Journal GSH
Journal GSH The Epicenter of Geophysical Excellence November 2014 GEOPHYSICAL SOCIETY OF HOUSTON 3D Image Processing for Interpretation With David Hale - Page 7 A Conversation With Peter Vail - Page 23 Integration of Rock Physics and Seismic Interpretation in West Africa - Page 11 UPCOMING EVENTS Northside TopGolf Social - Page 9 Tennis Tournament - Page 17 Webinar: Understanding Seismic Anisotropy in Exploration and Exploitation with Leon Thomsen - Page 9 Volume 5 • Number 3 Kirchhoff: No Q Compensation Kirchhoff: With Q Compensation WEM: With Q Compensation VTI or TTI Anisotropy and Attenuation Compensation During PSDM Q Model From Tomography Visco Acoustic Imaging Using Q tomography and depth migration, as the Q compensation platform, has the benefit that complex 3D wavefield attenuation can be automatically accounted for: • Improving resolution, and amplitude balance • Correcting the phase distortion, and allowing for better positioning of the reservoir Houston Tel: +1 281 509 8000 2 Geophysical Society of Houston November 2014 7| SEG/AAPG Distinguished Lecturer: 3D Seismic Image Processing for Interpretation of Faults and Horizons Speaker: David Hale, Center for Wave Phenomena, Colorado School of Mines Technical Breakfasts Detecting Small Scale Heterogeneities Through the Application of MultiFocusing 2D and 3D Diffraction Imaging Using Pre-existing Seismic Data Speaker: M arianne Rauch-Davies, Geomage GSH Live Webinar 9| November 10-13, 2014 Technical Article • • • F E AT U R E S • • • 8| Integration of Rock Physics and Seismic Interpretation – An Overlooked West African Stratigraphic Hydrocarbon Play By Ken MacAllister, Tim Daley, Bowleven PLC; Mike Bacon, Ikon Science; Simon Tamfu, Ponce Nguema, Societe Nationale des Hydrocarbures (SNH) 19| A Conversation With... Peter Vail 23| Doodlebugger Diary 38| Aliasing in F-K Space By Mike Graul By Lee Lawyer C H E C K T H I S O U T Wrong Place at the Wrong Time By Lee Lawyer TopGolf Social 9| November 6th, 2014 Tennis Tournament 17| November 21, 2014 Wavelets 28| Underwater Exploration: New UH Sonar and Seismic Capabilities GSH Made its Debut at URTeC November 2014 5•••• A Word From the Board 30•••• Welcome New Members 30•••• Corporate Sponsors 31•••• Annual Post Office Statement 32•••• Mystery Item 35•••• HPAC 35•••• Corporate Members 37•••• Geoscience Center News 40•••• Calendar of Events 11| Tutorial Nuggets 31| Organization Contacts INSIDE ••• Technical Luncheons & Dinner 4•••• LOOK 6| ••• Technical Events By Robert R. Stewart, First Vice President Do You Know What This Is?! Spouses' Auxiliary On The Cover... A Global Geophysical vibrator at work. Photo courtesy of Global Geophysical. E D I TO R ’ S N OT E ••• MEETINGS ••• TA B L E o f C O N T E N T S To ensure your information reaches the GSH members in a timely manner, please note the following deadlines and plan accordingly. Please submit your articles and any questions to Tommie Rape, editor, at tommiedr@aol.com. 2014 GSH JOURNAL DEADLINES Jan 2015 ......................................... November 5 Feb 2015......................................... December 3 Mar 2015.............................................January 5 © The Geophysical Society of Houston retains all rights and privileges to the content hereof. No reproduction or usage of content is allowed without express written permission of The Geophysical Society of Houston. Geophysical Society of Houston 3 GEOPHYSICAL SOCIETY OF HOUSTON Karen Blakeman, Office Director • Kathy Sanvido, Webmaster/Membership Manager 14811 St. Mary’s Lane, Suite 204, Houston, TX 77079 • Office Hours 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Phone: (281) 741-1624 • Email: office@gshtx.org • Website: http://www.gshtx.org GSH Board of Directors = GSH Executive Committee + SEG Section Representatives O R G A N I Z AT I O N C O N TAC T S Phone Cell PRESIDENT______________________________ Paul Schatz_______________713-975-7434_____713-829-5254_____ Sponsorship_________________________ Haynie Stringer____________281-491-2045_____832-606-3993 _____ Bright Spot Donations________________ Dave Agarwal_____________281-920-4450_______________________ Editorial Board_______________________ Lee Lawyer_______________281-531-5347_______________________ Historian____________________________ Art Ross____________________________________281-360-9331_____ Office_______________________________ Dave Agarwal_____________281-920-4450_______________________ Outreach____________________________ Lisa Buckner______________713-496-4256_____713-252-9665_____ Scholarship Liaison___________________ Jim Schuelke______________713-296-6801_______________________ Continuing Education_________________ Mike Graul________________713-465-3181_______________________ Webinar_________________________ Farshid Forouhideh________281-781-1178_______________________ PAST PRESIDENT _______________________ Tad Smith________________713-296-6251_____832-474-7825_____ PRIOR PAST PRESIDENT ______________ Scott Singleton____________713-273-1426_____832-524-8382_____ Email Paul.Schatz@int.com hayniestringer47@yahoo.com dave0836@aol.com llawyer@prodigy.net artross@airmail.net dave0836@aol.com lbuckner@hess.com jim.schuelke@apachecorp.com mgraul@texseis.com Farshid.Forouhideh@iongeo.com tad.smith@apachecorp.com Scott.Singleton@iongeo.com MEMBERSHIP PRESIDENT ELECT_______________________ Glenn Bear_______________281-624-9950_____281-250-4013_____ glenn.w.bear@exxonmobil.com GSH/SEG Membership_______________ Glenn Bear_______________281-624-9950_____281-250-4013_____ glenn.w.bear@exxonmobil.com Volunteer Coordinator________________ Nicola Maitland____________713-972-6209_____281-507-6552 _____ nmaitland@resolvegeo.com TECHNICAL EVENTS FIRST VICE PRESIDENT __________________ Robert Stewart____________713-491-4823_____832-244-1893_____ FIRST VICE PRESIDENT ELECT ________ Sofia Campbell______________________________713-668-5406_____ Tech Breakfasts Westside______________ Glenn Bear_______________281-654-5070_______________________ Tech Breakfasts Northside_____________ Glenn Bear_______________281-654-5070_______________________ Tech Luncheons & Dinner_____________ Rob Stewart______________713-491-4823_____832-244-1893_____ Spring Symposium___________________ Rob Stewart______________713-491-4823_____832-244-1893_____ DISC_______________________________ Rob Stewart______________713-491-4823_____832-244-1893_____ Geoscience Day______________________ Haynie Stringer____________281-491-2045_____832-606-3993 _____ OTC Rep.___________________________ Roy Clark_________________281-723-8672_______________________ SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS (SIGS) Data Processing and Acquisition________ Clement Kostov___________713-689-5752_____832-506-6026_____ Next Generation Geoscience Computing_ Abhijeet Narvekar____________________________281-630-4503_____ Potential Fields_______________________ Stephen Erck______________281-497-1526_____281-433-0614_____ Rock Physics________________________ Isabel Varela______________281-687-6692_______________________ Microseismic_________________________ Gary Jones_______________832-679-7104_____281-924-2210_____ SEG Wavelets________________________ Oyintari Aboro______________________________314-685 4391 _____ SOCIAL / FUNDRAISING EVENTS SECOND VICE PRESIDENT _______________ Liza Yellott________________713.881.2894_____713.204.0998 ____ SECOND VICE PRESIDENT ELECT _____ Carmen Comis____________713-393-4833_____832-282-9975_____ Sporting Clays_______________________ Dietrich Landis____________281-275-7748_____713-824-7633_____ Icebreaker - West_____________________ Malleswar Yenugu__________713-914-0300 _____281-687-8984_____ Icebreaker - North____________________ Tony LaPierre_____________713-482-3845_____281-733-5281_____ Salt Water Fishing Tournament_________ Bobby Perez______________281-240-1234_____281-787-2106_____ Social at TopGolf - North______________ Yoryenys Del Moro_________281-943-1729_______________________ Social at TopGolf - West_______________ Duane Pankhurst__________713-864-7700 _____713-444-7177_____ Tennis Tournament___________________ Russell Jones______________832-295-8350_______________________ Annual Meeting & Awards Banquet_____ Katherine Pittman_________713-972-6206_______________________ Golf Tournament_____________________ Dennis Sump_______________________________281-658-7433_____ Social Media Coordinator______________ Liza Yellott________________713.881.2894_____713.204.0998 ____ rrstewart@uh.edu sofia.campbell@comcast.net glenn.w.bear@exxonmobil.com glenn.w.bear@exxonmobil.com rrstewart@uh.edu rrstewart@uh.edu rrstewart@uh.edu hayniestringer47@yahoo.com reclark48@aol.com kostov1@slb.com abhijeet@thefervidgroup.com geordinates@hotmail.com isabel.varela@exxonmobil.com Gary.Jones@ihs.com oyintari.aboro@yahoo.com lyellott@Seitel.com carmen.comis@pdgm.com dlandis@fairfieldnodal.com myenugu@ikonscience.com Tony.Lapierre@rpsgroup.com r_perez@seismicventures.com yoryenysdelmoro@gmail.com duane.pankhust@edgegeophysics.com rjones@Seitel.com kpittman@resolvegeo.com dennis.sump@globalgeophysical.com lyellott@Seitel.com SECRETARY ____________________________ Andrew Peloso____________713-369-0274 _____713-894-5088 _____ Andrew.Peloso@gmail.com TREASURER ____________________________ Amy Rhodes________________________________281-293-3514_____ amy.l.rhodes@cop.com Finance Committee___________________ Dennis Yanchak___________713-296-6109_______________________ Dennis.Yanchak@apachecorp.com COMMUNICATIONS EDITOR_________________________________ Tommie Rape_______________________________713-829-5480_____ Assistant Editor______________________ Marianne Rauch-Davies_______________________832-641-2377_____ Assistant Editor______________________ David Watts_______________713-689-6040_______________________ Assistant Editor______________________ Malleswar Yenugu__________713-914-0300 _____281-687-8984_____ Advertising Committee________________ Karen Blakeman___________281-741-1624_______________________ Website Coordinator__________________ Liza Yellott________________713.881.2894_____713.204.0998 ____ tommiedr@aol.com mrauchdavies@gmail.com DWatts1@slb.com myenugu@ikonscience.com karen@gshtx.org lyellott@Seitel.com SEG SECTION REPRESENTATIVES________ Paul Schatz_______________713-975-7434_____713-829-5254_____ ____________________________________ Tad Smith________________713-296-6251_____832-474-7825_____ ____________________________________ Scott Singleton____________713-273-1426_____832-524-8382_____ ____________________________________ Glenn Bear_______________281-624-9950_____281-250-4013_____ ____________________________________ Lee Lawyer_______________281-531-5347_______________________ ____________________________________ Lisa Buckner______________713-496-4256_____713-252-9665_____ SEG ALTERNATE REPS______________________ Bill Gafford_________281-370-3264_______________________ __________________________________________ Marianne Rauch-Davies ________________832-641-2377_____ __________________________________________ Haynie Stringer_____281-491-2045_____832-606-3993 _____ Paul.Schatz@int.com tad.smith@apachecorp.com Scott.Singleton@iongeo.com glenn.w.bear@exxonmobil.com llawyer@prodigy.net lbuckner@hess.com geogaf@hal-pc.org mrauchdavies@gmail.com hayniestringer47@yahoo.com Geoscience Center / Museum__________ Bill Gafford_________________________________281-370-3264_____ geogaf@hal-pc.org SPG-NA Rep.________________________ Dave Agarwal_______________________________281-920-4450_____ dave0836@aol.com ECH Liaison_________________________ Bill Gafford_______________281-370-3264_______________________ geogaf@hal-pc.org HPAC______________________________ Donna Parrish, HPAC _______________________281-859-8088_____ Lefty4770@icloud.com 4 Back to Index Geophysical Society of Houston November 2014 A Word from the Board Haven’t we? Robert R. Stewart, First Vice President “Man is by nature a social animal” is attributed to one of the earliest geoscientists, Aristotle, in his book Politics written around 330 BCE. More recently, in 1973, then President of the American Geophysical Union, P. Abelson, offered that, “The primary function of scientific societies is to facilitate communication among their members.” A little more broadly, the Society of Exploration Geophysicist’s mission is to inspire, connect, and propel the people and science of geophysics. Likewise, our own Geophysical Society of Houston (GSH) is formed to promote the science and profession of geophysics, and to foster fellowship and cooperation among all persons interested in geophysics. So, our professional societies – and to a large degree society as a whole - are fundamentally about members communicating with each other. If much of our professional effort is in communicating, we might ask what’s new in the last few thousand years? What’s remained the same? In our professional world, we generally engage and communicate through mail, meetings, and publications. Our GSH meetings, for example, are in various sizes from Technical Breakfasts to the Annual Spring Symposium (upcoming on March 10-11, 2015). Our publications include the written Journal and shorter notices. These are similar in structure to those, say, in Athens several millennia ago. What’s changed? Well, clearly the technology of delivery as well as the content. Even new words are being invented to cover novel methods and applications: “Selfie” (a hand-held cell phone picture of oneself) was an Oxford English Dictionary’s 2013 addition and word of the year; Merriam-Webster added “fracking” (with a “k”), a short form of hydraulic fracturing of impermeable rock, to its dictionary in 2014. The delivery method for talks in our technical meetings changed rapidly around the year 2000. Presenters had been using transparencies, slides, and blackboards for decades. Then along came cheaper and more reliable PCs, computer projectors, and PowerPoint (released by Microsoft in 1990). In the late 1990s, we were debating the use of “computer presentations” at Annual Geophysical Meetings; by the early 2000s, only computer presentations were allowed! Digital photography has also had an enormous impact on our presentations, reports, and articles. Eastman Kodak produced the first electronic camera in 1975 which gave rise to the digital photography revolution (and decimated Kodak’s film sales). This, in turn, has broadened into smartphone photos (and selfies) and many millions of useful technical images. PowerPoint (PPT), along with digital photography, has been enormously useful in communicating material. While some PPT presentations, especially those with text only, can be stultifyingly dull, the advantages of easily exchanged material, widespread knowledge of November 2014 PPT use, and broad audio-video capabilities make PowerPoint and its complements profound contributors to communication. Interacting with the GSH itself has also undergone major change largely via the website – as it has with most organizations. Our website is a repository of geophysical information Robert R. and GSH events. We’re deeply Stewart, appreciative of the efforts of our office First Vice staff, Karen Blakeman and Kathy President Sanvido, as well as Board members Tommie Rape and Liza Yellott and others who have been energetic in their efforts at keeping us updated. We currently have about 150 visits per day on the website, but plan to increase that substantially in terms of numbers and depth in the next several months. The SEG’s website has some 2500 visits per day, which we would expect from an organization correspondingly larger and with a full-time IT department. Other digital facilities have become part of many conveyances: LinkedIn for resumés and interest groups; Facebook for personal activities and invitations; Twitter for quick quips; and a panoply of others supporting everything from conversations to videos. The GSH is valiantly attempting to stay digitally current as undoubtedly are most of our members. One area of major impetus is our Webinars. These interactive, web-delivered seminars can conveniently bring some of our best instructors to a world of participants. There are many forms of outreach and education, but under the tutelage of Mike Graul, Farshid Forouhideh, and avid supporters, our on-line courses have been flourishing. A WORD F ROM T H E BOARD Communication in Geophysics: My, how we’ve changed. Marshall McLuhan, in his pivotal book, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, stated that, “The medium is the message.” Part of this assertion is that any new communication technology will define a new form, scale, pace, or pattern of human association. And it is this new relationship that is ultimately a key deliverable or message. Smartphones and the internet are certainly changing our relationships and probably our psychology – being able (or needing) to be constantly connected to a very wide world. I’d guess when life-sized screens (and smartwatches) are inexpensive, located everywhere, and rapidly networked, we’ll see another major communication jump. At the GSH, we will continue to experiment with new media to enhance our members’ experience as well as refine our traditional activities. So, the elements and noble goals of our professional communication remain steady, but the methods are certainly different. Geophysical Society of Houston Back to Index 5 Detecting Small Scale Heterogeneities Through the Application of MultiFocusing 2D and 3D Diffraction Imaging Using Pre-existing Seismic Data Speaker: M arianne Rauch-Davies, Geomage MICROSEISMIC SIG Thursday 6-November-2014 11:30 AM to 1:00 PM Location: Apache Corporation 2000 Post Oak Blvd., #100 Houston, TX 77056 Sponsored by CGG Wednesday 12-November-2014 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM Location: C GG 10300 Town Park Drive Houston, TX 77072 TECH LUNCHEONS & DINNER SEG/AAPG Distinguished Lecturer: 3D Seismic Image Processing for Interpretation of Faults and Horizons Speaker: D avid Hale Colorado School of Mines Westside Lunch Tuesday 18-November-2014 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM Location: Norris Conference Centers Red Oak Ballroom Houston City Center 816 Town and Country Blvd. Houston, TX 77024 Tuesday 18-November-2014 5:00 PM to 7:30 PM Location: Grotto 9595 Six Pines The Woodlands, TX 77380 Downtown Lunch Wednesday 19-November-2014 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM Location: The Petroleum Club of Houston 800 Bell Street, 43rd Floor Houston, TX 77002 Back to Index • Po t n t l F l d s S I G • Westside Breakfast • DP&A SIG • Sponsored by Anadarko and Lumina Tuesday 4-November-2014 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM Location: Anadarko Petroleum 1201 Lake Robbins Drive The Woodlands, TX 77380 • next gen SIG • Northside Breakfast Northside Dinner 6 • micro SIG • TECH BREAKFASTS • • • t e ch B R E A K FA S T S L U N C H E S & D I N N E R • • • T E CH N I CAL E VE N T S Technical Events NEXT GENERATION GEOSCIENCE COMPUTING SIG Thursday 13-November-2014 5:15 PM to 7:00 PM Location: Halliburton / Landmark Landmark Training Facility 10200 Bellaire Boulevard Houston, TX 77072-5206 POTENTIAL FIELDS SIG Thursday 20-November-2014 5:30 PM to 8:30 PM Location: HESS Club (Houston Engineering & Scientific Society) 5430 Westheimer Houston, TX 77056 DATA PROCESSING & ACQUISITION SIG Tuesday 25-November-2014 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM Location: Schlumberger 10001 Richmond Avenue Houston, TX 77042 Member News Have you changed jobs lately or received a special award? Have you been elected or appointed to a leadership position in a national organization? Are you retiring or moving to another city? As another benefit to our members, the GSH will post this information on the GSH website and in the Journal. So send a short one or two sentence blurb on your business achievement/award/job change to Kathy Sanvido (kathys@gshtx.org) at the GSH office. You can also check out the Member News on our website at http://www.gshtx.org/member-news/. Geophysical Society of Houston November 2014 Technical Luncheons & Dinner Speaker: D avid Hale, Center for Wave Phenomena Colorado School of Mines Session 2 (Northside Dinner) Tuesday, November 18, 2014 5:00 – 7:30 p.m. Sponsored by MicroSeismic David Hale Colorado School of Mines Location: G rotto 9595 Six Pines The Woodlands, TX 77380 Session 1 (Westside) Tuesday, November 18, 2014 11:00 – 1:00 p.m. Session 3 (Downtown) Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:00 – 1:00 p.m. Location: N orris Conference Centers Red Oak Ballroom Houston City Center 816 Town and Country Blvd. Houston, TX 77024 Location: T he Petroleum Club of Houston 800 Bell Street, 43rd Floor Houston, TX 77002 Abstract: Fault surfaces are an important aspect of subsurface geology that we can extract from 3D seismic images. Estimates of fault slips are important as well, as they enable correlation across faults of subsurface properties. Moreover, with estimated fault slips, we can undo faulting apparent in 3D seismic images. After unfaulting, seismic reflections should be more continuous across faults, and this increased continuity facilitates unfolding of 3D seismic images so that reflectors are horizontal. The composite process of unfaulting and unfolding is equivalent to the construction of an entire 3D volume of chronostratigraphic horizons. Although all of this image processing can be performed automatically, limitations inherit in seismic imaging and computing systems suggest that human interaction will continue to be desirable. But this interaction can be enhanced. For example, instead of picking or tracking horizons one at a time, we might interactively select scattered sets of points in a 3D seismic image that correspond to multiple horizons, while automatically updating a complete 3D horizon volume to honor those interpreted constraints. This semi-automatic 3D interpretation of faults and horizons overcomes a fundamental limitation of the human visual system, that we can see simultaneously only a few 2D seismic sections and horizon surfaces. Computer programs do not suffer from this limitation. A 3D image is stored and manipulated in computer memory much like a 2D image. So as we interactively select points on 2D sections, our software can update consistently a complete 3D interpretation. Another advantage of semi-automatic 3D interpretation is that our software may be less biased than a human interpreter. In geophysical exploration, we often see what we expect to see, and are simply trying to determine where it is or how it has changed. But we can be surprised, especially when using software that does not share our expectations. For example, the software that I developed to extract fault surfaces from 3D seismic images one day surprised me by creating surfaces that have conical shapes. Although conical faults were unexpected (by me) and seem to be rare, they are clearly apparent in 3D seismic images displayed in cylindrical coordinates; and they raise interesting geologic questions that we might never have asked, had we required faults to have more familiar shapes. T E CH N I CAL L U N CHEONS & DINNER SEG/AAPG Distinguished Lecturer: 3D Seismic Image Processing for Interpretation of Faults and Horizons Biography: Dave Hale received a BS in physics from Texas A&M University in 1977 and a PhD in geophysics from Stanford University in 1983. He has worked as a field seismologist and research geophysicist for Western Geophysical, as a senior research geophysicist for Chevron, as an associate professor at the Colorado School of Mines, as a chief geophysicist and software developer for Advance Geophysical, and as a senior research fellow for Landmark Graphics. In 2005, he returned to Mines as the C.H. Green Professor of Exploration Geophysics, Technical Luncheons/Dinner continued on page 8. November 2014 Geophysical Society of Houston Back to Index 7 TE CH N I CAL BRE AKFAS T Technical Breakfasts Detecting Small Scale Heterogeneities Through the Application of MultiFocusing 2D and 3D Diffraction Imaging Using Pre-existing Seismic Data Speaker: M arianne Rauch-Davies, Geomage Marianne Rauch-Davies Geomage Northside Westside Tuesday, November 4, 2014 Presentation 7:30 – 8:30 a.m. Wednesday, November 12, 2014 Presentation 7:30 – 8:30 a.m. Sponsored by Anadarko and Lumina Sponsored by CGG Location: A nadarko Petroleum 1201 Lake Robbins Drive The Woodlands, TX 77380 Location: CGG 10300 Town Park Drive Houston, TX 77072 Abstract: The imaging method is based on the MultiFocusing move-out time correction, which adequately describes not only reflection but also diffraction events. Optimal summation of the diffracted events and attenuation of the specular reflections allows creating an image that contains mostly diffraction energy. We briefly describe the theory of the MultiFocusing method and demonstrate the efficiency of this technique on case studies from different parts of the world. Diffraction imaging has become an attribute that’s being used to map naturally occurring fractures in unconventional reservoirs. However, diffractions are generated whenever the wave encounters an irregularity that’s of detectable size. As such, the diffractivity attribute should not be restricted to fracture detection but can be used to map caves (karst), base and shape of salt features, small off-set faults and possibly separating leaking faults from un-breached reservoir spaces. The extraction of the diffractive part of the wave-field is challenging due to the small magnitude of the event and the noise in the seismic data. The diffracted wave amplitudes are much weaker than those of specular reflections. Diffractions are essentially lost during the conventional processing/migration sequence, or they are masked in conventional seismic stacked sections. Local structural and lithological elements in the subsurface of a size comparable to the wavelength are usually ignored during processing and indirectly identified only during interpretation and not through direct measurements. Biography: Dr. Marianne Rauch-Davies is an expert in the field of geosciences. Marianne's experience stems from her more than 25 years of working with leading service, technology and operating companies in the oil and gas industry. Her main area of expertise lies in reservoir modeling and QI interpretation. Marianne currently serves as Geomage's VP of Applied Technologies, focusing on business development and managing the practical implementation of Geomage technologies within its geoscience projects. Marianne holds a Ph.D. in Physics from Karl Franzens Universitaet, Graz, Austria. Technical Luncheons & Dinner continued from page 7. and now teaches geophysics and computer science and hangs out with the Mines swimming and diving team. Dave received the Virgil Kauffman Gold Medal from the Society of Exploration Geophysics for his work on dip-moveout processing of seismic data. He also received SEG's awards for Best Paper in Geophysics 8 Back to Index in 1992 (imaging salt with seismic turning waves) and Best Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting in 2002 (atomic meshing of seismic images). He taught SEG's first course in dip-moveout processing as part of the Continuing Education program, and was editor of DMO Processing, volume 16 of the SEG Geophysics reprint series. Geophysical Society of Houston November 2014 GSH TopGolf Social TO P G O L F November 6th, 2014 560 Spring Park Center Blvd., Spring, TX 77373 Agenda: 4:30pm - 6:30pm: Networking at Signature Room (2nd floor) Be a Sponsor! Sponsorship opportunities are available from $500 to $3,000. Build your brand recognition by supporting the GSH! 6:30pm - 8:30 Open Play SIGN UP ONLINE @ GSHTX.ORG Deadline Nov 1st 2014 Sponsorship Contact Alfredo Fernandez alfredo.fernandez@luminageo.com 405.568.7046 GSH Event Contact Event Chair Karen Blakeman Yoryenys Del Moro ydelmoro@nobleenergyinc.com karen@gshtx.or 281.741.1624 281.943.1729 A Live Webinar presented by the Geophysical Society of Houston WEBINA R Understanding Seismic Anisotropy in Exploration and Exploitation Featuring Dr. Leon Thomsen All rock masses are seismically anisotropic, but we often ignore this in our seismic acquisition, processing, and interpretation. The anisotropy nonetheless does affect our data in ways that limit the effectiveness with which we can use it, if we ignore it. In this short course we will understand why we have been successful with our past seismic data despite it. We will further understand how we can modify our practice so as to more fully realize the potential inherent in our data, through algorithms which recognize the fact of seismic anisotropy. The course is accompanied by numerous class exercises, presented in Excel (.xls) format. November 10, 11, 12 & 13 4 hours per day 8:00 AM - 12:00 Noon Central Time (USA) Individual, Group, and Student pricing options are available For Information and Registration, visit November 2014 Geophysical Society of Houston Back to Index 9 Avalon 3D Seismic Survey A new state-of-the-art multi-client solution in the prolific Delaware Basin Located in one of North America’s most prolific basins, the newly acquired 282 square mile high-end 3D seismic survey offers four hundred fold broadband data. Setting a new standard, Avalon will allow better imaging to address the noise and statics challenges in the area. Targeting the Bone Springs, Wolfcamp and Cline formations, the complete solution ties the geophysical data to the geology enabling enhanced sweet spot detection and improved hazard avoidance for optimal well placement. The project uses a multi-disciplinary approach comprising advanced imaging, reservoir characterization and microseismic monitoring. Contact: Rick Trevino +1 832 351 1051 rick.trevino@cgg.com Cheryl Oxsheer +1 832 351 8463 cheryl.oxsheer@cgg.com Enhance your return on investment today with this unique solution. cgg.com/multi-client 10 Geophysical Society of Houston November 2014 By Ken MacAllister, Tim Daley, Bowleven PLC; Mike Bacon, Ikon Science; Simon Tamfu, Ponce Nguema, Societe Nationale des Hydrocarbures (SNH) Summary Hydrocarbon identification within class 1 AVO reservoirs has tended to be problematic using conventional petroacoustic analyses due to the dominance of the hard rock matrix, leaving poor differentiation of fluids from elastic parameters. Additionally, good quality long offset seismic data is a pre-requisite for any attempt at fluid and lithology discrimination. The challenge required in this study is to de-risk a previously overlooked stratigraphic play, dominated by class 1 AVO behavior, constrained by limited offset seismic, but embellished by a recent well with high quality comprehensive wireline logs. Figure 1: Location of Etinde permit (orange polygon). (Bowleven) Integration of petroacoustic modeling with conventional interpretation, frequency and amplitude seismic attributes, and seismic co-rendering has revealed an extensive new stratigraphic play offshore Cameroon. Rock physics results from the recent well IM-5 have been compared with other drilled reservoirs in the region to calibrate different seismic attribute responses across the newly defined Intra Isongo reservoir fairway. This has led to development of a qualitative predictive model with respect to thickness, porosity, and net to gross. drilling exploration/appraisal well IM-5. The primary objective was appraisal of the four-way dip-closed Middle Isongo reservoir, proven to be hydrocarbon bearing by Mobil well IM-3 in 1975. Analysis of rock physics from the limited modern well stock in the area had illustrated that reservoir sands were expected to be relatively hard and behave in a similar petroacoustic manner to the volcaniclastic sediments in the area. They exhibit class 1 AVO response in all fluid cases, as confirmed by the modeling of the IM-5 well (Figure 2). T E CH N I CAL ART I CLE Integration of Rock Physics and Seismic Interpretation – An Overlooked West African Stratigraphic Hydrocarbon Play Recognition and delineation of the play is presented here with a set of geophysical guidelines to aid exploration in similar petroacoustic provenances. Introduction The Etinde permit, located in the Cameroon sector of the Gulf of Guinea, is situated at the northern end of a string of West African coastal basins extending some 2000 kms to the south (Figure 1). A significant geological feature which splits the Etinde permit into two basins, the Rio del Rey Basin and the Douala (and southern) Basins is the Cameroon Volcanic Line (CVL). Several hydrocarbon discoveries have been made since the 1960’s in the Rio del Rey Basin. All were drilled on structural highs and targeted the Miocene Upper and Middle Isongo reservoirs. Early in 2013, Etinde operator Bowleven opened up a new West African stratigraphically-controlled hydrocarbon play in the Rio del Rey Basin. This was the result of Figure 2: Intra Isongo fluid substituted synthetics (0 - 40°; fluid substituted blue logs brine, red curves gas) for zero-phase statistical wavelet, demonstrating Class 1 AVO at top sand. (Bowleven/SNH). Interrogation of log-derived elastic parameter models suggest that fluid impedance generated from relative Technical Article continued on page 12. For Information Regarding Technical Article Submissions, Contact GSHJ Coordinator Scott Singleton (Scott.Singleton@iongeo.com) November 2014 Geophysical Society of Houston Back to Index 11 Technical Article continued from page 11. seismic inversion may discriminate hydrocarbon from brine. However, the constraints associated with relatively short acquisition cable lengths (4 km) and poorly conditioned gathers limit the reliability of the inverted seismic data. Good near-offset data does, however, enable generation of pseudo lithology seismic for this rigid rock matrix. Conventional interpretation and integration of various seismic attributes revealed depositional geometries associated with a very hard unit positioned in a structural low, which fringed the edge of the primary structural target (Figure 3). Therefore, the amplitude driven Intra Isongo secondary objective was targeted. Pre-drill subsurface risk was high due to the proximity of the CVL and the potential of encountering nonreservoir facies. The well encountered a 77 m clean Intra Isongo hydrocarbon bearing sandstone reservoir. No hydrocarbon contact was encountered, and the well flowed on test at a peak rate of > 40 mmscf/d and 4,600bcpd from the Intra Isongo. A comprehensive wireline logging suite was acquired in the IM-5 well which enabled a detailed petroacoustic evaluation (Figure 2), complemented by integration of frequencyand amplitude-dependent seismic attributes. The results led to the creation of a hierarchical workflow which has enabled delineation of this extensive and prolific reservoir. The following established. reservoir evaluation guidelines Figure 3: Seismic line along axis of Intra Isongo depositional system with map inset showing position of fairway on the flank of a present day structural low. (Bowleven/SNH/EAGE) The base of the unit forms a widespread characteristic soft seismic event which was used as the datum for horizon slicing. This procedure revealed clear depositional confinements and channel geometries, as well as apparent variations in seismic-reservoir-facies dispersion across the block. The high impedance contrast at the reservoir base also provided a platform to develop a number of interpretation guidelines (Figure 4). were 1. Structural interpretation to establish reservoir datum. 2. 2D fluid substitution modeling. 3. Establishment of elastic parameter influence. 4. 2D tuning wedge modeling. 5. Mapping of petroacoustic properties. 6. Generation of dominant frequency seismic volumes. 7. Frequency filtering and blending. 8. Correlation of petroacoustic characteristics 9. Reservoir fairway delineation. Integrated interpretation procedure Hard ‘bright’ seismic amplitudes associated with the Intra Isongo have been recognized in this locality for a considerable time. However, with the close proximity of the Cameroon Volcanic Line (CVL) combined with the very hard seismic response, this unit was considered to be most likely of volcanic origin, and had remained undrilled. Figure 4: Tuning wedge and seismic line illustrating interpetation guidelines. 42-degree wavelet is a deterministic extraction from near stack seismic. (Bowleven/SNH/EAGE) Having established the top and base reservoir tuning envelope, the reservoir fairway was interpreted using the guidelines shown in Figure 4. This method demonstrated the gross reservoir fairway but gave no further indication of the potential reservoir property variation and dispersion. A frequency spectrum of the reservoir interval introduced the bandwidth limitations which constrained a set of frequency transforms and filters to enable three dominant frequency bands to be combined and colour blended. Technical Article continued on page 13. 12 Back to Index Geophysical Society of Houston November 2014 Technical Article continued from page 12. Figure 5: Reservoir thickness estimates from tuning envelopes. (after IHS Kingdom - modified). Generic tuning curves created with Ricker wavelets of increasing frequency combined with the known interval velocity of the Intra Isongo sand has also enabled thickness estimates to be made for the spectrally decomposed slices through the reservoir (Figure 5). These show clearly the Figure 7: Sand trend is sub-parallel with the modified Hashin-Shtrikman upper bound for quartz/brine mixture. The continuum of the Vp/RhoB behavior observed from the IM area across to IE has led to establishment of an associated porosity trend (Figure 7). Having established the reservoir thickness variation through the methods described, further changes in amplitude throughout the reservoir fairway can now be calibrated to the primary variables shale volume (Vsh) and porosity as illustrated in Figures 8 and 9. It does appear, however, that the primary factor affecting amplitude variation is porosity (Figure7). This has led to the Intra Isongo reservoir fairway being described in terms of thickness and reservoir quality. The highly integrated geophysical interpretation methodology described herein, has been adopted as an integral part of the ongoing reservoir appraisal and development strategy. Predictive models based on the Figure 6: RGB Colour-blended frequency bands illustrating primary reservoir fairway and secondary depositional systems. Light=thick. Dark=thin. (Bowleven/SNH). dominant reservoir fairway axis and also the dispersive nature of the thinner-bedded overbank deposits. This is clearly illustrated in Figure 6. The frequency colour blend gives clear indication of the depositional axis which corresponds to the conventional interpretation. However, the frequency blend also enabled significant secondary and tertiary channel bodies to be identified and qualitative thickness estimates to be assigned (Figures 5 and 6). Recognition that the Intra Isongo reservoir was very extensive (> 100 km2) but variable in thickness led to further interrogation of rock physics models. This demonstrated that the data clusters fringing the nearby IE field were indeed part of the same reservoir system. Figure 8: Model of variation in acoustic impedance (AI) with increasing Vsh in Intra Isongo reservoir. Technical Article continued on page 15. November 2014 Geophysical Society of Houston Back to Index 13 Leasing Support Parts Repair Delivering the most technologically advanced seismic equipment and global technical support in the industry, along with expert equipment repair and Parts On Demand. Wireless Seismic RT System 2 FairfieldNodal ZLAND Node® AutoSeis High Definition Recorder Sercel GI Gun INOVA Hawk Geospace GSR / GSX 1C & 3C STOP BY AND VISIT SES IN DENVER FOR THE 84TH ANNUAL MEETING 26-31 OCTOBER 2014 BOOTH #1744 Houston Calgary London Bogotá Jakarta www.globalses.com Houston 281.313.9494 14 Geophysical Society of Houston November 2014 Technical Article continued from page 13. UNLEASH YOUR DATA’S POTENTIAL SUBSURFACE DATA MANAGEMENT •Access your data online •Spatialize your data katalystdm.com/iglass Figure 9: Model of variation in AI with increasing porosity in Intra Isongo reservoir. geophysical observations have been used to optimize appraisal and development well selection for this new stratigraphically controlled reservoir. Conclusions Integration of multiple geophysical interpretation techniques has led to: •Market your seismic data •License data online seismiczone.com 1. A new class 1 AVO, stratigraphically controlled, hydrocarbon play being discovered offshore Cameroon. 2. Acceptance that seismically bright ‘hard’ lithologies can be highly productive reservoirs. 3. A clear set of interpretation hierarchy to provide consistent input to field development planning. SM 4. A seismically driven predictive model being developed. 5. A significant risk reduction process in optimising appraisal and development well selection. sales@katalystdm.com | 281 529 3200 katalystdm.com 6. Identification of additional analogous seismic amplitude driven targets. 7. Recognition of the requirement for suitably conditioned surface seismic to provide a stable platform for reservoir characterization focused inversion. Acknowledgements 30 years managing seismic data Bowleven PLC: Tom Newell, Andy Imrie, Neil Ementon, Graeme Moore, Steve Cannon. Societe Nationales des Hydrocarbures (SNH) Joint Venture Partners IKON Science http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2014-0041.1 November 2014 Geophysical Society of Houston Back to Index 15 www.sandhillusa.com Sand Hill Resources is seeking 3-D based conventional Gulf Coast drilling projects for participation and placement with our private equity investment partners. Ideas to drill ready Contact: Tony Medley, Principal/Geophysicist David Naas, Principal/Geologist 713-827-4700 8554 Katy Freeway, Suite 101, Houston, TX 77024 Follow us on LinkedIn Before: Quiet Time recording before the frac images natural fractures and faults. During: Pumping time recording images the microseismically active volume during stimulation. After: Quiet time recording post-frac reveals the microseismically active production volume. For more information: www.globalgeophysical.com/MONITORING or Contact us at MONITORING@globalgeophysical.com 16 Geophysical Society of Houston November 2014 GSH Tennis Tournament November 21, 2014 Houston Racquet Club 10709 Memorial Drive Houston, TX 77024 Doubles Tournament ttttttt 4444444 ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt 4444444 4 t44tttt4tt4 t tt4tt tt4tt 4444444444 tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt 444t444 4 t4tt444t 444 4ttttt44 ttt4tttt44 ttttttttttttttttttttt 4t444t4 4 tttt tttt4t ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt 4t4t4t4 4 t4tt4tt t4tt4 tt4t4ttt4 tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt 4444t4 4 tttt44444t tt4tt tt44 ttttttttttttttttttttttt t444t4 4 tt44ttt4tttt t4ttt4t REGISTER ONLINE @ gshtx.org Event Chairperson GSH Event Contact Russell Jones Karen Blakeman V.P. Data Processing, Seitel karen@gshtx.or rjones@seitel.com 281.741.1624 832.295.8350 November 2014 Geophysical Society of Houston Back to Index 17 Geometric Freedom™ starts here. It’s a new way of thinking that opens up a whole new world of possibilities. Suddenly, you’re free to design the seismic survey of your dreams. Anywhere, any time, any way you want. Forget the limits of fixed intervals. Banish the idea that obstacles are obstacles. These cable-free nodes go wherever you need them—on land, in transition zones, in shallow water or deep—so you can optimize subsurface illumination and spatial sampling in the most cost-effective way. Solve your most complex challenges without compromising a thing. And get better data no matter where in the world you need it. Put the power of Geometric Freedom to work for you, with the ultimate nodal technology. fairfieldnodal.com Tutorial Nuggets By Mike Graul At first, what seemed to be an innocent publishing error, has now evolved into a full blown scandal, reaching into the highest levels of the Journal’s editorial hierarchy. Alert readers of the October Tutorial Nuggets, discovered, to their dismay, that the right hand edge of the first Nugget page had been terminated with extreme prejudice. This truncation left serious students of geophysics bewitched, bothered, and bewildered. What were those missing letters they wondered. Wonder no more, Curious Ones. Through the grace of his Goodness, the Guru, those missing letters have been published for your enlightenment at the right, in the red dashed strip. Feel free to paste these letters in the appropriate position on page 19 of the October Journal. The investigative tenacity of the Nugget Bomb Squad uncovered the TrunGate Conspiracy during an examination and de-cyphering of “deleted” emails which had been passed among “llawyer@prodigy.net”, “hayniestringer47@yahoo.com”, “tommiedr@aol.com”. These Eddresses belong to the Trinity-at-the-Top of the Journal Editorial Board. The Nugget Guru commented, “The evidence is irrefutable. The SEG Oversight Committee has issued a self-righteous indictment for Acts of High Treason. These Good Ole Boys are goin’ down and stayin’ down.” A stunned Lee Lawyer was left speechless and discombobulated. (Many wondered how they could tell.) Recovering later, Chairman Lee scoffingly denied all charges, saying, “Silly.” T U TO R I A L N U G G E T S Houston. If you did your homework, as assigned in our October Nuggets, reviewing the June 2011 Nugget Tutorial on F-K transforms, then you, like the other good little boys and girls, will have a bluffing acquaintance with the transforms shown below and on the next page. H = 250 ft t F A(t,x) A(F, K) 20 Dipping Sinusoid A point in F-K space 10 T = .05 s x 𝑽𝑽 = F = 5000 K 30 t x x = 625 ft 40 t = .125 s ∆𝒙𝒙 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔 = = 𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓 𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇/𝒔𝒔 ∆𝒕𝒕 . 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 V is the apparent horizontal velocity 𝑭𝑭 = 0 0 𝟏𝟏 𝟏𝟏 = = 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 𝑯𝑯𝑯𝑯 𝑻𝑻 . 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 F is the frequency of the dipping sinusoid with a temporal period of T .004 𝑲𝑲 = K 𝟏𝟏 𝟏𝟏 = =. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨 𝑯𝑯 𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓 K is the spatial frequency in x. It’s period (horizontally) is H Tutorial Nuggets continued on page 20. November 2014 Geophysical Society of Houston Back to Index 19 Tutorial Nuggets Tutorial Nuggets continued from page 19. T U TO R I A L N U G G E T S Note that the T- X section (a stack, a gather, a shot record, …) is labelled A(t,x). This alerts us to the fact that the display is really a projection of a 3D image onto a A(t, x) plane (T-X) The “A” part is amplitude, the excursion of the sinusoid up and down. We are assuming for the t present discussion, that the surface being imaged is continuous in both time and space. Each displayed trace is a cross-section through this continuous surface of amplitude (A) in T and X. Gaze upon the picture at the right, and envision a series of ridges (black peaks) and x valleys (troughs). Each trace (cross-section) has been flipped on its side for the display since we don’t have wide spread access to 3D printers. For the sinusoidal surface, the A is the peak excursion. In F-K space, it’s the same deal. We are projecting the 3D surface on to a plane (F-K) The point, which is A(F,K) is this projection. Projection of what? Let’s look. See below, at the left. One Simulated Eyeball A(F, K) A 20 .004 K must be very careful, when staring down onto the F-K plane, not to impale one's eye on the sharp point of the spike representing a single frequency of amplitude A, in both F and K. Keep in mind that while the pictures shown are in fact sampled, the transform cartoons show what a continuous (unsampled) and untruncated (goes on forever in time and space – much like The Guru) would look like. We’ll get to the effects of sampling and truncation well within your lifetime. x Let’s turn our easily distracted attention to a more realistic portrayal of a seismic wave. At the right, we see a dipping wavelet. This may be thought of a linear chunk of a reflected wave, or a refraction, or perhaps a surface wave. The point is to characterize the salient features of the continuous wave in F-K space, after which we may consider the effects of sampling and truncation. The geometry gives us the location of the energy in F-K space. t t x The choice of x or t is arbitrary, but once chosen, establishes the “dip” (t/x) in seconds per foot, or its reciprocal (x/t), the apparent or horizontal velocity in ft/s. We use the velocity to establish the configuration of the F-K picture: F = VK, as shown at the lower right. Here we have used V = 5000ft/s so as to correspond to the dipping sinusoid’s velocity. I wonder why dip in either direction gives a positive velocity? Hold that cogent thought, Curious One, I’ll get back to you later. For now, just realize that I make the rules. 40 30 20 F = 5000 K F 10 The main difference between this example and the 0 K earlier one is spectral. The first was a single frequency 0 .004 (20 Hz), while this guy is wavelet with many frequencies. To characterize its spectrum we’ll employ the easy rules learned at the knee of The Wise One in so many Tutorial Nuggets. Tutorial Nuggets continued on page 21. 20 Back to Index Geophysical Society of Houston November 2014 Tutorial Nuggets Tutorial Nuggets continued from page 20. shown at the right. Two of its key parameters, Td (dominant period) and PW (pulse width) are extracted by visual inspection of the waveforms, w(t) and its envelope, EW(t), respectively. Td is obtained from the most obvious (dominant) trough-to-trough or peak-to-peak time, while PW is measured at the half-amplitude time of EW(t). As an example, let’s say Td = .020s, and PW = .020s (pure coincidence, trust me). In turn, we may now compute Fd, dominant frequency, and BW, bandwidth. 𝐅𝐅𝐝𝐝 = 𝟏𝟏 = 𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓 𝐓𝐓𝐝𝐝 𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 = .02 PW BW 50 t Td 𝟏𝟏 = 𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓 𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷 .02 Fd = 50 0 The F-K picture, at the right, is a projection of a EW(t) w(t) Td PW Wavelet Envelope With these pictures, we can now sketch the full F-K transform, as depicted immediately below. T U TO R I A L N U G G E T S The wavelet, w(t), which is projected along the dipping line, V = x/t, is f f very, very thin hill onto the F-K plane. Every thing we see in the T-X plot is now portrayed succinctly in this view. The dominant spatial frequency, Kd = Fd/V =.01, tells us that the dominant wavelength, d is given by 1/Kd = 100 ft. This is the dominant feature that appears to sweep over the surface of the earth at 5000 ft/s. W(f, k) Fd f = 5000•k 50 k Kd = .01 Now that we have the F-K transform, W(f, k) of the continuous waveform, w(t, x) in T-X space, how do we use it to analyze the effects of sampling? We’ll worry about truncation (limiting the T and X range) later – when we’re older and can handle life’s brutal truths. The spatial sampling of the continuous wave field is a multiplication by W(f, k) f 1 of everything seen at intervals of X (trace spacing). Fd = 50 0 Kd = .01 KH = .02 k C(f, k) the sampling function f -KS We are looking in map view at spikes 0 KS 2KS 3KS 4KS K The multiplication in T-X space by c(t, x) translates, as you know by now, to convolution with the C(f, k) in F-K. This convolution involves replacing each tooth of the sampling comb (red dots). f Ks The Nyquist If we set X = 100, Ks = 1/100 = .01, and the Wide Window entire spectrum, W(f, K) is repeated at intervals Alias Alias Fd = 50 of Ks forever, in both directions. The computer looks at the transform only within the range of K W(f, k) values limited to –Ks/2 < k < Ks/2, the so called Nyquist Window. What does it see? What do -KS KS you see? What does it all mean? Be here in 0 -Ks/2 Ks/2 (.01) December for a glance into the Occult. November 2014 Geophysical Society of Houston Back to Index 21 ROCK SOLID QINTERPRETATION uantitative A successful quantitative interpretation project requires high-quality seismic and well data combined within a flexible, sophisticated framework of attribute technology underpinned by world-class rock physics expertise: it’s not a button push. At RSI, we combine all these elements within flexible workflows implemented by experienced integrated teams of petrophysicists, geophysicists and geologists. Let RSI maximize your return on your QI investment. Gather Conditioning Well-Log Conditioning Well Tie Background Models Attributes & Inversion Rock Physics & Calibration Multiphysics Integration SAAM™ Derisking SAAM is a trademark of Rose & Associates, LLP AVATAR® Seismic Data Conditioning Challenge Most seismic data are processed to optimize image quality for structural interpretation, with little regard to preserving characteristics for successful pre-stack and post-stack interpretation, whether qualitative or quantitative. The result: • • • • Poorly imaged faults Unreliable horizon picking Erroneous AVO and impedance attributes Poor well ties Solution AVATAR: a sophisticated toolkit of pre and post stack data conditioning steps designed to improve the robustness and reliability of automatic interpretation algorithms, seismic attribute analysis, AVO, pre-stack or post-stack inversion and seismic facies classification. AVATAR advantages • Cost-effective alternative to new data acquisition or full reprocessing • Can be applied pre-stack and post-stack • Better, faster interpretation • Improved horizon auto-tracking • Robust AVO and impedance results • Superior stratigraphic models • Optimum well tie • Improved property prediction For more details contact us at: sales@rocksolidimages.com Extraordinary Results. By Any Measure. 22 Geophysical Society of Houston RockSolidImages.com/Avatar November 2014 A Conversation With ... Peter Vail By Lee Lawyer Pete, as I start this interview, I draw an analogy to Sequence Stratigraphy. In your life, you have had high stands and low stands with several identifiable Peter sequence boundaries. Let’s start with a high stand. How did your work on Sequence Stratigraphy get started? I noticed that you worked with Lawrence Sloss at Northwestern. He and Krumbine authored a book on stratigraphy, as I recall. They identified a bunch of sequences. Maybe they were among the first to apply that word to stratigraphy. I am not sure. Those are not the same sequences that I use. His spanned many millions of years. Mine are much less than that. But both sets are bounded by unconformities or their correlative conformities. I was Chief Geophysicist of Chevron. You did a project in Portuguese Guinea or the Central African Republic in which Chevron was a partner. As I recall, we got a look at that work since it impacted the development under that exploration license. That was the project where I was convinced that seismic reflections followed geologic time lines. You say that Sloss’ sequences were larger than yours? Yes. His first sequence went from the base of the Cambrian up to mid-Ordovician and the next went to the mid Devonian. He called these boundaries “Global Unconformities”. They comprised 100’s of millions of years. Going back to Geology 101, the normal geological time scales have Eras, Epochs and Ages. Are those sequence boundaries as well? Not necessarily. The classical geological ages are defined by paleontology, but usually they are boundaries of some kind, like an extinction or a major unconformity. What is the minimum age span for a sequence? Or is there one? Or who cares? We have a hierarchy of sequences from 1st through 5th orders. Our third order sequence, the most common, I guess could get close to a million years. There was a group down in New Orleans who annotated a seismic section in millions of years, showing how long it took to deposit a given interval on a seismic section. This was using paleontology or palynology. I thought it was extremely interesting, but as far as I know no one published that work back then or brought it up again. They were interested in finding oil and gas in New Orleans and probably discouraged going into research directions. I N T E RVI E W If it is possible that the reader has not been exposed to Vail et al’s work, you will get a reasonably good synopsis as you read this interview. Clearly, Peter Vail hasn’t forgotten any of the details in the development of “Seismic Stratigraphy”, which was what it was called originally. The broader subject is “Sequence Stratigraphy”. I hope you enjoy this at least half as much as I did during the interview. Lee Lawyer It was common for us to subdivide seismic sections using sequence boundaries. We dated sequence boundaries in millions Vail of years, so the section in New Orleans was typical of our interpretation. Ages of the boundaries came from our global cycle charts and represented the ages of the correlative conformities. I taught a class of Sequence Stratigraphy to a group of Senior Explorationists in New Orleans. I showed them how we used millions of years to identify sequence boundaries. We had a lively discussion. Paleontology was the foundation in the Gulf for correlating various stratigraphic units and putting geologic time in the picture. That is why I worked with those who were correlating logs in the Gulf. I used well logs to correlate marker horizons and developed these patterns, you know, onlap and offlap. One of my colleagues, Paul Tucker, came to me one day and said, ‘”You know, we see all of those patterns on seismic data.” I said, ”you do?” I was surprised. “Will you show me?” He took me up to his office and showed me these examples. After that, I knew that I needed to get into the seismic data. That was one of my biggest decisions, to leave geological research and get into geophysical research. It caused quite a stir. In the geophysical research center, they were all mathematically oriented. They thought all of that stratigraphic stuff was foolishness. But I talked them into reassigning me to Geophysical Research. And then they said, “What in the world are you going to do?” I said, “I have an idea for a project.” Exxon had drilled a particular well. Maybe Chevron was in on it. They drilled the first one on a structure and then followed reflections into the basin and predicted that the sands would be present. They drilled the second well on a down-dip structure, and it was all shale. The obvious question was, ‘Why was that?’ I got the company’s work-up and the paleo on those two wells. The paleo paralleled the seismic reflections, but the sand stepped up from the basin to the shelf! The reflection at the top of the sand, when traced out into Interview continued on page 24. November 2014 Geophysical Society of Houston Back to Index 23 Interview continued from page 23. the basin, was shale and the sand was deeper. That’s when I came to the conclusion that geologic time lines followed the reflections instead of the time-transgressive rock formations. We might as well talk about that. As you can imagine, that idea caused a stir among the geophysicists. You are right. I got a lot of razzing for that. There were two Exxon research labs, one with Humble and one with Carter. You were with Carter at that time? Yes. The head of the Humble lab invited several of us down to give talks. When he introduced me he made the statement that Vail believes that seismic reflections were bouncing off of the backs of fossils! It was a joke and got the audience howling in laughter. Later I gave a talk over in England. I think it was Vining of plate tectonic fame that got up and said, “You mean to tell us that we have been teaching our students all wrong all these years?” If you told a geophysicist that the reflections were time lines you would get the answer, “To have a reflection you need an impedance contrast. You need to get the physics right.” Vail with Of course, there is an impedance contrast related to a bedding surface, but that impedance contrast follows a depositional time line in a normal stratigraphic setting! When sediments are being deposited, the physical bedding surface at any given time is by definition a time line. This surface can go from one lithology to another, such as from a sand along a beach to a mud in the offshore. In the next time increment, the sand-shale contact can change age and can get younger or older through time. Seismic reflections, however, are generated by the composited impedance contrasts along the physical bedding surfaces, which are time-parallel. Therefore, the seismic reflections are following the time lines of the bedding surfaces. Impedance contrasts along the reflection can change from strong to weak, but the reflection is still there. Mitchum’s description of this was, “It is because seismic reflections are generated by physical bedding surfaces and are parallel to those surfaces rather than to time transgressive facies boundaries.” That was a little less contentious than bluntly saying that ‘Seismic reflections are time lines!” We don’t say reflections are time lines. We say reflections follow time lines. Let’s start over with some background. What was your thesis? I did my thesis on a regional study of the Mississippian. My friend Bob Mitchum worked on the Pennsylvanian, so I studied the Mississippian. I went down to very near the base of the Mississippian. I made a regional tour of southeast US and checked a lot of outcrops. Since I received a $500 grant I got one of my students to be my assistant. He lasted until West Virginia. This was in the hot summer. It got really hot. After the regional study, I picked the Cumberland Plateau area in Tennessee and Kentucky to concentrate on my thesis. I got with the Tennessee Survey. That was sort of my headquarters. I measured a lot of section. The $500 grant didn’t last long. There was this little college up on a bluff and a park near Monteagle, Tennessee. We camped in the park. The police found us camping there and wanted to know what in the world we were doing. We explained it all and they finally let us stay. It was our headquarters for a long time. There was a big Mississippian limestone bluff that held the plateau up. In my area of study, I broke it up into three major units. I named the limestone unit ‘the Monteagle formation’. That was the one thing that stuck from my Tiny Geel thesis. The Tennessee Survey adopted that name. There was another formation I named the ‘Calf Killer’, because there was a river with that name. But the survey didn’t use that one. We were working the Greenbriar formation when my assistant left me. I went to the Kentucky Geological Surveys and studied all of the old cable tool wells. I thought I had done enough so I went back to Northwestern to put it all together. Did they log the cable tool wells? No, I just had the cuttings to examine. I don’t believe they had any logs, but I did have all of the outcrop sections to work with. When did you join Carter? After I graduated in 1956. The first thing I did was to get married. Actually I was running out of time writing my thesis. I had met a girl named Carolyn Flesher. She typed my thesis for me. Interestingly, it was through geophysics that I met her. I was at Dartmouth at the time. I got a summer job with the Canadian Survey to work in Canada with a Yale professor. I was getting ready to leave when I got a cable telling me not to come. They couldn’t hire me. They only hire Canadians for this kind of work. There I was, stuck without a job. I went to my Department head and told him Interview continued on page 25. 