1 AVO INVERSION OF LONG-OFFSET SYNTHETIC PP DATA BASED ON EFFECTIVE REFLECTION COEFFICIENTS Lyubov Skopintseva Milana Ayzenberg, Martin Landrø Tatyana Nefedkina, Arkady Aizenberg 10 April 2008 AVO-analysis. What is that? Conventional AVO analysis: •Range of incidence angles: 0-400 •Weak contrasts at reflector Plane-wave reflection coefficient Post-critical region 1 A( x) (Re K ( x)) 2 (Im K ( x)) 2 amplitude 0.8 0.6 Critical angle 0.4 sin 1 1 Vp1 Vp2 Pre-critical region 0.2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 incidence angle, degree 70 80 90 Effective reflection coefficient (ERC) Incident wave Plane-wave decomposition Multiplying by planewave reflection coefficient (PWRC) Summation Division by incident wave ERC versus PWRC • PWRC valid for plane waves K x K x • ERC generalize PWRC for point sources R x x x ; V x - incidence angle R x - wavefront curvature 2 f V - frequency - wave velocity ERC versus PWRC 1,4 PWRC ERC(2 Hz) ERC (5 Hz) ERC (10 Hz) ERC (20 Hz) 1,2 Amplitude 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Offsets, km 300 350 400 Model parameters 0 H=1000 m Vp1=2000 m/s L=5000 m Vs1=1100 m/s Depth, m x=25 m 1=1800 kg/m3 1000 Wavelet: F(t)=-sin(2 ft)e-(2ft) Vp2=2800 m/s Dominant frequency (f): 32 Hz Vs2=1600 m/s 2=2100 kg/m3 0 1250 2500 Offset, m 3750 5000 1.0 Z-component from reflectivity modeling 1.2 1.4 1.6 time, s 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 0 1000 2000 3000 offsets, m 4000 5000 AVO response 1.8 1.6 Amplitude 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Offsets,m 3500 4000 4500 5000 Spectrogram x 10 60 16 14 50 Frequency, Hz 12 40 10 30 8 6 20 4 10 2 1000 2000 3000 Offsets,m 4000 5000 -3 AVO response comparison with ERC and PWRC 2 1.8 1.6 Amplitude 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 AVO-response AVO-function (29-44Hz) AVO-function (22-51Hz) AVO-function (all frequencies) AVO function based on PWRC 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Offsets,m 3500 4000 4500 5000 Cost functions comparison (pre-critical offsets) Effective reflection coefficient 1300 1000 1800 ro2 ro1 Vs1 1100 2400 2000 ro1 2000 1200 1800 1600 1600 1400 1600 1400 900 2200 2000 1800 900 1 600 2 000 2 400 Vp1 2000 2400 Vp1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1100 1300 1400 1600 1800 Vs1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Vs2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plane-wave reflection coefficient 2500 2500 2000 2000 1400 1500 ro2 1000 ro1 ro1 Vs1 2500 1200 2000 1500 800 1500 1500 2000 2500 1500 2000 2500 800 1100 1 400 1000 1500 2000 Vp1 Vp1 Vs1 Vs2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Cost functions comparison (all offsets) Effective reflection coefficient 1300 1000 1800 ro2 ro1 Vs1 1100 2400 2000 ro1 2000 1200 1800 1600 1600 1400 1600 1400 900 2200 2000 1800 900 1600 2000 2400 Vp1 2000 2400 Vp1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1100 1300 1400 1600 1800 Vs1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Vs2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plane-wave reflection coefficient 2500 2500 2000 2000 1400 1500 ro2 1000 ro1 ro1 Vs1 2500 1200 2000 1500 800 1500 1500 2000 2500 1500 2000 2500 Vp1 Vp1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 800 1100 1400 Vs1 0.4 0.6 1000 1500 2000 Vs2 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 AVO inversion results 24 22 20 Vp1 18 Vs1 16 1 14 Vp2 12 Vs2 10 2 8 6 4 2 0 Pre-critical offsets Post-critical offsets PWRC solution Relative error in elastic parameters, % Relative error in elastic parameters, % ERC solution 24 22 20 Vp1 18 Vs1 16 1 14 Vp2 12 Vs2 10 2 8 6 4 2 0 Pre-critical offsets Post-critical offsets 15 Conclusion • ERC give better estimates than PWRC • Rapid variations in reflection amplitude for post-critical offsets improve inversion results • Long-offset data allow accurate estimation of Vp and Vs
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz