations
are the source for the billions of barrels of
oil found in the West African basins.
By Aptian times, continued subsidence
and a rise in global sea level permitted
incursion by the sea. At first, this was inter-
mittent, with the sea alternately entering
and receding from the basins. This created
ideal conditions of repeated evaporation
and marine flooding to create thick deposits
of halite, the Aptian salts.
Later, during the mid- to Late Cretaceous,
the area was definitively submerged and
continental breakup of Gondwana led to a
separation, or drift, of South America from
Africa.2 Whereas the basins had previously
been linked on one continental plate, now
they were separated by a widening tract of
ocean, as the Atlantic opened through injec-
tion of new oceanic crust at the mid-ocean
ridge. Sedimentation was now marine, with
thick deposits of limestone, sandstone and
shale. Further subsidence took place in the
Late Tertiary and was probably associated
with faulting related to the collision of the
Eurasian and African plates.
This big picture the interpreters learned
from extensive research into the region’s

16 Oilfield Review

SW
Transition
Erosion and peneplanation
Evaporite phase: restricted marine transgression
SW
Drift
Subsidence and open marine deposition
Subsidence
Westward tilt and subsidence
geological history. Another card in their
hand was knowing which formations had
produced oil shows during drilling in the
area, which of these had produced com-
mercially, and which formation was the
most likely source for the shows—the most
important was the Marnes Noires, or black
marls, continental deposits formed under
lacustrine conditions late in the rift phase
and prior to the invasion of sea water.
The majority of commercial reservoirs in
offshore Congo occurs in sandy and
dolomitic rock deposited during the early
drift phase in the mid-Cretaceous, with
structural traps created by movement of the
January 1993
NE
120 to 110 million years
NE
Rio Grande
Rise
110 million years to present
transition-phase Aptian salts. Noncommer-
cial oil shows have been found aplenty in
rift and transition rocks of the Lower Creta-
ceous, but no oil has been tested in Upper
Cretaceous or Tertiary formations.
The interpreters knew the source of oil,
therefore, and in general how it most likely
migrated and became trapped (next page).
What they did not know—and what they
sought during the interpretation—was infor-
mation on the three-dimensional structure
of the deepwater Congo sediments— specif-
ically the location, general distribution and
size of likely hydrocarbon prospects. Their
immediate goal was to identify target areas
suitable for detailed mapping with more
closely spaced surveys.
We rejoin our interpreters as they inspect
the survey’s processed and migrated sec-
gh
ou
Tr
e
nu
Be
Micro
plate
Walvis
Ridge
Walvis
Ridge
tions and begin the critical task of identify-
ing formation tops—the lengthy data pro-
cessing was previously accomplished at a
GECO-PRAKLA data processing center. 3
Increasingly today, the interpreter’s main
tool is the workstation. Workstations offer
many advantages over traditional eyeballing
along paper sections. They offer versatile
2. Terms for geological time units have both physical
and temporal meanings. Early or Late Cretaceous, for
example, refer to early or late in the Cretaceous
period. But Lower and Upper Cretaceous refer to the
lower or upper part of the Cretaceous rock sequence,
also called system.
3. For a review on seismic data processing:
Boreham D, Kingston J, Shaw P and van Zeelst J: “3D
Marine Seismic Data Processing,” Oilfield Review 3,
no. 1 (January 1991): 41-55.
17
Time Period Epoch Age SW NE Phase data manipulation, real-time processing of
Ma Quat. Pleistocene attributes—computed parameters that help
Pliocene interpretation—and faster map generation.

Subsidence
Paper sections may still used for two-dimen-
Neogene
10
Pr
Miocene e sional (2D) surveys with exceptionally long

se
sections separated by great distances.4

nt
20

da
The first task always is to review all the

ys
data, checking that intersecting lines

he
Tertiary

lf a
30
Oligocene tie—meaning that the same reflectors

nd
appear at the point of intersection at the

cos
Paleogene

40 same two-way time on both sections. This is

tal
pla
Eocene performed by comparing reflector patterns

in
50 at the point of intersection. Scanning the

Late drift
sections, the interpreter will also note major
structural features such as listric faulting and
ion

60 Paleocene
e eros

salt bodies, and begin the highly skilled task

Maastrichtian of constructing a picture of the subsurface,
70
en

all the time drawing and updating conclu-

Oligoc

Campanian
sions on a working map. Perhaps the inter-
Late

80 preter’s most cherished skill is this ability to

Santonian visualize in three dimensions.
90 Coniacian The basis of structural seismic interpreta-
Turonian

Early drift
tion is the loop method, in which a seismic
Cenomanian
100
reflector representing a geological horizon is
Cretaceous

mapped around a series of intersecting sec-

Albian
tions and then back to the original section
110
(next page). If the reflector checks against
Aptian Trans.
itself, then all is well. But if the reflector
Early

120
Barremian arrives back higher or lower than its original
Late rift
Marnes Noires position, then an error has crept in and every
Hauterivian
130 step around the loop must be checked. Clos-
Valanginian ing the loop is easier said than done. Tracing
Early rift

140
the continuity of a reflector can be tricky
Berriasian
across a fault and sometimes impossible if
Jurassic the formation pinches out laterally or has
been eroded to form an unconformity. Prob-
Pre–rift

Oil tested
Permian Possible play lems may also occur in areas of steep dip,
where 2D migration on each section fails to
P∈ image complex three-dimensional structure
correctly, producing a slight mistie.
nStratigraphic summary of the Congo sedimentary basin along a southwest-northeast Once all major reflectors have been suc-
transect. Older rift sediments are clearly separated from younger drift sediments by the
Aptian sandstone and salt formations. The key hydrocarbon source rocks are Lower cessfully mapped around one loop, the inter-
Cretaceous Marnes Noires below the Aptian. Proven oil shows are indicated by black preter then moves to an adjacent loop and
dots, possible plays by open circles. begins again. Mapping reflectors is complete
only after all loops have been analyzed and
found to tie with each other. The starting
point for this exercise is always where the
interpreter feels most confident, generally
where geological control is available from
log data. Well logs are measured versus
depth, so they must be rescaled versus two-
way seismic time using check-shot data.
Typically, the interpreter plots the major
geological units from the logs on the seismic
section at the well location to obtain the
best correlation. Lithology changes
observed on the logs assist the correlation

18 Oilfield Review
process. For example, a slow formation
such as mudstone overlying a fast formation
such as a tight limestone typically correlates
with a white band or trough on the seismic
section.5 Conversely, a fast formation over-
lying a slow formation generally correlates
with a black band or peak. Once the best
correlation is found, the interpreter colors
the section at the well location according to
the geological units on the log.
Our first example section from the survey
(next page, top) intersects two wells. A sea
of black and white traces, it awaits the inter-
preter’s color coding. Interpretation tech-
niques vary, but the result is little different.
nPrinciple of the loop method for seismic
structural interpretation—area shown is
detail from northwest corner of survey
map. Within a given loop, a geological
horizon is mapped on one section until it
meets an intersecting section. It is then
mapped on the new section until it meets
another section. Once around the loop,
the horizon must map onto itself. If it does
not, every step around the loop must be
re-examined for error. The interpreter then
moves to an adjacent loop. Interpretation
confidence builds as more and more
loops check out for internal consistency.
January 1993
Some interpreters identify all faults on the
section (red markings) and then track reflec-
tor continuity. Others may concentrate on
reflectors and reflector terminations—onlaps
and truncations— concentrating on the
stratigraphy and marking in only those faults
that bear on the work at hand.
In this case, the interpreter marks in the
main faults and then concentrates on reflec-
tor continuity between the two wells. Later,
as the picture between the wells clarifies,
deeper faults are marked in and reflector
continuity mapped away from the wells,
southwestward—left on the section—to
reach a line intersection.
To the layperson, some of these markings
may appear hard to follow—for example, 4. For seismic interpretation:
the continuity across deep fault blocks McQuillin R, Bacon M and Barclay W: An Introduc-
between the wells (next page, bottom). The tion to Seismic Interpretation. London, England: Gra-
ham and Trotman Limited, 1979.
interpreter, however, brings to bear various
5. This follows the SEG “normal polarity” convention. In
tricks of the trade and an abundance of the “reverse polarity” convention, slow formation over
experience in outcrop and subsurface geol- fast formation produces a black peak.
ogy. The layering that varies so dramatically 6. Bell DG, Selnes H, Bjoroy M, Grogan P, Kileyni T and
Trayner P: “Better Prospect Evaluation with Organic
on either side of the deep faults is surmised Geochemistry, Biostratigraphy and Seismics,” Oilfield
from the rather consistent pattern of nearby, Review 2, no. 1 (January 1990): 24-42.
parallel, high-amplitude reflections. More
insight into fault interpretation can come
from laboratory experiments that simulate
millions of years of basin evolution—see
“Analog Modeling of Basin Evolution,” page
24.6
At each line intersection, formation tops
are transferred to the new section (page
21)—in this case running in a northwest-
southeast direction—and the interpretation
process moves toward another line intersec-
tion. And so on around the loop. Then the
interpreter moves to an adjacent loop, and
the process is repeated. Once all loops have
been interpreted, the sections can be col-
ored to highlight the geology (pages 22 and
23, top ).
In both example sections, the thin Aptian
sand (orange) forms a boundary between
the rift sediments below and the drift sedi-
ments above. Overlying the sandstone, the
salt (purple) intrudes into the overlying sedi-
ments, creating structural traps for oil gener-
ated in the Marnes Noires below (brown).
The first section that lies parallel to the
direction of geological dip clearly shows
fault blocks in the deep rift sediments and
large-scale listric faults in the shallower drift
sequences. A listric fault has a pronounced
curved slip face. In this example, the sedi-
ments to the left (southwest) of the fault
have been displaced downward and rotated
clockwise. The second section that parallels
the coast appears simpler, but is no less
(continued on page 22)
19
 NE

0 km 5
SW

nTop: a southwest-northeast section along the regional dip line,
tying with two wells 13.5 km [8.4 miles] apart. First step was cor-
relating the seismic section to data from the two wells. Next,
major faulting and formation tops were interpreted between the
wells.
20
nBottom: the same section with tentative interpretation
extended toward intersection with orthogonal strike line,
marked by red arrow.
Oilfield Review
 NE

0 km 5

SW

nThe strike section, oriented northwest-southeast. Following correlation at the point of

intersection with the previous dip section (red arrow), interpretation is continued toward
another intersection to the left (blue arrow). The sedimentary layering is more uniform
than in the previous section because the orientation is parallel to the coast, perpendic-
ular to direction of greatest geological dip.

January 1993 21
NW
nCompleted interpretation of the previously illustrated sections. The next step in the interpretation process is to digitize two-way
times to the formation tops and create maps for each formation top.
important. Here, it is vital to determine that
traps apparent on the previous section show
four-way closure—that is, they truly form a
trap for hydrocarbons. On this example, the
complex structure around the well at the far
right is probably due to listric faulting seen
on the previous section.
The interpretation seems clean and fin-
ished, yet questions often remain. Forma-
tion tops may be uncertain, particularly in
the deeper section beyond the range of well
control and where seismic data lose their
resolution. The exact shape of the all-
important salt intrusions may be subject to
different interpretations. A solution for
resolving these cases lies with magnetic
and gravity data, acquired concurrently
with the seismic data.7
7. For a review of magnetic and gravity techniques:
Dobrin MB and Savit CH: Introduction to Geophysi-
cal Prospecting, 4th ed. New York, New York, USA:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1988.
22
The technique for both data types is to
create a 2D model of the subsurface from
the seismic interpretation, compute the
magnetic and gravity responses at the sur-
face and then compare with actual data.
The position of formation tops and faults in
the model and perhaps also the subsurface’s
varying magnetic susceptibility and density
are then adjusted to ensure the best possible
match. Adjustments to the model geometry
must be carefully cross-checked with the
seismic data. Initial estimates for rock sus-
ceptibility and density come from laboratory
measurements and logs.
The usual strategy is to work upward
(next page, bottom). Interpreters start with
the magnetic data since metamorphic and
igneous basement rocks commonly domi-
nate the magnetic response—practically all
sedimentary rock is nonmagnetic. Excep-
tions are volcanics that are interbedded with
sedimentary formations—a crucial point in
the North Sea, for example, where volcanics
and volcaniclastic sediments can be interca-
lated in reservoir horizons. In West Africa,
SE SW
however, shallow volcanics are not impor-
tant, so the magnetic data can be used
exclusively to fine-tune the structure and
depth of the crystalline basement.
Interpreters next turn to the gravity data,
which are influenced by the entire geologi-
cal section, and use them to constrain inter-
pretations of the deep sedimentary structure.
For the Congo survey, gravity firmed up the
structural interpretation of the rift-stage sedi-
ments—that is, the Upper Jurassic and
Lower Cretaceous deposits, including the
Marnes Noires, resting on the basement but
beneath the Aptian salt. Gravity modeling
was also critical in defining the geometry
and distribution of the salt structures. But
the original seismic interpretation was
assumed to provide a reliable picture of the
younger formations, which for the Congo
survey meant all formations above the salt.
Obtaining a consistent interpretation on
all sections and fine-tuning that with mag-
netic and gravity data took the GECO-
(continued on page 26)
Oilfield Review
 NE

Magnetic Gravity
30
Magnetic Field, nT

Gravity Field, mGal

SW NE SW NE
10
10

-10 0

-30 -10
0 0
2.35 2.57
2.4 2.57 2.15
2.6
2.15
2000 2.57 2.5
2000
Depth, m

Depth, m

2.5
2.55
4000 4000 2.7
.01 .009 .01 2.7
2.7
.013 2.72
.008
6000 6000
10 20 30 10 20 30
Distance, km Distance, km

nMagnetic and gravity modeling in two dimensions for fine-tuning the seismic interpretation. Magnetic modeling is first used
to constrain the interpretation of the deep igneous and metamorphic basement structure. Then gravity modeling is used to
refine interpretations of the deep rift sediments and salt intrusions. (Courtesy of ARK Geophysics Limited.)

January 1993 23

Searching for plays depends on a deep under-
standing of how sedimentary basins form, then
tying that understanding to the available data,
which is usually seismic. While there is no sub-
stitute for first-hand geologic experience, experi-
mental tools have been developed that shed light
on basin evolution and complement the geolo-
gist’s field-based knowledge. One such tool can
simulate the complete life of a basin in less than
an hour. Developed during the last ten years at
Royal Holloway, University of London, England,
the analog basin modeling apparatus described
here was initially sponsored by BP. Funding now
comes from a consortium of six oil companies.1
The simulation takes place inside a long box
comprising two ends—one fixed at the left, repre-
senting the upthrown or footwall side of the fault,
and one movable in the horizontal direction, rep-
resenting the upthrown or hanging-wall
side—and two glass sides to allow observation
and recording of what happens inside (above).2 A
membrane runs along the bottom of the box and
is attached to the hanging wall moving with it.
With the hanging wall positioned about midway
along the length of the box, the experimenter fills
the box with horizontal layers of alternately col-
ored sand particles simulating layers of sedimen-
tary rock. Mica can be substituted to model
anisotropic formations, and clay can be substi-
tuted to achieve a different composition. Typi-
cally, the sand layers are 30 centimeters (cm) [12
in.] in length and10 cm [4 in.] in depth, equiva-
lent to a sedimentary section between 1 and 10
km [0.6 to 6 miles] thick.
1. ARCO British Limited, BRASOIL U.K. Ltd., BP Exploration,
Conoco (U.K.) Limited, Mobil North Sea Limited and Sun Oil
Britain Limited.
2. McClay KR: “Extensional Fault Systems in Sedimentary Basins: A
Review of Analogue Model Studies,” Marine and Petroleum
Geology 7, no. 3 (August 1990): 206-233.
24
Analog Modeling of Basin Evolution
Ken McClay
Royal Holloway, University of London
Egham, England
Plastic detachment
Rigid footwall
The hanging wall is then slowly moved right-
ward in simulation of extending the basin. The
sand particles subside and fault, as in real life,
and the experimenter records the events through
the glass side with time-lapse photography. As
the sand surface subsides, the experimenter
refills the depression with sand of a different
color, mimicking the accumulation of so-called
synrift sediments that are deposited during exten-
sion. In less than an hour, the complete history of
the basin is on film. At any stage, the action may
be stopped and frozen by impregnating the sand
box with epoxy and allowing it to set. Cuts of any
orientation can then be made through the basin to
examine structure and fault pattern deformation.
To simulate different geological conditions, the
footwall can be constructed in a variety of
shapes: vertical to observe plane extension, dif-
ferent molds in the shape of curved or listric fault
surfaces to observe lower angle fault detach-
ment. The membrane may be plastic, or rubber,
or a combination of both. Plastic conveys the
hanging wall’s lateral movement to all the sand,
while rubber spreads the extension
uniformly—these configurations mimic differing
structural styles in basin development. And the
bottom of the box can be inclined to simulate lat-
eral variations in basin thickness.
Deformable hanging wall
nSchematic of a deforma-
tion apparatus used to
simulate basin evolution.
10 cm
The sequence of snapshots shows the develop-
ment of a rift basin formed by stretching sedi-
ments over a listric fault and basement inclined
downward at 10° (next page, left). First, a depres-
sion develops against the listric fault and is filled
with synrift sediments. Next, a V-shaped fault pat-
tern termed a crestal collapse zone appears, fol-
lowed by another farther to the right. Each of
these is bounded to the left by an accompanying
synthetic fault, meaning a fault with the same
displacement direction, and to the right by an
antithetic fault, meaning a fault with the opposite
displacement direction. The synthetic faults
rotate as extension proceeds becoming quite
curved or listric, while the antithetic fault
remains straight. Between the two crestal col-
lapse zones, a high-standing zone termed a horst
remains relatively unrotated.
As extension continues, faulting in the left col-
lapse zone becomes more complex and begins to
affect the synrift sediments. Because of their
shorter history, though, the synrift sediments are
less faulted than the rift sediments, a clue to the
interpreter trying to distinguish the synrift from
rift. Meanwhile at depth, the layers rotate dramat-
ically yet seem completely unfaulted. Since the
seismic record at depth is often noisy and hard to
interpret, this analog result may provide the inter-
Oilfield Review
 nExtension of sediments
up to 100% over a listric
fault and basement
inclined downward at 10°.
Blue, white and black lay-
ers are sand particles, sim-
ulating rift sediments,
sieved into the box before
any extension. Red, white
and black layers simulating
synrift sediments are
sieved in as extension
causes a depression near
the listric fault.
0 km 5

nSection from a GECO-

PRAKLA nonproprietary
survey shot in the Gulf of
Mexico showing extreme
rotation above a listric
fault—compare with the
simulation. The right of the
section is bounded by a
salt intrusion.

preter with likely scenarios for fault geometries.

The validity of these experiments may be appreci-
ated by noting the similarity of the fully extended
model to an actual seismic section shot over listric
faulting in the Gulf of Mexico (above).
Over 400 analog simulations have been run at
Royal Holloway, University of London with a vari-
ety of geometries and sedimentary cover. Simula-
tions have been run in which a basin is first
extended, then compressed, resulting in uplift
and fault reversal, a process called basin inver-
sion. Other experiments have simulated strike-
slip faulting, in which a sedimentary basin is
sheared by opposing horizontal movements. Salt
intrusions have also been modeled—these exper-
iments help understand structural trapping.

January 1993 25
 N PRAKLA interpreters most of three months.
nTwo examples of two-way time maps obtained from the structural seismic interpretation.
Left: two-way time to the base of the
Aptian, showing the geological structure
at the base of the Aptian salt.
0 km 10
Right: a two-way time thickness map,
between the seabed and the
Miocene—darker color at the bottom indi-
cates greater thickness. Thickness maps,
obtained by subtracting two-way times to
consecutive layers, provide an indication
of differential subsidence and its control
on sedimentation. These factors help pre-
dict potential reservoir distribution, geom-
etry and thickness.
The next task, which took one month more,
was to map two-way times to formation tops
and assess plays. This would formalize the
working maps they had been constantly
updating while interpreting the sections.
Mapping 2D seismic events is half
mechanical and half art and experience.
The mechanical part, comprising digitizing
the location of formation tops and interpo-
lating between sections, is greatly facilitated
by the workstation. But resolving ambigui-
ties in the large areas between the sparse
lines of a 2D survey—for example deciding
if a fault seen on one section is the same as,
or different from, that seen on another—
requires considerable geological expertise.
Thus, interpreters generally take the com-
puter-generated maps as a starting point and
then manually adjust the results to achieve a
geologically valid interpretation of the struc-
ture that is consistent with all available data.
Mapping not only elucidates structure but
also permits the creation of time-thickness
maps, by subtracting the two-way times of
consecutive geological tops (left ). Knowing
the seismic velocities of the formations, it is
then possible to compute actual thickness.
Thickness is one parameter that determines
potential reservoir size, a key factor in evalu-
ating pay. Thickness is also important for
reconstructing the sediments’ burial history.
This describes how quickly the sediments
were deposited and how each formation’s
temperature evolved throughout geological
time. It then becomes straightforward to
check whether formations deemed likely to
form hydrocarbons, such as the Marnes
Noires, actually experienced the requisite
temperature conditions (below, left ).

0
Ocean
nBurial histories for offshore Congo forma-
tions based on one well’s lithologic col-
umn. The oil window, indicating suitable
Plio./ Pleist. conditions of temperature and time for oil
Miocene generation, covers the rift sediments that
include the Marnes Noires, the most likely
2000 Paleocene oil source for the area. Temperature is
Cenomanian derived from depth using a variable pale-
Depth, m

otemperature gradient. The ocean (top)

Albian can be seen to enter the study area about
130 million years ago, regress and then
Oil window
Window
re-enter permanently.
Transition
4000 Late Rift
Early Rift

Pre–rift

6000
140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Time, millions of years before present

26 Oilfield Review
Post-Aptian nSummary of
SW NE N 0 km 10 likely plays in part
y
formit of the Congo off-
ncon
iocene U shore survey, color-
Base M coded according to
geological age.
Schematics show-
ing source, migra-
tory path and
reservoir trap for
reservoirs in the
pre- and post-
Aptian sediments.
Pre-Aptian Brown formation
with dots is the
Marnes Noires
source rock.

At this point, all the factors necessary to

pinpoint plays are at hand. The burial his-
tory confirms the potential of organic-rich
horizons as source. Detailed comprehen-
sion and mapping of basin structure reveals
likely migratory paths and trapping mecha-
nisms. The thickness maps indicate the dis-
tribution and geometry of sediment bodies
and assist in recognizing commercially
interesting reservoirs. Deciding the location
of plays now demands of the interpreter a
juggling of these factors and the picking of
locations and depths where all indications
appear simultaneously favorable. The result Post-Aptian
is a play map that oil companies can use to Salt-induced structures, Albian to Neogene
decide on concession bidding, or perhaps to Salt-induced structures, Albian to Maastrichtian
design further seismic surveys with closer Salt-induced structures, Albian to Turonian
line spacings or even 3D surveys. The same
Salt diapirs with crestal anticline or flank structure
interpretation concepts apply throughout
Base Aptian structure
the exploration phase and ultimately permit
the selection of favorable sites for explo- Rift section structure
ration drill holes (above ). Pre-Aptian
These first steps in the search for new dis- Migrating Miocene channels
coveries occur years, sometimes even a Tertiary graben collapse zone
decade or more, before hydrocarbons come
Limit of surface outcrop
on stream and repay the exploration invest-
ment. Just as an infant learns to walk—one
step at a time until confidence builds—so
geologists feel their way into frontier areas.
They tread carefully at first, but then rapidly
advance to the best areas as more informa-
tion becomes available. In the search for
plays, the geologist is king. —HE

January 1993 27
S E I S M I C S

Structural Imaging:
Toward a Sharper Subsurface View

Paul Farmer You’re trying to fix the location of a star using a telescope with optics
Stavanger, Norway
that distort the image. Sometimes you can’t see the star, but when you
Sam Gray can, it might look fuzzy or appear to be the wrong size or in the wrong
Dan Whitmore
Amoco Production Company place. Structural imaging is like fitting the telescope with lenses that
Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA bring the image into crisp focus at the right location.

Graham Hodgkiss
Ask a geophysicist for a simple definition of
Orpington, UK
structural imaging and you might get an
analogy like this, echoing the parallel
Andy Pieprzak
between optics and acoustics. But in direct
Houston, Texas, USA
terms, structural imaging boils down to this:
the branch of seismology in which pro-
Davis Ratcliff
cessed seismic data undergo additional
Amoco Production Company
passes to create a large-scale picture of the
Houston, Texas, USA
subsurface. Its goal is to provide a map to
locate traps and plan a drilling strategy for
David Whitcombe
optimal drainage.1
BP Exploration
Structural imaging lays the foundation for
Houston, Texas, USA
other seismic techniques that investigate
progressively smaller features ( pages 30-
31). After structural imaging, seismic stratig-
raphy jumps to the next level of detail,
characterizing the arrangement of layers
within rock formations (see “Sequence
Stratigraphy—A Global Theory for Local
Success,” page 51). Next, lithostratigraphic
inversion attempts to describe lithology of
individual rock layers and evaluate proper-
ties and distribution of pore fluids, through
analysis of variation of seismic signal
amplitude with spacing between source and
receiver, called offset (see “Hydrocarbon
Detection With AVO,” page 42). The quality
of these finer-scale techniques rests largely
on the quality of structural imaging.
Today, structural imaging is advancing on
two fronts. One is improving image quality
of conventional structures—their position
and shape become known with greater
accuracy. The other is the ability to image
areas of more complex structure associated
with large, rapid changes in velocity. Exam-
ples are low-velocity layers, structure below
salt or gas, or multiply folded and faulted
formations. Understanding of these difficult
settings promises to better quantify reserves
in established fields and help define new
prospects that eluded more conventional
approaches.
In all but the simplest geologic settings,
imaging with seismic energy has three fun-
damental problems: the image starts out
blurry, has the wrong shape and is in the
wrong place (next page). These problems are
(continued on page 31)

For help in preparation of this article, thanks to AJ
Berkhout, Delft Technical University, The Netherlands;
Phil Christie and Doug Miller, Schlumberger Cambridge
Research, Cambridge, England; Cengiz Esmersoy and
Lisa Stewart, Schlumberger-Doll Research, Ridgefield,
Connecticut, USA; Kjell Erik Fagertun, Jan Farestveit,
Gary Hutton, Ottar Sandvin and Alan Strudley, GECO-
PRAKLA, Stavanger, Norway; Niels Kinneging, GECO-
PRAKLA, Delft, The Netherlands; Phil Kitchenside, Diz
MacKewn and Richard Woods, GECO-PRAKLA, Orping-
ton, England; Roland Marschall, GECO-PRAKLA, Han-
nover, Germany; Terence Redshaw, BP-Statoil R&D
Alliance, Trondheim, Norway.
1. For a general review of the literature:
Fagin SW: Seismic Modeling of Geologic Structures:
Applications to Exploration Problems: Tulsa, Okla-
homa, USA: Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
1991.
French WS: “Practical Seismic Imaging,” The Leading
Edge 9 (August 1990): 13-20.
Johnson JD: “Structural Imaging in the Real World,”
The Leading Edge 11 (January 1992): 32-36.
Redshaw T and Lasseter L: Seismic Migration
Explained! and Seismic Migration Defined! Houston,
Texas, USA: BP Complex Structures Group, 1991.
Sheriff RE: A First Course in Geophysical Exploration
and Interpretation. Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Inter-
national Human Resources Development Corpora-
tion, 1978.
Yilmaz Ö: Seismic Data Processing. Tulsa, Oklahoma,
USA: Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 1991.
For a review of processing:
Boreham D, Kingston J, Shaw P and van Zeelst J: “3D
Marine Seismic Data Processing,” Oilfield Review 3,
no. 1 (January 1991): 41-55.

28 Oilfield Review
Depth, m

a 1000
Time, sec
Time, sec

January 1993
800

1.6

2.0

1.6

2.0
Theory
330

Stack section
330

After migration
330
Distance, m
350

350

350
370

370

370
Depth
Depth
Depth
Smearing of event

End of reflector found

by following raypath
back to surface

nThree common curses of unmi-

Acquisition geometry

Dip
pin

After stacking

After migration
gr
e
vel flecto
oci r i

Ac
tua

Co
Ray
grated seismic data. Events that

p
ath
end abruptly (left), such as a fault,
may not be sharply imaged by
stacking because energy at the ter-
mination of the event is diffracted,
smearing the image over many
traces (inset above). Migration col-
lapses these diffractions to sharply
render the reflector.

Reflection
recorded
between
these points

ty e n c
art ons

l re

mig pos rrect

h

refle Reco

flec

rat ition ly
ed ed
refl
ect
tan
Real end of

ctor rded

tor

or
reflector

mis
plac
ed
Depth
Time
Time
a
Reflected rays

Zero-offset
stack section

Event plotted
vertically below
where reflection
is recorded

Migrated section
Bowtie

A syncline may appear as a “bowtie”

Geophone

on the stacked section (above). Migra-

tion moves the events so the section
looks like a syncline. Dipping reflec-
tors (below, left) present several prob-
lems: the reflector is misplaced later-
ally and vertically, it appears longer
than the actual reflector and dips less
steeply. The steeper the dip, and more
complex the velocity field, the more
difficult the solution to these problems.

Midpoint

As shot-receiver
separation increases,
reflection point moves
updip

The inset (above) shows that reflec-

tion points move updip because dif-
ferent offsets do not image the same
point. Stacking them will therefore
move the reflection point updip. This
is corrected with dip moveout
(DMO), a simple type of migration—
sometimes considered to be “premi-
gration”—that transforms data so
each common midpoint gather con-
tains reflections from the same
depth point. (After Redshaw and Lasseter,
reference 1. Inset after Sheriff, reference 1.)

29
 Seismic Data Processing
ACQUISITION

Preprocessing
Seismic company and oil company processing groups

Quantify survey geometry, select CMP intervals for velocity analysis

(2 to 5 km)

Optimization of Processing Parameters

Gain removal and amplitude correction, statics correction, mute test,
deconvolution, noise suppression, multiple attenuation, matching filter
E

Conventional Processing
M

(NMO, DMO correction, etc.) (CMP stack, etc.)

I
T

Prestack time migration Poststack time migration

Interpretation
department

Interpretation of important velocity interfaces

Conversion of time maps to depth maps Image-ray depth conversion

using “apparent velocities” (depth stretch)
Seismic processing team and

control/interpretation teams

Velocity verification: check of

Macro model wavefronts using layer stripping in
oil company quality

subset of data.

DEPTH MIGRATION
H

Poststack Prestack
T
P
E

Increasing detail

Structural Imaging
company interpretation teams

Provides large-scale arrangement of velocity layers

D

Seismic processing and oil

Seismic Stratigraphic Interpretation

Displays section in depth and time; provides detail in each velocity layer
& qualitative evaluation of depositional environment

Lithostratigraphic Inversion and AVO

Provides elastic parameters, porosity, density, fluid type

30 Oilfield Review
caused mainly by refraction—bending of
rays as they pass through rocks of different
velocity2 —and diffraction of seismic energy
as it passes through rocks of different veloci-
ties, shapes and thicknesses. To make the
image interpretable, seismic energy must be
focused into a sharp, correctly shaped
image, and the image moved to the correct
lateral and vertical position. The sharper the
image of a structure and truer its shape and
position, the more accurately the structure
can be evaluated and drilled. The method of
sharpening, shaping and relocating images
is loosely termed migration, often consid-
ered synonymous with structural imaging.
Mathematically, migration is performed
by various solutions to the wave equation
that describe the passage of sound through
rock. Called migration types, these numer-
ous solutions or algorithms often take the
name of their authors (Gazdag, Stolt) or the
type of solution (finite difference, integral).
Migration types may be thought of as a fam-
ily of tools, each with shortcomings and
advantages. Choice of the optimal type is
not always obvious and relies on the experi-
ence of the seismic practitioner.
nSteps in seismic
data processing and
interpretation. Struc-
tural imaging is a
precursor to other
methods of seismic
investigation.
Velocity model satisfactory
January 1993
Types of migration are applied in a
broader category of migration called class:
poststack or prestack, two-dimensional or
three-dimensional (2D or 3D), time or
depth. These classes form eight possible
combinations. The trend in imaging is from
poststack to prestack, 2D to 3D and time to
depth migration. This trend is best under-
stood by examining the strengths and weak-
nesses of these classes.
Poststack migration, still the most com-
mon form, assumes the section built of
stacked traces is equivalent to a zero-offset
section, meaning each trace is made as if
the source and receiver are coincident (see
“Seismic Basics,” next page). Chief advan-
tages of poststack migration derive from
stacking: compression of data, removal of
multiples and other noise, and fast, inexpen-
sive processing. Poststack migration holds
up even in fairly strong lateral velocity vari-
ation, but at some level of velocity variation,
stacking breaks down and prestack process-
ing is required. A limitation of stacked data
is its removal of true amplitude information.
Prestack imaging is done on unstacked
traces, taking 60 to 120 times longer than
Velocity Model Verification
Image-ray depth conversion
Initial macro model
Depth migration
Compare depth migration with input
velocity model, using full data set
Match?
Yes No
poststack imaging, but with the potential to
retain amplitude variation with offset (AVO)
and phase changes useful for later analysis
(page 33, top ). Prestack time migration is
preferred when two or more events occur at
the same time but with different stacking
velocities (page 33, bottom). Prestack depth
migration is advantageous when velocities
in the overburden or the target are complex,
but requires large computer resources and
remains rare. However, as massively paral-
lel computers become more widely avail-
able, migration technology will shift toward
prestack depth migration.
In 2D migration, energy reflected only in
the plane of the section is correctly imaged,
whereas 3D migration uses energy from
both in and out of the plane of the section.
In general, 3D migration will have higher
resolution because it can move energy from
outside the plane back to its correct position.
The cost of higher resolution, however, is
(continued on page 34)
2. For a classic work on time migration:
Hubral P: “Time Migration—Some Ray Theoretical
Aspects,” Geophysical Prospecting 25 (1977): 738-
745.
Adjust macro model
2D prestack migration: revise common
image point so traces are flat
3D poststack migration: revise model to
focus energy on boundary, converging the
image section and the model.
31
Seismic Basics

The basic principle in seismic surveying is that

sound is reflected at an interface of materials that
have sufficiently different acoustic properties.
Reflectivity is determined by density and acoustic
velocity, which vary greatly with lithology and less
so with pore fluid composition. Seismic reflec-
tions, therefore, are used mainly to map the shape
and position of formation boundaries and some-
times to identify fluid type.
Sound energy is generated at sea by an explo-
sive or a burst of air bubbles from an air gun, and
on land usually by an explosive charge or a vibra-
tor. Sound reflected back to the surface is detected
and converted into an electrical impulse and dis-
played as a seismic trace. This is a curve in which
the vertical axis is two-way travel time (from sur-
face to reflector and back to surface) and the hori-
zontal axis represents distance from the source.
The position of reflectors in time is represented as
wiggles in the trace, with wiggle amplitude repre-
senting energy. Once the rock velocity is known,
time measurements can be converted to depth.
a Each trace is made from one recording of a
source-receiver pair in one position. For efficiency,
traces from one source are recorded at several
receivers simultaneously. The source and
receivers are moved a certain distance along the
survey line and another recording made. For imag-
ing, traces are usually sorted into a collection
called a common midpoint gather, in which all
traces have a common midpoint. Each gather is
often summed into a stack, a single trace averag-
ing wiggles of the entire gather. Stacking com-
presses data into a more manageable volume and
increases signal-to-noise ratio. Stacked traces from
many gathers are grouped into a stacked section—

1. Sometimes erroneously called root-mean-square (RMS)

32
velocity, because it is the root-mean-square average of
velocities in a model of parallel horizontal layers. Stacking
velocity approaches RMS velocity as offset approaches
zero only if layers and reflectors are parallel and layers are
isotropic. Seismics often has many names for the same
thing and confusion may arise because different mean-
ings for the same words are not clearly communicated.
a
Two-way time
Two-way time

Shot
#

3
1

1
Offset
Shot #

2
2

Offset
Shot #

CMP gather

CMP

Offset x
3

+ Stacking =
velocity

a 2D slice of the earth in which the vertical axis is

time. Each trace is located midway between the
source and receiver, called the midpoint.
1

The goal is to make the stacked section appear

similar to the geologic cross section. Take the sim-
ple case of one source and three receivers over a
flat reflector (top). The distance between source
and receiver—called offset—increases with
receiver number. As offset increases, so does the
Offset
Shot #

+
2

NMO corrected
CMP gather
+
3

Stacked
CMP

nBasic seismic acquisition geometry and processing

for a flat reflector and uniform velocity. For simplicity,
only three receivers are shown, but there may be hun-
dreds of receivers. The green ray always bounces off
the same point, which is always halfway between
source and receiver. The green rays are said to have a
common midpoint (CMP), although they have differ-
ent distances—or offsets—between source and
receiver. Traces sorted to combine reflections from the
same midpoint are called CMP gathers. Reflections
come later in time for farther offsets. This time delay
is called normal moveout (NMO) and is corrected by
using stacking velocity. Finally, these traces are
stacked into a single trace. Stacked traces from hun-
dreds or thousands of CMP gathers are used to create
a CMP section. (After Redshaw and Lasseter, reference 1.)

Zero offset

nPrinciple of stacking
velocity calculation.
Zero-offset velocity is
determined as if the
source and receiver
were at the same point.

time for sound to travel through the earth to the

receiver. Wiggles at increasing offsets therefore
appear later in time, a phenomenon called move-
out. The wiggles form a hyperbola, making a flat
reflector appear to dip and curve. This is called
hyperbolic moveout. How can the wiggles be
realigned so that when they are stacked they indi-

Oilfield Review
 nComparison of 2D
Poststack depth migration poststack and
0.05 prestack depth
migration, with the
macro model of
0.35 velocity layers, for

Time, sec
the Ouachita for-
mation (Texas/
Oklahoma, USA).
0.65 The prestack depth
migration provides
a more easily inter-
pretable image in
cate the true shape of the reflector? They are lined up 1.0
the middle of the
using stacking velocity.1 This can be calculated as: interval.
Prestack
0
Distance from zero offset to offset X
[(Travel time at offset X)2 - (travel time at zero offset)2]1/2
5000

Depth, ft
Applying the Pythagorean theorem to the result
provides the (essentially horizontal) velocity of 10000
rock between zero offset and offset X (previous
page, bottom).
15000
Stacking velocity is the beginning rather than
Macro model Distance, ft
the end of the quest for velocity, ultimately needed 0 1000 2000 3000
0
to convert time measurements to depth. As a first 16000

0
approximation of the velocity of rock above the 12000

30
16000

0
1350

14
reflector, stacking velocity allows reflections to be 5000
Depth, ft

moved near their true positions. This approxima- 14000 17000

tion begins to fail as the earth grows more com- 0 0
185 00
0
plex—many reflectors, dipping beds, faults, 10000 0 17
00
0

18000
16
50
16

strongly folded or tilted reflectors or lateral or ver-

ft/sec 19000
tical variation in velocity between reflectors. Nev- 15000
ertheless, stacking velocity provides a foundation
Two reflections arrive at the same Two reflections arrive at the same
for more sophisticated methods. time from the same horizon time from different horizons

DMO required Prestack time migration required

nHow more than one event can arrive at the same point on the
surface from different points in the subsurface. Two reflections
arrive at the same time from the same horizon (left). Standard
normal moveout (NMO) corrections will have stacking velocity
conflicts because stacking velocity varies with dip. The solution
is dip moveout (DMO) correction (see pages 30-31). At right, two
reflections arrive at the same time from different horizons. Nei-
ther DMO nor NMO will work. Prestack time migration is the
solution. (After Redshaw and Lasseter, reference 1.)

January 1993 33
greater acquisition costs with longer pro- Original poststack time migration Shot points ( 25 meters between points )
8600 8700 8800 8900 9000 9100
cessing time—what takes days in 2D might 0
take weeks in 3D.
The choice of 2D or 3D migration is first
determined by acquisition geometry. Data
acquired with a 2D scheme—a single
acquisition line with shot and receivers in a 1

line—can only be 2D migrated, but 3D data

can undergo 2D or 3D migration. An inex-
pensive, fast approximation to 3D migration

Time, sec
is 2D migration in orthogonal directions, 2
called two-pass 3D migration. It is strictly
correct only for a constant-velocity earth,
but errors are small if the vertical velocity
gradient and dip angle are small.
Time and depth migration differ on sev- 3
eral levels. In simplest terms, time migration
locates reflectors in two-way travel
time—from the surface to the reflector and
back as measured along the image ray— 4
whereas depth migration locates reflectors
in depth. A migrated seismic section with a Prestack depth migration
0
time axis, however, is not necessarily a time
migration. A depth migration may be con-
verted to time. This is sometimes done to
compare velocity modeling for depth migra-
tion with velocity assumptions used for time 1
migration (right).
The significant difference between time
and depth migration is the detail with which
Depth, km

they view the behavior of sound in the 2

earth. To time migration, the earth is simple
in both structure and velocity; to depth
migration, it may be complex. Time migra-
tion assumes negligible lateral variation in
velocity and therefore hyperbolic moveout. 3
Using only stacking velocity, or some
approximation, time migration can make
sharp and correctly shaped and positioned
images—if structure and velocity are gener- 4
ally simple. Time migration can handle
some complexity of structure, but only lim- Prestack migrated depth-to-time conversion
0
ited variation in velocity.
When velocity and structure become
obviously complex, rays are bent, produc-
ing nonhyperbolic arrival times and distort-
ing the results of time migration (next page, 1
above). Reflectors become blurry, move to
nVisualizing a North Sea salt diapir struc-
Time, sec

ture with 2D time migration, depth migra-

tion and depth migration output in time. 2
Colors denote the interval velocity field
determined prior to depth migration. The
velocity model permits a more certain
migration by including lateral variations.
3
In the poststack time-migrated section,
reflectors are poorly defined, on both the
flanks and base of the diapir. Definition
improves in the prestack depth migration,
performed with the velocity field shown.
Finally, for comparison between the Velocity, meters/sec
prestack depth and time migrations, the 4900 3200 1500 0 meters 500
depth migration output is converted back
to time, revealing a marked improvement
in definition of the diapir flanks and base.
34 Oilfield Review
the wrong place or become too long. Simple velocities + simple Simple velocities + complex
structure = poststack time migration structure = prestack time migration
Accounting for this ray bending requires
what is called a macro model—a model of
velocities between reflectors. This is needed
mainly to eliminate lateral positioning error
caused by refraction, but also to sharpen the
image. Construction, revision and verifica-

Increasing velocity
tion of this macro model are the goals of
depth migration, and are the main contribu-
tors to its difficulty and cost. Depth migra- Complex velocities + simple Complex velocities + complex
structure = poststack depth migration structure = prestack depth migration
tion is also more sensitive to errors in veloc-
ity than time migration.
Although time migration handles only
simple problems exactly, it remains the
dominant technique in exploration, and
usually lays the foundation for the depth
migration macro model. In the production
setting, some operators prefer to stretch time
migration to the limit before jumping to
depth migration (see “Misconceptions in nA general scheme for selection of migration class.
(From Redshaw and Lasseter, reference 1.)
Structural Imaging,” page 39). Still, depth
migration has become a valuable tool
Poststack time migration
because it is the only one that can handle 0 nA salt flank
the most difficult problem in imaging— conundrum in the
strong, rapidly varying lateral changes in Barents Sea. The
Breakup of
velocity. Depth migration also remains the 1 poststack time
near-vertical
focus of most imaging research.3 migration
reflectors
(stretched to
Depth, km

When is depth migration needed? Or, to depth with ray

put it another way: When is the velocity 2 tracing) shows
field complex enough to mislead time two weaknesses
“Push-down”
migration? For many operators, a step common to the
effect
technique: breakup
before depth migration is a processing step 3
of near-vertical
to convert the time-migrated section to reflectors and,
depth using image-ray depth conversion. marked by the
This procedure uses an image ray, which is 4 lower oval, “push
shot downward perpendicular to the surface down” of reflec-
Poststack time migration
tors due to the
and is bent by an amount predicted by 0
large lateral
Snell’s law applied to the velocity model. velocity contrast
The ray passes through the correct lateral Near vertical
between rock
1 (1800 to 3000
position of an event, which in the time reflectors
m/sec) and salt
migration would appear vertically below the imaged better
Depth, km

(4000 m/sec). A
starting point of the ray. If the image ray good interpreter
2
strikes the reflector a considerable lateral Push-down will spot this fea-
distance from the starting point, velocity effect less ture as a result of
variation may be interpreted to be sufficient pronounced the reflector
3 being under the
to warrant depth migration. lip of the salt. In
In many areas, the decision to use depth this case, the
migration usually arises when imaging the 4
next step was
near-vertical flanks of salt domes (right ). In poststack time
Prestack depth migration migration. The
this setting, BP tests the macro model with broken reflector
0
ray tracing.4 If the depth or lateral position on the upper right
of the image is not displaced far enough to flank is holding
affect well placement, then BP does not Accurate together a little
1 better. Below, the
bother with depth migration. To preserve imaging
of near-vertical push-down effect
Depth, km

reflectors is reduced, but

3. Berkhout AJ: “SEG Annual Meeting ’92: A Successful 2 the reflector is
Meeting Characterised by Progress and Uncertainty,” still somewhat
Journal of Seismic Exploration 1 (November 1992): Push-down broken. Finally, a
311-314. Berkhout notes that 50 of 400 papers con- effect resolved prestack depth
cerned migration, most of them depth migration. 3 migration clearly
4. May BT and Covey JD, “Structural Inversion of Salt images reflectors
Dome Flanks,” Geophysics 48 (August 1983): 1039- flanking the salt.
1050.
4

January 1993 35
steep-dip events, BP is careful not to finish U K North Sea
Global Depth Horizon
processing with a low-cut filter (5 to 40 Hz). and Velocity Field
In removing noise, the filter may inadver- Layer 4
900
tently erase low-frequency, steep-dip events.5 Row 700
Selection of the appropriate type and class 500
2000 Co
lum
of migration is only half the story of imag- 300 n
ing, however, and probably the less impor- 1500
0
tant half. The main concern in imaging is
the engine that drives the depth migration 1000

Depth, km
algorithm—the velocity macro model.
500
2
The Macro Model nInterval velocities
“Imaging practitioners often state that we (top) corresponding
really have a velocity problem, not a migra- to the time slice
tion problem.” (bottom) developed
4 using GECO-
Jeff Johnson PRAKLA’s VELMOD
Manager of Geoscience 3D ray-tracing and
Amoco Production Company velocity inversion
2200 program. The top
Interval velocity

figure shows the

The macro model is a numerical description topography of the
m/sec

of the subsurface on the scale of hundreds horizon containing

of meters. It contains either two-way travel three salt domes.
time or depth to the main reflectors and the Color variation rep-
velocities and densities between them. It resents computed
2500
interval velocities.
describes the acoustic propagation charac-
teristics of the subsurface and is used for
depth migration to include ray bending. In
other words, the macro model functions as
the air traffic controller for the migration
algorithm. It tells the algorithm how far to
move the reflector—up a little, down, to the
left or right, or hold that line. Inadequate
knowledge of velocity results in the image
being under- or overmigrated, misplaced or
blurred. Even the most advanced migration
algorithm will fail to focus the image if
directed by a flawed macro model.
Techniques of macro model building are
controversial, proprietary and fast evolving.
It remains the weak link in depth migration,
so attention today focuses on increasingly
sophisticated ways to model, update and
verify velocity for depth migration.6 The cost
and computation time of these techniques
increase with their capability to handle
large, rapid changes in velocity.
A starting point is stacking velocity,
obtained for conventional time processing.
Stacking velocity is calculated from the dif-
ference in arrival time at different offsets,
assuming the layers over the reflector have a
constant velocity. Stacking velocity values 5. Sugrue MJ and Rockliff DC: “Depth Migration of 7. Common image point gathers go by several other
Diapirs from the Central Graben of the North Sea,” names, among them coherency panels. See Versteeg
are often inaccurate because they are an Technical Programme and Abstracts of Papers, 53rd RJ: “Analyse du Problème de la Détermination du
average over a large volume of rock, which EAEG Meeting and Technical Exhibition, Florence, Modèle de Vitesse pour l’Imagerie Seismique,” PhD
Italy (May 26-30, 1991): 100-101. thesis, University of Paris VII, 1991.
often has nonuniform velocity. Stacking
6. Marschall R: “Macro Model Optimization and Depth- 8. Stork C: “Making Depth Migration Work in Complex
velocities may be constrained with data Migration,” Expanded Abstracts, 2nd International Structures,” Expanded Abstracts, 62nd SEG Annual
from sonic logs or previous seismic data. Congress of the Brazilian Geophysical Society, Sal- International Meeting and Exposition, New Orleans,
Still, stacking velocities may provide the vador-Bahia (October 27–November 1, 1991): 944- Louisiana, USA (October 25-29, 1992): 939-943.
947.
best, first macro model.
A first-guess model of the earth is usually
developed by picking main reflectors from a

36 Oilfield Review
poststack time migration. Times are assigned Common midpoint gather
CMP
to each reflector and velocities to intervals
between reflectors (previous page). A first-
order approximation is the computation of
constant velocity values between reflectors.
Now, workstations readily permit estimation
of velocity gradients vertically between
reflectors and sometimes horizontally along
the event. The macro model may then be
used to make a synthetic seismogram based
Common image point gather
on part of the model, which is iteratively
modified until the synthetic matches the
measured seismic data.
From here, the main challenge is to find a
fast, accurate way to update and verify the
model, usually starting with a time-
migrated section. Three approaches are
used—curvature analysis, layer stripping
and focusing analysis.
Curvature analysis can be done several CIP
ways. One approach uses so-called com- nComparison of common midpoint (CMP)
mon image point (CIP) gathers, which can and common image point (CIP) gathers.
be made by selecting prestack data, depth A CMP gather is made prestack and
migrating it, then creating a section made before migration. If events are nonhyper-
bolic, stacking will not work and prestack
from offsets that image the same subsurface processing is required. A CIP gather is
points7 (above, right ). If the same event on also made prestack, but after migration.
all the traces lies on a flat line, then each The degree of curvature in the gather
migration has imaged the event at the same indicates error in the velocity model.
location and the macro model is correct. If
the same event on all the traces is curved,
there is an inconsistency in the migration, Common image point
gathers lie on curve
indicating that a velocity variation needs to nMacro model
be accounted for (right ). The degree of cur- update using cur-
vature provides a measure of the velocity vature analysis on
a prestack depth
error. However, formulas for updating veloc- migration. Velocity
ities are normally based on curvature of CIP picks in the sec-
gathers, which assume a horizontally lay- tion, V1 and V2, do
ered earth, or at best, slightly dipping layers. not result in a flat
The method therefore breaks down in com- event, shown at
left. The degree of
plex subsurface structures. Nevertheless, curvature in the
curvature analysis at least gives an indica- gather is used to
tion of the error, and a satisfactory result can update the veloc-
usually be obtained in no more than four or ity. After updating,
the upper reflector
five iterations. is flattened slightly
An alternative that is attractive mainly Common image point and the lower
gathers lie on straight line
because it is free from dip limitation is reflector brought
adjustment to the macro model based on higher in the sec-
ray tracing, determining the arrival time of tion. Events in the
common image
rays through the macro model and adjusting point gathers now
velocity boundaries accordingly. The main lie on a flat line,
limitation to this method is rapid variation in indicating that the
lateral velocity. Ray tracing works for both update achieves a
correct macro
time and depth domains, whereas curvature model.
analysis on image point gathers is limited to
the depth domain.8
Because curvature analyses may fail in
settings of complex structure or large veloc-
ity contrast, the time-migrated image may
not clearly show boundaries needed to
develop the macro model. An alternative
with 2D data is layer stripping with prestack

January 1993 37
data (right ). In this procedure, the interpreter Iteration for boundary 2 Iteration for boundary 3
0
starts with a picked interval velocity (often 1500 m/sec 1500 m/sec
derived from stacking velocities) and a
major reflector near the top of the section.
2000 m/sec 2000 m/sec
The section just below this reflector is depth
migrated with a sequence of trial interval 1

