Seismic Inversion and AVO

applied to Lithologic Prediction

Part 10 Inversion of AVO attributes
10-2
Introduction
In this part of the class, we will review the principles of
Elastic Impedance inversion, R
P
/R
S
Inversion, the
Lambda-Mu-Rho (LMR or --) method and
anisotropy and AVO.
As we will see, the combination of AVO attributes and
post-stack inversion is a powerful combination that
avoids some of the classical problems in post-stack
inversion.
These are also some of the newer methods being used
today, so we are looking at the leading edge of
geophysical technology.
We will illustrate the theory with the Colony gas sand
example, as well as Biot-Gassmann analysis and a well
log example taken from offshore eastern Canada.
10-3
Seismic Lithology Estimation
Gathers Stack
Inversion
Estimate
Z
P
= V
P

Traditional methods involve stack followed by inversion,
allowing only the estimation of acoustic impedance,
which is not sufficient for estimating fluid content.
10-4
Seismic Lithology Estimation
Gathers Stack
Inversion AVO Analysis
Attribute 1 Attribute 2
Estimate V
P
, V
S
, and
Estimate
Z= V
P

The AVO method allows us to simultaneously estimate
V
P
, V
S
, and , thus inferring fluid and/or lithology.
10-5
Possible Attributes
But which two attributes will give us the best estimate of
these parameters?
Various authors have proposed a number of options:
Range-limited stacking
Elastic Impedance
Intercept/Gradient analysis
R
P
/R
S
extraction followed by inversion.
/ analysis.
Lets look at the theory of these methods, and then at
some examples.
As we will see, these methods combine all of the ideas
that we have considered in the course so far, starting with
rock physics and progressing through AVO and post-
stack inversion.
10-6
Range limited stacking
Gathers
AVO Analysis
Near Stack Far Stack
Range-limited stacking, using constant offsets or
constant angles, is very robust. But how do we interpret
the results?
10-7
(a)
(b)
Here are the (a) near
angle (0
o
-15
o
) and (b)
far angle (15
o
-30
o
)

stacks from the Colony
seismic dataset.
Notice that the
amplitude of the
bright-spot event at
about 630 ms is
stronger on the far-
angle stack than it is
on the near-angle
stack. As we saw
earlier, this is a gas-
sand induced bright-
spot.
Range limited stacking over gas sand
10-8
The above figure shows a cross-plot of the
angle range stacks shown previously.
We are looking
for the maximum
amplitude
changes (either
positive or
negative).
Cross-plotting angle range stacks
10-9
The zones are mapped back to the seismic. A pitfall in this method relates to
amplitude changes unassociated with fluid change.
Top Gas
Base GAS
Coal
Cross-plotting angle range stacks
10-10
Cross-plotting angle range stacks.
A solution
would be to
define more
detailed
zones.
Cross-plotting angle range stacks
10-11
Cross-plotting angle range stacks.
Top GAS
Base GAS
Coal
Cross-plotting angle range stacks
10-12
The above plot shows the (a) near-angle stack (0-15
o
), and (b) far-
angle stack (15-30
o
) over a 3D channel sand. To enhance the
amplitude display, the amplitude envelope has been averaged over a
10 ms window and the Z-score transform has been applied.
Cross-plotting angle range stacks
(a) (b)
10-13
Range Limited Stacking
Gathers
AVO Analysis
Near Stack Far Stack
Fluid/Lithology Interpretation
Range-limited stacking, using constant offsets or
constant angles, is very robust, and avoids misaligned
event problems. But what does it mean?
10-14
Elastic Impedance near-offset form
Using the Aki-Richards eq., Connolly(1998) proposed
the Elastic Impedance (EI) concept to physically explain
range-limited stacks, where:
) sin K 4 1 ( ) sin K 8 (
S
) tan 1 (
P
2 2 2
V V ) ( EI
u u u
u
+
=
2
P
2
S
V
V
K where =
Note that if u=0
o
, EI reduces to Acoustic Impedance
(AI), where:
P
V AI =
10-15
Elastic Impedance far-offset form
Connolly(1998) proposed proposed a second form of the
Elastic Impedance (EI) concept for far offsets, where
sinu replaces tanu in the first equation:
) sin K 4 1 ( ) sin K 8 (
S
) sin 1 (
P
2 2 2
V V ) ( EI
u u u
u
+
=
2
P
2
S
V
V
K where =
Note that if u=0
o
, far offset EI also reduces to Acoustic
Impedance (AI):
P
V AI =
10-16
Exercise 5-1
Let us use a simple example where V
P
= 1000 m/s,
V
S_wet
= 500 m/s, V
S_gas
= 667 m/s, and = 2.0 g/cc.
Work out the values for elastic impedance at u = 0
o
and
u =30
o
for the wet and gas cases:
10-17
Exercise 5-1 Answers
For the wet case:
423 V V ) 30 ( EI
75 . 0 5 . 0
S
25 . 1
P
o
= =

2000 1000 * 2 AI ) 0 ( EI
o
= = =
For the gas case:
53 . 25 V V ) 30 ( EI
56 . 0 89 . 0
S
25 . 1
P
o
= =

2000 1000 * 2 AI ) 0 ( EI
o
= = =
10-18
The transformation of an AI log from 0 to 30 results in a generally
similar log but with lower absolute values.
The apparent acoustic impedance decreases with an increase in
angle.
The percentage decrease is greater for an oil sand than for shale.
Connolly 1999
Elastic Impedance effect of oil saturation
10-19
Elastic Impedance data example
The following figure, from Connolly (1999) shows the
computed curves for AI and EI at 30 degrees:
10-20
Elastic Impedance data example
The following figure, also from Connolly (1999) shows that when we
scale the curves shown on the previous slide, we get a better
separation for the oil sands using EI over AI:
10-21
EI Inversion Steps
Gathers
AVO Analysis
Near angle
stack at u
1
Far angle
stack at u
2
Invert to EI(u
1
) Invert to EI(u
2
)
The above flow chart shows the suggested sequence for
performing elastic impedance inversion.
10-22
Colony sand case study
In the following set of slides, we will consider
a case study from the Colony sand in Alberta.
This is a 2D example which lends itself well to
AVO analysis.
Note the dramatic change in the elastic
impedance response when we invert at 0
degrees and 30 degrees.

10-23
We will now illustrate the procedure with the shallow gas sand case
study considered in the AVO section. The well logs are shown
above.
Gas sand case study
10-24
The figure above shows the previous logs after fluid substitution in the gas zone. The
EI_Near log on in blue was created at 7.5
o
and the EI_Far log in red was created at
22.5
o
. Note that the Near<Far outside the gas sand but Far>Near inside the sand.
Gas sand case study
10-25
The figure above shows the (a) crossplot between the near and far EI logs, and
(b) the logs themselves.
Gas sand case study
(a) (b)
EI_Near EI_Far
10-26
The figure above now shows the (a) interpreted crossplot between the near and
far EI logs, and (b) the zones marked on the logs themselves. Notice the clear
indication of the gas sand zone.
Gas sand case study
(a) (b)
EI_Near EI_Far
10-27
Gas sand case study
(a)
(b)
Here are the (a) near
and (b) far angle
stacks from the
seismic dataset.
Notice that the
amplitude of the
bright-spot event at
about 630 ms is
stronger on the far-
angle stack than it is
on the near-angle
stack. As we saw
earlier, this is a gas-
sand induced bright-
spot.
10-28
Gas sand case study
Above is shown the inversion of the near-angle stack using an
elastic impedance model. The angle range in the stack is from 0
o
to
15
o
, so an average value of 7.5
o
was used for the model.
10-29
Gas sand case study
Above is shown the inversion of the far-angle stack using an elastic
impedance model. The angle range in the stack is from 15
o
to 30
o
,
so an average value of 22.5
o
was used for the model.
10-30
Gas sand case study
(a)
(b)
Here is the
comparison between
the inversions of the
(a) near-angle stack
and (b) far-angle
stack, using the
elastic impedance
concept. Notice the
decrease in the
elastic impedance
value on the far-
angle stack.
10-31
Gas sand case study
The figure above shows a crossplot between the EI at 7.5
o
, on the
horizontal axis, and the EI at 22.5
o
, on the vertical axis. The background
trend is the grey ellipse, and the anomaly is the yellow ellipse.
10-32
Gas sand case study
The figure above shows the zones from the crossplot drawn in colour on
the 7.5
o
Elastic Impedance section. Note that the gas sand has bee well
defined by the yellow ellipse of points.
10-33
Gulf coast case study
In the following set of slides, we will consider
a Gulf coast case study (we do not have
permission to tell you where, however).
This is a 3D example which presents a
different set of problems than the 2D case
study considered last.
Note that we will be able to find the
anomalous zone using crossplot analysis, and
look for similar anomalies throughout the 3D
volume.
10-34
The above window shows gathers from our Gulf Coast dataset.
Gulf coast case study
10-35
The same gathers showing Amplitude Envelope
(Instantaneous Amplitude).
Gulf coast case study
10-36
Near angle
stack (5- 35)
Far angle stack
(35- 65)
Gulf coast case study
10-37
Initial guess acoustic impedance model
Gulf coast case study
10-38
Comparing the Acoustic impedance and the Elastic impedance
logs clearly highlights the hydrocarbon zone.
Gulf coast case study
10-39
Initial guess elastic impedance model
Gulf coast case study
10-40
Near (left) and far (right) wavelets used in inversions. Note
the decrease in frequency content with offset.
Gulf coast case study
10-41
Acoustic impedance inversion result.
Gulf coast case study
10-42
Elastic impedance inversion result.
Gulf coast case study
10-43
The cross plot
shows the near
inversion on the
x-axis and the far
inversion on the
y-axis.
Using the cross
plot technique
overcomes the
normalisation
issue.
Gulf coast case study
10-44
The cross plot
zones are
plotted in map
view.
This is a time
slice at 1200ms
and shows the
track of the
anomalous zone
Gulf coast case study
10-45
R
P
/R
S
Inversion
Gathers
AVO Analysis
R
P
Estimate R
S
Estimate
R
P
/R
S
inversion is a powerful method, but is dependent
on the quality of the data and the approximations used.
Invert to Z
P
Invert to Z
S

10-46
Extracting R
P
and R
S

As we have seen, the intercept (A) gives us a good
estimate of zero offset P-wave reflectivity, R
P
.
Wiggens has shown that if V
P
/V
S
= 2, it is trivially easy to
extract an estimate of zero offset S-wave reflectivity, R
S
,
by combining A and B. This is shown in the next slide. A
more rigorous approach, utilizing the ARCO mudrock line,
was given by Fatti et al (Geophysics, Sept. 1994). Fattis
equation can be written:
(

+ =
u

A
u

A
u u u
2
2
P
2
S
2
2
S
2
P
2
S
2
P
sin
V
V
2 tan
2
1
sin R
V
V
2 ) tan 1 ( R ) ( R
10-47
Wiggens Approximation
Assuming that V
P
/V
S
= 2, in Aki-Richards eq:
B = R
P
- 2R
S
= A 2R
S
where: R
S
= 1/2(AV
S
/V
S
+A/)
= zero-offset S-wave refl. coeff.
This can be rewritten:
R
S
= (A - B) / 2
10-48
Inverting R
P
and R
S

Once we have estimates of R
P
and R
S
from AVO,
we can then invert both attributes.
Inverting R
P
will give acoustic impedance Z
P
= V
P
,
and Inverting R
S
will give S-wave impedance Z
S
=
V
S
. This is shown in the next slide.
These inverted sections can be displayed or cross-
plotted.
10-49
Applying P and S inversion to seismic data
We will now look at an application of the
preceding inversion method using the Colony
sand example that we have considered in many
of our examples.

The first slide will show the full stack and the
extracted R
P
and R
S
stacks.

The second slide will show the inversions of all
three stacks.
10-50
Colony Sand Example - Logs
Our well contains measured P-wave sonic and density
logs, and S-wave sonic calculated with Castagnas equation.
10-51
Colony Sand Example - Gathers
Here are the gathers, with the correlated sonic log displayed at its
proper location.
10-52
Colony Sand Example - Rp/Rs Results
Here are the results of extracting Rp and Rs. Although the Rp and Rs
sections exist independently, here we have computed the Fluid Factor
attribute, AF = Rp - g(t)Rs.
10-53
Inversion Procedure
The inversion procedure used here involves the
following steps:
Insert the appropriate logs at the correct locations,
which has already been done.
Correlate the logs, which has also been done.
Pick the major seismic horizons.
Find an optimum wavelet.
Build the starting model for inversion.
Invert the data.
We will now apply this procedure to the R
P
and
R
S
sections.

10-54
Colony Sand Example - Rp Section
Here is the Rp section, with the correlated P-wave sonic inserted at
the proper location, and three picked horizons. Horizon 2 is picked
on the gas sand trough.
10-55
Colony Sand Example - Wavelet
Next, we will extract
a seismic wavelet
using the statistical
option. Our seismic
data is close to
zero phase, so the
extracted zero-
phase wavelet is
shown on the left.
We may want to
slightly adjust the
wavelet phase.
10-56
Colony Sand Example - P-wave Model
Here is the model result, using a single well and the picked
horizons. The model is scaled to P-Impedance.
10-57
Colony Sand Example - P-wave Inversion
Here is the final P-wave inversion result. The low impedance just below
Horizon 2 represents the gas sand.
10-58
Colony Sand Example - Rs Section
Above is displayed the pseudo-S section from the AVO analysis.
Notice that the picked horizons from the Rp section are still
present. Also, we have inserted the S-wave log.
10-59
Colony Sand Example -S-Impedance Model
We now have the created S-Impedance model, as shown above.
Note that the new colour key represents S-wave impedance
values.
10-60
Colony Sand Example - S-wave Inversion
The result of the S-wave inversion is shown above. Notice that the
gas sand below Horizon 2 is now associated with an increase in
impedance.
10-61
The LMR

Approach
Goodway et al (1998) proposed a new approach to AVO
inversion based on the ,, parameters, called LMR

. The
theory is shown below:
2
S
2
P
2
P
2
P
2
S
2
S
S P
Z 2 Z so
) 2 ( ) V ( Z and
) V ( Z then
V and
2
V Since
=
+ = =
= =
=
+
=

PanCanadian Petroleum
10-62
LMR Analysis Workflow
Gathers
AVO Analysis
R
P
Estimate R
S
Estimate
Cross-plot
Invert to Z
P
Invert to Z
S

Transform to and
10-63
From Goodway et al 1999
Original Zp vs Zs Observations
10-64
Lambda Mu Rho Observations
From Goodway et al 1999
10-65
Interpreting Lambda-Rho and Mu-Rho
The original paper by Goodway et al, gives the
following physical interpretation of the lambda ()
and mu () attributes: The term, or
incompressibility, is sensitive to pore fluid,
whereas the term, or rigidity, is sensitive to the
rock matrix.
As we saw in the theory, it is impossible to de-
couple the effects of density from and when
extracting this information from seismic data.
It is therefore most beneficial to cross-plot vs
to minimize the effects of density.

10-66
or K?
The previous equations have been derived for solid,
isotropic rocks, in which case the two formulations
are identical.
A key question is: when we turn our attention to the
porous reservoir rock, which term is more
applicable, or K?
As we will shortly see, it doesnt matter, but each
term needs to be expanded for porous media.
The theory for this was developed independently by
Biot (1941), who used and , and Gassmann
(1951), who used K and . It is best described by
Krief et al (1990).
10-67
Biot theory for porous rocks
Biot (1941) linked the saturated and dry frame to
the Lame coefficients in the following way:
M
2
dry sat
| + =

sat
= the Lame coefficient for the saturated rock,

dry
= the Lame coefficient for the dry frame,
| = the Biot coefficient, or the ratio of the volume
change in the fluid to the volume change in the
formation when hydraulic pressure is constant,
M = the modulus, or the pressure needed to force
water into the formation without changing the
volume.
10-68
Gassmann theory for porous rocks
Gassmann (1951) linked the saturated and dry
frame to the Bulk modulus in the following way:
M K K
2
dry sat
| + =
modulus. the M
t, coefficien Biot the
, frame dry the of modulus bulk the K
, rock saturated the of modulus bulk the K
dry
sat
=
=
=
=
|
10-69
Equating Biot and Gassmann theory
If we equate the two equations proposed by Biot
and Gassmann, we get:
dry sat
dry dry sat sat
: or
K K


=
=
That is, the shear modulus is independent of the fluid
content of the saturated rock.
Also, the second term, |
2
M, is independent of K and .
10-70
Biot-Gassmann summary
In summary, we can rewrite the velocity equations in
the following way using the Biot-Gassmann equations:
sat
sat
P
2
V

+
=
sat
sat
P
3 4 K
V

+
=
. M
, M K K
, : where
2
dry sat
2
dry sat
sat dry
|
|

+ =
+ =
= =
sat
S
V

=
10-71
New equation for P-wave Velocity
Thus, we can rewrite the equation for P-wave velocity as:

s f
V
P
+
=

|
2
3
4
K
term skeleton dry s
M term sity fluid/poro f
dry dry
2
+ = + =
=
= =
10-72
Extracting the fluid term
Using the impedances from AVO and inversion, we
can thus extract the product of density times the
fluid term, as shown below:
) c s f ( ) V ( c ) V ( f
2
S
2
P
+ = =
That is, the constant c must be chosen so that the term
s c is equal to zero. Using the two approaches:
3
4
K
c
3
4
K s ) 2 (
2 c 2 s ) 1 (
dry
dry
dry
dry
+ = + =
+ = + =

10-73
The constant term c and s
Note that the constant term c is simply the square of
the ratio between the dry rock P-wave velocity and
the dry rock S-wave velocity:
3
4
K
2
V
V
c
dry dry
2
dry
S
P
+ = + =
(

The key question is: how do we find the value of c?

Note that the term s is simply given by c(V
S
)
2
.
10-74
(A) From the dry rock Poissons ratio
Note that the dry rock Poissons ratio can be given
in terms of c as shown below:
2
dry
S
P
dry
V
V
c where ,
2 c 2
2 c
(

= o
Thus, by estimating or measuring the dry rock
Poissons ratio, we can get an estimate of c.
It is generally accepted that the dry rock Poissons
ratio falls between the values of 0.09 and 0.2.
10-75
(B) From lab measurements
Murphy et al (1993) measured values of K
dry
and
for clean quartz sandstones, and found a value of
0.9 for their ratio, as shown below:
10-76
Table of values for c
Here is a table of values for c, ranging from 1.333 to 3.
It is not arranged with a uniform increment, because it
looks at various important values for each term. Note
that c = 2 corresponds to the LMR approach and
implies o
dry
= 0, or that
dry
= 0.
c=(Vp/Vs)^2 Vp/Vs odry Kdry/ dry/
3.000 1.732 0.250 1.667 1.000
2.500 1.581 0.167 1.167 0.500
2.333 1.528 0.125 1.000 0.333
2.250 1.500 0.100 0.917 0.250
2.233 1.494 0.095 0.900 0.233
2.000 1.414 0.000 0.667 0.000
1.333 1.155 -1.000 0.000 -0.667
10-77
Extracting f and s
Once we have estimates of Z
P
and Z
S
, we can use
a mathematical transform to produce our f and s
volumes.
These volumes can be displayed and cross-
plotted.
The flowchart for this is shown in the next slide.
The two slides following the flowchart show cross-
plots of Z
P
vs Z
S
and vs for a Biot-
Gassmann analysis of a gas sand. Note the
vertical separation for the LMR approach.
We will then show a case study from the Colony
sand play.
10-78
Extended LMR Analysis
Gathers
AVO Analysis
R
P
Estimate R
S
Estimate
Crossplot
Invert to Z
P
Invert to Z
S

Transform to f and s
10-79
Whiterose example
The next five slides show and example from a well
log in the Whiterose field from offshore eastern
Canada, courtesy of Ken Hedlin and Husky Oil.
As will be seen, we will experiment with four
values of c: 1.333, 2, 2.333, and 2.5.
We are expecting a vertical separation between
gas and non-gas sections of the reservoir. There
is no perfect result, but a c value of 2.333 appears
to give the best separation.
10-80
S wave, P wave, Density and Porosity for
Whiterose L-08 Cretaceous Shale and Sands
Cretaceous
Shale
Gas sand
Oil sand
Wet sand
Limestone
Vs Vp Den
Porosity
85m
97m
95m
Courtesy, Ken Hedlin and Husky Oil
10-81
f vs s with c = 1.33 for Whiterose L-08
rho*f vs rho*s for c = 1.333
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
rho*f
r
h
o
*
s
Shale Gas Oil Wet
10-82
f vs s with c = 2.0 for Whiterose L-08
rho*f vs rho*s for c = 2
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
rho*f
r
h
o
*
s
Shale Gas Oil Wet
10-83
f vs s with c = 2.333 for Whiterose L-08
rho*f vs rho*s for c = 2.333
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
rho*f
r
h
o
*
s
Shale Gas Oil Wet
10-84
f vs s with c = 2.5 for Whiterose L-08
rho*f vs rho*s for c = 2.5
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
-1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
rho*f
r
h
o
*
s
Shale Gas Oil Wet
10-85
Colony example
Next, we will apply the generalized LMR method to
the Colony seismic example that we were evaluating
earlier.
We will use c values of 2 (which corresponds to
LMR) and 2.333, which corresponds to a dry rock
Poissons ratio of 0.125.
For the K
pore
vs mu result, a value of c = 2.233 was
used.
10-86
Colony Sand f with c = 2.0
The extraction of the f section using a c value of 2.0 and the Z
P

and Z
S
inverted sections shown earlier.
10-87
Colony Sand s with c = 2.0
The extraction of the s section using a c value of 2.0 and the Z
S
inverted section shown earlier.
10-88
Colony Sand s vs f with c = 2.0
A cross plot of the the extracted f and s sections using a c value of
2.0. Two zones are shown, where red=gas and blue=non-gas.
10-89
C = 2.0 Gas Zone in Red
The interpreted zones from the previous cross-plot, shown now on
the seismic section. Note the continuity of the gas sand in red.
10-90
Colony Sand f with c = 2.333
The extraction of the f section using a c value of 2.333 and the
Z
P
and Z
S
inverted sections shown earlier.
10-91
c = 2.0
c = 2.333
10-92
Colony Sand s with c = 2.333
The extraction of the s section using a c value of 2.333 and the
Z
S
inverted section shown earlier.
10-93
Colony Sand s vs f with c = 2.333
A cross plot of the the extracted f and s sections using a c value of
2.333. Two zones are shown, where red=gas and blue=non-gas.
10-94
C = 2.333 Gas Zone in Red
The interpreted zones from the previous cross-plot, shown now on
the seismic section. Note the slightly improved continuity of the
gas sand in red.
10-95
Blackfoot Case Study
Now, let us return to the Blackfoot case study considered earlier in the
course. The figure above shows the AVO responses of the various events.
Note that the Upper Valley porous sandstone shows a class 2 response.
(Dufour et al.)
10-96
Blackfoot Case Study
The figure above shows the zero offset P-wave reflectivity, Rp, on line 95.
Notice the troughs at the upper and lower valleys. (Dufour et al.)
10-97
Blackfoot Case Study
The figure above shows the zero offset S-wave reflectivity, Rs, on line 95.
Notice the different response at the upper and lower valleys than that of
the Rp section. (Dufour et al.)
10-98
Blackfoot Case Study
The figure above shows the fluid factor (AF) on line 95. This was
computed using the formula AF = Rp g(t)Rs. Note the anomalous
response at the Upper Valley. (Dufour et al.)
10-99
Blackfoot Case Study
The figure on the right
shows the extracted
amplitude of the fluid
factor (AF) over the
full 3D survey. The
white lines indicate
the extent of the
channel. Note the
anomalous response
at the Upper Valley.
(Dufour et al.)
10-100
Blackfoot Case Study
The figure to the left
shows a crossplot of
versus taken
from well data, where
the yellow crosses
indicate the 08-08
Upper Valley and the
green crosses
indicate the 09-17
regional trend.
(Dufour et al.)

10-101
Blackfoot Case Study
The figure on the
left shows a
crossplot of
versus taken
from the seismic
data, where the
grey polygon
indicates potential
hydrocarbons.
(Dufour et al.)
10-102
Blackfoot Case Study
The figure above shows (b) the annotation of the potential hydrocarbon zone
on the extracted amplitude map, and (b) the annotation of the potential
hydrocarbon zone on the extracted amplitude map. (Dufour et al.)
(a)
(b)
10-103
Conclusions
This has been a brief overview of the Elastic
Impedance, R
P
/R
S
inversion and LMR approaches, as
well as the general theory behind LMR from a Biot-
Gassmann perspective.
The AVO method allows us to estimate two (or more)
independent parameters from our prestack data.
Poststack inversion techniques can then be applied to
these extracted attributes.
The crossplot of the inverted attributes allows us to
separate the fluid and matrix effects of the reservoir
rock.
In each area, the pair of attributes best suited for the
particular play needs to be evaluated using both well
log and seismic data.
10-104
Exercise 5-1 Answers
Recall that V
P
= 1000 m/s and V
S
= 500 m/s (therefore K
= 0.25), and = 2.0 g/cc. At u=0
o
, we have:
480 V V ) 30 ( EI
94 . 0 5 . 0
S
25 . 1
P
o
= =

At u = 30
o
we have sinu = 0.5, and we get:
2000 1000 * 2 AI ) 0 ( EI
o
= = =