AVO and Inversion - Part 1

Introduction and Rock Physics

Dr. Brian Russell

Overview of AVO and Inversion

 This tutorial is a brief introduction to the Amplitude

Variations with Offset, or Amplitude Versus Offset
(AVO), and pre-stack inversion methods.
 I will briefly review how the interpretation of seismic
data has changed through the years.
 I will then look at why AVO and pre-stack inversion
was an important step forward for the interpretation
of hydrocarbon anomalies.
 Finally, I will show why the AVO and pre-stack
inversion responses are closely linked to the rock
physics of the reservoir.

2
A Seismic Section

The figure above shows a stacked seismic section recorded over the shallow
Cretaceous in Alberta. How would you interpret this section?

3
 Structural Interpretation

Your eye may first go to an anticlinal seismic event between 630 and 640 ms. Here, it
has been picked and called H1. A seismic interpreter prior to 1970 would have looked
only at structure and perhaps have located a well at CDP 330.
4
 Gas Well Location

And, in this case, he or she would have been right! A successful gas well was drilled
at that location. The figure above shows the sonic log, integrated to time, spliced on
the section. The gas sand top and base are shown as black lines on the log.
5
 “Bright Spots”

But this would have been a lucky guess, since structure alone does not tell you that a
gas sand is present. A geophysicist in the 1970’s would have based the well on the
fact that there is a “bright spot” visible on the seismic section, as indicated above.
6
 What is a “Bright Spot”?

Geology Seismic
Surface

Seismic
raypath

Shale r1 V1 r 2V2  r1V1

R0 
r 2V2  r1V1
Gas Sand r2 V2

Interface at
Reflection at time Seismic
depth = d
t = 2d/V1 Wavelet

To understand “bright spots”, recall the definition of the zero-offset reflection

coefficient, shown in the figure above. R0 , the reflection coefficient, is the amplitude
of the seismic trough shown. Note also that the product of density, r, and P-wave
velocity, V, is called acoustic impedance.
7
 Gardner’s results for GOM

This figure, from Difference between shale and gas

Gardner et al. (1974), sand velocity at shallow depth.
shows a big difference
between shale and gas
sand velocity at
shallow depths in the
Gulf of Mexico. The
paper also derived the
“Gardner” equation,
which states that
density and velocity are
related by the equation
r = 0.23 V 0.25
Thus, we would expect
a large reflection
coefficient, or “bright
spot”, for shallow gas
sands.
8
The AVO Method

“Bright spots” can

be caused by
lithologic variations
as well as gas
sands.
Geophysicists in
the 1980’s looked at
pre-stack seismic
data and found that
amplitude change
with offset could be
used to explain gas
sands (Ostrander,
1984). This example
is a Class 3 gas
sand, which we will
discuss later.

9
What causes the AVO Effect?
Surface

q2 q1
q3

r1 VP1 VS1 Reflector

r2 VP2 VS2

The traces in a seismic gather reflect from the subsurface at increasing

angles of incidence q. The first order approximation to the reflection
coefficients as a function of angle is given by adding a second term to the
zero-offset reflection coefficient:
R (q )  R0  B sin 2 q
B is a gradient term which produces the AVO effect. It is dependent on
changes in density, r, P-wave velocity, VP, and S-wave velocity, VS.
10
 P and S-Waves
Note that we can also record S wave information.

(a) (b) (c)

This diagram shows a schematic diagram of (a) P, or compressional, waves,
(b) SH, or horizontal shear-waves, and (c) SV, or vertical shear-waves, where
the S-waves have been generated using a shear wave source (Ensley, 1984).
11
Why is S-wave Velocity Important?
The plot on the left
shows P and S-wave
velocity plot as a
function of gas
saturation (100% gas
saturation = 0% Water
Saturation), computed
with the Biot-
Gassmann equations.
Note that P-wave
velocity drops
dramatically, but S-
wave velocity only
increases slightly
(why?). This will be
discussed in the next
section. 12
AVO Modeling
Poisson’s
P-wave Density S-wave Synthetic Offset Stack
ratio

Based on AVO theory and the rock physics of the reservoir, we can perform AVO
modeling, as shown above. Note that the model result is a fairly good match to the
offset stack. Poisson’s ratio is a function of Vp/Vs ratio and will be discussed in the
next chapter.
13
 AVO Attributes
Intercept: A

Gradient: B
AVO Attributes are
used to analyze
large volumes of
seismic data,
looking for
hydrocarbon
anomalies.
14
 Cross-Plotting of Attributes

Gradient (B) One of the AVO methods that we will be

discussing later in the course involves
cross-plotting the zero-offset reflection
coefficient (R0, usually called A), versus the
gradient (B), as shown on the left.

As seen in the figure below, the highlighted

zones correspond to the top of gas sand
(pink), base of gas sand (yellow), and a hard
Intercept (A)
streak below the gas sand (blue).

15
 AVO Inversion
A new tool combines
inversion with AVO
Analysis to enhance the
reservoir discrimination.
Here, we have inverted for
P-impedance and Vp/Vs
ratio, cross-plotted and
identified a gas sand.

Gas
Sand
16
 Summary of AVO Methodology

Input NMO-corrected Gathers

Perform optimum processing sequence

Modeling Recon Methods Inversion

Rock Physics
Modeling Partial Intercept
Stacks Gradient Elastic Simultaneous
Impedance Inversion

Wave Eq. Zoeppritz Cross

LMR
Synthetics Synthetics Plot

17
Conclusions

 Seismic interpretation has evolved over the years,

from strictly structural interpretation, through “bright
spot” identification, to direct hydrocarbon detection
using AVO and pre-stack inversion.
 In this short course I will elaborate on the ideas that
have been presented in this short introduction.
 As a starting point, the next section I will discuss the
principles of rock physics in more detail.
 I will then move to AVO modeling and analysis.
 Finally, I will look at AVO and pre-stack inversion
analysis on real seismic data.

18
Rock Physics and Fluid
Replacement Modeling
Basic Rock Physics

The AVO response is dependent on the properties of P-wave velocity (VP),

S-wave velocity (VS), and density (r) in a porous reservoir rock. As shown
below, this involves the matrix material, the porosity, and the fluids filling
the pores:

Rock Matrix Pores / Fluid

20
Density

Density effects can be modeled with the following equation:

ρsat  ρm (1   )  ρw S w  ρhc (1  S w )

where : ρ  density,
  porosity,
S w  water saturation,
sat,m,hc, w  saturated, matrix,
hydrocarbon, water subscripts.

This is illustrated in the next graph.

21
 Density versus Water Saturation

Here is a plot of density Density vs Water Saturation

vs water saturation for a
porous sand with the
parameters shown,
where we have filled the
pores with either oil or
gas.
Sandstone with Porosity = 33%
Densities (g/cc): Matrix = 2.65, Water = 1.0,
Oil = 0.8, Gas = 0.001
2.2
2.1

2
In the section on AVO
Density

we will model both the 1.9

wet sand and the 50%
saturated gas sand. 1.8
Note that these density 1.7
values can be read off
the plot and are: 1.6
rwet = 2.11 g/cc 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
rgas = 1.95 g/cc Oil Gas Water Saturation

22
 P and S-Wave Velocities

Unlike density, seismic velocity involves the deformation of a rock as a

function of time. As shown below, a cube of rock can be compressed, which
changes its volume and shape or sheared, which changes its shape but not
its volume.

23
P and S-Wave Velocities
The leads to two different types of velocities:
P-wave, or compressional wave velocity, in which the direction of
particle motion is in the same direction as the wave movement.
S-wave, or shear wave velocity, in which the direction of particle
motion is at right angles to the wave movement.

P-waves S-waves

24
Velocity Equations using  and 

The simplest forms of the P and S-wave velocities are derived for
non-porous, isotropic rocks. Here are the equations for velocity
written using the Lamé coefficients:

  2 
VP  VS 
r r

where:  = the first Lamé constant,

 = the second Lamé constant,
and r = density.

25
Velocity Equations using K and 

Another common way of writing the velocity equations is with

bulk and shear modulus:

4
K  
VP  3 VS 
r r

where: K = the bulk modulus, or the reciprocal of compressibility.

=  + 2/3 
 = the shear modulus, or the second Lamé constant,
and r = density.

26
Poisson’s Ratio from strains
F
 If we apply a compressional R
force to a cylindrical piece of
rock, as shown on the right, we R+R
change its shape.

L+L L
 The longitudindal strain is given
by L/L and the transverse strain
is given by R/R.

F (Force)
 The Poisson’s ratio, , is defined as the negative of the ratio
between the transverse and longitudinal strains:
  (R / R) /(L / L)
(In the typical case shown above, L is negative, so  is positive)
27
Poisson’s Ratio from velocity

A second way of looking at Poisson’s ratio is to use the ratio of VP to VS,

and this definition is given by:

 2 2
 2
2  2
VP
where :  
VS
This formula is more useful in our calculations than the formula given
by the ratio of the strains. The inverse to the above formula, allowing
us to derive VP or VS from , is given by:

2  2
 
2

2  1
28
Poisson’s Ratio vs VP/VS ratio

Vp/Vs vs Poisson's Ratio

0.5
0.4
0.3
Poisson's Ratio

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Gas Case Wet Case Vp/Vs

29
Poisson’s Ratio

From the previous figure, note that there are several values of
Poisson’s ratio and VP/VS ratio that are important to remember.

If VP/VS = 2, then  = 0

If VP/VS = 1.5, then  = 0.1 (Gas Case)

If VP/VS = 2, then  = 1/3 (Wet Case)

If VP/VS = , then  = 0.5 (VS = 0)

Note also from the previous figure that Poisson’s ratio can
theoretically be negative, but this has only been observed for
materials created in the lab (e.g. Goretex and polymer foams).

30
Velocity in Porous Rocks
Velocity effects can be modeled by the volume average equation:

t sat  t m( 1  )  t w S w  t hc( 1  S w ) , where t  1 / V

Velocity vs Water Saturation
A plot of velocity versus Wyllie's Equation
water saturation using Porosity = 33%
the above equation. We Vmatrix = 5700 m/s, Vw = 1600 m/s,
Voil = 1300 m/s, Vgas = 300 m/s.
used a porous sand with
3500
the parameters shown
and have filled the pores 3000

with either oil or gas. Velocity (m/sec) 2500

2000
This equation does not
hold for gas sands, and 1500
this lead to the
1000
development of the Biot-
Gassmann equations. 500
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Oil Gas Water Saturation

31
 The Biot-Gassmann Equations
The volume average equation gives incorrect results for gas sands.
Independently, Biot (1941) and Gassmann (1951), developed a more
correct theory of wave propagation in fluid saturated rocks, especially gas
sands, by deriving expressions for the saturated bulk and shear moduli
and substituting into the regular equations for P and S-wave velocity:

4
 sat sat
K sat VS _ sat 
VP _ sat  3
r sat
r sat
Note that rsat is found using the volume average equation:

ρsat  ρm (1   )  ρw S w  ρhc (1  S w )
In the Biot-Gassmann equations, the shear modulus does not change for
varying saturation at constant porosity. In equations:

sat  dry
32
The Biot-Gassmann Equations
To understand the Biot-Gassmann equations, let us update the figure we
saw earlier to include the concepts of the “saturated rock” (which includes
the in-situ fluid) and the “dry rock” (in which the fluid has been drained.)

Saturated
Rock
Dry rock (pores full)
frame, or
skeleton
(pores
empty)

Rock Matrix Pores and fluid

33
Biot-Gassmann – Saturated Bulk Modulus
The Biot-Gassmann bulk modulus equation is as follows:
2
 K dry 
1  
(1) K sat  K dry   Km 
 1   K dry
  2
K fl Km Km
Mavko et al, in The Rock Physics Handbook, re-arranged the above
equation to give a more intuitive form:

K sat K dry K fl
(2)  
K m  K sat K m  K dry  ( K m  K fl )
where sat = saturated rock, dry = dry frame, m = mineral, fl = fluid,
and  = porosity.

34
Biot’s Formulation
Biot defines b (the Biot coefficient) and M (the fluid modulus) as:

K dry 1  b 
b  1 , and   ,
Km M K fl Km

Equation (1) then can be written as: K sat  K dry  b 2 M

If b = 0 (or Kdry = Km) this equation simplifies to: K sat  K dry

1  1
If b = 1 (or Kdry= 0), this equation simplifies to:  
K sat K fl Km

Physically, b = 0 implies we have a non-porous rock, and b = 1 implies we

have particles in suspension (and the formula given is called Wood’s
formula). These are the two end members of a porous rock.

35
The Rock Matrix Bulk Modulus

We will now look at how to get estimates of the various bulk modulus
terms in the Biot-Gassmann equations, starting with the bulk modulus of
the solid rock matrix. Values will be given in gigaPascals (GPa), which
are equivalent to 1010 dynes/cm2.

The bulk modulus of the solid rock matrix, Km is usually taken from
published data that involved measurements on drill core samples.
Typical values are:

Ksandstone = 40 GPa,

Klimestone = 60 GPa.

36
The Fluid Bulk Modulus
The fluid bulk modulus can be modeled using the following equation:

1 S 1  Sw
 w 
K fl K w K hc

where K fl  the bulk modulus of the fluid,

K w  the bulk modulus of the water,
and K hc  the bulk modulus of the hydrocarbon.

Equations for estimating the values of brine, gas, and oil bulk modulii are
given in Batzle and Wang, 1992, Seismic Properties of Pore Fluids,
Geophysics, 57, 1396-1408. Typical values are:

Kgas = 0.021 GPa, Koil = 0.79 GPa, Kw = 2.38 GPa

37
 Estimating Kdry

The key step in FRM is calculating a value of Kdry. This can be done in
several ways:

(1) For known VS and VP, Kdry can be calculated by first calculating Ksat
and then using Mavko’s equation (equation (2)), given earlier.

(2) For known VP, but unknown VS, Kdry can be estimated by:

(a) Assuming a known dry rock Poisson’s ratio dry. Equation (1) can
then be rewritten as a quadratic equation in which we solve for Kdry.

(b) Using the Greenberg-Castagna method, described later.

38
 Data Examples

 In the next few slides, we will look at the computed responses for
both a gas-saturated sand and an oil-saturated sand using the
Biot-Gassmann equation.

 We will look at the effect of saturation on both velocity (VP and VS)
and Poisson’s Ratio.

 Keep in mind that this model assumes that the gas is uniformly
distributed in the fluid. Patchy saturation provides a different
function. (See Mavko et al: The Rock Physics Handbook.)

39
Velocity vs Saturation of Gas
A plot of velocity vs water
saturation for a porous gas
sand using the Biot-Gassmann
Velocity vs Water Saturation - Gas Case
Sandstone with Phi = 33%, Density as previous figure for gas,
Kmatrix = 40 Gpa, Kdry = 3.25 GPa, Kw = 2.38 Gpa,
Kgas = 0.021 Gpa, Shear Modulus = 3.3. Gpa.

equations with the parameters 2600

shown.
2400

In the section on AVO we will 2200

model both the wet sand and 2000

Velocity (m/s)
the 50% saturated gas sand.
1800
Note that the velocity values
can be read off the plot and 1600

are: 1400
VPwet = 2500 m/s
1200
VPgas = 2000 m/s
1000
VSwet = 1250 m/s 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Sw
VSgas = 1305 m/s
Vp Vs

40
Poisson’s Ratio vs Saturation of Gas

A plot of Poisson’s ratio vs Poisson's Ratio vs Water Saturation - Gas Case

water saturation for a porous Sandstone with Phi = 33%, Density as previous figure for gas,
Kmatrix = 40 Gpa, Kdry = 3.25 GPa, Kw = 2.38 Gpa,
gas sand using the Biot- Kgas = 0.021 Gpa, Shear Modulus = 3.3. Gpa.

Gassmann equations with the

0.5
parameters shown.

In the section on AVO we will 0.4

model both the wet sand and

Poisson's Ratio
the 50% saturated gas sand. 0.3

Note that the Poisson’s ratio

values can be read off the plot 0.2
and are:
wet = 0.33 0.1

gas = 0.12
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Sw

41
Velocity vs Saturation of Oil

Velocity vs Water Saturation - Oil Case

A plot of velocity vs water Sandstone with Phi = 33%, Density as previous figure for oil,
Kmatrix = 40 Gpa, Kdry = 3.25 GPa, Kw = 2.38 Gpa,
saturation for a porous oil Koil = 1.0 Gpa, Shear Modulus = 3.3. Gpa.
sand using the Biot-
2600
Gassmann equations with
the parameters shown. 2400

2200
Note that there is not much
of a velocity change. 2000

Velocity (m/s)
However, this is for “dead” 1800
oil, with no dissolved gas
1600
bubbles, and most oil
reservoirs have some 1400

percentage of dissolved 1200

gas.
1000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Sw

Vp Vs

42
Poisson’s Ratio vs Saturation of Oil

A plot of Poisson’s ratio vs Poisson's Ratio vs Water Saturation - Oil Case

Sandstone with Phi = 33%, Density as previous figure for oil,
water saturation for a porous Kmatrix = 40 Gpa, Kdry = 3.25 GPa, Kw = 2.38 Gpa,
oil sand using the Biot- Koil = 1.0 Gpa, Shear Modulus = 3.3. Gpa.

Gassmann equations with the 0.5

parameters shown.
0.4
Note that there is not much of
a Poisson’s ratio change.

Poisson's Ratio
However, again this is for 0.3

“dead” oil, with no dissolved

gas bubbles, and most oil 0.2
reservoirs have some
percentage of dissolved gas.
0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Sw

43
Fluid substitution in carbonates
In general carbonates are thought to have a smaller fluid sensitivity than
clastics. This is a consequence of the fact that they are typically stiffer (i.e.
have larger values of Km and Kdry ) implying a smaller Biot coefficient b and
hence fluid response.

This general observation is complicated by the fact that carbonates often

contain irregular pore shapes and geometries.
 High aspect ratio pores make the rock more compliant and thus more
sensitive to fluid changes.
 Aligned cracks require the use of the anisotropic Gassmann equation,
resulting in the saturated bulk modulus being directionally dependent.
 Gassmann assumed that pore pressure remains constant during wave
propagation. If the geometry of the pores and cracks restrict the fluid
flow at seismic frequencies then the rock will appear stiffer.

All these factors make the application of the Biot-Gassmann fluid

substitution in carbonates more complex.

44
Kuster-Toksöz model

The Kuster-Toksöz model allows to estimate properties of the

rocks with ellipsoidal pores, filled up with any kind of fluid.
• The Kuster-Toksöz model was developed in 1974
• Based on ellipsoidal pore shape (Eshelby, 1957)
• Pore space described as a collection of pores of
different aspect ratios

a
Aspect Ratio α= b/a
Courtesy of A. Cheng(2009)

In the appendix, we show how to compute the Kuster-Toksöz

model values Tiijj and F.
Kuster-Toksöz model

Pores in the rock according to Kuster-Toksöz model.

Courtesy of A. Cheng(2009)
Kuster-Toksöz model

Pore shape (aspect ratio a) effect on velocities.

1.0
NORMALIZED VELOCITY (V/V MATRIX)

a = 1.0
0.95

0.9
0.1

0.85
0.05 S Wave
WATER-SATURATED
0.01
P Wave GAS-SATURATED
0.8

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
POROSITY (%)
Toksöz et al., (1976)
The Keys-Xu method

 Keys and Xu (2002) give a method for computing the dry

rock moduli as a function of porosity, mineral moduli and
pore aspect ratio.
 The equations are as follows, where p and q are functions
of the scalars given by Kuster and Toksöz (1974):

K dry  K m (1   ) p and   m (1   ) q , where

1 2 1 2
p   f k Tiijj (a k ), q   f k F (a k ),
3 k 1 5 k 1
Vclay 1    Vclay
f1  , f2  , as before,
1 1
a1  aspect ratio of clay, and a 2  aspect ratio of mineral.
48
 The Keys-Xu method

Here is a plot of the

results of the Keys
and Xu (2002)
method for the dry
rock bulk modulus:

49
Patchy Saturation
When multiple pore fluids are present, Kfl is usually calculated by a Reuss
averaging technique (see Appendix 2):

1 S w So S g
  
K fl K w Ko K g

This method heavily biases compressibility of the combined fluid to

the most compressible phase.
Kfl vs Sw and Sg
This averaging 3

Bulk modulus (Gpa)

technique assumes 2.5
uniform fluid 2
distribution! 1.5
1
0.5
-Gas and liquid must
0
be evenly distributed
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
in every pore.
Water saturation (fraction)

50
Patchy Saturation
When fluids are not uniformly mixed, effective modulus values cannot be
estimated from Reuss averaging. Uniform averaging of fluids does not
apply.

When patch sizes are large with respect to the seismic wavelength, Voigt
averaging (see Appendix 2) gives the best estimate of Kfl (Domenico, 1976):

K fl  S w K w  So Ko  S g K g

When patch sizes are of intermediate size, Gassmann substitution should

be performed for each patch area and a volume average should be made.
This can be approximated by using a power-law averaging technique,
which we will not discuss here.

51
Patchy Saturation
Gassmann predicted velocities
Unconsolidated sand matrix
Porosity = 30%
100% Gas to 100% Brine saturation

2.5
2.3
Vp (km/s)

2.1 Patchy
Voigt
1.9 Reuss
1.7
1.5
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Water Saturation (fraction)
52
The Mudrock Line

The mudrock line is a linear relationship between VP and VS

derived by Castagna et al (1985):

VP  1.16 VS  1360 m / s

Note that for a constant Poisson’s ratio, the intercept is zero:

2  2
VP  VS
2  1

This will be illustrated in the next few slides.

53
The Mudrock Line

ARCO’s original mudrock derivation

(Castagna et al, Geophysics, 1985)
54
 The Mudrock Line

6000

5000
Mudrock Line
4000

3000
Gas Sand
VP (m/s)
2000

1000

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
VS(m/s)
55
 The Mudrock Line
6000

5000
 = 1/3 Mudrock Line
or
4000 VP/VS = 2

3000
Gas Sand
VP (m/s)
2000

1000

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
VS(m/s)
56
 The Mudrock Line

6000

5000
 = 1/3 or Mudrock Line
VP/VS = 2
4000

3000
Gas Sand
VP
(m/s)
2000
 = 0.1 or
VP/VS = 1.5
1000

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
VS(m/s)
57
The Greenberg-Castagna method
Greenberg and Castagna (1992) extended the previous mud-rock
line to different mineralogies as follows, where we have now
inverted the equation for VS as a function of VP:

Sandstone : VS  0.856 km / s  0.804 VP

Limestone : VS  1.031 km / s  1.017 VP  0.055VP2
Dolomite : VS  0.078 km / s  0.583 VP
Shale : VS  0.867 km / s  0.770 VP

Using the regression coefficients given above, Greenberg and Castagna

(1992) first propose that the shear-wave velocity for a brine-saturated rock
with mixed mineral components can be given as a Voigt-Reuss-Hill
average of the volume components of each mineral.

58
 The rock physics template (RPT)

Ødegaard and Avseth

(2003) proposed a
technique they called the
rock physics template
(RPT), in which the fluid
and mineralogical
content of a reservoir
could be estimated on a
crossplot of Vp/Vs ratio
against acoustic
impedance, as shown
here.

from Ødegaard and Avseth (2003)

59
 The rock physics template (RPT)

 Ødegaard and Avseth (2003) compute Kdry and dry as a

function of porosity  using Hertz-Mindlin (HM) contact
theory and the lower Hashin-Shtrikman bound.
 Hertz-Mindlin contact theory assumes that the porous rock
can be modeled as a packing of identical spheres, and the
effective bulk and shear moduli are computed from:
1 1
 n 2 (1  c )2 m2 
3
4  4 m  3n 2 (1  c )2 m2 
3
K eff   P  , eff   P ,
18 (1   m )  5(2   m )  2 (1   m )
2 2 2 2

where: P  confining pressure, m  mineral shear modulus,
n  contactsper grain,  m  mineral Poisson's ratio,
and c  high porosity end - member.
60
 The rock physics template (RPT)

 The lower Hashin-Shtrikman bound is then used to compute

the dry rock bulk and shear moduli as a function of porosity
with the following equations:
1
  / c 1   / c  4
K dry     eff
 K eff  ( 4 / 3) eff K m  ( 4 / 3) eff  3
1
  / c 1   / c  4
dry     z, where :
 eff  z m  z  3
eff  9 K eff  8eff 
z   and K m  mineral bulk modulus.
6  K eff  2 eff 

 Standard Gassmann theory is then used for the fluid
replacement process.
61
The rock physics template (RPT)

Here is the RPT for a range of porosities and water saturations, in a

clean sand case. We will build this template in the next exercise.
62
Conclusions

 An understanding of rock physics is crucial for the

interpretation of AVO anomalies.
 The volume average equation can be used to model
density in a water sand, but this equation does not
match observations for velocities in a gas sand.
 The Biot-Gassmann equations match observations well
for unconsolidated gas sands.
 When dealing with more complex porous media with
patchy saturation, or fracture type porosity (e.g.
carbonates), the Biot-Gassmann equations do not hold,
and we move to the Kuster-Toksöz approach.
 The ARCO mudrock line is a good empirical tool for the
wet sands and shales.
63
Appendix: The Kuster-Toksöz values

3F1 2 1 F4 F5  F6 F7  F8 F9
Tiijj (a )  , and F (a )    ,
F2 F3 F4 F2 F4
3 3 5 4 
where : F1  1  A ( g  f )  R g  f  ,
2 2 2 3 
 3 R 
F2  1  A1  ( g  f )  (3g  5 f )  B(3  4 R )
 2 2 
A
 
 ( A  3B )(3  4 R ) g  f  R( g  f  2 f 2 ) ,
2
A (1  a 2 ) 
F3  1   R( 2  f )  g ( R  1)  ,
2 a 2

F4  1  3 f  g  R( g  f ,
A
4

64
Appendix: The Kuster-Toksöz values

  4 
F5  A R g  f    g   Bf (3  4 R ),
  3 
F6  1  A1  g  R g  f   B(1  f )(3  4 R ),

F7  2 
A
9 f  3g  R5 f  3g   Bf (3  4 R),
4
 
F8  A1  2 R  ( R  1)  5R  3  B(1  f )(3  4 R ),
g f
 2 2 
Kf
F9  Ag ( R  1)  Rf   Bf (3  4 R ), A  1, B  ,
3K m
3m a
R
3K m  4  m
, f 
(1  a )
2 3/ 2
cos 1
a  a (1  a ) 
2 1/ 2

a2
g (3 f  2) and a  pore aspect ratio.
1a 2

65