Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Methodologies
Yongyi Li, Jonathan Downton, and Yong Xu, Core Laboratories Reservoir Technologies Division Calgary, Canada
Introduction
Zoeppritzs equations with ray tracing and full elastic wave equation with finite difference method (FDM) are two most commonly used techniques in AVO modeling. The main difference between these two techniques is the former calculates the primary-only reflectivities and the latter calculates particle displacements in subsurface. Zoeppritz modeling has the advantages of being fast and easy for identifying primary reflections. Elastic wave equation modeling, however, accounts for direct waves, primary and multiple-reflection waves, converted waves, head waves, as well as diffraction waves. It overcomes the shortcomings of the ray tracing approach that breaks down in many cases such as at the edges where the calculated amplitude is infinite or in the shadow zones where the amplitude is zero. Baker (1989) summarized the advantages using wave equation modeling in the cases of complex geology or complex wave phenomena as: a) automatic generation of diffractions, critical refraction and multiples; b) more accurate amplitudes and waveforms, especially in the presence of small structures and thin beds; and c) no missing of seismic events regardless of complexity. For structured plays, elastic wave equation modeling is especially useful in both imaging and AVO analysis. Based on Zoeppritz modeling and elastic wave equation modeling, different methodologies in AVO modeling are developed to take into account of the issues in association with data acquisition, processing and interpretation. This paper, Part 2 of AVO Modeling in Seismic Processing and Interpretation, reviews Zoeppritz equations and elastic wave equations and discusses pros and cons of the methodologies in AVO modeling.
Table 1. Zoeppritz equations for reflected P wave and converted S-wave. Continued on Page 39
38 CSEG RECORDER January 2004
Article
AVO Modeling in Seismic Processing and Interpretation II. Methodologies
Continued from Page 38
Contd
equations. For 3-D case, one may refer to the finite difference equations given by Jastram and Tessmer (1994). In finite difference calculation, explicit scheme approach is often used. It calculates particle motion for a space location at an advanced time exclusively from the motion that is already determined for previous time. In AVO modeling, a single shot gather with a flatlayered model can be generated for the cases where the structural effect is not the major concern. In structured areas, a series of shot gathers are generated based on a geological model and these shot gathers are the input for further processing.
1. Single interface modeling One of the advantages of single interface modeling is freedom from tuning. This method is often used to show theoretical AVO responses. For example, Rutherford and Williams (1989) used this method to classify AVO types for a shale-gas interface, and Shuey (1985) used it to compare between the exact Zoeppritz solution (Aki and Richard, 1980) and the solutions from his simplified equations. To demonstrate single interface AVO modeling three examples are selected and shown in Figure 1. Figure 1a shows the AVO responses for a case of shale overlying porous gas sand; where the results from two- and three-term Shueys equations are compared to evaluate the error introduced by the truncation of the third term. The maximum and minimum amplitude locations and inflection point location as indicated are calculated from the three-term equation. Figure 1b shows an example of the anisotropic effect of shale for a shalesand interface (VTI medium). It can be seen that with increasing
Figure 1. Single interface AVO modeling for isotropic, vertical transversal and horizontal transversal media. Continued on Page 40
January 2004 CSEG RECORDER 39
Article
Continued from Page 39
Contd
Figure 2. a) Zoeppritz equation modeling and b) elastic wave equation modeling. Continued on Page 41
40 CSEG RECORDER January 2004
Article
AVO Modeling in Seismic Processing and Interpretation II. Methodologies
Continued from Page 40
Contd
Figure 3. Zoeppritz equation modeling for P wave a) and Converted wave b).
gather modeling. Complete P- and S-wave velocity and density log curves from surface are the basic input. The procedure for obtaining correct rock properties for input involves log data QC, log data corrections, and rock physical property prediction. Quick results may be produced when dipole sonics are available. Before to do so, corrections on log data may require either for producing missing log segments or editing log curves. Tying to recorded seismic is an important QC step. The modeling result may help in identifying whether amplitudes have been properly recovered in data processing. The correct input model, especially in those areas without dipole sonics, requires information from geology, petrophysics, and even engineering. Converted wave modeling aims on the analysis for multicomponent seismic data that contains amplitude variation with offset information for both compressional and converted waves. The separated P-wave data (P-P) and converted wave data (P-S) can be used to perform P-wave AVO analysis and converted wave AVO analysis. The P-Pdata can incorporated with P-S data in AVO reflectivity inversion. Its advantages were summarized by Larson (1999), which includes: better signal-to-noise ratio due
to larger amount of data; better S-reflectivity or S-impedance estimates due to that converted wave more depends on shear impedance contrast; and better elastic parameter estimates when P-P contrasts are weak or P-P data has low signal-to noise ratio. In addition, density information can be determined by using converted wave data (e.g., Jin et al., 1999). This may be typically useful for the areas where the density contrasts are considered better than P-impedance and S-impedance contrasts such as oil sand plays in the WCSB (Dumitresue et al., 2003). Figure 3 shows an example of AVO modeling using P-Pand P-S Zoeppritz equations with ray tracing, where the travel time of converted wave gather is corrected to P-wave travel time. 3. Two-dimensional stratigraphic modeling 2-D stratigraphic modeling has the advantage of taking into account lateral variations in geology. The geological section to be modeled may come from seismic interpretation or can be constructed using well logs as control points. The lateral variation can be structure, reservoir thickness, porosity, lithology, fluid type, or fluid saturation. Based on the geological model of
Figure 4. 2-D stratigraphic AVO modeling with control of four wells: a) P-impedance; b) S-impedance; c) lr; and d) (lr-mr) Continued on Page 42
January 2004 CSEG RECORDER 41
Article
Continued from Page 41
Contd
Figure 5. CMP gathers at the silt, sand, and gas well locations of Figure 4.
Figure 6. Acoustic and elastic modeling and pre-stack time and depth migration results for a layered structured model.
the subsurface rock properties, cmp gathers are calculated and then processed as a 2-D line. An example for a gas play with well control at four locations is shown in Figure 4 (Li et al., 2000). In this example, the target zone changes from silt sand, gas sand to brine-saturated sand. In total, 100 cmp gathers were generated. P- and S-reflectivity were extracted using Fattis equation and then inverted into P-
and S-impedance sections. The and sections were calculated. For this case, we can see the difference in sensitivities of the inverted elastic rock properties in response to the gas: Pand S-impedances are unable to delineate the reservoir but lr and do. The cmp gathers at silt, gas sand, and wet well locations are shown in Figure 5. Class I AVO anomaly can be seen in the gather corresponding to the gas well.
Continued on Page 43
Article
AVO Modeling in Seismic Processing and Interpretation II. Methodologies
Continued from Page 42
Contd
4. Two-dimensional elastic wave equation modeling Recently, there is renewed interest in 2-D and 3-D elastic modeling for AVO analysis in structurally complex areas. This is because seismic imaging alone does not describe a reservoir completely. Elastic modeling will help to solve some specific issues of AVO analysis in structurally complex areas. This includes correctly positioning the signals and the amplitudes, and determining the angles of reflection at a common image or reflection point. In comparison to ray tracing method, elastic modeling generates the most realistic synthetic data. Conducting 2-D and 3-D full wave elastic modeling by using finitedifference method takes significant time. Recent advances in computing power have made single shot gather modeling trivial and 2-D modeling practical. Current major players in 2-D and 3-D elastic modeling include Los Alamos National Lab, Lawrence Livermore National Lab, University of Houston, and Stanford University. One recent accomplishment is converting the Marmousi model to an elastic version and generating shot gathers using full wave elastic modeling (Martin et al., 2002). While 2-D stratigraphic modeling does not take the complete wave-field and structure effect into account, 2-D elastic wave equation modeling does. Another difference is that 2-D elastic wave equation modeling generates shot gathers instead of cmp gathers. The synthetic data needs to be treated as recorded data and taken through a processing sequence. In 2-D elastic modeling, field acquisition parameters can be used and 3component data can be generated. To demonstrate explicitly all the waveforms from elastic modeling and to make a comparison between acoustic and elastic modeling, a layered geological model is studied (Li et al., 2003). The P-wave velocity model was initially used by Kelly et al. (1982) to demonstrate acoustic wave equation modeling in seismic imaging and interpretation. Here, this model is converted into elastic that consists of P-wave velocity, S-wave velocity, and density models. The reservoir at the top of the anticline is modeled as gas-charged with Vp/Vs ratio equal to 1.5. The maximum dip of the layers is about 20 degrees. Figure
6b shows the snapshots from both acoustic and elastic modeling at a shot location on the right wing of the anticline. The waves can be identified include reflected compressional wave (PP) and converted S-wave (PS). The shot gathers from acoustic modeling and elastic modeling at the same location are shown in Figure 6c. It can be seen that, except for the converted waves, the amplitudes of the same events are different as well. This can be observed at the events of PP1, PP2, and PP3. It implies that elastic modeling data is required for true amplitude migration. The pre-stack time migrated and depth migrated results for this example are shown in Figure 6d. Figure 7 shows an example of elastic modeling using a model built by well logs. This model has dips as high as 45 degrees. A gas-charged reservoir is embedded in the top of the anticline, and another gas-charged reservoir is located at the fault. It is expected the effect of structure on amplitudes is significant for this type of structure. One hundred and ninety-one synthetic shot gathers were generated with a source interval of 50 m and maximum offset of 6000 m. The receiver station interval is 25 m. The shot gathers located at the top of the anticline, between the top of the anticline and the fault, and at the fault are shown in Figure 7b. Figure 8 shows a pre-stack depth migration example using the data generated by elastic wave equation modeling. This study is typically for a structurally complex model in Mackenzie Delta, Canada (Xu, 2003). In processing the common image gathers after pre-stack depth migration were used. It can be seen that the reservoir is well characterized by the fluid factor stack, which would not typically be considered in interpretation of real data. Consequently, for a structure play, an a priori study may help to determine if AVO analysis is feasible or what kind of workflow can achieve optimal solution.
