Acquisition Design of the First Four Component 3D Ocean Bottom Seismic in the Caspian

Jack Bouska, Tom Lyon, Rodney Johnston, Dave Buddery, Dave Howe, Mike Mueller, Leon Thomsen, Dan
Ebrom , BP PLC.

Summary

The signal to noise problems inherent in towed streamer
data associated with mud volcanoes, subsurface
heterogeneities and gas in the Azeri, and Gunashli
structures of the Caspian sea prompted the use of three
dimensional four component ocean bottom seismic (3D/4C
OBS) to improve imaging. The introduction of several
innovative enhancements to the traditional ocean bottom
cable technique, when applied cohesively across both
acquisition and processing, resulted in cost savings
compared to traditional OBS acquisition and improved
final data quality compared to towed streamer seismic.

Introduction

The Azeri-Chirag-Gunashli (ACG) is a world-class oilfield
development (8 billion barrels oil in place) located in the
South Caspian Sea, offshore Azerbaijan (Fig. 1) The ACG
anticline extends in a northwest to southeast direction, in
water depth of 120m to 350m. The structure is asymmetric
with steep dips (40deg.) on the north flank and gentler
(25deg.) on the south flank. The reservoir consists of 9
laterally extensive stacked Pliocene sandstone intervals; in
the Pereriv and overlying Balakhany formations. Mud
volcanoes of varying size penetrate the structure near the
crest. The mud volcanoes are characterized by debris cones
on the seabed fed by over-pressured shale from strata
below the target reservoirs. The existing towed streamer
seismic data, while generally of good quality, does contain
areas of weak reflections over the crest of the structures,
especially in the vicinity of the mud volcanoes, to the
extent that accurate structural mapping over the crest has
been seriously impaired. (Fig. 2) The cause of the poor
data has been postulated as a combination of a number of
factors:

P-wave absorption/attenuation through distributed gas
in the overburden sediments
Disturbed/disrupted sediments in the vicinit y of the
mud volcano plume (Fig. 2)
Backscattered shot generated noise from near surface
heterogeneities.

The use of 3D/4C OBS was suggested by Mueller and
Lyon (2002) as a method to improve imaging, and S/N over
the central problem areas. Following a 2D test of 4C
seismic over Azeri in 2001 (Probert, et al. 2002), a pair of
3D/4C-OBS surveys were acquired in 2002, and processed
in 2003, to image the Azeri (160 sq.km.), and Gunashli
(114 sq.km.) areas of the ACG PSA. Caspian Geophysical
acquired the OBS surveys, with BP staff, in country, for
acquisition supervision, and on-shore QC processing in the
Caspian Geophysical processing center. Full data
processing was performed in the WesternGeco Gatwick
office, in the U.K.

The original intent of the 4C project was to acquire both a
PZ (pressure phone & vertical geophone summation)
survey, as well as a PS (converted shear wave) survey. The
initial belief was that the PS image would provide
improved data quality, by virtue of reduced gas induced
attenuation in the up going shear leg. Early processing
demonstrated that the P-wave image was of markedly better
quality than the existing towed streamer, to the point where

Figure 2: Examples of areas where towed streamer data is
compromised over the structure crest due to seabed scarps, mud
volcanoes, and near surface distributed gas.

Figure 1: Location of study area shown within red box: Azeri
Chirag Gunashli PSA, (ACG) Caspian Sea, Azerbiajan.
SEG Int'l Exposition and 74th Annual Meeting * Denver, Colorado * 10-15 October 2004
Design of the First 3D/4C OBS in the Caspian
the P-wave image from the 3D/4C OBS is vital to the
overall value derived from the seismic. (Fig. 3) This paper
will focus on the novel 3D/4C OBS acquisition design
techniques, which have resulted in net improvements to the
data quality, and imaging. In companion papers, Johnston,
et al, 2004 reports on the processing strategy that takes
advantage of this acquisition scheme, and Lyon, et al, 2004
describes the value derived from the interpretation of the
resultant OBS images.

Method

Data processing often receives insufficient attention during
survey design, because the cost of equipment deployment,
and data collection dominates the overall budget. The
danger of treating acquisition and processing as sequential
(separate) steps, is that various untested assumptions,
related to data processing requirements, can lead to an
unbalanced design, with overemphasis of expensive
acquisition parameters. For example, a belief that noise
and multiple attenuation will fail, without tight spatial
sampling of both shots and receivers, will lead the
acquisition design towards overly narrow source and
receiver line spacing.

The Azeri, Gunashli acquisition / processing / interpretation
steps were considered holistically, as a single integrated,
iterative, system. The tasks of Acquisition design,
processing management, and interpretation are carried out
by a consistent team of specialists, who were focused on
the project from inception to completion. This unified
approach alleviated the typical loss of continuity that can
occur when each step of a project is managed by separate
teams, and resulted in two notable advantages:

Knowledge of the inevitable deficiencies inherent in
the acquisition design which arise as a result of budget
constraints, or limited equipment availability, can be
carried seamlessly forward in the project, allowing
processing flow, and program parameter adjustments,
avoiding known problems

Innovations, which are intentionally imbedded in the
acquisition design, are well understood during the
processing stage, and can be properly exploited to
maximum advantage.

The remote location of the Caspian Sea exaggerates the
typically high cost of 3D/4C OBS acquisition. A strong
desire to adhere to a realistic budget prompted innovation
in acquisition design that would accommodate the
conflicting requirements of tight spatial sampling (high
fold) over the crest of the structure, while maintaining
adequate aerial coverage over the migration aperture extent
demanded by the steeply dipping reservoir strata at depth.

Apart from air gun sources, and a marine setting for 3D/4C
OBS surveys, the underlying acquisition design, and
processing techniques have many features predominantly in
common with land 3D seismic, hence procedures adapted
from tow streamer processing may not be appropriate.
Several of the innovations in the Caspian 3D/4C OBS
acquisition and processing are derived from experience
with BP's 3D seismic surveys in the thrust belts of North
and South America.


Figure 4: Acquisition pattern for Azeri and Gunashli OBS
surveys.

Figure 3: OBS vs Tow streamer data comparison.
SEG Int'l Exposition and 74th Annual Meeting * Denver, Colorado * 10-15 October 2004
Design of the First 3D/4C OBS in the Caspian
Numerous parameter optimizations were applied during
acquisition and processing however six major areas of
advance stand out as unique innovations, pioneered in the
Caspian 3D/4C OBS surveys:

1. Variable cross-line spatial sampling via receiver line
interlacing. Deployed during acquisition to induce fold
variability generating high fold on the crest (to
improve S/N) grading to lower fold on the down dip
flank to expand migration aperture.
2. Uniformly sampled shot wave field comprised of a
wide patch (wide aperture), 75m x 75m grid of source
points (4km X 10.4km) surrounding each receiver line
pair, forming one half of a 3D symmetric sampled
wavefield (Vermeer 1994)
3. First break refraction tomography (made viable with
the wide patch acquisition scheme) used to estimate P-
wave (and indirectly S-wave) receiver statics, and near
surface velocity model definition for joint inversion
depth migration.
4. Pre-stack noise attenuation in the common receiver
domain using 3D-FXY-Decon (3D Random noise
attenuation, RNA, made possible via the large,
regularly sampled source grid around each receiver
point.)
5. Additional pre-stack noise attenuation via a second
pass of 3D RNA in the single fold common offset
domain, a technique borrowed from land processing.
6. Kirchoff 3D pre-stack time migration, with pre-
migration fold normalization, and post migration
offset dependant fold weight restoration, providing
improved attenuation of backscatter noise (Bouska
1998), acquisition/processing footprint, and multiples.

The six acquisition and processing techniques listed above
represent the first known application on any of BP's 3D/4C
OBS surveys conducted worldwide.

Examples

The Azeri and Gunashli
OBS surveys were designed
to use an interlaced patch
layout, instead of uniform
receiver line spacing,
creating a distribution of
high fold coverage over the
difficult zone near the crest
of the structure, grading to
lower fold over the better
quality, deeper data in the
flanks of the structure. (Fig
5.)

Arranging a greater
concentration of receivers
over the poor data quality area served two purposes: first,
to help attack some of the noise associated with
backscatter, and compensate for weak signal penetration.
Second, to maintain stack fold consistent along
stratigraphy, rather than constant at one depth. The latter is
important when imaging over high relief structures, where
the processing mute generally opens to include wider
offsets with depth. Survey designs with uniform line
spacing, will produce excessive stack fold in the synclines,
where the target is deepest. This effect is also exaggerated
with wide patch, multi-azimuth acquisition, where
cumulative fold increases as the square of the maximum
offset range.

The elemental receiver patch was held constant across the
survey area, and consisted of two lines (700m or 720m
apart), surrounded by an aerial grid of shots, 75m x 75m
and 4km wide, 10.4km long, used for all two line patches,
(apart from variations due to rig obstructions, and permit
boarders) (Fig. 4 and Fig 5)

The spatial sampling / fold variation was achieved by
interlacing, or inter-fingering the pair of receiver lines. The
Azeri and Gunashli surveys used two different styles of
interlacing, to accommodate the different migration
aperture requirements of the subsurface. (Fig 4.).
Operationally, the widely spaced pair of lines is overlapped
by deploying the lines wit h a partial lateral shift, such that a
portion of the receiver patch falls in-between the wider line
spacing of the previously recorded receiver patch. This
creates an effective receiver line spacing in the 350-36m
range over the crest, while the line spacing in the synclines
remained the same as the elemental recording patch (700-
720m). (Fig. 5.)


Figure 5: Detail of reciever line-pair interlacing used for Azeri (left) ,Gunashli (middle) with Azeri fold
illustrated on far right.
SEG Int'l Exposition and 74th Annual Meeting * Denver, Colorado * 10-15 October 2004
Design of the First 3D/4C OBS in the Caspian
The use of interlacing allows coverage of the full survey
area with 25% fewer receiver patches than would be
required for a constant line spacing design. This results in
acquisition cost savings proportional to the reduction in
patches.

Part of the motivation for deploying a continuous 75m x
75m grid of sources can be traced back to the North Sea
Hod 3D/4C OBS survey (Kommedal et al, 2002), which
contained two sets of source lines; one set orthogonal and
the other set parallel to the receiver cables. The Hod study
illustrated that either type of acquisition would be adequate
for PZ OBS surveys, however PS images were notably
better with the inline style of acquisition. To garner the best
of both worlds, the source grid for the Caspian OBS
surveys was chosen to be inline with the receiver lines, but
with sufficient cross line dimension to provide good multi-
azimuth distribution for P-wave processing, anisotropy
analysis, and 3D prestack noise attenuation in the common
receiver domain.

The use of receiver line interlacing also demands specific
attention to the design of the source grid, so that adequate
cross line source-receiver offset is maintained over the zone
of wide line spacing. The choice of wide aperture shot
patches also has the advantage of generating a broad
distribution of source receiver offsets and azimuths, which
can benefit the PZ prestack imaging step.

Harvesting the advantages of wide azimuth acquisition
design also requires careful treatment, and retention of the
far offsets, during the processing step, as these traces
comprise the bulk of the prestack-migration fold, or in
other words, the majority of the useful reflected energy is
derived from the mid and far offsets, in this case, offsets
greater than 1500m.

The receiver spacing along the cable sets the inline bin size,
and the distance between flip and flop source lines sets the
cross line bin size, resulting in a natural bin dimensions of
12.5 (dip) x 37.5 (strike). The inline direction can record
strata dipping at greater than 45 degrees, however the
predominant angles of strata in the strike direction are
lower than 20 degrees, allowing the wider bin size in this
direction. Natural variation in line and shot spacing also
help to inject midpoint scatter in the final survey, which
spreads the true reflection points across the subsurface.
When these are collected, or imaged into output bins during
migration, the midpoint scatter provides some spatial anti-
alias protection, which helps guard against adverse effects
of the large cross line bin dimension.

Both the wide line spacing, and wide source patch, aspects
of the Caspian OBS surveys were designed to facilitate our
use of new processing techniques such as:
- First break refraction tomography.
- 3D prestack random and aliased noise attenuation.
- Offset distribution biased to far offsets for improved
multi-azimuth illumination, and multiple suppression
- Stronger backscatter attenuation in prestack imaging.
- Undershooting near surface low velocity anomalies
(trapped gas, mud plumes, etc)

Conclusions

Treating acquisition design and processing as a single
function can benefit both cost and quality by allowing
innovations to be applied seamlessly across the whole
technical project. Exploitation of the unique advantages of
OBS in the future may require a move away from the
marine processing paradigm which mandates application of
2D linear dip filters for removal of noise and multiples, and
towards a broader view of acquiring and processing
coarsely sampled 3D wave fields.

References

Bouska, J., 1998, The other side of the fold: THE LEADING EDGE, 17, no. 01,
31-35.

Kommedal, J. H., Ackers, M., Folstad, P. G., Gratacos, B. and Evans, R.,
2002, Processing the Hod 3D multicomponent OBS survey, comparing
parallel and orthogonal acquisition geometries: THE LEADING EDGE, 21, no.
8, 795-801

Michael Mueller & Thomas Lyon, AZERI FIELD 2D 4C OBS TEST
RESULTS AND 3D 4C OBS BUSINESS CASE EVALUATION, Baku
Geophysical Conference 2002

Probert, T., Bryan, R., Underwood, D., Mueller, M., Lyon, T. and Rowson,
C., 2002, Multicomponent Seismic Challenges on a Mud Volcano - Imaging
the Azeri Field, 64th Mtg.: Eur. Assn. Geosci. Eng., F017.

Vermeer, G. J. O. and Shell Research, , 1994, 3-D symmetric sampling,
64th Ann. Internat. Mtg: Soc. of Expl. Geophys., 906-909.

Acknowledgments

BP operates ACG field on behalf of the shareholders of the
Azerbaijan International Oil Company (AIOC) which include the
following companies: BP 34.14%, UNOCAL 10.28%, SOCAR
10%, INPEX 10%, Statoil 8.56%, ExxonMobil 8%, TPAO 6.75%,
Devon 5.63%, Itochu 3.92% and Amerada Hess 2.72%.

The authors would like to thank the AIOC shareholders for
permission to publish this case study and their input to the
planning and execution of the project.

We also acknowledge the dedication and skill of those individuals
in Caspian Geophysical and Western Geco who acquired and
processed the OBS survey.

Many colleagues in BP helped to make the Azeri OBS a successful
project; in particular we thank Jan Kommendal and Richard
Seaborne,

SEG Int'l Exposition and 74th Annual Meeting * Denver, Colorado * 10-15 October 2004