A comparison of two land nodal seismic recording systems

References

1. Bagaini, C., and C.Barajas-Olalde. 2007. Assessment and compensation of inconsistent coupling conditions in point-receiver land seismic data. Geophysical Prospecting55: 39–48.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Brune, R.H., D.Hays, D.P.Sixta, and W.A.Schneider. 1982. “Comparison of sign-bit and conventional seismic recording in Eastern Colorado.” In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 1982.
3. Busanello, G., B.Soliman, J.Saathoff, A.Poole, P.W.Bilsby, and J.Quigley. 2021. “Lighweight land nodal system: acquisition and processing insights from the Permian Basin, West Texas.” In 82nd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition.
4. Chiu, S.K., P.Eick, and B.Erickson. 2019. “Evaluation of two co-located autonomous recording systems.” In SEG International Exposition and 89th Annual Meeting.
5. Constantinou, A., D.Schmitt, R.Kofman, R.Kellett, J.Eccles, D.Lawton, M.Bertram, et al.2016. “Comparison of fiber-optic sensor and borehole seismometer VSP surveys in a scientific borehole: DFDP-2b, Alpine Fault, New Zealand.” In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2016.
6. Dean, T., J.C.Dupuis, and R.Hassan. 2015. The coherency of ambient seismic noise recorded during land surveys and the resulting implications for the effectiveness of geophone arrays. Geophysics80: P1–P10.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Dean, T., C.Strobbia, and D.Sweeney. 2022. The importance of accurate timing on land seismic data. First Break40 no. 4: 41–7.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Dean, T., and D.Sweeney. 2019. “The effect of land seismic recording system noise levels on survey productivity.” Paper read at 81st EAGE Conference & Exhibition. London.
9. Dean, T., and D.Sweeney. 2019. The use of nodal seismic acquisition systems to acquire limited-scale surveys. First Break37 no. 1: 55–60.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Dean, T., J.Tulett, and R.Barnwell. 2018. Nodal land seismic acquisition: The next generation. First Break36: 47–52.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Fleure, T., W.Halvorson, and R.Miller. 2017. “Receiver ground coupling revisited: A laboratory experiment to investigate the effects of an autonomous nodal recording system.” SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts.
12. Goujon, N., A.Ourabah, Z.Song, and C.Gierz. 2021. “Which sensor for nodal seismic: Recording acceleration or velocity?” In First International Meeting for Applied Geoscience & Energy Expanded Abstracts.
13. Hall, K.W., G.F.Margrave, and M.B.Bertram. 2010. “Comparison of low-frequency data from co-located receivers.” In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2010.
14. Hanafy, S.M.2022. Land-Streamer vs. conventional seismic data for high-resolution near-surface surveys. Applied Sciences12: 584.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Hauer, G., M.Hons, R.Stewart, D.Lawton, and M.Bertram. 2008. “Field data comparison: 3C-2D data acquisition with geophones and accelerometers.” In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2008.
16. Hollis, D.D., and R.Givens. 1986. “Comparison of conventional and sign-bit seismic recording systems.” In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 1986.
17. Krohn, C.E.1984. Geophone ground coupling. Geophysics49 no. 6: 722–31.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Laine, J., and D.Mougenot. 2014. A high-sensitivity MEMS-based accelerometer. The Leading Edge33 no. 11: 1234–42.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Meunier, J., and J.P.Menard. 2004. “Seismic noise without a seismic source.” In 66th EAGE Conference and Exhibition.
20. Mougenot, D.2004. “How digital sensors compare to geophones?” In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2004.
21. Muyzert, E., and P.Vermeer. 2004. The impact of acquisition perturbations on land seismic data.
22. Pellegrino, M., N.Pajola, G.Tortini, A.Esposito, P.Follino, and A.Di Lecce. 2012. “Wireless vs. Wireline Land 3D Seismic in North Italy.” SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2012.
23. Roslov, Y.V., V.A.Telbukhov, I.N.Kadurin, and E.G.Zhemchuzhnikov. 2012. “Comparison of cable and cableless seismic systems on land and marine.” In 5th EAGE St.Petersburg International Conference and Exhibition on Geosciences.
24. Spikes, K.T., N.Tisato, T.E.Hess, and J.W.Holt. 2019. Comparison of geophone and surface-deployed distributed acoustic sensing seismic data. Geophysics84 no. 2: A25–A29.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Sweeney, D., T.Dean, C.Strobbia, J.Hughes, and M.Bayly. 2021. “Onshore seismic acquisition: out with the old, in with the new.” Paper Read at Australasian Exploration Geoscience Conference.
26. Vangkilde-Pedersen, T., J.F.Dahl, and J.Ringgaard. 2006. “Five years of experience with landstreamer vibroseis and comparison with conventional seismic data acquisition.” Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 2006.
27. Wahle, M., P.Dietrich, P.Schikowsky, and K.Marschall. 2008. “Comparing of shallow seismic reflection surveys by planted geophones and land streamers.” In Near Surface 2008 - 14th EAGE European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics.
28. Welch, P.D.1967. The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: A method based on time averaging over short, modified periodograms. IEEE Transactions on Audio and ElectroacousticsAU-15: 70–3.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Yibirin, R., A.Lacruz, and J.Caldwell. 2012. “Results from geophone field test comparison for 2D survey, Colombia.” In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2012.
30. Zaanen, L.V., A.Bona, J.Correa, K.Tertyshnikov, T.Dean, and R.Pevzner. 2017. “A comparison of borehole seismic receivers.” SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2017.