The Role of AVO in Propect Risk Assestment PDF

t
Special section: Interpreting AVO
The role of AVO in prospect risk assessment

Downloaded 09/28/15 to 124.195.4.82. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Rocky Roden1, Mike Forrest1, Roger Holeywell2, Matthew Carr3, and P. A. Alexander4
Abstract
Essentially all companies exploring for oil and gas should perform a risk analysis to understand the uncertainties in their interpretations and to properly value order prospects in a companys drilling portfolio. For conventional exploration in clastic environments, primarily sands encased in shales, a key component of the risk
analysis process is evaluating direct hydrocarbon indicators, which can have a significant impact on the final
risk value. We investigate the role AVO plays in the risk assessment process as a portion of a comprehensive and
systematic DHI evaluation. Documentation of the geologic context and quantification of data quality and
DHI characteristics, including AVO characteristics, is necessary to properly assess a prospects risk. A DHI
consortium database of over 230 drilled prospects provides statistics to determine the importance of data quality elements, primarily in class 2 and 3 geologic settings. The most important AVO interpretation characteristics
are also identified based on statistical results and correlated with well success rates. A significant conclusion is
the relevance of AVO in risk analysis when it is the dominant component in the DHI portion of the risk. Critical in
the risk assessment process is understanding the role AVO and DHI analysis play when prospects approach
class 1 geologic settings. The impact that hydrocarbons have on the seismic response is significantly diminished
in this setting versus the other AVO classes. All of these observations confirm the necessity of properly evaluating a prospects geologic setting and implementing a consistent and systematic risk analysis process including
appropriate DHI and AVO components.
been several approaches developed to simplify these

equations (Bortfeld, 1961; Richards and Frasier, 1976;
Aki and Richards, 1980; Shuey, 1985; Smith and Gidlow,
1987; Fatti et al., 1994; Verm and Hilterman, 1995; Gray
et al., 1999) each with a different emphasis.
The most commonly used linear approximation used
in the industry is from Shuey, 1985, who took the complicated Zoeppritz equations and produced approximations that could be measured and calculated from
conventional prestack data. There are two forms of
the Shuey approximation typically employed in exploration AVO analysis.
Introduction
The evaluation of amplitude variation with offset
(AVO) data, or better stated an amplitude variation with
angle, has provided interpreters a powerful technical
tool in prospecting for oil and gas. The hydrocarbon effect on the AVO response was first recognized in the
1970s and put into practice in the 1980s (Ostrander,
1984). However, it was not until Rutherford and Williams (1989) showed the industry that AVO responses
from the top of gas sands differ by geologic setting
(classes 1-3) that AVO for interpreters became more
understandable and rock physics modeling more routine. With the addition of a class 4 AVO setting by
Castagna et al. (1998), essentially all geologic settings
were accounted for in clastic environments. The understanding and interpretation of the geologic setting as it
relates to the AVO response is critical in the risk assessment process.
The background theory for AVO is accredited to
Knott (1899) and Zoeppritz (1919) who developed equations describing elastic waves as a function of reflection
angle at an interface. Through the years, there have
Shuey two-term
R A B sin2 .
Shuey three-term
R A B sin2 Ctan2 sin2 .
(1)
(2)
In these equations, is the angle of incidence, A is

the intercept and represents the reflection coefficient
at normal incidence, B is the gradient and denotes
the slope of the reflection coefficients with offset or
Consultant Rose & Associates. E-mail: rodenr@wt.net; forrestm33@sbcglobal.net.

Marathon Oil Company. E-mail: rcholeywell@gmail.com.
3
QI Petrophysics. E-mail: mcarr@qipetrophysics.com.
4
Consultant Michael C. Forrest. E-mail: alexander.pa@att.net
Manuscript received by the Editor 31 July 2013; revised manuscript received 20 September 2013; published online 20 March 2014. This paper
appears in Interpretation, Vol. 2, No. 2 (May 2014); p. SC61SC76, 20 FIGS., 3 TABLES.
2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/INT-2013-0114.1. 2014 Society of Exploration Geophysicists and American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.
SC61
angle (actually sin2 ), and C is the curvature term and

describes the behavior at large angles/offsets that are
close to the critical angle. The Shuey two-term approximation is typically good for angles less than 30, where
the third term is dropped.
These approximations began the evolution of AVO
interpretation techniques which are important in prospect risk assessment. Table 1 lists a few of the key authors and associated AVO technology advances that are
especially relevant to AVO interpretation. From the late
1990s on, prestack data became more routinely employed in various inversion approaches including simultaneous inversion (Ma, 2002; Hampson et al., 2005),
elastic impedance (Connolly, 1999), and extended elastic impedance (Whitcombe et al., 2002). However,
Table 1. Evolution of AVO interpretation techniques
Condensed list of key contributors.
Author
Description
Ostrander (1984)
Described AVO response in low

impedance sands
P and S wave relationships and
mudrock line
Geostack scheme and fluid factor
AVO classes 1, 2, and 3
Castagna et al. (1985)

Smith and Gidlow (1987)
Rutherford and Williams
(1989)
Greenburg and Castagna
(1992)
Allen and Peddy (1993)
Castagna and Backus
editors (1993)
Castagna and Smith
(1994)
Fatti et al. (1994)
Ross and Kinman (1995)
Verm and Hilterman
(1995)
Foster et al. (1997)
Goodway (1997)
Castagna et al. (1998)
Hendrickson (1999)
Ross (2000)
Simm et al. (2000)
Hilterman (2001)
Avseth et al. (2005)
Hampson et al. (2005)
Li et al. (2007)
Foster et al. (2010)
P and S wave relationships for

mixed lithologies
AVO case studies
Book on theory and practice of
AVO analysis
Comparison of AVO indicators
P wave reflection coefficients in
terms of RP and RS
AVO class 2P
Linear approximation using
normal incidence reflectivity and
Poisson reflectivity
AVO crossplotting and
background trends
Computed lambda-mu-rho from
AVO
Relationship of fluid line slope
and VP/VS ratio, AVO class 4
Effectiveness of interpreting
intercept and gradient for fluids
AVO crossplot modeling tutorial
Anatomy of AVO crossplots
Comprehensive seismic
amplitude course manual
Application of rock physics to
AVO interpretation
Prestack simultaneous inversion
Practical aspects of AVO
modeling
Interpretation of AVO anomalies
SC62 Interpretation / May 2014
the accuracy of these prestack inversion techniques

