Multi‐dimensional analyses of the SEAM controlled source electromagnetic data—the story of a blind test of interpretation workflows

References

1. AlumbaughD.L., NewmanG.A., PrevostL. and ShadidJ.N.1996. Three‐dimensional wideband electromagnetic modeling on massively parallel computers. Radio Science31(1), 1–23.
   [Google Scholar]
2. AndréisD. and MacGregorL.M.2008. Controlled‐source electromagnetic sounding in shallow water: Principles and applications. Geophysics73, F21–F32.
   [Google Scholar]
3. BouchraraS., MacGregorL.M., TomlinsonJ., StreckerU., FanJ., RanX.et al. Integrated analysis of well log, seismic and CSEM data for prospect appraisal: a case study from West Africa. 82nd SEG meeting, Las Vegas, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 1–5.
   [Google Scholar]
4. CommerM. and NewmanG.A.2008. New advances in three‐dimensional controlled‐source electromagnetic inversion. Geophysical Journal International172, 513–535.
   [Google Scholar]
5. ConstableS.C.2010. Ten years of marine CSEM for hydrocarbon exploration. Geophysics75, 75A67–75A81.
   [Google Scholar]
6. ConstableS.C., ParkerR.L. and ConstableC.G.1987. Occam's inversion: A practical algorithm for generating smooth models from EM sounding data. Geophysics52(3), 289–300.
   [Google Scholar]
7. deGroot‐HedlinC. and ConstableS.C.1990. Occam's inversion to generate smooth, two‐dimensional models from magnetotelluric data. Geophysics55, 1613–1624.
   [Google Scholar]
8. EidesmoT., EllingsrudS., MacGregorL.M., ConstableS.C., SinhaM.C., JohansonS.et al. 2002. Sea bed logging (SBL): a new method for remote and direct identification of hydrocarbon filled layers in deepwater areas. First Break20(3), 144–152.
   [Google Scholar]
9. EllingsrudS., EidesmoT., JohansenJ., SinhaM.C., MacGregorL.M. and ConstableS.C.2002. Remote sensing of hydrocarbon layers by seabed logging (SBL): Results from a cruise offshore Angola. The Leading Edge21(10), 972–982.
   [Google Scholar]
10. FehlerM. and KeliherP.J.2011. SEAM Phase I: Final Report ‐ Challenges of Subsalt Imaging in Tertiary Basins, with Emphasis on Deepwater Gulf of Mexico. SEG. ISBN 978‐1‐56080‐287‐7.
    [Google Scholar]
11. HesthammerJ. and BoulaenkoM.2005. The offshore EM challenge. First Break23(11), 59–66.
    [Google Scholar]
12. HursánG. and ZhdanovM.S.2002. Contraction integral equation method in three‐dimensional electromagnetic modeling. Radio Science37(6), 1089.
    [Google Scholar]
13. JohansenS.E., AmundsenH.E.F., RostenT., EllingsrudS., EidesmoT. and BhuyianA.H.2005. Subsurface hydrocarbons detected by electromagnetic sounding. First Break23(3), 31–36.
    [Google Scholar]
14. KeyK.2009. 1D inversion of multicomponent, multifrequency marine CSEM data: Methodology and synthetic studies for resolving thin resistive layers. Geophysics74, F9–F20.
    [Google Scholar]
15. MacGregorL.M. and SinhaM.C.2000. Use of marine controlled source electromagnetic sounding for sub‐basalt exploration. Geophysical Prospecting48, 1091–1106.
    [Google Scholar]
16. MyerD., ConstableS., KeyK., GlinskyM.E. and LiuG.2012. Marine CSEM of the Scarborough gas field, Part 1: Experimental design and data uncertainty. Geophysics77(4), E281–E299.
    [Google Scholar]
17. NewmanG.A. and AlumbaughD.L.2000. Three‐dimensional magnetotelluric inversion using non‐linear conjugate gradients. Geophysics. Geophysical Journal International140, 410–424.
    [Google Scholar]
18. NewmanG.A. and BoggsP.T.2004. Solution accelerators for large‐scale three‐dimensional electromagnetic inverse problems. Inverse Problems20, S151–S170.
    [Google Scholar]
19. NewmanG.A., CommerM. and CarazzoneJ.J.2010. Imaging CSEM data in the presence of electrical anisotropy. Geophysics75, F51–F61.
    [Google Scholar]
20. TsengH.‐W., MacGregorL.M. and AckermannR.V.2012. 2D inversions of 3D marine CSEM data. 82nd SEG meeting, Las Vegas, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 1–5.
    [Google Scholar]
21. UnsworthM.J., TravisB.J. and ChaveA.D.1993. Electromagnetic induction by a finite electric dipole source over a 2‐D earth. Geophysics58(2), 198–214.
    [Google Scholar]