Seismic Inversion and AVO

applied to Lithologic Prediction

Part 6 AVO Analysis
6-2
Introduction
In the last section, we looked at the theory of AVO
and used the equations to perform forward
modeling.
In this section, we will look at real data analysis of
AVO anomalies.
We will start by looking at the theory of the
intercept and gradient and at a simple example.
We will then look at the classification scheme of
Rutherford and Williams and at cross-plotting and
how it relates to the ARCO mud-rock line.
Finally, we will consider some processing issues
that need to be considered for AVO analysis.
6-3
Intercept/Gradient Analysis
Gathers
AVO Analysis
Intercept Gradient
Crossplot
Now, we will see how intercept/gradient analysis and cross-
plotting, the most well known techniques of AVO analysis, can
lead to much the same result. The flowchart above shows the
basic procedure, and we will next look at the theory.
6-4
The two-term Aki-Richards equation
Intercept/gradient analysis is done with the two-term
Aki-Richards equation. Recall that:
u u
2
sin B A ) ( R + =
where:
,
V
V
2
V
V
V
V
4
V
V
2
1
B
2
P
S
S
S
2
P
S
p
P

A A A
(

=
.
/ V / V
V / V
D ,
) 1 ( 1
2 1
) D 1 ( 2 D A B
P P
P P
2
A A
A
o
o A
o
o
+
=

+
(

+ =
,
V
V
2
1
R A
p
P
P
(
(

+ = =

A A
or:
6-5
Estimating the intercept and gradient
Step 1 involves converting from offset to angle, for
which we need both a velocity model and a
relationship between angle and velocity.
Step 2 involves fitting a regression line to the
amplitude picks as a function of the sine of the
angle squared.
We will assume that the C term is negligible, which
assumes we are only recording to an aperture of 30
degrees.
The following slides will illustrate this procedure,
6-6
Converting from offset to angle
The slide above shows the difference between constant offset traces
and constant angle traces. Notice that to compute constant angle
traces we need to move to greater offsets as a function of time.
(Western Geophysical)
6-7
Converting from offset to angle
Conversion from angle to time can be done very simply
using the straight ray approximation (see (1) below), or
completely using full ray-tracing. A good compromise
between the two is to use the ray parameter approach
(see (2) below).

. velocity RMS V
, time way 2 t
,
2
t V
depth d
, offset X where
,
Vt
X
d 2
X
tan
: Ray Straight ) 1 (
RMS
0
0 RMS
0
=
=
= =
=
= = u
. traveltime total t
, velocity Interval V where
,
tV
XV
sin
: Parameter Ray ) 2 (
INT
2
RMS
INT
=
=
= u
6-8
Real Data Example
Now lets look at some real data, and see if it
matches the theory.
The next slide shows a group of 2D gathers over a
gas zone, in WTVA and color amplitude envelope.
Notice the increase in amplitude as a function of
offset.
The gas event and the events above and below the
gas were then picked and analyzed, as shown in
the following three slides.
The slide after that shows a common offset stack
or super-gather over the gathers. The amplitudes
have been picked and displayed, to quantify the
amplitude increase.
6-9
(a) A series
of corrected
CDP gathers
over a gas
zone.
(b) The same
gathers, but
shown with
color amplitude
envelope.
Seismic Gathers over a Gas Sand
6-10
Here are the picks from the an event above the gas (shown as the red,
jagged line), with a gradient/intercept analysis performed on the picks,
and the resulting curves annotated on top of the picks (shown as a black
line). Notice that the amplitudes are decreasing with offset.
Seismic Gathers over a Gas Sand
6-11
Here are the picks from the gas event (shown as the red, jagged line),
with a gradient/intercept analysis performed on the picks, and the
resulting curves annotated on top of the picks (shown as a black line).
Note the strong amplitude increase with offset.
Seismic Gathers over a Gas Sand
6-12
Here are the picks from the event below the gas (shown as the red,
jagged line), with a gradient/intercept analysis performed on the picks,
and the resulting curves annotated on top of the picks (shown as a black
line). Note the amplitude decrease with offset.
Seismic Gathers over a Gas Sand
6-13
Common offset stack from gathers
(a) Common offset stack
(b) Picks
from the
trough.
(c) Picks
from the
peak.
6-14
Common Offset Picks as function of sin
2
u
+A
-A

+B

- B
Offset
sin
2
u
Time
(a) Small portion of the
common offset stack.
(b) Peak and trough
picks vs sin
2
u.
6-15
The above figure shows (a) intercept (A) and (b) gradient (B) stacks. This
is a similar bright spot anomaly to the S-wave example given earlier.
(a)
(b)
Data Example from the Colony Sand
6-16
Approximate Aki-Richards
Assuming that V
P
/V
S
= 2 in the full Aki-Richards equation:
Thus, the S-wave reflectivity can be estimated as
follows from the intercept and gradient:
(

+ = =
=
=
(

A A

A A A

A A A
S
S
S P
S P
S
S
p
P
2
P
S
S
S
2
P
S
p
P
V
V
2
1
R , A R : where
, R 2 R
2
1
V
V
V
V
2
1
V
V
2
V
V
V
V
4
V
V
2
1
B
( ) B A
2
1
R
S
=
6-17
Approximate Shueys Equation
Assuming that o

= 1/3 in Shueys equation:
A
4
9
) 3 / 2 ( 2
1
) D 1 ( 2 D A
) 1 ( 1
2 1
) D 1 ( 2 D A B
2
2
= +
(

+ =

+
(

+ =
o A
o A
o
o A
o
o
Thus, Ao can be estimated from A and B:
( ) B A
9
4
+ = o A
6-18
Hiltermans Approximation
Hilterman re-arranges Shueys equation using the
previous approximation. Note that the third term
has been dropped in the following equation and we
are also assuming a Vp/Vs ratio of 2:
( )
u o A u
u o A u
u o A
u u
2 2
P
2 2
P
2
P P
2
sin 25 . 2 cos R
sin 25 . 2 ) sin 1 ( R
sin R 25 . 2 R
sin B A ) ( R
+ =
+ =
+ =
+ =
6-19
Equating Shuey and Aki-Richards
In the last few slides, we have seen that:
( ) ( ) ) B R ( 5 . 0 B A 5 . 0 B A 9 / 4
P
+ = + ~ + = o A
S P
R 2 R B =
and:
Equating the above two approximations, we get:
S P
R R ~ o A
6-20
The above figure shows (a) Ao ((A+B)*(4/9)) and (b) Rs
((A-B)/2) stacks.
(a)
(b)
Data Example from the Colony Sand
6-21
Interpreting the previous slide
In the previous slide, note that we have converted
from intercept and gradient to both pseudo-R
S
and
pseudo-Poissons ratio. How well does this fit the
known geology?
First of all, we know there is a gas sand at 630 ms in
the centre of the section, and a hard streak just below
the gas sand.
Notice that the pseudo-Poissons ratio plot shows that
we have a class 3 gas sand.
The pseudo-R
S
plot only responds to the hard streak,
and not the gas sand, as expected.
This is also seen in the 3D example on the next slide.
6-22
(a) Map view of amplitude
from 3D channel sand.
(b) Pseudo-Poissons Ratio
over channel sand.
3D Channel Sand Example
6-23
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.


6-24
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 Poissons ratio change.

6-25
The Rutherford and Williams classification
scheme as modified by Ross and Kinman (1995).
Rutherford/Williams Classification (cont)
6-26
An example of a Class 1 anomaly
Rutherford and Williams (1989)
(a) Data
example.
(b) Model
example.
6-27
Angle stacks over class 2 and 3 sands
(a) Class 2 sand. (b) Class 3 sand.
Rutherford and Williams (1989)
6-28
Ross and Kinman (1995) suggest creating a near
trace range stack (NTS) and a far trace range stack
(FTS).

For Class 2p: Final Stack = FTS - NTS

For Class 2: Final Stack = FTS
Class 2p vs class 2 sands
6-29
Ross and Kinman (1995)
(a) Full stack of
a class 2 sand.
(b) FTS of a class
2 sand.
6-30
Ross and Kinman (1995)
(a) Full stack of
a class 2p sand.
(a) FTS - NTS of
a class 2p sand.
6-31
Castagna (1995) suggested that for a very large value of
R
P
, and a small change in Poissons 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 Shueys approximation:
Class 4 Anomalies
4) (Class 0.075 G then , 3 . 0 R and 0.1 If ) 2 (
3) (Class 0.575 - G then , 1 . 0 R and 0.3 If ) 1 (
, R
4
9
G
P
P
P
= = =
= = =
=
o A
o A
o A
6-32
Class 4 Anomaly
Here is Figure 7
from Castagna et al
(1998), which
illustrates the
concept of the
Class 4 anomaly in
more detail.
6-33
The Mudrock Line
The mudrock line is a linear relationship between V
P
and V
S

derived by Castagna et al (1985). The equation is as follows (the
plot from their original paper is shown above):
V
P
= 1.16 V
S
+ 1360 m/s
6-34
Intercept versus Gradient
By using the Aki-Richards equation, Gardners equation,
and the ARCO mudrock line, we can derive a simple
relationship between intercept and gradient. Note that:
P
P
25 . 0
P
V
V
4
1
aV : Gardner
A