requires relatively local and quality well control for calibration that represents similar stratigraphy and depositional environment as the prospect. But how do these
AVO interpretation approaches ultimately relate to how
companies risk prospects?
This paper primarily addresses the role of AVO in
prospect risk assessment for exploration prospects
with sand reservoirs encased in shales. It is important
to determine the benefits, limitations, and strengths of
AVO analysis in exploration because this provides the
fundamental guidelines and foundation of AVO technology when used for exploitation and development.
Geologic setting for AVO analysis
The geologic setting interpretation is very important
in understanding how an AVO analysis contributes to
the risking process. Figure 1 displays the typical AVO
responses and designated AVO classes as they relate
to the top of gas sands (Rutherford and Williams,
1989; Ross and Kinman, 1995; Castagna et al., 1998).
These reflection coefficient responses with offset are
associated with specific geologic settings and provide
guidelines in the AVO interpretation process.
Class 3 represents low-impedance unconsolidated
sands and is usually associated with the bright spot
environment. Class 4 is also associated with unconsolidated sands; however, they are overlain by hard silts,
shales, or carbonates that have a higher shear wave
velocity than the gas sand which produces a decrease
in negative amplitude with offset. Class 2 and 2P (latter
has a phase change with offset) relate to a more consolidated sediment setting than class 3 with intercepts
having very small to no amplitudes but often produce
Figure 1. The AVO classes related to specific geologic settings. Curves represent the AVO responses from the top of
gas sands. Shaded regions represent approximate locations
of the specific classes. The area within the dashed curves
identifies the approximate class 4 location. (classes 13 from
Rutherford and Williams, 1989; class 2P from Ross and Kinman (1995); and class 4 from Castagna et al., 1998)
very strong gradients (usually greater than class 3).

Class 1 rocks are very hard in relation to their encasing
shales, and it is very difficult to identify the hydrocarbon effect on the AVO response for this setting in
exploration. Roden et al. (2005b) and Forrest et al.
(2010) summarize AVO classes 1-4 and their associated
geologic setting characteristics in more detail. These
AVO classes are general guidelines and the boundaries
between classes are gradational and subjective at times,
but the accuracy of the geologic setting interpretation
has a direct bearing on the AVO assessment and associated risk.
Crossplotting of AVO attributes helps determine the
potential hydrocarbon AVO responses and how they relate to the appropriate geologic setting. The intercept
versus gradient crossplot of Figure 2 is a common tool
to interpret prospective AVO anomalies and how they
relate to background trends (Castagna and Swan,
1997; Castagna et al., 1998; Ross, 2000). Foster et al.
(2010) have produced an excellent intercept versus gradient crossplot displaying how the crossplot points
move as reservoir properties such as porosity, fluid
compressibility, and increases in clay content change.
The background trend in Figure 2 has additional significance in that the angle of this trend relates to the VP/VS
ratio (given certain density assumptions) and yields
insight into the properties of the encasing shales (Castagna et al., 1998).
Figure 3 displays another useful crossplot employed
in exploration where the near-offset stack (or nearangle stack) and far-offset stack (or far-angle stack)
are plotted. This crossplot is especially useful in exploration because there are no calculations involved, only
the crossplotting of common offsets/angles which is
usually near versus far. The dashed lines through the
background trends in Figures 2 and 3 theoretically
Figure 2. Intercept versus gradient crossplot displaying location of AVO classes. Shaded regions display approximate locations of classes from the top and base of the reservoir. The
dashed red line and ellipse denote general location of the
background trend typically representing wet sands and
shales.
denote the location of shales; however, in practice,

the cloud of points in the background trend ellipse usually represents shales and wet sands. On these crossplots, key interpretation elements relative to prospect
risking include the deviation from background trend
of the anomalous points, their relationship to the
interpreted geologic setting, and the location of these
points on structure maps and vertical seismic displays.
In other words, these anomalous points in crossplot
space must make geologic sense.
Prospect risking
Most oil companies risk prospects in their exploration portfolio by determining a risk value associated
with a series of geologic chance factors (Rose, 2001).
The reasoning behind this approach is that each of
the geologic chance factors are independent variables,
and therefore when the risk for each of the chance factors are multiplied, they produce the geologic chance of
success (Pg) for a prospect. The probability of geologic
success represents the chance of attaining flowable hydrocarbons that do not deplete upon test. In other
words, it signifies the chance that a petroleum system
is working. This Pg does not pertain to potential volumes of hydrocarbons, which is addressed in the economic and commercial portion of the overall risk
analysis process (not addressed in this paper). Table 2
shows a list of typical geologic chance factors and their
associated elements or subfactors. Some companies
modify and recategorize these geologic chance factors
into as few as three or as many as eight categories, but
in every case the same information is evaluated. What is
important in evaluating the primary geologic chance
factors is that each one is equally important and if
one fails there will be no trapped hydrocarbons.
Figure 3. Near- versus far-offset crossplot displaying location of AVO classes. Location of the top and base of a reservoir
are designated with their associated AVO class. The dashed
red line and ellipse denote general location of the background
trend typically representing wet sands and shales.
Interpretation / May 2014 SC63
An important question for seismic interpreters is:

How does the presence of a positive AVO anomaly affect the Pg, and does this anomaly relate to any one or
two geologic chance factors more than the others?
Therefore, it is necessary to understand how AVO fits
in a comprehensive and systematic seismic direct hydrocarbon indicator (DHI) evaluation.
DHI analysis
A DHI is a seismic amplitude anomaly caused by the
presence of hydrocarbons. The DHI interpretation process involves identifying any number of DHI characteristics and determining their relationship to a potential
oil and gas accumulation. A DHI evaluation is part of
a risk analysis work process to assess the probability
of success that can typically range from 5% to 95%.
One approach in an exploration risk analysis process
for DHI prospects is to determine an initial Pg based on
the geologic chance factors independent of the ampliTable 2. Geologic chance factors.
tude anomaly as a fluid indicator or DHI. This establishes an initial geologically based Pg and allows the
DHI component of risk to be assessed separately.
Source Rock
For example, in a pure stratigraphic play where there
Kitchen area and thickness
is no structural closure or well control, the initial Pg will
Richness
usually be very low because most of the risk assessment
Thermal maturity
will be in analyzing the amplitude defined prospect. At
Hydrocarbon type
the other extreme, if there have been several wells
Migration and Timing
drilled near a prospect establishing the reservoir presClosure forms before/during migration
ence and properties, the structure is well defined, and
Migration distance and pathways
hydrocarbons are present, then the initial Pg will be relatively large before the DHI component of risk is deterReservoir Rock
mined. This methodology allows for an overall DHI
Facies and extent
evaluation and does not bias the assessment of any of
Minimal thickness
the geologic chance factors. To have a true DHI present
Reservoir quality
on seismic data, all of the geologic chance factors must
Trap
be working (100% chance) because a petroleum system
Confidence of depth/shape of trap
exists. The exception to this is the presence of lowStructural and stratigraphic traps
saturation gas which can produce seismic DHI characConfidence in mapping
teristics that are difficult to distinguish from commercial quantities of hydrocarbons. The presence of lowContainment
saturation gas sands typically indicates there has been
Sealing capacity/top and bottom
a trapping configuration present at some time in the
Preservation
past, but the seal or containment of the trap has been
breached or broken and hydrocarbons have leaked out,
leaving behind residual gas trapped by
capillary pressures (Holtz, 2002).
It is important to understand that
AVO is one component in the toolkit
of a comprehensive seismic DHI evaluation. A good DHI prospect has multiple
positive DHI characteristics. Therefore,
a systematic and comprehensive DHI
evaluation, including AVO assessment,
is necessary to determine the interpreters confidence or risk that the prospective anomaly being evaluated truly
is a DHI. Not all seismic amplitude
anomalies are DHIs, and not all DHIs
have the same characteristics. An industry-wide DHI consortium has developed
a methodology to evaluate DHI prospects and determine their associated
risks (Figure 4). A description of this
consortiums background and methodology can be found in Forrest et al.
(2010) and Roden et al. (2012). Over
Figure 4. DHI prospect risking methodology workflow chart based on an industry-wide DHI consortium over the past 13 years.
the last 13 years, this consortium has
accumulated a database of over 230 DHI drilled prospects (97% are class 2, 2P, and 3) from around the world
contributed by over 40 oil companies. About half of the
prospects are from the offshore Gulf of Mexico, with
50% from deepwater and 50% from the continental shelf.
The database contains 175 class 3 prospects (53% success rate), 53 class 2/2P prospects (60% success rate),
five class 1 prospects (20% success rate), and two class
4 prospects (0% success rate). The prospects in this database are predominantly exploratory (86%) and range
in age from Triassic to Pleistocene (90% Tertiary). Prospect target depths range from 3000 to 20,000 feet. Much
of the DHI evaluation methodologies and AVO statistical information in this paper come from the DHI consortium and consortium database.
The initial risk assessment process requires putting a
prospect in its proper geologic context where it is necessary to document the prospects location, well class
(e.g., development, wildcat, etc.), type of trap, terrain
(onshore/offshore), depth-to-target, anomaly size and
thickness, etc. The expected reservoir geologic characteristics such as age, lithology, lateral geometry, and
vertical boundaries are also input along with the presence and location of analog fields, discoveries, and
dry holes.
In a comprehensive DHI evaluation, it is necessary to
calculate the data quality, which includes seismic and
rock/fluid property data. Table 3 lists the general com-
ponents of data quality that must be evaluated and

quantified to determine its impact on prospect risking.
From an AVO perspective, there are numerous technical approaches and products to evaluate prestack data
including lambda-mu-rho, fluid factor, prestack inversion techniques, etc., but all of these approaches essentially are derived from the fundamental prestack data
listed in Table 3 and in most cases are derived from intercept and gradient values or equivalents (Ross, 2010).
The DHI consortium has compiled statistics on all of
the information in Table 3 and correlated this information with success rates. Figures 5, 6, and 7 display the
statistics on three of the most important rock and fluid
property data quality characteristics (especially relevant to AVO). The success rates for class 2 and 3
are displayed for a prospects proximity to well control,
a prospects similarity of depth, stratigraphy and depositional environment to well control, and whether any
AVO modeling was performed. Other well log characteristics such as the source and quality of density,
P-wave, and S-wave information are important in quantifying data quality and their statistics show similar
trends as the graphs in Figures 5, 6, and 7.
Figure 5 illustrates proximity to well control is correlated with higher success rates. For prospects with
well control less than a mile from the prospect, the success rates for class 2 and 3 wells are well above the
average total success rate for each class. For well
Table 3. Quantified data quality elements for DHI analysis.
Seismic
Type of data (2D, 3D, single component, multicomponent)
Processing/migration (pre- or poststack migrations, time or depth, etc.)
Overall imaging quality (focusing, defocusing, ray path geometries, etc.)
Acquisition vintage
Processing vintage
Amplitude preservation
Rock and fluid property data

(VP, VS, density)
General setting
Proximity to prospect
Similar depth, stratigraphy and
depositional environment
Source/quality of rock density and
velocity data
Pressure environment of prospect
Modeling (synthetics, offset and
multicomponent modeling)
Processing type (speculative or specifically for prospect)

Data coverage (line spacing, bin size, offsets, etc.)
Phase estimation and accuracy
Vertical resolution (tuning thickness)
Horizontal resolution (relationship to amplitude size)
Prestack data (offset and angle gathers, offset and angle volumes;
AVO, angle [] or sin2 graphs, intercpet versus gradient crossplots, near versus far offset
crossplots, etc.)
Amplitude preservation
Sufficient offsets/angles for target depth
Accuracy of offset angle calculations
Reflectors distinguished from coherent and random noise
Proper NMO corrections
Anomaly and background trends in crossplotting
Figure 5. Success rates for class 2 and 3 wells based on their

proximity to well control. Overall success rate averages for
each entire class are designated by dashed lines.
Figure 6. Class 2 and 3 well success rates based on how similar the depth, stratigraphy, and depositional environment are
to the well control. Overall success rate averages for each entire class are designated by dashed lines.
Figure 7. Success rates for class 2 and 3 wells based on performance of AVO modeling. Overall success rate averages for
each entire class are designated by dashed lines.
control within 15 miles, the success rates are close to

