The Most Important Policies Every Student Must Know! Dropping or Withdrawing from a Class… First, all students Must follow the proper procedure to drop or withdraw from a class otherwise they are considered still enrolled. If you do not fill out the drop form or if your instructor does not complete a withdrawal upon your request you will receive a grade for the class - and it may well be an “F” grade for the course based on the course grading requirements. Also, you will not be eligible for a refund. So, do not assume that you are automatically dropped or withdrawn from a class for non-attendance or non-payment. back | home | next
View full slide show




The New Stack – Process Is the Next Platform Client Punch Card or Terminal Custom (10’s of users) Application Data Management Applicatio n OS and Databas e Mainframe 4 Request Form Request Form Request Form Request Form Request Form Request Form Request Form Request Form Request Form Request Form Request Form Request Form Request Form Request Form Request Form Request Form Request Form Request Form Request Form Request Form Request Form Request Form Request Form Request Form Any Device (Millions of users) PC or Internet (1000’s of users) Composites Applicatio n Applicatio n Applicatio n OS OS OS DB OS Client Server OS OSApplicatio ns OS OS DB OS DB OS DB OS OS SOA Magal and Word ! Essentials of Business Processes and Information Systems | © 2009 Composites OS OSApplicatio ns OS OS DB OS DB OS DB OS OS
View full slide show




Seismic attribute-assisted interpretation of incised valley fill episodes: A case study of Anadarko Basin Red Fork interval. Yoscel Suarez*, Chesapeake Energy and The University of Oklahoma, USA Kurt J. Marfurt, The University of Oklahoma, USA Mark Falk, Chesapeake Energy, USA Al Warner , Chesapeake Energy, USA Abstract Previous Work Discrimination of valley-fill episodes and their lithology has always posed a challenge for exploration geologists and geophysicists, and the Red Fork sands in the Anadarko Basin do not fall outside of this challenge. The goal of this study is to take a new look at seismic attributes given the considerable well control that has been acquired during the past decade. By using this well understood reservoir as a natural laboratory, we calibrate the response of various attributes to a well-understood incised valley system. The extensive drilling program shows that seismic data has difficulty in distinguishing shale episodes vs. sand episodes, where the ultimate exploration goal is to find productive valley fill sands. In 1998 Lynn Peyton, Rich Bottjer and Greg Partyka published a paper in the Leading Edge describing their use of coherency and spectral decomposition to identify valley fill in the Red Fork interval in the Anadarko Basin. Their work help them identify five valley-fill sequences in order to find optimum reservoir intervals and to reduce exploration risk . Due to the discontinuity of the valley-fill episodes the mapping of such events by using conventional seismic displays is extremely challenging. Figure 3 shows one of the stratigraphic well cross-section presented by Peyton et al where the discontinuities of this complex are evident. Figure 4 shows a seismic profile that parallels the wells cross-section highlighting the same stages. The seismic section is flattened in the Novi. Since original work done in 1998 both seismic attributes and seismic geomorphology have undergone rapid advancement. The findings of this work will be applicable to nearby active areas as well as other intervals in the area that exhibit the same challenges. Using Peyton et al’s (1998) work as a starting point we generated similar displays of conventional seismic profiles and well x-sections that will become the bases of our research efforts. Figure 8 shows the geometry and extents of the different episodes of the Red Fork incised valley system based on well data interpretation and conventional seismic displays. This map will be compared to the different seismic attributes to calibrate their response. Figure 9 (a,b) show couple of well x-sections and their corresponding seismic profiles that supported the valley-fill stages map in Figure 8. Seismic attributes have undergone rapid development since the mid 1990s. In lieu of the horizon-based spectral decomposition based on the discrete Fourier transform, we use volumetric-based spectral decomposition based on matched pursuit and wavelet transforms (e.g. Liu and Marfurt,2007) . Other edge-sensitive attributes include more modern implementations of coherence, long-wavelength Sobel filters, and amplitude gradients. Figure 10 shows a horizon slice at the Red Fork level. Note that on conventional data the channel complex is identifiable. However, the use of seismic attributes may help delineate in more detail the different episodes within the same fluvial system and better define channel geomorphology. We will compare different edge detection algorithms and the advantages and disadvantages that each of them provides to the interpreter. Also, matching pursuit spectral decomposition results will be presented as well as combinations of Relative Acoustic Impedance and semblance that provide helpful information in the interpretation of this dataset. The surveys are located in west central Oklahoma. They were shot by Amoco from 19931996 and later merged into a 136 sq.mi. survey. In 1998, Chesapeake acquired many of Amoco’s Mid-continent properties including those discussed by Peyton et al. (1998). In this study we present alternative seismic attribute-assisted interpretation workflows that show the potential information that each of the geometric and amplitude-based attributes offer to the interpreter when dealing with Red Fork valley-fill episodes in the Anadarko Basin. It is important to mention that one of the biggest challenges of this dataset is the acquisition footprint, which contaminates the data and limits the resolution of some of the seismic attributes. Geological Framework Methodology A Figure 3. Stratigraphic cross-section Red Fork valley –fill complex Figure 4. Seismic profile associated to the prior crosssection. Flattened in the Novi interval By generating horizon slices in the coherency volume they were able to identify and delineate the main geometries of the incised valley (Figure 5). The event used to generated the horizon slice is the Skinner Lime above the Red Fork interval. A’ The Pennsylvanian incised valley sequence associated with the Red Fork interval has, throughout most of its extent, three major events or facies (Phase I, II, and III) which can be differentiated by log signatures, production characteristics, and gross geometry. Two additional events (Phase IV and V) are present in the eastern and northeastern headward portion of the valley, also recognizable by log signature and gross geometry. Phase II Phase III Phase V Figure 8. Red Fork incised valley geometries and valley-fill episodes The multi phase events of the Upper Red Fork Valley system were most likely caused by repeated sea level changes resulting from Pennsylvania glacial events that were probably related to the Milankovitch astronomical cycles including the changing tilt of the earth’s axis and eccentricity of the earth’s elliptical orbit. Phase I is the earliest valley event and Phase II generally has a much wider represents the narrow, initial downcutting of the valley sequence. Where present (a considerable portion of Phase I has been eroded by later events), the rocks are generally poorly correlative shales, silts, and tight sandstones overlying a basal “lag” deposit. areal distribution (up to four miles) with a variety of valley fill facies deposited which record a period of valley widening and maturation. Logs over Phase II rocks illustrate a classic fining upward pattern and shale resistivities of 10 or more ohms. Phase III rocks record the last major incisement within the valley and occur within a narrow (0.25-.05 mile wide) steep walled system that is correlative for 70 miles. This rejuvenated channel actually represents the final position of the Phase II river before base level was lowered and renewed downcutting began. Phase III reservoirs are primarily thick, blocky, porous sands at the base of the sequence that have been backfilled, reworked, and overlain by low resistivity marine shales deposited by a major transgression which drowned the valley sequence. Figure 5. Coherency horizon slice at the Red Fork level Phase V the last event before the transgression that deposited the Pink. It’s primary significance is that it either partially or completely eroded much of the Phase III Valley event. Phase V rocks are poorly developed, non productive sand and shales which also have a characteristic log signature. end of Phase III marine shale deposition. Phase IV rocks are characterized by thin, tight, interbedded sands and shales with a coal or coaly shale near the base. This facies is interpreted as an elongated lagoon/ coal swamp or possibly bay head delta as it often extends beyond the confines of the deeper valley. The Induction log signature is a very distinct “serrated” pattern with a “hot” gamma ray near the base identifying the coal or coaly shale. Pink Lime In their workflow they also estimated the spectral decomposition. They found that the 36 Hz component best represented the different valley-fill stages (Figure 6). By combining the well-data with the information from the seismic attributes they were able to delineate the extents of the different valley –fill episodes (Figure 7) and generate and integrated interpretation of the system. Lower Red Fork II III II Middle Red Fork V a) Figure 9. a) Red Fork stratigraphic cross-section. b) Seismic profile showing the stratigraphic interpretation derived from the well data Phase IV records a modest regression at the The geological framework summary is courtesy of Al Warner. Senior Geologist at Chesapeake Energy Figure 10. Conventional seismic horizon slice at the Red Fork level. The channel discernible although signal/noise ratio is affected by acquisition footprint Figure 6. Spectral decomposition (36 Hz) horizon slice at the Red Fork level Figure 7. Spectral decomposition (36 Hz) horizon slice at the Red Fork level with interpretation. III b) II V
View full slide show




