AVO Preserntation CGG

Course DPST07 - AVO
Cefoga DPST07 - overview slide 1 June 02

Geoscience Training Centre
Course Contents
1 - Introduction 2 - Basic Rock Physics 3 - Basic AVO theory 4 - GeoCluster AVO modules 5 - Preparing data for AVO
Overview 2D Land example 3D Land example 3D Marine example

Course Aims
Understand .
the basics of AVO theory parameters of GeoCluster batch modules
DINAT MUTAN ANGLE AMPVO
AVO attributes / products

AVO - Introduction
What is the meaning of AVO ?
AMPLITUDE VERSUS OFFSET

OR
AMPLITUDE VARIATION with OFFSET

AVO - Introduction
Reflected Amplitudes
are determined by the Reflection Coefficients being depend upon the rocks Physical Properties
velocity density
which will differ according to

reflection angle - AVA (amplitude variation with angle) trace offset - AVO (amplitude variation with offset)

AVO - Introduction
The presence of hydrocarbons may dramatically alter

the rock properties thus the reflected amplitude
AVO analysis - provides circumstantial evidence for the possible presence of hydrocarbons
X X X
gas

Basic AVO Assumptions
Basic Assumptions .
the Earth acts as a discretely layered medium
hydrocarbons change the rock properties amplitude changes across a CMP gather represent true variations of the reflection coefficient with incidence angle

Introduction - AVO Origins
Historically a very basic AVO analysis called Bright Spot Analysis was used in the 1960s and 1970s
this analysis was mainly post-stack and often by chance but very worthwhile: located many gas rich HC accumulations
Since the mid 1980s several additional types of AVO analysis have been developed
this analysis is mainly pre-stack

Introduction - AVO Summary
AVO Amplitude Versus Offset

An attempt to extract information from seismic traces as to how reflection amplitude varies with incidence angle. As reflection amplitude also changes with the rocks physical properties this allows conclusions to be made about the rocks, including the possibility that some amplitude changes may indicate the presence of hydrocarbons.
AVO theory is complex .

giving the impression that the method doesnt or cant work
HOWEVER .
can be an extremely valuable method has been used to reduce the number of dry wells being drilled
Course DPST07 - AVO
Cefoga DPST07 - Part 2 Page 1 January 2002

Basic Rock Properties
Review of
Basic Rock Properties
Isotropy and Homogeneity Porosity and Permiability Density
Elastic moduli Velocity

Body waves Vp and Vs Hydrocarbon saturation effects Wyllies formula Biot-Gassmann model
Poissons ratio in terms of Vp and Vs

Anisotropy
Anisotropic media the physical property of the rock changes according to the direction in which it is measured
Isotropic rock e.g. crystalline basement
Anisotropic rock e.g. shales

Homogeneity
Homogeneous media has physical properties which are the same everywhere within the material.
Examples of homogeneous media: Evaporites Halite, Anhydrite Crystalline basement Water

Homogeneity and Isotropy
Homogeneity does not mean the same thing as Isotropy:

a material may be both homogeneous and anisotropic
There is also effect of scale to consider

Each individual layer may be considered homogeneous and isotropic If considered as a whole however, the cliff section is neither!

Sedimentary Rock Construction
At small scales sedimentary rocks can be considered to consist of several components.

Grain sizes. Sandstone: 0.0625mm - 2mm diameter Shale: <0.07mm diameter
clasts, grains Pores (fluid filled) matrix
Cement 10 mm Note : this is non-homogeneous at microscopic scale

Porosity and Permeability
Porosity
pore volume per unit material high porosity = 35%, low = 10 %
Permeability
the ease with which a fluid can travel through the pore spaces

Density - homogeneous medium
Density of a homogeneous medium is simply =
mass unit volume
X Y
Volume V=XxYxZ mass = m Rho, = density
m = V
Cefoga
DPST07 - Part 2 Page 8
January 2002
Density of a Non-homogeneous Medium - One Fluid

For a medium consisting of both solid and fluid components we can define a bulk density.
clasts, grains
Matrix
Cement
Pores (fluid filled)
Wyllies Equation.
= m (1 ) + f
= bulk density of rock m = matrix density f = fluid density = porosity

Cefoga
January 2002
Density of a Non-homogeneous Medium - Two Fluids

The interstitial fluid is most commonly water. However in areas in which we are most likely to be interested the fluid will consist of water and hydrocarbons...
water gas
oil
In reality the fluids will be mixed into an emulsion containing different percentages of the different phases

Density of a Non-homogeneous Medium - Two Fluids

If the fluid is a combination of a fluid and a gas..
The fluid density term f can be replaced by a term weighting the fluid and gas densities according to their relative degree of saturation.
clasts, grains
Matrix
Cement
Pores (fluid and gas filled)

f = density of fluid
S = gas saturation
Therefore:
f = (1 S )l + S g
January 2002
l = liquid density g = gas density

Cefoga
Elastic Moduli
Elastic Moduli are physical properties of material which relate....
Stress - the Force per unit area AND Strain - the degree of
deformation
Stress = Modulus x Strain

There are various forces (tensional, compressional, pressure, shear) leading to different types of deformation related via a series of different elastic moduli....
BH 070797
Bulk Modulus
Bulk Modulus is the modulus of incompressibility.

V = original volume F V2 = new volume
V = (V - V2)
F
F
Examples. Limestone Granite Sandstone 3.7 5.7 2.7 3.3 ~1.25
V PH = K V
K = Bulk Modulus PH = Hydrostatic Stress (acts equally in all directions) V/V = Volumetric Strain
Cefoga
January 2002
BH 070797
Shear Modulus
Shear Modulus - also known as Rigidity...
Y Ps = X
PS = Shear Stress
F
Examples Limestone Granite Sandstone 2.1 3.0 1.5 2.4 ~0.6
Mu,
= Shear modulus
Note: The Shear Modulus is zero for a fluid! matrix.

Cefoga
gives information about the rock

January 2002
POISSONS RATIO
Poissons Ratio, Sigma () is another elastic modulus.

Original volume
F
R
R l
In physical terms it relates the degree of lateral extension to vertical compression..
R R = l L
= Poissons Ratio
Final volume
Later, we see can also be expressed in terms of the velocities of body waves (Vp and Vs)
BH 070797
Types of Body Waves
Body waves can be either. P (compressional) waves.

P WAVE Wavelength Direction of propagation
Velocity = VP
Dilation Compression
.or S (shear) waves

SH WAVE HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT Wavelength Direction of propagation
SV WAVE
Wavelength
Direction of propagation
Velocity = VS
Double amplitude
VERTICAL MOVEMENT
Double amplitude

Seismic Velocity - Definitions

Instantaneous Velocity is the rate at which a seismic pulse or energy moves through rock. In reality most rocks are anisotropic. In practice we traditionally assume isotropy:
VHorizontalX VHorizontalY VHorizontalX VHorizontalY
VVertical
VVertical
Isotropic
VVertical = VHorizontalY = VHorizontalX
Anisotropic
VVertical = VHorizontalY = VHorizontalX
Cefoga
January 2002
Velocity in a Homogeneous Medium

For a isotropic, homogeneous medium the body wave velocities can be shown (see Sheriff & Geldart 1994) to be dependent upon both the elastic moduli and density...
K + Vp =
4 3
1/2
where K = bulk modulus or incompressibility
= shear modulus or rigidity = density

As liquids can not be sheared = 0 and therefore Vs = 0 Shear waves can not travel through liquids.
Cefoga
Vs =
1/ 2
January 2002
BH 070797
Behaviour of a Non-homogeneous Medium - Two Fluids

Consider a rock model consisting of a matrix and pores where the interstitial fluid is partially replaced by gas. What effects would we expect on the factors K, and which control velocity?
Effect on bulk density

The introduction of gas will reduce the effective bulk density of the rock. In this case there is a linear relationship between the %gas and .
100% Gas
Water saturation
100% Water Cefoga
January 2002
Behaviour of a Non-homogeneous Medium - Two Fluids

Effect on bulk modulus
Gas is very compressible compared to water - by a factor of about 100 times. A small percentage of gas replacing water in the pore space will lower the effective bulk modulus K of a rock by a large amount. Increasing the percentage of gas further then has only a small effect on the bulk modulus.
100% Gas
Water saturation
100% Water

Bulk Modulus of a Non-homogeneous Medium - Two Fluids

To explain the behaviour in the change of effective bulk modulus K. Consider a sponge in a sealed plastic bag which we want to squeeze to 90% of its original volume.
1) If the sponge is saturated i.e. the pore space is 100% water saturated, the compression is extremely hard to achieve - water is basically incompressible, i.e. it has a high K. 2) If some water is squeezed out so the pore spaces contain 90% water and 10% air - the 90% compression is easily achieved. It is the air filled pores which compress. 3) If more water is allowed to escape so only 80% of the pore spaces are water filled - compressing the sponge to 90% of its original volume is very little different to the effort required in case 2.
P wave velocity in a Non-homogeneous Medium - Two Fluids

Considering the P wave velocity VP....
K + Vp =
4 3
1/2
.we expect that the introduction of gas will create. A reduction in bulk modulus K which results in a reduction in VP. A reduction in density which results in an increase in VP.
VP
The net result is that the progressive introduction of gas theoretically causes an initial sharp reduction in VP after which there is a small increase.
Water saturation
100% Water
Cefoga
100% Gas
January 2002
S wave velocity in a Non-homogeneous Medium - Two Fluids

Considering the S wave velocity VS....
VS =
1/2
.we expect that the introduction of gas will create... No change in overall shear modulus as fluids can not be sheared. A reduction in density which results in an increase in VS.
VS
The net result is that theoretically the progressive introduction of gas causes a small increase in VS.
Water saturation
100% Water
100% Gas

Velocities in Real Rocks

Do we see such relationships in actual rocks? In reality rocks have complex structure and there are many parameters which affect the velocity..
The nature of the mineral phases Crystallography and mineralogy Texture of the rock Porosity Geometry of porous network Anisotropy Degree of shaliness
Nature of saturating fluid (gas, liquid) Saturation (oil, water) Water content Density
Pressure regime Depth of burial Compaction Temperature
Unfortunately, until holes are drilled we usually do not know the values of these parameters.
BH 070797
How physical properties influence V, , and

