Quantification of uncertainty in 3-D seismic interpretation: implications for deterministic and stochastic geomodeling and machine learning
-
Published:2019-07-05
Issue:4
Volume:10
Page:1049-1061
-
ISSN:1869-9529
-
Container-title:Solid Earth
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Solid Earth
Author:
Schaaf AlexanderORCID, Bond Clare E.ORCID
Abstract
Abstract. In recent years, uncertainty has been widely recognized in geosciences, leading
to an increased need for its quantification. Predicting the subsurface is an
especially uncertain effort, as our information either comes from spatially
highly limited direct (1-D boreholes) or indirect 2-D and 3-D sources (e.g.,
seismic). And while uncertainty in seismic interpretation has been explored in
2-D, we currently lack both qualitative and quantitative understanding of how
interpretational uncertainties of 3-D datasets are distributed. In this work, we
analyze 78 seismic interpretations done by final-year undergraduate (BSc)
students of a 3-D seismic dataset from the Gullfaks field located in the
northern North Sea. The students used Petrel to interpret multiple (interlinked)
faults and to pick the Base Cretaceous Unconformity and Top Ness horizon (part
of the Middle Jurassic Brent Group). We have developed open-source Python tools to
explore and visualize the spatial uncertainty of the students' fault stick
interpretations, the subsequent variation in fault plane orientation and the
uncertainty in fault network topology. The Top Ness horizon picks were used to
analyze fault offset variations across the dataset and interpretations, with
implications for fault throw. We investigate how this interpretational
uncertainty interlinks with seismic data quality and the possible use of seismic
data quality attributes as a proxy for interpretational uncertainty. Our work
provides a first quantification of fault and horizon uncertainties in 3-D
seismic interpretation, providing valuable insights into the influence of
seismic image quality on 3-D interpretation, with implications for deterministic
and stochastic geomodeling and machine learning.
Funder
Royal Society of Edinburgh
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Subject
Paleontology,Stratigraphy,Earth-Surface Processes,Geochemistry and Petrology,Geology,Geophysics,Soil Science
Reference51 articles.
1. Abrahamsen, P., Lia, O., and Omre, H.: An Integrated Approach to
Prediction of Hydrocarbon in Place and Recoverable Reserve With
Uncertainty Measures, in: European Petroleum Computer Conference,
Society of Petroleum Engineers, https://doi.org/10.2118/24276-MS, 1992. a 2. Alcalde, J., Bond, C. E., Johnson, G., Butler, R. W., Cooper, M. A., and Ellis,
J. F.: The Importance of Structural Model Availability on Seismic
Interpretation, J. Struct. Geol., 97, 161–171,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2017.03.003, 2017a. a, b 3. Alcalde, J., Bond, C. E., Johnson, G., Ellis, J. F., and Butler, R. W.: Impact
of Seismic Image Quality on Fault Interpretation Uncertainty, GSA Today, 27, 4–10,
https://doi.org/10.1130/GSATG282A.1, 2017b. a, b 4. Alcalde, J., Bond, C. E., and Randle, C. H.: Framing Bias: The Effect of
Figure Presentation on Seismic Interpretation, Interpretation, 5, T591–T605,
2017c. a 5. Biondi, B.: 3D Seismic Imaging, Investigations in Geophysics, Society
of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560801689, 2006. a
Cited by
36 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|