In geophysical studies, attributes are the main tools for hydrocarbon identification and can be applied either pre- or post-stack. The amplitude versus offset (AVO), on the other hand, lies within the inversion methods applicable to pre-stack seismic data specifically tailored to recognize fluid content. A recent method useful for detecting hydrocarbon-bearing intervals in a reservoir is the spectral decomposition and is applied on post-stack data. For any frequency in a time–frequency setting, a single-frequency seismic section can be drawn and the low-frequency shadows related to the hydrocarbon accumulation can be differentiated. In this study, the spectral decomposition and the AVO analysis methods are applied on synthetic and real data, the latter being an example from a gaseous sandstone reservoir. The synthetic data based on the nearby well-logs and the fluid substituted synthetic well-logs were constructed. Results indicate the superiority of spectral decomposition method in detecting gas-bearing intervals (gas saturation above 80 %) in comparison to the AVO method. While the AVO method successfully differentiates the hydrocarbon and water-bearing intervals, its sensitivity in detecting an interval of 80 and 35 % gas is indifferent. We empirically know that the dominant frequency for detecting shadows of low-frequency features is between 10 and 20 Hz. In this study, such shadows are only observed below high gas saturation intervals by which the economical gas-bearing zones could be discriminated from the non-economic ones.
AVO S-transform Low-frequency shadows Fluid factor Gas bearing interval
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The authors acknowledge the Institute of Geophysics and research council at University of Tehran for supporting this research.
Castagna JP, Batzle ML, Eastwood RL (1985) Relationship between compressional- and shear-wave velocities in clastic silicate rocks. Geophysics 50:571–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castagna JP, Sun S, Siegfried RW (2003) Instantaneous spectral analysis: detection of low-frequency shadows associated with hydrocarbons. Lead Edge 22:120–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehghani MJ (2009) Comparison of S-transform and Wavelet Transform in Power Quality Analysis. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 26:395–398Google Scholar
Deng X, Ma H, Li Y, Zeng Q (2015) Seismic random noise attenuation based on adaptive time–frequency peak filtering. J Appl Geophys 113:31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fatti JL, Smith GC, Vail PJ, Levitt PR (1994) Detection of gas in sandstone reservoirs using AVO analysis: a 3-D seismic case history using the Geostack technique. Geophysics 59:362–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampson D, Schuelke J, Quirein J (2001) Use of multi-attribute transforms to predict log properties from seismic data. Geophysics 66(1):220–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leite F, Montagne R, Corso G, Vasconcelos G, Lucena L (2008) Optimal wavelet filter for suppression of coherent noise with an application to seismic data. Physica A 387(7):1439–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin H, Li Y, Yang B, Ma H (2013) Random denoising and signal nonlinearity approach by time-frequency peak filtering using weighted frequency reassignment. Geophysics 78(6):229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loizou N, Liu E, Chapman M (2008) AVO analyses and spectral decomposition of seismic data from four wells west of Shetland, U.K. Pet GeoSci 14(4):355–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrander WJ (1984) Plane-wave reflection coefficients for gas sands at non-normal angles of incident. Geophysics 49:1637–1648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinnegar CR, Mansinha L (2003) The S-transform with windows of arbitrary and varying shape. Geophysics 68(1):381–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford SR, Williams Robert H (1989) Amplitude-versus-offset variations in gas sands. Geophysics 54(6):680–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar