Advertisement

Interpretation of Marine CSEM and Marine MT Data for Hydrocarbon Prospecting

  • Ståle Emil JohansenEmail author
  • Pål T. Gabrielsen

Abstract

Remote sensing techniques record variations in petrophysical parameters such as acoustic or electric properties. Seismic sounding is by far the most common of such tools. Seismic techniques can detect strata and structure in the subsurface that are potential hydrocarbon (HC) traps. By interpreting the seismic a detailed geological model can be constructed, but seismic data has limitations in direct prediction of pore fluid composition. Given detection of a structural geometry that may contain HC within porous sedimentary rocks, the main remaining uncertainty is normally whether the pore space is filled with saline water or HC. For this reason only 10–30% of exploration wells penetrate commercial oil or gas reserves in many areas.

Keywords

Seismic Data Apparent Resistivity Burial Depth Resistivity Model Transverse Resistance 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Rune Mittet for valuable comments on the manuscript, and we thank Pemex, MCG and EMGS for permission to use the data examples.

Further Reading

  1. Alcocer, J.A.E., García, M.V., Soto, H.S., Baltar, D., Paramo, V.R., Gabrielsen, P., et al. 2013. Reducing uncertainty by integrating 3D CSEM in the Mexican deep-water exploration workflow. First Break 31(4), 75–79.Google Scholar
  2. Bhuyian, A.H., Landrø, M. and Johansen, S.E. 2012. Three-dimensional modeling and time-laps sensitivity for subsurface CO2 storage. Geophysics 77(5).Google Scholar
  3. Bhuyian, A.H., Thrane, B.P., Landrø, M. and Johansen, S.E. 2010. Controlled source electromagnetic three-dimensional grid-modelling based on a complex resistivity structure of the seafloor: effects of acquisition parameters and geometry of multi-layered resistors. Geophysical Prospecting 58, 505–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhuiyan, A.H., Wicklund, T.W. and Johansen, S.E. 2006. High-resistivity anomalies at Modgunn Arch in the Norwegian Sea. First Break 24, 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buland, A., Løseth, L.O., Becht, A., Roudot, M. and Røsten, T. 2011. The value of CSEM data in exploration. First Break 29(4), 69–76.Google Scholar
  6. Chave, A.D. and Cox, C.S. 1982. Controlled electromagnetic sources for measuring electrical conductivity beneath the oceans 1. Forward problem and model study. Journal of Geophysical Research 87(B7), 5327–5338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Constable, S. 2010. Ten years of marine CSEM for hydrocarbon exploration. Geophysics 75(5), 75A67–75A81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Constable, S. and Chester, J. 2006. Weiss Mapping thin resistors and hydrocarbons with marine EM methods: Insights from 1D modeling. Geophysics 71, G43–G51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cox, C.S., Constable, S.C., Chave, A.D. and Webb, S.C. 1986. Controlled source electromagnetic sounding of the oceanic lithosphere. Nature 320, 52–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eidesmo, T., Ellingsrud, S., MacGregor, L.M., Constable, S., Sinha, M.C., Johansen, S.E., et al. 2002. Sea Bed Logging (SBL), a new method for remote and direct identification of hydrocarbon filled layers in deepwater areas. First Break 20, 144–152.Google Scholar
  11. Ellingsrud, S., Sinha, M.C., Constable, S., MacGregor, L.M., Eidesmo, T. and Johansen, S.E. 2002. Remote sensing of hydrocarbon layers by Sea Bed Logging (SBL): Results from a cruise offshore Angola. The Leading Edge 21, 972–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fanavoll, S., Ellingsrud, S., Gabrielsen, P., Tharimela, R. and Ridyard, D. 2012. Exploration with the use of EM data in the Barents Sea: The potential and the challenges. First Break 30(4), 89–93.Google Scholar
  13. Gabrielsen, P. and Fanavoll, S. 2012. Application of CSEM data in exploration—A case study from the Nordland Ridge, Norwegian Sea. SEG International Geophysical Conference and Oil and Gas Exhibition, Istanbul. Extended abstract.Google Scholar
  14. Gabrielsen, P.T., Brevik, I., Mittet, R. and Løseth, L.O. 2009. Investigating the exploration potential for 3D CSEM using a calibration survey over the Troll Field. First Break 27(6), 67–75.Google Scholar
  15. Gabrielsen, P.T., Abrahamson, P., Panzner, M., Fanavoll, S. and Ellingsrud, S. 2013. Exploring frontier areas using 2D seismic and 3D CSEM data, as exemplified by multi-client data over the Skrugard and Havis discoveries in the Barents Sea. First Break 31(1), 65–73.Google Scholar
  16. Hesthammer, J., Fanavoll, S., Stefatos, A., Danielsen, J.E. and Boulaenko, M. 2010. CSEM performance in the light of well results. The Leading Edge 29, 34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johansen, S.E., Amundsen, H.E.F., Røsten, T., Ellingsrud, S., Eidesmo, T. and Bhuyian, A.H. 2005. Subsurface hydrocarbons detected by electromagnetic sounding. First Break 23, 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johansen, S.E., Amundsen, H.E.F. and Wicklund, Tor A. 2007. Interpretation of SeaBed Logging (SBL) data. Leading Edge, January Volume.Google Scholar
  19. Johansen, S.E., Brauti, K., Fanavoll, S., Amundsen, H.E.F., Wicklund, T.A., Danielsen, J., et al. 2008. How EM survey analysis validates current technology, processing and interpretation methodology. First Break 26, 83–88.Google Scholar
  20. Key, K.W. 2003. Application of broadband marine magnetotelluric exploration to a 3D salt structure and a fast-spreading ridge. Doctor of Philosophy thesis. University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
  21. Kong, F.N., Westerdahl, H., Ellingsrud, S., Eidesmo, T. and Johansen, S.E. 2002. Seabed logging: A possible direct hydrocarbon indicator for deepsea prospects using EM energy. Oil & Gas Journal, May 13.Google Scholar
  22. Lu, X. and Xia, C. 2007. Understanding anisotropy in marine CSEM data. 77th SEG Annual Meeting, San Antonio.Google Scholar
  23. Løseth, L.O. 2007. Modelling of controlled source electromagnetic data. Doctor of Philosophy thesis. Department of Physics at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  24. Mittet, R. and Gabrielsen, P.T. 2013. Decomposition in upgoing and downgoing fields and inversion of marine CSEM data. Geophysics 78, E1–E17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mittet, R. and Morten, J.P. 2012. Detection and imaging sensitivity of the marine CSEM method. Geophysics 77, E411–E425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mittet, R. and Morten, J.P. 2013. The marine controlled-source electromagnetic method in shallow water. Geophysics 78, E67–E77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morten, J.P. and Bjørke, A.K. 2010 Fast-track marine CSEM processing and 3D inversion. 72nd EAGE Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2010, Barcelona. Extended abstract C004.Google Scholar
  28. Morten, J.P., Roth, F., Karlsen, S.A., Timko, D., Pacurar, C., Olsen, P.A., et al. 2012. Field appraisal and accurate resource estimation from 3D quantitative interpretation of seismic and CSEM data. The Leading Edge 31, 447–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Weiss, C. and Constable, S. 2006. Mapping thin resistors and hydrocarbons with marine EM methods, Part II—Modeling and analysis in 3D. Geophysics 71, G321–G332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Internation Publishing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NTNUTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.EMGS (ElectroMagnetic GeoServices ASA)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations