'johnwgrant' pid='36122' datel Wrote:There have been a few comments regarding 2D vs 3D seismic. In my ignorance, how does 2D seismic become 3D seismic? Is 3D obtained in the same manner as 2D? The implication (from comments) is that 3D is 'better'. So, why does IOC not progress to 3D seismic?
(Just trying to get educated !)
John, 3D is better, in that is provides better detail, revealing the detailed contours of the surface of formations. 2D only gives information along a line across the surface of formations. The array of receivers which receives the sound bounced off the rock layers down below is in a line with 2D. The receivers are laid out in a grid with 3D. 3D requires a lot more computing power. But computing power isn't what is holding IOC back from going to 3D.
The reason IOC isn't using 3D in PNG is the formidable broken terrain and dense jungle with no roads. There was a very interesting link posted a couple or few years ago which shows teams of locals doing the 2D surveys, literally cutting their way through the jungle and building paths up and down the broken terrain to lay the linear arrays of receivers to get the data for the 2D lines. To gather 3D data would be prohibitively expensive.