AVO Workshop - Part 1: Theory and Exercises

AVO Wor k shop Par t 1
Theory and Exercises

Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 2
Tabl e of Cont ent s - Par t 1
Overview of the AVO process
Theory : Rock Physics & Fluid Replacement Modeling
Exercise : The Colony Gas Sand Reading in the Logs
Theory : AVO Theory & Modeling
Exercise : The Colony Gas Sand Creating Synthetics
Theory : AVO Analysis on Seismic Data
Exercise : The Colony Gas Sand Calculating AVO Attributes
Theory : Cross Plotting AVO Attributes
Exercise : The Colony Gas Sand Cross Plotting AVO Attributes
Theory : AVO Case Study Fluid Factor Example
Theory : AVO Case Study Onshore Texas Example
Tabl e of Cont ent s Par t 2
Theory : AVO Inversion - Elastic Impedance
Theory : AVO Inversion - Lambda-Mu-Rho
Theory : AVO Inversion - Simultaneous Inversion
Exercise : The Colony Gas Sand Simultaneous Inversion
Theory : AVO Case Study The Brenda Field
Theory : AVO Case Study Simultaneous Inversion on the Marlin Field
Exercise : Gulf Coast Exercise 1
Theory : AFI: Analyzing uncertainty in AVO
Exercise : Gulf Coast Exercise 2
Theory : Acquisition & Processing Concerns in AVO
Theory: Summary
References
Over vi ew of t he AVO Pr oc ess
This tutorial is a brief introduction to the Amplitude
Variations with Offset, or Amplitude Versus Offset (AVO)
method.
We will briefly review how the interpretation of seismic data
has changed through the years.
We will then look at why AVO was an important step
forward for the interpretation of hydrocarbon anomalies.
Finally, we will show why the AVO response is closely
linked to the rock physics of the reservoir.
A Sei smi c Sec t i on
The figure above shows a stacked seismic section recorded over the
shallow Cretaceous in Alberta. How would you interpret this section?
St r uc t ur al I nt er pr et at i on
Your eye may first go to an interesting seismic event between 630 and 640
ms. Here, it has been picked and called H1. A seismic interpreter prior to
1970 would have looked only at structure and perhaps have located a well at
CDP 330.
Gas Wel l Loc at i on
And, in this case, he or she would have been right! A successful gas well
was drilled at that location. The figure above shows the sonic log, integrated
to time, spliced on the section. The gas sand top and base are shown as
black lines on the log.
Br i ght Spot s
But this would have been a lucky guess, since structure alone does not tell
you that a gas sand is present. A geophysicist in the 1970s would have
based the well on the fact that there is a bright spot visible on the seismic
section, as indicated above.
What i s a Br i ght Spot ?
To understand bright spots, recall the definition of the zero-offset
reflection coefficient, shown in the figure above. R
0
, the reflection
coefficient, is the amplitude of the seismic peak shown. Note also that the
product of density, , and P-wave velocity, V, is called acoustic impedance.
1 1 2 2
1 1 2 2
0
V V
V V
R

+
=
Seismic
raypath
Interface at
depth = d
1
V
1
2
V
2
t
Reflection at time
t = 2d/V
1
Geology Geology Seismic Seismic
Surface
Seismic
Wavelet
Shale
Gas Sand
The figure on the right,
taken from Gardner et al.
(Formation velocity and
density - The diagnostic
basics for stratigraphic
traps: Geophysics, 1974)
shows that there is a big
difference between shale
and gas sand velocity at
shallow depths. The paper
also shows that density and
velocity are approximately
related by the equation
= 0.23 V
0.25
Thus, we would expect a
big reflection coefficient, or
bright spot, for shallow
gas sands.
Difference between shale and gas
sand velocity at shallow depth.
The AVO Met hod
Unfortunately, bright
spots can be caused
by lithologic
variations as well as
gas sands. This lead
geophysicists in the
1980s to start
looking at pre-stack
seismic data. The
amplitude increase
with offset shown
here was predicted
by Ostrander (Plane-
wave reflection
coefficients for gas
sands at nonnormal
angles-of-incidence:
Geophysics, 1984) for
certain gas sands
(Class 3, as we will
discuss later).
What c auses t he AVO Ef f ec t ?
3
Surface
Reflector
1
V
P1
V
S1
2
V
P2
V
S2
As shown above, the traces in a seismic gather reflect from the subsurface
at increasing angles of incidence . The first order approximation to the
reflection coefficients as a function of angle is given by adding a second
term to the zero-offset reflection coefficient:

2
0
sin ) ( B R R + =
B is a gradient term which produces the AVO effect. It is dependent on
changes in density, , P-wave velocity, V
P
, and S-wave velocity, V
S
.
Why i s S-w ave Vel oc i t y I mpor t ant ?
As just shown, the
gradient term is
dependent on density, P
and S-wave velocity. The
reason that S-wave
velocity has such an
impact is shown on the
left, where P and S-wave
velocity are shown as a
function of gas
saturation in the
reservoir. Note that P-
wave velocity drops
dramatically, but S-wave
velocity only increases
slightly (why?). This will
be discussed thoroughly
in the next chapter.
AVO Model i ng
P-wave
Density
S-wave
Poissons
ratio
Synthetic
Offset Stack
Based on AVO theory and the rock physics of the reservoir, we can
perform AVO modeling, as shown above. Note that the model result is a
fairly good match to the offset stack. Also note that Poissons ratio is a
function of Vp/Vs ratio and will be discussed in the next chapter.
AVO At t r i but es
Intercept: A
Gradient: B
AVO Attributes are
used to analyze
large volumes of
seismic data,
looking for
hydrocarbon
anomalies.
Cr oss-Pl ot t i ng of At t r i but es
Gradient (B)
Intercept (A)
One of the AVO methods that we will be
discussing later in the course involves
cross-plotting the zero-offset reflection
coefficient (A), versus the gradient (B), as
shown on the left.
As seen in the figure below, the highlighted
zones correspond to the top of gas sand
(pink), base of gas sand (yellow), and a hard
streak below the gas sand (blue).
AVO I nver si on
Near Inversion
A very important new
tool combines
Inversion with AVO
Analysis to enhance
the reservoir
discrimination.
Far Inversion
Summar y of AVO Met hodol ogy
Input NMO-corrected Gathers
Recon
Methods
Inversion Modeling
Intercept
Gradient
Attributes
Partial
Stacks
Zoeppritz
Wave
Equation
Cross
Plots
LMR
Elastic
Impedance
Simultaneous
Inversion
Conc l usi ons
Seismic interpretation has evolved over the years, from strictly
structural interpretation, through bright spot identification, to
direct hydrocarbon detection using AVO.
In this course we will elaborate on the ideas that have been
presented in this short introduction.
As a starting point, the next chapter will discuss the principles of
rock physics in more detail.
We will then move to AVO modeling.
Finally, we will look at AVO analysis on real seismic data.
In each case, we will first look at the theory and then perform a
workstation example.
The Col ony Gas Sand
Readi ng i n t he Logs
Exercise
Our first set of exercises comes from the Colony sand formation, a Cretaceous sand
from Western Canada.
The target is a thin, 8
meter thick, gas sand.
We have a single well
with measured sonic and
density logs.
The sand is known to
contain 50% water, and
50% gas.
In this exercise, we will
create the S-wave log,
using Castagnas
equation and Biot-
Gassmann analysis.
Start the GEOVIEW program by typing
geoview in the command window (Unix)
or selecting Geoview from Start /
Programs / HRS applications
(Windows).
We are going to create a new database,
so click on New when you see the
Opened Database List window, as
shown. Then click on OK.
On the next menu, name the database avo_class, and click on OK.
A database is a collection of wells. Within each well there may be any number of
logs. These logs may be of any type. They need not all be sampled at the same
depth values, and they need not be sampled uniformly. The GEOVIEW Well
Explorer window, which allows us to view the contents of a database, currently is
empty:
As well as the Well Explorer window, you will also see the program launcher bar,
as shown below:
The program launcher bar is used to launch any of the suite of Hampson-Russell
software programs that your company owns, as well as to re-launch the Well
Explorer window if this window gets closed.
Later in this exercise, we will launch the AVO program. But first we will read a
well into the database.
Readi ng i n Wel l Dat a i n LAS For mat
In the next set of exercises, we will read in a real set of well logs and a pre-stack
seismic line. We will then create a synthetic CDP gather and compare it with the
real data.
To read the logs into the GEOVIEW Well Explorer, click on Import Data / Logs,
Check Shots, Tops, Deviated Geometry from Files:
On the File Import menu that appears, select the directory containing the AVO
workshop data. (You will have to check with the instructor to find the right
directory, as this varies from class to class). Choose the avo_well.las file:
Make sure that the the Log File Format is set to LAS, then click on Next >>.
By default, the program will create a new well called AVO_WELL, which is the well
name stored in the file headers. We will accept that default. Click on Next >>.
The next page allows you to specify parameters for this well. Click on Next >> to
accept the defaults:
The final page lists all the curves in the LAS file and allows you to overwrite
parameters. Click on Ok to accept all the defaults:
Note that the program will tell you that the logs
have been successfully imported with the
message shown on the right. Click Ok on this
message.
Finally, a menu appears confirming which units
you wish to use for the default display settings.
Click Ok to accept the default, metric, for this well.
Now that all the logs have been inserted into the database, there are a number of
ways of examining them. First, click on the field containing the name AVO_WELL
in the GEOVIEW Well Explorer window and then click on the Display Well button,
as shown below:
This will cause a
display window to
appear, showing
you all the logs
and tops in that
well:
If you click on View / Display Options at the top of the Log Display Window, you
will see a menu which allows you to change the look of this display:
This is an example of
a notebook menu,
which allows you to
change pages by
clicking on the tabs at
the top. Notice that
the available options
are Layout, Scale &
Details, and
Synthetics.
The default Layout
tab in this menu
allows you to
overlay logs. For
example, select the
Computed
Impedance and
Computed
Reflectivity logs to
overlay the P-wave
log in the same
track. Click on
Apply.
The three logs
are now
displayed in a
single track at
three different
scales and in
three different
colors.
Now click on the Curves tab and set the amplitude range for the Density log from
1.8 to 2.7 and for the SP log from -150 to -50 as shown below:
After you have
changed these
numbers click
on Save settings
as project
template. This
will mean that
all future
displays will use
these log
ranges.
Click on Ok on the
Parameter menu,
and the Log
Display window is
redrawn as
shown:
The GEOVIEW Well Explorer provides another way of looking at the contents of
the database:
The Table View contains one line for each well in the database. Note that any of
the parameters on this window may be changed.
Now click on the arrow to the left of the
field showing the name AVO_WELL:
Now you see a list of all the logs in this well. Once again, any of these parameters
can be changed.
Appl yi ng a Chec k Shot Cor r ec t i on
Now we will apply a check shot correction to AVO_WELL. First, we must enter check
shot values as a log. From the Table View of the Well Explorer window, click on Log
Options / Create a new log in table / Check Shot:
A new row will appear at the bottom of the Table View, showing the new Log
Name, the Log Type and the Amplitude Units:
To begin entering values, click on the arrow to the left of the Log Name field:
Fill in the table as shown:
This check shot contains two pairs of values consisting of a depth and a two-way
time in milliseconds. Click on Update on this menu to add the check shot to the
database, then click on Yes on the subsequent dialog to confirm the addition of
this log, as shown below:
Even though the check shot values have been added, the check shot will not be
applied to the sonic log until we perform that operation. Note that the check shot
log has now been added to the log display
To apply the check shot correction, click on
Option / Check Shot Correction:
The Check Shot Parameters menu and the Check Shot Analysis window appear:
There are a number of modifications which could be made to the automatic
calculation. One modification is to delete points from the check shot data and
reapply the correction. Another modification is to use a polynomial interpolation
between the points to prevent artificial discontinuities in the corrected log. For
now, we will accept the default parameters. Click on Ok on the Check Shot
Analysis window. This menu now appears:
Click on Ok on the menu. This will create a new check shot corrected sonic log,
with the name P-wave_chk.
Launc hi ng t he AVO Pr ogr am
Now we will begin creating an AVO model
from the logs we have just entered. Click on
the AVO/AVO button from the GEOVIEW main
window to launch AVO.
Choose the option to Start New Project:
Call the new project colony:
This will initiate a blank AVO program window, as shown below.
Model i ng w i t h t he AVO Pr ogr am
When the AVO window appears, click on
Modeling / Single Well:
Choose the well
(AVO_WELL) that we have
just imported to do the
modeling and click on Open:
On this menu, we wish to use the default (i.e., active) logs as input:
Click OK.
The following information window
appears, telling you that a shear
wave log will be calculated using
transforms. Click OK.
Cr eat i ng t he S-Wave Log
On the next series of menus, we will accept the defaults for creating the shear
wave log. We will use Castagnas equation:
Click Next >>
We will apply the equation to the check shot corrected sonic log and call the
output log S-wave_Castagna. Change the name as shown below:
Click Next >>
We will use the default Castagna coefficients:
Finally, click OK.
The AVO Modeling window now shows the created S-wave log and the calculated
Poissons ratio.
Fl ui d Repl ac ement Model i ng (FRM)
The S-wave log calculated so far, has used the Castagna mud-rock equation. This
is only appropriate for wet sands and shales. This means that the S-wave velocity
calculated within the target sand layer has the wrong value.
We will now use the Biot-Gassmann equation to replace the calculated S-wave
velocity value, in that interval, with one more appropriate for the gas case.
For this calculation, we need the further information about the actual fluid content
in the sand. As it happens, the real water saturation is 50%.
To perform Fluid Replacement Modeling,
click on the FRM button:
On the first page, we
specify what is known
about the input logs.
Since the porosity was not
measured, we will calculate
it from the input density
log.
We are specifying a 2-
phase Fluid Composition,
consisting of brine and
gas.
Finally, change the Water
Saturation to 50%, then
click on Next >> to accept
this value.
The second page
sets the depth zone
over which the
analysis will be
performed. The
most convenient
way is to specify
the top and base of
the gas sand with
tops, as shown.
Every depth sample
in the range 633 to
640 m will be
modified.
Click on Next >>.
This page specifies the petrophysical parameters. These are the density and
moduli of each of the constituent components: matrix, hydrocarbon, and brine.
Note that we will
assume the other
50% of the fluid is
composed of gas.
The default
parameters are
book values.
One way to
modify them is to
click on Display
Fluid properties
calculator
The Batzle-Wang menu
allows you to calculate
fluid properties from
more fundamental
measurements. In this
case, we will accept
the default gas and
brine parameters.
Click on Cancel on the
Batzle-Wang menu:
The default matrix
parameters have
also been
supplied from
book values.
One way to
modify these
parameters is to
click on the
Display Matrix
Properties
Calculator button:
The Minerals menu allows you to specify the precise components of the reservoir
matrix and thus calculate the appropriate values of the density and bulk modulus.
To accept the default sand values, click on Cancel on this menu.
Finally, the last page of the
FRM menu sets the output log
parameters. We have
specified that this input well
had a water saturation of 50%
and porosities calculated from
the density log. We could
create output logs with
different values of these
parameters. In our case, we
want to keep the same water
saturation and porosity
values. The effect will be to
calculate the S-wave log (S-
wave_Castagna_FRM)
appropriate to these
parameters.
To see the resulting
calculations, click on Apply.
After you click on Apply, the calculated output values for the first layer are printed
here:
To see the results for the entire window, click on the QC Display button:
This display shows all
the logs that have been
calculated within the
analysis window.
Scrolling through the
window, we can verify
that the calculation is
reasonable.
Finally, click on Ok
to create the new
logs:
You are first asked if you are
sure you want to create these
logs. Click on Yes.
The program next asks if you
wish to copy the depth-time
curve from the original log. The
answer is Yes, because we have
done check shot correction and
we do not wish to modify the
depth-time relationship, even if
the P-wave log had changed.
When the new window is plotted, notice the modification in both the S-wave
velocity and Poissons Ratio logs.
Savi ng t he Pr oj ec t
Now click on Project / Save to save
the work done so far:
You will see a menu appear, which asks
whether you wish to save the new created
logs within the Geoview database, or just
withing the current project. Click on Yes
to see the list of new logs.
Now a further menu
appears, listing all the
new logs, which have
been created. Click on
Ok to save them all to
Geoview.
AVO Theor y & Model i ng
P and S-Waves
(b) (c) (a)
The above diagram shows a schematic diagram of (a) P, or compressional,
waves, (b) SH, or horizontal shear-waves, and (c) SV, or vertical shear-
waves, where the S-waves have been generated using a shear wave source.
(Ensley, 1984)
Fr om P and S-Waves t o AVO
In the previous slide, the P and SH-waves were generated at the surface
by P and S-wave sources. We could use the differences between the
recorded P and S reflections to discriminate gas-filled sands from wet
sands, using the properties discussed in the last section.
Unfortunately, most seismic surveys record P-wave data only, and S-
wave data is not available.
However, as shown in the next slide, if we record P-wave data at various
offsets (as we always do), mode-conversion from P to SV always occurs.
This means that AVO data can be used as a replacement for S-wave data.
Mode Conver si on of an I nc i dent P-Wave
If > 0, an incident P-wave will produce both P and SV reflected and
transmitted waves. This is called mode conversion.
Reflected
P-wave = R
P
Reflected
SV-wave
Transmitted
P-wave
Incident
P-wave
Transmitted
SV-wave
V
P1
, V
S1
,
1
V
P2
, V
S2
,
2
t
Ut i l i zi ng Mode Conver si on
But how do we utilize mode conversion?
There are actually two ways:
Record the converted S-waves using two-component receivers (in the X and
Z direction).
Interpret the amplitudes of the P-waves as a function of offset, or angle,
which contain implied information about the S-waves. This is called the AVO
(Amplitude versus Offset) method.
When we record the converted waves, we need to be very careful in their
processing and interpretation.
In the AVO method, we can make use of the Zoeppritz equations, or some
approximation to these equations, to extract S-wave type information from
P-wave reflections at different offsets.
The Zoeppr i t z Equat i ons
Zoeppritz derived the amplitudes of the reflected and transmitted waves
using the conservation of stress and displacement across the layer
boundary, which gives four equations with four unknowns. Inverting the
matrix form of the Zoeppritz equations gives us the exact amplitudes as a
function of angle:
1 1 2 2
1 1 2 2
2
2 2 1 2 2 1 1
2
1 1 2
2 2
1 1 1 2 1 1
1 2 2 2 2
1 1 2 2
1 1 1 1 1
sin cos sin cos
cos sin cos sin
sin2 cos2 sin2 cos2
cos2 sin2 cos2 sin2
P
S
S P S P P
P
S S P S
S
S S P
P P P
R
R
V V V V V
T
V V V V
T
V V V
V V V

=

1
1
1
1
1
sin
cos
sin2
cos2

The Ak i -Ri c har ds Equat i on
The Aki-Richards equation is a linearized approximation to the
Zoeppritz equations. The initial form (Richards and Frasier, 1976)
separated the velocity and density terms:
S
S
P
P
V
V
c b
V
V
a R

+
) (
where:
.
2
, ,
2
, ,
2
, ,
2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
t i
S S S
S S
S
P P P
P P
P
and
V V V
V V
V
V V V
V V
V

+
=
=
+
=
=
+
=
=
+
=
, sin 4
, sin 2 5 . 0
,
cos 2
1
2
2
2
2
2
=
=
P
S
P
S
V
V
c
V
V
b
a
Wi ggi ns Ver si on of t he Ak i -Ri c har ds
Equat i on
A more intuitive, but totally equivalent, form was derived by Wiggins. He
separated the equation into three reflection terms, each weaker than the
previous term:

2 2 2
sin tan C sin B A ) ( R + + =
p
P
2
P
S
S
S
2
P
S
p
P
p
P
V
V
2
1
C
V
V
2
V
V
V
V
4
V
V
2
1
B
V
V
2
1
A
+ =
where:
I nt er pr et i ng t he Ak i -Ri c har ds Equat i on
The first term, A, is a linearized version of the zero offset reflection
coefficient and is thus a function of only density and P-wave velocity.
The second term, B, is a gradient multiplied by sin
2
, and has the biggest
effect on amplitude change as a function of offset. It is dependent on
changes in P-wave velocity, S-wave velocity, and density.
The third term, C, is called the curvature term and is dependent on
changes in P-wave velocity only. It is multiplied by tan
2
*sin
2
and thus
contributes very little to the amplitude effects below angles of 30
degrees. (Note: Prove to yourself that tan
2
*sin
2
= tan
2
- sin
2
, since
the equation is often written in this form.)
Ost r ander s Paper
Ostrander (1984) was one of the first to write about AVO effects in gas
sands and proposed a simple two-layer model which encased a low
impedance, low Poissons ratio sand, between two higher impedance,
higher Poissons ratio shales.
This model is shown in the next slide.
Ostranders model worked well in the Sacramento valley gas fields.
However, it represents only one type of AVO anomaly (Class 3) and the
others will be discussed in the next section.
Ost r ander s Model
Notice that the model consists of a low acoustic impedance and
Poissons ratio gas sand encased between two shales.
Synt het i c f r om Ost r ander s Model
(a) Well log responses for the model. (b) Synthetic seismic.
AVO Cur ves f r om Ost r ander s Model
(a) Response from top of model.
Note that the transmitted P-wave
amplitude is shifted.
(b) Response from base of
model. Note that the transmitted
P-wave amplitude is shifted.
Wet and Gas Model s
Let us now see how to get from the geology to the seismic. We will do this
by using the two models shown below. Model A consists of a wet sand,
and Model B consists of a gas-saturated sand.
(a) Wet model (b) Gas model
AVO Model s
In the next two slides, we are going to compute the top and base event
responses from Models A and B, using the following values, where the
Wet and Gas cases were computed using the Biot-Gassmann equations:
Wet: V
P
= 2500 m/s, V
S
= 1250 m/s, = 2.11 g/cc, = 0.33
Gas: V
P
= 2000 m/s, V
S
= 1310 m/s, = 1.95 g/cc, = 0.12
Shale: V
P
= 2250 m/s, V
S
= 1125 m/s, = 2.0 g/cc, = 0.33
We will consider the AVO effects with and without the third term in the
Aki-Richards equation.
Wet Model AVO Cur ves
This figure shows the
computed AVO curves
for the top and base
interfaces of the wet
sand using all three
terms (A, B, and C) in
the Aki-Richards
equation, and then
only the first two terms
(A and B). Note the
deviation of the two
above 25 degrees.
Gas Model AVO Cur ves
This figure on the
right shows the
computed AVO curves
for the top and base
interfaces of the gas
sand using all three
terms (A, B, and C) in
the Aki-Richards
equation, and then
only the first two
terms (A and B). Note
the deviation of the
two above 25 degrees.
Shueys Equat i on
Shuey (1985) rewrote the Aki-Richards equation using V
P
, , and . Only
the gradient is different than in the Aki-Richards expression:
2
) 1 ( 1
2 1
) D 1 ( 2 D A B
+ =
1 2
1 2
P P
P P
2
,
/ V / V
V / V
D : where

=
+
=
+
=
Gas Sand Model
Aki-Richards vs Shuey
-0.250
-0.200
-0.150
-0.100
-0.050
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angle (degrees)
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
A-R Top Shuey Top
A-R Base Shuey Base
This figure shows a
comparison between
the two forms of the
Aki-Richards equation
for the gas sand
considered earlier.
Ot her Si ngl e Layer Model s
The previous exercise showed us that for a gas sand with a low acoustic
impedance, we can expect absolute amplitude increases with offset at
both the top and bottom of the sand. For the models, we used P and S-
wave velocity.
Another approach is to use the Poissons ratio change as the key
parameter.
The next figure shows four single-layer boundaries consisting of all
combinations of increasing and decreasing acoustic impedance and
Poissons ratio. Note that the sign of the gradient is generally the same
as the sign of . (This is not true in the case of a Class 4 sand, as we
shall see in a later theory section.)
Four Si ngl e Layer Model s
(a) , V
P
, and all increase. (b) , V
P
increase, decreases.
(c) , V
P
decrease, increases. (d) , V
P
, and all decrease.
Mul t i -Layer AVO Model i ng
Multi-layer modeling in the AVO program consists first of creating a stack
of N layers, generally using well logs, and defining the thickness, P-wave
velocity, S-wave velocity, and density for each layer.
You must then decide what effects are to be included in the model:
primaries only, converted waves, multiples, or some combination of these.
AVO Model i ng Opt i ons
There are three main options for the modeling process:
Zoeppritz Primaries only using the Zoeppritz equations for calculation.
Aki-Richards Primaries only using the Aki-Richards equations for
calculation.
Full Elastic Wave Computation of the full elastic wave solution (with
optional anelastic effects), which includes primaries, converted waves,
and multiples.
The following example, taken from a paper by Simmons and Backus
(AVO Modeling and the locally converted shear wave, Geophysics 59,
p1237, August, 1994), illustrates the effect of wave equation modeling.
The Oi l Sand Model
Simmons and Backus used the thin bed oil sand model shown above.
The Possi bl e Model ed Event s
Simmons and Backus (1994)
Responses t o Var i ous Al gor i t hms
(A) Primaries-only Zoeppritz, (B) + single leg shear, (C) + double-leg shear,
(D) + multiples, (E) Wave equation solution, (F) Linearized approximation.
Primaries only Zoeppritz
+ single leg shear
+ double leg shear
+ multiples
Wave equation
Aki-Richards
Simmons and Backus (1994)
Logs f r om a Col ony Ex ampl e
Model s f r om a Col ony Ex ampl e
(a) Elastic Wave (b) Zoeppritz (c) Aki-Richards
Ani sot r opy and AVO
So far, we have considered only the isotropic case, in which earth
parameters such as velocity do not depend on seismic propagation
angle.
In the next few slides, we will discuss anisotropy, in particular the case of
Transverse Isotropy with a vertical symmetry axis, or VTI.
We will then see how anisotropy affects the AVO response.
Finally, we will look at this effect on our original model.
I sot r opi c vs Ani sot r opi c (VTI ) Vel oc i t y
As mentioned, in an isotropic earth P and S-wave velocities are
independent of angle.
VTI velocities depend on angle, as shown below for three different angles:
V
P
(0
o
)
V
P
(45
o
)
V
P
(90
o
)
VTI can be extrinsic, caused by fine layering of the earth, or intrinsic,
caused by particle alignment as in a shale.
Vel oc i t i es f or Weak Ani sot r opy
Although the equations for full anisotropy are quite complex, Thomsen
(1986) showed that for weakly anisotropic materials the velocities can be
written as follows, where , , and are called Thomsens parameters.
Note that for AVO and converted wave studies, we are only interested in
the first two velocities and constants. Note also that V
SV
(0
o
) = V
SH
(0
o
):
( )
2 2 4
( ) (0 ) 1 sin cos sin
o
P P
V V = + +
2
2 2
2
(0 )
( ) (0 ) 1 ( )sin cos
(0 )
o
o
P
SV SV
o
SV
V
V V
V

= +

( )
2
( ) (0 ) 1 sin
o
SH SH
V V = +
Thomsens Par amet er s
Thomsens parameters are simply combinations of the differences between
the P and S velocities at 0, 45, and 90 degrees. The following relationships
can be derived quite easily using the velocities in the previous slide:
) 0 ( V
) 0 ( V ) 90 ( V
o
SH
o
SH
o
SH

=
) 0 ( V
) 0 ( V ) 90 ( V
o
P
o
P
o
P

=

= +

=
) 0 ( V
) 0 ( V ) 45 ( V
4
) 0 ( V
) 0 ( V ) 45 ( V
4
o
P
o
P
o
P
o
P
o
P
o
P

In the next slide, we will look at V
P
and V
SV
as a function of angle for
different values of and . (As mentioned, V
SH
will not be used in AVO).
Ani sot r opi c P and SV VTI Vel oc i t i es
(a) VTI medium
with = 0.2
and = 0.2.
(b) VTI medium
with = 0.1
and = 0.2.
(c) VTI medium
with = 0.2
and = 0.1.
Sol vi ng f or and usi ng t he Vel oc i t y
V
P
(45
o
)= 2225 m/s
225 m/s
3 . 0
) 0 ( V
) 0 ( V ) 90 ( V
o
P
o
P
o
P
=
=
V
P
(0
o
)= 2000 m/s
V
P
(90
o
)= 2600 m/s
600 m/s
15 . 0 3 . 0 45 . 0
) 0 ( V
) 0 ( V ) 45 ( V
4
o
P
o
P
o
P
= =

=
AVO and Tr ansver se I sot r opy
Thomsen (1993) showed that a transversely isotropic term could be
added to the Aki-Richards equation using his weak anisotropic
parameters and , where R
an
( ) is the anisotropic AVO response and
R
is
( ) is the isotropic AVO response. Ruger (2002) gave the following
corrected form of Thomsens original equation:
( )
2 2 2
2 1 2 1
2 2 2
( ) ( ) sin sin tan ,
2 2
:
sin sin tan
2 2
an is
an
R R
where and
R A B C

= + +
= =

= + + + +

Typi c al Val ues f or Del t a, Epsi l on and
Gamma
Typical values for , , and were given by Thomsen (1986). Here are
some representative values from his table:
Lithology V
P
(m/s) V
S
(m/s) rho(g/cc) epsilon delta gamma
sandstone_1 3368 1829 2.50 0.110 -0.035 0.255
sandstone_2 4869 2911 2.50 0.033 0.040 -0.019
calcareous sandstone 5460 3219 2.69 0.000 -0.264 -0.007
immature sandstone 4099 2346 2.45 0.077 0.010 0.066
shale_1 3383 2438 2.35 0.065 0.059 0.071
shale_2 3901 2682 2.64 0.137 -0.012 0.026
mudshale 4529 2703 2.52 0.034 0.211 0.046
clayshale 3794 2074 2.56 0.189 0.204 0.175
silty limestone 4972 2899 2.63 0.056 -0.003 0.067
laminated siltstone 4449 2585 2.57 0.091 0.565 0.046
AVO and Tr ansver se I sot r opy
Blangy (1997) computed the effect of anisotropy on models of the three
Rutherford-Williams type. Blangys models are shown below, but since
he used Thomsens formulation for the linearized approximation, his
figures have been recomputed in the next slide for the wet and gas cases
using Rugers formulation. The slide after that shows our example.
Tr ansver se I sot r opy AVO Ef f ec t s
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
(a) Gas sandstone case:
Note that the effect of
and is to increase the
AVO effects.
Isotropic
--- Anisotropic
= -0.15
= -0.3
(b) Wet sandstone case:
Note that the effect of and
is to create apparent AVO
decreases.
Ani sot r opy Appl i ed t o Col ony Ex ampl e
Isotropic vs Anisotropic AVO
Gas Sand Top, = -0.15, = -0.3
-0.400
-0.300
-0.200
-0.100
0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angle (degrees)
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
R (Isotropic) R (Anisotropic)
Ani sot r opi c AVO Model Ex ampl e
In the above display, we have added simple and logs to the sonic
and density logs from the Colony gas sandstone play in Alberta. Notice
that only the gas sand is isotropic.
Ani sot r opi c AVO Synt het i c s
(a) (b) (a) Isotropic (b) Anisotropic
In this display, the synthetic responses for the logs shown in the
previous slide are shown. Note the difference due to anisotropy.
Conc l usi ons
This section introduced the theory of AVO and considered a number of
modeled examples.
Our first modeled example looked at both a wet sand and a gas sand,
which were based on typical values found in a reservoir. As we will see
in the next section, this is the most common response and is called a
Class 3 anomaly.
We also found that modeling can be very sensitive to the type of
algorithm used. For thin beds, wave equation modeling is suggested.
Finally, anisotropy should also be modeled, since it can have a large
effect on the AVO response.
Cr eat i ng Synt het i c s
Exercise
Readi ng i n Sei smi c Dat a
Now we will read in the real
seismic data which tie this
well. Click on Data
Manager/Import Data/Open
Seismic/From SEG-Y File:
On the next menu, select the file gathers.sgy as shown below and click on Add >>
Then click on Next >>.
Select the option to
process this file as a
2D Line, as shown,
and click on Next >>.
On the next page, make sure that you specify that this file does not have X & Y
coordinates numbers in the trace headers:
Click on Next >> on this page and again on the following page to accept the
defaults. You will see a message, warning you that the seismic file needs to be
scanned. Click on Yes to proceed.
When the scanning
completes, the Geometry
Grid page appears:
Click on Ok to accept the
default geometry.
The Well to Seismic Map menu appears:
This menu tells the program how to map the wells in the GEOVIEW database to the
seismic data. Change the menu as shown above, i.e., enter the number 330 for the
CDP. We have now indicated that AVO_WELL is inserted at CDP 330 . Click on Ok
on this menu and the data set will appear plotted in the AVO Analysis window.
Di spl ayi ng Sei smi c Dat a
Here is the resulting
plot of the gathers:
Move the horizontal scroll bar to display the center portion of the line. You will
notice that the final CDP range will be shown at the bottom of the screen and will
change as you move. Move to a center range of approximately CDP 325-335.
Releasing the mouse button releases the bar and will show this display with the
P-wave log inserted at X 330:
You may notice that the
event at a time of 630
ms is much stronger in
the center of the line
than it was at the left
end. In addition, there
is a noticeable increase
in amplitude in moving
from near offsets to far
offsets. This is the AVO
anomaly which will be
investigated in the
following exercises.
Cr eat i ng a Super Gat her
Next, we will create a super gather, or common
offset stack, around the zone of interest. To do this,
first select Process / Super Gather on the vertical
menu bar of the seismic data window, as shown on
the right.
This will bring up the Super
Gather menu, shown on the left.
Keep the default parameters and
click on Next >>.
We next get the menu
shown on the right.
Default the Number of
offsets to 10, but change
the Size of Rolling
Window to 5 CDPs, as
shown. This will create
super gathers by
averaging over 5 CDP bin
locations.
Note also, that we are
creating 10 offsets in
each output bin,
spanning the range from
53 to 647 meters.
Click on Next >> to get
the menu shown on the
right, which defines the
output format. Default
this menu and click on
Ok.
The super gather
will now appear in
its own window, as
shown on the right.
Note that the signal-
to-noise ratio of the
event at 630 ms has
been improved.
Sei smi c Di spl ays
We have just created two seismic displays and will be
creating many more. It can be inconvenient to keep too
many windows open, so any of these seismic windows
can be shut down by clicking on File / Exit Window. To
restore any seismic window, simply click on the
Seismic / Seismic Window Data Menu button on either
the Seismic data window or the AVO Modeling Window,
as shown on the right:
The AVO Open Window Data
Menu is shown on the left.
To Show, Close, or Delete
any of the seismic data in
the list, simply highlight the
name and click on the
appropriate button.
Seismic data can also be displayed in the AVO Modeling window. This window
now shows a subset of the CDP gathers inserted in the window.
To change the displayed seismic data,
click on the eyeball button:
and select the
Seismic Views tab,
as shown on the
right. Notice that
the displayed
seismic is gathers.
By using a
combination of the
Delete << and Add>>
buttons, replace the
gathers with the
super_gather, as
shown on the right.
Click on Ok to
change the display.
The new window looks as shown below. Note that the super-gather is now
displayed instead of the original raw gathers:
Wavel et Ex t r ac t i on
The next step is to make a synthetic gather.
Before making a synthetic, we should extract a wavelet. We will extract a
statistical wavelet from the super gather by doing the following steps:
Click on Wavelet / Extract
Wavelet / Statistical:
When the menu appears, change the
Input Volume to super_gather and
change the start time to 500 ms, as
shown on the right. Also, default
the offset range to use all the
offsets.
Click Next >> twice, then change the
Wavelet Length to 100 and click on OK.
The extracted wavelet appears in this
window.
Click on the Frequency tab to see the
amplitude and phase spectrum of
this wavelet. Because we have used
the Statistical option, the phase is
automatically zero-phase.
Cr eat i ng a Synt het i c Gat her
Now we will make an offset synthetic.
Click on Synthetic /
Zoeppritz:
Set the parameters as shown on the
right. Note that the Target zone has
been set from 600 to 700 meters. The
Zoeppritz equations will be applied
only within this zone.
Also, the Offset range is identical to
that of the Super Gather computed
earlier.
Click on Next >> and OK to display the synthetic in the AVO Modeling window:
Notice that the synthetic is a bit overscaled when compared to the real data. To
fix this, click on the eyeball icon to bring up the View Parameters menu.
In the View Parameter
menu, go to the
Seismic Views tab, as
shown on the right.
Highlight avo_well_syn
under the Displayed
Seismic box and
change the Excursion
to 0.70.
Then, click on Ok to
apply the change.
The scaled result should look like this:
AVO Anal ysi s on Sei smi c Dat a
I nt r oduc t i on
In the last section, we looked at the theory of AVO and used the
equations to perform forward modeling.
We will now use the linearized Aki-Richards equation to extract
intercept and gradient attributes from seismic data.
We will then look at the classification scheme of Rutherford and
Williams, and discuss AVO cross-plotting.
Finally, we will discuss the use of the third term in the Aki-Richards
equation to derive density attributes.
The Tw o-Ter m Ak i -Ri c har ds Equat i on
Intercept / gradient analysis is done with the two-term Aki-Richards
equation. Recall that:

2
sin B A ) ( R + =
where we have dropped the C term and define A and B as:
,
V
V
2
V
V
V
V
4
V
V
2
1
B
2
P
S
S
S
2
P
S
p
P
=
,
V
V
2
1
A
p
P
+ =

or, using Shueys approximation:
.
/ V / V
V / V
D ,
) 1 ( 1
2 1
) D 1 ( 2 D A B
P P
P P
2

+
=
+ =
The Tw o-Ter m Ak i -Ri c har ds Equat i on
It is common practice to use only 2 terms because:
(1) It simplifies the analysis considerably
(2) For angles less than about 40 degrees, the third term is not significant,
as shown previously:
Est i mat i ng t he I nt er c ept and Gr adi ent
Our objective is to determine values for A and B by analyzing real
seismic data.
Step 1 involves converting from offset to angle.
Step 2 involves fitting a regression line to the amplitude picks as a
function of the sine of the angle squared.
The next two slides will illustrate this in simple fashion.
Conver t i ng f r om Of f set t o Angl e
Offset (m) Angle (degrees)
0 90
450
6000
The offset
domain is the
conventional
CDP stack
with each trace
at a different
offset. The
acquisition
geometry is
shown below.
The angle domain
represents a
theoretical
acquisition
geometry in which
each trace
corresponds to a
constant incidence
angle.
Conversion from offset to angle can be done using one of these options:
(1) Straight ray assumption (constant velocity)
(2) Ray-tracing (variable velocity)
(3) Ray Parameter approximation (variable velocity approximation)
. velocity RMS V
, time way 2 t
,
2
t V
depth d
, offset X where
,
Vt
X
d 2
X
tan
: Ray Straight ) 1 (
RMS
0
0 RMS
0
=
=
= =
=
= =
. traveltime total t
, velocity Interval V where
,
tV
XV
sin
: Parameter Ray ) 2 (
INT
2
RMS
INT
=
=
=
Ray
Tracing
Ray
Parameter
The Ray Parameter method is
usually used when analyzing
seismic data.
This is because it is much faster
than Ray Tracing.
Because of the approximations,
it begins to degrade slightly at
angles greater than 50 degrees.
The example on the right shows
angle contours calculated using
Ray Tracing and Ray Parameter.
50 50 35 35 43 43
65 65
Real Dat a Ex ampl e
Now lets look at some real data, and see if it matches the theory.
The next slide shows the logs in the discovery well.
After that, we will look at the stack, a classic bright spot.
The slide following the bright spot shows a group of 2D gathers over a
gas zone, in WTVA and color amplitude envelope. Notice the increase in
amplitude as a function of offset.
The slide after that shows a common offset stack or super-gather over
the gathers. The amplitudes have been picked and displayed, to quantify
the amplitude increase.
We will finally discuss the A and B attributes and their combinations.
Logs
The well logs are from the gas discovery well are shown above. Notice
that there is a cleaner response on the density log than the sonic log.
St ac k
Bright Spot
The CDP stack over the gas well is shown above, with the sonic log from
the gas well spliced in. Note the bright spot, which may or may not
indicate gas (it could be lithology induced).
Sei smi c Gat her s over a Gas Sand
(a) A series
of corrected
CDP gathers
over a gas
zone.
(b) The same
gathers, but
shown with
color
amplitude
envelope.
Common Of f set St ac k f r om Gat her s
(a) Common offset stack
(b) Picks from
the trough.
(c) Picks from
the peak.
Common Of f set Pi c k s as Func t i on of si n
2
q
Offset
+A
-A
+B
- B
sin
2
Time
The pick amplitudes are extracted at
all times, two of which are shown.
The Aki-Richards equation predicts a
linear relationship between these
amplitudes and sin
2
.
Regression curves are then
calculated, to give A and B values for
each time sample.
The result of
this calculation
is to produce 2
basic attribute
volumes
Intercept: A
Gradient: B
Der i ved At t r i but es
The raw A and B attribute volumes are rarely used in that form. Instead,
other AVO attributes are usually calculated from them.
The most popular AVO attributes are:
(1) AVO Product : A*B
(2) Scaled Poissons Ratio Change : A+B
(3) Shear Reflectivity : A-B
(4) Fluid factor
Der i ved At t r i but es AVO Pr oduc t : A* B
Many AVO anomalies have the form
shown at the right.
In this case, both the intercept (A)
and the gradient (B) are large
numbers or bright. Also, they
have the same sign.
This is an example of a Class 3
anomaly.
Forming the product of A and B, we
get:
Top of sand : (-A)*(-B) = +AB
Base of sand : (+A)*(+B) = +AB
This gives a positive bright
response at both top and base.
+A
-A
+B
- B
sin
2

The AVO product shows a positive response at the top and base of the
reservoir:
Top
Base
Sc al ed Poi ssons Rat i o Change : A+B
The second combination is derived from Shueys equation:
2
( ) sin R A B = +
1
2
P
p
V
A
V

= +

2
) 1 ( 1
2 1
) D 1 ( 2 D A B
+ =
If we assume the background Poissons Ratio = = 1/3, then:
2
1 9
2(1 )
2 (2/3) 4
B A D D A

= + + =

9
4
A B + =
The sum A+B is proportional to the
change in Poissons Ratio.
or:
The AVO sum (A+B) shows a negative response at the top of the reservoir
(decrease in ) and a positive response at the base (increase in ):
Top
Base
Shear Ref l ec t i vi t y : A-B
The third combination is derived from the Aki_Richards equation:
2
( ) sin R A B = +
2 2
1
2
1
4 2
2
P
p
P S S S
p P S P
V
A
V
V V V V
B
V V V V

= +

=

If we assume the background V
P
/V
S
= 2, then:
2 2
1
4 2
2
1
2 , : ,
2
P S S S
p P S P
S
P S P S
S
V V V V
B
V V V V
V
R R where R A and R
V

=

= = = +

The difference A-B is proportional to
the Shear Reflectivity.
( ) B A
2
1
R
S
=
or:
The AVO difference (A-B) shows an increase in Shear Impedance at the
top of the reservoir. This calculation is usually done with the more
accurate Fatti equation, which we will see next.
Top
Base
R
P
/ R
S
At t r i but es
An alternate form of the Aki-Richards equation was formulated by Fatti et
al. (Geophysics, September, 1994) which can be written (for 2 terms) as:
1 2
2
2 2
1 2
( )
: 1 tan , 8 sin ,
1 1
, .
2 2
P S
S
P
P S
P S
P S
R c R c R
V
where c c
V
V V
R R
V V

= +

= + = =

= + = +

This allows us to calculate R
P
and R
S
volumes from seismic data in
exactly the same way as A and B volumes.
R
P
R
S
The R
P
/R
S
attributes are usually transformed into one of 2 new
attributes:
(1) Fluid Factor, which will be discussed next.
(2) AVO Inversion or Lambda-Mu-Rho, which will be discussed in a
later section.
The Mudr oc k Li ne
The mudrock line is a linear relationship between V
P
and V
S
derived by Castagna et al (1985):
s / m 1360 V 16 . 1 V
S P
+ =
Note that for a constant Poissons ratio, the intercept is zero:
S P
V
1 2
2 2
V
This will be illustrated in the next few slides.

ARCOs original mudrock derivation
(Castagna et al, Geophysics, 1985)
0
2000
4000
6000
1000 3000 4000 0
1000
3000
5000
V
P
(m/s)
V
S
(m/s)
Mudrock Line
Gas Sand
2000
0
2000
4000
6000
1000 3000 4000 0
1000
3000
5000
V
P
(m/s)
V
S
(m/s)
Mudrock Line
Gas Sand
= 1/3
or
V
P
/V
S
= 2
2000
V
P
(m/s)
0
2000
4000
6000
1000 3000 4000 0
1000
3000
5000
V
S
(m/s)
Mudrock Line
Gas Sand
= 1/3 or
V
P
/V
S
= 2
= 0.1 or
V
P
/V
S
= 1.5
2000
Der i ved At t r i but es Fl ui d Fac t or
The Fluid Factor attribute (Smith and Gidlow, 1987, Fatti et al., 1994) is
based on Castagnas mudrock equation, which is assumed to be true for
non-hydrocarbon filled layers:
s m V V
S P
/ 1360 16 . 1 + =
From this equation, we can derive the following equivalent equation:
1.16
S
P S
P
V
R R
V
=
The Fluid Factor is defined to highlight layers where Castagnas
equation is not true, i.e., potential hydrocarbon zones:
S
P
S
P
R
V
V
16 . 1 R F =
Note that the factor is often customized to fit the local data.
1.16
S
P
V
V
The AVO Fluid Factor shows strong deviation from Castagnas equation at
both the top and base of the reservoir.
Top
Base
I mpor t ant Par amet er Choi c es f or Gr adi ent
Cal c ul at i ons
Velocities for
angle calculation
Range of
angles
Minimum Correlation
for handling noisy
picks.
Type of analysis
Cal c ul at i ng AVO At t r i but es
Exercise
Cr eat i ng Angl e Gat her s
First, we will calculate angle gathers from a real data set and observe the effect of
the input velocity on the result. The super gathers are displayed in an AVO seismic
window and look like this:
Anomaly
This data set is a set of CDP-gathered data with a large AVO anomaly. In order to
do AVO analysis, we must be sure that there is a good range of incidence angles at
the zone of interest. To see that, we will convert the input data set to the Angle
Gather domain.
Click on Process / Angle Gather:
On the first page of the menu,
we will keep the default
parameters. Click on Next >>:
On this page, we
must specify the
velocity field which
the program will use
to convert from
offset to angle. We
will use the sonic
log. Click on the
Open Well Log
button:
Select the log to use for the velocities in the angle transform calculation:
Fill in the menu as shown above, and click on Ok.
The previous menu will now look like this:
Click on Next >> and OK to produce the result.
The range of angles at any time is a function of the velocity field input. This
calculation shows that at the time of interest, 630 ms, we have angles out to about
30 degrees. This should be good enough for the subsequent analysis. We will use
this angle_gather volume later when we do simultaneous inversion. For now, you
can close it by clicking on File/Exit Window on this window.
Now, we will calculate the AVO attributes and observe the effects of changing
parameters on the result. The data for this exercise is the set of super gathers in
the AVO seismic window, which should look like this:
First, we will pick the anomalous event. To do that, click on
Horizon / Pick Horizons:
On the first menu, click on Ok to
accept the default name:
Modify the two parameters
shown below, which will allow
you to pick a trough on all traces
of the line:
After you have modified the menu as shown on the previous slide, click near the
trough at about 630 ms. This will cause the entire event to be picked:
When you are satisfied that the proper event has been picked, click on Ok to accept
the picks.
To display the pick amplitudes, click on AVO Analysis /
Pick Analysis:
On the first page of this
menu, select the option
to Show Pick Amplitude
Values Only:
On the second page,
ensure that the correct
horizon is selected:
After clicking
OK on the
menu, the
picks appear at
the base of the
display.
To remove the amplitude display, click on AVO Analysis / View Pick Analysis, and
this will toggle the display off.
Now we will calculate AVO Attribute volumes.
To produce the intercept and gradient
volumes for this data set, choose AVO
Attribute / AVO Attribute Volume on the
window containing the super gathers.
We will keep all the defaults
on the first page, so click
on Next >>:
Take a look at all the default menu items.
Use the log for
the velocities.
We will use only
the first two
terms in the Aki-
Richards
equation.
Click on Next >>
and OK to start
the calculation.
Here is the resulting AVO attribute calculation:
Notice that there is a strong red anomaly in the center of the section. As shown
by the Color Key, red corresponds to a large positive amplitude. As indicated at
the top of the display, the product of intercept and gradient (A*B) is being displayed
in color.
Actually, the horizon display is obscuring the top of the
gand sand event. Lets remove that horizon temporarily.
First click the eyeball icon:
On the parameters
menu, select the
Horizons page:
Then, select the
option Do Not Show,
and click on Ok:
Now, we can clearly see the red (positive) response at the top and base of
the gas sand, which is expected for a Class 3 AVO anomaly:
Another, very useful AVO attribute is the Scaled Poissons
Ratio, A+B. To see that, click the eyeball icon once
again:
On the first, General, page,
change the Color Data
Volume item as shown, and
click Ok:
The result will look like this:
Once again, we see the expected response for the gas sand a negative
(orange) change in Poissons Ratio at the top and a positive (yellow) change at
the base of the layer.
Cr oss-Pl ot t i ng AVO At t r i but es
AVO Cr oss-Pl ot t i ng
AVO cross-plotting involves plotting the intercept against the gradient and
identifying anomalies. The theory of cross-plotting was developed by
Castagna et al (TLE, 1997, Geophysics, 1998) and Verm and Hilterman (TLE,
1995) and is based on two ideas:
(1) The Rutherford / Williams Classification Scheme.
(2) The Mudrock Line.
Rut her f or d/Wi l l i ams Cl assi f i c at i on
Rutherford and Williams (1989) derived the following classification scheme
for AVO anomalies, with further modifications by Ross and Kinman (1995)
and Castagna (1997):
Class 1: High impedance sand with decreasing AVO
Class 2: Near-zero impedance contrast
Class 2p: Same as 2, with polarity change
Class 3: Low impedance sand with increasing AVO
Class 4: Low impedance sand with decreasing AVO
Shale
Shale
Sand
Acoustic Impedance
= V
P
The classification depends only on the
contrast in Acoustic Impedance between
the target sand and the surrounding
shales:
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
These are the generic AVO curves at the top of the gas sand:
An Ex ampl e of a Cl ass 1 Anomal y
(a) Data example.
(b) Model
example.
Rutherford and
Williams (1989)
Angl e St ac k s over Cl ass 2 & 3 Sands
(a) Class 2 sand. (b) Class 3 sand.
Rutherford and
Williams (1989)
Cl ass 2p vs Cl ass 2 Sands
For known Class 2 and 2p anomalies, certain processing options may
enhance the interpretation:
Ross and Kinman (1995) suggest creating a near trace range stack (NTS)
and a far trace range stack (FTS).
For Class 2p: Final Stack = FTS - NTS
For Class 2: Final Stack = FTS
Cl ass 2 Sands
(a) Full stack of a class 2
sand.
(b) FTS of a class 2 sand.
Ross and Kinman (1995)
Cl ass 2p Sands
(a) Full stack of a class
2p sand.
(a) FTS - NTS of a class
2p sand.
Ross and Kinman (1995)
Cl ass 4 Anomal i es
Castagna (1995) suggested that for a very large value of A, and a
small change in Poissons ratio, we may see a reversal of the
standard Class 3 anomaly, as shown below. Castagna termed this
a Class 4 anomaly. Here is a simple example using Shueys
approximation:
9
,
4
(1) If 0.3 and A 0.1, then B -0.575 (Class 3)
(2) If 0.1 and A 0.3, then B 0.075 (Class 4)
B A
=
= = =
= = =
Here is Figure 7 from
Castagna et al (1998),
which illustrates the
concept of the Class 4
anomaly in more detail.
The Mudr oc k Li ne
The mudrock line is a linear relationship between V
P
and V
S
derived
by Castagna et al (1985). The equation is as follows and the plot
from their original paper is shown below:
V
P
=1.16 V
S
+1360 m/sec
I nt er c ept vs Gr adi ent Cr osspl ot
By using the Aki-Richards equation, Gardners equation, and the
ARCO mudrock line, we can derive a relationship between
intercept and gradient. Recall that:
,
V
V
2
V
V
V
V
4
V
V
2
1
B
2
P
S
S
S
2
P
S
p
P
+ =

p
P
V
V
2
1
A
P
P
V
V
4
1
: Gardner

=
If we assume that V
P
= cV
S
, then we can derive the following relationship:
=
2
c
9
1 A
5
4
B
Now let us use a few values of c and see how the previous
equation simplifies. If c = 2, the most commonly accepted value,
the gradient is the negative of the intercept (a -45 degree line on a
crossplot):
A
4
9
1 A
5
4
B =
=
If c = 3, the gradient is zero, a horizontal line on the crossplot of
intercept against gradient:
0
9
9
1 A
5
4
B =
=
Various values of c c produce the straight lines (wet trends)
shown on intercept / gradient crossplots on the next page.
Mudrock lines on a crossplot for various V
P
/V
S
ratios (Castagna and Swan, 1998).
By letting c = 2 for the background wet trend, we can now plot the
various anomalous Rutherford / Williams classes (as extended by
Ross and Kinman and Castagna et al)
Note that each of the classes will plot in a different part of the
intercept / gradient crossplot area.
The anomalies form a rough elliptical trend on the outside of the
wet trend.
This is shown in the next figure.
Gradient
Intercept
Wet Trend
= 2
s
p
V
V
Base III
Base II
Base II P
Top IV
Top III
Top II
Top II P
Base IV
Top I
Base I
Crossplot
Showing
Anomalies
ARCO Ex ampl es of Cr oss-Pl ot t i ng
(a) Cross-plot of well log derived A and B. (b) Cross-plot of seismically derived A and B.
The scatter on the seismically derived data can be attributed to:
(1) V
P
/V
S
Ratio variability
(2) Wavelet interference.
Foster et al (1993)
I nt er c ept / Gr adi ent Cr oss-Pl ot s
(a) Uninterpreted gas zone
(b) Interpreted gas zone
Sei smi c Di spl ay f r om A/B Cr oss-Pl ot s
(a) Before interpretation
(b) After interpretation
Pol ar i zat i on and t he AVO Hodogr am
We have seen that one of the major causes of scatter on seismically
derived cross-plots is wavelet interference.
One approach to reducing wavelet interference is to use the AVO
hodogram (Keho et al: The AVO hodogram: Using polarization to identify
anomalies, TLE, November, 2001 and Mahob and Castagna: AVO
hodograms and polarization attributes, TLE, January, 2002).
A second approach is to perform inversion of the AVO attribute volumes.
We will see this in a later section.
Up to now, we have
calculated cross plots of A
and B, using fairly large
analysis windows.
This gives a broad cluster of
points, containing both the
background trend and the AVO
anomalies:
In Polarization Analysis, we
calculate cross plots over small
sliding windows on a single
trace.
For each cross plot,

we can calculate the
polarization vector.
This measures the
direction of the
dominant energy for
this cluster.
The length of the
vector measures the
average energy in
the cluster.
Theoretically, we can expect wet
trend points to fall around the -
45
o
trend, while class 3 AVO
anomalies fall around +45
o
.
-45
o
+45
o
The Hodogr am
One way to display this result is to plot the calculated polarization vector
on a 3-D display with time as the third axis. This is called a Hodogram.
A
B
time
A more conventional display shows the
calculated polarization angle for a single
trace as a function of time.
Note that this result depends on the size
of the sliding window.
Also note the anomalous positive
Polarization Angle around 630 ms
indicating the Class 3 anomaly.
Col ony Gas Sand Pol ar i zat i on
In addition to the Polarization Angle itself, a very useful attribute is the
Polarization Product, which is Polarization Angle multiplied by the length
of the Polarization Vector. This is expected to highlight bright spots
which have high hydrocarbon potential:
Pr obl ems i n I nt er c ept / Gr adi ent
Anal ysi s
There are a number of problems that can reduce the accuracy of intercept /
gradient analysis and crossplotting:
Noise on the far offsets
- This can be reduced by using a robust, or L1 norm,
approach to fitting the intercept/gradient line.
Misalignment of events at far offsets
- This can be reduced by applying a fourth order correction, or by
using a trim static (see the Gulf Coast Exercise).
Neglecting the third term in Aki-Richards
- This can be improved by estimating the third (C) term.
Noi sy Ampl i t udes
Corr = .88
Corr = .45
In addition to fitting the
regression curves for A and B,
it is important to measure how
well the curves fit the data.
The Gradient Analysis display
shows visually the goodness-
of-fit, and displays the
Normalized Correlation, which
measures the goodness-of-fit
on a scale of 0 to 1.
This correlation can be used
later to reject unreliable data.
Mi sal i gnment of Event s
One of the most serious problems for Gradient analysis is residual NMO:
Good for AVO
Bad for AVO
This is often most apparent on long-offset data, where high order
moveout corrections are required. Other causes are anisotropy and poor
processing.
We will use trim statics to correct this in a later exercise.
Thr ee Ter m AVO
As mentioned previously, one problem in AVO and crossplot analysis is
that only the first two terms of the Aki-Richards equation are usually
extracted from the CDP gathers. Recall that the full Aki-Richards
equation, as shown below, has three terms:

2 2 2
sin tan C sin B A ) ( R + + =
.
V
V
and ,
V 2
V
C
2
V
V
4
V 2
V
B
V
V
2
1
R A
2
P
S
p
P
S
S
p
P
P
P
0 P
= =
=
+ = =

where:
An alternate form of the Aki-Richards equation was formulated by Fatti et
al. (Geophysics, September, 1994) which can be written:
. ,
2
1
,
2
1
, , sin 2 tan
2
1
, sin 8 , tan 1 :
) (
2
2 2
3
2
2
2
1
3 2 1
= =
= + =
+ + =
D
S
S
S
P
P
P
P
S
D S P
R
V
V
R
V
V
R
V
V
c
c c where
R c R c R c R
Either the A, B, C and the R
P
, R
S
, R
D
terms can be extracted from the
seismic gathers using a least-squares fitting technique with different
weighting coefficients.
Densi t y Ter m
Both forms of the Aki-Richards equation can allow us to estimate density
variations.
Using the original A,B,C form, we see that:
1
2 2 2
P P
P p
V V
A C
V V

= + =

This means that if we can estimate all three coefficients, we can generate
a density attribute volume.
That can be very valuable since density is a direct measure of
hydrocarbon saturation. This could solve the fizz water problem.
However, the third coefficient can be very noisy since it depends on the
far angle data (>45 degrees), and is very sensitive to noise.
Gul f of Mex i c o Ex ampl e
Top
Base
These are angle gathers from the Gulf of Mexico, showing a strong Class II
AVO anomaly. Angles range from 0 to 60 degrees. The target layer is
annotated at right.
3 Ter m Gr adi ent Anal ysi s
These displays show the results of fitting the Aki-Richards equation,
using 2 and 3 terms, to the event highlighted on the previous slide.
Note that the equation for 2 terms begins to deviate from the seismic
picks after about 45 degrees.
2 Term
3 Term
Top
Base
Poi ssons Rat i o Maps: 2 and 3 Ter ms
2 Term 3 Term
The Scaled
Poissons Ratio
maps for the two
results are different,
even though each
depends only on A
and B.
Because of the good
seismic data with
angles to 60 degrees,
we expect the 3-term
result to be more
reliable.
El ast i c Cont r ast s f r om 3 Ter m AVO
Delta Rho Delta V
S
Delta V
P
The map of the density term highlights the same areas as the delta V
S
.
V
P
/V
P
is perhaps best in this case: the hydrocarbon anomaly is
associated with a strong change in V
P
.
Conc l usi ons
This section discussed the AVO intercept and gradient method.
First, we looked at the theory behind the intercept and gradient.
We then looked at an example from a shallow gas sand.
We then discussed the AVO cross-plotting technique.
We then discussed and showed examples of the AVO hodogram method.
Finally, we showed how to estimate three terms from the Aki-Richards
equation and showed several examples of this approach.
Appendi x
Hi l t er mans Appr ox i mat i on
Hilterman re-arranges Shueys equation in a slightly different way:
( )

2 2
2 2
2
sin 25 . 2 cos
sin 25 . 2 ) sin 1 (
sin 25 . 2 ) (
+ =
+ =
+ =
A
A
A A R
Notice that this equation is very intuitive, since it shows that, as the
angle increases, so does the dependence on . Keep in mind that this
equation is strictly correct only for = 1/3 and that the C term has been
dropped. Note also that another way of writing this equation is as
follows, which shows the dependence on A and B:

2 2
sin ) ( cos ) ( B A A R + + =
Cr oss Pl ot t i ng AVO At t r i but es
Exercise
To perform cross-plot analysis, click on the AVO Analysis / Cross Plot option in the
window containing the AVO attributes:
On the first page of the menu,
set the CDP range from 300 to
360 and plot A versus B:
Click on Next >> to get the
next page.
Well plot the Intercept along the X-axis and Gradient along the Y-axis. Click
Next >> on these 2 pages.
When you reach this page, you
are setting the time window over
which to extract points for the
cross plot.
Note that we are using a 100 ms
window centered around the
picked event Horizon 1.
Also, we are plotting only the
peaks and troughs from the
intercept trace.
When you have filled in the
menu as shown, click on Next >>
and OK to get the cross plot.
AVO cross plot
of intercept and
gradient:
Now we wish to identify points on the cross
plot and see where they come from on the
original seismic section. To do this, click on
Zones / Add to get the Add Zone menu.
The menu will look like this:
Note that, by default, we are
adding a zone called Zone_1,
which will be a gray colored
Ellipse
To select a zone, use the
mouse to highlight a
region on the cross plot
by clicking once,
stretching the rubber
band to define the axis of
the ellipse, clicking a
second time, and
changing the size of the
ellipse, and clicking a
third time. Define a zone
as shown to the right:
Click on Apply on the Add Zone menu to add this zone.
Now click on Cross-Section to get a new window with the seismic data plotted.
You will also see the selected points highlighted with the same color:
The region that we have highlighted is the wet trend, which should not contain the
AVO anomaly.
To add a second zone, go back to the menu and click Add new zone, as shown
here:
The menu now changes to
indicate that a new zone,
Zone_2, will be created in
yellow.
This time we will use the
Polygon method to draw
the zone. Change the item
shown at right.
Now, draw the polygon, like
the one shown on the right.
When drawing a polygon, click
the left mouse button at each
of the corners. Then finally,
click the right mouse button,
when you wish to close the
polygon.
When you have drawn the
polygon, click on Apply and
your screen should look
something like this.
Finally, add a third zone,
as shown below:
When you have added the
third zone, click on Apply and
Ok on the Add Zone Menu.
Your final cross plot should
look something like this:
The highlighted regions in quadrants 1 and 3 should correspond to Class 3 AVO
anomalies. The cross section shows that this corresponds to the anomaly we
have been studying so far:
The cross section shows only the portion of data which was used to calculate the
cross plot. Now that we have identified 3 zones, we wish to see them displayed
back on the original seismic data.
To do that, go back to the window containing the intercept and gradient
volumes, and click on the eyeball icon. This will cause the View / Parameters
menu to appear.
On this menu, click on the Color Data Volume item to get a
pullDown list of all the options for color display:
Select the Cross Plot item and click on OK to see the new plot.
The resulting display shows the Cross Plot zones which you have interpreted
from the Cross Plot. This is available over the entire line and not just the
analysis region:
We have now completed this part of
the work in the Colony project. We
will need it for a later exercise, so
click on Project / Save on one of the
seismic windows:
Then, close down the AVO program by
clicking on File / Exit Project on one of
the seismic windows:
AVO Case St udy
Fl ui d Fac t or Ex ampl e
AVO Case St udy, Fl ui d Fac t or Ex ampl e
This case study comes from papers by Smith and Gidlow (Geophysical
Prospecting, November, 1987) and Fatti et al (Geophysics, September,
1994).
We will not review their complete papers, but simply summarize their
approach and look at the 2D and 3D results.
Their papers shows an example of the fluid factor method applied to a
actual reservoir.
We will start with the theory, then show a modeled example, the 2D
example, and finally the 3D example.
The Fl ui d Fac t or y - Theor y
As discussed earlier, Smith and Gidlow (1987) proposed the fluid factor
stack by using Castagnas mudrock line, as follows:
S
S
P
S
P
P
V
V
V
V
V
V
F

= 16 . 1
This was modified by Fatti et al. (1994) (Smith was the second author) in
the following way, and is the approach used to compute fluid factor in this
paper:
S
P
S
P
R
V
V
R F 16 . 1 =
Model Ex ampl e
p
p
V
V
s
s
V
V
( / )
p
V m s ( / )
s
V m s
p s
V V
3
/ P g cm
(a) Modeled logs. Note false

anomaly at 2.5 seconds.
(b) Results of analysis. Only
F showed the true anomaly.
Smith and Gidlow (1987)
Real Dat a Ex ampl e
Cross plot of
shear velocity
(W) against P-
wave velocity
(V) for the 2D
example
2D Ex ampl e f r om Smi t h-Gi dl ow
(a) P-wave reflectivity, V
P
/V
P
(b) S-wave reflectivity, V
S
/V
S
2D Dat a Ex ampl e
(b) Fluid Factor section (a) Pseudo-Poissons Ratio
Gas sand
at 2.0 s
3D Ex ampl e f r om Fat t i et al .
Depth structure
contour map
interpreted from
3D seismic data.
Fatti et al (1994)
3D Ex ampl e Ampl i t ude Envel ope Map
Maximum
value of
amplitude
envelope
from
conventional
seismic.
Fatti et al (1994)
3D Ex ampl e Fl ui d Fac t or
Fluid factor
amplitude
from top-of-
gas event.
Fatti et al (1994)
Fluid factor
amplitude from
base-of-gas
event.
Fatti et al (1994)
Sum of fluid
factor
amplitude
maps from
top-of-gas and
base-of-gas
events.
Fatti et al (1994)
Conc l usi ons f or Fl ui d Fac t or Met hod
The fluid factor method was able to identify the anomaly on the model
example much more clearly than with pseudo-Poissons ratio.
On the 2D South African example, the anomaly was again much more
clearly indicated using the fluid factor.
On the 3D South African example, the fluid factor method was compared
to traditional post-stack amplitude analysis. The fluid factor approach did
a much better job of identifying the anomaly.
AVO Case St udy
Onshor e Tex as Ex ampl e
AVO Case St udy, Onshor e Tex as
Ex ampl e
This case study comes from a paper by Mark Gregg and Charles
B Bukowski (Leading Edge, November, 2000).
This paper shows a very practical example of the application of AVO to a
mature basin.
The exploration objective was
the elastic Oligocene Vicksburg
formation in South Texas.
This has produced more than 3
trillion ft
3
of gas since the
1920s, but not much AVO work
has been reported.
The authors believe the lack of
AVO application comes because
the Vicksburg trend is not a
typical amplitude-supported
play.
The motivation for using AVO
came from results like those
shown on the left.
Using the conventional post-
stack data, it is difficult to
distinguish Gas from Wet sand
before drilling.
Prior to AVO analysis, the
authors had drilled one
commercial gas well, one non-
commercial gas well, and three
dry holes.
These curves from the gas
discovery well show both a
Gas and a Wet zone.
The change in acoustic
impedance is small but the
change in Poissons ratio is
large.
This suggests a class 2
AVO anomaly.
Synthetic modeling
confirmed the expected
class 2 response.
The data was
reprocessed to include
nonhyperbolic
moveout. This turned
out to be critical, as the
figure shows.
A very useful indicator is the
Near and Far Angle Stack.
Note that the Gas sand shows
its brightest response on the
Far Angle stack, as expected
for the class 2 behavior.
The authors used the Far
Angle Stack as the main tool
for searching for new
anomalies.
The authors studied the existing wells and came to these conclusions:
(1) There were about 100 gas wells in the area with cumulative
production > 1 billion ft
3
.
(2) About of these were associated with class 2 AVO anomalies.
(3) About 65% of the ~70 drilled anomalies were commercial gas
accumulations.
(4) Thicker, better-developed reservoirs produced the most distinctive
anomalies.
(5) Threshold gross reservoir thickness required to produce an anomaly
was about 30-60ft.
(6) Most productive anomalies were at depths of 5,000-10,000 ft.
This is the first drilled
anomaly.
100 ft gross interval
with 72 ft of net pay,
producing initially 3
million ft
3
of gas per
day.
Since the anomaly is
not visible on the
conventional stack,
this would not have
been drilled without
the AVO analysis.
A second anomaly was
identified by interpreting the
far-angle stack using
Landmarks Earthcube
software.
This had not been identified
before AVO, because of the
poor quality of the
conventional stack. This was
presumed to be because of
the small acoustic impedance
contrast.
Note that there appear to be
multiple anomalies at the
prospective level.
The drilled well
encountered 2 pay
zones.
Upper zone: gross
thickness of 54 ft,
with 28 ft net pay.
Lower zone: gross
thickness of 214 ft
with 69 ft net pay.
Initial production
rate was 5.3 million
ft
3
with estimated
ultimate recovery
of 14 billion ft
3
.
Two more
successful wells
are shown here.
This is an unsuccessful result. The drilling encountered 105 ft of clean,
low-gas-saturated sand at the anomaly.
Results:
(1) Six commercial discoveries.
(2) Two dry holes, caused by low gas saturation.
(3) This is a 75% success rate, dramatically improved from the original
20% success rate.
Authors conclusions:
(1) Know your rocks. Do the modeling.
(2) Look beyond conventional seismic techniques, e.g. AVO.
(3) Low gas saturation remains a pitfall of the AVO method.
AVO Wor k shop Par t 2
Theory & Exercises
AVO I nver si on
I nt r oduc t i on
In this section, we will review the principles of AVO inversion.
First, we will discuss the general theory.
Then, we will discuss three approaches to this problem:
Elastic Impedance
Lambda Mu Rho Analysis
Simultaneous Inversion
Finally, we will perform an inversion exercise using the Colony data.
Sei smi c Li t hol ogy Est i mat i on
Gathers Stack
Inversion
Estimate
Z= V
P
Traditional methods of seismic lithology estimation involve stack
followed by inversion. This allows for only the estimation of acoustic
impedance, which is not sufficient for inferring fluid content.
Sei smi c Li t hol ogy Est i mat i on
Gathers Stack
Inversion AVO Analysis
AVO 1 AVO N
Estimate V
P
, V
S
, and
AVO 2 Estimate
Z= V
P
. . .
The AVO method allows us to use multiple AVO attributes (shown above
as AVO 1 through AVO N) to simultaneously estimate V
P
, V
S
, and , thus
inferring fluid and/or lithology.
Possi bl e At t r i but es
But which AVO attributes will give us the best estimate of these
parameters?
A number of different possibilities have been proposed:
Offset or angle-limited stacks
Elastic Impedance inversion
Intercept and Gradient
Extraction of R
P
and R
S
reflectivity
Inversion of R
P
and R
S
to give Z
P
and Z
S
Lambda-Mu-Rho analysis of Z
P
and Z
S
Simultaneous Inversion to give Z
P
, Z
S,
and Density
We have already discussed the Intercept and Gradient method at length.
In this section, we will discuss some of the other methods.
Range Li mi t ed St ac k i ng
Gathers
AVO Analysis
Near Stack Far Stack
Above, we see a simple flowchart for range-limited stacking. Range-
limited stacking, using constant offsets or constant angles, is very
robust. But how do we interpret the results?
Range Li mi t ed St ac k i ng Over Gas Sand
Here are the (a) near
angle (0
o
-15
o
) and (b)
far angle (15
o
-30
o
)
stacks from the Colony
seismic dataset. Notice
that the amplitude of
the bright-spot event
at about 630 ms is
stronger on the far-
angle stack than it is on
the near-angle stack.
As we saw earlier, this
is a gas-sand induced
bright-spot.
(a)
(b)
Cr oss-Pl ot t i ng Angl e Range St ac k s
Here is a crossplot
of the near and far
offset, with several
high amplitude
zones highlighted.
Top GAS Top GAS
Base GAS Base GAS
Coal Coal
Here are the highlighted zones from the crossplot shown back on the
seismic section. Note that the gas sand zone has been well delineated.
Fr om Range Li mi t ed St ac k i ng t o El ast i c I mpedanc e
Range-limited stacking, using constant offsets or constant angles,
is very robust, and avoids misaligned event problems. But what
does it mean?
Patrick Connolly, from BP, came up with a novel approach to the
interpretation of range limited stacks, called Elastic Impedance.
Elastic Impedance is based on the Aki-Richards equation, and the
next few slides will develop the concept.
El ast i c I mpedanc e Theor y
Recall that the Aki-Richards Equation can be written:
( )
2 2 2
tan sin sin C B A R + + =
,
2
1
:

P
P
V
V
A where
=
2 2
2 4
2
1
P
S
S
S
P
S
P
P
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
B
.
2
1
:
P
P
V
V
C and

=
Connolly (1999) proposed that, analogously to acoustic impedance, we
could define elastic impedance (EI) as:
( ) ( ) EI
EI
EI
R ln
2
1
2
1

2
=
P
S
V
V
K , sin tan tan sin
2 2 2 2
= If we let and note that
we can re-arrange the Aki-Richards equation to get:
( ) ( ) ( )

2 2 2
sin 4 1 sin 8 tan 1
2
1
ln K K
V
V
V
V
EI
S
S
P
P
If we let K be a constant, we can write:
( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
2
2 2
1 4 sin
1 tan 8 sin
ln ln ln ln
K
K
P S
EI V V

+

= +

( )
2
2 2
1 4 sin
(1 tan ) 8 sin
ln
K
K
P S
V V

+

=

If we then integrate and exponentiate, we get the following form
for EI:
2 2 2
(1 tan ) ( 8 sin ) (1-4 sin )
( )
K K
P S
EI V V

+
=
2
P
2
S
V
V
K where =
Note that if = 0
o
, EI reduces to Acoustic Impedance (AI), where:
( )
P
V AI EI = =
o
0
The preceding equation used all three terms in the Aki-Richards equation.
For angles greater than 30
0
, this equation does not give a straight line fit.
For a higher angle (larger offsets), we use only the first two terms, which
leads to:
2 2 2
(1 sin ) ( 8 sin ) (1 4 sin )
( )
K K
P S
EI V V

+
=
2
=
P
S
V
V
K where
Again note that where = 0
o
, we get:
( )
P
V AI EI = =
o
0
El ast i c I mpedanc e Ef f ec t of Oi l Sat ur at i on
The transformation of an AI log from 0 to 30 results in a generally similar
log but with lower absolute values. The apparent acoustic impedance
decreases with an increase in angle. The percentage decrease is greater
for an oil sand than for shale.
Connolly 1999
El ast i c I mpedanc e Dat a Ex ampl e
The following figure, from Connolly (1999) shows the computed curves for
AI and EI at 30 degrees:
The following figure, also from Connolly (1999) shows that when we scale the
curves shown on the previous slide, we get a better separation for the oil
sands using EI over AI:
EI I nver si on St eps
Gathers
AVO Analysis
Near angle
stack at
1
Far angle
stack at
2
Invert to EI(
1
) Invert to EI(
2
)
Cross Plot
AVO I nver si on
Lambda-Mu_Rho
Ex t r ac t i ng R
P
and R
S
Recall that we have also discussed how to extract R
P
and R
S
attributes. A
summary follows:
Wiggens has shown that if V
P
/V
S
= 2, it is trivially easy to extract an
estimate of zero offset S-wave reflectivity, R
S
. A more rigorous approach,
utilizing the ARCO mudrock line, was given by Fatti et al (Geophysics,
Sept. 1994) and is used in our AVO program.
As a related idea, Shuey has shown that the Aki-Richards equation can
be expressed using Poissons ratio (), density, and P-wave velocity. If
we assume that
AVG
= 1/3 (same as V
P
/V
S
= 2), intercept and gradient can
be combined to give .
I nver t i ng R
P
and R
S
Once we have estimates of R
P
and R
S
from the AVO program, we can then
proceed to STRATA to invert both attributes.
Inverting R
P
will give acoustic impedance Z
P
= V
P
, and inverting R
S
will
give S-wave impedance Z
S
= V
S
. This is shown in the next slide.
These inverted sections can be displayed or cross-plotted.
Note that in our software, these steps can be done while staying in the
same project, meaning that the resulting volumes are all accessible from
the same database.
R
P
/R
S
I nver si on
Gathers
AVO Analysis
R
P
Estimate R
S
Estimate
Crossplot
Invert to Z
P
Invert to Z
S
The LMR Appr oac h
Goodway et al. (1997) proposed a new approach to AVO inversion based
on the Lam parameters and , and density , or Lambda-Mu-Rho
(LMR). The theory is as follows:
2
S
2
P
2
P
2
P
2
S
2
S
S P
Z 2 Z : so
) 2 ( ) V ( Z : and
) V ( Z : therefore
V and
2
V
=
+ = =
= =
=
+
=

I nt er pr et i ng Lambda-Rho & Mu-Rho
The original paper by Goodway et al, gives the following physical
interpretation of the lambda () and mu () attributes: The term, or
incompressibility, is sensitive to pore fluid, whereas the term, or rigidity,
is sensitive to the rock matrix.
As we saw in the theory, it is impossible to de-couple the effects of
density from and when extracting this information from seismic data.
It is therefore most beneficial to cross-plot vs to minimize the
effects of density.
Ex t r ac t i ng Lambda-Rho & Mu-Rho
Once we have estimates of Z
P
and Z
S
from the AVO and STRATA
programs, we can then use the Trace Maths option (in either AVO or
STRATA) to produce our lambda-rho and mu-rho volumes.
These volumes can be displayed and cross-plotted.
The flowchart for this is shown in the next slide.
The two slides following the flowchart show vs for a Biot-
Gassmann analysis of a gas sand. Note the vertical separation for the
LMR approach.
LMR Anal ysi s
Gathers
AVO Analysis
R
P
Estimate R
S
Estimate
Cross-plot
Invert to Z
P
Invert to Z
S
Transform to and
The Pow er of t he LMR Met hod
V
P
/V
S
(V
P
/V
S
)
2
+2 /
Shale 2.25 5.1 0.38 20.37 4.035 12.3 3.1
Gas Sand 1.71 2.9 0.24 18.53 6.314 5.9 0.9
Change /
Average
(%)
-27 -55 -45 -9.5 44 -70 -110
Goodway et al. (1997)
Petrophysical analysis indicating that / is the most sensitive to
variations in rock properties going from shale into gas sand.
LMR vs Zp/Zs on Wel l Logs
Lambda-Mu-Rho Cr oss-Pl ot
The interpretation of a Lambda-Mu-Rho crossplot.
AVO I nver si on
Si mul t aneous I nver si on
Ak i -Ri c har ds Equat i on
We start with Fattis version of the Aki-Richards equation. This models
reflection amplitude as a function of incident angle:
1 2 3
( )
PP P S D
R c R c R c R = + +
where:
2
1
2 2
2
2 2 2
3
1 tan
8 sin
1
tan 2 sin
2
S
P
c
c
c
V
V
= +
=
= +
=
1
2
1
2
.
P
P
P
S
S
S
D
V
R
V
V
R
V
R

= +

= +

=
A problem with this equation is that the coefficients are not equal in size.
This makes the solution for R
S
and Density unstable at small angles:
2
1
2 2
2
2 2 2
3
1 tan
8 sin
1
tan 2 sin
2
0.5
S
P
c
c
c
V
V
= +
=
= +
= =
0
30
1.330
0.500
0.041
=
0
60
4.000
1.500
1.125
=
=
=
=
Conclusion: the direct solution can
be unstable.
Tr ansf or mi ng Var i abl es
We want to use the fact that the basic variables, Z
P
, Z
S
, and are related.
We start with two relationships which should hold for the background
wet trend:
constant
ln( ) ln( ) ln( )
S P
S P
V V
Z Z
= =
= +
Constant
and:
ln( )
ln( ) ln( )
1 1
b
P
P
aV
b a
Z
b b
=
= +
+ +
Generalized
Gardner
Both these relationships lead us to the more general model for the
background trend:
ln( ) ln( )
ln( ) ln( )
S P c S
P c D
Z k Z k L
m Z m L
= + +
= + +
Ln(Zs)
Ln(Zp)
Ln()
Ln(Zp)
S
L
D
L
The New Equat i on
This changes Fattis equation to:
1 2 3
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
P S D
T cW DL c W D L c W D L = + +
% %
where:
( )
( )
1 1 2 3
2 2
(12) (12)
(12)
wavelet at angle
Derivative operator
ln
P P
c c kc mc
c c
W
D
L Z

= + +
=
=
=
=
%
%
What s t he di f f er enc e?
The new equation is better than the old because:
(1) We now have independent variables, which makes the system more
stable.
(2) We have built in the known regional rock property relationships
between variables for the background case.
(3) We can apply independent pre-whitening or stabilization to the
variables L
S
and L
D
to handle noisy traces.
Si mul t aneous I nver si on Theor y
The algorithm looks like this:
(1) Given the following information:
- A set of N angle traces.
- A set of N wavelets, one for each angle.
- Initial model values for Zp, Zs, and .
(2) Calculate optimal values for k and m using the actual input logs.
(3) Set up the initial guess:
(4) Solve the system of equations by conjugate gradients.
(5) Calculate the final values of Zp, Zs, and :
[ ] [ ]
log( ) 0 0
T T
P S D P
L L L Z =
exp( )
P P
Z L =
exp( )
S P c S
Z kL k L = + +
exp( )
P c D
mL m L = + +
As a test, we
produced a series
of synthetic gathers
corresponding to
varying fluid
effects.
The synthetics were
created using Biot-
Gassmann
substitution and
elastic wave
modeling.
Two of these
synthetics are
shown here.
100%
Gas
100%
Wet
Vp Vs
Target Zone
Target Zone
Synthetic
Synt het i c Test
Resul t at t he Gas Loc at i on
Initial guess:

Zp
Model Input Error
Zs
After 50 iterations:

Zp Zs
Resul t at t he Wet Loc at i on
Initial guess:

Zp
Model Input Error
Zs
After 50 iterations:

Zp Zs
Real Dat a Test - Col ony
This test applies the simultaneous inversion algorithm to the Colony data
set from Western Canada:
Transform to angle gathers and read into STRATA:
Using the known well, create cross plots to determine the optimum
coefficients:
Real Dat a Test I nver si on Resul t s
Zp
Zs
Zp
Vp/Vs
Real Dat a Test Er r or Anal ysi s
Input gathers:
Synthetic data from inversion:
Input gathers:
Synthetic error from inversion:
Comparison between real logs and inversion result at well location
Zp Vp/Vs
Cross plotting Vp/Vs against Zp using the log curves:
This zone should
correspond to
gas:
Zp
Vp/Vs
Gas Zone
from log
cross plot
Si mul t aneous I nver si on
Exercise
In this exercise, we will start with the 2D Colony dataset which we analyzed earlier
and apply the Simultaneous Inversion analysis to it.
For this exercise, we will use the STRATA program to invert the angle gathers. If the
AVO program is still running, close it down by clicking on File / Exit Project on any
of the AVO windows.
On the GEOVIEW main window, click on
the STRATA button to start the STRATA
program:
Select the option to Open
Previous Project and choose the
colony.prj project:
The STRATA window now appears, initially blank.
The first step is to read in the
angle_gathers, which are already
stored in the project. Click on
Data Manager / Import Data /
Open Seismic / Open From
Project:
From the list, select
angle_gather.vol and click on
Open:
The angle gather now appears, with the single horizon previously picked.
To build the initial model for STRATA, we need more horizons, so we will import
them from a file.
First, delete the existing horizon by
clicking on Horizon / Delete Horizons.
From the list, select Horizon 1, and
click on Ok:
Then, click on Horizon / Import Horizons / From File.
Select the file
angle_gather_horizons.txt and
click on Ok.
This file has multiple horizons, so
click that option and then click
Next>>.
There are 3 horizons, so fill in
that number, and click Next>>
Finally, fill in the format page as
shown to the right. You may
want to Display selected file to
verify these choices. When you
have completed the menu, click
on Ok to load the horizons.
The next step is to extract separate wavelets for the near and far traces. Click on
Wavelet / Extract Wavelet / Statistical:
We will extract 2 wavelets, one for the
near traces (0-15 degrees) and one for
the far traces (15-30 degrees).
For the first wavelet, set the Offset
(angle) range as shown and click
Next>>.
On the next page, set the
analysis window from 500 to
700 ms and click Next>>:
Finally, change the Wavelet Name and
Wavelet Length as shown and click
on Ok:
The near angle wavelet will look like
this:
Now, repeat this process to extract
the wavelet from the far angle traces:
The far angle wavelet will look like
this:
Now, we build the initial model for the
inversion. Click on Model / Build /
Rebuild a Model:
On the first page choose the option
Typical setup for Pre-stack Inversion
and click Next>>:
On the next page, we confirm the
wells used in the model. Click on
Next>>.
On the next page, we confirm
which logs curves are used.
Click on Next>>.
On the next page, we confirm which
horizons are used in the model
building. Click on Next>>:
Finally, we confirm that the
model will be filtered to
retain only the low frequency
components. Click on Ok.
When the model has been
built, it will look like this:
Because this is pre-stack seismic data, the
default display does not show the model in a
continuous form. To verify the model, click on
the eyeball icon:
On the View Parameters menu, turn off the
trace plotting (temporarily) by changing the
Trace Data Volume to None and clicking
Apply:
The STRATA window now
shows the low frequency
impedance model which will
be used for the inversion.
Click on Cancel on the View
Parameters menu to restore
the original STRATA window.
We are now ready to do the simultaneous inversion. This is
actually done in two stages. First we apply inversion at the
well location(s) to confirm the inversion parameters and
allow the program to determine the proper scaling. Then,
we apply inversion to the entire volume. To do the first
step, click on Analysis / Pre-stack Analysis:
On the first menu page, select
angle_gather as the input and click
Next>>:
On the second menu page, we
confirm the angle range for this data
set. Click Next>>:
On the next page, we confirm a
number of parameters. The most
important parameter on this page
is the wavelet. By default, STRATA
will use the last extracted wavelet.
We need to change this because
we want to use 2 wavelets. Click
on Set Current Wavelet:
When the wavelet menu appears, it
displays that last wavelet we
extracted, wave_far:
To use the 2 wavelets, first select A
set of Angle Dependent Wavelets :
Then toggle ON the 2 wavelets we wish
to use :
Then, type in the angles appropriate to
each wavelet. Note that this angle is the
middle of the angle range used for each
extraction.
Now, click on the Set Current Wavelet
button on the lower left of this menu.
The main menu will now show the two
wavelets and their angles.
Now click on Ok on this group of menu pages.
Now, a new menu appears, allowing you to set the background relationship
between ln(Z
P
), ln(Z
S
), and ln(Density):
These cross plots
have been calculated
using the full range of
the logs from the AVO
well. An improved
estimate could be
made by limiting the
depth range of the
data being used.
For now, we will
simply manually
improve the
regression fit through
the clusters.
Using the mouse,
modify the
regression lines
from this:
To this:
And click Ok and
Save regression
coefficients:
The Pre-stack Inversion
Menu now looks like this:
Most of the parameters on
this menu can be defaulted.
However, because the
maximum angle range is
only 30 degrees, it is
probably advisable NOT to
solve for density. For that
reason toggle OFF Update
Density:
Then click on Apply to see
the inversion result at the
well:
The display shows a number of useful curves:
Synthetic
Real
Data
Error
Inversion
Trace
Initial
Model
Real Log
To customize the display, click on the eyeball
icon:
On the Layout page, remove
the plot of Density and add
the plot of Vp/Vs:
Then, click on the Curves
page:
And select the option
to Apply a filter to the
original logs for
display. Finally, click
on Ok.
The new display shows a very good fit between the inversion
traces and the original logs, especially near the target zone:
Now we will apply the inversion to the entire data set.
Click on Inversion / Pre-stack Inversion:
The menu that follows confirms
all the parameters we have
already seen. So we can default
every page, except the last one,
which determines which
volumes will be created. Since
we have chosen NOT to update
Density, we remove it from the
list and add Zs instead Now,
click Ok to create the inversion
volumes:
A series of windows now appears.
One window is the synthetic data
corresponding to the inversion
output.
We can also see the error, which
is the difference between the real
data and synthetic data.
Click on the eyeball and set the
Trace Data Volume as shown
below:
The other volumes
are Zp, Zs, and
Vp/Vs:
A very helpful analysis can be done
by cross plotting Zp against Vp/Vs
from the well logs. To do that, click
on Well / Edit / Correlate Well:
Select the well and click Edit:
When the eLog window appears,
click on Crossplot / Vp/Vs vs AI :
Accept the defaults on
most of the menus which
appear:
On the final menu
page, set the depth
range around the
zone of interest as
shown:
The cross plot shows a
very strong separation
between the background
wet trend and the
hydrocarbon zone. To
highlight that zone, click
on Zones / Add:
Under the Current Filter
Selection, select Add new filter:
Change the name of the filter as
shown:
We will only define one zone, so
change the starting color:
Select red for this zone:
Now highlight a region around
the anomalous points, and
click Apply and Ok.
Click on the Cross-section
button to confirm that the
highlighted zone corresponds
to the gas sand:
Now go to the window containing
the Zp inversion result. To use the
cross plot, we need to open the
Vp/Vs volume into the same
window. To do that, click on File /
Open Seismic / From Project:
From the list select
inverted_VpVs.vol and click Open:
The window now
contains both volumes,
as shown in the label.
Click on the eyeball
icon:
Change the View
Parameters menu as
shown and click on Ok:
The resulting plot now shows the gas sand region highlighted, as
expected:
A second useful analysis is LMR (lambda-mu-rho)
analysis. To do that, go to the window containing the
Zp and VpVs volumes and click on Process / LMR
Transform:
On the resulting menu, select the proper volumes for
the analysis. All other parameters can be defaulted:
The calculation produces both lambda-rho (lmr_LR) and mu-rho (lmr_MR)
in the same window:
Mu-rho
By manipulating the
plot settings, we can
see the individual
results:
Lambda-rho
The best way to analyze the LMR
volumes is to cross plot them:
On the cross plot menus, set the
parameters shown:
According to the LMR theory, the
hydrocarbon region should
correspond to the low lambda-
rho values.
As before, we will add a single
zone in that region.
Click on Zones / Add:
On the menu, Add a new Filter
Selection:
Rename the Filter Selection
LMR Zone:
Using the mouse highlight a
rectangular region,
something like this and click
Ok on the menu:
Now, go to the window containing
the lambda-rho and mu-rho
volumes and click on the eyeball:
Modify the View Parameters menu
as shown. Note that you may have
to click the Zone filter list button to
make sure you are using the LMR
zone.
When you have completed the
menu as shown click on Ok.
Once again, the selected zone highlights the anomalous gas sand region:
We have now completed the Simultaneous Inversion exercise. Close down the
STRATA program by clicking on File / Exit Project on any of the windows.
Appendi x :
El ast i c I mpedanc e
Exercise
In this exercise, we will start with the 2D Colony dataset which we analyzed earlier
and apply the Elastic Impedance analysis to it.
On the GEOVIEW main window, click on
the AVO / AVO button to restart the AVO
program:
Select the option to Open
Previous Project and choose the
colony.prj project:
Before analyzing the data, we will create the elastic impedance logs in the
modeling window. If it is not visible, click on the Modeling / Single Well button on
a seismic window and select AVO_WELL on the Open Well menu to get the
following window:
Next, click on the Logs / Transforms button as shown on the left, and select the
Elastic Impedance option from the Transforms menu shown below:
Click Next >> on the Transforms menu and select the correct well (AVO_WELL) for
the P-and S-wave logs and for storing the Elastic Impedance log, as shown below.
On the next menu, make sure the FRM edited logs are used for the calculation of the
elastic impedance and call the result EI_Near, with the units (m/s)*(g/cc), as shown.
Click on Next >> and fill in the next menu as shown, choosing Constant Angle
and filling in an angle of 7.5 degrees.
When you have filled in the menu as shown above, click on Ok.
The calculated elastic impedance log is now plotted in the AVO Modeling
Window as shown below:
Next, repeat the calculation of the Elastic Impedance log:
This time select the parameters as shown below:
On these menus, create a
new log called EI_Far
(making sure that the FRM
edited logs are used in the
calculation) at a constant
angle of 22.5 degrees.
After creating both Elastic Impedance logs, the window looks like this, with only
one Elastic Impedance log showing:
To display the two elastic impedance traces
together, click on the eyeball icon to bring up the
Parameter menu.
Under the Layout tab,
turn off the Display
Only Active Logs
button to see all of the
logs, and put the
EI_Near and the EI_Far
logs on the same
track, as shown.
Click on Ok and you will see the display below. Notice that the EI_Far log plots to
the left in the gas zone and to the right in the rest of the log. Now, lets crossplot
these two logs.
Click on Crossplot and fill out the menu as shown below, selecting the Elastic
Impedance log type as well as <Vertical Depth> and <Time>.
Then, click on Next >>.
On this menu, select the well,
On this menu, select Elastic Impedance for both the X and Y axes, and change the
Plot Title as shown below. (Note that we will select a different elastic impedance log
for each axis on the next menu). Click on Next >>.
On this menu, select EI_Near for the X axis and EI_Far for the Y axis, as shown.
Click on Next >>.
On this menu, select
Time as the domain,
with start and end
values of 600 and 675.
Click on Ok to get the
crossplot.
Notice that the axes of the plot are both
labeled the same. To change the annotation,
click on Edit / Annotations and change the
menu as shown on the right:
Click on Ok and the plot will
appear as shown on the left.
Notice the clear separation of
the points on the lower left of
the plot.
Let us now perform zone analysis to see if the anomaly seen on the crossplot really
is the gas sand. To do this, first display the well log curves by clicking on the
Cross-Section button. After using the Zoom option, you should see a plot similar
to this:
Now, click on the Zones / Add option. Change the Current Filter Selection to Zone
Filter_2, as shown below.
Then, draw an ellipse, outlining the wet trend.
Now define the elliptical yellow
gas trend as shown.
Note that the plot of the
well logs has been
updated with the colors,
and the anomalous points
do indeed correspond to
the gas sand zone.
Now, close down the cross
plot by clicking on File / Exit
on that window.
Now go to the window containing the super gathers. Click on Process / Stack /
Range Limited Stack:
Use the defaults on the first menu as
shown on the right, and click on Next >>.
Then, fill in the second menu as
shown on the left. Notice that we are
creating 2 angle stacks from 0 to 30
degrees.
The two angle stacks are
created as shown here, where
range_limit_stack is the near
angle stack, and
range_limit_stack2 is the far
angle stack.
We are now finished using the
AVO program. On any of the
windows, click on Exit Project,
and save the project as shown
on these menus
Next, click on the STRATA button on the GEOVIEW
main window. We will continue using the colony
project, as indicated in the menu on the right.
Click on Ok to bring up the STRATA
main window, and then click on Data
Manager / Import Data / Open Seismic /
Open From Project.
Select the file called
range_limit_stack.vol from
the menu and click on Open.
The STRATA window now looks like this:
Click on Horizon / Pick Horizons and pick a second event, as shown. Horizon 1
is the trough at the top of the gas sand.
Finally, pick a third event, as shown here. Then click Ok to finish the picking.
Next, click on Model /
Build/Rebuild a Model. Fill in
the first page as shown on the
right, changing the option to:
Typical setup of Elastic
Impedance for far-offset stack
inversion. Click on Next >>.
On the third page, select the well AVO_WELL and click Next >>.
On the next page, we must select the Elastic Impedance log which corresponds to
the Near Angle stack. Since this stack covers an angle range of 0 to 15 degrees,
choose EI_Near, calculated for the angle of 7.5 degrees.
Now click on Next >> twice and OK to build the model.
Then, click on Inversion / Post-stack
Inversion / Model Based as shown:
On the first page, change the output file name to near_inversion. Click on Next >>
twice.
On the third page, ensure the
Average Block Size is 2.
Click OK to run the inversion.
The inversion result will look like this:
Now go to the main Strata
window and click on
Window / New Window:
On this window, once again
import a volume from the
project:
This time read in
range_limited_stack2:
The new window will now look like this:
Once again build the model for inversion:
This time we are
using the EI_far log
(at 22.5 degrees):
The new model will look like this (you may need to update the color key):
Next, click on Inversion / Post-stack Inversion / Model Based Inversion and change
the name of the output volume on the inversion menu as shown below.
On the third page, again check the Average Block Size is set to 2 and click on OK to
start the inversion process:
We now have two inversion
results. Note that we have
had to use two different
color scales, since the
impedance values are
scaled differently.
Near_inversion
Far_inversion
Now let us compare the near-angle inversion with the far-angle inversion by
cross-plotting the two volumes.
On either of the two inversion results, click on
Process / Cross Plot / Cross Plot:
On the first menu page, select the CDP range from
300 to 360 and the two volumes as shown:
Click Next >> until you reach the fourth
page. Specify a window defined by the
Picked Event Horizon 1:
When you select Zones / Edit
notice that the zones defined on
the logs are now visible on this
cross plot. Also, note that they
do tend to differentiate between
the expected wet and gas zone
regions. Click OK on the zone
window
By clicking on the Cross-
Section button, we can see
the gas region at the
anomalous zone:
Then, in that window, click the Eyeball icon:
For the Color Attribute, select
Cross Plot:
Set the X and Y-Axis definitions
as shown, and click on Ok:
The top of the gas sand is now clearly visible along Horizon 1. This zone
indicates an area where the scaled elastic impedance at the far-offsets is less
than the elastic impedance at the near-offsets.
Click on File / Exit Project to close all of the STRATA windows.
AVO Case St udy
The Br enda Fi el d
AVO Case St udy, The Br enda Fi el d
To illustrate the Elastic Impedance approach in more detail, we will next
look at the following case study from the CSEG Recorder (January, 2005):
History:
Originally discovered in 1990
Initially assessed as not commercially viable
Oilexco have now drilled several appraisal wells (40
0
API oil, ~70 high
quality Paleocene sand, up to 4800 bbl/d)
Could be one of the largest North Sea finds in recent years
Data Pre-conditioning:
De-noise:
f-t-x window statistical analysis
De-Multiple:
Surface related multiple attenuation (SRME) + Tau-p
Deconvolution before stack (DBS)
Pre-stack depth migration:
Iterative model building and 3D Kirchhoff migration
The figure on the next slide shows amplitude maps from the near (0
o
-25
o
)
and far (25
o
-50
o
) angle stacks over an area that encompasses three fields:
MacCulloch, Blenheim, and Brenda.
On the MacCulloch field, Conoco have noted that the seismic event
representing the top of the reservoir is characterized by a Class III
(weak trough near offset, strong trough far offset) AVO anomaly, and
claim that this technique has been a good oil indicator with an oil/water
contact evident.
This is the same type of anomaly that Oilexco is following in the Brenda
area.
MacCulloch
MacCulloch
Blenheim
Blenheim
Near stack (0-25) Far stack (25-50)
Average absolute amplitude
Top Balder -50 - +200
Brenda
Brenda
Jones et al., 2005
AVO Anal ysi s and Wel l Ti e
The next slide shows vertical cross-sections from the near and far angle
stacks over the MacCulloch field.
The synthetic from the 15/24b-6 well is spliced in on both sections and
shows an excellent fit.
Note the difference in amplitude between the two stacks at the pay zone.
The slide following the next slide shows the well to seismic tie for this well.
The production is below the Base Sand (Andrew) event.
Near stack
Far stack
MacCulloch
15/24b-6 AVO angle stack & synthetics
Top Chalk
Andrew
Top Balder
N S
N S
Jones et al., 2005
The next two slides show the near and far angle stack sections from a line
which connects the Blenheim and Brenda fields.
The tops from wells 16/21b-21 and 15/25b-3 are overlain at their
intersection points on the lines.
Again, note the dramatic increase in amplitude at the zone of interest,
which is indicative of hydrocarbon pay.
Blenheim & Brenda
Wells 16/21b-21 & 15/25b-3 Near angle stack
Top Chalk
Andrew
Top Balder
N S
Brenda
Blenheim
1 km
Jones et al., 2005
Blenheim & Brenda
Wells 16/21b-21 & 15/25b-3 Far angle stack
Top Chalk
Andrew
Top Balder
N S
Brenda
Blenheim
1 km
Jones et al., 2005
El ast i c I mpedanc e I nver si on
Elastic impedance inversion was then performed on the near and far angle
stacks.
As the known hydrocarbon occurrences and other anomalies are most
easily seen on the far impedance volume the interpretation effort focused
on the far impedance.
The next two slides show the elastic impedance inversion over an inline and
a crossline from the Brenda field.
Note that the best anomalies appear to be offset from the 15/25b-3 well.
This would suggest an in-fill drilling strategy.
15/25b-3 Far-stack Inversion (inline)
Top Balder
15/25b-3
Possible low EI Oil Sand on flank?
N S
Brenda
Field
Top Balder
15/25b-3
W E
Possible Low EI Oil Sand?
Brenda
Field
15/25b-3 Far-stack Inversion (crossline)
A 3D visualization of the inverted EI cube is shown in the next slide.
Analyzing the results with a 3D visualization package permits an aerial
perspective of those parts of the channel sand system with hydrocarbon
potential. Turning off all the voxels with values greater than 525 (g/cc)*(m/s)
shows these low EI bodies for the area.
The major elements are clearly the large series of bodies
lying along the channel trend SE of the 15/25a-2 well, and the presence of a
body representing the Blenheim field.
Low EI (< 525) Anomalies
AVO Impedance
MacCulloch & Blenheim:
Low AVO Impedance - Oil Bearing
15/25b-3 Anomalies:
Variable AVO Impedance
- Oil Bearing?
5 km
Jones et al., 2005
Conc l usi ons
Image-driven data pre-conditioning of these vintage data has permitted
subsequent high resolution velocity model building and 3D preSDM, leading
on to quantitative elastic impedance inversion
This re-processing strategy has contributed to the commencement of
exploitation of the new Brenda Field, one of the largest finds in the North
Sea for several years.
Case St udy
Si mul t aneous I nver si on on t he Mar l i n Fi el d
Case St udy : Mar l i n Fi el d
Discovery well A1
150 feet gas sand
Up dip delineation well A6
80 feet gas sand over 60 feet wet sand
Down dip delineation well A5
140 feet wet sand
Project goal
Predict sand, porosity and fluid
Data used
A5 and A6 wells; time migrated
gathers and velocity
Can inversion distinguish the
wet well from the gas wells?
Seismic amplitude map
POISSON'S RATIO
0 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
A
C
O
U
S
T
I
C

