It’s pretty common knowledge that sunlight is composed of many different frequencies (colors) , and we perceive the color of an object by the color(s) that is/are reflected from the object—that is, an object is red because all of the other colors are absorbed (or filtered out) by the object.

We also know that seismic data contains many different frequencies, usually within a range from about 6-120 Hz (Hertz, or cycles per second).  Have you ever considered that seismic data can be similarly filtered to reveal its “colors”?  I know that this is probably pretty basic stuff for most of you, but bear with me for a minute so that I can better illustrate how you can eliminate most of the seismic frequencies, to reveal hidden features.  Some might call it the “poor man’s” spectral decomposition.

See the larger Adobe Reader pdf file (three pages).

Have you ever seen an Anaglyph?  That’s one of those blurry, blue-and-red pictures that requires you to wear those silly-looking, cardboard glasses to view it properly.  After you put on the glasses, a 3D picture appears.  Here are a few from the Department of Geosciences, at North Dakota State University.  You should break out your silly glasses, if you have a pair, for some pretty cool pictures on their site.

The glasses, with one red lens, and one blue lens (usually cheap plastic) were prominent in the 1950’s 3D movies, and work by filtering the red colors in one eye, and the blue colors in the other eye, allowing you to see two juxta- posed, but slightly different, pictures at once.  If you alternately close either eye while looking through the glasses, you will see the different images.  Fortunately, our brains subconsiously merge them together into a coherent picture.

This is the general idea for band-limited seismic interpretation.  We filter out certain frequencies (colors), to reveal the remaining information that was buried in the original data.  In the example above, are three versions of the same seismic line:  (1) the final migration, (2) the migration with spectral whitening, and (3) the spectral whitening with a band-limited filter.  The version with the band-limited filter in the example is actually ”high-pass” filtered—that is, the lower frequencies below about 30 Hz have been filtered out, leaving the higher frequencies up to about 60 Hz.  The data is a little “ringy” (reverberating reflections) because the original data was filtered, so I wasn’t able to let in as much high frequencies as I would have wanted.

The areas highlighted within the blue ellipses are a few of the features that were revealed by filtering the lower frequencies out of the original seismic data.  You can actually interpret, and map the band-limited data for improved resolution.  However, since the frequency bandwidth of seismic data is time (or depth)-dependent (higher frequencies are filtered with increasing times, or depths), the amount of filtering that you select will change the character of the data.  You will want to annotate any horizons that interpret on the filtered data with the filter settings, so that you can keep track of what you used.

You will need to do some filter testing, to decide what are the best filter settings.  Also, when you determine the optimum frequency range within your zone of interest, be sure that the filter cutoff values are not too steep—usually an octave (a doubling of frequencies) is preferable, to prevent the Hanning effect (ringiness).  For example, suppose your “raw” (unfiltered, ungained) migrated seismic contains a frequency range from 6-80 Hz within your zone of interest.  You could try a filter setting, shaped like a trapezoid, of 20-40 / 50-80 Hz.  That is, F1=20, F2=40, F3=50, and F4=80 Hz, where F1, and F4 are the zero amplitude points at the low, and high frequency cutoffs, respectively.  The F2, and F3 points are the 100 percent amplitude points on the filter trapezoid.

Copyright © T/X RESOURCES, 1995-2008. All Rights Reserved.

This was initially going to be the fourth posting in my seismic inversion-related series (see the 03/08/08, 03/12/08, and 03/16/08 postings), with the title “Seismic Inversion—Frequency Sensitivity Analysis”.  However, after thinking about the subject for a while, I decided to expand the scope, and shorten the title a bit, to be more general in nature.  After all, a study of frequency-related seismic responses can not only be applied to inversion, but can also be used to illustrate the complications of seismic correlations between different datasets, as well as why spectral decomposition can better highlight a variety of seismic features at different frequencies.

The image below is a series of synthetic seismograms which resulted from the convolution with four different zero-phase wavelets—the wavelets and frequencies are posted at the top of the display.  Since they were going to be the input for inversion examples, the synthetics are all relative amplitude (ie. no AGC, or Automatic Gain Control amplitude equalization).

See the larger Adobe Reader pdf file.

In the example, reflector series “A”, and “A’ ” highlight significant differences in both amplitude magnitude, and seismic character, and it would be easy to imagine the varied inversion results, based on the two input synthetics (low frequency on the left, and high frequency on the right).  While the reflections at “A” appear to be “bottom loaded” (highest amplitude in the lower peak), “A’ ” looks to be more “top loaded” (highest amplitude in the upper peak”.  Imagine if you were trying to correlate two datasets with these frequency bandwidth differences?

At locations “B” and “B’ “, both of the reflector series are “bottom loaded”, but the trough-to-peak deflections have increased significantly at the latter location—a result of “frequency tuning”.  “Frequency tuning” is related to “thickness tuning”, except the constructive interference, and the resulting amplitude increase is only due to the frequency change from the input wavelet.  Again, this would result in some differences of the inversion results.

These example synthetics also illustrate how event amplitudes could vary with spectral decomposition outputs, of differing frequencies.  I’ve also included a lot more of the synthetic in the linked pdf file, with some additional differences.

Copyright © T/X RESOURCES, 1995-2008. All Rights Reserved.

Do you ever need to use your SMT fault polygons for other applications?  For example, I quite often convert them to an SMT culture layer, as a fault QC (quality control) tool, or use them in Surfer, when I need extended gridding capabilities.

The benefit of having an individual horizon’s fault polygons converted to an SMT culture layer is that you can easily keep the fault strikes consistent when working on an adjacent horizon, by overposting the culture layer onto your active horizon.  I normally create fault planes on all of the faults that I see on multiple lines.  However, some faults don’t extend far enough to be seen on more than one line, so it’s difficult to fault plane them with the lack of control points—a common occurrence in 2D projects, with widely-spaced lines (eg. regional projects).

Golden Software’s Surfer program has a wide array of gridding, and grid-manipulation capabilities, but it only uses the proprietary “bln” file format for faults.  So, you will need to convert your SMT fault polygons to this format before you can use them in Surfer.

Here’s my workflow for converting SMT fault polygons, to an SMT culture layer.  It may look complicated, but it isn’t—I just included all of the workflow details, for the beginning user:

(1) In 2d/3dPak, export a fault polygon set to a Landmark format, from the menu by selecting “Faults > Export > Fault Polygon Sets”.

(a) In the “Export Fault Polygons” box which opens, select the “Polygon Set Name” from the drop-down-list.  Select the “Vertical Units” of “Time”, or “Depth” (the default is “Time”) by clicking on the radio button.  Leave the “Format” selection as “Landmark” (the default).  Then click “OK”.

(b) Select the “Save In” folder where you want to place the exported file, and enter “File Name”, using the txt extension (eg. TEST.TXT), and then click the “Save” button.  You will then see the “The fault polygon file export has completed successfully!” pop-up box open, when it finishes writing the text file.  Click on the “OK” button.

(2) Optional—Review the exported fault polygon text file (Landmark format) with text editor (eg. Wordpad, Notepad, Ultra-Edit, etc.), and you will see five columns of data, left-to-right:  x-locations, y-locations, time/depth values (seconds, or feet units), polygon code (6=start of polygon, 8=end of polygon), and polygon id number (1, 2, 3, etc.).

(3) You are now ready to import the fault polygon file as an SMT culture layer by going to ”Culture > Import > Culture Group” menu selections.

(a) When the file “Open” box is displayed, select the folder where the exported file resides, in the “Look In” box, and then select the “File Name”.  The “Columnar Text File (*.txt, *.prn, *.csv)” is the default selection, and you should be able to see your exported fault polygon file now.  Select it.

(b) When the “Import Culture File” box opens, select the “Create a New Group” radio button, and enter the group “Name”.  Click on the “OK” button.

(c) When the “Load Culture Format Files” box opens, click on the “X” box from the “Selection List” area, and make sure that the first column (x-locations) is selected within the pink colored area.  Then, click on the “Y” selection, and the second column should be highlighted with a light green color.  Click on the “Polygon ID” selection, and a light blue column will appear.  It will be on the third column, but this is the wrong column.  You will need to move the colored area to the last column on the right, taking care that only the values in the column appear within the light blue area (no data from the adjacent column to the left).  Then click on the “OK” button.

(d) When the “Polygon Object” box opens, select the “Line Color”, “Line Width”, “Fill Color”, and “Fill Pattern”, if necessary, and then click on the “OK” button.

(e) When the “Define Coordinate System of Imported Data” box opens, make sure that you have the appropriate “Standard US Projection” (XY Units, XY Coordinates, UTM, or US State Plane selection), or “Other Coordinate System” (XY Units, XY Coordinates, or Defined Coordinate System) selected, that matches your project coordinates (previously selected when you created the SMT project).  Then click the “OK’ button.  A new box will pop up when completed, that says “x object(s) were imported successfully” (x is the number of fault polygons imported.  Click the “OK” button.

(f) The imported fault polygons should now be displayed in the map window.

(4) Now that you have imported the fault polygons as an SMT culture layer, you should be able to export them to other programs (optional) by using an AutoCad file format (eg. TEST.DXF), SMT culture layers (eg. TEST.CUL), or Geo-Tiff files (TEST.TIF), amoung others, by going to the “Culture > Export” menu selections.

(5) Finally, you can import the fault polygon dxf files (optional) into Surfer, and then export these as Surfer bln files, for further use in the grid processing.  Many other programs can also import dxf, or tif files, for conversion to their own proprietary, internal formats, for further use.

Have fun…..

Copyright © T/X RESOURCES, 1995-2008. All Rights Reserved.

Well, Service Pack 1 (SP1) for Windows Vista has been officially released, for those of you who have been anxiously waiting for it.  You can download it from Windows Update, or Microsoft’s website at:  http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/bb738089.aspx

Supposedly, this operating system update has had quite a few security bugs fixed, as well as being optimized so that it runs faster.  It has been reported that installations of SP1 are quite a bit faster.

On a desktop, an upgrade takes 58 minutes (four reboots required), and a clean install takes about 81 minutes (with the same four reboots).  The original version of Vista took more than twice as long.  An installation of SP1 on a laptop is still very slow than on a desktop, however—over 2.5 hours for the clean install on a laptop.  For more info about SP1, read the review in PC Magazine.

I’m still running Windows XP, so I’m going to have to wait for a while for SP3 to be released—sometime soon I hope.  Reportedly, there will be a significant speed increase with this version, as well as a “roll-up” of previous security fixes.  This will definitely make life easier when we have to do a clean install.  No more downloading a gazillion update files to get things back up to speed from SP2.  The latest info on (beta) Release Candidate 2 (RC2) of XP SP3 was posted 03/06/08, on the MS Windows XP Download Page.

Copyright © T/X RESOURCES, 1995-2008. All Rights Reserved.

At some point, you may find it necessary to create a seismic inversion from your existing seismic data, without having the benefit of reprocessing it.  Depending on whether or not the relative amplitude processing (RAP) data is available, you may have to consider using data that has been previously gained.  So that you can know the ramifications of using this non-relative amplitude data, this posting tests the sensitivity of seismic inversion to AGC (Automatic Gain Control) window lengths.

First, a little info about AGC for those who are unfamiliar with it.  AGC is an ancient (technically speaking) seismic processing technique for equalizing energy absorption, but many processors still use it.  Basically, it is a running-average process, and the number of samples that are averaged is controlled by the time window length.  Common window lengths are 1000 ms (milli- seconds), and 500 ms, and occassionally, the processors will use different values, depending on what they are trying to do.  Generally, the larger seismic amplitudes get smaller, and the smaller amplitudes get larger, with the AGC process—the amount of change depends largely on the window length.

See the larger Adobe Reader pdf file.

Generally, a long-window 1000 ms AGC is very close to relative amplitude, which is one reason why it is still used today (in addition to being very fast).  However, since AGC is a trace-by-trace process—that is, each trace is processed independently of the adjacent traces—you have to be careful with using it as a substitute for relative amplitude.  For example, in areas where source locations couldn’t be placed (aka. data skips), such as around houses, rugged topography, production facilities, etc., the times of the first real data samples increase.  This is usually presented as a “V” in the most shallow data, which can cause spurious amplitudes when using AGC (never use it on pre-stack CDP gathers, or AVO data).  Also, surface conditions can cause “striping”, if a surface-consistent amplitude compensation has not be applied (usually on older data).

In the examples above, created with SMT’s TracePak module, I’ve compared relative amplitude synthetics and seismic inversions with AGC’d versions of both 1000 ms, and 500 ms windows.  The first image, compares a relative amplitude inversion (annotated as “INPUT AGC = 0 (RAP)”) to an inversion with an “INPUT AGC = 1000 MS”.  The blue arrows highlight areas with differences—the AGC version generally has lower values.  However, there are some zones that have higher values, such as the sand at about 3.400 seconds.

Many of the zones annotated with the blue arrows on the input synthetic seismogram displays (annotated as “SYNTH AGC = 0 (RAP)”, and “SYNTH AGC = 1000 MS”) show only minor differences, but some of the more obvious ones (not annotated with the arrows), in these displays, are in the shale sections from 1.800-2.600, and from 3.060-3.380 seconds.

In the third example, the inversion with a 500 ms AGC (annotated “INPUT AGC = 500 MS”), shows quite a bit of difference.  Again, the impedance values are generally lower (more in the dark green colors).

Finally, in the last example, the input synthetic seismograms for the 500 ms AGC (annotated “SYNTH AGC = 500 MS”), there are some pretty striking differences in amplitudes between the AGC and RAP versions.  Again, take note of the differences in the shale sections in the time windows mentioned previously.

So, the moral of this story is: only use relative amplitude seismic data for your inversions, but if you have to use older data, use a long-window AGC of at least 1000 ms.

Copyright © T/X RESOURCES, 1995-2008. All Rights Reserved.

As I mentioned in the previous post on seismic inversion, using zero-phase seismic data as an input for inversion, is one of the most critical elements for accurate results.  However, this brought up the question of “how bad is bad”, when it comes to phase-matching errors?  So, to answer this question, I had an idea to test the sensitivity of inversion results based on the phase of the input data.

Below, is a series of inversion images which were produced from the same initial synthetic seismogram.  However, prior to generating the inversion, I rotated the phase of the input data in the amount indicated at the bottom of each image—that is:  0, 45, 90, 180, 270, and 315 degrees.

See the larger Adobe Reader pdf file.

I usually feel pretty confident that I can determine a good zero-phase match when I correlate a synthetic with the seismic data (with a stable decon operator, and good processing).  Of course, a wavelet extraction technique, prior to the inversion, could also be used as a solution for getting back to a zero-phase input.  However, that’s a bit more involved, and could be the subject for an entirely different series of postings.  To keep things relatively straightforward for this posting, I kept it limited to using simple phase rotations. 

After putting all of the plots together, one of the first things that I noticed was that from zero to 180 degrees, the background values of the inversion got “cooler”.  That is, there were more blues and greens, or lower impedance values, overall.  At 180 degrees of phase rotation (reverse polarity of the original input synthetic), there was an almost total lack of higher impedance values—only two yellow bands.  Then, from 180 to zero degrees, the background impedance values increased back to the browns and yellows, or got “warmer”.  Interesting……

At first, I wasn’t sure what to make of this.  However, after thinking about it a bit, it makes perfect sense!  A zero-phase wavelet will have the largest positive amplitude, and reverse polarity wavelet will have the most negative amplitude.  The amplitudes of all wavelets in between these two, will be gradational from one to the other.  Don’t you just love science!  I wonder if you can determine zero phase by the amplitude of the inversion output—the maximum equals zero phase.  The subject for yet another posting.

I also noticed that there were quite a few similarities of the calculated impedances, in the 45-90 degree ranges, as well as from the 270-315 degree ranges, to the zero-phase impedance.  With a small time shift, some of them could possibly be mistaken for the zero phase response, especially if we were using real seismic data.

However, if you read my posting, “It’s Just a Phase They are Going Through“, I mentioned some distinctive characteristics of synthetic seismograms, such as “top loading”, or “bottom loading” peaks and troughs.  I also think that these may be helpful correlation tools for fine-tuning inversions, if you’ve got a direct tie to a well with an acoustic impedance log.  If not, the deep induction resitivity logs may be beneficial as a substitute because of their similarities with the impedance logs.

Next, I will look into the effects that AGC (Automatic Gain Control) window lengths, and frequency content have on inversion results.  More to come……

Copyright © T/X RESOURCES, 1995-2008. All Rights Reserved.

I recently wondered why I hardly ever see anyone using the Seismic Inversion tool, found in SMT’s TracePak module?  Maybe you’ve thought about using it, but didn’t understand it well enough, or maybe tried it once, and the results didn’t match anything in the well(s).  Like anything new, if you don’t under- stand it, it’s going to be difficult to use it properly.  So, I thought that it would be helpful to explain some of the benefits and pitfalls of using inversion, for those interested.

First, for those unfamiliar with inversion, what is it, and how do we use it in our interpretation?  You could think of seismic inversion as the reverse of a synthetic seismogram processing flow, and we use inversion to get some idea about rock properties.  For an example, the portion of the seismic inversion in the image below, was generated from a synthetic seismogram in the well at the center of the line.  Normally, you would generate the inversion from an actual seismic line, but I wanted an optimum response for this example.  I’ve also posted three well logs from this well:  the spontaneous potential (aka. SP log) in blue, the deep resistivity (RES log) log in magenta, and the acoustic impedance (AI log) in red.

See the larger Adobe Reader pdf file.

The synthetic seismogram, is a forward process.  That is, we start with sonic and density logs, and then compute an acoustic impedance log from them.  This acoustic impedance is then used to calculate reflection coefficients.  Finally, a seismic wavelet is convolved with the reflection coefficients to generate the synthetic seismogram (analogous to the seismic traces).

As I mentioned previously, seismic inversion is just the reverse of this pro- cess.  That is, you start with seismic traces, and then work your way back- ward to generate an acoustic impedance.  You probably noticed that we didn’t get all the way back to the sonic and density logs—the starting point for the synthetic.  The reason for this is that we can’t determine their unique values.  The acoustic impedance is the result of multiplying velocity times density, so we could get different log values with the same impedance input values (eg. 8=2×4, and 8=4×2, or 8=1×8, etc.).

For my example, the input was a relative amplitude sythetic seismogram.  The parameter input required for the TracePak Seismic Inversion are:  (1) Low Frequency (Hz)—usually near 6 Hertz, (2) High Frequency (Hz)—for data sampled at 4 milliseconds, you can use somewhere around 100 Hertz for this, and finally, (3) Average Velocity—I believe that this should actually be an acoustic impedance value, and not velocity.  Anyway, you get this number by multiplying the sonic velocity, by the bulk density.  For example, I used 10,000 which was a rough number for shallow, unconsolidated clastics (velocity about 5000′/s, and density about 2.0 gm/cc3).  This is really just a scaler, used for the first sample values, so if you’re off a bit, it’s not an issue.

For an inversion to work properly however, the theory requires that the input seismic data must be zero phase, relative amplitude, and noise free.  Ha, you say!  We almost never have all these conditions.  That’s correct, but we can come close most of the time, or we do our best to control what we can control.  In some later postings, I will generate some inversions with non-zero phase, non-relative amplitude, and noisey data, to see how they compare with the nominal case.

Since the seismic data is missing the low frequency component, below about 6 hertz, the output acoustic impedance values are relative, and not absolute.  That is, the relationship of the nearby values are accurate, but you can’t read the numbers from the impedance section, and expect them to exactly match the acoustic impedance values generated from the sonic and density logs.

Now, let’s see how we use inversions, once we’ve generated them.  In the image above, I’ve annotated both some tight, and porous sands.  The tight sands are the higher impedance values, in the brown and yellow colors.  The porous sands are indicated by the green and blue colors, which are the lower impedance values.  You will notice that there is a pretty good match between acoustic impedance log (the red log), and the inversion—that is, when the log values increase (moves to the right), the inversion values are larger (brown and yellow).  Inversion will tell us something about the rock properties, but unfortunately it isn’t a lithology detector.  We can’t tell sands from shales because you can observe that the green colors can represent both sands and shales, based on the sp log curve (sands are to the left, shales to the right, on this log).

Something else you may notice—the deep resistivity log (the magenta log curve) seems to match the acoustic impedance (red log curve), and the inversion.  You might then ask, can we detect hydrocarbons with an inversion?  Not really.  We can also get higher resistivities from tight zones.  However, there is a general correlation between resistivity and impedance.  Impedance mostly reflects changes in interval velocity, since velocity values (6000-20,000′/sec) are three to four orders of magnitude larger than the density values (1.5-3.0 gm/cc3).  Faust has already determined that there is a relationship between velocity, and resistivity—we use the Faust equation as one method to generate pseudo-sonic logs from resitivity logs (see my posting of 02/15/08, “5 Pseudo-Sonic Logs to the Rescue“).

I hope this has helped clarify seismic inversion somewhat.  Stay tuned for more info on the subject……

Copyright © T/X RESOURCES, 1995-2008. All Rights Reserved.

Even though this is not within the usual scope of the blog, I hope that few will fail to see the beauty of these pictures of one of the earth’s more spectacular processes.  I stumbled on the website, Extreme Instability, a couple of years ago, and thought that some of you might enjoy it, as well.  If you also have an interest in tornadoes, or just nature photos in general, please check out his website.

If there ever was anyone who should be an earth scientist, it’s Mike Hollingshead.  Here’s a guy who loves taking pictures of nature, and chasing storms.  After dropping out of college a few times, and kicking around several uninspiring jobs, he just decided that he was going to make a living doing what he loved.  And, here are some of the results…..

.

I don’t know about you, but as a geoscientist I like it all—the stuff above the surface, just as well as the stuff below the surface.  I’ve always had an interest in rocks and tornadoes, and even as a kid, I had a rock collection, and loved to look at pictures of tornadoes.  Hopefully, for most of the blog visitors, that won’t be too weird of a combination?  Thank goodness I discovered the earth sciences in college  (geography, and geology), and found a way to earn a respectable living, after I grew up.

Both Mike’s found a way to do what they really enjoy!

Copyright © T/X RESOURCES, 1995-2008. All Rights Reserved.

Microsoft has announced that it will discontinue licensing Windows XP to OEM’s (Original Equipment Manufacturers), and terminate retail sales of the XP operating system on June 30, 2008.  This is less than four months from now, so if you’re planning to buy a new computer, and you want XP installed on it, you had better do it soon.

However, Microsoft indicates in their Support Lifecycle for Windows XP Page, that mainstream support most versions of XP will continue to 04/19/09.  “Extended” support will still be available (for a price) until 04/08/14.

Unfortunately, we will only be postponing the inevitable because it looks like we will all be forced to move to Vista eventually, whether we want to or not.  Here’s some info that I gathered recently, for those visitors considering updating your computer operating system (OS) to Windows Vista, sooner, rather than later.

1) The Six Versions of Windows Vista:  First, some basics for those new to Vista.  The current versions available are:  Vista Starter (only available in developing countries), Vista Home Basic, Vista Home Premium, Vista Business, Vista Ultimate, and Vista Enterprise.  Here’s Microsoft’s Overview Page.

2) Microsoft Reduces Vista Prices: On 02/28/08, Microsoft announced that it plans to cut prices of some version of Vista. The price cuts are aimed at pushing customers to switch to the newest version. Vista Ultimate prices will drop from $399, to $319 for the full version, and from $259, to $219 for the upgrade version. The Vista Home Premium upgrade version will change from $159, to $129. Unfortunately, the remaining version will remain the same.

3) Lots of Problems with Windows Vista Drivers:  Many users are blaming equipment manufacturers for “bricking” (making obsolete) their printers, scanners, digital cameras, and other computer devices.  However, the blame should go to Microsoft because they chose not to provide backward compatibility, and for the seemingly endless delays for product release which had some equipment manufacturers wondering if Vista would ever actually be released.

4)  Windows Vista 64-Bit Software Compatability Issues:  There are still quite a few software compatability issues with Vista 64-bit.  Believe it or not, one of Microsoft’s own programs, Windows Home Server, doesn’t even install under 64-bit Vista.  Additionally, some hard disk RAID drivers can cause problems under Vista.

5)  Windows Vista (and XP) Security Issues:  Microsoft has been busy “plugging holes in the dike” in Vista, XP, and some Office products.

6)  Overcome Windows Vista Incompatabilities with Windows-in-a-Window:  If you’re concerned about incompatibilities with older software applications, then virtual machine programs such as VM Player, or Microsoft’s Virtual PC may be a solution.  Here is a list of Windows Vista compatible software.

7)  Some Issues Resolved with Windows Vista SP1:  Windows Vista Service Pack 1 is on the verge of being released, and will solve a number of compatibility problems, and behave a little more “snappily”, according to PC Magazine.

Sounds like loads of fun……..

Copyright © T/X RESOURCES, 1995-2008. All Rights Reserved.

Well, it’s been nearly three months since I started the blog, so I thought that this would be a good time to update the visitors on the website activity, to date.

I just posted the 53rd article at the end of February, so that means that I generated a new posting about every 1.5 days—or put another way, 65 % of the days have had a new article.  This would probably have been higher if I didn’t have to give my wrists a rest, periodically.

There have been nearly a quarter of a million hits total, for an average of nearly 3000 per day, from 56 different countries (every continent except Antarctica).  Visitors are reading an average of over 400 pages per day, double that on some days, and it’s increasing nicely.

So, I’m pretty satisfied with the progress, overall.  Stay tuned for more……

Copyright © T/X RESOURCES, 1995-2008. All Rights Reserved.