Page 120 - Acquisition and Processing of Marine Seismic Data
P. 120

2.4 SPECIFIC ACQUISITION TECHNIQUES                   111






































           FIG. 2.66  Schematic illustration of P-cable layout with twelve streamers, each 25–300 m long. Separation between the
           streamers is typically between 6 and 15 m, which provides a 3–7.5 m crossline bin size.



           hydrocarbon industry and academia for map-   seismic and P-cable data from the same survey
           ping the reservoirs in more detail, detection of  area. Its lightweight design also enables a quick
           seeps, shallow gas chimneys, gas hydrates and  deployment and retrieval of the whole spread,
           other shallow gas anomalies, mapping of      typically in 1.5–2 h, on a medium-size research
           small-scale faults and fractures, and under-  vessel. Instead of mapping large areas, the P-
           standing the character of the shallow strati-  cable is especially preferable for detail surveys
                                                                                               2
           graphic sequences. It may also be preferred for  of relatively smaller areas from 10 to 50 km .
           site surveys to map the possible geohazards     Inconsistent streamer depths during the
           before the drilling of offshore wells.       acquisition, however, lead to degradation of
              P-cable 3D acquisition has several advan-  data and distortion of the acquisition footprint,
           tages. Short offset distances and significantly  since generally no depth levelers are deployed
           smaller streamer spacing provide for acquisition  along with the streamers. In addition, lack of
           a very high-resolution 3D seismic data cube with  long offsets prevents obtaining correct and accu-
           a typical bin size of 3.125   6.25 m, when com-  rate 3D subsurface velocity distributions and
           pared to conventional 3D towed streamer data.  makes it difficult to eliminate the multiples in
           Fig. 2.67 shows a comparison of conventional  relatively shallow water surveys.
   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125