and Hussar Malcolm B. Bertram, J. Helen Isaac, Kevin W. Hall, Kevin L. Bertram and Gary F. Margrave

Similar documents
Recent fieldwork activities and analysis. Malcolm Bertram

Earthquake on the Hussar low-frequency experiment

Seismic acquisition projects 2010

Comparison of low-frequency data from co-located receivers using frequency dependent least-squares-subtraction scalars

Investigating the low frequency content of seismic data with impedance Inversion

New seismic reflection and other geophysical equipment available to CREWES

Comparisons between data recorded by several 3-component coil geophones and a MEMS sensor at the Violet Grove monitor seismic survey

Seismic processing workflow for supressing coherent noise while retaining low-frequency signal

Summary. Theory. Introduction

Hunting reflections in Papua New Guinea: early processing results

CDP noise attenuation using local linear models

Field comparison of 3-C geophones and microphones to highprecision

South Africa CO2 Seismic Program

Investigating power variation in first breaks, reflections, and ground roll from different charge sizes

w w w. s e i s m i c i n s t r u m e n t s. c o m Page 1

Overview ta3520 Introduction to seismics

Methods for reducing unwanted noise (and increasing signal) in passive seismic surveys

Seismic source comparison for compressional and convertedwave generation at Spring Coulee, Alberta. Part I: Heavy vibroseis-dynamite comparison

Air blast attenuation by combining microphone and geophone signals in the time-frequency domain

P E R F O R M A N C E D E P E N D A B I L I T Y A V A I L A B I L I T Y

Improved Low Frequency Performance of a Geophone. S32A-19 AGU Spring 98

SADC20 with some geophone noise performance NOISE PERFORMANCE OF THE SADC20 A/D CONVERTER. and

Project 7: Seismic Sensor Amplifier and Geophone damping

X039 Observations of Surface Vibrator Repeatability in a Desert Environment

Improvement of signal to noise ratio by Group Array Stack of single sensor data

AVO processing of walkaway VSP data at Ross Lake heavy oilfield, Saskatchewan

Geophysical Applications Seismic Reflection Surveying

TitleApplication of MEMS accelerometer t. AIZAWA, Takao; KIMURA, Toshinori; M Toshifumi; TAKEDA, Tetsuya; ASANO,

Processing the Blackfoot broad-band 3-C seismic data

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY. Microphone and geophone data analysis for noise characterization. and seismic signal enhancement. Alejandro David Alcudia León

REVISITING THE VIBROSEIS WAVELET

Air-noise reduction on geophone data using microphone records

COMPACT MOLECULAR-ELECTRONIC SEISMIC SENSORS

FINAL REPORT EL# RS. C. A. Hurich & MUN Seismic Team Earth Sciences Dept. Memorial University Sept. 2009

Multicomponent seismic polarization analysis

DSU3-428 DIGITAL SENSOR UNITS

HGS (INDIA) LIMITED. A variety of 1-C and 3-C waterproof land cases can accommodate the HG-6 geophone.

The Principle and Simulation of Moving-coil Velocity Detector. Yong-hui ZHAO, Li-ming WANG and Xiao-ling YAN

Texas Components - Data Sheet. The TX53G1 is an extremely rugged, low distortion, wide dynamic range sensor. suspending Fluid.

Wireless Seismic Acquisition: Real Time Data Matters. Gary Jones. Finding Petroleum Advances in Seismic January 25, 2011

ERTH3021 Note: Terminology of Seismic Records

There is growing interest in the oil and gas industry to

MEMS-based accelerometers: expectations and practical achievements

Vibration studies of a superconducting accelerating

Desinging of 3D Seismic Survey And Data Processing of Abu Amood Oil Field Southern of Iraq

Summary. Page SEG SEG Denver 2014 Annual Meeting

Geophones // A COMPLETE PRODUCT LINE. Sercel has a long history in being at the forefront of developing

Radial Gain and its Advantages in Seismic Data Acquisition

ARIES II recording system

New technologies in marine seismic surveying: Overview and physical modelling experiments

Looking deeper through Pre Amplifier gain A study

ENERGY- CONTENT AND SPECTRAL ANALYSES OF SHOTS FOR OPTIMUM SEISMOGRAM GENERATION IN THE NIGER DELTA

The case for longer sweeps in vibrator acquisition Malcolm Lansley, Sercel, John Gibson, Forest Lin, Alexandre Egreteau and Julien Meunier, CGGVeritas

Auto-levelling geophone development and testing

Applied Methods MASW Method

Breakthrough Usability for More Efficient Surveys, Higher Quality Data

Seismic reflection method

SUPERKEKB MAIN RING TUNNEL MOTION

A SIMPLE FORCE BALANCE ACCELEROMETER/SEISMOMETER BASED ON A TUNING FORK DISPLACEMENT SENSOR. D. Stuart-Watson and J. Tapson

Using long sweep in land vibroseis acquisition

SmartSenseCom Introduces Next Generation Seismic Sensor Systems

COMPARISON OF FIBER OPTIC MONITORING AT AQUISTORE WITH CONVENTIONAL GEOPHONE SYSTEM. Tom Daley Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Noise Reduction in VibroSeis Source Kaëlig Castor*, Thomas Bianchi, Olivier Winter, Thierry Klein, CGG

AUTOMOTIVE CURRENT TRANSDUCER HAH1DR 300-S

LCLS-II TN Vibration measurements across the SLAC site

MEMS-based 3C accelerometers for land seismic acquisition: Is it time?

Survey results obtained in a complex geological environment with Midwater Stationary Cable Luc Haumonté*, Kietta; Weizhong Wang, Geotomo

We are IntechOpen, the world s leading publisher of Open Access books Built by scientists, for scientists. International authors and editors

Field Tests of 3-Component geophones Don C. Lawton and Malcolm B. Bertram

Abstract. Key words: digital geophone, Jizhong depression, tight marl oil exploration, phase consistency, frequency. Introduction

On the analyzer under UTILITY - CHANGE SETUP - MEASUREMENT MODE - OVERALL LEVEL MODE, the user can select either DIGITAL or ANALOG.

Inductive Sensors. Fig. 1: Geophone

Th ELI1 08 Efficient Land Seismic Acquisition Sampling Using Rotational Data

SC11 Compact Analysis System

Borehole Seismic Processing Summary Checkshot Vertical Seismic Profile

Seismic Reflection Method

Recording seismic reflections using rigidly interconnected geophones

Processing the Teal South 4C-4D seismic survey

Battery Impedance Measurement

Tu A D Broadband Towed-Streamer Assessment, West Africa Deep Water Case Study

GFT bit High Speed Digitizer

INTRODUCTION TO ONSHORE SEISMIC ACQUISITION AND PROCESSING

Simultaneous multi-source acquisition using m-sequences

Fehmarnbelt Marine Mammal Studies. Measurement of underwater noise and vibrations induced by traffic in the Drogden tunnel

This is to certify that the results from the test(s) requested by. Quanta Laboratories Job No. QL-Q8-916 and conform

Efficient Acquisition of Quality Borehole Seismic

Model 7000 Series Phase Noise Test System

Performance of seismic detectors: a case study of the sensitivity of SM-4 geophones used in Nigeria

SC5407A/SC5408A 100 khz to 6 GHz RF Upconverter. Datasheet. Rev SignalCore, Inc.

SHAKER TABLE SEISMIC TESTING OF EQUIPMENT USING HISTORICAL STRONG MOTION DATA SCALED TO SATISFY A SHOCK RESPONSE SPECTRUM Revision C

Dartmouth College LF-HF Receiver May 10, 1996

Residual converted wave statics

Technology of Adaptive Vibroseis for Wide Spectrum Prospecting

SC11 Analysis System - Sensor Interface

Repeatability Measure for Broadband 4D Seismic

Downloaded 09/04/18 to Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at

Wireless Progresses! Mick Lambert President & C.O.O. Wireless Seismic Inc.

Reliability of Solder Joint Quality on J-Lead Oscillators Using HALT with Lead and Lead Free Compositions

Performance Characteristics

Development and Field Testing of a Seismic System for Locating Trapped Miners - Progress Report. Yi Luo, Keith A. Heasley and Syd S.

Transcription:

Source and receiver comparisons from Priddis and Hussar Malcolm B. Bertram, J. Helen Isaac, Kevin W. Hall, Kevin L. Bertram and Gary F. Margrave Guaranteed 100% real data. No artificial additives. No math.

The Priddis survey Date: 7-10 December 2010 Sources comparison: onseis and EnviroVibe Geophone p comparison: Sensor SM24, RTC4.5, Oyo-Geospace GS-One Recording system: U of C Aries SPMLite

Priddis source comparison: EnviroVibe onseis Hold down: 15,000 lb Dual electro-magnetic impact units Sweeps per vibe point: 4 Impacts per shot point: 16 Length of sweep: 20 seconds Shot spacing: 10m Sweep: Linear 10-200 Hz Shot spacing: 10m Industrial Vehicles International, Inc Yeniseigeofizika OJSC

Shot gathers at flag 110 (SM-24 geophones @ 2.5m) EnviroVibe onseis

Shot gathers at flag 110 (SM-24 geophones @ 2.5m) EnviroVibe onseis Filters: 20-25-60-80

The event at 1 second EnviroVibe onseis Spectra of the gathers

Shot gathers at flag 180 (SM-24 geophones @ 2.5m) EnviroVibe onseis

Shot gathers at flag 180 (SM-24 geophones @ 2.5m) EnviroVibe Filters: 20-25-60-80 onseis

Shot gathers at flag 180 (SM-24 geophones @ 2.5m) EnviroVibe onseis First second of gathers with filters: 45-70-250-250

Stacked section with no filter applied EnviroVibe onseis

Stacked section with time variant filter applied EnviroVibe onseis

Conclusions on the source comparison Both sources provide data to better than 2 seconds in this area Both sources provide good ddata for the shallow events The onseis is a lower frequency source than the EnviroVIbe The cycle time of the two sources is about the same for 4 x 20 The cycle time of the two sources is about the same for 4 x 20 second sweeps and 16 impacts per shot point

Priddis geophone comparison: OYO-Geospace GS-One RTC4.5 Ion-Sensor SM-24

The specifications of the geophones Geophone Damping Sensitivity Comparative V/m/s / output (db) SM-24 (10Hz) 69% 21 0.00 RTC4.5 (4.5Hz) 70% 23.4 0.94 GS-One (10Hz) 70% 78.77 11.48 The comparisons are made using receiver gathers at different locations The onseis data is used to make the comparisons

Receiver gather at flag 109 for all onseis shots with offsets >30m SM24 GS-One RTC4.5

Spectra of the receivers from the gathers at flag 109 Blue: SM24 Blue: SM24 Green: RTC4.5 Red: GS-One

Expanded spectra of the receivers from the gathers at flag 109 Blue: SM24 Green: RTC4.5 Red: GS-One Blue: SM24 Green: RTC4.5 Red: GS-One Raw After low frequency recovery

Spectra of the receivers from the gathers at flag 148 Blue: SM24 Green: RTC4.5 Red: GS-One Blue: SM24 Green: RTC4.5 Red: GS-One Raw After low frequency recovery

Conclusions on the geophone comparison After low frequency recovery, all geophones track very closely down to 5Hz, below which the RTC4.5 shows a better noise floor The three geophones show the expected difference in output levels measured at the noise floor The GS-One devolves into noise about 1Hz below the SM24, and the RTC4.5 about 1Hz below that For this type of survey, any of the geophones would be adequate, since there is very little data below 5Hz for the onseis, 10Hz for the EnviroVibe

Hussar sensor comparison Ion-Sensor SM-24-1k8 Ion-Sensor SM7 3C Weihai Sunfull PS-4.5B Vectorseis 3C Nanometrics Trillium Compact

The specifications of the geophones Geophone Sensitivity v/m/s / Sensitivity v/m/s / db wrt sm7 (open circuit) (damped) SM7 28.8 21 0.00 PS-4.5B 28.8 28.8 2.74 SM24-1k8 82 75.2 11.08 Trillium 750 750 31.06 The spread layout Line 5 Line 4 Line 3 Line 2 Line 1 530 529 528 527 526 525 524 523 522 521 520 519 Line 1: Vectorseis every 10m (flags 117 to 564) 10m Line 2: Sensor SM7 3C every 10m (flags 117 to 564) Line 3: PS-4.5B 1C every 20m (flags 117 to 563) Line 4: Sensor SM124-1k8 1C every 20m (flag 469 to 563) Line 5: Nanometrics Trillium Compact every 200m (spaced along line) 518

Receiver gathers at flag 523 for dynamite shots with offset >140m SM7 SM24-1k8 PS-4.5B Vectorseis

Receiver gathers at flag 523 for dynamite shots with offset >140m Blue: SM7 Red: SM24-1k8 Green: PS-4.5B Orange: Vectorseis Purple: Vectorseis integrated Black: Nanometrics Trillium (at flag 524)

Receiver gathers at flag 524 for dynamite shots with offset >140m Blue: SM7 with LFR Purple: Vectorseis integrated Black: Nanometrics Trillium

Expanded spectra for receiver gathers at flag 523 for dynamite Blue: SM7 Red: SM24-1k8 Green: Gee PS-4.5B Purple: Vectorseis integrated Black: Nanometrics Trillium (at flag 524) Raw After low frequency recovery

Expanded spectra for receiver gathers at flag 469 for dynamite Blue: SM7 Red: SM24-1k8 Green: PS-4.5B Purple: Vectorseis integrated Raw After low frequency recovery

Uncorrelated stacked sweeps for Inova 364 low dwell at VP 449 Blue: SM7 Red: SM24-1k8 Green: PS-4.5B Purple: Vectorseis integrated From the sensors at the odd flags between 469 and 563

Uncorrelated stacked sweeps for Inova 364 low dwell at VP 449 Blue: SM7 Red: SM24-1k8 Green: PS-4.5B Purple: Vectorseis integrated Raw After low frequency recovery From the sensors at the odd flags between 469 and 563

Correlated gather for Inova 364 low dwell at VP 449 Blue: SM7 Red: SM24-1k8 Green: PS-4.5B Purple: Vectorseis integrated From the sensors at the odd flags between 469 and 563

Correlated gather for Inova 364 low dwell at VP 449 Blue: SM7 Red: SM24-1k8 Green: PS-4.5B Purple: Vectorseis integrated Raw After low frequency recovery From the sensors at the odd flags between 469 and 563

Conclusions on the geophone comparison All four sensors provide good data down to about 3Hz The low frequency recovery is a valid method of improving the bandwidth for all the geophones The determination of noise vs signal below 5Hz needs to be better defined There is a lot more work required to investigate the very low frequency response of these sensors (1 5 Hz)

Acknowledgments For the Priddis survey: Geokinetics for the loan of the onseis seismic source and their assistance in the field OYO-Geospace for the loan of the GS-One 10Hz geophones For the Hussar survey: Ion-Sensor for the donation of the SM24-1k8 geophones to CREWES INOVA for making the INOVA 364 vibrator available for this survey Geokinetics for the field work and co-ordination of the project Husky for making it possible Nanometrics for the loan of the Trillium Compact seismometers as a calibrated sensor for the comparison work CREWES sponsors and NSERC