Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorMichie, E.A.H.
dc.contributor.authorBraathen, A.
dc.contributor.authorAlaei, B.
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-30T07:18:38Z
dc.date.available2021-09-30T07:18:38Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.isbn978-82-536-1714-5
dc.identifier.issn2387-4295
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2786445
dc.description.abstractInterpretation of faults in the subsurface hinges on utilizing an optimum picking strategy, i.e. the seismic line spacing. Differences in line spacing lead to significant changes in subsequent fault analyses such as fault growth, fault seal and fault stability, all of which are crucial when analyzing a fault-bound CO2 storage site. With the ever-advancing technologies, machine learning techniques, such as Deep Neural Networks (DNN), used for fault extraction are becoming increasingly common, however their limitations and corresponding uncertainty is still largely unknown. Here, we show how fault extraction using DNN compares with faults that have been picked manually, and with using different line spacing. Uncertainty related to both manual and automated fault extraction methods are heavily reliant on seismic quality. As such, faults that are well-imaged show a closer similarity between those that have been manually picked and automatically extracted. In cases of poorly imaged faults, DNN picking on narrower line spacing creates a fault that is more irregular and with a lower predicted stability than the smoother and simpler fault model created by manual picking. Thereby, DNN creates fault surfaces that are less stable than those that have been picked manually, which is assumed to be associated with the increased irregularity of the fault segments. We conclude that fault picking by DNN without in-depth expertise works for well-imaged faults; poorly imaged faults require additional considerations and quality control for both manually and DNN picked faults.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSINTEF Academic Pressen_US
dc.relation.ispartofTCCS–11. CO2 Capture, Transport and Storage. Trondheim 22nd–23rd June 2021. Short Papers from the 11th International Trondheim CCS Conference
dc.relation.ispartofseriesSINTEF Proceedings;7
dc.rightsCC BY 4.0*
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.subjectFault interpretationen_US
dc.subjectFault stabilityen_US
dc.subjectMachine learningen_US
dc.subjectUncertaintyen_US
dc.subjectCO2 storageen_US
dc.titleHow Fault Interpretation Method may Influence the Assessment of a Fault-Bound C02 Storage Siteen_US
dc.typeChapteren_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeConference objecten_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holder© 2021 The Authors. Published by SINTEF Academic Press.en_US
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Teknologi: 500en_US
dc.relation.projectNorges forskningsråd: 295061en_US
dc.relation.projectNorges forskningsråd: 257579en_US


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

CC BY 4.0
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som CC BY 4.0