Seismic Processing and Interpretation

Industrial Training Report
Student Industrial Project (SIP)

OFFSHORE GEOHAZARD ASSESMENT
USING HIGH RESOLUTION 2D SEISMIC SURVEY
AT PROPOSED WELL LOCATION

DATE RELEASED:
14
th
August 2014

Written By:
MUHAMMAD HASIF SYAZWAN B. SHAMSUL
14912
PETROLEUM GEOSCIENCE

Industrial Training at:

FUGRO GEODETIC (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD.


Muhammad Hasif Syazwan 14912 1

1.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Alhamdulillah, all praises be to Allah S.W.T, The Most Gracious, and The Most Merciful for
His Guidance and Blessing.
Firstly, the author would like to express special appreciation to Universiti Teknologi
Petronas (UTP) and Fugro Geodetic Malaysia Sdn Bhd (FGMSB) for providing the
opportunity to undergo a truly remarkable Industrial Training experience. Special thanks is
dedicated to FGMSB Deputy General Manager FGMSB, Mr Abd Hanan Ahmad Nadzeri and
Human Resource Executive, Mrs. Norlaili Abd Hamid, as well as Center of Student Industrial
CSIMAL.
Special acknowledgement is also given to the authors Host Company Supervisor, Mr.
Ricardo Caringal Jr; Geophysical Reporting Manager for his kindness and assistances during
the eight months of industrial internship. Not forgetting, a mentor and a friend, Staff
Geophysicist, Mr. Juzaili Azmi, for his guidance, support and advice in completing the
Geophysical Seismic Processing and Interpretation project. Last but not least, to all staffs of
Processing and Reporting Department FGMSB for their meaningful advises.

Last but not least, the author also would like to thank UTP Supervisor, Mr. Jasmi B. Ab.
Talib for spending his precious time to visit the host companies, give advice and evaluate
authors performance during the industrial training at FGMSB. This achievement would not
have happened without the support from all of the mentioned above.

Thank you to all.



2.0 TABLE OF CONTENT
Content Page Numbering
Host Company Verification Statement
1.0 Acknowledgement
2.0 Table of Content
3.0 List of Tables
4.0 List of Figures
5.0 Industrial Training Project Report

1
2
3
3
5
5.1 Abstract and Introduction
5.1.1 Objectives
5.1.2 Scope of Study
5.1.3 Problem Statement
5.1.4 The Relevancy of Project

6
12
13
15
16
5.2 Background and Literature Review
5.2.1 Feasibility of Project within Scope and
Time Frame
5.2.2 Critical Analysis Literature

17
17

18
5.3 Methodology
5.3.1 Research Methodology
5.3.2 Key Milestone
5.3.3 Gantt Chart
5.3.4 Tools/Equipment Required
21
21
22
23
24
5.4 Results and Discussions
5.4.1 Project Deliverables
5.4.2 Data Gathering / Data Analysis
5.4.3 Findings
32
32
62
83
5.5 Conclusion and Recommendation
5.5.1 Impact
5.5.2 Relevancy to the Objectives
5.5.3 Suggested Future Work for Expansion
and Continuation
84
84
85
86
5.6 Safety training and value of the practical
Experience
5.6.1 Lesson Learnt and Experience gained
5.6.2 Leadership, Teamwork and individual
activities
5.6.3 Business values, ethics and management
skills
5.6.4 Problems and challenges faced and
solution to overcome them
87

87
88

89

90
6.0 Reference 91
7.0 Appendices 92



3.0 LIST OF TABLES
TABLES

Table 1: Analogue Survey Parameters
Table 2: Seismic Survey Parameters
Table 3 : Parameters Table for Static Correction
Table 4: Predicted Intermediate Lithology at the Proposed and Revised Well Location.
Table 5: Summary of Fault Intersections at the Proposed and Revised Well Locations.
Table 6: Amplitude Anomalies and Risk Assessment.
Table 7: Gas Probability for the Proposed and Revised Well Locations.
Table 8: Summary of Drilling Constraints Below the Proposed and Revised Well Surface Locations.

4.0 LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES

Figure 1: Multibeam Data with Coalesced Pockmark and Isolated Pockmarks
Figure 2: Side Scan Sonar Image with Pockmark Cluster.
Figure 3: Multibeam Echo Sounder Image with Carbonate Outcrops.
Figure 4: Side Scan Image of the Hamilton Shipwreck.
Figure 5: Sub-bottom Profiler Showing Buried Channels.
Figure 6: Sub-bottom Profiler Image of Faults.
Figure 7: Offshore Geohazard Diagram.
Figure 8: Demultiplexed Data of Line 10 shows the raw data that has been sequenced
Figure 9: Example of the raw data after static correction.
Figure 10: Zoomed-in Raw SHOT file for Line 10.
Figure 11: Line 10 Near Trace Gather Display.
Figure 12: Line 10 Equalised Brute Stack.
Figure 13: Line 10 True Amplitude Brute Stack.
Figure 14: Trial of Time Varied Gain(TVG).
Figure 15: Normal Move-out gather.
Figure 16: Muting of Line 10
Figure 17: Denoised True Amplitude Stack for Line 10.
Figure 18: Image of Shot Gather during velocity picking.
Figure 19: Image of Energy Samblance during Velocity Picking.
Figure 20: Stack of the seismic line.

Figure 21: Trial of Different Gaps and Operator Lengths.
Figure 22: Deconvolved True Amplitude Stack; 40ms operator length; 8ms gap.
Figure 23: Deconvolved Equalised Stack; 40ms operator length; 8ms gap.
Figure 24: Image of a before / after migrated stack.
Figure 25: Line 10 Finalised Seg-Y(Equalized).
Figure 26: Line 10 Finalised Seg-Y(True Amplitude)
Figure 27: Example of equalized seismic section, SW-NE mainline ID-2D-L10, passing near the
proposed well location.
Figure 28: Example of equalized seismic section, NW-SE cross line ID-2D-L59, passing near the
proposed well location..



Figure 29: Example of equalized seismic section, NW-SE cross line ID-2D-L61, passing near the
revised well location.
Figure 30: Example of relative amplitude seismic section, SW-NE mainline ID-2D-L10, passing near the
Figure 31: Example of relative amplitude seismic section, SW-NE mainline ID-2D-L10, passing near the
proposed well location(Top 1.1 ms TWTT BSL.
Figure 32: Example of relative amplitude seismic section, NW-SE cross line ID-2D-L59, passing near
the proposed well location.
Figure 33: Example of relative amplitude seismic section, NW-SE cross line ID-2D-L59, passing near
the proposed well location(Top 1.1 ms TWTT BSL).
Figure 34: Example of relative amplitude seismic section, NW-SE mainline ID-2D-L61, passing near the
revised well location.
Figure 35: Tophole Prognosis For The Revised Well Location
Figure 36: Tophole Prognosis For The Revised Well Location



5.0 INDUSTRIAL TRAINING PROJECT

5. 1 Abstract & Introduction
Geohazards have always been a major concern especially in regard of the offshore industry.
Every year, unwanted complications occur in the oil and gas industry which result in
catastrophic monetary and human lives lost. According to the International Center of
Geohazards 2010; a geohazard is defined as a geological state, which represents or has the
potential to develop further into a situation leading to damage or uncontrolled risk.
Geohazards are found in all parts of the earth and are always related to geological conditions
and geological processes, either recent or past. Important offshore geohazards include slope
instability and mass wasting processes (including debris flows, gravity flows); pore pressure
phenomena (e.g. shallow gas accumulations, gas hydrates, shallow water flows, mud diapirism
and mud volcanism, fluid vents, pockmarks) seismicity. Excess pore pressure development
appears a critical aspect in most of the offshore geohazards.
Again based on ICN, 2010; Submarine slope failure is the most serious threat on both
local and regional scales. In addition to damaging offshore installations, slope failures may also
cause devastating tsunamis. ICG personnel have for a long period been involved in the studies
of the Storegga Slide area, offshore Mid-Norway. These studies were triggered by the
discovery of Europe's third largest gas reservoir Ormen Lange within the slide scar.
One of the underlying factors in the occurrence basically revolves around pore pressure
as it directly controls the displacement of sediments and materials related to sea-bottom
movement. However, the ability to accurately measure, monitor and predict pore pressures in
offshore sediments is limited and rarely done. Therefore, it is important to improve our
understanding of excess pore pressure genesis (processes, migration), accurate measurement
and its implications.
Below are some of the common geohazards encountered in the oil and gas industry.



Seabed features- isolated pockmarks, pockmark cluster, coalesced pockmark, seabed
depressions, carbonate, coral, debris and shipwreck.

Isolated pockmark: It is caused by the degassing or dewatering process which creates hollow
pockets or holes on the clay sediments and can be an indicator of gas seepage activity.

Pockmark cluster: It is produced by larger activity of dewatering or degassing; individual
pockmark accumulated at a concentrated area. All individual pockmarks that are grouped close
to one another are characterized as pockmark cluster; classified as an indicator of gas seepage
activity.

Coalesced pockmark: It is the origin of pockmark cluster which in time has been eroded by
the sea water and all the individual grouped pockmarks slowly collapse and becomes attached
to each other to form coalesced pockmark. They indicate gas seepage activity.

Figure 1: Multibeam Data with Coalesced Pockmark and Isolated Pockmarks
Coalesced
Pockmark
Isolated
Pockmark
s



Figure 2: Side Scan Sonar Image with Pockmark Cluster

Pockmarks are identified as geohazards as they indicate unstable base which could lead to
punch through for the jack-up rig legs and also cause freespans for the pipeline which up to a
certain limit can lead to the breakage.

Pockmark Cluster



Figure 3: Multibeam Echo Sounder Image with Carbonate Outcrops

Carbonate: It is sediment rock which composes of carbonate materials. The carbonate itself
consist of three (3) types of minerals which are aragonite (CaCO3), calcite (CaCO3) and
dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2). The usual types of carbonate identified on the fields are limestone
and dolomite. One of the characteristics of carbonates is that it is harder than clay. It is
considered as a geohazard as if a certain location is present of carbonate regardless of buried
carbonates or not. The reason is because for jack-up rigs, carbonate outcrops can cause
slippage. Other than that, it could lead to an ineffective installation of anchors and seabed
infrastructure. In addition, it will cause problems when drilling the top hole section of a well
which includes dredging and ploughing difficulties.

Corals: invertebrate tiny animals which could build protective calcium carbonate skeleton. It
cannot be destroyed and is assumed as an endangered species which are protected by laws.
Oceana World Laws which covers the corals protection are: Coral Reef Conservation Act
(CRCA 2000), The Endangered Species Act (ESA 1973), National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA 1970) and also National Marine Sanctuary Act (NMSA 2006).

Carbonate
Outcrops



Figure 4: Side Scan Image of the Hamilton Shipwreck

Debris and Shipwrecks: Debris which is classified to be man made objects which are seen to
have clear geometrical shapes which includes shipwrecks is usually present by accidents. They
are a danger for anchor deployment.
Shallow Geological Zones- Channels, gas chimney, buried carbonate, faults

Figure 5: Sub-bottom Profiler Showing Buried Channels
Channels



Channels: this structure is usually filled with deposits from the geological time. It is usually
steep and has high degree slope. Channel deposits usually consist of sand deposits with gas
present at the bottom. It is a danger for jack-up rigs as it can cause slippage.

Gas Chimney: leakage of gas in the subsurface is due to poorly sealed hydrocarbon
accumulation. This anomaly can be clearly seen in seismic data where the data area is poor and
velocity pull down occurs. This is considered a hazard as it can lead to blowout.

