Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
AVO
• What is AVO ?
• Why does AVO happen?
• Can we predict an AVO effect?
Schlumberger Private
• What parameters effect AVO?
• Can AVO effects be measured?
• What can be displayed?
• What do the results mean?
• A summary of AVO
Schlumberger Private
• And some other bits
©WesternGeco
1
6/23/2003
Definition
Schlumberger Private
and Poisson ratio contrast. Used as a hydrocarbon
indicator for gas because a large change in Poisson’s ratio
(as may occur when the pore fluid is a gas) tends to produce
an increase in amplitude with offset
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
It is now understood that the last part, concerning increasing amplitude with offset,
is not strictly true, some hydrocarbon traps can have deceasing amplitude with
offset
2
6/23/2003
A CMP Schematic
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
3
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
Amplitude changing
with offset
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
4
6/23/2003
AVO
• What is AVO ?
• Why does AVO happen?
• Can we predict an AVO effect?
Schlumberger Private
• What parameters effect AVO?
• Can AVO effects be measured?
• What can be displayed?
• What do the results mean?
• A summary of AVO
Schlumberger Private
• And some other bits
©WesternGeco
5
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
• Any reflection implies a change in either velocity
(compression/shear) and/or density
– i.e. a change in ACOUSTIC IMPEDANCE
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
Let's examine the physical processes involved in the reflection of a seismic wave
from the surface separating two different rock layers.
Any reflection implies that there is a change in either velocity and/or density. And
there are the 2 kinds of velocity, compression (P) and shear (S).
Hence there is an acoustic impedance for p-waves AND an acoustic impedance for
s-waves!
6
6/23/2003
What is a reflection ?
Schlumberger Private
• At normal incidence, incident reflected
the reflected wave 1 R
has an amplitude R : Z2 − Z1
R=
Z2 + Z1 Layer 2
transmitted
Zi = ρi × Vi T
= ( density) × ( wavespeed)
Schlumberger Private
• R = 0.1 is a BIG reflection !
©WesternGeco
pafc 02/02/97
7
6/23/2003
NORMAL
Schlumberger Private
Down-going P-wave SHEAR Boundary
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
We can think of the incident wave as having 2 components, normal and shear : the
normal producing p-waves and the shear, shear waves
8
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
sin(θ ) sin(δ ) sin(θ ) sin(δ )
= = =
1 1 2 2
Schlumberger Private
VP 1 VS 1VP VS 2 2
©WesternGeco
Each of these waves will continue to reflect and refract at other interfaces, with the
P-waves generating more and more S-waves AND the S-waves reconverting back to
P-waves!
As P- & S-waves travel at different velocities, it's really quite surprising that seismic
sections contain any recognisable information at all!
Also notice that after the critical angle, there are no more transmitted/reflected P-
waves - these have been replace by a refraction BUT shear waves continue as
normal!
9
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
– No S-waves : amplitude a function of 1/cos2θ –
amplitude increases with angle/offset
– S-waves being produced :
• normally : less amplitude increasing with angle/offset
• special conditions : amplitude DEcreases with angle/offset
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
In the unlikely event of no shear waves being produced, there would still be an
AVO effect of amplitude increasing with offset
With shear waves being produced, the energy going into them is taken from the p-
wave energy thereby beginning to nullify the existing INCREASE in amplitude.
The boundary conditions define how the energy is split between P & S, reflected &
transmitted (this either means less reflected energy - dim spot, or less transmitted
energy - bright spot)
10
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
We have been discussing amplitude changing with angle, AVA, yet the talk is AVO
- what is the relationship.
A constant angle trace actually samples different offsets with change of time
Conversely, a constant offset trace samples different angles with change of time
11
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
• Same Offset, Different Times -> Different Incident
Angles -> Different Amplitudes
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
This energy loss at boundaries, due to conversion, will be dependant on the incident
angle of the P-wave, but there is a tentative relationship between incident angle and
offset
What is not covered here is how velocity, and how it is used ultimately determines
the angle of incidence, and hence any perceived AVO effect
12
6/23/2003
GECO LONGVA
OSLO
Water
Vp = 1500m/s reflected
Schlumberger Private
Vs = 0m/s P wave
incident
P wave
θ θ
Hard Sea-bed
Vp = 2500m/s
Vs = 1200m/s
transmitted
P wave
transmitted
S wave
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
A reiteration that no shear waves are produced in water; hence at the water bottom no
shear waves are reflected back to the cable AND the transmitted shear wave will
eventually reflect from a deeper boundary with some of the energy as shear - when that
hits the water bottom from below, only p-wave energy gets transmitted into the water
and back up to the cable
13
6/23/2003
AVO
• What is AVO ?
• Why does AVO happen?
• Can we predict an AVO effect?
Schlumberger Private
• What parameters effect AVO?
• Can AVO effects be measured?
• What can be displayed?
• What do the results mean?
• A summary of AVO
Schlumberger Private
• And some other bits
©WesternGeco
14
6/23/2003
AVO Prediction
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
15
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
Pi Sr Pr Z1
σ zz
σ xz
1 X1 Torque
2 X2
σ x
σ xx
z
St Pt Z2
Schlumberger Private
yz1 yz2 yy1 yy2
©WesternGeco
We must obey certain “guidelines”. The first is obeying Snell’s Law. The second is that the two layers cannot slide by each other (continuity of horizontal displacement)
and they cannot bounce up and down causing vertical separation (continuity of vertical displacement). Other properties shown are enough to define a series of equations
(Zoeppritz) that define the complex reflection coefficients of the media. The complex reflection coefficients define the amplitude and phase of reflected and refracted
rays.
References:
Aki and Richards, Quantitative Seismology, Theory and Methods. Volume 1.
Mallick, ,1993, A simple approximation to the P-wave reflection coefficient and its implication in the inversion of amplitude variations with offset: Geophysics 58, 4,
p544-552.
Shuey, 1985, A simplification of the Zoeppritz equations: Geophysics 54, 4, p609-614.
Fatti, et al., 1994, Detection of gas in sandstone reservoirs using AVO analysis: A 3-D seismic case history using the Geostack technique: Geophysics 59, 4, p1362-
1376.
16
6/23/2003
Zoeppritz Equations !
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
17
6/23/2003
Sv P
P
Schlumberger Private
θ 1 η1
α1 , β1 , ρ1
α 2 , β 2 , ρ2
η2 θ2
P
α = P-
P-wave velocity Sv
Schlumberger Private
β = S-
S-wave velocity
©WesternGeco ρ = bulk density
Let's revisit this picture and use alpha,beta and rho for the various parameters.
If we have an incident P wave (in from upper left) that impacts a surface (horizontal
blue line) across which there is a change in physical properties four different wave
types may be generated. They all obey Snell’s Law in their respective layers since
they all have the same ray parameter, p, defined by their respective sin/V ratio.
Two reflected waves (P and S) are formed and the S-wave is polarized so that
particle motion is in the plane of the figure (By definition, the is S vertical). We
also get two refracted rays (P and S).
18
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
α1 β1 α2 β2
cos θ1 cos θ2 cos η1 cos η2
A = ρ2 − ρ1 ρ2 + ρ1 ,
α1 α2 β1 β2
cos θ1 cos η1 cos θ2 cos η2 θ θ cos η1 cos η2
B = − 4 ∆ µ ρ2 + ρ1 − ( ∆ ρ ) 2 + 4 ( ∆ µ ) 2 cos 1 cos 2 ,
α1 β1 α2 β2 α1 α2 β1 β2
cos θ1 cos η1 cos θ2 cos η2
C = 4 ( ∆ µ ) 2 − + 4 ∆ µ ∆ ρ,
α1 β1 α2 β2
D = 4( ∆ µ )2 ,
cos θ1 cos θ2 cos η1 cos η2
E = ρ2 + ρ1 ρ2 + ρ1 ,
α1 α2 β1 β2
cos θ1 cos η1 cos θ2 cos η2 2 cos θ1 cos θ2 cos η1 cos η2
Schlumberger Private
F = − 4 ∆ µ ρ2 − ρ1 + ( ∆ ρ ) +4( ∆ µ )
2
,
α1 β1 α2 β2 α1 α2 β1 β2
19
6/23/2003
Zoeppritz
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
20
6/23/2003
Approximations to Zoeppritz
Schlumberger Private
R(angle ) = R + G * (sin( angle ) )2 Beware : Angle < 30
Schlumberger Private
0
©WesternGeco
Shuey & others made approximations that lead to being able to plot amplitude
versus the square of the sine of the angle of incidence. Up to 30 degrees, a straight
line is formed.
R0 can be thought of as the 'intercept' reflection coefficient and G is the 'gradient'
This slope and intercept depend on the physical properties of the rocks surrounding
the reflecting interface.
Beware clients asking to go out further than 30 degrees and still doing this analysis -
it may be stretching the truth too much!
But how did we get to this equation and what do the terms really mean?
21
6/23/2003
Sv P
P
Schlumberger Private
θ 1 η1
α1 , β1 , ρ1
α 2 , β 2 , ρ2
η2 θ2
P
Sv
Schlumberger Private
θ = 1 ( θ 1 + θ 2 ), η = 1 (η 1 + η 2 )
©WesternGeco
2 2
Angles are averaged either side of the interface. (We assume that small differences
in the property changes makes this valid).
We will see that it is THIS theta that turns as being the angle plotted in previous
display
22
6/23/2003
And ….
• Use average properties and changes in properties
• Assume changes in properties are small compared to
average properties.
Schlumberger Private
α = 1 ( α1 + α2 ), β = 1 ( β1 + β2 ),
2 2
ρ = 1 ( ρ1 + ρ2 )
2
∆α = ( α 2 − α 1), ∆β = ( β 2 − β 1),
∆ρ = ( ρ2 − ρ 1), ∆µ =(µ 2 − µ 1 )
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco where µ is shear rigidity
The first step, following Shuey;and Aki and Richards, is to introduce average
properties and differences across layers. Here, (Greek) mu is rigidity that
determines shear-wave velocity.
Using these averages and differences in the ensuing calculations makes it very
difficult to associate seismic amplitudes with absolute values of rock properties
within the AVO process
23
6/23/2003
Bortfeld (1961):
β 2 ∆ρ 2∆β 2 1 ∆α
RPP ≈ R0 − 2
+
sin θ + tan2 θ
α ρ
2
β 2 α
Shuey (1985):
Schlumberger Private
1 ∆α 2(1 −2σ ) 1 −2σ ∆σ 2 1 ∆α
Rpp ≈ R0 + 1 − −2R0 + sin θ + tan 2θ
2
2 α 1 −σ 1 −σ (1 −σ ) 2 α
Mallick (1993):
∆µ 1 ∆α
Rpp ≈ R 0 − 2 sin 2
θ + tan2 θ
ρα 2
2 α
Schlumberger Private
σ, ∆σ: Average Poisson’s ratio and Poisson’s ratio contrast.
∆µ:
∆µ: Shear modulus (rigidity) contrast.
©WesternGeco
Based on Aki and Richards simplifications, everyone has their favorite version that
focuses on their property of interest. All these equations are equal. However, they
are not completely linearized (having the classic Intercept-Gradient form).
24
6/23/2003
General Form:
R PP ≈ R0 + G sin 2 θ + C tan 2 θ
Schlumberger Private
where
ρ2 α 2 − ρ1 α1 1 ∆α ∆ρ
R0 = ≈ +
ρ2 α 2 + ρ1 α1 2 α ρ
Schlumberger Private
the formation of other attributes
©WesternGeco
25
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
Rpp ≈ R0 − 2 2 sin2θ + tan
ρα 2 α
The 30 degree
tan θ ≈ sin θ
2 2
by using
approximation !
this yields
1 ∆α ∆µ
Schlumberger Private
Rpp ≈ R0 + − 2 2 sin2 θ
©WesternGeco 2 α ρα
Arbitrarily taking Mallick’s equation (it makes no difference), we see that his is in
the “3-term” form. So, how do we squeeze out AVO attributes and rock properties?
