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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 3
Tabl e of Cont ent s – Par t 2
Theory : AVO Inversion  Elastic Impedance
Theory : AVO Inversion  LambdaMuRho
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 4
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 5
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?
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 6
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 7
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 8
“ 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 1970’s would have
based the well on the fact that there is a “bright spot” visible on the seismic
section, as indicated above.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 9
What i s a “ Br i ght Spot ” ?
To understand “bright spots”, recall the definition of the zerooffset
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, ρ, and Pwave velocity, V, is called acoustic impedance.
1 1 2 2
1 1 2 2
0
V V
V V
R
ρ ρ
ρ ρ
+
−
=
Seismic
raypath
Interface at
depth = d
ρ
1
V
1
ρ
2
V
2
t
Reflection at time
t = 2d/V
1
Geology Geology Seismic Seismic
Surface
Seismic
Wavelet
Shale
Gas Sand
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 10
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
ρ = 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 11
The AVO Met hod
Unfortunately, “bright
spots” can be caused
by lithologic
variations as well as
gas sands. This lead
geophysicists in the
1980’s to start
looking at prestack
seismic data. The
amplitude increase
with offset shown
here was predicted
by Ostrander (Plane
wave reflection
coefficients for gas
sands at nonnormal
anglesofincidence:
Geophysics, 1984) for
certain gas sands
(Class 3, as we will
discuss later).
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 12
What c auses t he AVO Ef f ec t ?
θ
1
θ
2
θ
3
Surface
Reflector
ρ
1
V
P1
V
S1
ρ
2
V
P2
V
S2
As shown above, the traces in a seismic gather reflect from the subsurface
at increasing angles of incidence θ. The first order approximation to the
reflection coefficients as a function of angle is given by adding a second
term to the zerooffset reflection coefficient:
θ θ
2
0
sin ) ( B R R + =
B is a gradient term which produces the AVO effect. It is dependent on
changes in density, ρ, Pwave velocity, V
P
, and Swave velocity, V
S
.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 13
Why i s Sw ave Vel oc i t y I mpor t ant ?
As just shown, the
gradient term is
dependent on density, P
and Swave velocity. The
reason that Swave
velocity has such an
impact is shown on the
left, where P and Swave
velocity are shown as a
function of gas
saturation in the
reservoir. Note that P
wave velocity drops
dramatically, but Swave
velocity only increases
slightly (why?). This will
be discussed thoroughly
in the next chapter.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 14
AVO Model i ng
Pwave
Density
Swave
Poisson’s
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 Poisson’s ratio is a
function of Vp/Vs ratio and will be discussed in the next chapter.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 15
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 16
Cr ossPl 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
crossplotting the zerooffset 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).
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 17
AVO I nver si on
Near Inversion
A very important new
tool combines
Inversion with AVO
Analysis to enhance
the reservoir
discrimination.
Far Inversion
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 18
Summar y of AVO Met hodol ogy
Input NMOcorrected Gathers
Recon
Methods
Inversion Modeling
Intercept
Gradient
Attributes
Partial
Stacks
Zoeppritz
Wave
Equation
Cross
Plots
LMR
Elastic
Impedance
Simultaneous
Inversion
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 19
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 21
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 Swave log,
using Castagna’s
equation and Biot
Gassmann analysis.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 22
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 23
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 24
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 HampsonRussell
software programs that your company owns, as well as to relaunch 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 25
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 prestack
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 26
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 >>.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 27
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 28
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 29
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 30
This will cause a
display window to
appear, showing
you all the logs
and tops in that
well:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 31
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 32
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 Pwave
log in the same
track. Click on
Apply.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 33
The three logs
are now
displayed in a
single track at
three different
scales and in
three different
colors.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 34
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 35
Click on Ok on the
Parameter menu,
and the Log
Display window is
redrawn as
shown:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 36
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 37
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 38
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 39
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 40
Fill in the table as shown:
This check shot contains two pairs of values consisting of a depth and a twoway
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 41
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 42
To apply the check shot correction, click on
Option / Check Shot Correction:
The Check Shot Parameters menu and the Check Shot Analysis window appear:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 43
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 Pwave_chk.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 44
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 45
This will initiate a blank AVO program window, as shown below.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 46
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 47
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 48
Cr eat i ng t he SWave Log
On the next series of menus, we will accept the defaults for creating the shear
wave log. We will use Castagna’s equation:
Click Next >>
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 49
We will apply the equation to the check shot corrected sonic log and call the
output log Swave_Castagna. Change the name as shown below:
Click Next >>
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 50
We will use the default Castagna coefficients:
Finally, click OK.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 51
The AVO Modeling window now shows the created Swave log and the calculated
Poisson’s ratio.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 52
Fl ui d Repl ac ement Model i ng (FRM)
The Swave log calculated so far, has used the Castagna mudrock equation. This
is only appropriate for wet sands and shales. This means that the Swave velocity
calculated within the target sand layer has the wrong value.
We will now use the BiotGassmann equation to replace the calculated Swave
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 53
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 54
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 >>.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 55
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 56
The BatzleWang 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
BatzleWang menu:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 57
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 58
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 59
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 Swave log (S
wave_Castagna_FRM)
appropriate to these
parameters.
To see the resulting
calculations, click on Apply.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 60
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 61
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 62
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 depthtime
curve from the original log. The
answer is Yes, because we have
done check shot correction and
we do not wish to modify the
depthtime relationship, even if
the Pwave log had changed.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 63
When the new window is plotted, notice the modification in both the Swave
velocity and Poisson’s Ratio logs.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 64
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 66
P and SWaves
(b) (c) (a)
The above diagram shows a schematic diagram of (a) P, or compressional,
waves, (b) SH, or horizontal shearwaves, and (c) SV, or vertical shear
waves, where the Swaves have been generated using a shear wave source.
(Ensley, 1984)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 67
Fr om P and SWaves t o AVO
In the previous slide, the P and SHwaves were generated at the surface
by P and Swave sources. We could use the differences between the
recorded P and S reflections to discriminate gasfilled sands from wet
sands, using the properties discussed in the last section.
Unfortunately, most seismic surveys record Pwave data only, and S
wave data is not available.
However, as shown in the next slide, if we record Pwave data at various
offsets (as we always do), modeconversion from P to SV always occurs.
This means that AVO data can be used as a replacement for Swave data.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 68
Mode Conver si on of an I nc i dent PWave
If θ > 0°, an incident Pwave will produce both P and SV reflected and
transmitted waves. This is called mode conversion.
Reflected
Pwave = R
P
Reflected
SVwave
Transmitted
Pwave
Incident
Pwave
Transmitted
SVwave
V
P1
, V
S1
, ρ
1
V
P2
, V
S2
, ρ
2
θ
i
φ
r
θ
r
θ
t
φ
t
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 69
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 Swaves using twocomponent receivers (in the X and
Z direction).
Interpret the amplitudes of the Pwaves as a function of offset, or angle,
which contain implied information about the Swaves. 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 Swave type information from
Pwave reflections at different offsets.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 70
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
θ φ θ φ
θ φ θ φ
ρ ρ
θ φ θ φ
ρ ρ
ρ ρ
φ φ φ φ
ρ ρ
− −
⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
− −
⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
=
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
− −
⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎣ ⎦
1
1
1
1
1
sin
cos
sin2
cos2
θ
θ
θ
φ
−
⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
⎥
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 71
The Ak i Ri c har ds Equat i on
The AkiRichards 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
∆
+
∆
+
∆
=
ρ
ρ
θ) (
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
θ θ
θ
ρ ρ ρ
ρ ρ
ρ
+
=
− = ∆
+
=
− = ∆
+
=
− = ∆
+
=
, sin 4
, sin 2 5 . 0
,
cos 2
1
2
2
2
2
2
θ
θ
θ
⎟
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜
⎜
⎝
⎛
− =
⎥
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎢
⎣
⎡
⎟
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜
⎜
⎝
⎛
− =
=
P
S
P
S
V
V
c
V
V
b
a
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 72
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:
θ θ θ θ
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
∆
ρ
ρ ∆ ∆ ∆
ρ
ρ ∆ ∆
=
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡
−
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡
− =
⎥
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎢
⎣
⎡
+ =
where:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 73
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 Pwave velocity.
The second term, B, is a gradient multiplied by sin
2
θ, and has the biggest
effect on amplitude change as a function of offset. It is dependent on
changes in Pwave velocity, Swave velocity, and density.
The third term, C, is called the curvature term and is dependent on
changes in Pwave velocity only. It is multiplied by tan
2
θ*sin
2
θ and thus
contributes very little to the amplitude effects below angles of 30
degrees. (Note: Prove to yourself that tan
2
θ*sin
2
θ = tan
2
θ  sin
2
θ, since
the equation is often written in this form.)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 74
Ost r ander ’s Paper
Ostrander (1984) was one of the first to write about AVO effects in gas
sands and proposed a simple twolayer model which encased a low
impedance, low Poisson’s ratio sand, between two higher impedance,
higher Poisson’s ratio shales.
This model is shown in the next slide.
Ostrander’s 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 75
Ost r ander ’s Model
Notice that the model consists of a low acoustic impedance and
Poisson’s ratio gas sand encased between two shales.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 76
Synt het i c f r om Ost r ander ’s Model
(a) Well log responses for the model. (b) Synthetic seismic.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 77
AVO Cur ves f r om Ost r ander ’s Model
(a) Response from top of model.
Note that the transmitted Pwave
amplitude is shifted.
(b) Response from base of
model. Note that the transmitted
Pwave amplitude is shifted.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 78
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 gassaturated sand.
(a) Wet model (b) Gas model
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 79
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 BiotGassmann equations:
Wet: V
P
= 2500 m/s, V
S
= 1250 m/s, ρ = 2.11 g/cc, σ = 0.33
Gas: V
P
= 2000 m/s, V
S
= 1310 m/s, ρ = 1.95 g/cc, σ = 0.12
Shale: V
P
= 2250 m/s, V
S
= 1125 m/s, ρ = 2.0 g/cc, σ = 0.33
We will consider the AVO effects with and without the third term in the
AkiRichards equation.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 80
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 AkiRichards’
equation, and then
only the first two terms
(A and B). Note the
deviation of the two
above 25 degrees.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 81
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 AkiRichards’
equation, and then
only the first two
terms (A and B). Note
the deviation of the
two above 25 degrees.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 82
Shuey’s Equat i on
Shuey (1985) rewrote the AkiRichards equation using V
P
, ρ, and σ. Only
the gradient is different than in the AkiRichards expression:
2
) 1 ( 1
2 1
) D 1 ( 2 D A B
σ
σ ∆
σ
σ
−
+
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡
−
−
+ − =
1 2
1 2
P P
P P
2
,
/ V / V
V / V
D : where
σ σ σ ∆
σ σ
σ
ρ ρ ∆ ∆
∆
− =
+
=
+
=
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 83
Gas Sand Model
AkiRichards 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
AR Top Shuey Top
AR Base Shuey Base
This figure shows a
comparison between
the two forms of the
AkiRichards equation
for the gas sand
considered earlier.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 84
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 Poisson’s ratio change as the key
parameter.
The next figure shows four singlelayer boundaries consisting of all
combinations of increasing and decreasing acoustic impedance and
Poisson’s ratio. Note that the sign of the gradient is generally the same
as the sign of ∆σ. (This is not true in the case of a Class 4 sand, as we
shall see in a later theory section.)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 85
Four Si ngl e Layer Model s
(a) ρ, V
P
, and σ all increase. (b) ρ, V
P
increase, σ decreases.
(c) ρ, V
P
decrease, σ increases. (d) ρ, V
P
, and σ all decrease.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 86
Mul t i Layer AVO Model i ng
Multilayer modeling in the AVO program consists first of creating a stack
of N layers, generally using well logs, and defining the thickness, Pwave
velocity, Swave velocity, and density for each layer.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 87
You must then decide what effects are to be included in the model:
primaries only, converted waves, multiples, or some combination of these.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 88
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.
AkiRichards – Primaries only using the AkiRichards 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 89
The Oi l Sand Model
Simmons and Backus used the thin bed oil sand model shown above.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 90
The Possi bl e Model ed Event s
Simmons and Backus (1994)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 91
Responses t o Var i ous Al gor i t hms
(A) Primariesonly Zoeppritz, (B) + single leg shear, (C) + doubleleg shear,
(D) + multiples, (E) Wave equation solution, (F) Linearized approximation.
Primaries only Zoeppritz
+ single leg shear
+ double leg shear
+ multiples
Wave equation
AkiRichards
Simmons and Backus (1994)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 92
Logs f r om a Col ony Ex ampl e
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 93
Model s f r om a Col ony Ex ampl e
(a) Elastic Wave (b) Zoeppritz (c) AkiRichards
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 94
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 95
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 Swave 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 96
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 ε, δ, and γ are called Thomsen’s 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 θ δ θ θ ε θ = + +
2
2 2
2
(0 )
( ) (0 ) 1 ( )sin cos
(0 )
o
o
P
SV SV
o
SV
V
V V
V
θ ε δ θ θ
⎡ ⎤
= + −
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
( )
2
( ) (0 ) 1 sin
o
SH SH
V V θ γ θ = +
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 97
Thomsen’s Par amet er s
Thomsen’s 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
−
= γ
) 0 ( V
) 0 ( V ) 90 ( V
o
P
o
P
o
P
−
= ε
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡
−
= + ⇒ −
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡
−
=
) 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
ε δ ε δ
In the next slide, we will look at V
P
and V
SV
as a function of angle for
different values of δ and ε. (As mentioned, V
SH
will not be used in AVO).
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 98
Ani sot r opi c P and SV VTI Vel oc i t i es
(a) VTI medium
with δ = 0.2
and ε = 0.2.
(b) VTI medium
with δ = 0.1
and ε = 0.2.
(c) VTI medium
with δ = 0.2
and ε = 0.1.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 99
Sol vi ng f or ε and δ 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
=
−
= ε
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
= − = −
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡
−
= ε δ
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 100
AVO and Tr ansver se I sot r opy
Thomsen (1993) showed that a transversely isotropic term could be
added to the AkiRichards equation using his weak anisotropic
parameters δ and ε, where R
an
(θ ) is the anisotropic AVO response and
R
is
(θ ) is the isotropic AVO response. Ruger (2002) gave the following
corrected form of Thomsen’s 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
δ ε
θ θ θ θ θ
δ δ δ ε ε ε
δ ε
θ θ θ θ
∆ ∆
= + +
∆ = − ∆ = −
∆ ∆
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
= + + + +
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 101
Typi c al Val ues f or Del t a, Epsi l on and
Gamma
Typical values for δ, ε, and γ 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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 102
AVO and Tr ansver se I sot r opy
Blangy (1997) computed the effect of anisotropy on models of the three
RutherfordWilliams type. Blangy’s models are shown below, but since
he used Thomsen’s formulation for the linearized approximation, his
figures have been recomputed in the next slide for the wet and gas cases
using Ruger’s formulation. The slide after that shows our example.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 103
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 ∆δ
and ∆ε is to increase the
AVO effects.
Isotropic
 Anisotropic
∆δ = 0.15
∆ε = 0.3
(b) Wet sandstone case:
Note that the effect of ∆δ and
∆ε is to create apparent AVO
decreases.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 104
Ani sot r opy Appl i ed t o Col ony Ex ampl e
Isotropic vs Anisotropic AVO
Gas Sand Top, ∆δ = 0.15, ∆ε = 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)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 105
Ani sot r opi c AVO Model Ex ampl e
In the above display, we have added simple δ and ε logs to the sonic
and density logs from the Colony gas sandstone play in Alberta. Notice
that only the gas sand is isotropic.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 106
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 107
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.
The Col ony Gas Sand
Cr eat i ng Synt het i c s
Exercise
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 109
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 SEGY File:
On the next menu, select the file gathers.sgy as shown below and click on Add >>
Then click on Next >>.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 110
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 111
When the scanning
completes, the Geometry
Grid page appears:
Click on Ok to accept the
default geometry.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 112
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 113
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 325335.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 114
Releasing the mouse button releases the bar and will show this display with the
Pwave 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 115
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 >>.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 116
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 117
Click on Next >> to get
the menu shown on the
right, which defines the
output format. Default
this menu and click on
Ok.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 118
The super gather
will now appear in
its own window, as
shown on the right.
Note that the signal
tonoise ratio of the
event at 630 ms has
been improved.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 119
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 120
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 121
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 122
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 123
The new window looks as shown below. Note that the supergather is now
displayed instead of the original raw gathers:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 124
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 125
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 126
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 zerophase.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 127
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 128
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 129
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 130
The scaled result should look like this:
AVO Anal ysi s on Sei smi c Dat a
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 132
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 AkiRichards 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 crossplotting.
Finally, we will discuss the use of the third term in the AkiRichards
equation to derive density attributes.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 133
The Tw oTer m Ak i Ri c har ds Equat i on
Intercept / gradient analysis is done with the twoterm AkiRichards
equation. Recall that:
θ θ
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
ρ
ρ ∆ ∆ ∆
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡
−
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡
− =
,
V
V
2
1
A
p
P
⎥
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎢
⎣
⎡
+ =
ρ
ρ ∆ ∆
or, using Shuey’s approximation:
.
/ V / V
V / V
D ,
) 1 ( 1
2 1
) D 1 ( 2 D A B
P P
P P
2
ρ ρ ∆ ∆
∆
σ
σ ∆
σ
σ
+
=
−
+
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡
−
−
+ − =
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 134
The Tw oTer 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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 135
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 136
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 137
Conversion from offset to angle can be done using one of these options:
(1) Straight ray assumption (constant velocity)
(2) Raytracing (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
=
− =
= =
=
= = θ
. traveltime total t
, velocity Interval V where
,
tV
XV
sin
: Parameter Ray ) 2 (
INT
2
RMS
INT
=
=
= θ
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 138
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 139
Real Dat a Ex ampl e
Now let’s 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 “supergather” 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 140
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 141
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).
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 142
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 143
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 144
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
θ
Time
The pick amplitudes are extracted at
all times, two of which are shown.
The AkiRichards equation predicts a
linear relationship between these
amplitudes and sin
2
θ.
Regression curves are then
calculated, to give A and B values for
each time sample.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 145
The result of
this calculation
is to produce 2
basic attribute
volumes
Intercept: A
Gradient: B
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 146
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 Poisson’s Ratio Change : A+B
(3) Shear Reflectivity : AB
(4) Fluid factor
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 147
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
θ
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 148
The AVO product shows a positive response at the top and base of the
reservoir:
Top
Base
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 149
Der i ved At t r i but es
Sc al ed Poi sson’s Rat i o Change : A+B
The second combination is derived from Shuey’s equation:
2
( ) sin R A B θ θ = +
1
2
P
p
V
A
V
ρ
ρ
⎡ ⎤
∆ ∆
= +
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
2
) 1 ( 1
2 1
) D 1 ( 2 D A B
σ
σ ∆
σ
σ
−
+
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡
−
−
+ − =
If we assume the background Poisson’s Ratio = σ = 1/3, then:
2
1 9
2(1 )
2 (2/3) 4
B A D D A
σ
σ
∆
⎡ ⎤
= − + + = ∆ −
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
9
4
A B σ + = ∆
The sum A+B is proportional to the
change in Poisson’s Ratio.
or:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 150
The AVO sum (A+B) shows a negative response at the top of the reservoir
(decrease in σ) and a positive response at the base (increase in σ):
Top
Base
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 151
Der i ved At t r i but es
Shear Ref l ec t i vi t y : AB
The third combination is derived from the Aki_Richards equation:
2
( ) sin R A B θ θ = +
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
ρ
ρ
ρ
ρ
⎡ ⎤
∆ ∆
= +
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ∆ ∆ ∆
= − −
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
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
ρ
ρ
ρ
ρ
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
∆ ∆ ∆
= − −
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
⎡ ⎤
∆ ∆
= − = = +
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
The difference AB is proportional to
the Shear Reflectivity.
( ) B A
2
1
R
S
− =
or:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 152
The AVO difference (AB) 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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 153
R
P
/ R
S
At t r i but es
An alternate form of the AkiRichards 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
θ
θ γ θ γ
ρ ρ
ρ ρ
= +
⎡ ⎤
= + = − =
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
∆ ∆ ∆ ∆
= + = +
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
This allows us to calculate R
P
and R
S
volumes from seismic data in
exactly the same way as A and B volumes.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 154
R
P
R
S
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 155
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 LambdaMuRho, which will be discussed in a
later section.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 156
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 Poisson’s ratio, the intercept is zero:
S P
V
1 2
2 2
V
−
−
=
σ
σ
This will be illustrated in the next few slides.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 157
ARCO’s original mudrock derivation
(Castagna et al, Geophysics, 1985)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 158
0
2000
4000
6000
1000 3000 4000 0
1000
3000
5000
V
P
(m/s)
V
S
(m/s)
Mudrock Line
Gas Sand
2000
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 159
0
2000
4000
6000
1000 3000 4000 0
1000
3000
5000
V
P
(m/s)
V
S
(m/s)
Mudrock Line
Gas Sand
σ = 1/3
or
V
P
/V
S
= 2
2000
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 160
V
P
(m/s)
0
2000
4000
6000
1000 3000 4000 0
1000
3000
5000
V
S
(m/s)
Mudrock Line
Gas Sand
σ = 1/3 or
V
P
/V
S
= 2
σ = 0.1 or
V
P
/V
S
= 1.5
2000
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 161
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 Castagna’s mudrock equation, which is assumed to be true for
nonhydrocarbon 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 Castagna’s
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 162
The AVO Fluid Factor shows strong deviation from Castagna’s equation at
both the top and base of the reservoir.
Top
Base
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 163
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
The Col ony Gas Sand
Cal c ul at i ng AVO At t r i but es
Exercise
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 165
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 CDPgathered 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 166
Click on Process / Angle Gather:
On the first page of the menu,
we will keep the default
parameters. Click on Next >>:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 167
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 168
Select the log to use for the velocities in the angle transform calculation:
Fill in the menu as shown above, and click on Ok.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 169
The previous menu will now look like this:
Click on Next >> and OK to produce the result.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 170
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 171
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 172
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 173
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 174
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 175
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 176
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 >>:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 177
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 178
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 179
Actually, the horizon display is obscuring the top of the
gand sand event. Let’s 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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 180
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 181
Another, very useful AVO attribute is the Scaled Poisson’s
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 182
The result will look like this:
Once again, we see the expected response for the gas sand – a negative
(orange) change in Poisson’s Ratio at the top and a positive (yellow) change at
the base of the layer.
Cr ossPl ot t i ng AVO At t r i but es
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 184
AVO Cr ossPl ot t i ng
AVO crossplotting involves plotting the intercept against the gradient and
identifying anomalies. The theory of crossplotting 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: Nearzero 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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 185
Rut her f or d/Wi l l i ams Cl assi f i c at i on
Shale
Shale
Sand
Acoustic Impedance
= ρV
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 186
Rut her f or d/Wi l l i ams Cl assi f i c at i on
These are the generic AVO curves at the top of the gas sand:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 187
An Ex ampl e of a Cl ass 1 Anomal y
(a) Data example.
(b) Model
example.
Rutherford and
Williams (1989)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 188
Angl e St ac k s over Cl ass 2 & 3 Sands
(a) Class 2 sand. (b) Class 3 sand.
Rutherford and
Williams (1989)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 189
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 190
Cl ass 2 Sands
(a) Full stack of a class 2
sand.
(b) FTS of a class 2 sand.
Ross and Kinman (1995)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 191
Cl ass 2p Sands
(a) Full stack of a class
2p sand.
(a) FTS  NTS of a class
2p sand.
Ross and Kinman (1995)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 192
Cl ass 4 Anomal i es
Castagna (1995) suggested that for a very large value of A, and a
small change in Poisson’s 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 Shuey’s
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 σ
σ
σ
= ∆ −
∆ = − = − =
∆ = − = − =
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 193
Here is Figure 7 from
Castagna et al (1998),
which illustrates the
concept of the Class 4
anomaly in more detail.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 194
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 195
I nt er c ept vs Gr adi ent Cr osspl ot
By using the AkiRichards equation, Gardner’s 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
ρ
ρ ∆ ∆ ∆
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡
−
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡
− =
⎥
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎢
⎣
⎡
+ =
ρ
ρ ∆ ∆
p
P
V
V
2
1
A
P
P
V
V
4
1
: Gardner
∆
ρ
ρ ∆
=
If we assume that V
P
= cV
S
, then we can derive the following relationship:
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡
− =
2
c
9
1 A
5
4
B
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 196
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 197
Mudrock lines on a crossplot for various V
P
/V
S
ratios (Castagna and Swan, 1998).
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 198
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 199
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 200
ARCO Ex ampl es of Cr ossPl ot t i ng
(a) Crossplot of well log derived A and B. (b) Crossplot 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)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 201
I nt er c ept / Gr adi ent Cr ossPl ot s
(a) Uninterpreted gas zone
(b) Interpreted gas zone
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 202
Sei smi c Di spl ay f r om A/B Cr ossPl ot s
(a) Before interpretation
(b) After interpretation
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 203
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 crossplots 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 204
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 205
In Polarization Analysis, we
calculate cross plots over small
sliding windows on a single
trace.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 206
θ
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 207
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 208
The Hodogr am
One way to display this result is to plot the calculated polarization vector
on a 3D display with time as the third axis. This is called a Hodogram.
A
B
time
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 209
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 210
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 211
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 AkiRichards
 This can be improved by estimating the third (C) term.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 212
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
offit, and displays the
Normalized Correlation, which
measures the goodnessoffit
on a scale of 0 to 1.
This correlation can be used
later to reject unreliable data.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 213
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 longoffset 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 214
Thr ee Ter m AVO
As mentioned previously, one problem in AVO and crossplot analysis is
that only the first two terms of the AkiRichards equation are usually
extracted from the CDP gathers. Recall that the full AkiRichards
equation, as shown below, has three terms:
θ θ θ θ
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
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡
= =
− − =
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡
+ = =
γ
∆
ρ
ρ ∆
γ
∆
γ
∆
ρ
ρ ∆ ∆
where:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 215
An alternate form of the AkiRichards 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
ρ
ρ
ρ
ρ
ρ
ρ
γ θ γ θ
θ γ θ
θ
∆
=
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡
∆
+
∆
=
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡
∆
+
∆
=
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡
= − =
− = + =
+ + =
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 leastsquares fitting technique with different
weighting coefficients.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 216
Densi t y Ter m
Both forms of the AkiRichards 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
ρ ρ
ρ ρ
⎡ ⎤
∆ ∆ ∆ ∆
− = + − =
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 217
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 218
3 Ter m Gr adi ent Anal ysi s
These displays show the results of fitting the AkiRichards 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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 219
Poi sson’s Rat i o Maps: 2 and 3 Ter ms
2 Term 3 Term
The Scaled
Poisson’s 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 3term
result to be more
reliable.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 220
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
.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 221
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 crossplotting technique.
We then discussed and showed examples of the AVO hodogram method.
Finally, we showed how to estimate three terms from the AkiRichards
equation and showed several examples of this approach.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 222
Appendi x
Hi l t er man’s Appr ox i mat i on
Hilterman rearranges Shuey’s equation in a slightly different way:
( )
θ σ θ
θ σ θ
θ σ θ
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 ∆σ. Keep in mind that this
equation is strictly correct only for σ = 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:
θ θ θ
2 2
sin ) ( cos ) ( B A A R + + =
The Col ony Gas Sand
Cr oss Pl ot t i ng AVO At t r i but es
Exercise
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 224
To perform crossplot 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 225
We’ll plot the Intercept along the Xaxis and Gradient along the Yaxis. Click
Next >> on these 2 pages.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 226
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 227
AVO cross plot
of intercept and
gradient:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 228
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 229
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 230
Now click on CrossSection 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 231
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 232
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 233
When you have drawn the
polygon, click on Apply and
your screen should look
something like this.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 234
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 235
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 236
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 237
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 238
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 240
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 241
The Fl ui d Fac t or y  Theor y
As discussed earlier, Smith and Gidlow (1987) proposed the “fluid factor”
stack by using Castagna’s 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 − = ∆
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 242
Model Ex ampl e
p
p
V
V
∆
s
s
V
V
∆
F ∆
σ
σ
∆
( / )
p
V m s ( / )
s
V m s
p s
V V
3
/ P g cm
σ
(a) Modeled logs. Note false
anomaly at 2.5 seconds.
(b) Results of analysis. Only
∆F showed the true anomaly.
Smith and Gidlow (1987)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 243
Real Dat a Ex ampl e
Cross plot of
shear velocity
(W) against P
wave velocity
(V) for the 2D
example
Smith and Gidlow (1987)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 244
2D Ex ampl e f r om Smi t hGi dl ow
(a) Pwave reflectivity, ∆V
P
/V
P
(b) Swave reflectivity, ∆V
S
/V
S
Smith and Gidlow (1987)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 245
2D Dat a Ex ampl e
(b) Fluid Factor section (a) PseudoPoisson’s Ratio
Gas sand
at 2.0 s
Smith and Gidlow (1987)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 246
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)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 247
3D Ex ampl e Ampl i t ude Envel ope Map
Maximum
value of
amplitude
envelope
from
conventional
seismic.
Fatti et al (1994)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 248
3D Ex ampl e Fl ui d Fac t or
Fluid factor
amplitude
from topof
gas event.
Fatti et al (1994)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 249
Fluid factor
amplitude from
baseofgas
event.
Fatti et al (1994)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 250
Sum of fluid
factor
amplitude
maps from
topofgas and
baseofgas
events.
Fatti et al (1994)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 251
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 pseudoPoisson’s 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 poststack 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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 253
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 254
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
1920’s, 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 amplitudesupported
play”.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 255
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 256
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 Poisson’s ratio is
large.
This suggests a class 2
AVO anomaly.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 257
Synthetic modeling
confirmed the expected
class 2 response.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 258
The data was
reprocessed to include
nonhyperbolic
moveout. This turned
out to be critical, as the
figure shows.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 259
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 260
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 ½ of these were associated with class 2 AVO anomalies.
(3) About 65% of the ~70 drilled anomalies were commercial gas
accumulations.
(4) Thicker, betterdeveloped reservoirs produced the most distinctive
anomalies.
(5) Threshold gross reservoir thickness required to produce an anomaly
was about 3060ft.
(6) Most productive anomalies were at depths of 5,00010,000 ft.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 261
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 262
A second anomaly was
identified by interpreting the
farangle stack using
Landmark’s 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 263
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
.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 264
Two more
successful wells
are shown here.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 265
This is an unsuccessful result. The drilling encountered 105 ft of clean,
lowgassaturated sand at the anomaly.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 266
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 269
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 270
Sei smi c Li t hol ogy Est i mat i on
Gathers Stack
Inversion
Estimate
Z= ρV
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 271
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 ρ
AVO 2 Estimate
Z= ρV
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 ρ, thus
inferring fluid and/or lithology.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 272
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 anglelimited 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
• LambdaMuRho 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 273
Range Li mi t ed St ac k i ng
Gathers
AVO Analysis
Near Stack Far Stack
Above, we see a simple flowchart for rangelimited stacking. Range
limited stacking, using constant offsets or constant angles, is very
robust. But how do we interpret the results?
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 274
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 “brightspot” event
at about 630 ms is
stronger on the far
angle stack than it is on
the nearangle stack.
As we saw earlier, this
is a gassand induced
“brightspot”.
(a)
(b)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 275
Cr ossPl 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 276
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 277
Fr om Range Li mi t ed St ac k i ng t o El ast i c I mpedanc e
• Rangelimited 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 AkiRichards equation, and the
next few slides will develop the concept.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 278
El ast i c I mpedanc e Theor y
Recall that the AkiRichards Equation can be written:
( ) θ θ θ θ
2 2 2
tan sin sin C B A R + + =
,
2
1
:
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡
∆
+
∆
=
ρ
ρ
P
P
V
V
A where
ρ
ρ ∆
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡
−
∆
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡
−
∆
=
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
∆ ≈
∆
≈ θ
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 279
2
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡
=
P
S
V
V
K , sin tan tan sin
2 2 2 2
θ θ θ θ − = If we let and note that
we can rearrange the AkiRichards equation to get:
( ) ( ) ( )
⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢
⎣
⎡
−
∆
+
∆
− +
∆
= ∆ θ
ρ
ρ
θ θ
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
θ
θ θ
ρ
−
+
⎛ ⎞
∆ = ∆ − ∆ + ∆
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
( )
2
2 2
1 4 sin
(1 tan ) 8 sin
ln
K
K
P S
V V
θ
θ θ
ρ
−
+ −
⎛ ⎞
= ∆
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 280
If we then integrate and exponentiate, we get the following form
for EI:
2 2 2
(1 tan ) ( 8 sin ) (14 sin )
( )
K K
P S
EI V V
θ θ θ
θ ρ
+ −
=
2
P
2
S
V
V
K where =
Note that if θ = 0
o
, EI reduces to Acoustic Impedance (AI), where:
( )
P
V AI EI ρ = =
o
0
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 281
The preceding equation used all three terms in the AkiRichards 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
θ θ θ
θ ρ
+ − −
=
2
⎟
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜
⎜
⎝
⎛
=
P
S
V
V
K where
Again note that where θ = 0
o
, we get:
( )
P
V AI EI ρ = =
o
0
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 282
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 283
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 284
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 285
EI I nver si on St eps
Gathers
AVO Analysis
Near angle
stack at θ
1
Far angle
stack at θ
2
Invert to EI(θ
1
) Invert to EI(θ
2
)
Cross Plot
AVO I nver si on
LambdaMu_Rho
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 287
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 Swave 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 AkiRichards equation can
be expressed using Poisson’s ratio (σ), density, and Pwave velocity. If
we assume that σ
AVG
= 1/3 (same as V
P
/V
S
= 2), intercept and gradient can
be combined to give ∆σ.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 288
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
= ρV
P
, and inverting R
S
will
give Swave impedance Z
S
= ρV
S
. This is shown in the next slide.
