00 mi piace00 non mi piace

17 visualizzazioni395 pagineNov 28, 2018

AVO1.pdf

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

17 visualizzazioni

00 mi piace00 non mi piace

AVO1.pdf

© All Rights Reserved

Sei sulla pagina 1di 395

Appendices

February, 2012 2

Table of Contents – Part 2

AVO Inversion - Elastic Impedance

Summary

References

Appendices

February, 2012 3

Overview of the AVO Process

Offset, or Amplitude Versus Offset (AVO) method.

changed through the years.

We will then look at why AVO was an important step forward for the

interpretation of hydrocarbon anomalies.

Finally, we will show why the AVO response is closely linked to the

rock physics of the reservoir.

February, 2012 4

A Seismic Section

The figure above shows a stacked seismic section recorded over the shallow

Cretaceous in Alberta. How would you interpret this section?

February, 2012 5

Structural Interpretation

Your eye may first go to an interesting 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.

February, 2012 6

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.

February, 2012 7

“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.

February, 2012 8

What is a “Bright Spot”?

Geology Seismic

Surface

Seismic

raypath

R0

r2 V2

r 2V2 r1V1

Gas Sand

Interface at

Reflection at time Seismic

depth = d

t = 2d/V1 Wavelet

coefficient, shown in the figure above. R0 , the reflection coefficient, is the amplitude

of the seismic peak shown. Note also that the product of density, r, and P-wave

velocity, V, is called acoustic impedance.

February, 2012 9

Gardner’s results for GOM

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

shows 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.

February, 2012 10

The AVO Method

also be caused by

lithologic

variations as well

as gas sands.

Geophysicists in

the 1980’s started

looking at pre-

stack seismic data,

and found that

amplitude change

with offset could

be modeled

(Ostrander, 1984).

This example is a

Class 3 gas sand,

which we will

discuss later.

February, 2012 11

What causes the AVO Effect?

Surface

q2 q1

q3

r2 VP2 VS2

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 q

2

changes in density, r, P-wave velocity, VP, and S-wave velocity, VS.

February, 2012 12

Why is S-wave Velocity Important?

As just shown, the

gradient term is

dependent on density, P

and S-wave velocity.

The reason that S-wave

velocity has such an

impact is shown on the

left, where P and S-wave

velocity are shown as a

function of gas

saturation in the

reservoir. Note that P-

wave velocity drops

dramatically, but S-wave

velocity only increases

slightly (why?). This will

be discussed in the next

chapter.

February, 2012 13

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. Also note that Poisson’s ratio is a function of Vp/Vs ratio and will be

discussed in the next chapter.

February, 2012 14

AVO Attributes

Intercept: A

Gradient: B

AVO Attributes are

used to analyze

large volumes of

seismic data,

looking for

hydrocarbon

anomalies.

February, 2012 15

Cross-Plotting of Attributes

discussing later in the course involves

cross-plotting the zero-offset reflection

coefficient (A), versus the gradient (B), as

shown on the left.

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).

February, 2012 16

AVO Inversion

tool combines Far Inversion

Inversion with AVO

Analysis to enhance

the reservoir

discrimination.

Near Inversion

February, 2012 17

Summary of AVO Methodology

Methods

Wave Zoeppritz Elastic LMR

Equation Impedance

Partial Intercept

Stacks Gradient Simultaneous

Attributes Inversion

Cross

Plots

February, 2012 18

Conclusions

Seismic interpretation has evolved over the years, from strictly structural

interpretation, through “bright spot” identification, to direct hydrocarbon

detection using AVO.

In this course we will elaborate on the ideas that have been presented in

this short introduction.

As a starting point, the next chapter will discuss the principles of rock

physics in more detail.

In each case, we will first look at the theory and then perform a

workstation example.

February, 2012 19

Exercise 1

The Colony Gas Sand

Setting up the project

Exercise 1

Our first set of exercises comes from the Colony sand formation, a Cretaceous sand

from Western Canada.

Poisson’s

P-wave Density S-wave Ratio

The target is a thin, 8 meter

thick, gas sand.

measured sonic and

density logs.

contain 50% water, and 50%

gas.

up the project and read in

the data.

February, 2012 21

Starting Geoview

HRS9 Geoview icon on your desktop:

the first window that you

see contains a list of any

projects previously opened

in Geoview. Your list will be

blank if this is the first time

you are running Geoview.

February, 2012 22

For this exercise, we will start a new

project. Before doing that, it will be

helpful to set all the data paths to point

to the location where we have stored

the workshop data. To do that, click the

Settings tab:

the option Set all default directories and then click the button

to the right:

Selection Dialog,

select the folder which

contains the workshop

data:

February, 2012 23

After setting all three paths, the Geoview window will now show

the selected directories (note that yours may be different):

When you

have finished

setting all the

paths, click

Apply to store

these paths:

February, 2012 24

Now click the Projects tab and choose the option to create a

New Project:

February, 2012 25

A dialog appears,

where we set the

project name. We

will call it colony, as

shown. Enter the

project name and

click OK on that

menu:

February, 2012 26

Now a dialog appears, asking you the name of the database to use for

this project:

wells used in this project. By default,

Geoview creates a new database, with

the same name as the project and

located in the same directory. For

example, this project is called

colony.prj, so the default database will

be called colony.wdb. This is desirable

since we were starting a new project,

intending to read in well logs from

external files. Occasionally, we may

want to use an existing database, which

has wells already stored. Then we

would click on the option Specify

database. For this exercise, click OK to

accept the default database name.

February, 2012 27

The Geoview Window now looks like

this:

February, 2012 28

Loading the well log data

the Project Manager) shows all the

project data so far. The tabs along the

left side select the type of project data.

Right now, the Well tab is selected. It is

empty, since we have not yet loaded

any data

Well, and select Logs, Check Shots,

Tops, …:

February, 2012 29

You need to select the file avo_well.las. Highlight the file name in the list of

available files on the left and then click the Select option:

this file has an LAS format Now click OK to load this file in

because of the name LAS format:

extension.

February, 2012 30

The Geoview window now looks like this:

By default, the

program has

opened and

displayed all of

the available

log curves and

tops in the

avo_well.las

file.

February, 2012 31

One part of the window (called the

Project Manager) shows all the project

data so far. The tabs along the left side

select the type of project data. Right

now, the Well tab is selected and we can

see the well (AVO_WELL) which has

been loaded into the project. Click the

“+” sign near the well name to see a list

of curves in that well:

wells, click the Data Explorer

tab to the right:

February, 2012 32

The window now changes as shown:

to get more information about the

curves in that well:

February, 2012 33

Note that all the well logs we saw in

the display are listed, as well as the

Depth-time_P-wave log, which was

created from the sonic log and will

be used for depth-to-time

conversion.

table. For example, if the Density

units were wrong, we could change

them here. Also, we can click the

arrow next to any of the curve

names to see the numerical values

in that curve:

February, 2012 34

Click on the arrow that is

pointing to the left to go

back to the previous

menu since we will not

be editing the density

values in this tutorial.

see a base map, showing the location of

the one well:

February, 2012 35

Below the base map are a series of

tabs. Clicking the Single Well Display

tab,

February, 2012 36

Finally, to see the most complete view

of the log curves within a well, double-

click the icon for that well within the

Project Data window:

tab within the main

Geoview window,

called the Wells tab,

which displays the

well curves:

February, 2012 37

You can adjust the well plotting parameters by

clicking the “eyeball” icon, to bring up a dialog for

that purpose:

processing options, like Log Editing, by

going to the Processes list:

the logs have been properly edited.

February, 2012 38

Loading the seismic data

be used in the AVO Modeling process.

The next step is to load the seismic

volume, which we will compare with the

calculated synthetic.

window, click the Seismic tab:

seismic data loaded so far. This is empty. Go

to the bottom of the window and click the

Import Seismic button:

SEG-Y File:

February, 2012 39

On the dialog that

appears, select the file

gathers.sgy:

right of the menu, as shown.

Click Next at the base of the

dialog:

Next:

February, 2012 40

On the third page, we are telling the

program what information it can use from

the trace headers. In fact, in this data set,

there are X and Y coordinates. That is

why we answer Yes to this question:

the seismic data is a SEG-Y file with

all header values filled in as per the

standard SEG-Y convention. For

example, it expects to find the

Inline and Xline numbers at the byte

locations shown. If you are not

sure that is true, you can click

Header Editor to see what is in the

trace headers.

February, 2012 41

In our case, we believe the format

information is correct, so click Next to

move to the next page. Now the

following warning message appears

because the program is about to scan

the SEG-Y file:

process. When the scanning has

finished, the Geometry Grid page

appears:

information from the headers, the

program assumes this is a single

straight line, which is correct.

Click OK.

February, 2012 42

After building the geometry files, a new window appears, showing how

the well is mapped into this seismic volume.

location of the well, and there were X-Y coordinates in the seismic trace

headers.

not correct, we could

manually locate the

well at the known CDP

location (330).

February, 2012 43

Now the seismic data

appears within the

workspace:

the left, from this dataset. To see other parts of the line, slide

the scroll bar at the base of the display

February, 2012 44

To see the display positioned at the well

location, go to the Well icon and click

the down arrow :

the one well in the project.

Select the well and the

Geoview window shows the

seismic data in the vicinity of

that well location:

by using the Seismic View Parameters

window. To make that window appear, click

the “eyeball” icon:

February, 2012 45

The Seismic View Parameters window

contains a series of pages which

control various aspects of the plotting.

item, select that item from the list at the

left side. For example, here we have

selected the Inserted Wells item:

by selecting that item as shown from the

pull-down tab of the Inserted Curve Log

option:

February, 2012 46

Now click Apply on the Seismic View

Parameters window. The display is

modified accordingly:

sonic log inserted. To do this, click

Cancel on the View Parameters window.

This redraws the Geoview window as

before.

(End of Exercise 1)

February, 2012 47

Rock Physics & Fluid

Replacement Modeling

Basic Rock Physics

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:

February, 2012 49

Density

where : ρ density,

porosity,

S w water saturation,

sat,m,hc, w saturated, matrix,

hydrocarbon, water subscripts.

February, 2012 50

Density versus Water Saturation

vs water saturation for a Sandstone with Porosity = 33%

porous sand with the Densities (g/cc): Matrix = 2.65, Water = 1.0,

parameters shown, Oil = 0.8, Gas = 0.001

where we have filled the 2.2

pores with either oil or

gas. 2.1

2

In the section on AVO we

Density

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

February, 2012 51

P and S-Wave 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

February, 2012 52

P and S-Wave Velocities

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.

February, 2012 53

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

= the second Lamé constant,

and r = density.

February, 2012 54

Velocity Equations using K and

bulk and shear modulus:

4

K

VP 3 VS

r r

= + 2/3

= the shear modulus, or the second Lamé constant,

and r = density.

February, 2012 55

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, s, is defined as the negative of the ratio

between the transverse and longitudinal strains:

s (R / R) /(L / L)

(In the typical case shown above, L is negative, so s is positive)

February, 2012 56

Poisson’s Ratio from velocity

and this definition is given by:

2 2

s 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 s, is given by:

2s 2

2

2s 1

February, 2012 57

Poisson’s Ratio vs VP/VS 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

February, 2012 58

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.

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).

February, 2012 59

Velocity in Porous Rocks

Velocity effects can be modeled by the volume average equation:

A plot of velocity vs water Wyllie's Equation

Porosity = 33%

saturation using the Vmatrix = 5700 m/s, Vw = 1600 m/s,

above equation. We used Voil = 1300 m/s, Vgas = 300 m/s.

a porous sand with the 3500

have filled the pores with Velocity (m/sec)

2500

either oil or gas.

2000

This equation does not

1500

hold for gas sands, and

this lead to the 1000

Gassmann equations. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

February, 2012 60

The Biot-Gassmann Equations

It has been found that 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

K sat sat sat

VP _ sat 3 VS _ sat

r sat r sat

Note that rsat is found using the volume average equation discussed

earlier, or:

February, 2012 61

The Biot-Gassmann Equations

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)

February, 2012 62

Biot-Gassmann - Shear Modulus

using the FRM (Fluid Replacement Modeling) option. Let us first look at

some theory and then consider several practical considerations when using

the FRM option.

In the Biot-Gassmann equations, the shear modulus does not change for

varying saturation at constant porosity. In equations:

sat dry

and dry the shear modulus of the dry rock.

February, 2012 63

Biot-Gassmann – Saturated Bulk

Modulus

2

K dry

1

K dry Km

(1) K sat

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.

February, 2012 64

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

1 1

If b = 1 (or Kdry= 0), this equation simplifies to:

K sat K fl Km

have particles in suspension (and the formula given is called Wood’s

formula). These are the two end members of a porous rock.

February, 2012 65

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.

February, 2012 66

The Fluid Bulk Modulus

The fluid bulk modulus can be modeled using the following equation:

1 Sw 1 Sw

K fl K w K hc

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:

February, 2012 67

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 sdry. Equation (1) can

then be rewritten as a quadratic equation in which we solve for Kdry.

(b) Using the mudrock equation to estimate the wet case and then

using a procedure developed by Mavko et al. (Fluid Substitution:

Estimating changes in VP without knowing VS, Geophysics, Nov-Dec,

1995) to calculate the hydrocarbon case. (See Appendix 1)

February, 2012 68

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.)

February, 2012 69

Velocity vs Saturation of Gas

Sandstone with Phi = 33%, Density as previous figure for gas,

saturation for a porous gas Kmatrix = 40 Gpa, Kdry = 3.25 GPa, Kw = 2.38 Gpa,

sand using the Biot-Gassmann Kgas = 0.021 Gpa, Shear Modulus = 3.3. Gpa.

shown. 2400

2200

In the section on AVO we will

model both the wet sand and 2000

Velocity (m/s)

the 50% saturated gas sand. 1800

Note that the velocity values

1600

can be read off the plot and

are: 1400

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

February, 2012 70

Poisson’s Ratio vs Saturation of Gas

Sandstone with Phi = 33%, Density as previous figure for gas,

A plot of Poisson’s ratio vs Kmatrix = 40 Gpa, Kdry = 3.25 GPa, Kw = 2.38 Gpa,

water saturation for a porous Kgas = 0.021 Gpa, Shear Modulus = 3.3. Gpa.

0.5

Gassmann equations with the

parameters shown.

0.4

Poisson's Ratio

0.3

model both the wet sand and

the 50% saturated gas sand.

Note that the Poisson’s ratio 0.2

and are: 0.1

swet = 0.33

sgas = 0.12 0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Sw

February, 2012 71

Velocity vs Saturation of Oil

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.

2600

Gassmann equations with

the parameters shown. 2400

2200

Note that there is not much

2000

Velocity (m/s)

of a velocity change.

However, this is for “dead” 1800

bubbles, and most oil

1400

reservoirs have some

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

February, 2012 72

Poisson’s Ratio vs Saturation of Oil

Sandstone with Phi = 33%, Density as previous figure for oil,

A plot of Poisson’s ratio vs Kmatrix = 40 Gpa, Kdry = 3.25 GPa, Kw = 2.38 Gpa,

Koil = 1.0 Gpa, Shear Modulus = 3.3. Gpa.

water saturation for a porous

0.5

oil sand using the Biot-

Gassmann equations with the

parameters shown. 0.4

Poisson's Ratio

0.3

a Poisson’s ratio change.

However, again this is for

“dead” oil, with no dissolved 0.2

reservoirs have some 0.1

0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Sw

February, 2012 73

Cautions when using Gassmann

CAUTIONS:

Rocks with large Km and Kdry values (most carbonates) appear insensitive

to saturation changes in Gassmann theory.

propagation. This implies fluids are mobile between pores and all stress

is carried by Kdry.

compressible pore systems.

pore systems are not suitable for standard Gassmann theory.

February, 2012 74

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

the most compressible phase.

Kfl vs Sw and Sg

This averaging 3

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)

February, 2012 75

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

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.

February, 2012 76

Patchy Saturation

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)

February, 2012 77

The Mudrock Line

by Castagna et al (1985):

VP 1.16 VS 1360 m / s

2s 2

VP VS

2s 1

February, 2012 78

The Mudrock Line

(Castagna et al, Geophysics, 1985)

February, 2012 79

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)

February, 2012 80

The Mudrock Line

6000

5000

s = 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)

February, 2012 81

The Mudrock Line

6000

5000

s = 1/3 or Mudrock Line

VP/VS = 2

4000

3000

Gas Sand

VP

(m/s)

2000

s = 0.1 or

VP/VS = 1.5

1000

0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

VS(m/s)

February, 2012 82

The Greenberg-Castagna method

line to different mineralogies as follows, where we have now

inverted the equation for VS as a function of 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

(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 (see Appendix 2) of the volume components of each mineral.

February, 2012 83

The Greenberg-Castagna method

To compute the shear-wave velocity of a rock with multiple

minerals and a known hydrocarbon component (i.e. SW < 1),

Greenberg and Castagna (1992) then propose the following

iterative scheme:

1. Estimate the brine-filled P-wave velocity. This is nothing more

than an initial guess.

2. Compute the S-wave velocity from the regression just given.

3. Perform Gassmann fluid substitution with the values from

steps 1 and 2 to compute the P-wave velocity for the SW < 1

case. This requires estimates of the moduli and density of

each component.

4. Based on the error between the measured and computed P-

wave velocities (for SW < 1), go back to step 1 and perturb the

estimate of the brine-filled P-wave velocity.

5. Iterate until the brine-saturated P-wave velocities agree.

February, 2012 84

Using the Biot-Gassmann Equations

The basic use of the Biot-Gassmann equations is to “substitute” or replace the fluids

in a set of target layers with another set of fluids.

In this case, VP, VS, and ρ must all be known for the input logs, along with the fluid

content (SW). Generally all three logs are changed within the target zone.

VP ρ VS VP ρ VS

SW = 50% SW = 100%

February, 2012 85

Using the Biot-Gassmann Equations

(2) Calculating Vs

has not been measured in the well. Either KDRY is assumed known or the mudrock

equation is assumed to hold for wet sands.

In this case, VP and ρ must both be known, along with the fluid content (SW). The VP

and ρ logs are unchanged, and a new VS log is created.

Input Logs Output Logs

ρ VP ρ VS

VP

February, 2012 SW = 50% SW = 50% 86

Conclusions

anomalies.

sand, but this equation does not match observations for velocities in a

gas sand.

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.

The ARCO mudrock line is a good empirical tool for the wet sands and

shales.

February, 2012 87

Exercise 2:

The Colony Gas Sand

Biot-Gassmann analysis

Exercise 2

Now that we have read in all the data necessary for the AVO

Modeling, we are ready to start the process.

First, look at the tabs to the left of the

Geoview window. You will see that one

of those tabs is called Processes. Click

on that tab to see a list of all the

operations which are available in

Geoview. Each of the processes can be

expanded. For example, if you click on

the AVO Modeling option, the following

expanded list is seen:

As we can see, the list includes Log

Processing options, Seismic Processing

options, AVO Modeling and Analysis tools,

Inversion options, etc. One way to do the

modeling would be to apply each of the

desired options in turn. That would be the

traditional approach.

February, 2012 89

We will use an alternate procedure in

this tutorial. We will use the pre-defined

Workflows. Click the Workflows tab.

The window changes like this:

contains a complete workflow for the

specified process. Click on the item

called AVO Modeling. The window

changes like this:

steps to be followed for AVO Modeling.

The steps are colored red to indicate

that the parameters have not yet been

supplied. These are the “default” steps,

but the list can be edited and

customized, as we will see later.

February, 2012 90

Double-click on the first item Select

Well. An arrow will appear in front of

the item, as shown here:

the right with a list of all

wells in the project:

is selected. Note that at the lower right

corner of the dialog, there is a button for

importing more wells:

We do not need to import another well, so click Select on this dialog.

February, 2012 91

Now, double-click the second item on

the Workflow list, Select Logs:

The dialog on the right shows that for AVO Modeling, we need three log

curves:

Two of them, the P-wave velocity

(sonic log) and the Density curves

are available in the well. The

third, S-wave velocity, is not

present in the well and will be

computed in the next step.

Click Select on this menu to use the latest curves for the calculation:

February, 2012 92

Calculating the Shear Wave Log

workflow, Shear Wave Estimation:

This step is necessary because a shear

wave velocity log is required to do AVO

offset modeling. However, like many

wells, this well does not include a

measured shear wave log. Therefore,

we must compute it now from the

existing sonic and density logs. If the

well had contained a measured shear

wave log, we could skip this step in the

workflow.

of tabs, which must be completed in

order:

February, 2012 93

The first tab specifies the location

of the Reservoir within the well:

are two types of equations used,

depending on whether we are within the

hydrocarbon zone or outside in the wet

background. This page specifies the

Reservoir or hydrocarbon zone. The

actual equations are described on the

next page. A convenient way of

specifying the zone is to use the

formation tops, which have been

imported from the LAS file. These tops

have been called TOP_GAS and

BASE_GAS for this well. Alternatively,

we could specify the depth range

directly.

February, 2012 94

Now click the Velocity tab:

velocity is coming from the

sonic log in the well:

calculations will be used, one

for the samples within the

reservoir, and the other for

samples outside the reservoir:

explained in greater detail in

the tabs below:

February, 2012 95

Now click the Density tab:

This tab appears because the density and porosity of the reservoir are

related by the Volume Average Equation:

calculated. Alternatively, with a measured porosity log, the

density can be calculated. Finally, the option exists to use both

measured density and porosity logs, and that requires a

calculation of the matrix density.

February, 2012 96

Now click the In-Situ Fluid tab:

properties within the reservoir. The first

thing we specify is the relative

concentrations of fluid:

February, 2012 97

In this case, we have told the program that the reservoir is 50%

brine and 50% gas. This is assumed known about the reservoir.

Alternatively, we could use a water saturation log, if available.

Change the saturations as shown above.

parameters for the density and bulk

modulus of the fluids:

February, 2012 98

We can also calculate the fluid

properties using empirical

relationships:

calculation, so unselect that check box:

February, 2012 99

Now click the Matrix tab:

properties within the reservoir.

The top part is grayed out – i.e.,

disabled – because we have

chosen to use the Greenberg-

Castagna equations within the

reservoir. Those equations require

a mixture of minerals, which we

specify below:

Note that, since we do not have any volumetric logs in the well,

our only option is to specify constant percentages for the whole

reservoir zone. By default, the specification is 100% sand for the

reservoir, which we will accept for this tutorial.

Finally, click the Output tab:

S-Wave velocity curve we will create.

We also can click the QC Display button

to see some of the internal calculations

within the reservoir:

problems with the model.

velocity log:

February, 2012 101

The Geoview window now includes the

calculated shear wave log:

(End of Exercise 2)

February, 2012 102

AVO Theory & Zoeppritz

Modeling

P and S-Waves

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)

February, 2012 104

From P and S-Waves to AVO

surface by P and S-wave sources. We could use the differences

between the recorded P and S reflections to discriminate gas-filled

sands from wet sands, using the properties discussed in the last

section.

However, most seismic surveys record P-wave data only, and S-wave

data is not available.

than zero, we produce mode conversion from P to S-wave data.

quantitatively and qualitatively.

Mode Conversion of an Incident

P-Wave

If q > 0°, an incident P-wave will produce both P and SV reflected and

transmitted waves. This is called mode conversion.

Reflected

Incident SV-wave = RS(q1)

P-wave

Reflected

1 P-wave = RP(q1)

q1

q1

VP1 , VS1 , r1

VP2 , VS2 , r2 q2

2 Transmitted

P-wave = TP(q1)

Transmitted

February, 2012 SV-wave = TS(q1) 106

Utilizing Mode Conversion

But how do we utilize mode conversion? There are actually two ways:

(in the X, Y and Z directions). Note that when we analyze the

converted waves, we need to be very careful in their processing and

interpretation.

angle, which contain implied information about the S-waves. This is

called the AVO (Amplitude versus Offset) method.

In the AVO method, we can make use of the Zoeppritz equations, or some

approximation to these equations, to extract S-wave type information

from P-wave reflections at different offsets. Before discussing these

equations, the next figures shows a typical set of gathers over a gas sand

and intuitively explain the relationship between offset and angle.

A Data Example

figure shows the

“stacked” traces

corresponding to the

five P-wave gathers

shown in the bottom

figure.

amplitudes in the

gathers over the

highlighted region

show an increase in

amplitude as a

function of offset.

This is called an AVO

(Amplitude Variation

with Offset) effect.

Angle and Offset

Surface

Angles q2 q1

q3

r2 VP2 VS2

Common mid-point

there is a direct relationship between angle and offset, which depends on

velocity. We can model these amplitude changes using either the full

Zoeppritz equations or the linearized Aki-Richards approximation.

February, 2012 109

The Zoeppritz Equations

To explain the amplitude change we saw in the mode conversion slide and

on the seismic gathers, 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 q1 cos 1 sin q 2 cos 2

RP (q1 ) cos q sin 1 cos q 2 sin 2 sin q1

R (q ) 1 cos q

S 1 sin 2q VP1 r 2VS 22VP1 r 2VS 2VP1 1

cos 21 sin 2q 2 cos 2

TP (q1 ) 1

VS 1 r1VS1VP 2

2

r1VS12

2 sin 2q1

q

S 1 cos 21

VS 1 r 2VP 2 r 2VS 2

T ( ) sin 21 cos 22 sin 22 cos 2 1

VP1 r1VP1 r1VP1

The Zoeppritz Equations at 0 degrees

incidence (0 degrees) the equations give us the following simple values for

the reflection and transmission coefficients (see Appendix 3 for the

mathematical details):

RS (0o ) RS 0 0, TS (0o ) TS 0 0,

r 2VP 2 r1VP1

RP (0 ) RP 0

o

,

r 2VP 2 r1VP1

2 r1VP1

TP (0 ) TP 0

o

1 RP 0 .

r 2VP 2 r1VP1

These equations tell us that there is no S-wave component at zero angle,

and the reflection and transmission coefficients are related to changes in

the acoustic impedance (P-velocity x density).

The Zero Angle Trace

wave gather as a set of reflection coefficients

corresponding to the changes in acoustic

impedance (density x P-velocity) at each

interface. The equation is below, and an Zi

illustration is on the right. This is not the

complete story, as the reflectivity is

Ri

convolved with a wavelet. Zi+1

Z Pi 1 Z Pi

RP 0i = ,

Z Pi 1 Z Pi

where :

Z Pi r iVPi impedance,

r density.

February, 2012 112

Convolution

as S = W*R, is illustrated pictorially below:

* = + + + + =>

W = Wavelet

R = Reflection S = Seismic

Coefficients Trace

February, 2012 113

The A-B-C equation

can either use the full Zoeppritz equations given earlier, or the linearized

Aki-Richards equation, which will be discussed later in more detail. We will

show that there are several equivalent versions of this equation, but the

most common is written in the following form:

1 VP r

2 2

1 VP VS VS VS r

A RP (0 )

o

, B 4 2 ,

2 V p r 2 Vp VP VS VP r

1 VP

and C .

2 Vp

A is the linearized zero-offset reflection coefficient and (see Appendix 4)

is called the intercept, B is the gradient, and C the curvature. This

equation tells us that as the angle increases, so does the effect of S-wave

velocity.

February, 2012 114

A two-layer model

We can use the previous equation to model the top and base of a simple

sand. The figure on the left below shows the wet case and the one on the

right shows the gas case, using values computed in our rock physics section.

Notice the difference between using two terms and three terms in the

modeling.

AVO Class 3

The model curves just shown for the gas case were for a Class 3 AVO

anomaly, of which the Colony sand we are considering is an example.

Here is a set of modeled well logs for a Class 3 sand, with the computed

synthetic (using all three terms in the A-B-C equation) on the right. Note that

the P-wave velocity and density (and thus the P-impedance) decrease in the

gas sand, the S-wave velocity increases, and the VP/VS ratio decreases. The

synthetic shows increasing amplitude versus offset for both the overlying

trough and underlying peak. The far angle is 45o.

AVO Class 2

As will be discussed later, there are several other AVO classes, of which

Class 1 and 2 are the most often seen.

Here is a Class 2 example well log, where the P-impedance change is very

small and the amplitude change on the synthetic is very large. Note that the

VP/VS ratio is still decreasing to 1.5, as expected in a clean gas sand (recall

the discussion in the rock physics section).

AVO Class 1

Here is a Class 1 well log example, where the P-impedance change is now

an increase and the amplitudes on the synthetic are seen to change

polarity. Again, the VP/VS ratio is still decreasing to 1.5, as expected in a

clean gas sand.

The figure on the next slide compares all three classes and also shows the

picked amplitudes.

The three AVO Classes

A comparison of the

synthetic seismic

gathers from the three

classes, where the top

and base of the gas Class 1 Class 2 Class 3

sand have been picked.

The picks are shown at time (ms)

the bottom of the

display and clearly

show the AVO effects.

created at the same

time, but in practice

amplitude

class 2 sands are at

medium depths and

class 3 sands are at

shallow depths.

February, 2012 119

Multi-Layer AVO Modeling

We are usually interested in modeling a lot more than one or two layers.

Multi-layer modeling in the AVO program consists first of creating a stack

of N layers, generally using well logs, and defining the thickness, P-wave

velocity, S-wave velocity, and density for each layer, as shown below:

Multi-Layer AVO Modeling

You must then decide what effects are to be included in the model: primaries

only, converted waves, multiples, or some combination of these.

AVO Modeling Options

calculation.

for calculation.

optional anelastic effects), which includes primaries, converted

waves, and multiples.

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. In this case, we have used the Aki-Richards equation in the

modeling. Note that the model result is a fairly good match to the offset stack.

Let us now do an exercise where we will perform this modeling.

February, 2012 123

Exercise 3:

The Colony Gas Sand

Creating Zoeppritz Synthetics

Exercise 3

workflow, Select Seismic:

in the AVO Modeling workflow:

•To extract a wavelet.

•To correlate the well, i.e., to optimize the

depth-time relationship between well and

seismic.

•To compare with the resulting synthetic.

On the dialog on the right, we see a

list of the seismic volumes which

have been loaded into the project.

Since there is only one volume, that

has been selected:

gathers:

Now the seismic data

appears inserted within

the Wells tab:

Extract Statistical Wavelet, by double-

clicking that option:

There are two basic methods for extracting the wavelet. One method uses

the wells, and can give a good estimate of both amplitude and phase

spectra of the wavelet. However, that method cannot be used until the

well is correlated, i.e., until the proper depth-time relationship has been

determined.

alone to extract the wavelet. This method will estimate the amplitude

spectrum from the seismic data, but we must make an assumption

about the phase – typically we assume the data are zero phase. In

this step, we are extracting a statistical wavelet.

of data to analyze:

By default, the program will examine

the entire data volume, but this is

rarely appropriate. In particular, we

want to set a time window around the

zone of interest. Change the dialog

to extract just using the limited time

window shown below:

shown above, click Run to extract the

wavelet.

The extracted wavelet appears in its

own pop-up window:

in the upper window, while the

amplitude and phase spectra are in the

lower window.

February, 2012 128

Note also this small button at the lower

right of the wavelet window:

button, the wavelet

window will be

“docked” within its

own Wavelets tab:

created within Geoview. To release the wavelet

window from its tab, click on the “airplane” at the

lower right of the wavelet window:

February, 2012 129

All the windows created within Geoview can

be docked or floated in this way. Finally,

send the wavelet window back to the

wavelets tab by clicking the Wavelets button

once again:

Correlate the Well, so double-click that

item:

The process of log correlation examines the current depth-time conversion

and optimizes it so that the derived synthetic matches the seismic optimally.

volume will be used for the correlation

process, and how the composite trace will

be extracted from that volume:

averaging the traces around the borehole

location we are using for the seismic

correlation. For a vertical well, such as

this one, that means averaging a selected

set of neighboring traces around the

borehole. By default this is plus or minus

1 inline or crossline.

For this tutorial, we will accept the defaults. Click OK on this

dialog.

February, 2012 131

The Log Correlation Window

now appears:

display are copies of the

synthetic trace. This trace

was calculated from the sonic

and density logs in this well,

the depth-time curve

currently stored in the

database, and the wavelet we

have previously extracted.

the average (or composite) trace

extracted from the seismic data.

The plot at the upper right shows the

cross correlation between the synthetic

trace and the composite trace:

February, 2012 132

That correlation result depends on the

analysis window. We can improve the

calculation by changing this window. The

cross correlation window defaults to be

the largest possible window containing

both the synthetic and real trace. We

should narrow the analysis to the region

where the log tie is best:

above and click on Apply. The

correlation plot now shows a maximum

correlation of 66%.

It also suggests that the synthetic

should be shifted down by 50 ms. That

information is also displayed on the

menu bar at the base of the window:

Click Apply Shift to apply the suggested 50 ms shift.

February, 2012 133

The correlation plot now looks like this:

shows a roughly symmetrical peak at

zero Lag Time, with a maximum

correlation of 65%

From this we can conclude that we have

a good correlation for this well. Click

OK to accept this correlation.

the new sonic log we have created by

the log correlation process. Even

though this process, by default, has

only changed the depth-time curve and

not the actual sonic log, Geoview

calculates a new sonic log (identical to

the previous) as a place holder for

identifying the new depth-time curve.

Click OK to accept that new name:

Identifying scenarios and creating synthetics

The next step in the Workflow is Extract wavelet using wells. We very

often perform that step within the Log Correlation Window. In this

case, we will assume the zero-phase statistical wavelet is adequate, so

we will skip that step here.

By “scenarios”, we mean the geologic

conditions which we wish to model.

Each scenario is a different fluid

combination within the target

reservoir.

– the in situ scenario which is present

in the logs. In addition, we can model

up to 4 other scenarios. In the figure

above, we have chosen Pure Oil and

Pure Brine, as well. Note that in

addition to specifying pure

hydrocarbons, we can specify any

combination of the 3 components

using the Ternary diagram. Set the

dialog as shown above, and click Run.

The display is now modified to show the

3 scenarios for each of the P-wave, S-

wave, Density, and Poisson’s Ratio

curves:

the workflow, Create Synthetics:

The dialog on the right shows that, by

default, Zoeppritz ray-tracing will be used

to calculate the synthetics:

been automatically set to be consistent

with the real data being used:

button for viewing all the Advanced

Parameters:

synthetics using the default parameters.

The three synthetics look like this:

Workflow is AVO What Ifs:

This step is used after the synthetics have been created. Here we can

interactively modify various parameters and see their effects on the calculated

synthetics.

the parameters used to generate the

in-situ synthetic.

saturation is 50% brine and 50% gas:

the 3 components.

The dialog currently shows the reservoir thickness as 7 meters:

To see the effect of thickness change, change the thickness to 20

meters, as shown here:

synthetic click the Preview button:

Now the display is modified to produce new log curves (with a thicker

reservoir) and a new synthetic:

By default, the model changes are not calculated until the Preview button

is clicked. This is because some calculations may take a while. However,

by selecting the Interactive Preview option, you can force the model to be

updated immediately after every change.

Finally, the model changes are normally temporary and disappear as soon

as the dialog is closed. You can save the current model by clicking the

Save Results button.

For this tutorial, just Close the menu, without saving any results:

Modifying and saving the workflow

process we will examine in this tutorial is customizing and saving a

new workflow.

looks like this:

wells, is still colored red, because we

did not explicitly perform that step. We

might wish to create a new workflow,

with that item removed.

To do that, select the item, Extract

wavelet using wells, and right-click:

process. Click OK on this dialog which

appears:

The new workflow now appears under

the User tab:

saved under the Default tab.

add a process. For example,

select the item Extract statistical

wavelet on the User tab, and

right click as shown:

Below and double-click Check

Shot Correction.

Now we have added the process of

applying a Check Shot Correction

before doing Log Correlation:

workflow is only available within this

project. To make it available to other

projects and other users, we need to

export the workflow.

To do that, right click anywhere on the

workflow, and click Export Workflow

and Parameters:

new workflow a name, like Test , and

click OK:

We have now saved the new workflow, and the

parameters used in this project, to two separate

files. To import the saved workflow and

parameters into a new project, click on the Import

Workflow button at the top of the Workflow

menu:

On the dialog which appears, we see the two

files which have been created:

The file with the shorter name,

Test_workflow.xml, is the list of process

names in the new workflow. This is the file

we need to import if we wish to use the

chosen steps in a new project.

The other file, TestAVOModelingParameter_parameter.xml, is the complete

list of parameters used in this current project. If we import this second file,

as well as the first, the dialogs which are created will have exactly the same

parameters as used previously. Thus, the combination of both files together

will be a reproducible history of the project.

February, 2012 149

Double-click each of the files named

above. The right side of the dialog now

changes to this:

the list of processes and their

parameters. For this tutorial, click

Cancel on this dialog.

(End of Exercise 3)

Elastic Waves and

Anisotropy

Multi-Layer AVO Modeling

in the AVO program consists first of creating a stack of N layers, generally

using well logs, and defining the thickness, P-wave velocity, S-wave

velocity, and density for each layer.

February, 2012 152

Elastic Wave Modeling

Elastic Wave Modeling is the exact solution for a plane wave propagating

through a series of layers.

The theory has been available for a number of years and is described in

Kennet(1979, 1980).

The calculation is done in the frequency domain, so the user must specify

a frequency range, which affects the run-time.

Ideally, the modeling should include all effects, such as multiples and

converted waves. In principle, these can be turned off, but that may

produce instability.

Zoeppritz – Elastic Wave Comparison

Modeling

Primaries x x

Multiples x

Converted Waves x

Refractions x

Anisotropy (VTI) x x

Frequency dependent absorption x

Post-critical events x

Fast computation x

The following example, taken from a paper by Simmons and Backus (1994),

illustrates the difference between Zoeppritz and Elastic modeling.

The Oil Sand Model

Simmons and Backus used the thin bed oil sand model shown above.

The Possible Modeled Events

February, 2012 156

Responses to Various Algorithms

(A) Primaries-only Zoeppritz, (B) + single leg shear, (C) + double-leg shear,

(D) + multiples, (E) Wave equation solution, (F) Linearized approximation.

+ multiples

Wave equation

Aki-Richards

Simmons and Backus (1994)

February, 2012 157

Zoeppritz vs Elastic Wave Summary

multiples and converted waves.

Modeling, if the input parameters are correct.

problems.

Anisotropic AVO

In an isotropic earth P and S-wave velocities are independent of angle.

dependent on direction, as shown below.

VP(90o)

VP(45o)

VP(0o)

vertical symmetry axis, or VTI, and Transverse Isotropy with a Horizontal

symmetry axis, or HTI . In particular, the HTI model gives us a way to model

azimuthal AVO, or AVAZ.

February, 2012 159

Anisotropic AVO

The figure below, from Ruger, illustrates the difference between the VTI and

HTI models of anisotropy.

Media” by Andreas Ruger, SEG Geophysical Monograph No. 10, 2002

The VTI model consists of horizontal layers and can be extrinsic, caused

by fine layering of the earth, or intrinsic, caused by particle alignment as in

a shale. The HTI model consists of vertical layers and is caused by parallel

vertical fractures or steeply dipping shales (see Appendix 5).

February, 2012 160

Velocities for the VTI case

Although the equations for full anisotropy are quite complex, Thomsen

(1986) showed that for weakly anisotropic materials the velocities in VTI

media are dependent on the parameters , , and , called Thomsen’s

parameters.

parameters:

V 2

(0 o

) 2

VSV (q ) VSV (0 ) 1 2 o ( ) sin q cos q

o P 2

VSV (0 )

VSH (q ) VSH (0o ) 1 sin 2 q

Thomsen’s Parameters

the P and S velocities at 0, 45, and 90 degrees. The following relationships

can be derived quite easily using the velocities in the previous slide:

VP (0o ) VSH ( 0 o )

VP ( 45 o ) VP ( 0 o ) VP ( 45 o ) VP ( 0 o )

4 o 4 o

V P ( 0 ) V P ( 0 )

angle for different values of and . (As mentioned, VSH will not be

used in AVO).

AVO and VTI

Thomsen (1993) showed that VTI terms could be added to the Aki-Richards

equation using his weak anisotropic parameters and , where Ran(q ) is the

anisotropic AVO response and Ris(q ) is the isotropic AVO response.

Ran (q ) Ris (q ) sin q

2

sin 2 q tan 2 q ,

2 2

where : 2 1 , and 2 1.

2 2

or : Ran (q ) A B sin q C sin q tan 2

q

2 2

Typical Values for Delta, Epsilon and Gamma

Typical values for , , and were given by Thomsen (1986). Here are some

representative values from his table:

AVO and VTI

Blangy (1997) computed the effect of anisotropy on VTI models of the three

Rutherford-Williams type. Blangy’s models are shown below, but since he

used Thomsen’s formulation for the linearized approximation, his figures

have been recomputed in the next slide for the wet and gas cases using

Ruger’s formulation. The slide after that shows our example.

VTI – AVO Effects

Class 1

Class 1

= -0.15

= -0.3

Class 2

Class 2

Class 3

Class 3

Isotropic

--- Anisotropic

(a) Gas sandstone case: Note (b) Wet sandstone case:

that the effect of and is Note that the effect of and

to increase the AVO effects. is to create apparent AVO

decreases.

February, 2012 166

VTI Applied to Colony Example

Gas Sand Top, = -0.15, = -0.3

0.000

Amplitude

-0.100

-0.200

-0.300

-0.400

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Angle (degrees)

R (Isotropic) R (Anisotropic)

VTI AVO Model Example

In the above display, we have added simple and logs to the sonic

and density logs from the Colony gas sandstone play in Alberta. Notice

that only the gas sand is isotropic.

February, 2012 168

Anisotropic AVO Synthetics

In this display, the synthetic responses for the logs shown in the

previous slide are shown. Note the difference due to anisotropy.

February, 2012 169

Exercise 4:

The Colony Gas Sand

Elastic Wave Modeling

Exercise 4

tracing to create synthetics corresponding to a

series of lithologic scenarios. In this exercise,

we will use elastic wave modeling.

workflow. Instead, we will use the Processes

list. To see that list, click on the Processes tab:

item and double click Create AVO Synthetics:

On the menu which appears, we

see that all the parameters have

been saved from our previous

Zoeppritz synthetic.

items – the Algorithm is Elastic

Wave and the Output Name is

modified to include the word

“elastic”.

items, click on OK to create the

new synthetic.

The new elastic wave synthetic is plotted in

the Geoview window.

longer visible. We would like to see both

the new elastic wave synthetic and the

original Zoeppritz synthetic.

window is to drag-and-drop from the

Project Data list. Click on the Project

Data tab and the Seismic side-tab, as

shown. Then select the Zoeppritz

synthetic, which was called In-

situ_AVO_WELL.

Holding the left mouse button down, drag the name (In-situ_AVO_WELL) over

between the elastic wave synthetic and the real data display. You will know

where you are dropping it, because of the green vertical line which appears.

Release the mouse button and the original synthetic is added to the display.

The new elastic wave

synthetic is plotted along with

the previous Zoeppritz

synthetics. We can see

significant differences in

character due to the elastic

wave modeling. In particular,

the elastic wave model looks

more noisy and does not

display the AVO anomaly as

strongly.

A very convenient tool for analyzing the

amplitudes of individual events is AVO Gradient

Analysis.

click the item on the Processes list:

Input as the in-situ synthetic which was

originally created. Then click the Specify

Velocity button:

The menu which appears is used

to set the velocity field for the

AVO attribute calculation. In this

case, we used a single P-wave

log. So, select that item and click

OK on this menu.

Gradient Analysis menu:

The display which

appears shows the in-

situ synthetic along with

a series of picked

amplitudes:

correct, since we have

not specified the location

of the target event.

display by clicking on Fit to

View:

Now, cllick on the trough

corresponding to the top of the gas

sand at around 630 ms:

showing the picked events from the

synthetic along with an AVO curve.

If your display looks quite different,

try clicking close to the event again.

There are many useful options associated with the AVO

Curve display, which we will study in a later exercise. For

now, we will use the display to compare the picked

amplitudes between the two synthetics. To bring in the

second synthetic, click on View 2, as shown:

set the Input for View 2 to be

the Elastic Wave synthetic

we just created. Then click

Apply at the base of the

menu.

Now the two synthetics

appear, with the two sets of

picks:

the Gradient Analysis display by

temporarily removing the Project

Manager. To do that, click the

“x” as shown:

February, 2012 181

The Gradient Analysis display

will now look like this:

displays, the curve for the

Elastic Wave synthetic does

not show as much AVO

variation as the Zoeppritz

synthetic.

normalizing the amplitudes of

the near traces.

Intercepts:

Now we see clearly the difference in

AVO behavior:

curves with the real data event. To see

that, click to turn on View 3:

On the menu which appears, we

must select the input (gathers),

and also specify which CDP to

show. Click the down arrow and

select the well location:

look like this. Click Apply at the

base of the window.

Once again, click Tie Intercepts to force all

the intercepts together.

and the Zoeppritz model lie

practically on top of each other.

model is a very good representation

of the real response.

(End of Exercise 4)

February, 2012 185

AVO Analysis on Seismic

Data

Introduction

function of angle, the equations themselves do not lend themselves to an

intuitive understanding of the AVO process for angles greater than zero

degrees.

For that reason, although modeling should be done with the Zoeppritz

equations, most AVO theory for analyzing real data is based on a

linearized approximation to the Zoeppritz equations initially derived by

Bortfeld (1961) and then refined by Richards and Frasier (1976) and Aki

and Richards (1980).

The equations on the next few slides will show various equivalent

formulations of the Aki-Richards equations.

the rock physics model developed in the first section.

The Aki-Richards Equation

equations. The initial form of this equation separated the velocity and

density terms:

VP VS r

RP (q ) a b c , where :

2VP 2VS 2r

r 2 r1

a 1 tan q ,

2 r , r r 2 r1 ,

2

VS

2

VP 2 VP1

b 8 sin 2 q , VP , VP VP 2 VP1 ,

2

VP

V VS 1

V

2 VS S 2 , VS VS 2 VS 1 ,

c 1 4 S sin 2 q , 2

VP q q

and q 1 2 .

2

As we will see when we get to the section on Elastic Impedance (EI), this

is the form of the equation that was used in the derivation of EI.

Understanding Aki-Richards

at a given time on the 3 trace angle gather shown below:

Constant Angle

o o o Each pick at time t and angle q is equal to

0 15 30 the Aki-Richards reflectivity at that point

600 ms

(after convolution with an angle-dependent

t Picks wavelet) given by the sum of the three

weighted reflectivities. If we assume that at

time t, (VS/VP)2= 0.25, we see that:

700 ms

VP r

RP (0 o )

2VP

0

2r

Note : sin 0 o tan 0 o 0

VP VS r

RP (30 o ) 1.333 0.500 0.750

2VP 2VS 2r

Note : sin 2

30 o 0.25 and tan 2 30 o 0.333

February, 2012 189

Wiggins’ Form of the Aki-Richards

Equation

An equivalent, but algebraically reformulated, form of the Aki-Richards

equation was derived by Wiggins et al. (1983). They separated the equation

into three reflection terms, each weaker than the previous term:

1 VP r

2 2

1 VP VS VS VS r 1 VP

A , B 4 2 , C .

2 V p r 2 Vp VP VS VP r 2 Vp

B the gradient, and C the curvature. Note that A is identical to the

linearized zero-angle reflection coefficient, which we called RP(0o) in the

previous slide.

previous slide except that the weights are now 1, sin2q, tan2q sin2q, and

the physical parameters are A, B and C.

February, 2012 190

Fatti et al’s Formulation of the

Aki-Richards Equation

An third equivalent form of the Aki-Richards equation was formulated by

Fatti et al. (Geophysics, September, 1994) and is written:

c1 1 tan 2 q , c2 8(VS / VP ) 2 sin 2 q , c3 4(VS / VP ) 2 sin 2 q tan 2 q ,

1 VP r 1 VS r r

RP (0 )

o

S

, R ( 0 o

) , and R .

r r r

D

2 VP 2 VS

Note that the RP(0o) term given above is identical to the A term in the

previous equation. Also, the first two scaling terms are identical to those in

the original Aki-Richards equation. This equation will be used later in the

course as the basis for independent and simultaneous pre-stack inversion.

The physical interpretation of this equation is the same as for the original

Aki-Richards equation except that the weights are now c1, c2, c3, and the

physical parameters are RP(0o), RS(0o) and RD.

February, 2012 191

A Summary of the Aki-Richards

Equation

All three forms of the Aki-Richards equation consist of the sum of three

terms, each term consisting of a weight multiplied by an elastic parameter

(i.e. a function of VP , VS or r). Here is a summary:

VP VS r

Aki-Richards a, b, c , ,

2VP 2VS 2 r

Note that the weighting terms b, c and c2, c3 contain the squared VS/VP ratio as

well as trigonometric functions of q. However, in the Wiggins et al.

formulation, this term is in the elastic parameter B.

February, 2012 192

Physical Interpretation

A physical interpretation of the three equations is as follows:

(1) Since the seismic trace consists of changes in impedance rather than

velocity or density independently, the original form of the Aki-Richards

equation is rarely used.

(2) The A, B, C formulation of the Aki-Richards equation is very useful for

extracting empirical information about the AVO effect (i.e. A, which is

called the intercept, B, called the gradient, and C, called the curvature)

which can then be displayed or cross-plotted. As pointed out in the

previous slide, explicit information about the VP/VS ratio is not needed

in the weights.

(3) The Fatti et al. formulation gives us a way to extract quantitative

information about the P and S reflectivity which can then be used for

pre-stack inversion. As shown in Appendix 1, the terms RP0 and RS0

are the linearized zero-angle P and S-wave reflection coefficients.

Wet and Gas Models

Let us now see how to get from the geology to the seismic using the

second two forms of the Aki-Richards equation. We will do this by using

the two models shown below. Model A consists of a wet, or brine, sand,

and Model B consists of a gas-saturated sand.

VP1,VS1, r1 VP1,VS1, r1

VP2,VS2, r2 VP2,VS2, r2

Model Values

gas sands using the Biot-Gassmann equations. Recall that the

computed values were:

Wet: VP2 = 2500 m/s, VS2= 1250 m/s, r2 = 2.11 g/cc, s2 = 0.33

Gas: VP2 = 2000 m/s, VS2 = 1310 m/s, r2 = 1.95 g/cc, s2 = 0.12

Shale: VP1 = 2250 m/s, VS1 = 1125 m/s, r1 = 2.0 g/cc, s1 = 0.33

The next four figures will show the results of modeling with the

ABC and Fatti equations. On these four figures, the curves have

been calculated as a function of incident angle and scaled to

average angle.

Zoeppritz vs the ABC Method –

Gas Sand

shows the AVO curves AB method

computed using the

Zoeppritz equations

and the two and three

term ABC equation, for

the gas sand model. ABC method

Notice the strong

deviation for the two

term versus three term Zoeppritz

sum.

Zoeppritz vs the ABC Method –

Wet Sand

right shows the AVO

curves computed

using the Zoeppritz

equations and the ABC method

two and three term

ABC equation, for

the wet sand model. Zoeppritz

strong deviation for

the two term versus

three term sum. AB method

Zoeppritz vs the Fatti Method –

Gas Sand

right shows the AVO

curves computed

using the Zoeppritz

Zoeppritz

equations and the

two and three term

Fatti equation, for Fatti method,

the gas sand model.

two term

Notice there is less

deviation between

Fatti method,

the two term and three term

three term sum than

with the ABC

approach.

Zoeppritz vs the Fatti Method –

Wet Sand

right shows the AVO

curves computed

using the Zoeppritz Zoeppritz

equations and the two

and three term Fatti Fatti method,

equation, for the wet

two term

sand model.

case, there is less

deviation between the Fatti method,

two term and three three term

term sum than with

the ABC approach.

The Two-Term Aki-Richards Equation

Recall that:

R( q ) A B sin 2 q

where we have dropped the C term and define A and B as:

1 VP r

2 2

1 VP VS VS VS r

A , B 4 2 ,

2 V p r 2 Vp VP VS VP r

1 2s s VP / VP

B A D 2( 1 D ) , D .

1s ( 1s ) 2

VP / VP r / r

February, 2012 200

The Two-Term Aki-Richards Equation

(2) For angles less than about 40 degrees, the third term is not significant, as

shown previously:

Estimating the Intercept and

Gradient

data.

of the sine of the angle squared.

Converting from Offset to Angle

450 Offset (m) 6000 0 Angle (degrees) 90

The offset

domain is the The angle domain

conventional represents a

CDP stack with theoretical

each trace at a acquisition

different geometry in which

offset. The each trace

acquisition corresponds to a

geometry is constant incidence

shown below. angle.

Converting from Offset to Angle

Conversion from offset to angle can be done using one of these options:

(1) Straight ray assumption (constant velocity)

(2) Ray Parameter approximation (variable velocity approximation)

(Reference: Walden, 1991, Making AVO sections more robust: Geophysical

Prospecting, 39 , no. 7, 915-942.)

(3) Ray-tracing (variable velocity)

(2) Ray Parameter :

X X

tan q , XVINT

2d Vt0 sin q 2 ,

tVRMS

where X offset ,

where VINT Interval velocity,

VRMS t0

d depth , t total traveltime.

2

t0 2 way time,

VRMS RMS velocity.

Converting from Offset to Angle

Ray Ray

Tracing Parameter

usually used when analyzing

seismic data.

than Ray Tracing.

begins to degrade slightly at

angles greater than 50 degrees.

angle contours calculated using

Ray Tracing and Ray Parameter.

35 43 50 35 43 50

February, 2012 205

Common Offset Picks as

Function of sin2q

times, two of which are shown.

Offset

+A

+B

sin2q

Time -B

-A

The Aki-Richards equation predicts a

linear relationship between these

amplitudes and sin2θ.

calculated, to give A and B values for

each time sample.

February, 2012 206

Intercept: A

The result of this

calculation is to

produce 2 basic

attribute volumes

Gradient: B

Derived Attributes

The raw A and B attribute volumes are rarely used in that form. Instead,

other AVO attributes are usually calculated from them.

(2) Scaled Poisson’s Ratio Change : A+B

(3) Shear Reflectivity : A-B

(4) Fluid factor

Appendix 7.

Derived Attributes AVO Product :

A*B

Many AVO anomalies have the form

shown at the right.

the gradient (B) are large numbers or

“bright”. Also, they have the same

sign. +A

+B

This is an example of a Class 3

anomaly.

sin2q

Forming the product of A and B, we

get: -B

-A

Top of sand : (-A)*(-B) = +AB

Base of sand : (+A)*(+B) = +AB

at both top and base.

February, 2012 209

Derived Attributes: AVO product

The AVO product shows a positive response at the top and base of the

reservoir:

Top

Base

Derived Attributes

Scaled Poisson’s Ratio Change : A+B

RP (q ) A B sin 2 q , where :

1 VP r 1 2s s

A , B A D 2(1 D ) ,

2 V p r 1 s (1 s ) 2

VP / VP s 2 s1

D ,s , and s s 2 s 1.

VP / VP r / r 2

1 s

B A D 2(1 D) 2.25s A

2 (2 / 3) 2

change in Poisson’s Ratio.

Derived Attributes

Scaled Poisson’s Ratio Change : A+B

The AVO sum (A+B) shows a negative response at the top of the reservoir

(decrease in σ) and a positive response at the base (increase in σ):

Top

Base

Derived Attributes

Shear Reflectivity : A-B

VP r

2 2

VP VS VS VS r

A and B 4 2 .

2V p 2 r 2V p VP VS VP r

If we assume the background VS /VP = 1/2, then:

VP VS r VP r VS r

B RP 0 2 RS 0 ,

2V p VS 2 r 2V p 2 r VS r

VP r VS r

where : RP 0 A and RS 0

p

2 V 2 r SV r

the Shear Reflectivity.

February, 2012 213

A-B Difference Attribute

The AVO difference (A-B) shows an increase in Shear Impedance at the top

of the reservoir. This calculation is usually done with the more accurate

Fatti equation, which we will see next.

Top

Base

RP and RS Attributes

(Geophysics, September, 1994) which can be written (for 2 terms) as:

c1 1 tan 2 q , c2 8(VS / VP ) 2 sin 2 q ,

1 VP r 1 VS r

RP (0 ) o

and RS (0 )

o

.

2 VP r 2 VS r

This allows us to calculate RP0 and RS0 volumes from seismic data in exactly

the same way as A and B volumes.

Again, note that the full mathematical way of extracting attributes is given in

Appendix 7.

RP0 and RS0 Attributes

RP0

RS0

RP0 and RS0 Attributes

The RP0 and RS0 attributes are usually transformed into one of 2 new

attributes:

a later section.

Derived Fluid Factor Attribute

The Fluid Factor attribute (Smith and Gidlow, 1987, Fatti et al., 1994) is

based on Castagna’s mudrock equation, which is assumed to be true for

non-hydrocarbon filled layers:

VP 1.16 VS 1360 m / s

Using calculus, we can derive the following equivalent equation:

VP VS VS

VP 1.16VS Divide by Vp 1.16

VP VP VS

The Fluid Factor is defined to highlight layers where Castagna’s equation

does not hold, i.e., potential hydrocarbon zones:

VP V VS V

F 1.16 S , or : F RP 1.16 S RS

VP VP VS VP

VS

Note that the factor 1.16 is often customized to fit the local data.

VP

February, 2012 218

Mudrock Line

- Castagna et al (1985)

cross-plotted Vp vs. Vs

for different types of

sedimentary rocks 3 gas

sandstones

carbonates

- „mudrock‟ line for fluid 2 water

sandstones

saturated sandstones

dry

sandstones

1

- deviations from the

Mudrock line

mudrock line indicate

other lithologies and 1 2 3 4 5

pore fluids

P-wave velocity (km/s)

Fluid Factor attribute

The AVO Fluid Factor shows a strong deviation from the mudrock trend at

both the top and base of the 15 m Colony reservoir. Fluid Factor anomalies

also appear for two stacked gas sands above the main Colony reservoir.

The carbonate under the Paleozoic unconformity also deviates from the

from the mudrock trend. Note the different polarity in this case (red over

blue instead of blue over red).

Top

Base Colony

Top Carbonate

Exercise 5

The Colony Gas Sand

Calculating AVO Attributes

Exercise 5

Modeling Workflow to create AVO synthetics.

We will now turn to the analysis of the real

seismic data.

Analysis workflow, shown in the list of

standard Workflows.

in the course.

Processes list.

To start that, click the tab called

Processes. You will see a list of all the

operations which are available in

Geoview. Each of the processes can be

expanded. For example, if you click on

both the Seismic Processing and AVO

Analysis options, the following

expanded list is seen:

CDP Stack

Click next to the Stack option in the

Seismic Processing submenu to see the

two types of stack available, and

double-click CDP Stack:

appear on the right:

There are some features of this dialog which are common to all

Process Parameter dialogs. For example, there is a location to specify

the input and output files names:

range to process. By default, it is the

entire volume:

only a limited range of offsets:

By default, only the most critical parameters for this process are

specified on this page. To see the more advanced option, click the

button at the base of the menu:

process to be performed. Note that these will differ from one

process to the next.

icon showing an “airplane”:

detaches from the Geoview window to

allow it to be moved aside, making the

data more visible. Clicking the

“airplane” again re-attaches the dialog.:

At the base of the Parameter Dialog, we see a series of buttons:

If we click the Run Batch button, that will create a batch file which

could run the process later. That is often helpful for long, computer-

intensive processes. For now, click OK to start the CDP stack process

as usual.

finishes, the Geoview

window looks like this –

a split window showing

both the input and

output volumes:

Modifying the seismic display

useful for looking at the results, but

there are many modifications possible.

available plot space by clicking the “x”

on the Project Manager window, as

shown, to temporarily hide that window:

click its name to the left:

You can also temporarily hide one of

the views. For example, click on the

first icon shown below to temporarily

hide View 1, which shows the input

data:

orientation horizontally:

the vertical orientation:

Finally, to see the most complete

control of the seismic display, right-

click on either of the seismic windows.

A pop-up menu appears:

Parameters:

appears, allowing complete

control of the display:

click Cancel on this dialog.

Super Gather

The next process we will apply is Super Gather. Super Gather is the

process of forming average CDPs to enhance the signal-to-noise ratio.

We do the averaging by collecting similar offset traces within adjacent

CDPs and adding them together. This process reduces random noise,

while maintaining amplitude versus offset relationships.

Process list as we did before, but now

we will use a little trick to speed up

that search.

tab, there is a box called Filter. This is

used to quickly find a process in the

list.

Now, the list is reduced to two entries:

Double-click Super Gather

the only changes we will make are to

set the Input name to gathers and to

change the Size of Rolling Window to 5:

This means that five adjacent CDP’s will be summed to give each output

CDP. Notice that the program has defaulted to create output bins with

11 offsets each. This was chosen because that is the average fold of the

input gathers. When you have changed these parameters, click OK to

run the process.

February, 2012 232

The result looks like this:

cleaner and more

consistent, with a

pronounced AVO anomaly at

around 630 ms.

range of incident angles as

a color display.

Super Gather, right-click and

select Color Data Volume and

Incident Angle:

We can see from this display that the maximum

incident angle at the zone of interest (630 ms) is

around 30 degrees. That information will be used in a

later step.

Picking the pre-stack data

In this step, we will pick an event at the zone of interest and display those

picks to observe the AVO anomaly.

First, turn off the color display by right-

clicking on that display and selecting

Color Data Volume > none:

Gather display fills the window:

Now select Horizon > Pick Horizons:

specify which data set we are picking.

We are picking the Super Gather in View

2, so this field must be modified:

OK to start the picking process:

A series of controls appears at the base of the seismic window. These are

used for the picking process:

picks will be created using mouse

clicks:

The Rubber Band Mode means that if you click somewhere, then

hold the left mouse button down, move the mouse along the

section and release the button, picks will be created in the

region of the “rubber band” which appears between the mouse

clicks. That is very useful for detailed picking.

For a very clean data set like this one, a convenient mode is Left & Right

Repeat. In this case, you would click a point that you interpret as being part

of the horizon. This becomes the seed point. Picks will be created

throughout the entire line based on this point.

shows the AVO anomaly at around 630

ms. Change both the Mode and Snap

parameters as shown:

Then position the mouse cursor anywhere near the trough at 630

ms and click once:

The entire event should be picked like this:

If your display looks different, check your Mode and Snap parameters

and click again. There is no need to delete the original picks. They

will be automatically replaced.

Horizon from the picking dialog.

single event, so click OK to complete

the picking process:

February, 2012 239

Now that we have picked the event,

we would like to see a display of the

picked amplitudes. To do that, right-

click and select View > Show Pick

Analysis:

On the Pick Attribute Option dialog

which appears, choose the option to

Show Pre-stack Picks With Gradient

Analysis. This option is based on the

two term Aki-Richards equation.

the defaults for this analysis. The

second to last page confirms that we

are using the Two Term Aki-Richards

equation and the velocity field we

have defined previously:

Pick Analysis display.

This display shows the

original pick values (in

blue) and the calculated

Aki-Richards curves (in

red). By scrolling through

the data volume, we can

see that the AVO behavior

is most pronounced in the

vicinity of the well and

flattens out as we move

away.

right click on the display window and

toggle OFF the display:

Angle Gather

angle domain. From the Processes tab,

double-click Angle Gather:

see that we are transforming the volume

super_gather into the new volume

angle_gather:

maximum angle is about 30 degrees, so we

will change the maximum Angle To to 30,

as shown. Also, note that we are using the

velocity field set up in a previous step.

Parameters dialog as shown, click OK to

run the Angle Gather process.

February, 2012 243

When the process has

completed, the Geoview

window shows the

calculated Angle

Gathers:

AVO Gradient Analysis

Analysis. The purpose of this process is to

analyze the AVO behavior of one or more events

at a particular CDP. To start that process,

double click AVO Gradient Analysis:

the Input Volume as the super_gather. We

also tell the program that we are analyzing

the CDP near the well, which is CDP 330:

clicking OK at the base of the dialog:

The display which appears shows the

seismic gather at CDP 330, along with

AVO pick values for the default initial

time, which is at the centre of the gather

time scale:

scale of the gather data. One quick way to do

that is to select the Fit to View check box:

button one or more times:

Right now, the analysis is being performed at the

arbitrary time of 550 ms:

anomaly at around 630 ms. So, position

the mouse cursor near the trough at 630

ms and click the left mouse key:

The red line on the seismic display shows the

time location at which the amplitudes have been

extracted. Those amplitudes are plotted as red

squares on the right-hand graph. The curve

which has been fit through the picks is a plot of

the Aki-Richards two-term equation. We can

confirm this by the information at the top of the

graph:

By clicking various time locations on the gather,

we could see the equivalent picks and curve for

any other event on the gather. Actually, it can

often be helpful to see two events at the same

time. To do this click the Two Events toggle ON:

click near the strong peak below the

target trough:

Now the display should look like this:

class 3 AVO anomaly with amplitudes

increasing for both the trough at the

top of the sand (red) and the peak at

the base of the sand (green). Notice

also that the fit of the AVO curves is

extremely good. Mathematically, this

is expressed by the normalized

correlation between the picked

amplitudes and the curves, printed at

the top of the graph:

at other neighboring CDP’s we can

modify this selection item:

February, 2012 249

Notice, also, that the AVO curves are plotted as a

function of Offset, because we have used the

super_gather as input. We can see the same plot

as a function of angle this way: Go to this

selection box at the top of the graph and change

to Angle:

this event is about 30 degrees, as we

observed when creating the angle

gather:

of tabs. One of them, for example,

allows us to access the Parameters,

which control the calculation of the Aki-

Richards curves:

February, 2012 250

Another interesting display is the Cross

Plot of calculated Gradient against

Intercept. This is accessed by clicking

the Cross Plot tab:

extracted from sample values near the

event time around the well location.

The red and green squares correspond

to the calculated Intercept/Gradient

values for the selected events. Note

that the locations of these squares are

consistent with the interpretation of this

anomaly as a class 3 AVO anomaly.

AVO Attribute Volume

anomaly using AVO Gradient analysis, we

will apply the calculation to the entire

volume to see the distribution of AVO

anomalies. To start that, double-click

AVO Analysis > AVO Attribute Volume:

three term Aki-Richards equation to

extract AVO attributes from the seismic

data. The attributes are based on

combinations of intercept, gradient and

curvature, as defined by the Aki-Richards

equation.

we see the input and output volumes for

this process:

February, 2012 252

Because we have created an angle gather volume, this will be used as input. Note

that the original offset gathers or super gathers could also be used, but then a

velocity field would be needed to convert from offset to angle during this

calculation. As output, the program will create several volumes, depending on the

Type of Analysis. For the default case of two-term Aki-Richards analysis, the

volumes will be called avo_a and avo_b, corresponding to the intercept and

gradient.

dialog, we see that the default Type of

Analysis is the Two Term Aki-Richards:

angles less than 30 degrees. In order to reliably extract three terms

we need high angle data, usually exceeding 45 degrees. Click OK to

extract the AVO Attributes using the default parameters.

When the process

completes, the calculated

attributes appear in a split

screen:

contains two separate volumes. The annotation

at the top of the window shows what is currently

plotted:

The wiggle trace data is the calculated Intercept (A). The color data is

currently the product of intercept and gradient (A*B). Since this is a class 3

AVO anomaly, we can see a strong positive response at the top and base of

the reservoir at 630 ms.

February, 2012 254

Actually, the response is currently

obscured a little by the horizon which is

drawn over it. Temporarily remove that

horizon from the display by right clicking

and selecting View > Seismic View

Parameters:

select Horizons and No Horizons, as

shown.

clearly shows the positive AVO response

at the top and base of the reservoir.

To see another combination of

attributes in color, right-click in that

window as shown:

Select Scaled Poisson’s Ratio Change. This

is the sum (A+B), which is roughly

proportional to the change in Poisson’s

Ratio. This produces this attribute plot:

(orange), indicating a drop in Poisson’s Ratio, while at the base of

the reservoir we see a positive response (yellow), indicating an

increase in Poisson’s Ratio.

February, 2012 (End of Exercise 5) 256

Cross-Plotting AVO

Attributes and the Third

Order Term

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 et al (TLE, 1997,

Geophysics, 1998) and Verm and Hilterman (TLE, 1995) and is based on two ideas:

(2) The Mudrock Line.

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):

Class 1: High impedance sand with decreasing AVO

Class 2: Near-zero impedance contrast

Class 2p: Same as 2, with polarity change

Class 3: Low impedance sand with increasing AVO

Class 4: Low impedance sand with decreasing AVO

Rutherford/Williams Classification

contrast in Acoustic Impedance between

the target sand and the surrounding Acoustic Impedance =

shales: ρVP

Shale

Sand

Shale

February, 2012 259

Rutherford/Williams Classification

These are the generic AVO curves at the top of the gas sand:

An Example of a Class 1 Anomaly

(b) Model

example.

Rutherford and

Williams (1989)

Angle Stacks over Class 2 & 3 Sands

Rutherford and

Williams (1989)

February, 2012 262

Class 2 & 3 Sands

Class 4 Anomalies

Castagna (1995) suggested that for a very large value of A, 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

B s A,

4

(1) If s 0.3 and A 0.1, then B -0.575 (Class 3)

Here is Figure 7 from Castagna

et al (1998), which illustrates

the concept of the Class 4

anomaly in more detail.

The Mudrock Line

Castagna et al (1985). The equation is as follows and the plot from their

original paper is shown below:

VP =1.16 VS+1360 m/sec

Intercept vs Gradient Crossplot

mudrock line, we can derive a relationship between intercept and gradient.

Recall that:

2 2

1 VP r 1 VP VS VS VS r

A B 4 2 ,

2 V p r 2 Vp VP VS VP r

r 1 VP

Gardner :

r 4 VP

4 9

B A1 2

5 c

February, 2012 267

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 A1 A

5 4

against gradient:

4 9

B A1 0

5 9

Various values of c produce the straight lines (“wet” trends) shown on

intercept / gradient crossplots on the next page.

Mudrock lines on a

crossplot for various

VP/VS ratios (Castagna and

Swan, 1998).

By letting c = 2 for the background wet trend, we can now plot the various

anomalous Rutherford / 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.

Gradient

Base II P Base II

Base I

Base III

Top IV

Intercept

Base IV

Crossplot

Showing “Wet” Trend

Anomalies Vp

Top II Top II P 2

Vs

February, 2012 271

ARCO Examples of Cross-Plotting

(a) Cross-plot of well log derived A and B. (b) Cross-plot of seismically derived A and B.

(2) Wavelet interference.

February, 2012 Foster et al (1993) 272

Intercept / Gradient Cross-Plots

February, 2012 273

Seismic Display from A/B Cross-Plots

February, 2012 274

Polarization and the AVO Hodogram

wavelet interference.

hodogram (Keho et al: The AVO hodogram: Using polarization to identify

anomalies, TLE, November, 2001 and Mahob and Castagna: AVO

hodograms and polarization attributes, TLE, January, 2002).

This is available in the display options, after the A and B attributes have

been extracted.

Although we will not discuss the theory here, the full theory is given in

Appendix 8.

Three Term AVO

only the first two terms of the Aki-Richards equation are usually extracted

from the CDP gathers. Recall that the full Aki-Richards equation, as shown

below, has three terms:

1 VP r

where: A RP 0

2 VP r

VP VS r

B 4 2

2Vp VS r

2

VP VS

C , and .

2Vp VP

February, 2012 276

An alternate form of the Aki-Richards equation was formulated by Fatti et

al. (Geophysics, September, 1994) which can be written:

RP (q ) c1 RP (0o ) c2 RS (0o ) c3 RD ,

where : c1 1 tan 2 q , c2 8(VS / VP ) 2 sin 2 q ,

c3 4(VS / VP ) 2 sin 2 q tan 2 q ,

1 VP r 1 VS r

RP (0 )

o

, RS (0 )

o

,

2 VP r 2 VS r

r

and RD .

r

Either the A, B, C or the RP, RS, RD terms can be extracted from the seismic

gathers using a least-squares fitting technique with different weighting

coefficients.

February, 2012 277

Density Term

variations.

Using the original A,B,C form, we see that:

1 V r VP r

AC P

2 VP r 2V p 2r

This means that if we can estimate all three coefficients, we can generate a

density attribute volume.

saturation. This could solve the “fizz water” problem.

However, the third coefficient can be very noisy since it depends on the far

angle data (>45 degrees), and is very sensitive to noise.

Gulf of Mexico Example

Top

Base

These are angle gathers from the Gulf of Mexico, showing a strong Class II

AVO anomaly. Angles range from 0 to 60 degrees. The target layer is

annotated at right.

February, 2012 279

3 Term Gradient Analysis

These displays show the results of fitting the Aki-Richards equation, using 2

and 3 terms, to the event highlighted on the previous slide.

Note that the equation for 2 terms begins to deviate from the seismic picks

after about 45 degrees.

2 Term 3 Term

Base

Top

Conclusions

Richards equation and showed several examples of this approach.

Exercise 6:

The Colony Gas Sand

Cross Plotting AVO Attributes

Exercise 6

AVO example is to create a cross plot of the

derived attributes. The purpose of the cross

plot is to further investigate the type of AVO

anomaly and to delineate cross plot zones

which can be mapped to the volume.

Double-click Cross Plotting > Cross plot

seismic:

need to be filled in.

We are specifying the Cross Plot Type as AVO attributes and the input

volume is the avo volume just created in the previous step:

We will analyze a range of CDP’s from

300 to 360:

the picked horizon, with a window size

of 100 ms:

The cross plot which appears shows the

expected background trend through the

origin, with anomalous events in

quadrants 1 and 3, consistent with class

3 AVO anomalies.

attention on only the peaks and

troughs. To do that, right-click on the

plot area and select Set Data Sample

Filter:

Change the Filter Type to Peaks and

Troughs as shown, and click OK:

simpler character, with anomalies

clearly separated from the background

trend:

Now we will highlight the two anomalous zones and project those zones onto

the seismic section.

Polygon icon:

the shape roughly as shown below,

using a series of left-mouse clicks at

each of the corners of the polygon and

double-click on the last corner to finish

the polygon. When you are done, the

screen should look similar to this:

by grabbing the “handles” and dragging

them.

Note also that the data area inscribed

by the polygon has been highlighted on

the seismic section which is now visible

in the Seismic tab. If the red zones

appear too small, expand your zone by

dragging the handles.

sand reservoir (you may want to remove

the horizon to see it better). We can

name this zone by going back to the

cross plot window and typing in a new

name:

the sand. Click once on the polygon

icon. Then draw a polygon around the

anomalous points in quadrant 1:

Call this zone Base of sand:

both the top and base of the sand

reservoir delineated:

Geoview window. We can dock it into its tab by

clicking the Cross Plots button at the lower right.

This places the

cross plot within

the Cross Plots

tab:

If we wish to release the display from the tab, click the “airplane” at

the lower right.

There is a very convenient way to

access any of the displays created so

far. Click on the Scenes tab.

we are looking at. For example, click on the

Seismic side tab to see all seismic displays

created in the project.

is currently visible in the tab. To turn one on,

click this box.

We have reached the end of the Workshop

for AVO Day 1. To close down the Geoview

program, click File -> Exit.

there is no need to save the project, as it

is constantly being saved.

(End of Exercise 6)

Appendices

Appendix 2: Averaging Multiple Minerals

Appendix 3: The Zoeppritz Equations

Appendix 4: The Linearized Approximation

Appendix 5: HTI anisotropy

Appendix 6: Shuey‟s Equation

Appendix 7: Extracting Attributes

Appendix 8: Polarization and the AVO Hodogram

Appendix 9: AVO Case Study: Onshore Texas Example

Appendix 10: AVO Fluid Inversion: Analyzing uncertainty in AVO

Appendix 1: Calculation of VS using

Castagna’s Assumption

saturation:

Mwet

ρwet = ρbr φ + ρm ( 1 - φ) Vpwet

r wet

2) Calculate input P wave modulus: 6) Calculate Vs_wet from Vp_wet

M = Vp2 ρ Vswet =Ac Vpwet + Bc

3) Calculate matrix P wave

modulus:

4 7) Calculate Vs_input from Vs_wet

Mm Km m

3

r wet

Vs Vswet *

4) Adjust P wave modulus to 100% r

water:

M Kfl Kbr

d

Mm M *( Mm Kfl ) *( Mm Kbr )

Mm

Mwet d *

February, 2012 1 d 294

Appendix 1: Calculation of VS using

Castagna Assumption

8) Calculate K and m from input data: 10) Calculate Ksat with new fluid:

Vs * r ; 2

a

Kdry out

out

Kfl out

Km Kdry out

*( Km Kfl out )

4

K r *Vp *

2

a

3 K Km *

out

1 a

9) Obtain K_dry:

11) Get new density:

K Kfl r out r fl out * out r m *(1 out )

a

Km K * ( Km Kfl )

a 12) Finally – the new velocities!

Kdry Km *

1 a 4 out

K out out

Vp out 3 ; Vs out

r out

r out

Appendix 2

which we can average multiple minerals. Note that

these averages also apply to multiple fluids, etc. The

techniques we will discuss are:

1. Voigt averaging

2. Reuss averaging

3. The Voigt-Reuss-Hill average.

4. The Hashin-Shtrikman Bounds

Appendix 2: Voigt, Ruess and Hill

(where f1 + f2 = 1), M1 be the modulus of mineral 1 (bulk or shear) and

M2 be the modulus of mineral 2, then the Voigt average is the

arithmetic average given by:

M V f1 M 1 f 2 M 2

The Reuss average is the harmonic average given by:

1 f1 f2 M 1M 2

MR

M R M1 M 2 f1 M 2 f 2 M 1

Finally, the Hill average is the average of the Voigt and Reuss

averages:

M H (M V M R ) / 2

These averages can be easily extended to N components.

February, 2012 297

Appendix 2: Hashin-Shtrikman Bounds

The Voigt and Reuss bounds give extreme values. Another approach is to

use Hashin-Shtrikman bounds, which are different for the bulk and shear

modulus components. If mineral 1 is stiffer than mineral 2, then the upper

bound is given by (Mavko et al.):

f2

K HS K1

( K 2 K1 ) 1 f1 ( K1 ( 4 / 3) 1 ) 1

f2

HS 1

2 f1 ( K1 2 1 )

( 2 1 )

1

51 ( K1 ( 4 / 3) 1 )

The lower bounds are given by reversing the order of the two minerals in the

equations given above. An example is shown on the next page.

Appendix 2: Comparing the Bounds

The figures above show the effect of Voigt, Reuss and Hashin-Shtrikman

upper and lower bounds for materials with K1 = 60 GPa, K2 = 40 GPa, 1 = 45

GPa, and 2 = 15 GPa. Note that the H-S bounds are between the Voigt and

Reuss bounds. In the software, we use the average of the H-S bounds.

February, 2012 299

Appendix 3: The Zoeppritz Equations

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 q1 cos 1 sin q 2 cos 2

RP (q1 ) cos q sin 1 cos q 2 sin 2 sin q1

R (q ) 1 cos q

S 1 sin 2q VP1 r 2VS 2VP1

2

r 2VS 2VP1 1

cos 21 cos 2 cos 2

TP (q1 ) 1

VS1 r1VS12VP 2

1

r1VS12

2

sin 2q1

r 2VP 2 r 2VS 2

TS (q1 ) cos 21

VS1

sin 21 cos 22 sin 22 cos 2 1

VP1 r1VP1 r1VP1

Appendix 3: The Zoeppritz Equations

at 0 degrees

incidence the equations reduce to the following simple form:

1

0 1 0 1

RP (0o ) RP 0 0

1 0 1 0

o r 2VS 2VP1 1

S ) RS 0 0 VP1

R ( 0

0

TP (0o ) TP 0 VS 1 r1VS 1

2

0

o r 2VP 2

TS (0 ) TS 0 1 0 0 1

r1VP1

By performing the above matrix inversion, we will see some interesting

features about the zero angle case.

Appendix 3: The Zoeppritz Equations

at 0 degrees

The matrix inversion can be done by hand when there are so many zeros

(but great care must be taken with the signs!), and we get:

r 2VP 2 r1VP1

0 0

r 2VP 2 r1VP1 r 2VP 2 r1VP1

RP 0 r 2VS 2 r1VS12 0

R 0 0 1

r V

2 S 2 1 S1

S 0 r V V r V r V

P1 2 S 2 1 S1

TP 0 r1VP1 r1VP1 0

0 0

r VP 2 r1VP1 r VP 2 r1VP1 1

S0

T 2 2

r1VS1 r1VS1

2

0 0

r r

2 S 2 1 S1

V V V r V

P1 2 S 2 r V

1 S1

The zero angle reflection and transmission coefficients are therefore:

RS 0 TS 0 0, RP 0 , TP 0 1 RP 0

r 2VP 2 r1VP1 r 2VP 2 r1VP1

February, 2012 302

Appendix 4: The Linearized

Approximation

r 2VP 2 r1VP1 Z P 2 Z P1 Z P Z P1 Z P 2

RP 0= , where Z P .

r 2VP 2 r1VP1 Z P 2 Z P1 2 Z P 2

d ln(Z (t )) 1 dZ (t ) dZ (t )

d ln(Z (t ))

dt Z (t ) dt Z (t )

Replacing the derivative d with the difference operator gives:

ln Z P ln VP ln r 1 VP r

r

RP 0

2 2 2 VP

Notice that the above equation is the linearized A or RP0 term in the Aki-

Richards equation and its various reformulations.

February, 2012 303

Appendix 5: HTI anisotropy

In this appendix, we will discuss AVO and HTI anisotropy, and AVAZ

(Amplitude versus Azimuth). Let us first define our geometry. As shown

below, the symmetry-axis plane is at right angles to the fractures and the

isotropy plane is parallel to the fractures.

February, 2012

From Ruger (1998) 304

Appendix 5: Azimuth angle

which is defined with respect to the symmetry-axis plane:

Note that the azimuth angle is equal to 0 degrees along the symmetry-

axis plane and 90 degrees along the isotropy plane.

February, 2012 305

Appendix 5: AVO and HTI

linearized modeling equation for AVO in HTI media:

Ran (q , ) Aiso ( Biso Bani cos 2 ) sin 2 q (Ciso Cani cos 2 ) sin 2 q tan 2 q ,

where Aiso , Biso , and Ciso are the isotropic AVO terms,

VS

2

1

2

(V ) 1

Bani 8 and Cani (V ) sin 2 (V ) cos 2

VP 2

are the AVO HTI anisotropy terms, with :

(V ) Thomsen' s parameter defined with respect to vertical,

(V ) Thomsen' s parameter defined with respect to vertical,

q incidence angle, and azimuth angle.

February, 2012 306

Appendix 5: Ruger’s B term

(2002), he rewrites the gradient term B in the AVO

equation in terms of VP and , as shown below:

Standard form of B :

1 VP

2

VS VS

2

VS r 1 VP VS 2 VS r

2

B 4 2 4

2 Vp VP VS VP r 2 Vp

VP VS r

Ruger' s form of B :

2

1

1 VP VS 2 VS r 1 VP

2

VS 2

B 4

4 2 ln ln r

2 Vp VP VS r 2 V p VP r

1 VP VS

2

1 VP VS

2

4 ln 4

2 Vp P

V 2 p

V P

V

Appendix 5: AVO and HTI

To show the effects of HTI, Ruger (2002) created the following four models:

A 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 0 0.1

2 VS r

Note :

VS r

The results of these four models will be shown on the next two slides.

February, 2012 308

Appendix 5: Models A and B

Model A (change in ) as a B (change in ) as a function of

function of incidence angle for 0, incidence angle for 0, 30, 60 and 90

30, 60 and 90 degrees azimuth. degrees azimuth.

February, 2012 309

Appendix 5: Models C and D

Model C (change in ) as a function D (change in and ) as a

of incidence angle for 0, 30, 60 and function of incidence angle for 0,

90 degrees azimuth. 30, 60 and 90 degrees azimuth.

February, 2012 310

Appendix 5: AVAZ

versus offset and azimuth (AVAZ) effects.

To observe AVAZ effects, AVO analysis is done on seismic data that

has been binned into different sets of azimuths.

The first step is then to extract an estimate of Bani using the inverse of

the two-term modeling equation.

As shown on the next slide, Bani will give us an estimate of fracture

density.

Next, we can estimate the fracture orientation, as discussed in the

slides following the next slide.

As shown on the final five slides, AVAZ analysis can thus be quantified

to give us an interpretation over a fractured reservoir, both in map and

cross-section view.

Appendix 5: Fracture density

0.1

gas

0.09

As shown in this hudson wet

Gassmann wet

figure, using 0.08

several different 0.07

rock physics

0.06

modeling schemes,

Bani

the value of Bani is a 0.05

good indicator of 0.04

the crack, or

0.03

fracture, density in

a fractured 0.02

reservoir. 0.01

0

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1

crack density

Appendix 5: Fracture orientation

In our modeling slides, we

assumed that the direction of

the fractures was known.

However, this is often

unknown, and needs to be

determined. Let us first define

sym to be the azimuth angle sym

along the symmetry-axis plane,

and iso to be the azimuth angle

along the isotropy plane, as

shown on the right:

We can then write the near offset HTI AVO equation as either:

Ran (q , ) Aiso [ Biso Bani cos 2 ( sym )] sin 2 q

or, since sym is orthogonal to iso, as:

February, 2012 313

Appendix 5: Fracture orientation

Regardless of which convention we choose, we can then plot the reflectivity

as a function of azimuth, as shown below, and determine the symmetry-plane

and isotropy-plane angles from the minimum and maximum values of the

curve. AVAZ Effect

Assuming Bani is positive, we find 2000.00

Relative Amplitude

Note that iso gives us the

de 1500.00

fracture orientation.

Amplitu 1000.00

500.00

However, Bani can also be

negative. Later is the appendix 0.00

350

330

we see how this leads to a 90

310

290

270

250

230

degree ambiguity in the

210

5

190

170

20

150

symmetry axis.

130

Azimuth

110

Angle 35

o

90

130

70

50

30

40o

10

Appendix 5: Variations in AVAZ

Amplitude

This figure shows

offset gathers at two

different azimuths

over a fractured

reservoir. As seen

in the next two

slides, 1 = iso and

2 = sym.

change in the AVO

responses.

1 2

February, 2012

Courtesy: Dave Gray, CGGVeritas

315

Appendix 5: AVO parallel to fractures

source

q receiver

iso

fractured medium

azimuth= 1 =iso

February, 2012

Courtesy: Dave Gray, CGGVeritas

316

Appendix 5: AVO across fractures

receiver

source

medium

February, 2012 317

Appendix 5: Fracture Interpretation

AVO Fracture Analysis Orientation

measures fracture volume of Fault

from differences in AVO

response with Azimuth.

Fracture strike is

determined where this

difference is a maximum.

Oil Well

Edge

Direction of Line is Effects

estimated fault strike,

length of line and color Fractures curling

is estimated crack into the fault

Fractures abutting

density Interpreted Faults the fault

February, 2012

Courtesy: Dave Gray, CGGVeritas318

Appendix 5: Outcrop compared to AVAZ

Base of

Dunes Fracture Strike

Fractures

NW-SE E-W

February, 2012 319

Linearized near offset Ruger equation

reparameterizing the problem

Ran (q , ) Aiso [ Biso Bani sin 2 ( iso )] sin 2 q

1

B Biso Bani

2

2

Bani C 2 D2

tan 2iso D / C

Ran (q , ) A [ B C cos 2 D sin 2 ] sin 2 q

which may be solved by least squares

m G G GT d

T

1

Appendix 5: Fracture orientation

The near offset Ruger equation

Ran (q , ) Aiso [ Biso Bani sin 2 ( iso )] sin 2 q

is nonlinear and multi-modal. Two sets of parameters fit the data equally

well. The nonlinear inversion solves for the magnitude Bani and azimuth iso.

perspective the expectation is that Bani should generally be positive so the

typical convention is to chose Bani to be positive.

the wave is moving from an isotropic to an anisotropic layer or vice versa.

estimate compared to a positive Bani

Appendix 5: Fracture orientation

For a particular angle of incidence the

Azimuthal Reflectivity is Azimuthal reflectivity for a

• circular for an isotropic media

constant angle of incidence

• elliptical for an HTI media

0.04

•the anisotropic gradient specifies the perturbation from the

isotropic (circular) solution

0.03

+Bani

parameterizations which describe

0.02 -Bani

the elliptical reflectivity 0.01 iso

iso

• Solution 1 (positive Bani): 0

-0.01

•Bani is positive forming Blue ellipse

•Isotropy-plane azimuth is defined by red line segment -0.02

•isotropic media is characterized by the black circle

•Bani is negative forming Blue ellipse -0.04

-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

•Isotropy-plane azimuth is defined by black line segment

Appendix 5: Fracture orientation

180° 180°

0° 0°

performing a nonlinear inversion on multiple azimuthal Fourier coefficients

• The Fracture strike is consistent with maximum horizontal stress (135 degrees) in

the area

February, 2012 323

Appendix 6: Shuey’s Equation

Shuey (1985) rewrote the ABC equation using VP, r, and s. Only the gradient

is different than in the ABC expression:

1 2s s

B A D 2(1 D) ,

1 s (1 s ) 2

VP / VP s s1

where : D ,s 2 , and s s 2 s 1.

VP / VP r / r 2

The above equation is quite complicated but can be greatly simplified by

assuming that s = 1/3 (the same as Vp/Vs=2). This gives:

1 9s

B A D 2(1 D ) 2.25 Δσ A

2 4

This leads to a very intuitive version of the two-term AVO equation:

RP (q ) A ( 2.25 Δσ A) sin 2 q

Appendix 6: Shuey’s Equation

Aki-Richards vs Shuey

This figure shows a

comparison between the 0.250

two forms of the 0.200

Aki-Richards equation for 0.150

the gas sand considered 0.100

earlier.

Amplitude

0.050

0.000

Note that the values are -0.050

close but, unlike the -0.100

previous three forms of the -0.150

equation, Shuey’s version -0.200

does not give exactly the -0.250

same values. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Angle (degrees)

A-R Base Shuey Base

February, 2012 325

Appendix 6: Hilterman’s Approximation

A (1 sin 2 q ) 2.25s sin 2 q

A cos 2 q 2.25s sin 2 q

Notice that this equation is very intuitive, since it shows that, as the

angle increases, so does the dependence on s. Keep in mind that this

equation is strictly correct only for s = 1/3 and that the C term has been

dropped. Note also that another way of writing this equation is as

follows, which shows the dependence on A and B:

February, 2012 326

Appendix 7: Extracting Attributes

In the course we have often discussed the need to extract attributes from

the pre-stack seismic gathers. To see how this is done, note that all the

linearized equations we have looked at so far can be written as:

RP (q ) f1 p1 f 2 p2 f 3 p3 ,

where f1 , f 2 , and f 3 are functions of q and sometimes VS2 / VP2 ,

and p1, p2 , and p3 are functions of VP ,VS , and r .

2 2

VP r VP V VS V r VP

p1 A , p2 B 4 S 2 S , p3 C .

2V p 2 r 2V p VP VS VP r 2V p

Appendix 7: Extracting Attributes

RP (q 2 ) f1 (q 2 ) p1 f 2 (q 2 ) p2 f 3 (q 2 ) p3

RP (q N ) f1 (q N ) p1 f 2 (q N ) p2 f 3 (q N ) p3

This can be written in matrix form as:

R (q ) f (q ) p1

f 2 (q 2 ) f 3 (q 2 )

P 2 1 2 p2

p2

P N f1 (q N )

R ( q ) f 2 (q 2 ) f 3 (q N )

February, 2012 328

Appendix 7: Extracting Attributes

R MP,

where R is a known vector of N picked reflection coefficients at a constant

time, M is an N x 3 vector of computed values, and P is the unknown vector

containing the parameters to be estimated.

p1 1 0 0

P p2 ( M T M I ) 1 M T R, where I 0 1 0,

p3 0 0 1

and is a pre - whitening factor.

February, 2012 329

Appendix 7: Extracting ABC

Attributes

Let us take the specific case of extracting ABC attributes, for which the

forward problem is:

R (q ) A

P 2 1 sin 2

q2 tan q 2 sin q 2

2 2

B

C

RP (q N ) 1 sin 2

qN tan q N sin q N

2 2

2

, we can write :

RP (q1 ) 1 X V / tVRMS

2 2

X V / tV 2

2

/

X V / tV 2

2

1

R (q )

A

1 INT 1 INT RMS 1 INT RMS

P 2 1 X V

2 INT / tV 2

RMS 2

X V

2 INT / tVRMS / X 2VINT / tVRMS 1

2 2 2 2

B

RP (q N ) 1 X NVINT / tVRMS

2 2 2 2

X NVINT / tVRMS / X NVINT / tVRMS 1

2 2

C

Appendix 7: Extracting ABC

Attributes

Simplifying the notation we get the following solution:

1

1 b1 c1 RP1

A 1 1 1 1 1 1

B b b b 1 b2 c2 b b

bN

R

P 2

1 2 N

1 2

C c c cN c1 c2 cN

1 2

1 bN cN PN

R

1

N N

N

N

b

i 1

i

i 1

ci

i 1

RPi

N N N

N

bi RPi , bi X iVINT / tVRMS , ci 1

2 bi

bi bi2 bi ci 2

i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 bi 1

N N N N

b c

i 1

ci

i 1

i i

i 1

ci

2

i 1

ci RPi

Appendix 7: Extracting RP0, RS0 and

RD Attributes

Next, let us take the case of extracting RP0, RS0 and RD attributes, for which

the forward problem is:

R (q ) d (q ) e(q ) RP 0

f (q 2 )

P 2 2 2 RS 0 , where :

RD

P N d (q N ) e(q N )

R ( q ) f (q N )

2 2

V V 1

d (qi ) 1 tan 2 qi , e(qi ) 8 S2 sin 2 qi , f (qi ) 2 S2 sin 2 qi tan 2 qi ,

VP VP 2

1 VP r 1 VS r r X iVINT

RP 0 , R , R , and sin q .

2 VP r S0

2 VS r D

r i 2

tVRMS

Appendix 7: Extracting RP0, RS0 and

RD Attributes

1

d1 e1 f1 RP1

RP 0 d1 d 2 d N d1 d 2 d N

R e e e d 2 f2 e e

eN

e2 R

P 2

S 0 1 2 N

1 2

RD f f 2 cN f1 f 2 f N

1

d N eN f N PN

R

1

N N N

N

d d e

i 1

i

2

i 1

i i

i 1

di fi

i 1

d i RPi

N N N

N

i 1

d i ei

i 1

ei2

i 1

ei f i

i 1

ei RPi

N N N N

d f e f

i 1

i i

i 1

i i

i 1

fi

2

i 1

f i RPi

Appendix 8: Polarization and the

AVO Hodogram

derived cross-plots is wavelet interference.

(Keho et al: The AVO hodogram: Using polarization to identify anomalies,

TLE, November, 2001 and Mahob and Castagna: AVO hodograms and

polarization attributes, TLE, January, 2002).

will see this in a later section.

Appendix 8: Polarization and the

AVO Hodogram

Up to now, we have

calculated cross plots of A

and B, using fairly large

analysis windows.

points, containing both the

background trend and the AVO

anomalies:

February, 2012 335

Appendix 8: Polarization and the

AVO Hodogram

cross plots over small sliding windows

on a single trace.

Appendix 8: Polarization and the

AVO Hodogram

can calculate the

polarization vector.

direction of the

dominant energy for

this cluster.

vector measures the

average energy in the

cluster.

Appendix 8: Polarization and the

AVO Hodogram

Theoretically, we can expect wet trend

-45o

points to fall around the -45o trend,

while class 3 AVO anomalies fall

around +45o.

+45o

Appendix 8: Polarization and the

AVO Hodogram

time

One way to display this result is to plot the calculated polarization vector on

a 3-D display with time as the third axis. This is called a Hodogram.

Appendix 8: Polarization and the

AVO Hodogram

calculated polarization angle for a single

trace as a function of time.

the sliding window.

Polarization Angle around 630 ms

indicating the Class 3 anomaly.

Appendix 8: Polarization and the

AVO Hodogram

In addition to the Polarization Angle itself, a very useful attribute is the

Polarization Product, which is Polarization Angle multiplied by the length of

the Polarization Vector. This is expected to highlight bright spots which

have high hydrocarbon potential:

Appendix 9:

AVO Case Study

Onshore Texas Example

AVO Case Study, Onshore Texas

Example

This case study comes from a paper by Mark Gregg and Charles Bukowski

(Leading Edge, November, 2000).

mature basin.

The exploration objective was

the clastic Oligocene Vicksburg

formation in South Texas.

trillion ft3 of gas since the

1920’s, but not much AVO work

has been reported.

AVO application comes because

“the Vicksburg trend is not a

typical amplitude-supported

play”.

The motivation for using AVO

came from results like those

shown on the left.

stack data, it is difficult to

distinguish Gas from Wet sand

before drilling.

authors had drilled one

commercial gas well, one non-

commercial gas well, and three

dry holes.

These curves from the gas

discovery well show both a

Gas and a Wet zone.

impedance is small but the

change in Poisson’s ratio is

large.

AVO anomaly.

Synthetic modeling

confirmed the expected

class 2 response.

The data was

reprocessed to include

nonhyperbolic

moveout. This turned

out to be critical, as the

figure shows.

A very useful indicator is the

Near and Far Angle Stack.

its brightest response on the

Far Angle stack, as expected

for the class 2 behavior.

Angle Stack as the main tool

for searching for new

anomalies.

The authors studied the existing wells and came to these conclusions:

(1) There were about 100 gas wells in the area with cumulative production

> 1 billion ft3.

(2) About ½ of these were associated with class 2 AVO anomalies.

(3) About 65% of the ~70 drilled anomalies were commercial gas

accumulations.

(4) Thicker, better-developed reservoirs produced the most distinctive

anomalies.

(5) Threshold gross reservoir thickness required to produce an anomaly

was about 30-60ft.

(6) Most productive anomalies were at depths of 5,000-10,000 ft.

This is the first drilled

anomaly.

with 72 ft of net pay,

producing initially 3

million ft3 of gas per

day.

not visible on the

conventional stack,

this would not have

been drilled without

the AVO analysis.

A second anomaly was

identified by interpreting the

far-angle stack using

Landmark’s Earthcube

software.

before AVO, because of the

poor quality of the

conventional stack. This was

presumed to be because of

the small acoustic impedance

contrast.

multiple anomalies at the

prospective level.

The drilled well

encountered 2 pay

zones.

thickness of 54 ft,

with 28 ft net pay.

thickness of 214 ft

with 69 ft net pay.

Initial production

rate was 5.3 million

ft3 with estimated

ultimate recovery of

14 billion ft3.

Two more

successful wells

are shown here.

This is an unsuccessful result. The drilling encountered 105 ft of clean,

low-gas-saturated sand at the anomaly.

Results:

(2) Two dry holes, caused by low gas saturation.

(3) This is a 75% success rate, dramatically improved from the original

20% success rate.

Authors’ conclusions:

(2) Look beyond conventional seismic techniques, e.g. AVO.

(3) Low gas saturation remains a pitfall of the AVO method.

Appendix 10:

uncertainty in AVO

Overview

development.

“uncertainty” – there is a wide range of lithologies which

could account for any AVO response.

quantifying AVO uncertainty.

hydrocarbon detection.

AVO Uncertainty Analysis:

The Basic Process

G STOCHASTIC

AVO

CALIBRATED: MODEL

I

GRADIENT

INTERCEPT FLUID

BURIAL DEPTH PROBABILITY

MAPS

AVO ATTRIBUTE

MAPS PBRI

ISOCHRON

MAPS POIL

PGAS

February, 2012 359

“Conventional” AVO Modeling:

Creating 2 Pre-Stack Synthetics

IN SITU = OIL

IO GO

FRM = BRINE

IB GB

Monte Carlo Simulation:

Creating Many Synthetics

BRINE OIL GAS

75

50

25

The Basic Model

We assume a 3-layer

Shale model with shale

enclosing a sand (with

various fluids).

Sand

Shale

The Shales are

Vp1, Vs1, ρ1 characterized by:

P-wave velocity

S-wave velocity

Density

Vp2, Vs2, ρ2

Each parameter has a

Vp1, Vs1, ρ1 probability distribution:

Vp2, Vs2, ρ2

The Sand is characterized by:

Brine Modulus

Brine Density

Shale Gas Modulus

Gas Density

Oil Modulus

Sand Oil Density

Matrix Modulus

Matrix density

Shale Porosity

Shale Volume

Water Saturation

Thickness

February, 2012 365

Trend Analysis

from well log trend analyses:

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

0.4 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.4

DBSB (Km)

February, 2012 366

Determining Distributions at

Selected Locations

Assume a Normal distribution. Get the Mean and Standard

Deviation from the trend curves for each depth:

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

0.4 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.4

DBSB (Km)

February, 2012 367

Trend Analysis: Other Distributions

5000

Shale Velocity

4500

3.0

4000 Sand Density

3500 2.8

3000 2.6 3.0 Shale Density

2.8

2500 2.4 40%

2.6 Sand Porosity

2000 2.2

2.4 35%

1500 2.0

2.2 30%

1000 1.8

2.0 25%

500 1.6

1.8

0 1.4 20%

0.41.2

1.6 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.4

15%

1.4 DBSB (Km)

1.0 10%

1.2

0.4 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.4

1.0 5%

DBSB (Km)

0.4 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.4

0% DBSB (Km)

0.4 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.4

February, 2012 DBSB (Km) 368

Practically, this is how we set up the distributions:

Shale:

Vp Trend Analysis

Vs Castagna’s Relationship with % error

Density Trend Analysis

Sand:

Brine Modulus

Brine Density

Gas Modulus

Gas Density

Oil Modulus Constants for the area

Oil Density

Matrix Modulus

Matrix density

Dry Rock Modulus Calculated from sand trend analysis

Porosity Trend Analysis

Shale Volume Uniform Distribution from petrophysics

Water Saturation Uniform Distribution from petrophysics

Thickness Uniform Distribution

February, 2012 369

Calculating a Single Model Response

calculate two synthetic traces at assumed known.

different angles. 0o 45o

Top Shale

Sand

Base Shale

Note that these amplitudes include

On the synthetic traces, pick the

interference from the second interface.

event corresponding to the top of o o

the sand layer: 0 45

Top Shale

P2

P1

Sand

Base Shale

Using these picks, calculate the Intercept and Gradient for this

model:

0o 45o

I = P1

G = (P2-P1)/sin2(45)

Top Shale P2

P1

Sand

Base Shale

Using Biot-Gassmann Substitution

Starting from the Brine Sand case, the corresponding Oil and Gas Sand models are

generated using Biot-Gassmann substitution. This creates 3 points on the I-G cross plot:

BRINE

GAS OIL

KGAS KOIL

rGAS rOIL

G G G

I I I

Monte-Carlo Analysis

By repeating this process many times, we get a probability distribution for

each of the 3 sand fluids:

Brine

I Oil

Gas

The distributions are depth-dependent

The Depth-dependence can often be understood using

Rutherford-Williams classification

2 4 6

5

3

1

Sand

Impedance

4

3

Shale

2

5 6

1

Class 1

Class 2

February, 2012

Class 3 376

Bayes’ Theorem

Bayes’ Theorem is used to calculate the probability that any new (I,G) point

belongs to each of the classes (brine, oil, gas):

~

P F I,G

~

~

p I , G F * P( F )

k

p I , G Fk * PFk

where:

P(Fk) represent a priori probabilities and Fk is either brine, oil, gas;

p(I,G|Fk) are suitable distribution densities (eg. Gaussian) estimated

from the stochastic simulation output.

Example Probability Calculations

Real Data Calibration

In order to apply Bayes’ Theorem to (I,G) points from a real seismic data set,

we need to “calibrate” the real data points.

This means that we need to determine a scaling from the real data amplitudes

to the model amplitudes.

Gscaled = Sglobal * Sgradient * Greal

known regions to the model data.

Fitting 6 Known Zones to the Model

4 5 4 5

6 6

3 1 3

1

2 2

1 2 3

4 5 6

Real Data Example – West Africa

performed by one of the authors (Cardamone).

shallow formation.

trends from the productive wells, calibrate to the known

data points, and evaluate potential drilling locations on a

second deeper formation.

February, 2012 381

One Line from the 3D Volume

0-20 degrees

20-40 degrees

Near Angle Stack

0-20 degrees

Deeper target zone

20-40 degrees

AVO Anomaly

0-20 degrees

20-40 degrees

Amplitude Slices Extracted from

Shallow Producing Zone

0-20 degrees

+189

-3500

20-40 degrees

Trend Analysis : Sand and Shale

Trends

5000

3.00

4500

2.75

4000

Sand velocity Sand density

DENSITY

VELOCITY

2.50

3500

3000

2.25

2500

2.00

2000

1.75

1500

1000 1.50

500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900

4000

3.00

VELOCITY

DENSITY

3000

2.50

2500

2.25

2000

2.00

1500 1.75

1000 1.50

500 700 900 1100 1300 1500

BURIAL DEPTH (m)

1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 500 700

BURIAL DEPTH (m)

900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900

Monte Carlo Simulations at 6 Burial

Depths

Near Angle Amplitude Map Showing

Defined Zones

Wet Zone 1

Well 6

Well 3 Well 5

Well 7 Well 1

Well 2

Well 4

Wet Zone 2

Calibration Results at Defined

Locations

Well 3 Well 6

Well 4 Well 1

Using Bayes’ Theorem at Producing

Zone: OIL

1.0

.80

Probability of Oil

.60

.30

February, 2012 391

Using Bayes’ Theorem at Producing

Zone: GAS

1.0

.80

Probability of Gas

.60

.30

February, 2012 392

Using Bayes’ Theorem at Target

Horizon

1.0

.60

.30

February, 2012 393

Verifying Selected Locations at

Target Horizon

Summary

can calculate the range of expected AVO responses.

potential pore fluids.

and model data.

underlying probability distributions.

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.