Abstracts

• 55546 Exploring the Limits of Seismic Interpretation Techniques Through the Use of Computational Stratigraphy Models Seismic interpretation of the subsurface geologic record has evolved over the years from simple 2D wavelet visualizations on paper to dynamic 3D visualizations in computer programs. Proven 2D manual approaches gave the interpreter ample time to think about and validate geologic relationships as they built their seismic interpretation. But now we can automatically extract and view thousands of seismic reflections as movies in 3D and these accelerated mapping capabilities leave us little time to think about what we are seeing. High-definition monitors and dynamic visualization techniques encourage us to believe seismic images are “photographs” of the geologic record and make it easy to assume that seismic reflections are geologic surfaces. We must not forget that the recorded geophysical response relates to a complex interplay between rock properties, depth and frequency and that these relationships impact interpretive uncertainty. In order to frame this uncertainty, we must understand how frequency loss impacts the accuracy of the seismic to geologic tie. And, in a future where automated seismic mapping is the norm, we must ensure interpretations are validated within the constraints of the data quality. Exploring the Limits of Seismic Interpretation Techniques Through the Use of Computational Stratigraphy Models
  Exploring the Limits of Seismic Interpretation Techniques Through the Use of Computational Stratigraphy Models