Frequency-dependent AVO analysis
Douglas J. Foster1, Zeyu Zhao1, Dhananjay Kumar2, Danica Dralus2, and Mrinal K. Sen1
https://doi.org/10.1190/tle39020084.1
Abstract
A method for generalizing the conventional amplitude varia-
tion with offset model from an isolated interface to a scattering
reservoir interval is presented. The advantage of this new method
is that it can provide enhanced detection of subtle reservoir and
pore fluid properties. First- and second-order expressions for the
reflected compressional wave energy from a specified heterogenous
interval are given. These expressions are applied to two problems
of interest for reservoir description. One application is discriminat-
ing low versus higher saturations of hydrocarbons, and the other
is detecting the extent of vertical stratification within a reservoir.
The first-order expression is used for determining hydrocarbon
saturations, and the second-order expression is used for detecting
the magnitude of fine-scale layering within a reservoir. Synthetic
models and field data examples are used in demonstrating the
applicability of the proposed method.
Introduction
Traditional amplitude variation with offset (AVO) analysis
assumes that a seismic compressional (P) wave reflection is gener-
ated by an incident plane P-wave backscattered from a single
interface (Ostrander, 1984; Castagna and Backus, 1993; Hilterman,
2001; Foster et al., 2010). Also, there are implicit assumptions
that reflections from the top and base of a reservoir layer are
resolvable. The conventional AVO model is based on a linearized
version of the full P-wave reflection coefficient (Zoeppritz equa-
tion). The Zoeppritz equation is linearized with respect to small
contrasts of material properties (Bortfeld, 1961; Aki and Richards,
1980). This approximate form results in a convolutional model
that ignores transmission effects, mode conversions, and multiple
reflections but gives a first-order (Born) approximation for the
reflected wave.
Here, we describe a new AVO model that considers the
response from an interval and not an isolated interface. The
backscattered response is modeled as an integration over a specified
interval. This model is based on scattering theory (Foster et al.,
2017) that uses a Born series approach to systematically add in
complexities such as energy loss due to mode conversions and
internal multiple reflections. A frequency dependency in our
model adds a new degree of freedom, which we exploit. We refer
to this frequency-dependent approach to AVO analysis as FAVO.
Chapman et al. (2002) also propose a FAVO method based on a
formulation incorporating intrinsic attenuation, whereas our
model is based on scattering effects. In this work, we will consider
only the first- and second-order scattering effects. The first-order
approximation is a primary-only P-wave convolutional model,
and the second-order approximates the energy loss the P-wave
experiences due to shear (S) wave mode conversions. Multiple
1
The University of Texas at Austin, John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences, Institute for Geophysics, Austin, Texas, USA.
E-mail: djfoster@ig.utexas.edu; zeyu.zhao@utexas.edu; mrinal@ig.utexas.edu.
2
BP America Inc., Houston, Texas, USA. E-mail: dhananjay.kumar@bp.com; danica.dralus@bp.com.
84 THE LEADING EDGE February 2020
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/tle/article-pdf/39/2/84/4938377/tle39020084.pdf
by University of Cambridge user
reflections are not incorporated into the series until the third-order
terms of the series are included.
The generalization of the reflectivity from an interface to an
interval is a complex function with real and imaginary components.
The wavefield amplitudes are given by integrating over the interval,
and the phase delays are required to properly calculate these
amplitudes. This integration determines the interference pattern
set up by heterogeneities. The amplitude and phase are incorpo-
rated, which shows that the kinematic and dynamics of the
scattering process are coupled. Our first-order approximation is
the same as the primary pulse method (Richards and Frasier,
1976). Richards and Frasier assume small contrasts of material
properties, whereas in our derivation, given in Foster et al. (2017),
we do not make this assumption. Kumar et al. (2017, 2020) show
how the first-order model is used in discriminating low-saturation
gas from commercial concentrations. Also, we describe the second-
order model and show how it may be used for discriminating
between thick, blocky reservoirs and thinly laminated ones.
Simmons and Backus (1994) numerically demonstrate the impor-
tance of including converted shear energy in a layered model, and
this is consistent with our second-order term, which is dominated
by the contrast of the S-wave reflectivity.
Constructive interference (tuning) from an interval at certain
frequencies, incident angles (ray parameter), and layer thicknesses
accentuates the seismic amplitude response. Often, seismic pro-
cessing and inversion attempt to mitigate this amplitude bloom
due to tuning. Such processes as deconvolution and inversion
(particularly spiking deconvolution and sparse spike inversion)
try to collapse the wavelet to provide a wider bandwidth repre-
sentation of the reflectivity. These processes attempt to broaden
the spectrum of the data with some a priori statistical assumptions
of the wavelet or the underlying structure of the earth model.
Particularly, in sparse spike inversion there is a bias that a simple
model is preferred (Occam’s razor), but often well logs recorded
through reservoirs show a multitude of small-scale internal het-
erogeneities. This heterogeneity is typically upscaled or averaged
in some way (i.e., blocking, sparse models, etc.). Here, we take a
different approach and utilize tuning to emphasize the desired
rock and fluid response. The model upscales the fine details
contained within the reservoir interval. One example of the use
of tuning is the delineation of a hydrocarbon water fluid contact
as overlying reservoir bed (top seal) tunes with the fluid contact.
Often, the subtle response of a fluid contact is visible only as
tuning accentuates the amplitude as the hydrocarbon portion of
the reservoir pinches out laterally. Another example is spectral
decomposition (Partyka et al., 1999), which utilizes tuning to
bring out stratigraphic details not obviously seen on conventional
full-fold stack seismograms. Other examples are Marfurt and
Special Section: Reservoir characterization Part I
 Kirlin (2001) describing frequency-dependent attributes for thin-
bed resolution and Chopra and Marfurt (2007) for the interpreta-
tion of geomorphological features. Our approach is similar in
principle to spectral decomposition, but we have an underlying
physical model to quantify the reflectivity as we look for tuning
effects at specific thicknesses, frequencies, and angles of incidence
(horizontal ray parameter). This new model suffers from nonu-
niqueness, but this is true for all inversion methods.

First-order effects
The underlying model we employ is an interval where material
properties are vertically heterogeneous. This interval is embedded
between two infinite half spaces where properties are homoge-
neous. The traditional P-P reflection coefficient is replaced with
a transfer function that represents the backscattered P-wave energy
from an interval due to an incident P-wave of unit amplitude
impinging at the top of the heterogenous interval. This transfer
function can be thought of as a filter’s impulse response where
the earth acts as a filter. In the limit as the thickness of the het-
erogeneous interval goes to zero, the first-order transfer function
reduces to the continuous form of Aki and Richards’ (1980) linear-
ized P-P reflection coefficient.
We use the Born scattering series to systematically approximate
the full solution for the transfer function Hp+p –. The full solution
for Hp+p – involves solving a nonlinear ordinary differential equation
of which no general solution exists. The first-order transfer function
for the reflected P-wave satisfies the differential equation
d (1)
H + − ( p,z, ω ) = 2iωqα H (1)
p+ p −
( p,z, ω ) − R21 ( p,z) ,
dz p p
and the integral form of the solution is
L etc.) in which both are variable. This may be a way to find the
H (1)
p+ p −
( p,z, ω ) = ∫e −2iωθα ( p,zʹ ,z)
R21 ( p, zʹ)dzʹ,
z Figure 1 shows the first-order transfer function, H (1) p +p – , using
where the P-P reflection coefficient R 21 (equation 17, Foster et al.,
2017) is the continuous form of the first-order approximate
Zoeppritz equation (Aki and Richards, 1980). The P-wave vertical
slowness is qα = 1
− p 2, where p is the ray parameter (horizontal
α2
slowness), z is depth, ω is the angular frequency, and the super-
scripts + and - represent downgoing and upgoing directions of
propagation, respectively. The range of integration is from the
observation location z to L, and the heterogeneous interval is
[0, L]. The discrete form of equation 2 is discussed in Kumar
et al. (2017).
