The production release of Geodes 3.00 for Red Hat Enterprise Linux on X86 began shipping on May 17.
Geodes 3.00 for RHEL/X86 is available at no extra charge to all customers who (1) wish to replace their Solaris/Sparc versions of Geodes with Geodes 3.00 for RHEL/X86 and (2) are current with respect to payment of Maintenance Service Charges.
Geodes 3.00 for RHEL/X86 is a port of Geodes 2.x for Solaris/Sparc to the RHEL/X86 platform.
Geodes 3.00 for RHEL/X86 reads binary data and journal files created on Solaris/Sparc as well as those created on RHEL/X86. In short, Geodes 3.00 for RHEL/X86 is compatible with old projects created with Solaris/Sparc versions of Geodes as well as new projects created with the RHEL/X86 version.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
CG begins its 20th year!
[Nota Bene: this post is essentially a re-post (with a small number of changes) of "We Really Know Our SCAT!" from April 29, 2008.]
On March 1, 2010, Computational Geology ("CG") began its 20th year of service to the E&P industry. For a few years prior to that, Deformation, Inc., the predecessor to CG, provided SCAT analysis services to the industry. In short, at CG we've been doing SCAT analysis for roughly 25 years.
When CG introduced the first version of Geodes in 1990, it was one of the very first commercial software packages to incorporate SCAT (if not the first). From Day #1 it has been our philosophy that SCAT is essential for complete, accurate analysis of dip data--from borehole images as well as conventional dipmeter curves, from hand-picked data as well as machine-picked data.
With Andy Bengtson, the inventor of SCAT, we've given oral and poster presentations at AAPG meetings on "What is wrong with tadpole plots?" (Morse and Bengtson, 1988), "No dip or low dip?" (Morse and Bengtson, 1989), and "SCAT dipmeter rules for interpretation of thrust belt kink-fold and detachment structures" (Bengtson and Morse, 1990). (Full citations for these references can be found here.)
As we implemented SCAT in our Geodes program, we introduced novel extensions to SCAT, as described in "Extending SCAT: additional techniques for identifying domain boundaries and determining how azimuth frequency distribution varies with depth" (Morse and Goldberg, 1990a). Within Geodes, we integrated SCAT with isogon-based cross sections to enable users and managers to see What's Really Down There*. (See "GEODES: An interactive, SCAT-based program for complete structural interpretation of dip data" [Morse and Goldberg, 1990b].) To further enable users and managers to see What's Really Down There*, we added to Geodes the ability to convert isogon-based cross sections to local structure maps. Thus, Geodes goes far Beyond SCAT*.
More recently, we presented "Re-interpretation of the north flank of the Qarun Field (Western Desert, Egypt), based on SCAT analysis and reprocessing of the A-17 dipmeter data" at the November 2007 AAPG meeting in Athens (see here and here), a case history describing how we used SCAT and Geodes to identify and correct serious problems with a set of machine-picked dip data from a key well in the steep flank of Qarun Field.
Our licensees are using Geodes around the world, from the subsalt Gulf of Suez, Egypt (Sercombe and others, 1997), to the subsalt / deepwater Gulf of Mexico, to the Canadian Foothills.
Through our Geodes-based 3D Dip* services, Computational Geology also provides Geodes analyses on a consulting basis. Over the years, we've provided Geodes analyses:
We Really Know Our SCAT* and with that knowledge we'll help you to see What's Really Down There*.
__________
* 3D Dip, Beyond SCAT, We Really Know Our SCAT, What's Really Down There, and Geodes are Marks and Trademarks of Computational Geology, Inc.
On March 1, 2010, Computational Geology ("CG") began its 20th year of service to the E&P industry. For a few years prior to that, Deformation, Inc., the predecessor to CG, provided SCAT analysis services to the industry. In short, at CG we've been doing SCAT analysis for roughly 25 years.
When CG introduced the first version of Geodes in 1990, it was one of the very first commercial software packages to incorporate SCAT (if not the first). From Day #1 it has been our philosophy that SCAT is essential for complete, accurate analysis of dip data--from borehole images as well as conventional dipmeter curves, from hand-picked data as well as machine-picked data.
With Andy Bengtson, the inventor of SCAT, we've given oral and poster presentations at AAPG meetings on "What is wrong with tadpole plots?" (Morse and Bengtson, 1988), "No dip or low dip?" (Morse and Bengtson, 1989), and "SCAT dipmeter rules for interpretation of thrust belt kink-fold and detachment structures" (Bengtson and Morse, 1990). (Full citations for these references can be found here.)
