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: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Copernicus Publications
2021
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5194/se-12-741-2021 https://doaj.org/article/10e5b20628594f35a250f9c49d442f79 |
id |
ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:10e5b20628594f35a250f9c49d442f79 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:10e5b20628594f35a250f9c49d442f79 2023-05-15T15:38:45+02:00 The impact of seismic interpretation methods on the analysis of faults: a case study from the Snøhvit field, Barents Sea J. E. Cunningham N. Cardozo C. Townsend R. H. T. Callow 2021-03-01T00:00:00Z https://doi.org/10.5194/se-12-741-2021 https://doaj.org/article/10e5b20628594f35a250f9c49d442f79 EN eng Copernicus Publications https://se.copernicus.org/articles/12/741/2021/se-12-741-2021.pdf https://doaj.org/toc/1869-9510 https://doaj.org/toc/1869-9529 doi:10.5194/se-12-741-2021 1869-9510 1869-9529 https://doaj.org/article/10e5b20628594f35a250f9c49d442f79 Solid Earth, Vol 12, Pp 741-764 (2021) Geology QE1-996.5 Stratigraphy QE640-699 article 2021 ftdoajarticles https://doi.org/10.5194/se-12-741-2021 2022-12-31T06:28:36Z 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. Article in Journal/Newspaper Barents Sea Snøhvit Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles Barents Sea Norway Solid Earth 12 3 741 764 |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles |
op_collection_id |
ftdoajarticles |
language |
English |
topic |
Geology QE1-996.5 Stratigraphy QE640-699 |
spellingShingle |
Geology QE1-996.5 Stratigraphy QE640-699 J. E. Cunningham N. Cardozo C. Townsend R. H. T. Callow The impact of seismic interpretation methods on the analysis of faults: a case study from the Snøhvit field, Barents Sea |
topic_facet |
Geology QE1-996.5 Stratigraphy QE640-699 |
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 |
Article in Journal/Newspaper |
author |
J. E. Cunningham N. Cardozo C. Townsend R. H. T. Callow |
author_facet |
J. E. Cunningham N. Cardozo C. Townsend R. H. T. Callow |
author_sort |
J. E. Cunningham |
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 |
publisher |
Copernicus Publications |
publishDate |
2021 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.5194/se-12-741-2021 https://doaj.org/article/10e5b20628594f35a250f9c49d442f79 |
geographic |
Barents Sea Norway |
geographic_facet |
Barents Sea Norway |
genre |
Barents Sea Snøhvit |
genre_facet |
Barents Sea Snøhvit |
op_source |
Solid Earth, Vol 12, Pp 741-764 (2021) |
op_relation |
https://se.copernicus.org/articles/12/741/2021/se-12-741-2021.pdf https://doaj.org/toc/1869-9510 https://doaj.org/toc/1869-9529 doi:10.5194/se-12-741-2021 1869-9510 1869-9529 https://doaj.org/article/10e5b20628594f35a250f9c49d442f79 |
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_ |
1766370029709819904 |