2009 EAGE www.firstbreak.

org
73
special topic first break volume 27, December 2009
Marine Seismic
The area inside the white-dashed line has a minimum of
180
0
of azimuthal coverage.
The boundaries between the areas of azimuth / offset cover-
age for a coil design are a function of the circle radius. In
Figure 2b the circle radius is indicated by r. If the centres of
the first and last columns and rows of circles, are centred
C
onventional narrow-azimuth (NAZ) marine 3D seismic
surveys became the most widely used technology of the
industry in the early 1980s, and after nearly three dec-
ades, the design is still widely applicable. Multi- (MAZ)
and wide-azimuth (WAZ) marine 3D surveys were introduced
in the last decade and the design is becoming more widely
accepted. In the last two years coil surveys have emerged.
WAZ seismic acquisition is a fundamental exploration
tool in the Gulf of Mexico. The technique delivers higher
fidelity seismic images than can be achieved with the NAZ
acquisition techniques. However, WAZ techniques utilized
in the Gulf of Mexico rely on multiple source and recording
vessels, a luxury not necessarily available in all parts of the
world. Moldoveanu (2008) introduced the concept of Coil
Shooting single vessel full-azimuth acquisition as a method
of acquiring 3D seismic data where the sail line comprises a
continuous set of circles. The idea of sailing in circles is not
new; it was first introduced by Tensor Geophysical in 1984
and various field trials followed, for example Cole & French
(1984) and Durrani (1987).
Generic coil design and processing implications
A single circular sail line is shown in Figure 1a, data are
acquired in columns or rows of circles (Figure 1b), until the
entire survey has been covered (figure 1c).
Unless otherwise stated the acquisition configuration in
this article will be: a) 8 x 6000 m cables, 12.5 m group interval,
and 100 m spacing; b) dual flip/flop source with a 25 m shot-
point spacing, and c) binning onto a 12.5 m x 12.5 m grid.
The survey design in Figure 1c with this configuration pro-
duces Figures 27. Figure 2a is the fold-of-coverage where:
The area inside the red-dashed line has 360
0
of azimuthal
coverage; the maximum-fold varies from 350 to 430.
Coil survey design and a comparison with
alternative azimuth-rich geometries
David Hill
*
, WesternGeco, explains coil survey design, touches on some data processing con-
siderations, and then compares various coil designs with NAZ and WAZ.
* E-mail: dhill2@gatwick.westerngeco.slb.com
Figure 1 1a (left) a single circle, 1b (middle) a row of 13 circles, 1c (right) a full
survey of 188 circles.
Figure 2a The fold-of-coverage for Figure 1c.
Figure 2b The azimuth distribution for a coil survey.
www.firstbreak.org 2009 EAGE
74
special topic first break volume 27, December 2009
Marine Seismic
Figure 5 shows the fold-of-coverage for the nearest offsets,
which range from 250 m for the inner cable to 400 m for the
outer cable. As is evident from Figure 5, near offset cover-
age exists everywhere within the OcCl, apart from the four
corners.
Figure 6 shows the fold-of-coverage for one offset group;
there is continuous coverage everywhere within the OcCl,
apart from the four corners. Figure 7 is the fold-of-coverage
for the same offset group but split into 4 x 45
0
azimuth
bins, plus their respective reciprocal azimuths. Within the
area bounded by the OcCl (black box) there are five sets of
coloured spots. Each coloured spot falls into a coverage hole
in only one of the four azimuth groups, apart from the fuchsia
spot which falls into two.
Figures 2 to 7 show that the fold-of-coverage for a coil
design is not uniform as it is for a NAZ or WAZ survey.
It exhibits a well-behaved repeating pattern controlled by
the circle centre layout and dimensions, and the radius of
the circular sail line. Each offset group exhibits similar fold
along the outer coil centre line (OcCl), then apart from the
four corners:
The area bounded by the OcCl (red line in Figure 2b) has
at least of 180
0
of azimuth coverage (the white-dashed line
in Figure 2a).
The area bounded by r/2 inside the OcCl has at least 240
0
.

The area bounded by r inside the OcCl has 360
0
(the red-
dashed line in figure 2a).
Figure 3a shows a full survey rose plot. Offset is represented
along the radius, with near offsets in the centre and far offset at
the outer edge. Azimuth is represented clockwise around the cir-
cumference with zero degrees at the top. The colour represents
the relative percentage of traces within each azimuth/offset bin.
When the total survey is analyzed, it delivers 360
0
of coverage
for all offsets. But individual bins within the area of 360
0
cover-
age (Figure 3b), do not have full-azimuth/offset coverage.
An alternative method of displaying the azimuth/offset
coverage for individual bins is to divide the data into N azimuth
bins and M offset bins, and calculate the percentage of those
azimuth/offset bins which have at least one fold. In Figures 4
(and all other such plots) data are binned into 8 x 45
0
azimuth
bins and 60 x 100 m offset bins. Figure 4 shows that the area
of 360
0
coverage has from 4862% of the azimuth/offset bins
occupied.
Figure 3 Rose plots. a (left) Total survey, 3b (right) Single bins.
Figure 6 Fold-of-coverage for a 200 m offset group at an offset of 3150 m.
Figure 4 Percentage of azimuth offset bins occupied (percent-occupancy), with
the OcCl overlain as the white-dashed line.
Figure 5 Near offset coverage.
2009 EAGE www.firstbreak.org
75
special topic first break volume 27, December 2009
Marine Seismic
stretched over the subsurface. Therefore, processing coil
data using the concept of the 2D CMP is undesirable.
Fortuitously there are positive benefits in processing
coil data. Free-surface multiples generated between the sea
surface and seafloor are particularly difficult to attenuate
as they often have a complex 3D raypath. With the advent
of true-azimuth 3D surface-related multiple elimination
algorithms (3D SRME), modelling these complex multiples
and then adaptively subtracting them has proven to be very
effective.
characteristics and azimuth gaps as illustrated in Figures
6 and 7. For any coil design the repeating fold pattern is
predictable and tractable. Consequently, conditioning the
fold during data processing to achieve a regular distribution
as a function of azimuth group, offset group, x-coordinate,
and y-coordinate is readily achieved with 4D regularization
(Moore & Ferber 2008).
There is no reason why data acquired in circles cannot
be processed effectively with a data processing system built
around a linear marine acquisition assumption. But it does
require a degree of forethought and understanding that can
be illustrated as follows:
As the cable is curved, and if a linear configuration
is assumed, the apparent group interval decreases with
increasing shot-to-receiver offset, therefore the apparent
velocity of noise travelling at 1500 m/s increases to 1700
m/s at the farthest offset. If an F/K transform of a shot
gather from such a curved cable is performed with the
intention of attenuating linear noise, then it is necessary to
recognize that the noise will now be described by a curve
in the F/K domain.
If a shot and receiver are positioned at a in Figure 8,
a trace with zero offset is recorded. As the shot-to-receiver
offset increases, the shots move anti-clockwise from a to S,
and the receivers clockwise from a to R. The corresponding
midpoints fall along the black line a-b where a-b is 730 m;
this is the distance a 2D common mid-point (CMP) will be
Figure 8 For a curved 6000 m cable, with a circle radius of 6000 m, the cable fol-
lows the blue curve S-a-R. The midpoints from S to all receivers follow the red
curve S-b. The travel path from shot S to receiver R follows the black-dashed
line S-b-R, the distance S-b-R is 5750 m. Consequently, if the maximum shot-to-
receiver offset required is 6000 m, a cable length of 6300 m is necessary.
Figure 7 Fold-of-coverage. Top left: for 0450; top right: 45900; bottom left: 901350; bottom right: 1351800.
www.firstbreak.org 2009 EAGE
76
special topic first break volume 27, December 2009
Marine Seismic
It is evident from Figure 11 that the maximum fold
and percent-occupancy are sensitive to the circle radius. As
more circle radii overlap the resulting fold-of-coverage and
percent-occupancy, more resemble Moir-like interference
patterns.
