Click to view article in PDF format.
GCThe Balance between Geophysics and Geology in
Seismic
Interpretation*
Alistair R. Brown1
Search and Discovery Article #40616 (2010)
Posted October 22, 2010
*Adapted from the Geophysical Corner column, prepared by the author and entitled "Balance between G&G is Critical," in AAPG Explorer, December, 2005. Appreciation is expressed to Alistair Brown, editor of Geophysical Corner, and to Larry Nation, AAPG Communications Director, for their support of this online version.
1Consulting reservoir geophysicist, Dallas, TX ([email protected])
Everyone is a product of his/her own experience. Hence geophysicists tend to favor geophysical methods and geologists tend to favor geological methods. It is only natural. However, we all know that the search for and development of oil and gas involves both disciplines. We all need to be geoscientists. We all need to meld geophysics and geology in an effective manner. We need to be integrated. I regularly have cause to admonish a course student of mine for "over-geologizing" the solution. He or she imposes a geological concept or model on the
seismic
interpretation rather than "letting the data speak." The majority of
seismic
interpreters come from a geological background, so they have to learn the intricacies of geophysics. With modern 3-D data there is a lot more to learn than there used to be. We have to appreciate the value of
seismic
amplitude, the resolution of the data, how to recognize data defects, the precision of workstation autotrackers, the complexities of
seismic
horizon identification, and the mystifying plethora of
seismic
attributes.
|
|
In a prospect in Latin America, a high amplitude was identified as a turbidite sand that had been recognized in a nearby well. The amplitude was mapped manually to indicate a prospective area of useful size. The geologically oriented interpreter made the map look like a turbidite because he had seen one before (Figure 1). He showed the map to his exploration manager and they agreed to drill a well at the location indicated. A more detailed geophysically oriented analysis of the high amplitude was then undertaken. All the data were used, the tracking was performed with a high-precision autotracker, and the horizon amplitude was extracted to produce a horizon slice. A simplified version of this is shown in Figure 2. Note that the initially proposed drilling location is now found to be in a local amplitude low, indicating that the turbidite sand here is thin or absent. Clearly the well needs to be relocated, as we believe that amplitude is a measure of porosity-thickness. Many The velocity function normally comes from a well velocity survey or a vertical The reservoir we wish to study in this example has good contrast at top and base; therefore, tying the well should be simple. If the reservoir is less than quarter-wavelength in thickness (as they so often are), the reflections from top and base cannot get close enough together so that they are both mislocated (Figure 3). The top reflection is early and the base reflection is late. The diagram in Figure 3 is drawn for perfect velocity, but we still do not use a simple depth-to-time tie to pick the top of the reservoir on the Let me give an example of how we could over-geologize the interpretation here. We want an amplitude to characterize this reservoir, and we have accurate picks on the top and base of the sand. We spot the top and base on the This tie is further complicated by data Knowledge of
Copyright © AAPG. Serial rights given by author. For all other rights contact author directly. |




