3D Seismic Survey Design

Second Edition

Gijs J. O. Vermeer
Geophysical References Series No. 12
Craig J. Beasley, volume editor
Lianjie Huang, managing editor

Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA

Cover figure courtesy of Mustafa Al-Ali. This figure appears in the book as Figure 10.17 and compares time slices
of the same diffraction-flattened reflection sorted in cross-spreads and in offset-vector tile gathers.

ISBN 978-0-931830-47-1 (Series)

ISBN 978-1-56080-303-4 (Volume)

© 2012 by the Society of Exploration Geophysicists

All rights reserved. This book or parts hereof may not be reproduced
in any form without permission in writing from the publisher.

First edition published 2002

Second edition published 2012

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Vermeer, Gijs J. O.
[3-D seismic survey design]
3D seismic survey design / Gijs J.O. Vermeer ; Craig J. Beasley, volume editor. -- Second edition.
pages cm. -- (Geophysical references series ; no. 12)
ISBN 978-1-56080-303-4 (volume : alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-0-931830-47-1 (series : alk. paper)
1. Seismic prospecting. I. Beasley, Craig J. II. Title.
TN269.8.C69 2012
6229.1592--dc23
2012040211
To Tini
Contents

About the Author  xi

Foreword to the Second Edition  xiii

Foreword to the First Edition  xv

Acknowledgments to the Second Edition  xvii

Acknowledgments to the First Edition  xix

Introduction xxi

Chapter 1 2D symmetric sampling 1

1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Shot/receiver and midpoint/offset coordinate systems in two dimensions  1
1.3 Symmetric sampling  4
1.4 Symmetric sampling versus asymmetric sampling  9
1.5 The total stack response  11
1.6 Concluding remarks  13

Chapter 2 3D acquisition geometries, their properties, and their sampling 15

2.1 Introduction 15
2.2 Classes of 3D geometries  16
2.2.1 Examples of various geometries  16
2.3 The continuous wavefield  19
2.3.1 The shot/receiver and midpoint/offset coordinate systems  19
2.3.2 3D subsets of the 5D wavefield  19
2.3.3 3D subsets and acquisition geometry  23
2.3.4 Fold in 3D seismic data  28
2.4 Sampling the continuous wavefield  31
2.4.1 Binning 31
2.4.2 Sampling and the unit cell  32
2.4.3 Aspect ratios  33
2.4.4 Spatial continuity  34
2.4.5 3D symmetric sampling  34
2.4.6 Line geometries  35
2.4.7 Areal geometry  40
2.5 Pseudo-COV gathers  41
2.5.1 Introduction 41
2.5.2 Offset-vector tiles   41
2.5.3 Construction of pseudo-COV gathers  42

v
vi Contents

2.5.4 Example of OVTs in 64-fold regular geometry  44

2.5.5 Reciprocal OVTs  45
2.5.6 A measure of spatial discontinuity  46
2.5.7 A plethora of OVT gathers  47
2.6 Application to prestack processing  47
2.6.1 Introduction 47
2.6.2 Noise removal  48
2.6.3 Interpolation and regularization  50
2.6.4 Muting 51
2.6.5 First-break picking  51
2.6.6 Nearest-neighbor correlations  52
2.6.7 Residual statics  52
2.6.8 Velocity analysis and DMO  52
2.6.9 Multiple suppression  54
2.6.10 Amplitude variation with offset   55
2.6.11 Amplitude variation with azimuth  57
2.7 Conclusions 57

Chapter 3 Noise suppression 59

3.1 Introduction 59
3.2 Properties of low-velocity noise  59
3.2.1 Direct waves  59
3.2.2 Scattered waves  59
3.3 Shot and receiver arrays in 3D data acquisition  65
3.3.1 Introduction 65
3.3.2 Effect of linear array on noise  65
3.3.3 Effect of linear array on signal  68
3.3.4 Direct wave noise suppression  70
3.3.5 Scattered-wave noise suppression  71
3.3.6 Analysis of various array combinations  72
3.3.7 Discussion 76
3.4 Stack responses  77
3.4.1 Introduction 77
3.4.2 The 2D stack response  77
3.4.3 Multiple suppression by stacking  77
3.4.4 3D stack responses  80
3.4.5 Discussion 84

Chapter 4 Guidelines for design of 3D geometry on land 87

4.1 Introduction 87
4.1.1 Spatial continuity  87
4.1.2 Regular geometry  88
4.1.3 Geophysical requirements/constraints  88
4.1.4 General recipe for 3D survey design  88
 Contents vii

4.2 Preparations 89
4.2.1 Objective of survey  89
4.2.2 Know your problem  89
4.3 The choice of geometry  90
4.3.1 Parallel geometry versus orthogonal geometry  90
4.3.2 Zigzag geometry versus orthogonal geometry  91
4.3.3 Slanted geometry versus orthogonal geometry  92
4.3.4 Comparison of sampled minimal data sets of crossed-array geometries  92
4.3.5 Areal geometry  92
4.3.6 Hybrid geometry  94
4.3.7 Target-oriented geometries  95
4.4 Selecting the main geometry parameters  96
4.4.1 Establish representative velocity function  96
4.4.2 Identify main targets  96
4.4.3 Resolution requirements and maximum frequency  96
4.4.4 Establish maximum dip angle in each target  99
4.4.5 Establish spatial sampling intervals  99
4.4.6 Establish maximum stretch factor and mute function  104
4.4.7 Establish required fold in each target  107
4.4.8 Determine line intervals  110
4.4.9 Determine maximum offset  111
4.4.10 Other geometry parameters  112
4.4.11 Harmonizing all requirements  112
4.5 Implementing the nominal geometry  113
4.5.1 Zippers 114
4.5.2 Templates 114
4.5.3 The survey grid and the survey area  121
4.5.4 Dealing with obstacles  123
4.5.5 Source selection  127
4.6 Testing 133
4.7 Discussion 134
4.7.1 Attribute analysis  134
4.7.2 Model-based survey design  134
4.7.3 Acquisition footprint  140
4.7.4 Random sampling  140
4.8 What to do and not to do in 3D survey design  141

