Lambda-Mu-Rho (LMR©)
Exercise 5-1
©
PanCanadian Petroleum
Intercept / Gradient Analysis
Gathers
AVO Analysis
Intercept Gradient
Crossplot
We have seen extensively how the Intercept and Gradient can be
combined in various ways and displayed, or cross-plotted and
interpreted. Exercise 5-2
Extracting RP and RS
Recall that we have also discussed how to extract RP and RS attributes.
A summary follows:
Wiggens has shown that if VP/VS = 2, it is trivially easy to extract an
estimate of zero offset S-wave reflectivity, RS. A more rigorous
approach, utilizing the ARCO mudrock line,
line was given by Fatti et al
(Geophysics, Sept. 1994) and is used in our AVO program.
As a related idea, Shuey has shown that the Aki-Richards equation can
be expressed using Poisson’s ratio (), density, and P-wave velocity. If
we assume that AVG = 1/3 (same as VP/VS = 2), intercept and gradient can
be combined to give .
Exercise 5-3
Inverting RP and RS
Once we have estimates of RP and RS from the AVO program, we can
then proceed to STRATA to invert both attributes.
Inverting RP will give acoustic impedance ZP = VP, and inverting RS will
give S-wave impedance ZS = VS. This is shown in the next slide.
These inverted sections can be displayed or cross-plotted.
Note that in the new versions of our software, these steps can be done
while staying in the same project, meaning that the resulting volumes
are all accessible from the same database.
Exercise 5-4
RP/RS Inversion
Gathers
AVO Analysis
RP Estimate RS Estimate
Invert to ZP Invert to ZS
Crossplot Exercise 5-5
The LMR© Approach
Goodway et al (SEG Expanded Abstracts, 1997) proposed a new approach
to AVO inversion based on the Lamé parameters and , and density
, or Lambda-Mu-Rho (LMR©). The theory is as follows:
2
VP and VS
therefore : Z ( VS )
2
S
2
and : ZP2 ( VP )2 ( 2 )
so : ZP2 2 ZS2
Exercise 5-6
©
PanCanadian Petroleum
Interpreting Lambda-Rho & Mu-Rho
The original paper by Goodway et al, al gives the following physical
interpretation of the lambda () and mu () attributes: The term,
or incompressibility, is sensitive to pore fluid, whereas the term,
or rigidity, is sensitive to the rock matrix.
As we saw in the theory, it is impossible to de-couple the effects of
density from and when extracting this information from
seismic data.
It is therefore most beneficial to cross-plot vs to minimize
the effects of density.
Exercise 5-7
Extracting Lambda-Rho & Mu-Rho
Once we have estimates of ZP and ZS from the AVO and STRATA
programs, we can then use the Trace Maths option (in either AVO or
STRATA)
STRATA to produce our lambda-rho and mu-rho volumes.
These volumes can be displayed and cross-plotted.
The flowchart for this is shown in the next slide.
The two slides following the flowchart show cross-plots of ZP vs ZS
and vs for a Biot-Gassmann analysis of a gas sand. Note the
vertical separation for the LMR approach.
approach
We will then show a case study using AVO and STRATA.
STRATA
Exercise 5-8
LMR Analysis
Gathers
AVO Analysis
RP Estimate RS Estimate
Invert to ZP Invert to ZS
Transform to and
Cross-plot Exercise 5-9
Zp vs Zs for Biot-Gassmann Analysis
2650
2600
2550
Zs
2500
2450
2400
3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
Zp
Wet Sand Gas Sands - 90% to 0% Sw
Exercise 5-10
Lambda-mu-rho for Biot-Gassmann
7.25
6.75
Mu-rho
6.25
5.75
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
Lambda-rho
Wet Sand Gas Sand - 90% to 0% Sw
Exercise 5-11
Exercise 5-12
Exercise 5-13
Sensitivity of Rock Properties (RP) to gas
Lambda-Rho and Lambda/Mu
are the most sensitive Rock
Properties to fluid changes
SENS = (RP_wet – RP)/RP_wet
Exercise 5-14
Anomaly enhancement
2
2 2
2 2 ( ) ( ) 2 2
2 2 2 ( ) ( ) 2
2 2 2 2
2 ( ) ( ) 2
2 ( ) ( ) 2
Exercise 5-15
4000
3500
s Velocity (ft/s)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
P Velocity (ft/s)
Exercise 5-16
P_imp vs S_imp
S Impedance (gr/cc m/sec)
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
5000 7000 9000 11000 13000 15000 17000
P Impedance (gr/cc m/sec)
Exercise 5-17
120000
100000
80000
Mu-Rho
60000
.
40000
20000
0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
Lambda-Rho (Thousands)
Exercise 5-18
Cards and shale (left) have low rigidity because they are easy to slide
over each other.
Bricks and limestone (center) have high rigidity because they are difficult
to slide over each other.
They are also incompressible and so have a high Lame’s modulus.
A sponge and beach sand (right) have
low incompressibility and so they have low Lame’s modulus.
Exercise 5-19
Cross Plot of Acoustic Impedance vs Shear Impedance
Exercise 5-20
Mu ~ pure rigidity
Mu - Rho
Lambda ~ pure
Exercise 5-21
incompressibility Lambda - Rho
Elastic Impedance
Exercise 5-22
Seismic Lithology Estimation
Gathers Stack
Inversion
Estimate
Z= VP
Traditional methods of seismic lithology estimation involve stack
followed by inversion. This allows for only the estimation of
acoustic impedance, which is not sufficient for inferring fluid
content.
Exercise 5-23
Seismic Lithology Estimation
Gathers Stack
AVO Analysis Inversion
Attribute 1 Attribute 2 Estimate
Z= VP
Estimate VP, VS, and
The AVO method allows us to use multiple attributes to simultaneously
estimate VP, VS, and , thus inferring fluid and/or lithology.
Exercise 5-24
Range Limited Stacking
Gathers
AVO Analysis
Near Stack Far Stack
Above, we see a simple flowchart for range-limited stacking. Range-
limited stacking, using constant offsets or constant angles, is very
robust. But how do we interpret the results?
Exercise 5-25
Range Limited Stacking Over
Gas Sand
Here are the (a) near
angle (0o-15o) and (b) far
(a) angle (15o-30o) stacks
from the Colony
seismic dataset. Notice
that the amplitude of
the “bright-spot” event
at about 630 ms is
stronger on the far-
angle stack than it is on
the near-angle stack.
(b) As we saw earlier, this
is a gas-sand induced
“bright-spot”.
Exercise 5-26
Cross-plotting Angle Range Stacks
Here is a
crossplot of the
near and far
offset, with
several high
amplitude zones
highlighted.
Exercise 5-27
Top GAS
Base GAS
Coal
Here are the highlighted zones from the crossplot shown back
on the seismic section. Note that the gas sand zone has been
well delineated. Exercise 5-28
Angle Range Stacks
(a) (b)
The above plot shows the (a) near-angle stack (0-15o), and (b) far- angle
stack (15-30o) over a 3D channel sand. To enhance the amplitude display,
the amplitude envelope has been averaged over a 10 ms window and the
Z-score transform has been applied. Again, note the excellent delineation
of the anomaly. Exercise 5-29
GXT 3D preSDM showing AVO anomalies over producing fields
Near stack (0º-25º) Far stack (25º-50º)
Average absolute amplitude Top Balder +50 - +200 Exercise 5-30
GXT 3D preSDM showing AVO anomalies over producing fields
Near stack Far stack
Exercise 5-31
GXT 3D preSDM showing AVO anomalies over producing fields
Exercise 5-32
Near stack
GXT 3D preSDM showing AVO anomalies over producing fields
Exercise 5-33
Far stack
From Range Limited Stacking to
Elastic Impedance
Range-limited stacking, using constant offsets or constant angles, is
very robust, and avoids misaligned event problems. But what does it
mean?
Patrick Connolly, from BP, came up with a novel approach to the
interpretation of range limited stacks, called Elastic Impedance.
Elastic Impedance is based on the Aki-Richards equation, and the next
few slides will develop the concept.
Exercise 5-34
Elastic Impedance Theory
Recall that the Aki-Richards Equation can be written:
R A B sin 2 C sin 2 tan 2
2 2
1 VP 1 VP VS VS VS
where : A ,
B 4 2
2 VP 2 VP VP VS VP
1 VP
and : C .
2 VP
Connolly (1999) proposed that, analogously to acoustic impedance,
we could define elastic impedance (EI)
EI as:
1 EI 1
R ln EI
2 EI 2 Exercise 5-35
2
V
If we let K S and note that sin 2 tan 2 tan 2 sin 2 ,
VP
we can re-arrange the Aki-Richards equation to get:
1 VP VS
lnEI
2 VP
1 tan
2
VS
2
8 K sin
1 4 K sin
2
If we let K be a constant, we can write:
lnEI ln VP 2
S
1 tan ln V 8 k sin 2
ln 1 4 k sin
2
ln V 1 4 k sin
(1 tan 2 ) 8 k sin 2 2
P VS
Exercise 5-36
If we then integrate and exponentiate, we get the following
form for EI:
EI
( 1 tan 2 ) ( 8 K sin 2 ) ( 1 K sin 2 )
EI ( ) V P V S
VS2
where K 2
VP
Note that if = 0o, EI reduces to Acoustic Impedance (AI),
AI where:
EI 0 AI VP
Exercise 5-37
The preceding equation used all three terms in the Aki-
Richards equation.
equation For angles greater than 300, this
equation does not give a straight line fit. For a higher angle (larger
offsets), we use only the first two terms, which leads to:
(1 sin 2 ) ( 8 K sin 2 ) (1 K sin 2 )
EI ( ) V P V S
2
VS
where K
VP
Again note that where = 0o, we get:
EI 0 AI VP
Exercise 5-38
Elastic Impedance – Effect of
Oil Saturation
The transformation of an AI log from 0° to 30° results in a generally
similar log but with lower absolute values. The apparent acoustic
impedance decreases with an increase in angle. The percentage
decrease is greater for an oil sand than for shale.
Connolly 1999
Exercise 5-39
Elastic Impedance – Data Example
The following figure, from Connolly (1999) shows the computed
curves for AI and EI at 30 degrees:
Exercise 5-40
The following figure, also from Connolly (1999) shows
that when we scale the curves shown on the previous
slide, we get a better separation for the oil sands using EI over AI:
Exercise 5-41
EI Inversion Steps
Gathers
AVO Analysis
Near angle Far angle
stack at 1 stack at 2
Invert to EI(1) Invert to EI(2)
Exercise 5-42
Angle Stack at 15 degree
Exercise 5-43
Angle Stack at 20 degree
Exercise 5-44
Angle Stack at 24 degree
Exercise 5-45
Elastic Impedance at 15 degree
Exercise 5-46
Elastic Impedance of 20 degree
Exercise 5-47
Elastic Impedance of 24 degree
Exercise 5-48
Simultaneous Angle Dependant
Inversion
Exercise 5-49
INVERSION SCHEME
Seismic Data
Data Quality
Amplitude Velocity
Preserved Analysis
PSTM Partial Angle
Stacks
Understanding the limitations
Inversion Methods
Well Logs Reliability, Well
Editing, Calibration, Modeling calibrated
Fluid substitution analysis
Accurate wavelet
Understanding the expectations
Exercise 5-50
Generalized Workflow of Simultaneous Angle Dependant Inversion
Exercise 5-51
Workflow of
Load Well Log (depth)
check shot, well top, etc
Load Seismic Data
near, mid, far, etc
Simultaneous Inversion
Well log editor
Well Seismic Tie
Well Log Final
Depth & Time Checkshot &
create wavelet rickers
Picking Horizon
near, mid, far
Earth Model
P_Imp, S_Imp, Den Builder Solid Model
near, mid & far
Generate EI Log Wavelet Estimation Final Well Seismic Tie
Near, Mid, Far near, mid, far Synthetic Seismogram
Model Generator
P_Imp, S_Imp, Density
Wavelet & Seismic
near, mid & far
Filter Trend
RockTrace
CSSI
Constrain Horizon,
Low Frequency
P_Impedance
S_impedance
Density
Vp/Vs Mu-Rho
Poisson Ratio Lamda_Rho
Lithology Classification &
Porosity Estimation
Exercise 5-52
Well Display
Exercise 5-53
Brine Charged Carb
P-Impedance vs S-Impedance
Gas Charged Carb
Exercise 5-54
Exercise 5-55
Seismic Section at Near, Mid and Far Stack
Exercise 5-56
Wavelet Estimation for Near Stack Section
Seismic vs Synthetic
Seismic vs Invert Synthetic
Exercise 5-57
Wavelet Estimation for Mid Stack Section
Seismic vs Synthetic
Seismic vs Invert Synthetic
Exercise 5-58
Wavelet Estimation for Far Stack Section
Seismic vs Synthetic
Seismic vs Invert Synthetic
Exercise 5-59
Well Seismic Tie and Misalignment Analysis
Near
Far
Mid
Exercise 5-60
Constant Trend
P_Imp Density
S_Imp Vp/Vs
Exercise 5-61
Model Generator Trend
P_Imp Density
S_Imp Vp/Vs
Exercise 5-62
Model Generator Trend Filtered
P_Imp Density
S_Imp Vp/Vs
Exercise 5-63
Model Generator
Model Generator
Model Generator
Highcut Filter 15 Hz
Exercise 5-64
Final Inversion with Constant Trend
Final Inversion
With Constant Trend
Model Generator
Exercise 5-65
Final Inversion with Mod_Generate Trend
Final Inversion
Trend from Mod_Generate
Model Generator
(the ANSWER!)
Exercise 5-66
Final Inversion with Mod_Generate Filter Trend
Final Inversion
Trend from Highcut-15Hz
Filter Mod_Generate
Model Generator
Exercise 5-67
