AVO feasibility volumes for prospect derisking constrained by burial history – A Barents Sea demonstration

References

1. Avseth, P., and Lehocki, I. [2016]. Combining burial history and rock-physics modeling to constrain AVO analysis during exploration. The Leading Edge, 35, 528–534.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Avseth, P., and Lehocki, I., [2021]. 3D subsurface modeling of multi-scenario rock property and AVO feasibility cubes–An integrated workflow. Frontiers in Earth Science, 9, Article 642363.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Avseth, P., Lehocki, I., Hansen, T., Angard, K., Reiser, C., and Feuilleaubois, L. [2022]. Combined modelling to determine complex velocity and AVO depth trends offshore Canada. EAGE Abstract.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Baig, I., Faleide, J.I., Jahren, J., and Mondol, N.H. [2016]. Cenozoic exhumation of the southwestern Barents Shelf: Estimates and uncertainties constrained from compaction and thermal maturity analyses. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 73, 105–130.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Lehocki, I., and Avseth, P. [2021]. From cradle to grave: how burial history controls rock-physics properties of quartzose sandstones. Geophysical Prospecting, 69, 629–649.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Walderhaug, O. [1996]. Kinetic modeling of quartz cementation and porosity loss in deeply buried sandstone reservoirs. AAPG Bulletin, 80, 731–74.
   [Google Scholar]