Pitfalls, Limitations, and Work-Arounds in Seismic Attribute Interpretation

Distinguishing Geology from Artifacts

Kurt J. Marfurt

The University of Oklahoma

Seismic attributes are routinely used to map faults and stratigraphy in 3D seismic data volumes.
Coherence delineate the edges of faulted strata, carbonate buildups, and channels, curvature delineates
folds and flexures, while spectral components delineate lateral changes in thickness and lithology.
Seismic attributes are at their best in extracting subtle and easy-to-overlook features on high-quality
seismic data. For this same reason, seismic attributes can also exacerbate otherwise subtle effects such
as acquisition footprint and velocity pull-up/push-down, as well as small processing and velocity errors
in seismic imaging. Thus, the chance that an interpreter will suffer a pitfall is inversely proportional to
his or her experience. Interpreters with a history of making conventional maps from vertical seismic
amplitude sections will have previously encountered problems associated with acquisition, processing,
and imaging. Because they know that attributes are a direct measure of the seismic amplitude data, they
are not surprised that such attributes accurately represent these familiar errors. Less experienced
interpreters may encounter these errors for the first time. Regardless of their level of experience, all
interpreters are faced with increasingly larger seismic data volumes in which seismic attributes become
valuable tools that aid in mapping and communicating geologic features of interest to their colleagues.
Attributes accurately map false structures introduced by seismic processing; they may also mix
features that belong to a shallower or deeper stratigraphic unit.

Even for high quality, properly imaged seismic data, coherence images often exhibit annoying stair step
artifacts when the faults are not perpendicular to the reflectors. This shortcoming turns out to be a
limitation in the bandwidth of the seismic data, with the height of the stair steps proportional to the
dominant period of the reflectors. In addition to the resolution of the seismic wavelet, selection of larger
vertical analysis windows can further mix vertically stacked stratigraphic features. Spectral components
measure apparent tuning associated with the apparent vertical thickness of dipping layers, and need to
be corrected to represent true thicknesses.

There are also limitations in commercial interpretation software. Most, if not all, software requires
disabling the default voxel interpolation feature when displaying discrete and/or discontinuous
attributes such as facies number, azimuth, or strike. Displaying such attributes on horizon slices can also
be problematic. The appearance of horizon slices through edge attributes is often a function of the (too
many choices, lets just use the default!) horizon grid spacing, with the edge attribute being first
extracted at the grid points and then interpolated and smeared in the resulting image. The default
parameters for coherence may not search along dip, resulting in artifacts commonly called structural
leakage. The default parameters in structure-oriented filtering may be set to smooth in all directions,
thereby providing more continuous reflectors, but also lowering vertical resolution. Kuwahara structure-
oriented filters may generate patchy images, which the interpreter may mistake to be fractures. Finally,
when one has a choice between spectral decomposition algorithms, the algorithm that shows the most
geology on a horizon slice may be inferior to one that provides less vertical mixing and shows only
those features near the horizon of interest.

In this presentation, Ill highlight many of these features and present some workarounds. Key to
avoiding these pitfalls is understanding the physical properties the attributes measure and the geologic
features that are consistent with the tectonic and depositional setting. In general, the pitfalls in attribute
interpretation are the same as in conventional interpretation, except that one can now can fall into the
same pit much faster, on larger data volumes, while using 24-bit color!

Kurt J. Marfurt joined The University of Oklahoma in 2007 where he serves as

the Frank and Henrietta Schultz Professor of Geophysics within the
ConocoPhillips School of Geology and Geophysics. Marfurts primary research
interest is in the development and calibration of new seismic attributes to aid
in seismic processing, seismic interpretation, and reservoir characterization.
Recent work has focused on applying coherence, spectral decomposition,
structure-oriented filtering, and volumetric curvature to mapping fractures and
karst with a particular focus on resource plays. Marfurt earned a Ph.D. in
applied geophysics at Columbia Universitys Henry Krumb School of Mines in
New York in 1978 where he also taught as an Assistant Professor for four years. He worked 18 years in a
wide range of research projects at Amocos Tulsa Research Center after which he joined the University of
Houston for 8 years as a Professor of Geophysics and the Director of the Allied Geophysics Lab. He has
received the SEG best paper (for coherence), SEG best presentation (for seismic modeling), as a coauthor
with Satinder Chopra best SEG poster (one on curvature, one on principal component analysis) and best
AAPG technical presentation, and as a coauthor with Roderick Perez Altimar, SEG/AAPG Interpretation
best paper (on brittleness) awards. Marfurt also served as the EAGE/SEG Distinguished Short Course
Instructor for 2006 (on seismic attributes). In addition to teaching and research duties at OU, Marfurt
leads short courses on attributes for the SEG and AAPG, and currently serves as Editor in Chief of the
AAPG/SEG Journal Interpretation.