24 Back to Index Geophysical Society of Houston November 2014 Interview continued from page 24. the geophysicists at the time were not too interested in time lines except in milliseconds. It was structure that was the objective. This broke new ground. I also thought that the Vail Curves were equally interesting. Andre Droxler and Peter Vail I received the cable. “I don’t have my job.” He said, “I’ll help you.” He called up his friend Bill Heroy, who offered me a job. He was conducting seismic surveys in Illinois. I didn’t have much money in those days. I hitchhiked from New Jersey, where my parents lived, to Columbus, Ohio. I had a fraternity brother who lived there who came out and picked me up. I spent the night with him. The next day I hitchhiked to Taylorville, Illinois and the next morning I went with this seismic company called Geotech. They were drilling holes, loading dynamite, and getting paper records. We recorded paper records and made cross sections all over Illinois. One day one of the jug hustlers who lived in Taylorville said they were giving a party in town that same night. “Would you like to come?” I said, “Of course”. So I went to the party and met this girl who later, as it turned out, became my wife. She was teaching school there. I went back to Dartmouth to finish college and then went on to Northwestern. She wasn’t teaching school yet. She was at the University of Illinois. Somehow one of her friends found out that I was in graduate school at Northwestern and told her. She called me up. She had a guy taking her to a football game at Northwestern. She said she didn’t have much time but asked if I would like to meet her for breakfast. She was staying at the Orington Hotel, which is right there near the school. I trotted down there the next morning and sure enough we had breakfast together. To shorten a long story, there was the Blue Banner train that runs from Chicago through Taylorville, which I started taking on weekends and coming back on the Wabash Cannon Ball. I did that lots of weekends. So we got to know each other pretty well. You know that an amazing number of doodlebuggers, guys out on crews, married school teachers! I may do a study on that. This September we will be married 68 years. Back up a little…. the big questions asked were the timeline thing. I think that was a great observation but System Tracts The “Vail Curves”, or global cycle charts, were an outcome of Exxon’s worldwide seismic coverage. With Sloss’s back ground, I picked sequence boundaries on many different continental margins and dated their correlative conformities using biostratigraphy. I was able to show that sequences on a worldwide basis seemed to have basically the same ages, so I began making charts of the cycles. Although the ages of the sequences appeared to agree worldwide, the amount of eustatic rise for each sequence was more difficult to determine, which included trying to separate eustatic rise from tectonic subsidence. The key problem was to determine the eustatic component. I would identify the onlap on the seismic section and use well logs to determine if the onlapping sediments were deposited close to sea level. If they were, I would call the onlap coastal onlap. Using the coastal onlap, I could calculate the thickness of the onlapping sediments and this would give me an estimate of eustatic rise in sea level and/ or subsidence. Subsidence histories in wells and divergent reflection patterns helped correct for subsidence. So I plotted the horizontal extent of the onlapping sediments against the thickness of onlap. This gave me an estimate of the eustatic component. When I put these charts together, they looked like “sawtoothed curves”. I plotted them on geologic time scales, which I had to develop. I used two biostratigraphers, Jan Van Hinte for the Cretaceous time scale and Jan Hardenbol for the Tertiary. Later Bilal Haq helped with the complete time scales. I later worked with a graduate student from Rice named Victor Abreu, who worked on a thesis with Professor Andre Droxler studying oxygen isotope records based on planktonic forams. The eustatic curves based on these isotopes were published in the SEPM Memoir 60. It was another independent way to arrive at eustatic Interview continued on page 26. November 2014 Geophysical Society of Houston Back to Index 25 Interview continued from page 25. cyclicity. It showed the greatest sea-level falls were in the mid-Oligocene and the average falls were 30 – 40 meters. The big question was “What’s causing all of this?” So I suggested eustatic sea level changes, and that was really controversial. have eustatic curves. The SEPM published Memoir 60, which is the attempt to solve that. I thought that they will never get their money back, but it became a best seller. They charged $800 for it, but now have it on a disk and charge a couple of hundred dollars. I assume that as a result you put the word ‘relative’ in front of it. Let’s go to Exxon and Carter. No. Relative changes of sea level is a name introduced for a model which combines the effects of eustatic changes, tectonic subsidence, and sediment input into one concept we call the accommodation model. It has low stand, transgressive, and high stand systems tracts. We don’t have time to discuss all of that here. Today we are occupied with climate change and all of that. It was just 20,000 years ago when we had a lot of ice over Chicago. But it is happening today! I guess the important question is how much of the global climate change can be attributed to mankind. As far as man polluting the atmosphere, there is little doubt there. One needs to just look outside. The thing that affects me here in Houston is the effect on birds. I am a bird watcher. The robins used to winter in Houston in large numbers. They don’t come here anymore. I haven’t seen any this past winter. Where did they go? They stop before they get here. I have a friend that lives up at Huntsville. They get a lot of them up there. We get some here but not many. We used to get great flocks of them. I would feed them out back. I lived on Del Monte Street. There was a big park across the street. It would be covered by hundreds of robins in the winter. Goldfinches are also much less frequent. Yes, I recall the robins ate the red berries on trees and get sort of drunk. One could go at this global change by using the migratory habits of birds. They know what the temperature is. Canadian Geese also stopped somewhere up north. Are your sea level curves too large to be caused by ice? Someone said that if we melted all of the ice on land, we would have forty feet of sea level change. Forty feet is not close to what your sea level curves show. There are other people working on this. There is some thought that it might be due to ….. I read somewhere that it may have to do with a midAtlantic ridge build up. That kind of tectonism is not fast enough. That is on the scale of a Sloss sequence. I guess the ground is subsiding. That seems the only answer we have left. I can’t imagine these major sea level changes predicted by your relative sea level curves. We have a sea level chart using coastal onlap and we also I started with Carter. I developed this procedure called pattern correlation. I developed all of that from the detailed correlation of well logs. I published it internally to Carter. I got with a guy named Chuck Campbell. He showed me on outcrops and well logs on how these correlations represented bedding surfaces that followed geological time. So when I did the study in Africa, I did detailed correlations of bedding planes. They were time lines as we discussed earlier. That was an important leap? But I am still with Exxon. A while back I had lunch with a chap called J. B. Kaufmann. …..he was a strong personality. He was my manager. He blames Exxon completely for the release of Seismic Stratigraphy. Had I interviewed him at that time, one of my early questions would have been, “Why did Exxon publish all of that material?” He would get red in the face. He didn’t think that Exxon, internally, was using it or fully understood its impact. And he couldn’t get anyone very interested. He surveyed the different managers and asked them whether it should be released. When they agreed, he released it and then was blamed for the release when the industry enthusiastically embraced it. You know he wrote novels. He said that his wife objected to his crude language used in the books. I went to his funeral. They gave everyone there a copy of one of his books. I forget which one. One good thing about J.B. was that he really supported me. He really did. Plate tectonics came out in the early sixties. Do you see any connection to sequence stratigraphy and plate tectonics? Obviously, the stratigraphy has to exist with all of these plates moving around. We have a long term curve, which is sort of an envelope and we correlate that with the size of the ocean basins created by plate tectonics. Most tectonic movements are too slow to explain the 3rd order cycles. You know that when I retired, I started my own oil company. What I wanted to do was to get into consulting and earning a percentage per well. What I found was that the people I was working with wanted me to invest rather that listen to advice. So I did that a few times but was unsuccessful. We had two discoveries. These companies were undercapitalized. They were unable to complete them. There was one in South Texas out in front of the Cretaceous reef. It had a lot of drilling problems and when they got down they couldn’t get the logging tools down. Interview continued on page 27. 26 Back to Index Geophysical Society of Houston November 2014 Interview continued from page 26. They had 500 feet of Woodbine sand, full of oil out in front of the reef. They couldn’t get it out. The other was up in Washington County. It was a gas well. During a full day it flowed at 11 million cubic feet. So I though, gee that’s a nice discovery. Then they weren’t able to complete it. So my two discoveries were less that successful. The gas well used horizontal drilling. I think the engineering that goes into horizontal drilling and completion is amazing. But on the other hand, this is bad news for the seismic guys. They don’t need structure anymore. They just find a source bed and then drill horizontal holes. If you had it do over, are there any changes you would make? No, I really enjoyed my work. The time with Exxon was good. It was after I retired that Rice gave me a teaching job, which was rewarding because of getting involved with students. This ended the interview with Peter Vail. When I first arrived for the interview he was sitting near the doorway in a wheel chair. He asked me November 2014 to wheel him back to the room we were going to use for the interview. I facetiously suggested that the wheels alongside the chair could be used just as well. Mark one goof-up for Lawyer. He had had a fall in Naples that resulted in his confinement to a wheel chair. Anyone else could have rightly been a little taken aback by my gaff, but not Pete. He kindly told me of his accident and his resultant problems. Here was a person who loved geology, spent a lot of time in the field, was one of the authors of a significant step forward in seismic interpretation, and here was I, about two feet tall. Much earlier I saw Pete when we were both involved in a symposium held in China. And either before or after that, he led a group of Chevron employees (of which I was one) on a field trip using terminology derived from his ‘Seismic Stratigraphy’, which sort of morphed into Sequence Stratigraphy or visa versa. Geophysical Society of Houston Back to Index 27 Wavelets - Underwater Exploration: New UH Sonar and Seismic Capabilities U.H. SEG WAVE L E T S By Anoop William, Robert Stewart, and Jiannan Wang, University of Houston Figure 1: Bathymetric and sidescanning sonar rigged from the side of the research vessel Milan in Galveston Harbor during the 2014 Geophysics Field Camp. Figure 2: An echo image from the side-scanning sonar (EdgeTech 4600) along a traverse underneath the Pelican Island Causeway. The rectangular bridge footings in the channel are apparent. The top graph shows the energy of echo returns. A nice advantage of practicing geophysics in Houston is proximity to the energy industry and the Gulf of Mexico. Many geophysical opportunities (and challenges) are found in the nearby offshore. The Allied Geophysical Laboratories (AGL) and geoscientists at the University of Houston have begun to introduce “hands-on” marine studies into our geophysics curriculum. While we have been undertaking land surveys and processing for some years, we are now beginning to acquire and analyze shallow marine data. Initially we have been developing a shallow marine acquisition and processing capability. To do so, we have acquired some very fine equipment including: • EdgeTech’s 4600 wide-swath bathymetry and side-scanning sonar system operating at 540 kHz (Figure 1). An EdgeTech 3100 portable subbottom profiler operating at 2 - 16 kHz frequency • Falmouth Scientific’s HMS 620 “Bubble Gun” electromagnetic seismic source (boomer) pulsing over a band from 70 – 700 Hz (chirp system). We combined it on the research vessel Milan, with the bathymetry and side-scan sonar under the guidance of new UH geophysics professor, Dr. Will Sager. A side-scan sonar image, acquired while passing under the Pelican Island Causeway, shows the bridge’s footings (Figure 2). We delivered the program via a collegial partnership with staff and facilities at Texas A&M University in Galveston. Haiti Expedition 2014 In July of 2014 a team from UH used the sub-bottom profiler to acquire 100 km of high-resolution lines in Haiti (Figure 3). With leadership from UH’s Dr. Paul Mann, we surveyed over the 130 km2 brackish Lake Azuei and 15 km2 fresh-water Lake Mirogoane that both straddle the active trace of the Enquillo-Plantain Garden fault zone. Faults on or near this plate boundary region gave rise to the devastating 2010 earthquake. An example of the chirp data (Figure 4) show a bathymetric anomaly associated with the fault. • A 24-channel MicroEel streamer from Geometrics. We have also conducted several surveys in the last few months. The first survey was part of our annual Geophysics Field Camp operated this year out of Galveston. We next took the “chirp” or sub-bottom profiler to survey two lakes in Haiti as part of our SEGsupported Geoscientists Without Borders humanitarian program. Finally, in August 2014 we surveyed Clear Lake and Galveston Bay as a component of a field school taught in conjunction with Nautilus World. Galveston Field Camp During the 2014 UH Geophysics Field Camp in Galveston, we inaugurated our sub-bottom profiler 28 Back to Index Figure 3: UH team attaching the sub-bottom sonar (chirp) to a lake vessel in Haiti in July 2014. Geophysical Society of Houston Wavelets continued on page 29. November 2014 Wavelets continued from page 28. Figure 4: An example of the chirp data show an active anticline that is deforming Holocene lake sediments in Lake Azuei along with active strands of the Enriquillo fault zone. Nautilus Industry Course Closer to home, AGL has partnered with a major geoscience education provider (Nautilus World) to deliver seismic acquisition training for industry professionals. This five-day school was dedicated to giving hands-on experience in various land and marine seismic exploration techniques. Students from a range of countries including Ireland, Germany, Ghana, and UAE thrived in the program and managed to survive the Gulf Coast’s August humidity. A highlight of the course was conducting sonar (Figure 5) and seismic lines from Clear Lake to Galveston Bay - past the restaurants of Kemah. Figure 6: The boomer seismic source rigged from the side of a “Party Boat” out of South Shore Harbor near Kemah. Streamers (hydrophone cables) were attached on arms from the vessel’s stern. This is both for research and educational purposes. UH currently has a very large undergraduate geophysics cohort (some 130 students) and a similar number of graduate students. To our knowledge, this makes it the largest university geophysics program in the world outside of China. Via marine surveying (and other initiatives), we are looking to keep our program vibrant and useful to students, in both industry and the university. In addition, by having our own acquisition systems, we can undertake research projects to advance marine analysis and coastal understanding. Acknowledgements A special thanks to Li Chang and Ady Geda from the Allied Geophysical Laboratories for their assistance in all facets of our geophysical surveying. We appreciate the staff at Texas A&M University, Galveston; Haiti Bureau of Mines and Energy; South Shore Harbor, League City; and Nautilus World for their generous help with logistics. Figure 5: Sub-bottom sonar image from a Clear Lake transect. The two-way time of events (0.02s) indicates subsurface depths of up to about 15m. We rigged one of the local boats with arms to support the sonar and seismic sources (Figure 6), as well as two hydrophone streamers. The boomer was fired every second and produced reflections down to about 100 ms, or about 75 m below the lake bottom (Figure 7). We look forward to further processing and interpreting all of these new data! Summary UH and the Allied Geophysical Lab are expanding our geophysical capabilities to include marine surveying. November 2014 Figure 7: Raw boomer seismic data from the Clear Lake transect. We can see reflections down to 100 ms (about 75 m). Geophysical Society of Houston Back to Index 29 NEW MEMBERS Welcome New Members ACTIVE ASSOCIATE Amir Abdi ExxonMobil Asa Nahidi ION Geophysical David Cameron VAALCO Energy Inc. Kristoffer Rimaila dGB Earth Science Gerard Murphy BP Padmasri Morri Hesham Refayee dGB Earth Science Yong Ma ConocoPhillips JD Stephenson Anadarko Antonio Montes Tessella Kranthi Garidepalli ION Geophysical Carol Villagomez FairfieldNodal Maya El Hariri BP Connor Thompson FairfieldNodal Neda Bundalo Marathon Oil Gil HowelDolphin Geophysical Steve Erck Geordinates Jiahui Zhong Seitel Steven KratkyFidelity Exploration & Production Julianne O'Brien Ikon Science Susan KnaupAmanhan Energy Development Justin Simmons TGS Thad Dunbar Anadarko Laura Kamrath Mark Mixon LMKR Martin Schwed Chevron Matthew Mayer STUDENT Ronald Paul Iron Will Energy Aamir Rafiq University of Calgary Kevin Liner University of Arkansas Lei Fu Rice University Nyakno Jonah University of Calabar Xiao Yang Rice University Yue Zhang Rice University Zheming Tong Cornell University Zhili Wei University of Houston Corporate Sponsors CORPORATE SPONSORS PLATINUM CORPORATE SPONSORS Z-Terra is a rapidly growing provider of software and service solutions for the upstream oil and gas industry. We believe in challenging the industry status quo in everything we do. The way we challenge the status quo is by making our software faster, simple to use and user-friendly. We focus on innovation, product excellence, fanatical attention to quality and detail, and smart business practices. We work hard, but keep it fun. We work on exciting, high-impact projects with smart people in small teams, in a dynamic setting. We believe that every employee is integral to our success. We value honesty and integrity. Employees are partners as shareholders. We are on the leading edge of our industry, making technical contributions and innovating in our field. We have the following open position, so if you want to be part of an award winning, enthusiastic, tireless, yet fun group, send us your resume at jobs@z-terra.com. GOLD CORPORATE SPONSOR SILVER CORPORATE SPONSOR BRONZE CORPORATE SPONSOR Processing Geophysicist CORPORATE SPONSORS For more information about becoming a Corporate or Individual Sponsor, please contact the GSH office at 281-741-1624, or office@gshtx.org. 30 Back to Index Z-Terra is currently soliciting applications for highly motivated Processing Geophysicists to join our rapidly expanding imaging team. Five years or more experience in 2D/3D seismic time processing will be an asset. Minimum qualifications for the position include a degree in Earth Sciences, Geophysics, Mathematics, Physics or related Discipline. Geophysical Society of Houston November 2014 GSH Made its Debut at URTeC in Denver, CO G S H AT U RTe C The Geophysical Society of Houston made its debut at the 2nd Unconventional Resources Technology Conference in Denver, Colorado, August 25-27. Our primary goal was to promote the value of membership of the GSH to professionals who live, work, or travel to Houston for business. To that end, we were very successful in connecting with over 30 potential new members and event sponsors. The GSH booth was attended by several of our GSH member volunteers – some of whom are pictured. The conference and exhibit was L-R Liza Yellott, Sofia Campbell, Nicola Maitland, Denise Dorsey & Sophia Hak held in the Colorado Convention Center Denver, Colorado and attracted over 5000 industry professionals. URTeC is an integrated event for unconventional resource teams and included attendees from across all geological, geophysical, engineering, environmental, and policy-making disciplines. In July 2015 we are pleased that the 3rd UTReC will visit us in San Antonio, Texas! Annual Post Office Statement ANNUAL PO ST O F FI C E S TATE M EN T November 2014 Geophysical Society of Houston Back to Index 31 MYSTERY ITEM Mystery Item ? This is a geophysical item... Do you know what it is? ? ? ? ? ? This month's answer on page 35. Processing & Imaging Services Integrated Reservoir Services Tricon Geophysics, established in 1994, is staffed by highly trained professional with worldwide experience providing expertise to solve your exploration challenges. By integrating detailed petrophysical, rock physics, geologic interpretation and Prestack data, Tricon helps you make more profitable decisions from exploration to exploitation. Whether it’s prestack inversion, pre-drill in-situ stress analysis or volume-based AVO or OVT full azimuthal analysis, we have the experts and technology to orchestrate a successful result. Seismic Data Processing 2D/3D land and marine seismic data processing. Tricon utilizes the latest commercially available and proprietary processing software to provide the fastest possible turnarounds. Tricon offers a True 5D Interpolation Solution. Advanced Seismic Imaging Full 2D and 3D prestack time and depth imaging utilizing Tsunami Imaging Software for both time and depth domains, high-resolution velocity analysis and gather pre-conditioning for AVO. Archival Services Data archiving and retrieval services, tape to tape copying, media transfers, data scanning and data management services. 32 Back to Index Geophysical Society of Houston November 2014 Miguel Silva V.P. USA and Canada C: (281) 827-8710 P: (713) 650-3200 F: (713) 650-3201 Email: miguel.silva@luminageo.com www.luminageo.com November 2014 2101 Smith St. Suite 250 Houston, TX 77002 - USA Geophysical Society of Houston 33 , Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, other Alaska Gravity Data Photo Gravity Corporation Gravity Data - Gravity Data Processing - Digitizing Bob Gardner 713-582-8129 Bob Neese 281-342-2884 Dick Baile 713-932-6906 Fax: 713-827-1622 * photograv@aol.com 34 Geophysical Society of Houston November 2014 HPAC Auxiliary News The Houston Petroleum Auxiliary Council By Donna Parrish, Liaison 281-859-8088 Bonjour y’all! This issue finds your liaison writing an advertisement for a volunteer to continue reporting on our auxiliary activities through May. Please contact Sally Blackhall if you can help with this activity. The articles are due two months ahead; so there is plenty of time to procrastinate. Writing skills are not necessary as your skills will improve as you report on our activities and all info supplied to you by participating interest groups. Remember, this page in the Geophysical Journal is the lifeline for many members. You will be appreciated. I am currently in France and not able to participate in auxiliary activities. I look forward to hearing from you! Dress up, bring a friend, as our Holiday Luncheon Treat is upon us. On December 15, 2014 be at The Junior League (1811 Briar Oaks Ln.) for a stunning luncheon with a mystery entertainer. Rumor has it that “Someone will be in the Building” who will come out and help make this the biggest event of our year. The Junior League will be decorated for your pleasure. Early November Book Club meets. Contact Mickey Murrell for details. Bridge Groups and Explorers continue. HAPPY HOLIDAYS! See you next year!!! Your liaison, Donna Parrish Corporate Members Apache Corporation Bluware ConocoPhillips Dot Hill Systems Corp. Halliburton l The Mystery Item for the October GSHJ is a Seismic detector that includes a velocity geophone as well as a hydrophone. It was used for shallow water seismic work. Mystery Item on page 32. November 2014 Mystery Item ? ? Lone Star Geophysical Surveys CORPORATE M EM B E R S We appreciate our ? HPAC Our HPAC Mission Statement is "to promote and foster social relationships among its members and to assist the Engineering, Geological, Geophysical, and Land Societies in their various requests.” l Seabed Geosolutions Seitel, Inc. For more information about becoming a Corporate Member, please contact the GSH office at 281-741-1624, or office@gshtx.org. Geophysical Society of Houston Back to Index 35 11 Greenway Plaza Suite 2010 Houston, Texas 77046 713.457.8100 Tel gene@vandyke-energy.com www.vandyke-energy.com Gene Van Dyke Chairman & CEO 36 Geophysical Society of Houston November 2014 Geoscience Center News 1790 W. Sam Houston Pkwy. N. (Right on Shadow Wood) By Bill Gafford G E OS CI E N CE CE N T ER NEWS Our news this month comes from Gene Womack, one of our Geoscience Center volunteers. When you come into the GSH office, you can’t help but notice a bronze figure, carrying geophones in one hand and a cable draped over his shoulder. If you stop and look closely, you will notice he is walking among cactus, a snake, flagging, and a firing line spool tied to a stake. This sculpture, on loan from Gordon Greve, is a miniature of the original 10’ sculpture that resides in the SEG Tulsa office complex. It was sanctioned by the SEG Foundation in 2002 and sold almost 90 copies until the conclusion of the fundraising program in 2009. These were sold at a price of $2500.00 each and revenue from each sale was allocated such that $1500.00 went to the general operating fund as payment for casting, shipping, and staff overhead, while the remaining $1000.00 was treated as a taxdeductible contribution to the Tulsa Geoscience Center (now closed) temporarily restricted fund. Obtaining this sculpture took longer than obtaining a seismic contract for a 96 channel crew from Gordon. It took several years of lunches and visits with Gordon and his wife, Wanda at their home in Durango, Co. I had given up trying to obtain his sculpture and had started to cajole Lee Lawyer into letting us have his which is #1 in his personal collection. I found out Lee is not cajole-able as he would not have anything to pat (actually he rubs the doodlebugger’s cap daily) when he comes home; so that did not work out either. This year on our annual pilgrimage to southwest Colorado, we were having lunch with Gordon and Wanda and I tried a different approach, suggesting a loan instead of a gift. He agreed with Wanda applauding (she doesn’t have to dust it anymore). After security escorts across Colorado, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, it arrived safely at the GSH office. It is on loan until one of his children in the future wants it back. It will reside in the GSH office for the public and members to view. In between viewings it will be displayed November 2014 appropriately at our Geoscience Center and schools when we are educating potential earth scientists. The sculpture is shown with Gordon and Wanda. Our many thanks to them for this piece of history. GSH Geoscience Center Challenge This is a new opportunity to support the GSH Geoscience Center. Longtime GSH and SEG member Dick Baile has offered to donate $5000 to the Geoscience Center if that amount is raised from individuals in the next 12 months. Donors will be recognized in our “Friends of the Geoscience Center” listing near our entrance. Financial support will continue to be solicited from companies. The GSH is a 501(C)3 organization. Donations can be sent to the GSH office at 14811 St. Mary’s Lane, Suite 204, Houston, Texas, 77079, with a note that the donation is for the Geoscience Center Challenge. Geophysical Society of Houston Back to Index 37 D O O D L E B U G G E R D I A RY Doodlebugger Diary Wrong Place at the Wrong Time By Lee Lawyer Chuck Andrews obligingly sent me this note a few months ago. Interestingly, Maurice Ewing et al did refraction shooting in the Gulf of Mexico looking for the discontinuity called the Moho. It was called that because most geophysicists didn’t know how to pronounce the whole name. The industry also did long offset shots to get an estimate of the velocity layers. I think those were called X2-T2 shots. LCL This story took place in the Gulf of Mexico a long time ago. It was about a major oil company marine seismic crew, Party number 143, gathering very basic information preparatory for an upcoming Western GOM Federal lease sale. A lot was still to be learned about GOM structural geology in the mid-to-late 1960’s. We had recently shot some very long profile refraction surveys trying to learn what was the depth to basement and to other geologic formations above it. One of those long refraction lines was 100 nautical miles long and actually saw segments of the Mohorovicic discontinuity. This trip was an exception to the normal reflection seismic surveys that we had been conducting. It was to tie one of the long refraction lines and to go to the Sigsbee Escarpment in very deep water. Since this was before digital recording and extra-long record length data acquisition, two analog recording systems were configured to sequentially record each one’s normal record time allowing for a total record length of fourteen seconds. That sounds pretty typical for today’s work, but it wasn’t in 1968. It was also exceptional at that time for its single line total length of 223 nautical miles. The recording boat was the Colorado, probably 75 feet long and maybe a beam of 20 feet with 48 channel analog instruments and newly configured for continuous tow rather than stopping at each shot point to let the cable be more or less stationary for the recording. Energy source was provided by two shooting boats rather than the normal one, so that there would be enough dynamite for the entire line. Shots were alternated between the two using 50 pounds of dynamite at each point. Environmentally acceptable sources had not yet been established. The line origin was just offshore Freeport, Texas, and the destination was along maximum geologic dip at the edge of the Sigsbee Escarpment. The destination would be identified by the name Alaminos or Keathley Canyon or beyond today. The event started off in early morning and went smoothly on a beautiful sunny day until some unwanted excitement shut the operation down probably at about two-thirds of the programmed length. I was standing in the dog house watching a printout of each individual record, when suddenly a spurious high amplitude event appeared on possibly half of the traces at a zero water depth and horizontal path. There was an immediate concern of where did this unknown explosion come from? We rushed topside to see what it could be. Something had exploded and it wasn’t from us. In later years, when several crews might have been in near proximity, this event would not have had the same reaction. But there weren’t other crews shooting, and not coincidentally, we did know that we were traversing the U.S. Air Force’s designated bombing range. But all necessary clearances and permits had been dutifully acquired long before this voyage ever began. Our shooting stopped immediately, and I was on the radio the rest of the afternoon inquiring from every military branch and location within thousands of miles to see if someone had been doing unauthorized practice bombing around us. After hours of searching, no one admitted to bombing near our location. Now, it was time to regroup and try to continue our assignment. However, a problem had developed in that one of the two shooting boats, still very heavily loaded with tons of dynamite, had decided to evacuate the area and return to shore and perceived safety. Ironically it was the oil company shooting boat that beat a hasty retreat and returned to shore. The contract company’s shooting boat had loyally remained with us in the bombing range. The next morning our oil company shooting boat returned to join our fleet and we went merrily on to complete our mission. It took quite a long time to process that strange kluge of data but the results turned out to be quite good, and we finally saw a lot of geology that, as far as I know, no one else had ever seen. The record showing the errant explosion was analyzed by the research laboratory, but no real answer was discovered to explain what had exploded near our recording cable. I don’t remember, if I ever knew, the cost of this one long line, but I suspect it still holds the record for being the most expensive line ever shot by the company. The oil company, by the way, was Shell Oil and by now has a pretty good record exploring for oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico. If you would like to add stories to the Doodlebugger Diary, send them to: Lee Lawyer at llawyer@prodigy.net or mail them to Box 441449, Houston, TX 77244-1449 38 Back to Index Geophysical Society of Houston November 2014 ENHANCED RESOLUTION FROM LEAST SQUARES RTM (LSRTM) For more information, contact TGS at: Tel: +1 713 860 2100 Email: info@tgs.com See the energy at TGS.com © 2014 TGS-NOPEC GEOPHYSICAL COMPANY ASA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. November 2014 Geophysical Society of Houston 39 GEOPHYSICAL SOCIETY OF HOUSTON Periodical U.S. Postage PAID Houston, Texas 14811 St. Mary’s Lane, Suite 204 Houston, TX 77079 November 2014 SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY 1 2 9 3 Technical Breakfast Northside 10 4 5 11 17 Technical Luncheon Westside 18 Technical Dinner Northside 23 24 Technical Breakfast Westside Living Legends Doodlebugger 12 13 Next Generation Geoscience Computing SIG 19 Technical Luncheon Downtown 25 20 Potential Fields SIG 26 DP&ACQ SIG 30 7 8 14 15 Microseismic SIG Webinar 16 6 TopGolf Social GSH Board Meeting 21 22 Tennis Tournament 27 28 29 Thanksgiving office closed December 2014 SUNDAY MONDAY 1 7 14 8 15 TUESDAY Technical Breakfast Northside WEDNESDAY 2 THURSDAY 3 FRIDAY 4 SATURDAY 5 6 12 13 Microseismic SIG 9 Technical 16 Luncheon Westside Technical Dinner Northside 21 22 23 28 29 30 Technical Breakfast Westside 10 11 GSH Board Meeting 17 Technical Luncheon Downtown 24 18 19 20 25 26 27 DP&ACQ SIG Christmas office closed 31 New Year's Eve office closed The Geophysical Society of Houston Journal (ISSN 1082-0817) is published monthly except in July and August by the Geophysical Society of Houston, 14811 St. Mary’s Lane, Suite 204, Houston, TX 77079. Subscription to this publication is included in the membership dues of $40 annually. Periodicals postage paid in Houston, Texas. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Geophysical Society of Houston Journal, 14811 St. Mary’s Lane, Suite 204, Houston, TX 77079. Back to Index
© Copyright 2024