Design A 3D Seismic Survey For Ratawi Oil Field Area in Southern Iraq

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/340063233
DESIGN A 3D SEISMIC SURVEY FOR RATAWI OIL FIELD AREA IN SOUTHERN

IRAQ Supervised by
Thesis · January 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28745.70247
CITATIONS READS
0 1,637
2 authors:
Sarmad Sabeeh Ali M. Al-Rahim

Midland oil company, Iraq University of Baghdad
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS 60 PUBLICATIONS 83 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Seismic Unix and Madagascar View project
Using satellite data to delineate the boundaries of Al-Ma’aniyah depression southwestern of Iraq View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ali M. Al-Rahim on 20 March 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Republic of Iraq
Ministry of Higher Education
And Scientific Research
University of Baghdad
College of Science
Department of Geology
DESIGN A 3D SEISMIC SURVEY FOR

RATAWI OIL FIELD AREA IN
SOUTHERN IRAQ
A Thesis Submitted to the

College of Science, University of Baghdad
In partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science in Geology - Geophysics
By
Sarmad Sabeeh Hameed
B.Sc. In Geology
2012
Supervised by
Ass. Prof. Dr. Ali Maki Hussein Al-Rahim
2015 A. D 1436 H.
Dedicated to
My Father
Merciful and forgiveness
My Mother
Long life
My Sister and Brother

Love and Loyalty
SARMA
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Praise is to Allah, prayer and peace is upon his Messenger Mohammed bin
Abdullah and ALLAH of divine good after.
Many thanks to the Department of Geology, College of Science,
and Baghdad University for providing opportunities and facilities to
accomplish this research.
I am delighted to acknowledge with my debts my supervisor
Dr. Ali M. Hussein, for advising me and supply requirements to perform
this work.
I am gratefully thanking, Mr. Jameel R. Jaafar Kamoona (Processing
and Interpretation Division Manager at Oil Exploration Company, OEC),
Mr. Ali Shihab Al-Mrsumy party manager of seismic field operations at
(OEC) for providing opportunities and facility to accomplish this research.
Special thanks to Mr. Waleed Tawfik Chief Geophysicist for his endless
supporting me from the first day in Oil Exploration Company and special
thanks to my friend Mr.Raisan M. Kareem.
I wish to thank all my friends, especially Suhail Ubaid Muhsin,
Dhulfiqar Ali and Salar Hasan for their recommendations.
Also, I do not forget to present my greatest thanks and gratitude to my
family who encourage and support me throughout the study period.
ABSTRACT
A 3D seismic survey design is the aim of this study. The 3D design is

subjected to Ratawi oil field which is one of the important subsurface
structures and productive oil fields in southern Iraq. The objective of this
works is to determine several key parameters, like spatial sampling interval
(bin size), vertical and horizontal resolution, minimum and maximum
offset and migration apron that could design an optimum 3D survey
suitable for the geological - structural setting in the area.
It is found that the selected receiver line and source line interval with
a range of 300-400 meters provides a greater distance and can be adopted
in the calculation of minimum offset without effect on shallow reflector
sampling. A Bin size is calculated depending on the velocity interval for
reflectors (Sadi, Mishrif, Ahmadi, Mauddud, NhrUmr, Yamama). A bin
size of 25 meters is found to be appropriate to sample the reflected wave
field at the Ratawi area. This bin size is selected to indicate also the group
interval and the source interval for the survey. The source interval SI and
receiver interval RI is found have considered to be 50 meters. For survey
design, a dip of 30 degrees with Max frequency 70Hz have been
considered.
Also, it is found that the receiver line direction is suitable toward east
- west proportional to the dominant dip direction of the structure. The
receiver lines should be oriented in the direction of the shortest dimension
of the survey operations area (east-west).
Migration aperture is found to be necessary to build full fold area and
it is impact on survey cost. Migration aperture is computed using constant
velocity and linear variation of velocity with depth and found it is equal to
2100m and 1895m respectively.
Two types of design are made, that is orthogonal design narrow and
wide azimuth. Narrow azimuth has small aspect ratio patch equal to 0.3 and
has a limited range of azimuth 60 to 120 and 240 to 295. Wide azimuths
have an aspect ratio patch equal to 0.95, it is best for deep reflector
exploration and amplitude variation offset (AVO) study.
Ray tracing modeling is modeled to insure the success of the design
and build synthetic seismograms to show very good continuous reflector.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Praise is to Allah, prayer and peace is upon his Messenger Mohammed bin
Abdullah and ALLAH of divine good after.
Many thanks to the Department of Geology, College of Science, and
Baghdad University for providing opportunities and facilities to accomplish
this research.
I am delighted to acknowledge with my debts my supervisor
Dr. Ali M. Hussein, for advising me and supply requirements to perform
this work.
I am gratefully thanks, Mr. Jameel R. Jaafar Kamoona (Processing and
Interpretation Division Manager at Oil Exploration Company, OEC), Mr.
Ali Shihab Al-Mrsumy party manager of seismic field operations at (OEC)
for providing opportunities and facility to accomplish this research. Special
thanks to Mr. Waleed Sh.Tawfik Chief Geophysicist for his endless
supporting me from the first day in Oil Exploration Company and special
thanks to my friend Mr.Raisan M. Kareem.
I wish to thank all my friends especially Suhail Ubaid Muhsin,
Dhulfiqar Ali and Salar Hasan for their recommendations.
Also, I do not forget to present my greatest thanks and gratitude to my
family who encourage and support me throughout the study period.
Supervisor Certification
We certify that this thesis (DESIGN A 3D SEISMIC SURVEY FOR RATAWI
OIL FIELD AREA IN SOUTHERN IRAQ) was prepared under my supervision
at the Department of Geology, College of Science, University of Baghdad, in
partial fulfillment of requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Geology
(Geophysics).
Signature:
Name: Dr. Ali Maki Hussein Al-Rahim
Scientific degree: Assist Professor
Address: University of Baghdad - College of Science
Date: / / 2015
‫ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬
Approve of the college Committee of Graduate studies

In view of the available recommendation I forward this thesis for debate by
the examination committee.
Signature:
Name: Dr. Walid A. Ahmad
Scientific degree: Assist. Professor
Address: Head of geologic Department / College of
Science / University of Baghdad
Date: / / 201٥
Committee Certification
We the members of the Examining Committee, certify that we have read the
thesis titled (DESIGN A 3D SEISMIC SURVEY FOR RATAWI OIL FIELD
AREA IN SOUTHERN IRAQ) by the student (Sarmad Sabeeh Hamed),
examined the student in its contents. In our opinion, it meets the standards of thesis
for the degree of Master of Science in Geology/ Geophysics.
Signature: Signature:
Name: Dr.Nawal Abed Alridha Name: Dr. Hussein Hameed Karim
Scientific degree: Professor Scientific degree: Professor
Address: Geology Department – Address: Building and Construction
College of Science / Baghdad Engineering Department/ University of
University Technology
Date: / / 2015 Date: / / 2015
(Chairman) (Member)
Signature: Signature:
Name: Dr. Salman Z. Khorshid Name: Dr. Ali M. Hussein Al-Rahim
Scientific degree: Assist. Professor Scientific degree: Assist. Professor
Address: Geology Department – Address: Geology Department –
College of Science / Baghdad College of Science / Baghdad
University University
Date: / / 2015 Date: / / 2015
(Member) (Supervisor)
Approved by the Deanery of College of Science
Signature:
Name: Dr. Fadhil Abd Rasin
Scientific degree: Assist. Professor
Address: Dean of College of Science, Baghdad University
Date: / / 2015

List of Contents
Subject Page No.
Chapter One: Introduction

1.1 Preface: 1
1.2 Geographical location and coordinates of the study 2
area:
1.3 The chosen area 5
1.4 Surface geology: 5
1.5 Tectonic and structural setting: 5
1.6 Cretaceous period in Iraq 7
1.6.1 Late Tithonian-Early TuronianMegasequence AP8 7
1.6.2 Late Turonian-DanianMegasequence AP9 8
1.7 Aims of the study 9
1.8 Methodology 10
1.9 History of 3D seismic acquisition 11
1.10 Previous studies in Iraq using the 3-D seismic design 12
1.11 Previous studies outside ofIraq using the 3-D seismic 13
design
Chapter Two: Terminology and Theoretical Background
2.1 Definition of important 3D Terminology 15
2.1.1 Definition of terms 15
2.2 Theoretical Background 20
2.3 Seismic reflection survey 21
2.3.1 2D seismic survey 21
2.4 Geophysical parameters 22
2.4.1 Imaging parameters 22
2.4.1.1 Fold of coverage 22
2.4.1.2 In-line fold 25
2.4.1.3 Cross-line fold 25
2.4.1.4 Total fold 26
2.4.1.5 Signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) 27
2.4.1.6 Bin size 28
2.4.1.6.1 Target size 29
2.4.1.6.2 Maximum Unaliased Frequency 30
2.4.1.6.3 Resolution and bin size 32
2.4.1.7 Spatial sampling and bin size 35
2.4.1.8 Diffractions and bin size 37
2.4.1.9 Migration aperture 37
2.4.1.9.1 Migration aperture and migration displacements 38
2.4.1.9.2 Migration aperture and diffractions 38
2.4.1.9.3 Migration aperture and migration algorithms 39
2.4.1.9.4 Migration aperture and velocity 39
2.4.2 Edge parameters 41
2.4.2.1 In-line taper 41
2.4.2.2 Cross-line taper 42
2.4.3 Geometrical parameters 42
I
2.4.3.1 Maximum offset: Xmax 42
2.4.3.1.1 Maximum offset and deepest target depth 43
2.4.3.1.2 Offset and mute function 43
2.4.3.1.3 Offsets necessary for AVO 44
2.4.3.1.4 Dip measurements 44
2.4.3.2 Minimum offset: XMIN 44
2.4.4 Recording parameters 46
2.4.4.1 Record length 46
2.4.4.2 Sampling rate 47
2.5 Types of 3D acquisition geometries 47
2.6 Advantage and Disadvantage of field layouts 48
2.7 Orthogonal layout 49
2.8 Survey Orientation 50
2.9 Offset distribution 51
2.10 Azimuth distribution 53
2.11 Narrow versus Wide azimuth surveys 54
2.12 comparison shooting techniques 55
2.13 Hardware limits 56
Chapter Three: Software Used in Survey
Design
3.1 Preface: 57
3.2 MESA Software 58
3.2.1 Program Purpose 58
3.3 Software solutions for acquisition survey design and
58
modeling
3.4 products scaled to fit a customer’s needs 59
3.5 MESA capabilities 59
3.6 Mesa provides several methods for defining a survey 59
3.7 Type of pattern geometry in MESA software 60
3.8 Types of shooting in MESA 61
3.8.1 Automatic template centering 62
3.8.2 Salvo shooting 63
3.8.3 Circular templates shooting 64
3.8.4 Rectangular templates 64
3.8.5 Firefly Spatial Template 65
3.8.6 Label Number-Based Shooting 65
3.8.7 The swath and general sequence shooting 65
3.9 Array Analysis 65
3.10 VSP window 66
3.11 Amplitude Variation Offset (AVO) test 67
3.11.1 The Reflection Coefficient vs Angle Plot 69
3.12 Gather window 70
3.12.1 Advisor Synthetic Gathers 70
3.12.2 Expert Synthetic Gathers 71
Chapter Four: 3D Design

4.1 Preface 73
4.2 2D seismic data 74
4.3 3D Design background information 76
II
4.4 Subsurface targets of the Ratawi 3D survey 76
4.5 Basic survey parameter definition 76
4.5.1 Resolution requirements 76
4.5.2 Bin size determination 78
4.5.3 Survey orientation 79
4.5.4 Offset requirements 80
4.5.4.a Maximum Minimum offset: Xminmax ≤ Zshallow 81
4.5.4.b Minimum maximum offset Xmaxmin ≥ Zdeep 81
4.5.5 Determination of areal extent of survey 82
4.5.5.1 Migration aperture determination 82
4.5.5.2 Calculating fold taper 84
4.6 3D Survey design 85
4.7 Narrow Azimuth design 86
4.8 Wide Azimuth design 96
4.9 Analyses the wide azimuth design with optimum
102
parameters
4.10 Subsurface model 106
4.11 Ray trace modeling 107
4.12 Automatic gain control (AGC) 109
4.13 Cost Survey 110
Chapter Five: Conclusions and
Recommendations
5.1 Conclusions 111
5.2 Recommendations 113
References
III
List of Figures
Figure Page No.

Map of the study area in southern Iraq showing the locations of
1.1 3
oil fields. (Pitman et. al., 2004).
Location of production oil fields around Ratawi oil field.
1.2 4
(Pitman et. al., 2004).
Shows the location of Ratawi oil field in the tectonic map of Iraq
1.3 6
(South Oil Company (S.O.C., 2010)).
Stratigraphic column of Southern Iraq-Basrah region(Al-Ameri
1.4 9
et. al., 2009)
Bin size B of one CMP bin, fold, migration apron and fold taper
2.1 15
of an orthogonal 3D survey. (CORDSEN et al., 2000)
a box with definition of bin and XMIN. The red crosses are shot
2.2 points and the green rectangles receiver stations. (CORDSEN et 19
al., 2000)
2.3 Illustrates defining swath and salvo in 3-D design survey. 19
Illustrates the types of 2-D geometry; (a) off-end, (b)
2.4 asymmetric split-spread and (c) symmetrical split-spread after 22
(WesternGeco, 2006a).
2.5 Fold versus signal-to-noise ratio (S/N). (Cordsen, 1995b) 23
2.6 In-line fold distribution of 10 * 72 patch. (Cordsen, 1995b), 25
2.7 Cross-line fold of 10 * 72 patch. (Cordsen, 1995b), 26
2.8 Total fold of 10 * 72 patch. 27
Signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) versus bin size. (CORDSEN et al.,
2.9 28
2000)
2.10 Fold versus bin size. (CORDSEN et al., 2000) 29
Bin size B and maximum unaliased frequency; a. before
2.11 migration, b. after migration, c. linear-velocity earth. (Cordsen, 31
1995b).
2.12 Fresnel zone (after Yilmaz, 1987). 33
Lateral resolution. 3-D Migration shortens the radius of Fresnel
2.13 35
zone in all directions improving the resolution
Nyquist wavenumber. In the (f,k) plane there is a maximum
2.14 wavenumber |kmax| such that the energy is nil for frequency 36
superior to fmax(Vermeer, 1998).
Migration aperture.95% of the seismic migration energy is
2.15 contained within a take-off angle of 30°.(Chaouch and Mari, 40
2006)
Migration aperture value Ma = z×tanθ (Chaouch and Mari,
2.16 40
2006)
2.17 Fold tapers. (Chaouch and Mari, 2006) 41
2.18 Illustrates maximum offset. 43
Xmin definition with coincident source and receiver stations at
2.19 45
corners of box.
Fold distribution at a shallow level for an Xmin that is too large.
2.20 46
(Cordsen, 1995b)
2.21 Record length t as a function of scattering angle θ(after 47
IV
Figure Page No.
Margrave, 1997).
diagrams of 3-D acquisition geometry after,(WesternGeco,
2.22 48
2006a).
2.23 Illustrates survey orientation. (O.E.C, 2012) 50
Illustrates offsets and azimuths contributing to a CMP bin.
2.24 51
(Cordsen et al., 2000)
Illustrates offset distribution-stick diagram. (Cordsen et al.,
2.25 52
2000)
Illustrates offset distribution in a row of bins (Cordsen et al.,
2.26 53
2000)
2.27 Illustrates Azimuth distribution-spiders diagram. 54
Illustrates narrow- versus wide-azimuth templates and offset
2.28 55
distributions. X = offset distance.
Illustrates window of shooting option in MESA. (WesternGeco,
3.1 61
2009).
3.2 Illustrates salvo shooting in orthogonal geometry 63
Illustrates circular template shooting. (A) minimum offset equal
3.3 to 0, (B) minimum offset not equal to zero value (WesternGeco, 64
2009)
Illustrates array design and analysis source and receiver arrays
3.4 66
(WesternGeco, 2009)
3.5 Illustrates VSP window and well log (WesternGeco, 2009) 67
3.6 Illustrates AVO log analysis window (WesternGeco, 2009) 68
3.7 the reflection coefficient vs angle (WesternGeco, 2009) 69
Illustrates gather window: synthetic trace gathers
3.8 70
(WesternGeco, 2009)
Illustrates advisor synthetic gathers parameters (WesternGeco,
3.9 71
2009)
Illustrates expert synthetic gathers parameters (WesternGeco,
3.10 72
2009)
4.1 Schematics of existing 2D acquisition pattern 74
4.2 2D seismic line shows the target reflected in the Ratawi area 75
4.3 Diffraction Hyperbola for the survey targets 78
4.4 Structural setting of the Yamama formation 80
4.5 Illustrates mute function. 81
Illustrates Velocity gradient for the Ratawi area from a check
4.6 82
shot data
4.7 Illustrates Migration Aperture Determination 83
4.8 Illustrates patch geometry of the narrow azimuth design 86
4.9 Illustrates Survey layout for the narrow azimuth design. 87
4.10 Illustrates fold distribution for the narrow azimuth design. 87
4.11 Illustrates effective fold in box for the Sadi formation 88
4.12 Illustrates effective fold in box for the Mishrif formation. 88
4.13 Illustrates effective fold in box for the Ahmadi formation 89
4.14 Illustrates effective fold in box for the Muaddud formation. 89
4.15 Illustrates effective fold in box for the NhrUmr formation. 90
4.16 Illustrates effective fold in box for the Yamama formation 90
V
Figure Page No.
Illustrates minimum offset distribution for the narrow azimuth
4.17 91
design.
Illustrates far offset distribution in box of narrow azimuth
4.18 92
design.
4.19 Illustrates azimuth distribution – spider diagram 92
4.20 Statistics of the narrow azimuth design 93
rose diagram in 10 degree azimuth increments for narrow
4.21 azimuth survey showing perfect azimuthal coverage out to 94
1900m, beyond which inline coverage dominates
Trace offset histogram in 200m increments for narrow azimuth
4.22 95
survey.
Azimuth graph showing number of traces per azimuth in 5
4.23 95
degree increments for narrow azimuth survey.
4.24 Illustrates patch geometry of the wide azimuth design. 96
4.25 Illustrates Survey lay out for the wide azimuth design. 97
4.26 Illustrates effective fold in box for the Sadi formation. 98
4.27 Illustrates effective fold in box for the Mishrif formation. 98
4.28 Illustrates effective fold in box for the Ahmadi formation 99
4.29 Illustrates effective fold in box for the Mauddud formation 99
4.30 Illustrates effective fold in box for the NhrUmr formation 100
4.31 Illustrates effective fold in box for the Yamama formation. 100
4.32 Minimum offset distribution for the wide azimuth design. 101
Illustrates maximum offset distribution for the wide azimuth
4.33 102
design.
Line Count – Shot Event chart of 3-D survey. The chart shows
4.34 103
how many receiver lines have active stations for each shot event.
4.35 Fold distribution of the 3-D wide azimuth design 103
4.36 Illustrates trace count–offset plot of the wide azimuth design. 104
4.37 Illustrates trace count–azimuth plot of the wide azimuth design. 105
Rose diagram in 10 degree azimuth increments for wide
4.38 105
azimuth design.
4.39 3D model view from in-line direction at Ratawi area 106
4.40 3D model view from cross-line direction at ratawi area 107
4.41 Illustrates 34 Source active in survey area. 108
4.42 Illustrates rays displayed on target horizon in 3D window. 108
4.43 Illustrates synthetic trace in Ratawi area. 109
4.44 synthetic trace and used AGC to enhancement the reflector 109
4.45 Illustrates cost analysis in mesa software. 110
VI
List of Tables
Table Page No.

1-1 Ratawi oil field coordinates 4
1-2 History of 3D seismic acquisition. 11
1-3 The previous studies in Iraq 12
1-4 The previous studies outside of Iraq. 13
2-1 Illustrates main terms of 3-D design are defined and described 16
2-2 Migration drastically improves lateral resolution 34
2-3 Illustrates the advantage and disadvantage of layout 48
2-4 Illustrates uses and limitations of shooting type. 55
4-1 Major survey parameters of existing 2D data 74
Summarizes the geophysical parameters for the intended
4-2 76
targets.
4-3 Illustrates lateral and vertical resolution in ratawi area 77
4-4 Show the borders of migration aperture (constant velocity). 84
4-5 taper distance of narrow and wide azimuth design 84
4-6 Fold taper coordinate of narrow azimuth design 84
4-7 Fold taper coordinate of wide azimuth design 85
4-8 summarizing the 3D narrow azimuth design parameter 86
4-9 summarizing the 3D wide azimuth design parameter 96
VII
Abbreviations
Receivers Tapers
RLI Receiver line Interval Tx In-line taper
RI Receiver Interval Ty Cross-line taper
RLL Receiver line length Fx In-line fold build-up
Nr Number of receivers per line Fy Cross-line fold build-up
Nrl Number of receiver lines Sampling
Tr Total number of receivers Δx(r,s) Spatial sampling for
receivers and shots
Shots Δxm Spatial sampling in
midpoint domain
SLI Source line Interval Δxo Spatial sampling
incommon offset plane
SI Source Interval
Ns Number of source per line λdom Dominant wave length
Ts Total number of source λmax Maximum wave length
SLL source line length θ Geological dip angle
Sd Shot density ϕ Take off angle
Offsets Z Depth of reflecting
horizon
X Current offset p Ray parameter
X max Maximum offset K Wave number
X min Maximum minimum offset V0 Velocity at surface
Fold (F) VZ Velocity at depth
IxF In-line fold MA Migration Apron
CyF Cross-line fold CMP Common Mid-Point
Survey area NMO Normal Move Out
Sa Survey area AVO Amplitude Variation
Offset
Midpoints
Tm Total number of midpoints
Bins
b2 Bin size (square bin)
Tb Total number of bins
VIII
Chapter One Introduction
1.1. Preface:
A seismic project is comprised mainly of data acquisition, processing,
and interpretation. The survey design and acquisition somehow determine
the quality of processing and interpretation. Even the best processing
techniques cannot reveal good results from the data that have some
insufficiencies in acquisition. Therefore, processing and interpretation
should be considered in survey design and acquisition part of a seismic
study (Coskun, 2014).
The general aim of three-dimensional surveys is to achieve a higher
degree of resolution of the subsurface geology than is achievable by two-
dimensional surveys (Kearey et. al., 2002).Three-dimensional seismic data
have become the key tool used in the oil and gas industry to understand the
subsurface. In addition to providing excellent structural images, the dense
sampling of a 3D survey can sometimes make it possible to map reservoir
quality and the distribution of oil and gas (Bacon et. al., 2003).
The goal of designing seismic surveys is to balance the cost of the
survey and imaging needs of the interpreter. Expenses, equipment
demands, and time limitations of the surveys force geophysicists
considering the survey parameters by taking economical, logistical, and
technical parameters into account. A good survey design can be possible
by gathering as much information as possible from the survey area
(Coskun, 2014).
Stone (1994) summarized two important survey objectives that
should be kept in mind while planning a seismic survey as: (1) Primary
objective to obtain geophysical data that provide a representation of the
subsurface geology that is adequate to meet the interpretation goals, and
(2) Secondary objective to acquire the maximum amount of data within
budgeted funds and time available.
Acquisition parameters calculated by general survey design formulas
are usually adequate to image flat layers and slightly dipping surfaces.
However, determining these parameters for complex structures, such as
folds, faults, domes, and reefs is more difficult due to complicated wave
field behavior in these areas. Seismic data acquisition simulations over a
model of the study area can provide crucial information for determining
the survey parameters. If the model is constructed close enough to the real
structure, it is possible to obtain very realistic synthetic seismic data using
seismic modeling. Therefore, seismic modeling is one of the most
١
economical ways to establish and test the optimum acquisition parameters

so as to get the best image over the complex geological structures
(Coskun, 2014).
A 3D seismic survey design will be subjected to Ratawi oil field
which is one of the important subsurface structures and one of the
productive oil fields in southern Iraq. Few structural studies have been
concentrated on this area. Some geophysical reports of the Oil Exploration
Company try to determine its structural picture.
1.2. Geographical location and coordinates of the study area :
Ratawi oil field was discovered by Basrah Petroleum Company in

1950 by drilling a prominent closed seismic anomaly on top of Ahmadi
Formation at about 70 km West of Basrah. This discovery became one of
the under-developed oil fields of South Iraq.
Ratawi oil field is located in Basrah governorate in southeast of Iraq
(Figure 1.1). The area is delimited from north by Qurna city, from the east
by Satt Al-Arab and from the west by Nasiriyah city.
٢
Figure (1.1) Map of the study area in southern Iraq showing the
locations of oil fields. (Pitman et al., 2004).
٣
The Ratawi oil field is surrounded by North Rumaila, South Rumaila,

Rachi, Luhais and Subba oil Fields (Figure 1.2). The borders of Ratawi oil
field are appointed by following WGS-84 coordinates:
Table (1-1) Ratawi oil field coordinates
Point X Y
A 711721.76 3400287.58
B 711721.76 3367287.58
C 689721.76 3367287.58
D 689721.76 3400287.58
Figure (1.2) Locations of production oil fields around Ratawi oil field.
(Pitman et al., 2004).
٤
1.3. The chosen area:
After many personal communications and direct contacts with experts

in the Iraq, seismic of Exploration Company, I was advised to choose the
Ratawi oil field to be the case study for the design.
1.4. Surface geology:
The study area is part of the Mesopotamia plain in southern Iraq. It is

covered by alluvial deposit for Quaternary period at which include silt and
soft sand (O.E.C., 2010).
1.5. Tectonic and structural setting:
The region is generally flat or gently undulated open desert with

topography of an elongated low ridge showing a steady rise in elevation
from north to south and plunging northwards into Hor Al-Hammar. The
approximate ground elevation in this location is about 30 meters above
mean sea level at Fao.
The Ratawi anticline is located over the Jurassic Salt Basin (and
possibly the Infra-Cambrian Salt Basin as well) in the Interior Stable
Arabian Shelf tectonic regime. The N-S trend of the Ratawi field is
probably due to interplay of Pre-Cambrian N-S basement faults and Infra-
Cambrian salt tectonics. The gentle dip may hide a steeper dip of the
structural flanks of the deformable Gotnia salt. The detailed stratigraphic
correlation, seismic structural mapping and log analyses revealed that this
Arabian Shelf-type of anticline shows evidence of Neocomian, Albian,
Turonian and Palaeocene-Oligocene pulses of structural growths that
characterize the multiple reservoirs giant oil fields of the Arabian Shelf
(S.O.C., 2010).
The Ratawi field is located in Zubair subzone - Mesopotamia zone.

(Buday and Jassim, 2006), Figure (1-3).
Tectonism has played an important role in shaping the final

configuration of the Yamama basin, and the Yamama basin extends over
different tectonic zones. The western part of the basin is situated within the
stable shelf of the Arabian Platform (specifically the Salman subzone of
that belt), and the eastern part of the basin is located within the unstable
٥
shelf, the Mesopotamian foredeep. The hinge line between these two
tectonic units is the northeastern slope of the Arabian platform that passes
near the Khider Alma-1 well and extends toward the Kuwait borders.
(Sadooni, 1993).
Fig. (1-3) Shows the location of Ratawi oil field in the tectonic map of Iraq
(South Oil Company (S.O.C., 2010)).
The Early Cretaceous rifting was also formed by extensional forces

between Bitlis/Sirjan in turkey and north of Arabian plate, the tectonic
movements formed in the beginning or the Early Cretaceous, and the
Valanginian basin is inherited from these movements, which has taken
place in the Berriasiain time. Koop and Stonely (1982) confirmed that the
tectonic history of the Arabian plate was influenced by events that
occurred around its margins related to the rifting of Gondwanaland and
later collision with Asia.
٦
The Ratawi field's area is considered relatively stable during the

deposition of the Yamama Formation because that there was no major
changes recognized horizontally or vertically in southern area (Jogmec,
2009).
1.6. Cretaceous period in Iraq:

The Cretaceous succession in Iraq is up to 3000 m thick and comprises
Megasequences AP8 and AP9 (Sharland et. al. 2001).
The Cretaceous succession has been extensively studied because it contains
abundant reservoir intervals. It is the most productive interval in Iraq and
contains about 80% of the country’s oil reserves (Al-Sakini, 1992).
1.6.1. Late Tithonian-Early Turonian Megasequence AP8

The Late Tithonian-Early Turonian Megasequence was deposited in a
large intra-shelf basin contemporaneous with a new phase of ocean floor
spreading in the Southern Neo-Tethys. Differential subsidence occurred
across transverse faults. The axis of the intra-shelf basin shifted towards the
eastern Mesopotamian Zone into the Tigris Subzone from its previous
position on the western Mesopotamian Zone. The opening of the Southern
Neo-Tethys led to the drifting away of a narrow microcontinent, a new
passive margin formed along the NE margin of the Arabian Plate. The
megasequence is thickest in the Tigris Subzone of the Mesopotamian Zone
(Jassim and Goff, 2006).
According to (Aqrawi et. al., 2010) the Megasequence AP8

comprises four supersequences:-
A. Supersequence I: Late Tithonian - middle Valanginian (Lower

Thamama), this contains the Sulaiy/Makhul, Yamama/Garagu and
Ratawi Formations.
B. Supersequence II: Upper Valanginian-upper Aptian (Upper
Thamama). The supersequence comprises a major siliciclastic
system overlain by a carbonate platform. It contains the Zubair and
Shuaiba Formations.
C. Supersequence III: Uppermost Aptian-upper Albian (Lower Wasia).
This supersequence also consists of a siliciclastic system and an
overlying carbonate platform. It contains the Nahr Umr and
Mauddud Formations.
٧
D. Supersequence IV: Uppermost Albian-lower Turonian (Upper

Wasia). This supersequence marks the onset of carbonate platform
drowning and the end of large-scale siliciclastic deposition. This
contains Ahmadi, Rumaila, and Mishrif Formations.
1.6.2. Late Turonian-Danian Megasequence AP9

The Late Turonian-Danian Megasequence is the most widespread
megasequence in Iraq. It was deposited following the onset of ophiolite
obduction in the southern part of the Neo-Tethys. Large N-S trending
structures formed in SE Iraq due to inversion. Turonian-Early Campanian
sediments are restricted to the Mesopotamian. Longitudinal and transversal
structural features affected the palaeogeography of the megasequence.
Inner shelf neritic carbonates were deposited on elevated blocks. The
megasequence AP8 and AP9 are separated by a regional unconformity of
mid-Turonian age (Jassim and Goff, 2006).
According to (Aqrawi et al., 2010) the Megasequence AP9 is divided

into:
A. Supersequence I: Upper Turonian –lower Campanian (Lower
Aruma). This supersequence consists predominantly of deep shelf
sediments in Iraq and includes the Khasib, Tanuma and Sadi
Formations.
B. Supersequence II: Middle Campanian -Maastrichtian (Upper
Aruma). Deposition was differentiated on highs and lows, with both
thick platform carbonates (Hartha, Bekhme, and Aqra Formations)
and basinal marls (Tanjero and Shiranish Formations).
Figure (1.4) shows the stratigraphic column of Basrah region, Southern

Iraq.
٨
Figure (1.4) Stratigraphic column of Basrah region, Southern Iraq. (Al-

Ameri et al., 2009)
1.7. Aims of the study:
1- The primary aim of this study is to design a 3D seismic survey that

could be able to determine several key parameters, like spatial sampling
interval (bin size), vertical and horizontal resolution, the minimum and
maximum offset and migration apron.
2- Selected the best design to be applied in the field (based on easy
acquisition logistics) with the lowest possible cost.
3- Design optimized 3D surveys that coincide with geological structural
setting in the area.
٩
4- Design Ratawi 3D survey has helped to identify prospective drilling

locations within the Cretaceous formations such as the Sadi, Mishrif,
Ahmadi, Mauddad, Nahr umr and Yamama.
1.8. Methodology:
- Gathering and processing of the surface and subsurface available

information relevant to the survey design process.
- Access the subsurface recording and the Operational Area.
- Determination of Bin size based on geological and existing 2D seismic
information in the Ratawi oil field area.
- Migration Aperture: Using the Migration Aperture Equations, Determine
the necessary apertures at the survey boundaries. (Use the Maximum Dips
near each of the survey boundaries. Use Xmin if Dip is small). The
Migration Apertures is added to the survey boundaries to obtain the 3D full
fold area.
- Calculation horizontal resolution (Fresnel Zone).
- Calculation vertical resolution.
- Analysis of the offset range and distribution based on available velocity
and processing mute information.
- Layout alternative geometry and computation of survey surface
diagnostics. Analysis of the offset and azimuth distribution of all the
alternatives geometries considered in the survey design.
- Modeling and computation of subsurface diagnostics using seismic
modeling and ray tracing.
١٠
1.9. History of 3D seismic acquisition:

The following selected references, should show the technical
development of acquisition techniques in the last decades. as mentioned by
(Fuchsluger, 2011):
Table (1-2) history of 3D seismic acquisition.
Researcher Technical development
Name
Gives a view of the state of seismic data acquisition in 1985.
He makes a brief review of the techniques of the mid-1980s,
Laster, 1985 where the increasing number of data channels leads to the
development of digital telemetry systems. He discusses
shear wave information and sees a distinct trend to three
dimensional seismic acquisition and recording.
Savit, 1989 Makes a public-opinion poll to all SEG members, who use
the seismic data acquisition equipment. The practical
number of simultaneous recordable channels is about 400.
Deals with 3D seismic offshore survey design and integrates
Ashton el borehole data to survey simulation in three dimensions and
al., 1994 compares increased acquisition costs by decreased survey
costs.
Invents a comprehensive theory to define what constitutes a
Vermeer, good 3D geometry and how it can be designed. He calls this
1998a theory 3D symmetrical sampling, which is an extension of
his 2D symmetrical sampling criteria: equal shot and
receiver intervals, and equal shot and receiver patterns.
Liner et. al., Extends the formula of bin size and related parameters
1999 designed for constant velocities to media with a linear, with
depth increasing velocity.
Makes some exploration scenarios onshore in Abu Dhabi, by
Quigley, improving spatial distribution of the source energy which
2000 yield to an increased CMP fold and an improved offset
distribution in respect to survey costs.
Cordsen et. Imparts the tool to start planning a 3D seismic survey
al., 2000 considering practical aspects.
Vermeer, Describes an optimization of three dimensional seismic
2003 survey design in case of an orthogonal geometry.
١١
Deals with model-based three dimensional survey design.

Alvarez et. He shoots rays from different grid points on the target
al., 2004 reflector and shows, that it is possible to reduce the number
of sources considerably to get affordable results.
Published a tutorial in two parts: "Designing land 3D
Cooper, programs for signal, noise, and prestack migration",
2004 focusing on bin size and he strongly encourages the use of
prestack migration and midpoint scatter.
Introduces a new methodology for 3D survey design by
taking well logs to determine the maximum receivable
frequency and VSP data to estimate attenuation. Hence,
Galbraith, parameters as S/N ratio, the required fold, bin size,
2004 minimum and maximum offset can be determined. At the
end some field tests are performed to achieve the final
parameters.
1.10. Previous studies in Iraq using the 3D seismic design

Several studies in Iraq used the 3D seismic design as researches and
reports. The following table summarizes these studies.
Table (1-3) the previous studies in Iraq.

Researcher
No The study description
Name ( year)
Jogmec, Worked seismic survey Design for the Gharraf Field
1 to discovered Primarily target / Mishrif and
Japan (2007)
Secondary target Yamama Formations.
Japan Worked 3D seismic design over the Nasiriyah Oil
2 consortium Field to expect uncover to the subsurface geological
details of the target reservoirs and to contribute the
(2008) optimized development and maximized recovery.
Worked 3D seismic design in Magnoon oil field to
discover the stack of development targets, from the
Lower Fars Formation(at approximately 1 Km depth)
3 O.E.C.(2011) to the base of the Yamama Formation (at
approximately 4 Km depth), and the deeper
exploration target, from approximately 4 to 7 Km
depth.
١٢
Worked 3D seismic design for Dima oil field to

discover the heterogeneity of the length of the
column of oil field reservoirs (Mishrif, yamama) with
structural closure as there is a big difference between
4 O.E.C. (2014) them.
To clarify the geological and structural image of the
field and relationship with structural West Qurna
field.
1.11. Previous studies outside of Iraq using the 3D seismic design
Many studies outside of Iraq used 3D seismic design. The following

table summarizes some of these studies.
Table (1- 4) the previous studies outside Iraq.
Researcher
No The study description
Name (year)
Acquisition, Processing, and Interpretation of P-P and
P-S 3D Seismic Data ; Converted-wave 3D (3C-3D)
seismic images can accompany a conventional acoustic
1 Larson (1996) survey and provide a powerful adjunct toward a more
complete interpretation. Proper design schemes are
considered here to account for the nature of 3D
converted wave recording without compromising either
the acoustic or elastic data.
A useful approach to optimal seismic survey design is
to simulate the seismic response for a suite of a priori
subsurface models and shot-receiver templates. The
2 Zhang (1997) response can be used to evaluate many criteria such as
subsurface coverage, target resolution, noise
sensitivity, acquisition footprint, data redundancy,
long-wavelength statics resolution and others.
Flexible 3D seismic survey design. Using all available
Alvarez subsurface information in the design of a 3D seismic
(2002) survey, that could better adjust the acquisition effort to
the demands of illumination of the target horizon.
Explain The MKB (Morris, Kenyon and Beckett) and
Vermeer the LUG (Liner, Underwood, and Gobeli) methods and
3
(2003) create modifications and improvements to both
methods. To optimize a clear understanding of what
١٣
constitutes a geophysical desirable configuration is

essential.
Optimizing 3D seismic survey design parameters using

Dokht, et al., genetic algorithm. Determined the best operational
4 layout was offered to satisfy the geophysical
(2013)
requirements looking forward to satisfy financial
constraints.
Coskun Work 3D seismic survey design via modeling and
5 reverse time migration to discover pierce junction salt
(2014)
dome.
١٤
Chapter Two Terminology and Theoretical Background
2.1. Definition of important 3D Terminology
In this chapter, the most important terms of three dimensional seismic

and their parameters are firstly defined as they are important for the
acquisition, are described.
2.1.1. Definition of terms
Designing a 3D survey implies the right layout of receivers and

sources in the field. There are several different layout geometries
(orthogonal, areal, parallel, zig zag, slanted). The most common one is the
orthogonal survey, where the receivers are plugged in lines over the
measuring area and the source lines are orthogonal to them (Figure 2.1).
Figure (2.1) Bin size B of one Common Mid Point CMP bin, fold,
migration apron and fold taper of an orthogonal 3D survey. (Cordsen et.
al., 2000)
Vermeer, 2002 discusses the different layout geometries and states:

"In general, the orthogonal geometry is the geometry of choice for land
data".
The direction of the receiver line is called inline and the direction of
source line is called a cross-line. In orthogonal geometry all shot-receiver
azimuths are present. The following table (2-1) shows the main term’s
definition and description.
15
Table (2-1) main terms of 3D design are defined and described.
Term Description
Receiver line The line along which receiver points are laid out
in a straight-line 3D survey. The distance
between successive receiver lines is usually
called the receiver line interval (RLI) (Bones
and Herkenhoff, 2006).
Receiver Interval (RI) Distance between two receivers (inline)
Source line (shot line) The line along which source points or vibrator
points are placed, usually at regular intervals.
The distance between successive source lines is
usually called the source line interval (SLI)
(Bones and Herkenhoff, 2006).
Source Interval (SI) Distance between two source stations (cross-
line)
CMP, CDP A CMP (Common Mid-Point) is the geometrical
midpoint of a source-receiver pair at the surface.
A CDP (common depth point) is the reflection
point on a layer in the subsurface for one source-
receiver pair. The CMP is directly above the
CDP for a horizontal layer, but not for a dipping
layer. Migration moves the CMP of a source-
receiver pair to the CDP.
bin, bin size (B) The area of the orthogonal survey is partitioned
in bins (respectively CMP bin in Figure 2.1),
which size is dependent on source- and receiver
interval [(RI/2) × (SI /2)]. One length of this area
is called bin size (precondition: RI=SI).
grid node, grid bin, A digitized layer in the subsurface has to every
grid bin size (x, y) - pair one z value with a constant x−y
raster. The distance between the grid nodes is
called grid bin size and the enclosed area
between four neighbored grid nodes is called grid
bin.
fold migrated fold Every source-receiver pair has one CMP. The
number of CMPs, which fall in one bin is called
fold (in literature also fold of coverage or
stacking fold). The number of CDPs, which are
falling in one grid bin, is called migrated fold (or
illumination), e.g. if 20 points fall in one bin, this
bin has a fold of 20. All recorded traces with the
16
same CMP are stacked in seismic processing,

and the higher the fold, the better is the S/N
(signal to noise) ratio.
nominal fold, In an orthogonal survey the bins on the edges
migration apron, fold have low fold. From a specific fold the S/N ratio
taper will be high enough for the interpreter. This fold
is called nominal fold.
In Figure (2.1), the inner dotted box is the area
of interest and can be interpreted after seismic
processing. To allow proper migration of this
area, the survey has to be extended to the green
dotted line. This extension area is called
migration apron.
To ensure, that all bins in the green area of
Figure 2-1 has the nominal fold, and hence a
sufficient S/N ratio, the survey area has to be
extended further. This extension area is called
fold taper.
migration aperture The migration aperture is defined as the distance
migration angle (offset) on the surface, which will be essential for
proper migration (e.g. collapsing the diffraction
curve to the minimum wavelength). Usually a
migration angle of 30° is sufficient to record
95% of the reflection energy of the diffraction
point. The migration aperture is therefore larger
for greater depths.
pattern, all live All receivers, which are active (live) for a given
pattern shot and which are recording data, belong to a
pattern. The dimension of a pattern can be e.g. 10
×200 and stand for 10 receiver lines with 200
channels per line are active per shot. This pattern
is normally "travelling" in line steps over the
whole survey. By default, the active shot is in the
middle of the pattern (called split spread in 2D).
If all receives of the survey are active for each
shot the pattern is called all live pattern. This
kind of pattern is for theoretical considerations.
Therefore in praxis many receivers are required
and the survey costs are exploding. On the other
hand a small pattern dimension generally leads to
a small maximum offset and hence to a shallow
depth that can be imaged.
17
box The area, which is enclosed between two

receiver lines and two source lines is called box.
Hence, one box has an area of RLI x SLI and is
illustrated in Figure (2.2).
Minimum offset In literature it is also called the largest minimum
(XMIN) offset (LMOS) and is defined as the largest offset
of a box (Figure 2.2). Its size depends on the line
spacing and corresponds approximately to the
depth of the shallowest event that wants to be
imaged.
Maximum offset The maximum offset (maximum distance of a
(XMAX ) source receiver pair) of a survey depends on the
dimension of the pattern and the shooting
strategy. Usually (the shot points are in the
middle of the pattern) it is half of the diagonal of
the pattern size and corresponds approximately
to the depth of the deepest event that wants to be
imaged.
Salvo A sequence of source points (usually vibrators)
all recorded into the same active spread
(template) of receivers (sheriff, 2002) Figure
(2.3).
Swath Width of the area over which the sources are
being shot without any cross-line rolls, often
with many in-line rolls in one swath. At the end
of a swath, there is a cross-line roll to set up the
next swath (Cordsen et. al., 2000) Figure (2.3).
18
Figure (2.2) A box with definition of bin and X min. The red crosses are shot
points and the green triangle receiver stations (Cordsen et al., 2000).
Figure (٢.3) Illustrates defining swath and salvo in 3D design survey.
19
2.2. Theoretical Background

The earth is three-dimensional as well as the petroleum reservoirs thus
we are seeking to evaluate structures that are found as 3- dimensional traps.
The seismic survey results in its attempt to image the subsurface clearly
and more accurate pictures for geological details (Brown, 2004).
Design an effective 3D seismic survey, a proper illumination of the
target reflector and faults should be achieved. However, the mark of a
successful design is that it not only satisfies this condition, but provides for
easy acquisition logistics with the lowest possible cost (Alvarez, 2002).
The standard practice of 3D seismic survey design assumes implicitly
that the subsurface is composed of flat layers of constant velocity. Under
this assumption, a set of source-receiver geometries have been devised and
used extensively (Stone, 1994). These geometries usually correspond to
parallel lines of receivers at fixed distances and to parallel lines of sources,
also at fixed distances. The source lines are usually arranged parallel,
perpendicular or slanted with respect to the receiver lines. (Alvarez, 2002)
In as much as the assumption of flat parallel subsurface layers are
valid, the design process can be standardized and can be seen as a
somewhat routine application of known formulas to compute the distances
between individual sources and receivers; separation between the lines of
sources and receivers; number of active channels per source and so on.
Input information to the design process is limited to range of target depths
and dips, maximum and minimum propagation velocities, and desired fold
of coverage. (Alvarez, 2002)
The key assumption of flat horizontal layers does not honor the
complexity often present in the geometry of subsurface layers in areas of
great oil exploration or production interest. The survey designer usually
ignores this discrepancy, partly because of mistrust of the available
subsurface information and partly because of fear that exploiting that
information may lead to ineffective logistics or may bias the results.
Maintaining the assumption of flat layers is thus seen as a way to
streamline the design process and to guarantee that the design is
conservative with respect to our possibly inaccurate knowledge of the
subsurface. (Alvarez, 2002)
Survey designers often choose the source-receiver geometry from
among the few standard geometries available (parallel, orthogonal, slanted,
20
zig-zag) on the basis of uniformity of offset and azimuth in the subsurface

bins (Galbraith, 1994).
The geometry that provides the least distortion in illumination is
chosen as the best design, after may be tweaking it manually to fine tune
and optimize its illumination response (Dokht et. al. 2013; Vermeer,
2012).
2.3. Seismic reflection survey

Seismic survey operations can vary in complexity. There are two main
types of seismic surveys, two dimensional or 2D explorations and three
dimensional or 3D explorations. The 2D survey method may be considered
as a basic, inexpensive and simple survey method that is still in use and
very effective to find oil and gas. On the other hand 3D surveying is a
much more accurate and complex method which involves greater
investment and much more sophisticated equipment than 2D survey
(IAGC, 2002).
2.3.1. 2D seismic survey

In 2D survey, the spread consists of a single straight seismic line the
of shot and receiver points, the subsurface reflections are supposed to lie
directly below this line. The nowadays 2D method is used generally in
frontier exploration areas before 3D method and drilling, to make the
general understanding of the regional geological structures of the area (Al-
Sadi, 1992).
There are many advantages for 2D survey like fast results, large scale,
regional picture, identify areas of interest and target in 3D, also there are
disadvantages like low resolution, noisy due to poor attenuation of cross-
line noise, distorted view – only looking of the plane of 2D line.
There are three types of 2D geometry off-end, asymmetric split-spread
and symmetrical split-spread as shown in figure (2.4) (WesternGeco,
2006).
21
Figure (2.4) Illustrates the types of 2D geometry; (a) off-end, (b)

asymmetric split-spread and (c) symmetrical split-spread (WesternGeco,
2006).
2.4. Geophysical parameters

Geophysical parameters of 3D can be gathered into imaging, edge,
geometrical and recording parameters. All of them have an impact on the
3D data quality. However some of them have a great impact on the cost of
the survey and have to be adjusted carefully. They correspond mainly to the
imaging parameters and are related to fold of coverage, bin size and
migration aperture. They are thus related to sampling and aliasing criteria,
to resolution and signal enhancement and to migration efficiency:
(Chaouch and Mari, 2006)
– Edge parameters include in-line and cross-line tapers.
– Geometrical parameters correspond to offsets, source and receiver
layouts.
– Recording parameters are related to recording length and sampling rate.
2.4.1: Imaging parameters

2.4.1.1: Fold of coverage
Stacking fold (or fold-of-coverage) is the number of field traces that
contribute to one stack trace, i.e., the number of midpoints per CMP bin. It
is also the number of overlapping midpoint areas.
Fold controls the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N). If the fold is doubled, a
41% increase in S/N is accomplished (Figure (2.5)). Doubling the S/N ratio
22
requires quadrupling the fold, assuming that the noise is distributed in a

random Gaussian fashion. Fold should be decided by looking at previous
2D and 3D surveys in the area, through evaluating Xmin and Xmax
(Cordsen, 1995), by modeling, and by remembering that dip moveout
(DMO) and 3D migration can effectively increase fold.
Figure (2.5) Fold versus signal-to-noise ratio (S/N). (Cordsen, 1995)
Krey (1987) showed that the ratio of 3D to 2D fold is frequency
3D fold = 2D fold × frequency × C (2.1)

dependent and varies according to the following relation.
Where C is an arbitrary constant
1
Many designers use the equation,
3D fold = × 2D fold (2.2)
2
To be on the safe side (especially if one expects high frequencies; e.g.,
over 100 Hz), one may define 3D fold to be equal to the 2D fold.
Some designers recommend that 3D fold be 1/3×2D fold or even less.
This lower ratio can give acceptable results only if the area has excellent
S/N and only if there are minor problems with statics. The three-
dimensional continuity of a 3D data volume allows an easier correlation to
neighboring lines than doe's 2D data; hence a lower 3D fold can be
acceptable.
23
Krey’s (1987) stated another formula for 3D fold:
3 !"# $ × %&'(&" ) × * × 0.401

3 =2 × (2.3)
2 - . !"# × /& !0)
If the 2D trace spacing is much smaller than the 3D bin size, then 3D
fold must be relatively higher to achieve results comparable to the 2D
imaging. However, large channel counts now mean that many 2D surveys
can be acquired with a small trace spacing and large fold. Consequently,
many 2D surveys are over sampled with higher than required fold. One
must always keep this in mind when comparing 2D and 3D fold.
In further support of a lower 3D fold, one may consider trace (or
sampling) density rather than geophone station density. Larger numbers of
geophones per group certainly are sampling the subsurface more densely,
and may improve data quality, when all 24 geophones are stacked into only
one trace. However, 24 geophones per group do not necessarily provide
better data than groups with 6 geophones.
There are many ways to calculate fold; the basic fact is that one source
point creates as many midpoints as there are recording channels. If all
offsets are within the acceptable recording range, then the basic fold
Fold = SD × NC × B $ × U (2.4)
equation is (Cordsen, 1995):
Where SD is the number of source points per unit area, NC is the

number of channels, B is the bin dimension (for square bins), and U=units
factor (10–6 for m/km2; 0.03587 ×10 –6 for ft/mi 2).
Number of midpoints = number of source points × <- (2.5)

Derivation of fold equation (2.4):
number of source points

Source density SD = > A (2.6)
survey size
Number of midpoints
Combine to obtain
= SD × survey size (2.7)

NC
Survey size = Number of bins × bin size $ (2.8)
Number of midpoints
Multiply with prior equation:
= SD × NC × B $ (2.9)
Number of bins
Fold = SD × NC × B $ × U (2.10)
U = units factor (10–6 for m/km2; 0.03587 _ 10–6 for ft. /mi2).
24
2.4.1.2: In-line fold

For an orthogonal straight-line survey, in-line fold is defined similarly
number of receivers × station interval

to the fold on 2D data. The formula is as follows (Cordsen, 1995):
In − line fold = (2.11)

2 × source interval along the receiver line
number of receivers × KL
Or
in − line fold = (2.12)

2 × MNL
in − line patch dimension
in − line fold = (2.13)
2 × MNL
Because, the source line interval defines how many source points
occur along any receiver line. It is important to use (number of receivers) *
(RI) in equation (2.13) to describe the midpoint area that is covered.
All receivers are assumed to be within the maximum usable offset
range in these formulas, (Figure (2.6)) shows a smooth in-line fold
distribution
Figure (2.6) An example for in-line fold distribution of 10 × 72 patch.

(Cordsen, 1995)
2.4.1.3. Cross-line fold

Similar to the calculation of in-line fold, the cross line fold is
source line lenght

(Cordsen, 1995):
cross − line fold = (2.14)

2 × receiver line interval
25
cross − line patch dimension

2 × RLI
number of receiver lines × RLI

Consequently,
2 × RLI
It is important to use (number of receiver lines) × (RLI) in equations
(2.15) and (2.16) to define the midpoint area that is covered. Stated simply,
the cross-line fold is half the number of live receiver lines in the recording
patch (Cordsen, 1995). Figure (2.7) shows such a cross-line fold by
having just one source line live (shown in red) over ten receiver lines.
Figure (2.7) An example for cross-line fold of 10 × 72 patch (Cordsen,

1995).
2.4.1.4. Total fold
The total 3D nominal fold (figure (2.8)) is the product of in-line fold
Total Nominal Fold = (In − Line Fold) × (Cross − Line Fold) (2.17)
and cross-line fold (Cordsen, 1995):
Total Nominal Fold = (in − line fold) × (cross − line fold)

= M × <- × $ (2.18)
By choosing the number of live receiver lines to be even, the cross-
line fold is an integer and a smooth cross-line fold distribution results. Non
integer in-line and cross-line fold introduce striping in the 3D fold
distribution. If the maximum offset for stack exceeds the offset from any
source point to any receiver station within the patch, then the smoothest
fold distributions will result when the in-line and cross-line folds are
integers.
26
Figure (2.8) Total fold of 10 × 72 patch (Cordsen, 1995).
Goodway and Ragan (1995) compared 2D fold and 3D fold at a
offset K
particular offset R. For 2D data the fold is calculated as:
2D foldR = (2.19)
source interval
3D πR × 2D source interval
The ratio of 3D and 2D fold at offset R can then be defined as:
Fold RatioR > A = (2.20)

2D 4 × MNL × KNL
This fold ratio is linear with offset R. Large lines spacing (coarse
sampling) lead to a low fold ratio, which might be acceptable for deeper
targets (with the large increase in fold at far offsets). Decreasing the line
spacing's increases the fold ratio, therefore increasing fold at near offset,
which is good for shallow targets. A compromise could be accomplished
by using a narrow azimuth patch to even out the fold distribution.
2.4.1.5. Signal-to-noise ratio (S/N)

For square bins, the S/N is directly proportional to the length of one
side of the bin (Figure (2.9)). Therefore, only a slight change in the
selection of the bin size can have a major effect on the fold and the S/N.
The designer of a 3D survey needs to be given clear and precise
specifications for these parameters to effectively optimize the 3D design.
27
If the fold drops below the required level for only a few bins, which
does not necessarily mean that the3D survey is poorly designed. Increasing
the fold by only a small percentage on an otherwise well designed survey
may cost an unreasonable amount of money to satisfy the fold requirements
of a few bins (Cordsen et. al., 2000).
Figure (2.9) Signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) versus bin size (Cordsen et. al.,
2000).
2.4.1.6. 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, show far apart these trace summations are displayed.
The fold is a quadratic function of the length of one side of the bin
(Figure (2.10)). The basic fold equation indicates that the constant relating
fold to (bin size)2 is the midpoint density (i.e., the number of midpoints per
Fold = M × <- × $ (2.21)

square unit area), or
The preferred shape of a 3D data bin is a square. Rectangular bins

may be acceptable to highlight certain geological features if the lateral
resolution needed in one direction is different from the required resolution
in the other direction. Also, the spatial sampling requirements for migration
28
might be different in different directions. Sometimes cost issues will

determine different receiver station than source point interval; hence,
natural bin sizes may differ. In some cases, rectangular bins may create
problems because the smaller number of subsurface measurements in the
long direction of the bins limits the resolving power of geological features
in that direction (Cordsen et. al., 2000).
Figure (2.10) Fold versus bin size (Cordsen et. al., 2000).
Bin size can be determined by examining three factors: target size,

maximum unaliased frequency due to dip, and lateral resolution, and then
picking the smallest value of bin size provided by these analyses as the
design parameter (Cordsen, 1995).
2.4.1.6.1. Target size

Normally two to three traces, positioned so they pass through a small
target, will allow that target to be seen in a 3D image, because this means
four to nine traces will be related to the target on a time slice of the horizon
of interest.
If the target is a small reef or a narrow channel sand then the bins
should be small enough to get at least two (preferably three) traces across
the target.
This imaging requirement gives a 3D designer an initial (and generally
too large) estimate for a bin size, which is (Chaouch and Mari, 2006)
29
target size
Bin size T (2.22)
3
2.4.1.6.2. Maximum Unaliased Frequency
Each dipping seismic reflection event has a maximum possible
unaliased frequency f before migration that depends on the velocity to the
target, the value of the geological dip θ, and the bin size B. Referring to
V × ∆t
(Figure (2.11a)), these parameters are related as:
sinθ = (2.23)
B
One needs to take account of the fact that ∆t represents only
wavelength since two-way travel time is measured and two samples per
λ
wavelength are required to avoid aliasing. Thus
∆t = (2.24)
4× V
V
And replacing ∆t
Sinθ = (2.25)
4× B ×
Y
Therefore,
λ= (2.26)
4 × × sin θ
V
And
B = (2.27)
4 × × sin θ
The reflector dip θ is very important in these two equations. A
negligible dip produces very large values for the largest bin size, which
does not cause aliasing, and for maximum unaliased frequency. The largest
dip of 90° puts the most constraint on these calculations. The main question
is to decide which velocities or frequencies should be used for the bin size
calculations. Common practice has been to use the average velocity Vav.
and the dominant frequency fdom for a constant-velocity earth (as in Figures
Y]^_
2.11a and 2.11b), giving:
Z[\ = (2.28)
4 × × sin θ
Y]^_
Solving for the bin size B,
= (2.29)
4 × Z[\ × sin θ
30
Figure (2.11) Bin size (B) and maximum unaliased frequency; a. before
migration, b. after migration, c. linear-velocity earth (Cordsen, 1995).
Most geological scenarios do not warrant the constant-velocity

medium assumption. A velocity that increases linearly with depth is a
better assumption in many basins. A common velocity function is
Y` = Ya b cd (2.30)
31
Where Vz is the depth-varying velocity, V0 is the velocity at surface, k

is a constant (usually >0), and Z is depth. Margrave (1997) used this
depth-varying velocity to determine the bin size.
One needs to consider ray-bending to avoid over constraining the bin
size (Bee et. al., 1994). An example of ray-bending is illustrated in Figure
2.11c (Liner and Gobeli, 1997). The ray paths are parallel for ray
parameter p until the up-dip ray path reaches the reflector. The ray
sin ϕ
parameter p is a constant that is independent of depth and is defined as:
= (2.31)
Yz
Where: ϕ is the take-off angle for the ray rather than the geological
dip. The bin size for a depth varying velocity model can be calculated as
Yf
follows:
= (2.32)
4 × \]g × sin θ
The interval velocity Vint immediately above the horizon, rather than
the average velocity, should be used for calculations of bin size at the
target. This choice of bin size assures that the maximum frequency at the
Vhij
target fmax is not aliased with reflector dip θ. Therefore,
\]g = (2.33)
4 × B × sin θ
2.4.1.6.3. Resolution and bin size

Resolution is defined as the ability of a seismic method to distinguish
two events of the subsurface that are close to each other. Lateral resolution
(also called horizontal resolution) corresponds to the direction parallel to
the seismic measurement plane. It is related to the Fresnel zone. The
Fresnel zone (figure (2.12)) is defined as the subsurface area, which reflects
energy that arrives at the earth’s surface within a time delay equal to half
the dominant period (T/2). In this case ray paths of reflected waves differ
by less than half a wavelength. Commonly accepted value is one-fourth the
signal wavelength (λ/4). Then a recorded reflection at the surface is not
coming from a subsurface point, but from a disk shape area, which
dimension is equal to the Fresnel zone (Yilmaz, 1987).The radius of the
Fresnel zone ( Rf ) is given by:
32
Y 0a
Kk = > A × l> A (2.34)
2 mno
Figure (2.12) Fresnel zone (Yilmaz, 1987).
This shows that high frequencies give better resolution than low
frequencies and resolution deteriorates with depth and with increasing
velocities. Migration technique drastically improves resolution as seen in
Table (2-2) (Yilmaz, 1987).
33
Table (2-2) Migration drastically improves lateral resolution
The 3D migration is a major factor that drastically improves the 3D

imaging compared with 2D data as the energy is by far better focused.
In 3D processing, out of the plane events are restored to their correct
subsurface location and become additional energy. As a matter of fact the
migration can be considered as a downward continuation of receivers from
the surface to the reflector making the Fresnel zone smaller and smaller.
The 3D migration will shorten the radius of the Fresnel zone in all
directions (Figure (2.13)) improving drastically the resolution. Bin size
must be equal to the lateral resolution after migration. This value is equal to
half the dominant wavelength λdom associated with the dominant frequency
fdom (Yilmaz, 1987).
1
Bin size = λ (2.35)
2 Z[\
34
Figure (2.13) Lateral resolution. 3D Migration shortens the radius of

Fresnel zone in all directions improving the resolution. (Chaouch and
Mari, 2006)
2.4.1.7. Spatial sampling and bin size

Spatial sampling is a common operation in seismic acquisition. The
recorded samples must allow the reconstruction of the original signal
without ambiguity. A proper sampling, is given by Nyquist condition (or
Shannon theorem), which states that two samples per period are minimum
q 1
to reconstruct a discrete signal. Then sampling interval is:
Δ0 T % Δ0 T ors (2.36)
2 2
According to Vermeer (2000) in the (f, k) plane, there is a maximum

wave number |kmax| such that the energy is nil for frequency superior to
fmax and there is a minimum velocity Vmin (Figure (2.14)).
35
Figure (2.14) Nyquist wavenumber. In the (f, k) plane there is a

maximum wavenumber |kmax| such that the energy is nil for frequency
superior to fmax (Vermeer, 1998a).
Yovw
The spatial sampling for shots and receivers is thus:
Δt (%, ) T (2.37)
2 ors
Yovw
Whereas the spatial sampling in the midpoint domain is:
Δtx T (2.38)
4 ors
Yovw
For dipping events (with dip θ), the above formula become:
Δt(%, ) T (2.39)
2 ors × !"θ
Yovw
Δtx T (2.40)
4 ors × !"θ
These formulas give the maximum-recorded frequency and wave

numbers and no alias occurs. However, if Vmin is very small or Fmax is very
high, then the above formula leads to very small Δx, which is very difficult
to implement. Then it is common in acquisition to accept some kind of
signal that is aliased such as ground roll with low velocity or noise with
high frequency.
36
2.4.1.8. Diffractions and bin size

Diffractions are useful for migration and should be sampled correctly.
Yyoz
The sampling formula is (Liner and Underwood, 1999):
Δt T (2.41)
4 ors !"ϕ
Where: Ф is the take-off angle from the diffraction point.
It is considered that if the take-off angle is equal to 30°, then the
corresponding wave front carries 95% of the diffracted energy. Then the
Yyoz
above formula gives an antialias sampling value equal to:
Δt T (2.42)
2 ors
Sampling paradox
Compared to the surface diagram (shot-receiver coordinate system)
the subsurface diagram (midpoint-offset coordinate system) shows “that,
the distance between adjacent traces in the CMP (Common Midpoint
Panel) is twice the distance between receivers. Also, in the COP (Common
Offset panel) the distance between adjacent traces is twice as large as the
distance between adjacent CMPs. For proper sampling in (xs, xr) this leads
to under sampling in (xm, xo)” (Vermeer, 1998).
Practical rules
In summary, bin size must be selected as the minimum value of the
1
following three formulas:
Bin size = λmno (2.43)
2
Yovw
Δt (%, ) T (2.44)
2 ors !"θ
Yyoz
Δt T (2.45)
2 ors
In addition, the sampling paradox must be considered either by square
sampling in shots and receivers or by implementing additional shots or by
two dimensional interpolation procedure.
2.4.1.9. Migration aperture

Migration aperture is defined as a fringe that must be added around
the subsurface target area in order to correctly migrating dipping events and
correctly focus diffracted energy located at the edge of the target area.
37
Migration aperture is then related to the two aspects of migration

techniques: moving dipping events to their true subsurface locations and
collapsing diffractions. The external limit of the migration aperture
corresponds to the full fold area (Chaouch and Mari, 2006).
2.4.1.9.1. Migration aperture and migration displacements

Migration restores the dipping reflector to its true position with three
effects: shortening the reflector, increasing reflector dip and moving
reflector in the up-dip direction with horizontal and vertical displacement.
Horizontal and vertical displacements are given by the following
formula (Chun and Jacewitz, 1981):
Y $ × 0 × 0 "θz
= (2.46)
{
4
θs being the dip angle on the time section:
Y $ × 0 " $ θz
= 0 } 1 − l~1 – €• (2.47)
|
4
0 "θz = (2.48)
|
0 "θz
The migrated angle θm is given by:
0 "θo = (2.49)
‚1 – ( Y × 0 " θ z )
$ $
4
2.4.1.9.2. Migration aperture and diffractions

Diffractions are generated by subsurface features whose dimensions
are smaller than the incident seismic signal such as pinch-out, erosional
surface, abrupt lithology changes, reefs, flanks of salt dome, faults, etc.
In the (x,z) plane each discontinuity will generate a circular diffracted
wave front which will be recorded at the surface at different offsets x1,
x2,…xn at times t1,t2,…tn.
In the (x,t) plane, couples (x1,t1), (x2,t2), etc. give a diffraction
hyperbola in the stacked data. The apex of this hyperbola indicates the
diffracted point and its equation is:
ƒ2( f $ b t $ )
0 = (2.50)
Yyoz
38
In theory the hyperbola extends to infinite time and distance.

However, in practice, for the migration, the diffraction hyperbola will be
truncated to a spatial extent within which the migration process will
collapse the energy to the apex of the hyperbola. This extent is called
migration aperture and its width determines the accuracy of the migration.
It is accepted to limit the extension of the hyperbola to 95% of the seismic
migration energy. This corresponds to a take-off angle from the apex of 30°
as shown in (Figure (2.15)). (Figure (2.16)), gives the value of the
„ = f × 0 "θ (2.51)
migration aperture as:
„ = f ∗ 0 "30° = 0.577 × f (2.52)

with θ minimum equal to 30°, this gives:
Y0a
„ ≈ 0.6 × f = 0.6 × > A (2.53)
2
Where: V is the average velocity and t0 is the zero-offset time. In case
„ = f × 0 "α (2.54)
of dipping event the migration aperture is:
Y0a
It then follows that:
„ = > A× 0 "θ (2.55)
2
Where: θ is the maximum geological dip.
2.4.1.9.3. Migration aperture and migration algorithms

The migration algorithms give another limitation of the migration
aperture. These algorithms, in general, take into account dips of 45 to 60
degrees and too steep dips are not well imaged after migration. Dips can
then be limited to these values.
2.4.1.9.4. Migration aperture and velocity

Yilmaz, 1987 shows that migration aperture increases with velocity as
indicated in the above formula and the deeper the geological targets the
higher the migration aperture.
Practical rules
The equation (2.53) is used for migration aperture if the maximum
geological dip is less than 30˚
If this angle of dip is higher than 30°, then the equation (2.55) is used
for migration aperture.
39
Figure (2.15) Migration aperture.95% of the seismic migration energy is

contained within a take-off angle of 30° (Chaouch and Mari, 2006).
Figure (2.16) Migration aperture value Ma = z×tanθ (Chaouch and

Mari, 2006).
40
2.4.2. Edge parameters

Edge parameters are essentially related to the fold distribution around
the full fold area (Figure (2.17)). In this area the fold is not nominal. It is
the halo zone. Instead it has to be managed in order to bring it from a
minimum value to its full value. The distance to be added to the full fold
area is called fold taper. In 3D acquisition two types of tapers have to be
considered: the in-line taper corresponding to the receiver lay out direction
and the cross-line taper corresponding to the orthogonal direction
(Chaouch and Mari, 2006).
Figure (2.17) Fold tapers (Chaouch and Mari, 2006).
2.4.2.1. In-line taper

For the in-line taper the minimum value of the fold is usually taken
equal to one. However it could be higher in case of cost savings.
Lt‰
The distance Tx of the in-line taper is (Chaouch and Mari, 2006):
qt = > – 0.5A × MNL (2.56)
2
It is usually more practical to calculate the in-line fold build-up Fx in
(MNL × ‰ )
terms of source line interval with the expression:
‰t = (2.57)
qt
Where:
F = nominal fold
IxF= in-line fold
41
SLI= shot line spacing

Tx= in-line taper in meters
Fx= in-line taper in number of source line spacing intervals
2.4.2.2. Cross-line taper

The cross line taper depends on the template configuration. The
-)‰
distance Tx of this taper is (Chaouch and Mari, 2006):
q) = > – 0.5A × KNL (2.58)

2
and the cross-line fold build-up Fy in terms of receiver line interval is given
(KNL × ‰ )
by:
‰) = (2.59)
q)
Where:
F = nominal fold
CyF= cross-line fold
RLI= receiver line spacing
Ty = cross-line taper in meters
Fy= cross-line taper in number of receiver line spacing intervals
Folder taper represents then an additional area to be added around the
full fold area. It is needed for operational aspects. It can greatly increase the
size of the survey area. This makes small 3D surveys very expensive.
Practical rules
For flat layers, the in-line fold taper can be taken approximately 20%
qt ≈ 20% × ‹ors
of the maximum offset (Xmax).
2.4.3. Geometrical parameters

2.4.3.1. Maximum offset: Xmax
Maximum offset X max (Figure (2.18)) corresponds to the distance
between the actual shot and the farthest receiver in the template. It is
approximately equal to half the diagonal of the template (Chaouch and
Mari, 2006):
Xmax = ƒ(X Ž•[•• )$ b (X hi )$ (2.60)
Where:
Xmax= maximum offset.
42
Xcross= Distance between the actual shot and the farthest receiver line in the
cross-line direction.
Xin= Distance between the actual shot and the farthest receiver in the in-
line direction.
Many factors influence the selection of the maximum offset such as:
depth of geological target, mute function, NMO correction, NMO stretch,
direct arrival, multiple discrimination, available equipment, …….etc.
Figure (2.18) illustrates maximum offset.
2.4.3.1.1. Maximum offset and deepest target depth

Maximum offset must be large enough to image the primary
geological target of the 3D.
X max ≥ Z
For flat layers Xmax can be equal to the depth Z of this target.
2.4.3.1.2. Offset and mute function

The mute function is defined during processing in order to eliminate
the noise generated at the beginning of each trace. The mute function can
be seen on previous seismic surveys. This function will limit the maximum
offset to avoid acquiring data that will be eliminated during processing
(Chaouch and Mari, 2006).
X max = Xmute
43
2.4.3.1.3. Offsets necessary for AVO

A range of offsets is needed where the angles of reflection from the
target are sufficient to show the expected AVO effect (amplitude variation
with offset) due to the presence of gas or liquid. Narrow azimuth surveys
have a better offset distribution for studying AVO effects. If fracturing is
present, AVO may also vary with azimuth (AVA) (Chaouch and Mari,
2006).
2.4.3.1.4. Dip measurements

The recorded offsets should be large enough to measure Xmax as a
function of dip. Reflections from any structural dipping layer are recorded
at longer offsets on the down dip side than on the up dip side. If one has a
good knowledge of the expected dips; information can be used to make a
geometrical correction to Xmax (Chaouch and Mari, 2006).
2.4.3.2. Minimum offset: XMIN

The bin at the center of the box formed by two adjacent receiver lines
and two source adjacent lines has the largest minimum offset of any bin
within the box. The largest minimum offset therefore is the diagonal of this
box Figure (2.19). The source and receiver line intervals (SLI and RLI) are
largely determined by the required value for Xmin. In orthogonal, brick, and
zigzag designs, the largest minimum offset is related directly to SLI and
RLI. For orthogonal surveys, Xmin is determined by:
Xmin = ƒRLI$ b SLI $ (2.61)
Xmin should be small enough to adequately sample shallow reflectors that
might be used for datum purposes.
44
Figure (2.19) Xmin definition with coincident source and receiver stations
at corners of box.
Figure (2.20) shows what happens when a configuration of source and

receiver line intervals is chosen which 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 a shallow marker in an
inconsistent and unreliable manner, and picking horizon times or
amplitudes might be impossible. This in ability to pick shallow reflection
times in both cases reduces the reliability of any interpretation, flattening,
or mapping based on shallow markers.
45
Figure (2.20) Fold distribution at a shallow level for an Xmin that is too
large (Cordsen, 1995).
2.4.4. Recording parameters

Recording parameters are essentially related to recording length and
sampling rate.
2.4.4.1. Record length

The total record length needs to include several arrival times.
First, the vertical two-way time to the main target can easily be
obtained from existing 2D data.
Second, the record length should be chosen so that any diffraction
patterns from the deepest event of interest (which may include basement)
are properly recorded suitable for migration.
Margrave (1997), summarized these ideas for constant-velocity
2d ‘
situations Figure (2.21) and showed that the record length has to be at least:
0= (2.62)
Y
Where: θ is the scattering angle between the vertical axis and the farthest
receiver to be recorded.
Third, the move out times for reflectors and multiples have to be
taken into account at the far offsets.
46
Finally, static shifts may require up to 100 ms more and

instrumentation requirements add an additional 100–200 ms. Therefore the
total required record length is significantly more than simply the two-way
time to the main target.
Figure (2.21) Record length t as a function of scattering angle θ

(Margrave, 1997).
2.4.4.2. Sampling rate

Sampling rate must be 2 ms or less, In order to record a Nyquist
frequency as high as possible. In this case the highest frequency will be
1
equal to:
‰ors = (2.63)
2∆0
Sampling rate has a direct effect on the amount of data to be recorded
and then on the capacity of Hard Disk to be used to save the data.
2.5. Types of 3D acquisition geometries

Survey designers choose the source-receiver geometry from among
the common, standard and available geometry as shown in figure (2.22)
(Cordsen et al., 2000; sheriff, 2002; Vermeer, 2002).
• Orthogonal: Acquisition geometry with parallel source lines running
perpendicular to parallel receiver lines.
47
• Button: when sources are positioned around a receiver. It leads to a

checkerboard pattern of dense and empty bins.
• Brick: A geometry used for 3D surveying whereby source lines and
receiver lines form a brick-wall pattern.
• Orthogonal slanted: It used to refer to line geometries in which the
source lines are not orthogonal to the receiver lines.
• Zig-Zag: Acquisition geometry when two families of source lines
making angles of 45º and 135º with the receiver lines.
• In-line: Acquisition geometry in which sources and receivers are
arranged along straight acquisition lines.
• Random: Acquisition geometry with a random distribution of source
and receiver locations.
Figure (2.22) diagrams of 3D acquisition geometry (WesternGeco, 2006).
2.6. Advantage and Disadvantage of field layouts

Numerous layout strategies have been developed for 3D surveys. Each
design has advantage and disadvantage differ from other; Table (2-3)
shows Advantage and Disadvantage for each type of layouts.
(WesternGeco, 2009)
Table (2-3) illustrates the advantage and disadvantage of layout.

(WesternGeco, 2009)
Type Applicable Advantage Disadvantage
In-line Open Terrain Narrow azimuth data can be Poor cross line static,
processed and analyzed like high SRC and RCV line
Swath
2D seismic density, very sensitive to
obstructions.
Orthogonal All Terrain Wide azimuth, good for 3D Must use 3D algorithms,
DOM, can solve cross line cannot use simple 2D F-
statics, industry, economic K algorithms
48
operations
Brick Open Terrain Like Orthogonal, plus Discontinuous lines are
improves near offset and difficult in jungle and in
overall offset distributions some other terrains
Slant All terrains Improves overall offset Surveying and line
coverage, better offsets for clearing on source lines
AVO and longer due to
diagonal line orientation
Button Path Open Allows sparser source points, Complex to plan
Terrains, efficient use of large channel
farm land, systems
Arctic,
Desert
Variable All Terrains Modification of orthogonal, Complex to plan
Line brick, or slant design with
Spacing similar advantages to each,
plus guarantees surface
consistency.
Asymmetric All Terrains Modification to orthogonal, Same as for orthogonal,
spread brick, or slant design with brick, and slant designs
similar advantages to each,
plus longer offset with less
recording equipment
Random All Terrains Surface consistent, minimizes Complex to plan and
acquisition operate
2.7. Orthogonal layout

Generally, source and receiver lines are laid out orthogonal to each
other. Because the receivers cover a large area, this method is sometimes
referred to as the patch method. This geometry is particularly easy for the
survey crew and recording crew, and keeping track of station numbering is
straight forward. In an orthogonal design, the active receiver lines form a
rectangular patch surrounding each source point location; creating a series
of cross spreads that overlap each other. The patch often has a longer axis
49
in the in-line direction. The in-line offsets are usually close to the desired
offsets that will be included in the stack. If the cross-line offset within the
patch is close to the maximum offset for stack, then most of the receiver
line farthest from the source point will be useless because much of the data
recorded on that line will 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. The source points 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.
Alternating symmetric and then asymmetric patches are also useful for
operational reasons where the survey is at the limit of the available
equipment for the crew. This technique allows more surface area to be
acquired prior to receiver station moves. (Cordsen et. al., 2000)
2.8. Survey Orientation
This parameter depends on structural trend and the surface features of

the survey area. The orientation selection is usually done by selecting a line
direction that will permit the most rapid execution of the work without
compromising the technical result. If the bin is square (implying no
preferred sampling direction) the geophone lines can be placed in the best
orientation based on surface features and operational considerations. If the
bin is rectangular, the shortest dimension of the rectangular is normally
oriented parallel to the receiver line, Figure (2.23) (O.E.C., 2012).
Figure (2.23) Illustrates survey orientation (O.E.C., 2012).
50
2.9. Offset distribution

According to (Cordsen et. al., 2000), Figure (2.24) shows the
relationships between offsets and azimuths. Each CMP bin usually contains
midpoints from many source-receiver pairs; eight source receiver pairs are
shown contributing midpoints to this central bin. Each contributing trace in
a bin has an offset (distance from source to receiver) and an azimuth
(deviation from 0° north or compass angle) from source to receiver. For a
successful 3D survey, it is of paramount importance to consider both offset
and azimuth.
Offset distribution in a stacking bin is most affected by fold. A lower
fold gives poorer offset distribution, while increasing the fold improves the
offset distribution. One must attempt to get an even offset distribution from
near to far offsets to facilitate velocity calculations for normal move out
corrections and to obtain the best stacking response. A bad mix of offsets
can cause aliasing of dipping signal, source noise, and perhaps even
primary reflections.
Figure (2.25) shows one method of displaying the offset mix in each
CMP bin. Each square is a CMP bin, and the number of sticks in each
square equals the number of traces stacked in that bin.
The vertical and horizontal scales are the offset value. A perfect
triangular distribution of sticks would indicate the presence of all possible
offsets. Two or more traces that have the same offset have the stick drawn
in a different color to indicate redundancy.
Figure (2.24) Illustrates offsets and azimuths contributing to a CMP bin
51
(Cordsen et. al., 2000).
Figure (2.25) Illustrates offset distribution-stick diagram (Cordsen et al.,

2000).
A different method of displaying the mix of offsets in each bin is
shown in figure 2.26, which represents one line of bins. The horizontal
scale is the CMP number and the vertical scale is offset. One CMP bin is
represented with a vertical column. The vertical column is divided into
small cells representing an offset range, usually chosen to be the group
interval. The color bar 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 most uniform distribution of offsets in each CMP is indicated by
a single color and by as many different offsets as possible in a set of
neighboring bins (super bin).
The distance from the base of one V to the base of the next is the
width of a box in an orthogonal survey. Xmin can be determined by
zooming in on an area covered by a box and noting where the top of the
V shape is located.
This procedure should be repeated on several neighboring bin lines
to obtain the largest value of Xmin.
52
Figure (2.26) Illustrates offset distribution in a row of bins (Cordsen et.

al., 2000).
2.10. Azimuth distribution

Azimuth distribution in a stacking bin is most affected by fold, just as
offset distribution is. If the aspect ratio of the patch is less than 0.5, one can
expect a poor azimuth distribution. A bad mix of azimuths may lead to
statics coupling problems and to an inability to detect azimuth-dependent
variations that arise from dip and/or anisotropy. Increasing the aspect ratio
to the range 0.6 to 1.0 solves such problems. A good azimuth distribution
ensures that information from all angles surrounding the stacking bin is
included in the stack.
Figure 2.27 shows a popular method (the spider plot) of displaying the
azimuth of each trace that belongs to a midpoint bin. Each spider leg
indicates the amount of offset (length and color of the leg) and points in the
direction from source to receiver.
The leg lengths are scaled to the largest offset in the entire survey,
which is represented by a leg equal to half the bin dimension.
53
Figure (2.27) Illustrates Azimuth distribution-spiders diagram.
2.11. Narrow versus Wide azimuth surveys

The distinction between narrow and wide azimuth surveys is made on
the basis of the aspect ratio of the recording patch. The aspect ratio is
defined as the cross-line dimension of the patch divided by the inline
dimension. Recording patches with an aspect ratio less than 0.5 are
considered narrow azimuth, while recording patches with an aspect ratio
greater than 0.5are wide azimuth.
Small-aspect-ratio patches (so-called narrow azimuth) lead to a more
even distribution of offsets. However, these patches have, as the name
indicates, a limited range of azimuths. Schematically, narrow azimuth
surveys have a linear offset distribution with respect to offset similar to 2D
data (Figure (2.28a)); however, when plotted against offset squared, the
offset distribution shows bunching at the near offsets (Figure (2.28b)).
Narrow azimuth patches are better for AVO and DMO purposes and when
significant lateral velocity variations are present (Lansley, 1994).
Wide-azimuth surveys (i.e., patches that are closer to a square) have a
nonlinear offset distribution with respect to x, with a heavy weighting of
the far offsets figure (2.28c). However, when plotted against offset squared,
the distribution is nearly linear figure (2.28d). Wide-azimuth surveys are
better for velocity analysis, multiple attenuation, static solutions, and a
more uniform directional sampling of the subsurface.
54
Figure (2.28) illustrates narrow- versus wide-azimuth templates and

offset distributions. X = offset distance.
2.12. comparison of Shooting techniques

Type of shooting is very important in any survey. Table (2-4) shows
uses and limitations for each type.
Table (2-4) illustrates uses and limitations of shooting type.

(WesternGeco, 2009)
Shooting Information
type
Automatic Uses Surveys with fairly uniform receiver lines, surveys
Template with regular or irregular source line.
Centering Limitations Template size is static.
Salvo Uses Slant surveys, source patterns that span receiver
shooting lines.
Limitations Template may not position correctly at survey edges,
always uses all sources between receiver lines.
Offset Uses Survey with highly irregular receiver positions,
Shooting surveys with regular or irregular source locations,
limited offset range shooting.
Limitations Creates a lot of templates, slower shooting method,
only creates a circular patch.
Rectangular Uses Survey with highly irregular receiver positions,
shooting surveys with regular or irregular source locations,
surveys where template size can vary.
Limitations May not keep all sources in a salvo together in the
same patch.
Label based Uses Creating complex templates, creating large source
shooting patch.
Limitations Survey labeling must be regular and consistent.
Swath Uses Surveys with regular source and receiver lines.
Sequence Limitations Method is extremely sensitive to survey
55
Shooting irregularities, difficult to use, other shooting options

produce the same answer.
General Uses Survey which are difficult to shoot with swath
Sequence shooting in one pass.
Shooting Limitations Method is extremely sensitive to survey
irregularities, most difficult method to use, other
shooting options produce the same answer.
Manual Uses Good for shooting individual source that have been
shooting added, good for lassoing large group, possible to
shoot individual source which cannot be fired in any
other way.
Limitations Very labor intensive, Edit templates features offers
better method of manual shooting.
Unit Uses Shooting complicated geometries e.g. button patch,
template slant and variable spacing, use with a pre-defined
shooting surface or subsurface polygon fill.
Limitations Unwanted receivers may be generated; survey layout
coincides with shooting so not applicable to surveys
which are already laid out.
2.13. Hardware limits
The total number of available channels (in the recorder) limits the
size (number of lines) in the active spread. Extra hardware (Line
Acquisition Unit, Line (LAUL), Line Acquisition Unit, Cross line (LAUX)
should be available to keep the layout ahead of the recorder.
Designer should take into account what is the capability of the

crew recording system (number of channels), ground equipment (cables,
strings, Field Digitizer Unit (FDU)… etc.) to avoid loss of time. (O.E.C.,
2012)
56
Chapter Three Software Used in Survey Design
3.1. Preface:
Survey design depends on many different input parameters and
constraints that it has become quite an art. Laying out lines of sources and
receivers must be done and taken in considering toward the expected
results. A solid understanding of the required geophysical parameters must
be applied before 3D design project (Kerekes, 1998).
In 3D survey design, using the computer programs are very necessary
for survey design, because of the multiple source and receiver lines, the
difficulty of computing the coverage, azimuthally distribution, and offset
ranges in the bins. Interpretations are usually conducted on workstations for
2D & 3D (Gerhardstein & Brown, 1984), (Kiran, 2005).
Since 1979 the Green Mountain Geophysics company has been
dedicated to producing high quality software, first for solving near-surface
statics problems and later for designing and implementing seismic
acquisition projects.
There are many programs specializes in seismic survey design such
as; MESA(1), OMNI(2), Geoland (3) and Tesseral(4) Software.
This chapter explains the advantage and uses of MESA seismic survey
design software.
_______________________________________
(1) "MAS" extension Microsoft Access , now GMG database file “MESA”
(2) http://www.gedco.com
(3) http://www.cgg.com
(4) www.tesseral-geo.com
57
3.2. MESA Software:

3.2.1. Program Purpose:
MESA provides a great deal of flexibility in 3D survey design and
analysis, whether the survey is a land, transitional area, ocean bottom cable,
or marine design. Imagery, contour information, and cultural features
(provided from .dxf files, for example) can be used as backgrounds to aid
in the design of the survey. In this way, permit and logistical problems can
be anticipated at the planning stage, reducing the time and cost of field
acquisition. Besides flexibility in design methods, MESA provides
flexibility in shooting methods and bin attribute analysis. Additionally, a
number of output file formats are supported, including SEGP-1, UKOOA,
and SPS, in addition to shooting scripts for Input/Output and ARAM
acquisition systems. The completion of a survey design in MESA generates
a Green Mountain Geophysics GeoScribe geometry database, thereby
completing a major portion of the initial pre-stack processing work while
still in the field. These database files are transportable across various
hardware platforms, making MESA a practical tool for field and office
environments. (WesternGeco, 2009).
In what follows, a brief introduction about the main applications of the
MESA used in the seismic survey design according to WesternGeco, 2009
are presented below:
3.3. Software solutions for acquisition survey design and modeling

Oil companies and contractors around the world rely on MESA
software to construct the right survey plan to meet their imaging objectives.
Whether a seismic survey is basic or complex, MESA delivers decision-
making functionality that can make any acquisition program a success.
Major functionality includes (WesternGeco, 2009):
• Survey design and subsurface coverage analysis for 3D/3C and VSP
surveys.
• Geologic modeling, ray tracing and illumination analysis.
• Chronological project tracking and crew production statistics.
58
3.4. Products scaled to fit a customer’s needs

MESA Field: This 3D acquisition planning software technology in a basic
package is ideally suited for field operations. The user can create a design,
edit to adapt to culture or surface obstacles, and analyze bin attributes. The
design can also be transferred to an acquisition system script file for a
streamlined workflow.
MESA Professional: The industry’s leading tool to design, analyze, and
cost seismic surveys. Geophysical attribute and special converted wave
planning tools are included. A new marine P1/90 file import enhances
review using MESA’s bin attribute calculations while project-tracking
features round out the functionality.
MESA Expert: Advanced model-based design, combining ray-tracing
results with the surface design to demonstrate how seismic energy behaves
in the earth model. Synthetic traces are analyzed in multiple sort planes,
combined with well logs in a VSP display, or written to disk for other
processing tests. 3D visualization assists in the spatial interpretation of
attribute diagnostic results and incorporation of well log information.
3.5. MESA capabilities:

• Design, analyze and estimate cost for 3D/3C and VSP surveys.
• Define regular template configurations and more complex scenarios such
as transition zone and salvo shooting.
• Customize source/receiver positions to surface constraints using GIS
information.
• Analyze geophysical attributes including azimuthal components.
• Track and manage acquisition progress chronologically.
• Model energy with full 3D ray tracing and create synthetic traces for
experimentation.
3.6. Mesa provides several methods for defining a survey:

1- Direct layout and shooting: using the source and receiver layout dialogs
you can create orthogonal (brick or straight line), zig-zag, slant, button
patch, and radial surveys. The surveys are created by specifying
information such as inline and cross line spacing, bearings, and survey size.
Several shooting options are then available to define the source-receiver
template relationship.
59
2- Unit Template: You can create a unit template, a group of sources which
are fired into a common receiver template, in the unit template window in
MESA. This unit template is then repeated throughout the design area to
simultaneously define and shoot the survey. The unit template is good for
creating brick, orthogonal, button or swath surveys.
3- Importing ASCll files containing coordinates and source or receiver
numbers can be imported directly into MESA. Examples of these files are
UKOOA, SEG-P1, and SPS. If ASCll relational files or binary shooting
scripts are also available, then they can be imported as well.
4- The Design Guide is a feature that enables you to enter target
information for the project. The Design Guide will assist you in designing
a survey that meets the specified parameters. Choose Design Guide to
Enter target parameters in the edit boxes. The edit boxes in the Target
Parameters group box are tied to the fields in the Bin Size group box, so
changing information in one area will change information in the other
areas.
3.7. Type of pattern geometry in MESA software:
A survey design may be constructed within MESA using any of the
Receiver and Source layout options. The different layout options
available to you are Lines/Bricks, Buttons, Zig-Zags, Radial, Vertical, and
Graphical. Complicated designs may be created through successive layouts
by adding new locations with each layout option.
The layout options are designed to set up idealized receiver and source
locations for an entire survey area. Individual receivers and sources may
then be relocated or edited as necessary. To produce more complicated
surveys, more than one layout option may be used or repeated to add
locations to those previously generated. Although the layout options and
menus for both receivers and sources are identical, receiver and source
layouts are completely independent of one another.
The Receivers and Source options define survey locations and the
internal ordering of lines, receivers, and sources. The layouts themselves
do not shoot the survey (assign templates to sources); however, this internal
ordering is used in the MESA shooting logic. If receivers and/or sources
were defined via multiple passes through the layout dialogs it is possible
that the internal ordering in the MESA project would not correspond to the
geographic or visual concept of the line order in the Design Window.
60
Special attention should be paid to the internal ordering of lines and points-
especially in more complex surveys.
3.8. Types of shooting in MESA:
After you have laid out receiver and source positions, a relationship
between each source and its active receiver template must be
established. In MESA, this is referred to as “shooting” the survey. (Figure
(3.1))
Many different methods of establishing the source and receiver
relationships are available in MESA. Selecting the appropriate shooting
algorithm will depend upon the geometric relationship between your source
and receiver points.
Figure (3.1) Illustrates window of shooting option in MESA

(WesternGeco, 2009).
61
3.8.1. Automatic template centering:

Automatic template centering is the most commonly used shooting
method in MESA. It is routinely used for shooting orthogonal, brick, and
slant geometries. For each source point, the automatic template centering
routine finds the closest receiver to the source point. This receiver
becomes the center point for the chosen template. If the template has an
odd number of lines and an odd number of receivers per line, the algorithm
is finished with positioning the template for this source. If there are an
even number of lines in the template (or an even number of receivers per
line), the algorithm performs additional calculations with nearby receivers
to determine how to best center the template around the source point.
There are four additional controls in the Shooting Options Dialog that
affect the results of the automatic template centering algorithm. The first
of these options is the Template Roll On/Off. If you selected this option,
the template will remain centered around the source point even if it means
some of the receivers in the template will not be live on the edges of the
survey. If you unselected this option, an additional dialog box will appear
so that you can constrain template movement at the edges of the survey.
The second control that affects the results of shooting is the Fire All
Sources .If you selected this option, the algorithm will start with the first
source point on the first source line and cycle through all of the source
points until a template gets assigned for every source in the survey. If you
unselected this option, an additional dialog box will appear so that you can
assign templates to a subset of the source points.
The third control that affects the automatic template centering is the
Use Shooting Grid option. This is one of the most important options in the
entire program. If you do not select this option, the shooting algorithm will
center the template using the receiver line and point index numbers to
position the template. This works fine for surveys with regular receiver line
layouts. However, if your survey has an irregularly shaped boundary and/or
deleted receivers in the interior of the survey, you may need to use the
shooting grid.
The fourth control that can affect the results of automatic template
centering is the Use Line Filtering option. Line filtering is a very advanced
option that allows you to override the effects of the filtering routines during
62
shooting. The most common use of this feature is during the shooting of
transition zone geometries in which some lines in the active template
extend into the water and some lines don't.
3.8.2. Salvo shooting
Salvo shooting has many similarities to automatic template centering.

In fact, for many orthogonal and brick geometries, salvo shooting (Figure
(3.2)) and automatic template centering will produce identical results.
Salvo shooting is used when you need to have the template centered around
a group of source points instead of having the template centered around
individual source points. This makes salvo shooting well suited for slant
geometries and bottom-cable designs.
In our terminology, a salvo is a set of source points (in a single source

line) that is located between two receiver lines. One source point or twenty
source points can represent a salvo-it depends on the layout of the survey.
Figure (3.2) Illustrate salvo shooting in orthogonal geometry

63
3.8.3. Circular templates shooting:
The circular templates option does not require that you first create a
template. Templates are created dynamically during the shooting process
based upon offset parameters that you specify.
To shoot a circular template with no gap near the source point, specify
a Maximum Offset equal to your desired maximum offset for the survey
and set the Minimum Offset equal to 0. To shoot a doughnut-shaped
template with a gap near the source point, enter a non-zero value for
Minimum Offset. (Figure (3.3))
A B
Gap= non zero offset
Figure (3.3) illustrates circular template shooting. (A) minimum offset

equal to 0, (B) minimum offset not equal to zero value. (WesternGeco,
2009)
3.8.4. Rectangular templates:
The rectangular templates option does not require that you first create
a template. Templates are created dynamically during the shooting process
based upon offset parameters that you specify. Rectangular template
shooting is similar to circular shooting in that it determines live receivers in
terms absolute distance from a source point. However, instead of a circular
receiver template, a rectangular region centered on the source point is
calculated.
64
3.8.5. FireFly Spatial Template
The Firefly Spatial Template option is used to assign either ellipical or

rectangular shaped templates to source locations. Templates are created
dynamically during the shooting process based upon offset parameters that
you specify.
Firefly spatial templates have the same properties as any other

template defined in the MESA, with two exceptions. First, in the Edit
Templates utility, the shape of the template will be drawn around the active
receivers. Second, since the shape of a Firefly spatial template is fixed,
these templates can't be edited.
3.8.6. Label Number-Based Shooting:

The Label Number-Based Shooting option is different from all other
MESA shooting methods in that it shoots surveys using the source and
receiver label numbers. It is convenient for shooting geometries which
have a large number of sources shooting into a receiver patch (bottom cable
surveys, for example).
3.8.7. The swath and general sequence shooting:

Both the swath and general sequence shooting functions are obsolete.
Most surveys can be shot more easily using another technique. However,
the methods are left in the program in case some unusual circumstance
warrants their usage. These methods will only work if your survey design is
orthogonal and very, very regular.
3.9. Array Analysis
The Array Design and Analysis Window allow you analyze source
array and receiver arrays. Figure (3.4) the results can be viewed in four
different cross plots that display the response as a function of frequency,
wavenumber, wavelength, and angle. Arrays can be saved and incorporated
into the synthetic trace generation.
65
Figure (3.4) illustrate array design and analysis source and receiver arrays
The Array Design and Analysis Window have four panes. The
primary pane shows a response plot for the current array. By default, the
display is scaled from 0 to -60 db. The right and bottom pane are 2D cross-
sections through the response plot, drawn at the current cursor location.
The fourth pane (lower right corner) shows a thumbnail view of the current
source and receiver arrays.
3.10. VSP window:
The vertical layout allows you to add downhole receiver or source

lines to a survey. This technique is used for Vertical Seismic Profile (VSP)
surveys to measure the response of geophones at various depths to sources
on the surface or down a similar borehole. This function is primarily used
to design downhole geometries for 3D ray tracing in MESA Expert.
This window allows you to generate synthetic VSP traces and perform
spectral analysis on a record. Gathers can be written out to disk for further
processing tests. Since this window is designed to display a VSP record,
The diagram below Figure (3.5) shows the results of an experiment in

which a well log was used to generate a geologic model in Model Builder,
a multi-azimuth walkaway VSP geometry was designed in Mesa
Professional, and rays were traced in the Enhanced Ray tracer. The
66
formation tops from the well log are displayed as red lines extending across
both the well log pane and the seismic trace pane
Figure (3.5) Illustrates VSP window and well log (WesternGeco, 2009).
3.11. Amplitude Variation Offset (AVO) test:
The AVO Log Analysis window (Figure (3.6)) lets you integrate well
log data with your geologic model and survey design to test potential AVO
effects in your project. This function has many prerequisites:
First, you must build a geologic model.
Second, you must perform offset ray tracing with the Enhanced Ray tracer
and generate reflection data for the horizons being tested for AVO effects.
Third, you must have a well log with a sonic log curve (and possibly a
density curve as well).
Fourth, you must have a time to depth function for the well log.
Fifth, you must have a bin grid defined and perform a full fold, offset, and
azimuth calculation for the survey.
Graphical Panels in the AVO Log Analysis Window
67
Figure (3.6) Illustrates AVO log analysis window (WesternGeco, 2009).
There can be up to six panels in the AVO log analysis window

depending upon choices made during parameterization. If you have
formation tops defined for the chosen well, the top markers will be drawn
in the first four panels.
Panel 1: This panel shows the selected sonic log drawn in blue. The
velocities from the geologic model used for ray tracing are overlain as a
solid black line.
Panel 2: This panel shows the selected density log drawn in blue. The
densities from the geologic model used for ray tracing are overlain as a
solid black line.
Panel 3: This panel shows the impedance curve drawn in blue. Impedance
values calculated from the geologic model used for ray tracing are overlain
as a solid black line.
Panel 4: This panel shows the reflectivity series drawn in blue.
Panel 5: This panel shows eight copies of the synthetic seismic trace
derived from the reflectivity series and the chosen wavelet.
68
Panel 6: This panel shows the synthetic seismic traces derived from ray
tracing. The traces in the CMP closest to the well location are used. A
move out function derived from the geologic model velocities is applied to
the bin gather. The traces are sorted by increasing offset. AVO effects
may visible for events in this gather.
3.11.1. The Reflection Coefficient vs. Angle Plot:
In Figure (3.7), the green crosses represent the normalized amplitudes

from the synthetic gather at the selected time sample (sorted by increasing
offset). Any AVO effects can be seen by analyzing changes in reflection
coefficient. The solid black curve is the idealized AVO response for the
given time sample using the model values for velocity and density. You
can select either the Shuey or the Aki-Richards radio button to change the
equation used to generate the model curve. The model curve can be altered
by moving the Poisson ratio slider bar. Moving the slider bar to the left
decreases the Poisson's Ratio and is indicative of higher gas saturation.
Move the slider bar to the right to model lower gas saturation.
Figure (3.7) shows the reflection coefficient vs. angle (WesternGeco,

2009).
69
3.12. Gather window:
The Gather window (Figure (3.8)) allows you to view a SEGY file,
perform spectral analysis on a record, or generate synthetic trace gathers in
a variety of ways. Gathers can be written out to disk for further processing
tests.
Figure (3.8) illustrate gather window and synthetic trace gathers

There are four distinct modes of operation in the Gather window.
1. You can use this window as SEGY viewer.
2. You can open a SEGY file and re-map the traces into new gathers
based on your survey geometry.
3. You can create synthetic trace gathers containing noise events and
reflected events based on Advisor aperture modeling targets.
4. You can create synthetic trace gathers containing noise events and
reflected events generated by either the wavefront or enhanced ray tracing
programs.
3.12.1. Advisor Synthetic Gathers:

The first methods for creating synthetic trace data is to generate noise
events and artificial reflected events based on Advisor aperture modeling
targets. You may wish to generate noise records to see if the offset
70
groupings in your survey geometry may be susceptible to processing

artifacts. You can also test the effectiveness of source and receiver arrays
in suppressing noise on your synthetic records. Figure (3.9) show advisor
synthetic gathers parameters.
Figure (3.9) Illustrates advisor synthetic gathers parameters

3.12.2. Expert Synthetic Gathers:
The second method for creating synthetic trace data is to generate

noise events and artificial reflected events based on Expert ray tracing
results. You may wish to generate noise records to see if the offset
groupings in your survey geometry may be susceptible to processing
artifacts. You may wish to generate and stack synthetic inline and cross-
line bin sections to test how well your survey design images targets in your
geologic model. Figure (3.10) shows expert synthetic gathers parameters.
71
Figure (3.10) Illustrates expert synthetic gathers parameters

MESA software is depended in this study because it’s available and

certified by Iraqi Oil Exploration Company.
72
Chapter Four 3D Design
4.1. Preface
In this chapter, the most significant six target layers of the Ratawi
field are analyzed in Mesa to get information about the optimum
parameters for the acquisition design, like bin size, maximum offset, lateral
and vertical resolution, and migration apron.
The depth interval of interest for the new seismic includes both the
stack of development target, from the Sadi Formation (at approximately
1.5km depth) to the base of the Yamama Formation (at approximately 3.5
km depth) and the deeper exploration targets, from approximately 4 to 7
km depth.
In the discovered hydrocarbon-bearing section of the Ratawi field,

there are 5 recognized hydrocarbon-bearing formations: Mishrif; Ahmadi;
NhrUmr; Mauddud and Yamama. These formations are carbonate
reservoirs except for NhrUmr which are mixed clastics-carbonates
formations. A total of 8 wells has been drilled and of those currently there
are 5 wells in production and encounter the full reservoir sequence down to
base Yamama. Of these, RT-2 is the only Ratawi well that has associated
check shot data for synthetics generation. There is a good well-to-seismic
character match with well RT-2.
٧٣
4.2. 2D seismic data

Several vintages of seismic data have been acquired in the Ratawi area
through the years. For the survey design area, 2D seismic lines were
acquired using 48 and 96 channels and using group intervals of 70 to 100
meters (Figure (4.1)). Figure (4.2) show the target formation in Ratawi
field in seismic section of line rr15. This line is located in north-south trend
in meddle part of the field. Table (4-1) shows the survey parameters of this
line.
Table (4-1) Major survey parameters of existing 2D data (O.E.C, 2010).

Number of Channels 48-96
Record Length 5 sec.
Trace Spacing 70-100 m
Shot Spacing 140-200 m
Geophones/channel 12
Folding 2400%
Figure (4.1) Schematics of existing 2D acquisition pattern
٧٤
yamama
Figure (4.2) 2D seismic line shows the target reflected in the Ratawi area.
4.3.3D Design background information

3D design consists of defining optimal 3D survey designs that achieve
good quality seismic data within given conditions at surface and
subsurface, as well as crew and equipment limitations. The 3D survey
design is composed of defining survey area, source and receiver layouts,
and other survey specifications. The 3D survey designs should be fine-
tuned or updated based on specific field area details after the actual survey
is started.
4.4. Subsurface targets of the Ratawi 3D survey
The target formations that need to be imaged in good quality by the
Ratawi 3D seismic data comprise not only the discovered producible
formations but also deeper exploratory targets. The depth range of the
imaged targets is from 1,821m to 4,800m. Besides, it is important to image
shallow horizons clearly for both depth conversion and structural
development history restoration. Table (4-2) shows the geophysical
parameters of targets in Ratawi field.
Table (4-2) summarizes the geophysical parameters for the intended

targets.
Formation Depth (m) Two way time V average
(msec) (m/sec)
Shallow reflectors
Dammam 385 ‫ــــــ‬ ‫ــــــ‬
Rus 617 488 2521
Deep target
Sadi 1821 1054 3358
Mishrif 2104 1208 3445
Ahmadi 2328 1310 3513
Mauddud 2458 1375 3552
NhrUmr 2578 1436 3589
Yamama 3657 1972 3708
4.5. Basic survey parameter definition

4.5.1. Resolution requirements
Resolution requirements for this survey can be estimated using the
geological information and the frequency information from the existing
٧٦
seismic surveys. Several expressions and criteria for the computation or

estimation of vertical and lateral resolution have been published in the
literature. Two of the most simple of these expressions are:
With 2≤ N ≤ 4 assumed that lateral resolution will be between one

quarter and one- half the dominant wavelength.
There is a point in choosing a bin size if it is less than needed for
lateral resolution, smaller bins will provide no additional information.
Similarly, using larger bins will lead to a danger that some events will not
be resolved laterally.
A bin size less than one quarter of the dominant wavelength results in
over- sampling and provides no additional information. The use of a bin
size greater than half of the dominant wavelength will result in a spatial
aliasing and missing information.
b< Rh provides no additional information
b> Rh some events may not be resolved laterally
In these expressions Fmax=70Hz.
θ is the maximum aperture angle and can be usually selected to be 30
degrees for initial evaluations. Using these expressions and the target
information of Table (4-3) the following estimations for the resolution
requirements can be computed:
Table (4-3) shows lateral and vertical resolution in Ratawi area

Formation Depth Interval Bin size ≤ Lateral Vertical
(meter) Velocity Resolution Resolution
Sadi 1821 4745 33 25-51m
Mishrif 2091 3636 26 17-34m
Ahmadi 2392 4385 31 30-60m
Mauddud 2451 4031 28 22-44m
NhrUmr 2576 3902 27 25-51m
Yamama 3657 4400 31 27-55m
٧٧
The selection of bin size for the survey needs to be sufficient to

properly sample the target information without poor sampling the survey
targets and also without overspending on the acquisition of the survey.
4.5.2. Bin size determination

Bin size is discussed in chapter 2 (section 2.4.1.6). In the particular
case of the Ratawi area, structural dips are very low(less than three
degrees) but the carbonate reservoirs impose considerations to sample
potential vertical faulting.
Therefore, Diffractions at discontinuity points need to be sampled
without aliasing. Using the available depth and velocity information the
theoretical diffraction curves for the intended target can be constructed and
the slope of the diffraction can be evaluated Figure (4.3).
In this case because of the low structural dips, thirty degree can be
considered to evaluate the constant velocity bin determination without the
risk of aliasing either the reflection of the diffractions at the study area.
Figure (4.3) Diffraction Hyperbola for the survey targets.
٧٨
Considering the lowest velocity of the intended targets, the maximum

frequency of 70Hz, with 30 degree dip, a bin size of 25 meters will be
appropriate to sample the reflected wave field at the Ratawi area. This
selection is also consistent with the equipment availability in the field.
This bin size selection will indicate also the group interval and the source
interval for the survey. That is RI and SI will be 50 meters.
4.5.3. Survey orientation

There are several criteria to be considered when deciding the
orientation of a seismic survey. From the sampling point of view a
commonly used rule (legacy of 2D sampling) requires that the longer
dimension of the recording template should be oriented in the dominant dip
direction of the structure.
Operational efficiency however suggests that in areas where sources
are readily available, the receiver lines should be oriented in the direction
of the shortest dimension of the survey operations area. For the Ratawi
prospect both of this criteria can be combined to orient the survey.
Figure (4.4) shows the structural contours for the Yamama Formation.
The structural setting for the NhrUmr, Mauddud, Ahmadi, Mishrif and Sadi
formations has generally the same trend with different tilt. The marked
arrows represent the direction for both structures (also considering the
subsurface target area) that can be used as a guide to orient the seismic
survey.
For this survey Receiver Lines could be oriented E-W at an angle of
90 degrees, as shown in the blue arrow in Figure (4.4). Sources will be
oriented perpendicular as depicted in red arrow in Figure (4.4).
٧٩
Figure (4.4) Structural setting of the Yamama formation (O.E.C, 2010).
4.5.4. Offset requirements

In Table (4-2), the shallowest and deepest targets have average depths
of 1821m and 3,657m, respectively. There are also two shallow markers
(the Dammam and the Rus formation) that need to be properly sampled.
This range of target depth imposes an important constraint on the offset
range that need to be used.
Another key factor, when selecting and studying the range of offset to
include on a survey is the mute function. Processing of the legacy 2D data
of the area allows for the generation of an average mute function that can
be used to guide the selection of offsets along with the target and marker
٨٠
requirement mentioned above. Figure (4.5) shows the evaluation of the

mute function.
Figure (4.5) Illustrates mute function.
The structure at the target level is very subtle. For instance, having a
good shallow marker is very important for mapping. It was determined that
correct sampling of Dammam and Rus formations needs to be considered
in the selection of the offset range. On the other hand the deepest Alan
formation show an average depth of 4,250 meters and this requirement will
impact the selection of the survey maximum offset.
Considering the survey box as a complete sampling unit for the
survey, key parameters can be linked to the geological properties of the
intended targets.
4.5.4.a. Maximum Minimum offset: Xminmax ≤ Zshallow

For covering the Rus formation in a good quality, the offset
requirement is determined according to formula (2.61) = Xminmax ≤
617m.
4.5.4.b. Minimum maximum offset Xmaxmin ≥ Zdeep

In chapter 2 (section 2.4.3.1), the theoretical background for
determining the minimum maximum offset is given in detail. Therefore
equation (2.60) for the minimum maximum offset is used.
In the Ratawi prospect this deepest reflector is represented by the Alan
formation. The deeper of the main discovered target, Yamama formation,
٨١
requires offset of at least 3657 m and this condition must be fulfilled by the
survey design. Sampling for the Najimah and the Alan formation can be
relaxed if the availability of equipment is to remain restricted on the
number of available channels.
4.5.5. Determination of areal extent of survey:

4.5.5.1. Migration aperture determination
In chapter 2 (section 2.4.1.9) has been discussed the theoretical background
for determining the migration aperture.
For the Ratawi area, a comparison between the straight-ray (constant
velocity) and circular-ray approaches (velocity gradient) was produced to
calculate migration distance. In order to compute the migration aperture the
local velocity variation with depth need to be considered and this variation
was determined by analyzing check shot data from the available wells. The
velocity gradient for the area is shown in Figure (4.6).
Velocity (m/sec)
0 2000 4000 6000
0
500
1000
1500
Depth (m)
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
V(z)=1.771×Z – 4583.9
Figure (4.6) Illustrates Velocity gradient for the Ratawi area from a check
shot data.
٨٢
Figure (4.7) shows the comparison between the survey areas (that is
the subsurface area plus the Migration Apron) computed using constant
velocity and linear variation of velocity with depth. The actual area of
operation will be generated by encompassing the survey area and
considering the survey orientation and other logistic parameters.
Figure (4.7) Illustrates Migration Aperture Determinations.
Migration Aperture =depth *tan 30 (constant Velocity)

Migration Aperture = 3657*0.577
MA=2110.089 meter
V(z)=1.771×Z – 4583.9 (Linear; Velocity gradient)
MA for V(z)=1.771×3657-4583.9
MA = 1895 meter
٨٣
The borders of Migration Aperture (constant velocity) of Ratawi oil

field are appointed by following WGS84 coordinates (Table (4-4) :
Table (4-4) shows the borders of migration aperture (constant velocity).
Point X Y
A 713822 3402496
B 713820 3365173
C 687621 3365172
D 987619 3402378
The full migrated and migration aperture area = 976.35 Km2
4.5.5.2.Calculating fold taper:
The width of this strip is not necessarily the same in inline and cross
line directions. The fold taper depend on in-line fold, cross-line fold, SLI
and RLI. Table (4-5) shows the in-line and cross-line taper distance for
narrow and wide azimuth design.
Table (4-5) Taper distance of narrow and wide azimuth design
Design name In-line taper Cross-line taper

Narrow Azimuth 2100m 750m
Wide Azimuth 1650m 1600m
The borders of Surface extend of Ratawi oil field are appointed by

following WGS84 coordinates Table (4-6) and (4-7):
Table (4-6) Fold taper coordinate of narrow azimuth design
Point X Y
A 715916 3403243
B 715903 3364409
C 685503 3364407
D 685501 3403240
Survey area of narrow azimuth design =1180.82 Km2
٨٤
Table (4-7) Fold taper coordinate of wide azimuth design.
Point X Y
A 715472 3404104
B 715470 3363579
C 685971 3363577
D 685969 3403970
Survey area of wide azimuth design = 1193.6 Km2
4.6. 3D SURVEY DESIGN

Based on the computations of Migration Aperture, the bin size and the
structure trends are observed. For the Yamama formation, several survey
parameters were defined.
The survey area was determined based on the structure depth map of
Yamama formation.
Source and receiver intervals are fixed by bin size so the following lay
outs have RI = SI = 50 m. Good sampling properties can be achieved using
orthogonal geometries and those will be analyzed here.
The survey designs presented below were out of many tries and errors
for finding optimal survey designs that fulfill the requirements investigated
in this chapter.
٨٥
4.7. Narrow Azimuth design

The Narrow Azimuth design presumes to use the 2160 channel Secret
equipment that is already available by OEC in the Field. Basic parameters
for the narrow design are listed in Table (4-8) and Figure (3.8) depicts a
patch example.
Table (4-8) Table summarizing the 3Dnarrow azimuth design parameters.
Receiver line direction E-W Source line direction N-S

Receiver interval 50m Shot interval 50m
Receiver line interval 300m Shot line interval 300m
Number of channels ٢١٦٠ Number of Receivers 180
per line
Aspect ratio of the patch ٠٫٣ Receiver Line 12
Shot Density ٦٦٫٨٧ Number of shots ٧٩٥٦٠
(Source per km2)
Folding ٩٠ Bin shape and size Square
25m×25m
Figure (4.8) illustrates patch geometry of the narrow azimuth design.
٨٦
Using the Minimum Maximum offset requirements, we can consider

SLI=300m and RLI=300m as a first approach for the survey layout. Figure
(4.9) shows the layout of a survey with these parameters. Figure (4.10)
shows the nominal fold distribution for this layout.
Figure (4.9) illustrates Survey layout for the narrow azimuth design.
Figure (4.10) Illustrates fold distribution for the narrow azimuth design.
٨٧
The effective fold will be of course different for each reflector of

interest. Figures (4.11), (4.12), (4.13), (4.14), (4.15) and (4.16) show
effective fold for the six target formations. Effective fold and nominal are
closer at the Yamama formation, Figure (4.16).
Figure 4.11: Illustrate effective fold in box for the Sadi formation.
Figure (4.12) Illustrates effective fold in box for the Mishrif formation.
٨٨
Figure (4.13) Illustrates effective fold in box for the Ahmadi formation.
Figure (4.14) Illustrates effective fold in box for the Muaddud formation.
٨٩
Figure (4.15) Illustrates effective fold in box for the NhrUmr formation.
Figure (4.16) Illustrates effective fold in box for the Yamama formation.
٩٠
For this layout the near offset distribution will produce an adequate
sampling for the Rus formation. The Maximum Minimum offset is 389
meters compared to the 617 meters of the depth of the Rus formation. But it
will cause a problem, in adequate sampling from Dammam formation at
385 meters of the depth. For the maximum offset distribution the minimum
maximum offset is around 4814 m that will be enough to sample the
Yamama, Najimah and Alan formation. Figure (4.17) shows the minimum
offset distribution inside of a box for the survey design. Figure (4.18)
shows the corresponding distribution for the maximum offset of the survey.
Figure (4.17) Illustrates minimum offset distribution for the narrow

azimuth design.
٩١
Figure (4.18) Illustrates far offset distribution in box of narrow azimuth

design.
Figure (4.19) shows a common method (the spider plot) of displaying
the azimuth of each trace that belongs to a bin midpoint, each spider leg
indicates the amount of offset (length and color of the leg)and points in the
direction from source to receiver.
Figure (4.19) Illustrate azimuth distribution – spider diagram.
٩٢
Figure (4.20) shows a summary of the survey parameters for this

proposed layout.
Figure (4.20) Statistics of the narrow azimuth design.
٩٣
The Rose Diagram (Figure (4.21)) shows the average offset and
azimuth distribution of the traces for the box survey. Rose diagram is
colored by number of traces that fall in each sector defined by the offset
and azimuth.
Figure (4.21) Rose diagram in 10 degrees azimuth increments for narrow

azimuth survey showing perfect azimuth coverage out to 1900m, beyond
which inline coverage dominates.
Figure (4.22) shows the average number of traces in each 200m

increment offset in the full fold area selected. From the slope of the
histogram, it can be seen that there is full azimuth coverage from 0-1900m
and in the range 1900m to 4400m the number of traces in each offset range
are more or less the same indicating essentially 2D inline coverage.
٩٤
Figure (4.22) Trace offset histogram in 200m increments for narrow

azimuth survey.
Another way to look at the average azimuth distribution of traces is

shown in Figure (2.23), plotted as a bar graph for 5 degrees azimuth
increments. This graph shows that almost all of the traces acquired in the
narrow azimuth survey are preferentially oriented towards the receiver
lines.
Figure (4.23) Azimuth graph showing number of traces per azimuth in 5

degrees increments for narrow azimuth survey.
٩٥
4.8. Wide Azimuth design:

The wide azimuth design presumes to use the 2592-channel
equipment that is already available to OEC in the Field. Basic parameters
for the wide design are listed in Table (4-9).
Table (4-9) Survey parameters for the 2592 channel-second Design.

Receiver line direction E-W Source line direction N-S
Receiver interval 50m Shot interval 50m
Receiver line interval 400m Shot line interval 300m
Number of channels 2592 Number of Receivers 144
per line
Aspect ratio of the patch 0.95 Receiver Lines 18
Shot Density 66.49 Number of shots 79299
(Source per km2)
Folding 108 Bin shape and size Square
25m×25m
The specify template a design with 18 receiver lines separated by

400m and with 144 channels per receiver line separated by 50m. There are
8 source points separated by 50m between the center two receiver lines,
located split-spread. Figure (4.24) depicts the patch pattern of this
geometry, showing more square shape than the narrow azimuth design.
Figure (4.24) Illustrates patch geometry of the wide azimuth design.
٩٦
Using the minimum Maximum offset requirements, it can be

considered SLI = 300 m and RLI= 400 m as a second approach for the
survey layout. Figure (4.25) shows the layout of a survey with these
parameters.
Figure (4.25) illustrates Survey layout for the wide azimuth design.
٩٧
The effective fold will be of course different for each reflector of

interest. Figures 4.26 to 4.31 show effective fold for the six target
formations. Effective fold and nominal are closer at the Yamama
formation, Figure (4.31).
Figure (4.26) illustrates effective fold in box for the Sadi formation.
Figure (4.27) illustrates effective fold in box for the Mishrif formation.
٩٨
Figure (4.28) illustrates effective fold in box for the Ahmadi formation.
Figure (4.29) illustrates effective fold in box for the Mauddud formation.
٩٩
Figure (4.30) illustrates effective fold in box for the NhrUmr formation.
Figure (4.31) illustrates effective fold in box for the Yamama formation.
١٠٠
For this layout, the near offset distribution will produce an adequate
sampling for the Rus formation. The Dammam formation is cutting edge as
the maximum minimum offset is 465meters compared to the 385 meters of
depth for the Dammam formation. For the maximum offset distribution, the
minimum maximum offset is around 5055 m that will be enough to sample
the Yamama, Najimah and Alan formation. Figure (4.32) shows the
minimum offset distribution inside of a box for the survey design. Figure
(4.33) shows the corresponding distribution for the maximum offset of the
survey.
Figure (4.32) Minimum offset distribution for the wide azimuth design.
١٠١
Figure (4.33) illustrates maximum offset distribution for the wide azimuth
design.
4.9. Analyses the wide azimuth design with optimum parameters:

Once the acquisition geometry and parameters were determined, the
survey was analyzed based on the fold, offset and azimuth distribution, and
shot contribution. The maximum total fold of ١٠٨ is uniformly distributed
over the survey area. However, it is decreasing at the edges of the box,
since the numbers of active receivers are decreased on the corners and
edges of the survey area due to the shooting pattern. Figure (4.34) shows
the number of receiver lines that have active stations for each shot.
Nevertheless, 81.79% of the area is covered by the maximum fold
appropriate to image the structure of Ratawi field. Also, even the fold
values are less than the maximum at the sides of the area; they have
remarkable contribution to the data in the imaging process. The fold
distribution of the survey is shown in Figure (4.35).
١٠٢
Figure (4.34) Line Count – Shot Event chart of 3D survey. The chart
shows how many receiver lines have active stations for each shot event.
Figure (4.35) Fold distribution of the 3D wide azimuth design.
١٠٣
The data acquired with poor offset distribution usually cause problems
and limitations in processing and interpretation (Wright, 2003). It is
always better to examine the fold distribution while designing the survey.
In this study, the offset distribution of the designed survey was examined
using Trace Count – Offset plot. As expected, a regular offset distribution
was observed, since the aspect ratio of the patch is ٠٫٩٥. As seen in Figure
(4.36), the number of traces that fall in each bin of offset value is high
enough to make valuable contribution to the final image.
Figure (4.36) illustrates trace count–offset plot of the wide azimuth

design.
Another important attribute that determines the data quality is the

azimuth distribution. Each trace recorded from different azimuths stores
valuable information about the subsurface structure in 3D. Owing to the
aspect ratio determined for the 3D survey, uniform azimuth distribution
was provided in order to image the target area adequately.
The Trace Count – Azimuth plot shows that the minimum number of
traces that falls each azimuth bin in box is 20736 (Figure 3.37). Moreover,
the number of traces that falls 30°-60°, 120°-150°,210°-240° and 290°-
320° azimuth bins is higher than the average, as the missing traces on the
corners and sides of the survey area provides poor azimuth distribution as a
result of the shooting geometry. Even so, the average number of traces that
falls each azimuth bin is acceptable to sample the data from every azimuth
bin.
١٠٤
Figure (4.37) Illustrate trace count–azimuth plot of the wide azimuth

design.
Both the azimuth and offset distributions can be examined using rose
diagram. The rose diagram of the planned survey is shown in Figure (3.38).
As expected, the numbers of traces were increased with the larger offsets at
every azimuth bin in the survey area.
Figure (4.38) Rose diagram in 10 degrees azimuth increments for wide

azimuth design.
١٠٥
4.10. Subsurface model:
The first step towards ray tracing modeling is generation of 3D

subsurface model followed by gridding and smoothing to eliminate sharp
peak kinks at target level (horizon of interest) in depth domain based on
available 2D seismic data. This structural model was updated with
representative velocity and density information.
Creation the model from one cross-section in the inline direction and
cross-line direction is done using the model builder software (MESA). A
simplified subsurface model corresponding to a target horizon whose depth
changes from about 1.5 km to about 3.5 km. The simulated model for the
land prospect, have low local dips. Figures (4.39) and (4.40) show views of
the model from the inline and the cross-line direction respectively.
Figure (4.39) 3D model view from in-line direction at Ratawi area.
١٠٦
Figure (4.40) 3D model view from cross-line direction at Ratawi area.
4.11. Ray trace modeling:
The ray trace modeling is one of the most useful methods to test the
acquisition parameters so as to build an accurate geological model. Areas
with complex geology, such as salt domes, faults, steeply dipping layers,
and lateral velocity discontinuities, can be analyzed in terms of illumination
by ray tracing. Using ray tracing method allows detection of the areas
where illumination is required. Then, receiver and/or source intervals may
be updated according to the imaging needs of the model (Neff and Rigdon,
1994).
The ray trace modeling was carried out to optimize the shooting
geometry Figures (4.41) and Figure (4.42) show source with ray from
470301 to 470334 in survey area.
١٠٧
Figure (4.41) illustrates the 34 active Sources in survey area.
Figure (4.42) illustrates rays displayed on target horizon in 3D window.
١٠٨
The synthetic seismograms were also generated to see their solution,

continuity and frequency content of different horizons/formations present
in the area. Figure (4.43) shows the synthetic trace in 70 bins.
Figure (4.43) illustrates synthetic trace in Ratawi area.
4.12. Automatic gain control (AGC):

It is a system to control the gain, or the increase in the amplitude of a
signal from the original input to the amplified output, automatically. AGC
is commonly used in seismic processing to improve visibility of late-
arriving events in which attenuation or wave front divergence has caused
amplitude decay. A disadvantage is that when the AGC gain is applied, it is
not possible to reconstruct the original signal again. Therefore the AGC is
only used for display and printing purposes (Yilmaz, 1987).
Figure (4.44) shows used AGC in synthetic trace and enhancement

Yamama reflector.
Figure (4.44) Synthetic trace and used AGC to enhancement the reflector.
١٠٩
4.14. Cost Survey:

The cost of land seismic data acquisition of international crews depends
upon productivity, raising and winding up of crews, permit (land leasing,
crop compensation), technological up gradation, and investment on Health,
Safety Environment (HSE) and wages to employees.
MESA software can perform simple costing calculations for a survey

design depended on Permitting Costs, Surveying Costs, Source Costs,
Equipment Costs, Clearing Costs, Processing Costs and Miscellaneous
Costs, Figure (4.45).
The most company calculated the cost of survey used source per Km2,
and used 500$ per VP.
Figure (4.45) illustrates cost analysis in mesa software.
١١٠
Chapter Five Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1. Conclusions
1- The Ratawi oil field is a dominant dip in E-W, requires the longer
dimension of recording template should be oriented E-W. And easy to
move the source line should be oriented in N-S to reduce the cost of survey,
difficulty to move receiver line in longer dimension of survey area this is
the second cause of orient receiver line in E-W direction.
2- The line spacing’s needed to be as large as possible to minimize surface

template (foot print) but cannot be made too large as this will affect to
seismic data quality. The largest acceptable line spacing is determined by
the shallowest horizon of interest to be imaged. In the Ratawi area the Rus
and Dammam at about 385m and 617m respectively, but should be also
taken into account the need to get some minimum fold and data quality in
the shallowest interval from the surface to Rus Formation, as this also
affects data quality deeper down. All this leads to, a use line spacing range
between 300-400m to balance surface template for shallow and deep
targets.
3- The selection of bin size for the survey needs to be sufficient to properly
sample the target information. Considering the lowest velocity of intended
targets, the maximum frequency of 70 Hz and 30 degree dip, a bin size of
25 meters will be appropriate to sample the reflected wave field of the
Ratawi area.
4- Using velocity gradient and constant velocity method to estimate the

migration distance of Ratawi oil field, finally to build full fold area.
5- The taper zone from the edge of the surface area to the fully imaged
subsurface is depend on in-line fold, cross-line fold, source line interval
and receiver line interval. Calculate fold taper to build fully imaged
subsurface. It controls the cost of the survey.
6- Wide azimuth design for discovering the deep target must be used as it is
better than narrow azimuth design.
7- Narrow azimuth design was used of 2160 channels in the field. The
narrow azimuth design will satisfy most of the subsurface sampling
requirements except obviously for the azimuthally sampling.
111
8- Narrow azimuth design best for shallow targets, statics and low template
and reservoir characterization.
9- Near offset sampling of the wide azimuth design will have some issues
with the sampling of the Dammam Formation.
10- Cross line fold taper in narrow azimuth design less than wide azimuth
design this is important to overcome the surface obstacles. The length
dimension of patch must be parallel to surface obstacles.
11- Small aspect ratio patches (narrow azimuth lead to more linear
distribution of offsets quite like offset distribution of a 2D line. Narrow
azimuth design has a limited range of azimuth 60° to 120° and 240° to
295°.
12- Azimuth sampling, however could be an important issue in this area

because if a carbonate play. Further analysis of the available geological
information needs to be conducted to assess the presence, importance of
fracturing as a production mechanism in this reservoir. It is important to
consider that the 2592- channel wide azimuth design will allow for
directional velocity of AVO analysis.
13- Ray tracing modeling could greatly help to insure the success of the
design and build synthetic seismograms.
112
5.2. Recommendations
1- A big challenge for this project is the high level of explosive across the
field. This explosive need to be cleared for safe seismic acquisition,
explosive clearance has a high exposure, is time consuming and costs are
high. Consequently, minimizing the surface template (footprint) of the
seismic survey is an important consideration. Of all possible survey designs
an orthogonal geometry, with perpendicular source and receiver line, is the
most efficient in minimizing surface template and total area to be cleared
from explosive.
2- Scouting information need to be used to anticipate the problems with the

source and receiver positions and will allow establishing a strategy to move
the source and/or receiver positions and to recover subsurface samplings
and this moving will effect on fold.
3- A more accurate velocity model for the study area must be building.
4- Ray tracing technique is time consuming in the process. For that, the
application of the technique needs a high performance computer with fast
central processing unit (CPU).
113
References
References
Al-Ameri T.K., Al-Khafaji A.J., and Zumberge, J., (2009). Petroleum

system analysis of the Mishrif reservoir in the Ratawi, Zubair, North and
South Rumaila oil fields, southern Iraq: GeoArabia, v. 14, no. 4, p. 91-108.
Al-Sadi, H, (1992). 3D Seismic Survey, the first national experiment,

research held in the 10th Iraqi geological convention, 19 p. (In Arabic).
Al-Sakini, J.A, (1992).Summary of the petroleum geology of Iraq and the
Middle East. In: Northern Oil Company Press (Naft-Al-Shamal Co.),
Kirkuk, Iraq,179p. (In Arabic).
Alvarez, G., (2002). Flexible 3-D seismic survey design: SEP–112, 195–
212.
Alvarez, G., Pereyra, V. and Carcione, L., (2004). Model-based 3-D
seismic survey design as an optimization problem.SEG Extended Abstracts,
23, 63-66
Aqrawi A. A. M., Goff J. C., Horbury A. D., and Sadooni F. N, (2010).

The Petroleum Geology of Iraq, Printed in Great Britain by Cambrian
printers, Aberystwyth, 424p.
ASHTON, P.C., BACON, B., DEPLANTE, C., DICKILRESON and

REDEKOP, G. (1994). 3D Seismic Survey Design. Oilfield Review, 6 (2),
19-32.
Bacon, M., Simm, R. and Redshaw, T, (2003). 3D Seismic Interpretation,

Printed in United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge, 212 p.
Bee, M. F., Bearden, J. M., Herkenhoff, E. F., Supiyanto, H., and

Koestoer, B., (1994). Efficient 3Dseismic surveys in a jungle environment:
FirstBreak, 12, no. 5, 253–259.
Bones D. and Herkenhoff F, (2006).Principles of 3-D Seismic Survey

Design, Chevron Energy Technology Co.
Brown, A.R, 2004. Interpretation of Three Dimensional Seismic Data,
AAPG Memoir 42, 6th ed., Tulsa, OK., USA 74170-2740, 534 p.
Chaouch, A. and Mari, J.L, (2006). 3-D Land Seismic Surveys:
Definition of Geophysical Parameters, Oil & Gas Science and Technology,
Vol. 61, No. 5, pp. 611-630.
114
References
Chun, J.H. and Jacewitz, C, (1981).Fundamentals of frequency –domain

migration, Geophysics, 46, 717-732.
Cooper, N, (2004). A world of reality—Designing land 3D programs for

signal, noise, and prestack migration. The Leading Edge, 23 (10), part 1:
1007-1014, part 2: 1230-1235
Cordsen, A., Galbraith, M. and Peirce, J, (2000).Planning Land 3D

Seismic Surveys.Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa - Oklahoma,
204 pages
Cordsen, A, (1995). How to find the optimum 3D fold: Ann. Mtg., Can.
Soc. Expl. Geoph., Expanded Abstracts, 96–97.
Coskun, S, (2014). 3D seismic survey design via modeling and reverse

time migration: pierce junction salt dome, texas, thesis of Master of
Science in Geophysics, Geology Department, Houston University, 1-2.
Dokht, R. M.,Ramazi. H. R.,Kenari. M. T., (2013). Optimizing 3D

seismic survey design parameters using genetic algorithm- a case study in
southwest of Iran, Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 6:1965–1975.
Fuchsluger, M, (2011). 3D model based acquisition design for the seismic
exploration of the deep Vienna Basin, thesis of Master of Science in
Geophysics, Geology Department, University of Vienna, 3p.
Galbraith, J. M., (1995). Seismic processing issues in the design of 3D
surveys: Ann. Mtg., Can. Soc. Expl. Geoph., Expanded Abstracts, 175–
176.
Galbraith, M. (2004). A new methodology for 3D survey design. The

Leading Edge, 23 (10), 1017-1023
Gerhardstein, A. C. and Brown, A. R, (1984). Interactive interpretation
of seismic data, Geophysics, V.49, No. 4, p. 353-363.
Goodway, W. N., and Ragan B., (1995). Focused 3D: Consequences of
mid-point scatter and spatial sampling in acquisition design, processing and
interpretation: Ann. Mtg., Can. Soc. Expl. Geoph., Expanded Abstracts,
177–178.
IAGC (International Association of Geophysical Contractors), (2002).

An overview on marine seismic operations.
115
References
Japan Consortium, (2008). 3D Survey Pre-Planning in the Nasiriyah oil

field onshore Iraq.
Jassim, Saad Z. and Goff, Jeremy C, (2006). Geology of Iraq, Czech

Republic, 341p.
Jogmec, Japan, (2007). 3D survey Design for Gharraf oil field.
Jogmec, Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation, (2009).

Technical Report (Draft), Geophysical and Geological Evaluation (The
Ratawi Field), P. 88-96.
Kearey, P., Brooks, M. and Hill, L, (2002). An Introduction to

Geophysical Exploration, 3rd ed., Blackwell Science Ltd., 256p.
Kerekes, A. K, 1998. Shots in the dark, The Leading Edge, 17, 197–198.
Kiran K. T, (2005). 2D and 3D Land Seismic Data Acquisition and

Seismic Data Processing, College of Science and Technology, Andhra
University, Andhra Pradesh, India, 1-116p.
Koop, W.J., and Stonely, R., (1982). Subsidence history of the Middle
East Zagros Basin, Permian to Recent, in Kent, Peter, Botts, M.H.P.,
McKenzie, D.P., and Williams, C.A., eds., Evolution of sedimentary
basins: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, ser. A,
v. 305, no. 1489, p. 149-168.
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 SEG

Workshop.
Lansley, M, (2000). 3D seismic survey design: a solution, First break, 18,
5, 162-166.
Larson, G. A., (1996). Acquisition, Processing and Interpretation of P-P
and P-S 3D Seismic data, thesis of Master of Science in Geophysics,
Geology and Geophysics Department, Calgary University.
Laster, S.J. (1985). The present state of seismic data acquisition - One
view. Geophysics, 50 (12), 2443-2451.
116
References
Liner, C. L., and Gobeli, R., (1997). 3-D seismic survey design and linear
v(z): 67th Ann. Internat.Mtg., Soc.Expl.Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 43–
46.
Liner, C.L. and Underwood, W.D. (1999). 3-D seismic survey design for
linear v(z) media, Geophysics, 64, 486-493.
Margrave, G. F., (1997). Seismic acquisition parameter considerations for

a linear velocity medium: 67th Ann. Internat.Mtg., Soc. Expl.Geophys.,
Expanded Abstracts, 47–50.
Meunier, J. and Gillot, E. (2000). 3D seismic survey design: a solution,

First break,18, 5, 176-179.
Monk, D. and Yates, M. (2000). 3D seismic survey design: a
solution,First break,18, 5, 180-183.
Neff, W. H., and Rigdon, H. K. (1994). Incorporating structure into 3D

seismic survey preplanning: A mid-continent example.Presented at the
MESA TechnologyConference.
O.E.C, (2010). Study reinterpretation of seismic data for ratawi oil field.
(In Arabic)
O.E.C, (2011). Preliminary Report on Magnoon 3D Seismic Survey
Design.
O.E.C, (2012). Report3-D Seismic Survey design.
O.E.C, (2014). 3D Survey Design for Dima oil field (In Arabic)
Pitman, J. K., Steinshouer, D., and Lewan, M. D., (2004). Petroleum
generation and migration in the Mesopotamian Basin and Zagros Fold Belt
of Iraq: results from a basin-modeling study, GeoArabia ,V.9 No.4, Gulf
Petrolink Bahrain, pp.41-72.
Quigley, J. (2000). Evolution of a seismic acquisition methodology
through integrated testing - onshore Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates,
1996-2000. First Break, 18 (11), 452–485.
Sadooni F. N., (1993). Stratigraphic Sequence, Microfacies, and Petroleum

Prospect of the Yamama Formation, Lower Cretaceous, Southern Iraq.The
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, P. 1971-1988.
SAVIT, C. (1989).Seismic data acquisition. The Leading Edge, 8 (9), 14-

18
117
References
South Oil Company, (2010). Final geological reports,Final well reports

for (Rt-3, Rt-4, Rt-5, Rt-4, Rt-7), The fields Directorate, and unpublished
report Ratawi field).
Sharland, P.R., Archer, R., Casey, D.M., Davies, R.B., Hall, S.,
Heward, A., Horbury, A. and Simmons, M.D, (2001). Arabian Plate
Sequence Stratigraphic. GeoArabia Special Publication, 2. Gulf Petrolink,
Bahrain, 387p.
Sheriff, R. E, (2002). Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Geophysics, 4th

Ed., SEG, 13 GEOPHYSICAL REFERENCES SEIREIS, 429 p.
Stone, D. G. (1994). Designing seismic surveys in two and
threedimensions,Soc. of Exploration Geophysicists,Vol. 5.
Vermeer, G.J.O., (1998a). 3-D symmetric sampling: Geophysics, 63,

1629–1647.
Vermeer, G.J.O., (1998b). 3-D symmetric sampling in theory and

practice: The Leading Edge, 17, 1514–1519.
Vermeer, Gijs, J. O., (2002). 3D Seismic Survey Design, by the society of

Exploration Geophysicists, 12 GEOPHYSICAL REFERENCES SEIREIS,
205p.
Vermeer, G.J.O., (2003). 3D seismic survey design optimization.The

Leading Edge, 22 (10), 934-941
Vermeer, G.J.O., (2012). 3D Seismic Survey Design. SEG – Geophysical

references series; no. 12. 2nd Ed.
WesternGeco, (2006). Land 2D Geometry & Surveys, Jebel Ali Training

Center, 36p.
WesternGeco, (2009). MESA Expert, version 11.02. GX Technology,

GMG Products Division, 350p.
Yilmaz, O., (1987). Seismic data processing: Soc. Expl. Geophys.
Zhang, J., (1997). Rapid 3D Raytracing for optimal Seismic Survey
Design, Departmentof Earth Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences,
Massachusette Institute of Technology.
118
View publication stats

Design A 3D Seismic Survey For Ratawi Oil Field Area in Southern Iraq

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Design A 3D Seismic Survey For Ratawi Oil Field Area in Southern Iraq

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

DESIGN A 3D SEISMIC SURVEY FOR RATAWI OIL FIELD AREA IN SOUTHERN

Thesis · January 2015

Sarmad Sabeeh Ali M. Al-Rahim

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Seismic Unix and Madagascar View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DESIGN A 3D SEISMIC SURVEY FOR

A Thesis Submitted to the

My Sister and Brother

A 3D seismic survey design is the aim of this study. The 3D design is

Name: Dr. Ali Maki Hussein Al-Rahim

Scientific degree: Assist Professor

Address: University of Baghdad - College of Science

Approve of the college Committee of Graduate studies

Name: Dr. Walid A. Ahmad

Scientific degree: Assist. Professor

Address: Head of geologic Department / College of

Science / University of Baghdad

Approved by the Deanery of College of Science

Name: Dr. Fadhil Abd Rasin

Name: Dr. Fadhil Abd Rasin

Name: Dr. Fadhil Abd Rasin

Name: Dr. Fadhil Abd Rasin

Name: Dr. Fadhil Abd Rasin

Name: Dr. Fadhil Abd Rasin

Name: Dr. Fadhil Abd Rasin

Name: Dr. Fadhil Abd Rasin

Name: Dr. Fadhil Abd Rasin

Name: Dr. Fadhil Abd Rasin

Name: Dr. Fadhil Abd Rasin

Subject Page No.

Chapter One: Introduction

Chapter Four: 3D Design

Figure Page No.

Table Page No.

economical ways to establish and test the optimum acquisition parameters

1.2. Geographical location and coordinates of the study area :

Ratawi oil field was discovered by Basrah Petroleum Company in

The Ratawi oil field is surrounded by North Rumaila, South Rumaila,

Table (1-1) Ratawi oil field coordinates

1.3. The chosen area:

After many personal communications and direct contacts with experts

1.4. Surface geology:

The study area is part of the Mesopotamia plain in southern Iraq. It is

1.5. Tectonic and structural setting:

The region is generally flat or gently undulated open desert with

The Ratawi field is located in Zubair subzone - Mesopotamia zone.

Tectonism has played an important role in shaping the final

The Early Cretaceous rifting was also formed by extensional forces

The Ratawi field's area is considered relatively stable during the

1.6. Cretaceous period in Iraq:

1.6.1. Late Tithonian-Early Turonian Megasequence AP8

According to (Aqrawi et. al., 2010) the Megasequence AP8

A. Supersequence I: Late Tithonian - middle Valanginian (Lower

D. Supersequence IV: Uppermost Albian-lower Turonian (Upper

1.6.2. Late Turonian-Danian Megasequence AP9

According to (Aqrawi et al., 2010) the Megasequence AP9 is divided

Figure (1.4) shows the stratigraphic column of Basrah region, Southern

Figure (1.4) Stratigraphic column of Basrah region, Southern Iraq. (Al-

1.7. Aims of the study:

1- The primary aim of this study is to design a 3D seismic survey that

4- Design Ratawi 3D survey has helped to identify prospective drilling