See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269490374

AVO attribute analysis and seismic reservoir characterization

Article in First Break · February 2006

DOI: 10.3997/1365-2397.2006004

CITATIONS READS

49 9,356

2 authors, including:

Paul C. H. Veeken
Wintershall
73 PUBLICATIONS 1,039 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul C. H. Veeken on 13 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 volume 24, February 2006 technical article

AVO attribute analysis and

seismic reservoir characterisation.
Paul Veeken1* and Marianne Rauch-Davies2

Introduction
This article summarizes some basic concepts in AVO process-
ing and the computation of prestack seismic attributes.
Seismic modelling forms the basis for understanding the
seismic signature. It helps in the prediction of reservoir char-
acteristics away from well control points. Reliable estima-
tion of petrophysical parameters is needed as input for such
studies. These petrophysical estimates are an integral part of
more advanced reservoir characterization and modelling.
Firstly, the AVO principles are described and various
prestack attributes are presented. Subsequently, the elastic
approach is discussed, and finally the benefits of seismic
modelling and some advantages of multi-disciplinary reser-
voir studies are demonstrated.

Amplitude-versus-offset (AVO) principles

The amplitude character of seismic reflections varies with
offset, due to changes in the angle of incidence. The com-
mon-depth-point (CDP) gather (Fig. 1a) shows the variation
for different traces. Figure 1(b) illustrates the changes in the
seismic response when a water-wet brine-filled reservoir is
replaced by oil or gas. The synthetics are calculated for nor-
mal incidence and zero offset. The hydrocarbon saturation is
set at 80% (Robinson et al. 2005). Both hydrocarbon cases
show brightening of the reflection with respect to the brine-
filled scenario. The sands have lower acoustic impedance
(AI) than the encasing shales. Note also that not only the top
reservoir reflection shows this increased contrast tendency,
but the seismic loop directly below it also manifests consider-
able changes. Figure 2 illustrates a positive gas-sand reflec- Figure 1 (a) The AVO response on a reflection in a CDP
tion decreasing with offset, while the negative water-wet gather. The amplitude changes clearly with offset (modified
reservoir above shows less reflectivity change. The polarity after Yilmaz 2001). (b) Here, the fluid replacement effect on
of the data is normal, i.e. an increase in acoustic impedance the seismic response is illustrated on a Pliocene lacustrine
with depth (or hard kick) corresponds to a peak to the right reservoir from the Chirag Field in the south Caspian Sea.
on the seismic traces. The two highlighted reservoirs are The synthetics have been generated by applying Gassmann
of differing petrophysical character and the encasing geol- fluid substitution. Note how not only the top of the
ogy (compaction/lithology) changes with depth. Although reservoir reflection changes but also the reflection just below.
this kind of amplitude variation is evident on the prestack Analysis using window measurements can therefore help to
CMP gathers, it has been somewhat ignored in the past by discriminate between water- and HC-filled reservoirs. The
interpreters because they work primarily with the stacked top reservoir corresponds to a trough on the synthetic trace.
migration data set. The seismic traces are displayed with a positive polarity,
Nowadays, special studies are conducted on a routine whereby a decrease in AI corresponds to a negative trough.
basis to analyse the behaviour of the ‘amplitude-versus-off- The reservoir sand has a smaller AI than the overlying shale
set’ (AVO-studies). This type of data contains detailed infor- (Robinson et al. 2005).

1
Geops, 22 Rue Colonel Fabien M4, Antony 92160, France
2
KJT enterprises - 6420 Richmond Avenue S-610, Houston, Texas 77057, USA
* pveeken@hotmail.com

© 2006 EAGE 7
 technical article volume 24, February 2006

location. This is generally achieved by a proper migration

of the input data set (prestack time migration, Da Silva et
al. 2004b). Careful data preconditioning is essential when
quantitative interpretation is the ultimate aim (Veeken and
Da Silva 2004).

Reflection coefficients at different offsets

For a quick analysis, the reflection coefficients at different
offsets and angles of incidence are usually computed. The
correct procedure is to use the full set of Zoeppritz equations
(Zoeppritz 1919), but these are quite awkward to handle
(Fig. 5). These equations yield amplitudes that are accurate
up to the critical angle as their description does not include
head-wave energy (Sheriff 2002). The equations assume con-
Figure 2 The AVO effect on a flattened synthetic CDP tinuity of stress and displacement at the interface.
gather caused by the presence of gas in a reservoir sand. The Aki and Richards (1980) gave a more convenient matrix
near-offset amplitude value is different from the amplitude description of the Zoeppritz equations and they produced
measured on the far-offset trace. Note the difference of the the following formula:
amplitude response in the water-filled reservoir above. The
changes in the petrophysical characteristics of the encasing
shale sequence with depth and the diagenesis are some of the (1)
causes for the different responses. If the gas were replaced
by water in the same reservoir unit, the main change would where ρa = (ρ1+ρ2)/2 , ∆VP = (Vp2 – Vp1) and p = sinθ1/
occur in the zero-offset R0 reflectivity, while the amplitude VP1 = sinθ 2/VP2. The parameter p is also known as the ray
gradient is not necessarily affected as much. parameter in Snell’s law. The suffix a indicates average. VP
is the P-wave interval velocity and VS is the S-wave velocity
mation on the porefill of reservoirs (e.g. Ostrander 1984; in m/s. The density is denoted by ρ and it is expressed in
Castagna and Backus 1993; Chiburis et al. 1993; Hilterman gm/cm3. The suffix in brackets for the reflectivity R denotes
2001; Veeken et al. 2002; Da Silva et al. 2004a). Ultimately it the specific angle of incidence θ. R(0) is the zero-offset
will lead to a more efficient evacuation of hydrocarbons with amplitude.
substantially improved recovery factors (Fig. 3). Shuey (1985) proposed a polynomial fit for the reflectiv-
The amplitude behaviour of the different raypaths also varies ity that is accurate for an angle of incidence up to 35°, using
according to the porefill and lithology. Water-filled reservoirs Poisson’s ratio σ:
often show variations in amplitude with offset that are differ-
ent from those of hydrocarbon-filled reservoirs. The change
in zero-offset reflectivity R0, or intercept, is the most charac- (2)
teristic feature. The seismic response depends on the encasing
geology, porefill and interference effects. It varies with depth
and also differs in various parts of the world. Studying the
prestack differences in detail can indicate the causes of near-
and far-offset amplitude variability (Fig. 4). The seismic
signature from a gas sand is different from the brine-filled
response when the same reservoir is observed under simi-
lar conditions. In such a situation, the encasing geology is
probably the same and has little influence on the observed
anomalous amplitude behaviour. The change in zero-offset
reflectivity is probably the most remarkable phenomenon.
Changes in amplitude with offset can occur in hydrocarbon-
as well as water-bearing reservoirs; in that case the intercept
might contain the vital porefill information.
The AVO effect represents a potentially powerful tool Figure 3 Benefits of seismic attribute analysis on the
to discriminate between water- and hydrocarbon-saturated hydrocarbon evacuation. The efficiency and the quantity of
reservoirs. However, it means going back to the prestack recovered reserves are increased, whilst the drilling risk is
domain and in this case it should be ensured that the data on reduced. Sweet spots and multiple targets are identified at
individual CDP gathers come from a consistent subsurface an early stage.

