FOCUS ARTICLE

Coordinated by Amanda Knowles / Rob Holt

Articulating the time, cost, and benefits of a

seismic processing project
Lee Hunt, P. Geoph.
J U PI T E R R E SO U R C E S I N C ., C A LG A RY, A L B E R TA

The net value of seismic is measured in various ways, but

is usually reduced to a calculation of what additional
economic benefit we expect to gain from the seismic information,
weighed against the cost of the seismic information itself. The costs of
the seismic are typically assumed to be quite small, and our focus in
measuring the value of the seismic thus often ignores the supposedly
insignificant cost side of the problem. That human resource of time
is also often also ignored. We forget to ask, “how long will it take to
obtain the seismic information?” And of course there are many kinds Figure 1. Expected value per well as the reliability of seismic changes. From Hunt (2013).
of seismic information we can aim to produce. We could shoot or buy
several different kinds of seismic data. We could process the seismic net present values. On the business line, this question of reliability is
data in a variety of ways, some of which cost more and take longer to often the only variable geophysicists can affect. Reliability thus becomes
produce. What processing should we invest in? How long will it take? the Raison d’être for many working geophysicists.
How can these choices affect our business outcomes? Let us take a
few moments and think about the cost of seismic and the time it takes Reliability has many meanings
to process the seismic data to fit our purposes. Hopefully by following
If improving seismic reliability is the thing that geophysicists are most
this line of thinking, we will lay out some general guidelines that could
directly responsible for, then let us talk about reliability in greater
be of illustrative use when discussing seismic processing projects.
detail. Reliability means many things. Ultimately, reliability has to do
with how accurately the seismic can predict a geologic outcome. It can
Decision analysis and reliability as the be measured with statistics. So we might think that reliability is only
geophysicists’ responsibility concerned with certainty, or signal to noise, or resolution. Of course
all of these things are elements of reliability, but reliability is also as
The formal science of decision making is called Decision Analysis,
much determined by another concept, that of relevance. Even high
and was discussed for seismic data in Hunt (2013). The outcome of a
signal to noise, perfectly sampled and resolved PP stacked seismic
decision analysis exercise for seismic information was shown to depend
data will have little reliability in discriminating some sands from shales,
upon many things, including: the difference in net present value of the
or some porous reefs from some argillaceous basinal shales if their
outcomes, the ultimate distribution of the outcomes, and the reliability
acoustic impedance and thickness are the same. These geologic
of the seismic data. The first two of these controlling variables are
outcomes, as different as they are in so many ways, are non-unique to
area dependent, and are key determiners of economic success for
the acoustic image of seismic data no matter how good its signal to
a company. Successful teams choose areas in which the economic
noise ratio is. We can spend 10,000 hours and 10,000,000 dollars with
outcomes can be highly beneficial, and occur commonly within the area,
that kind of seismic data and not help our science or our business.
or over a great scale. As obvious as that is, finding an advantage in the
If our techniques are non-unique, they are not relevant, and if they
first two factors is a key and sometimes tricky element of positioning
are not relevant they are not reliable. It follows that one of the crucial
that not everyone succeeds at. Once an area has been chosen, and
things that geophysicists must do is determine the most relevant
the work begins, the last variable, the seismic reliability comes to the
seismic properties to invest in. In the VIG Doodletrain course, the
forefront. The greater the reliability of the seismic, the more favourable
decision analysis term reliability is broken up into two terms: relevancy-
the economics of its use becomes. Figure 1, from Hunt (2013), shows
meaning how well and uniquely a property addresses the geologic
how the expected net present value changes in a resource play example
and economic outcome being sought, and reliability- meaning the
as seismic reliability changed. At very high seismic reliability, the net
accuracy of the data for that property.
present value increases dramatically, while for lower values of reliability
there is some cross-over point where using the seismic results in lower Decision analysis reliability = relevancy and reliability (accuracy)

28 C SEG RECORDER MARCH 2 015

Relevancy insurance: specialization
and integration
For as many times in the VIG columns of 2013 and 2014 as someone
said we need to be integrated, they could also have said that we need
to be specialized experts. In order to address relevance, we must be
able to put a foot into both worlds: we will often have to be both good
integrated team-mates, and good physicists. Ken Matson at the first
of the 2014 University of Alberta talk series seminars pointed out that
some problems actually require that we know our physics, and know it
deeply and well. Ken was referring to a specific problem in modeling,
but he was also right in general. We do need to understand our
physics to know what might be the most relevant property to invest in
or how to process the data for better reliability (accuracy). Even if we
cannot be specialized in every aspect of geophysics, we had better
know someone who is an expert and we had better know enough to
reach out to that person and articulate the problem at hand. On the
other hand, all those VIG columnists were not wrong in suggesting
we need to be integrated. We do need to work with our colleagues in
engineering or geology to understand the play parameters so that we
can think about what really is relevant and how we can apply ourselves
to address it. Integration is not really a magic word; it is as simple as
actually working with our peers and sharing the question of relevance
and data with them. In order to manage the problem of relevance, we
have to reach into the multi-disciplinary world and we have to know
enough about our own discipline. To those who say we cannot be both
broad and deep, the advice here is that we have to be broad enough
and deep enough. We have to reach out like butter to cover the whole
toast, and we had better be deep enough to make it taste good.
Reliability and processing for accurate
properties: the benefits
There are many things that we can do with seismic data, but the
aims of the work are to achieve economically beneficial knowledge.
Choosing relevant properties and processing them to maximum
reliability are how we achieve those benefits. This relationship is causal
as evidenced by the application of decision analysis. This causal
relationship justifies the simple approach that we take in this note,
which is to directly consider the benefits of the work to come from
increases in reliability and relevance. It is reasonable to wonder if this
argument has been demonstrated by case study. The VIG Doodletrain
course illustrated several examples of this reliability/relevance-eco-
nomic relationship. One example of relevance, reliability and economic
benefit has played out in recent Canadian literature: that of the Viking
play, interpolation, pre-stack imaging, and amplitude versus offset
(AVO) analysis that was first published in Hunt et al (2008). This work
followed the argument that:
•• If interpolation improved the kinematics of pre-stack
migration, then
•• It must enable the production of more reliable pre-stack image
gathers, and then
•• AVO analysis on such gathers would yield more reliable
elastic properties
The reliability of the gathers and AVO results to predict Viking gas
sand reservoir quality was discussed in several papers including
Hunt et al (2008 and 2010). The economic benefits of the work were
first estimated in Hunt et al (2012b), which was part of the 2011/2012
CSEG Distinguished Lecture Tour. Those benefits were estimated
by comparing wells drilled without seismic versus wells drilled with
less reliable seismic processing (no interpolation) and less relevant
techniques (stack amplitudes) versus wells drilled with the more
relevant and reliable interpolation-imaging-AVO method. The differ-
ences in value were estimated in the millions of dollars per well using
the natural gas price deck of the time. Reliability and relevance caused
economic benefit.
The key properties that we might
process for
Hunt et al (2012a), proposed the notion that there are only a few
fundamental seismic properties that can be produced from seismic
data, along with many measures of those properties which could be
called their attributes. Our concern now is primarily with those few key
seismic properties. This discussion does not benefit from an exhaus-
tive exploration of all of the properties that could be produced. Our
illustration is best made as simple as it can be while also making a
reasonable representation of the common major properties. This
illustration will be land-centric and tuned to the Canadian Deep Basin
in particular. For the sake of illustrative simplicity, we also lump the
properties to key processing milestones. Our key properties are:
1. Stack. This heading refers to a time migrated and stacked image.
In our example, the data is 5D interpolated and pre-stack migrated
under an AVO compliant processing flow. Reprocessing projects
may be initiated with the goal of producing higher reliability of the
stack or of the AVO compliant gathers produced at this stage in
the processing.
2. Curvature and Coherence. This heading represents any and all of
the myriad of the volumetric structural attributes that are readily
available today. These measures, somewhere between being
a property and an attribute, are commonly estimated from the
migrated stack (#1).
3. Diffraction Imaging. This represents a twist on migration where the
kinematics of faults, fractures, and edges are used to image these
features from the wavefield as opposed to the rest of the more
continuous reflectors. See Edie and Negut (2014).
4. AVO. This represents AVO analysis and AVO inversion of compres-
sional seismic data, together with all of the many elastic properties
that may result from such work.
Continued on Page 30
MARCH 2 015 C SEG RECORDER 29
FOCUS ARTICLE

Continued from Page 29

5. Azimuthal. This represents azimuthal

AVO and azimuthal velocity analysis of
compressional 3D seismic data.
6. 3C. This represents a full three component
3D seismic processing project, together
with the major properties that can be
currently estimated from it.

A general project
In Table 1, we lay out the time, cost, reliability,
and relevance of a 3D compressional seismic
processing project. The example is loosely
based on a recent deep basin project of the
Table 1. A summary illustration of key seismic properties, their reliability, relevance, cost, and time to produce.
author’s. The prices and time-lines have been
The illustration is generalized and simplified. Actual times, cost, value, relevance, and reliability will vary
modified to protect the confidentiality of the significantly. Increases in reliability and relevance are general indications of greater benefits by virtue of the
work that it is based upon. Modification was causal relationship between reliability and NPV in the decision analysis model we use. Relevance is given by a
made through discussion with several other qualitative coding based on the breadth of relevance.
processing company representatives who
shall not be named in this note. The modifi-
cations, simplifications, and generalizations
made here are necessary for several reasons:
the first being that we do not want this illus-
tration to be viable as a negotiating tool, to
negotiate for prices or timelines in current
projects. The second key reason for the
generalization and simplification here is that
a more detailed example would not serve our
purposes any better. Prices vary enormously
based on volume of work, the difficulty of that
work, the shot density of the 3D survey (which
we purposefully do not define) and other
factors. So, be warned prices and times can Table 2. A timeline or Gantt chart of key seismic properties. This illustration is general and simplified: actual
timelines will vary significantly. Color coding is arbitrary.
vary by more than a factor of two from this
example. A more detailed illustration would
not likely yield an improvement due to these Discussion
variances, so we have kept the picture simple.
It would not be of great surprise if Table 1 and Table 2 creates some discussion or even contro-
Despite this apology, the data in Table 1 is
versy. We might argue about whether any of the prices or times is way out or not. Of course
illustrative of a typical, current, deep basin
such things may vary; these prices and times are valid for the purposes being presented and we
reprocessing project.
suggest no one take them personally.
Table 2 is a Gantt chart illustration of the same
You can do it, too.
data as outline in Table 1. An actual seismic
Send in your own chart to illustrate time, cost, reliability and relevance.
reprocessing project would have a much more
detailed Gantt chart. This table is a reduc- The measures of reliability and relevance given qualitatively in Table 1 are more likely to generate
tion to our key properties and is probably as controversy. We have suggested that AVO has somewhat concerning reliability and that the
detailed as a geophysicist would typically azimuthal methods have very poor reliability. We stand by that assessment. Most deep basin 3D
need to take in to a business discussion. Note surveys are poorly sampled in offset and azimuth, making azimuthal studies, even with 5D inter-
how all of the properties except the 3C work polation, highly problematic. AVO analysis on these 3D surveys also have very poor near offsets,
follow the AVO compliant migrated stack. making AVO at least somewhat inaccurate. We do not suggest that AVO or azimuthal methods
should not be attempted because of their poorer reliability relative to (say) the stack, but we do
want to be clear that these properties are less reliable. Even if it seems pessimistic with respect to
these properties, being honest is important to the validity and credibility of our economic

