Conclusion

​

The focal point of our study regarding the use of seismic attributes on extended 3D seismic interpretation in efforts of gaining a better understanding of the geologic features at the classified field we have been given with the purpose of testing whether they could enhance the geological interpretation process. These seismic attributes are very helpful as they could help in generating new findings in the area of focus as they highlight and dim certain features and aspects of the data in efforts of shining a light on areas that we could not have seen before using the original unaltered data and ultimately enhance the visualization of the geological features for interpretation.

​

In our interpretation of the seismic data given we have applied both surface and volume seismic attributes. Firstly, the surface attribute map could be obtained from the extraction of the data from a seismic volume across a certain surface or alternatively from within an interval bound by two surfaces. Secondly, the volume attributes map is generated from the 3D seismic cube without reference to any surface or horizon event. On the topic of time consumption during the interpretation the volume attributes takes much less time in comparison to the surface attributes which is more time consuking in its application as the user has to have some prior knowledge of geology to before the interpretation, as they also have to pick the horizons manually before they can make a surface map and apply the attribute. In addition, the application of volume attributes is usually more accurate relatively in comparison to the surface attributes as there is a factor of human error in the later due to inaccuracies that may have occurred during the picking of the horizons which could ultimately lead to wrong interpretations.

​

From our interpretation, we can observe that the major faults is oriented in the NW-SE direction and besides that we have used the RMS amplitude attribute, which is an attribute that can identify the presence of hydrocarbon, and we have not been able to detect any hydrocarbon except for a gas leakage or chamber in the center of the seismic image which we have interpreted as so because of the velocity pull down in the area and the bright spots detected. In addition through the usage of the coherence attribute we have been able to identify many channels of mainly 2 types: meandering and braided channels. But, also seismic attributes such as coherence and curvature are very sensitive to distortions and disturbances such as noise and discontinuities so it is crucial that such anomalies are removed in advance.

​

 In order to improve the fault visualization and improve the seismic section we have used two seismic attributes in the same time, the variance attribute and curvature which have highlighted the faults we have had in the seismic section. Apart from that other attributes have been used such as sweetness. Sweetness is an attribute that is used to enhance geological body visibility such as channel as well as identification of isolated sand bodies, and we have used it to identify the sand bars and channels available and also the thickness of the sand in these sand bars. In addition, the sweetness attribute had been used to check for the presence of hydrocarbon and its distribution in these sandy channels as the hydrocarbon reduces the frequency and increases the amplitude. 

​

In order to determine the seismic section’s rock fluid content, porosity, density or seismic velocity, shear wave information, fluid indicators the Amplitude versus offset (AVO) attribute had been used as it takes advantage of being applicable to many conventional seismic data sets without the requirements of prohibitive acquisition, processing, and analysis costs.