1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 67, Issue 5
  5. Article
Volume 67, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Fault and fracture interpretation is a fundamental but essential tool for subsurface structure mapping and modelling from 3D seismic data. The existing methods for semi‐automatic/automatic fault picking are primarily based on seismic discontinuity analysis that evaluates the lateral changes in seismic waveform and/or amplitude, which is limited by its low resolution on subtle faults and fractures without apparent vertical displacements in seismic images. This study presents an innovative workflow for computer‐aided fault/fracture interpretation based on seismic geometry analysis. First, the seismic curvature and flexure attributes are estimated for highlighting both the major faults and the subtle fractures in a seismic volume. Then, fault probability is estimated from the curvature and flexure volumes for differentiation between the potential faults and non‐faulting features in the geometric attributes. Finally, the seeded fault picking is implemented for interpreting the target faults and fractures guided by the knowledge of interpreters to avoid misinterpretation and artefacts in the presence of faulting complexities as well as coherent seismic noises. Applications to two 3D seismic volumes from the Netherlands North Sea and the offshore New Zealand demonstrate the added values of the proposed method in imaging and picking the subtle faults and fractures that are often overlooked in the conventional seismic discontinuity analysis and the following fault‐interpretation procedures.

© 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12769
2019-03-13
2024-04-27

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12769
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AdmasuF., BackS. and ToenniesK.2006. Autotracking of faults on 3D seismic data. Geophysics71, A49–A53.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Al‐BinHassanN.M. and MarfurtK.J.2003. Fault detection using Hough transforms. 83rd SEG annual international meeting. Expanded Abstracts, 1719–1721.
  3. Al‐DossaryS. and MarfurtK.J.2006. 3D volumetric multispectral estimates of reflector curvature and rotation. Geophysics71, P41–P51.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Al‐DossaryS., WangY.E. and McFarlaneM.2014. Estimating randomness using seismic disorder. Interpretation2, SA93–SA97.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Araya‐PoloM., DahlkeT., FrognerC., ZhangC., PoggioT. and HohlD.2017. Automated fault detection without seismic processing. The Leading Edge36, 208–214.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. AshbridgeJ., CoutelF., WelchM. and PryceC.2000. Fault and fracture prediction from coherence data analysis. 70th SEG annual intermeeting. Expanded Abstracts, 1564–1567.
  7. BahorichM. and FarmerS.1995. 3‐D seismic coherency for faults and stratigraphic features. The Leading Edge14, 1053–1058.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. BarnesA.2006. A filter to improve seismic discontinuity data for fault interpretation. Geophysics71, P1–P4.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. ChopraS.2002. Coherence cube and beyond. First Break20, 27–33.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. CohenI. and CoifmanR.R.2002. Local discontinuity measures for 3‐D seismic data. Geophysics67, 1933–1945.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. DiH. and GaoD.2014a. Gray‐level transformation and Canny edge detection for 3D seismic discontinuity enhancement. Computers & Geosciences72, 192–200.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. DiH. and GaoD.2014b. A new algorithm for evaluating 3D curvature and curvature gradient from improved fracture detection. Computer & Geosciences70, 15–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. DiH. and GaoD.2016a. Volumetric extraction of most positive/negative curvature and flexure attributes for improved fracture characterization from 3D seismic data. Geophysical Prospecting64, 1454–1468.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. DiH. and GaoD.2016b. Improved estimates of seismic curvature and flexure based on 3D surface rotation in the presence of structure dip. Geophysics81, IM37–IM47.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. DiH. and GaoD.2017a. Seismic attribute‐aided fault detection in petroleum industry: a review. In: Fault Detection: Methods, Applications and Technology (ed. D.Martin), pp. 53–80. Nova Science Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. DiH. and GaoD.2017b. 3D seismic flexure analysis for subsurface fault detection and fracture characterization. Pure and Applied Geophysics174, 747–761.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. DiH. and AlRegibG.2017. Volumetric fault imaging based on seismic geometry analysis. AAPG datapages/search and discovery article, #90291.
  18. DiH., ShafiqM.A. and AlRegibG.2017. Seismic fault detection based on multiattribute support vector machine analysis. SEG technical program. Expanded Abstracts, 2039–2044.
  19. DiH., ShafiqM.A. and AlRegibG.2018. Patch‐level MLP classification for improved fault detection. SEG technical program. Expanded Abstracts, 2211–2215.
  20. DiH., WangZ. and AlRegibG.2018. Seismic fault detection from post‐stack amplitude by convolutional neural networks. 80th EAGE conference and exhibition, Tu‐D‐11.
