[First Hit]

Datapages, Inc.Print this page

GLASER, KAREN, S., GeoQuest, Houston, TX

Abstract: Maximizing the Value of Your Previous HitInterpretationNext Hit Software, an Example: 3D-Based Versus "Traditional" Seismic Previous HitInterpretationNext Hit

Seismic Previous HitinterpretationNext Hit software is used in a variety of ways by geoscientists in the course of their work. Often, interpreters do not use the available software to its fullest advantage, and therefore do not reap the full value of their investment. Two different Previous HitinterpretationNext Hit methodologies were compared to delineate the benefits of fully using the 3D capabilities of software compared to a more traditional, 2D canvas based method.

The methods were compared quantitatively and qualitatively using a small 3D survey from the Gulf of Mexico. Four major steps in the interpretive process were examined; review data and build fault framework, QC Previous HitinterpretationNext Hit, generate top salt map, identify and map a prospect.

At the completion of the four processes, the geologic framework of the area has been worked out, and one prospect identified. The 3D-based method took 63% of the time of the traditional method to complete and required less editing of the initial Previous HitinterpretationNext Hit. However, 30 distinct pay zones have been delineated in this area, and it generally requires multiple iterations of Previous HitinterpretationTop and mapping to adequately delineate a drillable prospect. Taking these factors into account, the value of the 3D-based method over the traditional method translates into a time savings with a value of $10,000. In a typical shop where multiple data sets and prospects are evaluated over the course of a year the total cost saving could amount to $500,000. 

AAPG Search and Discovery Article #90924©1999 GCAGS Annual Meeting Lafayette, Louisiana