A
= =
,
V
V
2
V
V
V
V
4
V
V
2
1
B
2
P
S
S
S
2
P
S
p
P

A A A
(

=
(
(

+ =

A A
p
P
V
V
2
1
A
If we assume that V
P
/ V
S
= c, then we can show that:
(

=
2
c
9
1 A
5
4
B
6-35
Intercept versus Gradient
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):
If c = 3, the gradient is zero, a horizontal line on the
crossplot of intercept against gradient:
Various values of c produce the straight lines (wet trends)
shown on intercept/gradient crossplots on the next page.
A
4
9
1 A
5
4
B =
(

=
! 0
9
9
1 A
5
4
B =
(

=
6-36
Mudrock lines on a crossplot for various V
P
/V
S
ratios
(Castagna and Swan, 1998).
6-37
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.
6-38
Gradient
Intercept
Wet Trend
|
|
.
|

\
|
= 2
V
V
s
p
Base III
Base II
Base II P
Top IV
Top III
Top II
Top II P
Base IV
Top I
Base I
Crossplot
showing
anomalies
6-39
ARCO example of cross-plotting
Foster et al (1993)
(a) Cross-plot of well log
derived A and B.
(b) Cross-plot of seismically
derived A and B.
6-40
Intercept / Gradient Crossplots
(b) Interpreted gas zone
(a) Uninterpreted gas zone
6-41
Seismic Display from Int/Grad Xplots
(a) Before interpretation
(b) After interpretation
6-42
Problems in Intercept/Gradient Analysis
There are a number of problems that can reduce the
accuracy of intercept/gradient analysis and cross-
plotting:
Noise on the far offsets (i.e. multiples)
Misalignment of events at far offsets
Neglecting the third term in Aki-Richards
Neglecting anisotropic effects
Offset variable phase errors.
We will now therefore have a brief overview of some of
the processing issues that need to be considered when
processing data with AVO analysis in mind.
6-43
DMO / Pre-stack
Migration
AVO
Analysis
Deconvolution /
Phase Correction
Residual Statics
and NMO
Noise
Attenuation
Amplitude
Recovery
Refraction
Statics
Raw Shot
Gathers
FLOW CHART COMMENTS
Land or
transition data
only
Surface consistent
preferred
F-X for random noise
Parabolic Radon for multiples
F-K for Linear noise
A flowchart for AVO processing
6-44
Amplitude Recovery
Amplitude recovery can be done using statistical (surface
consistent) or analytical (gain curve) methods. See papers
by Gary Yu (Offset-amplitude variation and controlled-
amplitude processing, Geophysics, 1985, Vol. 50, #12), and
Bjorn Ursin (Offset-dependent geometrical spreading in a
layered medium, Geophysics, 1990, Vol. 55,#4)

The next slide shows a comparison between an incorrect
amplitude recovery on the left and a correct amplitude
recovery on the right. Key steps in the proper flow are as
follows:
Suppress coherent noise
Restore amplitude loss with offset compensation
Surface consistent amplitude balancing
Partial trace sum
Surface consistent deconvolution
Proper NMO application
6-45
Amplitude Recovery
Yu, 1985
The left slide shows an incorrect amplitude recovery scheme, and the
right slide show a correct amplitude recovery scheme, at locations C
and B, the gas sands.
6-46
This is an important step since noise amplitudes can be
confused with true amplitudes. Three different schemes are
recommended:
- Common offset stacking for random noise
attenuation.
- F-K filtering for linear noise attenuation.
- Parabolic Radon filtering for multiple attenuation.

The next slide shows an example comparing the Parabolic
Radon Transform (INVEST) with FK filtering for multiple
removal.
Noise Attenuation
6-47
Noise Attenuation
Dan Hampson, 1986
Note that the Inverse Velocity Stack (equivalent to the parabolic
Radon transform) attenuates the multiples at all offsets.
6-48
This is recommended only in structurally complex areas, as
long as an amplitude-preserving algorithm is used (see
Black et al, True-amplitude imaging and dip moveout,
Geophysics, 1993, Vol. 58, #1)
The next slide, taken from Black et al, shows the effect of a
non-amplitude preserving DMO algorithm.
DMO/Pre-stack migration
6-49
Example of Using Wrong DMO
(a) NMO only. (b) Non-amplitude
preserving DMO
(c) True
amplitude DMO
(d) (c) - (b)
Black et al, 1993
6-50
Velocity effects of Weak Anisotropy
Tsvankin and Thomsen (Nonhyperbolic reflection
moveout in anisotropic media, Geophysics, August,
1994) applied Thomsens theory of weak anisotropy to
reflection moveout for both P and SV waves. Their
equation for P-waves is as follows:
2
0 0
4
4
2
2
2
0
2
X
t V
x
1
x A
x A t t
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
+ + =
,
V
2 1
A
2
0
2
o
=
.
V t
) ( 2
A
4
0
2
0
4
o c
=
where:
. parameters
s Thomsen' , = o c
6-51
NMO Comparison (to 45
o
)
NMO Curves
-1.300
-1.250
-1.200
-1.150
-1.100
-1.050
-1.000
-0.950
-0.900
-0.850
-0.800
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Offset
T
i
m
e

