Implications of Fold Monitoring in Seismic Data Acquisition: Case Study of Niger Delta
Keywords:
Fold, Swath, Bin Size, Offset, In-line, Cross-LineAbstract
Fold calculation and monitoring are an integral and important aspect of seismic data acquisition. Before an acquisition is carried out, so many factors must be put into consideration. These factors include grid orientation, source point (SP) and receiver point (RP) spacing, source line (SL) and receiver line (RL) spacing, source points (SP) number in each Salvo, receiver lines (RL) number in each swath, end taper, number of swaths, receiver line overlap between swaths and acquisition polygon limits. In this work, the study area was divided into 7 swaths of 12 receiver lines each, with the fold of each swath calculated in three phases which include near offset fold coverage (0 – 3650m), mid offset fold coverage (3650 – 7300m) and far offset fold coverage (7300 – 10950m). These phases of fold calculations were later merged to ascertain the full fold coverage of each swath and in turn the full fold coverage of the entire study area. The maximum fold coverage for each of the swaths within the study area ranges from 358 – 446, with average maximum fold coverage of 393.3 which is more than twice the minimum fold coverage expectancy (180) for the study area. Fold calculations were carried out, while the lateral extent where full fold coverage is experienced within each swath was noted. It was also observed that where the full fold coverage of one swath ends, the full fold of another swath begins. This implies that when all the swaths are merged, no fold drop will be experienced, unless at the tapering ends of the entire study area.
Downloads
References
Claerbout, J. F. (1976). Fundamentals of geophysical data processing: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Cordsen, A., Lawton, D. C. (1996). Designing 3-component 3D seismic surveys. 66th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts 81–83
Cordsen, A., Galbraith, M., Peirce, J. (2000). Planning land 3-D seismic surveys. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560801801
Gadallah, M. R., Fisher, R. (2009). Exploration geophysics. Springer Berlin
Galbraith, M., (2001). 3D Seismic Surveys – Past, Present and Future. Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysicist. 26(6)
Geoscience Training Center, (2002). Land acquisition 2D and 3D geometry
Goodway, W.N., Ragan, B., (1995). Focused 3D: consequences of mid-point scatter and spatial sampling in acquisition design, processing and interpretation. Ann Mtg Can Soc Expl Geoph Expanded Abstracts, 177-178
Krey, ThC (1987). Attenuation and random noise by 2D and 3D CDP stacking and Kirchhoff migration. Geophysical Prospecting, 35(2):135-147
O’Connell, J.K., Kohli, M. and Amos, S., 1993, Bullwinkle: a unique 3-D experiment: Geophysics, 58, No. 1, 167-176.
Sanchez-Ferrer, F., James, S.D., Lak, B., Evans, A.M., (1999). Techniques use in the exploration of turbidite reservoirs in frontier settings – Helland Hansen licence, Vøring Basin, offshore Mid-Norway. In: Fleet AJ, Boldy SAR (eds) Petroleum geology of North West Europe. Proceedings of the 5th Conference, Geological Society of London 281-292
Yilmaz, O. (2001). Seismic data analysis: processing, inversion, and interpretation of seismic data. Society of Exploration Geophysicists Tulsa, OK 1028. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560801580
Zeng, C., Dong, S., Wang, B., (2016). Adaptive least-squares RTM with applications to subsalt imaging. The Leading Edge 35(3):253-257. DOI: 10.1190/TLE35030253.1
