Repeatability of 3-D ocean‐bottom cable seismic surveys

Beasley, Craig J.; Chambers, Ron; Workman, Ricky; Craft, Kenneth L.; Meister, Laurent

doi:10.1190/1.1437782

Cited by 18 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Repeatability of receiver positions in OBC and OBN acquisition is better than with streamers and can be almost as good as for permanent installations (Beasley et al, 1997;Hays et al, 2008). Statoil carries out most of their time-lapse work with OBC acquisition (Thompson and Amundsen, 2009).…”

Section: Ways To Improve Repeatabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

3D Seismic Survey Design, Second edition

Vermeer¹

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Ways To Improve Repeatabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

3D Seismic Survey Design, Second edition

Vermeer¹

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In practice, shot and receiver locations are not identical between surveys, even for high-quality ocean bottom cables (Beasley et al, 1997;Yang et al, 2013). In some cases, after the initial large survey for exploration, specialized local surveys for Figure 10.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using image warping for time-lapse image domain wavefield tomography

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Time-lapse seismic data are widely used for monitoring subsurface changes. A quantitative assessment of how reservoir properties have changed allows for better interpretation of fluid substitution and fluid migration during processes such as oil and gas production and carbon sequestration. Full-waveform inversion (FWI) has been proposed as a way to retrieve quantitative estimates of subsurface properties through seismic waveform fitting. However, for some monitoring systems, the offset range versus depth of interest is not large enough to provide information about the low-wavenumber component of the velocity model. We evaluated an image domain wavefield tomography (IDWT) method using the local warping between baseline and monitor images as the cost function. This cost function is sensitive to volumetric velocity anomalies, and it is capable of handling large velocity changes with very limited acquisition apertures, where traditional FWI fails. We described the theory and workflow of our method. Layered model examples were used to investigate the performance of the algorithm and its robustness to velocity errors and acquisition geometry perturbations. The Marmousi model was used to simulate a realistic situation in which IDWT successfully recovers time-lapse velocity changes.

show abstract

“…In this geometry the shotlines extended 4500 m beyond the receiver lines allowing the maximum crossline offset to be equal to the maximum inline offset (cf. It might compound the problem of carrying out repeat surveys 49 for seismic reservoir monitoring. 14 and Ref.…”

Section: Stationary-receiver Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Streamers versus Stationary Receivers

Vermeer

1997

All Days

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine 3D seismic data acquisition technology is progressing rapidly. On the one hand, there has been a very rapid increase in the number of streamers that can be towed by modern seismic vessels, and on the other hand, the variety of stationary-receiver (sea-bed) systems is mushrooming. As a consequence, 3D seismic acquisition surveys may be carried out using quite different techniques, and the question which technique is most appropriate for a given problem needs to be addressed. This paper reviews pros and cons of the various techniques.One criterion for comparison is the magnitude of the geometry imprint. It is argued that a geometry imprint is always present, but that it might be easier to minimize in seabed seismic. The use of streamers always involves the choice of shooting direction. Some geologic features can be imaged better if such a choice does not have to be made. The multisource, multi-streamer and sometimes multi-boat operations are very efficient, but they also suffer from discontinuities in the crossline offset, leading to irregular illumination of the subsurface.In stationary-receiver techniques sources and receivers are decoupled, allowing the use of alternative acquisition geometries. Generally speaking, control of the actual receiver positions is better with the stationary-receiver techniques than with streamer acquisition with its (as yet) uncontrollable feathering.The vertical hydrophone cable technique is a VSP like technique with a series of hydrophones strung along a cable anchored to the sea bottom. .At present, the most common stationary-receiver technique is the dual-sensor technique which combines a hydrophone and a vertical geophone in Eventually, these techniques will expand the scope of the seismic method with the exploitation of the information carried by shear wave data.

show abstract

Repeatability of 3-D ocean‐bottom cable seismic surveys

Cited by 18 publications

References 4 publications

3D Seismic Survey Design, Second edition

3D Seismic Survey Design, Second edition

Using image warping for time-lapse image domain wavefield tomography

Streamers versus Stationary Receivers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About