AVO Analysis on

Real Data

Theory 3-1
 Introduction

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 Aki-Richards equation to extract intercept

and gradient attributes from real data.

We will then look at the classification scheme of Rutherford and

Williams,
Williams and consider both the Smith-Gidlow approach to AVO analysis
and AVO cross-plotting.
cross-plotting

Theory 3-2
 The Two-Term Aki-Richards Equation
Intercept / gradient analysis is done with the two-term Aki-Richards
equation.
equation Recall that:

R(  )  A  B sin 2 
Where we have dropped the C term and define A and B as:

1   VP  
2 2
1  VP  VS   VS  VS  
A   , B  4   2  ,
2  V p   2 Vp VP  VS VP  

or, using Shuey’s

approximation:
 1  2    VP / VP
B  A D  2( 1  D )   , D  .
 1  ( 1 ) 2
 VP / VP   / 
Theory 3-3
Estimating the Intercept and Gradient

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.

Theory 3-4
Converting from Offset to Angle

Theory 3-5
Western Geophysical
 Converting from Offset to Angle
Conversion from offset to angle can be done very simply using the
straight ray approximation (see (1) below), or completely using full ray-
tracing. A good compromise between the two is to use the ray
parameter approach (see (2) below).

(1 ) Straight Ray : ( 2 ) Ray Parameter :

X X XVINT
tan    , sin   2
,
2 d Vt 0 tVRMS
where X  offset , where VINT  Interval velocity ,
V t t  total traveltime.
d  depth  RMS 0 ,
2
t 0  2  way time,
VRMS  RMS velocity .

Theory 3-6
 Real Data Example
Now let’s look at some real data, and see if it matches the theory.

The next slide 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”

stack or “super-gather”
super-gather
over the gathers. The amplitudes have been picked and displayed, to
quantify the amplitude increase.

Theory 3-7
Seismic Gathers 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.
Theory 3-8
Common Offset Stack from Gathers
(a) Common offset stack
(b) Picks
from the
trough.

(c) Picks
from the
peak.

Theory 3-9
 Common Offset Picks as
Function of sin2

Offset +A
+B

sin2

-B
Time -A
(a) Small portion of the
common offset stack.

(b) Peak and trough picks vs sin2.

Theory 3-10
(a)

(b)

(a) Intercept and (b) Gradient Stacks Theory 3-11

 Aki-Richards Approx.
Assuming that VP/VS = 2 in the full Aki-Richards equation:
equation
2 2
1  VP  VS   VS  VS  
B  4   2 
2 Vp VP  VS VP  
1  VP  VS 1  1  VP 1   VS 
      
2 Vp VS 2  2 Vp 2  VS 
1   VS  
 RP  2 RS , where : RP  A, and RS   
2  VS  
Thus, the S-wave reflectivity can be estimated as follows from the
intercept and gradient:
1
RS   A  B 
2
Theory 3-12
 Approximate Shuey’s Equation
Assuming that  = 1/3 in Shuey’s equation:
equation

 1  2  
B  A D  2( 1  D )  
 1    ( 1   ) 2

 1  9
 A D  2( 1  D )   2
   A
 2 ( 2 / 3 ) 4
Thus,  can be estimated from the intercept and gradient:

4
   A  B 
9
Shortly, we will look at the application of the R S and  approximations to
our gas sand example. But first, we will look at one more approximation,
that of Hilterman. Theory 3-13
 Hilterman’s Approximation
Hilterman re-arranges the equation on the previous page in a slightly
different way:

B  A  2.25   A sin 2 
 A ( 1  sin 2  )  2.25  sin 2 
 A cos 2   2.25  sin 2 

Notice that this equation is very intuitive, since it shows that, as the
angle increases, so does the dependence on . Keep in mind that
this equation is strictly correct only for  = 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:

B  A cos 2   ( A  B ) sin 2 
Theory 3-14
(a)

(b)

(a)  = (A + B)/2.25, and (b) Rs = (A – B)/2 sections Theory 3-15

 3D Channel Sand Example

(a) Map view of amplitude (b) Pseudo-Poisson’s Ratio over

from 3D channel sand. channel sand.
Theory 3-16
 AVO Cross-plotting
AVO cross-plotting involves plotting the intercept against the gradient
and identifying anomalies. The theory of cross-plotting 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.

Rutherford/Williams Classification
Rutherford and Williams (1989) derived the following classification
scheme for AVO anomalies,
anomalies with further modifications by Ross and
Kinman (1995) and Castagna (1997):
Class 1: High acoustic impedance contrast
Class 2: Near-zero impedance contrast
Class 2p: Same as 2, with polarity change
Class 3: Low impedance contrast sands
Theory 3-17
Class 4: Very low impedance contrast
The Rutherford and Williams classification scheme
as modified by Ross and Kinman (1995).

Theory 3-18
 An Example of a Class 1 Anomaly

(a) Data
example.

