Main Menu

2007 Arctic on-ice seismic experiment: operations and results from a 2D/3D seismic program to investigate mitigation of the ice flexural wave
Mark E. Davidson*, Shell Exploration & Production Company, Patsy R. Jorgensen, Shell International Exploration and Production, Robert L. Rosenbladt, Shell Exploration & Production Company, Stefano Sandroni, Gilbert Del Molino, Simone Baudo, Eni S.p.A Exploration and Production Division.
Summary In the Spring of 2007, Shell, Eni, & Repsol conducted a research project offshore of Alaskas North Slope on landfast ice in the Beaufort sea. Two principle goals of the program were to investigate mitigation strategies for noise contamination caused by the ice flexural wave and establish that 3D seismic operations could be safely and efficiently conducted on landfast, ungrounded ice. We assembled a large array of modern sources and receivers to investigate attenuation or removal of the flex wave from seismic data through acquisition methods and provide a 2D and 3D dataset for investigation of data processing approaches. Introduction In 2006, Shell began a research program to investigate extending the Alaskan arctic seismic season. A logical extension of the Arctic open water acquisition season is to acquire data on ice in the winter months, thereby significantly extending the available time to acquire data over marine lease holds. A number of Shell & Eni Alaskan lease blocks lay in water depths of approximately 10 m where the landfast ice is not grounded, thereby setting up conditions for ice flexural (or flex) wave interference in the resulting data. The project was located in Harrison Bay, in the Alaskan Beaufort (Figure 1). Subsistence hunters rely extensively on the Beaufort sea for their livelihood and cultural activities; we were interested to determine if on-ice seismic acquisition was viable option to reduce our open water work. A number of studies in the 1970s and 1980s had investigated the flex wave using 2D land crews (for example, Mertz et al., 1981; Lansley et al., 1984). No recent significant 3D studies had been conducted by our respective companies, and advances in both equipment and processing capabilities motivated a new look at the problem. A large variety of seismic sources and receivers was assembled to conduct the experiment. We utilized analog and digital surface geophones, hydrophones in the water column, and 4C sensors and 4C node systems placed on the sea floor. Sources utilized included heavy and lightweight vibrators, impact sources from two different manufacturers, and Generator/Injector (GI) airguns. In all, the program called for 14,800 active channels during acquisition using five different sources and five different receivers. The goal of the program was to collect a conventional, though highly-sampled, 3D program using the vibrators and surface geophones; this dataset was to be the baseline dataset and used to evaluate 3D processing techniques. Simultaneously, four additional co-located 2D receiver lines consisting of 3C surface accelerometers, hydrophones, and 4C sensors were acquired. In the center of the crossspread was a 10 m x 10 m noise spread of 3C surface phones deployed at 1 m station spacing. 2D lines were to be compared for data quality the noise spread was to be used to characterize the flex wave noise. Discussion The program consisted of a small cross spread design, with very dense receiver spacing (Figures 2 and 3). Each arm of the cross spread consisted of five receiver lines of geophones. Inline station spacing was 5 m and crossline spacing was 10 m. The 2D receiver lines were co-located with the center receiver line on the North-South arm of the layout. Source lines were located between each receiver line, and dimensions identical to the receiver lines: shot spacing of 5 m (10 m for the GI airgun); 10 m line spacing for the heavy vibrator 3D dataset.

Figure 1: Map of project location. Inset shows location larger map. Two additional project motivations included reducing the potential impact on subsistence activities in the Beaufort Sea and investigate whether on-ice acquisition could be undertaken safely. Using heavy equipment on floating ice presents significant challenges from an HSE perspective.

SEG Las Vegas 2008 Annual Meeting

21

21

Main Menu

2007 Arctic on-ice seismic experiment

The program plan comprised of a total of over 12,000 source locations and two receiver deployments of 14,800 channels each. We acquired about 45% of the original program plan: one receiver deployment of 13,800 channels and approximately 5100 source points. A combination of technical issues, weather, and ice conditions reduced productivity, but program objectives were met.

continual operation, monitoring the entire prospect area throughout the job, and paying specific attention to the heavy equipment during operation. Additional attention was paid to wildlife avoidance, in particular polar bears and seals. Both animals den in the area of the operation and specialized personnel were enlisted to scout seal dens and provide polar bear watch and hazing duties. Further, trained marine mammal observers and subsistence representatives were on the prospect during all operations, to ensure that project activities were acceptable to local stakeholders. These additional personnel contributed to the overall success of the program.

Figure 2: Map view of layout of program. Solid black lines are geophone lines; pink dashed lines are heavy vib source lines. Solid red lines are the co-located 2D receiver lines and center geophone line. Dashed cyan lines are colocated heavy vib, light vib, impact source & airgun source lines. Green square in center is noise spread. Source & receiver line intervals are 10 m. Overall line lengths are 4000 m. Safe execution of the program was absolutely essential to a successful program. Significant planning and diligent oversight of the operation were keys to the programs success. Extensive work prior to mobilization was undertaken to identify the numerous hazards, the most obvious of which is the suitability of ice for operations of heavy equipment. Analysis and mitigation of hazards were undertaken well in advance of the program. Multiple issues were investigated, including ice conditions, deployment of equipment through ice, weather, wildlife, environmental concerns, permit requirements, and implementation of new technology, methods, and techniques. These pre-survey efforts ensured safe operations from the program onset. A significant effort was made throughout the planning and execution of the project towards monitoring ice conditions. Prior to the survey, several visits were made to the prospect area via both helicopter and Hagglund tracked vehicle to directly observe ice conditions. Monitoring of ice integrity was undertaken by means of coring the ice to take thickness measurements and mapping of structural features such as pressure ridges. During the project, ice monitoring was a

Figure 3: 2D representation of equipment layout on colocated receiver line. Results Although flex wave interference can be significant, particularly in the shot domain, the dense sampling of the survey yielded encouraging results. Figure 4 shows representative 2D brute stack sections for four of the principle receiver types using the heavy vibrators (surface & OBS geophones and both hydrophones). These panels have a very simple processing sequence: bandpass filtering, top mute, 500 ms AGC, and application of a single velocity function. No static corrections were applied. From these displays you can see the relative strength of the target horizons between 1500 ms and 2000 ms. The hydrophone data show better overall continuity and suppression of noise; the OBS geophone shows low relative continuity, due to poor coupling of the sensor to the water bottom. Source comparisons indicate that each of the selected sources were viable options from an energy transfer standpoint. Logistically, the deployment of the GI airguns proved to be most challenging, requiring deployment through the ice into the water column. The vibrator and impact sources, being buggy-mounted vehicles, proved far

SEG Las Vegas 2008 Annual Meeting

22

22

Main Menu

2007 Arctic on-ice seismic experiment

more flexible in operation and thereby offer a significant productivity advantage. Conclusions The program was a success from both technical and operational standpoints. Source and receiver combinations were evaluated to determine those most suitable for a full production 3D survey. Additionally, we demonstrated that seismic data of suitable quality to meet imaging objectives could efficiently be acquired on ungrounded ice while accruing over 130,000 work-hours without a significant incident.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank CGGVeritas Alaska for their diligence and dedicated hard work to help realize the technical and safety objectives of the program. We would also like to thank the management of Shell Exploration & Production Co., Eni S.p.A. Exploration and Production Division, and Repsol E&P USA Inc. for their permission to publish this work.

Figure 4: 2D brute stacks of vibrators into various receivers. 4000 ms of data shown; black timing lines are 1000 ms, 2000 ms, and 3000 ms respectively: A) surface geophone; B) OBS vertical geophone; C) water column hydrophone; D) OBS hydrophone.

SEG Las Vegas 2008 Annual Meeting

23

23

Main Menu

EDITED REFERENCES Note: This reference list is a copy-edited version of the reference list submitted by the author. Reference lists for the 2008 SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts have been copy edited so that references provided with the online metadata for each paper will achieve a high degree of linking to cited sources that appear on the Web. REFERENCES Lansley, R. M., P. L. Eilert, and D. L. Nyland, 1984, Surface sources on floating ice: The flexural ice wave: 64th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 828. Mertz, R. W., L. D. Brooks, and M. Lansley, 1981, Deepwater vibrator operationsBeaufort Sea, Alaska, 1979 winter season: Geophysics, 46, 172181.

SEG Las Vegas 2008 Annual Meeting

24

24