8 © 2006 EAGE
 volume 24, February 2006 technical article

Figure 5 Zoeppritz equations for computing the amplitude of

Figure 4 Map view of partial stack response, showing isochrone the different raypaths in a layered medium. The head-wave
and amplitude values of top reservoir. Differences between the energy is not considered in this approach and therefore the
partial stacks indicate the presence of AVO effects, but it is amplitudes are only correct up to the critical angle (modified
important to determine their origin. The small differences in after Sheriff 2002).
the isochrone maps are related to residual moveout. The near-
offset traces are in parts stronger in amplitude than the far- (5)
offset traces and an investigation should be made into whether
this is caused by possible porefill changes. The atypical AVO where PR denotes Poisson’s reflectivity. Poisson’s reflectivity
behaviour is caused here by the influence of the overlying shale is defined as
package (data courtesy of TotalFinaElf).
(6)
where
where σ 1 and σ 2 are Poisson’s ratio in media 1 and 2, respec-
tively. This PR is now approximately equal to 4R(30) – 3R(0). In
a crossplot of 0.5 ln(AI) versus Poisson’s ratio, it appears that
the lithologies plot on a linear trend, with slope R(0) /PR.
Poisson’s ratio is defined as the ratio of transverse contrac- The reflectivity of each time sample in the various offset
tion to longitudinal extension when a rod is stretched (Sheriff cubes is now computed and examined. The common-midpoint
2002). The Shuey formula is often written in a simplified (CMP) gather is scanned for variations in the amplitudes with
form:

(3)

The formula can be rewritten assuming

and VP / VS = 2. In this case, the higher terms can be
dropped by limiting the angle of incidence to θ < 30°. We
then have

(4)

where R(θ) denotes the P-wave amplitude or reflectivity at

angle of incidence θ; R(0) denotes the P-wave amplitude
at θ = 0 (zero offset), also known as the intercept I; and G
denotes the gradient (or slope) of the line that approximates
the reflectivities at different offsets in a crossplot of RP ver-
sus sin2 θ . A positive gradient means that the amplitude Figure 6 AVO attributes computed in an amplitude-versus-
increases with offset. sin2 θ crossplot. The regression line gives the intercept I (cut-
According to Hilterman (2001), the Shuey formula can off on the Y-axis) and the gradient G (the slope of the line)
be represented in yet another simpler form, i.e. that defines the rate of change in amplitude with offset.

© 2006 EAGE 9
 technical article volume 24, February 2006

xxx
xxx

Figure 7 CMP gathers with different colours indicating the Figure 8 AVO response at the top and base of a hypothetical
various angle-of-incidence ranges. Simple 2D ray-tracing is lithological unit. Poisson’s ratio σ is equal to the ratio of
often used for conversion from offset to angle of incidence. transverse contraction to the longitudinal extension and it
governs the AVO effect.
offset. A linear regression analysis is carried out to compute
the intercept I (the cut-off on the amplitude axis: R0) and the then crossplotted and in this new (I – G) plot, the dif-
gradient G (the slope of the regression line) in a crossplot of ference from the so-called wet-rock line is determined
amplitude versus sin2θ , where θ is the angle of incidence. The (Fig. 11). The wet-rock line is equivalent to the lithol-
physical meanings of the AVO attributes I and G are shown in ogy trend or mudrock line of other authors. The differ-
Fig. 6. This crossplotting technique means that the data from ence in distance of the individual points to the wet-rock
the offset domain must be converted into the ‘amplitude versus line is the fluid factor. The wet-rock line is the central
angle-of-incidence’ domain (AVA). This is often carried out by regression line through the cloud of data points (Foster
simple 2D ray-tracing, applying Snell’s law at the interfaces and et al. 1993; Ross 2000; Veeken et al. 2002). The gas-
using interval velocities from the smoothed normal moveout filled-reservoir points are plotted significantly further
(NMO) velocities (Fig. 7). A three-point attribute computation, away from this regression line. The plot has a typical
with a near, mid and far determination, is usually adequate and butterfly shape: a lot of points along the central-line
at the same time cost-effective (Rauch-Davies and Portniaguine trend with two clouds of points positioned symmetri-
2004). The theoretical response at the top and bottom of a cally around it.
reservoir unit is shown in Fig. 8. The difference in Poisson’s (b) The VP–VS crossplot method
ratio over the interface will result in a different behaviour of In the VP–VS plot, the mudrock line is established and
the stack (brightening or dimming effect). Cambois (2000a) the residual error in a least-squares sense is a measure
demonstrated that processing steps may adversely influence of the fluid factor (Smith and Gidlow 1987; Smith and
Poisson’s ratio as deduced from P-wave seismics, so careful Sutherland 1996), given by
quality control is certainly advisable. Processing steps, such
as amplitude recovery and gain control, NMO stretch and (7)
residual NMO, introduce additional uncertainties into the
determination of Poisson’s ratio (Cambois 2000b). Their nega- where RP is the P-wave reflectivity and RS is the S-wave
tive effects are difficult to counterbalance later on (Fig. 9). reflectivity. It is possible to use a local or a fixed slope for the
mudrock line, like that deduced by Castagna et al. (1985):
AVO attributes analysis
For AVO analysis it is standard practice to calculate an I*G (8)
attribute (intercept*gradient), which is equal to a simple
multiplication of the two fundamental AVO attributes. It Rp varies with angle of incidence. Linear regression in the
is often represented in ‘product stack’ sections that allow AVO (RP–sin2θ ) crossplot gives RP at θ =0, and this is
convenient inspection of the behaviour. Also a fluid factor known as the intercept I. When VP/VS = 2, then for an angle
(FF) attribute is computed (Fig. 10). This FF attribute can be of incidence of 0°, the two-term approximation is valid and
established in several ways: we have (Russell et al. 2003)
(a) I – G crossplot method
The attribute is based on a weighted function that will RP = intercept,
place I and G in similar value ranges. These values are RS = (intercept–gradient)/2 (9)

