0001

An Introduction to Seismic Interpretation
Chapter 1: Introduction
About this Disc
Disc Contents (PDF format)
Show/Hide Bookmarks
Previous Page | Next Page
Search
Print
Close
Navigation
Show Hide
1.1 Introduction: Purpose of this Text
This text discusses how active-source, reflection seismic surveying is used to study the Earths
interior. The focus is on the geologic interpretation of seismic data, although topics related to wave
propagation, data acquisition and processing, and quantitative rock property prediction are also
discussed. Most seismic datasets are collected by the petroleum industry in its quest to explore
for and develop hydrocarbon reserves, and so this text will explore many topics of relevance to the
petroleum industry. However, seismic data have long been used in other branches of Earth Science
and are seeing increasing use in other fields. Accordingly, this text is intended to also benefit a nonpetroleum readership. In a general way, it should be of interest to:
Geologists with minimal training in geophysics
Geophysicists with minimal background in geology
Engineers or others who use seismic data, or might be exposed to the results of a
seismic interpretation, but have little/no background in either geology or geophysics.
Seismology is a branch of earth science that focuses on the study of seismic waves, elastic
disturbances that propagate through the Earth (based on Sheriff, 2002) after earthquakes (passivesource seismology) or in response to man-made perturbations (known either as active- or controlledsource seismology). Applications of seismology include using seismic waves to probe the deepest
parts of the Earths interior (e.g., the core-mantle boundary; e.g., van der Hilst et al., 2007) or the
upper few meters of a sediment column (e.g., Baker et al., 1999). Lay (2009) described some of the
topics currently being addressed by the seismology community.
For simplicity, the term seismic data is used in this text to describe seismic reflection data collected
using sources and receivers at the Earths surface (sometimes referred to as surface seismic data).
Borehole seismic methods involve putting receivers, sources, or both down boreholes. Selected
topics in borehole seismology are discussed in CHAPTER 5. Seismic refraction surveys, that
analyze a type of seismic wave known as a head wave, are also used to the study the Earths interior
(e.g., refraction methods are generally considered to be more useful than reflection methods to study
the upper few meters of the subsurface; Burger et al., 2006), but will not be discussed here.
Page 1
About this Disc
Show/Hide Bookmarks
Search
Print
Close
Navigation
Show Hide
An Introduction to Seismic Interpretation Chapter OneIntroduction

Various aspects of the historical development of seismic
technology have been discussed by others (e.g., Sheriff
and Geldart, 1995; Chopra and Marfurt, 2005) and will
not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that improvements
in technology (e.g., the advent of digital recording and
continuous development of computer graphics capabilities)
in the 20th century and since have significantly changed
the speed and accuracy with which interpreters can define
subsurface structure, stratigraphy and rock properties (e.g.,
FIGURE 1.1; ANIMATION 1).
The seismic interpretation problem is a difficult one.
Seismic waves are used to remotely image geologic
features of the Earths interior. In some respects, the
method has similarities to the way magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI), CT scans or X-ray imaging are used to
image the human body. However, the medical imaging
problem differs from seismic imaging in at least two
fundamental ways:
The MRI data are collected in carefully

controlled environmental conditions
whereas the seismic data are collected in
uncontrollable field conditions that can be
quite variable (e.g., onshore versus offshore
seismic surveying).
Human bodies are all more-or-less the same
(knees, brains, and other body parts are all
about the same size and shape, and made of
the same materials), whereas the targets of
seismic imaging can be extremely variable.
Some seismic data are collected to provide
high-resolution images of the upper several
meters of unconsolidated sediment over
relatively small areas. Other seismic data
are collected to image large-scale structures
in igneous and metamorphic rocks.
Accordingly, each seismic project can be quite different

in terms of how the data are acquired and the processing
that needs to be applied in order to generate interpretable
images. Seismic data quality can be variable, depending
on acquisition and processing parameters (e.g., weather
conditions during acquisition, choice of processing
algorithms). The seismic interpreter is faced with imperfect
images of geologic features that can have largely unknown
dimensions, orientations, internal structures and physical
Page 2
Back to Chapter
Figure 1.1: Comparison of different vintages of seismic imaging
B) Seismic imaging
in the early
part of the 21st
Century. Threedimensional
visualization of
a Pleistocene
submarine
channel
system. From
Labourdette
and Bez (2010).
A) Seismic
interpretation in
the 1940s. Key
reflection events
are identified in
two unprocessed
paper copies
of shot records
collected
several to many
kilometers/
miles apart.
Reproduced with
permission from
Stommel (1950).
C) Three-dimensional seismic
visualization of mounded structures
in Pliocene deposits of the eastern
Mediterranean sea. Reflections
marked flat spot represent probable
hydrocarbon-water contacts. From
Frey-Martinez et al. (2007).
FIGURE 1.1:
Comparison of different
vintages of seismic imaging
Back to Chapter
Animation 1: Volume-rendering of a 3-D seismic cube showing igneous

intrusions. Courtesy CGG-Veritas .
ANIMATION 1
Volume-rendering of a
3-D seismic cube showing
igneous intrusions.
Courtesy CGG-Veritas.
Back to Chapter
Figure 1.2: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) slice through the authors knee
The slice from a 3-D volume that

was collected in the controlled
environment of the medical
imaging facility. The shapes,
sizes and physical properties of
features can be determined from
this type of image, but knowledge
of anatomy is clearly needed to
understand it. Scale bars in cm.
FIGURE 1.2:
Magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) slice through the
authors knee.
About this Disc
Show/Hide Bookmarks
Search
Print
Close
Navigation
Show Hide
properties. Furthermore, those images generally contain artifacts related to how the data were
acquired and processed.
Knowledge of geology is clearly needed to interpret seismic images, in the same way that knowledge
of anatomy is needed to interpret medical imagery (FIGURE 1.2). However, other knowledge is
also needed in order to maximize the benefit obtained from a seismic interpretation, including:
The physical controls on seismic wave propagation through the subsurface, including
how reflections are generated and limits on seismic resolution.
The relationships between acquisition and processing parameters and seismic image
quality.
The ways in which seismic data are displayed and analyzed.
How seismic data are tied to other sources of subsurface information, such as wireline
logs, in order to calibrate the seismic images.
These topics are addressed in Chapters 2 5 respectively. Geologic aspects of seismic interpretation
are covered in Chapters 6 (structural geology) and 7 (sedimentary geology), whereas CHAPTER 8
focuses on quantitative methods for rock property prediction.
1.2 What is a Seismic Interpretation?

Doing a seismic interpretation means different things to different people. Seismic data are
collected and used by many types of people to study portions of the Earth that are inaccessible to
direct observation. Seismic datasets can consists of a few 2-D seismic lines (e.g., Snyder et al.,
2005), integrated grids of 2-D and 3-D seismic data that cover large areas (e.g., Hsiao et al., 2004),
small (1 square mile or less; ~1.6 km2) 3-D surveys collected onshore by small oil companies (e.g.,
Hart et al., 1996), or mega 3-D surveys that cover nearly 8000 square miles (~20,000 km2; e.g.,
Fugelli and Olson, 2007). As discussed below, variable amounts of other data might be incorporated
into the interpretation.
Geophysicists, geologists, engineers and potentially others all collect and analyze seismic data, and
for different purposes. Although most seismic datasets are collected by the petroleum industry in
its quest to find and exploit hydrocarbon accumulations, the technology is an indispensable part of
many other branches of applied and fundamental geoscience and engineering. An incomplete list of
non-petroleum applications of seismic technology includes:
Exploration and development in the mining industry. Seismic methods have been
tested for mineral exploration (e.g., Milkereit et al., 1997; Eaton et al., 2003) but
are relatively uncommon (Milsom, 2006), partly because of cost but mostly because
the lack of coherent layering in igneous and metamorphic rocks makes processing
and interpretation difficult. Applications for coal mining are more common (e.g.,
Gochioco, 2000; Pu and Xizun, 2005; Zuo et al., 2009).
Seismic data have been collected by research groups for many years to image deep
crustal structure (e.g., Allmendinger et al., 1987; Milkereit and Eaton, 1998; Snyder et
al., 2005; FIGURE 1.3) and to plan ocean drilling projects (ODP/IODP) and interpret
the data (core, wireline logs) collected (e.g., McIntosh and Sen, 2000; Tobin et al.,
2009).
Page 3
About this Disc
Show/Hide Bookmarks
Search
Print
Close
Navigation
Show Hide
Petroleum-industry seismic data are

commonly donated to research groups used
to address a wide variety of fundamental
geoscience questions. Applications to
structural and sedimentary geology are well
established, but even igneous processes
are being studied using petroleum industry
seismic data (e.g., Hansen et al., 2008;
FIGURE 1.4).
Seismic data are acquired in civil
engineering studies for a variety of reasons,
including detection of faults or other zones
of weakness, determining depth to bedrock,
locating cavities and voids, delineation
of different lithologies (e.g., natural soils
versus fill), etc. (e.g., Burger et al., 2006;
Schuck and Lange, 2008).
Oceanographers have begun using seismic
data to study the thermohaline structure of
the ocean (e.g., Holbrook et al., 2003; Nandi
et al., 2004).
Seismic data are used to map and
characterize aquifers (Cardimona et al.,
1998; Louis et al, 2002; Sharpe et al., 2004;
FIGURE 1.5). The distribution of water
in aquifers is most commonly controlled
by stratigraphic features that determine the
distribution of porous and permeable strata,
but fractures can be important in some cases.
Methods and concepts of seismic data
acquisition, processing, and interpretation
have been adapted to ground-penetrating
radar studies (e.g., Bristow and Jol, 2003;
Moysey et al., 2003) and so it is hoped
that this text will be of interest to GPR
interpreters.
Despite this wide range of potential applications, it is

possible to identify three main purposes for collecting and
interpreting seismic data:
To define subsurface structure. This might

entail looking for faults, folds, igneous
intrusions or other features. A petroleum
geologist might be interested in faults and
folds because they can trap hydrocarbons.
Page 4
Back to Chapter
Figure 1.3: Perspective view showing integration of crustal-scale

seismic profiles with surface geologic maps
From Snyder et al. (2005).
FIGURE 1.3:
Perspective view showing
integration of crustal-scale
seismic profiles with surface
geologic maps
Back to Chapter
Figure 1.4: Application of petroleum-industry 3-D seismic data to

study igneous intrusions from the North Sea
A) Arbitrary section
through a 3-D
seismic volume
showing various
types of igneous
intrusions.
B) The same profile with

an illuminated horizon
showing top of a basalt
layer (TB in part A).
C
C) Zoom in on a portion of the top of basalt
horizon. From Thomson (2007).
FIGURE 1.4:
Application of petroleumindustry 3-D seismic data to
study igneous intrusions from
the North Sea
Back to Chapter
Figure 1.5: Seismic transect across Quaternary and Holocene strata

from eastern Ontario, showing a channel incised into
Paleozoic bedrock and associated glacial deposits
The seismic profile has been integrated with aerial photography

and (not shown) outcrop exposures of glacial deposits.
From Cummings and Russell, 2007.
FIGURE 1.5:
Seismic transect across
Quaternary and Holocene
strata from eastern Ontario
About this Disc
Show/Hide Bookmarks
Search
Print
Close
Navigation
Show Hide
To a civil engineer, faults could be potential planes of weakness, or possible signs of

modern seismic activity. Faults, folds and other structures can be used to reconstruct
the tectonic history of an area in an academic study. These themes are discussed in
CHAPTER 6.
To define subsurface stratigraphy. Stratigraphic features act as hydrocarbon

reservoirs, baffles that retard subsurface fluid flow, or seals (caprocks) that trap
hydrocarbons. At shallower depths, stratigraphic features form aquifers, aquitards,
and aquicludes that control the movement of groundwater. Sedimentary deposits host
important information about Earth history, including essentially all of what is known
about the history of life on this planet. The stratigraphic interpretation of Seismic
data is discussed in CHAPTER 7.
To define subsurface physical properties. It may be desirable or necessary to

make quantitative predictions of porosity, the nature of pore-filling fluids (e.g.,
hydrocarbons or water), subsurface pressure or other variables. These topics are
discussed in CHAPTER 8.
In some cases, such as in the petroleum industry, an interpreter or an interpretation team might
pursue all three of these objectives. In other cases, seismic data are collected and analyzed to answer
specific questions that can be broadly related to one of the three topics described above.
The Geologic Interpretation Problem

There have traditionally been two main approaches to seismic interpretations. Physics-based
interpretations (e.g., Avseth et al., 2005; CHAPTER 8) are often preferred by geophysicists who
integrate seismic measurements with physical laws, laboratory measurements and other data and
concepts in an effort to directly predict the physical properties (porosity, lithology, fracture spacing
and orientation, etc.) of features imaged seismically. On the other hand, geologic interpretations
(examples in Chapters 6 and 7) integrate qualitative and quantitative observations of seismic data
with geologic principles (commonly non-mathematical constructs), analogs (outcrops, smallscale physical models, etc.), physical and chemical laws, and other data and concepts in order
to reconstruct the geologic history of an area and often to make qualitative inferences about the
physical properties of features imaged seismically. The physics-based problems tend to be more
tractable (provided that adequate seismic measurements can be obtained), whereas the geology-based
problems are beset with all of the problems that have traditionally plagued geologists: ambiguous
data, incomplete and inadequate data (i.e. the problem is underdetermined), and complex issues that
are not readily addressed by mathematics or physics.
Frodeman (1995) suggested that geology has aspects of both an interpretive science and an historical
science. The interpretive aspect of geology implies that how geologists perceive a seismic display
(or an outcrop, a thin section, etc.) will be based on the toolsets, concepts, expectations and values
that are brought to the interpretation. Different levels of importance are assigned to various aspects
of a seismic image based on the geologists experience, the prevailing paradigms, and other factors.
This type of interpretation is analogous to the way in which medical doctors diagnose a health
problem (e.g., if a patient has stomach problems, what are the important symptoms to look for and/or
the important tests to make?). The historical aspect of geology means that geologists commonly deal
with temporal (and spatial) scales that are not amenable to laboratory experiments. Although we
can squeeze layers of modeling clay in order to partially duplicate the forms of seismic reflections
Page 5
About this Disc
Show/Hide Bookmarks
Search
Print
Close
Navigation
Show Hide

thought to be the product of compressive tectonic
deformation, we can change base level and sediment supply
in giant flume tanks to partially duplicate the stratigraphic
character of seismic sequences, or we can build numerical
models of structural or depositional systems, the results of
these experiments do not (at least yet?) fully reproduce the
effects of processes that shaped large portions of the Earths
surface over periods of millions to hundreds of millions
of years. Accordingly, geologists are left to reason by
analogy (e.g., the present is the key to the past), formulate
hypotheses that are consistent with all the available
evidence (seismic or otherwise), and use inductive logic to
eliminate alternative theories.
Geologic interpretations of seismic data draw upon
fundamental principles of geology, some of which date
back to the 17th century, to identify periods of deposition,
erosion and tectonic disturbance, and to establish their
relative timing. For example:
The Principle of Uniformitarianism states

that the laws and processes (gravity, erosion,
etc.) active in the past are those that operate
today.
The Principle of Original Horizontality

states that sediment is deposited in
essentially horizontal layers (FIGURE
1.6A). It follows that steeply inclined
stratigraphic units must have been tilted
sometime after deposition and lithification
(FIGURE 1.6B). Although there are
exceptions to this general rule, for example
some types of sedimentary deposits (e.g.,
coarse-grained alluvial fans or submarine
talus slopes) can support steep depositional
dips, it is a good starting point. It should
also be pointed out that a seismic interpreter
can manipulate the vertical and horizontal
scales of a seismic display to make even
very gentle dips (e.g., a few degrees) appear
to be quite steep (see CHAPTER 4).
The Principle of Superposition states that in

an undisturbed succession of sedimentary
rocks, the oldest layers will be at the bottom
and the youngest layers will be at the top
(FIGURE 1.6A,B).
Page 6
Back to Chapter
Figure 1.6: Outcrop photos illustrating various basic

fundamental geologic concepts
A) The bedding in these sedimentary rocks from southeast
Utah is essentially horizontal, indicating a lack of structural
disturbance. The oldest rocks are on the bottom.
C) The brown-colored
igneous dyke
in the middle
of this photo
(from Montreal)
crosscuts the
layered, grey
sedimentary rocks,
indicating that it
formed sometime
after deposition of
the sedimentary
rocks.
B) The bedding in
these sedimentary
rocks from
Alberta is no
longer horizontal,
indicating a period
of structural
deformation
at some point
after the rocks
were deposited
and lithified.
Sedimentary
structures of the
rocks have been
used as way-up
indicators to infer
the relative ages of
the strata exposed
in this outcrop.
D) The fault in the center-left of this image crosscuts, and so postdates,

deposition of the sedimentary rocks. The timing relationship
between the tilting of the sedimentary rocks and their faulting
cannot be determined from this outcrop in eastern Spain.
FIGURE 1.6:
Outcrop photos illustrating
various basic fundamental
geologic concepts
About this Disc
Show/Hide Bookmarks
Search
Print
Close
Navigation
Show Hide
The Principle of Cross-Cutting Relationships

states that the body of an intrusion (perhaps
an igneous body or salt) or a fault must be
younger than the strata which it intrudes or
displaces (FIGURE 1.6C,D). An erosion
surface must also be younger than the
surfaces it erodes.
These and other basic geologic principles are generally

taught in introductory level geology courses (FIGURE 1.7)
but they are used in seismic interpretation to address
complex geologic problems.
A simple example of the application of these principles is
illustrated in FIGURE 1.8A, a portion of a seismic profile
collected from the offshore area of Canadas west coast.
As indicated in FIGURE 1.8B, this image suggests at least
six different geologic episodes that can be put in relative
geologic order:
A period of relatively continuous

sedimentary deposition during which
the sediments in the lower portion of the
image (Package 1) were deposited. The
Principle of Superposition indicates that
the oldest deposits should be at the base of
the succession because it does not appear to
have been overturned.
A period of erosion, during which an

approximately U-shaped erosion surface
formed. The Principle of Cross-Cutting
Relationships states that the erosion
occurred sometime after deposition of the
youngest eroded strata.
Sedimentary deposition in the eroded area

(Package 2) postdated formation of the
erosion surface. Again the oldest units are
on the bottom.
Normal faulting affected both the eroded

strata and the fill of the erosional hollow
(Principle of Cross-Cutting Relationships
both Packages 1 and 2 are affected by
faulting, therefore the faulting postdates
deposition of these two units).
Erosion of the fault at the sea floor, followed

by
Page 7
Back to Chapter
Figure 1.7: Introductory geology level example of how fundamental

geologic concepts are used to reconstruct geologic histories
Upper image shows an imaginary

geologic cross section. In the
lower image, geologic features are
numbered in the order that they
formed.
1. Emplacement of granite.
2. Uplift and erosion.
3 deposition of shale.
4 deposition of limestone.
5 deposition of sandstone.
8 Faulting.
9 Intrusion of dyke.
10 uplift and erosion.
12 Intrusion of dyke and lava flow.
15 uplift and erosion (modern)
FIGURE 1.7:
Introductory geology level
example of how fundamental
geologic concepts are used to
reconstruct geologic histories
Back to Chapter
Figure 1.8: Simple example showing how fundamental geologic principles

are used to reconstruct the geologic history of a seismic image
A
A) Seismic profile from the

Pacific continental shelf of
Canada (image courtesy
Julie Halliday; see also
Halliday et al., 2005).
B
B) Animated reconstruction
of the geologic history
represented by the
seismic image in A. See
text for discussion.
Click image to play
animation.
FIGURE 1.8:
Simple example showing
how fundamental geologic
principles are used to
reconstruct the geologic
history of a seismic image
About this Disc
Show/Hide Bookmarks
Search
Print
Close
Navigation
Show Hide
Deposition of a relatively thin veneer of

sediments at the seafloor (Package 3;
Principle of Cross-Cutting Relationships
the youngest strata do not appear to
be affected by faulting, therefore their
deposition must post-date the fault
movement).
Back to Chapter
Figure 1.9: Venn Diagram depicting how integration of various data

types helps to reduce interpretation uncertainty
Each circle represents

repre
the range
of possible interpretations
inte
that is
consistent with data and concepts
of geophysics, g
geology and
engineering. The
Th Truth is probably
found in the int
intersection of these
three different sets.
Some issues remain:
We do not know what the lithologies are.

