Basic AVO Theory

Introduction
AVO is the comparison of seismic amplitude changes compared to the offset of the
traces from the source (i.e., the shotpoint). Hence Amplitude Versus Offset (AVO). It
was first proposed by Bill Ostrander, 1984. It is commonly used to estimate the
P-wave and S-wave velocities. AVO allows us to determine S-wave response without
actually using an S-wave recorder, by accounting for the differences between the
P-wave and S-wave over the offset. See figure 1 below for a definition of AVO terms.

Figure 1

1
When a P-wave reaches a reflector, some of its energy is reflected back as a P-wave
and some is transmitted as a P-wave. In addition, some is converted to S-wave
energy, forming two shear waves, one which is transmitted through and one which is
reflected.

2
This S-wave reflection travels at a different speed than the P-wave reflection,
particularly through gas-bearing rock. This becomes the source for the data used in
AVO.
Note that converted waves may have a lower frequency bandwidth and that both
P-waves and S-waves can be converted to each other at interfaces.

P-wave and S-Wave Differences

a. The S-wave velocities are slower than P-wave velocities for the same geology.
b. As fluids and gasses have shear moduli of 0, S-waves are not affected by the high
compressibility of gas or fluid in pores, unlike P-waves.
Clean sand is much more sensitive to gas saturation than shaly sand.
As shallow, less-consolidated rocks have significantly lower S-wave velocities, the
Vp/Vs ratio will increase for shallower rocks and decrease for deeper, more
consolidated rocks. As the Vp/Vs ratio increases, the amplitude increases more with
offset than for more consolidated rock. See Castagna and Swan, 1997. This ratio
can be a good indicator of the lithology type.
What this means is that P-waves are slowed down in porous rock, while the S-waves
are not affected by the porosity. Since the S-waves are already slower, if the P-waves
are slowed, they may coincide with S-waves, resulting in an increase in return signal
amplitude (a "bright spot") that has nothing to do with the actual reflectivity of the
reflectors.
c. P-waves are not affected by polarization but S-waves are. S-waves therefore can
only be recorded if the recorder matches their polarity. Also, S-waves will not
propagate through a polarized medium (such as aligned fractures). Instead, an
3
S-wave will be split into complex modes, one with particle motion aligned to the
polarized trend and the other perpendicular to that trend. This second portion is the
slowest of the two new waves.

Gradient Method
A common method is to plot the amplitude of the signal for a reflector (i.e., horizon)
against the offset of the trace (or the calculated angle that the corresponding sound
wave would make when it met the reflector. This plot yields the "Intercept", where the
trend of the amplitude measurements meets the zero-offset line (so it would be
equivalent to a geophone directly next to the source, and a 90° angle to the reflector).
It also yields the "Gradient", which is the slope of the curve made by the plot points.
Figure 2

For more on this approach, see AVO Gradient Analysis Theory.

Analysis
The AVO program allows the user to perform three separate types of AVO analysis:
AVO reconnaissance analysis: extracting AVO attributes and cross plotting and
mapping them. This section of the Theory covers this process.
Forward AVO modeling: testing what effects different rock properties and pore fluids
would have by creating synthetics (see Introduction to AVO Modeling).
AVO inversion (through the STRATA program).

In this section, we consider all three of these analysis options, and the theory behind
the calculations. Fundamental to all of this analysis are two input data streams:
pre-stack seismic data and rock parameter measurements. Let us start by
considering the basic rock physics that is so crucial to an understanding of seismic
lithology and AVO.
You can enter rock parameter measurements into AVO by reading a well log
4
database through GeoView or the Database menu or by importing well log files
through the AVO Data Manager. Ideally, these are digitized files from logs recorded
in a well bore. However, we can create any one (or all) of the logs from scratch or
derived from one of the other logs via a transform relationship.
The AVO program allows you to read in up to nine logs, seven of which are specified
by the program, and two of which you can define and can include any log curves not
defined by the previous seven.
The seven defined curves are:
P-wave sonic
Density
S-wave sonic
Poisson's ratio
Resistivity
Gamma Ray
SP

Of these seven curves, the first four are mandatory since they are used in the
Zoeppritz calculations, whereas the last three curves have measurements that may
be used either to define lithologic zones or in the transform relationships.
In Basic Rock Physics, we will consider each of these measurements in more detail.

The Basic AVO Problem

The basic problem in AVO analysis is differentiating between the AVO responses of
wet and gas-bearing reservoirs. In the example below, the P-wave velocity (VP),
S-wave velocity (VS), and density (ρ) for each layer are shown in each figure. We will
assume that the far angle of incidence is small enough (i.e. approximately 30°) that
we can ignore the third term in the Aki-Richards equation and write the reflectivity as
a function of angle of incidence θ as:
R(θ )= A + B sin2θ, where A is the AVO intercept, and B is the AVO gradient.

5
 Figure 3
Using the values for VP, VS, and density ρ shown in Figure 1, we can now work out
the values for the AVO intercept and gradient for the wet and gas sands. For the wet
sand, the VP/VS ratio in both the sand and shale layer is equal to 2. As shown in
Zoeppritz Derivations, Wiggins Equation, this leads to the simplification that B = -A for
both the top and base of the layer.
Using the parameters shown in the above figure gives: ATOP_WET = BBASE_WET = +0.1
and ABASE_WET =B TOP_WET = -0.1.
For the gas sand, the VP/VS ratio is equal to 1.65, and the intercept does not simplify
as it did the wet sand.
However, the calculation is still straightforward, and leads to ATOP_GAS = BTOP_GAS = -0.1
and ABASE_GAS = BBASE_GAS = +0.1. Note that, for the gas case, A=B for both the top and
base of the layer.
The AVO curves for the wet and gas cases are shown in figure 4, for an angular
aperture of 0º to 30º. It is observed that the absolute values of the gas sand curves
show an increase in amplitude, whereas the absolute values of the wet sand curves
show a decrease in amplitude. These values do fall within a reasonable petrophysical
range for class 3 anomalies.

6
 Figure 4
After scaling each of the values of A and B by a factor of 10 (to give values of +1
and -1) they have been put on an A-B cross plot, as shown in Figure 5. In our
example, the wet points (shown as solid blue circles) establish the wet sand-shale
trend, and the top and base gas (shown as solid red circles) plot in the other two
quadrants of the A-B cross plot. This is a typical class 3 AVO anomaly (Rutherford
and Williams, 1989), caused by gas saturation reducing the sand impedance and the
Vp/Vs ratio of the sand encased in the shale.

Figure 5

7
See Cross Plotting AVO Attributes Theory for more on these cross plots.
For the various AVO classes, see AVO Classes. See the next page, Basic Rock
Physics for how lithology affects velocity.