1887
Volume 35, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 0812-3985
  • E-ISSN: 1834-7533

Abstract

Any decision to pursue 3D multi-streamer acquisition in a certain shooting direction requires a consideration of several seismic phenomena, including subsurface illumination, spatial sampling, wave propagation, and the idiosyncrasies of seismic imaging technology. We provide both theoretical and synthetic modelling examples to provide a framework for objective discussion, so that the significance of each issue can be understood.

The 2D dip-shooting requirement becomes largely irrelevant in 3D seismic acquisition. In any 3D survey location, a series of arguments may arise that supports each possible shooting direction. The key issue is that both the subsurface model and the surface acquisition geometry are intimately linked, and each must be given specific consideration during processing.

Both shooting direction and shooting method (single-source vs. dual-source, parallel vs. anti-parallel, no sail line overlap vs. sail line overlap, etc.) have a direct influence upon the nature of both severe and subtle imaging artefacts arising during processing. We use synthetic and real examples to demonstrate the need for proper 3D survey planning and evaluation on a case-by-case basis, prior to any new survey.

© 2004 ASEG
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1071/EG04105
2004-06-01
2026-01-22

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1071/EG04105
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beasley, C.J., and Mobley, E., 1995, Spatial sampling characteristics of wide-tow marine acquisition: Abstracts, 57th Annual EAGE Conference and Exposition, Session B031,
  2. Chemingui, N., and Baumstein, A., 2000, Handling azimuth variations in multistreamer marine surveys: Abstracts, 70th Annual SEG International Meeting and Exposition, 1-4.
  3. Chen, J-, and Schuster, G.T., 1999, Resolution limits of migrated images: Geophysics, 64, 1046-1053.
  4. Durrani, J.A., French, W., and Comeaux, L.B., 1987, New directions for marine 3-D surveys: Abstracts, 57th Annual SEG International Meeting and Exposition, Session MAR1.2.
  5. Egan, M.S., Dingwall, K., and Kapoor, J., 1991, Shooting direction: A 3-D marine survey design issue: The Leading Edge, 10, 37-1.
  6. Etgen, J., and Regone, C, 1998, Strike shooting, dip shooting, widepatch shooting -Does prestack depth migration care? A model study: Abstracts, 58th Annual SEG International Meeting and Exposition, 66-69.
  7. Evans, B.J., Oke, B.F., Urosevic, M. and Chakraborty, K., 1995, A comparison of physical model with field data over the Oliver Field, Vulcan Graben: APPEA Journal, 35, 26-3.
  8. Gesbert, S., 2002, From acquisition footprints to true amplitude: Geophysics, 67, 830-839.
  9. Hegna, S., Krokan, B., and Selbekk, T., 2001, Single source 3D acquisition - a high quality and cost-effective alternative: Abstracts, 71st Annual SEG International Meeting and Exposition, 48-51.
  10. Hoffmann, J., Rekdal, T., and Hegna, S., 2002, Improving the data quality in marine streamer seismic by increased cross-line sampling: Abstracts, 72nd Annual SEG International Meeting and Exposition, Session ACQ 3.7.
  11. Jones, I.F, Baud, H., Henry, B., Strachan, A., Kommedal, J., and Gainski, M., 2000, The effect of acquisition direction on preSDM imaging: The First Break, 18, 385-391.
  12. La Bella, Loinger, E., and Savini, L., 1998, The cross-shooting methodology: Design, acquisition, and processing: The Leading Edge, 13, 1549-1553.
  13. Larner, K., and Ng, P., 1984, 3-D marine seismic survey direction: Strike or dip?: Abstracts, 54th Annual SEG International Meeting and Exposition, Session MAR1.5.
  14. Long, A.S., Ramsden, C.R.T., and Hoffmann, J., 2003, In pursuit of the ideal 3D streamer symmetric sampling criteria: 16th ASEG Geophysical Conference and Exhibition Extended Abstracts.
  15. Long, A., Du, B-, and Kajl, B., 2002a, 3D model-driven subsurface QC of 4D acquisition: PESA News, 59, 78-79.
  16. Long, A., Ramsden, C., and Doyle, S., 2002b, QC management of the deepwater Brunei survey: Petromin, 28, 4014.
  17. Manin, M., and Hun, F, 1992, Comparison of seismic results after dip and strike acquisition: Abstracts, 54th Annual EAGE Conference and Exposition, Session A011,4-5.
  18. O’Connell, J.K., Kohli, M., and Amos, S., 1993, Bullwinkle: A unique 3-D experiment: Geophysics, 58, 167-176.
  19. Perkins, W.T., and French, W., 1990, 3-D migration to zero offset for a constant velocity gradient: Abstracts, 60th Annual SEG Annual International Meeting and Exposition, 1354-1357.
  20. Ramsden, C, and Long, A., 2002, Acquisition technology opens up difficult data areas for 3D exploration: APPEA Journal, 607-611.
  21. Regone, C.J., 1998, Suppression of coherent noise in 3-D seismology: The Leading Edge, 13, 1584-1589.
  22. Reksnes, PA., Haugane, E., and Hegna, S., 2002, How PGS created a new image for theVarg field: First Break, 20, 773-777.
  23. Reilly, J.M., 1995, Comparison of circular strike and linear dip acquisition geometries for salt diapir imaging: The Leading Edge, 14, 314-319.
  24. Vermeer, G.J.O., 1999, Factors affecting spatial resolution: Geophysics, 64, 942-953.
  25. Vermeer, G.J.O., 1998, 3-D symmetric sampling: Geophysics, 63, 1629-1647.
/content/journals/10.1071/EG04105
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): artefacts; azimuth; Dip; footprint; illumination; imaging; overlap; sampling; shooting direction; strike

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error