Increasing the quality of seismic interpretation

AbstractGeologic models are based on the interpretation of spatially sparse and limited resolution data sets. Nonunique interpretations often exist, resulting in commercial, safety, and environmental risks. We surveyed 444 experienced geoscientists to assess the validity of their interpretations of a seismic section for which multiple concepts honor the data. The most statistically influential factor in improving interpretation was writing about geologic time. A randomized controlled trial identified for the first time a significant causal link between being explicitly requested to describe the temporal geologic evolution of an interpretation and increased interpretation quality. These results have important implications for interpreting geologic data and communicating uncertainty in models.

[1]  M. Bentley,et al.  Scenario-based reservoir modelling: the need for more determinism and less anchoring , 2008 .

[2]  P. McCullagh.  Regression Models for Ordinal Data , 1980 .

[3]  Z. Shipton,et al.  What do you think this is? "Conceptual uncertainty" in geoscience interpretation , 2007 .

[4]  C. Bond.  Uncertainty in Structural Interpretation: Lessons to be learnt , 2015 .

[5]  S. Stewart.  Salt tectonics in the North Sea Basin: a structural style template for seismic interpreters , 2007, Geological Society, London, Special Publications.

[6]  J. Przyborowski,et al.  Homogeneity of results in testing samples from Poisson series, with an application to testing clover seed for dodder. , 1940 .

[7]  Graeme Bonham-Carter,et al.  Computer Simulation in Geology , 1970 .

[8]  C. Mann.  Uncertainty in geology , 1993 .

[9]  R. Frodeman.  Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science , 1995 .

[10]  Peter Molnar,et al.  John Perry's neglected critique of Kelvin's age for the Earth: A missed opportunity in geodynamics , 2007 .

[11]  N. Draper,et al.  Applied Regression Analysis , 1966 .

[12]  Clare E. Bond,et al.  Structural models: Optimizing risk analysis by understanding conceptual uncertainty , 2008 .

[13]  A. Curtis,et al.  Dynamics of uncertainty in geological interpretation , 2010, Journal of the Geological Society.

[14]  R. Lunn,et al.  What makes an expert effective at interpreting seismic images , 2012 .

[15]  T. C. Chamberlin.  The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses: With this method the dangers of parental affection for a favorite theory can be circumvented. , 1965, Science.

[16]  C. Bond,et al.  Structural model creation: the impact of data type and creative space on geological reasoning and interpretation , 2015, Special Publications.