This time next week, I'll be presenting the first poster of my PhD project at the annual CDT conference in Edinburgh. Each year, those in their final year of the 4 year CDT program get a slot on the main stage to present their work. Everyone else gets to set out their project so far in the form of a poster. This is an exciting (but slightly daunting) prospect, but I'm looking forward to chatting to academics, researchers and industry folks alike.
Sneak a peak at the abstract below and keep an eye out for the full poster in the coming days.
Applied geoscience relies on a robust understanding of the structural regime and successfully developing structural models that are at the appropriate scale and level of detail for the problem at hand. But how good are we at this?
As humans, we each inherently hold different biases which are a product of our personal and professional experiences and backgrounds, areas of expertise, education level etc. Therefore, we each bring a diversity of opinions and approaches to things like fracture interpretation. If we properly account for these biases and mitigate the uncertainties and issues generated, we can ensure positive outcomes to interpretational approaches. This can help develop better interpretation methods as well as inform how we arrange our teams and assurance processes.
Given that structural models form a critical part of geoscience outputs for a variety of industries across the energy system, it is imperative to ensure we are generating robust interpretations. This can lead to improved safety, better decision making and ultimately helps to ensure project success. These are all especially important in energy transition industries that are currently experiencing elevated levels of public interest and scrutiny.
So, how good is your fracture model? And what is “good”?
Comments