Methodology Prestack of AmplitudeAnalysisand Its Applicationto Seismic Bright Spotsin the PO Valley,Italy

AIfred Mazzotti, AGZP S.p.A.,Italy

s 4.5

SUMMARY

Another dered,

aspect

that

to my opinion

has to be consipolari-

is the uncertainty section. known, this

of the reflection

Amplitude ther tude guish

versus

Offset

(AVO) analysis

gives

furampli-

ty in a stack As it reasons is well of

information anomalies gas related

about the nature and in bright discussed particular spots. here

of seismic tries

can be due to interference

several or

to distin-

processing,

effects

energy source. proposes to since the extend these If we introduce the polarity limited range as unknown, then to short of offsets the and

The methodology the analysis

to wide-angle

reflections value for

analysis

of amplitudes to

result

have a diagnostic of unclearly

evaluation pola-

consequently could

a small

incident

angles,

of anomalies rity.

defined

reflection

lead to additional words, similar

problems. amplitude vs. offset trends po-

II. other unfortunately besides not uncommon is seve-

Such a case is ral cases where,

could pertain larity. This the the

to signals

of not clearly

defined

processing such play

or acquisition as an thin high

factors, velocity role guity A real prestack bright

geological conglomerate

features, lenses,

was already effect of

pointed

out ratios

by Koefoed of of rock

(1955 strata

On on

important

Poisson s

in causing

interference

effects

and then ambi-

reflection

coefficients 3, 381-387) of incident

plane that to

waves W for a

of the reflection case example is

polarity. shown that of refers three to the

Geophys. Prosp. limited range

who stressed angles (up

30 ) is

the only inci-

amplitude spots observed

analysis on the

separate section gravel

shape of the reflection slightly affected

coefficient

curves of

same seismic bearing

by the interchange medium. this on also

the

of which one is layer The

relative

to a water

dent and underlying For this a not only, reasons

and the others reflections of from

to gas saturated the gravel vs.

sandy beds. exhibit dut

method of AVO analysis the short offset

does

layer

concentrate but it is

reflections the behaviour

sudden rise critical

the energy

off set

trend

to the of

concerned with

angle

phenomena and head waves, show the peculiar

while increase

of the reflections The factor ambiguity that

at the wider offsets. in a prestack domain may solve the

gas related energy with An outline the

anomalies offset

distance. processing performed on with be also results given.

in determining of a critical

the polarity angle

is the possi-

of the amplitude data and

ble presence burst tion. In theory

and the consequent reflec-

seismic with

comparisons models will

of energy due to head waves and total

obtained

synthetic

this

would to

require

the

availability of

of

INTRODUCTION

signals angles

pertaining up to 90 . in

the whole

range

incident

The analysis tions gained along

of the amplitude the off set in

behaviour has

of reflecrecently for

In

practice,

examining rather

the high

offset velocity

behaviour

of

dimension seismic

reflections producing often dent cable. tion the

due to bright

contrasts it is

a large

success

exploration this

spots

on stack

sections,

hydrocarbon. logy is

However, each time various kind of

that

methodohave to to

enough to investigate angles provided this

over the range of inciacquisition examinain to

applied,

problems

by modern long means that

be tackled correct sical

and the

most important

ones relate

Obviously of the

a careful

amplitude conditions.

processing

and suitable

petrophy-

possible basin

petrophysical has to be

conditions carried out

geological

756

Downloaded 28 Mar 2012 to 112.215.66.76. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/

Prestack amplitude analysis

elucidate In general depth and

the feasibility the length the

of this of receiver velocity

approach. cable, the target will

were estimated and, to avoid

over a large residual

number of effects,

CDP gathers Q factors by means to the

noise

overlying

structure

were determined of coherency

over frequency resulted

bands that, to pertain

determine

the range of incident

angles

and then the

measures,

degree of detectability In the example that of incidence shallower will

of velocity

contrasts. the angles the

signal

wavelet.

The time

windows for

Q estimation lithostrati-

be shown later,

were chosen following graphy in the seismic gathers time

zones of uniform section.

reached a maximum of about 66 for

The whole set of CDP over the same the Q of did

target.

was then inverse

Q filtered

windows and frequency The global at the longest considerably result

bands used for

APPLICATION TO REAL CASES

estimation. amplitude

was an increase although previous this

offsets, the

The following three seismic remaining lings. Their tion evidence can separate section,

example bright

refers spots

to

the

evaluation on the

of same

not

altered

amplitude cor-

observed

trends. rection

No residual, was felt

regional-type

amplitude

of which one was found dry and the by the dril-

necessary. to ha investigated in terms of AVO by means of effects. the horizontal computed by sta-

two were found gas bearing

The reflections analysis

were move-out corrected

on a pseudo-interval in fig. 1.

velocity The bright level

secspot of

tic

corrections

to avoid stretching that maximized

be observed relative

Residual alignement

time shifts of the

named A is partly

to a water while

bearing

reflections

were

cemented gravel,

those

ones labeled sandy beds of

means of cross-correlations to traces Finally, of the CDP gathers.

techniques

and applied

B and C pertain turbiditic A seismic origin. line

to gas saturated

to improve the stability the effects for each

of results

and to CDP

through shot

the three with the

wells

, A

B and acquisiwith

reduce gather horizon offset

of random noise, bright spot level

an average and

C was recently tion parameters: as

following split

reference common

asymmetrical source; 72

spread

was computed through traces. operations

summation over

dynamite coverage; m.;

energy

fold

theoretical 15

group

interval

30 m.;

minimum offset pattern

These two latter possible data.

have present

likely in

destroyed the seismic

maximum offset

3225 m.;

receiver

of 24

phase information

geophones per group. The section acquisition the sing seismic shown in fig. 1 is relative to this

The validity

of

the

amplitude

processing

has been

scheme. Prior data

to the amplitude

analysis proces-

checked both on the bright rence trends horizons above the

spot levels bright

and on refethe AVO

have undergone a specific

spots;

sequence aimed affecting variant

to control

and remove negative along the offset. corrections the smoothed veloampliin

of the actual trends of

data were compared with synthetic

corre-

factors Spatially were values city

the amplitudes geometrical taking into

spondent

seismograms computed information. be limited to the

spreading account

on models generated The following analyses

from borehole will

computed

description

of RMS velocities analyses.

derived

from seismic consistent

of the bright

spot levels.

Subsequent surface

tude correction removing near land

have proved to be very effective distorsions that In severely some cases caused affected the

Bright

spot A (Water

saturated

gravel

layer)

some amplitude conditions data-set.

by the this Traces were metres gather taken grouped from about into 30 individual CDP gathers of 50 CDP at

surface seismic

correct

common offsets stacked 2a. to give

by steps the

amplitude

relations

among reflections effects. were computed method.

were distur-

and then

average aligned

bed by near surface Quality through factors

shown in fig. 840 ms. are for

The reflection

along

the

line

about

caused by the gravel the amplitude

bed and are on the

the spectral

ratio

Average

spectra

responsible

anomaly

757

Downloaded 28 Mar 2012 to 112.215.66.76. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/

Prestack amplitude analysis

seci.ian In.

01 iig.

I.

Offset

distances to rays

range incident

from 2 ? angles the

Bright

spot B (Gas-saturated

sand layer)

LO 2365 V. 1 to 66

and correspond pertaining to

from

impinging

Fig.

3a shows the average CDP gather CDP gathers is located on the

computed from anomaly. The

shale-gravel

interface within energy the

at a depth of 823 m.. the indicated value resulting axis time gate, the

28 single trace

For each trace total fig. trend envelope 2h shows

interval to

again

50 m.. of

Due to

irregular during

has teen energy

computed and vs. the value offset envelope and, in

coverage, the of surface those

exclusion consistent not the

abnormal

traces

processing represented resulting

and to

rejection

: the vertical
normalized axis, to

represents

offsets

by enough common CDP gather of 525 m. and below a

energy

a mean energy trace

offset

traces,

average

the horizontal offsets ted. the After offsets distance terpreted

numbers, source-receiver angles trend are indicato ,!a.

shows a gap of 600 m. between offsets 1125 m.. The reflections to the aligned top of

and estimated line

incident depicts the

immediately the

The solid actual a

relative fig.

1100 ms. pertain

gas sand at of 27%.

average of

CDP gather energy at

shown in short place feature critical at

depth of 1143 m. and with Shot to group offsets

a porosity

decrease a sharp of about

and middle an offset

range from 25 m. to 2375 m. angles on the target from

increase

takes

corresponding lo to 59 .

to incident

1900 m. This

has been inreflections waves. From

as a consequence of the

The energy trend by the solid sing with of line

of the actual in fig.

data

is

represented increapeculiar values of with bright

and head waves for the well data

compressional layered

3b and is clearly This low is

a plane

model was generated logs, sonic and densiof the specific

the angle from

of incidence. horizons as with

taking ty

into

account drilling

reflections ratio gas.

logs.

The main characteristics

Poisson s trapped spot

such

sedimentary

levels

layers

being investigated

are as follows:

The well

drilled

on top of the to build

I Density I I vs 1 b I (m/s) I (m/s) I (g/cm3) I

Overlying Gravel ted sandy shales

provided

the information

up the model target are as

whose characteristics follows:

of the specific

/ 2260 I 2770

/ 1255 I 1539

/ I

2.13 2.30

j /

I VP
I (m/s) Overlying shales

vs

I Density I (g/cm3)

I I

I (m/s)

Depth of the gravel Thickness

layer:

823 m. 10 m.

I 2670 1 2290

I 1480 I 1530

I I

2.3 2.1

I I

of the gravel

layer:

Gas sand ted

A synthetic stances 2a, that late of

CDP gather, the actual

with

same shot to group diCDP gather a modeling equations of fig.

Depth of the sand layer: Thickness

1143 m. 73 m.

average

of the sand layer:

was then

computed through

program to calcuThe reflection of the synthetic response, in terms of energy values, computed on the in fig. above 3b.

makes use of the Zoeppritz the reflection

response of plane

compressional

CDP gather

waves. The dashed line trend tions of the in fig. 2h represents data bed: pertaining the to energy reflec-

model is represented The increasing data data

by the dashed line trend is

energy and

confirmed

by the with the whole

synthetic gravel and

synthetic actual

the line)

correspondence is good along

from

the

a good correspondence energy 1475 m. trends where is the

(solid

the

between reached increase at

actual

synthetic offset takes being of place; the

range of incident

angles.

beyond the of energy offsets,

differences actual

occur

Bright

spot C (Gas-saturated

sand layer)

shorter

reflections posTwenty-five location illustrated CDP gathers have In generated fig. 4a. placed the For around the well

stronger sible

than

the synthetic

ones.

At present,

causes such as processing or inadequate

errors,

interferen-

average the

CDP gather same reaaona

ce effects

modeling are investigated.

758

Downloaded 28 Mar 2012 to 112.215.66.76. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/

Preatack amplitude analysis

mentioned

previously, of on

gap

of

300

m.

occurs

common in glomerate ries

some geological or gravel layers

environments. within

Thin

conse-

between offsets spot (fig. 1.5 6. observed 1) of

1675 m. and 1975 m. The bright the to interval the velocity at section about 4a

sedimentary

generate

amplitude which related

anomalies, are

on conventional to distlnof

corresponds the average

reflections shown in

seismic guish

sections, from gas

difficult spots

CDP gather

fig.

bright

because

and is to the

caused by the low velocity gas-saturated interface sand layer. with angles

anomaly relative Pay impinge ranging the

ambiguity polarity

of signal of the the of to

polarity.

In general, constitutes

when the a further the

reflections prestack wide-angle

shale-sand

from lo to

unknown in examination important bright the

amplitude reflections

analysis,

49 and are recorded m.. is The energy

at offsets of the

from 25 m. to 2475 actual reflection clearly

may become In case of

behaviour line

solve

such uncertainty. with feature

shown by the solid trend

of fig. indicative layer

4b. This

spots

associated

high velocity of the

layers, vs. relabe the

increasing of Poisson s

is again in ) C

of a low value being examined.

most distinctive trend to is

amplitude

ratio

the

offset ted

the sharp increase angle that phenomena. the

of energy This will

Borehole

data (well layered

were again used to generarelatibelow:

critical

te a plane

model and the parameters interface are listed

detectable

provided

spread

length,

ve to the shale-sand

depth of the target, velocity contrast conditions. to spots low

the velocity generating Prestack the

structure anomaly

and the satisfy

I
Overlying Gas-sand shales bed

VP

I vs
I (m/s)

I Density I I
2.3 2.2

specific relative bright

amplitude as

responses those of

I (m/s)

I (g/cm 3 1 I

velocity

gas-sands

I 2800 I 2545

I 1555 I 1697
1640 m. 20 m.

B and , C increasing to the

show an increase shot to detector

of enerdistance. value of

gy trend with This is due ratio

particularly

low level than to

Depth of the gas sand layer: Thickness

Poisson s the higher

of the gas bearing of gas relative

caused by of water.

of the gas sand layer:

compressibility AVO trends on

Comparisons with A synthetic above CDP gather the layer was again energy is trend computed on the of reflections seismograms confidence results. offset ling explain synthetic CONCLUSIONS shorter spot Issues related to the processing of seismic data . A

synthetic give

computed on the

appropriate of

models the

model and

reliability interference obtained being with

actual

from the target line of fig.

represented

by the dashed with

At present, and results programs possible data offsets are

effects different

along the modelalso to and the

4b: the data (solid

degree of correspondence line) is considered

the actual ble.

accepta-

investigated

discrepancies such in the as those

between actual occurred to at

example relative

bright

to be analyzed addressed amplitude tude vs.

in terms of AVO properties is that

have been a right ampliof or acmo-

and the main conclusion processing offset should produce for

correct

trends

any seismic

horizon

the seismic energy trends

section. should trends

Furthermore,

the amplitude in

be as much as possible predicted aspects from theoretical

cordance with dels.

Petrophysical amplitude that

are also It

very important to

in prestack point in the out

analyses. like

is worthwhile

situations example

that spot

one described ) A are quite

first

(bright

759

Downloaded 28 Mar 2012 to 112.215.66.76. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/

Preatack amplltude analysis

WELL A

WELL B

WELL C

FIG. 1. Pseudo-interval velocity section.

FIG. 2. Top, averageCDP gather (bright FIG. 3. Top, average CDP gather (bright FIG.4. Top,average CDP gather (brigh spot A); below, energy versus offset spot B); below, energy versus offset spot C); below, energy varsus offse trends. trends. trends.

760

Downloaded 28 Mar 2012 to 112.215.66.76. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://segdl.org/