10 © 2006 EAGE
 volume 24, February 2006 technical article

As already mentioned, the AVO attributes are calculated for The angle of incidence is historically limited to 45° because
each time sample on the seismic trace from the flattened CDP at larger offsets the approximation of the Zoeppritz equa-
gather. Thus prestack seismic attribute cubes are generated. tions breaks down (cf. Sheriff 2002). The main discrimina-
These cubes are scrutinized for anomalies that may represent tor in this classification scheme is the relationship of the
hydrocarbon-filled reservoirs. The correct interpretation of top reservoir with the overlying lithology and the changes
the AVO attribute cubes is a delicate art in itself. in the seismic response of the top reservoir reflection. A dis-
advantage of this system is that the classification depends
AVO reservoir classification on the offset range which changes from survey to survey.
Rutherford and Williams (1989) classified reservoirs, based Longer offsets are the tendency today and hence a former
on the amplitude behaviour of the top reflection as a func- Class 1 sand might suddenly become Class 2, as negative
tion of offset. Castagna and Swan (1997) complemented the values are now seen on the far-offset traces of the new
scheme with an additional fourth class (Fig. 12): seismic data set.
■ Class 1 Large positive R0 amplitude that remains We now analyse the behaviour of a Class 3 gas sand
positive (dimming of in more detail. The top of a gas-filled Class 3 sand has a
reflection on stack). positive I*G (negative gradient and negative intercept) and
■ Class 2 Small positive R0 that is transformed into its base is also positive (positive gradient and positive inter-
negative reflectivities cept). FF (computed from I and G) has a negative value at
with offset (dimming/brightening of reflection the top and a positive value at the base of the gas reservoir.
on stack and polarity flip). The sections through the two AVO attribute cubes are now
■ Class 3 Negative R0 amplitude that becomes more nega- examined for the presence of these dual anomalies. For quick
tive (brightening of reflection on stack). identification, it is useful to display I*G as a density colour,
■ Class 4 Negative amplitude becomes less negative with whilst FF is overlaid as a wiggle trace in one TWT section.
offset. This is done in a so-called Nacho plot (Fig. 13).

Figure 10 (a) Amplitude section with distinct flat spot, caused

by the presence of gas in a reservoir. It also corresponds to
clear anomalies in the I* G and the FF AVO attributes, as
shown in the two figures below (data courtesy of Pemex). (b)
Figure 9 (a) Data preconditioning is a very important (amplitude-versus-sin2 ) crossplot and regression line defining
step when carrying out reservoir characterization studies. intercept and gradient: amplitude = intercept + gradient *
Standard processing steps can introduce very large changes sin2 . (c) I*G attribute computed from the amplitude-versus-
in Poisson’s ratio, as illustrated by Cambois (2000b). It will sin2 crossplot. The intercept I, or R0, is the cut-off value for
be very difficult to determine the exact change in Poisson’s the amplitude at zero angle of incidence. The gradient is the
ratio from this type of seismic data. (b) Introduction of a slope of the regression line through the amplitude points at
synthetic PR anomaly in the noise-free data set. The anomaly the different angles of incidence . (d) The fluid factor (FF)
stands out in the crossplot. After NMO stretch and with attribute is a weighted function between the intercept and
noise, the red dots are blended with the background in the gradient attributes. The ‘wet-rock’ line is established in a
corresponding crossplot, making it very difficult to retrieve crossplot (see Fig. 11) and the distance from the individual
the original anomaly in the Poisson’s ratio. points to this line gives a measure of the fluid factor.