2009 2010 2011 2012 424 2013 UM Flint Town Hall on Enrollment, 4/21/2015 2014 20 Zero EFC 40 PELL Eligible 199 193 Not PELL Eligible PELL Eligible Exceeds Costs of Attendance 249 No FAFSA 432 Zero EFC PELL Eligible 62 Not PELL Eligible 213 226 Exceeds Costs of Attendance Not PELL Eligible No FAFSA 425 Zero EFC 175 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 182 PELL Eligible 255 Not PELL Eligible 48 Exceeds Costs of Attendance 233 246 No FAFSA 236 Zero EFC Exceeds Costs of Attendance PELL Eligible 89 2014 40 Not PELL Eligible 237 2013 62 Exceeds Costs of Attendance 182 167 2012 2011 48 No FAFSA 280 89 Zero EFC 233 2010 50 PELL Eligible 86 2009 2014 2013 2012 2011 86 Not PELL Eligible No FAFSA Student financial resources (EFC) 2010 100 Exceeds Costs of Attendance 293 No FAFSA Zero EFC PELL Eligible Not PELL Eligible Exceeds Costs of Attendance 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2009 0 No FAFSA 200 167 175 150 58 Zero EFC Students who left UM‐Flint and Never Came Back By Year By EFC Group 373 422 278 232 224 58
View full slide show




Innovative Ideas for Targeted Advising Campaigns Student Populations Targeted in Previous SSC Campaigns Campaign Example Filters Action At-risk students that may need to switch majors Risk: High risk Credits Earned: 30-45 Encourage students to evaluate their academic performance and consider a major change Undeclared students above a certain credit threshold Major: Undeclared, Pre-major Credits Earned: At least 30, 45, or 60 credits (depending on the institution) Help students select the appropriate major and declare as soon as possible High-performing students not currently enrolled in coursework Cumulative GPA: Over 3.00 Term Enrollment: Currently not enrolled Figure out why students are not enrolled and get them back into classes Seniors with excessive credits Student Classification: Senior Credits Earned: At least 120 Help students determine what requirements they still need to fulfill to graduate and how to fulfill them quickly Pre-majors that are at risk of not meeting selective admissions requirements Exact filters will vary by major Possible Pre-Majors: PreNursing, Pre-Engineering, PreBusiness Encourage students to prepare a “Plan B” and seek academic support to improve performance Students close to graduating that may need additional assistance Credits Earned: At least 90 Risk: Medium risk or high risk Connect students with the resources they need to finish out their degrees Students who may not have been advised recently (for institutions that use student statuses Student Status: “No action taken” Check in on students that the platform suggests may not have been advised recently “Stop outs” that could return and graduate easily Term Enrollment: Currently not enrolled Risk: Low risk Credits Earned: At least 90 Motivate students to re-enroll and complete their degrees Potential recruits for the honors program Term Enrollment: Currently enrolled Risk: Low risk # of Notifications: Less than 2 Cumulative GPA: Over 3.70 Discuss strong academic performance and potential enrollment in the honors program High-performing students for recruitment to a particular major Term Enrollment: Currently enrolled Risk: Low risk Major: Undeclared Ensure high-performing students know they are capable of taking on challenging majors frequently) If you have other ideas for targeted advising campaigns, send them to your SSC consultant! ©2014 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com 5
View full slide show




The Most Important Policies Every Student Must Know! What is the difference between dropping and withdrawing a class? Dropping a Class A drop removes the class from your academic record and you are entitled to a full refund, minus a $5 registration fee. The drop period takes place before the start of the withdrawal period. The drop period runs from the moment that you register for a class up to the 10th day of the start of a 16-week class. The deadlines to drop classes that run less than 16 weeks varies according to the length of time the class runs (i.e. 8 weeks, 14 weeks, etc.). Check the Summer/Fall 2007 Schedule of credit classes for more details on these deadlines. You do not need the instructor’s or a counselor’s approval to drop a class, however it is highly recommended that you consult with a counselor prior to dropping to ensure make adjustments to your academic plan due to the drop. back | home | next
View full slide show