Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ajlani, G. Articles by Suwaina, O. Search for Related Content

Comparative analysis (CASP)

A proposal for quantifying seismic data processing

Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Corresponding author: gajlani@adnoc.com

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

Seismic data processing decisions are often made through a conventional procedure of technical-commercial tendering. This, and the review of slick brochures, impressive CVs, and long lists of worldwide processing experiences, more often than not win the contract for the lowest bidder. A routine processing project then proceeds with regular quality control meetings in which client representatives visually inspect various tests and make on-the-spot decisions for this gap or that window.

Unfortunately—and particularly in this age of high-resolution geophysical reservoir characterization, time-lapse quality requirements, and subtle porosity and fracture-zone uncertainties—conventional seismic data processing quality control and quality assurance (QC/QA) steps are inadequate and potentially disappointing.

Comparative analysis of seismic data processing (CASP), under this or any other name, is the most reliable way to make processing decisions for medium-to-large high-profile 3D seismic surveys. A CASP approach—whereby several capable seismic processing groups, in-house and external, are given a small and sufficient portion of the acquired seismic volume to process within exactly the same time frame, lump-sum compensation, and support data—tends to reduce the risk of failure. CASP ensures that the three main aspects of seismic data processing success—quality, turnaround time, and cost (QTC)—are fully optimized and balanced. This creates a framework of continuous improvement by means of lessons-learned, best practices, benchmarking, clear goals and objectives, and state-of-the-art science and technology.

	The acid test

 
Seismic data processing success largely depends on people, quality control, and software/hardware. Regardless how familiar a client is with a processing group, the final results cannot be predicted. Often, a good processing job is followed by a mediocre one from the same provider, depending on changes in manpower, systems, and/or other circumstances. This implies that when clients evaluate new processing tenders based on previous performances, there is still considerable uncertainty regarding whether the company's staff, management, technology, etc. will deliver the same . . . [Full Text of this Article]