Seismic Interpretation in Petroleum Development

  • Christopher L. Liner
  • T. A. (Mac) McGilvery
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Earth Sciences book series (BRIEFSEARTH)


Seismic interpretation plays a critical role in the appraisal and development of discovered hydrocarbon accumulations. Interpretation of individual flow units within a producing field are emphasized with the goal of maximizing fluid recovery. High resolution horizon mapping, horizon slice, and time slice interpretation are effective tools in the evaluation of reservoir complexity. Analysis of seismic attributes associated with these horizons adds additional detail related to reservoir complexity. Internal reservoir elements on the order of meters in thickness and 10’s of meters in lateral dimension can be readily imaged on today’s high-resolution 3D seismic data. Time-lapse (4D) seismic interpretation can be used to detect temporal variations in fluid saturation, pressure differentials, and rock properties. This approach lends itself to definition of bypassed pay and/or evaluation of sweep efficiency of fluid injection during secondary and tertiary recovery efforts. The seismic method has recently expanded into development of unconventional reservoirs. Use of prestack elastic inversion is an effective technique to estimate rock properties that reflect brittleness and the “fracability” of potential self-sourcing intervals. High resolution seismic data are key to well placement in conventional wells and geosteering of long reach horizontal wells in unconventional plays.


Appraisal Brittleness Cross fault communication Development drilling Field development Flow units Fracability Horizontal drilling Multistage frac Seismic monitoring 


  1. Bodziac, R., K. Clemons, A. Stephens, and R. Meek. 2014. The role of seismic attributes in understanding the hydraulically fracturable limits and reservoir performance in shale reservoirs: An example from the Eagle Ford Shale, south Texas. AAPG Bulletin 98 (11): 2217–2235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Goodway, B., J. Varsek, and C. Abaco. 2006. Practical Applications of P-Wave AVO for Unconventional Gas Resource Plays—I: Seismic Petrophysics and Isotropic AVO: Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysicists Recorder, 90–95.Google Scholar
  3. Hubbard, S.M., D.G. Smith, H. Nielsen, D.A. Leckie, M. Fustic, R.J. Spencer, and L. Bloom. 2011. Seismic geomorphology and sedimentology of a tidally influenced river deposit, Lower Cretaceous Athabasca oil sands, Alberta, Canada. AAPG Bulletin 95 (7): 1123–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Sayers, C.M., M.E. Lascano, E. Gofer, M.A. Lennert den Boer, A.H. Waltz, and D. Sagnik. 2016. Geomechanical Model for the Horn River Formation Based on Seismic AVA Inversion. Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG), 2861–2864.Google Scholar
  5. Sverdrup, E., J. Helgensen, and J. Vold. 2003. Sealing properties of faults and their influence on water-alternating-gas injection efficiency in the Snorre field, northern North Sea. AAPG Bulletin 87 (9): 1437–1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher L. Liner
    • 1
  • T. A. (Mac) McGilvery
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeosciencesUniversity of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA

Personalised recommendations