Lithology color-coded seismic sections:
The calibration of AVO crossplotting
to rock properties
Downloaded 07/08/16 to 159.178.22.27. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
By RICHARD VERM and FRED HILTERMAN
Geophysical Development Corporation
Houston, Texas
I n the late 1960s, several oil companies noticed that, in en-
vironments of young elastic sediments, large seismic ampli-
tudes were associated with gas-saturated sands. This method
of correlating lithology to normal incidence (NI) reflectivities
was appropriately named the bright spot technique. However,
it quickly became apparent that not all large amplitudes were
necessarily associated with gas reservoirs and, much to our
chagrin, not all gas reservoirs had large amplitudes. For the
next decade, geophysicists tried numerous techniques to re-
solve the ambiguity associated with lithologic identification
by means of the seismic attribute NI. This met with various
degrees of success. Finally, Ostrander’s work on amplitude
variation with offset (AVO) led to the development of another
seismic attribute(s) which improved our discrimination of
lithologies (see “Plane-wave reflection coefficients for gas
sands at nonnormal angles of incidence,” GEOPHYSICS 1984).
But proper application of this new attribute along with NI
reflectivity raised several questions. Among them were “How
are the two seismic attributes related to rock properties which
can then be correlated to lithology?” and “How can two seis-
mic attributes be combined into a single display parameter?”
From bright spot to AVO interpretation. The bright spot
methodology, which is based on NI reflectivity, actually in-
volves three different reservoir scenarios as shown in Figure
1. Each involves both the water-saturated state, represented
by a rectangle, and the hydrocarbon-saturated state, repre-
sented by a circle. Their sizes correspond to the relative mag-
nitude of the NI reflectivities. For ease of discussion, the
reservoir will be considered sand and the hydrocarbon gas.
Now, for a shale/sand interface, these three scenarios are clas-
sified by their change in NI reflectivity from the water-satu-
rated state (yellow) to the gas-saturated state (red). They are:
Dim spot — a large positive amplitude reduces to a smaller
positive amplitude,
Phase reversal — a small positive amplitude changes to a
small negative amplitude, and finally,
Bright spot — a negative amplitude increases to a larger
negative amplitude.
The dim spot method of interpretation is normally associ-
ated with large acoustic impedances. In these environments,
single-trace inversion of the stack section has been success-
fully employed to infer lithology. Undoubtedly, the interpre-
tation of bright spot reflections has been most successful for
both interpreting lithology and making estimates of sand
thickness. Interpretation of phase reversal reflections, on the
other hand, has been difficult. In fact, geologic faults are often
mistakenly introduced when phase reversals do occur. In
short, interpretation of phase reversal responses is in need of
additional tools for lithologic identification (see the report by
Ross and Kinman in SEG’s 1994 Expanded Abstracts).
If the area1 rock properties are known, one method of
lithologic identification would be to investigate the clustering
of NI reflectivities from different lithologic boundaries. This
clustering is inferred in Figure 1 by plotting the three types of
bright spot techniques against the NI axis. As expected, there
will be some overlap of the clusters with respect to the NI
seismic attribute. Let’s now introduce a second attribute
which can be used with NI for a better discrimination of the
lithologic boundaries.
If the S -wave to P -wave velocity ratio is approximated
by 1/2 and terms which are insignificant below 30”
are dropped, then Shuey’s AVO equation (GEOPHYSICS
1985) can be reduced to two terms (see Appendix). One
term, NI, and the other, the far-offset reflectivity (PR).
This simplification of the linear approximation of the reflec-
tion coefficient, expressed as a function of angle of
incidence, is
NI and PR are defined as
=
where and represent P -wave velocity, density, and
Poisson’s ratio, respectively. Notice that the expression for
PR is not a reflectivity function as commonly defined by
geophysicists, but it is convenient to refer to it as the Poisson
reflectivity.
Most geophysicists are familiar with the acoustic imped-
ance function and how it varies for different lithologies, but
the significance of Poisson’s ratio is not that well known. This
begs the question: “What does a Poisson’s ratio curve look
like?”