I
M
P
E
D
A
N
C
E
5
0
0
0
3
5
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
2
5
0
0
0
V
s
h
a
l
e
0
1
0
.
2
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
8
TVD
FT
VSH_FI N
v/ v 0 1
PHI E_ND
v/ v 1 0

( COREPHI )
100 0
PR
v/ v 0 0. 5
AI
10000 35000
11000
11100
11200
11300
11400
11500
Shale
Gas Sand
Shaley Sand, wet
AI -PR CROSSPLOT, i n-si t u c ase
By cross plotting Z
P
against for 2 wells, we verify that we
should be able to distinguish gas from wet sands and shales.
Z
P

Synt het i c Gat her s w i t h Ampl i t ude Pl ot
BRINE GAS OIL
INSITU
TOP
BASE
TOP
BASE
Synthetics confirm that we should be able to distinguish gas from wet sands and
shales.
AVO Anal ysi s: Dat a Enhanc ement
Band pass filtering
Trim static correction
Radon noise reduction
AVO background trend
correction
Super gather
0 angle 45
0 angle 45
0 angle 45
0 angle 45
BEFOR
E
BEFOR
E
BEFOR
E
BEFOR
E
AFTER
AFTER AFTER
AFTER
It is important to correct the input seismic data for noise, time
alignment, and background amplitude.
AVO Anal ysi s: Ax B and Fl ui d Fac t or
AVO AxB
AVO FF
?
!!
?
!!
Neither of these conventional AVO attributes were unambiguous
in differentiating gas from wet sands.
Pr e-St ac k I nver si on: I nver t ed P-I mpedanc e
Inverted P impedance map
Pr e-St ac k I nver si on: I nver t ed S-I mpedanc e
Inverted S impedance map
Pr e-St ac k I nver si on: I nver t ed Densi t y
Inverted density map
Compar i sons at Used Wel l Loc at i ons
A5 well
A6 well
P impedance
S impedance
Density
P impedance
S impedance
Density
Pr edi c t i on Agai nst Bl i nd Test Wel l A1
P imp log S imp log Den log
P imp Inv S imp Inv Den Inv
0 1 0 50 0
1 Lith Inv PHIE Inv
SW Inv
0 0 0 1
1
50
VSH log PHIE log SW log
These are calculated Lithology, Porosity and Water Saturation
curves at the blind well compared to known values.
Sand Pr edi c t i on
By plotting against Vshale
from the known logs, we
conclude that the lower left
quadrant is clean sand:
This allows us to calculate the
Sand % volume from the
Inversion Density volume.
Vshale
Por osi t y Pr edi c t i on
Pay trend
Wet trend
By plotting against Z
P
from
the known logs, we derive 2
porosity trends:
Z
P
This allows us to calculate the
Porosity volume from the
Inversion P-impedance volume.
Wat er Sat ur at i on Pr edi c t i on
Using the Inversion Density
volume and the Derived
Porosity volume, we calculate
Water Saturation using:
( ) ( )
( )
1
1
W Gas W Water
Matrix
S S

= +
+
Wet well
Gas well
where:
0.1
1
2.65
Gas
Water
Matrix
=
=
=
The Derived Water Saturation volume correctly distinguishes the
wet well from the gas wells.
Conc l usi ons
(1) Simultaneous inversion of pre-stack gathers can be used to predict
P-impedance, S-impedance and Density volumes.
(2) The original Aki-Richards equation can be very unstable for
inversion.
(3) By transforming variables to include regional rock property trends,
we have shown how to stabilize the system.
(4) We have applied the algorithm to a model data set, which
successfully discriminated between wet and gas cases.
(5) We have shown the successful application to a case study from the
Gulf of Mexico.
Gul f Coast Ex er c i se 1
Objectives:
Build a well database
Create offset synthetics for the in-situ wet case
Perform fluid substitution to insert gas using the Biot-Gassmann Theory
Calculate a second offset-dependent synthetic
Generate intercept and gradient attributes for each of the synthetics
Create wedge models for the wet and gas cases.
Cr eat e a Wel l Dat abase
To create a well database, click Database / New on the GEOVIEW window.
Type in the database name. Click OK.
Load Logs
To load the logs, click on Import Data as
shown at right:
Select the gulf_coast_well_1.las file.
On the next page, accept the default Well Name and click Next >>.
On the last page, we see a list of the Log types which were found in the file. Note
that one of these logs is marked as Unknown, meaning that the program does not
recognize it:
We know this is a Sand % log, so change the 2 items shown here:
Now, click on Ok to read in the logs.
You will see this menu, which comes up because this is the first well in the
database. The system has correctly determined that the units are imperial, i.e.,
ft/sec. So click on Ok to accept the defaults:
On the GEOVIEW Well Explorer window, select
ISLAND/W1 and then click on Display Well.
This causes the Log Display window to appear.
Di spl ay Logs
To change the display parameters, click on
View / Display Options:
To change the scale of the plot,
click the Scale & Details tab.
Change the Vertical Range to
Scrolled and the Vertical
Spacing to 200 ft/inch. Click
Apply. Click Ok to save the
changes you have made.
After scrolling to the target depth, at about 12700 ft, the Log Display window will
now look like this:
AVO Model i ng
Now, we will make synthetics using the AVO program.
On the GEOVIEW window, click on AVO / AVO.
Choose the option to Start New Project.
Call the project Island :
First, we will use the AVO Modeling program to calculate
offset-dependent synthetics for the wet sand.
Click Modeling / Single Well, as shown on the right.
Click Open on the first menu to select
the GULF_COAST_1 well.
Click OK on the second menu.
When this menu appears, click OK to create
a shear log using Castagnas equation.
Accept the default values on each page of
the Transforms menu.
The logs that will be used for the wet model synthetic are now displayed in the AVO
Modeling window.
Bandpass Wavel et
Before we make a synthetic, we should define a
better wavelet.
(1) Click on Wavelet / Create Bandpass Wavelet.
(2) Set the wavelet parameters as shown below:
(3) Click on Create to
make the new wavelet
and dismiss the menu.
Gener at e Synt het i c
To create an offset dependent synthetic seismogram
using the well logs, click on Synthetic / Zoeppritz.
Fill in the
Synthetic
Modeling
Parameter menu
as shown:
Click Next >>
and OK.
Synt het i c Model
The resulting synthetic is displayed in the modeling window.
Now we will create a new model, which shows the effect of replacing the wet sand
with a gas sand.
Make a copy of the existing model by clicking on Wells /
Copy Well:
Call this model gas_model:
When the new AVO Modeling window appears, click on FRM.
Fl ui d Subst i t ut i on
Note that we will
calculate the porosity
from the density log
rather than use the
measured neutron
porosity log.
Secondly, assume
that the input water
saturation is 100%.
On the next page, set the values for top and base of the zone for fluid replacement:
We will use the
Sand % curve
to exclude any
samples with
less than 80%
sand from the
calculation.
On the third page, we want to use the matrix properties calculator to compute bulk
and shear modulus and density. Click the Display Matrix Properties Calculator
button:
When the Minerals Parameters menu appears, modify it as shown here:
By checking the
Use Volumetric
Logs toggle, we
will use the Sand
% curve to define
the relative
proportion of
quartz to clay in
the rock matrix at
each depth sample
of the FRM zone.
Click Ok to accept
these changes.
Click on Next >> to display the final page of the menu, and specify that the output
Water Saturation is 0%, corresponding to a gas reservoir:
Click on the QC
Display button to
preview the
changes to the
logs.
The QC Plot shows the new velocities and density after the Biot-Gassmann gas
substitution. Note that P-wave velocity and Density both decrease significantly:
The exclusion zones, in gray, show that the new logs only differ from the in-
situ logs in the five sections where brine was replaced by gas.
Slide the scroll
bar to see how
the parameters
discussed in the
Rock Physics
theory vary.
After you have looked at the different parameters in the QC Plot, click on File /
Exit to close the window.
On the Biot-Gassmann Parameters menu, click Ok to create the new logs, and
click Yes on both of the dialog boxes that appear.
Gener at e Synt het i c Model
We have now changed the logs in the gas_model window,
but we have not yet changed the synthetic.
To create a gas model synthetic from these new logs, click
on Synthetic / Zoeppritz and use the same parameters as for
the wet model synthetic.
The gas model,
showing the
updated logs
and the new
synthetic that
has been
calculated.
We can also view the synthetics within AVO Analysis windows.
First, click on Synthetic / Synthetic List:
On the new menu, select both
synthetics, toggle to display
them in separate seismic
windows and click Display at
the bottom:
Now both synthetics appear within their own AVO seismic windows:
Conc at enat e t he Model s
Now we would like to concatenate the two models into a single volume to make the
subsequent analysis easier.
On either of the two synthetics, click
on Process / Utility / Concatenate:
Fill in the parameters as shown here:
The concatenated model is displayed after clicking OK. There are 5 identical
synthetics corresponding to the gas case and 5 corresponding to the wet case:
AVO At t r i but es
To generate an AVO attribute volume, click AVO Attribute
/ AVO Attribute Volume:
On the AVO Attributes menus, keep all the
defaults:
The result shows that the product (i.e. A*B) attribute is a good discriminator
between the wet and gas cases:
To modify the plot parameters, click on the eyeball icon and modify the parameters
as shown below:
Wedge Model s
Next, we will make wedge models of both the wet and gas cases to show the effect
of changing the thickness of the sand. Close all windows except for the two AVO
Modeling windows with the wet and gas logs and synthetics.
The Wet Model
The Gas Model
From the window showing the wet model, select the Zoeppritz modeling
algorithm by clicking on Synthetic / Zoeppritz:
Fill in the Synthetic Modeling Parameter menu as shown:
Click on Next >>.
We will create 11 offset synthetics showing the effect of stretching and squeezing
the in-situ sand between 0 and 200 ft thicknesses.
Click on Next >>
and OK.
The resulting wet wedge synthetics are displayed in a new seismic window.
Now, we want to generate the equivalent gas wedge synthetics. From the AVO
Modeling window showing the gas model, select the Zoeppritz modeling algorithm
by clicking on Synthetic / Zoeppritz.
Fill in the Synthetic Modeling Parameter menu as shown:
Click on Next >>.
As with the wet wedge model, we will create 11 offset synthetics showing the effect
of stretching and squeezing the gas sand between 0 and 200 ft thicknesses.
Click on Next >>
and OK.
The resulting gas wedge synthetics.
Once again, we would like to concatenate the two models into a single volume.
On either of the two windows
containing the synthetics,
click on Process / Utility /
Concatenate.
Notice that this time we are
creating a Pseudo-3D. This
means that each wedge will
appear on a different inline,
allowing a convenient display
process.
When you have filled in the
menu as shown, click on Ok.
After concatenation, one inline is the gas wedge and the other is the wet wedge.
If the pseudo-3D volume is viewed by Xline, we can step through the models and
look at the wet and gas cases for a given thickness.
Now, calculate the AVO Attribute
Volume on this window, with the two
wedges. Once again, use all the
default parameters.
Product (A*B)
SPR (aA+bB)
After computing the AVO attribute volumes, set the display parameters to show
Inline 2, as shown here, and compare the A*B result and the A+B result for the gas
and wet wedges.
Close down all of the AVO windows, by clicking on File / Exit Project on any AVO
seismic window.
AVO Fl ui d I nver si on : Anal yzi ng
unc er t ai nt y i n AVO
Over vi ew
AVO Analysis is now routinely used for exploration and development.
But: all AVO attributes contain a great deal of uncertainty there is a
wide range of lithologies which could account for any AVO response.
In this talk we present a procedure for analyzing and quantifying AVO
uncertainty.
As a result, we will calculate probability maps for hydrocarbon detection.
AVO Unc er t ai nt y Anal ysi s:
The Basi c Pr oc ess
AVO ATTRIBUTE AVO ATTRIBUTE
MAPS MAPS
ISOCHRON ISOCHRON
MAPS MAPS
GRADIENT GRADIENT
INTERCEPT INTERCEPT
BURIAL DEPTH BURIAL DEPTH
CALIBRATED: CALIBRATED:
STOCHASTIC STOCHASTIC
AVO AVO
MODEL MODEL
G
G
I
I
FLUID FLUID
PROBABILITY PROBABILITY
MAPS MAPS
P
P
BRI BRI
P
P
OIL OIL
P
P
GAS GAS
Convent i onal AVO Model i ng:
Cr eat i ng 2 pr e-st ac k synt het i c s
I
O
G
O
I
B
G
B
IN SITU = OIL
IN SITU = OIL
FRM = BRINE
FRM = BRINE
Mont e Car l o Si mul at i on:
Cr eat i ng many Synt het i c s
0
25
50
75
I I- -G DENSITY FUNCTIONS G DENSITY FUNCTIONS
BRINE OIL GAS
The Basi c Model
We assume a 3-layer model with
shale enclosing a sand (with
various fluids).
Shale
Shale
Sand
The Shales are characterized by:
P-wave velocity
S-wave velocity
Density
V
p1
, V
s1
, r
1
V
p2
, V
s2
, r
2
Each parameter has a probability
distribution:
V
p1
, V
s1
,
1
V
p2
, V
s2
,
2
The Sand is characterized by:
Brine Modulus
Brine Density
Gas Modulus
Gas Density
Oil Modulus
Oil Density
Matrix Modulus
Matrix density
Porosity
Shale Volume
Water Saturation
Thickness
Shale
Shale
Sand
Each of these has a probability distribution.
Tr end Anal ysi s
Some of the statistical distributions are determined from well log trend
analyses:
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0.4 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.4
DBSB (Km)
Det er mi ni ng Di st r i but i ons at
Sel ec t ed Loc at i ons
Assume a Normal distribution. Get the Mean and Standard Deviation
from the trend curves for each depth:
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0.4 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.4
DBSB (Km)
Tr end Anal ysi s: Ot her Di st r i but i ons
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0.4 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.4
DBSB (Km)
Shale Velocity
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
0.4 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.4
DBSB (Km)
Sand Density
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
0.4 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.4
DBSB (Km)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0.4 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.4
DBSB (Km)
Shale Density
Sand Porosity
Practically, this is how we set up the distributions:
Shale:
V
p
Trend Analysis
V
s
Castagnas Relationship with % error
Density Trend Analysis
Sand:
Brine Modulus
Brine Density
Gas Modulus
Gas Density
Oil Modulus Constants for the area
Oil Density
Matrix Modulus
Matrix density
Dry Rock Modulus Calculated from sand trend analysis
Porosity Trend Analysis
Shale Volume Uniform Distribution from petrophysics
Water Saturation Uniform Distribution from petrophysics
Thickness Uniform Distribution
Cal c ul at i ng a Si ngl e Model Response
Top Shale
Base Shale
Sand
From a particular model instance,
calculate two synthetic traces at
different angles.
0
o
45
o
Note that a wavelet is assumed
known.
Note that these amplitudes include
interference from the second interface.
On the synthetic traces, pick the
event corresponding to the top of the
sand layer:
0
o
45
o
Top Shale
Base Shale
Sand
P
1
P
2
0
o
45
o
Using these picks, calculate the Intercept and Gradient for this model:
I = P
1
G = (P
2
-P
1
)/sin
2
(45)
Top Shale
Base Shale
Sand
P
1
P
2
Usi ng Bi ot -Gassmann Subst i t ut i on
G
I
G
I
G
I
OIL OIL
K
K
OIL OIL
OIL OIL
GAS GAS
K
K
GAS GAS
GAS GAS
BRINE BRINE
Starting from the Brine Sand case, the corresponding Oil and Gas Sand models are
generated using Biot-Gassmann substitution. This creates 3 points on the I-G cross
plot:
Mont e-Car l o Anal ysi s
By repeating this process many times, we get a probability distribution
for each of the 3 sand fluids:
I
G
Brine
Oil
Gas
The Resul t s ar e Dept h Dependent
@ 1000m @ 1000m @ 1200m @ 1200m @ 1400m @ 1400m
@ 1600m @ 1600m @ 1800m @ 1800m @ 2000m @ 2000m
Because the trends are depth-dependent, so are the predicted
distributions:
The Depth-dependence can often be understood using Rutherford-
Williams classification
Sand Sand
Burial Depth Burial Depth
I
m
p
e
d
a
n
c
e
I
m
p
e
d
a
n
c
e
Shale Shale
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
Class 3
Class 2
Class 1
Bayes Theor em
Bayes Theorem is used to calculate the probability that any new (I,G)
point belongs to each of the classes (brine, oil, gas):
where:
P(F
k
) represent a priori probabilities and F
k
is either brine, oil, gas;
p(I,G|F
k
) are suitable distribution densities (eg. Gaussian) estimated from
the stochastic simulation output.
( )
( )
( ) ( )
=
k
k k
F P F G I p
F P F G I p
G I F P
* ,
)
~
( *
~
,
,
~
How Bayes Theor em w or k s i n a Si mpl e Case:
Assume we have these distributions:
VARIABLE VARIABLE
O
C
C
U
R
R
E
N
C
E
O
C
C
U
R
R
E
N
C
E
Gas
Oil
Brine
VARIABLE VARIABLE
O
C
C
U
R
R
E
N
C
E
O
C
C
U
R
R
E
N
C
E
100%
50%
This is the calculated probability for
(gas, oil, brine).
When t he di st r i but i ons over l ap, t he
pr obabi l i t i es dec r ease:
VARIABLE VARIABLE
O
C
C
U
R
R
E
N
C
E
O
C
C
U
R
R
E
N
C
E
100%
50%
Even if we are right on the Gas peak,
we can only be 60% sure we have gas.
Show i ng t he Ef f ec t s of Bayes Theor em
This is an example simulation
result, assuming that the wet
shale V
S
and V
P
are related by
Castagnas equation.
This is an example simulation
result, assuming that the wet
shale V
S
and V
P
are related by
Castagnas equation.
This is the result of
assuming 10% noise in the
V
S
calculation
Note the effect on the
calculated gas probability
0.0
0.5
1.0
Gas
Probability
By this process, we can investigate the sensitivity of the
probability distributions to individual parameters.
Ex ampl e Pr obabi l i t y Cal c ul at i ons
Gas
Oil
Brine
Real Dat a Cal i br at i on
In order to apply Bayes Theorem to (I,G) points from a real seismic data
set, we need to calibrate the real data points.
This means that we need to determine a scaling from the real data
amplitudes to the model amplitudes.
We define two scalers, S
global
and S
gradient
, this way:
I
scaled
= S
global
*I
real
G
scaled
= S
global
* S
gradient
* G
real
One way to determine these scalers is by manually fitting multiple known
regions to the model data.
Fi t t i ng 6 Know n Zones t o t he Model
1
4
2
3
5
6
1
4
2
3
5
6
1 2
4
5
6
3
Real Dat a Ex ampl e West Af r i c a
This example shows a real project from West Africa, performed by one of
the authors (Cardamone).
There are 7 productive oil wells which produce from a shallow formation.
The seismic data consists of 2 common angle stacks.
The object is to perform Monte Carlo analysis using trends from the
productive wells, calibrate to the known data points, and evaluate
potential drilling locations on a second deeper formation.
One Li ne f r om t he 3D Vol ume
Near Angle Stack
0-20 degrees
Far Angle Stack
20-40 degrees
Near Angle Stack
0-20 degrees
Shallow producing zone
Deeper target zone
Far Angle Stack
20-40 degrees
AVO Anomal y
Near Angle Stack
0-20 degrees
Far Angle Stack
20-40 degrees
Ampl i t ude Sl i c es Ex t r ac t ed f r om
Shal l ow Pr oduc i ng Zone
Near Angle Stack
0-20 degrees
+189
-3500
Far Angle Stack
20-40 degrees
Tr end Anal ysi s : Sand and Shal e Tr ends
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900
V
E
L
O
C
I
T
Y
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500
BURIAL DEPTH (m)
V
E
L
O
C
I
T
Y
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900
BURIAL DEPTH (m)
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
Sand density
Shale density
Sand velocity
Shale velocity
Mont e Car l o Si mul at i ons at 6 Bur i al
Dept hs
-1400
-1600 -1800
-2000 -2200
-2400
Near Angl e Ampl i t ude Map Show i ng
Def i ned Zones
Wet Zone 1
Wet Zone 2
Well 6
Well 7
Well 3
Well 5
Well 1
Well 2
Well 4
Cal i br at i on Resul t s at Def i ned Loc at i ons
Wet Zone 1
Wet Zone 2
Well 2
Well 5
Well 3
Well 4
Well 6
Well 1
Usi ng Bayes Theor em at Pr oduc i ng Zone: OI L
Near Angle Amplitudes
1.0
.80
Probability of Oil
.60
.30
Usi ng Bayes Theor em at Pr oduc i ng Zone: GAS
Near Angle Amplitudes
1.0
.80
Probability of Gas
.60
.30
Usi ng Bayes Theor em at Tar get Hor i zon
Near angl e ampl i t udes of sec ond event
1.0
.80
Probability of oil on second event
.60
.30
Ver i f yi ng Sel ec t ed Loc at i ons at Tar get
Hor i zon
Summar y
By representing lithologic parameters as probability distributions we can
calculate the range of expected AVO responses.
This allows us to investigate the uncertainty in AVO predictions.
Using Bayes theorem we can produce probability maps for different
potential pore fluids.
But: The results depend critically on calibration between the real and
model data.
And: The calculated probabilities depend on the reliability of all the
underlying probability distributions.
Objectives:
Learn how to examine trace headers
Load a SEGY file from the Gulf of Mexico
Learn how to navigate through a 3D survey
Optimize viewing parameters
Generate super gathers, angle gathers, angle stacks, and gradient stacks
GEOVI EW
Go back to the GEOVIEW program. We will
open an existing database.
Click Database / Open on the menu bar. The
database has already been created for you.
Select zebra.wdb. There is one well with a
suite of curves in this database.
On the GEOVIEW Well Explorer window, select the zebra well, and click on Display
Well.
St ar t a New Pr oj ec t
To start a new AVO project, click on the AVO / AVO
button in the GEOVIEW main window.
Select the Start New Project option:
Name the new project
station, as shown, and
click on OK.
Read Sei smi c
To load seismic data, click
on Data Manager / Import
Data / Open Seismic / From
SEG-Y File:
We want to load
station.sgy:
On the third page, tell the program to read both Inline & Xline numbers and X & Y
coordinates from the trace headers.
On the next page, you see this menu, which allows you to specify details
concerning where the data is stored in the headers.
Click on Detail Specification to bring up a menu which dumps
various values from the header.
Go through the pages of this
menu, examining the values,
and then click on Cancel on this
menu.
By modifying the
Display parameter as
shown, you can examine
trace header values.
Click on Header Dump to bring up a menu which dumps
numbers directly from the header.
Now click on Next >> on the SEG-Y Format page:
The warning message to the left will
appear. Click on Yes, to start the
scanning process:
The progress bar will appear indicating the length
of time it will take to scan the file. Time will vary
according to your workstation CPU speed.
The last page shows the
geometry, which has been
automatically set up from the
trace headers. This should
be correct. Click on Ok.
The program will take time to build the
geometry. When it has finished, three windows
will appear:
a) AVO seismic window
b) Well To Seismic Map menu
c) Open Window Data menu
Wel l t o Sei smi c Map Menu
Well zebra has been imported from the database and is positioned at Inline 31
and Xline 100, based on the X and Y coordinates. Click Ok on this menu.
3D AVO Anal ysi s Wi ndow
Open Wi ndow Dat a Menu
This menu keeps an account of all input
data and any processes performed on the
data. At the moment, we have only one
entry.
Click on the eyeball icon to change the
general plotting parameters.
The General page is used to
change the type of data being
plotted.
Change the Current Inline and
Trace Excursion as shown.
Click on Apply to see the
updated view.
The Scale page is used to
change the plot scales of the
data.
Modify this menu to plot the
seismic at 16 traces/inch and 5
inches/second.
Click on OK to see the updated
view.
The seismic window now looks like this:
I mpor t a Hor i zon
To import a horizon, click on Horizon / Import
Horizons / From File.
For this project, we have one picked event
which has been saved in the ASCII file named
ice.pik.
This menu allows you to choose the
format of the pick file. The program
can read ASCII files exported from
Landmark or Geoquest. Our file is a
simple, columnar ASCII file, so we can
load it using the Free Format option.
Click on Next >>.
Add this file to the Selected File/s
list and click OK.
This page permits you to specify the format of the
pick file. You can see the file by selecting its name
and clicking on the Display selected file button.
The file is an XYZ type file, with pick times in the
first column, inline number in the second, and
xline number in the third. Complete the menu as
shown here. Click on OK.
Scroll across to the well location (Xline 100) and the seismic window will be redrawn
to show the pick plotted on every trace of the gathers.
Pr oc ess - Super Gat her
We will now try to enhance the S/N ratio of the seismic by
creating a super gather volume. This will also reduce the size
of the data set. Click on Process / Super Gather:
We want to create super gathers over the entire seismic volume.
Accept all the default values
The original seismic gathers were 20 fold, and we want to maintain that on the
super gathers.
The super gathers will be created by summing traces over a 3 inline by 3 crossline
rolling window.
Click on Next >> and Ok to start the process.
When the Super Gather has completed, a new window will be created:
One of the problems with this data set is that there is
significant residual moveout. To correct this we will apply
Trim Statics. From the Super Gather window, choose this
option as shown:
On the first
page, select all
the defaults as
shown. Click
on Next>>.
On the next page, modify the Window Length and Maximum Time shift as shown.
We will be analyzing a single window of length 600 ms, starting at time 802 ms.
Click on Next >> and OK to create the shifted volume.
The resulting shifted volume looks like this. Scroll through the volume to verify
that the shifts are reasonable:
We will use this as the input to the next process.
Angl e Gat her
We will now transform our shifted super gathers into the angle domain.
Select Process / Angle Gather on
the window showing the shifted
super gathers. First, we will run a
test on a single inline to determine
the range of angles.
Fill in the menu as shown, and
click on Next >>.
We will generate 30 traces per
gather over an angle range of 0 to 90
degrees. We need to specify a
velocity function for the transform.
Use the sonic log by clicking on
Open Well Log.
Choose the P-wave log from well zebra as shown here, and then click on Ok.
On the Angle Gather menu, click on Next >> and OK to create the Angle Gathers.
The angle gathers show usable energy out to about 60 degrees at the zone of
interest.
We will generate 30 traces per
gather over an angle range of
0 to 60 degrees. Use the
same well log to specify the
velocity. Click on Next >>
and then OK to start the
process. Overwrite the
previous angle gather
volume.
We will now transform the
entire data set. Select Process
/ Angle Gather on the window
showing the shifted super
gathers. Fill in the menu as
shown, and click on Next >>.
The final angle gathers:
The angle gathers volume will now be used as the input for all further analysis.
You may close down some of the other windows, to reduce clutter on the screen:
The original input data:
The super gather:
The shifted super gather:
Gr adi ent Anal ysi s
Before we create the AVO attribute volume, we will
perform Gradient Analysis to determine the best
parameters.
Select AVO Analysis / Gradient Analysis on the window
showing the angle gathers.
Fill in the menu as shown below:
The next page allows you to set the parameters for the gradient analysis. Fill it in as
shown. Notice we are choosing use 3-term AVO analysis, since there is good data
out to 60 degrees.
Click on OK.
The analysis shows a good correlation (above 0.8) for both the positive and
negative events. By clicking the right arrow, you can see the analysis at other
cross-lines.
AVO At t r i but es
Now, we will calculate the AVO Attribute Volume.
Select AVO Attribute / AVO Attribute Volume on the
window showing the angle gathers.
The next page allows you
to set the parameters for
the calculation of the
intercept and gradient.
Run the 3-term A/B/C
analysis, using all angles
available
Note that the Minimum
Acceptable Correlation
has been set to 0.7.
The output AVO attribute volume:
Vi ew Par amet er s
Because of the low amplitudes on
the near traces, the product (A*B)
is not the best indicator.
To change this, click on View /
Parameters on this seismic
window.
Change the Color Data Volume to
Scaled Poissons Ratio Change.
Click OK to see the result.
Display of Scaled Poissons Ratio Change:
Dat a Sl i c e
Click on Data Slice / Create Data Slice on the window showing the Scaled Poissons
Ratio Change. Fill in the menus as shown:
This data slice shows the
mean Amplitude Envelope
of the Scaled Poissons
Ratio Change over a 30
ms window immediately
below the ice horizon:
Ar bi t r ar y Li ne
Click on ArbitraryLine / Start Drawing on the
Data Slice window. Select angle_gather as
the Input Volume.
Select the Arbitrary Line roughly
like the one shown to the left.
Then click on Next and Ok.
The arbitrary line is a series of angle gathers collected along the trajectory
specified. They are now ready for analysis.
Go back to the angle gather volume again and lets
try different methods of creating and viewing AVO
attributes.
Select Horizon /
Pick Horizons and
repick the horizon
ice.
The Open Window Data menu now displays a list
of all of the data volumes that are available to us
in this project.
Click Ok.
Select Options / Automatic Picking and fill in
the menu as shown:
The original post-stack picks have now been replaced with a set of pre-stack picks.
Click Ok to finish editing the horizon.
Lets view a Pick Analysis along the pre-stack horizon.
Choose Show Pre-stack Picks With Gradient Analysis and fill in the following
screens:
Verify that the gradient will be calculated from an A/B/C analysis using the P-wave
log from the well for the velocity model and click OK.
The pre-stack pick information as well as the gradient analysis is now displayed.
Keep the defaults and select Next >>:
Choose A/B/C for the Type of Analysis,
then fill in the next page as shown to the
right:
Now select AVO Attribute / AVO Attribute Map as
another way to create an AVO attribute map:
Select the Scaled
Poissons Ratio Change
attribute to map and select
Ok.
The new derived Scaled Poissons Ratio map is shown below. Note that you may
have to change the Color Key.
We have now completed this
project. Close down the
AVO program:
Ac qui si t i on & Pr oc essi ng
Conc er ns i n AVO
I nt r oduc t i on
In this section, we will be looking at practical concerns in AVO, specifically:
Seismic acquisition considerations.
Seismic processing considerations:
Event tuning and NMO
Noise elimination
Amplitude recovery
Wavelet effects
AVO Ac qui si t i on Consi der at i ons
Controlled source preferred (i.e.
Vibroseis on land, air gun in marine)
Near Offset
Source / Group
Intervals
Receivers
Source
Source Array
Receiver Array
Far Offset
Point source preferred, or as short
as possible. Compute response.
Low resonant frequency, good coupling
on land. Avoid leakage offshore.
As short as possible, which is a
problem in very noisy areas.
Consider the stack array concept to
avoid aliasing.
Close enough to estimate R
0
, but far
enough to avoid source noise.
Far enough for good AVO AVO response,
but not beyond critical distance.
Tuni ng Ef f ec t s
Here is the original concept
of tuning, as shown in the
classic paper by Widess
(How thin is a thin bed?,
Geophysics, v 47, p 1035,
1982).
Note that the effect of tuning
is to produce an amplitude,
frequency, and phase
change.
Here is the classic tuning
thickness chart for the
previous example.
Notice the thin bed limit, where
the amplitude reaches a
maximum, and the time
thickness stops changing. The
thin bed limit shown here is
equal to the period of the
Ricker wavelet shown in the
top part of the figure.
NMO Tuning
-3.500
-3.000
-2.500
-2.000
-1.500
-1.000
-0.500
0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Offset/Depth of second event
T
i
m
e

(
s
e
c
)
Here is the effect of
NMO tuning, for a
constant velocity earth.
Notice that it is plotted
against offset
normalized by depth.
The key thing to note is
that there is now
differential tuning as a
function of offset, which
compounds the zero-
offset tuning effect.
When we combine the effects of
zero offset tuning and NMO
tuning at the far offsets, the
effect is usually to move down
the tuning thickness chart, as
shown to the right, thus
decreasing the measured
amplitude. Note that if we started
above tuning, the effect would be
reversed.
Zero offset tuning
Far offset tuning
Here is the effect of tuning for
a 30 ms thick modeled sand,
using a 25 Hz Ricker wavelet.
The solid line is the true AVO
response and the squares are
picks from the synthetic
seismic response.
Since the Ricker wavelet has a
dominant period of 40 ms, the
thin bed limit is 20 ms, so the
bed thickness is above tuning
and the amplitude of the
synthetic increases.
Here is the effect of tuning for
a 10 ms thick modeled sand,
using a 25 Hz Ricker wavelet.
The solid line is the true AVO
response and the squares are
picks from the synthetic
seismic response.
Since the Ricker wavelet has a
dominant period of 40 ms, the
thin bed limit is 20 ms, so the
bed thickness is below tuning
and the amplitude of the
synthetic decreases.
A Fl ow Char t f or AVO Pr oc essi ng
DMO
(optional)
AVO
Analysis
Deconvolution /
Phase Correction
Residual Statics
and NMO
Noise
Attenuation
Amplitude
Recovery
Refraction
Statics
Raw Shot
Gathers
Land or transition data.
Surface consistent.
F-X for random noise
Parabolic Radon Parabolic Radon for multiples
F-K for Linear Noise Linear Noise.
Pr oc essi ng f or AVO
(1) Amplitude Recovery
Can be solved using statistical (surface consistent) or analytical
(gain curve) methods. See papers by Gary Yu (Offset-amplitude
variation and controlled-amplitude processing, Geophysics, 1985, Vol.
50, #12), and Bjorn Ursin (Offset-dependent geometrical spreading in
a layered medium, Geophysics, 1990, Vol. 55,#4)
(2) Statics / NMO
Traditionally, we apply NMO followed perhaps by a residual NMO
(RNMO) step. Also, consider statically aligning the zone of interest
instead of applying a dynamic correction, to avoid NMO stretch.
(3) Noise Attenuation
This is an important step since noise amplitudes can be confused
with true amplitudes. Three different schemes are recommended:
- Common offset stacking for random noise attenuation.
- F-K filtering for linear noise attenuation.
- Parabolic Radon filtering for multiple attenuation.
(4) DMO / Pre-stack migration
This is recommended only in structurally complex areas, as long as
an amplitude-preserving algorithm is used (see Black et al, True-
amplitude imaging and dip moveout, Geophysics, 1993, Vol. 58, #1)
(5) Deconvolution / Phase correction
It is important to balance the phase using a surface consistent
approach. Increasing the frequency content can be done as long as
the noise is not blown up.
Ear l y Pr oc essi ng St eps
Early processing steps are often overlooked as a source of AVO
distortion.
Processors are often more concerned with the impact of their DMO or
PSTM algorithms.
Processes such as geometrical spreading and spherical divergence
correction are often not optimally applied.
Geometrical Spreading
vt?. v
2
t?. vt
2
?v
2
t
2
? which one?
Choice is not deterministic.
Processors usually choose which gives the best picture
Geomet r i c al Spr eadi ng
Why vt?
Divergence of energy is with respect to radius
2
This suggests (vt)
2
would be best . BUT
Energy relates to power
Power relates to amplitude
2
AVO processing should:
1) Use velocities from local 2d data
2) Use a vt correction
3) Apply correction from surface (as energy is spread within the sea
too)
Tr ansmi ssi on Losses & At t enuat i on
Once geometrical spreading has been dealt with, residual losses can
be handled statistically.
Standard techniques use an exponential decay correction (in terms of
db/sec) applied from first breaks.
This method will overcorrect deeper events (remember that deeper
events have flatter moveout).
In addition, near offset energy spends less time in the sea than far
offset.
Sea water does not absorb energy or cause transmission losses.
Therefore, the correction should be applied from sea floor (i.e. at a
constant time within the gather).
Ampl i t ude Rec over y
Yu Yu (1985) considered the
analysis of two gas bright
spots in the Gulf of Mexico Gulf of Mexico,
as shown on the left at
locations B and C. He used
the two wet sands at A and D
for calibration.
Yu (1985)
The next slide shows a comparison between an incorrect amplitude
recovery on the left and a correct amplitude recovery on the right. Key
steps in the proper flow are as follows:
Suppress coherent noise Suppress coherent noise
Restore amplitude loss with offset compensation Restore amplitude loss with offset compensation
Surface consistent amplitude balancing Surface consistent amplitude balancing
Partial trace sum Partial trace sum
Surface consistent deconvolution Surface consistent deconvolution
Proper NMO application Proper NMO application
The left slide shows an incorrect amplitude recovery scheme, and the
right slide show a correct amplitude recovery scheme, at locations C and
B, the gas sands.
Yu (1985)
Here is a comparison of the wet sand (D and A) and the gas sand (B and
C) AVO curves, where the figure on the left shows all the curves and the
one on the right is the averaged curves with AVO modeling
superimposed.
Yu (1985)
Mean Sc al i ng vs Sur f ac e Consi st ent
Sc al i ng
On land data, one approach that has been shown to improve the
relative amplitude characteristics of the data is surface consistent (sc)
scaling.
Surface consistent scaling is performed by finding the scaling
coefficients by averaging in the common receiver and common shot
domains, rather than computing a single scalar for each trace.
The next four slides, from Downton (2005), show the effects of surface
consistent scaling versus single trace mean scaling.
CDP Gat her s (mean sc al i ng)
Ostrander Gathers (Relative Amplitude Processing)
T
i
m
e

