Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Downloaded 12/01/16 to 88.151.223.210. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
are low impedance gas sands for which reflection coefficients decrease with increasing offset; they may occur, for
example, when the shear-wave velocity in the gas sand is
lower than in the overlying shale. Thus, many classical
bright spots exhibit decreasing AVO. If interpreted incorrectly, AVO analysis will often yield
false negatives for Class IV sands.
Clearly, the conventional association of the term AVO anomaly with
an amplitude increase with offset is
inappropriate in many instances and has led to much
abuse of the AVO method in practice. Similarly, interpretation of partial stacks is not as simple as looking for relatively strong amplitudes at far offsets. We recommend that
all AVO analysis be done in the context of looking for deviations
from an expected background response.
Summary
Shueys Two-Term
Approximation
R( ) = A + B sin2( ) + ...
R = reflection coefficient
= angle of incidence
A = AVO intercept
B = AVO gradient
April 1997
Downloaded 12/01/16 to 88.151.223.210. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
EDGEN ET
HTTP://WWW.EDGE-ONLINE. ORG
April 1997
DECEMBER 1997
Downloaded 12/01/16 to 88.151.223.210. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
EDGENET
1997
HTTP:// WWW.EDGE-ONLINE.ORG
April 1997
DECEMBER
Downloaded 12/01/16 to 88.151.223.210. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Class
Relative Impedance
Quadrant
IV
Decreases
II
II, III, or IV
+ or -
Increase or decrease;
may change sign
III
III
Increases
IV
II
Decreases
Figure 6. This chart summarizes the AVO behavior of the various gas sand classes. Note that when we say amplitude versus offset we are referring to the variation of the magnitude of the reflection coefficient. Thus, a negative
reflection coefficient that becomes more positive with increasing offset has a decreasing reflection magnitude versus offset. Note that Class IV gas sands are anomalous in that they have a positive AVO gradient and that amplitude decreases with increasing offset.
E DGENET
HTTP://WWW.EDGE-ONLINE .ORG
April 1997
Vs (km/sec)
1.62
1.06
1.09
p (gm/cc)
2.34
2.21
2.07
DECEMBER 1997
Downloaded 12/01/16 to 88.151.223.210. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Vs (km/sec)
1.33
1.78
1.62
p (gm/cc)
2.29
2.44
2.09
EDGENET
HTTP://WWW.EDGE-ONLINE.ORG
April 1997
DECEMBER 1997
Downloaded 12/01/16 to 88.151.223.210. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
The
Shuey approximation is described in his 1985 paper in
GEOPHYSICS. The fluid factor was introduced by
Smith and Gidlow in a 1987 article in Geophysical
Prospecting. This paper should be required reading for
anyone doing AVO analysis. The Rutherford and
Williams classification can be found in their classic 1989
paper in GEOPHYSICS. This paper gives real world examples of Class I, Class II, and Class III reservoirs. The
Rutherford and Williams classification is further discussed in GEOPHYSICS by Castagna and Smith (1994)
and Ross and Kinman (1995). AVO crossplotting is
described in some versions of Hiltermans SEG Contin uing Education Course Notes, beginning in the mid-tolate 1980s. Some superb examples were shown by Foster, Smith, Dey-Sarkar, and Swan at SEGs 1993 Annual
Meeting. TLE readers were introduced to the subject by
Castagna in 1993 and Verm and Hilterman in 1995.
Notably, two papers co-authored by Herb Swan are still
awaiting publication in GEOPHYSICS. One of these was
submitted in 1993. Jim DiSiena received a best presentation award at AAPGs 1996 convention for application
of AVO crossplotting techniques to 3-D seismic data.
EDGEN ET
HTTP://WWW.EDGE-ONLINE.ORG
April 1997
D ECEMBER 1997