Chapter 5 Marine seismic data acquisition 143

5.1 Introduction 143
5.1.1 Air-gun arrays  144
5.2 Geometry imprint  144
5.3 Streamer acquisition  146
5.3.1 Introduction 146
5.3.2 Multisource multistreamer configurations  146
viii Contents

5.3.3 Crossline-offset variation  147

5.3.4 Source interval, number of sources, and fold  149
5.3.5 Inline bin size and crossline bin size  149
5.3.6 Offset-vector-tile gathers in streamer acquisition  150
5.3.7 Effects of spatial discontinuity in marine streamer acquisition  151
5.3.8 Maximum offset  160
5.3.9 Depth of sources and streamers  161
5.3.10 Over/under technique  164
5.3.11 Multicomponent streamer  164
5.3.12 Variable-depth streamer  167
5.3.13 Shooting direction  167
5.3.14 Multiazimuth acquisition  169
5.3.15 Wide-azimuth acquisition  172
5.3.16 Operational aspects  186
5.4 Stationary-receiver techniques   187
5.4.1 Introduction 187
5.4.2 Some history  188
5.4.3 Source array  189
5.4.4 Coupling issues  189
5.4.5 Noise at the sea bottom  189
5.4.6 Dual-sensor application  190
5.4.7 OBC 191
5.4.8 Ocean-bottom seismometers  195
5.4.9 Transition-zone acquisition  197
5.5 Time interval between shots and source strength  198
5.6 Time-lapse acquisition  198
5.6.1 Introduction and objective  198
5.6.2 Measures of nonrepeatability  199
5.6.3 Causes of nonrepeatability  201
5.6.4 Ways to improve repeatability  202
5.7 Discussion 204

Chapter 6 Converted waves: Properties and 3D survey design 207

6.1 Introduction 207
6.2 Properties of the PS-wavefield  208
6.2.1 Traveltime surfaces and apparent velocity  208
6.2.2 Illumination 209
6.2.3 Imaging 210
6.2.4 Resolution 212
6.2.5 NMO stretch in PS-waves  218
6.2.6 Shear-wave splitting  218
6.3 3D survey design for PS-waves  219
6.3.1 Choice of geometry  219
6.3.2 Sampling 225
 Contents ix

6.4 Processing considerations  225

6.5 Conclusions and recommendations  226

Chapter 7 Some lowfold data examples 229

7.1 Introduction 229
7.2 3D microspread  229
7.2.1 Introduction 229
7.2.2 Acquisition parameters of 3D microspread  229
7.2.3 Cross sections and time slices  229
7.2.4 f-k filtering results  231
7.2.5 Discussion 232
7.3 Nigeria 3D test geometry results  234
7.3.1 Introduction 234
7.3.2 Acquisition geometry  235
7.3.3 Some processing results  238
7.3.4 Interpretation results  238
7.3.5 Discussion 238
7.4 Prestack migration of lowfold data  241
7.4.1 Introduction 241
7.4.2 Migration of a single cross-spread  242
7.4.3 Lowfold prestack migration  243
7.4.4 More lowfold migration results  244
7.4.5 Discussion 246

Chapter 8 Factors affecting spatial resolution 247

8.1 Introduction 247
8.2 Spatial resolution formulas  248
8.2.1 Spatial resolution — The link with migration/inversion  248
8.2.2 Spatial resolution formulas for constant velocity  249
8.3 Spatial resolution measurements  251
8.3.1 Procedure for resolution analysis  251
8.3.2 2D resolution in the zero-offset model  252
8.3.3 2D resolution in the offset model  253
8.3.4 Asymmetric aperture  254
8.3.5 3D spatial resolution  255
8.3.6 Sampling and spatial resolution  257
8.3.7 Sampling and migration noise  257
8.3.8 Bin fractionation  258
8.3.9 Fold and spatial resolution  259
8.4 Discussion 260
8.5 Conclusions 261

Chapter 9 DMO 263
9.1 Introduction 263
9.2 DMO in arbitrary 3D acquisition geometries  264
x Contents

9.2.1 The time of a DMO-corrected event  264

9.2.2 Contributing traces in cross-spread  265
9.2.3 DMO-corrected time in the cross-spread  266
9.2.4 Extension to other geometries  266
9.3 Results with synthetic data  267
9.4 New DMO programs   268
9.5 DMO in OVT gathers  269
9.6 Conclusion 269

Chapter 10 Prestack migration 271

10.1 Introduction 271
10.2 Migration basics  271
10.2.1 The purpose of migration  271
10.2.2 Migration as a two-step process  273
10.3 Fresnel zone and zone of influence  275
10.3.1 Modeling 275
10.3.2 Migration 275
10.4 Experiments with synthetic data  278
10.4.1 Description of model experiments  278
10.4.2 Prestack migration with minimal data sets  278
10.4.3 Prestack migration with pseudo-COV gathers  280
10.5 Discussion 290

Appendix A Sampling and aliasing 293

Appendix B Aperture for sampled wavefields 297

B.1 Introduction 297
B.2 Continuous aperture function   297
B.3 Discrete aperture function  297
B.4 Conclusions 299