These inverted sections can be displayed or crossplotted.
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 289
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 290
The LMR Appr oac h
Goodway et al. (1997) proposed a new approach to AVO inversion based
on the Lamé parameters λ and µ, and density ρ, or LambdaMuRho
(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
− =
+ = =
= =
=
+
=
λρ
ρ µ λ ρ
µρ ρ
ρ
µ
ρ
µ λ
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 291
I nt er pr et i ng LambdaRho & MuRho
The original paper by Goodway et al, gives the following physical
interpretation of the lambda (λ) and mu (µ) attributes: The λ term, or
incompressibility, is sensitive to pore fluid, whereas the µ term, or rigidity,
is sensitive to the rock matrix.
As we saw in the theory, it is impossible to decouple the effects of
density from λ and µ when extracting this information from seismic data.
It is therefore most beneficial to crossplot λρ vs µρ to minimize the
effects of density.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 292
Ex t r ac t i ng LambdaRho & MuRho
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 lambdarho and murho volumes.
These volumes can be displayed and crossplotted.
The flowchart for this is shown in the next slide.
The two slides following the flowchart show λρ vs µρ for a Biot
Gassmann analysis of a gas sand. Note the vertical separation for the
LMR approach.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 293
LMR Anal ysi s
Gathers
AVO Analysis
R
P
Estimate R
S
Estimate
Crossplot
Invert to Z
P
Invert to Z
S
Transform to λρ and µρ
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 294
The Pow er of t he LMR Met hod
V
P
/V
S
(V
P
/V
S
)
2
σ λ+2µ µ λ λ/µ
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 λ/µ is the most sensitive to
variations in rock properties going from shale into gas sand.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 295
LMR vs Zp/Zs on Wel l Logs
Goodway et al. (1997)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 296
LambdaMuRho Cr ossPl ot
The interpretation of a LambdaMuRho crossplot.
Goodway et al. (1997)
AVO I nver si on
Si mul t aneous I nver si on
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 298
Ak i Ri c har ds Equat i on
We start with Fatti’s version of the AkiRichards’ 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 θ = + +
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
θ
γ θ
θ γ θ
γ
= +
= −
= − +
=
1
2
1
2
.
P
P
P
S
S
S
D
V
R
V
V
R
V
R
ρ
ρ
ρ
ρ
ρ
ρ
⎡ ⎤
∆ ∆
= +
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
⎡ ⎤
∆ ∆
= +
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
∆
=
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 299
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
θ
γ θ
θ γ θ
γ
= +
= −
= − +
= =
0
30
1.330
0.500
0.041
θ =
−
−
0
60
4.000
1.500
1.125
θ =
−
−
=
=
=
Conclusion: the direct solution can
be unstable.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 300
Tr ansf or mi ng Var i abl es
We want to use the fact that the basic variables, Z
P
, Z
S
, and ρ 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
γ
γ
= =
→ = +
Constant γ
and:
ln( )
ln( ) ln( )
1 1
b
P
P
aV
b a
Z
b b
ρ
ρ
=
→ = +
+ +
Generalized
Gardner
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 301
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 ρ
= + + ∆
= + + ∆
Ln(Zs)
Ln(Zp)
Ln(ρ)
Ln(Zp)
S
L ∆
D
L ∆
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 302
The New Equat i on
This changes Fatti’s equation to:
1 2 3
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
P S D
T cW DL c W D L c W D L θ θ θ θ = + ∆ + ∆
% %
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
θ θ
= + +
=
=
=
=
%
%
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 303
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 prewhitening or stabilization to the
variables ∆L
S
and ∆L
D
to handle noisy traces.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 304
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 ρ.
(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 ρ:
[ ] [ ]
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 ρ = + + ∆
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 305
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 ρ σ
Target Zone
Target Zone
Synthetic
Synt het i c Test
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 306
Resul t at t he Gas Loc at i on
Initial guess:
ρ
σ
Zp
Model Input Error
Zs
After 50 iterations:
ρ
σ
Zp Zs
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 307
Resul t at t he Wet Loc at i on
Initial guess:
ρ
σ
Zp
Model Input Error
Zs
After 50 iterations:
ρ
σ
Zp Zs
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 308
Real Dat a Test  Col ony
This test applies the simultaneous inversion algorithm to the Colony data
set from Western Canada:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 309
Transform to angle gathers and read into STRATA:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 310
Using the known well, create cross plots to determine the optimum
coefficients:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 311
Real Dat a Test – I nver si on Resul t s
Zp
Zs
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 312
Zp
Vp/Vs
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 313
Real Dat a Test – Er r or Anal ysi s
Input gathers:
Synthetic data from inversion:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 314
Input gathers:
Synthetic error from inversion:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 315
Comparison between real logs and inversion result at well location
Zp ρ Vp/Vs
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 316
Cross plotting Vp/Vs against Zp using the log curves:
This zone should
correspond to
gas:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 317
Zp
Vp/Vs
Gas Zone
from log
cross plot
The Col ony Gas Sand
Si mul t aneous I nver si on
Exercise
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 319
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 320
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 321
The angle gather now appears, with the single horizon previously picked.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 322
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 323
Then, click on Horizon / Import Horizons / From File.
Select the file
angle_gather_horizons.txt and
click on Ok.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 324
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 325
The next step is to extract separate wavelets for the near and far traces. Click on
Wavelet / Extract Wavelet / Statistical:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 326
We will extract 2 wavelets, one for the
near traces (015 degrees) and one for
the far traces (1530 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>>:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 327
Finally, change the Wavelet Name and
Wavelet Length as shown and click
on Ok:
The near angle wavelet will look like
this:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 328
Now, repeat this process to extract
the wavelet from the far angle traces:
The far angle wavelet will look like
this:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 329
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 Prestack 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>>.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 330
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 331
Because this is prestack 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 332
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 / Prestack 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>>:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 333
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 334
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 335
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 336
Using the mouse,
modify the
regression lines
from this:
To this:
And click Ok and
Save regression
coefficients:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 337
The Prestack 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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 338
The display shows a number of useful curves:
Synthetic
Real
Data
Error
Inversion
Trace
Initial
Model
Real Log
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 339
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 340
The new display shows a very good fit between the inversion
traces and the original logs, especially near the target zone:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 341
Now we will apply the inversion to the entire data set.
Click on Inversion / Prestack 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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 342
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 343
The other volumes
are Zp, Zs, and
Vp/Vs:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 344
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 345
When the eLog window appears,
click on Crossplot / Vp/Vs vs AI :
Accept the defaults on
most of the menus which
appear:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 346
On the final menu
page, set the depth
range around the
zone of interest as
shown:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 347
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 348
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 349
Now highlight a region around
the anomalous points, and
click Apply and Ok.
Click on the Crosssection
button to confirm that the
highlighted zone corresponds
to the gas sand:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 350
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 351
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 352
The resulting plot now shows the gas sand region highlighted, as
expected:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 353
A second useful analysis is LMR (lambdamurho)
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 354
The calculation produces both lambdarho (lmr_LR) and murho (lmr_MR)
in the same window:
Murho
By manipulating the
plot settings, we can
see the individual
results:
Lambdarho
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 355
The best way to analyze the LMR
volumes is to cross plot them:
On the cross plot menus, set the
parameters shown:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 356
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 357
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 358
Now, go to the window containing
the lambdarho and murho
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 359
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 :
The Col ony Gas Sand
El ast i c I mpedanc e
Exercise
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 361
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 362
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 363
Next, click on the Logs / Transforms button as shown on the left, and select the
Elastic Impedance option from the Transforms menu shown below:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 364
Click Next >> on the Transforms menu and select the correct well (AVO_WELL) for
the Pand Swave logs and for storing the Elastic Impedance log, as shown below.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 365
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 366
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 367
The calculated elastic impedance log is now plotted in the AVO Modeling
Window as shown below:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 368
Next, repeat the calculation of the Elastic Impedance log:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 369
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 370
After creating both Elastic Impedance logs, the window looks like this, with only
one Elastic Impedance log showing:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 371
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 372
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, let’s crossplot
these two logs.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 373
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,
and click on Next >>.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 374
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 >>.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 375
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 376
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 377
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
CrossSection button. After using the Zoom option, you should see a plot similar
to this:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 378
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 379
Now define the elliptical yellow
gas trend as shown.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 380
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 381
Now go to the window containing the super gathers. Click on Process / Stack /
Range Limited Stack:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 382
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 383
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 384
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 385
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 386
The STRATA window now looks like this:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 387
Click on Horizon / Pick Horizons and pick a second event, as shown. Horizon 1
is the trough at the top of the gas sand.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 388
Finally, pick a third event, as shown here. Then click Ok to finish the picking.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 389
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 faroffset stack
inversion. Click on Next >>.
On the third page, select the well AVO_WELL and click Next >>.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 390
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 391
Then, click on Inversion / Poststack
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 392
The inversion result will look like this:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 393
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 394
The new window will now look like this:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 395
Once again build the model for inversion:
This time we are
using the EI_far log
(at 22.5 degrees):
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 396
The new model will look like this (you may need to update the color key):
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 397
Next, click on Inversion / Poststack 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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 398
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 399
Now let us compare the nearangle inversion with the farangle inversion by
crossplotting 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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 400
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 401
Then, in that window, click the “Eyeball” icon:
For the Color Attribute, select
Cross Plot:
Set the X and YAxis definitions
as shown, and click on Ok:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 402
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 faroffsets is less
than the elastic impedance at the nearoffsets.
Click on File / Exit Project to close all of the STRATA windows.
AVO Case St udy
The Br enda Fi el d
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 404
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):
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 405
•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 Preconditioning:
• Denoise:
ftx window statistical analysis
• DeMultiple:
Surface related multiple attenuation (SRME) + Taup
Deconvolution before stack (DBS)
• Prestack depth migration:
Iterative model building and 3D Kirchhoff migration
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 406
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 407
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 408
MacCulloch
MacCulloch
Blenheim
Blenheim
Near stack (0º25º) Far stack (25º50º)
Average absolute amplitude
Top Balder 50  +200
Brenda
Brenda
Jones et al., 2005
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 409
AVO Anal ysi s and Wel l Ti e
The next slide shows vertical crosssections from the near and far angle
stacks over the MacCulloch field.
The synthetic from the 15/24b6 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 410
Near stack
Far stack
MacCulloch
15/24b6 AVO angle stack & synthetics
Top Chalk
Andrew
Top Balder
N S
N S
Jones et al., 2005
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 411
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 16/21b21 and 15/25b3 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 412
Blenheim & Brenda
Wells 16/21b21 & 15/25b3 Near angle stack
Top Chalk
Andrew
Top Balder
N S
Brenda
Blenheim
1 km
Jones et al., 2005
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 413
Blenheim & Brenda
Wells 16/21b21 & 15/25b3 Far angle stack
Top Chalk
Andrew
Top Balder
N S
Brenda
Blenheim
1 km
Jones et al., 2005
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 414
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 15/25b3 well.
This would suggest an infill drilling strategy.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 415
15/25b3 Farstack Inversion (inline)
Top Balder
15/25b3
Possible low EI Oil Sand on flank?
N S
Brenda
Field
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 416
Top Balder
15/25b3
W E
Possible Low EI Oil Sand?
Brenda
Field
15/25b3 Farstack Inversion (crossline)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 417
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 15/25a2 well, and the presence of a
body representing the Blenheim field.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 418
Low EI (< 525) Anomalies
AVO Impedance
MacCulloch & Blenheim:
Low AVO Impedance  Oil Bearing
15/25b3 Anomalies:
Variable AVO Impedance
 Oil Bearing?
5 km
Jones et al., 2005
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 419
Conc l usi ons
Imagedriven data preconditioning of these vintage data has permitted
subsequent high resolution velocity model building and 3D preSDM, leading
on to quantitative elastic impedance inversion
This reprocessing 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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 421
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 422
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
ο ο
( 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 nsi t u c ase
By cross plotting Z
P
against σ for 2 wells, we verify that we
should be able to distinguish gas from wet sands and shales.
Z
P
σ
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 423
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 424
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 425
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 426
Pr eSt ac k I nver si on: I nver t ed PI mpedanc e
Seismic amplitude map
Inverted P impedance map
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 427
Pr eSt ac k I nver si on: I nver t ed SI mpedanc e
Seismic amplitude map
Inverted S impedance map
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 428
Pr eSt ac k I nver si on: I nver t ed Densi t y
Seismic amplitude map
Inverted density map
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 429
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 430
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 431
Sand Pr edi c t i on
By plotting ρ 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.
ρ
Vshale
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 432
Por osi t y Pr edi c t i on
Pay trend
Wet trend
By plotting φ against Z
P
from
the known logs, we derive 2
porosity trends:
φ
Z
P
This allows us to calculate the
Porosity volume from the
Inversion Pimpedance volume.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 433
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 ρ φ ρ ρ
φ ρ
= − +
+ −
Wet well
Gas well
where:
0.1
1
2.65
Gas
Water
Matrix
ρ
ρ
ρ
=
=
=
The Derived Water Saturation volume correctly distinguishes the
wet well from the gas wells.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 434
Conc l usi ons
(1) Simultaneous inversion of prestack gathers can be used to predict
Pimpedance, Simpedance and Density volumes.
(2) The original AkiRichards 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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 436
Gul f Coast Ex er c i se 1
Objectives:
• Build a well database
• Create offset synthetics for the insitu wet case
• Perform fluid substitution to insert gas using the BiotGassmann Theory
• Calculate a second offsetdependent synthetic
• Generate intercept and gradient attributes for each of the synthetics
• Create wedge models for the wet and gas cases.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 437
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 438
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 >>.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 439
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 440
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 441
On the GEOVIEW Well Explorer window, select
ISLAND/W1 and then click on Display Well.
This causes the Log Display window to appear.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 442
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 443
After scrolling to the target depth, at about 12700 ft, the Log Display window will
now look like this:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 444
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” :
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 445
First, we will use the AVO Modeling program to calculate
offsetdependent 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 446
When this menu appears, click OK to create
a shear log using Castagna’s equation.
Accept the default values on each page of
the Transforms menu.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 447
The logs that will be used for the wet model synthetic are now displayed in the AVO
Modeling window.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 448
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 449
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 450
Synt het i c Model
The resulting synthetic is displayed in the modeling window.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 451
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 452
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%.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 453
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 454
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 455
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 456
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 457
The QC Plot shows the new velocities and density after the BiotGassmann gas
substitution. Note that Pwave 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 458
After you have looked at the different parameters in the QC Plot, click on File /
Exit to close the window.
On the BiotGassmann Parameters menu, click Ok to create the new logs, and
click Yes on both of the dialog boxes that appear.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 459
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 460
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 461
Now both synthetics appear within their own AVO seismic windows:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 462
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 463
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 464
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 465
The result shows that the product (i.e. A*B) attribute is a good discriminator
between the wet and gas cases:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 466
To modify the plot parameters, click on the “ eyeball” icon and modify the parameters
as shown below:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 467
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 468
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 >>.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 469
We will create 11 offset synthetics showing the effect of stretching and squeezing
the insitu sand between 0 and 200 ft thicknesses.
Click on Next >>
and OK.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 470
The resulting wet wedge synthetics are displayed in a new seismic window.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 471
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 >>.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 472
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 473
The resulting gas wedge synthetics.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 474
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 “Pseudo3D”. 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 475
After concatenation, one inline is the gas wedge and the other is the wet wedge.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 476
If the pseudo3D volume is viewed by Xline, we can step through the models and
look at the wet and gas cases for a given thickness.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 477
Now, calculate the AVO Attribute
Volume on this window, with the two
wedges. Once again, use all the
default parameters.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 478
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 480
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 481
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 482
“ Convent i onal ” AVO Model i ng:
Cr eat i ng 2 pr est 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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 483
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 484
The Basi c Model
We assume a 3layer model with
shale enclosing a sand (with
various fluids).
Shale
Shale
Sand
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 485
The Shales are characterized by:
Pwave velocity
Swave velocity
Density
V
p1
, V
s1
, r
1
V
p2
, V
s2
, r
2
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 486
Each parameter has a probability
distribution:
V
p1
, V
s1
, ρ
1
V
p2
, V
s2
, ρ
2
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 487
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 488
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)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 489
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)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 490
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 491
Practically, this is how we set up the distributions:
Shale:
V
p
Trend Analysis
V
s
Castagna’s 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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 492
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 493
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 494
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 495
Usi ng Bi ot Gassmann Subst i t ut i on
G
I
G
I
G
I
OIL OIL
K
K
OIL OIL
ρ
ρ
OIL OIL
GAS GAS
K
K
GAS GAS
ρ
ρ
GAS GAS
BRINE BRINE
Starting from the Brine Sand case, the corresponding Oil and Gas Sand models are
generated using BiotGassmann substitution. This creates 3 points on the IG cross
plot:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 496
Mont eCar 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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 497
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 depthdependent, so are the predicted
distributions:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 498
The Depthdependence 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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 499
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,GF
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
* ,
)
~
( *
~
,
,
~
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 500
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 501
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).
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 502
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 503
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
Castagna’s equation.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 504
This is an example simulation
result, assuming that the wet
shale V
S
and V
P
are related by
Castagna’s equation.
This is the result of
assuming 10% noise in the
V
S
calculation
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 505
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 506
Ex ampl e Pr obabi l i t y Cal c ul at i ons
Gas
Oil
Brine
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 507
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 508
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 509
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 510
One Li ne f r om t he 3D Vol ume
Near Angle Stack
020 degrees
Far Angle Stack
2040 degrees
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 511
Near Angle Stack
020 degrees
Shallow producing zone
Deeper target zone
Far Angle Stack
2040 degrees
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 512
AVO Anomal y
Near Angle Stack
020 degrees
Far Angle Stack
2040 degrees
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 513
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
020 degrees
+189
3500
Far Angle Stack
2040 degrees
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 514
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 515
Mont e Car l o Si mul at i ons at 6 Bur i al
Dept hs
1400
1600 1800
2000 2200
2400
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 516
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 517
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 518
Well 3
Well 4
Well 6
Well 1
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 519
Usi ng Bayes’ Theor em at Pr oduc i ng Zone: OI L
Near Angle Amplitudes
1.0
.80
Probability of Oil
.60
.30
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 520
Usi ng Bayes’ Theor em at Pr oduc i ng Zone: GAS
Near Angle Amplitudes
1.0
.80
Probability of Gas
.60
.30
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 521
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 522
Ver i f yi ng Sel ec t ed Loc at i ons at Tar get
Hor i zon
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 523
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.
Gul f Coast Ex er c i se 2
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 525
Gul f Coast Ex er c i se 2
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 526
On the GEOVIEW Well Explorer window, select the zebra well, and click on Display
Well.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 527
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 528
Read Sei smi c
To load seismic data, click
on Data Manager / Import
Data / Open Seismic / From
SEGY 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 529
On the next page, you see this menu, which allows you to specify details
concerning where the data is stored in the headers.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 530
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 531
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 532
Now click on Next >> on the SEGY 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 533
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 534
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 535
3D AVO Anal ysi s Wi ndow
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 536
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 537
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 538
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 539
The seismic window now looks like this:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 540
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 541
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 542
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 543
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
and click on Next >>.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 544
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 545
When the Super Gather has completed, a new window will be created:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 546
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>>.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 547
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 548
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 549
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 550
Choose the Pwave 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 551
The angle gathers show usable energy out to about 60 degrees at the zone of
interest.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 552
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 >>.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 553
The final angle gathers:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 554
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 555
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 556
The next page allows you to set the parameters for the gradient analysis. Fill it in as
shown. Notice we are choosing use 3term AVO analysis, since there is good data
out to 60 degrees.
Click on OK.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 557
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
crosslines.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 558
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 559
The next page allows you
to set the parameters for
the calculation of the
intercept and gradient.
Run the 3term A/B/C
analysis, using all angles
available
Note that the Minimum
Acceptable Correlation
has been set to 0.7.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 560
The output AVO attribute volume:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 561
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 Poisson’s Ratio Change.
Click OK to see the result.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 562
Display of Scaled Poisson’s Ratio Change:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 563
Dat a Sl i c e
Click on Data Slice / Create Data Slice on the window showing the Scaled Poisson’s
Ratio Change. Fill in the menus as shown:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 564
This data slice shows the
mean Amplitude Envelope
of the Scaled Poisson’s
Ratio Change over a 30
ms window immediately
below the ice horizon:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 565
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 566
The arbitrary line is a series of angle gathers collected along the trajectory
specified. They are now ready for analysis.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 567
Go back to the angle gather volume again and let’s
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 568
Click Ok.
Select Options / Automatic Picking and fill in
the menu as shown:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 569
The original poststack picks have now been replaced with a set of prestack picks.
Click Ok to finish editing the horizon.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 570
Let’s view a Pick Analysis along the prestack horizon.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 571
Choose Show Prestack Picks With Gradient Analysis and fill in the following
screens:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 572
Verify that the gradient will be calculated from an A/B/C analysis using the Pwave
log from the well for the velocity model and click OK.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 573
The prestack pick information as well as the gradient analysis is now displayed.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 574
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:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 575
Select the Scaled
Poisson’s Ratio Change
attribute to map and select
Ok.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 576
The new derived Scaled Poisson’s 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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 578
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 579
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 580
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 581
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 ½ the period of the
Ricker wavelet shown in the
top part of the figure.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 582
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 583
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 584
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 585
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 586
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.
FX for random noise
Parabolic Radon Parabolic Radon for multiples
FK for Linear Noise Linear Noise.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 587
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 (Offsetamplitude
variation and controlledamplitude processing, Geophysics, 1985, Vol.
50, #12), and Bjorn Ursin (Offsetdependent 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.
 FK filtering for linear noise attenuation.
 Parabolic Radon filtering for multiple attenuation.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 588
(4) DMO / Prestack migration
This is recommended only in structurally complex areas, as long as
an amplitudepreserving 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 589
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 590
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)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 591
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).
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 592
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)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 593
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 594
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)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 595
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)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 596
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 597
CDP Gat her s (mean sc al i ng)
Ostrander Gathers (Relative Amplitude Processing)
T
i
m
e
(
s
)
Downton and McKidd, 1997
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 598
CDP Gat her s (sc sc al i ng)
Ostrander Gathers (True Amplitude Processing)
T
i
m
e
(
s
)
Downton and McKidd, 1997
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 599
SI 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
)
Downton and McKidd, 1997
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 600
SI 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
)
Downton and McKidd, 1997
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 601
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 602
Note that the Inverse Velocity Stack (equivalent to the parabolic Radon
transform) attenuates the multiples at all offsets.
Dan Hampson (1986)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 603
Ex ampl e of Usi ng Wr ong DMO
(a) NMO only
(d) (c)  (b)
(b) Nonamplitude
preserving DMO
(c) True
amplitude DMO
Black et al (1993)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 604
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).
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 605
RNMO and AVO
offset
Amp.
Prestack CMP Gather
t
offset
Intercept
G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 606
Correct Velocity
t
offset
Intercept Gradient
Ratcliffe and
Roberts, 2003
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 607
Intercept Gradient
Incorrect Velocity
t
offset
Ratcliffe and
Roberts, 2003
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 608
CMP Gat her s – Manual Vel oc i t i es
1
0
0
m
s
0 Iterations
1 km Ratcliffe and Roberts, 2003
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 609
CMP Gat her s – Resi dual Anal ysi s
1
0
0
m
s
6 Iterations
1 km Ratcliffe and Roberts, 2003
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 610
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 Thomsen’s theory of weak
anisotropy to reflection moveout for both P and SV waves in VTI media.
Their equation for Pwaves 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
δ −
=
.
V t
) ( 2
A
4
0
2
0
4
δ ε −
− =
where:
, Thomsen's
parameters.
ε δ =
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 611
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 nonhyperbolic NMO in a VTI
material. The difference is shown on the right.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 612
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 613
The effects of applying Dix NMO versus Nonhyperbolic NMO.
C.P. Ross, 1997
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 614
The top figure
shows Dix NMO
on real gathers,
and bottom
figure shows
nonhyperbolic
NMO on real
gathers.
C.P. Ross, 1997
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 615
Offset range stack panels after correction with conventional NMO.
C.P. Ross, 1997
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 616
Offset range stack panels after correction with nonhyperbolic NMO.
C.P. Ross, 1997
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 617
A+B AVO attribute
after conventional
NMO correction.
A+B AVO attribute
after nonhyperbolic
NMO correction.
C.P. Ross, 1997
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 618
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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 619
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 crossplotting.
– AVO inversion, including Elastic Impedance, LambdaMuRho (LMR),
and Simultaneous Inversion.
– Possible concerns in AVO analysis.
• Let us now briefly review these various procedures.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 620
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 BiotGassmann 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 ρ must all be known for the input logs, along with the fluid
content (S
W
). Recall that the BatzleWang equations can be used to create the fluid.
Generally all three logs are changed within the target zone.
Input Logs
Output Logs
V
P
ρ
V
S
V
P
ρ
S
W
= 100%
V
S
S
W
= 50%
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 621
The second use of FRM is to use the BiotGassmann 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 ρ must both be known, along with the fluid content (S
W
).
The V
P
and ρ logs are unchanged, and a new V
S
log is created.
Output Logs
Input Logs
V
P
ρ
V
S
V
P
ρ
S
W
= 50%
S
W
= 50%
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 622
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 “stretchsqueeze” with the extracted wavelet.
– Choose and apply a modeling option: Zoeppritz equations with primaries
only, AkiRichards 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.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 623
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 624
AVO Anal ysi s
• AVO analysis involves the analysis of prestack gathers to look for
AVO anomalies.
• The main AVO techniques that we discussed were:
– Interceptgradient (A/B/C) analysis, in which we fit the equation
R(θ) = A + B sin
2
θ + C sin
2
θ*tan
2
θ to our data.
– The fluid factor technique, in which we estimate R
P
and R
S
reflectivity
and look for deviations away from Castagna’s mudrock line.
– AVO polarization analysis.
• Recall that we classified AVO anomalies using the RutherfordWilliams
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 interceptgradient crossplot analysis of a
class 3 anomaly.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 625
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
)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 626
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.
– LambdaMuRho inversion
• The next few slides illustrate these methods.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 627
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 628
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 629
On the left is a crossplot 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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 630
AVO I nver si on – Si mul t aneous I nver si on
Simultaneous Inversion solves the Fatti’s equation, subject to
background constraints:
1 2 3
( )
PP P S D
R c R c R c R θ = + +
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
θ
γ θ
θ γ θ
γ
= +
= −
= − +
=
1
2
1
2
.
P
P
P
S
S
S
D
V
R
V
V
R
V
R
ρ
ρ
ρ
ρ
ρ
ρ
⎡ ⎤
∆ ∆
= +
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
⎡ ⎤
∆ ∆
= +
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
∆
=
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 631
AVO I nver si on – Si mul t aneous I nver si on
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 ρ
= + + ∆
= + + ∆
Ln(Zs)
Ln(Zp)
Ln(ρ)
Ln(Zp)
S
L ∆
D
L ∆
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 632
AVO I nver si on – Si mul t aneous I nver si on
This allows the
simultaneous
calculation of Z
P
, Z
S
,
Density, and other
derived attributes:
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 633
AVO I nver si on  LMR
From the Z
P
and Z
S
inversions,
we can then create the λρ and
µρ sections from the formulas:
µρ = Z
S
2
λρ = Z
P
2
– 2Z
S
2
The λρ result is shown above
and the µρ section is shown
on the right. Note in the
highlighted areas that λρ
shows a large increase at the
gas sand zone and µρ shows
a large decrease.
Lambdarho (λρ)
Murho (µρ)
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 634
The λρ versus µρ cross plot is
shown on the left, with the
picked gas sand in yellow.
The section below shows the
position of the gas sand.
Lambdarho (λρ)
M
u

r
h
o
(
µ
ρ
)
Gas Sand
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 635
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
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 636
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,
13961408.
Biot, M. A., 1941, General theory of threedimensional consolidation:
Journal of Applied Physics, 12, 155164.
Blangy, J. P., 1994, AVO in transversely isotropic media  an overview:
Geophysics, 59, 775781.
Castagna, J.P., Swan, H.W., and Foster, D.J., 1998, Framework for AVO
gradient and intercept interpretation: Geophysics, 63, 948956.
Castagna, J. P. and Swan, H. W., 1997, Principles of AVO crossplotting: The
Leading Edge, 16, no. 04, 337342.
Castagna, J.P., and Backus, M.M., Eds., 1993, Offsetdependent reflectivity
Theory and practice of AVO analysis, SEG, Tulsa.
Castagna, J.P., Batzle, M.L., and Eastwood, R.L., 1985, Relationship
between compressional and shearwave velocities in clastic silicate
rocks: Geophysics, 50, 551570.
Connolly, P., 1999, Elastic impedance: The Leading Edge, 18, no. 4, 438452.
Downton, J., and McKidd, D, 1997, Methods to improve AVO extractions:
2004 CSEG Convention Expanded Abstracts, 144145.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 637
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, 17561759.
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 3D
seismic case history using the geostack technique: Geophysics, 59,
13621376.
Foster, D., Smith, S. W., DeySarkar, S. K. and Swan, H. W., 1993, A closer
look at hydrocarbon indicators, 63rd Ann. Int. Mtg: SEG, 731733.
Gardner, G.H.F., Gardner, L.W., and Gregory, A.R., 1974, Formation
velocity and density  the diagnostic basis for stratigraphic traps:
Geophysics, 39, 770780.
Gassmann, F., 1951, Elastic waves through a packing of spheres:
Geophysics, 16, 673685.
Goodway, B., Chen, T. and Downton, J., 1997, Improved AVO fluid detection
and lithology discrimination using Lamé petrophysical parameters, 67th
Ann. Internat. Mtg: SEG, 183186.
Gregg, M. E. and Bukowski, C. T., Jr., 2000, Developing an exploration tool in
a mature trend: A 3D AVO case study in south Texas: The Leading
Edge, 19, no. 11, 11741183.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 638
Ref er enc es (c ont )
Hampson, D., Russell, B. and Cardamone, M., 2004, Uncertainty in AVOHow
can we measure it?: Recorder, 29, no. 3, 511.
Hampson, D., and Russell, B., 1990, AVO inversion: theory and practice:
60th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts,
14561458.
Jones, I., Christiansen, R. , Haynes, J., Faragher, J., Novianti, I., Morris, H.
and Pickering, G., 2005, MultiDiscplinary Geoscience: The 'Brenda' North
Sea Development: Recorder, 30, no. 1, 3843.
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, 12141219.
Mahob, P.N. and Castagna, J. P., 2003, AVO polarization and hodograms:
AVO strength and polarization product: Geophysics, 68, 849862.
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, 17501755.
O'Brien, J., 2004, Interpreter's Corner—Seismic amplitudes from low gas
saturation sands: The Leading Edge, 23, no. 12, 12361243.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 639
Ref er enc es (c ont )
Ostrander, W.J., 1984, Planewave reflection coefficients for gas sands at
nonnormal angles of incidence: Geophysics, 49, 16371648.
Ratcliffe, A. and Roberts, G., 2003, Robust, automatic, continuous velocity
analysis, 73rd Ann. Internat. Mtg.: Soc. of Expl. Geophys., 20802083.
Richards, P.G., and Frasier, C.W., 1976, Scattering of elastic waves from
depthdependent inhomogeneities: Geophysics, 41, 441458.
Ross, C. P., 2002, Comparison of popular AVO attributes, AVO inversion,
and calibrated AVO predictions: The Leading Edge, 21, no. 3, 244252.
Ross, C. P., 2000, Effective AVO crossplot modeling: A tutorial: Geophysics,
65, 700711.
Ross, C. P. and Kinman, D. L., 1995, Nonbrightspot AVO: Two examples:
Geophysics, 60, 13981408.
Ross, C. P., 1995, Improved mature field development with 3D/AVO
technology: First Break, 13, no. 04, 139145.
Ruger, A., 1997, Pwave reflection coefficients for transversely isotropic
models with vertical and horizontal axis of symmetry: Geophysics, 62,
713722.
Russell, B., Ross, C. P. and Lines, L., 2002, Neural networks and AVO: The
Leading Edge, 21, no. 3, 268277.
Last Updated: January 2007 AVO Workshop 640
Ref er enc es (c ont )
Rutherford, S.R., and Williams, R.H., 1989, Amplitudeversusoffset
variations in gas sands: Geophysics, 54, 680688.
Shuey, R.T., 1985, A simplification of the Zoeppritz equations:
Geophysics, 50, 609614.
Simmons, J. L., Jr. and Backus, M. M., 1994, AVO modeling and the locally
converted shear wave: Geophysics, 59, 12371248.
Smith, G. C. and Gidlow, P. M., 1987, Weighted stacking for rock property
estimation and detection of gas: Geophys. Prosp., EAGE., 35, 9931014.
Thomsen, L., 1986, Weak elastic anisotropy : Geophysics, 51, 19541966.
Verm, R. and Hilterman, F., 1995, Lithology colorcoded seismic sections:
The calibration of AVO crossplotting to rock properties: The Leading
Edge, 14, no. 08, 847853.
Wiggins, R., Kenny, G.S., and McClure, C.D., 1983, A method for
determining and displaying the shearvelocity reflectivities of a
geologic formation: European patent Application 0113944.
Yu, G., 1985(b), Offsetamplitude variation and controlled amplitude
processing: Geophysics, 50, 26972708.
Zoeppritz, K., 1919, Erdbebenwellen VIIIB, On the reflection and
propagation of seismic waves: Gottinger Nachrichten, I, 6684.