Quick Search:    advanced search

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

This Article 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 Roden, R. Search for Related Content

Salt Lake City 2002

A summary of the Technical program

TLE Editorial Board chairman

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

The SEG International Exposition and Seventy-Second Annual Meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, had more than 300 exhibitors, 630 oral and poster presentations, and an attendance of not quite 6000. In my opinion, the mood of the convention was mixed. There seemed to be significant activity for companies involved in prestack depth migration processing, special technical analyses, and some software vendors. The atmosphere was not as positive for many companies involved in seismic acquisition and related activities.

The following is similar to the summaries I wrote about the meetings in Calgary 2000, and San Antonio 2001, based on the technical sessions given at the convention and my experiences and discussions with numerous colleagues. While, as an individual, I can't cover all the presentations and technologies presented at the convention, I attempt to highlight the technical ideas I feel may interest a large portion of the SEG community, especially those involved in interpretation.

There seemed to be fewer presentations on new visualization approaches in 2002 than in the previous two SEG Annual Meetings, probably because visualization has been accepted as a necessary technology and is used extensively in almost all phases of geophysics. In addition to numerous case studies and interpretation approaches, the focus of the technical presentations were multicomponent technology, time-lapse surveys, and processing which emphasized prestack depth migration and amplitude preservation.

	Interpretation approaches

 
One presentation described a technique to help discriminate pay sands from wet sands at Marco Polo Field, Gulf of Mexico (GoM), utilizing inversion processing to create acoustic and elastic impedance data. From work at the Nansen Field, deepwater GoM, another paper presented a series of geophysical technologies including DHI/AVO, pressure prediction/column height analysis, and AI/EI inversions to decrease risk. The results of these technologies were incorporated in an amplitude analysis program which indicated a final probability of geologic . . . [Full Text of this Article]