About This Item

Share This Item

The AAPG/Datapages Combined Publications Database

Oklahoma City Geological Society

Abstract


The Shale Shaker
Vol. 48 (1997), No. 2. (September/October), Pages 44-44

Abstracts of Oral and Poster Presentations at the 1997 AAPG Mid-Continent Section Meeting, September 14-16, 1997, Hosted by the Oklahoma City Geological Society

The Dickens Project - Advances in Previous HitSurfaceNext Hit Previous HitGeochemicalNext Hit Technology [Abstract]

J. Michael Usseglio1

Previous HitSurfaceNext Hit Previous HitExplorationNext Hit Technologies (SETs), specifically Previous HitSurfaceNext Hit Previous HitGeochemicalNext Hit Technology, with low cost and quick data turn-around, are proving to be strong complements to traditional G&G in the more cost-effective oil and gas Previous HitexplorationNext Hit of the 90's. A pragmatic discussion, with key case studies from the Eastern Shelf of the Midland Basin in West Texas, will cover the strengths, as well as weaknesses, of these tools when integrated with subsurface geology and seismic.

SET remains, at present, qualitative- almost an art. Issues and questions to be covered include: Why use Previous HitsurfaceNext Hit geochem on our project? At what point in the Previous HitexplorationNext Hit model should this technology enter? Is Previous HitsurfaceNext Hit geochem better at finding oil and gas than seismic? Is the micro-seeping anomaly, as detected on the ground Previous HitsurfaceNext Hit, near-Previous HitsurfaceNext Hit, ocean bottom or ocean Previous HitsurfaceNext Hit, a true 100% vertical projection of the shallow or deep trap? When do I use the reconnaissance versus detail tools? Why so many types of Previous HitsurfaceNext Hit Previous HitexplorationTop methods? Why is the areal size of a survey more important than the sampling density?

End_of_Record - Last_Page 44--------

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND ASSOCIATED FOOTNOTES

1 JM Usseglio Consulting Group, Grapevine, TX

Copyright © 2003 by OCGS (Oklahoma City Geological Society)