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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Solid Earth
Main Authors: Cunningham, Jennifer E., Cardozo, Nestor, Townsend, Chris, Callow, Richard H. T.
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