Appendix C Useful formulas in 3D seismic survey design 301

C.1 Introduction 301
C.2 Algorithm for average_fold  302

Appendix D Fold requirement of 3D survey 303

Appendix E Nomenclature 307

References 311

Index  333
About the Author
Gijs J. O. Vermeer received an M.S. degree in applied mathematics (1965) and a
Ph.D. in geophysics (2001) from the Technological University of Delft. He spent nearly
30 years with Shell, where he worked in research as well as in operations on seismic
processing, seismic interpretation, and 3D seismic data acquisition techniques. In 1997,
he founded 3DSymSam Geophysical Advice, focusing on 3D seismic survey design and
analysis.
In addition to authoring 3-D Seismic Survey Design (2002, 2012), Vermeer
has written Seismic Wavefield Sampling (1990), both published by SEG. He has
authored numerous papers on 3D symmetric sampling and related subjects. Ver-
meer’s main interests are seismic data acquisition and seismic data processing,
including imaging and their interrelationships. He has presented courses on 3D
seismic survey design at numerous locations throughout the geophysical world and
has completed seismic survey designs for various companies. Vermeer is a member
of SEG, EAGE, and CSEG.

xi
Foreword to the Second Edition
It now has been 10 years since 3-D Seismic Survey
Design was published — enough time for me to forget
the rigors of being the volume editor and thus gladly
accept that duty again. Now that it is done, I couldn’t
be more pleased to have been associated with this fine
work. At the time of its original publication, probably no
one contemplated a second edition. The original Fore-
word, which I highly recommend as it eloquently sets the
book in historical context, saw it as a crystallization of
decades of work by many researchers and practitioners
of survey design, resulting in a “definitive work” on the
subject. It was and still is, in the context of traditional 3D
survey design. However, it was also clear that the subject
of seismic survey design was undergoing a fundamental
change as the last two chapters, which involved prestack
imaging, began to address the connections between sur-
vey design and imaging.
Indeed, the initial foray into understanding these
connections was the force that brought the author and
me into contact and resulted in my involvement as
the volume editor. It began more than 10 years prior
to the first edition as several researchers working in
prestack imaging and survey design began to under-
stand that, despite the fact that we now had 3D surveys
to work with, illumination of the subsurface could be
nonuniform (and sometimes absent) even when tra-
ditional measures of survey design quality indicated
good coverage. Further, we realized that our processing
algorithms — particularly the imaging algorithms —
did not comprehend or account for such irregularities.
Needless to say, this was disruptive. I was previously a
wave equation/imaging researcher; but, by necessity, I
was inexorably drawn into survey design considerations.
And so I met Gijs Vermeer who was working on the same
xiii
problems, and eventually I agreed to sit on his Ph.D.
committee (more for my benefit than his) and eventually
became volume editor for the first, and now, the second
edition.
As the subject of survey design moved on and
the theme of connecting imaging and data acquisition
evolved, the need for a second edition became obvious.
The wealth of new acquisition technologies introduced
since the first edition is impressive, if not astounding.
Wide azimuth, full azimuth, single sensor, simultaneous
source, and broadband acquisition, to name a few, were
not in practice at the time of the first edition but now are
used commercially in seismic acquisition. As in any era,
it is tempting to marvel at our sophisticated technology
and wonder how we could do better, and yet we always
push forward. Once again, this splendid second edition
serves as a definitive reference, but at the same time it
recognizes that seismic survey design is a moving target.
As a result, every effort has been made to incorporate the
latest thinking on the subject, albeit perhaps incomplete
and certainly evolving.
Although acknowledgments properly come from the
author and can be found herein, I would like to express
my gratitude to all of those who aided in producing this
volume. Particular thanks are due to the reviewers who
graciously helped in reviewing the volume. Finally, I
would like to thank Gijs for the invitation to serve as the
volume editor for both the first and, now, this second
edition. It has been a great pleasure.
Craig J. Beasley
Chief Geophysicist, WesternGeco and
Schlumberger Fellow
Foreword to the First Edition
Any developing technology is heralded by a prolifera-
tion of papers of variable quality, ultimately superseded
by the definitive work. It is just such a definitive work,
in the field of 3-D seismic survey design, that I am proud
to introduce here.
In the early days of the seismic method and prior
to the implementation of 3-D techniques, the literature
is not short of papers and discussions on seismic sur-
vey design. Almost every individual operations expert
seemed to have his or her own favorite source array or
detector array or both, and wished to go into print about
their various advantages. Survey design was clearly a
popular subject, fueled by the fact that our wavefield
sampling was necessarily woefully inadequate–not only
was it “2-D,” but it was further compromised by con-
straints such as instrumentation limitations.
Eventually the number of these papers dwindled,
because, for most of us, adequate wisdom on 2-D
sampling had been expressed by authors such as Nigel
Anstey, Leo Ongkiehong, and Henry Askin, in papers
with titles such as “Towards the universal seismic
acquisition technique,” and “Whatever happened to
groundroll?”
Then, by the mid-1980s, the use of the 3-D method
was growing fast. Again, we experienced a prolifera-
tion of experts’ favorite designs and opinions, both for
marine and for land exploration, especially the latter. For
some, the only viable configuration was the “brick,” and
for others it was the narrow swath. Designs were seen in
which the statics solutions for adjacent subsurface lines
floated independently of one another. Some designs
made unfair demands of field crews, requiring huge
overlapping receiver arrays that crossed and recrossed
each other in the search for perfection. In some cases,
the acquisition staff were so out of touch with the data
processors that the latter eventually had to plead with the
former not to use their current favorite patented designs!
xv
What was sorely needed was the 3-D equivalent of the
older 2-D Anstey, Ongkiehong, and Askin papers–a clear
and correct explanation of the issues and their solutions.
This is what you now have, as into the breach stepped
Gijs Vermeer, who is particularly well qualified to
author a book on this subject. His academic background
is in physics and mathematics and he has earned his
living not just as a theorist, but also with real data as a
processor and an interpreter.
Most of his earlier publications have been internal
Shell documents, but we are indeed fortunate that from
the early 90s we have seen a growing quantity of Gijs’s
work in the literature. His first major publication was
the book entitled “Seismic Wavefield Sampling,” pub-
lished in 1990, which quickly became a necessity on our
shelves. Several of his papers since then—with titles such
as “3-D symmetric sampling”—showed the directions of
his research. Luckily for us, he has recently focused on
this subject, and he embarked on a PhD at the University
of Delft. This book is the result, and I commend it to
you. Within its covers you will find a full insight into the
fundamentals of 3-D survey design as well as the com-
mon practical issues such as the “footprints” that often
plague 3-D data volumes and are especially important as
the emphasis on reservoir geophysics increases.
Comprehensively, the book covers not just land and
marine surveys, but also ocean-bottom, vertical cable,
and converted wave data. The survey design issues
and criteria are developed and taken all the way from
acquisition through to prestack depth processing. It will
become both a textbook and a general reference and will
benefit survey designers, data processors, interpreters,
and earth scientists both in industry and academia.
Ian Jack, BP
Acknowledgments to the Second Edition
This second edition has more than twice as much text
and many more figures than the first edition. Many of the
new figures originate from the geophysical literature and
were made by others. There are also a few figures con-
tributed by others which at the time of printing had not
been published anywhere else. Shell International had
already contributed several figures to the first edition,
and they agreed with publishing the additional Figures
7.3 and 10.3 in this second edition. There are more than
30 new figures, published in Geophysics, The Leading
Edge, or SEG’s Expanded Abstracts, copyrighted by
SEG and for which permission to use them is almost
automatic. Yet, each figure corresponds to a paper writ-
ten by one or more authors, who are duly acknowledged
in the caption of each figure. I am grateful to these
authors for their useful papers and trust they are happy
to see their work reproduced in this book. I also thank
the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers
(EAGE), which granted permission to use 15 copy-
righted figures (Figures 2.39, 2.50, 4.6, 4.8, 4.16, 4.25,
4.39, 4.43, 5.22, 5.23, 5.26, 5.45, 5.52, 6.64, and 6.20)
in this book. Figure 4.43 first appeared in Geophysical
Prospecting, and all other EAGE figures appeared in
First Break.
The figures published in the EAGE Extended Abstracts
remain the copyright of the authors or their organiza-
tions. BHPBilliton is acknowledged for permission to
use Figures 5.15 and 5.16; Barry Hung and Mark Stanley
provided the high-quality figures, and without the efforts
of Stephen Whitney, permission would not have been
given. CGGVeritas gave permission to use Figures 2.43
and 3.22, and Patrice Guillaume and Thomas Bianchi
provided high-quality originals. Figure 2.49 was the
product of a joint research effort by CGGVeritas and
Total; both companies gave permission to use this fig-
ure, and Didier Lecerf provided the high-quality copy.
Josef Paffenholz and FairfieldNodal allowed the use of
Figure 5.51. Total (or Elf Gabon) also agreed with the
use of Figure 5.31, and Henri Houllevigue provided bet-
ter originals.
There are also those figures that were published
in other journals or were not published before at all.
Schlum­berger is acknowledged for permission to use
xvii
Figure 7.3 from their journal, Oilfield Review. Mustafa
Al-Ali provided Figure 10.17, a highly instructive illus-
tration that compares time slices of the same diffraction-
flattened reflection sorted in cross-spreads and in OVT
gathers. Al-Ali’s figure is adopted as the cover of this
book. As a reviewer of Chapter 4, Ian Jack provided two
extra figures on charges, 4.37 and 4.38, and BP (Tim
Summers) gave permission to use them. Edison S.p.a.
(Stefano Carbonara) provided the data for Figure 4.28,
a great test to determine the required migration distance.
Petroleum Geo-Services (Gregg Parkes) provided the
data used to construct Figure 5.27. As a reviewer of
Chapter 8, Gary Hampson (Chevron) provided two new
figures (8.4 and 8.9) that are very helpful to convey the
message of that chapter. Total (Jean-Luc Boelle) pro-
vided Figure 5.50, which illustrates the occurrence of
(seemingly) incoherent events on shot gathers that are
coherent in receiver gathers.
To illustrate various aspects of seismic survey design,
I have made extensive use of software from Gedco (now
part of Schlumberger) and Mathematica. Figures 2.29,
2.31, 4.24, 4.26, 4.27, 4.44–4.47, 5.13, 5.18, 5.4, 5.46,
5.55, 6.23, 10.9, 10.12, 10.13, 10.22, and part of 10.18,
10.19, and 10.21 were made with Gedco’s Omni, and
Figure 10.23 was made with their Vista package. Figures
2.27, 2.44, 3.1–3.9, 3.12, 3.15, 3.18–3.21, 3.23, 3.24,
3.28, 3.29, 4.1, 4.29, 5.9, 5.10, 6.2–6.11, 6.13–6.15,
6.21, 6.22, 6.25, 6.26, 7.13, 8.11, 8.12, 9.4, 9.6, 10.2,
10.10, 10.11, 10.15, 10.16, and part of 10.18, 10.19, and
10.21 were made with Mathematica.
This book also has a guest author, Gary Hampson,
who wrote Appendix B on the true size of a sampled
aperture.
The manuscript was peer-reviewed by 13 geophysi-
cists, each one having agreed to review one chapter.
This meant that some reviewers had much more work to
do than others, but they were all instrumental in making
this a better book by pointing out ways to improve the
contents. The illustrious group of reviewers consisted of
Craig Beasley, Malcolm Lansley, Kees Hornman, Ian
Jack, Bill Dragoset, Guy Drijkoningen, Dave Monk,
Gary Hampson, Denes Vigh, Andrew Long, Guido
Baeten, Mohamed Hadidi, and an anonymous reviewer.
xviii Acknowledgments to the 2nd Edition
Malcolm Lansley especially helped by adding and cor-
recting some historical facts, Guido Baeten made me
rewrite Appendix D, and Mohamed Hadidi encouraged
me to remove an appendix. Craig Beasley graciously
agreed to be the volume editor, a task he took care of for
the first edition as well. Lianjie Huang was managing
editor, taking care mostly of starting up and rounding off
the review process. I am grateful to all of these individu-
als for their time and effort spent on the manuscript. With
their work, the number of mistakes and omissions was
greatly reduced.
In discussions at conferences, during courses, and by
e-mail, many geophysicists helped me to refine and expand
my ideas on what is important in 3D seismic survey design:
Adel El-Emam, Alexander Calvert, Andreas Cordsen,
Andrew Aouad, Aziz Khan, Bee Bednar, Bill Pramik, Bob
Heath, Boff Anderson, Bryan DeVault, Carl Regone, Chris
Walker, Daniel Trad, David le Meur, Denis Mougenot,
Edith Miller, Eivind Berg, Eivind Fromyr, Eric Verschuur,
Federico Martin, Gareth Williams, Gerrit Blacquière, Ghas-
san Rached, Gordon Brown, Heloise Lynn, Ian Jones, Jack
Bouska, Joachim Mispel, Joel Starr, Juan Cantillo, Julien
Meunier, Kees Faber, Kees Hornman, Keith Wilkinson,
Les Denham, Marc Girard, Marco Schinelli, Mario Sigis-
mondi, Martin Landrø, Mike Galbraith, Mike Hall, Nick
Moldoveanu, Paul Brettwood, Peter Cary, Peter Pecholcs,
Peter Vermeer, Peter van Baaren, Phil Fontana, Pradyumna
Dutta, Ralph Weiss, Richard Stocker, Robert Ross, Robert
Simpson, Roice Nelson, Sandra Tegtmeier, Sharon Dickie,
Shuki Ronen, Stephane Gesbert, Steve McIntosh, Wil-
liam Goodway, Xiao-Gui Miao, and Xinxiang Li. Writing
acknowledgments with so much input from others is a bit
hazardous. Undoubtedly, I have forgotten to mention some
geophysicists who also helped shape this book in one way
or another. So, many thanks go to all you unnamed con-
tributors as well.
A few more persons need be mentioned for their
contributions. First, Jennifer Cobb of the SEG office,
who has done a marvelous job in running the not-so-
easy Editorial Manager software and by looking after all
phases of development of the manuscript. A particularly
onerous task she accomplished with a lot of patience
was the conversion of my RGB figures to CMYK. Next,
Kathryne Pile, the copyeditor, who took her job very
seriously. She implemented numerous improvements
in my English, came up with lots of useful suggestions,
removed dangling sentences, and made me to rewrite
Chapter 9 into a coherent story.
Finally, I would like to thank my wife Tini for her
patience and understanding during all those years in
which this book was taking shape.
Gijs Vermeer, Fall 2012
Acknowledgments to the First Edition
To a great extent this book is the product of many
years of research in a stimulating Shell environment. In
1991 I joined the project “Fundamentals of 3D seismic
data acquisition” and together with Justus Rozemond I
developed the theory of 3-D symmetric sampling, based
on earlier work on 2-D symmetric sampling. The main
insights were developed during the first year, but there-
after we continued to expand and refine the ideas and we
had the opportunity to test the ideas in practice.
It is not really possible to mention all colleagues
who have contributed in one way or another to the work
described in this book, but I do appreciate their help. I have
to make an exception for a few of them. Kees Hornman
was my boss during a large part of this period until 1996.
He has been a major discussion partner ever since. Jerry
Davis, as an adviser to Shell Operating Companies, showed
that theory could be put into practice. Whenever there was
a technical question, Peter van der Sman found the time to
answer it. Since early 1999, Rick Stocker keeps showing
me that it is not always easy to put theory into practice.
I am very grateful to Bill Kiel, who made it possible
for me to take early retirement from Shell in 1997 and to
start 3DSymSam—Geophysical Advice. He allowed me
to maintain a good relationship with Shell, while I could
xix
devote more of my time to geophysics and to this book
than would otherwise have been possible. The good rela-
tionship with Shell manifested itself in Shell’s permission
to show many of their data examples in this publication.
The horizon slices in this publication have been made
with a prototype version of Omni Workshop, which was
kindly made available by Seismic Image Software Ltd.
TNO’s permission to include the prototype version of the
Acquisition Design Wizard on the CD-ROM of this book
is gratefully acknowledged.
I would also like to express my gratitude to Jacob
Fokkema and Kees Wapenaar who graciously agreed
to be my supervisors for the PhD version of this book.
After all the work done for the thesis, I was happy that
Craig Beasley, the Editor, came up with some useful
suggestions and mild criticism only. It was a great plea-
sure to work with Jerry Henry, Judy Hastings, and Ted
Bakamjian to convert the PhD version into a new tome in
SEG’s Geophysical Reference Series. My gratitude also
extends to Ian Jack who was so kind to write a positively
phrased foreword.
Finally, I would like to thank my wife Tini for her
kind editing of English grammar in the original thesis,
but above all for being there.
Introduction
The first edition of this book ­was a slightly modified
version of my dissertation (defended in February 2001).
This second edition has been extended considerably.
Many technological developments of the past 10 years
have been included. Feedback from students attending
my course on 3D survey design has helped clarify vari-
ous not-so-clear discussions in the book. Another major
difference is the inclusion of many new figures copied
from the literature. Most of the existing figures have been
redrawn to comply with the high standards used for fig-
ures in Geophysics, and all references are now compiled
in a single list. Although the main text for this edition
was ready by the end of 2010, some developments in the
field of seismic data acquisition that occurred in 2011 and
2012 have still been included.1
Three-dimensional seismic surveys have become
a major tool in the exploration and exploitation of
hydrocarbons. In 1999, Exxon received the SEG Dis-
tinguished Achievement Award for inventing the 3D
seismic method in the 1960s and acquiring many sin-
glefold cross-spreads before 1970 (Walton, 1972). The
first multifold 3D seismic survey was acquired on land
in 1971 (Hardman, 1999), soon followed by more 3D
surveys on land (van der Kallen and Pion, 2010) and
marine (Watson, 2009), although it took until the early
1990s before they gained general acceptance throughout
the industry. Until then, the subsurface was mapped
using 2D seismic surveys.
Theories on the best way to sample 2D seismic lines
were not published until the late 1980s, notably by
Anstey (1986), Ongkiehong and Askin (1988), and Ver-
meer (1990). 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 3D surveys was severely limited
by what technology could offer. Gradually, the number
of channels that could be used increased, providing more
options on the choice of acquisition parameters, which
naturally led to discussions on what choice constitutes a
good 3D acquisition geometry. The general philosophy
was to expand lessons learned from 2D acquisition to 3D
1
A concise version of many changes in this second edition
can be found in Vermeer (2010).
xxi
survey design. This approach led to much emphasis on the
properties of the common-midpoint (CMP) gather (or bin)
because good sampling of offsets in a CMP gather was
the main criterion in 2D design. Then 3D design programs
were developed, which mainly concentrated on analysis of
bin attributes and, in particular, on offset sampling (regu-
larity, effective fold, azimuth distribution, etc.).
This conventional approach to 3D survey design does
not acknowledge the differing properties of the many
geometries that can be used in 3D seismic surveys. In
particular, the sampling requirements for optimal pre-
stack imaging were not taken into account properly. My
book addresses these problems and provides a new meth-
odology for the design of 3D seismic surveys.
The approach used in this book is the same as in
my Seismic Wavefield Sampling, a book on 2D 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 2D acquisition, only a 3D wavefield has
to be studied, consisting of temporal coordinate t and
two spatial coordinates: shot coordinate xs and receiver
coordinate xr. In 3D acquisition, the prestack wavefield is
five-dimensional, 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 sampled properly (proper
sampling is defined as a technique that allows the faithful
reconstruction of the underlying continuous wavefield).
Instead, it is possible to define 3D subsets of the 5D pre-
stack wavefield that can be sampled properly. In fact, the
2D seismic line is but one example of such 3D subsets.
The 2D seismic line is a multifold data set with mid-
points on a single line only. However, in 3D acquisi-
tion, many possible 3D subsets are singlefold, whose
midpoints extend across a certain area. These subsets are
called minimal data sets (MDSs), a term coined by Tri-
lochan Padhi in 1989 in an internal Shell report. An MDS
represents a volume of data (sometimes called a 3D cube)
that has illuminated part of the subsurface. If there were
no noise, a single MDS 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
xxii Introduction
MDSs. Therefore, the properties of the MDSs need
to be studied for a better understanding of acquisition
geometries as a whole. This allows an optimal choice
of acquisition geometry (if there is a choice; often, the
geometry type is dictated by economic or environmental
constraints) and of the geometry parameters.
The continuous wavefield to be sampled can be
reduced to the wavefield of the characteristic MDS of
the chosen geometry. Proper sampling of that wavefield
means that at least two of the four spatial coordinates of
the 5D prestack wavefield will be sampled properly. It is
also recommended to maximize the useful extent of each
minimal data set. Together, these two recommendations
ensure minimal spatial discontinuities in the total data
set. Spatial continuity is maximized, and the migrated
minimal data sets contain a minimum of artifacts. Sam-
pling of the other two spatial coordinates will be coarse
in general. The coarsely sampled coordinates determine
the sparsity of the geometry. Reducing the sparsity of the
chosen geometry further reduces migration artifacts. Cost
considerations determine in general how far sparsity of
the geometry may be reduced.
The ideas and results discussed in this book should
help one to achieve a better understanding of the structure
of 3D acquisition geometries. With this understanding,
geophysical requirements can be satisfied with an opti-
mal choice of acquisition geometry and its parameters.
Processing techniques can be adapted to honor and
exploit the specific requirements of each geometry, espe-
cially orthogonal and areal geometries, leading to a more
interpretable end product.
Based on the principles outlined above, this book
addresses a variety of issues except for hardware (instru-
ments, sources, receivers), which is not discussed in
detail. Following is a summary of each chapter.
Chapter 1. 2D symmetric sampling
This chapter starts with a short summary of 2D sym-
metric sampling, which is a recipe for optimal sampling
of the 2D seismic line. Two-dimensional symmetric sam-
pling 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. 3D acquisition geometries, their
properties, and their sampling
Three-dimensional seismic surveys can be acquired
using a number of different acquisition geometries. The
most important geometries are areal, parallel, and orthog-
onal. Each has its characteristic 3D basic subset. If the
basic subset is singlefold, 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, 3D common-receiver gath-
ers are acquired. These gathers form the basic subset or
MDS of this particular areal geometry.
Parallel and orthogonal geometries are examples
of line geometries, in which sources and receivers are
arranged along straight acquisition lines that are more-or-
less widely separated. In parallel geometry, the ­(parallel)
shot lines are parallel to the (parallel) receiver lines; in
orthogonal geometry, shot and receiver lines are orthogo-
nal. 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 that are listening to a
range of shots in a single shot line. The cross-spread is
an MDS with limited extent. The difference in properties
of the various acquisition geometries is illustrated by the
difference in diffraction traveltime surfaces of the same
diffractor for the basic subsets of those geometries.
Fold of coverage can be determined by counting the
number of traces per bin; but in crossed-array geometries
and areal geometry, fold of coverage can also be counted as
the number of overlapping basic subsets of the acquisition
geometry. The definition of fold in the latter way can be
extended to a definition of illumination fold and image fold.
The periodicity of virtually all acquisition geometries
is determined by the two spatial coordinates that are
sampled most coarsely in x and y, respectively. The area
defined by these two largest sampling intervals is called
the unit cell of the geometry. The smaller the unit cell,
the smaller the sparsity of the geometry. Each acquisi-
tion geometry is also characterized by three aspect ratios:
for bin size, unit cell, and maximum offset inline versus
crossline. The 3D symmetric sampling of orthogonal and
areal geometry is characterized by their aspect ratios, all
of which should be equal to one in the ideal case.
For imaging, it would be ideal to have singlefold data
sets that extend across the whole survey area but pos-
sess a minimum of spatial discontinuities so that they
would produce a minimum amount of migration artifacts.
These data sets are called pseudo-common-offset-vector
(COV) gathers and can be constructed from so-called
offset-­vector tiles (OVTs). In most geometries, the
size and shape of the OVT is equal to the unit cell. In
sparse ­geometries, subsurface illumination is enhanced
by ­reciprocal OVTs (tiles with the same average absolute
offset but located in opposite azimuth quadrants).

Depending on the type of process, the basic subsets
of each geometry and/or the pseudo-COV gathers may
be most suitable as input gathers to various prestack
processing steps.
Chapter 3. Noise suppression
Sampling in 3D 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 can be linear or areal. For a proper choice of arrays,
the properties of the noise need to 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.
It is often argued that arrays are a threat to the signal.
However, in most situations, arrays with length equal to
the station interval — chosen to allow proper sampling
of the desired wavefield — have only mildly negative
effects on the signal yet allow successful noise removal
by combining array effect and prestack processing. Yet
in situations with strong elevation changes or rapidly
varying statics, arrays are to be avoided; the acquisi-
tion of very high frequencies also requires single-point
acquisition.
In a well-designed acquisition geometry, most of the
noise can be removed by prestack processing. Neverthe-
less, it is interesting to see that the stack response of
wide acquisition geometries is better than that of narrow
­geometries with the same fold of coverage.
Chapter 4. Guidelines for designing 3D
geometries used on land
The theoretical considerations and observations in the
first chapters are translated into practical guidelines for
choice of geometry and selection of parameters specifi-
cally for orthogonal geometry.
The first part of the recipe for 3D survey design deals
with the choice of geometry and its parameters.
The objectives of the survey must be established, and
all available information on the survey area — complex-
ity of geology, quality of existing data, etc. — must be
analyzed. This analysis may lead to various geophysical
constraints that have to be satisfied in the course of the
design process.
The choice between orthogonal, parallel, and areal
geometry is largely determined by acquisition cost,
Introduction xxiii
orthogonal geometry being most efficient on land and
parallel geometry in marine data acquisition. Yet geo-
physical requirements play a role as well, particularly
the requirement — especially in complex geology — to
illuminate the subsurface from all directions. In that case,
orthogonal geometry will be selected not only for land but
also for marine with ocean-bottom-cable (OBC) acquisi-
tion, whereas areal geometry is most suitable in deepwater
situations using sparse nodes (4C receiver units with 3C
geophone and hydrophone) and dense shots. The remain-
der of the chapter focuses on orthogonal geometry.
Knowledge of the area provides a representative
velocity distribution to be used at various stages of the
design process. The interpreter specifies the main targets,
resolution requirements, and maximum dip of the targets
so the designer can focus on the requirements of those
targets and determine the maximum required frequency.
A 3D symmetric sampling is taken as a starting point
to decide on the six main parameters of o­rthogonal
­geometry (two station intervals, two line intervals, and
two maximum offsets). This simplifies the choice of
parameters considerably: the aspect ratio of the bins
should always be one (consequently, the station intervals
should be equal), whereas the aspect ratios of the unit cell
and the cross-spread should be close to one.
The choice of station interval is determined by the
maximum wavenumber expected in the wavefield. The
preference is for the whole wavefield, but an alternative
is the maximum wavenumber of the desired wavefield
without noise. In the latter case, it may be necessary
to use arrays to compensate for coarse sampling of the
noise. The choice of station interval can also be influ-
enced by serious noise or by rapidly varying statics.
The mute function (offset versus time) determines the
average fold for all levels where mute offset is smaller
than maximum offset. This function may be computed
from the maximum acceptable normal moveout (NMO)
stretch, or it may be determined from the mute function
used in earlier processing. The mute offset for the deepest
target determines the choice of maximum offset.
Fold of coverage can be considered a dependent
parameter (area of cross-spread/area of unit cell), but it
can also be an independent parameter that must be met by
a proper choice of the line intervals. Especially in areas
with no earlier 3D surveys, it tends to be difficult to make
a reasoned choice.
The second part of the recipe deals with the implemen-
tation of the designed geometry.
The same nominal geometry may be implemented by
a large variety of templates or swaths: the one-line roll
template (roll = crossline roll), sources outside the tem-
plate, full-swath roll, multiline roll with extra receiver
xxiv Introduction
lines, and superspread can all be used. The technique
chosen may depend on availability of equipment, effi-
ciency of acquisition, and risk of theft or vandalism.
The required extent of the survey area depends on the
fold-taper zone (a given for the selected nominal geom-
etry, assuming a closed grid of shot lines and receiver
lines) and the fullfold area of the geometry. The fullfold
area depends on the area to be interpretable and the
migration radius. This radius and the fold-taper zone may
overlap partially, depending on data quality.
Obstacles often prevent laying out straight acquisi-
tion lines. Spatial continuity then requires the acquisition
lines to be smooth. This ensures that common-receiver
gathers have similar quality or continuity as common-
shot gathers.
The choice of source type depends largely on the type
of survey terrain. Sometimes it is necessary to use more
than one type of source due to terrain variations. The
source strength may have to be tested; in cases where the
source strength has to be reduced, repeat sources should
be considered for sufficient penetration.
Chapter 5. Marine seismic data acquisition
In marine seismic data acquisition, multisource multi-
streamer (MC/MC) configurations are usually preferred
over stationary receiver systems due to cost considera­
tions. Therefore, streamer acquisition gets the most atten-
tion in this chapter.
Many issues that play a role in the design and choice
of streamer acquisition are covered, such as influence of
boat speed on acquisition parameters, ghost effect, and
feathering. The main weaknesses of streamer acquisition
tend to be crossline bin size, crossline roll, ghost effect,
and feathering. Other weaknesses are the absence of
reciprocal OVTs due to end-on acquisition and, for com-
plex geology, the narrow-azimuth (NAZ) distribution.
In the first decade of this century, various techniques
have been reintroduced to broaden bandwidth by reducing
the ghost effect. All techniques (over/under, dual-­sensor
streamer, and variable-depth streamer) were proposed or
tried earlier but needed technological improvement to
become successful.
The NAZ limitation of streamer acquisition can be
overcome by using multiazimuth acquisition or wide-
azimuth (WAZ) acquisition. Virtually always, WAZ
towed-streamer acquisition tends to forsake desirable
geophysical requirements because of the very high cost
of achieving such requirements. A very interesting WAZ
technique is coil geometry.
Simultaneous shooting is a way of reducing the cost of
marine streamer acquisition. An interesting application is
to simulate center-spread acquisition with a source boat
directly behind the streamers. For WAZ acquisition,
simultaneous shooting would improve inline sampling,
but it would not reduce the large crossline rolls.
Stationary receiver techniques have the advantage that
orthogonal and areal geometry are also feasible geom-
etries, next to parallel. These techniques do not suffer
from feathering. The main techniques are ocean-bottom
cable and ocean-bottom node. The latter is more suitable
for large water depths.
Time-lapse techniques for seismic reservoir monitor-
ing can be used with any marine acquisition technique,
although stationary receiver techniques tend to show
considerably better repeatability, which is a much-needed
feature of such acquisition.
Chapter 6. Converted waves: Properties
and 3D survey design
Survey design for PS- (or C-) waves is different from
P-wave acquisition, owing to the asymmetry of the PS-
wave raypath. Differences in PS-wave illumination by
minimal data sets of different geometries are much larger
than P-wave illumination differences. For instance, a
cross-spread with a square midpoint area produces an
illumination area with a rectangular shape even for a hor-
izontal reflector. The raypath asymmetry leads to asym-
metric sampling requirements for shots and receivers.
Shot-sampling interval is determined by P-wave velocity;
receiver-sampling interval, by S-wave velocity. A NAZ
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. Processing of orthog-
onal and areal geometry data has to take into account the
spatial discontinuities of the edges of their basic subsets
because these edge effects cannot be mitigated by OVT
gathers (as for P-wave acquisition).
Chapter 7. Some lowfold data examples
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 cross
sections illustrate the 3D behavior of the ground-roll
cone and the scatterers inside the cone.
In 1992, the theory of 3D symmetric sampling was
tested in Nigeria, where a cross-spread 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

g­ eometry. The improvement can be attributed to larger
width (maximum crossline offset) of the test geometry
and to its better spatial continuity.
Various lowfold migration tests illustrate that under
favorable circumstances, very low fold can be sufficient to
get acceptable (exploration) 3D prestack migration results.
Chapter 8. Factors affecting spatial
resolution
The minimal data sets of the various acquisition geome­
tries also have different resolution properties. The main
factor influencing the theoretically best resolution is the
stretch effect, caused by NMO. Therefore, zero-offset
data potentially have the best resolution. Resolution is not
improved by reducing the midpoint sampling intervals
while keeping the shot and receiver sampling intervals
the same (bin-fractionation technique). Carefully selected
“random” coarse sampling may produce fewer migration
artifacts than regular coarse sampling; but to eliminate all
artifacts, regular dense sampling is best.
Chapter 9. DMO
This chapter is of historical interest; it demonstrates
the importance of a clear understanding of the properties
of the cross-spread, one of the minimal data sets.
For a list of updates and revisions to this text, refer to seg.org/errata. For survey-design software discussed in chapter 4,
see http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560803041.supp.
Introduction xxv
The theory of dip-moveout (DMO) correction was
developed for 2D common-offset gathers. Initially, the
success of application of DMO correction to 3D data was
not really understood. The theory of DMO application
to MDSs in general and to cross-spreads in particular
dispelled the mystery. The application of existing DMO
software to a singlefold data set (cross-spread) revealed
serious amplitude and phase artifacts. This prompted
improvements in contractor software.
Chapter 10. Prestack migration
Chapter 10 explores the link between data-acquisition
parameters and imaging requirements. The basics of
prestack migration are covered, with an eye on sampling
requirements of the input data. The zone of influence
(ZOI) is used to establish migration-apron requirements.
Most MDSs have limited extent, leading to edge effects
in migration. However, using pseudo-COV gathers con-
structed from OVTs tends to produce better singlefold
images than other singlefold subsets of the geometry.
Appendixes
A few appendixes describe some theory that could not
be included satisfactorily in the main text. Appendix C lists
some useful formulas that are spread out in the main text.