You are on page 1of 65

AVO and Inversion - Part 1

Introduction and Rock Physics


Dr. Brian Russell

Overview of AVO and Inversion


This tutorial is a brief introduction to the Amplitude
Variations with Offset, or Amplitude Versus Offset
(AVO), and pre-stack inversion methods.
I will briefly review how the interpretation of seismic
data has changed through the years.
I will then look at why AVO and pre-stack inversion
was an important step forward for the interpretation
of hydrocarbon anomalies.
Finally, I will show why the AVO and pre-stack
inversion responses are closely linked to the rock
physics of the reservoir.
2

A Seismic Section

The figure above shows a stacked seismic section recorded over the shallow
Cretaceous in Alberta. How would you interpret this section?
3

Structural Interpretation

Your eye may first go to an anticlinal seismic event between 630 and 640 ms. Here, it
has been picked and called H1. A seismic interpreter prior to 1970 would have looked
only at structure and perhaps have located a well at CDP 330.
4

Gas Well Location

And, in this case, he or she would have been right! A successful gas well was drilled at
that location. The figure above shows the sonic log, integrated to time, spliced on the
section. The gas sand top and base are shown as black lines on the log.
5

Bright Spots

But this would have been a lucky guess, since structure alone does not tell you that a
gas sand is present. A geophysicist in the 1970s would have based the well on the fact
that there is a bright spot visible on the seismic section, as indicated above.
6

What is a Bright Spot?


Surface

Geology

Seismic

Seismic
raypath

Interface at
depth = d

Shale

1 V1

Gas Sand

2 V2
Reflection at time
t = 2d/V1

R0

2V2 1V1
2V2 1V1

Seismic
Wavelet

To understand bright spots, recall the definition of the zero-offset reflection


coefficient, shown in the figure above. R0 , the reflection coefficient, is the amplitude
of the seismic trough shown. Note also that the product of density, , and P-wave
velocity, V, is called acoustic impedance.
7

Gardners results for GOM


This figure, from
Gardner et al. (1974),
shows a big difference
between shale and gas
sand velocity at
shallow depths in the
Gulf of Mexico. The
paper also derived the
Gardner equation,
which states that
density and velocity are
related by the equation
= 0.23 V 0.25
Thus, we would expect
a large reflection
coefficient, or bright
spot, for shallow gas
sands.

Difference between shale and gas


sand velocity at shallow depth.

The AVO Method


Bright spots can
be caused by
lithologic variations
as well as gas
sands.
Geophysicists in
the 1980s looked at
pre-stack seismic
data and found that
amplitude change
with offset could be
used to explain gas
sands (Ostrander,
1984). This example
is a Class 3 gas
sand, which we will
discuss later.
9

What causes the AVO Effect?


Surface

1 VP1 VS1

2 1
Reflector

2 VP2 VS2
The traces in a seismic gather reflect from the subsurface at increasing
angles of incidence . The first order approximation to the reflection
coefficients as a function of angle is given by adding a second term to the
zero-offset reflection coefficient:

R( ) R0 B sin 2

B is a gradient term which produces the AVO effect. It is dependent on


changes in density, , P-wave velocity, VP, and S-wave velocity, VS.
10

P and S-Waves
Note that we can also record S wave information.

(a)

(b)

(c)

This diagram shows a schematic diagram of (a) P, or compressional, waves,


(b) SH, or horizontal shear-waves, and (c) SV, or vertical shear-waves, where
the S-waves have been generated using a shear wave source (Ensley, 1984).
11

Why is S-wave Velocity Important?


The plot on the left
shows P and S-wave
velocity plot as a
function of gas
saturation (100% gas
saturation = 0% Water
Saturation), computed
with the BiotGassmann equations.
Note that P-wave
velocity drops
dramatically, but Swave velocity only
increases slightly
(why?). This will be
discussed in the next
section.
12

AVO Modeling
P-wave

Density

S-wave

Poissons
ratio

Synthetic

Offset Stack

Based on AVO theory and the rock physics of the reservoir, we can perform AVO
modeling, as shown above. Note that the model result is a fairly good match to the
offset stack. Poissons ratio is a function of Vp/Vs ratio and will be discussed in the
next chapter.
13

AVO Attributes
Intercept: A

Gradient: B
AVO Attributes are
used to analyze
large volumes of
seismic data,
looking for
hydrocarbon
anomalies.
14

Cross-Plotting of Attributes
Gradient (B)

Intercept (A)

One of the AVO methods that we will be


discussing later in the course involves
cross-plotting the zero-offset reflection
coefficient (R0, usually called A), versus the
gradient (B), as shown on the left.
As seen in the figure below, the highlighted
zones correspond to the top of gas sand
(pink), base of gas sand (yellow), and a hard
streak below the gas sand (blue).

15

AVO Inversion
A new tool combines
inversion with AVO
Analysis to enhance the
reservoir discrimination.
Here, we have inverted for
P-impedance and Vp/Vs
ratio, cross-plotted and
identified a gas sand.

Gas
Sand
16

Summary of AVO Methodology


Input NMO-corrected Gathers
Perform optimum processing sequence
Modeling
Rock Physics
Modeling

Wave Eq.
Synthetics

Zoeppritz
Synthetics

Recon Methods

Partial
Stacks

Intercept
Gradient
Cross
Plot

Inversion

Elastic
Impedance

Simultaneous
Inversion
LMR

17

Conclusions

Seismic interpretation has evolved over the years,


from strictly structural interpretation, through bright
spot identification, to direct hydrocarbon detection
using AVO and pre-stack inversion.
In this short course I will elaborate on the ideas that
have been presented in this short introduction.
As a starting point, the next section I will discuss the
principles of rock physics in more detail.
I will then move to AVO modeling and analysis.
Finally, I will look at AVO and pre-stack inversion
analysis on real seismic data.

18

Rock Physics and Fluid


Replacement Modeling

Basic Rock Physics


The AVO response is dependent on the properties of P-wave velocity (VP),
S-wave velocity (VS), and density ( ) in a porous reservoir rock. As shown
below, this involves the matrix material, the porosity, and the fluids filling
the pores:

Rock Matrix

Pores / Fluid
20

Density
Density effects can be modeled with the following equation:

sat m (1 ) w S w hc (1 S w )
where : density,
porosity,
S w water saturation,
sat,m,hc, w saturated, matrix,
hydrocarbon, water subscripts.
This is illustrated in the next graph.

21

Density versus Water Saturation


Here is a plot of density
vs water saturation for a
porous sand with the
parameters shown,
where we have filled the
pores with either oil or
gas.
In the section on AVO
we will model both the
wet sand and the 50%
saturated gas sand.
Note that these density
values can be read off
the plot and are:
wet = 2.11 g/cc
gas = 1.95 g/cc
22

P and S-Wave Velocities


Unlike density, seismic velocity involves the deformation of a rock as a
function of time. As shown below, a cube of rock can be compressed, which
changes its volume and shape or sheared, which changes its shape but not
its volume.

23

P and S-Wave Velocities


The leads to two different types of velocities:
P-wave, or compressional wave velocity, in which the direction of
particle motion is in the same direction as the wave movement.
S-wave, or shear wave velocity, in which the direction of particle
motion is at right angles to the wave movement.

P-waves

S-waves

24

Velocity Equations using and


The simplest forms of the P and S-wave velocities are derived for
non-porous, isotropic rocks. Here are the equations for velocity
written using the Lam coefficients:

2
VP

VS

where: = the first Lam constant,


= the second Lam constant,
and
= density.

25

Velocity Equations using K and


Another common way of writing the velocity equations is with
bulk and shear modulus:

VP

4
K
3

VS

where: K = the bulk modulus, or the reciprocal of compressibility.


= + 2/3
= the shear modulus, or the second Lam constant,
and
= density.

26

Poissons Ratio from strains


F

If we apply a compressional
force to a cylindrical piece of
rock, as shown on the right, we
change its shape.

R
R+R

L+L

The longitudindal strain is given


by L/L and the transverse strain
is given by R/R.

F (Force)
The Poissons ratio, , is defined as the negative of the ratio
between the transverse and longitudinal strains:

(R / R) /(L / L)
(In the typical case shown above, L is negative, so is positive)
27

Poissons Ratio from velocity


A second way of looking at Poissons ratio is to use the ratio of VP to VS,
and this definition is given by:

2 2
2
2 2
VP
where :
VS
This formula is more useful in our calculations than the formula given
by the ratio of the strains. The inverse to the above formula, allowing
us to derive VP or VS from , is given by:

2 2

2 1
2

28

Poissons Ratio vs VP/VS ratio


Vp/Vs vs Poisson's Ratio
0.5

Poisson's Ratio

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
0
Gas Case

Wet Case

10

Vp/Vs
29

Poissons Ratio
From the previous figure, note that there are several values of
Poissons ratio and VP/VS ratio that are important to remember.
If VP/VS = 2, then = 0
If VP/VS = 1.5, then = 0.1 (Gas Case)
If VP/VS = 2, then = 1/3 (Wet Case)
If VP/VS = , then = 0.5 (VS = 0)
Note also from the previous figure that Poissons ratio can
theoretically be negative, but this has only been observed for
materials created in the lab (e.g. Goretex and polymer foams).

30

Velocity in Porous Rocks


Velocity effects can be modeled by the volume average equation:

t sat t m( 1 ) t w S w t hc( 1 S w ) , where t 1 / V


A plot of velocity versus
water saturation using
the above equation. We
used a porous sand with
the parameters shown
and have filled the pores
with either oil or gas.
This equation does not
hold for gas sands, and
this lead to the
development of the BiotGassmann equations.

31

The Biot-Gassmann Equations


The volume average equation gives incorrect results for gas sands.
Independently, Biot (1941) and Gassmann (1951), developed a more
correct theory of wave propagation in fluid saturated rocks, especially gas
sands, by deriving expressions for the saturated bulk and shear moduli
and substituting into the regular equations for P and S-wave velocity:

VP _ sat

4
K sat sat
3
sat

VS _ sat

sat
sat

Note that sat is found using the volume average equation:

sat m (1 ) w S w hc (1 S w )
In the Biot-Gassmann equations, the shear modulus does not change for
varying saturation at constant porosity. In equations:

sat dry
32

The Biot-Gassmann Equations


To understand the Biot-Gassmann equations, let us update the figure we
saw earlier to include the concepts of the saturated rock (which includes
the in-situ fluid) and the dry rock (in which the fluid has been drained.)

Dry rock
frame, or
skeleton
(pores
empty)
Rock Matrix

Saturated
Rock
(pores full)

Pores and fluid


33

Biot-Gassmann Saturated Bulk Modulus


The Biot-Gassmann bulk modulus equation is as follows:

(1)

K sat K dry

K fl

K dry

1
Km
1 K dry

2
Km
Km

Mavko et al, in The Rock Physics Handbook, re-arranged the above


equation to give a more intuitive form:

(2)

K dry
K fl
K sat

K m K sat K m K dry ( K m K fl )

where sat = saturated rock, dry = dry frame, m = mineral, fl = fluid,


and = porosity.
34

Biots Formulation
Biot defines (the Biot coefficient) and M (the fluid modulus) as:

K dry
1


1
, and

,
Km
M K fl
Km
Equation (1) then can be written as:

K sat K dry 2 M

If = 0 (or Kdry = Km) this equation simplifies to:

K sat K dry

If = 1 (or Kdry= 0), this equation simplifies to:

1
1

K sat K fl
Km

Physically, = 0 implies we have a non-porous rock, and = 1 implies we


have particles in suspension (and the formula given is called Woods
formula). These are the two end members of a porous rock.
35

The Rock Matrix Bulk Modulus


We will now look at how to get estimates of the various bulk modulus
terms in the Biot-Gassmann equations, starting with the bulk modulus of
the solid rock matrix. Values will be given in gigaPascals (GPa), which
are equivalent to 1010 dynes/cm2.

The bulk modulus of the solid rock matrix, Km is usually taken from
published data that involved measurements on drill core samples.
Typical values are:

Ksandstone = 40 GPa,
Klimestone = 60 GPa.

36

The Fluid Bulk Modulus


The fluid bulk modulus can be modeled using the following equation:

1
S
1 Sw
w
K fl K w
K hc
where K fl the bulk modulus of the fluid,
K w the bulk modulus of the water,
and

K hc the bulk modulus of the hydrocarbon.

Equations for estimating the values of brine, gas, and oil bulk modulii are
given in Batzle and Wang, 1992, Seismic Properties of Pore Fluids,
Geophysics, 57, 1396-1408. Typical values are:

Kgas = 0.021 GPa, Koil = 0.79 GPa, Kw = 2.38 GPa


37

Estimating Kdry
The key step in FRM is calculating a value of Kdry. This can be done in
several ways:
(1) For known VS and VP, Kdry can be calculated by first calculating Ksat
and then using Mavkos equation (equation (2)), given earlier.
(2) For known VP, but unknown VS, Kdry can be estimated by:

can
Kdry.

(a) Assuming a known dry rock Poissons ratio dry. Equation (1)
then be rewritten as a quadratic equation in which we solve for

(b) Using the Greenberg-Castagna method, described later.

38

Data Examples
In the next few slides, we will look at the computed responses for
both a gas-saturated sand and an oil-saturated sand using the
Biot-Gassmann equation.
We will look at the effect of saturation on both velocity (VP and VS)
and Poissons Ratio.
Keep in mind that this model assumes that the gas is uniformly
distributed in the fluid. Patchy saturation provides a different
function. (See Mavko et al: The Rock Physics Handbook.)

39

Velocity vs Saturation of Gas


A plot of velocity vs water
saturation for a porous gas
sand using the Biot-Gassmann
equations with the parameters
shown.
In the section on AVO we will
model both the wet sand and
the 50% saturated gas sand.
Note that the velocity values
can be read off the plot and
are:

VPwet = 2500 m/s


VPgas = 2000 m/s
VSwet = 1250 m/s
VSgas = 1305 m/s
40

Poissons Ratio vs Saturation of Gas


A plot of Poissons ratio vs
water saturation for a porous
gas sand using the BiotGassmann equations with the
parameters shown.
In the section on AVO we will
model both the wet sand and
the 50% saturated gas sand.
Note that the Poissons ratio
values can be read off the plot
and are:

wet = 0.33
gas = 0.12

41

Velocity vs Saturation of Oil


A plot of velocity vs water
saturation for a porous oil
sand using the BiotGassmann equations with
the parameters shown.
Note that there is not much
of a velocity change.
However, this is for dead
oil, with no dissolved gas
bubbles, and most oil
reservoirs have some
percentage of dissolved
gas.

42

Poissons Ratio vs Saturation of Oil


A plot of Poissons ratio vs
water saturation for a porous
oil sand using the BiotGassmann equations with the
parameters shown.
Note that there is not much of
a Poissons ratio change.
However, again this is for
dead oil, with no dissolved
gas bubbles, and most oil
reservoirs have some
percentage of dissolved gas.

43

Fluid substitution in carbonates


In general carbonates are thought to have a smaller fluid sensitivity than
clastics. This is a consequence of the fact that they are typically stiffer (i.e.
have larger values of Km and Kdry ) implying a smaller Biot coefficient and
hence fluid response.
This general observation is complicated by the fact that carbonates often
contain irregular pore shapes and geometries.
High aspect ratio pores make the rock more compliant and thus more
sensitive to fluid changes.
Aligned cracks require the use of the anisotropic Gassmann equation,
resulting in the saturated bulk modulus being directionally dependent.
Gassmann assumed that pore pressure remains constant during wave
propagation. If the geometry of the pores and cracks restrict the fluid
flow at seismic frequencies then the rock will appear stiffer.
All these factors make the application of the Biot-Gassmann fluid
substitution in carbonates more complex.
44

Kuster-Toksz model
The Kuster-Toksz model allows to estimate
properties of the rocks with ellipsoidal pores, filled
up with
any kind of fluid.

The Kuster-Toksz model was developed in 1974


Based on ellipsoidal pore shape (Eshelby, 1957)
Pore space described as a collection of pores of
different aspect ratios

b
a
Aspect Ratio = b/a
Courtesy of A. Cheng(2009)

In the appendix, we show how to compute the


Kuster-Toksz model values Tiijj and F.

Kuster-Toksz model
Pores in the rock according to Kuster-Toksz model.

Courtesy of A. Cheng(2009)

Kuster-Toksz model

NORMALIZED VELOCITY (V/V MATRIX)

Pore shape (aspect ratio ) effect on velocities.


1.0

= 1.0

0.95

0.9
0.1

0.85

0.05

WATER-SATURATED

0.01

GAS-SATURATED

P Wave

0.8
0

S Wave

Toksz et al., (1976)

5
0
1
POROSITY (%)

The Keys-Xu method


Keys and Xu (2002) give a method for computing the dry
rock moduli as a function of porosity, mineral moduli and
pore aspect ratio.
The equations are as follows, where p and q are functions
of the scalars given by Kuster and Toksz (1974):
K dry K m (1 ) p and m (1 ) q , where
1 2
1 2
p f k Tiijj ( k ), q f k F ( k ),
3 k 1
5 k 1
Vclay
1 Vclay
f1
, f2
, as before,
1
1
1 aspect ratio of clay, and 2 aspect ratio of mineral.
48

The Keys-Xu method

Here is a plot of the


results of the Keys
and Xu (2002)
method for the dry
rock bulk modulus:

49

Patchy Saturation
When multiple pore fluids are present, Kfl is usually calculated by a Reuss
averaging technique (see Appendix 2):

1
S w So S g

K fl K w Ko K g
This method heavily biases compressibility of the combined fluid to
the most compressible phase.
This averaging
technique assumes
uniform fluid
distribution!
-Gas and liquid must
be evenly distributed
in every pore.
50

Patchy Saturation
When fluids are not uniformly mixed, effective modulus values cannot be
estimated from Reuss averaging. Uniform averaging of fluids does not
apply.
When patch sizes are large with respect to the seismic wavelength, Voigt
averaging (see Appendix 2) gives the best estimate of Kfl (Domenico, 1976):

K fl S w K w So Ko S g K g
When patch sizes are of intermediate size, Gassmann substitution should
be performed for each patch area and a volume average should be made.
This can be approximated by using a power-law averaging technique,
which we will not discuss here.

51

Patchy Saturation
Gassmann predicted velocities
Unconsolidated sand matrix
Porosity = 30%
100% Gas to 100% Brine saturation

52

The Mudrock Line


The mudrock line is a linear relationship between VP and VS
derived by Castagna et al (1985):

VP 1.16 VS 1360 m / s
Note that for a constant Poissons ratio, the intercept is zero:

2 2
VP
VS
2 1
This will be illustrated in the next few slides.

53

The Mudrock Line

ARCOs original mudrock derivation


(Castagna et al, Geophysics, 1985)
54

The Mudrock Line


6000
5000
Mudrock Line

4000
3000

Gas Sand

VP (m/s)
2000
1000

1000

VS(m/s)

2000

3000

4000
55

The Mudrock Line


6000
5000

= 1/3

Mudrock Line

or
VP/VS = 2

4000
3000

Gas Sand

VP (m/s)
2000
1000

1000

VS(m/s)

2000

3000

4000
56

The Mudrock Line


6000
5000

= 1/3 or

Mudrock Line

VP/VS = 2

4000
3000

Gas Sand

VP (m/s)
2000

= 0.1 or

VP/VS = 1.5

1000

1000

VS(m/s)

2000

3000

4000
57

The Greenberg-Castagna method


Greenberg and Castagna (1992) extended the previous mud-rock
line to different mineralogies as follows, where we have now
inverted the equation for VS as a function of VP:

Sandstone : VS 0.856 km / s 0.804 VP


Limestone : VS 1.031 km / s 1.017 VP 0.055VP2
Dolomite : VS 0.078 km / s 0.583 VP
Shale :

VS 0.867 km / s 0.770 VP

Using the regression coefficients given above, Greenberg and Castagna


(1992) first propose that the shear-wave velocity for a brine-saturated rock
with mixed mineral components can be given as a Voigt-Reuss-Hill
average of the volume components of each mineral.

58

The rock physics template (RPT)


degaard and Avseth
(2003) proposed a
technique they called the
rock physics template
(RPT), in which the fluid
and mineralogical
content of a reservoir
could be estimated on a
crossplot of Vp/Vs ratio
against acoustic
impedance, as shown
here.
from degaard and Avseth (2003)
59

The rock physics template (RPT)


degaard and Avseth (2003) compute Kdry and dry as a
function of porosity using Hertz-Mindlin (HM) contact
theory and the lower Hashin-Shtrikman bound.
Hertz-Mindlin contact theory assumes that the porous rock
can be modeled as a packing of identical spheres, and the
effective bulk and shear moduli are computed from:

n 2 (1 c ) 2 m2

2
2
18

(
1

)
m

1
3

1
3

4 4 m 3n 2 (1 c ) 2 m2
K eff
P , eff
P ,

2
2
5( 2 m ) 2 (1 m )

where : P confining pressure , m mineral shear modulus ,


n contacts per grain, m mineral Poisson' s ratio,
and c high porosity end - member.
60

The rock physics template (RPT)


The lower Hashin-Shtrikman bound is then used to compute
the dry rock bulk and shear moduli as a function of porosity
with the following equations:

K dry

K eff

dry

/ c
1 / c

( 4 / 3) eff K m ( 4 / 3) eff

/ c
1 / c

z
eff

eff
z
6

4
eff
3

4
z, where :
3

9 K eff 8eff

and K m mineral bulk modulus.

K 2
eff
eff

Standard Gassmann theory is then used for the fluid


replacement process.
61

The rock physics template (RPT)

Here is the RPT for a range of porosities and water saturations, in a


clean sand case. We will build this template in the next exercise.

62

Conclusions
An understanding of rock physics is crucial for the
interpretation of AVO anomalies.
The volume average equation can be used to model
density in a water sand, but this equation does not
match observations for velocities in a gas sand.
The Biot-Gassmann equations match observations well
for unconsolidated gas sands.
When dealing with more complex porous media with
patchy saturation, or fracture type porosity (e.g.
carbonates), the Biot-Gassmann equations do not hold,
and we move to the Kuster-Toksz approach.
The ARCO mudrock line is a good empirical tool for the
wet sands and shales.
63

Appendix: The Kuster-Toksz values


3F1
2
1 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9
Tiijj ( )
, and F ( )

,
F2
F3 F4
F2 F4
5
4
3
3
( g f ) R g f
2
3
2
2

where : F1 1 A

3
R

F2 1 A 1 ( g f ) (3g 5 f ) B(3 4 R )
2
2

A
( A 3B )(3 4 R ) g f R ( g f 2 f 2 ) ,
2

A
(1 2 )
F3 1 R( 2 f )
g ( R 1) ,
2
2

F4 1

A
3 f g R ( g f ,
4
64

Appendix: The Kuster-Toksz values


4

F5 A R g f g Bf (3 4 R ),
3

F6 1 A1 g R g f B (1 f )(3 4 R ),
A
F7 2 9 f 3g R 5 f 3g Bf (3 4 R ),
4
g
f

F8 A 1 2 R ( R 1) 5R 3 B(1 f )(3 4 R ),
2
2

Kf

F9 A g ( R 1) Rf Bf (3 4 R ), A 1, B
,
3K m
R

3m
,
3K m 4 m

1
2 1/ 2

cos

(
1

)
2 3/ 2
(1 )

2
g
(3 f 2) and pore aspect ratio.
2
1
65

You might also like