| 
           
         
        
        
        
        uAbstract 
        
        
        
          
        
        uFigures 
        1-5 
        
        
        
        uMethodology 
        
        
        
          
        
        uFigures 
        6-14 
        
        
        
          
        
        uAttributes 
        in porosity prediction 
        
        
        
          
        
        uFigures 
        15-17 
        
        
        
        uConclusions 
        
        
        
        uReferences 
        
        
        
        uAcknowledgments 
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
         
        
        
        
        uAbstract 
        
        
        
          
        
        uFigures 
        1-5 
        
        
        
        uMethodology 
        
        
        
          
        
        uFigures 
        6-14 
        
        
        
          
        
        uAttributes 
        in porosity prediction 
        
        
        
          
        
        uFigures 
        15-17 
        
        
        
        uConclusions 
        
        
        
        uReferences 
        
        
        
        uAcknowledgments 
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
         
        
        
        
        uAbstract 
        
        
        
          
        
        uFigures 
        1-5 
        
        
        
        uMethodology 
        
        
        
          
        
        uFigures 
        6-14 
        
        
        
          
        
        uAttributes 
        in porosity prediction 
        
        
        
          
        
        uFigures 
        15-17 
        
        
        
        uConclusions 
        
        
        
        uReferences 
        
        
        
        uAcknowledgments 
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
         
        
        
        
        uAbstract 
        
        
        
          
        
        uFigures 
        1-5 
        
        
        
        uMethodology 
        
        
        
          
        
        uFigures 
        6-14 
        
        
        
          
        
        uAttributes 
        in porosity prediction 
        
        
        
          
        
        uFigures 
        15-17 
        
        
        
        uConclusions 
        
        
        
        uReferences 
        
        
        
        uAcknowledgments 
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
         
        
        
        
        uAbstract 
        
        
        
          
        
        uFigures 
        1-5 
        
        
        
        uMethodology 
        
        
        
          
        
        uFigures 
        6-14 
        
        
        
          
        
        uAttributes 
        in porosity prediction 
        
        
        
          
        
        uFigures 
        15-17 
        
        
        
        uConclusions 
        
        
        
        uReferences 
        
        
        
        uAcknowledgments 
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
         
        
        
        
        uAbstract 
        
        
        
          
        
        uFigures 
        1-5 
        
        
        
        uMethodology 
        
        
        
          
        
        uFigures 
        6-14 
        
        
        
          
        
        uAttributes 
        in porosity prediction 
        
        
        
          
        
        uFigures 
        15-17 
        
        
        
        uConclusions 
        
        
        
        uReferences 
        
        
        
        uAcknowledgments 
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
         | 
      
        
        
         
        Return to top.  
          
        
        
        The following steps were taken in the 
        completion of this study: First, the horizons were picked in the well 
        logs; then synthetic seismograms were created to tie the wells to the 
        seismic data. The horizons were then picked in the seismic data, and 
        faults were mapped using a combination of coherency and conventional 
        amplitude seismic displays; the resulting structural features were 
        analyzed. We sought to create a porosity volume for the Trenton-Black 
        River interval using the total average porosity (PHIA), which was 
        generated from the average of the density-porosity and neutron-porosity 
        logs. We used the methodology of Hampson et al. (2001) to identify the 
        best combination of attributes for predicting PHIA. We then trained a 
        neural network to convert the seismic amplitude data to a porosity 
        volume. The porosity volume was combined with the fault mapping in order 
        to examine relationships between porosity and structural features. 
        
