Invitation to a geophysics hackathon

/

Do you like to build things? Join us for two days of scientific software creation. We'll be in Houston on 21 & 22 September, right before the SEG Annual Meeting, building web and mobile apps to attack one of the unsolved problem themes we exposed in Calgary in May — error and uncertainty. 

Let's build something together

What displays, or calculators, or simulators, could you dream up to help understand, or compute, or visualize, or communicate, or reduce error and uncertainty in your work? How about stochastic synthetics? Well logs with error bars? Fuzzy inversion?

You don't have to be a programmer — teams need ideas, they need science, they need design, and they need presentation skills. Please bring your creativity and your courage. Bring whatever you have, but mainly your brain. 

I'm in, what now? 

If want to take part, sign up at hackathon.io. If you have an idea already, start a project there. We are still filling in some blanks but can say that the event will be in downtown Houston, starting at 9 am on Saturday 21 Sept and running till 6 pm on Sunday 22 Sept. It will be free for students; there will probably be a small fee for professionals. We can only take 8 teams, so get in early and be sure not to miss out! 

If you'd like to help make this event happen, we'd love to have you as a sponsor for the event. The two main opportunities for sponsorship are the catering, and the prizes, but we're open to ideas. Drop us a line.

Last thing: Please share this post with someone you know who loves to make things. Or help spread us on social media with the hashtag #geophysicshack. Cheers!

Great geophysicists #8: d'Alembert

/


Jean-Baptiste le Rond d'Alembert was a French mathematician, born on 16 or 17 November 1717 in Paris, and died on 29 October 1783, also in Paris. His father was an artillery officer, but his mother was much more interesting. Having been a nun, she sought papal dispensation in 1714 for a new career as a fun-loving socialite, benefiting from the new government banknote printing scheme of John Law. She left her illegitimate child on the steps of Église St Jean Le Rond de Paris, whence he was taken to an orphanage. When his father returned from duty, he arranged for the boy's care.

Perhaps d'Alembert's greatest contribution to the world was helping Denis Diderot 'change the way people think' by editing the great Encyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers of 1751. There were many contributors, but d'Alembert was listed as co-editor on the title page (left). This book was an essential ingredient in spreading the Enlightenment across Europe, and d'Alembert was closely involved in the project for at least a decade. 

But that's not why he's in our list of great geophysicists. As I mentioned when I wrote about Euler, d'Alembert substantially progressed the understanding of waves, making his biggest breakthrough in 1747 in his work on vibrating strings. His paper was the first time the wave equation or its solution had appeared in print:

Though Euler and d'Alembert corresponded on waves and other matters, and strongly influenced each other, they eventually fell out. For example, Euler wrote to Lagrange in 1759:

d'Alembert has tried to undermine [my solution to the vibrating strings problem] by various cavils, and that for the sole reason that he did not get it himself... He thinks he can deceive the semi-learned by his eloquence. I doubt whether he is serious, unless perhaps he is thoroughly blinded by self-love. [See Morris Kline, 1972]

D'Alembert did little mathematics after 1760, as he became more involved in other academic matters. Later, ill health gradually took over. He lamented to Lagrange (evidently an Enlightenment agony aunt) in 1777, six years before his death:

What annoys me the most is the fact that geometry, which is the only occupation that truly interests me, is the one thing that I cannot do. [See Thomas Hankins, 1970]

I imagine he died feeling a little hollow about his work on waves, unaware of the future impact it would have—not just in applied geophysics, but in communication, medicine, engineering, and so on. For solving the wave equation, d'Alembert, we salute you.

References

Read more on Wikipedia and The MacTutor History of Mathematics.

D'Alembert, J-B (1747). Recherches sur la courbe que forme une corde tenduë mise en vibration. (Researches on the curve that a tense cord forms [when] set into vibration.) Histoire de l'académie royale des sciences et belles lettres de Berlin, vol. 3, pages 214–219. Read on Google Books, with its sister paper, 'Further researches...'.

Portrait is a pastel by Maurice Quentin de La Tour, 1704–88.

10 days on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge

/

I have just returned from a 10-day holiday in Iceland, an anomalous above-sea-level bump in the North Atlantic's mid-ocean ridge. It sits over a mantle hotspot at the junction of the ridge and the WNW–ESE volcanic province stretching from the Greenland to the Faroes.

Meteorologically, culinarily, fincancially, Iceland does not score especially highly. But geologically—the only way that really matters—it's the most amazing place I've ever been. And we only visited a few spots (right). Here are some highlights...

Reykjanes. My favourite geological locality was the first place we went, and the most desolate. Barely half-an-hour's drive from the airport, you can go and see the Mid-Atlantic Ridge rise out of the North Atlantic, and start its romp across the country. Reykjanes looks much like you'd expect newborn crust to look: a brutal but pristine landscape of lava, interrupted by clusters of small volcanic cones, elongate fissures, and small grabens. 

Þingvellir. The archetypal rift valley is Þingvellir (Thingvellir), which almost defies description. On top of the textbook geology is a layer of almost magical history — mythical in character, but completely real. For example, you can stand next to the drekkingarhylur (drowning pool), where deviants were executed by drowning, and diligently documented, from about 930 CE onwards. Explorationists know that early rifting is often associated with lacustrine deposits, rapid subsidence, and source rocks. And Iceland's largest lake sits happily in a new (relatively) rift valley, subsiding dutifully since records began. 

Helluhraun (pahoehoe lava) and one of the bounding faults at Þingvellir

Ice. The other thing Iceland has plenty of, apart from lava, is ice. I've seen plenty of glaciers before, and climbed around on a few, but I've never seen them calving icebergs. And I've never seen the products of subglacial eruptions: massive plains of sand dumped by jökulhlaups, and distinctively elongate or flat-topped volcanos.

Icebergs in front of Breiðamerkurjökull

We vowed to return when our youngest, who is only 3 now, is old enough to remember some of it. We mostly stayed in guesthouses, but we decided a camper van is the way to go — there's so much to see. I also realized I need a lot more photographic equipment! And skill.

Two ways for Q&A

/

If you have ever tried to figure something out on your own, you will know that it is a lot harder than doing something that you already know. It is hard because it is new to you. But just because it is new to you, doesn't mean that it is new to everyone else. And now, in a time when it is easier than ever to connect with everyone online, a new kind of scarcity is emerging. Helpfulness.

How not to get an answer to your question

For better or for worse, I follow more than a dozen discussion groups on LinkedIn. Why? I believe that candid discussions are important and enriching, so I sign up eagerly for the action. Signing up to a discussion group is like showing up at a cocktail party. Maybe you will get noticed alongside other people and brands worth noticing. There is hoopla, and echoing, but I don't think there is any real value being created for the members. If anything, it's a constant distraction you put up with to hedge against the fomo. 

Click to enlargeYet, hoards of users flock to these groups with questions that are clearly more appropriate for technical hot-lines, or at least an honest attempt at reading the manual. Users helping users is a great way to foster brand loyalty, but not if the technical help desk failed them first. On LinkedIn, even on the rare case a question is sufficiently articulated, users can't upload a screen shot or share a snippet of code. Often times I think people are just fishing (not phishing mind you) and haven't put in enough ground work to deserve the attention of helpers.

What is in it for me?

Stack Overflow is a 'language-independent' question and answer site for programmers. If it is not the first place I land on with a google search, it is consistently the place from which I bounce back to the terminal with my answer. Also, nearly everything that I know about open-source GIS has come from other people taking part in Q&A on GIS Stack Exchange. The reason Stack Exchange works is because there is value and incentive for each of the three types of people that show up. Something for the asker, something for answerer, something for the searcher.

It is easy to see what is in it for the asker. They have got a problem, and they are looking for help. Similarly, it's easy to see what is in it for the searcher. They might find something they are looking for, without even having to ask. But what is in it for the answerer? There is no payment, there is no credit, at least not of the monetary kind. The answerer gets practice being helpful. They willingly put themselves into other people's business to put themselves to the test. How awesome is that? The site, in turn helps the helpers by ensuring the questions contain just enough context to garner meaningful answers.

Imagine if applied geoscientists could incorporate a little more of that.

Geoscience, reservoir engineering, and code

/
We’re in the middle of a second creative revolution driven by technology. “Code” is being added to the core creative team of art and copy, and the work being made isn't like the ads we're used to. Code is enabling the re-imagination of everything. Aman Govil, Art, Copy & Code

Last year at Strata I heard how The Guardian newspaper has put a team of coders — developers and visualization geeks — at the centre of their newsroom. This has transformed their ability to put beautiful and interactive graphics at the heart of the news, which in turn transforms their readers' ability to absorb and explore the stories.

At the risk of sounding nostalgic, I remember when all subsurface teams had a dedicated and über-powerful tech, sometimes two. They could load data, make maps, hack awk scripts, and help document projects. Then they started disappearing, and my impression is that today most scientists have to do the fiddly stuff themselves. Woefully inefficiently. 

The parable of the coder

Give someone 20 sudoku to solve. They'll sit down and take a day to solve them. At the end, they'll hate their job, and possibly you, but at least you'll have your solutions.

Now, give a coder 20 sudoku to solve. They'll sit down and take a week to solve them — much slower. The difference is that they'll have solved every possible sudoku. What's more, they'll be happy. And you can give them 10,000 more on Monday.

Hire a coder

The fastest way out of the creeping inefficiency is to hire as many coders as you can. I fervently believe that every team should have a coder. Not to build software, not exactly. But to help build quick, thin solutions to everyday problems — in a smart way. Developers are special people. They are good at solving problems in flexible, reusable, scalable ways. Not with spreadsheets and shared drives, but with databases and APIs. If nothing else, having more coders around the place might catalyse the shabby pace of innovation and entrepreneurship in subsurface geoscience and engineering.

Do your team a favour — make the next person you hire a developer.

Image: Licensed CC-BY by Héctor Rodríguez, Wikimedia Commons.

Connection through attribution

/

Agile's rock physics cheatsheet. Sort of.At EAGE I picked up Ikon Science's latest swag, a coil-bound notebook. On page 8, I found a modified version of our rock physics cheatsheet. "Hey, that's neat, someone thinks it's useful!" But then I thought, "Darn, I wish they'd mentioned us." Like nearly all of the work we do that's online, it's labelled CC-BY. Meaning anyone can use it, however they want, but with attribution. 

It's incredibly rewarding to see our stuff being used and spreading. That's why we put it out there. And by using a CC-BY license, we hope others will distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon our work, even commercially, as long as they credit us for the original creation. Creators have a choice when they are sharing, and because we want the maximum dissemination possible, we often choose the most accommodating license.

Why don't we completely relinquish our rights and opt out of copyright altogether? Because we want recognition for our work, and the attribution brings us connection. 

The best people I have met are the ones who are generous, connected, and open. Being diligent with attribution isn't easy, but it plays an important part in being awesome.

A stupid seismic model from core

/

On the plane back from Calgary, I got an itch to do some image processing on some photographs I took of the wonderful rocks on display at the core convention. Almost inadvertently, I composed a sequence of image filters that imitates a seismic response. And I came to these questions:  

  • Is this a viable way to do forward modeling? 
  • Can we exploit scale invariance to make more accurate forward models?
  • Can we take the fabric from core and put it in a reservoir model?
  • What is the goodness of fit between colour and impedance? 

Click to enlargeAbove all, this image processing excerise shows an unambiguous demonstration of the effects of bandwidth. The most important point, no noise has been added. Here is the sequence, it is three steps: convert to grayscale, compute Laplacian, apply bandpass filter. This is analgous to the convolution of a seismic wavelet and the earth's reflectivity. Strictly speaking, it would be more physically sound to make a forward model using wavelet convolution (simple) or finite difference simulation (less simple), but that level of rigour was beyond the scope of my tinkering.

The two panels help illustrate a few points. First, finely layered heterogeneous stratal packages coalesce into crude seismic events. This is the effect of reducing bandwidth. Second, we can probably argue about what is 'signal' and what is 'noise'. However, there is no noise, per se, just geology that looks noisy. What may be mistaken as noise, might in fact be bonafide interfaces within material properties. 

If the geometry of geology is largely scale invariant, perhaps, just perhaps, images like these can be used at the basin and reservoir scale. I really like the look of the crumbly fractures near the bottom of the image. This type of feature could drive the placement of a borehole, and the production in a well. The patches, speckles, and bands in the image are genuine features of the geology, not issues of quality or noise. 

Do you think there is a role for transforming photographs of rocks into seismic objects?

Expert culture is bad for you

/
Experts_Expert.jpg

Expert culture is bad for you. Not experts themselves, though I prefer not to use the word at all, but a culture that elevates them unduly. I don't like the word because it is usually used to mean something like master, chief, authority, or worst of all, judge. 

What's wrong with expert culture? Lots:

  • It disenfranchises everyone else. Non-experts think there are some opinions they are not entitled to. In a highly creative, subjective discipline like ours, this is A Bad Thing.
  • This forces them to wait around till the expert can tell them what to do. Which slows everything down. If they have to wait too long, or can't get the expert's attention, or the expert can't or won't get involved, the opportunity, whatever it was, may disappear. 
  • Meanwhile, experts are burdened with impossibly high expectations — of always being right or at least deeply insightful. This makes them cautious. So if they're uncertain or uncomfortable, they hang back because there's no upside to being wrong in the expert culture.
  • Expert culture encourages knowledge hoarding, because it explicitly connects personal knowledge with glory, and downplays what the rest of the organization knows. The ignorance of the masses highlights the expert's prestige.
  • Experts, frustrated with having to tell people what to do all the time, write best practice documents and other edicts, which try to make tricky workflows idiot-proof. But idiot-proof means idiot-friendly — who did you hire?

How to fix it

Experts_Linchpin.jpg

Better is a culture of expertise. The basic premise is that expertise is everywhere in your organization. You do not, and can not, know where it is. Indeed, its whereabouts will often surprise you. Turns out you hired awesome people after all — and they know stuff. Yay!

In the culture of expertise, what are these people we often call experts? They are still highly experienced people, with unusually broad or deep careers, with profound intelligence or intuition. But now they are free to apply their insight and judgment in more creative and more daring ways — even to things they aren't considered experts in. And their role in this new culture shifts slightly: it becomes the seeking, assessing, parsing, synthesizing, and spreading of expertise in the organization — wherever it is. They become curators, mentors, and champions of excellence. And they will revel in it.

The best experts do this already. How many do you know? Will you step up?

The developer's mind

/

Humbled by the aura of the legendary Cavendish Labs sitting in the adjacent building next door, I refrain from expressing the full extent of my awe and reverence for this special place. "Sure", I think, "it's no big deal. Let's get on with it". I came to Cambridge to collaborate with Pietro Berkes. He's building Canopy Geo at Enthought. We spent the day spiking, apparently. Working shoulder to shoulder with Pietro was nearly as responsive as dictating a vision to a painter and watching it emerge before my eyes. He's darn good. During my visit, I took notice of some characteristics and guiding principles that top developers, such as himself and his colleagues, bring to their work.

On whiteboarding

The best way to be understood, to connect, or to teach, is to do it one-on-one in front of a whiteboard. It is fitting that all of the walls of their office space are whiteboard walls. Old marks wiped clean but still visible show remnant algorithms sketched out and stacked up upon each other. A well-worn workshop, where writing on the walls is the cultural norm. And for electronic communication? Some are deliberate to only check emails three times a day: first thing in the morning, midday, and mid afternoon. Any more often, would be disruptive to their flow. Email is the enemy of real work, but instant messaging can be be a good productivity tool. 

On discipline

To build something that is extensible takes a good deal of thoughfulness and discipline. Code will survive long after the project is over and the programmer has moved on. This doesn't just mean leaving an adequate documentation trail behind you, but also building a solid foundation that others can contribute to. Being Agile, it turns out, although not the only choice, also takes discipline and diligence in order to be effective. 

On ownership and responsibilty 

Authority is not given, responsibility is taken. Many of the best developers define themselves by the authorship of code and libraries. So attribution is not only necessary politeness, it is a direct line of communication. What body of work would you stand up and speak for? Someone may find a bug at 9:00 am in a different time zone. Will they wait till 2:00 pm to hear from you? Somehow, this decentralized system of self-appointed responsibilty just works. The longevity of emotional and intellectual labour, particuarly in an open source setting, is a fascinating concept. The work becomes more relevant because the developer never stops caring for it. You can change projects, you can change languages, you can change companies, but your work never leaves you. If that notion excites you, you are making an impact. 

The developer knows that prowess is earned by execution. They thrive in an accepted sub-culture of meritocracy: largely free of politics, organizational hierarchies, and other social drama that get in the way of the real work. With a mind cleared to deal with essential tasks, what emerges is the ego of an artist and a creator with the potential to act on it. "Now that we can build anything, what do we do next?"  

EAGE 2013 in a nutshell

/

I left London last night for Cambridge. On the way, I had a chance to reflect on the conference. The positive, friendly vibe, and the extremely well-run venue. Wi-Fi everywhere, espresso machines and baristas keeping me happy and caffeinated.

Knowledge for sale

I saw no explicit mention of knowledge sharing per se, but many companies are talking about commoditizing or productizing knowledge in some way. Perhaps the most noteworthy was an update from Martyn Millwood Hargrave at Ikon's booth. In addition to the usual multi-client reports, PowerPoint files, or poorly architected database, I think service companies are still struggling to find a model where expertise and insight can be included as a service, or at least a value-add. It's definitely on the radar, but I don't think anyone has it figured out just yet.

Better than swag

Yesterday I pondered the unremarkability of carrot-and-ginger juice and Formula One pit crews. Paradigm at least brought technology to the party. Forget Google Glass, here's some augmented geoscience reality:

Trends good and bad

This notion of 3D seismic vizualization and interpretation is finally coming to gathers. The message: if you are not going pre-stack, you are missing out. Pre-stack panels are being boasted in software demos by the likes of DUG, Headwave, Transform, and more. Seems like this trend has been moving in slow motion for about a decade.

Another bandwagon is modeling while you interpret. I see this as an unfeasible and potentially dangerous claim, but some technologies companies are creating tools and workflows to fast-track the seismic interpretation to geologic model building workflows. Such efficiencies may have a market, but may push hasty solutions down the value chain. 

What do you think? What trends do you detect in the subsurface technology space?