About This Item

Share This Item

The AAPG/Datapages Combined Publications Database

Houston Geological Society Bulletin

Abstract


Houston Geological Society Bulletin, Volume 48, No. 8, April 2006. Pages 13-13.

Abstract: Uses, Abuses and Examples of Previous HitSeismicNext Hit-Derived Acoustic Impedance Data: What Does the Interpreter Need to Know?

By

Rebecca Latimer
Chevron Energy Technology Company
Houston

Throughout the years there has been a concerted effort to integrate the geoscience disciplines to become more adept at understanding the petroleum potential of an area. In the 1980s, geophysicists interpreted 2D Previous HitseismicNext Hit data by overlaying log data on paper Previous HitseismicNext Hit sections and using generalized depth-to-time curves to determine which events represented markers on the logs. Geologists interpreted cross-sections by drawing straight lines between wells to represent their correlations. Because technology advances have changed the process, many people today have become “interpreters” of 2D or 3D data on workstations where the log data, Previous HitseismicNext Hit data and many derivations of the Previous HitseismicNext Hit data (attributes, coherence, P impedance, inversions, elastic impedance, lambda rho, etc.) are available to fine-tune the analysis process. The question, however, still remains: Are we integrating the data yet?

Inversion of Previous HitseismicNext Hit data into acoustic impedance provides a natural tie to the log impedance data and forces the geoscientist, in analyzing Previous HitseismicNext Hit data, to extract appropriate wavelets, determine the phase and amplitude of the data, determine whether or not the phase is stable throughout the volume and very intimately tie the well log impedance data to the Previous HitseismicNext Hit data. Utilizing inverted data at the beginning of the interpretation process requires that the geoscientist understand the rock properties in the target area before embarking on an “attribute” interpretation. Even when the P impedance data do not clearly distinguish between fluids or lithologies, value is added by using these data as the first interpretation tool. The simplicity in knowing that the change of values represents a change in rock properties without the complexity of wavelet variability is a distinct advantage to the interpreter. This initial process is critical to undertaking any interpretation of Previous HitseismicNext Hit data. Previous HitSeismicNext Hit data, being an interface property, contain tuning, side lobe effects, and phase and frequency variability, making it difficult to directly determine the geology. Inverted data, layer properties, are a more intuitive geologic tool that allows interpreters to utilize their natural ability to “see” the geology in the Previous HitseismicNext Hit data.

Today, advanced impedance tools use angle-stack data and shear log components that can aid in distinguishing between lithologies and hydrocarbon properties. These data combine the benefits of angle data, AVO, and rock properties, which—when analyzed together with an understanding of the depositional environments, stratigraphic concepts, and the myriad of Previous HitseismicNext Hit attributes—can greatly increase the interpretative ability of the geoscientist.

This presentation will demonstrate the necessity for inversion and explain why it is beneficial in an interpretation workflow. It will examine both the strengths and drawbacks of using inverted data as compared with the Previous HitseismicTop data and the original rock data. It will also show

  • how scale differences between various data types can affect the results,
  • how the interpreter analyzes the rock properties and utilizes these with inverted data, and
  • how to spot pitfalls in the overuse of impedance data.

End_of_Record - Last_Page 13---------------

Copyright © 2007 by Houston Geological Society. All rights reserved.