Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Continued on Page 36
June, 2001
CSEG Recorder
35
ARTICLE
Continued from Page 35
Contd
())
. W 8 sin
()
. (14 sin
())
W is the S-wave velocity, and = average (W/V). EI plays the same role for angle-dependent reflectivity that acoustic impedance (AI) does for incident angle = 0. Note that EI(0) = V = AI. The computation of elastic reflectivity is analogous to P-wave reflectivity: RE() = [E2()- E1(] / [ E2() + E1()] Crossplots of EI vs AI are quite similar to Poissons ratio vs AI in their ability to separate into distinguishable clusters the gas
Continued on Page 37
36
CSEG Recorder
June, 2001
ARTICLE
AVO YESTERDAY, TODAY AND (A PEEK AT) TOMORROW
Continued from Page 36
Contd
sands of Class II AVOmalies. Wet sands and shales align separately in different trends. Connolly (1999) provides an excellent tutorial on this murky subject. Recently, Duffaut, et alia (2000) extended the concept of elastic impedance to include shear-wave elastic impedance for use on converted wave data. Both methods may derive estimated parameters from partial (angle) stack inversion techniques. AVO PROCESSING CONSIDERATIONS There have always been problems associated with the proper prestack processing protocol, and the robust determination of AVO attributes. These problems are still with us, and have become more critical with the acquisition of 3D data and the growing use of long offset recordings. Below, we highlight a few of the issues facing the processor and interpreter with seismic data of today. 3D Land Acquisition Problems (also applies to OBC data): (1) Most land data is acquired without the benefit of proper spatial anti-aliasing (the arrays are pitifully inadequate). This would lead to 3-alarm aliasing of coherent noise, but the concept of aliasing is somewhat blurred by the fact that the spatial sampling in offset space is not uniform. The essence of the problem is that the data is in very poor condition (compared to the old 2D data) when it arrives in the processing center; and because of the nonuniform sampling, the usual arsenal of weaponry is unavailable: no FK, no Radon, no anything which counts on a spatial FFT for efficacy. Were it not for the power of migration and stacking, 3D data would be overwhelmingly incapacitated by noise. (2) Azimuth: friend and foe. Azimuthal AVO is the life blood of such applications as fracture detection (see below), but acts as an evil twin for purposes of velocity analysis. With or without intrinsic anisotropy, the structural conditions alone may provide the unwary velocity picker with a befuddling choice of equally incorrect NMO curves for any given CMP gather. Unless the processor is blessed with enough fold to do azimuthal velocity analysis, he is in deep difficulty. (3) Acquisition footprints. In addition to variable fold, the offset distribution is rarely close to uniform, and the prestack migration aperture is commonly inadequate. Long offsets Even ignoring the azimuthal factors noted above, the long offsets bring screaming to into focus something we all knew, but would rather not think about: the NMO curve never was a hyperbola. We were able to get away with standard hyperbolic analysis techniques as long as the O/D < 1 (and we muted away all evidence to the contrary). Not anymore: the dreaded hockey stick NMO patterns at the far offsets require new procedures. We may also expect severe waveform variations, both
legitimate, i.e., due to complex reflectivity variations post critical, where > c, and pathologic, e.g., as a result of Q, or perhaps array effects. The processor merely needs to differentiate the problem sources and then eliminate the bad guys without obliterating the reflectivity information. Processing artifacts (1) Residual NMO this is a fatal flaw if one is doing constant time, sample-by-sample attribute estimation of gradient and intercept of the AVO curve. The intercept is relatively insensitive to RNMO, but the gradient suffers exquisitely at the hands of even the slightest residual. Rock properties extracted from such flawed attributes are meaningless, if not dangerous. (2) Stretch a waveform variation rendering both intercept (Ro) and gradient (G) useless. (3) Amplitude balancing a necessary but ill-defined process in which the usual deterministic (model-based) procedures will not suffice. Invariably, a statistical, data dependent method must be invoked in order to prepare the migrated gathers for AVO attribute analysis. Precautions must be taken to protect the AVOmalies in the data, but the correct implementation of this policy is not always obvious to the weekend processor. (4) Wavelet processing the object here is equalization of those reflection wavelet shapes whose differences are as a result of factors independent of reflectivity itself. Such factors would include Q (inelastic attenuation), which causes phase and amplitude variations in time and offset, short-path interbed multiples (much like Q in its impact), and array effects. Any of these factors may cause irreparable damage to the derived attributes. Luh (1993) suggests prestack Q-compensation may well be necessary. (5) Noise suppression should be done provided the method attacks the noise and not the signal. This is not always an easy condition to satisfy especially on land 3D data. Cambois Caveat: Cambois (2000) posed the question, Can P-wave AVO be quantitative? After due consideration of various resistant factors, his answer may be paraphrased as, Not right now maybe later. Cambois demonstrates that in most real data sets, the gradient and intercept are statistically correlated as a result of seismic noise, be it from wavelet variation (RNMO, stretch) or random noise. This negative correlation trend manifests itself as a negative slope on crossplotted data. That it is nongeologic in origin is demonstrated by a crossplot of gradient against ordinary mean stack. The disheartening conclusion is that noise particularly the wavelet variation type renders some of the industrys most
Continued on Page 38
June, 2001
CSEG Recorder
37
ARTICLE
AVO YESTERDAY, TODAY AND (A PEEK AT) TOMORROW
Continued from Page 37
Contd
treasured attributes (e.g., the Fluid Factor) essentially meaningless. Much work remains to be done in this area. 4D MULTICOMPONENT AVO The time-lapse comparison of AVO parameters may be much larger than predicted by simple Biot-Gassmann theory due to changes in rock frame moduli resulting from effective stress variations, microfracturing, reservoir consolidation, etc. In light of some of the difficulties cited above, this comes as welcome news, and will be pursued. Multicomponent recording (3-C in many land surveys, 3-C plus a hydrophone for OBC data) continues to gain popularity as the interpretive use of P-S waves becomes familiar. ANISOTROPY AND FRACTURE DETECTION Ruger and Tsvankin (1997) modify the Shuey approximation for P-wave reflectivity to show the influence of the Thompsen anisotropy parameters as a function of incident angle and azimuth with respect to the symmetry axis (perpendicular to the fracturing strike). P-wave AVO inversion, coupled with azimuthally varying short-spread velocity analysis, has the potential for discriminating between gas- and liquid-filled crack system, as well as fracture orientation, and the contrast of anisotropic model types at the reflecting interface. Contrasts in the anisotropic parameters are shown to have a first order effect on AVO gradients. Gray and Head (2000) study 3D AVAZ (azimuthally varying AVO) for a fractured carbonate reservoir. The fracture-induced variations in rigidity lead to AVO responses sensitive to fracture orientation and crack density. AVO ATTRIBUTES IN LOG PREDICTION Hampson, et al. (2001) report on the use of multiattribute linear regression and probabilistic neural networks to predict log properties from seismic data. The input comprises a multitude of complex trace attributes, inversions, velocity and analyses, Q estimations, nonlinear transformations, and AVO attributes, as well as logs from selected training sites. This work was extended (e.g., Graul, SEG AVO Continuing Education course) to include a wider variety of AVO attributes, some of which are nonlinearly related to the common 2- and 3-term fit parameters. The indications are clear that there is much work to do in the area of AVO. It is equally apparent that the rewards may well justify the effort.
REFERENCES
Mavko, G, Mukerji, T., and Dvorkin, J., 1998, The rock physics handbook Tools for seismic analysis in porous media, Cambridge University Press. Castagna, J.P. and Swan, H.W., 1997, Principles of AVO crossplotting, The Leading Edge, April, 337-342. Smith, G.C. and Gidlow, P.M., 1987, Weighted stacking for rock property estimation and detection of gas, Geophysical Prospecting, 35, 993-1014. Carcione, J.M., 2001, Amplitude variations with offset of pressure-seal reflections, Geophysics. Lindsay, R. and Towner, B., 2001, Pore pressure influence on rock property and reflectivity modeling, The Leading Edge, February, 184-187. Mukerji, T., Avseth, P., Mavko, G., Takahashi, I. and Gonzalez, E.F., 2001, Statistical rock physics: Combining rock physics, information theory and geostatistics to reduce uncertainty in seismic reservoir characterization, The Leading Edge, March, 313-319. Hilterman, F., Schuyver, C.V. and Sbar, M., 2000, AVO examples of long-offset 2D data in the Gulf of Mexico, The Leading Edge, November, 12001213. Hans, Batzle and Gibson, 2001. SEG Symposium on Reservoir Resolution through comprehensive use of Seismic Data Attributes. Shu, F., Gibson, R.L., Watkins, J.S. and Yuh, S.H., 2000, Distinguishing fizz gas from commercial gas reservoirs using multicomponent seismic data, The Leading Edge, 1238-1245. Kelly, M., Skidmore, C., and Ford, D., 2001, AVO inversion, Part-1: Isolating rock property contrasts, The Leading Edge, March, 320-323. Skidmore, C., Kelly, M. and Cotton, R., 2001, AVO inversion, Part-2: Isolating rock property contrasts, The Leading Edge, April, 425-428. Goodway, W., Chen, T. and Downton, J., 1997, Improved AVO fluid detection and lithology discrimination using Lam parameters, lr, mr and l/m fluid stack from P and S inversions, CSEG National Convention Expanded Abstracts, 148-151. Hilterman, F., DISC 2001. Batzle, Hans and Hofman, SEG Symposium. Connolly, P., 1999, Elastic Impedance, The Leading Edge, April, 438-452. Duffaut, K., Alsos, T. Landro, Mrogno, H. and Najjar, N.F.A., 2000, Shear wave elastic impedance, The Leading Edge, November, 1222-1229. Cambois, G., 2000, Can P-wave AVO be quantitative?, November, The Leading Edge, 1246-1251. Ruger, A. and Tsvankin, I., 1997, Using AVO for fracture detection: Analytic basis and practical solutions, The Leading Edge, 1429-1434. Gray, D. and Head, K., 2000, Fracture detection in Manderson Field: A 3D AV AZ case history, The Leading Edge, 1214-1221. Hampson, D.P., Schuelke, J.S. and Quirein, J.A., 2001, Use of multiattribute transforms to predict log properties from seismic data, Geophysics. Luh, P.C., 1993, Wavelet attenuation and AVO, in Backus, Milo M., Ed., Offset-dependent reflectivity theory and practice of AVO analysis: Soc. of Expl. Geophys., 190-198. Castagna, J.P., Batzle, M.L. and Eastwood, R.L., 1985, Relationships between compressional-wave and shear-wave velocities in clastic silicate rocks: Geophysics, Soc. of Expl. Geophys., 50, 571-581. R
38
CSEG Recorder
June, 2001