When is 3-D not 3-D?
By ALISTAIR BROWN
What really constitutes 3-D data? How
complete does the package of technol-
ogy have to be in order to earn the label
3-D? Thecommonly accepted, and very
simple, definition is: Data which is reg-
ularly organized in three orthogonal di-
rections and thus suitable for interpreta-
tion with a 3-D software package on an
interactive workstation. This is, of course,
very broad and thus admits a wide spec-
trum of possibilities. It says nothing about
survey design, data acquisition, or data
processing; it doesn’t require a maxi-
mum spacing, a minimum fold, a mini-
mum size, the definition of fringe area
to ensure full migration, or any particu-
lar level of quality control in the acqui-
sition or processing operation.
There are those who would prefer not
‘to accept dilute forms of 3-D into the
general definition, but in normal usage
they are there. I remember arguments in
the mid 1980s about widely spaced 3-D
or “exploration 3.D”-was it 3-D or
not7 How about “poor man’s 3-D” or
the underdesigned land 3-D survey
today-is this 3-D or not? Again we.
encompass them, whether or not we
should:
In an attempt to clarify in general
terms what money will buy, I now list
different types of 3-D data:
• Custom, full effort 3-D
• Speculative 3-D
• Widely spaced 3-D
704 THE LEADING EDGE JUNE 1993
Consulting Reservoir Geophysicist
Dallas, Texas
• Underdesigned 3-D
• 3-D from conversion of 2-D grids
These are meant to be arranged in
order of decreasing quality and decreas-
ing cost. Value for money may be the
same for all of them. All of them may
be right in the right circumstances-the
challenge is to match the technology
and the effort to the subsurface problem
needing solution.
3-D surveys are growing in popular-
ity at an enormmous rate. Some compa-
nies, big and small, are doing no other
kind of seismic operation. 3-D has be-
come a bandwagon onto which every-
one is trying to jump. Even independent
operators with no geophysicists on staff,
even investors feel compelled to partic-
ipate. Many see it as a “black box” guar-
anteeing success. Perhaps some of us
are falling into the trap of seeing 3-D as
overly homogeneous, of not recogniz-
ing the potential differences between
one 3-D survey and another, and of let-
ting cost drive the technology too strong-
ly. Are 3-D seismic surveys being of-
fered to fit a budget rather than designed
to solve a problem?
The explosion of 3-D seismic in the
continental United States illustrates
these issues. The departure of the major
companies has given increased scope to
the independents and they are using an
abundance of 3-D. Their success rate
has increased as a result and most pa-
ple are happy. However, many of their
objectives are simple and simple ap-
proaches have solved them. So far so
good. There have also been several fail-
ures already although they are not doc-
umented and I fear failures will increase
unless the technology is adapted to the
subsurface problem more than is done
at present. It is currently fairly common
for an area, perhaps of a strange shape,
to be leased and covered from lease line
to lease line with 3-D seismic. The full-
fold, fully migrated data area in the cen-
ter is a fraction of the total area and may
be nonexistent-yet data over the whole
lease area are used for interpretation.
The leasing deadlines are so short that
data processing and interpretation are
both very rushed and corners may be cut
to the detriment of the final result. Leas-
ing and budget constraints are really
driving down the use of technology.
Norman Neidell’s discussion of geo-
physical credibility (December 1992
TLE) provided excellent advice. We
must not prostitute our technology to a
business trend. We must apply the
known, mature technology of 3-D to the
solution of geologic problems with pro-
fessional integrity. In our geophysical
dealings with nongeophysical clients,
we must present the technology as thor-
oughly as possible and make sure the
approach is matched to the problem.
Otherwise the 3-D that results is not
really 3-D at all! K