an excerpt from

52
GEOPHYSICS
THINGS
YOU SHOULD
KNOW ABOUT

E D I T E D B Y M AT T H A L L & E VA N B I A N C O

A marvellous little book, full of nuggets of wisdom from the

whos who? of our industry. I highly recommend this book
to all young and aspiring geoscientists.
Dan Hampson
co-founder of HampsonRussell

This is a great book The contributing authors are among

the best known names in our profession. The subject each author
selects is an essential thing that we all need to know about
geophysics. I predict that when you get a copy of this
book in your hand, you will look at every page.
Bob A Hardage
President of SEG

I was grinning to myself as I read some of the comments. I liked the

informal tone and the down-to-earth advice. The bite-sized pieces
of advice will be most useful to students starting out in the field. Its
a fundamental truth that it is way more efficient to progress in your
discipline if you gaze at the horizon standing on the shoulders
of those who came before This book should make a
useful addition to any new geophysicists library!
Henry Posamentier
Seismic geomorphologist

Fascinating. In the current world of instant gratification this

provides rapid bites of insight into many aspects of geophysics,
seen through the eyes of some of the sciences best practitioners.
David Monk
President-Elect of SEG

First published in 2012 by Agile Libre

Nova Scotia, Canada. www.agilelibre.com
Copyright 2012 Agile Libre
Some rights reserved.

Except where otherwise noted, the text and illustrations of the essays in this work are
licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy
of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.
The collection, preamble, design, and cover are copyright 2012 Agile Libre.
All rights reserved.
Technical editors Matt Hall & Evan Bianco

t

Managing editor Kara Turner
Designer Neil Meister, MeisterWorks

t

Indexer Linda Lefler
Cover design electr0nika

t

Printing Amazon CreateSpace
We have done our best to ensure that the non-subjective parts of this book are
factually accurate. If you find a typo or a factual inaccuracy please let us know at
hello@agilelibre.com. While every precaution has been taken in the preparation in
this book, the publisher, editors, and contributors assume no responsibility for
damages resulting from the use of the information contained herein.

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication

52 things you should know about geophysics / edited by Matt Hall and Evan Bianco
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-9879594-0-9
1. Geophysics. I. Hall, Matt, 1971- II. Bianco, Evan, 1982III. Title: Fifty-two things you should know about geophysics.
QC806.F54 2012

550

C2012-902408-2

Who we are
Agile Libre is a new, independent publisher of technical books about the subsurface. The book you are holding is its first book, but there will be more. We have
a passion for sharing, so our books are openly licensed and inexpensive to buy.
Our aim is to be useful, relevant, and interesting. How can we make your life
better? Send your ideas to hello@agilelibre.com.

Where to get this book

You will find this book for sale at agilelibre.com, and also at Amazons various stores worldwide. Professors, chief geoscientists, managers, gift-givers: if
you would like to buy more than ten copies, please contact us for a discount
at hello@agilelibre.com.

About open licenses

The contents of this book are copyright, but licensed to the world under the
terms of the international Creative Commons Attribution license, which you
can read about at creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0. This means you are free
to share or use the contents in any way you like, provided you attribute the
author of the work. We would appreciate a mention of this book as the source,
too, but this is not required.

Colophon
This book was compiled in Google Docs and Microsoft Word, and laid out on a
Mac using Adobe InDesign with the MathMagic plug-in. The cover typeface is
Avant Garde Gothic and the text typefaces are Minion and Myriad. The figures
were prepared in Inkscape. It was published through Amazons CreateSpace.

Contents
Alphabetical
Contents by theme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12

Essays
Anisotropy is not going away . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vladimir Grechka 14
Beware the interpretation-to-data trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evan Bianco 16
Calibrate your intuition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Taras Gerya 18
Dont ignore seismic attenuation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carl Reine 20
Dont neglect your math . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brian Russell 22
Dont rely on preconceived notions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eric Andersen 24
Evolutionary understanding is the key to interpretation. . . . . Clare Bond 26
Explore the azimuths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David Gray 28
Five things I wish Id known . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Matt Hall 30
Geology comes first. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chris Jackson 32
Geophysics is all around. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jos M Carcione 34
How to assess a colourmap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Matteo Niccoli 36
Know your processing flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Duncan Emsley 38
Learn to program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Matt Hall 40
Leonardo was a geophysicist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jos M Carcione 42
Mind the quality gap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pavlo Cholach 44
My geophysical toolbox, circa 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dave Mackidd 46
No more innovation at a snails pace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paul de Groot 48
Old physics for new images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evan Bianco 50
One cannot live on geophysics alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marian Hanna 52
Pick the right key surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mihaela Ryer 54
Practise pair picking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evan Bianco 56
Practise smart autotracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Don Herron 58
Pre-stack is the way to go . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marc Sbar 60
Prove it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Matt Hall 62

Recognize conceptual uncertainty and bias. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clare Bond 66

Remember the bootstrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tooney Fink 68
Resolution on maps and sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rob Simm 70
See the big picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brian Russell 72
Seek out the biostrat . . . . . . . . . Alex Cullum & Linn Margareth Johansen 74
Simplify everything. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John Logel 76
Sweat the small stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brian Russell 78
The evolution of workstation interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dave Mackidd 80
The fine art of Mother Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chris Kent 82
The idea of seismic attributes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Art Barnes 84
The last fifteen years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dave Mackidd 86
The magic of Fourier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mostafa Naghizadeh 88
The magic of Lam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bill Goodway 90
The scale of a wavelet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brian Romans 92
The subtle effect of attenuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fereidoon Vasheghani 94
The unified AVO equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rob Simm 96
Use names to manage data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Don Herron 98
Use the rock physics bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Per Avseth 100
We need integrative innovation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maitri Erwin 102
Well tie basics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rachel Newrick 104
Well tie perfection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rachel Newrick 106
What I learned as a geophysicist wannabe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Victoria French 108
Where did the data come from? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rachel Newrick 110
Why you care about HashinShtrikman bounds . . . . . . . . . .Alan J Cohen 112
Wrong is good for you . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bert Bril 114
You are a geologist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Derik Kleibacker 116
List of contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

ALPHABE TIC AL CONTENTS

Publish or perish, industrial style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sven Treitel 64

Well tie basics

Rachel Newrick

Borehole measurements such as gamma ray, resistivity, sonic and density logs,
rock cuttings, core samples, casing points, and biostratigraphic results are all
recorded in depth. Conversely, seismic measurements and our interpretations
are inherently in seismic travel time.
To convert borehole measurements from depth to time, or to convert the seismic interpretation from time to depth, a timedepth relationship needs to be
established. We can use one of many techniques including velocities derived
from seismic, a checkshot or VSP, a sonic log, or a combination of any of these.
We confirm the timedepth relationship at the borehole location by generating
a synthetic seismogram.
To make a synthetic seismogram we need to:
1. Generate a reflectivity series.
2. Apply a timedepth relationship.
3. Convolve with a wavelet and compare to the seismic data.
If the synthetic seismogram is a good match to the seismic we can say that the
timedepth relationship is robust, and that the borehole data are located accurately on the seismic section and can be confidently extrapolated outwards.

Generating a reflectivity series

Reflectivity is generated by changes of impedance I = VP within the earth.
Since impedance is the product of velocity (VP) and density () we can generate
a reflectivity series directly from the slowness (DT) and bulk density (RHOB)
curves. A full suite of quality velocity and density logs is not always available,
so pseudo-curves can be estimated using established relationships like Faust or
Gardner, as discussed in Well tie perfection.

Estimating the timedepth relationship

We use all the information available to us to generate the timedepth relationship remember, it is all about the timedepth relationship. Commonly, we
start by integrating the sonic log to estimate timedepth pairs, that is, we sum
up all the measurements to get a total travel time to each depth in the bore104

not always available so pseudo-curves can be estimated

using established relationships like Faust or Gardner.

hole. Because sonic velocities are not the same as seismic velocities, due to the
phenomenon called dispersion, and because there are often gaps and spurious
measurements in the sonic log, the integrated sonic velocities often leave an
incomplete record that provides a poor tie. We can calibrate the sonic velocities
with a checkshot survey.
The checkshot survey is a measurement of seismic travel time at a range of
depths in the borehole, at least at key stratigraphic boundaries and total depth.
With checkshot data, we are saying, in effect, that we know how long it takes
for seismic energy to travel to this depth. So the timedepth relationship must
include these points.
In a marine setting, another timedepth point is the time and depth of the
seabed reflection. The seabed time can be read from seismic and the seabed
depth is recorded in the well file.

Pulling it together
We convolve the reflectivity series with a wavelet to give the appearance of the
seismic. Using the estimated timedepth relationship, the synthetic seismogram
can be compared directly to the seismic. If there is a good set of logs, a wavelet
that approximates that of the seismic section, and a good timedepth relationship we should have a good tie between the seismic and the borehole. The
synthetic will be a good match to the seismic, with similar frequency content,
high amplitudes in the same place, transparent zones in the seismic matched
by little reflectivity in the synthetic seismogram, and not much dispute from
anyone who looks at the tie.
Often we are not so fortunate. I outline some ways to deal with poor ties in
Well tie perfection.

105

*/5&313& 5"5*0/

t

#"4*$4

t

."11*/(

A full suite of quality velocity and density logs is

Well tie perfection

Rachel Newrick

The beauty of modern well-tie software is that it is easy to pull in a few curves,
to add some pin points and to move the synthetic to match the seismic, stretch
a bit of the top, perhaps squeeze a bit of the base. So lets think about what we
are actually doing when we apply these processes.

Bulk shifting
Often the entire synthetic appears to be too shallow or too deep. There is likely
a discrepancy in the datum or the replacement velocity used to anchor the
uppermost point of the synthetic. In this case it is valid to apply a bulk shift but
always check the datum and review the interval velocities in the near surface to
make sure that they are reasonable.

Stretch and squeeze

In my experience this is the most contentious part of the well-tie process because it is easy to abuse. This is not a procedure by which you simply select peaks
and troughs and match them to the seismic. You can make anything tie that way.
The idea is that a distinctive reflector on the seismic section is also observed
on the synthetic (and is thus observable on the borehole logs) and there is a
certainty that it represents the same event. If the event is identified in the borehole as a specific unconformity that has been correlated from other wells on
the seismic, so much the better.
There is well-documented dispersion between sonic and seismic velocities. Dispersion is the phenomenon of frequency dependence of acoustic velocity in
the rock. We usually need to make a correction for this by reducing the sonic
velocities by a small amount. This is most easily undertaken by stretching the
synthetic seismogram so that the depth extent occurs over more time. All geophysicists have their own thoughts on the procedure, but I like to first slightly
stretch the entire synthetic so that, in effect, a single drift correction is applied
and the major reflectors are correlated.
That said, there might be a significant change of lithology (e.g. clastic to carbonate) so a single drift correction may not apply. In this case, you might need to
insert some intermediate knee points.
106

At this point, it is good to remember that the end game is to correctly place
the depth data onto the seismic section so that we can extrapolate away from
the borehole or drill a prospect, for example. It is important not just to know
where we are in the borehole but to be honest about how certain we are about
where we are in the borehole.

Think about what you are doing

With each modification to the synthetic we should think about why we are applying a certain process, what the effect is, and whether it makes sense. Anderson and Newrick (2008) highlighted what can and does go wrong with synthetic
seismograms and I add to that here:
t
Quality check the logs with the help of a petrophysicist. If adequate velocity
and density curves are not available, then substitute computed curves when
necessary, but be clear about what you did. There are many ways to model
missing data (e.g. Gardner, Faust, Smith) so ensure that the one you choose is
appropriate for the geological setting. Present a series of synthetics to illustrate
the substitution (i.e. the raw curves with gaps; more complete pseudo-curves)
indicating where the real data are and where the computed data are.
t
Acquire VSPs for a detailed timedepth relationship. This will provide both
a corridor stack to match to the seismic and synthetic, and a timedepth
relationship. To extract checkshots, select some key impedance boundaries
and use those timedepth pairs.
t
Check that the interval velocities are reasonable for the expected strata in
the borehole, and if they are not, find out why. It could equally be a data
problem or interesting geological information.
t
Always make a few synthetics with a variety of edited curves, different wavelets, and even different seismic volumes, such as full, near, mid, and far stacks.
t
Remember that a poor synthetic tie is not always caused by poor synthetic
inputs the seismic data may not be optimally processed or correctly positioned due to many reasons, including strong velocity variations, anisotropy,
or complex structure.
t
When the tie just doesnt seem to work consider the amplitudes and zones
of interest, i.e. the dim zone generally ties to the low amplitude zone on the
synthetic, but in this case be honest about how good the tie is.

References
Anderson, P, and R Newrick (2008). Strange but true stories of synthetic seismograms. CSEG Recorder 33 (10), 51.
Available online at ageo.co/HZdznN.

107

*/5&313& 5"5*0/

t

/*/+"
4,*--4

t

"/"-:4*4

Great match