Land and Marine Seismic Data Acquisition

Land & Marine Seismic Data Acquisition from 2D to 3D, 2013
Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Land & Marine Seismic Data

Acquisition from 2D to 3D
by
B.Sc. Student
Department of Geology
Geophysics Program
June, 2013
Under the supervision
Professor of Geophysics
Department of Geology
Mansoura University
© Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik 2013

MANSOURA UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF SCIENCE
PREPARED BY POSITION DATE SIGNATURE
Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik Graduated Geophysicist 24/6/13
APPROVED BY POSITION DATE SIGNATURE
Professor of Geophysics,
Prof. Ebrahim M. Korrat Mansoura University 24/6/13
Professor of Geophysics,
Prof. Hamdy H. Seisa Mansoura University 24/6/13
Lecturer of Applied
Dr. Mohammed A. Ahmed Geophysics, Mansoura 24/6/13
University

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wishes to express my gratitude to Prof. Ibrahim M. Korrat, my supervisor and professor of

geophysics, Faculty of science, Mansoura university, for his encouragement and assistance. In
addition, his encouragement, commitment to accuracy, with a difficult and often tedious task, does
not pass unnoticed.
I am also deeply indebted to Prof. Hamdy H. Seisa & Dr. Mohammed A. Ahmed for his joint
discussion of the present work; their help and advice are most gratefully acknowledged.
I express my special sense of gratitude to Eng. Mohammed Fathi, seismic engineer,

WesternGeco, Schlumberger, for providing me with valuable resources for the completion of this
research.
Thank you to my friends and all people who help me and supported me with all respect to this
thesis.
I am very grateful to my family for their unflagging support. My parents instilled in me the belief that
I could accomplish whatever I set out to do, and provided emotional and financial support when it
was needed.

ABSTRACT
The process of acquiring seismic data in the field, from my point of view, is the most important stage in
the seismic work because the objective most common to all surveys is to obtain clean reflections free of
interference from noise, other wave types and multiple events. Both of processing and interpretation
stages are very important and play a great role in detection of subsurface structures but they depend on
the quality of acquired data in the field and the observer report.
This thesis is composed of two chapters that consist of many aspects of seismic data acquisition involving
seismic survey designing and various seismic acquisition techniques. Starting from the introduction to the
seismic reflection method (pre-acquisition) in chapter 1, in this chapter, I tried to give a brief introduction
about reflection method and some difficulties facing us in the field. Also, I preferred to discuss in semi-
detail some important geologic risks followed by seismic risks and uncertainties which are considered the
most important element in this chapter. In briefly, most of these geologic risks relate to petroleum system
such as is there source rock or not? Migration path or not? Seal or fractured seal? So the recognition of the
uncertainties is the estimation of geological risk; this is the concern of the geologist within us. But the
concern of the geophysicist within us is the recognition of the seismic risk. Seismic risks are associated
with many aspects such as cost, line spacing, location error, seismic noise , seismic velocity particularly
with salt swell, dipping structures , inadequate resolution,....etc. At the end of this chapter, I studied some
important concepts such as reflection zone, reflection and transmission at normal incidence. The next
chapter deals with the modern seismic data acquisition. This chapter is classified into two parts; land
Seismic data acquisition and marine seismic data acquisition. In the first part of land seismic data
acquisition, It was necessary - at discussion of seismic data acquisition - to refer to reflection field
equipment where I described about seismic sources, seismic receiver and recording systems. As well I
have included the seismic array design and array geometries in this part. after that I have given a detailed
description of the various techniques of seismic acquisition that include 1D, 2D, 3D and 4D surveys
designing. It was worth to study the importance of these various techniques and their applications
particularly with 2D and 3D. In the second part of marine seismic data acquisition I focused on the types of
marine seismic surveys that involve towed marine seismic methods (2D, 3D). As a result of insufficient
data quality obtained from conventional towed streamer acquisition for cost effective field development, it
was necessary to discuss the advanced acquisition techniques that provide an improved signal-to-noise
ratio of the resulting seismic data, and Ocean Bottom Techniques that generate areal array shots quite
easily. With regard to recording data on the sea floor, autonomous nodes have recently been used
commercially for performance this purpose. At the end of this report, I dealt with the most complex and
challenging area of seismic acquisition that is known as Shallow water or transition zone (SW/TZ)
acquisition and how to record data in these zones.

Table of Contents
Approval Page ................................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................. iii
Abstract.............................................................................................................................................. iv
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................... v
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

 Introduction…..…………………..................................................................................................1
1.1 Reflection and Seismic Section………………………………………………………………..…3
1.2 Geologic Risks and Uncertainties…………………………………………………...………..….4
1.3 Seismic Risks and Uncertainties………………………………...…………………………..…...6
1.4 Reflection at Normal Incidence……………………………………..……………………..........18
1.5 Transmission at Normal Incidence………………………………………………………….…..22
1.6 The Reflection Zone………………………………...……………………………………...…...23
1.7 Stages of Seismic Work…………………………………………………………………..……..28
CHAPTER TWO: DATA ACQUISITION

 Introduction…………………………………...…………………………………….............30
 Crew Organization…………………………………………………………………..…........31
Part I: Land Seismic Data Acquisition
I.1 Land Energy Sources……………………………………………..……………..………...…33
I.1.1 Explosive Sources……………………………………………..…………..…………...34
I.1.1.1 Charge Size………………………………...……………………...……………34
I.1.1.2 Charge Depth………………………………………………………......………34
I.1.2 Vibrators………………………………………………………….……….……….…..35
I.1.3 Other Sources…………………………………………………………………….....…38
I.2 Land Seismic Receivers…………………………………………………………..….….…..39
I.2.1 Accelerometer………………………………………………………...…………….….39
I.2.2 Velocity Geophone…………………………………………………...…………....…..39
I.2.3 Coupling………………………………………………….……….…………………....40
I.3 Recording Systems…………………………………………………….…………...…….….41
I.3.1 Basic Components…………………………………………….……………….............41
I.3.1.1 Roll-along switch…………………………………..……………………..........41
I.3.1.2 Pre-amplifier……………………………………………..……….…….............41
I.3.1.3 Multiplexer……………………………………………..…………….………...41
I.3.1.4 Main Amplifier……………………………………………………….……..….41
I.3.1.5 A/D Converter………………………………………………….……................42
I.3.1.6 Gain Controller…………………………………………...……………........….42
I.3.1.7 Formatter…………………………………………………….…………….…...42
I.3.1.8 Tape Driver…………………………………………………….…………….…42
I.3.2 Telemetry System……………………………………….……………….…………….43
I.3.3 Storage………………………………………………………….………………...........43
I.3.4 Central Recording vs. Dispersed Recording……………………………………….......43

I.3.5 Cable Systems vs. Radio System…………………………………………………..…..44

I.3.6 Q-Land System………………………………………………….……………………..45
I.4 Seismic Array Design…………………………………………………..…………….….….47
I.5 Array Geometries…………………………………………………….……………...….…...48
I.5.1 in-line Array………………………………………………………………….....……..48
I.5.2 Linear Array………………………………………………..…………………...……..48
I.5.3 Tapered Array…………………………………………………………..…………..…49
I.5.4 Weighted Array…………………………………………………………..………........49
I.5.5 Areal Arrays……………………………………………………..………………….....49
I.5.6 Rectangular Array………………………………………………………..………........49
I.5.7 Parallelogram Array……………………………………………………..………….....50
I.5.8 Radial Array…………………………………………..…………………………...…..50
I.6 Seismic Acquisition Techniques……………………………………………….……….…...52
I.6.1 1D Seismic Data Acquisition (VSP)………………………………………………......52
I.6.2 2D Seismic Data Acquisition…………………………………..………………...…....56
I.6.2.1 Applications of 2D Acquisition……………………………..…………………56
I.6.2.2 Shortcomings of 2D Acquisition…………………………………..…………..56
I.6.2.3 2D Acquisition Methodology……………………………………..……...…....57
I.6.3 3D Seismic Data Acquisition……………………………………………..…………...58
I.6.3.1 Why 3D Seismic Survey?...................................................................................59
I.6.3.2 Basic Concepts in 3D Surveys…………………………………...…….……....59
I.6.3.3 Applications of 3D Surveys……………………………..….……………….…63
I.6.3.4 When to Collect 3-D Seismic Data?...................................................................63
I.6.4 4D Seismic Data Acquisition (3D Time-Lapse Seismic)…………….……………..…64
I.6.4.1 Rules for Successful 4D Seismic………………..………………….……...…..65
Part II: Marine Seismic Data Acquisition
II.1 Marine Energy Sources……………………..……………………………..………….…....66
II.2 Seismic Streamer………………………………………..………………….……..….….....68
II.3 Types of Marine Seismic Surveys…………………………………………...……..…..…..69
II.4 Towed Marine Seismic Methods……………………………………….…….….…….......70
II.4.1 Towed Streamer 2D Acquisition………………………...……………….....…….…..71
II.4.2 Towed Streamer 3D Acquisition………………………………………………….…..72
II.5 Advanced Acquisition Techniques………………………………………………....……....73
II.5.1 Multi-azimuth………………………………………………….………..……..….…..73
II.5.2 Wide-azimuth…………………………………………………………..………...…...73
II.6 Ocean Bottom Seismic Techniques………………………………………………..…...…..74
II.6.1 Four Component (4C) Data Acquisition………………………………….……...…...76
II.6.2 Two Component (2C) Data Acquisition…………………………..……………..…...76
II.7 Autonomous Nodes………………………………………..…………………………...…..77
II.8 Shallow Water / Transition Zone Acquisition…………………………………..……...…..78
References

CHAPTER
OUTLINE
Seismic surveying was first carried out in the early 1920s. It 1.1 Reflection and Seismic
Section
represented a natural development of the already long-established 1.2 Geologic Risks and
methods of earthquake seismology in which the travel times of Uncertainties
earthquake waves recorded at seismological observatories are 1.3 Seismic Risks and
Uncertainties
used to derive information on the internal structure of the Earth.
1.4 Reflection at Normal
Earthquake seismology provides information on the gross internal
Incidence
layering of the Earth, and measurement of the velocity of
1.5 Transmission at Normal
earthquake waves through the various Earth layers provides Incidence
information about their physical properties and composition. In 1.6 The Reflection Zone
the same way, but on a smaller scale, seismic surveying can 1.7 Stages of Seismic work
provide a clear and detailed picture of subsurface geology. It
undoubtedly represents the single most important geophysical
surveying method in terms of the amount of survey activity and
the very wide range of its applications [Keary 2002].
In seismic surveying, sound waves are mechanically generated

and sent into the earth (Figure1.1). Some of this energy is
reflected back to recording sensors, measuring devices that record
accurately the strength of this energy and the time it has taken for
this energy to travel through the various layers in the earth’s crust
and back to the locations of the sensors. These recordings are then
taken and, using specialized seismic data processing, are
transformed into visual images of the subsurface of the earth in
the seismic survey area.

Just as doctors use X-rays and audio or sonograms to see into the human body indirectly,
geoscientists use seismic surveying to obtain a picture of the structure and nature of the rock
layers indirectly [OGP 2011].
Figure 1.1(a) [Mustagh Resources LTD]: A simple echo experiment

to determine the distance to an acoustic reflector. The basic elements are: a source of acoustic energy, a listening
device, and timing and recording device to measure the reflected sound .
Figure 1.1(b) [Mustagh Resources LTD]: A simple echo experiment with a stronger source and more sensitive
receiver. In seismic exploration, our acoustic source is often an explosion of dynamite; our receiver is like a
microphone; and we record the ''sound'' so we can play it back later and message (process) the signals.
The seismic method is a remote sensing technique using sound. It only responds to boundaries
above a certain threshold level which itself varies with depth and displays the results in terms
of the two way travel time of the seismic wavefront. Even for the simplest structural
configuration an element of distortion is introduced by viewing the structures in terms of
travel time. This may not be too serious in most cases, but, where the subsurface structure is
complex; e.g. tight folding, thrusting, significant lateral velocity changes, etc., the seismic image
in travel time can be almost impossible to relate to the actual structure, even after migration of
the data. In addition to these time distortions, there is the problem of noise. Noise covers all
phenomena unrelated to geology and which have to be recognized and disregarded in
interpretation [GUPCO’s note].

Seismic methods are widely applied to exploration problems involving the detection and
mapping of subsurface boundaries of, normally, simple geometry. They also identify significant
physical properties of each subsurface unit. The methods are particularly well suited to the
mapping of layered sedimentary sequences and are therefore widely used in the search for oil
and gas. The methods are also used, on a smaller scale, for the mapping of near-surface
sediment layers, the location of the water table and, in an engineering context, site
investigation of foundation conditions including the determination of depth to bedrock. Seismic
surveying can be carried out on land or at sea and is used extensively in offshore geological
surveys and the exploration for offshore resources [Keary 2002].
Seismic surveys use reflected sound waves to produce a scanning of the Earth’s subsurface
[Sroor 2010]. Seismic reflection is very simple in principle: we make a bang, and we listen for
echoes. Indeed we have all done it-shouted across a canyon, timed the echo, and worked out
the distance to the far wall [Slb]. The unique advantage of seismic reflection data is that it
permits mapping of many horizon or layers with each shot [US EPA]. We detonate an explosive
charge at a first shot-point (SPI in Figure 1.2), and we record on tape the reflections received
at a geophone close to the shot-point [Slb].
(Sometimes we call the bang the source and the geophone the receiver). Then we move both
source and geophone to shot-point 2 (Figure 1.3), and record the reflections in the same way.
Thereafter we do the same at shot-points 3 to N, with the shot-points being equally spaced
along the seismic line [Slb].

Then we take the recorded geophone signals to a computer. There, after some operations to
improve the clarity of the reflections, we display the results in the form of a seismic section
(Figure 1.4).
First, we draw on a sheet of paper a horizontal line to represent the datum. Then we mark off
along it equally spaced points to represent the shot-points. Beneath each shot-point we draw a
vertical trace. And on each trace we mark the reflection(s) recorded by the geophone at that
shot-point. Thus the horizontal scale of the seismic section is proportional to distance along the
seismic line; the vertical scale is proportional to two-way reflection time down into the earth
and back.
To a first approximation, then, a seismic section can be taken as a vertical slice through the
earth. We can see structure, as reflections come higher and lower in the section in the manner
of Figure 1.4. If we have a grid of seismic lines, and a corresponding set of seismic sections, we
can follow a reflection from line to line, and so construct a contour map from our set of vertical
sections. From our contour map we can see if there is a structural trap, and if so we can see
where to drill [Slb].
Often, we get the structure right using seismic methods, but we find no oil or gas. Perhaps
there is no source rock; we did find a probable shale layer deposited in a restricted basin, but
we could do no more than hope that it would be organically rich - it was not. Perhaps there is
no migration path; we knew that there was a layer between source rock and reservoir rock, but
we could do no more than hope that it would be permeable - it was not. Or perhaps there is no
seal, or the seal is broken by fractures. We have strictly geological problems, and the seismic
method cannot help [Slb].
Often, we get the structure right, and the structure contains petroleum, but something else is
wrong. Perhaps, not knowing where the fluid contacts are, we drill too far down-dip. Perhaps
the reservoir has too little porosity, or too little permeability, and our seismic results told us
nothing of this [Slb].

Sometimes there is a genuine geological ambiguity. As a first example, we map seismically a
body whose shape in plan is like Figure 1.5 ; we infer it is a river channel, and we are right.
But there are two possibilities: the channel is cut into sealing clay, and is full of reservoir sand;
or the channel is full of sealing clay, and defines a point bar of reservoir sand within its curve.
In the one case we should drill the channel; in the other we must not - we must drill the point
bar. As a second example, we remember from our basic geology that the upper configuration of
Figure 1.6 , when seen in section, is the signature of a prograding shelf, and that the lower
configuration is the signature of a delta [Slb].
But if the prograding shelf is truncated by erosion (the dashed line) we may mistake the
uninteresting shapes of its forest beds for highly prospective delta-front sand. Perhaps we see
an example of this, near 0.5 s, on the eastern half of Figure 1.7 .

So there is an abundance of genuine geological uncertainties, about which the geophysicist can
do very little. The recognition of the uncertainties is the estimation of geological risk; this is the
concern of the geologist within us. But we must also recognize the seismic risk - the concern of
the geophysicist within us [Slb].
1. There is a risk associated with cost; they are expensive $. Suppose that we have a
classical anticlinal prospect in a known producing area. Dip in three directions (three-way
dip) is established. In the fourth direction there is an element of doubt. We could resolve this
doubt by shooting another seismic line, at a cost of, say, $50,000. The prospect is shallow, and
the well will cost us only $250,000 (dry-hole cost). The geophysical department says, "Don't
risk $250,000 when the risk could be removed for $50,000." But the drilling department says,
"So you do the seismic, and the closure is there - or maybe you're not sure, but you think so -
and now it costs us $300,000. Besides, for seismic costs all you get is a piece of paper; for
drilling costs you get definite results, and pieces of rock, and maybe some oil - some immediate
cash flow. So drill!"
The effect of this is that companies are usually prepared to pay for more seismic work, to
resolve a doubt, when the well is expensive (deep, or offshore). But when the well is shallow -
or someone else is paying for it - the answer is often no. The risk of drilling without additional
seismic data is taken consciously, as a business decision [Slb].
2. There is a risk associated with line spacing. The traditional seismic method works
along lines, and uses a grid of lines to obtain its maps. But how far apart should the lines be?

Figure 1.8: it shows varying seismic line spacing
If we are looking for giant smooth anticlines, a reconnaissance grid assures us that we shall not
miss a target. We do not even need a line actually across its crest, for if the lines define the
flanks of the anticline properly our contour map will fill in the rest. We see that there is an
important interplay between line spacing and the operation of contouring; in effect the
operation of contouring saves us seismic lines by filling the spaces in a geologically plausible
manner. But obviously there are limits, which depend on the degree of geological complexity.
We may see an anticlinal axis on one line, and another axis on another line, and be reasonably
confident that they are the same axis - the direction of the regional structural trend is probably
well known. But we can seldom do this with faults; to delineate a fault trap (or to decide
whether a large anticlinal structure is vented by faults) may require many lines in a detail grid.
The usual practice emerging from this is that, in a new area, we first shoot a reconnaissance
grid (with lines 5, 10, or even 50 km apart). When we find something, we shoot a semi detail
grid over it (with lines 1 or 2 km apart). And before we drill we shoot a detail grid of lines a
few hundred meters apart; in the limit we abandon the grid-of-lines approach, and shoot a full
areal (or 3-D) survey.
Whatever we do, it always seems that, to be certain, we need one more line. But the seismic
crew has left the area, or there is no more budget. Thus insufficient coverage can be a
significant seismic risk [Slb].
3. There is a risk of a location error. The seismic work may not be where we think it is, and
when (months or years later) the rig moves in, it may drill the hole in the wrong place. This is
not a significant risk in cultivated areas replete with benchmarks, but in areas of pristine
jungle or wilderness we must erect permanent markers to guarantee the rig location relative to
the seismic lines. The major risk of a location error comes at sea [Slb].

4. There is a risk from seismic noise. In an idealized discussion of seismic sections we think
of the geophone as receiving nothing but reflections of the "bang" - reflections coming up from
below. To the degree that this is true, we can ascribe real and total geological significance to
each trace; every last wiggle, however tiny, represents some genuine geological feature deep in
the earth. But what if that geophone was planted in the ground near a tree, swaying in the
wind? Or what if the farmer starts his tractor? Or a truck comes roaring by? Or the geophone
is hit on the head by a raindrop? Or the insects start burrowing under it? Or the line runs past
a factory, or along the beach?
In practice, we cannot eliminate these effects entirely, but clearly we must minimize them. The
weapon we have is that if we make a second bang in the same place, and record the geophone
output, then the component which is due to the reflective earth is the same, while the noise is
different. This gives us our tool to minimize the risk from noise [Slb].
5. There is a risk associated with seismic velocity. Remember that the vertical scale of a
seismic section is reflection time, not depth. In the case of an echo-sounder, or of the seafloor
reflection on a seismic section, we can interpret time as depth because the velocity in water is
known and (substantially) constant. But in the earth this is not so; the velocity in rocks is
variable over a range of at least 4:1. Figure 1.9 illustrates the danger [Slb].
We see an enormous salt swell, rising almost to the surface. From the configuration of the
reflections on the flanks of the swell - the conformity, the thinning, and the onlap - we can see
the history of the salt movement. And below the salt we see a major structural high, rising to
just above 2.0 s near SP 400-440. Sealed as it is by salt, this structure could be very attractive.
But is it real?

Salt is one of the few rocks whose velocity can usually be predicted; it is about 4500 m/s or
15,000 ft/s, and not much dependent on depth. As seismic velocities go, this is fairly high. In
particular, it is considerably more than we would expect for the rocks on the flanks. In Figure
1.10 we set up a hypothetical situation where the velocity in the salt Is 15,000 ft/s, the velocity
in the flanking rocks is 7500 ft/s, and the base of the salt is actually flat and horizontal [Slb].
In Figure 1.11 we see the seismic section which results from this; the base of the salt now
shows a major structural high.
This is, of course, a dramatic example. But we do not have to be so extreme; Figure 1.12 shows
how a lateral gradient of velocity can convert an uninteresting plunging nose into a closed high.

The contours illustrate a nose open to the southeast; while we might think of the marked values
as being in units of depth, for now let us read them as milliseconds of reflection time. The
northeast-southwest lines are iso-velocity lines, showing a regular gradient of velocity
increasing to the southeast. Between the 1000 ms contour and the 900 ms contour there is a
10% change of time, but a 17% change of velocity - so the structure now closes [Slb].
Many dry holes have been drilled because of an unrecognized lateral variation of velocity.
Many base-salt structures have been drilled and found nonexistent. Others have been drilled
and found productive; it all depends on the amount of time closure and the difference of
velocity between the salt and the flanking rocks.
Worse still, many oil fields have been missed altogether because of an unrecognized lateral
variation of velocity. Unquestionably, velocity problems represent a key component of seismic
risk [Slb].
6. There is a risk associated with the near-surface. The simplest case to consider is that of
Figure 1.13 - marine work in water of constant depth.
We take our datum as mean sea-level, and have nothing to concern us but the tides. However,
in Figure 1.14 the dipping sea floor, coupled with a rock velocity higher than water velocity,
implies a lateral gradient of velocity to deeper horizons.

If we do not correct for this, the sea-floor structure of Figure 1.15 will introduce a false
appearance of structure into a plane reflector at depth.
However, the correction is easy; all we need to the water depth and an estimate of the velocity
in the sea-floor rocks. In general, therefore, there is not much risk of false structure, from this
cause, in marine seismic sections.
The situation on land is more hazardous. As suggested in Figure 1.16 , we may have different
thicknesses of different materials between the surface and our datum.
For observations at A and B we have only to consider the elevations of the two points above
datum, and the velocity of the outcropping bedrock; this is an elevation correction. When we
make the observation at C, however, we must include the effect of a layer of dry fill, whose
velocity may be as low as 700 m/s or 2300 ft/s; now it becomes important to know the depth to
bedrock. At D we have an additional complication; below the water table the velocity of the fill
Is likely to increase (perhaps to 2000 m/s or 6600 ft/s), so that we also need to know the depth
to the water table. These corrections for loose material are called weathering corrections;
elevation and weathering corrections together are called static corrections. Static corrections
(or rather errors in static corrections, introduced by the uncertainties of the near-surface) are a
significant risk where the near-surface is variable, the low-velocity layer is thick, and
structural closure is small [Slb].

7. There is a risk that structures are not where they appear to be. This follows directly
if we plot each reflection vertically below the point of observation. From Figure 1.17 we can
see immediately that this is correct only if the reflector is horizontal.
We know that for a dipping reflector the reflecting zone is laterally displaced updip from the
point of observation. In Figure 1.17 (a), which represents the reality of the seismic process in
the field, this lateral displacement is indicated as h. In Figure 1.17 (b), which represents the
seismic section, we can see that a process is required to move the reflection from its usual
plotted position vertically under SPI to a new position with the same lateral displacement h.
This process is termed migration (not to be confused with the migration of petroleum). The
seismic section in which each reflection is plotted vertically below the point of observation is
called an unmigrated section; that where each reflection is moved the appropriate distance
updip is called a migrated section.
In Figure 1.18 we can see the effect of the migration process: the axes of the anticlines and
synclines (where the dip is zero) are unmoved; the synclines are broadened and the anticlines
are narrowed.

In Figure 1.19 ,
and Figure 1.20 we see the effect in seismic section
and in Figure 1.21 , and Figure 1.22 respectively we see it on the corresponding contour map.

In this case, a simple local reversal of regional dip, the migration process does not much affect
the shape of the structure or the place we would drill, but it decreases the closed area (and
hence the possible reserves of petroleum).
For simple anticlines, therefore, the need for migration is a caution but not a threat. For a fault
trap, however, it can be much more serious. If we suppose, in Figure 1.17 (a), that the reflector
is faulted just updip from the zone of reflection, and that we wish to drill right at the point of
reflection, it is essential that we migrate the reflection (along the arrow in Figure 1.17 (b)); if
we drill at the indicated position on the unmigrated section we shall be much too far downdip
from the fault. The importance of this is illustrated showing the position of a prospective fault
trap before (Figure 1.23) and after migration (Figure 1.24).

Although failure to migrate has accounted for many dry holes drilled in the past, this is
unlikely to happen today. However, that is not the end of the risk, because the migration
process requires knowing the velocities - and we have already accepted that the velocities are
often in some doubt. So some risk remains; at present, wells drilled to test a fault trap
sometimes find the wrong side of the fault, or penetrate the reservoir too far downdip. Similar
disappointments occur with unconformity traps. No surprise, then, that some exploration
teams play safe, and insist on at least some turnover in their traps. (But then they miss some oil
fields) [Slb].
8. There is a risk of side-swipe. Figure 1.25 illustrates the problem.
It shows SPI of Figure 1.17 again, but now the plane of the paper is north-south; we are
looking along the seismic line, to the east. We visualize the situation where our reflection
comes from a reflector dipping to the north, across the seismic line, rather than one dipping to
the west as in Figure 1.17 . Then, following our normal practice, we display the reflection
vertically below SPI on the seismic section (Figure 1.25 (b)). But this reflection does not come
from vertically below the line; it really should not be present on a section purporting to be a
vertical section through the line. Perhaps it has structure on it, or faulting; we shall be totally
misled, and perhaps drill a dry hole, if we read the structure or faulting as being in the vertical
plane of section.
This problem, of course, is not corrected by the migration we discussed above (which was
appropriate only to reflections genuinely in the vertical plane of section). For this problem we
need three-dimensional migration, which requires some sort of three-dimensional field
technique. This we can provide if we know we need it; the trouble with side-swipe is that we
may not know it is there.
Figure 1.26 is an example where (in the right-central region, at about 1.5 s) we know that
there must be side-swipe; the face-value message of the section is clearly impossible,
geologically.

But in general we are not so sure, and side-swipe remains a significant risk [Slb].
9. There is a risk from refraction. In Figure 1.27 (a) we see the seismic observation right at
the crest of an anticline; this observation, we have said, is immune from migration problems
because the dip is zero.
We plot the crestal reflection vertically below the observation point, and all is well. Nothing
changes if, as suggested in the sketch, there is some other conformable layering above our
target reflector. But in Figure 1.27 (b) we visualize a wedge of high-velocity material (in the
optical analog a prism) between the surface and the target reflector. Just as in optics, the
seismic "ray" is bent where it meets the Interface at an angle, being refracted away from the
perpendicular on passing from a low-velocity to a high-velocity material. The effect of this is
that the seismic method "sees" the crest of the anticline from an observation point which is
displaced. If now we plot the crestal reflection vertically below the observation point, and drill
the crest of the anticline, the drill bit will encounter the target downdip.

We note that this effect is quite distinct from that of simple dip, which is corrected by
migration. It is also distinct from that of a lateral velocity gradient, which is corrected by using
appropriately different values of velocity when converting from reflection time to reflection
depth. What is more, we can see that, if the geology has the complexity of Figure 1.28 , the
effect of refraction might be very difficult to unravel; two points close together on the deep
target reflector are observed from very different points on the surface.
10. There is a risk of inadequate resolution, defined here as the measure of our ability to
see that two separate reflections are indeed separate. (Just as in astronomy, where the
resolution decides whether we can see two close stars as two, or whether they blur into one.)
One obvious illustration of the importance of resolution is the case of reservoir sand which
thins and pinches out. Ideally we wish to see a sharp reflection from the top of the sand, a
separate sharp reflection from the base of the sand, and a clear indication of their coming
together and terminating. Unfortunately the seismic method is not very good at this; it tends to
give a picture which is (as it were) out of focus.
For example, if we squint across the section near 1.2 s on Figure 1.29 we can see clear evidence
of the thinning of beds (and their final termination) at an unconformity.

But if we ask the details - how thick are the individual layers, and where exactly is the feather
edge? - We begin to feel humble. Certainly we have no feeling at all for reflections that might
be less than 10 ms apart on the section; at a typical velocity of 3000 m/s (10,000 ft/s) this
would correspond to a layer thickness of 15 m (50 ft). In many settings, a reservoir this thick
could be a handsome reservoir; but 2-D seismic methods are most unlikely to see anything but
a blurred version of the reservoir and the rocks above and below it.
Fortunately, 3-D seismic methods provide smaller line spacing that translates into much
improved resolution. Thus, even small features (e.g., thin beds and small lateral changes such as
faults, channels and local zones of porosity) can be defined that in times past would have been
missed completely.
The three important properties of rocks defining seismic behavior are velocity V, density , and
their product the acoustic impedance r = V. If we were asked to say which two of the three are
the fundamental ones, we would select velocity and acoustic impedance - velocity, because it
controls the process of refraction, and acoustic impedance, because it controls the process of
reflection.
It is easy to see physically how the acoustic impedance controls reflection. We know that a
seismic wave propagating in a soft rock would involve large particle motion but small excess
pressure, while a hard rock would sustain large degrees of compression with very little particle
motion. It is therefore impossible for a seismic wave to pass from a soft rock into a hard rock
and retain the same energy, for this would require different particle motion on the two sides of
the interface. The amount of energy reflected is just that necessary to give the same particle
motion on the two sides of the interface, thus maintaining the two rocks in contact [Slb].
No energy is lost in the process; the sum of the reflected and transmitted energy is equal to the
incident energy.
The reflection coefficient is defined as the ratio of the reflected and incident amplitudes, and
this is given by the difference of the acoustic impedances divided by their sum. We shall use
this equation repeatedly.
In the form given in the figure, the equation applies to the measurements of the amplitude of
excess pressure. We note in particular that the two measurements - incident and reflected
amplitude - are both made in the same (upper) material [Slb].
In practice, we are more concerned with seismic amplitudes than with seismic energy. The
fundamental equation of seismic reflection is then stated as in Figure 1.30 (The reflection of a
plane wave at normal incidence on a plane reflector).

In the equation for reflection coefficient, the numerator is clearly much more important than
the denominator. In particular, the numerator determines the sign (or the polarity) of the
reflection. If the far material is harder than the near material the reflection coefficient is
positive, and a compression is reflected as a compression. If the far material is softer, the
reflection coefficient is negative, and a compression is reflected as a rarefaction as shown in
Figure 1.31(a).
Analogs of these situations exist in an organ pipe; the closed end has a reflection coefficient of
+1, the open end of -1. Perhaps even simpler is the behavior of a rope hanging from the hand,
as illustrated in Figure 1.31(b).
Figure 1.31(a). Left-hand side, a 5-layer model’s Figure 1.31(b). The behavior of a rope
reflectivity values; center, the reflectivity series; right, hanging from the hand.
the synthetic seismogram provided by convolution
with a 30 Hz Ricker wavelet.
If the bottom end is left free (a), slow oscillation of the top end of the rope produces an equal
and opposite motion at the bottom end; there is motion, but the bottom end of the rope exerts
no forces. However, if the bottom end is fixed (b), there is no motion, but the rope exerts a force
on the anchor point.

In the earth there can be no immovable layer, and no vacuum. However, reflection coefficients
approaching 1 occur at the free surface, where the acoustic impedance of the air is very small
compared to that of rocks or water. Figure 1.32 reminds us that the downgoing pulse from a
buried charge is followed (after double the uphole time) by a ghost reflection; in principle this
ghost is almost equal in amplitude to the direct pulse, but opposite in sign [Slb].
In practice, the amplitude of the ghost reflection on land is reduced by double transmission
through the absorptive near-surface layers (and in all cases it may be reduced by roughness of
the surface), but the reflection coefficient of the surface remains the largest reflection
coefficient encountered in seismic.
The large reflection coefficient at the air-earth surface is also the problem in air-shooting.
Explosive charges in the air are very inefficient as seismic sources, because most of the signal is
reflected back into the air; it is only the phenomenon of bubble resonance that allows us to use
air-shooting at all (and then only in situations - such as very rugged terrain -where there is no
viable alternative).
If we were making all our reflection measurements in terms of particle velocity, we might
choose to change the definition of reflection coefficient to accommodate this; it would be
(r1 - r2)/ (r1 + r2). But we do not do this. We stay with the pressure definition, and always
regard an interface from soft to hard as positive. Then we remember to take care when we are
recording both downgoing and upcoming waves with a velocity-sensitive geophone in a
borehole; under these conditions a positive reflector inverts the reflection pulse (Figure 1.33)

and Figure 1.34 , A measurement of excess pressure is insensitive to the direction of the ray; a
measurement of particle motion is not), and thus may visually appear to be negative.
We should note the following observations:

· No other reflector within the earth has a reflection coefficient as large as that of the
free surface.
· In places where basement rocks are exposed on the sea floor, the reflection coefficient
of the sea floor can be as much as +0.8. This situation, typified by offshore eastern
Canada, makes our work very difficult (the "hard-bottom problem"); much of the
outgoing seismic energy is trapped in the water layer.
· In places where active deposition is occurring on the sea floor, a transition of acoustic
impedance exists just below the sea floor. The reflection coefficient of the sea floor is
typically +0.3, and is contributed in large part by the contrast of density.
· The vast majority of interfaces in the earth have very small reflection coefficients. In a
representative sand-shale sequence, in particular, reflection coefficients of ±0.05 are
typical; these are usually due mostly to the contrast of velocity.
· Strong reflections usually indicate a marked contrast of rock type. Thus the interface
between a marine shale and a hard tight limestone can have a reflection coefficient as
high as +0.3. However, there are not usually many such reflectors in the geologic
column.
· One particularly anomalous rock is coal; a shale/coal interface can have a reflection
coefficient of -0.5, contributed in large part by density.
· A similar reflection coefficient (but positive) can occur at the top of a Tertiary sill; most
of the contribution, but not all, is by velocity.
· The reflection coefficient of a gas-water contact is always positive.
· The reflection coefficient of an oil-water contact is also positive, but it is very small.

· The low density of salt can produce unusual effects; thus the interface between soft
shale and salt can be weakly positive, while that between hard shale and salt can be
weakly negative. In between, of course, the reflection coefficient can be zero; the
velocity increases across the interface, but the density decreases.
· The reflection coefficient at the top of porous gas-saturated reservoir sand is almost
always negative; for a given cap-rock, the reflection strength is a coarse measure of the
porosity.
Many of these conclusions are concerned with unusual situations; we have to take note of
them, but their number should not obscure the fundamental fact that most reflection
coefficients in the earth are small. The majority of our picking is probably done on reflection
coefficients of magnitude less than 0.1. A reflection coefficient of 0.2 is likely to yield a strong
and "easy" reflection, but all too often we shall be trying to pick reflections from reflection
coefficients of 0.05 [Slb].
Now we must consider the part of the seismic signal that is not reflected, but passes through
the reflector and is available for reflection from deeper reflectors.
The governing equation (for plane waves and plane reflectors at normal incidence) is given in
Figure 1.35 (Transmission of a plane wave through a plane reflector at normal incidence).
Comparing the transmission coefficient T in this figure with the reflection coefficient R in the
previous Figure 1.30 (The reflection of a plane wave at normal incidence on a plane reflector), we notice
that the denominator (r2 + r1) is the same, but the numerator is now simply 2r2.
Further, we can see that by simple manipulation of the equations, the transmission
coefficient is equal to the reflection coefficient plus one [Slb].

The initial surprise in this is the plus sign. Clearly it means that, for a positive reflector, the
transmitted amplitude is greater than the incident amplitude. The key to understanding this is
to note that we are no longer making the measurements in the same material; the incident
amplitude is measured in the near material, the transmitted amplitude in the far material.
Although the transmitted energy is obviously less than the incident energy, the transmitted
pressure amplitude in the harder material exceeds the incident pressure amplitude in the softer
material. To harmonize this, of course, the transmitted particle-velocity amplitude in the
harder material must be less than the incident particle-velocity amplitude in the softer
material; the transmission coefficient for measurements of excess pressure is 1 + R, but for
measurements of particle velocity it is 1 - R. [Slb]
The sum of the reflected and transmitted amplitudes, therefore, does not equal the incident
amplitude. But the sum of the reflected and transmitted energies does equal the incident
energy. (This is quickly checked by using the expression for seismic intensity where intensity I
(the energy flux across unit area in unit time) is (l/2) p2/r. The reflected intensity is therefore
(l/2) p2R2/r1 and the transmitted intensity is (l/2) p2T2/r2; adding these yields the incident
intensity (l/2) p2/r1.)
Unlike the reflection coefficient, the transmission coefficient is always positive. Transmission
cannot turn a compression into a rarefaction. The larger the reflection coefficients, the greater
the decay due to transmission: more up, less down [Slb].
To cause a significant transmission decay requires either several very strong reflectors, or the
compounded effect of many hundreds or thousands of normal reflectors.
As a corollary, slow and continuous changes of acoustic impedance (such as those imposed by
compaction) do not introduce transmission decay. The test is whether we observe reflections; if
there are reflections, there must be transmission decay. More up, less down.
Figure 1.36 illustrates that the seismic energy passing from point source O to geophone G
requires a volume of rock.

The limits of this volume of rock are very fuzzy, but as a first approximation we may consider
the ellipsoidal volume for which the path length OAG (or OBG) exceeds the direct path OG by
half a "wavelength" (b). In so doing, we accept that the breadth of the rock volume would be
less for high frequencies than for low frequencies (c).
Figure 1.37 is a counterpart of Figure 1.36 , configured to include reflection [Slb].
Using our standard construction, with O' as the image of the source in the reflector, the
diagram illustrates that an area of the reflector must be considered as contributing to the
reflection. Reflections do not occur at a point (as would be suggested by rays), but over an area.
This is physically reasonable; an infinitesimal point could return only infinitesimal energy
[Slb].
Using the same criterion as before for the limits of the volume (and therefore of the area
contributing to the reflection), we have that O'AG (or O'BG) exceeds the direct path O'G by half
a "wavelength." This allows us to solve for diameter AB, using Pythagoras; it is
approximately √ , where the velocity, t is the reflection time, and p is the "period" of the
seismic pulse. The physicists among us will recognize this as the diameter of the first Fresnel
zone.
There are two adjustments we need to make to this before we use it. First, it can be shown that
in a layered earth (as distinct from the constant-velocity earth of the figure), the diameter
becomes √ , where is the rms velocity. Second, we would expect that the contribution of
the central part of the reflection area is greater than the edge part; the reflection contribution is
"center-weighted ". Model experiments suggest that almost all the reflection arises in the central
half of the area (that is, in the central 71% of the diameter). Many geophysicists feel that in
practice the figure is smaller than this; some, to make it easy to remember, say 50%. We shall
do this here: the diameter of the reflection zone is taken, approximately, as ( ) √ ... the radius
as ( ) √ . [Slb]

These adjustments are material; we should not use the term "Fresnel zone" when we mean
something less and different. Therefore we shall always use the term reflection zone to describe
the area contributing most of the reflection; some researchers use the term "rar" (required
area for reflection).
The geometry of the paths in Figure 1.37 is basically similar to that of normal moveout. Indeed
the easy way to assess the size of the reflection zone is to look directly at the NMO on a field
record. Figure 1.38,
Figure 1.39
and Figure 1.40 (The relation between the reflection zone and the normal moveout
observed on a field record) illustrate this [Slb].

At (a) we see how two successive positions of the wavefront, a quarter-"wavelength" apart,
define the Fresnel zone. At (b) we see how the ray geometry relates to that of normal moveout.
At (c) we see a notional field record from a split spread; the zero-offset trace is blacked in, as
are the two traces for which the NMO is half a "period." The spread distance between these two
outer traces is equal to the diameter B of the Fresnel zone, as shown at (c). The majority of the
reflection activity occurs in the central part of this zone, as suggested by the weighting
function to the left of (c), and by the shading C within the circle B. Therefore the diameter of
the effective reflection zone may be taken as about equal to the offset from the source to the
first geophone that shows half a "period" of NMO.
The reflection zone is surprisingly large. For a shallow reflector in a low-velocity area a
figure of 120 m (400 ft) would be typical; for a deep reflector in a high-velocity area it might
be as much as 1200 m (4000 ft) [Slb].
At these dimensions it is possible for the reflection coefficient of a reflector to suffer some
geological changes within the zone; in this case, obviously, the effective reflection coefficient is
some blurred average.
These concepts place a limit on our ability to resolve the fine detail of a reflector. Also, the
process of migration has the nominal effect of collapsing the reflection zone to a point - just as
if we were dealing with rays again, rather than waves. Does this mean that all our concerns
about the size of the reflection zone are swept away?
No. First, the process of migration is not perfect; the reflection zone is reduced, but not to a
point. Second, two-dimensional migration (of a section, along a seismic line) cannot reduce the
reflection zone in the cross-line direction; thus the reflection zone becomes oval, with its long
axis across the line. And third, even if three-dimensional migration could collapse the
reflection zone almost to a point, the apparent reflection coefficient at that point would still be
a rather blurred average over the original reflection zone [Slb].

At this stage we can see when a reflector becomes a scatterer. If a body of anomalous acoustic
impedance has dimensions large enough to accommodate the reflection zone appropriate to its
depth, we see it as a reflector; the reflection process is specular, so that the angle of reflection
equals the angle of incidence. If the body is a little smaller than this, we may still see it
predominantly as a reflector, but the reflection we obtain is a little weaker than would be
expected. And if the body is small, relative to the reflection zone, we obtain diffraction; the
body becomes a Huygens source, radiating energy in all directions ... scattering. The strength of
the scatterer becomes small, of course, if the volume of the body is small; it is still true that an
infinitesimal secondary source can produce only infinitesimal energy.
The reflection zone is larger for deep reflectors than for shallow ones; this becomes even more
marked when we remember that the pulse "wavelength" also increases with depth, because of
absorption. If we add to this the effect of spherical spreading from a scattering source, it is easy
to see that the shallow scatterers are the ones that do the most damage. This is true, in the first
place, for the scatterers that fall within the volume of rock contributing to the pulse
(Figure 1.41 (a) (Scatterers, small relative to the reflection zone, act to lengthen the seismic
pulse if they are within the volume of rock contributing to a reflection); these, we remember,
contribute to the lengthening and blurring of the pulse [Slb].
It is also true for the scatterers outside this volume (Figure 1.41 (b)) which effectively become
sources of noise.
Modern workstations, with fast access to large storage, allow us to get a good grasp of these
effects. We arrange all the field records shot along a line as successive frames of a movie, and
then display this at movie pace. (The demonstration works best on marine data, less trammeled
by the need for static corrections.) The basic geological picture then reveals itself as a slow
movement, as reflectors rise and fall with structure. But superimposed on this slowly changing
picture is a fast-moving background of reproducible noise, flashing through the display from
one side to the other against the motion of the ship [Slb].

The first time that this was done (at Stanford University) was probably the first time that we
obtained any real feeling for scattering as a source of noise. Seeing the display, we understood
better that the suppression of this noise is one of the major benefits of common-midpoint
stacking; the scattered event appears at different times on all the traces of the gather, and so is
attenuated in the stack. Indeed we began to see that our empirical local choices of source and
spread configuration for common-midpoint stacking probably owe much to the local size,
depth, and spacing of scatterers [Slb].
Seismic work is normally divided into field work, processing, and interpretation. The interface
between field work and processing is the medium on which the geophone signals are recorded;
the interface between processing and interpretation is the seismic section.
Most oil companies use contractors to do the field work. Some use contractors to do the
processing also. But almost all do the interpretation themselves; in part this is for reasons of
security, and in part because interpretation requires a familiarity with local geology which
would not ordinarily be expected of a contractor.
Nowadays most geophysicists specialize in one of these three divisions:
· Some do the field work (or data acquisition, or just acquisition). Those who do are
likely to have their initial training in electronics and instrumentation. Equally
important, perhaps, is an ability to work long days in rough conditions, to maintain
good working relationships among the crew, and to grin when the trucks get stuck in
the mud;
· Some do the processing. Those who do are likely to have their initial training in
computer technology. Some are mathematicians and programmers, devising and
realizing the techniques to be used. Others prepare the field data for computer
processing, stipulate what programs should be applied, and specify the final sections;
· And some do the interpretation. Those who do are likely to have their initial training in
petroleum geology. They are the first to be blamed when we drill a dry hole.
But there is great danger in separating these three concerns too rigidly. The field geophysicist
needs to learn what happens to the records, and why it is so important to record them well. The
processing geophysicist must accept the realities imposed by field conditions and understand
what the interpreter is trying to do. And the interpreter must be aware of the disturbing,
sometimes alarming, degree to which interpretation depends on the physics of the seismic
method and on the care and understanding shown by his or her colleagues in the field and the
computer center [Slb].

The exploration cycle - as shown in figure 1.42 - involves the conception of a prospect idea,
followed by research and prospect enhancement, usually followed by seismic exploration.
Seismic consists of parameter design, project planning, acquisition, processing and
interpretation. Based on the results of this process, a well may be drilled. If we have performed
all elements of the process exceptionally well (and if we are very lucky) we will achieve
economic success with the drill bit [Mustagh Resources LTD].
Figure 1.42. Model of the exploration cycle

CHAPTER
OUTLINE
This chapter describes the principal ways in which data acquisition Introduction
Crew Organization
affects the seismic data processing effort. This includes information Part I:
Land Seismic Data
about array configurations, geometry, and the physical arrangement Acquisition
of the acquisition methods themselves. Part 2:
Marine Seismic Data
It may be that the most frequently asked question about seismic Acquisition
acquisition is about the optimum approach to seismic acquisition.
Fundamentally this is a question about the geometry and the receiver
array, but it easily expands to include what source we should use,
what microphones we should employ, whether or not we should use
geophone sub-arrays.
The answers to these questions are mathematically and physically

clear. For each source, the receiver array should consist of point
receivers (no arrays) densely sampled over a wide aperture array
encompassing a large square area. The source, however it is formed,
should be a point source (no arrays) generating energy uniformly in
all directions. For maximum benefit, there should be full source-
receiver reciprocity; that is, for each receiver position, there should be
a source, and for each source there should be a receiver. Hopefully,
this chapter will make the reason for these statements clear.

Unfortunately, there are many reasons why the mathematics and physics are almost always
ignored-primarily, economics and practicality trump correctness. Furthermore, faced with
budget limitations in an era when oil was relatively easy to find, little or no consideration was
given to the underlying mathematical assumptions. Many geophysicists assumed that
mathematics, including the wave equation, did not apply to the seismic acquisition process.
Arrays were designed to control perceived noise, but frequently depressed the dip response.
Fancy acquisition geometries were designed to reduce costs, but resulted in data sets that could
not image geologic objectives.
A seismic crew is a team of people who conduct seismic tests to gather information about the
geology of an area of interest. Seismic crews can also work in mineral exploration, natural gas
exploration on and in the ocean, and scientific research (Net note). Seismic crews differ greatly
in size, ranging from two or three people for a shallow land survey for engineering objectives
to more than a hundred people for surveys in jungle areas where many men are required to
cut trails and bring in supplies. Consequently, the organization of the crew varies (Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1 [Slb]: Field crew hierarchy.
A supervisor, or party chief, usually a professional geophysicist, has the overall responsibility
for a field crew. He is often assisted by an administrator or office manager, especially when
many personnel are involved.
A party manager is usually responsible for field operations. His main responsibility is to
obtain maximum production and adequate quality to reasonable cost. Other field personnel
report to him; he also hires field helpers. He is responsible for safety, equipment maintenance,
maintaining adequate supplies, paying bills, and operation of the field camp where required.

The surveyor has the responsibility of locating survey points in their proper places. As the
advance man on the ground, he anticipates difficulties and problems that the survey will
encounter and seeks to avoid or resolve them. This involves investigating alternatives so that
the survey objectives may be achieved at minimum cost. He determines the best access routes
for subsequent units. He determines the best access routes for subsequent units. He may be
assisted by a permit man, who contacts land owners and tenants and secures permissions to
conduct the survey. He is also assisted by rodmen who help with measurements. In areas of
difficult access, he may also supervise brush cutters and bulldozer operators who clear the
way.
The observer is usually next after the party manager in field authority. He is responsible for
the actual field layouts and data acquisition, including operation of the instruments. He is
usually assisted by a junior observer and a crew of jug hustlers who lay out the cable and
geophones.
Other members of a field crew vary depending on the nature of the survey. A crew may have
one to four drillers, occasionally more, and assistants to help drill and haul water for the
drilling operations, or two to perhaps five operators of surface source units. A shooter is
responsible for detonating explosives at the proper time and for cleaning up the shot hole area
afterwards. Cooks and mechanics may be included where operations are performed out of field
camps.
A seismic crew is not only responsible for any damages from its operations, but also for
environmental considerations and safety [Sheriff 1995].

OUTLINE
The choice of energy source is critical in land data acquisition I.1 Land Energy Sources
because resolution and signal-to-noise ratio quality are limited by I.2 Land Seismic Receivers
the source characteristics. A geophysicist should select a source I.3 Recording Systems
based on the following five criteria [Talagapu 2005]: I.4 Seismic Array Design
  : Knowing what the I.5 Seismic Acquisition

Techniques
exploration objectives are, the geophysicist should select a
I.5.1 1D Acquisition
source that has adequate energy to illuminate the target
horizons. Past experience can help here.
 : If high resolution
reflections are required to delineate subtle geological features
such as a stratigraphic traps, the source must transmit a broad
range of frequencies, both high and low. For very shallow
targets, a detonator may possess adequate energy and
frequency bandwidth. For deeper reflections, the longer travel
path to a deep reflector requires the selection of a source that
has enough energy at the higher frequencies to maintain a
broad reflection bandwidth.
 : Different areas have different
noise problems. They may dictate the source selection.
 : When working in populated areas, there are

special safety requirements to which geophysicists must
adhere.
The time of arrival of a crew can be
extremely important.
Land Energy Sources are of two types: Explosive sources and Non Explosive sources (Table I.1).
Table I.1 [Gadallah 2009]: Energy source types.
Explosive sources produce robust P-waves. The selection of explosives as the sources of
choice depends primarily on near-surface conditions and the accessibility of other energy
sources. If drilling is fast and efficient, single shot hole filled with explosives might be the
most economical source option. The explosive source consists of a detonator and an
explosive charge. In the seismic industry, the explosive charge is commonly referred to as
‘powder’ and the detonators are referred to as ‘caps’ or ‘primers’ [Talagapu 2005].
I.1.1.1 Charge Size:

The choice of charge size depends largely on the depth to the horizon of
interest. The best charge size is that which achieved the maximum signal-to-noise
ratio (S/N) at the target depth. Deeper targets usually require larger charge sizes.
I.1.1.2 Charge Depth:

The charge depth depends on the depth of the weathering layer and the level
of noise interference one encounters when testing. Generally, the shallower the
source, the stronger the air-blast and the ground-roll are.
The commonest land impulse source is dynamite (which is also the oldest). This explosive
charge is a popular seismic source because it is a compact and light source of acoustic energy.
Traditionally, the explosive is high-velocity gelatin dynamite. Increasingly, however, various
branded explosives, which are safer to handle, and which have fewer restrictions on transport
and storage replace dynamite. Some of these are safe to the degree that the charge must include
a booster, of greater sensitivity, before it can be detonated. Most shooters continue to call their
explosives "dynamite," whatever they are; some old-timers still call them "powder" [Slb].

The traditional seismic technique, using explosives in drilled holes, has several disadvantages
in practice [Slb]:
 Drilled holes are expensive; deep holes in hard formations are even more expensive.
 Large charges of explosive are also expensive, and troublesome to handle.
 Explosions make the public nervous.
The probability of damage prevents shot-holes from being placed close to roads, pipelines,
power lines, wells or buildings. There are several. Of these, the most popular is Vibroseis,
originally developed by Continental Oil Company.
Vibroseis does not use explosions; it uses a vibrator shaking the surface of the ground. With
Vibroseis, seismic exploration can be conducted along roads, past buildings, and even
through towns. The value of this technique is enormous. In some places we can obtain
seismic results where they were impossible before; in others we can obtain them at less cost.
It is true that there are also some disadvantages, and that we have to make an intelligent
choice - whether to use Vibroseis or not - according to the circumstances. But the choice is
often Vibroseis; on a worldwide basis, two-fifths of land work now uses this method [Slb].
So there is no doubt, and no escape - we must learn about Vibroseis (Figure I.2).
Figure I.2: it illustrates the

vibroseis in field and show the base
plate coupling during shaking the
surface of the ground.
Vibroseis is the most common non-explosive source used for reflection surveying. It uses
truck-mounted vibrators to pass into the ground an extended vibration of low amplitude and
continuously varying frequency, known as a sweep signal. A typical sweep signal lasts from
several seconds up to a few tens of seconds and varies progressively in frequency between
limits of about 10 and 80 Hz. The field recordings consist of overlapping reflected wave trains
of very low amplitude concealed in the ambient seismic noise. . In order both to increase the
signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and to shorten the pulse length, each recorded seismogram is cross-
correlated with the known sweep signal to produce a correlated seismogram or correlogram
[keary 2002] as shown in (Figure I.3) [Slb].

In practice, of course, we have many reflectors and many reflections. If they are separated by a
time less than the duration of the sweep, the reflected sweeps overlap when they are detected
by the geophone. Is this a problem?
No. Given reasonable assumptions, we can accept the situation of Figure I.3 (Trace sequence),
in which we see the constituents of a Vibroseis record corresponding to the explosive record of
the first trace.
Trace a represents a trace of a traditional explosive record. It has a time-break, two positive
reflections (of simplified pulse form) and one negative reflection; the second and third
reflections overlap slightly. Now we consider the Vibroseis equivalents. Trace b shows the
sweep which we generate in the black box and send out into the earth.
Trace c shows the sweep reflected from the first reflector delayed by the appropriate travel
time. Trace d shows the same from the second reflector; like its counterpart reflection on the
explosive trace, it is smaller in amplitude. Trace e is negative.
The signal detected by the geophone is the sum of traces c, d and e; which is shown by trace f.
Wherever the reflected sweeps overlap in time, trace f is meaningless to the eye - we cannot
see specific reflections. But if we take trace f and pass it through our white box - the reflections
become obvious - trace g. Each long sweep, despite the overlap, is individually compressed into
its own short pulse. If we ignore for the moment our simplification of pulse shapes, the final
result is just like the traditional explosive record of trace a.

The zero-time pulse of trace h, equivalent to the time-break of trace a, is just the result of
passing the sweep of trace b - the sweep which went to the vibrator - through its own white
box, as in Figure I.4 (Transmitted and reflected sweep) [Slb].
The three main components of the Vibroseis system are:

 a black box to generate the sweep,
 a vibrator to emit the sweep into the earth, and
 a white box to compress the long sweep into a short reflection pulse.
The result of compressing the sweep sent to the vibrator is the zero-time pulse. The result of
compressing the overlapping sweeps detected by the geophone is a train of reflections basically
the same as that produced by the traditional explosive method [Slb].
The Vibroseis source is quick and convenient to use and produces a precisely known and
repeatable signal. It will not work well on soft ground. A particular advantage of vibrators is
that they can be used in towns since they cause no damage or significant disturbance to the
environment. A principal disadvantage of the Vibroseis method is that each fully configured
truck costs of the order of half a million dollars [keary 2002].
Vertical vibrators produce asymmetric radiation pattern of P-waves and S-waves. Horizontal
vibrators produce weak P-waves and robust S-waves. If multiple dynamite patterns do not
pump enough energy into the ground, vibrators may be preferred on technical grounds,
regardless of relative cost. Vibrators are designed in two basic groups [Talagapu 2005]:
and units (figure I.5).

Figure I.5 [Mustagh Resources LTD] : A diagrammatic view of a typical vibrator mounted on a
buggy carrier.
Table I.2: Advantages and disadvantages of Vibroseis and dynamite.
Although dynamite and Vibroseis are used in majority of surveys, other sources can be used
in the field 3D surveys, such as [Talagapu 2005]:
• Airguns and mud guns (used in transition zone surveys)

• Shotgun (Betsy)
• Mini-Seis (Thumper)
• Land air gun
• Dinoseis
• Elastic wave generator (EWG)
• Mini-vibes

Seismic energy is a form of mechanical energy. Seismic receivers convert this mechanical
energy into electrical energy. Different devices to perform this conversion must be used,
depending on the environment and physical quantity to be measured. In land operations the
quantity being measured is ground motion. In marine operations it is pressure. Table I.3 lists
the different types of seismic receivers.
Table I.3: Seismic receivers
The accelerometer uses a small mass, sandwiched between two piezoelectric crystals. An
acceleration of the case containing the crystals causes the mass to apply a force to the
crystals, creating an electric voltage. In the past they have rarely been used in seismic work,
partly because the high output impedance makes them very sensitive to electric pick-up.
However, recent advances in microelectronics will likely make accelerometers more
popular [Slb].
The velocity geophone is the common

receiver in use for land work. Figure I.6
is a cutaway diagram of a geophone.
The case holds working parts of the
geophone and usually has a planting
spike to hold the geophone to the
ground so that it faithfully follows the
motion of the ground. A spring
arrangement assures that the mass and
wire coil remain stationary with respect
to the earth as a whole. Surrounding the
coil, and fixed to the case is a Figure I.6: Geophone components
permanent magnet [Gadallah 2009].

