The influence of stratigraphic architecture on seismic response: Reflectivity modeling of outcropping deepwater channel units
Interpretation: SEG 6 (3):T783-T808 (2018)
AbstractThe size, shape, stacking patterns, and internal architecture of deepwater deposits control reservoir fluid flow connectivity. Predicting deepwater stratigraphic architecture as a function of position along a deepwater slope from seismic-reflection data is critical for successful hydrocarbon exploration and development projects. Stratigraphic architecture from confined and weakly confined segments of a deepwater sediment-routing system is analyzed in outcrop from the Tres Pasos Formation, southern Chile. Outcrop observations are the basis of two geocellular models: confined channel deposits at Laguna Figueroa and weakly confined channel and scour deposits at Arroyo Picana. Key stratigraphic surfaces and facies relationships observed in outcrop are forward seismic modeled at high to low resolution to bridge the gap in subseismic scale interpretation of deepwater reservoirs and demonstrate challenges associated with identification of varied reservoir architecture. The outcrop-constrained geometry of architectural elements, their stacking arrangement, and the varied internal distribution of facies each impart a strong influence on seismic reflectivity. Key outcomes from the analysis include stratigraphic architecture transitions down-paleoslope from vertically aligned low-aspect-ratio channel elements to a more weakly confined depocenter characterized by a breadth of laterally offset low- and high-aspect-ratio channel and scour elements. Seismic reflections, down to 30 Hz frequencies, record aspects of these stratigraphic changes. Key seismic reflections are often comprised of multiple outcrop-constrained stratigraphic surfaces. Tuning effects result in composite seismic surfaces that are vertically offset from the known position of sedimentary units; this hinders accurate interpretation of stratigraphic surfaces from seismic-reflection data. This is particularly problematic in the weakly confined system in which shifted stratigraphic surfaces, which bound deposits characterized by numerous similar architectural elements, can alter the interpretability of sandstone connectivity within and across zones. Furthermore, misinterpretation of surfaces is problematic when they are flow barriers draped with debris flows, slumps/slides, or thin-bedded turbidites. Tuning effects also impart significant control on volume-based interpretations from seismic data. In particular, calculations of gross rock volume from seismic reflection data that do not consider the tuning or architectural element stacking pattern can overestimate actual volumes by 10%–50%, with implications for reservoir prediction and hydrocarbon volume estimation.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
The Influence of Stratigraphic Architecture on Seismic Response: Reflectivity Modeling of Outcropping Deepwater Channel Units.Erin A. L. Pemberton, Lisa Stright, Sean Fletcher & Stephen M. Hubbard - 2018 - Interpretation 6 (3):T783-T808.
Seismic and Sequence Stratigraphic Interpretation of the Area of Influence of the Magdalena Submarine Fan, Offshore Northern Colombia.Andrea F. Cadena & Roger M. Slatt - 2013 - Interpretation: SEG 1 (1):SA53-SA74.
Deepwater Reservoir Prediction Using Broadband Seismic-Driven Impedance Inversion and Seismic Sedimentology in the South China Sea.Yaneng Luo, Handong Huang, Yadi Yang, Qixin Li, Sheng Zhang & Jinwei Zhang - 2018 - Interpretation: SEG 6 (4):SO17-SO29.
Modeling Processed Seismic Data to Improve Seismic Facies Prediction.Adrian Pelham - 2015 - Interpretation: SEG 3 (4):SAC91-SAC98.
Introduction to Special Section: Seismic Facies Classification and Modeling.Dario Grana, Lisa Stright, Patrick Connolly, Mario Gutierrez, Ezequiel Gonzalez, Juan-Mauricio Florez, Alessandro Amato del Monte & Whitney Trainor-Guitton - 2016 - Interpretation: SEG 4 (3):SLi-SLi.
Using Benford’s Law on the Seismic Reflectivity Analysis.Isadora A. S. de Macedo & Jose Jadsom S. de Figueiredo - 2018 - Interpretation: SEG 6 (3):T689-T697.
Modeling Two‐Channel Speech Processing With the EPIC Cognitive Architecture.David E. Kieras, Gregory H. Wakefield, Eric R. Thompson, Nandini Iyer & Brian D. Simpson - 2016 - Topics in Cognitive Science 8 (1):291-304.
Detecting Faults and Channels While Enhancing Seismic Structural and Stratigraphic Features.Xinming Wu & Zhenwei Guo - 2019 - Interpretation 7 (1):T155-T166.
From Ocean-Bottom Cable Seismic to Porosity Volume: A Prestack PP and PS Analysis of a Turbidite Reservoir, Deepwater Campos Basin, Brazil.Luiz M. R. Martins & Thomas L. Davis - 2014 - Interpretation: SEG 2 (2):SE91-SE103.
Pitfalls in Seismic Processing: An Application of Seismic Modeling to Investigate Acquisition Footprint.Marcus P. Cahoj, Sumit Verma, Bryce Hutchinson & Kurt J. Marfurt - 2016 - Interpretation: SEG 4 (2):SG1-SG9.
Impacts of Kerogen Content and Fracture Properties on the Anisotropic Seismic Reflectivity of Shales with Orthorhombic Symmetry.Li Yang, Xiaoyang Wu & Mark Chapman - 2015 - Interpretation: SEG 3 (3):ST1-ST7.
4D Seismic Interpretation in a Nigerian Deepwater Field.Oghogho Effiom, Robert Maskall, Edwin Quadt, Kazeem A. Lawal, Raphael Afolabi, Jake Emakpor & Reginald Mbah - 2015 - Interpretation: SEG 3 (2):SP11-SP19.
Depth-Domain Seismic Reflectivity Inversion with Compressed Sensing Technique.Rui Zhang, Kui Zhang & Jude E. Alekhue - 2017 - Interpretation: SEG 5 (1):T1-T9.