Interpretational variability of structural traps: implications for exploration risk and volume uncertainty

Francis L Richards, Nicholas J Richardson, Clare E Bond, Mark Cowgill

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)
19 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Defining the size and shape of hydrocarbon traps is a critical component in estimating the economic value of potential and existing oil and gas fields and is, therefore, a key business risk. Structural traps, defined by fault and fold geometries, form the most common type of hydrocarbon trap, the size estimates of which are based on interpretation of subsurface data, most notably seismic imagery. Interpretation of seismic image data is uncertain, as the subsurface images have limited resolution and quality; in 2D datasets the imagery is spatially limited and the interpretation requires interpolation between images. Here we present data from top reservoir maps created by eight interpretation teams, each of which interpreted a grid of 2D seismic sections at a regular spacing of 1 km, over a 220 km2 area. The resultant maps are compared for interpretation variability. Fault statistics have been generated for each map and compared with analogue datasets to aid in the identification of anomalous interpretations, and to create a likelihood rank for each map. The structural traps identified by each team are compared, and the two largest traps are assessed for their potential trapped hydrocarbon volume. An initial volume and a corrected volume, accounting for potential fault seal breach by reservoir–reservoir juxtaposition across the trap-defining faults, are calculated. The integrated analysis of the multiple interpretations: (a) captures the interpretational uncertainty, (b) determines the likeliness (or risk) of each interpretation being valid, when compared with analogue datasets and (c) assesses the impact of each interpretation on the economic viability of potential prospects (defined by structural traps).
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)7-27
Number of pages21
JournalSpecial Publication - Geological Society of London
Volume421
Early online date16 Jul 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

hydrocarbon
imagery
gas field
oil field
interpolation
spacing
fold
geometry
economics
statistics
analysis
economic viability

Keywords

  • Uncertainty
  • risk
  • volumetrics
  • Interpretation
  • strcutural traps

Cite this

Interpretational variability of structural traps : implications for exploration risk and volume uncertainty. / Richards, Francis L; Richardson, Nicholas J; Bond, Clare E; Cowgill, Mark.

In: Special Publication - Geological Society of London, Vol. 421, 2015, p. 7-27.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0cfa6c8c6b0c45d9bb1523bd3ad86366,
title = "Interpretational variability of structural traps: implications for exploration risk and volume uncertainty",
abstract = "Defining the size and shape of hydrocarbon traps is a critical component in estimating the economic value of potential and existing oil and gas fields and is, therefore, a key business risk. Structural traps, defined by fault and fold geometries, form the most common type of hydrocarbon trap, the size estimates of which are based on interpretation of subsurface data, most notably seismic imagery. Interpretation of seismic image data is uncertain, as the subsurface images have limited resolution and quality; in 2D datasets the imagery is spatially limited and the interpretation requires interpolation between images. Here we present data from top reservoir maps created by eight interpretation teams, each of which interpreted a grid of 2D seismic sections at a regular spacing of 1 km, over a 220 km2 area. The resultant maps are compared for interpretation variability. Fault statistics have been generated for each map and compared with analogue datasets to aid in the identification of anomalous interpretations, and to create a likelihood rank for each map. The structural traps identified by each team are compared, and the two largest traps are assessed for their potential trapped hydrocarbon volume. An initial volume and a corrected volume, accounting for potential fault seal breach by reservoir–reservoir juxtaposition across the trap-defining faults, are calculated. The integrated analysis of the multiple interpretations: (a) captures the interpretational uncertainty, (b) determines the likeliness (or risk) of each interpretation being valid, when compared with analogue datasets and (c) assesses the impact of each interpretation on the economic viability of potential prospects (defined by structural traps).",
keywords = "Uncertainty, risk, volumetrics, Interpretation, strcutural traps",
author = "Richards, {Francis L} and Richardson, {Nicholas J} and Bond, {Clare E} and Mark Cowgill",
note = "We would like to acknowledge and thank Frank Peel and Seb Turner for taking time to review this paper. Also thanks to Marguerite Fleming for perpetual encouragement. From: Richards, F. L., Richardson, N. J., Rippington, S. J., Wilson, R. W. & Bond, C. E. (eds) 2015. Industrial Structural Geology: Principles, Techniques and Integration. Geological Society, London,",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1144/SP421.13",
language = "English",
volume = "421",
pages = "7--27",
journal = "Special Publication - Geological Society of London",
issn = "0375-6440",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interpretational variability of structural traps

T2 - implications for exploration risk and volume uncertainty

AU - Richards, Francis L

AU - Richardson, Nicholas J

AU - Bond, Clare E

AU - Cowgill, Mark

N1 - We would like to acknowledge and thank Frank Peel and Seb Turner for taking time to review this paper. Also thanks to Marguerite Fleming for perpetual encouragement. From: Richards, F. L., Richardson, N. J., Rippington, S. J., Wilson, R. W. & Bond, C. E. (eds) 2015. Industrial Structural Geology: Principles, Techniques and Integration. Geological Society, London,

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Defining the size and shape of hydrocarbon traps is a critical component in estimating the economic value of potential and existing oil and gas fields and is, therefore, a key business risk. Structural traps, defined by fault and fold geometries, form the most common type of hydrocarbon trap, the size estimates of which are based on interpretation of subsurface data, most notably seismic imagery. Interpretation of seismic image data is uncertain, as the subsurface images have limited resolution and quality; in 2D datasets the imagery is spatially limited and the interpretation requires interpolation between images. Here we present data from top reservoir maps created by eight interpretation teams, each of which interpreted a grid of 2D seismic sections at a regular spacing of 1 km, over a 220 km2 area. The resultant maps are compared for interpretation variability. Fault statistics have been generated for each map and compared with analogue datasets to aid in the identification of anomalous interpretations, and to create a likelihood rank for each map. The structural traps identified by each team are compared, and the two largest traps are assessed for their potential trapped hydrocarbon volume. An initial volume and a corrected volume, accounting for potential fault seal breach by reservoir–reservoir juxtaposition across the trap-defining faults, are calculated. The integrated analysis of the multiple interpretations: (a) captures the interpretational uncertainty, (b) determines the likeliness (or risk) of each interpretation being valid, when compared with analogue datasets and (c) assesses the impact of each interpretation on the economic viability of potential prospects (defined by structural traps).

AB - Defining the size and shape of hydrocarbon traps is a critical component in estimating the economic value of potential and existing oil and gas fields and is, therefore, a key business risk. Structural traps, defined by fault and fold geometries, form the most common type of hydrocarbon trap, the size estimates of which are based on interpretation of subsurface data, most notably seismic imagery. Interpretation of seismic image data is uncertain, as the subsurface images have limited resolution and quality; in 2D datasets the imagery is spatially limited and the interpretation requires interpolation between images. Here we present data from top reservoir maps created by eight interpretation teams, each of which interpreted a grid of 2D seismic sections at a regular spacing of 1 km, over a 220 km2 area. The resultant maps are compared for interpretation variability. Fault statistics have been generated for each map and compared with analogue datasets to aid in the identification of anomalous interpretations, and to create a likelihood rank for each map. The structural traps identified by each team are compared, and the two largest traps are assessed for their potential trapped hydrocarbon volume. An initial volume and a corrected volume, accounting for potential fault seal breach by reservoir–reservoir juxtaposition across the trap-defining faults, are calculated. The integrated analysis of the multiple interpretations: (a) captures the interpretational uncertainty, (b) determines the likeliness (or risk) of each interpretation being valid, when compared with analogue datasets and (c) assesses the impact of each interpretation on the economic viability of potential prospects (defined by structural traps).

KW - Uncertainty

KW - risk

KW - volumetrics

KW - Interpretation

KW - strcutural traps

U2 - 10.1144/SP421.13

DO - 10.1144/SP421.13

M3 - Article

VL - 421

SP - 7

EP - 27

JO - Special Publication - Geological Society of London

JF - Special Publication - Geological Society of London

SN - 0375-6440

ER -