Structural Interpretation of seismic, geological realism and 3D thinking

Abstract

Our notion of reality in seismic interpretation and structural geology usually follows a series of careful observations and ideas that eventually crystallize into a best-case model. In most other branches of science the strength or reality of such models (or hypotheses) is increased by the number of robust tests that either refine or fail to disprove the original idea. However, geological models in the Exploration and Production (E&P) sector differ because the starting point for testing is usually an interpretation of seismic or other remote measurements, rather than the direct observation of an effect. This means that whatever tests we are able to apply have, in themselves, significant margins for error and are further compounded by the intellectual issue of constructing a 3D view or model of the perceived geologic reality. This model building is an early stage of the E&P process, but errors and uncertainty at this point propagate throughout the subsequent workflow and arguably, amount to the single biggest factor affecting perceived value and in particular drilling risk.