Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Recent Advances in Nodal Land Seismic Acquisition Systems
Recent Advances in Nodal Land Seismic Acquisition Systems
To cite this article: Tim Dean & Denis Sweeney (2019) Recent advances in nodal
land seismic acquisition systems, ASEG Extended Abstracts, 2019:1, 1-4, DOI:
10.1080/22020586.2019.12073232
INTRODUCTION
Early on in the history of seismic acquisition the advantages
of being able to acquire data without the impediment of
cables was identified (Burg 1941). Often cabled systems
suffer down time due to cable problems (e.g. connectors
becoming unplugged, line boxes losing power, cables being
cut) so the removal of the cables promised to improve the
reliability of the system. Unfortunately, cables are also the
method by which data is transferred from the sensors to the
recording system so early systems required a wireless method
to transfer data. Early wireless or nodal systems therefore
relied on radios to transfer data. Initially, data was Figure 1. Diagram showing the use of a node to acquire
transferred sequentially from each recording unit after data as part of a transition zone survey. Reproduced
acquisition of a record, but later systems could transfer data from Olofin and Will (1989).
from multiple units in real-time. Due to their bulk, limited
battery life, and limited channel count, the use of such
systems was typically limited to transition zone surveys
where conventional, cabled, land systems were unsuitable
and the water was too shallow for a marine streamer survey.
The nodes were typically mounted on floats attached to
anchors with the sensors themselves placed in the water
(Figure 1).
The first system extensively used for land acquisition was the
Seismic Group Recorder or SGR introduced in the early
1980s (Shave 1982). The SGR differed from other systems
in that the data was recorded internally on tape.
Development of radio systems continued through the 1990s,
such systems either sent the full dataset in real-time or sent
limited QC data with the full data being downloaded
manually later.
Figure 2. Photo of the Geospace GSR (courtesy of
Geospace).
The next major innovation occurred with the introduction of
the Ultra G5, which was the first to utilise continuous data
Figure 3. Photograph of the original ZLand node (left) Figure 6. Photo of the different SmartSolo battery and
and the latest version (right). sensor configurations (from left), single component with
standard battery, 3-component with extended battery, 3-
MODERN SYSTEMS component with standard battery, single component with
Since 2014 ten new nodal acquisition systems have been extended battery.
introduced. In this section I will briefly describe each system
and its peculiarities. We begin by looking at the five new The INOVA Quantum node (Figure 4) is the lightest
commercially available node at 650 g and also has the longest
integrated systems. The first of these is an upgraded ZLand
which has an increased battery life (12 to 40 days), lighter battery life (100 days). It has a unique method of switching
on, with the unit recording data whenever it is placed
weight (2.2 to 1.8 kg), and smaller case (Figure 3 right).
vertically. Similar to SmartSolo, the GeoSpace GCL node
The SmartSolo system differs from the others in that it splits (Figure 4) also dispenses with external connector pins but in
into two sections as part of regular operations (Figure 5). this case, it is charged and downloaded via inductive
The lower section contains the battery and the spike which coupling.
also serves as a screw to secure the two sections together,
while the upper section contains the digitiser and geophone. The final integrated node is the GTI NuSeis (Figure 4). This
This has the advantage, similar to external battery systems, in node clearly has a different form factor to the others and has
been specifically designed to ensure that the node is well
that the battery can be changed allowing the digitiser to be
used more efficiently, but obviously requires the unit to be coupled to the ground (the node is inserted into the ground up
disassembled (although this gives an added advantage in that to the metal collar, although it can also be fully buried). To
there are no exposed download/recharge contacts). An enable the node to be planted special tools are used to create
additional advantage is that the battery section can be an appropriately sized hole in the ground into which the node
replaced with a higher capacity (although larger) battery is placed.
and/or the sensor section with a 3-component unit (Figure 6).
THE FUTURE
One of the stated advantages of nodal systems has always Figure 10. Nimble node (left), charging/download rack
been a reduction in weight, but as the weight of nodes has (right). Adapted from Manning et al. (2018).
come down so has the weight of cabled systems. Figure 9 is
an adaption of a graph given in Lansley, Laurin, and Ronen Another acquisition system currently under development is
(2008) that shows the current weight of a modern cabled METIS (Multiphysics Exploration Technologies Integrated
system (Sercel 508XT) compared with that of modern nodes System). METIS is specifically designed for overcoming the
depending on the station interval. The station spacing at logistical issues of acquiring surveys in the jungle of Papua
which nodes are lighter has decreased, previously it was more New Guinea and is an acquisition philosophy that covers
than 50 m, but it is still between 8 and 30 m, i.e. at small geometry, sources, and receivers. On the receiver side the
station intervals cabled systems are lighter.
system employs nodes that are dropped into position by advantages (Dean and Sweeney 2019b, a). The acquisition
drones (Figure 11). The darts are based on the Wireless geometries that these nodes might enable is also an area of
Seismic RT system 2 that transmits data in real-time to future study.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The question of which nodal system to use depends to a large Manning, T., C. Brooks, A. Ourabah, A. Crosby, M. Popham,
extent on the survey location and requirements. If weight is D. Ablyazina, V. Zhuzhel, E. Holst, and N. Goujon. 2018,
the biggest concern (e.g. for heliportable crews) then clearly The case for a nimble node, towards a new land seismic
one of the lighter nodes is advantageous. If different sensors receiver system with unlimited channels. Paper read at SEG
need to be deployed then a node that supports multiple types Technical Program Expanded Abstracts.
of external sensors (Figure 7), or that can be adapted to
employ external sensors (NuSeis, RT3) would be required. Olofin, D. K., and R. A. Will. 1989, Acquisition and
Processing of Shallow Water 3-D Seismic Surveys Over
Overall, we see a trend towards using larger numbers of Producing Fields in the Northwest Niger Delta. Paper read at
lighter nodes. Coupled with these advances in hardware Offshore Technology Conference, at houston.
technology will come changes in the way that nodes are
handled in the field, with a greater emphasis on automation. Shave, D. G. 1982, Seismic group recorder system. Paper
Data comparisons that we have acquired to date suggest that read at SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts
the use of nodes has data quality as well as logistical