First, simplify even more! Tangent is about equal to sine for small angles (up to 30
degrees). Combine the two terms to get the lower equation.
26
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
RPP ≈ R0 + G sin 2 θ
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
This has typically been the linearized form used for deriving simplified attributes
from the seismic data. Recall that Ro is the approximation to vertical-incidence
reflection coefficient due to an acoustic or fluid-fluid interface for a P-wave.
27
6/23/2003
Approximations
Zoeppritz
Amplitude versus Angle Bortfeld
Bort (approx)
0.07
0.06
0.05
Schlumberger Private
0.04
Amplitude
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-0.01
-0.02 tangent=sine
Degrees
Schlumberger Private
α1= 3000 β1= 1414 ρ1=2.40 α2= 3100 β2= 1500 ρ2=2.45
©WesternGeco
Here we analyze the accuracy of the Bortfeld, or “3-term” solution, compared to the
full Zoeppritz. Not bad! However, the tangent equal sine approximation sharply
limits the useable angle range. However, these are the angles we commonly find
available in most seismic data.
28
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
For this rock type, we see an AVO effect and the Shuey approximation mirrors
Zoeppritz
29
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
Here we find a difference so the Shuey approximation does not always work!
30
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
STACK Result
Schlumberger Private
P-wave vel = 3050, S-wave vel = 1960
©WesternGeco
Complete polarity reversal from near to far offset can happen under certain
circumstances! Here it is such that the CMP stack is ZERO !!
31
6/23/2003
AVO
• What is AVO ?
• Why does AVO happen?
• Can we predict an AVO effect?
Schlumberger Private
• What parameters effect AVO?
• Can AVO effects be measured?
• What can be displayed?
• What do the results mean?
• A summary of AVO
Schlumberger Private
• And some other bits
©WesternGeco
32
6/23/2003
Physical properties :
e.g. p-wave velocity
Schlumberger Private
s-wave velocity
density
Schlumberger Private
density
©WesternGeco
Let's examine the physical processes involved in the reflection of a seismic wave
from the surface separating two different rock layers.
Any reflection implies that there is a change in either velocity and/or density. And
there are 2 kinds of velocity, compressional (p) and shear (s).
How do we measure these values?
33
6/23/2003
AVO Parameters
Schlumberger Private
– Seismic Velocity Analysis
• Density - Measured :
– Well logs
– Empirically from P-Wave Velocity
Schlumberger Private
– Poisson's Ratio (Rock Property)
©WesternGeco
The main factors affecting AVO are changes in P-Wave velocity, S-Wave velocity
and/or density across a boundary.
The P-wave velocity can be measured from logs made within a well or failing that
from seismic velocity analysis (although the latter is rather coarse)
Density can also be measured within wells or failing that be empirically derived
from the P-wave velocity
S-Wave velocity is difficult (but not impossible) to measure within wells. Typically
it can be calculated from either knowing the Vp/Vs ratio or Poisson's Ratio of the
material.
34
6/23/2003
AVO
• What is AVO ?
• Why does AVO happen?
• Can we predict an AVO effect?
Schlumberger Private
• What parameters effect AVO?
• Can AVO effects be measured?
• What can be displayed?
• What do the results mean?
• A summary of AVO
Schlumberger Private
• And some other bits
©WesternGeco
35
6/23/2003
A qualified YES !
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
36
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
As from Shuey, plotting amplitude versus sine squared theta for a particular event
allows us to predict the amplitude at normal incidence (theta = zero) for that event
plus the gradient
Normal incidence only gives off P-waves so this intercept amplitude can be thought
of as being the P-wave only coefficient. Thus the section is sometimes called the P-
wave section.
It also turns out that normal incidence only occurs at zero offset, so the section can
also be called the (predicted) zero offset section
Only true up to 30 degrees !!
37
6/23/2003
Processing Pitfalls
• Sources
– depth / strength / timing / directivity
• Receivers
Schlumberger Private
– depth / sensitivity / directivity
• Noise
– random / coherent / multiples / scatter
• Timing
– tidal / NMO /inaccurate NMO/non-hyperbolic NMO /
Schlumberger Private
statics
©WesternGeco
38
6/23/2003
• Positioning
– navigational / geophysical
Schlumberger Private
– should data be migrated ?
• Amplitude Effects
– shallow anomalies / deep anomalies / spreading /
Q
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
39
6/23/2003
AVO
• What is AVO ?
• Why does AVO happen?
• Can we predict an AVO effect?
Schlumberger Private
• What parameters effect AVO?
• Can AVO effects be measured?
• What can be displayed?
• What do the results mean?
• A summary of AVO
Schlumberger Private
• And some other bits
©WesternGeco
40
6/23/2003
Display Options
Schlumberger Private
• Crossplots
• ‘Near’, ‘Far’ & ‘Difference’ Stacks
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
41
6/23/2003
Constant Angle
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
Generally to get the same angle with depth/time, you have to go out to longer
offsets
42
6/23/2003
AVO/AVA Analysis
What can be displayed
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
First, how do we derive the intercept and slope? Either by transforming the data
from AVO (amplitude versus offset) to AVA (amplitude versus angle) or simply ray
tracing and bookkeeping the angles, we analyze the moveout-corrected seismic data
at each sample. Effectively, ray-tracing is applied in both cases and needs to be
fairly sophisticated. Analysis QCs can include bar-graph plots of amplitudes
windowed around particular events.
43
6/23/2003
Angle
R(θ) ≈ P + G sin2
R(θ
θ
Observed
Schlumberger Private
Linear Fit
slope = G
P
intercept
sin2 θ
Intercept Gradient
Schlumberger Private
trace trace
©WesternGeco
Typically, each time sample is fit to an amplitude versus sin2 line to derive a
continuous intercept and gradient as seen here.
One can imagine how ACCURATE the NMO/MUTE/AMPLITUDE
PROCESSING must be for this to mean anything!
44
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
Bright Spot
45
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
46
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
Conventional Stack
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
Here we see the conventional CMP-stacked section and the Intercept (zero offset) section. We see many differences showing that a simple summation of amplitudes as is
done in conventional stacking may not give us a 'true' zero offset section which is required for migration and any inversion.
However, the intercept is only as good as the prestack amplitudes - noisy samples will harmfully affect it, hence the requirement for good pre-processing
47
6/23/2003
Gradient Displays
Gradient superimposed on Intercept
B A
Schlumberger Private
Gradient *Intercept
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
The gradient is overlaid on top of the P-wave stack. Blue is decrease in amplitude with offset (no interest in this example) whereas red is Increase in amplitude with
offset (possible interest). For these data we are more interested if any marked increase in AVO effect also corresponds to high reflectivity
So possibly a better display is to MULTIPLY the intercept by the gradient.
Depending on the lithology of the area, other displays, or combinations may highlight the characteristic required to find oil/gas
48
6/23/2003
AVO Attribute
1 ∆α ∆µ
Rpp ≈ R0 + − 2 2 sin2 θ = P + G sin2 θ
2 α ρα
Schlumberger Private
where we define:
1 ∆α ∆ρ
P = R0 ≈ + (AVO Intercept)
2 α ρ
and
1 ∆α ∆µ
Schlumberger Private
G= −2 (AVO Gradient)
2 α
©WesternGeco
ρα2
Now, we can see that a straight-line fit of seismic amplitude versus sin2 of reflection
angle (determined via raytracing or other equations) gives us an intercept (θ = 0)
that correspond to the normal-incidence P-wave reflection coefficient! This is the
AVO Intercept or P-wave Reflectivity Section. The slope is G, but no big insights
there yet.
49
6/23/2003
µ = ρβ 2
Schlumberger Private
Big IF !
∆ µ = β ∆ ρ + 2 β ρ∆ β
2
1 ∆α ∆ρ ∆β
G = − −
α ρ β
Schlumberger Private
2
©WesternGeco
Intercept and gradient are interesting, but we need more insight. Now let’s pick
apart G. We do a bit of math to get the lower equation. Now we seem individual
terms for Vp (or α) , Vs (or β), and density! Smith and Gidlow follow other routes
where, instead of α/β = 2, they get rid of the density term by using Gardener’s
equation, ρ = K α 1/4. This yields ∆ρ/ρ = 1/4(∆α/α). Regardless, both of these
approaches linearize the gradient term for later recombination. The accuracy of
each method is another issue.
50
6/23/2003
S-wave Section
1 ∆α ∆ρ
=
P R0 ≈ +
2 α ρ
Schlumberger Private
1 ∆α ∆ρ ∆β
G =
− −
2 α ρ β
1 1 ∆β ∆ ρ Pseudo S-wave
−
(P G ) =
β +
ρ Section
Schlumberger Private
2 2
©WesternGeco
We get the Pseudo S-wave section. This may be used as input to inversion to S-
wave impedance.
51
6/23/2003
1 ∆α ∆ρ
=
P R0 ≈ +
2 α ρ
Schlumberger Private
1 ∆α ∆ρ ∆β
G =
− −
2 α ρ β
4 Pseudo
( P +G ) = ∆ α − ∆ β Poisson’s Ratio
3 α β
Schlumberger Private
Contrast
©WesternGeco
Section
σ = [(β/α)2 − .5]/[(β/α)2 − 1]
However, the Pseudo Poisson’s Ratio contrast is actually based on an the total
derivative of α/β. For small differences, the contrast in Poisson’s Ratio (∆σ/σ) is
close to the contrast in α/β (∆(α/β)/(α/β) derived from the average properties.
52
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
Poisson Ratio Stack
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
Unfortunately there is nothing in the seismic for us to 'measure' in order to determine some property of the S-wave; so normally something is 'assumed' in order to then
display the S-wave stack & Poisson's ratio stack. (and also other approximations are made!).
Here a Vp to Vs ratio of 2 has been assumed, but the timing of the S-wave stack is at P-wave velocity! It is calculated via subtracting the gradient from the zero offset (P -
G).
The Poisson’s ratio stack is rather a 'change in Poisson’s ratio stack and is obtained via addition of zero offset and gradient (P + G).
So, from the pre-stack AVO attributes (P & G) and some assumptions, we have measurements of Poisson’s ratio - this plus velocity and geologic knowledge may lead us
to oil/gas!
53
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
At 1.25, we have the 'bright spot' on the p-wave (decrease in impedance) and
Poisson's ratio, but not on the s-wave - this combination of decrease in p-wave
impedance and little change in s-wave impedance has been associated with gas in
various other studies.
BUT Poisson's ratio has the same type of event at 1.3, but this time the p-wave and
s-wave show the same amount of increase in impedance - such behaviour, in this
area, is NOT suggestive of gas, and a wellog in fact confirms this.
54
6/23/2003
AVO ?
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
55
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
Gradient
Intercept
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
Gradient
Intercept
56
6/23/2003
AVO Stack
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
Another example
Please note that the plot is reversed to others that follow!
57
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
As said before, the intercept & gradient methodology relies on good S/N prestack
data; but we know that generally we rely on stack multiplicity to help us with this
enhancement. So in these situations, what can we do?
A common practice is still to improve the pre-stack data as much as possible, but
then recognising that the data is still too noisy for true AVO analysis, simply stack
'near' and 'far' offsets separately, where 'near' is defined by some angle that
generally bisects the angle determining the far offset mute.
Here we see the 'near' offsets from the previous section
58
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
59
6/23/2003
Difference Stack
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
And the difference. One would hope that in a 'bland' area this difference would be
zero showing no AVO effects
We see some marked differences at 1.7 on the left hand side indicating an area
worthy of further investigation
60
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
• F=Amplitude envelope of far offset stack
• Difference values are Enhanced by Far multiplication
•
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
But only if amplitude increases with offset, if other way round then need (F-N)*N !!
61
6/23/2003
1.5
1.4
1.3
Schlumberger Private
1.2
Normalised attribute
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Schlumberger Private
0.5
2750 2850 2950 3050 3150 3250 3350
Time
poisson Erg
©WesternGeco
62
63
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
ERG
©WesternGeco
6/23/2003
W E
1993
Schlumberger Private
93 reprocessed 95
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
GOC 95 towed
64
6/23/2003
AVO
• What is AVO ?
• Why does AVO happen?
• Can we predict an AVO effect?
Schlumberger Private
• What parameters effect AVO?
• Can AVO effects be measured?
• What can be displayed?
• What do the results mean?
• A summary of AVO
Schlumberger Private
• And some other bits
©WesternGeco
65
6/23/2003
????
• Needs INTERPRETATION!
– Seismic by itself is difficult to interpret
Schlumberger Private
– Rock property change controls response, not
absolute values
• Needs CALIBRATION from well logs
– Model expected AVO
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
Just creating the 'AVO sections' is not an end in itself, they have to be interpreted
and they have to be interpreted with the understanding that it is the CONTRAST of
the rock properties that causes AVO effects rather than the absolute values
So we need some 'ground truth' to help determine what these seismic amplitudes
really mean - well logs
One option is to model the AVO response using information derived from the wells
and compare it to the seismic - So ..
66
6/23/2003
Calibration Required
• Wells
– Logs : P-wave Velocity / Density
Schlumberger Private
– Petrophysical Analysis : S-wave Velocity
• Model expected AVO
– Match to Seismic
• assign specific lithological meaning to seismic amplitudes
– No Match to Seismic
• Rework Synthetic and/or Seismic
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
From the various well logs we are likely to be able to determine P-wave velocity
and density. S-wave velocity could be more problematical - it can be recorded
using specialised sources and detectors, however, more likely is the need to do a
petrophysical analysis in order to determine it.
From these quantities, a (prestack) synthetic can be generated showing any AVO
response with offset/time. This can then be compared to the real seismic at that
position. A match would then allow specific lithologies (as determined from the
well information) to be assigned to seismic amplitudes, and then the seismic
amplitudes along the line,away from the well site can be assigned some meaning
If the synthetic does NOT match the seismic then either the well processing or the
seismic processing (or both!) needs to be redone
67
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
Courtesy of Chevron
©WesternGeco
68
6/23/2003
Flowchart
Schlumberger Private
Synthetic
Rework
Compare
Seismic
using ???
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco Final Model
69
6/23/2003
Possible Scenarios
Schlumberger Private
• Decrease in Amplitude with Offset
– Carbonate Reservoir - Dim Spot
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
70
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
0.05
Reflectivity
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.05
-0.1
Schlumberger Private
-0.15
Offset
©WesternGeco
Shows typical AVO responses for the 4 AVO categories described in Castagna &
Swan, 1997.
71
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
72
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
73
6/23/2003
Saturation Changes
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
As we know, there are many factors that influence seismic amplitude, e.g. source
energy and spectrum, coupling, receiver response, spherical divergence, reflection
coefficients etc. It is because there are so many factors, that when analyzing
amplitudes, we take advantage of relative measurements, to look for redundancy or
changes in time and/or space, as in bright spot analysis. Anything that causes a large
change in impedance (velocity multiplied by density) can cause a large reflection.
