Amplitudes have been found to be a function of incident angle and offset. Hence data required to test for amplitude variation with angle or offset needs to have its amplitudes for all offsets preserved and not stacked...Amplitudes have been found to be a function of incident angle and offset. Hence data required to test for amplitude variation with angle or offset needs to have its amplitudes for all offsets preserved and not stacked. Amplitude Variation with Offset (AVO)/Amplitude Variation with Angle (AVA) is necessary to account for information in the offset/angle parameter (mode converted S-wave and P-wave velocities). Since amplitudes are a function of the converted S- and P-waves, it is important to investigate the dependence of amplitudes on the elastic (P- and S-waves) parameters from the seismic data. By modelling these effects for different reservoir fluids via fluid substitution, various AVO geobody classes present along the well and in the entire seismic cube can be observed. AVO analysis was performed on one test well (Well_1) and 3D pre-stack angle gathers from the Tano Basin. The analysis involves creating a synthetic model to infer the effect of offset scaling techniques on amplitude responses in the Tano basin as compared to the effect of unscaled seismic data. The spectral balance process was performed to match the amplitude spectra of all angle stacks to that of the mid (26°) stack on the test lines. The process had an effect primarily on the far (34° - 40°) stacks. The frequency content of these stacks slightly increased to match that of the near and mid stacks. In offset scaling process, the root mean square (RMS) amplitude comparison between the synthetic and seismic suggests that the amplitude of the far traces should be reduced relative to the nears by up to 16%. However, the exact scaler values depend on the time window considered. This suggests that the amplitude scaling with offset delivered from seismic processing is only approximately correct and needs to be checked with well synthetics and adjusted accordingly prior to use for AVO studies. The AVO attribute volumes generated were better at resolving anomalies on spectrally balanced and offset scaled data than data delivered from conventional processing. A typical class II AVO anomaly is seen along the test well from the cross-plot analysis and AVO attribute cube which indicates an oil filled reservoir.展开更多
文摘Amplitudes have been found to be a function of incident angle and offset. Hence data required to test for amplitude variation with angle or offset needs to have its amplitudes for all offsets preserved and not stacked. Amplitude Variation with Offset (AVO)/Amplitude Variation with Angle (AVA) is necessary to account for information in the offset/angle parameter (mode converted S-wave and P-wave velocities). Since amplitudes are a function of the converted S- and P-waves, it is important to investigate the dependence of amplitudes on the elastic (P- and S-waves) parameters from the seismic data. By modelling these effects for different reservoir fluids via fluid substitution, various AVO geobody classes present along the well and in the entire seismic cube can be observed. AVO analysis was performed on one test well (Well_1) and 3D pre-stack angle gathers from the Tano Basin. The analysis involves creating a synthetic model to infer the effect of offset scaling techniques on amplitude responses in the Tano basin as compared to the effect of unscaled seismic data. The spectral balance process was performed to match the amplitude spectra of all angle stacks to that of the mid (26°) stack on the test lines. The process had an effect primarily on the far (34° - 40°) stacks. The frequency content of these stacks slightly increased to match that of the near and mid stacks. In offset scaling process, the root mean square (RMS) amplitude comparison between the synthetic and seismic suggests that the amplitude of the far traces should be reduced relative to the nears by up to 16%. However, the exact scaler values depend on the time window considered. This suggests that the amplitude scaling with offset delivered from seismic processing is only approximately correct and needs to be checked with well synthetics and adjusted accordingly prior to use for AVO studies. The AVO attribute volumes generated were better at resolving anomalies on spectrally balanced and offset scaled data than data delivered from conventional processing. A typical class II AVO anomaly is seen along the test well from the cross-plot analysis and AVO attribute cube which indicates an oil filled reservoir.
