Reporting/Presenting/Peer Review

Report and Presentation:

In preparing a comprehensive report and presentation summarizing all your interpretation results, careful oversight and quality control (QC) in data processing are paramount. Thorough documentation of processing steps and transparent QC procedures for well data, seismic interpretations, and geological models establishes the reliability of subsequent interpretations. Horizon interpretation involves defining seismic horizons with specified criteria, detailing methodologies and addressing challenges, while well ties verify the correlation between seismic horizons and well data. Fault interpretation methods and validation efforts, considering uncertainties, are crucial components.

Consideration of the depositional environment is integral for geological mapping. The interpretation results should reflect sedimentary facies, stratigraphy, and other geological factors. The report should emphasize how geological maps incorporate these insights. Seismic attribute analysis requires careful selection of attributes aligned with study objectives, and results should be presented visually with maps, cross-sections, or attribute-driven volumes, and what they could suggest for moving an anomaly forward.

Quality assurance and QC protocols should be detailed, encompassing regular checks for data consistency, accuracy in interpretation, and validation against independent datasets. Comprehensive reporting and presentation should follow a structured format, including an executive summary for quick reference. Concluding with recommendations based on interpretation results and outlining potential areas for future work which ensures a well-rounded communication of subsurface structures within geological and depositional contexts.

Peer Review:

Peer reviews play a crucial role in validating the accuracy and reliability of geophysical interpretations and conclusions. In reviewing the introduction, attention should be given to the clarity and completeness of the what is required and the steps used to get there. In the section on data acquisition and processing, assess the details of the instruments used, survey parameters, and quality control measures. Scrutinize the appropriateness of data processing methods and the handling of uncertainties and limitations. Moving to the methodology, examine the suitability of the geophysical methods employed and the robustness of the inversion or modeling techniques. Ensure that assumptions are explicitly stated and justified. The interpretation of results should be evaluated for clarity and coherence, checking consistency with the chosen methodology. Assess the significance of identified anomalies or patterns in relation to the research objectives. Examine the integration of geophysical data with other datasets and existing geological models. Evaluate the uncertainty and sensitivity analyses for thoroughness and appropriate communication of uncertainties. In the discussion of conclusions, assess the depth of the discussion in relation to the study's objectives and the logical flow from results to conclusions. Adequate attention should be given to alternative interpretations and limitations. Recommendations for future work should be assessed for appropriateness and significance. Figures and tables should be evaluated for quality and clarity, ensuring accurate representation of interpreted data. Provide an overall assessment of the projects strengths and weaknesses, offering constructive feedback on clarity and organization. Consider additional aspects such as statistical methods, ethical considerations, and adherence to guidelines. A comprehensive peer review process ensures the credibility of geophysical interpretations and contributes to the continual improvement of scientific knowledge within the field.

Iteration, Refinement & Feedback Loop:

In response to insightful feedback from both peer reviewers and managers, several refinements may need to be made to enhance the geophysical interpretation and modeling presented in your study. The introduction could need to be revised to provide greater clarity on the research objectives and to offer a more comprehensive background, addressing specific points raised by the reviewers. Additionally, the literature/web review may have been updated to include the latest relevant studies, addressing a gap highlighted by managers/peers. (C&C Reservoirs is one I am familiar with but there are others out there to compare with, and this should be done).

In the section on data acquisition and processing, specific details about instrument usage and survey parameters could have been expanded upon to address concerns raised during the peer review. Rigorous quality control measures need to be implemented, and a more detailed discussion of data uncertainties and limitations might have been needed to incorporate and to provide a more transparent account of potential biases.

The methodology section may have undergone refinement to better elucidate the geophysical methods employed. A more detailed explanation of inversion and modeling techniques could have been included, accompanied by a clearer justification for the chosen assumptions. Managers and Peers inputs are instrumental in refining the methodological approach to align it more closely with practical applications.

In response to peer review comments, the interpretation of results, it may have been seen, that a need for it to be restructured for improved clarity and coherence was identified. Anomalies and patterns identified could have been further contextualized to better align with the overarching research objectives. The integration of geophysical data with other datasets and geological models may have been strengthened, incorporating additional input from managers and peers to ensure a more holistic understanding.

