Standards, streamers, and Sherlock

Yesterday afternoon at the SEG Annual Meeting I spent some time with Jill Lewis from Troika and Rune Hagelund, a consultant. They have both served on the SEG Standards Committee, helping define the SEG-D and SEG-Y standards for field data and processed data respectively. The SEG standards are — in my experience — almost laughably badly implemented by most purveyors of data. Why is this? Is the standard too inflexible? Are the field definitions unclear? The confusion can lead to real problems: I know I've inadvertently loaded a seismic survey back to front. If you feel passionately about it, the committee is always looking for feedback.

I wandered past a poster yesterday morning about land streamers. The last I'd seen of this idea — dragging a train of geophones behind a truck — was a U of C test at Priddis, Alberta, by Gabriella Suarez and Rob Stewart. I haven't been paying much attention, but this was the first commercial implementation I'd seen – a shallow acquifer study in Sweden, reported by Boiero et al. The truck has the minivibe source right behind it, and the streamer after that. Quicker than juggies!

I don't know if this is a function of my recent outlook on conferences, but this was the first conference I've been to where all of the best things have been off-site. Perhaps the best part of the week was last night — a 3-hour geek-fest with Evan, Ben Bougher, Sam Kaplan, and Bernal Manzanilla. The conversation covered compressive sensing, stochastic resonance, acoustic lenses, and the General Inverse-Problemness of All Things.

As I mentioned last week, I hung out every day in the press room, waiting for wiki-curious visitors. We didn't have many drop-ins (okay, four), but I had some great chats with SEG staff, my friend Mike Stone, and a couple of other enthusiasts. I also started some fun projects to move some quality content into SEG Wiki. If you're at all interested in seeing a vibrant, community-driven space for geophysical knowledge, do get involved.

I bought some books in the Book Mart yesterday: Planning Land 3D Seismic Surveys by Andreas Cordsen et al., 3D Seismic Survey Design by Gijs Vermeer, and Fundamentals of Geophysical Interpretation by Larry Lines and Rachel Newrick. We're increasingly interested in modeling, and acquisition is where it all begins; Lines and Newrick was mostly just a gap on the shelf, but it also covers some topics I have little familiarity with, such as electromagnetics. Jennifer Cobb, SEG publications manager, showed me the intriguing new monograph by geophysical legend Enders Robinson and TLE Editor Dean Clark — I can't quite remember the title but it had something to do with Sherlock Holmes and Albert Einstein — a story about scientific investigation and geophysics. Looking forward to picking that up.

That's it for me this year; I'm writing this on the flight home. Evan is staying for the workshops and will report on those. As usual, I'm leaving with a lot of things to follow up on over the next weeks and months. I'm also trying to sift my feelings about the Annual Meeting, and especially the Exhibition. So many people, so much time, so much marketing...

The future is uncertain

Image: Repsol, SEG. Click for the abstract.

SEG Day 2. In the session entitled Exploration and Uncertainty Analysis, I was underwhelmed with the few talks that I attended, except for the last one of the session entitled, Measuring time-map uncertainty. 

Static uncertainty

It is commonly uttered that different data processing companies will produce different results; seismic processing is non-unique, and so on. But rarely do I get to see real examples of the kind of variances that can occur. Bruce Blake from Repsol showed seismic imaging results that came back from a number of contractors. The results were truly shocking. The example he showed was an extreme case of uncertainty caused by inadequate static solutions caused by the large sand dunes in Libya. The key point for me is exemplified by the figure shown on the right: the image from one vendor suggests a syncline, the image from the other suggest an anticline. Beware!

A hole in the theory

In the borehole sonic session, Xinding Fang, a student from MIT, reinforced a subtle but profound idea: it is tricky to measure the speed of sound in a rock when you drill a hole into it. The hole changes the stress field, and induces an anisotropic stiffness around the circumference of the borehole where sonic tools make their measurements. And since waves take the shortest travel path from source to receiver, speeds that are measured in the presence of an artificial stress are wrong.

Image: Xindang Fang, SEG. Click for the abstract.

The bigger issue here that Xinding has elucidated is that we routinely use sonic logs to make time-depth relationships and tie wells, especially in the absence of a check-shot survey. If it works, it works, but if ever discrepancies exists between seismic and well, the interpreter applies a stretch or a squeeze without much thought. Some may blame the discrepancy on dispersion alone, but that's evidently too narrow. Indeed, we rarely bother to investigate the reasons.

There's a profound point here. We have to drop the assumption that logs are the 'geological' truth upon which to hang an interpretation. We have to realize that the act of making the measurement changes the very thing we want to measure. 

Past, present, future SEG

Today was the first day of the SEG Annual Meeting in Houston. 

Last night we wandered around the icebreaker, still buzzing from the hackathon. The contrast was crushing. The exhibition is gigantic — it's an almost overwhelming amount of marketing. My thoughts on what the exhibition hall is, and what it represents, are not fully formed and might be a bit... ranty, so I will save them for a more considered post. 

As usual, SEG kicked off with a general session — much better attended this year, but also much less ambitious. At least 300 members came to hear outgoing president David Monk's perspective on SEG's future. His address mostly looked backwards, however, at the trends over the last few years. I guess the idea is to extrapolate from there... But maybe we can do even better than recent years? We mustn't forget to do completely new and unexpected things too. 

At the end of his slot, Monk showed some animated renderings of SEG's new building in Tulsa. The movie was accompanied by an almost comically strident anthem — evidently it is a big deal. As well as having a smart new office, the real estate will turn in some smart new revenue from other tenants. Ground was broken on Friday, and the opening is expected to be in December 2014. As you see, the architects understood industrial geophysics quite well, opting for a large black box. 

At the end of the day, Canada strode home to yet another SEG Challenge Bowl victory as the University of Manitoba fought off the Autonomous University of Mexico and Colorado School of Mines to prove that, while Texas might be the home of the industry, Canada is the home of exploration geophysics. 

Where's all the geophysics? Evan is compiling some technical highlights from the day as I type. Stay tuned for that. 

If you're at the conference, tell us what you've enjoyed most about the first 24 hours.

Garage geoscience

The Geophysics Hackathon 2013 is over. It was awesome. You should have been there.

The backers

I didn't make a big effort to find sponsors, because I didn't need to — just like the participants, they self-select. dGB Earth Sciences, Enthought, and OpenGeoSolutions are the leaders in the business of open geophysical software. Their support and encouragement means a lot to me personally, and is having a huge impact on our community. Please support them when you have the chance. We need companies like these.

The hackers

There was not too much of a plan. We were keen to allow organic collaboration to happen. So the hackers arrived on Saturday morning, and spent an hour or two matching projects to interests and skills. They settled down to work at about 10:30, and the creative buzz in the room was palpable.

The projects that emerged were:

• Data viewers for amorphous well data masses, addressing uncertainty due to data disorganization
• A seismic signal processing sandbox in the web browser, addressing resolution uncertainty
• Mobile and desktop apps for on-the-fly time–depth transformation, with error bars

On Sunday we ended up in START Houston's garage space, with the doors open to the beautiful fall morning. It had the ambience of a picnic. A sunny Sunday morning with cinnamon coffee, breakfast tacos, Python, and geophysics — what more could you ask for?

The geeks among you might be interested to know what sort of hardware the hacking geophysicists were developing their ideas on. Turns out it was perfectly evenly distributed: 4 each of Mac, Windows, and Linux. Of the Linux distros, there was 1 each of Centos, Ubuntu, crunchbang, and OpenSuse.

At the request of Chris Chalcraft, I also did an impromptu poll of code editor software. This was similarly diverse:

• 4 on Enthought's Canopy
• 2 on emacs
• 1 each on vi, BBEdit, Eclipse, Xcode (and Xamarin), Crimson, and Wakari

The other backers

Chris Krohn has been a true champion of the event. On Saturday, she brought new SEG president-elect Chris Liner to visit the event — his natural curiosity and enthusiasm are infectious, and lifted everyone present. I hope he's able to realize some of his vision during his presidency. (You do read his blog, right?)

Today she returned with Dennis Cooke and Peter Annan. They all graciously acted as judges. The other judges were Paul de Groot and Eric Jones, two of our generous sponsors, and Maitri Erwin, one of Agile's closest friends. Though they couldn't stick around, we also had visits from Zane Jobe and Joe Dellinger — much appreciated votes of support.

We'll be blogging about the SEG Annual Meeting all week... when the dust has settled a bit, we'll tell you more about the projects the hackers built. It's amazing what you can do in 2 days.

Places for ideas in Houston

Evan has told before of how productive he is at the HUB Halifax. And ever since I've been involved in The HUB South Shore, a co-working space in my small town, I've been keenly interested in communal and collaborative workspaces. I think they're a powerful model for independent scientists and entrepreneurs, perhaps even inside large companies too. 

Because of this, and because most hotels are such boring venues (there are always exceptions), we decided to host the hackathon this weekend at a co-working space, START Houston (right). A converted urban loft residence (well, a loft on the ground floor), it's got downtown character with an artistic edge. Evan and I gatecrashed a startup pitch coaching session while we were there — we heard 3-minute pitches from 4 Houston startups, including eOilBoom, an interesting crowdfunding platform for oil and gas concerns, and Philantro, a curated social layer for non-profits and philanthropists.

We need this level of ideation, business-model testing, and experimental entrepreneurship in subsurface science. How do we make this happen?

Co-working? Co-reseach!

Two weeks ago, I tweeted something about the hackathon, and Jacob at Brightwork Co-Research tweeted back at me:

@kwinkunks Love that you're doing a science based hackathon! Would y'all like a months CoResearch membership to use as a prize?

— BrightworkCoResearch (@BrightworkCoRe) August 29, 2013

Just another one of the wonderful serendipities of social media. That one connection is worth a lot to me, and is characteristic of the generous community of scientists on Twitter.

While in town, we thought we'd drop in and see what Brightwork is about... and I've rarely been more excited. Jacob Shiach (left) showed us the embryonic space neighbouring Rice University, complete with a rapid prototyping space (think of hardware hacking soldering, 3D printers, and so on), and a wet lab for full-on biotechnical research. In under a year, Jacob plans to fill the space with researchers in bio, physics, math, technology, and any other scientific discipline that needs a lab outside of academia or industry. What can independent researchers do when they have all the tools of big research? What would you do with your own lab?

These places exist

To complete our tour, we headed over to Platform — a more conventional co-working space around the corner from Brightwork. The familiar buzz and productive vibe of co-working hits you immediately: here a livestream of TEDxHouston City2.0, there a new startup hashing out customer segments for their product. Imagine an office full of smart, energetic, friendly people who don't actually have to work together, no meetings, and no sign above the sink saying "Your mother doesn't work here!". Yeah, those places exist.

Looking forward to SEG 2013

The SEG Annual Meeting is coming! The program starts tomorrow with the DISC, and continues over the weekend with various other courses. It's not part of the conference, but we're looking forward to the Geophysics Hackathon, obviously. Curious? You're welcome to drop in.

The meeting boasts 124 technical sessions totalling over 1000 PowerPoint presentations. If you haven't looked at the list of expanded abstracts yet, I can't blame you, it's a massive amount of content and the website experience is, er, not optimal — and there's no helpful mobile app this year. [Update: The app came out today! Go get it, it's essential. Thank you Whitney at SEG for letting us know.] I've tried to pick out a few sessions that seem really exciting below.

Worst. App. Ever.Each day at 10:30 am, I will be doing a guest presentation at the Enthought booth, showing some novel geophysics tools that I've been making. They are powered by Python and Enthought's Canopy environment. Come by and I will show you that you can too! However, I need somebody to please go to this exhibition booth 'browser' and show me where the Enthought booth is. Worst. App. Ever.

And each day at 11 am, there's a 2-hour mini-wikithon. Stop by the Press Room for a quick tour of SEG Wiki, and find out how you can help make it better.

Monday

With no technical presentations on Monday morning, it is safe to assume that most delegates will be wandering around the exhibition hall. A few may trickle over to the unenticing Opening Session which Matt and I found was horribly attended last year and the year before. Matt at least will be there, mostly out of morbid curiosity.

Continuing the Hackathon's theme on error and uncertainty, I will be diving into the session on Monday afternoon called

• Exploration and uncertainty analysis

From 3-6 pm be sure to check out the always popular SEG Student Challenge Bowl. The global finals, are hosted by the crowd-pleasing past SEG president (and fellow Canadian) Peter Duncan. Top pairings from Universities across the world duking it out in a button-pushing quiz show. Come out, cheer on the students and test your own geophysics trivia from the audience.

Tuesday

The sessions that look appealing to me on Tuesday are

• Novel systems and acquisition design,
• Seismic interpretation, and
• Attribute assisted seismic interpretation

Wednesday

Agile's good friend Maitri Erwin is the instigator behind the Women's Networking Breakfast. All are welcome; consider yourself lucky to connect with Maitri. As for talks, I will try make an appearance at

• Rock physics, and
• Compressed sensing

The first one I know quite a bit about, but can always use a refresher, and the second one I know very little about, but it's been a hot topic for 3 or 4 years now. If we aren't worn out at the end of the day, we might find some tickets to the Bayou Bash.

Thursday & Friday

There are over a dozen workshops on both Thursday and Friday. As far as I can tell, they are basically more talks, each around a central theme. Don't ask me how this is in any way distinguishable from the technical program, and there is still a full suite of technical sessions conflicting on Thursday morning. It's a shame because I'm curious to attend the session Fractures, shale and well-log characterization but I don't want to miss Workshop 2, Grand challenges, which takes place all day on Thursday. Then on Friday there's Characterizing fractures (Workshop 15).

There are many other events going on, so if you see something good, make sure you tweet the rest of us about it: @EvanBianco, @kwinkunks, @maitri, @toastar, and lots of others — follow hashtag #SEG13. (Not #SEG2013, that's all marketing wonks).

If you'll be at the Annual Meeting, do look out for us, we'd love to meet you. If you won't be there, tell us what you'd like to hear about. News from the exhibition? Our favourite talks? Detailed minutes from the committee meetings? Let us know in the comments.

Ten ways to make a difference

After reading my remarks yesterday about geoscience wikis, perhaps you're itching to share some of what you know. Below are ten quick ways to get started. And if you're going to SEG next week, you're in luck: you'll find a quick way to get started. 

Ten things you can do

First, if you really just want to dive in, here are ten easy things you can do in almost any wiki. Let's use SEG Wiki as an example — but this applies equally well to SubSurfWiki, PetroWiki, or Wikipedia.

1. Read it — find a page or category that interests you, and start exploring the content
2. Edit it — nothing tricky, but if you find a typo or other small error, hit Edit and fix it (you can do this without logging in on Wikipedia, but most other wikis require you to make an account first. This isn't usually a deliberate effort to put you off — allowing anonymous editing results in an amazing amount robot spam. Yes, robot spam.)
3. Share it — like most of the web, wikis need to be shared to survive. When you find something useful, share it.
4. Add a profile — if you're an SEG member, you already have an account on SEG Wiki. Why not add some info about yourself? Go log in to SEG.org then click this link. Here's mine. 
5. Add a sandbox — Edit your user page, add this: [[/Sandbox/]], then save your page. You'll see a red link. Click on it. Try some editing — you can do anything you like here. Again, here's mine — click Edit and copy my code. 
6. Fix equations — most of the equations in the SEG Encyclopedic Dictionary are poorly formatted. If you know LaTeX, you can help fix them. Here's one that's been fixed. Here's a bad one (if it looks OK, someone beat you to it :)
7. Add references — Just like technical papers, wikis need citations and references if they are to be useful and trusted. Most articles in SEG Wiki have citations, but the references are on another page. Here's one I've fixed. 
8. Add a figure — Again, the figures are mostly divorced from their articles. The Q article shows one way to integrate them. Some articles have lots of figures. 
9. Improve a definition — Many of the Dictionary definitions are out of date or unhelpfully terse. Long articles probably belong in the 'main' namespace (that is, not the Dictionary part) — so for example I split Spectral decomposition into a main article, apart from the short dictionary definition.
10. Add an article — This may seem like a big step, but don't be shy. Be bold! We can worry later if the new article needs to be split or combined or renamed or reformatted. The point is to start.

Wiki markup takes a little getting used to, but you can get a very long way with a little know-how. This wiki markup cheatsheet will give you a head start.

One place you can start

At the SEG Annual Meeting next week, I'll be hanging about the Press Room from 11 am till 1 pm every day, with John Stockwell, Karl Schleicher and some other wiki enthusiasts. We'd be happy to answer any questions or help you get started.

Bring your laptop! Spread the word! Bring a friend! See you there!

Wiki world of geoscience

This weekend, I noticed that there was no Wikipedia article about Harry Wheeler, one of the founders of theoretical stratigraphy. So I started one. This brings the number of biographies I've started to 3:

• Karl Zoeppritz — described waves almost perfectly, but died at the age of 26
• Johannes Walther — started as a biologist, but later preferred rocks
• Harry Wheeler — if anyone has a Wheeler diagram to share, please add it!

Many biographies of notable geoscientists are still missing (there are hundreds, but here are three): 

• Larry Sloss — another pioneer of modern stratigraphy
• Oz Yilmaz — prolific seismic theoretician and practioner
• Brian Russell — entrepreneur and champion of seismic analysis

It's funny, Wikipedia always seems so good — it has deep and wide content on everything imaginable. I think I must visit it 20 or 30 times a day. But when you look closely, especially at a subject you know a bit about, there are lots of gaps (I wonder if this is one of the reasons people sometimes deride it?). There is a notability requirement for biographies, but for some reason this doesn't seem to apply to athletes or celebrities. 

I was surprised the Wheeler page didn't exist, but once you start reading, there are lots of surprises:

• Sequence stratigraphy does not mention Wheeler, Sloss, or even Peter Vail.
• Zoeppritz equations does not contain Zoeppritz's equations.
• SEG has a better page than the AAPG and CSPG, and CSEG doesn't have one at all.

I run a geoscience wiki, but this is intended for highly esoteric topics that probably don't really belong in Wikipedia, e.g. setting parameters for seismic autopickers, or critical reviews of subsurface software (both on my wish list). I am currently working on a wiki for AAPG — is that the place for 'deep' petroleum geoscience? I also spend time on SEG Wiki... With all these wikis, I worry that we risk spreading ourselves too thinly? What do you think?

In the meantime, can you give 10 minutes to improve a geoscience article in Wikipedia? Or perhaps you have a classful of students to unleash on an assignment?

Tomorrow, I'll tell you about an easy way to help improve some geophysics content.

Seismic quality traffic light

We like to think that our data are perfect and limitless, because experiments are expensive and scarce. Only then can our interpretations hope to stand up to even our own scrutiny. It would be great if seismic data was a direct representation of geology, but it never is. Poor data doesn't necessarily mean poor acquisition or processing. Sometimes geology is complex!

In his book First Steps in Seismic Interpretation, Don Herron describes a QC technique of picking a pseudo horizon at three different elevations to correspond to poor, fair, and good data regions. I suppose that will do in a pinch, but I reckon it would take a long time, and it is rather subjective. Surely we can do better?

Computing seismic quality

Conceptually speaking, the ease of interpretation depends on things we can measure (and display), like coherency, bandwidth, amplitude strength, signal-to-noise, and so on. There is no magic combination of filters that will work for all data, but I am convinced that for every seismic dataset there is a weighted function of attributes that can be concocted to serve as a visual indicator of the data complexity:

So one of the first things we do with new data at Agile is a semi-quantitative assessment of the likely ease and reliability of interpretation.

This traffic light display of seismic data quality, corendered here with amplitude, is not only a precursor to interpretation. It should accompany the interpretation, just like an experiment reporting its data with errors. The idea is to show, honestly and objectively, where we can trust eventual interpretations, and where they not well constrained. A common practice is to cherry pick specific segments or orientations that support our arguments, and quietly suppress those that don't. The traffic light display helps us be more honest about what we know and what we don't — where the evidence for our model is clear, and where we are relying more heavily on skill and experience to navigate a model through an area where the data is unclear or unconvincing.

Capturing uncertainty and communicating it in our data displays is not only a scientific endeavour, it is an ethical one. Does it change the way we look at geology if we display our confidence level alongside? 

Reference

Herron, D (2012). First Steps in Seismic Interpretation. Geophysical Monograph Series 16. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK.

The seismic profile shown in the figure is from the Kennetcook Basin, Nova Scotia. This work was part of a Geological Survey of Canada study, available in this Open File report.

What is Creative Commons?

View fullsize

Not a comprehensive answer either, but much more brilliantI just found myself typing a long email in reply to the question, "What is a Creative Commons license and how do I use it?" Instead, I thought I'd post it here. Note: I am not a lawyer, and this is not a comprehensive answer.

Creative Commons depends on copyright

There is no relinquishment of copyright. This is important. In the case of 52 Things, Agile Geoscience is the copyright holder. In the case of an article, it's the authors themselves, unless the publisher gets them to sign a form relinquishing it. Copyright is an automatic, moral right (under the Berne Convention), and boils down to the right to be identified as the authors of the work ('attribution').

Most copyright holders grant licenses to re-use their work. For instance, you can pay hundreds of dollars to reproduce a couple of pages from an SPE manual for a classroom of students (if you are insane). You can reprint material from a book or journal article — again, usually for a fee. These licenses are usually non-exclusive, non-transferable, and use-specific. And the licensee must (a) ask and (b) pay the licensor (that is, the copyright holder). This is 'the traditional model'.

Obscurity is a greater threat than piracy

Some copyright holders are even more awesome. They recognize that (a) it's a hassle to always have to ask, and (b) they'd rather have the work spread than charge for it and stop it spreading. They wish to publish 'open' content. It's exactly like open source software. Creative Commons is one, very widespread, license you can apply to your work that means (a) they don't have to ask to re-use it, and (b) they don't have to pay. You can impose various restrictions if you must.

Creative Commons licenses are everywhere. You can apply Creative Commons licenses at will, to anything you like. For example, you can CC-license your YouTube videos or Flickr photos. We CC-license our blog posts. Almost everything in Wikipedia is CC-licensed. You could CC-license a single article in a magazine (in fact, I somewhat sneakily did this last February). You could even CC-license a scientific journal (imagine!). Just look at all the open content in the world!

Creative Commons licenses are easy to use. Using the license is very easy: you just tell people. There is no cost or process. Look at the footer of this very page, for example. In print, you might just add the line This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license. You may re-use this work without permission. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ for details. (If you choose another license, you'd use different wording.)

I recommend CC-BY licenses. There are lots of open licenses, but CC-BY strikes a good balance between being well-documented and trusted, and being truly open (though it is not recognized as such, on a technicality, by copyfree.org). The main point is that they are very open, allowing anyone to use the work in any way, provided they attribute it to the author and copyright holder — it's just like scientific citation, in a way.

Do you openly license your work? Or do you wish more people did? Do you notice open licenses?

Creative Commons graphic by Flickr user Michael Porter. The cartoon is from Nerdson, and licensed CC-BY. 'Obscurity is a greater threat than piracy' is paraphrased from a quote by Tim O'Reilly, publishing 2.0 legend.