AVO1

AVO Workshop
Theory and Exercises
Last Updated: March 2006
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 1
Table of Contents - Part 1

Overview of the AVO process
Theory : Rock Physics & Fluid Replacement Modeling
Exercise : The Colony Gas Sand Reading in the Logs
Theory : AVO Theory & Modeling
Exercise : The Colony Gas Sand Creating Synthetics
Theory : AVO Analysis on Seismic Data
Exercise : The Colony Gas Sand Calculating AVO Attributes
Theory : Cross Plotting AVO Attributes
Exercise : The Colony Gas Sand Cross Plotting AVO Attributes
Theory : AVO Case Study Fluid Factor Example
Theory : AVO Case Study Onshore Texas Example
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 2
Table of Contents Part 2

Theory : AVO Inversion - Elastic Impedance
Exercise : The Colony Gas Sand Elastic Impedance
Theory : AVO Case Study The Brenda Field
Theory : AVO Inversion - Lambda-Mu-Rho (LMR)
Exercise : The Colony Gas Sand Lambda-Mu-Rho (LMR)
Theory : AVO Inversion - Simultaneous Inversion
Theory : AVO Case Study Simultaneous Inversion on the Marlin Field
Exercise : Gulf Coast Exercise 1
Theory : AFI: Analyzing uncertainty in AVO
Exercise : Gulf Coast Exercise 2
Theory : Acquisition & Processing Concerns in AVO
Theory: Summary
References
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 3
Overview of the AVO Process

This tutorial is a brief introduction to the Amplitude Variations with
Offset, or Amplitude Versus Offset (AVO) method.
We will briefly review how the interpretation of seismic data has
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.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 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?
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 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.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 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.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 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 1970s would have based the well on the
fact that there is a bright spot visible on the seismic section, as indicated above.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 8
What is a bright spot

Surface
Geology
Seismic
Seismic
raypath
Shale
1 V1
Gas Sand
2 V2
Interface at
depth = d
Reflection at time
t = 2d/V1
R0 =
2V2 1V1
2V2 + 1V1
Seismic
Wavelet
To understand bright spots, recall the definition of the zero-offset reflection

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, , and P-wave
velocity, V, is called acoustic impedance.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 9
What is a bright spot

The figure on the right,
taken from Gardner et al.
(Formation velocity and
density - The diagnostic
basics for stratigraphic
traps: Geophysics, 1974)
shows that there is a big
difference between shale
and gas sand velocity at
shallow depths. The
paper also shows that
density and velocity are
approximately related by
the equation
Difference between shale and gas

sand velocity at shallow depth.
= 0.23 V 0.25
Thus, we would expect a
big reflection coefficient,
or bright spot, for
shallow
gas sands.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 10
The AVO method

Unfortunately, bright
spots can be caused
by lithologic
variations as well as
gas sands. This lead
geophysicists in the
1980s to start
looking at pre-stack
seismic data. The
amplitude increase
with offset shown
here was predicted
by Ostrander (Planewave reflection
coefficients for gas
sands at nonnormal
angles-of-incidence:
Geophysics, 1984) for
certain gas sands
(Class 3, as we will
discuss later).
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 11
What causes the AVO effect?

Surface
2 1
1 VP1 VS1
Reflector
2 VP2 VS2
As shown above, the traces in a seismic gather reflect from the subsurface
at increasing angles of incidence . 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 ( ) = R0 + B sin 2
B is a gradient term which produces the AVO effect. It is dependent on
changes in density, , P-wave velocity, VP, and S-wave velocity, VS.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 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 thoroughly
in the next chapter.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 13
AVO Modeling
P-wave
Density
Poissons
S-wave
ratio
Synthetic
Offset Stack
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 Poissons ratio is a function of Vp/Vs ratio and will be
discussed in the next chapter.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 14
AVO Attributes
Intercept: A
Gradient: B
AVO Attributes are
used to analyze
large volumes of
seismic data,
looking for
hydrocarbon
anomalies.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 15
Cross-plotting of Attributes
Gradient (B)
One of the AVO methods that we will be

discussing later in the course involves crossplotting the zero-offset reflection coefficient (A),
versus the gradient (B), as shown on the left.
As seen in the figure below, the highlighted
zones correspond to the top of gas sand (pink),
base of gas sand (yellow), and a hard streak
below the gas sand (blue).
Intercept (A)
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 16
AVO Inversion
A very important new
tool combines Inversion
with AVO Analysis to
enhance the reservoir
discrimination.
Far Inversion
Near Inversion
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 17
Summary of AVO Methodology

Input NMO-corrected Gathers
Recon
Methods
Partial
Stacks
Intercept
Gradient
Attributes
Modeling
Wave
Equation
Zoeppritz
Inversion
Elastic
Impedance
LMR
Cross
Plots
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 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.
We will then move to AVO modeling.
Finally, we will look at AVO analysis on real seismic data.
In each case, we will first look at the theory and then perform a
workstation example.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 19
Rock Physics &

Fluid Replacement Modeling
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 20
Basic Rock Physics

The AVO response is dependent on the properties of P-wave velocity (VP),
S-wave velocity (VS), and density () in a porous reservoir rock. As shown
below, this involves the matrix material, the porosity, and the fluids filling
the pores:
Rock Matrix
Pores / Fluid
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 21
Density
Density effects can be modeled with the following equation:
sat = m(1 ) + w Sw + hc(1 Sw )

where: = density,
= porosity,
Sw = water saturation,
sat,m,hc ,w = saturated, matrix,
hydrocarbon , water subscripts.
This is illustrated in the next graph.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 22
Density
Density vs Water Saturation - Porosity = 33%
Densities: Oil = 0.8 Gas = 0.001
2.2
Density
2.1
2
1.9
1.8
1.7
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Oil
Gas
Water Saturation
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 23
P and S-wave Velocities

Unlike density, seismic velocity involves the deformation of a rock as a
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.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 24
P and S-wave Velocities

This lead to two different types of 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
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 25
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 Lam coefficients:
+ 2
VP =
Vs =
where: = the first Lam constant,

= the second Lam constant,
and = density.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 26
Velocity Equations using K and

Another common way of writing the velocity equations is with bulk
and shear modulus:
VP =
4
K+
3
Vs =
where: K = the bulk modulus, or the

reciprocal of compressibility.
= the shear modulus, or the
second Lam constant,
and = density.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 27
Poissons Ratio
A common way of looking at the ratio of VP to VS is to use Poissons
ratio, defined as:
2
=
2 2
where :
VP
=
VS
The inverse to the above formula, allowing you to derive VP or VS

from , is given by:
2 2
=
2 1
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 28
Poissons Ratio vs VP/VS ratio

Vp/Vs vs Poisson's Ratio
0.5
Poisson's Ratio
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
0
Gas Case
Wet Case
10
Vp/Vs
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 29
Poissons Ratio
From the previous slide, note that there are several values of
Poissons ratio and VP/VS ratio that are important to remember.
If VP/VS = 2, then = 0
If VP/VS = 1.5, then = 0.1 (Gas Case)
If VP/VS = 2, then = 1/3 (Wet Case)
If VP/VS = , then = 0.5 (VS = 0)
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 30
Velocity in Porous Rocks

Velocity effects can be modeled by the volume average equation as
seen below and in the next figure:
t sat = t m( 1 ) + t w S w + t hc( 1 S w )
where t = 1 / V
Unfortunately, the above equation does not hold for gas sands, and this
lead to the development of other equations.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 31
Velocity vs Saturation using

Volume Averaging
Velocity vs Sw with Volume Avg. Eq.
Por = 33% , Voil = 1300 m/s, Vgas = 300 m/s
Velocity (m/sec)
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
0
Oil
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Gas
Water Saturation
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 32
The Biot-Gassmann Equations

Unfortunately, the volume average equation gives incorrect results for
gas sands. Independently, Gassmann (1951) and Biot (1956), developed
a more complete theory of wave propagation in fluid saturated rocks, by
deriving expressions for the saturated bulk and shear moduli, and
substituting into the regular equations for P- and S-wave velocity:
VP _ sat =
K sat
4
+ sat
3
sat
VS _ sat
sat
=
sat
Note that sat is found using the volume average equation discussed
earlier.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 33
The Biot-Gassmann Equations

To understand the Biot-Gassmann equations, let us update the figure we
saw 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
(pores full)
Dry rock
frame, or
skeleton
(pores
empty)
Rock Matrix
Pores and fluid

AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 34
Biot-Gassmann - Shear Modulus

In the Hampson-Russell AVO program, Biot-Gassmann analysis is done
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
where sat = the shear modulus of the saturated rock,
and
dry = the shear modulus of the dry rock.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 35
Biot-Gassmann - Saturated Bulk

Modulus
The Biot-Gassmann bulk modulus equation is as follows:
2
(1)
K sat = K dry
K dry
1
Km
+
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:
(2)
K dry
K fl
K sat
=
+
K m K sat K m K dry ( K m K fl )
where sat = saturated rock, dry = dry frame, m = rock matrix, fl = fluid,
and = porosity.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 36
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.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 37
The Fluid Bulk Modulus

The fluid bulk modulus can be modeled using the following equation:
Sw 1 Sw
1
=
+
K fl K w
K hc
where K fl = the bulk modulus of the fluid,
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:
Kgas = 0.021 GPa, Koil = 0.79 GPa, Kw = 2.38 GPa

AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 38
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 Mavkos equation, given earlier.
(2) For known VP, but unknown VS, Kdry can be estimated by:
(a) Assuming a known dry rock Poissons ratio dry.
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)
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 39
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 BiotGassmann equation.
We will look at the effect of saturation on both velocity (VP and VS)
and Poissons 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.)
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 40
Velocity vs Saturation of Gas

