- Home
- A-Z Publications
- First Break
- Previous Issues
- Volume 38, Issue 2, 2020
First Break - Volume 38, Issue 2, 2020
Volume 38, Issue 2, 2020
-
-
Domains and trends in AVO
More LessAbstractAmplitude Versus Offset methods make use of different domains to display rock properties and seismic amplitudes. A transformation from one domain to another will in general either create a trend or change an existing trend. Trends created by a transformation do not add any information about properties of the input data and I call these transformation trends. Whereas a strong transformation trend results when displaying seismic data in the Intercept Gradient domain, a trend is also created, though a much weaker one, when converting compressional and shear velocities and density to the same Intercept Gradient domain. Points and trendlines transfer in different ways. If a trend seen in one domain is (for example) a lithology trend, such as the trend often seen in crossplots of Vp and Vs, then a trend resulting from the same data in another domain will not be a lithology trend.
-
-
-
DHI scenarios in exploration: a personal view
By Rob SimmAbstractDHI scenarios can usefully be divided into 1) ‘high grade DHI’ scenarios that have DHI characteristics consistent with the trap and indicative of a fluid contact and 2) ‘low-grade DHI ’ scenarios that have amplitude and AVO anomalies or low confidence fluid indications. This categorization is justified based on rock physics principles and historical data. Highgrade DHIs warrant a positive uplift to the chance of success of the prospect whereas low-grade DHIs generally do not.
In late stage basin settings (such as the North Sea), with pressure to find prospects that pass internal risk and volumetric thresholds, it is easy to have a myopic focus on seismic amplitude, misunderstand the relative importance of geological and geophysical information and to exaggerate the significance of amplitude and AVO anomalies. Offsetting these tendencies requires an integration of prospect lookback/base rate information with bias mitigation strategies in the risking process.
-
-
-
GeoDRIVE - a high performance computing flexible platform for seismic applications
Authors Suha N. Kayum, Thierry Tonellot, Vincent Etienne, Ali Momin, Ghada Sindi, Maxim Dmitriev and Hussain SalimAbstractGeoDRIVE, a high performance computing (HPC) software framework tailored to massive seismic applications and super-computers is presented. The paper discusses the flexibility and modularity of the application along with optimized HPC features. GeoDRIVE’s versatile design, associated to exascale computing capabilities, unlocks new classes of applications that significantly improve geoscientists’ abilities to understand, locate and characterize challenging targets in complex settings. As a result, uncertainties in subsurface models are reduced both quantitatively and qualitatively, along with reduced drilling risks and improved prospect generation.
-
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)