Coil Survey Disinger

2009 EAGE www.firstbreak.org 73

special topicfirst break volume 27, December 2009

Marine Seismic

N The area inside the white-dashed line has a minimum of 1800 of azimuthal coverage.

The boundaries between the areas of azimuth / offset cover-age for a coil design are a function of the circle radius. In Figure 2b the circle radius is indicated by r. If the centres of the first and last columns and rows of circles, are centred

C onventional narrow-azimuth (NAZ) marine 3D seismic surveys became the most widely used technology of the industry in the early 1980s, and after nearly three dec-ades, the design is still widely applicable. Multi- (MAZ)

and wide-azimuth (WAZ) marine 3D surveys were introduced in the last decade and the design is becoming more widely accepted. In the last two years coil surveys have emerged.

WAZ seismic acquisition is a fundamental exploration tool in the Gulf of Mexico. The technique delivers higher fidelity seismic images than can be achieved with the NAZ acquisition techniques. However, WAZ techniques utilized in the Gulf of Mexico rely on multiple source and recording vessels, a luxury not necessarily available in all parts of the world. Moldoveanu (2008) introduced the concept of Coil Shooting single vessel full-azimuth acquisition as a method of acquiring 3D seismic data where the sail line comprises a continuous set of circles. The idea of sailing in circles is not new; it was first introduced by Tensor Geophysical in 1984 and various field trials followed, for example Cole & French (1984) and Durrani (1987).

Generic coil design and processing implicationsA single circular sail line is shown in Figure 1a, data are acquired in columns or rows of circles (Figure 1b), until the entire survey has been covered (figure 1c).

Unless otherwise stated the acquisition configuration in this article will be: a) 8 x 6000 m cables, 12.5 m group interval, and 100 m spacing; b) dual flip/flop source with a 25 m shot-point spacing, and c) binning onto a 12.5 m x 12.5 m grid.

The survey design in Figure 1c with this configuration pro-duces Figures 27. Figure 2a is the fold-of-coverage where:N The area inside the red-dashed line has 3600 of azimuthal

coverage; the maximum-fold varies from 350 to 430.

Coil survey design and a comparison with alternative azimuth-rich geometries

David Hill*, WesternGeco, explains coil survey design, touches on some data processing con-siderations, and then compares various coil designs with NAZ and WAZ.

* E-mail: [email protected]

Figure 1 1a (left) a single circle, 1b (middle) a row of 13 circles, 1c (right) a full survey of 188 circles.

Figure 2a The fold-of-coverage for Figure 1c.

Figure 2b The azimuth distribution for a coil survey.

www.firstbreak.org 2009 EAGE74

special topic first break volume 27, December 2009

Marine Seismic

Figure 5 shows the fold-of-coverage for the nearest offsets, which range from 250 m for the inner cable to 400 m for the outer cable. As is evident from Figure 5, near offset cover-age exists everywhere within the OcCl, apart from the four corners.

Figure 6 shows the fold-of-coverage for one offset group; there is continuous coverage everywhere within the OcCl, apart from the four corners. Figure 7 is the fold-of-coverage for the same offset group but split into 4 x 450 azimuth bins, plus their respective reciprocal azimuths. Within the area bounded by the OcCl (black box) there are five sets of coloured spots. Each coloured spot falls into a coverage hole in only one of the four azimuth groups, apart from the fuchsia spot which falls into two.

Figures 2 to 7 show that the fold-of-coverage for a coil design is not uniform as it is for a NAZ or WAZ survey. It exhibits a well-behaved repeating pattern controlled by the circle centre layout and dimensions, and the radius of the circular sail line. Each offset group exhibits similar fold

along the outer coil centre line (OcCl), then apart from the four corners:N The area bounded by the OcCl (red line in Figure 2b) has

at least of 1800 of azimuth coverage (the white-dashed line in Figure 2a).

N The area bounded by r/2 inside the OcCl has at least 2400.

N The area bounded by r inside the OcCl has 3600 (the red-dashed line in figure 2a).

Figure 3a shows a full survey rose plot. Offset is represented along the radius, with near offsets in the centre and far offset at the outer edge. Azimuth is represented clockwise around the cir-cumference with zero degrees at the top. The colour represents the relative percentage of traces within each azimuth/offset bin. When the total survey is analyzed, it delivers 3600 of coverage for all offsets. But individual bins within the area of 3600 cover-age (Figure 3b), do not have full-azimuth/offset coverage.

An alternative method of displaying the azimuth/offset coverage for individual bins is to divide the data into N azimuth bins and M offset bins, and calculate the percentage of those azimuth/offset bins which have at least one fold. In Figures 4 (and all other such plots) data are binned into 8 x 450 azimuth bins and 60 x 100 m offset bins. Figure 4 shows that the area of 3600 coverage has from 4862% of the azimuth/offset bins occupied.

Figure 3 Rose plots. a (left) Total survey, 3b (right) Single bins.

Figure 6 Fold-of-coverage for a 200 m offset group at an offset of 3150 m.

Figure 4 Percentage of azimuth offset bins occupied (percent-occupancy), with the OcCl overlain as the white-dashed line.

Figure 5 Near offset coverage.



Marine Seismic

stretched over the subsurface. Therefore, processing coil data using the concept of the 2D CMP is undesirable.

Fortuitously there are positive benefits in processing coil data. Free-surface multiples generated between the sea surface and seafloor are particularly difficult to attenuate as they often have a complex 3D raypath. With the advent of true-azimuth 3D surface-related multiple elimination algorithms (3D SRME), modelling these complex multiples and then adaptively subtracting them has proven to be very effective.

characteristics and azimuth gaps as illustrated in Figures 6 and 7. For any coil design the repeating fold pattern is predictable and tractable. Consequently, conditioning the fold during data processing to achieve a regular distribution as a function of azimuth group, offset group, x-coordinate, and y-coordinate is readily achieved with 4D regularization (Moore & Ferber 2008).

There is no reason why data acquired in circles cannot be processed effectively with a data processing system built around a linear marine acquisition assumption. But it does require a degree of forethought and understanding that can be illustrated as follows:

As the cable is curved, and if a linear configuration is assumed, the apparent group interval decreases with increasing shot-to-receiver offset, therefore the apparent velocity of noise travelling at 1500 m/s increases to 1700 m/s at the farthest offset. If an F/K transform of a shot gather from such a curved cable is performed with the intention of attenuating linear noise, then it is necessary to recognize that the noise will now be described by a curve in the F/K domain.

If a shot and receiver are positioned at a in Figure 8, a trace with zero offset is recorded. As the shot-to-receiver offset increases, the shots move anti-clockwise from a to S, and the receivers clockwise from a to R. The corresponding midpoints fall along the black line a-b where a-b is 730 m; this is the distance a 2D common mid-point (CMP) will be

Figure 8 For a curved 6000 m cable, with a circle radius of 6000 m, the cable fol-lows the blue curve S-a-R. The midpoints from S to all receivers follow the red curve S-b. The travel path from shot S to receiver R follows the black-dashed line S-b-R, the distance S-b-R is 5750 m. Consequently, if the maximum shot-to-receiver offset required is 6000 m, a cable length of 6300 m is necessary.

Figure 7 Fold-of-coverage. Top left: for 0450; top right: 45900; bottom left: 901350; bottom right: 1351800.



Marine Seismic

It is evident from Figure 11 that the maximum fold and percent-occupancy are sensitive to the circle radius. As more circle radii overlap the resulting fold-of-coverage and percent-occupancy, more resemble Moir-like interference patterns.

