What do you think this is? 'Conceptual uncertainty' in geoscience interpretation

C.E. Bond, A.D. Gibbs, Z.K. Shipton, S. Jones

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

31 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Interpretations of seismic images are used to analyze subsurface geology and form the basis for many exploration and extraction decisions, but the uncertainty that arises from human bias in seismic data interpretation has not previously been quantified. All geological data sets are spatially limited and have limited resolution. Geoscientists who interpret such data sets must, therefore, rely upon their previous experience and apply a limited set of geological concepts. We have documented the range of interpretations to a single data set, and in doing so have quantified the “conceptual uncertainty” inherent in seismic interpretation. In this experiment, 412 interpretations of a synthetic seismic image were analyzed. Only 21% of the participants interpreted the “correct” tectonic setting of the original model, and only 23% highlighted the three main fault strands in the image. These results illustrate that conceptual uncertainty exists, which in turn explains the large range of interpretations that can result from a single data set. We consider the role of prior knowledge in biasing individuals in their interpretation of the synthetic seismic section, and our results demonstrate that conceptual uncertainty has a critical influence on resource exploration and other areas of geoscience. Practices should be developed to minimize the effects of conceptual uncertainty, and it should be accounted for in risk analysis.
LanguageEnglish
Pages4-10
Number of pages7
JournalGSA Today
Volume7
Issue number11
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

data interpretation
tectonic setting
seismic data
geology
resource
experiment
effect
decision
risk analysis

Keywords

  • seismic images
  • sub-surface geology
  • geological data

Cite this

Bond, C.E. ; Gibbs, A.D. ; Shipton, Z.K. ; Jones, S. / What do you think this is? 'Conceptual uncertainty' in geoscience interpretation. In: GSA Today. 2007 ; Vol. 7, No. 11. pp. 4-10.
@article{f96ef8511e6d454fb6100b524619cb65,
title = "What do you think this is? 'Conceptual uncertainty' in geoscience interpretation",
abstract = "Interpretations of seismic images are used to analyze subsurface geology and form the basis for many exploration and extraction decisions, but the uncertainty that arises from human bias in seismic data interpretation has not previously been quantified. All geological data sets are spatially limited and have limited resolution. Geoscientists who interpret such data sets must, therefore, rely upon their previous experience and apply a limited set of geological concepts. We have documented the range of interpretations to a single data set, and in doing so have quantified the “conceptual uncertainty” inherent in seismic interpretation. In this experiment, 412 interpretations of a synthetic seismic image were analyzed. Only 21{\%} of the participants interpreted the “correct” tectonic setting of the original model, and only 23{\%} highlighted the three main fault strands in the image. These results illustrate that conceptual uncertainty exists, which in turn explains the large range of interpretations that can result from a single data set. We consider the role of prior knowledge in biasing individuals in their interpretation of the synthetic seismic section, and our results demonstrate that conceptual uncertainty has a critical influence on resource exploration and other areas of geoscience. Practices should be developed to minimize the effects of conceptual uncertainty, and it should be accounted for in risk analysis.",
keywords = "seismic images, sub-surface geology, geological data",
author = "C.E. Bond and A.D. Gibbs and Z.K. Shipton and S. Jones",
year = "2007",
month = "11",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "4--10",
journal = "GSA Today",
issn = "1052-5173",
number = "11",

}

What do you think this is? 'Conceptual uncertainty' in geoscience interpretation. / Bond, C.E.; Gibbs, A.D.; Shipton, Z.K.; Jones, S.

In: GSA Today, Vol. 7, No. 11, 11.2007, p. 4-10.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - What do you think this is? 'Conceptual uncertainty' in geoscience interpretation

AU - Bond, C.E.

AU - Gibbs, A.D.

AU - Shipton, Z.K.

AU - Jones, S.

PY - 2007/11

Y1 - 2007/11

N2 - Interpretations of seismic images are used to analyze subsurface geology and form the basis for many exploration and extraction decisions, but the uncertainty that arises from human bias in seismic data interpretation has not previously been quantified. All geological data sets are spatially limited and have limited resolution. Geoscientists who interpret such data sets must, therefore, rely upon their previous experience and apply a limited set of geological concepts. We have documented the range of interpretations to a single data set, and in doing so have quantified the “conceptual uncertainty” inherent in seismic interpretation. In this experiment, 412 interpretations of a synthetic seismic image were analyzed. Only 21% of the participants interpreted the “correct” tectonic setting of the original model, and only 23% highlighted the three main fault strands in the image. These results illustrate that conceptual uncertainty exists, which in turn explains the large range of interpretations that can result from a single data set. We consider the role of prior knowledge in biasing individuals in their interpretation of the synthetic seismic section, and our results demonstrate that conceptual uncertainty has a critical influence on resource exploration and other areas of geoscience. Practices should be developed to minimize the effects of conceptual uncertainty, and it should be accounted for in risk analysis.

AB - Interpretations of seismic images are used to analyze subsurface geology and form the basis for many exploration and extraction decisions, but the uncertainty that arises from human bias in seismic data interpretation has not previously been quantified. All geological data sets are spatially limited and have limited resolution. Geoscientists who interpret such data sets must, therefore, rely upon their previous experience and apply a limited set of geological concepts. We have documented the range of interpretations to a single data set, and in doing so have quantified the “conceptual uncertainty” inherent in seismic interpretation. In this experiment, 412 interpretations of a synthetic seismic image were analyzed. Only 21% of the participants interpreted the “correct” tectonic setting of the original model, and only 23% highlighted the three main fault strands in the image. These results illustrate that conceptual uncertainty exists, which in turn explains the large range of interpretations that can result from a single data set. We consider the role of prior knowledge in biasing individuals in their interpretation of the synthetic seismic section, and our results demonstrate that conceptual uncertainty has a critical influence on resource exploration and other areas of geoscience. Practices should be developed to minimize the effects of conceptual uncertainty, and it should be accounted for in risk analysis.

KW - seismic images

KW - sub-surface geology

KW - geological data

UR - http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/17/11/

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 4

EP - 10

JO - GSA Today

T2 - GSA Today

JF - GSA Today

SN - 1052-5173

IS - 11

ER -