Chapter 01_v2.

qxd

8/28/02

1:37 PM

Page 1

Introduction
Three-dimensional (3-D) seismic surveys have become a major tool in the exploration and exploitation of
hydrocarbons. The first few 3-D seismic surveys were
acquired in the late 1970s, but it took until the early
1990s before they gained general acceptance throughout
the industry. Until then, the subsurface was being
mapped using two-dimensional (2-D) seismic surveys.
Theories on the best way of sampling 2-D seismic
lines were not published until the late 1980s, notably by
Anstey, Ongkiehong and Askin, and Vermeer. These theories were all based on the insight that offset forms a
third dimension, for which sampling rules must be given.
The design of the first 3-D surveys was severely limited by what technology could offer. Gradually, the number of channels that could be used increased, leading to
discussions on what constitutes a good 3-D acquisition
geometry. The general philosophy was to expand lessons
learned from 2-D acquisition to 3-D. This approach led
to much emphasis on the properties of the CMP gather
(or bin), because good sampling of offsets in a CMP
gather was the main criterion in 2-D design. Three-D design programs were developed that concentrated mainly
on analysis of bin attributes and, in particular, on offset
sampling (regularity, effective fold, azimuth distribution,
etc.).
This conventional approach to 3-D survey design is
limited by an incomplete understanding of the differing
properties of the many geometries that can be used in
3-D seismic surveys. In particular, the sampling requirements for optimal prestack imaging were not properly
taken into account. This book addresses these problems
and provides a new methodology for the design of 3-D
seismic surveys.
The approach used in this book is the same as employed in my Seismic Wavefield Sampling, a book on 2-D
seismic survey design published in 1990: Before the
sampling problem can be addressed, it is essential to develop a good understanding of the continuous wavefield
to be sampled. In 2-D acquisition, only a 3-D wavefield
has to be studied, consisting of temporal coordinate t,
and two spatial coordinates: shot coordinate xs , and receiver coordinate xr . In 3-D acquisition, the prestack
wavefield is 5-D with two extra spatial coordinates, shot
coordinate ys , and receiver coordinate yr .

In practice, not all four spatial coordinates of the

prestack wavefield can be properly sampled (proper sampling is defined as a sampling technique which allows
the faithful reconstruction of the underlying continuous
wavefield). Instead, it is possible to define three-dimensional subsets of the 5-D prestack wavefield which can
be properly sampled. In fact, the 2-D seismic line is but
one example of such 3-D subsets.
The 2-D seismic line is a multifold data set with midpoints on a single line only. However, in 3-D acquisition
there are many possible 3-D subsets which are singlefold and whose midpoints extend across a certain area.
These subsets are called minimal data sets, a term coined
by Trilochan Padhi in 1989 in an internal Shell report. A
minimal data set represents a volume of data (sometimes
called a 3-D cube) that has illuminated part of the subsurface. If there was no noise, a single minimal data set
would be sufficient to create an image of the illuminated
subsurface volume.
Most acquisition geometries used in practice generate
data that can be considered as a collection of sampled
minimal data sets. Therefore, the properties of the minimal data sets need to be studied for a better understanding of the acquisition geometries as a whole. This allows
an optimal choice of the acquisition geometry (if there is
a choice, often the geometry type is dictated by economic or environmental constraints) and of the parameters of
the geometry.
The continuous wavefield to be sampled can be reduced to the wavefield of the characteristic minimal data
set of the chosen geometry. Proper sampling of that
wavefield means that at least two of the four spatial coordinates of the 5-D prestack wavefield will be properly
sampled. Next, maximize the useful extent of each minimal data set. Together, these two recommendations ensure a minimum of spatial discontinuities in the total data
set. Spatial continuity is maximized and the migrated
minimal data sets contain a minimum of artifacts. Other
parameters of each acquisition geometry need to be chosen so that requirements of resolution, noise suppression
and illumination are satisfied as well.
Based on these basic principles, this book addresses a
wide variety of issues. The following provides a summary of each chapter.
1

Downloaded from GeoScienceWorld with access from at 62.68.61.142 on Oct 9, 2016, 5:07 AM.
(c) 2002 Society of Exploration Geophysicists

Chapter 01_v2.qxd

8/28/02

1:37 PM

Page 2

2 Introduction

Chapter 1. 2-D symmetric sampling

This chapter provides a short summary of 2-D symmetric sampling, which is a recipe for optimal sampling
of the 2-D seismic line. Two-D symmetric sampling is
based on a corollary of the reciprocity theorem, which
affirms that the properties of the common-receiver gather are the same as the properties of the common-shot
gather. As a consequence, sampling requirements of
shots and receivers are identical.

Chapter 2. 3-D symmetric sampling

Three-D seismic surveys can be acquired using a
number of different acquisition geometries. The most
important geometries are areal geometry, parallel geometry, and orthogonal geometry. Each geometry has its
characteristic 3-D basic subset. If the basic subset is single fold, it is also a minimal data set. In areal geometry,
either shots or receivers are acquired in a dense areal
grid. If shots are dense, receivers are sparse or vice versa.
In the first case, 3-D common-receiver gathers are acquired. These gathers form the basic subset or minimal
data set of this particular areal geometry.
Parallel geometry and orthogonal geometry are examples of line geometries in which sources and receivers
are arranged along straight acquisition lines, which are
more or less widely separated. In parallel geometry the
(parallel) shot lines are parallel to the (parallel) receiver
lines, whereas in orthogonal geometry shot and receiver
lines are orthogonal. The basic subset of parallel geometry is the midpoint line, which runs halfway between the
shot line and each active receiver line. The basic subset
of orthogonal geometry is the cross-spread, which encompasses all receivers in a single receiver line which
are listening to a range of shots in a single shot line. The
cross-spread is a minimal data set with limited extent.
The difference in properties of the various acquisition
geometries is illustrated by the difference in diffraction
traveltime surface of the same diffractor for the basic
subsets of those geometries.
Two-D symmetric sampling can be readily expanded
to 3-D symmetric sampling after recognition of the existence of the basic subsets of each geometry.
For imaging, it would be ideal to have single-fold data
sets that extend across the whole survey area, but which
possess a minimum of spatial discontinuities so that they
would produce a minimum amount of migration artifacts. These data sets are called pseudominimal data sets
and can be constructed from so-called offset-vector tiles.
In orthogonal geometry, the size of the offset-vector tile
is determined by the area between two adjacent shot

lines and two adjacent receiver lines. The cross-spread

can be split into M disjoint offset-vector tiles (M is foldof-coverage), in which the x- and the y-components of
the offset vector vary over a limited range.

Chapter 3. Noise suppression

Sampling in 3-D acquisition is usually not dense
enough to record low-velocity noise without aliasing. To
reduce aliasing effects, shot and receiver arrays may be
used. The arrays may be linear or areal. For a proper
choice of arrays, the properties of the noise need be
known. An analysis of the energy distribution of low-velocity scatterers shows that in the cross-spread most energy is concentrated on the flanks of the traveltime surface and there is less energy around the apex. Linear arrays are sufficient to suppress the energy in the flanks. If
there is much undesirable energy coming from all directions, circular arrays can be constructed with a circular
response.
Often, one of the aims in 3-D survey design is to
achieve a regular offset distribution. This is based on
Nigel Ansteys stack-array approach for 2-D data, which
states that ground roll is best suppressed in the stack by
a regular sampling of offsets in each CMP gather. However, this requires high-fold data; if the data are low fold,
a random offset distribution tends to have a better stack
response. This applies in particular to 3-D data where
fold tends to be low, especially if measured in separate
azimuth ranges. A wide orthogonal geometry (maximum
crossline offset close to maximum inline offset) tends to
produce irregular offset sampling in each CMP gather,
hence tends to have a better stack response than a narrow
geometry.

Chapter 4. Guidelines for design of landtype 3-D geometry

The theoretical considerations and observations of the
first part of the book are translated into practical guidelines for choice of geometry and selection of parameters
for orthogonal geometry. Parallel geometry looks most
like 2-D acquisition, the stack response is similar, and
processing can use many of the techniques already developed for 2-D processing. It is not suitable for analysis
of azimuth-dependent effects. Parallel geometry can be
acquired efficiently in the marine environment using
streamers, but on land parallel geometry is less efficient
than orthogonal geometry. Orthogonal geometry is suitable for analysis of azimuth-dependent effects. It is also
used for seabed acquisition using bottom cables. Processing of orthogonal geometry is much more complex

Downloaded from GeoScienceWorld with access from at 62.68.61.142 on Oct 9, 2016, 5:07 AM.
(c) 2002 Society of Exploration Geophysicists

Chapter 01_v2.qxd

8/28/02

1:37 PM

Page 3

Introduction 3

than processing of parallel geometry. Zigzag geometry is

a geometry devised for efficient acquisition in desert environments. Slanted geometry is similar to orthogonal,
but the shot lines cross the receiver lines at an oblique
angle. The basic subsets of zigzag and slanted geometry
are less suitable for dual-domain processing than the
basic subset of orthogonal geometry. Areal geometry is
also suitable for analysis of azimuth-dependent effects. It
is applied mainly in deep waters when very expensive receiver units are used, such as vertical hydrophone cables
and 4-C receiver units (3-component geophone plus hydrophone).
The main parameters of orthogonal geometry are station intervals, line intervals, maximum inline and crossline offsets, and fold. These have to be selected such that
requirements of spatial continuity, resolution, mapping
of shallowest and deepest horizons of interest, and noise
suppression are satisfied. The survey area is always larger than the area to be mapped due to the fold-taper zone
and the radius of the migration operator.
In practice, a one-line roll of a nearly square template
tends to be quite inefficient. Without compromising the
desired acquisition geometry, it is often more efficient to
use a full-swath roll. A multiline roll is also more efficient, but it will create strong spatial discontinuities.
Obstacles often prevent acquisition of straight acquisition lines. Spatial continuity then requires the acquisition lines to be smooth. Common practice of moving
shots an integer multiple of the receiver interval to the
right or to the left produces discontinuities in the receiver gathers leading to migration artifacts. A general requirement in acquisition of parallel and orthogonal
geometry is that the receiver gathers should look as good
as the shot gathers.

Chapter 5. Streamers versus stationary

receivers
In marine seismic data acquisition, the designer has to
choose between streamers and stationary-receiver systems. With streamers, multisource multistreamer configurations are used in a parallel geometry. With stationaryreceiver systems there is flexibility in the choice of
geometry. Streamers are most efficient in deep water
without any obstacles. Adjacent boat passes should be
acquired antiparallel to minimize illumination irregularities. However, illumination irregularities caused by differential feathering are inevitable. Acquisition with stationary-receiver systems tends to be more expensive than
with streamers. Systems in use are vertical hydrophone
cable, ocean-bottom cable and node. Nodes are single 4-C
units, whereas ocean-bottom cables can be used with a

dual-sensor technique as well as a 4-C technique. Repeatability of stationary-receiver systems is better than
repeatability of streamer acquisition.

Chapter 6. Converted waves: Properties

and 3-D survey design
Survey design for PS-waves is different from P-wave
acquisition, owing to the asymmetry of the PS raypath.
Differences in PS-illumination by minimal data sets of
different geometries are much larger than P-illumination
differences. For instance, a cross-spread with a square
midpoint area produces an illumination area with rectangular shape even for a horizontal reflector. The raypath
asymmetry leads to asymmetric sampling requirements
for shots and receivers. Shot sampling interval is determined by P-wave velocity; receiver sampling interval by
S-wave velocity. Parallel geometry tends to suffer least
from asymmetry effects whereas orthogonal geometry
tends to suffer most. For analysis of azimuth-dependent
effects, areal geometry might be the best choice.

Chapter 7. Examples of 3-D symmetric

sampling
Noise spreads or microspreads are acquired with very
dense spatial sampling for an analysis of low-velocity
events. A cross-spread with very dense spatial sampling
was acquired in The Netherlands. Time slices and crosssections illustrate the 3-D behavior of the ground-roll
cone and of the scatterers inside the cone.
The theory of 3-D symmetric sampling was put to the
test in Nigeria, where a cross-spread test geometry was
compared with the standard brick-wall geometry. The
test geometry produced better results (higher resolution
and better continuity) at target level than the standard
geometry. The improvement can be attributed to larger
width (maximum crossline offset) of the test geometry
and (most likely) to its better spatial continuity.
The same Nigerian data set is used to demonstrate that
under favorable circumstances very low fold can be sufficient to get acceptable 3-D prestack migration results.

Chapter 8. Factors affecting spatial

resolution
The minimal data sets of the various acquisition
geometries also have different resolution properties. The
main factor influencing the theoretically best resolution
is the stretch effect caused by normal moveout. Therefore, zero-offset data potentially have the best resolution.
Resolution is not improved by reducing the midpoint

Downloaded from GeoScienceWorld with access from at 62.68.61.142 on Oct 9, 2016, 5:07 AM.
(c) 2002 Society of Exploration Geophysicists

Chapter 01_v2.qxd

8/28/02

1:37 PM

Page 4

4 Introduction

sampling intervals while keeping the shot and receiver

sampling intervals the same (bin-fractionation technique). Carefully selected random coarse sampling
may produce less migration artifacts than regular coarse
sampling, but in order to eliminate all artifacts, regular
dense sampling is best.

Chapter 9. DMO
The theory of DMO correction was developed for 2-D
common-offset gathers. Initially, the success of application of DMO correction to 3-D data was not really understood. The theory of DMO application to minimal
data sets in general and to cross-spreads in particular dispelled the mystery. The application of existing DMO
software to a single-fold data set (cross-spread) revealed
serious amplitude and phase artifacts. This prompted improvements in contractor software.

Chapter 10. Prestack migration

The required migration radius is often described in
terms of Fresnel zone radius. However, the Fresnel zone
radius for broadband data is not large enough for complete imaging. It is better to define the zone of influence
for migration (in analogy to what previously has been
done for modeling) and to use the radius of that zone in
establishing migration-apron requirements. Most minimal data sets have limited extent leading to edge effects

in migration. However, using pseudominimal data sets

constructed from offset-vector tiles tends to produce better single-fold images than other single-fold subsets of
the geometry.
The ideas and results discussed in this book should
help to achieve a better understanding of the structure of
3-D acquisition geometries. With this understanding,
geophysical requirements can be satisfied with an optimal choice of acquisition geometry and its parameters.
Processing techniques can be adapted to honor and exploit the specific requirements of each geometry, especially orthogonal and areal geometry, leading to a more
interpretable end product.
This book has been slightly modified from my PhD
thesis (defended in February 2001) to correct some mistakes and to make it up-to-date, in particular in the area
of marine 3-D/4-C acquisition. The latest developments
that could be included date from June 2001.
Together with this book a CD-Rom is provided containing the fully searchable contents of the book. It also
contains a prototype version of the Acquisition Design
Wizard, a program written in Java allowing the user to
design the parameters of a 3-D survey based on the
methodology described in this book. The CD-Rom also
contains an Excel program allowing survey design optimization. The program is described in my paper 3D
seismic survey design optimization, also included on
the CD-Rom.

Downloaded from GeoScienceWorld with access from at 62.68.61.142 on Oct 9, 2016, 5:07 AM.
(c) 2002 Society of Exploration Geophysicists