Given the choice of these four coil survey radii, how should we select one from the other? Is there a metric that would allow us to quantify which is most likely to produce the highest fidelity image? If we assume Howards conclusion to be true, then the coil design with the highest fold, highest percent-occupancy, and smallest variation in both should deliver the best image. The coil design quality factor (CDQF) Equation 1 is a metric where the numerator is composed of the maximum fold and the maximum percent-occupancy, the denominator is the variation in these parameters. A

To build a 3D SRME multiple contribution gather (MCG), an aperture is selected based upon expected 3D multiple effects for a target trace with endpoints at a shot S, and receiver R (Figure 9). Each grid node in the aperture is considered to be a potential downward reflection point (drp), five are shown. The contribution of each drp to the MCG is computed by convolving the corresponding traces S-drp and drp-R. Therefore, in the ideal MCG a shot and receiver should exist for all grid nodes.

Figure 10 illustrates the shot distribution for two circle centre layouts: 10a has a shot-density of 1123 shots/km2, and 10b 869 shots/km2. Given the density and spatial distribution of shots within a coil design, a shot and receiver pair is more likely to exist at each drp for a coil design than any alternative WAZ design. Consequently, the data distribution of a coil design makes it ideal for true-azimuth 3D SRME algorithms.

Maximizing the use of all available azimuthal infor-mation is key to constructing a high fidelity velocity model to describe the complex acoustic properties of the subsurface. A coil design samples 3600 of azimuths, which after 4D regularization is well sampled as a function of offset. The regularized coil data can be split into azimuthal common image point (CIP) gathers, each with its own unique moveout signature, characterizing the overburden each CIP has sam-pled. This information is used by an azimuthal tomography to generate the high fidelity velocity models necessary to maximize the imaging qualities of the very latest high end imaging algorithms.

The benefits of increased azimuthal coverage in generating higher fidelity images that more accurately define the struc-tural elements critical to exploration and reservoir descrip-tion have been well documented. Howard (2007) states that significant improvements in the quality of the fully migrated image can be made by a substantial increase in the azimuthal coverage and a substantial increase in non-redundant trace density within that increased azimuthal coverage.

Coil design quality metric and acquisition effortThe acquisition effort of a coil design is governed by:1. The number of circles, which is a function of: a. The survey dimensions. b. The circle-center layout pattern - triangular, square, or

rhombic. c. The pattern dimensions.2. The circle radius.

Figure 11 shows the fold-of-coverage and percent-occupancy for four circle radii. The circle centre layout is identical to that for Figures 27. Figures 11 and 13 have been generated by capturing only the data which contributes to the fold-of-coverage within a 3600 m radius of the centre of each plot; the data inside the black-dashed circle. Figure 11b is equivalent to Figures 2a and 4.

Figure 9 Plan view of how a 3D SRME multiple-contribution-gather (MCG) is constructed.

Figure 10 Shot locations for coil centre layouts: a (top) rhombic, and b (bot-tom) square.



Marine Seismic

The fold and percent-occupancy patterns in Figure 13 are the same for all three rows: the differences are the size of the pattern and the maximum fold. The fold-of-coverage pattern is a fixed function of the acquisition spread, the circle centre layout, the pattern size, and the circle radius. Achieving equivalent fold and percent-occupancy patterns for any cable spread is achieved by scaling all coil design parameters by an appropriate constant.

Examining Table 2, column 15, it is evident that for a fixed circle centre layout the CDQF is not that sensitive to spread width. However, the Ca days to acquire 400 km2 of 3600 coverage in column 16 appear to increase then decrease. For a fixed circle centre layout, as the spread width increases, all other parameters are scaled, so the pattern size increases, and the number of circles required for a fixed survey area decreases. But as the circle radius increases, so does the circumference of the circle to be sailed. Hence the two parameters work in opposite direc-

CDQF value of 10 indicates a uniform maximum fold and 100% occupancy.

Where: NMaxFold = Maximum fold / Reference fold FMaxOcc = Maximum percent-occupancy / 100 VarNMaxFold = the variation in NMaxFold VarFMaxOcc = the variation in FMaxOcc k = a constant =

Table 1 contains parameters from the plots in Figure 11 necessary to calculate the CDQF. As the fold varies between coil designs, it is normalized relative to a reference fold of 670. Continuous acquisition days (Ca-days) are computed from the total kilometres sailed at 4.75 knots, excluding all forms of downtime.