The stratified appearance to the seismic
image suggests sedimentary deposits, but are
they sand, sandstone, mud, shale, limestone
or some other type of deposit? Direct
sampling, through coring, could be very
helpful. Alternatively, information about how
fast the seismic waves propagated through
the sedimentary deposits might help us to put
useful constraints on the possible lithologies.
We do not know the absolute ages of the

deposits or how much time is missing
at erosion surfaces, although we have
established a relative timing for the geologic
features imaged in the data. Fossils, ash
beds, or other datable materials from core or
drill cuttings could be useful for constraining
the timing of events.
We do not know the origin of the U-shaped

erosion surface. Perhaps information about
its 3-D shape could be helpful (e.g., is it long
like a channel or more bowl shaped?), but
that information cannot be determined from
this 2-D image.
We do not know how thick the succession

is. The vertical scale at left is in time units
(seconds, two-way traveltime) and we will
need some information about seismic wave
propagation velocities in order to convert
from time to depth.
It is clear that, by themselves, the seismic data do not

provide us with unique solutions to these and other
important questions. The seismic data, and interpretations
based thereon, need to be integrated with other data types
in order to reduce the number of plausible interpretation
Page 8
FIGURE 1.9:
Venn Diagram depicting
how integration of various
data types helps to reduce
interpretation uncertainty
About this Disc
Show/Hide Bookmarks
Search
Print
Close
Navigation
Show Hide

options. This concept can be depicted using a Venn
Diagram from Set Theory as illustrated in FIGURE 1.9.
Three sets are shown, each of which illustrates the range of
possible subsurface interpretations based on the geological,
geophysical or engineering data alone. Commonly,
geologists, geophysicists and engineers seek to reduce the
uncertainty (i.e. circle size in FIGURE 1.9) by undertaking
advanced interpretations in their field of expertise. In
reality, The Truth will be found in the intersection set that is
consistent with all three types of data and concepts.
The need to integrate seismic and other data types will
be a recurring theme throughout the rest of this text. The
type(s) of data incorporated into a seismic interpretation
will depend on the type of project. For example, an
environmental marine geology project might combine highresolution seismic profiling with side-scan sonar imaging,
multi-beam bathymetry, electromagnetic surveying, and
some type of coring (Evans et al., 2000; FIGURE 1.10).
Deep structural imaging might incorporate seismic
images with gravity data (FIGURE 1.11; Bayer et al.,
2002) or tomographic velocity analyses (FIGURE 1.12)
to help constrain the results of the interpretation. In the
petroleum industry, seismic analyses are commonly
integrated with well data, such as borehole geophysical
logs, micropaleontological or lithology data from cuttings
or core, etc. (FIGURE 1.13; Sturrock, 1996). A similar
approach is used in the Ocean Drilling world, where
drilling locations are defined using seismic data, and then
borehole logs and core are ultimately tied back to the
seismic data (FIGURE 1.14). The seismic interpreter
needs to have some degree of familiarity with the other data
types included in the interpretation because information
gleaned from those datasets can be used to constrain
seismic interpretation possibilities. Knowledge of the
limitations and capabilities of these other methods is useful
for integrating them and weighing their importance and
limitations when, almost inevitably, different datasets
suggest different interpretations.
Defining the Purpose of the Interpretation

The purpose of a seismic interpretation project is likely to
change from project to project, and may change with time.
In the petroleum industry, an interpreters main duty on
one project may be to quantitatively define a distribution
of potential reservoir sizes in an exploration area, and
Page 9
Back to Chapter
Figure 1.10: Integration of side-scan sonar data with high-resolution

profiling data in an environmental marine geology
study of the Fraser Delta, Canada
A) A side-scan sonar image
of the seafloor. Dark
areas represent hard
seafloor (Pleistocene
till), and white areas
are softer seafloor
(Holocene sediments).
This image is useful for
mapping the distribution
of the different substrate
types, but provides no
information about their
thickness.
B) Deep-tow profiler
image that includes
the area shown in part
A. This image provides
information about the
stratigraphy, but is less
helpful than the sidescan sonar image for
mapping purposes.
Depth scale in part
B assumes a water
velocity of 1450 m/s.
Modified and used with
permission from Hart
and Barrie (1996).
FIGURE 1.10:
Integration of side-scan
sonar data with highresolution profiling data in
an environmental marine
geology study of the Fraser
Delta, Canada
Back to Chapter
Figure 1.11: Use of gravity data to test the validity of a

seismic interpretation
The seismic data is shown at

top, with a color overlay of
stacking velocities. A simplified
geologic interpretation of
the seismic data is shown at
the bottom. The profile and
rock densities are used to
predict the gravity field. Close
correspondence between
predicted and measured gravity
(middle) indicates that the
seismic interpretation is at least
possible, although conceivably
other combinations of thickness
and density could produce
identical gravity profiles. From
ODonnell et al. (2002).
FIGURE 1.11:
Use of gravity data to test
the validity of a seismic
interpretation
Back to Chapter
Figure 1.12: Integration of a crustal-scale seismic profile (variable-area

display) with tomography-derived velocity overlay (color)
Velocities are useful in this context for defining lithology of the

shallow crust, and for migrating the seismic data (e.g., FIGURE 2.23).
Full seismic profile extends to approximately 18 km depth (see
FIGURE 5.13). From Snyder et al. (2005).
FIGURE 1.12:
Integration of a crustalscale seismic profile with
tomography-derived velocity
overlay
About this Disc
Show/Hide Bookmarks
Search
Print
Close
Navigation
Show Hide

establish the risks associated with each potential reservoir
or reservoir type. The next project may have him/her using
seismic data to define the distribution of porosity in a specific
oil or gas field. Although interpreters sometimes develop
specialties (e.g., pre-stack inversion, fracture detection,
turbidite fan systems) they are also often called on to be
generalists.
From the outset, an interpreter needs a clear understanding
of the purpose of the project in order to help define how
much time and effort to devote to specific aspects of the
interpretation, what sorts of data and/or outside expertise need
to be included, and what final products are expected. The
objectives of the study, including the nature of the product(s)
that will be generated from the seismic interpretation (maps,
reports, digital outputs, etc.), are identified and subsequent
work focuses on attaining those objectives. It is possible to do
a lot of work only to find out that some, most or even all of that
work was not useful for the project at hand. For example, if the
main focus of a project is to define infill drilling locations in a
small, densely drilled area by mapping out channels using 3-D
seismic data and wells, using those data to address questions
of global eustasy (sea-level change) would probably not be
a good use of an interpreters time. Maintaining this kind
of tight focus might not seem appropriate from an academic
perspective, where sometimes great new ideas spring from
unexpected places. However, from an Industry (petroleum,
mining or engineering) perspective it can be a necessity. Even
in the world of Academia, projects (such as Ph.D. dissertations)
usually have budgetary or time limits and promises made to a
funding agency about what the deliverables will be.
Having established the purpose of the interpretation project,
a seismic interpreter needs to become familiar with: 1) the
other data types to be included in the interpretation (wireline
logs, potential field data, reservoir pressures, etc.), 2) the type
of geologic features being imaged (perhaps facies models for
the sedimentary deposits being imaged, or a particular type of
structural model such as listric growth faults), and 3) aspects
of the geologic history of the study area that are relevant to the
interpretation.
Hydrocarbons and groundwater are usually found in
sedimentary rocks, and so a seismic interpreter looking for
those fluids should have a working knowledge of sedimentary
geology. This type of knowledge can be gathered in a variety
Page 10
Back to Chapter
Figure 1.13: Biostratigraphic interpretation from an offshore

well in the Gulf of Mexico
Gamma ray and spontaneous

potential (SP) logs at left help
to define lithology. Biofacies
(middle) help to define water
depth (SIN Shallow Inner
Neritic, UPPB Upper Bathyal,
etc.). Foraminiferal abundance
helps to identify condensed
sections and sequence
boundaries. Paleontology of
microfossils used to identify
Faunal Discontinuity Events
and Foram Bioevents (right).
Synthetic seismogram used to
tie biostratigraphically defined
horizons and zones to seismic
data. From Armentrout (1991).
FIGURE 1.13:
Biostratigraphic
interpretation from an
offshore well in the Gulf of
Mexico
Back to Chapter
Figure 1.14: Integration of seismic profile with core data from

Ocean Drilling Program coring, offshore Costa Rica
From Gettemy and Tobin (2003).

