The impact of seismic interpretation methods on the analysis of faults: a case study from the Snøhvit field, Barents Sea
Five seismic interpretation experiments were conducted on an area of interest containing a fault relay in the Snøhvit field, Barents Sea, Norway, to understand how the interpretation method impacts the analysis of fault and horizon morphologies, fault lengths, and throw. The resulting horizon and fa...
Published in: | Solid Earth |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Text |
Language: | English |
Published: |
2021
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5194/se-12-741-2021 https://se.copernicus.org/articles/12/741/2021/ |
id |
ftcopernicus:oai:publications.copernicus.org:se90176 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftcopernicus:oai:publications.copernicus.org:se90176 2023-05-15T15:38:43+02:00 The impact of seismic interpretation methods on the analysis of faults: a case study from the Snøhvit field, Barents Sea Cunningham, Jennifer E. Cardozo, Nestor Townsend, Chris Callow, Richard H. T. 2021-03-30 application/pdf https://doi.org/10.5194/se-12-741-2021 https://se.copernicus.org/articles/12/741/2021/ eng eng doi:10.5194/se-12-741-2021 https://se.copernicus.org/articles/12/741/2021/ eISSN: 1869-9529 Text 2021 ftcopernicus https://doi.org/10.5194/se-12-741-2021 2021-04-05T16:22:15Z Five seismic interpretation experiments were conducted on an area of interest containing a fault relay in the Snøhvit field, Barents Sea, Norway, to understand how the interpretation method impacts the analysis of fault and horizon morphologies, fault lengths, and throw. The resulting horizon and fault interpretations from the least and most successful interpretation methods were further analysed to understand their impact on geological modelling and hydrocarbon volume calculation. Generally, the least dense manual interpretation method of horizons (32 inlines and 32 crosslines; 32 ILs × 32 XLs, 400 m) and faults (32 ILs, 400 m) resulted in inaccurate fault and horizon interpretations and underdeveloped relay morphologies and throw, which are inadequate for any detailed geological analysis. The densest fault interpretations (4 ILs, 50 m) and 3D auto-tracked horizons (all ILs and XLs spaced 12.5 m) provided the most detailed interpretations, most developed relay and fault morphologies, and geologically realistic throw distributions. Sparse interpretation grids generate significant issues in the model itself, which make it geologically inaccurate and lead to misunderstanding of the structural evolution of the relay. Despite significant differences between the two models, the calculated in-place petroleum reserves are broadly similar in the least and most dense experiments. However, when considered at field scale, the differences in volumes that are generated by the contrasting interpretation methodologies clearly demonstrate the importance of applying accurate interpretation strategies. Text Barents Sea Snøhvit Copernicus Publications: E-Journals Barents Sea Norway Solid Earth 12 3 741 764 |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
Copernicus Publications: E-Journals |
op_collection_id |
ftcopernicus |
language |
English |
description |
Five seismic interpretation experiments were conducted on an area of interest containing a fault relay in the Snøhvit field, Barents Sea, Norway, to understand how the interpretation method impacts the analysis of fault and horizon morphologies, fault lengths, and throw. The resulting horizon and fault interpretations from the least and most successful interpretation methods were further analysed to understand their impact on geological modelling and hydrocarbon volume calculation. Generally, the least dense manual interpretation method of horizons (32 inlines and 32 crosslines; 32 ILs × 32 XLs, 400 m) and faults (32 ILs, 400 m) resulted in inaccurate fault and horizon interpretations and underdeveloped relay morphologies and throw, which are inadequate for any detailed geological analysis. The densest fault interpretations (4 ILs, 50 m) and 3D auto-tracked horizons (all ILs and XLs spaced 12.5 m) provided the most detailed interpretations, most developed relay and fault morphologies, and geologically realistic throw distributions. Sparse interpretation grids generate significant issues in the model itself, which make it geologically inaccurate and lead to misunderstanding of the structural evolution of the relay. Despite significant differences between the two models, the calculated in-place petroleum reserves are broadly similar in the least and most dense experiments. However, when considered at field scale, the differences in volumes that are generated by the contrasting interpretation methodologies clearly demonstrate the importance of applying accurate interpretation strategies. |
format |
Text |
author |
Cunningham, Jennifer E. Cardozo, Nestor Townsend, Chris Callow, Richard H. T. |
spellingShingle |
Cunningham, Jennifer E. Cardozo, Nestor Townsend, Chris Callow, Richard H. T. The impact of seismic interpretation methods on the analysis of faults: a case study from the Snøhvit field, Barents Sea |
author_facet |
Cunningham, Jennifer E. Cardozo, Nestor Townsend, Chris Callow, Richard H. T. |
author_sort |
Cunningham, Jennifer E. |
title |
The impact of seismic interpretation methods on the analysis of faults: a case study from the Snøhvit field, Barents Sea |
title_short |
The impact of seismic interpretation methods on the analysis of faults: a case study from the Snøhvit field, Barents Sea |
title_full |
The impact of seismic interpretation methods on the analysis of faults: a case study from the Snøhvit field, Barents Sea |
title_fullStr |
The impact of seismic interpretation methods on the analysis of faults: a case study from the Snøhvit field, Barents Sea |
title_full_unstemmed |
The impact of seismic interpretation methods on the analysis of faults: a case study from the Snøhvit field, Barents Sea |
title_sort |
impact of seismic interpretation methods on the analysis of faults: a case study from the snøhvit field, barents sea |
publishDate |
2021 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.5194/se-12-741-2021 https://se.copernicus.org/articles/12/741/2021/ |
geographic |
Barents Sea Norway |
geographic_facet |
Barents Sea Norway |
genre |
Barents Sea Snøhvit |
genre_facet |
Barents Sea Snøhvit |
op_source |
eISSN: 1869-9529 |
op_relation |
doi:10.5194/se-12-741-2021 https://se.copernicus.org/articles/12/741/2021/ |
op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.5194/se-12-741-2021 |
container_title |
Solid Earth |
container_volume |
12 |
container_issue |
3 |
container_start_page |
741 |
op_container_end_page |
764 |
_version_ |
1766369983385829376 |