Master acquisition design workflow

A full survey-design programme is the orderly application of ten phases, from objectives down to the hand-over to processing. Each phase answers a specific question, produces a specific artefact, and constrains the phases downstream of it. Skipping a phase or getting the order wrong is how good crews ship bad data.

The diagram below is the decision graph for the entire Acquisition textbook. Each green dotted title links to the corresponding chapter; each chip in a phase links to a specific section. Hover a phase to expand its detail panel with a plain-English summary plus the sub-topic list.

Three re-planning loops sit in the right column. These are the moments where a crew goes back in the flow: a fold-budget miss forces objectives to be re-scoped, and QC findings during the marine or land deployment trigger re-shoots, re-positioning, or re-drilling of bad stations. Re-shooting while the crew is still on site is the cheapest fix there is.

Dashed boxes (§7 Special geometries, §9 Modern enhancements) mark optional overlays. Most surveys skip them. Those that use them — microseismic, PRM, DAS hybrids, compressed sensing — are the ones defining today’s industry frontier, and the eight real-field capstones in Part 10 illustrate how the whole decision graph plays out in actual programmes (GoM WAZ, Brazil pre-salt OBN, North Sea 4D, Valhall PRM, Marcellus microseismic, DAS-hybrid North Sea …).

Think of this diagram as a pre-flight checklist. If you can explain every phase and every chip on the page, you can plan, QC, and defend a real survey — which is exactly the goal stated in the Grand Plan at the top of the textbook.

How to read the diagram

• Phase order matters: decisions cascade downward. Objectives fix the physics budget; the physics budget constrains source/receiver choice; source/receiver constrain geometry; geometry plus environment drives marine or land deployment; deployment is QC’d in real time; deliverables are the hand-over to processing.
• Marine / Land is an exclusive branch: almost every survey commits to one (or to a specific hybrid). Transition-zone programmes (§7.6) bridge them.
• Chips are leaf concepts. A chip labelled “VTI ε,δ” on the Geometry phase means the survey must sample the offset range needed for anisotropic moveout. Click it to read the full section.
• Iteration badges (↻) mark phases that feed back earlier. Geometry iterates against fold targets; QC iterates against deployment. Modern FWI/velocity flows iterate too but sit downstream in the processing textbook.
• ML/modern touchpoints are dashed. They show up as chips inside the relevant phase and as a dedicated summary panel on the right. Use them to scope which modern methods the programme is willing to carry.

Checklist: a 10-minute design review

• Objectives stated in one paragraph? Target depth, dip, resolution, commercial driver, environment, HSE envelope.
• Physics budget internally consistent? Bandwidth at the target after Q attenuation supports the λ/4 resolution claim? Stacking √N closes the SNR gap? Spatial Nyquist satisfied at the worst-case apparent velocity?
• Source choice justified by objective? Frequency, energy, directivity, environmental/permit constraint.
• Receiver choice justified by environment? Coupling, multi-component need, DAS integration, array design vs single-phone.
• Geometry delivers the image? Fold, offset range, azimuth distribution, bin size, migration aperture — all tied to the target. Survey-planner artefact attached.
• Marine or Land deployment plan addresses the real-world gotchas (feathering, coupling, permits, obstacles, noise sources).
• QC plan is six-layered: real-time trace, bin fold, signature, first-break, nav, daily report. Each has a threshold and a re-shoot protocol.
• Optional overlays scoped: special geometries (§7), compressed sensing (§8), DAS (§9). If not used, state the reason.
• Deliverables list: field tapes, nav/geometry files, QC report, near-surface model seed. Format and hand-over protocol agreed with processing team.
• Re-planning triggers documented: fold-budget miss, permit obstacle, QC finding. Who decides, how fast, and what is the escalation path.

A programme that passes this ten-point review is ready to mobilise. One that doesn’t is a programme that will discover the gaps the expensive way — at 2 a.m., with a crew in the field, on a weather-limited window.

References

• Vermeer, G. J. O. (2002). 3-D Seismic Survey Design. SEG Geophysical References 12.
• Cordsen, A., Galbraith, M., Peirce, J. (2000). Planning Land 3-D Seismic Surveys. SEG Geophysical Developments 9.
• Stone, D. G. (1994). Designing Seismic Surveys in Two and Three Dimensions. SEG Geophysical References 5.
• Vermeer, G. J. O. (2012). 3D Seismic Survey Design (2nd ed.). SEG.
• Liner, C. L. (2016). Elements of 3D Seismology (3rd ed.). SEG.