Measuring AVO Uncertainty

AFI
(AVO Fluid Inversion)
Uncertainty in AVO:
How can we measure it?
Dan Hampson, Brian Russell

Hampson-Russell Software, Calgary
Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 1

Overview
AVO Analysis is now routinely used for exploration and

development.
But: all AVO attributes contain a great deal of “uncertainty” –

there is a wide range of lithologies which could account for
any AVO response.
In this talk we present a procedure for analyzing and

quantifying AVO uncertainty.
As a result, we will calculate probability maps for hydrocarbon

detection.

AVO Uncertainty Analysis:
The Basic Process
G STOCHASTIC
AVO
CALIBRATED: MODEL
I
! GRADIENT
! INTERCEPT FLUID
! BURIAL DEPTH PROBABILITY
MAPS
AVO ATTRIBUTE
MAPS ! PBRI
ISOCHRON
MAPS ! POIL
! PGAS
“Conventional” AVO Modeling:
Creating 2 pre-stack synthetics
IN
INSITU
SITU==OIL
OIL
IO GO
FRM
FRM==BRINE
BRINE
IB GB

Monte Carlo Simulation:
Creating many synthetics
I-G DENSITY FUNCTIONS

BRINE OIL GAS
75
50
25

The Basic Model
We assume a 3-layer model with

Shale shale enclosing a sand (with
various fluids).
Sand
Shale

The Basic Model
The Shales are characterized by:

Vp1, Vs1, r1
P-wave velocity
S-wave velocity
Density
Vp2, Vs2, r2

The Basic Model
Each parameter has a probability

distribution:
Vp1, Vs1, r1
Vp2, Vs2, r2

The Basic Model
The Sand is characterized by:
Brine Modulus
Brine Density
Gas Modulus
Shale Gas Density
Oil Modulus
Oil Density
Sand Matrix Modulus
Matrix density
Porosity
Shale Shale Volume
Water Saturation
Thickness
Each of these has a probability distribution.

Trend Analysis
Some of the statistical distributions are determined from well log

trend analyses:
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.4 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.4
DBSB (Km)
Determining Distributions at
Selected Locations
Assume a Normal distribution. Get the Mean and Standard Deviation

from the trend curves for each depth:
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.4 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.4
DBSB (Km)
Trend Analysis: Other
Distributions
5000
Shale Velocity
4500
4000 3.0
Sand Density
3500 2.8
3000 2.6 3.0 Shale Density
2.8
2500 2.4 40%
2.6
2000 2.2 Sand Porosity
35%
2.4
1500 2.0
2.2 30%
1000 1.8
2.0 25%
500 1.6
1.8
0 1.4 20%
0.41.2 1.6 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.4
15%
1.4 DBSB (Km)
1.0 10%
1.2
0.4 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.4
1.0 5%
DBSB (Km)
0.4 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.4
0% DBSB (Km)
0.4 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.4
Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell DBSB (Km) 12
Practically, this is how we set up the
distributions:
Shale:
Vp Trend Analysis
Vs Castagna’s Relationship with % error
Density Trend Analysis
Sand:
Brine Modulus
Brine Density
Gas Modulus
Gas Density
Oil Modulus Constants for the area
Oil Density
Matrix Modulus
Matrix density
Dry Rock Modulus Calculated from sand trend analysis
Porosity Trend Analysis
Shale Volume Uniform Distribution from petrophysics
Water Saturation Uniform Distribution from petrophysics
Thickness Uniform Distribution

Calculating a Single Model
Response
Note that a wavelet is assumed
From a particular model instance, known.
calculate two synthetic traces at 0o 45o
different angles.
Top Shale
Sand
Base Shale

Response
Note that these amplitudes include
On the synthetic traces, pick the interference from the second interface.
event corresponding to the top of
the sand layer: 0o 45o
Top Shale
P2
P1
Sand
Base Shale

Response
Using these picks, calculate the Intercept and Gradient for this model:
I = P1 0o 45o
G = (P2-P1)/sin2(45)
Top Shale
P2
P1
Sand
Base Shale

Using Biot-Gassmann Substitution
Starting from the Brine Sand case, the corresponding Oil and Gas Sand models are
generated using Biot-Gassmann substitution. This creates 3 points on the I-G cross
plot:
BRINE
GAS OIL
KGAS KOIL
ρGAS ρOIL
G G G
I I I

Monte-Carlo Analysis
By repeating this process many times, we get a probability distribution for
each of the 3 sand fluids:
Brine
I
Oil
Gas

The Results are Depth Dependent
Because the trends are depth-dependent, so are the predicted
distributions:
@ 1000m @ 1200m @ 1400m
@ 1600m @ 1800m @ 2000m

The Depth-dependence can often be
understood using Rutherford-Williams
classification
2 4 6
5
3
1
Sand
4
3 Shale
Impedance
2
5 6
1
Class 1
Class 2
Burial Depth
Class 3
Bayes’ Theorem
Bayes’ Theorem is used to calculate the probability that any new (I,G) point
belongs to each of the classes (brine, oil, gas):
~
( )=
( ~
)
~
p I,G F * P (F )
p (I , G F k )* P (F k
P F I,G
∑ k
)
where:
• P(Fk) represent a priori probabilities and Fk is either brine, oil, gas;
• p(I,G|Fk) are suitable distribution densities (eg. Gaussian) estimated
from the stochastic simulation output.

How Bayes’ Theorem works in a
simple case:
Assume we have these distributions:
Gas
Oil
Brine
OCCURRENCE
VARIABLE
How Bayes’ Theorem works in a
simple case:
This is the calculated probability for

(gas, oil, brine).
100%
OCCURRENCE
50%
VARIABLE
When the distributions overlap, the
probabilities decrease:
Even if we are right on the “Gas” 100%

peak, we can only be 60% sure we
have gas.
OCCURRENCE
50%
VARIABLE

Showing the Effect of Bayes’
Theorem
This is an example simulation

result, assuming that the wet
shale VS and VP are related by
Castagna’s equation.

Theorem
This is an example simulation
result, assuming that the wet
shale VS and VP are related by
Castagna’s equation.
This is the result of

assuming 10% noise in the
VS calculation

Theorem
Note the effect on the

calculated gas probability
1.0
0.5
Gas
Probability
By this process, we can investigate the sensitivity of the

0.0
probability distributions to individual parameters.
Example Probability Calculations
Gas Oil Brine

Real Data Calibration
# In order to apply Bayes’ Theorem to (I,G) points from a real seismic data
set, we need to “calibrate” the real data points.
# This means that we need to determine a scaling from the real data
amplitudes to the model amplitudes.
# We define two scalers, Sglobal and Sgradient, this way:
Iscaled = Sglobal *Ireal

Gscaled = Sglobal * Sgradient * Greal
One way to determine these scalers is by manually fitting multiple

known regions to the model data.

Fitting 6 Known Zones to the Model
4 5 4 5
6 6
3 1 3
1
2 2
1 2 3
4 5 6

Real Data Example – West Africa
This example shows a real project from West Africa, performed by

one of the authors (Cardamone).
There are 7 productive oil wells which produce from a shallow

formation.
The seismic data consists of 2 common angle stacks.
The object is to perform Monte Carlo analysis using trends from the
productive wells, calibrate to the known data points, and evaluate
potential drilling locations on a second deeper formation.

One Line from the 3D Volume
Near Angle Stack

0-20 degrees
Far Angle Stack

20-40 degrees

One Line from the 3D Volume
Near Angle Stack

0-20 degrees
Shallow producing zone

Deeper target zone
Far Angle Stack

20-40 degrees

AVO Anomaly
Near Angle Stack

0-20 degrees
Far Angle Stack

20-40 degrees

Amplitude Slices Extracted from
Shallow Producing Zone
Near Angle Stack
0-20 degrees
+189
-3500
Far Angle Stack

20-40 degrees

Trend Analysis
Sand and Shale Trends
3.00
5000
4500 2.75
Sand velocity Sand density
DENSITY
4000
VELOCITY
2.50
3500
2.25
3000
2500
2.00
2000
1.75
1500
1000 1.50
500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900
500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900
4000
3.00
3500
Shale velocity 2.75
Shale density
VELOCITY
DENSITY
3000
2.50
2500
2.25
2000
2.00
1500 1.75
1000 1.50
500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900
BURIAL DEPTH (m) BURIAL DEPTH (m)

Monte Carlo Simulations at 6 Burial
Depths
-1400 -1600 -1800
-2000 -2200 -2400

Near Angle Amplitude Map Showing
Defined Zones
Wet Zone 1
Well 6
Well 3 Well 5
Well 7 Well 1
Well 2
Well 4
Wet Zone 2

Calibration Results at Defined
Locations
Wet Zone 1 Well 2
Wet Zone 2 Well 5

Calibration Results at Defined
Locations
Well 3 Well 6
Well 4 Well 1

Using Bayes’ Theorem at Producing Zone:
OIL
Near Angle Amplitudes
1.0
.80
Probability of Oil
.60
.30

Using Bayes’ Theorem at Producing Zone:
GAS
Near Angle Amplitudes
1.0
.80
Probability of Gas
.60
.30

Using Bayes’ Theorem at Target Horizon
Near angle amplitudes of second event
1.0
.80
Probability of oil on second event
.60
.30

Verifying Selected Locations
at Target Horizon

Summary
By representing lithologic parameters as probability distributions we

can calculate the range of expected AVO responses.
This allows us to investigate the uncertainty in AVO predictions.
Using Bayes’ theorem we can produce probability maps for

different potential pore fluids.
But: The results depend critically on calibration between the

real and model data.
And: The calculated probabilities depend on the reliability of all

the underlying probability distributions.

Measuring AVO Uncertainty

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Measuring AVO Uncertainty

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

AFI

(AVO Fluid Inversion)

Dan Hampson, Brian Russell

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 1

AVO Analysis is now routinely used for exploration and

But: all AVO attributes contain a great deal of “uncertainty” –

In this talk we present a procedure for analyzing and

As a result, we will calculate probability maps for hydrocarbon

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 2

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 4

I-G DENSITY FUNCTIONS

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 5

We assume a 3-layer model with

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 6

The Shales are characterized by:

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 7

Each parameter has a probability

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 8

Each of these has a probability distribution.

Some of the statistical distributions are determined from well log

Assume a Normal distribution. Get the Mean and Standard Deviation

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 13

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 14

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 15

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 16

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 17

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 18

@ 1000m @ 1200m @ 1400m

@ 1600m @ 1800m @ 2000m

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 21

Assume we have these distributions:

This is the calculated probability for

Even if we are right on the “Gas” 100%

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 24

This is an example simulation

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 25

This is the result of

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 26

Note the effect on the

By this process, we can investigate the sensitivity of the

Gas Oil Brine

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 28

# We define two scalers, Sglobal and Sgradient, this way:

Iscaled = Sglobal *Ireal

One way to determine these scalers is by manually fitting multiple

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 29

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 30

This example shows a real project from West Africa, performed by

There are 7 productive oil wells which produce from a shallow

The seismic data consists of 2 common angle stacks.

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 31

Near Angle Stack

Far Angle Stack

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 32

Near Angle Stack

Shallow producing zone

Far Angle Stack

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 33

Near Angle Stack

Far Angle Stack

Last Updated: April 2005 Authors: Dan Hampson, Brian Russell 34

Far Angle Stack