- Home
- A-Z Publications
- First Break
- Previous Issues
- Volume 23, Issue 6, 2005
First Break - Volume 23, Issue 6, 2005
Volume 23, Issue 6, 2005
-
-
Veritas shoots for quality image under new management
By A. McBarnetThierry Pilenko has taken over the reins of seismic services contractor Veritas DGC at what may be a significant turning point in the E&P business model. He talks to Andrew McBarnet about his vision of the future market and the role Veritas can play.
-
-
-
Danish government out to tempt E&P companies with new licensing round
The 6th Danish licensing round was due to be announced as First Break went to press with the Danish government indicating that oil companies would be invited to apply for licences by a deadline of 1 November, 2005. We publish here some of the background to this latest offering.
-
-
-
Research expeditions scheduled to drill Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific sites
By M.F. CoffinProf Millard F. Coffin who works in the Science Advisory Office of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, based in Japan, describes some of the scientific objectives of the next round of international drilling expeditions.
-
-
-
The integration imperative: piecing together the reservoir jigsaw
Authors S. Pickering, J. Khazanehdari, I. Marin, P. Hodgson and S. LeaneyStephen Pickering, Jalal Khazanehdari, and Irina Marin of WesternGeco, and Phil Hodgson and Scott Leaney of Schlumberger, provide some examples of how integration can work from data collection through to reservoir modelling.
-
-
-
Recent experience with 4D marine seismic acquisition
Authors M. Widmaier, A. Long, B. Danielsen and S. HegnaMartin Widmaier, Andrew Long, Barbara Danielsen, and Stian Hegna (PGS Geophysical) describe recent refinements in 4D marine seismic acquisition techniques to improve baseline and monitor surveys.
-
-
-
New concepts for borehole and VSP data integration in seismic data processing
Authors R. Walia, K. Brandt, R. Duthie, R. Whittaker, E. Malterre and P. BellRick Walia and Ken Brandt, CGG Canada Services; Rob Duthie, VSFusion/Baker Atlas; Roger Whittaker and Emmanuel Malterre, First Calgary Petroleums; and Peter Bell, RPS Hydrosearch, provide an example from Algeria to illustrate the benefits of integrating borehole and VSP data in the processing of challenging seismic data.
-
-
-
Role of automated techniques in improving volume-based structural interpretation
Authors T. Marsh, J. Tyrrell and L. EvinsTony Marsh, John Tyrrell, and Laura Evins, Paradigm discuss how advances in automated processes in the structural interpretation of seismic data are helping to bring new standards of speed and accuracy in the building of solid models for time-depth conversions or reservoir characterization.
-
-
-
Monitoring of water infiltration in a reservoir sand: improving interpretation with dip steering and spectral decomposition
Authors P. de Beukelaar and M. SeignolePaul de Beukelaar and Marine Seignole of Paris-based company SoleGeo discuss a time-lapse R&D experiment using RADAR to monitor water infiltration in a reservoir sand which may have wider implications for reservoir characterization.
-
-
-
Reservoir geophysics: what went wrong?
More LessRichard Cooper* and Richard Uden of Rock Solid Images ask some searching questions no one dares to ask about the slow development and take-up of the promised benefits of reservoir geophysics using 4D seismic and other advanced techniques.
-
-
-
Is there a future for passive seismic?
By P.M. DuncanPeter M. Duncan, of Houston-based Microseismic Inc, provides a frank appraisal of the potential and challenges for the use of passive seismic techniques in hydrocarbons exploration and development.
