Structural validation as an input into seismic depth conversion to decrease assigned structural uncertainty

Yukitsugu Totake, Rob W. H. Butler, Clare E. Bond

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)
7 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

While the interpretation of seismic reflection imagery is powerful and well established for evaluating subsurface structures it is never perfectly accurate. Structural validation techniques are widely used to geometrically test geological interpretations of seismic reflection data. Commonly these techniques are performed on depth sections converted from seismic time-based data using velocity models. Velocity model choices in seismic depth conversion have an impact on the final depth image and hence the structural geometry of interpretations. The impact of these choices in depth conversion on structural validation is rarely examined. Here we explore how multiple versions of a depth section, converted using different velocity models, influence the performance of structural validations for a fold-thrust structure from the deep water Niger Delta. The example illustrates that a range of kinematic models can validate the depth-converted profiles, regardless of the depth conversion choice and are thus poor diagnostic tools. Area-depth-strain (ADS) analysis can constrain the choice both of a kinematic model and the depth conversion, provided the seismic data allow the detachment level and excess areas to be recognised. Incorporation of ADS analysis within an interpretation-depth conversion workflow helps reduce assigned uncertainty in depth conversion, the seismic interpretation, and in the implicit geological model.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)32-47
Number of pages16
JournalJournal of Structural Geology
Volume95
Early online date11 Dec 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2017

Fingerprint

strain analysis
seismic reflection
kinematics
seismic data
imagery
deep water
thrust
fold
geometry
incorporation
test

Keywords

  • structural validation
  • seismic interpretation
  • uncertainty
  • depth conversion
  • fold-thrust structures

Cite this

@article{c4d192ff06aa41cc9e31e7fb789e2bce,
title = "Structural validation as an input into seismic depth conversion to decrease assigned structural uncertainty",
abstract = "While the interpretation of seismic reflection imagery is powerful and well established for evaluating subsurface structures it is never perfectly accurate. Structural validation techniques are widely used to geometrically test geological interpretations of seismic reflection data. Commonly these techniques are performed on depth sections converted from seismic time-based data using velocity models. Velocity model choices in seismic depth conversion have an impact on the final depth image and hence the structural geometry of interpretations. The impact of these choices in depth conversion on structural validation is rarely examined. Here we explore how multiple versions of a depth section, converted using different velocity models, influence the performance of structural validations for a fold-thrust structure from the deep water Niger Delta. The example illustrates that a range of kinematic models can validate the depth-converted profiles, regardless of the depth conversion choice and are thus poor diagnostic tools. Area-depth-strain (ADS) analysis can constrain the choice both of a kinematic model and the depth conversion, provided the seismic data allow the detachment level and excess areas to be recognised. Incorporation of ADS analysis within an interpretation-depth conversion workflow helps reduce assigned uncertainty in depth conversion, the seismic interpretation, and in the implicit geological model.",
keywords = "structural validation, seismic interpretation, uncertainty, depth conversion, fold-thrust structures",
author = "Yukitsugu Totake and Butler, {Rob W. H.} and Bond, {Clare E.}",
note = "This study is based on PhD research project funded by INPEX CORPORATION at University of Aberdeen. Seismic images for this study were taken from the Higgins et al. (2009), through the courtesy of CGG (formerly CGG Veritas). Further examples are available through the Virtual Seismic Atlas (www.seismicatlas.org). Restoration and forward modelling and measurements for the area-depth-strain analysis were performed in Move 2016.1 by Midland Valley made available through academic partnership. Trishear inverse modelling was programmed referring to MATLAB scripts publicized on Allmendinger et al. (2012, chapter 11) and Nester Cardozo's website (http://www.ux.uis.no/∼nestor/work/programs.html) and implemented in MATLAB 2015b. Finally we thank Nester Cardozo and Richard Groshong for valuable comments that significantly improved this contribution.",
year = "2017",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1016/j.jsg.2016.12.007",
language = "English",
volume = "95",
pages = "32--47",
journal = "Journal of Structural Geology",
issn = "0191-8141",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Structural validation as an input into seismic depth conversion to decrease assigned structural uncertainty

AU - Totake, Yukitsugu

AU - Butler, Rob W. H.

AU - Bond, Clare E.

N1 - This study is based on PhD research project funded by INPEX CORPORATION at University of Aberdeen. Seismic images for this study were taken from the Higgins et al. (2009), through the courtesy of CGG (formerly CGG Veritas). Further examples are available through the Virtual Seismic Atlas (www.seismicatlas.org). Restoration and forward modelling and measurements for the area-depth-strain analysis were performed in Move 2016.1 by Midland Valley made available through academic partnership. Trishear inverse modelling was programmed referring to MATLAB scripts publicized on Allmendinger et al. (2012, chapter 11) and Nester Cardozo's website (http://www.ux.uis.no/∼nestor/work/programs.html) and implemented in MATLAB 2015b. Finally we thank Nester Cardozo and Richard Groshong for valuable comments that significantly improved this contribution.

PY - 2017/2

Y1 - 2017/2

N2 - While the interpretation of seismic reflection imagery is powerful and well established for evaluating subsurface structures it is never perfectly accurate. Structural validation techniques are widely used to geometrically test geological interpretations of seismic reflection data. Commonly these techniques are performed on depth sections converted from seismic time-based data using velocity models. Velocity model choices in seismic depth conversion have an impact on the final depth image and hence the structural geometry of interpretations. The impact of these choices in depth conversion on structural validation is rarely examined. Here we explore how multiple versions of a depth section, converted using different velocity models, influence the performance of structural validations for a fold-thrust structure from the deep water Niger Delta. The example illustrates that a range of kinematic models can validate the depth-converted profiles, regardless of the depth conversion choice and are thus poor diagnostic tools. Area-depth-strain (ADS) analysis can constrain the choice both of a kinematic model and the depth conversion, provided the seismic data allow the detachment level and excess areas to be recognised. Incorporation of ADS analysis within an interpretation-depth conversion workflow helps reduce assigned uncertainty in depth conversion, the seismic interpretation, and in the implicit geological model.

AB - While the interpretation of seismic reflection imagery is powerful and well established for evaluating subsurface structures it is never perfectly accurate. Structural validation techniques are widely used to geometrically test geological interpretations of seismic reflection data. Commonly these techniques are performed on depth sections converted from seismic time-based data using velocity models. Velocity model choices in seismic depth conversion have an impact on the final depth image and hence the structural geometry of interpretations. The impact of these choices in depth conversion on structural validation is rarely examined. Here we explore how multiple versions of a depth section, converted using different velocity models, influence the performance of structural validations for a fold-thrust structure from the deep water Niger Delta. The example illustrates that a range of kinematic models can validate the depth-converted profiles, regardless of the depth conversion choice and are thus poor diagnostic tools. Area-depth-strain (ADS) analysis can constrain the choice both of a kinematic model and the depth conversion, provided the seismic data allow the detachment level and excess areas to be recognised. Incorporation of ADS analysis within an interpretation-depth conversion workflow helps reduce assigned uncertainty in depth conversion, the seismic interpretation, and in the implicit geological model.

KW - structural validation

KW - seismic interpretation

KW - uncertainty

KW - depth conversion

KW - fold-thrust structures

U2 - 10.1016/j.jsg.2016.12.007

DO - 10.1016/j.jsg.2016.12.007

M3 - Article

VL - 95

SP - 32

EP - 47

JO - Journal of Structural Geology

JF - Journal of Structural Geology

SN - 0191-8141

ER -