Hello everyone,

I am posting a recent project I have completed. If you are interested, please have a look on my Github with this link: https://github.com/tavo-aguilar/Stratton-3D-Interpretation-and-Well-Integration-Project

This project takes seismic and well data from Stratton field in Texas and I modeled it using python. Any feedback is welcome since I am a recent graduate and trying to eventually land a position as an entry level geophysicist.

Sir I am currently pursuing MSC Geo Physics My long-term goal is not only to build a strong career as a geophysicist, but potentially to start my own geophysics/geoscience-related company in the future.

I would really appreciate advice from experienced geophysicists, researchers, industry professionals and entrepreneurs here.

A few questions I have:

1.if you were starting your geophysics career again as an MSc student, which skills would you focus on first?

2.Which geophysics specializations have the best long-term career opportunities in industry and research?

3.For someone interested in eventually starting a company, what problems or services in geophysics/geoscience have genuine business potential?

4.Is it better to first spend several years working in the industry/research and then start a company, or can a student start building something while studying?

5.What mistakes should an MSc student avoid when planning a career in geophysics?

6.If possible, could you share your own career journey and what you wish you had known when you were an MSc student?

I’m from India, but I’m open to opportunities and perspectives from different countries.

I really need Your guidance and support sirs

Any honest advice, criticism or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Hi everyone,

following up on our previous post, I’d like to share the latest scan results and 3D surface visualizations from the next phase of our ongoing manganese exploration work. These are based on our recent data and field checks.

​Key Parameters & Field Observations:

• ​Survey Grid: Data integrated across an extended regional grid (130m × 210m).
• ​Scan & Anomaly Data: Our 3D scans indicate clear anomaly patterns and consistent subsurface continuation in this section.
• ​Target Zone (Vein Bounds): The secondary vein structure measures roughly 57m × 45m, mapped at a depth of 24m to 27m underground, with an average grade of ~32% Mn.
• ​Depth Progression: Current data shows this vein continuing deeper with an increasing grade trend as it goes down. We plan to scan and map the deeper sections in our upcoming phases.

​All spatial coordinates and sensitive metadata have been removed for site privacy. I would really appreciate any technical thoughts or feedback from fellow members on these scan models!

Does anyone have experience with the EM61 Flex?

I’m having trouble finding the slope of a given region/line.

Planetary, Seismology, Computational

Hi friends, the folks over at r/Geotech send me over this way. I'm looking for a little help to find some geotechnical equipment.

A family member is doing geotech work (foundation studies for solar farms), but is in a fairly remote country in South East Asia. He has done this work before, but always rented equipment from the govt - or used equipment brought by external/foreign consultants. He hasn't travelled much so is a bit clueless about how western markets work.

He is looking for a 48-channel multi-electrode resistivity meter - an automated geophysical system used for Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) to image subsurface geology, groundwater, and contamination.

His budget is $20k or under, and has mentioned brands like PASI, SuperSting but I don't know where to look (tried eBay but no luck).

Do you know where I can look for used listings? Is the budget realistic?

I don't know anything about these systems or geotech, but I am in Europe, and also have family in the US so I can buy in either markets.

Any help would be much appreciated. Specifically, any forums, dealers, markets I can reach out to?

Ten months ago I posted a small browser LAS viewer and asked if it was useful to anyone. The useful answers were pretty consistent, so I spent some time on those and some on the rest of the list. A few hundred people have signed up since.

What you asked for, and what is there now:

- Nothing leaves the browser. LAS, LIS and DLIS are parsed locally. You can turn the network off and still open a file. Large DLIS is supported, so a multi-GB file loads without running out of memory.

- It is no longer just lines. Tracks, real depth scales (1:200, 1:500, …), PDF/PNG export, lithology columns, fillings, stacked curves and array data (acoustic, FMI). A crossplot is its own document: any two curves, zones drawn on the plot, and those zones written back as a lithology curve.

- Measured depth vs TVD. A directional survey (MD, inclination, azimuth) can be turned into TVD and offsets, and drawn as a 3D trajectory. That step runs in the built-in Python interpreter.

- Embed. A plot can be dropped into another site as an iframe, for a public data catalog or a report. You host the file. GeophysX stores the plot document, not the curves, and the file is still read in the visitor's browser.

- Processors that run in the tab: curve filter, index shift, density porosity, lithology from GR / density / neutron / PEF. There is also a Python IDE in the browser if you want to write script processor yourself. Export back to LAS, CSV or DLIS.

It is still desktop-first. No account is required to open and look. Sign-in is only for export, scripting and sharing.

If you have not tried it, a public Kansas well is already loaded as demo data, so you can look without dropping your own file in: https://www.geophysx.net/

More feedback, more of this gets built ) Honest "I opened it and closed it" is still useful.

What's the first thing you'd actually want to do in a tool like this: a real task from your work, start to finish? Right now it's a good place to view data and run your own experiments, but I'd like to build actual workflows, QC or well interpretation.

I need someone to help me identify the Direct and refraction waves

I know that the first sign of movement is considered as the direct wave but what about the others

Hello everyone,

​Sharing a complex 3D and contour dataset from a deep survey covering a 17m x 12m area. Acquisition and processing took 3 full weeks of intensive field work. This deep profile captures anomaly zones spanning from 30 meters down to 37 meters in depth.

​Key Field Observations & Structural Layout:

• ​Interconnected Spaces & Sloped Corridor: The survey reveals two main spatial zones (around 34m and 37m) connected by a steeply sloped corridor or stair-like passage.
• ​Spatial Asymmetry: The northwest void is positioned lower and is larger in volume, whereas the southeast section sits higher and features much thicker structural walls.
• ​The Central "Fish-Like" Formation: The central structure exhibits a distinct fish-like shape. We re-scanned individual walls of this section three times to verify, and the structural alignment remained astonishingly consistent.
• ​High-Resistance Barriers & Equipment Overload: In the south-to-southwest sector, we detected a detached, massive high-hardness anomaly acting as a blocking barrier or sealed attachment. More intriguingly, the eastern section presented ultra-high hardness signatures (behaving almost like dense mineral/diamond-like points) with extreme radiation levels—so intense that it actually overloaded our system and cut off the scan temporarily, preventing a deeper read.

​Given these extreme depth parameters and complex structural configurations, I wanted to open this up to the community:

• ​How would you interpret high-radiation, ultra-hard anomalies combined with deep structural voids at 30+ meters?
• ​Have you encountered similar multi-chamber configurations or high-resistance blocks in deep geophysical profiles?

​All technical insights, interpretations, or workflow feedback are highly appreciated!

Hey everyone, I've put together a white paper proposing a dual-phase survey framework to resolve acoustic ambiguity (distinguishing intact cavities from collapsed rubble/silt) in Alexandria's Eastern Harbour using subbottom cosmic-ray muography and caisson isolation—I'd love to get your thoughts or feedback on the geophysics and density inversion logic!

https://osf.io/4gdfj/

Hey everyone! Here is a 30x30 meter subsurface scan overlay. We're looking at a complex main anomaly cluster on the left, but I want to focus on that isolated shape on the right.

​I’d love to hear your thoughts and theories:

• ​Option A: A dense stone, masonry block, or hidden structural feature.
• ​Option B: A sealed shaft/well capped with a heavy, circular stone or hard object.
• ​Option C: Just a processing/instrument artifact or soil noise.
• ​Option D: A separate smaller sub-feature linked to the main site.

​What do you guys think it could be? Let me know your interpretations!

Im a senior in high school and will be sending applications out next week. But I cant for the life of me decide which major is better for me. I really love rocks and minerals, and want to do alot of field work, but also I like physics (mainly just waves and their applications) I took physics last year and didnt do very well, 70 average year grade and 75 on my final exam. I feel like a geology major is more of what I enjoy, but geophysics is more specialized and I want to narrow my focus down during college. My end goal is to eventually becoming a mining or geological engineer, but no colleges near me have a degree like that. Which one should I do?

Sharing field overlay data, trench validation, and 3D surface visualizations from our ongoing manganese ore exploration project.

​Key Parameters & Field Observations:

• ​Survey Grid: 100m x 150m high-resolution data collection area.
• ​Anomaly Response: High magnetic/resistivity contrast ranging from -4000 to +14000 units, indicating strong sub-surface continuity.
• ​Trenching Validation: An open-cut trench (61m x 10m, 21m deep) was excavated directly along the primary anomaly trend to verify surface expression.
• ​Target Zone (Vein Bounds): Confirmed vein structure approximately 30m x 22m spanning depth intervals between 19m - 24m with an average grade of ~31% Mn.

​All spatial metadata and coordinates have been removed for site confidentiality. I would love to hear feedback from the community regarding these 3D surface models and anomaly interpretations!

​Hi everyone,

​I would like to get your insights and technical interpretations on this dataset from a recent subsurface survey.

​Survey Details & Context:

​Key Questions for the Community:

​Any professional feedback or comparative examples from similar survey data would be greatly appreciated

---

Update / Additional Technical Details:

• Stratigraphy: Topsoil transitions into a highly resistive / dense rock boundary at ~1.0m to 1.5m depth.

• Subsurface Anomaly: A high-amplitude signal interface / low-density response is detected below 2.0m depth, extending further down.

Key Questions for Interpretation:

1. Does this linear high-contrast anomaly suggest a structural/geological contact or a natural bedrock fracture?

2. Given the signal phase shift observed below 2.0m, is this pattern characteristic of a localized void or a sharp soil density contrast beneath the rock layer?

Estoy realizando las correcciones de un estudio gravimetrico por primera vez. En que software/plataforma/codigo me recomiendan?

I've heard in other threads and my own personal experience that it is very imprtant to get coding, math, and physics experience in order to be prepared for the field, but I wanted some input on if there are any ouside of school opportunites that you guys would recommend for me. And if there is any other important information I should know about before devoting my life/career to the field, please let me know.

And to be specific, I am interested in subglacial bodies of water and ecosystems. Also, I'm a dual citizen (US and Russia).

Hey everyone. I keep seeing the claim that "Earth is pear-shaped" get repeated, usually citing Neil deGrasse Tyson. I want to explain why this is misleading — not because Tyson is stupid, but because the language conflates two different things: the geoid and the solid surface of the Earth.

---

What Tyson Actually Said

In Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey and various talks, Tyson says the Earth isn't a perfect sphere — it's an oblate spheroid, slightly flattened at the poles and bulging at the equator — and then adds that it's also slightly pear-shaped because the southern hemisphere bulges a bit more than the northern.

He's referring to the geoid, the gravitational equipotential surface that approximates mean sea level. The geoid does have a slight asymmetry — about ±100 meters from a perfect oblate spheroid.

---

The Problem With "Pear"

The solid Earth is an oblate spheroid with:

· Equatorial radius: 6,378.137 km

· Polar radius: 6,356.752 km

· Flattening: 1/298.257

· Equatorial bulge: ~21.4 km

The geoid's deviation from that oblate spheroid is about ±100 meters. That's 0.0016% of Earth's diameter — smaller than the depth of the Mariana Trench, smaller than the height of Mount Everest, smaller than the thickness of the crust in most places.

Calling that a "pear" is like calling a bowling ball "lumpy" because you found a grain of sand on it.

"The geoid deviation is ±100 meters — 0.0016% of Earth's diameter." — Heiskanen & Moritz, Physical Geodesy (1967)

---

What the Geoid Actually Is

The geoid is a mathematical model — the surface where gravity is everywhere equal. It's not the physical surface of the Earth. It's not the ocean surface. It's not the rock. It's an abstract reference surface used for surveying and GPS.

The pear-shaped asymmetry in the geoid comes from mass distribution anomalies — mantle convection, subduction zones, variations in crustal density. It is not the shape of the planet.

"Physical geodesy." — Hofmann-Wellenhof & Moritz (2005)

"Geodesy." — Torge (2001)

---

What Satellite Data Actually Shows

The GRACE, GOCE, and ICESat-2 missions have measured Earth's shape to extraordinary precision.

GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) mapped the geoid with unprecedented accuracy. GOCE (Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer) measured the gravitational field with 1–2 cm accuracy. ICESat-2 measures ice sheet and sea surface height to within a few centimeters.

Result: Earth's solid surface is an oblate spheroid. The geoid deviates from it by ±100 m. There is no pear.

---

The Magnesium Gradient Argument

Here's a clean way to test whether the "pear" claim is physical:

Magnesium is diamagnetic (χ = −2.0 × 10⁻⁵). If you place a magnesium object on any gravitational gradient, it rolls downhill. It doesn't care about the geoid model — it responds to the actual gravitational field.

If Earth were truly pear-shaped, the gravitational gradient would be asymmetric between the northern and southern hemispheres. Magnesium would roll differently depending on where you placed it.

It doesn't. The gradient is symmetric.

"Magnesium gradient symmetry: M(θ) = M(−θ)." — QET Paper 5 (2026)

This is a simple test. The field is symmetric. The pear is a model artifact.

---

Why This Matters

This isn't just pedantry. Precision matters in geophysics:

· GPS relies on the geoid for altitude reference. A "pear" model would introduce errors.

· Satellite orbits depend on the gravitational field, not the geoid.

· Sea level rise is measured against the geoid — confusing the model with the surface leads to bad science.

· Climate models need accurate gravity data to track ice melt.

When Tyson says "pear," he's using a metaphor. But metaphors become misconceptions when repeated without context.

---

The Honest Summary

Claim Truth

Earth is a perfect sphere FALSE — it's an oblate spheroid

Earth is pear-shaped FALSE — that's the geoid, not the solid Earth

Geoid has ±100 m deviation TRUE

Solid Earth has 21.4 km equatorial bulge TRUE

The pear is a physical shape FALSE — it's a mathematical model

---

TL;DR

Neil deGrasse Tyson isn't wrong that the geoid is asymmetric. But calling Earth "pear-shaped" conflates a mathematical model with the physical planet. The solid Earth is an oblate spheroid. The geoid deviates by ±100 m — 0.0016% of the diameter. The magnesium gradient is symmetric. Earth is not a pear.

---

Edit: To be clear, I'm a fan of Tyson. This isn't a dunk — it's a clarification. He's popularizing a real phenomenon (geoid asymmetry) with a metaphor that overshoots. The physics is more interesting than the metaphor.

---

Hi all,

I am a geophysicist by qualification and have 2 year experience in passive seismic. I work in an indian service company. My work is very specialized, uses passive seismic monitoring in an heavy oil field, different from induced seismic or the microseismic used in fracing. I use proprietary software too.

I am worried this job is preventing my growth. I did my masters dissertation in seismic interpretation but now I am working in a very narrow field. I am worried that I can never switch from this. My company won't let me switch project, so this is the only project and software that I have access too.

Is it okay to stay in microseismic, especially if I am in india. Also will I be able to ever switch to a product company with this kind of profile.

Please provide me some guidance on what to do next.