          
        
        
        Figure Captions 
        (6-14)  
        
          
            
              | 
               
              
                 | 
              
               
              Figure 6. A schematic diagram of the 
              workflow followed during this study (adapted from Pearson and 
              Hart, 2004)  | 
             
            
              | 
               
              
                 | 
              
               
              Figure 7. a). Stratal slice through 
              the coherency volume 18ms above the Top Basement horizon, with 
              highly coherent reflections shown in white and less coherent in 
              black. The sinuous nature of the basement fault can be seen, along 
              with the step-over faults to the north and south. b). Inline 93 is 
              a transect through one of the positive flower structures that was 
              mapped.    | 
             
            
              | 
               
              
                 | 
              
               
              Figure 8. a). A simplified block 
              diagram of helicoidal deformation above a single basement fault 
              (after Mandl, 1988). b). The main Riedel shear shown with the Top 
              Basement structure map; its helicoidal nature is apparent.  | 
             
            
              | 
               
              
                 | 
              
               
              Figure 9. The strain ellipse for 
              Saybrook, using the general strike-slip criteria that the primary 
              stress is oriented at 45 degrees to the direction of movement.  | 
             
            
              | 
               
              
                 | 
              
               
              Figure 10. Looking down the fault 
              system at Saybrook, at the Trempealeau level and above 
              (Trempealeau time structure is shown). The main synthetic Riedel 
              shear is light green, and the less developed Riedel shears are in 
              darker greens. The en echelon nature of these faults is apparent 
              from this angle, which appears to be consistent with the 
              generalized shear model presented in Figure 13.
              The inset to the 
              right shows the correct orientation of the entire fault zone in 
              3-D.  | 
             
            
              | 
               
              
                 | 
              
               
              Figure 11. Maximum curvature 
              extracted from the prestack Trenton horizon, draped over the 3D 
              surface. Negative curvature is seen in red and orange, while 
              positive curvature is in blue and green.
              The main fault ridge is 
              clearly a positive anomaly (convex-up), while well locations 
              (black dots) are located in small negative curvature anomalies 
              (concave-up) along the ridge.  | 
             
            
              | 
               
              
                 | 
              
               
              Figure 12. Paleogeographic 
              reconstruction from the Mid to Late Ordovician of southeast 
              Laurentia, showing the location of Taconic activity on the 
              northeast edge of the New York Promontory (after Ettensohn et al., 
              2002).  | 
             
            
              | 
               
              
                 | 
              
               
              Figure 13. A generalized left-lateral 
              Riedel shear model (rotated to have the same orientation as 
              Saybrook), in two stages of development: a) initially with
              only 
              synthetic Riedels (R) and b) later with antithetic (R') (adapted 
              from Mandl, 1988 and Ahlgren, 2001). The regularly spaced 
              extension along sub-seismic antithetic faults combined with minor 
              dip-slip movement may have helped to develop fluid migration 
              pathways.  | 
             
            
              | 
               
              
                 | 
              
               
              Figure 14. Graph showing the 
              prediction error and validation error for the multiattribute 
              analysis. While the validation error decreases slightly for
              predictions using 7 and 8 attributes, 6 is determined to be the 
              optimal number in order to avoid overtraining the data.  | 
             
           
         
        
          
        
        
        The attributes used in the porosity 
        prediction were: 
        
        RMS amplitude 
        
        Perigram 
        
        Reflection Strength 
        
        Derivative of Instantaneous Amplitude 
        
        Integrated Trace 
        
        Cosine of Instantaneous Phase 
        
          
        
        
        Figure Captions 
        (15-17)  
        
          
            
              | 
               
              
                 | 
              
               
              Figure 15. 
              a). The application of the neural network to the training data; 
              the average error was 0.96% and the correlation was 89%.
              The prediction closely matches the target 
              log (PHIA), except at the bottom of some of the wells where it 
              under-predicted the values. b). 
              Crossplot of the predicted versus the actual values of porosity. 
              The high number of data points is indicative of a volume-based 
              approach, which gives more statistically significant results 
              (Hampson et al., 2001).  | 
             
            
              | 
               
              
                 | 
              
               
              Figure 16. a),b). By exporting the 
              created porosity volume into a program that allowed the faults and 
              seismic to be viewed together in 3-D, it was possible better to 
              visualize the relationship between the faults and the predicted 
              porosity. Values below about 5% porosity were made transparent so 
              that the high-porosity (producing) areas could be highlighted. 
              While some noise was predicted by the analysis, c) especially on 
              the edges of the survey, in general the porosity is closely 
              associated with the mapped fault network. The highest porosity 
              values are also concentrated in the areas of intense faulting, 
              especially where the flower structures are located.
              It was also 
              apparent that although the main fault trend continues at about 122o 
              –302 o, the porosity development did not continue with 
              the trend. Instead the porosity is better developed along the NW 
              left-lateral step-over fault (Figure 7)
              that trends 105 o 
              -285 o, where there is also a small flower structure.  | 
             
