Complex Traces: There’s an ‘App’ for That

Last month we introduced the concept of a complex seismic trace; this month we’ll show how a complex trace provides a rigorous way to set the boundaries of data windows associated with distinct seismic reflections – and we’ll define the polarities of each of those reflection events.

This complex trace application is important because it is necessary to determine the polarity of every reflection event that spans a layered system in order to determine whether impedance increases or decreases from layer to layer – which in turn provides insight into the lithology, porosity and type of pore fluid in each rock layer.

The principal problem involved in determining the polarity of a seismic reflection event is the challenge of deciding what part of the seismic response represents the reflection event.

Questions that have to be answered include:

  • Where does the reflection event start and stop?
  • How many peaks and troughs are embedded in the reflection event?
  • Which peak or trough of a reflection event should be used to define reflection polarity?

The amplitude-envelope function determined from a complex seismic trace provides a way to define the start time, stop time, wavelet character and polarity of overlapping – but distinct – reflection events.

An example seismic trace, its complex-trace equivalent and the associated amplitude envelope are shown as figure 1.

Defining Reflection Events

As shown on figure 1, the amplitude envelope of a complex seismic trace is an oscillating function that has alternating maxima and minima. The data window between two successive minima of an amplitude-envelope function defines a distinct packet of seismic energy.

Terms that have been used to describe this interval between successive amplitude-envelope minima are energy packet, wavelet packet and reflection event. Once you equate the term “reflection event” with energy packet (or with wavelet packet), you can then ask the question:

“How many reflection events occur between time coordinates A and B on figure 1?”

You will get the definitive answer “13.”

A wavelet packet such as any of those defined on figure 1 may be a reflection from a single interface, or it may be a composite of several reflections from closely spaced interfaces. In either case, a wavelet packet represents the shortest-time concentration of reflection of energy that can be recognized in a seismic response.

Because amplitude-envelope minima can be determined numerically after an amplitude envelope is calculated, the start time, stop time and time extent of a reflection event can be defined with mathematical rigor, as shown by each of the labeled “events” on figure 1, and do not have to be left to interpreter judgment.

The basic seismic wavelet that is embedded in the seismic trace on the left of figure 1 is shown in the center part of the figure. A reader can compare this wavelet with its associated reflection trace on the left of the display to attempt to decide how many reflection events exist across the time interval A to B.

In classroom and workshop exercises, people have tended to conclude that the number of reflection events ranges from a low of five or six to a high of 17 or 18. Using the mathematical concept of amplitude-envelope minima to define the boundaries of a reflection event, the correct answer is 13 reflection events (right-hand panel) as already stated.

Defining Reflection Polarity

When a reflection event is defined by this energy packet concept, the polarity of the reflection event can be defined as the algebraic sign of the real-trace extremum (either peak or trough) that is closest to the maximum of the amplitude-envelope that encompasses the energy packet.

Using this concept, the polarity of reflection events 5 and 10 on figure 1 are positive, and the polarities of reflection events 7 and 12 are negative. Thus a complex-trace allows seismic reflection polarity to be defined with the same mathematical rigor that defines the time extent of each reflection event.

A second illustration of energy packets being used to define distinct reflection events and their polarities is provided as figure 2.

In this case, there are excellent examples of energy packets distinguishing overlapping reflection events (events 7 and 8 and events 11 and 12) and defining the data windows spanned by faint, low-amplitude reflections (events 2 and 3).

Comments (0)

 

Geophysical Corner

The Geophysical Corner is a regular column in the EXPLORER that features geophysical case studies, techniques and application to the petroleum industry.

VIEW COLUMN ARCHIVES

Image Gallery

See Also: Book

Desktop /Portals/0/images/_site/AAPG-newlogo-vertical-morepadding.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 4081 Book

See Also: Bulletin Article

Thus far, the subject of deep-marine sands emplaced by baroclinic currents associated with internal waves and internal tides as potential reservoirs has remained an alien topic in petroleum exploration. Internal waves are gravity waves that oscillate along oceanic pycnoclines. Internal tides are internal waves with a tidal frequency. Internal solitary waves (i.e., solitons), the most common type, are commonly generated near the shelf edge (100–200 m [328–656 ft] in bathymetry) and in the deep ocean over areas of sea-floor irregularities, such as mid-ocean ridges, seamounts, and guyots. Empirical data from 51 locations in the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Arctic, and Antarctic oceans reveal that internal solitary waves travel in packets. Internal waves commonly exhibit (1) higher wave amplitudes (5–50 m [16–164 ft]) than surface waves (lt2 m [6.56 ft]), (2) longer wavelengths (0.5–15 km [0.31–9 mi]) than surface waves (100 m [328 ft]), (3) longer wave periods (5–50 min) than surface waves (9–10 s), and (4) higher wave speeds (0.5–2 m s–1 [1.64–6.56 ft s–1]) than surface waves (25 cm s–1 [10 in. s–1]). Maximum speeds of 48 cm s–1 (19 in. s–1) for baroclinic currents were measured on guyots. However, core-based sedimentologic studies of modern sediments emplaced by baroclinic currents on continental slopes, in submarine canyons, and on submarine guyots are lacking. No cogent sedimentologic or seismic criteria exist for distinguishing ancient counterparts. Outcrop-based facies models of these deposits are untenable. Therefore, potential exists for misinterpreting deep-marine baroclinic sands as turbidites, contourites, basin-floor fans, and others. Economic risks associated with such misinterpretations could be real.
Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/Modern-internal-waves-and-internal-tides.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 3726 Bulletin Article
The geometries of clay smears produced in a series of direct shear experiments on composite blocks containing a clay-rich seal layer sandwiched between sandstone reservoir layers have been analyzed in detail. The geometries of the evolving shear zones and volume clay distributions are related back to the monitored hydraulic response, the deformation conditions, and the clay content and strength of the seal rock. The laboratory experiments were conducted under 4 to 24 MPa (580–3481 psi) fault normal effective stress, equivalent to burial depths spanning from less than approximately 0.8 to 4.2 km (0.5 to 2.6 mi) in a sedimentary basin. The sheared blocks were imaged using medical-type x-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging validated with optical photography of sawn blocks. The interpretation of CT scans was used to construct digital geomodels of clay smears and surrounding volumes from which quantitative information was obtained. The distribution patterns and thickness variations of the clay smears were found to vary considerably according to the level of stress applied during shear and to the brittleness of the seal layer. The stiffest seal layers with the lowest clay percentage formed the most segmented clay smears. Segmentation does not necessarily indicate that the fault seal was breached because wear products may maintain the seal between the individual smear segments as they form. In experiments with the seal layer formed of softer clays, a more uniform smear thickness is observed, but the average thickness of the clay smear tends to be lower than in stiffer clays. Fault drag and tapering of the seal layer are limited to a region close to the fault cutoffs. Therefore, the comparative decrease of sealing potential away from the cutoff zones differs from predictions of clay smear potential type models. Instead of showing a power-law decrease away from the cutoffs toward the midpoint of the shear zone, the clay smear thickness is either uniform, segmented, or undulating, reflecting the accumulated effects of kinematic processes other than drag. Increased normal stress improved fault sealing in the experiments mainly by increasing fault zone thickness, which led to more clay involvement in the fault zone per unit of source layer thickness. The average clay fraction of the fault zone conforms to the prediction of the shale gouge ratio (SGR) model because clay volume is essentially preserved during the deformation process. However, the hydraulic seal performance does not correlate to the clay fraction or SGR but does increase as the net clay volume in the fault zone increases. We introduce a scaled form of SGR called SSGR to account for increased clay involvement in the fault zone caused by higher stress and variable obliquity of the seal layer to the fault zone. The scaled SGR gives an improved correlation to seal performance in our samples compared to the other algorithms.
Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/Three-dimensional-structure-of-experimentally-produced.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 3722 Bulletin Article

See Also: CD DVD

Desktop /Portals/0/images/_site/AAPG-newlogo-vertical-morepadding.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 4516 CD-DVD

See Also: Learn! Blog

Get a first-hand look at the global nature of oil sand resources, a better understanding of advances in recovery processes, and what contributions resource geoscientists can make to the challenges of environmental protection and social license as well as driving prosperity and better standards of living for all through sustainable energy development.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/blog-learn-CSPG-oil-sands-hero.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 10985 Learn! Blog