Approaches to defining reservoir physical properties from 3-D seismic attributes with limited well control: An example from the Jurassic Smackover Formation, Alabama
Bs. Hart et Rs. Balch, Approaches to defining reservoir physical properties from 3-D seismic attributes with limited well control: An example from the Jurassic Smackover Formation, Alabama, GEOPHYSICS, 65(2), 2000, pp. 368-376
Much industry interest is centered on how to integrate well data and attrib
utes derived from 3-D seismic data sets in the hope of defining reservoir p
roperties in interwell areas. Unfortunately, the statistical underpinnings
of the methods become less robust in areas where only a few wells are avail
able, as might be the case in a new or small field. Especially in areas of
limited well availability, we suggest that the physical basis of the attrib
utes selected during the correlation procedure be validated by generating s
ynthetic seismic sections from geologic models, then deriving attributes fr
om the sections. We demonstrate this approach with a case study from Applet
on field of southwestern Alabama. In this small field, dolomites of the Jur
assic Smackover Formation produce from an anticlinal feature about 3800 m d
eep. We used available geologic information to generate synthetic seismic s
ections that showed the expected seismic response of the target formation;
then we picked the relevant horizons in a 3-D seismic data volume that span
ned the study area. Using multiple regression, we derived an empirical rela
tionship between three seismic attributes of this 3-D volume and a log-deri
ved porosity indicator. Our choice of attributes was validated by deriving
complex trace attributes from our seismic modeling results and confirming t
hat the relationships between well properties and real-data attributes were
physically valid. Additionally, the porosity distribution predicted by the
3-D seismic data was reasonable within the context of the depositional mod
el used for the area. Results from a new well drilled after our study valid
ated our porosity prediction, although our structural prediction for the to
p of the porosity zone was erroneous. These results remind us that seismic
interpretations should be viewed as works in progress which need to be upda
ted when new data become available.