Seismic Interpretation for Total Dummies - The Freelance Files MMLXXVII

Can you see the faults, Ray?

If it weren't so frustrating, it would be amusing to watch some of the less technical freelancers attempt to compose "learned" content on technical topics. Some do the work, but those who aren't willing to perform in-depth research for their pennies are much more likely to attempt a bizarre combination of the "kitchen-sink" and "throw-spaghetti-at-the-wall" methods of writing. Such is the case of one Ray Hawk (most likely someone with the surname Rayhawk) and his strange – and not particularly true – WiseGEEK.com post, "What Is Seismic Interpretation?"

We have people on staff who are, shall we say, "familiar with seismic interpretation"; having worked in the petroleum industry for many years and having actually performed seismic interpretation. They were all pretty certain that not only had Hawk never performed seismic interpretation, he hadn't even heard of the process before throwing a bunch of poorly-connected verbiage at the screen (for money). The problem, of course, is that unless you actually know something about seismic interpretation, you aren't likely to recognize Hawk's word salad for what it is: utter bullshit

We'll try to list, and perhaps interpret, some of the Ray's more curious constructions for you:

• "Technical issues can arise in correctly interpreting the data where noise is present in seismic imaging, and where three-dimensional (3D) seismic interpretation of subsurface structures is attempted." – WTF are these "technical issues" of which you speak, anyway? And do you even know what constitutes "noise" in this context (that's a rhetorical question...).
• "Geological features such as channel faults and stratigraphic formations first must be clearly distinguished..." – We asked the staff geologist, and he told us that there is no such thing as a "channel fault." He suspects Hawk copied a list of "channels, faults, and formations" from somewhere and the idiot misplaced that first comma.
• "There is no one dominant way to view seismic data, and different approaches to seismic interpretation must be adapted to local mining, prospecting, or research needs." – That means zip. Of course there's a "dominant" way to view seismic data. We used to interpret paper seismic sections; now everyone uses computer workstations to do the work. Most interpreters start with a structural framework followed by a stratigraphic framework; tied to checkshot surveys and sonic logs. Amplitude studies come after all that...
• "The fields where seismic interpretation are now being applied can range from structural geology for building construction to environmental geology for determining fault lines." – You blithering idiot, structural geology has nothing to do with "building construction"; it is the interpretation of the shapes into which rocks are bent and broken. Sheesh! And environmental geology has little to do with "determining fault lines"...

• "Seismic services are most effective at interpretation when they are well-informed about what the details of the seismic imagery actually represents." – That ranks right up there among the dumbest crap we've seen in a while.
• "Other factors such as degradation of image resolution with increasing depth occurs when using acoustic impedance." – Word salad, indeed! Ray, acoustic impedance is a physical property of a body of rock. Differences in acoustic impedance of adjacent bodies are what causes seismic reflections, the returned seismic signals that geophysicists are interpreting!

Oh, well, at least this moron didn't try to convince his readers that seismic interpretation involves the search for earthquakes like one of his fellow WiseGEEK contributors. Be that as it may, the endless string of misinterpretations and misstatements about the topic are far more indicative of a Dumbass of the Day than of a geek of any flavor, especially a "wise" one... if you know what we mean.

SI - GEOPHYSICS