  21. GaoD.2013. Integrating 3D seismic curvature and curvature gradient attributes for fracture detection: methodologies and interpretational implications. Geophysics78, O21–O38.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. GersztenkornA. and MarfurtK. J.1999. Eigenstructure‐based coherence computations as an aid to 3‐D structural and stratigraphic mapping. Geophysics64, 1468–1479.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. GibsonD., SpannM., TurnerJ. and WrightT.2005. Fault surface detection in 3‐D seismic data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing43, 2094–2102.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. HaleD.2013. Methods to compute fault images, extract fault surfaces, and estimate fault throws from 3D seismic images. Geophysics78, O33–O43.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hami‐EddineK., de RibertB., DurandP. and GascueP.2017. A growing machine learning approach to optimize use of prestack and poststack seismic data. SEG technical program. Expanded Abstracts, 2149–2152.
  26. HuangL., DongX. and CleeT.E.2017. A scalable deep learning platform for identifying geologic features from seismic attributes. The Leading Edge36, 249–256.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. KingtonJ.2015. Semblance, coherence, and other discontinuity attributes. The Leading Edge34, 1510–1512.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. LavialleO., PopS., GermainC., DoniasM., GuillonS., KeskesN., et al. 2006. Seismic fault preserving diffusion. Journal of Applied Geophysics61, 132–141.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. LinY., GuthrieG., CoblentzD., WangS. and ThiagarajanJ.2017. Towards real‐time geologic feature detection from seismic measurements using a randomized machine‐learning algorithm. SEG technical program. Expanded Abstracts, 2143–2148.
  30. LisleR.J.1994. Detection of zones of abnormal strains in structures using Gaussian curvature analysis. AAPG Bulletin78, 1811–1819.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. LuoY., HiggsW.G. and KowalikW.S.1996. Edge detection and stratigraphic analysis using 3‐D seismic data. 66th SEG annual international meeting. Expanded Abstracts, 324–327.
  32. MachadoG., AlaliA., HutchinsonB., OlorunsolaO. and MarfurtK.J.2016. Display and enhancement of volumetric fault images. Interpretation4, SB51–SB61.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. MarfurtK.J., KirlinR.L., FarmerS.L. and BahorichM.S.1998. 3‐D seismic attributes using a semblance‐based coherency algorithm. Geophysics63, 1150–1165.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. MarfurtK.J., SudhakerV., GersztenkornA., CrawfordK.D. and NissenS.E.1999. Coherency calculations in the presence of structural dip. Geophysics64, 104–111.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. MeldahlP., HegglandR., BrilA.H. and de GrootP.F.M.1999. The chimney cube, an example of semi‐automated detection of seismic objects by directive attributes and neural networks: part I – Methodology. 69th SEG annual international meeting. Expanded Abstracts, 931–934.
  36. RobertsA.2001. Curvature attributes and their application to 3D interpreted horizons. First Break19, 85–100.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. ShafiqM.A., DiH. and AlRegibG.2018. A novel approach for automated detection of listric faults within migrated seismic volumes. Journal of Applied Geophysics155, 94–101.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. PedersenS.I., RandenT., SonnelandL. and SteenO.2002. Automatic fault extraction using artificial ants. 72nd SEG annual international meeting. Expanded Abstracts, 512–515.
  39. QiX. and MarfurtK.2017. Volumetric aberrancy to map subtle faults and flexures. SEG technical program. Expanded Abstracts, 3443–3447.
  40. TingdahlK.M. and de RooijM.2005. Semi‐automatic detection of faults in 3D seismic data. Geophysical Prospecting53, 533–542.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. van BemmelP.P. and PepperR. E.F.2000. Seismic signal processing method and apparatus for generating a cube of variance values. U.S. Patent 6,151,555.
  42. WangS., YuanS., YanB., HeY. and SunW.2016. Directional complex‐valued coherence attribute for discontinuous edge detection. Journal of Applied Geophysics129, 1–7.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. WangZ. and AlRegibG.2014a. Automatic fault surface detection by using 3D Hough transform. 84th SEG annual international meeting. Expanded Abstracts, 1439–1444.
  44. WangZ. and AlRegibG.2014b. Automatic fault tracking across seismic volumes via tracking vectors. IEEE ICIP, 5851–5855.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. WangZ., DiH., ShafiqM.A., AlaudahY. and AlRegibG.2018. Successful leveraging of image processing and machine learning in seismic structural interpretation: a review. The Leading Edge37, 451–461.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. WoodJ.D.1996. The geomorphological characterization of digital elevation models. PhD thesis, University of Leicester, UK.
  47. WuX. and HaleD.2016. 3D seismic image processing for faults. Geophysics81, IM1–IM11.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. WuX.2017. Directional structure‐tensor based coherence to detect seismic channels and faults. Geophysics82, A13–A17.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. YuJ.2014. Using cylindrical surface‐based curvature change rate to detect faults and fractures. Geophysics79, O1–O9.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. ZhangB., LiuY., PelissierM. and HemstraN.2014. Semiautomated fault interpretation based on seismic attributes. Interpretation2, SA11–SA19.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. ZhengZ., KavousiP. and DiH.2014. Multi‐attributes and neural network‐based fault detection in 3D seismic interpretation. Advanced Materials Research838, 1497–1502.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12769
Loading
Semi‐automatic fault/fracture interpretation based on seismic geometry analysis
Geophysical Prospecting 67, 1379 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12769
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12769
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12769
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Curvature; Fault interpretation; Interpretation; Seismic; Seismic attribute

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error