Buried carbonate: part of carbonate rock that has been buried and overlaid by other sediments
in geological times. Under the Sub-bottom Profiler data it can be seen that buried carbonate
outcrops will show masking. This is significant for the drilling process as it affects the type of
drill bit to use whether it is roller cone or fix cutter and even the materials used such as
Polycrystallyne Diamond Cutter (PDC) bit or Thermally Stable Polycrystallyne (TSP).

Figure 6: Sub-bottom Profiler Image of Faults



Faults: it can be defined as fracture in the earths crust with significance displacement due to
compressional and tensional force. There are two basic faults which are normal fault and
reverse fault. These faults are a hazard as it can cause slippage when the spudcan of the jack-up
rig goes through.

All of these geohazards above can bring devastating affects to the oil and gas industry if left
unstudied. This raising awareness of safety in the industry has prompted offshore geohazard
assessments to be taken very seriously and the technology to go deeper and provide better
assessments is always improving.



5.1.1 Objectives

The main objective of the survey was to acquire data for shallow gas assessment and
delineate possible hazards at and around the proposed well location prior to rig / platform
placement. After the seismic data has been acquired and interpreted, recommendation by the
company is included as a precautionary step. In the end, the clients have the discretion in
whether to apply the recommendations apply a few modifications of their own. However, the
objectives of the whole project involve the acquisition, processing and interpretation of the
seismic data from the proposed well location. Below are the overall objectives:

1) To understand the acquisition of data from the field.
2) To process the SEG-D raw data obtained from field to an interpretable SEG-Y format.
3) To define the intermediate geological conditions within the survey area and delineate
possible constraints or hazards which are relevant to the installation of rig or platform, such
as shallow gas, palaeo-channels or faults.



5.1.2 Scope of Study
A high-resolution 2D seismic survey for a proposed well location was carried out
recently. The main objective of the survey was to acquire data for shallow gas assessment and
delineate possible hazards at and around the proposed well location prior to rig / platform
placement.

The area covers a 6.7 km by 4.3 km area with two (2) proposed well locations. After
initial assessment of the hazards below the surface location of the proposed well location, such
as near-seabed channel and fault intersections, a revised location was provided by the client for
hazard evaluation. The survey covered a 6.7 km by 4.3 km area, as shown in Error! Reference
source not found. below.

Two types of surveys were conducted on the area. The first was an analogue survey using
Single Beam Echo Sounder (SBES) and Multibeam Echo Sounder (MBES).

An analogue survey with the following specs in the table below.
Parameters Value
Survey Grid 6.7 km by 4.3 km
Main Line Spacing 50 m / 100 m (45 and 225)
Cross Line Spacing 50 m / 250 m (135 and 315)
Number of main lines and length 46 x 6.7 km
Number of cross lines and length 28 x 4.3 km
Total line km 428.6 km(excluding run-in and run-out)
Table 1: Analogue Survey Parameters



The models of the echo sounders for the SBES and MBES are the Odom Echotrac MKII and
the Reson Seabat 7101 respectively. The multibeam echo-sounder results are able to give
precise depths of the seabed and topography of the seabed. Combining this with the high
resolution 2D seismic survey gives comprehensive geohazard coverage of the area in question.
This report presents the result of the intermediate geological zone (high-resolution 2D seismic
data) within the survey area, focusing at the proposed well location.

Depths quoted in this report and all relevant charts are given in milliseconds Two Way
Travel Time (ms TWTT) unless stated. Corresponding depths in metres Below Sea Level (m
BSL) are given in brackets, based on the time-to-depth conversion curve derived from the
average velocity provided by BSP.



5.1.3 Problem Statement
Geohazards can play a significant factor in the overall risks associated with deep water
projects throughout the operational life of the field. Common geohazards include slope
instability and mass wasting processesing, shallow water flow, active channels and turbidity
currents, active faulting and seismicity, shallow (pressurised) gas and pockmarks, mud
volcanoes, gas hydrates, bottom currents and scour and complex seabed morphology (rock out
crops, coral, etc)
The key to addressing these risks is early identification of the geohazards and
consideration of their possible impacts on the field development - together with continual
refinement during the planning and design process as more data becomes available. This is by
far the most foolproof ways in reducing the risk associated to geohazards. The geohazard
impact zones defined in this assessment process can either be avoided or, where this is not
possible, inform the engineering design process to consider mitigating measures that reduce the
impact to an acceptable level.
Regardless on industry, health, safety and environment (HSE) has always been a priority
since the Lost Time Injury(LTI) contributes to a loss in capital, human resource depletion and
an overall loss of confidence in a company by shareholders and employees alike . In the oil
exploration field, a key factor for the safety issue is to identify geohazards encountered by them.
If geohazards are neglected or ignored, it may lead to unwanted and unfortunate events which
will cost valuable time, money and also energy for recovery.
It is hoped that tools can be developed allowing regional excess pore pressure fields to be
mapped in detail, for example through geophysical methods, geological interpretation or
observational or survey techniques. Once regional excess pore pressure fields are detected,
then sensors and instrumentation systems designed for both short-term measurements and
long-term monitoring may make specific measurements.



5.1.4. The relevancy of the Project
The site survey is a compulsory measure for the safe placement of the proposed well location.
Failure in conducting a proper geohazard assessment on the proposed well location could lead
to unforeseen disasters during the drilling process. This includes punch through, blow-outs,
slanting rig legs, etc. Conducting a geohazard assessment based on a systematic periodic
approach is able to greatly decrease the risk of such incidences occurring. Even during well
placement, a geohazard assessment is advised to be conducted before placement of well, after
placement of well and during on-going drilling. A well site assessment is a comprehensive site
survey report that describes the seabed and sub-seabed conditions for any offshore exploration
or appraisal well. This study is an essential part of ensuring effective well planning and safe
drilling operations
There have been many previous scenarios whereby drilling, appraisal wells or pipeline
routes have gone without proper geohazard assessments. This has led to severe casualties in the
oil and gas industry where health safety and environment (HSE) is of monumental importance.
Billions of dollars and thousands of lives at minimum have been lost up to this day in regards of
offshore safety. Reducing the risk of facing geohazards is just one of the many safety aspects to
be considered before offshore drilling, pipeline construction should be considered.



5.2 Background and Literature Review
5.2.1 Feasibility of Project within Time Range
The 2DHR project required about a month of survey by the Fugro Geophysical survey
vessel. Following this was the completion of the full report took another month to complete.
While the interpretation of the 2D high resolution seismic was less of a challenge to deal with,
the concern was regarding the processing of the seismic. For the author, seismic processing
was definitely a totally new subject to deal with. Although the general sequence of processing
such as stacking, deconvolution and were covered in terms of basic definition during
undergraduate studies, but the real practical side was definitely a new challenge to face in the
space of one month. The first part of the process was learning the basics of processing which
involved complex mathematical operations such as Fourier Tansforms, Laplace Transform and
other differential equation methods. Due to time constraint; only the basic functions covering
each processing step was covered. The second part was to learn how to use the Fugro
Processing in-house software which became more complicated since it only ran on Linux
operating software which had an entirely different inter-phase compared to the massively used
of windows. The third and final part was the interpretation and finally the write-up of the
project. Overall, the project was successfully conducted and reported given the tight time frame
which mainly revolved around understanding the processing process and executing them. The
seismic processing is definitely a delicate subject to deal with. The project was to mainly focus
on the processing of the seismic data while the interpretation would be playing a more minor
role. Although processing was covered in the undergraduate studies during the third year at
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, not much depth was reached as more time and focus was
given to the interpretation of seismic, besides volume interpretation (3D) and Amplitude versus
Offset (AVO). Since the data in this project involves 2D high resolution seismic, Volume
Interpretation was of slight relevance and Amplitude versus Offset was a far fetch. What
managed to be covered in the seismic processing studies was more of the basic concepts
involved in the processing and not the different parameters used during the sequences of the
processing what more their effects on the seismic. In the end, learning seismic processing using
Uniseis was definitely a real learning experience that is hoped to be more developed in the
future.



5.2.2 Critical Analysis Literature Review

In the upstream project evaluation overview there are 5 phases in a field life cycle which are
acquisition, exploration, development, production and abandonment. Accordingly, geohazard
assessment is classified in the pre-development phase. This is because after a site has been
chosen after exploration, identification of geohazards is a necessity for furthering towards
appraisal for the development process. Based on ICG (2010), geohazard can be defined as A
geological state, which represents or has potential to develop further into a situation leading to
damage or uncontrolled risk. ICG (2010) also reported and identified that important offshore
geohazards (Figure 10) includes (i) slope instability and mass wasting processes (including
debris flows, gravity flows); (ii) pore pressure phenomena (e.g. shallow gas accumulations, gas
hydrates, shallow water flows, mud diapirism and mud volcanism, fluid vents, pockmarks); (iii)
seismicity. Excess pore pressure development appears a critical aspect in most of the offshore
geohazards.

Figure 7: Offshore Geohazard Diagram

Based on the figure and information, ICG (2010) indicates that there are common geohazards
that usually occur offshore. These geohazards were taken and combined to form the Main
Offshore Geohazards diagram. Through this, the geohazards can be identified based on their
common characteristics in the seismic, side scan and multibeam data.



In addition, Laura Brother et al (2010) had done a research on gas-related geohazards. They
have done a research about gas that was identified in geophysical survey. The gas was identified
from the seismic profile data specifically based on sub-bottom profiler. Laura Brother et al
(2010) informed that specific instrumentation varies per survey; they generically refer to this
instrument as the seismic source. This acoustic energy travels through the water column and
the sound bounce back from the seafloor. Some of the sound energy penetrate further into the
seafloor and reflects off deeper boundaries between layers of different physical properties. The
boundaries of change of characteristic and physical properties of the layers are referred as
reflectors. Bedrock, sand, mud, and gravel have distinctive properties and form reflectors in
the seismic record. The boundary or the reflector can be recognized as it appears in high
amplitude because of change of phase. Another equipment is called a hydrophone which
receives the reflected sound at the water surface. The depth of penetration and resolution of the
sub-bottom profiling depends on the types of sources used. Relatively, chirp, pinger, boomer,
sparker and mini air gun are the sources which in order are increasing in penetration but
decreasing in resolution. The usage of these sources differs based on the objective of the survey.

The fundamental purpose of a side scan survey is to provide images of acoustic targets on
the seafloor. Basically the side scan sonar system consists of three units: a transducer which
forms the underwater unit and is better known as the fish, a steel wire reinforced cable acting
as transmission and tow cable simultaneously, and a dual channel recorder (Flemming, 1976).
Unlike radar images, the side scan receiver detects sound that is backscattered from the seafloor,
not reflected from the large scale planar surfaces like radar images (Johnson, 2001). From this
explanation it indicates that one of the advantages of the usage of side scan sonar is to identify
anomalies on the seabed which includes depressions and projections. Depressions in this case
include seabed depressions and pockmarks where else projections covers mounds, carbonate
bodies, structures, debris and etc. These digital image data are "correct" in the sense that all of
the acoustic targets are in the same undistorted spatial relationship to each other as they are on
the seafloor (Helferty, 2001). The development of side-scans sonar has evolved to the point
where we can now view these acoustic data as spatially correct images.

Processing simultaneous bathymetry and backscatter data, multibeam echo sounders (MBESs)
show promising abilities for remote seafloor characterization (Laurent, 2003).



High-frequency multibeam echo sounders (MBESs) provide a good horizontal resolution,
making it possible to distinguish fine details at the waterseafloor interface. However, in order
to accurately measure the seafloor influence on the backscattered energy, the recorded sonar
data must first be processed and cleared of various artifacts generated by the sonar system itself.
Usually installed under a ships hull, an MBES transmits a sound pulse inside a wide
across-track and narrow along-track angular sector; then a beam forming process
simultaneously creates numerous receiving beams steered at different across-track directions.
This spatial filtering allows us to pick up echoes coming from adjacent seafloor portions
independently (Baucher, 2003). One sounding is accurately computed inside each beam by
simultaneously measuring the beam steering angle and the echo travel time, according to
various estimation methods based on either amplitude or phase.

From the research above, methods that are used to identify geohazards are based on the common
characteristics of the geohazards which has been tabulated and also has been recognized from
the seismic profile data. In this project, those methods have been combined to produce a better
identification of geohazards in the survey area to get accurate and precise results.



5.3 Methodology

5.3.1 Research Methodology
The task given for the project involved in the geohazard assessment of the 2D high resolution
seismic survey involves:

1) Acquisition of data from field. The first part was the data acquisition from field. The data
was obtained from a 96-channel HTI SEAMUX Streamer and a 4 x 40 cubic inch Sleeve Gun
Cluster. The data was obtained in Society of Geophysicists Standard D(SEG-D) format. Below
is the list of parameters used in the acquisition.

2) Processing of the Seg-D data obtained from field. A suitable processing sequence is
chosen based on initial observation of the brute stack data. Processing the data is mainly used
to remove noise or disturbances from the data and maintain what is considered to be the actual
data from the site. The best approach to processing is to produce the best data quality for
interpretation while maintaining the originality of the data. In other words, the best seismic
processors produce good quality data with minimal steps. The processing was conducted at the
Fugro Geodetic(M) Malaysia headquarters.

3) Interpretation of 2D seismic data from the field. The processed 2D seismic data is used
for interpretation of the following components:
I) Geological structures
II) Geological Stratigraphy
III) Anomalies
IV) Top hole drilling conditions

Combining the information from all 4 sources is able to provide a comprehensive offshore
geohazard assessment for proposed well location. Any potential hazards are clearly reported
and viable recommendation of safety measures is stated to the client for their discretion.



5.3.2 Key milestone
Phase Month Task Description
1

Training
May
Introduction to Seismic
Processing
An overall outlook on the definition of
processing, its function and the overall method.
May
Study on each seismic
flow sequence
Spend about one (1) week on the seismic
processing flow such as brute stacking, denoise,
deconvolution, velocity picking and migration.
June
Introduction to Uniseis
(Fugro in-house
processing software)
Practice using Uniseis which runs on Linux to
gain familiarity with the software.
2

Started Seismic
Processing

June Pre-stack processing
Filling database of parameters for initial loading
of data besides applying static corrections and
re-sequencing,
June
Quality Checking(QC)
data
Producing a brute stack and mute / filter seismic
through de-noise.
July Post-stack Processing
Velocity picking and reinserted velocities into the
previous flow and applying final migration.
3

July

Review of Processing
by Processing
Geophysicists
Amendments were made based on the
comments given by the seismic processor.

Interpretation of
Seismic

4 July
Interpretation of
Geological structures
and stratigraphy
Three (3) seismic lines were picked based on
their structures and stratigraphy as highlight
points of the offshore geohazard assessment.

July
/ August
Interpretation of
anomalies and drilling
prognosis

Anomalies that were a potential of being shallow
gas were identified and a drilling prognosis
combining the geology and anomalies was
produced to find a substantial relation if any.
5 August
Final Review of
processing and
interpretation
The overall processing and interpretation was
commented by the Geophysical Reporting
Manager. Amendments were made as adviced.
6 August Submission Submission of report to UTP Supervisor.



5.3.3 Gantt Chart
Month May June July August
Week 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
No. Task
1 Training

Introduction of Seismic
Processing
Study Seismic Flow Sequence
Introduction to Uniseis
2
Started Seismic
Procesing
Pre-stack processing
QC Data
Post-stack processing
3
Review of Processing

4 Interpretation of seismic
5 Final Review
6 Submission



5.3.4 Tools / Equipemt / Software Required

The site survey was carried out using Fugros long-term chartered geophysical survey
vessel. The vessel was positioned and navigated using Fugros Starfix High Precision (HP),
Starfix Multi-Reference Differential Global Positioning System (MRDGPS) and Starfix.Seis
navigation system.

High-resolution 2D seismic survey equipment consisted of HTI NTRS2 seismic recording
system, a 96-channel HTI SEAMUX Streamer and a 4 x 40 cubic inch Sleeve Gun Cluster. The
survey was performed in single pass operation where the echo sounders and high-resolution 2D
multichannel seismic system were concurrently acquiring data.

Parameters Values
Number of channels: 96
Group length: 12.5 m
Shot point interval: 12.5 m
Streamer depth: 2.5m(+/- 0.5m)
Source depth: 2.5 m (+/- 0.5m)
Sample rate: 1.0 ms
Record length: 2.5 s
Low cut filter: 4.5Hz, slope 6 dB/Octave
High cut filter: 412Hz, 215 dB/Octave
Source to near trace offset / centre of first active channel 15 m
Table 2: Seismic Survey Parameters
Another Fugro in-house software was used called Uniseis for the seismic processing. The
software runs on Linux operating system. Linux is opted as the Operating System (OS) for its
cost effectiveness and generally lower operational demands. Linux has also very few malware
and virus defects and thus is needless of an anti-virus system which usually consumes a lot of
RAM. Since it does not have a high demand on the OS, a need of software to clear the clutter
such as C-cleaner, Tune-up or Registry Mechanic is not required. Thus, the Linux operating
system is allowed the RAM to focus on the seismic processing software alone which is already
a very demanding process.



Navigation and Single Beam Bathymetric Processing
Real-time logging of navigation and bathymetric data was implemented using Fugros
Starfix.Seis navigation system. Processing of the acquired navigation and bathymetric data
was initiated on-board the survey vessel using Fugros in-house processing software,
Starfix.Proc, and was later finalised at the processing centre of Fugro Geodetic (Malaysia) Sdn
Bhd in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Post-processing involves cleaning and filtering of position data, analyses and corrections
of depth data, tidal height adjustment, automated data cleaning based upon statistical rules,
manual editing, controlled data thinning, and export of the final sounding data for further
processing and charting. Navigation track plots at a scale of 1:7,500; referred to the position of
the vessel datum, echo sounder transducer and digital first CDP were processed. This was used
for interpretation of the relevant geophysical data.
The first CDP (nearest Common Depth Point) navigation tracks were plotted for the
interpretation of the 2D high-resolution seismic data. The first CDP for the 2D high-resolution
seismic data is the midpoint between the seismic source and the centre of the first streamer
group (near offset).
Refer to Appendix B for details of the MV Amarco Tiger geophysical survey equipment offset
diagram.



2D High Resolution Seismic Data Processing

The 2D high-resolution seismic data was recorded in SEG-D de-multiplexed format. Quality
control of the 2D high-resolution seismic data was carried out on-board using Uniseis seismic
processing system. The processed data are of good quality. Due to the short duration of actual
field operations, seismic processing onboard the vessel could only be carried out in limited
stages. The final seismic processing that includes additional procedures has been carried out by
a processing house seismic data processing house. A listing of processing workflow is
supplied in the results.
The processed seismic data shows improved signal to noise ratio with better stacking response,
therefore events are more clearly defined. Amplitude anomalies are more significant and more
structural details can be interpreted from the final processed seismic data. The processed
equalised and relative amplitude migrated data was transcribed to SEG-Y format for
interpretation using SMT Kingdom Suite seismic workstation.

Water Velocity and Tidal Reduction
The sound velocity in seawater within the site was measured using the Valeport Midas
SVX2 velocimeter for the calibration of the echo sounders. The equipment uses digital time of
flight sound velocity sensor as well as salinity and density data in synchronised sampling to
produce accurate profiles. It is also fitted with conductivity sensor, temperature-compensated
pressure transducer and a temperature sensor. The manufacturer specifies that the system
measures sound velocity in the range of 1375 1900 m/s at a resolution of 0.001 m/s and
accuracy of 0.02 m/s.
Appendix C shows the derived profiles of the seawater velocity and temperature against depth.



The lead line method was used to check the draft of the single beam echo sounder
transducer the depths of the transducers below the marks on the vessel hull have been
established previously, and the draft was measured against these marks. Bathymetry sounding
data was reduced to Chart Datum (CD) Brunei Open Waters using predicted tides at Lumut.
The published harmonic constants are tabulated below.

Location : Lumut 5144
Latitude : 04
o
41.00N
Longitude : 114
o
27.00E
Time Zone : Local (GMT +08:00)

Table 3: Tide Harmonic Constants at Lumut.
Z
o
M
2
S
2
K
1
O
1

H(m) G
o
H(m) G
o
H(m) G
o
H(m) G
o
H(m)
1.21 332 0.21 010 0.09 318 0.36 268 0.31

Chart Datum Brunei Open Waters (BOW) is 1.13 metres below mean sea level. Graphical plot
of the predicted tides during the period of survey is included in Appendix D.



Seismic Velocity Determination

All time to depth conversions for digital interpretation were based on the Time to Depth
Conversion Curve included in Appendix E. The curve is derived by estimation of Root Mean
Square (RMS) velocities against the selected velocity data from average velocity cube
provided by client.
Interval velocities, derived from the predicted velocity, generally increase with depth. The
interval velocity in the n
th
layer was calculated using the Dix formula as follows.

()

()

()

Where
()

and
()

are the predicted RMS velocities and

and
are
the known Two Way Travel Time (TWTT) associated with depth (TVDSS). The accuracy of
the depths derived using this method is dependent on the interval of stacking velocity reading
input. The error in the depths generally increases towards the centre of two provided readings.
The scatter plot of the stacking velocity value, V
int
plot and the average velocity are
included in Appendix F. A time-depth conversion table and curve based on the interval
velocity at 5 ms TWTT interval is also included in Appendix E.



System Accuracy

Positioning System
The positioning of the vessel and survey equipment within the absolute coordinated reference
system was made possible using the Starfix HP and MRDGPS navigation system. The
Starfix.HP systems have been proven to give very accurate height observations with 95%
reliability percentage for vertical accuracies of 20 cm (HP). Starfix HP provides decimetre
level horizontal positioning accuracy at over 500 km range from reference station.
Accuracy in positioning depends upon the prevailing atmospheric conditions, the quality of the
base station coordinates provided, location of system antennae and the number of satellites
observed / available for the region. The above conditions were maximised as much as possible
during the survey operation to ensure precise and accurate navigation and positioning.



Seismic System

There are two types of resolution of interest in seismic systems: the vertical resolution (VR)
and the horizontal resolution (HR). The vertical resolution is defined as the point at which the
system has the ability to distinguish two pinching beds.
Theoretically, for the shallow geophysical seismic system the vertical resolution is
estimated to be of the dominant signal wavelength of the acoustic source. Once the thickness
of the unit is less than the wavelength, reflections between the upper and lower interfaces can
no longer be individually distinguished.
For the multichannel 2D high resolution seismic data the vertical resolution is a function
of frequencies, bubble pulse ringing, time depth conversion estimates, towing configuration
stability, the hydrophone characteristics and plotting accuracy. The vertical resolution of a
multichannel 2D high-resolution seismic system is defined as one quarter of the wavelength
().
VR = /4
Although the theoretical resolution may be defined by this relation, the actual recorded data
will be of lower resolution. Vertical resolution for the 4 x 4 array hull-mounted sub-bottom
profiler data is about 0.2 m and 2.0 m for the 2D high-resolution seismic data in the shallow
geological zone.

The horizontal resolution of sub-bottom shallow geophysical seismic system and multichannel
2D high-resolution seismic source depends on frequency (or wavelength, ) and the depth to
the reflector of concern. The acoustic pulse that insonifies a circular area on the seabed
describes the horizontal resolution of the source. The radius of this circle, known as the Fresnel
Zone (FZ), is dependent upon the dominant frequency of the acoustic source, the depth of the
reflector and the speed of the acoustic pulse.



A simplified method of obtaining the diameter of the FZ is:
FZ = (2z)
1/2

Where;
FZ = Diameter of Fresnel Zone
= Wavelength
z = Depth to reflector

The horizontal resolution of the multichannel 2D high-resolution seismic streamer (SHR)
depends on the group separation (x) and it is given as:

SHR = x / 2

32

5.4 Results & Discussions
The data obtained from the 2D High Resolution seismic survey was processed with a basic seismic
processing flow. One (1) seismic line from the field is used to illustrate the processing conducted.
Below is the summary of survey parameters.

ACQUISITION
Acquisition contractor: Fugro
Acquisition mode: Single streamer cable, single array source
Sample Rate : 1.0 ms
Recording Length : 2.5 sec
Group Interval : 12.5 m
Shot Point Interval : 12.5 m
No. of Channels : 96
Nominal Fold : 48
STREAMER CONFIGURATION

Streamer Type : SeaMUX 24 Channel
Active Streamer : 1200 m
Group Length : 12.5m
Streamer Depth : 2.5 m +/- 0.5 m
Streamer Noise : Coherent Noise - ahead or behind - 10ub
Feather Angle : Max 7 deg
Near offset : 15.0 m
No. of Birds / Spacing : 9 / 150 m
Compasses at Bird no : 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9
RECORDING

Tape Format : SEG-D 8036 24 bit
Media Type : 3490E
System : SeaMUX 2000 System
Filter Delay : 29 ms
Gun Delay : 30 ms
LC Filter : 4.5 Hz, 6 dB/octave
HC Filter : 412 Hz, 215 db/octave
Near Trace : Channel 4
Aux. Channel : Ch1 (FTB), Ch3 (NF), Ch4 (FF)
ENERGY SOURCE PARAMETER

Gun Array : 4 x 40 cu. inch sleeve gun clusters
Gun Depth : 2.5 m +/- 0.5 m
Gun Timing : Max +/- 0.5 ms
Gun Pressure : Not less than 2000 psi

33

5.4.1 Project Deliverables
Below is the overall processing flow that was used for the processing of Line 10 from a certain field.

34

Loading the seg-D onto Uniseis

Objective: Loads raw data from storage (hard-disk or tape) onto Uniseis software for processing.

Description: The first step done is to load the SEG-D data onto the processing software in this case
Uniseis. SEG-D is a common raw data format of seismic data during acquisition recording. There are
also other seismic data formats such as SEG-A, SEG-B, SEG-C, etc. The final product of the
processing will be in SEG-Y which is commercially accepted in the oil and gas industry.

Produce Demultiplexed Raw Data
Objective: Display demultiplex data

Description:. Demultiplex data or DMX for short is the raw data which has been transcribed into
internal data format. Re-sequencing arranges the data from 101 onwards regardless on numbering
during survey. The first re-run of the line would begin with 1101, while a second re-run will start with
2101.

35

Figure 8: Demultiplexed Data of Line 10 shows the raw data that has been sequenced. As can be seen, the raw data is mixed up with the low
frequency noise.
36

Source and Receiver Static Corrections
Objective: Removes depth corrections and equipment delay

Description: System delay by gun and recording and depth corrections are made to the raw data.
System delay is obtained from field QC logs while the depth correction uses the equation below:

The frequency filter can also be specified at this point but at this point only frequencies that are too
low and too high are filtered. This is so that no relevant signal is left out.

Table 3: Parameters Table for Static Correction
Parameters Values
System Delay 57 ms
Depth Correction 3.91
Low Cut Slope; Low Cut Filter 18 DB/oct ; 5 Hz
High Cut Slope; High Cut Filter 72 DB/Octave; 412 hZ ;

37

Figure 9: Example of the raw data after static correction.
Low frequency noise previously present in the demultiplex file has been removed with filter
38

\

Figure 10: Zoomed-in Raw SHOT file for Line 10.
The top most received signal indicates the direct arrival while the sharp spikes below them show first return. The Near Trace Offset estimation is
important to ensure these do not overlap.
Indicates First
Return
Indicates Direct
Arrival
39

Near Trace Gather(NTG) Files

Objective: To obtain a general view of the geology in the area and check for gun miss-fires.
Description: NTG files plots one of the near channels in shot domain. Gun misfires is when gun fires
too early, too late or does not fire at all. This is indicated on the NTG section if displacments are seen
on the section.

Figure 11: Line 10 NTG Display:
As can be seen from the image, there are no displacements seen meaning the gun and recording system
is functioning accordingly.

40

Brute Stack

Objective: Enables us to have an outlook on the general condition of our seismic data and determine
the processing flow needed.
Description: Stacks data from all channels for the entire line and allows us to gain an initial
assumption on the geology and condition of our data. Two formats can be obtained from stacking
which is either Equalized or True Amplitude. True amplitude shows the compensation of signals that
have been attenuated or grown weaker as the signal travels further with depth. The signals are
predicted to be this way if attenuation did not occur. The true amplitude section allows us to identify
anomalies (unusual events) in the section since the amplitudes that stand out can be seen clearly.
Equalized form has also had the signals compensated due to attenuation and also equalized the signals.
This evens out the amplitudes making it easier to interpret the lithology, structures and stratigraphy.

Parameters involved:
1) Time Varied Gain (TVG): This is one of the scaling methods that adjust compensation or gain
recovery of the signals. The values it can be set to are dependent on the processing software used. In
the case of Unises, it ranges ranging from -5 to 5 for time and velocity respectively. The best signal
compensation is picked based on trial rounds.
2) Normal Move-Out correction: Normal Move-Out Corrections (NMO) is done to pre-stack data.
NMO basically uses a velocity function and calculates the NMO hyperbola at every time for every
offset of dipping seabed. It then shifts each sample back to the true "zero-offset" or true geometry
form. In the beginning, the velocity function that NMO is based on depends on the inserted velocities
by assumption. The basic rule of thumb is that velocity increase with depth in normal geology. The
velocity file is re-inserted with more accurate values once velocity picking is done.
3) Muting: Its purpose is to remove the stretched move-out caused by NMO. These regions of
velocities are not accurate and may cause even false structures to appear. Another purpose is to remove
direct arrivals (signals that do not travel through the subsurface) and leave on the data ranging from the
seabed and below intact. Muting may look like cutting of data for cosmetics, but it actually allows us
to be focused on the appropriate signals and not confused by the noise or unwanted signals.

41

Figure 12: Line 10 Equalised Brute Stack.
The amplitudes have undergone compensation then equalization. That is why all amplitudes seem nearly constant throughout the section.
This allows easier detection of structure, horizon and to predict lithology.
42

Figure 13: Line 10 True Amplitude Brute Stack.
Shows the original amplitude of the seismic after compensation. Anomalies are detected by comparing the amplitudes to the seabed since the seabed
usually has the highest reflection.. If the amplitude is comparable or higher than the seabed(supposedly is the strongest reflector), it can be
considered an anomaly.
43

Figure 14: Trial of Time Varied Gain
The five (5) sections above reveal different values of Time Varied Gains(TVG). The time and velocity values are (0,1), (1,-2, (1,0), (1,2) and (1,3) f
respectively. Among the five sections, the fourth and fifth sections have been over-compensated since noise starts to appear while the first and
second section is under-compensated The third section has been picked as the overall best as the signals are quite clear and noise is absent from the
data.
Noise
44

Figure 15: Normal Move-Out Gather
The move-out velocities. To show the true geometry of the seabed and subsequent layers, the velocities are adjusted or stretched. The more the
stretch the more inaccurate the velocity, and the more false the geometry,
Seabed being
stretched
45

Figure 16: Muting of Line 10
The above section shows two(2) sections, the left before muting and the right after muting. In the left figure, muting has been done to remove the
stretched velocities due to move-out on the upper left of the section and also the noise above the seabed. Muting can also be done based on water
bottom, CDP or;manual mute picking.

Muted region from
350ms for 96
th
trace
Noise above seabed has
been muted at 35ms
46

Time Frequency Denoise TFDN
Objective: Reduces noise and de-spikes data.
Description: Noise is considered as unwanted signals in our data. Among the sources of noise in the
survey can be either swell noise or equipment noise. Swell noise usually ranges from 20 to 25 Hz
while equipment noise can go as high as the the frequency of the survey. Detecting and eliminating
noise is important so that we do not interpret the noise as signals instead. Noise signals are usually in
isolated groups and follow a certain pattern.

47

Figure 17A: Data before Denoised
48

Figure 17B: Denoised data.
As can be seen, the spking above has been removes and the signal below has been enhanced since the overall scale has been lowered.
49

Velocity Picking

Objective: Collects Root Mean Square (RMS) velocity to correct NMO/

Description: Almost all processing sequences require an accurate average in velocity to operate. A
velocity file is prepared that lists the average velocity over time for the seismic line in question.
Initially, predicted velocities are input in the velocity file as a temporary use. These velocities can give
an early prediction since generally velocities increase with depth since the layers increase in density
with depth.
In order to establish the velocity field for the seismic line, a suite of velocity functions at
discrete positions along the line need to be determined. This is done through velocity analysis or
generally known as velocity picking. There are several methods of velocity picking as follows: The
velocities picked improve the move-out gather and provides more accurate geometry of the layers.
After velocity is picked, the data is re-stacked to use the corrected normal move-out.
i. Semblance display: An energy concentration display; usually with red being the area with
concentrated velocity. Semblance is used to pick the interval velocity.
ii. Gathers: Normal Move Out gathers that follow a hyperbolic shape of the velocity function
iv. Stack: A compilation of the signals across all channels.

Modern computer-aided velocity analyses make use of all the techniques above. From here, the
velocities of the intervals are picked and the values are transferred into the velocity file which had
been filled with assumed velocities before velocity picking .

50

Figure 18: Image of Shot Gather during velocity picking
During velocity picking, the best gather is the with the least stretch. This gives the most accurate
velocity. (Refer to yellow box with green line)
51

Figure 19: Image of Energy Samblance during Velocity Picking
Velocity increases with depth unless there are anomalies such as shallow gas, etc. Anomalies such as
salt domes cause a sharp increase in velocity if present.

Locations of high velocity
concentration are picked
based on the red colour spots.
A stair like structure is
achieved since the general rule
of thumb is that velocity
increases with depth.
52

Figure 20: Stack of the seismic line
The stack allows us to keep track of reflectors picked and also gives us a larger perspective on the
anomalies in the seismic. The stronger reflectors may indicate a change in the sequence while an
isolated group of amplitudes may indicate anomalies.
An interval of 80
CDP(500m) is chosen for
the velocity picking. The
interval used is usually up
to the client
During picking, the horizon acts
as a guide to pick the velocity.
53

Deconvolution Before Stack

Function of Deconvolution Before Stack:
i) Remove reverberations
ii) Compress wavelets to make the reflection more visible and enhance continuity
iii) Remove multiples

Description: 2 important parameters to take note are operator length and gap. The operator length
should be long enough to include at least two "bounces" of the maximum reverberation time to be
removed. A gap meanwhile is inserted into the filter that prevents the filter from changing the data
close to every reflector. A gap of 1 sample or less implies spiking deconvolution, any higher gap
implies predictive deconvolution. The gaps normally used extend from 2-10 samples of data and cause
less spectral whitening (and associated noise).
Predictive deconvolution is mainly used to eliminate multiples which usually appear at
intervals. A model is made to replicate these intervals and the deconvolution acts based on the model.
Spiking deconvolution is a general deconvolution that is applied across the section mainly to compress
wavelets so that they are more visible.

Parameters: Operator length: 40ms; Gap 8 ms

54

Figure 21: Trial of Different Gaps and Operator Lengths
There are 7 section in total with an operator length of 40ms, 50ms , 60ms , 70ms , 80ms , 100ms , 120ms and a gap of 8ms respectively. The
changes are very subtle to see cganges in the multiple. Thus focusing on an anomaly (the circles) makes it easier to see that the rightmost section
enhances the visibility of the reflection
Multiple of
seabed
55

Figure 22: Deconvolved True Amplitude Stack; 40ms operator length; 8ms gap
56

Figure 23: Deconvolved Equalised Stack; 40ms operator length; 8ms gap
57

Migration
Function of Migration is to:
i) Correct dip and position of dipping layers
ii) Collapse of diffractions
iii) Improve Resolution

Description: Migration is the process of reconstructing a seismic section so that reflection events are
repositioned under their correct surface location and at a corrected vertical reflection time. Seismic
migration is the procedure by which an image of the correctly positioned subsurface reflecting
interfaces is obtained from the seismic section. Migration is the process that moves the data on the
stacked seismic section to its correct position in both time and space. Even after NMO corrections.
reflections from dipping events are plotted in their wrong locations. To rectify this, the points need to
be moved "up-dip" along a hyperbolic curve with the shape of this hyperbola depending on the
velocity field. Migration works best in areas with dipping seabed and complex geology but it should be
applied in whatever case since it can improve resolution and as experienced processors quote;
insignificant migration is better than no migration at all.
There are several types of migration namely for different needs of the processor: Each of these
migrations has a nuique algorithm
i) Time Migration: Needed when the stacked section contains diffractions or structural dip. This
migration is valid for vertically varying velocities and acceptable for mild lateral velocity variations.
ii) Depth Migration: Needed when the stacked section contains structural dip and large lateral
velocity gradients.
iii) Pre-stack Partial Migration (PSPM): Post-stack migration is acceptable when the stacked section
is equivalent to a zero offset section. This is not the case for conflicting dips with different stacking
velocities or large lateral velocity gradients. PSPM or dip move-out (DMO) provides a better stack that
can be migrated after stack. However, PSPM only solves the problem of conflicting dips with different
stacking velocities.
iv) Full time migration before stack: The output is a migrated stack. No intermediate un-migrated
stacked section is produced.
58

Figure 24: Image of before/after migrated stack. Individual points on the stack are placed back in their correct location by hyperbolic velocity
function. As can be seen in the section that there are slight different placements of the data.

59

Output Seg-Y
Finally, after going through the processing sequence that has been set, the seg-Y output that is
produced is ready to be interpreted by an interpretation geophysicists. However, since a very basic
flow of processing was used in this particular case, the seg-Y outputs obtained were mainly a trial run
in order to understand and appreciate the processing. Processing is actually an art of producing the best
quality data for interpretation with the fewest amount of steps involved. This is always the biggest
challenge for every seismic processor.
For the seismic interpretation, an experienced processing house was appointed to carry out the
the processing and it is their Seg-Y outputs which be used in the interpretation. The processing flow
used by the processing house is as follows:

1. Reformat 2.5s, 1ms, 96 channels
2. System delay -55.67ms
3. Source and receiver static correction
4. Geometrical spreading correction VVT +5dB gain
5. Low cut filter 15Hz/18dB/Oct
6. 2 passes of swell noise attenuation and De-spiking
8. Linear noise attenuation (cut 400m/s) starting time below 500ms
9. Tau-P DBS, Gap length 12ms, operator length 120ms
10. Zero phasing applied
11. Q compensation Amplitude and phase Q 170 and reference frequency 250Hz + 10 dB gain
12. Velocity analysis every 500m grid
13. Kirchhoff PSTM with 1km, 75 degree dip
14. Final angle mute 40degree
15. Scaling 500ms gate
16. Final raw stack and Equalized stack were produced.
60

Figure 25: Line 10 Finalised SEG-Y(Equalized)
61

Figure 26: Line 10 Finalised SEG-Y(True Amplitude)
62

5.4.2 Data Gathering / Analysis

After the processing of the lines were completed, the next part was to interpret the processed seismic
line. The interpretation done involved the stratigraphy and geological structures, anomalies present and
also drilling prognosis.

Intermediate Geology

The acquisition of the 2D high-resolution multichannel seismic data was carried out in generally good
weather conditions and the 2.5 seconds data are of good quality with penetration down to
approximately 2 seconds.

Limitation of interpretation

The high-resolution 2D seismic data was analysed for potential hazards that may affect drilling at the
The distribution of survey line intervals is such that only events of great enough size can be
identified. Discrete shallow gas pockets that fall between survey lines or smaller than the minimum
line intervals (100 m) are not likely to have continuities identifiable from the seismic dataset.
Geological structures and amplitude events within seismic attenuation zone are not likely to be
identified from the seismic dataset. The signal attenuation is generally associated with the chaotic
reflection area.

63

Intermediate Stratigraphy

Based on the acoustic characteristics of the high-resolution seismic data, the intermediate
geological zone has been divided into seven (7) separate sequences, namely Sequences I to VII,
separated by acoustically coherent reflectors, namely Horizons H1 to H6. The unit boundaries
are defined based on changes in the seismic reflection characteristics of each sequence and / or
prominent reflecting horizons (or unconformities, if any).

The general stratigraphy and structure of the survey area is best described by 2D high-
resolution seismic sections, in equalised migrated form.

Sequence I (Shallow Geological Zone)

Sequence I is the youngest deposits and relatively thinner sequence, which is acoustically semi-
transparent, characterised by generally weak parallel with well-laminated internal reflections.
Several buried channels near seabed are the most significant features observed within Sequence
I. The extents of these buried channels are not clearly defined due to limited resolution of the
2D seismic section but these occur generally within 50 m below seabed.

The base of Sequence I is marked by a moderate to high amplitude reflector, Horizon H1.
Several normal faults are observed to extend up to this sequence.

This Sequence I is interpreted to consist of clayey SILT and predominantly CLAY with SAND
intervals.

64

Sequence II

Sequence II is characterised by moderate to strong seismic impedance, with dipping reflectors
to northwest, intermittent reflections and some chaotic internal reflectors. This sequence is
inferred to consist of possible CLAY and SAND layers. Numerous normal faults could be
observed within Sequence II on the seismic sections, which are attributed to differential
compaction. Occasional strong reflectors are observed within this sequence but this amplitude
event is interpreted as due to lithological change.

A continuous and relatively coherent seismic reflector defined as Horizon H2 identifies the base
of this sequence.

Sequence III

Sequence III is characterised by moderate seismic impedance, reflectors that are dipping to
northwest with some irregular to intermittent internal reflectors. Occasional strong reflectors
are observed within this sequence but this amplitude event is interpreted to be lithologically
related. Numerous normal faults cut through the sequence and show displacement in reflectors.
It is interpreted to consist of possible CLAY interlayered with SAND.

The base of Sequence III is marked by a coherent reflector namely Horizon H3.

Sequence IV

Sequence IV is interpreted to consist of possible CLAY, grading to CLAYSTONE, interlayered
with SANDSTONE. It is characterised by moderate to high seismic impedance with reflectors
that are sub-parallel and dipping to northwest. The reflectors show displacements along
numerous faults that cut through the sequence. Occasional strong reflectors are observed within
this sequence but this amplitude event is interpreted as lithologic change. The base of Sequence
IV is marked by a strong and coherent reflector namely Horizon H4.

65

Sequence V

Sequence V is characterised by moderate to strong, well defined, laminated, northwesterly
dipping reflectors. This sequence is inferred to consist of possible CLAY, grading to
CLAYSTONE, interlayered with SANDSTONE.

The layers have been displaced by several normal faults that extend from shallower sequences.

The base of Sequence V is marked by a relatively strong reflector, namely Horizon H5.

Sequence VI

Similar with Sequence V, Sequence VI is characterised by moderate to strong, well defined,
laminated and northwest dipping reflectors. This sequence is displaced by several normal faults
that extend from shallower depth within the survey area.

Sequence VI is interpreted to consist of possible SANDSTONE interlayered with
CLAYSTONE. A coherent reflector, namely Horizon H6, marks the base of Sequence VI.

Sequence VII

Sequence VII is interpreted as the deepest sedimentary sequence seen on the data below
Horizon H6 down to the limit of the seismic record.

The upper half of Sequence VII shows similar seismic characteristics to the overlying
sequences, where moderate internal reflections with occasionally medium to strong internal
reflector are observed. The lower half of this sequence exhibits generally discontinuous
internal reflectors, which is associated with noise. Several normal faults were observed cutting
through the upper half of Sequence VII and extended upward to Sequence II. There may be
other faults within the sequence that could not be resolved due to lower resolution or noise.
The faults are attributed to differential compaction of the deeper sedimentary sequences.

This sequence is interpreted to consist of possible CLAYSTONE, SILTSTONE and
SANDSTONE.
66

It is to be expected that the degree of sediment compaction and consolidation would increase
with depth, and that this would be associated with a general increase in shear strength.

The predicted intermediate zone lithology at the proposed well locations is shown in the table
below
Table 4: Predicted Intermediate Lithology at the Proposed and Revised Well Location.
Horizon/
Sequence
Proposed Location Revised Location
Predicted Lithology
TWTT
[ms]
Depth
[m BSL]
TWTT
[ms]
Depth
[m BSL]
Seabed 53 41 50 39
Sequence I
Clayey SILT and predominantly
CLAY with SAND intervals
Horizon H1 111 89 97 77
Sequence II CLAY and SAND layers
Horizon H2 264 224 158 128
Sequence III CLAY interlayered with SAND
Horizon H3 480 442 398 355
Sequence IV
CLAY interlayer with
SANDSTONE grading to
CLAYSTONE
Horizon H4 898 924 845 860
Sequence V
CLAY interlayer with
SANDSTONE grading to
CLAYSTONE
Horizon H5 1234 1383 1231 1382
Sequence VI
SANDSTONE interlayer with
CLAYSTONE
Horizon H6 1412 1653 1410 1663
Sequence VII
CLAYSTONE, SILTSTONE and
SANDSTONE

67

Geological Structure

The general lithology across the entire survey area comprises uniform, conformable and
unconformable sequences of normally consolidated sediments. Sedimentary layers within the
intermediate geological zone are generally well defined. These include buried shallow channels
within the upper sequence (Sequence I) and predominantly laterally homogeneous sedimentary
sequences at the lower segment that dip to the northwest (Sequences II to VII). Sequences II to
VII appear to have been deposited in low-energy environment (deep water), which was
followed by episodes of high-energy deposition of sediments that formed Sequence I and
created several buried channels in the shallower section.

The buried channels within Sequence I indicate episodes of intermittent high-energy (shallow
water), post-depositional environment resulting in the formation of overlapping channels.
However, the extents of these buried channels are not clearly defined due to limited resolution
of the 2D seismic section.

Faults generally cut through the sequences throughout the whole survey area, mostly
concentrated within Sequences II to V. The interpreted faults strike northeast-southwest and
dip towards either northwest or southeast. The bottom extent of the faults could not be traced
due to decrease in seismic resolution, which makes small offsets not visible on time sections,
and seismic signal attenuation. For the same reason, other faults that may be present within
Sequence VII could not be resolved because of lower resolution and noise. The faults are
attributed to differential compaction of deeper sequences, possibly including Sequence VII, due
to the combined weight of the overlying sequences.

68

The fault intersection at each of the proposed location is summarised in table below:

Table 5: Summary of Fault Intersections at the Proposed and Revised Well Locations.
Well Location Depth of fault extending below well surface location
Proposed Iron Duke Blk
10
417 ms TWTT (373 m BSL)
1163 ms TWTT (1283 m BSL)
Revised Iron Duke Blk 10
None

Caution is advised while drilling through these fault intersections at the proposed well location.
On the other hand, none of the faults extends below the surface location of the revised well
location. Other faults that may occur within Sequence VII could not be resolved on the data
due to lower resolution at these depths. Faults may cause loss of fluid circulation.

Below are images of digital seismic lines passing through/ nearby the proposed Iron Duke Blk
10 well location and revised well location.

Proposed Well Location (offset 7 m NW) SW
NE
Seabed
500 m
H2
H3
H4
Survey Area
H5
H6
Sequence I
Sequence II
Sequence III
Sequence V
Sequence VII
Sequence VI
Sequence IV
H1
Acoustic Masking
Example of equalized seismic section, SW-NE mainline ID-2D-L10, passing near the proposed well location. FIGURE 27
T
w
o

W
a
y

T
r
a
v
e
l

T
i
m
e

(
T
W
T
T
)

NW SE
Survey Area
500m
Proposed Well Location (offset 2 m NE)
Seabed
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
Sequence I
Sequence II
Sequence III
Sequence V
Sequence VII
Sequence VI
Sequence IV
Acoustic Masking
Example of equalized seismic section, NW-SE cross line ID-2D-L59, passing near the proposed well location. FIGURE 28
T
w
o

W
a
y

T
r
a
v
e
l

T
i
m
e

(
T
W
T
T
)

Example of equalized seismic section, NW-SE cross line ID-2D-L61, passing near the revised well location. FIGURE 29
T
w
o

W
a
y

T
r
a
v
e
l

T
i
m
e

(
T
W
T
T
)

Seabed
Sequence I
Sequence II
Sequence III
Sequence V
Sequence VII
Sequence VI
Sequence IV
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
NW SE
500m
Revised Well Location
Survey Area
72

Amplitude Anomalies and Risk Assessment

Three (3) levels of amplitude anomalies were found within the survey area between 57 ms and
441 ms TWTT (44 399 m BSL). The probability of these anomalies being gas related (gas
risk classification) is based on the following criteria.
Table 6: Amplitude Anomalies and Risk Assessment.
Probability of Being Gas Related Direct Hydrocarbon Indicators & Seismic Attributes
Low
Moderate amplitude with 1 or 2 DHI's or very high
amplitude alone
Moderate
High amplitude with 2 other gas diagnostics
High High amplitude with 3 or 4 other gas diagnostics
Features (other than high amplitude ) considered in gas hazard classification:
Negative phase and/or phase reversal at edges of anomaly
Acoustic masking of underlying horizons
Velocity or time sag of underlying horizons (Pull-down effects)
Significant frequency loss immediately below the anomaly
Flat spots, gas/water contacts, and any other hydrocarbon indicators
Sedimentary/geological structural evidence e.g. faults, good structural reservoirs
In addition, size, orientation and vertical connectivity (faults) to deeper
accumulations were also considered in the classification

Anomaly Group 1 [57 97 ms TWTT (44 77 m BSL)]

Anomaly Group 1 is mostly associated with the base of buried channel within Sequence I and
appears as a widespread area and small patches within the survey area. The moderate to high
seismic amplitude show phase reversal among dipping and intermittent reflectors, reverberation
and attenuation of deeper reflectors. Several faults possibly extends to the large anomaly to the
west of the proposed well location but could not be reliably traced because of reflector
distortion and attenuation. While faults are known to be good conduits for gas migrating
upwards, there are no gas-related, anomalous reflectors identified along the faults in the deeper
section.
73

Therefore, the anomaly is more likely to be related to accumulation of biogenic gas at the base
of the buried channel. Possible gas seepages through the seabed from the widespread anomaly
to the west of the proposed location should be verified from anomalies on the sub-bottom
profiler data and related features on the seabed, such as pockmark clusters, that may be seen on
the side scan sonar data.

Overall, this anomaly group is classified as moderate to high probability of being gas related.
Moderate gas probability is attributed to some small patches including below the proposed
well location, but the large anomaly to the west of the proposed location is considered to have
high gas probability. While the biogenic gas may not be pressurised at these shallow depths,
gas is known to weaken sediments within which it occurs. Strength of shallow soils in this area
could vary significantly.

Anomaly Group 1 extends below the proposed well surface location at a depth of 66 ms TWTT
(52 m BSL) but none is found below the revised well surface location. The nearest Anomaly
Group 1 to the revised Iron Duke Blk 10 well location is at about 68m to the NE at a depth of
68 ms TWTT (53m BSL).


Anomaly Group 2 occurs within Sequence II and characterised by moderate amplitude without
any evidence of masking effect or velocity pull down. It is mainly identified within the upper
half of Sequence II throughout the survey area and is probably related to accumulation of
biogenic gas within the sequence.

Overall, this anomaly group is classified as low probability of being gas related.

The anomaly occurs as a single elongated patch near the NW limit of the survey area with the
nearest distance of approximately 2680 m WNW of the proposed Iron Duke Blk 10 well
location at depths of 240-355 ms TWTT (202-312 m BSL). The same nearest anomaly is found
at about 3405 m to the NW of the revised well location.

74


Anomaly Group 3 occurs within the top half of Sequence III and characterised by moderate
amplitude with evident phase reversal and attenuation of deeper reflectors. It is probably
localised accumulation of biogenic gas or organic materials associated with a thin interval of
locally dipping and irregular layers in the upper segment of Sequence III. It is found as two
small patches near the north eastern and south western corners of the survey area.

Overall, this anomaly group is classified as low probability of being gas related.

The nearest occurrence of the anomaly is found at approximately 1921 m SW of the proposed
Iron Duke Blk 10 well location at depths of 318-390 ms TWTT (276-346 m BSL). The same
anomaly is nearest to the revised well location at a distance of 2222 m to the SW.

The summary of gas probability is summarised in the following table:
Table 7: Gas Probability for the Proposed and Revised Well Locations.
Anomaly
Group
Depth
ms TWTT
(m BSL)
Closest distance
and direction from
the proposed Iron
Duke Blk 10 well
location
Closest distance
and direction from
the revised Iron
Duke Blk 10 well
location
Characteristics
Probability of
gas
1
57 97
(44 77)
At location
66 ms TWTT (52
m BSL)
68m NE at 68 ms
TWTT
(53m BSL)
Moderate to high
amplitude, phase
reversal, reverberation,
seismic attenuation,
association with channels
Moderate to
High
(Biogenic
gas)
2
239 259
(201 219)
2680 m WNW 3405 NW
Moderate amplitude ,
phase reversal
Low

3
332 441
(290 399)
1921 m SW 2222 m SW
Moderate amplitude,
phase reversal, seismic
attenuation
Low

Proposed Well Location (offset 7 m NW) SW NE
Seabed
500 m
Survey Area
Anomalies Group 1
Anomalies Group 1
Anomaly Group 3
Anomaly Group 3
Example of relative amplitude seismic section, SW-NE mainline ID-2D-L10, passing near the proposed well location. FIGURE 30
T
w
o

W
a
y

T
r
a
v
e
l

T
i
m
e

(
T
W
T
T
)

SW NE
Survey Area
500m
Proposed Well Location (offset 7 m NW)
Anomalies Group 1
Anomaly Group 3
Anomaly Group 3
Seabed
Anomalies Group 1
Example of relative amplitude seismic section, SW-NE mainline ID-2D-L10, passing near the proposed well location
(Top 1.1 ms TWTT BSL).
FIGURE 31
T
w
o

W
a
y

T
r
a
v
e
l

T
i
m
e

(
T
W
T
T
)

NW SE
Survey Area
500m
Seabed
Anomalies Group 1
Anomalies Group 1
Anomalies Group 1
Example of relative amplitude seismic section, NW-SE cross line ID-2D-L59, passing near the proposed well location. FIGURE 32
T
w
o

W
a
y

T
r
a
v
e
l

T
i
m
e

(
T
W
T
T
)

NW SE
Survey Area
Seabed
Anomalies Group 1
Anomalies Group 1
Anomalies Group 1
500m
Example of relative amplitude seismic section, NW-SE cross line ID-2D-L59, passing near the proposed well location
(Top 1.1 ms TWTT BSL).
FIGURE 33
T
w
o

W
a
y

T
r
a
v
e
l

T
i
m
e

(
T
W
T
T
)

Example of relative amplitude seismic section, NW-SE mainline ID-2D-L61,
passing near the revised well location
FIGURE 34
T
w
o

W
a
y

T
r
a
v
e
l

T
i
m
e

(
T
W
T
T
)

Anomalies Group 1
Anomalies Group 1
Anomalies Group 1
Revised Well Location
Survey Area
NW SE
80

Top Hole Drilling Conditions
Both the proposed and revised wells are located on a relatively flat seabed, underlain by high-
energy deposits within the upper sequence (Sequence I), and relatively low-energy deposits
within the lower sequences (Sequences II to VII), with predominantly laterally homogeneous
sedimentary sequences that gently dip to the northwest.

The potential hazards below the surface location of the proposed well include shallow gas
associated with shallow, buried channels and normal faults. However, none of these hazards
occurs below the revised surface location of the well. The following drilling constraints have
been forecast below the proposed and revised well surface locations:
Table 8: Summary of Drilling Constraints Below the Proposed and Revised Well
Surface Locations.
Proposed Well
Location
Potential
constraints
Description
Well Location
Fault
Faults extend below surface location of well at 417 ms TWTT (373 m
BSL) and 1163 ms TWTT (1283 m BSL). Potential loss of fluid
circulation at the fault intersections.
Amplitude Anomaly
Anomaly Group 1 extends below the surface location of the proposed
well at 66 ms TWTT (52 m BSL). Moderate to high probability of
encountering gas (possibly biogenic) but not expected to be
overpressured due to shallow depth. Gas could have weakened the
shallow sediments.
Revised Well
Location
Fault No fault extending below surface location of well
Amplitude Anomaly
No amplitude anomaly extends below surface location of well; the
nearest amplitude anomaly is Anomaly Group 1, 68m NE at 68 ms
TWTT (53m BSL)

Tophole prognosis for the proposed Iron Duke Blk 10 well location and revised Iron Duke Blk
10 well location are shown in Figure 35 and 36.
250 m 0
TOPHOLE PROGNOSIS FOR THE
PROPOSED WELL LOCATION
PICKED
REFLECTOR
VERTICAL
DEPTH
BSL
[m]
BML
[m]
S
E
Q
U
E
N
C
E

THICK-
NESS
[m]
INFERRED LITHOLOGY
AND COMMENTS
INTERPRETED
SHALLOW GAS
HAZARD
SE
BML=Below Mud Line BSL=Below Sea Level
FIGURE 35
X = 550 383.0 m
Y = 573 113.0 m
SEISMIC SECTION AT PROPOSED
WELL LOCATION
LINE ID-2D-L59
1) All depths and thickness below seafloor are
approximate and are based on stacking velocities
provided by client
2) All measured depth is vertical depth (VD).
High Potential For Encountering Gas
Moderate Potential For Encountering Gas
Low Potential For Encountering Gas

Legend
Negligible Potential For Encountering Gas
Notes:
NW
Clayey SILT and predominantly CLAY with sand
intervals
I 48
H2
TWTT
[ms]
0 41 53
183 224 264
Seabed
Possible CLAY interlayered with sand
II 135
III 218
Possible SANDSTONE interlayered
with CLAYSTONE
IV
VII
Data Limit
H1 48 89 111
3273 3314 2400
270
1612 1653 1412
1234 1342 1383
1661
H5
H6
Possible CLAY and sand layers
TWTT
[ms]
300
600
900
1000
200
400
500
100
700
800
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
H3 401 442 480
H4 883 924 898
V
VI
Possible CLAY interlayered with
SANDSTONE grading to CLAYSTONE
482
459
Possible CLAYSTONE, SILTSTONE
and SANDSTONE
FAULT 1242 1283 1163
FAULT 332 373 417
Anomaly Group 1
TOPHOLE PROGNOSIS FOR THE
REVISED WELL LOCATION
PICKED
REFLECTOR
VERTICAL
DEPTH
BSL
[m]
BML
[m]
S
E
Q
U
E
N
C
E

THICK-
NESS
[m]
INFERRED LITHOLOGY
AND COMMENTS
INTERPRETED
SHALLOW GAS
HAZARD
NE
BML=Below Mud Line BSL=Below Sea Level
FIGURE 36
X = 551 062.0 m
Y = 572 845.0 m
SEISMIC SECTION AT PROPOSED
WELL LOCATION
LINE ID-2D-L02
1) All depths and thickness below seafloor are
approximate and are based on stacking velocities
provided by client
2) All measured depth is vertical depth (VD).
High Potential For Encountering Gas
Moderate Potential For Encountering Gas
Low Potential For Encountering Gas

Legend
Negligible Potential For Encountering Gas
Notes:
SW
Clayey SILT and predominantly CLAY with sand
intervals I
38
H2
TWTT
[ms]
0 39 50
89 128 158
Seabed
Possible CLAY interlayered with sand
II 51
III
Possible SANDSTONE interlayered
with CLAYSTONE
IV
VII
Data Limit
H1 38 77 97
3275 3314 2400
281
1624 1663 1410
1231 1343 1382
1651
H5
H6
Possible CLAY and sand layers
TWTT
[ms]
300
600
900
1000
200
400
500
100
700
800
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
H3 316 355 398
H4 821 860 845
V
VI
SANDSTONE grading to CLAYSTONE 505
522
Possible CLAYSTONE, SILTSTONE
and SANDSTONE
Anomaly Group 1
227
83

5.4.3 FINDINGS

Based on the high-resolution 2D seismic data interpretation at the proposed well
location, conclusions of the hazard assessment are as follows: The 2D high-resolution seismic
data indicates that the geology within the survey area consists of high-energy deposits within
the upper sequence (Sequence I), and relatively low-energy deposits within the lower
sequences (Sequences II to VII), with predominantly laterally homogeneous sedimentary
sequences that gently dip to the northwest.

There are numerous shallow, buried channels within Sequence I, but their extents are not
clearly defined due to limited 2D seismic data resolution in the shallow zone. One of the
channels extends to the proposed well location but not at the revised well location. Several
faults cut through Sequences II to V. The interpreted faults strike in northeast-southwest
direction and dip towards either northwest or southeast. Two faults extend below the surface
location of the proposed well at depths of 417 ms TWTT (373 m BSL) and 1163 ms TWTT
(1283 m BSL). Caution is advised while drilling through these fault intersections because
these may cause loss of fluid circulation.
None of the faults extends below the revised well surface location.
Anomaly Group 1 extends below the proposed well surface location at a depth of 66 ms
TWTT (52 m BSL). The anomaly in general is considered to have moderate to high
probability of being related to biogenic gas within the whole area but with moderate
probability of gas within the channel at the proposed well location. Biogenic gas may not be
pressurised at these shallow depths but the gas could have weakened the sediments within
which it occurs. There is no anomaly that extends below the revised Iron Duke Blk 10 well
surface location.
The tophole drilling condition at the proposed well location and revised location are shown in
Figure 35 and 36.
.

84

5.5 Conclusion and Recommendation

5.5.1 Impact
From the survey it can be said that the project has given large information on the
geohazards that are present within the survey corridor. Through the survey, among the
geohazards identified are biogenic gas, weakened sediment layers channels and numerous
normal faults. A summary of the potential constraints during drilling are noted in the table
below:
Table 9: Summary of drilling constraints at proposed well locations.
Proposed Well
Potential
constraints
Description
XXX
Amplitude anomaly
- Intersecting Anomaly Group 1 at 66 ms TWTT (51 m BSL)
beneath location. High probability of being gas related.
Fault
Intersecting faults at 417 ms & 1163 ms TWTT (373 m & 1284 m
BSL). Potential loss of fluid circulation at the intersection.

Based on the results and discussion made, caution is advised if drilling through
proposed well location with vertical well since intersection with faults will cause fluid loss.
Another recommendation is to assume a weakened sediment layer while drilling through
anomaly Group 1 since biogenic gas while not pressurized, may have cause the pores in the
sedimentary layer to be filled with gas.
If the geohazard zones are defined based on the report cannot be avoided or not
possible to avoid, mitigating measures will be undergone to reduce the impact in the certain
level that can be accepted. Thus, the risk can be reduced to safer level. High risk can finally
avoided and project can be run smoothly. The project makes known of the geological features,
stratigraphy and anomalies in the area. It is comprehensive information for offshore
exploration and appraisal well. This project is very vital to ensure well planning and safe
drilling operations.
85

5.5.2 Relevancy to the objectives

Based on the report it can be said that the survey has fulfilled all of its three (3) prime
objectives. The first objective which is to understand the acquisition of seismic data from
offshore has been studied thoroughly in terms of their parameters. The acquisition is the most
important part of any project since the processing and interpretation of data cannot change the
quality of the data obtained. This being said, what controls the acquisition is actually the
parameters used before acquiring data. An example would be that if the near-offset is set
inaccurately, then the direct arrival and first return of the data would be mixed up and even the
best processing cannot solve this problem. Thus, the parameters such as group interval, shot
interval, sample rate and near offset have been carefully looked into.
The second objective of processing the data has also been successfully achieved.
Processing is not a magical sequence that can make the data of the highest quality by itself. In
the end, it depends on how good the acquisition geophysicist has done his job first. However,
in this particular case, the acquisition was done well and the processing from SEG-D to SEG-
Y had been carried out successfully. Although a very basic flow was used, but it has made a
author appreciative of the challenges faced in processing data to make it easier for
interpretation and ultimately the detection of geohazards.
Last but not least is the third objective which is to delineate possible constraints or
hazards in the intermediate geological section which are relevant to the proposed well location.
The 2D high resolution seismic has been interpreted with the help of senior interpretative
geophysicists. Geohazards that have been identified are pockets of biogenic gas and also
normal faults that intersect with the well location. Recommendations have been made in
regards to this matter and the client has full authority to decide on their next course of action.
Since all these objectives have been achieved, the project has been highly relevant and
in fact could save the lives of the people working offshore as well as spare millions of dollars
in cash by avoiding the hazards concluded from the project.

86

5.5.3 Suggested Future Work for Expansion and Continuation

For the continuation and expansion of this project, an extensive analogue survey is also
highly recommended. The 2D high resolution survey carried out is able to cover up to 2.5 s in
depth which is unlike an analogue survey that only covers the seabed and shallow areas.
However, the seismic survey also gives less resolution prowess since resolution decreases with
penetration. This is even more importance since the presence of biogenic gas can be further
confirmed with an analogue survey.
The analogue survey should include a side scan which will allow an interpretation of
the seabed features. This is to make-sure that no hazardous debris, pipelines, trawls is found
within a safe range of the proposed well location. Carbonate or rock outcrops that appear on
the seabed can also be hindered. Besides that, a Sub Bottom Profiler (SBP) allows us to
confirm the existence of biogenic gas in the shallow subsurface especially involving Anomaly
Group 1. The presence of shallow gas within the shallow areas can also be detected as they are
known to travel especially in an area of multiple faulting such as this one. SBPs are able to
give us better resolution of the shallow subsurface since it sacrifices penetration.
Another method which gives more certainty in the interpretation is carrying out well
logging which will give gamma ray readings. The data can then be correlated to see whether
it matches with the earlier interpretation. In the end, the analogue survey and also drilling a
borehole log would be the most effective method to confirm and further evaluate the findings.

87

5.6 Safety training and value of the practical Experience

5.6.1 Lesson Learnt and Experience gained

During 28 weeks of Industrial Internship, there were many lesson learnt gained in FGMSB.
These include leadership, teamwork, business understanding, safety exposure and others that
will be discuss below. Industrial internship is a great program that gives a lot of chances to
the students to understand and experience the real working life.

FGMSB has provided the author with vast experiences during industrial internship from
technical and non-technical activities These include the Geophysical Site Survey Project, and
pipeline surveillance which requires the author to learn from the basic of both project type
The projects especially site survey project requires high understanding of basics geophysics
and geology which all of these are used to interpret the geological hazards within the site
survey. In completing the project, author managed to use several software that are related to
the site survey project. Most of the software are Fugro in-house software which includes
Starfix Workbench (Sonar Map) for Bathymetry and Side Scan Sonar, Starfix Interp for Sub
Bottom Profiler and SMT Kingdom Suite which are third party software that used for 2D
High Resolution Multi-channel Seismic Data Interpretation. The author also had a chance to
do 3D seismic interpretation by using SMT Kingdom Suite software. All of this software
gives the author a lot of experienced in term of Interpretation and technical part. Throughout
this project, the author involves in all geophysical data interpretations and analysis, data
examples until the reporting part.

Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) in FGMSB is a crucial part that all of the staffs
regardless their level, have to learn . Dealing with international Oil and Gas Company, HSE
is the top requirement for every job involved. The main HSE objectives and targets are zero
fatality, zero lost time injury and zero environmental incidents. This company apply HSE in
all activities and places including offshore and also in the office. Anything that possible cost
harmful to people will be bring to the meeting and action will be taken immediately. Other
than that, the author learnt about Fugro Management System, Fugro HSE Policy, Hazards,
Risk Management and Nine (9) Fugro Golden Rules of HSE. Throughout this internship
training, the author experienced HSE practiced in work environment.

88

5.6.2 Leadership, Teamwork and Individual Activities

Industrial Internship training in FGMSB gives the author a big opportunity to develop soft
skills especially in leadership and team work skills.

During the completion of this site survey project, the author was attached with an experience
geophysicist. Teamwork is highly practiced as we need to discuss a lot of things in order to
make any decision. Making decisions is one of the crucial parts in data interpretation as we
have to give and explain the reasons of the decisions. However, Most of the decision making
are basically come from discussions among several geophysicist and senior geophysicist
which lead to team work among us. From the discussions, besides improving author's
discussion skill and confident, author gained valuable skills in this project especially in data
interpretation.

