1

Better Understanding Wyoming Reservoirs

through Co-visualization and Analysis of 3D
Seismic, VSP and Engineering Data Teapot
Dome, Powder River Basin
1

MURRAY ROTH ,JEFF EMANUEL ,TOM ANDERSON

Transform Software and Services,4597 Swansboro Ct., Highlands Ranch,CO,80126,USA
2
Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center, 907 North Poplar, Casper,WY,80129,USA

Introduction
Unconventional gas reservoirs in the Rocky Mountains represent a tantalizing prize,
approaching 7,000 tcf of possible reserves, by some estimates. Current recovery factors in the
range of 1 to 2% present our industry with substantial field development and production
challenges. In many cases, well performance in this region is governed by fracture networks,
whether natural or induced. Production optimization for many of these wells and fields
requires an understanding of macro fault patterns and micro fracture density and orientation,
which are influenced by lithology, bed thickness, folding and other factors. A better
understanding of fault and fracture characteristics is also essential for development of Coal
Bed Methane reservoirs, enhanced oil recovery and CO2 sequestration projects. While,
emerging techniques are allowing us to extract relevant fault and fracture information from
seismic and other data, we are currently lacking the ability to co-visualize and interpret all
relevant information in a shared, multi-dimensional environment.
We illustrate the value of new, innovative multi-dimensional visualization techniques, using
data from a representative field in the Wyoming Powder River Basin. By combining 3D
seismic attributes, horizon and fault surfaces, VSP data, outcrop and core pictures, well log
data and a range of engineering information into a shared multi-dimensional context, we can
begin to expand our reservoir understanding. Optimized visual perspectives are used to
present individual data elements in a useful and meaningful manner, within a broader multidimensional context. By providing unique visual perspectives, that may be interactively
linked together, asset team members are able to see whatever data they wish, from any
orientation, within a fully collaborative environment. Multi-scale co-visualization is required
to present disparate E&P information together in a way that comprehends scales ranging from
miles down to fractions of an inch. Finally, use of the latest graphics technology and
computer gaming techniques, provides us with powerful ways to visualize multi-attribute,
multi-dimensional information, facilitating a greater understanding of E&P assets. Using
representative data and information from the Teapot Dome field near Casper, Wyoming; we
illustrate how new techniques for co-visualization and analysis are essential to support
integrated workflows for fault and fracture detection. These emerging workflows and
supporting tools have a tremendous capability to unlock the huge potential for petroleum
production in the Rocky Mountain region, and similar challenges globally.

Review of Teapot Dome Field

The Teapot Dome Field, managed by the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center (RMOTC)
provides a working field environment for testing a wide range of E&P technology. Teapot
Dome was originally established as Naval Petroleum Reserve #3 in 1915, with extensive
development of the field beginning in 1976. Production peaked in 1981 and has declined
RMAG/DGS 3D Seismic Symposium Denver, Colorado - 11 March, 2005

steadily to current marginal levels, prompting the US Department of Energy to convert the
field to a working laboratory. The Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center was created in
1992 to manage the Teapot Dome field and establish projects with industry and academia to
develop new E&P technologies.
While largely producing oil from nine different reservoir zones, the diverse geology and
distinctive structure of Teapot Dome provides insight into a number of reservoir
characterization and field development challenges in the US Rocky Mountain region. Teapot
Dome is an asymmetric, doubly plunging, basement-cored anticline (Cooper, et al 2001), with
dips of up to 30 degrees to the west and more gentle dips of up to 14 degrees to the east. The
fold hinge runs largely north-south, with a number of perpendicular oblique faults. The
anticlinal nature of the field is clear from surface photographs (Figure 1), showing a
distinctive outline of outcropping Parkman sandstones, encircling Steele shales of the Upper
Cretaceous. Petroleum producing intervals range from the Upper Cretaceous Shannon sands,
located a few hundred feet from the surface, to the Pennsylvanian Tensleep sands,
approximately a mile down. Outcrops, surface studies and in-situ measurements reveal
extensive fracturing at various zones, as anticipated from folding stresses. The flowing and
sealing characteristics of these fractures are significant for both petroleum flow and CO2
injection management, in a range of similar fields, including the adjacent Salt Creek anticline.

