Forward Modeling of Seabed Logging by Finite Integration and Finite Element Methods

  • Noorhana Yahya
  • Majid Niaz Akhtar
  • Nadeem Nasir
  • Hanita Daud
  • Marneni Narahari
Part of the Advanced Structured Materials book series (STRUCTMAT, volume 32)


Seabed electromagnetic (EM) modeling for detection of deep target hydrocarbon reservoirs has been a challenge for oil and gas industry. More precise and accurate electromagnetic (EM) methods are required for better detection of hydrocarbon (HC) reservoirs. To overcome this problem, Finite integration method (FIM) and Finite element method (FEM) were chosen for 3D modeling of seabed logging to produce more precise EM response from the hydrocarbon reservoir. EM modelling is used to investigate the total electric and magnetic fields instead of scattered electric and magnetic fields, because it shows accurate and precise resistivity contrast at the target depth of up to 3000 m below seafloor. The FIM and the FEM were applied to our proposed seabed model having an area of 20 × 20 km. It was observed that the FIM showed 6.52 % resistivity contrast at a target depth of 1000 m whereas the FEM showed 16.78 % resistivity contrast at the same target depth for the normalised E-field. It was also found that normalised E-field response decreased as the target depth increased gradually by 500 m from 1000 to 3000 m at constant frequency of 0.125 Hz and current of 1250 A. It was also observed that at frequency of 0.125 Hz, phase versus offset (PVO) showed 3.8 % for FIM whereas 6.58 % for FEM better delineation of hydrocarbon at 3000 m target depth. PVO of electric field gives better delineation of HC presence compared to magnitude of E and H fields.


Finite Element Method Computer Simulation Technology Resistivity Contrast Target Depth Overburden Thickness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    MacGregor, L., Sinha, M.: Use of marine controlled-source electromagnetic sounding for sub-basalt exploration. Geophys. Prospect. 48, 1091–1106 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tossman, B., Thayer, D., Swartz, W.: An underwater towed electromagnetic source for geophysical exploration. IEEE J. Oceanic Eng. 4, 84–89 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yahya, N., Akhtar, M.N., Nasir, N., Shafie, A., Jabeli, M.S., Koziol, K.: CNT Fi–bres/Aluminium–NiZnFe2O4 based EM transmitter for improved magnitude versus offset (MVO) in a scaled marine environment. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. (2011, in Press)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cox, C.S., Constable, S.C., Chave, A.D., Webb, S.C.: Controlled source electromagnetic sounding of the oceanic lithosphere. Nature 320, 52–54 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ellingsrud, S., Eidesmo, T., Sinha, M.C., MacGregor, L.M., Constable, S.C.: Remote sensing of hydrocarbon layers by seabed logging (SBL): results from a cruise offshore Angola. Leading Edge 20, 972–982 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sinha, M.C., Patel, P.D., Unsworth, M.J., Owen, T.R.E., MacCormack, M.G.R.: An active source electromagnetic sounding system for marine use. Marine Geophys Res 12, 29–68 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Løseth, L.O., Pedersen, H.M., Pettersen, S., Ellingsrud, T.S., Eidesmo, T.: A scaled experiment for the verification of the seabed logging method. J. Appl. Geophys. 64, 47–55 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Akhtar, M.N., Yahya, N., Daud, H., Shafie, A., Zaid, H.M., Kashif, M., Nasir, N.: Development of EM wave guide amplifier potentially used for seabed logging. J. App. Sci 1 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Webb, S.C., Constable, S.C., Cox, C.S., Deaton, T.K.: A seafloor electric field instrument. J. Geomagnet. Geoelectric. 37, 1115–1129 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chave, A.D., Constable, S.C., Edwards, R.N.: Electrical exploration methods for the seafloor. In: Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics, SEG, pp. 931–966 (1982)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Unsworth, M.J.: Exploration of mid-ocean ridges with a frequency domain electro-magnetic system. Geophys. J. Int. 116, 447–467 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Webb, S.C., And Cox, C.S.: Electromagnetic fields induced at the seafloor by Raleigh-Stoneley waves. J. Geophys. Res. 87, 4093–4102 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sugeng, T., Raiche, A., Wilson, R.: An efficient compact finite element modelling method for practical 3D inversion of electromagnetic data from high contrast complex structures. IAGA WG 1,2 on Electromagnetic induction in Earth, Extended Abstract 18th workshop EL Vendrell, Spain, 17–23 Sept 2006Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sadiku, M.N.O.: Numerical methods in Electromagnetics, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Park, J., Bjornara, T.I., Westerdahl, H., Gonzalez, E.: On boundary conditions for CSEM finite element modeling. In: Proceedings of the Comsol Conference Hannover (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kong, F.N., Johnstad, S.E., Røsten, T., Westerdahl, H.: A 2.5D finite-element-modeling difference method for marine CSEM modeling in stratified anisotropic media. Geophysics 73(1), F9–F19 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Colin, G.F.: Numerical modeling for geophysical electromagnetic methods, memorial university of Newfoundland, St. Johns.Nl, Canada (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li, Y., Key, K.: 2D marine controlled-source electromagnetic modeling: Part 1 an adaptive finite-element algorithm. Geophysics 72(2), WA51–WA62Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rune, M.: Normalized amplitude ratios for frequency domain CSEM in very shallow water. First Break 26, 47–53 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mittet, R., Aakervik, O., Jensen, H., Ellingsrud, S., Stovas, A.: On the orientation and absolute phase of marine CSEM receivers. Geophysics 72, F145 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gelius, L.J.: Multi-component processing of sea bed Logging data. PIERS ONLINE 2(6), 589–593 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eidesmo, T.: Sea bed logging (SBL), a new method for remote and direct identification of hydrocarbon filled layers in deepwater areas. First Break 20, 144–152 (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    King, J.D.: Using a 3D finite element forward modelling code to analyze resistive structures with controlled source electromagnetics in a marine environment. Master’s thesis, Dec 2004Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noorhana Yahya
    • 1
  • Majid Niaz Akhtar
    • 2
  • Nadeem Nasir
    • 2
  • Hanita Daud
    • 1
  • Marneni Narahari
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Fundamental and Applied SciencesUniversiti Teknologi PETRONASTronohMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Electrical and Electronic EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi PETRONASTronohMalaysia

Personalised recommendations