Velocity vs Sw - Gas Case, Por = 33%
Ks = 40, Kgas = .021, Kdry = 3.25, Mu = 3.3 GPa
Velocity (m/s)
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
0
0.1
0.2
Vp
0.3
0.4
Vs
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Sw
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 41
Poissons Ratio vs Saturation of Gas

Poisson's Ratio vs Water Saturation
Gas Case
Poisson's Ratio
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Poisson's Ratio
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Sw
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 42
Velocity vs Saturation of Oil

Velocity vs Sw - Oil Case
Porosity = 33%, Koil = 1.0 GPa
3000
Velocity (m/s)
2500
2000
1500
1000
0
0.1
Vs
0.2
Vp
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Sw
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 43
Poissons Ratio vs Saturation of Oil

Poisson's Ratio vs Water Saturation
Oil Case
Poisson's Ratio
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Poisson's Ratio
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Sw
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 44
Tips for Using Gassmanns Equation

CAUTIONS:
Rocks with large Km and Kdry values (most carbonates)
appear insensitive to saturation changes in Gassmann theory.
Gassmann assumed that pore pressure remains constant
during wave propagation. This implies fluids are mobile
between pores and all stress is carried by Kdry.
This assumption is violated at high frequencies in highly
variable and compressible pore systems.
Carbonates with an abundance of crack-type pores and
heterogeneous pore systems are not suitable for standard Gassmann
theory.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 45
Patchy Saturation
When multiple pore fluids are present, Kfl is usually calculated by a
Reuss averaging technique:
1
Sw So Sg
=
+
+
K fl K w K o K g
This averaging
technique assumes
uniform fluid
distribution!
-Gas and liquid must
be evenly distributed
in every pore.
Bulk modulus (Gpa)
This method heavily biases compressibility of the combined fluid

to the most compressible phase.
Kfl vs Sw and Sg
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
Water saturation (fraction)

AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 46
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 gives the best estimate of Kfl (Domenico, 1976).
K fl = Sw K w + So K o + Sg K g
When patch sizes are of intermediate size, Gassmann substitution should
be performed for each patch area and a volume average should be made
(Dvorkin et al, 1999). This can be approximated by using a power-law
averaging technique.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 47
Patchy Saturation
Gassmann predicted velocities
Unconsolidated sand matrix
Porosity = 30%
100% Gas to 100% Brine saturation
Vp (km/s)
2.5
2.3
Patchy
Voigt
Reuss
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.5
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
Water Saturation (fraction)

AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 48
The Mudrock Line

The mudrock line is a linear relationship between VP and VS
derived by Castagna et al (1985):
VP = 1.16 VS + 1360 m / s
Note that for a constant Poissons ratio, the intercept is zero:
2 2
VP =
VS
2 1
This will be illustrated in the next few slides.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 49
The Mudrock Line
ARCOs original mudrock derivation

(Castagna et al, Geophysics, 1985)
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 50
The Mudrock Line

6000
5000
Mudrock Line
4000
3000
Gas Sand
VP (m/s)
2000
1000
0
0
1000
VS(m/s)
2000
AVO Workshop
3000
4000
AVO 1 - 51
The Mudrock Line

6000
5000
= 1/3
Mudrock Line
or
VP/VS = 2
4000
3000
Gas Sand
VP (m/s)
2000
1000
0
0
1000
VS(m/s)
2000
AVO Workshop
3000
4000
AVO 1 - 52
The Mudrock Line

6000
5000
= 1/3 or
Mudrock Line
VP/VS = 2
4000
3000
Gas Sand
VP (m/s)
2000
= 0.1 or
VP/VS = 1.5
1000
0
0
1000
VS(m/s)
2000
AVO Workshop
3000
4000
AVO 1 - 53
Using the Biot-Gassmann Equations

(1) Fluid Substitution
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 must all be known for the input logs, along with the fluid
content (SW).
Generally all three logs are changed within the target zone.
Output Logs
Input Logs
VP
VS
VP
SW = 50%
AVO Workshop
SW = 100%
VS
AVO 1 - 54

(2) Calculating VS
The second use of the Biot-Gassmann equations is to calculate a VS curve, which 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 must both be known, along with the fluid content (SW).
The VP and logs are unchanged, and a new VS log is created.
Output Logs
Input Logs
VP
VP
SW = 50%
AVO Workshop
SW = 50%
VS
AVO 1 - 55

(2) Calculating VS
In fact, the calculation of Vs requires 2 separate equations: Castagnas equation for
the wet sand/shales (outside the target). Biot-Gassmann inside the target. The
calculation is performed in 2 steps:
(1)
(2)
Use Castagnas
equation first to create a
VS log, which is accurate
everywhere except in
the target.
VP
VP
VS-Cast
VP
VS-Cast
Use Biot-Gassmann to
calculate the correct VS
values inside the target.
VP
AVO Workshop
VS
AVO 1 - 56
Conclusions
An understanding of rock physics is crucial for the interpretation of AVO
anomalies.
The volume average equation can be used to model density in a water
sand, but this equation does not match observations for velocities in a
gas sand.
The Biot-Gassmann equations match observations well for
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.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 57
Appendix
Calculation of Vs using Castagna assumption
1) Calculate density for 100% brine
saturation:
wet = br + m ( 1 - )
2) Calculate input P wave modulus:
5) Calculate Vp_wet
Vp wet =
M wet
wet
6) Calculate Vs_wet from Vp_wet
M = Vp2
Vswet =Ac Vpwet + Bc
3) Calculate matrix P wave

modulus:
4
Mm = Km + m
3
7) Calculate Vs_input from Vs_wet
wet
Vs = Vs wet *
4) Adjust P wave modulus to 100%

water:
d=
M
K fl
K br
+
M m M * ( M m K fl ) * ( M m K br )
Mwet = d *
Mm
1+ d
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 58
Appendix
Calculation of Vs using Castagna assumption
8) Calculate K and m from input data:
10) Calculate Ksat with new fluid:
= Vs * ;
Kdryout
Kflout
a=
+ out
out
Km Kdry
*(Km Kflout )
4
K = *Vp *
3
2
9) Obtain K_dry:
a =
K
K fl
Km K
* ( K m K fl )
a
Kdry = Km *
1+ a
a
Kout = Km*
1+ a
11) Get new density:
out = fl out * out + m *(1 out )

12) Finally the new velocities!
Vp out =
AVO Workshop
K out +
4 out
3
;
out
Vs out
out
=
out
AVO 1 - 59
Appendix
Averaging multiple minerals
We may also want to average multiple mineral components to
produce a composite material. The simplest way to do this is to use
a Voigt or Reuss average. If we let f1 be the fraction of mineral 1, f2
be the fraction of mineral 2 (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 given by:
M V = f1 M 1 + f 2 M 2
The Reuss average is given by:
1
f1
f2
M 1M 2
=
+
MR =
M R M1 M 2
f1M 2 + f 2 M 1
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 60
Appendix
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.):
K HS
HS
f2
= K1 +
( K 2 K1 ) 1 + f1 ( K1 + ( 4 / 3) 1 ) 1
f2
= 1 +
2 f1 ( K1 + 2 1 )
1
( 2 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.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 61
Appendix
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.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 62
Exercise
The Colony Gas Sand
Reading in the Logs
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 63
Our first set of exercises comes from the Colony sand formation,
a Cretaceous sand from Western Canada.
The target is a thin, 8 meter

thick, gas sand.
We have a single well with
measured sonic and density
logs.
The sand is known to
contain 50% water, and 50%
gas.
In this exercise, we will
create the S-wave log, using
Castagnas equation and
Biot-Gassmann analysis.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 64
Start the GEOVIEW program by typing

geoview in the command window (Unix) or
selecting Geoview from Start / Programs /
HRS applications (Windows).
We are going to create a new database, so
click on New when you see the Opened
Database List window, as shown. Then
click on OK.
On the next menu, name the database avo_class, and click on OK.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 65
A database is a collection of wells. Within each well there may be

any number of logs. These logs may be of any type. They need
not all be sampled at the same depth values, and they need not
be sampled uniformly. The GEOVIEW Well Explorer window, which allows us to view
the contents of a database, currently is empty:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 66
As well as the Well Explorer window, you will also see the program launcher bar, as
shown below:
The program launcher bar is used to launch any of the suite of Hampson-Russell
software programs that your company owns, as well as to re-launch the Well Explorer
window if this window gets closed.
Later in this exercise, we will launch the AVO program. But first we will read a well into
the database.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 67
Reading in well data in LAS format
In the next set of exercises, we will read in a real set of well logs and a pre-stack seismic
line. We will then create a synthetic CDP gather and compare it with the real data.
To read the logs into the GEOVIEW Well Explorer, click on Import
Data / Logs, Check Shots, Tops, Deviated Geometry from Files:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 68
On the File Import menu that appears, select the directory containing the AVO
workshop data. (You will have to check with the instructor to find the right directory, as
this varies from class to class). Choose the avo_well.las file:
Make sure that the the Log File Format is set to LAS, then click on Next >>.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 69
By default, the program will create a new well called AVO_WELL, which is the well
name stored in the file headers. We will accept that default. Click on Next >>.
The next page allows you to specify parameters for this well. Click on Next >> to accept
the defaults:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 70
The final page lists all the curves in the LAS file and allows you to overwrite parameters.
Click on Ok to accept all the defaults:
Note that the program will tell you that the logs have
been successfully imported with the message shown
on the right. Click Ok on this message.
Finally, a menu appears confirming which units you

wish to use for the default display settings. Click Ok
to accept the default, metric, for this well.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 71

Now that all the logs have been inserted into the database, there are a number of ways of
examining them. First, click on the field containing the name AVO_WELL in the GEOVIEW
Well Explorer window and then click on the Display Well button, as shown below:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 72
This will cause a

display window to
appear, showing you
all the logs and tops
in that well:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 73
If you click on View / Display Options at the top of the Log Display Window, you will
see a menu which allows you to change the look of this display:
This is an example of a
notebook menu, which
allows you to change
pages by clicking on the
tabs at the top. Notice
that the available
options are Layout,
Scale & Details, and
Synthetics.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 74
The default Layout

tab in this menu
allows you to
overlay logs. For
example, select the
Computed
Impedance and
Computed
Reflectivity logs to
overlay the P-wave
log in the same
track. Click on
Apply.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 75
The three logs

are now displayed
in a single track at
three different
scales and in
three different
colors.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 76
Now click on the Scale & Details tab and set the amplitude range for the Density
log from 1.8 to 2.7 and for the SP log from -150 to -50 as shown below:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 77
Click on Ok on the
Parameter menu,
and the Log
Display window is
redrawn as shown:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 78

The GEOVIEW Well Explorer provides another way of looking at
the contents of the database:
The Table View contains one line for each well in the database. Note that any of the
parameters on this window may be changed.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 79
Now click on the arrow to the left of the field

showing the name AVO_WELL:
Now you see a list of all the logs in this well. Once again, any of these parameters
can be changed.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 80
Applying a check shot correction
Now we will apply a check shot correction to AVO_WELL. First, we must enter check shot
values as a log. From the Table View of the Well Explorer window, click on Log Options /
Create a new log in table / Check Shot:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 81
A new row will appear at the bottom of the Table View, showing
the new Log Name, the Log Type and the Amplitude Units:
To begin entering values, click on the arrow to the left of the Log Name field:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 82
Fill in the table as shown:
This check shot contains two pairs of values consisting of a depth and a two-way time in
milliseconds. Click on Update on this menu to add the check shot to the database, then
click on Yes on the subsequent dialog to confirm the addition of this log, as shown below:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 83
Even though the check shot values have been added, the check shot will not be applied
to the sonic log until we perform that operation. Note that the check shot log has now
been added to the log display
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 84
To apply the check shot correction, click on Option

/ Check Shot Correction:
The Check Shot Parameters menu and the Check Shot Analysis window appear:
The curves on the right of the display show

the sonic log before and after check shot
correction.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 85
There are a number of modifications which could be made to the automatic calculation.
One modification is to delete points from the check shot data and reapply the correction.
Another modification is to use a polynomial interpolation between the points to prevent
artificial discontinuities in the corrected log. For now, we will accept the default
parameters. Click on Ok on the Check Shot Analysis window. This menu now appears:
Click on Ok on the menu. This will create a new check shot corrected sonic log,
with the name P-wave_chk.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 86
To compare the two P-wave logs, select View / Display Options to bring up the
Parameter menu. On the Layout page, clear the Display Only Active Logs button and
then make the following changes. Click Ok.
Note: This toggle

must not be
checked or you will
not see multiple
logs of the same
type appear in the
list above.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 87
Here again we can see the difference that the

check-shot correction has made to the original
P-wave log. Use the Zoom function (either
View / Rubberband Zoom or Ctrl+Z) to zoom
in on the area of interest that you define with
the cursor.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 88
Launching the AVO program
Now we will begin creating an AVO model from the

logs we have just entered. Click on the AVO /
AVO button from the GEOVIEW main window to
launch AVO.
Choose the option to Start New Project:
Call the new project colony:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 89
Launching the AVO program

This will initiate a blank AVO program window, as shown below.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 90
Modeling with the AVO program
When the AVO window appears, click on Modeling /

Single Well:
Choose the well

(AVO_WELL) that we have
just imported to do the
modeling and click on Open:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 91
Modeling with the AVO program

On this menu, we wish to use the default (i.e., active) logs as input:
Click OK.
The following information window

appears, telling you that a shear wave
log will be calculated using transforms.
Click OK.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 92
Creating the S-Wave Log

On the next series of menus, we will accept the defaults for
creating the shear wave log. We will use Castagnas equation:
Click Next >>
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 93

We will apply the equation to the check shot corrected sonic log and call the
output log S-wave_Castagna. Change the name as shown below:
Click Next >>

AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 94

We will use the default Castagna coefficients:
Finally, click OK.

AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 95

The AVO Modeling window now shows the created S-wave log and the calculated
Poissons ratio.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 96
Fluid Replacement Modeling (FRM)
The S-wave log calculated so far, has used the Castagna mud-rock equation. This is
only appropriate for wet sands and shales. This means that the S-wave velocity
calculated within the target sand layer has the wrong value.
We will now use the Biot-Gassmann equation to replace the calculated S-wave velocity
value, in that interval, with one more appropriate for the gas case.
For this calculation, we need the further information about the actual fluid content in the
sand. As it happens, the real water saturation is 50%.
To perform Fluid Replacement Modeling,

click on the FRM button:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 97
On the first page, we

specify what is known
about the input logs.
Since the porosity was
not measured, we will
calculate it from the
input density log.
Change the Water
Saturation to 50%, then
click on Next >> to
accept this value.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 98
The second page

sets the depth zone
over which the
analysis will be
performed. The
most convenient
way is to specify the
top and base of the
gas sand with tops,
as shown. Every
depth sample in the
range 633 to 641 m
will be modified.
Click on Next >>.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 99
This page specifies the petrophysical parameters. These are the density and moduli of
each of the constituent components: matrix, hydrocarbon, and brine.
Note that we will
assume the other
50% of the fluid is
composed of gas.
The default
parameters are
book values.
One way to
modify them is to
click on Fluid
properties
calculator:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 100
The Batzle-Wang
menu allows you to
calculate fluid
properties from more
fundamental
measurements. In this
case, we will accept the
default gas and brine
parameters.
Click on Cancel on the
Batzle-Wang menu:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 101
The default matrix

parameters have
also been supplied
from book values.
One way to modify

these parameters is
to click on the
Minerals button:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 102

The Minerals menu allows you to specify the precise components of the reservoir
matrix and thus calculate the appropriate values of the density and bulk modulus. To
accept the default sand values, click on Cancel on the Minerals menu.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 103
Finally, the last page of the FRM

menu sets the output log
parameters. We have specified
that this input well had a water
saturation of 50% and porosities
calculated from the density log.
We could create output logs with
different values of these
parameters. In our case, we want
to keep the same water saturation
and porosity values. The effect
will be to calculate the S-wave log
(S-wave_Castagna_FRM)
appropriate to these parameters.
To see the resulting calculations,
click on Apply.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 104

After you click on Apply, the calculated output values for the
first layer are printed here:
To see the results for the entire window, click on the QC Display button:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 105
This display shows all

the logs that have been
calculated within the
analysis window.
We can see, for
instance, a very
anomalous zone below
about 640m depth.
Based on this display,
we may conclude that
the lithology has
changed significantly
and should not be
included in this analysis.
However, for this exercise, we will accept the calculation. Click on Ok on the
Biot-Gassmann menu to create the modified logs.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 106
You are first asked if you are

sure you want to create these
logs. Click on Yes.
The program next asks if you

wish to copy the depth-time
curve from the original log. The
answer is Yes, because we
have done check shot
correction and we do not wish
to modify the depth-time
relationship, even if the P-wave
log had changed.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 107
When the new window is plotted, notice the modification in both the S-wave
velocity and Poissons Ratio logs.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 108
Saving the Project
Now click on Project / Save to save

the work done so far:
You will see this menu appear, which asks

whether you wish to save the new created
logs within the Geoview database, or just
withing the current project. Click on Yes to
see the list of new logs.
Now a further menu

appears, listing all the new
logs, which have been
created. Click on Ok to
save them all to Geoview.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 109
AVO Theory & Modeling
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 110
P and S-Waves
(a)
(b)
(c)
The above diagram shows a schematic diagram of (a) P, or compressional,

waves, (b) SH, or horizontal shear-waves, and (c) SV, or vertical shearwaves, where the S-waves have been generated using a shear wave source.
(Ensley, 1984)
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 111
From P and S-Waves to AVO

In the previous slide, the P and SH-waves were generated at the 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.
Unfortunately, most seismic surveys record P-wave data only, and S-wave
data is not available.
However, as shown in the next slide, if we record P-wave data at various
offsets (as we always do), mode-conversion from P to SV always occurs.
This means that AVO data can be used as a replacement for S-wave data.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 112
Mode Conversion of an Incident P-wave

If > 0, an incident P-wave will produce both P and SV reflected and
transmitted waves. This is called mode conversion.
Incident
P-wave
Reflected
SV-wave
Reflected
P-wave = RP
r
r
VP1 , VS1 , 1
VP2 , VS2 , 2
t
t
Transmitted
SV-wave
AVO Workshop
Transmitted
P-wave
AVO 1 - 113
Utilizing Mode Conversion

But how do we utilize mode conversion?
There are actually two ways:
Record the converted S-waves using two-component receivers (in the
X and Z direction).
Interpret the amplitudes of the P-waves as a function of offset, or
angle, which contain implied information about the S-waves. This is
called the AVO (Amplitude versus Offset) method.
When we record the converted waves, we need to be very careful in their
processing and interpretation.
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.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 114
The Zoeppritz Equations

Zoeppritz derived the amplitudes of the reflected and transmitted waves
using the conservation of stress and displacement across the layer
boundary, which gives four equations with four unknowns. Inverting the
matrix form of the Zoeppritz equations gives us the exact amplitudes as a
function of angle:
sin1
cos
R
P
1
R
S = sin2
1
TP

TS
cos21
cos1
sin1
sin2
cos2
2VS22VP1
VP1
cos21
sin22
2
VS1
1VS1VP2
VS1
sin21
VP1
2VP2
cos22
1VP1
AVO Workshop
cos2
sin2
2VS2VP1
cos22
2
1VS1
2VS2
sin22
1VP1
sin1
cos
1
sin21
cos21
AVO 1 - 115
The Aki-Richards Equation

