PROCEEDINGS JOINT CONVENTION SURABAYA 2005 – HAGI-IAGI-PERHAPI

The 30th HAGI, The 34th IAGI, and The 14th PERHAPI Annual Conference and Exhibition

POSTER-JCS2005-169

AVO MODELING FOR HC EXPLORATION: A STUDY CASE

A. Avrino and Munji S.

CNOOC SES Ltd.

ABSTRACT

The interpretation of poststack seismic describes the subsurface lithology boundary which sometimes
difficult to recognize individual lithology unit because of limitation in the vertical resolution seismic
response. Forward AVO (Amplitude Versus Offset) modeling combine with FRM (Fluid Replacement
Modeling) was designed to recognize tuning thickness and fluid effect in seismic response effectively
which improve the prediction in reservoir characterization work.

The objective of this study is to identify reservoir properties by applying AVO synthetic modeling from
one well as reference. We used small set of 3D seismic data in “little e “ area. The geological model built
from available well log data. Other fluid and petrophysical properties used from nearby field location.

The AVO modeling analysis was done using 2 terms of Zoeppritz equation produce near offset (at 0 to 15
degree) and far offset (15 to 30 degree) data set. Further analysis implies that the fluid content was affect
directly to amplitude response in this area. The AVO attribute was generated from the addition of
incidence angle (A) and gradient (B) in scaled poisson ratio changes, gives better illumination in
representation of fluid effect rather than in intercept normal incidence (A) term only. Finally the AVO
attribute map show the distribution of possibility of hydrocarbon accumulation in the area.

INTRODUCTION strain ratio under simple hydrostatic pressure,

given by
Hydrocarbon accumulation sometimes gives
sensitive seismic amplitude response which useful ∆P 1
to identify reservoir from seismic data. Sensitivity k= =
∆V / V C
analysis of the seismic response and amplitude
variation with offset was used to predict where, k = bulk modulus
hydrocarbon accumulation. Furthermore, the ∆P = hydrostatic stress
application of AVO attribute analysis is mostly ∆V/V = volumetric strain or
straightforward as hydrocarbon indicator dilatation
estimator. However, fluid content conditions may C = compressibility
be characterized by defining set of rock properties
that exist for the possible lithologies within
The AVO response is dependent on the properties
context of the play which can give bias to seismic
of P-wave velocity (Vp), S-wave velocity (Vs),
response, but in some cases, AVO has provided
and density (ρ) in a porous reservoir rock. Overall,
good tool to identify hydrocarbon zones quickly
rock properties are determined by matrix type,
(Fatti et al., 1994)
porosity, and fluid type. Gassmann formulation
for compressional and shear velocities of porous,
Poisson’s ratio analysis method relies on Vp, Vs,
fluid saturated media is not so straightforward.
and density differences. Castagna provides link
Gassmann equation determines mudrock line
between velocity and rock properties for pore
formation acoustic properties using the rigidity
fluid detection, through the bulk modulus k that is
coefficient. In this case, Castagna et al. (1985)
embedded in Vp. The bulk modulus is the stress-
derived a much simpler empirical relationship
919
 PROCEEDINGS JOINT CONVENTION SURABAYA 2005 – HAGI-IAGI-PERHAPI
The 30th HAGI, The 34th IAGI, and The 14th PERHAPI Annual Conference and Exhibition
between P-wave and S-wave velocity, which can
be written as,
Vp = 1.16Vs + 1360m/s
For a constant Poisson’s ratio, the intercept is zero
and the Vp, Vs relationship written as,
2σ − 2
Vp = Vs
2σ − 1
Our study was using Castagna equation to
determine mudrock line.
Successful exploration requires the integration of
relevant geological and geophysical techniques
both conventional and unconventional. This paper
will show the conventional 1D synthetic modeling
combined with AVO attribute analysis to identify
reservoir characterization in delineating
hydrocarbon accumulation. Combine reservoir
properties from well log data with AVO attributes,
and increasing reservoir resolution in AVO result
has been achieved to derive a better map-
definition. Therefore, we are success to minimize
exploration risk.
MODELLING
1D Modeling
As starting point, we work on well log data;
generate crossplot between P-wave log and S-
wave log. P-wave velocity information is typically
obtained from well logs whereas S-wave velocity
is derived from Castagna equation to predict the
mudrock line. Vs and Vp are shear and
compressional velocities respectively, and ρ is
density. Shear modulus is often independent of
pore fluid content. Focus historically has then
been on bulk modulus as a hydrocarbon indicator.
The 1D modeling analysis shows clear separation
between the porous sandstone (with HC) and tight
sandstone (FIGURE 1). Geological model was
created from both of conditions. Tabel-1 shows
rock properties were calculated according to a
reformulation of the well-known relationship
introduced by Gassmann. 1D-modeling result is
used to justify AVO modeling result in the later
step.
AVO Synthetics Modeling
The forward AVO modeling method applied to
well data is based on straightforward process of
calculating synthetic seismogram.
Mathematically, it is the convolution between
wavelet and coefficient reflection to create
synthetic seismogram. This synthetic is used to
build geological model. We use an extracted zero
phased wavelet from small set of 3D seismic data
(FIGURE 2). The wavelet has dominant
frequency about 12 Hz. Figure 3 shows that
synthetic describes good character match to the
real data with coefficient correlation 0.77.
The final step in the synthetic modeling process is
to have different cases substitutions in the
reservoir section and predict the Zoeppritz
response to the changed reservoir conditions. In
this case, we want to investigate AVO curve
response whether it is water-wet sand or oil sand.
The AVO modeling was created using 2 terms of
Zoeppritz equation produced from near and far
offset with hydrocarbon and wet cases. We used
number of offset 40 for far offset and 10 for near
offset (FIGURE 4a, FIGURE 4b). Well log
parameter of geological model refers to existing
Aryani A-01 well log data specifically in the pay
zone.
AVO curves response from generated model
shows relative amplitude change from top to base
of the oil sand reservoir. In fact in general, the
two-term approximation is only valid to 5000m
maximum offset. However, it depends on depth of
the target zone. In this case the target is relatively
shallow approximately 4000ft depth. Reservoir
fluid acoustic properties are shown in Table 1.
Rutherford and Williams (1989) classify gas sand
into four classes (FIGURE 5). This classification
is based only on the normal-incidence reflection
coefficient (A) and the gradient (B). Petrophysical
assumptions for sand-shale intervals are built
based on linear background trends for limited
depth ranges on the AVO intercept (A) and
gradient (B) crossplot. Typically, the crossplot of
these AVO attributes can be used to quickly
identify anomalous areas of the seismic data.
In our case, the AVO curve response fall into
class I AVO anomaly (high acoustic impedance
contrast) which the sand have positive normal-
incidence reflection coefficient at top of the sand
and negative normal-incidence reflection
coefficient at the base. They fall in quadrant IV.
920
 PROCEEDINGS JOINT CONVENTION SURABAYA 2005 – HAGI-IAGI-PERHAPI
The 30th HAGI, The 34th IAGI, and The 14th PERHAPI Annual Conference and Exhibition
Model response shows decrease in amplitude
value (dimming effects) with increasing offset.
CDP gathers from the reference well in Figure 6
shows two adjacent dim effect also.
Tuning Model
Wedge model was generated to analyze tuning
thickness effect. The model was created from 11
offsets synthetic with thickness varies from 0 to
50 ft thick. We use both oil sand reservoir and wet
cases in the model. Aryani A-01 well is the
reference well for oil case reservoir which
encounter 10ft oil pay.
Wedge model from far offset describes tuning
thickness at 20 ft (FIGURE 7). Therefore, based
on theory of tuning thickness, we cannot resolve
geological boundary because formation thickness
is below tuning thickness (20 ft). However, we
present the model in scaled poisson ratio changes
to make easier interpretation. Poisson ratio of the
wedge model indicate that limit of visibility is
extended to almost 10ft which means we can
expect to have clear boundary from a 10ft thick
layer.
Proposed well is targeted at conglomeratic
sandstone reservoir, which expected to encounter
10-15 ft pay zone. Therefore, we are expecting to
see the anomaly in the limit of visibility, which
almost similar to the current Aryani A-01 well if
the proposed location is oil sand reservoir.
AVO Attribute Volume
Calculating full amplitude response as function of
angle incidence from reflectivity series provided
by well logs performs the AVO modeling.
Gradient and intercept volume were extracted
with the intention of extraction pore fluid
information. Shuey equation relates reflectivity at
a given angle as function of normal incidence
reflectivity (A) and gradient (B) such that
R ( θ ) = A+B sin2 θ
The gradient volume shows the rate change of
amplitudes with incidence angle, while the
intercept volume shows the zero-offset respond.
Common simplification of Zoeppritz equation is
good for incidence angle less than 30 degrees
(Shuey, 1985).
AVO attributes interpretation is derived from
Rutherford and William’s chart according to their
normal incidence reflectivity and gradient. In this
case, we try to create AVO attribute volume in
Poisson ratio scaled. The present of hydrocarbon
in reservoir sands will cause decreasing Poisson’s
ratio and consequently increasing slope of the
best-fit trend. The amplitude response at interface
varies according to the angle of incidence, and is
strongly related to contrast in Poisson’s ratio
across the interface. It is reasonable, to use
poisson ratio scaled on AVO attribute
interpretation, which clearly recognize anomalous
effect directly because of hydrocarbon present.
AVO modeling analysis was done using Zoeppritz
equation, which produces near offset (0-15
degree) and far offset (15-30 degree). The AVO
attribute volume generated from the addition of
incidence angle A and gradient B (A+B) in scaled
poisson ratio changes. Before we create AVO
attribute volume, we perform gradient analysis to
determine the best parameter on proposed well
location. The analysis shows good correlation
(around 0.7) for both linear and robust calculation
(FIGURE 8).
We create slices from AVO attribute volume
above basement horizon that expected to be able
to see AVO anomaly (FIGURE 9).
DICUSSION
Primary reservoir objective at proposed well
location is top of porous zone so called Lower
Zelda member. AVO attribute map generated
from 10ms window above basement was expected
to capture the top of porous zone.
The AVO amplitude envelope attribute map
shows that porous oil sand has amplitude value
ranging from 7000 to 11000. Tight reservoir zone
has amplitude value less than 7000 (FIGURE
10a). The AVO attribute section across Aryani A-
01 also shows porous zone on the Lower Zelda
member, which confirmed by well-log data of 10
ft oil pay. This reservoir lies 20 ft above basement
(around 10ms above basement). As reference, the
Aryani A-01 establishes good correlation between
the AVO attribute and rock properties.
Unfortunately, map slice 10ms above basement on
921
 PROCEEDINGS JOINT CONVENTION SURABAYA 2005 – HAGI-IAGI-PERHAPI
The 30th HAGI, The 34th IAGI, and The 14th PERHAPI Annual Conference and Exhibition
proposed well location is not showing expected
AVO anomaly.
The AVO RMS amplitude attribute value greater
than 3000 indicates porous oil sand reservoir on
Aryani A-01 well location, which represented by
yellow color (FIGURE 10b). At proposed well
location, the RMS AVO attribute shows no
hydrocarbon indication. The AVO section from
amplitude envelope and scaled poisson ratio
changes attribute also shows no hydrocarbon
indication at the proposed well location.
Overall, the proposed location on AVO attribute
maps indicates tight sand specifically on top of
porous-lower Zelda member. In other words,
AVO attribute map suggest absent fluid content in
the proposed area therefore it lies on risk zone.
However, on the northwest part of study area,
AVO anomaly looks similar to the Aryani A-01
location, which expected to have positive result on
hydrocarbon accumulation distribution similar to
Aryani A-01. Suggestion was made to change
proposed well location into new location. Beside
that, interpreter should also consider structural
configuration and geological model.
CONCLUSION
Our AVO modelings establish good relationship
between fluid factor and seismic response from
existing oil well.
AVO modeling method has increase
lithology/fluid discrimination and gives higher
vertical resolution and visibility limit. Using
integrated geological and petrophysical data with
proper geophysical approach, we effectively
demonstrate reservoir characterization workflow
for HC exploration. As the result, AVO RMS and
amplitude envelope attribute maps determine
distribution of hydrocarbon accumulation from
AVO anomalous. Therefore, AVO attribute map
useful to reduce risk zone of a proposed well and
deliver higher probability geological success.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Nusatriyo Guritno,
Wynn Gajkowski, and Dwi Mandhiri for their
advice, support, and discussion. We also thanks to
CNOOC Management, BPMIGAS, and CNOOC
Partners for give permission to publish this paper.
REFERENCES
Castagna, J.P., Batzle, M.L., and Eastwood, R.L.,
1985, Relationship between compressional and
shear-wave velocities and clastic silicate rocks:
Geophysics, 50, 551-570.
Fatti, J.L., Smith, G.C., Vail, P.J., and Levitt,
P.R., 1994, Detection of gas in sandstone
reservoir using AVO analysis: A 3-D case history
using geostack technique: Geophysics, 59, 1362-
1376
Furniss, A., 2001, Reservoir characterization
through integrated AVO, AI, and EI Inversion.
Proceedings Indonesian Petroleum Association
2001, Vol-1, 53-69.
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: Geophysics, 50, 609-614.
922
 PROCEEDINGS JOINT CONVENTION SURABAYA 2005 – HAGI-IAGI-PERHAPI
The 30th HAGI, The 34th IAGI, and The 14th PERHAPI Annual Conference and Exhibition

Lithology Vp ( s/ft) Vs ( s/ft) RHOB (gr/cc) Poisson Ratio

Porous Sand (HC) 74 129 2.42 0.24
Tight Sand 89 171 2.34 0.32
Wet Sand from near field 112 254 2.33 0.37

TABLE 1: Rock properties of Aryani A-01 well.

Porous sand

Pay Zone

Tight sand

FIGURE 1: Crossplot of Vp versus Vs is justifying the AVO modeling result that separates porous
sandstone (HC) and tight sandstone reservoir.

FIGURE 2: Statistical wavelet using 1100-1600ms time window, 2ms sample rate, 0 degree phase
rotation, and constant phase.

923
 PROCEEDINGS JOINT CONVENTION SURABAYA 2005 – HAGI-IAGI-PERHAPI
The 30th HAGI, The 34th IAGI, and The 14th PERHAPI Annual Conference and Exhibition

10ft oil pay

FIGURE 3: Synthetic Seismogram compare to ELAN data.

50ft
thickness

WE HC
T
WET HC

AVO Response

FIGURE 4a: AVO Modeling is created using Zoeppritz equation produced from far offset with the
number of offset 40. The AVO curve response shows relative amplitude change from top
to the base of oil sand reservoir.

924
 PROCEEDINGS JOINT CONVENTION SURABAYA 2005 – HAGI-IAGI-PERHAPI
The 30th HAGI, The 34th IAGI, and The 14th PERHAPI Annual Conference and Exhibition

20ft
thickness

AVO Response

FIGURE 4b: AVO modeling generated from near offset with 20ft thickness is still resolve geological
boundary from AVO effect.

FIGURE 5: AVO anomaly classification and AVO crossplot classifications (Furniss, 2001)

925
 PROCEEDINGS JOINT CONVENTION SURABAYA 2005 – HAGI-IAGI-PERHAPI
The 30th HAGI, The 34th IAGI, and The 14th PERHAPI Annual Conference and Exhibition

FIGURE 6: Two adjacent CDP gathers showing dimming effect on Aryani A-1 well location.

Thickness in ft

TOP

BOTTOM

FIGURE 7: Wedge Model generated from far offset describes tuning thickness at 20ft in poison ratio
scaled changes to detect fluid content.

926
 PROCEEDINGS JOINT CONVENTION SURABAYA 2005 – HAGI-IAGI-PERHAPI
The 30th HAGI, The 34th IAGI, and The 14th PERHAPI Annual Conference and Exhibition

FIGURE 8: Gradient analysis determines the best parameter on proposed well location.

A B
Aryani A- Prop. Well
01

LOWER ZELDA

Oil show 10 ms

B
BASEMENT
Target Zone
Prop.well

A
Aryani A-01

FIGURE 9: Seismic section through Aryani A-01 and proposed well location

927
 PROCEEDINGS JOINT CONVENTION SURABAYA 2005 – HAGI-IAGI-PERHAPI
The 30th HAGI, The 34th IAGI, and The 14th PERHAPI Annual Conference and Exhibition

X Y

Proposed location

Lower Zelda X Y
Prop. location

Aryani A-01

Basement

FIGURE 10a: AVO Amplitude Envelope Attribute map 10ms above basement. Yellow color represents
the distribution of possibility of HC accumulation. The northwest part shows AVO
anomaly is expected to be porous oil sand reservoir.

A B
Aryani A-01

Prop. location

Aryani A-01
A B

FIGURE 10b: AVO RMS Amplitude Attribute map 10ms above basement.

928