Table 1, rows 1 to 4 are data from plots in Figure 11. Row 2 has the highest CDQF. Intuitively this should be the case. The plots in 11b have the most uniform fold and uni-form percent-occupancy, unlike 11c; here the plots exhibit a repeating pattern of peaks, and 11a where the plots exhibit a repeating pattern of holes. The plots for 11d are less variable than 11a or 11c and this is reflected in the CDQF in row 4.

Row 5 is data from plots in figures 2a and 4. The radii in rows 5 and 3 are equal, but row 5 has a rhombic circle centre layout compared to triangular in rows 14. The CDQF in row 5 exceeds that in row 3, suggesting that for a fixed radius, improvements in fold and percent-occupancy can be made by considering alternative circle centre layouts.

Table 1 column 16 and 17 demonstrate that for a fixed circle centre layout, as the radius increases the acquisition effort necessary to acquire a fixed area increases accordingly. Conversely, the smaller the radius the more efficiently a fixed area of 3600 of coverage can be acquired. Comparing rows 4 and 5, the design in row 5 has a slightly higher CDQF than row 4 but requires only 69% of the acquisition effort. Hence, increased acquisition does not in guarantee an increase in the quality of a coil survey.

If the effect of changing the cable spread is examined, Figure 13 shows fold and percent-occupancy plots for six, eight, and 12 cable spreads. The eight cable spread is the one used for all comparisons so far, and plots 13b are equivalent to plots 11b.

Figure 11 Left column: fold-of-coverage, right: percent-occupancy. a (red row) has a 5200m radius, b (yellow) 5600 m, c (green) 6000 m, and d (blue) 6400 m.

Table 1 Column 4: the average shot density inside the OcCl. Columns 514: fold-of-coverage and percent-occupancy for the 3600 areas in Figure 11, 2a and 4. Column 15: CDQF, column 16: Ca-days to acquire 400 km2 of 3600 coverage, and column 17 the corresponding area of 1800 azimuthal coverage inside the OcCl.



Marine Seismic

tions, explaining why the acquisition effort increases then decreases.

Efficient coil designOne technique for acquiring azimuth-rich seismic data from a single vessel is a coil design; an alternative is a three-azimuth multi-azimuth (3-Az MAZ).

The design objective for the efficient coil design is that the acquisition effort equals that of a 3-Az MAZ. While a 3-Az MAZ survey delivers three distinct azimuths, a coil design delivers a minimum of 1800 of coverage, or: a. The 1800 area from the coil-design equals the three-

azimuth full-fold area for the 3-Az MAZ. That is, the area bounded by the OcCl in Figure 2b is the same as the area bounded by the three-azimuth full-fold boundary in Figure 14.

b. The total sail kilometres for the coil design should rough-ly equal the total sail kilometres including line turns for a 3-Az MAZ.

Figure 12 Colour/scales bars for Figure 11. Left: fold-of-coverage, right: percent-occupancy.

Figure 13 Left column: fold-of-coverage, right: percent-occupancy, 13a (top) a six cable spread, 13b (middle) eight cable, and 13c (bottom) 12 cable.

Table 2 Columns are as for Table 1, rows 13 are data from Figure 13a, b, and c.

Figure 15 The efficient coil design, 15a (left) shot locations, and 15b (right) fold-of-coverage. The maximum fold varies from 270 to 380.

Figure 14 Coverage areas for a 3-Az MAZ.



Marine Seismic

Figure 16 illustrates design objective b. A constant 11 km distance is used for each line-turn of the 3-Az MAZ. The red line is the km2 area of full-fold three-azimuth data; the blue line is the km2 area of coil 1800 coverage. As the survey size increases, these lines diverge in favour of the 3-Az MAZ, as the line-turn sail-kilometres become a progressively smaller percentage of the total sail-kilometres. But even so, for a large range of survey sizes the survey effort for a coil design and 3-Az MAZ do not diverge significantly.

StatoilHydro conducted an extensive modelling exercise simulating the acquisition of many azimuth-rich acquisi-tion configurations including the coil design in Figure 15 (Houbiers et al. 2008), which in turn led to a field test of the design (Houbiers and Thompson, 2009). The data examples and results of that field test shown by Houbiers and Thompson demonstrate that the design delivers the benefits expected from this azimuth-rich acquisition con-figuration.

Figure 16 Full-fold coverage area, against Ca-days for the efficient coil design and a 3-Az MAZ. The red line is the 3-Az MAZ coverage, the blue line the coil-design 1800 area, the purple line 2400, and the green 3600. 16a (top) a survey aspect ratio of 1:1 acquired with an eight cable spread, 16b (bottom) a survey aspect ratio of 2:1 acquired with a 12 cable spread.

Figure 17 Two recording vessels, four shooting vessels one surface spread apart, the two outer vessels both record and shoot. Data are acquired in both directions with sail-lines one sub-surface spread offset between directions.

Figure 18 a (top)Fold of coverage, and b (bottom) percent-occupancy. The maximum fold is 240; the percent-occupancy varies from 3442%.

Figure 19 Rose-plots. a (top) total survey, b (bottom) single-bins.



Marine Seismic

Table 3 Columns are as for Tables 1 and 2; rows 1 and 2 are for Figures 17 to 22, and rows 3 to 5 for Figures 23 to 26.

Figure 21 a (top) Fold of coverage, and b (bottom) percent-occupancy. The maximum fold is 360; the percent-occupancy varies from 4244%. Figure 22 Rose plots. a (top) Total survey, b (bottom) single bins.

Comparison with other WAZ configurationsFigures 17 to 22 illustrate two common WAZ configurations. The eight cable configuration will be used but the shot-point interval is 25 m x 4 (100 m per source). The shot-line interval is one surface spread for both.

Figures 1719 show a 4-vessel WAZ and Figure 2022: a six tile three vessel WAZ

Comparing the fold and percent-occupancy plots with similar plots from a coil design, the WAZ configurations benefit by having a constant maximum fold, albeit lower but narrower range of percent-occupancy. The disadvantage is that a narrower range of azimuths are sampled than a coil design. An additional disadvantage of the four vessesl WAZ is that the cross-line bin size is twice that of all other configurations.

Table 3, rows 1 and 2 contain the fold, percent-occupancy, and CDQFs for Figures 17 to 22. The CDQF for the 4 vessel WAZ in row 1 is lower than other coil designs considered, but it is an efficient way of acquiring data (see column 15). However, it requires four vessels. Assuming the cost of a shooting vessel is half that of a recording vessel then we can compute the vessel cost in column 16, as three vessel units multiplied by the Ca-days. Even after scaling for the number of vessels the four vessel WAZ configuration is still efficient provided the data acquired delivers a fit-for-purpose product for the end user. Row 2 corresponds to the six tile

Figure 20 One recording vessel, two shooting vessels each with two sources. The shooting vessels are offset to one side of the spread, with one in front and one behind. Each shot line is acquired six times, three times with the recording vessel moving one surface spread width over on one side for each pass. Then moving one surface spread over on the other side each time for three more passes.



Marine Seismic

Figures 23 to 26 are the fold and percent-occupancy plots for three more coil designs. All have a full survey rose diagram as in Figure 3a, but single bin rose plots will differ from those in Figure 3b. Figure 25 shows two from a high- and a low-occupancy area of 3600 coverage in Figure 24, both are well populated.

Table 3, rows 3 to 5 contain the data for figures 23 to 26. Table 3, all show respectable CDQFs. The vessel cost equals the Ca-days, as only a single vessel is required. Comparing rows 4 and 2, it is evident that a coil design can have a comparable vessel cost as a six tile, three vessel WAZ, with a slightly lower CDQF. However, the coil design in Figure 26, row 5, has the highest CDQF of all the WAZ and coil designs considered, and also one of the lowest coil design Ca-days needed to acquire 400 km2 of full fold 3600 coverage.

Conclusion The fold and percent-occupancy characteristics for a coil design are a complex, non-intuitive function of circle centre layout, pattern size, and circle radius. The attributes and

three vessel WAZ; it has a high CDQF and this is reflected in the increased Ca-days and increased vessel cost in columns 15 and 16.

Figure 23 a (top) Fold of coverage, and b (bottom) percent-occupancy. The maximum fold and percent-occupancy varies from 400585 and 7085%.

Figure 24 a (top) Fold of coverage, and b (bottom) percent-occupancy. The maximum fold and percent-occupancy varies from 500 670 and 7090%.

Figure 25 Single bin rose plots from figure 24.

Figure 26 a (top) Fold of coverage, and b (bottom) percent-occupancy. The maximum fold and percent-occupancy varies from 430530 and 72 84%.



Marine Seismic

ReferencesCole, R. and French, W.S. [1984] Three-Dimensional Marine Seismic

Data Acquisition Using Controlled Streamer Feathering. SEG

Annual Meeting, Expanded Abstracts 3, 293-295.

Durrani, J. French, W. S. and Comeaux, L. [1987] New Directions for

Marine 3-D Surveys. SEG Annual Meeting, Expanded Abstracts

6, 177-180.

Houbiers, M. Arntsen, B. Thompson, M. Hager, E. Brown, G. and

Hill, D. [2008] Full Azimuth Modelling at Heidrun. PETEX

Conference, London, UK.

Houbiers, M. and Thompson, M. [2009] Full Azimuth Field Trial

at Heidrun. 71st EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Extended

Abstracts, U034.

Howard, M. [2007] Marine seismic surveys with enhanced azimuth

coverage: Lessons in survey design and acquisition. The Leading

Edge, April Special Section.

Moldoveanu, N. [2008] Circular Configuration for Wide-azimuth

Towed Streamer Acquisition. 70th EAGE Conference & Exhibition.

Extended Abstracts, G011.

Moore, I. and Ferber, R. [2008] Bandwidth Optimization for Compact

Fourier Interpolation. 70th EAGE Conference & Exhibition,

Extended Abstracts, G026.

French, W. S. [1984] Circular Seismic Acquisition System. United

States Patent 4,486,863.

survey effort of a range of coil designs need to be compared before one coil design is selected over another, or a coil design selected in preference to a WAZ alternative. In order to objec-tively quantify the alternatives, a metric is required, and one is suggested. It is also advisable to perform a modelling exercise simulating the acquisition of the selected configuration over a suitable earth model to verify its imaging fidelity (Houbiers et al. 2008). It has been demonstrated that:a. A coil design can offer a viable cost alternative to a 3-Az MAZ,

but with better azimuthal sampling than a 3-Az MAZ. b. A range of coil designs have an equivalent or better CDQF,

and less than or equal cost, to some multi-vessel configura-tions such as six tile, three vessel WAZ.

There is no practical reason why coil data cannot be proc-essed perfectly adequately with a flexible data processing system built around a predominantly linear marine acquisition assumption, provided the underlying geophysical principles are well understood.

Therefore, a coil design can be tailored to deliver a spectrum of appropriately sampled full-azimuth solutions to meet the varied geophysical needs of the end user, be that for exploration, production, or reservoir development purposes.

More benefits? Visit our website: www.eage.org

An offer you cant refuse!

EventsDiscount on all EAGE events worldwide. This year our annual Conference and Exhibition will be held in Barcelona, from 14-17 June 2010.

EarthDocUnlimited access to our online publication database with over 20,000 articles.

BookshopMember discount at the online EAGE bookshop with more than 500 titles.

Near Surface Geoscience

First BreakA new issue of First Break every month. Discount on additional journals.

Membership includes the following benefits:

Pay your dues online; To renew your membership for 2010, you need to take the following steps:

Step 1 Go to www.eage.orgStep 2 Log in with your membership number + password or surnameStep 3 Select my membership and then annual dues

EAGE online services: easy, fast and secure

Renew your EAGE membership for 2010

/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False

/CreateJDFFile false /Description > /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ > /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ]>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice

Documents

Coil Survey Disinger