Abstract
Fault interpretation is an important part of seismic structural interpretation and reservoir characterization. In the conventional approach, faults are detected as reflection discontinuity or abruption and are manually tracked in post-stack seismic data, which is time-consuming. In order to improve efficiency, a variety of automatic fault detection methods have been proposed, among which widespread attention has been given to deep learning-based methods. However, deep learning techniques require a large amount of marked seismic samples as a training dataset. Although the amount of synthetic seismic data can be guaranteed and the labels are accurate, the difference between synthetic data and real data still exists. To overcome this drawback, we apply a transfer learning strategy to improve the performance of automatic fault detection by deep learning methods. We first pre-train a deep neural network with synthetic seismic data. Then we retrain the network with real seismic samples. We use a random sample consensus (RANSAC) method to obtain real seismic samples and generate corresponding labels automatically. Three real 3D examples are included to demonstrate that the fault detection accuracy of the pre-trained network models can be greatly improved by retraining the network with a few amount of real seismic samples.
Highlights
IntroductionInterpreters identify the faults as reflection discontinuity or abruption and track faults on Another type of attribute highlights faults by computing the difference between seismic traces, e.g., variance attribute [4], curvature attribute [5] and gradient magnitude [6]
The first 3D seismic volume used to test the effect of transfer learning is the seismic data we use to extract the real training samples
The real seismic samples for transfer learning are all extracted from the first 3D seismic data, and the retrained network models can work pretty well in the second and third seismic data, indicating that the retrained network models can be used for detecting similar type of faults in a different area
Summary
Interpreters identify the faults as reflection discontinuity or abruption and track faults on Another type of attribute highlights faults by computing the difference between seismic traces, e.g., variance attribute [4], curvature attribute [5] and gradient magnitude [6]. Since these attributes are with seismic reflection removed and discontinuities highlighted, they can be regarded as fault images
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.