<Hurricanes: Trend or Oscillation?The Oil DrumHow Oil Conservation Hurts Governments>

10 comments on Finding the field can be a noisy business

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

geewiz on December 4, 2005 - 7:51pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
Exsuburbanite, that is a good question, i've always wondered that myself. I am sure each company keeps a record of that, probably dating back to "day" one. I am sure there is a globe in someones office showing that, but a 3D model on the computer would be interesting to see too.

Speaking of 3D graphs, i like to go back to the plane table method, comparing the plane table method to 3D seismic graphs. While the 3D graphs may provide a better visual representation of a field's size, does the plane table method provide about the same information as 3D, or is it just rough data, whereas the 3D can provide more exact data? And how much more efficient is it to use the 3D graphing than the plane table method?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Heading Out on December 5, 2005 - 1:40am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Oh, sorry I must have unintentionally misled you.  The plane table is used on the surface to provide locations of surface features (and these can include where, on the surface, there are hills, seeps etc).  Seismic surveys look down into the ground and give a picture of what the underground structures look like.  

Outside of the relatively local surveys done when one thinks there is an oilfield present, there is relatively little known of the rock beneath our feet.  I was going to post next about how we know where to look in the first place (gravimetric and magnetic surveys and the like) and they give a broader, though less detailed picture, and have been used much more extensively. But in most parts of the world the knowledge of the rock 100 ft below you is likely to be quite small, and such as it is, confined to relatively few folk.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.