Advancing Sustainable Seismic Technologies: Minimising Environmental Impact Through Innovation

Seismic surveys are essential for understanding subsurface geological formations, particularly in offshore exploration for oil and gas, and renewables. While concerns exist about their impact on marine life, it’s important to note that seismic surveys have been conducted in Australia’s marine waters for decades—often alongside commercial fishing—with limited evidence of widespread disruption to fisheries operations (Meekan et al., 2021). This coexistence provides useful context for ongoing environmental management.

The Necessity of Proper Impact Assessment and Mitigation

Traditional seismic operations employ high-energy sound pulses—typically from airgun arrays—that can affect marine fauna, including whales, dolphins, fish, and invertebrates, by interfering with communication, navigation, and normal behaviours. Peer-reviewed research has demonstrated a range of biological responses, such as startle or avoidance reactions in squid (Fewtrell & McCauley, 2012), physiological effects on shellfish (Day et al., 2017; 2019), and increased mortality in plankton within hundreds of metres of the source (McCauley et al., 2017). For fish and other marine organisms, exposure to intense impulsive sounds has been linked to temporary hearing threshold shifts and stress responses (Popper et al., 2014; Southall et al., 2007; 2019).

Recognising these impacts, Australia’s environmental and offshore petroleum regulatory framework mandates detailed impact assessments and mitigation protocols before any seismic survey commences. This is primarily governed by the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, administered by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA). NOPSEMA’s Information Paper IPI765 – Acoustic Impact Evaluation and Management (2018) provides guidance on evaluating and managing underwater noise impacts. The EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 – Interaction Between Offshore Seismic Exploration and Whales outlines precautionary measures to minimise acoustic injury to cetaceans.

At Klarite, we work closely with titleholders and stakeholders to ensure mitigation strategies are aligned with best practice and scientific standards such as NOAA NMFS Technical Guidance (2024) for underwater noise thresholds and IUCN (2016) recommendations for geophysical survey management. Measures include soft-start procedures, exclusion zones where appropriate, the use of marine fauna observers, real-time monitoring, and the adoption of technologies designed to reduce acoustic disturbance.

Innovations in Seismic Acquisition Technology

The seismic industry is undergoing a transformation, with new technologies emerging to reduce environmental impacts. Some remain in research and development, while others are now commercially available. These innovations aim to reduce sound intensity, control frequency output, and minimise disruption to marine ecosystems. However, it is important to recognise that every technology comes with trade-offs, and adoption requires a careful assessment of overall environmental effects rather than focusing on a single metric. Below is a summary of key technology types and examples:

Environmental Impact Trade Offs

Selecting a seismic technology is not just about implementing the system that reduces one particular impact. Every technology has its trade-offs: while some sources may lower high-frequency sound levels, they can elevate other cause–effect pathways, such as particle motion or low-frequency energy, which may affect different marine species.

Understanding the broader environmental impacts is essential for informed decision-making, rather than focusing on a single metric. Emerging technologies like marine vibroseis demonstrate potential benefits, such as lower peak sound levels, but their long-term ecological effects, particularly associated with alternative pathways, are not yet well quantified. This uncertainty can be a barrier to adoption, emphasising the importance of continued research, environmental assessment, and a careful evaluation of trade-offs to achieve a reduction in overall environmental impacts.

This principle is further illustrated in the discussion of pressure-based versus sound-based energy sources below.

Emerging Considerations: Pressure vs. Sound

Some technologies, such as MV and vibratory sources, generate controllable acoustic signals through volume displacement of water using a vibrating plate or shell. These pressure-based methods may offer environmental advantages by producing lower acoustic pressure and reduced bandwidth (spectral content) compared to airgun sources. However, few empirical studies have assessed biological responses to marine vibroseis. Matthews et al. (2020) modelled sound fields but noted that further research is needed to understand the biological effects of pressure-based exposure on marine species, particularly invertebrates and early life stages.

Technology Accessibility

While seismic source technology has advanced significantly and several next-generation systems are now commercially available—such as Digital Frequency-Controlled Sources (Teledyne eSource), Tuned Pulse Sources (Sercel TPS), and Enhanced Pneumatic Sources (Gemini EFS)—their adoption is not straight-forward. Widespread deployment remains limited, and each technology comes with unique environmental trade-offs that must be considered in context (Li & Bayly, 2017; Sercel, 2022; Udengaard et al., 2024).

Implementation often requires vessel retrofitting, source-controller compatibility, and operator training (PGS, 2021; CGG, 2020). Similarly, OBN systems offer environmental advantages by eliminating long towed streamers, but their use depends on survey type, water depth, and logistical feasibility (TGS, n.d.; Zhang et al., 2021).

Titleholders demonstrate commitment to environmental stewardship by assessing trade-offs and costs of implementing technologies wherever practicable. Adaptive management and continuous improvement ensure alignment with NOPSEMA’s expectations for best available technology. As fleet modernisation continues, the availability of advanced source systems is expected to broaden, but until then, operators must balance technological accessibility with achieving the highest practicable environmental outcomes.

The Path Forward: Innovation Meets Responsibility

The seismic industry continues to evolve through scientific research, technological advancement, and responsible planning. Klarite can support clients with ALARP analysis, a requirement of environmental plans, and help integrate new technologies in ways that meaningfully reduce environmental impacts.

By embracing innovation alongside careful evaluation and collaboration, seismic exploration can progress sustainably, protecting marine ecosystems while supporting energy development. As technologies advance, so too does our ability to balance exploration with conservation—building a future where responsible resource development and marine protection go hand in hand.

Vicki Doidge, Projects Manager

Vicki is a seasoned professional with 16 years of invaluable experience across the oil and gas industry. With a diverse background, she has successfully navigated technical roles as an exploration geoscientist and GIS cartographer, as well as customer-facing sales and business development positions. Vicki’s specialisation lies in geoscience and engineering software technology, making her a sought-after expert in the Asia Pacific region 

Currently serving as a Project Manager at Klarite Pty Ltd, Vicki spearheads the delivery of exceptional environment plan and consultation services to our valued clients. Her dedication to ensuring effective communication and collaboration sets the foundation for successful projects and fosters positive working relationships. Her ability to bring diverse stakeholders together and provide a platform for all voices to be heard is instrumental in driving sustainable outcomes for our clients and the environment.

References

• CGG (2020). Source Deghosting for Synchronized Multi-Level Source Streamer Data. Viridien Group.
• Day, R.D., McCauley, R.D., Fitzgibbon, Q.P., Hartmann, K., & Semmens, J.M. (2017). Seismic air gun exposure during embryonic development does not affect hatching success or larval behaviour of the spiny lobster (Panulirus cygnus). Scientific Reports, 7:689.
• Day, R.D., McCauley, R.D., Fitzgibbon, Q.P., Hartmann, K., & Semmens, J.M. (2019). Exposure to seismic air gun signals causes physiological stress in spiny lobsters. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6:472.
• DEWHA (2008). EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1: Interaction between offshore seismic exploration and whales.
• Fewtrell, J., & McCauley, R.D. (2012). Impact of air gun noise on the behaviour of marine fish and squid. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64:984–993.
• IUCN (2016). Effective Planning Strategies for Managing Environmental Risk Associated with Geophysical and Other Imaging Surveys.
• Li, Z., & Bayly, M. (2017). Quantitative assessment of environmental benefits of bandwidth-controlled marine seismic source technology. 79th EAGE Conference and Exhibition.
• Matthews, M.R., Ireland, D.S., Zeddies, D.G., Brune, R.H., & Pyć, C.D. (2020). A modeling comparison of potential effects on marine mammals from sounds produced by marine vibroseis and air gun seismic sources. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 148(2):985–1001.
• Meekan, M.G., Speed, C.W., McCauley, R.D., Parsons, M.J.G. (2021). A large scale experiment finds no evidence that a seismic survey impacts a demersal fish fauna.
• McCauley, R.D. et al. (2017). Widely used marine seismic survey air gun operations negatively impact zooplankton. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1:0195.
• National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). (2018). Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0).
• NOPSEMA (2018). Information Paper IPI765 – Acoustic Impact Evaluation and Management.
• (2020). Widmaier, M., Tønnessen, R., Oukili, J., Roalkvam, C. “Recent advances with wide-tow multi-sources in marine seismic streamer acquisition and imaging.” FIRST BREAK 38(12).
• PGS (2021). Sustainability in Seismic: Enabling Low-Emission, High-Performance Acquisition. Technical Note.
• Popper, A.N., Hawkins, A.D., Fay, R.R., Mann, D.A., Bartol, S.M., Carlson, T.J., et al. (2014). Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea Turtles. NOAA Fisheries Scientific and Technical Report NMFS-OPR-55.
• Sercel (2022). TPS Broadband Marine Source Technical Brochure. Sercel Group.
• Shearwater GeoServices. (n.d.). Advanced Seismic Sources – Marine Vibroseis.
• Southall, B.L. et al. (2007). Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals, 33(4):411–521.
• Southall, B.L. et al. (2019). Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Updated scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals, 45(2):125–232.
• Teledyne Marine (n.d.). Calmer Waters: Reducing Sound Exposure to Marine Mammals During Seismic Surveys.
• TGS, n.d.; Zhang, Y., et al. (2021). A review of OBN processing: challenges and solutions. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 18(4):492–502.
• Udengaard, M., et al. (2024). An enhanced frequency source for modern marine seismic surveys. 85th EAGE Conference