Contextual Quality Control

Integrating a broad suite of E&P information provides many challenges associated with
matching spatial and datum coordinates. However, co-visualization provides a tremendous
opportunity for establishing quality control of both information integrity and position, within
a multi-dimensional context. A direct benefit is reduced uncertainty in well positioning, a
critical issue as we seek to tap into more subtle reservoir features. From an economic
perspective, there is a huge incentive to discover information errors inside a visualization
environment, rather than uncovering our data errors with the drillbit. Contextual quality
control also provides the opportunity to identify key relationships between different types of
information. The ability to move elements such as surface photos and cultural data, within a
multi-dimensional context, can enhance understanding, such as the influence of surface
features on seismic data quality (Figure 2). In this study, contextual quality control was
essential for: integrating seismic data and interpretation from different sources; identifying
zones of seismic distortion and providing means to verify well positions and enhancing the
quality of time/depth information.

Optimized Visual Perspectives

The value of E&P co-visualization is not primarily in the amount of data that can be visually
integrated, but rather in the flexibility to visualize the most relevant information from an
optimized visual perspective. In a fault and fracture analysis workflow, it may be most
valuable to visualize seismic attributes as surface or slices, while at the same time viewing
well log and microseismic information in a zoomed, full 3D perspective (Figure 3).
Engineers, geologists and geophysicists can operate within a comfortable environment,
containing only the information they desire at either the same or different perspective relative
to the rest of the asset team. By providing unique visual perspectives, that may be
interactively linked together, asset team members are able to see whatever data they wish,
from any orientation, within a fully collaborative environment.

Multi-Scale Co-Visualization
Multi-scale co-visualization is required to present disparate E&P information together in a
way that comprehends scales ranging from miles down to fractions of an inch. The GIS
mapping industry provides a good model for emulation with dynamic resolution presentation
of satellite images. In E&P workflows we would expect similar dynamic resolution support
for not only surface images but a range of subsurface images. For this project, the ability to
scale the size of spatial spheres provides the flexibility to co-visualize microseismic data with
well log and seismic (figure 4).

Leveraging Technology Trends

Looking outside the E&P industry we see revolutionary technology advances being made in
the computer gaming and broader entertainment fields, and through automation of menial
tasks across many industries including manufacturing, automotive and retail. Using the
latest graphics technology and computer gaming techniques, provides us with powerful ways
to visualize multi-attribute, multi-dimensional information, facilitating a greater
understanding of E&P assets. For example, by co-rendering multiple seismic attributes in the
same 3D space, we can combine indicators of fault discontinuities with indicators of gas and
oil content (figure 5). Automation provides further opportunities by removing menial tasks
from the workflow and freeing precious asset team time for more valuable decision-making
activities.