Given the choice of these four coil survey radii, how
should we select one from the other? Is there a metric that
would allow us to quantify which is most likely to produce
the highest fidelity image? If we assume Howards conclusion
to be true, then the coil design with the highest fold, highest
percent-occupancy, and smallest variation in both should
deliver the best image. The coil design quality factor (CDQF)
Equation 1 is a metric where the numerator is composed
of the maximum fold and the maximum percent-occupancy,
the denominator is the variation in these parameters. A
To build a 3D SRME multiple contribution gather
(MCG), an aperture is selected based upon expected 3D
multiple effects for a target trace with endpoints at a shot S,
and receiver R (Figure 9). Each grid node in the aperture is
considered to be a potential downward reflection point (drp),
five are shown. The contribution of each drp to the MCG
is computed by convolving the corresponding traces S-drp
and drp-R. Therefore, in the ideal MCG a shot and receiver
should exist for all grid nodes.
Figure 10 illustrates the shot distribution for two circle
centre layouts: 10a has a shot-density of 1123 shots/km
2
, and
10b 869 shots/km
2
. Given the density and spatial distribution
of shots within a coil design, a shot and receiver pair is more
likely to exist at each drp for a coil design than any alternative
WAZ design. Consequently, the data distribution of a coil
design makes it ideal for true-azimuth 3D SRME algorithms.
Maximizing the use of all available azimuthal infor-
mation is key to constructing a high fidelity velocity model
to describe the complex acoustic properties of the subsurface.
A coil design samples 360
0
of azimuths, which after 4D
regularization is well sampled as a function of offset. The
regularized coil data can be split into azimuthal common
image point (CIP) gathers, each with its own unique moveout
signature, characterizing the overburden each CIP has sam-
pled. This information is used by an azimuthal tomography
to generate the high fidelity velocity models necessary to
maximize the imaging qualities of the very latest high end
imaging algorithms.
The benefits of increased azimuthal coverage in generating
higher fidelity images that more accurately define the struc-
tural elements critical to exploration and reservoir descrip-
tion have been well documented. Howard (2007) states that
significant improvements in the quality of the fully migrated
image can be made by a substantial increase in the azimuthal
coverage and a substantial increase in non-redundant trace
density within that increased azimuthal coverage.
Coil design quality metric and acquisition effort
The acquisition effort of a coil design is governed by:
1. The number of circles, which is a function of:
a. The survey dimensions.
b. The circle-center layout pattern - triangular, square, or
rhombic.
c. The pattern dimensions.
2. The circle radius.
Figure 11 shows the fold-of-coverage and percent-occupancy
for four circle radii. The circle centre layout is identical to
that for Figures 27. Figures 11 and 13 have been generated
by capturing only the data which contributes to the fold-
of-coverage within a 3600 m radius of the centre of each
plot; the data inside the black-dashed circle. Figure 11b is
equivalent to Figures 2a and 4.
Figure 9 Plan view of how a 3D SRME multiple-contribution-gather (MCG) is
constructed.
Figure 10 Shot locations for coil centre layouts: a (top) rhombic, and b (bot-
tom) square.
2009 EAGE www.firstbreak.org
77
special topic first break volume 27, December 2009
Marine Seismic
The fold and percent-occupancy patterns in Figure 13
are the same for all three rows: the differences are the size
of the pattern and the maximum fold. The fold-of-coverage
pattern is a fixed function of the acquisition spread, the
circle centre layout, the pattern size, and the circle radius.
Achieving equivalent fold and percent-occupancy patterns
for any cable spread is achieved by scaling all coil design
parameters by an appropriate constant.
Examining Table 2, column 15, it is evident that for a
fixed circle centre layout the CDQF is not that sensitive to
spread width. However, the Ca days to acquire 400 km
2

of 360
0
coverage in column 16 appear to increase then
decrease. For a fixed circle centre layout, as the spread
width increases, all other parameters are scaled, so the
pattern size increases, and the number of circles required
for a fixed survey area decreases. But as the circle radius
increases, so does the circumference of the circle to be
sailed. Hence the two parameters work in opposite direc-
CDQF value of 10 indicates a uniform maximum fold and
100% occupancy.
Where:
NMaxFold = Maximum fold / Reference fold
FMaxOcc = Maximum percent-occupancy / 100
VarNMaxFold = the variation in NMaxFold
VarFMaxOcc = the variation in FMaxOcc
k = a constant =

Table 1 contains parameters from the plots in Figure 11
necessary to calculate the CDQF. As the fold varies between
coil designs, it is normalized relative to a reference fold of
670. Continuous acquisition days (Ca-days) are computed
from the total kilometres sailed at 4.75 knots, excluding all
forms of downtime.
Table 1, rows 1 to 4 are data from plots in Figure 11.
Row 2 has the highest CDQF. Intuitively this should be the
case. The plots in 11b have the most uniform fold and uni-
form percent-occupancy, unlike 11c; here the plots exhibit a
repeating pattern of peaks, and 11a where the plots exhibit a
repeating pattern of holes. The plots for 11d are less variable
than 11a or 11c and this is reflected in the CDQF in row 4.
Row 5 is data from plots in figures 2a and 4. The radii in
rows 5 and 3 are equal, but row 5 has a rhombic circle centre
layout compared to triangular in rows 14. The CDQF in
row 5 exceeds that in row 3, suggesting that for a fixed
radius, improvements in fold and percent-occupancy can be
made by considering alternative circle centre layouts.
Table 1 column 16 and 17 demonstrate that for a fixed
circle centre layout, as the radius increases the acquisition
effort necessary to acquire a fixed area increases accordingly.
Conversely, the smaller the radius the more efficiently a fixed
area of 360
0
of coverage can be acquired. Comparing rows 4
and 5, the design in row 5 has a slightly higher CDQF than
row 4 but requires only 69% of the acquisition effort. Hence,
increased acquisition does not in guarantee an increase in the
quality of a coil survey.
If the effect of changing the cable spread is examined, Figure
13 shows fold and percent-occupancy plots for six, eight, and
12 cable spreads. The eight cable spread is the one used for all
comparisons so far, and plots 13b are equivalent to plots 11b.
Figure 11 Left column: fold-of-coverage, right: percent-occupancy. a (red row)
has a 5200m radius, b (yellow) 5600 m, c (green) 6000 m, and d (blue) 6400 m.
Table 1 Column 4: the average shot density inside the OcCl. Columns 514: fold-of-coverage and percent-occupancy for the 3600 areas in Figure 11, 2a and 4.
Column 15: CDQF, column 16: Ca-days to acquire 400 km
2
of 3600 coverage, and column 17 the corresponding area of 1800 azimuthal coverage inside the OcCl.
www.firstbreak.org 2009 EAGE
78
special topic first break volume 27, December 2009
Marine Seismic
tions, explaining why the acquisition effort increases then
decreases.
Efficient coil design
One technique for acquiring azimuth-rich seismic data from
a single vessel is a coil design; an alternative is a three-
azimuth multi-azimuth (3-Az MAZ).
The design objective for the efficient coil design is that
the acquisition effort equals that of a 3-Az MAZ. While a
3-Az MAZ survey delivers three distinct azimuths, a coil
design delivers a minimum of 180
0
of coverage, or:
a. The 180
0
area from the coil-design equals the three-
azimuth full-fold area for the 3-Az MAZ. That is, the
area bounded by the OcCl in Figure 2b is the same as the
area bounded by the three-azimuth full-fold boundary in
Figure 14.
b. The total sail kilometres for the coil design should rough-
ly equal the total sail kilometres including line turns for a
3-Az MAZ.
Figure 12 Colour/scales bars for Figure 11. Left: fold-of-coverage, right: percent-
occupancy.
Figure 13 Left column: fold-of-coverage, right: percent-occupancy, 13a (top) a
six cable spread, 13b (middle) eight cable, and 13c (bottom) 12 cable.
Table 2 Columns are as for Table 1, rows 13 are data from Figure 13a, b, and c.
Figure 15 The efficient coil design, 15a (left) shot locations, and 15b (right)
fold-of-coverage. The maximum fold varies from 270 to 380.
Figure 14 Coverage areas for a 3-Az MAZ.
2009 EAGE www.firstbreak.org
79
special topic first break volume 27, December 2009
Marine Seismic
Figure 16 illustrates design objective b. A constant 11 km
distance is used for each line-turn of the 3-Az MAZ. The red
line is the km
2
area of full-fold three-azimuth data; the blue
line is the km
2
area of coil 180
0
coverage. As the survey size
increases, these lines diverge in favour of the 3-Az MAZ, as
the line-turn sail-kilometres become a progressively smaller
percentage of the total sail-kilometres. But even so, for a
large range of survey sizes the survey effort for a coil design
and 3-Az MAZ do not diverge significantly.
StatoilHydro conducted an extensive modelling exercise
simulating the acquisition of many azimuth-rich acquisi-
tion configurations including the coil design in Figure 15
(Houbiers et al. 2008), which in turn led to a field test
of the design (Houbiers and Thompson, 2009). The data
examples and results of that field test shown by Houbiers
and Thompson demonstrate that the design delivers the
benefits expected from this azimuth-rich acquisition con-
figuration.
Figure 16 Full-fold coverage area, against Ca-days for the efficient coil design
and a 3-Az MAZ. The red line is the 3-Az MAZ coverage, the blue line the coil-
design 1800 area, the purple line 2400, and the green 3600. 16a (top) a survey
aspect ratio of 1:1 acquired with an eight cable spread, 16b (bottom) a survey
aspect ratio of 2:1 acquired with a 12 cable spread.
Figure 17 Two recording vessels, four shooting vessels one surface spread
apart, the two outer vessels both record and shoot. Data are acquired in both
directions with sail-lines one sub-surface spread offset between directions.
Figure 18 a (top)Fold of coverage, and b (bottom) percent-occupancy. The
maximum fold is 240; the percent-occupancy varies from 3442%.
Figure 19 Rose-plots. a (top) total survey, b (bottom) single-bins.
www.firstbreak.org 2009 EAGE
80
special topic first break volume 27, December 2009
Marine Seismic
Table 3 Columns are as for Tables 1 and 2; rows 1 and 2 are for Figures 17 to 22, and rows 3 to 5 for Figures 23 to 26.
Figure 21 a (top) Fold of coverage, and b (bottom) percent-occupancy. The
maximum fold is 360; the percent-occupancy varies from 4244%. Figure 22 Rose plots. a (top) Total survey, b (bottom) single bins.
Comparison with other WAZ configurations
Figures 17 to 22 illustrate two common WAZ configurations.
The eight cable configuration will be used but the shot-point
interval is 25 m x 4 (100 m per source). The shot-line interval
is one surface spread for both.
Figures 1719 show a 4-vessel WAZ and Figure 2022:
a six tile three vessel WAZ
Comparing the fold and percent-occupancy plots with
similar plots from a coil design, the WAZ configurations
benefit by having a constant maximum fold, albeit lower
but narrower range of percent-occupancy. The disadvantage
is that a narrower range of azimuths are sampled than a
coil design. An additional disadvantage of the four vessesl
WAZ is that the cross-line bin size is twice that of all other
configurations.
Table 3, rows 1 and 2 contain the fold, percent-
occupancy, and CDQFs for Figures 17 to 22. The CDQF for
the 4 vessel WAZ in row 1 is lower than other coil designs
considered, but it is an efficient way of acquiring data (see
column 15). However, it requires four vessels. Assuming the
cost of a shooting vessel is half that of a recording vessel then
we can compute the vessel cost in column 16, as three vessel
units multiplied by the Ca-days. Even after scaling for the
number of vessels the four vessel WAZ configuration is still
efficient provided the data acquired delivers a fit-for-purpose
product for the end user. Row 2 corresponds to the six tile
Figure 20 One recording vessel, two shooting vessels each with two sources. The
shooting vessels are offset to one side of the spread, with one in front and one
behind. Each shot line is acquired six times, three times with the recording vessel
moving one surface spread width over on one side for each pass. Then moving
one surface spread over on the other side each time for three more passes.
2009 EAGE www.firstbreak.org
81
special topic first break volume 27, December 2009
Marine Seismic
Figures 23 to 26 are the fold and percent-occupancy plots
for three more coil designs. All have a full survey rose diagram
as in Figure 3a, but single bin rose plots will differ from those
in Figure 3b. Figure 25 shows two from a high- and a low-
occupancy area of 360
0
coverage in Figure 24, both are well
populated.
Table 3, rows 3 to 5 contain the data for figures 23 to 26.
Table 3, all show respectable CDQFs. The vessel cost equals
the Ca-days, as only a single vessel is required. Comparing
rows 4 and 2, it is evident that a coil design can have a
comparable vessel cost as a six tile, three vessel WAZ, with a
slightly lower CDQF. However, the coil design in Figure 26,
row 5, has the highest CDQF of all the WAZ and coil designs
considered, and also one of the lowest coil design Ca-days
needed to acquire 400 km
2
of full fold 360
0
coverage.