Increases in
Temperature Pressure Pore Pressure Porosity Clay content Gas Saturation
VP VS
+ Cefoga
January 2002
BH 070797
Velocities in Real Rocks
Controls on Shear wave velocity..
Major Controls
Cementation If no cementation
Grain shape Degree of grain sorting (by size) Overburden pressure
Modest Controls
Rock Type Clay content
Minor Controls
Saturant
Conclusion: The effects on Shear wave velocity caused by hydrocarbons being present in the saturant are relatively minor ones!
BH 070797
Depth Of Burial Effects on Velocity

0.0
1.0
Depth (kms)
Gas Sand
Oil Sand
Brine Sand
Below about 2.5 kms depth the curves tend to converge - the implication is that velocity
effects due to the presence of hydrocarbons will be difficult to see in the deeper parts of a section.
2.0
3.0
4.0
Why should the curves converge i.e. why does the influence of hydrocarbons become diminished?
1000 2000 3000
5.0
Velocity
4000
BH 070797
Control of Velocity by Porosity

Porosity decreases rapidly with burial depth. Leads to an increase in density and (a more rapid) increase in bulk modulus.
Gas Sand Water Sand Probability
DEPTH OF BURIAL
Leads to an increase in velocity Beyond a certain depth the porosity is so low that the fluid composition has little influence on the average velocity. Small separation between gas and water sands - DHI/AVO anomaly less likely How does this effect correlate with the depth of real oil fields?
2.0
2.5 3.0 Vp (km/s)

Cefoga
January 2002
BH 070797
Depth Of Known Oil Fields

0.0
Depth (kms)
1.0
Gas Sand
Oil Sand
Brine Sand 76% of fields
Potentially significant AVO effects
2.0
3.0
Small AVO effects

4.0
24% of fields
5.0 0 10 20 Based on 200 fields distributed around the world 30 40 50
Percentage of fields
Cefoga
January 2002
BH 070797
Predicting Velocity: Wyllies Time Average

Wyllies time - average equation applies to the calculation of average velocity through a layered earth. V
V1 V2 V1 V2 V1 V2 V1 Z V1 V2
Proportion r1
Proportion r2
1 r1 r2 = + V A V1 V2
It is a method of computing average velocity based on the velocities of the different layers and their relative preponderance.
Cefoga
January 2002
BH 070797
Predicting Velocity in a Non-homogeneous Medium

Wyllies time - average equation can be modified to compute velocity in a medium containing both solid and liquid parts..
clasts, grains
Matrix
Cement
Pores (fluid filled)

V is bulk velocity
1 1 1 = (1 ) + V Vm Vf
V m is m atrix velocity V f is fluid velocity
is porosity
It is often stated that porosity is the most important factor determining the velocity of sedimentary rocks
BH 070797
Predicting Velocity in a Non-homogeneous Medium

Consider a typical rock where..
Matrix Vel = 5700m/s
Porosity = 25%
Fluid Vel (Water) = 1480m/s
Wyllies time - average equation gives..
1 1 1 = 0 . 75 + 0 .25 V 5700 1480
V = 3328m/s
Cefoga
What predictions does Wyllies equation give for V when hydrocarbons are introduced?
January 2002
BH 070797
Predicting Velocity: Wyllies Formula

Applying Wyllies time average Equation to Water saturation vs. P-wave velocity.
3.5 3.328
Porosity = 25% Matrix Vel = 5700m/s

3.0
Oil Sand (V = 1300m/s)
P wave Velocity (kms/s)
2.5
2.0
1.5
Gas Sand (V = 300m/s)
This equation gives a Vp curve for gas sands with a continuing reduction in velocity!
1 0 Oil or Gas 0.2 0.4 0.6 Water saturation

Cefoga
0.8
1.0 Water
January 2002
BH 070797
Efficacy of Wyllies Time Average

The Wyllie time average works well in predicting velocity when applied to fluid saturated sediments at depth. It does not correctly predict the effects seen in shallow, gassaturated sands..
P wave Velocity
Deep Gas Sand Wyllie prediction Measured For shallow sands, experiments show a more dramatic dip in velocity as soon as gas is introduced than predicted by Wyllie time averaging.
Shallow Gas Sand
0 Oil or Gas
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 Water
Water saturation

BH 070797
Predicting velocity: Biot - Gassmann model

The Biot-Gassmann model (Gassman 1951, Biot 1956) gives an expression for velocity involving the bulk moduli of both the solid and the liquid components..
K b + 4 / 3 b + F Vp =
1/ 2
b VS =
1/2
VP = P - wave velocity VS = S - wave velocity

This is an extended form of the equation for homogeneous material....
K b = bulk modulus(average)
K + 4 3 Vp =
1/2
b = shear modulus = bulk density
with the added fluid term F

Cefoga
January 2002
BH 070797
Biot - Gassmann model Fluid Factor

The added fluid term or Fluid Factor F is given by.
( 1-K b/K s)2 F= ( 1- -K b/K s)/K s+ /K f

Where...
KS = bulk modulus(solid)
K f = bulk modulus(fluid)
K b = bulk modulus(average)
= porosity
Note:
This becomes zero if Kb/Ks = 1 i.e. the medium is solid with no fluids. This fluid factor is NOT the same as that we will see later in GeoCluster module AMPVO.
BH 070797
BIOT - GASSMANN MODEL - FLUID SUBSTITUITION

Study of the Biot-Gassman expression shows that the body wave velocities are a function of K, , and ...
K b + 4 / 3b + F Vp =
VS =
1/2
1/ 2
Vp = f( K, , , )
Vs = f( , )
Therefore given . Vp, density , porosity , fluid fill ..it is possible to generate models using new porosities or fluid fills. e.g. What happens if interstitial water is replaced by gas or oil?
BH 070797
BIOT - GASSMANN MODEL - Applicability
Biot-Gassman also has limitations in its applicability. It works well when the following assumptions are met.
The porous rock framework (skeleton) is macroscopically isotropic and homogeneous The skeleton, grains, fluids and saturated rock obey Hookes law.
The pore space is interconnected The fluid pressure is uniform.
No fluid enters or leaves any volume of the system and no cavitation occurs.

BH 070797
BIOT - GASSMANN MODEL - Limitations

The higher the shale content of the rock, the more likely these assumptions are violated.
Rock becomes increasingly aisotropic
The pore space likely to be disconnected
Biot Gassman is mathematically complex and also falls down when applied to small grained clastic rocks (e.g. mudstones)
Low permiability

BH 070797
Biot-Gassman Plot (1)

Water saturation versus P-wave and S-wave velocities based on the Biot-Gassmann expression...
P wave Velocity 2.7 (kms/s) The sharp change in Vp is known as the
Gas sand Porosity = 33%

This porosity chosen as it represents a potentially good, economic reservoir
2.4
Domenico Effect
2.1
VP
1.8
The Vp curve models the sharp change at small %gas better than the Wyllie Formula.
1.5
VS
1.2 0 100% Gas 0.2 0.4 0.6 Water saturation

Cefoga
0.8
1.0 100% Water
January 2002
BH 070797
VP/ VS ratio in a Homogeneous Medium

For a homogeneous medium a relationship between P-wave and S-wave velocities can be derived by using the earlier given expressions
Vs VP
VP = VS
4 + 3
Where.. = bulk modulus or incompressibility = shear modulus or rigidity
VP VS
The Vp/Vs ratio is potentially an important diagnostic tool in seismic lithological determination.
Water saturation
100% Gas
The initial drop in the VP/VS 100% Water ratio is an HCI indicator.
Cefoga
January 2002
BH 070797
VP/ VS ratio in typical rocks

Typical Vp/Vs ratios are
Unconsolidated Sandstone Sandstone Gas Sands Shale Limestone Salt

1.5 2.0
Coal
2.5 3.0 3.5
Vp/Vs

BH 070797
CASTAGNAS EMPRICAL VP/VS RELATIONSHIP

Castagna (1985) derived a simple empirical relationship between Vp and Vs by using measurements made on real rocks. This turns out to be the equation for a straight line the so called Mud-rock line.
Vp (km/sec) Shale (or mud-rock) line
Vp = 1.16Vs + 1.36 (km/sec)
6 4 2
. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. .... . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . Can be used to predict S wave . . . . .... . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .... velocities where no such .. ...... . . . .. . ..... data has been recorded.
0 1 2 3
Vs (km/sec)
Cefoga
January 2002
BH 070797
CASTAGNAS EMPRICAL VP/VS RELATIONSHIP

The mud-rock line is therefore an expected normal velocity relationship between Vp and Vs. This has been found to hold quite well for most shales. Note however that the mudrock line does vary between sedimentary basins. There is not a single global value for the mudrock line that can be used for every survey used for AVO studies.
Vp (km/sec)
6 4 2
Shale (or mud-rock) line for the basin under study Any rocks showing a variation from this line may be an indication of the presence of hydrocarbons.
.... . . . .. .....
0 1 2 3
Vs (km/sec)
Cefoga
January 2002
BH 070797
POISSONS RATIO
We saw earlier that Poissons Ratio can be defined in terms of its change in lateral dimension relative to its change in vertical dimension
In fact Poissons Ratio can also be expressed purely in terms of Vp and Vs.
1 Vp 1 2 Vs = 2 Vp 1 Vs
OR
VS = VP
1 2 1
If a rock has a Vp of 3600m/s and a Vs of 2000m/s what is its Poissons Ratio?

BH 070797
POISSONS RATIO
Plotting Poissons Ratio for various ratios of Vp and Vs.
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
For most rocks is of the order of 0.2 - 0.45
is abnormally low for gas

filled reservoir (~0.1)
-0.1 -0.2 1 3 5 7
Vp / Vs Poissons Ratio is a key factor controlling AVO

Cefoga
A small change in the Vp/Vs ratio in the range of 1.5 to 2 generates a large change in
January 2002
BH 070797
POISSONS RATIO
Effect of water saturation on Poissons Ratio vs. P-wave velocity.

0.5
Poissons Ratio
0.4

Introducing a small %gas causes a large drop in . Beyond about 10% gas changes in become small
100% Water saturation
0.3
99% 96%
0.2
90% 75% 50% 0% = 100% Gas saturation
0.1
0 0 4.0 2.0 P wave Velocity (kms/s)

Cefoga
January 2002
BH 070797
Biot-Gassman Plot (2)
Poissons Ratio v Water Saturation...

Poissons Ratio
0.5
0.4
With the introduction of a little gas Vp drops rapidly but Vs 0.2 doesnt Therefore VP/VS also drops rapidly. As is closely related to VP/VS then shows a 0 similar drop.
0.3
0.1
0 100% Gas
0.2
0.4 0.6 Water saturation

Cefoga
0.8
1.0 100% Water
January 2002
BH 070797
Summary of effects of GAS Saturation Poissons ratio Velocity
0.50
Vp
0.25
Vs
0 0.5 1
0.00 0 0.5 1
Gas
Water saturation
Water
Gas
Water saturation Water
Low observed for gas filled reservoir Forms basis of the AVO method for direct hydrocarbon detection (DCI).
Domenico effect for low gas saturation Potential AVO pitfall

BH 070797
Summary of effects of Light Oil Saturation
Poissons ratio
Sandstone reservoir ( = 0.33) Light oil (API = 40)
Velocity
Vp Vs
0.50
0.25
0.00 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1
Oil Water saturation
Water
Oil Water saturation
Water
Oil has less effect on rock properties than gas Nevertheless AVO method useful for certain oil cases
Useful in cases of live oil (oil containing dissolved gas), but not so useful in cases of dead oil (oil without gas)
BH 070797
P-wave Velocity and Lithology Can P-wave velocity be used as a diagnostic tool for indicating lithology?
A plot of P-wave Velocity against occurrence for commonly found rocks..
Occurrence (normalised)
Salt Sandstone Clay Limestone Granite
Conclusion is that this diagnostic may be of some limited use. There is a large degree of overlap between the different types of rock.
2.0
4.0
6.0
7.0
P-wave Velocity (kms/s)

BH 070797
Poissons Ratio vs. P-wave Velocity Can Poissons Ratio be used as a diagnostic tool for indicating lithology?
A plot of Poissons Ratio against P-wave Velocity for commonly found sedimentary rocks..
Poissons Ratio 0.5
Shale
0.4
0.3
Water Sand
Limestone/ Dolomite
Conclusion is that, again the diagnostic may be of some limited use. There is still a large degree of overlap between the different types and classes of rock.
P-wave Velocity (kms/s)
0.2
Gas/Oil Carbonates Gas Sand Salt
0.1 0 0 2.0 4.0 6.0
7.0

BH 070797
Rock Properties - Summary

Key rock properties:
Density P-wave velocity S-wave velocity Elastic Constants
Incompressibility (Bulk Modulus) Rigidity (Shear modulus) Poissons ratio
If well data available can perform Vp/Vs, and Poissons ratio studies. Poissons ratio is the key factor controlling AVO


Contents
Reflections at normal and non-normal incidence Zoeppritz equations and their approximations AVO classes - Rutherford and Williams

Factors controlling Reflection Amplitudes

Porosity, fluid content Determines
Rock properties depend on porosity and fluid content P & S wave velocities depend on rock properties Transmission and Reflection coefficients for P & S waves depend on wave velocities and density.
Rock properties
Determines
P & S velocities
Determines
P & S transmission /reflection coefficients

AVO
Reflection Amplitudes at Normal Incidence
Incident P V1 . 1 = Z1 V2 . 2 = Z2
Reflected P
Normal incidence = 900 to interface = zero offset V = velocity = density
Transmitted P
Z = acoustic impedance (velocity x density)
V2 2 V1 1 R0 = V2 2 + V1 1
Z 2 Z1 Z 2 + Z1
R0 = zero offset reflection coefficient

Typical Reflection Coefficients
Typical (R0) reflection coefficients between two media.

Interface
1st medium 2nd medium
V
Sandstone on Limestone Limestone on sandstone Soft ocean bottom Hard ocean bottom Base of weathering Shale over water sand Shale over gas sand Gas sand over water sand 2.0 3.0 1.5 1.5 0.5 2.4 2.4 2.2
2.4 2.4 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.3 2.3 1.8
V
3.0 2.0 1.5 3.0 2.0 2.5 2.2 2.5
2.4 2.4 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.3 1.8 2.3
Z1/Z2
0.67 1.5 0.5 0.2 0.19 0.96 1.39 0.69
R0
0.2 - 0.2 0.33 0.67 0.68 0.02 - 0.16 0.18
Minus sign indicates a reversal of polarity

Values extracted from Sherrif and Geldart Cefoga DPST07 - Part 3 Page 5 January 2002
Reflection at Non-normal Incidence
Mode conversion occurs at non-normal incidence. Conversion of P-wave energy to S-wave energy.
Reflected S Incident P Reflected P V1p V1s 1
V2p V2s 2
Transmitted P Transmitted S
Cefoga
January 2002
Reflection at Non-normal Incidence

In fact there are 16 possible reflection coefficients which exist at a boundary .
Incident P Reflected S Reflected P Incident S Reflected S Reflected P
Transmitted P Transmitted S Transmitted S Transmitted P
Transmitted P Transmitted S Transmitted S Transmitted P
Incident P
Reflected P Reflected S
Incident S
Reflected P Reflected S
Cefoga
January 2002
Reflection Coefficients: Fully described by the Zoeppritz equations

Sin 1 Cos 1 Sin21 Cos21 Cos 1 Sin 1 -Sin 2 -Cos 2 Cos 2 Sin 2
-d221 Sin 2 d11
A B
-Sin 1 -Cos 1
Complex - yield little physical insight into what is -d22 -1 -d22 happening Sin1 to amplitudes Cos22 Sin2 2 D 1 d11 1 d1 Even more powerful digital computers needed B before using routinely in exploration applications A S
1
2 1 d22 1 Cos21 1 d21 22
=
Cos22 C Sin21 -Cos 1
1
1
R (A)
P
11d1 22d2
P S
Equations developed by Zoeppritz (1919) after earlier work by Knott (1899).

Modelling Zoeppritz - Richards 1961
Classic diagram in Geophysical textbooks BUT Richards used...

Vp /Vs = 2 for all layers in the model Poissons ratio is the same in all layers
= 0.33 in all cases

Model A
Vp = 1829 m/s Vs = 914 m/s = 2.02g/cc
Model B
Vp = 3048 m/s Vs =1524m/s = 2.20 g/cc
Model C
Vp = 4877 m/s Vs= 2438 m/s = 2.40 g/cc
R0=0.63
R0=0.41
Vp = 6096 m/s Vs = 3048 m/s = 2.65 g/cc
R0=0.16
Zoeppritz equations show how the reflection coefficient changes with incidence angle..

Modelling the Zoeppritz Equations

Model A Model B
Local maxima may occur at several angles At low angles.

change in reflection coefficient is small between normal incidence and small angles there is initially a small decrease in R.
Model C
P-wave reflection coefficient versus incidence angle for 3 different interface models
Cefoga
January 2002
Allow Poissons Ratio to Vary across the Interface Koefoed (1955) made models by varying Poissons Ratio ().
Reflection coefficient
= 0.25 = 0.40
Change in of lower rock
Indicated AVO effects!

Incident angle
= 0.25 = 0.15
Approximations of the Zoeppritz equations
Various approximations to the Zoeppritz equations have been made.

1899 1919 1961 1980 1985 1986 1987
Knott Zoepritz
Bortfield
Aki / Richards
Shuey
Approximation adopted by CGG
Gelfand Smith / Gidlow
Shueys Original Approximation
Shueys original 3 term approximation.
Vp 1 Vp Vs2Vs Vs2 2 1 Vp 2 1 tan sin2 R( ) = + + 4 2 2 2 sin + VpVs Vp 2 Vp 2 Vp 2 Vp
Where
R() = P wave reflection coefficient VP = Change in P wave velocity (VP2 VP1) VP = Average P wave velocity (VP2 + VP1)/2 VS = Change in S wave velocity (VS2 VS1) VS = Average S wave velocity (VS2 + VS1)/2 = Change in density (2 1) = Average density (2 + 1)/2
DPST07 - Part 3 Page 13 January 2002
VP1 VS1 1 VP2 VS2 2
( + )
2
In practice is approximated by .
Cefoga
Meaning of Shueys 3 term approximation.
Vp 1 Vp Vs2Vs Vs2 2 1 Vp 2 1 tan sin2 R() = + + 4 2 2 2 sin + VpVs Vp 2 Vp 2 Vp 2 Vp
Normal incidence reflection coefficient, R0
Dominates at angles up to 30 deg. Involves change in Poissons ratio ()
Dominates at larger Angles.


Cefoga
Reviewing Shueys 3 term approximation.

Vp 1 Vp Vs2Vs Vs2 2 1 1 Vp + + 4 2 2 2 sin + tan2 sin2 R( ) = 2 2 Vp Vp Vs Vp Vp 2 Vp
Dominates a near trace stack which can be considered to image P wave impedance contrasts.
Dominates a far trace stack which can be considered to image Poissons ratio contrasts.
Typically, as seismic surveys only used to involve incidence angles to about 300, this term may be dropped.
Although offset is limited by acquisition, mute and NMO stretch effects the third term will be required in future!
Important Approximations to Zoeppritz Comparison of Zoeppritz with approximations for a simple gas sand model.
Amplitude
0.5
Zoeppritz Aki & RichardsZoeppritz Shuey
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Approximations give
Shuey = 2% error at 300 Aki & Richards = 5% error at 400
0 10 20 30 40
Cefoga
0.0 50
Angle of Incidence (degrees)
January 2002
Shueys Two- term Approximation
Shueys 2 term approximation.

Assumes maximum angles between about 30 to 40 degrees Drops the third term
makes it easier for fitting algorithms but may be required in future with increasingly longer offset acquisition.
Allows the approximation to be written as.
R ( )
9 2 = R 0 + R 0 sin 4
Where. R() = reflection coefficient at any incidence angle

R0 = zero offset reflection coefficient = Change in Poissons Ratio (1 2) = angle of incidence
Intercept and Gradient
Shueys 2 term approximation can be rewritten
9 R( ) = R0 + R0 sin 2 4
R ()
R( ) = R0 + Gsin
2
Where, Gradient
Intercept = R0
9 G = R0 4
Sin 2
Note that the horizontal axis is in terms of incidence angle - not offset x !
Offset to Angle Transformations

Therefore to make use of Shueys approximation. Need to transform common offset data to common incidence angle. Can then use measured amplitudes from the seismic data Derive attributes R0 and G.
Reflection amplitude R()
+ = Observed picks
R G= sin2
R
Theoretical curve
sin2
R0
R0 and G are major AVO attributes

sin2
Cefoga
January 2002
AI
Simplified AVO Responses to changes in and V - 1 AI offset offset
+ve
+ve
+ve
-ve
Time
Increasing positive +
Time
AI = acoustic impedance = Poissons ratio R0 Offset Polarity reversal
Cefoga
R0
Offset -
Increasing negative
e.g. Gas / water contact
January 2002
BH 070797
AI
Simplified AVO Responses to changes in and V - 2 AI offset offset
-ve
+ve
-ve
-ve
Time
Increasing positive +
Time
AI = acoustic impedance = Poissons ratio
e.g. Top low impedance gas sand

Offset
Offset R0
Increasing negative
R0 Cefoga
January 2002
BH 070797
RUTHERFORD & WILLIAMS Classification scheme - CLASS 1

Rutherford and Williams (1989) introduced the concept of classification of AVO anomalies.
In this paper a simple earth model was proposed to represent a typical potential hydrocarbon trap a gas filled sandstone layer sandwiched between two impervious shales.
Shale The consequences of changing the Acoustic Impedance of the gas sand relative to that of the encasing shales is considered
Gas sand
Shale

BH 070797
Class 1
Significantly higher impedance gas sand encased within lower impedance shales
R() + R0
Reflection from upper interface...

Peak decreasing with offset, possible polarity reversal at far offsets
low impedance shale (degrees)

-
Characterised by, and defined as
high impedance gas sand low impedance shale
A positive R0 A negative gradient

Cefoga
BH 070797
Class 2
Gas sand impedance very similar to surrounding shale, either slightly above or below..
Reflection from upper interface... R() + R0 R0

Gas sand with slightly lower impedance
Peak decreasing or trough increasing with offset

Gas sand with slightly higher impedance
shale (degrees) small impedance contrast gas sand shale
R0 close to zero A negative gradient

Class 3
Significantly lower impedance gas sand encased within higher impedance shales
R() +
Reflection from upper interface... Trough increasing with offset (degrees)
high impedance shale low impedance gas sand high impedance shale
R0
-
Negative R0 A negative gradient

Cefoga
RUTHERFORD & WILLIAMS Classification scheme

In all three classes the reflection from the bottom interface is close to a mirror image of of the upper interface about the incidence angle axis.
R0 +
Upper interface...
(degrees)
low impedance shale high impedance gas sand low impedance shale
Class 1
Lower interface...
(degrees)
R0 R0 R0
+ + Upper interface...
shale
(degrees)
Class 2
Lower interface...
(degrees)
small impedance contrast gas sand shale
In fact the Zoeppritz equations show that the exact solution is not a true mirror image. The Shuey approximation does not however recognise this.
Class 3
R0 R0
+ + -
Upper interface...
(degrees)
high impedance shale low impedance gas sand high impedance shale
Cefoga
Lower interface...
(degrees)
January 2002
BH 070797
AVO Class Characteristics

The effects of the 3 classes can be seen on seismic data to have the following characteristics
Class 1
Often produces a DIM OUT on the seismic section

Stack will always underestimate the R0 section amplitude. May even produce stack amplitudes of almost zero.
Class 2
Can appear as a POLARITY REVERSAL on the seismic section

Where S/N ratio is poor, signal can appear on long offset traces. Class 2 anomalies are usually not seen on seismic data.
Class 3
Often produces a BRIGHT SPOT on the seismic section

This is the classic use of AVO anomalies.

BH 070797
RUTHERFORD & WILLIAMS AVO Classes plus Class 4 (Castagna)

R&W classes are arbitrary and in future other, or more specific classes may be recognised and used.
Overlying all 3 R&W classes, plus an additional class defined by Castagna et al....
class 1
Note : 4th. class added by Castagna et al
class 2
5 -1 10 15 20 25 30 35
Angle of incidence
class 1
class 3
-2
class 2 class 3
AVO effects in Carbonate sequences
Near
Far
Porosity 0%
Peak, fairly constant w.r.t offset
Tight Limestone Porous Limestone
Near
Far
Porosity 20%
Trough, reducing w.r.t offset
Near
Far
Porosity 0%
Peak, reducing w.r.t offset
Tight Limestone Gas in Porous Dolomite
Near
Far
Porosity 20%
Trough, slightly reducing w.r.t offset

AVO effects in Carbonate sequences
Near
Far
Near
Far
Anhydrite Porosity 0%
Peak, fairly constant w.r.t offset
Porosity 20%
Trough, reducing w.r.t offset
Porous Dolomite
Near
Far
Porosity 0%
Peak, reducing w.r.t offset
High velocity shale Porous Limestone
Near
Far
Porosity 20%
Trough, increasing w.r.t offset

AVO Pitfalls
AVO anomaly may not necessarily involve fluid hydrocarbons

e.g. coal seams
Hydrocarbons may not necessarily cause AVO anomalies

e.g. oil-filled reservoirs, low impedance contrast, small effects at larger depth
The AVO effect may not show true variation of reflection coefficient with incidence angle
e.g. processing artefacts, noise interference, tuning effects (lower frequency on far traces)

AVO Pitfalls: Amplitudes and Azimuthal Anisotropy

The azimuthal variation of AVO turns out to be elliptical.
Amplitude measured for a 3D survey: A(x,y)
Amin direction
Amax direction
0
X
Amplitude measured for a 2D survey: A(x,0)
This implies that wide azimuthally acquired data should be analysed in terms of elliptical variation of amplitude! For details see the CEFOGA course DPST22 Anisotropy
Summary
Reflection amplitudes at non-normal incidence governed by Zoeppritz equations These require approximations to be useful Shuey approximation (as used in Geocluster) AVO response falls into four classes There are several AVO pitfalls waiting to trap the unwary!

BH 070797
Course DPST07 - AVO

AVO Products
It follows from the previous section that all reflecting interfaces have an AVO response. Therefore it is the changes, the anomalies, in this response which we are seeking..
X X X
gas
R sin2 R sin2 R sin2
The basic AVO attributes extracted from the data are R0 and G. It is possible to combine theses attributes in various ways in order to enhance the anomalous areas
Geocluster AVO Products

The range of AVO products which can be generated include.
Intercept (R0) Gradient (G)
Amplitude Envelope
Angle stacks Hydrocarbon Indicators (HCI).

Intercept (R0) vs. Sign of Gradient (G) Intercept (R0) * Gradient (G) Fluid Factor: Intercept (R0) plus Gradient (G) a * Intercept (R0) plus b * Gradient (G)

Shueys Approximation to the Zoeppritz Equations

Recall that the Zoeppritz Equations fully describe the changes in Reflection Coefficients for different incidence angles.
It is timely to recall the Shuey Approximation that can be written in the form.
R( ) R0 + Gsin
2
Where. R() = reflection coefficient at any
incidence angle R0 = zero offset reflection coefficient
R()
Gradient
Intercept
9 G = R0 4
G = gradient =
a complicated combination of density contrast and reflection coefficients and is related to the change in Poissons ratio, = (1 2)
R0 Sin2
= angle of incidence
AVO In Practice
For a given sample time on a CMP gather.

offset
1 2 3
Measure amplitudes for each offset trace
sample time
Convert offsets into incidence angles ()
R()
Fit a linear regression line to create a single R0 and G.
R0
* * *
* ** * *G
Sin 2

R0 Plot
R0
- Intercept computed from the regression analysis.
Stack Amplitudes
R0

G plot
G The Gradient is computed from the regression analysis

Gradient is directly related to the elastic parameters.
9 Recall that the gradient is given by G = R0 4

Where = change in Poissons Ratio (1 2)
1 V p 1 2 V s 2 V p 1 V s
2
And Poissons ratio
Changes in Vp/VS produce changes in the Gradient. The presence of gas in porous rocks affects the Vp/VS. It follows that Gradient could be a good indicator of gas reservoirs.
G plot
G - values can be based on absolute amplitudes

Stack Amplitudes G
However Gradient based on amplitude may be somewhat unstable and susceptible to small variations in phase and residual velocity errors!

G (envelope) computation
In order to resolve the potential problems with Gradient based on amplitude it can be based on trace envelope.
Differences between Gradient based on Amplitude and Gradient based on Envelope.
Envelope Gradient not effected by alternating sign of the seismic wavelet BUT: Can result in loss of resolution.

Comparison of G (amplitude) and G (envelope)

Comparison of example of Gradient based on Amplitude and
Gradient based on Envelope.
G (amplitude)
G (envelope)
The anomaly in the G (envelope) stands out better from the background but the display is lower frequency.
ANGLE Stacks
CMP gather
Angle stacks.
Angle stacks are computed for defined angle ranges.
time
offset Angle ranges to be stacked
Angle ranges
STACKS

Hydrocarbon Indicators - Definition

As the name Hydrocarbon Indicators (HCI) implies these are any seismic attributes in which high values indicate the possible presence of hydrocarbons. A HCI is usually generated by combining (or projecting) more than one AVO attribute.
Therefore a number of AVO attributes is reduced to produce a single HCI value. This leads to a certain loss of information. However they can be useful in highlighting areas worthy of further investigation.
The concept is to produce a plot of the value of the HCI at its correct position in t.w.t. time and space.
Hydrocarbon Indicator - Limitations

If Hydrocarbon Indicators were certain and unambiguous we could, in theory, dispense with normal seismic amplitude plots and with the simple AVO attribute plots. However it must understood that.
Some HCIs only respond to specific types of AVO anomalies. There are problems with the estimation of the HCIs and their information content.
They are based on statistical information extracted from the seismic amplitudes. These are dependant, to some extent, on S/N ratio and processing artefacts.
Noise and sensitivity can cloud the interpretation of HCIs.

Hydrocarbon Indicator - Types
There are several HCIs in common use today, including AVO Response Indicator
G (amplitude) x sign(R0) All are used for identifying CLASS III type anomalies.
AVO Product Indicator

G (amplitude) x R0(amplitude)
Unbiased version of product G (amplitude) x STACK(amplitude)

Fluid Factor Indicator
HCI target: Class 3 AVO Anomaly

The CLASS III type anomaly is the classic Bright Spot
high impedance shale
A.I.
+
Upper interface...
(degrees)
R0 < 0
G<0
R0
+
Lower interface...
low impedance gas sand
Increasing negative
Class 3
Increasing positive
(degrees)
R0 > 0
G>0
R0
-
high impedance shale
Both top and bottom reflections produce an increase in amplitude with offset
Cefoga
January 2002
AVO Response Indicator This is the product of G (amplitude) and the Sign of R0
G contains information about how R() changes with offset. R0 denotes the starting point for variation in the reflection coefficient.
Product = G (amplitude) x sign(R0)

The result is a HCI that shows any interface where the absolute value of the reflection coefficient increases (as a + value) or decreases (as a - value) with offset.
+
+R0 -R0
-
+ +
+G
Increasing positive amplitude
(degrees)
+R0 -R0
-
Cefoga
Decreasing positive amplitude

(degrees)
-G
Increasing negative amplitude
Decreasing negative amplitude
+G
-G
January 2002
AVO Response Indicator example The AVO Response Indicator on a Class 3 anomaly is characterised by a red doublet when displayed with a standard colour palette
Colour palette. Positive Zero Negative The red doublet shows a layer where both the top and bottom reflections have an overall increase in amplitude magnitude with increasing offset.

AVO Product Indicator This is the product of G (amplitude) and R0

Similar to the AVO Response Indicator..
Product = G (amplitude) x R0
+
+R0 -R0
-
+ +
+G
Increasing positive amplitude
(degrees)
+R0 -R0
-
Decreasing positive amplitude

(degrees)
-G
Increasing negative amplitude
Decreasing negative amplitude
+G
-G
Now the larger the initial values of R0 and/or G the higher the product. The result is a HCI that shows any Class 3 anomaly as a strong red doublet.
Other Class anomalies and non-hydrocarbon related interfaces should not show this response.
AVO Product Indicator Pitfall

If we consider a distribution of amplitude with offset which is random then we could draw many regression curves through the scatter with equal validity R() +R03 +R02
-R01
. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . +G . . . . 1 . . . . . . ... . . . . .. . .. -G. . . . . . . . . (degrees) 2 . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . -G . . . . 3 . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The values created for R0 and G are strongly related

i.e. a change in G produces a change in R0
Statistically this is a negative relationship an increase in G results in a decrease in R0
This is likely to be the situation where there is no signal present, only noise. In this case, the product of R0 and G produces a negative value.
In summary, the presence of noise will bias the product towards negative values.
Unbiased AVO Product Indicator This is the product of G (amplitude) and Stack.
The product is unbiased and is therefore an alternative and better HCI then the AVO Product Indicator...
Product = G (amplitude) * Stack

The amplitude used for the stack is calculated from.
R()
- Amplitudes projected to best fit line
..... . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .... . .. .. .
(degrees)
Predicted amplitudes are summed (stacked) Stack amplitude normalised by the stack fold.
i.e. Method uses the amplitudes from the best fit line - not the raw data amplitudes themselves.
Using G (envelope) Any of the foregoing HCI can be computed using, instead of the Gradient based on Amplitude the Gradient based on the Envelope.
Product = G (envelope) x Sign R0 Product = G (envelope) x R0 Product = G (envelope) x Stack

These products are likely to be less sensitive to mild phase and residual velocity (NMO correction) errors than the G (amplitude) HCIs.

Fluid Factor
The Fluid Factor HCI is used to highlight the presence of gas, regardless of the class of AVO anomaly.
The exact meaning of the Fluid Factor is still being debated. This is because there are several ways in which it can be derived e.g. either theoretically or empirically.
This should not be confused with the fluid factor in the Bio-Gassmann equations.
The underlying rational is to find a regional trend which, when subtracted from the input data zeroes all values except potential Hydrocarbon zones
Input data Determine Background trend Background Trend Subtract Background from input Output = Difference = Fluid Factor Section
Anomaly hard to see! Cefoga DPST07 - Part 4 Page 22 January 2002

Fluid Factor
Recalling Castagnas Mud rock line
Vp (km/sec) Shale (or mud-rock) line - Water Filled
6 4 2
. . . ... .... . . . . . Vp (km/sec) . . ... . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . ..... ... . .. .... .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . .... . ... .... .. . . . .. .. ... .. . . . Vp = 1.16Vs + 1.36 (km/sec) 4
0 1 2 3
Expanding the graph to include different rocks and fluid fills.

ds n a s S ate ter n a o W rb Ca
Vs (km/sec)
Thus if the background trend is assumed to be the mud rock line, when it is subtracted.. Water filled sands should disappear Gas filled sands will remain as an anomaly.
ud-
k ro c
line
Ga
s nd a sS
Low porosity rocks
Dr
0
s nd a yS
1
High porosity rocks 2 3 Vs (km/sec)
The Fluid Factor can be considered to be the difference between the background trend and the residual values.
However there are other rocks (e.g. Carbonates) that will not lie along the mud rock line!
Calculating the Fluid Factor

The concepts of the Fluid Factor was first conceived by Smith and Gidlow (1987).
For a detailed discussion on this topic see the CGG Advanced Technical Description linked to the AMPVO module in XDOC
Smith and Gidlow did some hard sums and came up with a theoretical Fluid Factor given by
VS VS VP FF = 1.16 VP V P VS
The presence of a coefficient of 1.16 is a clue to the involvement of Castagnas mud rock line for the Vp/Vs relationship during the derivation of this equation.
In fact this Fluid Factor turns out to not very useful when applied to real rocks. It is for this reason that various empirical estimated methods have been developed.

Smith and Gidlows work involved using Shueys original 3 term equation, however CGG uses a simplified approach using the 2 term approximation.
The theory shows the CGG fluid factor should, in certain circumstances be a better estimate. Practice indicates the differences to be negligible.
Consider Shueys 2 term equation where it is assumed that Vp = 2Vs

Vp (km/sec) 6
This coincides with Castagnas Mudrock line where Vp = 3238m/s and Vs = 1619m/s. This corresponds to the zone of high porosity sandstones
line k c - ro Mud
nds a S ter Wa
High porosity rocks
1 Cefoga
3 Vs (km/sec)
January 2002

When VP = 2VS Shueys 2 term equation becomes.
1 VP 1 VP VS 1 2 + + sin R( ) 2 VP 2 VP 2 VS
The normal incidence reflection coefficient is given by
1 VP for P waves + R0 = 2 VP
Also
R0 S
1 VS for S waves = + 2 VS
Substituting into Shueys equation produces.

2 ( ) R( ) R0 + R0 2R0 S sin
Therefore the Gradient G = (R0 2R0S)

Using these relationships for R0, the assumption that Vp = 2VS and assuming Garners Law which states that for water bearing strata
VP
Smith and Gidlows theoretical value of the Fluid Factor can be modified to become
FF 1.252 R0 + 0.58G
Therefore a Fluid Factor can be obtained by summing the scaled AVO attributes R0 and G. The result of summing normalised values of R0 and G produces what is called the fluid factor section.
Theoretical R0 and G Cross-plot

Generating a cross-plot of Normalised Intercept (R0) against Normalised Gradient G can produce a well defined relationship..
2.0 Rocks which have Vp = 2Vs will plot along this fluid line which represents the background trend.
The sum R0 + G = 0 for any point along this line.

Performing the sum therefore causes samples lying on the fluid line to disappear This is not true of anomalous points. Performing the summation therefore causes anomalous samples to be relatively emphasised.
1.0 Normalised Gradient G
0.0
-1.0 Any points not lying on the trend are indicative of a HCI anomaly.
-2.0
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
Normalised Intercept R0

AVO Anomaly Classes on the Cross-plot

The recognised Rutherford & Williams Anomalies fall into distinct areas of the cross-plot..
1.0
Normalised gradient
0.5
background trend (fluid line)
0.0
Class IV
-0.5 -1.0 -1.0
Class III Class II Class I

-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Normalised intercept
AVO Anomaly Classes on the Cross-plot Summarising the anomaly classes. Class I Class IV AI Z
AI Z
Amplitude decreases with offset
R0, G Cross-plot
1.0 0.5
Amplitude decreases with offset = Dim Spot
G 0.0
Class III
AI Z
Amplitude increases with offset = Bright Spot
-0.5 -1.0 -1.0
Class II
AI Z
-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
R0
Amplitude small increase or decreases with offset. Possible sign change

Raw R0 and G Cross-plot In a raw cross-plot of R0 and G

2.0 Background trend, related to the mud rock line 1.0 gradient The gradient amplitudes are approx 10 times intercept in this case.
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
Anomalous points which do not have plot along the background trend.
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
Intercept
Cefoga
January 2002
Fluid Factor (2)

Usually R0 and G are different orders of magnitude. Gradients are always much higher then intercepts.
R0
Therefore, before generating the cross-plot it is necessary to find scaling factors

Ro and G Normalisation
To find the scaling factors for R0 and G there are three possible options:
Theoretical
As noted, not really applicable to real data.
Empirical
Choose scaling visually Apply to the anomaly
Far Offset stack

Data derived scalars

Empirical Normalisation method

The Fluid Factor (FF) is given in terms of.
FF = aR0 + bG
It is possible to combine the scaling coefficients a and b into one coefficient as.
FF = R0 cos + G sin
is determined empirically by
scanning with several values

Empirical Normalisation Method
Choose location away from anomaly and run a scan.
Select the value of where the energy in the panel is the weakest Apply that value to the region of the anomaly.
Far Offset Stack Method

The second method that can be used finds time and space-variant scalars and produces the fluid factor section automatically.
Essentially the method calculates a series of scalars for R0 from analysis of time and space windows, then multiplies R0 by the scalar before adding to the G value
FF= C(x,t)R0 + G
Where C is the variable, in time and space, scaling factor.
In practice the result is a stack, with amplitudes weighted by offset - hence far-offset stack method.
Far Offset Stack Method Example

This method simply finds the time and space-variant scalars and produces the fluid factor section automatically.

Wide Angle Data

The use of long offsets (in range of 3kms to 10kms) implies that the near trace assumptions made to justify the use of the 2 term Shuey approximation become inappropriate.
10kms 3kms
350 550
< 350
The 3 term Shuey approximation now becomes preferable. It can be expressed in the form
R( ) aZ P + bZ S + c
Where, across the boundary
Z P = change in P impedance Z S = change in S impedance

January 2002
= change in density
Cefoga
Conclusions
The main AVO attribute are

The Normal Incidence angle Intercept (R0) The rate of change in Amplitude with incidence angle Gradient (G) The gradient can be measured using actual amplitudes or an envelope
Combinations of AVO attributes can be used to create Hydrocarbon Indicators (HCI)

Intercept (R0) vs. Sign of Gradient (G) Intercept (R0) * Gradient (G) Fluid Factor: Normalised Intercept (R0) plus Gradient (G)


DINAT - incidence angle computation ANGLE - computation of angle stacks and gathers MUTAN - muting according to angle value (level 8100) AMPVO
Intercept (R0) and Gradient (G) outputs QC of R0 and G computation HCI indicators
TAVOF - time averaged AVO (level 8100)

DINAT
Computation of angles of incidence

Uses the input velocities Computation based on:
straight line approximation ray bending (parameter ALPHA)
direct smoothing of angles (SMTHANG) indirect smoothing (SMTHVEL)

DINAT - Straight Ray
Compute angle from average velocity

Offset , X S R

DINAT - Ray Bending (1)

Offset , X S R
Vint(1)
Vint(2)
Vint(3)

Compute angle from interval velocities

Blocky interval velocities can cause corresponding blockiness in the angle computation

DINAT - Direct Smoothing , SMTHANG

Parameter SMTHANG smoothing function
- recommended value is 64 samples (i.e.256 ms @4 ms)
no SMTHANG
SMTHANG

DINAT - Indirect Smoothing, SMTHVEL
Parameter SMTHVEL smooths velocities prior to interval velocity and angle computation

MUTAN - Muting Based on Angles
DINAT display
MUTAN result

ANGLE (1)
Computation of angle stacks and /or gathers Angle computation method same as DINAT
straight ray ray bending (SMTHANG , SMTHVEL)
R S R

ANGLE (2)
Angle stacks
CMP
offset 5 degrees
STACK
angle stacks 15 degrees
time 25 degrees
angle ranges - parameter RANGE

ANGLE (3)
Angle stacks on real data
5 deg
10 deg
15 deg
20 deg

AMPVO
Regression analysis based on Shueys approximation

output of (R0), (G) and variants
Wide ranging QC tools HCI indicators

AVO Response AVO product Fluid factor

AMPVO - Regression Curves
Based on Shueys (2 term approximation)

R () gradient G= 9/4 Ro Sin 2
- Ro
can be written as
R () = Rp + G sin
2
W here... R ( ) = change of reflection coeff with at angle ( ) Rp = zero (normal) incidence P wave reflection coeff G = gradient term depending upon change in Poisson' s ratio
AMPVO - In Practice
For a given sample time

measure amplitudes for each offset convert offsets to angles linear regression to create a single R0 and G for each sample time
sample time offset
How to compute the linear regression ??

AMPVO - Fitting Strategies for the Regression
Least Squares (sensitive to outliers)

minimise square of difference between model and observed
With ELIM, remove outliers
* * * * *
Initial fit to all points
* * * * *
Second fit
sin2
L1 norms - less sensitive to outliers

minimise difference between model and observed
*
A
* * * * * *
* *
sin2
Robust statistics - weighting of points
*
A
* * * * * *
* *
*
LORENTZ
weight the residuals
ANDREWS
sin2
Tri-median fitting
find median of each group
* * * * * * * *
fit using least squares regression
sin2
divide into 3 groups
AMPVO - Time Windowed Method (1)
Assumes events originate from single reflectors Assumes seismic data are convolution of zero offset data with AVO response
R ()
*
Ro
gradient G= 9/4
- Ro
Sin 2

Perform AVO analysis in rolling time window (WLEN) centred on current sample time Estimate wavelet from near mid or full stacks Use samples of estimated wavelet and actual wavelet to extract the AVO response along the offsets
WLEN
full
0 deg
near
10 deg
20 deg
far
30 deg

WLEN
too large, then possibly more than one event - small gradient values too small, full benefits in improvement of S/N not achieved
WLEN
WLEN

AMPVO - R0
Main output
R0 computed from regression analysis
stack
R0

AMPVO - Ga
Gradient based on trace amplitudes

May be weighted by correlation coefficient (see later)
stack
Gradient (Ga)

AMPVO - Ge Computation
Gradient based on trace envelope

May be weighted by correlation coefficient (see later)
Difference between Ga and Ge

Gradient not effected by alternating sign of the seismic wavelet BUT: Can cause loss of resolution.

AMPVO - Ge and Ga
Example of Ga and Ge
Ga
Ge

AMPVO QC Tools (1)
A so called best-fit line is always returned

even if data contains only noise!
Can we believe our estimated AVO attributes? Do we believe our AVO models assumptions?

AMPVO QC Tools (2)
Confidence in:
estimated AVO attributes
attribute error estimate correlation coefficient
AVO models assumptions answered by

runs statistic residual CMP gathers

AMPVO QC Tools - Correlation Coefficient (1)
Correlation Coefficient (goodness of regression fit)

In Geocluster varies between +10000 and -10000 ENV parameter allows calculation on the envelopes
Coefficient = 0.94
Coefficient = 0.32

Comparison with Ga
gradient
Gradient
Correlation coefficient
AMPVO QC Tools - Runs Statistic
Shows if straight line fit represents a realistic model

A run is a group of consecutive residuals having the same sign A residual is the difference between measured and modelled amplitudes compute a relationship between number of observed and expected runs
Which models are believable ?
Z=-ve x x x x x x x x x x x x x
residual
Z=+ve x x x x x
Z=+/-0 x x x xx x x
x x x
run
AMPVO QC Tools - Residual Gathers (1)
difference between observed and predicted

residual samples create residual traces and gathers
*
A
* * * * * *
* *
*
predicted
observed

Stack of residual gathers should be white noise! Data which stacks up may be due to Residual NMO, Statics, Multiples etc.
Residual stack
Residual gathers
Cefoga
January 2002
AMPVO - HCIs
HYDROCARBON INDICATORS (HCIs)

A seismic attribute in which large amplitudes indicate the presence of hydrocarbons
Three HCIs are in common use today - all may be output from AMPVO
1) AVO Response Indicator 2) AVO Product Indicator 3) Fluid Factor Indicator

AMPVO - Reminder of AVO Classes

Note : 4th. class added Castagna et al
2
class 1
1
class 2
5 -1 10 15 20 25 30
Angle of incidence
35 class 1
class 3
-2
class 2
class 3
AI
shale
class 1
shale shale
sand
response - dimming Decrease in amp with offset
Stack
polarity reversal
class 2
sand shale
Near zero impedance contrast between sand and shale Zero synthetic gives very poor tie to stack Classic bright spot DHI Easiest to detect using AVO attributes (e.g. Ro * G)
shale
class 3
sand shale

AMPVO - Product and Response (1)
(Ga)* sign(R0 ) - AVO Response Indicator (Ga)* (R0 ) - product (Ga* STACK) - unbiased version of product
All used for identifying CLASS III anomalies:
SHALE
R0 < 0, G < 0
R -R0 sin2
GAS SAND
R0 > 0, G > 0
R +R0 sin2
Both top and bottom reflections produce increase in amplitude with offset
SHALE
AMPVO - Product and Response (2)
Ga* sign(R0 ) - AVO Response Indicator - CLASS III anomaly

Characteristic red doublet with standard colour palette

AMPVO - Vs/Vp Relationship
Recall Castagnas empirical relationship

Vp (km/sec)
6 4 2
. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . ..... . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .... .. ...... . .. . . ..... .

Shale (or mud-rock) line
Vs (km/sec)
For fluid factor, assume Vp approx 2Vs

R0 and G Crossplot
Background trend related to mudrock line

2.0 Background trend 1.0 gradient
0.0
-1.0 anomalies
-2.0
intercept
-0.2
-0.1
January 2002
0.0
0.1
Cefoga
0.2
AMPVO - Fluid Factor (1)

Normalise Intercept and Gradient to same amplitude range Summation of Intercept and Gradient causes background to disappear
1.0 0.5
gradient
background trend (fluid line)
0.0
Class IV
-0.5
Class III
-1.0 -1.0 -0.5 0.0
Class II
0.5 1.0
intercept
Usually R0 and G are different orders of magnitude Need to find scaling factors
R0
Ga

Three options:
Theoretical (not applicable to real data) Empirical
choose scaling visually apply to the anomaly
Far Offset stack

data derived scalars

AMPVO - Empirical Fluid Factor (1)
Appropriately scaled addition of R0 and Ga causes the background to be extinguished
FF = aR0 + bGa In AMPVO a and b are contained in as ... FF = R0 cos + Ga sin

is determined empirically
... triggered by parameter FFEMP

AMPVO - Empirical Fluid Factor (2)
Choose location away from anomaly and run a scan
Pick a value and apply to the anomalous area

AMPVO - Far Offset Stack Fluid Factor
Also scaled estimate of R0 + Ga Scalars are data-derived Triggered by parameter FFSTACK

In practice it is a stack, with amplitudes weighted by offset (hence far offset stack)

TAVOF (Time windowed AVO) - 1
Computation of amplification factor
*
A
* * * * * *
* *
*
gradient
Amplification Factor =
stack
sin2
Relationship between R0, G, Stack and A
*
A
st
xt , x pred
* * * * *
sin 2 (x) sin 2 (s)
* *
From Shuey , xtpred = R0,t + Gt sin 2 x ,x it can be shown that ...

2 2 xtpred s A s sin sin s = + ,x t t t x
sin2
Cefoga
January 2002
In practice amplification factor is derived from measured amplitudes within a time window
Analysis window
Sample time to output

Ro and G are then derived from the amplification factor and stack amplitudes
Amplification factor
gradient
intercept

Conclusions
TAVOF - time averaged AVO (level 8100)


DINAT - incidence angle computation ANGLE - computation of angle stacks and gathers MUTAN - muting according to angle (level 8100) AMPVO
Main and auxiliary (HCI) outputs QC of R0 and G computation
TAVOF - time averaged AVO (level 8100 onwards)

DINAT
DINAT computes angles of incidence,

Uses the input velocities and trace offsets. Does not use the seismic traces
Optimum mapping from offset to angle requires full ray tracing.

This however is time consuming and expensive. DINAT allows simple approximations to be made.
DINAT computations based on either:

straight line approximation ray bending (parameter ALPHA)
direct smoothing of angles (SMTHANG) indirect smoothing (SMTHVEL)
DINAT - Straight Ray

DINAT straight line approximation Computes angle from average velocity...
Offset , X S R
The approximation is made that Vrms equals Vstacking in the input velocity library.
t0/2
(one way)
Angle computed from...
tX/2
tX/2
Vavg
Method assumes that the event of interest is a flat interface with only one layer above it.
sin =
X 2 V avg tX 2
X V avg t X
Where.
X2 tX = t + 2 Vavg
2 0
Cefoga
January 2002
DINAT - Straight Ray Considerations DINAT straight line approximation

The simplicity of this method makes it quite appealing but, unfortunately, also makes it (in some places) a poor approximation. This method is, in general, not self-consistent for varying travel times - it assigns a different constant velocity to the region above each reflector.


DINAT ray bending method This method is chosen by coding the ALPHA option...
Offset , X S R
Vint(1)
t0/2
H1
Assumes that the input velocity picks are on geological interfaces. It builds up a flat-layered horizon model from the picks. The ray paths are allowed to bend across these interfaces but are otherwise straight.
Vint(2) H2 Vint(3) Vrms
A schematic diagram of the ray geometry in the ray-bending approximation.


The estimate of the incidence angle, and the Vrms, where.
, uses the (Dix) interval velocity, Vint,

and
2 Vrms ,n =
2 int, n
2 rms , n o , n
2 rms , n 1 o , n 1
V
j =1 n
2 int, j
t j
j
t o ,n t o ,n 1
t
j =1
Assuming that Vrms can be approximated by the stacking velocity, the hyperbolic NMO equation is t2(x)
= t02 + x2/V2rms.
dt ( x ) x = 2 dx Vrms t ( x )
By differentiating this with respect to offset, x, we get
dt(x)/dx is also the slope of the time-distance curve. It can be shown (!) that for every layer n (for example, see Yilmaz 1987, pages 429-431), dt(x)/dx is given by
dt ( x ) sin( ) = dx Vint, n


We can equate these two expressions for dt(x)/dx
sin( ) x = 2 Vint, n Vrms t ( x )

Substituting for t(x) and rearranging gives an equation for sin()
sin( ) =
2 Vrms
Vint x
2 x 2 t0 + 2 Vrms
Note that as the interval velocity function is not smooth it will cause discontinuities in the computed angles across the layer interfaces (when Vint jumps).


The discrete picking of the input velocity library defines the layer - this implies that the interval velocity will be a "blocky" function. A typical interval velocity function.
Based on picks made on average at 500msec apart!
As the Incidence angles are computed from the Interval velocities - blocky interval velocities can cause corresponding blockiness in the angle computation Sometimes the blocky effect is large enough to produce unwanted artefacts in the AVO attribute sections. To correct this problem the incidence angles can be smoothed in DINAT in either of two ways - Directly or Indirectly.
DINAT - Direct Smoothing , SMTHANG

Direct Smoothing chosen with the SMTHANG parameter.
First calculates the angles, then smooths the sin()'s over time (at constant offset) with a simple sinc function. The length of the sinc filter can be changed using the SMTHANG parameter recommended value is 64
samples (i.e.256 ms @4 ms)
no SMTHANG
SMTHANG
DINAT - Indirect Smoothing, SMTHVEL

Indirect Smoothing invoked by parameter SMTHVEL
The initial Vrms function (from the velocity library) is smoothed over time by fitting a polynomial function to the picks. This essentially produces a velocity pick at every time sample it becomes a continuous, smooth function.
The method then follows the raybending approximation and calculates the interval velocity and sin().
As the input Vrms are smoothed so are the computed interval velocities and consequently so are the calculated angles i.e. the smoothing of input velocity has indirectly smoothed the incidence angles.
DINAT Considerations for Smoothing

V
Direct smoothing, SMTHANG, is likely to produce better results if the velocity picks are on real, geological horizons.
Indirect smoothing, SMTHVEL, allows the degree of polynomial fit to be changed (namely linear, quadratic or cubic). Because it applies a sinc function it cannot work on the very ends of the trace Note that the indirect smoothing will not, in general, preserve the details of the velocity function.

MUTAN - Muting Based on Angles

MUTAN allows mutes to computed in terms of angle instead of offset distance.
DINAT display
MUTAN result
Key parameters defining mute limits
MUTAN basically computes angles using the identical methods as described for module DINAT.

ANGLE (1)
ANGLE computes angle stacks and /or gathers

Angle computation method same as DINAT and MUTAN
Computation by Straight ray

S R
Ray bending
SMTHANG , SMTHVEL
S R

ANGLE (2)
Angle stacks.
To compute angle stacks the user supplies a set of angles, plus a parameter RANGE CMP gather
offset Angle ranges to be stacked For an angle of 5 deg and a value of RANGE = 1 the program creates a corridor stack 4-6 degrees.
STACKS
5 degrees
15 degrees The angle is written in WORD 7, allowing sorting into angle gathers
time
25 degrees
Angle ranges - parameter RANGE

ANGLE (3) Example

Angle stacks on real data
5 deg
10 deg
15 deg
20 deg
Note the variation in amplitude with respect to angle.

AMPVO
AMPVO module carries out a general amplitude with

Offset (AVO) analysis.
It performs regression analysis based on Shueys 2 term approximation and outputs

Intercept (R0), Gradient (G) and variants Produces a wide range of QC tools Produces HCI indicators
AVO Response AVO product Fluid factor

AMPVO Basic Concepts
For a given sample time.

Measure amplitudes for each offset
sample time offset
Convert offsets to angles

R ( )
* * * * * * *
Plot amplitudes against sin2

Intercept Ro
*
Gradient G = (9/4 Ro)
Compute linear regression to create a single R0 and G for each sample time
Sin 2
But, how best to compute the linear regression ??

Cefoga
January 2002

AMPVO offers several methods for fitting of the regression curve
Least Squares method Default Blank Option

Minimises the square of differences between model and observed values.. Advantage: Fast
A
Second fit
* * *
Disadvantage: sensitive to outliers

Solution! Initial fit to all points With parameter ELIM, remove outliers
* * * * * *
sin2
Beyond defined number of Standard Deviations from first fit

AMPVO - Fitting Strategies for the Regression L1 norms L1 first option - Minimises the absolute value difference between model and
observed values.
*
A
* * * * * *
* *
Advantage: less sensitive to
outliers - Will provide a better

result than least squares if anomalous values in the data. Disadvantage: Is applied iteratively. Process may become divergent.
sin2
Robust statistics RB first option

Similar to least squares but a weighting after initial fit to the residuals, followed by a second fit.
*
A
Initial fit
2 types of weighting curve available
* * * * * *
* *
LORENTZ
Second fit
sin2
ANDREWS
Tri-median fitting MD first option

1) divide into 3 groups
* * * * * * * * *
* *
*
2) find median of each group
sin2
3) fit using least squares regression

Working on individual time samples is susceptible to small errors in NMO correction or residual static jitter.
Near Far Near Far
**
* *
*
sin2
** * * *
sin2
To minimise this effect instead of using single samples measurements using a wavelet of defined length can be used.

Method makes use of the redundancy inherent in the seismic data namely, because a single reflector is represented by many samples i.e. the seismic wavelet. In other words, the convolution of the seismic wavelet with the underlying reflectivity function
Method assumes therefore
An event originates from a single, isolated reflector. Seismic data are the result of a convolution of zero offset wavelet with the AVO response
50 25 0 -25 -50
R ()
Ro
gradient G= 9/4 - Ro Sin 2

Cefoga
January 2002

Ratcliffe and Adler (CGG 2000) developed a method to improve results where there is. No interference between events
No phase changes with offset
Time Windowed Method TW first option.

Critical parameter is WLEN the length of the rolling time window
Default = 50ms.
The window is centred on the current sample time. Should be about the same length as the dominant wavelength
If WLEN too large, then possibly more than one event - small gradient values
WLEN
WLEN
If WLEN too small, full benefits in improvement of S/N not achieved


Method uses samples of an estimated wavelet and the actual wavelets to extract the AVO response along the offsets. To establish the best estimated wavelet amplitudes in the window are stacked into near (0o-10o), far (20o-30o) and full (0o-30o) bins.
WLEN 0 deg 0 deg

near
10 deg
full
20 deg
far
30 deg 30 deg
The stack with maximum energy is used as the characteristic wavelet shape.
Advantages: The inclusion of more data and hence noise influence in the analysis results. Disadvantages: A poor gradient result if the actual wavelet is inconsistent
AMPVO Main outputs R0 and G

Main AMPVO outputs computed from the regression analysis
R0
Gradient (Ga)
Traditional Amplitude Stack

AMPVO - Ge and Ga
Comparison of examples of Gradients based on Amplitude (Ga) and Envelope (Ge).
Ga
May be weighted by a correlation coefficient (see later)
Ge Notice how the Ge stands out much better from the background
Cefoga
January 2002
AMPVO QC Tools (1)
AVO analysis pitfall

A so called best-fit line is always returned - even if data contains only random noise!.. A
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Can we believe
R0? R0? R0?
G? * G? * G?
our estimated AVO attributes?
Do we believe our AVO models assumptions?
Sin 2
AMPVO QC Tools (2)

We can envisage therefore producing an AVO analysis with a large anomaly but how meaningful is it? We seek to quantify the confidence level in results by using statistical measures: For good QC analysis we require to know
An estimation of the believability of the AVO attributes Make an attribute error estimate Measure the correlation coefficient How believably does the model represent the actual data Runs statistic Residual CMP gathers
AMPVO QC Tools - Attribute Error Estimate
Various error estimates may be output as follows

R0 Intercept error: Output in auxiliary buffer OS8 Ga Gradient error: Output in auxiliary buffer OS9 Ge Gradient error: Output in auxiliary buffer OS10
The error is given in term of standard deviations...

