Geosciences

Victor Schmidt • Houston

No prospects

This is the refrain I hear at almost every event, except for the NAPE and APPEX prospect exhibitions. It is the mantra of the present business environment to explain the reduced levels of capex for exploration and production.

But, is it true or is it just a state of mind?

There are many prospects available, but the question really is: which prospects are economic, meet the corporate risk profile, and provide the largest return for the company? At present price levels "borderline" prospects should easily meet the economic hurdles for drilling.

So why is the mantra so glum? Maybe it has to do with the art of exploration as currently practiced.

The exploration world became seismically focused after the price collapse of 1986 and even more focused since the expansion of 3D seismic in the 1990s. Improved computers, better interpretation software, and better imaging capability created a form of prospect manufacturing based on advancing computer technology. Along with the general brainpower decline caused by restructuring and mergers, there has been a decline in the use of cost-effective exploration techniques, especially micropaleontology and potential field geophysics.

This fit with the climate of the times, since cost control and process efficiency came to rule oil companies economic processes. The companies reduced staff while expanding productivity.

Machine power replaced brainpower. This led to cookie-cutter prospects based on bright/dim spot anomalies or other acoustic signals. This approach found a lot of oil and gas. But, like every key advance, it has a limit. It revealed the easily harvested "fruit" and allowed quick development. It also led to a lot "false positive" drilling that wasted resources because the underlying anomaly causes were poorly understood.

High-speed prospect production exploration is now reaching its limit, leaving smaller, less inviting prospects to chase. The proof is the rapid re-drilling of older Gulf of Mexico fields. The size of in-field prospects is now at a point of diminishing returns. Drilling rates for older fields have fallen, and GoM shelf production continues to drop.

This leaves us on the cusp of a change in exploration thought and practice.

To get the discussion rolling, here are a couple of ideas. There is hidden potential in stratigraphy. The Search for the Subtle Trap (Michael Halbouty's text) explains the issue. Yes, this is an old friend, but it is still little-used by companies until the effectiveness of other, easier exploration tools begins to wane. Why? Because it is time and thought-intensive, requires a deep understanding of rock systems, is risky, and requires management to trust the vision of its geoscientists. It is not easily revealed by mechanical means.

Giant fields have been found based on stratigraphy, even recently in West Africa's deepwater. Structure drilling failed, then a new idea was given a chance: up-dip trapping in submarine canyon deposits.

Another recent idea offered for consideration is Exxon's research on the fluid flow principle of the "jet" in unconstrained environments. Its fractal qualities allow it to be applied across multiple orders of sediment movement and deposition. Using this to unravel how the reservoir formed will allow more informed development of newly found reserves.

Exploration ideas abound, but are there minds within the oil companies free enough to chase them or managers willing to risk testing them?

It is time for a new exploration paradigm. It is time for companies to invest in exploration thought. Mouse jockeys, high-powered interpretation systems, and stream- lined team approaches are of limited value if the boundaries of exploration thought are constrained by preconceived ideas of what a prospect is.

No significant impact

Researchers from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University conducted tests in the northern GoM in 2003, using the 20-gun array aboard their research vessel, Maurice Ewing.

Published recently in Geophysical Research Letters, the study focuses primarily on beaked whales. This is a little known family of 18 species found in all of the world's oceans. During the experiments, the airguns were fired in various combinations to determine the radius of the emitted sound in the water at various frequencies and decibel levels.

Unconnected in any way but timing, the US Minerals Management Service (MMS) announced the completion of an environmental assessment evaluating the potential environmental impacts of geological and geo- physical (G&G) activities in the GoM. Each year there are about 20 MMS-permitted 3D seismic surveys conducted in the GoM. The EA analyzed the best available information on the effects of seismic surveys on marine resources.

The activities analyzed include seismic surveys, deep-tow side-scan surveys, electromagnetic surveys, geological and geochemical sampling, and remote-sensing surveys.

The conclusion is that G&G activities are not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to any of the potentially affected resources. Potentially adverse, but not significant impacts, were identified for marine mammals. Negligible impacts were identified for manatee. As a result, MMS has issued a "Finding of No Significant Impact." The EA (MMS 2004-054) is available online at http:// www.gomr.mms.gov.

TECHNOLOGY Spatial 3D

Actuality Systems Inc. released Perspecta, the first-ever Spatial 3D system for imaging data into a 360°-multi-viewer visualization system. Originally developed for the medical industry, the system is being previewed by the oil industry to augment their larger visualization systems.