Generating an accurate model of the subsurface for the purpose of assessing the feasibility of a CO2 storage site is crucial. In particular, how faults are interpreted is likely to influence the predicted capacity and integrity of the reservoir; whether this is through identifying high-risk areas along the fault, where fluid is likely to flow across the fault, or by assessing the reactivation potential of the fault with increased pressure, causing fluid to flow up the fault. New technologies allow users to interpret faults effortlessly, and in much quicker time, using methods such as deep learning (DL). These DL techniques use knowledge from neural networks to allow end users to compute areas where faults are likely to occur. Although these new technologies may be attractive due to reduced interpretation time, it is important to understand the inherent uncertainties in their ability to predict accurate fault geometries. Here, we compare DL fault interpretation versus manual fault interpretation, and we can see distinct differences to those faults where significant ambiguity exists due to poor seismic resolution at the fault; we observe an increased irregularity when DL methods are used over conventional manual interpretation. This can result in significant differences between the resulting analyses, such as fault reactivation potential. Conversely, we observe that well-imaged faults indicate a close similarity between the resulting fault surfaces when DL and manual fault interpretation methods are used; hence, we also observe a close similarity between any attributes and fault analyses made.

You do not currently have access to this article.