Conclusions
Single interface modeling, single cmp gather modeling, 2-D stratigraphic modeling, and 2-D elastic wave equation modeling have their pros and cons. The suitability of a method is determined by the objectives of a project. Regardless the methodologies, input model and calibration after the modeling
Figure 7. Elastic modeling for a 2-D structure model constructed by well logs: a) P-wave velocity; and b) selected shot gathers. Continued on Page 44
January 2004 CSEG RECORDER 43
Article
Continued from Page 43
Contd
Figure 8. a) P-wave velocity model, and b) fluid stack based on PSDM data for a typical structure play.
are the key for successful application of AVO modeling in data processing and interpretation. It demonstrates that 2-D elastic modeling is an effective tool for studying AVO in structurally complex plays. It also demonstrates the fact that AVO modeling provides significant information in seismic data acquisition, processing and interpretation.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Core Laboratories Reservoir Technologies Division for supporting this work. The authors are also like to acknowledge the helps from and discussions with Bob Somerville, Huimin Guan, and Luiz Loures.
References
Aki, K., and Richards, P. G., 1979, Quantitative Seismology, W. H. Freeman and Co. Armstrong, P.N., Chmela, W., and Leaney, W.S., 1995, AVO calibration using borehole data, First Break, 13, 319-328. Baker, L.J., 1989, Is 3-D wave-equation modeling feasible in the next ten years? in Eisner, E. Ed., Supercomputers in Seismic Exploration: Handbook of Geophysical Exploration, Section I, 21: Pergamon Press. Carcione, J.M., Gerard, C.M., and ten Kroode P.E., 2002, Seismic modeling, Geophys., 67, 1304-1325. Dumitrescu, C., Gray, D., Laurie, B., and Williams, A., 2003, PS and PP AVO Analysis: Amulti-component seismic case study for the Long Lake oil sands project, 2003 CSEG convention. Esmersoy, C., Koster, W., Williams, M., Boyd, A., and Kane, M. 1994, Dipole shear anisotropy logging, 64th Ann. Internal. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., 1139-1142. Goodway, W., Chen, T., and Downton, J., Improved AVO fluid Detection and lithology discrimination using Lam petrophysical parameters, CSEG Recorder, 22, No. 7, 3-5. Jastram, C., and Tessmer, E., 1994, Finite difference (FD) modeling, in Modeling the Earth for Oil and Exploration, K. Helbig eds, Elsevier Sciences. Jin, S., Cambois, G., and Vuillermoz, C., 2000, Shear-wave velocity and density estimation from PS-wave AVO analysis: Application to an OBS dataset from the North Sea, Geophys., 65, 1446-1454. Johnston, J.J., and Christensen, N.I., 1995, Seismic anisotropy of shales, Journal of Geophysical Research, 100, No. B4, 5991-6003. Kelly, K.R., Richard M.A., and Whitmore, N.D., 1982, Modeling-the forward method, in Concepts and Techniques in Oil and Gas Exploration, edited by K.C. Jain, SEG, 91-114. Kelly, K.R., Ward, R.W., Treitel, S., and Alford, R.M., 1976, Synthetic seismograms: A finite-difference approach, Geophysics, 41, 2-27. Kennett, B.L.N., 1979, Theoretical reflection seismograms for elastic media, Geophys. Prospecting, 27, 301-321. Larson, J.A., 1999, AVO Inversion by Simultaneous P-P and P-S Inversion, M.Sc. Thesis, University of Calgary, pp. 124. Leslie, J.M., and Lawton, D.C., 1999, A refraction-seismic field study to determine the anisotropic parameters of shale, Geophysics, 64, 1247-1252.
Li, Y.Y, 2002, Anisotropic well logs and their applications in seismic analysis, SEG Expanded Abstracts, 2459-2462. Li, Y.Y, 2003, AVO modeling in seismic processing and interpretation, Part 1, Recorder, 28. Li, Y.Y., Guan, H., and Downton, J., 2003, AVO in structured areas, 2003 CSEG convention. Liu, X., 1994, Non-linear elasticity, seismic anisotropy, and petrophysical properties of reservoir rocks, Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University. Martin, G., Marfurt, K.J., and Larsen, S., 2002, Marmousi-2: an updated model for the investigation of AVO in structurally complex areas, SEG Expanded Abstracts, 19791982. Rger, A., 1996, Reflection Coefficients and Azimuthal AVO Analysis in Anisotropic Media, Ph.D. Thesis, Colorado School of Mines. Vernik, L., and Liu, X., 1997, Velocity anisotropy in shales: A petrophysical study, Geophysics, 62, 521-532. Wang, Z., 2002, Seismic anisotropy in sedimentary rocks, Geophysics, 67, 1407-1440. Winterstein, D.F., and Paulsson, B.N.P., 1990, Velocity anisotropy in shale determined from crosshole seismic and vertical seismic profile data , Geophysics, 55, 470-479. Xu, Y., 2003, Angle-dependent amplitude in PSDM and AVO/AV analysis after PSDM, A 2003 CSEG convention.