Designing 3D Seismic Surveys Using OMNI

Designing 3D Seismic Surveys Using OMNI
Designing 3D Seismic Surveys
Using OMNI
By
Mike Galbraith
Seismic Image Software Ltd.
&
Andreas Cordsen & John W. Peirce

Geophysical Exploration & Development Corporation
Third Edition
© Copyright 1997
No figures or examples may be reproduced by any means without permission in writing by the authors.
Planning and Operating a Land 3D Seismic Survey
Table of Contents
Chapter 1
INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1

1.1 Management Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3
education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3
customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3
Possible partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3
1.2 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4
why the 3D survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4
1.3 Industry Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4
3D data over larger areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4
acquisition prices falling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5
consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5
1.4 Financial Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5
Cost factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5
Budget constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5
economic rate of return . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6
development locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6
1.5 Target Horizons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7
main zone of interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7
Secondary zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7
regional objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7
1.6 Sequence of Events for Data Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8
overall time line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8
scouting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8
Design the 3D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8
regulatory approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8
experienced 3D crews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8
bid procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8
legal contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10
Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10
geophysical trespass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10
operating conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10
local operating conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10
24-hour basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10
Surveyors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10
Shot hole drilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
Vibrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
recording crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
recorder unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
processor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
Drilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
1.7 Environment & Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
Environmental issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
1.8 Special Considerations of 3D vs. 2D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.12
1.9 Definition of 3D Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.12
Source Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.12
Receiver Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.12
In-Line Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.12
X-Line Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.12
Box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.13
Patch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.13
Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.13
Swath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.13
Midpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14
CMP Bin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14
Super Bin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14
Fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14
Signal-to-Noise Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14
Source Point Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14
Xmin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14
Xmax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14
Migration Aperture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.15
Fold Taper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.15
Quiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.16
Quiz Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.17
1.2
Table of Contents
Chapter 2
PLANNING & DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1

2.1 Survey Design Decision Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3
Fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3
Bin Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3
Xmin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3
Xmax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3
Migration Aperture (full-fold) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3
Fold Taper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3
Record Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3
2.2 Straight Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4
orthogonal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4
Straight Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4
2.3 Fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5
3D Fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5
2D Fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5
2.4 In-Line Fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6
source points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6
receiver line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6
2.5 X-Line Fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8
half the number of receiver lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8
2.6 Total Fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9
product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9
2.6 (a) Total Fold in terms of Maximum Offset and Line Spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10
2.7 S/N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.11
S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.11
2.8 Bin Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.11
bin interval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.11
Bin size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.11
fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.11
shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.11
2.8.1 Target Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.12
2.8.2 Maximum Unaliased Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.13
2.8.3 Lateral Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.15
2.8.3.1 Lateral Resolution after Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.17
2.8.3.2 Separation of Diffractions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.18
2.9 Xmin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.21
SLI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.21
RLI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.21
shallow reflectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.22
refraction criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.23
2.10 Xmax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.24
maximum offset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.24
existing 2D data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.26
geological model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.27
10 factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.28
2.10.1 Target Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.28
2.10.2 Direct Wave Interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.28
2.10.3 Refracted Wave Interference (First Breaks) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.28
2.10.4 Deep Horizon Critical Reflection Offset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.28
2.10.5 Offset required to see Deepest LVL (refractor) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.28
2.10.6 NMO Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.29
2.10.7 Maximum NMO stretch to be allowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.29
2.10.8 Multiple Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.29
2.10.9 Offsets necessary for AVO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.29
2.10.10 Maximum length of cable available from a contractor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.29
Quiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.32
Quiz Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.33
2.2
Table of Contents
Chapter 3
PATCHES &
EDGE MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1
3.1 Offset Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3
3.2 Azimuth Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5
3.3 Narrow vs. Wide Azimuth Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6
3.4 85% Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7
3.5 Fresnel Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10
3.6 Diffractions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.11
3.6.1 Anatomy of a Diffraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.11
3.7 Migration Aperture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.12
3.8 Edge Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.14
fold taper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.14
3 zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.15
30o requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.16
3.9 Ray Trace Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.17
CDP Fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.17
3.10 Record Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.17
Quiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.22
Quiz Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.23
3.2
Table of Contents
Chapter 4
FLOWCHARTS & SPREADSHEETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1

Fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3
Bin Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3
Xmin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3
Xmax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3
Fold Taper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3
Record Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3
4.2 3D Design Flow Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4
4.3 Fold vs. Source Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5
4.4 Receiver Line Interval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6
4.5 Basic 3D Equations - Square Bins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7
4.6 Basic 3D Equations - Rectangular Bins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7
4.7 Basic Steps in 3D Layout - “Six Step Method” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8
4.8 A Graphical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10
4.9 Estimating the Cost of a 3D Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.11
4.10 Cost Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.14
Recorded Midpoints per unit area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.14
4.2
Table of Contents
Chapter 5
FIELD LAYOUTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1

5.1 Swath Shoots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3
Parallel swaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3
Cross swaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3
5.2 Straight Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4
5.3 Brick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5
5.4 Non-Orthogonal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7
5.5 Odds & Evens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8
5.6 Flexi-Bin® or Bin Fractionation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9
5.7 Button Patch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.10
5.8 Zig-Zag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.11
double zig-zag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.12
5.9 Hexagonal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.13
5.10 Radial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.13
5.11 Circular Shoots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.13
5.12 Circular Patches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.13
5.13 Field Layouts - Pros and Cons of the Various Layout Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.14
Quiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.15
Quiz Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.16
5.2
Table of Contents
Chapter 6
SOURCE EQUIPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1

6.1 Dynamite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3
6.1.1 Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3
charge size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3
charge depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4
number of holes per source location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4
6.1.2 Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4
6.1.3 Shooting Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5
tandem, shooting alternately . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5
steady-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5
6.2 Vibrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5
6.2.1 Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5
sweep length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5
number of sweeps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5
pad time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5
number of vibrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5
fundamental ground force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6
6.2.2 Fine-Tuning Vibrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6
Drag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6
move-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6
vibrator coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6
6.2.3 Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7
Similarity tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7
Vibrator testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7
non-linear sweeps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8
Vari-sweeps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8
sweep rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8
Phase, force and frequency vs. time plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8
source points may be occupied repeatedly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9
Quiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.10
Quiz Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.10
6.2
Table of Contents
Chapter 7
RECORDING EQUIPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1

7.1 Receivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3
receiver type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3
land operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3
transition zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3
Receiver arrays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4
stabilize the spreads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4
7.2 Recorders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4
24 bit recording technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4
120 or 240 channel systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4
7.3 Distributed Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6
7.4 Telemetry Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6
Quiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7
Quiz Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7
7.2
Table of Contents
Chapter 8
ARRAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1
8.1 The Question of Arrays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3
box patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3
in-line arrays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3
no arrays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3
8.2 Geophone Arrays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3
8.3 Source Array . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4
8.4 Combined Array Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5
8.5 Stack Arrays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5
Anstey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5
8.6 Hands-Off Acquisition Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5
Ongkiehong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5
8.2
Table of Contents
Chapter 9
PRACTICAL FIELD CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1

9.1 Surveying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3
communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3
pre-plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3
exclusions, skids and offsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3
format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3
final survey plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4
final plans for regulatory bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4
9.2. Script Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4
source point sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4
alter the script file . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5
SPS Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6
9.3 Roll-on/off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.9
9.4 Patch Moves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.10
in-line rolls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.10
x-line rolls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.10
template positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.10
9.5 Shooting Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.11
Vibrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.11
Dynamite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.11
9.6 Distance from the Edge of Patch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.12
maximize the recording time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.12
Snaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.12
Ping-ponging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.12
size of the patch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.12
Down times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.12
9.7 Large Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.13
shoot in “zippers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.13
full swath roll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.14
9.8 Field Visits (QC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.15
Quality control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.15
Bird-dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.15
consecutive source points may be dropped . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.15
9.9 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.15
Imaging area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.15
Cables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.15
First Break Templates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.16
Permitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.16
Low Impact Seismic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.16
Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.16
Daily safety meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.16
medical support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.16
accident reporting procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.16
contractual agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.16
9.10 Field Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.17
Quiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.21
Quiz Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.22
9.2
Table of Contents
Chapter 10
PROCESSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1
10.1 Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3
Field processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3
Quality control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3
end product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3
10.2 Processing Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3
typical processing stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3
standard film displays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3
10.3 Refraction Statics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5
shallow refractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5
small Xmin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5
Reflection Statics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5
deeper refractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5
10.4 Velocity analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6
velocity control points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6
Semblance analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6
directional property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6
10.5 Reflection Statics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.8
pilot trace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.8
Statics coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.8
10.6 Dip Move-Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.10
dip-specific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.10
DMO ellipse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.10
Constructive interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.11
Bin balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.12
weighted DMO fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.12
DMO responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.12
pseudo dipping event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.12
dips across narrow patches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.13
10.7 Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.14
good fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.14
bad fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.14
10.8 Making Adjustments for Data Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.16
data quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.16
borrowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.16
running mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.16
data quality is high . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.16
Bin-rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.16
Multiple attenuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.16
Quiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.18
Quiz Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.19
10.2
Table of Contents
Chapter 11
INTERPRETATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1
11.1 Interpretation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3
Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3
geometry related artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3
Paper displays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3
workstation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3
11.2 Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4
define the prospect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4
Smoothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4
Hand-contoured maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4
depth structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4
11.3 Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4
2D and 3D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4
different disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4
enhancement of the data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4
11.2
Table of Contents
Chapter 12
ADVANCED TOPICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1

12.1 Transition Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3
lake, marsh and river . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3
fewer variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3
testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3
Phase matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3
Winter vs. summer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3
Dual sensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3
water bottom cables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3
12.2 Pre-Stack Migration to Re-bin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.4
12.3 Digital Orthomaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5
TIFF format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5
Aerial photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5
12.4 Converted Wave 3D Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6
fractured reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6
anisotropical behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6
conversion point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6
increasing the bin size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.7
12.5 3D Inversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.8
thickness and impedance changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.8
porosity distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.8
12.6 Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.8
Closing discussion period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.8
Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.8
12.2
Using OMNI
By
Mike Galbraith
&
Andreas Cordsen & John Peirce
Copyright 1997
©
Using OMNI
By
Mike Galbraith
&
Andreas Cordsen & John W. Peirce

Third Edition
© Copyright 1997
No figures or examples may be reproduced by any means without permission in writing by the authors.
INTRODUCTION
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions from the staff of Geophysical
Exploration & Development Corporation and of Seismic Image Software Ltd., both of
Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Through numerous discussions and presentations many
aspects of 3D design became more clearly understood.
In particular, we would like to thank Debi Walker for her dedication to excellence in the text
editing and drafting of the figures.
Introduction
This course is intended to give the participants all the necessary tools to start designing
3D seismic surveys upon returning to their offices. The substantial experience of the
authors in designing and acquiring land 3D seismic surveys will make this a very practical
course. The participants are encouraged to share their own experiences with the group.
Participants are expected to have a general working knowledge of 2D seismic data

acquisition, processing and interpretation. Some 3D experience is helpful, but not
necessary to understand the course material.
Several practical exercises will aid in solidifying the understanding of the subject matter
and the course participants can probably work through the exercises during class or back
at the office.
The authors have extensive experience in the use of several software packages for 3D
design and interpretation. They do not profess to be expert seismic data processors;
therefore, the processing issues are discussed to a limited degree only.
Throughout this course material, an attempt has been made to provide data examples in
both metric and imperial units. The imperial examples are shown in italics and are not
necessarily a straight conversion from the metric examples.
Some geophysicists may want to enhance their knowledge by reading publications

concerning their particular special interests. A reference list and a collection of other
recommended reading are provided at the end of the material.
ii
Introduction
ABBREVIATIONS
This is a list of commonly used abbreviations in these course notes:
b bin dimension
Fdom dominant frequency
Fmax maximum frequency
MA migration aperture
NC number of channels
NRL number of receiver lines
NSL number of source lines
NS number of source points per unit area
RI receiver interval
RLI receiver line interval
SI source interval
SLI source line interval
t two-way travel time
Vint interval velocity immediately above the reflecting horizon
Vave average velocity from surface to the reflecting horizon
Xmin largest minimum offset
Xmax maximum recorded offset
Z depth to reflecting horizon
8 wavelength
2 geologic dip angle
Other abbreviations may be used throughout the text and are explained when used.
iii
Conversion Table
To convert from imperial units to metric units multiply by
Inches (in) Centimeters (cm) 2.54

Feet (ft) Meters (m) 0.3048
Miles (mi) Kilometers (km) 1.609
Square Miles (mi2) Square Kilometers (km2) 2.56
Acres (ac) Hectares (ha) 0.405
Barrels (bbls) Cubic Meters (m3) 0.159
Thousand Cubic Feet Gas (mcf) Thousand Cubic Meters (103m3) 0.028169
Pounds (lb.) Kilograms (kg) 0.454
To convert from metric units to imperial units multiply by
Centimeters (cm) Inches (in) 0.3937

Meters (m) Feet (ft) 3.28
Kilometers (km) Miles (mi) 0.6215
Square Kilometers (km2) Square Miles (mi2) 0.39
Hectares (ha) Acres (ac) 2.47
Cubic Meters (m3) Barrels (bbls) 6.29
3 3
Thousand Cubic Meters (10 m ) Thousand Cubic Feet Gas (mcf) 35.5
Kilograms (kg) Pounds (lb.) 2.2
To convert to multiply by
Thousand Cubic Feet Gas (mcf) Barrel of Oil Equivalent (boe) 0.1
Miles (mi) Feet (ft) 5280
Square Miles (sq. mi) Acres (ac) 640
Square Miles (sq. mi) Hectares (ha) 256
Hectares (ha) Square Meters (m2) 10,000
iv
Chapter 1
INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS
This chapter discusses the nontechnical issues surrounding the acquisition of a 3D
seismic survey.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1
INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1

1.1 Management Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3
education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3
customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3
Possible partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3
1.2 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4
why the 3D survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4
1.3 Industry Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4
3D data over larger areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4
acquisition prices falling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5
consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5
1.4 Financial Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5
Cost factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5
Budget constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5
economic rate of return . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6
development locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6
1.5 Target Horizons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7
main zone of interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7
Secondary zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7
regional objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7
1.6 Sequence of Events for Data Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8
overall time line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8
scouting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8
Design the 3D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8
regulatory approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8
experienced 3D crews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8
bid procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8
legal contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10
Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10
geophysical trespass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10
operating conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10
local operating conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10
24-hour basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10
Surveyors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10
Shot hole drilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
Vibrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
recording crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
recorder unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
processor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
Drilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
1.7 Environment & Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
Environmental issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11
1.8 Special Considerations of 3D vs. 2D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.12
1.9 Definition of 3D Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.12
Source Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.12
Receiver Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.12
In-Line Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.12
X-Line Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.12
Box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.13
Patch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.13
Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.13
Swath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.13
Midpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14
CMP Bin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14
Super Bin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14
Fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14
Signal-to-Noise Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14
Source Point Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14
Xmin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14
Xmax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14
Migration Aperture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.15
Fold Taper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.15
Quiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.16
Quiz Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.17
1.2
Initial Considerations
1.1 Management Attitudes
If the management of your company has had prior exposure to 3D seismic surveys, less education by the
technical staff (usually the geophysicists) is necessary before recommending a 3D survey. The management
will be familiar with the type of acquisition, processing and interpretation requirements that a 3D survey may
place on its staff. There will also be some preconceived ideas as to the final products that might be delivered
at the various stages. It is important to emphasize that success or failure in a past 3D survey may not
necessarily be duplicated in any future programs. Significant improvements can be made by altering the
design, acquisition and processing parameters. Conversely, results may be poorer than expected if poor
design parameters are chosen.
Geophysicists may find themselves serving one or more “customers.” Once the data have been acquired
and interpreted, the interpreted data set will become a focal point for many different people. The
interpretation will be delivered to team members of many different disciplines (Fig. 1.1). The data also
become a valuable asset with resale value.
Possible partners who may or may not have interests

in part of the area to be covered by the survey need to Log Analyst
be informed at an early stage about the planned
operations. This will allow them to set aside the Production Engineer
anticipated financial and personnel resources. They
Geologist
may wish to have significant input into choosing the
area for the planned 3D survey, or planning the design, Geophysicist
or they may wish to contribute in some other manner.
Obtaining their approval is much easier if they have Manager
been intimately involved from the start. This approach
gives partners a sense of ownership. Often a company Landman
that operates the drilling of wells is not the one that Drilling Engineer
contributes most to a 3D survey. It is possible, for
example, that another partner in the area could operate Partners
an extensive seismic program. Information exchange is
a vitally important aspect of being able to do the very
best technical job.
Figure 1.1
The Geophysicist as part of the
Exploration/Exploitation Team
1.3
1.2 Objectives
Establish early and clearly why the 3D survey is to be recorded (some possible reasons are listed in Fig.
1.2). Keep these goals in mind in all phases of the planning process. Any seismic program must be recorded,
processed and interpreted in time to deliver sufficient results to the owners of the data to allow them to
evaluate all results along with other information and constraints that they may have.
Many geoscientists before us may have wished to have 3D data sets. Why didn’t we shoot 3D before? The
major reason for the lack of 3Ds in the past is, of course, product development and equipment limitations
for field operations, processing and interpretation. Today much more data can be recorded, processed and
interpreted for far less money than before.
Most of the reasons for 3D listed in Fig. 1.2 do not need

any explanations. Some though may not be obvious:
bank financing even for drilling wells may only be
available to oil companies if they are based on 3D Exploration
seismic. The buzz word of “3D Seismic” has reached Structure
Wall Street! Reservoir monitoring may be essential for Fault Definition
better production practices in large fields. The Stratigraphy
differences observed in many 3D seismic surveys Land Sales
recorded over several years show the progress of Concession Offerings
depletion and flooding practices.
Expiring Lands
Time-to-Depth Conversion
3D
Bank Financing
Exploitation
Reservoir Characterization
Reservoir Monitoring
Horizontal Drilling
Inversion
1.3 Industry Trends Figure 1.2

The Many Different Reasons for
Many companies, small or large, are using high
technology tools to get the right answers. This is very
Shooting a
true for the energy sector and especially for the usage 3D Seismic Survey
of 3D seismic.
Small independents may only acquire 3Ds that are very small to help detail relatively small land holdings
surrounding existing production. Larger oil companies may acquire 3D data over larger areas, e.g., several
of 10-100km2. Often these surveys are for exploratory purposes only. Acquisition contractors are offering
to record huge 3D surveys not only in the offshore environment (where it has been done for a while) but also
onshore. One such contractor recently placed an advertisement in an industry publication indicating that they
would record over 200km2 as a participation survey.
Another contractor is quoted as saying that they acquired only 6 sq. mi of 3D data in 1990, while in 1994 their
annual total had risen to 1115 sq. mi (A. Koen, 1995).
1.4
Where does all this lead? One estimate for North America indicates that within 10 years essentially all of the
area in the US and Canada that is suitable for the application of 3D will be covered (Fig. 1.3). This includes
moderately drilled oil and gas provinces. With acquisition prices falling at a fast rate, and higher channel
capacities being available, 3D acquisition becomes the favored choice over 2D acquisition.
Where do the oil companies find the expertise to plan,

acquire, process and interpret the 3D data? Many major
oil companies will have the necessary resources 3D Usage - US & Canada
in-house, while medium and small size oil companies 100
will heavily rely on the knowledge and experience that 90

consultants can offer. When dealing with the subject
80
all the time, it is much easier to be proficient at Rapid Growth
planning and operating such surveys. 70
60
Slow Growth
50
40
30
20
10
0
1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007
Figure 1.3
Application of 3D Technology to
Areas Suitable for 3D in North
1.4 Financial Issues
America
Cost factors play an important role in the ability of your (A. Koen, 1995 after A. Cranberg,
management to make favorable decisions toward the Aspect Management Corp.)
necessary expenditures for a 3D survey. The
exploration team must prove to management that a
dense grid of geophysical data tied to geological information from existing wells or concepts provides
significant economic benefits by reducing the number of dry holes and therefore overall costs. In the past,
at least one discovery well in a particular prospect area was needed to convince management to spend
additional resources on 3D seismic data. Recently one can observe a trend to use 3D technology even in
a purely exploratory environment. The cost of acquiring several 2D programs possibly spread over many
years may be just as high as a 3D survey (Fig. 1.4). In addition the problems of interpreting and consistently
incorporating various vintages of 2D data lead to inevitable uncertainties that may be insurmountable.
Therefore, acquiring 3D seismic data provides a more cost-effective product through more confidence and
technical information.
Budget constraints need to be made very clear at the early planning phase; otherwise, unrealistic designs
may result. If the known budget numbers are too low, the 3D survey may very well be under designed and
therefore not be able to meet management’s expectations. On the other hand if the known budget numbers
are too high the person or group of people designing the 3D may over design the 3D in areal extent or other
technical specifications. It must be known who ultimately controls the budget and who approves any
unanticipated changes, especially cost overruns. Is it a committee that only meets on particular dates or in
some irregular intervals? How difficult is it to obtain timely approvals in order to stick to the time schedule?
1.5
Management needs to be able to evaluate the

economic rate of return for any project in question.
Does the potential of a prospect along with its
associated risk warrant the additional expenditure of a
3D seismic survey? More often than not a 3D survey is
hard to justify on a single well basis. However, if a
significant discovery is missed by drilling in the wrong
location then a 3D seismic survey may very well be
worthwhile. Exploration wildcat wells are exactly that.
A 3D survey may make a wildcat less “wild.”
On a project scale with numerous development

locations (and even for low cost drilling of relatively
shallow wells) 3D seismic surveys are often
economically justifiable (Fig. 1.5). If many step-out
wells and in-fill locations are anticipated, project
economics may dictate a 3D survey. Similarly, plans for
horizontal drilling may require tightly controlled seismic
data. For example, should the target horizon be
relatively thin the drilling engineers may have a difficult Figure 1.4
time trying to keep the drill bit in the reservoir without
sufficient geological and geophysical information.
Cost Comparison of 2D
Programs Spread over Several
Years
vs. 3D Programs
A good example might be as follows: Cost

Assume drilling 10 wells at a dry hole cost of
$300K each versus drilling the same 10 wells at a
finding cost of $250K each with 3D data.
10 * $300K = $3,000,000
10 * $250K = $2,500,000
difference = $ 500,000
This example indicates that one might have $500K

available to invest in the acquisition of a 3D data set.
Under current economic conditions this might pay for -10
square miles of 3D at a cost of $50,000 each.
A more thorough analysis of the value of 3D through Cost of 3D Seismic
decision tree analysis and expected value concepts is

provided by W.K. Aylor (1995).
Cross-over Point Increasing Number of Wells
Figure 1.5
Project Economics, for Wells
and a 3D Survey
1.6
1.5 Target Horizons
The 3D seismic survey should be designed for the main zone of interest (primary target). This zone will
determine project economics to the largest degree and therefore should be the one affecting parameter
selection for the 3D seismic survey. Fold, bin size and offset range to be used for the stacking, all need to
be related to the main target. The direction of major geological features such as faults or channels may
influence the direction of the receiver and/or source lines.
Secondary zones or other regional objectives may

have a large impact on the 3D design as well. A shallow
secondary target, for example, may require very short
near offsets. Deeper regional objectives and migration
considerations may dictate that the far offset of the
survey should be substantially greater than the Shallowest Marker for
Isochrons
maximum offset for stack used in the fold calculation at
the target level (Fig. 1.6). Secondary Target
Primary Target
Secondary Target
Figure 1.6
Design the 3D for the primary
target horizon keeping in mind
the secondary zones above and
below and any markers needed
for mapping
1.7
1.6 Sequence of Events for Data Acquisition
Mapping out an overall time line will avoid nasty surprises and keep everyone’s expectations somewhat
close to reality. It should also help in meeting critical deadlines such as land sales, land expiries or bid
submission dates. This time line should be updated by the technical team as the project progresses so that
the parties involved are kept abreast of the changes. A realistic time line needs to be established early so
that expectations are on track with the overall process of obtaining the data (Fig. 1.7). The time required for
each step in the time line varies widely from area to area. A very small 3D can be completed from scouting
to the drilling stage within 6-8 weeks, while larger surveys in difficult access areas may demand two or more
years. In-depth knowledge of local time constraints is essential!
A scouting trip to the 3D area may provide substantial input necessary for the design of the 3D survey; e.g.,
existing cut lines may dictate line intervals and/or direction, or surface cover could influence dynamite hole
depth and charge size.
Design the 3D keeping all technical parameters in mind. The design may need to be updated as more
elements and parameters of the time line become known.
Request all necessary, regulatory approvals. Stay in close contact with the regulatory bodies to ensure
smooth operation. Remember to consider past survey requirements and costs (forestry, damages, reseeding,
fixing erosion problems, etc.).
Critical questions such as “Are experienced 3D crews available locally?” need to be answered early in the
project. If crews need to be shipped across the country or even from another country, major delays should
be expected, especially when clearing customs. High-technology equipment is often harder to get through
customs because the equipment is usually not understood by the officials. Knowing the availability of spare
equipment is important if something goes wrong in the field. If cables get damaged, how much replacement
equipment can be brought in and how long will it take?
What kinds of acquisition bid procedures are customary locally? How much time is involved from
requesting such bids to their actual submission? How much time do the contractors realistically need to put
a reasonably accurate bid together? Do the contractors need to research local conditions and to what extent?
Your company may have bidding procedures laid out in a very particular manner, e.g., bids may need to be
presented in a form of cost/km2, cost/source point, cost/day or a total project cost, just to name a few
different variations. Make sure that the content requirements for an acquisition bid are clearly known to
everyone involved in the bidding process. If the contractor has to sign a standard contract before embarking
on a job, you may want to include this contract at the stage of requesting a bid. It is important that a
satisfactory contract be negotiated that meets the needs in your company’s particular situation and reflects
the political environment.
Many acquisition contractors will subcontract parts of the job, (e.g., surveying, shot hole drilling and cat
work). The costs of these subcontracts are usually considered extras and therefore may not be included in
the overall cost/unit basis. A best effort must be made to estimate the extent of these extras to arrive at a
realistic total cost figure for a 3D seismic survey. These so-called extras may more than double the
acquisition cost! The uncertainties in cost because of allowances for bad weather can be a significant fraction
of the total cost.
Turnkey quotes will help set the price for, hopefully, most of the acquisition costs. They will assure the clients
that the crew will work fast. Some element of supervision must be introduced to obtain the required quality
of service. Daily rates on the other hand do not give the crew an incentive to work their hardest and fastest.
However, if no other jobs are waiting for the crew the best level of service can possibly be obtained in such
a manner.
1.8
Scouting
Design the 3D Survey
Request Regulatory Approvals
Check on Crew Availability
Send Out Bid Requests
Sign Legal Contract
Permit Land Owners for Access
Check on Local Operating Conditions
Surveying
Shot Hole Drilling (if necessary)
Testing
Recording
Processing
Interpretation
Drilling
Figure 1.7
Overall Time Line
1.9
Some companies may choose to hire an acquisition crew for an entire acquisition season or even for several
years. Under such circumstances, the need to negotiate every seismic program disappears and better
planning needs to be implemented for continuous operation. The price guarantee that usually accompanies
such arrangements is a big advantage over the uncertainties this industry experiences in fluctuating markets.
Often the legal contract the contractor provides is only very sketchy. If there happen to be any field
problems, accidents or insufficiencies, an incomplete contract may only provide limited protection for both
the acquisition contractor and the client. It is advisable to have your legal department or legal representative
review the contract and assure yourself that sufficient protection exists for both parties. If experience with
such contracts is nonexistent within your organization then outside advice should be requested.
Permits may be required from land surface owners to obtain entry. Permit issues will have a great impact
on any 3D survey in a number of different ways. First landowners may not want to see any member of an
acquisition crew during the growing season of their crop even if crop damages are to be paid. Slight changes
in the design or layout of the receivers and sources may make a huge difference to particular landowners.
For example, by moving a portion of a line across the fence to neighboring non-crop land, one may avoid
crop damages and pay another landowner permit fees. This is a mutually beneficial scenario for all
concerned. Good rapport with the landowners will go a long way to assuring access to their lands when
necessary. Keeping damages to a minimum will help the next seismic crew that works in the same area.
Often permitting by km2 is less expensive than permitting by line km. This method gives the user more
freedom of choice in the field.
If a landowner controls a large percentage of the lands in a 3D survey and is opposed to the seismic
operation, the entire program may be in jeopardy. Large gaps of “no coverage” on a 3D survey are
undesirable, and such opposition may cripple the planned survey and perhaps cancel part of your exploration
program.
In some US states it is illegal to record a geophysical measurement of any kind over another owner’s mineral
rights without a permit from that owner (geophysical trespass). This is a relatively new concept, and there
is considerable confusion as to how the relevant laws should be interpreted. Most operators are now being
very diligent at obtaining permits over all relevant lands in order to protect themselves against possible
liability. Many operators of 3D surveys are trimming their surveys to insure that there are no stacked traces
over areas not covered by permits. See AAPG Explorer, June 1995, for discussion of Burr Ranch case and
related issues.
How much do you know about the operating conditions? Which contractors have experience in the area
to contribute to the successful operation of such programs? Will they share this information at the time of
bid submission or only if they win the contract?
If the knowledge of local operating conditions or possible quality to be expected is limited, then a 2D test
line may very well be required and it is sometimes essential for correct parameter selection. Source and
receiver array tests are much easier, especially for small 3D surveys, when a 2D test line is being considered
first. On a large 3D survey it might be justified to conduct the required tests at the start of the survey. Large
surveys may require a variety of sources or receivers (such as in a transition zone) and several test
sequences may be performed throughout the survey. Sometimes the local conditions are known well enough
that a 3D survey may proceed without any testing at all.
Many crews will plan to operate on a 24-hour basis to reduce the overhead cost per source point. One has
to check whether local customs and/or laws will allow such around-the-clock operation. Limiting activity to
dawn-to-dusk will significantly lengthen the number of days needed to record a 3D seismic survey.
Surveyors need to go to the field and establish a perimeter of the 3D seismic survey before filling in the
specific source and receiver lines. Today’s Global Positioning Systems (GPS) provides sufficient accuracy
and is faster than more traditional Electronic Distance Measurement (EDM) devices. Once the grid has been
established, chainers will mark every source and receiver group location. GPS does not work well in dense
tree cover or in deep ravines where the satellites can’t be seen. For further information on GPS please see
Harris and Longaker (1994).
1.10
Shot hole drilling may commence immediately following, or even concurrent with, the surveying. Usually
the entire 3D will be drilled before the recording crew arrives, assuming that all source parameters have been
previously established. This reduces noise interference between the drilling units and the recorder. There
is also no chance of the drillers being in the way of the layout crew.
Vibrator trucks or buggies may start sweep production once the sweep parameters have been tested. It is
always advisable to complete phase, peak force and correlation tests before going into production mode.
These tests should be repeated several times during the acquisition program and hopefully more than once
daily.
Testing is important for both dynamite and vibrator (or any other source) acquisition. If the present program
does not allow or warrant any testing, an attempt should be made to find past tests or data. If you are
planning future programs in the area then testing may be instructive, even if the present survey cannot
benefit from the test results.
The recording crew will place the receivers on the ground in a predetermined array. These receiver groups
will be connected to a cable that carries the digital information to the recorder. Distributed systems still
require cable connections from “line tap units” to the recorder while true telemetry systems use radio signals
for wireless data transmission.
The recorder unit (dog house) has a complete set of electronics that allows data correlation (for vibrators)
and recording of the shot records including traces corresponding to each geophone group.
The field tapes will be sent to the processor for the processing of the data. The choice of the processor
should be decided before the crew enters the field. Survey notes need to be reduced to final coordinates and
the final survey plans must be forwarded to the processor.
Interpretation on paper and/or on the workstation will give a clear idea of the geological variations in the
area of the 3D survey. Will the interpretation be done in-house, by a partner or by a consultant?
Drilling should only commence after sufficient time has been allotted to a thorough and complete
interpretation.
1.7 Environment & Weather
Environmental issues play an ever more important role in all of our lives - not just in seismic data
acquisition. We should do our best to protect the environment as much as possible. Line cutting in forested
areas should be limited to the smallest width necessary. Small jogs in the lines are often requested to protect
the pristine appearance of the woods and to protect the wild life. In mountainous areas or other difficult
terrain, helicopter support may be essential for the shot hole drilling or the laying of receiver cables to
minimize the damaging effect on the environment.
Wildlife protection issues have to be addressed regarding mating seasons and migration paths. In a
transition zone, fish spawning might be of concern at certain times of the year. In some parts of the world
rodents may chew cables and hinder successful data transmission. We suggest the use of wooden pegs for
station flags - to lessen the damage to farm equipment and animals, such as cows, who may be tempted to
chew on them! Some areas are so environmentally sensitive that local interest groups may lobby
government officials to prevent any seismic operation. Or they may interfere directly with seismic or drilling
operations. Good community relations in advance of operations may be a wise investment.
Weather conditions may constrain operation of a seismic program to certain times of the year. Rain or snow
may alter ground conditions to such a degree that data quality is severely diminished. Crew movement may
also be hindered. In cold climates one may want to wait for frost before laying out the geophones to improve
the coupling of the geophone spikes to the ground. Snow cover may need to be removed to allow the frost
into the ground (rather than allowing the snow to act as an insulator). Often the lines need to be cleared
several times if significant new snowfall occurs during operations. In warmer climates extreme heat
conditions may hinder the effectiveness of the crew’s personnel.
1.11
1.8 Special Considerations of 3D vs. 2D
One needs to specify the objectives of a 3D survey far more precisely than for a 2D survey because the
acquisition parameters are much harder to change in mid-program.
With a 3D survey (as opposed to 2D) much more line cutting is required in forested areas. This makes it
harder to obtain approval from regulatory bodies and even when this is granted one may be limited to using
existing cut lines or be restricted to hand-cut receiver lines that can slow the operation.
On a 3D survey the equipment stays on the ground much longer than with 2D. This will expose the
equipment to environmental, vehicular, weather and wild life damage.
Spatial sampling in 3D is usually much coarser than in 2D (e.g., 20-40m bins vs. 5-15m trace spacing in
2D). One needs to be convinced of the adequacy of the wider sampling.
Finally the sources and receivers are laid out over an area and the recordings have an azimuthal element
that is not present in 2D. Note that different azimuthal contributions are usually, but not always, desirable.
If any out-of-the-plane phenomenon exists in 2D one can usually not determine the direction of its cause.
3D migration has a better chance of positioning such anomalies properly.
Is 3D always better than 2D? One can argue about various aspects of the two for years to come. 3D data
have a common set of acquisition and processing parameters over a large area and therefore are far easier
to interpret. The data volume is continuous and one may extract lines in any direction out of this volume.
However in some situations 2D may actually be more beneficial than 3D (e.g., because of regional
perspective or resolution, i.e., trace spacing)!
1.9 Definition of 3D Terms
Figures 1.8 & 1.9 show a straight line 3D survey, in plan view, with most of the definitions used in these
course notes. Use these diagrams for reference.
Source Line
A line (perhaps a road) along which source points (e.g., dynamite or vibrator points) are taken at
regular locations. The in-line separation of sources (source interval, SI) is usually equal to twice the
Common Mid Point (CMP) bin dimensions in the x-line direction. This 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 one source line and the next is usually
called the Source Line Interval (or SLI). The SLI and SI determine the source point density - or how
many source points per square kilometer there are.
Receiver Line
A line (perhaps a road or a cut-line through bush) along which receivers are laid out at regular
intervals (receiver interval, RI), that 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 one receiver line and the next is commonly referred to as the
receiver line interval (or RLI). As we will see shortly, the method of laying out source and receiver
lines can vary tremendously, but must always obey simple guidelines.
In-Line Direction
Parallel to receiver lines.
X-Line Direction
Orthogonal to receiver lines.
1.12
Box
In straight line 3D surveys this name applies to the area bounded by two adjacent source lines and
two adjacent receiver lines (Fig. 1.8 and 1.11). The interesting thing about a box is that the box
usually represents the smallest area of a 3D survey that contains the entire survey statistics. In a
straight line survey the midpoint bin located at the exact center of the box will have contributions
from many source-receiver pairs, but the shortest offset trace belonging to that bin will be the largest
minimum offset of the entire survey.
In other words, of the minimum offsets in all CMP bins, the minimum offset in the bin at the center
of the box will be the biggest (Xmin). We will see shortly how different layout strategies attempt to
deal with this phenomenon.
Patch A patch refers to all live stations for any source point in the 3D survey. It usually forms a rectangle
Receiver Line SLI
RLI
Source Line
Box
Template
(Patch)
In-Line
Figure 1.8
3D Survey Terms
of several parallel receiver lines. The patch moves around the survey to occupy different template
positions.
Template
A template is a combination of a particular receiver patch into which a number of source points are
recorded. These source points may be inside or outside the patch.
Template = Patch + associated Source Points
Swath Swath has been used with different meanings in the industry. When talking about the swath layout
method it describes the subsurface position of the line that has data but no surface lines associated
with it. When considering progress of the template while shooting a survey, a swath describes the
number of receiver lines that are being rolled at once, that usually equals the width of the swath over
which the sources are being shot.
1.13
Midpoint
The point located exactly halfway between a source and a receiver location. If a 480-channel
receiver patch is laid out, each source point will create 480 midpoints. The midpoints will usually be
scattered and may not necessarily form a regular grid.
CMP Bin
A small rectangular area. Usually the dimensions of a bin = SI/2 * RI/2. All midpoints that lie inside
this area, or bin, are assumed to belong to the same common midpoint. In other words, all traces
that lie in the same bin will be CMP stacked and therefore contribute to the fold. On occasion one
may choose the area over which traces are stacked to be different from the bin size, e.g., to increase
fold. This introduces some smoothing and should be performed with caution and only if it does not
affect resolution.
Super Bin
This name (and others like macro bin or maxi
bin) applies to a group of neighboring CMP
bins. These are used for velocity
determination, residual static solutions, multiple
attenuation and some noise attenuation
algorithms. We will use the word CMP to
emphasize that we are talking about midpoints.
Later we will discuss the meaning of CDP or
Common Depth Point.
Figure 1.9
3D Bin Terms
Figure 1.10 explains some additional terms in a perspective view.
Fold Fold is the number of midpoints being 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.
Signal-to-Noise Ratio
The ratio of the energy of the signal over the energy of the noise. Usually abbreviated as S/N.
Source Point Density

The source point density (or sometimes called shot density), NS, (units are source points/km2 or mi2
) together with the number of channels, NC, and the size of the CMP bin will completely determine
the fold.
Xmin Xmin is the largest minimum offset in a survey (sometimes referred to as LMOS), as described under
“Box.” See Fig . 1.11. A small Xmin is necessary to record shallow events.
Xmax Xmax is the maximum continuous recorded offset, which depends on shooting strategy and patch size.
Xmax is usually the half-diagonal distance of the patch. (Patches with external sources have a
different geometry). A large Xmax is necessary to record deeper events. The range of offsets defined
by Xmin and Xmax should be guaranteed in every bin.
1.14
Migration Aperture
The quality of images achieved by 3D migration is the single most important advantage of 3D vs.
2D. The Migration Aperture is the width of the fringe area that needs to be added to the 3D survey
to allow proper migration of any dipping event. It need not be the same width on all sides of the
survey.
Fold Taper
The fold taper is the additional surface area needed to build up full fold. Often there is some overlap
between the fold taper and the migration aperture because one can tolerate a somewhat reduced
fold on the outer edges of the migration aperture.
Time
Figure 1.10
3D Survey Design Terms
1.15
Figure 1.11 will help you understand a few of the terms just discussed.
Assuming RLI and SLI of 360m (1320 ft), RI

and SI of 60m (220 ft), the bin dimensions are
30m * 30m (110 ft * 110 ft). The box (being Receiver Lines
formed by two parallel receiver lines and the
orthogonal source lines) will have a diagonal
of:
Xmin = ( 360 2 + 360 2 ) ½ m

= 509 m Bin
Xmin = ( 1320 2 + 1320 2 ) ½ ft

= 1867 ft
The value of Xmin will define the largest

minimum offset to be recorded in the bin that is
in the center of the box.
Figure 1.11
One Box showing Sources,
Receivers, Bins and Xmin
Quiz
1. What is the definition of a receiver line interval?
2. What is the migration aperture?
3. How would you determine Xmin in a straight line survey (orthogonal source and receiver lines) ?
4. How large is a super-bin?
1.16
Quiz Answers
1. The receiver line interval RLI is the distance between adjacent receiver lines.
2. Migration aperture is the width of the fringe area that needs to be added to the 3D survey to allow
proper migration of any dipping event or diffraction point at the edge of the “image” area. Migration
apertures may vary between the strike and the di p direction. Note that migration aperture is not the
same as the fold taper needed to build up fold at the edge of the survey. The fold taper and
migration aperture often (always?) overlap.
3. Calculate the diagonal of the “box” formed by adjacent receiver and source lines . This number will
reflect the minimum offset for the CMP bin exactly in the center of that box. It will be the largest
minimum offset of the 3D survey.
4. A super-bin is an area large enough to incorporate a sufficient number of traces to have a good
representation of offsets for velocity determination. It should not be so large that the geology is
varying too much. There is no one particular size that can be predetermined. However, typically the
super-bin is 3 * 3 bins in size.
1.17
Chapter 2
PLANNING & DESIGN

Survey design depends on so many different input parameters and constraints that it has become quite an
art. Laying out lines of sources and receivers must be done with an eye toward the expected results. Some
rules of thumb and guidelines are essential to help one through the maze of different parameters that need
to be considered. Computer programs are now available to assist the geophysicist in this task.
Table of Contents
Chapter 2
PLANNING & DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1

Fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3
Bin Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3
Xmin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3
Xmax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3
Fold Taper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3
Record Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3
2.2 Straight Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4
orthogonal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4
Straight Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4
2.3 Fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5
3D Fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5
2D Fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5
2.4 In-Line Fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6
source points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6
receiver line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6
2.5 X-Line Fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8
half the number of receiver lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8
2.6 Total Fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9
product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9
2.7 S/N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10
S/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10
2.8 Bin Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10
bin interval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10
Bin size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10
fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10
shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10
2.8.1 Target Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.11
2.8.2 Maximum Unaliased Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.12
2.8.3 Lateral Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.15
2.8.3.1 Lateral Resolution after Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.16
2.8.3.2 Separation of Diffractions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.17
2.9 Xmin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.20
SLI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.20
RLI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.20
shallow reflectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.21
refraction criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.22
2.10 Xmax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.23
maximum offset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.23
existing 2D data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.25
geological model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.26
10 factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.27
2.10.1 Target Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.27
2.10.2 Direct Wave Interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.27
2.10.3 Refracted Wave Interference (First Breaks) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.27
2.10.4 Deep Horizon Critical Reflection Offset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.27
2.10.5 Offset required to see Deepest LVL (refractor) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.27
2.10.6 NMO Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.28
2.10.7 Maximum NMO stretch to be allowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.28
2.10.8 Multiple Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.28
2.10.9 Offsets necessary for AVO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.28
2.10.10 Maximum length of cable available from a contractor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.28
Quiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.31
Quiz Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.32
2.2
Planning & Design
2.1 Survey Design Decision Table
There are 7 key parameters in any 3D. The following decision table is presented for determining fold, bin
size, Xmin, Xmax , migration aperture, fold taper and record length. It summarizes the key parameters that need
to be determined for 3D design. These parameters are discussed in Chapters 2 and 3.
.
Fold see Chapter 2
Bin Size
Xmin
Xmax
Migration Aperture see Chapter 3
Fold Taper
Record Length
1. Fold > ½ * 2D Fold - b * 2D Fold (if the S/N is good)

In-line fold = RLL / ( 2 * SLI )
X-line fold = NRL / 2
2. Bin Size < Target Size. Use 2 - 3 traces

< Aliasing Frequency: b < Vint / ( 4 * Fmax * sin 2 )
< Lateral Resolution available: 8 / 2 or Vint / ( 2 * Fdom )
2 points per wavelength of dominant frequency
3. Xmin . 1.0 - 1.2 * Depth of shallowest horizon to be mapped

< a X1 (and patch width $ 6 lines) for x-line refraction
4. Xmax . Target Depth

< Direct Wave Interference
< Refracted Wave Interference (First Breaks)
< Deep Horizon critical reflection offset, particularly x-line
> Offset required to see deepest LVL (refractor)
> Offset required to get the
NMO *t > one wavelength of dominant frequency
< Offset where NMO stretch becomes intolerable
> Offset required to get multiple discrimination > 3 wavelengths
> Offset necessary for AVO analysis
! cable length must be able to reach Xmax on all receiver lines
5. Migration Aperture (full-fold)

> Radius of first Fresnel Zone
> Diffraction width (apex to tail) for upward takeoff angle = 30o
Z tan 30o = 0.58 Z
> Dip lateral movement after migration = Ztan 2
! Overlap with fold taper as pragmatic compromise
6. Fold Taper . 20% maximum offset for stack (to achieve full fold)
or Xmin < fold taper < 2 * Xmin
7. Record Length Sufficient to capture migration aperture, diffraction tails and target horizons
Table 2.1 Survey Design Decision Table
2.3
2.2 Straight Line
Generally the source and receiver lines are laid out orthogonal to each other. Such an arrangement is
particularly easy for the survey and recording crews. Keeping track of station numbering is very
straightforward.
In the Straight Line method example, receiver lines could run East-West and source lines North-South, as
shown in Figure 2.1, or vice versa. This method is easy to lay out in the field and can accommodate extra
equipment (lay out ahead of shooting) and roll-along operation. All sources between adjacent receiver lines
are fired, the receiver patch is rolled over one line and the process repeated. A portion of a 3D layout is
shown in the top Figure (a) and a detailed view in the bottom Figure (b).
For the purpose of Chapters 2, 3 and 4, we will concentrate on this very common layout method. Other
methods are described in Chapter 5.
Figure 2.1a
Straight Line Design
Figure 2.1b
2.4
Planning & Design
2.3 Fold
Fold is the number of traces that contribute to one stack trace, i.e., the number of midpoints per CMP bin.
Fold is usually based on the desire for good Signal-to-Noise (S/N) ratio. If the fold is doubled, a 41% increase
in S/N is accomplished (Fig. 2.2). Doubling the S/N ratio requires quadrupling the fold (assuming that noise
is distributed in a random Gaussian fashion). Fold should be decided upon by looking at previous surveys
in the area (2D or 3D), a careful evaluation of Xmin and Xmax (Cordsen, 1995b), modeling, and remembering
that DMO and 3D migration can effectively increase the fold.
T. Krey (1987) discusses that the ratio of 3D versus 2D fold is frequency dependent according to:
3D fold = 2D fold * Frequency * C
E.g., 20 = 40 * 50 Hz * C
but 40 = 40 * 100 Hz * C
As a rule of thumb, use 3D Fold = ½ * 2D Fold,
E.g., 3D Fold = ½ * 40 = 20, to achieve comparable results with good quality 2D data. In order
to be on the safe side, one may go to b of the 2D fold.
Some authors recommend a * 2D Fold. This lower ratio can give acceptable results only if the area has
excellent S/N and only minor problems with statics as expected. As well, 3D migration will focus the energy
better than migration of 2D data, therefore allowing a reduction in fold.
Krey’s more complete formula indicates the following:
3D fold = 2D fold * ((3D bin spacing)2 / 2D CDP spacing) * frequency * B * 0.401 / velocity
e.g., 3D fold = 30 ( 302 m2 / 30 m ) * 50 Hz * B * 0.4 / 3000 m / sec = 19

3D fold = 30 ( 1102 ft2 / 110 ft ) * 50 Hz * B * 0.4 / 10000 ft / sec = 21
If the 2D trace spacing is much smaller than the 3D bin Fold = Constant x (S/N)
2
Fold = Constant * (S/N)
size, then 3D fold must be relatively higher to achieve 60
comparable results.
What is the basic fold equation? Well, there are many 45
ways to calculate fold, but we always come back to the

basic fact that one source point creates as many midpoints
30
as there are channels recording data. If all offsets are
within the acceptable recording range then one can easily
determine the fold with the following formula: 15
Fold = NS * NC * b2 * U
0
0 1 2 3 4
S/N
where NS is the number of source points per unit area
NC is the number of channels Figure 2.2
b is the bin dimension (Here, we are assuming Fold vs. S/N
square bins)
U = units factor (10-6 for m/km2 ; 0.03587 * 10-6 for ft/mi2)
2.5
Let’s derive this formula:

Number of midpoints = sources * NC
Source density NS = sources / size of survey
combine to obtain
Number of midpoints / size of survey = NS * NC

Size of survey / Number of bins = bin size b2
multiply with prior equation
Number of midpoints / Number of bins = NS * NC * b2
Fold = NS * NC * b2 * U
Example:
Let’s assume that NS is 46 source points per square kilometer (96/sq. mi)
the number of channels NC is 720
and the bin dimension b is 30m (110ft)
then Fold = 46 * 720 * 30 * 30 m2 / km2 * U = 30,000,000 * 10-6 = 30
or Fold = 96 * 720 * 110 * 110 ft2 / sq. mi * U = 836,352,000 * 0.03587 * 10-6 =30
This is a quick way to figure out whether, on the average, the fold is adequate. In order to determine the
fold adequacy in a more detailed manner, lets look into the different components of fold. For the purposes
of the following examples we will assume that the chosen bin size is small enough to satisfy the aliasing
criteria.
2.4 In-Line Fold
For a straight line survey, the in-line fold is defined similarly to the fold on 2D data; the formula is as follows:
in-line fold = number of receivers * station interval / ( 2 * source interval along the receiver line )
or
in-line fold = receiver line length / (2 * Source Line Interval)
= RLL / 2 * SLI , since the source line interval defines how many source
points there are along any receiver line.
For the time being we assume that all receivers are within the maximum usable offset range! Figure 2.3a
shows a smooth in-line fold distribution assuming the following acquisition parameters (with one receiver line
live over many source lines):
receiver interval 60m 220 ft

receiver line interval 360m 1320 ft
receiver line length 4320m 15840 ft (within the patch)
source interval 60m 220 ft
source line interval 360m 1320 ft
patch 10 lines of 72 receivers
therefore the in-line fold = 4320m / (2 * 360m) = 6

or in-line fold = 15840 ft / (2 * 1320 ft) = 6
2.6
Planning & Design
If longer offsets are needed, should the in-line direction be extended? Using a 9*80 patch, instead of a 10*72
patch, the same number of channels (720) are employed. The receiver line length is 80 * 60m = 4800m (80
* 220 ft = 17600 ft).
therefore the in-line fold = 4800m / (2 * 360m) = 6.7

or in-line fold = 17600 ft / (2 * 1320 ft) = 6.7
We obtained the necessary offsets, but the in-line fold is now non-integer and will show striping as indicated
in Figure 2.3b. Some of the values are 6 and some have the value of 7 for an average of 6.7. This is
undesirable and we will see in a few minutes how this problem may be compounded.
Figure 2.3a
In-Line Fold 10 * 72 Patch
Figure 2.3b
In-Line Fold 9 * 80 Patch
2.7
2.5 X-Line Fold
The x-line fold is simply half the number of receiver lines live in the recording patch:
x-line fold = (number of receiver lines) / 2

= NRL / 2
In our original example of 10 receiver lines of 72 receivers each:

e.g., x-line fold = 10 / 2 = 5
Figure 2.4a shows such x-line fold by

having just one source line live over
many receiver lines.
If we lengthen the receiver lines again to

80 stations per line, we only have
sufficient receivers for 9 full lines. Figure
2.4b shows what happens when we use
an odd number of receiver lines within the
patch. The x-line fold varies between 4
and 5, as now:
x-line fold = 9 / 2 = 4.5
Figure 2.4a
X-Line Fold 10 * 72 Patch
Generally this problem becomes less of a concern when one increases the number of receiver lines to say,
15, because the variation between 7 and 8 (15 / 2 = 7.5) is much less on a percentage basis (12.5%) than
the variation between 4 and 5 (20%). Nevertheless, the x-line fold varies, therefore affecting total fold.
Figure 2.4b
X-Line Fold 9 * 80 Patch
2.8
Planning & Design
2.6 Total Fold
The total nominal fold is nothing more than the product of the in-line fold and the x-line fold:
total nominal fold = (in-line fold) * (x-line fold)
In the example (Figure 2.5a): e.g. total nominal fold = 6 * 5 = 30
Surprised? This answer is of course the same as we calculated initially using the formula:
Fold = NS * NC * b2
However, if we change the configuration to the 9 lines of 80 receivers, what do we get? With in-line fold
varying between 6 and 7 and x-line fold varying between 4 and 5, the total fold now varies between 24 and
35 (Figure 2.5b). Pretty scary for just having lengthened the receiver lines slightly. Although the average is
still 30 we did not get the even 30 fold we expected! There were no changes in either source or receiver
interval, nor any changes in their line intervals.
Note: The above equations assume that the bin size remains constant and is equal to half of the
receiver interval - which in turn is equal to half the source interval. They also assume straight
line designs in which all the source points are within the patch.
By choosing the number of receiver lines

to be even, the x-line fold will be an
integer and will contribute to a smooth
fold distribution. Non-integer in-line and
x-line fold will introduce striping in the
fold distribution.
If the maximum offset for stack is larger

than any offset from any source point to
any receiver station within the patch, then
the most even fold distributions will be
accomplished when the in-line and x-line
fold individually can be calculated to be
an integer (Cordsen, 1995b).
You can see that the careful selection of

the geometric configurations is a
Figure 2.5a
significant component of 3D design. Total Fold 10 * 72 Patch
Figure 2.5b
Total Fold 9 * 80 Patch
2.9
2.7 S/N
The S/N ratio is directly proportional to the length of one

side of the bin (Fig. 2.6). Therefore, only a slight change S/N = Constant * Bin Size
4
in the selection of the bin size can have a major effect on
the fold, and the S/N ratio. The designer of the 3D survey 3.5
needs to be given clear and precise specifications for 3

these parameters, in order to optimize the 3D design 2.5
effectively. If the fold drops below the required level for
2
only a few bins, does that necessarily mean the 3D is
1.5
poorly designed? Increasing the fold by only a small
percentage on an otherwise well designed survey may 1
cost an unreasonable amount of money to satisfy the fold 0.5
requirements of a few bins. 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Bin Size in m
Figure 2.6
S/N vs. Bin Size
2.8 Bin Size
It is important to differentiate between the bin size and the bin interval. The bin size is the area over which
the traces are stacked. The bin interval determines how far apart these trace summations are displayed.
Most of the time these two expressions are used interchangeably (as they are in this text) because they have
the same value, but occasionally they differ.
Bin size and fold go hand in hand as far as selection is Fold = Constant x (Bin Size)
2
concerned. For square bins the length of one side of the Fold = Constant * (Bin Size)
70
bin is directly proportional to the fold. The fold is a
60
quadratic function of the length of one side of the bin (Fig.
2.7). We already discussed in Section 2.3 that the 50
“Constant” relating Fold to Bin Size 2 is the Midpoint
40
Density (i.e., the number of midpoints per square unit
area). 30
Fold = NS * NC * b2 20
10
The preferred shape of a 3D data bin is a square.
Rectangular bins may be acceptable (to highlight certain 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
geological features), if the lateral resolution necessary in Bin Size in m
one direction is different from the required resolution in the
other direction. Also, the spatial sampling requirements for Figure 2.7
migration might be different in different directions.
Note, however, that rectangular bins become a self-fulfilling prophecy! The smaller number of subsurface
measurements in the long direction of the bins ensures that we will not see as many geological features as
we do in the other direction.
Bin size can be determined by examining 3 factors: target size, maximum unaliased frequency due to
dip and lateral resolution - and picking the smallest answer.
2.10
Planning & Design
2.8.1 Target Size
Normally 2 to 3 traces across a small target will be enough since in a 3D this means 4 to 9 traces on a time
slice of the horizon of interest. For example, if the target is a small reef or a narrow channel sand, then make
sure the bins are small enough to get at least 2 (preferably 3) traces across the target. This will give you a
good initial estimate for a practical bin size.
Rule of Thumb: Bin size = Target size / 3
E.g., bin size = 100m / 3 = 33m

bin size = 300 ft / 3 = 100 ft
Consider the following example: recently we acquired a 3D survey in Alberta that crossed a 1600m (one
mile) wide channel (Cordsen, 1993b). Sand pockets within this channel had been difficult to define with 2D
data. A 300m (1/5 mile) wide splay channel became apparent only on the 3D data set (Fig. 2.8). Within this
narrow channel a 100m (1/16 mile) wide sand anomaly surrounded by shale could be identified. The choice
of 24m * 24m ( 78 ft * 78 ft) bin size was rather fortuitous in that the sand anomaly could still be recognized
but only on 4 traces crossing the channel. This is very close to the minimum. Had the bin size been chosen
much larger, the sand anomaly may not have shown up at all.
The power of a 3D data set lies in being able to relate anomalies from one such cross line to the next and
follow the seismic expression continuously. Older 2D data would have not convinced management to drill
this narrow sand body. Several successful oil wells have been drilled into this channel, based on the 3D data.
Sand Anomaly
Figure 2.8
Bin Size and Target Size
2.11
2.8.2 Maximum Unaliased Frequency
Each dipping event will have a maximum possible

unaliased frequency, Fmax (with period, T) before
(b) After migration b
migration that depends on the velocity of the formation,
V interval immediately above the event, the value of the θ V)t
dip, 2 and the bin size, b (Fig. 2.9). 2
sin 2 = ( Vinterval * ªt / 2 ) / b replacing ªt = T / 2
= ( Vinterval * T / 4 ) / b replacing T = 1 / Fmax
= Vinterval / ( 4 * b * Fmax ) tan2 = Vint / (4*b*Fmax )
Note that we use the interval velocity immediately (a) Before migration b
above the horizon, rather than the average velocity to
avoid over-constraining the bin size (see Bee et al., θ
1994, for a discussion). Therefore,
Fmax = Vinterval / ( 4 * b * sin 2 )
Fmax = 3000m / sec ÷ ( 4 * 25m * sin15o ) = 116Hz
or
Fmax = 10000 ft / sec ÷ ( 4 * 82 ft * sin 15o ) = 118Hz sin2 = Vint / (4*b*Fmax )
or solving for the bin size b:

bin size = Vinterval / ( 4 * Fmax * sin 2 ) V=3000m/sec
E.g., if Fmax = 80Hz θ

bin size = 3000m / sec ÷ ( 4 * 80Hz * sin15o ) = 36m
or
bin size = 10000 ft / sec ÷ ( 4 * 80Hz * sin15o ) = 120ft
Figure 2.9
Any frequencies on the event that are higher than this
value will be aliased before migration. In other words Bin Size and Maximum
the true dip of the event will only be contained in Unaliased Frequency
frequencies lower than this value. The above equations Spatial aliasing occurs when the time difference
are based on 2 samples per wavelength. Many between the arrival of zero-offset rays is less
companies now use more stringent requirements of 3 or than one half period apart. (after Yilmaz, 1987)
4 (or even non-integer values such as 2.8), thereby
reducing the bin size.
Note that the process of migration will lower frequencies on all dipping events (the steeper the dip, the lower
the frequencies after migration). Any aliasing of frequencies prior to migration may look like frequency
dispersion after migration due to the particular algorithm being used. Choose a bin size that will successfully
preserve some maximum frequency of your choice through the migration step.
The connection between bin size, b and Fmax after migration is given by similar formulae as above but
replacing sin 2 by tan 2.
2.12
Planning & Design
Metric Example
Using the formula, Fmax = Vint / ( 4 * b * sin2 ), calculate Fmax for the following three sets of numbers
( Vint = 3000 m/sec ):
dip b Fmax
in degrees meters Hz
5 100 =
20 25 =
35 15 =
Using the formula, bin size = Vint / ( 4 * F max * sin2 ), calculate the bin size b for the following three sets of
numbers ( Vint = 3000 m/sec ):
dip Fmax b
in degrees Hz meters
15 100 =
25 60 =
40 40 =
Imperial Example
Using the formula, Fmax = Vint / ( 4 * b * sin2 ), calculate Fmax for the following three sets of numbers
( Vint = 10000 ft/sec ):
dip b Fmax
in degrees ft Hz
5 440 =
20 110 =
45 55 =
Using the formula, bin size = Vint / ( 4 * F max * sin2 ), calculate the bin size b for the following three sets of
numbers ( Vint = 10000 ft/sec ):
dip Fmax b
in degrees Hz ft
15 80 =
20 60 =
30 40 =
2.13
Alias Frequency Tables (Metric)
Table 2.2 calculates Fmax Fmax = Vint / ( 4 * bin * sin ( dip ) ) Vint = 3000 m/sec
dip 10 15 20 25 30 50 100 sub-surface trace spacing

5 861 574 430 344 287 172 86
10 432 288 216 173 144 86 43
15 290 193 145 116 97 58 29
20 219 146 110 88 73 44 22
25 177 118 89 71 59 35 18
30 150 100 75 60 50 30 15
35 131 87 65 52 44 26 13
40 117 78 58 47 39 23 12
45 106 71 53 42 35 21 11 in Hz
Table 2.3 calculates the bin size bin = Vint / ( 4 * Fmax * sin ( dip ) )
dip 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Fmax in Hz

5 215 172 143 123 108 96 86
10 108 86 72 62 54 48 43
15 72 58 48 41 36 32 29
20 55 44 37 31 27 24 22
25 44 35 30 25 22 20 18
30 38 30 25 21 19 17 15
35 33 26 22 19 16 15 13
40 29 23 19 17 15 13 12
45 27 21 18 15 13 12 11 in meters
Alias Frequency Tables (imperial)
Table 2.4 calculates Fmax Fmax = Vint / ( 4 * bin * sin ( dip ) ) Vint = 10000 ft/sec
dip 41 55 82.5 110 165 220 44 sub-surface trace spacing

5 700 522 348 261 174 130 65
10 351 262 175 131 87 65 33
15 236 176 117 88 59 44 22
20 178 133 89 66 44 33 17
25 144 108 72 54 36 27 13
30 122 91 61 45 30 23 11
35 106 79 53 40 26 20 10
40 95 71 47 35 24 18 9
45 86 64 43 32 21 16 8 in Hz
Table 2.5 calculates the bin size bin = Vint / ( 4 * Fmax * sin ( dip ) )
dip 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Fmax in Hz

5 717 574 478 410 359 319 287
10 360 288 240 206 180 160 144
15 241 193 161 138 121 107 97
20 183 146 122 104 91 81 73
25 148 118 99 85 74 66 59
30 125 100 83 71 63 56 50
35 109 87 73 62 54 48 44
40 97 78 65 56 49 43 39
45 88 71 59 51 44 39 35 in feet
2.14
Planning & Design
2.8.3 Lateral Resolution
Before migration, two diffractions will not be resolved if they are closer than the first Fresnel zone diameter.
This is usually a very large value (500m or more) and means that on the CMP stack, small faults etc. can
easily be missed. After migration, the lateral resolution depends on the maximum frequency that is reflected
from the zone of interest. Any two diffractions closer than one spatial wavelength of the maximum frequency
will not be resolved (Freeland and Hogg, 1990).
Because maximum frequency is hard to measure in practice, we suggest that 2 samples per wavelength of
the dominant frequency will give an adequate bin size to achieve satisfactory lateral resolution.
Rule of Thumb: Bin Size = Vinterval / (2 * Fdominant )
To put this another way, suppose the dominant frequency Fdominant at our target is 50Hz. If the interval velocity
immediately above our target is 3000 m/sec (10000 ft/sec), then the spatial wavelength, 8dominant, will be
3000m/sec ÷ 50Hz, i.e., 60 meters (10000 ft / sec ÷ 50Hz, i.e., 200 ft).
We will choose a bin size of 30 meters in our example.
bin size = Vinterval / ( 2 * Fdominant )

E.g., bin size = 3000m/sec / ( 2 * 50Hz ) = 30m
or bin size = 10000 ft / sec / ( 2 * 50Hz ) = 100 ft
Using the examples of the last few pages, the lateral resolution defines the largest acceptable bin size, 30m
(100 ft) (Table 2.6).
There is little point in choosing a bin size less than this lateral resolution. If we did have smaller bins, they
would add nothing to the content of what we see. Correspondingly, if we had larger bins there is a danger
that some events will not be resolved laterally.
bin size = ½ wavelength of the dominant frequency Fdom

bin size < ½ wavelength of Fdom results in over sampling, adding no information
bin size > ½ wavelength of Fdom results in spatial aliasing, therefore missing information
Parameter Bin Size
Target Size 33m (100 ft)
Max. Unaliased Freq. 36m (120 ft)
Lateral Resolution 30m (100 ft)
Table 2.6 Selection of Bin Size
2.15
2.8.3.1 Lateral Resolution after Migration
The lateral resolution after migration is best explained with reference to Figure 2.10. Four events are shown
in the FK spectrum both before and after migration. The effect of migration is to map high frequencies to low
frequencies at the same wavenumber. The amount of movement increases with increasing wavenumber (K).
This effect is true for any migration algorithm, Kirchhoff, FK, Finite Difference, etc.
Flat event The energy for all flat events lies along the F axis in a certain passband (bandwidth
from some low frequency to some maximum frequency). All flat events are
unaffected by migration.
Dipping event With migration all intermediate dipping events get steeper dip, a general lowering
of frequency and, in fact, less bandwidth.
Maximum Dip This is the maximum dip before migration that will appear as 90 degrees after
migration. It has no frequency after migration and simply appears as DC. This
means it will show up as a trace that is one long peak or trough.
Diffraction Before migration, a diffraction occupies the entire colored zone with limited
bandwidth. After migration the diffraction is collapsed and it occupies the entire
colored zone in the right part of Figure 2.10. Migration maps the F-K points to other
points at lower frequencies. The diffraction now has frequencies from 0 to the
maximum frequency before migration and wavenumbers from 0 to the maximum
spatial frequency. This means that our diffraction has turned into some form of
bandlimited spike - both in frequency and wavenumber. In fact, its temporal
resolution (equal to one wavelength of the maximum frequency) is equal to the
spatial resolution (one wavelength of the maximum frequency expressed in spatial
units).
Figure 2.10
Lateral Resolution before and after Migration
2.16
Planning & Design
2.8.3.2 Separation of Diffractions
Study the four displays showing two diffractors separated by 2 intermediate traces with 10m (33 ft) trace
spacing and with a velocity of 3000 m/s (10000 ft / sec). I.e., the diffraction points are 30m (100 ft) apart.
In the first pair of figures (Figure 2.11a before migration, Figure 2.11b after migration), the maximum
frequency was set to 100 Hz, and we can clearly see that the 2 events (points) are well resolved after
migration (in fact, this is the limit of spatial resolution for the given frequency and event separation). The
spatial wavelength in this case is 30m (100 ft), that is borne out by the fact that each diffractor after migration
is on a peak and there are 2 traces between with a trough.
Vinterval = Fmax * 8max

or
8max = Vinterval / Fmax or 8dom = Vinterval / Fdom . 2 8max
where Vinterval = velocity immediately above target
Fmax = maximum frequency
Fdom = dominant frequency . ½ Fmax
8max = wavelength at Fmax
8dom = wavelength at Fdom
Thus in our example we have:

Spatial wavelength = 3000m/sec ÷ 100Hz = 30m
Spatial Wavelength = 10000 ft / sec ÷ 100 Hz = 100 ft
The spatial resolution is also 30m (100 ft) (i.e., one

wavelength of the maximum frequency - or one half-
wavelength of the dominant frequency). In this case we have
used the maximum frequency. If you like, you can get the
same answer by assuming a dominant frequency of 50Hz.
Figure 2.11a before migration,

100Hz. 2 Diffractions, 30m (100 ft)
lateral separation
8 = 30m (100 ft)

Figure 2.11b after Kirchhoff
migration, 100 Hz
2.17
The second pair of figures (Figure 2.12a before migration, Figure 2.12b after migration) show the effect of
reducing the maximum frequency to 50Hz corresponding to a spatial wavelength of 60m (200 ft). In this
case, both diffractors are on the same positive going “spatial wavelet” and we have lost lateral resolution.
Spatial wavelength = 3000m/sec ÷ 50Hz = 60m

Spatial Wavelength = 10000 ft / sec ÷ 50Hz = 200 ft
2 Diffractions, 30m (100 ft)

lateral separation
Figure 2.12a before migration,
50 Hz
8 = 60m (200 ft)

Figure 2.12b after Kirchhoff
migration, 50 Hz
2.18
Planning & Design
Let’s Design a 3D - Part 1
An Example with the following known parameters (metric):
existing 2D data of good quality have 30 fold

steepest dips 30 degrees
shallow markers needed for isochroning @ 500 m offsets
target depth 2000 m
target two-way time 1.5 sec
basement depth 3000 m
Vint immediately above the target horizon 4200 m/sec
Fdom at the target horizon 50 Hz
Fmax at the target horizon 70 Hz
lateral target size 300 m
Straight line method is assumed!
Desired Fold:
½ - b of 2D fold =
Bin size:
a) for target size / 3 =
b) for alias frequency = Vint / ( 4 * Fmax * sin ( dip ) ) =
c) for lateral resolution = Vint / ( 2 * Fdom ) =
bin size =
RI =
SI =
An Example with the following known parameters (imperial):

shallow markers needed for isochroning @ 1500 ft offsets
target depth 6000 ft
basement depth 10000 ft
Vint immediately above the target horizon 14000 ft/sec
lateral target size 1000 ft
Desired Fold:
½ - b of 2D fold =
Bin size:
b) for alias frequency = Vint / ( 4 * Fmax * sin ( dip ) ) =
bin size =
RI =
SI =
2.19
2.9 Xmin
The bin in the very center of a box formed by 2 receiver Receiver Lines
lines and two source lines will have the largest minimum
offset of any bin within the 3D survey. The largest minimum
offset will therefore be the diagonal of this box (Fig. 2.13a).
The Source and Receiver Line Intervals (SLI and RLI) are
largely determined by the required value for Xmin. It is easy
to see that in straight line, brick and zig-zag designs (see Bin
Chapter 5), the largest minimum offset is related directly to
SLI and RLI.
For straight line surveys Xmin is determined by:
Xmin = ( RLI2 + SLI2 )½
Obviously, the larger of RLI and SLI influences Xmin the

most. Therefore, in a straight line design a square box is the
ideal case as far as Xmin is concerned. Figure 2.13a
Going back to our practice example:
Xmin = ( 3602 + 3602 ) ½ m = 509m

or Xmin = ( 13202 + 13202 ) ½ ft = 1867 ft
If one offsets the receiver and sources from their

coincident position at the line intersections by one half of
Receiver Lines
a bin size (Fig. 2.13b) then the formula changes slightly as
follows:
Xmin = ( (receiver line interval - SI )2 +

(source line interval - RI )2 )½
When offsetting the source or receiver lines in this way,

4 Bins
the four bins in the center of the box have the same Xmin,
instead of only the center bin having the largest Xmin.
Going back to our practice example:
Xmin = ( (360-30)2 + (360-30)2 ) ½ m = 467m

or Xmin = ( (1320-55)2 + (1320-55)2 ) ½ ft = 1789 ft
Figure 2.13b
2.20
Planning & Design
Xmin should be small enough to adequately sample shallow reflectors that might be used for datuming or
isochroning. If such a shallow marker is not sampled appropriately, one will significantly affect the
interpretability of the 3D data set.
Figure 2.14 shows what happens when

a configuration of source and receiver
line intervals is chosen that creates an
Xmin that is too large for the shallow
reflector criterion. In the center of the
boxes holes develop in the fold
distribution. Insufficient fold may image
such a shallow marker in an
inconsistent and unreliable manner.
Picking horizon times might be
impossible This significantly reduces
the reliability of any interpretation,
flattening and mapping, in particular any
isochrons from such shallow markers.
Of course, single fold in the bins that

have the largest Xmin may not be
sufficient for accurate interpretation,
and in particular picking of horizon
times for isochroning from the shallow Figure 2.14
horizon. Often at least four fold
multiplicity is necessary to have enough Fold Distribution at Some Shallow Level for
confidence in a correct interpretation at an Xmin that is too Large
a shallow datuming marker.
A geological model such as the one in

Figure 2.15 helps to determine at what
offsets the critical refraction occurs. If
one considers the shallowest horizon
to be mapped, reflections will occur out
to this critical refraction angle.
Typically (and neglecting dip) this will
occur at an angle of about 35o, with a
corresponding offset of 2 * ZSH * tan
35o = 1.4 * ZSH , where ZSH is the depth
of the shallowest horizon to be
mapped. Meeting this criterion will only
guarantee single fold, probably
inadequate for mapping. Therefore, we
recommend that Xmin be chosen in the
range 1.0 to 1.2 * ZSH. If the Xmin for the
survey is larger than determined by
this model (e.g., 400m), then there will
be holes in the reflected energy to be
stacked. This will lead to a fold Figure 2.15
distribution similar to the one indicated Modeling Xmin
in Fig. 2.14.
Rule of Thumb: Xmin should be chosen as 1.0 to 1.2 ZSH.
2.21
The refraction criterion (1/3) means we should always t

have at least three measurements of the shallow
refractor in the x-line direction (Fig. 2.16a) to sample V2
the refractor velocity adequately. The in-line direction
provides plenty measurements of course. Existing 2D
data can provide some necessary information with
regards to the first refractor. For example, if the break-
over point, X1, to the second refractor is at an offset of
900 m (3000 ft), then receiver line intervals of a of 900
m = 300 m (a of 3000 ft = 1000 ft) will guarantee three Xmin
measurements in the x-line direction. This would
encourage the use of at least six receiver lines in a x
X1
patch (three lines to either side of the source point).
Figure 2.16a
However, if the break-over point, X1, is very close to the Refraction Criterion
source, measurements in all directions can be used to
help find the first refractor velocity (Fig. 2.16b). Again,
use modeling if meeting this criterion is really important to
you. This is a consideration to be kept in mind as an
argument for wide azimuth designs (see Section 3.3 for a
more detailed discussion).
An alternative to satisfying the refraction criterion is to

record separate 2D data along each source and
receiver line. This will completely determine source and
receiver delays (statics) and near surface velocities.
The cost of a separate 2D refraction statics survey may Figure 2.16b
well be justified in the smaller 3D effort required by
more widely spaced source and receiver lines.
2.22
Planning & Design
2.10 Xmax
The maximum offset required will depend on the depth to the deeper reflectors one attempts to image. One
also needs to take into account normal moveout assumptions and dip. It is strongly suggested that the
designer pay particular attention to the offset distribution on a line by line basis.
The selection of the maximum offset that will be used for

stack has great impact on which traces might be muted
in processing (Cordsen, 1995b). If Xmax in the patch is set
equal to the maximum in-line offset (Fig. 2.17a), then a
lot of traces on receiver lines further away from the
source point will be muted. The more traces will be
muted, the more the fold distribution beyond Xmax will
vary. It might not be as even as expected because some
traces will be “wasted.” The fold formula as discussed in Xmax
Section 2.3 will be reduced to:
Source
Fold = B / 4 * ( NS * NC * b2 ) Point
If, however, Xmax in the patch is measured along the

diagonal of the patch, then the maximum offset is larger
than any offset in the survey and all traces will be used in
the stack (Fig. 2.17b). This will make fold calculations Patch
easier and a more even fold distribution can be
accomplished (see Section 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6). We will
discuss patch design further in Section 3.3. Figure 2.17a
When Xmax in the patch is measured in-line the area of
In-Line Xmax
the patch is exactly double the area of the patch with Xmax
measured diagonally.
Note that Xmax can be changed somewhat by placing the

source points off-center in the receiver patch. Of course,
as a result the number of far offsets that are farther than
the “shorter far offsets” will be halved; this may or may
not be adequate for a fa r offset contribution.
Source
Point
Patch
Figure 2.17b
Diagonal Xmax
2.23
In typical receiver patches for 3D surveys the mix of offsets is nonlinear, i.e., very few near offsets and many
far offsets (Fig. 2.18). In fact, wide azimuth surveys have offset distributions that are linear in offset squared
(see Section 3.3). While narrow azimuth surveys tend to have more linear offset distributions (with the offset
distribution of a 2D line being the end member). The dotted line in Figure 2.18 is the distribution for a shot
of an actual example of a straight line design with eight receiver lines in the patch.
A good approximation is that the first 33% offset range includes 7% of all offsets, the next 33% contributes
29% and the final 33% = 64%.
This means that long offsets will dominate the survey. If the correct processing is performed (NMO, DMO,
Migration), this should not be a problem - but filtering at long offsets could lead to lower overall frequencies.
Small Aspect Ratio patches (so-called Narrow Azimuth) will also lead to a more even distribution of offsets.
However, they will, as the name indicates, have a very select range of azimuths.
100 100%
80
60
straight
2D Lines line
designs
40
36%
20
7%
0
0 33 66 100
Offset Value as a Percentage of Xmax
Figure 2.18
Typical Offset Distributions
2.24
Planning & Design
Making good use of existing 2D data to determine a suitable S/N ratio, Xmin and Xmax is excellent advice.
The offset information (e.g., monitor records and common offset stacks) of such 2D data should be
examined thoroughly before deciding on the usable offset range for any 3D seismic survey. Figure 2.19
shows an example where the maximum usable offset is assumed to be 1400m (4600 ft); traces recorded out
to 1800m (6000 ft) will be lost in the stack. Fold will, therefore, be lowered significantly more than one might
expect from fold
calculations including
all traces.
Xmax Xmin
Now that we understand
the effects of Xmax on Distance
the patch design, let us from Source
look at the various Point
geophysical and other (in m)
parameters that 0 ms
influence the choice of
the Xmax .
500 ms Shallow
Marker
Zone of
1000 ms Interest
Figure 2.19
Common Offset Gather
2.25
To determine Xmax we can prepare a geological model such as the one shown in Figure 2.20b. Simple ray
tracing (Fig. 2.20a) reveals where reflected energy turns into refracted energy for each event of interest. By
examining a plot such as this we can see values of Xmin and Xmax for each event and hence for the whole
model. Any trace at an offset greater than the critical reflection distance XCRO for each layer will contain only
refracted energy (Fig. 2.20b).
Figure 2.20a
Synthetic Shot for Model below
(50m trace spacing)
Figure 2.20b
Modeling Xmax
2.26
Planning & Design
There are 10 factors that will influence the choice of Xmax for a survey. The most important ones are put in
italics:
2.10.1 Target Depth

The largest offsets that should be recorded are generally very close to the target depth. Many
models and survey data have shown this to be a very good and usually fairly close assumption.
Rule of thumb: Xmax should be approximately the same as the primary target depth -
usually expressed as Xmax = Z.
Xmax . Target Depth
2.10.2 Direct Wave Interference

The direct wave (source to receiver by the shortest distance) will begin to interfere with a primary
event at an offset XDIRECT and moveout time TNMO (Fig. 2.20a).
XDIRECT = VLVL * ( TNMO + TMUTE )

TNMO = ( T2 + XDIRECT2/V2 ) ½
substituting for TNMO
Xmax < XDIRECT = VLVL * ( ( T2 + XDIRECT2 / V2 ) ½ + TMUTE )
A computer program can solve these equations for the value of XDIRECT given T, V, VLVL, TMUTE.
VLVL is the velocity of material between source and receiver.
V is the RMS velocity to the primary event (target).
TMUTE is a small mute zone to be added (typically 200 ms), that is effectively the width of the direct
arrival.
One should use existing 2D data to determine possible near surface effects.
2.10.3 Refracted Wave Interference (First Breaks)

At offset XREF where the first break energy cuts across the primary energy:
Xmax < XREF = VREF * ( ( T2 + XREF 2 / V2 ) ½ + TMUTE )
VREF is the velocity of a near surface refracting layer.

Note that XREF is always greater than X DIRECT (Fig. 2.20a). Therefore, the direct wave interference
will always be more constraining than the refracted wave interference.
2.10.4 Deep Horizon Critical Reflection Offset

At offset XCRO the reflections of the target horizon reach the critical point (of turning into refractions,
see Fig. 2.20b). It is important to sample this deep horizon adequately in the x-line direction with
reflections.
Xmax < XCRO
2.10.5 Offset required to see Deepest LVL (refractor)

At offset XDeep the deepest low velocity layer meets the critical reflection criterion. In order to sample
this LVL properly we need to satisfy:
Xmax > XDeep
2.27
2.10.6 NMO Discrimination

Need at least an offset XNMO where:
Xmax > XNMO = V * ( ( dT ) 2 + 2 * dT * T0 ) ½
dT = desired period (1.5 wavelengths)
T0 = target time (deepest time)
2.10.7 Maximum NMO stretch to be allowed

Use software to calculate the percentage NMO stretch vs. time on each trace of a synthetic shot.
Where it exceeds a desired percentage (we suggest no more than 20%) at the target two-way time,
check the offset value and do not design the patch for offsets bigger than this value.
2.10.8 Multiple Cancellation

Need at least offset XMULT where:
Xmax > XMULT = V * ( ( dT ) 2 + 2 * dT * ( T0 * 2 ) ) ½
T0 = multiple time (we evaluate at 2*T0)
V = multiple velocity
dT = desired period at offset XMULT (at least 3 periods because multiples are somewhat
corrected by primary velocities at later times and will only cancel if more than one
period remains).
2.10.9 Offsets necessary for AVO

Need at least a range of offsets where the angles of reflection from the target are sufficient to show
the expected AVO (amplitude change vs. offset due to the presence of gas or liquid) effect. Narrow
azimuth surveys will have a better offset distribution for studying AVO effects, but if fracturing is
expected the AVO may also vary with azimuth.
2.10.10 Maximum length of cable available from a contractor

Even though your modeling has convinced you that long offsets are OK, check with your contractor
that such parameters are physically realizable.
2.28
Planning & Design

target depth 2000 m
Desired Fold:
½ - b of 2D fold = 15 - 20
Bin size:
a) for target size / 3 = 300 m / 3 = 100 m
b) for alias frequency
= Vint / ( 4 * Fmax * sin ( dip ) ) = 4200 m/sec / ( 4 * 70 Hz * sin 30o) = 30 m
c) for lateral resolution = Vint / ( 2 * Fdom ) = 4200 m/sec / ( 2 * 50 Hz ) = 42 m
bin size = 30 m * 30 m
RI = 60 m
SI = 60 m
Xmin:
RLI =
SLI =
Xmin = ( RLI2 + SLI2 ) ½ =
Xmax:
# of channels in patch
number of receiver lines channels per line
x-line dimension in-line dimension
aspect ratio = x-line dimension of the patch / in-line dimension of the patch
Xmax = ½ * ( (in-line dimension of the patch)2 + (x-line dimension of the patch)2 )½
Fold:
in-line fold = RLL / ( 2 * SLI ) =
x-line fold = ½ NRL =
total fold =
2.29

Desired Fold:
½ - b of 2D fold = 15 - 20
Bin size:
a) for target size / 3 = 1000 ft / 3 = 333 ft
= Vint / ( 4 * Fmax * sin ( dip ) ) = 14000 ft/sec / ( 4 * 70 Hz* sin 30o)= 100 ft
c) for lateral resolution = Vint / ( 2 * Fdom ) = 14000 ft/sec / ( 2* 50 Hz) = 140 ft
bin size = 100 ft * 100 ft
RI = 200 ft
SI = 200 ft
Xmin:
RLI =
SLI =
Xmin = ( RLI2 + SLI2 ) ½ =
Xmax:
Fold:
total fold =
2.30
Planning & Design
Quiz
1. Which of the following factors affect in-line fold and x-line fold, assuming no other changes in patch
geometry?
In-line X-line
a. Xmax Maximum Offset ( ) ( )
b. RLI Receiver Line Interval ( ) ( ) within usable Xmax
c. NRL # Receiver Lines ( ) ( )
d. SLI Source Line Interval ( ) ( )
e. NSL # Source Lines ( ) ( )
f. Bs,Br Bin Size ( ) ( )
g. NC # of Channels ( ) ( )
2. For selecting bin size, under what conditions will lateral resolution dictate smaller bins than the
maximum unaliased frequency consideration?
2.31
Quiz Answers
1. In-line X-line
a. Xmax Maximum Offset (x) (x)
b. RLI Receiver Line Interval ( ) ( )
c. NRL # Receiver Lines ( ) (x)
d. SLI Source Line Interval (x) ( )
e. NSL # Source Lines ( ) ( )
f. Bs,Br Bin Size (x) (x)
g. NC # of Channels (x) ( x ) depends on layout
Note: NSL does not directly affect either in-line or x-line fold. However, if one changes NSL, one probably
is also changing either receiver line length or SLI, and thereby changing in-line fold.
2. Assuming that you calculate lateral resolution at the same frequency as the Fmax, then lateral
resolution criterion will always determine smaller bin sizes until the dip $ 30o. Compare equations
in Sections 2.8.2 and 2.8.3.
If lateral resolution is calculated using F dom , and F dom . ½ F max , then the alias frequency
consideration becomes more restrictive at dips > 15o.
2.32
Chapter 3
PATCHES &
EDGE MANAGEMENT
The shape of the patch will have a great impact on several attributes of the 3D. The related parameters
should be optimized, keeping the survey objectives in mind.
A good understanding of Edge Management is critical to delivering a suitable data set for the task at hand.
Table of Contents
Chapter 3
PATCHES &
EDGE MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1
3.1 Offset Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3
3.2 Azimuth Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5
3.3 Narrow vs. Wide Azimuth Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6
3.4 85% Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7
3.5 Fresnel Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10
3.6 Diffractions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.11
3.6.1 Anatomy of a Diffraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.11
3.7 Migration Aperture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.12
3.8 Edge Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.14
fold taper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.14
3 zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.15
30o requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.16
3.9 Ray Trace Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.17
CDP Fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.17
3.10 Record Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.17
Quiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.22
Quiz Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.23
3.2
Patches & Edge Management
3.1 Offset Distribution
In Figure 3.1 we see the definitions for Offsets

and Azimuths. Each CMP bin usually contains
the midpoints from many source-receiver pairs.
Each contributing trace in a bin has an offset
(distance from source to receiver) and an
azimuth (direction or compass angle) from
source to receiver. Considering the distribution
of these two attributes is of paramount
importance for a successful 3D.
Offset distribution in a stacking bin will be most

affected by fold. A lower fold will give very poor
offset distribution while increasing the fold will
improve offset distribution. One must attempt
to get an even offset distribution from near to Figure 3.1
far offsets in order to facilitate velocity Offsets and Azimuths in a CMP Bin
calculations for normal moveout corrections Showing 8 Source-Receiver Pairs Contributing
and to obtain the best stacking response. A bad
Midpoints to a Central Bin
mix of offsets can cause aliasing of dipping
signal, source noise (filters won’t work on this!),
or even primaries to the extent that velocity analysis fails.
Figure 3.2 shows a method of displaying the

offset mix in each CMP bin. The bin itself is
used as a graph, where the vertical axis shows
the amount of the offset and the horizontal axis
indicates the position of the trace on an offset
scale. In other words both vertical and
horizontal scales are the offset value. A perfect
triangle would indicate the presence of all
possible offsets. Two or more traces that have
the same offset will have the “stick” drawn in a
different color.
Figure 3.2
Offset Distribution - Stick Diagram
As a designer you should not be overly concerned about the offset and azimuth distribution in single
bins. Migration and DMO will move trace energy across many surrounding bins. What matters,
therefore, is not the contents of a single bin but the neighborhood of bins in which it lives!
A good rule of thumb for the size of a “neighborhood” is the first Fresnel zone (see Section 3.4).
3.3
A different method of displaying the mix of offsets in each bin is shown in Figure 3.3. The horizontal scale
is CMP number and the vertical scale is offset. One CMP is represented by a vertical column. The vertical
column is divided into small “cells” representing an offset dimension, usually chosen to be the gr oup interval
(in-line distance from one receiver to the next).
The color bar on the upper left of this figure indicates the number of repetitions of a particular offset in any
given bin. Each cell is colored according to how many traces have an offset that lies in that bin. The
appearance of many colors indicates that many traces in one bin have the same offset.
What we seek in a display like this is a single color (indicating even distribution of offsets in each CMP) and
as many different offsets as possible in a set of neighboring bins (super bin).
Therefore, for velocity analysis, we will get all the possible offsets in the example above by using all CMP’s
from the top of one of the “V” shapes to the bottom. The distance from the top of one “V” to the top of the
next is simply the width of a “box” in a straight line survey.
Xmin can be determined by zooming in on an area as indicated by the box and noting where the top of the
“V” shape is located (e.g., at an offset of 200m).
a CMP
Xmax
Xmin Width of Box
Figure 3.3
Offset Distribution - CMP vs. Offset
3.4
3.2 Azimuth Distribution
Azimuth distribution in a stacking bin will be most affected by fold, as is offset distribution. If the aspect ratio
of the patch is less than 0.5 one can expect a poor azimuth distribution. A bad mix of azimuths usually
indicates potential statics coupling problems and an inability to detect azimuth dependent variations (arising
from dip and/or anistropy). Increasing the aspect ratio to between 0.6 and 1.0 will solve such problems. A
good azimuth distribution will ensure that information from all angles surrounding the stacking bin is included
in the stack.
Figure 3.4 shows a method of displaying the azimuths (directions) of each trace which belongs to a midpoint
bin. Each “spider leg” indicates the offset (length and color of the leg) and points in the direction from source
to receiver. The spider legs are always started in the exact center of the bin and not necessarily at the
midpoints. Hence, this display does not show the midpoint scatter. The leg lengths are scaled so that the
largest offset in the entire survey would be represented by a leg equal to half the bin height.
Figure 3.4
Azimuth Distribution - Spider Diagram
3.5
3.3 Narrow vs. Wide Azimuth Surveys
Narrow azimuth surveys have a linear offset distribution with respect to offset (x) (Fig. 3.5a, similar to 2D);
however, when plotted against offset squared (x2), the offset distribution shows bunching at the near offsets
(Fig. 3.5b). Narrow azimuth patches are better for AVO work, DMO and when significant lateral velocity
variations are present (Lansley, 1994).
Wide azimuth surveys (i.e., close to a square patch) have a nonlinear offset distribution with respect to x,
with a heavy weighting of the far offsets (Fig. 3.5c); however, when plotted against offset squared (x2), the
distribution is linear (Fig. 3.5d). Wide azimuth surveys are better for velocity analysis, multiple attenuation,
static solutions and a more uniform directional sampling of the subsurface.
a) Narrow Azimuth b) Narrow Azimuth

x x2
c) Wide Azimuth d) Wide Azimuth

x x2
Figure 3.5
Narrow vs. Wide Azimuth Distribution
3.6
3.4 85% Rule
If you decide that a wide azimuth survey is desired, how do you decide on the “best” aspect ratio for the
patch? For the moment, let us restrict the discussion to square patches with an aspect ratio of 1 (in-line
dimension equals x-line dimension).
Consider a circle of area = 1, with a radius of Xmax (large circle in Figure 3.6.). If the patch lies entirely outside
of this circle, then 27% of the channels in the patch are being used to record data that will probably be muted
out! While these channels may have some value for longer wavelength refraction analysis, using that many
extra channels is expensive.
On the other hand, one can reduce the patch in size to lie entirely within the recorded offset, as shown by
the small square. Xmax is to be measured along the diagonal of the patch but now the patch is only covering
64% of the area of your design objective, i.e., the large circle. This is the other extreme of inefficiency; there
are only a few traces which lie at offsets close to your design maximum offset.
It is easy to say that one should always have a patch of the size of the large square in order to record all the
way to Xmax in all directions. However, the large square is twice the area of the small square.
We recommend using “The 85% Rule”, as a compromise to determine the aspect ratio of the patch relative
to Xmax .
in-line
+27%
-18%
64%
50%
-18%
Xr
source
point
Figure 3.6
Patch Dimension vs. Xmax
3.7
The 85% Rule is a simple way to optimize the area of usable traces recorded and the number of channels
needed. It works as follows (Fig. 3.7):
1. Determine Xmax
2. Choose the in-line offset, Xr , to be 0.85 * Xmax
3. Choose the x-line offset, Xs , to be 0.85 * XR = 0.72 * Xmax
For a real example with Xmax = 2000 m ( 6600 ft )
in-line dimension Xr = 85% * Xmax = 1700m ( 5610 ft )
x-line dimension Xs = 85% * Xr = 1445m ( 4730 ft )
Aspect ratio Xr / Xs = 85%
The usable area of the patch relative to the circle of Xmax, jumps from 64% to 78%. Only a very small part
of the patch is outside the theoretical Xmax. Additional receiver lines farther out than indicated by this patch
are mostly outside the usable offset distribution. Therefore, the longer dimension in the in-line direction is
preferred. The dimensions may need some slight adjustment to fit other considerations in the design of the
3D.
Figure 3.7
Ideal Patch, using the 85% Rule
3.8
Referring back to Figure 3.6, let’s show, graphically, the relationship between the different areas.
We chose the circle of radius Xmax to be the unit area ( 100% at 100% Xmax ). This is shown as the solid line
in Figure 3.8.
The inner circle (showing a radius of 0.71 Xmax) contains 50% of the area of the larger circle. If the patch is
entirely within Xmax (inner square in Figure 3.6), then the curve describing its area deviates from the y = x2
form at 0.71 Xmax. The area of this smaller patch is 64% of the unit area.
On the other hand, if the patch is entirely outside the circle of Xmax (larger square in Figure 3.6), then the
curve describing its area deviates from the y = x2 form at Xmax. The area of this large patch is 127% of the
unit area, twice the area of the smaller patch!
The patch using the 85% rule covers 78% of the unit area described by the circle of Xmax. The area this patch
covers is only 22% larger than the smaller square patch that is entirely within the circle. The patch using the
85% rule is an excellent compromise for the patch design.
Percentage of Area Covered over Reference Area

y = x2
127%
outer square
+27% (wasteland)
100%
85% Rule outer cirlce
78% -36%
64% inner square
50%
inner cirlce
71 100 141 distance from

source point
Xmax Xmax Xmax
%Xmax
Figure 3.8
3.9
3.5 Fresnel Zone
The Fresnel zone is that portion of a reflector from which energy can reach a detector within one-half
wavelength of the first reflected energy (Sheriff, 1991).
Consider Figure 3.9, with a source at S. Energy from

subsurface point O arrives at to = 2 * zo / Vrms . Let the
wavefront advance by ¼ wavelength, 8 . Energy from S
point A, or A’, will reach the receiver at time t1 = 2 ( ( zo x
/ Vrms ) + ( 8 / 4Vint ) ). The energy arriving within the
time interval ( t1 - to ) interferes constructively.
The reflecting disk AA’ is called the first Fresnel zone Z0

(Sheriff, 1991). Two reflecting points that fall within this
zone are generally considered indistinguishable as
observed at the earth’s surface. The radius of the
Fresnel zone, rf , for vertical incidence is approximately
given by:
A O Zf A’
Fresnel Zone rf
Figure 3.9
Fresnel zone AA’ in (x,z) space
(after Yilmaz, 1987)
rf = ( ( zo + 8 / 4 ) 2 - z o 2 ) ½ = ( zo * 8 / 2 + 8 2 /
16 )½ approximate with
rf – ( zo * 8 / 2 ) ½ = ( ( t o * V rms / 2 ) * ( Vint / F dom ) / 2 ) ½ or simplified to:
rf – ½ ( t o * V rms * V int / F dom ) ½ where Fdom is the dominant frequency being considered.
At lower frequencies, e.g., Fmin the Fresnel zone gets larger, while for larger frequencies, e.g., Fmax, the
Fresnel zone is smaller. This derivation follows the approach of Yilmaz (1987) but differentiates the velocity
terms into Vrms and Vint. For non-zero offset, structure and dip affect the shape of the Fresnel zone. Lindsey
(1989) points out that the Fresnel zone becomes somewhat smaller for positive structures such as reefs or
anticlines, and somewhat larger for negative structures such as synclines. Generally, this is a second order
effect except when structures are of similar scale to the depth.
The vertical thickness of the Fresnel zone, zf , is simply

zf = 8 / 4 =V int / 4 F dom
Expressing this in time, the two-way time thickness of the Fresnel zone, tf , becomes
tf = ( 2 * 8 / 4 ) / V int = 8 / 2V int ,
where 8 is the wavelength of the dominant frequency.
The diameter of the Fresnel zone determines the lateral resolution before migration. In the context of
diffractions, lateral resolution depends on being able to distinguish two adjacent diffractions. Since migration
is the process that collapses diffractions, it is reasonable to think that migration increases spatial resolution.
Effectively, the plane of observation is downward continued and gets closer to the reflection points.
Therefore, the Fresnel zone gets smaller (Yilmaz, 1987). Migration of 3D data tends to collapse the Fresnel
zone diameter to approximately one half the dominant wavelength, while migration of 2D data will only
accomplish this in the direction of the seismic line (Lindsey, 1989).
Since the Fresnel zone lies partially outside the surveys near the edges, the migration will introduce
unwanted artifacts. This is of particular importance when “undershooting” corners of lease blocks.
3.10
3.6 Diffractions
Diffractions, which occur where sharp geological boundaries such as faults are present, extend far beyond
the fault (in both directions perpendicular to the fault). Migration aperture and diffractions will both add
significantly to the surface coverage which is needed to image the subsurface properly. Therefore, these
calculations need to be made prior to starting any 3D design.
3.6.1 Anatomy of a Diffraction
When source energy reaches a sub-surface point discontinuity (point diffractor), the energy can be ray-traced
upwards to surface at all angles. Wherever a receiver is positioned on the surface, it will receive a reflection
at a time corresponding to the time it takes for source energy to travel to the point plus the time it takes to
ray-trace upwards (see Section 2.8.3.2). The collection of all these various reflections is called a diffraction
and has some interesting properties:
The area at the top of the diffraction with a thickness equal to ¼ wavelength of the dominant frequency (or
a two-way delta-time equal to one half cycle of the dominant frequency) is commonly called the first Fresnel
zone.
Other points on the diffraction curve correspond to different rays traced from the point to surface at varying
angles. Therefore, portions of the curve near its top correspond to low takeoff angles and portions of the
curve at longer two-way times correspond to steeper angles. The asymptote of the diffraction curve is
defined by 2/V, where V is the RMS velocity at the apex of the diffraction.
After migration, the diffraction curve (or actually a bell shape in 3D) is collapsed, not quite to a spike as we
saw earlier, but to the highest frequency wavelet in time and space. If we decide to use only a portion of the
diffraction, the collapse will not be quite complete and the answer will contain only a fraction of the correct
energy.
Using only the first Fresnel zone portion of a diffraction gives us 70% of the energy for the fully migrated
result (with a 15o takeoff angle).
Using both sides of the diffraction out to a

takeoff angle of 30o gives us approximately
95% of the fully migrated result (compare
Fig. 3.10). The exact quantity (e.g., 95%,
96%, . . . ) depends on the velocities and
depths of diffractions. So we don’t
necessarily need a complete diffraction to
get a useful migrated result.
Rule of thumb: The migration

aperture should lie between the size of
the radius of the first Fresnel zone and
the offset corresponding to the 30o
point (takeoff angle) of the diffraction
curve with preference given to the
higher values.
Figure 3.10
The anatomy of a diffraction curve
3.11
3.7 Migration Aperture
Migration is necessary to place dipping horizons and faults into their proper perspective. When laying out
the boundaries of a survey, the full fold area covered must be increased to allow for migration aperture. The
amount of increase is not necessarily the same in the strike and the dip direction. Dipping horizons require
a migration aperture equal to the following formula:
2
MA = Z tan2
where MA = migration aperture

Z= depth
2= dip angle (true geologic dip)
E.g., MA = 2000m * tan20o = 728m
or MA = 6500 ft * tan20o = 2400 ft
Assuming straight ray path geometry, if one wants to record reflections from a horizon dipping 20o, 728m
(2400 ft) need to be added as the migration aperture. However, if one plans to capture the 30o ray off the
outermost point of a diffraction, then the migration aperture must be equal to at least Z * tan30o = 0.58Z as
per Figure 3.10 (in our example 0.58 * 2000m = 1160m or 0.58 * 6500 ft = 3828 ft). This condition will define
the desired migration aperture unless dips exceed 30o. Table 3.1 has the values in the columns for 10o, 20o
and 30o constant because the diffraction criterion is the constraining factor. In practice, cost considerations
will often force a compromise on this desired aperture. Curved raypaths will always reduce the amount
necessary for a migration aperture (Bee, et al., 1994).
Rule of Thumb: Migration aperture is normally chosen as the larger of:

(1) The lateral migration movement of each dip in the expected geology,
(2) The distance required to capture diffraction energy coming upwards at a takeoff angle
of up to 30o (or some angle like this),
and never less than the radius of the first Fresnel zone.
a) metric
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 in degrees
in meters
500 289 289 289 420 596 866 1374 2836 4
1000 577 577 577 839 1192 1732 2747 5671 4
1500 866 866 866 1259 1788 2598 4121 8507 4
2000 1155 1155 1155 1678 2384 3464 5495 11343 4
2500 1443 1443 1443 2098 2979 4330 6869 14178 4
3000 1732 1732 1732 2517 3575 5196 8242 17014 4
3500 2021 2021 2021 2937 4171 6062 9616 19849 4
4000 2309 2309 2309 3356 4767 6928 10990 22685 4
4500 2598 2598 2598 3776 5363 7794 12364 25521 4
5000 2887 2887 2887 4195 5959 8660 13737 28356 4
7Diffraction6 * 7Migration of dipping events
Table 3.1
Migration Aperture Calculations for a Large Variety of Typical Values
3.12
b) imperial
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 in degrees
in feet
1000 577 577 577 839 1192 1732 2747 5671 4
2000 1155 1155 1155 1678 2384 3464 5495 11343 4
3000 1732 1732 1732 2517 3575 5196 8242 17014 4
4000 2309 2309 2309 3356 4767 6928 10990 22685 4
5000 2887 2887 2887 4195 5959 8660 13737 28356 4
6000 3464 3464 3464 5035 7151 10392 16485 34028 4
7000 4041 4041 4041 5874 8342 12124 19232 39699 4
8000 4619 4619 4619 6713 9534 13856 21980 45370 4
9000 5196 5196 5196 7552 10726 15588 24727 51042 4
10000 5774 5774 5774 8391 11918 17321 27475 56713 4
11000 6351 6351 6351 9230 13109 19053 30222 62384 4
12000 6928 6928 6928 10069 14301 20785 32970 68055 4
13000 7506 7506 7506 10908 15493 22517 35717 73727 4
14000 8083 8083 8083 11747 16685 24249 38465 79398 4
15000 8660 8660 8660 12586 17876 25981 41212 85069 4
7Diffraction6 * 7Migration of dipping events
Table 3.1
Migration Aperture Calculations for a Large Variety of Typical Values
Displays such as Figure 3.11 help determine vertical resolution (quarter wavelength of dominant frequency)
and lateral resolution before migration (Fresnel zone diameter vs. bin size). We can also use other displays
to see the bin size required to image a desired high frequency on certain dips in the model. Survey size
should be calculated based on the area to be imaged plus the migration aperture.
Figure 3.11
Modeling for Fresnel Zone and Migration Aperture
3.13
3.8 Edge Management
Edge Management refers to that aspect of 3D design which specifies the width of the migration aperture and
the fold taper.
The fold taper depends largely on what is being considered as full fold. It is the area at the edge of the
survey where full fold (or nearly full fold) at depth has not been reached before migration. Often a small
relaxation in the definition of sufficient fold near the edges can help reduce the total size of the survey
significantly.
Rule of thumb: The fold taper is approximately 20% of the depth to target (i.e., 20% of Xmax ),
assuming flat layer geology. Another approximation is that Xmin < fold taper < 2*Xmin.
The fold taper can easily add 30% to the total 3D area, even on large surveys. On extremely small surveys
this percentage is disproportionately high. This makes 3D surveys which are intended to cover as little as
2.5 km2 (1 sq. mi) unacceptably expensive. The size of the fold taper is often different in the receiver line
direction than in the source line direction because dips may change depending on the azimuth. Therefore,
the migration aperture will change.
Figure 3.12 shows the usable program

size (net of the fold taper) as a Migration Aperture & Fold Taper
percentage of the total program size, if
the target depth is 2000m (6500 ft) and
the fold taper width is assumed to be
200-1600m (660 - 5280 ft).
Generally, fold builds up faster in the

x-line direction than in the in-line
direction. This is especially true for
narrow azimuth designs. Careful use of
receivers can build up fold faster for Usable 3D (full fold)
certain geometries. The orientation of
the patch with respect to the survey
outline can affect the cost of a survey
Migration Aperture & Fold Taper
significantly.
in meters (feet)
200 m (660 ft)

400 m (1320 ft)
800 m (2640 ft)
1600 m (5280 ft)
Figure 3.12
Showing the Usable Area of a 3D vs. Total
Recorded Area
3.14
Any 3D survey should be considered

as consisting of 3 zones (concentric
areas) (Fig. 3.13).
The first (innermost) zone is the

domain of the Interpreter. All traces
lying in this zone should be thought of
as full-fold and fully migrated. This is
the image area the Interpreter will
examine and use as the basis for all
geological interpretation.
The second (middle) zone is a corridor

around the innermost (image) zone.
Theoretically, the width of this corridor
is equal to the migration aperture. In
this corridor, the Seismic Processor
will assemble full-fold stacked traces.
Migration will move most of the energy
of these traces into the edge of the
innermost (image) zone.
The third (outermost) zone is a corridor

around the middle zone. The width of
this zone is the fold taper. In this
corridor, the Acquisition Planner will
place sources or receivers in an
attempt to ensure full-fold at the start
of the middle (full-fold) zone.
The term “Edge Management” infers

the design of these 3 zones. Figure 3.13
Compromises can, and almost always,
will be made. 3 Zone Acquisition Model (Theoretical)
It is not necessary that traces in the middle zone have near offsets. Far traces contain deep data (because
of NMO muting) - but deep data migrates the farthest. So if we can arrange bins near the outside of the
second zone to contain only far traces, and bins closest to the innermost zone to contain more near traces
(hence shallow data), we will get good migrated results on the edge of the innermost (image) zone at all
depths.
3.15
It may also be possible to relax the 30o requirement for very deep data (beyond the target). This will cut the
size of the migration aperture (size of middle zone), (Fig. 3.14).
Not quite full-fold traces may be acceptable for bins near the outside edge of the middle zone - these
correspond to the near 30o portion of the diffraction and will not likely contribute very much energy at the
edge of the innermost (image) zone.
Rule of Thumb: In no case should the total zone around the image area be less than the Fresnel zone
radius plus the full fold taper size.
This means there will be full fold traces from the edge of the image area outwards to one Fresnel zone radius
and lesser fold from there to the edge of the survey. In general, the Migration Aperture and the Fold Taper
blend together and cost factors will strongly influence the final choices for a particular design.
Experiments with models etc. will help identify these parameters more accurately in a specific project.
Full Fold Full Fold Partial Fold in this

after before Fold region too
migration migration before low for
migration unmigrated
stack
Migration
Aperture
Fresnel
Zone
70%
95% Energy
Diffraction Curve
Figure 3.14
Where should we reach full fold (practically)?
3.16
3.9 Ray Trace Modeling
Ray trace modeling is of particular use if the underlying geology is more complicated than the flat layer
model which is often used as the basis for 3D design. Examples include salt domes, faults, steeply dipping
layers, lateral velocity discontinuities, and many more. Such modeling may lead the designer to a different
strategy for the surface layout than the flat layer assumptions. Source and receiver spacing may be reduced
in certain areas of the seismic survey in order to assure coverage in structurally complicated areas (Neff &
Rigdon, 1994).
Sophisticated computer programs are available to evaluate fold distributions in structured environments
(e.g., CENSUS with the help of 3D AIMS). With these, the detailed impact of varying offset and azimuth
distributions can be evaluated.
Up to now we’ve talked about CMPs or Common Mid Points. In the real world, however, the energy from a
reflector does not necessarily come from a piece of that reflector which is halfway between source and
receiver. Migration corrects traces from their CMP (Common Mid Point) position to the CDP (Common Depth
Point) position (Fig. 3.15). But it is certainly of interest to know not just what fold etc. we will have after
migration, but how well we are illuminating each piece of the target formation top. This is the so-called CDP
Fold.
3D ray tracing is
essential for true
CDP analysis.
Figure 3.15
CDP vs. CMP
3.10 Record Length
Finally, the record length should be chosen so that any diffraction patterns from the deepest event
of interest will be properly imaged after migration. Include enough time so that the diffraction is
many traces wide - the so-called migration aperture.
Assume, for example, existing 2D data show the target horizon at 1.5 sec. Furthermore, let’s
assume that it is desirable to image basement which is at 2.5 sec. Diffraction tails are on the order
of 500 msec, static shifts may require up to 100 msec and instrumentation requirements are 100-
200 msec. The total required record length is now 3.3 sec; therefore, one could probably choose
3.5 - 4 sec.
It is always easy to record more data, since tape is usually very cheap in comparison to other
recording costs. The only concern might be with telemetry systems, where a longer record length
may slow down the overall acquisition effort because of the necessity to transmit the information
from each station sequentially after the shot has been taken.
3.17

target depth 2000 m
Desired Fold:
½ - b of 2D fold = 15 - 20
Bin size:
= Vint / ( 4 * Fmax * sin (dip)) = 4200 m/sec / ( 4 * 70Hz * sin 30o) = 30 m
c) for lateral resolution
= Vint / ( 2 * Fdom ) = 4200 m/sec / ( 2 * 50Hz ) = 42 m
RI = 60 m
SI = 60 m
Xmin:
RLI = 360 m
SLI = 360 m
Xmin = ( 3602 + 3602 ) ½ m = 509 m
Xmax:
patch 8 * 60 or 2520 m * 3540 m
# of channels = 480
aspect ratio = 2520 / 3540 = 0.71
Xmax = ½ * ( 25202 + 35402 ) ½ m = 2172 m
Fold:
in-line fold = 3600 / ( 2 * 360 ) = 5
x-line fold = 8 / 2 = 4
total fold = 20
Migration Aperture:
Radius of Fresnel Zone = ½ * (target time * Vrms * Vint / Fdom ) ½ =
Diffraction Energy = 0.58 * target depth =
Migration Aperture = target depth * tan (dip) =
Fold Taper = 0.2 * target depth =
(FT + FZ) < Total Migration Aperture < (FT + MA) TMA =
3.18


Desired Fold:
½ - b of 2D fold = 15 - 20
Bin size:
= Vint / ( 4 * Fmax * sin(dip)) = 14000 ft/sec / ( 4 * 70Hz * sin 30o) = 100 ft
= Vint / ( 2 * Fdom ) = 14000 ft/sec / ( 2 * 50Hz ) = 140 ft
RI = 200 ft
SI = 200 ft
Xmin:
RLI = 800 ft
SLI = 1200 ft
Xmin = ( 8002 + 12002 ) ½ ft = 1442 ft
Xmax:
patch 10 * 48 or 7200 ft * 9400 ft
# of channels = 480
aspect ratio = 7200 / 9400 = 0.77
Xmax = ½ * ( 72002 + 94002 ) ½ ft = 5920 ft
Fold:
in-line fold = 9600 / ( 2 * 1200 ) = 4
x-line fold = 10 / 2 = 5
total fold = 20
Migration Aperture:
Radius of Fresnel Zone = ½ * (target time * Vrms * Vint / Fdom ) ½ =
(FT + FZ) < Total Migration Aperture < (FT + MA) TMA =
3.19
Let’s Design a 3D - Summary

target depth 2000 m
Desired Fold:
½ - b of 2D fold = 15 - 20
Bin size:
= Vint / ( 4 * Fmax * sin(dip)) = 4200 m/sec / ( 4 * 70Hz * sin 30o) = 30 m
= Vint / ( 2 * Fdom ) = 4200 m/sec / ( 2 * 50Hz ) = 42 m
RI = 60 m
SI = 60 m
Xmin:
RLI = 360 m
SLI = 360 m
Xmin = ( 3602 + 3602 ) ½ m = 509 m
Xmax:
patch 8 * 60 or 2520 m * 3540 m
# of channels = 480
aspect ratio = 2520 / 3540 = 0.71
Xmax = ½ * ( 25202 + 35402 ) ½ m = 2172 m
Fold:
in-line fold = 3600 / ( 2 * 360 ) = 5
x-line fold = 8 / 2 = 4
total fold = 20
Migration Aperture:
Radius of Fresnel Zone = ½ * ( 1.5 * 2666 m/sec * 4200 m/sec ÷ 50Hz ) ½ = 290 m
Diffraction Energy = 0.58 * 2000 m = 1160 m
Migration Aperture = 2000 * tan 30o = 1155 m
Fold Taper = 2000 m * 0.2 = 400 m
TMA range = 690 m - 1555 m
3.20
Let’s Design a 3D - Summary


Desired Fold:
½ - b of 2D fold = 15 - 20
Bin size:
= Vint / ( 4 * Fmax * sin(dip)) = 14000 ft/sec / ( 4 * 70Hz * sin 30o)= 100 ft
= Vint / ( 2 * Fdom ) = 14000 ft/sec / ( 2* 50Hz) = 140 ft
RI = 200 ft
SI = 200 ft
Xmin:
RLI = 800 ft
SLI = 1200 ft
Xmin = ( 8002 + 12002 ) ½ ft = 1442 ft
Xmax:
patch 10 * 48 or 7200 ft * 9400 ft
# of channels = 480
aspect ratio = 7200 / 9400 = 0.77
Xmax = ½ * ( 72002 + 94002 ) ½ ft = 5920 ft
Fold:
in-line fold = 9600 / ( 2 * 1200 ) = 4
x-line fold = 10 / 2 = 5
total fold = 20
Migration Aperture:
Radius of Fresnel Zone = ½ * (1.5 sec* 8000 ft/sec* 14000 ft/sec ÷ 50Hz)½=917 ft
Diffraction Energy = 0.58 * 6000 ft = 3480 ft
Migration Aperture = 6000 ft * tan 30o = 3464 ft
Fold Taper = 6000 ft * 0.2 = 1200 ft
TMA range = 2117 ft - 4664 ft
3.21
Quiz
1. Is a wide azimuth survey or a narrow azimuth 3D survey preferred for AVO work?
2. Based on diffraction energy, how large should the Migration Aperture be?
3. Should the migration aperture have the same dimension on all sides of the survey?
4. What are the 3 zones of the acquisition model and what type of data is contained in each?
3.22
Quiz Answers
1. A narrow azimuth 3D survey is better for AVO work because of the linear distribution of offsets.
2. The Migration Aperture should be at least equal to the width of the Fresnel Zone radius (containing
70% of the diffracted energy) and up to Z * tan 30o = 0.58 Z to capture 95% of the diffracted
energy.
3. Not necessarily, but often the migration aperture may be the same on all sides of the survey.
Migration Aperture will depend on the largest of (1) the lateral movement of dipping surfaces from
migration and (2) the width necessary to capture most of the diffraction tails. The allowance for
lateral movement is MA = Z * tan ( 2 ), where 2 is the apparent dip in the direction being
considered. For diffractions use a 30o takeoff angle, MA = Z * tan (30 o) = 0.58 * Z. If the dips in
one direction exceed 30o (and one wishes to resolve those dips), then the migration aperture in the
dip direction may well be wider than in the strike direction.
Another consideration is how wide a fold taper is needed to build up fold. Depending on the design,
the fold taper width may be different in the in-line and x-line directions. How much this fold taper
for fold buildup is allowed to overlap the zone of migration aperture, is a judgement call based on
costs and the detailed interpretive objectives.
4. The image area has full fold, fully migrated data. The migration aperture area has only partially
integrated data and a stack with full fold. The fold taper zone is the area necessary to build up fold
in the stack data. Often, there is some overlap of the migration aperture and the fold taper.
3.23
Chapter 4
FLOWCHARTS
&
SPREADSHEETS
Here we go! Designing a 3D seismic survey depends not only on technical
parameters but on personal preferences as well. In this chapter we will discuss a
few different approaches to the 3D design and introduce the added complexity of
cost analysis.
Table of Contents
Chapter 4
FLOWCHARTS & SPREADSHEETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1

Fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3
Bin Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3
Xmin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3
Xmax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3
Fold Taper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3
Record Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3
4.2 3D Design Flow Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4
4.3 Fold vs. Source Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5
4.4 Receiver Line Interval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6
4.5 Basic 3D Equations - Square Bins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7
4.6 Basic 3D Equations - Rectangular Bins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7
4.7 Basic Steps in 3D Layout - “Six Step Method” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8
4.8 A Graphical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10
4.9 Estimating the Cost of a 3D Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.11
4.10 Cost Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.14
Recorded Midpoints per unit area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.14
4.2
Flowcharts & Spreadsheets
4.1 Survey Design Decision Table
The survey design decision table is repeated here (Table 4.1) . It summarizes the criteria for determining
fold, bin size, Xmin, Xmax , migration aperture, fold taper and record length which are the key parameters that
need to be determined for 3D design. There are 7 key parameters in any 3D. These are:
Fold see Chapter 2
Bin Size
Xmin
Xma
x
Migration Aperture see Chapter 3
Fold Taper
Recording Time
1. Fold > ½- b * 2D Fold (if the S/N is good)

In-line fold = RLL / (2 * SLI)



< Deep Horizon critical reflection offset

Z tan 30o = 0.58 Z
7. Record Length Sufficient to capture migration aperture, diffraction tails and target horizons
Table 4.1 Survey Design Decision Table
4.3
4.2 3D Design Flow Chart
In Chapters 2 and 3 we worked through a fairly standard 3D design example. In our experience the decision
making order used in that example will work well for most 3D design problems. The flow chart in Table 4.2
should give you a technically reasonable starting design in most cases. If you cannot determine all the
starting parameters from your exploration objectives and previous 2D seismic data in the area, then some
reasonable estimates will suffice.
Once you have a starting design, then factor in source type, surface constraints, cost constraints and
operational considerations. For a very large survey, operational and cost considerations may push you to
a very different final choice of design.
There are many layout strategies (discussed in Chapter 5) which can be used to good advantage in certain
situations. This flow chart is written for straight line designs, but it can be easily adapted in most cases to
other strategies.
Determine the following parameters from your exploration objectives and existing 2D data:
fold of good 2D data
steepest dips
shallow markers needed for isochroning
target depth
target two-way time
basement depth
Vint immediately above the target horizon
Fdom at the target horizon
Fmax at the target horizon
lateral target size
area to be fully imaged
layout method
Desired Fold:
½ - b of 2D fold =
Bin size:
b) for alias frequency = Vint / (4 * Fmax * sin(dip)) =
c) for lateral resolution = Vint / (2 * Fdom) =
bin size =
RI =
SI =
Xmin:
RLI =
SLI =
Xmin = (RLI2 + SLI2) ½ =
Xmax:
Fold:
in-line fold = RLL / (2 * SLI) =
total fold =
Migration Aperture:
Radius of Fresnel Zone = ½ * (target time * Vrms * Vint / Fdom) ½ =
(FT + RFZ) < Total Migration Aperture < (FT + MA) TMA =
Table 4.2 3D Design Flow Chart
4.4
4.3 Fold vs. Source Density
In the last two Chapters we derived the basic fold equation for 3D surveys.
If the bin area = b2, Fold = NS * NC * b2 * U (midpoints per bin)
or NS = Fold / (NC * b2 *U)
where U = units factor (10-6 for m/km2 ; 0.03587 * 10-6 for ft/mi2).
E.g., Fold = 24, bin size= 25m (82.5ft), NC = 480

NS = 24 / (480 * 252 * 10-6) = 80 sources/km2
or NS = 24 / (480 * 82.52 * 0.03587 * 10-6) = 205 sources/mi2
This is the fundamental equation governing all 3Ds, regardless of the design strategy. There is an
assumption in the derivation that NS sources per unit area into NC channels will give rise to NS*NC
midpoints inside the unit area. This will only be realized in practice if some of the midpoints arise from
sources outside and receivers inside the area being examined and vice versa.
This implies that the receiver patterns and sources fired into each pattern must overlap somewhat as
indicated in Figure 4.1. Such overlap will ensure NS*NC midpoints in each unit area of the survey. We show
a representative area in the center of Figure 4.1 along with all of the receiver patches which will give rise
to midpoints inside this central area.
If the receiver patterns move (roll-along) in such a way that there is not a sufficient overlap, one will observe
"stripes" of lower fold at regular intervals in your survey. This will also occur if some of the receivers lie at
offsets > Xmax and will not be used in processing.
Figure 4.1
Overlapping Receiver Patches Required to
Build up Full Fold
4.5
4.4 Receiver Line Interval
In the real world all receivers should lie within a usable offset range.
Assume a source point centered in a patch 2*Xr by A*2*Xr (see Figure 4.2), and therefore the real Xmax =
(A2 + 1)½ * Xr or if the patch is square Xmax = 1.414 * Xr.
A is the aspect ratio as indicated in Figure 4.2. It is the ratio of the length of the patch in-line and the length
of the patch x-line. The value of A is usually less than or equal to 1.
If the receivers are spaced 2 b apart,
the number of receivers per line = 1 + 2 Xr/2b = 1 + Xr/b
And the number of lines NRL = NC / (1 + Xr/b)
The width of the patch means A*2*Xr = (NRL - 1) * RLI
Receiver line interval RLI = A * 2* Xr /((NC/(1 + Xr/b)) - 1)
approximating to RLI = A * 2 * Xr2/(NC*b)
where we have assumed a wide patch of many receiver lines and that Xr/b is very much greater than 1.
E.g., Real Xmax = 2300m (7500ft) so Xr = 1600m (5300ft)

and assuming NC = 480, b = 25m (82.5ft), A - 1
RLI = A * 2 * Xr2/(NC*b) = 1 * 2 * 16002 / (480*25) . 425m

or = 1 * 2 * 53002 / (480*82.5) . 1420ft
This is an expression linking RLI and NC. The assumptions are that the receivers were laid out in lines RLI
apart and that all NC channels had to lie within a useful offset range. This assumption is not overly rigid;
ARCO Buttons can fall into this scheme if one assumes that half the patch is empty - in other words calculate
it using 2*NC channels instead of NC.
RLI
Figure 4.2
4.6
4.5 Basic 3D Equations - Square Bins

Combining the above derivations we now state the basic 3D equations:
NS = Number of sources/km2 (sources/mi2)
NC = Number. of recording channels
b = Bin size
Xr = half width of patch in the in-line direction
Xs = half width of patch in the cross-line direction
RLI = Receiver line interval
SLI = Source line interval
A = Aspect ratio = Xr / Xs
U = Units factor (10-6 for m/km2 ; 0.03587 * 10-6 for ft/mi2).
Equation 4.5.1 NS = Fold Assumes 100% overlapping patterns in each

NC * b2 * U area of survey - or a regular midpoint density
Equation 4.5.2 RLI = A * 2 Xr2 Assumes rectangular receiver pattern -

NC * b spaced 2b apart. NC receivers in area A4Xr2. Must also
have RLI < Xmin, the largest minimum offset to be found in
any bin. If the patch is narrow (small "A"), then the patch
width will be RLI*(No. of lines - 1).
Equation 4.5.3 RLI = NS * A * 2Xr2 * b * U / Fold (From 4.5.1 and 4.5.2)
Equation 4.5.4 SLI = 1 Geometrical considerations - how else can

2b*NS * U you lay out NS sources per square kilometer (mile) as
there are 1000/2b sources per line km (5280/2b sources
per line mile)? The SLI can be thought of as sources per
line km (mi) divided by sources per km2 (mi2).
4.6 Basic 3D Equations - Rectangular Bins

If the CMP bins are rectangular, the basic equations are as follows:
NS = Number of sources/km2 (sources/mi2)
NC = Number of recording channels in a patch
bs = Bin size in direction of source lines
br = Bin size in direction of receiver lines
Xr = half width (height) of receiver patch
Xr = half width of patch in the in-line direction
Xs = half width of patch in the cross-line direction
RLI = Receiver line interval
SLI = Source line interval
A = Aspect ratio = Xr / Xs
U = Units factor (10-6 for m/km2 ; 0.03587 * 10-6 for ft/mi2).
Equation 4.6.1 NS = Fold Assumes 100% overlapping patterns in

NC*bs*br*U each area of survey- or a regular midpoint density.
Equation 4.6.2 RLI = A * 2 * Xr2 Assumes rectangular receiver pattern -

NC*br spaced 2br apart.
NC receivers in area A4Xr2
Must also have RLI < Xmin, the largest minimum offset to
be found in any bin.
Equation 4.6.3 RLI = NS*A*2Xr2*bs *U/ Fold (From 4.6.1 and 4.6.2)
Equation 4.6.4 SLI = 1

2bs* NS * U
The above equations only work in cases where source and receiver lines are perpendicular, i.e.,
Straight, Brick, Flexi-Bin®, and a few other cases.
4.7
4.7 Basic Steps in 3D Layout - “Six Step Method”
From the four basic equations and the Survey Design Decision Table earlier (Table 4.1), one can now state
a 6-step process to designing a 3D layout. This approach is similar to the 3D Design Flow Chart presented
above (Table 4.2), but it involves a spreadsheet to help choose some parameters.
1. Based on geologic modeling considerations, one should decide on:

a. the full fold survey size,
b. the maximum recording time,
c. the maximum frequency desired,
d. fold,
e. Xmin,
f. Xmax ,
g. bin size (b),
h. the migration aperture to add, and
i. how much overlap can be tolerated between migration aperture and fold taper?
2. Create a spreadsheet with columns calculated according to the following formulae (Table 4.3):
1. Choose the following 4 input parameters: Fold, Bin size, Xr , Xs
2. Col 1 (SLI) Enter values of source line interval from below Xmin to 2*Xmin at
steps of the group interval (2*b), (e.g., 200m to 700m in steps of 50m; or 660ft to
2310ft in steps of 165ft).
3. Col 2 (NS) = U/(2 b * Col 1)
U = Units factor (10-6 for m/km2 ; 0.03587 * 10-6 for ft/mi2)
4. Col 3 (NC) = U*Fold/(Col 2 * b2)
5. Col 4 (NRL) = Col 3*2b / 2Xr
NRL=Number of receiver lines in the patch
6. Col 5 (RLI) = 2Xs / (Col 4 -1)
7. Col 6 (Xmin) = ((Col 1)2 + (Col 5)2)½ ; straight line method
3. Choose the spreadsheet row for a solution where the combination of SLI and RLI nearly satisfy the
near offset (Xmin) constraint. Adjust Xr and Xs (within reasonable bounds for the desired offset for
stack) to achieve a pragmatic patch with an integral number of receiver lines. To achieve an integral
number of receiver lines, the expression Fold*SLI/Xr must be an integer.
4. Choose a layout strategy such as straight line or brick depending on practical considerations such
as access and available equipment.
5. Add exclusion zones, move source and receiver lines to accommodate real life features. Move and
add sources where necessary to preserve fold, offset and azimuth mix. Decide on migration and fold
taper needs. Check your edge management!
6. Prepare script files for the field recorder. Call the crew!
Many other methods are possible, but the equation NS = Fold/NC * b2 * U is fundamental to any 3D layout
strategy.
4.8
Fold: 40 Xr: 2000 m

Bin Size: 25m Xs: 1500 m
For integer NRL, choose Fold * SLI / Xr = integer
SLI NS NC NRL RLI Xmin Xmin

straight brick
200 100.0 640 8.0 429 473 293
250 80.0 800 10.0 333 417 300
300 66.7 960 12.0 273 405 330
350 57.1 1120 14.0 231 419 369
400 50.0 1280 16.0 200 447 412
450 44.4 1440 18.0 176 483 459
500 40.0 1600 20.0 158 524 506
550 36.4 1760 22.0 143 568 555
600 33.3 1920 24.0 130 614 604
650 30.8 2080 26.0 120 661 653
700 28.6 2240 28.0 111 709 702
Note: Distances are in m, and NS is in shots/km2
Table 4.3 (metric) - Spreadsheet for Evaluating 3D Designs
Fold: 40 Xr: 6600 ft

Bin Size: 82.5 ft Xs: 5500 ft
For integer NRL, choose Fold*SLI/Xr = integer

straight brick
660 256.0 640 8.0 1571 1704 1026
825 204.8 800 10.0 1222 1475 1027
990 170.7 960 12.0 1000 1407 1109
1155 146.3 1120 14.0 846 1432 1230
1320 128.0 1280 16.0 733 1510 1370
1485 113.8 1440 18.0 647 1620 1520
1650 102.4 1600 20.0 579 1749 1675
1815 93.1 1760 22.0 524 1889 1834
1980 85.3 1920 24.0 478 2037 1994
2145 78.8 2080 26.0 440 2190 2156
2310 73.1 2240 28.0 407 2346 2319
Note: Distances are in ft, and NS is in shots/mi2
Table 4.3a (imperial) - Spreadsheet for Evaluating 3D Designs
4.9
4.8 A Graphical Approach
The requirements are as follows:
Fold = 25, b = 25m, Xr = 2500m with Xmax = 3500m

or Fold = 25, b = 82.5ft, Xr = 8250ft with Xmax = 11550ft
Two equations which limit the source density NS are as follows:
NS = Fold * RLI / (2* Xr2 * b* C) = 0.08* RLI (from eqn. 4.5.3, graph 1)
or = 0.621* RLI
NS = Fold / (NC * b2 * C) = 40000/NC (from eqn. 4.5.1, graph 2)
or = 102,400/NC
Let’s assume that 700m (2310 ft) is the largest minimum acceptable offset Xmin in any bin. This can be
achieved with RLI in the range of 250 - 600m (825 - 1980ft).
To achieve these parameters (Fold=25, b=25m, Xr=2500m, RLI=250 to 650m or Fold=25, b=82.5ft,
Xr=8250 ft, RLI=825-1980ft), we need NS to be in the range of 20 to 52 sources/km2 (. 51 to 123
sources/mi2)and NC to be in the range of 770 to 2000 (833 - 2000) channels.
In this case SLI = 400 - 1000m (1320 - 3300ft) (from Eqn. 4.5.4) . In order to optimize Xmin the SLI should
be as close to the receiver interval as possible. If we assume RLI = 500m, which is 700m/1.4, (1650ft, which
is 2310ft/1.4), then Xmin=500m (2333ft), NS = 40 sources/km2 (103 sources/mi2), and NC = 1000 (994)
channels.
Figure 4.3
4.10
4.9 Estimating the Cost of a 3D Survey
Correctly estimating the costs associated with a seismic 3D survey can be a lengthy procedure taking many
factors into account. When working in one locality or under certain conditions with similar parameters from
one survey to the next, one may be able to develop a costing model, which includes the major factors which
influence the cost variations. Such models can be developed in a graph form, some very simple equations
or a spreadsheet. Often even before bids are requested from acquisition contractors, management may
require some sort of cost estimate to make initial decisions on factors such as the size of the survey.
For such purposes the spreadsheet example of the following three pages might provide a tremendous insight
into the biggest cost factors. Such a spreadsheet should be adapted to the local conditions so that it provides
the user with the fastest method of examining the factors which drive the costs.
This particular spreadsheet is designed for use with a straight line survey. The six basic parameters as per
the survey design decision table (Table 4.1, not including record length) are repeated at the top. The first
page describes the various input parameters; the calculations are based on starting with a certain number
of channels. The second page calculates the various geometries which are important to know when
evaluating various different designs. The most important factors here are to get close to the desired fold and
have integer values for in-line and x-line fold. As well Xmin and Xmax need to be examined in light of the
requirements. The third page provides the user with some cost estimate depending on the variables which
need to be considered for the area in question.
4.11
Project: Master 3D Client: ABC Oil Company

Location: GEDCO file #:
95/03/15
UNITS units M M(metric) or F(English)
needed calculated
fold 30 18
bin size 30 m 30 m
Xmin 300 m 539 m
Xmax 2500 m 2088 m
migration aperture 400 m 1039 m
fold taper 400 m 360 m
INPUT
shape rectangle
receiver line direction EW
source line direction NS
RI receiver interval 60 m
SI source interval 60 m
PBr processing bin in receiver direction 30 m
PBs processing bin in source direction 30 m
NC # of channels 600 affects fold, patch size
RLI receiver line interval 200 m affects x-line offset & patch size
SLI source line interval 500 m affects in-line fold, fold
SD shallowest depth/offset for isochron 600 m
DEPTH depth of target 1800 m desired offset for stack should be close to this
OFFSET maximum offset to be recorded 2500 m
TWO WAY approximate arrival time at target (2-way) 1.4 sec
Vint Vint immediately above zone of interest 3000 m/sec
Vave average velocity to the target zone 2571 m/sec
Fdom dominant frequency near zone of interest 40 Hz
Fmax Fmax near zone of interest 70 Hz
Fold Taper Fold taper @ 20% of target depth 360 m
max. geological dip expressed in m/km 8.0 m/km WSW
LRLI length of receiver lines 4.000 km
LSLI length of source lines 4.000 km
receiver array 6 over 25 m
source array 1 over 60 m
CUT % of existing cut lines 20 %
HAND % of hand-cut lines 10 %
CROP % of line km on farm land with crop 30 %
% of acceptable dead traces 2.0 %
patchLINES/REC patch 6 x 100
# of receiver line intervals sources may move over 1 odd if the # of receiver lines in patch is even
DROP # of consecutive sources which may be dropped 5 out of 80 Not on adjacent source lines!
XOFFSET1 min. distance of any source from edge of patch 400 m except along the edges of the survey
SourcePDAY estimated source points per day 250
dynamite
HOLES number of holes 1
HOLEDEPTH hole depth 15 m
CHARGE charge size per hole 1 kg
vibroseis
# of vibrators
# of sweeps
sweep length sec
pad time sec
sweep frequency Hz
sweep type dB/octave
drag length m
move-up m
total drag m
4.12
Project: Master 3D Client: ABC Oil Company

95/03/15
CALCULATED
NBR/S Natural bin dimensions 30 x 30 m

SBR/S sub-bin dimensions 10 x 10 m
RLI/SI 3.33
SLI/RI 8.33
NBINS number of processing bins 17778
NTRACE number of recorded traces 365400
full fold at offset sub-bin
IFOLD in-line fold 6.0 5.4 2.0
XFOLD x-line fold 3.0 3.0 1.0
FOLD total fold 18.0 15.9 2.0
DIP maximum dip of the target horizon 0.5 deg WSW
MA ideal migration aperture 1039 m
FZ Fresnel zone diameter before migration 367 m
Fal aliasing frequency before migration 3125 Hz
Falm aliasing frequency after migration 3125 Hz
LRES lateral resolution 38 m bin size should be smaller than this
VRES vertical resolution 38 m
kNr Nyquist wavenumber (receiver direction) 0.100 1/m
apparent velocities smaller than 700 m/sec will be suppressed by receiver array
kNs Nyquist wavenumber (source direction) 0.000 1/m
apparent velocities smaller than 0 m/sec no source array
SIZE size of survey 16.0 km2
NETSIZE size of survey net of fold taper 10.8 km2
NRL # of receiver lines 21.0 try 4.000 km
NSL # of source lines 9.0 try 4.000 km
TRL total length - receiver lines 84.0 km
TSL total length - source lines 36.0 km
number of receivers per receiver line 67.0 ***Receivers per line < Receivers in patch***
NREC number of receiver points 1421
NSHOTS number of source points 609
NS number of source points per square km 29
IPATCH in-line patch size 4000 m
XPATCH x-line patch size 1000 m
A aspect ratio 0.25
IOFFSET in-line offset 2000 m
XOFFSET1/2 x-line offset 400 m to 600 m
Xmin largest min offset 539 m
Xmax max offset recorded 2088 m *** increase your patch size ***
DAYS acquisition days 2.4 days
UTM coordinates
X of SW corner X of NE corner
Y of SW corner Y of NE corner
central meridian
in-line angle - rec.
4.13
95/03/15 Project: Master 3D Client: ABC Oil Company

COSTS
min average max
government approvals $2,000 $2,000
permit agent $500 $2,000
permitting $0 /km2 $0 $4,000 $7,000 10,000 /sec
receiver line permits $600 /km $50,400 $300 $400 $500 /mi
source line permits $1,000 /km $36,000 $800 $1,000 $1,200 /mi
general damages $100 /km $12,000 $100 $200 $300 /km
crop damages $750 /ha $20,976 $200 $300 $3,000 /acre
timber salvage $150 /ha $2,757 $40 $150 $154 /ha
scouting $550 /day $2,200 $525 $563 $600 /day
advance man $550 /day $2,200 $525 $563 $600 /day
cat push $525 /day $2,100 $500 $525 $550 /day
bird dog $550 /day $1,100 $500 $575 $650 /day
health & safety management $550 /day $1,100 $500 $575 $650 /day
line cutting - existing $600 /km 24.0 $14,400 $300 $650 $1,000 /km
line cutting - new $1,000 /km 84.0 $84,000 $500 $1,000 $1,500 /km
line cutting - hand $1,500 /km 12.0 $18,000 $500 $1,750 $3,000 /km
drilling $0.30 /m $8,989 $0.45 $0.85 $1.25 /ft
mob/demob $0 $0 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 each
acquisition $300 /source $182,700 $145 $273 $400 /source
test holes $100 for 8 $800 $80 $140 $200
clean-up $150 /km $18,000 $0 $350 $700 /km
survey calculations $21 /km $4,055 $21 $21 $21 /km
processing $20 /source $12,180 $15 $19 $23 /source
3D design charge, min. $925 /survey $925 /survey
project management, min. estimate $600 /day $2,923 /day
Flexi-Bin® design $300 /km2 $4,800 /km2
interpretation $600 /day $8,770 /day
workstation rental $840 /day $8,185 /day
reproduction $700 $700 $400 $700 $1,000
contingency 10 % $50,426
TOTAL COST $554,685

net of fold taper
cost per section $89,784 /mi2 $133,528 /mi2
cost per km2 $34,668 /km2 $51,558 /km2
cost per recorded trace $1.52
prepared by: Andreas Cordsen, P. Geoph., Geophysical Exploration & Development Corporation, (403) 262-5780/81
Please note that all numbers are estimates only!!
4.10 Cost Model

NS*NC = Fold / b2
This very simple formula is the essence of a cost model developed by Caltex Pacific Indonesia (CPI) which
normalizes the cost of 3D surveys with the number of recorded midpoints per unit area (Bee, et al., 1994).
The acquisition costs appear to have a direct relationship with this data density. One can easily determine
some normal value for data density.
Data Density = Fold / b2 * U or Fold * U / (bs * br * U)

E.g., Data Density = 25 * 106 / 252 = 40 000 midpoints / km2
= 25 * 27.88 * 106 / 82.52 = 102,400 midpoints / mi2
and Cost per Midpoint = $20000/40000 midpoints = $0.50 / midpoint for 3D
If the survey cost is $ 20 000 / km2 ($51,200/ mi2) for full-fold coverage, the cost per midpoint is $0.50.
Making comparative calculations for the cost per midpoint of 2D data will convince management very quickly
of the cost advantage of 3D. Assuming a group interval of 20m (67.5ft), 30 fold and a cost of $6000/km
($9600/mi) for 2D data, then
Data Density = Fold * 1000 / CDP spacing = 30 * 1000/10 = 3000 midpoints / km

= 5000 midpoints / mi
and Cost per Midpoint = $6000 / 3000 midpoints = $2 / midpoint for 2D
or = $9600 / 5000 midpoints = $2 / midpoint for 2D
The typical 2D comparative cost is $2/midpoint in the above example which is four times the 3D cost of
$0.50/midpoint.
4.14
Chapter 5
FIELD LAYOUTS
Many different types of designs have been developed. Depending on the geographical location and
technical issues, one may prefer one design over another.
Table of Contents
Chapter 5
FIELD LAYOUTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1

5.1 Swath Shoots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3
Parallel swaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3
Cross swaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3
5.2 Straight Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4
5.3 Brick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5
5.4 Non-Orthogonal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7
5.5 Odds & Evens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8
5.6 Flexi-Bin® or Bin Fractionation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9
5.7 Button Patch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.10
5.8 Zig-Zag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.11
double zig-zag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.12
5.9 Hexagonal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.13
5.10 Radial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.13
5.11 Circular Shoots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.13
5.12 Circular Patches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.13
5.13 Field Layouts - Pros and Cons of the Various Layout Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.14
Quiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.15
Quiz Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.16
5.2
Field Layouts
5.1 Swath Shoots
Swath shoots were used in the earliest 3D designs (Fig. 5.1). Source and receiver lines are parallel and
usually coincident. While shots are fired on one line, receivers are recording along the parallel receiver lines
creating swath lines halfway between pairs of source and receiver lines. Parallel swaths are sometimes
considered on land when severe surface restrictions exist, or when costs have to be minimized. The
operational advantages are attractive, but the resulting azimuth mix is very narrow, which may or may not
be desirable. The offset distribution on the common source/receiver lines is excellent. However, on the swath
lines it is poorer because of the doubling up of offsets (Fig. 5.1). Inadequate sampling in the x-line direction
makes this only a “poor man’s 3D”. Some c ompanies prefer to have non-coincident source and receiver
lines.
Cross swaths still have very few but long receiver lines with source lines crossing orthogonally at much
larger line spacing than the receiver line intervals.
Caltex Pacific Indonesia has mastered a “gapped in-line” technique to further reduce cutting costs in the
jungle environment of Indonesia (Bee et al., 1994). Gapped in-line swath shooting does not necessarily use
all of the lines of a regular swath geometry as source and/or receiver lines.
Swath shoots are still an inherent part of marine 3D seismic surveys because of the practical aspect of
towing air gun arrays and hydrophone cables behind a ship(s).
Source/Receiver line
Swath line (CMP's)
Figure 5.1
Swath Design (Parallel)
5.3
5.2 Straight Line
Generally, the source and receiver lines are laid out orthogonal to each other. Such an arrangement is
particularly easy for the survey and the recording crews. Keeping track of station numbering is very
straightforward.
The active receiver lines form a

rectangular patch surrounding each
source point location. The patch often
has a longer axis in the in-line
direction. The in-line offsets are
usually close to the desired offsets
which will be included in the stack. If
the x-line offset within the patch (to the
farthest receiver line) is close to the
maximum offset for stack then most of
that line may be useless because the
information might be muted in
processing. Depending on the receiver
line spacing, the aspect ratio of the
axes of the patch is usually between
0.6 and 1.0. We recommend using an
aspect ratio near 0.85 (see The 85%
Figure 5.2a
Rule, Section 3.4). The source points Straight Line Design
are assumed to be located at the
center of the patch although this is not
a necessity. When shooting in areas of steep regional dip one may want to consider asymmetric patches.
In the straight line method example, receiver lines

could run East-West and source lines North-South, as
shown in Figure 5.2, or vice versa. This method is easy
to lay out in the field, and can accommodate extra
equipment (lay out ahead of shooting) and roll-along
operation. Usually, all the source points between
adjacent receiver lines are recorded. Then the receiver
patch is rolled over one line and the process repeated.
A portion of a 3D layout is shown in the top Figure (a)
and a detailed view in the bottom Figure (b).
Figure 5.2b
Figure 5.2c shows the Xmin distribution for the straight
line design. The Xmin for a particular bin is smallest at
the line intersections and increases toward the center of
the boxes.
Figure 5.2c
Straight Line Design (Xmin
Distribution)
5.4
Field Layouts
5.3 Brick
Historically, the brick pattern was invented in an attempt to improve the offset distribution pattern of the
straight line method. By moving the groups of source points that lie between alternate receiver lines to a
“half-line” position, it is easy to see that the pattern of offset distribution becomes more random in nature.
In fact, for a narrow swath, one can easily understand that the offset distribution is far superior to the straight
line design. In practice, it is interesting to note that a square patch (or a large aspect ratio) gives rise to more
or less the same offset distribution for either the straight line or brick method.
The brick pattern (Fig. 5.3) has,

however, one overwhelming
advantage. If one considers a typical
“Box,” as defined earlier, then it can be
shown that the largest minimum
offset, Xmin, will be significantly less
than in the straight line design
assuming the same source and
receiver line intervals. Xmin in the brick
pattern design is determined by the
following formula (assuming that the
source lines are staggered):
Xmin = ( SLI 2 + ( ½ * RLI ) 2 ) ½

(Note: SLI is defined as the “Brick
Length” )
Figure 5.3a
This is the diagonal of the “half-box.” Brick Design
The brick design method allows one to
double the receiver line interval over
the straight line design without sacrificing Xmin (but with reduced fold of course). If the source points and
receivers are offset at the line intersections, Xmin is slightly smaller (approximately ½ bin) than determined
by the above formula. If the receiver lines are staggered instead, the SLI and RLI would be interchanged in
the above formula. If SLI and RLI are equal, the brick design offers a 20% reduction in Xmin over the straight
line design method. If SLI is larger than RLI the benefit of the reduction of Xmin which the brick design offers
is negligible.
In contrast the straight line method in Figure 5.2b will

have a larger minimum offset equal to the diagonal of
one “Box.” Therefore, one can increase the receiver
line interval with the brick method and still retain the
required minimum offset. Of course, spreading out the
receivers means reduced fold and acquisition costs.
The brick design generally offers better azimuth
distribution in addition to the improved offset
distribution (for rectangular patches). Statics coupling
between receivers is improved over the straight line
design method. Brick patterns are in use in areas where
permit costs are not an issue and easy access is
provided to all locations, e.g., in the desert. Access Figure 5.3b
limitations are frequently the reason brick designs are
not used.
5.5
“Double Br ick” design refers to a four line swath (Fig.

5.3c). “Triple Brick” refer s to a six line swath (Fig. 5.3d)
and “Quadruple Brick” to an eight line swat h (Fig. 5.3e). In
all of these, only the center line of source points is being
recorded. These usually relatively narrow patches will offer
much better offset distribution than a straight line design
or even a square patch of a brick pattern.
It follows that one can carry the designs to a point where

all source point locations fall onto a diagonal rather than
on staggered lines (see non-orthogonal geometries
Section 5.4).
Note: Figures 5.3c, 5.3d and 5.3e are schematic. In Figure 5.3c
practice, the boxes would have an aspect ratio much “Double” Brick
closer to one.
Figure 5.3d Figure 5.3e

“Triple” Brick “Quadruple” Brick
Figure 5.3f shows the Xmin distribution for the double

brick design. Again, Xmin is smallest at the line
intersections but increases in a different pattern away
from those line intersections than shown in the straight
line design. The largest Xmin is the diagonal of the half-
box (see pages 5.10 and 5.11).
Figure 5.3f
Brick Design (Xmin Distribution)
5.6
Field Layouts
5.4 Non-Orthogonal
Non-orthogonal arrangements of
source and receiver lines (Fig. 5.4) are
used to get the benefits, in terms of
offset distributions, of the brick design,
without some of the disadvantages,
such as 90o turns and non-continuous
source lines. As described in the
discussion on brick design, the non-
orthogonal arrangement is essentially
an end member of the brick method.
For non-orthogonal designs, one needs
to be careful in deciding whether to
measure the station interval in-line or
stretch it to fall on grid points.
Figure 5.4a
Non-Orthogonal Design
If we assume a station interval of 60m
(220 ft), the source points in this example would be
stretched out by a factor of 60m / sin 45o = 60m / 0.707
= 85m (220 ft/sin45o = 220 ft / 0.707 = 311 ft). Then the
bin size of 30m * 30m (110 ft * 110 ft) can be
maintained and the midpoints fall into the center of the
bins..
Figure 5.4 shows an example of the non-orthogonal

method with a 45o degree angle between the source
and receiver lines. This angle depends very much on
the requirements for in-line fold and the number of
receiver lines in the patch. Figure 5.4b
The source points for each patch lie in the center of the
patch between two adjacent receiver lines. This “basic
unit” is moved around the survey. Fold builds up ver y
quickly around the survey edges. This method is often
shot with very few receiver lines per patch (Narrow
Azimuth) and is operationally attractive because of the
straight source and receiver line layout.
Figure 5.4c shows the Xmin distribution for one example

of the non-orthogonal design. The Larges t Minimum
Offset (Xmin ) changes with the line angle and the line
intervals. One should check the Xmin distribution with a
software package.
Figure 5.4c
Non-Orthogonal Design (Xmin
Distribution)
5.7
5.5 Odds & Evens
Odds and Evens (Fig. 5.5) are really a

variation on the double brick pattern
formed by connecting all the source
lines of the brick method. In this case
there is a new “bric k” for every
source point. Operationally you must
traverse twice as many source lines as
in the straight line method - but, of
course, you only occupy every second
source point on each line. The source
points are offset by half their interval
on adjacent lines.
Figure 5.5a
Odds & Evens Design
Offset and azimuth distributions for the
Odds and Evens are improved in comparison to the straight line method.
If SLI is larger than RLI (of the brick design) then Xmin
can be reduced significantly when keeping the spacings
the same, compared to the straight line or brick
designs.
Xmin for odds & evens is determined by (relative to the

straight line or brick line intervals):
Xmin = ( ( ½ SLI ) 2 + RLI 2 ) ½
Figure 5.5b
5.8
Field Layouts
5.6 Flexi-Bin® or Bin Fractionation
The Flexi-Bin® method was developed

and patented1 by GEDCO (Cordsen,
1993a,b, 1995a). In this method,
source points and receivers can be laid
out in many different ways. Basically,
one must simply ensure that source
and receiver line spacing are non-
integral with respect to the group
interval (Fig. 5.6, e.g., group interval =
60m, SLI = 400m, RLI = 200m). This
causes midpoints to fall in a regular
pattern inside each CMP bin. In this
method, an even distribution of
midpoints occurs throughout the bin.
Normally, midpoints are clustered in
the bin center.
Figure 5.6a
In the above example, (60, 400, 200m) Flexi-Bin® Design
9 groups of midpoints of a 10*10m size
will result in each CMP bin of 30*30m.
In processing one can choose to stack these “sub-bins” or “micro-bins” (9 times as many as regular bins),
thereby achieving much higher resolution (stack trace every 10m, instead of every 30m) with consequently
lower fold - and therefore, potentially lower signal-to-noise ratio. On the other hand, one can increase the
S/N ratio by increasing the bin size.
If you are doing straight line shooting, you should

consider using this method instead. You don’t lose
anything (each normal CMP bin still contains as many
traces as before, with a somewhat improved offset
and azimuth distribution - and full statics coupling)
and you always have the possibility that the higher
resolution (lower stack trace interval) will show a
feature which you might miss at larger stack trace
spacing. There are numerous operational advantages
to the Flexi-Bin® method, such as easier field
operations, excellent statics coupling (Cordsen,
1995b) and other processing flexibilities. A detailed
discussion of this method can be obtained from Figure 5.6b
GEDCO.
The bin fractionation method uses source and receiver lines that are staggered by one bin dimension. This
method is limited to creating “quarter cells” in the subsurface. The numbering of station locations in the field
is not parallel from line to line and therefore, may create problems.
Companies interested in licensing the Flexi-Bin® Technology should contact GEDCO for detailed information
(Phone +1 403 262-5780 or Fax +1 403 262-8632).
1
. U.S. Patent # 5,402,391, issued March 28, 1995, to Cordsen
5.9
5.7 Button Patch
The Button Patch method was developed and patented2 by ARCO and is now routinely used in most of their
3D surveys. Each “button” contains a tight pattern of receivers (Fig. 5.7), typically 6*6 or 8*8. Final button
geometry is largely determined by the equipment considerations and cable restrictions. There is no
requirement to keep the receiver patterns square.
Several buttons are combined in a

checkerboard pattern to form the
receiver patch. Multiple shots are fired
into the receiver patch in a precise
manner. The receiver patch is then
rolled to its next location (generally
some overlap with the previous patch
position is maintained). Then a similar
pattern of shots is fired into the new
receiver patch. Repeating source
points for different buttons will provide
for improved static coupling while
staggered source points (between
previous locations) will offer better
midpoint distribution. Frequently, the
receiver buttons and source point
locations are distributed irregularly
because of surface obstructions.
Large channel capacities are Figure 5.7

necessary to minimize receiver
moves. The shooting trucks, or Button Patch Design
vibrators, must travel around the patch
for each new receiver layout. If sufficient receivers are available, then cunning use of the roll-along switch
can eliminate unnecessary movement of the shooters or vibrators. Two or three patch positions with roll-on
can often be covered in one receiver layout.
The receiver buttons are laid out and moved over the area to be imaged at full-fold (and typically smaller
bins with lower fold are used in button patch designs as compared to other design strategies). Source points
are placed outside this full-fold area to give a fold taper around the edges. This achieves longer offsets
without the need to lay out additional equipment outside the planned area of the survey. This will improve
Migration and DMO because the seismic amplitudes contained by these long offset traces are moved nicely
within the survey. These long offsets will contribute energies which will help improve the migration and DMO.
The Button Patch method utilizes modern, high channel systems effectively. High resolution can be achieved
by using closer receiver spacing. A small Xmin and good static coupling require great care at the planning
stage. Short offset distribution may be poor but far offset distribution should be good because of the source
points outside of the “button patch” area. Another advantage is that the design has th e flexibility to plan for
obstacles to fall in the button holes. There is also additional flexibility to cope with make up source points
and to compensate for dropped source points. The major constraint on the efficiency of the button patch
design is the requirement for the shooters or vibrators to move about the survey easily. In some surveys,
limited access may make this strategy a poor choice.
Please note that the Button Patch technology is ARCO’s intellectual property and is protected by patent.
Persons wishing to use this technology should contact ARCO in Plano, Texas directly regarding license
agreements and license fees. The contact person is James Mitchell, Phone +1 214 509 6105 , Fax +1 214
509 6754.
2
. U.S. Patent # 4,930,110, issued May 29, 1990, to Bremner et al.
5.10
Field Layouts
5.8 Zig-Zag
The Zig-Zag pattern (Fig. 5.8) is very

popular in desert areas, or anywhere
one has good access between receiver
lines. Single source lines are located
between adjacent pairs of receiver
lines for a “single zig-zag” (Fig. 5.8a).
It is important to note that the source

point positions should be measured so
that they still create central midpoints,
e.g., for 60m (220 ft) station interval
and a 45o angle between the receiver
lines and the source line diagonal, the
distance between stations on the
diagonal, is 85m (311 ft).
Figure 5.8a
Zig-Zag Design
Figure 5.8b
5.11
The offset distribution can be improved

further by shooting the 3D in a
“double zig-zag” pattern. Here two
zig-zag patterns are interleaved as
shown in Fig. 5.8c and 5.8d. The
vibrator progress for two sets of
vibrators is shown.
For either the single or double zig-zag,

the largest minimum offset Xmin is
usually found near the centre of the
open area left by the zig-zag source
lines (Fig. 5.8b, 5.8d). It is highly
recommended that one check for the
largest Xmin , using a modeling
program. Zig-zag designs are often
considered for narrow azimuth surveys
Figure 5.8c
requiring good offset distribution. Double Zig-Zag Design
Figure 5.8d
Figures 5.8e and 5.8f show the Xmin distribution for the single and double zig-zag designs. Note how the
double zig-zag design has reduced Xmin. However, the source effort is exactly double.
Figure 5.8e Figure 5.8f

Zig-Zag Design (Xmin Double Zig-Zag Design (Xmin
Distribution) Distribution)
5.12
Field Layouts
5.9 Hexagonal
Hexagonal patches are a special case of the circular arrangement (Section 5.12). If the midpoints fall into
a hexagonal pattern, then the midpoints can be binned hexagonally. This method provides a closely packed
pattern while minimizing the average distance of midpoints from the bin center.
5.10 Radial
Radial shooting involves laying out lines of receivers in an arrangement resembling the spokes of a wheel.
Shots are taken in circular paths of increasing radius away from the center of the “wheel.” The method has
been advocated for salt-dome s where the geometry favors the collection of energy that reflects from the
sides of the salt-dome. In practice you need to be certain of the location of the top of the salt-dome!
The authors are not aware of any radial survey done in the past several years and this method doesn’t
appear to be in use.
5.11 Circular Shoots
Circular shooting (W. French - Grant-Tensor) is used in marine 3Ds. Basically, a single boat towing a set of
streamers sails in concentric circles that usually overlap (i.e., the set of circles formed by the boat path
gradually moves in a constant direction until the area of the 3D survey is covered by a series of circular
paths). Obviously, the fact that the cable (streamer) is constantly curved in shape helps to create a random
scattering of midpoints, which may then be binned in a true 3D sense. This method does not lend itself to
land operations.
5.12 Circular Patches
Circular patches are used where

receiver line spacing becomes highly
irregular. The main feature of a
circular patch is the maximum offset
(or radius). By using computer
programs to identify all stations within
a particular radius and identifying the
live stations (“from station - to station”)
for each receiver line, we can avoid
recording on stations too far away from
the source (Fig. 5.9). Circular patches
are not popular in the field, because of
the operational difficulties.
Figure 5.9
Circular Patch Design
5.13
5.13 Field Layouts - Pros and Cons of the Various Layout Strategies
Layout Pros Cons
Straight Simple geometry. Large Xmin.
Swath Simple geometry. Cost efficient. Poor azimuth distribution. Poor

Good offset distribution. Minimum statics coupling.
equipment movement.
Smaller Xmin may allow a wider RLI.

Brick Reasonable offsets and azimuths. Access can be a problem.
Special case of brick without such

severe access problems. Better
Odds/Evens offsets and azimuths. Twice the source lines as
conventional straight shoot. Only
High resolution with low fold or low half the shots are taken on each
resolution with high fold. Super Bins line.
Flexi-Bin®* or for normal use have good offset and
Bin Fractionation azimuth mix. Same as Straight.
Good statics coupling.
May reduce acquisition costs.
Ideal for pre-stack migration.
Efficient utilization of large channel

systems.
Good offset and azimuth distribution
Button Patch* require detailed planning.
Can require large number of source
Same as brick. Efficient for points over a wide area for each
equipment moves. patch.
Needs large channel capacity.
Simple geometry. Static coupling hard to accomplish.
Zig Zag
Good for salt domes.
Must have very open access.
Non-Orthogonal
Layout hexagonal receiver patches
Radial and use hexagonal CMP bins. Same as Straight.
More efficient use of equipment
since more channels will be at An operational and processing
Hexagonal Patch useful offsets. nightmare.
Consistent Xmax. The juggie can’t spell hexagon.
Circular
Operationally difficult.
* Patent Restrictions apply to the use of these technologies.
5.14
Field Layouts
Quiz
1. Where is the bin that contains the largest minimum offset in a straight line design?
2. What determines the largest minimum offset in a brick pattern design?
3. What is the basic concept of Flexi-Bin®?
4. What is essential for the application of the Zig-Zag method?
5.15
Quiz Answers
1. In a straight line design, the bin in the center of a box has the largest minimum offset Xmin.
2. Xmin in the brick pattern design is determined by the following formula (assuming that the
source lines are staggered):
Xmin = ( SLI2 + ( ½ * RLI ) 2 ) ½
The brick design method allows one to double the receiver line interval of the straight line
design without sacrificing Xmin.
3. The basic concept of Flexi-Bin® is that the ratios of RLI/SI and SLI/RI are non-integer
values. The line intervals are arranged in such a manner that the midpoints are evenly
distributed within a bin, rather than all falling onto one central midpoint.
4. One must have excellent access for the application of the Zig-Zag method (e.g., in the
desert).
5.16
Chapter 6
SOURCE EQUIPMENT
The choice of source equipment depends on many factors. Testing will usually allow the geophysicist to
make a better selection dependant upon current ground and weather conditions. Failing recent testing, one
may want to review past data in the area.
Table of Contents
Chapter 6
SOURCE EQUIPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1

6.1 Dynamite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3
6.1.1 Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3
charge size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3
charge depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4
number of holes per source location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4
6.1.2 Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4
tandem, shooting alternately . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5
steady-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5
6.2 Vibrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5
6.2.1 Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5
sweep length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5
number of sweeps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5
pad time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5
number of vibrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5
fundamental ground force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6
6.2.2 Fine-Tuning Vibrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6
Drag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6
move-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6
vibrator coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6
6.2.3 Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7
Similarity tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7
Vibrator testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7
non-linear sweeps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8
Vari-sweeps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8
sweep rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8
Phase, force and frequency vs. time plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8
source points may be occupied repeatedly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9
Quiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.10
Quiz Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.10
6.2
Source Equipment
6.1 Dynamite
Dynamite sources produce a symmetric wavefield of p-waves. The source selection depends primarily on
near surface conditions. If drilling is fast and efficient, single shot holes filled with dynamite might suffice.
Terrain conditions may dictate using dynamite as a source. Heli-portable operations in mountainous regions
require dynamite shooting. The cost and availability of dynamite and vibrators are generally comparable.
However, if a shot hole pattern is required, or if the depth of the shot hole pattern exceeds 10-15m (30-50ft),
the cost of dynamite may exceed the cost of vibrators by a significant margin.
A variety of other sources are available (e.g., air gun, weight-drop, p-shooter) when dynamite or vibrators
cannot be used. Unusual surface conditions or geophysical requirements will usually be the driving force
toward considering nonstandard sources.
6.1.1 Effort
With dynamite the effort depends on the following parameters:

1. Charge size
2. Charge depth
3. Number of holes per source location
The choice of
charge size
depends largely on
the depth to the
horizon of interest.
The “best” charge
size is that which
achieves the
maximum signal-to-
noise (S/N) ratio at
the target depth.
Deeper targets
usually require larger
charge sizes.
However, one should
not choose a charge
size that will cause
the holes to “blow
out” (when a high
percentage of the
energy ejects the
mud out of the hole).
Generally, the larger
charge sizes will
cause more ground
roll and air blast
contamination of the
record (Fig. 6.1). Figure 6.1
Alternatively, smaller
charge sizes mean Monitors Showing Ground Roll and Air Blast
higher frequency
content, but less energy going into the ground.
6.3
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 (e.g., 6m or 20ft) the stronger the air-blast and
the ground roll. On the other hand it is usually not economical to go much beyond 18m (60ft) depth. If the
drilling is really tough (and expensive) one may have to limit the hole depth to as little as 2m (6ft) (or less
if basalt occurs at surface).
The number of holes per source location will depend on the hole depth that one can drill economically
and the apparent noise on single hole records. Multiple hole patterns may be required for either sufficient
energy penetration into the ground (particularly if difficult drilling forces shallow holes), or for noise
cancellation purposes (source array). In 3D operations a source array will often be in the same direction as
the source lines for best noise cancellations, since the receiver arrays are generally laid out in line with the
receiver line direction (See Chapter 9 - Arrays).
6.1.2 Testing
Unless acquisition parameters are well known, a test sequence similar to the one in Table 6.1 is
recommended.
The following test program should be located 30-40 stations from a BOL or EOL (beginning/end of line).
Charge sizes are in kg (lbs.). The test results will be delivered to the processor as soon as possible after
recording, so that the results can be reviewed in detail. The testing will aid in determining what source
parameters should be used for the present or any future programs. These test parameters may vary greatly
from area to area and therefore, one should assure that the test sequence is suitable for the area under
investigation.
File # test # charge size depth # of holes

kg (lbs.) m (ft)
test for charge size
1 0.5 (1) 15 (45) 1
2 1 (2) 15 (45) 1
3 2 (5) 15 (45) 1
4 4 (10) 15 (45) 1
test for depth

5 1 (2) 6 (20) 1
6 1 (2) 9 (30) 1
test for # of holes

7 1 (2) 15 (50) 3
8 1 (2) 15 (50) 5
Table 6.1 Typical dynamite test sequence
6.4
Source Equipment
6.1.3 Shooting Strategy

A major advantage of dynamite operations is that several shooting
crews can operate in tandem, shooting alternately (Fig. 6.2). This will
allow one shooting crew to move to the next source location while the 9 10
other shooting crew is making the electronic connection between the
blaster and the dynamite wire and then taking the shot once it is “hot.” 7 8
We do not yet have any experience working with button patches, but it 5 6
would appear that it is far more efficient to use dynamite sources for
them because tandem shooting can easily cover the widely distributed 3 4
shots this strategy may require.
1 2
In dynamite operations it is especially important that vehicles “steady-
up” while “listening.” Cars or trucks traveling close to the line spread
need to stop and shut their engines off to reduce the noise on the Figure 6.2
recorded data. Tandem Shooting on
6.2 Vibrator Two Parallel Source
Vertical vibrators produce an asymmetric wavefield with vertical p- Lines
waves and horizontal s-waves. Shear vibrators produce horizontal p-
waves and vertical s-waves (the latter being perpendicular to the
direction of vibration). If multiple dynamite patterns still don’t put enough energy into the ground, vibrators
(Fig. 6.3) may be preferred on technical grounds, regardless of relative cost.
We recently encountered poor dynamite data in an area with 200m (650ft) of glacial till, but acquired
outstanding data when a Vibroseis® source was used.
6.2.1 Effort
In Vibrator acquisition the effort depends on the following parameters:
1. Sweep length
2. Number of sweeps
3. Number of vibrators
4. Fundamental ground force
The sweep length (time) is usually in the range of 4-20 seconds. Testing will determine which combination
of sweep length with the other acquisition parameters offers the best results. The longer the sweep length
the more time the vibrators spend putting certain frequency ranges into the ground.
The number of sweeps may reasonably range between 4 and 20. Noise cancellation is improved by
increasing the number of sweeps; e.g., wind noise on far traces can be reduced significantly by a higher
number of sweeps.
The product of the sweep length and the number of sweeps is referred to as the pad time and is one of the
most important factors in determining the crew cost:
pad time = (sweep length) * (number of sweeps)
Pad time usually varies between 100-150 seconds per source point, however under certain circumstances
may be as low as 10 seconds. Generally it is more economical to decrease the number of sweeps because
it reduces the vibrator moves; fewer, longer sweeps are more desirable.
The number of vibrators usually varies between 3 and 5. Acquiring data with single or dual vibrators will
not offer the excellent noise cancellation that can be accomplished with a larger number of vibrators.
Because vibrator data almost always use source arrays, one should always consider using receiver arrays
(Chapter 8) on vibrator surveys.
6.5
The fundamental ground force is the last factor

affecting the effort. Along with the number of
vibrators it affects the S/N ratio far more than the
sweep length, the number of sweeps and the
bandwidth according to the following formula
(M. Lansley, 1992):
S/N improvement in dB = 20 log (number of vibrators
* fundamental ground force * (sweep length * number
of sweeps * bandwidth of sweep) 1/2 )
6.2.2 Fine-Tuning Vibrators

The vibrators can be spread over a larger distance to
create a source pattern and many sweeps can be
summed to create a sufficiently large source. Several
vibrators (2-5) are usually combined to form an array.
The array length is determined by the distance from
the pad of the first vibrator to the pad of the last
vibrator. This array may be stationary (“stack”) or will
“drag” over a predetermined distance as shown i n
Fig. 6.4 for the center source point. The total source
array length is:
Total source array length = array length + drag
e.g., 60m = 30m + 30m or 248ft = 124ft + 124ft
and
drag = (incremental drag distance) * (number of
sweeps - 1) Figure 6.3
e.g., 30m = 10m * (4 - 1) or 124ft = 41ft * ( 4 - 1 )
Single Vibrator
Drag will attenuate noise quite effectively and is a lot easier on the operators, the equipment and
environment. A small amount of drag may decrease the air blast noise (333 m/sec or 1100 ft/sec), and the
ground roll at near offsets. Larger drags may increase multiples and therefore, should be avoided.
Often the first vibrator sits near the flag for the
source location for the first sweep. The vibrator Direction of Travel
array then moves up between each sweep so that Source Source Source
for the final sweep the last vibrator sits near the Point Point Point
flag. The vibrators will create a weighted array (in Source Interval
40m 40m
Fig. 6.4 the weights are 1,2,3,4,3,2,1). If, after the
final sweep, the first vibrator is not at the next 165ft 165ft
flag the entire array will move-up to the next flag.
source interval = drag + move-up 10m 10m

e.g., 40m = 30m + 10m or 165ft = 124ft + 41ft 30m 30m
41ft 124ft 124ft 41ft
The changes in vibrator coupling which occur Array Length Drag move up
while using a drag can be neglected since the First to next
vibrator coupling can change from sweep to Sweep flag
sweep and even within a sweep from the
beginning to the end.
Final
Sweep
Total Source
Array Length
Fig. 6.4
Vibrator Array, Move-up and Drag
6.6
Source Equipment
6.2.3 Testing
Similarity tests (“sims”) are performed at least twice daily to confirm th e satisfactory behavior of the
vibrators. Hard wire tests (with a physical cable connection from the recorder to the vibrators) are the most
thorough performance checks.
Vibrator testing usually requires a significant amount of time in the field to record different kinds of source
parameters; e.g., varying the sweep range, dwell, drag length, number of sweeps, sweep length and number
of vibrators. Unless acquisition parameters are well known, a test sequence similar to the one in Table 6.2
is recommended. A standard sweep might be what is numbered as test #2. The type of test sequence may
vary greatly from area to area. The S/N formula on page 6.11 may be used to design a test sequence so that
the parameters vary sufficiently to show S/N variations that will be easily visible.
It is important for vibrator testing to have a field processing system that allows the geophysicist to make on
the spot decisions about further testing that may be necessary beyond an initial test sequence. Bandpass
filters of deconvolved shot records give a good indication of the necessary sweep range. The individual
responsible for the field processing has to be able to interface with the crew’s recording system. The most
basic questions in this age of changing recording media are: Are the tape drives the same? How long does
it take to transfer the information and is that time reasonable?
One should also retain the test results in order to reduce the amount of testing necessary during future
programs in the area.
One needs to perform Phase, Force & Frequency vs. time plots for all vibrators before and after testing!
File# test# # of vibrators Sweep number of sweep dwell array drag total
frequency sweeps length length array
Hz sec dB/octave m m m
test for sweep frequency
1 4 10-80 8 12 3 30 30 60
2 4 10-90 8 12 3 30 30 60
3 4 10-100 8 12 3 30 30 60
4 4 10-110 8 12 3 30 30 60
5 4 10-120 8 12 3 30 30 60
test for dwell

6 4 10-90 8 12 none 30 30 60
7 4 10-90 8 12 6 30 30 60
test for drag length

8 4 10-90 8 12 3 30 10 40
9 4 10-90 8 12 3 30 20 50
10 4 10-90 8 12 3 30 30 60
test for number of sweeps

11 4 10-90 4 12 3 30 30 60
12 4 10-90 10 12 3 30 30 60
13 4 10-90 12 12 3 30 30 60
14 4 10-90 16 12 3 30 30 60
test for sweep length

15 4 10-90 8 8 3 30 30 60
16 4 10-90 8 16 3 30 30 60
test for number of vibrators

17 1 10-90 8 12 3 0 0 0
18 2 10-90 8 12 3 10 0 10
19 3 10-90 8 12 3 20 0 20
20 4 10-90 8 12 3 30 0 30
Production parameters:
Table 6.2 Typical Vibrator Test Sequence
6.7
The vibrators can perform their sweeps in a wide variety. Down-sweeps that were in vogue in the 1970's
have been replaced by up-sweeps. They start at a low frequency of about 10Hz and sweep to 80, 100, 120Hz
or more. Sweeps may be linear, which means an equal amount of time is spent sweeping through the
frequency ranges or a “dwell” can be incorporated into the system to allow for a n enhancement of the center
frequencies (Fig. 6.5). Such a dwell creates non-linear sweeps. Some dwell is very useful in increasing the
high frequency range of the final stacked seismic section. Too much dwell can create noisy record sections.
The normal range is between 3 and 6 dB/octave. Careful testing and design of the dwell ensures optimum
S/N ratio (W. Pritchett, 1994).
The choice between linear and nonlinear sweeps usually does not affect cost (and therefore does not
influence the design) so long as the pad time remains the same.
Vari-sweeps can be used to enhance 120
certain frequencies beyond the dwell in

a very selective manner. Several sweep
ranges are selected in very narrow
100
frequency bands and summed later.
For vibrators, a sweep rate is

established as follows. This sweep rate 80
has to be set in the recording truck as
well as in the vibrators (the most
common vibrator electronics are the
60
Pelton System Advance I & II):
sweep rate = (highest frequency - lowest

frequency) / sweep length 40
Phase, force and frequency vs. time

plots (Fig. 6.6) will help evaluate the Legend
proper performance of all vibrators. For 20
Linear
each of these plots, the performance of
Non-linear 3dB/Octave
four vibrators are shown. Three lines are
Non-linear 6dB/Octave
solid to signify the similarity of those 0
performances. The poorly performing 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
vibrator is noted as a dashed line.
Sweep Length (in seconds)
The phase vs. time plot should indicate Figure 6.5
essentially a constant phase after 1-2
seconds. Any major deviation (i.e., > 5 Linear vs. Non-linear Sweeps
degrees) is unacceptable, as is the one
vibrator having a somewhat linear change in phase over time (dashed line).
Vibrators should operate at 70-85% of peak force. Each vibrator will perform far more consistently, if
operating at such a percentage rather than closer to peak force. As well operating at a higher force will
introduce larger vibrator-to-vibrator differences which will result in poorer quality data. On the other hand,
any vibrator’s force should not drop below 90% of the operating force throughout the sweep (e.g., dashed
line).
Lastly, the frequency vs. time plot is indicating a nonlinear sweep with three vibrators having very similar
sweeps, while one vibrator is sweeping with a higher dwell.
The vibrator source signal can be recorded in two ways. In normal practice, the records are correlated with
the vibrator signal before putting the records to tape (e.g., 3 seconds). Recording uncorrelated records
will increase tape requirements by a large amount - a factor of 5 in our example (sweep length of 12 seconds
plus the listen time of 3 seconds, i.e., 15 seconds).
6.8
Source Equipment
6.2.4 Shooting Strategy

Phase
10
For very large surveys one may want to employ
two sets of four or five vibrators (Fig. 6.7) in 5
order to allow more effective shooting. This will

increase the daily cost but reduce the amount 0
of recording time significantly. The way in

-5
which several sets of vibrators are used
depends on several factors, such as the terrain, -10
required sweep effort and drive time between 0 3 6 9 12
seconds
source points. The fifth vibrator in each set can
be an in-the-field spare so production is not lost
if a vibrator needs repair. Such contingency 48000
Force
planning is essential, particularly in remote
areas.
Vibrator surveys have the major advantages 24000
that source points may be occupied

repeatedly to increase the fold after having
moved the patch, or to repeat a source point.
This flexibility is much more difficult to achieve 0
0 3 6 9 12
with dynamite programs because of the timing seconds
of drilling, patch moves and confusion over

which holes to shoot when. During vibrator Frequency
acquisition, the line crews can still lay out and 90
pick up cables and phones. This can usually not

be done while recording dynamite data. 60
When source points need to be occupied

30
repeatedly, it is important to strive for non-
duplicating source-to-receiver raypaths. This
also applies to the recovery of “make-up” 0
source points. Recovery source point 0 3 6

seconds
9 12
positioning is also much better when the source

points are moved parallel to the receiver lines Figure 6.6
rather than perpendicular. This will reduce the
disturbance of the fold distribution. Phase, Force and Frequency vs. Time
Quality Control Plots
Figure 6.7
Four Vibrators in an Array
6.9
Quiz
1. What parameters determine the effort in dynamite shooting?
2. What is meant by the expression “pad time?”
3. Please explain the terms drag, array length and move-up by drawing a diagram.
Quiz Answers
1. In dynamite acquisition the effort is determined by the three factors of charge size, charge depth and
number of holes per shot location.
2. In Vibroseis acquisition the expression pad time refers to the total length of time that the vibrator pad
rests on the ground while sweeping, i.e.,
pad time = (sweep length) * (number of sweeps)
3.
Direction of Travel
Source Source Source
Point Point Point
Source Interval
40m 40m
165ft 165ft
10m 10m
30m 30m
41ft 124ft 124ft 41ft
Array Length Drag move up
First to next
Sweep flag
Final
Sweep
Total Source
Array Length
6.10
Chapter 7
RECORDING EQUIPMENT
The choice of recording equipment depends on many factors. There is usually no testing, but rather the
selection depends primarily on the equipment available from the contractors.
Table of Contents
Chapter 7
RECORDING EQUIPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1

7.1 Receivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3
receiver type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3
land operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3
transition zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3
Receiver arrays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4
stabilize the spreads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4
7.2 Recorders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4
24 bit recording technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4
120 or 240 channel systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4
7.3 Distributed Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6
7.4 Telemetry Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6
Quiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7
Quiz Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7
7.2
Recording Equipment
7.1 Receivers
The receiver type depends on the area of data acquisition. A variety of receivers and their usage is listed
in Table 7.1.
In normal land operations geophones have a resonant frequency of 10 or 14 Hz. However, geophones with
resonant frequencies up to 40 Hz are being manufactured. Receivers are usually wired in groups of 4, 6, 9,
12 or 24. They may be laid out in-line with the recording spread, x-line or in a pattern, such as a circle,
around the station flag. Clustering of some geophones may create a weighted spread but not offer the same
spatial filtering as a spread-out array. If the takeouts on the receiver line cables are larger than the group
interval, the cables themselves can be bunched.
In a transition zone environment (marsh or lake) one may want to use hydrophones or marsh phones.
Marsh phones should be pole planted to secure the best planting. Hydrophones can be strung out in a pattern
on the lake bottom. Often the available equipment will allow only one receiver element per group. One has
to carefully examine the effect this will have on the obvious lack of noise reduction. Hydrophones have only
an apparent 90o phase shift relative to geophones at very shallow water depths. Hydrophones are pressure
sensitive rather than velocity sensitive as geophones are; however they are in phase with each other. It is
only the timing relationship between the primary and the ghost which is causing the apparent phase shift at
very shallow depths (near the shore line). Cross-correlation filters can be designed to obtain the best phase
match between different recording and source instruments.
One supplier of a 24 bit system has moved toward a four-phone pole planted system. Apparently there is
no detectable difference in the recorded signal over groups with more receivers. These phones can be used
on land or in transition environments. This system reduces the time that the recording crew needs to lay out
and move the patch.
3-component 3D recording requires three times the number of channels for recording capacity since each
component is recorded separately. This may significantly hinder the effort of obtaining sufficient fold. Since
shear wave reflections contain a bandwidth at lower frequencies, phones with lower resonant frequencies
are used.
type resonant frequency environment

geophone 10 - 40Hz land
marsh phones 10 - 14Hz transition zone
hydrophones 10 - 14Hz marine
3-component 2 - 8Hz shear wave
Table 7.1 Types of Receivers
7.3
Receiver arrays are formed by spreading the receivers

(of whatever type) out over some distance (e.g., 12 over
20m or 40-55 ft). For operational reasons, the groups are
usually in a straight line rather than in some other form of
an array (e.g., Fig. 7.1). Very little work is in the public
domain with regards to receiver arrays in the world of 3D
seismic (e.g., Regone, C.J., 1994). If one wants to lay the
receivers out in a box array the linear dimension of the
array is significantly reduced; this will reduce the
effectiveness of long-wavelength noise attenuation. See
Chapter 8 for a more complete discussion of arrays.
In hilly terrain (where the height difference from one end

of any receiver group exceeds, e.g., 2m or 6 ft) the
phones may be clustered in a small area. In very steep
terrain one can spread the phones out parallel to
topographic contours.
Figure 7.1
The geophones may need to be temporarily buried in Example of a non linear receiver
order to reduce wind noise. For a 3D survey which may array (nine in a box pattern)
need to be re-shot at a later date (e.g., fire flood
monitoring) it may be best to bury phones permanently in where “X” marks the position of
the ground. the flag
Geophone stations may be added as single stations (telemetry systems) or in sets of 4 or 6 groups
(distributed systems), depending on the recording instrumentation employed.
Once sufficient receiver groups are deployed to record the first source point, the operator in the recording
truck needs to stabilize the spreads by checking for proper cable connections electronically. Should there
be any poor connections or leakages, the line crews need to improve them to perfection. At the same time
the batteries in the boxes along the receiver lines can be checked for sufficient charge. The operator should
avoid a total system “shutdown” once the spread is stable because a “wake-up” would involve rechecking
the entire spread again, which is rather time consuming (a further reason for 24 hour operation!).
7.2 Recorders
There is a large variety of recording equipment available for 3D surveys. Today many acquisition systems
provide 24 bit recording technology; most of the ones listed in Table 7.2 do so. 24 bit technology offers
high fidelity and can record over a large dynamic range. Many more systems may be available from other
manufacturers. The listing is in no way an endorsement of particular instruments, but merely a summary for
the convenience of the course participants. Peculiarities for each system need to be examined for the task
at hand, e.g., the I/O systems need an additional LIM when recording with more than 1015 channels (1024
minus the auxiliary channels).
In land operations these recording units are usually truck or buggy mounted and can, therefore, travel easily
to the areas of data acquisition.
120 or 240 channel systems, such as DFS V system, or the 24 bit OYO DAS or Bison Spectra systems will
only be useful for the very smallest of 3Ds. Usually, several 120 channel systems need to be strung together
to reach sufficient channel capacity even for such small 3Ds when forced to use 120 channel
instrumentation.
Temporal sampling in 3D follows the sample theory of 2D. Usually, one records the seismic data at a
2msec sample rate with a high-cut of 128 Hz as an anti-alias filter. Resampling to 4msec is an option to
reduce the data volume before processing although the trend is certainly leading towards higher sample rates
(e.g. 0.5 or 1 msec).
7.4
Recording Equipment
Recording Instrumentation - Today’s Systems
Manufacturer System T/D Boxes Number of Line Units Central System

groups
Geo-X Aram D RAM groups of 8 LTU CRU

Input/Output I/O I D RSC groups of 6 LTU SCM
Input/Output I/O II D MRX groups of 6 ALX SCM
Sercel SN388 D SU groups of 1-6 CSU CCU
Western Vision 8000 D LAM groups of 8 CLU CMM
Fairfield Telseis Star T RU groups of 1-6 directly to recording system
Geco Digiflex T
Opseis Eagle T SAR groups of 1-6 directly to CRS
Syntron Polyseis T
D=distributed system, T=telemetry system
Abbreviation Summary:
ALX Advance Line Tap
CCU Central Control Unit
CLU Cross Line Unit
CMM Central Management Module
CRS Central Recording Station
CRU Central Recording Unit
CSU Crossing Station Unit
LAM Line Acquisition Module
LIM Line Interface Module
LTU Line Tap Unit
MRX Miniature Remote Signal Conditioner - Extended Range
RAM Remote Acquisition Module
RSC Remote Signal Conditioner
RU Remote Unit
SAR Seismic Acquisition Remote Unit
SCM System Control Module
SU Station Unit
Table 7.2 Summary of typical 3D recording equipment. For further

specifications please refer directly to the relevant company’s
literature.
7.5
7.3 Distributed Systems
Distributed systems have cable connections between the

units which record the field data and the control system
in the recording truck. Usually, these connections are
made via some sort of line units which gather the
information from several different geophone groups.
Usually, the recording equipment is set up in an

arrangement similar to the one in Figure 7.2. For
convenience and cross-reference to Table 7.2, the I/O
System Two was used as an example.
Up to 6 groups of geophones are wired into one MRX

(Miniature Remote Signal Conditioner). This unit, along
with neighboring units, will send the recorded signal to
the ALX (Advance Line Tap) which in turn will pass the Figure 7.2
information, along with information from other ALXs, to Typical Field Set-Up for a
the SCM (System Control Module). Distributed System
(Input/Output System Two)
7.4 Telemetry Systems
True telemetry systems have no physical connection

between the station recording unit and the control system
in the recording truck. These should be used whenever
access is limited due to rugged terrain, permit problems
or any other reason. Telemetry systems have a
disadvantage over the distributed system in that the radio
transmission of the data from the boxes to the recording
unit takes time. It may even be on the order of minutes
per source point, which will significantly slow down the
shooting crew. How much will this speed reduction
increase the cost of the survey?
Tree cover may cause a problem for the signal

transmission. FM interference may be significant in
populated areas. Mixed systems (some telemetry, some
distributed) may be used to cross rivers or roads at select
locations. Figure 7.3
Typical Field Set-Up for a
A typical field setup is shown in Fig. 7.3. Again for Telemetry System (Opseis
convenience and cross-reference to Table 7.2, the
Opseis Eagle system is illustrated as an example. The
Eagle)
SAR (Seismic Acquisition Remote Unit) records the signal and sends it via radio frequencies to the CRS
(Central Recording Station).
7.6
Recording Equipment
Quiz
1. What type of receivers should be considered for use in transition zone environments?
2. What is involved in stabilizing the spread?
3. Describe the difference between distributed and telemetry systems.
Quiz Answers
1. When water depth is very shallow one may want to consider marsh phones that can still be pole
planted. When water depth exceeds about 2m (5ft), then hydrophones are a better choice. These
may be strung out on the bottom (by dropping the cables from a boat) or be planted by divers.
2. The operator in the recording truck checks the cable connections electronically. Poor connections
or leakages should be fixed by the line crews. Any shutdown of the system requires additional
stabilizing and should be avoided.
3. Distributed systems still have some cable connections between the boxes and the central recording
unit while telemetry systems don’t.
7.7
Chapter 8
ARRAYS
In 3D seismic surveys as in 2D acquisition, source and receiver intervals are chosen such that the
reconstruction of the continuous wavefield is possible. Only then are the data properly sampled (Vermeer,
1990). Arrays are used to attenuate unwanted noise that would otherwise contaminate this sampled wavefield.
Table of Contents
Chapter 8
ARRAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1
8.1 The Question of Arrays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3
box patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3
in-line arrays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3
no arrays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3
8.2 Geophone Arrays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3
8.3 Source Array . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4
8.4 Combined Array Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5
8.5 Stack Arrays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5
Anstey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5
8.6 Hands-Off Acquisition Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5
Ongkiehong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5
8.2
Arrays
8.1 The Question of Arrays
Array design in 3D surveys literally takes on another dimension. An outstanding treatment of the subject can
be found in Vermeer (1990).
If a receiver array is used, it should be as simple as possible; box patterns or in-line arrays are commonly
used today, because of their ease and efficiency in the layout. A designer may place a major emphasis on
an intricate receiver array; this message may be hard to get across to a jughound who may not understand
the necessity of carrying out instructions accurately. If the designer does not work with the jughound directly
how can the designer expect meticulous placement of the arrays?
In 3D surveys source energy is arriving from many directions. Therefore, if geophone arrays are laid in-line,
the response from a source point fired broadside into such an array will not be affected by the array. The
array response will vary dramatically depending on the azimuth between receiver and source arrays.
Because of this variation many companies prefer no arrays at all when recording 3D data.
8.2 Geophone Arrays
Figure 8.1 illustrates a case of a 5- Maximum

Response
geophone array response (in-line East-
West) to energy arriving from various
directions. Note the poor attenuation of Full
broadside energy, at 90o and 270o (N-S)
and good attenuation at 0o and 180o (E-W).
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Figures 8.1, 8.2 & 8.3 show the 2D array

response with 0 degrees being in-line to
the geophones, i.e., East-West. The upper Response
figures (a) show the array response in a
linear plot, while the lower figures (b) show
Maximum
it in a radial presentation. Attenuation
Figure 8.1a
Geophone Array Response
Figure 8.1b
8.3
8.3 Source Array
Figure 8.2 shows a response of a Maximum

Response
simulated 4 Vibrator drag in the North-
South direction. Note the good
attenuation at 90o and 270o (N-S) and
poor attenuation or full response at 0o
and 180o (E-W).
Full
Typical patterns are 4 Vibrators with Response
5m between pads (15m length) moving
up 5m at a time. In the example of (Fig
8.2) the distance between pads is 5m,
drag is 5m for a total of 4 sweeps. The
total array length is 30m. Maximum
Attenuation
Figure 8.2a
Source Array Response
Figure 8.2b
8.4
Arrays
8.4 Combined Array Response

Maximum
Figure 8.3 indicates the combined array Response
response of the two arrays together. It is

important to note that this is the theoretical
response in an ideal situation with the
geophone arrays and source arrays
arranged orthogonally. This particular array
appears to provide good noise attenuation
in all directions.
Each layout method will have their

particular recording geometry. Accordingly, Maximum
Attenuation
arrays will be laid out differently. The
theoretical response should be evaluated
before proceeding with a particular design.
Figure 8.3a
Combined 2-Dimensional Array Response
8.5 Stack Arrays
Stack arrays have been discussed

extensively by Anstey (1986a, 1986b,
1986c, 1987 and 1989). The 2D stack array
approach can be summarized as providing
an even, continuous, uniform succession of
geophones across the CMP gather. In land
operations use split spread:
group length is equal to the group interval

the source interval is equal to the group
interval
the source points are between the groups.
These stack arrays are dependent on the

trace offsets from their respective source
points. If we assume isotropic noise (same
in all directions), the 3D stack array Figure 8.3b
becomes a 2D array formed by the
different offset traces. Thus, the response
at each azimuth is the same.
Because the 3D CMP bins always contain traces of differing offsets, the stack array effect is different in each
CMP bin and is often negligible because of the irregular offset mix at each CMP.
8.6 Hands-Off Acquisition Technique
Ongkiehong and Askin (1988) have taken the stack array approach one step further. They are proposing
equal array lengths for the source and receiver patterns. For symmetric sampling, the number of elements
in each array, whether source or receiver, should be the same. They conclude that any deviation from
homogeneity in the fundamental sampling operator is ultimately detrimental. In 3D field acquisition such
symmetric sampling may not be economically possible. Some compromises need to be made.
8.5
Chapter 9
PRACTICAL FIELD
CONSIDERATIONS
Table of Contents
Chapter 9
PRACTICAL FIELD CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1

9.1 Surveying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3
communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3
pre-plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3
exclusions, skids and offsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3
format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3
final survey plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4
final plans for regulatory bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4
9.2. Script Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4
source point sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4
alter the script file . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5
SPS Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6
9.3 Roll-on/off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.9
9.4 Patch Moves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.10
in-line rolls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.10
x-line rolls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.10
template positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.10
9.5 Shooting Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.11
Vibrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.11
Dynamite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.11
9.6 Distance from the Edge of Patch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.12
maximize the recording time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.12
Snaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.12
Ping-ponging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.12
size of the patch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.12
Down times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.12
9.7 Large Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.13
shoot in “zippers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.13
full swath roll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.14
9.8 Field Visits (QC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.15
Quality control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.15
Bird-dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.15
consecutive source points may be dropped . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.15
9.9 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.15
Imaging area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.15
Cables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.15
First Break Templates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.16
Permitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.16
Low Impact Seismic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.16
Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.16
Daily safety meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.16
medical support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.16
accident reporting procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.16
contractual agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.16
9.10 Field Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.17
Quiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.21
Quiz Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.22
9.2
Practical Field Considerations
9.1 Surveying
Close communication between the designer of the 3D seismic program and the surveyors must be
maintained in order to locate the program correctly and have it properly executed. The designer needs to
pass on exact instructions as to what allowances can be made for any anticipated changes, e.g., how
makeup source points are to be located. In steep terrain, surveyors often assume that distance can be
chained along the chain, instead of horizontally. Chaining horizontally is the only effective way of assuring
midpoint distribution the way it was intended.
A pre-plot of the program at a working scale will give the surveyors a good basis to work from and the
designer the comfort that the anticipated location for every source and receiver point has been documented
(Fig. 9.1). One should number the source and receiver locations in such a manner that no two locations have
the same number.
Topography, wells, buildings,

pipelines, existing lines and other
surface obstructions will have an effect
on the location of source and receiver
lines and points (Table 9.1). The
designer will take these into account as
much as possible in the planning stage
(especially topographical restrictions).
The surveyor has to feed a lot of
detailed information regarding
exclusions, skids and offsets back
to the designer, who will then decide
on the appropriateness of the changes
and possibly remodel the program.
The designer must indicate how far
sources or receivers may be moved
before they should be dropped entirely.
Generally, offsetting stations by more
than the line interval is unacceptable.
In many cases, where complex surface

Figure 9.1
obstacles exist, we have found it Pre-plot Example
beneficial on complex surveys to have
a designer in the field with the
surveyors. Many problems can be solved most easily on the spot. Ideally this advance person has seismic
field experience and is equipped with a laptop computer with the initial 3D design loaded.
The format of the digital survey information to be exchanged must be established prior to the field visit by
the surveyor. The SEG-P1 format is widely accepted. Standard exchange formats for positional information
can be found in a report by the SEG (1983). Electronic data transfer of survey information can significantly
reduce the likelihood of human error when copying data.
Map coordinates are usually given in the UTM projection (Universal Transverse Mercator); the central
Meridian which was used as a reference is an extremely important piece of information. Computer programs
for conversion from one geographic coordinate system to another are readily available.
For international work, one must pay specific attention to all the details of projection and the spheroid on
which it was based. E.g., in Argentina, a modified UTM grid is used with an origin in the SE Pacific. In Africa,
a different spheroid affects the latitude and longitude conversion.
9.3
The final survey plan of the 3D program may not bear much resemblance to the pre-plot (e.g., Fig. 9.2) but
is still an essential element of the surveying output, not only for the processor but also for regulatory bodies.
When final plans for regulatory bodies are submitted, sometimes they include only appropriate line
locations and not specific source and receiver coordinates. They should also include information such as
access routes and detours that the crew may have needed to make in order to get to all locations on the 3D
survey.
non-explosive explosive
building 50m 330ft 180m 300ft
water well 100m 330ft 180m 300ft
low pressure pipeline 3m 3m
high pressure pipeline 15m 300ft 32m for # 2kg $200ft (#5lbs)
(or oil and gas well) 300ft up to 180m
depending on charge size
Table 9.1 Distance Requirements Table (Canada / US )
Figure 9.2
Typical Final Plan for Figure 9.1
9.2. Script Files
Modern field systems such as the I/O System One and Two, can be controlled by so-called script files. Script
files define how a live patch of receiver stations moves throughout the entire 3D program as the source
point sequence progresses. For very small 3D surveys where the entire 3D is laid out and is “live” before
taking the first source point, the sequence of source points is immaterial. However, on larger 3D surveys,
the progression of source points is of utmost importance. Time is crucial and therefore re-occupying either
source or receiver stations has to be kept to a minimum. On larger 3D surveys it is common that the number
of available channels (geophones, cables and boxes) is at least twice the number of channels in a live patch.
This allows for more effective crew operation and patch movement.
9.4
Obviously, the computer program used for designing the 3D can generate such files. They can then be
loaded into the field recorder prior to shooting. Mistakes are easily avoided. The operator in the doghouse
may have limited capacity to alter the script file. One should never assume that the operator will “know”
how the designer anticipates the 3D survey will be acquired as far as the source point sequence is
concerned.
We recommend that you test your script files with the contractor in advance. There are enough
idiosyncrasies in the file for mistakes to cause serious delays - and these potential problems should be
eliminated before the crew is ready to start shooting! A meeting between the party chief and the designer
before the crew goes to the field can identify ways to optimize field operations and hold down costs.
A typical script file is shown in Table 9.2. Script files are identified by a serial number (or source point
number) and then the template is set. The script file does not have to be ordered sequentially.
Table 9.2 Script file example
This is the beginning of an I/O Script file, converted to ASCII, created from FD5.0.
The survey is 3200*3200, with 50*50 m bins
RLI=200 (N/S); SLI=400 (E/W); 297 sources 561 revrs; no roll-on; I/O numbering option chosen.
HEADER[34bytes]:Script file, software rev: 2.62
[2 bytes]10 10
Separator:4660 nscripts:297
Serial:101 Stn type:1 Src Type:1

Shot Point: LINE: 1.0 STATION: 0.0
RECEIVER PATCH: Lowest Line :1 Lowest Stn : 0
Highest Line:16 Highest Stn: 31
ACTIVE LINES: 16
Line: 1 First Stn: 0 Last Stn: 31
Serial:102 Stn type:1 Src Type:1

Shot Point: LINE: 1.50 STATION: 0.0 - Different Source Point
RECEIVER PATCH: Lowest Line :1 Lowest Stn : 0 - Same Receiver Patch
Highest Line:16 Highest Stn: 31
ACTIVE LINES: 16
................ etc.
9.5
Several other script file formats are available, for example, for acquisition systems such as I\O, ARAM and
OPSEIS.
SPS Files (Shell Processing Support Format)
Shell Oil has recently submitted a possible format to the SEG for use in the field. The basic idea is that SPS
files should contain everything there is to know about a 3D. The seismic processor will then be armed with
all the information required to process the data.
SPS files contain 4 groups of files:
H Header File - contains recording information etc.

S Source Point File - equivalent to SEG-P1 for source point locations
R Receiver File - essentially identical to the SEG-P1 survey format for receiver
location.
X Relationship File - cross-referencing the source points and receiver stations
The SEG has adopted the SPS format as a new SEG standard recently. It is expected that its use will
become more wide spread. Note that Sercel 388 instruments can read these SPS file directly (script file) to
define receiver locations for each source point.
Table 9.3 summarizes an SPS script file
Table 9.3 SPS script file example

Typical SPS files. 4 Files are shown on the following pages. This first file is the header file.
H00 SPS format version num. SPS001,07.02.95 H HEADER FILE

H01 Description of survey area ngal,,N/A,N/A
H02 Date of survey 07.02.95,07.02.95
H021Post-plot date of issue 07.02.95
H022Tape/disk identifier N/A
H03 Client N/A
H04 Geophysical contractor N/A
H05 Positioning contractor N/A
H06 Pos. proc. contractor N/A
H07 Field computer system(s) GMG/SIS,MESA,Version 1.2
H08 Coordinate location N/A
H09 Offset from coord. location N/A
H10 Clock time w.r.t GMT N/A
H12 Geodetic datum,-spheroid N/A
H14 Geodetic datum parameters N/A
H17 Vertical Datum description N/A
H18 Projection type N/A
H19 Projection zone N/A,N/A
H20 Description of grid units AMERICAN FEET
H201Factor to meter 0.30480061
H220Long. of central meridian N/A
H231Grid origin N/A
H232Grid coord. at origin N/A
H241Scale factor N/A
H242Lat., Long.- scale factor N/A
H30 Project code and descriptionN/A,N/A,N/A
H31 Line number format N/A
H400Type,Model,Polarity 1,N/A,N/A,N/A
H401Crew name, Comment 1,N/A
H402Sample rate, Record Len. 1,0.000000,N/A
H403Number of channels 1,320
H404Tape type, format, density 1,N/A,N/A,N/A
H405Filter_alias Hz,Db pnt,slope1,N/A,N/A,N/A
H406Filter_notch Hz,-3Db points 1,N/A
H407Filter_low Hz, Db pnt slope 1,N/A
H408Time delay FTB-SOD app Y/N 1,N/A
H409Multi component recording 1,N/A
9.6
H410Aux. channel 1 contents 1,N/A

H600Type,Model,Polarity G1,N/A,N/A,N/A
H601Damp coeff,natural freq. G1,N/A,N/A
H602Nunits, len(X),width(Y) G1,N/A,N/A,N/A
H603Unit spacing X,Y G1,N/A,N/A
H700Type,Model,Polarity E1,N/A,N/A,N/A
H701Size,vert. stk fold E1,N/A
H702Nunits, len(X),width(Y) E1,N/A,N/A,N/A
H703Unit spacing X,Y E1,N/A,N/A
H711Nom. shot depth,charge len. E1,N/A,N/A
H712Nom. soil,drill method E1,N/A,N/A
H713Weathering thickness E1,N/A
H990R,S,X file quality control 07.02.95,N/A,N/A
H991Coord. status final/prov N/A,07.02.95,N/A,N/A
S SOURCE POINT FILE

S1 10011E1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 1010.7 25.1 0.0 1235959
S1 10021E1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 989.8 44.5 0.0 1235959
S1 10031E1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 971.6 61.3 0.0 1235959
S1 10041E1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 953.0 76.3 0.0 1235959
S1 10051E1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 934.8 95.8 0.0 1235959
S1 10061E1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 919.5 117.9 0.0 1235959
S1 10071E1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 903.6 136.5 0.0 1235959
S1 10081E1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 886.5 149.7 0.0 1235959
S1 10091E1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 860.8 161.1 0.0 1235959
S1 10101E1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 843.1 178.8 0.0 1235959
S1 10111E1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 825.5 196.5 0.0 1235959
S1 10121E1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 807.8 214.2 0.0 1235959
S1 10131E1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 790.1 231.8 0.0 1235959
S1 10141E1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 772.5 249.5 0.0 1235959
S1 10151E1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 754.8 267.2 0.0 1235959
S1 10161E1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 737.1 284.9 0.0 1235959
S1 10171E1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 719.4 302.5 0.0 1235959
S1 10181E1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 701.7 320.2 0.0 1235959
R RECEIVER LOCATION FILE

R1 10051G1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 1073.0 72.7 0.0 1235959
R1 10061G1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 1090.7 90.4 0.0 1235959
R1 10071G1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 1108.3 108.1 0.0 1235959
R1 10081G1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 1126.0 125.7 0.0 1235959
R1 10091G1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 1143.7 143.4 0.0 1235959
R1 10101G1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 1161.3 161.1 0.0 1235959
R1 10111G1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 1179.0 178.8 0.0 1235959
R1 10121G1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 1196.7 196.4 0.0 1235959
R1 10131G1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 1214.4 214.1 0.0 1235959
R1 10141G1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 1232.0 231.8 0.0 1235959
R1 10151G1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 1249.8 249.5 0.0 1235959
R1 10161G1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 1267.4 267.2 0.0 1235959
R1 10171G1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 1285.0 284.8 0.0 1235959
R1 10181G1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 1302.8 302.5 0.0 1235959
R1 10191G1 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 1320.5 320.2 0.0 1235959
9.7
X RELATIONSHIP FILE
X0 0111 10241 1 1715 5001 50171
X0 0111 10241 18 3416 6001 60171
X0 0111 10241 35 5117 7001 70171
X0 0111 10241 52 6818 8001 80171
X0 0111 10251 1 1716 6001 60171
X0 0111 10251 18 3417 7001 70171
X0 0111 10251 35 5118 8001 80171
X0 0111 10251 52 6819 9001 90171
X0 0111 10261 1 1716 6001 60171
X0 0111 10261 18 3417 7001 70171
X0 0111 10261 35 5118 8001 80171
X0 0111 10261 52 6819 9001 90171
X0 0111 10271 1 1716 6001 60171
X0 0111 10271 18 3417 7001 70171
X0 0111 10271 35 5118 8001 80171
X0 0111 10271 52 6819 9001 90171
X0 0111 10281 1 1716 6001 60171
X0 0111 10281 18 3417 7001 70171
X0 0111 10281 35 5118 8001 80171
X0 0111 10281 52 6819 9001 90171
X0 0111 10291 1 1717 7001 70171
X0 0111 10291 18 3418 8001 80171
X0 0111 10291 35 5119 9001 90171
X0 0111 10291 52 68110 10001 100171
X0 0111 10301 1 1717 7001 70171
X0 0111 10301 18 3418 8001 80171
X0 0111 10301 35 5119 9001 90171
9.8
9.3 Roll-on/off
Roll-on and roll-off refers to the procedure of recording with a partial patch near the edges of a 3D survey.
Generally, the crew will be able to start faster if they can start shooting with a half patch near the edges.
Waiting for the entire patch to be laid out is time consuming and more often than not a waste of far offsets.
When a seismic crew starts up, they will generally lay out cable until there is enough to start taking the first source
point. It can take about 2 hours to roll one line of 100 receivers - or about a day and a half to lay out 1,000 channels.
Thereafter, the receiver cable is moved at the same time as the shooting progresses.
Let us assume six lines of 40 channels each are live in a patch for a total of 240 channels. Near the edges
of the 3D, should there be roll-on and roll-off? Obviously, it can be a real time-saver (and money saver!) if the crew
can start shooting earlier - as is the case when you do a roll-on/off.
Fig. 9.3a shows the more even fold

distribution with the more economical
roll-on and roll-off.
Fig. 9.3a
Fold Distribution for a Small 3D Layout
Showing Roll-on (off)
Fig. 9.3b shows the higher fold
distribution without roll-on and roll-off
(in this case the entire survey was
live). Note that the additional fold is
gained mainly through far-offsets,
which may not contribute to the final
stack.
If the x-line dimension is much smaller

than the in-line dimension, one may
want to leave one or two additional
receiver lines live when rolling on/off.
Figure 9.3b
Fold Distribution for a Typical Small 3D
Layout
Without Roll-on (off)
9.9
9.4 Patch Moves
It is important to minimize the number of patch positions in a 3D survey. Moving the patch takes time, in
particular when the number of channels available to the crew is limited. The patch moves are normally
accomplished through the use of roll-along switches in the recording truck. Therefore, in this chapter the term
roll is synonymous with patch moves. For the purposes of the following discussion, it is assumed that the
starting patch position is entirely within the area of the 3D (i.e., no roll-on/off, see Chapter 9.3).
In the in-line direction the number of patch moves (or rolls) is calculated as follows (see Figure 9.4):
in-line rolls = (in-line survey size - in-line patch size) / source line interval
e.g. = (8000m - 4000m) / 400m = 10 in-line rolls
In the x-line direction the number of patch moves (or rolls) is calculated as follows:
x-line rolls = (x-line survey size - x-line patch size) / receiver line interval
E.g., = (6000m - 1500m) / 300m = 15 x-line rolls
The above equation is based on acquiring source

points only over one receiver line interval in the
center of the patch. If one can traverse source
points over more than one receiver line interval, this
significantly reduces the number of x-line rolls. This
is worth considering, especially when the number of 15 x-line rolls
receiver lines is 10 or more.
10 in-line rolls
The total number of rolls is simply the product of the
two: 1500 x 4000m
total number of rolls = in-line rolls * x-line rolls 8km
E.g., = 10 * 15 = 150 rolls in-line
Survey Parameters
The total number of template positions is simply: Survey Size = 6 x 8 km

Patch Size = 1.5 x 4 km
total number of template positions
= (in-line rolls +1) * (x-line rolls + 1) = 6 x 67 channels
RLI = 300 m
E.g., = 11 * 16 = 176 template positions
SLI = 400 m
Figure 9.4
Patch Moves
9.10
9.5 Shooting Direction
The direction in which receiver cables are laid out can dramatically affect the logistics of a survey.
If possible, strive to have enough channels available to lay out receiver lines all the way across one
dimension of the survey. This means whole lines can be rolled and there is no loss of efficiency in re-
occupying stations twice. In long skinny surveys, the equipment layout usually depends on the source -
vibrators or dynamite. In Vibroseis, the shooting is time-consuming and it is usually better to keep the
vibrators moving while the geophone (line) crew waits. The reverse is true for dynamite. Source points can
be taken quickly, so we must optimize the equipment (geophones) moves. Always have the line crew travel
by the shortest possible route! It is important to note that a particular design might be easy to implement
using vibrators but not good at all for dynamite acquisition and vice versa. Therefore, there may be more
than one good design to meet a particular geophysical objective.
Vibrator Rn R6 R5 R4 R3 R2 R1
...
Suppose the long dimension is N-S (Fig. N S1 Vibrator Survey
9.5). Lay out the cable N-S, so each line
will be partially laid out - and big enough S2 Roll the patch in
for each patch. the source line
S3
direction first
Shoot across the lines using electronic
roll-along switches. As the vibrators S4 (direction of
vibrator travel)
shoot back across the next line remove S5
all the geophones at the top of the line Vibrator progress
and move them to the foot. This is S6 is the limiting
awkward for the line crew but vibrators factor.
take a while to shoot and they should be ...
kept busy.
Sn
Sn+1
Dynamite S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 Sn
Here we can lay out the receivers E-W N R1
...
Dynamite Survey
and shoot away until it is time to move an
entire line; this is faster for the line crew R2 Roll the patch in
than moving pieces of many lines. the receiver line
R3 direction first.
Of course, it makes no difference to fold, R4
offsets and azimuths if the source and Geophone
receiver line directions are switched. R5 placement is the
limiting factor.
R6
...
Rn
Rn+1
Figure 9.5
Typical Layout for a Vibroseis or Dynamite
Survey
9.11
9.6 Distance from the Edge of Patch
Should the template include source points over only one receiver line interval, or over two, or even three,
when the patch is in the middle of the 3D (Fig. 9.6)?
One way to define this is to give a minimum distance of any source point from the edge of the live patch.
The effect on crew speed is tremendously different depending on the approach taken. Time is the main
constraint when operating a 3D crew. It is most important to minimize the waiting time for movement of
recording equipment, source equipment (drilling holes or vibrator detours) and maximize the recording
time. This will allow the crew supervisor to minimize the total time for a 3D job.
Snaking is most efficient when using

one vibrator crew. Snaking over three
lines at a time (Fig. 9.6.a) is far more
efficient than snaking over one line; 9
a)
source points per detour vs. 3 source
points per detour will save a significant
amount of time.
Ping-ponging can be used when

several (e.g.,) dynamite shooting crews
are available (see Fig. 6.2).
Always check topography maps or air

photos to gain an understanding of
probable access problems before
deciding on a shooting strategy. An
advance man will be able to identify b)
problems early on.
When considering the size of the

patch, it is necessary to keep the
movement of equipment in mind. An
unnecessarily large patch that needs to
be moved a lot adds a tremendous
amount of time to the 3D. It, therefore,
increases the cost.
Down times need to be balanced. For Figure 9.6 a,b

example, if recording is not possible at Source Point Range in the Middle of a
night, perhaps moving the recording
equipment is possible. The time spent Patch (Snaking)
recording is where the recording crew Receiver Lines E-W, Source Lines N-S
makes money. Whatever saves time,
saves the client money.
9.12
9.7 Large Surveys
When contemplating large surveys one has to plan in much detail how the seismic crew is allowed to record
the data. We define a large survey as one that requires so many receiver stations along the receiver line
direction that the crew does not have enough equipment for the number of lines necessary in the live patch.
One option is to shoot in “zippers.”
1.zipper 2.zipper
Consider a receiver patch of 8 lines of
100 stations each. Furthermore assume
that the receiver lines are 250 stations
long for the entire survey. If the crew has
only 1000 channels available, one cannot
plan a patch of 8 lines of 250 channels
each. Let us consider shooting in zippers.
Essentially, the fold drop of the first

segment needs to be overlapped by the
fold build up of the second segment.
Along the common source line the full
patch needs to be available for both
segments or fold will be reduced and
statics coupling will be affected
adversely. This will entail re-occupying of 1.segment 2.segment 3.segment
stations, which is time consuming and
costly. One has to decide whether the
fold along the zipper can be reduced
somewhat and to what degree.
Often there is a choice of re-occupying

source or receiver stations. With vibrators
one may want to repeat source points
without repeating source-to-receiver
raypaths. For dynamite acquisition
relaying receivers may be a better
alternative, although undesirable.
The effectiveness and speed of shooting

in zippers depends very much on the
distance to the edge of the patch that one
can allow for the source points
(see Section 9.6).
Receiver Line Direction
Figure 9.7
Shooting in Zippers (Large 3D Surveys)
9.13
The full swath roll constitutes an extremely efficient method of template advancement when the 3D survey
is very large and source points are relatively inexpensive. The features are that source points are
occupied twice and all receiver lines are rolled at once in the x-line direction. This method allows the
contractor to acquire very large 3D surveys with only a limited channel capacity.
Doubling up on the source locations increases the x-line fold to be equal to the number of receiver lines
active in the patch (instead of half the number of receiver lines as in other geometries, see Section 2.5):
x-line fold = number of receiver lines
Source points for a particular template are inside and outside the patch. From the center of the patch the
source locations extend the following distance to each side of the central source point:
number of receiver lines * receiver line interval
Therfore, the number of source points that can be taken for one template position equal:
number of source points per template = NRL * RLI * 2 / SI
An example of a first template “A” is

shown at the top of Fig. 9.8. After
taking the source points associated
with this template, the receiver patch e.g., 6 line swath
is advanced in the in-line direction to
the end of the survey as indicated.
The entire patch is then rolled a “full
swath” in the x-line direction as
indi cated by the middle template receiver line
(A)
position “B” in Fig. 9.8. In-line rolls are
repeated in the opposite direction to
the other end of the survey. The 1. Roll Direction (in-line)
template then advances by a full
swath roll to the bottom position “C” in
Fig. 9.8. The bottom source point of (B)
the “A” template pos ition is right
against the top source point of the “C”
template position. The source points 2. Roll Direction
of the centra l template “B” are (x-line full swath roll)
completely overlapped, therefore,
resulting in the increased x-line fold. (C)
Although source locations are

occupied twice, no source-to-receiver
raypaths are duplicated.
Figure 9.8
Full Swath Roll
9.14
9.8 Field Visits (QC)
Quality control is necessary in all aspects of the field operation. This includes the surveying, chaining,
logging, placement of phones, quality of phone plants, vibrator synchronization, dynamite loading to depth,
accuracy of source and receiver arrays, testing field parameters, alertness of the crew, quality of monitors,
etc. The geophones should be planted vertical to the earth’s surface and not vertical to the slope of a
possibly hilly terrain, e.g., ditches. Arrays should be bunched on a steep slope or laid out parallel to the
elevation contours. Generally, elevation difference from the first to the last geophone of a group should not
exceed 2m (6ft).
Bird-dogs can represent the client very well in this respect. They usually have extensive field experience
in different roles on seismic crews having worked through all positions. They know the pitfalls to look for as
well as knowing where (if at all) a crew may wish to take short cuts under certain circumstances. The bird-dog
may visit the crew at regular intervals throughout the 3D acquisition or be permanently stationed with them
for immediate response to any problems that may arise.
The designer needs to determine how many consecutive source points may be dropped out of how many
source points (e.g., 5 out of 80). Any such dropped source points should not be on adjacent source lines. This
allowance should be made only for reasons of impossible access, pipeline and river crossings, buildings, etc.
These missed source points should be substituted if at all possible (“make up shots”) . Generally these
problems will be identified ahead of time, but not always. Changing weather conditions can make access
impossible where previously (in dry weather) it appeared reasonable.
The more freedom the designer and the client can give the contractor and the bird-dog, the faster the field
crew can operate. Cooperation amongst all involved parties is very important in the efficient acquisition of
a 3D seismic survey.
9.9 General
Imaging area
Consider the interpreter’s needs. Have you tied all the wells that need to be considered? Always remember
to record a survey big enough to collect energy from all dipping events. Consider extra source points outside
the area where receivers are deployed.
Consider costs. Are there some areas of the survey that are costing a premium amount per unit area
because of poor access or expensive permits? Are these areas really needed? Reevaluate the “non-
negotiables,” - how much do they cost?
Consider spacing source lines more widely apart in the “aperture” zone. Deep data migrates furthest so that
a lack of short offsets will not be a problem in this zone. Remember, we’re only trying to “complete” the CDPs
at the edge of the area to b e imaged.
Cables
Certain field recording instruments have restrictions of various kinds. These will affect your design. For
example, the I/O System One and System Two each require a “box” every 6 stations. Less than 6 stations
will indeed work, but to best utilize equipment you should specify the number of receivers per line as some
integral of 6 (or whatever number of receivers per box the crew has).
Ideally you should have the source line interval divisible by 6*RI (or 2*SLI divisible by 6*RI) as well. If the
source point is not exactly between boxes, then a slight asymmetry may be introduced into your patch
because the patch cannot roll just a few stations, it must roll in increments of 6 stations per box.
Also, be aware of cable “takeouts.” If you specify a bin size of 35m (115ft) - hence a receiver spacing of 70m
(230ft) - and your favorite contractor (or perhaps the only available contractor) has cables with takeouts
every 65m (220 ft), you will have a logistical nightmare trying to make it work! Standard takeouts are around
65m (220ft).
9.15
First Break Templates
If you build a geologic model of the first few sub-surface layers, you can quickly generate a simple model
of where the first breaks (first arrival energy) will be at the various offsets. Therefore, for a given source
point, a computer program can create a synthetic template of the first breaks. Each receiver will have a
certain offset and it is a simple matter to place a spike at the record time where the first arrival will occur.
Once in the field it is then a matter of moments to compare the camera monitor record of the actual source
point to this synthetic template. Any large discrepancies are a sure sign of some geometry error.
Permitting
When cutting a standard line width of 16.5 ft., each ½ mile of line cut equals one acre of area (for crop or
forestry damage calculations). In metric units, a standard 5m line width along each 2 km of line length
equates to an area of 1 hectare. It is important to minimize damages by cooperating with the land owner.
Fence cuts and access routes should only be used when absolutely necessary.
In Canada, Low Impact Seismic (LIS) guidelines were introduced in 1993. Source line widths must be kept
to 5m (6m for vibrators) and receiver lines widths to 1.5m hand-cut or 3m cat-cut (if allowed). Generally, only
trees that block the line of sight are removed. Geophones are usually hauled in by hand, flown in by
helicopter or brought in on quads (ATVs). For very narrow source lines, the dynamite holes may need to be
hand-drilled. The minimal soil disturbance of LIS benefits the regrowth of the tree cover and impacts the wild
life habitat to a lesser degree than “standard” line cutting. However, line cutting under LIS guidelines may
cost as much as 30% more (Wiskel, 1995).
Safety
Daily safety meetings are necessary to make crew members aware of any possible hazards, regulations
regarding dynamite handling, etc.
In many countries, medical support needs to be on site, not only for the benefit of the crew, but by law. The
associated cost has to be taken into account when planning the 3D survey. An accident reporting
procedure should be defined so that all necessary contractor and operator personnel and government
agencies are notified in a timely fashion.
The contractual agreement (as discussed in chapter 1) will define the responsibilities of each party involved
in the 3D seismic survey should any accidents occur.
9.16
9.10 Field Examples
The following pages make a comparison of the fold distribution prior to the 3D data acquisition (Office
Design) to the actual fold distribution achieved (Field Reality).
Figure 9.9a is the proposed layout of a

3D before it was recorded.
Figure 9.9a
For comparison, the actual surveyed

layout is shown in Figure 9.9b.
Figure 9.9b
9.17
Analysis of the CMP fold (Figure 9.10a

& 9.10b) for different offset ranges
revealed some severe inadequacies in
the fold of the near traces (0 - 800m),
in particular in the center of the survey
(due to a river).
Figure 9.10a
Figure 9.10b
9.18
Figures 9.11a &9.11b have the fold for

offset range 800 - 1600m and show
that the fold dropoff in the middle of
the survey has improved somewhat.
Severe E-W striping in the fold
distribution still exists.
Figure 9.11a
Figure 9.11b
9.19
The long offsets (1600-2400m) fold

distribution (Figures 9.12a & 9.12b)
still shows the striping. However, the
effect of the river is hardly noticeable.
Figure 9.12a
Figure 9.12b
9.20
Although the field distribution over the

individual offset ranges show
significant striping, it appears to be
limited to the edges of the full offset
range display (Figures 9.13a & 9.13b).
Extra source points were added in
various places to solve these problems
and compensate for real life problems;
namely a small lake in the South East
corner and a river that cut right through
the center of the survey. Digitizer input
from maps eased this task. Source
points were moved, added, etc. and
the resulting fold maps for the various
offset ranges recalculated.
Figure 9.13a
Figure 9.13b
Quiz
1. How does a final plan differ from a pre-plot?

2. Describe the essential elements of a script file.
3. Does roll-on and roll-off result in higher or lower fold?
4. When is snaking and when is ping-ponging used?
9.21
Quiz Answers
1. A final plan shows the source and receiver lines in their final position (as actually used at the time
of recording) as well as any access and detour routes.
2. A script file must contain all necessary information to describe the source and receiver locations and
their relative geometry for all source points of a 3D survey.
3. Roll-on and roll-off offers lower fold. For the useful offsets though, there may not be any difference
whatsoever!
The higher fold (when not using roll-on/off) may only be useful if very far offsets are to be included
in the final stack. If this is the case the 3D is most likely poorly designed because the patch will not
be large enough in the middle of the survey.
4. Snaking is used when only one shooting crew is available. Snaking over several lines is far more
time efficient if the extra equipment is available.
Ping-ponging is used when two or more shooting crews are available. They can travel parallel on
several source lines or in-line along the same source line.
9.22
Chapter 10
PROCESSING
When a seismic 3D survey is acquired, the resulting data will require the usual seismic processing flow
from statics through stack to migrated stack. How you acquire the data can critically affect your chances
of processing it successfully.
Data can be shipped so easily around the world in today’s society that the processing can be done locally
or in any other location in the world where a good processing center exists (even in the field).
Table of Contents
Chapter 10
PROCESSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1
10.1 Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3
Field processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3
Quality control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3
end product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3
10.2 Processing Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3
typical processing stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3
standard film displays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3
10.3 Refraction Statics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5
shallow refractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5
small Xmin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5
Reflection Statics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5
deeper refractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5
10.4 Velocity analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6
velocity control points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6
Semblance analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6
directional property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6
10.5 Reflection Statics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.8
pilot trace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.8
Statics coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.8
10.6 Dip Move-Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.10
dip-specific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.10
DMO ellipse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.10
Constructive interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.11
Bin balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.12
weighted DMO fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.12
DMO responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.12
pseudo dipping event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.12
dips across narrow patches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.13
10.7 Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.14
good fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.14
bad fold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.14
10.8 Making Adjustments for Data Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.16
data quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.16
borrowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.16
running mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.16
data quality is high . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.16
Bin-rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.16
Multiple attenuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.16
Quiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.18
Quiz Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.19
10.2
Processing
10.1 Processing
Field processing systems are so small yet powerful that many acquisition companies have full
processing capabilities on the job site. The client has to evaluate the advantages of faster turn around
with the additional costs involved with such amenities.
For larger 3D data sets one has to make sure that the field processing center can carry out the tasks in
an effective manner. In such cases the field processing center may be used best for a first quality control
on the data editing or for first break picking.
The quality control must be just as efficient whether the data is being processed in the field or in an
office environment.
It is of utmost importance to find a processor who can do justice to the task at hand. If particular
situations demand certain skills, it is much better to hire the processor who can do the best job at
whatever location rather than paying attention to the convenience of a local processing house. Quality
control is important; at least one person needs to be committed to examining the progress of the
processing at numerous stages throughout the project. Larger companies may have their own processing
QC group to look after the processing, rather than the interpreter. Again the best processor and the best
QC person need to be brought together regardless of the cost involved (e.g., travel).
The processing stream needs to be defined and a pricing schedule has to be established before
processing commences to avoid any nasty surprises. What is the end product going to be? Some
companies don’t even put the 3D data volume to paper or reproducible film. Instead many clients prefer
only tape copies for workstation manipulation of the data. However, at times it is necessary to perform
a quick check on some aspect of the data and therefore we prefer to have some form of hard copy.
One can make good use of time slices of processed data volumes at various stages of the processing
in order to QC the effectiveness of the applied procedures. It is essential to overlay the recording
geometry (source and receiver lines) in order to detect processing related artifacts.
10.2 Processing Stream
A typical processing stream is shown in Table 10.1. The first group of items represents a basic
processing stream for which we recommend that you ask for a turnkey price. The second list of items
represents possible intermediate add-on services for which you need a price per unit. The last three
groups are minimum deliverable products (paper, film, and tape) which you should expect as part of the
turnkey price. Some contractors may offer additional add-on services on a price per unit basis.
The importance of correct survey information needs to be emphasized. Even as slight a change as 15m
(50ft) in accurate line or point position can play havoc with the processing for an entire 3D. Usually the
processor (in the absence of correct survey information) can still use the first arrival times to order the
source points in their correct spatial position. However this is a time-consuming task which is best
avoided.
We have found that a set of standard film displays for 3D surveys can be very helpful even when
workstations are utilized for the interpretation. It is recommended that regional displays of, e.g., every
10th line, is displayed as well as zone of interest plots for every line or every second line to retain the
detailed information on paper, e.g., for picking well locations. All of these displays should be made for
both polarities in both directions. Your requirements for scaling might be different from ours and with the
structural variations a zone of interest plot may not make sense for many 3D surveys.
10.3
Processing sequence (turnkey price):

Demultiplex and edit field data
Gain recovery
Instrument and geophone dephasing
Geometry and refraction statics analysis
Deconvolution and filter tests
Surface consistent deconvolution and scaling
Brute stack
Velocity analysis
Automatic surface consistent statics
Intermediate stacks
Final velocity analysis
3D trim stack with final statics
FX-decon
3D migration after stack, one-pass
Options possible (price per unit):
3D interpolation
some form of bin-borrowing or mixing
re-binning
FK noise attenuation
DMO
Multiple attenuation (e.g., Radon Transform)
depth migration -mainly after stack
Deliverables (paper):
selected shot records, before and after NMO
common offset stacks with mute displays
decon tests
narrow and broad band filter tests
brute stack
velocity analysis displays (e.g., semblance)
intermediate stack
final stack
migration
Deliverables (film):
map of source and receiver locations
sub-surface bin and coverage maps
migration (every tenth line, both polarities, both directions)
Deliverables (SEGY tape):
FX-decon, unfiltered & filtered
migration, unfiltered & filtered
Table 10.1 Processing Requirements
10.4
Processing
10.3 Refraction Statics
Source to Receiver times (First Break times) are essential in solving for refraction statics. If
measurements (first break times) are not present in both in-line and x-line directions there will be no tie
between lines or portions of lines (as is the case for narrow receiver patches). Picking and calculation
errors (i.e., geometry coupling), which are always present in any survey, will then lead to artificially low
or high values for source and receiver statics and either in-line or x-line artifacts will appear on the final
stack.
Short offsets are needed for

shallow refractors. Ensure that
the receiver line spacing is small
enough to adequately sample
shallow refractors; a small Xmin is
necessary to define the first
refractor interface. Note that all x-
line and in-line coupling is lost
when the receiver line interval is
greater than the offset needed to
get refraction information from the
shallowest refractor - the offset is
shown as "X1" in Figure 10.1.
The equations used to solve for

the velocity of each refractor
involve source-receiver pairs and Figure 10.1
their midpoints. In any regular
geometry (straight, brick, zigzag,
etc.) we will see later that such equations are not coupled (see Reflection Statics below). This means
that the only way to solve such uncoupled equations is to use a velocity smoother over several CMP's.
This will, of course, mean that undetermined long wavelength errors will be present in the velocities and
hence may appear in either the source or receiver delays.
Increasing offsets will give times for deeper refractors.
The use of a narrow receiver patch also brings problems. It is important that the patch is wide enough
to collect cross line measurements for deep refractors. Otherwise, we will have few direct measurements
of a deep refractor from a given source point to its associated receivers in the cross line direction. Thus
the variations of such a refractor in the x-line direction, can only be determined by combining variations
from some receiver line to an immediate neighboring receiver line. Such a combination will almost
certainly be prone to error.
It is essential to have in-line and x-line offsets along (source or receiver line) offsets that define all near
surface low velocity layers.
Common refraction static methods which are in use today are the Fathom method by Green Mountain
and the Generalized Linear Inversion (GLI) method by Hampson-Russell. Many processing companies
will have proprietary methods.
10.5
10.4 Velocity analysis
Stacking velocity analysis should be performed as often as necessary to provide a good velocity field
(at times every 1/2km in both directions); thus, creating a grid of velocity control points. On small
surveys or surveys with more geological complexity one may wish to have a velocity analysis grid point
at every line intersection. Vertical travel time calculations are based on straight raypath theory and
constant velocity assumptions. Semblance analysis is used to estimate maximum coherence along a
move out curve, which then defines the stacking velocity function. Semblance analysis should not be
used when the interpreter is expecting AVO effects, since one of the basic assumptions in semblance
analysis is that the signal amplitude does not vary with offset.
Use a super bin, i.e., several bins grouped

together. All offsets will be grouped by azimuth,
since velocity analysis is very much a directional
a)
property in a 3D survey. So each set of offsets in
each azimuth range must adequately define
normal move out (NMO) curves (delta-t > one
wavelength, Fig. 10.2a). Good velocity analysis
depends on a good mix of offsets. b)
Care must be exercised to choose a super bin

small enough that geological structures will not be
smeared (Fig. 10.2b).
Figure 10.2
The velocity "resolution" of each CMP bin in a
real survey can be calculated. A synthetic event
with a specified velocity and time is stacked at
different velocities. An example of such a
synthetic event ray-traced for the actual offset
mix across several CMP's of a real 3D survey is
shown in Figure 10.3. At the top of Figure 10.3
you can see the synthetic CMP gather traces
before NMO. At the bottom of Figure 10.3, you
can see the result of stacking one of these
gathers (traces belonging to one CMP) at many
different velocities. The correct velocity is
reasonably obvious, but a small error in picking is
still quite possible - particularly in real data! Figure 10.3
This is further borne out by looking at a
semblance analysis of the same data in Figure
10.4. The mix of offsets which are recording the
synthetic flat event is obviously not regular. As a
result, the pick for the correct velocity cannot be
made with total accuracy. When this was tried on
a computer driven semblance plot it was possible
to pick a velocity 50m/s either side of the correct
answer and still satisfy the criterion of picking the
maximum amplitude in the semblance. (The picks
can be made on the first peak, the trough or the
second peak. In this case we know that we should
pick the trough, because we made the model, but
in real data there is, of course, no such certainty.)
We will call this quantity ( the +50m/s or -50m/s Figure 10.4

in the example above) the “velocity resolution”.
10.6
Processing
In Figure 10.5, we see the definition of “velocity

resolution”. We have plotted velocity vs.
maximum amplitude of the stack trace where
NMO at that velocity was applied before stack.
Obviously the maximum amplitude of a stack
trace is much lower when we use the wrong
velocity - too high or too low. At the correct
velocity, the amplitude of the resulting stack trace
achieves a maximum value. But as we pointed
out above, there is some uncertainty exactly
where this maximum amplitude occurs. Hence we
come off the actual peak by some arbitrary Figure 10.5
amount. In the case shown here, we have come
down 3% off the actual peak value. The breadth
of the velocity vs. amplitude curve at this level (3% off the peak) is a finite quantity in velocity units. We
choose to call this the “velocity resolution”. In effect, we have arrived at a single quantity which
expresses the ability of the mix of offsets in a CMP bin to correctly focus (with NMO) a specified target.
Our new measure will be affected by this mix of offsets and is in fact a powerful indicator of good and
bad offset distribution.
Using our definition of “velocity resolution,” we took a real 3D geometry and calculated this quantity for
a proposed target with an RMS velocity of 4000m/s and a two-way time of 1.0 seconds.
The breadth of the

resulting stack amplitude
vs. velocity at the 95%
level (in this case) is
plotted as a color value in
each bin (Figure 10.6).
One such curve is shown
for one specific bin.
Basically, a good mix of
offsets will lead to a good
"resolution”. Here we can
see values of velocity
resolution ranging from
200 to 400 m/sec around
our target velocity. A
study of older 2D data in
the same area can reveal
potential S/N ratios to be
expected and hence the
appropriate level of
"uncertainty" (the 95%)
can be determined for a
survey. Any observed
Figure 10.6
velocity "resolution" that is
unacceptable must be corrected with the addition of more (usually longer) offsets in the bad bins.
The example in Figure 10.6 is interesting in that there is an obstacle crossing source and receiver lines -
namely a river. The source points that fell in the river were moved to the closest grid positions along the
river banks. Thus no loss of fold occurred, but the mix of offsets in CMP bins near the river were
obviously affected. It is obvious that the effect of the river is mirrored in bins that are parallel to the river
course but positioned some 500m either side. In this zone of bins we see a higher value of velocity
resolution, indicating that a seismic data processor must take great care in selecting zones of CMP's for
velocity analysis, especially near obstacles (excluded areas) in the 3D survey.
10.7
10.5 Reflection Statics (Surface Consistent Statics)
In this important processing step, the traces of each (or possibly many) bins will be summed to form a
stable and representative pilot trace (one pilot trace for each CMP bin). Cross-correlation of the
individual traces with the pilot traces will determine the static time shift values to be applied to each
trace. Matrix calculations will separate out the static corrections for each source and receiver location -
commonly called a surface-consistent solution.
Statics coupling (Wiggins, et al., 1976) implies that each receiver position is fired into by many source
points and vice versa. Cross correlation methods detect time differences between adjacent receivers
and adjacent source points. These time differences, when multiplied by the inverse of the geometry
matrix, provide the static (surface consistent) values at each receiver and source position. If the inverse
of the geometry has “holes” in it, then the statics will be undetermined for certain spatia l wavelengths.
(We consider the absolute static values to be decomposed into a sum of different spatial wavelengths.)
By “holes” we usually mean that the geometry Reflection Statics (Surface Consistent)
matrix is under-determined (i.e., equations are
missing that define the statics for some receivers or Tijk = Si + Rj + G k + Velocity Error (if required)
source points) or in other words, equations are Event Time = Shot Static + Receiver Static + Structure Time
S
present, but too few to overcome potential picking
errors (Fig. 10.7). “Equations” come from the =
Equations are over-defined
Geometry R T and under-constrained
existence of source-receiver pairs. leading to missing
wavelengths.
G
Guarantee of “coupling” if:

Shot : CMP : Shot : CMP : Every other shot
... and similarly for receivers
Figure 10.7
Figure 10.8 illustrates the different source-receiver

pairs that contribute to neighboring CMP bins. This
straight line example demonstrates that if source
points 1, 5, 9, ... contribute to one CMP bin, then
source points 2, 6, 10, ... will contribute to the next
CMP bin and source points 3, 7, 11, ... to the bin
after that. This means that when we write down all
the equations for each source-receiver pair, there
will be no equations linking the shot static for
source point 1 to say, that for source point 2
(likewise for source points 3 and 4). Basically in this
case we have 4 families of equations which are not
connected to each other.
Figure 10.8
10.8
Processing
It is now known (Wisecup, R.D. 1994) that all regularly spaced straight line geometries (Brick, Zig-Zag,
etc.) are uncoupled for statics (i.e., there is more than one independent solution for source and receiver
statics). In the Brick design, for example, the receivers are essentially coupled while the sources are still
uncoupled. The sources are still uncoupled because of the regular receiver geometry. In the Flexi-BinTM
design all sources and all receivers are coupled (except along the very edges of the survey), because
of the non-repetitive nature of the relative positions of sources and receivers and the line intersections.
To tie independent solutions together, Wisecup suggests the use of smoothers in the structure term. This
will normally give reasonable looking answers (no x-line “jitter”) but can leave errors in long wavelength
statics if present and may not adequately resolve a structural anomaly (which is often what we’re looking
for!).
Statics coupling can be

ensured by breaking up the
regularity of the geometry
(Fig. 10.9; e.g., irregular
source or receiver and line
spacing) or by adding
source lines in the receiver
line direction and receiver
lines in the source line
direction.
It should be carefully noted

that a geometry that is good
for statics may be bad for
imaging. In other words, we
must be careful to
remember that what we
seek is a 3D sub-surface
image - not a near surface
image (which is what statics
gives us). Compromises, Figure 10.9
therefore, must always
favor the sub-surface In this artificial example the receivers are spaced
targets. irregularly.
Use a computer program to Therefore, the sources are all couples.
check each layout.
10.9
10.6 Dip Move-Out
While NMO corrects for the time

delay on an offset trace by moving
the amplitudes up along the trace,
DMO moves the data up-dip to the
correct position where a zero offset
trace would record a dipping reflector
(Fig. 10.10). Migration then moves
the energy to the correct horizontal
and vertical subsurface location.
DMO is a dip-specific application

of pre-stack partial migration followed
by NMO and stack. Hale (1984)
discusses the process in detail.
Constant velocity DMO is the most
commonly applied method. Time-
variant DMO has been described by
Meinardus & Schleicher (1991) Figure 10.10
among many others.
NMO, DMO and Migration (after Sheriff,
1991)
The DMO ellipse has the biggest effect on data at shallow times and at far offsets. Varying surface
geometry may introduce amplitude anomalies due to different offset and azimuth mixes which may or
may not be compensated for in processing.
3D DMO needs as many offsets as possible in each azimuth range to form the reflections by
constructive interferences. Otherwise, imperfect image reconstruction occurs. This construction of offset
sections can be difficult in 3D surveys because of the midpoint scattering and the source-receiver
azimuth variations. Therefore, not all 3D designs will lend themselves to the successful application of
DMO.
Let h be the source-receiver offset, V

the average velocity and t the time of
interest (Fig. 10.11). Then the energy
at time “t” in a CMP bin is derived Each offset moves
from all source -receiver pairs which a different amount
cross the bin and whose midpoints
are within h2/(2*V*t) of the bin Maximum
(Deregowski, Geophysical DMO movement
Prospecting, 1982, pp 318). Fold and is h2/(2Vt)
the number of unique offsets in each
bin after DMO at some specified time
“t” is a good measure of the DMO
response. Midpoints
Figure 10.11
10.10
Processing
Example: V = 3000 m/s h =1000 m t = 1.0 sec

DMO radius = h2 / (2Vt) = 170 m
or about 7 bins if b=25m
Or V = 10000ft/sec h= 3000 ft t= 1.0 sec

DMO radius = h2 / (2Vt) = 450 ft
or about 4 bins if b=110 ft
In other words, all traces

- whose offset is 1000m (3000 ft)
- whose source-receiver azimuth passes through a central bin
- whose midpoint is within 170m (450 ft) of that central bin
will each contribute energy to the central bin.
Note that a 5 degree dipping reflector will have its energy shifted a horizontal distance of (h2/V*t)*sin 2
* cos2 - or using the above V, t and h we get 15m.
The central sample in Figure

10.12 is created from many other
traces which provide contributing
samples. The further away a
trace is from the center trace, the
steeper the dipping energy that
will be contributed to the center
sample. Constructive
interference ensures that dips
will be reconstructed (imaged) at
their proper zero offset position
and not the CMP position.
Stacking then takes place
correctly at each CMP (because
each trace contains zero offset
information ). Migration after
stack will then move the dips to
their correct geologic position
(CDP). If traces are missing, the
Figure 10.12a
constructive interference is
disrupted; this is usually referred to as geometry imprinting.
Poor geometry design may create

“holes” in the offset “plane” and
the lack of certain offsets in a
regular pattern may impede the
constructive interference process
for certain dips.
Figure 10.12b
10.11
Bin balancing. This method of processing has been popular for the last ten years or so. It compensated
for bins that did not have a good mix of offsets by “borrowing” a missing offset from a neighboring bin -
in effect a sort of mix or interpolation for certain traces. It is important to note that this kind of “ bin
borrowing ” is exactly what DMO performs. Thus if DMO is included in the seismic processing sequence,
there should be no requirement for bin balancing/borrowing.
A good measure of the DMO

"constructive interference" is to
calculate the weighted DMO fold
(Crouzy & Pion, 1993) in each bin
for a specific target time and
velocity. This “weighted DMO
fold” is constructed by considering
all the possible contributions to
one output CMP bin. Energy from
many source-receiver pairs, whose
axes cross that bin, will be
“smeared” by DMO and arrive in
the chosen output bin. The energy
will be stronger or weaker
depending on how far along the
DMO operator (ellipse) it has
traveled. Weighting functions have
been published and allow us to
calculate for any given bin the
weighted sum of all the Fold after DMO
contributions.
CMP fold
In Figure 10.13, we have Figure 10.13
calculated this weighted DMO fold
for an actual 3D geometry with a
river through the center (the white crosses in the center indicate missing receivers). Observe the areas
of high and low fold, due undoubtedly to the increased contribution of the far offsets present in bins close
to the obstacle - in this case a river. Such variations in DMO weighted fold can lead to anomalies in the
data due to S/N variations which mirror the fold.
In addition to the DMO Fold anomalies, which may

exhibit geometry imprinting as shown above, we
have calculated DMO responses for dipping
events recorded with different geometries. These
responses show severe phase and amplitude
changes indicating that such dipping targets if
present on real data would show strong geometry
imprinting (Connelly & Galbraith, 1995).
In that investigation, the "target" is a pseudo

dipping event where each CMP bin is assumed to
have a specific dip at a specific time and azimuth,
as depicted in Figure 10.14.
Figure 10.14
Calculation proceeds by placing the contributions of each source-receiver pair to the pseudo dipping
event, at the specified target time, in every bin throughout the survey. A perfect zero-phase response
would indicate that the event will be perfectly imaged by DMO in that bin: ie. that the process of
constructive interference has worked. A less than perfect response indicates an insufficient number of
contributions to that dipping event in that bin.
10.12
Processing
In Figure 10.15 we see the result of applying the algorithm to a standard "Brick" geometry. Source point
and receiver in-line spacing is 50m. Source and receiver line interval is 400m. Patch is 4 lines by 80
stations per line - giving a regular CMP fold = 10. We show the result in one central "box" of the survey
for a dip of 30o pointing toward the North-East (i.e., oriented at 45o to each patch) and at a time of 0.4
secs. The three responses correspond to 19 CMP bins in three directions:
(i) Along a source line.
(ii) Along a receiver line.
(iii) Along a diagonal of the box.
There are significant amplitude and phase changes indicating that the output of DMO applied to real
seismic data collected with this geometry will have a strong "geometry imprint" for any northeasterly
dipping events of 30o close to a time of 0.4 secs.
Other examples with different geometry and therefore fold indicate similar results - in general, always
worse for steeper dips at shallow times, and especially worse for dips across narrow patches, pointing
to a real need to either:
(a) Calculate some form of amplitude and phase compensation (inverse DMO operator)
or (b) Redesign the acquisition geometry to improve the DMO output contributions in all bins
for the desired target dip and time. Don’t use narrow patches for DMO applications.
Although these studies specifically involved DMO, it is likely that other imaging techniques (e.g., pre-
stack time or depth migration) will suffer from the same problems - namely, insufficient contributions
leading to a poorly focussed image.
Figure 10.15
10.13
10.7 Stack
CMP stacking sums the traces in a CMP bin with a view to increasing S/N.
The question of "What is Fold?" is riddled with

problems. Is there good fold and is there bad
fold? (See Fig. 10.16)
For example, by repeating a source point many

times into the same receiver, what kind of noise are
we attenuating? Obviously in this case, we will
attenuate ambient (or background) noise including
the effects of instrument noise. But will we get
better signal? If we shoot reciprocal raypaths -
same surface positions but switching source points
and receivers - many will argue that this amounts to
the same thing as firing one shot repeatedly. These
Figure 10.16
cases might be loosely classified as "bad fold”.
On the other hand, what if we combine traces whose energy traveled by a variety of different raypaths?
The combination of such wavefront energies can be considered to be a crude version of Huygens’
secondary wavelet summations. This situation can be loosely classified as "good fold”.
If a good mix of offsets is present in each CMP bin, not only will random noise be attenuated, but
coherent noise such as ground roll and multiple energy will also be attenuated, due to the presence of
such noise at different times on different offsets. If, however, there is not a good mix of offsets, multiples
and ground roll and other coherent noise will be present on the CMP stack traces.
In Figure 10.17, we show a

synthetic shot with three events at
200ms, 500ms and 1000ms. There
is strong linear noise with a
velocity of 800 m/s. If we use the
geometry of some CDP’s of a real
3D, we can construct synthetic
CMP gather data with the traces of
each bin determined by the traces
of this shot which have the same
offset. In other words, our model is
flat and the noise is the same
everywhere.
Figure 10.17
10.14
Processing
In Figure 10.18, we see the

synthetic CMP gathers. Obviously
the linear noise now looks
somewhat irregular, due to the
irregular mix of offsets in each
CMP bin.
Figure 10.18
When these CMP gathers are

NMO’d and stacked, the noise is
not canceled. Moreover, it is
attenuated in different ways
depending on the offset mix in the
various bins. We show, in Figure
10.19, the bins along a “box”
diagonal, along a source line and
along a receiver line. It is obvious
that the original linear noise has a
presence on the stack that may be
interpreted as real data, depending
on the direction we look in.
Figure 10.19
10.15
10.8 Making Adjustments for Data Quality
If data quality is unexpectedly low, the interpreter in Fold == Constant (S/N)2

Constant *x (S/N)
conjunction with the processor has to evaluate the 60
data set for its merit in improving the signal-to-noise
ratio. A multitude of possibilities exist. The easiest
way to improve the S/N ratio is to enlarge the bins. In 45
a traditional 3D survey this usually means doubling or

quadrupling the bin size. The latter will increase the
30
fold by a factor of four and double the S/N ratio (Fig.
10.20). If many offsets are redundant or the offset mix
is poor the gain in S/N may not be as large as 15
expected. Note that linear source noise is non-
gaussian and therefore the S/N for that particular
noise will not improve with increasing fold. 0
0 1 2 3 4
S/N
Another method would be to perform some sort of
borrowing of information from neighboring bins but Figure 10.20
retaining the original bin size. This could be done Fold vs. Signal-to-Noise Ratio
depending on missing offsets or azimuths in the
center bin. These will then be added from neighboring bins to increase the fold and therefore improve
the S/N ratio. The only problem with this approach is usually the large distance from one central midpoint
to the next to obtain the required information. However, the data will acquire a much smoother
appearance and in the case of extremely bad data, such a strategy may make a 3D interpretable.
In extreme cases of bad data a running mix of information of neighboring bins will smooth the data
possibly to the point of making a correct interpretation difficult because the high frequency content may
have been eliminated.
If the data quality is high one may choose to limit the required offsets and azimuths to get a good
representation for each bin. If, in such a case, the fold distribution over the entire 3D area can be
smoothed, then the overall data quality may be as good as or better than the original full fold survey. In
conventional 3D surveys there is no method of decreasing the bin size to get a better spatial resolution.
One has to live with what one has asked for.
The Flexi-Bin® approach distributes the midpoints within each bin in a prescribed manner. This
distribution produces sub-bins. If the data quality is marginal, the bin size can be increased or decreased
in small increments (equal to the sub-bin dimensions). Please refer to Chapter 5 for further information.
Bin-rotation may be required if significant geological features are displaying unexpected trends (Fig.
10.21). Such features could include channels, faults, reef trends, etc. This bin rotation is difficult to
achieve with a conventional 3D survey because of the central distribution of midpoints within each bin.
In a survey where the midpoints are distributed within each bin (e.g., irregular line spacings, crooked line
orientation, or Flexi-Bin®) such a change in bin orientation may be easy to accomplish.
Multiple attenuation is much poorer in most 3D surveys than in 2D, because the offset mix is not as
even as it is in 2D (or narrow azimuth 3D). A good offset mix is paramount to good multiple attenuation
procedures.
10.16
Processing
Figure 10.21a
Figure 10.21b
10.17
Quiz
1. Consider a typical 3D situation in an area of your company’s exploration interest and determine
what you would consider to be an ideal set of film displays (if any) for a permanent record.
2. Why is the x-line dimension of the patch important when considering refraction statics?
3. Give some efficient means of obtaining reflection statics coupling in a 3D survey.
10.18
Processing
Quiz Answers
1. Permanent film displays depend very much on each company’s objective and may vary from
play to play. We suggest having full scale displays for the entire section (to basement) every
10th (or so) line. In addition, displays of every line or every second line for the zone of interest,
may prove to be useful for picking well locations, especially in the absence of workstation
access.
2. The x-line dimension needs to be sufficiently large to pick up measurements of shallow

refractors. Also, one needs to ensure that refractions from deeper horizons fall within the x-line
dimension.
3. a) break up the regularity of receiver or source line spacing.

b) add source lines in the receiver direction.
c) add receiver lines in the source direction.
10.19
Chapter 11
INTERPRETATION
Only a few key issues are addressed here. Comprehensive discussions on the subject of 3D interpretations
can be found in Brown (1991) and Sheriff (1992).
Table of Contents
Chapter 11
INTERPRETATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1
11.1 Interpretation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3
Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3
geometry related artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3
Paper displays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3
workstation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3
11.2 Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4
define the prospect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4
Smoothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4
Hand-contoured maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4
depth structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4
11.3 Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4
2D and 3D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4
different disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4
enhancement of the data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4
11.2
Interpretation
11.1 Interpretation Systems
Interpretation is often the last hands-on step in the entire process of seismic data gathering and analysis.
It can be done locally or anywhere in the world where the necessary expertise can be obtained. We’ve
observed a trend that brings the interpreter substantially closer to the processor and even the acquisition
contractor. It is important that the interpreter be involved in all aspects of the 3D seismic data gathering and
processing; or at least he or she should be kept informed of the progress. Additional displays or tests may
be required to answer questions along the way.
The interpreter should always look for geometry related artifacts in the data when embarking on the
interpretation. If there is a clear relationship between the acquisition geometry and trends or anomalies in
the interpreted maps, one should attempt to remove those in processing if possible.
Paper displays (discussed in the previous chapter) should be used as a permanent hard copy record of the
3D survey. When interpreting paper sections some things are more easily detected by the human eye than
when interpreting on the workstation. Carefully selected paper displays are a very inexpensive medium for
display. This is important for presentations to management and other interested parties.
The interpreter needs to know whether he or she will be limited to paper interpretation or whether a
workstation is available. Several software platforms may be required to provide the necessary solutions.
There are numerous systems on the market today that can handle 3D surveys of any size in a very effective
way. For small and medium size surveys the PC-BASED systems may suffice (e.g., Pics, Kingdom 3D). For
larger surveys, and mainly because of the superior speed, one may prefer one of the workstation-based
interpretation systems (e.g., Landmark, GeoQuest or Photon).
The selection of an interpretation system is very subjective. Each system has some unique features that may
be good for a particular purpose or the interpreter prefers. Some essential elements to review before a
purchase are ease of use, contouring options, time slice viewing, fault handling, integration of well synthetics,
3D visualization, animation possibilities, the ability to make arbitrary lines through the data volume, import
and export options, merging of several 3D data sets, processing options, such as phase rotation, etc.
The seismic data can usually be displayed in many different fashions; variable area (VA), variable intensity
(VI) or a combination of the two as variable intensity and area (VIVA). The variable intensity displays can
have a number of different color bars associated with them to highlight particular features.
When horizon times are picked on a workstation, the amplitudes are often measured simultaneously.
However, they can be extracted at a later stage. Often the software will allow the user to pick the horizon
times in both the vertical and the horizontal plane. The picks can be displayed individually for each horizon
or in combination.
11.3
11.2 Mapping
Geological mapping is usually available before any 3D interpretation begins. This provides an extremely
useful framework for the 3D based geophysical mapping.
From work with existing 2D or 3D data sets one usually already knows which horizon, isochron, amplitude
or other attribute maps are needed to define the prospect. The following is a sample list of maps and
displays that should be considered (other displays may be available):
time structure time slices

flattened seismic sections horizon slices
isochron chair displays
amplitude 3D visualization
amplitude difference shadowing
instantaneous frequency transparency displays
instantaneous phase coherence cube
Smoothing of these maps may clarify the picture substantially. It should be applied with caution in order
not to simplify the maps too much by eliminating short wavelength anomalies. One needs to test different
smoothing operators in order to produce meaningful results. A smoothing window of 3 traces may work well
in some areas but not in others where a window of 7 traces may need to be applied.
Hand-contoured maps will most likely reflect the changing geology much better than computer generated
maps. The latter, however, may offer a good guide and therefore should be used in conjunction.
Mapping of the depth structure remains a significant challenge even when applied to a 3D data set. Good
velocity determinations are essential. All available well information needs to be carefully integrated. Often
a shallow geological marker, with a smooth structure, will be used as a datum when this marker can be
clearly identified on the seismic. Using isochrons to the target horizon and an interval velocity function
(areally varying) may produce very good isopach maps. Very reasonable depth structure maps can result
from adding the isopach maps to shallow datum maps.
11.3 Integration
Previously acquired 2D and 3D data should be fully integrated. Integration with the geological mapping is
essential for the best prospect definition possible. At times, the seismic data and related mapping alone will
not offer the necessary information to commence drilling. However, when fully integrated with geology, one
can substantially increase the value of the prospect. Even old fields can see production increase significantly
with this approach and follow up drilling.
Data integration can include many different disciplines. Most important is the geological input. This
includes regional structure mapping as well as reservoir scale interpretation. Hydrodynamic mapping may
have a significant impact on the migration paths for the hydrocarbons and the most likely sites for oil and
gas accumulations. In purely exploratory areas, questions about source rocks and seals have to be
addressed before a major 3D survey is contemplated. Engineering data can provide valuable insights into
the difficulties encountered when drilling a well. What good is the best prospect if the well cannot be drilled,
for whatever reason? One might be forced to shelve a good prospect for many years before the necessary
drilling technology is developed to deal with specific problems.
Additional enhancement of the data, e.g., 3D inversion, time-to-depth conversion, AVO analysis, etc. can
possibly provide that little bit of extra information that will reduce the drilling risk significantly (more on this
in Chapter 12).
11.4
Chapter 12
ADVANCED TOPICS
Let’s discuss some special interest topics of 3D design and acquisition and take a look at possible future
directions.
Table of Contents
Chapter 12
ADVANCED TOPICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1

12.1 Transition Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3
lake, marsh and river . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3
fewer variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3
testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3
Phase matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3
Winter vs. summer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3
Dual sensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3
water bottom cables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3
12.2 Pre-Stack Migration to Re-bin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.4
12.3 Digital Orthomaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5
TIFF format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5
Aerial photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5
12.4 Converted Wave 3D Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6
fractured reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6
anisotropical behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6
conversion point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6
increasing the bin size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.7
12.5 3D Inversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.8
thickness and impedance changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.8
porosity distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.8
12.6 Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.8
Closing discussion period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.8
Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.8
12.2
Advanced Topics
12.1 Transition Zones
Transition zones are generally defined as lake, marsh and river environments. True marine surveys are
conducted on the open ocean where large areas are being covered with ships that tow source arrays and
streamers behind them. Transition zone surveys usually have more associated problems related to land
acquisition than marine acquisition. Mixed sources, e.g., vibrator and dynamite, are commonly used in
environmentally sensitive areas.
The fewer variables that one has to introduce in transition zone acquisition, the better. For example, if the
water is ice covered, then the sources and the receivers should be placed below the ice surface. Ice may
introduce flexure noise that could make the signal undiscernible. One type of source for the entire survey
(e.g., dynamite) is much preferable to a variety of sources (e.g., dynamite, mudgun, airgun and water gun).
Similarly, using one type of receiver for the entire survey is far preferable to using land geophones, marsh
phones and hydrophones in the respective areas of the survey.
Because of the variables involved, testing is even more intricate in transition zone surveys than in true land
surveys. A dynamite shot will look different on monitors of land geophones than on those of hydrophones.
Again, an airgun shot will have a different appearance on the different receivers.
Phase matching will need to be considered when processing for the different areas of a transition zone
survey. Theoretical phase curves are an important guide for the processor. In practice, things may look a
little different than theory predicts. The phase difference may actually change as the water depth increases.
Winter vs. summer acquisition needs to be considered. Winter may provide more efficient crew movement
on the ice. However, is the data sufficient quality
(see above on “fewer variables”)? Summer
acquisition may i nterfere with the tourism
industry, but may be faster with better data
quality. Environmental constraints may limit your
options severely. impulse
Dual sensor data acquisition with water bottom

hydrophones
cables will reduce the ghosting effects on p(t)
t2 t4
transition data (Barr & Sanders, 1989), thereby
t1 t3 t
enhancing the frequency content of the data.
When plotting the water-column reverberations
over time for both hydrophones and geophones Kt
(Fig. 12.1), one can easily see that summing
them will result in the cancellation of the ghosts. geophones
v’(t)
t
Figure 12.1
The Water-Column Reverberation
Operators for the Pressure and
Velocity Detectors Located on the
Water-bottom
(after Barr & Sanders, 1989)
12.3
12.2 Pre-Stack Migration to Re-bin
In highly structured environments particularly, it may be much better to perform a pre-stack migration on the
data set. The data would be binned once the migration has been applied and hopefully, obtain a better
positioning of the reflector in space. Unfortunately, 2-3 iterations of pre-stack migration are extremely
expensive; hopefully, this expense is outweighed by the additional accuracy this process provides.
Figure 12 shows the difference in stacking between post-stack and pre-stack migration. Let us assume that
we want to migrate energy within the Fresnel Zone as indicated in these diagrams.
In post-stack migration (Fig. 12.2a), the

midpoints that are assumed to be
scattered about the bin, are stacked first
for central midpoints. Then the midpoints
that fall within the Fresnel Zone are
migrated.
Figure 12.2a
Post-Stack Migration
In pre-stack migration (Fig. 12.2b), all

the midpoints that fall wihin the Fresnel
Zone are migrated before being stacked.
The energy contributions of post-stack vs.

pre-stack migration are obviously quite
different.
Figure 12.2b
Pre-Stack Migration
12.4
Advanced Topics
12.3 Digital Orthomaps
Digital orthomaps (DOMS) are a new and very useful tool in the planning phase of a seismic 3D survey.
They have been proven as a money-saving tool and reduce risk (Crow, B., 1994). The digital images are
rectified to obtain as perfect a fit as possible. The images can then be transferred, e.g., in a TIFF format.
Recent developments of software tools for the planning of 3D seismic, allow integration of digital imagery
to be used not only in the planning of the seismic program by including skids and offsets, but also to update
these as the 3D survey progresses (Fig. 12.3).
Aerial photography (and video) is integrated with GPS information and historical survey information to
provide extremely accurate and consistent survey information. GPS can provide XY accuracy within a
centimeter (½ inch), while the z coordinate is somewhat less accurate. Historical data such as well and
pipeline locations, and cultural features should be integrated as much as possible. The accuracy of the base
maps increases significantly. In the context of a 3D survey such reduction in location uncertainties is
important and should be considered.
Figure 12.3
3D Design over a Digital Image
12.5
12.4 Converted Wave 3D Design
Three-component 3D surveys are useful for detecting fractured reservoirs or any other type of geology
where one can expect anisotropical behavior of the rock properties. It is important to attempt to align the
receiver line direction in order to best detect the velocity anisotropy.
When designing converted wave 3D surveys one has to calculate a suitable range of offsets where the
converted waves will still be present. The conversion point (which is the point where the incident p-wave
is converted to the reflected s-wave) does not lie at the midpoint position between source and receiver.
Rather this conversion point is offset from the source position by Xc (Fig. 12.4):
Xc = r / (1+ Vs / Vp )
r is the distance between source and receiver,

Vs is the average S-wave velocity and
Vp is the average P-wave velocity.
Therefore, fold calculations and binning in the processing center is based on a bin size equal to (Lawton,
1993):
b = ªr / (1+ Vs / Vp )
ªr is the receiver interval
E.g., assume Vp / Vs = 2
then Xc = r / 1.5 = (2/3) * r
and b = ªr / 1.5 = (2/3) * ªr
The above formulae are based on the

asymptotic conversion point (Fig. 12.4),
rather than the depth-variant CCP
mapping which would be somewhat more
complicated. Although the Vp / Vs has to
be known to take advantage of this
change in bin size one does not have to
know it prior to acquisition of the data.
The results from the initial processing can
help in determining the ratio.
Figure 12.4
Converted Wave Raypaths
12.6
Advanced Topics
V s / V p will be <1 (and

usually -0.5), and
therefore the bin size
will always be larger
than on a standard 3D,
shifting along with the
conversion point
locations. A Vs / Vp
value of 1 would result
in the normal bin size of
half the receiver station
interval ªr. If the bin
size is not changed to
reflect this conversion
point location, then the
fold distribution map
will have a very stripy
appearance with “holes”
in it (Fig. 12.5a) .
Figure 12.5a
Best CCP Fold Map using smaller bins
(at ½ station intervals)
This striping effect can

be reduced somewhat
by making the source
line interval an odd
integer of the receiver
interval, rather than an
even integer. However
when increasing the bin
size as described above
the fold map will be
even smoother
(Fig. 12.5b).
A further smoothing of
the bin distribution can
be accomplished by
applying the Flexi-Bin
t e c hnique. The
distributed midpoints
will not only allow the Figure 12.5b
bin size to be the same
for p-wave and s-wave CCP Fold Map with Optimum Bin Size
stacks, but as well the
fold distribution can be extremely smooth (Cordsen, in press).
Processing flows of converted wave 3Ds are still in their development phase and one should have sufficient
knowledge of the design and processing procedures to take advantage of the additional information gained
through the recording of all three components. Processing of 2D converted wave data is discussed in detail
by Hauser, 1991.
Converted wave data will see amplitude changes introduced at the far offsets. These can easily be
interpreted as AVO effects but may only be due to the changes in the reflection coefficients as the rays
approach the critical angle.
12.7
12.5 3D Inversions
Depending on the software being used for the inversion one can expect to obtain a better understanding of
the different possibilities of thickness and impedance changes. 3D inversion can also provide the
additional perspective of predicting the porosity distribution as long as the lithology is known. This
knowledge is extremely helpful when planning horizontal well bore trajectories.
Some important issues to take care of in the processing of the 3D data set for inversion are the following:
1. One must make the best effort to maintain “true” amplitudes in th e processing.
2. Since AVO effects can distort inversion results one may want to consider a short offset stack version
of the data set.
Well ties are extremely important in 3D inversion. One starts with estimating wavelets near the well ties over
a few selected traces. Experience has shown that approximately 20% of the well ties may yield “odd”
wavelets. It is important t o consider the average fit of all well ties, before making a final phase determination
and possibly adjustment. Should there be a good explanation for the phase changes of the wavelets over
a larger area one may want to use an interpolation technique.
Impedance changes are estimated in the inversion. Wells that have both sonic and density logs are best
suited for the inversion. These are used to calibrate the inversion.
In a 3D survey in which a variety of sources were applied one must do the phase matching in advance
(before attempting inversion). Failing to do this will result in an incorrect inversion, since phase ties may be
more erratic than in a survey, where only one source was employed. Ideally one should have the same well
or very similar logs tie the different sources in a survey.
12.6 Future Directions
The Task: To meet or exceed geophysical requirements (resolution) at lower cost.
The Tools:
New Layout Strategies New Analytical Methods

Pseudo Random Statics Coupling
Velocity Resolution
New Acquisition Technology Dip Resolution
Telemetry Geostatistics
GPS Reservoir Monitoring
3C Recording
9C Recording New Processing Methods
4D Recording Improved Velocity Analysis
(4th dimension is time) Pre-Stack Migration
Depth Migration
3C Processing
New field hardware will open possibilities for new layout strategies. In particular some of the newer
positioning strategies (GPS) and cable-less systems (telemetry) will mean considerably more flexibility in
laying out receiver positions.
Through new software, to help analyze processing requirements, we will be able to experiment with
strategies that use some of these new receiver layouts - and therefore possibly different source layouts. The
analysis will enable us to use layouts that drive the survey design to the resolution limits (but not beyond!)
and therefore save time and money.
Closing discussion period

Evaluation
12.8
EXERCISES
Here are some hands-on problems on which to practice. The Survey Design Decision Table and the 3D
Design Flow Chart are repeated here for easy reference. Use them in combination with your notes.
These problems can be solved with just a calculator, using the rules of thumb we have given you, or
investigated in more detail using a 3D design package that includes a modeling module.
The numbers used in the illustrations are given in metric units for the most part, but can be easily converted
if you are more comfortable working in imperial units. The numbers in the text and the answers are given
in both units.
The answers we arrived at are given in both sets of units following each problem. Remember that in many
cases there is no single “right” answer. However , subsequent parts of each exercise assume the answers
we have given for earlier parts (e.g., Exercise 1-3 assumes our answers for Exercises 1-1 and 1-2).
Table of Contents
EXERCISES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E.1
Survey Design Decision Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E.3
3D Design Flow Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E.4
EXERCISE 1 CARBONATE POROSITY TARGET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E.5
Exercise 1-1 Fold, b, Xmin , Xmax , M.A., Fold Taper, Surface Area, Record Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E.7
ANSWERS (metric) - Exercise 1-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E.8
ANSWERS (imperial) - Exercise 1-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E.9
Exercise 1-2 NS, SLI, NC, RLI, Actual Xmin and Xmax , Actual Patch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E.10
ANSWERS (metric and imperial) - Exercise 1-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E.11
Exercise 1-3 Final choice of parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E.11
ANSWERS (metric and imperial) - Exercise 1-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E.13

EXERCISE 2 MODELING 3D PARAMETERS - STRUCTURE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E.16
ANSWERS - Exercise 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E.17
EXERCISE 3 WEST TEXAS 3D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E.19
EXERCISE 4 Carbonate Porosity (Nig Creek) - STRAIGHT LINE 3D LAYOUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E.22
EXERCISE 5 Exclusion Zones and Moving Sources to Compensate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E.23
EXERCISE 6 SISOIL DEMO 3D Prospect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E.24
EX.2
Exercises
Survey Design Decision Table
1. Fold > ½- b * 2D Fold (if the S/N is good)

In-line fold = RLL / (2 * SLI)



< Deep Horizon critical reflection offset

Z tan 30o = 0.58 Z
7. Record Length Sufficient to capture migration aperture, diffraction tails and

target horizons
EX.3
3D Design Flow Chart

Determine the following parameters from exploration objectives and existing 2D
data:
fold of good 2D
steepest dips
shallow markers needed for isochroning
target depth
target two-way time
basement depth
Vint immediately above the target horizon
Fdom at the target horizon
Fmax at the target horizon
lateral target size
area to be fully imaged
layout method
Desired Fold:
½ - b of 2D fold =
Bin size:
b) for alias frequency = Vint / ( 4 * Fmax * sin(dip)) =
bin size =
RI =
SI =
Xmin:
RLI =
SLI =
Xmin = ( RLI2 + SLI2 ) ½ =
Xmax:
Fold:
total fold =
Migration Aperture:
a) Radius of source Fresnel Zone = ½ * ( target time * Vrms * Vint / Fdom ) ½ =
b) diffraction energy = 0.58 * target depth =
c) lateral migration = target depth * tan (dip) =
(FT + RFZ) < Total Migration Aperture < (FT + MA) TMA=
EX.4
Exercises
EXERCISE 1 CARBONATE POROSITY TARGET
This exercise uses a model based on the Nig Creek area of northeastern British Columbia and is taken from
the Geophysical Atlas of Western Canada (Anderson, et al., 1989, pp. 188-191). The reservoir of the “A”
Pool is in the Triassi c Baldonnel Formation, near its western erosional limit. The reservoir zone is a “10m
(35ft) thick widespread zone of shelly crinoidal carbonate and is situated stratigraphically 10 to 15m (35 -
50ft) below the top of the Baldonnel Formation”. T h e traps are formed by (1) erosional remnants overlain
by tight Jurassic or Cretaceous sediments; (2) minor Laramide structures trending NW/SE; and (3) local
variations in reservoir diagenesis.
Figure EX1.1 shows the shallow part of the

model in depth. The geophysicist requesting
the 3D design would like to image the Shallow
Marker at 200m (650ft) depth. Figure EX1.2
shows the deeper portion of the model in
depth. The model shows one of the Laramide
structures, as well as modeled raypaths
reflected from the target horizon for a source
at zero offset, centered over the structure.
Maximum dips on the flank of the structure
are thought to be about 4o. Target depth is
1340m (4400ft). Vrms to the target is
3038m/sec (9778 ft/sec).
EX1.1
Shallow Part of the Model (in depth)
The layers and their interval velocities in the
model are as follows:
LVL (Shallow Marker): 2000m/s 6600f/s
Mannville: 3200m/s 10500f/s
Blue Sky: 4200m/s 13800f/s
Nordegg: 4100m/s 13500f/s
Baldonnel: 5300m/s 17400f/s
Charlie Lake: 5200m/s 17100f/s
Halfway: 4500m/s 14800f/s
Doig: 5000m/s 16400f/s
EX1.2
Deep Part of the Model (in depth)
EX.5
Previous 2D data in this area had fair to good signal/noise ratio at 27 fold (at 50m (165ft) group intervals).
Previous data in the area shows that one can usually record up to 100Hz on these events with a dominant
frequency of about 60Hz. The targets are porous zones as small as 100m (300ft) wide.
Basement depth is approximately 2700m (8800ft) subsea (at about 1.9 secs TWT). Average elevation in the
area is about 600m (2000ft). The area is heavily forested, so existing cut lines must be used whenever
possible. The area required for the final area to be imaged is 6000m by 6000m (3.6 mi x 3.6 mi).
Figure EX1.3 shows the deep part of the

model in two-way time, and Figure EX1.4
shows a synthetic source record made
using 50m (165ft) trace spacing. Some
information on these figures may be needed
for parts of the exercise.
EX1.3
Deep Part of the Model (in time)
EX1.4
Synthetic Source for Model
(50m trace spacing)
EX.6
Exercises
Exercise 1-1 Fold, b, Xmin , Xmax , M.A., Fold Taper, Surface Area, Record Length
Calculate the following specifications (round off your answers as appropriate):
1. Fold:
2. Bin Size: based on target size:
based on max. unaliased frequency:
based on lateral resolution:
recommended bin size:
3. RI:
SI:
4. Xmin:
5. Xmax: based on target depth:
based on direct wave interference:
based on critical refraction at target depth:
recommended Xmax :
recommended patch size (assuming wide azimuth and 85% Rule):
Xr: Xs:
6. Migration Aperture:
based on radius of Fresnel Zone:
based on diffraction energy:
based on lateral migration:
Fold Taper:
Recommended Total Migration Aperture:
7. Initial Estimate of Surface Coverage Required:
8. Record Length:
Note: To use OMNI to derive the answers, open the NIGTIME.SGM model (from the FILE menu). From
the ANALYSIS menu, choose ANALYSIS window to display the model. Examine ray tracing to
determine largest offset to image the shallow event - and largest offset reflecting from the target
BALDONNEL formation.
EX.7
ANSWERS (metric) - Exercise 1-1
Input Parameters:
fold of good 2D 27, fair to good
steepest dips 4o
shallow markers needed for isochroning 200m
target depth 1340m
target two-way time 900ms
basement depth 3300m (2700m + 600m)
Vint immediately above the target horizon 4100m/s
Fdom at the target horizon 60Hz
Fmax at the target horizon 100Hz
lateral target size 100m
area to be fully imaged 6km x 6km
layout method straight line (limited access)
1. Fold: 18 (b of previous 2D fold)

2. Bin Size: Target size: 33m (3 traces over 100m target)
Alias on dips: Max dip on Baldonnel is 4o
146m (=4100/4*100*.07)
Lateral Resolution: 34m (=4100/2*60)
Note: If you are unsure of the estimate of dominant frequency, estimate
resolution at some other values and choose a bin size which may over sample
somewhat, just to be safe.
80Hz - 25.6m (=4100/2*80)
Recommended bin size = 25m (safe choice; 30m OK)
3: RI=SI= 50m (RI=SI=2b)
4. Xmin : 240m. (=1.2*200)
Or assume the 35o ray will be furthest offset reflected
before critical angle reached.
Largest Xmin = Depth/tan35o = 200/0.7 = 285m.
5. Xmax : Target depth: 1340m
Direct wave interference: 2350m (=47tr*50m, Fig. EX1.4)
Crit. refr. @ target hor.: 1915m (=1340/tan35o=1340/0.7)
Recommended Xmax: 2000m Err on high side, given deep depth to
basement.
Suggested Patch: Xr=1700m (=0.85*2000, and divisible by 2b)
Xs=1450m (=0.85*1700, and divisible by 2b)
Radius First Fresnel Zone: 215m (=0.5 * (0.9*3038*4100/60)½)
Note: MESA calculates Fresnel zone diameter, not radius.
Diffraction energy: 780m (=0.58*1340)
Dip lateral migration: 95m (=1340*sin40=1340*0.07)
Fold Taper: 270m (.0.2*1340)
Recommended TMA: 500-800
(270+215=485<TMA<1050=270+780)
7. Surface Coverage Estimate: 7.0 - 7.6 x 7.0 - 7.6km.
(500-800 + 6000 + 500-800 = 7000-7600m)
In an ideal design the survey size should be increased by the full migration aperture plus the fold taper,
which is >1000m (270 + 780m) in this example. From a cost perspective this is probably unreasonable,
particularly if the net area to be surveyed is relatively small. Hence the compromise at 500 - 800m. A
precise decision on this dimension requires a fold plot for the final design scenario and a cost analysis,
but this estimate is likely to be within one line interval of being reasonable.
8. Record Length 3 secs
Tape is cheap, so don’t cut corners on this! Basement is at 2700m subsea, plus 600m elevation.
We need at least 2.0 seconds to image basement, plus perhaps 100msec for statics and another 500msec
to capture diffraction tails and allow ample data length for filter operators (allow 1000msec for data
beyond 3 seconds). Being conservative, use 3.0 seconds. Some recording systems only allow recording
increments of 1 second.
EX.8
Exercises
ANSWERS (imperial) - Exercise 1-1
Input Parameters:
fold of good 2D 27, fair to good
steepest dips 4o
shallow markers needed for isochroning 650ft
target depth 4400ft
target two-way time 900ms
basement depth 10800ft (8800ft + 2000ft)
Vint immediately above the target horizon 13500ft/s
Fdom at the target horizon 60Hz
Fmax at the target horizon 100Hz
lateral target size 330ft
area to be fully imaged 3.6mi x 6mi
layout method straight line (limited access)
1. Fold: 18 (b of previous 2D fold)

2. Bin Size: Target size: 110ft (3 traces over 330ft target)
Alias on dips: Max dip on Baldonnel is 4o
482ft (=13500/4*100*0.07)
Note: Aliasing is only a limiting factor when dips exceed 30o
Lateral Resolution: 113ft (=13500/2*60)
Note: If you are unsure of the estimate of dominant frequency, estimate
resolution at some other values and choose a bin size which may over sample
somewhat, just to be safe.
80Hz - 85ft (=13500/2*80)
Recommended bin size = 82.5ft (safe choice; 110ft OK)
3: RI=SI= 165ft (RI=SI=2b)
4. Xmin : 780ft (=1.2*650)
Or assume the 35o ray be furthest offset reflected
before critical angle reached. Largest Xmin =
Depth/tan35o = 650/0.7 = 930ft.
5. Xmax : Target depth: 4400ft
Direct wave interference: 7700ft (=47tr*50m*3.281, Fig. EX1.4)
Crit. refr. @ target hor.: 6300ft (=4400/tan 350=4400/0.7)
Recommended Xmax: 6600ft Err on high side, given deep depth to
basement.
Suggested Patch: Xr=5610ft (=0.85*6600, and divisible by 2b)
Xs=4785ft (=0.85*5610, and divisible by 2b)
Radius First Fresnel Zone: 705ft (=0.5 *(0.9*9778*13500/60)½)
Note: MESA calculates Fresnel zone diameter, not radius.
Diffraction energy: 2550ft (=0.58*4400)
Dip lateral migration: 310ft (=4400*sin40=4400*0.07)
Fold Taper: 880ft (.0.2*4400)
Recommended TMA: 1600-2640ft =0.3 to 0.5 mi.
(880+705=1585<TMA<3430=880+2550)
7. Surface Coverage Estimate: 4.2 - 4.6 x 4.2 - 4.6mi.
(0.3 to 0.5 + 3.6 + 0.3 to 0.5 = 4.2 - 4.6mi)
In an ideal design the survey size should be increased by the full migration aperture plus the fold
taper, which is >3300ft (880 + 2550ft) in this example. From a cost perspective this is probably
unreasonable, particularly if the net area to be surveyed is relatively small. Hence the compromise
at 0.3 to 0.5 mi. A precise decision on this dimension requires a fold plot for the final design
scenario and a cost analysis, but this estimate is likely to be within one line interval of being
reasonable.
8. Record Length 3 secs
Tape is cheap, so don’t cut corners on this! Basement is at 8800ft subsea, plus 2000ft elevation.
Assuming 13000mps rms velocity, you need at least 1.6 seconds to image basement, plus
perhaps 100msec for statics and another 500msec to capture diffraction tails and allow ample
data length for filter operators (allow 1000msec for data beyond 3 seconds). Being conservative,
use 2.5 seconds. Some recording systems only allow recording increments of 1 second, thereby
requiring 3 seconds for this case.
EX.9
Exercise 1-2 NS, SLI, NC, RLI, Actual Xmin and Xmax , Actual Patch
Using the “Six Step Method” presented in Chapter 4 , and the spreadsheets on the following pages,
estimate the following parameters assuming Fold = 18, bin size of 25 m (82.5 ft), Xr =1700m (5610ft) and
Xs = 1450m (4785ft).
Hint: For the moment, minimize Xmin and disregard the very limiting specification given earlier.
Source Line Interval (SLI):
No. of sources per unit area (NS):
No. of channels (NC):
Receiver Line Interval (RLI):
Xmin achieved using these parameters:
Patch Size and Xmax achieved using these parameters:
Table EX1.2a - Spreadsheet (metric) for Evaluating 3D Designs

Fold: 18 Xr: 1700m Xmax: 2234m
Bin Size: 25m Xs: 1450m

m /km2 m straight brick
200 100.0 288 4.2 896 918 491

250 80.0 360 5.3 675 720 420
300 66.7 432 6.4 542 619 404
350 57.1 504 7.4 452 572 417
400 50.0 576 8.5 388 557 445
450 44.4 648 9.5 340 564 481
500 40.0 720 10.6 302 584 522
550 36.4 792 11.6 272 614 567
600 33.3 864 12.7 248 649 613
Note: Distances are in m, and NS is in sources/km2

Table EX1.2b - Spreadsheet (imperial) for Evaluating 3D Designs
Fold: 18 Xr: 5610ft Xmax: 7373ft
Bin Size: 82.5ft Xs: 4785ft

ft /mi2 ft straight brick
660 256.0 288 4.2 2958 3031 1630

825 204.8 360 5.3 2229 2376 1386
990 170.7 432 6.4 1788 2044 1334
1155 146.3 504 7.4 1493 1887 1375
1320 128.0 576 8.5 1281 1839 1467
1485 113.8 648 9.5 1122 1861 1587
1650 102.4 720 10.6 998 1928 1724
1815 93.1 792 11.6 899 2025 1870
1980 85.3 864 12.7 818 2142 2022
Note: Distances are in ft, and NS is in sources/mi2
EX.10
Exercises
ANSWERS (metric and imperial) - Exercise 1-2
Make a spreadsheet for SLI with values from 200 to 600m (660 to 1980ft) in steps of 50m (165ft) (2*b).
We have assumed a wide azimuth survey and used the 85% rule to estimate an initial patch size of 1700
x 1450m (5610 x 4785ft) in order to maximize the efficiency of channel utilization. We know that the Xmin
specification in this case is very tight, so for this first round we will just seek to make it as small as
possible to achieve the desired fold.
Using the spreadsheet given, the fifth line (SLI=400m/1320ft) gives us our smallest Xmin , and the rest of
the answers are just read off that line as follows:
metric imperial
Source Line Interval (SLI): 400m 1320ft
No. of sources per unit area (NS): 50 128
No. of channels (NC): 576 576
Receiver Line Interval (RLI): 488m 1281ft
Xmin achieved using these parameters: 557m 1887ft
Xmax achieved using these parameters: 2234m 7373ft
Exercise 1-3 Final choice of parameters
In Exercise 1-2 we found that there are no suitable combinations of SLI and RLI that give us anywhere
close to the 240m (780ft) specification for our largest acceptable minimum offset. The only way to get
sources and receivers close enough together to make this happen is to keep source line spacing to 250m
(825ft) (or less) and decrease receiver line spacing to the same. Even this will be a compromise, because
the largest Xmin will grow to about 350m (1150ft). Because we wish to have long offsets out to 2000m
(6600ft), the number of channels will grow and hence the fold will also grow.
Let’s try the same calculation, but assuming 48 fold. Use the spreadsheets on the back side of this page.
Notice that with SLI=250m (825ft) one can use 14.1 (!?) receiver lines at a line spacing of 221m (730ft)
to achieve an Xmin of 334m (1101ft). Let’s assume that we can tolerate an Xmin up to 400m (1320ft = ¼
mile), given the high fold which we are being forced to. As a designer we can go back to the geophysicist
and see if he/she really wants to pay a large premium to be able to map that Shallow Marker at 200m.
With Xmin at 400m (1320ft) we will certainly have holes in the fold plot for the Shallow Marker.
Alternatively, we could go to higher fold yet to meet the Xmin specification strictly.
So, choose a patch size to give you an even fold distribution near 48 and meet the other
specifications, except that we will now use the relaxed specification of Xmin < 400m (1320ft). When
choosing your patch, remember to keep an even number of receiver lines (why?) and choose the number
of receivers per line to be divisible by 6 (why?). List all your final parameters on the page after next.
EX.11
Table EX1-3a: Spreadsheet (metric) for Evaluating 3D Designs


200 100.0 768 11.3 282 345 245
250 80.0 960 14.1 221 334 273
300 66.7 1152 16.9 182 351 313
350 57.1 1344 19.8 155 383 358
400 50.0 1536 22.6 134 422 406
450 44.4 1728 25.4 119 465 454
500 40.0 1920 28.2 106 511 503
550 36.4 2112 31.1 96 558 552
600 33.3 2304 33.9 88 606 602
650 30.8 2496 36.7 81 655 651
700 28.6 2688 39.5 75 704 701
Table EX1-3b: Spreadsheet (imperial) for Evaluating 3D Designs


660 256.0 768 11.3 930 1140 807
825 204.8 960 14.1 730 1101 902
990 170.7 1152 16.9 600 1158 1035
1155 146.3 1344 19.8 510 1263 1183
1320 128.0 1536 22.6 443 1392 1338
1485 113.8 1728 25.4 392 1536 1498
1650 102.4 1920 28.2 351 1687 1659
1815 93.1 2112 31.1 318 1843 1822
1980 85.3 2304 33.9 291 2001 1985
2145 78.8 2496 36.7 268 2162 2149
2310 73.1 2688 39.5 248 2323 2313
EX.12
Exercises
Exercise 1-3, continued
Source Line Interval (SLI):

# Source Lines (NSL):
Receiver Line Length (RLL):
# Sources (NS):
# Channels (NC):
Receiver Line Interval (RLI):
# Receiver Lines (NRL):
Largest Minimum Offset (Xmin) achieved:
In-Line Offset (Xr): X-Line Offset (Xs): Aspect Ratio (A):
Final Total Patch Size:
Xmax achieved:
In-Line Fold: X-Line Fold: Total Fold:
Given, the above patch geometry, what Total Migration Aperture do you recommend?
What is the final surface area covered?
Where are the biggest differences between your desired specifications and your initial design
parameters?
Why?
What changes would you recommend be reconsidered with regard to the original specifications
in order to achieve a final design which is reasonably in line with the revised specifications.
ANSWERS (metric and imperial) - Exercise 1-3

metric imperial
SLI: 300m 990ft
(See spreadsheets below for these parameters.)
# Source Lines: 13 13
RLL: 3600m (72 ch./line) 11880ft
Note: In practice the receiver lines will be one RI shorter (72 channels occupy 71 RIs on the ground). This
slight difference arises from the approximations we made when deriving the in-fold equation.
NS: 66.7 170.7
NC: 1152 1152
RLI: 200m 660ft
NRL: 16 16
Xmin achieved: 361m 1158ft
In-Line Offset (Xr): 1800m 5940ft
X-Line Offset (Xs): 1500m 4950ft
Aspect Ratio (A): 0.83 0.83
Final Total Patch Size: 3.6 x 3.0 km 2.25 x 1.875 mi
Xmax achieved: 2343m 7732ft
In-Line Fold: 6 6
X-Line Fold: 8 8
Total Fold: 48 48
Total Migration Aperture: 600m 1980ft = 0.375 mi
Note: This is equivalent to 2 SLI or 3 RLI
What is the final surface area covered? 7.2 x 7.2km 4.35 x 4.35mi
EX.13
Where are the biggest differences between your desired specifications and your initial design
parameters? Why?
Fold and Xmin - because of the requirement to image the Shallow Marker at 200m (650ft). Even with this
design, we are not really succeeding in accomplishing this.
What changes would you recommend be reconsidered with regard to the original specifications
in order to achieve a final design which isreasonably in line with the revised specifications.
Relax the Shallow Marker Specification. What is the next deepest level which the geophysicist could use
as a second choice?
Note that an I/O System Two needs an extra LIM module after 1016 channels. We may wish to save
some money here and cut back our answer of 1176 to something less than 1016 - for example, 14 lines
of 72 channels = 1008 channels. This patch is still a respectable 2600m (8580ft) wide for an aspect ratio
of 0.72.
One way to cut down on the fold and satisfy the near and far offset constraint is to make the patch have
a very low aspect ratio. Thus 4 lines of 72 stations (patch size = 600 x 3600m or 1980 x 11880ft for
A=0.17) with the same spacing will give a fold of 16. However, will such a narrow patch give the desired
azimuth distribution?
EX.14
Exercises
Table EX1-3c: Spreadsheet (metric) for Evaluating 3D Designs


200 100.0 768 10.7 310 369 253
250 80.0 960 13.3 243 349 278
300 66.7 1152 16.0 200 361 316
350 57.1 1344 18.7 170 389 360
400 50.0 1536 21.3 148 426 407
450 44.4 1728 24.0 130 469 455
500 40.0 1920 26.7 117 513 503
550 36.4 2112 29.3 106 560 553
600 33.3 2304 32.0 97 608 602
650 30.8 2496 34.7 89 656 652
700 28.6 2688 37.3 83 705 701
Table EX1-3d: Spreadsheet (imperial) for Evaluating 3D Designs


660 256.0 768 10.7 1024 1218 835
825 204.8 960 13.3 803 1151 917
990 170.7 1152 16.0 660 1190 1044
1155 146.3 1344 18.7 560 1284 1188
1320 128.0 1536 21.3 487 1407 1342
1485 113.8 1728 24.0 430 1546 1501
1650 102.4 1920 26.7 386 1694 1661
1815 93.1 2112 29.3 349 1848 1823
1980 85.3 2304 32.0 319 2006 1986
2145 78.8 2496 34.7 294 2165 2150
2310 73.1 2688 37.3 272 2326 2314
EX.15
EXERCISE 2 MODELING 3D PARAMETERS - STRUCTURE CASE
Use the FOOTHILLS model.
Investigate the bin size required to migrate 80Hz on the steepest dip in the model. The dips are quite
severe, so not surprisingly, the bin size will be quite small.
Targets are structural traps - typically hundreds of meters wide, but these days they are getting smaller!!
We can record average frequencies (dominant) of 50Hz at the target Mississippian zone.
Use ray tracing to see what sort of offsets will catch rays from the shallowest and the deepest reflectors.
Remember that shallow refractors should also be recorded by enough source/receiver pairs.
Previous 2D data in this area had noise problems and was shot 60 fold with 240 channels. Signal to noise
was barely adequate. What fold would you recommend?
2. (I) Determine all these parameters:
Fold:
Largest acceptable minimum offset: (The first LVL layer is only present out to 1200m offset
- consider statics requirements)
Maximum offset:
Bin Size:
Survey Size:
Recording Time:
2. (ii) Now calculate:
No. of sources per km2
Source Line interval
No. of channels
Receiver Line interval
EX.16
Exercises
ANSWERS - Exercise 2 FOOTHILLS
Fold: 24
Largest acceptable min. offset 1,000m (Refraction limit)
Maximum offset Reflection < 10,000

Direct Wave < 4,000
NMO > 1,300
Suggested Max. offset is therefore 4000
Bin Size Target size 50m

Alias on dips 25m
Resolution 80Hz - 25m
50Hz - 40m
Suggested bin size is therefore 30
Survey Size Model Size plus 1.5km each side.

i.e., 9 * 9km
Recording time 3 secs
EX.17
Do a spreadsheet for SLI with values from 360 to 840 in steps of 60

The patch size is 8000 * 8000 (max. offset=4000) and we are looking for solutions with SLI and RLI near
1000 - the largest acceptable minimum offset.
24 Fold
SLI NS NC NRL RLI
360 46 576 4 1852
420 40 672 5 1587
480 35 768 6 1389
540 31 864 6 1235
600 28 960 7 1111
660 25 1056 8 1010
720 23 1152 9 926
780 21 1248 9 855
840 20 1344 10 794
As you can see there are several suitable combinations of SLI and RLI that give us acceptable answers
for the largest minimum offset.
Notice that SLI and RLI values around 800m need NC around 1300. This is good spacing but may be a
little expensive on equipment. On the other hand we know that sources will be expensive, so we must
keep SLI as large as possible.
The survey is 81km2 so a decrease in SLI of 800m to 600m means an additional 500 sources (source
density goes from 20 to 27 per km2 times 81km2). This could easily cost another $500,000 in this area,
so the expense of the extra channels will easily be justifie. (an extra $3000 per day for approximately 10
days).
The only potential problem with large source line and receiver line spacing could be statics. With so many
sources between receiver lines and so many receivers between source lines there is a danger that the
same refractor will not be measured (sampled) by many common surface points (sources or geophones).
This may lead to certain pieces of the statics solution essentially “floating” between points where the
control(sampling) is good. It’s possible that these “floating” segments may have enough variation from
the true statics solution to introduce artifacts in the final stack. In this case we are making the assumption
that previous 2D and perhaps 3D data exhibited good statics control with this sort of line spacing.
As a trial therefore let’s look at 10 lines of 126 stations per line and set SLI and RLI = 840. This is a patch
size of 7560 by 7500 - pretty close to our desired 8000 by 8000.
The total channels are 1260 which leads to a fold = 22.5
We chose 126 because it is divisible by 14 - the number of stations between source lines. This will avoid
stripes in the fold. It is also divisible by 6 which fits with the I/O System Two requirements of 6 stations
per box.
EX.18
Exercises
EXERCISE 3 WEST TEXAS 3D
Target 1.0 sec

Shallow Marker 0.4 sec
Target Size (Horizontal) 500ft
Depth to Target 6000ft
RMS Velocity to Target 12600ft/sec
Direct Wave Velocity 5000ft/sec
Refractor Velocity 8000ft/sec
First Refractor breaks over to
Second Refractor at offset 4000ft
Noise Velocity 2200ft/sec
Noise Frequency 10Hz
Highest Desired Frequency 80Hz
Steepest dip 14 degrees
Dominant Frequency 40Hz
RMS Velocity of Multiple 11000ft/sec
Lease acreage 21120 (NS) by 18480 (EW)
Desired fold 18
3. (I) Calculate using theory for Exercise 3:
Bin size
Survey Size
Patch size
Line spacing
3. (ii) Calculate:
No. of miles of source and receiver lines.
Time to shoot survey, knowing the number of live sources and assuming 130 sources per day (13
hours).
Finally, using a 3D design program check that the fold, azimuths and offsets are acceptable (i.e.,,
no “holes”).
3 (iii) Calculate the cost of this survey.
Assume:
Permit: $5000 / mi2
Survey $200 per linear mile of sources and receivers.
Crew Cost $600 per hour. Normally a crew will operate a 13-hour day. Allow 2 days
for mobilization/demob, 5% for bad weather days and 8 hours for initial
layout and 8 hours for final equipment pick up.
Equipment $5 per channel per day.
EX.19
ANSWERS - Exercise 3
3. (I) Bin Size
Spatial Aliasing (Dips) = 12600/ (4*80*sin 14) = 163ft

(Noise) = 2200/2*10 = 110ft
Target Size approx. 500ft suggests bin size = 166ft
Frequency considerations are 80Hz on our target at 12,600ft/sec meaning the bin size should not
be larger than 12600/80 = 157ft for one wavelength of the maximum frequency ( or 0.5*12600/40
for a half wavelength of the dominant frequency). A smaller bin size will not really see much more
resolution so in this case we’ll settle on 165ft for the bin size. Note we should use a local target
interval velocity if this is available. Normally this will increase the required bin size.
So the Group Interval = 330ft

Survey Size
Acreage to cover = 21120 NS * 18480 EW
Margin is 1650 * 2186 ( 1/4 patch size ) or 1496 ( Migration Aperture)

The “1496” comes from Z*Tan" for 14o. The 30o diffraction gives us 2500ft.
Compromise at ½ miles (2640ft) because we reach 14 fold in the first 1320ft and the half Fresnel
zone is only 900ft.
So Total Survey size is 26400 NS * 23760 EW (i.e., 5 miles by 4.5 miles)

Patch Size
Time of Direct Wave at offset=4281 is = 4281/5000 + 0.2 = 1.056
Reflection at 1.0 secs has a move out time at offset=4281 of

(1.0*1.0 + 4281*4281/12600*12600) ½ = 1.056
Hence Max. offset for direct wave interference = 4280ft
Max. offset for the refracted wave to interfere with the primary at 1.0 secs. is (by a similar
argument) = 7813ft.
NMO - need 1.5 periods at 1.0 secs. - this leads to a minimum requirement for the far offset. i.e.,
we require offsets to at least 3483ft.
Multiples - we need at least 3 periods at 1.0 secs. - leads to a requirement for offsets greater than
4339ft.
In summary, we need offsets to approximately 4500ft - which means a patch size of 9000 by
9000.
EX.20
Exercises
Line Spacing
The largest acceptable minimum offset is 3200ft for shallow horizon imaging and perhaps closer
to 1350ft for statics considerations (LVL arrivals).
(1350 = 4000/3, i.e., 3 traces to define the x-line statics)
Using the 6 step method we have the following spreadsheet:
SLI | NS = | NC= | NRL= | RLI=9,000/NRL

| 84,480/SLI | 18434/NS | NC/30 |
| | | |
500 | 169 | 109 | 4 | 2,475
600 | 141 | 131 | 4 | 2,062
700 | 121 | 153 | 5 | 1,768
800 | 106 | 175 | 6 | 1,547
900 | 94 | 196 | 7 | 1,375
1,000 | 84 | 218 | 7 | 1,23
1,100 | 77 | 240 | 8 | 1,125
1,200 | 70 | 262 | 9 | 1,031
1,300 | 65 | 284 | 9 | 952
1,400 | 60 | 305 | 10 | 884
1,500 | 56 | 327 | 11 | 825
1,600 | 53 | 349 | 12 | 773
1,700 | 50 | 371 | 12 | 728
1,800 | 47 | 393 | 13 | 687
1,900 | 44 | 415 | 14 | 651
2,000 | 42 | 436 | 15 | 619
From the spreadsheet let’s choose NC=240 (8 lines of 30) with spacing:
RLI = 1320, SLI = 1320
We should use 32 stations per line to avoid fold “stripes.” These parameters will give a nominal 15 fold.
We can use smaller receiver line spacing (e.g., 660ft) with 50% more channels - e.g., 12 lines of 32. This
gives a nominal 24 fold.
3. (ii)
Survey Size = 26,400 * 23,760 = 22.5 mi2
Source Spacing = 330, SLI = 1320
So 80 sources per line and 18 lines = 81 source line miles
Receiver spacing = 330 , RLI = 1320
So 72 receivers per line and 20 lines = 90 receiver line miles.
Total Sources: 1440 Assume 130 sources/day (10 sources/hour)

Number of days: 11
Plus mob/demob 2
Plus layout 2
Plus bad weather 2
Total Days 17
3. (iii)
Permit Cost $ 112,500.00

Survey Source $ 16,200.00
Survey Receiver $ 18,000.00
Crew Cost $ 132,600.00
Equipment Cost $ 20,400.00
$ 299,700.00 or $13,320 / mi2
EX.21
EXERCISE 4 Carbonate Porosity (Nig Creek) - STRAIGHT LINE 3D LAYOUT
In this exercise you will create a 3D survey using straight source and receiver lines. You will examine the
CMP fold, and the mix of azimuths and offsets in a typical “box” of the sur vey.
Start by entering the parameters you calculated in Exercise 1 somewhat like the following:
Straight Line
Fold: 49 (wide azimuth ) or 14 (narrow azimuth)
Survey Size: 6,000 * 6,000
(Should use 9 * 9 but this will run faster!)
Bin Size: 25m
WideAzimuth
RLI = SLI = 300

Patch = 14 * 84
Narrow Azimuth
RLI = SLI = 300

Patch = 4 * 84
Note that we define the survey using the number of source and receiver lines - and not the actual size.
All dimensions are meters.
Compare the offset and azimuth distribution in one “box” between the Wide an d Narrow Azimuth
surveys.
Observe that the offset distribution for the narrow azimuth design is somewhat linear and therefore quite
well suited to solving velocity and DMO problems along a direction parallel to the patch alignment.
The azimuth distribution is quite restricted for the narrow azimuth design - observe the range of azimuths
not covered by this survey. Is the target in this case a suitable case for wide or narrow azimuth shooting?
For the wide azimuth case, how many offsets are there in each azimuth range. In other words if we did
an azimuth dependent velocity analysis, and chose say 6 ranges of azimuth (0-60, 60-120, 120-180 etc.)
how many traces are there in each range and hence what sort of fold do we get for our velocity analysis.
Is this adequate?
EX.22
Exercises
EXERCISE 5 Exclusion Zones and Moving Sources to Compensate
Repeat Exercise 4 (Set up a Straight Line survey) and insert an Exclusion Zone for Sources and
Receivers of size 600m NS and 600m EW exactly in the center of the survey (an artificial lake!).
Move Sources and Receiver patterns which fall inside this zone to achieve the best (closest to the original
survey without the excluded area) fold, offset and azimuth mix.
Recall that if the source moves in one direction (say EAST), the corresponding receiver patch must move
in the opposite direction to leave the midpoints in the same position. So in this case, the receivers will
move WEST. Of course, the fold will stay the same with this idea, but offsets and azimuths suffer!
When sources cannot be fired in their correct location you should try the following:
Leave the patch where it was and move the source to the nearest available “grid” po sition. I.e., the
nearest source or receiver line “station.” This may mean a point between actual source o r receiver lines.
The point here is to make sure that the midpoints generated by this source will fall in the CMP bin centers.
If the “near est available grid position” is more than a line interval (SLI or RLI) away, then you should
consider moving the receiver patch as well as moving the source. The important thing to watch for is that
the near offsets are preserved as well as possible.
EX.23
EXERCISE 6 SISOIL DEMO 3D Prospect
SISOIL wants to shoot a 3D on a prospect area they have just leased. There are two old 2D lines crossing
this area - one in a more or less N-S direction and the other in approximately the E-W direction. Based
on these lines we have constructed model DEMO. This file has both N-S and E-W models.
Geology
In the N-S direction, the deeper sediments dip very gently toward the South. Shallow sediments are
mostly flat. In the E-W direction there is dipping toward the East. Numerous faults appear to run N-S and
our target horizon (SAND at around 2000m) bears hydrocarbons in some of the traps formed by these
faults. It’s possible there are some features that run E-W but our 2D lines have insufficient information.
The resolution should be able to detect features (channels) greater than 50m across. It won’t be necessary
to image the fault planes (some with dips near 90o), but diffractions from the edges of these faults should
of course be correctly collapsed by migration to distinguish the edges of each fault block.
Seismic Information
Survey (Lease) Area 4km (EW) by 8km (NS)

Dominant Frequency (Target) 45Hz
Maximum Frequency (Target) 70Hz
Resolution required 50m
Available equipment I/O Two with enough equipment for 1500 active
channels and perhaps 2000 on the ground.
Statics solution 2D data exhibited a severe statics problem.
Fold 2D was shot 60 fold and appeared to have good S/N in
most parts.
Cost Parameters
Permit $2000 per km2

Survey $200 per km for source and receiver lines.
Source Holes $500 per hole. (Major Cost for this survey!)
Crew + Equipment $1200 per hour for 1000 channel system.
Plus $0.80 per hour for additional channels.
(E.g., 1500 channels means an additional 500 channels
which will cost an extra $400 per hour)
Clearing cost Minimal (Open country)
Contingency Allow 10%.
Time to shoot survey Assume an average of 200 sources/day.
EX.24
Exercises
Suggested Parameters
Based on preliminary study, the geophysicist at SISOIL has come up with some parameters:
Fold Achieve 18 Fold or greater at the target horizon. Earlier arrivals

should have reasonable fold according to this table:
Depth Minimum Fold Required

100 1
800 12
1300 15
1800 18
2300 20
(HINT: Create a table of depth vs. offset by studying a synthetic

source with the Direct Wave - see where it intersects the events
of interest.)
Maximum Dips expected 14o

Bin Size Maximum 30m E-W and 60m N-S
RLI 300m
SLI 300m
Aperture 2000m To capture 45o diffractions at full fold - so design two

zones around the survey. The first zone must be full
fold and include the necessary area to capture all
information which will migrate into the Lease Area. The
second zone will provide some sort of “roll-in” to bring
us up to full fold - or rather adequate fold for imaging
purposes.
As the consultant for SISOIL, it’s your job to come up with 2 designs, one which would be considered
optimum in terms of cost and geophysical benefits and one which could be considered the geophysical
minimum (the cheapest possible way to satisfy the stated requirements).
EX.25
Based on the DEMO model we will determine suitable ranges for the following parameters:
Bin Size
Xmin (largest minimum offset to be tolerated in any CMP bin)
Xmax (largest offset)
Migration Aperture
From those parameters we will design two possible scenarios with different line spacings and number of
channels.
Bin Size: Three criteria were considered:
Target Size: It is useful to have more than one stack trace defining a desired
feature. Based on the desire to see sand bodies as small as
50m in width, this suggests a minimum of 25m bin size - to give
4 traces on a time slice.
Dip Aliasing: The maximum dip to image was 14o. Even for frequencies as
high as 80Hz, this equates to a bin size of over 40m.
Lateral Resolution:
The lateral resolution after migration (the ability to separate two
closely spaced migrated diffractions) is equal to the spatial
equivalent of the maximum frequency - at the target.
In this case, 70Hz at the top of the SAND is equivalent to

approximately 20m (50Hz - 27m)
Thus a smaller bin size than 20m would not increase resolution
even for the very highest frequencies.
Based on the above, a bin size of 25m will prove adequate to meet the requirements.
Rectangular bins can succeed if the targets (sand bodies) are lined up along the larger dimension of the
bin. Thus if the target is a channel sand which meanders, a rectangular bin may lose it where its width
is aligned with the long dimension of a CMP. There have been field examples (Shell Oil has some
papers) where the actual was different enough from the anticipated data that geological features would
have been missed had rectangular binning been used!
Xmin: To image the shallow horizons, offsets of less than 300m will be required.
A study of 2D sources also indicates a possibly severe statics problem. It will be

important to have enough near traces to see shallow refractions in both in-line
and cross-line directions.
For these reasons, source and receiver line spacing should be less than 300m.
EX.26
Exercises
Xmax: The maximum offset is based on several criteria.
X=Z The old tried and true method where offset equals depth of
target. In this case 2,000m will do.
Ray Trace Both models were ray traced to the bottom of the SAND.
Offsets up to 6,000m still give valid reflections.
NMO Discrimination
To get 1½ wavelengths of 10Hz (delta-t differences from near
to far trace) an offset of at least 1,750m is required. This will
ensure good velocity analysis. We use 10Hz as the lowest
possible frequency because good definition/resolution in a
velocity analysis need low and high frequencies: and 10Hz is
the usual minimum useful frequency in seismic data.
Direct Wave Interference
The direct wave (source to receiver through the LVL at a
velocity of 1,800m/s) interferes with the top of the SAND
reflection at an offset of 2,700m.
If multiples are present, these will only “stack out” if enough offsets are present
(usually equal to or greater than the NMO requirements - but dependent on
velocities).
Thus the Xmax must be between 1,750m and 2,700m Given that muting usually takes more data, we
recommend the lower end of this scale -, i.e., 2,000m.
Migration Aperture
Any dipping structure of 14o at the edge of the survey will be present on the unmigrated data at a position
of 500m outside the survey.
( Z * tan (dip angle))
Any diffraction point on the deepest event will have “tails” to a position of 1000m from the apex
(corresponding to a raypath of 30o upwards). We use 30o because something like 95% of the energy of
a diffraction is contained within the first 30o.
Thus, to achieve a fully migrated image it will be necessary to have full fold midpoints present in a
migration aperture zone of 1000m around the survey.
The Fresnel zone diameter for 45Hz at that depth is approximately 500m suggesting an aperture possibly
as low as 250m. But this would give unacceptable migrated images (less than 70% of the migration
operator’s energy lies within the first Fresnel zone).
The zone of “full fold” midpoints can consist of longer offsets. In the survey design to follow you will see
that because of spacing requirements, the fold at the target depth actually goes well beyond the value
required.
For this reason, in the taper zone we suggest laying wider spaced source lines (to save on some very
expensive sources!). This will generate fewer midpoints with longer offsets but still enough fold to be
useful.
EX.27
To summarize we suggest:
Bin Size: 25m (Lateral resolution after migration)

If less resolution is required in the N-S direction it may be OK
to go 50m in this direction (i.e.. rectangular bins of 25 * 50)
Xmin: 300m This represents the limit for any near offset.
A straight line survey with source line spacing of 200m and

receiver line spacing of 200m will generate midpoints where the
bin exactly half way between lines will have an offset of 280m.
A brick survey with source and receiver line spacing of 300m

will guarantee that all bins will have offsets equal to or less than
300m.
We recommend a brick survey with source line spacing of

300m and receiver line spacing of 200m or thereabouts - to
help in the statics solution.
Xmax: 2,000m
Migration Aperture: 1000m
Hence:
Survey Size: 6km (E-W) by 10km (N-S).
From synthetics we can compute this table of formation depth vs. recording offset (Direct Wave
Interference). Use this table when examining fold vs. depth.
Formation Depth Offset Before Desired Fold

Interference
Volcanics 100 200 1
Shales 1 800 1,700 12
Shales 2 1,250 2,400 15
SAND 1,800 3,200 18
Basement 2,200 3,500 20
As you can see, most of the offsets are equal to or beyond our suggested maximum of 2,000m which
means that we will achieve full fold vs. depth very quickly.
EX.28
Exercises
Source Spacing
To create midpoints every 25m, the sources must be spaced in-line every 50m. For
rectangular bins (50 * 25) we can space sources in-line every 100m.
To satisfy the near trace requirement (shallow imaging and statics control) the source
lines must be close together (i.e., 300m or less). Unfortunately there is no other way to
make sure that every CMP has a small near trace, than crowding the whole area with
sources, thus getting sources close to receivers.
The statics problem can be solved by means of a separate refraction crew, which might
use a cheap (say 240 channel) engineering seismograph with some cheap surface
source (air gun). In our design, the source spacing is somewhat dictated by the need to
get good statics. By relaxing the statics requirement, source spacing could likely be
extended to 400m or more, thus reducing the number of sources by anywhere from 70%
to maybe 50%. Since these sources will cost around $2,000,000, putting out a small
refraction crew could be an attractive alternative. Don’t forget that such a crew will have
to run refraction surveys along every source line and every receiver line.
Patch Size We suggest a patch of 1440 channels

(12 lines of 120 stations per line or 2400m by 6000m.
This is a compromise between wide and narrow azimuth. 12 lines are 2,400m which
gives 1,200m. in the cross-line direction. This should be adequate for x-line refraction
statics from the first 300m of sediment - i.e., there should be from 3 - 6 measurements
of the deepest layer. With so few lines, we can turn on all receivers in the in-line
direction - i.e., the entire width of the survey will be live. Thus, line rolls will be one line
at a time.
Shooting such a large patch will possibly create longer offsets than we need (i.e., 3000m
in the E-W direction). But there is little point in not shooting into all of the stations. After
all, as we roll from source to source, the stations will be laid out on the ground anyway!
If approximately 2,000 channels are available, you can have 4 lines spare (i.e.. laid out
but not active) to help in the roll-along.
The azimuths will also be oriented across the structure which will aid in detailed velocity
analysis and dip determination (also fault delineation since most traces will point
perpendicular to the faults).
EX.29
We propose two brick surveys.
Brick 1 (Optimum) Sources every 50m in-line, 300m x-line

Receivers every 50m in-line, 200m cross-line
Bins 25 * 25m
Fold = (1000/300) * (1000/50) * 1440 * 25 * 25 = 60
Observation: Meets all geophysical requirements.
Brick 2 (Minimum) Sources 100m * 300m

Receivers 50m * 200m
Fold = (1000/300) * (1000/100) * 1440 * 25 * 50 = 60
Observation: Rectangular bins meet Xmin, Xmax but may miss SAND
bodies of less than 100m in N-S direction.
Cost Based on the above 2 scenarios, we calculate the cost below:
Brick 1: Survey area = 60km2

No. of source lines = 6000/300 = 21
No. of receiver lines = 10000/200 = 50
No. of km of receiver lines = 300km
No. of km of source lines = 210km
No. of sources = 4200
No. of days at 200 sources/day = 21 days
Hourly cost of crew (2000 channels) =$ 2,000
Daily Cost at 12 hours/day =$ 24,000
Permit Cost =$ 120,000
Survey Cost =$ 102,000
Source Hole Cost =$ 2,100,000
Crew Cost =$ 504,000
Total =$ 2,826,000
Contingency =$ 282,600
Cost of Brick 1 = $ 3,108,600 or $51,810 / km2
Brick 2: Survey area = 60km2

No. of source lines = 6000/300 = 21
No. of receiver lines = 10000/200 = 50
No. of km of receiver lines = 300km
No. of km of source lines = 210km
No. of sources = 2100
No. of days at 200 sources/day = 11 days
Hourly cost of crew (2000 channels) =$ 2,000
Daily Cost at 12 hours/day =$ 24,000
Permit Cost =$ 120,000
Survey Cost =$ 102,000
Source Hole Cost =$ 1,050,000
Crew Cost =$ 264,000
Total =$ 1,536,000
Contingency =$ 153,600
Cost of Brick 2 = $ 1,689,600 or $ 28,160 / km2
By dropping 2 source lines at the edge of the survey, (change the line spacing near the edge), we can still
build the fold required in the migration aperture zone (with longer offsets) but with a cost savings of 20%
(4 lines out of 21).
EX.30
REFERENCES
&
OTHER READING
References and Other Reading
Ak, M.A., Eiken, O. and Fatti, J.L., 1987, Discussion of the stack-array concept continues: The Leading Edge, 6, No. 7,
28-32. (See also Anstey, N., 1987, Reply: The Leading Edge, 6, No. 7, 32 and 48.)
Anderson, N.L., Hills, L.V. and Cederwall, D.A., editors, 1989, Geophysical atlas of western Canadian hydrocarbon
pools: Can. Soc. Expl. Geophys. and Can. Soc. Petr. Geol.
Anstey, N., 1986a, Whatever happened to ground roll?: The Leading Edge, 5, No.3, 40-45. (with letters in Signals
section: The Leading Edge, 5, No. 6 and No. 10.)
Anstey, N., 1986b, Field techniques for high resolution: The Leading Edge, 5, No.4, 26-34.
Anstey, N., 1986c, A reply by Nigel Anstey: The Leading Edge, 5, No.12, 19-21.
Anstey, N., 1987, Reply: The Leading Edge, 6, No. 7, 32 and 48. (See also Ak, M.A., Eiken, O. and Fatti, J.L., 1987,
Discussion of the stack-array concept continues: The Leading Edge, 6, No. 7, 28-32.)
Anstey, N., 1989, Stack-array discussion continues: The Leading Edge, 8, No.3, 24-31.
Aylor, W.K., 1995, Business performance and value of exploitation 3-D seismic: The Leading Edge, 14, No.7, 797-801.
Barr, F.J. and Sanders, J.I., 1989, Attenuation of water-column reverberations using pressure and velocity detectors
in a water-bottom cable: Presented at the Ann. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys.
Beasley, C.F., 1993, Quality assurance of spatial sampling for DMO: 63rd Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys.,
Expanded Abstracts, 544-547.
Bee, M.F., Bearden, J.M., Herkenhoff, E.F., Supiyanto, H. and Koestoer, B., 1994, Efficient 3D seismic surveys in a
jungle environment: First Break, 12, No. 5, 253-259.
Bouska J., 1995, Cut to the quick: investigating the effects of reduced surface sampling in 3D data acquisition:
Presented at the Ann. Mtg., Can. Soc. Expl. Geophys. (See also Expanded Abstracts, 181-182.)
Bremner, D.L., Crews, G.A. and Musser, J.A., 1990, Method for conducting three-dimensional subsurface seismic
surveys: United States Patent 4 930 110.
Brown, A.R., 1991, Interpretation of three-dimensional seismic data, third edition: AAPG Memoir 42 (second printing,
1993): Am. Assn. Petr. Geol.
Cheadle, S., 1995, Introduction to the 1995 CSEG 3D wavefield sampling workshop: Ann. Mtg., Can. Soc. Expl.
Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 167-168.
Connelly D.L., and Galbraith J.M., 1995, 3-D design with DMO modelling: Ann. Mtg., Can. Soc. Expl. Geophys.,
Cooper N.M., 1995, 3-D design - a systematic approach: Presented at the Ann. Mtg., Can. Soc. Expl. Geophys. (See
also Expanded Abstracts, 171-172.)
Cordsen, A., 1993a, Flexi-bin™ 3D seismic acquisition method: Presented at the Ann. Mtg., Can. Soc. Expl. Geophys.
Cordsen, A., 1993b, Flexi-bin™ 3D seismic acquisition in Southern Alberta: Presented at the Ann. Mtg., Can. Soc. Expl.
Geophys.
Cordsen, A., 1995a, Arrangement of source and receiver lines for three-dimensional seismic data acquisition, United
States Patent 5 402 391.
Cordsen, A., 1995b, How to find the optimum 3D fold: Presented at the Ann. Mtg., Can. Soc. Expl. Geophys. (See also
Expanded Abstracts, 96-97.)
Crouzy, E. and Pion, J., 1993, Total petroleum land 3D seismic survey simulation: Presented at the Soc. Expl.
Geophys. Summer Workshop.
Crow, B., 1994, Integrating acquisition of digital orthomaps (DOMS) into the E & P planning cycle: Presented at the
MESA Technology Conference.
R.ii
References & Other Reading
Deregowski, S.M., 1982, Dip moveout and reflection point dispersal: Geophys. Prosp., 30, No. 3, 318-322.
Duncan, P.M., Nester, D.C., Martin, J. A. and Moles, J.R., 1995, 3-D seismic over the Fausse Pointe field: a case
history of acquisition in a harsh environment: Presented at the Ann. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys.
Durham, L.S., 1995a, Seismic spending can lower costs: AAPG Explorer, 16, No. 6, 12 and 14.
Durham, L.S., 1995b, By the numbers, 3-D reduces risk: AAPG Explorer, 16, No. 6, 13.
Freeland, J.M. and Hogg, J.E., 1990, What does migration do to seismic resolution?: Can. Soc. Expl. Geophys.,
Recorder, Sept. 1990.
Galbraith, J.M., 1995, Seismic processing issues in the design of 3D surveys: Presented at the Ann. Mtg., Can. Soc.
Expl. Geophys. (See also Expanded Abstracts, 175-176.)
Goodway, W.N. and Ragan B., 1995, “Focused 3D”: consequences of mid-point scatter and spatial sampling in
acquisition design, processing and interpretation: Presented at the Ann. Mtg., Can. Soc. Expl. Geophys. (See
also Expanded Abstracts, 177-178.)
Gordon, I.S. and Voskuyl, J.B., 1995, 3-D planning: practical design, execution, and economics: Presented at the Ann.
Mtg., Can. Soc. Expl. Geophys. (See also Expanded Abstracts, 173-174.)
Gray, S.H. and Etgen J.,1995, 3D prestack migration of overthrust model data: Presented at the Ann. Mtg., Can. Soc.
Expl. Geophys. (See also Expanded Abstracts, 179-180.)
Hale, D., 1984, Dip-moveout by Fourier transform: Geophysics, 49, No. 6, 741-757.
Harris, C. and Longaker, H.L., 1994, Real time GPS surveying: recommendations for ensuring a quality survey: Trimble
Navigation, internal seminar notes.
Hauser, E.C., 1991, Full waveform recording: an overview of the acquisition, processing, interpretation and practical
applications of 3-component seismic for oil and gas exploration: Talisman Energy Inc., Internal Report.
Jakubowicz, H., 1990, A simple efficient method of dip-moveout correction: Geophys. Prosp., 38, No. 3, 221-246.
Koen, A.D., 1995, Independents step up use of onshore 3D seismic surveys: Oil & Gas J., Jan. 2, 1995, 16-20.
Krey, Th.C., 1987, Attenuation of random noise by 2-D and 3-D CDP stacking and Kirchhoff migration: Geophys.
Prosp., 35, 135-147.
Lansley, R.M., 1994, The question of azimuths: Presented at the Soc. Expl. Geophys. Workshop.
Larner, K., Beasley, C.J. and Lynn, W., 1989, In quest of the flank: Geophysics, 54, No. 6, 701-717.
Lawton, D.C., 1993, Optimum bin size for converted-wave 3-D asymptotic mapping: CREWES Research Report, 5,
No. 28, 1-14.
Lawton, D.C., 1995, Converted-wave 3-D surveys: design strategies and pitfalls: Ann. Mtg., Can. Soc. Expl. Geoph.,
Lindsey, J. P., 1989, The Fresnel zone and its interpretive significance: The Leading Edge, 8, No. 10, 33-39.
Luzietti, E.A., Moore, D.E., Smith, G.E., Moldoveanu, N. Spradley, M., Brooks, T. and Chang, M., 1995, Innovation and
flexibility: keys to a successful 3-D survey in the transition zone of West Bay Field, Louisiana: The Leading
Edge, 14, No.7, 763-772.
Meinardus, H. and Schleicher, K., 1991, 3-D time-variant dip-moveout by the FK method: Presented at the 61st Ann.
Internat. Mtg, Soc. Expl. Geophys.
Meunier, J.J., Musser, J.A., Corre, P.M. and Johnson, P.C., 1995, Two bottom cable 3-D seismic surveys in Indonesia:
Presented at the Ann. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys.
Neff, W.H. and Rigdon, H.K., 1994, Incorporating structure into 3D seismic survey preplanning a mid-continent
example: Presented at the MESA Technology Conference.
O’Connell, J.K., Kohli, M. and Amos, S., 1993, Bullwinkle: a unique 3-D experiment: Geophysics, 58, No. 1, 167-176.
R.iii
Ongkiehong, L., 1988, A changing philosophy in seismic data acquisition: First Break, 6, No. 9, 281-284.
Ongkiehong, L. and Askin, H.J., 1988, Towards the universal acquisition technique: First Break, 6, No. 2, 46-63.
Pritchett, W.C., 1994, Why waste money with linear sweeps?: The Leading Edge, 13, No. 9, 943-948. (With letters in
Signals section: The Leading Edge: 14, No. 1, 66-67.)
Regone, C.J., 1994, Measuring the effect of 3-D coherent noise on seismic data quality: Presented at the 64th Ann.
Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys.
Reilly, R.M., 1995, Comparison of circular “strike” and linear “dip” acquisition geometries for salt diapir imaging: The
Leading Edge, 14, No. 5, 314-322.
Sheriff, R.E., 1991, Encyclopedic dictionary of exploration geophysics, third edition: Geophysical References, 1: Soc.
Expl. Geophys.
Sheriff, R.E. (editor), 1992, Reservoir geophysics: Investigations in Geophysics, 7: Soc. Expl. Geophs.
Shirley, K., 1995, 3-D now has new mountains to climb: AAPG Explorer, 16, No. 6, 8, 10 and 16.
Soc. Expl. Geophys., 1983, Special report on SEG standard exchange formats for positional data: Geophysics, 48, No.
4, 488-503.
Sriram, K.P. and Gilbreth, M., 1995, Intellectual property: Geophysics, 60, No. 3, 925-926.
Stone, D.S., 1994, Designing seismic surveys in two and three dimensions: Geophysical References, 5: Soc. Expl.
Geophys.
Thompson, S.D. and Bligh, R.P., 1995, Wytch farm oilfield, England: reducing 3-D cycle time and quantifying the
benefit for a mature field: Presented at the Ann. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys.
Vermeer, G., 1990, Seismic wavefield sampling: Geophysical References, 4: Soc. Expl. Geophys.
Vermeer, G.J.O., 1995, 3D symmetric sampling in land data acquisition: Presented at the Ann. Mtg., Can. Soc. Expl.
Geophys. (See also Expanded Abstracts, 169-170.)
Wisecup, R.D., 1994, The relationship between 3-D acquisition geometry and 3-D static corrections: Presented at the
64th Ann. Intern. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys.
Wiggins, R.A., Larner, K.L. and Wisecup, R.D., 1976, Residual statics as a general linear inverse problem:
Geophysics, 41, No. 5, 922-938.
Wiskel, B., 1995, Oilman, spare that tree: The Pegg, February 1995.
Yilmaz, Ö., 1987, Seismic data processing: Investigations in Geophysics, 2: Soc. Expl. Geophys.
R.iv
References & Other Reading
R.v
GLOSSARY
Glossary of terms used in 3D Seismic Design
air blast The pressure wave that travels through the air from the source to the geophone.
amplitude vs. offset (AVO)
Variations with amplitude as a function of offset distance. Depends on Poisson’s
Ratio of rocks at interface. Used to determine lithology or to detect presence of gas.
anisotropy Variations in seismic velocity as a function of direction of travel.
array A geometrical arrangement of sources and/or receivers used to suppress noise of
certain wavelengths.
array length For a 2D array, the length between the first and last stations.
array response The amplitude response of an array as a function of wavelength and direction.
aspect ratio The ratio of the narrow side of a rectangle divided by the wide side.
azimuth The direction in degrees, relative to north.
bin The area within which reflection points are summed into one stacked trace. Usually
bins are square or rectangular, but not necessarily.
bin borrowing The practice of using traces from a nearby bin to make up a deficiency in the
current bin. Used to improve offset distribution or fold.
bin fractionation A design that intentionally distributes midpoints within a natural bin.
bin interval The distance between adjacent bins. If bins overlap then bin interval is not the
same as bin size.
bin rotation Reprocessing with different in-line and x-line orientation; normally used with bin
fractionation.
bin size The area of a bin. Normally = RI/2 * SI/2.
bird-dog A slang term referring to client’s quality control person overseeing an acquisition
crew.
box The area defined by the RLI * SLI in a straight line 3D survey. See Figures 1.8 &
1.11.
brick design A straight line design in which each segment of source line between each pair of
receiver lines is offset by 0.5 * SLI. See Figure 5.3. This is used to achieve smaller
Xmin. This is double brick, and the pattern repeats itself every 2 RLIs. In triple brick
the offset is 0.33 * SLI, and the pattern repeats itself every 3 RLIs. Quadruple $
0.25 * SLI offset and repeating every 4 RLIs. The natural extension of multiple
bricks is the diagonal.
button A tightly grouped arrangement of receivers in button patch design.
button patch design A design technique patented by Arco in which the receivers are laid out in buttons
(see above) and shots are positioned around the buttons. See Section 5.7.
cable The wire connecting receiver groups to the Line Units.

cat push A slang term referring to the person who supervises line cutting. Refers to
Caterpillar bulldozers.
CDP fold The fold achieved by binning Common Depth Points.
chair display An interpretive display in which the 3D volume is sliced into two depth sections and
a time section connected in a chair shape.
charge The amount of dynamite (lbs. or kilograms) used for one source point, sometimes
consisting of several shot holes.
circular patch A patch with an outer edge that approximates a circle. See Section 5.12.
circular design A design that uses circular patches (see above).
CMP fold The theoretical fold calculated by binning CMPs.
common conversion point (CCP)
In converted wave shooting the CCP is the equivalent of the common midpoint. It
is the point between the source and receiver where the down-going P-wave
generates an up-going S-wave. See Section 12.4.
common depth point (CDP)
The equivalent of the CMP when calculated in depth.
common midpoint (CMP)
The theoretical reflection point which lies midway between each source and
receiver, assuming no structure and no unusual velocity variations.
G.ii
Glossary
common offset stack

A display in which each trace related to a shot is displayed at its proper offset. The
traces are displayed after the application of NMO. This display is useful for
determining mute, detection of multiples and initial analysis of AVO.
common scatter point (CSP)
A term coined by John Bancroft with respect to a new way of analyzing pre-stack
data. A reflecting surface is thought of as a specular surface, with each point
generating a set of diffractions from scattering. The processing collapses these
diffractions pre-stack to gather the energy to the appropriate point in the
subsurface.
conversion point The point in the subsurface where conversion of P-waves to S-waves occurs.
Normally this is about b the offset, as compared with ½ for P-P reflections.
converted wave A P-SV or P-SH wave, generated when a P-wave is converted into a shear wave
at a reflecting surface.
convolution A mathematical process to multiply two time series together.
correlation (in context of vibrators)
The vibrator sends a programmed wavetrain or chirp into the subsurface. Each
reflection is also a chirp. In the correlation step, the reflected trace is convolved
with the chirp to produce a series of sharp reflections.
critical reflection The angle at which waves are refracted instead of reflected. For P-waves this
typically occurs at an angle near 35o.
cross-line see x-line
cross-line offset see x-line offset
cross-line roll see x-line roll
cross swath A swath shoot with some x-lines. Also, sometimes used to refer to a straight line
design.
deconvolution (“decon”)
A mathematical process to collapse wavelet signatures into sharp reflectors.
Commonly used in processing to boost high frequencies, among other things.
Inverse of convolution.
density The mass/unit volume of rock. Usually measured in kg/m3 or g/cm3. Density of
rocks has some effect on seismic velocity.
depth migration Seismic migration performed in depth domain rather than time domain. This can
only be done when one has a very good understanding of the velocity structure.
depth structure map A map of a particular horizon where the vertical dimension is depth (as opposed to
time, for example).
diffraction In 2D time, a series of reflections from a particular point will map out as a hyperbola
for a wide range of offset distances.
dip move out (DMO) The processing step that corrects the position of the reflector for dipping horizons
to zero offset. Apparent dips before DMO will steepen (real dips) after DMO. See
Figures 10.10-12.
direct wave interference
The direct wave travels in the surface layer at relatively slow velocities to the
receiver. For reflectors where the direct arrival time is the same as the two-way
reflection time, the reflector will be obscured.
distributed system A 3D acquisition system. The signals of several receiver groups are collected at a
line unit and then transmitted to the recording truck (doghouse). (cf. telemetry
system).
DMO ellipse When a DMO operator is applied in time, the energy is moved along several
ellipsoidal paths which depend on depth and velocity.
doghouse A slang term for the recording truck.
double zig-zag design A design technique involving two zig-zag paths for the source lines. Better Xmin and
offset distribution as compared to single zig-zag. Requires two sets of vibrators.
See Section 5.8.
drag The amount of movement of the vibrators between each shake within the array
being shot at one station. (cf. Move-up). See Figure 6.2.2.
dwell In non-linear vibrator sweeps, the dwell is the additional effort applied at higher
frequencies. Usually quoted as dB/octave. See Section 6.2.3.
G.iii
edge management Optimization of image area, migration aperture, fold taper halo, DMO and cost
considerations to arrive at an efficient design at survey edges.
effort A general term for the amount of vibrator energy put into the ground. Depends on
the number of vibrators, peak ground force, sweep length and the number of
sweeps. See Section 6.2.1.
exclusion area An inaccessible area because of natural or manmade hazards or a no permit area.
far offset The furthest offset recorded. Usually used to refer to furthest offset in a particular
patch.
FD Field Design package produced by Seismic Image Software (95) Ltd.
final survey plan The plan after the survey is recorded, with all skids and offsets entered. This is
often what must be submitted to the regulatory authorities.
Flexi-Bin® design A patented method of 3D design using bin fractionation. Contact GEDCO for further
information. See Section 5.6.
fold The measure of how many rays reflect in each bin. Fold depends on many factors,
including particularly the type of reflection being considered (CMP, CDP etc.). See
Section 1.9 and 2.3.
fold taper zone The area around a 3D survey in which the fold increases from zero to design fold.
See Section 3.8.
fracture porosity Reservoir porosity created by cracks or fractures in the rock, sometimes enlarged
by subsequent dissolution. Commonly sought as a potential gas reservoir,
particularly in carbonates. Oriented fractures will polarize shear waves into fast
(parallel to fractures) and slow (transverse to fractures) components.
frequency Number of oscillations per second, expressed in Hertz. Units = sec-1.
Fresnel Zone The First Fresnel Zone is the area within which constructive interference occurs,
and it represents approximately the dimension of resolution attainable. See Section
3.5.
full fold area The area of the fold where full fold is achieved, neglecting the effects of DMO or
migration. (cf. Image area).
full swath roll A design technique for large surveys in which the whole patch is moved by the full
width of the patch (swath width) when the x-line roll is done. See Section 9.7.
geophone The accelerometer that records the seismic waves.

geophone group Each receiver station is usually occupied by several geophones in a group in order
to improve signal to noise. The number of geophones per group varies according
to the manufacturer of the equipment. Four, six, nine and twelve geophones per
group are the most common in North America.
geophysical trespass In some US states it is illegal to record a geophysical measurement of any kind
over another owner’s mineral rights without a permit from that owner. This is a
relatively new concept, and there is considerable confusion about how the relevant
laws should be interpreted. Most operators are now being very diligent at obtaining
permits over all relevant lands in order to protect themselves against possible
liability. Many operators of 3D surveys are trimming their surveys to insure that
there are no stacked traces over areas not covered by permits. See AAPG
Explorer, June 1995, for discussion of Burr Ranch case and related issues.
geostatistics A mathematical technique of cross-correlating areal distributed data sets. Can be
used for time to depth conversion by correlating well control to seismic data.
global positioning system (GPS)
A satellite positioning system based on calculating the range to at least four
satellites. Most accurate mode of operation is “differential GPS” in which on e
stationary receiver near the survey area is used to compute corrections for the
satellite positions. Differential GPS can give x,y accuracy of 1-2 m, and z accuracy
of 5-10 m at 1 sec. rate. Greater accuracy can be achieved by repeating
observations. Tree cover or rough topography can obscure the signal.
ground force The amount of force exerted by a vibrator. (cf. Peak Force).
ground roll The surface wave generated by a source. These are high amplitude, low velocity
waves.
halo A term sometimes used to mean fold taper zone.
G.iv
Glossary
horizon A particular reflecting surface.

horizon slice An interpretive display in which the displayed surface follows an interpreted horizon.
hydrophone An underwater receiver that measures pressure changes instead of the acceleration
measured by a geophone.
image area The portion of a 3D survey that has full fold data after DMO and migration.
impedance Z=Density * velocity.
Reflection Coefficient= (Z1-Z2) / (Z1+Z2).
in-line The direction parallel to the receiver lines in a 3D survey. See Section 1.9.
in-line offset The offset in the direction parallel to the receiver lines.
in-line roll The movement of a receiver patch in the direction parallel to the receiver lines.
Typically, in-line rolls are only a few stations and are accomplished electronically.
See Sections 1.9 and 9.4.
inversion Seismic inversion is a mathematical process to calculate the impedance contrasts
producing the observed seismic response. The process and the results are non-
unique. There are several different algorithms, each with different assumptions.
See Section 12.5.
isotropic Having the same seismic velocity in all directions.
IXL-SD A PC-based 3D design package produced by Mercury International Technology.
largest minimum offset (LMOS)

Xmin of all the bins in a box (or some statistically complete subset of the 3D survey),
the maximum shortest offset. This term is used more in Europe than in N. America.
See Sections 1.9 and 2.9.
lateral resolution The minimum distance over which two separate reflecting points may be
distinguished. Primarily a function of frequency. See Section 2.8.3.
least maximum offset In a box, or other statistically complete subset of a survey, the smallest maximum
offset recorded for any shot.
low frequency phone A geophone tuned to respond to a lower range of frequencies than normal. See
Table 7.1.
marsh phone A geophone designed to be used in marshy conditions. It must be planted in the
bottom but it may be immersed.
maxi-bin The neighborhood of bins used for velocity analysis. See Sections 1.9 and 10.4.
maximum offset The largest offset in a particular direction.
maximum recorded offset
The largest offset recorded in a patch.
maximum unaliased frequency
The highest frequency that can be recorded in a 3D survey without creating aliased
frequency because the bin size is too great. This is a function of dip and frequency.
See Section 2.8.2.
Mesa 3D design software from Green Mountain.
migration A process in seismic processing in which energy is moved to its correct position in
time and space. The migration process will move the energy in a diffraction curve
back to the apex of the curve. It also has the effect of collapsing the Fresnel Zone,
so that resolution is dependent only on wavelength instead of depth and
wavelength. Corrections for dipping horizons (DMO) should be applied before
migration.
migration aperture The additional distance that must be added to each side of a 3D survey to ensure
that adequate diffracted energy and the reflected energy from dipping reflectors are
actually recorded so that the migration process can work. See Section 3.7 for a full
explanation.
move-up The distance that the vibrators must move between the last sweep of one source
point and the first weep of the next sweep. See Section 6.2.2.
multiple Seismic energy that has been reflected more than once.
multiple suppression Any process that is designed to reduce preferentially the energy of multiple arrivals
mute pattern In a shot gather, energy beyond certain offsets is discarded because it becomes
distorted by refraction and other effects. The offsets that are retained increase with
G.v
depth. The mute pattern is the increase of offset distance as a function of two-way
travel time.
narrow azimuth design A 3D design that has a small aspect ratio (narrow width to length). This design
means most of the recorded energy comes from a narrow cone of azimuths
oriented parallel to the long axis of the survey.
near offset trace A trace recorded with a relatively short source-receiver distance.
NMO discrimination Using the amount of normal moveout observed to characterize events by their
velocity.
NMO stretch As offset increases, the apparent wavelengths in observed reflections increase
because of the increasing travel time necessary to cover the same vertical distance
as the zero offset trace.
no permit area An area of a 3D survey which is excluded because no permit could be obtained for
surface access. In the US a no permit area could also be an area where no permit
could be obtained from a mineral rights holder (see geophysical trespass).
non-orthogonal design Any 3D design that does not use a rectilinear grid of lines. Usually used to refer to
straight line designs in which the source lines are not orthogonal to the receiver
lines. See Section 5.4.
normal moveout (NMO)
The variation of arrival time for a certain reflecting horizon because of increasing
source-receiver distance (offset).
odds and evens design

A 3D design in which each source line uses every other source station, and the
pattern alternates between lines. This is a variant on the brick design. See Section
5.5.
offset a. The distance between any source and receiver group center for a particular
trace.
b. Sometimes used to refer to stations that are moved a short distance
perpendicular to the line, usually because of access difficulties.
offset distribution The grouping of offsets contained in a particular shot. A reasonably uniform
sampling of offsets is desirable for velocity analysis and migration processes.
OMNI The newest 3D survey design package available from Seismic Image Software
(1995) Ltd. of Calgary, Canada
P-wave This is the type of elastic body wave normally considered in seismic work. The
particle motion is in the direction of wave propagation.
pad time The sweep length times the number of sweeps for a vibrator source design. See
Section 6.2.1.
patch All the live receiver stations recorded for a particular source point. In a straight line
survey it is usually is a rectangle of receivers spread over several receiver lines.
Several shots may have the same patch. The patch moves around the survey for
different shots.
peak force The maximum amount of force that a particular vibrator is designed to apply to the
ground.
peg leg multiple Multiples caused by horizons that are relatively close together. The short length of
the “peg leg” makes the velocity of the peg leg multiple close to the velocity of the
primary events, and therefore harder to separate and suppress.
phase The argument of a wave function. If y=sin(wt), wt is the phase, usually expressed
in degrees or radians.
Poisson’s Ratio The ratio of transverse strain to longitudinal strain, usually denoted by F. It is one of the
elastic constants that affects both P and S-wave velocity.
porosity Pore volume per unit volume, expressed as %.
pre-stack Any process applied before all traces from a particular shot are summed together.
pre-stack depth migration

Migration process applied in depth domain (instead of travel time) to the unstacked
G.vi
Glossary
traces. This process is often applied in complex velocity environments where the
assumption of hyperbolic move-out breaks down. However, to get good results it
is necessary to have a reasonable velocity model.
pre-stack time migration
Migration process applied in the time domain (instead of depth) to the unstacked
traces.
ray trace modeling Modeling which maps out the ray paths as they pass though each layers. If the
layers are assumed to have uniform velocity, then the rays bend only at the layer
boundaries. If there is a vertical gradient in the layers, then the rays are curved
within each layer, as well as bending at the layer boundaries.
receiver The recording device in a seismic survey; in a land survey it is called a geophone
or a group of geophones.
receiver interval The distance between each group of receivers.
receiver line The line along which receivers are laid out in a straight line 3D survey. The receiver
lines lie parallel to the in-line direction.
receiver line interval (RLI)
The distance between receiver lines, measured orthogonal to the receiver lines.
receiver station Group of geophones linked by a wire.
running mix A summing of traces in which the number of traces summed is more than the
number of traces advanced between each calculation.
salvo The number of shots taken before the patch must be moved, i.e., the number of
shots in a template.
script file The computer file written which tells the recording system the geometry of each
template in the survey.
SEG-P1 format An SEG-approved standard format for recording survey data.
SEG-Y format An SEG-approved format for recording seismic data There are many variations of
the SEG-Y format, so it is often necessary to test for compatibility between different
systems.
semblance A measure of multi-channel coherence, usually measured as a function of stacking
velocity. The correct stacking velocity should produce the most coherence and the
highest semblance.
SH wave The horizontal component of motion in a shear wave.
shear wave A body wave in which the wave motion is transverse to the direction of propagation.
shot A dynamite charge used as a source in a seismic survey. Shot is often misused to
refer generally to any seismic energy source.
shot density The number of sources per unit area, usually expressed as sources per km2.
shot hole The hole drilled to place the charge below (hopefully) the weathering layer.
signal-to-noise ratio (S/N)
The power of the desired energy (signal) divided by the remaining energy (noise).
similarity tests Checking to make sure that all the vibrators in an array are in phase with one
another.
skids Sometimes used to refer to stations moved a short distance along the line, usually
because of access difficulties.
slowness The inverse of velocity. Measured at the frequency range of interest.
sonic log The well log of seismic travel time. The frequencies used in a sonic log are much
higher than those in a seismic survey.
source The point of energy release in a 3D survey. The usual sources are dynamite or
vibrators.
source interval (SI) The distance between adjacent sources in a 3D survey.
source line The line along which the shots or vibrator points are placed, usually at regular
intervals.
source line interval (SLI)
The distance between source lines, usually measured perpendicular to the source
lines. See Figure 1.8.
source-receiver pair The recorded receiver and the source point for that recorded trace form a source-
receiver pair.
G.vii
spider diagram A diagram to display azimuth distribution in a 3D design package. Each leg of the
spider points in the direction from the source to the receiver, and the length of the
leg is proportional to the offset. See Figure 3.4.
SPOT imagery A French satellite imaging system that produces black and white images with the
highest resolution available currently.
spread An arrangement of receivers associated with a source point. In 3D, the spread and
the patch are essentially synonymous.
SPS format A format proposed by Shell for writing script files that contain comprehensive
information about the geometry of the survey. See Section 9.2.
stack array An array that produces an even distribution of offsets in a common midpoint gather.
stack section A time section produced by stacking the traces without migration applied.
static coupling The static correction for each receiver is based on many source paths into that
receiver. If a direct path can be drawn from each receiver to a midpoint, and thence
to every other receiver, then the static corrections are said to be coupled. In a
standard straight-line design there are usually several sets of connected receivers
that are not linked between each other. Such a static solution is said to be
uncoupled. See Section 10.5.
statics The time corrections applied to compensate for the slow velocities and elevation
differences of the surface weathering layer(s).
straight line design Any 3D design that uses straight lines for receivers and sources. Source lines are
often, but not necessarily orthogonal to receiver lines.
stroke One pass of source points across the survey area in a button patch design. If the
stroke is taken in the in-line direction, then there is a x-line roll at the end of the
stroke. Analogous to swath in a straight line design.
sub-bin In bin fractionation techniques, the smallest quantum of bin size.
super bin The neighborhood of bins as used in velocity analysis. See Figure 10.2.
surface area The area enclosed by the outermost sources and receivers in a 3D survey.
SV wave The vertical component of motion in a shear wave.
swath A group of receiver lines recorded at one time, often with many in-line rolls in one
swath. At the end of a swath there is a x-line roll to set up the next swath.
swath survey In a swath survey, source lines are coincident with some of the receiver lines. Since
parallel receiver lines record simultaneously from one parallel source line, swath
lines are created midway between source and receiver lines. See Section 5.1.
sweep The input from a vibrator. Frequencies are varied (“swept”) in a precise manner
over several seconds, producing a “chirp” signal.
sweep length The time needed to sweep across the entire frequency band of the sweep.
sweep rate The frequency band of the sweep/sweep time. Units are Hz/sec (or, more properly
sec-2).
takeout The electrical connection in a receiver cable where a group of receivers is attached.
target depth The depth of the prospective horizon for which the 3D survey is being designed.
target size The lateral dimensions of the prospective geological reservoir.
telemetry system A 3D recording system that uses a radio system to relay the recorded information
from the receiver groups to the recording truck.
TIFF file A particular computer format commonly used for scanned images.
time-depth function For a given point (particularly for a well), a set of two-way travel times and their
equivalent depths (true vertical depths), or the mathematical function which
approximates such a set of T-D pairs.
time slice A map of a seismic attribute at the same two-way travel time.
time structure map A map of a particular reflector in two way travel time.
total nominal fold The fold calculated for a 3D survey assuming that all possible offsets are recorded
and used.
transition zone An area around a water-land boundary in which neither land nor marine acquisition
techniques may be used without special adaptations. Examples include surf zone,
large marshes, small lakes, mangrove swamps.
uncorrelated record A recorded trace from a vibrator survey in which the input waveform of the vibrator
has not yet been removed from the data.
G.viii
Glossary
vari-sweep A technique for enhancing specific frequency bands by sweeping over narrow
frequency ranges and summing later.
velocity control point
A point in a seismic survey where velocity analysis has been done.
vertical resolution The minimum vertical separation that can be resolved in a seismic survey,
expressed either in terms of travel time or distance.
vibe A slang term for a vibrator seismic source.
vibrator A seismic source in which the weight of a specially designed heavy truck is
supported by a central pad and then hydraulically shaken in a precisely prescribed
set of varying frequencies. See Figure 6.3. Often several vibrators are used
together.
wave length The distance between two similar points on successive waveforms on a wave train
of a single frequency.
wavelet A seismic pulse of only a few cycles. For a dynamite source, this should be the
initial pulse of high amplitude waves radiating out from the source.
well tie The correlation between a seismic interpretation of a particular horizon and the
occurrence of that same horizon in a well, as interpreted from well logs.
wide azimuth design A 3D survey which has a broad range of azimuths recorded by most of the
receivers. Large aspect ratio (close to square) patches give wide azimuth ranges.
wood gator A large truck-mounted wood chipper used in South Texas to clear brush on seismic
lines.
x-line In a 3D survey this is the direction orthogonal to the receiver lines. It is not
necessarily the same as the direction of the source lines.
x-line offset The amount of offset available in the x-line direction. Often used to mean
maximum x-line offset.
x-line roll A patch move perpendicular to the receiver lines.
Xmax The continuous maximum offset recorded in a particular 3D design. See Section
2.10.
Xmin The largest minimum offset recorded for most templates in a particular 3D design.
See Section 2.9. The magnitude of Xmin directly influences how well shallow
reflectors can be imaged.
zero offset When a receiver and source are coincident, there is no distance between them and
they are said to have zero offset.
zig-zag design A particular 3D design in which the source points follow some sort of a crossed
diagonal pattern between each receiver line pair. See Figures 5.8a-f.
zipper design A 3D layout strategy for large surveys which uses overlapping swaths. See Section
9.7.
zone of interest The range of travel time that encompasses the prospective horizons.
3-component geophone
A geophone with 3 orthogonal sensors. The phone must be planted with known
orientation, usually one component in-line, one transverse, and one vertical.
3-C 3D A 3D survey which is shot with a standard source and it is recorded with 3C
geophones.
9-C 3D A 3D survey which is shot with three sources, a standard source, an in-line shear
source, a x-line shear source, and it is recorded with 3C geophones.
G.ix

Designing 3D Seismic Surveys Using OMNI

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

Designing 3D Seismic Surveys Using OMNI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Designing 3D Seismic Surveys Using OMNI

Designing 3D Seismic Surveys

Andreas Cordsen & John W. Peirce

INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1

PLANNING & DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1

FLOWCHARTS & SPREADSHEETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1

FIELD LAYOUTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1

SOURCE EQUIPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1

RECORDING EQUIPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1

PRACTICAL FIELD CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1

ADVANCED TOPICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1

Designing 3D Seismic Surveys

Andreas Cordsen & John W. Peirce

Participants are expected to have a general working knowledge of 2D seismic data

Some geophysicists may want to enhance their knowledge by reading publications

To convert from imperial units to metric units multiply by

Inches (in) Centimeters (cm) 2.54

To convert from metric units to imperial units multiply by

Centimeters (cm) Inches (in) 0.3937

INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1

1.1 Management Attitudes

Possible partners who may or may not have interests

Most of the reasons for 3D listed in Fig. 1.2 do not need

1.3 Industry Trends Figure 1.2

Where do the oil companies find the expertise to plan,

will heavily rely on the knowledge and experience that 90

Management needs to be able to evaluate the

On a project scale with numerous development

A good example might be as follows: Cost

This example indicates that one might have $500K

A more thorough analysis of the value of 3D through Cost of 3D Seismic

decision tree analysis and expected value concepts is

1.5 Target Horizons

Secondary zones or other regional objectives may

1.6 Sequence of Events for Data Acquisition

Design the 3D Survey

Request Regulatory Approvals

Check on Crew Availability

Send Out Bid Requests

Sign Legal Contract

Permit Land Owners for Access

Check on Local Operating Conditions

Shot Hole Drilling (if necessary)

1.7 Environment & Weather

1.8 Special Considerations of 3D vs. 2D

1.9 Definition of 3D Terms

Template = Patch + associated Source Points

Figure 1.10 explains some additional terms in a perspective view.

Source Point Density

Assuming RLI and SLI of 360m (1320 ft), RI

Xmin = ( 360 2 + 360 2 ) ½ m

Xmin = ( 1320 2 + 1320 2 ) ½ ft

The value of Xmin will define the largest

1. What is the definition of a receiver line interval?

2. What is the migration aperture?

4. How large is a super-bin?

PLANNING & DESIGN

PLANNING & DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1

2.1 Survey Design Decision Table

1. Fold > ½ * 2D Fold - b * 2D Fold (if the S/N is good)

2. Bin Size < Target Size. Use 2 - 3 traces

3. Xmin . 1.0 - 1.2 * Depth of shallowest horizon to be mapped

4. Xmax . Target Depth

5. Migration Aperture (full-fold)