Structural interpretation can be challenging because of complex wave interactions and limited seismic bandwidth. A single seismic image can lead to multiple structural interpretations, reflecting structural interpretation uncertainties. Typically, this uncertainty is captured by generating several possible structural geometries. However, a quantitative assessment of the different possible structural interpretations is often difficult. In this paper we propose a methodology for assessing structural interpretations using seismic data misfit functions. We first develop a conceptual framework for solving such a problem before applying the method to a carefully designed synthetic study. Our results suggest that it is possible to appraise structural interpretation using seismic data if an appropriate misfit function is used.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bond, C., Shipton, Z. and Jones, S.
    [2007] What do you think this is? Conceptual uncertainty in geoscience interpretation. GSA Today, 17, 4–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cherpeau, N., Caumon, G., Caers, J. and Lévy, B.
    [2012] Method for Stochastic Inverse Modeling of Fault Geometry and Connectivity Using Flow Data. Mathematical Geosciences, 44, 147–168.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Colletta, B., Letouzey, J., Pinedo, R., Ballard, J.F. and Balé, P.
    [1991] Computerized X-ray tomography analysis of sandbox models: Examples of thin-skinned thrust systems. Geology, 19, 1063–1067.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Foss, S.K., Rhodes, M., Dalstrom, B., Gram, C. and Welbon, A.
    [2008] Geologically constrained seismic imaging — Workflow. Geophysics, 73, E313–E319.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Guillen, A., Calcagno, P., Courrioux, G., Joly, A. and Ledru, P.
    [2008] Geological modelling from field data and geological knowledge: Part II. Modelling validation using gravity and magnetic data inversion. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 171, 158–169.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Irakarama, M., Cupillard, P. and Caumon, G.
    [2016] Reduction of fault uncertainties using vertical seismic profiling data. In: 78th EAGE Conference and Exhibition. Vienna, Austria.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Landa, E. and Thore, P.
    [2007] Realistic Finite Differences Modeling — A Case Study. In: 69th EAGE Conference and Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2007. London, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Suzuki, S., Caers, J. and Caumon, G.
    [2008] Dynamic data integration for structural modeling: model screening approach using a distance-based model parameterization. Computational Geosciences, 12, 105–119.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error