INTERPRETATION OF SEISMIC ATTRIBUTE & SEISMIC INVERSION IN

SILICATE CLASTIC ENVIRONMENT

(Dr. R. Prasad)

INTRODUCTION:

The main objectives of seismic survey are to correctly image the structure in time and depth, and to
correctly characterize the amplitude of reflections in both the stack and pre-stack domains. From these
data, a host of additional features can be derived and used in interpretation. Collectively, these features
are referred to as seismic attributes. The simplest and most commonly used is the seismic amplitude.
Simultaneous inversion of seismic data in pre-stack domain may provide P-wave Impedance, S-wave
Impedance and density information of rock layer. The reservoir architecture can be reconstructed using
reflection time and reservoir properties can be estimated through seismic attributes and inversion.
The use of different seismic attributes may help in estimating reservoir properties, although uncertainty
and risk always pervade our decisions on reservoirs. One source of uncertainty is model approximations
of a complex earth. Rocks are neither linear nor elastic nor isotropic. Yet much of seismic analysis
assumes so, leaving imperfections in our seismic imaging and interpretation. Therefore, while interpreting
seismic attributes, one should always keep in mind the following limitations of seismic data. Firstly,
seismic data have less vertical resolution compared with wire line log due to band limited data. Also
when the reflectors are closely spaced i.e. thickness less than quarter of a wave length, the seismic
response is an interfering complex, hence amplitude and frequency are no longer linearly related to
reservoir properties of single layer. Secondly, layered earth model inverted from seismic data are
inherently non-unique. Thirdly, attributes extracted from seismic data are ambiguously related to
reservoir properties and introduces non-uniqueness in the interpretation which is a source of another
uncertainty. This happens because , amplitude of seismic wave depends on the contrast of acoustic
impedance between two layers across the interface. Acoustic impedance being product of rock velocity
and density, are controlled by the following three main reservoir properties.

– Lithofacies
– Porosity
– Pore fluid
and additionally also by pore space morphology, temperature, overburden pressure, pore- pressure and
cementation etc. Also it must be kept in mind that seismic amplitude is an interface property, changes
either in overlying or underlying properties of layers is going to change the seismic response

1
Therefore, to estimate reservoir properties using seismic attributes, we must understand the geological
settings and depositional processes. Different depostional processes and post depositional changes give
rise to different reservoir properties and hence different seismic response. Interpretation based on single
attribute may be misleading sometimes. Therefore, number of attributes may be generated and properly
analyzed for consistency which will ultimately lead to reduce exploration risk. In this paper an attempt
has been made to understand important seismic attributes, like acoustic impedance, V P/VS and amplitude
anomaly using fundamental rock physics relations, which help to quantify seismic signature of different
reservoir rocks.

ROCK PHYSICS APPLICATION AND CALIBRATION CURVE

Using rock physics, we can validate the seismic signature and extrapolate to geologically plausible
conditions that might exist away from the well. For meaningful interpretation Calibration curves of AI
and VP/VS with respect to lithofacies and porosity are important.Different calibration curves are generated
using deterministic modeling approach in two steps. In first step V P, VS and ρB are calculated for water
saturated sand using Han’s velocity-porosity-clay volume transform (1986) as given below(Overburden
pressure 40MPa) were used.
For clean sandstone: VP = 6.08 - 8.06 ф
VS = 4.06 - 6.28 ф
For shaly sandstone: VP = 5.59 – 6.93 ф – 2.18 C
VS = 3.52 – 4.91 ф -1.89 C
and ρB = ρM (1- ф) + ρF ф
Where, VP and VS are P-wave and S-wave velocities , ф and C are porosity and clay fraction of rock
volume and ρM , ρB and ρF are rock- matrix density, bulk density and pore fluid density respectively.
In the first step, using above transforms, acoustic impedance (AI) and V P/VS are calculated for different
lithofacies with differing porosities. The relationship of clay content and porosity to velocities and VP/VS
for wet sandstone are shown in the graphs ( Fig.1&2 ).

2
 Porosity 20 %

Clay content
Fig.1: Relationship of clay content to velocity and V P/VS ratio for wet sand

Clay 20 %

Porosity

Fig.2: Relationship of porosity to velocity and VP/VS ratio for wet sand.
The following conclusion can be drawn from the graphs in Fig.1 &2 for wet sand.
 The velocity decreases as the percentage of clay volume or porosity increases.
 The velocity decreases about 2.5 times more for porosity than for clay volume.
 The VP/VS ratio increases as the percentage of clay volume or porosity increases,.

Then, in the second step, Gassmann’s equations for porous rock as given below are used for fluid
substitution modeling to calculate acoustic impedance (AI) and V P/VS , for gas saturated sand.
VP = [{Kdry +(4/3) μdry + KP }/ ρ B] ½
VS = [ μdry / ρ B ] ½

3
 Where, K b = Bulk modulus of the fluid saturated porous rock volume
Kdry = Bulk modulus of dry rock frame and
KP = Pore space modulus, as called by Murphy et al (1993)
μdry = Shear modulus of dry rock

The starting model parameters used are given below

Matrix/Fluid Bulk Modulus (K) GPa Shear modulus (μ) GPa Density (ρ) gm/cc
Quartz 40 44 2.65
Clay 25 7 2.55
Water 2.2 -- 1.0
Gas 0.02 -- 0.1

DEPENDENCE OF ACOUSTIC IMPEDANCE ON POROSITY, LITHOFACIES AND PORE FLUID

After fluid substitution modeling different curves relating seismic and reservoir properties were plotted.
Fig,3 & 4 shows the relationship between porosity, lithofacies, porefluid and acoustic impedance.

Fig, 3 Relationship between porosity, porefluid and acoustic impedance.

Clay Content

4
 Fig, 4 Relationship between lithofacies, porefluid and acoustic impedance.

The following conclusions can be drawn from the graphs in Fig.3 &4 for wet and gas sand.
 The Acoustic Impedance decreases as the percentage of clay volume or porosity increases. The
decrease is more steep for porosity than for clay volume.
 Acoustic impedance of gas saturated sand is always lower than the wet sand. The difference
increases with increase in porosity.

CALIBRATION CURVE FOR ACOUSTIC IMPEDANCE INTERPRETATION

Table-1 : The relationship between porosity, lithofacies, pore fluid and acoustic impedance

Gas Water Gas Water

Sand % AI : 9000 /sec.gm/cc AI : 9000 m/sec.gm/cc AI :7000 m/sec.gm/cc AI :7000 m/sec.gm/cc
ф VP/VS ф VP/VS ф VP/VS ф VP/VS
0 0.00 2.10 0.00 2.10 0.04 1.90 0.07 2.32
20 0.03 1.89 0.04 1.98 0.08 1.83 0.13 2.17
30 0.05 1.83 0.06 1.93 0.11 1.79 0.16 2.10
40 0.07 1.79 0.09 1.88 0.14 1.75 0.18 1.99
50 0.09 1.74 0.11 1.84 0.16 1.71 0.21 1.97
60 0.11 1.70 0.14 1.80 0.18 1.66 0.23 1.92
70 0.13 1.65 0.16 1.77 0.20 1.62 0.26 1.87
80 0.15 1.61 0.19 1.74 0.22 1.58 0.28 1.81
90 0.17 1.57 0.21 1.70 0.25 1.54 0.31 1.78
100 0.20 1.48 0.25 1.64 0.28 1.48 0.34 1.75

Table-1 shows the relationship of acoustic impedance with lithofacies, porosity and pore-fluid. Based on
the data of Table-1, calibration curve between porosity, lithofacies, pore-fluid and acoustic impedance
was plotted and graph is shown in Fig. 5
To use this curve, let us suppose a well has been drilled and an interval of interest was found to have
65% sand 35% shale, 15 % porosity, 9000 m/sec.gm/cc acoustic impedance and saturated with water.
The sand in this interval is represented as point ‘A’ in Fig.5. At another location lateral distance away

5
from the drilled well, acoustic impedance is found to be 7000 m/sec.gm/cc. in attribute map. Now the
problem is to ascertain whether this decrease in AI is due to changes in lithology or porosity or pore fluid.
There exist four possible options for interpretation regarding lithofacies and pore-fluid at this location.

 The first option one is , the sand with same sand /shale percentage as the sand ‘A’ with gas as
pore fluid and porosity 19 %, as shown by point ‘B’ in Fig.5. In this case change in AI are due to
change in porosity as well as pore fluid.

 The second option is again the sand with same sand /shale percentage as sand ‘A’ with water as
pore fluid and 24 %, as shown by point ‘C’ in Fig.5. In this case change in AI are due to change
in porosity alone.

AI=7000
(Water)
AI=7000
(Gas)
C AI=9000
Porosity

(Water)
B AI=9000
(Gas)
A
E D

Fig. 5 Calibration curve between porosity, lithofacies, porefluid and acoustic impedance.
 The third option is that the porosity remaining the same i.e 15% as the sand ‘A’ but sand changes
to 45% and shale to 55% with gas saturated as shown by point ‘D’ in the Fig.5. In this case
change in AI are due to change in lithology as well as pore fluid.

6
  The fourth option is again the sand is having 15% porosity but sand percentage goes down to
26%, may be unconsolidated poor sand and saturated with water saturated as shown by point ‘E’
in the Fig.5. In this case change in AI are due to change in lithology alone.

Properties of sand at points A, B, C, D and E are summarized in table-6.

Table-2: Properties of sand at points A, B, C, D and E

Options Acoustic Pore fluid Sand % Porosity % VP/VS

Impedance
Sand-A 9000 Water 65 15 1.78
Sand-C 7000 Water 65 24 1.90
Sand-B 7000 Gas 65 19 1.64
Sand-D 7000 Gas 45 15 1.73
Sand-E 7000 Water 26 15 1.89

Therefore, increase in porosity or decrease in sand percentage may produce identical acoustic impedance.
Hence, with the help of single attribute i.e. acoustic impedance in this case, ambiguity in interpretation
cannot be solved. The lithofacies and porosity maps together with acoustic impedance map may solve the
ambiguity problem. Proper analysis of geological plausibility of different options, keeping in view
particularly the depositional environment and entrapment condition will enhance the confidence of
interpretation

DEPENDANCE OF VP /VS & σ ON POROSITY, LITHOFACIES AND PORE FLUID

When stress is applied, rock gets deformed and it changes in volume and shape as well. In rock
compression there is change in volume and but no change in the shape (P-wave). In rock shear (S-wave)
the rock deforms in shape, but not in volume. In real situation both happens and hence P and S-waves are
generated simultaneously. The ability of a rock to compress is defined as its bulk modulus K (the
reciprocal of compressibility). The ability of a rock to shear is defined as shear modulus µ. P- and S-
wave velocity equations are functions of bulk modulus and shear modulus and density respectively.
When a rock is compressed ,there is compression in one direction and elongation in perpendicular

direction. The ratio of transverse strain to longitudinal strain is called Poisson’s Ratio ( σ). Therefore σ
is the measure of the resistance to crushing . The relationship between Poisson’s ratio and V P/VS is
given below.

7
σ = [0.5(VP/VS ) 2 -1] / [(VP/VS ) 2 -1]
For Isotropic media 0 < σ < 0.5

Castagna’s VP to VS Transform
For clastic silicate rocks composed primarily of clay –or silt-sized particles Castagna et al
expressed the velocity relationship as ( also called Mud-Rock-Line)
VP = 1.16 VS + 1.36
Where the velocities are expressed in km/s.
Greenberg and Castagna(1992) VP to VS Transform
For water saturated sandstone Greenberg and Castagna provided following relationship
VS = -0.856 + 0.804 VP
Where the velocities are expressed in km/s.Fig. 6 shows the relationship of VP/VS &
σ for various lithofacies.The Possion’s ratio for the sandstone is the lowest and for the limestone
and shale it is the highest.

VP/VS Gas sand

Fig.6. Relationship between VP/VS and σ

8
 Fig. 7 Relationship between porosity, pore fluid and VP/VS .

Fig.8 Relationship between litofacies, porefluid and VP/VS

Fig 7 and 8 shows the relationship of VP/VS to porosity and lithofacies for clastic silicate rock.
The following inferences can be drawn from the graphs in Fig.6,7 & 8.
 VP/VS for gas sand is always lower than the VP/VS of wet sand and the difference in VP/VS for
wet and gas sand increases with increase in porosity and clay volume.
 VP/VS increases for wet sand as the percentage of clay volume increases because increased clay
volume lowers VS more than VP .The VP/VS increases also with for gas sand with increased in
clay volume. Thus, as clay content increase VP/VS increases for wet and gas sand both ,hence it
can also be use as lithofacies indicator.
 VP/VS increases for gas sand with increase in clay volume but decreases with increase in
porosity. Decrease in VP/VS with increase in porosity may be attributed to more decrease in V P
than in VS. Increase in VP/VS with increase in clay content may be due to much decrease in S-
wave velocity.
 The difference in VP/VS for wet and gas sand increases with increase in porosity and clay
volume.

9
  VP/VS of gas sand is always lower than the VP/VS of of wet sand.

 As clay content increases VP/VS increases for wet and gas sand both, hence it can also be used as
lithofacies indicator.

 Presence of gas lowers VP significantly but VS relatively unaffected, causes lowering of V P/VS

and hence σ.
Even small amount of clay , significantly reduces the elastic moduli of rock. The reduction is more in
shear modulus than in bulk modulus. Therefore more decrease in V S than in VP and consequently VP/VS
increases with increasing shalyeness of reservoir sand. When clean water saturated sand is surrounded by
shaley sands, clean sand having less V P/VS ratio compared to surrounding shaley sand behaves as if it is
hydrocarbon saturated.
AMPLITUDE AND AVO INTERPRETATION:

In reservoir rock, AVO response is dependent on the velocities of P- and S-waves and on density.
Unfortunately, most seismic data, unlike the previous example do not give S-wave data, but only P-wave
VP/VS
data. The recording of P-wave data at various offsets, which is always recorded, can be used to record a
component of the S-wave data. The offset recording is the basis of the AVO technique. AVO is a seismic
technique that uses pre-stack seismic data.
If Poisson’s ratio (σ) or the V P/VS ratio ( γ ) changes from one medium to another, this affects the
variation of the reflection coefficient with offset or angle of incident within a CDP gather. Shuey’s
equation expresses the variation of reflection coefficient with angle of incidence.

A and B are called intercept and gradient. ‘A’ is reflection coefficient at normal incidence and depends on
acoustic impedance contrast between the layers. ‘B’is dependant on Poissons’s ratio contrast. Depending
on the algebraic sign of A and B, refection coefficient may either increase or decrease. In practice the
amplitude is sometimes plotted as a function of θ or the offset. We no longer have a straight line but a

curve called AVO signature, which is related to V P/VS or σ . The analysis of this signature provides
information about the physical properties characterized by Poisson’s ratio and particularly emphasizes the
presence of gas reservoirs. For interpretation, the AVO signatures are divided into four classes as shown
in fig. 9. If σ1 > σ2, ‘B’ becomes negative, if σ 1 < σ2, , ‘B’ becomes positive and if value of σ 1 is of
the order of σ2 , ‘B’ attains near zero value and there will be a flat response.

10
CLASS –I AVO: When relatively higher impedance sand underlie a relatively lower impedance shale,
intercept ‘A’ is positive and gradient ‘B’ is negative for top gas saturated sand. Hence amplitude at
normal incidence is positive and decreases with offset. There may be change in polarity at larger offset.

Seismic Signature on Stack Section: Amplitude of seismic wave on stack section for gas bearing sand
will have lower value compared to water bearing sand with positive polarity.

Geological settings: Class-I AVO response can be observed in a geological setting where depth of
burial is such that sandstone has attained poor porosity which is harder than shale. There is good contrast
of hardness between shale and non-porous/ poor porosity wet sandstone. So we get a good reflection from
a bad situation (N.A. Anstey). The gas bearing sandstone however, will be softer but still harder than
overlying shale, which will lead to decrease in hardness contrast. Hence amplitude decreases slightly and
polarity remains positive.

CLASS –II AVO: When relatively medium impedance sand underlie a shale with slightly lower or
higher impedance shale, intercept ‘A’ may be positive or negative but definitely smaller compared to
Class-I sand and gradient ‘B’ is negative for top sand. Hence low amplitude either decreases or increases
with offset or may appear even flat. There may be change in polarity at intermediate offset.

Seismic Signature on Stack Section: Amplitude of seismic wave on stack section will be seen very weak
and either positive or negative. There may be polarity change for gas sand.

Geological settings: Class-II AVO response can be observed in a geological setting where depth of
burial is such that sandstone has attained intermediate compaction and contrast in hardness for sand and
shale is very less. This causes low amplitude response on stack section. Thus a weak sand shale reflection
which locally becomes strong may mean a change from fair porosity to no porosity, or may mean a
change from fair liquid saturated porosity to fair or good gas saturated porosity. We can resolve this only
with reflection polarity(N.A. Anstey).

CLASS –III AVO: When relatively low impedance sand underlie a relatively high impedance shale,
intercept ‘A’ is negative and gradient ‘B’ is also negative for top gas saturated sand. Hence amplitude at
normal incidence is negative and increases with offset.

Seismic Signature on Stack Section: Amplitude of seismic wave on stack section for gas bearing sand
will have larger value compared to water bearing sand show Negative Polarity.

11
Geological settings: Class-III AVO response can be observed in a geological setting where depth of
burial is not much and sandstone is under compacted having high porosity which is softer than
overlying shale. There is good contrast of hardness between shale and good porosity sandstone, which
produce high amplitude negative polarity. The gas bearing sandstone will be still softer than overlying
shale, leading to even higher hardness contrast. Hence amplitude will be brighter than wet sand and
polarity remains negative.

Fig. 9: Rutherford and Williams’s AVO classification

CLASS –IV AVO: When relatively low impedance sand underlie a relatively high impedance hard
shale/ siltstone having relatively lower σ, intercept ‘A’ is negative and gradient ‘B’ is positive for gas
saturated sand. Hence amplitude at normal incidence is negative and decreases with offset.

Seismic Signature on Stack Section: Amplitude of seismic wave on stack section for gas bearing sand
will have larger value compared to water bearing sand and show Negative Polarity.

Geological settings: Geological setting is similar to Class-III sand. Unconsolidated sand , but overlain by
high velocity hard shale, siltstone, or carbonate. Shear-wave velocity in this overlying hard interval is
larger than that of the gas sand (this situation is opposite for all other classes).

12
STEPS TO ATTRIBUTE ANOMALIES INTERPRETATION:
I. Recognize the different Anomalies and check the consistencies
II. Validate the Anomalies taking geological settings in to consideration
III. Check conformity with entrapment and sealing condition
IV. Validate all components of hydrocarbon system

References

Castagna, J.P, Batzle, M.L and Eastwood, R.L, 1985, Relationship between compressional and shear
wave velocities in clastic silicate rocks: Geophysics, 50, 571-581.

Greenberg, M.L., and Castagna, J.P., 1992, Shear wave velocity estimation in porous rocks: Theoretical
formulation, preliminary verification and applications: Geophysical Prospecting, 40, 195-210.

Han, D.H., Nur, A., and Morgan, D., 1986, Effects of porosity and clay content on wave velocities in
sandstones: Geophysics, 51,2093-2107.

Hilterman, J.H., 2001, Seismic Amplitude Interpretation, Distinguished Instructor Series, No. 4, SEG &
EAGE.

Krief, M., Garat, J., Stellingwerff, J., and Ventre, J.,1990, A petrophysical interpretation using velocities
of P and S waves ( Full waveform sonic), The Log Analyst, 31,355

Murphy, W., Andrew, R., and Hsu, K., 1993, Modulus decomposition of compressional and shear
velocities in sand bodies, Geophysics, 58, 227-239.

Nigel A. Anstey, seismic Exploration for Sandstone Reservoirs, IHRDC, Boston

Rutherford, S R., and Williams, R.H. 1989, Amplitude-versus-offset in gas sands, Geophysics, 54, 680-
688

13