Marine Geophysical Research

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 239–250 | Cite as

Controlled-source marine electromagnetic 2-D modeling gas hydrate studies

Original Research Paper
  • 348 Downloads

Abstract

Research on gas hydrate has increased recently as an alternative to fossil fuel. This study of marine controlled source electromagnetics (CSEM) is motivated by this increase, particularly in deep waters, and examines representative models. We present 2D models and test their efficacy in detection and characterization of gas hydrates. Earlier modeling studies used a horizontal transmitter to study the CSEM response—two electrical and one magnetic component—for resistive subsurface layers. Here we use six components—three electrical and three magnetic—and show that the proposed method reduces ambiguity in interpretation. Additionally, we show results utilizing the transmitter dipole in a borehole and receivers at the sea bottom. We found that CSEM response from a vertical transmitter helps us characterize resistive layers more confidently than from a transmitter moving horizontally at sea bottom. We conclude that in a complex environment, combining horizontal and vertical movements of the transmitter with sea-bottom receivers helps us delineate the subsurface structure more clearly and may help reduce drilling costs. Our models closely match the gas hydrate region in the Gulf of Mexico—Walker Ridge Block-313. Although this study examines gas hydrate, the methodology is applicable to other areas—for example, in monitoring gas diffusion at subsurface depths, which may help in CO2 sequestration.

Keywords

CSEM Marine environment Gas hydrates 2D modeling 

References

  1. Backus MM, Murray PE, Hardage BA, Graebner RJ (2006) High-resolution multi-component seismic imaging of deepwater gas-hydrate systems. Lead Edge 25:578–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chave AD (2009) The electromagnetic fields produced by marine frequency domain controlled sources. Geophys J Int 179:1429–1457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen J, Hoversten GM, Vasco D, Rubin Y, Hou Z (2007) A Bayesian model for gas saturation estimation using marine seismic AVA and CSEM data. Geophysics 72:WA85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Constable S, Srnka LJ (2007) An introduction to marine controlled source electromagnetic methods for hydrocarbon exploration. Geophysics 72(2):WA3–WA12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Constable S, Weiss CJ (2006) Mapping thin resistors and hydrocarbons with marine EM methods: insights from 1D modeling. Geophysics 7(2):G43–G51Google Scholar
  6. De Angelo MV, Murray PE, Hardage BA, Remington RL (2008) Integrated 2D 4-C OBC velocity analysis of near-seafloor sediments, Green Canyon, Gulf of Mexico. Geophysics 73(6):B109–B115Google Scholar
  7. Edwards RN (1988) Two-dimensional modeling of a towed in-line electric dipole–dipole sea-floor electromagnetic system—the optimum time delay or frequency for target resolution. Geophysics 53:846–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards RN (1997) On the resource evaluation of marine gas hydrate deposits using sea-floor transient electric dipole–dipole methods. Geophysics 62:63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellingsrud S, Eidesmo T, Johansen S, Sinha M, MacGregor L, Constable S (2002) Remote sensing of hydrocarbon layers by seabed logging _SBL: results from a cruise offshore Angola. Lead Edge 21:972–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellis M, Evans RL, Hutchinson D, Hart P, Gardner J, Hagen R (2008) Electromagnetic surveying of seafloor mounds in the Gulf of Mexico. Ma Pet Geol 25(9):960–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hardage BA, Murray P, Sava D, Backus MM, Remington R, Graebner R (2006) Evaluation of deepwater gas-hydrate systems. Lead Edge 25:572–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hutchinson DR (2008) USGS gas hydrate studies in the northern Gulf of Mexico, in USGS Gulf coast science conference and florida integrated science center meeting; proceedings with abstracts, US Geological Survey. Open File Report, p 59Google Scholar
  13. Key K (2009) 1D inversion of multi-component, multi-frequency marine CSEM data methodology and synthetic studies for resolving thin resistive layers. Geophysics 74(2):F9–F20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Li Y, Key K (2007) 2D marine controlled-source electromagnetic modeling: part 1—An adaptive finite element algorithm. Geophysics 72(2):WA51–WA62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McGregor L, Andreis S, Tomlinson J, Barker N (2006) Controlled source electromagnetic imaging on the Nuggets-1 reservoir. Lead Edge 25:984–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Orange A, Key K, Constable S (2009) The feasibility of reservoir monitoring using time-lapse marine CSEM. Geophysics 74(2):F21–F29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sava DC, Hardage BA (2006) Rock physics characterization of hydrate-bearing deepwater sediments. Lead Edge 25:616–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sava D, Hardage BA, Murray P, DeAngelo M (2008) Rock-physics joint inversion of resistivity-log and seismic velocity for hydrate characterization. In SEG Las Vegas annual meeting 1724–1728Google Scholar
  19. Scholl C, Edwards RN (2007) Marine down hole to seafloor dipole–dipole electromagnetic methods and the resolution of resistive targets. Geophysics 72(2):WA39–WA49. doi:10.1190/1.2434775 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sinha MC, Patel PD, Unsworth MJ, Owen TRE, MacCormack MGR (1990) An active source electromagnetic sounding system for marine use. Mar Geophys Res 12:29–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Srnka L, Carazzone JJ, Ephron MS (2006) Remote reservoir resistivity mapping. Lead Edge 25:972–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Weitemeyer K, Constable S, Key K, Behrens J (2006) First results from a marine controlled-source electromagnetic survey to detect gas hydrates offshore Oregon. Geophys Res Lett 33:L03304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yutaka S, Meju MA (2009) Useful characteristics of shallow and deep marine CSEM responses inferred from 3D finite-difference modeling. Geophysics 74:F67–F76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zach JJ, Brauti K (2009) Methane hydrates in CSEM surveys—analysis of a recent data example. Geophy Pros 57:601–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GERMIGandhinagarIndia
  2. 2.Bureau of Economic GeologyThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  3. 3.Institute of Geophysics and Planetary PhysicsScripps Institution of OceanographySan DiegoUSA
  4. 4.Earlier at CSIR-NGRIHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations