PRACTICAL AVO

Part 6 – Acquisition & Processing

Concerns in AVO

Theory 6-1
 Introduction
In this section, we will be looking at practical concerns in AVO,
AVO
specifically:

Seismic acquisition considerations:

Source effects
Receiver effects
Array attenuation

Seismic processing considerations:

Event tuning and NMO
Noise elimination
Amplitude recovery
Wavelet effects

Theory 6-2
 AVO Acquisition Considerations
Controlled source preferred (i.e.
Source Vibroseis on land, air gun in marine)

Point source preferred, or as short

Source Array
as possible. Compute response.
Low resonant frequency, good coupling
Receivers on land. Avoid leakage offshore.

As short as possible, which is a

Receiver Array problem in very noisy areas.

Source / Group Consider the stack array concept to

Intervals avoid aliasing.

Close enough to estimate R0, but far

Near Offset
enough to avoid source noise.
Far enough for good AVO response,
Theory 6-3
Far Offset but not beyond critical distance.
 Array Attenuation

Notice that if a single frequency noise wavefront of wavelength  and

velocity V is recorded by a single geophone, the result is noise on seismic
shot gather of frequency f = 1/T = V / .
Theory 6-4
To remove this single frequency noise wavefront of wavelength  , all
we need to do is put out two geophones spaced d =  / 2 apart, as
shown above.
Theory 6-5
 d

In actual fact, surface noise is generally dispersed, so we always need

more than two geophones to attenuate the noise. The figure above
shows a wavefront of velocity V moving across a 5 geophone array with
angle . Theory 6-6
 The formula for calculating array attenuation is as
follows, where the use of t indicates that the
attenuation could be done in the processing center, after acquisition:

1 sin( Np )
R( p ) 
N sin( p )

d f
where: p   kd  d  ft
 V

N  number of array elements

Theory 6-7
 Here is the array response for the 5 element array, both
normalized and with true values. The noise is attenuated
in the central part of the response.

Array Response for N = 5

1.000
0.800
0.600
Response

0.400
0.200
0.000
-0.2000.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

-0.400
p
Array Values Normalized Values Theory 6-8
 Here is the array response for a 21 element array, this time
only normalized. Note the better attenuation.

Normalized Array Response for N = 21

1.000

0.800
Response

0.600

0.400

0.200

0.000
0.000 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000
p

Theory 6-9
 Computing Attenuation
of NMO Curve
Unfortunately, we are not only attenuating noise with our arrays, but also
signal. We can work out the apparent velocity at a particular offset and
time in the following way:
dX tV 2
tau-p analysis
Vapp  
Offset/Depth of second event dt X
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0.000
where:
t0 -0.500 X  V 2 t 2  V 2 t 02
X
t -1.000
- from NMO eq.
Time (sec)

-1.500
Vapp
-2.000 Thus, the seismic wavefront at
-2.500
long offsets can have the same
apparent velocity as the surface
-3.000 noise shown earlier, and the
-3.500 array will have the same effects
on it.
Theory 6-10
 Model Example

Here is an example of
modeling array
attenuation on the
Ostrander model,
where (a) shows the
model synthetic with a
150 ft group interval
and no array
attenuation, and (b)
shows the same
synthetic with a 7
geophone array
spread over 150 ft.

Theory 6-11
(a) (b)
Tuning Effects

Here is the original concept

of tuning, as shown in the
classic paper by Widess
(How thin is a thin bed?,
Geophysics, v 47, p 1035,
1982).

Note that the effect of

tuning is to produce an
amplitude, frequency, and
phase change.

Theory 6-12
Here is the classic “tuning
thickness”
thickness chart for the
previous example.

Notice the thin bed limit,

where the amplitude reaches
a maximum, and the time
thickness stops changing.
The thin bed limit shown here
is equal to ½ the period of the
Ricker wavelet shown in the
top part of the figure.

Theory 6-13
 NMO Tuning
Here is the effect of
Offset/Depth of second event NMO tuning,
tuning for a
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
constant velocity earth.
0.000

-0.500
Notice that it is plotted
against offset
-1.000 normalized by depth.
Time (sec)

-1.500 The key thing to note is

that there is now
-2.000 differential tuning as a
function of offset,
-2.500
which compounds the
-3.000
zero-offset tuning
effect.
-3.500

Theory 6-14
When we combine the effects
of zero offset tuning and NMO
tuning at the far offsets, the
effect is usually to move down
the tuning thickness chart, as
shown to the right, thus
decreasing the measured
amplitude. Note that if we
started above tuning, the effect
would be reversed.

Zero offset tuning

Far offset tuning

Theory 6-15
Here is the effect of tuning
for a 30 ms thick modeled
sand, using a 25 Hz Ricker
wavelet. The solid line is
the true AVO response and
the squares are picks from
the synthetic seismic
response.

Since the Ricker wavelet

has a dominant period of
40 ms, the thin bed limit is
20 ms, so the bed
thickness is above tuning
and the amplitude of the
synthetic increases.
Theory 6-16
Here is the effect of tuning
for a 10 ms thick modeled
sand, using a 25 Hz Ricker
wavelet. The solid line is
the true AVO response and
the squares are picks from
the synthetic seismic
response.

Since the Ricker wavelet

has a dominant period of
40 ms, the thin bed limit is
20 ms, so the bed
thickness is below tuning
and the amplitude of the
synthetic decreases.
Theory 6-17
 A Flowchart for AVO Processing
Raw Shot
Gathers

Refraction Land or transition data.

Statics

Amplitude Surface consistent.

Recovery

Noise F-X for random noise

Attenuation Parabolic Radon for multiples
F-K for Linear Noise.
Noise
Residual Statics
DMO and NMO
(optional)
Deconvolution /
Phase Correction

AVO Theory 6-18

Analysis
 Processing for AVO
(1) Amplitude Recovery
Can be solved using statistical (surface consistent) or analytical
(gain curve) methods. See papers by Gary Yu (Offset-amplitude
variation and controlled-amplitude processing, Geophysics, 1985, Vol. 50, #12),
and Bjorn Ursin (Offset-dependent geometrical spreading in a layered
medium, Geophysics, 1990, Vol. 55,#4)

(2) Statics / NMO

Traditionally, we apply NMO followed perhaps by a residual NMO
(RNMO)
RNMO step. Also, consider statically aligning the zone of interest
instead of applying a dynamic correction, to avoid NMO stretch.
stretch

(3) Noise Attenuation

This is an important step since noise amplitudes can be confused
with true amplitudes. Three different schemes are recommended:
- Common offset stacking for random noise attenuation.
- F-K filtering for linear noise attenuation.
- Parabolic Radon filtering for multiple attenuation. Theory 6-19
(4) DMO / Pre-stack migration
This is recommended only in structurally complex areas, as long as
an amplitude-preserving algorithm is used (see Black et al, True-
amplitude imaging and dip moveout, Geophysics, 1993, Vol. 58, #1 )

(5) Deconvolution / Phase correction

It is important to balance the phase using a surface consistent
approach. Increasing the frequency content can be done as long as
the noise is not blown up.

Theory 6-20
Amplitude Recovery
Yu (1985) considered the
analysis of two gas bright
spots in the Gulf of Mexico,
Mexico
as shown on the left at
locations B and C. He used
the two wet sands at A and
D for calibration.

Theory 6-21
Yu (1985)
The next slide shows a comparison between an incorrect amplitude
recovery on the left and a correct amplitude recovery on the right. Key
steps in the proper flow are as follows:

Suppress coherent noise

Restore amplitude loss with offset compensation

Surface consistent amplitude balancing

Partial trace sum

Surface consistent deconvolution

Proper NMO application

Theory 6-22
The left slide shows an incorrect amplitude recovery
scheme, and the right slide show a correct amplitude
recovery scheme, at locations C and B, the gas sands.

Theory 6-23
Yu (1985)
 Here is a comparison of the wet sand (D and A) and the
gas sand (B and C) AVO curves,
curves where the figure on the
left shows all the curves and the one on the right is the averaged curves
with AVO modeling superimposed.

Theory 6-24
Yu (1985)
 Noise Attenuation

The figure on the left shows a noise corrupted, NMO corrected CDP
gather, which also has a static problem. The amplitudes are all identical
on the event. The figure on the right is a 7 trace mix of the left hand
figure.

Notice that the noise has been attenuated, but the statics have been
mixed in, and the amplitudes are changed incorrectly.
Theory 6-25
Note that the Inverse Velocity Stack (equivalent to the
parabolic Radon transform)
transform attenuates the multiples at all
offsets.

Theory 6-26

Dan Hampson (1986)

 Example of Using Wrong DMO

(a) NMO only (b) Non-amplitude (c) True (d) (c) - (b) Theory 6-27
preserving DMO amplitude DMO Black et al (1993)
 Velocity effects of Weak Anisotropy

Tsvankin and Thomsen (“Nonhyperbolic reflection moveout in

anisotropic media”, Geophysics, August, 1994) applied Thomsen’s
theory of weak anisotropy to reflection moveout for both P and SV
waves in VTI media. Their equation for P-waves is as follows:

A4 x 4 where:
t X2  t02  A2 x 2  1  2
 x 
2
A2  2
,
1    V0
 V0 t0  2(    )
A4   2 4 .
t 0 V0
 ,   Thomsen's
parameters. Theory 6-28
 NMO Comparison (to 45o)

NMO Curves NMO/TIV Difference

Offset
0 500 1000 1500 2000
-0.800 60
-0.850 50
-0.900 40
-0.950 30

Time (msec)
Time (sec)

-1.000 20
-1.050 10
-1.100 0
-1.150 -10 0 500 1000 1500 2000
-1.200 -20
-1.250
-30
-1.300
Offset (m) ( Far = 45 degrees)
NMO NMO/TIV
NMO/TIV - NMO

The effects of applying Dix NMO versus non-hyperbolic NMO in a

VTI material. The difference is shown on the right.

Theory 6-29
 A Gulf of Mexico Case Study

As well as the effect of anisotropy on NMO, there are also higher

order NMO terms in a layered earth even if the events are not
anisotropic.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to tell the two effects apart.
Regardless of the cause, we can do a fourth order (third term) fit to
our data and apply the correction.
The case study in the next few slides, from a paper by Chris Ross in
the February, 1997 issue of First Break, shows an example from
the Gulf of Mexico.

Theory 6-30
The effects of applying Dix NMO versus C.P. Ross, 1997
Non-hyperbolic NMO. Theory 6-31
Top figure shows Dix NMO on real gathers, and bottom
figure shows non-hyperbolic NMO on real gathers. Theory 6-32

C.P. Ross, 1997

 Conclusions
This talk gave an overview of practical concerns in AVO analysis.
analysis

We have considered both the effects of acquisition and of processing.

Key concerns are array attenuation, proper amplitude balancing, noise

attenuation, and correct DMO and NMO application.

Theory 6-33