(
s
)
Downton and McKidd, 1997
CDP Gat her s (sc sc al i ng)
Ostrander Gathers (True Amplitude Processing)
T
i
m
e

(
s
)
S-I mpedanc e Ref l ec t i vi t y Est i mat e
(mean sc al i ng)
F E C B A
T
i
m
e

(
s
)
S-I mpedanc e Ref l ec t i vi t y Est i mat e
(sc sc al i ng)
F E C B A
T
i
m
e

(
s
)
Noi se At t enuat i on
The figure on the left shows a noise corrupted, NMO corrected CDP gather,
which also has a static problem. The amplitudes are all identical on the
event. The figure on the right is a 7 trace mix of the left hand figure.
Notice that the noise has been attenuated, but the statics have been mixed
in, and the amplitudes are changed incorrectly.
Note that the Inverse Velocity Stack (equivalent to the parabolic Radon
transform) attenuates the multiples at all offsets.
Dan Hampson (1986)
Ex ampl e of Usi ng Wr ong DMO
(a) NMO only
(d) (c) - (b)
(b) Non-amplitude
preserving DMO
(c) True
amplitude DMO
Black et al (1993)
Resi dual NMO (RNMO)
If there is RNMO present this will distort the estimate of the gradient and
any other related attributes. RNMO may arise from:
Sparse nature of velocity analysis
Azimuthal variations
Ignoring higher order terms in NMO correction
Ways of reducing RNMO:
Denser velocity analysis
Higher order corrections
Automatic velocity analysis
In the next sequence of slides, the effect of RNMO on the intercept and
gradient will be illustrated, along with an automated correction
procedure (Ratcliffe and Roberts, 2003).
RNMO and AVO
offset
Amp.
Pre-stack CMP Gather
t
offset
Intercept
G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
Correct Velocity
t
offset
Intercept Gradient
Ratcliffe and
Roberts, 2003
Intercept Gradient
Incorrect Velocity
t
offset
Ratcliffe and
Roberts, 2003
CMP Gat her s Manual Vel oc i t i es
1
0
0

m
s
0 Iterations
1 km Ratcliffe and Roberts, 2003
CMP Gat her s Resi dual Anal ysi s
1
0
0

m
s
6 Iterations
1 km Ratcliffe and Roberts, 2003
Vel oc i t y Ef f ec t s of Weak Ani sot r opy
Tsvankin and Thomsen (Nonhyperbolic reflection moveout in anisotropic
media, Geophysics, August, 1994) applied Thomsens theory of weak
anisotropy to reflection moveout for both P and SV waves in VTI media.
Their equation for P-waves is as follows:
2
0 0
4
4
2
2
2
0
2
X
t V
x
1
x A
x A t t
+
+ + =
,
V
2 1
A
2
0
2

=
.
V t
) ( 2
A
4
0
2
0
4

=
where:
, Thomsen's
parameters.
=
NMO Compar i son (t o 45
o
)
NMO Curves
-1.300
-1.250
-1.200
-1.150
-1.100
-1.050
-1.000
-0.950
-0.900
-0.850
-0.800
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Offset
T
i
m
e

(
s
e
c
)
NMO NMO/TIV
NMO/TIV Difference
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Offset (m) ( Far = 45 degrees)
T
i
m
e

(
m
s
e
c
)
NMO/TIV - NMO
The effects of applying Dix NMO versus non-hyperbolic NMO in a VTI
material. The difference is shown on the right.
A Gul f of Mex i c o Case St udy
As well as the effect of anisotropy on NMO, there are also higher order
NMO terms in a layered earth even if the events are not anisotropic.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to tell the two effects apart.
Regardless of the cause, we can do a fourth order (third term) fit to our
data and apply the correction.
The case study in the next few slides, from a paper by Chris Ross in the
February, 1997 issue of First Break, shows an example from the Gulf of
Mexico.
The effects of applying Dix NMO versus Non-hyperbolic NMO.
C.P. Ross, 1997
The top figure
shows Dix NMO
on real gathers,
and bottom
figure shows
non-hyperbolic
NMO on real
gathers.
C.P. Ross, 1997
Offset range stack panels after correction with conventional NMO.
C.P. Ross, 1997
Offset range stack panels after correction with nonhyperbolic NMO.
C.P. Ross, 1997
A+B AVO attribute
after conventional
NMO correction.
A+B AVO attribute
after nonhyperbolic
NMO correction.
C.P. Ross, 1997
Conc l usi ons
This section gave an overview of practical concerns in AVO
analysis.
We have considered both the effects of acquisition and of
processing.
Key concerns are array attenuation, proper amplitude
balancing, noise attenuation, and correct DMO and NMO
application.
AVO Summar y
This course has given you a comprehensive overview of the Amplitude
Variations with Offset, or Amplitude Versus Offset (AVO) method, both
theoretically and practically.
We have looked at the theory and practical implementation of a
number of AVO procedures, including:
Fluid Replacement Modeling (FRM).
AVO modeling.
AVO data analysis, including Intercept/Gradient cross-plotting.
AVO inversion, including Elastic Impedance, Lambda-Mu-Rho (LMR),
and Simultaneous Inversion.
Possible concerns in AVO analysis.
Let us now briefly review these various procedures.
Fl ui d Repl ac ement Model i ng (FRM)
Before looking at AVO, we needed to understand the rock physics of the reservoir,
using FRM. The basic use of FRM is to use the Biot-Gassmann equations to
substitute or replace the fluids in a set of target layers with another set of fluids.
In this case, V
P
, V
S
, and must all be known for the input logs, along with the fluid
content (S
W
). Recall that the Batzle-Wang equations can be used to create the fluid.
Generally all three logs are changed within the target zone.
Input Logs
Output Logs
V
P

V
S
V
P

S
W
= 100%
V
S
S
W
= 50%
The second use of FRM is to use the Biot-Gassmann equations to calculate a V
S
curve which has not been measured in the well. Either K
DRY
is assumed known or
the mudrock equation is assumed to hold for wet sands.
In this case, V
P
and must both be known, along with the fluid content (S
W
).
The V
P
and logs are unchanged, and a new V
S
log is created.
Output Logs
Input Logs
V
P

V
S
V
P

S
W
= 50%
S
W
= 50%
AVO Model i ng
AVO modeling involves the following steps:
Edit logs and perform fluid replacement modeling, as just discussed.
Extract a seismic wavelet.
Correlate the logs and data using either a check shot correction or
interactive stretch-squeeze with the extracted wavelet.
Choose and apply a modeling option: Zoeppritz equations with primaries
only, Aki-Richards equations with primaries only, or full elastic wave
equation modeling, which includes multiples and converted waves.
Another important option that was discussed was anisotropic
modeling, which is available in the HR AVO program.
The next slide shows and example of AVO modeling.
Once we have modeled the logs, we can build a synthetic using the AVO modeling
options, as shown below.
FRM Modeled Logs Synthetic Real Data
AVO Anal ysi s
AVO analysis involves the analysis of pre-stack gathers to look for
AVO anomalies.
The main AVO techniques that we discussed were:
Intercept-gradient (A/B/C) analysis, in which we fit the equation
R() = A + B sin
2
+ C sin
2
*tan
2
to our data.
The fluid factor technique, in which we estimate R
P
and R
S
reflectivity
and look for deviations away from Castagnas mudrock line.
AVO polarization analysis.
Recall that we classified AVO anomalies using the Rutherford-Williams
classification scheme.
Class 1 = Reservoirs have higher impedance than encasing shale.
Class 2 = Reservoirs have similar impedance to encasing shale.
Class 2 = Reservoirs have lower impedance than encasing shale.
The next slide shows an intercept-gradient crossplot analysis of a
class 3 anomaly.
AVO Anal ysi s I nt er c ept vs Gr adi ent
Here is an example of
the A vs B crossplot
for the Colony sand.
Base Sand
Wet Trend
Top Sand
Intercept (A)
G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

(
B
)
AVO I nver si on
In the final part of the course, we discussed a number of approaches
to AVO inversion, and applied several of these approaches to the
Colony sand example.
These approaches were:.
Simultaneous inversion.
The elastic impedance (EI) approach.
Lambda-Mu-Rho inversion
The next few slides illustrate these methods.
AVO I nver si on El ast i c I mpedanc e
Elastic impedance applied to a
well log example.
Anomalous Sand
EI Near
EI Near
EI Far
E
I

F
a
r
Far EI Inversion
Here are the near and
far EI inversions for the
Colony sand. Note the
difference at the
anomalous gas sand,
shown in the ellipses.
Near EI Inversion
On the left is a cross-plot of the near
and far EI inversions for the Colony
sand, with the anomalous gas sand
zone highlighted.
Below, the highlighted zone has been
put back on the section, showing the
extent of the gas sand.
EI Near
E
I

F
a
r
Gas Sand
AVO I nver si on Si mul t aneous I nver si on
Simultaneous Inversion solves the Fattis equation, subject to
background constraints:
1 2 3
( )
PP P S D
R c R c R c R = + +
where:
2
1
2 2
2
2 2 2
3
1 tan
8 sin
1
tan 2 sin
2
S
P
c
c
c
V
V
= +
=
= +
=
1
2
1
2
.
P
P
P
S
S
S
D
V
R
V
V
R
V
R

= +

= +

=
We assume these linear relationships hold for the background trend:
ln( ) ln( )
ln( ) ln( )
S P c S
P c D
Z k Z k L
m Z m L
= + +
= + +
Ln(Zs)
Ln(Zp)
Ln()
Ln(Zp)
S
L
D
L
This allows the
simultaneous
calculation of Z
P
, Z
S
,
Density, and other
derived attributes:
AVO I nver si on - LMR
From the Z
P
and Z
S
inversions,
we can then create the and
sections from the formulas:
= Z
S
2
= Z
P
2
2Z
S
2
The result is shown above
and the section is shown
on the right. Note in the
highlighted areas that
shows a large increase at the
gas sand zone and shows
a large decrease.
Lambda-rho ()
Mu-rho ()
The versus cross plot is
shown on the left, with the
picked gas sand in yellow.
The section below shows the
position of the gas sand.
Lambda-rho ()
M
u
-
r
h
o
(
)
Gas Sand
Summar y Fl ow c har t
Input Raw Gathers
Optimum Processing
Recon Methods
Log based modeling
Gradient/
Intercept
Partial
Stacks
Primaries
only
synthetics
Wave
Equation
synthetics
Crossplotting
LMR
Simultaneous
Inversion
Ref er enc es
Aki, K., and Richards, P.G., 1980, Quantitative seismology: Theory and
methods: W.H. Freeman and Co.
Batzle, M., and Wang, Z., 1992, Seismic properties of fluids: Geophysics, 57,
1396-1408.
Biot, M. A., 1941, General theory of three-dimensional consolidation:
Journal of Applied Physics, 12, 155-164.
Blangy, J. P., 1994, AVO in transversely isotropic media - an overview:
Geophysics, 59, 775-781.
Castagna, J.P., Swan, H.W., and Foster, D.J., 1998, Framework for AVO
gradient and intercept interpretation: Geophysics, 63, 948-956.
Castagna, J. P. and Swan, H. W., 1997, Principles of AVO crossplotting: The
Leading Edge, 16, no. 04, 337-342.
Castagna, J.P., and Backus, M.M., Eds., 1993, Offset-dependent reflectivity-
Theory and practice of AVO analysis, SEG, Tulsa.
Castagna, J.P., Batzle, M.L., and Eastwood, R.L., 1985, Relationship
between compressional and shear-wave velocities in clastic silicate
rocks: Geophysics, 50, 551-570.
Connolly, P., 1999, Elastic impedance: The Leading Edge, 18, no. 4, 438-452.
Downton, J., and McKidd, D, 1997, Methods to improve AVO extractions:
2004 CSEG Convention Expanded Abstracts, 144-145.
Ref er enc es (c ont )
Dvorkin, J., Moos, D., Packwood, J. L. and Nur, A. M., 1999, Identifying
patchy saturation from well logs: Geophysics, 64, 1756-1759.
Fatti, J. L., Vail, P. J., Smith, G. C., Strauss, P. J. and Levitt, P. R., 1994,
Detection of gas in sandstone reservoirs using AVO analysis: A 3-D
seismic case history using the geostack technique: Geophysics, 59,
1362-1376.
Foster, D., Smith, S. W., Dey-Sarkar, S. K. and Swan, H. W., 1993, A closer
look at hydrocarbon indicators, 63rd Ann. Int. Mtg: SEG, 731-733.
Gardner, G.H.F., Gardner, L.W., and Gregory, A.R., 1974, Formation
velocity and density - the diagnostic basis for stratigraphic traps:
Gassmann, F., 1951, Elastic waves through a packing of spheres:
Goodway, B., Chen, T. and Downton, J., 1997, Improved AVO fluid detection
and lithology discrimination using Lam petrophysical parameters, 67th
Ann. Internat. Mtg: SEG, 183-186.
Gregg, M. E. and Bukowski, C. T., Jr., 2000, Developing an exploration tool in
a mature trend: A 3-D AVO case study in south Texas: The Leading
Edge, 19, no. 11, 1174-1183.
Hampson, D., Russell, B. and Cardamone, M., 2004, Uncertainty in AVO-How
can we measure it?: Recorder, 29, no. 3, 5-11.
Hampson, D., and Russell, B., 1990, AVO inversion: theory and practice:
60th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts,
1456-1458.
Jones, I., Christiansen, R. , Haynes, J., Faragher, J., Novianti, I., Morris, H.
and Pickering, G., 2005, Multi-Discplinary Geoscience: The 'Brenda' North
Sea Development: Recorder, 30, no. 1, 38-43.
Keho, T., Lemanski, S., Ripple, R. and Tambunan, B. R., 2001, The AVO
hodogram: Using polarization to identify anomalies: The Leading Edge,
20, no. 11, 1214-1219.
Mahob, P.N. and Castagna, J. P., 2003, AVO polarization and hodograms:
AVO strength and polarization product: Geophysics, 68, 849-862.
Mavko, G., Mukerji, T., and Dvorkin, J., 1998, The rock physics handbook
Tools for seismic analysis in porous media, Cambridge University Press.
Mavko, G., Chan, C. and Mukerji, T., 1995, Fluid substitution: Estimating
changes in Vp without knowing Vs: Geophysics, 60, 1750-1755.
O'Brien, J., 2004, Interpreter's CornerSeismic amplitudes from low gas
saturation sands: The Leading Edge, 23, no. 12, 1236-1243.
Ostrander, W.J., 1984, Plane-wave reflection coefficients for gas sands at
non-normal angles of incidence: Geophysics, 49, 1637-1648.
Ratcliffe, A. and Roberts, G., 2003, Robust, automatic, continuous velocity
analysis, 73rd Ann. Internat. Mtg.: Soc. of Expl. Geophys., 2080-2083.
Richards, P.G., and Frasier, C.W., 1976, Scattering of elastic waves from
depth-dependent inhomogeneities: Geophysics, 41, 441-458.
Ross, C. P., 2002, Comparison of popular AVO attributes, AVO inversion,
and calibrated AVO predictions: The Leading Edge, 21, no. 3, 244-252.
Ross, C. P., 2000, Effective AVO crossplot modeling: A tutorial: Geophysics,
65, 700-711.
Ross, C. P. and Kinman, D. L., 1995, Non-bright-spot AVO: Two examples:
Geophysics, 60, 1398-1408.
Ross, C. P., 1995, Improved mature field development with 3D/AVO
technology: First Break, 13, no. 04, 139-145.
Ruger, A., 1997, P-wave reflection coefficients for transversely isotropic
models with vertical and horizontal axis of symmetry: Geophysics, 62,
713-722.
Russell, B., Ross, C. P. and Lines, L., 2002, Neural networks and AVO: The
Leading Edge, 21, no. 3, 268-277.
Rutherford, S.R., and Williams, R.H., 1989, Amplitude-versus-offset
variations in gas sands: Geophysics, 54, 680-688.
Shuey, R.T., 1985, A simplification of the Zoeppritz equations:
Simmons, J. L., Jr. and Backus, M. M., 1994, AVO modeling and the locally
converted shear wave: Geophysics, 59, 1237-1248.
Smith, G. C. and Gidlow, P. M., 1987, Weighted stacking for rock property
estimation and detection of gas: Geophys. Prosp., EAGE., 35, 993-1014.
Thomsen, L., 1986, Weak elastic anisotropy : Geophysics, 51, 1954-1966.
Verm, R. and Hilterman, F., 1995, Lithology color-coded seismic sections:
The calibration of AVO crossplotting to rock properties: The Leading
Edge, 14, no. 08, 847-853.
Wiggins, R., Kenny, G.S., and McClure, C.D., 1983, A method for
determining and displaying the shear-velocity reflectivities of a
geologic formation: European patent Application 0113944.
Yu, G., 1985(b), Offset-amplitude variation and controlled amplitude
processing: Geophysics, 50, 2697-2708.
Zoeppritz, K., 1919, Erdbebenwellen VIIIB, On the reflection and
propagation of seismic waves: Gottinger Nachrichten, I, 66-84.

AVO Workshop - Part 1: Theory and Exercises

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

AVO Workshop - Part 1: Theory and Exercises

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AVO Wor k shop Par t 1

Theory and Exercises

Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 71

Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 148

This will be illustrated in the next few slides.

For each cross plot,

(a) Modeled logs. Note false

Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 423

You might also like