You are on page 1of 63

Seismic Inversion and AVO

applied to Lithologic Prediction



Part 7 AVO Crossplotting
7-2
Introduction
In previous sections, we have looked at basic
rock physics, post-stack inversion, P and S-wave
recording and AVO modeling and analysis.
We used the Aki-Richards equations to perform
both forward modeling and data analysis,
extracting the intercept and gradient.
In this section, we will see how the crossplot of
intercept against gradient can aid us in the
interpretation of AVO anomalies.
We will also link rock physics, AVO modeling
and crossplotting, and show how this leads to
the polarization analysis of AVO anomalies.
7-3
AVO Crossplotting
AVO crossplotting involves plotting the intercept against
the gradient and identifying anomalies. The theory of
crossplotting was developed by Castagna el al (TLE,
1997, Geophysics, 1998) and Verm and Hilterman (TLE,
1995) and is based on two ideas:

(1) The Rutherford/Williams classification
scheme.
(2) The Mudrock line.

Although we discussed the Rutherford/Williams
classification scheme in the last section, we will first
briefly review the scheme.

7-4
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). The acoustic impedance changes refer to the
anomalous layer:

Class 1: Large increase in acoustic impedance.
Class 2: Near-zero impedance contrast.
Class 2p: Same as 2, with polarity change.
Class 3: Large decrease in acoustic impedance.
Class 4: Very large decrease in acoustic impedance
coupled with small Poissons ratio change.

7-5
The Mudrock Line
The mudrock line is a linear relationship between V
P
and V
S

derived by Castagna et al (1985). The equation and original
plot are shown below:
V
P
= 1.16 V
S
+ 1360 m/sec = aV
S
+ b
7-6
The Mudrock Line
S S P
aV V
1 2
2 2
V =

=
o
o
This will be illustrated in the next few slides, where a gas
sand is shown below the mudrock line, and then lines of
constant o are superimposed.
Notice that this is not the same as a constant Poissons
ratio, since this would be written as follows (without an
intercept term):
7-7
The Mudrock Line
0
2000
2000
4000
6000
1000 3000 4000 0
1000
3000
5000
V
P
(m/s)
V
S
(m/s)
Mudrock Line
Gas Sand
7-8
The Mudrock Line
0
2000
2000
4000
6000
1000 3000 4000 0
1000
3000
5000
V
P
(m/s)
V
S
(m/s)
Mudrock Line
Gas Sand
o = 1/3 or
Vp/Vs = 2
7-9
The Mudrock Line
0
2000
2000
4000
6000
1000 3000 4000 0
1000
3000
5000
V
P
(m/s)
V
S
(m/s)
Mudrock Line
Gas Sand
o = 1/3 or
Vp/Vs = 2
o = 0.1 or
Vp/Vs = 1.5
7-10
Intercept versus Gradient
By using the Aki-Richards equation, Gardners equation,
and the ARCO mudrock line, we can derive a simple
relationship between intercept and gradient. Note that:
P
P
25 . 0
P
V
V
4
1
aV : Gardner
A

A
= =
,
V
V
2
V
V
V
V
4
V
V
2
1
B
2
P
S
S
S
2
P
S
p
P

A A A
(

=
(
(

+ =

A A
p
P
V
V
2
1
A
If we assume that V
P
/ V
S
= c, a constant, we can show that:
(

=
2
c
9
1 A
5
4
B
7-11
Intercept versus Gradient
Now let us use a few values of c and see how the
previous equation simplifies. If c = 2, the most
commonly accepted value, the gradient is the negative
of the intercept (a -45 degree line on a crossplot):
If c = 3, the gradient is zero, a horizontal line on the
crossplot of intercept against gradient:
Various values of c produce the straight lines (wet trends)
shown on intercept/gradient crossplots on the next page.
A
4
9
1 A
5
4
B =
(

=
0
9
9
1 A
5
4
B =
(

=
7-12
Mudrock lines on a crossplot for various V
P
/V
S
ratios
(Castagna and Swan, 1998).
7-13
Intercept / Gradient Crossplots
By letting c=2 for the background wet trend, we
can now plot the various anomalous Rutherford
and Williams classes (as extended by Ross and
Kinman and Castagna et al).
Note that each of the classes will plot in a
different part of the intercept/gradient crossplot
area.
The anomalies form a roughly elliptical trend on
the outside of the wet trend.
This is shown in the next figure.
7-14
Gradient
Intercept
Wet Trend
|
|
.
|

\
|
= 2
V
V
s
p
Base III
Base II
Base II P
Top IV
Top III
Top II
Top II P
Base IV
Top I
Base I
Crossplot
showing
anomalies
7-15
Example of crossplotting
Foster et al (1993)
(a) Cross-plot of well log
derived A and B.
(b) Cross-plot of seismically
derived A and B.
The following figures are taken from the first published
example of AVO crossplotting:
7-16
Intercept / Gradient Crossplot
(b) Interpreted crossplot, where
the pink = top of gas, yellow =
base of gas, and blue = hard
streak.
(a) Uninterpreted crossplot.
Here is an example of the crossplot in color:
7-17
Seismic Display from Int/Grad Xplots
(a) Before interpretation
(b) After interpretation
Note the validation of the previous results:
7-18
Cross-plot modeling
We will next consider a straightforward methodology
for incorporating AVO crossplotting into AVO
modeling.
This will provide us with a link between our discussion
of fluid substitution with the Biot-Gassmann equations,
and the crossplotting of AVO attributes from real data.
We will also discuss the effect of the wavelet on the
crossplot, creating what other authors have termed the
AVO hodogram.
This article was written by Dr. Christopher Ross and
appeared in the May-June 2000 issue of Geophysics.
7-19
The Proposed Modeling Flow
The modeling flow that will be used in this tutorial
involves the following five steps:
(1) Edit and prepare the well logs for AVO modeling.
(2) Create fluid/lithology replacement logs.
(3) Generate in-situ and fluid replacement AVO models.
(4) Generate the appropriate AVO attributes for both
models (e.g. Intercept and Gradient)
(5) Crossplot the attributes from each model
simultaneously.
7-20
Well Logs
Wireline well log suite for the
AVO modeling example,
where the reservoir is
annotated in yellow. The
original shear wave log was
created used multiple
regression on the gamma-
ray, SP and neutron porosity
logs. Fluid replacement was
done assuming a 40% water
saturation in place of the
original 100%.
7-21
Models
Wet Sand Gas Sand
1000 ft
Far offset = 20000 ft
The forward models
from the wet and gas
sand fluid substitution
cases, using a full
elastic wave-equation
algorithm. The
wiggle traces overlay
the color amplitude
envelope.
7-22
AVO responses from Model Example
AVO computations
from the gas sand
model of the previous
slide, where the slide
on the left shows an
intercept x gradient
product (A*B) and the
slide on the right shows
a weighted sum of the
intercept and gradient.
In the case, the weights
are o = 0.5 and | = 0.31.
(a) A*B plot (b) oA+|B plot
7-23
Fluid Vector Movement
Fluid vector movement
from the shale (top) to
the wet sand (middle)
to the gas-charged
sand (bottom left). The
colors now represent
depth. These point
come from the trough
that occurs in the shale-
over-sand interface,
seen on the previous
slide.
7-24
Crossplot of Model Example
(a) Simultaneous crossplot of the two
models, in-situ=green points, and gas=
purple points. The gray ellipse is the
wet trend and the yellow/blue the gas.
(b) Trace display of the models,
with crossplot colors
superimposed. In-situ case on
left and gas case on right.
7-25
Thickness and Bandwidth Effects
The crossplots in the next two slides represent the
effects of thickness variations in the cleaner sand
members of the modeled reservoir.
The first slide shows the unaltered case, a 50%
reduction, and a 75% reduction, respectively.
Note the loss of definition as the sands are reduced in
thickness.
The second slide shows the effect of seismic
bandwidth change on the intercept and gradient. As
the frequency is lowered, there is loss of definition.
7-26
Effect of Sand Thickness
(a) Full crossplot through
unaltered sand.
(b) Zoom of crossplot of the
trough in the unaltered sand.
7-27
(a) Full crossplot through
sand that has been thinned
by 50%.
(b) Zoom of crossplot over
trough in sand that has been
thinned by 50%.
Effect of Sand Thickness
7-28
(a) Full crossplot through
sand that has been thinned
by 75%.
(b) Zoom of crossplot over
trough in sand that has been
thinned by 75%.
Effect of Sand Thickness
7-29
Effect of Sand Thickness
(c) Zoom of crossplot over
trough in sand that has
been thinned by 75%.
(b) Zoom of crossplot
over trough in sand that
has been thinned by
50%.
(a) Zoom of crossplot
of the trough in the
unaltered sand.
7-30
Seismic Bandwidth Change
(a) Unfiltered (4/8-24/48 Hz)
crossplot over over unaltered
sand.
(b) Filtered 4/8-20/24 Hz)
crossplot over over unaltered
sand.
7-31
AVO polarization attributes
In the next part of this section, we will discuss
the intercept/gradient hodogram and polarization
attributes, first developed by Keho (The AVO
hodogram: Using polarization to identify
anomalies, presented at the 2000 SEG meeting
in Calgary and published in TLE, November,
2001).
We will illustrate the concepts using both real
and synthetic datasets.
7-32
Gas Sand Example
We will first illustrate the hodogram using the gas sand anomaly above.
This is an (A+B)/2, or pseudo-Poissons ratio plot.
Top Gas Sand
Base Gas Sand
Time Window
7-33
The A-B crossplot
Here is the A-B crossplot of the points from trace 330 over the time
window shown on the previous plot. There is no obvious anomaly.
7-34
The hodogram
Here is the hodogram, showing time as a third axis. Notice the extra
information in the hodogram, and the clear anomaly at 630 ms.
A
B
time
7-35
Polarization analysis
Rather than display the A and B attributes as a
hodogram, we can compute the polarization angle from
a running time window centered at time t on the
attributes, as shown here:
time = t Window
length = M
points

A B
7-36
Polarization analysis
When we do this
polarization analysis on
trace 330, using a
window length of 3
samples, the result is as
seen to the left. Note
the clear indication of an
anomaly between 628
and 638 ms, at the
known gas sand zone.
7-37
Polarization angle attributes
The polarization angle, |, is defined as positive
upwards from the horizontal (A) axis. The result is
highly dependent on the length of the running
window.
The polarization angle difference A| is computed
by subtracting a background angle |
trend
.
A third attribute is the polarization magnitude, which
is defined as the RMS length of the cloud of points on
the A-B crossplot.
A fourth is the correlation coefficient squared.
The last is the polarization product, or the product
of the magnitude and the polarization angle
difference.
7-38
A model example
Next, we will use a gas sand model, which was
used by Christopher Ross in his paper
Comparison of popular AVO attributes, AVO
inversion, and calibrated AVO predictions (TLE,
March, 2002), to illustrate the ideas just
discussed.
The model gas sand is shown in the next slide.
The application of polarization analysis is shown
in subsequent slides.
7-39
Model gas sand
The plot above show the (a) crossplot zone analysis, and (b) sum of
intercept and gradient (pseudo-Poissons ratio) for the gas sand
anomaly.
(a)
(b)
Gas Sand
7-40
Effect of changing the window length
The next six slides show the effect of changing
the running window length from 10 ms to almost
200 ms on the polarization angle difference.

In all cases, the removed trend was equal to 0,
meaning that these plots are also equal to the
polarization angle itself.

Notice that if the length of the window gets too
large, the anomaly appears to move due to
edge effects.
7-41
Polarization difference with window = 10 ms.
Model gas sand
7-42
Model gas sand
Polarization difference with window = 18 ms.
7-43
Model gas sand
Polarization difference with window = 30 ms.
7-44
Model gas sand
Polarization difference with window = 62 ms.
7-45
Model gas sand
Polarization difference with window = 102 ms.
7-46
Model gas sand
Polarization difference with window = 182 ms.
7-47
Polarization product
The next two slides show the polarization product
for the gas sand example.
Recall that this is the product of the polarization
angle difference and the polarization magnitude.
Again, the trend angle is equal to 0.
Note that the result is slightly clearer than for the
angle plots, but the anomaly was visible on either
display. This is because the data is noise free.
7-48
Polarization product with window = 10 ms.
Model gas sand
7-49
Model gas sand
Polarization product with window = 30 ms.
7-50
Colony sand example
Next, we will use a real data example.
This is a 2D line over a shallow gas sand in
Alberta (the Colony sand).
The anomaly is a class 3 gas sand.
The sonic log from the discovery well is
overlain at CDP 330.
The gas sand is at a time of 620 ms.
The next few slides show the result of
polarization analysis.
7-51
Polarization angle with window = 10 ms.
Colony sand example
7-52
Polarization product with window = 10 ms.
Colony sand example
7-53
Colony sand example
Polarization angle with window = 18 ms.
7-54
Colony sand example
Polarization product with window = 18 ms.
7-55
Mahakam Delta example
In an article by Keho et al. in The Leading Edge,
November, 2001, an interesting case study of
polarization attributes is presented.

This study was done in the Mahakam Delta area of
east Kalimantan.

The next slide shows aerial photo maps of the
Mahakam Delta.

We will then look at the results of the polarization
study.
7-56
Mahakam Delta example
Herman Darman (Shell),
F. Hasan Sidi (VICO),
Agung Wiweko (Total),
Bernard Lambert
(Total), Bambang Seto
(Total)
7-57
Mahakam Delta example
An amplitude slice showing a gas-filled incised valley, where the change
to positive polarity (red) indicates the valley. (Keho et al., 2001).
7-58
Mahakam Delta example
A vertical section showing the gas-filled incised valley.
(Keho et al., 2001).
7-59
Mahakam Delta example
At top left is the intercept (A`)
after rotation along the main
trend of the crossplot, and at
bottom right is the gradient (B`)
perpendicular to the trend. See
the figure in the upper right for
the rotation. (Keho et al., 2001).
7-60
Mahakam Delta example
At top left is the product indicator
(AB*), and at bottom right is the
delta product indicator (AAB*).
Both show detail in the channel
but are quite noisy. (Keho et al.,
2001).
7-61
Mahakam Delta example
Color convention used for representing the classes using
polarization angle. (Keho et al., 2001).
7-62
Mahakam Delta example
Polarization angle plot for the gas-filled channel. Notice that inside the
channel, there appears to be a Class II anomaly (Keho et al., 2001).
7-63
Conclusions
In this section, we first discussed the concept of AVO
crossplotting.
We then showed how fluid replacement modeling
and cross-plot analysis could be combined.
For this analysis, we used a GOM dataset from a
paper by Chris Ross.
We then looked at a new concept in cross-plot
analysis, called polarization analysis, or the AVO
hodogram.
We illustrated polarization analysis using a model
dataset and real datasets from Alberta and
Indonesia.

You might also like