ABSTRACT

Seismic interpretation software is used in a variety of ways by geoscientists in the course of their work. Often, interpreters do not use the available software to its fullest advantage, and therefore do not reap the full value of their investment. Two different interpretation methodologies were compared to delineate the benefits of fully using the 3-D capabilities of software compared to a more traditional, 2-D canvas based method.

Table 1: Comparison of time to complete interpretation using "Traditional and GeoViz (3D Visualization)-based methods. Amount of interpreter time saved and the dollar cost of this time are also shown.

The methods were compared quantitatively and qualitatively using a small 3-D survey from the Gulf of Mexico. Four major steps in the interpretive process were examined; review data and build fault framework, Quality Control (QC) interpretation, generate top salt map, identify and map a prospect.

Two areas of the process provided the greatest impact on the results, in terms of time to completion and the quality of the result. By incorporating the using of the 3-D module QC while interpreting, and as an interpretation tool, significant time was saved in QC and more faults were interpreted. The other improvement was the decision, after viewing the seismic data in 3-D, to interpret the top salt as a fault rather than a horizon. This produced a more accurate result in less time than interpreting this complex surface as a horizon.

At the completion of the four processes, the geologic framework of the area has been worked out, and one prospect identified. The 3-D-based method took 63% of the time of the traditional method to complete and required less editing of the initial interpretation. However, 30 distinct pay zones have been delineated in this area, and it generally requires multiple iterations of interpretation and mapping to adequately delineate a drillable prospect. Taking these factors into account, the value of the 3-D-based method over the traditional method translates into time savings with a value of $10,000. In a typical shop where multiple data sets and prospects are evaluated over the course of a year the total cost saving could amount to $500,000.

End_of_Record - Last_Page 14-------