English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

. Five seismic interpretation experiments were conducted on an area ofinterest containing a fault relay in the Snøhvit field, Barents Sea,Norway, to understand how the interpretation method impacts the analysis offault and horizon morphologies, fault lengths, and throw. The resultinghorizon and fault interpretations from the least and most successfulinterpretation methods were further analysed to understand their impact ongeological modelling and hydrocarbon volume calculation. Generally, theleast dense manual interpretation method of horizons (32 inlines and 32 crosslines; 32 ILs × 32 XLs, 400 m) and faults (32 ILs, 400 m) resulted in inaccuratefault and horizon interpretations and underdeveloped relay morphologies andthrow, which are inadequate for any detailed geological analysis. Thedensest fault interpretations (4 ILs, 50 m) and 3D auto-tracked horizons (allILs and XLs spaced 12.5 m) provided the most detailed interpretations, mostdeveloped relay and fault morphologies, and geologically realistic throwdistributions. Sparse interpretation grids generate significant issues inthe model itself, which make it geologically inaccurate and lead tomisunderstanding of the structural evolution of the relay. Despitesignificant differences between the two models, the calculated in-placepetroleum reserves are broadly similar in the least and most denseexperiments. However, when considered at field scale, the differences involumes that are generated by the contrasting interpretation methodologiesclearly demonstrate the importance of applying accurate interpretationstrategies.

The impact of seismic interpretation methods on the analysis of faults: a case study from the Snøhvit field, Barents Sea