1887

Abstract

Summary

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700536
2017-06-12
2020-07-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700536
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700536
Loading

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