Relatively small error estimate = High confidence level Relatively high error estimate = Low confidence level
A
* * * * * * * * * *
* * ** * * *
A
G
* * * * * *
Sin 2
* * * * * * *
* * *
G+1
* *
G + 10
*
Sin 2
Suggested in XDOC that error estimates are plotted as a grey scale section.
Cefoga
For derivation of the error see Advanced Technical Description or Draper & Smith 1981
January 2002
AMPVO QC Tools - Correlation Coefficient (1) Correlation Coefficient (goodness of regression fit)
Is a measure of how well the data points line up in a straight line...
Coefficient = 0.94 Coefficient = 0.32
(A coefficient of 1 or -1 is a perfect fit)
(A coefficient of 0 represents random distribution of points)
Parameter ENV allows calculation on the envelopes

For derivation of the coefficient see Advanced Technical Description or Press et al 1992
Comparison of Correlation Coefficient CC with Ga.
Gradient Ga Correlation coefficient CC Red and Blue represent high coefficients Green represents low coefficient
In Geocluster CC varies between +10000 and -10000
AMPVO QC Tools - Runs Statistic (1)

Runs statistics - Output in auxiliary buffer 7
AMPVO attempts to fit a straight line to the data, however there may be other curves which much better fit the data, e.g...
Here a straight line is a reasonable fit. *
* * * * * * ** * * * * ** ** * *
But is a straight line a reasonable fit * here.

* * * * * *
?
*
* *
* * * * * *
The runs statistic therefore gives a measure of how well a straight line fit represents a realistic model.


Runs statistics are computed by counting the number of runs
A run is a group of consecutive residuals (differences between the line and the observed value) having the same sign). 10 2
* * * *
12
* * *
4
* * *
6
* *
8
* * * * *
11
13
7
Number of runs =13 Number of points = 18
In some cases comparing the number of runs to the total number of points is
regarded as the statistic the smaller the ratio the better!
Number of runs =13 Number of points = 18
However, in this example that particular statistic would give the same result
* *
* * *
* * * 4
* * *
* * * 8
* * *
1 2
*
5 6
9 10
*
11
* 12
13
*


A better runs statistic, and that used in AMPVO, is...
Compute Z which is the difference between the number of observed and expected runs.
Z=
If result is.
u 0.5
where. =
=
2n1n2 +1 n1 + n2
+1
Large -ve Z
means too few runs.
and.
2
2 n 12 n 2 ( 2 n1 n 2 n1 n 2 )
(n1 + n 2 ) (n1 + n 2 1 )
2
Near zero Z:
means a near correct number of runs - the model line is appropriate for the line.
Large +ve Z
means too many runs.
Where.. u is the number of observed runs is the number of expected runs n1 is the number of positive residual points n2 is the number of negative residual points
Run statistic value of Z is multiplied by 10000 in Geocluster.


Residual Gathers Output in auxiliary buffer 14
Involves computing the difference between observed and predicted amplitude values for each incidence angle. Result is effectively residual amplitude traces after the AVO effects have been removed. Convert back to offset to generate offset gathers.
*
predicted
* * * *
Residual
At each sample time the resulting values for the offset range should, on average, be random
Residual A
* * *
observed
* *
* so a stack of these gathers should

sin2 produce white noise! Consistent values on the stack may indication processing errors.
Cefoga
* *
January 2002

Stack of residual gathers should be white noise!
Residual gathers Data which stacks up may be due to Residual NMO, Statics, Multiples etc.
Residual stack
AMPVO - HCIs
HYDROCARBON INDICATORS (HCIs)

Are seismic attributes in which large amplitudes indicate the presence of hydrocarbons.
Several of the HCIs in common use today may be output from AMPVO AVO Response Indicator - (Ga) x sign(R0 ) AVO Product Indicator - (Ga) x (R0 ) Unbiased version of product - (Ga x STACK)
All used for identifying CLASS III anomalies:
Fluid Factor Indicator

AMPVO HCI examples

Ga x sign(R0) - AVO Response Indicator - CLASS III anomaly
Characteristic red doublet with standard colour palette..
Far Offset Stack Fluid Factor

Triggered by parameter FFSTACK
In practice this is a stack, with amplitudes weighted by offset (hence far-offset stack)

AMPVO Recommended Processing Strategy

Suggested in XDOC to use a 3 pass approach
Pass Pass 1 1
Output 00and OutputR R andG Gplus plusa afew fewQC QCoptions options
E.g. E.g.Regression Regressionplots, plots,residual residualCDP CDPgathers gathers
Test Testthe theregression regressionfitting fitting
Pass Pass 2 2
Output Outputall allAVO AVOdisplays displays Perform Performan anin-depth in-depthQC QCanalysis analysis
Pass Pass 3 3
Final Finalpass passto totweak tweakinput inputparameters parameters

TAVOF module carries out time averaged Amplitude

Versus Offset (AVO) analysis.
Requires input velocity field to be regularly sampled at 100ms. Outputs similar to those produced by AMPVO (R0 and G) plus an Amplification factor section.
* * ** * * *
Amplification Factor is the

ratio of gradient to stack amplitude = gradient Stack amplitude
sin2
* *
R0
S

In practice the Amplification factor is derived from measured amplitudes within a sliding time window..
Analysis Window = parameter TWIN
Recommended that TWIN be made about 50ms as a starting point for testing A triangular scaling function is applied to the amplitudes within the window 0 1
Sample time to output


Test for parameter TWIN
TWIN = 10ms TWIN = 30ms TWIN = 50ms
(Default)
TWIN = 70ms
General increase in temporal smoothness

Relationship between R0, G, Stack and A

A
* * * * * *
sin2 ( x) sin2 ( s)
st xt , x pred
* *
From Shuey ,
pred 2 xt , x = R0,t + Gt sin x
it can be shown that ...
pred 2 2 xt , x = st + At st ( sin x sin s )
sin2
Cefoga
January 2002
R0 and G are then derived from the Amplification factor and stack amplitudes.
Amplification factor
gradient
intercept


Test for parameter THOLD
THOLD= 0.01 THOLD= 0.05 THOLD = 0.1
(Default)
THOLD= 0.2
General increase in stability (especially at greater times)

The approach for TAVOF analysis involves the creation of 3 data sets.
Zero offset projection section
Derived from the amplification factor.
Angle stack for 00 to 300 Angle stack from 300 to 500

(if long offset data exists)
Generated by module ANGLE
The production of these robust sections reduces the need for in house storage of large data sets.

Conclusions
TAVOF - time averaged AVO (level 8100 onwards)


AVO Preserntation CGG

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

AVO Preserntation CGG

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Course DPST07 - AVO

Cefoga DPST07 - overview slide 1 June 02

Cefoga DPST07 - overview slide 2 June 02

AVO attributes / products

Cefoga DPST07 - overview slide 3 June 02

What is the meaning of AVO ?

AMPLITUDE VERSUS OFFSET

AMPLITUDE VARIATION with OFFSET

Cefoga DPST07 - overview slide 4 June 02

which will differ according to

Cefoga DPST07 - overview slide 5 June 02

The presence of hydrocarbons may dramatically alter

Cefoga DPST07 - overview slide 6 June 02

Basic AVO Assumptions

Cefoga DPST07 - overview slide 7 June 02

Introduction - AVO Origins

Cefoga DPST07 - overview slide 8 June 02

Introduction - AVO Summary

AVO Amplitude Versus Offset

AVO theory is complex .

Course DPST07 - AVO

Cefoga DPST07 - Part 2 Page 1 January 2002

Basic Rock Properties

Elastic moduli Velocity

Poissons ratio in terms of Vp and Vs

Isotropic rock e.g. crystalline basement

Anisotropic rock e.g. shales

Cefoga DPST07 - Part 2 Page 3 January 2002

Examples of homogeneous media: Evaporites Halite, Anhydrite Crystalline basement Water

Homogeneity and Isotropy

Homogeneity does not mean the same thing as Isotropy:

There is also effect of scale to consider

Cefoga DPST07 - Part 2 Page 5 January 2002

Sedimentary Rock Construction

At small scales sedimentary rocks can be considered to consist of several components.

clasts, grains Pores (fluid filled) matrix

Cement 10 mm Note : this is non-homogeneous at microscopic scale

Cefoga DPST07 - Part 2 Page 6 January 2002

Porosity and Permeability

Cefoga DPST07 - Part 2 Page 7 January 2002

Density - homogeneous medium

Density of a homogeneous medium is simply =

mass unit volume

Volume V=XxYxZ mass = m Rho, = density

DPST07 - Part 2 Page 8

Density of a Non-homogeneous Medium - One Fluid

Pores (fluid filled)

= bulk density of rock m = matrix density f = fluid density = porosity

DPST07 - Part 2 Page 9

Geoscience Training Centre

Density of a Non-homogeneous Medium - Two Fluids

Cefoga DPST07 - Part 2 Page 10 January 2002

Density of a Non-homogeneous Medium - Two Fluids

Pores (fluid and gas filled)

l = liquid density g = gas density

DPST07 - Part 2 Page 11

Elastic Moduli are physical properties of material which relate....

Stress = Modulus x Strain

Bulk Modulus is the modulus of incompressibility.

DPST07 - Part 2 Page 13

Geoscience Training Centre

Shear Modulus - also known as Rigidity...

Note: The Shear Modulus is zero for a fluid! matrix.