-
-
-
GeoPASS: a decision support system for selecting the optimal geophysical technique for shallow surveys
Authors J.A.C. Meekes and B.J.M. GoesIn this paper we present a decision support system for selecting the optimal geophysical technique to detect shallow land targets (< 80 m-bs, i.e. less than 80 m below the surface). The system is freely available on the Internet. The aim of the decision support system is to stimulate geophysicists and end-users to assess the applicability of geophysical techniques prior to a survey in order to increase the chance of a satisfactory outcome. In the long term this will hopefully lead to enhanced recognition of the value of geophysics. The use of geophysical techniques for investigating environmental problems is less then it could be. In our view an important reason for this is that, in the Netherlands at least, geophysics in quite a number of cases does not supply the information expected by the end-user. The information is often vaguer or more ambiguous than environmental managers are used to, and/or the performance of the geophysical technique is poor due to the characteristics of the site and/or soil. The poor performance may also be caused by the application of a less suitable technique or the use of a non-optimal field-design. Applying geophysical methods without satisfactory results for end-users is, in the long term, bad for geophysics in general. Often these unsatisfactory results are due to a lack of assessment of the applicability of the geophysical techniques at specific sites prior to the survey. Such assessments hardly cost any time, especially when site characteristics are known and are backed by a geophysical decision support system. As geophysicists, we think that geophysical measurements can, if used properly, become more and more important for subsurface investigations for environmental and infrastructure projects. The well-known advantages of geophysical techniques are that a lateral continuous image of the subsurface is obtained and that geophysics is generally less destructive for the subsoil than, for example, drilling. To overcome the problem of applying non-optimal techniques, a decision support system was designed within the framework of the European HYGEIA Project (Hybrid Geophysical technology for the Evaluation of Insidious contaminated Areas). The system is called GeoPASS. In the past, several organizations developed tools for selecting a geophysical technique for a specific problem. Crosstables indicating which technique(s) could be applied to certain problems have been prepared by several organizations and companies. These tables are mostly general and do not indicate whether the technique will be successful for a specific site. A good example can be found at the website of the Swiss Geophysical Commission (www.aug.geophys.ethz.ch/gpmapping). One other geophysical decision support system asking the user more detailed information about the site characteristics is known to the authors. This system, called GAES, was specifically designed for detecting pollutants (Geophysics Advisor Expert System, Gary R. Aloft, USGS Open-File Report 92- 526). However, the system is not very user-friendly, rather old (1992), and the outcome is a set of rather general remarks about the applicability of geophysical techniques. GeoPASS is designed to provide the user with an estimate of the chance of success of several geophysical techniques. The target may be either a pollutant or a relevant subsurface feature (e.g. sealing clay layer, fracture). The outcome of GeoPASS may even be that none of the assessed geophysical techniques can detect the target given the site conditions. The aims of GeoPASS are to: ■ Provide an estimate of the success chance of geophysical techniques at a specific site and therefore avoid the application of geophysical techniques that are not appropriate ■ Make the end-user aware of the chance of success expected of the geophysical technique(s) to be applied and the factors that influence that chance ■ Give an initial estimation of the costs of a geophysical survey on the site GeoPASS also serves as a checklist. If no information about the site and target parameters is available, it is difficult to predict whether a geophysical technique is capable of supplying the required results. This situation is prone to mis-use by some enthusiastic geophysicists and geophysical companies, often resulting in disappointed end-users. Hopefully the use of GeoPASS will lead to more 'happy faces' among the end-users of shallow geophysical techniques and therefore enhance recognition of the value of geophysical techniques in general.
-
-
-
Acquisition and application of multicomponent vector wavefields: are they practical?
Authors J. Gaiser and A. StrudleyOur ability to acquire and process multicomponent vector wavefields (MCVWs) has arguably never been better. We now have acquisition systems that can can provide high quality measurements, and processing workflows that can address the major barriers in imaging. Despite this, the uptake of MCVWs as an E&P tool appears to be slow leading us to pose the question: ‘are they practical’? In this paper we attempt to answer this question by reviewing the historical development and ‘state of the art’ of MCVW surveying and by looking at the additional value derived in selected applications over ‘conventional’ P-Wave surveys.
-
Volumes & issues
-
Volume 42 (2024)
-
Volume 41 (2023)
-
Volume 40 (2022)
-
Volume 39 (2021)
-
Volume 38 (2020)
-
Volume 37 (2019)
-
Volume 36 (2018)
-
Volume 35 (2017)
-
Volume 34 (2016)
-
Volume 33 (2015)
-
Volume 32 (2014)
-
Volume 31 (2013)
-
Volume 30 (2012)
-
Volume 29 (2011)
-
Volume 28 (2010)
-
Volume 27 (2009)
-
Volume 26 (2008)
-
Volume 25 (2007)
-
Volume 24 (2006)
-
Volume 23 (2005)
-
Volume 22 (2004)
-
Volume 21 (2003)
-
Volume 20 (2002)
-
Volume 19 (2001)
-
Volume 18 (2000)
-
Volume 17 (1999)
-
Volume 16 (1998)
-
Volume 15 (1997)
-
Volume 14 (1996)
-
Volume 13 (1995)
-
Volume 12 (1994)
-
Volume 11 (1993)
-
Volume 10 (1992)
-
Volume 9 (1991)
-
Volume 8 (1990)
-
Volume 7 (1989)
-
Volume 6 (1988)
-
Volume 5 (1987)
-
Volume 4 (1986)
-
Volume 3 (1985)
-
Volume 2 (1984)
-
Volume 1 (1983)