FEATURE ARTICLE

AMPLITUDE-Vs-OFFSET AND SEISMIC ROCK

PROPERTY ANALYSIS: A PRIMER
By Michael Burianyk, Scott Pickford, Calgary
Introduction
In this article, well examine the basics of amplitude variations
with offset (AVO) and rock properties derived from them. First
well look at the physical cause for AVO behavior. Well then dis-
cuss the quantitative methodologies for calculating attributes
which describe the AVO behavior of pre-stack seismic data. At
the same time, well show methods of interpreting these
attributes and how they can help to differentiate between region-
al geology and hydrocarbon reservoirs. We will then move on to
extensions of AVO analysis that actually estimate elastic proper-
ties of the rock layers. Figure 1 Think of a seismic wavefront hitting a reflector. The physical
properties are different on either side of the reflector. The part of the P
Note that we are not addressing seasoned AVO and seismic wave striking at a particular angle-of-incidence (represented by a ray)
will have its energy divided into reflected and transmitted P and S
rock property interpreters, but those geophysicists, geologists,
waves. Another part of the incident wave with a different angle-of-inci-
technicians and so on who still havent been exposed to the theory dence (represented by the second ray) will have its energy broken up into
and practice but would like to know more about these methods. P and S waves too. How this energy partitioning happens depends on
the contrast in properties AND also on the angles-of-incidence.
In the end, what we would like you to get from this paper is
the idea that changes in seismic amplitude with offset (AVO 1979). But there are many different simplifications of these equa-
affects) are due to contrasts in the physical properties of rocks. tions that make analysis of amplitudes with angle much easier.
Going further, quantitative analysis of AVO effects can yield
attributes that discriminate between different lithologies and One thing to point out now is that amplitude variation with
fluids. Finally, further analysis can lead directly to estimates of offset is not always an appropriate term. For proper analysis, we
the elastic properties that gave rise to the AVO effects in the first need to examine amplitude variation with angle.
place and help lessen the uncertainties of interpretation.
Mechanics of quantitative AVO analysis
Amplitude Variation with Offset: Seismic Energy partitioning Quantitative AVO analyses are done on common-midpoint-
at boundaries gathers (or super-gathers, or common-offset gathers, or as theyre
Amplitude variation with offset comes about from something called in the AVO business Ostrander gathers see Ostrander,
called energy partitioning. When seismic waves hit a boundary, 1984). At each time sample amplitude values from every offset in
part of the energy is reflected while part is transmitted. If the the gather are curve-fit to a simplified, linear AVO relationship
angle of incidence is not zero, P wave energy is partitioned fur- (Figure 2). A better way of saying this is that we fit a best-fit
ther into reflected and transmitted P and S components. The
amplitudes of the reflected and transmitted energy depend on
the contrast in physical properties across the boundary. For us
seismic people, the important physical properties in question are
compressional wave velocity (Vp), shear wave velocity (Vs) and
density (). But, the important thing to note is that reflection
amplitudes also depend on the angle-of-incidence of the original
ray (Figure 1).

So if we know how the amplitudes of a reflector from a CDP

change with angle-of-incidence, we can figure out something
about how the physical properties of the rocks are changing across
the boundary. How amplitudes change with angle-of-incidence
for elastic materials is described by the quite complicated
Zoeppritz equations (as well as higher-level approximations like
that of Aki and Richards in their famous seismology textbook of
Figure 2 Quantitative AVO analyses work on processed, NMO correct-
ed gathers. The amplitudes at each time sample are analysed linearly and
two AVO attributes are extracted - essentially the intercept and slope of
the best-fit straight line. These two attributes give us the basic descrip-
tion of the AVO behavior.

Continued on Page 6
4 CSEG Recorder November, 2000
FEATURE ARTICLE Continued
AMPLITUDE-VS-OFFSET AND SEISMIC ROCK PROPERTY ANALYSIS: A PRIMER
Continued from Page 4

straight line to a plot of amplitude versus some function of the

angle of incidence. This yields two AVO attributes - basically the
slope and intercept of a straight line - which describes, in simpler
terms, how the amplitude behaves with angle of incidence.

There are a lot of equations that have been used over the last
15 years or so, but all of them, no matter what interpretation is
given to the intercept and slope, work in this same way.

AVO necessities
To use these AVO approximations for quantitative analysis,
there are a few necessary inputs. First, we need a P velocity
model to calculate a relationship between offset, travel-time and
Figure 4 This velocity model was compiled from regional and gas wells
angle-of-incidence (Figure 3). Secondly, we need a Vp/Vs back- from the study area. The point to note about it is that even though the
seismic that will be derived from it is synthetic, the rock physics as mea-
sured in the boreholes, is real.

The Halfway gas sand is lower impedance than the encasing

evaporites and carbonates (a Class III AVO anomaly). This means
that we see a trough that increases in amplitude with offset on gath-
ers. This is the classic bright spot anomaly weve all heard of.

Figure 3 Quantitative AVO analysis requires a velocity model from
which to calculate a relationship between two-way travel time, offset and
angle-of incidence. We usually need a regional Vp/Vs trend as well.
Shuey Equation
Shuey (1985) came up with a simplification to the complicated
AVO Zoeppritz Equation (actually, he used the Aki and Richards
approximation to Zoeppritz). The equation shown (Figure 5) has

ground constraint since usually one of the assumptions made is

that we know this (see the B term in Shueys Equation in Figure
5, for instance). Finally, we need offsets that give enough angles-
of-incidence for an accurate fitting of the straight line (in practice, Figure 5 The Shuey equation. This simplification/approximation to more
somewhere around at least 22 degrees). complicated amplitude-vs.-angle relationships is, in practice, used by
dropping the third term and dealing with a simple linear relationship.
Example data set Note the Vp/Vs in the B term - that is, we assume we know the P to S
velocity ratios.
In order to examine a couple of the methodologies available for
quantitative AVO analysis, well use a model that was construct-
three terms. But if we ignore the C part, we are left with a lin-
ed from real well logs from the western Canada basin (Figure 4).
ear equation (the familiar y=mx+b from high school math). This
In this example we have Bluesky and Halfway gas sand reser-
equation does not handle high angles of incidence well, but it is
voirs. There are two things to note about AVO and this data set.
simple to understand and is still very much in use today. Whats
First, though the seismic response is synthesized, the physical
done is that the amplitudes at every time sample of an NMOd
properties, as measured in well-bores, are real and so then are the
gather are plotted against the squared sine of the angle-of-inci-
AVO responses. Second, even though the examples are clastic gas
dence (Figure 6). The intercept describes the normal-incidence
reservoirs, the basic concepts can be applied to many different
P-reflectivity (NIP) while the slope is the gradient (how the
lithologies and reservoir types including carbonates.
amplitude changes with angle).

The Bluesky gas sand is higher impedance than the encasing

Its worth repeating that all current quantitative AVO methods
shales (this is a Class I anomaly in the classification scheme of
work this way. That is, amplitude changes are fit to a linear (i.e.
Rutherford and others, 1989). This means that on gathers, we
two term) AVO approximation from which two attributes can be
would see a peak which dims with offset.
Continued on Page 8
6 CSEG Recorder November, 2000
FEATURE ARTICLE Continued
AMPLITUDE-VS-OFFSET AND SEISMIC ROCK PROPERTY ANALYSIS: A PRIMER
Continued from Page 6

Figure 8 The Fatti equation. This approximation is a more complicated

amplitude-vs.-angle relationship than is the Shuey equation. Though it
does not look particularly linear, there are only two unknowns, the P and
S reflectivities that we solve for.

Figure 6 The Shuey equation in practice. Amplitudes from each time

sample of a gather are plotted against the squared sine of the angle-of- impedance reflectivities (Figure 9), are much more intuitively
incidence. The intercept of the best fit straight line is interpreted as the accessible to interpreters. We can also easily calculate other
normal incident P value and the slope is the gradient, or how the NIP
changes with angle.

extracted. These two attributes describe the AVO character of the

pre-stack gathers. The only difference with the various methods
is in the complexity and accuracy of the approximation used and
what two particular AVO attributes can be pulled out.

We show the Shuey NIP and gradient display in Figure 7. The

Figure 9 The Fatti P (normal-incidence P reflectivity) and S (normal-

Figure 7 The Shuey NIP (normal-incidence P) and gradient displays
extracted from pre-stack seismic gathers.
incidence S reflectivity scaled to P arrival time) displays extracted from
pre-stack seismic gathers. The top right hand panel is the Fluid stack
derived from the P and S values and the bottom right is a cross-plot of
the P and S reflectivities showing how the different regions can be dif-
ferentiated.

NIP is simply an estimate of the normal incidence reflectivity

while the gradient indicates whether the amplitude is increasing
or decreasing with offset and how strongly. Though these two
attributes can be combined (along with other assumptions) to
create other attributes, more sophisticated methods yield more
useful and interesting attributes.
Fatti Methodology
The Fatti methodology (Fatti and others, 1994) is a much more
sophisticated AVO approximation than Shueys (Figure 8). This
methodology not only is more accurate to higher angles-of-inci-
dence, but is independent of any assumption of density and
allows any meaningful Vp/Vs as a constraint. Also, the two
attributes that we can solve for, normal-incidence P and S
meaningful interpretive displays from these attributes. For
instance, a fluid display combines both the P and S reflectivities
to highlight areas that are anomalous with respect to the region-
al Vp/Vs trend (the regional mudrock line Castagna, 1985).
One thing to note is that the calculated S reflectivities have P
travel times. This is due to the fact that we are dealing with S
reflectivity estimates derived from P wave seismic gathers. Wed
also like to point out that those who still use Shuey commonly
estimate S reflectivities from the gradient (and other assump-
tions). It is a valid method, but not necessarily as reliable as Fatti.
One of the most powerful techniques of AVO interpretation is
cross-plotting (Figure 9). Here we are taking P reflectivity values

Continued on Page 10
8 CSEG Recorder November, 2000
FEATURE ARTICLE Continued
AMPLITUDE-VS-OFFSET AND SEISMIC ROCK PROPERTY ANALYSIS: A PRIMER
Continued from Page 8

(Rp), sorting them and plotting them against the correspond- term for this in the Calgary market is LMR the technique is also
ing S reflectivity values (Rs). We can easily see the Bluesky known as Rock Property Inversion (RPI) as well as by other
regional and gas sands and Halfway regional and gas sands commercial names.
display different trends, making them easily distinguished.
In interpretational practice, modeling and well templating What does this all mean for interpreters? Generally, sandstones
help to define the type of trends an interpreter should be are more incompressible than shales. Water filled sandstones are
looking for. more incompressible than gas filled sandstones. Shales have less
rigidity than sandstones. Carbonates can have considerably differ-
Simply put, one cannot interpret AVO attributes in isolation. A ent incompressibilities and rigidities depending on such things as
P reflectivity section means little without the corresponding S. amount and type of porosity. Changes in fluid would not affect
The NIP means nothing without the gradient. Cross-plotting is rigidity. Interpretation of these attributes can be very complex
just one very convenient and efficient way of looking at two (depending on interpretation of well log measured rock physics,
attributes at the same time a fact recognized by petrophysicists cross-plotting and modeling) but they can also be very revealing in
for decades. those cases (increasingly more common as the easily found reser-
voirs become rare) where stacked seismic simply cannot differenti-
Rock Properties from AVO attributes ate lithologies and fluids.
Lambda/Mu-Rho (LMR)
We can go even further to analyze the rocks and fluids with- LambdaRho
in them. With the Fatti P and S impedance attributes (or these
same values estimated from other AVO attributes such as
Shueys NIP and gradient), we can estimate the layer
impedances by post-stack impedance inversion (Goodway and
others, 1997). This is just the same post-stack inversion that
weve been using for the past couple of decades which turns a
seismic trace into a pseudo velocity or impedance well-log.
One example of this type of procedure is the so-called sparse-
spike inversion.

Inverting the P and S reflectivities gives us P and S

impedances for the geological layers. Taking the common equa-
tions for Vp and Vs (which depend on Lames parameter, modu-
lus of rigidity and density), we can arrive at simple equations
that combine the impedances to arrive at estimates of the elastic
properties of the rock. We cannot isolate the density term, but are
left with attributes which characterize the incompressibility MuRho
(LambdaRho) and the rigidity (MuRho) of the rocks and the flu-
ids in their pore spaces (Figure 10). Note that while the common

Figure 10 The scheme of the LMR (Rock Property Inversion) method.

Post-stack inversion of P and S reflectivities gives us layer impedances
(pseudo well logs) which can be combined into rock properties
(LambdaRho and MuRho) by the Vp and Vs relationships.
Figure 11 The LambdaRho and MuRho displays for our model. Note
LMR and LambdaRho are trademarks of PanCanadian Petroleum low values of lambda and relatively unchanged values of mu for the gas
Limited. sands.
Continued on Page 12
10 CSEG Recorder November, 2000
FEATURE ARTICLE Continued
AMPLITUDE-VS-OFFSET AND SEISMIC ROCK PROPERTY ANALYSIS: A PRIMER
Continued from Page 10

For our model example, weve calculated LambdaRho and Lambda/Mu Ratio
MuRho (Figure 11). As we might expect, the gas sands show
relatively lower values of LambdaRho and relatively little
variation in MuRho. Here, the interpretation is straight forward,
but the real world can often be more perversely difficult.

Real Data Example

Now we can look at a real data example from the Cretaceous
Bluesky formation from northeastern British Columbia. The first
display (Figure 12) is regular seismic stack with four well loca-

Figure 13 LambdaRho (a) and Lambda/Mu ratio (b) derived from pre-
stack data corresponding to stack in Figure 12. Note that low values of
both LambdaRho and ratio exist at the gas well locations as well as the
wet well on the right.

One question often asked about LMR analysis is, What do

we do with the results? In this particular case, were looking to
distinguish gas sands from water filled regional rocks. We are
looking for relative lows in LambdaRho with corresponding
lows in the ratio display, a usual indicator of gas sands. In this
Bluesky example for instance, we see low LambdaRho and
ratios at the appropriate level at three well locations (Figure 13).

Figure 12 A regular seismic stack from the Western Canada Basin with
four well locations. Wells B and C are Bluesky gas sands. The gas sands
are not easily distinguished on seismic stacks alone.

tions marked. The Bluesky does have well recognized stacked

amplitude behavior, but can still be very ambiguous. Weve
extracted the P and S reflectivity sections by use of Fattis AVO
method, inverted to P and S impedances and then estimated
LMR layer attributes. In Figure 13 we show the LambdaRho
section and the Lambda/Mu ratio stack, another attribute that can
help to differentiate different fluids and lithologies more easily.

LambdaRho

Figure 14 Cross-plot of LambdaRho vs Ratio. Here it is clear that

well A cannot have gas. We can also see that well B has relatively lower
values of lambda and ratio and is clearly different from well D, despite
the seeming similarities on the sections in Figure 13.

Continued on Page 14
12 CSEG Recorder November, 2000
FEATURE ARTICLE Continued
AMPLITUDE-VS-OFFSET AND SEISMIC ROCK PROPERTY ANALYSIS: A PRIMER
Continued from Page 12

As useful as this approach is, it can be too simplistic. It turns out
that one of these locations with prospective rock properties is actu-
ally wet. This illustrates the fact that LMR interpretation is not
always straightforward. Now we have turn to more sophisticated
interpretation methods such as cross-plotting. In the final display,
we crossplot LambdaRho against Lambda/Mu ratio. Despite the
similarities in the section displays, the cross-plot shows quite deci-
sively the differences between the gas wells and the wet case.
Proper interpretation of seismically derived rock properties
consists, in part, of crossplotting different attributes
(LambdaRho, MuRho, ratio, difference, etc.) and analyzing
them with a clear understanding (derived through rock physics
log analysis and modeling) of what response is expected for the
particular geology we are investigating.
Conclusion
Amplitude variations with offset seen on seismic data are due
to contrasts in elastic rock properties. These amplitude responses
can be easily described by linear AVO attribute extraction and
can be used to infer changes in the rocks. Finally, these AVO
attributes, combined with post-stack inversion techniques, can
give us rock properties which quantitatively characterize the
lithology and fluid content of reservoirs.
Acknowledgements
Id like to thank Jon Downton and Jan Dewar whose work
part of this article is based on. Jan Dewer, Kristen Macleod,
Florence Janzen and Glen Larsen all made valuable comments on
this work.
References
Aki, K., and Richards, P. G., 1979, Quantitative Seismology,
W. H. Freeman and Co.
Castagna, J.P., Batzle, M.L. and Eastwood, R.L., 1985,
Relationships between Compressional-Wave and Shear-Wave
Velocities in Clastic Silicate Rocks: Geophysics, 50, 571-581.
Fatti, Jan L., George C. Smith, Peter J. Vail, Peter J. Strauss
and Philip R. Levitt [1994]: Detection of Gas in Sandstone
Reservoirs Using AVO Analysis: a 3-D Seismic Case History
Using the Geostack Technique. Geophysics, 59, 1362-1376.
Goodway, W., Chen, T., and Downton, J., Improved AVO
Fluid Detection and Lithology Discrimination Using Lam
Petrophysical Parameters: LambdaRho, MuRho, and
Lambda/Mu Fluid Stack, from P and S Inversions, CSEG
September 1997 Technical luncheon.
Ostrander, W.J., 1984, Plane-wave Reflection Coefficients
for Gas Sands at Non-normal Angles of Incidence:
Geophysics, 49, 1637-1648.

Rutherford, S. R., and Williams, R. H., 1989, Amplitude-

versus-offset variations in gas sands: Geophysics, 54,
NOVEMBER LUNCHEON 680-688.

DATE: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 Shuey, R.T., 1985, A simplification of Zoeppritz Equations:
Geophysics, 50, 609-814.
TIME: 11:30 A.M. Lunch

LOCATION: The Westin Hotel

TICKETS: Lisa Eastman Michael Burianyk graduated from the

Arcis Corp. University of Saskatchewan in 1981 with a
B.Sc. in Physics and an Honors Certificate
PHONE: 269-6908 or in Geophysics in 1982. In 1988 he earned an
M.Sc. in Geophysics from the same institu-
FAX: 269-3981
tion, studying velocity measurements of
seismic reflection data from the Arctic
Ocean. In 1994 he graduated from the
GUEST SPEAKER: University of Alberta with a Ph.D. in crustal
Steve Lynch seismic studies of Western Canada. After post-doctoral research
with the LITHOPROBE project he accepted a position with Scott
Ancient Evenings Seismic visualization Pickford in Calgary where he has been involved in AVO and rock
using very old techniques. property analysis and true-amplitude seismic processing. He is a
member of CSEG, SEG and APEGGA.

14 CSEG Recorder November, 2000