the overall success rates for their associated classes.
For well control greater than five miles, the success rate
shows a significant decrease.
Figure 6 displays success rates related to how similar
the well control is to the prospect in depth, stratigraphy,
and depositional environment. When these properties
are interpreted to be nearly identical from several well
ties and seismic information to the prospect, the success rates are significantly above average for the overall
success rates for each AVO class. For the situations
where there is only one or very few wells and the seismic correlations are less, the results are almost exactly
correlated with the overall success rates and may represent the most common situation of the prospects
in the database. When correlation to depth, stratigraphy, and depositional environment are unknown or evidence suggests they may be different, the success rates
drop below average success rate.
Good well control not only helps in better defining
the geologic setting but provides for more accurate input into AVO modeling. Also shown are the statistics
on success rates when AVO modeling was performed
(Figure 7). When a well-defined model with reliable inputs closely matches the seismic, the success rates for
class 3 prospects is approximately 30% above average,
and for class 2 prospects 40% above the average success. In fact, for class 2 wells there was a 100% success
rate when the model closely matched the real data
which was based on a limited sample of four successful
wells. With reasonable inputs for modeling and a somewhat reliable match with the data, the success rates
closely matched the overall success rates of class 2
and 3. When no modeling was performed or inputs become less reliable, the success rates drop below the
class range averages. If the model does not fit regardless of inputs, class 2 and 3 success rates fall almost 40%
below their associated averages. This demonstrates
that AVO modeling is positively correlated with higher
success rates, especially for class 2 rocks where the
AVO effect can be dramatic.
The interpretation and quantification of risk for DHI
characteristics requires making an assessment of specific DHI characteristics based on observations of the
pertinent data and modeling comparisons. As previously stated, the DHI characteristics assessment must
be related to their interpreted geologic setting. The
DHI consortium has identified 37 DHI characteristics
for class 4 anomalies, 38 characteristics for class 3,
32 characteristics for class 2, and as few as 26 characteristics for class 1 anomalies. These DHI characteristics can be divided into different categories with the
amount in each category and content of each characteristic varying depending on the geologic setting. The DHI
consortium has divided these DHI characteristics into
nine categories including potential pitfalls as delineated
on the flowchart of Figure 4. Quantification of AVO
characteristics is an important and critical component
in the overall DHI risk assessment. All of the DHI
characteristics must be quantified to determine the impact of direct hydrocarbon indicators have on the overall risk of the prospect.
AVO characteristics for risking
The DHI consortium has compiled a list of AVO characteristics that have been determined to be necessary in
risking prospects (Roden et al., 2012). These characteristics have been statistically evaluated and quantified to
understand their impact on prospect risk assessment.
AVO observations using gathers, offset/angle stacks,
or windowed (gated) derived amplitudes. This characteristic relates to an interpreters confidence that the
AVO response is proper for the associated AVO class
(see Figure 8). In other words, for the AVO class in
the interpreted geologic setting, the normal incident
and amplitude change with offset (gradient) are trending appropriately. Noisy gathers, incorrect NMO corrections, multiples, insufficient offset during acquisition,
and processing artifacts often complicate evaluation
of this characteristic.
Consistency of AVO in mapped target area (typically on gathers, far offset stacks, or windowed AVO
attributes). The internal consistency of the AVO response in a prospective reservoir was found to be a
significant DHI characteristic. This relates to the uniformity of the AVO response within the mapped target
area. Figure 9 displays guidelines for the consistency of
AVO responses within a defined DHI anomaly (Roden
et al., 2012). It should be noted that internal consistency
for class 3 wells is determined from the stacked
data. When evaluating this characteristic, consideration
should be given to possible faulting and stratigraphic
changes that may modify internal consistency.
Change in AVO compared to model (wet versus
hydrocarbons). Modeling of the AVO response, usually
applying Gassmanns equation, typically involves substitution modeling of gas, oil, and water responses. A
comparison of the in situ and modeled responses to actual gathers provides confidence that hydrocarbons are
present or not. Distinguishing the AVO response of wet
sands from hydrocarbons is one of the most critical
components of AVO interpretation, and modeling is crucial in understanding these differences.
Excluding possible stacked pays, the AVO effect
response is anomalous compared to events above
Figure 8. Modeled AVO curves and associated wiggle trace gather responses from
AVO classes 1, 2, 2P, 3, and 4. The gather models represent a 50-foot sand with a 25-Hz
Ricker wavelet applied.
Figure 9. Examples of AVO consistency

within a defined anomaly from Grade 1
(worst) to Grade 5 (best). The AVO response
is typically mapped from gathers, far offset/
angle stacks, and/or any windowed AVO
attributes.
and below. On prestack data, usually gathers, this characteristic refers to whether the events above and below
the targeted anomaly look similar (Figure 10). If the
anomaly is relatively unique and the events above
and below dont display similar AVO trends, there is
a better chance of a hydrocarbon bearing reservoir.
The AVO event is anomalous compared to the same
event outside the closure. This characteristic describes
whether the appropriate AVO class response is unique
compared to the correlative event outside the closure.
This characteristic is often interpreted from gathers,
far offset/angle stacks, as well as intercept, gradient, intercept times gradient, farnear, and (farnear) times
far volumes. In Figure 11, even though the seismic gathers are not flat, the differences in AVO responses are
quite clear as one moves from off structure in the
wet leg of the reservoir to the gathers under closure
containing hydrocarbons.
How well-defined is the background trend (crossplots)? When crossplotting intercept versus gradient
or far versus near offsets/angles, the interpretation
and accuracy of defining the background trend is key
to understanding if the targeted event is anomalous
(Figure 12). Interpreting the background trend usually
encompasses wet sands and/or shales, depending on
the data window selected. Optimally, defining a back-
ground trend from a known wet sand response close

