1887
Volume 61, Issue 4
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Gas hydrates are a potential energy resource, a possible factor in climate change and an exploration geohazard. The University of Toronto has deployed a permanent seafloor time‐domain controlled source electromagnetic (CSEM) system offshore Vancouver Island, within the framework of the NEPTUNE Canada underwater cabled observatory. Hydrates are known to be present in the area and due to their electrically resistive nature can be monitored by 5 permanent electric field receivers. However, two cased boreholes may be drilled near the CSEM site in the near future. To understand any potential distortions of the electric fields due to the metal, we model the marine electromagnetic response of a conductive steel borehole casing. First, we consider the commonly used canonical model consisting of a 100 Ωm, 100 m thick resistive hydrocarbon layer embedded at a depth of 1000 m in a 1 Ωm conductive host medium, with the addition of a typical steel production casing extending from the seafloor to the resistive zone. Results show that in both the frequency and time domains the distortion produced by the casing occurs at smaller transmitter‐receiver offsets than the offsets required to detect the resistive layer. Second, we consider the experimentally determined model of the offshore Vancouver Island hydrate zone, consisting of a 5.5 Ωm, 36 m thick hydrate layer overlying a 0.7 Ωm sedimentary half‐space, with the addition of two borehole casings extending 300 m into the seafloor. In this case, results show that the distortion produced by casings located within a 100 m safety zone of the CSEM system will be measured at 4 of the 5 receivers. We conclude that the boreholes must be positioned at least 200 m away from the CSEM array so as to minimize the effects of the casings.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12007
2013-01-17
2020-09-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. CollettT.S., RiedelM., MaloneM.J. and the Expedition 311 Project Team . 2005. Cascadia margin hydrates. IODP Scientific Prospectus 311.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. ConstableS. and WeissC.2006. Mapping thin resistors and hydrocarbons with marine EM methods: Insights from 1D modelling. Geophysics 71, G43‐G51.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.
    CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 2003. 84th ed.CRC Press, Boca Raton .
  4. EdwardsR.N.1997. On the Resource Evaluation of Marine Gas Hydrate Deposits Using a Sea Floor Transient Electric Dipole–Dipole Method. Geophysics 62, 63–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. HarringtonR.F.1968. Field computation by moment methods . MacMillan, New York .
    [Google Scholar]
  6. HolladayJ.S. and WestG.F.1984. Effect of well casings on surface electrical surveys. Geophysics 47, 177–188.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. JohnstonR.H., TrofimenkoffF.N. and HaslettJ.W.1992. The complex resistivity response of a homogenous earth with a finite‐length contained vertical conductor. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 30, 46–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. KnightJ.H. and RaicheA.P.1982. Transient electromagnetic calculations using the Gaver‐Stehfest algorithm. Geophysics 47, 47–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. KongF.N., RothF, OlsenP.A. and StalheimS.O.2009. Casing effects in the sea‐to‐borehole electromagnetic method. Geophysics 74, F77–F87.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. MirR.2011. Design and deployment of a controlled source EM instrument on the NEPTUNE observatory for long‐term monitoring of methane hydrate deposits. PhD Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto .
  11. MirR. and EdwardsR.N.2011. The assessment and evolution of offshore gas hydrate deposits using seafloor controlled source electromagnetic methodology. 81st SEG meeting, San Antonio , USA , 30, P682.
  12. PriceA., MikkelsenG. and HamiltonM.2010. 3D CSEM over Frigg – dealing with cultural noise. 80th SEG meeting, Denver , USA , 30, P670.
  13. RaoS., WiltonD. and GlissonA.1982. Electromagnetic scattering by surfaces of arbitrary shape. IEEE transactions on antennas and propagation 30, 409–418.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. RiedelM., WilloughbyE.C., HyndmanR.D., SpenceG.D., ChapmanN.R., EdwardsN., ChenM.A. P., NovoselI. and SchwalenbergK.2009. Gas hydrates at the Northern Cascadia Margin, In Natural Gas Hydrates – Energy Resource Potential and Associated Geological Hazards , (eds. T.Collett , A.Johnson , C.Knapp and R.Boswell ). AAPG Memoir 89.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. SchwalenbergK., WilloughbyE.C., MirR. and EdwardsR.N.2005. Marine gas hydrate signatures in Cascadia and their correlation with seismic blank zones. First Break 23, 57–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. SchwalenbergK., HaeckelM., PoortJ. and JegenM.2010. Evaluation of gas hydrate deposits in an active seep area using marine controlled source electromagnetics: Results from Opouawe Bank, Hikurangi Margin, New Zealand. Marine Geology 272, 79–88.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. SingerB.S. and StrackK.M.1998. New aspects of through‐casing resistivity theory. Geophysics 63, 52–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. SmytheW.R.1968. Static and dynamic electricity . 3rd edition, McGraw‐Hill, New York .
    [Google Scholar]
  19. StehfestH.1970. Algorithm 368, numerical inversion of Laplace transforms. Communications of the ACM 13, 47–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. SwidinskyA.2011. Transient electromagnetic modelling and imaging of thin resistive targets: Applications for gas‐hydrate assessment. PhD. Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto .
  21. SwidinskyA. and EdwardsR.N.2010. The transient electromagnetic response of a resistive sheet: An extension to three‐dimensions. Geophysical Journal International 182, 663–674.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. TabarovskyL.A., CramM.E., TamarchenkoT.V., StrackK.M. and ZingerB.S.1994. Through‐casing resistivity (TCR) physics, resolution and 3‐D effects. Presented at SPWLA, Thirty‐Fifth Annual Logging Symposum, Paper TT.
  23. WaitJ.R. and WilliamsJ.T.1985. EM and IP response of a steel well casing for a four‐electrode surface array. Part I: Theory. Geophysical Prospecting 33, 723–735.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. WeitemeyerK.2008. Marine Electromagnetic Methods for Gas Hydrate Characterization, PhD. Thesis, University of California, San Diego .
  25. WestG.F. and EdwardsR.N.1985. A simple parametric model for the electromagnetic response of an anomalous body in a host medium. Geophysics 50, 2542–2557.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. WilloughbyE.C., MirR., SchollC. and EdwardsR.N.2008. NEPTUNE‐Canada Based Geophysical Imaging of Gas Hydrate in the Bullseye Vent. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Gas Hydrates Vancouver, British Columbia , CANADA , July 6–10, 2008.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. WuX. and HabashyT.M.1994. Influence of steel casings on electromagnetic signals. Geophysics 59, 378–390.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. YuanJ. and EdwardsR.N.2000. The assessment of marine gas hydrate through electrial remote sounding electrical remote sounding: Hydrate without a BSR?, Geophysical Research Letters 27, 2397–2400.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12007
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12007
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Borehole geophysics , Electromagnetics , Modelling , Monitoring and Resistivity
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error