American Oil and Gas Reporter - February 2015 - 106

SpecialReport: Gulf of Mexico Update
This increased resolution is critical
for identifying zones of bypassed pay
and reservoirs not previously resolved,
for improving structural definition for
short-leg horizontal drilling, and ultimately
for providing improved field development.
Another way to view this uplift is from a
medical perspective: It can be compared
to going from X-ray resolution to MRI
resolution.
The improved resolution improves our
diagnosis and ability to view and analyze
the data in different ways to provide optimal images of the subsurface, reduce
drilling risk, and improve important
metrics such as estimated ultimate recovery, and 2P (proved, probable) and
3P (proved, probable and possible) reserve
estimates.
Secondary benefits not often discussed
include:
* The general static positioning of
the receivers on the seafloor can be repeated for future 4-D (time lapse) monitoring of a proven field.
* Receiver arrays on the seafloor
record both the up- and down-going wave

field, which permits both to be processed
and the differing data to be used in advanced noise elimination applications.
* Subsurface structural positioning
is improved compared with streamer data
(i.e., the source is the only moving part).
These benefits accrue from the primary
vertical component (and hydrophone)
data. Additional long-term benefit from
horizontal components remains in its infancy. As technology continues to develop,
shear-wave data pose significant potential
for delineating reservoirs and identifying
hazards.
Cost/Value Proposition
This discussion would not be complete
without considering costs. Because the
deployment and operational efficiencies
of the technology are still in their infancy,
there remains much to learn. In comparison
with early NAZ streamer data, the quantum
advance most likely is 10-to-1. However,
when compared with current MWAZ/FAZ
operational costs, we estimate FAN to be
equivalent (per unit area).
The primary difference is speed of

106 THE AMERICAN OIL & GAS REPORTER

data collection, which remains an estimated
5-10 times slower than streamer operations
(on a square unit coverage area). This
points to the importance of planning surveys in the exploration cycle to ensure
data are captured and processed to meet
critical deadlines.
The more important question, however,
is value. In most market conditions, cost
reduction typically is viewed as a primary
objective. I believe the difference lies
purely in differentiating investment and
cost.
Based on drilling costs in the tens to
hundreds of millions of dollars, is it better
to spend $5 million on seismic data to
get a 50 percent solution with four prospective targets, or to spend $15 million to
get a 65 percent solution with six prospects
(or two confirmed prospects, since the
other two were "false positives")? Having
experience with portfolio ranking and
Monte Carlo risk analysis, I think most
people would take the second option.
As the industry embarks on its first
collection of true multiclient, FAN seismic
data, I believe the paradigm shift is on

American Oil and Gas Reporter - February 2015

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Oil and Gas Reporter - February 2015