Click
to view article in PDF format.
GC3-D Design Philosophy – Part 2: Target Depth
*
Bob Hardage1
Search and Discovery Article #40662 (2010)
Posted December 17, 2010
*Adapted from the Geophysical Corner column, prepared by the author, in AAPG Explorer, October, 2010, and entitled “Next Step: Geology Guides the 3-D Design”. Editor of Geophysical Corner is Bob A. Hardage ([email protected]). Managing Editor of AAPG Explorer is Vern Stefanic; Larry Nation is Communications Director. Click for remainder of series: Part 1 Part 3 Part 4
1Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin ([email protected])
Shallowest Target and Line Spacings
This article is the second of a four-article series – this topic considers Part 2 labeled on the Figure 1 flow chart of 3-D seismic design methodology.
The depth
of the shallowest target that must be imaged across a
prospect is a key control on the geometry of a 3-D acquisition grid, because
that
depth
dictates the distance that source and receiver lines should be
separated. If there is a shallow interface that has a known dip across a
prospect, that interface should be imaged even if it is not related to a
reservoir – because by making the image dip match the known dip, data
processors are assured the static corrections, shallow velocity analyses and
other data processing procedures that affect reflector dip and continuity have
been correctly done. In other cases, a shallow reflector may need to be imaged
so it can be used to make isopach maps. If this shallowest target is at a
depth
Z1, then a 3-D grid should be structured so that for every stacking
bin there are several (at least three or four, and ideally seven or eight)
source-receiver pairs that:
● Are separated a distance no greater than Z1.
● Cause reflection points to fall inside the bin.
Figure 2 is a
section view showing raypaths that result when a source-to-receiver offset
equals the shallow-target depth
Z1. If a source-to-receiver offset exceeds
Z1, there is a high probability that the illuminating wavefield will
be critically refracted at or above Z1 and will not provide a
reflection image of the shallow target. Therefore, a 3-D design must ensure
that at every stacking bin there are several source-receiver pairs that are
separated a distance that does not exceed offset distance Xmin shown
on Figure 2, where Xmin=Z1, the
depth
of the shallowest target. An
effective way to ensure this minimum source-to-receiver offset exists is to
define the source-line and receiver-line spacings to be approximately the same
as, or less than, the shallow-target
depth
Z1. A good choice is to
set the line spacing at one-half or less of the shallow target
depth
.
An example of one possible design is shown on Figure 3. This particular geometry illustrates a common design philosophy in
which the receiver-line spacing is approximately the same as the shallow-target
depth
, but for reasons of economy (that is, to reduce the number of source stations
per square mile), the source line spacing is slightly larger.
For this design, all source-receiver pairs inside shaded area ABCD
satisfy the offset restriction that results in reliable imaging
of stratigraphy
at, and even slightly above,
depth
Z1 within that shaded area. Similar
overlapping, restricted-offset areas like ABCD extend completely across this
particular 3-D grid. Thus, by answering the simple question “what is the
shallowest target to preserve in the 3-D image?” a first approximation for source-line
and receiver-line spacings that should be used in the 3-D field program can be
made.
|
The next parameter in the 3-D design is the
Larger source-to-receiver offsets up to a distance of 2Ztar
also are important for both data processing and
In concept, these active receiver stations should form a
continuous areal coverage completely around the source point and extend at
least a distance Ztar (the
For example, if a square swath with side dimensions of 2Ztar causes the number of receiver stations to exceed the channel capacity of the recording system, then a rectangular-shaped swath is commonly used, with the long dimension of the rectangle being 2Ztar to create the required long offset distances, and the narrow dimension being as large as the channel capacity of the recording system will allow.
A typical, rectangular 3-D recording swath is illustrated on Figure 4. The active source stations are all of the source points on source lines S1 through S9 that are between receiver lines R5 and R6, and the recording swath spans all the receivers inside rectangular area ABCD centered about source point E.
To satisfy the raypath requirement shown on Figure 2, either the diagonal distance EC or one of the
half-widths EF or EG must be approximately the same as the target
It is arbitrary as to which of these recording swath dimensions to set equal to Ztar. The number of receiver lines included in swath dimension AD is determined by the receiver-line spacing (Figure 3).
All of the first set of design parameters indicated on Figure 1 now have been calculated using geology to guide the design. The next step is to determine if these choices of source- and receiver-station spacings, source- and receiver-line spacings and recording swath size result in an acceptable stacking fold.
Copyright © AAPG. Serial rights given by author. For all other rights contact author directly. |