Two different 3D seismic survey geometries for relatively low-fold exploration objectives are compared. The sparse geometry (S3D) is executed in swaths using a crew with 960 active channels. It is fast and cost effective, and has been used extensively in Saudi Arabia. The low fold conventional geometry (LFC3D) is acquired in blocks using a crew with about 4000 active channels. LFC3D geometries offer better geophysical attributes, with less variability of offsets and azimuths between common midpoints (CMPs), improved statics control, and higher fold with less source effort. LFC3D geometries have greater flexibility for different survey objectives than S3D geometries, and are competitive with S3D geometries in terms of cost, speed, and data quality.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract