S

S M

Hydrocarbon Detection With AVO

Edward Chiburis
ECGeo
Houston, Texas, USA

Scott Leaney
Jakarta, Indonesia

Charles Franck
Royal Oil & Gas Corporation
Corpus Christi, Texas, USA

Chuck Skidmore
Amoco Production Company
Houston, Texas, USA
Steve McHugo
Orpington, England

Imagine a geophysical technique with the volumetric coverage of surface seismic that could delineate zones
of gas, oil and water. In many ways, that summarizes the potential of interpreting seismic reflection amplitude variation with offset, or AVO.
150

130

110

90

nBright spotsfrom

70
0

a gas sand, and

from a high velocity basalt. Numbers
at top are shot
points. (Courtesy of Bill

0.5

1.0

Time, sec

Ostrander and Chevron

Corporation, reference 5.)

1.5

2.0

Gas
170

150

130

110

90
0

For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Jack

Caldwell, Barry Donaldson and Jim Hovland, GECOPRAKLA, Houston, Texas, USA; Al Frisillo, Amoco Production Company, Tulsa Research Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA; Michael Mikulich, Chevron Corporation,
San Francisco, California, USA; Bill Murphy and Andy
Reischer, Schlumberger-Doll Research, Ridgefield, Connecticut, USA; Bill Ostrander, Benecia, California, USA.
* In this article, DSI (Dipole Shear Sonic Imager) and
ELAN (Elemental Log Analysis) are marks of Schlumberger.
1. An intermediate step called normal moveout correction is omitted here for brevity, but described in
Structural Imaging: Toward a Sharper Subsurface
View, page 28.

0.5

1.0

Time, sec

In the late 1920s, the seismic reflection

technique became a key tool for the oil
industry, revealing shapes of subsurface
structures and indicating drilling targets.
This has developed into a multibillion dollar
business that is still primarily concerned
with structural interpretation. But advances
in data acquisition, processing and interpretation now make it possible to use seismic
traces to reveal more than just reflector
shape and position. Changes in the character of seismic pulses returning from a reflector can be interpreted to ascertain the depositional history of a basin, the rock type in a
layer, and even the nature of the pore fluid.
This last refinement, pore fluid identification, is the ultimate goal of AVO analysis.
Early practical evidence that fluids could
be seen by seismic waves came from bright
spotsstreaks of unexpectedly high amplitude on seismic sectionsoften found to

1.5

2.0

Basalt-dry

42

Oilfield Review

a
Single-layer geometryDirect relationship between and offset

nSingle-layer

Offset 4
Offset 3
Offset 2
Offset 1

S4

S3

S2

S1

R1

R2

R3

R4

Shale

aa

acquisition geometry, associated synthetic traces showing AVO effect of

gas sand, and a
multilayer geometry. Synthetics show
amplitude increasing with offset
(deflections to the
left becoming more
negative). Although
seismic coordinates
are based on offset,
theory relating
changes in amplitude with material
properties of the
reflector is based
on angle ( ).
Because the reflection point is midway between
source and receiver,
and common to all
traces, it is called
the common midpoint (CMP). A collection of traces is
known as a gather,
in this case a CMP
gather. In simple
cases (top) with layers of uniform density and velocity, a
direct relationship
exists between offset and angle of
incidence. But most
of the time (bottom),
variations in density and velocity
bend rays, requiring ray-trace modeling to relate
angle to offset.

Common
midpoint (CMP)

Gas sand

Synthetic tracesCMP gather

Offset 4

Offset 3

Offset 2

Offset 1

signify gas. Bright spots were recognized in

the early 1970s as potential hydrocarbon
indicators, but drillers soon learned that
hydrocarbons are not the only generators of
bright spots. High amplitudes from tight or
hard rocks look the same as high amplitudes
from hydrocarbons, once seismic traces
have been processed conventionally (previous
page ). Only AVO analysis, which requires
special handling of the data, can distinguish
lithology changes from fluid changes.
An analogy for the physics of AVO is the
skipping of a stone across a pond. Everyone
knows that if a stone is dropped or thrown
into water from directly above, it sinks
instantly. But skimmed nearly horizontally, it
bounces off the surface of the water. The
amplitude of the bounce, which was zero at
vertical incidence, increases with the angle
of incidence.
Now replace the water with rubber and
repeat the process. This time the vertical
bounce is high, and the high-angle bounce
is low. The amplitude of the bounce
decreases with angle of incidence, a dramatically different behavior from the water case.
Analogous concepts applied to seismics
form the basis for inferring formation propertiesdensity and compressional and
shear velocitiesfrom seismic reflection
amplitude variation with angle of incidence.
And because formation density and velocity
depend on the fluid saturating the formation, reflection amplitude variation also permits identification of pore fluid.

January 1993

Amplitude increases with offset

Multilayer geometry Complex relationship between and offset

R1

S1

Shale 1

Shale 2

CMP

Conventional treatment of seismic data,

however, masks this fluid information. The
problem lies with the way seismic traces are
manipulated in order to enhance reflection
visibility. In a seismic survey, as changes are
made in the horizontal distance between
source and receiver, called offset, the angle
at which a seismic wave reflects at an interface also changes (above ). Seismic traces
recordings of transmitted and reflected
soundare sorted into pairs of sourcereceiver combinations that have different
offsets but share a common reflection point
midway between each source-receiver pair.
This collection of traces is referred to as a
common midpoint (CMP) gather. In conventional seismic processing, in which the goal
is to create a seismic section for structural or

Gas sand

stratigraphic interpretation, traces in a

gather are stackedsummed to produce a
single average trace.1
Stacking enhances signal at the expense
of noise, making reflections visible, and
compresses data volume. But it destroys
information about amplitude variation with
offset. Consider two reflections in the section: one has amplitude increasing with offset, such as in the case of the stone bouncing off the water, and the other has
amplitude decreasing with offset, similar to
the stone bouncing off rubber. Once the
reflection traces are stacked, they may have

43

identical amplitudesthey may even be

bright spotswhile their AVO signatures are
completely different. AVO analysis can usually distinguish fluid contrasts from lithology
contrasts, but it requires carefully processed
gathers that have not been stacked.
A Little Theory

Attempts at practical application of AVO

began about 15 years ago, but the physics
was understood around the turn of the century (see History, below, right ). The general expressions for the reflection of compressional and shear waves at a boundary as
a function of the densities and velocities of
the layers in contact at the boundary are
credited to Karl Zoeppritz.2 Zoeppritz found
that amplitudes increase, decrease or
remain constant with changing angle of
incidence, depending on the contrast in
density, compressional velocity, Vp , and
shear velocity, Vs , across the boundary.
Conventional seismic surveys deal exclusively with the reflection of compressional
waves. When a compressional seismic
wave arrives vertically at a horizontal interface, the amplitude of the reflected wave is
proportional to the amplitude of the incoming wave, according to the normal incidence reflection coefficient:3

2V p2 - 1V p1
2V p2 + 1V p1 '
in which is density and 1 and 2 signify the
top and bottom layer, respectively. When
the seismic wave arrives obliquely, the situation is more complicated. The compressional reflection coefficient is now a tortuous function of the angle of incidence, the
densities, and Vp and Vs of the two layers in
contact. The simplest useful approximations
to the Zoeppritz theory comprise the normal
incidence reflection coefficient written
above plus at least three other termsfunctions of angle and contrasts in density and
the two velocities. Nevertheless, the dependence of reflectivity on density, Vp and Vs
makes it possible to deduce fluid and rock
type. Gas, oil and water have different densities and acoustic velocities. They insinuate
this difference on the rocks they saturate.

Synthetic AVOs from Logs

In much the same way that a blindfolded

expert can identify a wine and its vintage, or
an X-ray diffraction lab technician can identify mineral components in a rock sample,
the key to using AVO for fluid identification
is comparison of real data with a standardin this case a synthetic seismogram (a
synthetic for short). This is an artificial
seismic trace manufactured by assuming
that some pulse travels through an earth
modelrock layers of given thickness, density and velocityand returns to be
recorded. The earth model that produced
the synthetic can be modified, sometimes
repeatedly, until the synthetic matches the
measured data, indicating the earth model is
a reasonable approximation of the earth.
The densities and velocities of fluid-saturated rocks necessary for the creation of
synthetic traces preferably come from logs
or cores. Missing data can be estimated

History
Attempts at practical application of AVO began
about 15 years ago, but the physics draws on 19th
century advances in optics and electromagnetic
wave theory. In the 1800s, Green and Kelvin speculated about the similarity of the reflective
behavior of light and elastic waves.1 Using
Snells law, Knott in 1899, and Zoeppritz in 1919,
developed general expressions for the reflection
of compressional and shear waves at a boundary
as a function of the densities and velocities of the
layers in contact.2 Although Zoeppritz was not the
first to publish a solution, his name is associated
with the cumbersome set of formulas describing
the reflection and refraction of seismic waves at
an interface. In 1936, Macelwane and Sohon
recast the equations to gain insight into the
physics and facilitate calculations.3
Before computers were widespread, AVO
effects were incorporated into synthetic seismograms and other calculations using approximated
Zoeppritz equations.4 Today, personal computers
can generate synthetics based on the full Zoep-

2. Zoeppritz K: ber Erdbebenwellen, VIIB: ber

Reflexion und Durchgang seismischer Wellen durch
Unstetigkeitsflchen, Nachrichten der Kniglichen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschften zu Gttingen, Mathmatisch-physikalische Klasse (1919): 57-84.
3. This is strictly true only if transmission effects, such as
spherical spreading and attenuation, are neglected. It
also holds when the layers are not horizontal, as long
as the angle between the wave and the interface is 90.

44

using theoretical or empirical equations.

The synthetic traces show the expected
AVO effect for each fluid type.
Take, for example, the AVO effect of gas
in sandstone predicted from logs in a gas
field operated by Texas-based Royal Oil &
Gas (next page, top ). Here, acoustic velocities were measured with the DSI Dipole
Shear Sonic Imager tool. The seismic event
of interest is the circled blue reflection corresponding to the interface between an
overlying shale and the gas sand. The trace
recorded at zero offset0 from vertical,
directly above the reflecting pointbegins
with a small negative amplitude (trace
deflects to the left). The amplitude becomes
more negative as offset increases. The AVO
response to oil is the same (next page, middle ). But when hydrocarbons are replaced
with water, the AVO response changes (next
page, bottom ). Now polarity becomes posi-

pritz formalism, but approximations are still used

to gain physical insight into the relative influence
of velocity and density changes on seismic amplitudes, and in the attempt to back out lithology
and fluid type from AVO data.5

1. Green G: On the Laws of Reflexion and Refraction of Light, in

Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 7 (1839):
245. Reprinted in Mathematical Papers of the Late George
Green. London, England: Macmillan, 1871.
Kelvin WT: Reflexion and Refraction of Light, Philosophical
Magazine, Fifth Series 26 (1888): 420-422.
2. In the 1620s, Snell observed that light refracts at different angles
through different materials. In 1657, Fermat postulated the correct expression for its reflection and refraction.
Knott CG: On the Reflexion and Refraction of Elastic Waves,
With Seismological Applications, Philosophical Magazine, Fifth
Series 48 (1899): 64-97.
Zoeppritz K: ber Erdbebenwellen, VIIB: ber Reflexion und
Durchgang seismischer Wellen durch Unstetigkeitsflchen,
Nachrichten der Kniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschften zu
Gttingen, Mathmatisch-physikalische Klasse (1919): 57-84.
3. Macelwane JB and Sohon FW: Introduction to Theoretical Seismology. New York, New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
(1936): 147-179.
4. Muskat and Meres published hand-calculated reflection coefficients in 1940, assuming Poissons ratio was a constant 0.25
across the interface. Koefoed, in 1955, and Bortfeld, in 1961,
simplified the Zoeppritz expressions by assuming that changes
in material properties across the interface are much smaller than
the average value of the properties on each side and that the
incident angle does not exceed 30.
Muskat M and Meres MW: Reflection and Transmission Coefficients for Plane Waves in Elastic Media, Geophysics 5 (1940):
115-148.
Koefoed O: On the Effect of Poissons Ratios of Rock Strata on
the Reflection Coefficients of Plane Waves, Geophysical
Prospecting 3 (December 1955): 381-387.
Bortfeld R: Approximation to the Reflection and Transmission
Coefficients of Plane Longitudinal and Transverse Waves, Geophysical Prospecting 9 (December 1961): 485-502.
5. Aki K and Richards PG: Quantitative Seismology, Theory and
Methods Vol. 1. San Francisco, California, USA: WH Freeman
and Co. (1980): 123-155.
Shuey RT: A Simplification of the Zoeppritz Equations, Geophysics 50 (April 1985): 609-614.

Oilfield Review

Vp
kft/sec
8 9

Vs
kft/sec
3
4

b
g/cm3
2 2.25

Offset (horizontal distance

between source and receiver), ft
0

1000

5000

1.0

Time, sec

Gas

1.1

Shale

Bound
water

Quartz

Calcite

Oil

Moved
hydr

Offset, ft

Matrix, %

3280

6560

nSynthetic traces showing AVO effects of

Time, sec

1.0

Oil

1.1

Offset, ft
0

1000

5000

1.5

Water

Time, sec

b
g/cm3
2 2.25

Calculated

Measured

Vs
kft/sec
3
4

Calculated

Vp
kft/sec
8
9

gas, oil and water, and an ELAN Elemental Log Analysis output. The negative
polarity event at the top of the gas
becomes more negative with increasing
offset, a signature of gas (top). In this ideal
case, the synthetics are created from an
earth model based on measured logs converted from depth to time. Velocities were
measured using the DSI Dipole Shear Sonic
Imager tool. In the less desirable but more
common situation, all three log measurements are not available. Missing data are
created using empirical relations. Measured logs (middle) from an African oil
sand at 0.97 sec, as identified by ELAN
calculation, have an AVO effect similar to
gas, but in some cases, AVO can distinguish the two. Water sands identified by
the ELAN log deeper in the section show
no amplitude increase with offset. The
AVO signature of water is virtually always
different from that of oil or gas, making
AVO a hydrocarbon indicator (bottom). In
this example, water is substituted for gas
in the sand of the top figure using empirical and theoretical equations.

1.6

January 1993

45

Offset, ft
0

1000

5000

Angle, deg
0

16

24

32

-0.05
1.0

-0.1

Amplitude

No fluid change

-0.15
8

16

24

32

-0.05
-0.1

Amplitude

Top gas sand

Angle, deg
0

16

24

32
0.15

Bottom gas sand

0.1

-0.15

0.05

1.1

Amplitude

Time, sec

Angle, deg

nQuantitative Zoeppritz prediction of AVO effects for three reflections in the Texas gas field of Royal Oil & Gas. At top of gas sand (left),
amplitude doubles, from slightly negative to very negative, as offset increases. At the gas-water contact near the bottom of the sand

1000

GxP

5000

nSynthetic traces

Gas

Time, sec

1.0

1.1

from page 45, top

and associated
AVO composite
tracesgradient,
intercept and their
product (GxP). Wiggles in the G trace,
for example, have
amplitudes equal to
the best-fitting gradient computed for
every time level in
the gather. Reflectors emerge as negative or positive
wiggles, easily distinguishable from
noise, which stays
around zero. Positive product indicates hydrocarbon,
in this case gas.

Offset, ft
0
0.55

0.8

1.03

46

Intercept ( P)

Offset, ft

Time, sec

tive (amplitude deflection to the right), and

amplitude decreases with offset.4
The AVO effect at any interface can be
quantified with the Zoeppritz formulas, and
plotted as a curve (above ). At the top of the
gas sand in Royal Oil & Gas well, and for
most gas sands, Zoeppritz calculations predict an increasingly negative amplitude with
offset. In this case, the predicted negative
amplitude increases 100%. Also shown are
the Zoeppritz-predicted AVO effects for the
gas-water contact deeper in the sand, and
for a nonfluid, lithologic contact higher in
the section.
These curves of amplitude versus angle of
incidence can be used to make quantitative
comparisons between synthetic predictions
and amplitudes from real data, once the
data have been processed for true amplitudes. This is made easier by plotting amplitude versus angle of incidence squared,
which converts Zoeppritz curves to straight
lines. AVO behavior can then be succinctly
described by the lines gradient, G, and normal incidence intercept, P.
For typical reservoir rocks, the reflection
at an interface between a water-bearing
layer and a hydrocarbon-bearing layer is
such that a negative polarity reflection
becomes more negativeintercept and gradient both negativeor a positive polarity
reflection becomes more positiveintercept
and gradient both positive (above, right ).

Gradient (G )

(lower right) amplitude increases 50%, from slightly positive to more positive. Most reflections that do not involve a fluid change (upper
right) show negligible amplitude change.

1.3

2200

4400

6600

nThe measured

AVO gather from

Royal Oils Texas
gas well. Amplitude of the small
negative (blue)
reflection at the top
of the gas becomes
more negative as
offset increases.
The seismic data
have undergone
true amplitude processing described
in Processing for
AVO Interpretation,
(page 48).

Oilfield Review

Offset, ft
0

2200

4400

6600

nAVO data, gradient and intercept

0.55

calculation and product section for the

Texas gas field. On the top, amplitudes
are measured across data traces from
page 45, top. Amplitudes are fit to a
straight line (middle)by changing
axes in the original Zoeppritz prediction plot from amplitude vs. angle to
amplitude vs. angle squaredwith a
corresponding gradient and intercept.
Traces containing the values of the
gradient, intercept, or the product of
the two form a seismic section, in this
case, a product section from the Texas
gas field (bottom). The region between
CMP 70 to 100 shows a positive AVO
product (red), and corresponds to the
gas-producing sand. A second well
4400 ft to the left has confirmed this
gas extent.

0.8

Time, sec
1.05

Interpretation of Actual AVOs

4. Velocities and density for this example were computed using a technique described in Taking Advantage of Shear Waves, Oilfield Review 4, no. 3, (July
1992): 52-54.
For further reading see Murphy W, Reischer A and
Hsu K: Modulus Decomposition of Compressional
and Shear Velocities in Sand Bodies, Geophysics 58,
no. 2, (February 1993): 227-239.
5. Ostrander WJ: Plane-Wave Reflection Coefficients
for Gas Sands at Nonnormal Angles of Incidence,
Geophysics 49 (October 1984): 1637-1648.

January 1993

1.3

Angle 2
Amplitude

How do real AVO gathers compare with

synthetics? The real gather (previous page,
bottom) observed at the Texas gas well and
carefully processed by GECO-PRAKLA (see
Processing for AVO Interpretation, next
page ) shows the same AVO signature as the
synthetic gather generated using log data
from the well (page 45, top ). Both gathers
show a small negative reflection at normal
incidence that becomes more negative with
offset. This signals hydrocarbons, and sure
enough, the well did produce gas. The gradient and intercept are both negative, and
their product positive. A section composed
of product traces from every gather in the
seismic line shows a zone of positive product (right ). A second well drilled in the zone
confirmed the presence of gas.
Because the synthetic was built from log
datadensity, compressional velocity and
shear velocityrather than estimated values, it closely matches the observed gather.
Often estimated is shear velocity, and this
creates a common stumbling block to AVO
modeling. Dramatic AVO effects appear in
gas sands where the shear velocity is often
too slow to be measured with conventional
sonic tools. Introduction of the DSI tool
removes this impediment.
Once the AVO signature of hydrocarbons
is known, seismic data can be examined for
fluids. For example, what would AVO analysis have revealed about the two bright
spotsone from gas, the other from
basaltdescribed on pages 42-43? The
answer was published in 1984 by Bill
Ostrander, then at Chevron USA (below ).5

G x P Section
0.9

1.0

1.1

Time, sec

The simplest indicator of hydrocarbons is

therefore the product of gradient and intercept. A positive product most likely indicates oil or gas. A product trace for the
Royal Oil & Gas example clearly reveals
gas. G traces, P traces or product traces can
be plotted next to each other to produce
sections, similar to stacked sections, for
AVO interpretation.

1.2

1.3
0

50

100

150

200

CMP
-2

Gas
shot point 81

ft

5000

Basalt
shot point 127

nGathers from well locations in two

bright spots seen on page 42, showing

different AVO signatures. At left is the
gather from shot point 81 of top section.
Negative amplitude becomes more
negative with offset in gas sand. On the
right is a gather from shot point 127 of
bottom section. Amplitude decreases
with offset, indicating no hydrocarbon.

47

Processing for AVO Interpretation

Any properly acquired seismic survey, new or old, can be processed for AVO analysis. The goal of
processing is to preserve reflected pulse shape and amplitude. Changes in pulse with offset can then
be interpreted in terms of lithology or fluid contrasts at the reflector. Data destined for stratigraphic
interpretation or lithostratigraphic inversion (see Structural Imaging: Toward a Sharper Subsurface
View, page 28) also benefit from true amplitude processing. Every seismic data set creates its own
processing problems, requiring a tailor-made processing sequence. Here is a typical AVO processing
sequence, one that works for the data sets described in this article.

Basic Steps
True Amplitude Recovery (TAR)compensates

Surface-consistent scaling and residual statics

for amplitude loss caused by wavefront spreading

correct amplitudes and arrival times of raypaths

and low transmission quality (Q) of the rock

distorted by near-surface anomalies, such as

through which the seismic wavefront travels.

those caused by the unconsolidated (weath-

Frequency wave number (F-K) filteringis

ered) zone on land or a rough ocean bottom.

required to attenuate coherent noise generated

Velocity analysis and Normal Moveout (NMO)

by near-surface or seabed features such as rigs,

create and apply the velocity model that aligns

buildings and seabed channels. Ground roll, or

wiggles from all offsets. In conventional seismic

surface waves, common in land data, cannot usu-

processing, velocity analyses are made every 2 to

ally be removed with this method. Correctly

3 km [1.2 to 1.8 miles]. Because most AVO

designed receiver arrays can solve this problem.

anomalies are caused by velocity variation,

Generalized Radon Transform (GRT) demultiple

reduces amplitude of multiples (interbed or water

closely spaced velocity analyses are required

every 0.25 km [0.15 mile].

column reverberations) relative to primary

energy. Conventional demultiple techniques do
not preserve true amplitudes, nor do they eliminate all multiples. The GRT demultiple separates
seismic arrivals by differences in their apparent
velocities, then suppresses multiples by an
inverse transform of only part of the data.1

Fine-Tuning Steps
CMP-consistent staticssometimes called nonsurface consistent statics or trim statics, forces
alignment of selected events that have not been
properly aligned by standard processing, on a
CMP-by-CMP basis. This is a compromise, and

Deconvolutioncreates a new trace with wiggles

considered unscientific by purists.

that indicate the location (in time) and the

Dephasingattempts to restore each trace to

strength of each reflector. Surface-consistent

deconvolution reduces pulse shape distortion

because the filter is the same for each shot and
receiver location.

zero phase so reflection events can be tracked

and their amplitude changes quantified.

Mixing and median filteringattenuate random

noise and reinforce signal. In median filtering,

1. The GRT technique is described in Beylkin G, Miller D and

Oristaglio M: The Generalized Radon Transform: A Breakthrough in Seismic Migration, The Technical Review 35, no. 3
(July 1987): 20-27.

traces within a small offset range are summed or

stacked. Mixing does the same kind of summing
over a small range of CMPs.

Bandpass filteringremoves high- and low-frequency noise from traces.

48

Carefully processed gathers from the well

locations show the difference between the
AVO signature of gas and that of high-velocity basalt. Gas shows the now-familiar
increase of amplitude with offset, while
basalt shows a decrease.
AVO effects may also be tracked across a
reservoir to delineate a fluid contact. A technique developed by Ed Chiburis, while at
Saudi Aramco, has had remarkable success
delineating Saudi Arabian oil reservoirs.6 In
26 of 27 cases, the technique predicted the
presence or absence of oil, which was later
confirmed by drilling (next page, bottom).
The technique identifies changes in AVO
behavior along a seismic line, and associates those changes with changes in fluid
composition. Once a given fluid has been
identified in a well, the AVO behavior of the
gather at the well is defined as the standard
to look for elsewhere in the section.
To overcome the lack of true amplitude
processing in most data, Chiburis developed
a normalization technique using another
reflection that shows consistent amplitude
in the section as a reference. Peak amplitudes of the target reflection in each AVO
gather are picked interactively on a workstation and normalized trace by trace to the
reference event. Use of a reference event
removes or minimizes amplitude distortion
associated with flaws in acquisition and
processing. The technique also circumvents
the need for synthetics. The measured AVO
response at the well serves as the standard.
The major limitation of this method is that
the geology and stratigraphy must be wellknown in order to associate changes in
AVO with changes in fluid type.
Another clever AVO analysis technique
practiced by Amoco is to display and compare seismic sections made up of partial
stacks (next page, top). Here, AVO informationor fluid discrimination informationmasked by a full stack, is retained in a
partial stack of the far offsets. A partial stack
is similar to a full stack, except that each
trace is the average of traces in a small
range of offsets rather than all offsets in the
CMP gather.
6. Chiburis EF: Studies of Amplitude Versus Offset in
Saudi Arabia, Expanded Abstracts , 57th SEG Annual
International Meeting and Exposition, New Orleans,
Louisiana, USA (October 11-15, 1987): 614-616.

Oilfield Review

Far offset stack

Near offset stack

Full stack

Time, Sec

1.5

1.9

nNow you see it, now you donta far offset stack of 2D offshore

data reveals hydrocarbons masked in conventional full stack.

Plotted in two-way time, brighter colors indicate higher reflection
amplitude. Red and yellow are positive polarity, green and blue
negative. Insets show offsets stacked to create each section. Beds
dipping to the right are the only structure visible in all but the faroffset case. A flat spot is circled (above, left), indicating a fluidfluid contact cutting across the dipping layers. (Courtesy of Rod VanK-

IRAQ
IRAN

KUWAIT

A
B

oughnet and Chuck Skidmore, Amoco Production Company.)

I
A

N
Where is AVO going?

G
U

SAUDI

L
F

ARABIA
Dhahran

QATAR
Riyadh

km
miles

200
125

Line 1

Line 2
Known reservoirs
AVO locations

nSaudi reservoirs, showing

delineation of spatial
extent of a hydrocarbon
discovery using Chiburis
relative event AVO technique. In the inset, the yellow area under the curves
shows where AVO indicates
hydrocarbon. Based on
AVO analysis and the local
geology, the interpretation
of the reservoir extent is
shaded in dark green.

January 1993

Line 3
Line 4
Line 5
Known extent
of reservoir
0
0

km 10
miles 6.2

Some companies use AVO routinely in an

attempt to reduce risk associated with
potential drilling locations. Others have
tried the technique and found the processing too time-consuming or too difficult. An
increasing number of practitioners is insisting on quantitative agreement between synthetic and observed data before they will
use the technique. Currently, most examples
of AVO interpretation are qualitative. In the
Royal Oil & Gas example (page 46, middle
and bottom), the qualitative match between
the two is good, but quantitatively, the synthetics predict a 100% increase in amplitude with offset while the data show an
increase of more than 200%.
Eliminating the discrepancy between
observed and synthetic data is therefore a
focus of AVO-related research, and touches
on five main topicsprocessing, synthetic
modeling, petrophysics, interpretation and
inversion.
Researchers seek a true amplitude processing scheme to produce AVO data traces
that can be compared quantitatively to computer-perfect synthetics. Conventional processing for structural imaging does not preserve amplitudes. Researchers are revisiting

49

basic processing steps such as deconvolution, velocity analysis and migration with a
view to AVO applications.
Current research in synthetic modeling
addresses a wide range of topics. Synthetics
are only as good as what goes into them.
How should logs sampled every 6 inches
[15 cm] be averaged, or blocked, to produce layered earth models? Different blocking techniques produce different synthetics.
What is the effect of layer thickness on AVO
synthetics? The right combination of layer
thickness and seismic wavelength gives rise
to reverberations in the layer that alter
reflected amplitude. Can seismic energy be
modeled as simple rays, or is it better to use
seismic wave theory? In the examples presented above, ray theory was enough. But
when angles become large and velocity
variations complex, more computer-intensive wave theory is necessary. How does
velocity anisotropy affect AVO? As angle of
incidence increases, differences between
horizontal and vertical velocities cannot be
ignored in earth models.
In general, petrophysics is the link
between earth models and any seismic
interpretation, but it is particularly important
in AVO interpretation. Changes in porosity,
mineralogy, cementation, stress, compaction or other properties that modify the
velocity or density of the rock, can give rise
to AVO signatures that mask fluid effects.
Changes in fluid saturation, on the other
hand, may exhibit no change in AVO signature. For example, in shallow or unconsoli-

50

dated sands, or overpressured zones, the

AVO response is about the same for all saturations. Drilling will confirm the presence of
gas, but it might be just fizz water. Laboratory and field measurements on reservoir
rocks, and especially nonreservoir rocks,
under in-situ conditions, are crucial to the
construction of a reliable earth model.
Improved understanding of rock properties
at core, log and seismic scales will lead to
more unambiguous AVO interpretation.
Standard AVO interpretation fits reflection
amplitudes to straight line approximations
of Zoeppritz prediction curves. More refined
interpretations quantify goodness-of-fit or
other statistical analyses of the fit. Work is
under way to abandon the straight-line
approximation and fit the real curve.
A great deal of research is devoted to
inversion, the attempt to derive a likely
earth model starting with real datathe
inverse of synthetic modeling. To date,
results indicate that knowledge of the Vp /Vs
ratio is required for stable inversion. Sometimes V p can be estimated from seismic
stacking velocities, but Vs cannot. Full inversion of AVO data for material properties
continues to intrigue researchers, but it has
yet to be proven feasible.
What is the future in AVO? One hot topic
is three-dimensional (3D) AVO. Many operators have already successfully interpreted
3D seismic data sets for AVO by assembling
two-dimensional (2D) AVO sections in
series. Few have tried real 3D AVO, that is,
considering source-receiver paths in different azimuths. This requires knowing velocity anisotropy in the horizontal plane.
Time-lapse AVO is another topic that
shows promise. As a reservoir is produced,
fluid contacts will move. Seismic surveys
shot at different times can be analyzed for
fluid changes using AVO techniques. Information about drained and undrained volumes can affect development and production plans.
AVO can be a powerful tool for hydrocarbon detection. Although experts may comprehend the theory behind AVO interpretation, unwary practitioners make mistakes.
Progress has been made in modeling, processing and interpretation, but improvements need further joint efforts from the seismic, logging and petrophysics communities.
LS

Oilfield Review