The magnet follows the vibrations of the ground and the suspended coil remains still. The
relative motion of the coil between the magnetic field creates an electrical output
proportional to the velocity. An important aspect of the geophone is that the mass of the coil
on the spring is a resonant system. The manufacturer can change the frequency of
resonance, and it is usually designed to be around 10 to 14 Hz. Placing a resistor across the
output of the coil damps the resonance. The spring also allows some motion in other
directions, causing additional resonances, usually known as spurious resonances; these can
usually be designed to be above the typical seismic pass band [Slb].
For a geophone to be effective, it must vibrate in synchronization with the ground. This is
usually achieved by attaching a spike to the base of the geophone. The spike is pushed into
contact with firmer soil to couple it to the ground. It is important for the spike to be long
enough that it can reach the firmer soil, but not too long, so that the geophone base is not in
contact with the ground. Sometimes it is necessary to scrape away the loose material on the
surface. The compliant near-surface
gives rise to a coupling resonance in
addition to that of the geophone coil and
spring. Unlike the coil resonance, the
manufacturer has little control of the
coupling resonance. It varies according
to the surface conditions. The use of
lightweight geophones and good plants
should keep the coupling resonant
frequency above the useful seismic pass
band. The construction of the case and
spike is varied to suit different conditions, Figure I.7 (Selection of geophone types).
The geophones are connected together

in a string, typically in sets of 12, spaced
1 meter apart (Figure I.8 : Geophone
string on hasp). 'D' rings are fitted at
intervals along the interconnecting wire,
and these may be strung on a hasp,
allowing the connected receivers to be
easily carried and deployed.

The very earliest recording systems simply used a pair of wires to connect a single geophone to
move a pen over a rotating drum. In the 1950s the number of channels had increased to 24
and amplifiers and filters were used. By 1960, the data was usually recorded on tape in
analogue form. This enabled the data to be played back with different filter settings. In the
1960s, the digital age began, and the number of channels and level of sophistication began to
increase rapidly. By 2000, the number of channels on a 3-D crew had increased to 4000
typically. With the advent of multi-component recording, the numbers will continue to rise
[Slb].
The purpose of recording instruments is to provide an uncontaminated, precise, permanent

record of data detected by receivers in the spread so that data can be studied and analyzed at a
later date [Gadallah 2009]. Their functions are to receive the signal from the geophones, select
those necessary for the current record, condition and amplify the signal, digitize the signal and
store it on tape. It should be noted that these functions may be distributed in a number of
different ways. In the most basic arrangement, typically used for shallow studies, the
geophones are connected directly by wires to a central unit with all functions consolidated. In
more advanced systems, most of the functions are distributed to a point at or near the
geophones and digital data is transmitted to the central unit. One advantage of this approach is
that the signal is converted to digital form close to the receiver, making it immune from electric
noise. The central system is used to control the distributed units and collect and record the
digital signals [Slb].
The basic components of the land recording systems (Figure I.9) are [Talagapu 2005]:
I.3.1.1 Roll-along switch:

It allows the observer to record a selected subset of the geophones connected
to the recording truck. It minimizes the need to move the recording truck.
I.3.1.2 Pre-amplifier:
This is a fixed gain amplifier that raises the incoming seismic signal above the
background instrument noise level. The preamplifier has low noise, high input
impedance and low distortion.
I.3.1.3 Multiplexer:
This is an electronic switch that time shares data form multiple channels. It
changes multiple parallel inputs to a serial output relay for amplification, digitization
and recording.
I.3.1.4 Main Amplifier:

This amplifier receives all analog signals input to it and passes then on to the
A/D converter with an amount of gain determined by the gain controller.

I.3.1.5 A/D Converter:
Analog signals are converted to digital signals with this device. It allows the
analog stream of data to be recorded in digital form.
I.3.1.6 Gain controller:

The received signal includes, reflections, refractions, ground roll and
environmental noise, all of which may have amplitudes varying in a range from
microvolts to volts. A fixed form of amplification with only a relatively small
number of data bits cannot handle that range without some dipping at the most
significant bit end of the converter. The controller sets the amount of gain while the
amplifier applies it to the incoming signal. The AGC level set at each sample is
recorded on tape as part of the gain word.
I.3.1.7 Formatter:
The formatter arranges the data stream (in the form of voltage and gain levels)
into a binary code for writing onto magnetic tape.
I.3.1.8 Tape Drive:

Data finally are recorded on tape in digital form, ready to be passed on to the
processing center for further processing. Magnetic tape may be replaced by floppy
disks, depending upon the system in use.
Figure I.9 [Slb] : (Block Diagram of Recording System) shows a block diagram of a complete
modern system.

True telemetry system has no physical connection between the station recording unit and
the control system in the recording truck. These systems should be used where access is
limited due to rugged terrain, permit problems, or any other reason. Sercel Eagle system
(figure I.10, Six channel station unit) is an example of such systems. The SAR (Seismic
Acquisition Remote unit) records the signal and sends it via radio frequencies to the CRS
(Central Recording Station).
Some telemetry systems can receive data in real time. Other telemetry systems have a
disadvantage over distributed system in that the radio transmission of the data from the
boxes to the recording unit takes longer than real time. For some systems, data transmission
time may be on the order of minutes per source point, which may slow down the shooting
crew [Talagapu 2005].
The data obtained in the seismic field survey is stored on magnetic tapes or cartridges. The
data is stored in SEG D format. Previously it used to get recorded in SEG B format or SEG C
formats [Talagapu 2005].
As noted earlier, the components of a recording system may be distributed in many ways.
During the 1970's, Amoco Production Company developed the most extreme of these,
known as the Seismic Group Recorder. It used a battery-powered box at each geophone
station to perform the filtering, amplification, digitization and recording of the data. The
total number of these that could be deployed was virtually unlimited.

The only function of the central unit was to send a start command to the appropriate boxes
to begin recording. The central unit (figure I.11) could be placed at any high spot so that a
good radio signal could be sent. The great advantage of this system was that each unit was
totally independent, so that operations could continue if there were one or two failed units.
Because no cables were needed, reliability was high and the problems of gaining access to
lay the cables were eliminated. The observer had no way of checking the boxes from his
central location so there was always a risk that bad data was being recorded; however, good
operational procedures kept the failure rate to an acceptable 1%. Input-Output now
markets a modern version of this system that permits some data to be transmitted back to
the central location for quality control purposes.
Figure I.11 [AAPG]: Autonomous field units may be remotely harvested & Vibrator
Electronics (VE) centralizes exchanges between the vibrators and the recorder.
The next level of distribution is represented by the Eagle system. This performs all of the
same functions as the Seismic Group Recorder except recording. The stored data are
transmitted back to the central recording unit by radio. The next level of distribution is that
in which the boxes, Figure I.10 above (Six channel station unit), are connected by cable. The
data is transmitted down the cable instead of being transmitted by radio [Slb].
For all these cable-less systems (Figure I.12); a

drawback is that a radio license is required.
This requirement may completely render
them useless in some countries. This may be
more of a problem for the systems that
transmit data back by radio, as they need a
broad noise-free bandwidth to transmit a
volume of data, whereas the Seismic Group
Recorder only needs a simple start command.
However, the radio systems, which transmit
all the data back to a central unit, have the advantage that the observer can check all the
data. In mountainous areas, these radio systems may require complicated repeater systems

to maintain good radio transmission and for
crews with a large number of channels the
transmission time may become too slow for
economic operations.
It is obvious that cable systems have the major
disadvantage that the cables have to be laid.
In swamps, built up areas and cities, this is a
serious consideration. On an open desert plain,
this may be no problem at all. Equipment
manufacturers have solved some of the
problems of laying cables across obstructions
such as rivers by using microwave links,
(Figure I.13: Microwave link).
Modern systems may also allow both radio and cable systems to be integrated into one
survey; which allows the user to select the best equipment for each location in the survey
(Figure I.14: Complex environments).
Another less obvious drawback of cable systems is that a failure in just one cable or
recording unit may cause the failure of the whole system. The economic cost of stopping the
entire operation while one faulty unit of 1000 or more is repaired would be horrendous.
However, manufacturers have worked to improve reliability so these systems are in
common use [Slb].
In the early 1990s, WesternGeco began extensive research on compressional wave (P-
wave) sensitivity that led to a fundamental change in acquisition philosophy. Experiments
conducted on synthetic signals revealed the effects of source and receiver statics, recording
electronics specifications, source phase distortion and receiver sensitivity on P-waves.

The Q-Land system (figure I.15) is the first to implement an integrated point-receiver
acquisition and processing methodology. The new Q-Land system digitizes each sensor at
the recording location. To achieve this fine spatial sampling, the recording system requires
a massive increase in the number of live channels. A live channel means that the receivers
are connected to record simultaneously. Compared with a typical high channel-count
conventional system, which may have 4,000 to 5,000 channels that record live, the new
point-receiver acquisition system has 20,000 or more live channels. The typical sampling
rate for the system is 2 ms. However, the Q-Land system can record with 30,000 live
channels when the sample rate is changed to 4 ms. Digital recording of the incoming
wavefield at densely spaced receiver positions ensures that the recorded signal and noise
are properly sampled and are therefore unaliased. In , one
source line and one receiver line that are orthogonal to each other form a cross-spread.
These are then repeated spatially within the acquisition area. Each source-receiver pair
generates a trace that corresponds to a subsurface midpoint. If the midpoints corresponding
to all source-receiver pairs are binned, with a bin size equal to half the receiver by half the
source interval, every bin will be one midpoint corresponding to single-fold coverage. Thus,
the cross-spreads provide single- fold subsets of the continuous wavefield, sampled finely
enough to prevent aliasing of the coherent noise, through which a cross-spread volume is
generated [WesternGeco].
Figure I.15: The Q-Land
acquisition and processing
system. A line of receivers is
laid out perpendicular to a line
of sources and every source
point is recorded by every
receiver point The example
shows 10 receiver lines that are
200 m [656 if] apart, with 1824
point receivers per receiver line
that result in 18,240 live
receivers (top). In digital group
forming using the Omega2
software processing system, the
seismic traces from individual
geophones have perturbatio n
corrections made to each
geophone (bottom). Data -
adaptive filters are then
applied over a number of traces
to suppress coherent noise. An
output trace from a number of
sensors can then be produced at
the desired spatial sampling.

The term array refers either to the pattern of geophones that feeds a single channel
or to a distribution of shotholes or surface energy sources that are fired simultaneously; it also
includes the different locations of sources for which the results are combined by vertical
stacking [Talagapu 2005].
An array is a group of two or more elements (sources or receivers) arranged in a geometrical

pattern. The pattern may be one or two-dimensional (linear or areal) [Gadallah 2009].
In the early days of seismic exploration, the Common Mid-Point (CMP) method did not exist,
nor did many data processing techniques. As a result, the geophysicist was obliged to interpret
directly from the field records. This meant that the field records needed to be as noise-free as
possible, and arrays were an important method to achieve this. Later, emphasis shifted to
ensuring that the acquired data were properly conditioned for the CMP stack and other
processes. Typically, arrays became simpler. Now the source and receiver spacing and arrays
are chosen in conjunction with the processing steps to be applied to the data [Slb].
The Several Functions of a Geophone Group
The functions of a group of geophones at each geophone station are to

 average variations in the coupling of the geophones to the ground, and
 Suppress ambient noise.
If the geophones are distributed over a distance calculated to attenuate surface waves, the
group is called an array and then performs the third function of suppressing source-generated
noise (in particular, surface waves).
Arrays will be defined as being formed by elements, where the elements can be either
geophones or sources. As far as source-generated noise is concerned, the benefit obtainable
from SOURCE arrays is of the same kind and the same degree as that obtainable from
GEOPHONE arrays. The two benefits can be compounded, by the use of both SOURCE and
GEOPHONE arrays.
The same is true of the benefit obtained by averaging the ground conditions.
 A geophone array averages the geophone plants.
 A source array averages the coupling of the source to the ground.
(The same is not true of the benefit obtained by suppressing the ambient noise; the geophones
must be spaced apart, the sources need not.)
On land, the most successful method has been to deploy several parallel seismic lines. These
were then combined to achieve the array dimensions needed. This is clearly very expensive but
sometimes is the only way to achieve satisfactory results in very bad data areas [Regone 1990].

We have shown that the elements of an array may be spread over an area, or they may be
confined to the line of the spread. We call the resulting geometries areal and in-line. We
reserve the term linear (in contra-distinction to in-line) to further define an array in which the
geophones are uniformly spaced and have the same sensitivity. When the spacing is not
uniform, we call the array nonlinear. When an element is formed by more than one geophone,
or the sensitivities are made to be different, we say that the array is weighted or tapered. In the
following discussion we start with linear arrays, then go to tapered and weighted arrays and
finally to areal arrays [Slb].
Figure I.16 (Typical in-line arrays) will illustrate the various arrays described below.
Frame a of this graphic shows a linear array of 24 identical geophones with a uniform
spacing of S units. The walking length from the first geophone to the last is 23S; for a
general array of N geo-phones, it is (N -1) S. The effective length of the array, Le, is NS; this
is the wavelength of the pure sinusoid that would be completely canceled by the array. The
effective length is the basis of comparison for the responses of arrays with different
numbers of elements.

The tapered array of Frame b also uses 24 individual geophones. Here, some are planted
side-by-side to form elements of different weights. So, we have only 12 elements,
whose weights range from one to three, and whose spacing is uniform. This
"112233332211" tapered array is relatively simple to lie out in the field.
Alternatively, the weighting of an array may be done inside the individual geo-phones, thus
yielding a weighted array of the type shown in Frame c; here the size of the black dot
represents the weight.
Geophone strings may also provide weighted arrays with non-uniform spacing, as shown
in Frame d. To maintain flexibility, sufficient wire may be provided between the geophones
on their strings to permit their use in linear or nonlinear arrays (although nonlinear arrays
make for difficult layout unless the variations of spacing are built into the string).
The principal application of linear arrays is in discriminating against coherent noise

traveling more or less in a vertical plane through the array [Sheriff 1995]. Many variations
of areal array geometries have been proposed for both sources and geophones; Figure I.17
(Areal arrays) shows two of the four most common.
Before multiple coverage, the rectangular array shown in Frame a of this graphic was
common; some crews used 360 to 480 (or more) geophones per array. Shot-hole patterns
of 36 shallow holes were also used, and as many as 100 (10 x 10) were used in some areas.

The parallelogram of Frame b is sometimes used in deserts and other areas where cross-line
space is no problem.
Radial (star) arrays Figure I.17 cd.
(Radial arrays) have also been used in some difficult areas; they can have either an odd
number of arms (Frame c) or an even number of arms (Frame d).
Geophones are ordinarily wired in strings at the factory. Most common are strings of six
geophones or double strings of 12. The fact that we must use pre-strung geophones, with a
limiting length of wire between geophones and a fixed number of geophones per string, places
practical constraints on the design of arrays in the field. Most arrays, therefore, are in-line; we
reserve area arrays for cases of extreme cross-line noise or extreme ambient noise [Slb].
We emerge, then, with a list of arrangements for land work to satisfy the stack-array criteria
and, as such, provide virtually total suppression of the source-generated noise; these are shown
schematically in Figure I.18 (Summary of permissible stack-array arrangements, where M is
the total number of groups) [Slb].

Arrangement 1 is the best. Arrangement 2 requires a 2:1 mix in processing; after this it may be
no better than Arrangement 1 would be with double the group interval (and half the number
of channels). A permissible variation of Arrangement 2 uses an array length of double the
group interval, but without the 2:1 mix in the processing. Arrangement 3 is not recommended,
because shooting on the group centers degrades the redundancy of the stack and provides no
compensating advantage. Arrangements 4 and 5 are both defensible arrangements for end-on
shooting on land. Arrangement 6 may be no better than Arrangement 1 would be with four
times the group interval (and one-quarter the number of channels). Arrangement 7 is probably
no better than Arrangement 5 with double the group interval (and half the number of
channels).
The two preferred arrangements, for work on land, are clearly Arrangement 1 for split spreads
and Arrangement 4 or 5 for end-on spreads.
The choice between Arrangements 4 and 5 has to be a balance. The advantages of
Arrangement 4 (mixing) are that the arrays are easier to lay, and the lateral resolution is not
sacrificed in the field; if later we find that source-generated noise is not a problem in this area,
we can maintain the full lateral resolution given by the group interval. The advantage of
Arrangement 5 (the double-length array) is that the longer arrays give better internal
suppression of both source-generated noise and ambient noise [Slb].

[Sastry]
• Gravity Magnetic exploration methods:
To delineate the basin with a generalized picture of the sub-surface.
• 2D seismic reflection method:
To find structures within the basins which are favorable for hydrocarbon exploration.
• Close Grid 2D seismic reflection:
To map the structures precisely.
• 3D Seismic Reflection methods
To delineate strati strati-structural features and to understand reservoir characterization.
• 4D Seismic
For identification of bypassed oil as well as thermal front movement.
• Multi-component Seismic
To detect the gas clouds, to identify the facies variation within reservoir sequence and to
understand fractures.
A Vertical Seismic Profile (VSP) is a geophysical field test that measures accurate seismic
velocity values for exact depth intervals beneath a site. Seismic data acquisition is primarily a
surface activity. Sources or detectors may be placed a short distance beneath the surface for
safety or noise attenuation, but in general, these devices are placed within one seismic
wavelength of the surface. The reason is simply economical to bury all the detectors and shots
near the zone of interest would be even more expensive than simply drilling to the target
without any exploration effort!
But all this changes once a well is drilled. Detectors may be placed at almost any depth in the
well and clamped to the wall to ensure good coupling. Typically, detectors are placed where
the wellbore encounters significant changes in the geology. Although long strings of detectors
may be used, more commonly, single detectors are used and the shots are repeated for each of
the several locations of the detectors. A typical spacing of the detectors might be 30 m.
Figure I.19 (VSP acquisition schematic) shows typical geometry of a vertical cable
experiment, as if it were shot with a long string of widely separated detectors [Hardage 1985].

A nearby shot shows typical raypaths of energy traveling both downward into the detectors
and also reflected upwards into the same detectors. Although typically shot by moving a
single detector to several positions in the well bore and repeating the seismic source, the VSP
may be thought of as having numerous detectors, all recording the energy from one source.
The black arrow in this illustration is one example of the down going energy from the source
to each of the detectors. The red arrows indicate source energy that has gone down to a deep
reflector and bounced back upwards to the detectors.
The seismogram recorded by such a setup would look like that in Figure I.20: VSP
seismogram schematic.

In this example, the heavy black line shows the downward traveling direct arrivals from
source to the downhole receivers. The heavy reddish-brown colored line shows the upward
traveling reflections from the deep reflector. The thin black line shows the upward traveling
reflection from the top of the shale unit. Thin reddish-brown lines show the events
corresponding to a multiple reflection of the downgoing initial wave within the shale bed. In
Figure I.21 (Vertical seismic profile), we see an example of the data.
Note the linear sloping events, which can be identified with up-going (down to the left on
this example) and down-going seismic energy (down to the right on this example).
Why go to such trouble? What benefits can the Explorationists achieve by using this
technique?
 First, by placing detectors beneath the highly variable and poorly consolidated near-
surface material, the resolution of the seismic data is improved, specifically by allowing
higher frequencies to be recorded instead of being absorbed in the near-surface soils.
 Second, the energy only has to go down to the receiver, avoiding the deleterious effects
of the trip back to the surface.
 Third, the paths that the energy takes can be seen, going down to a particular horizon,
reflecting upwards, and perhaps reflecting downwards again at the surface or at some
intermediate marker. This enables specific types of reflections-primary, simple multiple,
peg-leg multiple-to be identified.

There are several specific exploration objectives for running a VSP: [Hardage 1985]
 Measuring the reflection coefficient by measuring the amplitude immediately
above a reflector of both the downgoing and upcoming reflected wave.
 Measure the attenuation of seismic energy in a specific layer by looking at the
wavelet both before and after traversing this unit.
 Actually record the downgoing wavelet for use in later processing steps.
 Specifically correlate a particular wiggle on the surface-recorded seismic trace
with a particular reflector in the well.
 Compare with a synthetic seismogram generated from the well sonic tool. Being
higher resolution seismic, the tie to the synthetic seismogram should be better.
 Improve the resolving power of the seismic by bringing the detectors closer to the
reflector, thereby reducing the size of the Fresnel Zone.
 Study any converted shear waves, since the velocity of any reflected waves can be
measured from the slopes of the events.
Features of a VSP:
See Figure I.22
Types of VSP:
It can be summarized as in Figure I.23:

The image above shows an idealized layout for 2-D seismic data collection. Energy from a
single shot travels through the subsurface, is reflected off an interface and returns to the
surface where it is recorded by receivers (geophones on land, hydrophones at sea). More than
one receiver is present at each location, defining a “receiver group”. The distance between a
source and receiver group is known as the offset. The reflection point is mid-way between
the source and the receiver group, and the distance between midpoints (CMP - common
midpoint) is half the distance between the receivers groups [Hart 2004].
I.6.2.1 Applications of 2D Acquisition

 Provides a cross section of the subsurface in two planes, horizontally and
vertically.
 Acquired with single or multiple sources and a single line of receivers. Each line
is processed individually and independently.
 Lines are often set far apart so they only provide a snapshot of the subsurface.
 The 2D data is typically used for mapping multiple basins and deposition trends
across a large region [TGS].
 Cheap and quick, fairly low resolution compared to 3D [Slb 2004].
I.6.2.2 Shortcomings of 2D Acquisition

Very little 2-D shooting is done today because of the shortcomings of 2-D such as:
 Distortion of the image of geologic structure
 Inadequate subsurface sampling to define small-scale geologic features

Figure I.24: Actual and assumed ray paths from a subsurface horizon – 2-D case
Figure I.24 illustrates the distortion problem that results because the basic premise of 2-D
shooting is that all reflections originate vertically below the seismic line. Here the reflecting
horizon has a dome structure. The solid lines indicate where reflections actually occur and
dashed lines indicate the assumed ray paths in the vertical plane passing through the lines.
The solid curved line below line 5 is a true cross section of the structure. The dashed curve
line is the apparent cross section. The true structure in the vertical plane passing through line
6 is flat. In general, interpretation of 2-D data shows a reflecting surface that differs from the
actual in position and has less dip than the actual reflecting surface.
In 2-D land operations the combination of receiver groups connected to the instruments to
record a single record is called a spread. Only one source is shot into a spread, after which the
spread is moved forward along the line. Reflection points fall along lines [Gadallah 2009].
I.6.2.3 2D Acquisition Methodology

 Basically (Figure I.25) [Slb 2004]
o Crooked line (Meandering lines)
o Straight line

The general aim of three-dimensional surveys is to achieve a higher degree of resolution of

the subsurface geology than is achievable by two-dimensional surveys. Three-dimensional
survey methods involve collecting field data in such a way that recorded arrivals are not
restricted to rays that have travelled in a single vertical plane. In a three-dimensional survey,
the disposition of shots and receivers is such that groups of recorded arrivals can be
assembled that represent rays reflected from an area of each reflecting interface. Three-
dimensional surveying therefore samples a volume of the subsurface rather than an area
contained in a vertical plane, as in two-dimensional surveying.
In three-dimensional surveying the common midpoint principle applies similarly, but each
CMP gather involves an areal rather than a linear distribution of shot points and detector
locations (Figure I.26). [Keary 2002]
Figure I.24: Reflected ray paths defining a common depth point from an areal distribution of shot points and
detector locations in a three-dimensional survey.
Figure I.27 is an example of the preferred 3-D geometry. Lines are much more closely spaced
than in 2-D. Receiver lines are usually laid out only in the direction of maximum target dip.
Source lines are usually perpendicular to receiver lines and spaced farther apart. Reflection
points on the subsurface are spaced at half the group interval in the direction of the receiver
lines (the inline direction) and half the line interval in the direction of the source lines (the
cross-line direction). This provides much greater spatial sampling and far less interpretational
ambiguity [Gadallah 2009].

Shot Receivers
Figure I.24 [EPT-LD]: 3-D layout example
I.6.3.1 Why 3D Seismic Survey?

Sub-surface geological features of interest in hydrocarbon exploration are 3-
dimensional in nature. A 2D seismic section is a cross-section of 3D seismic response.
Despite the fact that 2D seismic section contains signal from all directions, including out of
plane of the profile, 2D migration normally assumes that the entire signal comes from the
plane of the profile itself. Although out of plane reflections (side-sweeps) are often
recognizable by the experienced seismic interpreter, the out of plane signal sometimes
causes 2D migrated section to mistie. These misties are due to inadequate imaging of the
subsurface resulting from the use of 2D rather than 3D migration. On the other hand, 3D
migration of 3D data provides adequate and detailed 3D image of the subsurface, leading to
a more reliable interpretation. When integrated with well logs, core and other
petrophysical and production data, 3D data permits reservoir characterization. The
integrity of any 3D data set leans heavily upon the suitability of acquisition geometry
[Talagapu 2005].
I.6.3.2 Basic Concepts in 3D Surveys
The 2D surveys are as linear as the terrain allows. Source and receiver are normally
in-line with each other. Arrays may be multi-dimensional, but most often are also in the
line of survey. For 3D surveys, this is seldom the case.
The source interval of a 2D survey must be extended to include a definition of the
source line. For 3D surveys, source line must be defined, since for most common designs,
the source line is orthogonal to the receiver lines. The receiver line becomes the receiver
lines. As many receiver lines are laid out as the equipment for acquisition allows. Also, the
receiver, layout may not be lines but circles, checkerboards and other patterns developed
for 3D surveys. Thus the simple parameters that defined the traditional 2D line now must
be extended to include more geometry.

The analysis of 2D designs centers on the subsurface coverage in the form of common-depth
points (CDPs). For 3D surveys, the CDP becomes two-dimensional and is termed a “bin”. These
bins may be square or rectangular and define the spatial resolution of the data sampling.
Indeed, deciding the bin size will be the first step in designing a 3D template. Subsurface
sampling will be, as with the CDP, half the surface size [Talagapu 2005].
CMP Bin (or Bin) (Figure I.27): A small rectangular area that usually has the dimensions
(SI ÷ 2) × (RI ÷ 2) [Cordsen et al., 2000].
All mid-points that lie inside this area, or bin, are assumed to belong to the same common
midpoint (Figure I.26). In other words, all traces that lie in the same bin will be CMP stacked
and contribute to the fold of that bin. On occasion, one may choose the area over which traces
are stacked to be different from the bin size in order to increase stacking fold. This introduces
some data smoothing and should be performed with caution because it affects spatial
resolution.
Super Bin This term (and others like macro bin or maxi bin) applies to a group of neighboring
CMP bins. Grouping of bins is sometimes used for velocity determination, residual static
solutions, multiple attenuation, and some noise attenuation algorithms.
Figures I.28, I.29 and I.30 show a plan view of an orthogonal 3-D survey that illustrates most of
the terminology used in this part [Cordsen et al., 2000].

Box (sometimes called “Unit Cell”) in orthogonal 3-D surveys, this term applies to the area
bounded by two adjacent source lines and two adjacent receiver lines. The box usually
represents the smallest area of a 3-D survey that contains the entire survey statistics (within
the full fold area). In an orthogonal survey, the midpoint bin located at the exact center of the
box has contributions from many source-receiver pairs; the shortest offset trace belonging to
that bin has the largest minimum offset of the entire survey. In other words, of all the
minimum offsets in all CMP bins, the minimum offset in the bin at the center of the box has the
biggest Xmin. Different layout strategies attempt to deal with this concept in a variety of ways.
Cross-line Direction The direction that is orthogonal to receiver lines.
In-line Direction The direction that is parallel to receiver lines.
Fold The number of midpoints that are stacked within a CMP bin. Although one usually gives
one average fold number for any survey, the fold varies from bin to bin and for different
offsets.
Fold Taper The width of the additional fringe area that needs to be added to the 3-D surface
area to build up full fold. Often there is some overlap between the fold taper and the migration
apron because one can tolerate reduced fold on the outer edges of the migration apron.
Patch A patch refers to all live receiver stations that record data from a given source point in
the 3-D survey. The patch usually forms a rectangle of several parallel receiver lines. The patch
moves around the survey and occupies different template positions as the survey moves to
different source stations.

Swath The term swath has been used with different meanings in the industry. First, and most
commonly, a swath equals the width of the area over which source stations are recorded
without any cross-line rolls. Second, the term describes parallel acquisition geometry, rather
than an orthogonal geometry, in which there are some stacked lines that have no surface lines
associated with them [Cordsen et al., 2000]. While source points are taken on one line,
receivers are recording not only along the source line but also along neighboring parallel
receiver lines, creating swath lines halfway between pairs of source and receiver lines
[Talagapu 2005].
Migration Apron The width of the fringe area that needs to be added to the 3-D survey to
allow proper migration of any dipping event. This width does not need to be the same on all
sides of the survey. Although this parameter is a distance rather than an angle, it has been
commonly referred to as the migration aperture. The quality of images achieved by 3-D
migration is the single most important advantage of 3-D versus 2-D imaging.
Receiver Line A line (perhaps a road or a cut-line through bush) along which receivers are lay
out at regular intervals. The in-line separation of receiver stations (receiver interval, RI) is
usually equal to twice the in-line dimension of the CMP bin. Normally the field recorder cables
are laid along these lines and geophones are attached as necessary. The distance between
successive receiver lines is commonly referred to as the receiver line interval (or RLI). The
method of laying out source and receiver lines can vary, but the geometry must obey simple
guidelines.
Signal-to-Noise Ratio (S/N) The ratio of the energy of the signal over the energy of the noise.
Source Line A line (perhaps a road) along which source points (e.g., dynamite or vibrator
points) are taken at regular intervals. The in-line separation of sources (source interval, SI) is
usually equal to twice the common midpoint (CMP) bin dimension in the cross-line direction.
This geometry ensures that the midpoints associated with each source point will fall exactly
one midpoint away from those associated with the previous source point on the line. The
distance between successive source lines is usually called the source line interval (or SLI). SLI
and SI determine the source point density (or SD, source points per square kilometer).
Source Point Density (sometimes called Shot Density), SD
The number of source points/km2 or source points/mi2. Together with the number of channels,
NC, and the size of the CMP bin, SD determines the fold.
Template A particular receiver patch into which a number of source points are recorded.
These source points may be inside or outside the patch. In equation form,
Template = Patch - associated source points.

I.6.3.3 Applications of 3D Surveys

3-D data provide high quality and high-resolution data that are used to locate new drilling
prospects, delineate their boundaries, and provide information used to select drilling
locations that optimize reservoir production. 3-D surveys have also been shown to be
excellent tools in reservoir monitoring [Gadallah 2009]. Figure I.31 shows some applications
of 3D shooting [Cordsen et al., 2000].
I.6.3.4 When to collect 3-D seismic data?

• 3-D seismic data is commonly collected after a discovery has been made. This helps to
reduce risk associated with questions such as whether a working petroleum system is present
in an area. The survey is collected around the discovery well in order to delineate the field.
The existence of at least one well in the 3-D survey area helps to calibrate the subsurface
(lithology, velocity, etc.) for further analysis. The survey should be collected early in the life

of a field because there will be fewer obstacles (pipelines, etc.), less noise (e.g., associated
with working pump jacks) and costs will be weighed against all future benefits (i.e.,
productive wells). At least 7 working pump jacks are visible in the small area shown in this
photo and a new well is being drilled. Is it worth collecting new 3-D data?
• Some large companies (with deep pockets) will collect 3-D seismic data for purely
exploration purposes, especially in expensive offshore areas. This helps mitigate against the
possibility of planning expensive wildcat wells using incorrect structure maps.
• Geophysical companies might collect non-exclusive surveys (“spec data”) in areas that are
considered to be potentially interesting from an exploration perspective. They then seek to
lease the data to E & P companies. Often these data are collected to cover large areas, and the
bin sizes are large. This means that they can be of limited utility when trying to identify and
map small-scale stratigraphic or structural features [Hart 2004].
is the scientific and mathematical discipline that seeks to define

quantitatively the input data needed to undertake predictions of flow through permeable media
[Lake 1989]. 4D seismic extends this definition from prediction of flow to measurement of flow
through permeable media [Marschall 1999a], i.e. quantification of fluid saturation, through
the interpretation of the difference acoustic impedance cube derived from time-lapse 3D
seismic surveys which provides data between and away from wells.
is a tool to reduce uncertainties in one of the most important disciplines for a field
the saturation distribution in a reservoir, by a deterministic measurement. As a direct,
consequence, the process of drilling producing and injector wells, which up to date has been
mainly using geometric drilling patterns, is expected to be considerably improved by 4D
seismic techniques through the use of fluid flow gradient maps produced from 4D seismic.
It should be noted that there may also be large uncertainties associated with 3D time-lapse
seismic data due to data quality and with 4D seismic data interpretation as it does not yield a
direct measurement of the saturation distribution. To be precise, what are being measured are
changes in acoustic impedance that result from changes in saturation, pressure, and
temperature. These changes in acoustic impedance are subsequently transformed through an
appropriate transform to changes in saturation. Here, we are tacitly implying that the
monitoring quantity, in 4D seismic, is acoustic impedance although other seismic attributes
like amplitude are being used.
Successful 4D seismic cases have reported detection of upswept oil, water flooding,
temperature and pressure changes, field compartmentalization, movement of oil water contact,
fluid front displacement, gas cap formulation or expansion, and mapping of fluid saturation
qualitatively and quantitatively. Such results are very valuable in adjusting the reservoir model

to obtain an optimum dynamic reservoir model and consequently significantly increase
hydrocarbon recovery. Consequently, 4D seismic, if applied properly, is one of the most
important tools to improve and optimize production in the long term, i.e. it is a strategic tool as
well [Marschall 1999b].
I.6.4.1 Rules for Successful 4D Seismic

1. 4D-differencing process eliminates the primaries (and not the noise: this
misconception is quite popular!) except for the actual local changes in the
reservoir.
2. Achieve proper imaging and inversion by properly correcting any known
differences in data acquisition, even at the expense of omitting individual shots,
and maintaining the same processing flow and the same processing algorithms.
3. Establish a detailed structural model including the underlying macro model
(velocities V(x,y,z) and velocity interfaces) and, if required, by seismic
stratigraphic analysis, 3D detailed litho-model of the reservoir units.
- Rock property changes around a production well and an injector (figures I.32, I.33).
Figure I.32 [Bacon et al., 2003]: Rock property Figure I.33 [Bacon et al., 2003]: Rock property
changes around a producing well. changes around a water injector.

OUTLINE
Although there are now three types of seismic source, airguns, II.1 Marine Energy Sources
waterguns and vibrators, that can be utilized, almost all surveys II.2 Seismic Streamer
conducted world-wide use airguns (figure II.1). Explosives are an II.3 Types of Marine Seismic
historic source, and are not used in present day operations [IAGC Surveys
2002]. II.4 Towed Marine Seismic

Methods
Airgun arrays used during 2D, 3D and 4D surveys are almost II.4.1 2D Acquisition
II.4.2 3D Acquisition
always made up of sub-arrays or single strings of multiple
II.5 Advanced Acquisition
airguns. There are a few main underlying concepts about airguns
Techniques
(and airgun source arrays) to keep in mind [OGP 2011]: II.5.1 Multi-azimuth
II.5.2 Wide azimuths
1. The output of an airgun is directly proportional to the II.6 Ocean Bottom Seismic
Techniques
operating pressure of the airgun (the norm in the industry
II.6.1 4C Acquisition
is between 2,000 and 2,500 pounds per square inch [psi]). II.6.2 2C Acquisition
II.7 Autonomous Nodes
2. The output of an airgun increases as the cube root of the
volume (and less than that for an array, due to the array II.8 Shallow water/ Transition
Zone Acquisition
effect).
3. The output of an airgun array is generally directly
proportional to the number of airguns in the array,
4. Airgun arrays are not point sources; they typically have

dimensions of 15 – 30 meters in-line by 15 – 20 meters
cross-line.

5. For a source array, the actual maximum sound output is less than the modeled, or
‘back-calculated’, value, typically some 15 to 25 dB less. This discrepancy in values is
commonly referred to as the ‘array effect’.
Figure II.1: Photograph of G Gun, Cutaway of an airgun.
Waterguns
Waterguns (figure II.2) [Slb] operate in a similar manner to airguns, but in place of air being
vented into the water when the gun is triggered, a volume of water is used. The advantage
of this is that as there is no air in the water, there is consequently no air bubble to oscillate,
so the need to use differing volumes of guns is removed [IAGC 2002].
The disadvantage is that the low frequency bandwidth of the signal generated by forcing
water under high pressure into the surrounding water is much less than that provided by an
equivalent airgun and thus the signal is unable to penetrate as deeply into the subsurface.
Water guns were briefly popular in the 1980s but are not used commercially today.

Marine Vibrators
A marine vibrator (figure II.3) operates by using either hydraulic or electrical power to
drive an actuating plate that is immersed in the sea, in a controlled manner.
The advantage of this is that a very precise signal can be injected into the subsurface. The
instantaneous sound pressure level is much lower than that from an airgun [OGP 2011].
The seismic cable or streamer detects the very low level of reflection energy that travels from
the seismic source, through the water layer down through the earth and back up to the surface,
using pressure sensitive devices called hydrophones. The hydrophones convert the reflected
pressure signals into electrical energy that is digitized and transmitted along the seismic
streamer to the recording system on board the seismic vessel, where the data is recorded on
magnetic tape.
Streamer (figure II.4)[OGP 2011] has many advantages in that they are more robust and
resistant to damage, do not leak when damaged either on the vessel or in the sea, and are less
sensitive to weather and wave noise [IAGC 2002].
In addition, a tail buoy (figure II.5)[OGP 2011] is connected to the far end of each streamer to
provide both hazard warning of the submerged towed streamer, especially important at night,
and positional information.

All seismic surveys involve a source and some configuration of receivers or sensors. Surveys
may be differentiated on the basis of [OGP 2011]
1. The geometry of the receiver system;
2. The density of measurements made over a given area; and
3. The type of sensor used.
Figure II.6 illustrates the different receiver geometries used in marine seismic surveying,
Figure II.6: All marine seismic surveys involve a source (S) and some kind of array or receiver sensors (individual
receiver packages are indicated by the black dots). '1' illustrates the towed streamer geometry, '2' an ocean bottom
geometry, '3' a buried seafloor array (note that multiple parallel receiver cables are subtly displayed), and '4' a VSP
(vertical seismic profile) geometry, where the receivers are positioned in a well.
while figure II.7 provides a list of the different types of surveys. Towed streamer operations
represent the most significant commercial activity, followed by ocean bottom seismic
(including arrays placed on the seafloor and arrays buried a meter or so below the seafloor).
Shallow water/transition zone seismic is a complex seismic operation as it is undertaken in
shallow water areas such as tidal zones, river estuaries, marshes and swamplands. Vertical
seismic profiling is an additional category of seismic survey where the receivers are placed in
one or more well holes and a source is hung off the well platform, or deployed using a source
vessel [OGP 2011].

Figure II.7: This table summarizes the majority of the different types of marine seismic surveys, and it suggests
that there are quite a few varieties of survey used by the oil & gas industry.
Within a given exploration zone, the details of a specific survey operation can vary
enormously. There are, however, two principal categories of seismic surveying. These are two-
dimensional (2D) seismic surveys and three dimensional (3D) seismic surveys (figure II.8). 2D
can be described as a fairly basic survey method, which, although somewhat simplistic in its
underlying assumptions, has been and still is used very effectively to find oil & gas. A sub-
category of 2D is the site survey where ultra-high resolution data is acquired in the immediate
vicinity of an intended well to identify both seabed and shallow subsurface hazards. Ultra-high
resolution here means that the survey is intended to provide more detailed information about
the seafloor and the conditions of the rock down to a depth of a few meters beneath the
seafloor. 3D surveying is a more complex method of seismic surveying than 2D and involves
greater investment and much more sophisticated equipment than 2D surveying.
Figure II.8: This illustrates the basic difference between the 2D survey geometry and the 3D survey geometry. The
dashed lines suggest subsurface structure contour lines, indicating that the area covered by each of the two survey
geometries is the same. The spacing between adjacent ship tracks for 2D will be 1km or greater. While the distance
between ship tracks for 3D depends on several factors; such as the number of airgun arrays being used and the
number of streamers being towed, the intent of 3D is to have the distance between the streamers be on the order
of 25 – 75 m.

4D surveys (or time-lapse 3D) are simply 3D surveys which are repeated over the same area,
some period of time elapsing between the initial surveys and the sub-sequent surveys. There
might be several repeated surveys, depending on the specific oil or gas field in question. The
purpose of this type of survey is to obtain images of how the hydrocarbon reservoir is changing
over time due to production in order to maximize hydrocarbon recovery from the field.
More recently, increasingly sophisticated towed streamer acquisition schemes – multi-azimuth,

wide azimuth and rich azimuth – have been developed to provide improved subsurface
imaging in geologically and geophysical challenging environments [OGP 2011].
In 2D operations, a single seismic cable or streamer is towed behind the survey vessel together
with a single sound source. The reflections from the subsurface are assumed to lie directly
below the sail line that the survey vessel move along, providing an image in two dimensions
(horizontal and vertical) – hence the name '2D'. The processing of the measurements recorded
by the streamer sensors is, by the nature of the method, less sophisticated than that employed
for 3D and 4D surveys. 2D data acquisition lines are typically acquired several kilometers
apart on a relatively sparsely spaced grid of lines and usually over a large area. This method is
generally used today in frontier exploration areas to produce a general understanding of the
area’s geological structures before drilling is undertaken.
It is worth nothing that due to the action of tides and currents, the seismic streamer does not
normally tow directly behind the survey vessel but deviates laterally from the ship track or
nominal sail line. This is referred to as 'streamer feathering' (Figure II.9).

The weakness in the 2D method lies in the gaps in knowledge caused by the large spacing
between the grid lines. Typically the lines are not much closer than one or two kilometers, so
interpreting the subsurface between these locations can prove problematic, and can be very
inaccurate. 3D data, which have a much closer spacing of the grid lines, removes much of this
uncertainty and /or error [OGP 2011].
A 3D survey covers a specific area, generally with known geological targets, which have been
identified by previous 2D exploration (Figure II.8). In 3D surveying, groups of sail lines (or
swaths) are acquired with the same orientation, unlike 2D where there is typically a
requirement for the lines to be acquired in an orthogonal direction relative to the dominant
structural grain. Simplistically, 3D acquisition is the acquisition of many 2D lines closely
spaced over the area. The 3D sail line separation is normally in the order of 400 to 800 meters,
depending on the number of streamers deployed and their cross-line separation. By utilizing
more than one source and many streamers from the same survey vessel, the acquisition of
many closely spaced, sub-surface 2D lines, typically between 25 and 50 meters apart, can be
achieved by a single sail line. A 3D survey is therefore much more efficient, in that many times
more data are generated than for 2D per survey vessel sail line. A small 3D survey size is on the
order of 300 km2, or 1,000 sail line kilometers, or 12,000 sub-surface 2D kilometers. A larger
3D survey may cover 1,000 to 3,000 km2.
3D surveys are typically as shown in Figure II.10, with a 'racetrack' pattern being employed.
This allows, adjacent sail lines to be recorded in the same direction (Swath), whilst reducing the
time necessary to turn the vessel in the opposite direction.

Increasingly complex acquisition geometries have recently been employed to acquire 3D

towed-streamer data in areas where the data quality obtained from conventional towed
streamer acquisition has been insufficient for cost effective field development. The methods,
summarized below, provide an increased range of horizontal directions, or azimuths, from
which data are acquired which, when combined, provide an improved signal-to-noise ratio of
the resulting seismic data. This is analogous to taking a photograph of an object from different
directions to image all sides of the object [OGP 2011].
In a Multi-AZimuth (MAZ) survey, the increase in azimuth range is achieved by acquiring

3D data over the same subsurface area with multiple orientations, i.e. the survey is acquired
number of times in different directions. In a conventional towed streamer survey, the data
are essentially acquired along a single azimuth so that it can be considered a 'Narrow
AZimuth' survey. MAZ obtains a wider range of azimuths by acquiring overlapping
conventional surveys at various azimuths, typically 3-6. It is a single vessel, multi-pass
technique. The net result of adding the different orientated 3D data together is an improved
combined image of the subsurface.
In this case the increase in azimuthal range is accomplished by acquiring the data over the
same subsurface area using multiple towed streamer/recording and source vessel
configuration. Multiple passes are acquired with increasing lateral separation between the
streamer and source vessels to build up the range of offsets and azimuths. Figure II.12, II.13
show a Wide-Azimuth Towed Streamer (WATS) survey example operating four source
vessels. By making successive passes over the target, increasing the offset between the
streamers and the source vessels by the width of the streamer spread each time, a wider
range of azimuths and offsets are obtained. WATS is a multi-pass technique.