As we implemented SCAT in our Geodes program, we introduced novel extensions to SCAT, as described in "Extending SCAT: additional techniques for identifying domain boundaries and determining how azimuth frequency distribution varies with depth" (Morse and Goldberg, 1990a). Within Geodes, we integrated SCAT with isogon-based cross sections to enable users and managers to see What's Really Down There*. (See "GEODES: An interactive, SCAT-based program for complete structural interpretation of dip data" [Morse and Goldberg, 1990b].) To further enable users and managers to see What's Really Down There*, we added to Geodes the ability to convert isogon-based cross sections to local structure maps. Thus, Geodes goes far Beyond SCAT*.
More recently, we presented "Re-interpretation of the north flank of the Qarun Field (Western Desert, Egypt), based on SCAT analysis and reprocessing of the A-17 dipmeter data" at the November 2007 AAPG meeting in Athens (see here and here), a case history describing how we used SCAT and Geodes to identify and correct serious problems with a set of machine-picked dip data from a key well in the steep flank of Qarun Field.
Our licensees are using Geodes around the world, from the subsalt Gulf of Suez, Egypt (Sercombe and others, 1997), to the subsalt / deepwater Gulf of Mexico, to the Canadian Foothills.
Through our Geodes-based 3D Dip* services, Computational Geology also provides Geodes analyses on a consulting basis. Over the years, we've provided Geodes analyses:
- To small, mid-sized, and large companies alike;
- In both extensional and compressional terranes; and
- In both simple and complex structural settings, especially where seismic is fair or poor (e.g., below salt and beneath major faults and unconformities) and where important structural elements (e.g., faults) fall below the limits of seismic resolution.
We Really Know Our SCAT* and with that knowledge we'll help you to see What's Really Down There*.
__________
* 3D Dip, Beyond SCAT, We Really Know Our SCAT, What's Really Down There, and Geodes are Marks and Trademarks of Computational Geology, Inc.
Geodes 3.00 (gamma) for RHEL/X86
Geodes 3.00 (gamma) for RHEL/X86 was distributed to a small number of customer sites on March 29.
The gamma release differs from the previous, beta release in that the gamma release reads binary data and journal files created on Solaris/Sparc as well as those created on RHEL/X86, whereas the beta release only reads binary data and journal files created on RHEL/X86. In short, the gamma release is compatible with old projects created with Solaris/Sparc versions of Geodes as well as new projects created with the RHEL/X86 version.
If no significant issues are reported by May 1, the gamma release will become the production release of Geodes 3.00 for RHEL/X86 and it will be available at no extra charge to all customers who (1) wish to replace their Solaris/Sparc versions of Geodes with Geodes 3.00 for RHEL/X86 and (2) are current with respect to payment of Maintenance Service Charges.
The gamma release differs from the previous, beta release in that the gamma release reads binary data and journal files created on Solaris/Sparc as well as those created on RHEL/X86, whereas the beta release only reads binary data and journal files created on RHEL/X86. In short, the gamma release is compatible with old projects created with Solaris/Sparc versions of Geodes as well as new projects created with the RHEL/X86 version.
If no significant issues are reported by May 1, the gamma release will become the production release of Geodes 3.00 for RHEL/X86 and it will be available at no extra charge to all customers who (1) wish to replace their Solaris/Sparc versions of Geodes with Geodes 3.00 for RHEL/X86 and (2) are current with respect to payment of Maintenance Service Charges.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Beta testing of Geodes 3.00 for RHEL/X86 ends
The beta testing period of Geodes 3.00 for RHEL/X86 ended on 1 October. No significant errors were reported, so we are preparing the production version for distribution.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Beta version of Geodes 3.00 for RHEL/X86 distributed for customer testing
We're happy to announce that on 7 August the beta version of Geodes 3.00 for RHEL/X86 was distributed to selected customer sites for testing. Thus, the beta version has already been under customer testing for approximately three weeks.
The beta testing period will end on 1 October. Provided that no major errors are discovered in the last few weeks of the beta test period, we anticipate distributing the production version of Geodes 3.00 for RHEL/X86 by 1 November.
Geodes 3.00 for RHEL/X86 is a port of Geodes 2.60 for Solaris/SPARC to the RHEL/X86 platform. Geodes 3.00 for RHEL/X86 is a 32-bit application developed on RHEL WS release 4 (Nahant Update 6).
Nota bene: "RHEL" = Red Hat Enterprise Linux
The beta testing period will end on 1 October. Provided that no major errors are discovered in the last few weeks of the beta test period, we anticipate distributing the production version of Geodes 3.00 for RHEL/X86 by 1 November.
Geodes 3.00 for RHEL/X86 is a port of Geodes 2.60 for Solaris/SPARC to the RHEL/X86 platform. Geodes 3.00 for RHEL/X86 is a 32-bit application developed on RHEL WS release 4 (Nahant Update 6).
Nota bene: "RHEL" = Red Hat Enterprise Linux
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
No Dip or Low Dip?
We recently finished a Geodes analysis of the dip data from a Marcellus well. It was a nice example of "No Dip or Low Dip?", the title of a 1989 oral paper presented by Jim Morse and Andy Bengtson. Here's the abstract:
--from Morse, James D., and C. A. Bengtson, 1989, No dip or low dip? (abstract): AAPG Bulletin, v. 73, p. 1167-1168 (http://search.datapages.com/data/doi/10.1306/44B4A7B7-170A-11D7-8645000102C1865D).
For the Marcellus well in question, in addition to determining that it had drilled a low-dip setting (and not a zero-dip setting), we were able to estimate both the dip and the azimuth with confidence.
Can we distinguish between zero planar dip (no dip) and low planar dip (low dip) using just dipmeter tadpole plots? No, but we can accomplish this using SCAT. Moreover, SCAT lets us test interpretations, whereas tadpole plots do not.
Because of scatter, most dip angles from no-dip settings are not exactly zero; rather, they are low, just like those from low-dip settings. Therefore, no-dip and low-dip settings cannot be distinguished on the basis of dip angle. Accordingly, they cannot be distinguished by examining the patterns of the tadpole-plot "heads."
No dip and low dip should be distinguishable, however, on the basis of azimuth: no-dip settings should have uniform azimuth distributions, whereas low-dip settings should have a subtle concentration of data at the true azimuth. It is difficult if not impossible to detect this subtle concentration by examining the tadpole-plot "tails." Therefore, we cannot confidently distinguish between zero and low dip using tadpole plots.
In contrast, the subtle azimuth concentration we expect in low-dip settings is clearly evident on SCAT's A-Plot (dip azimuth vs. depth). Moreover, no dip and low dip almost always exhibit different patterns on dip vs. azimuth and tangent plots, azimuth-frequency histograms, and apparent dip vs. depth plots. Thus, once we choose between the two settings on the basis of the A-Plot pattern, SCAT lets us test our hypothesis by examining these other displays.
--from Morse, James D., and C. A. Bengtson, 1989, No dip or low dip? (abstract): AAPG Bulletin, v. 73, p. 1167-1168 (http://search.datapages.com/data/doi/10.1306/44B4A7B7-170A-11D7-8645000102C1865D).
For the Marcellus well in question, in addition to determining that it had drilled a low-dip setting (and not a zero-dip setting), we were able to estimate both the dip and the azimuth with confidence.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Building better maps and models with Geodes
The oil industry is drilling in many areas of complex structure and/or fair-to-poor seismic in which structural interpretation of seismic and well data is often difficult. Structure maps, sections, and 3D models in these areas are often poorly constrained, increasing the risk of costly errors (dry holes, missed opportunities, etc.).
Geodes® users have markedly improved their 3D models despite poor seismic resolution. They have taken advantage of many of the benefits of Geodes, especially Geodes’ ability to predict structure away from the borehole (!) by analyzing how dip and azimuth change along the borehole.
For each horizon, Geodes calculates a structure map extending a few hundred meters from the borehole. Geodes exports these "patch" maps as XYZ grids that can be imported into 3D modeling packages, thereby populating the model with high-resolution, accurate structural control in the vicinity of each borehole. Thus, in addition to forcing models to honor the tops and dips at the borehole, this work flow forces models to honor the structural shape, derived from the in-hole dip data, away from the borehole. 3D modeling packages can then "stitch" the patches together in a way that honors the seismic between the patches. The end result is better maps, sections, and 3D models, reducing the risk of costly errors.
Geodes® users have markedly improved their 3D models despite poor seismic resolution. They have taken advantage of many of the benefits of Geodes, especially Geodes’ ability to predict structure away from the borehole (!) by analyzing how dip and azimuth change along the borehole.
For each horizon, Geodes calculates a structure map extending a few hundred meters from the borehole. Geodes exports these "patch" maps as XYZ grids that can be imported into 3D modeling packages, thereby populating the model with high-resolution, accurate structural control in the vicinity of each borehole. Thus, in addition to forcing models to honor the tops and dips at the borehole, this work flow forces models to honor the structural shape, derived from the in-hole dip data, away from the borehole. 3D modeling packages can then "stitch" the patches together in a way that honors the seismic between the patches. The end result is better maps, sections, and 3D models, reducing the risk of costly errors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