See that paper for description of
abbreviations used in this figure.
FIGURE 1.14:
Integration of seismic profile
with core data from Ocean
Drilling Program coring,
offshore Costa Rica
About this Disc
Show/Hide Bookmarks
Search
Print
Close
Navigation
Show Hide

of ways, including looking at outcrops, visiting modern
depositional systems, looking at satellite imagery, taking
courses, etc. (FIGURE 1.15). There are two primary
reasons for gaining this knowledge. First, it must be
recognized that there can be stratigraphic features (shale
drapes, cemented zones, etc.) that can significantly affect
reservoir performance but cannot adequately be detected
using seismic data. Second, we need to be able to associate
reflection patterns to geologic features (faults, channels,
etc.). The disconnected blobs of color seen in an amplitude
extraction might be meaningless to one interpreter, but
might be recognizable as the components of a submarine
fan to another (FIGURE 1.16). Although depositional
systems show much variability in terms of stratigraphic
architecture (e.g., are the channels in a submarine fan
system straight or sinuous, are they filled with sand or
shale?) and size, an interpreter needs to be able to put some
constraints on the acceptable range of possibilities.
Similar logic applies to structural interpretation. Faults
and folds can set up traps and faults can compartmentalize
reservoirs. Sub-seismically detectable faults and fracture
systems can have a significant impact on reservoir
performance. An interpreter needs to be able to draw upon
his/her knowledge of structural geology (or perhaps seek
assistance from an expert in the field) in order to predict the
location, dimensions, orientation and hydraulic properties
of these features. Knowledge of structural geology (e.g.,
relationships between tectonic settings and structural styles)
will help to guide a fault interpretation through areas of
poor data quality. Small-scale analogs seen in outcrops can
help an interpreter to understand seismic-scale structures
(FIGURE 1.17). Knowledge of the tectonic history of an
area can help to constrain the types of structures that are
visible in an area, and their ages.
A seismic interpretation is commonly just one aspect of a
project. Depending on data availability (e.g., the number
of seismic surveys and wells) and the objectives of the
project, the amount of work and knowledge needed to
integrate all data types into an integrated interpretation can
be overwhelming. Many companies and research groups
therefore divide the work amongst interdisciplinary teams.
In such a team, geologists, geophysicists and perhaps
engineers feed off of each others work. For example,
the geologists log-based interpretations are used by the
Page 11
Back to Chapter
Figure 1.15: Becoming a better seismic interpreter

by studying geology
B) SCUBA diving on a
modern reef, Red Sea
A) Measuring outcrops
of Cretaceous clastics,
Book Cliffs, Utah
C) Examining core, Calgary. These types of activities can

help an interpreter to understand relationships between
physical properties and depositional environment, the
geometry and dimensions of sub-seismic features, etc.
FIGURE 1.15:
Becoming a better seismic
interpreter by studying
geology
Back to Chapter
Figure 1.16: Comparison of a seismic image with an

outcrop-based depositional model
A
B) Submarine fan models based on
observations of the Permian Brushy
Canyon Formation in West Texas. From
Beauboeuf et al. (1999). Knowledge
of the elements found in submarine
channel and fan systems helps guide
the interpretation of the seismic data.
A) Vertical view of an opacity slab

(cf. FIGURE 4.34). High amplitudes
probably represent sandy deposits,
and transparent areas represent
shales. Modified from Kidd (1999).
FIGURE 1.16:
Comparison of a seismic
image with an outcrop-based
depositional model
Back to Chapter
Figure 1.17: Similarity in structural features across five orders

of magnitude difference in spatial scale
A) En echelon series of fractures

(white lines; cm-scale ) in
Cretaceous sandstones of the San
Juan Basin. Lens cap for scale.
B) En echelon series of faults (green;

km-scale) in Paleozoic carbonate strata
of Ohio derived from 3-D seismic
mapping (Sagan and Hart, 2006).
FIGURE 1.17:
Similarity in structural
features across five orders
of magnitude difference in
spatial scale
About this Disc
Show/Hide Bookmarks
Search
Print
Close
Navigation
Show Hide
geophysicist working the seismic data and vice versa. In other organizations, the interpreters are
integrated geoscientists who are expected to work with both seismic and log data. There are
advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. An interdisciplinary team that works closely
together can generate an integrated interpretation that covers all aspects of a problem in greater depth
than can be achieved by generalist geoscientists. On the other hand, a team can be dysfunctional if
it consists of groups of specialists whose interests and knowledge do not allow them to effectively
communicate and reach a common interpretation.
1.3 The Seismic Interpreter

The results of a seismic interpretation are influenced by many factors, including the seismic
interpreters previous experience and the techniques used to undertake the interpretation (Rankey
and Mitchell, 2003; Bond et al., 2007, 2008). Geologists and geophysicists both commonly
undertake seismic interpretations and, given the differences between geological and geophysical
training, it is not surprising that they tend to have different focuses, at least in the petroleum industry
(Sternbach, 2002):
Geophysicists tend to be pay finders, i.e. people who focus on quantitative methods
to directly detect hydrocarbon accumulations or other physical properties of interest.
Geologists tend to be play finders, i.e. people who integrate pattern recognition
skills with an understanding of geologic models to prepare plausible models (e.g.,
structural reconstructions, depositional histories) that integrate different data types.
Sternbach (2002) described most interpreters as integrated geoscientists who combine training in
geology and geophysics with computer skills and knowledge of engineering concepts. University
programs typically focus on either geology or geophysics, and so integrated geoscientists only
emerge after several years of industry cross-training. Hart (1997) discovered that most 3-D seismic
interpreters learned to use computer systems and interpretation software through on the job
training. Despite the abundance of generalists, some interpreters are specialists, perhaps in the
structural interpretation of salt-tectonics features, amplitude-variation-with-offset, depth conversion,
or some other topic.
Herron (2003) listed some of the technical and personal skills needed to survive and thrive as a
seismic interpreter in the petroleum industry. Some of these included:
Natural curiosity about the Earth
Enough mental flexibility to handle multiple interpretive possibilities for projects
Ability to visualize geology in 3-D without advanced interpretation software (i.e. uses
computer visualization to enhance, not replace, fundamental visualization skills)
Highly developed pattern recognition skills
Understanding that interpretation skills are complemented by knowledge of seismic

acquisition and processing methods
Knowledge of the difference between a model-based interpretation and a modelguided interpretation
Knowledge of the difference between accuracy and precision

Page 12
About this Disc
Show/Hide Bookmarks
Search
Print
Close
Navigation
Show Hide
Understanding that there are two types of

interpretations: those that have been revised,
and those that need to be
The last point is particularly important. Given the

imprecise and ambiguous data (seismic and otherwise)
available to an interpreter, the most honest and ultimately
most beneficial approach to the interpretation problem
involves:
Generating multiple working hypotheses that

explain the available data and capture the
range of possible interpretation alternatives.
Inevitably, someone (a manager, an investor,
The Public, the interpreter, etc.) will want
the answer. Part of an interpreters
difficult task is to balance that request for
clarity with the need to convey the inherent
ambiguity of the interpretation problem.
Developing, testing, modifying and

excluding hypotheses as new data (seismic
or otherwise) or theories become available.
Seldom does a single individual have all the necessary

background and aptitude to be able to address all aspects
of a complete seismic interpretation. There are many
aspects of seismic interpretation that are amenable to
quantitative data manipulation and interpretation (e.g.,
velocity analyses, or amplitude-variation with offset
studies, described in CHAPTER 8). There are other
aspects of seismic interpretation that must necessarily
remain descriptive (e.g., reconstructions of structural
or depositional histories, described in Chapters 6 and
7 respectively). Unfortunately, interpreters having
good quantitative skills are not always good at making
intuitive, descriptive interpretations, and vice versa.
As such, complete seismic interpretations are often
best undertaken by integrated teams (geologists and
geophysicists) rather than by individuals. In this case, it
is important that all members of the team (geophysicists,
geologists, engineers, and potentially others) share a
common basic vocabulary in order to ensure effective
communication.
Herron (2009) summarized some of the technical, social,
political and other problems faced by seismic interpreters in
the petroleum industry.
Page 13
Back to Chapter
Figure 1.18: A simplified generic seismic interpretation workflow
See text for description.

