Presentation on theme: "5. AVO-AVA Introduction Weak-contrast, short spread approximation for reflection coefficient Information content Classification Tuning effect Examples."— Presentation transcript:
15. AVO-AVAIntroductionWeak-contrast, short spread approximation for reflection coefficientInformation contentClassificationTuning effectExamples
2Introduction AVO (amplitude versus offset) AVA (amplitude versus angle)The link between AVO and AVA is ray traycing in overburden.
3IntroductionSeismic lithology is the process by which rock properties such as lithology, porosity and pore fluid content are determined by analysis of seismic and other data.Ideally, seismic data would uniquely determine velocity, attenuation, and anisotropy for P-waves and S-waves as functions of angle.AVO has the advantage of being applicable to many conventional seismic data sets without the requirements of prohibitive acquisition, processing, and analysis costs.
4Weak-contrast, short spread approximation for reflection coefficient (5.1)P-wave: R(0) is intercept, G is gradient and K is curvatureC-wave: B is intercept and C is curvature(5.2)
5Information contentAnomalously low Vp/Vs ratios caused by hydrocarbons produce anomalous AVO responseHowever, Vp/Vs ratios can not be uniquely inverted from AVO data alone
8Vp/Vs versus VpFigure 5.1. Vp/Vs ratio versus Vp for different lithology
9Rss versus RppFigure 5.2. S to P reflection coefficients for different lithology
10Gas-brine properties distributions Figure 5.3. Seismic properties for gas/brine sands
11Some conclusionsFor large negative P-wave reflection coefficients, gas-sand and brine-sand reflection coefficients are distinct for all shale velocities. The lower the shale velocity, the greater the separationFor small P-wave reflection coefficients, gas-sand and brine-sand reflection coefficients are well separated only for low shale velocities and only if the shale velocity is approximately knownFor large positive P-wave reflection coefficients, gas-sand and brine-sand reflection coefficients are well separated only for the lowest shale velocities and only if shale velocity is approximately known
12AVO checklistIs the expected rock properties variation sufficient to produce a detectable AVO anomaly?Can the same seismic response result from other earth models?If AVO correctly predicts the occurence of hydrocarbons, what are the chances that the saturation will be commercial?Is there sufficient angular coverage for the event of interest?How do I know that processing has preserved and isolated the ”true” relative AVO response?What is the seismic data quality?Overburden? Processing?Does the AVO anomaly conform the structure?Do I understand what ”red” on the AVO display really means in physical terms
13AVO misconceptions Myth AVO does not work Gas-sand amplitude increases with offsetAVO can not be used to detect oil sandsAVO does not work in carbonatesLand AVO is more difficult than marine AVOVp/Vs is 1.6 for brine sands, 1.8 for dolomites, 1.9 for limestones, and 2 for shalesRp and Rs are readily extracted from R(0)RealityAVO does work under the right circumstancesGas-sand reflection coefficients generally become more negative with increasing of offset.High GOR light oil-saturated rocks may exibit significant AVO anomaliesThere are some applicationsThe marine short-period multiples are still a problemVp/Vs varies significantlyRp and Rs can be extracted from R(0) and G if Vp/Vs is kbown
15ClassificationFigure 5.4. For brine-saturated clastic rocks over a limited depth range in a particular locality, there may be a well-defined relationship between the AVO intercept (A) and the AVO gradient (B). A variety of reasonable petrophysical assumptions (such as the mudrock trend and Gardner’s relationship) result in linear A versus B trends, all of which pass through the origin (B = 0 when A = 0). Thus, in a given time window, nonhydrocarbon-bearing clastic rocks often exhibit a well-defined background trend; deviations from this background are indicative of hydrocarbons or unusual lithologies.
16ClassificationFigure 5.5. We propose that the classification of AVO responses should be based on position of the reflection of interest on an A versus B crossplot. First, the background trend within a given timeand space window must be defined. This can be done with well control if the seismic data are correctly amplitude calibrated, or with the seismic data itself if care is taken to exclude prospectivehidden hydrocarbon-bearing zones. Top of gas sand reflections then should plot below the background trend and bottom of gas sand reflections should plot above the trend. We can classify the gas sand response according to position in the A-B plane of the top of gas sand reflections.