Amplitude

Variation with
Offset
presented by
Roxy Frary
 Theory
Just some background

…ok a lot of background

 Snell’s Law
sin(Q1 ) sin(Q2 ) sin(F1 ) sin(F 2 )
= = =
VP1 VP 2 VS1 VS 2
 Reflection
Coefficients
r2VP 2 - r1VP1
RC =
r2VP 2 + r1VP1
I P 2 - I P1
=
I P 2 + I P1
DI P
=
2I PA
 Zoeppritz
Equations
(Aki & Richards, 1980)

R(q ) = f (r1, r2,VP1,VP2,VS1,VS2,q )

 (Much-needed)
Simplifications
Aki & Richards, 1980

1 2 2 æ Dr ö 1 DVP 2 2 DVS
RPP (Qa ) » (1- 4 p VSa ) ç ÷ + - 4p VSa
2 è ra ø 2 cos (Q a ) VPa
2
VSa
attempt to separate the
density dependence, P-
wave, and S-wave

…still complicated…
 2
VP 2 cosQ1 - VP1 cosQ2 æ sinQ1 ö
RPP (Q1 ) » + 2ç ÷ (V 2
S1 - V 2
S2 )
VP2 cosQ1 + VP1 cosQ2 è VP1 ø
(Much-needed)
Simplifications
Hilterman, 1983

Separates into
“acoustic/fluid” and “shear”
terms – by assuming
constant density

…still complicated…
 é Ds ù 2 1 DVP
RPP (q1 ) » R0 + ê A0 R0 + 2ú
sin q + (tan 2
q - sin 2
q1 )
(1- s a ) û
1 1
ë 2 VP
(Much-needed)
1- 2s
A0 = B0 - 2(1+ B0 ) Simplifications
1- s
Shuey, 1985
DVP
VPa
B0 =
+ Dr
DVP
VPa ra

Each term describes a

Normal incidence reflection coefficient
different angular range of
Intermediate angles the offset curve
Approaching the critical angle
RPP (q1 ) » A + Bsin2 q1 + Csin 2 q1 tan2 q1 Weighted
Stacking
• A (or R0) is the normal (Geostack)
incidence, or “zero- Smith and Gidlow, 1987
offset” stack
reducing the prestack
information to AVO attribute
• B is the AVO “slope” or traces
“gradient” compute local incident
angle at each time, then do
a regression analysis

• 3rd term is the “far-

offset” stack
 RPP (q1 ) » A + Bsin2 q1 + Csin 2 q1 tan2 q1 The “Most
é Ds ù 2 1 DVP
RPP (q1 ) » R0 + ê A0 R0 + 2ú
sin q + (tan 2 q1 - sin 2 q1 ) Simple”
(1- s a ) û
1
ë 2 VP
Simplification
Hilterman, 1989
RPP (q1 ) » R0 cos q1 + 2.25Ds sin q1
2 2

• near-offset stack At small angles, R0

images the P-wave dominates

Δσ dominates at larger
impedance contrasts angles

• far-offset stack images

Poisson’s ratio contrasts
 Poisson’s Ratio
Koefoed, 1955

( )
2
VP
VS -2
s=
( )
é VP ù
2
2ê V -1ú
ë S û
 Incidence Angle
Koefoed, 1955
Shuey, 1985

é Ds ù 2 1 DVP
RPP (q1 ) » R0 + ê A0 R0 + 2ú
sin q + (tan 2 q1 - sin 2 q1 )
(1- s a ) û
1
ë 2 VP
 VP Contrast
Koefoed, 1955
Shuey, 1985

é Ds ù 2 1 DVP
RPP (q1 ) » R0 + ê A0 R0 + 2ú
sin q + (tan 2 q1 - sin 2 q1 )
(1- s a ) û
1
ë 2 VP
 é Ds ù 2 1 DVP
RPP (q1 ) » R0 + ê A0 R0 + 2ú
sin q + (tan 2 q1 - sin 2 q1 )
(1- s a ) û
1
ë 2 VP

Rule #1
Theoretical Conclusions
from
Koefoed, 1955
modified by
Shuey, 1985

An increase (decrease) of
Poisson’s ratio for the
underlying medium
produces an increase
(decrease) in the reflection
coefficient at larger angles
of incidence
 é Ds ù 2 1 DVP
RPP (q1 ) » R0 + ê A0 R0 + 2ú
sin q + (tan 2 q1 - sin 2 q1 )
(1- s a ) û
1
ë 2 VP

Rule #2
Theoretical Conclusions
from
Koefoed, 1955
1- 2s
A0 = B0 - 2(1+ B0 ) modified by
1- s Shuey, 1985

When Poisson’s ratio of the

media are equal, an
increase (decrease) of
Poisson’s ratio causes an
increase (decrease) in
reflection coefficient at
larger angles of incidence
 é Ds ù 2 1 DVP
RPP (q1 ) » R0 + ê A0 R0 + 2ú
sin q + (tan 2 q1 - sin 2 q1 )
(1- s a ) û
1
ë 2 VP

Rule #3
Theoretical Conclusions
from
Koefoed, 1955
modified by
Shuey, 1985

Interchange of the media

affects the shape of the
curves only slightly – RPP
simply changes sign when
the elastic properties are
interchanged – except at
large angles
Industry Use:
Gas Sands
Since 1982
 Gas Sands
• Ostrander, 1984
• Hypothetical gas
model
 But how do we
see this in seismic
data?
Ostrander, 1984

Sacramento Valley

Sand reservoir at 1.75 s

Fault at SP 95
Reservoir limits SP 75-135
 CDP Gathers
Ostrander, 1984
offset increases to the left

A & B show an increase in

amplitude with offset –
change in Poisson’s ratio –
gas-saturated sand

C shows a decrease in
amplitude with offset –
uniform Poisson’s ratio –
no gas sand
Another Example
Ostrander, 1984

Nevada

Amplitude anomaly at 1.6

s

Decrease in amplitude
with offset on gathers –
uniform Poisson’s ratio –
BASALT
 But different Gas Sands
have different signatures
Rutherford & Williams, 1989

• Class 1: high impedance

o gradient is usually greatest

• Class 2: near-zero
impedance contrast
o seem to suddenly appear at
larger offsets, when amplitudes
rise above noise level

• Class 3: low impedance

o large reflectivities at all offsets
Class 1 Gas Sand
Example
Rutherford & Williams, 1989

Arkoma Basin
Pennsylvanian-aged
Hartshorn sand

“dim out”

polarity change at mid-

offset
Class 2 Gas Sand
Example
Rutherford & Williams, 1989

Gulf of Mexico
Brazos area
mid-Miocene

not a classic “gas sand”

anomaly – 2.1 s
Class 2 Gas Sand
Example (Cont’d)
Rutherford & Williams, 1989

AVO effects are

pronounced in mid- and far-
offset synthetics

constant reflection angle

display confirms synthetic
data
Class 3 Gas Sand
Example
Rutherford & Williams, 1989

Gulf of Mexico
High Island area
Pliocene

most typical – large

reflectivity at all offsets
Class 4 Gas Sand
Castagna & Swan, 1997

Low impedance as well, but

reflectivity decreases with
offset
 Industry Use:
Fluid Identification
Since 1997
• Substituting and
neglecting second-
order perturbations
yields Fluid Line
B = (1- 8g 2 )A - 4gDg Foster & Keys, 1999

B = (1- 8g 2 )A plotting in the slope-

VS intercept domain
g = V
P R(q ) » A + Bsin2 q +...
DVPa Dra
A= +
2VPa 2 ra
DVPa VSa2 é Dra DVSa ù
B= -4 2 ê + ú
2VPa VPa ë 2 ra VSa û
 Fluid Line
(Cont’d)
Foster & Keys, 1999

R(q ) » A + Bsin2 q +...

B = (1- 8g 2 )A - 4gDg
B = (1- 8g 2 )A

g = VS V
• Reflections from wet sands/shales fall on the Fluid
Line (little contrast in γ) – hydrocarbon-bearing
P
sands do not
• Abrupt decrease (increase) in γ causes the
reflection to fall above (below) the Fluid Line – like
the tops and bases of sands
 B = (1- 8g 2 )A - 4gDg
B = (1- 8g 2 )A

g = VS V
P

Fluid Line and

Gas Sands
Foster & Keys, 1999

• Class 1: high-impedance – below

Fluid Line, to the right of the slope
axis
• Class 2: negligible impedance
contrast – intersection with slope
axis
• Class 3: low-impedance –
negative intercept and slope
• Class 4: even lower impedance –
negative intercept, slope is zero
or positive
 Fluid Line, Gas
Sands, and Rock
Properties
B = (1- 8g 2 )A - 4gDg
B = (1- 8g 2 )A Foster & Keys, 1999
g = VS V
P

• Start with top of Class 3 gas sand

at point 1
• To get to point 2:
• increase porosity

• Alternatively, to get to point 3:

• reduce porosity

• Point 4:
• replace gas with brine

• To get to point 5:
• reduce porosity of brine
 Fluid Line, Gas
Sands, and Rock
Properties
(Cont’d)
Foster, Keys & Lane, 1999
• Point 1: at normal incidence, the
reflection is negative, and
becomes more negative with
increasing offset
• Point 2: reflection is more negative,
but less variation with offset than
Point 1
• Point 3: small amplitude at normal
incidence, but will be more
negative with increasing offset
(more than 1 or 2)
• Point 4: small positive amplitude at
B = (1- 8g 2 )A - 4gDg normal incidence, and decreases
B = (1- 8g 2 )A with offset
g = VS V • Point 5: large positive amplitude,
P
decreases with offset (more than 4)
 Fluid Line, Gas
Sands, and Rock
Properties
(Cont’d)
Foster, Keys & Lane, 2010

• Increasing the shale content

increases acoustic impedance
by reducing porosity (solid brown
line) – must also decrease γ
because pure shale lies on the
Fluid Line
• Adding clay past the critical
concentration reduces acoustic
impedance (dashed brown line)
B = (1- 8g 2 )A - 4gDg
B = (1- 8g 2 )A

g = VS V
P
AVO for hydrocarbon
detection
Foster, Keys & Lane, 2010
 Evaluation of
potential to
differentiate
hydrocarbons
from water
Well 1: central structure
Well 2: west structure

• Step 1 – forward model

the expected AVO
response for brine- and
hydrocarbon-filled sands
from well log information
 Well information
Well 1: a & b
Well 2: c & d
a & c indicate the expected
AVO for individual sand units
b & d are derived from
synthetic gathers modeled
from the well logs
• We should expect a
reflection from the top of a
gas sand to peak at zero
offset and become larger
with increasing angle
• Amplitudes should
decrease downdip from a
gas/water contact
• Class 3 at the top of the
Note change in amplitude convention
reservoir section, Class 2
deeper as porosity
decreases
 Seismic data
3D prestack time-migrated
gathers

Blue points are background

data, containing wet sands
and shales – used to define
the Fluid Line

Red points are the reservoir

– predominantly Class 3
sand
 Applying AVO
scheme to stacked
seismic data
dark-green over light-green: top
and bottom of Class 3 sand
purple (Class 2) sands seen at
depth
gas/water contact (AVO anomaly)
terminates downdip
 Check with
structure in map
view
anomaly extends to the
eastern structure as well
AVO for lithology
discrimination
Foster, Keys & Lane, 2010
 Evaluation of
potential to
differentiate
reservoir sands
Back to basics: thicker sands
in a main channel feeding a
turbidite fan, porosity
decreases further from the
sediment source

Class 2 sands (b) have lower

porosity than Class 3 sands
(a)
 AVO extraction
to map view
Well A found a commercial
reservoir
Well B found poor porosity
• Fluids cannot support
shear, so maximum
value of σ is 0.5
• Typical values: More on
o 0.05 for very hard rocks Poisson’s Ratio

( )
o 0.45 for loose, 2
unconsolidated VP
sediments VS -2
s=
( )
o Close to 0.0 for gas sands
é VP 2
ù
• At 0.33, S-wave velocity 2ê V -1ú
is half P-wave velocity ë S û
• As gas saturation
increases, Poisson’s
ratio decreases
• The slope of the More on A & B:
plotting in the
“background trend”
slope-intercept
depends only on the domain
background γ Castagna, Swan & Foster, 1998

B = (1- 8g 2 )A R(q ) » A + Bsin2 q +...

DVPa Dra
A= +
2VPa 2 ra
DVPa VSa2 é Dra DVSa ù
B= -4 2 ê + ú
2VPa VPa ë 2 ra VSa û
A – normal incidence
B – AVO gradient/slope

B = (1- 8g 2 )A - 4gDg
B = (1- 8g 2 )A

g = VS V
P
• Shale/brine sand and More on A & B:
plotting in the
shale/gas sand
slope-intercept
reflections domain (Cont’d)
Castagna, Swan & Foster, 1998

R(q ) » A + Bsin2 q +...

DVPa Dra
A= +
2VPa 2 ra
DVPa VSa2 é Dra DVSa ù
B= -4 2 ê + ú
2VPa VPa ë 2 ra VSa û
A – normal incidence
B – AVO gradient/slope

B = (1- 8g 2 )A - 4gDg
B = (1- 8g 2 )A

g = VS V
P
• Shale/brine sand and More on A & B:
plotting in the
shale/gas sand
slope-intercept
reflections – laboratory domain (Cont’d)
measurements Castagna, Swan & Foster, 1998

R(q ) » A + Bsin2 q +...

A – normal incidence
B – AVO gradient/slope

B = (1- 8g 2 )A - 4gDg
B = (1- 8g 2 )A

g = VS V
P

Porosity differences account for

variation
Background velocity is different for
each sand, so they don’t all plot
on same trend
• A & B become more More on A & B:
negative by adding plotting in the
hydrocarbons (decreasing slope-intercept
Poisson’s ratio) domain (Cont’d)
Castagna, Swan & Foster,
1998
A – normal incidence
B – AVO gradient/slope
B = (1- 8g 2 )A - 4gDg
B = (1- 8g 2 )A

g = VS V
P

Top of said layer plots

below background trend
Bottom of said layer plots
above the background
trend
 Can’t classify
sands based on
properties of the
sand alone – the
advent of Class 4
Castagna, Swan & Foster, 1998

Overlying unit is shale

Class 3

Overlying unit is tight

(calcareous)
Class 4

Key difference: Vs contrast

 Case History
Gulf of Mexico Bright Spot
Nsoga Mahob, Castagna & Young, 1999
Amplitude Anomaly
 AVO Inversion –
Brine Model

max changes: used near-offset inverted P-wave velocity

VP – 1000 ft/s curve
VS – 3000 ft/s S-wave and Poisson’s ratio curves related
layer thickness – 100 ft
density – 1.0 g/cm3
AVO Inversion –
Brine Model

not really all that close…

 AVO Inversion –
Gas Model

max changes: used near-offset inverted P-wave velocity

VP – 1000 ft/s curve
VS – 3000 ft/s constant Poisson’s ratio of 0.1 in pay zone
layer thickness – 100 ft
density – 1.0 g/cm3
AVO Inversion –
Gas Model

decently close!
gas model, with appropriate
mechanical properties,
converges to the real
seismic data
 Some Issues
• Thin-bed tuning
o Can cause amplitude to
increase/decrease with offset
depending on time-thickness
and frequency

• Attenuation
o Signal/noise decrease with
offset

• NMO errors
o Conventional velocity analysis
is not “perfect” enough
o Ambiguity between stacking
velocity and reflectivity
o Can be corrected with full
waveform inversion
 Key Takeaway Conclusions
• Important AVO simplification:
é Ds ù 2 1 DVP
RPP (q1 ) » R0 + ê A0 R0 + 2ú
sin q + (tan 2
q - sin 2
q1 )
(1- s a ) û
1 1
ë 2 VP
• The Rules:
o An increase (decrease) of Poisson’s ratio for the underlying medium produces an
increase (decrease) in the reflection coefficient at larger angles of incidence
o When Poisson’s ratio of the media are equal, an increase (decrease) of Poisson’s
ratio causes an increase (decrease) in reflection coefficient at larger angles of
incidence
o Interchange of the media affects the shape of the curves only slightly – RPP simply
changes sign when the elastic properties are interchanged – except at large
angles

• Gas Sand Classification:

o Class 1 – high impedance contrast, high gradient, polarity change, low porosity
o Class 2 – near-zero impedance contrast, seem to suddenly appear at larger offsets
o Class 3 – low impedance contrast, high reflectivity at all offsets
o Class 4 – low impedance contrast, reflectivity decreases with offset, high porosity

• Lithology and fluid identification

Key Takeaway Conclusions
 References
• Aki & Richards, 1980
• Hilterman, 1983
• Shuey, 1985
• Smith and Gidlow, 1987
• Hilterman, 1989
• Koefoed, 1955
• Ostrander, 1984
• Rutherford & Williams, 1989
• Castagna & Swan, 1997
• Foster & Keys, 1999
• Foster, Keys & Lane, 2010
• Castagna, Swan & Foster, 1998
• Nsoga Mahob, Castagna & Young, 1999
• Fatti, Smith, Vail, Strauss & Levitt, 1994