BALANCING: THE END GAME OR JUST THE START

Despite the fact we have been balancing sections now for something like 100 years this procedure is still not routine practice or indeed seen by most of the professions as essential best practice. Most interpretations that are published in journals and industry reports don’t balance either in classic 2d or more importantly in 3d. Clare Bond has shown what we all suspected that without interpreting with a consideration of balance the uncertainty in the interpretation and the prevalence of geologically in valid interpretations increase dramatically.

With ever increasing demands for resources (hydrocarbons, minerals, water), and the need, and indeed the pressure, to find and produce these at the lowest shareholder cost we need to make better geological interpretations. This includes not just the static present day geological framework but to interpret and understand in a constrained and balanced way the entire evolutionary process of the structure. The kinematic evolution allows us to make predictions of sediment distribution, framework compartmentalisation and fracturing and the fluid system that carries the hydrocarbons or minerals. This predictive capacity is what adds real commercial and societal advantage in managing resource risk and security and in guiding sequestration of waste materials.

The big question is why as a profession we have failed to make this approach a must do best practice and what we need to do to change this situation. Clearly this involves the whole professional journey from early training and engagement with understanding process through to continuing professional development throughout our careers. In particular the challenge is to make balancing easier, and more accessible through use of appropriate technologies and support.