© 2006 EAGE 11
 technical article volume 24, February 2006

The following logarithmic attribute (gas indicator GI) is sug- reservoir rock (VP, VS and ρ). The impedance contrast over
gested for detecting gas in Class 2 sands: the top reservoir interface is the critical factor. Normal polar-
ity means that an increase in acoustic impedance (or a hard
GI = intercept* (1n(absG)) (10) kick) is represented by a positive peak on the seismic data.
Class 1 is a response with a relatively high positive intercept
This attribute is specially designed for the Gulf of Mexico and a decrease in the amplitude with offset (negative G). It
region; world-wide application requires local adjustment is often related to tightly compacted reservoirs and/or reser-
(Fig. 14). voirs with a high velocity/density cement (cf. Odegaard and
Avseth 2004; Roden et al. 2005). However, it is the imped-
Sign of AVO effects and dual attribute anomalies ance contrast that is important, and it may equally well reflect
the fact that the overlying lithology is very slow and not
I G I*G FF GI very dense. Although many authors have suggested a deep-
Class 3 reservoir top – – + – seated compacted reservoir for this type of AVO response
base + + + + and consequently a relatively old geological age for the rocks
concerned, Class 1 reservoirs may occur at any depth.
Class 2 reservoir top + – – + A Class 1 AVO response has been described for Tertiary
base + + + + sediments in the offshore part of the Nile delta in Egypt
(Marten et al. 2004). Brightening of gas-filled Class 1 reser-
For the discrimination of Class 2 gas sands, Verm and voirs in the Pliocene H’apy Field, offshore Egypt, has been
Hilterman (1995) proposed taking the Shuey equation and described by Wigger et al. (1997). Seal integrity is an aspect
assuming that VP/VS = 2 (higher-order terms can be neglect- that is often ignored when analysing the seismic expression
ed) and σ = 0.33. This gives of a gas reservoir. A perfect seal hardly ever exists and there-
fore some chimney effect due to hydrocarbon leakage will
(11) occur. This will change the petrophysical properties of the
They then used a crossplot of Poisson’s reflectivity (or PR) top seal directly above the reservoir. This phenomenon may
versus the normal incidence reflectivity R0) to discriminate lead to an unexpected AVO behaviour and brightening of a
anomalies caused by the Class 2 sands. Class 1 reservoir when gas filled. It is important to check the
Class 1 and Class 4 sands are not so commonly reported polarity of the data set before drawing any conclusions about
on. The AVO effect depends on the combination of the the AVO reservoir classification. A reliable well–to-seismic
petrophysical properties of the overlying lithology and the tie is, in this respect, certainly very strongly recommended.

Figure 12 Classification of reservoirs based on the AVO

Figure 11 Crossplot between intercept and gradient. The axis response of the top boundary interface. The stacked trace
has been weighted by a simple multiplication factor to bring will show brightening, polarity flip or dimming with respect
the two attributes closer in line with each other. The regression to the zero-offset trace. The classification depends on the
line is the ‘wet-rock’ line and the distance to this line determines contrast of petrophysical properties of the reservoir rock
the fluid factor value. The shape of the point cloud typically with the overlying unit. In the case of a non-perfect top seal,
resembles a butterfly outline (positive and negative values the properties of the overlying unit can also change when the
outside main trend) when hydrocarbons are present. reservoir is gas filled.

12 © 2006 EAGE
 volume 24, February 2006 technical article

Class 4 is characterized by high negative impedance that

shows little difference with offset. It may coincide with the
behaviour of shallow burial, unconsolidated sands. Here,
the decrease in negative amplitude with offset when gas is
present in the reservoir can be partly caused by the above-
mentioned seal-integrity problem. The overlying high-veloc-
ity lithology (shale/siltstone or carbonate) may have a VS
that is higher than that of the reservoir (Roden et al. 2005).
The P-wave velocity drop at the interface is often of the order
of 700 m/s (Rauch and Craig 1998).
It should be noted that unconsolidated sands can be
encountered at great depths: below 4700 m. For example
in the Ek Balam discovery well (offshore Campeche), Upper
Oxfordian sabkha sands are penetrated that are uncon-
solidated in the recovered core (G.A. Velasco Vasquez, pers.
comm.; Pemex 2000). These sabkha sands were probably Figure 13 A Nacho plot in which the I*G AVO attribute is
prone to very early cementation with gypsum. In the ongoing displayed as a coloured density overlain by the FF attribute as
burial and compaction, this cement was not stable and it dis- a wiggle trace. It allows quick identification of interesting dual
solved at greater depths, thus creating an anomalous poros- anomalies for Class 3 reservoirs (data courtesy of Pemex).
ity/permeability distribution. The unconsolidated nature of
these sands at such an extreme depth was an unexpected dis-
covery for the drillers and the geologists; they did not expect
to encounter any loose sand in the core barrel.
The fact that the propagation velocity of a waveform is
direction-dependent is called anisotropy. The simplest case
of anisotropy is polar anisotropy or transverse isotropy (one
axis is different whilst the property is the same on the other
two axes). Polar anisotropy is thus uni-axial anisotropy and
the axis can be vertical, tilted or horizontal (Jones et al.
2003). Vertical transverse isotropy (VTI) is mainly the result
of variations in the geological layering. Horizontal transverse
isotropy (HTI) is used for quantifying the amount and direc-
tion of vertical fracturing, for instance (cf. Hilterman 2001).
It causes azimuthal anisotropy in the seismic data (Lynn
2004). The azimuth of the anisotropic gradient indicates the
fracture orientation. It depends on fracture aperture, fracture
density and directional permeability. Todorovic-Marinic et
al. (2004) proposed a new attribute called ‘the envelope of Figure 14 Gas indicator (GI) for Class 2 AVO reservoirs in
the anisotropic gradient’ to visualize this HTI behaviour. the Gulf of Mexico, where GI = I * ( ln (abs(G))). The gas
Of course, anisotropy effects also influence the AVO indicator attribute is derived for this particular seismic survey
response (e.g. Jenner 2002; Williams and Jenner 2002). only, and its application to other areas requires verification
Jenner introduced a linear fit to correct the traveltimes of its validity. Tailor-made local adjustments are probably
for azimuthally varying NMO effects (NMOA). Analysis required to get a good separation for the HC reservoirs (data
of amplitude with varying offset and azimuth resulted in courtesy of Pemex).
another linear fit that enabled a correction to be calculated
and this resulted in more accurate AVOA analysis. Elastic approach to the
As can be seen from the above discussion, it is important angle-dependent reflectivity
to establish which types of AVO reservoirs are expected in the The elastic approach takes into account the behaviour of
area under investigation. This makes it possible to concen- both P- and S-waves. It provides better discrimination of
trate quickly on particular scenarios and perform case-spe- the effects caused by the changes in porefill, and the AVO
cific analysis. There is, however, a severe danger of ignoring behaviour is more accurately modelled (Veeken and Da Silva
the fact that several types of AVO reservoirs might co-exist 2004). The VP/VS attribute gives better separation at the top
at the same time. Evaluating all options makes the evaluation of the HC interval compared to VP alone (Fig. 15).
of the AVO response more time consuming, but it will ensure The Shuey equation (Shuey 1985) describes an approxi-
that all plausible reservoir configurations are considered. mation of the Zoeppritz reflectivity that is valid for angles

© 2006 EAGE 13
 technical article volume 24, February 2006

Combining (12) and (13), we obtain the elastic impedance

(EI) as

(14)

where K is a constant equal to the average of (VS/VP)2. This

type of EI computation is performed on the prestack gathers
and takes into account the changes in VP, VS and density as
well as AVO effects. The approach is accurate for small to
moderate impedance changes. If the third term in the Shuey
equation is dropped, then the tan2 θ is simply replaced by
sin2 θ. in the Connolly equation, i.e.

(15)

Figure 15 AVO effect caused by the presence of hydrocarbons The following assumptions have to be made:
in a Class 2 type reservoir. The (VS/VP)2curve best describes ■ that the two-term NMO approximation is correct;
the HC interval. It demonstrates the benefits of adopting an ■ that Dix’s equation is valid. His formula is generally
elastic approach towards reservoir characterization. accepted as a transform of stacking into interval velocities
(Dix 1955);
of incidence up to 30–35°. The assumption is made that VP ■ that amplitudes are approximately proportional to sin2 θ.

is approximately twice VS and the higher terms are dropped These conditions translate in a layer-cake geometry, an offset
under the 30° angle-of-incidence condition. When working smaller than the depth of the reflector, an angle of incidence θ
with prestack data, it is necessary to obtain a better estimate less than 30–35°, a transverse isotropic medium and, of course,
and to take into account the difference between VP and VS. correctly balanced prestack amplitudes. The ideal input con-
This is done in the so-called elastic approach. Connolly sists of amplitudes that are directly proportional to the subsur-
(1999) introduced the concept of elastic impedance, a seis- face reflection coefficients without any additional distortions
mic attribute that is angle dependent. He defined a function (Veeken and Da Silva 2004). This is the main aim of ‘preserved
F(t) that is angle-of-incidence dependent and related to the amplitude’ processing. EI0 corresponds to the acoustic imped-
P-wave reflectivity as follows: ance AI (= ρ* VP) and if K = 0.25, then EI90 = (VP / VS)2.
The EI seismic attribute is the basis for performing
(12) an elastic inversion that is similar to acoustic impedance

The function F(t) is now called the elastic impedance, in analogy

with the acoustic impedance concept. The angle-dependant P-
wave reflectivity is also approximated by the simplified descrip-
tion of the Zoeppritz equations (Aki and Richards 1980):

(13)

where

Figure 16 A flat event resulting from the presence of

hydrocarbons in a reservoir sequence. Wells have proved the HC
accumulation. Synthetic modelling is helpful for understanding
the seismic signature and it facilitates the interpretation of the
seismic data. Fluid substitution, water saturation, porosity,
net-to-gross, reservoir thickness and encasing lithologies are
A is the intercept, B is the gradient in AVO analysis and C is all parameters that can be changed to visualize their possible
known as the AVO curvature. impact (data courtesy of TotalFinaElf).

14 © 2006 EAGE
 volume 24, February 2006 technical article

inversion processing. One popular approach to acoustic

impedance inversion estimates a wavelet (shaping filter or
cross-correlation techniques) from the AI trace at the well and
the seismic trace at the same location. In the elastic inversion,
wavelets are derived for different angle-of-incidence traces
of EI(θ) and the corresponding partial stack trace. There are
other formulae that approximate the elastic impedance, e.g.
the logarithmic approach or also a less common non-linear
function (Tarantola 1984, 1986; Pica et al. 1990). The loga-
rithmic function avoids tedious exponential descriptions and
is valid under the condition that K = 0.25, i.e.

(16)

where

These formulae all have their own assumptions and validity

range. This means that the elastic inversion results are suited Figure 17 A neural-network trace classification has been
for qualitative evaluation, but the absolute value of the inver- applied on the near-, mid- and far-offset partial stacks. The
sion is not necessarily correct. representative traces for the classes (master trace) are shown
Extended elastic impedence (EEI) is a concept introduced in the left-hand corner below. This shows that the signature
by Whitcombe et al. (2000) and it is shown to correlate bet- changes significantly over the study area. The colour-coded
ter with the various elastic parameters such as bulk modulus, classification for each trace is plotted along the top reservoir
shear modulus and λ, depending on the angle ϕ. The EEI horizon in the cross-sections displayed. A supervised
is obtained by substituting tanϕ for sin2θ in the Aki and classification scheme will greatly facilitate the interpretation
Richards (1980) approximation of the Zoeppritz equations, of the results (data courtesy of TotalFinaElf).
where ϕ ranges between –90° and +90°. A normalization
procedure is implemented in the extended elastic impedance rocks under investigation in more detail. Seismics is the
approach (Rauch-Davies and Portniaguine 2004). The EEI main data source away from the borehole calibration points;
attribute is given by hence it is extensively used in lateral prediction studies and
volumetric estimations. Integration of prestack data adds
(17) more information and that is why AVO or seismic inver-
sion is so important for complementing the conventional
where approach. Some topics related to the prediction of petro-
a= cosϕ.+ tanϕ, physical parameters from seismics and seismic attributes are
b= –8Ksinϕ, presented below.
c= cosϕ – 4K sinϕ.
VPA, ρA, VSA are average values for VP, ρ and VS over the inter- Relationship of the linearized Zoeppritz approximation with
val of interest. K is equal to the average value of (VS/VP) 2. some rock physical parameters
The angle ϕ = 0 corresponds to the AI value (Whitcombe Dong (1996) and Whitcombe et al. (2000) showed, when
et al. 2000). The correlation of EEI with the gamma-ray log using the linearized Zoeppritz equation (see equation (2)),
is useful for lithological discrimination (Neves et al. 2004). that
They suggested computation of a weighted stack to make a
comparison between EEI and the seismic data possible. A (18)
frequency difference between near and far angle stacks is
observed, with the far trace response being of lower frequen- It is difficult to deduce C from the seismic data set. Shuey
cy; hence they justify the filtering of the cubes to a similar (1985) therefore examined the behaviour of the ratio C/A in
amplitude spectrum. closer detail, and noticed that it ranges roughly between 0
and 1. The ratio C/A depends on the rock properties of the
Reservoir characterization area under investigation. If it is 0.8 then it follows Gardner’s
Reservoir characterization studies cover specific aspects of relationship (Gardner et al. 1974). If it is assumed that the
the reservoir development. In many cases it brings together average values for the bulk modulus and VP2ρ are constant,
data collected by different study techniques to describe the the above formula can be rewritten as

© 2006 EAGE 15
 technical article volume 24, February 2006

(19) is convolved with a seismic wavelet and a synthetic seismic

section is generated. This synthetic section is compared with
This function can be seen as analogous to the basic AVO the original seismic line and similarities and/or discrepancies
equation, are detected. If well control is available, then it is possible to
estimate the wavelet more correctly and generate more accu-
(20) rate synthetic traces. Fluid substitution is carried out to give
an indication of the sensitivity of the seismic response to the
where presence of gas or water in the reservoir rocks. A simplistic
Gassmann approach is often adopted, but this might give
erroneous results when incorrect cut-off values for the logs
are used (Skelt 2004).
This analogy translates the behaviour of the ratio C/A in For computing petro-acoustic fluid substitution models it
terms of angle of incidence, so that is necessary to make reliable estimates of VP, VS and the den-
C/A = 0.8 ==> sin2θ = 0.22 ==> θ =28°. sity ρ. The ratio VP/VS contains information about the lithol-
Values of 0.5 and 1.6 have been encountered for C/A ogy of the rocks (cf. Tatham 1982). It also provides vital
and these correspond to angles of 44° and 23° (Whitcombe details on the fluid contents and is related to the porosity of
et al. 2000). the rocks. VP and VS both decrease with increasing porosity,
A similar treatment for λ can be carried out and this with VP decreasing twice as fast as VS (Assefa et al. 2003).
yields Under favourable circumstances, VP and VS can also provide
information about the permeability of the rocks. Tsuneyama
(21) et al. (2003) demonstrated their relationship with the perme-
ability and also the rock frame of carbonate rocks.
Using Gardner’s relationship, the results are sin2θ = 0.36 and The estimation of rock physical properties is an extensive
the angle is 37°. subject in itself and will therefore be presented in a later
The shear modulus relationship, according to Dong article.
(1996), is as follows:
Constraints on modelling results
(22) The modelling exercises provide valuable information on
how to obtain a better fit with the measured data (iterative
When C/A = 0, then ∆µ is proportional to B. The equation method with perturbation of the reservoir/seal properties).
can be rewritten as Data with different sample supports should be integrated
properly, with up- and down-scaling (cf. Nordahl et al.
(23) 2005). Indeed, seismic inversion provides a perception of
some of the rock parameters, but the separate contributions
Using Gardner’s relationship again and C/A = 0.8, we obtain of velocity and density are still difficult to substantiate. This
sin2θ = 1.25. This is physically meaningless and no angle knowledge will ultimately result in a better lateral predic-
of incidence θ can be computed. However ∆µ can still be tion of the reservoir behaviour. It should be kept in mind
derived from a weighted difference of partial stacks or inter- that most of the time more than one solution exists for a
cept–gradient stacks. given inversion problem. Other criteria have to be examined
These relationships are valid under certain assumptions; with regard to their usefulness in putting constraints on the
when these are not adhered to then the relationship breaks number of solutions. Crossplot clustering, multi-attribute
down. Linearization can only be carried out for small angles analysis, principal-component analysis and neural-net-
of incidence (<35°) and when impedance contrasts are rela- work classification are promising techniques in this respect
tively small. (Veeken 2006). The automatic recognition of facies units,
based on trace shape in a specific window around a mapped
Reservoir modelling and fluid substitution reservoir horizon, rapidly visualizes the subtle variations in
Forward modelling should be seriously considered when seismic response (Fig. 17). The unsupervised approach is
possible direct hydrocarbon indicators (DHIs) are seen on fast, but the result is somewhat ambiguous to interpret. In
the seismic data (Fig. 16). However, even in other situations, that respect the supervised approach is preferable as it gener-
the modelling provides a better understanding of the data ates a probability density function in each class, facilitating
set. For this purpose, certain assumptions are made about a direct interpretation. Multi-attribute 3D visualization and
reservoir parameters, such as porosity, permeability, pore voxset rendering are excellent ways of presenting the results.
contents and geometry. However, there is a limitation in that the expected reservoir
The initial reservoir-hostrock model is generally based configuration can be modelled in various ways, but there
on the well-log response (e.g. VP, VS and ρ b). The model are always some basic assumptions needed as primary input.

16 © 2006 EAGE
 volume 24, February 2006 technical article

The definitive answer can therefore only be found by drilling. The authors are grateful to CMG, Pemex and TotalFinaElf
Consequently, it is always advisable to quantify uncertainties for use of their data. We thank our colleagues and the fol-
connected with the modelled scenarios, and to consider all lowing persons for their contributions: J.L. Piazza, J. Guilbot,
plausible reservoir configurations (e.g. Brandstaeter et al. O. Bernet-Rollande, F. Pivot, O. Balz, G. Velasco Vazques, H.
2005; Klefstad et al. 2005; Rivenaes et al. 2005). Truly inte- Bernal Ramirez, A. Marxh, I. Peres Negron, J. Camara, E.
grated studies with a shared earth model, material balance, Mendez, D. Contreras Tebar, Q. Cardenas, R. Vila Villasenor,
production-history matching, flow simulation and real-time E. Guzman, R. Zaaki, M. Da Silva, G. Castillo, S. Addy, N.
reservoir monitoring are needed from a reservoir manage- Van Couvering, W. Segovia, R. Martinez and D. Gehant.
ment point of view. These types of interdisciplinary studies Constructive comments by the reviewers were appreciated.
are the next step in modern asset management because they
will reduce the drilling risks even further. References
Aki, K. and Richards, P.G. [1980] Quantitative Seismology,
Conclusions Theory and Methods. W.H. Freeman & Co.
AVO effects on prestack CDP gathers provide basic informa- Assefa, S., McCann, C. and Sothcott, J. [2003] Velocities of
tion on the lithology and porefill contents of the rocks under compressional and shear waves in limestones. Geophysical
investigation. The four-fold AVO classification is based on Prospecting 51, 1–13.
the seismic response of the top reservoir and depends on the Brandstaeter, I., McIlroy, D., Lia, O., Ringrose, P. and Naess A.
acoustic impedance contrast over the interface, combined [2005] Reservoir modelling and simulation of Lajas Formation
with interference effects. outcrops (Argentina) to constrain tidal reservoirs of the Halten
Several AVO attributes are computed in an amplitude- Terrace (Norway). Petroleum Geoscience 11, 37–46.
versus-sin2θ crossplot using linear regression. The intercept Cambois, G. [2000a] AVO inversion and elastic impedance.
I is the cut-off on the amplitude axis and the gradient G is 70th SEG Meeting, Calgary, Canada, Expanded Abstracts,
the slope of the regression line. The attributes, I*G and fluid 142–145.
factor FF, are very helpful in quickly distinguishing Class 3 Cambois, G. [2000b] Can P-wave AVO be quantitative. The
dual AVO anomalies, which are usually related to hydrocar- Leading Edge 19, 1246–1251.
bon-filled rocks. Customized combined I and G attributes Castagna, J.P. and Backus, M.M. [1993] Offset Dependent
may provide adequate differentiation to indicate the pres- Reflectivity – Theory and Practice of AVO Analysis.
ence of hydrocarbons in Class 2 type reservoirs. Proper data Investigations in Geophysics No.8. SEG, Tulsa.
preconditioning is an essential step, when quantitative inter- Castagna, J.P., Batzle, M.L. and Eastwood, R.L. [1985]
pretation is the ultimate goal. Relationships between compressional and shear-wave in clastic
Simplified reflectivity computations, valid under certain silicate rocks. Geophysics 50, 571–581.
conditions, enable estimation of reservoir petrophysical Castagna, J.P. and Swan, J. [1997] Principles of AVO
parameters. The behaviour of both P- and S-waves is consid- crossplotting. The Leading Edge 12, 337–342.
ered in the elastic approach. Prestack inversion incorporates Chiburis, E., Leaney, S., Skidmore, C., Franck, C. and McHugo,
modelling of the AVO effects and provides information S. [1993] Hydrocarbon detection with AVO. Oil Field Review
about rock physical parameters such as Poisson’s ratio, λρ, 5, 42–50.
µρ, VP/VS, IP, IS. Connolly, P. [1999] Elastic impedance. The Leading Edge 18,
Reservoir modelling and fluid substitution increases 438–452.
understanding of the observed seismic response. It ultimately Da Silva, M., Rauch, M., Soto Cuervo, A. and Veeken, P.C.H.
leads to a better lateral prediction with delineation of sweet [2004a] Pre- and post-stack seismic attributes for enhancing
spots and improved volumetric prognosis. This results in production from the Cocuite gas reservoirs. 66th EAGE
better reservoir management decisions, with augmented Conference, Paris, France, Extended Abstracts, D001.
recovery factors and an improved drilling success ratio. Truly Da Silva, M., Rauch, M., Soto Cuervo, A. and Veeken, P.C.H.
integrated studies will reduce the drilling and development [2004b] Data conditioning for a combined inversion and AVO
risks even further. reservoir characterisation study. 66th EAGE Conference, Paris,
France, Extended Abstracts, P306.
Acknowledgements Dix, C.H. [1955] Seismic velocities from surface measurements.
This article is based largely on a textbook publication that Geophysics 20, 68–86.
is in press with Elsevier Scientific Publications: Seismic Dong, W. [1996] A sensitive combination of AVO slope and
Stratigraphy, Basin Analysis and Reservoir Characterisation by intercept for hydrocarbon indication. 58th EAGE Conference,
P.C.H. Veeken. It will be part of the Handbook of Geophysical Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Extended Abstracts, M044.
Exploration series, edited by K. Helbig and S. Treitel. Their Foster, D., Smith, S.W., Dey-Sarkar, S.K. and Swan, H.W. [1993]
kind permission to release the data for this publication A closer look at hydrocarbon indicators. 63rd SEG Meeting,
is hereby acknowledged. Elsevier Scientific Publications is Washington, D.C., USA, Expanded Abstracts, 731–733.
acknowledged for the copyright of this article. Gardner, G.H.F., Gardner, L.W. and Gregory, A.R. [1974]

© 2006 EAGE 17
 technical article volume 24, February 2006

Formation velocity and density - The diagnostic basics for Fluid property discrimination with AVO: A Biot-Gassmann
stratigraphic traps. Geophysics 39, 770–780. perspective. Geophysics 68, 29–39.
Hilterman, F.J. [2001] Seismic Amplitude Interpretation. SEG/ Rutherford, S.R. and Williams, R.H. [1987] Amplitude-versus-
EAGE short course no.4, Houston. offset variations in gas sands. Geophysics 54, 680–688.
Jenner, E. [2002] Azimuthal AVO: methodology and data Sheriff, R.E. [2002] Encyclopedic Dictionary of Exploration
examples. The Leading Edge 21, 782–786. Geophysics, 4th edn. SEG, Tulsa.
Jones, I.F., Bridson, M.L. and Bernitsas, N. [2003] Anisotropic Shuey, R.T. [1985] A simplification of the Zoeppritz equations.
ambiguities in TI media. First Break 21, 31–37. Geophysics 50, 609–614.
Klefstad, L., Kvarsvik, S., Ringas, J.E., Stene, J.J. and Sundsby, Skelt, C. [2004] Fluid substitution in laminated sands. The
O. [2005] Characterisation of deeply buried heterolitic tidal Leading Edge 23, 485–488.
reservoirs in the Smorbukk Field using inverted post-stack seismic Smith, J.C. and Gidlow, P.M. [1987] Weighted stacking for
acoustic impedance. Petroleum Geoscience 11, 47–56. rock property estimation and detection of gas. Geophysical
Lynn, H.B. [2004] The winds of change; Anisotropic rocks – their Prospecting 35, 993–1014.
preferred direction of fluid flow and their associated seismic Smith, J.C. and Sutherland, R.A. [1996] The fluid factor as an
signatures – Part I. The Leading Edge 23, 1156–1162. AVO indicator. Geophysics 61, 1425–1428.
Marten, R., Shann, M., Mika, J., Rothe, S. and Quist, Y. [2004] Tarantola, A. [1984] Inversion of seismic reflection data in the
Seismic challenges of developing the pre-Pliocene Akhen field, acoustic approximation. Geophysics 49, 1259–1266.
offshore Nile Delta. The Leading Edge 23, 314–320. Tarantola, A. [1986] A strategy for non-linear elastic inversion
Neves, F.N., Mustafa, H.M. and Rutty, P.M. [2004] Pseudo- of seismic reflections data. Geophysics 51, 1893–1903.
gamma ray volume from extended elastic impedance inversion Tatham, R.H. [1982] Vp / Vs and lithology. Geophysics 47,
for gas exploration. The Leading Edge 23, 536–540. 336–344.
Nordahl, K., Ringrose, P. and Wen, R. [2005] Petrophysical Todorovic-Marinic, D., Larson, G., Gray, D., Cheadle,
characterisation of a heterolitic tidal reservoir interval using S., Souleand, G. and Zheng, Y. [2004] Identifying vertical
a process-based modelling tool. Petroleum Geoscience 11, productive fractures in the Narraway gas field using the envelope
17–28. of the anisotropic gradient. First Break 22(10), 45 – 50.
Odegaard, E. and Avseth, P. [2004] Well log and seismic data Tsuneyama, F., Takahashi, I., Nishida, A. and Okamura, H.
analysis using rock physics templates. First Break 22(10), [2003] Vp/Vs ratio as a rock frame indicator for a carbonate
37– 43. reservoir. First Break 21(7), p. 53–58.
Ostrander, W.J. [1984] Plane wave reflection coefficients for gas Veeken, P.C.H [2006] Seismic Stratigraphy, Basin Analysis
sands at non-normal angles of incidence. Geophysics 49, 1637– and Reservoir Characterisation. Handbook of Geophysical
1648. Exploration Series (eds K. Helbig and S. Treitel). Elsevier
Pemex Exploracion and Produccion [2000] Las Reservas de Scientific Publications (in press).
Hidrocarburas de Mexico. Pemex publication. Veeken, P.C.H. and Da Silva, M. [2004] Seismic inversion and
Pica, A., Diet, J. and Tarantola, A. [1990] Nonlinear inversion of some of their constraints. First Break 22(6), 47–70.
seismic reflection data in a laterally invariant medium. Geophysics Veeken, P.C.H., Rauch, M., Gallardo, R., Guzman E. and Vila
55, 284–292. Villasenor R. [2002] Seismic inversion of the Fortuna National
Rauch, M. and Craig, A. [1998] AVO behaviour at the top of a 3D survey, Tabasco, Mexico. First Break 20, 287–294.
Class-4 sand – a case study of the Maitland-1 well. 60th EAGE Verm, R. and Hilterman, F. [1995] Lithology colour coded
Conference, Leipzig, Germany, Extended Abstracts, paper 2-10. seismic sections, the calibration of AVO crossplotting to rock
Rauch-Davies, M. and Portniaguine, O. [2004] Elastic attribute properties. The Leading Edge 14, 847–853.
generation from 3 points elastic inversion. Offshore Technology Whitcombe, D., Connolly, P., Reagan, R. and Redshaw, T.
Conference, Houston, Paper 16731. [2000] Extended elastic impedance for fluid and lithology
Rivenaes, J.C., Otterlei, C., Zachariassen, E., Dart, C. and prediction. 70th SEG Meeting, Calgary, Canada, Expanded
Sjoholm, J. [2005] A 3D stochastic model integrating depth, Abstracts, 138–141.
fault, and property uncertainty for planning robust wells, Njord Wigger S., Bailey, J., Larsen, M. and Wallace, M. [1997] Ha’py
Field, offshore Norway. Petroleum Geoscience 11, 57–65. Field: A Pliocene bright spot example from the Nile Delta,
Robinson, N., Ford, A., Howie, J., Manley, D., Riviere, M., Egypt. The Leading Edge 16, 1827–1829.
Stewart, S. and Thomas, R. [2005] 4D time-lapse monitoring of Williams, M. and Jenner, E. [2002] Interpreting seismic data in
Chirag field. The Leading Edge 24, 928–932. the presence of azimuthal anisotropy; or azimuthal anisotropy
Roden, R., Forrest, M. and Holeywell, R. [2005] The impact of in the presence of the seismic interpretation. The Leading Edge
seismic attributes on prospect risk analysis. The Leading Edge 21, 771–774.
24, 706–711. Yilmaz O. [2001]
Ross, C.P. [2000] Effective AVO crossplot modelling: A tutorial. Zoeppritz, K. [1919] On the reflection and propagation of
Geophysics 60, 1398–1408. seismic waves. Erdbebenwellen VIIB, Gottinger Nachrichten I,
Russell, B.H., Hedlin, K., Hilterman, F.J. and Lines, L.R. [2003] pp. 66–84.

18 © 2006 EAGE

View publication stats