AVO and Inversion - Part 2

A summary of AVO and Inversion Techniques

Dr. Brian Russell

Introduction
 The Amplitude Variations with Offset (AVO) technique has
grown to include a multitude of sub-techniques, each with its
own assumptions.
 AVO techniques can be subdivided as either:
 (1) seismic reflectivity or (2) impedance methods.
 Seismic reflectivity methods include: Near and Far stacks,
Intercept vs Gradient analysis and the fluid factor.
 Impedance methods include: P and S-impedance inversion,
Lambda-mu-rho, Elastic Impedance and Poisson
Impedance.
 The objective of this section is to make sense of all of these
methods and show how they are related.
 Let us start by looking at the different ways in which a
geologist and geophysicist look at data.
From Geology to Geophysics
Well Log Reflectivity

Layer i Pi
Ri
Layer i+1 Pi+1

For a layered earth, a well log measures a parameter P for each

layer and the seismic trace measures the interface reflectivity R.
The reflectivity
Well Log Reflectivity
The reflectivity at each interface is
found by dividing the change in the
value of the parameter by twice its
Pi average.
Ri
Pi+1 As an equation, this is written:

Pi 1  Pi Pi
Ri =  ,
Pi 1  Pi 2 Pi
where :
Pi 1  Pi
Pi  Pi 1  Pi and Pi 
2
The convolutional model

Wavelet

Parameter Reflectivity Seismic

One extra thing to observe is that the seismic trace is the

convolution of the reflectivity with a wavelet (S = W*R).
Which parameter?

 But which parameter P are we interested in?

 To the geophysicist the choices usually are:
 P-wave velocity (VP)
 S-wave velocity (VS)
 Density (r)
 Transforms of velocity and density such as acoustic
impedance (rVP) and shear impedance (rVS).
 The geologist would add:
 Gamma ray
 Water saturation, etc…
 How many of these can we derive from the seismic?
 Let us now look at several seismic examples.
The zero-angle model
The zero-angle trace
can be modeled
using a well known
model, where the
trace is the
convolution of the
acoustic impedance
Wavelet
reflectivity with the W
wavelet.

Acoustic Reflectivity Seismic

Note: the stack is Impedance
AI
only approximately
AI  rVP  RAI =  S  W * RAI
zero-angle. 2 AI
 Convolution
Convolution with the seismic wavelet, which can be written mathematically
as S = W*R, is illustrated pictorially below:

* = + + + + =>

W = Wavelet

R = Reflection S = Seismic
Coefficients Trace
8
 A Seismic Example

Here is a portion of a 2D
seismic line showing a
gas sand “bright-spot”.

The seismic
line is the
“stack” of a
series of CMP
gathers, as
shown here.
The gas sand is
a typical Class 3
AVO anomaly.
The pre-stack gathers
X3
X2
X1
Surface

Compression

q
q2 q1
q3
Shear

r1 VP1 VS1 Reflector

r2 VP2 VS2

• The traces in a seismic gather reflect from the subsurface at increasing

angles of incidence q, related to offset X.
• If the angle is greater than zero, notice that there is both a shear
component and a compressional component.
Mode Conversion of an incident P-Wave
More technically speaking, if q > 0°, an incident P-wave will produce
both P and SV reflected and transmitted waves. This is called mode
conversion.
Reflected
Incident SV-wave = RS(q1)
P-wave
Reflected
1 P-wave = RP(q1)

q1
q1
VP1 , VS1 , r1

VP2 , VS2 , r2
q2
2 Transmitted
P-wave = TP(q1)
Transmitted
SV-wave = TS(q1) 11
The Zoeppritz Equations (1919)

 Karl 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.
1
  sin q1  cos 1 sin q 2 cos 2 
 RP (q1 )  cos q  sin 1 cos q 2  sin 2   sin q1 
 R (q )   1   cos q 
 S 1    sin 2q VP1 r 2VS 22VP1 r 2VS 2VP1   1 
cos 21 sin 2q 2 cos 2
 TP (q1 )   1
VS 1 r1VS12VP 2 r1VS12
2
 sin 2q1 
   r 2VP 2 r 2VS 2
  
T (q
 S 1   cos 21
) VS 1
sin 21 cos 22  sin 22   cos 2 1
 VP1 r1VP1 r1VP1 

 These equations should be used for modeling, but for

analysis we usually used the linearized equations
developed by Aki and Richards.
12
The Aki-Richards equation

 The Aki-Richards equation is a linearized form of the

Zoeppritz equations which is written:

R(q )  aRVP  bRVS  cRD ,

 VP  VS r
where : RVP  , RVS  , RD  ,
2VP 2VS 2r
2
 VS 
a  1  tan q , b  8K sin q , c  1  4 K sin q , and K  
2 2 2
 .
 VP 
 The Aki-Richards equation says that the reflectivity at angle
q is the weighted sum of the VP, VS and density reflectivities.
 Understanding Aki-Richards
To understand the Aki-Richards equation, let us look at a picked
event at a given time on the 3 trace angle gather shown below:

Constant Angle Each pick at time t and angle q is equal to

0o 15o 30o the Aki-Richards reflectivity at that point
600 ms
(after convolution with an angle-dependent
t Picks wavelet) given by the sum of the three
weighted reflectivities. If we assume that at
time t, (VS/VP)2= 0.25, we see that:
700 ms
 VP r
RP (0 o ) 
2VP
0
2r

Note : sin 0 o  tan 0 o  0 
 VP  VS r
RP (30 o )  1.333  0.500  0.750
2VP 2VS 2r
Note : sin 2

30 o  0.25 and tan 2 30 o  0.333
14
The Fatti et al. Equation
 To show the connection between the pre- and post-stack
formulations more clearly, Fatti et al. (1994) re-formulated the
Aki-Richards equation as:

RP (q )  aRAI  bRSI  c' RD ,

AI
where RAI   RVP  RD , AI  rVP ,
2 AI
SI
RSI   RVS  RD , SI  rVS ,
2SI

and c'  4K sin 2 q  tan 2 q .

 Notice that RP(0) = RAI, equal to the zero-angle model.
15
Smith and Gidlow

 Fatti et al. (1994) is a refinement of the original work of

Smith and Gidlow (1987).
 The key difference between the two papers is the Smith and
Gidlow use the original Aki-Richards equation and absorb
density into VP using Gardner’s equation.
 Both papers also define the Poisson’s Ratio reflectivity Rs
and the fluid factor F (which was derived from Castagna’s
mudrock line) as:
s
Rs   RAI  RSI , and
2s
F  RAI  gRSI , where g  1.16(VS / VP )
The Mudrock Line

In non-mathematical
terms, Fatti and
Smith define F as

VP (km/sec)
the difference away
from the VP versus VS
F
line that defines wet
sands and shales.
These differences
should indicate fluid
anomalies.

VS (km/sec)

Modified from Castagna et al, (1985)

17
The Intercept/Gradient method

 The most common approach to AVO is the Intercept/Gradient

method, which involves re-arranging the Aki-Richards
equation to:

RP (q )  RAI  G sin q  RVP sin q tan q , where :

2 2 2

G  RVP  8KRVS  4 KRD  the gradient.

 This is again a weighted reflectivity equation with weights
of a = 1, b = sin2q, c = sin2q tan2q.
 The three reflectivities are usually called A, B, and C (or:
intercept, gradient and curvature) but this obscures the
fact that only G is a new reflectivity compared with the
previous methods.
Wet and Gas Models
Let us now see how to get from the geology to the seismic
using the second two forms of the Aki-Richards equation. We
will do this by using the two models shown below. Model A
consists of a wet, or brine, sand, and Model B consists of a
gas-saturated sand.

VP1,VS1, r1 VP1,VS1, r1

VP2,VS2, r2 VP2,VS2, r2

(a) Wet model (b) Gas model

19
Model Values

In the section on rock physics, we computed values for wet and

gas sands using the Biot-Gassmann equations. Recall that the
computed values were:

Wet: VP2 = 2500 m/s, VS2= 1250 m/s, r2 = 2.11 g/cc, s2 = 0.33

Gas: VP2 = 2000 m/s, VS2 = 1310 m/s, r2 = 1.95 g/cc, s2 = 0.12

Values for a typical shale are:

Shale: VP1 = 2250 m/s, VS1 = 1125 m/s, r1 = 2.0 g/cc, s1 = 0.33

The next four figures will show the results of modeling with the
Intercept/Gradient and Fatti equations.

20
 Zoeppritz vs the ABC Method – Gas Sand

This figure on the right

shows the AVO curves AB method
computed using the
Zoeppritz equations
and the two and three
term ABC equation, for
the gas sand model. ABC method
Notice the strong
deviation for the two
term versus three term Zoeppritz
sum.

August 2014 21
 Zoeppritz vs the ABC Method – Wet Sand

This figure on the

right shows the AVO
curves computed
using the Zoeppritz
equations and the ABC method
two and three term
ABC equation, for
the wet sand model. Zoeppritz

Again, notice the

strong deviation for
the two term versus
three term sum. AB method

August 2014 22
 Zoeppritz vs the Fatti Method – Gas Sand

This figure on the

right shows the AVO
curves computed
using the Zoeppritz
Zoeppritz
equations and the
two and three term
Fatti equation, for Fatti method,
the gas sand model.
two term
Notice there is less
deviation between
Fatti method,
the two term and three term
three term sum than
with the ABC
approach.

August 2014 23
 Zoeppritz vs the Fatti Method – Wet Sand

This figure on the

right shows the AVO
curves computed
using the Zoeppritz
equations and the two Zoeppritz
and three term Fatti
equation, for the wet Fatti method,
sand model. two term
As in the gas sand
case, there is less
deviation between the
two term and three Fatti method,
term sum than with three term
the ABC approach.

August 2014 24
AVO Class 3
The model curves just shown for the gas case were for a Class 3 AVO
anomaly, of which the Colony sand we are considering is an example.

Here is a set of modeled well logs for a Class 3 sand, with the computed
synthetic (using all three terms in the A-B-C equation) on the right. Note that
the P-wave velocity and density (and thus the P-impedance) decrease in the
gas sand, the S-wave velocity increases, and the VP/VS ratio decreases. The
synthetic shows increasing amplitude versus offset for both the overlying
trough and underlying peak. The far angle is 45o.

25
AVO Class 2

There are several other AVO classes, of which Class 1 and 2 are the most
often seen.

Here is a Class 2 example well log, where the P-impedance change is very
small and the amplitude change on the synthetic is very large. Note that the
VP/VS ratio is still decreasing to 1.5, as expected in a clean gas sand (recall
the discussion in the rock physics section).

26
AVO Class 1

Here is a Class 1 well log example, where the P-impedance change is now
an increase and the amplitudes on the synthetic are seen to change
polarity. Again, the VP/VS ratio is still decreasing to 1.5, as expected in a
clean gas sand.

The figure on the next slide compares all three classes and also shows the
picked amplitudes.

27
 The three AVO Classes
A comparison of the
synthetic seismic
gathers from the three
classes, where the top
and base of the gas
sand have been picked. Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
The picks are shown at time (ms)
the bottom of the
display and clearly
show the AVO effects.

These synthetics were

created at the same
time, but in practice
amplitude

class 1 sands are deep,

class 2 sands are at
medium depths and
class 3 sands are at
shallow depths.
28
 Multi-Layer AVO Modeling
 We are usually interested in modeling a lot more than one
or two layers.
 Multi-layer modeling 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, as shown below:

29
 Multi-Layer AVO Modeling

You must then decide what effects are to be included in the model:
primaries only, converted waves, multiples, or some combination of these.

The full solution is with a technique called Wave Equation modeling.

30
 AVO Modeling in our gas sand
Poisson’s
P-wave Density S-wave Synthetic Offset Stack
ratio

Based on AVO theory and the rock physics of the reservoir, we can perform
AVO modeling of our earlier example, as shown above. Note that the model
result is a fairly good match to the offset stack.
31
 The angle gather

q1 angle qN Using the P-wave velocity, we can

transform the offset gathers shown
earlier to angle gathers. There are
two ways in which AVO methods
extract reflectivity from angle gathers.

We can perform a least-squares fit to

the reflectivity at a given time for all
time

angles.

Or we can extract the reflectivity

function at a single angle q.
Estimating RAI and RSI
Angle
To estimate the reflectivities 1 N
in the Fatti method, the 600
amplitudes at each time t in t
an N-trace angle gather are Time
(ms) 650
picked as shown here.
Generalized inverse of
weight matrix
We can solve for the  RAI  1  RP (q1 ) 
reflectivities at each time  R    weight    
 SI  matrix   
sample using least-squares:
 RD     RP (q N )
Reflectivities Observations 33
Smith and Gidlow’s results
Rs section F section
Here are the
Rs and F
sections from
an offshore
field in South
Africa. Note
that the fluid
factor F
shows the fluid
anomaly the
best.

Smith and Gidlow

(1987)
Fatti et al.’s results

Seismic Amplitude Map F Map

Fatti et al. (1994)

A comparison of a seismic amplitude map and a fluid factor
map for a gas sand play. Note the correlation of high F
values with the gas wells.
The Intercept/Gradient method
For the intercept/gradient
method, we can visualize the fit
like this:
Offset
+RAI
+G

sin2q

Time
-G
-RAI

Regression curves are

calculated to give RAI and G
values for each time sample.
36
The Intercept/Gradient method

The result of this

calculation is to Intercept: RAI
produce 2 basic
attribute volumes

Gradient: G

37
Intercept/Gradient combinations
The AVO product shows a positive response at the top and base of the reservoir:

The AVO difference shows pseudo-shear reflectivity:

Top

The AVO sum shows pseudo-Poisson’s ratio:

Top
Base

Base
Top

Base

38
Intercept / Gradient Cross-Plots
Here is the cross-plot of Gradient
and Intercept zones, where:
- Red = Top of Gas
- Yellow = Base of Gas
- Blue = Hard streak
- Ellipse = Mudrock trend
Below, the zones are plotted back
on the seismic section.

39
Impedance Methods

 The second group of AVO methods, impedance methods,

are based on the inversion of the reflectivity estimates to
give impedance.
 The simplest set of methods use the reflectivity estimates
from the Fatti et al. equation to invert for acoustic and
shear impedance, and possibly density. That is:

RAI  AI  rVP (Acoustic Impedance)

RSI  SI  rVS (Shear Impedance)
RD  r (Density)
 The inversion can be done independently (separately for
each term) or using simultaneous inversion.
40
 Seismic inversion
Seismic Inversion reverses the forward procedure:

Inverse
Wavelet

Impedance Reflectivity Seismic

In principle, inversion is done as shown above, but in practice,

the procedure is as shown in the next slide. 41
 Model-based inversion
(1) Optimally process the seismic data (2) Build model from picks and impedances

S=W*RSI
AI M=SI=rrV
M=AI= VSP

(3) Iteratively update In

Inacoustic
shear impedance
impedance
model until output
synthetic matches AI=rrV
SI= VSP inversion
inversionthe
theseismic,
seismic,
model
modeland
andoutput
outputare
are
original seismic data. as
asshown
shownhere.
here.
 P-wave and S-wave Inversions
AI = rVP
Here is the P-wave
inversion result.
The low acoustic
impedance below
Horizon 2
represents the gas
sand.

Here is the S-wave SI = rVS

inversion result.
The gas sand is
now an increase,
since S-waves
respond to the
matrix. 43
Vp/Vs Ratio

AI/SI = rVP/rVS = VP/VS

Here is the ratio of P to S impedance, which is equal to the

ratio of P to S velocity. Notice the low ratio at the gas sand.
44
Cross-plot

When we crossplot
VP/VS ratio against P-
impedance, the zone of
low values of each
parameter should
correspond to gas, as
shown.

This zone should

correspond to gas:
45
Lambda-mu-rho (LMR)

 Other AVO impedance methods combine the P and S-

impedance volumes in new ways.
 For example, Goodway et al. (1997) proposed the Lambda-
Mu-Rho (LMR) method which utilized the Lamé parameters
 and , and density, where it can be shown that:
r  SI 2
r  AI 2  2SI 2
 The interpretation of this approach is that r gives the
matrix value of the rock and r the fluid value.
 Russell et al. (2003) derived a more general approach
based on Biot-Gassmann theory in which the factor 2 is
replaced with c = (VP/VS)dry2, allowing empirical calibration to
find a best value. 46
r and r example
r (lambda-rho)

The r and r
sections derived
from the AI and SI
inverted sections
shown earlier.

r (mu-rho)

Note the decrease

in r and the
increase in r at
the gas sand zone.

47
 Colony Sand – cross-plot
r (mu-rho)

r (lambda-rho)

A cross-plot of the r and r sections, with the corresponding

seismic section. Two zones are shown, where red = gas (low
r values) and blue = non-gas. 48
Near and far trace stacks
Near angle (0-15o) stack
Far angle (15-30o) stack
Last updated: June 2008
One AVO reflectivity
method we did not
discuss was near
and far angle stacks,
as shown here.
Note the amplitude
of the “bright-spot”
event is stronger on
the far-angle stack
than it is on the
near-angle stack.
But what does this
mean? 49
 Elastic Impedance

 The equivalent impedance method to near and far angle

stacking is Elastic Impedance, or EI (Connolly,1999).
 To understand EI, recall the Aki-Richards equation:
 VP  VS r
RP (q )  a b c , where :
2VP 2VS 2r
a  1  tan 2 q , b  8K sin 2 q , and c  1  2 K sin 2 q .
 Connolly postulated that associated with this equation is
an underlying elastic impedance, written (where I have re-
named the reflectivity to match the EI concept):
1 EI (q ) 1
REI (q )   ln EI (q ), where EI (q )  VPaVSb r c
2 EI (q ) 2
50
 The elastic impedance model

Analogous to AI, the model that forms the basis for EI is:

Wavelet

Elastic Aki-Richards Seismic trace

Impedance (EI) reflectivity at q at angle q
= VPaVSbrc RP(q) S(q)
51
The elastic impedance model
Elastic impedance inversion reverses the forward EI model:

Inverse
Wavelet
Wavelet

Elastic Aki-Richards Seismic trace

Impedance (EI) reflectivity at q at angle q
= VPaVSbrc RP(q) S(q)
52
 Elastic impedance inversion
(1) Optimally process the seismic data (2) Build model from picks and impedances

SEI(q)=W(q)*REI(q) M  EI (q )  VPaVSb r c

In elastic impedance
(3) Iteratively update
inversion the seismic,
EI (q )  VPaVSb r c
model until output
synthetic matches model and output are
original seismic data. as shown here.
Gas sand case study

EI(7.5o)
Here is the
comparison
between the EI
inversions of the
near-angle stack
and far-angle
stack.
EI(22.5o)
Notice the
decrease in the
elastic impedance
value on the far-
angle stack.
54
 EI from logs
EI_Near EI_Far

(a) (b)

The figures show the (a) crossplot between near and far EI logs, and (b) the
zones on the logs. Notice the clear indication of the gas sand (yellow).
 Gas sand case study
This figure shows a crossplot
between EI at 7.5o and EI at 22.5o.
The background trend is the grey
ellipse, and the anomaly is the yellow
EI at 22.5o

ellipse. As shown below, the yellow

zone corresponds to the known gas
sand.

EI at 7.5o

56
Extended Elastic Impedance (EEI)

 Since EI values do not scale correctly for different angles,

Whitcombe et al. (2002) created a new method (EEI) that
did scale correctly, and was extended to predict other rock
physics and fluid parameters (using the c factor).

 I will not go into

the details today,
but here is an
example of
predicting Vp/Vs
ratio using our
previous example,
where the units are
Elastic Impedance.
57
Poisson Impedance (PI)

 Finally, Quackenbush et al. (2006) proposed the Poisson

Impedance (PI) attribute, given by:

PI  AI  cSI , where c  2
 The authors show that Poisson Impedance is like a
scaled version of the product of Poisson’s ratio and
density.
 We can think of this method as an impedance version of
Poisson Reflectivity, defined by Smith and Gidlow.
 Also note the relationship with r:

   
r  AI 2  2SI 2  AI  2SI AI  2SI  PI  2 2SI PI 
58
Poisson Impedance (PI)

Quackenbush et al. (2006)

Above, notice that PI can be thought
of as a rotation in AI/SI space.

On the right is a comparison of PI

with other impedance attributes. Quackenbush et al. (2006) 59
Anisotropic effects

 Let us finish with a discussion of anisotropic effects.

 In an isotropic earth P and S-wave velocities are
independent of angle.
 In an anisotropic earth, velocities and other parameters
are dependent on direction, as shown below.
VP(90o)

VP(45o)

VP(0o)

 We will consider the cases of Transverse Isotropy with a

vertical symmetry axis, or VTI, and Transverse Isotropy
with a Horizontal symmetry axis, or HTI.
60
VTI – AVO Effects

The VTI model consists of horizontal

layers and can be extrinsic, caused by Class 1
fine layering of the earth, or intrinsic,
caused by particle alignment as in a
Class 2
shale. It can be modeled as follows,
where  and  are the change in
Thomsen’s first two anisotropic
parameters across a boundary:

   2
RVTI (q )  A   B   sin q Class 3
 2 
   2
  C   sin q tan 2
q
 2   = -0.15 Isotropic
 = -0.3 --- Anisotropic
A VTI shale over an isotropic wet sand
can create the appearance of a gas Adapted from Blangy (1997)
sandstone anomaly, as shown here: 61
Anisotropic AVO Synthetics

(a) Isotropic (b) Anisotropic (a) – (b)

In this display, the synthetic responses for a shallow gas sand in

Alberta are shown. Note the difference due to anisotropy.
62
HTI effects on AVO

Next, we will discuss AVO

and HTI anisotropy, as
shown in the figure on the
left. This shows a set of
fractures, with the
symmetry axis orthogonal
to the fractures, and the
isotropy plane parallel to
the fractures.

In addition to the raypath angle q, we

q
now introduce an azimuth angle ,
which is defined with respect to the
symmetry-axis plane. Note that the
azimuth angle  is equal to 0 degrees
along the symmetry-axis plane and From Ruger, Geophysics, May-June 1998
90 degrees along the isotropy plane.
63
Modeling HTI

HTI anisotropy can be modeled with

the following equation, where  is
Thomsen’s third anisotropic Isotropy plane:
parameter and (V) indicates with
respect to vertical. When  = 0, along
the isotropy plane, we get the
isotropic equation, as expected:

 
RHTI  A  B  BHTI cos 2  sin 2 q Symmetry-axis
 
  C  C HTI cos 2  sin 2 q tan 2 q plane:

where :

1   VS 
2

BHTI    8   ,
(V )

2  VP   The reflection coefficients for a


model where only  changes, as
C HTI
1
 
  (V ) sin 2    (V ) .
2
a function of incidence angle for
0, 30, 60 and 90 degrees azimuth.
64
Fracture Interpretation

AVO Fracture Analysis

Orientation
measures fracture
of Fault
volume from differences
in AVO response with
Azimuth. Fracture strike
is determined where this
difference is a maximum.
Oil Well

Edge
Direction of Line is Effects
estimated fault strike,
Fractures curling
length of line and color into the fault
is estimated crack Fractures abutting
Interpreted Faults the fault
density

Courtesy: Dave Gray, CGGVeritas65

Summary of AVO methods

AVO
Methods

Seismic Impedance
Reflectivity Methods

Near and Intercept Acoustic Elastic

Far Stack Gradient and Shear Impedance
Impedance
Fluid EEI
Factor
LMR PI
Seismic reflectivity methods

 The advantages of AVO methods based on seismic

reflectivity are that:
 They are robust and easy to derive.
 They allow the data to “speak for itself” since
their interpretation relies on detecting deviations
away from a background trend.
 The disadvantage of AVO methods based on
seismic reflectivity is that:
 They do not give geologists what they really
want, which is some physical parameter with a
trend.

67
Impedance methods

 The advantages of AVO and inversion methods based on

impedance are that:
 They give geologists what they want: a physical
parameter with a trend.
 They can be transformed to reservoir properties.
 The disadvantages of AVO and inversion methods based
on impedance are as follows:
 The original data has to be transformed from its
natural reflectivity form.
 Care must be taken to derive a good quality
inversion.

68
Conclusions
 This presentation has been a brief overview of the various
methods used in Amplitude Variations with Offset (AVO)
and pre-stack inversion.
 I showed that all of these methods are based of the Aki-
Richards approximation to the Zoeppritz equations.
 I then subdivided these techniques as either:
 (1) seismic reflectivity or (2) impedance methods.
 Seismic reflectivity methods are straightforward to derive
and to interpret but do not give us physical parameters.
 Impedance methods are more difficult to derive but give us
physical parameters including reservoir properties.
 In the final analysis, there is no single “best” method for
solving all your exploration objectives. Pick the method that
works best in your area.