            
              | 
               
              
                 | 
              
               
              Figure 17. a). Transects through the 
              porosity volume; high porosity is shown in dark reds, while low 
              porosity is in dark blue and black. The volume was only generated 
              for the interval from the top of the Trenton to the Trempealeau 
              horizon. Inline 93 through the porosity volume with Strong UN #1 
              shown and Inline 33 with the productive Downes #3 on the left and 
              the non-productive Downes #2 on the right. The porosity 
              development is greatest in the areas between the limbs of the 
              flower structures. b). For comparison, the same inlines are shown 
              in the reflection seismic volume.    | 
             
           
         
        
          
        
        
        The Saybrook fault system is consistent 
        with a left lateral strike-slip model, with the main fault movement 
        accommodated by synthetic Riedel shears. Fluid migration may have been 
        aided by the development of antithetic Riedel shears that formed between 
        the overlapping synthetic Riedel shears (flower structures). This 
        hypothesis is supported by the porosity prediction using seismic 
        attributes that illustrated a clear relationship between high porosity 
        values and areas where there are flower structures in the fault zone.  
        
        Through the combined use of seismic 
        attributes and fault mapping in 3-D, it is apparent that faulting is one 
        of the key controls on dolomitization, and hence porosity development at 
        the Saybrook Field. For plays similar to Saybrook in which the reservoir 
        development is related to a strike-slip fault environment, detailed 
        fault mapping should help to illuminate the impact these structures have 
        had on reservoir development.  
        
          
        
        
        Ahlgren, S.G., 2001, The 
        nucleation and evolution of Riedel shear zones as deformation bands in 
        porous sandstone: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 23, p. 1203-1214. 
        
        Ettensohn, F.R., J.C. Hohman, 
        M.A. Kulp, and N. Rast, 2002, Evidence and implications of possible 
        far-field responses to Taconian Orogeny: Middle-Late Ordovician 
        Lexington Platform and Sebree Trough, east-central United States: 
        Southeastern Geology, v. 41, p. 1- 36. 
        
        Hampson, D.P., J.S. Schuelke, 
        and J.A. Quirein, 2001, Use of multi- attribute transforms to predict 
        log properties from seismic data: Geophysics, v. 66, p. 220-236. 
        
        Larsen, G.E., 2000 (Hull, 
        D.N., 1990, chief compiler), Generalized column of bedrock units in 
        Ohio: http://www.ohiodnr.com/geosurvey/pdf/stratcol.pdf. 
        
        Mandl, G., 1988, Mechanics 
        of tectonic faulting: Models and basic concepts: Elsevier: Amsterdam, 
        Netherlands, 407p. 
        
        Middleton, K., M. Coniglio, 
        R. Sherlock, and S. Frape, 1993, Dolomitization of Middle Ordovician 
        carbonate reservoirs, southwestern Ontario: Bulletin of Canadian 
        Petroleum Geology, v. 41, p. 150-163. 
        
        Pearson, R.A., and B.S. 
        Hart, 2004 (in press), 3-D seismic attributes help define controls on 
        reservoir development: Case study from the Red River Formation, 
        Williston Basin, in G.P. Eberli, J.L. Masaferro, and J.F. Sarg, 
        eds., Seismic imaging of carbonate reservoirs and systems: American 
        Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 81. 
        
          
        
        
        We thank Pete MacKenzie, formerly with CGAS 
        Inc. for supplying the data used in this project. Funding was provided 
        by an NSERC Discovery Grant to Hart. Software was furnished by Landmark 
        Graphics Corp. and Hampson-Russell Software Services. 
         Return to top.
         
       |