Transcript Feedback GeoHazard Survey

Geophysical Methods Group
GeoHazards Seminar
GeoHazards Seminar held on Dec 6th 2011
At ”Måltidets Hus” across the road from the NPD
80+ attendees
Organising Committee
• Tim Austin - ConocoPhillips
• Odd Fuglestad - GDF Suez
• Thomas Tvedt - Eon RhurGas
• Annemieke Van den Beukal – Shell (took over from Geir
Jansson)
•
Tone Helene Aanestad - NPD
Workshop Progam - morning
Introduction:
08:30 – 08:40: Introduction and HSE
08:40 – 09:00: Setting the scene, Fritjov Riis, NPD
09:00 – 09:20: What is a GeoHazard – A drilling perspective, Terje Skar ,ConocoPhillips
Acquisition and Processing Technology:
09:20 – 09:40: Site Survey Geophysical Acquisition – A recent history and an idealized future, Gavin
Douglas, Fugro Geoconsulting
09:40 – 10:00: High resolution PCable 3D seismic acquisition from shallow to deep water in shallow gas
hydrate areas. Stefan Buenz, UiT
10:00 – 10:30: Break and poster display
10:30 – 10:50: Integrated solutions for Geohazard surveys. Robert Soubaras, Yves Lafet, Shuki Ronen*,
Bob Dowle, Dominique Boitier, Roar Nygaard, CGGVeritas
10:50 – 11:10: Ghost-free seismic acquisition – a step change in data resolution and interpretability, Per
Eivind Dhelie, PGS
11:10 – 11:30:
Processing of high resolution seismic data, Ian Stennett, Gardline
11:30 – 11:50: Advances in 2D and 3D GeoHazard Processing, Andy Cowlard, Fugro Seismic Imaging
11:50 – 12:10: 3D Hi-res seismic in deep water. Best practices Floris Striijbos or Rian de Jong, Shell
Workshop Progam - afternoon
Analysis and case studies:
13:30 – 13:50: Integrated Geohazard assessment – The case for correlation, calibration
and careful consideration, Michael Clare and Stephen Thomas, Fugro Geoconsulting
13:50 – 14:10: Submarine landslides offshore Norway – summary of observations and
implications. Jan Sverre Laberg, UiT
14:10 – 14:30: Break and poster display
14:30 - 14:50: Geohazard investigations using seismic techniques – current approaches and
applications, Richard Orren and Francis Buckley, Senergy
14:50 – 15:10: Limitations in HR2D seismic: not understood then and not understood now,
Karen Ware, Andy Malone and RPS Energy Geohazards Group
15:10 – 15:40: Statoil’s experience with geohazards evaluation on the NCS, Dag Lundquist,
Statoil
15:40 – 15:50: Summary and wrap-up.
Feedback
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lot of positive feedback on the day
Questionaire response from 17 attendees
All said Seminar met expectations
All thought it was a good program
More oil company experience presentations
Venue and timing were good
Some potential for follow-up projects
Did the seminar meet your
expectations?
I found it very interesting, and in that aspect it did meet my expectations. Some of the talks
perhaps were trying to put too much into a 20 minute slot and in this aspect perhaps could have
been focused a bit more on a sub-topic of what was being spoken about.
Seminar contained some interesting presentations but a bit too much “marketing” from service
companies.
The seminar did meet my expectations and contained a good mix of presentations, of particular
interest were the seismic capabilities and new technologies employed by some of the
companies.
Yes (indeed it exceeded expectations and the quality of the presentations was excellent and
well focussed)
Yes, it covered the expectations I had, but I wish there had been more presentations on the
geohazard itself rather than an update on data acquisition and (re-)processing. More on shallow
gas studies state-of-the-art for example. As a Survey Company, we were interested in hearing
what competitors and clients are up to but as geologist, I'd also have enjoyed some discussions
on geological rather than geophysical issues.
The seminar partly met my expectations.
Yes, it was a very good program.
The seminar met my expectations. There was a good range of topics.
Yes, it was very good.
Was there anything we should add
or take away from the program?
Maybe more (1 or 2) real cases, as the one presented by a petroleum company
regarding APA 2011
I would suggest more real examples from oil companies on how they approach
assessing shallow geohazards.
The early presentations from npd and drilling engineers gave good context to the
need for rigorous geohazards work. This area could be expanded, or the delegate list
include more drilling engineers to gain their input and feedback on geohazard
assessment.
More time for questions/discussion following each of the presentations would have
been useful.
Add: precision on potential poster session. It was not really clear and we would have
been happy to prepare one as CGG did.
In general, the presentations given by Oil companies were better than presentations
from contractors. Some presentations were too “commercial” like the ones from
CGGVeritas or PGS. Oil companies sharing their experience on the way they handle
geohazards has more value.
In my view it would be beneficial to add more case studies, true stories regarding
prognosis versus actual drilling observations and how to tackle it.
I think the variety of subjects was necessary. For example, some people work on
spud-can penetration in shallow water, while others work on the risk of landslides in
deep water. I would not have changed anything.
It would have benefitted from more time for discussions.
Presentation of the experience base from the NCS, and recommendations for
possible improvements /simplifications resulting from this.
No, I think the mix were great
Perhaps a panel discussion at the end?
Was the venue and timing
satisfactory?
My only negative really was the scrum that ensured at the end of the day to get a
taxi – it perhaps would have been good if a few had been pre-booked, or if
perhaps at lunch a quick poll had been taken to ascertain approximately how
many taxis would be needed.
The venue was good, and the lunch / refreshments were good also.
Venue and timing was fine. Warm lunch would have been nice.
The venue was good, though the time for questions was often short due to the
full schedule
Venue was very good and entirely suitable for the seminar. However; if you do
another, I think you might need to use a larger lecture theatre as I suspect it will
attract a greater number of attendees. My only complaint is the time taken to
get a taxi back into town after the event. After the seminar, the lady on
reception booked lots of taxis, some going to the airport and some going into the
city centre but we had to wait a long time for all of these to arrive, though this
was possibly due to the weather?
The only problem is to be able keep the speakers within their time slot (as
usual)...
Venue and timing were perfect
Yes, venue was good, maybe allow for 5 minutes changing speaker/question
session
The venue was OK and the whole event was kept within 8 hours duration. I was
content with it.
Yes, satisfactory. Prefer the NPD auditorium however
Yes but I would like better lunch!
Yes. Potential for a seminar dinner and 2.nd day up till lunch
Do you feel there are any of the Geohazard
topics that could mature into a FORCE project
or further specific seminar?
More information on geohazards related to coral reefs and relations with the NPD
Was intrigued by the examples presented by Statoil of unpredicted shallow gas – no explanation for
these events was presented. Do we need to screen pre-stack more rigorously for a range of AVO
classes and understand the shallow rock physics better to understand whether seismically
transparent gas pockets are possible?
The most interesting aspect of the seminar was the application of new and 3D seismic technologies
for geohazards work, as opposed to traditional stand alone 2D surveys. A project investigating how
these can be best implemented, technically, for geohazard work as well as reservoir imaging could
lead to significant improvements in geohazard assessments
Geologist-oriented seminar, focused on hazards sl: geohazards (shallow gas, water flow...) but also
drilling hazard related to stratigraphy for example.
Yes, as an outcome of the seminar, my feeling is that today’s legislation with 2D required site survey
could be reviewed to allow for 3D exploration survey or 3D site surveys to be used as an alternative to
the 2D (which was proven not to be very liable)
Possibly: Deep water, geotechncal and geophysical interation Studies, Interaction with Drillers on
expectations of Geohazard work. The talk from the drilling engineer was very interesting and
interaction with end users of the Geohazard anaysis is usually quite limited.
Maybe further focus on the possibility of integrating/using 3D surveys for Geohazards (also in
shallower water). Also integrate w. other types of surveys (e.g. EM).
Project to map areas of specific geohazards on the Norwegian continental shelf.
The JIP Geohazard initiated by ACONA (poster presentation) is something that the seminar should
follow closely, it should have been part of the presentations
I think many of the topics could easily be turned into FORCE project. Many new techniques were
presented at the seminar and I think it would be wise to review the presentations further.
Data management and reporting issues.