Uncertainty in Gross Rock Volume Analysis - A Stochastic or Deterministic Approach?

Viol, Sebastiaan L Meyer; Hoetz, H.L.J.G.

doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201413034

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is important to notice that when doing a seismic processing it is not feasible to consider there is a huge problem regarding phase rotation. Therefore, even considering small phase distortions/rotations (e.g., 10°, 20°-maximumnear to real cases), and the depth predictions variation, all the GRV uncertainties arise in the range (3% to 17%) presented by taking different approaches such as salt heterogeneities, signal quality, and velocity simulation scenarios (Meyer Viol and Hoetz, 2015;Paes et al, 2019;Maul et al, 2021a;2021b). We are not advocating for advantages or disadvantages of the previous methods, or this suggested one.…”

Section: Application To Synthetic Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To estimate the impact of the horizon picking uncertainty by the proposed methodology, we used a stochastic approach as described by Meyer Viol and Hoetz (2015), where multiple realizations of the top surface are made and a GRV expectation curve is generated, considering the oil-water contact, of known depth, as lower limit. Each realization is constructed from the mapped surface using Sequential Gaussian Simulation (SGS) (Figure 17).…”

Section: Uncertainty Quantification -Grv Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The base case considered (𝑍𝑍 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 ) is the surface corresponding to the top of the carbonate reservoir, originally mapped in time and converted to depth by the velocity model. Each realization is defined as (Meyer Viol and Hoetz, 2015):…”

Section: Uncertainty Quantification -Grv Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent works (Meyer Viol and Hoetz, 2015;Paes et al, 2019;Maul et al, 2021a;2021b) take structural uncertainty due to velocity models into account by generating a range of equiprobable conversion models, which are used to evaluate the impact of this uncertainty on GRV distributions in a relatively direct way. In contrast, the impact of seismic interpretation uncertainty is commonly neglected, due to the difficulty in quantifying it, especially when opting for a qualitative approach with a conceptual and subjective basis, as described by Leahy and Skorstad (2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Accessing Horizon Picking Uncertainty using Complex Seismic Trace Attributes

Jardim,

Maul,

Lupinacci

2024

Braz J Geophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many uncertainty sources are linked to the reservoir modeling processes, significantly affecting on all phases of the exploration, development, and production phases of an oil & gas field. Structural uncertainty due to velocity models are commonly considered by taking a range of equiprobable domain conversion velocity models and evaluating the related impact on GRV distributions. In contrast, the seismic interpretation inaccuracy is commonly neglected, because the difficulty in quantifying it. This means that seismic mapping is frequently treated as having no variation or having the intrinsically imprecisions assigned arbitrarily. In this work, we propose an objective approach to evaluate the horizon picking uncertainties, which was based on the complex seismic trace attributes extraction considering a previously mapped reference reflector. In real seismic data, phase distortions may arise from a vast bunch of reasons, such as dispersion, attenuation, bandwidth limitations. Thus, the instantaneous phase attribute can be an indicator of uncertainties associated with seismic reflectors interpretation.

show abstract

Section: Application To Synthetic Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Uncertainty Quantification -Grv Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Uncertainty Quantification -Grv Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%