AVO Amplitude

Versus Offset
Analysis

Theory 2-1
 P and S-Waves

(a) (b) (c)

The above 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)
Theory 2-2
 P and S-Waves to AVO

In the previous slide, the P and SH-waves were generated at the

surface by P and S-wave sources. We could use the differences
between the recorded P and S reflections to discriminate gas-filled
sands from wet sands, using the properties discussed in the last
section.

Unfortunately, most seismic surveys record P-wave data only, and

S-wave data is not available.

However, as shown in the next slide, if we record P-wave data at

various offsets (as we always do), mode-conversion from P to SV
always occurs.

This means that AVO data can be used as a replacement for S-

wave data.

Theory 2-3
 Mode Conversion of an Incident P-wave
If  > 0°, an incident P-wave will produce both P and SV reflected and
transmitted waves.
waves This is called mode conversion.
conversion

Incident Reflected
P-wave SV-wave
Reflected
P-wave = RP
r
i r
VP1 , VS1 , 1
VP2 , VS2 , 2 t
t Transmitted
P-wave
Transmitted
SV-wave
Theory 2-4
 Utilizing Mode Conversion

But how do we utilize mode conversion?

There are actually two ways:
1) Record the converted S-waves using two-component receivers
(in the X and Z direction).
2) Interpret the amplitudes of the P-waves as a function of offset, or
angle, which contain implied information about the S-waves. This
is called the AVO (Amplitude versus Offset)
Offset method.

When we record the converted waves, we need to be very careful in

their processing and interpretation.

In the AVO method,

method we can make use of the Zoeppritz equations,
equations or
some approximation to these equations, to extract S-wave type
information from P-wave reflections at different offsets.

Theory 2-5
 The Zoeppritz Equations

Zoeppritz derived the amplitudes of the reflected and transmitted waves

using the conservation of stress and displacement across the layer
boundary, which gives four equations with four unknowns. Inverting the
matrix form of the Zoeppritz equations gives us the exact amplitudes as
a function of angle:

1
  sin 1  cos 1 sin  2 cos 2 
RP   cos   sin 1 cos  2  sin 2   sin 1 
R   1   cos  
 S    sin 2 VP1 2VS 2VP1
2
2VS 2VP1   1 
cos 21 cos 2 cos 2
TP   1
VS1 1VS12VP 2
1
1VS12
2
 sin 21 
   VS1 2VP 2 2VS 2
  
TS   cos 21 sin 21 cos 22  sin 22  cos 2 1
 VP1 1VP1 1VP1 

Theory 2-6
 The Aki-Richards Equation
The Aki-Richards equation is a linearized approximation to the Zoeppritz
equations.
equations The initial form (Richards and Frasier, 1976) separated the
velocity and density terms:

 VP   VS
R(  )  a b c
VP  VS
where:
1  2  1
a ,  ,    2  1 ,
2 cos 2
2
  V 2  VP 2  VP 1
VP  , VP  VP 2  VP 1 ,
b  0.5  2  sin   ,
S 2
2
  VP  
VS 2  VS 1
2 VS  , VS  VS 2  VS 1 ,
 VS  2
c  4  sin 2  ,
 
 VP  and   i t .
2
Theory 2-7
 Wiggins’ Version of the
Aki-Richards Equation
A more intuitive, but totally equivalent, form was derived by Wiggins.
Wiggins He
separated the equation into three reflection terms, each weaker than the
previous term:

R(  )  A  B sin 2   C tan 2  sin 2 

where: 1   VP  
A   
2  V p  
2 2
1  VP  VS   VS  VS  
B  4   2 
2 Vp VP  VS VP  
1  VP
C
2 Vp
Theory 2-8
 Aki-Richards Equation

The first term, A, is a linearized version of the zero offset reflection

coefficient and is thus a function of only density and P-wave velocity.
velocity

The second term, B, is a gradient multiplied by sin2, and has the

biggest effect on amplitude change as a function of offset. It is
dependent on changes in P-wave velocity,
velocity S-wave velocity,
velocity and
density.
density

The third term, C, is called the curvature term and is dependent on

changes in P-wave velocity only. It is multiplied by tan2*sin2 and
thus contributes very little to the amplitude effects below angles of 30
degrees. (Note: Prove to yourself that tan2*sin2 = tan2 - sin2, since
the equation is often written in this form.)

Theory 2-9
 Ostrander’s Paper

Ostrander (1984) was one of the first to write about AVO effects in
gas sands and proposed a simple two-layer model which encased a
low impedance, low Poisson’s ratio sand, between two higher
impedance, higher Poisson’s ratio shales.

This model is shown in the next slide.

Ostrander’s model worked well in the Sacramento valley gas fields.

However, it represents only one type of AVO anomaly (Class 3) and
the others will be discussed in the next section.

Theory 2-10
 Ostrander’s Model

the model consists of a low acoustic impedance and Poisson’s ratio gas
sand encased between two shales.
Theory 2-11
 Synthetic from Ostrander’s Model

(a) Well log responses for the (b) Synthetic seismic.

model. Theory 2-12
AVO Curves from
Ostrander’s Model
(a) Response from top of model
to 45o. Note that the transmitted
P-wave amplitude is shifted.

(b) Response from base of model

to 45o. Note that the transmitted
P-wave amplitude is shifted.

Theory 2-13
 Wet and Gas Models
Let us now see how to get from the geology to the seismic. We will do
this by using the two models shown below. Model A consists of a wet
sand,
sand and Model B consists of a gas-saturated sand.
sand

(a) Wet model (b) Gas model

Theory 2-14
 AVO Models
In the next two slides, we are going to compute the top and base
event responses from Models A and B, using the following values,
where the Wet and Gas cases were computed using the Biot-
Gassmann equations:
equations

Wet: VP= 2500 m/s, VS= 1250 m/s,  = 2.11 g/cc,  = 0.33

Gas: VP= 2000 m/s, VS= 1310 m/s,  = 1.95 g/cc,  = 0.12

Shale: VP= 2250 m/s, VS= 1125 m/s,  = 2.0 g/cc,  = 0.33

We will consider the AVO effects with and without the third term in
the Aki-Richards equation.

Theory 2-15
 AVO Wet Model
AVO - Wet Sand (Model A) Top AVO - Wet Sand (Model A) Base

0.100 0.000
0.080 -0.020
Amplitude

Amplitude
0.060 -0.040
0.040 -0.060
0.020 -0.080
0.000 -0.100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angle (degrees) Angle (degrees)

R (All three terms) R (First two terms) R (All three terms) R (First two terms)

(a) (b)

The above figures show the AVO responses from the (a) top and (b)
base of the wet sand. Notice the decrease of amplitude, and also the
fact that the two-term approximation is only valid out to 30 degrees.

Theory 2-16
 AVO Gas Model

AVO - Gas Sand (Model B) Top AVO - Gas Sand (Model B) Base

0.000 0.250
-0.050 0.200

Amplitude
Amplitude

-0.100 0.150
-0.150 0.100
-0.200 0.050
-0.250 0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angle (degrees) Angle (degrees)

R (All three terms) R (First two terms) R (All three terms) R (First two terms)

(a) (b)

The above figures show the AVO responses from the (a) top and (b) base
of the gas sand. Notice the increase of amplitude, and again the fact that
the two-term approximation is only valid out to 30 degrees.

Theory 2-17
 Shuey’s Equation
Shuey (1985) rewrote the Aki-Richards equation using VP, , and . Only
the gradient is different than in the Aki-Richards expression:

 1  2  
B  A D  2( 1  D ) 
 ( 1   )2
 1   

VP / VP
where : D  ,
VP / VP   / 
 1
 2
2
   2   1
Theory 2-18
 Gas Sand Model
Aki-Richards vs Shuey

This figure shows a 0.250

comparison between
0.200
the two forms of the
Aki-Richards equation 0.150
for the gas sand 0.100
considered earlier. 0.050

Amplitude
0.000
-0.050
-0.100
-0.150
-0.200
-0.250
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angle (degrees)

A-R Top Shuey Top

Theory 2-19
A-R Base Shuey Base
 Other Single Layer Models
The previous exercise showed us that for a gas sand with a low
acoustic impedance, we can expect absolute amplitude increases
with offset at the both the top and bottom of the sand. For the
models, we used P and S-wave velocity.
velocity

Another approach is to use the Poisson’s ratio change as the key

parameter.

The next figure shows four single-layer boundaries consisting of all

combinations of increasing and decreasing acoustic impedance
and Poisson’s ratio.
ratio Note that the sign of the gradient is generally
to same as the sign of . (This is not true in the case of a Class 4
sand, as we shall see in a later theory section.)

Theory 2-20
 Four Single Layer Models

(a) , VP, and  all increase. (b) , VP increase,  decreases.

(c) , VP decrease,  increases. (d) , VP, and  all decrease. Theory 2-21
 Multi-layer AVO Modeling

Multi-layer modeling in the AVO program consists first of creating a

stack of N layers,
layers generally using well logs, and defining the thickness,
P-wave velocity,
velocity S-wave velocity,
velocity and density for each layer. Theory 2-22
 Multi-layer AVO Modeling

You must then decide what effects are to be included in the model:
primaries only, converted waves, multiples, or some combination of
these.
Theory 2-23
 AVO Modeling Options

There are three main options for the modeling process:

Zoeppritz - Primaries only using the Zoeppritz equations for

calculation.
Aki-Richards - Primaries only using the Aki-Richards equations
for calculation.
Full Elastic Wave - Computation of the full elastic wave solution
(with optional an elastic effects), which includes primaries,
converted waves, and multiples.

The following example, taken from a paper by Simmons and

Backus (AVO Modeling and the locally converted shear wave,
wave
Geophysics 59, p1237, August, 1994), illustrates the effect of wave
equation modeling.

Theory 2-24
 The Oil Sand Model

Simmons and Backus used the thin bed oil sand model shown above.
Theory 2-25
 The Possible Modeled Events

Simmons and Backus (1994) Theory 2-26

 Responses to Various Algorithms
(A) Primaries-only Zoeppritz, (B) + single leg shear, (C) + double-leg shear,
(D) + multiples,(E) Wave equation solution, (F) Linearized approximation.

Primaries only Zoeppritz

+ single leg shear

+ double leg shear

+ multiples

Wave equation

Aki-Richards
Theory 2-27
Simmons and Backus (1994)
 The Primary and Converted Waves

Zoeppritz, primaries only Aki-Richards, primaries

Zoeppritz, primaries Single leg conversions
+ single leg conversions Theory 2-28
Simmons and Backus (1994)
Logs from the Real Data Example

Theory 2-29
 Models from a Real Data Example

(a) Full elastic wave. (b) Zoeppritz equation. (c) Aki-Richards equation.
Theory 2-30
 Anisotropy and AVO

So far, we have considered only the isotropic case, in which earth

parameters such as velocity do not depend on seismic propagation
angle.

In the next few slides, we will discuss anisotropy, in particular the

case of Transverse Isotropy with a vertical symmetry axis, or VTI.
VTI

We will then see how anisotropy affects the AVO response.

response

Finally, we will look at this effect on our original model.

Theory 2-31
 Isotropic versus Anisotropic (VTI) Velocity

As mentioned, in an isotropic earth P and S-wave velocities are

independent of angle.

VTI velocities depend on angle, as shown below for three different

angles:

VP(90o)

VP(45o)
VP(0o)

VTI can be extrinsic, caused by fine layering of the earth, or intrinsic,

caused by particle alignment as in a shale.
Theory 2-32
 Velocities for Weak Anisotropy
Although the equations for full anisotropy are quite complex, Thomsen
(1986) showed that for weakly anisotropic materials the velocities can
be written as follows, where , , and  are called Thomsen’s parameters.
parameters
Note that, for AVO and converted wave studies, we are only interested
in the first two velocities and constants. Note also that VSV(0o) = VSH(0o):

VP ( )  VP (0o ) 1   sin 2  cos 2    sin 4  

 V 2
(0 o
) 2 
VSV ( )  VSV (0 ) 1  2 o (   ) sin  cos  
o P 2

 VSV (0 ) 

VSH ( )  VSH (0o ) 1   sin 2  

Theory 2-33
 Thomsen’s Parameters
Thomsen’s parameters are simply combinations of the differences
between the P and S velocities at 0, 45, and 90 degrees. The following
relationships can be derived quite easily using the velocities in the
previous slide:

VP ( 90 o )  VP ( 0 o ) VSH ( 90 o )  VSH ( 0 o )
 
VP ( 0 o ) VSH ( 0 o )

VP ( 45 o )  VP ( 0 o )  VP ( 45 o )  VP ( 0 o ) 
  4 o         4 o 
 V P ( 0 )   V P ( 0 ) 

In the next slide, we will look at VP and VSV as a function of angle for
different values of  and . (As mentioned, VSH will not be used in AVO).
AVO
Theory 2-34
 Group Angle versus Phase Angle

For anisotropic velocities, it is important to note the difference between

the phase angle , which is computed normal to the seismic wavefront,
and the group or ray angle , along which energy propagates. This is
illustrated below.

x
 

Ray Wavefront
Wavefront
Normal z
 Anisotropic P and SV VTI velocities

(a) VTI medium (b) VTI medium (c) VTI medium

with  = 0.2 and with  = 0.1 and with  = 0.2 and
 = 0.2.  = 0.2.  = 0.1.
Theory 2-36
 Solving for  and using the Velocity

VP(90o)= 2600 m/s

VP(45o)= 2225 m/s 600 m/s

225 m/s
VP(0o)= 2000 m/s

VP ( 90 o )  VP ( 0 o )
 o
 0 .3
VP ( 0 )

VP ( 45 o )  VP ( 0 o ) 
  4 o     0.45  0.3  0.15
 VP ( 0 ) 
Theory 2-37
 AVO and Transverse Isotropy

Thomsen (1993) showed that a transversely isotropic term could be

added to the Aki-Richards equation using his weak anisotropic
parameters  and , where Ran() is the anisotropic AVO response
and Ris() is the isotropic AVO response. Ruger (2002) gave the
following corrected form of Thomsen’s original equation:

 
Ran (  )  Ris (  )  sin  
2
sin 2  tan 2  ,
2 2
where :    2   1
   2   1

Theory 2-38
 Typical Values for Delta, Epsilon and Gamma

Typical values for delta, epsilon, and gamma were given by Thomsen
(1986). Here are some representative values from his table:

Lithology VP(m/s) VS(m/s) rho(g/cc) epsilon delta gamma

sandstone_1 3368 1829 2.50 0.110 -0.035 0.255

sandstone_2 4869 2911 2.50 0.033 0.040 -0.019

calcareous sandstone 5460 3219 2.69 0.000 -0.264 -0.007

immature sandstone 4099 2346 2.45 0.077 0.010 0.066

shale_1 3383 2438 2.35 0.065 0.059 0.071

shale_2 3901 2682 2.64 0.137 -0.012 0.026

mudshale 4529 2703 2.52 0.034 0.211 0.046

clayshale 3794 2074 2.56 0.189 0.204 0.175

silty limestone 4972 2899 2.63 0.056 -0.003 0.067

laminated siltstone 4449 2585 2.57 0.091 0.565 0.046

Theory 2-39
 AVO and Transverse Isotropy

Blangy (1997) computed the effect of anisotropy on models of the three

Rutherford-Williams type. Blangy’s models are shown below, but since
he used Thomsen’s formulation for the linearized approximation, his
figures have been recomputed in the next slide for the wet and gas cases
using Ruger’s formulation. The slide after that shows our example.

Theory 2-40
 Transverse Isotropy – AVO Effects
Class 1
Class 1  = -
0.15
= -0.3 Class 2
Class 2

Class 3

Class 3

Isotropic
--- Anisotropic
(a) Gas sandstone case: (b) Wet sandstone case:
Note that the effect of Note that the effect of and
and is to increase is to create apparent AVO
the AVO effects. decreases. Theory 2-41
 Anisotropy Applied to Gas Sand
Example
Isotropic vs Anisotropic AVO
Gas Sand Top,  = -0.15,  = -0.3

0.000
Amplitude

-0.100
-0.200
-0.300
-0.400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angle (degrees)

R (Isotropic) R (Anisotropic)

Theory 2-42
 Anisotropic AVO Model Example

In the above display, we have added simple  and  logs to the sonic
and density logs from the Colony gas sandstone play in Alberta.
Notice that only the gas sand is isotropic.
Theory 2-43
 Anisotropic AVO Synthetics

(a) Isotropic (b) Anisotropic (a) – (b)

In the above display, the synthetic responses for the logs shown in
Theory 2-44
the previous slide is shown. Note the difference due to anisotropy.
 (a) Isotropic (b) Anisotropic (a) – (b)
In the above display, the synthetic responses in the previous slide
are shown using an colour amplitude scale. Theory 2-45
 Summary
This section introduced the theory of AVO and considered a
number of modeled examples.

Our first modeled example looked at both a wet sand and a gas
sand, which were based on typical values found in a reservoir. As
we will see in the next section, this is the most common response
and is called a Class 3 anomaly.

We also found that modeling can be very sensitive to the type of

algorithm used. For thin beds, wave equation modeling is
suggested.

Finally, anisotropy should also be modeled, since it can have a

large effect on the AVO response.

Theory 2-46