Depth, km
velocities, one of which clarifies the next
velocity boundary below. Then another
sequence of interval velocities is picked Second boundary 3000 m/sec
from this boundary down and this new 2
interval is migrated. The process is repeated, Third boundary
picking interval velocity and migrating a
layer at a time until the entire section is
complete. Velocities can be verified using
moveout analysis. The layer stripping 3

approach proved successful for Conoco in
the Marmousi Workshop, a migration con-
test sponsored by Institut Français du Pét-
role, in which eight oil companies
attempted to produce the best image possi-
ble for a synthetic example.9
Focusing analysis attempts to determine
errors in the macro model for prestack
nMacro model building by layer stripping. Based on stacking velocities, the
velocity field in the upper section is chosen as 1500 m/sec, and migration per-
formed. This gives the flat reflector at the top of the section. The velocity field
below this reflector is then chosen as 2000 m/sec and it is stacked, revealing the
second, more jagged boundary. The process is repeated to find the third boundary.
et

et
Dept Dept
ffs

ffs
migration, usually 2D.10 The wave equation h h
O

O
is used to show what a gather would look
0 0
like if the source and receiver were moved
to the depth of the reflector. Under this con-
Time

dition, the macro model is correct if diffrac-
tions collapse to a point—that is, if they
focus. But if the model is wrong, the focus
may fall above or below the depth of the
source and receiver to the so-called focus
depth (right ). For a flat reflector, the real
depth of the reflector lies about halfway
between the focus depth and the migration
depth with the provisional velocity model.
This real depth is then used to update the
macro model.
Opinion on focusing analysis is divided.
On the plus side, the method has no dip lim-
itation; maximum dip is determined by the
migration algorithm. On the minus side,
results are difficult to interpret. Complex sub-
surface structure and gross error in the
macro model create spurious focus energy
that may mislead interpreters.
State-of-the-art velocity model building
uses layer stripping with 3D rather than 2D
prestack data. This can take 10 to 100 times
longer to compute than with 2D prestack
data, and so has limited application. Its
advantage is its superior capability in han-
dling complex velocity fields. Because
prestack data are so large—even a small
survey of 40 square miles [100 square kilo-
meters] can have 10 million traces— veloci-
Real depth
and focusing depth
nPanels explaining focusing analysis, which indicate when the velocity model is cor-
rect (left set) and when velocity is overestimated. (After Faye and Jeannot, reference 10.)
ties are obtained along only a few lines of
different azimuth, and often on short sections
of the lines.11 The practitioner usually limits
the area of interest to the peak of a structural
high, which presents the challenge of high
dips. But even if this area can be reliably
imaged, expanding the local result to the
whole area of interest is difficult. There is no
good method for this. Practitioners tend to
revise the macro model by trial and error.
Verification, however, is easier, using the
same discrepancy between common depth
point gathers as in moveout analysis.
Which Migration Algorithm?
To perform migration, the seismic practi-
tioner has two choices: the class of migra-
tion (meaning 2D or 3D, prestack or post-
stack, time or depth) and the type of
migration algorithm.
Time
Focusing depth
Real depth
Migration depth
The choice is partly constrained by the
data acquisition scheme. Two-dimensional
data can undergo only 2D migration. Sam-
ple density and, in 3D surveys, proximity of
other lines, can affect accuracy of the macro
model and therefore the choice of algo-
rithm. Some algorithms are more tolerant of
macro model error than others.
Selection of a migration algorithm is
always a balancing act (next page). Influ-
encing the decision are special problems of
the structure being imaged (such as steep
dip or complex overburden velocity), eco-
nomics, computer resources, available time,
availability of expertise and certainty of the
macro model. The ideal migration algorithm
has the following characteristics:

38 Oilfield Review
 2D Seismic Data
Prestack depth Misconceptions in
h
y hig Structural Imaging
Cost Ver
Lo
we Limited offset stack +
Overburden lex r
p poststack depth Depth migration improves the accuracy of reflectors.
Velocities C om
True—sometimes. Time migration coupled with
Sim
ple Prestack time + image-ray depth conversion may give as good a
h poststack depth
Hig section as depth migration at a fraction of the cost.
Cost
lex

Lo Prestack time Depth migration is generally superior only in the

mp

w
presence of rapid changes in lateral velocity. In
Co

DMO + poststack time

general, depth migration costs about ten times
more than image-ray depth conversion.
DMO + poststack depth
Sim

Prestack depth migration generally gives infe-

H igh Poststack depth
ple

Cost rior results compared to poststack depth migration

Lo DMO + poststack time
w because prestack migration is more sensitive to
x
m ple Poststack time
Co errors in the velocity model.

Stage in exploration/appraisal/development process

Overburden Sim Prestack migration is more sensitive to errors in
ple DMO + poststack time
Velocities w the macro model and will give inferior results—if
Lo
Cost Ve Poststack time the macro model is wrong. If the macro model is

Knowledge of data increases

ry
low correct, prestack depth migration can give superior
No migration
results.
Depth migration-based velocity analysis (high
tech) is better than image ray-based velocity anal-
ysis of a time migration (low tech).
3D Seismic Data Prestack depth This high-tech approach offers no significant
ic al
n om Cross-line time + inline depth advantage where velocities or structures are simple.
tro
Cost As Prestack time + The high-tech approach is advantageous when there
Hig poststack depth
h is complex structure, complex velocity, or both.
Overburden
lex Poststack depth
Velocities mp
Co Velocity derived from well data should be con-
Sim sidered the true velocity.
ple Prestack time
igh True, in the absence of significant velocity
yh
Cost Ver
anisotropy. But where there is velocity anisotropy,
lex

Hig
mp

h use of well velocity—which is often the vertical

Co

DMO + poststack time

component of velocity—may allow focusing the
image, but at the wrong depth—or moving the
DMO + poststack depth image to the right depth, but out of focus. Today,
Sim

h Poststack depth
Hig most commercial techniques achieve a compro-
ple

Cost Cross-line time + inline depth

Lo DMO + poststack time mise between focusing and positioning an image.
w
x
m ple Poststack time In the future, depth migration will include esti-
Co
mates or even measurements of velocity anisotropy.
Overburden Sim
ple DMO + poststack time
Velocities
w
Lo
Cost Poststack time
Ve
ry
low
No migration

nBP’s guidelines for selecting migration strategies for 2D and 3D data, and (next page)
comparison of three migration algorithms. (From Redshaw and Lasseter, reference 1.)

9. Wang SS, Baumel RT, Hanson DW, Bell DW, Boyd M,
Cavanaugh TD, Cox VD, D’Onfro PS, Durrani JA and
Standlee LA: “Common-Offset Depth Migration as a
Velocity Analysis Tool,” in Versteeg R and Grau G
(eds): The Marmousi Experience, in Proceedings of
the 1990 EAEG Workshop on Practical Aspects of
Seismic Data Inversion, Copenhagen, Denmark (May
30, 1990): 139-158.
10. Faye J-P and Jeannot J-P “Prestack Migration Veloci- 11. Routine 3D-prestack Kirchhoff imaging is done on
ties from Focusing Depth Analysis,” Expanded limited regions of interest, using small scalar com-
Abstracts, 56th SEG Annual International Meeting puters. See Hutton GD and Berg KI: “3D Local
and Exposition, Houston, Texas, USA (November 2- Imaging Utilizing Paraxial Ray Traced Green’s Func-
6, 1986): 438-440. tions,” Expanded Abstracts, 62rd SEG Annual Inter-
national Meeting and Exposition, New Orleans,
Louisiana, USA (October 25-29, 1992): 1007-1009.

January 1993 39
 Comparison of Common Migration Algorithms
Type Advantage Limitation Imaging in the Future
Perhaps the most significant research in
Kirchhoff • Nonrecursive Kirchhoff • More expensive than finite- imaging today concerns introduction of
accurate for steep dips difference methods
velocity anisotropy into macro model build-
• Migrates selected time • May generate false events
windows
ing. In some rocks, especially shales, veloc-
ity measured horizontally may vary from
Phase shift • Accurate to 90° dip if • Expensive that measured vertically by up to 50%. This
(Gazdag) velocities vary only vertically • Not widely available anisotropy can profoundly affect velocity
• May be extended to include measurements made on core, by well logs,
lateral velocity variation
vertical seismic profile and estimates from
• Generates no noise artifacts
stacking. Of interest are the effects of two
f-x • Accurate for steep dips and • Cannot perform common
types of anisotropy: that associated with
(frequency-space) vertical and lateral velocity offset migration depositional fabric, called layer induced,
variations • Although more accurate and that associated with postdepositional
• Can be fast for large, 3D than Kirchhoff migration, too deformation, called azimuthal or fracture
poststack data computationally intensive induced. These effects have been recog-
for 3D prestack migration nized for at least 20 years, but have escaped
routine measurement.13 The hope is that
Kirchhoff Migration performs a weighted sum (an integral) along diffraction curves and positions the sum at the apex of the curve better characterization of these anisotropic
in the migrated section. It is based on Kirchhoff’s solution to the wave equation and requires ray tracing for computation of travel velocity fields will lead to better location of
times, which may give inferior results in complex velocity fields.
structures. Improved image resolution will
Phase shift migration, also called Gazdag migration, uses Fourier transform to convert space and time axes to wavenumber and
frequency, respectively. It is nearly exact in the absence of lateral velocity variation. be a secondary effect.
f-x migration, also called omega-x and recursive Kirchhoff migration, is used for almost all 2D prestack and 3D poststack depth In highly anisotropic formations, better
migration. See reference 11, page 39. knowledge of anisotropy may also lead to
improved ties between seismic and log
•Handles any range of dips image resolution. But it can image reflectors velocities. In the late 1980s, BP discovered
•Handles large velocity changes—more dipping only to 80°. On the other hand, that in the North Sea closely tying seismic
than 30 to 40%, possibly up to 100% in nonrecursive (integral) Kirchhoff migration velocity to well logs resulted in undermigra-
any direction handles dips to 90° and provides excellent tion by 7%. Velocity anisotropy was the
•Given a correct velocity field, accurately resolution, but has problems with large cause—horizontal velocity, measured by
positions images in all three coordinates velocity changes.12 seismic methods, was 7% greater than verti-
•Preserves amplitude and phase Production specialists use several algo- cal velocity, which dominates the log read-
•Generates no artifacts rithms. Amoco, for example, may use one ing.14 However, this discrepancy may also
•Is inexpensive and fast. algorithm for the top of the salt, another for be caused by seismic surveys and well logs
No algorithm can do all of these. Some the flanks, and a third for imaging the base sampling at different frequencies, and there-
can do only one adequately (above ). For of the salt and below. In complex velocity fore measuring different velocities. Until this
example, f-x migration easily handles large fields, GECO-PRAKLA may employ several sampling discrepancy and effects of aniso-
changes in velocity and provides excellent algorithms in layer stripping. tropy can be resolved, some operators
choose not to constrain seismic velocity by
well velocity, but to use log velocity only as
a guide.
Better accounting for anisotropy may also
improve an emerging method called turning
ray imaging. 15 A turning ray is one that
passes through horizontal, goes up to hit the
reflector then down before returning to the
surface (next page). These rays are useful in
imaging beneath and around salt overhangs.
Current imaging processing assumes veloc-
ity increases smoothly with depth and is

40 Oilfield Review
Unmigrated 2D-stack
nWhat’s hiding under the salt? Use of turning ray migration to image the flanks of a salt wedge in the Gulf of Mexico. In the unmi-
grated 2D stack (left), part of the steeply dipping energy, visible on the right, has traveled along turning raypaths and reflected from
a salt overhang. The overhang is not clearly imaged. In the migrated section (right), the image produced by turning ray time migra-
tion clearly shows the right side of the salt overhang.
isotropic. Consequently, turning ray paths
are assumed to be arcs of circles, which per-
mits easy conversion from travel time to
depth. But often velocity is anisotropic and
the arcs are not circles, making time-depth
conversion more difficult and reflector loca-
tions less certain. Better knowledge of aniso-
tropy may help account for noncircular arcs
and allow better positioning of reflectors.
The chief computational challenge is 3D
prestack depth migration, which requires a
12. Integral and recursive approaches are both based on
the same wave equation that governs transmission of
energy in the earth. Recursive migration propagates
the recorded data back into the earth one depth-step
at a time, typically every 10 meters [33 ft]. This pro-
cess gives data that would have resulted from having
sources and receivers located at the current depth.
By comparison, the integral approach migrates data
at each image point directly via a weighted sum of
the recorded data that reside on a travel-time curve.
This curve is assumed to be hyperbolic in time
migration implementation, although not in depth
migration implementation.
13. Vander Stoep DM: “Velocity Anisotropy Measure-
ments in Wells,” Geophysics 31 (October 1966):
900-916.
January 1993
Turning ray time migration
Turning ray reflection
Constant velocity
Varying velocity
gigaFLOP machine to handle data often on
the order of terabytes (one trillion bytes).16
When this becomes possible, the macro
model could be built with prestack 3D data,
allowing accurate description of abrupt lat-
eral variations in velocity.17
Structural imaging is both pushing and
being pushed by advances in computer sci-
ence. Increased computer power has been
linked with the trend from 2D to 3D, from
time migration to first-generation depth
14. Whitcombe DN and Collyer VA: “Evidence for the
Existence of Anisotropy Beneath the Southern North
Sea,” presented at the 50th meeting of the EAEG,
The Hague, The Netherlands, 1988.
15. Hale D, Hill NR and Stefani J: “Imaging Salt with
Turning Seismic Waves,” Geophysics 57 (November
1992): 1453-1462.
Ratcliff DW, Gray SH and Whitmore ND: “Seismic
Imaging of Salt Structures in the Gulf of Mexico,”
The Leading Edge 11 (April 1992): 15-31.
16. One gigaFLOP is 1 billion floating point operations
per second, a measure of computational speed.
Highnam PT and Pieprzak A: “An Implementation of
a Fast Accurate 3-D Migration on a Massively Paral-
lel Computer,” Expanded Abstracts, 61st SEG
Annual International Meeting and Exposition, Hous-
ton, Texas, USA (November 10-14, 1991): 338-340.
Kao JC: “A Practical Implementation of the Multi-
processing 3D Kirchhoff Prestack Migration Scheme
on the Cray Y-MP Systems,” Technical Programme
and Abstracts of Papers, 54th EAEG Meeting and
Technical Exhibition, Paris, France (June 1-5, 1992):
284-285.
Salt
dome
migration, from poststack to prestack.18 The
future will probably see closer linkage of
velocity model estimation with migration,
which will expand its role to include lithol-
ogy and pore fluid identification. These pos-
sibilities pivot on advancement of massively
parallel computation, the tool that will
allow seismics to see ever more clearly.
—JMK
Cabrera JJ, Perkins WT, Ratcliff DW and Lynn W:
“3D Prestack Depth Migration on a Massively Paral-
lel Computer: Implementation and Case History,”
Technical Programme and Abstracts of Papers, 54th
EAEG Meeting and Technical Exhibition, Paris,
France (June 1-5, 1992): 268-269.
17. Landa E, Kosloff D, Keydar S, Koren Z and Reshef M:
“A Method for Determination of Velocity and Depth
from Seismic Reflection Data,” Geophysical
Prospecting 36 (1988): 223-243.
18. Berkhout AJ: “Massively Parallel Processing in E&P:
Geoscience or Computer Science?” Journal of Seis-
mic Exploration 1 (1992): 119-120.
Berkhout AJ: “Trends in the Seismic Industry,” Jour-
nal of Seismic Exploration 1 (1992): 3-8.
41
S E I S M I C S

Hydrocarbon Detection With AVO

Edward Chiburis Scott Leaney Chuck Skidmore
ECGeo Jakarta, Indonesia Amoco Production Company
Houston, Texas, USA Houston, Texas, USA

Charles Franck Steve McHugo

Royal Oil & Gas Corporation Orpington, England
Corpus Christi, Texas, USA

Imagine a geophysical technique with the volumetric coverage of surface seismic that could delineate zones

of gas, oil and water. In many ways, that summarizes the potential of interpreting seismic reflection ampli-

tude variation with offset, or AVO.

A
nBright spots—from
150 130 110 90 70
In the late 1920s, the seismic reflection 0
technique became a key tool for the oil a gas sand, and
from a high veloc-
industry, revealing shapes of subsurface ity basalt. Numbers
structures and indicating drilling targets. 0.5 at top are shot
This has developed into a multibillion dollar points. (Courtesy of Bill
business that is still primarily concerned Ostrander and Chevron
Corporation, reference 5.)
with structural interpretation. But advances

Time, sec
in data acquisition, processing and interpre- 1.0
tation now make it possible to use seismic
traces to reveal more than just reflector
shape and position. Changes in the charac-
1.5
ter of seismic pulses returning from a reflec-
tor can be interpreted to ascertain the depo-
sitional history of a basin, the rock type in a
layer, and even the nature of the pore fluid. 2.0
This last refinement, pore fluid identifica-
tion, is the ultimate goal of AVO analysis. Gas
Early practical evidence that fluids could
A
be seen by seismic waves came from “bright 170 150 130 110 90
spots”—streaks of unexpectedly high ampli- 0

tude on seismic sections—often found to

For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Jack 0.5

Caldwell, Barry Donaldson and Jim Hovland, GECO-
PRAKLA, Houston, Texas, USA; Al Frisillo, Amoco Pro-
duction Company, Tulsa Research Center, Tulsa, Okla-
homa, USA; Michael Mikulich, Chevron Corporation,
San Francisco, California, USA; Bill Murphy and Andy 1.0
Time, sec

Reischer, Schlumberger-Doll Research, Ridgefield, Con-

necticut, USA; Bill Ostrander, Benecia, California, USA.
* In this article, DSI (Dipole Shear Sonic Imager) and
ELAN (Elemental Log Analysis) are marks of Schlumberger.
1. An intermediate step called normal moveout correc- 1.5
tion is omitted here for brevity, but described in
“Structural Imaging: Toward a Sharper Subsurface
View,” page 28.
2.0

Basalt-dry

42 Oilfield Review
aa
signify gas. Bright spots were recognized in
the early 1970s as potential hydrocarbon
indicators, but drillers soon learned that
hydrocarbons are not the only generators of
bright spots. High amplitudes from tight or
hard rocks look the same as high amplitudes
from hydrocarbons, once seismic traces
have been processed conventionally (previous
page ). Only AVO analysis, which requires
special handling of the data, can distinguish
lithology changes from fluid changes.
An analogy for the physics of AVO is the
skipping of a stone across a pond. Everyone
knows that if a stone is dropped or thrown
into water from directly above, it sinks
instantly. But skimmed nearly horizontally, it
bounces off the surface of the water. The
amplitude of the bounce, which was zero at
vertical incidence, increases with the angle
of incidence.
Now replace the water with rubber and
repeat the process. This time the vertical
bounce is high, and the high-angle bounce
is low. The amplitude of the bounce
decreases with angle of incidence, a dramat-
ically different behavior from the water case.
Analogous concepts applied to seismics
form the basis for inferring formation prop-
erties—density and compressional and
shear velocities—from seismic reflection
amplitude variation with angle of incidence.
And because formation density and velocity
depend on the fluid saturating the forma-
tion, reflection amplitude variation also per-
mits identification of pore fluid.

January 1993
a
Single-layer geometry—Direct relationship between θ and offset

S4

Offset 1
S3

S1
S2

Common
S1

θ2

midpoint (CMP)

Synthetic traces—CMP gather

Offset 2
Offset 3
Offset 4
Offset 3
Offset 2
Offset 1

θ1

made in the horizontal distance between

CMP

Conventional treatment of seismic data,

however, masks this fluid information. The
problem lies with the way seismic traces are
manipulated in order to enhance reflection
visibility. In a seismic survey, as changes are

source and receiver, called offset, the angle

at which a seismic wave reflects at an inter-
face also changes (above ). Seismic traces—
recordings of transmitted and reflected
sound—are sorted into pairs of source-
receiver combinations that have different
offsets but share a common reflection point
midway between each source-receiver pair.
This collection of traces is referred to as a
common midpoint (CMP) gather. In conven-
tional seismic processing, in which the goal
is to create a seismic section for structural or
R1

Offset 4

Amplitude increases with offset

R2

Multilayer geometry— Complex relationship between θ and offset

R3

Gas sand

R1
R4

Shale

Shale 1

Shale 2

Gas sand
nSingle-layer
acquisition geome-
try, associated syn-
thetic traces show-
ing AVO effect of
gas sand, and a
multilayer geome-
try. Synthetics show
amplitude increas-
ing with offset
(deflections to the
left becoming more
negative). Although
seismic coordinates
are based on offset,
theory relating
changes in ampli-
tude with material
properties of the
reflector is based
on angle ( θ).
Because the reflec-
tion point is mid-
way between
source and receiver,
and common to all
traces, it is called
the common mid-
point (CMP). A col-
lection of traces is
known as a gather,
in this case a CMP
gather. In simple
cases (top) with lay-
ers of uniform den-
sity and velocity, a
direct relationship
exists between off-
set and angle of
incidence. But most
of the time (bottom),
variations in den-
sity and velocity
bend rays, requir-
ing ray-trace mod-
eling to relate
angle to offset.

stratigraphic interpretation, traces in a

gather are stacked—summed to produce a
single average trace.1
Stacking enhances signal at the expense
of noise, making reflections visible, and
compresses data volume. But it destroys
information about amplitude variation with
offset. Consider two reflections in the sec-
tion: one has amplitude increasing with off-
set, such as in the case of the stone bounc-
ing off the water, and the other has
amplitude decreasing with offset, similar to
the stone bouncing off rubber. Once the
reflection traces are stacked, they may have

43
identical amplitudes—they may even be
bright spots—while their AVO signatures are
completely different. AVO analysis can usu-
ally distinguish fluid contrasts from lithology
contrasts, but it requires carefully processed
gathers that have not been stacked.
A Little Theory
Attempts at practical application of AVO
began about 15 years ago, but the physics
was understood around the turn of the cen-
tury (see “History,” below, right ). The gen-
eral expressions for the reflection of com-
pressional and shear waves at a boundary as
a function of the densities and velocities of
the layers in contact at the boundary are
credited to Karl Zoeppritz.2 Zoeppritz found
that amplitudes increase, decrease or
remain constant with changing angle of
incidence, depending on the contrast in
density, compressional velocity, Vp , and
shear velocity, Vs , across the boundary.
Conventional seismic surveys deal exclu-
sively with the reflection of compressional
waves. When a compressional seismic
wave arrives vertically at a horizontal inter-
face, the amplitude of the reflected wave is
proportional to the amplitude of the incom-
ing wave, according to the normal inci-
dence reflection coefficient:3
ρ2V p2 - ρ1V p1
ρ2V p2 + ρ1V p1 '
in which ρ is density and 1 and 2 signify the
top and bottom layer, respectively. When
the seismic wave arrives obliquely, the situ-
ation is more complicated. The compres-
sional reflection coefficient is now a tortu-
ous function of the angle of incidence, the
densities, and Vp and Vs of the two layers in
contact. The simplest useful approximations
to the Zoeppritz theory comprise the normal
incidence reflection coefficient written
above plus at least three other terms—func-
tions of angle and contrasts in density and
the two velocities. Nevertheless, the depen-
dence of reflectivity on density, Vp and Vs
makes it possible to deduce fluid and rock
type. Gas, oil and water have different den-
sities and acoustic velocities. They insinuate
this difference on the rocks they saturate.
2. Zoeppritz K: “Über Erdbebenwellen, VIIB: Über
Reflexion und Durchgang seismischer Wellen durch
Unstetigkeitsflächen,” Nachrichten der Königlichen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschften zu Göttingen, Math-
matisch-physikalische Klasse (1919): 57-84.
3. This is strictly true only if transmission effects, such as
spherical spreading and attenuation, are neglected. It
also holds when the layers are not horizontal, as long
as the angle between the wave and the interface is 90°.
44
Synthetic AVOs from Logs
In much the same way that a blindfolded
expert can identify a wine and its vintage, or
an X-ray diffraction lab technician can iden-
tify mineral components in a rock sample,
the key to using AVO for fluid identification
is comparison of real data with a stan-
dard—in this case a synthetic seismogram (a
“synthetic” for short). This is an artificial
seismic trace manufactured by assuming
that some pulse travels through an earth
model—rock layers of given thickness, den-
sity and velocity—and returns to be
recorded. The earth model that produced
the synthetic can be modified, sometimes
repeatedly, until the synthetic matches the
measured data, indicating the earth model is
a reasonable approximation of the earth.
The densities and velocities of fluid-satu-
rated rocks necessary for the creation of
synthetic traces preferably come from logs
or cores. Missing data can be estimated
History
Attempts at practical application of AVO began
about 15 years ago, but the physics draws on 19th
century advances in optics and electromagnetic
wave theory. In the 1800s, Green and Kelvin spec-
ulated about the similarity of the reflective
behavior of light and elastic waves.1 Using
Snell’s law, Knott in 1899, and Zoeppritz in 1919,
developed general expressions for the reflection
of compressional and shear waves at a boundary
as a function of the densities and velocities of the
layers in contact.2 Although Zoeppritz was not the
first to publish a solution, his name is associated
with the cumbersome set of formulas describing
the reflection and refraction of seismic waves at
an interface. In 1936, Macelwane and Sohon
recast the equations to gain insight into the
physics and facilitate calculations.3
Before computers were widespread, AVO
effects were incorporated into synthetic seismo-
grams and other calculations using approximated
Zoeppritz equations.4 Today, personal computers
can generate synthetics based on the full Zoep-
pritz formalism, but approximations are still used
to gain physical insight into the relative influence
of velocity and density changes on seismic ampli-
tudes, and in the attempt to back out lithology
and fluid type from AVO data.5
using theoretical or empirical equations.
The synthetic traces show the expected
AVO effect for each fluid type.
Take, for example, the AVO effect of gas
in sandstone predicted from logs in a gas
field operated by Texas-based Royal Oil &
Gas (next page, top ). Here, acoustic veloci-
ties were measured with the DSI Dipole
Shear Sonic Imager tool. The seismic event
of interest is the circled blue reflection cor-
responding to the interface between an
overlying shale and the gas sand. The trace
recorded at zero offset—0° from vertical,
directly above the reflecting point—begins
with a small negative amplitude (trace
deflects to the left). The amplitude becomes
more negative as offset increases. The AVO
response to oil is the same (next page, mid-
dle ). But when hydrocarbons are replaced
with water, the AVO response changes (next
page, bottom ). Now polarity becomes posi-
1. Green G: “On the Laws of Reflexion and Refraction of Light,” in
Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 7 (1839):
245. Reprinted in Mathematical Papers of the Late George
Green. London, England: Macmillan, 1871.
Kelvin WT: “Reflexion and Refraction of Light,” Philosophical
Magazine, Fifth Series 26 (1888): 420-422.
2. In the 1620s, Snell observed that light refracts at different angles
through different materials. In 1657, Fermat postulated the cor-
rect expression for its reflection and refraction.
Knott CG: “On the Reflexion and Refraction of Elastic Waves,
With Seismological Applications,” Philosophical Magazine, Fifth
Series 48 (1899): 64-97.
Zoeppritz K: “Über Erdbebenwellen, VIIB: Über Reflexion und
Durchgang seismischer Wellen durch Unstetigkeitsflächen,”
Nachrichten der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschften zu
Göttingen, Mathmatisch-physikalische Klasse (1919): 57-84.
3. Macelwane JB and Sohon FW: Introduction to Theoretical Seis-
mology. New York, New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
(1936): 147-179.
4. Muskat and Meres published hand-calculated reflection coeffi-
cients in 1940, assuming Poisson’s ratio was a constant 0.25
across the interface. Koefoed, in 1955, and Bortfeld, in 1961,
simplified the Zoeppritz expressions by assuming that changes
in material properties across the interface are much smaller than
the average value of the properties on each side and that the
incident angle does not exceed 30°.
Muskat M and Meres MW: “Reflection and Transmission Coeffi-
cients for Plane Waves in Elastic Media,” Geophysics 5 (1940):
115-148.
Koefoed O: “On the Effect of Poisson’s Ratios of Rock Strata on
the Reflection Coefficients of Plane Waves,” Geophysical
Prospecting 3 (December 1955): 381-387.
Bortfeld R: “Approximation to the Reflection and Transmission
Coefficients of Plane Longitudinal and Transverse Waves,” Geo-
physical Prospecting 9 (December 1961): 485-502.
5. Aki K and Richards PG: Quantitative Seismology, Theory and
Methods Vol. 1. San Francisco, California, USA: WH Freeman
and Co. (1980): 123-155.
Shuey RT: “A Simplification of the Zoeppritz Equations,” Geo-
physics 50 (April 1985): 609-614.
Oilfield Review
 Vp Vs ρb Offset (horizontal distance
kft/sec kft/sec g/cm3 between source and receiver), ft
8 9 3 4 2 2.25 0 1000 5000

1.0

Gas

Time, sec
1.1

Shale Bound Quartz

water
Calcite Oil Moved
hydr Offset, ft
Matrix, % 0 3280 6560
nSynthetic traces showing AVO effects of
gas, oil and water, and an ELAN Elemen-
tal Log Analysis output. The negative
polarity event at the top of the gas
becomes more negative with increasing
offset, a signature of gas (top). In this ideal
1.0 case, the synthetics are created from an
earth model based on measured logs con-
Time, sec

Oil
verted from depth to time. Velocities were
measured using the DSI Dipole Shear Sonic
Imager tool. In the less desirable but more
common situation, all three log measure-
ments are not available. Missing data are
created using empirical relations. Mea-
1.1 sured logs (middle) from an African oil
sand at 0.97 sec, as identified by ELAN
calculation, have an AVO effect similar to
gas, but in some cases, AVO can distin-
Vp Vs ρ b guish the two. Water sands identified by
kft/sec kft/sec g/cm3 Offset, ft the ELAN log deeper in the section show
8 9 3 4 2 2.25 0 1000 5000 no amplitude increase with offset. The
AVO signature of water is virtually always
different from that of oil or gas, making
AVO a hydrocarbon indicator (bottom). In
this example, water is substituted for gas
Calculated

Calculated
Measured

1.5 in the sand of the top figure using empiri-

cal and theoretical equations.
Water
Time, sec

1.6

January 1993 45
 Offset, ft
0 1000 5000
Angle, deg
0 8 16 24 32
0
No fluid change

Amplitude
-0.05

1.0 -0.1

-0.15
Angle, deg

Time, sec
0 8 16 24 32
0 Angle, deg
Top gas sand 0 8 16 24 32

Amplitude
-0.05 0.15
Bottom gas sand

Amplitude
0.1
-0.1

-0.15 0.05
1.1
0

nQuantitative Zoeppritz prediction of AVO effects for three reflections in the Texas gas field of Royal Oil & Gas. At top of gas sand (left),
amplitude doubles, from slightly negative to very negative, as offset increases. At the gas-water contact near the bottom of the sand
(lower right) amplitude increases 50%, from slightly positive to more positive. Most reflections that do not involve a fluid change (upper
right) show negligible amplitude change.

Gradient (G )

Intercept ( P)
tive (amplitude deflection to the right), and
amplitude decreases with offset.4

GxP
The AVO effect at any interface can be Offset, ft
quantified with the Zoeppritz formulas, and 0 1000 5000
plotted as a curve (above ). At the top of the nSynthetic traces
gas sand in Royal Oil & Gas’ well, and for from page 45, top
and associated
most gas sands, Zoeppritz calculations pre-
AVO composite
dict an increasingly negative amplitude with Gas traces—gradient,
offset. In this case, the predicted negative 1.0
intercept and their
amplitude increases 100%. Also shown are product (GxP). Wig-
the Zoeppritz-predicted AVO effects for the gles in the G trace,
for example, have
gas-water contact deeper in the sand, and amplitudes equal to

Time, sec
for a nonfluid, lithologic contact higher in the best-fitting gra-
the section. dient computed for
These curves of amplitude versus angle of every time level in
the gather. Reflec-
incidence can be used to make quantitative
tors emerge as neg-
comparisons between synthetic predictions ative or positive
and amplitudes from real data, once the wiggles, easily dis-
data have been processed for true ampli- 1.1 tinguishable from
tudes. This is made easier by plotting ampli- noise, which stays
around zero. Posi-
tude versus angle of incidence squared, tive product indi-
which converts Zoeppritz curves to straight cates hydrocarbon,
lines. AVO behavior can then be succinctly in this case gas.
described by the line’s gradient, G, and nor-
Offset, ft
mal incidence intercept, P. 0 2200 4400 6600
For typical reservoir rocks, the reflection 0.55 nThe measured
at an interface between a water-bearing AVO gather from
layer and a hydrocarbon-bearing layer is Royal Oil’s Texas
such that a negative polarity reflection gas well. Ampli-
tude of the small
becomes more negative—intercept and gra- negative (blue)
dient both negative—or a positive polarity 0.8 reflection at the top
reflection becomes more positive—intercept of the gas becomes
more negative as
Time, sec

and gradient both positive (above, right ).

offset increases.
The seismic data
have undergone
true amplitude pro-
1.03 cessing described
in “Processing for
AVO Interpretation,”
(page 48).

46 Oilfield Review
1.3
 Offset, ft
The simplest indicator of hydrocarbons is 0 2200 4400 6600

therefore the product of gradient and inter-

0.55 nAVO data, gradient and intercept
calculation and product section for the
cept. A positive product most likely indi- Texas gas field. On the top, amplitudes
cates oil or gas. A product trace for the are measured across data traces from
Royal Oil & Gas example clearly reveals 0.8 page 45, top. Amplitudes are fit to a

Time, sec
gas. G traces, P traces or product traces can
be plotted next to each other to produce
sections, similar to stacked sections, for
1.05
AVO interpretation.
Interpretation of Actual AVOs
How do real AVO gathers compare with
synthetics? The real gather (previous page,
bottom) observed at the Texas gas well and
carefully processed by GECO-PRAKLA (see
straight line (middle)—by changing
axes in the original Zoeppritz predic-
tion plot from amplitude vs. angle to
amplitude vs. angle squared—with a
corresponding gradient and intercept.
Traces containing the values of the
gradient, intercept, or the product of
the two form a seismic section, in this
1.3
case, a product section from the Texas
Angle 2 gas field (bottom). The region between
CMP 70 to 100 shows a positive AVO
product (red), and corresponds to the

Amplitude
gas-producing sand. A second well
“Processing for AVO Interpretation,” next 4400 ft to the left has confirmed this
page ) shows the same AVO signature as the gas extent.
synthetic gather generated using log data
from the well (page 45, top ). Both gathers
show a small negative reflection at normal
incidence that becomes more negative with
offset. This signals hydrocarbons, and sure
enough, the well did produce gas. The gra- G x P Section
0.9
dient and intercept are both negative, and
their product positive. A section composed
of product traces from every gather in the
seismic line shows a zone of positive prod-
uct (right ). A second well drilled in the zone 1.0
confirmed the presence of gas.
Because the synthetic was built from log
data—density, compressional velocity and

Time, sec
shear velocity—rather than estimated val-
ues, it closely matches the observed gather. 1.1
Often estimated is shear velocity, and this
creates a common stumbling block to AVO
modeling. Dramatic AVO effects appear in
gas sands where the shear velocity is often
too slow to be measured with conventional 1.2
sonic tools. Introduction of the DSI tool
removes this impediment.
Once the AVO signature of hydrocarbons
is known, seismic data can be examined for
1.3
fluids. For example, what would AVO anal- 0 50 100 150 200
ysis have revealed about the two bright CMP
spots—one from gas, the other from -2 0 2 0 ft 5000
basalt—described on pages 42-43? The
answer was published in 1984 by Bill
Ostrander, then at Chevron USA (below ).5 Gas Basalt
shot point 81 shot point 127
4. Velocities and density for this example were com-
puted using a technique described in “Taking Advan-
tage of Shear Waves,” Oilfield Review 4, no. 3, (July
1992): 52-54.
For further reading see Murphy W, Reischer A and
Hsu K: “Modulus Decomposition of Compressional
and Shear Velocities in Sand Bodies,” Geophysics 58,
no. 2, (February 1993): 227-239.
5. Ostrander WJ: “Plane-Wave Reflection Coefficients
for Gas Sands at Nonnormal Angles of Incidence,”
Geophysics 49 (October 1984): 1637-1648. nGathers from well locations in two
bright spots seen on page 42, showing
different AVO signatures. At left is the
gather from shot point 81 of top section.
Negative amplitude becomes more
negative with offset in gas sand. On the
right is a gather from shot point 127 of
bottom section. Amplitude decreases
January 1993 with offset, indicating no hydrocarbon. 47

Processing for AVO Interpretation
Any properly acquired seismic survey, new or old, can be processed for AVO analysis. The goal of
processing is to preserve reflected pulse shape and amplitude. Changes in pulse with offset can then
be interpreted in terms of lithology or fluid contrasts at the reflector. Data destined for stratigraphic
interpretation or lithostratigraphic inversion (see “Structural Imaging: Toward a Sharper Subsurface
View,” page 28) also benefit from true amplitude processing. Every seismic data set creates its own
processing problems, requiring a tailor-made processing sequence. Here is a typical AVO processing
sequence, one that works for the data sets described in this article.
Basic Steps
True Amplitude Recovery (TAR)—compensates
for amplitude loss caused by wavefront spreading
and low transmission quality (Q) of the rock
through which the seismic wavefront travels.
Frequency wave number (F-K) filtering—is
required to attenuate coherent noise generated
by near-surface or seabed features such as rigs,
buildings and seabed channels. Ground roll, or
surface waves, common in land data, cannot usu-
ally be removed with this method. Correctly
designed receiver arrays can solve this problem.
Generalized Radon Transform (GRT) demultiple—
reduces amplitude of multiples (interbed or water
column reverberations) relative to primary
energy. Conventional demultiple techniques do
not preserve true amplitudes, nor do they elimi-
nate all multiples. The GRT demultiple separates
seismic arrivals by differences in their apparent
velocities, then suppresses multiples by an
inverse transform of only part of the data.1
Deconvolution—creates a new trace with wiggles
that indicate the location (in time) and the
strength of each reflector. Surface-consistent
deconvolution reduces pulse shape distortion
because the filter is the same for each shot and
receiver location.
1. The GRT technique is described in Beylkin G, Miller D and
Oristaglio M: “The Generalized Radon Transform: A Break-
through in Seismic Migration,” The Technical Review 35, no. 3
(July 1987): 20-27.
48
Surface-consistent scaling and residual statics—
correct amplitudes and arrival times of raypaths
distorted by near-surface anomalies, such as
those caused by the unconsolidated (“weath-
ered”) zone on land or a rough ocean bottom.
Velocity analysis and Normal Moveout (NMO)—
create and apply the velocity model that aligns
wiggles from all offsets. In conventional seismic
processing, velocity analyses are made every 2 to
3 km [1.2 to 1.8 miles]. Because most AVO
anomalies are caused by velocity variation,
closely spaced velocity analyses are required
every 0.25 km [0.15 mile].
Fine-Tuning Steps
CMP-consistent statics—sometimes called non-
surface consistent statics or trim statics, forces
alignment of selected events that have not been
properly aligned by standard processing, on a
CMP-by-CMP basis. This is a compromise, and
considered unscientific by purists.
Dephasing—attempts to restore each trace to
zero phase so reflection events can be tracked
and their amplitude changes quantified.
Mixing and median filtering—attenuate random
noise and reinforce signal. In median filtering,
traces within a small offset range are summed or
stacked. Mixing does the same kind of summing
over a small range of CMPs.
Bandpass filtering—removes high- and low-fre-
quency noise from traces.
Carefully processed gathers from the well
locations show the difference between the
AVO signature of gas and that of high-veloc-
ity basalt. Gas shows the now-familiar
increase of amplitude with offset, while
basalt shows a decrease.
AVO effects may also be tracked across a
reservoir to delineate a fluid contact. A tech-
nique developed by Ed Chiburis, while at
Saudi Aramco, has had remarkable success
delineating Saudi Arabian oil reservoirs.6 In
26 of 27 cases, the technique predicted the
presence or absence of oil, which was later
confirmed by drilling (next page, bottom).
The technique identifies changes in AVO
behavior along a seismic line, and associ-
ates those changes with changes in fluid
composition. Once a given fluid has been
identified in a well, the AVO behavior of the
gather at the well is defined as the standard
to look for elsewhere in the section.
To overcome the lack of true amplitude
processing in most data, Chiburis developed
a normalization technique using another
reflection that shows consistent amplitude
in the section as a reference. Peak ampli-
tudes of the target reflection in each AVO
gather are picked interactively on a worksta-
tion and normalized trace by trace to the
reference event. Use of a reference event
removes or minimizes amplitude distortion
associated with flaws in acquisition and
processing. The technique also circumvents
the need for synthetics. The measured AVO
response at the well serves as the standard.
The major limitation of this method is that
the geology and stratigraphy must be well-
known in order to associate changes in
AVO with changes in fluid type.
Another clever AVO analysis technique
practiced by Amoco is to display and com-
pare seismic sections made up of partial
stacks (next page, top). Here, AVO informa-
tion—or fluid discrimination informa-
tion—masked by a full stack, is retained in a
partial stack of the far offsets. A partial stack
is similar to a full stack, except that each
trace is the average of traces in a small
range of offsets rather than all offsets in the
CMP gather.
6. Chiburis EF: “Studies of Amplitude Versus Offset in
Saudi Arabia,” Expanded Abstracts , 57th SEG Annual
International Meeting and Exposition, New Orleans,
Louisiana, USA (October 11-15, 1987): 614-616.
Oilfield Review
 Far offset stack Near offset stack Full stack

1.5
Time, Sec

1.9

nNow you see it, now you don’t—a far offset stack of 2D offshore
data reveals hydrocarbons masked in conventional full stack.
Plotted in two-way time, brighter colors indicate higher reflection
IRAQ amplitude. Red and yellow are positive polarity, green and blue
IRAN negative. Insets show offsets stacked to create each section. Beds
A dipping to the right are the only structure visible in all but the far-
KUWAIT offset case. A flat spot is circled (above, left), indicating a fluid-
R

fluid contact cutting across the dipping layers. (Courtesy of Rod VanK-
A

oughnet and Chuck Skidmore, Amoco Production Company.)

B
I
A
N

Where is AVO going?

G

SAUDI
U

Some companies use AVO routinely in an

L

attempt to reduce risk associated with

F

ARABIA
Dhahran potential drilling locations. Others have
tried the technique and found the process-
ing too time-consuming or too difficult. An
increasing number of practitioners is insist-
QATAR ing on quantitative agreement between syn-
Riyadh
thetic and observed data before they will
use the technique. Currently, most examples
0 km 200 of AVO interpretation are qualitative. In the
0 miles 125 Royal Oil & Gas example (page 46, middle
and bottom), the qualitative match between
the two is good, but quantitatively, the syn-
Line 1

thetics predict a 100% increase in ampli-

tude with offset while the data show an
increase of more than 200%.
Eliminating the discrepancy between
Line 2 observed and synthetic data is therefore a
Known reservoirs focus of AVO-related research, and touches
AVO locations on five main topics—processing, synthetic
Line 3 modeling, petrophysics, interpretation and
nSaudi reservoirs, showing Line 4 inversion.
delineation of spatial Researchers seek a true amplitude pro-
extent of a hydrocarbon Line 5
discovery using Chiburis’ cessing scheme to produce AVO data traces
relative event AVO tech- Known extent that can be compared quantitatively to com-
nique. In the inset, the yel- of reservoir puter-perfect synthetics. Conventional pro-
low area under the curves cessing for structural imaging does not pre-
shows where AVO indicates 0 km 10 serve amplitudes. Researchers are revisiting
hydrocarbon. Based on
AVO analysis and the local 0 miles 6.2
geology, the interpretation
of the reservoir extent is
shaded in dark green.

January 1993 49
basic processing steps such as deconvolu-
tion, velocity analysis and migration with a
view to AVO applications.
Current research in synthetic modeling
addresses a wide range of topics. Synthetics
are only as good as what goes into them.
How should logs sampled every 6 inches
[15 cm] be “averaged,” or blocked, to pro-
duce layered earth models? Different block-
ing techniques produce different synthetics.
What is the effect of layer thickness on AVO
synthetics? The right combination of layer
thickness and seismic wavelength gives rise
to reverberations in the layer that alter
reflected amplitude. Can seismic energy be
modeled as simple rays, or is it better to use
seismic wave theory? In the examples pre-
sented above, ray theory was enough. But
when angles become large and velocity
variations complex, more computer-inten-
sive wave theory is necessary. How does
velocity anisotropy affect AVO? As angle of
incidence increases, differences between
horizontal and vertical velocities cannot be
ignored in earth models.
In general, petrophysics is the link
between earth models and any seismic
interpretation, but it is particularly important
in AVO interpretation. Changes in porosity,
mineralogy, cementation, stress, com-
paction or other properties that modify the
velocity or density of the rock, can give rise
to AVO signatures that mask fluid effects.
Changes in fluid saturation, on the other
hand, may exhibit no change in AVO signa-
ture. For example, in shallow or unconsoli-
50
dated sands, or overpressured zones, the
AVO response is about the same for all satu-
rations. Drilling will confirm the presence of
gas, but it might be just “fizz water.” Labora-
tory and field measurements on reservoir
rocks, and especially nonreservoir rocks,
under in-situ conditions, are crucial to the
construction of a reliable earth model.
Improved understanding of rock properties
at core, log and seismic scales will lead to
more unambiguous AVO interpretation.
Standard AVO interpretation fits reflection
amplitudes to straight line approximations
of Zoeppritz prediction curves. More refined
interpretations quantify goodness-of-fit or
other statistical analyses of the fit. Work is
under way to abandon the straight-line
approximation and fit the real curve.
A great deal of research is devoted to
inversion, the attempt to derive a likely
earth model starting with real data—the
inverse of synthetic modeling. To date,
results indicate that knowledge of the Vp /Vs
ratio is required for stable inversion. Some-
times V p can be estimated from seismic
stacking velocities, but Vs cannot. Full inver-
sion of AVO data for material properties
continues to intrigue researchers, but it has
yet to be proven feasible.
What is the future in AVO? One hot topic
is three-dimensional (3D) AVO. Many oper-
ators have already successfully interpreted
3D seismic data sets for AVO by assembling
two-dimensional (2D) AVO sections in
series. Few have tried real 3D AVO, that is,
considering source-receiver paths in differ-
ent azimuths. This requires knowing veloc-
ity anisotropy in the horizontal plane.
Time-lapse AVO is another topic that
shows promise. As a reservoir is produced,
fluid contacts will move. Seismic surveys
shot at different times can be analyzed for
fluid changes using AVO techniques. Infor-
mation about drained and undrained vol-
umes can affect development and produc-
tion plans.
AVO can be a powerful tool for hydrocar-
bon detection. Although experts may com-
prehend the theory behind AVO interpreta-
tion, unwary practitioners make mistakes.
Progress has been made in modeling, pro-
cessing and interpretation, but improve-
ments need further joint efforts from the seis-
mic, logging and petrophysics communities.
—LS
Oilfield Review
S E I S M I C S

Sequence Stratigraphy—
A Global Theory for Local Success

No exploration technique flawlessly locates a potential reservoir, but sequence stratigraphy may come close.

By understanding global changes in sea level, the local arrangement of sand, shale and carbonate layers can

be interpreted. This enhanced understanding of depositional mechanics steers explorationists toward

prospects missed by conventional interpretation.

Jack Neal
00 miles
miles 11
Rice University
Houston, Texas, USA

David Risch
Houston, Texas, USA
1.0

Peter Vail
Rice University
Houston, Texas, USA
Time, sec

For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Scott

Bowman, Marco Polo Software, Houston, Texas, USA;
Carlos Cramez and Bernard Duval, TOTAL Exploration,
Paris, France; Andrew Hannan, GECO-PRAKLA, Hous- 2.0
ton, Texas, USA; Ulrich Möller, GECO-PRAKLA, Han-
nover, Germany; and John Sneider, Rice University,
Houston, Texas, USA.

3.0

nA seismic section interpreted to show the sandy interval (yellow) predicted using
sequence stratigraphy. The heavy vertical line shows the well location.

Conventional lithologic correlation maps
formation tops by interpreting well log data
alone. It looks at what is there without tak-
ing into account how it got there. Sequence
stratigraphy combines logs with fossil data
and seismic reflection patterns to explain
both the arrangement of rocks and the
depositional environment. Understanding
the relationships between rock layers, their
seismic expression and depositional envi-
ronments allows more accurate prediction
January 1993
of reservoirs, source rocks and seals, even if
none of them intersect the well (above ).
Sequence stratigraphy is used mainly in
exploration to predict the rock composition
of a zone from seismic data plus distant,
sparse well data. It also assists in the search
for likely source rocks and seals. Experts
believe that as more people learn the tech-
nique, it will become an exploitation tool
for constraining the shape, extent and conti-
nuity of reservoirs.
51
Sequence Stratigraphy, Seismic Stratig-
raphy—How Many Stratigraphies Can
There Be?
Stratigraphy is the science of describing the
vertical and lateral relationships of rocks.1
These relationships may be based on rock
type, called lithostratigraphy, on age, as in
chronostratigraphy, on fossil content,
labeled biostratigraphy, or on magnetic
properties, named magnetostratigraphy.
Stratigraphy in one form or another has
been around since the 1600s. In 1669,
Nicholaus Steno, a Danish geologist work-
ing in Italy, recognized that strata are
formed as heavy particles settle out of a
fluid. He also recognized that some strata
contain remnants of other strata, and so
must be younger. This conflicted with the
widely held view that all sediments were
deposited during the flood at the time of
Noah. Steno developed three principles that
form the basis of all stratigraphy—younger
layers lie on top of older layers, layers are
initially horizontal, and layers continue until
they run into a barrier. His work was neither
widely publicized nor remembered and is
often credited to James Hutton (1726-1797)
or Charles Lyell (1797-1875).
For 300 years after Steno, stratigraphers
worked at unraveling the history of the
earth, correlating fossils from one continent
to another, assigning names, ages and even-
tually physical mechanisms to the creation
of rock layers. By 1850, most of the major
geologic time units had been named. By
1900, most layers had relative ages, and
rock types had been associated with certain
positions of the shoreline, which was
known to move with time. Fine-grained
rocks such as siltstones and shales were
associated with calm, deep water, and
coarse-grained, sandy rocks with energetic,
shallow environments.
At the turn of the century, shoreline move-
ment was attributed to tectonic activity—the
rising and falling of continents. This view
was challenged in 1906, when Eduard
Suess hypothesized that changes in shore-
line position were related to sea level
changes, and occurred on a global scale; he
called the phenomenon eustasy.2 However,
Suess was not able to refute evidence pre-
sented by opponents of his theory—in many
locations there were discrepancies between
rock types found and types predicted by sea
level variation.
In 1961, Rhodes W. Fairbridge summa-
rized the main mechanisms of sea level
change: tectono-eustasy, controlled by
deformation of the ocean basin; sedimento-
eustasy, controlled by addition of sediments
52
to basins, causing sea level rise; glacio-
eustasy, controlled by climate, lowering sea
level during glaciation and raising it during
deglaciation. He recognized that all these
causes may be partially applicable, and are
not mutually incompatible. He believed
that while eustatic hypotheses apply world-
wide, tectonic hypotheses do not and vary
from region to region. Fairbridge summa-
rized the perceived goal at the time: “We
need therefore to keep all factors in mind
and develop an integrated theory. Such an
ideal is not yet achievable and would
involve studies of geophysics, geochemistry,
stratigraphy, tectonics, and geomorphology,
above sea level and below.”3
This brings us nearly to the present. In
1977, Peter Vail at Exxon and several col-
leagues published the first installments of
such an integrated theory.4 Vail developed a
new kind of stratigraphy based on ideas pro-
posed by L. L. Sloss—the grouping of layers
into unconformity-bound 5 sequences based
on lithology—and by Harry E. Wheeler—
the grouping of layers based on what has
become known as chronostratigraphy. 6
Vail’s approach allowed interpreting uncon-
formities based on tying together global sea
level change, local relative sea level change
and seismic reflection patterns. This
methodology, named seismic stratigraphy,
classifies layers between major unconformi-
ties based on seismic reflection patterns,
giving a seismically derived notion of lithol-
ogy and depositional setting.
Subsequent seismic stratigraphic studies
in basins around the world produced a set
of charts showing the global distribution of
major unconformities interpreted from seis-
mic discontinuities for the past 250 million
years. 7 An understanding emerged that
these unconformities were controlled by rel-
ative changes in sea level, and that relative
changes in sea level could be recognized on
well logs and outcrops, with or without seis-
mic sections. This led to the interdisci-
plinary concept of sequence stratigraphy—a
linkage of seismic, log, fossil and outcrop
data at local, regional and global scales.
The integrated theory sought by Fairbridge
had arrived.
This article focuses on the subset of
sequence stratigraphy that includes seismic
data, and so falls under the heading of seis-
mic sequence stratigraphy. The technique
has been shown to work in a variety of set-
tings, in some better than others. Attention
here is on an environment where it has
proved successful—sand and shale deposi-
tion on continental margins.
Building Blocks
The concepts that govern sequence strati-
graphic analysis are simple. A depositional
sequence comprises sediments deposited
during one cycle of sea level fluctuation—
by Exxon convention, starting at low sea
level, going to high and returning to low.
One cycle may last a few thousands to mil-
lions of years and produce a variety of sedi-
ments, such as beach sands, submarine
channel and levee deposits, chaotic flows or
slumps and deep water shales. Sediment
type may vary gradually or abruptly, or may
be uniform and widespread over the entire
basin. Each rock sequence produced by one
cycle is bounded by an unconformity at the
bottom and top.8 These sequence bound-
aries are the main seismic reflections used
to identify each depositional sequence, and
separate younger from older layers every-
where in the basin.
Composition and thickness of a rock
sequence are controlled by space available
for sediments on the shelf, the amount of
sediment available and climate. Space
available on the shelf—which Vail calls
“shelfal accommodation space”—is a func-
tion of tectonic subsidence and uplift and of
global sea level rise and fall on the shelf. For
instance, subsidence during rising sea level
will produce a larger basin than uplift dur-
ing rising sea level. The distribution of sedi-
ment depends on shelfal accommodation,
the shape of the basin margin—called depo-
sitional profile—sedimentation rate and cli-
mate. Climate depends on the amount of
heat received from the sun. Climate also
influences sediment type, which tends
toward sand and shale in temperate zones
and allows the production of carbonates in
the tropics.
As an exploration tool, sequence stratigra-
phy is used to locate reservoir sands. In
deep water basins with high sedimentation
rates, sands are commonly first laid down as
submarine fans on the basin floor ( next
page, “A” ) and later as deposits on the con-
tinental slope or shelf (next page, “B” ). But
as sea level starts slowly rising onto the con-
tinental shelf, sands are deposited a great
lateral distance from earlier slope and basin
deposits. 9 Deposits during this time are
deltaic sediments that build into the basin
and deep water shales (next page, “C” ). If
the sediment supply cannot keep pace with
rising sea level, the shoreline migrates land-
ward and sands move progressively higher
up the shelf (next page, “D” ). Once sea
Oilfield Review
E
aa
D

A
aa
Reworked
shore sands

Channel
and levee

Submarine

January 1993
canyon
Delta

Basin
floor fan
Marsh

Barrier bar

Slump
Maximum

Fan lobe
0

sea level

Minimum
sea level
0
nSequence compo-
nents in order of
deposition, from
bottom to top. The
sequence begins
when sea level rela-
tive to the basin
floor begins to fall.
The first deposits,
sand-rich fans, are
laid down while sea
level is falling to its
lowest point (A).
As sea level bot-
toms out and begins
to rise (B), sands
and shale are
deposited in fans on
the continental
slope. Submarine
channels with lev-
ees may meander
across the fan.
Slumps are common.
The continuing
rise in sea level (C)
allows wedges of
sediment to build
into the basin, with
sands near the
shore, siltstones and
shale basinward.
A rapid rise in sea
level (D) moves
sandiest sediments
landward as beaches
and sandbars.
Sea level then
rises at a lower rate
(E), allowing sedi-
ments to build basin-
ward again. Sandy
sediments are usu-
ally restricted to the
nearshore margin.
Colors follow a
convention used by
Vail. In order of
deposition, basin
floor fans are yel-
low, slope fans are
brown and subma-
rine slumps are pur-
ple. River deltas
that build out dur-
ing low relative sea
level are pink. Rocks
associated with
higher relative sea
level—and usually
less likely to be
sandy—are green
and orange. Within
every part of a
sequence, sand-
prone zones are
yellow.
level reaches a maximum for this cycle,
sands will build basinward as long as sedi-
ment remains available ( left, “E” ). The
sequence ends with a fall in relative sea
level, marked by a break in deposition. The
sequence repeats, however, as long as there
is sediment and another cycle of rise and
fall in relative sea level that changes the
shelfal accommodation space (see “A
Detailed View of Sequence Stratigraphy,”
next page).

1. For a review:
(continued on page 56)

Schoch RM: Stratigraphy: Principles and Methods.

New York, New York, USA: Van Nostrand Reinhold,
1989.
2. Suess E: The Face of the Earth, vol 2. Oxford, England:
Clarendon Press, 1906.
3. Fairbridge RW: “Eustatic Changes in Sea Level,” in
Ahrens LH, Press F, Rankama K and Runcorn SK (eds):
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, vol. 4. London,
England: Pergamon Press Ltd. (1961): 99-185.
4. Vail PR and Mitchum RM: “Seismic Stratigraphy and
Global Changes of Sea Level, Part 1: Overview,” in
Payton CE (ed): AAPG Memoir 26 Seismic Stratigra-
phy—Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration
(1977): 51-52.
Mitchum RM, Vail PR and Thompson S: “Seismic
Stratigraphy and Global Changes of Sea Level, Part 2:
The Depositional Sequence as a Basic Unit for Strati-
graphic Analysis,” in Payton CE (ed): AAPG Memoir
26 Seismic Stratigraphy—Applications to Hydrocar-
bon Exploration (1977): 53-62.
Vail PR, Mitchum RM and Thompson S: “Seismic
Stratigraphy and Global Changes of Sea Level, Part 3:
Relative Changes of Sea Level from Coastal Onlap,” in
Payton CE (ed): AAPG Memoir 26 Seismic Stratigra-
phy—Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration
(1977): 63-82.
Vail PR, Mitchum RM and Thompson S: “Seismic
Stratigraphy and Global Changes of Sea Level, Part 4:
Global Cycles of Relative Changes of Sea Level,” in
Payton CE (ed): AAPG Memoir 26 Seismic Stratigra-
phy—Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration
(1977): 83-98.
Vail P, Todd RG and Sangree JB: “Seismic Stratigraphy
and Global Changes of Sea Level, part 5: Chronos-
tratigraphic Significance of Seismic Reflections,” in
Payton CE (ed): AAPG Memoir 26 Seismic Stratigra-
phy—Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration
(1977): 99-116.
Sangree JB and Widmier JM: “Interpretation of Depo-
sitional Facies From Seismic Data,” Geophysics 44
(February 1979): 131-160.
5. An unconformity is a surface separating younger from
older layers, along which there is evidence of erosion
or a significant break in deposition.
6. Sloss LL: “Sequences in the Cratonic Interior of North
America,” Geological Society of America Bulletin 74
(1963): 93-113.
Wheeler HE: “Time Stratigraphy,” American Associa-
tion of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 42, no. 5 (May
1958): 1047-1063.
7. Haq BU, Hardenbol J and Vail PR: “Chronology of
Fluctuating Sea Levels Since the Triassic,” Science 235
(1987): 1156-1166.
8. In some cases the unconformity may correlate later-
ally with a conformity. A conformity is a surface that
conforms to those above and below it, with no evi-
dence of erosion or nondeposition.
9. In the case of the Gulf of Mexico, a 100-m rise in rel-
ative sea level would cause a 150-km landward shift
of the shoreline:
Matthews RK: Dynamic Stratigraphy. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc. (1984):
394.

53

The components of depositional sequences are
called systems tracts. Systems tracts are divided
into three groups according to relative sea level
at the time of deposition—lowstand at low rela-
tive sea level, transgressive as the shoreline
moves landward, and highstand at high relative
sea level. Systems tracts are depositional groups
that have a predictable stratigraphic order and
predictable shapes and contents. A close look at
systems tracts, their geometries and lithologies,
shows how sequence stratigraphy can be used to
foretell reservoir location and quality.
Each systems tract exhibits a characteristic log
response, seismic signature and paleontologic
fingerprint, and performs a predictable role in the
oil and gas play—reservoir rock, source rock or
seal. Gamma ray (GR) and spontaneous potential
(SP) logs are expected to read low in sands and
high in shales. Resistivity logs show the reverse,
reading high in hydrocarbon-filled sands and low
in shales.
Apparent layering interpreted on seismic sec-
tions—called stratal patterns—is determined by
tracing seismic reflections to their terminations.
The termination is categorized by its geometry
and associated with a depositional style. Fossils
are described by their abundance, diversity and
first or last occurrence, allowing dates to be deter-
mined based on correlation with global conditions.
Starting with the lower lowstand systems tract
at the bottom of a sequence, basin floor fans are
typically isolated massive mounds of well-sorted
grain flows or turbidite sands1 derived from allu-
vial valleys or nearshore sands (next page, “A”).
Log responses are blocky, with a sharp top and
bottom bracketing clean sand. Seismic reflec-
tions curve down and terminate on the underlying
sequence boundary—a feature called down-
lap—while the top may form a mound. The low-
stand facies makes an excellent reservoir, with
porosity often over 30% and permeability of sev-
54
A Detailed View of
Sequence Stratigraphy
eral darcies.2 It may be overlain by a thin clay-
rich layer that can act as a seal, but more often it
is overlain directly by the next depositional unit.
In these cases, the basin floor fan acts as a
hydrocarbon migration pathway. Fossil content is
minimal, since deposition rates are often very
high. Basin floor fans derive their hydrocarbon
from previous sequences.
In areas of high deposition rate, the major
component of the lower lowstand systems tract is
the slope fan complex. Slope fans can be exten-
sive and can exhibit several depositional styles,
depending on the vertical gradient of the slope
face and on the sediment source (next page, “B”).
The complex may include submarine channels
with levees, overbank deposits, slumps and
chaotic flows. Log responses commonly are cres-
cent shaped. A sharp base within the crescent
commonly indicates sand in a channel, with a
bell shape indicating fining upward as the chan-
nel is abandoned. On the other hand, channels
may fill with mud. On seismic sections, leveed
channels in the fan show a characteristic mound
with a slight depression in the top. Sand-filled
channels make excellent exploration targets, but
may be difficult to track.3 Sands flowing over
channel levees may be deposited as overbank
sheets and alternate with shales, creating sub-
parallel reflectors. Such sands can provide
stacked reservoirs with porosities of 10 to 30%,
but are usually very thin. Slumps from shelf edge
deltas create a chaotic or jumbled pattern—
“hummocky” in interpreter’s vernacular—easily
identifiable on seismic data. Hydrocarbon
sources for channel and overbank reservoirs are
deeper sequences. Seals are provided by a
widespread “condensed” section of shale, a thin
layer representing prolonged deposition at very
low rates that comes with the rise in sea level.
The sealing shale also contains abundant marine
fossils used for dating.
Part of the upper lowstand, the prograding
wedge complex derives its name from shallow-
ing-upward deltas that build basinward from the
shelf edge and pinch out landward at the preced-
ing shoreline (next page, “C”). Log response
shows more sand higher in the section and less
sand basinward, indicating a coarsening upward.
The seismic signature shows moderate- to high-
amplitude continuous reflectors that downlap
onto the basin floor. This depositional unit often
contains ample sand, especially near the sedi-
ment source. Updip seals are typically poor, how-
ever, and structural trapping is required for hydro-
carbon accumulation.
The transgressive systems tract represents
sedimentation during a rapid rise in sea level
(next page, “D”). The shoreline retreats landward,
depriving the basin of sediment. SP and gamma
ray logs show a fining upward. Retreat of the
shoreline gives rise to seismic patterns that
appear to truncate basinward. In practice, this
systems tract is commonly thin, and such pat-
terns are usually imperceptible on typical seis-
mic sections. Basal transgressive sands derived
from reworked lowstand sands can be excellent
reservoirs, except where shell fragments may
later cement the sands. Shoreface sands will fol-
low strike-oriented trends.
The top of the transgressive systems tract is
the limit of marine invasion, and is called the
maximum flooding surface. Widespread shale
deposition results in a condensed section. Abun-
dant fossils provide ages and well ties across the
seismic section. This clay-rich layer shows low
resistivity and high gamma ray readings. The
seismic pattern of this surface is downlap, which
becomes conformal—parallels adjacent reflec-
tors—basinward, and disappears above the shelf.
This surface is usually a very continuous reflec-
tor. At the shelf edge, it can commonly be identi-
fied by changes in reflection patterns above and
below.
Oilfield Review
aa E

A
a Deposition
cross section

ally shaly. The late highstand complex, deposited

as the rise in sea level slows, contains silts and
sands. Some late highstand sediments are
deposited in the open air as fluvial deposits.
Gamma ray and SP responses show a gradual
decrease in gamma ray, indicating coarsening
upward associated with decreasing water depth.
Seismic reflections are characterized by sig-

January 1993
GR
or SP Resistivity
Seismic
reflection patterns

nComponents of sequences, their log responses, and predicted and observed seismic reflection patterns.
Layers deposited during highest relative sea
level are known as the highstand systems tract
(above, “E”). Early highstand sediments are usu-
moidal—S-shaped—stratal patterns, similar to
prograding wedge reflections. There may be
deltaic and shoreface sands at the top of the sec-
tion, but in general, this systems tract has poor
reservoir sands, and updip seals are uncommon.
Fossil abundances diminish as the marine envi-
ronment becomes restricted to the deeper parts
of the shelf.
Seismic example

1. A turbidite is a rock deposited from sediment-laden water

moving swiftly down a subaqueous slope.
2. Sangree JB, Vail PR and Sneider RM: “Evolution of Facies
Interpretation of the Shelf-Slope: Application of the New
Eustatic Framework to the Gulf of Mexico,” paper OTC
5695, presented at the 20th Annual Offshore Technology
Conference Proceedings, Houston, Texas, USA, May 2-5,
1988.
3. Sometimes channels can be seen in slices of 3D seismic
volumes, but sequence stratigraphic studies are not com-
monly done on 3D data. An exception is the study
described on page 62.

55
 Components of a sequence may be
repeated or missing, depending on local
conditions and the rate of sea level change,
but the basic sequence structure is pre-
dictable. Computer-generated models of
sequence cycles are used to show the
effects of sea level change, sediment supply
and depositional profile (below ).10 These
inputs can be varied to test their relative
importance, or to produce stacks of
sequences in an attempt to match real data.
Searching for Sand—A Case Study
Sequence stratigraphy was applied in 1992
in the East Breaks area, offshore Texas (next
page, top ). Data included a two-dimen-
sional (2D) seismic line and logs from seven
wells. The seismic line was processed for
structural imaging (see “Structural Imaging:
Toward a Sharper Subsurface View,” page
28) and the structural interpretation used
four other lines to view the basin as a whole
(see “Going for the Play: Structural Interpre-
tation in Offshore Congo,” page 14). In this
case, the big picture shows a basin con-
trolled by normal faulting to the north,
which was the direction of the sediment
source. Layers dip and thicken to the south.
Initially, seismic data and logs were inter-
preted independently to identify sequences
and their bounding unconformities. Log-
derived boundaries were compared with
those from seismic data and the interpreta-
tion refined iteratively. Detailed seismic
interpretation began with the most easily
interpreted reflection patterns, and was
pieced together—working upward, down-
ward and back toward the wells—respect-
ing the stratigraphy suggested by the
sequence model.
Logs from wells on the seismic lines were
converted from depth to time using the
nearest check shot—here, 3 miles [4.8 km]
away.11 Sands interpreted on spontaneous
potential, gamma ray and resistivity logs
were associated with seismic reflections at
the well and tracked along the seismic sec-
tion. Shales indicated by logs were noted for
correlation with fossil data from cuttings.
Next was integration of biostratigraphy.12
Fossils from cuttings help identify and date
boundaries of each rock sequence. Fossil
diversity and abundance are measured ver-
sus depth, which is converted to seismic
travel time for easy comparison with the
seismic section. Fossils of planktonic (float-
ing) organisms are more widespread than
those of benthic (bottom-dwelling) organ-
isms and are therefore more useful in estab-
lishing regional time correlations. However,
in shallow-water environments, benthic fos-
sils are used because nearshore conditions
may be too variable for planktonic fossils.
Fossils are also indicators of relative sea
level. High fossil counts, or peaks, are asso-
ciated with shales deposited during low sed-
imentation. Such conditions occur in the
basin during time of high relative sea level,
but also in deep water between fan deposits
and outbuilding delta deposits (page 58,
top). Two shale sections are expected within
each sequence, one at the top of the slope
fan and the other at the maximum flooding
surface, associated with the furthest land-
ward position of the shoreline. Biostratigra-
phy also holds the key to paleo-
bathymetry—a measure of topography of
the ancient ocean floor—needed to interpret

Distance, km
0 15 30
nSequences simu-
0 35 0 lated using Scott
Bowman’s tech-
30 40 nique, showing all
Relative sea level the components on
80 page 53. Inputs are
3 2 1 0
100 initial basin shape,
20 Age, Ma
sedimentation rate
15 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 and relative sea
25
Layer number level. Geologic time
200 lines are numbered
from 5 to 35, oldest
to youngest. The
Depth, m

sequence begins at
Lithologies indicated by logs Expected 5. Expected log
300 10 responses are plot-
gamma ray, SP
Gamma ray ted at ten locations.
or SP Resistivity and resistivity
responses The left curve is SP
Sand
or gamma ray, the
400 right curve resistivity.

Shale

500

56 Oilfield Review
aa
C

A
aa
amplitude reflections may be highlighted
with hatching. These so-called bright spots
are analyzed for anomalies in amplitude
0

variation with offset associated with hydro-

carbons (see “Hydrocarbon Detection With
AVO,” page 42 ). In the East Breaks exam-
ple, the most promising prospect is a large,
sandy basin floor fan. Shales interpreted
above and below could provide seal and
source rock, respectively.
10. Bowman SA and Vail PR: “Computer Simulation of
Stratigraphy,” American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin (1993): in preparation.
11. A check shot is a wireline survey that checks the
seismic travel time from the surface to a chosen
miles

depth in a well. Depths are chosen from logs. A geo-

phone is conveyed by wireline to the desired depth
and a seismic source is set off at the surface. The
travel time is recorded and doubled to compare with
the surface seismic travel time.

January 1993
1

shown are not necessarily from the same sequence, which is why D appears stratigraphically above E.

the depositional environment. Paleodepth is

derived from benthic fossils with known
depth habitats (next page top, right curve ).
Knowing water depth helps to interpret deep
or shallow water rock types and expected
layer thicknesses.
Once seismic, log and biostratigraphic
data are combined, a final, color-coded
interpreted section is made. Very high
Overcoming Limitations of Sequence
Stratigraphy
Sequence stratigraphy has proven useful for
petroleum exploration, but it is commonly
misapplied. 13 There is controversy over
whether the technique can be applied to
carbonate systems since it was designed to
explain sand-shale systems. Some experts
maintain that sequence stratigraphy is easier
in carbonates because carbonates are
extremely sensitive to sea level change.14
There is unanimous agreement, however,
that low sedimentation rates often pose spe-
cial problems. When sedimentation rate is
moderate to high, layers within a sequence
are tens to hundreds of meters thick, com-
fortably within the resolving power of a typ-
ical seismic wave (next page, bottom ). But

12. For an integrated biostratigraphic study:

SP

Bell DG, Selnes H, Bjorøy M, Grogan P, Kilenyi T

and Trayner P: “Better Prospect Evaluation with
Organic Geochemistry, Biostratigraphy and Seismics,”
Oilfield Review 2, no. 1 (January 1990): 24-42.
13. Posamentier HW and James DP: “An Overview of
Sequence Stratigraphic Concepts: Uses and Abuses,”
in Posamentier HW, Summerhayes CP, Haq BU and
Allen GP (eds): Stratigraphy and Facies Associations
in a Sequence Stratigraphic Framework, Interna-
Fossils

Nanno

tional Association of Sedimentologists Special Publi-

cation, 1992.
H. sellii

C. macintyrei

G. miocenica

D. tamalis

Foram

nEast Breaks, offshore Texas, seismic line with sequence components interpreted in color, SP log and fossil abundance curves. Block
diagrams from page 53 point to representative examples on the section. This seismic section has nine sequences. Sequence components

TEXAS

G U L F

East Breaks

0
0 km
O F

miles
D

1.0

Time, sec
2.0

3.0

LOUISIANA

100
161

when sedimentation rate is low, several

sequences might fit within a seismic wave-
length. Sequence stratigraphy cannot be
confidently applied here, but it has been
3000

4000

5000

6000

M E X

done countless times. A useful interpretation

in thinly-bedded regions requires abandon-

14. Vail P, Audemard F, Bowman SA, Eisner PN and

Depth, ft
I C O

Green Canyon

Perez-Cruz C: “The Stratigraphic Signatures of Tec-

tonics, Eustasy and Sedimentology—An Overview,”
in Einsele G et al. (eds): Cycles and Events in Stratig-
raphy. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag (1991):
617-659.

57
 Plankton nTypical Gulf of
Depth, ft Mexico fossil abun-
Foram Nannofossil Paleodepth dance peaks and
abundance abundance ft x 100 paleodepth curve.
1 6 30 Fossil abundance
3000
curves based on
H. sellii analysis of cuttings
for foraminifera—
protozoa with cal-
C. macintyrei careous external
5000 skeletons—and
D. brouweri nannofossils, a
broad category of
D. brouweri “A” extremely small,
usually algal fossils.
7000 G. miocenica Peaks indicate the
D. pentaradiatus presence of shales
at the top of the
slope fan complex
(brown) and at
9000 maximum sea
level (green). The
H. emaciatum D. tamalis
right curve indi-
cates fossil habitat
depth, in which
11000 dark blue is deep
water and light
blue is shallower.
13000
(?) R. pseudoumbilica
High sedimentation rate Distance, km
0 30 60
0
Depth, m
ing small-scale features and concentrating
on larger scale, longer term processes that
control the generation of sequences.
With this in mind, Vail and coworkers
proposed a hierarchy of stratigraphic cycles
based on duration and amount of sea level
change. 14 Duval and Cramez at TOTAL
Exploration worked with Vail to provide
subsurface examples and to expand the
application to hydrocarbon exploration.15
The hierarchy assigns frequencies to the
mechanisms of eustasy enumerated by Fair-
bridge (page 52), viewed in light of plate
tectonics (next page, top). The first-order
cycle, which is the longest, tracks creation
of new shorelines resulting from the
breakup of the continents. Although this
breakup does not follow a cycle, it has hap-
pened twice, with a duration of over 50 mil-
lion years. The second-order cycle is land-
ward and basinward oscillation of the
shoreline that lasts 3 to 50 million years.
This oscillation is produced by changes in
the rate of tectonic subsidence and uplift,
caused by changes in rates of plate motion.
Both first- and second-order cycles may
cause changes in the volume of the ocean
basins resulting in long-term variations in
global sea level. The third-order cycle is the
sequence cycle, lasting 0.5 to 3 million
years. Fourth- and higher order cycles may
be correlated with periodic climatic changes.
The following example, with its low

deposition rate, approaches the limit of

interpretation in terms of third-order cycles.
It comes from the Outer Moray Firth basin
600 in the UK sector of the North Sea, where the
initial basin shape, tectonic activity and
variation in the rate of deposition add a
Low sedimentation rate
0 30 60 twist to the interpretation (pages 60-61).
0 Stratigraphic interpretation of the last 65
million years of sediments in the Outer
Moray Firth is more difficult than in the Gulf
Depth, m

of Mexico because slower deposition in the

Central North Sea resulted in thinner units,
many of which cannot be resolved by seis-
600 mic waves. During this period, the Outer
Moray Firth has 17 sequences totaling 5000
nHigh (top) and low (bottom) sedimentation rates, shown on synthetic sequences. The feet [1524 meters] of sediments (pages 60-
basic shape of each layer follows the initial basin shape, but layer thickness varies 61, middle and bottom ), compared to the
with sedimentation rate. Only thick layers can be resolved with seismic methods. Gulf Coast, with 10 sequences totaling 9000
ft [2750 m]. In the North Sea, however,
depositional processes juxtaposed a variety
of lithologies, providing reliable calibration
points for accurate conversion of logs from

58 Oilfield Review
 1 order Continental breakup
depth to time using synthetic seismograms nHierarchy of
cycles, decreasing
(right, bottom ). In the Gulf of Mexico, this downward in the
conversion is typically done with only duration of sea
nearby checkshots; sands and shales com- level change and

> 50 Ma
monly show periodic alternation with depth in area of influence.
at wavelengths that make comparisons At the top, the first-
order cycle lasts at
between seismic sections and synthetic seis- least 50 million
mograms nonunique. years and is
Stratigraphic study is always preceded by caused by major
structural interpretation. In addition, a pale- changes in the con-

Increasing time
figuration of tec-
ogeographic interpretation of the Outer 2nd order— Movement of shoreline tonic plates. The
Moray Firth shows that late in the Creta- second-order cycle,
ceous period—when the sequences under Basinward lasting 3 to 50 mil-
study began to be deposited—a smooth lion years, is also
basin floor sloped gently from northwest to controlled by plate
motion. It involves
southeast. During a relative fall in sea level, Landward movement of the

3-50 Ma
sediments were deposited as slope fans. shoreline landward
Their seismic expressions indicate lobes and basinward, on
with channels and some chaotic flows— the scale of conti-
nents. The white
large-scale slumps with jumbled seismic area shows the
character. As sea level rose, a wedge of out- time in which there
building deltas was deposited. Sea level is no rock record,
maximum is associated with a depositional usually due to lack
hiatus, shown only as a thin line. Deposits of depostition. The
third-order cycle, of
synchronous with this surface may be found 3rd order— Sequence cycle 500,000 to 3 million
on what is now land in Europe, but in the years, is the
basin, sediments that correspond to periods sequence cycle
of high relative sea level are rare. described in the

0.5-3 Ma
main text. It is
Why are elements of the classic Vail caused by long-
model missing from this sequences in this term tectonic activ-

Increasing thickness
basin? One explanation is the competing ity and short-term
influences of tectonic uplift and sea level global sea level
change. As global sea level rose and fell, changes. Fourth-
and higher order
continual regional uplift kept the sea from 4th + order— Parasequence cycle (periodic) cycles, of 10,000 to
reaching levels high enough to allow forma- 500,000 years, are

0.01-0.5 Ma
tion of units typical of high relative sea of shortest duration.
level. Only once, at the top of the third They are driven by
sea level changes
sequence, does a thin layer of high relative caused by periodic
sea level sediments appear (orange). climatic variation.
Another interpretation is that thin, high rela- Distance Cycles of this order
tive sea level sediments were deposited, but are called parase-
eroded, and so are not preserved in the sec- quence cycles.
tion (pages 60-61, bottom ).
A B
W E
15. Duval B, Cramez C and Vail P: “Types & Hierarchy 0 nSynthetic seismo-
of Stratigraphic Cycles,” presented at the Interna- grams and gamma
tional Symposium on Mesozoic and Cenozoic ray logs from two
Sequence Stratigraphy of European Basins, Dijon, wells tying with the
France, May 18-20, 1992. Outer Moray Firth
seismic line. Syn-
thetics, based on
sonic and density
logs, provide a
depth-to-time corre-
lation for integra-
1.0
Time, sec

tion of log, paleo

and seismic data.
(Courtesy of Amoco UK.)

2.0

January 1993 59

Synthetic Gamma 0 km 5
ray
 W Raw seismic
This section can also be interpreted in
terms of second-order cycles (page 62, top ).
0
The entire set of 17 depositional sequences
can be bracketed by five second-order
cycles, based on physical stratigraphy and
biostratigraphy. Major biostratigraphic gaps
exist at the boundaries of each second-order
cycle, and the boundaries can be seen to

Time, sec
represent major changes in the depositional
style of basin fill.

Studies in 3D
If the volume of earth in a study area is
small enough, workstations can add a new
dimension to sequence stratigraphy. In the
Green Canyon area of the Gulf of Mexico,
interpreters concentrated on a fan deposited
4
in a syncline on the continental slope 1 to 2
million years ago. Regional sequence
Interpreted seismic
stratigraphy was established using 2D seis-
mic data and paleontologic control from six
nearby wells. Zooming in on a subset of this 0
data, interpreters assembled a series of 2D
panels for 3D interpretation.
The top and base of the slope fan were
interpreted over a six-block area (54 square Time, sec
miles [138 km2]). The thickest part of the
slope fan coincides with the stacked chan-
nels that carried shallow-water shelf and
delta sands into deep water, greater than
200 m [656 ft] (page 62, middle ). A series of
stacked channels, possibly filled with sand,
is visible within the slope fan interval.
The goal of this interpretation is to identify
exploration targets. Although lithology of the
4
channel deposits is difficult to identify in the
horizon slice, geology predicts that the chan- Geologic cross section
nel will terminate in a sand-rich fan.16 The 0
channel was tracked south, and a fan was
discovered in the next block of seismic data.

16. A horizon is the surface separating two rock layers.

In seismic data, a horizon shows up as a reflection.
A reflection tracked in a 3D cube of seismic data
Depth, m

and displayed in plan view is called a horizon slice.

Depths or times to the reflection are contoured or
color-coded.

7000

60 Oilfield Review
 E E

0 km 10

nComparison of seismic and log data from the Moray Firth, North Sea, including the original seismic line (top), the interpreted line (mid-
dle) and the geologic cross section with gamma ray logs. Permian and Carboniferous basement (green) are followed by Jurassic to
Lower Cretaceous sediments (purple). Both show evidence of rifting during and after deposition. In the Upper Cretaceous, chalk (blue)
filled the earlier rifts. The chalk was deposited in open marine conditions, with no land exposed nearby. On the left (west) edge, a Pale-
ocene (Danian) chalk debris flow appears as a chaotic zone on top of the earlier chalk. Basin relief was minimal and sea level was high
at the onset of the first sequence in the Tertiary. Low relative sea level deposits—slope fans and chaotic flows—are brown (color conven-
tion is the same as in the Gulf of Mexico example). River deltas building out during low relative sea level are pink. Sea level maxima
appear as thin green lines.

January 1993 61
W E
Lower
Paleocene
nOuter Moray Firth data reinterpreted in terms of second-order cycles. Basinward movement of the shoreline is orange and landward
movement is green. Colors correspond to second-order cycles (page 59, top).
TEXAS LOUISIANA
G U L F O F
M E X
I C O
East Breaks
Green Canyon
0 miles 100
0 km 161
nSeismic line and horizon slice from a
cube of 3D data in Green Canyon, offshore
Louisiana. The top (yellow line) and bottom
(red) of a slope fan were interpreted using
sequence stratigraphy. A stack of subma-
rine channels can be seen in the seismic
line (oval). Normally, channels like these
would be difficult to track, but in 3D the
task is simple. The 3D data can be flat-
tened at the top of the fan, and sliced hori-
zontally to reveal a map (bottom). Here, the
channel can be seen to meander from
north to south around an emerging salt
dome. A slump off the flank of the salt (cir-
cle) has fallen into the channel. This chan-
nel was tracked to the next block south,
where it terminated in a slope fan lobe,
predicted to be sandy.
17. Posamentier HW, Allen GP and James DP: “High
Resolution Sequence Stratigraphy—The East Coulee
Delta, Alberta,” Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 62
(1992): 310-317.
18. Jacquin T, Garcia J-P, Ponsot C, Thierry J and Vail PR:
“Séquences de Dépôt et Cycles Régressif/Transgres-
sifs en Domaine Marin Carbonaté: Exemple du Dog-
ger du Bassin de Paris,” Contes Rendues de
l’Académie des Sciences de Paris 315 (1992): 353-
362.
62
Lower Eocene
Upper
Paleocene
Cross section
Horizon slice
Salt
19. Galloway WE: “Genetic Stratigraphic Sequences in
Basin Analysis I: Architecture and Genesis of Flood-
ing-Surface Bounded Depositional Units,” American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 73, no.
2 (February 1989): 125-142.
20. Sloss LL: “Tectonics—The Primary Control on
Sequence Stratigraphy: A Countervailing View,” Dis-
tinguished Lecture Tours Abstracts, American Asso-
ciation of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 74, no. 11
(November 1990): 1774.
21. Hag BU: “Ten Commandments for Sequence Stratig-
raphers,” presented at the International Symposium
on Mesozoic and Cenozoic Sequence Stratigraphy
of European Basins, Dijon, France, May 18-20,
1992.
Middle Eocene Lower Oligocene
Frontiers
Sequence stratigraphy continues to evolve.
One area of investigation is high-resolution
sequence stratigraphy, which is performed
at a higher resolution than seismic wave-
lengths, usually with log and outcrop stud-
ies. ARCO, TOTAL and Esso scientists per-
formed a very high-resolution sequence
stratigraphy study on a roadside ditch,
which served as an analog of an incised val-
ley and delta system. The system measured
only 50 cm [20 in.] from bottom to top but
obeyed the same physical laws as systems
hundreds of meters thick.17
Sequence stratigraphy is achieving some
success in areas where it was not designed
to work. Studies in carbonates show that
although the depositional layering patterns
are different from sand-shale systems, the
technique has the power to explain and pre-
dict sediment distribution and lithologic
content.18 Sequence stratigraphy has also
been applied with success to nonmarine
deposits in continental basins and in marine
basins isolated from continental sediments.
Sequence stratigraphy, as proposed by the
Exxon group, is not without controversy.
Some alternative schemes to explain
sequences place more emphasis on sedi-
ment supply19 or tectonic activity.20 What-
ever their area of expertise, stratigraphers
agree on the main problem in sequence
stratigraphy—overextending the model to fit
every study area. Bilal Haq, while at the
National Science Foundation in the USA,
compiled ten commandments for sequence
stratigraphers21 and Henry Posamentier of
ARCO Oil and Gas Company has written
on the uses and abuses of the technique.13
They approach the subject from different
perspectives, but their message is the
same—where sequence stratigraphy works,
use it; if it doesn’t work, the problem is with
the application, not the theory. —LS
Oilfield Review