30 C SEG RECORDER MARCH 2 015


arguments. This honesty is also crucial in
regards to directing us towards investing
in processes or acquisition that may yield
better reliability.
The economic reason to invest in some of the
less reliable properties is at times embedded
in their crucial relevance. AVO may be
somewhat less reliable than stack data, but it
is almost always of unequivocal relevance and
importance. Properties obtained from AVO
analysis, if reliable enough, are capable of
overcoming most of the classic non-unique-
ness problems of compressional seismic data.
Properties from AVO analysis are also crucial
in assessing resource play reservoirs, their
quality, and to some degree, their fracability.
Azimuthal methods may be worth investing
in despite their reliability problems because
of their potential to provide insights into
bedding, fracturing, and stress.
A key to understanding Table 1 is in identi-
fying what the technical and economic controls
are on the project at hand. If strain, faults,
or fractures are deemed to be relevant in a
project, then curvature, diffraction imaging,
and possibly azimuthal studies become
crucially important. While curvature/coherence
and diffraction imaging are not given broad
relevance, they are very relevant to certain
things such as strain, fracturing, faulting, and
other structural concerns.
Cost of processing
The cost side of processing is very low. The
“CUM % shoot” in Table 1 is the percentage of
the cumulative processing costs as compared
to the cost to shoot, and the “CUM % License”
is the percentage of the cumulative processing
costs as compared to the cost to license the 3D
data. Processing costs are low even compared
to the cost to license data where they typically
represent less than 10% of the licensing costs.
The low cost side is another reason, together
with relevance, to take a chance on the
reliability of some of the properties.
What about acquisition for
reliability and relevance?
This article does not consider the benefits of
superior acquisition. Similar arguments could
be made that acquisition can be designed
such that it yields more relevant properties.
Shooting a three component 3D seismic
program could be an example of this. 4D
••
seismic is another example that is relevant to
production monitoring, and should therefore
be considered when monitoring questions
are relevant. Greater reliability of any seismic
program can be achieved through more
optimal field parameters. We suggest that
it is better to acquire the original seismic
data such that it is well suited to produce
relevant and reliable properties than to
depend solely on processing. The greatest
reliability and relevance will be achieved with
a suitable acquisition type and geometry for
the economic problem, followed by the most
suitable processing.
Summary
This short note presents a simple illustration
of the costs, required time, reliability and
relevance of a project to process key seismic
properties. Reliability and relevance are argued
to be causally related to benefit, making this
illustration one of cost-benefit. While the
example presented was indeed simple, it may
provide a useful framework to discuss the
nature and cost-benefit of prospective projects
within a business setting or within a decision
analysis exercise.
References
Edie, C., Negut, D., 2014, Diffraction Imaging Case
Study- Slipping Through The Cracks: CSEG Convention
Abstracts, 1-4.
Hunt, L., H., Hadley, S., Hadley, M., Downton, J.,
Durrani, B., 2008, Interpolation, PSTM, AVO, and a Thin
Gas Charged Viking Shoreface in West Central Alberta,
CSEG Annual Convention.
Hunt, L., J. Downton, S. Reynolds, S. Hadley, D. Trad,
and M. Hadley, 2010, The effect of interpolation on
imaging and AVO: A Viking case study: Geophysics, 75,
6, WB265-WB274.
Hunt, L., R. Reynolds, S. Hadley, J. Downton, 2012a,
Quantitative Interpretation part I: method: CSEG
RECORDER, 37, 1, 7-17.
Hunt, L., R. Reynolds, S. Hadley, J. Downton, 2012b,
Quantitative Interpretation part II: case studies: CSEG
RECORDER, 37, 2, 44-54.
Hunt, L., 2013, Estimating the value of Geophysics:
decision analysis: CSEG RECORDER, 38, 5, 40-47.
Lee
Hunt
was the 2011/2012 CSEG Distinguished
Lecturer, and is one of the founding
members of the VIG steering committee.
Lee is an Ironman triathlete. He
graduated from the University of
Alberta with a B.Sc. in geophysics in
1990, after which he started his career
working for PanCanadian Petroleum
Ltd. His experience ranges from
interpretation to managing a business
unit, and he has conducted numerous
winter access only drilling campaigns
in NEBC and Northern Alberta. He has
drilled over 300 wells in most of the
play types within the Western Canadian
Sedimentary Basin. These drilling
experiences include heavy oil, shallow
gas, deep carbonate exploration, deep
basin, Peace River Arch, Saskatchewan
and Manitoba oil, and include vertical as
well as horizontal drilling. His work has
focussed on performing quantitative
analysis of multiple attenuation,
resolution enhancement, depth and geo-
hazard predictions, AVO, AVAz, VVAz,
curvature, and the prediction of fluid,
lithology, porosity, fracture treatment
characteristics, and production.
Lee and his co-authors won Excellence
of Oral Presentation for the 1997 SEPM
Convention, the 2000 CSEG Convention
Best Paper Award, the 2008 CSEG
Convention Best Geophysical Abstract,
the 2008 CSEG Best Technical Luncheon
Talk, the 2010 CSEG Convention Best
Geophysical Oral Presentation, the Best
Exploration Paper at VII INGPET in 2011,
Honorable Mention for Best Paper in The
Leading Edge in 2011, and Best Paper in
the CSEG RECORDER in 2011. He was a
participant in the creation of the CSEG
MLA, APEGGA’s Q.I. Practise Standard,
as well as APEGGA’s Guideline for the
Ethical Use of Geophysical Data.
MARCH 2 015 C SEG RECORDER 31