Future Directions of Electromagnetic Methods for Hydrocarbon Applications

Abstract

For hydrocarbon applications, seismic exploration is the workhorse of the industry. Only in the borehole, electromagnetic (EM) methods play a dominant role, as they are mostly used to determine oil reserves and to distinguish water from oil-bearing zones. Throughout the past 60 years, we had several periods with an increased interest in EM. This increased with the success of the marine EM industry and now electromagnetics in general is considered for many new applications. The classic electromagnetic methods are borehole, onshore and offshore, and airborne EM methods. Airborne is covered elsewhere (see Smith, this issue). Marine EM material is readily available from the service company Web sites, and here I will only mention some future technical directions that are visible. The marine EM success is being carried back to the onshore market, fueled by geothermal and unconventional hydrocarbon applications. Oil companies are listening to pro-EM arguments, but still are hesitant to go through the learning exercises as early adopters. In particular, the huge business drivers of shale hydrocarbons and reservoir monitoring will bring markets many times bigger than the entire marine EM market. Additional applications include support for seismic operations, sub-salt, and sub-basalt, all areas where seismic exploration is costly and inefficient. Integration with EM will allow novel seismic methods to be applied. In the borehole, anisotropy measurements, now possible, form the missing link between surface measurements and ground truth. Three-dimensional (3D) induction measurements are readily available from several logging contractors. The trend to logging-while-drilling measurements will continue with many more EM technologies, and the effort of controlling the drill bit while drilling including look-ahead-and-around the drill bit is going on. Overall, the market for electromagnetics is increasing, and a demand for EM capable professionals will continue. The emphasis will be more on application and data integration (bottom-line value increase) and less on EM technology and modeling exercises.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

References

  1. Allegar NA, Strack KM, Mittet R, Petrov A (2008) Marine time domain CSEM—the first two years of experience. 70th Conference & exhibition, European Association Geoscientists & Engineers, Rome, Italy, abstract vol

  2. Banning EJ, Hagiwara T, Ostermeier RM (2007) Imaging of a subsurface conductivity distribution using a time-domain electromagnetic borehole-conveyed logging tool. SEG technical program expanded abstracts, 26, 648

  3. Beamish D, Travassos JM (1992) Magnetotelluric of Basalt-covered sediments. First Break 10:345–357

    Google Scholar 

  4. Blau W (1933) Methods and apparatus for geophysical exploration. US Patent 1,911,137

  5. Buehnemann J, Henke CH, Mueller C, Krieger MH, Zerilli A, Strack KM (2002) Bringing complex salt structures into focus—a novel integrated approach: SEG technical program expanded abstracts, pp 446–449

  6. Christopherson KR (1991) Applications of magnetotellurics to petroleum exploration in Papua New Guinea: a model for frontier areas. Lead Edge 10:21–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Colombo D, Dasgupta S, Strack KM, Yu G (2010) Feasibility study of surface-to-borehole CSEM for oil-water fluid substitution in Ghawar field, Saudi Arabia: Geo 2010, poster

  8. Colombo D, Keho T, McNeice G (2012) Integrated seismic-electromagnetic workflow for sub-basalt exploration in northwest Saudi Arabia. Lead Edge 31:42–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Constable S (2010) Ten years of marine CSEM for hydrocarbon exploration. Geophysics 75:75A67–75A81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Constable S, Srnka LJ (2007) An introduction to marine controlled-source electromagnetic methods for hydrocarbon exploration. Geophysics 72:WA3–WA12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Constable S, Orange A, Hoversten GM, Morrison HF (1998) Marine for petroleum exploration, Part 1: a sea-floor instrument system. Geophysics 63:816–825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Davidenko Y, Ivanov S, Kudryavceca E, Legeydo P, Veeken PCH (2008) Geoelectric surveying, a useful tool for hydrocarbon exploration. EAEG annual meeting expanded abstract vol, Roma, p 301

  13. Davydycheva S, Rykhlinski N (2009) Focused-source EM survey versus time-domain and frequency-domain CSEM. Lead Edge 28:944–949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dawoud M, Hallinan S, Herrmann R, van Kleef F (2009) Near-surface electromagnetic surveying. Oil Field Rev 21:20–25

    Google Scholar 

  15. De Stefano M, Andreasi FG, Virgilio M, Snyder F (2011) Multiple-domain, simultaneous joint inversion of geophysical data with application to subsalt imaging. Geophysics 76:R69–R80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dutta SM, Reiderman A, Rabinovich MB, Schoonover LG (2011) Novel transient electromagnetic Borehole system for reservoir monitoring. SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA

  17. Eadie T (1980) Detection of hydrocarbon accumulations by surface electrical methods—feasibility study. M. S. Thesis, University of Toronto

  18. Eidesmo T, Ellingsrud S, MacGregor LM, Constable S, Sinha MS, Johansen S, Kong FN, Westerdahl H (2002) Sea bed logging (SBL), a new method for remote and direct identification of hydrocarbon filled layers in deep-water areas. First Break 20:144–152

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ellis M, Ruiz F, Nanduri S, Keirstead R, Azizov I, Frenkel M, MacGregor L (2011) Importance of anisotropic rock physics modelling in integrated seismic and CSEM interpretation. First Break 29:87–95

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gabrielsen PT, Shantsev DV, Fanavoll S (2012) 3D CSEM for hydrocarbon exploration in the Barents Sea. EAGE 5th Saint Petersburg conference & exhibition, April 2012, paper C002

  21. Gao G, Abubaker A, Habashy TM (2011) Inversion of porosity and fluid saturation from joint electromagnetic and elastic full-waveform data. SEG technical program expanded abstracts, pp 660–665

  22. Garina S, Ivanov S, Kudryavceva E, Legeydo P, Veeken P, Vladimirov V (2013) Simultaneous EM and IP inversion using relaxation time constraints. First Break 31:69–72

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gruner Schlumberger A (1982) The Schlumberger adventure. Arco Publish, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hanstein T, Rueter H, Strack KM (2003) LWD induction deconvolution methods. US Patent 6,891,376

  25. Harris PE, Du L, MacGregor L, Olsen W, Shu R, Cooper R (2009) Joint interpretation of seismic and CSEM data using well log constraints: and example from Luva Field. First Break 27:73–81

    Google Scholar 

  26. Heincke B, Moorkamp M, Jegen M (2012) Joint inversion of 3-D seismic. Gravimetric and magnetotelluric data for sub-basalt imaging in the Faroe-Shetland Basin, AGU Fall meeting poster

  27. Helwig SL, El Kaffas AW, Holten T, Frafjord O, Eide K (2013) Vertical dipole CSEM: technology advances and results from Snohvit field. First Break 31:63–68

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hesthammer J, Fanavoll S, Stefatos A, Danielsen JE, Boulaenko M (2010) CSEM performance in light of well results. Lead Edge 29:34–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hesthammer J, Stefatos A, Sperrevik S (2012) CSEM efficiency—evaluation of recent drilling results. First Break 30:47–55

    Google Scholar 

  30. Holten T, Flekkoy EG, Singer B, Blixt EM, Hanssen A, Maloy KJ (2009) Vertical source, vertical receiver, electromagnetic technique for offshore hydrocarbon exploration. First Break 27:89–93

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hoversten GM, Morrison HF, Constable S (1998) Marine magnetotellurics for petroleum exploration, Part 2: numerical analysis of subsalt resolution. Geophysics 63:826–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hoversten GM, Constable S, Morrison HF (2000) Marine magnetotellurics for base-of-salt mapping: Gulf of Mexico field-test at the Gemini structure. Geophysics 65:1476–1488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hu W, Yan L, Su Z, Zheng R, Strack KM (2008) Array TEM sounding and application for reservoir monitoring. SEG technical program expanded abstracts, pp 634–638

  34. Jang H, Jang H, Lee K-H, Kim J (2012) A transient EM method with vertical transmitter and receiver for offshore hydrocarbon exploration. SEG technical program expanded abstracts, pp 1–5

  35. Jegen M, Hobbs RW, Tarits P, Chave A (2009) Joint inversion of marine magnetotelluric and gravity data incorporating seismic constraints—preliminary results of sub-basalt imaging off the Faroe Shelf. Earth Planet Sci Lett 282:47–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Johnstad SE, Farrelly BA, Ringstad C (2005) EM seabed logging on the Troll field. 67th Conference & exhibition, European Association Geoscientists & Engineers, Madrid, Spain, abstract vol

  37. Keller GV, Frischknecht FC (1967) Electrical methods in geophysical prospecting. Pergamon Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Keller GV, Pritchard JI, Jacobson JJ, Harthill N (1984) Mega source time-domain electromagnetic sounding methods. Geophysics 49:993–1009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Key K (2012) Marine electromagnetic studies of the seafloor resources and tectonics. Surv Geophys 33:135–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Klein JD (1993) Induction log anisotropy offer a means of detection of very thinly bedded corrections. Log Analyst 34:18–27

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kriegshäuser B, Fanini O, Forgang S, Mollison RA, Yu L, Gupta PK, Koelman JMV, van Popta J (2000) Increased oil-in-place in low-resistivity reservoirs from multicomponent induction log data. SPWLA annual meeting transactions vol, Paper A

  42. Kumar D, Hoversten GM (2012) Geophysical model response in shale gas. Geohorizons 17:32–37

    Google Scholar 

  43. Legeydo P, Veeken PCH, Petserev I, Davidenko Y, Kudryyaceca E, Ivanov S (2009) Geoelectric analysis based on quantitative separation between Electromagnetic and induced polarization field response. EAGE annual meeting expanded abstract vol, Amsterdam, P078

  44. Luthi SM (2001) Geological well logs—their use in reservoir modeling. Springer, Berlin, p 373

    Google Scholar 

  45. Morrison HF, Shoham Y, Hoversten GM, Torres-Verdin C (1996) Electromagnetic mapping of electrical conductivity beneath the Columbia basalt. Geophys Prospect 44:935–961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Nabighian MN, Macnae JC (2005) Electrical and EM methods 1980–2005. Lead Edge 24:S42–S45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Nekut AG, Spies BR (1989) Petroleum exploration using controlled-source electromagnetic methods. Proc IEEE 77:338–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. O’Connell K, Skaria D, Wheeler A, Rennie A (2012) Geosteering Improves Bakken Results. Am Oil Gas Rep 55

  49. Passalacqua H (1983) Electromagnetic fields due to a thin resistive layer. Geophys Prospect 31:945–976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Rabinovich M, Le F, Lofts J, Martakov S (2011) Deep? How deep and what? The vagaries and myths of ‘Look around’ deep-resistivity measurements while drilling. SPWLA transactions, paper NNN

  51. Rüter H, Strack K-M (1995) Method of processing transient electromagnetic measurements in geophysical analysis. US Patent 5,467,018

  52. Schilowsky K (1913) Verfahren und Vorrichtung zum Nachweis unterirdischer Erzlager oder von Grundwasser mittels elektrischer Schwingungen: German Patent 322,040

  53. Sheard SN, Ritchie TJ, Christopherson KR, Brand E (2005) Mining, environmental, petroleum and engineering industry applications of electromagnetics techniques in geophysics. Surv Geophys 26:653–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Spies BR (1983) Recent developments in the use of surface electrical methods for oil and gas exploration in the Soviet Union. Geophysics 48:1102–1112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Spies BR, Frischknecht FC (1991) Electromagnetic sounding. In: Nabighian MN (ed) Electromagnetic methods in applied geophysics-applications: SEG invest. Geophysics ser # 3, Soc Expl Geophys, SEG invest Geophys ser #3, pp 285–426

  56. Srnka LJ, Carazzone JJ, Ephron MS, Eriksen EA (2006) Remote reservoir resistivity mapping. Lead Edge 25:972–975

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sternberg BK, Oehler DZ (1984) Electrical methods for hydrocarbon exploration I. Induced polarization (INDEPTH) method: unconventional methods in exploration for petroleum and natural gas III., Southern Methodist Univ. Press, University Park, pp 188–201

    Google Scholar 

  58. Strack K-M (2003a) Integrated borehole system for reservoir detection and monitoring. US Patent 6,541,975

  59. Strack K-M (2003b) Integrated borehole system for reservoir detection and monitoring. US Patent 6,670,813. Continuation of 6,541,975

  60. Strack KM (2004) Combine surface and borehole integrated electromagnetic apparatus to determine reservoir fluid properties. US Patent 6,739,165

  61. Strack KM (2010) Advances in electromagnetics for reservoir monitoring. Geohorizons 15–18

  62. Strack KM, Aziz AA (2012) Full field array electromagnetics: a tool kit for 3D applications to unconventional resources. GSH spring symposium honoring R.E. Sheriff, April 11–12, 2012 (see GSH website)

  63. Strack K-M, Pandey PB (2007) Exploration with controlled-source electromagnetics under basalt covers in India. Lead Edge 26:360–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Strack KM, Vozoff K (1996) Integrating long-offset transient electromagnetics (LOTEM) with seismics in an exploration environment. Geophys Prospect 44:99–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Strack K-M, Hanstein T, Lebrocq K, Moss DC, Petry HG, Vozoff K, Wolfgram PA (1989) Case histories of LOTEM surveys in hydrocarbon prospective areas. First Break 7:467–477

    Google Scholar 

  66. Strack K-M, Fanini ON, Mezzatesta AG, Tabarovsky LA (1998) Recent advances in Borehole resistivity logging. Presented at annual ASEG conference, Hobart, Australia

  67. Strack K-M, Tabarovsky LA, Beard DB, van der Horst M (2000) Determining electrical conductivity of a laminated earth formation using induction logging. US Patent 6,147,496

  68. Strack KM, Hanstein T, Stoyer CH, Thomsen L (2011) Time domain controlled source electromagnetics for hydrocarbon applications. In: Petrovsky E, Herrero-Bervera E; Harinarayana T, Ivers D (eds) The earth’s magnetic interior, IAGA special Sopron book series, Springer, pp 101–115

  69. Virgilio M, Masnaghetti L, Clementi M, Watts MD (2009) Simultaneous joint inversion of MMT and seismic data for sub-basalt exploration on the Atlantic margin, Norway. 71st EAGE conference and exhibition, P258

  70. Weiss CJ, Constable S (2006) Mapping thin resistors and hydrocarbon with marine EM methods, Part II—modeling and analysis in 3D. Geophysics 71:321–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Wenner F (1912) The four-terminal conductor and the Thomson bridge. US Bureau Stand Bull 8:559–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Wilt MJ, Morrison HF, Lee KH, Goldstein NE (1989) Electromagnetic sounding in the Columbia Basin, Yakima, Washington. Geophysics 54:952–961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Wirianto M, Mulder WA, Slob EC (2010) A feasibility study of land CSEM reservoir monitoring in a complex 3-D model. Geophys J Int 1:602–606

    Google Scholar 

  74. Yu L, Fanini ON, Kriegshaeuser BF, Koelman JMV, van Popta J (2001) Enhanced evaluation of low-resistivity reservoirs using new multicomponent induction log data. Petrophysics 42:611–623

    Google Scholar 

  75. Yu G, Strack KM, Tulinius H, Porbergsottir IM, Adam L, Hu ZZ, He ZX (2010) Integrated MT/Gravity geothermal exploration in Hungary: A success story, 21st ASEG Conference and Exhibition, Sydney

  76. Zerilli A (1999) Application of marine Magnetotelluric to commercial exploration—cases from the Mediterranean and the Gulf of Mexico: European Association of Geophysical Engineers, 61st meeting and technical exhibition, Helsinki, Finland, 7–11 June

  77. Zerilli A (2002) Integrated imaging ads value to complex stricture exploration: Soc Expl Geophys annual meeting, workshops (see www.SEG.org for audio recording and www.kmstechnologies.com)

  78. Zerilli A (2005) Using non-seismic geophysics to enhance seismic in complex shallow regimes. EAGE workshop W6, EAGE annual conference & exhibition

  79. Zerilli A, Roslov Y (2003) A new approach to complex structures exploration improves resolution and reduces risk. SEG/EAGO/EAGE/PAEH international geophysical conference & exhibition, Moscow Russia, 1–4 September

  80. Zerilli A, Labruzzo T, Buonora MP, Abubakar A (2011) Joint inversion of marine CSEM and MT data using a “structure” based approach. SEG technical program expanded abstracts, pp 604–608

  81. Zhou Q, Gregory D, Chen C, Chew WC (2000) Investigation on electromagnetic measurement ahead of drill-bit. IEEE international geoscience and remote sensing symposium

  82. Zhou Q, Julander D, Penley L (2002) Experiences with cased hole resistivity logging for reservoir monitoring. SPWLA 43rd annual logging symposium, Paper X

  83. Ziolkowski A, Parr R, Wright D, Nockles V, Limond C, Morris E, Linfoot J (2010) Multi-transient magnetic repeatability experiment over the North Sea Harding field. Geophys Prospect 58:1159–1176

    Google Scholar 

  84. Ziolkowski A, Wright D, Mattsson J (2011) Comparison of PRBS and square wave transient CSEM data over Peon Gas Discovery, Norway. SEG technical program expanded abstracts, pp 583–588

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge the support of KMS Technologies, Geokinetics, RWE-Dea, Shell, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Baker Hughes. In particular, I appreciate the support from A. A. Aziz, A. Zerilli, K. Vozoff, T. Hanstein, L. Thomsen, C. Stoyer, S. Dasgupta, and W. Hu.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. M. Strack.

Additional information

IAGA 21st EM induction workshop Review Paper, Darwin, Australia, 2012.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Strack, K.M. Future Directions of Electromagnetic Methods for Hydrocarbon Applications. Surv Geophys 35, 157–177 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-013-9237-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Electromagnetics
  • Hydrocarbon exploration
  • Electrical geophysics