Significant uncertainties occur through varying methodologies when interpreting faults using seismic data. These uncertainties are carried through to the interpretation of how faults may act as baffles or barriers, or increase fluid flow. How fault segments are picked when interpreting structures, i.e. which seismic line orientation, bin spacing and line spacing are specified, as well as what surface generation algorithm is used, will dictate how rugose the surface is and hence will impact any further interpretation such as fault seal or fault growth models. We can observe that an optimum spacing for fault interpretation for this case study is set at approximately 100 m, both for accuracy of analysis but also for considering time invested. It appears that any additional detail through interpretation with a line spacing of ≤ 50 m adds complexity associated with sensitivities by the individual interpreter. Further, the locations of all seismic-scale fault segmentation identified on throw–distance plots using the finest line spacing are also observed when 100 m line spacing is used. Hence, interpreting at a finer scale may not necessarily improve the subsurface model and any related analysis but in fact lead to the production of very rough surfaces, which impacts any further fault analysis. Interpreting on spacing greater than 100 m often leads to overly smoothed fault surfaces that miss details that could be crucial, both for fault seal as well as for fault growth models.Uncertainty in seismic interpretation methodology will follow through to fault seal analysis, specifically for analysis of whether in situ stresses combined with increased pressure through CO₂ injection will act to reactivate the faults, leading to up-fault fluid flow. We have shown that changing picking strategies alter the interpreted stability of the fault, where picking with an increased line spacing has shown to increase the overall fault stability. Picking strategy has shown to have a minor, although potentially crucial, impact on the predicted shale gouge ratio.

中文翻译：

---

使用地震数据进行断层解释的不确定性，以及对断层封闭分析的影响：来自 Horda 平台的案例研究，对 CO ₂封存的影响

在使用地震数据解释断层时，通过不同的方法会产生重大的不确定性。这些不确定性被用于解释断层如何充当挡板或障碍，或增加流体流动。在解释结构时如何挑选断层段，即指定哪些地震线方向、区间间距和线间距，以及使用什么表面生成算法，将决定表面的皱纹程度，从而影响任何进一步的解释，例如断层密封或断层增长模型。我们可以观察到，本案例研究的最佳断层解释间距设置为大约 100 m，这既是为了分析的准确性，也是为了考虑投入的时间。看来，任何额外的细节通过解释与行间距≤ 50 m 增加了与个人口译员敏感性相关的复杂性。此外，当使用 100 m 线距时，还观察到使用最细线距在抛距图上识别的所有地震尺度断层分段的位置。因此，在更精细的尺度上进行解释可能不一定会改进地下模型和任何相关分析，但实际上会导致产生非常粗糙的表面，这会影响任何进一步的断层分析。解释大于 100 m 的间距通常会导致过度平滑的断层表面，这些细节可能对断层封闭和断层增长模型至关重要。地震解释方法的不确定性将贯穿断层封闭分析，特别是对于分析原位应力是否与通过 CO 增加的压力相结合₂注入将重新激活断层，导致向上断层流体流动。我们已经表明，改变采摘策略会改变断层的解释稳定性，其中增加线间距的采摘已表明会增加整体故障稳定性。采掘策略已显示出对预测的页岩泥比的影响虽然可能很重要，但影响很小。