AVO Amplitude Versus Offset Analysis: A

Primer

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

Basic Reservoir Geophysics
Pre-processing prior to AVO Analysis

• Data quality: reflection amplitudes should represent reflection coefficients.

• Reflections must be correctly placed in the subsurface (Migration).

• Pre-processing should be able to preserve or restore relative trace amplitude

in the gathers data.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

Preserving relative amplitudes

Factor that change the seismic amplitudes can be grouped into three
categories:

the earth effects, acquisition-related effects, and noise (Dey-Sarkar et al.,

1986).

Earth effects: spherical divergence, absorption, transmission losses, interbed

multiples, converted phases, tuning, anisotropy, and structure.

Acquisition-related effects: source and receiver coupling variations, lateral

changes in weathered layer properties, source and receiver arrays, and receiver
sensitivity.

Noise: ambient or source-generated, coherent or random.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 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 shear-waves,
where the S-waves have been generated using a shear wave source. (Ensley,
1984)

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 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.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 Mode Conversion of an Incident P-wave
Incident Reflected
P-wave SV-wave
Reflected
If  > 0°, an incident P-wave will
produce both P and SV reflected and r P-wave = RP

transmitted waves. This is called

mode conversion. i r
VP1 , VS1 , r1
VP2 , VS2 , r2 t
t Transmitted
P-wave
Transmitted
SV-wave

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 Utilizing Mode Conversion
But how do we utilize mode conversion?
There are actually two ways:
1) Record the converted S-waves using two- (or three-) component receivers
(in the X or Y and Z direction).
2) 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.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

Basic Reservoir Geophysics
Basic Reservoir Geophysics
 Utilizing Mode Conversion
But how do we utilize mode conversion?
There are actually two ways:
1) Record the converted S-waves using two- (or three-) component receivers
(in the X or Y and Z direction).
2) 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.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 The Zoeppritz Equations
Zoeppritz (1911) derived the amplitudes of the reflected and transmitted waves using
the conservation of stress and displacement across the layer boundary, which gives
four equations with four unknowns. Inverting the matrix form of the Zoeppritz
equations gives us the exact amplitudes as a function of angle:

1
  sin 1  cos 1 sin  2 cos 2 
RP   cos   sin 1 cos  2  sin 2   sin 1 
R   1   cos  
 S    sin 2 VP1 r2VS22VP1 r2VS 2VP1   1 
cos 21 cos 21 cos 2
TP   1
VS1 r1VS12VP 2 r1VS12
2
 sin 21 
   r2VP 2 r2VS 2
  
TS   cos 21
VS1
sin 21 cos 22  sin 22  cos 2 1
 VP1 r1VP1 r1VP1 

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 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:
 VP r  VS
R(  )  a b c
VP r VS
where:
1 r 2  r1
a , r , r  r 2  r1 ,
2 cos 2
2
  V 2  VP 2  VP 1
b  0.5  2  sin   ,
S 2 VP  , VP  VP 2  VP 1 ,
2
  VP  
V  VS 1
2 VS  S 2 , VS  VS 2  VS 1 ,
 VS  2
c  4  sin 2  ,
 VP  i  t
and   .
2

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 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 tan2  sin 2 

1   VP r 
where: A   
2  V p r 
2 2
1  VP VS   VS VS  r
B  4   2 
2 Vp VP  VS VP  r
1  VP
C
2 Vp

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 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.)

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 Ostrander’s 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
Poisson’s ratio sand, between two higher impedance, higher Poisson’s ratio
shales.

This model is shown in the next slide.

Ostrander’s 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.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 Ostrander’s Model

the model consists of a low acoustic impedance and Poisson’s ratio gas sand
encased between two shales.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 Synthetic from Ostrander’s Model

(a) Well log responses for the model. (b) Synthetic seismic.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

AVO Curves from Ostrander’s
Model
(a) Response from top of model to
45o. Note that the transmitted P-
wave amplitude is shifted.

(b) Response from base of model to

45o. Note that the transmitted P-
wave amplitude is shifted.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 Rutherford/Williams Classification
Rutherford and Williams (1989) derived the following classification scheme for
AVO anomalies, with further modifications by Ross and Kinman (1995) and
Castagna (1997):

Class 1: High acoustic impedance contrast

Class 2: Near-zero impedance contrast
Class 2p: Same as 2, with polarity change
Class 3: Low impedance contrast
Class 4: Very low impedance contrast

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 Class 4

The Rutherford and Williams classification scheme as modified

by Ross and Kinman (1995) and Castagna (1997).

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 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

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 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, r = 2.11 g/cc, s = 0.33

Gas: VP= 2000 m/s, VS= 1310 m/s, r = 1.95 g/cc, s = 0.12

Shale: VP= 2250 m/s, VS= 1125 m/s, r = 2.0 g/cc, s = 0.33

We will consider the AVO effects with and without the third term in the Aki-
Richards equation.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 AVO Wet Model
AVO - Wet Sand (Model A) Top AVO - Wet Sand (Model A) Base

0.100 0.000
0.080 -0.020
Amplitude

Amplitude
0.060 -0.040
0.040 -0.060
0.020 -0.080
0.000 -0.100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angle (degrees) Angle (degrees)

R (All three terms) R (First two terms) R (All three terms) R (First two terms)

(a) (b)
The above figures show the AVO responses from the (a) top and (b) base of the
wet sand. Notice the decrease of amplitude, and also the fact that the two-term
approximation is only valid out to 30 degrees.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 AVO Gas Model
AVO - Gas Sand (Model B) Top AVO - Gas Sand (Model B) Base

0.000 0.250
-0.050 0.200
Amplitude

Amplitude
-0.100 0.150
-0.150 0.100
-0.200 0.050
-0.250 0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angle (degrees) Angle (degrees)

R (All three terms) R (First two terms) R (All three terms) R (First two terms)

(a) (b)
The above figures show the AVO responses from the (a) top and (b) base of the gas
sand. Notice the increase of amplitude, and again the fact that the two-term
approximation is only valid out to 30 degrees.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 Shuey’s Equation
Shuey (1985) rewrote the Aki-Richards equation using VP, r, and s. Only the
gradient is different than in the Aki-Richards expression:

 1  2s  s
B  A D  2( 1  D )  
 1  s  ( 1  s )2

VP / VP
where : D  ,
VP / VP  r / r
s 2 s1
s
2
s  s 2  s 1

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 Gas Sand Model
Aki-Richards vs Shuey

This figure shows a 0.250

comparison between the two 0.200
forms of the 0.150
Aki-Richards equation for the 0.100
gas sand.

Amplitude
0.050
0.000
-0.050
-0.100
-0.150
-0.200
-0.250
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angle (degrees)

A-R Top Shuey Top

A-R Base Shuey Base

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 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 the both
the top and bottom of the sand. For the models, we used P and S-wave
velocity.

Another approach is to use the Poisson’s 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 Poisson’s
ratio. Note that the sign of the gradient is generally to same as the sign of s.
(This is not true in the case of a Class 4 sand, as we shall see in a later theory
section.)

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 Four Single Layer Models

(a) r, VP, and s all increase. (b) r, VP increase, s decreases.

(c) r, VP decrease, s increases. (d) r, VP, and s all decrease.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 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.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 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.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 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 an
elastic 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.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 The Oil Sand Model

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

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 The Possible Modeled Events

Simmons and Backus (1994)

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 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)

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 Logs from the Real Data Example

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 Models from a Real Data Example

(a) Full elastic wave. (b) Zoeppritz eqn. (c) Aki-Richards eqn.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 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.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 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.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 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 e, d, and g are called Thomsen’s 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  d sin 2  cos 2   e sin 4  

 V 2
(0 o
) 
VSV ( )  VSV (0 ) 1  2 o (e  d ) sin  cos  
o P 2 2

 VSV (0 ) 

VSH ( )  VSH (0o ) 1  g sin 2  

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 Thomsen’s Parameters
Thomsen’s 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 ) VSH ( 90 o )  VSH ( 0 o )
e g
VP ( 0 o ) VSH ( 0 o )

VP ( 45 o )  VP ( 0 o )  VP ( 45 o )  VP ( 0 o ) 
d  4 o   e  d  e  4 o 
 V P ( 0 )   V P ( 0 ) 

In the next slide, we will look at VP and VSV as a function of angle for different
values of d and e. (As mentioned, VSH will not be used in AVO).

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 Group Angle versus Phase Angle

For anisotropic velocities, it is important to note the difference between the phase
angle , which is computed normal to the seismic wavefront, and the group or ray
angle , along which energy propagates. This is illustrated below.

x
 

Ray Wavefront
Wavefront
Normal z

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 Anisotropic P and SV VTI velocities

(a) VTI medium (b) VTI medium (c) VTI medium

with d = 0.2 and e with d = 0.1 and e with d = 0.2 and e
= 0.2. = 0.2. = 0.1.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 Solving for e and d using the Velocity

VP(90o)= 2600 m/s

VP(45o)= 2225 m/s 600 m/s

225 m/s
VP(0o)= 2000 m/s

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 Solving for e and d using the Velocity

VP ( 90 o )  VP ( 0 o )
e o
 0.3
VP ( 0 )

VP ( 45 o )  VP ( 0 o ) 
d  4 o   e  0.45  0.3  0.15
 VP ( 0 ) 

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 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 d and e, where Ran( )
is the anisotropic AVO response and Ris( ) is the isotropic AVO response. Ruger
(2002) gave the following corrected form of Thomsen’s original equation:

d e
Ran (  )  Ris (  )  sin  
2
sin 2  tan2  ,
2 2
where : d  d 2  d 1
e  e 2  e 1

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 Typical Values for Delta, Epsilon and Gamma
Typical values for delta, epsilon, and gamma 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

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

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

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

d = -0.15 Transverse Isotropy – AVO Effects
e = -0.3
Class 1
Class 1

Class 2
Class 2

Class 3

Class 3

(a) Gas sandstone case: Note Isotropic (b) Wet sandstone case: Note that
that the effect of d and e is to --- Anisotropic the effect of d and e is to create
increase the AVO effects. apparent AVO decreases.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 Anisotropy Applied to Gas Sand Example
Isotropic vs Anisotropic AVO
Gas Sand Top, d = -0.15, e = -0.3

0.000
Amplitude

-0.100
-0.200
-0.300
-0.400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angle (degrees)

R (Isotropic) R (Anisotropic)

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 Anisotropic AVO Model Example

Notice that only the gas sand is isotropic.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 Anisotropic AVO Synthetics

(a) Isotropic (b) Anisotropic (a) – (b)

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 (a) Isotropic (b) Anisotropic (a) – (b)

In the above display, the synthetic responses in the previous slide are shown
using colour amplitude scale.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics

 Summary

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.

Basic Reservoir Geophysics