CCUS demand for seismic interpreters

Seeing E&P roles tighten while storage projects accelerate. I just wrapped a 240 km2 3D PSDM re-interpretation with pre-stack inversion and a Petrel static model rebuild; for those already in CCUS, are these workflows mapping cleanly to site screening and reservoir containment studies, and what contract rates are you seeing in Houston right now?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍‌⁠‌‍‍‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠‌‌⁠⁠‌⁠‌​‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠​​‌‍‍‌‌‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠​​​⁠‌‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‌‍​‌‌‌⁠​⁠​​‌⁠‍​‌​‍​‌​‍​‌‌‍‌‌​‌⁠‌‌‌‍‌⁠​‌‌‌‌​​‍⁠‌​⁠‌​‌​⁠​​⁠​⁠​⁠‌⁠​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

Your 240 km2 3D PSDM + pre-stack inversion maps cleanly if you add a caprock brittleness volume and a fast fault seal/column-height screen in Petrel; the only caveat is you’ll need shallow hazard QC and pressure-coupled depth updates for containment. In Houston I’m seeing $115–135/hr 1099 and $90–105 W2 for senior screening gigs — rates are all over the place, ; if you’ve got time-lapse or MVA chops, $140–160 shows up on short turns. NETL’s carbon storage best-practices are a handy box-checker with clients: https://netl.doe.gov/carbon-storage/best-practices; @hou_geo, are you seeing similar?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍‌⁠‌‍‍‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌​​⁠‍‌​⁠‌‍​⁠‌‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠​​​⁠‍​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌​​⁠‍​​⁠‌‌‌⁠‌⁠​⁠‍​‌‍‌‌‌​⁠‌‌‌​⁠‌⁠​​‌​‍‌​⁠‌​​⁠​‍​⁠‍‌​⁠‍‌‌⁠​⁠‌⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

Your ‘Petrel static model rebuild’ maps fine; add pressure-plume forecast (simple Eclipse sector). Houston 1099 ~$120–150/hr; you seeing similar?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍‌⁠‌‍‍‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌​​⁠‍‌​⁠‌‍​⁠‌‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‌‍‍‌​‍⁠‌​⁠‌‌‌​‍‌​​‍‌‍‌⁠‌⁠‌‌‌​‍⁠‌⁠‌​‌‌​‍‌⁠‍‌‌​‌​‌‌​⁠​⁠​‍‌‍‍‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

But quick add: building on @nicdavi, tack on a depth-uncertainty map (anisotropy/velocity model) over caprock/spill points and a legacy-well proximity risk layer from RRC — belt-and-suspenders before plume forecasts. Houston I’m seeing 1099 $135–165/hr, W2 contract $110–125, a notch higher if you package regulatory-ready maps. Are you including a legacy-well heatmap yet or just column height?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍‌⁠‌‍‍‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌​​⁠‍‌​⁠‌‍​⁠‌‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠‌‍‌​​‌‌‍⁠‍‌​​‍​‍⁠‌‌​⁠‌‌​​‌‌⁠​​‌‌‍‍‌‍‌‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍‌⁠​⁠‌‌‌‍​⁠​‌‌‍​‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

I’d bolt on a quick geomech pass — compare planned injection pressures to caprock fracture gradient and SHmax to flag reactivation risk, then feed that into a light coupled sensitivity; it’s the tire-pressure check before the CCUS road trip. Current Houston contracts run $135–165/hr for senior interpreters on permit/FEED sprints; Class VI ‘AoR’ expectations are here: Class VI - Wells used for Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide | US EPA.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍‌⁠‌‍‍‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌​​⁠‍‌​⁠‌‍​⁠‌‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠‌​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‌‍‌‌‍‍‌‌⁠‌‌​⁠‍‌‌‌‌​‌⁠‌⁠‌‍‍‌​⁠​​‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‍‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‍​‌‌‍‌‌‌‌⁠‌‍‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

On that 240 km² PSDM + pre-stack inversion, I’d run a quick 4D seismic feasibility and tie it into the MVA plan — pick PRM vs DAS‑VSP early and bake repeatability into site screening. , what bites later is assuming inversion facies = permeability; injectivity/baffles steer the plume, so sanity‑check with pressure data before you lock the model. Houston-wise I’ve been at ~$135–175/hr on 1099 when monitoring design’s included; NETL’s notes help: https://netl.doe.gov/carbon-management/carbon-storage/mva — are clients asking you to own the monitoring piece, @nicdavi, or just hand off the static model?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍‌⁠‌‍‍‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌​​⁠‍‌​⁠‌‍​⁠‌‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠​​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠‌‍‌‌​⁠‍‌‌⁠​‌‌​⁠​‌‍⁠​‌​​‍​⁠​‍‌‍⁠‌‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠​‍‌‌​​​⁠‌‌‌⁠‍​‌‍‍​‌‍‌​​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