Fracture Detection Workflow

Contextual quality control was performed on a wide range of information, from many sources,
including: surface images and maps, migrated seismic volume, seismic attribute volumes,
prestack seismic data, horizon and fault interpretation, VSP data, well log data including FMI,
and production data. Major fault trends were identified from surface photography and
outcrop analysis. Fracture density and orientation were determined from surface analysis
(Cooper, et al, 2001) and through outcrop analogs for subsurface layers. Semblance and
petroleum-indicator seismic attributes were created and used to validate and extend previous
horizon and fault interpretations. The sensitivity of the semblance data for detailed fault
mapping was explored using an automated fault detection technique. Automated seismic
velocity analysis was run using all the prestack seismic data, creating a dense, objective
velocity field. This velocity field was used to remigrate the seismic volume and to correlate
with the structural character and interpretation of the seismic data. Velocities were also
estimated for orthogonal source-receiver orientations to determine the data sensitivity for
detecting anisotropy effects related to fracture orientation and density.
Velocity and outcrop analogs were used to estimate fracture density and orientation for the
Tensleep sands, at a depth of approximately one mile. Formation micro imaging logs were
used to determine fracture orientation at specific well correlations, helping to validate
estimation from seismic and outcrop analysis. Preliminary VSP data was used to estimate
time/depth relationships in order to integrate seismic-based and well-based information.
Automated seismic velocities and sonic information was used to augment VSP time/depth
estimates. The VSP data was also analyzed for any fault/fracture indicators that might
provide greater resolution than the surface seismic data. Microseismic modeling was used to
predict patterns related to natural fracturing, as estimated from the surface and VSP data, FMI
logs and outcrop measurements. The product of this fracture detection workflow is a detailed
model of fault and fracture trends, encompassing all available E&P information.
RMAG/DGS 3D Seismic Symposium Denver, Colorado - 11 March, 2005

Conclusions
Integrated fault and fracture detection and modeling can provide a much better understanding
of reservoir characteristics that may influence fluid flow and production. These new
workflows leverage expertise across the entire asset team and use a wide range of remote and
in situ measurements, requiring new tools for visualization and analysis. With such a breadth
of E&P information, contextual quality control is essential for ensuring the accurate
positioning and integrity of all components. Asset team members need to be able to work
with the most appropriate information through optimized visual perspectives. Multi-scale
visualization is also essential for meaningful fusion of engineering, geology and geophysical
information.
Leveraging the latest graphics technology and computer gaming techniques, provides us with
powerful ways to visualize multi-attribute, multi-dimensional information, facilitating a
greater understanding of E&P assets. Furthermore, automation provides a consistent and
objective alternative to menial tasks associated with seismic velocity estimation and
interpretation of horizons, faults or reservoir bodies. The E&P challenges we face in the
Rocky Mountains, and elsewhere, demand a new generation of visualization and analysis
tools, providing the simplicity and flexibility to be tailored for our specific workflows, for use
by the entire asset team.

References
Cooper,S., Lorenz,J. and Goodwin,L., 2001, Lithologic and Structural Controls on Natural
Fracture Chracteristics Teapot Dome, Wyoming: Sandia Report SAND2001-1786.
Zhang, Q., Nummedal,D., Yin,P., 2004, Sequence stratigraphy and reservoir characterization
of the Tensleep Formation in Teapot Dome and central Wyoming, Poster, Institute for Energy
Research, Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Wyoming, Laramie.
Friedmann,J., et al, 2004, An induced CO2 leakage experiment: Prediction, execution, and
mitigation at Teapot Dome (NPR-3), Poster, Lawrence Livermore Natl. Laboratory, 7000 East
Ave, Livermore, CA 94550

Fig. 1. Aerial photo of the southern rim of

Teapot Dome (Photo by Scott Cooper)

Fig. 2. Comparison of seismic data quality with

surface features

Fig. 3. Seismic and seismic attributes in regional perspective and combination of surface, wellbore and
modeled microseismic data in zoomed perspective.

Fig. 4. Co-visualization of seismic, wellbore

and microseismic information

Fig. 5. Co-rendering seismic attributes for fault and

petroleum indication

Acknowledgements
Many thanks to everyone who contributed to this effort including: Gene Wadleigh of
Aflotech,LP, Kerry Stinson of Data Modeling Inc., Leron Wells of Seismic Ventures, Rick
Bogehold of Excel Geophysical Services, Inc., Tim McCutcheon of McCutcheon Energy Co.,
and the fine people at RMOTC, including Vicki Stamp, Mark Milliken and in particular Brian
Black, whose logistical support was essential for this project. Note, however, the views and
conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted
as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Government. Big
thanks to RMAG and DGS for the opportunity to present our work and to Transform Software
and Services and RMOTC for permission to publish our project results.
RMAG/DGS 3D Seismic Symposium Denver, Colorado - 11 March, 2005