Structural model creation: the impact of data type and creative space on geological reasoning and interpretation

C E Bond,G Johnson,J F Ellis

doi:10.1144/sp421.4

C E Bond, G Johnson + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1144/sp421.4

Copy DOI

Abstract

AbstractInterpretation of sparse or incomplete datasets is a fundamental part of geology, particularly when building models of the subsurface. Available geological data are often remotely sensed (seismic data) or very limited in spatial extent (borehole data). Understanding how different datasets are interpreted and what makes an interpreter effective is critical if accurate geological models are to be created. A comparison of the interpretation outcome and techniques used by two cohorts interpreting different geological datasets of the same model, an inversion structure, was made. The first cohort consists of interpreters of the synthetic seismic image data in Bond et al. (‘What do you think this is?: “Conceptual uncertainty” in geoscience interpretation’, GSA Today, 2007, 17, 4–10, http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/GSAT01711A.1); the second cohort is new and interpreted borehole data. The outcomes of the borehole interpretation dataset support earlier findings that technique use, specifically evidence of geological evolution thought processes, results in more effective interpretation. The results also show that the borehole interpreters were more effective at arriving at the correct interpretation. Analysis of their final interpretations in the context of psychological and medical image analysis research suggests that the clarity of the original dataset, the amount of noise and white space may play a role in interpretation outcome, through enforced geological reasoning during data interpretation.

Highlights

Subsurface geological models play an important part in decision-making in industrial geology
In this study we present multiple interpretations by geoscientists based purely on synthetic borehole data created from a known geological model
Our first cohort are the interpreters of Bond et al (2007) who interpreted a synthetic seismic image; the second cohort are new, and were given borehole data based on the geological model used to create the synthetic seismic image

Summary

Introduction

Subsurface geological models play an important part in decision-making in industrial geology. Understanding the techniques and interpretation strategies employed to create subsurface geological models is an important element in risking models. Previous studies have investigated: differences in interpretational outcomes in creating geological models (Rankey & Mitchell 2003; Bond et al 2007); the dynamics of group decision-making in geological model interpretation (Polson & Curtis 2010); the experience and techniques used to make an effective interpretation (Bond et al 2012); workflows for optimizing model choice to minimize risk and deal with model uncertainties (Refsgaard et al 2006; Bond et al 2008); and the calculation of differences between uncertainties in possible models (Tacher et al 2006; Wellmann et al 2010; Wellmann & Regenauer-Lieb 2012; Lindsay et al 2013). In this study we present multiple interpretations by geoscientists based purely on synthetic borehole data created from a known geological model. We compare these borehole-based inter- (a) pretations with interpretations by geoscientists from a synthetic seismic image covering the same geological model. Our aim is to better understand interpretational strategies and techniques given different datasets, through comparison of the differences in interpretational outcome and techniques employed by the two cohorts

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion