Author: Mike Cline, T/X Resources
I recently wondered why I hardly ever see anyone using the Seismic Inversion tool, found in SMT’s TracePak module? Maybe you’ve thought about using it, but didn’t understand it well enough, or maybe tried it once, and the results didn’t match anything in the well(s). Like anything new, if you don’t under- stand it, it’s going to be difficult to use it properly. So, I thought that it would be helpful to explain some of the benefits and pitfalls of using inversion, for those interested.
First, for those unfamiliar with inversion, what is it, and how do we use it in our interpretation? You could think of seismic inversion as the reverse of a synthetic seismogram processing flow, and we use inversion to get some idea about rock properties. For an example, the portion of the seismic inversion in the image below, was generated from a synthetic seismogram in the well at the center of the line. Normally, you would generate the inversion from an actual seismic line, but I wanted an optimum response for this example. I’ve also posted three well logs from this well: the spontaneous potential (aka. SP log) in blue, the deep resistivity (RES log) log in magenta, and the acoustic impedance (AI log) in red.
See the larger Adobe Reader pdf file.
Author: Mike Cline, T/X Resources
For those who read my previous posting, “Making the Case for Synthetic Seismograms“, but didn’t currently have a program to generate your own synthetics, I thought that I would include a few links to the programs that I knew about. All of the programs listed below, except SMT’s SynPak, are stand-alone programs, or part of a group of software related to synthetics (log editing, AVO modeling, etc.)—at least that I could determine from their websites.
Please note that I have only used the first two programs in the list, and cannot recommend any of the remaining software, relative to how accurate they are, how well they perform, etc. The list is provided for your informa- tion, and convenience only.
Author: Mike Cline, T/X Resources
I was just notified that the instructions in the info page of the Culture Symbol Spreadsheet (posted on 02/08/08) were in error.
I had copied-and-pasted the intial text, for the info page, from another spreadsheet, and thought that I had made the appropriate changes. However, I may have uploaded the wrong version when I finished.
Sorry for any confusion, previously. I have corrected the version in the original posting, but here is the corrected Culture Symbol Spreadsheet, along with the ascii file that goes with it.
Copyright © T/X RESOURCES, 1995-2008. All Rights Reserved.
Author: Mike Cline, T/X Resources
One of the limitations of seismic visualization that I often encounter, prior to interpreting the data, is being able to effectively isolate a geobody without including too much of the surrounding data.
For those new to visualization, the two common methods for displaying geo- bodies are: (1) Amplitude Restriction within a window (requires no previous interpretation), and (2) Data Extraction adjacent to an interpreted feature (ie. a fault, or horizon). Method 1 is usually faster, but can leave in a lot of extraneous data, as I’ve already mentioned. Method 2 is usually better at eliminating extraneous data, but most of the time it can’t be done until after a detailed interpretation—not much help if you’re in a hurry to see something.
So, I’m mainly looking for a method that can be used prior to a detailed inter- pretation, but is much better than Method 1 (and hopefully quicker than Method 2). The idea that I had is similar to the erase function in many raster image editing programs. Why can’t we erase the seismic data that we don’t want, just like we erase pixels in an image, using a combination of polygons for larger areas, and an adjustable “eraser” tool, for detailed, manual deletions.
See the larger Adobe Reader pdf file (four pages).
Note: The avi file is fairly large, so it will take some time before the animation starts.
Author: Mike Cline, T/X Resources
Synthetic seismograms are a very important part of seismic interpretation (in my opinion, but that’s a future post), but sonic logs are often not available. This is where our trusty friend, the pseudo-sonic log, comes in handy.
Since I use synthetics on every one of my interpretation projects, pseudo-sonic log generation has been a long-time interest of mine. I even published an article in the Oil & Gas Journal (Cline, 1989), comparing sonic and density logs to pseudo-sonic and pseudo-density logs computed from Deep Induction Resistivity logs, using the Faust equation.
Since then, I have developed a technique to generate pseudo-sonic logs from Neutron Porosity logs, that shows promise as an alternative method. I have also included three other common techniques for comparison, in this posting.
See the larger Adobe Reader pdf file (six pages).
Author: Mike Cline, T/X Resources
Here’s the latest in the series of T/X Resources spreadsheets designed to help when you need to create symbols to import as an SMT culture layer.
In the image below, a variety of symbols have been created to highlight certain wellbore attributes. For example, they could represent producing formations, hydrocarbon shows, well log types, or test results. You can also vary the symbol sizes, and colors, to represent a ranking order, such as production volumes, etc. It doesn’t really matter what you want to show on your map—this is an easy way to do it.
See the larger Adobe Reader pdf file.