The language we use in all forms of communication—whether during the quoting phase, project meetings, report writing or general marketing—has the potential to confuse, mislead and provoke, especially technically minded geophysicists and their propensity to get hung up on technicalities 😉
A recent paper in EAGE First Break by Andy Hill of BP, co-authored by Gary Nicol and Mick Cook, proposes a shift in the terminology we use to describe the seismic data RockWave processes. Therefore, this is something that demands our attention and a team decision on whether to embrace the proposals, reject, or something in between.
Within the very entertaining and thoroughly researched paper, we learn how over decades of seismic acquisition and technological evolution, the marine geophysical industry has found itself in a bit of a terminology tangle.
As the paper states:
“The historical generalisation is that when we acquire new seismic data, we often fall into the trap of trying to differentiate them from existing data through use of a subjective prefix or suffix.”
The paper suggests a cause for this could have either been:
“innocent differentiators or deliberate marketing ones (who wouldn’t want every survey to be a physics-defying ultra-high resolution / ultra dense one to convince management to pay for it – or a client to buy it?)”
To address this issue, the authors propose a standardised set of seismic definitions designed to remain relevant for decades. These new definitions, outlined in Table 1 (below), aim to clarify the categorisation of seismic data.
Standardised Definitions for Towed Streamer Data
The proposed definitions primarily apply to the temporal resolution of seismic data acquired with towed streamers containing multiple hydrophones. However, for single-channel seismic, new terminologies have also been suggested.
New Terminology for Single-Channel Seismic (SCS) or Sub-Bottom Profilers (SBP)
As single-channel seismic is typically acquired by firing shots at time intervals rather than distance intervals, the paper suggests generalising single-channel seismic data as “Continuous Profiler (CP)”. Depending on the source used, the following clarifications apply:
CP-SPK: Continuous profiler acquired with a sparker source
CP-BMR: Continuous profiler acquired with a boomer source
CP-PNG: Continuous profiler acquired with a pinger source
CP-CHP: Continuous profiler acquired with a chirp source
The paper does not define a term for continuous profiler data acquired with an Innomar (or parametric) source, though CP-PAR might be a logical extension.
The paper also acknowledges that the proposed definitions are only useful in describing temporal (vertical) resolution and not spatial sampling (bin spacing), which is very important when designing a 3D UHRS (EHRS) geophysical survey.
Transition Challenges
As with any shift in industry standards, adopting these new terms will take time. Geophysicists are most likely to be the early adopters, followed by geologists, and eventually, by those less directly involved in seismic work but who rely on the insights it provides. Meanwhile, conversations held at the recent EAGE GET 2024 in Rotterdam suggests that even geophysicists are currently divided.
People find comfort and security in routines. Changing the norm can create uncertainty, which many naturally resist. Clearly patience will be key.
RockWave’s Approach
At RockWave we process seismic data of all frequencies – whether it’s high resolution, ultra-high resolution, exploration seismic etc. Call it what you like, the physics remain the same, and we remain the experts. So whilst we welcome a new standardised approach, we also recognise that not all our clients are familiar with this evolving terminology. For example, a geotechnical engineer may not have heard of Andy Hill* or his efforts to redefine industry language.
So, lets apply common sense and use the words that resonate with the people we are speaking to, and focus on the most important thinking that is processing the data to its full potential.
*It turns out Andy Hill is indeed a familiar name to (some) geotechnical engineers. When seeking permission from Andy W. Hill to use the table for this article, he enthusiastically informed us that, in 2014, he co-authored a paper** as part of a trio of Andy Hills—one of whom was a geotechnical engineer, as the cover photo for this article confirms! Therefore, to correct our original statement above, some geotechnical engineers may recognise the name Andy Hill from BP, but they might not always be sure which Andy Hill is being referenced.
**The paper was: Hill, A., Hill, A. and Hill, A. (2014): “What is the way forward for improvement in Geophysical and Geotechnical Integration?” Oceanology International, March 13th 2014.
留言