The quote (inset) refers to
culty associated
the difficult
complex
with simplifying
simpli
workflows.
FIGURE 1.18:
A simplified generic seismic
interpretation workflow
About this Disc
Show/Hide Bookmarks
Search
Print
Close
Navigation
Show Hide
1.4 A Generalized Seismic Interpretation Workflow

Although different interpretation projects have different objectives, FIGURE 1.18 presents a
generalized workflow that summarizes the main ingredients of a seismic interpretation. This figure
attempts to capture the general interpretation workflow but unfortunately cannot include many of the
important details1 and needs to be adapted on a project-by-project basis. More detailed descriptions
of individual elements of this workflow are provided in other chapters.
The first step in this workflow is to define the purpose of the project and to decide
whether seismic data can be helpful or not. That decision might be based on
seismic modeling experiments, examination of previous reports/papers, or other
considerations. Knowledge of rock properties and seismic wave propagation
(CHAPTER 2) is necessary at this point.
The next task is to assemble and load different types of data into a common database.
Seismic data may need to be collected (which means designing, acquiring and
processing the data; CHAPTER 3), purchased, downloaded or otherwise obtained.
The next step is to make an initial tie between the seismic data and any other data
types. In the petroleum industry, this typically means tying the seismic and well data,
usually by generating synthetic seismograms but also potentially including checkshot
data and vertical seismic profiles (CHAPTER 5).
A common approach is to follow the well tie by generating a structural framework

that includes any faults, folds, or other structures (CHAPTER 6).
The structural framework is subsequently used to constrain the stratigraphic

framework (CHAPTER 7), although usually there is typically feedback between
structural and stratigraphic interpretations.
Physical properties prediction (CHAPTER 8) should begin only once the structural
and stratigraphic frameworks have been established. Structural, stratigraphic or
physical properties analyses may indicate a need to revise the ties between seismic
and other data types.
If, following the interpretation, new data are collected (wells are drilled, new seismic
lines are acquired, etc.), they should be loaded into the database and used to update
the interpretation.
Ultimately some type of report, with associated maps, digital volumes, etc., will be
prepared based on the work completed.
Geologic, geophysical and other types of knowledge are needed at all stages of the interpretation.
1.5 Online Sources of Data and Information

Various sources of information and data are available online to seismic interpreters. In no particular
order, these include various websites:
__________________________________________________________________
1
In the words of the French philosopher Paul Valry, All that is simple is false, all that is complex is useless. This
quote will be included on all major flow diagrams in this text as a caveat about the problems of simplifying complex
workflows.
Page 14
About this Disc
Show/Hide Bookmarks
Search
Print
Close
Navigation
The Virtual Seismic Atlas is an online repository that shows many examples of
seismic images and their interpretations. Website: http://www.seismicatlas.org/
The Marine Seismic Data Center makes seismic reflection and refraction data
available from seismic cruises worldwide. Website: http://web.ig.utexas.edu/sdc/
Reports and other publications of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP),
a successor to the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP), present many excellent images
of seismic data and show how those data can be integrated with other data types.
Seismic data collected during site surveys are available for download for some
expeditions. Website: http://www.iodp.org/index.php.
The Consortium for Continental Reflection Profiling (COCORP) was the first group
to use seismic reflection profiling to study the continental lithosphere. Information
about the groups activities, data availability and links to other similar programs in
other countries are available through its website:
http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/cocorp/COCORP.html
Wayne Pennington maintains a list of publicly available seismic datasets. Website:

http://www.geo.mtu.edu/spot/SeismicData/
The Woods Hole Seismic Center (United States Geological Survey) has online
descriptions of various acoustic-based methods for sea-floor mapping. Website:
http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/operations/sfmapping/index.htm
The Center for Wave Phenomena at the Colorado School of Mines, distributors of
Seismic Un*x, an open-source seismic utilities package (primarily processing).
Website: http://timna.mines.edu/cwpcodes/
Various types of seismic data viewers are available as freeware. Data are
generally viewable when in SEG-Y format. Several web pages provide links,
including: http://gsegyview.sourceforge.net/index.php?option=com_
weblinks&catid=13&Itemid=30
OpendTect is a free, open-source seismic interpretation system for 2-D and 3-D
seismic data. Free datasets are available through the sites Open Seismic Repository
link. Website: www.opendtect.org
The Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary has definitions of many terms used in seismic
exploration and the petroleum industry in general:
http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/
Several professional societies have online material, publications, or meetings that should be of
relevance to seismic interpreters. A non-exhaustive list includes:
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) is a professional

geological society that works to advance the science of geology, especially in regard
to exploration for and production of petroleum. Publications of the AAPG contain
many excellent examples of seismic data and interpretations, particularly from the
perspective of geologic interpretations. Articles from the Geophysical Corner of
the AAPG Explorer discuss many topics of interest to seismic interpreters and are
freely available online. Website: www.aapg.org
The Society for Exploration Geophysics (SEG) promotes the science of applied
Page 15
Show Hide
About this Disc
Show/Hide Bookmarks
Search
Print
Close
Navigation
Show Hide
geophysics and the education of geophysicists, with most of its members being from
the petroleum industry. The society has a search engine (Digital Cumulative Index)
that enables users to search publications of the SEG and other geophysical societies.
Website: www.seg.org
The Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysicists (CSEG) serves the professional

needs of geophysicists in Canada (and abroad), with a primary focus on advancing the
science of geophysics, especially as it applies to exploration. The CSEGs monthly
publication, The Recorder, contains many articles of interest to seismic interpreters
and is freely available online. Website: www.cseg.ca
The European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE) is a professional

society whose mission is to promote the development and application of geosciences
and related engineering subjects. Many of the societys activities and publications are
of relevance to seismic interpreters. Website: www.eage.org
Many publications of the Geological Society of London deal with issues of relevance
to seismic interpreters. Website: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/index.html
The Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society (EEGS) focuses on the

application and use of near-surface geophysical technologies (including seismic
methods) for engineering and environmental applications. The EEGSs monthly
publication, fastTIMES, contains many articles of interest to seismic interpreters and
is freely available online. Website: www.eegs.org
1.6 References
Allmendinger, R.W., K.D. Nelson, C.J. Potter, M Barazangi, L.D. Brown, and J.E. Oliver, 1987,
Deep seismic reflection characteristics of the continental crust: Geology, v. 15, p. 304-310.
Armentrout, J. M., 1991, Paleontologic constraints on depositional modeling: examples of
integration of biostratigraphy and seismic stratigraphy, Plio-Pleistocene, Gulf of Mexico, in, P.
Weimer and M.H. Link, eds., Seismic Facies and Sedimentary Processes of Submarine Fans and
Turbidite Systems, Springer, p. 137-170.
Avseth, P., T. Mukerji, and G. Mavko, 2005, Quantitative Seismic Interpretation. Cambridge
University Press, 359 p.
Baker, G.S., C. Schmeissner, D.W. Steeples, and R.G. Plumb, 1999, Seismic reflections from depths
of less than two meters: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 26, p. 279-282.
Bayer, U., M. Grad, T.C. Pharaoh, H. Thybo, A. Guterch, D. Banka, J. Lamarche, A. Lassen, B.
Lewerenz, M. Scheck, and A.-M. Marotta, 2002, The southern margin of the East European
Craton: new results from seismic sounding and potential fields between the North Sea and
Poland: Tectonophysics, v. 360, p. 301-314.
Beaubouef, R.T., C. Rossen, F.B. Zelt, M.D. Sullivan, D.C. Mohrig, and D.C. Jennette, 1999, Deepwater sandstones, Brushy Canyon Formation, West Texas, AAPG Continuing Education Course
Note Series, 40, 62 p.
Bond, C.E., A.D. Gibbs, Z.K. Shipton, and S. Jones, 2007, What do you think this is? Conceptual
uncertainty in geoscience interpretation: GSA Today, v. 17, p. 4-10.
Page 16
About this Disc
Show/Hide Bookmarks
Search
Print
Close
Navigation
Show Hide
Bond, C.E., Z.K. Shipton, A.D. Gibbs, and S. Jones, 2008, Structural models: optimizing risk
analysis by understanding conceptual uncertainty: First Break, v. 26, p. 65-71.
Bristow, C.S., and H.M. Jol, eds., 2003, Ground penetrating radar in sediments: Geological Society
of London, Special Publication 211, 330 p.
Burger, H.R., A.F. Sheehan, and C.H. Jones, 2006, Introduction to applied geophysics, exploring the
shallow subsurface. W.W. Norton and Company, 554 p.
Cardimona, S.J., W.P. Clement, and K. Kadinsky-Cade, 1998, Seismic reflection and groundpenetrating radar imaging of a shallow aquifer: Geophysics, v. 63, p. 1310-1317.
Chopra, S. and K. Marfurt, 2005, Seismic attributes- a historical perspective: Geophysics, v. 70, p.
3SO-28SO.
Cummings, D.I. and H.A.J. Russell, 2007, The Vars-Winchester esker aquifer, South Nation River
watershed: Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 5624, 68 p.
Eaton, D.W., B. Milkereit, and M. Salisbury, Eds., 2003, Hardrock Seismic Exploration: SEG,
Developments in Geophysics Series, v. 10, 275 pp.
Evans, R.L., L.K. Law, B. St. Louis, and S. Cheesman, 2000, Buried paleo-channels on the New
Jersey continental margin: channel porosity structures from electromagnetic surveying: Marine
Geology, v. 170, p. 381-394.
Frey-Martnez, J., J. Cartwright, B. Hall, and M. Huuse, 2007, Clastic intrusion at the base of
deep-water sands: A trap-forming mechanism in the eastern Mediterranean, in A. Hurst and
J. Cartwright, eds., Sand injectites: Implications for hydrocarbon exploration and production:
AAPG Memoir 87, p. 4963.
Frodeman, R., 1995, Geological reasoning: geology as an interpretive and historical science:
Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 107, p. 960-968.
Fugelli, E.M.G., and T.R. Olsen, 2007, Delineating confined slope turbidite systems offshore midNorway: the Cretaceous deep-marine Lysing Formation: AAPG Bulletin, v. 91, p. 1577-1601.
Gettemy, G.L., and H.J. Tobin, 2003, Tectonic signatures in centimeter-scale velocity-porosity
relationships of Costa Rica convergent margin sediments: Journal of Geophysical Research, v.
108, No. B10, p. 2494-2505.
Gochioco, L. M., 2000, High-resolution 3-D seismic survey over a coal mine reserve area in the U.
S. a case study: Geophysics, v. 65, p. 712-718.
Halliday, E.J., J.V. Barrie, N.R. Chapman, and K.M.M. Rohr, 2008, Structurally controlled
hydrocarbon seeps on a glaciated continental margin, Hecate Strait, offshore British Columbia:
Marine Geology, v. 252, p. 193-206.
Hansen, D.M., J. Redfern, F. Federici, D. di Biase, and G. Bertozzi, 2008, Miocene igneous activity
in the Northern Subbasin, offshore Senegal, NW Africa: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 25, p.
1-15.
Hart, B.S., 1997, What makes interpreters tick?: The Leading Edge, v. 16, p. 114-119.
Page 17
About this Disc
Show/Hide Bookmarks
Search
Print
Close
Navigation
Show Hide
Hart, B.S. and Barrie, J.V., 1996, Environmental geology of the Fraser Delta, Vancouver: Geoscience
Canada, v.22, p. 172-183.
Hart, B.S., D. Copley, and S. Loewenstein, 1996, Forging partnerships: chasing the Rose Run Play
with 3-D seismic in the Empire State: Oil and Gas Journal, v.94, no. 42, p. 88-91.
Herron, D., 2003, Characteristics of an interpreter: The Leading Edge, v. 22, p. 49.
Herron, D., 2009, The Misadventures of Interpreter Sam. SEG Geophysical Monograph Series No.
15, 108 p.
Holbrook, W.S., P. Pramo, S. Pearse, and R.W. Schmitt, 2003, Thermohaline fine structure in an
oceanographic front from seismic reflection profiling: Science, v. 301, p. 821-824.
Hsiao, L.Y., S.A. Graham, and N. Tilander, 2004, Seismic reflection imaging of a major strikeslip fault zone in a rift system: Paleogene structure and evolution of the Tan-Lu fault system,
Liaodong Bay, Bohai, offshore China: AAPG Bulletin, v. 88, p. 71-97.
Kidd, G.D., 1999, Fundamentals of 3-D seismic volume visualization: The Leading Edge, v. 17, p.
702-709.
Labourdette, R. and M. Bez, 2010, Element migration in turbidite systems: Random or systematic
depositional processes?: AAPG Bulletin, v. 94, p. 345-368.
Lay, T., ed. 2009, Seismological grand challenges in understanding Earths dynamic systems. Report
to the National Science Foundation, IRIS Consortium, 76 pp. Available online at: http://www.
iris.edu/hq/lrsps/seis_plan_final.pdf.
Louis, I.F., A.P. Vafidis, F. I. Louis, and N. Tassopoulos, 2002, The use of geophysical prospecting
for imaging the aquifer of Lakka carbonates, Mandoudi Euboea, Greece: Journal of the Balkan
Geophysical Society, v. 5, p. 97-106.
McIntosh, K.D., and M.K. Sen, 2000, Geophysical evidence for dewatering and deformation
processes in the ODP Leg 170 area offshore Costa Rica: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v.
178, p. 125-138.
Milkereit, B., E.K. Berrer, A. Watts, and B. Roberts, 1997, Development of 3-D seismic exploration
technology for Ni-Cu deposits, Sudbury Basin, in, A.G. Gubins (ed.), Proceedings of Exploration
97: Fourth Decennial International Conference on Mineral Exploration, p. 439448
Milkereit, B., and D. Eaton, 1998, Imaging and interpreting the shallow crystalline crust:
Tectonophysics, v. 286, p. 5-18.
Milsom, J., 2006, Geophysical Methods, in, C.J. Moon, M.E.G. Whateley, and A.M. Evans (eds.),
Introduction to mineral exploration (2nd Edition), Blackwell Publishing, p. 127-154.
Moysey, S., J. Caers, R. Knight, and R.M. Allen-King, 2003, Stochastic estimation of facies using
ground penetrating radar data: Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, v. 17, p.
306-318.
Nandi, P., W.S. Holbrook, S. Pearse, P. Pramo, and R.W. Schmitt, 2004, Seismic reflection imaging
of water mass boundaries in the Norwegian Sea: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 31, p.
L23311.1-L23311.4.
Page 18
About this Disc
Show/Hide Bookmarks
Search
Print
Close
Navigation
Show Hide
ODonnell, T.M. Jr., K.C. Miller, and J.C. Witcher, 2002, A seismic and gravity study of the
McGregor geothermal system, southern New Mexico: Geophysics, v. 66, p. 1002-1014.
Pu, Z., and W. Xizun, 2005, How seismic has helped to change coal mining in China: First Break, v.
23, p. 31-34.
Rankey, E.C., and J.C. Mitchell, 2003, Thats why its called interpretation: Impact of horizon
uncertainty on seismic attribute analysis: The Leading Edge, v. 22, p. 820-828.
Sagan, J.A., and Hart, B.S., 2006, 3-D seismic and structural investigation of a hydrothermal
dolomite reservoir in the Trenton-Black River, Saybrook, Ohio: AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, p. 17631785.
Schuck, A., and G. Lange, 2008, Chapter 4.6 Seismic Methods, in K. Kndel, G. Lange and H.-J.
Voigt (eds.), Environmental Geology, Springer, p. 337-402.
Sharpe, D., A. Pugin, S. Pullan, and J. Shaw, 2004, Regional unconformities and the sedimentary
architecture of the Oak Ridges Moraine area, southern Ontario: Canadian Journal of Earth
Sciences, v. 41, p. 183-198. doi:10.1139/e04-001
Sheriff, R.E., 2002, Encyclopedic dictionary of applied geophysics. Society of Exploration
Geophysics, Geophysical References Series, 13, 429 p.
Sheriff, R.E., and L.P. Geldart, 1995, Exploration Seismology (2nd Ed.). Cambridge University
Press, 592 p.
Snyder, D.B., B.J. Roberts, and S.P. Gordey, 2005, Contrasting seismic characteristics of three major
faults in northwestern Canada: Canadian Journal of Earth Science, v. 42, p. 1223-1237.
Sternbach, L.R., 2002, Unsolved mysteries of seismic interpretation: A retrospective of 20 years of
TLE: The Leading Edge, v. 21, p. 952-954.
Stommel, H., 1950, Subsurface methods as applied in geophysics, in L.W. Leroy, ed., Subsurface
geologic methods: Colorado School of Mines, p. 1038-1119.
Sturrock, S.J., 1996, Biostratigraphy in Sequence Stratigraphy (D. Emery and K.J. Meyers, eds.),
Blackwell, p. 89-107.
Thomson, K., 2007, Determining magma flow in sills, dykes and laccoliths and their implications for
sill emplacement mechanisms: Bulletin of Volcanology, v. 70, p. 183-201.
Tobin, H., M. Kinoshita, J. Ashi, S. Lallemant, G. Kimura, E. Screaton, M.K. Thu, H. Masago, D.
Curewitz, and the Expedition 314/315/316 Scientists, 2009, NanTroSEIZE Stage 1 expeditions:
introduction and synthesis of key results: Proceedings of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program,
v. 314/315/316, 20 p. doi:10.2204/iodp.proc.314315316.101.2009
van der Hilst, R.D., M.V. de Hoop, P. Wang, S.-H. Shim, P. Ma, and L. Tenorio, 2007,
Seismostratigraphy and thermal structure of Earths core-mantle boundary region: Science, v.
315, p. 1813-1817.
Zuo, J.-P., S.-P. Peng, Y.-J. Li, Z.-H. Chen, and H.-P. Xie, 2009, Investigation of karst collapse based
on 3-D seismic technique and DDA method at Xieqiao coal mine, China: International Journal of
Coal Geology, v. 78, p. 276-287. doi:10.1016/j.coal.2009.02.003
Page 19

0001

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

0001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Introduction to Seismic Interpretation

About this Disc

Disc Contents (PDF format)

Previous Page | Next Page

1.1 Introduction: Purpose of this Text

Geologists with minimal training in geophysics

Geophysicists with minimal background in geology

About this Disc

Disc Contents (PDF format)

Previous Page | Next Page

An Introduction to Seismic Interpretation Chapter OneIntroduction

The MRI data are collected in carefully

Accordingly, each seismic project can be quite different

Figure 1.1: Comparison of different vintages of seismic imaging

Animation 1: Volume-rendering of a 3-D seismic cube showing igneous

The slice from a 3-D volume that

About this Disc

Disc Contents (PDF format)

Previous Page | Next Page

An Introduction to Seismic Interpretation Chapter OneIntroduction

The ways in which seismic data are displayed and analyzed.

1.2 What is a Seismic Interpretation?

About this Disc

Disc Contents (PDF format)

Previous Page | Next Page

An Introduction to Seismic Interpretation Chapter OneIntroduction

Petroleum-industry seismic data are

Despite this wide range of potential applications, it is

To define subsurface structure. This might

Figure 1.3: Perspective view showing integration of crustal-scale

From Snyder et al. (2005).

Figure 1.4: Application of petroleum-industry 3-D seismic data to

B) The same profile with

Figure 1.5: Seismic transect across Quaternary and Holocene strata

The seismic profile has been integrated with aerial photography

About this Disc

Disc Contents (PDF format)

Previous Page | Next Page

An Introduction to Seismic Interpretation Chapter OneIntroduction

To a civil engineer, faults could be potential planes of weakness, or possible signs of

To define subsurface stratigraphy. Stratigraphic features act as hydrocarbon

To define subsurface physical properties. It may be desirable or necessary to

The Geologic Interpretation Problem

About this Disc

Disc Contents (PDF format)

Previous Page | Next Page

An Introduction to Seismic Interpretation Chapter OneIntroduction

The Principle of Uniformitarianism states

The Principle of Original Horizontality

The Principle of Superposition states that in

Figure 1.6: Outcrop photos illustrating various basic

D) The fault in the center-left of this image crosscuts, and so postdates,

About this Disc

Disc Contents (PDF format)

Previous Page | Next Page

An Introduction to Seismic Interpretation Chapter OneIntroduction

The Principle of Cross-Cutting Relationships

These and other basic geologic principles are generally

A period of relatively continuous

A period of erosion, during which an

Sedimentary deposition in the eroded area

Normal faulting affected both the eroded

Erosion of the fault at the sea floor, followed

Figure 1.7: Introductory geology level example of how fundamental