to the anomaly level can impact the risk in distinguishing the hydrocarbon AVO signature.
How distinct is the anomaly from the background
trend? Once the background trend has been established, interpreting how well the appropriate points
from the prospect in crossplot space deviate from
the background determine the risk for this characteristic (Figure 12). Identifying where the anomalous points
fall on associated vertical seismic displays and structure maps provide insight into the risking of this characteristic.
Can the differences from the background be explained by hydrocarbon substitution modeling? After
the background trend and the prospective anomaly
have been interpreted in crossplot space, comparing
to modeled responses from the appropriate AVO class
(geologic setting) helps confirm the reliability of the
AVO interpretation. Of course, in a wildcat setting with
little or no well control, the interpretation of this characteristic can be difficult (higher risk).
From the DHI consortium database, the statistics for
each of these AVO characteristics was compiled and
well success rates were compared to the interpretation
grade of the characteristics. In this convention, the AVO
characteristics were objectively graded on a scale of
Figure 10. Gather showing the AVO response at the 1.5 second gas pay is anomalous compared to events above and below. This
excludes possible stacked pays. The uniqueness of the AVO response was found to be an important DHI characteristic. This gather
is displayed in different formats with the left in wiggle-trace variable area, the middle in color raster format, and the right in color
raster format with a wiggle-trace overlay. The angled colored lines on the right gather represent angle guides from 10 to 50 in 10
increments.
15, with 1 being the worst and 5 being the best. The
most important class 2 and class 3 AVO characteristics
were determined based on valid statistics and success
rate trends. There are 175 class 3 wells evaluated with
the overall success rate 53%. In Figure 13, the four most
important AVO characteristics for class 3 wells are displayed by grades and associated success rates. The
grade 4 values for successful prospects range from
52%69% and the grade 5 values 55%86%. These high
values are significant considering the overall success
rate for the class 3 prospects is 53%.
For class 2, the database contains 53 prospects with
a success rate of 60%. Figure 14 displays the five most
important AVO characteristics for this class. Except for
the characteristic, change in AVO compared to model,
all of the AVO characteristics for grades 4 and 5 revealed success rates well above the overall average
for class 2 wells of 60%. Grade 4 values for successful
prospects range from 76%84%, and grade 5 values from
50%-100%. The change in AVO compared to model did
not show as striking results as the other AVO characteristics. This may be due to the fact that the database is
compiled from predominantly exploration wells (86%)
and well control for modeling may not have been very
close or indicative of the specific prospect before
drilling.
When all the AVO characteristics for a prospect had
grades of 4 or 5, there were only six dry holes for class 3
and five dry holes for class 2. For class 3 dry holes, three
wells had low saturation gas, one had a thick wet sand
with possible low saturation gas, one had a wet sand,
and one a hard streak above a wet sand that accentuated the amplitude response. The dry holes for the class
2 wells included two associated with low-saturation
gas, two were clean high-porosity wet sands, and one
was a shaley sand with possible low saturation gas.
Therefore, when all the AVO characteristics were rated
very high for a prospect, wet sands (often thick wet
sands) and low-saturation gas were the reasons for
failure.
Figure 11. The time-structure map is based on the picks from the stacked data at the level designated by the arrows on the
gathers. The six gathers on top are in wiggle-trace format, and the same gathers on the bottom are in color raster format. These
gathers are designated by letters AF located on the map. Moving from west to east, gathers A, B, and C display no anomalous AVO
responses at the picked horizon with gather D on the edge of the structure and gathers E and F displaying anomalous signatures.
The anomalous AVO responses in gathers D, E, and F within the structure are associated with trapped hydrocarbons. Further
processing is required to flatten these gathers, but the anomalous trends are evident.
AVO relevance
As Bill Fahmy indicated in his 2006 SEG/EAGE
Distinguished Lecture presentation on DHI/AVO best
practices methodology and applications: a historical
perspective, standalone AVO does not equal hydrocarbons. (Fahmy, 2006). The DHI consortium prospect database was analyzed for success and failure of the wells
as it relates to the AVO contribution to the risk and
more specifically to the DHI component of the risk
(Figure 15).
For the class 3 prospects where prestack data was
evaluated (60% of all class 3 wells or 105 prospects),
approximately half the wells were successful. For the

class 3 successful wells, the average AVO component
of the DHI risk portion was 35%. For unsuccessful wells,
the average AVO contribution of the DHI risk portion
was 64%. These statistics suggest there is a greater
chance of failure if AVO is the dominant factor in the
DHI analysis. This is probably because, for class 3
prospects, many of the DHI characteristics manifest
themselves on stacked data better than AVO data, such
as amplitude conformance to structure, flat spots
(hydrocarbon contacts), velocity pull down effects,
shadow zones, etc. Another component of class 3
Figure 12. The intercept versus gradient crossplot is for data in a half-second window encompassing the high-amplitude event
displayed on the stacked seismic line. The background trend on the crossplot is well-defined, and the points within the red and blue
ellipses are from the top and bottom of a gas sand, respectively. These points within the ellipses are projected on the seismic line
(Roden et al., 2005a).
Figure 13. Success rates for the four most important AVO characteristics for class 3 wells
based on grades 1 (worst) to 5 (best). The
dashed line represents the average success
rate for all class 3 wells in the DHI consortium
database.
AVO responses is that the gradient is usually not very

large so the stacking process tends to bring out many of
the non-AVO DHI characteristics.
For class 2 prospects, the database contains fewer
wells to derive good statistics. In the DHI consortium
database, 92% of the class 2 wells had prestack data,
which contains 49 prospects with a 65% success rate.
The successful wells had an average AVO component
of 60% in the DHI analysis, almost double the AVO component for class 3 successful wells. This is reasonable
because AVO analysis plays a larger role in risking class

2 prospects than class 3 prospects. For unsuccessful
wells, the statistics were poor but the AVO component
of the DHI analysis averaged about 80%, accounting for
statistical aberrations.
These statistics do not mean that AVO characteristics are not important, only that when the AVO characteristics are the dominant component in the DHI risk
analysis with an absence of other DHI characteristics,
there is a statistically higher chance of failure. This
Figure 14. Bar graphs showing success rates

for the five most important AVO characteristics for class 2 wells based on Grades 1 (worst)
to 5 (best). The dashed line represents the
average success rate for all class 2 wells in
the DHI consortium database.
Figure 15. Bar graphs showing the average

AVO contribution to the DHI portion of Pg,
based on failures and successes. For class
3, the average is based on 51 successes and
54 failures. For class 2, the average is based
on 32 successes and 17 failures.
Figure 16. Class 3 AVO hydrocarbon modeled responses based on in situ wet sand on
logs. All curves are based on the top of the
sand. Note the distance on the graphs between the wet sand response and the gas
and oil curves.
reinforces the notion that a comprehensive DHI evaluation is necessary for proper risk assessment, including
AVO characteristics.
Limitation of AVO
When exploring for oil and gas, a critical issue is
whether the prospect geologic setting is conducive to
produce AVO and/or DHI anomalies. In other words,
as the geologic setting transcends from a class 2P to
a class 1 environment, the impact of hydrocarbons
on the seismic response decreases. Avseth et al.
Figure 17. Class 2/3 AVO hydrocarbon modeled responses based on in situ wet sand on
sand. The hydrocarbon and wet sand curves
are closer together than on Figure 16.
Figure 18. Class 2P AVO hydrocarbon modeled responses based on in situ wet sand on
sand. Compare distance between wet curves
and hydrocarbons to the wet curves and hydrocarbons in Figures 16 and 17.
Figure 19. Class 1 AVO hydrocarbon modeled responses based on in situ wet sand on
sand. Note how the wet sand and hydrocarbon
curves are very close together.
(2005) refer this as being outside the AVO window

where depth and data quality play key factors. This is
especially important in risk analysis in determining
how much emphasis and weight to give to any interpreted AVO anomaly. Figures 1619 show a series of
half-space AVO models with in situ brine sands where
Gassmanns fluid substitution has been applied to determine the hydrocarbon responses in each case. What is
evident from these figures is that the separation between the brine sand and the hydrocarbon (oil and
gas) curves decreases moving from the class 3 to class
Figure 20. Crossplot displays P-wave velocity versus density. The gray points are from
sands and shales from an array of wells from
various geologic settings. For sand cases
AG, the fluid substitution for gas is in red
and for oil (35 API) in green. Blue points
are 100% brine. Note all three fluids converge
near the extreme class 1 case (Sand G). The
modified Raymer Line denotes the limit of
shales with a small amount of quartz.
1 case. This makes interpreting the class 1 AVO response as a DHI anomaly for risking purposes quite
difficult, especially in an exploration setting.
The elastic properties between shales and sands
transitioning to a class 1 setting can be quite complicated. By definition, class 1 reservoirs have higher
velocities than their encasing shales. Figure 20 crossplots density and P-wave velocity for sands and shales
from an array of wells. Seven sand cases (A-G) with
fluid substitution display the sensitivity of gas, oil,
and brine for classes 1, 2, and 3. Note how the brine
and hydrocarbon points converge moving from Sand
E (class 2P/1) to Sand G (extreme class 1 case). It is
common for class 1 reservoirs to increase in clay content, decrease in porosity, and due to diagenetic processes routinely increase in cementation. There are
several other contributing factors that impact the seismic response including fluid properties (brine salinity,
gas gravity, GOR, oil density), pressure, and temperature. Any factors that increase the sand dry rock Poissons ratio away from the quartz dry rock Poissons
ratio will impact the AVO response. Calcite cementation
can be particularly destructive because it not only has a
relatively high Poissons ratio, but it occludes porosity,
reduces permeability, increases velocity, and reduces
the sensitivity to fluids. In other words, it decreases
the interpreters ability to distinguish a hydrocarbon
AVO response from a brine response.
It is the interpreters responsibility to determine
whether a prospect is in a class 2P to class 1 setting.
Knowledge of the local geology is obviously important.
Substitution modeling accounting for mineralogy, clay
content, porosity, cementation, fluid properties, pressure, depth, and compaction must all be considered.
Avseth et al. (2005) suggest a deterministic approach
which includes comparing models, producing model
gathers with the appropriate parameters, and comparing against the real gathers. Avseth et al. (2003) employ
a depth-dependent probabilistic AVO technique that
enables the prediction of the most likely lithology
and pore fluid from seismic data even in areas of sparse

well control.
There are only five class 1 prospects in the DHI
consortium database. Only one of the five was successful, and each had very low DHI components of risk
(<6%). This reinforces the notion that the risks on
the prospects in this setting are predominantly determined by the geologic chance factors and the DHI
and AVO impact are small to negligible.
Conclusions
The interpretation of DHIs is a critical component in
the risk analysis process when exploring for oil and gas.
A systematic and comprehensive methodology is required to interpret DHIs and to understand the role
AVO interpretation plays in that process. Initially, a
quantitative assessment of the seismic and rock physics
data quality is necessary, followed by the interpretation
of the prospects geologic setting. The geologic setting
dictates which AVO characteristics are important and
appropriate. The results from a DHI consortium compare various data quality elements and specific AVO
characteristics with well outcomes. The grading of
the most significant AVO characteristics for class 2
and 3 wells demonstrates their importance as it relates
to the overall DHI database well success rates.
A significant conclusion from the DHI consortium
database relates to the lower success rates of wells
when AVO is the dominant component in the DHI risk
analysis process. This is especially pertinent for class 3
prospects, where the AVO contribution of the DHI risk
for the dry holes is 64% versus 35% for the discoveries.
This suggests that for class 3 prospects, non-AVO characteristics such as amplitude conformance to structure
and flat spots play a bigger role in the DHI risk analysis
evaluation. These results emphasize the necessity for
a comprehensive and systematic DHI risk analysis
process.
It is important to understand when evaluating prospects from a class 2P setting to a class 1, the DHI and
AVO portion of the ultimate risk evaluation decreases.

This is because the hydrocarbon contribution to the
seismic response in these settings is small compared
to the rock matrix and its associated properties. This
further emphasizes the importance of the geologic setting interpretation to perform an accurate risk analysis
assessment. AVO class 1 sand prospects should be
risked predominantly on a geologic basis, and there
are many oil and gas discoveries worldwide in this
category.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the member companies of the
Rose & Associates DHI Risk Analysis Consortium
for providing invaluable information necessary to develop the resulting interpretation process and prospect
database.
References
Aki, K., and P. G. Richards, 1980, Quantitative seismology:
Theory and methods: W. H. Freeman and Co.
Allen, J. L., and C. P. Peddy, 1993, Amplitude variation with
offset Gulf Coast case studies: SEG.
Avseth, P., T. Mukerji, and G. Mavko, 2005, Quantitative
seismic interpretation: Cambridge University Press.
Bortfeld, R., 1961, Approximation to the reflection and
transmission coefficients of plane longitudinal and
transverse waves: Geophysical Prospecting, 9, 485502.
Castagna, J. P., and M. M. Backus, editors, 1993, Offsetdependent reflectivity Theory and practice of
AVO analysis: SEG, vol. 8.
Castagna, J. P., M. L. Batzle, and R. L. Eastwood, 1985,
Relationship between compressional-wave and shearwave velocities in clastic silicate rocks: Geophysics,
50, 571581, doi: 10.1190/1.1441933.
Castagna, J. P., and S. W. Smith, 1994, Comparison of AVO
indicators: A modeling study: Geophysics, 59, 1849
1855, doi: 10.1190/1.1443572.
Castagna, J. P., and H. W. Swan, 1997, Principles of AVO
crossplotting: The Leading Edge, 16, 337344, doi: 10
.1190/1.1437626.
Castagna, J. P., H. W. Swan, and D. J. Foster, 1998, Framework for AVO gradient and intercept interpretation:
Geophysics, 63, 948956, doi: 10.1190/1.1444406.
Connolly, P., 1999, Elastic impedance: The Leading Edge,
18, 438452, doi: 10.1190/1.1438307.
Fahmy, W. A., 2006, DHI/AVO best practices methodology
and applications: A historical perspective: SEG/EAGE
Distinguished Lecture presentation.
Fatti, J. L., G. C. Smith, P. J. Vail, P. J. Strauss, and P. R.
Levitt, 1994, Detection of gas in sandstone reservoirs
using AVO analysis: A 3D seismic history using the
Geostack technique: Geophysics, 59, 13621376, doi:
10.1190/1.1443695.
Forrest, M., R. Roden, and R. Holeywell, 2010, Risking seismic amplitude anomaly prospects based on database
trends: The Leading Edge, 29, 570574, doi: 10.1190/1

.3422455.
Foster, D. J., R. G. Keys, and F. D. Lane, 2010, Interpretation of AVO anomalies: Geophysics, 75, no. 5, 75A3
75A13, doi: 10.1190/1.3467825.
Foster, D. J., R. G. Keys, and J. M. Reilly, 1997, Another
perspective on AVO crossplotting: The Leading Edge,
16, 12331239, doi: 10.1190/1.1437768.
Goodway, W. N., T. Chen, and J. Downton, 1997, Improved
AVO fluid detection and lithology discrimination using
Lame petrophysical parameters: , , and
fluid stack from P and S inversions: 67th Annual
International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts,
183186.
Gray, D., W. Goodway, and T. Chen, 1999, Bridging the gap:
Using AVO to detect changes in fundamental elastic
constants: 69th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 852855.
Greenberg, M. L., and J. P. Castagna, 1992, Shear-wave
velocity estimation in porous rocks: theoretical formulation, preliminary verification and applications: Geophysical Prospecting, 40, 195209.
Hampson, D., B. Russell, and B. Bankhead, 2005, Simultaneous inversion of pre-stack seismic data: 75th Annual
International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1633
1637.
Hendrickson, J. S., 1999, Stacked: Geophysical Prospecting, 47, 663705, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2478.1999
.00150.x.
Hilterman, F. J., 2001, Seismic amplitude interpretation:
Distinguished instructor short course: SEG/EAGE.
Holtz, M. H., 2002, Residual gas saturation to aquifer influx:
A calculation method for 3-D computer reservoir
model construction: SPE 75502, SPE Gas Technology
Symposium.
Knott, C. G., 1899, Reflexion and refraction of elastic
waves with seismological applications: Philosophical
Magazine, 48, 6497.
Li, Y., J. Downton, and X. Yong, 2007, Practical aspects of
AVO modeling: The Leading Edge, 26, 295311, doi: 10
.1190/1.2715053.
Ma, X., 2002, Simultaneous inversion of prestack seismic
data for rock properties using simulated annealing:
Geophysics, 67, 18771885, doi: 10.1190/1.1527087.
Ostrander, W. J., 1984, Plane-wave coefficients for gas
sands at non-normal angles of incidence: Geophysics,
49, 16371648, doi: 10.1190/1.1441571.
Richards, P. G., and C. W. Frasier, 1976, Scattering of elastic wave from depth-dependent inhomogeneities: Geophysics, 41, 441458.
Roden, R., J. Castagna, and G. Jones, 2005a, The impact of
prestack data phase on the AVO interpretation workflow A case study: The Leading Edge, 24, 890895,
doi: 10.1190/1.2056369.
Roden, R., M. Forrest, and R. Holeywell, 2005b, The impact
of seismic amplitudes on prospect risk analysis: The
Leading Edge, 24, 706711, doi: 10.1190/1.1993262.
Roden, R., M. Forrest, and R. Holeywell, 2012, Relating

seismic interpretation to reserve/resource calculations:
Insights from a DHI consortium: The Leading Edge, 31,
10661074, doi: 10.1190/tle31091066.1.
Rose, P. R., 2001, Risk analysis and management of petroleum exploration ventures: AAPG methods in exploration No. 12.
Ross, C. P., 2000, Effective AVO crossplot modeling:
A tutorial: Geophysics, 65, 700711, doi: 10.1190/1
.1444769.
Ross, C. P., 2010, AVO ritualization and functionalism (then
and now): The Leading Edge, 29, 532538, doi: 10.1190/
1.3422450.
Ross, C. P., and D. L. Kinman, 1995, Nonbright-spot AVO:
Two examples: Geophysics, 60, 13981408.
Rutherford, S. R., and R. H. Williams, 1989, Amplitudeversus-offset variations in gas sands: Geophysics, 54,
680688, doi: 10.1190/1.1442696.
Shuey, R. T., 1985, A simplification of the Zoeppritz
equations: Geophysics, 50, 609614, doi: 10.1190/1
.1441936.
Simm, R., R. White, and R. Uden, 2000, The anatomy of
AVO crossplots: The Leading Edge, 19, 150155, doi:
10.1190/1.1438557.
Smith, G. C., and P. M. Gidlow, 1987, Weighted stacking for
rock property estimation and detection of gas: Geophysicsical Prospecting, 35, 9931014.
Verm, R., and F. Hilterman, 1995, Lithology colorcoded seismic sections: The calibration of AVO crossplotting to rock properties: The Leading Edge, 14,
847853.
Whitcombe, D. N., P. A. Connolly, R. L. Reagan, and
T. C. Redshaw, 2002, Extended elastic impedance for
fluid and lithology prediction: Geophysics, 67, 6367.
Zoeppritz, K., 1919, Erdbebenwellen VIIIB, On the reflection and propagation of seismic waves: Gttinger Nachrichten, I, 6684.
Rocky Roden received a B.S. in

