VII INGEPET 2011 (EXPR-2-BP-29-E)

A PRACTICAL COMPARISON OF VARIOUS LAND SEISMIC SOURCE OPTIONS

Bill Pramik (Geokinetics)
Abstract
For many decades, explosives and Vibroseis seismic sources have dominated the land seismic
acquisition market. While these sources are extremely effective for acquiring high quality
seismic reflection data, they can be expensive, time consuming and dont always exhibit the
environmental and social sensitivity that is sometimes required of us. This is why there have
always been continuous attempts to develop new seismic sources that are more cost and time
effective, with a lighter environmental footprint, that maintain the same level of seismic fidelity
and depth of investigation. Many of these sources have come and gone over the years but only
a few persist, working in niche markets with specific applications. And new sources continue to
appear on the horizon. In this presentation, we will show the pros and cons of a number of
seismic source options and compare representative data samples from each.
Explosives generally require the drilling of relatively deep shot-holes and while the holes
themselves do not present much of a problem, the equipment to drill them can. Large vehicle
access can be tricky in some areas. There is also the concern about how close we can get to
buildings and other infrastructure without causing damage and the elevated HSE risk of
handling explosives. Vibroseis suffers from some of these same limitations because of the size
of the vehicles involved. Accelerated Weight Drop sources are smaller and more agile and
typically generate less destructive ground motions, but lack the penetration ability found in
Vibroseis and explosives. Other types of land sources are currently being deployed that may
bridge the gap between more conventional heavy sources and the lighter, niche sources.
A large number of comparison tests between Vibroseis and explosives exist, and a few between
other lighter sources. When comparing these different source types, consideration must be
given to more than just data quality. Cost, ease of access, environmental and social aspects
and acquisition efficiency must all be taken into account.
It must be recognized that there are a large variety of targets that need to be imaged when
acquiring seismic data. Certainly, there will be cases where the depth of penetration associated
with conventional heavy source is required, but there are just as many instances when a lighter,
more cost effective solution is appropriate. Having the knowledge and experience with which to
base the source selection process on can be invaluable for designing the optimum seismic
survey for any given objective.
Introduction
Buried explosives and Vibroseis as seismic sources have dominated the land seismic market for
many years, and for good reason. These sources are extremely effective for acquiring high
quality seismic reflection data, are well understood technically and logistically, and typically are
readily available. However, they can be expensive, time consuming and do not always provide
the environmental and social sensitivity that is sometimes required of us. For this reason, there
have been continuous attempts to develop new seismic sources that are more cost effective,
have a lighter environmental footprint and maintain the same level of seismic fidelity and depths
of investigation. In order to make the best choice of a seismic source for any given project, it is
important to consider all the implications of each source type and to have an understanding of
how to compare the relative merits of each.

VII INGEPET 2011 (EXPR-2-BP-29-E)

Conventional Wisdom
The dominant energy sources in the seismic industry have been explosives and Vibroseis for
decades. This raises the obvious question: Why? In large part, this is the case because these
sources are tried-and-tested, are very reliable, represent a known quantity and generally are
readily available. If this is the situation, the next obvious question would be, why should we
consider something else? The answer to this question, to some extent, is due to the fact that
these sources have been around a long time. Explosives were really the first reliable production
source used in seismic exploration and have been around since before caring for the
environment, or how our operations impacted local populations were a significant concern.
When Vibroseis was introduced in 1962 it was seen as a safer, friendlier seismic source but the
vehicles were still large, loud and created a significant impact on the environment. Today, both
explosives and Vibroseis are considered to be expensive, and to have large environmental and
social impacts. In addition, even though explosives and Vibroseis are currently considered to
be the best seismic sources, there are instances where alternate energy sources may provide
superior seismic data quality.
It is important to remember that, when it comes to seismic sources, there is no one source that
is appropriate for all applications. There are many factors that must be considered when
selecting the best source for any given job. These factors include economics, logistics and
environmental/social considerations. In addition, we must always remember to consider the
geophysical implications of our source decisions.
When evaluating the economics of a seismic source, it is important to consider the real cost of
operating that source. This necessarily includes costs not directly connected to the source:
Items like the time and cost of line clearing, the actual time needed to record the data and costs
associated with land use restrictions and timing. Agriculture can have a significant effect on the
cost of the source, especially if it means a delay in acquisition because of planting or harvesting
crops.
The logistics of seismic sources have even more considerations. What is required to get the
source to and from the project area? Once the source is at the project site, how easy will it be
able to move around? This can significantly affect the data quality if access is poor. In some
cases, the choice of a seismic source can impact the manpower requirements of a job, for
example, line clearing. The choice of a source can also impact how infrastructure must be dealt
with for items such as stand-off distances, damages and social impact.
Environmental sensitivity is becoming more a part of the way we operate. Some regions have
specific mandated environmental restrictions but working in a manner consistent with
awareness of the environment and a desire to protect it is always the best course of action.
With this in mind, the choice of a seismic source should also take into account its environmental
impact. Surface damages and disturbance to flora and fauna are some obvious factors, but we
should also consider damage to infrastructure and local water supplies. The social impact of
the source can be considered here as well since the local inhabitants are part of the
environment.
Finally, we must consider the geophysical implications of our choice of a seismic source. We
need to ensure that the source provides adequate penetration to reach the objectives and that
the bandwidth of the source will achieve the required resolution to meet the exploration
requirements. Another geophysical point to consider is the consistency of the source. Is the
source signature repeatable? Can the source gain access to the prospect area sufficient to
provide uniform and consistent coverage over the prospect without leaving large gaps?
Source Options
When putting together a list of source options, unconventional sources should be included in the
list with the more common sources so that all potential advantages can be considered. The

VII INGEPET 2011 (EXPR-2-BP-29-E)

conventional options consist of explosives and Vibroseis but the list of unconventional sources
is far too large to provide a complete list here. However, for the purposes of this writing, three
nominal categories of unconventional sources can be described. These would be weight drop
sources, accelerated weight drop sources and a generic category we will describe as other.
Most of these unconventional source types also fit into a classification that can be described as
surface impulsive sources, or sources that create an impulse (rather than a vibratory sweep) at
the surface of the earth (without drilling our burying the source). Classic weight drop sources
are essentially obsolete, having been replaced by more powerful accelerated weight drop
(AWD). These sources use some type of mechanism to help gravity accelerate a falling mass
to increase the amount of energy generated.
The generic other category mostly consists of sources that are either used in academia, small
scale engineering surveys or have become obsolete. These include sources like the Betsy gun,
the land air-gun and Dino-Seis. There is, however, one exception in this category. This is an
electro-magnetic driven impulsive source (EIS).

Vibroseis Truck

Explosives Drill Buggy

Accelerated
Weight Drop

Electromagnetic
Impulsive Source

Figure 1: Some Seismic Source Options

The Decision Process

When choosing which seismic source option is best for a particular project, the first question
that must be asked is What should I do? It is in this step where consideration must be given to
the geophysical implications of the source, the environmental and social implications, and the
cost/benefit of each source option. Obviously, if a particular source option cannot fulfill the
geophysical requirements (penetration, bandwidth, etc.), then it cannot be considered as a
viable option. Environmental and social sensitivity can sometimes be mitigated or negotiated so

