Attributes for Resource Plays

Kurt J. Marfurt (The University of Oklahoma)

Satinder Chopra (Arcis)

A Short overview of Spectral

Decomposition

1-1
 Course Outline
A short overview of spectral decomposition
A short overview of geometric attributes
Attribute prediction of fractures and stress

Interactive multiattribute analysis

Statistical multiattribute analysis
Unsupervised multiattribute classification
Supervised multiattribute classification
Case Study – Prediction of rate of penetration in the Mississippi Lime Play

Impact of acquisition and processing on seismic attributes

Post-stack data conditioning
Inversion for acoustic and elastic impedance

Attributes and hydraulic fracturing of shale reservoirs

Quantitative interpretation case studies

1-2
 Spectral Decomposition

After this section you will be able to:

• Identify the geological features highlighted by spectral

decomposition and wavelet transforms,

• Interpret spectral anomalies in the context of thin bed tuning,

• Use spectral ratio techniques to estimate Q (1/attenuation).

• Evaluate the use of spectral information as a direct

hydrocarbon indicator.

1-3
 Alternative Basis Functions

1-4
 SWDFT wavelets SWDFT spectra
1
Tapered window
1
0.5 0.8
0.6
fc=10 Hz 0
0.4
-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2
-0.5 0.2
0
-1 20 Hz10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 127
90 100 Hz

1
1
0.5 0.8
0.6
0
fc=20 Hz 0.4
-0.2 -0.1 -0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2
0
-1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1.0

1
0.5
0.8
0.6
fc=40 Hz -0.2 -0.1
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4

-0.5 0.2
0
-1.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1-5 t (s) f (Hz)

 Morlet wavelets Morlet spectra
1.0
1
0.8
0.5 Tapered windows
0.6
0.0 0.4
fc=10 Hz -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.2
-0.5 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10
-1.0 0

1.0
1
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.0 0.4
fc=20 Hz -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.2
-0.5 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10
-1.0 0

1.0
1
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.0 0.4
fc=40 Hz -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.2
-0.5 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10
-1.0 0

1-6 t (s) f (Hz)

 Wavelets for spectral ratios Spectra
1.0 1
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.4
fc=10 Hz 0.0
0.2
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2
-0.5 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10
-1.0 0

1.0
1
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.4
fc=20 Hz -0.2 -0.1
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.2
-0.5 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10
-1.0 0

1.0 1
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.0 0.4
fc=40 Hz 0.2
-0.2 -0.5 0 0.2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10
-1.0 0

1-7 t (s) f (Hz)

 Spectral Decomposition using the
Short Window Discrete Fourier Transform
(SWDFT)

1-8
 Source Seismic
Reflectivity wavelet Noise data
r(t) * s(t) + n(t) u(t)
Long window

Time
spectral
decomposition
and the
convolutional Fourier Transform

model
Amplitude Amplitude Amplitude Amplitude
Frequency

× + =
Bandlimited white
White spectrum
spectrum
1-9 (Partyka et al., 1999)
 Spectral balancing

Peak amplitude, amax

a(f) Multiply a(f) by1./a(f)

Noise threshold=εamax

Frequency, f

Peak amplitude, 1.0

abalanced(f)

Multiply a(f) by1./[a(f) +amax]

Noise threshold=0.5

Frequency, f
1-10
 Source Seismic
Reflectivity wavelet Noise data
r(t) * s(t) + n(t) u(t)
Short window
spectral

Time
decomposition * + =
and the
convolutional Fourier Transform

model
Amplitude Amplitude Amplitude Amplitude
Frequency

× + =

Colored spectrum Bandlimited colored

spectrum
1-11 (Partyka et al., 1999)
 Spectral decomposition work flow

Time (s)
Time (s)

Interpret the horizons Window the data

Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)

Compute spectral components Analyze spectral slices

1-12 (Johann et al., 2003)

 Red-Green-Blue color blending of three discrete
spectral magnitude volumes

1-13 (Leppard et al., 2010)

 Simultaneous
display of 3
attributes will
therefore show
more of the data!

40 Hz  Blue
50 Hz  Green
60 Hz  Red

1-14 (Bahorich et al., 2002)

 Spectral Decomposition using the
Continuous Wavelet Transform
(CWT)

1-15
 1
0.8 Mother wavelet
0.6
Continuous Wavelet Transform
Amplitude

0.4

using Morlet wavelets, ψ(t)

0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (s)
6
18
5 16
4 14
3 12

Amplitude
Amplitude

2 10
1 8
0 6
-1 4
-2 2
-3 0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s) Frequency (Hz)
 

 t dt  0

ˆ 0    t dt  0


ˆ   ˆ  
 2 2
1 t u 
0

 u ,s t     0  d    d  C  
s  s 
1-16 (Matos and Marfurt, 2011)
 Continuous Wavelet Transform (CWT)
f  t      t 


1  t  ut
(u, sf)(t) Wf (u, s)  fdt,u ,fs s  u   sft(t )      dt
1 t u 1
(u,xs() )
CWT
Wf
 s  s  
s  s s s 
The CWT can be interpreted as
ˆ s    sˆ  s   a band pass filter response at
each scale s
60 120
50 100

Frequency
40 80
Scales
Escala

30 60
20 40
10 20
Time (ms)
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Amostras
Samples

0.4
Amplitude

0.2

-0.2

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
1-17 Amostras
Time (ms) (Matos and Marfurt, 2011)
 Forward CWT
Σ
Reflectivity Synthetic CWT Magnitude Voices ICWT

CWT
magnitude
pos

Le Nozze di Figaro

1-18 (Matos and Marfurt, 2011)

 Spectral Decomposition using the
Matching Pursuit

1-19
 Read seismic trace Matching pursuit flow
Precompute complex chart
wavelets Generate complex seismic trace
and their spectra
Set residual=original complex trace
Set complex spectrum=(0.0,0.0)

Calculate instantaneous envelope and frequency

of residual

Pick times and frequencies of the strongest envelopes

Least-squares fit complex wavelets to residual

Subtract complex wavelets from previous

residual to compute new residual

no Residual
energy < threshold value?

yes
Sum spectra of
1-20 component wavelets (Liu and Marfurt, 2005)
 Pennsylvanian Age Channels, CBP, Texas, USA
0.6 A A
Time (s)

1.060 s

1.6 Original data

1-21 (Liu and Marfurt, 2005)

 Convergence using a modified matching-pursuit algorithm
0.6 A A
Time (s)

Modeled
1.6 Modeled data
data after
after 2iterations
iterations
1 iterations
4
8
16 iteration

1-22 (Liu and Marfurt, 2005)

 Convergence using a modified matching-pursuit algorithm
0.6 A A
Time (s)

1.6 Residual after 16

1 iterations
2
4
8 iteration
iterations

1-23 (Liu and Marfurt, 2005)

 Alternative spectral decomposition algorithms

Component Matching
Trace Wavelets True Spectra SWDFT CWT Pursuit

1-24 (Leppard et al., 2010)

 Comparison of Short Window DFT
SWDFT, CWT, and
matching pursuit
spectral
decomposition
algorithms

Continuous Wavelet Transform (CWT)

1-25 (Leppard et al., 2010)

 SWDFT CWT Matching Pursuit

Comparison of
constant
bandwidth, CWT,
and matching
pursuit spectral
decomposition
algorithms
SWDFT CWT Matching Pursuit

SWDFT CWT Matching Pursuit

1-26 (Leppard et al., 2010)

 Spectral Balancing

1-27
 Spectral Balancing of
Enrico Caruso
Sul mare luccica
Without spectral balancing L'astro d'argento
Placida è l'onda
Prospero il vento;
https://search.yahoo.com/y Venite all'agile
Barchetta mia;
hs/search?p=enrico+carus Santa Lucia! Santa Lucia!
o+santa+lucia&ei=UTF-
8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=y Con questo zeffiro
Così soave,
hs-003 Oh, come è bello
Star sulla nave.
Su passeggeri,
With spectral balancing Venite via;
Santa Lucia! Santa Lucia!

O dolce Napoli,
https://search.yahoo.com/y O suol beato,
hs/search?p=caruso+rema Ove sorridere
Volle il creato,
stering+old&ei=UTF- Tu sei l'impero
8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=y Dell'armonia,
Santa Lucia! Santa Lucia!
hs-003

1-28
 Average time-frequency spectrum (106 traces)

Mag
High

(Computed using CWT)

1-29 (Qi and Marfurt, 2014)
 Average time-frequency spectrum

Mag
High

(After spectral balancing and bluing)

1-30 (Qi and Marfurt, 2014)
 Original seismic amplitude
A A’
Amp
Positive
0.6 Top Large scale
Marble karst doline 0
Fall
Negative
Top
0.8 Ellenburger
Collapse
features
Collapse
features
Time (s)

1.0

1.2

1.4

400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

CDP no.
1-31 (Qi and Marfurt, 2014)
 Balanced and blued seismic amplitude
A A
Amp

0.6 Top
’ Large scale
Positive

Marble karst doline 0

Fall
Negative
Top
0.8 Ellenburger
Collapse
features
Collapse
features
Time (s)

1.0

1.2

1.4

400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

CDP no.
1-32 (Qi and Marfurt, 2014)
 Bandwidth Extension

1-33
 Inverse CWT

Reflectivity Synthetic CWT Magnitude Voices ICWT

CWT
magnitude
pos

1-34 (Matos and Marfurt, 2011)

 ICWT “deconvolution” workflow

CWT CWT ICWT

Shrunken
Morlet MML Morlet
Reflectivity Synthetic CWT Magnitude CWT MML voices

CWT
magnitude
pos

X 0

1-35 (Matos and Marfurt, 2011)

 Barnett Shale (Original Seismic Amplitude)

1-36 (Matos and Marfurt, 2011)

 “Bandwidth extension” using the inverse CWT

1-37 (Matos and Marfurt, 2011)

 Sparse-spike frequency domain inversion

1-38 (Matos and Marfurt, 2011)

 “Bandwidth extension” using the inverse CWT
Marble Falls
Amplitude
60

0
Upper Barnett Lm
Upper Barnett Sh
60

Forestburg
Lower Barnett Sh

Viola
1-39 (Matos and Marfurt, 2011)
 Sparse-spike frequency domain inversion
Marble Falls
Amplitude
10

0
Upper Barnett Lm
Upper Barnett Sh
10

Forestburg
Lower Barnett Sh

Viola
1-40 (Matos and Marfurt, 2011)
 Geotrace’s bandwidth extension using the
inverse CWT
before after

Synthetic from well

Synthetic from well

1-41 (Smith et al., 2008)

 Q – Quality Factor

A silver bell A rubber bell

High quality sound Low quality sound
High price ( $65) Low price ( $1)

1-42
 Seismic Estimation of Q

Spectral Ratio (SR) Method

|𝐵(𝑡0, 𝑓 )| and |𝐵(𝑡1, 𝑓 )| are the
spectra of source and target
wavelets, respectively.
𝐵(𝑡1, 𝑓 ) = 𝐵0 (𝑡0, 𝑓 ) 𝑒𝑥𝑝 −𝜋𝑓 𝑡1 − 𝑡0 Τ𝑄
Magnitude

Reference
|𝐵(𝑡1, 𝑓 )|
Τ
𝜋𝑓 (𝑡1 − 𝑡0) 𝑄 = −ln( )
|𝐵(𝑡0, 𝑓 )|

Target

ln[B(t1,f)/B(t0,f)]
0 Frequency Slope~-1/Q

Frequency

1-43 (White, 1992)

Q Estimation -
Log Spectral Ratio Method

1/Q

1-44 (Singleton, 2008)

Q Estimation -
Log Spectral Ratio Method

1/Q

1-45 (Singleton, 2008)

 Seismic Estimation of Q

Peak Frequency Shift (PFS) Method

𝑓𝑝0 and 𝑓𝑝1 are the peak frequencies

of the source and target wavelets,
respectively.
Magnitude

Reference
𝜋(𝑡1 − 𝑡0)𝑓𝑝1 𝑓𝑝20
𝑄=
2(𝑓𝑝20 − 𝑓𝑝21 ൯
Target

0 Peak Peak Frequency

Frequency Frequency

1-46 (Zhang and Ulrych, 2002)

 Seismic Estimation of Q

Centroid Frequency Shift (CFS) Method

𝑓𝑐0 and 𝑓𝑐1 are the centroid
frequencies of source and target
wavelets, respectively. σ2b0 is the
spectral variance of source
Magnitude

wavelet.
𝜋(𝑡1 − 𝑡0)𝜎𝑏20
𝑄=
𝑓𝑐0 − 𝑓𝑐1
0 Centroid Centroid Frequency
Frequency Frequency

1-47 (Quan and Harris, 1997)

 Seismic Attenuation “Attributes”

Low-frequency
Attenuation Slope

Attenuation Slope Attributes

Magnitude

High-frequency
Attenuation Slope

0 Frequency

1-48 (Courtesy of Huailai Zhou and Fangyu Li)

 Seismic Attenuation “Attributes”

High-
frequency Energy Difference Attribute
Magnitude

Energy Decay

Low-frequency
Energy
Augmentation
0 Frequency

1-49 (Courtesy of Huailai Zhou and Fangyu Li)

 Application of Q “attributes”

 Intrinsic attenuation is currently used in

 directing hydrocarbon indication.
 identifying high TOC source rock.
 estimating over pressure.

 Can we develop attributes that are sensitive to

geometric attenuation
 Natural fractures?
 Hydraulically induced fractures?

1-50
Removing the thin bed influence on Q estimation

Seismic P-wave
amplitude impedance

CWT of CWT of
amplitude reflectivity

Spectral Correction

Q estimation Reference and

target horizons

Q
 The spectral response of three layers

-4
1.5 x 10
3.5

1 3

2.5
0.5
Reflection Amplitude

Spectral Amplitude
Fourier 2
0
Transform
1.5
-0.5
1

-1
0.5

-1.5
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (ms)
Frequency (Hz)

1-52
 Q estimation with spectral correction
Seismic P-wave
amplitude impedance Arbitrary line
CWT of CWT of
amplitude reflectivity

Spectral Correction

Reference
Q estimation and target
horizons
Q

Inverted impedance section

1-53
 Seismic P-wave
amplitude

CWT of
impedance

CWT of
Q estimation with spectral correction
amplitude reflectivity

Spectral Correction

Reference
Q estimation and target
horizons 800

Q
600

400

200

-200

-400

-600

-800

Without reflectivity compensation With reflectivity compensation

top

base

1-54 Inverted impedance section

 Attenuation from Natural and Induced Fractures
(Time-Lapse Seismic)

1-55 (Goodway et al., 2012)

 Attenuation from Natural and Induced Fractures
(Time-Lapse Seismic)

Δamp ΔT

1-56 (Goodway et al., 2012)

 Baseline Monitor Difference
Change in
spectra

Unstimulated zone

Stimulated zone

1-57 (Cho et al., 2013)

 Baseline Monitor Difference
Change in
spectra
With Stimulation
Baseline Baseline Without Stimulation
Monitor Monitor

Stimulated zone Unstimulated zone Differences

1-58 (Cho et al., 2013)

 Map showing
changes in 35
Hz component
suggesting
fluid mobility

1-59 (Cho et al., 2013)

 Unresolved Questions
 Can we use changes in attenuation as a function of azimuth to
identify the orientation of natural or hydraulically induced
fractures?

 Can we use attenuation as a function of offset to map properties of

rugose vs. specular vs. reflectors?

 Can we develop simple models of geometric attenuation

(scattering) for heterogeneous media to explain the “negative-Q”
estimates from the Barnett Shale?

1-60
 Spectral Decomposition
In Summary:
• Constructive and destructive interference from the top and bottom of a thin bed give rise to
changes in the seismic amplitude and phase spectra.

• Components of these spectra can be used to detect lateral changes in layer thickness and
heterogeneity, well below the limits of classic /4 seismic resolution.

• Matching pursuit spectral decomposition provides less vertical mixing of stratigraphy than that
based on fixed-window discrete Fourier transforms.

• Bandwidth extension is based on a specific geologic model. Interpreters should always

validate the accuracy of such extension with well ties.

• Intrinsic attenuation due to increased TOC, squirt mechanisms in porous media, and changes
of spectra with azimuth can be measured by spectral decomposition.

• Seismic spectra are indirect measurements of the depositional environment. For this reason
interpreters should evaluate their use in multiattribute clustering.

1-61
 2 km

Peak frequency
modulated by
peak amplitude
(Time slices)

30
Peak Mag

010 20 40 60 80 100
Peak Freq (Hz)

Time (ms)

1-62 (Liu and Marfurt, 2005)