oceanographic
technology-geology
from Lamar University and an M.S.
in geological and geophysical oceanography from Texas A&M University.
He runs his own consulting company,
Rocky Ridge Resources, Inc., and
works with numerous oil companies
around the world on interpretation
technical issues, prospect generation, risk analysis evaluations, and reserve/resource calculations. He is a principal
in the Rose and Associates DHI Risk Analysis Consortium,
developing a seismic amplitude risk analysis program and
worldwide prospect database. He has also worked with
Seismic Microtechnology, Geophysical Insights, and Rock
Solid Images on the integration of advanced geophysical
technology in software applications. He has been involved
in numerous oil and gas discoveries around the world and
has extensive knowledge of modern geoscience technical

approaches (past chairman, The Leading Edge Editorial
Board). As Chief Geophysicist and Director of Applied
Technology for Repsol-YPF (retired 2001), his role comprised advising corporate officers, geoscientists, and managers on interpretation, strategy, and technical analysis for
exploration and development in offices in the United
States, Argentina, Spain, Egypt, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru,
Brazil, Venezuela, Malaysia, and Indonesia. He has been
involved in the technical and economic evaluation of
Gulf of Mexico lease sales, farmouts worldwide, and bid
rounds in South America, Europe, and the Far East. Previous work experience includes exploration and development at Maxus Energy, Pogo Producing, Decca Survey,
and Texaco.
Mike Forrest received a B.S. (1995)

in geophysical engineering from St.
Louis University. He had a 37-year
career with Shell Oil as a geophysicist and executive, including General
Manager Exploration for Gulf of
Mexico during the mid 1980s when
Shell expanded exploration into deep
water, and he worked with Maxus
Energy for five years as an executive. Since 2001, he
has been Chairman of the Rose & Associates DHI (Direct
Hydrocarbon Indicator) Interpretation and Risk Analysis Consortium that currently has 25 oil company members. He has over 40 years of experience interpreting and
risking seismic amplitude anomalies (DHIs). He is a
member of SEG (60 years) and AAPG, a Director of
the SEG Foundation, and Director of Global Geophysical
Services.
Roger Holeywell received a B.S. in

geology from Texas A&M University,
an M.S. in geology from Brown University, and a masters in finance from
the University of Texas at Dallas. He
has been working in the field of risk
analysis since the early 1990s and recently celebrated his 15th year as a
freelance software developer for Rose
& Assoc. His software projects include MMRA, Portfolio
Essentials, Risk Essentials, Multizone Master, PlayRA,
and Portfolio Rollup. He has also been involved in
R&As DHI Consortium since its inception 12 years ago
and is the author of the Consortiums primary software
tool, SAAM. He also holds a full-time position as Advanced
Senior Consultant for Marathon Oil Co. in Houston where
he is currently the manager of geoscience data services.
He has previously held positions as Senior Exploration
Geologist, Exploration Manager and Exploration Coordinator, among others. His work with Rose & Assoc. is
with the approval and cooperation of Marathon, who is a
long time R&A client as well as a previous member of the
DHI Consortium.
Matthew Carr received a B.S. from

Old Dominion University and M.S.
and Ph.D. degrees from the University
of South Carolina. His expertise includes the integration of petrophysics
and seismic rock properties, rock
physics, sandstone and carbonate
petrology and its relation to petrophysics, petrographic image analysis, interpretation of nuclear magnetic resonance data in
natural porous media, as well as multivariate statistical
analysis of geologic systems. He has pioneered several
techniques and applications for the integration of well data
and seismic data. In addition, he possesses certification as
a Professional Geophysicist from the State of Texas, he is
an AAPG certified Professional Petroleum Geophysicist. In
his more than 23 years in the industry, he has contributed
to multiple large discoveries (both domestically and internationally). In addition to major discoveries, he has helped
many companies to quantify risky exploration targets, resulting in the redirection of exploration efforts that would
offer a better success rate. He is currently the managing

director and lead scientist at QI Petrophysics, focused
on quantification of rock properties to mitigate risk.
Patsy Alexander received undergraduate degrees in geoscience (cum
laude), geography, and computer programming from the University of
Texas at Dallas, the University of
North Texas, and Mountain View College (Dallas), respectively. With more
than 20 years in the oil industry, she
has worked as an exploration geologist, E&P database administrator, computer programmer,
and data analyst. Since 2007, she has performed database
management and data mining and analysis for the DHI
Consortium team to identify statistically significant trends
in the groups DHI Prospect database, as a supplement to
the statistics generated by the SAAM software.

The Role of AVO in Propect Risk Assestment PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Role of AVO in Propect Risk Assestment PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

t

Special section: Interpreting AVO

The role of AVO in prospect risk assessment

been several approaches developed to simplify these

In these equations, is the angle of incidence, A is

Consultant Rose & Associates. E-mail: rodenr@wt.net; forrestm33@sbcglobal.net.

angle (actually sin2 ), and C is the curvature term and

Described AVO response in low

Castagna et al. (1985)

P and S wave relationships for

SC62 Interpretation / May 2014

the accuracy of these prestack inversion techniques

very strong gradients (usually greater than class 3).

denote the location of shales; however, in practice,

An important question for seismic interpreters is:

ponents of data quality that must be evaluated and

Table 3. Quantified data quality elements for DHI analysis.

Rock and fluid property data

Processing type (speculative or specifically for prospect)

Interpretation / May 2014 SC65

Figure 5. Success rates for class 2 and 3 wells based on their

control within 15 miles, the success rates are close to

Figure 9. Examples of AVO consistency

Interpretation / May 2014 SC67

ground trend from a known wet sand response close

approximately half the wells were successful. For the

SC70 Interpretation / May 2014

AVO responses is that the gradient is usually not very

because AVO analysis plays a larger role in risking class

Figure 14. Bar graphs showing success rates

Figure 15. Bar graphs showing the average

Interpretation / May 2014 SC71

SC72 Interpretation / May 2014

(2005) refer this as being outside the AVO window

and pore fluid from seismic data even in areas of sparse

AVO portion of the ultimate risk evaluation decreases.

trends: The Leading Edge, 29, 570574, doi: 10.1190/1

Roden, R., M. Forrest, and R. Holeywell, 2012, Relating

Rocky Roden received a B.S. in

has extensive knowledge of modern geoscience technical

Mike Forrest received a B.S. (1995)

Roger Holeywell received a B.S. in

Matthew Carr received a B.S. from

SC76 Interpretation / May 2014

offer a better success rate. He is currently the managing

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi