1887
Volume 25, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 0812-3985
  • E-ISSN: 1834-7533

Abstract

Today’s 3-D surveys can be large or small, laid in straight lines across deserts or tundra or along winding roads through forest and jungles. Because 3-D acquisition requires careful planning it is essential to analyse the complexities which naturally arise. Computer programs are now available to assist the explorationist with this task.

The fundamentals of 3-D design start with the interpreter who must analyse the likely target geology and establish the desired fold (hence likely signal/noise) and bin size (spatial resolution and maximum non-aliased frequency on dipping events). Ray paths to formations will determine minimum and maximum acceptable shot-receiver offsets.

The basic equations governing all 3-D surveys are:

= ()

= 1/(2)

where = number of recording channels, = bin size in metres, and is the number of shots per square metre needed to create the fold , and = shot line interval. Receiver line interval depends only on the minimum acceptable offset and is a critical part of determining the layout strategy – straight lines, bricks, zigzags, buttons to name a few. Increasing receiver line interval can, of course, reduce clearing costs. Each strategy has pros and cons from the processor’s and the field crew’s perspective and must be analysed. How will the data resulting from such a survey respond to velocity analysis, static corrections, DMO, muting, and migration? Will any noise in the data be cancelled by the stacking process (stack-array effect for linear noise, or enough offsets to attenuate multiples)? A comprehensive analysis of the fold and the offset and azimuth distribution in each CDP bin is essential.

Finally the field crew’s concerns must be addressed. Equipment is expensive to place and expensive to move. Different designs can save dollars – roll-on versus. roll-off for example. The computer program must allow easy movement of shots to undershoot lakes, rivers, pipelines, buildings or to fill in ‘holes’ created by shooting or recording along non straight lines.

Changes at each stage of the design process can be made and costed quickly leading to a successful, efficient 3-D seismic survey.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1071/EG994071
1994-06-01
2026-01-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Cordsen, A., 1993, Flex-Bin 3-D Seismic Acquisition Method, CSEG Convention Abstracts, pp19.
  2. Crouzy, E. and Pion, J., 1993, Total Petroleum, Land 3-D Seismic Survey Simulation, SEG Summer Workshop, pp21.
  3. Deregowski, S. M., 1982, Dip Moveout and Reflection Point Dispersal, Geophysical Prospecting, pp318–322.
  4. Freeland, J. M. and Hogg, J. E., 1990, What does Migration Do To Seismic Resolution, Sept. 1990, CSEG Recorder.
  5. Krey, Th. C., 1987, Attenuation of Random Noise by 2-D and 3-D CDP Stacking and Kirchhoff Migration, Geophysical Prospecting, pp135–147.
  6. Wiggins, R. A., Larner, K. L. and Wisecup, R. D., 1976, Residual Statics as a General Linear Inverse Problem. Geophysics. Vol. 41, pp922–938.
/content/journals/10.1071/EG994071
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): 3D Seismic; Land; Survey Design

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