Case study: The importance of gas leakage in interpreting amplitude‐versus‐offset (AVO) analysis

Geophysics ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 56 (11) ◽  
pp. 1886-1895 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. K. Sengupta ◽  
C. A. Rendleman
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Energy ◽  
Gas Content ◽  
Bright Spot ◽  
Seismic Section ◽  
Gas Leakage ◽  
Hydrocarbon Reservoir ◽  
Reflection Amplitude ◽  
Amplitude Versus Offset ◽  
Amplitude Anomaly ◽  
Amplitude Versus

The amplitude‐versus‐offset (AVO) method has been shown to indicate the presence of gas sands if the reflection amplitude from the seal/reservoir‐sand interface, measured in a common midpoint (CMP) gather, increases rapidly with increasing shot‐to‐geophone distance (or offset). However, in a few instances, it has been observed that the seismic reflection amplitude does not increase with offset and may even decrease if there is widespread gas leakage above the hydrocarbon reservoir causing partial gas saturation in the overburden sediments. Gas‐charged sediments are known to attenuate seismic energy. Depending on the size and shape of this gas leakage zone, there may be higher attenuation of seismic amplitudes with increasing offset. We present one such case that involves a prominent “bright‐spot” amplitude anomaly corresponding to a 56‐ft‐thick (17 m‐thick) gas sand in the Gulf of Mexico slope. The reflection amplitude for the sand top was found to decrease with increasing offset. There is also evidence of gas leakage into the sediments above the reservoir. Color amplitude displays of the seismic section show a low‐amplitude diffused zone above the bright‐spot amplitude anomaly, which suggests gas leakage. Further evidence of gas leakage can be inferred from the significant gas content (including heavier hydrocarbons) observed in the mud log. Gas leakage is also confirmed by gather modeling in which the effects of leakage‐caused attenuation are accounted for in matching the variation of seismic amplitude with offset.

Prestack amplitude analysis methodology and application to seismic bright spots in the Po Valley, Italy

Geophysics ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfredo Mazzotti
Keyword(s):  
Amplitude Analysis ◽  
Borehole Data ◽  
Seismic Section ◽  
Po Valley ◽  
Gravel Layer ◽  
Amplitude Versus Offset ◽  
Bright Spots ◽  
Head Waves ◽  
Amplitude Anomaly ◽  
Zero Offset

The amplitude‐versus‐offset (AVO) characteristics of three separate bright spots on the same seismic section are analyzed. One of the bright spots results from a water‐bearing gravel layer, and the others correspond to gas‐saturated sandy beds. The amplitude analysis includes reflections from the entire range of incidence angles available from the survey; for the shallower amplitude anomaly, these angles reached values up to 66°. Extension of the analysis to longer offsets is aimed at detecting possible critical‐angle phenomena in order to reduce the uncertainty when the zero‐offset reflection’s polarity is unknown. The reflection from the gravel layer has this property. Its amplitude exhibits an initial decrease followed by a sudden rise in the AVO trend due to critical reflection and head waves. The gas‐related anomalies have a much different AVO characteristic, one in which the amplitude increases with offset distance. Two seismic events located above the bright spots were also investigated to further verify the validity of the seismic amplitude processing. The AVO trends of the three bright spots and of the two reference levels were compared with analogous trends of synthetic seismograms that were computed from models derived from borehole data.

Effects of attenuation and anisotropy on reflection amplitude versus offset

Geophysics ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 63 (5) ◽  
pp. 1652-1658 ◽  
Author(s):  
José M. Carcione ◽  
Hans B. Helle ◽  
Tong Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Symmetry Axis ◽  
Transversely Isotropic ◽  
Critical Distance ◽  
Reflection Coefficients ◽  
Amplitude Variation With Offset ◽  
Reflection Amplitude ◽  
Amplitude Versus Offset ◽  
Viscoelastic Wave ◽  
Lossy Media ◽  
Amplitude Versus

To investigate the effects that attenuation and anisotropy have on reflection coefficients, we consider a homogeneous and viscoelastic wave incident on an interface between two transversely isotropic and lossy media with the symmetry axis perpendicular to the interface. Analysis of P P and P S reflection coefficients shows that anisotropy should be taken into account in amplitude variation with offset (AVO) studies involving shales. Different anisotropic characteristics may reverse the reflection trend and substantially influence the position of the critical angle versus offset. The analysis of a shale‐chalk interface indicates that when the critical distance is close to the near offsets, the AVO response is substantially affected by the presence of dissipation. In a second example, we compute reflection coefficients and synthetic seismograms for a limestone/black shale interface with different rheological properties of the underlying shale. This case shows reversal of the reflection trend with increasing offset and compensation between the anisotropic and anelastic effects.

Incomplete AVO near salt structures

Geophysics ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 543-553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher P. Ross
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Profiles ◽  
Spectral Modeling ◽  
Signal Degradation ◽  
Amplitude Versus Offset ◽  
Bright Spots ◽  
Close Proximity ◽  
Pseudo Spectral ◽  
Amplitude Versus ◽  
Structure Class ◽  
Made In

Amplitude versus offset (AVO) measurements for deep hydrocarbon‐bearing sands can be compromised when made in close proximity to a shallow salt piercement structure. Anomalous responses are observed, particularly on low acoustic impedance bright spots. CMP data from key seismic profiles traversing the bright spots do not show the expected Class 3 offset responses. On these CMPs, significant decrease of far trace energy is observed. CMP data from other seismic profiles off‐structure do exhibit the Class 3 offset responses, implying that structural complications may be interfering with the offset response. A synthetic AVO gather was generated using well log data, which supports the off‐structure Class 3 responses, further reinforcing the concept of structurally‐biased AVO responses. Acoustic, pseudo‐spectral modeling of the structure substantiates the misleading AVO response. Pseudo‐spectral modeling results suggest that signal degradation observed on the far offsets is caused by wavefield refraction—a shadow zone, where the known hydrocarbon‐bearing sands are not completely illuminated. Such shadow zones obscure the correct AVO response, which may have bearing on exploration and development.

scholarly journals Crosswell Seismic Amplitude-Versus-Offset for Detailed Imaging of Facies and Fluid Distribution within Carbonate Oil Reservoirs

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wayne Pennington ◽  
Mohamed Ibrahim ◽  
Roger Turpening ◽  
Sean Trisch ◽  
Josh Richardson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Oil Reservoirs ◽  
Fluid Distribution ◽  
Seismic Amplitude ◽  
Amplitude Versus Offset ◽  
Detailed Imaging ◽  
Amplitude Versus

scholarly journals QVOA Techniques for Estimation of Fracture Directions

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Vladimir Sabinin
Keyword(s):  
Quality Factor ◽  
Symmetry Axis ◽  
Factor Versus ◽  
Synthetic Data ◽  
Computational Techniques ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Amplitude Versus Offset ◽  
Target Layer ◽  
Analysis Quality ◽  
Amplitude Versus

Some new computational techniques are suggested for estimating symmetry axis azimuth of fractures in the viscoelastic anisotropic target layer in the framework of QVOA analysis (Quality factor Versus Offset and Azimuth). The different QVOA techniques are compared using synthetic viscoelastic surface reflected data with and without noise. I calculated errors for these techniques which depend on different sets of azimuths and intervals of offsets. Superiority of the high-order “enhanced general” and “cubic” techniques is shown. The high-quality QVOA techniques are compared with one of the high-quality AVOA techniques (Amplitude Versus Offset and Azimuth) in the synthetic data with noise and attenuation. Results are comparable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document