The uncertainty and sensitivity analyses may need to be revisited and expanded upon to provide a more thorough examination of potential sources of error. The discussion and conclusions section need to effectively synthesizes the results, considering alternative interpretations and limitations in a more nuanced manner, as suggested by both peer reviewers and managers.

Feedback from managers and peers could have also influenced the recommendations for future work, which would need to revised to reflect their practical relevance and potential impact. Figures and tables have been refined based on suggestions for improved clarity and representation of data.

This iterative process of incorporating feedback from both peer reviewers and managers can result in a more robust and reliable geophysical interpretation and modeling framework. The collaborative effort will not only strengthened the scientific rigor of the study but also enhanced its practical applicability, aligning it more closely with the needs and expectations of the broader stakeholder community.

Feedback should NEVER be taken as a negative view of your work but a combination of many minds and varied experiences coming together to get the best out of the work presented. Learn from it.

Final Documentation:

In documenting the comprehensive interpretation workflow as I have detailed in my previous posts, parameters, and underlying assumptions throughout the interpretation process, a systematic approach was adhered to (my approach). The initial phase encompassed a meticulous data collection strategy, detailing the sources, data, and any preprocessing steps undertaken. Subsequently, a transparent account of the workflow unfolded, resulting in a step-by-step progression from data preparation to final interpretation, model building and integration of all data. Parameters crucial to the analysis, such as hoizon and fault interpretation and well ties, were explicitly picked and justified based on their relevance to the geological environment. Concurrently, assumptions woven into the analytical framework were explicitly stated, accompanied by rationale and considerations for potential impact. Noteworthy findings/anomalies, limitations, and areas for future exploration were encapsulated in the interpretation, fostering transparency, and a foundation for future iterations of the analysis. Results of peer review and management discuss was incorporated.

Final Presentation:

Presentation of the final results, interpretations, and recommendations to relevant stakeholders. Detailing how the technical team would like to proceed and get buy in from Management should drilling a well be recommended.

After rigorous analysis and exhaustive evaluation, the technical team will have successfully arrived at the final results for the proposed drilling project. The comprehensive interpretations of geological data, engineering assessments, and environmental impact studies have been synthesized to provide a clear understanding of the feasibility and potential benefits of drilling a well in the designated area. The results show not only the reservoir potential but also highlight the challenges and risks associated with the project. In presenting these findings to relevant stakeholders, it is imperative to communicate the significance of the endeavor in meeting strategic objectives and ensuring long-term sustainability. Alongside the results, the team will outline a set of carefully crafted recommendations that encompass risk mitigation strategies, technological advancements, and cost-benefit analyses. In seeking buy-in from management, the emphasis will be on transparency, the potential returns on investment, environmental considerations, and the alignment of the project with the company's overall mission and objectives. The technical team will engage in collaborative discussions, addressing any concerns raised by management, and actively seeking input to ensure a well-rounded decision-making process. This approach aims to foster a shared understanding and commitment among stakeholders, ultimately paving the way for a well-informed and collectively endorsed decision on whether to proceed with the drilling project.

Archive:

Archive interpretation data and results for future reference. People leave companies and the need for proper documentation is paramount. Future employees need to be aware of how these projects were created, interpreted and presented and where the data now resides and the documentation of all final results used.

Ensure all necessary documentation is stored for auditing purposes, even years down the line it could be needed and thus needs to be archived properly.

This workflow that I have shown in my posts, provides a structured approach to offshore seismic data interpretation, ensuring a thorough and accurate analysis of the subsurface geology. Adjustments to the workflow may be necessary based on the specific characteristics of the data and geological setting. The posts have been my approach from data collection to final presentation to management and stakeholders, everyone has there own style I just present this to show what, in my opinion is needed. Some companies require more or less detail, I leave that for you to decide based on your companies requirements.

Disclaimer

The content discussed here represents the opinion of Deric Cameron only and is not indicative of the opinions of any other entity, Deric Cameron may or may not have had affiliation with. Furthermore, material presented here is subject to copyright by Deric Cameron, or other owners (with permission), and no content shall be used anywhere else without explicit permission. The content of this website is for general information purposes only and should not be used for making any business, technical or other decisions.