The transfer function, H (1)p+p – , in equations 1 and 2, is a complex
function with real and imaginary components. The frequency
dependency adds an additional degree of freedom that can be
exploited but also adds complexity on how to best utilize this
additional parameter. H (1)
p +p – can be thought of as having a dual
domain representation with respect to depth (or traveltime) and
frequency. We have analyzed seismic data in two different ways.
Figure 1. This figure shows the absolute value of the first-order transfer function.
The yellow zone encased in red shows the bandwidth of the observed field data in
terms of temporal frequency and incident angle. The angles are determined by ray
parameter p and the P-wave velocity of the incident wave.
One way is to perform a windowed Fourier transform around an
interpreted horizon (in either depth or time) and find the frequency
that accentuates the desired response (fixed depth/traveltime and
variable frequency). The other way is to partition the data into
frequency bands, find the fixed frequency band that best shows
the strongest response, and then analyze the data with respect to
depth or time (fixed frequency and variable depth/traveltime).
This latter approach is more practical because it allows the use of
the usual tools of conventional AVO analysis. Kumar et al. (2020)
(1) show in more detail how this can be performed in practice. Either
of these two approaches can benefit from modeling well logs to
determine which frequencies best show the desired response. In
the future, a more complete solution could be to use a time fre-
quency representation (i.e., wavelet transform, Gabor transform,
(2) optimal windowing in time and frequency.
wireline measurements through an interval of shale and gas-
charged siltstone. The measurements used to calculate H (1) p +p – are
P- and S-wave velocities and density. This interval is characterized
by strong impedance contrasts on a fine scale. Also, this interval
is within the wavelength of the seismic wavelet. There is no wavelet
used in this graph as it shows the natural impulse response of this
interval. The absolute value of H (1)p +p – is shown in Figure 1, but in
some instances the real or imaginary components might show
more stratigraphic detail (i.e., discriminating between coarsening-
upward or fining-upward sequences, Kumar et al., 2020). Prior
to drilling this well, the seismic data showed a strong amplitude
and a pronounced class III AVO anomaly. The farthest angle used
in the AVO analysis was 45°, and a strong amplitude bloom at
the higher angles was observed. It was difficult to explain this
AVO anomaly by fitting Zoeppritz curves to match this observa-
tion. This figure shows the loss of bandwidth at the higher angles
due to longer propagation distance and normal moveout correction.
It appears that constructive interference at the lower frequencies
and higher incident angles produces a tuning effect that enhances
the amplitude and makes the AVO anomaly stronger than a

Special Section: Reservoir characterization Part I February 2020 THE LEADING EDGE 85
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/tle/article-pdf/39/2/84/4938377/tle39020084.pdf
by University of Cambridge user
 one-interface model would suggest. This example shows how expectations can provide constraints on the viability of a given
frequency dependence can complicate the AVO response. attribute as a predictive tool. The morphology of attributes should
One application of FAVO is distinguishing between low gas be consistent with the geometry of a given structural setting,
saturation and commercial concentrations. This problem has hydrocarbon effects should be in plausible structure positions,
plagued amplitude analysis because a small amount of gas is stratigraphic variations should be consistent with the expected
indistinguishable from higher levels. Investigations by Castagna depositional environments, etc.
et al. (2003), Goloshubin et al. (2014), and Ahmad et al. (2019)
relate low-frequency seismic anomalies and the presence of gas.
Figure 2 shows a plot of gas saturation versus seismic amplitude.
Here we see that the 5 Hz response shows more sensitivity to gas
saturation than the 10 Hz response.
Another way of looking at the sensitivity of saturation is by
crossplotting the AVO attributes intercept (A) and gradient (B).
Figure 3 demonstrates that the frequency-domain amplitude at
the 20 Hz response shows greater sensitivity to changes in satura-
tion than the time-domain amplitude.
This model is derived from properties given by a well log
containing a relatively thick, porous sandstone layer, and the
saturations are based on Gassmann fluid substitution.
The application of new techniques on field data is a crucial
test, but it can be hard to completely evaluate and verify the Figure 2. This figure (after Kumar et al., 2020) shows the real part of the modeled
amplitude of a 20° centered angle stack versus gas saturation. Equation 2 is used
results. Nevertheless, it is informative to judge how a new method in the seismic FAVO modeling, and Gassmann fluid substitution is used to estimate
behaves under realistic conditions. The results should be con- the effects of different gas saturations on earth model parameters. Red squares
sistent with expectations for a given geologic setting. These indicate the response at 10 Hz, and blue squares indicate the response at 5 Hz.

Figure 3. Four crossplots between AVO intercept and AVO gradient are displayed (after Zhao et al., 2018). Panels (a) and (b) show time-domain conventional crossplots
for low and higher saturation levels. (a) The diamonds are for low saturation as a function of time windowed around the event of interest, and (b) the squares are the
same window but with a higher saturation level. (c) and (d) The same as (a) and (b) except the frequency attributes are displayed.

86 THE LEADING EDGE February 2020 Special Section: Reservoir characterization Part I
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/tle/article-pdf/39/2/84/4938377/tle39020084.pdf
by University of Cambridge user
 Figure 4. After Kumar et al., 2020. (a) A conventional rms amplitude extracted from a window around a horizon at the top of gas-bearing sandstone reservoir. (b) The FAVO
attribute is derived from the 10 Hz imaginary component of the midangle seismic (centered around 20°). High gas saturation is present in wells 1, 2, and 3 in this reservoir unit.

Figure 5. After Kumar et al., 2020. Similar to Figure 4, but the attribute extracted is from a deeper formation. Another difference is the FAVO attribute is derived from the
5 Hz real component. High gas saturation is present in wells 2 and 3, but low gas saturation was encountered in well 1.

For the field data test, three wells and a marine 3D seismic
volume recorded with a conventional air gun array and recorded
on towed streamers are used. These data come from the Columbus
Basin offshore Trinidad. The reservoirs of interest are of Pliocene
and Pleistocene age with porosities in the 20%–30% range with
high net-to-gross of sandstone to shale. Figure 4 shows a con-
ventional rms amplitude and a FAVO attribute.
The same stratigraphic interval is shown in Figure 4. All three
wells in this sequence are gas bearing with commercial concentra-
tions. Wells 1 and 2 were used as calibration, and well 3 was a
proposed well location that was used as a blind test. Overall, the
FAVO attribute is more coherent and appears to better delineate
the known gas-bearing zones. At well location 1, both attributes
show a small anomaly with the FAVO attribute slightly more
coherent. Both are brighter updip against a fault and dim downdip,
which gives confidence that both attributes are showing a hydro-
carbon effect, which is expected in these relatively porous reser-
voirs. At well location 2, again both show anomalous amplitudes,
but the FAVO attribute shows a more consistently coherent
amplitude. The FAVO attribute more clearly shows amplitudes
terminating against bounding faults. At well 3, similar to well 1,
both attributes are stronger in the updip trapping configuration
and dim downdip, but the FAVO attribute shows more downdip
conformance. The predrill prediction was a narrow gas pay with
the possibility of downdip low saturation at the well location.
Ultimately, well 3 was drilled in the anomaly and encountered
commercial concentrations of gas.
Figure 5 shows the conventional and FAVO attributes for a
deeper formation. In this stratigraphic interval, well 2 has com-
mercial quantities of gas, but well 1 is wet with low-saturation
gas. Overall, both of the conventional and FAVO attributes look
relatively similar. At well 1, neither one clearly shows any anoma-
lous behavior, which is the desired response. At well 2, the FAVO
attribute is more intense in the reservoir interval than the con-
ventional attribute. The predrill prediction for this interval was
high gas saturation, and the well confirmed this prediction. As
shown in Figure 4, the bounding faults are seen more clearly on
the FAVO attribute. The interpreted gas-water contact is apparent
on both attributes at well 3. Also, both anomalies at well 3 show
relatively good conformance to structure, but one difference is
the FAVO attribute changes polarity downdip, which can aid in
highlighting the fluid contact.
Second-order effects
In elastic scattering, due to wave mode conversion and mul-
tiples, mathematical expressions quickly become intractable. These
expressions can be simplified to a manageable form using the
Born series. Although the Born series is not exact, it can provide
useful approximations. One advantage of this approach is higher
order effects such as mode conversions and multiples can be

Special Section: Reservoir characterization Part I February 2020 THE LEADING EDGE 87
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/tle/article-pdf/39/2/84/4938377/tle39020084.pdf
by University of Cambridge user
 systematically added. Traditionally, only the first term is used,
and this is equivalent to the convolutional model. The second
term of the Born series approximates the effects the P-wave
experiences from energy losses due to S-wave conversions. Multiple
reflections are not considered until the third and higher order
terms are included.
One application is the use of the second-order gradient attri-
bute for discriminating between thick reservoirs and thinly strati-
fied ones. Ideally, one hopes to encounter thick, clean sands. This
is often not the case, however, and a tool to determine the extent
of fine layering can be useful. Also, many times, very thinly layered
sandstone hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir units encased in thicker
shale can be missed and can lead to pay being bypassed.
Conventional well measurements, particularly resistivity measure-
ments, also can miss significant quantities of hydrocarbons in this
type of environment (Henderson et al., 2000).
Synthetic models can illustrate the potential of this second-
order attribute. We use a couple of simple models of an idealized
200 ft thick reservoir. One scenario is 100 one-foot-thick layers
of clean sandstone periodically embedded in 100 one-foot shale
layers. The other scenario is a single 200 ft block of sand with
40% volume of shale (Vsh). Both scenarios are modeled as gas
bearing. Figure 6 shows the first-order transfer functions, H (1) p +p – ,
for both scenarios.
Figure 6. This figure shows the imaginary part of H (1)
p p for two different scenarios.
+ –
Both models are 200 ft thick but in (a) there are 100 one-foot-thick sands evenly
embedded in one-foot shales and in (b) there is a single 200 ft sand with 40%
shale Vsh content.
88 THE LEADING EDGE February 2020
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/tle/article-pdf/39/2/84/4938377/tle39020084.pdf
by University of Cambridge user
Figure 6 shows there is no apparent difference between the two
different scenarios. This result is expected because equation 2 simply
integrates the entire interval. No loss of energy due to mode conver-
sions is accounted for in the first-order term of the approximation.
Higher order terms will provide a more complete approximation
correcting the first-order term. The second-order term only corrects
for forward and backscattered S-wave conversions.
Figure 7 displays the first and second terms, H (1) (2)
p +p – + H p +p – ,
for the same model shown in Figure 6. Foster et al. (2017) give
the expression for H (2)
p +p –. Figure 7a shows distinct difference from
Figure 7b around 30° and 10 Hz. Also, Figure 7b shows a neg-
ligible difference between that seen in Figures 6a and 6b. The
reason for the difference between Figure 7a and Figure 7b is that
in Figure 7b there are only two interfaces where shear conversion
will occur, but in Figure 7a there are 200 interfaces for mode
conversion. Although these are second-order effects, the accu-
mulated effect over this interval is noticeable at the higher incidence
angles. Another observation is that the effects are seen at certain
temporal frequencies (harmonics). Here, 10 Hz is the first har-
monic, and it clearly shows a difference.
Zhao et al. (personal communication, 2019) give the second-
order AVO gradient term, B (2), and show how to calculate it from
the first-order term. For brevity, we do not show the second-order
gradient term from an interval but from an isolated interface. This
Figure 7. This figure shows imaginary parts H (1) (2)
p p + H p p for same models shown
+ – + –
in Figure 6. In (a), the 100 layer clean sand and shale is seen, and in (b) the one
200 ft shaley sand model is displayed. The Vsh in (b) is 40%.
Special Section: Reservoir characterization Part I
 is given by taking the limit as the interval thickness goes to zero. equations 3 and 4 show, the shear velocity changes play a more
This expression is
1
prominent role. Equation 3, or equation 4 when ε ≈ , can be
2 2
2
⎛ ρ′ ⎞ ρ′ β ′ ⎛ β′ ⎞
B ( 2) = −2ε (1 − 4ε 2 ) ⎜ + 32ε 3 + 32ε 3 ⎜ , (3) used directly when analyzing seismic data in different frequency
⎟
⎝ 2ρ ⎠ 2 ρ 2β ⎝ 2β ⎟⎠
bands (fixed frequency and variable depth/traveltime).
To further show the effects of thin beds, we consider five
β background
where ε = . Assuming ε ≈ 1 , which is a realistic assump- different models with varying degrees of layering (Figure 8).
α background 2 Figure 9 shows the B (2) attribute for the models shown in Figure 8.
tion for clastic rocks, particularly shales, we have In this figure, from left to right as the individual layers become
thicker and fewer in number, we see that the amplitude of B (2)
decreases. This result shows that constructive interference of
β ʹ ⎛ ρʹ β ʹ ⎞
B ( 2) = 4 ⎜ + ⎟, (4) fine-scale layering may be useful in differentiating vertically
2β ⎝ 2 ρ 2β ⎠
heterogeneous reservoirs from thicker, blockier reservoirs. This
suggests that B (2) may be useful as an attribute that can provide
ρʹ βʹ
where and are relative changes of the density insight to the internal stratigraphic detail within a reservoir.
2ρ 2β
Again, it is difficult to validate the results on field data tests,
and shear velocity, respectively. The derivatives are with respect but qualitative information might provide useful insights into the
to depth (or traveltime) and are denoted by the prime, ' . These practical issues of implementation. Figure 10 shows an amplitude
derivatives can be replaced by differences. Notice there is no extraction of B (2) from two different intervals with varying degrees
contribution to B (2) from changes of P-wave velocity contrasts, of layering. These extractions come from a 3D volume of seismic
only density and shear velocity changes contribute. As data from offshore Trinidad. The amplitudes from the thin sands,
seen in Figure 10b, show a more coher-
ent anomaly in the center around well 1.
The anomaly in Figure 10a is weaker
overall and not as compelling as the one
on 10b. Both of these extractions come
from the 10 Hz calculated B (2) volumes,
and the 10 Hz response is stronger than
ones derived at other frequencies. This
supports one of our main premises —
that different frequencies can be used
to emphasize the desired response.

Conclusions
Figure 8. Stratigraphy Vsh curves for the five synthetic models are shown. Thicknesses and the numbers of thin A new frequency-dependent gen-
sand and shale layers in each of the models are variable. The values of P-wave velocity, S-wave velocity, and eralized AVO model is introduced, and
density values are for typical shales and gas-charged 25% porosity sands. two practical applications are discussed.
The new approach is based on a Born
scattering series approximation that
allows for the complexity of wave propa-
gation to be systematically included.
Frequency-based attributes have proven
useful in a variety of applications for
detecting subtle features on seismic data.
Our FAVO model, in a quantified way,
allows us to include tuning effects to
accentuate features of interest in reser-
voir description. Two different applica-
tions are explored: one discriminating
low versus commercial saturations of
gas and the other discerning blockier
reservoirs from small-scale thinly strati-
fied reservoirs.
Low versus high saturation of
hydrocarbons has long been a challenge
Figure 9. B (2) attributes for the five models shown in Figure 8. when using seismic amplitudes for

Special Section: Reservoir characterization Part I February 2020 THE LEADING EDGE 89
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/tle/article-pdf/39/2/84/4938377/tle39020084.pdf
by University of Cambridge user
 Figure 10. This figure shows the amplitude extraction of the B (2) attribute from two different stratigraphic intervals. This attribute comes from 10 Hz angle stack seismic
sections. Panel (a) is from a shallower interval with blockier sands, and (b) is from a deeper formation with thinner sands. The B (2) attribute is a real function.
predrill predictions. Here, we used the first-order term in the
Born series to address this challenge. The constructive interference
of the in-situ reservoir properties enhances the differences of the
response between low and higher saturations in synthetic models.
The field data example is not conclusive, but the frequency-based
attribute is consistent with the wells within the area of study. This
attribute uses tuning to accentuate the subtle difference of satura-
tion levels and may be useful in this long-standing problem.
Often, reservoirs are not thick, blocky, clean sandstone but
consist of many small-scale vertical heterogeneities. The second-
order term of the series is used to distinguish between these two
types of reservoirs. The first-order term does not conserve energy
of the backscattered wavefield, but the second-order term attempts
to approximate the energy loss that the P-wave experiences due
to S-wave mode conversions. The more laminated the reservoir,
the more mode conversions. This is seen on B (2) at the larger
incidence angles (approximately 30°) and at certain tuning frequen-
cies. Synthetic modeled data show that the intensity of the second-
order gradient attribute increases with increased layering. The field
data application shows this attribute is recovered stably from seismic
data and provides an interpretable estimate of the degree of reservoir
stratification. This attribute may be useful for detecting bypassed
pay as well as providing additional reservoir properties.
This interval-based model and its applications presented here
are to be considered as complementary to existing conventional
types of analysis and attributes. In terms of conventional AVO
90 THE LEADING EDGE February 2020
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/tle/article-pdf/39/2/84/4938377/tle39020084.pdf
by University of Cambridge user
analysis, the one-interface physical model has served us well,
but we demonstrate that there is more information to be dis-
covered when generalizing the model to include backscattering
from an interval. Most spectral attributes are qualitative, and
here we provide a physical model that can serve as a way to
quantify results.
Acknowledgments
We thank BP for permission to publish. Special acknowledg-
ments are to Rosemarie Geetan, John Etgen, Margarita Corzo,
Kevin Wolf, and Tara Rampersad for various technical discussions
and support. We thank Dave Lane and Chuan Yin for their
assistance in establishing the underlying theoretical basis,
Vaughn Ball for his insights into physical models used in AVO
analysis, and Paul Richards for his astute inquiry about what is
being recorded on reflection seismograms — specular reflections
versus coherently backscattered energy. Finally, Tad Ulrych is
acknowledged for inspiring this work by stressing the information
contained in seismic data is amplitude and phase: one should not
solely analyze amplitudes without considering phase.
Data and materials availability
Data associated with this research are confidential and cannot
be released.
Corresponding author: djfoster@ig.utexas.edu
Special Section: Reservoir characterization Part I
 References
Ahmad, S. S., W. W. Weibull, R. J. Brown, and A. Escalona, 2019, Observations and
suggested mechanisms for generation of low-frequency seismic anomalies: Examples
from the Johan Sverdrup Field, central North Sea Norwegian sector: Geophysics, 84,
no. 1, B1–B14, https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2018-0144.1.
Aki, K., and P. G. Richards, 1980, Quantitative seismology: W. H. Freeman.
Bortfeld, R., 1961, Approximation to the reflection and transmission coefficients of plane
longitudinal and transverse waves: Geophysical Prospecting, 9, no. 4, https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1961.tb01670.x.
Castagna, J. P., and M. M. Backus, 1993, Offset-dependent reflectivity — Theory and
practice of AVO analysis: SEG, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560802624.
Castagna, J. P., S. Sun, and R. W. Siegfried, 2003, Instantaneous spectral analysis:
Detection of low-frequency shadows associated with hydrocarbons: The Leading Edge,
22, no. 2, 120–127, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1559038.
Chapman, M., S. V. Zatsepin, and S. Crampin, 2002, Derivation of a microstructural
poroelastic model: Geophysical Journal International, 151, no. 2, 427–451, https://
doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246X.2002.01769.x.
Chopra, S., and K. J. Marfurt, 2007, Seismic attributes for prospect identification and
reservoir characterization: SEG, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560801900.
Foster, D. J., R. G. Keys, and F. D. Lane, 2010, Interpretation of AVO anomalies:
Geophysics, 75, no. 5, 75A3–75A13, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3467825.
Foster, D. J., F. D. Lane, and Z. Zhao, 2017, A systematic approach for quantifying wave
propagation in vertically inhomogeneous media: Geophysical Journal International,
210, no. 2, 706–730, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggx186.
Goloshubin, G., Y. Tsimbalyuk, I. Privalova, and P. Rusakov, 2014, Low-frequency
amplitude analysis for oil detection within the Middle Jurassic sediments in the southern
part of Western Siberia: Interpretation, 2, no. 4, SP35–SP43, https://doi.org/10.1190/
INT-2014-0040.1.
Henderson, K., H. J. Rose, and R. Winter, 2010, Identifying and quantifying thin-bedded
pay (part A): Log characteristics and reservoir quality: Trinidad and Tobago Energy
Resource Conference, SPE 133534-MS, https://doi.org/10.2118/133534-MS.
Hilterman, F. J., 2001, Seismic amplitude interpretation: SEG/EAGE Distinguish
Instructor Series, no. 4, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560801993.
Kumar, D., Z. Zhao, D. J. Foster, D. Dralus, and M. K. Sen, 2020, Frequency-dependent
AVO analysis utilizing scattering response of a layered reservoir: Geophysics, https://
doi.org/10.1190/geo2019-0167.1.
Kumar, D., Z. Zhao, D. Foster, and M. K. Sen, 2017, Frequency-dependent AVO analysis
based on scattering series: 87th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts,
534–538, https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2017-17677300.1.
Marfurt, K. J., and R. L. Kirlin, 2001, Narrow-band spectral analysis and thin-bed tuning:
Geophysics, 66, no. 4, 1274–1283, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1487075.
Ostrander, W. J., 1984, Plane-wave reflection coefficients for gas sands at nonnormal
angles of incidence: Geophysics, 49, no. 10, 1637–1648, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1441571.
Partyka, G., J. Gridley, and J. Lopez, 1999, Interpretational applications of spectral decom-
position in reservoir characterization: The Leading Edge, 18, no. 3, 353–360, https://
doi.org/10.1190/1.1438295.
Richards, P. G., and C. W. Frasier, 1976, Scattering of elastic waves from depth-dependent
inhomogeneities: Geophysics, 41, no. 3, 441–458, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1440625.
Simmons, J. Jr., and M. Backus, 1994, AVO modeling and the locally converted shear
wave: Geophysics, 59, no. 8, 1237–1248, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1443681.
Zhao, Z., D. J. Kumar, D. Foster, D. Dralus, and M. K. Sen, 2018, A new frequency dependent
reflectivity model and estimating seismic AVO attributes: 88th Annual International Meeting,
SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 416–420, https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2018-2997403.

Special Section: Reservoir characterization Part I February 2020 THE LEADING EDGE 91
Downloaded from https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/tle/article-pdf/39/2/84/4938377/tle39020084.pdf
by University of Cambridge user