An introductionRock geophysics/AVO

ince the early 1980s, when Ostrander demonstrated in a practical setting how amplitudes could change with offset on gathers due to the presence of gas, the industry has strived to understand, define, redefine, and improve the technology we call amplitude variation with offset (AVO). We have known for decades that AVO is controlled by the various rock physics parameters of the earth as we transmit and receive acoustic signals. However, it has only been in the last few yearsdue to improved acquisition, processing, and interpretation techniquesthat we have been able to derive and better understand some of these rock physics parameters. Rutherford and Williams in 1989 defined three classes of AVO (Castagna and Swan adding another class a few years later) and the industry now routinely discusses AVO in terms of these classes 1, 2, 3, and 4. AVO interpretation has evolved from just comparing modeled gathers to real gathers, to include approaches such as AVO inversion, elastic impedance, AVO attribute crossplots, lambda-mu-rho analysis, and fluid factor. Terms such as intercept, gradient, and Zoeppritz approximations are commonly discussed in the interpretation of prospects today. In the effort to better understand the lithologies and pore fluids of the earth in exploring and developing oil and gas, the papers in this special section use many of the terms and approaches described above with some additional analytical techniques proposed. The first two papers are AVO case studies. Eissa and Castagna employ AVO techniques to detect high-impedance gas sand reservoirs in stratigraphic traps in the northern Arkoma Basin. These fluvial-deltaic Atokan sandstones display class 1 characteristics and were found to display a positive intercept, negative gradient, and polarity change at far offsets. Chopra and Pruden performed an AVO analysis over a Cretaceous gas field in southern Alberta. Derived Lam parameters (lambda-rho and mu-rho) were successfully integrated with several other seismic attribute volumes by means of a probabilistic neural network. The results included 3D volumes containing log gamma ray and bulk density which led to two successful gas wells. In an effort to better understand rock physics trends, especially in deeply buried and deepwater environments, Avseth et al. incorporate information on depositional and compaction trends in trying to predict the presence of hydrocarbons. They employ a depth dependent probabilistic AVO approach that enables the prediction of the most likely lithology and pore fluid from seismic data. Gonzalez et al. use a PS converted wave elastic impedance (PSEI) formulation to help discriminate areas of high and low gas saturation. In this study the use of PSEI compared to P-wave data

Downloaded 03/26/13 to 136.249.13.90. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

improved by 20% the success of distinguishing commercial gas from fizz water. Egreteau and Thierry discuss the importance of postprocessing analysis on AVA (amplitude variation with angle) data. They demonstrate the importance of this analysis by testing the stability of the AVA inversion with respect to the signal-to-noise ratio, the flatness of the events within the common image gathers and the corridor mute. Their results are demonstrated on a data set in the North Sea that improved analysis of the Brent reservoir. In an analysis of 592 Tertiary and Cretaceous sandstone samples from offshore Brazil, Dillon et al. evaluate the performance of eight different elastic parameter fluid indicators. In younger, poorly consolidated reservoirs essentially all the approaches were sufficient, but in the older rocks the fluid indicator Ip2 - CIs2 [Ip=P impedance, Is=S impedance, C=(Vp/Vs)2] provided the best results. However, on normal seismic data due to typical poor signal-to-noise, IpIs appeared to work best. Young and LoPiccolo propose a new classification scheme that partly redefines and expands the Rutherford and Williams, and Castagna and Swan AVO classifications. This scheme divides the intercept-versus-gradient crossplot into 10 parts, with the northeastern half representing nonconforming sands and the southwestern half denoting conformable sands. The results of this approach are shown with three examples where the pay zones and lithologies are known. In the final paper, Van Koughnet and Lindsay describe the density cube, which is derived from a nonlinear three-parameter AVO inversion process. They indicate the density cube is sensitive to hydrocarbon signatures not resolved by conventional amplitude and AVO methods. The papers presented in this special section are excellent examples of where AVO interpretation to derive rock physics parameters is headed. With the industry more routinely employing prestack time- and depth-migrated seismic data (improving gathers and offset stacks), developing new interpretation techniques, and applying AVO approaches in regions not previously attempted, we are perhaps at the threshold of a rock physics revolution. However, to advance this revolution we must keep in mind what Richard Cooper stated in Upstream G&G technologySo where does all this stuff come from? (TLE, August 2003) in relation to 3D data and rock physics derived properties: We have been standing at this threshold for several years, if not a decade or two. Therefore, the industry must be diligent and dedicated to advancing AVO technology as we try to unravel the physics of the earth. TLE ROCKY RODEN AND REBECCA LATIMER

OCTOBER 2003

THE LEADING EDGE

987