(b) Model
example.

Theory 3-19
Rutherford and Williams (1989)
 Angle Stacks over Class 2 & 3 Sands
(b) Class 3 sand.
(a) Class 2 sand.

Theory 3-20
Rutherford and Williams (1989)
 Class 2p vs Class 2 Sands

Ross and Kinman (1995) suggest creating a near trace range stack
(NTS)
NTS and a far trace range stack (FTS).
FTS

For Class 2p: Final Stack = FTS - NTS

For Class 2: Final Stack = FTS

Theory 3-21
(a) Full stack of a class 2
sand.

(b) FTS of a class 2 sand.

Theory 3-22

Ross and Kinman (1995)

(a) Full stack of a
class 2p sand.

(a) FTS - NTS of a

class 2p sand.

Theory 3-23
Ross and Kinman (1995)
 Class 4 Anomalies
Castagna (1995) suggested that for a very large value of A, and a
small change in Poisson’s ratio,
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:
approximation

9
B    A,
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)

Theory 3-24
Here is Figure 7 from
Castagna et al (1998),
which illustrates the
concept of the Class 4
anomaly in more detail.

Theory 3-25
 The Mudrock Line
The mudrock line is a linear relationship between VP and VS derived by
Castagna et al (1985). The equation is as follows and the plot from their
original paper is on the next slide:

VP  1.16VS  1360 m/s

Although the mudrock line is now mainly associated with cross-plotting,

it was first made use of by Smith and Gidlow (1987) to derive their “Fluid
Factor”
Factor stack.

We will therefore first look at the “Fluid Factor”

Factor stack, and then consider
cross-plotting.

Theory 3-26
 The Fluid Factor Stack
Smith and Gidlow (“Weighted stacking for rock property estimation and
detection of gas”, Geophysical Prospecting, 35, 993-1014, 1987) derived the
“Fluid Factor”
Factor by combining the mudrock line with the Aki-Richards
equation.
equation Their basic equation is:

 VP  VS
R(  )  a b
VP VS
2
5 1  VS  1
where: a     sin 2   tan 2  ,
8 2  VP  2
2
 VS 
b  4   sin 2  .
 VP 
Theory 3-27
 Using Gardner’s Equation
Notice that the Smith-Gidlow formulation does not contain density.
This is because they used Gardner’s equation to remove density
effects. The derivation is as follows:

Gardner’s Equation:   cVP0.25

From calculus:

d 0.75 cV 0.25

 0.25 cVP  0.25 P
 0.25
dVP VP VP

Thus:  1  VP

 4 VP Theory 3-28
 Pseudo-Poisson’s Ratio
Smith and Gidlow use a weighted stack technique (to be discussed in
more detail in the inversion section) to extract estimates of VP/VP and
VS/VS from the data. They then create a “pseudo-Poisson’s ratio”
ratio
reflectivity using the following equation:

Pseudo-Poisson’s   VP  VS
Ratio Reflectivity:  
 VP VS

Notice that the above formula can also be derived by equating the 
and RS formulas discussed earlier and also equating RP with VP/VP and
RS with VS/VS.

Theory 3-29
 Fluid Factor
Smith and Gidlow also create a “fluid factor”
factor stack by using Castagna’s
mudrock line,
line as follows:

dVP  VP
First, differentiate:
  1.16
dVS  VS
Second, include VP  VP VS  VS
and VS terms:
 1.16
VP VP VS

The Fluid Factor stack  VP VS  VS

is the deviation away F   1.16
from the mudrock line: VP VP VS

Theory 3-30
 Model Example
V p Vs 
Vp Vs  F
V p (m / s) Vs (m / s ) V p Vs  P g / cm
3

(a) Modeled logs. Note false (b) Results of analysis. Only

anomaly at 2.5 seconds. F showed the true anomaly.
Theory 3-31
Smith and Gidlow (1987)
 Real Data Example

Cross plot of shear velocity (w) against P-wave velocity (v).

Theory 3-32
Smith and Gidlow (1987)
 Real Example from Smith-Gidlow
reflectivity VS/VS
(b) S-wave reflectivity,
reflectivity VP/VP
(a) P-wave reflectivity,

Theory 3-33
Smith and Gidlow (1987)
 Real Data Example
(b) Fluid factor section.
section
(a) Pseudo-Poisson’s Gas sand at 2.0 s
Ratio.
Ratio Gas sand at 2.0 s

Theory 3-34
Smith and Gidlow (1987)
 Intercept versus Gradient
By using the Aki-Richards equation,
equation Gardner’s equation,
equation and the ARCO
mudrock line,
line we can derive a simple relationship between intercept and
gradient. Recall that:
2 2
1   VP   1  VP  VS   VS  VS  
A    B  4   2  ,
2  V p   2 Vp VP  VS VP  

 1  VP
Gardner : 
 4 VP
If we assume that VP = cVS, then VP/VS = c, and the mudrock
equation becomes:

 VP c VS  VS
 
VP cVS VS
Theory 3-35
 By substituting Gardner’s equation into the intercept,
we get:

1   VP 1  VP  5  VP
A   
2  V p 4 V p  8 V p

By substituting Gardner’s equation and the mudrock equation for

constant VP/VS ratio into the gradient, we get:

1  VP 4  VP 1  VP  VP 1 4 1 
B  2  2   2  c 2  2c 2 
2 Vp c VP 2c V p Vp

Combining the above two equations gives:

8 1 4 1  4  9
B A  2  2   A1  2 
5 2 c 2c  5  c  Theory 3-36
 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):

4  9
B A1     A
5  4

If c = 3, the gradient is zero, a horizontal line on the crossplot of intercept

against gradient:

4  9
B A1    0
5  9

Various values of c produce the straight lines (“wet” trends) shown on

intercept / gradient crossplots on the next page.
Theory 3-37
Mudrock lines on a crossplot for various VP/VS ratios
(Castagna and Swan,
Swan 1998).

Theory 3-38
 Intercept / Gradient Crossplots
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) 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.

Theory 3-39
 Gradient
Base II P
Base II

Base I
Base III

Top IV

Intercept
Base IV

Top III Top I

“Wet” Trend
Crossplot Top II  Vp 
Top II P   2 
Showing  Vs 
Anomalies Theory 3-40
 ARCO Example of Cross-Plotting

(a) Cross-plot of well log derived

A and B.

(b) Cross-plot of seismically derived

A and B.
Theory 3-41
Foster et al (1993)
 Intercept / Gradient
Crossplots

(a) Uninterpreted gas zone

(b) Interpreted gas zone

Theory 3-42
Seismic Display from Int/Grad Xplots

(a) Before interpretation

(b) After interpretation

Theory 3-43
Problems in the Intercept / Gradient Analysis

There are a number of problems that can reduce the accuracy of

intercept / gradient analysis and crossplotting:
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 Aki-Richards

- This can be improved by estimating the third (C) term.

Theory 3-44
Summary

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.

Finally, we looked at the AVO cross-plotting technique.

In a later section, we will look at a number of analysis methods that

go beyond the intercept and gradient, such as the Elastic Impedance
method, RP and RS inversion, and lambda-mu-rho (LMR) as well as
Simultaneous Inversion.

Theory 3-45
References
Aki, K., and Richards, P.G., 1980, Quantitative seismology: Theory and
methods: W.H. Freeman and Co.
Castagna, J.P., Batzle, M.L., and Eastwood, R.L., 1985, Relationship
between compressional and shear-wave velocities in clastic silicate
rocks: Geophysics, 50, 551-570.
Castagna, J.P., Batzle, M.L., and Kan, T.K., 1993, Rock physics: the link
between rock properties and AVO response in Castagna, J.P., and
Backus, M.M., Eds., Offset-dependent reflectivity -Theory and practice of
AVO analysis, Soc. Expl. Geophys., 135-171.
Castagna, J.P., Swan, H.W., and Foster, D.J., 1998, Framework for AVO
gradient and intercept interpretation: Geophysics, 63, 948-956
Gardner, G.H.F., Gardner, L.W., and Gregory, A.R., 1974, Formation
velocity and density - the diagnostic basis for stratigraphic traps:
Geophysics, 39, 770-780
Gassmann, F., 1951, Elastic waves through a packing of spheres:
Geophysics, 16, 673-685
Hampson, D., and Russell, B., 1990, AVO inversion: theory and practice:
60th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts,
1456-1458. Theory 3-46
 References
Hilterman, F., 1989, Is AVO the seismic signature of rock properties?:
59th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts,
559.
Ostrander, W.J., 1984, Plane-wave reflection coefficients for gas sands at
nonnormal angles of incidence: Geophysics, 49, 1637-1648.
Richards, P.G., and Frasier, C.W., 1976, Scattering of elastic waves from
depth-dependent inhomogeneities: Geophysics, 41, 441-458
Rutherford, S.R., and Williams, R.H., 1989, Amplitude-versus-offset
variations in gas sands: Geophysics, 54, 680-688.
Shuey, R.T., 1985, A simplification of the Zoeppritz equations:
Geophysics, 50, 609-614.
Wiggins, R., Kenny, G.S., and McClure, C.D., 1983, A method for
determining and displaying the shear-velocity reflectivities of a
geologic formation: European patent Application 0113944.
Yu, G., 1985(b), Offset-amplitude variation and controlled amplitude
processing: Geophysics, 50, 2697-2708.
Zoeppritz, K., 1919, Erdbebenwellen VIIIB, On the reflection and
propagation of seismic waves: Gottinger Nachrichten, I, 66-84.
Theory 3-47