Since gunboats can shoot in a virtually unlimited set of locations, OBC acquisition can
generate areal array shots quite easily. In Figure II.14, receivers are laid on the ocean bottom
and sources are located on the surface in gun boats. The receivers on the ocean bottom can be
organized into a grid or as a small set of cables similar to those used on the surface. The grid
can be positioned on the bottom by a remotely operated vehicle, by a manned submersible, or
by simply allowing the cables or receiver unit to sink to the bottom. Wireless communication
can be used to accurately locate the receivers when in position [Notebook].
Figure II.14: above image represents schematic of a typical ocean bottom acquisition, and the bottom plot
express about 'Detector location' [Slb].
Continuing cables and free-stand

“nodes”. Figure II.15 shows an example of a 4-C receiver and its attachment to a cable.
Figure II.15: Examples of a 4-C receiver (left) and the same receiver connected to a cable (right) after [Entralgo
and Wadsworth, 1999]

Figure II.16 shows four different kinds of ocean bottom cables [after Entralgo and Wadsworth,
1999].
There are three principal types of seabed recording systems used in marine seismic: Ocean
Bottom Seismometers (OBS), Two-component (2C), and Four-component (4C). Two-
component and four-component data are generally recorded using cables laid on the seabed,
although there are systems which use Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) to deploy and
recover sensor nodes (which may or may not be connected by cables) placed on the seafloor.
The use of ROV provides, in the node system, both better coupling and positioning (at least
theoretically). Its main problem is the long time – and, consequently, cost – necessary for the
operation [Suarez 2000].
A geophone measures the velocity of the particle displacement, an accelerometer, as its name
implies, detects the acceleration of the particle displacement, and a hydrophone detects
changes in pressure.
2C data are acquired using a ground motion sensor –historically a geophone, but more
recently an accelerometer- and a hydrophone at each receiver location. 4C uses a three-
component ground motion sensor in addition to a hydrophone. The use of three-component
sensors, which detect particle motion along three mutually perpendicular axes, allows the
geophysicist to infer more information concerning the subsurface geological layers from which
the reflections, and more conversions, occur. To date, this has been more useful in producing
reservoirs, rather than exploration, where multi-component techniques have the potential to
enhance hydrocarbon recovery. OBS systems historically have been used by university research
groups to provide large-scale information for crustal studies and lithospheric investigation
[OGP 2011].

The 4C techniques are illustrated in Figure II.17. In this instance, the four-component sensors
are usually electrically connected to a recording vessel by means of a cable, which provides
power, instrument command and control, and data telemetry of the sensor data to recording
equipment on the vessel. Several cables are commonly employed to improve operational
efficiency, similar to towed streamer operations. Cable length varies according to survey
requirements, but is typically on the order of 5-6 kilometres per cable, with a 4C sensor
usually located every 25 or 50 metres. The recording vessel is equipped with dynamic
positioning thrusters to facilitate accurate cable placement and ease of recovery. Multi-cable
operations are generally used for 3D (and 4D) surveys, whilst a single cable configuration is
used for 2D surveys. Recently a buoy-based system has been introduced into commercial
operations: this eliminates the need for a recording vessel. In this system, each 4C cable is
connected to a radio-controlled remote recording buoy [OGP 2011].
A separate source vessel is used for deployment and operation of the seismic sources, which
clearly increases the cost of 4C surveys compared to towed streamer. There are
: Improved imaging of the subsurface and /or increased understanding of
reservoir lithology, both of which rely on the recording of P-waves and mode-converted shear
waves (S-waves) by the geophones on the seabed. Energy propagates down to the target
horizon as P-waves and back up to the detector on the seabed as S-waves. The physical
separation of sources and receivers allows two alternative geometries to be operationally
employed: 'swath' where the source-lines are parallel to the receiver lines akin to towed
streamer surveys, or 'patch' surveys where the source-lines are orthogonal to the receiver lines.
By using particle motion sensors that measure the particle motion in the vertical axis, and
hydrophones in combination, it is possible to remove the frequency limiting effects of the sea
surface ghost. This is possible because the particle motion sensor response to upward and

downward travelling reflections has the same polarity, unlike that of a hydrophone. The Two
Component (2C) technique utilizes both particle motion sensors and hydrophones in a
combined cable that is deployed from a cable / recording vessel down to the seabed, just like
the 4C technique.
The 2C technique provides higher resolution than a conventional towed streamer operation
due to the elimination of the ghost notch, but the need to deploy and recover cables to and
from the seabed provides less areal efficiency than modern multi-towed streamer vessels. This
has historically limited the use of the technique to areas where of shallow water depth or there
are obstructions such as platforms, or where the use of a deep-water marine vessel is
prohibited. However, increasingly in certain areas like the Middle East, the 2C technique has
been extensively used to image specific subsurface geological features which are poorly imaged
using conventional towed-marine data [OGP 2011].
The use of autonomous nodes for recording data on the sea floor has recently been used
commercially. Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) are used to deploy and recover the sensor
nodes. There are two types of node systems: those that are connected by cables to each other;
and connected to a recording vessel; and those that have data recording capability built into
each node. These systems can stay deployed for extended periods of time, when the cables (or
pigtails to the cables) are attached to a buoy or platform at the surface. The nodes are placed on
the seabed in a fairly coarse X-Y grid – typically 400 metres apart – and a conventional source
vessel is used to obtain 3D subsurface coverage (figure II.18, Ocean bottom node acquisition).

Shallow water or transition zone (SW/TZ) acquisition (Figure II.19) [Slb] is by far the most
complex and challenging area of seismic acquisition. Such areas are, by definition, almost
bound to be either highly variable in their geography or provide some particular operational
difficulty for acquiring data. Shallow shelving waters are the most common problem as they
often require small, shallow draft, specialized vessels to move cables, sources, people, and
equipment the rough surf conditions commonly associated with such areas present some
difficult challenges for deployment.
One safety aspect of SW/TZ operation is the use of dynamite as one of the source types
employed. Shallow holes are typically drilled into the seabed, lined with lightweight casing, and
loaded with explosive charges for subsequent detonation. Small airgun arrays are also
employed, and it is common for multiple source types to be employed across an area. Where
water is deep enough, it may be possible to deploy an airgun source from the back of a barge,
for example, but where it is shallow, the use of buried explosives may be required. Providing
reliable recording sensors is also problematic.
An additional problem involves placing the cable at a reasonable depth in the deeper water. In
these environments, the streamer is not being pulled through the water with depth controlling
devices. Personnel are often required to weight the cable to the sea bottom with chains and
anchor blocks. An alternative cable that can be used very successfully in transition areas is
called a bay cable. It is essentially a very well-sealed land cable with geophones on gimbals so
that they remain upright. Some variants of these cables can contain hydrophones as well. This
cable is lighter and easier to handle than a marine type of cable, but it is still not either
straightforward or effortless to use.
Another method of recording data in these zones is to integrate the sensors with data recording
electronics, creating rugged sensor stations that radio transmits the received earth signal back
to an instrument position, either continuously or on command from the observer. In some
areas this is often the only equipment that can be effectively used, but these units still need to
be positioned and anchored appropriately and this is seldom easy. Positioning of the equipment
can be complicated [OGP 2011].

In this figure, Line 1 is easy; we shoot it with a normal marine operation. We do the same with
the seaward end of Line 2. The landward end of Line 2, we shoot with normal truck-mounted
equipment. Then we face the problem [Slb].
Signature
AM.SADEIK@YAHOO.COM

References
Bacon, C. W. M. and Martin, J. E. (1993). "Simultaneous Vibroseis Recording." Geophysical

Prospecting, 41, 943-968 . Houten: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Bacon, M., Simm, R. and Redshaw, T. (2003) ''3D Seismic Interpretation'', Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge.
Brasel , S.D. 1979. "Patterns of sources and detectors". In Developments in Geophysical

Exploration Methods-i, ed. A.A. Fitch. London : Applied Science Publishers, Ltd.
Cooper, N. and Herrera, Y., (2007). ''Land Seismic Acquisition: Theory and Techniques''. Mustagh
Resources LTD. 15th June 2007.
Cordsen, A., Galbraith, M. and Peirce, J., (2000) "Planning Land 3-D Seismic Surveys", SEG.,
204. Tulsa, OK : Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
Crews, G. A. and Brook, R. A., (1991). "Experimental Analysis of Vibrator Baseplate Dynamics ".
Abstract 61 St. Annual International Meeting, 743-746. Tulsa: Society of Exploration
Geophysicists.
Gadallah, M. and Fisher, R. (2009). ''Exploration Geophysics''; Springer, Verlag Berlin

Heidelberg.
Galbraith, M., (1994). "Land 3-D Survey Design by Computer", Exploration Geophysics., 25, 71-78.
Australian Society Exploration Geophysicist.
Hardage, B. A. (1985), ''Vertical Seismic Profiling: Part A: Principles'' , 2nd Ed. London, Geophysical
Press.
Hart, B. S. (2004). ''Principles of 2D and 3D Seismic Interpretation "; [Presentation], McGill

University; Conference at Sharm El-Sheikh, Cairo, December 5-9, 2004.
International Association of Geophysical Contractors (IAGC), Contract study manual for

US and Canadian operations, Contract study manual for international operations, IAGC,
Denver, CO.
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (OGP), ''An overview of marine seismic
operations''. International Association of Geophysical Contractors (IAGC).London, SEI 8NL, UK.
Report number: 448, 2011
Johnston, R.C., 1982, "Development of more efficient air-gun arrays: theory and experiment";
Geophysical Prospecting, v. 30, p. 752.
Kearey, P., Brooks, M. and Hill, I. (2002) ''An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration '' (Third
Edition), Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Kramer, F.S., Peterson, R.A. and Walton, W.C., 1968, ''Seismic Energy Sources Handbook'',
United Geophysical Company.
Lake, L. W. (1989). ''Reservoir Characterization'' – 2 (Preface), No. 27, SPE Reprint Series,
Richardson, TX.
Marschall, R (1999a). Opening of workshop remarks, Paper W4/ 1999 – I000 61st EAGE
Conference and Technical Exhibition, June 1999, Helsinki, Finland.
Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik | 2013

References
Marschall, R (1999b). ''4D-Seismics – Principles and Applications'', Paper W4/ 1999 – I001 61st
EAGE Conference and Technical Exhibition, June 1999, Helsinki, Finland.
Panorama Technologies. "Data Acquisition: Modeling, Migration and Velocity Analysis ".
Chapter 8. p. 229-248.
Peacock, J.H., C.G. Sykes, N.W. Cameron, and L.G. Peardon. 1983. "Advanced acoustic
design for a new seismic streamer". Paper presented at the 53rd Annual International SEG
Meeting, Las Vegas.
Regone, Carl & Rethford, G, 1990, "Identifying, quantifying and suppressing backscattered seismic
noise". 60 th Annual International Meeting, Soc. Expl. Geophys.,Expanded Abstracts, 748-751
Reynolds, J.M. (1997) "An Introduction to Applied and Environmental Geophysics ". Wiley,
Chichester.
Sengbush, R.L. 1983. "Seismic Exploration Methods". Published by IHRDC, Boston .
Sheriff, R. E. and Geldart, L.P., 1995, "Exploration Seismology". 2nd ed., Cambridge
University Press
Stone, D. G., (1994), "Designing Seismic Surveys in Two and Three Dimensions". SEG, 244. (*
Edited by Charles A. Meeder) Tulsa, OK : Society of Exploration Geophysicists
Stone, D. G., (1994). "Designing Seismic Surveys in Two and Three Dimensions". SEG, 244. (*
Edited by Charles A. Meeder) Tulsa, OK : Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
Suarez, C. R. (2000) "Advanced Marine Seismic Methods: Ocean-Bottom and Vertical Cable Analyses ".
PhD thesis. University of Calgary.
Talagapu, K. (2005) "2D and 3D Land Seismic Data Acquisition and Seismic Data Processing ". M.Sc.
thesis. Andhra University. India
Vermeer, G. J. O., (2000) "3-D Seismic Survey Design". Tulsa, OK: Society of Exploration
Geophysicists.
Waters, K.H. (1978). "Reflection Seismology". New York : John Wiley and Sons.
Schlumberger WesternGeco. Annual Report. [Online] 2004. Available from:

http://www.slb.com/documents/pdf/annualreport/Slb2004AnnualReport_full .pdf
[Accessed: May 7th 2013].
Chevron Corporation. Annual Report. [Online] 2012. Available from:

http://www.chevron.com/documents/pdf/annualreport/Chevron2012AnnualReport_full .pdf
[Accessed: May 16th 2013].
International Association of Geophysical Contractors (IAGC) represents the interests of

people and companies that provide or support all phases of geophysical exploration.
http://www.iagc.org
Schlumberger-Geco provides the full range of seismic acquisition and processing services for
marine, land, and transition zone environments.
http://www.slb.com

References
Sercel is a leading provider of integrated seismic acquisition equipment for the geophysics
industry.
http://www.sercel.com
Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) promotes the science of geophysics and the
education of exploration geophysicists. SEG has more than 16,536 members working in 110
countries. Among their publications are The Leading Edge, and Geophysics.
http://www.seg.org
Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) offers a range of services and products through the whole
E&P cycle from exploration, through reservoir analysis and evaluation to production services.
http://www.pgs.com
American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) : http://www.aapg.org
http://www.tgs.com/geophysical/seismic-data-acquisition.aspx
http://www.cgg.com
http://www.seispros.com

References

Land and Marine Seismic Data Acquisition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Land and Marine Seismic Data Acquisition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Land & Marine Seismic Data Acquisition from 2D to 3D, 2013

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Land & Marine Seismic Data

Under the supervision

© Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik 2013

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

PREPARED BY POSITION DATE SIGNATURE

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik Graduated Geophysicist 24/6/13

APPROVED BY POSITION DATE SIGNATURE

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

I wishes to express my gratitude to Prof. Ibrahim M. Korrat, my supervisor and professor of

I express my special sense of gratitude to Eng. Mohammed Fathi, seismic engineer,

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Approval Page ................................................................................................................................... ii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER TWO: DATA ACQUISITION

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

I.3.5 Cable Systems vs. Radio System…………………………………………………..…..44

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

In seismic surveying, sound waves are mechanically generated

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Figure 1.1(a) [Mustagh Resources LTD]: A simple echo experiment

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Figure 1.8: it shows varying seismic line spacing

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

and Figure 1.20 we see the effect in seismic section

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

8. There is a risk of side-swipe. Figure 1.25 illustrates the problem.

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

We should note the following observations:

· The reflection coefficient of a gas-water contact is always positive.

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Figure 1.37 is a counterpart of Figure 1.36 , configured to include reflection [Slb].

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Nowadays most geophysicists specialize in one of these three divisions:

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Figure 1.42. Model of the exploration cycle

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

The answers to these questions are mathematically and physically

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Figure 2.1 [Slb]: Field crew hierarchy.

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik

Ahmed Moawad El-Sadeik