In a sand/shale sequence, the Poisson’s ratio curve com-
puted from borehole measurements often resembles the SP
well-log curve (Figure 2), the long-respected lithologic curve
used by log analysts. One main difference between the Pois-
son’s ratio curve and the SP curve is that, when a sand is gas-
saturated, the SP curve becomes suppressed (looks more like
a shale) while the Poisson’s ratio curve deviates farther from
the shale baseline. The similarity of the SP and Poisson’s
ratio curve suggests that geophysicists have a lithologic curve
which is readily available from an AVO inversion based on
the above equation.
AUGUST 1995 THE LEADING EDGE 847

Downloaded 07/08/16 to 159.178.22.27. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Figure 1. Bright spot classification of three distinct
changes in reflection amplitude when a water-saturated
reservoir is replaced by a hydrocarbon-saturated reser-
voir. The term “bright spot” was adapted to indicate that
the interpretation was based on the amplitude of the
normal incidence reflectivity.
Figure 2. Comparison of measured SP curve to a
Poisson’s ratio curve derived from measured P-wave
and dipole S-wave curves.
An example of a water-saturated sand and a gas-saturated
sand beneath the same shale formation will illustrate the in-
creased lithologic discrimination available when using the
two reflectivities, NI and PR. The respective P-wave veloc-
ity, density and Poisson’s ratio values for the media are: shale
(2940 m/s, 2.33 gm/cm3, .36); wet sand (3033 m/s, 2.26
gm/cm3, .30) and gas sand (2960 m/s, 2.12 gm/cm3, .16).
With these rock properties, the shale/wet sand reflectivities
are NI = –.04 and PR = –.13 and the shale/gas sand reflectiv-
ities are NI = –.04 and PR = –.37. These reflectivity values
can be plotted on a graph (Figure 3).
848 THE LEADING EDGE AUGUST 1995
When the bright spot methodology was discussed earlier,
a plot of NI reflectivities for a shale/water-saturated sand and
shale/gas-saturated sand (Figure 1) illustrated that NI reflec-
tivity always decreases when gas is introduced into the pore
spaces. Figure 3 has a similar role; PR decreases when gas is
introduced. Thus, the reflectivities from a shale/gas-saturated
sand interface will always plot on the NI-PR graph below and
to the left of the corresponding shale/water-saturated sand in-
terface. If the formations are reversed so that the interface has
sand/shale, then the reflectivities associated with gas plot
above and to the right of those associated with water.
The NI-PR graph in Figure 3 is color-coded to indicate the
AVO responses for various NI-PR reflectivity values. For in-
stance, NI-PR reflectivity values that plot in the blue region,
such as the illustrated gas-sand point, will have AVO
responses that increase in magnitude with increasing offset.
This is indicated by the blue AVO plot on the left side of
Figure 3.
Figure 3. NI-PR crossplot of two reflection events. The
upper point (blue box) is for a shale/water-saturated sand
interface; the lower point (yellow box) is for the fluid
replacement, shale/gas-saturated interface.
The concept of separating the NI-PR graph into three
regions of AVO responses was introduced by Hilterman in
1987 in SEG’s Continuing Education course “Seismic Lithol-
ogy.” The color-coded areas in the NI-PR graph are separated
by three lines that are defined by the AVO equation presented
earlier. The three lines are:
AVO Condition Equation Line
Constant amplitude
with offset RC(0°) = RC(30°) NI = PR
Far trace changes phase RC(30°) = 0 N I = –PR/3
Magnitude increases with
offset if PR 0 NI=0 PR axis
The color-coded plots displayed on the left side of Figure
3 are the AVO responses that fall between these three lines. To
illustrate the similarities to the bright spot classification, the
Rutherford and Williams classification (GEOPHYSICS 1989)
of AVO anomalies is also shown in Figure 3. Typically, class
1 AVO anomalies are associated with dim spots and class 3
AVO anomalies describe bright spots. Class 2 AVO anom-
alies overlap the range of dim spots and phase reversals and
can be associated with either in an NI reflectivity analysis of
seismic events.
Using the actual reflectivity values for the two points plot-
 ted in Figure 3, an interpretation based solely on NI ampli-
tude would indicate an amplitude separation of .04 - (-.04)
= .08 when going from the water-saturated state to the gas-
saturated state. However, the absolute separation of the two
plotted points is .25. The NI-PR separation is three times the
vertical, or NI, separation. The increased separation is the ad-
vantage of the two-reflectivity lithologic analysis (AVO in-
terpretation) over the NI reflectivity analysis (bright spot
interpretation).