Candidates include changes in lithology and changes in saturation. The bright spot
methodology, which is based on normal incidence reflectivity, NI, actually involves
three different reservoir scenarios. If rock properties are known, lithologic
identification can be made by identifying the clustering of NI reflectivities from
different lithologic boundaries, e.g. below:
•Dim spot scenario, i.e. a large positive amplitude reduces to a smaller positive
amplitude. Normally associated with large acoustic impedances. Inversion of the
stack section, i.e. calculation of the acoustic impedance (or velocity for an assumed
density), has been very successful to infer lithology.
•Phase reversal scenario, i.e. a small positive amplitude changes to a small negative
amplitude. Extremely difficult to interpret as shows a tendency to disappear on
conventional stacks. Geological faults are often mistakenly introduced.
Interpretation of phase reversal responses require additional tools for lithologic
identification.
•Bright spot scenario, i.e. a negative amplitude increases to a larger negative
amplitude. Most successful of the three scenarios for both interpreting lithology and
estimating sand thickness.
74
6/23/2003
AVO
• What is AVO ?
• Why does AVO happen?
• Can we predict an AVO effect?
Schlumberger Private
• What parameters effect AVO?
• Can AVO effects be measured?
• What can be displayed?
• What do the results mean?
• A summary of AVO
Schlumberger Private
• And some other bits
©WesternGeco
75
6/23/2003
Conclusion
Schlumberger Private
• For normal recording geometries, a plot of reflection
amplitude versus the square of the sine of the
reflection angle produces an approximate straight
line
• The values of the intercept & gradient of this line
provide valuable insight into the velocity, density and
Schlumberger Private
Poisson Ratio contrast across that interface
©WesternGeco
76
6/23/2003
Conclusion (contd)
Schlumberger Private
• Careful processing of the seismic data, designed to
eliminate spurious amplitude effects due to the
acquisition, is necessary to reveal the sought after
effect
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
77
6/23/2003
AVO
• What is AVO ?
• Why does AVO happen?
• Can we predict an AVO effect?
Schlumberger Private
• What parameters effect AVO?
• Can AVO effects be measured?
• What can be displayed?
• What do the results mean?
• A summary of AVO
Schlumberger Private
• And some other bits
©WesternGeco
78
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
Generally, a gas-filled sand will be more compressible
(have lower lambda values) than surrounding wet
sands, while mu will remain largely unchanged.
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
More attributes we can derive now that we have AI. We can also create the λ/µ or
“fluid stack”.
79
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
AI(P) = αρ AI(S) = βρ
Combining acoustic impedance terms (Goodway, 1997) yields:
2 2 2
AI (P) - 2AI (S) = λρ AI (S) = µρ
Lamé parameter, λ,incompressibility, and µ, shear rigidity
Schlumberger Private
may be combined via the “Fluid stack” ratio λ/µ.
©WesternGeco
More attributes we can derive now that we have AI. We can also create the λ/µ or
“fluid stack”.
80
6/23/2003
∆α β ∆β
Schlumberger Private
∆F = − 1.16 α
α β
Actual intercept Mudrock prediction
β/α may be derived by combining P-wave stacking velocities
and the mudrock relation of Castagna (1985) where α = 1360 +
Schlumberger Private
1.16β. (∆α/α) and (∆β/β) are derived from intercept/ gradient-
like calculations as described earlier.
©WesternGeco
More attributes we can derive now that we have AI. We can also create the λ/µ or
“fluid stack”.
81
6/23/2003
Which Attribute ?
• R0 * G became very popular in the Gulf of Mexico for
highlighting class 3 gas sands
• Large +/- R0 and G will result in even larger product
Schlumberger Private
• This method will FAIL for the other classes
• R0 * sign G gets around some of the problem but still
does not work for class 2 gas sands
• Fluid Factor should be more robust
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
82
6/23/2003
Schlumberger Private
• Poisson’s Ratio controls far offset reflectivity
• Bulk modulus is the key fluid indicator
• Density might be estimated from high angle data (50o)
• AVO modelling builds confidence in log-seismic
integration
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
83
6/23/2003
Funtime!
• Some exercises
Schlumberger Private
Schlumberger Private
©WesternGeco
84