Interpretation

of
Seismic Amplitude
Anomaly

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Historical Overview of Amplitude Anomaly

FIRST ERA OF ANOMALY : (1970 - 1982)

– BRIGHT SPOT

– POLARITY REVERSAL

– DIM SPOT

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Historical Overview of Amplitude Anomaly

SECOND ERA OF ANOMALY : (1982 - Present)

VERIFICATION OF AVO (OSTRANDER-1982)

APPLICATION OF ROCK PROPERTY

EMPHASIS AT DIFFERENT ANGLE (SHUEY-1985)

A TEST MORE DEFINITIVE THAN ANOMALY ON STACK

SECTION

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Basic Principles Of Application

1. Recognize amplitude anomaly

2. Validate the anomaly

3. Validate all components of hydrocarbon system not only the

reservoir composition and structure

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Elements Of Hydrocarbon System

– SOURCE : THICKNESS AND RICHNESS

– GENERATION : PRESSURE, TEMPERATURE AND
BURRIAL HISTORY
– MIGRATION : FLUID FLOW PATH
– RESERVOIR : POROSITY, PERMEABILITY,
THICKNESS AND EXTENT
– SEAL : PRESSURE HOLDING CAPACTY
– TRAP : STRUCTURAL, STRATIGRAPHIC,
COMBINATION
– TIMING : RELATIONSHIP OF TRAP TO
HYDROCARBON GENERATION AND
MIGRATION

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 What is AVO

Is this amplitude variation

caused by a change in rock
type, porosity, pore-fluid
content, or thickness of
layer

Gather at Gather at Gather at

CDP 20 CDP110 CDP 110
(case-1) (case-2)

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Reflection Coefficients at Normal Incidence

RP = [ρ2VP2 – ρ1VP1]/ [ρ2VP2 + ρ1VP1]

AR
A

ρ1, VP1
ρ2, VP2

AT

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Mode Conversion at Non-Normal Incidence

Incident Reflected
P-wave S-wave Reflected
P-wave

φr
θi θr
VP1 , VS1 , ρ1
VP2 , VS2 , ρ2 θt
φt Transmitted P-wave

Transmitted S-wave

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Snell’s Law OF Reflection & Refraction

• If we know the incident P-wave angle, θi, we can compute the

other four angles in the previous figure using Snell’s Law, which
states that the ratio of the sine of each angle to the layer
velocity (P or S) is a constant called the ray parameter, p:

sinθ i sinθ r sinθ t

p= = =
VP1 VP1 VP 2
sin φr sin φt
= =
VS1 VS 2

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Theory behind AVO exploration
• Amplitude changes due to partition of energy at the interface as
a function of angle of incidence and VP/VS ratio
• Presence of hydrocarbon lowers VP but VS remains relatively
unaffected as VS mainly depends on rock framework. Hence
VP/VS decreases
• Change in VP/VS in hydrocarbon saturated rocks, causes the
partitioning of an incident wave to differ from the shale/wet
sand interface
• For some reservoirs the reflections associated with gas bearing
rocks increase with offset relative to other reflections
• Most reflections decrease in amplitude with offset

© Dr. R. PRASAD
© Dr. R. PRASAD
© Dr. R. PRASAD
 0.10
0.05
40 0.00
- 0.05
- 0.10
0 10 20 30 40

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Reflection Coefficient

Reflection Coefficient
0.00 0.10
- 0.05 0.05
- 0.10 0.00
- 0.15 - 0.05
- 0.20
0 10 20 30 40 - 0.10
0 10 20 30 40
Angle of Incidence
Angle of Incidence

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Possion’s Ratio

Static measurement
σ = (∆W/W)/ (∆L/L)
W
W + ∆W

L L - ∆L Dynamic measurement
σ =[ 0.5 – (VS/VP)2]/ [ 1– (VS/VP)2]

Initial Strained

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 The Zoeppritz Equations

• Zoeppritz derived the amplitudes of the reflected and transmitted

waves using the conservation of stress and displacement across
the layer boundary, which gives four equations with four
unknowns. Inverting the matrix form of the Zoeppritz equations
gives us the exact amplitudes as a function of angle:
−1
 − sin θ1 − cos φ1 sin θ 2 cos φ 2 
R P   cos θ1 − sin φ1 cos θ 2 − sin φ 2   sin θ1 
R     cos θ 
 S  =  sin 2θ VP1 ρ 2 VS2 VP1
2
ρ 2 VS2 VP1   1 
cos 2φ1 cos 2 φ cos 2 φ
 TP   1
VS1 ρ1 VS1 VP 2
2 1
ρ1VS1 2 2
 sin 2θ1 
   VS1 ρ 2 VP 2 ρ 2 VS2
  
 TS  − cos 2φ1 sin 2φ1 cos 2φ 2 − sin 2φ 2   cos 2 φ 1
 VP1 ρ1 VP1 ρ1 VP1 

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Bortfeld Equation

BORTFELD (1961) LINEARIZED THE ZOEPPRITZ EQUATIONS

BY ASSUMING SMALL CHANGES IN LAYER PROPERTIES (∆ρ/ρ,
∆VP/VP, ∆VS/VS << 1), FOR P -WAVE REFLECTION COEFFICIENT

(FLUID FACTOR)
RP(θ) = [ρ2VP2 cos θ1 – ρ1VP1 cos θ2 ] / [ρ2VP2 cos θ1 + ρ1VP1 cos θ2 ]
+ [sin θ1/VP1 ]2 [ VS1+VS2] [ 3 (VS1-VS2 ) + (VS2ρ1 – VS1ρ2)/(ρ2+ ρ1)]
(RIGIDITY FACTOR)

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 The Aki-Richards Equation

•The Aki-Richards equation is a linearized approximation to the

Zoeppritz equations.

∆ VP ∆ VS ∆ρ
R ( θ) = a +b +c
VP VS ρ
where:
1 ρ 2 + ρ1
a= , ρ= , ∆ρ = ρ2 − ρ1 ,
2 cos θ
2 2
VP 2 + VP1
 VS 
2 VP = , ∆VP = VP 2 − VP1 ,
b = −4  sin 2 θ, 2
 VP  VS 2 + VS1
VS = , ∆VS = VS 2 − VS1 ,
2
  VS 
2

c = 0.51 − 4  sin θ,
2 θ + θt
and θ = i .
  VP   2
© Dr. R. PRASAD
Modified Aki-Richards Equation
• The equation was separated into three reflection terms as a
function of angle of incidence, as follows:

R (θ) = A + B sin 2 θ + C tan 2 θ sin 2 θ

where: 1  ∆ VP ∆ρ 
A=  + 
2  Vp ρ 
2 2
1 ∆ VP  VS  ∆ VS  VS  ∆ρ
B= − 4  − 2 
2 Vp  VP  VS  VP  ρ
1 ∆ VP
C=
Using: 2 Vp
1
=
2 cos θ 2
2
1
1 + [
sin 2
θ − sin 2
θ + tan 2
θ ]
& tan2 θ - sin2θ = tan2 θ sin2θ

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Hilterman’s Approximation

R (θ) = A + B sin 2 θ
= NI + (2.25∆σ − NI )sin 2 θ
= NI(1 − sin 2 θ) + 2.25∆σ sin 2 θ
= NI cos 2 θ + 2.25∆σ sin 2 θ

R(θ) ≈ NI cos2(θ) + PR sin2(θ)

NI = NORMAL INCIDENCE REFLECTIVITY

PR = POISSON REFLECTIVITY

ABOVE EQUATION RELATES THE SEISMIC PROPERTY

R(θ) TO CHANGE IN THE PETROPHYSICAL PROPERTIES
(ACCOUSTIC IMPEDANCE AND POISSON’S RATIO)

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Hilterman’s Approximation

SHUEY’S EQUATION WAS FURTHER SIMPLIFIED,

ASSUMING VP/VS=2 AND DROPPING HIGHER ORDER TERM
FOR θ < 30 0


B = A D − 2(1+ D)

1 − 2σ 
+
∆σ = −A + 2.25∆σ

 1− σ  (1− σ)2

THIS GIVES BETTER INSITE ABOUT THE CORRELATION

OF ROCK PROPERTIES TO THE AVO RESPONSE,

© Dr. R. PRASAD
PRINCIPLE OF AVO APPLICATION

R(θ) ≈ NI cos2(θ) + PR sin2(θ)

1.00
PR contribution
0.75

0.50

R(θ )
NI contribution
θ
VP1, ρ1, σ1 0.25

VP2, ρ2, σ2
0
30 60 90
Angle of incidence

AT LOW ANGLE OF INCIDENCE THERE IS DOMINANT

CONTRIBUTION OF FIRST TERM AND AT LARGER ANGLE OF
INCIDENCE CONTRIBUTION OF SECOND TERM IS DOMINANT

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Shuey’s Equation
• Shuey (1985) rewrote the Aki-Richards equation using VP, ρ, and σ,
writing the basic form the same way:

R (θ) = A + B sin 2 θ + C tan 2 θ sin 2 θ

Using VS2=(0.5-σ)/(1-σ) VP2 ↔ ∆V /V
S S = ∆VP/VP – (1/4)[∆σ/(1-σ)][1/(0.5-σ)] and
replacing ∆VS/VS

• Only the gradient is different than in the Aki-Richards expression,

and is given by: ∆VP / VP
where : D= ,
∆VP / VP + ∆ρ / ρ
 1 − 2σ  ∆σ
B = A D − 2(1 + D)  + σ =
σ 2 + σ1
 1 − σ  (1 − σ ) 2 2
∆σ = σ 2 − σ 1

© Dr. R. PRASAD
© Dr. R. PRASAD
 INPUT TO AVO ANALYSIS

CMP GATHER
OFFSET
200 M 3000 M

WET SAND

GAS SAND

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Intercept & Gradient from CDP Gather

Offset
Two way time
θ

CMP Gather

Intercept Gradient
Amplitude

Ф
A B= tan Ф
A B
Sin2θ

© Dr. R. PRASAD
© Dr. R. PRASAD
© Dr. R. PRASAD
© Dr. R. PRASAD
AVO Response in different depth zones

POLARITY Wet sand

Zone-1
Bright

Depth/Time
Under-compacted
spot CLASS-3 AVO

Hydrocarbon
effect Zone-2
Transitional
Polarity CLASS-2 AVO

reversal
Zone-3
Compacted
CLASS-1 AVO
Dim out

© Dr. R. PRASAD
© Dr. R. PRASAD
© Dr. R. PRASAD
© Dr. R. PRASAD
Transform Equations

Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume transform

Clean sandstone

VP= 6.08 – 8.06 ø and VS= 4.06 – 6.28 ø, at effective pressure 40 MPa

Shaly sandstone

VP= 5.59– 6.93 ø – 2.18 C and VS= 3.52 – 4.91 ø – 1.89 C, at effective
pressure 40 MPa

VP= 5.26– 7.08 ø – 2.02 C and VS= 3.16– 4.77 ø – 1.64 C, at effective
pressure 5 MPa

• Taking 1 MPa = 145 psi, and effective pressure gradient = 0.5 psi/ft, 40
MPa & 5 MPa correspond to approximate depth of 12000 ft and 1500 ft
respectively

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Transform Equations

Gardner’s velocity-density transform

ρ = 0.23 V 0.25 ( gm/cm3 & ft/sec)
Best fit curve for all Lithology

Wyllie’s velocity-porosity transform

1/V = (1-ø)/Vma + ø/Vfl
∆t = (1-ø) ∆t ma + ø ∆t fl
∆t for sandstone = 55.5, limestone = 47.5, dolomite = 43.5,
anhydrite = 50, salt= 67, brine= 189

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Transform Equations

Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume transform

Clean sandstone

VP= 6.08 – 8.06 ø and VS= 4.06 – 6.28 ø, at effective pressure 40 MPa

Shaly sandstone

VP= 5.59– 6.93 ø – 2.18 C and VS= 3.52 – 4.91 ø – 1.89 C, at effective
pressure 40 MPa

VP= 5.26– 7.08 ø – 2.02 C and VS= 3.16– 4.77 ø – 1.64 C, at effective
pressure 5 MPa

• Taking 1 MPa = 145 psi, and effective pressure gradient = 0.5 psi/ft, 40
MPa & 5 MPa correspond to approximate depth of 12000 ft and 1500 ft
respectively

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume
transform

• Velocity variation with depth are smaller for well consolidated

sand stone

• As the % of porosity or clay volume increases, the velocity

decreases about 2.5 times more for porosity than for clay

• As the % of porosity or clay volume increases, Poisson’s ratio

increases

• Poisson’s ratio decreases with depth

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Castagna’s VP to VS transform ( Mudrock line)

Clastic silicate rock

VP = 1.16 VS + 1.36 Km/Sec

For various water saturated lithology

Sandstone : VS = - 0.856 + 0.804 VP

Limestone : VS = - 1.030 + 1.017 VP – 0.055 VP2

Dolomite : VS = - 0.078 + 0.583 VP

Sandstone : VS = - 0.867 + 0.770 VP

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume
transform

σ σ
σ

0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5

porosity porosity
Clay volume
Ф=15 % Clay =20 %
Small fraction of clay in clean sand
increases poisson’s ratio significantly
© Dr. R. PRASAD
Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume
transform

• Velocity variation with depth are smaller for well consolidated

sand stone

• As the % of porosity or clay volume increases, the velocity

decreases about 2.5 times more for porosity than for clay

• As the % of porosity or clay volume increases, Poisson’s ratio

increases

• Poisson’s ratio decreases with depth

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Castagna’s VP to VS transform ( Mudrock line)

Clastic silicate rock

VP = 1.16 VS + 1.36 Km/Sec

For various water saturated lithology

Sandstone : VS = - 0.856 + 0.804 VP

Limestone : VS = - 1.030 + 1.017 VP – 0.055 VP2

Dolomite : VS = - 0.078 + 0.583 VP

Sandstone : VS = - 0.867 + 0.770 VP

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Poisson’s Ratio(Based on mudrock line)

0.5
• A water saturated sand that
has a velocity of 4000 m/sec
has a Poisson’s ratio 0.275
Poisson’s ratio

0.25 and when this sand is fluid

substituted with gas
Poisson’s ratio lowers to
0 0.200
2000 6000

Wet P-wave velocity

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Transform Equations

Gardner’s velocity-density transform

ρ = 0.23 V 0.25 ( gm/cm3 & ft/sec)
Best fit curve for all Lithology

Wyllie’s velocity-porosity transform

1/V = (1-ø)/Vma + ø/Vfl
∆t = (1-ø) ∆t ma + ø ∆t fl
∆t for sandstone = 55.5, limestone = 47.5, dolomite = 43.5,
anhydrite = 50, salt= 67, brine= 189

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Transform Equations

Gardner’s velocity-density transform

ρ = 0.23 V 0.25 ( gm/cm3 & ft/sec)
Best fit curve for all Lithology

Wyllie’s velocity-porosity transform

1/V = (1-ø)/Vma + ø/Vfl
∆t = (1-ø) ∆t ma + ø ∆t fl
∆t for sandstone = 55.5, limestone = 47.5, dolomite = 43.5,
anhydrite = 50, salt= 67, brine= 189

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Transform Equations

Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume transform

Clean sandstone

VP= 6.08 – 8.06 ø and VS= 4.06 – 6.28 ø, at effective pressure 40 MPa

Shaly sandstone

VP= 5.59– 6.93 ø – 2.18 C and VS= 3.52 – 4.91 ø – 1.89 C, at effective
pressure 40 MPa

VP= 5.26– 7.08 ø – 2.02 C and VS= 3.16– 4.77 ø – 1.64 C, at effective
pressure 5 MPa

• Taking 1 MPa = 145 psi, and effective pressure gradient = 0.5 psi/ft, 40
MPa & 5 MPa correspond to approximate depth of 12000 ft and 1500 ft
respectively

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume
transform

VP & VS
VP
VP

0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5

Clay volume porosity porosity

Ф=15 % Clay 20 %

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Transform Equations

Gardner’s velocity-density transform

ρ = 0.23 V 0.25 ( gm/cm3 & ft/sec)
Best fit curve for all Lithology

Wyllie’s velocity-porosity transform

1/V = (1-ø)/Vma + ø/Vfl
∆t = (1-ø) ∆t ma + ø ∆t fl
∆t for sandstone = 55.5, limestone = 47.5, dolomite = 43.5,
anhydrite = 50, salt= 67, brine= 189

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Transform Equations

Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume transform

Clean sandstone

VP= 6.08 – 8.06 ø and VS= 4.06 – 6.28 ø, at effective pressure 40 MPa

Shaly sandstone

VP= 5.59– 6.93 ø – 2.18 C and VS= 3.52 – 4.91 ø – 1.89 C, at effective
pressure 40 MPa

VP= 5.26– 7.08 ø – 2.02 C and VS= 3.16– 4.77 ø – 1.64 C, at effective
pressure 5 MPa

• Taking 1 MPa = 145 psi, and effective pressure gradient = 0.5 psi/ft, 40
MPa & 5 MPa correspond to approximate depth of 12000 ft and 1500 ft
respectively

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume
transform

• Velocity variation with depth are smaller for well consolidated

sand stone

• As the % of porosity or clay volume increases, the velocity

decreases about 2.5 times more for porosity than for clay

• As the % of porosity or clay volume increases, Poisson’s ratio

increases

• Poisson’s ratio decreases with depth

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Castagna’s VP to VS transform ( Mudrock line)

Clastic silicate rock

VP = 1.16 VS + 1.36 Km/Sec

For various water saturated lithology

Sandstone : VS = - 0.856 + 0.804 VP

Limestone : VS = - 1.030 + 1.017 VP – 0.055 VP2

Dolomite : VS = - 0.078 + 0.583 VP

Sandstone : VS = - 0.867 + 0.770 VP

© Dr. R. PRASAD
MODULUS OF ELASTICITY

Shear Modulus (µ) Bulk Modulus (Κ) Young Modulus (Ε)

F
F

F F

∆L
θ
F F F

© Dr. R. PRASAD
© Dr. R. PRASAD
Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume
transform

• Velocity variation with depth are smaller for well consolidated

sand stone

• As the % of porosity or clay volume increases, the velocity

decreases about 2.5 times more for porosity than for clay

• As the % of porosity or clay volume increases, Poisson’s ratio

increases

• Poisson’s ratio decreases with depth

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Castagna’s VP to VS transform ( Mudrock line)

Clastic silicate rock

VP = 1.16 VS + 1.36 Km/Sec

For various water saturated lithology

Sandstone : VS = - 0.856 + 0.804 VP

Limestone : VS = - 1.030 + 1.017 VP – 0.055 VP2

Dolomite : VS = - 0.078 + 0.583 VP

Sandstone : VS = - 0.867 + 0.770 VP

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Poisson’s Ratio(Based on mudrock line)

0.5
• A water saturated sand that
has a velocity of 4000 m/sec
has a Poisson’s ratio 0.275
Poisson’s ratio

0.25 and when this sand is fluid

substituted with gas
Poisson’s ratio lowers to
0 0.200
2000 6000

Wet P-wave velocity

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Transform Equations

Gardner’s velocity-density transform

ρ = 0.23 V 0.25 ( gm/cm3 & ft/sec)
Best fit curve for all Lithology

Wyllie’s velocity-porosity transform

1/V = (1-ø)/Vma + ø/Vfl
∆t = (1-ø) ∆t ma + ø ∆t fl
∆t for sandstone = 55.5, limestone = 47.5, dolomite = 43.5,
anhydrite = 50, salt= 67, brine= 189

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Transform Equations

Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume transform

Clean sandstone

VP= 6.08 – 8.06 ø and VS= 4.06 – 6.28 ø, at effective pressure 40 MPa

Shaly sandstone

VP= 5.59– 6.93 ø – 2.18 C and VS= 3.52 – 4.91 ø – 1.89 C, at effective
pressure 40 MPa

VP= 5.26– 7.08 ø – 2.02 C and VS= 3.16– 4.77 ø – 1.64 C, at effective
pressure 5 MPa

• Taking 1 MPa = 145 psi, and effective pressure gradient = 0.5 psi/ft, 40
MPa & 5 MPa correspond to approximate depth of 12000 ft and 1500 ft
respectively

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume
transform

VP & VS
VP
VP

0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5

Clay volume porosity porosity

Ф=15 % Clay 20 %

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume
transform

σ σ
σ

0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5

porosity porosity
Clay volume
Ф=15 % Clay =20 %
Small fraction of clay in clean sand
increases poisson’s ratio significantly
© Dr. R. PRASAD
Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume
transform

• Velocity variation with depth are smaller for well consolidated

sand stone

• As the % of porosity or clay volume increases, the velocity

decreases about 2.5 times more for porosity than for clay

• As the % of porosity or clay volume increases, Poisson’s ratio

increases

• Poisson’s ratio decreases with depth

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Castagna’s VP to VS transform ( Mudrock line)

Clastic silicate rock

VP = 1.16 VS + 1.36 Km/Sec

For various water saturated lithology

Sandstone : VS = - 0.856 + 0.804 VP

Limestone : VS = - 1.030 + 1.017 VP – 0.055 VP2

Dolomite : VS = - 0.078 + 0.583 VP

Sandstone : VS = - 0.867 + 0.770 VP

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Poisson’s Ratio(Based on mudrock line)

0.5
• A water saturated sand that
has a velocity of 4000 m/sec
has a Poisson’s ratio 0.275
Poisson’s ratio

0.25 and when this sand is fluid

substituted with gas
Poisson’s ratio lowers to
0 0.200
2000 6000

Wet P-wave velocity

© Dr. R. PRASAD
MODULUS OF ELASTICITY

Shear Modulus (µ) Bulk Modulus (Κ) Young Modulus (Ε)

F
F

F F

∆L
θ
F F F

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Limitations of Zeoppritz’s Equation

• Zeoppritz equation describes plane wave while actual seismic wave

is spherical

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Intercept and gradient

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Transform Equations

Gardner’s velocity-density transform

ρ = 0.23 V 0.25 ( gm/cm3 & ft/sec)
Best fit curve for all Lithology

Wyllie’s velocity-porosity transform

1/V = (1-ø)/Vma + ø/Vfl
∆t = (1-ø) ∆t ma + ø ∆t fl
∆t for sandstone = 55.5, limestone = 47.5, dolomite = 43.5,
anhydrite = 50, salt= 67, brine= 189

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Transform Equations

Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume transform

Clean sandstone

VP= 6.08 – 8.06 ø and VS= 4.06 – 6.28 ø, at effective pressure 40 MPa

Shaly sandstone

VP= 5.59– 6.93 ø – 2.18 C and VS= 3.52 – 4.91 ø – 1.89 C, at effective
pressure 40 MPa

VP= 5.26– 7.08 ø – 2.02 C and VS= 3.16– 4.77 ø – 1.64 C, at effective
pressure 5 MPa

• Taking 1 MPa = 145 psi, and effective pressure gradient = 0.5 psi/ft, 40
MPa & 5 MPa correspond to approximate depth of 12000 ft and 1500 ft
respectively

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Bulk Modulus-Bulk density- Acoustic Velocity
Bulk modulus of total rock ‘K’ = f (Km, Kd, Kf , Ф)
Bulk Density of total rock ‘ρb’ = (1-Ф) ρm + Ф ρf
Density of fluid ρf = (1- SW ) ρHYD + SW ρBR
P- wave velocity, VP = [(K + 4/3 µ)/ρb] ½
S- wave velocity, VS = [µ/ρb] ½

Frame
Kd
PoreFluid
Matrix Kf
Km

For non-porous sandstone, K= 40 GPa, µ =44 GPa, ρ= 2.65 gm/cc

Substituting in above eqn.
VP = 6.10 km/sec, VS = 4.07 km/sec

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Transform Equations

Gardner’s velocity-density transform

ρ = 0.23 V 0.25 ( gm/cm3 & ft/sec)
Best fit curve for all Lithology

Wyllie’s velocity-porosity transform

1/V = (1-ø)/Vma + ø/Vfl
∆t = (1-ø) ∆t ma + ø ∆t fl
∆t for sandstone = 55.5, limestone = 47.5, dolomite = 43.5,
anhydrite = 50, salt= 67, brine= 189

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Transform Equations

Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume transform

Clean sandstone

VP= 6.08 – 8.06 ø and VS= 4.06 – 6.28 ø, at effective pressure 40 MPa

Shaly sandstone

VP= 5.59– 6.93 ø – 2.18 C and VS= 3.52 – 4.91 ø – 1.89 C, at effective
pressure 40 MPa

VP= 5.26– 7.08 ø – 2.02 C and VS= 3.16– 4.77 ø – 1.64 C, at effective
pressure 5 MPa

• Taking 1 MPa = 145 psi, and effective pressure gradient = 0.5 psi/ft, 40
MPa & 5 MPa correspond to approximate depth of 12000 ft and 1500 ft
respectively

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume
transform

VP & VS
VP
VP

0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5

Clay volume porosity porosity

Ф=15 % Clay 20 %

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume
transform

σ σ
σ

0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5

porosity porosity
Clay volume
Ф=15 % Clay =20 %
Small fraction of clay in clean sand
increases poisson’s ratio significantly
© Dr. R. PRASAD
Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume
transform

• Velocity variation with depth are smaller for well consolidated

sand stone

• As the % of porosity or clay volume increases, the velocity

decreases about 2.5 times more for porosity than for clay

• As the % of porosity or clay volume increases, Poisson’s ratio

increases

• Poisson’s ratio decreases with depth

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Castagna’s VP to VS transform ( Mudrock line)

Clastic silicate rock

VP = 1.16 VS + 1.36 Km/Sec

For various water saturated lithology

Sandstone : VS = - 0.856 + 0.804 VP

Limestone : VS = - 1.030 + 1.017 VP – 0.055 VP2

Dolomite : VS = - 0.078 + 0.583 VP

Sandstone : VS = - 0.867 + 0.770 VP

© Dr. R. PRASAD
MODULUS OF ELASTICITY

Shear Modulus (µ) Bulk Modulus (Κ) Young Modulus (Ε)

F
F

F F

∆L
θ
F F F

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume
transform

σ σ
σ

0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5

porosity porosity
Clay volume
Ф=15 % Clay =20 %
Small fraction of clay in clean sand
increases poisson’s ratio significantly
© Dr. R. PRASAD
Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume
transform

• Velocity variation with depth are smaller for well consolidated

sand stone

• As the % of porosity or clay volume increases, the velocity

decreases about 2.5 times more for porosity than for clay

• As the % of porosity or clay volume increases, Poisson’s ratio

increases

• Poisson’s ratio decreases with depth

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Castagna’s VP to VS transform ( Mudrock line)

Clastic silicate rock

VP = 1.16 VS + 1.36 Km/Sec

For various water saturated lithology

Sandstone : VS = - 0.856 + 0.804 VP

Limestone : VS = - 1.030 + 1.017 VP – 0.055 VP2

Dolomite : VS = - 0.078 + 0.583 VP

Sandstone : VS = - 0.867 + 0.770 VP

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Poisson’s Ratio(Based on mudrock line)

0.5
• A water saturated sand that
has a velocity of 4000 m/sec
has a Poisson’s ratio 0.275
Poisson’s ratio

0.25 and when this sand is fluid

substituted with gas
Poisson’s ratio lowers to
0 0.200
2000 6000

Wet P-wave velocity

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Bulk Modulus-Bulk density- Acoustic Velocity
Bulk modulus of total rock ‘K’ = f (Km, Kd, Kf , Ф)
Bulk Density of total rock ‘ρb’ = (1-Ф) ρm + Ф ρf
Density of fluid ρf = (1- SW ) ρHYD + SW ρBR
P- wave velocity, VP = [(K + 4/3 µ)/ρb] ½
S- wave velocity, VS = [µ/ρb] ½

Frame
Kd
PoreFluid
Matrix Kf
Km

For non-porous sandstone, K= 40 GPa, µ =44 GPa, ρ= 2.65 gm/cc

Substituting in above eqn.
VP = 6.10 km/sec, VS = 4.07 km/sec

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Transform Equations

Gardner’s velocity-density transform

ρ = 0.23 V 0.25 ( gm/cm3 & ft/sec)
Best fit curve for all Lithology

Wyllie’s velocity-porosity transform

1/V = (1-ø)/Vma + ø/Vfl
∆t = (1-ø) ∆t ma + ø ∆t fl
∆t for sandstone = 55.5, limestone = 47.5, dolomite = 43.5,
anhydrite = 50, salt= 67, brine= 189

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Transform Equations

Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume transform

Clean sandstone

VP= 6.08 – 8.06 ø and VS= 4.06 – 6.28 ø, at effective pressure 40 MPa

Shaly sandstone

VP= 5.59– 6.93 ø – 2.18 C and VS= 3.52 – 4.91 ø – 1.89 C, at effective
pressure 40 MPa

VP= 5.26– 7.08 ø – 2.02 C and VS= 3.16– 4.77 ø – 1.64 C, at effective
pressure 5 MPa

• Taking 1 MPa = 145 psi, and effective pressure gradient = 0.5 psi/ft, 40
MPa & 5 MPa correspond to approximate depth of 12000 ft and 1500 ft
respectively

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume
transform

σ σ
σ

0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5

porosity porosity
Clay volume
Ф=15 % Clay =20 %
Small fraction of clay in clean sand
increases poisson’s ratio significantly
© Dr. R. PRASAD
Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume
transform

• Velocity variation with depth are smaller for well consolidated

sand stone

• As the % of porosity or clay volume increases, the velocity

decreases about 2.5 times more for porosity than for clay

• As the % of porosity or clay volume increases, Poisson’s ratio

increases

• Poisson’s ratio decreases with depth

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Castagna’s VP to VS transform ( Mudrock line)

Clastic silicate rock

VP = 1.16 VS + 1.36 Km/Sec

For various water saturated lithology

Sandstone : VS = - 0.856 + 0.804 VP

Limestone : VS = - 1.030 + 1.017 VP – 0.055 VP2

Dolomite : VS = - 0.078 + 0.583 VP

Sandstone : VS = - 0.867 + 0.770 VP

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Poisson’s Ratio(Based on mudrock line)

0.5
• A water saturated sand that
has a velocity of 4000 m/sec
has a Poisson’s ratio 0.275
Poisson’s ratio

0.25 and when this sand is fluid

substituted with gas
Poisson’s ratio lowers to
0 0.200
2000 6000

Wet P-wave velocity

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Limitations of Zeoppritz’s Equation

• Zeoppritz equation describes plane wave while actual seismic wave

is spherical

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Intercept and gradient

© Dr. R. PRASAD
AVO Cross-plot Analysis
• A very useful way to interpret AVO attributes is to make cross plots
of intercept (A) versus gradient (B).
• These plots are a very helpful and intuitive way of presenting AVO
data, and can give a better understanding of the rock properties
rather than by analyzing the standard AVO curves.
B

Class IV

A
Class III

Class II Class I
Class II

© Dr. R. PRASAD
AVO Cross-plot Analysis

• Rutherford and Williams (1989) suggested a classification scheme

of AVO responses for different responses of gas sands.

• Defined three AVO classes based on where the top of gas sand will
be located in (A) and (B) cross-plot.
• 1st quadrant – A and B both positive
• 2nd quadrant – A –ve B +ve
• 3rd quadrant – A –ve B –ve
• 4th quadrant – A +ve B -ve

© Dr. R. PRASAD
SHALE/GAS SAND MODEL: CLASS-3 AVO

ZONE-1: In THE SHALLWEST ZONE unconsolidated environment,

where sand impedance is less than that of the adjacent shale,
amplitudes for sands tend to be slightly to moderately negative.
The presence of hydrocarbons, however, can double or triple
the reflection coefficient, and can be easily identified on
conventional or relative amplitude displays as bright spots.

© Dr. R. PRASAD
AVO CLASS-III Anomaly

•Class-III AVO Anomaly

AVO class-III is the “ classical” AVO anomaly with negative

intercept and negative slope. This class represent relatively
soft sands with gas charged, located far away from the
background trend. Hence they are easy to detect on seismic
data

© Dr. R. PRASAD
© Dr. R. PRASAD
SHALE/GAS SAND MODEL: CLASS-3 AVO

MODEL-1 VP VS ρb σ

SHALE 1900 709 2.16 0.419

Medium-1

GAS SAND 1543 929 1.88 0.215

Medium-2

For Normal incidence

RP = (V2ρ2 – V1ρ1) / (V2ρ2+ V1ρ1) = - 0.17
∆VP = - ve, ∆σ= - ve,

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 SHALE/GAS SAND MODEL: CLASS-3 AVO

TOP REFLECTION
θ A B R(θ)
Sin2θ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 0 -0.172 -0.013 -0.1720
-0.15
10 0.0301 -0.1723
BRIGHT SPOT
20 0.1169 -
30 0.2500 -0.1752
-0.155
40 0.4131 -0.1773
-0.16
CLASS III
-0.165 LOW IMPEDANCE SAND
θ Sin2θ A B R(θ)
0 0 0.209 -0.039 0.209
-0.17
10 0.0301 0.20782

20 0.1169 0.20443
-0.175
30 0.2500 0.19225
40 0.4131 0.19288 -0.18

© Dr. R. PRASAD
SHALE/GAS SAND MODEL:CLASS-2 AVO

• ZONE-2 : In THE MIDDLE zone our technology is least

effective. For reasons we do not yet understand, even synthetic
seismograms may not establish reliable correlations.
Sandstone impedances show some mix of Zone I and III
character, as well as low-contrast sands in close proximity.
This is the actual crossover zone. While sand and shale
impedances are, on average, very close in this zone, there is
great inconsistency in reflectivities. The occurrence of
hydrocarbons can appear as a bright spot, a polarity shift, or
fade a reflection into the background.

© Dr. R. PRASAD
SHALE/GAS SAND MODEL:CLASS-2 AVO
ZONE-2 :
• Zone-1 member had a lower acoustic impedance than that
of the shale, while the Zone-3 member had a higher
acoustic impedance. The result of this relative acoustic
impedance reversal is that instead of a "bright spot," we
see a "dim spot" where hydrocarbons may be present.
• Near the top of Zone-2, there are usually more Zone-1 type
sands than there are Zone-3 type sands. This situation
reverses near the bottom of this reflectivity condition.
Polarity reversals are frequently encountered for the Zone-3
type sands in Zone-2.

© Dr. R. PRASAD
AVO CLASS-II Anomaly

• Class-II AVO Anomaly

AVO class-II, representing transparent sands with

hydrocarbons, often show up as dim spots or weak negative
reflectors on the seismic. However, because of relatively large
gradient, they should show up as anomalies in A-B cross-plot,
plotting off the background trend.

© Dr. R. PRASAD
SHALE/GAS SAND MODEL-2(CLASS-II AVO)

MODEL-2 VP VS ρb σ

SHALE 2600 1151 2.29 0.378

Medium-1

GAS SAND 2782 1665 2.15 0.221

Medium-2

For Normal incidence

RP = (V2ρ2 – V1ρ1) / (V2ρ2+ V1ρ1) =0.002
∆VP = +ve, ∆σ= - ve,

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 SHALE/GAS SAND MODEL:CLASS-2 AVO

TOP REFLECTION
POLARITY REVERSAL
0.02
θ Sin2θ A B R(θ)
0 0 0.0023 -0.18 0.00230
0.01
10 0.03015 -0.0031 0
20 0.11697 -0.0187 -0.01 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
30 0.25000 -0.0427
-0.02
40 0.41317 -0.0720
-0.03

θ Sin2θ A B R(θ) -0.04

0 0 0.064 0.0026 0.0640 -0.05 CLASS II
NEAR ZERO IMPEDANCE COTRAST SAND
10 0.0301 0.06408 -0.06
20 0.1169 0.06430
-0.07
30 0.2500 0.06465
40 0.4131 0.06507

© Dr. R. PRASAD
SHALE/GAS SAND MODEL:CLASS-1 AVO

• ZONE-3 : IN THE LOWERMOST ZONE, sands have compacted

and consolidated until their acoustic impedance values are
greater than those of the associated shales, due to the
sand/shale crossover of velocities. Hydrocarbons tend to
decrease velocities in absolute terms, much as seen in Zone I.
In relative terms, however, the change is less than 50 percent of
the wet sand reflectivity. Since this is a decrease in the
reflection coefficient, the result is a dimming of the event,
which may not be apparent on a conventional section.

© Dr. R. PRASAD
AVO CLASS-I Anomaly

Class-I AVO Anomaly

AVO class-I represents relatively hard sands with

hydrocarbons. These sands tend to plot along the
background trend in intercept-gradient cross-plot.
Moreover, very hard sands can have little sensitivity to
fluids, so they may not be an flat spot. Hence, these
sands can be hard to discover from seismic data.

© Dr. R. PRASAD
SHALE/GAS SAND MODEL:CLASS-1 AVO

MODEL-3 VP VS ρ σ

SHALE 3095 1515 2.40 0.343

Medium-1

GAS SAND 4050 2527 2.21 0.182

Medium-2

For Normal incidence

RP = (V2ρ2 – V1ρ1) / (V2ρ2+ V1ρ1) = 0.09
∆VP = + ve, ∆σ= - ve,

© Dr. R. PRASAD
SHALE/GAS SAND MODEL:CLASS-1 AVO
TOP REFLECTION

θ Sin2θ A B R(θ)
Lowering of amplitude with offset
0 0 0.0930 -0.331 0.09300 0.1
10 0.0301 0.08301 0.08
20 0.1169 0.05428
0.06
30 0.2500 0.01025
0.04
CLASS I
40 0.4131 -0.0437 HIGH IMPEDANCE SAND
0.02

0
θ Sin2θ A B R(θ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-0.02
0 0 0.0324 --0.0084 0.0324
-0.04
10 0.03015 0.03215
20 0.11697 0.03142 -0.06
30 0.25000 0.03030
40 0.41317 0.02893

© Dr. R. PRASAD
AVO CLASS-IV Anomaly

•Class-IV AVO Anomaly

AVO class-IV sands have negative intercept and positive

slope. The reflection coefficient becomes less negative
with increasing offset, and amplitude decreases with
increase in offsets, even though these sands may be
bright spot. Class-IV anomalies are relatively rare, but
occur when soft sands with gas are capped by relatively
hard cap-rock shales characterized by VP/VS ratio slightly
higher than in sands ( i.e. very compacted or silty shales)

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Summary of AVO Cross-plot Analysis

Class Relative Quadrant A B AVO PRODUCT

Impedance
I High 4 th + - Negative
Impedance
sand
II No or Low 4 th + - Negative
Impedance
contrast
IIP 3 rd - - Positive

III Low 3 rd - - Positive

Impedance
IV Low 2 nd - + Negative
Impedance

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Summary of AVO Classes

Class- I – plots in the 4th quadrant – hard events with relatively high
impedance and VP/VS ratio compared with cap-rock.
• Class- II – weak strong –ve gradient; hard to see on seismic data (dim
spots)
• Class- III – bright spot; 3rd quadrant – associated with soft sands
saturated with hydrocarbons

• Class-IV anomalies are relatively rare, but occur when soft sands with
gas are capped by relatively hard cap-rock shales characterized by
VP/VS ratio slightly higher than in sands ( i.e. very compacted or silty
shales)

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Back ground trend

© Dr. R. PRASAD
AVO Trends

• We can analyze the trends in AVO cross-plots in terms of changes in

rock physics properties fluid trends, porosity trends and lithology
trends as they will have different directions in the cross-plot.

• Using rock physics models we can study various ‘what if’ scenarios
and then compare the modeled results with the inverted data.

© Dr. R. PRASAD
AVO trend

• Castagna et al. (1998) presented a systematic approach to the interpretation of

AVO gradient and intercepts.

• They showed that with realistic petrophysical assumptions, equations for the
background trend or fluid line could be derived resulting in simple
interpretation of cross-plots.

• Castagna et al. (1998) documented that with realistic petrophysical

assumptions, non-hydrocarbon bearing clastic rocks often exhibit a
background trend in the A-B plane.

• A and B are found to be negatively correlated at very high ratio for

background rocks but they may be positively correlated at very high ratios in
very soft shallow sediments.

• Thus hydrocarbon occurrence can be inferred from variations away from the
trend.

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Back ground trend

• There exist correlation between P- and S-wave velocities in non-

hydrocarbon bearing rock samples.

• Lab measurements were made from sandstone and shale samples

• Both the sandstone and shale data show a linear relationship

between the shear and compressional wave velocities

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Back ground trend

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Back ground trend

• Background (reflections from non-hydrocarbon bearing rocks)

• Dim spot

• Brighspot

• Establish a relationship for AVO attributes A (intercept) and B

(gradient).

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Background Trend

• Assumptions

• Two elastic media in welded contact

• No contrast in density or a/b ratio

• Contrast in a

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Back ground trend

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Back ground trend

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Back ground trend

• Rp: P – wave normal

incidence reflection
coefficient
• Rs: S-wave normal
incidence reflection
coefficient (not real)
• Fluid line is the
demarcation between the
two classes of slope-
intercept points!

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Back ground trend

• Our model for non-hydrocarbon bearing rocks a/b is a constant.

• Hydrocarbons generally cause the a to decrease and no significant

change in b.

• At the interface between non-hydrocarbon and hydrocarbon bearing

bearing rocks, the ratio a/b shows an abrupt change.

• Lets now look at A/B for this situation

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Back ground trend

Assumptions

 ∆β=0 ∆ρ=0 ∆α is nonzero

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Dim Spot

For the dim spot case

 ∆β=0 ∆ρ=0 and A = 0
• The seismic response is due to change
in shear wave velocity
• After some algebra we find B=-∆β/β
If shear wave velocity increases in
the reservoir negative B-axs
If shear wave velocity decreases in
the reservoir positive B-axis

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Back ground trend

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Back ground trend

Figure 5.3 AVO intercept and gradient crossplot showing four possible quadrants. For a limited time window, brine-
saturated sandstones and shales tend to fall along a well defined background trend. Top of gas-sand reflections tend to
fall below the background trend, whereas the base of gas-sand reflections tend to fall above the trend. (from Castagna et
al. 1998)

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Pitfalls of Fluid line

© Dr. R. PRASAD
© Dr. R. PRASAD
AVO Attributes for Hydrocarbon Detection

• The information in the AVO cross-plots cab be reduced to one-

dimensional parameters based on linear combination of AVO
parameters.

• This will make AVO information easier to interpret.

• We will look at the various attributes reported in the literature.

© Dr. R. PRASAD
AVO Attributes combining intercept and
gradient

• AVO product
– PR = R(0) G
• This is a very useful parameter in areas where we expect soft sands
with hydrocarbons AVO class III or a classic bright spot.
• Soft sand and hydrocarbons will have a strong negative intercept
and a strong negative gradient. The product will be a strong positive.
• Non-hydrocarbon reflectors will be weak or have negative products.
• Product is a nice attribute to distinguish hydrocarbon bearing bright
spots and “false” bright spots.

© Dr. R. PRASAD
• Reflection coefficient difference (Castagna and Smith 1994)
– Rp-Rs ~ (R(0)+G)/2
• Rp-Rs is a better gas-sand discriminator than the AVO product,
because it will work for any type of sand, whether these are AVO
class I, II or III.

• The relation is exact when Vp/Vs=2.

• This should be an excellent hydrocarbon indicator in silici-clastic

environments.

© Dr. R. PRASAD
• Reflection coefficient difference (Castagna and Smith 1994)
– Rp-Rs ~ (R(0)+G)/2
• It can be shown that

• Pore-fluids will affect Rp much more than Rs, and therefore Rp-Rs
will have a large fluid sensitivity

© Dr. R. PRASAD
© Dr. R. PRASAD
Data Example

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 AVO Cross-plotting

• AVO cross-plotting involves plotting the intercept against the gradient and
identifying anomalies. The theory of cross-plotting was developed by
Castagna el al (TLE, 1997, Geophysics, 1998) and Verm and Hilterman
(TLE, 1995) and is based on two ideas:

• (1) The Rutherford/Williams classification scheme.

• (2) The Mudrock line.

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Rutherford/Williams Classification

• Rutherford and Williams (1989) derived the following classification scheme for AVO
anomalies, with further modifications by Ross and Kinman (1995) and Castagna
(1997). The acoustic impedance changes refer to the anomalous layer:

• Class 1: Large increase in acoustic impedance.

• Class 2: Near-zero impedance contrast.
• Class 2p: Same as 2, with polarity change.
• Class 3: Large decrease in acoustic impedance.
• Class 4: Very large decrease in acoustic impedance
coupled with small Poisson’s ratio change.

© Dr. R. PRASAD
© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Class 4 Anomalies

• Castagna (1995) suggested that for a very large value of RP, and
a small change in Poisson’s ratio, we may see a reversal of the
standard Class 3 anomaly, as shown below. Castagna termed this a
Class 4 anomaly. Here is a simple example using Shuey’s
approximation:
9
G = ∆σ − RP ,
4
(1 ) If ∆σ = −0.3 and RP = −0.1, then G = - 0.575 (Class 3)

( 2 ) If ∆σ = −0.1 and RP = −0.3 , then G = 0.075 (Class 4)

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Class 4 Anomaly

© Dr. R. PRASAD
The Mudrock Line

• The mudrock line is a linear relationship between VP and VS derived by Castagna et al (1985).
The equation is as follows (the plot from their original paper is shown above):

VP = 1.16 VS + 1360 m/s

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 • By using the Aki-Richards equation, Gardner’s
equation, and the ARCO mudrock line, we can
derive a simple relationship between intercept
and gradient. Note that:
1  ∆ VP ∆ρ  1 ∆ VP
2
VS  ∆ VS
2
VS  ∆ρ
A=  +  B= − 4  − 2  ,
2  Vp ρ  2 Vp VP  VS VP  ρ
∆ρ 1 ∆ VP
Gardner : ρ = aV
0.25
⇒ =
ρ 4 VP
P

• If we assume that VP / VS = c, then we can show that:

4  9
B = A 1 − 2 
5  c 
© Dr. R. PRASAD
 • Now let us use a few values of c and see how the previous equation simplifies. If c
= 2, the most commonly accepted value, the gradient is the negative of the intercept
(a -45 degree line on a crossplot):

4  9
B = A 1 −  = − A
5  4
• If c = 3, the gradient is zero, a horizontal line on the crossplot of intercept against
gradient:

4  9
B = A 1 −  = 0 !
5  9
• Various values of c produce the straight lines (“wet” trends) shown on intercept/gradient
crossplots on the next page.
© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Mudrock lines on a crossplot for various VP/VS ratios
(Castagna and Swan, 1998).
© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Intercept / Gradient Crossplots

• By letting c=2 for the background wet trend, we can now plot the
various anomalous Rutherford and Williams classes (as extended
by Ross and Kinman and Castagna et al).

• Note that each of the classes will plot in a different part of the
intercept/gradient crossplot area.

• The anomalies form a rough elliptical trend on the outside of the wet
trend.

• This is shown in the next figure.

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Common Offset Picks as function of sin2θ

Offset
+A
+B

sin2θ

Time -B
-A
(a) Small portion of the
common offset stack.

(b) Peak and trough

picks vs sin2θ.
© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Common offset stack from gathers

(b) Picks
from the
trough.

(c) Picks
from the
peak.

(a) Common offset stack

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Gradient
Base II
Base II
P
Base
I Base III

Top
IV Intercep
Base IV t
Top III Top
I

Crossplot “Wet” Trend

Top  Vp 
showing Top II  = 2 
II P  Vs 
anomalies
© Dr. R. PRASAD
AVO Equations

© Dr. R. PRASAD
• Brine-saturated sands interbeded with shales, situated within a
limited depth range and a particular locality, normally follow a well-
defined “background trend” in AVO cross-plot (Castagna and Swan,
1997).

• A common and recommended approach in qualitative AVO cross-

plot analysis is to recognize the “background trend” in AVO and then
look for data points that deviate from this trend.

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Amplitude Interpretation Era

First Era-Bright Spot(1970-1982)

1899 – Knott Theory – Amplitude vs incident angle

1919 – Zoeppritz Theory – Amplitude vs incident angle

1951 – Gassmann Theory – Petrophysical link to seismic

1955 – Koefoed Application – Poisson’s Ratio from RC(θ)

1961 – Bortfeld Theory – Linear approximation equation

1976 – Rosa Application –RC(θ) elastic inversion

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Gardner’s velocity-density transform

shale
sandstone
limestone
velocity

anhydride

ρ = 0.23V ¼

Time average

Bulk density

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Wyllie’s time average equation

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Transform Equations

Castagna’s VP to VS transform

( mudrock line)

• A water saturated sand that has

a velocity of 12000 ft/sec has a
Poisson’s ratio 0.275 and when
this sand is fluid substituted
with gas Poisson’s ratio lowers
to 0.200

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Components of Bulk Modulus

© Dr. R. PRASAD
P–Wave & S-Wave

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Density Measurements

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Poisson’s Ratio

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Mode Conversion

© Dr. R. PRASAD
P-Wave Zoeppritz Equations

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Reflection Amplitude and Lithology

© Dr. R. PRASAD
SMITH & GIDLOW EQUATION (1987)

• USING GARDENER’S VELOCITY DENSITY TRANSFORM

ρ = C (VP)¼ ,

∆ρ = ¼ C (VP) -¾ ∆VP

∆ρ / ρ = ¼ ∆VP / VP ,

SUBSTITUTING ∆ρ / ρ IN AKI-RICHARD EQUATION

∆ VP ∆ VS
R ( θ) = ( a + c / 4) +b
VP VS

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 FATTI EQUATION (1994)

• FATTI REARRANGED THE AKI-RICHARD EQUATION

∆ VP ∆ρ ∆ VS ∆ρ ∆ρ
R ( θ) = a (
VP
+
ρ
+b ) (
VS
+
ρ
) + (c − a − b) ρ

R(θ) ≈ a IP + b IS

© Dr. R. PRASAD
PRINCIPLE OF AVO APPLICATION

(Koefoed’s Obsevation)

•KOEFOED (1955), FIRST TIME BASED ON ZOEPPRITZ’S

EQUATION DESCRIBED THAT CHANGE IN AMPLITUDE WITH
OFFSET IS RELATED TO CHANGE IN POISSON’S RATIO
ACROSS A BOUNDARY AND MADE FOLLWING
OBSEVATIONS, WHICH BECAME THE BASIS FOR AVO
INTERPRETATIONS.

• OSTRANDER VERIFIED THE KOEFOED’S PREDICTION

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Koefoed’s Obsevation

(Based On Exact Zoeppritz’s Equations)

1. WHEN VP2 > VP1 AND σ 2 > σ1 , RC(θ) INCREASES AT LARGER θ
2. WHEN VP2 > VP1 AND σ1 > σ2 , RC(θ) DECREASES AT LARGER θ
3. WHEN VP2 > VP1 AND σ1 = σ2 = σ AND VALUE OF σ IS INCREASED, RC(θ)
INCREASES AT LARGER θ
4. WHEN VP2 - VP1 IS SMALL, EFFECT MENTIONED AT (1) BECOMES MORE
PRONOUNCED
5. INTERCHANGE OF THE INCIDENT AND UNDERLYING MEDIUM AFFECTS
THE SHAPE OF THE RC(θ) CURVE ONLY SLIGHTLY ATLEAST UPTO θ =300
ABOVE CONCLUSIONS ARE THE BASIS OF TODAY’S AVO
INTERPRETATIONS

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Gamma ray log vs Poisson’s ratio log

THERE IS STRONG CORRELATION BETWEEN LITHOLOGY AND

POISSON’S RATIO

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 PRINCIPLE OF AVO APPLICATION

I. WHEN VP2 > VP1 AND DENSITIES ARE EQUAL , AN

INCREASE IN σ2 CAUSES AN INCREASE IN R(θ) AT
LARGER ANGLE OF INCIDENCE

•BASE MODEL VP1 = 2200 m/sec ρ1 = 2.16 gm/cc σ1 = 0.25

VP2 = 3000 m/sec ρ2 = 2.16 gm/cc σ2 = 0.25
»σ2 was changed to 0.41
0.18
0.16
0.16
0.14 0.158
0.12
0.156
0.1
0.08 0.154
0.06
0.04 0.152
0.02
0.15
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 PRINCIPLE OF AVO APPLICATION

II. WHEN VP2 > VP1 AND DENSITIES ARE EQUAL , AN

INCREASE IN σ1 CAUSES A DECREASE IN R(θ) AT
LARGER ANGLE OF INCIDENCE

•BASE MODEL VP1 = 2200 m/sec ρ1 = 2.16 gm/cc σ1 = 0.25

VP2 = 3000 m/sec ρ2 = 2.16 gm/cc σ2 = 0.25
»σ1 was changed to 0.41
0.2
0.2

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 PRINCIPLE OF AVO APPLICATION

III. WHEN VP2 > VP1 HAVING EQUAL DENSITIES, AND σ1 =

σ2 = σ AN INCREASE IN σ CAUSES AN INCREASE IN
R(θ) AT LARGER ANGLE OF INCIDENCE
• BASE MODEL VP1 = 2200 m/sec ρ1 = 2.16 gm/cc σ1 = 0.25
VP2 = 3000 m/sec ρ2 = 2.16gm/cc σ2 = 0.25
» σ1 = σ2 = 0.45

0.2 0.175

0.15 0.17

0.165
0.1
0.16
0.05
0.155
0 0.15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 PRINCIPLE OF AVO APPLICATION

IV. AS THE P-WAVE VELOCITY CONTRAST BECOMES

SMALLER , THE EFFECT MENTIONED IN (I) BECOMES
MORE PRONOUNCED

• BASE MODEL VP1 = 2200 m/sec ρ1 = 2.16 gm/cc σ1 = 0.25

VP2 = 3000 m/sec ρ2 = 2.16 gm/cc σ2 = 0.41
» VP2 was changed to 2500m/sec
0.16 0.12
0.158 0.1

0.156
0.08
0.06
0.154
0.04
0.152
0.02
0.15 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 PRINCIPLE OF AVO APPLICATION

V. INTERCHANGE OF MEDIA AFFECTS THE CURVE ONLY

SLIGHTLY, ONLY THE SIGN CHANGES

• BASE MODEL VP1 = 2200 m/sec ρ1 = 2.16 gm/cc σ1 = 0.25

VP2 = 2500m/sec ρ2 = 2.16 gm/cc σ2 = 0.41

• NEW MODEL VP1 = 2500 m/sec ρ1 = 2.16 gm/cc σ1 = 0.41

VP2 = 2200m/sec ρ2 = 2.16 gm/cc σ2 = 0.25
0.12 0
0.1
-0.02 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0.08
-0.04
0.06
-0.06
0.04
-0.08
0.02
0 -0.1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -0.12

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 SHALE/GAS SAND MODEL-4(CLASS-IV AVO)

MODEL-4 VP VS ρ σ
SHALE / GAS SAND
SHALE 3240 1620 2.34 0.33 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-0.05
GAS SAND 1650 1090 2.07 0.11 CLASS - IV
-0.1
LOW IMPEDANCE SAND
SHALE 3240 1620 2.34 0.33 -0.15
BRIGHT SPOT
-0.2
BRINE SAND 2590 1060 2.21 0.4
-0.25

-0.3
θ Sin2θ A B R(θ)
-0.35
0 0 -0.3788 0.452 -0.3788
-0.4
10 0.03015 -0.36517
20 0.11697 -0.32593 SHALE / BRINE SAND
30 0.25000 -0.2658 0

40 0.41317 --0.19204 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-0.02

-0.04

-0.06
R(θ)
θ Sin2θ A B
-0.08
0 0 -0.1396 --0.183 -0.13960
-0.1
10 0.03015 -0.13408
-0.12
20 0.11697 -0.11819
-0.14
30 0.25000 -0.09385
-0.16
40 0.41317 -0.06399
© Dr. R. PRASAD
© Dr. R. PRASAD
Bright spot

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Intercept section

Intercept section

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Gradient section

Gradient section

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 SHALE/GAS SAND MODEL (CLASS-III,IV AVO)

MODEL-5 VP VS ρ σ

SHALE 2900 1330 2.29 0.37

SHALE / GAS SAND
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0
GAS SAND 2540 1620 2.09 0.16
-0.02

TIGHT STREAK 3250 1780 2.34 0.29 -0.04 CLASS - III

-0.06
LOW IMPEDANCE SAND
GAS SAND 2540 1620 2.09 0.16 BRIGHT SPOT
-0.08
-0.1

θ Sin2θ A B R(θ) -0.12

0 0 -0.1115 -0.0649 -0.1115 -0.14

10 0.03015 -0.11346 -0.16

20 0.11697 -0.11909
30 0.25000 -0.12773 TIGHT STREAK / GAS SAND
40 0.41317 -0.13832 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0

-0.05
CLASS -IV
θ Sin2θ A B R(θ) LOW IMPEDANCE SAND
-0.1 BRIGHT SPOT
0 0 -0.198 0.195 -0.198
-0.15
10 0.03015 --0.19212
-0.2
20 0.11697 -0.17519
-0.25
30 0.25000 -0.14925

40
© Dr.0.41317
R. PRASAD
-0.11743
 OSTRANDER’S PAPER

•Ostrander (1984) was one of the first to write about

AVO effects in gas sands and proposed a simple two-
layer model which encased a low impedance, low
Poisson’s ratio sand, between two higher impedance,
higher Poisson’s ratio shales.
•This model is shown in the next slide.
•Ostrander’s model worked well in the Sacramento
valley gas fields. However, it represents only one type
of AVO anomaly (Class 3)

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Ostrander’s Model

Model consists of a low acoustic impedance gas sand encased between

two shales

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Synthetic from Ostrander’s Model

(a) Well log responses for the model.

(b) Synthetic seismic.
Ostrander’s model produces an increase in amplitude on the pre-stack
synthetic gather.
© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Ostrander’s case study - stack

Ostrander’s case study is from the Sacramento basin. The stack

above has “bright spots” at locations A, B, and C, but only A and B
are due to gas.
© Dr. R. PRASAD
AVO Curves from Ostrander’s Model

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Reflection and Transmission Coefficients
Normal Incidence Alternate Form

© Dr. R. PRASAD
© Dr. R. PRASAD
 ROCK PHYSICS

© Dr. R. PRASAD
MODULUS OF ELASTICITY

Shear Modulus (µ) Bulk Modulus (Κ) Young Modulus (Ε)

F
F

F F

∆L
θ
F F F

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Bulk Modulus-Bulk density- Acoustic Velocity
Bulk modulus of total rock ‘K’ = f (Km, Kd, Kf , Ф)
Bulk Density of total rock ‘ρb’ = (1-Ф) ρm + Ф ρf
Density of fluid ρf = (1- SW ) ρHYD + SW ρBR
P- wave velocity, VP = [(K + 4/3 µ)/ρb] ½
S- wave velocity, VS = [µ/ρb] ½

Frame
Kd
PoreFluid
Matrix Kf
Km

For non-porous sandstone, K= 40 GPa, µ =44 GPa, ρ= 2.65 gm/cc

Substituting in above eqn.
VP = 6.10 km/sec, VS = 4.07 km/sec

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Transform Equations

Gardner’s velocity-density transform

ρ = 0.23 V 0.25 ( gm/cm3 & ft/sec)
Best fit curve for all Lithology

Wyllie’s velocity-porosity transform

1/V = (1-ø)/Vma + ø/Vfl
∆t = (1-ø) ∆t ma + ø ∆t fl
∆t for sandstone = 55.5, limestone = 47.5, dolomite = 43.5,
anhydrite = 50, salt= 67, brine= 189

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Transform Equations

Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume transform

Clean sandstone

VP= 6.08 – 8.06 ø and VS= 4.06 – 6.28 ø, at effective pressure 40 MPa

Shaly sandstone

VP= 5.59– 6.93 ø – 2.18 C and VS= 3.52 – 4.91 ø – 1.89 C, at effective
pressure 40 MPa

VP= 5.26– 7.08 ø – 2.02 C and VS= 3.16– 4.77 ø – 1.64 C, at effective
pressure 5 MPa

• Taking 1 MPa = 145 psi, and effective pressure gradient = 0.5 psi/ft, 40
MPa & 5 MPa correspond to approximate depth of 12000 ft and 1500 ft
respectively

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume
transform

VP & VS
VP
VP

0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5

Clay volume porosity porosity

Ф=15 % Clay 20 %

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Bulk Modulus-Bulk density- Acoustic Velocity
Bulk modulus of total rock ‘K’ = f (Km, Kd, Kf , Ф)
Bulk Density of total rock ‘ρb’ = (1-Ф) ρm + Ф ρf
Density of fluid ρf = (1- SW ) ρHYD + SW ρBR
P- wave velocity, VP = [(K + 4/3 µ)/ρb] ½
S- wave velocity, VS = [µ/ρb] ½

Frame
Kd
PoreFluid
Matrix Kf
Km

For non-porous sandstone, K= 40 GPa, µ =44 GPa, ρ= 2.65 gm/cc

Substituting in above eqn.
VP = 6.10 km/sec, VS = 4.07 km/sec

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Bulk Modulus-Bulk density- Acoustic Velocity
Bulk modulus of total rock ‘K’ = f (Km, Kd, Kf , Ф)
Bulk Density of total rock ‘ρb’ = (1-Ф) ρm + Ф ρf
Density of fluid ρf = (1- SW ) ρHYD + SW ρBR
P- wave velocity, VP = [(K + 4/3 µ)/ρb] ½
S- wave velocity, VS = [µ/ρb] ½

Frame
Kd
PoreFluid
Matrix Kf
Km

For non-porous sandstone, K= 40 GPa, µ =44 GPa, ρ= 2.65 gm/cc

Substituting in above eqn.
VP = 6.10 km/sec, VS = 4.07 km/sec

© Dr. R. PRASAD
Transform Equations

Gardner’s velocity-density transform

ρ = 0.23 V 0.25 ( gm/cm3 & ft/sec)
Best fit curve for all Lithology

Wyllie’s velocity-porosity transform

1/V = (1-ø)/Vma + ø/Vfl
∆t = (1-ø) ∆t ma + ø ∆t fl
∆t for sandstone = 55.5, limestone = 47.5, dolomite = 43.5,
anhydrite = 50, salt= 67, brine= 189

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume
transform

VP & VS
VP
VP

0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5

Clay volume porosity porosity

Ф=15 % Clay 20 %

© Dr. R. PRASAD
 Hans’s velocity-porosity-clay volume
transform

VP & VS
VP
VP

0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5

Clay volume porosity porosity

Ф=15 % Clay 20 %

© Dr. R. PRASAD