[beerandt]

If you knew the effort and cost that goes into large scale near and offshore seismic and non-seismic surveys then you wouldn't think twice about putting the value of the data well above the value of the hardware.

Offshore deepwater (~2500ft+) non-seismic surveys might cost 6-7 figures per day to operate, and might fill up a hard drive every 1-3 days.

Depending on how many drives fit on a tape, the raw data could get very expensive, very quickly, even before it's been processed, analyzed, etc.

[technofiend]

Absolutely and of course the opportunity cost from missing out on a lucrative oil field could buy a room full of compute.

[MR4D]

It's even worse than that.

I used to work with a guy who told me that the reason BP bought Amoco, and not the other way around, is that years before, the Amoco team misread the seismic map (not the chart), and bid on the wrong piece of land. BP got the other piece, and the difference was big enough that within a decade, one bought the other.

THAT is how much the data is worth.

[eru]

I suspect the value of the seismic data keeps better over time than the value of the hardware, too.

[beerandt]

Better than the hardware, certainly. But advances in surveying technology make new surveys worthwhile, occasionally, so the data does have a lifespan. Of course better analysis techniques or more powerful hardware for old data makes a big difference too.

[eru]

Sure, adding more data is also good. Often new data can make the old data more valuable, too, I'd guess?

[beerandt]

Yes, although it's not usually a case of doing the same thing with new tech and getting better results. You'd have to have some hint that oil might be there from the first survey.

But my experience is mostly not-seismic, so I'm not sure how the survey parameters would be adjusted for a revisit.