During the project involvement, the author learnt about proactivtity and communication
skills, which lead to the successful of the project undertaken. The author gained these
valuable skills individually because the company did not give 100% guidance on the project.
The author need to find the way individually and it gives a lot experienced about individual
skills.

Besides going through the office works, the author also experienced in handling outside
activity such as futsal match, which involved all the office staffs especially men. This activity
can strengthen relationship between staffs, besides the author can develop leadership and
communication skills.

For individual activities, the author needs to prepare data examples for every geophysical
data for the better understanding to the client. All the data examples need the individual skills
in collecting and presenting of the data itself.

89

5.6.3 Ethics and Management skills

Throughout the industrial internship training, the author learnt about management of
FGMSB. The author has attended the Quality Management System Induction Program that
was set for every new workers or trainees in this company. During this program, the author
has learnt about International Organization for Standard (ISO), Quality Management System,
Fugro Survey SEA Process Model, QMS Document Structure, Quality Policy and Objectives,
Control of Documents, Control of Records and Continual Improvement. All of these
knowledge are used during all the activities involved in the office. On top of everything,
quality of works is the most important things when working in this company as the
management will evaluate the staffs on their working performance. To achieve this high
quality of working, author learnt on how to produce a high quality of project especially in
interpretation and data examples. All works done must be adequated with Fugro quality
management system and documentation. This is required to reach ISO requirements.

Other than that, the author learnt about time management and work ethics in this company.
The jobs that the author involved is strictly need to achieve the time allocated by the client.
The author learnt about using time wisely to finish the project with good quality of data
interpretations. Other than that, the author learnt about work ethic and professionalism in
handling problem and manages the task given by the supervisor. This company has taught the
author about professionalism in communication skills, work task and reliable work
environment.

90

5.6.4 Problems or Challenges Faced and Solution Taken

In the period of completing the industrial internship training, there were some problems arose
from technical and non-technical perspectives. The first problem was to adapt with the new
working environment. It was hard to adapt because the author had to communicate and work
with elder and more experience staffs who have different point of view in giving opinions.
Time management, communication and work skills are also the problems faced by the author.
In seven (7) moths duration of Industrial Internship make the author understand and mature
enough to deal with the stated problems. To adapt with new environment culture of working,
the author take a few weeks to familiarize with industrial process, terms used and activities
involved. In order to solve the problems, the author always asked and discussed with the
staffs regarding the matter especially in geohazard survey process and system as the author
has no experience in this field.

Besides, time management also is another issue that the author needs to face and solve during
industrial internship basically in finishing the project interpretation and reporting itself. Most
of the time, the author need to finish the tasks given by geophysicists and learnt new software
used for the project interpretation. With the helps of some geophysicists, the author managed
to learnt and finished the task given by the geophysicist and supervisor on time.

One of the vital problems faced by the author is communication skills where the author have
to communicate with staffs from different background. However, with all great exposures
given to the author in handling various tasks or works, the author now can communicate with
full confidence to the management committees, geophysicists and senior geophysicists and
able to voice up opinions during discussions involved. Now, the author is able to
communicate to various individuals with different background and different nature of works
excellently.

91

6.0 REFERENCE

FUGRO (n.a) Side Scan Sonar Record Interpretation.

FUGRO (n.a) Seismic Reflection Data Interpretation.

FUGRO (n.a) FUGRO General Business Principles.

ICG (2010). Offshore Biohazards. Retrieved on 27 November 2013 from
http://www.ngi.no/en/Geohazards/Research/Offshore-Geohazards/.

Laura Brothers et al (2010). Development in the Gulf of Maine: Avoiding Geohazards and
Embracing opportunities. Retrieved on 27 November 2013 from

www.digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu Retrieved on the 20
th
of July 2014

Laurent Hellequim et al. (2003). Processing of High-Frequency Multibeam Echo Sounder Data
for Seafloor Characterization in IEE Journal of Ocaeanic Engineering, Vol. 28. 2003.

H. Paul Johnson (2001). The Geological Interpretation of Side-Scan Sonar. School of
Oceanography University of Washington, Seattle.

B.W. Flemming (1976). International Hydrographic Review: Side-scan Sonar : A Practical Guide.
National Research Institude of Oceanology Council for Scientific and Industrial Research,
Stellenbosch, South Africa.
92

7.0 APPENDICES

A) Digital Field QC Log
B) Digital Offset Diagram
C) Profiles of Seawater Velocity and Temperature against Depth
D) Tidal Conditions during Survey
E) Time Depth Conversion Curve
F) Scatter Plot

CONFIDENTIAL
Type : Odom ET MK II Tape Format : SEG-D 8036 24 bit Sample Rate
Draught : Media Type : 3490E Recording Length
Velocity : 1542 m/s System : SeaMUX 2000 System Group Interval
Tx Freq. : 38, 200 kHz Filter Delay :29 ms Shot Point Interval
Heave Comp. : DMS 3.05 Gun Delay :30 ms No. of Channels
LC Filter : 4.5 Hz, 6 db/octave Nominal Fold
Type: : Starfix SEIS 9.1 HC Filter : 412 Hz, 215 db/octave
Near Trace : Channel 4
Type : Starfix Aux. Channel : Ch1 (FTB), Ch3 (NF), Ch4 (FF)
SOL EOL SOL EOL FFN
ID-2D-L54 1 17:18 17:48 101 514 99
File
Positioning
Date Line Name Tape No
Time (Local) Fix
Navigation
Hull-Mounted Echo Sounder Recording Parameter Acquisition Parameter
Seismic Acquisition QC Log
Client : UTP Project : 2DHR Seismic Survey Campaign

Page 1
CONFIDENTIAL
Streamer Parameter
: 1.0 ms Streamer Type : SeaMUX 24 Channel Modul Gun Array : 4 x 40 cu. inch sleeve gun clusters
: 2.5 sec Active Streamer : 1200 m Gun Depth : 2.5 m +/- 0.5 m
: 12.5 m Group Length : 12.5m Gun Timing : Max +/- 0.5 ms
: 12.5 m Streamer Depth : 2.5 m +/- 0.5 m Gun Pressure : Not less than 2000 psi
: 96 Streamer Noise : Coherent Noise - ahead or behind - 10ub (monitored on electronic device)
: 48 Feather Angle : Max 7 deg
Near offset : 15.0 m Streamer Noise : First few Shots - 14 ub
No. of Birds / Spacing : 9 / 150 m Burst - 20 ub
Compasses at Bird no : 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 Random - 5 ub
HDG Total
LFN (deg)
Min Max Min Max SOL EOL Timing Error
516 135 2.2 2.9 7.5P 8.4P 8.170 5.130 0
END OF SURVEY
File
Nav shot /
File missed
Streamer Depth Feather Angle Noise (b)
Acquisition Parameter Energy Source Parameter
2DHR Seismic Survey Campaign Site : Certain Job No.:
Page 2
CONFIDENTIAL
: 4 x 40 cu. inch sleeve gun clusters Y = Yes N / B = Bad, Not To Be Process (NTBP)
M = Marginal AB = Line Aborted
: Not less than 2000 psi
(monitored on electronic device)
First few Shots - 14 ub
Misfires : No more than 5 consecutive
Total : 7% of total no. of shots per line
Total Total Total
Misfire Autofire Gun Bad %
0 0 0.00%
Line name in tape and soft copy header change to ID
--2D-L54. High noise Channel no. 70
Y
Acc. Geo Comments
Bad Traces
1) None at Start of days survey.
2) No more than 2 at SOL
3) If a trace bad in first km, it will be deemed to have been bad at SOL
Misfire / Bad Shot
Vessel: BANANA BOAT
Energy Source Parameter Acceptance
S.FINAL
Page 3
Offset Distances from Datum
Sensors X Y
Streamer Tow Point -2.830 -25.890
CDP Tow Point 1.185 -26.005
Gun Tow Point 5.200 -26.120
CDP Point 1.185 -93.620

Note :
1. Drawing is not to scale.
2. Measurements are in metres.
3. Bird no. 1, 3, 5, 7 & 9 are model 5011 compass bird,
Bird no. 2, 4, 6, & 8 are model 5010 Digibird
4. Group interval = 12.5m, Shot interval = 12.5 m
5. Cable Length= 1200 m
6. Gun to the center of first active channel = 15.0 m
7. Stern to 1st CDP 66.46 m
DIGITAL OFFSET DIAGRAM
27.16 m
4 x 40 Cu inch sleeve gun
COG
96 channels streamer
@ 12.5m
Centre of the first active channel
58.96 m
5.200 m

First CDP
Near offset: 15.0 m
25 m stretch
Tail buoy
75 m rope
Ch. 3
Ch. 15
Ch. 27
Ch. 39
Ch. 93
Lead in
66.46 m
Ch. 51
Ch. 63
Ch. 75
Ch. 87
2.830 m
73.96 m
1.04 m
5.74 m
1.185 m
1.27 m
27 28 29 30 31 32
1540.0 1540.2 1540.4 1540.6 1540.8 1541.0 1541.2 1541.4 1541.6 1541.8 1542.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
TEMPERATURE (C)
VELOCITY (m/sec)
W
A
T
E
R

D
E
P
T
H

(
m
)
V
E
L
O
C
I
T
Y

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
T
E
M
P
E
R
A
T
U
R
E

P
R
O
F
I
L
E
Client : Brunei Shell Petroleum Company Sdn/. Bhd.
Project : 2013 BSP 2D High Resolution Survey Campaign
Job No : S2928
Vessel : MV Amarco Tiger
Location : Iron Duke Blk 10 Area Date/Time (Zone) : 16/07/2013, 01:27
SOUND VELOCITY PROFILE
( SVP # 1 / Brunei )
Velocity Probe : Midas SVX2
Serial No : 27530
Temperature
Minimum : 28.36C
Maximum : 29.49C
Mean : 29.40C
Velocity
Minimum : 1540.88m/s
Maximum : 1541.69m/s
Mean : 1541.13m/s
Depth : 43.8m
APPENDIX C Graphical Representation of the Predicted Tides (Lumut) During the Period of Survey Operations
PREDICTED TIDES - LUMUT
CLIENT : BRUNEI SHELL PETROLEUM COMPANY SDN BHD
PROJECT : HIGH RESOLUTION 2D SEISMIC SURVEY FOR THE IRON DUKE BLK 10 AREA
VESSEL : M/V AMARCO TIGER/ 11 -12, 16 17, 31 AUG, 1 & 8 - 12 SEPT 2013 REPORT NO. : S2928/2013/04
IRON DUKE
TIME / DEPTH CONVERSION CURVE (metre)
Report No. S2928/2013/04
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
02
1
0
4
2
0
6
3
0
8
4
0
1
0
5
0
1
2
6
0
1
4
7
0
1
6
8
0
1
8
9
0
2
1
0
0
2
3
1
0
D
e
p
t
h

(
m

B
S
L
)

ms TWTT
Time - Depth Curve
IRON DUKE
SCATTER PLOT, MEAN Vrms and Vint
Report No.S2928/2013/04
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
m
s

T
W
T
T

Vrms(m/s)
AVERAGE Vrms PLOT
Vrms SCATTER PLOT
INTERVAL VELOCITY PLOT

Seismic Processing and Interpretation

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Seismic Processing and Interpretation

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Industrial Training Report

Student Industrial Project (SIP)

Você também pode gostar