AVO Crossplotting Revisited:
A Practitioner’s Perspective
Heath Pelletier
Talisman Energy, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
The development of AVO crossplot analysis has been the
subject of much discussion over the past decade and has
provided interpreters with new tools for meeting exploration
objectives. Papers by Ross (2000) and Simm et al. (2000)
provide blueprints for performing AVO crossplot interpreta-
tion. These articles refer to the Castagna and Swan (1997)
paper which laid the foundation for AVO crossplotting. The
AVO classification scheme presented by Castagna and Swan,
which was expanded from the work of Rutherford and
Williams (1989), has become the industry standard. Castagna
and Swan also investigated the behavior of constant Vp/Vs
trends, concluding that for significant variations in Vp/Vs
many different trends may be superimposed within AVO
crossplot space, making it difficult to differentiate a single
background trend. A misapplication of this concept has been
to infer a direct correlation between these changing back-
ground Vp/Vs trends with rotating intercept/gradient cross-
plot slopes (what Gidlow and Smith (2003) call the fluid
factor angle, and Foster et al. (1997) the fluid line) observed in
seismic data. The central question of this paper is: when is
this background trend (or fluid line) rotation a representation
of real geology and when is it a processing-related phenom-
enon? To answer this question I review the theoretical expec-
tations regarding rotating AVO crossplot trends, the role of
seismic gather calibration (or lack thereof), and the value of
various compensating methods. Furthermore, I investigate
the appropriateness of using constant Vp/Vs lines in a cross-
plot template by examining both the mathematical and
modeled AVO crossplot responses which incorporate an
established compaction trend. I conclude that when
exploring in a reasonably compacted environment (Vp/Vs
ratios of 1.6-2.4) a relatively small range of fluid angles (back-
ground trend rotations) can be expected. Large variations of
fluid angle observed in seismic data can be attributed to the
difficulty in preconditioning gathers for AVO analysis.
Figure 1. AVO behavior in crossplot space. (a) Castagna and Swan’s (1997) background trend illustrates AVO crossplot rotation as Vp/Vs varies. (b) The empir-
ical relationship that exists between Vp and Vs cuts across constant Vp/Vs lines. Image modified from Scott Pickford poster (2000). (c) Castagna et al.’s (1998)
revised background trend rotations incorporating a linear Vp versus Vs trend. The amount of rotation present in the crossplot that incorporates a mudrock rela-
tionship is significantly less than for the constant Vp/Vs scenario (for all but extremely low velocity ranges), suggesting that large rotations in crossplot space should
not be considered normal in most seismic datasets. This also presents a case for utilizing larger windows in crossplot analysis than previously considered.
40 CSEG RECORDER December 2008
AVO Crossplot Rotations
The key value of AVO crossplot interpretation is the ability to
differentiate population outliers relative to background trend
points within crossplot space. Incorporating direct hydro-
carbon indicators (DHIs) via crossplotting can play a signifi-
cant role in minimizing the risk associated with an
exploration play. The stability of the background trend (fluid
angle) can have an impact on what is being interpreted as
anomalous, be it fluid or lithology induced outliers. Castagna
and Swan’s (1997) Interpreter’s Corner article concluded that
many background trends can be erroneously superimposed
in AVO crossplot space, particularly if too large a depth range
is brought into the interpretation window. This presents diffi-
culties when performing crossplotting analysis, particularly
as it pertains to non-uniqueness. For a given anomaly (popu-
lation outliers) an interpretation of an increase in Vp/Vs (due
to a superimposed background trend) can be just as feasible
as a decrease in Vp/Vs (due to a fluid response or coal)
dependent upon the choice of background trend. The
Castagna and Swan crossplot template, seen in figure 1a, is
often used in the literature to explain crossplot behavior
observed in seismic data. However, the constant Vp/Vs lines
used in the design of this crossplot template do not reflect
most worldwide compaction trends and established empir-
ical mudrock line relationships. Figure 1b highlights how
constant Vp/Vs lines cut across a given mudrock line only
within a limited range. Outside these overlap zones the
constant Vp/Vs lines would be considered physically unreal-
istic. A follow-up Interpreter’s Corner article by Sams (1998)
also questions the appropriateness of using these constant
Vp/Vs trends in crossplot templates. Sams demonstrates that
constant Vp/Vs lines approach a mudrock line relationship
only at very high P-wave velocities.
Continued on Page 41

AVO Crossplotting Revisited: A Practitioner’s Perspective
Continued from Page 40
Castagna et al. (1998) address this very concern in their
expanded follow-up article. Figure 1c shows the rotation of the
intercept/gradient slope when a linear Vp versus Vs trend is
taken into account in the creation of the crossplot template. The
result is a less dramatic rotation of background trend rocks
within moderate ranges of Vp/Vs ratios. The AVO crossplot
rotation effect can be problematic for interpretation only when
low velocity unconsolidated materials (and their associated high
Vp/Vs ratios) are encountered. An example from the Western
Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) illustrates the significance
of this result. Most reservoirs in the WCSB have velocities on the
low end of 2500m/s (clastics) and at the high end of 6000m/s
(carbonates). Within this velocity range Vp/Vs ratios of 1.6-2.5
encompass most background trend rocks and this places their
AVO responses within the green background trend highlighted
in figure 1c. Another factor to consider during the interpretation
of crossplots is the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) issues which tend
to broaden the intercept and gradient (I/G) reflectivity points
within crossplot space into oval distributions (Simm et al., 2000).
This seismic noise acts to further blend the background trend
lines together into a singular cloudy trend. Therefore, since
depth dependent fluid angle variations are typically small and
often embedded within seismic noise, larger temporal windows
can be brought into AVO crossplot space when searching for
AVO anomalies in the WCSB.
The term rotation is used frequently in this article to describe
observations made in AVO crossplot space. A more appropriate
term to use is apparent rotation, as points in crossplot space are
not actually going through a true rotation (denoted by I’=I cosθ +
G sinθ, G’=- I sinθ + G cosθ ) but instead are being subjected to
scaling and/or skewing operations (denoted by I’=k1 x I, G’=k2 x
G and I’=k1 x I, G’=k2 x G + k3 x I, respectively).
Focus Article Cont’d
AVO Modeling
Modeling was performed using a Castagna mudrock line rela-
tionship (Castagna et al., 1985) to verify the assertion that AVO
crossplot slopes should be comparable when the Vp/Vs trend is
depth dependent (i.e. following a compaction trend). In this
model (figure 2a) the shallow section contains sands with lower
impedance than surrounding shales, the intermediate section
contains sands and shales of similar impedance, while the
deeper section contains sands with higher impedance. An offset
synthetic was created using a zero-phase seismic wavelet of
reasonable bandwidth (Figure 2b), and AVO extraction was
performed using the Shuey equation (1985).
Several things stand out in the AVO crossplot model (Figure 2c).
First, there is a relatively tight background trend (red line). Next,
there are data points (circled in black) representing wavelet side
lobes, not geology. Finally, there is an offset population (circled
in red) with a near horizontal slope (i.e. with zero gradient). This
model was constructed using background trend ro c k s
(wet/brine) and no hydrocarbon induced responses are
included. As with the Castagna et al. (1998) template (Figure 1c)
the lower velocities present in this model (i.e. the shallowest
sands) represent the transition in the Castagna mudrock line
from a matrix supported formation to a fluid supported one.
These observations highlight the importance of recognizing
where and when potential sources of confusion can be intro-
duced into a crossplotting template.
Since seismic data is a reflectivity attribute (measuring the
contrast between impedance quantities) it is helpful to re-express
the model parameters as a function of average Vp/Vs change,
<Vp/Vs>. In Figure 3, each of the reflectivity interfaces used in

Figure 2. AVO Model Example. (a) An AVO model was built using: Vp honouring a compaction trend; Density estimated using the Gardner et al. (1974) equation; Vs
estimated using the Castagna et al. (1985) equation. These logs and a seismic wavelet (b) were used to create an offset synthetic. (c) AVO crossplot of the modeled data high-
lighting: the background trend line; data points associated with wavelet side lobe effects; and rotated data points stemming from the lower velocity reflections. This model is
a confirmation of figure 1c where background trends lines (fluid lines) are closely spaced in compacted sediments (low Vp/Vs).

Continued on Page 42

December 2008 CSEG RECORDER 41

Focus Article Cont’d
AVO Crossplotting Revisited: A Practitioner’s Perspective
Continued from Page 41
the model is identified using the letters A (shallow) through U
(deep), along with their corresponding <Vp/Vs>. The same
letters identify these interfaces in crossplot space, with the previ-
ously noted side lobe effects removed to better visualize the
impedance contrasts only. Figure 3a (left, upper crossplot) used
the Castagna mudrock line relationship, as seen in figure 2, while
figure 3b (right, lower crossplot) repeated the modeling using
the Han mudrock line relationship (Han et al., 1986).
This modeling reinforces the work presented by Castagna et al.
(1998) where AVO trend lines are relatively tight in compacted
rocks (lower Vp/Vs) and rotate more strongly for unconsoli-
dated sediments (high Vp/Vs) only. The grey polygons in both
crossplot spaces are a qualitative approximation of the data point
scatter that would take place when seismic noise is introduced.
The amount, and type, of noise present in the gathers will have
an impact on the size and configuration of this data scatter. The
model converges on a well behaved background trend for
<Vp/Vs> values below 2.42 using the Castagna mudrock line
and values below 2.02 when using the Han relationship. For the
lower velocity wet sands in the shallow section, highlighted by
red boxes in figures 3a and 3b, the rotation towards anomalous
AVO space (Class III/IV response) happens at different rates
depending on the magnitude of <Vp/Vs>. Great care should be
taken in undercompacted basins to determine the AVO crossplot
sensitivities so that population outliers associated with back-
ground trend rocks are not interpreted as DHIs. How large a
fluid angle variation to expect should be modeled up-front so
that comparisons of anomalous population rotations (due to all
Figure 3. AVO Crossplot interpretation. (a) Using the Castagna et al. (1985) equation for estimating shear velocity produced numerically unrealistic <Vp/Vs> values in
the low velocity (shallow) section. The higher <Vp/Vs> contrasts experience the most rotation in I/G crossplot space (identified by letters A-F). Compacted rocks (<Vp/Vs>
values of 2.42 or lower) were concentrated on a relatively tight background/fluid trend line. (b) Using the Han et al. (1986) equation to estimate shear velocity produced
similar results as the Castagna case for most of the reflectors G-U. The exception being that the <Vp/Vs> values in the shallow section reflectors A-F seemed more reason-
able and the fluid angle rotation was less dramatic as a result.
42 CSEG RECORDER December 2008
factors including hydrocarbon, lithology, and/or overpressure
effects) are incorporated into the pre-AVO risking. As expected,
since the Han relationship was designed using lower velocity
sands and shales it yielded the lower and more realizable
<Vp/Vs> contrasts for the shallower rocks, and experienced the
smaller fluid angle rotation of the two.
AVO Equation
It is possible to investigate how much each component (Intercept
and Gradient) contributes to the population rotations observed in
AVO crossplot space by looking more closely at the equations
governing AVO behavior. Thomsen’s (2002) approximations were
used (see equation 1) along with a simple compaction model (i.e.
velocity increasing with depth). The following assumptions were
made to calculate the acoustic impedance (AI) contrasts: the
Castagna et al. (1985) mudrock line was used to estimate the S-
wave velocity; Gardner et al. (1974) was used to calculate the
density; in the spreadsheet smaller reflection coefficients were
identified by simply comparing impedances with similar values
(smaller Δdepth) while larger reflection coefficients required
contrasting impedances with larger diff e rences (larger Δdepth);
as the reflection coefficients (R0 and R2 ) were calculated the ΔV p
was kept constant, as opposed to holding the fractional change in
Vp constant. Note: The curvature term (R4) was ignored because
most datasets do not have the necessary quality long offset
(angle) data required to benefit the AVO results, although this
trend is starting to change.
Continued on Page 43

AVO Crossplotting Revisited: A Practitioner’s Perspective
Continued from Page 42
Equation 1
Several key insights came from this exercise. First, figure 4a
shows that the normal incidence (zero offset) reflectivity ampli-
tudes increase as the P-wave velocity decreases. This illustrates
that the intercept term also contributes to the rotation observed in
AVO crossplot space. The magnitude of this rotation becomes
more significant as the velocity contrast becomes larger. Next, for
gradient responses (shown in figure 4b) corresponding to veloci-
ties lower than < 2300* m/s a polarity flip takes place. Simply
stated, in lower velocity environments peaks and troughs actually
can become brighter with offset, an observation noted by
Castagna et al. (1997). This goes against conventional AVO
quality control (QC) practices/assumptions that all amplitudes
should decay with offset, unless hydrocarbon affected. It is
important to point out that at these high Vp/Vs values (low
velocities) the rocks are closer to being an acoustic medium (shear
modulus µ=0) rather than an elastic medium. In areas such as
offshore West Africa, and shallow heavy oil plays in the WCSB,
contrasting density reflections can provide more illumination into
a reservoir than the Vp/Vs contrasts. Three-term AVO (Downton
Focus Article Cont’d
and Chaveste, 2004), or two-term converted wave (PS) AVO (Jin
et al. 2000) become more valuable in these instances as they solve
for density reflectivity. For this particular example the Vp/Vs vs.
Vp crossplot (figure 4d) shows that the crossover in AVO
Gradient takes place at approximately Vp/Vs=2.8*. (*Note: This
crossover point is very much dependant on the local mudrock
relationship as well as the magnitude of the AI contrast. For
example, in figure 4b the crossover point for the Q IV (large RC)
case is at a higher Vp and lower associated Vp/Vs than the
crossover point for the Q IV (small RC)).
The evaluation above supports using large temporal windows in
AVO crossplotting analysis to find larger prospective lithologic
and fluid outliers as long as it is within a consolidated deposi-
tional setting (i.e. Vp/Vs values ranging from 1.6-2.5). This does
not follow conventional practice (Castagna et al., 1998) and can
be problematic for two reasons: 1) the weaker/subtle population
outliers (ex. lower API oil, or hydrocarbons in hard carbonates)
may be too subtle to extract from the background trend, and 2) in
practice when examining large temporal windows most seismic
data does not behave according to this theoretically tight background
trend. In the case of the latter I believe the disconnect between
theory and practice can be attributed to the difficulties inherent
in the data conditioning prior to the AVO extraction process.

Figure 4. The AVO Intercept and Gradient components. (a) The Intercept term (R0) shows an increase in reflection coefficient magnitude as velocity decreases. (b) The
Gradient term (R2) experiences the most dramatic change when velocities become low, eventually culminating in a sign reversal. After a low threshold velocity is reached,
as observed in shallow environments, large magnitude seismic amplitudes increasing with offset are still representing wet/brine rocks. (c) The previous I/G plots incorpo-
rate several ranges of impedances (reflection coefficients - RC) that reflect a typical compaction setting (modified from Castagna and Swan (1997)). For reference the AVO
crossplot quadrant is specified thereby imparting information regarding the polarity of both I and G. (d) The Vp/Vs versus Vp plot reflects where the crossover point in AVO
gradient will take place petrophysically, at Vp/Vs > 2.8*.

Continued on Page 44

December 2008 CSEG RECORDER 43

Focus Article Cont’d
AVO Crossplotting Revisited: A Practitioner’s Perspective
Continued from Page 43
Processing for AVO / Calibration
Cambois (2000) defines a processing workflow meant to be AVO
friendly simply as “any sequence that makes the data compatible
with Shuey’s equation” (or various other Zoeppritz appro x i m a-
tion methodologies). True Amplitude, Preserved Amplitude, and
Controlled Amplitude Controlled Phase (CACP) a re a few examples.
Many of these workflows include deterministic and/or statistical
corrections calculated by incorporating well logs and/or geologic
models. These workflows may comprise larger amplitude corre c-
tions, such as geometrical spreading and absorption (Q), or more
subtle ones, like angle of emergence and array corrections.
Typically these workflows apply time and offset variant corre c-
tions in an attempt to compensate for the earth filter. Several
authors have discussed at length the difficulties inherent in this
process, including Cambois (2001) and Bachrach; Kozlov and
Ivanova; Landro and Stavos (2006).
Processing workflows like the one described by Ramos (1998)
highlight the need to compare and contrast the AVO behavior
after every processing step. Qualitative and quantitative evalua-
tion involving the amplitudes of our primaries is performed to
determine if any gradient responses have been altered. Gather
difference plots are an interpreter’s best friend when main-
taining quality control. Some QC methods need to be more
sophisticated in order to quantify any possible changes. For
example, the diff e rence of a gather pre- and post-spectral
whitening cannot be used because the frequency content of the
primaries has been altered too dramatically. In these cases it is
Figure 5. Vp/Vs plotted versus depth for 4 basins around the world. (a) The Gulf of Mexico (from Castagna et al. (1985)), (b) Deepwater Gulf of Mexico (from Smith and
Sondergeld (2001)), (c) Western Canada, Alaska, and Qatar. Except for the unconsolidated shallow GOM sediments the vast majority of the Vp/Vs ratios are less than 2.25
which suggest we would expect relatively small deviations in crossplot fluid angle behavior.
44 CSEG RECORDER December 2008
necessary to crossplot the AVO attributes, before and after the
process to test the response on known population outliers.
The goal of these true amplitude flows is to restore the amplitude
(and phase) response to a point where geologic meaning can be
inferred. It is important to understand that the gradient behavior
(as a function of time) is dependent upon the processing applied
to that data. Revisiting figure 4c, we observe that all background
trend rocks have amplitudes that decay as a function of offset. In
other words, positive intercepts have negative gradients, while
negative intercepts have positive gradients (For the sake of
simplicity I am generalizing to include only the consolidated
rocks, not the rarer low velocity regimes discussed previously).
The rate at which these gradients decay can be very much
affected by the processing applied, especially when offset
varying applications are present. The first check when quality
controlling CDP gathers is to verify that the majority (i.e. non-
anomalous) of the reflection events do indeed decay. This decay
should be noticeable over the angle of incidence range of 0-40
degrees, and then the amplitudes can sharply increase again as
they approach the critical angle. Note: this means that for shallow
data the amplitude decay will happen relatively quickly over a
given offset range compared to the decay that will be more
gradual deeper in the section over the same offset range. Another
way of expressing this is: as time increases the angle of incidence
range decreases.
A common misunderstanding is to assign a correlation between
the rotating intercept/gradient crossplot slope observed in
Continued on Page 45

AVO Crossplotting Revisited: A Practitioner’s Perspective
Continued from Page 44
seismic data and the rotating background trends as described by
Castagna and Swan (1997), shown in figure 1a. Given the poten-
tial for inaccurate time-variant gradients within seismic data,
this is troublesome for the following reasons: a) figure 1a is not
a realistic re p resentation of how crossplot populations should
behave, whereas figure 1c is; and b) despite our attempts, most
processing flows do not fully account for all of the complex
earth filtering of the data. Apparent rotations in crossplot space
(static or time variant), measured on real data, may actually be
telling us more about how much residual earth compensating
c o r rections are still re q u i red rather than re p resenting actual
geologically meaningful Vp/Vs trend variations. The issue is
further complicated when the effects of noise are considered, as
discussed by Cambois (1998).
Alternative Calibration/Interpretation Techniques
What can be done if time and resources are insufficient to apply
a calibrated AVO workflow prior to an AVO analysis? There are
many common practices that provide viable workarounds to the
calibration uncertainty issue. One of the most well known
approaches is the Geogain methodology, introduced by Gidlow
et al. (1992). In this approach a Fluid Factor stack is calculated by
subtracting the intercept attribute (the P-wave reflectivity –
denoted Rp or ΔI/I) by a scaled version of the gradient attribute
(the S-wave reflectivity – denoted Rs or ΔK/K) (equation 2).
Equation 2
The smoothed time-variant and spatially-variant scalar, g(t), is
applied to the gradient attribute post AVO extraction. This scalar
initiates a rotation in crossplot space whereby one-to-one corre-
lated Rp and Rs points cancel out and all uncorrelated points (i.e.
anomalous f l u i d s and/or lithologies) are highlighted in the f l u i d
factor attribute. Buried in the g(t) scalar are both the mudrock line
contribution (Smith and Gidlow, 1987) as well as the seismic cali-
bration term. This calibration term is often misinterpreted as a
geologically induced crossplot rotation. Since all the low
frequency time-variant background trends have been collapsed
onto a one-to-one line (45 degrees) crossplotting the intercept
attribute along with the scaled gradient attribute provides the
interpreter with the ability to crossplot larger time windows.
Note: This assumes that the processing induced time-variant
gradients (i.e. time variant rotations in crossplot space, or
“residual calibration”) are comparable to the low frequency g(t)
scalar trend. For example, if the ΔF scalar design window is too
large not all of the time-variant fluid angle rotations may be
removed, but too small a window could rotate anomalous data
populations (i.e. potential reservoirs) into the background trend.
Despite being able to bring in larger windows this does not mean
that vertical (temporal) windowing is necessarily pre f e r red to
horizontal (spatial) windowing. Evaluating a formation across a
large horizontal crossplot window is the preferred way of infer-
ring lateral facies/fluid variability as rock properties may be
changing too rapidly with depth for fair comparisons to be made.
Each reservoir has its own unique noise, structural, and/or litho-
logic elements and several crossplot trial and error iterations may
be required to best illuminate anomalous population outliers. The
Focus Article Cont’d
Geogain methodology, and others fashioned after it, can produce
results comparable to having performed a calibration to a set of
gathers (when parameterized correctly).
One of the best ways to ensure the optimum calibration of
seismic data is to perform an inversion (Cambois, 2001). During
the inversion process the seismic reflectivity data is scaled to
match the well log reflectivity, therefore anomalous time-variant
gradients are also scaled appropriately. Furthermore, inter-
preting inversion crossplots may be easier as a result of adding
the time-variant low frequency log trends to the data.
Overlapping data trends present in AVO reflectivity space are
now separated into discrete geologic intervals. This is the benefit
of moving from a differential property (changes of one quantity
relative to another) into a layer property.
Finally, there is much literature devoted to developing more
sophisticated attribute displays derived from AVO crossplot
space. The fluid factor represents the perpendicular distance of
anomalous data points relative to the background trend. More
complex segregation techniques (ex. color scheme manipula-
tions, 3D crossplotting) have produced stack and/or map repre-
sentations of fluids, porosity, and lithology – just to name a few.
While these approaches have merit, the key thing to remember is
that these attributes can be automated and may not always
represent the true nature of what is happening with the data.
Any crossplot derived, or crossplot related, attribute should
always have an associated crossplot displayed alongside of it.
This requirement is as fundamental as evaluating the gathers
that have produced any stack/AVO/inversion related anomaly.
When dealing with these attribute choices remember that some-
times less is more. Why not simply interpret the crossplot space
itself, while simultaneously highlighting the fluid, porosity, and
lithology populations/trends in one pass, rather than dealing
with a myriad of attribute sections which require cross refer-
encing in order to tell the whole story?
Application
An important aspect of any AVO study is to understand the AVO
sensitivities and/or limitations within the local environment. It
has been demonstrated in the discussion above that one would
expect to see noticeable rotations of the background trend within
AVO crossplot space in lower velocity regimes only. An evalua-
tion of several diverse basins around the world was performed
to see how each regional AVO crossplot space behaves, and to
find where crossplot rotations could be present within the AVO
background trend. Figure 5 shows that for the vast majority of
target depths within the studied areas the Vp/Vs ratios were
sufficiently low (2.25 or lower) such that the degree of rotation
present in the AVO fluid angle is subtle. Potential confusion or
non-uniqueness errors that could arise during the AVO analysis
process are restricted to the near surface only in these areas. In
the GOM examples, at depths of ~6000 ft or shallower, the rapid
sedimentation rates associated with younger basins present a
risk for complicated AVO crossplot rotations, as shown in figure
5 (a) and (b). It is important to note that well logs in the shallower
more unconsolidated zones can suffer from bad hole data and
extra care must be taken before incorporating them into an AVO
study. This is apparent in both the Alaska and Qatar Vp/Vs
crossplots, in figure 5c.
Continued on Page 46
December 2008 CSEG RECORDER 45
Focus Article Cont’d
AVO Crossplotting Revisited: A Practitioner’s Perspective
Continued from Page 45

Conclusion
AVO crossplotting techniques and appli-
cations have evolved over the last decade.
Deciding which AVO crossplot template
to apply in a given play requires a petro-
physical understanding of the enviro n-
ment. For instance, when logs are
indicating a well compacted environment
(Vp/Vs ratios of 1.6-2.4) a relatively small
range of fluid angles (background trend
rotations) can be expected in the seismic
data during the course of an AVO investi-
gation. This can allow for more latitude in
crossplot analysis strategies. For example,
larger time windows can be brought into
crossplot space than previously consid-
ered. It is important to understand how
calibrated the seismic data is beforehand
when performing crossplot analysis.
Background trend rotations observed in
the seismic, as a function of time/depth,
are typically not re p resentative of the
local geology. The AVO fluid angle experi-
ences dramatic variations only in
e x t remely low velocity enviro n m e n t s ,
often producing polarity shifts in the AVO
gradient. The calibration process can be
difficult; however, simple and eff e c t i v e
alternatives are available. For most
datasets, sticking to an AVO friendly
p rocessing flow and applying a time-
variant fluid factor correction after AVO
extraction is a practical workaround to a
r i g o rous calibration process. Finally,
although it may be tempting to skip the
AVO crossplot analysis altogether to
perform an inversion (the ultimate form
of calibration) it is important to be
cautious and not trust the inversion
implicitly. Any anomalies identified by an
inversion analysis should always be
confirmed in AVO crossplot space as well
as reviewed on the input gathers them-
selves to rule out other, less geologically
driven, causes. R
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to David D’Amico, Hugh
Geiger, and Brian Russell for helping this
article to evolve through the various
stages of development.
References
Bachrach, R.; Kozlov, E., Ivanova, N.; Landro, M., and
Stavos, A., 2006, Expert Answers, CSEG RECORDER,
October 2006, 9-15.
Cambois, G., 1998, AVO attributes and noise: pitfalls of
crossplotting, EAGE, Abstract 2-14.
Cambois, G., 2000, Can P-wave AVO be quantitative?,
The Leading Edge, Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, 19, 1246-1251.
Cambois, G., 2001, AVO processing: Myths and Reality,
CSEG RECORDER, March 2001, 30-33.
Castagna, J. P., Batzle, M. L., and Eastwood, R. L.,
1985, Relationships between compressional and shear-
wave velocities in clastic silicate rocks, Geophysics,
Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 50, 551–570.
Castagna, J. P., and Swan, H.W., 1997, Principles of
AVO crossplotting, The Leading Edge, Society of
Exploration Geophysicists, 17, 337–342.
Castagna, J. P., and Swan, H.W., and Foster, D. J.,
1998, Framework for AVO gradient and intercept inter-
pretation, Geophysics, Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, 63, 948–956.
Downton, J., and Chaveste, A., 2004, Calibrated Three-
term AVO to Estimate Density and Water Saturation,
2004 CSEG National Convention, Technical Abstracts.
Foster, D. J., Keys, R.G., and Schmitt, D. P., 1997,
Detecting subsurface hydrocarbons with elastic wavefields,
in Chavent, G., Papanicolaou, G., Sacks, P., and Symes,
W., Eds., Inverse problems in wave propagation:
Springer-Verlag.
Gardner, G.H. F., Gardner, L.W., and Gregory, A. R.,
1974, Formation velocity and density – The diagnostic
basics for stratigraphic traps, Geophysics, Society of
Exploration Geophysicists, 39, 770–780.
Gidlow, P. M., and Smith, G. C., 2003, The fluid factor
angle, 65th Annual Conference and Exhibition, EAGE,
Extended Abstracts, E27.
Gidlow, P.M., Smith, G.C., and Vail, P.J., 1992,
Hydrocarbon detection using fluid factor traces: A case
history, SEG/EAEG Summer Workshop, 78-79.
Han, D-H., Nur, A., and Morgan, D.,1986, Effects of
porosity and clay content on wave velocities in sandstones,
Geophysics, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 51,
2093-2107.
Jin, S., Cambois, G., and Vuillermoz, C., 2000, Shear-
wave velocity and density estimation from PS-wave AVO
analysis: Application to an OBS dataset from the
North Sea, Geophysics, Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, 65, 1446-1454.
Ramos, A., 1998, AVO processing calibration, The
Leading Edge, Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
8, 1075-155.
Ross, C. P., 2000, Effective AVO crossplot modeling: A
tutorial, Geophysics, Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, 65, 700-711.
R u t h e r f o rd, S. R., and Williams, R. H., 1989,
Amplitude-versus-offset variations in gas sands,
Geophysics, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 54,
680-688.
Sams, M., 1998, Yet another perspective on AVO cross-
plotting, The Leading Edge, Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, 17, 911–917.
Shuey, R.T., 1985, A simplification of Zoeppritz equations,
Geophysics, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 50,
609–614.
Simm, R., White, R., and Uden, R., 2000, The anatomy
of AVO cro s s p l o t , The Leading Edge, Society of
Exploration Geophysicists, 19, 150-155.
Smith, G., and Gidlow, P. M., 1987, Weighted stacking
for rock property estimation and detection of gas,
Geophysical Prospecting, EAGE, 35, 993–1014.
Smith, T., Sondergeld, C., 2001, Examination of AVO
responses in the eastern deepwater Gulf of Mexico,
Geophysics, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 66,
1864-1876.
Thomsen L., SEG DISC 2002 manual.

Heath Pelletier received a Bachelor degree in physics from the

University of Alberta and is currently working as an
Explorationist (geophysics) in the Peace River Arch at Talisman
Energy. Heath joined Talisman in 2006 and prior to joining an
asset team he was in the technical specialist group where he was
responsible for managing projects involving AVO/AVAZ, inver-
sion, LMR, modeling, processing QC, and anything else seismic
attribute related. Heath previously worked at Boyd PetroSearch
(2005-2006), Veritas (2001-2005), Integra/Scott Pickford (1999-2001) and Enertec
(1997-1999). A self described wannabe petrophysicist, Heath has focused on the
integration of petrophysical templates with seismically derived attributes in a wide
variety of geologic basins, including: WCSB, East Coast Canada, Western US, Gulf
of Mexico, offshore Brazil, offshore Australia, offshore Papua New Guinea, Alaska
(North Slope), Mackenzie Delta, and Qatar. Heath is currently a member of CSEG,
CSPG, SEG, and CWLS.

46 CSEG RECORDER December 2008