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 interpretation method impacts the analysis of fault and horizon morphologies, fault lengths, and vertical displacement (throw). The resu...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Cunningham, Jennifer, Cardozo, Nestor, Townsend, Chris, Callow, Richard
Format: Text
Language:English
Published: 2020
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2020-174
https://se.copernicus.org/preprints/se-2020-174/
id ftcopernicus:oai:publications.copernicus.org:sed90176
record_format openpolar
spelling ftcopernicus:oai:publications.copernicus.org:sed90176 2023-05-15T15:38:44+02:00 The Impact of Seismic Interpretation Methods on the Analysis of Faults: A Case Study from the Snøhvit Field, Barents Sea Cunningham, Jennifer Cardozo, Nestor Townsend, Chris Callow, Richard 2020-10-31 application/pdf https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2020-174 https://se.copernicus.org/preprints/se-2020-174/ eng eng doi:10.5194/se-2020-174 https://se.copernicus.org/preprints/se-2020-174/ eISSN: 1869-9529 Text 2020 ftcopernicus https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2020-174 2020-11-02T17:22:13Z 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 interpretation method impacts the analysis of fault and horizon morphologies, fault lengths, and vertical displacement (throw). The resulting horizon and fault interpretations from the least and most successful interpretation methods were further analysed to understand the impact of interpretation method on geological modelling and hydrocarbon volume calculation. Generally, the least dense manual interpretation method of horizons (32 inlines (ILs) x 32 crosslines (XLs), 400 m) and faults (32 ILs, 400 m) resulted in inaccurate fault and horizon interpretations and underdeveloped relay morphologies and throw that can be considered inadequate for any detailed geological analysis. The densest fault interpretations (4 ILs, 50 m) and auto-tracked horizons (1 IL x 1 XL, 12.5 m) provided the most detailed interpretations, most developed relay and fault morphologies and geologically realistic throw distributions. Analysis of the geological modelling proved that 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 magnitude of the differences in volumes that are generated solely by the contrasting interpretation methodologies clearly demonstrates the importance of applying accurate interpretation strategies. Text Barents Sea Snøhvit Copernicus Publications: E-Journals Barents Sea Norway
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 interpretation method impacts the analysis of fault and horizon morphologies, fault lengths, and vertical displacement (throw). The resulting horizon and fault interpretations from the least and most successful interpretation methods were further analysed to understand the impact of interpretation method on geological modelling and hydrocarbon volume calculation. Generally, the least dense manual interpretation method of horizons (32 inlines (ILs) x 32 crosslines (XLs), 400 m) and faults (32 ILs, 400 m) resulted in inaccurate fault and horizon interpretations and underdeveloped relay morphologies and throw that can be considered inadequate for any detailed geological analysis. The densest fault interpretations (4 ILs, 50 m) and auto-tracked horizons (1 IL x 1 XL, 12.5 m) provided the most detailed interpretations, most developed relay and fault morphologies and geologically realistic throw distributions. Analysis of the geological modelling proved that 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 magnitude of the differences in volumes that are generated solely by the contrasting interpretation methodologies clearly demonstrates the importance of applying accurate interpretation strategies.
format Text
author Cunningham, Jennifer
Cardozo, Nestor
Townsend, Chris
Callow, Richard
spellingShingle Cunningham, Jennifer
Cardozo, Nestor
Townsend, Chris
Callow, Richard
The Impact of Seismic Interpretation Methods on the Analysis of Faults: A Case Study from the Snøhvit Field, Barents Sea
author_facet Cunningham, Jennifer
Cardozo, Nestor
Townsend, Chris
Callow, Richard
author_sort Cunningham, Jennifer
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 2020
url https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2020-174
https://se.copernicus.org/preprints/se-2020-174/
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-2020-174
https://se.copernicus.org/preprints/se-2020-174/
op_doi https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2020-174
_version_ 1766370026708795392