VII INGEPET 2011 (EXPR-2-BP-29-E)

these may not always be as significant and the cost/benefit analysis will vary with market
conditions.
Once a decision is made at this point, the second question must be What can I do? The
answer to this question is sometimes not something we can control. Environmental and/or
social restrictions, which are significantly different than environmental and/or social
considerations, may eliminate one or more source options. The terrain of the project may make
it impossible for some source types to gain access to the area, eliminating those sources from
consideration. Finally, if a particular source option is simply not available, that source will also
drop from consideration.
When the questions of what should and can be done are answered, the final question is What
will I do? If you are fortunate and have more than one source option left after answering the
previous questions, the relative merits of the remaining sources must now be compared. When
making this comparison, the three principal desires of any project should be the primary
considerations: Better, Cheaper and Faster. Using more modern terminology, these can be
replaced with Quality, Cost and Time.
The quality of the seismic source relates to its ability to meet the exploration objective and must
be the first consideration. If the data gathered is not capable of providing the information
necessary for exploration, it really does not matter how cheap or fast the data was acquired; the
datas value to the explorationist is effectively zero.
The cost of the source option drives the goal of getting the data as cheap as possible, which
generally should be the secondary consideration. This is not just the direct cost of operating the
source but includes how the choice of a source impacts the remainder of the acquisition. The
choice of a source can have direct and indirect effects on these costs.
Time should generally be considered as the third goal when selecting a source, but there are
cases where time becomes more important than cost. As a general rule, time equals money,
meaning that more time in the field usually means a more expensive operation. There are,
however, exceptions to this and sometimes time can be traded for cost. In other words, under
certain conditions, if it is more important to have the results of an acquisition project sooner than
it is to save on cost, raising the cost of the project can deliver those results sooner.
Ultimately, the choice of which source to use will impact many aspects of any seismic project.
Regardless of the source, the priority order of the qualifying parameters must be 1) meet the
exploration objectives, 2) obtain the data in the most economic manner and 3) obtain the data
as quickly as possible.
Comparing Some Options
It is not always easy to make comparisons between the various seismic source options and
there is no simple equation that can be used to provide the answers. Parameters that are
common to all source types can vary dramatically as the environment and other factors change
between prospect areas, and often within prospect areas. However, it is useful to summarize
the various characteristics of some of the different source options as a starting point for future
decisions.
Source types that will be compared here include explosives, Vibroseis, Accelerated Weight
Drops (AWDs) and Electromagnetic Impulsive Sources (EISs).
Source Scalability
The scalability of the strength of a seismic source, and the options for how that source can be
scaled, can have an impact on the geophysical quality of the source and the economics of the
source. In general, there are three methods for scaling the strength of a source: Increasing the

VII INGEPET 2011 (EXPR-2-BP-29-E)

strength of an individual source, increasing the number of sources that are initiated
simultaneously, or increasing the number of individual shots that are summed together in
processing. Of course, various combinations of the three basic methods can also be used to
increase the strength of a seismic source. These effects can be seen in a series of equations
that are used to calculate the relative effect of scaling a source on the signal-to-noise ratio that
is recovered. These equations are,
1

Explosives

E n(mn ) 3 ( s) 2

Vibroseis

E nk (ts )

AWD

E k (s) 2

1
2

EIS

Where:

E nk (s)

1
2

E = relative signal-to-noise ratio

m = mass of each individual charge (explosives)
n = number of simultaneous sources fired
k = relative strength of each individual source
t = sweep length (Vibroseis)
s = number of stacked shots.