Conclusion
The fold and percent-occupancy characteristics for a coil
design are a complex, non-intuitive function of circle centre
layout, pattern size, and circle radius. The attributes and
three vessel WAZ; it has a high CDQF and this is reflected in
the increased Ca-days and increased vessel cost in columns
15 and 16.
Figure 23 a (top) Fold of coverage, and b (bottom) percent-occupancy. The
maximum fold and percent-occupancy varies from 400585 and 7085%.
Figure 24 a (top) Fold of coverage, and b (bottom) percent-occupancy. The
maximum fold and percent-occupancy varies from 500 670 and 7090%.
Figure 25 Single bin rose plots from figure 24.
Figure 26 a (top) Fold of coverage, and b (bottom) percent-occupancy. The
maximum fold and percent-occupancy varies from 430530 and 72 84%.
www.firstbreak.org 2009 EAGE
82
special topic first break volume 27, December 2009
Marine Seismic
References
Cole, R. and French, W.S. [1984] Three-Dimensional Marine Seismic
Data Acquisition Using Controlled Streamer Feathering. SEG
Annual Meeting, Expanded Abstracts 3, 293-295.
Durrani, J. French, W. S. and Comeaux, L. [1987] New Directions for
Marine 3-D Surveys. SEG Annual Meeting, Expanded Abstracts
6, 177-180.
Houbiers, M. Arntsen, B. Thompson, M. Hager, E. Brown, G. and
Hill, D. [2008] Full Azimuth Modelling at Heidrun. PETEX
Conference, London, UK.
Houbiers, M. and Thompson, M. [2009] Full Azimuth Field Trial
at Heidrun. 71
st
EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Extended
Abstracts, U034.
Howard, M. [2007] Marine seismic surveys with enhanced azimuth
coverage: Lessons in survey design and acquisition. The Leading
Edge, April Special Section.
Moldoveanu, N. [2008] Circular Configuration for Wide-azimuth
Towed Streamer Acquisition. 70
th
EAGE Conference & Exhibition.
Extended Abstracts, G011.
Moore, I. and Ferber, R. [2008] Bandwidth Optimization for Compact
Fourier Interpolation. 70
th
EAGE Conference & Exhibition,
Extended Abstracts, G026.
French, W. S. [1984] Circular Seismic Acquisition System. United
States Patent 4,486,863.
survey effort of a range of coil designs need to be compared
before one coil design is selected over another, or a coil design
selected in preference to a WAZ alternative. In order to objec-
tively quantify the alternatives, a metric is required, and one is
suggested. It is also advisable to perform a modelling exercise
simulating the acquisition of the selected configuration over
a suitable earth model to verify its imaging fidelity (Houbiers
et al. 2008).
It has been demonstrated that:
a. A coil design can offer a viable cost alternative to a 3-Az MAZ,
but with better azimuthal sampling than a 3-Az MAZ.
b. A range of coil designs have an equivalent or better CDQF,
and less than or equal cost, to some multi-vessel configura-
tions such as six tile, three vessel WAZ.
There is no practical reason why coil data cannot be proc-
essed perfectly adequately with a flexible data processing
system built around a predominantly linear marine acquisition
assumption, provided the underlying geophysical principles
are well understood.
Therefore, a coil design can be tailored to deliver a
spectrum of appropriately sampled full-azimuth solutions to
meet the varied geophysical needs of the end user, be that for
exploration, production, or reservoir development purposes.
More benefits?
Visit our website: www.eage.org
An offer you cant refuse!
Events
Discount on all EAGE events
worldwide. This year our annual
Conference and Exhibition will be
held in Barcelona, from 14-17 June 2010.
EarthDoc
Unlimited access to our online
publication database with over
20,000 articles.
Bookshop
Member discount at the online EAGE
bookshop with more than 500 titles.

Near Surface Geoscience
First Break
A new issue of First Break every
month. Discount on additional
journals.
Membership includes the following benefits:
Pay your dues online;
To renew your membership for 2010, you need to take the following steps:
Step 1 Go to www.eage.org
Step 2 Log in with your membership number + password or surname
Step 3 Select my membership and then annual dues
EAGE online services: easy, fast and secure
Renew your EAGE membership for 2010