Quantitative calculation of acquisition footprints for 3D land seismic acquisition geometries

Wei, W., Sun, W. and Fu, L.-Y., 2015. Quantitative calculation of acquisition footprints for 3D land seismic acquisition geometries. Journal of Seismic Exploration, 24: 83-102. An inappropriate acquisition geometry can leave a strong footprint on the stack of 3D seismic data, which would reduce the accuracy of seismic processing and interpretation. However, it is difficult to completely eliminate acquisition footprints using processing methods. In this paper, we propose a quantitative method to calculate the acquisition footprints for given 3D land seismic acquisition geometries, which improves on the usually qualitative methods used in classical seismic geometry design. Our method can obtain the acquisition footprints at any target depth based on the seismic wave propagation (WRW) model in terms of matrix operators in the frequency domain. The footprint is expressed as relative amplitudes of a stacked image of primaries for every source-receiver pair. With the proposed approach, we could quantitatively evaluate the acquisition footprints of different seismic acquisition schemes for any target depth and ultimately choose the optimal acquisition parameters that would yield the minimal possible footprint before initiating fieldwork. Through two theoretical examples, we investigate the influence two key acquisition parameters, the shot traverse spacing DS and the number of receiver lines repeated in a crossline roll-along K, have on acquisition footprints. Herein, a case study in an oilfield in China is presented by computing the footprint at different depths for different acquisition geometries. The results show that the qualities of the seismic migrations can be greatly improved by choosing the optimal geometry, which has the smallest possible acquisition footprint.
- Al-Bannagi, M.S., Fang, K., Kelamis, P.G. and Douglass, G.S., 2005. Acquisition footprintsuppression via the truncated SVD technique: Case studies from Saudi Arabia. The LeadingEdge, 24: 832-834.
- Berkhout, A.J., 1982. Seismic Migration, Imaging of Acoustic Energy by Wavefield Extrapolation.
- A: Theoretical Aspects. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam.
- Berkhout, A.J., 1987. Applied Seismic Wave Theory. Advances in Exploration Geophysics. ElsevierScience Publishers, Amsterdam.
- Berkhout, A.J., 1997. Pushing the limits of seismic imaging, Part I: Prestack migration in terms ofdouble dynamic focusing. Geophysics, 62: 937-953.
- Berkhout, A.J., OngKiehong, L., Volker, A.W.F. and Blacquiére, G, 2001. Comprehensiveassessment of seismic acquisition geometry by focal beams-Part I: Theoretical considerations.Geophysics, 66: 911-917.
- Brown, R.J., 2010. Acquisition footprints and seafloor coupling in multicomponent OBC seismicdata. Geophysics, 75: Q11-Q20.
- Canning, A. and Gardner, G.H., 1998. Reducing 3-D acquisition footprint for 3-D DMO and 3-Dprestack migration. Geophysics, 63: 1177.
- Cooper, J.K., Margrave, G.F. and Lawton, D.C., 2008. Numerical modeling of seismic acquisitionfootprint. Expanded Abstr., 78th Ann. Internat. SEG Mtg., Las Vegas: 25-29.102 WEI, SUN & FU
- Cordsen, A., 2004. Acquisition footprint can confuse. AAPG Explorer, March 2004: 26.
- Di, B., Xu, X. and Wei, J., 2008. Wide/narrow azimuth acquisition footprints and their effects onseismic imaging. Petrol. Sci., 5: 308-313.
- Gesbert, S., 2002. From acquisition footprints to true amplitude. Geophysics, 67: 830-839.
- Hill, S., Shultz, M. and Brewer, J., 1999. Acquisition footprint and fold-of-stack plots. The LeadingEdge, 18: 686-695.
- Marfurt, K.J., Scheet, R.M., Sharp, J.A. and Harper, M.G., 1998. Suppression of the acquisitionfootprint for seismic sequence attribute mapping. Geophysics, 63: 1024-1035.
- Marschall, R., 1997. 3D Acquisition of Seismic Data. Vol. 17, DGMK-Mintrop-Seminar,
- Perspektiven in Akquisition und Processing seismischer Daten, Miinster: 27-84. DGMK undUnikontakt Ruhr-Universitaét Bochum.
- Marschall, R., 1999. 4D seismics - principles and applications. J. Seismic Explor., 8: 309-346.
- Marschall, R., 2003. 4D Seismics: 7th Internat. Forum Reservoir Simulat., June 23-27, SchlosshotelBiihlerhohe, Germany.
- Mallick, S. 1993, A simple approximation to the P-wave reflection coefficient and its implicationin the inversion of amplitude variation with offset data. Geophysics, 58: 544-552.
- Officer, C.B., 1958. Introduction to the Theory of Sound Transmission. McGraw Hill Book Co.,New York.
- Savage, J.E.G. and Mathewson, J.C., 2001. Prediction of 3-D seismic footprint from existing 2-Ddata. The Leading Edge, 20: 464-473.
- Schuster, G.T., Liu, Z., 2001. Seismic array theorem and rapid calculation of acquisition footprintnoise. Geophysics, 66: 1843-1849.
- Volker, A.W.F., Blacquiére, G., Berkhout, A.J. and OngKiehong, L., 2001. Comprehensiveassessment of seismic acquisition geometries by focal beams - Part II: Practical aspects andexamples. Geophysics, 66: 918-931.
- Van Veldhuizen, E.J., Blacquiére, G. and Berkhout, A.J., 2008, Acquisition geometry analysis incomplex 3D media. Geophysics, 73: Q43-Q58.
- Vermeer, G.J.O., 1997. Streamers versus stationary receivers. OTC Proc.: 331-346.
- Vermeer, G.J.O., 1998. 3-D symmetric sampling. Geophysics, 63: 1629-1647.
- Vermeer, G.J.O., 2012. 3-D Seismic Survey Design. SEG, Tulsa, OK.
- Wei, W., Fu, L.Y. and Blacquiére, G., 2012. Fast multifrequency focal beam analysis for 3Dseismic acquisition geometry. Geophysics, 77: P11-P21.