The New Year can be a time to reminisce about the good ol’ days. But a lot of things are better now than way back when – including seismic processing. See below for a terrific example from my friend Bill Wepfer of Eskaton Seismic. The left image is of a 2D line acquired and processed in 1968. The right image is the same 1968 field data but processed by Bill in 2014 using updated technology. Quite an improvement! Of course seismic processing (like most everything else) has continued to improve since 2014. Sometimes you need to acquire new seismic data to achieve your objectives. Other times you can just reprocess old data (with new technology) to achieve your objectives – as evidenced by this example. #seismicprocessing #geophysics #seismicinterpretation #seismicimaging #geophysicist
Peter Eick
9mo
It would be interesting just to see the improvement from 2014 to today. I suspect it would be significant.
Francisco Neto
9mo
How the people find oil in the past ? 🤣👍
Khalid Obaid
9mo
Seismic processing is like magic, adding more advanced tricks through time🥸
Paul Dial, PhD
9mo
I would certainly agree that with most data sets modern workflows will produce improved data sets. I have come across vintage 80s 2d seismic lines that showed little benefit from a modern workflow compared to the original processing. As echoed earlier, the parameters used in the acquisition can have an effect on the degree of improvement. But with more refined and more numerable noise suppression techniques and better overall workflows, it is always worth attempting reprocessing to provide a better data set.
James Mika
9mo
interrogating vintage datasets through reprocessing efforts would be a great precursor to planning new acquisition in the area. Although new acquisition kit and procedures are now much more robust, looking into things such as usable offset ranges, hints as to the complexity of the near surface, etc. could serve to advise new acquisition plans.
Farhan Khan
9mo
The re-processed data (2014) has good uplift vs. vintage processed data (1968) as expected. But re-processed data seems to have ringing effect, although, in 2014, seismic processing used to have good tools to address that problem.
Mike Poirier
9mo
Although the toolbox has expanded and computing power help greatly the first person to interpret the data is the processor. In this case Bill Wepfer is the best in the business and a pleasure to work with. I simply cannot recommend him highly enough. He's done superior work for me in Colombia, Utah, the Gulf Coast, and Kansas.
Mike Jerner
9mo
New processing is great! But ultimately it comes down to the eyeballs of the person interpreting the data. I've known a few guys that where really really good at it. Kim Nordstog and Todd Stallings.
Mufit E. K.
9mo
To be honest, I can not accept this 1968 seismic processing,it is covered with reverbrations and also consist of so much noise(data is not edited in terms of bad trace,channel and shot),it is just a stack not migrated so also not interpretable. Therefore,I am thankful to the seismic data processing technology and advancements today.
Field Seismic QA/QC
9moAbsolutely old seismic need to be reprocessed using new technology