What's new in exploration ///

In looking back at the history of seismic acquisition, one thing strikes me: a lot of “crazy” ideas have come and gone. More recently, I’ve noticed that some of the things that, back in 1997, were either deemed unimportant or unachievable, have now become common. Back then, on numerous occasions, when discussing fledgling 4D projects, I would make a statement such as, “Wouldn’t it be nice to know, with great precision, exactly where each shot and each receiver was?” The answer was usually, “Of course, but it’s not necessary. We can do a lot in processing.” Well, as it turns out, some manager would always ask a question like, “So, are you sure that what we’re looking at is a true 4D signal, and not some artifact? Are you $20 million sure?” Similar statements can be made about anisotropy, noise, and so on. Nowadays, operators are increasingly insisting on.

Log in to view this article.

Not yet a subscriber?  Get started now for immediate access to this content and more.



Already a subscriber but don’t have an online account? Contact our customer service.