Notice that the n and k terms scale linearly in these equations, meaning that if these quantities
are doubled, the signal-to-noise ratio will double. All other terms scale by either the square root
or cube root of the value. The n term is probably the most useful and direct method for scaling
the strength of a seismic source. Because, in all cases, this term scales linearly, it has the
largest impact on the strength. A requirement for the inclusion of the n term is that individual
sources can be synchronized with each other. Explosives, Vibroseis and EISs meet this
requirement but AWDs do not. This is why this term is not included in the scaling equation for
the AWD.
Generally the k term or strength of a source is a value determined by the make and model of the
unit and can only be scaled downwards from some preset maximum. For example, a 60,000
pound vibrator has a maximum k value of 60,000 pounds and 100% drive level but can be
scaled down to 48,000 pounds if the drive level is set to 80%. For the AWD and EIS, this term
cannot accurately be scaled, even downwards. As such, the k term is not useful for actually
scaling the strength of a seismic source.
For explosives, the mass of the charges can be used to scale the strength of the source, but
because the strength of the source scales as the cube root of the mass, it takes a large change
in charge size to make a modest increase in the source strength.
Summing shots, and in the case of Vibroseis lengthening the sweep, improves the signal-tonoise ratio as the square root of the increase. While these are effective ways to raise the
relative strength of the source, it comes at the expense of operational efficiency since more time
is required at each shot point.
Penetration
The ability of a seismic source to produce enough energy to adequately image the desired
subsurface events is a critical parameter in the selection process. Many times, the depth of the
objective reservoir horizons is sufficient but often, the underlying structures are also required to
gain a complete understanding of the geologic setting. Most seismic sources can be used to
reach almost any desired target depth but the cost of the source, the time required for
acquisition and the geophysical effect of increasing the source effort must all be considered.

VII INGEPET 2011 (EXPR-2-BP-29-E)

Explosives and Vibroseis have proven their ability to image very deep targets and are easily
scaled to optimize the cost and efficiency of reaching them. In the case of explosives, simply
using a larger charge size is an easy way to increase the depth of penetration. Similarly, an
array of shot holes in a pattern can be more effective with respect to the total amount of
explosives required but at the cost of drilling more shot holes. Vibroseis arrays are common
and are an easy way to scale up the strength of a Vibroseis source but consideration must be
given to the affect this has on the source array size.
AWDs and EISs are relatively weaker sources but can be configured to reach deeper targets
but the trade-off is time and expense. When considering the EIS, the ability to synchronize
multiple sources, increasing the source strength linearly, can have a significant time advantage
over summing multiple shots but as in the case of multiple vibrators, care must be taken to
ensure that the source array does not become too large. The only option for increasing the
depth of penetration of an AWD is to stack shots until the desired penetration is achieved.
Bandwidth
In many ways, we are at the mercy of nature with respect to the frequency content we recover in
seismic acquisition. While low frequencies travel relatively easily through the earth, higher
frequencies are attenuated rapidly. Ideally, we would like the source to generate enough low
frequency energy for deep penetration and shallow resolution, and enough high frequency
energy to overcome the attenuation of the earth.
Explosives have limited ability to tune the frequencies they generate. In general, smaller charge
sizes provide more high frequency energy compared to larger charges, and deep shot holes
generate more low frequency energy than shallow holes. Beyond this, there are no real
methods for altering the output frequencies of explosives.
Vibroseis, by its nature, has the ability to adjust not only the range of frequencies generated, but
their relative amplitudes as well. This provides a unique opportunity to generate a source signal
specifically tailored to our exploration needs. However, there are limits to the high frequencies
that can be generated related to mechanical and operational limitations of vibrator design and
construction, and Vibroseis is historically ineffective at generating very low frequencies. Some
relatively recent advances in vibrator design has helped with the low frequency content of
Vibroseis data and, if these types of vibrators are available, they should be given consideration
in the process.
Coverage
The selected seismic source must provide a good quality signal to provide good data quality. In
addition, the ability of a source to provide uniform and consistent source coverage over the
project area can have an equally important effect on the quality of the final data. Gaps in the
source effort caused by the inability of a particular source to access certain portions of the
project, or restrictions on source placement due to buildings and other infrastructure can create
areas of poor data quality.
Large vehicles like vibrators and drill buggies can have limited access to areas because of
terrain or vegetation. Depending on conditions, additional line clearing may be required
resulting in increased time and cost of acquisition. Smaller vehicles of the types used for
AWDs and EISs can access many areas that other sources cannot reach, providing improved
spatial coverage of the source effort.
Another factor that can affect the acquired coverage is the required stand-off distance. This is
the minimum distance from buildings and other infrastructure that must be maintained to avoid
damages to those structures. The measurement used to determine the required stand-off
distance is PPV, or peak particle velocity. As a general statement, explosives generate the
largest PPV and, as a result, have the largest stand-off distances. Vibrators, AWDs and EISs

VII INGEPET 2011 (EXPR-2-BP-29-E)

generate smaller PPV and can typically get much closed to buildings and structures. This lower
PPV level can significantly improve the coverage uniformity obtained is a seismic project which
will improve the overall quality of the final product.
Cost
The cost of any chosen seismic source will vary considerably with terrain and environment and
this makes it impossible to provide a definite cost relationship between the various source
options. The cost of each source type must be considered on a case by case basis considering
all the direct and indirect costs associated with each source type. These would include things
such as cost of fuel and materials, line clearing requirements, potential damages, manpower
and the time required for preparation and acquisition. As a general statement, time in the field
is proportional to cost. In other words, if it takes longer, it will cost more. This is true for a
specific source type but cannot be directly applied between source types. For example, while in
one situation, explosives might provide faster acquisition than Vibroseis, the associated costs of
Vibroseis could be significantly lower than that of explosives, making Vibroseis less expensive
over the life of the project.
Data Examples
The data examples discussed here are not intended to promote one source type over another,
but are provided to demonstrate that different source types can be used to acquire comparable
data quality in a variety of conditions. All examples provided here are direct comparisons
between source types with effectively equal acquisition parameters and processing, even
though some comparisons were acquired at different times.
Data Example 1: Explosives vs. Vibroseis (mini-vibes)
This example is from the Canadian shallow gas province and provides a comparison between
shallow explosives with small charges and Vibroseis using mini-vibes. The basic acquisition
parameters are shown in Table 1. The processed data are shown in Figure 2 with the
explosives shown on the left and Vibroseis on the right. Comparing these two sections, it
appears that the explosives have provided better imaging of the deeper events around 400ms
while the Vibroseis has better frequency content and reflection continuity around 150ms. In this
case, the choice of which source is superior would depend on which of these zones was of
primary importance to the exploration objective.

Table 1: Parameters Explosives vs. Vibroseis (mini-vibes)

Source Type
Explosives
Vibroseis (mini-vibes)
Group Interval
12.5 m
12.5 m
Near Offset
6.25 m
6.25 m
Far Offset
993.75 m
993.75 m
Number of Groups
160
160
Source Interval
12.5 m
12.5 m
Fold
80
80
Source Parameters
Charge Size
0.5 kg
Charge Depth
4m
Number of Vibrators
1 x 17,000# @ 80%
Sweep Length
8 sec
Number of Sweeps
1
Sweep Frequency
10 120 Hz

VII INGEPET 2011 (EXPR-2-BP-29-E)

Explosives

Vibroseis

Figure 2: Canadian Data Example: Explosives vs. Vibroseis (mini-vibes)

Data Example 2: Shallow Explosives vs. EIS
This data example is from Colombia in an area with severe environmental restrictions. These
restrictions include limiting access to the area by hand-cut trails not more than 2 meters wide.
The comparison is between shallow explosive charges and EIS, and the basic acquisition
parameters are provided in Table 2. The processed data are shown in Figure 3 with the
explosives on top and EIS on the bottom. The exploration objective is just above the strong
reflector at 900ms. Comparing the sections, it is evident that both source options provide high
quality seismic data. The explosives appear to have less surface related noise than the EIS,
but the EIS appears to have a broader amplitude spectrum. Figure 4 shows comparative
amplitude spectra for the two processed sections. From the spectra, it is evident that the EIS
provided superior high frequency content, but also provided better low frequencies.

VII INGEPET 2011 (EXPR-2-BP-29-E)

Table 2: Parameters Explosives vs. Vibroseis (mini-vibes)

Source Type
Shallow Explosives
EIS
Group Interval
12.5 m
12.5 m
Near Offset
6.25 m
6.25 m
Far Offset
743.75 m
743.75 m
Number of Groups
120
120
Source Interval
12.5 m
12.5 m
Fold
60
60
Source Parameters
Charge Size
0.5 kg
Charge Depth
3m
Number of EIS
4 (2 x dual)
Number of Stacked Shots
8

Explosives

EIS
Figure 3: Colombian Data Example: Shallow Explosives vs. EIS

VII INGEPET 2011 (EXPR-2-BP-29-E)

Explosives
Explosives

10

EIS
onSEIS

Figure 4: Colombian Data Example: Shallow Explosive vs. EIS Amplitude Spectra
Data Example 3: Vibroseis vs. EIS
This data example is from Pennsylvania in north eastern America and is in the Marcellus shale
trend. It provides a comparison between Vibroseis and EIS in an area with reasonably good
access. The basic acquisition parameters are shown in Table 3. The processed data are
shown in Figure 5 with Vibroseis on the left and EIS on the right. The Marcellus shale package
is the series of reflections around 1.25 seconds. Because these are old, fast rocks, this
represents a penetration depth of approximately 2400 to 3000 meters. At the Marcellus interval,
both source types provide good images of the shale packages.

Source Type
Group Interval
Near Offset
Far Offset
Number of Groups
Source Interval
Fold
Source Parameters
Number of Vibrators
Sweep Length
Number of Sweeps
Sweep Frequency
Number of EIS
Number of Stacked Shots

Table 3: Parameters: Vibroseis vs. EIS

Vibroseis
25 m
12.5 m
5987.5 m
480
50 m
120

EIS
25 m
12.5 m
5987.5 m
480
50 m
120

4 x 43,000# @ 80%
8 sec
8
8 96 Hz
6 (3 x dual)
16

VII INGEPET 2011 (EXPR-2-BP-29-E)

Vibroseis

11

EIS

Figure 5: Marcellus Data Example: Vibroseis vs. EIS

Technical and Economic Contributions
By having a better understanding of the technical, logistical, economic and environmental
considerations of the various land seismic source options, better decisions can be made as to
which source is most appropriate for a given acquisition situation. Taking these considerations
into account in the source selection process will provide the best data quality at the most
efficient cost with the least impact on the environment. While the best option may not always be
the least expensive, it is important to recognize that the principal consideration of any seismic
program must be the collection of data with sufficient quality to meet the exploration objectives.
If other factors are placed ahead of this, the resulting data may not provide adequate
information for the discovery and development of petroleum reserves, rendering the data
effectively valueless. When this occurs, the money spent on the acquisition has been wasted,
the time lost can never be recovered, and the impact on the environment has produced no
beneficial results.
Conclusions
There is no one seismic source option that is appropriate for all situations. It is also rarely the
case that a situation only has one solution to the source decision. The decision ultimately
becomes a balance between what should be done and what can be done, which will determine
what will be done. Consideration of all the relevant factors associated with seismic sources,

VII INGEPET 2011 (EXPR-2-BP-29-E)

12

including quality, time, cost and environmental and social impact, will provide the best
opportunity to optimize the value of any seismic project.
Above all, it is critical to never compromise the ability to achieve the exploration objectives. If
the acquired seismic data cannot provide the information required to discover and develop the
desired reserves, the money, time and effort spent for that acquisition has been wasted.
Bibliography
Yilmaz, Ozdogan. Seismic Data Analysis. 2nd ed. Tulsa, OK: Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, 2001. Print. Investigations in Geophysics; No. 10.
Sheriff, Robert E. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Exploration Geophysics. Tulsa, OK: Society of
Exploration Geophysicists, 1991. Print.
Coffeen, J. A. Seismic Exploration Fundamentals: the Use of Seismic Techniques in Finding Oil.
Tulsa, OK: PPC, 1978. Print.