(
s
e
c
)
NMO NMO/TIV
NMO/TIV Difference
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Offset (m) ( Far = 45 degrees)
T
i
m
e

(
m
s
e
c
)
NMO/TIV - NMO
The effects of applying Dix NMO versus non-hyperbolic NMO in a TIV
material. The difference is shown on the right.
6-52
Gulf of Mexico Case Study 1
As well as the effect of anisotropy on NMO, there are
also higher order NMO terms in a layered earth even
if the events are not anisotropic.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to tell the two effects apart.
Regardless of the cause, we can do a third order fit to
our data and apply the correction.
The case study in the next few slides, from a paper
by Chris Ross in the February, 1997 issue of First
Break, shows an example from the Gulf of Mexico.
6-53
Gulf of Mexico Case Study 1
C.P. Ross, 1997
The effects of applying Dix NMO versus
Non-hyperbolic NMO.
6-54
Gulf of Mexico Case Study 1
C.P. Ross, 1997
Top figure shows Dix NMO on real gathers, and bottom
figure shows non-hyperbolic NMO on real gathers.
6-55
Gulf of Mexico Case Study 2
We will now look at a second Gulf of Mexico case
study and consider a second approach to dealing
with poorly corrected gathers.
This approach will be termed target-oriented AVO
analysis, since we will pick only the target event.
We will start by looking at the NMO corrected
gathers.
We will then improve the signal-to-noise ratio by
computing a super-gather from the input gathers.
We will perform the rest of the analysis on the super-
gather.
6-56
Gulf of Mexico Case Study 2
The figure above shows the input gathers with the sonic log inserted
at Xline 100. Note that the gathers are noisy, and the target event,
indicated by the blue line, is badly corrected.
6-57
Gulf of Mexico Case Study 2
The figure above shows a super-gather, or common offset stack, run
on the previous gathers using a 3 x 3 mix. The data is cleaner, but
the event is still badly corrected.
6-58
Gulf of Mexico Case Study 2
The figure above shows an A+B AVO analysis run on the previous
super-gathers, with the anomaly shown below the pick at the well.
Despite the poor NMO correction, the anomaly is visible.
6-59
Gulf of Mexico Case Study 2
The figure on the left
shows the scaled
Poissons ratio plot
(A+B) averaged over
a 30 ms window
below the target
horizon, using an
amplitude envelope
attribute. Notice the
clear outline of the
anomalous zone.

However, could we
have done better if
we had done a better
job of NMO?
6-60
Gulf of Mexico Case Study 2
To try to analyze the target horizon correctly, we picked the trough
over the target at each gather, using an automatic picking program.
Note that some of the long offset picks are miss-picked.
6-61
Gulf of Mexico Case Study 2
The figure above shows a display of the picks below the gathers,
where an AVO curve has been fitted. By using a robust fitting
method, we have been able to avoid the miss-picks.
6-62
Gulf of Mexico Case Study 2
The figure on the left
shows the scaled
Poissons ratio plot
(A+B) from the picked
target horizon. Notice
the better definition of
the anomalous zone
when compared back to
the standard AVO
analysis. Note the
reversed scale since we
did not need to take the
absolute value here.

A comparison between
the two maps will be
shown in the next slide.
6-63
Gulf of Mexico Case Study 2
The figures above show (a) the pseudo-Poissons ratio plot from the
standard AVO analysis, corrupted by poor NMO, and (b) the target-
oriented pseudo-Poissons ratio analysis found by picking the horizon.
(a) (b)
6-64
Conclusions
In this section, we looked at real data analysis of
AVO anomalies.
We started by showing how AVO and multi-
component interpretation are related, based on the
analysis of a shallow gas sand.
We then looked at the theory of the intercept and
gradient and at a simple gas sand example.
After that, we looked at the classification scheme
of Rutherford and Williams and at cross-plotting
and how it relates to the ARCO mud-rock line.
Finally, we considered some important processing
issues for AVO analysis.