AVO inversion, theory and practice

By DAN IfAMPSON
Hampson-RussellSoftwareServices
Calgac, Cam&

A VO inversion is an area of research which attempts to go

there is more thanone geologicconditionwhich resultsin the same
seismicresponse.
beyondthe “qualitative” processof AVO interpretationcurrently
For example, if we have a sand layer with the configuration
used to predict the presenceof gas in a sand.
shown at the top of Figure 1, the seismic responseto a typical
When we do inversion, we are attemptingto build a “quan-
seismicwavelet in the lo-50 Hz band is the trace to its irume&ate
titative” model which is consistentwith the recordedseismicdata.
right-a negative reflection followed by a positive reflection.
The idea is that if the model matchesthe real data, it “might” he
However, a single reflecting interface (like the secondfrom
similar to the true lithology.
the top in Figure 1) might look pretty much the sameon the seis-
The problem with AVO inversion, like all seismic inversion,
mic data if the processinghad not been done perfectly and a 90”
is that it is too easyto come up with a model-there are too many
phaseerror was left in the wavelet.
modelswhich match the data very well. This is the “nonunique-
Or considerthe third examplein Figure 1. A seismicwavelet
ness” problem andit is the fundamentalissuewhen usingthe AVO
which has propagated through the earth has had most of its
technique.Compounding the nonuniquenessproblem is the non-
frequenciesabsorbed,both at the high end and at the low end.
uniquenessof the processof inversionitself. There are two primary
This means that we can add high- or low-frequency information
ways of thinking about inversion-the traditional view, which
to any geologic model whose syntheticresponsematchesthe real
might be cakd “operator-based,” and the more recently devel-
data and the match will be unchanged.
oped “model-based.” A brief descriptionof eachis a logical start-
The most insidiousproblem in the AVO case is illustratedat
ing place for thls subject.
the bottomof Figure 1. Once the layer thicknessis reducedbelow
the so-called“tuning” thickness,we no longer seechangesin the
times of an event but rather changesin its amplitude, a very con-
0 prrrtor-basedinversion.In this view, we recognize that the fusing situationwhen attemptingamplitudeversusofiet analysis.
seismicdata have resultedfrom a seriesof processes.It all started The common elementin all theseproblemsis that it is difficult
back with some true geology, which can be describedin terms of to know the seismicwavelet exactly. This meansthat slightly dif-
reflection coefficients. The seismicacquisitionprocesshas trans- ferent wavelets might produce different geologies, all of which
formed these into a seismictrace by introducinga sourcewavelet match the real data equally well.
into the ground, absorbingsomeof the high frequencies,diffract- And, of course, any noise in the real data makesthe problem
ing and refractingthroughintermediatelayers, and so on. We cur- harder sinceAVO analysisusually involves looking for subtleef-
rently have the technology and expertise to model this process fects
very well.
In operator-basedinversion, we assume that each of these
D eding with nonuniqueness.Assume, for example, that the in-
processesis reversible, so that we can apply computeralgorithms
versionproblem is so simple that we know there is only onelayer.
which drive the whole processbackwardsand transform the seis- All we have to do is determine the layer thicknessand the reflec-
mic trace back into the original geology.
tion coefficient at the top and bottom of the layer. (This isn’t ac-
Two examples of operator-basedinversion are the traditional
tually an AVO problem but servesto illustratethe principle.)
poststackinversion process, which producespseudovelocitylogs
Sincethere are only two unknownvariables, we could make a
from stackedseismic data, and wave-equationmigration, which
plot such as that shown at the top of Figure 2 where any point
reversesthe effects of wave propagationthroughthe earth. within the rectanglerepresentsa possiblesolution.We couldthen
The problem with this approachis that the seismic processes
calculate, for each possible solution, a forward model and com-
are generally not reversible, leaving us with the question:How do
pare it with the real data. If we had some measureof “goodness
we know the answeris right?
of fit,” we might find that the solutionswithin the oblong region
producedmodelswhich met our criteria. We can immediatelysee,
from the top of Figure 2, that the nonuniquenessof the solution
M odd-based inversion. With this technique,we don’t have to
is causedby the event tuningproblem previouslydiscussed.With-
worry about reversing the processes.We simply have to keep
out further information, we can’t make any additionalprogress.
makingforward modelsuntil we get a good matchto the real data.
Often, though, one or more sourcesof such information are
The idea is that oncethe model trace closely approximatesthe real
available, such as a log from a nearbywell which tells the reflec-
trace, then we can assumethe earth model is right.
tion coefficient and layer thicknessat the borehole. Those dataare
Two problems are immediately apparent.
plotted by the x in the middle diagram of Figure 2. We can’t say
First, just how difficult is it to constructa modelwhich matches
that theseparametershold away from the borehole, but we might
the trace?In fact, this turns out to be fairly straightforward, and
be able to saythattheycanonlydeviateby a certainamount.This
we currently have the technology and expertise to do this very
meansthe answer has to lie in the circular region of the middle
accurately.
plot. The bottom plot combinesthe acceptablemodelswith the log
It is the second problem thatis the crucialissue.If we do con-
data and reducesthe possible solutionsto a muchsmallerzone.
structa modelthatfits, how do we know thereisn’t anotherone
whichfitsjust aswell?
Sincewe are working with seismicdata, we can stop speculat-
C- rlterh for acceptability of result. One measureof fit between
the synthetic model and real data is the correlation coefficient
ing aboutthis questionbecausethe answer is that there is always defined in Figure 3. Note that the correlation is 1.0 if the model
anothermodel which fits just as well. In fact, there is a large col- and data are identical and that this ia the largest possible value.
lection of them. We are left with no choice but to analyzethe non-
For any other model, the correlationmust be less than 1.0.
uniquenessproblem in more depth. The two examples in Figure 3 show correlationsof 0.5 and
0.8. It is obvious by inspectionthat a correlation of 0.8 meansa
E xamples ofnonuniqueness.Nonuniquenessmeanssimplythat very good visual correspondencebetween model and real data.

GEOPHYSICS:THE LEADING EDGE OF EXPLORATION JUNE 1991 39

 On the otherhand,if we havewell log informationfrom which
an initial guesscan be developed,we can measurethe deviation
betweenthe model’s answer and the initial guessby a formula
suchas the one shownin Figure 4. Becauseof the nonuniqueness
inherentin all seismicinversion,the final answerwill be a balance
betweenthe two conflictingrequirementsof matchingthe seismic
data and matching the initial guess. Unfortunately, the exact
balancingpoint will dependon theparametersusedand, of course,
on the “reasonableness”of the initial guess.
G eneral linear inversion (GLI). Model-basedinversion re-
quires a definition of what the model is and what parametersit
contains.In our case, we are doing one-dimensionalmodeling,
which meansthat we have a seriesof IZ layers of varying thick-
nessesand lithologicparameters.Each layer is defined in terms
of four parameters:
l Zero-offsetreflectioncoefficient
l Zero-offsettraveltime
l Changein Poisson’sratio on crossinginto the layer
l Parameterto accountfor the possibilityof residualmoveout
as a resultof velocity errorsin the model
Figure 1. Examplesof nonuniqueness.
Figure 3. Example of closecorrelation betweenmodel and real
data.
Figure 5. Sonicand densitylogsof the CretaceousColony sand
of southeasternAlberta.
40 GEOPHYSICS:THE LEADING EDGE OF EXPLORATION JUNE 1991
b
With theseparameters,we can make a very accurateforward
modelusing ray tracing and Zoeppritz’s equations.
The inversionprocessis calledgeneralizedlinear inversionbe-
causeit startsfrom someinitial guessof the answerand proceeds
to refine that answerthrougha seriesof small steps.Each step
improvesthe fit betweenthe syntheticdataand the real data. The
nonuniqueness problemis handledin two ways:
l First, the initial guesshasan impactbecausetheGLI process
will tendto find solutionscloseto the initial guess.
l Second,the correlationfunctionis balancedat eachstepby
a penalty function which measureshow far the model is getting
from the initial guess.
In the end, the GLI answeris influencedboth by the initial
guessand by the balancingbetweenthe real data fitting and the
initial guessconstraint.
Figure 2. Model-basedinversion approach to nonuniqueness.
Criteria for acceptability of result
Model is close to initial guess
Correlation = (Model - Initial guess12
(Initial guess)2
I I
Figure 4. Formula to measurethe deviation betweenthe final
answer and initial guess.
Figure 6. Effect of blocking sonicand density logs.

Figure 7. Common offset stack producedby real data aud
modelgeneratedusingsonicand densitylogs.
Colonysand example.The real data to which theseconcepts
will he appliedinvolvethe Cretaceous Colony sandof southeastern
Alberta. This sand, which has high porosity and often displays
good stratigraphictrappingconditions,is an excellenthydrocar-
bon reservoir. The seismicdata also frequently contain classic
bright-spotanomalieswhich are indicativeof gassands.
Sonic and densitylogs from this area are shownin Figure 5,
with an expandedview of the zone of interestin Figure 6. We
havesimplifiedthe problemby approximatingit as threeuniform
layers:a sandencasedby two shales.The simplifiedlogsarecalled
“blocked” to differentiatethem from the originals.
Note thatthe majorP-wave responseis expectedto comefrom
the changein density,not the c@ge in P-wave velocity. The drop
in densityis indicativeof the presenceof gas.
The objectiveof the inversionis to seewhetherwe can deduce
the presenceof gasby analyzingthe conventionalseismicdata.
The real datahavebeenprocessed to producethe commonoff-
set stackshownin the right panel of Figure 7. This type of dis-
play is sometimescalledan Ostrandergatherandresultsfrom sum-
ming traces,fromseveralCDP gathers,which havethe sameoff-
set. of course,the summingcausessomesmearingof amplitude
information,but the benefit is increasedsignal-to-noiseratio.
Figure 7 alsoshowsa modelgeneratedfrom thesonicandden-
sity logs. The model assumesthat the sand layer has the same
Poisson’sratio as the surroundingmaterial-in other words,that
the sandlayer doesnot containg&s.
Figure 7 showsthat the real data contain a very significant
AVO anomaly at the Colony sandlevel but the model, basedon
the initial guess,doesnot. In termsof the model-basedinversion
Figure 9. Trial-and-error inversion.
GEOPHYSICS:THE LEADING EDGE OF exploration
Figure 8. Model and real data dlsplaysbeforeand a&r GLI.
concept,we can now say that the model so far perfectlymatches
the well-log informationbut doesnot acceptablymatch the real
seismicdata.
GLI will changethings.
The top of Figure 8 showsthe initial guess(in whichthe sand
layer is modeledwith a Poisson’sratio of 0.25, equalto the snr-
roundinglayers).The real datashowsignificantamplitudeincrease
at both the top and bottomof the layer but the syntheticmodel
doesnot.
After GLI (shownat the bottomof Figure 8), the Poisson’s
ratio within the sandlayer has been reducedto a value of 0.16
andthe Poisson’sratioon the surroundinglayershasaceally been
i&eased slightly to 0.3. At the sametime the thicknessof the
layer hasincreasedfrom 7.3 m to about 10 m.
As expected,the new syntheticmodel is a much &tter match
to the real data. Therefore we have achievedthe model-based
inversionobjectiveof mat$ing the real data while not deviatini
too far from the initial guess.However, a majorquestionremaius:
How unique is this answer?
M onte Carlo analysis.Sincethe AVO probleminvolvessuch
a small dataset,we might be temptedto try all possiblemodels-
an approachwe couldcall trial-and-errorinversion.But we quick-
ly see that this is impossibleeven if the phrase “all possible
models” is alteredto “all modelswithin somereasonablelimits.”
For example,if we were to plot the thickuessof ihe gass+md
layer (in terms of traveltime)againstPoisson’sratio, the accept-
able zone might contain solutionsin which the layer thickness
rangesfrom 2-20 ms and Poisson’sratio from 0.2-0.4. This is
Layer 2 -Parameter plot shows
Thickness correlation between
variables
I
Poisson’s Ratio
Normalized 1: Parameter plot shows
Correlation
Poisson’s Ratio
Figure 10. PlottingMonte Carlo results.
JUNE 1991 41

Figure 11. Model convergencewith Monte Carlo analysis.
Figure 12. Result of Monte Carlo simulation.
Figure 13. Result of Monte Carlo inversion.
illustrated in Figure 9. Each dot in the upper right quadrant
representsa solution.Supposewe decidedthatevaluating10 values
(or dots) per parameteris sufficient to give us a good idea of the
entire zone. As previously explained, the AVO modeling tcchni-
que that we are using has four parametersper layer. So, if we
modeled a six-layer caSe and the computer could generate one
completemodel per second, the time required to try all combina-
tions of our 10 dots within the acceptablezone is 3 x 10lh years.
This is quite a long time abouta million times longer than the es-
timated age of the earth.
Thus our trial-and-error technique is not possible even for
models with reasonablelimits.
42 GEOPHYSICS:THE LEADING EDGE Ok EXPLORATION .lUNE
,411alternative is the Monte Carlo analysis, This procedure
startswith the sameacceptablezone, but the next step consistsof
generating totally random models within the zone, The hope is
that, becausethese models are scatteredrandomly, we will get
some kind of uniform coverageof the zone and achieve it within
a reasonablenumber of models.
In the six-layer model. we can expectto generate36 000 models
by leaving the PC running for IO hours.
There are two ways in which the Monte Carlo analysis can
provide useful insight.
First, by evaluatingthe correlationbetweenmodeland real data
for each model generated,we can determinethe best-fit model of
that set. This may turn out to be better than the model generated
by the GLI methodbecausethe GLI model is heavily influenced
by the initial guessand the Monte Carlo inversion is not.
Second, since the correlation functions for all 36 000 models
have been calculated,they can be plotted in variousways to give
a visualimpressionof the nonuniqueness problem Two suchplots
are shown in Figure IO.
Xt’we happento have two parameterswhich are expectedto be
correlated (such as the thicknessand Poisson’s ratio of a layer),
a plot of the correlation function for all models showsthe range
of each parameterwhich provides an acceptablefit but also how
thoseparameterstrade off.
On the other hand, we can plot the correlationfunctionfor each
trial model as a function of a particular parameter that we are
trying IO resolve (such as the Poisson’s ratio of the Colony sand).
If all other parametersare allowed to vary. this, in theory, should
providea visualestimateof the nonuniqueness associatedwith that
particularparameter
The Colony sandmodel containedless than s1xlayers, so we
generated100 000 modelsin a single lo-hour run. However, only
about30 Oouof thesehad a correlationfunctiongreater than zero
and survivedthe first cut in the selectionprocess.Figure 11 shows
the correlation function associatedwith the “best model so far”
at each iteration. The initial guesshad a correlationof 0.75. After
approximately 15 000 models, the best result had a correlationof
0 95. By 30 000 models. the correlationhad improved to 0.96.
Flgurr I:! shows a one-parameter plot of correlation of the
30 000 Monte Carlo models versusPoisson’s ratio for the Colony
sand. ‘The concentrationof dots near the Poisson’s ratio value of
0.15 IS the resultof that value being the initial guess.
The most important information to be derived from this plot
concernsthe envelopewhich couldbe drawn over the highestcor-
relation values. If 0.8 were deemed an acceptable model fit
(remember that, visually, this appearedto be a good fit), some
models with Poisson’s ratio as low as .05 or as high as .25 are
acceptable Of course, each of thesedifferent valuesof Poisson’s
ratios requires qome correspondingchange in the other parame-
ters to maintainthe fit. Thus, it could very well be that constrain-
ing the other parameterswould better reducethe nonuniqueness.
Figure 13 showsthe Monte Carlo inversionmodel, out of the
100 000 generated,which had the best correlation value. It, like
the GLI result, had a Poisson’s ratio around0.15, but the layer is
now a little thicker (13 m insteadof 10 m). It is comfortingto see
the consistencyin the final Poisson’sratio generatedfrom the two
methods. but the obvious nonuniquenessdemonstratedon the
previousfigure has to give some causefor concern.
C onclusions. It is obviousthat full, multilayer AVO inversion
is feasible usingcurrent technology.
However, the magnitudeof the nonuniquenessproblem has to
make US stop and ask: What do we really mean by inversion?In-
steadof thinking about inversion as a processwhich gives us the
answer. we have to think of it as a process which gives US
reasonableanswers,i.e., answersthat fit the data.
Monte Carlo analysisoffers a tool for economic~y analyzing
that set of possible answers, but it does not remove the non-
uniquenessproblem. It’s the job of the interpreterto determineif
the most reasonableanswer that emerges from our inversion is
reasonableenough g
1991