The Aki-Richards equation is a linearized approximation to the Zoeppritz
equations. The initial form (Richards and Frasier, 1976) separated the
velocity and density terms:
VS
VP
R ( ) = a
+b
+c
VP
VS
where:
1
,
2
2 cos
V 2
2
S
b = 0.5 2 sin ,
VP
a=
V
c = 4 S sin 2 ,
VP
2 + 1
2
, = 2 1 ,
VP 2 + VP1
VP =
, VP = VP 2 VP1 ,
2
V + VS 1
VS = S 2
, VS = VS 2 VS 1 ,
2
+
and = i t .
2
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 116
Wiggins Version of the

Aki-Richards Equation
A more intuitive, but totally equivalent, form was derived by Wiggins. He
separated the equation into three reflection terms, each weaker than the
previous term:
R( ) = A + B sin 2 + C tan 2 sin 2
where:
1 VP
+
A=

2 V p
2
VS VS
VS
1 VP
4
2
B=
2 Vp
VP VS
VP
1 VP
C=
2 Vp
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 117
Interpreting the Aki-Richards

Equation
The first term, A, is a linearized version of the zero offset reflection
coefficient and is thus a function of only density and P-wave velocity.
The second term, B, is a gradient multiplied by sin2, and has the
biggest effect on amplitude change as a function of offset. It is
dependent on changes in P-wave velocity, S-wave velocity, and density.
The third term, C, is called the curvature term and is dependent on
changes in P-wave velocity only. It is multiplied by tan2*sin2 and thus
contributes very little to the amplitude effects below angles of 30
degrees. (Note: Prove to yourself that tan2*sin2 = tan2 - sin2, since
the equation is often written in this form.)
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 118
Ostranders Paper
Ostrander (1984) was one of the first to write about AVO effects in gas
sands and proposed a simple two-layer model which encased a low
impedance, low Poissons ratio sand, between two higher impedance,
higher Poissons ratio shales.
This model is shown in the next slide.
Ostranders model worked well in the Sacramento valley gas fields.
However, it represents only one type of AVO anomaly (Class 3) and the
others will be discussed in the next section.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 119
Ostranders Model
Notice that the model consists of a low acoustic impedance and

Poissons ratio gas sand encased between two shales.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 120
Synthetic from Ostranders Model
(a) Well log responses for the model.
AVO Workshop
(b) Synthetic seismic.
AVO 1 - 121
AVO Curves from Ostranders Model

(a) Response from top of model.
Note that the transmitted P-wave
amplitude is shifted.
(b) Response from base of

model. Note that the transmitted
P-wave amplitude is shifted.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 122
Wet and Gas Models

Let us now see how to get from the geology to the seismic. We will do this
by using the two models shown below. Model A consists of a wet sand,
and Model B consists of a gas-saturated sand.
(a) Wet model
(b) Gas model
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 123
AVO Models
In the next two slides, we are going to compute the top and base event
responses from Models A and B, using the following values, where the
Wet and Gas cases were computed using the Biot-Gassmann equations:
Wet: VP= 2500 m/s, VS= 1250 m/s, = 2.11 g/cc, = 0.33
Gas: VP= 2000 m/s, VS= 1310 m/s, = 1.95 g/cc, = 0.12
Shale: VP= 2250 m/s, VS= 1125 m/s, = 2.0 g/cc, = 0.33
We will consider the AVO effects with and without the third term in the
Aki-Richards equation.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 124
Wet Model AVO Curves
This figure shows

the computed AVO
curves for the top
and base interfaces
of the wet sand
using all three terms
(A, B, and C) in the
Aki-Richards
equation, and then
only the first two
terms (A and B).
Note the deviation
of the two above 25
degrees.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 125
Gas Model AVO Curves
This figure on the

right shows the
computed AVO
curves for the top
and base interfaces
of the gas sand
using all three terms
(A, B, and C) in the
Aki-Richards
equation, and then
only the first two
terms (A and B).
Note the deviation
of the two above 25
degrees.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 126
Shueys Equation
Shuey (1985) rewrote the Aki-Richards equation using VP, , and . Only
the gradient is different than in the Aki-Richards expression:
1 2
B = A D 2( 1 + D )
+
2
(
1
VP / V P
,
where : D =
VP / VP + /
+1
= 2
2
= 2 1
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 127
Gas Sand Model

Aki-Richards vs Shuey
0.250
0.200
0.150
0.100
Amplitude
This figure shows a

comparison between
the two forms of the
Aki-Richards equation
for the gas sand
considered earlier.
0.050
0.000
-0.050
-0.100
-0.150
-0.200
-0.250
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Angle (degrees)
A-R Top
Shuey Top
A-R Base
Shuey Base
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 128
Other Single Layer Models

The previous exercise showed us that for a gas sand with a low
acoustic impedance, we can expect absolute amplitude increases with
offset at both the top and bottom of the sand. For the models, we used
P and S-wave velocity.
Another approach is to use the Poissons ratio change as the key
parameter.
The next figure shows four single-layer boundaries consisting of all
combinations of increasing and decreasing acoustic impedance and
Poissons ratio. Note that the sign of the gradient is generally the same
as the sign of . (This is not true in the case of a Class 4 sand, as we
shall see in a later theory section.)
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 129
Four Single Layer Models
(a) , VP, and all increase.
(b) , VP increase, decreases.
(c) , VP decrease, increases.
(d) , VP, and all decrease.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 130
Multi-layer AVO Modeling
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.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 131
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 Workshop
AVO 1 - 132
AVO Modeling Options

There are three main options for the modeling process:
Zoeppritz Primaries only using the Zoeppritz equations for calculation.
Aki-Richards Primaries only using the Aki-Richards equations for
calculation.
Full Elastic Wave Computation of the full elastic wave solution (with
optional anelastic effects), which includes primaries, converted waves,
and multiples.
The following example, taken from a paper by Simmons and Backus
(AVO Modeling and the locally converted shear wave, Geophysics 59,
p1237, August, 1994), illustrates the effect of wave equation modeling.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 133
The Oil Sand Model
Simmons and Backus used the thin bed oil sand model shown above.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 134
The Possible Modeled Events
Simmons and Backus (1994)

AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 135
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.
Primaries only Zoeppritz

+ single leg shear
+ double leg shear
+ multiples
Wave equation
Aki-Richards
Simmons and Backus (1994)
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 136
Logs from the Colony Example
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 137
Models from a Colony Example
(a) Elastic Wave
(b) Zoeppritz
AVO Workshop
(c) Aki-Richards
AVO 1 - 138
Anisotropy and AVO

So far, we have considered only the isotropic case, in which earth
parameters such as velocity do not depend on seismic propagation
angle.
In the next few slides, we will discuss anisotropy, in particular the case
of Transverse Isotropy with a vertical symmetry axis, or VTI.
We will then see how anisotropy affects the AVO response.
Finally, we will look at this effect on our original model.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 139
Isotropic versus Anisotropic (VTI) Velocity

As mentioned, in an isotropic earth P and S-wave velocities are
independent of angle.
VTI velocities depend on angle, as shown below for three different angles:
VP(90o)
VP(45o)
VP(0o)
VTI can be extrinsic, caused by fine layering of the earth, or intrinsic,
caused by particle alignment as in a shale.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 140
Velocities for Weak Anisotropy

Although the equations for full anisotropy are quite complex, Thomsen
(1986) showed that for weakly anisotropic materials the velocities can be
written as follows, where , , and are called Thomsens parameters.
Note that for AVO and converted wave studies, we are only interested in
the first two velocities and constants. Note also that VSV(0o) = VSH(0o):
VP ( ) = VP (0o ) (1 + sin 2 cos 2 + sin 4 )

2
o
V
(0
)
o
2
2
P
VSV ( ) = VSV (0 ) 1 + 2 o ( )sin cos
VSV (0 )
VSH ( ) = VSH (0o ) (1 + sin 2 )

AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 141
Thomsens Parameters
Thomsens parameters are simply combinations of the differences between
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 ( 90 o ) VP ( 0 o )
=
VP ( 0 o )
VSH ( 90 o ) VSH ( 0 o )
=
VSH ( 0 o )
VP ( 45 o ) VP ( 0 o )
VP ( 45 o ) VP ( 0 o )
= 4
+ = 4
o
o
V
(
0
)
V
(
0
)
P
P
In the next slide, we will look at VP and VSV as a function of angle for
different values of and . (As mentioned, VSH will not be used in AVO).
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 142
Anisotropic P and SV VTI velocities
(a) VTI medium

with = 0.2
and = 0.2.
(b) VTI medium

with = 0.1
and = 0.2.
AVO Workshop
(c) VTI medium

with = 0.2
and = 0.1.
AVO 1 - 143
Solving for and using the Velocity
VP(90o)= 2600 m/s
600 m/s
VP(45o)= 2225 m/s
225 m/s
VP(0o)= 2000 m/s
VP ( 90 o ) VP ( 0 o )
=
= 0 .3
o
VP ( 0 )
VP ( 45 o ) VP ( 0 o )
= 4
= 0.45 0.3 = 0.15
o
VP ( 0 )
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 144
AVO and Transverse Isotropy

Thomsen (1993) showed that a transversely isotropic term could be added
to the Aki-Richards equation using his weak anisotropic parameters and ,
where Ran( ) is the anisotropic AVO response and Ris( ) is the isotropic
AVO response. Ruger (2002) gave the following corrected form of
Thomsens original equation:
2
Ran ( ) = Ris ( ) +
sin +
sin 2 tan 2 ,
2
2
where : = 2 1 and = 2 1
Ran ( ) = A + B +
2
2
2
+
+
sin
C
sin
tan
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 145
Typical Values for Delta, Epsilon

and Gamma
Typical values for , , and were given by Thomsen (1986). Here are
some representative values from his table:
Lithology
VP(m/s)
VS(m/s)
rho(g/cc)
epsilon
delta
gamma
sandstone_1
3368
1829
2.50
0.110
-0.035
0.255
sandstone_2
4869
2911
2.50
0.033
0.040
-0.019
calcareous sandstone
5460
3219
2.69
0.000
-0.264
-0.007
immature sandstone
4099
2346
2.45
0.077
0.010
0.066
shale_1
3383
2438
2.35
0.065
0.059
0.071
shale_2
3901
2682
2.64
0.137
-0.012
0.026
mudshale
4529
2703
2.52
0.034
0.211
0.046
clayshale
3794
2074
2.56
0.189
0.204
0.175
silty limestone
4972
2899
2.63
0.056
-0.003
0.067
laminated siltstone
4449
2585
2.57
0.091
0.565
0.046
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 146
AVO and Transverse Isotropy

Blangy (1997) computed the effect of anisotropy on models of the three
Rutherford-Williams type. Blangys models are shown below, but since he
used Thomsens formulation for the linearized approximation, his figures
have been recomputed in the next slide for the wet and gas cases using
Rugers formulation. The slide after that shows our example.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 147
Transverse Isotropy AVO Effects

= -0.15
= -0.3
Class 1
Class 1
Class 2
Class 2
Class 3
Class 3
(a) Gas sandstone case:

Note that the effect of
and is to increase the
AVO effects.
Isotropic
--- Anisotropic
AVO Workshop
(b) Wet sandstone case:

Note that the effect of and
is to create apparent AVO
decreases.
AVO 1 - 148
Anisotropy Applied to Colony

Example
Isotropic vs Anisotropic AVO
Gas Sand Top, = -0.15, = -0.3
Amplitude
0.000
-0.100
-0.200
-0.300
-0.400
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Angle (degrees)
R (Isotropic)
AVO Workshop
R (Anisotropic)
AVO 1 - 149
Anisotropic 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.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 150
Anisotropic AVO Synthetics
(a) Isotropic
(b) Anisotropic
(a) (b)
In this display, the synthetic responses for the logs shown in the
previous slide are shown. Note the difference due to anisotropy.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 151
Conclusions
This section introduced the theory of AVO and considered a number of
modeled examples.
Our first modeled example looked at both a wet sand and a gas sand,
which were based on typical values found in a reservoir. As we will see
in the next section, this is the most common response and is called a
Class 3 anomaly.
We also found that modeling can be very sensitive to the type of
algorithm used. For thin beds, wave equation modeling is suggested.
Finally, anisotropy should also be modeled, since it can have a large
effect on the AVO response.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 152
Exercise
The Colony Gas Sand
Creating Synthetics
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 153
Reading in seismic data
Now we will read in the real

seismic data which tie this well.
Click on Data Manager/Import
Data/Open Seismic/From SEG-Y
File:
On the next menu, select the file gathers.sgy as shown below and click on Add >>
Then click on Next >>.

AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 154
Select the option to

process this file as a
Straight Line, as
shown, and click on
Next >>.
On the next page, make sure that you specify that this file does not have either Inline &
Xline numbers or X & Y coordinates in the trace headers:
Click on Next >> on this page and again on the following page to accept the defaults.
You will see a message, warning you that the seismic file needs to be scanned. Click on
Yes to proceed.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 155

When the scanning completes, the Geometry Grid page appears:
Click on Ok to accept
the default geometry.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 156

The Well to Seismic Map menu appears:
This menu tells the program how to map the wells in the GEOVIEW database to the
seismic data. Change the menu as shown above, i.e., enter the number 330 for the CDP.
We have now indicated that AVO_WELL is inserted at CDP 330 (or Xline 71). Click on
Ok on this menu and the data set will appear plotted in the AVO Analysis window.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 157
Displaying seismic data
Here is the resulting plot

of the gathers:
Move the horizontal scroll bar to display the center portion of the line. You will notice
that the final CDP range will be shown at the bottom of the screen and will change as
you move. Move to a center range of approximately CDP 325-335.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 158
Displaying seismic data

Releasing the mouse button releases the bar and will show this display with the P-wave
log inserted at CDP 330:
You may notice that the

event at a time of 630 ms
is much stronger in the
center of the line than it
was at the left end. In
addition, there is a
noticeable increase in
amplitude in moving from
near offsets to far offsets.
This is the AVO anomaly
which will be investigated
in the following exercises.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 159
Creating a super gather
Next, we will create a super gather, or common offset

stack, around the zone of interest. To do this, first
select Process / Super Gather on the vertical menu
bar of the seismic data window, as shown on the right.
This will bring up the Super

Gather menu, shown on the left.
Keep the default parameters and
click on Next >>.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 160
We next get the menu shown

on the right. Default the
Number of offsets to 10, but
change the Size of Rolling
Window to 5 CDPs, as
shown. This will create super
gathers by averaging over 5
CDP bin locations.
Note also, that we are

creating 10 offsets in each
output bin, spanning the
range from 53 to 647 meters.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 161
Click on Next >> to get the

menu shown on the right,
which defines the output
format. Default this menu
and click on Ok.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 162
The super gather will now

appear in its own window,
as shown on the right.
Note that the signal-tonoise ratio of the event at
630 ms has been
improved.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 163
Seismic Displays
We have just created three seismic displays and will be

creating many more. It is generally not a good idea to keep
too many windows open, so any of these seismic windows can
be shut down by clicking on File / Exit Window. To restore
any seismic window, simply click on the Seismic / Seismic
Window Data Menu button on either the Seismic data window
or the AVO Modeling Window, as shown on the right:
The AVO Open Window Data Menu is

shown on the left. To Show, Close, or
Delete any of the seismic data in the
list, simply highlight the name and click
on the appropriate button.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 164
Seismic Displays
Seismic data can also be displayed in the AVO Modeling window. This window now
shows a subset of the CDP gathers inserted in the window.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 165
Seismic Displays
To change the
displayed seismic
data, click on the
eyeball button
and select the
Seismic Views
tab, as shown on
the right. Notice
that the displayed
seismic is
gathers.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 166
Seismic Displays
By using a
combination of the
Delete << and
Add>> buttons,
replace the
gathers with the
super gather, as
shown on the right.
Click on Ok to
change the
display.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 167
Seismic Displays
The new window looks as shown below. Note that the super-gather is now displayed
instead of the original raw gathers:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 168
Wavelet Extraction
The next step is to make a synthetic gather.

Before making a synthetic, we should extract a wavelet. We will extract a statistical
wavelet from the super gather by doing the following steps:
Click on Wavelet / Extract

Wavelet / Statistical:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 169
Wavelet Extraction
When the menu appears, change the

Input Volume to super_gather and
change the start time to 500 ms, as
shown on the right. Also, default the
offset range to use all the offsets.
Click Next >> twice, then change the

Wavelet Length to 100 and click on OK.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 170
Wavelet Extraction
The extracted wavelet appears in this

window.
Click on the Frequency tab to see

the amplitude and phase spectrum
of this wavelet. Because we have
used the Statistical option, the
phase is automatically zero-phase.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 171
Creating a Synthetic Gather
Now we will make an offset synthetic.

Click on Synthetic /
Zoeppritz:
Set the parameters as

shown on the right. Note
that the Target zone has
been set from 600 to 700
meters. The Zoeppritz
equations will be applied
only within this zone.
Also, the Offset range is
identical to that of the Super
Gather computed earlier.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 172
Click on Next >> and OK to display the synthetic in the AVO Modeling window:
Notice that the synthetic is a bit overscaled when compared to the real data. To fix
this, click on the eyeball icon to bring up the View Parameters menu.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 173
In the View Parameter

menu, go to the Seismic
Views tab, as shown on
the right.
Highlight avo_well_syn
under the Displayed
Seismic box and change
the Trace Excursion to
0.70.
Then, click on Ok to
apply the change.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 174
The scaled result should look like this:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 175
AVO Analysis on
Seismic Data
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 176
Introduction
In the last section, we looked at the theory of AVO and used the equations to
perform forward modeling.
We will now use the linearized Aki-Richards equation to extract intercept
and gradient attributes from seismic data.
We will then look at the classification scheme of Rutherford and Williams,
and discuss AVO cross-plotting.
Finally, we will discuss the use of the third term in the Aki-Richards equation
to derive density attributes.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 177
The Two-Term Aki-Richards Equation

Intercept / gradient analysis is done with the two-term Aki-Richards equation.
Recall that:
R( ) = A + B sin 2
where we have dropped the C term and define A and B as:
1 VP
A=
+
,

2 V p
VS VS
VS
1 VP
B=
,
4
2
2 Vp
VP VS
VP
or, using Shueys approximation:
VP / VP
1 2
+
=
B = A D 2( 1 + D )
,
D
.
2
V P / V P + /
1 (1 )
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 178
The Two-Term Aki-Richards Equation

It is common practice to use only 2 terms because:
(1) It simplifies the analysis considerably
(2) For angles less than about 40 degrees, the third term is not
significant, as shown previously:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 179
Estimating the Intercept and Gradient
Our objective is to determine values for A and B by analyzing real seismic

data.
Step 1 involves converting from offset to angle.
Step 2 involves fitting a regression line to the amplitude picks as a function
of the sine of the angle squared.
The next two slides will illustrate this in simple fashion.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 180
Converting from Offset to Angle

450
The offset
domain is the
conventional
CDP stack
with each trace
at a different
offset. The
acquisition
geometry is
shown below.
Offset (m)
6000
Angle (degrees)
90
The angle domain

represents a
theoretical
acquisition
geometry in which
each trace
corresponds to a
constant incidence
angle.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 181

Conversion from offset to angle can be done using one of these options:
(1) Straight ray assumption (constant velocity)
(2) Ray-tracing (variable velocity)
(3) Ray Parameter approximation (variable velocity approximation)
(1 ) Straight Ray :
X
X
tan =
=
,
2 d Vt 0
( 2 ) Ray Parameter :
XVINT
,
sin =
2
tVRMS
where X = offset ,
where VINT = Interval velocity ,

t = total traveltime.
VRMS t 0
,
2
t0 = 2 way time,
d = depth =
VRMS = RMS velocity .
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 182

Ray
Tracing
Ray
Parameter
The Ray Parameter method is

usually used when analyzing
seismic data.
This is because it is much faster
than Ray Tracing.
Because of the approximations, it
begins to degrade slightly at
angles greater than 50 degrees.
65
The example on the right shows

angle contours calculated using
Ray Tracing and Ray Parameter.
35 43
AVO Workshop
50
65
35 43
50
AVO 1 - 183
Real Data Example

Now lets look at some real data, and see if it matches the
theory.
The next slide shows the logs in the discovery well.
After that, we will look at the stack, a classic bright spot.
The slide following the bright spot shows a group of 2D

gathers over a gas zone, in WTVA and color amplitude
envelope. Notice the increase in amplitude as a function of
offset.
The slide after that shows a common offset stack or
super-gather over the gathers. The amplitudes have been
picked and displayed, to quantify the amplitude increase.
We will finally discuss the A and B attributes and their
combinations.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 184
Logs
The well logs are from the gas discovery well are shown above. Notice
that there is a cleaner response on the density log than the sonic log.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 185
Stack
Bright Spot
The CDP stack over the gas well is shown above, with the sonic log from the
gas well spliced in. Note the bright spot, which may or may not indicate
gas (it could be lithology induced).
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 186
Seismic Gathers over a Gas Sand

(a) A series
of corrected
CDP gathers
over a gas
zone.
(b) The same

gathers, but
shown with
color
amplitude
envelope.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 187
Common Offset Stack from Gathers

(a) Common offset stack
(b) Picks from
the trough.
(c) Picks from

the peak.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 188
Common Offset Picks as

Function of sin2
The pick amplitudes are extracted at
all times, two of which are shown.
Offset
+A
+B
sin2
Time
The Aki-Richards equation predicts a
linear relationship between these
amplitudes and sin2.
-A
-B
Regression curves are then

calculated, to give A and B values for
each time sample.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 189
The result of this calculation is to produce 2 basic

attribute volumes
Intercept: A
Gradient: B
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 190
Derived Attributes
The raw A and B attribute volumes are rarely used in that form.
Instead, other AVO attributes are usually calculated from them.
The most popular AVO attributes are:

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
AVO Product : A*B

Scaled Poissons Ratio Change : A+B
Shear Reflectivity : A-B
Fluid factor
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 191
Derived Attributes
AVO Product : A*B
Many AVO anomalies have the
form shown at the right.
In this case, both the intercept (A)
and the gradient (B) are large
numbers or bright. Also, they
have the same sign.
+A
This is an example of a Class 3

anomaly.
sin2
Forming the product of A and B,

we get:
Top of sand : (-A)*(-B) = +AB
Base of sand : (+A)*(+B) = +AB
+B
-A
-B
This gives a positive bright

response at both top and base.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 192
Derived Attributes
AVO Product : A*B
The AVO product shows a positive response at the
top and base of the reservoir:
Top
Base
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 193
Derived Attributes
The second combination is derived from Shueys equation:
R( ) = A + B sin 2
A=
1 VP
+

2 V p
1 2
B = A D 2( 1 + D )
+
1 ( 1 )2
If we assume the background Poissons Ratio = = 1/3, then:
B = A D 2(1 + D ) +
=
A
2
2 (2 / 3)
4
or:
9
A + B =
4
The sum A+B is proportional to the

change in Poissons Ratio.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 194
Derived Attributes
The AVO sum (A+B) shows a negative response at the top of the reservoir
(decrease in ) and a positive response at the base (increase in ):
Top
Base
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 195
Derived Attributes
The third combination is derived from the Aki_Richards equation:
R( ) = A + B sin 2
1 VP
A=
+
2 V p

2
V VS
V
1 VP
4 S
2 S
B=
2 Vp
VP VS
VP
If we assume the background VP/VS = 2, then:

2
B=
V VS
V
1 VP
4 S
2 S
2 Vp
VP VS
VP
= RP 2 RS , where : RP = A, and RS =
or:
RS =
1
(A B)
2
1 VS
+
2 VS

The difference A-B is proportional to

the Shear Reflectivity.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 196
Derived Attributes
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
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 197
RP / RS Attributes
An alternate form of the Aki-Richards equation was formulated by Fatti et
al. (Geophysics, September, 1994) which can be written (for 2 terms) as:
R ( ) = c1RP + c2 RS
VS
where : c1 = 1 + tan , c2 = 8 sin , =
VP
2
1 VP
1 VS
RP =
, RS =
.
+
+

2 VP
2 VS
This allows us to calculate RP and RS volumes from seismic data in exactly
the same way as A and B volumes.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 198
RP / RS Attributes
RP
RS
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 199
RP / RS Attributes
The RP/RS attributes are usually transformed into one of 2 new

attributes:
(1) Fluid Factor, which will be discussed next.
(2) AVO Inversion or Lambda-Mu-Rho, which will be discussed
in a later section.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 200
Derived Attributes
Fluid Factor
The Fluid Factor attribute (Smith and Gidlow, 1987, Fatti et al., 1994) is
based on Castagnas mudrock equation, which is assumed to be true
for non-hydrocarbon filled layers:
VP = 1.16 VS + 1360 m / s
From this equation, we can derive the following equivalent equation:
VS
RP = 1.16 RS
VP
The Fluid Factor is defined to highlight layers where Castagnas

equation is not true, i.e., potential hydrocarbon zones:
VS
F = RP 1.16 RS
VP
Note that the factor 1.16
VS
is often customized to fit the local data.
VP
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 201
Derived Attributes
Fluid Factor
The AVO Fluid Factor shows strong deviation from Castagnas equation at
both the top and base of the reservoir.
Top
Base
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 202
Important Parameter Choices for

Gradient Calculations
Velocities for
angle calculation
Range of
angles
Minimum Correlation
for handling noisy
picks.
Type of analysis
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 203
Exercise
The Colony Gas Sand
Calculating AVO Attributes
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 204
Creating Angle Gathers

First, we will calculate angle gathers from a real data set and observe the effect
of the input velocity on the result. The super gathers are displayed in an AVO
seismic window and look like this:
Anomaly
This data set is a set of CDP-gathered data with a large AVO anomaly. In order
to do AVO analysis, we must be sure that there is a good range of incidence
angles at the zone of interest. To see that, we will convert the input data set to
the Angle Gather domain.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 205
Click on Process / Angle Gather:
On the first page of the menu, we will keep

the default parameters. Click on Next >>:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 206
On this page, we must

specify the velocity
field which the
program will use to
convert from offset to
angle. We will use
the sonic log. Click
on the Open Well
Log button:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 207
Select the log to use for the velocities in the angle transform
calculation:
Fill in the menu as shown above, and click on Ok.

AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 208
The previous menu will now look like this:
Click on Next >> and OK to produce the result.

AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 209
The range of angles at any time is a function of the velocity field input. This calculation
shows that at the time of interest, 630 ms, we have angles out to about 30 degrees.
This should be good enough for the subsequent analysis.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 210
Now, we will calculate the AVO attributes and observe the effects of changing
parameters on the result. The data for this exercise is the set of super gathers in the
AVO seismic window, which should look like this:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 211
First, we will pick the anomalous event. To

do that, click on Horizon / Pick Horizons:
On the first menu, click on Ok

to accept the default name:
Modify the two parameters shown

below, which will allow you to pick a
trough on all traces of the line:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 212
After you have modified the menu as shown on the previous slide, click near the
trough at about 630 ms. This will cause the entire event to be picked:
When you are satisfied that the proper event has been picked, click on Ok to
accept the picks.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 213
To display the pick amplitudes, click on

AVO Analysis / Pick Analysis:
On the first page of

this menu, select the
option to Show Pick
Amplitude Values
Only:
On the second
page, ensure that
the correct horizon
is selected:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 214
After clicking
OK on the
menu, the picks
appear at the
base of the
display.
To remove the amplitude display, click on AVO Analysis / View Pick Analysis,
and this will toggle the display off.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 215
Now we will calculate AVO Attribute volumes.
To produce the intercept and gradient

volumes for this data set, choose AVO
Attribute / AVO Attribute Volume on the
window containing the super gathers.
We will keep all the

defaults on the first page,
so click on Next >>:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 216
Take a look at all the default menu items.
Use the log for

the velocities.
We will use only

the first two terms
in the Aki-Richards
equation.
Click on Next >>

and OK to start
the calculation.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 217
Here is the resulting AVO attribute calculation:
Notice that there is a strong red anomaly in the center of the section. As shown by the
Color Key, red corresponds to a large positive amplitude. As indicated at the top of the
display, the product of intercept and gradient (A*B) is being displayed in color.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 218
Actually, the horizon display is obscuring

the top of the gand sand event. Lets
remove that horizon temporarily. First click
the eyeball icon:
On the parameters
menu, select the
Horizons page:
Then, select the

option Do Not
Show, and click on
Ok:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 219
Now, we can clearly see the red (positive) response at the top
and base of the gas sand, which is expected for a Class 3 AVO
anomaly:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 220
Another, very useful AVO attribute is the

Scaled Poissons Ratio, A+B. To see that,
click the eyeball icon once again:
On the first, General, page,

change the Color Data Volume
item as shown, and click Ok:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 221
The result will look like this:
Once again, we see the expected response for the gas sand a negative
(orange) change in Poissons Ratio at the top and a positive (yellow) change at
the base of the layer.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 222
Cross Plotting AVO

Attributes
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 223
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:
(1) The Rutherford / Williams Classification Scheme.
(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:
Class 2:
Class 2p:
Class 3:
Class 4:
High impedance sand with decreasing AVO

Near-zero impedance contrast
Same as 2, with polarity change
Low impedance sand with increasing AVO
Low impedance sand with decreasing AVO
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 224
Rutherford/Williams Classification
The Rutherford and Williams classification scheme
as modified by Ross and Kinman (1995).
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 225
An Example of a Class 1 Anomaly

(a) Data
example.
(b) Model
example.
Rutherford
and Williams
(1989)
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 226
Angle Stacks over Class 2 & 3 Sands

(a) Class 2 sand.
(b) Class 3 sand.
Rutherford
and Williams
(1989)
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 227
Class 2p vs Class 2 Sands

For known Class 2 and 2p anomalies, certain processing options may
enhance the interpretation:
Ross and Kinman (1995) suggest creating a near trace range stack (NTS)
and a far trace range stack (FTS).
For Class 2p: Final Stack = FTS - NTS
For Class 2: Final Stack = FTS
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 228
Class 2 Sands
(a) Full stack of a class 2
sand.
(b) FTS of a class 2 sand.
Ross and Kinman (1995)

AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 229
Class 2p Sands
(a) Full stack of a class

2p sand.
(a) FTS - NTS of a class

2p sand.
Ross and Kinman (1995)

AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 230
Class 4 Anomalies
Castagna (1995) suggested that for a very large value of A, and a small
change in Poissons ratio, we may see a reversal of the standard Class 3
anomaly, as shown below. Castagna termed this a Class 4 anomaly.
Here is a simple example using Shueys approximation:
9
B = A,
4
(1) If = 0.3 and A = 0.1, then B = -0.575 (Class 3)
(2) If = 0.1 and A = 0.3, then B = 0.075 (Class 4)
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 231
Class 4 Anomalies
Here is Figure 7 from

Castagna et al (1998),
which illustrates the
concept of the Class 4
anomaly in more detail.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 232
The Mudrock Line

The mudrock line is a linear relationship between VP and VS derived by
Castagna et al (1985). The equation is as follows and the plot from their
original paper is shown below:
VP =1.16 VS+1360 m/sec
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 233
Intercept vs Gradient Crossplot

By using the Aki-Richards equation, Gardners equation, and the ARCO
mudrock line, we can derive a relationship between intercept and gradient.
Recall that:
1 VP
A=
+
2 V p

VS
VS VS
1 VP
B=
,
2
4
2 Vp
VP
VP VS
1 VP
=
Gardner :
4 VP
If we assume that VP = cVS, then we can derive the following relationship:
4
B=
5
A1 2
c
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 234

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
B=
5
9
A1 = A
4
If c = 3, the gradient is zero, a horizontal line on the crossplot of intercept

against gradient:
4
B=
5
9
A1 = 0
9
Various values of c produce the straight lines (wet trends) shown on

intercept / gradient crossplots on the next page.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 235
Mudrock lines on a crossplot for various VP/VS ratios

(Castagna and Swan, 1998).
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 236

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.
This is shown in the next figure.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 237

Gradient
Base II P
Base II
Base I
Base III
Top IV
Intercept
Base IV
Top III
Crossplot
Showing
Anomalies
Top I
Wet Trend
Top II
Top II P
AVO Workshop
Vp
= 2
Vs
AVO 1 - 238
ARCO Example of Cross-Plotting
(a) Cross-plot of well log derived A and B.
(b) Cross-plot of seismically derived A and B.
The scatter on the seismically derived data can be attributed to:

(1) VP/VS Ratio variability
(2) Wavelet interference.
AVO Workshop
Foster et al (1993)
AVO 1 - 239
Intercept / Gradient Crossplots
(a) Uninterpreted gas zone

(b) Interpreted gas zone
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 240
Seismic Display from A/B Xplots
(a) Before interpretation
(b) After interpretation

AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 241
Polarization and the AVO Hodogram

We have seen that one of the major causes of scatter on seismically
derived cross-plots is wavelet interference.
One approach to reducing wavelet interference is to use the AVO
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).
A second approach is to perform inversion of the AVO attribute volumes.

We will see this in a later section.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 242

Up to now, we have
calculated cross plots of A
and B, using fairly large
analysis windows.
This gives a broad cluster of

points, containing both the
background trend and the AVO
anomalies:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 243

In Polarization Analysis, we
calculate cross plots over small
sliding windows on a single trace.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 244
For each cross plot, we

can calculate the
polarization vector.
This measures the

direction of the
dominant energy for
this cluster.
The length of the
vector measures the
average energy in the
cluster.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 245

Theoretically, we can expect wet
trend points to fall around the -45o
trend, while class 3 AVO anomalies
fall around +45o.
-45o
+45o
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 246
The 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.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 247
The Hodogram
A more conventional display shows
the calculated polarization angle for a
single trace as a function of time.
Note that this result depends on the
size of the sliding window.
Also note the anomalous positive
Polarization Angle around 630 ms
indicating the Class 3 anomaly.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 248
Colony Gas Sand Polarization

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:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 249
Problems in
Intercept / Gradient Analysis
There are a number of problems that can reduce the accuracy of intercept /
gradient analysis and crossplotting:
Noise on the far offsets
- This can be reduced by using a robust, or L1 norm,
approach to fitting the intercept/gradient line.
Misalignment of events at far offsets
- This can be reduced by applying a fourth order correction, or by
using a trim static (see the Gulf Coast Exercise).
Neglecting the third term in Aki-Richards
- This can be improved by estimating the third (C) term.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 250
Noisy Amplitudes
Corr = .88
In addition to fitting the

regression curves for A and B, it
is important to measure how
well the curves fit the data.
The Gradient Analysis display
shows visually the goodness-offit, and displays the Normalized
Correlation, which measures the
goodness-of-fit on a scale of 0
to 1.
Corr = .45
This correlation can be used

later to reject unreliable data.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 251
Misalignment of Events
One of the most serious problems for Gradient analysis is residual NMO:
Good for AVO
Bad for AVO
This is often most apparent on long-offset data, where high order moveout
corrections are required. Other causes are anisotropy and poor
processing.
We will use trim statics to correct this in a later exercise.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 252
Three Term AVO

As mentioned previously, one problem in AVO and crossplot analysis is
that 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:
R( ) = A + B sin + C tan sin

2
where:
1 VP
+
A = RP 0 =

2 VP
VS
VP
4
2
B=
VS
2Vp
2
VS
C=
, and = .
2Vp
VP
VP
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 253
Three Term AVO

An alternate form of the Aki-Richards equation was formulated by Fatti et
al. (Geophysics, September, 1994) which can be written:
R ( ) = c1 RP + c2 RS + c3 RD
where : c1 = 1 + tan 2 , c2 = 8 sin 2 ,
2
VS
1
2
2
c3 = tan 2 sin , = ,
2
VP
1 VP
1 VS
RP =
+
+
.
, RD =
, RS =
2 VP
2 VS

Either the A, B, C and the RP, RS, RD terms can be extracted from the
seismic gathers using a least-squares fitting technique with different
weighting coefficients.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 254
Density Term
Both forms of the Aki-Richards equation can allow us to estimate
density variations.
Using the original A,B,C form, we see that:
AC =
1 VP VP
+
=
2 VP
2
2V p
This means that if we can estimate all three coefficients, we can

generate a density attribute volume.
That can be very valuable since density is a direct measure of
hydrocarbon 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.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 255
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.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 256
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.
3 Term
2 Term
Base
Top
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 257
Poissons Ratio maps:

2 and 3 Terms
The Scaled Poissons

Ratio maps for the two
results are different,
even though each
depends only on A and
B.
Because of the good
seismic data with
angles to 60 degrees,
we expect the 3-term
result to be more
reliable.
2 Term
AVO Workshop
3 Term
AVO 1 - 258
Elastic Contrasts from 3 Term AVO
Delta Rho
Delta VS
Delta VP
The map of the density term highlights the same areas as the delta VS.
VP/VP is perhaps best in this case: the hydrocarbon anomaly is
associated with a strong change in VP.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 259
Conclusions
This section discussed the AVO intercept and gradient method.
First, we looked at the theory behind the intercept and gradient.
We then looked at an example from a shallow gas sand.
We then discussed the AVO cross-plotting technique.
We then discussed and showed examples of the AVO hodogram method.
Finally, we showed how to estimate three terms from the Aki-Richards
equation and showed several examples of this approach.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 260
Appendix
Hiltermans Approximation
Hilterman re-arranges Shueys equation in a slightly different way:
R( ) = A + (2.25 A)sin 2
= A (1 sin 2 ) + 2.25 sin 2
= A cos 2 + 2.25 sin 2
Notice that this equation is very intuitive, since it shows that, as the angle
increases, so does the dependence on . Keep in mind that this
equation is strictly correct only for = 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:
R( ) = A cos 2 + ( A + B ) sin 2
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 261
Exercise
The Colony Gas Sand
Cross Plotting AVO Attributes
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 262
To perform cross-plot analysis, click on the AVO Analysis / Cross

Plot option in the window containing the AVO attributes:
On the first page of the menu,

set the CDP range from 300 to
360 and plot A versus B:
Click on Next >> to get the
next page.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 263
Well plot the Intercept along the X-axis and Gradient along
the Y-axis. Click Next >> on these 2 pages.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 264
When you reach this page, you

are setting the time window over
which to extract points for the
cross plot.
Note that we are using a 100 ms
window centered around the
picked event Horizon 1.
Also, we are plotting only the
peaks and troughs from the
intercept trace.
When you have filled in the
menu as shown, click on
Next >> and OK to get the
cross plot.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 265
AVO cross
plot of
intercept and
gradient:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 266
Now we wish to identify points on the cross

plot and see where they come from on the
original seismic section. To do this, click on
Zones / Add to get the Add Zone menu.
The menu will look like this:

Note that, by default, we are
adding a zone called Zone_1,
which will be a gray colored
Ellipse
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 267
To select a zone, use the mouse to highlight a region on the cross

plot by clicking once, stretching the rubber band to define the axis
of the ellipse, clicking a second time, and changing the size of the
ellipse, and clicking a third time. Define a zone as shown below:
Click on Apply on the Add Zone menu to add this zone.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 268
Now click on Cross-Section to get a new window with the seismic

data plotted. You will also see the selected points highlighted with
the same color:
The region that we have highlighted is the wet trend, which should not contain the AVO
anomaly.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 269
To add a second zone, go back to the menu and click Add new
zone, as shown here::
The menu now

changes to indicate
that a new zone,
Zone_2, will be created
in yellow.
This time we will use the

Polygon method to draw
the zone. Change the item
shown at right.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 270
Now, draw the polygon, like

the one shown on the right.
When drawing a polygon,
click the left mouse button at
each of the corners. Then
finally, click the right mouse
button, when you wish to
close the polygon.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 271
When you have drawn the

polygon, click on Apply and your
screen should look something like
this.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 272
Finally, add a third zone, as shown below:
When you have added the

third zone, click on Apply
and Ok on the Add Zone
Menu.
Your final cross plot
should look something like
this:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 273
The highlighted regions in quadrants 1 and 3 should correspond

to Class 3 AVO anomalies. The cross section shows that this
corresponds to the anomaly we have been studying so far:
The cross section shows only the portion of data which was used to calculate
the cross plot. Now that we have identified 3 zones, we wish to see them
displayed back on the original seismic data.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 274
To do that, go back to the window containing the intercept and

gradient volumes, and click on the eyeball icon. This will
cause the View / Parameters menu to appear.
On this menu, click on the Color Data Volume item to get a
pullDown list of all the options for color display:
Select the Cross Plot item and click on OK to see the new plot.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 275
The resulting display shows the Cross Plot zones which you
have interpreted from the Cross Plot. This is available over the
entire line and not just the analysis region:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 276
We have now completed this part of

the work in the Colony project. We
will need it for a later exercise, so
click on Project / Save on one of
the seismic windows:
Then, close down the AVO program by

clicking on File / Exit Project on one of
the seismic windows:
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 277
AVO Case Study

Fluid Factor Example
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 278
AVO Case Study

Fluid Factor Example
This case study comes from papers by Smith and Gidlow (Geophysical
Prospecting, November, 1987) and Fatti et al (Geophysics, September, 1994).
We will not review their complete papers, but simply summarize their
approach and look at the 2D and 3D results.
Their papers shows an example of the fluid factor method applied to a
actual reservoir.
We will start with the theory, then show a modeled example, the 2D
example, and finally the 3D example.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 279
The Fluid Factor - Theory

As discussed earlier, Smith and Gidlow (1987) proposed the fluid
factor stack by using Castagnas mudrock line, as follows:
VP
VS VS
F =
1.16
VP
VP VS
This was modified by Fatti et al. (1994) (Smith was the second author)
in the following way, and is the approach used to compute fluid
factor in this paper:
VS
F = RP 1.16 RS
VP
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 280
Model Example
V p
Vp
V p (m / s)
Vs (m / s)
Vp Vs
Vs
Vs
3
P g / cm
(a) Modeled logs. Note false

anomaly at 2.5 seconds.
(b) Results of analysis. Only

F showed the true anomaly.
Smith and Gidlow (1987)

AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 281
Real Data Example
Cross plot of
shear
velocity (W)
against Pwave velocity
(V) for the 2D
example

AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 282
2D Example from Smith-Gidlow

(a) P-wave reflectivity, VP/VP
(b) S-wave reflectivity, VS/VS
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 283
2D Data Example
(a) Pseudo-Poissons Ratio
(b) Fluid Factor section
Gas sand
at 2.0 s
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 284
3D Example from Fatti et al.

Depth structure
contour map
interpreted from
3D seismic data.
Fatti et al (1994)
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 285
3D Example Amplitude Envelope

Map
Maximum
value of
amplitude
envelope
from
conventional
seismic.
Fatti et al (1994)
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 286
3D Example Fluid Factor
Fluid factor
amplitude
from top-ofgas event.
Fatti et al (1994)
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 287
Fluid factor
amplitude from
base-of-gas
event.
Fatti et al (1994)
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 288
Sum of fluid
factor
amplitude
maps from topof-gas and
base-of-gas
events.
Fatti et al (1994)
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 289
Conclusions for Fluid Factor

Method
The fluid factor method was able to identify the anomaly on the
model example much more clearly than with pseudo-Poissons
ratio.
On the 2D South African example, the anomaly was again much
more clearly indicated using the fluid factor.
On the 3D South African example, the fluid factor method was
compared to traditional post-stack amplitude analysis. The fluid
factor approach did a much better job of identifying the anomaly.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 290
AVO Case Study

Onshore Texas Example
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 291
AVO Case Study

This case study comes from a paper by Mark Gregg and Charles
Bukowski (Leading Edge, November, 2000).
This paper shows a very practical example of the application of AVO

to a mature basin.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 292
AVO Case Study

The exploration objective was the
elastic Oligocene Vicksburg
formation in South Texas.
This has produced more than 3
trillion ft3 of gas since the 1920s,
but not much AVO work has been
reported.
The authors believe the lack of
AVO application comes because
the Vicksburg trend is not a
typical amplitude-supported
play.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 293
AVO Case Study

The motivation for using AVO
came from results like those
shown on the left.
Using the conventional poststack data, it is difficult to
distinguish Gas from Wet sand
before drilling.
Prior to AVO analysis, the
authors had drilled one
commercial gas well, one noncommercial gas well, and three
dry holes.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 294
AVO Case Study

These curves from the gas
discovery well show both a
Gas and a Wet zone.
The change in acoustic
impedance is small but the
change in Poissons ratio
is large.
This suggests a class 2
AVO anomaly.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 295
AVO Case Study

Synthetic modeling
confirmed the expected
class 2 response.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 296
AVO Case Study

The data was
reprocessed to include
nonhyperbolic moveout.
This turned out to be
critical, as the figure
shows.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 297
AVO Case Study

A very useful indicator is the
Near and Far Angle Stack.
Note that the Gas sand
shows its brightest response
on the Far Angle stack, as
expected for the class 2
behavior.
The authors used the Far
Angle Stack as the main tool
for searching for new
anomalies.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 298
AVO Case Study

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 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.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 299
AVO Case Study

This is the first
drilled anomaly.
100 ft gross interval
with 72 ft of net pay,
producing initially 3
million ft3 of gas per
day.
Since the anomaly is
not visible on the
conventional stack,
this would not have
been drilled without
the AVO analysis.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 300
AVO Case Study

A second anomaly was
identified by interpreting the
far-angle stack using
Landmarks Earthcube
software.
This had not been identified
before AVO, because of the
poor quality of the
conventional stack. This was
presumed to be because of
the small acoustic impedance
contrast.
Note that there appear to be
multiple anomalies at the
prospective level.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 301
AVO Case Study

The drilled well
encountered 2 pay
zones.
Upper zone: gross
thickness of 54 ft,
with 28 ft net pay.
Lower zone: gross
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.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 302
AVO Case Study

Two more
successful wells are
shown here.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 303
AVO Case Study

This is an unsuccessful result. The drilling encountered 105 ft of
clean, low-gas-saturated sand at the anomaly.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 304
AVO Case Study

Results:
(1) Six commercial discoveries.
(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:
(1) Know your rocks. Do the modeling.
(2) Look beyond conventional seismic techniques, e.g. AVO.
(3) Low gas saturation remains a pitfall of the AVO method.
AVO Workshop
AVO 1 - 305

AVO1

Transféré par

Informations du document

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

AVO1

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

AVO Workshop

Theory and Exercises

Last Updated: March 2006

Table of Contents - Part 1

Last Updated: March 2006

Table of Contents Part 2

Overview of the AVO Process

Last Updated: March 2006

Last Updated: March 2006

Gas well location

What is a bright spot

To understand bright spots, recall the definition of the zero-offset reflection

What is a bright spot

Difference between shale and gas

The AVO method

What causes the AVO effect?

Last Updated: March 2006

Why is S-wave velocity important?

Last Updated: March 2006

Last Updated: March 2006

One of the AVO methods that we will be

Last Updated: March 2006

Last Updated: March 2006

Summary of AVO Methodology

Rock Physics &

Last Updated: March 2006

Basic Rock Physics

sat = m(1 ) + w Sw + hc(1 Sw )

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Last Updated: March 2006

P and S-wave Velocities

Last Updated: March 2006

P and S-wave Velocities

Last Updated: March 2006

Velocity Equations using and

where: = the first Lam constant,

Last Updated: March 2006

Velocity Equations using K and

where: K = the bulk modulus, or the

The inverse to the above formula, allowing you to derive VP or VS

Poissons Ratio vs VP/VS ratio

Last Updated: March 2006

Velocity in Porous Rocks

Last Updated: March 2006

Velocity vs Saturation using

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

The Biot-Gassmann Equations

Last Updated: March 2006

The Biot-Gassmann Equations

Pores and fluid

Biot-Gassmann - Shear Modulus

Last Updated: March 2006

dry = the shear modulus of the dry rock.

Biot-Gassmann - Saturated Bulk

Mavko et al, in The Rock Physics Handbook, re-arranged the above

The Rock Matrix Bulk Modulus

The bulk modulus of the solid rock matrix, Km is usually taken

The Fluid Bulk Modulus

K hc = the bulk modulus of the hydrocarbon.

Kgas = 0.021 GPa, Koil = 0.79 GPa, Kw = 2.38 GPa

Last Updated: March 2006

Last Updated: March 2006

Velocity vs Saturation of Gas

Last Updated: March 2006