Downloaded 07/08/16 to 159.178.22.27. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
With the introduction of Poisson reflectivity, the discrim-
ination of different lithologic boundaries has increased but, as
stated before, there are now essentially two reflectivities for
each CDP. How can these two be combined to produce a sin-
gle seismic section? How can the different lithologic reflec-
tion clusters be conveniently defined on a single seismic
section? Are AVO product sections (such as NI*PR) the only
approach?
C rossplotting NI and PR reflectivities. Typical NI and PR
reflectivity traces for a phase reversal scenario are shown in
the left side of Figure 4. The upper reflection in each of the
two reflectivity traces represents a shale/wet sand boundary
Figure 4. Color-coding a color matrix table to transform
the two attribute traces in the left side into a single
attribute trace in the right side.
while the lower reflection represents a shale/gas sand bound-
ary. The NI trace exhibits a positive reflection for the water
sand boundary while the NI trace at the gas sand boundary
has a phase reversal response. The magnitude of these two NI
reflections is the same. However, the PR trace exhibits a two-
fold increase in magnitude from the water-wet state to the
gas-charged state.
The center portion of Figure 4 is obtained by plotting NI
and PR for each time sample. As an example, the center point
of the wavelet associated with the upper reflector has a posi-
tive NI value and a negative PR value and is thus plotted in
the second quadrant. The series of points that goes from the
second quadrant to the fourth quadrant represents the upper
shale/wet sand reflection while the shale/gas sand reflection
is represented by the first-to-third quadrant series of points.
In order to illustrate problems that might exist in real data, the
PR wavelet for the upper reflector was intentionally shifted 2
ms with respect to the corresponding NI wavelet. The ellipti-
cal shape of the water-wet sand crossplot resulted. This prin-
ciple of crossplotting two AVO attributes for lithologic
discrimination has been discussed by others (such as Gidlow
et al. at SEGIEAEG Summer Research Workshop, 1992,
How Useful is Amplitude-Versus-Offset (AVO) Analysis?)
The crossplot of NI versus PR differentiates the water-wet
sand from the gas-charged sand. But this represents only one
CDP location and the significance of two-way time is lost on
the crossplot. To be effective, the crossplot needs to be con-
verted into a single trace format for the CDP location from
which the NI and PR reflectivities were extracted.
Transforming a single trace into color is relatively
straightforward. Discrete ranges of trace amplitudes are as-
signed different colors. By adding another axis to the color
table, two traces can be mapped into color essentially the
same way that a single trace is mapped. The arrows in Figure
4 illustrate the procedure. For a specific time, a value from the
NI trace is located on the NI axis in the color matrix table.
The corresponding PR value at the same time is located on
the PR axis. The color sent to the display is determined by
where the two lines intersect in the color matrix table.
By crossplotting NI and PR traces on top of the color ma-
trix table, colors can easily be assigned to bins for identifica-
tion of different lithologies. In particular, by assigning yellow
to the pattern of the upper event (water-wet reflection) and
red to the pattern of the lower event (gas-charged reflection),
a color trace is produced in the right side of Figure 4 which
discriminates the water-wet sand from the gas-charged sand.
By comparing NI and PR crossplots near a well to the known
lithologic boundaries from the well logs, a color matrix table
can be designed to calibrate the local rock properties to the
seismic data. This can be best illustrated with a model.
Figure 5. Sand truncation models illustrating stack
responses for both a water- and gas-saturated sand.
S tratigraphic model example. Figure 5 shows stack sec-
tions for a class 2 AVO model. The upper section depicts the
wet sand response; the lower section is the gas response. Am-
plitudes for the shale/wet sand boundary are smaller than
amplitudes associated with shale/shale boundaries in the
same section. In the figure’s lower part, the corresponding
gas response is even weaker...in fact, the reflection event goes
away. This prospect would be difficult to promote with the
lithologic rejoinder: “Drill when the reflection disappears!”
AUGUST 1995 THE LEADING EDGE 849
Downloaded 07/08/16 to 159.178.22.27. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Figure 6. Synthetic CDP responses for the sand trunca-
tion models displayed in Figure 5. The rock properties
were associated with the red traces of the two previously
shown models.
Figure 7. Crossplot of NI-PR reflectivity traces corre-
sponding to the gas-saturated model shown in Figure 5.
The reflectivity traces were bandlimited with a zero-
phase wavelet.
Figure 8. NI reflectivity section for the gas-saturation
model with known lithologic model as color background.
850 THE LEADING EDGE AUGUST 1995
Figure 9. NI*PR product section for gas-saturation model
with known lithologic model as color background.
The red middle trace is the location for which CDP gather
responses for both the wet sand and gas sand were generated.
The AVO responses, shown by the CDP gathers in Figure 6,
are only slightly better for lithologic identification. In the
water-wet case, there is a positive NI response which decays
quickly with offset. When the sand contains gas, the NI
amplitude decreases by a factor of two. More importantly, at
8500 ft offset (where offset equals depth in this model), the
reflection amplitude has completely changed polarity. If the
CDP gathers were muted at this offset or if the acquisition
was offset limited, would the gas-sand response be recog-
nized? In short, both the stack section and the CDP gathers
show subtle responses for differentiating the wet sand from
the gas sand. So let’s examine the reflection clusters on the
NI-PR crossplot for the CDP gather located at the red trace in
the lower section of Figure 5.
Figure 7, the crossplot of the extracted NI and PR reflec-
tivities, has several features of note:
1) Shale/shale reflections (green) cluster along a –45° line
running from the upper left to lower right,
2) Shale/water-wet sands and water-wet sands/shale
reflections cluster along the shale line, but just on the outside
(yellow),
3) Shale/gas sands and gas sands/shale reflections lie near
the PR axis (red); the large red dots are individual points
associated with the gas-sand response.
There is a large overlap of lithologic clusters with respect
to the NI axis. Therefore, it is not surprising that the ampli-
tude of the NI section (Figure 8) does not discriminate dif-
ferent lithologies. (The color background of Figure 8
represents actual model lithology.) In fact, as shown in Fig-
ure 9, the amplitude of the AVO product section (NI*PR) is
no better at discriminating the lithologies than the NI section.
Obviously, more help is needed. So let’s examine the color
crossplot display of NI-PR where the NI traces are overplot-
ted (Figure 10). The color background was generated by the
method associated with Figure 4. For ease in identifying
sands, a sand percentage curve for the model is superimposed
with the gas sand shaded in red.
Notice the strong correlation of the color background in
Figure 10 to the color backgrounds in Figures 8-9. There is
 one main difference - the color background in Figure 10
comes from the seismic data itself! By using the color matrix
table (the lower left side of Figure 10), the NI-PR crossplot
yields an excellent estimate of the actual lithology. Also, this
color matrix table is similar to the well log crossplot of NI and
PR lithologies shown in Figure 7. This demonstrates the cal-
ibration of rock properties to seismic data for the generation
of a seismic lithologic section.
One salient feature of Figure 10 is that the trace values are
Downloaded 07/08/16 to 159.178.22.27. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
reflectivities and not impedances; therefore, the NI-PR cross-
plot colors essentially correspond to the boundaries of litho-
logic changes.
An AVO option that is still desired is the ability for a trace
to represent lithology by a range of numeric values rather
than a color. With numeric coding, 3-D volumes could be au-
tomatically searched for lithologic horizons. To accomplish
this, the cluster behavior of a class 2 AVO reflector in a
sand/shale sequence will be examined.
Typical NI and PR values for different lithologic bound-
aries encountered in a class 2 AVO model have been plotted
on the left side of Figure 11. The shale/gas sand and the
shale/water sand clusters occupy almost the same range in NI
reflectivity, and the NI amplitudes are relatively small. Cur-
Figure 10. NI reflectivity section for gas-saturation model
with estimated lithology as color background. The litho-
logic estimation was generated by the NI-PR color-coded
crossplot.
Figure 11. Axis rotation of NI and PR attributes to change
a class 2 AVO anomaly (left side) to a class 3 AVO
anomaly (right side).
rently, a popular method for displaying the two reflectivities
is to multiply them together to produce the product term
NI*PR. The contours of NI*PR are overlain on the reflectiv-
ity clusters. On the left side, notice how the contour nearest
the NI and PR axes cuts through all three lithologies. Obvi-
ously, a display of NI*PR cannot distinguish between lithol-
ogy for class 2 AVO anomalies because they will have similar
values of NI*PR. The inability of the AVO product sections
to discriminate class 1 and class 2 sands has been previously
pointed out by Castagna (GEOPHYSICS 1994).
However, there is a slight separation of the clusters along
the PR axis so, in principle, the lithologies should be separa-
ble. An easy way to accomplish our goal is to apply a trans-
form to the NI and PR reflectivities which essentially rotates
them 45°, as shown on the right side of Figure 11. The rela-
tive positions of the lithologic clusters have not changed.
However, when the rotated NI*PR contours are examined,
each lithology gets a unique value. In fact, with the rotation,
gas sands should appear as large-amplitude peaks on an
NI*PR section. Essentially, the rotated NI and PR reflectivi-
ties now behave as a class 3 gas sand. For this special case,
when the rotation is 45°, the rotated product is equivalent to
the unrotated expression (PR2 - NI2)/2.
The original NI and PR traces used in Figure 9 were ro-
tated and the new product traces are equivalent to a bright
spot anomaly (Figure 12). The actual lithology of the model
is color coded in the background to show the correspondence
Figure 12. Rotated NI*PR product section for gas-
saturation model with known lithologic model as color
background. Trace amplitudes now represent different
lithologic boundaries.
of high amplitudes to gas sands, mi ddle amplitudes to wet
sands, and low amplitudes to shales.
G ulf of Mexico field data. With a feel for the behavior of
class 2 AVO anomalies with model data, let’s look at some
field results. These data are Miocene epoch rocks from the
offshore Gulf of Mexico. The only significance about data
from the Miocene is that they exhibit class 2 AVO anomalies
in this area of the Gulf.
Figure 13 depicts a portion of a migrated relative-ampli-
tude section. This line traverses a discovery well which en-
countered 110 ft of gas sand. The gas zone is a high-velocity,
AUGUST 1995 THE LEADING EDGE 851
Downloaded 07/08/16 to 159.178.22.27. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Figure 13. Migrated section from portion of the Gulf of
Mexico where class 2 AVO anomalies are present. Well
penetrated 110 ft of gas sand at 3.25 s.
Figure 14. NI*PR product section for Gulf line shows no
significant indication of the known ll0-ft gas sand.
low-density sand with respect to the encasing shale forma-
tion. Thus, NI reflectivity is close to zero. If the migrated sec-
tion is examined carefully at the well location, it will be noted
that no significant reflection amplitude is associated with the
gas sand which occurs at 3.25 s. CDP gathers associated with
the well location do not show any appreciable AVO anomaly
either.
Initially, the NI and PR reflectivities were extracted from
these data and a product term was produced as shown in Fig-
ure 14. The high and low amplitudes for the product term are
represented by red and yellow colors. No red or yellow events
cross the borehole in Figure 14, proving that NI*PR products
are not always reliable gas sand indicators (particularly for
class 2 AVO reflectors).
Now, if an NI-PR color crossplot is generated using a color
matrix table for class 2 AVO anomalies, then the gas zone
pops out as a bright red event as shown in Figure 15. In the
color matrix table, the gray diagonal identifies the shale
zones, yellow represents water-wet sands and, of course, red
is for the gas zones. Notice how the lithology on this display
is consistent with geologic principles. This area of the Gulf is
dominated by growth faults and the sand deposits should be
852 THE LEADING EDGE AUGUST 1995
Figure 15. Estimated lithologic section for Gulf line based
on NI-PR color-coded crossplotting. Color matrix table is
designed for class 2 AVO anomalies.
Figure 16. Rotated NI*PR product section for Gulf line.
The ll0-ft known gas sand is displayed as a red event to-
ward the bottom of the well.
expected on the downthrown side of the faults, exactly where
several yellow packages are shown in Figure 15.
As a final demonstration of convening this class 2 AVO
anomaly into a class 3 anomaly, the NI*PR production after
a 45° rotation is displayed in Figure 16. In this case, the col-
ors were chosen to highlight water-wet sands (yellow), gas-
tilled sands (red), and high-acoustic impedance shale/shale
boundaries (green). In Figure 16, the lack of yellow events in
the shallower portion of the well is consistent with borehole
information which showed almost exclusively shale. With re-
spect to the indication of a gas sand just beneath the bottom
hole location, this color crossplot analysis was performed
after the completion of the well.
Conclusions and observations. For many years, log ana-
lysts have crossplotted two borehole attributes for lithologic
discrimination. Only recently have geophysicists utilized this
principle by extending the one reflectivity analysis (NI) to a
two reflectivity analysis (NI and PR). By colorcoding the NI-
PR matrix, a more effective discriminator of lithologies de-
velops because the separation of reflection clusters increases.
Color was introduced to illustrate this separation along with
 axis rotation to discriminate the lithologies with a numeric
value.
It is not difficult to see that additional NI-PR transforms or
search functions are available for assigning the lithologic
clusters a numeric value. These transformations are neces-
sary to convert the two attributes of a 3-D AVO analysis into
a single 3-D volume that can be automatically searched for
lithology with existing technology.
One purpose of this article was to illustrate that class 2
Downloaded 07/08/16 to 159.178.22.27. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
AVO anomalies can be mapped as class 3 AVO anomalies
with an AVO product term. However, the application of color
crossplotting works just as effectively for class 3 anomalies.
When class 1 anomalies are examined with the color cross-
plotting method, it appears that NI and PR inversions to
acoustic impedance and Poisson’s ratio are necessary. Also,
other rocks besides sand and pore fluids besides gas are ap-
propriately analyzed by AVO crossplotting.
Acknowledgements: Geophysical Development Corporation
appreciates the seismic data made available by Oryx Energy and the
technical assistance provided by Christopher Ross. Of course, a
project such as this required the assistance of many colleagues. The
authors appreciate the petrophysical model work conducted by
Mark Wilson, the discussions with Jim DiSiena, and the software
development of Luh Liang.
Appendix
Shuey’s approximation of Zoeppritz’s equation. If equa-
tions 8, 12, and 13 in Shuey’s 1985 article are incorporated
into his equation 14, the following results:
(A1)
where = reflectivity at the incident angle
NI = P-wave normal incidence reflectivity,
= average of the P-wave velocities across an
interface,
= average of the S-wave velocities,
= average of the Poisson’s ratios,
= average of the incident and transmitted angles,
and ho are changes in and across the
interface.
In order to separate the NI term from the term, this
equation is rewritten as
(A2)
If the approximations = and = are made and
the last term is assumed insignificant for angles less than 30°,
then equation A2 reduces to
(A3)
where PR = Poisson reflectivity =
AVO inversion. At each time sample, the AVO coefficients
NI and PR are extracted from a CDP gather by fitting equa-
tion A3 to the CDP amplitudes. This requires a knowledge of
RMS velocity in order to convert the CDP gathers from a
function of offset to an approximate function of incident
angle.
Discussion. The following points should be considered con-
cerning AVO inversion:
1) Equation A3 is applied for AVO inversion, not forward
modeling.
2) Equation A3 can be compared to the conventional AVO
equation
where a is NI and b is associated with the second line on the
right side of the equation Al.
3) A slowly varying estimate of a can be extracted from
the NMO velocity field prior to AVO inversion. With an em-
pirical transform such as the mudline equation (see Castagna
et al., GEOPHYSICS 1985), can be estimated so that the
term in equation A3 can be replaced by the more exact
expression before AVO inversion.
4) A similar AVO inversion technique developed by
Gidlow et al. is based on the equation
where NI, is the S-wave normal incidence reflectivity,
+ An advantage of Gidlow’s formulation is
that an estimate of does not have to be known before AVO
inversion. After AVO inversion and with an estimate of
the difference of the normal incidence P-wave and S-wave
reflectivities yields
The right side results from the differentiation of Shuey’s
equation 8. The above expression is very similar to PR in its
ability to differentiate different lithologic boundaries.
5) When = the AVO coefficients have the follow-
ing relationship
AUGUST 1995 THE LEADING EDGE 853