1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 62, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 62, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The marine controlled source electromagnetic (CSEM) technique has been adopted by the hydrocarbon industry to characterize the resistivity of targets identified from seismic data prior to drilling. Over the years, marine controlled source electromagnetic has matured to the point that four‐dimensional or time lapse surveys and monitoring could be applied to hydrocarbon reservoirs in production, or to monitor the sequestration of carbon dioxide. Marine controlled source electromagnetic surveys have also been used to target shallow resistors such as gas hydrates. These novel uses of the technique require very well constrained transmitter and receiver geometry in order to make meaningful and accurate geologic interpretations of the data. Current navigation in marine controlled source electromagnetic surveys utilize a long base line, or a short base line, acoustic navigation system to locate the transmitter and seafloor receivers. If these systems fail, then rudimentary navigation is possible by assuming the transmitter follows in the ship's track. However, these navigational assumptions are insufficient to capture the detailed orientation and position of the transmitter required for both shallow targets and repeat surveys. In circumstances when acoustic navigation systems fail we propose the use of an inversion algorithm that solves for transmitter geometry. This algorithm utilizes the transmitter's electromagnetic dipole radiation pattern as recorded by stationary, close range (<1000 m), receivers in order to model the geometry of the transmitter. We test the code with a synthetic model and validate it with data from a well navigated controlled source electromagnetic survey over the Scarborough gas field in Australia.

Copyright © 2014 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2014 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12092
2014-02-27
2024-04-29

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12092
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Behrens, J.P., 2005. The Detection of Electrical Anisotopy in 35 Ma Pacific Lithosphere: Results from a Marine Controlled‐Source Electromagnetic Survey and Implications for Hydration of the Upper Mantle, PhD, University of California, San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bevington, P.R. & Robinson, D.K., 2003. Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, McGraw Hill, 3rd edn.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bhuyian, A.H., Thrane, B.P., Landro, M., & 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(doi: 10.1111/j.1365–2478.2009.00844.x), 505–533.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Chave, A.D. & Cox, C., 1982. Controlled electromagnetic sources for measuring electrical‐conductivity beneath the oceans .1. Forward problem and model study, Journal of Geophysical Research, 87(NB7), 5327–5338.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Christensen, N.B. & Dodds, K., 2007. Special section – marine controlled‐source electromagnetic methods 1D inversion and resolution analysis of marine CSEM data, Geophysics, 72(2), WA27–WA38.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Chuprin, A., Andréis, D., & MacGregor, L., 2008. Quantifying factors affecting repeatablility in CSEM surveying for reservoir appraisal and monitoring, in SEG Las Vegas 2008 Annual Meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Constable, S., 2013. Review paper: Instrumentation for marine magnetotelluric and controlled source electromagnetic sounding, Geophysical Prospecting, 10.1111/j.1365‐2478.2012.01117.x, 1365–2478.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Constable, S. & Cox, C.S., 1996. Marine controlled‐source electromagnetic sounding 2. The PEGASUS experiment, Journal of Geophysical Research, 101(B3), 5519–5530.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Constable, S. & Srnka, L.J., 2007. An introduction to marine controlled‐source electromagnetic methods for hydrocarbon exploration, Geophysics, 72(2), WA3–WA12.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Constable, S. & Weiss, C., 2006. Mapping thin resistors and hydrocarbons with marine EM methods: Insights from 1D modeling, Geophysics, 71(2), G43–G51.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Constable, S.C., 2010. Ten years of marine CSEM for hydrocarbon exploration, Geophysics, 75(5), A67–A81.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Constable, S.C., Parker, R., & Constable, C., 1987. Occam's inversion: A practical algorithm for generating smooth models from electromagnetic sounding data, Geophysics, 52(3), 289–300.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Cox, C., Constable, S., & Chave, A., 1986. Controlled‐source electromagnetic sounding of the oceanic lithosphere, Nature, 320(6), 52–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 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, The Leading Edge, pp. 972–982.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Evans, R., Constable, S., Sinha, M., & Unsworth, M., 1994. On the electrical nature of the axial melt zone at 13°N on the East Pacific Rise, Journal of Geophysical Research, 99, 577–588.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Flosadóttir, A.H. & Constable, S., 1996. Marine controlled‐source electromagnetic sounding 1. Modeling and experimental design, Journal of Geophysical Research, 101(B3), 5507–5517.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Hoversten, G.M., Cassassuce, F., Gasoerikova, E., Newman, G.A., ChenJ., Rubin, Y., Hou, Z., & Vasco, D, 2006. Direct reservoir parameter estimation using joint inversion of marine seismic AVA and CSEM data, Geophysics, 71(3), C1–C13.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Key, K., 2009. 1D inversion of multicomponent, multifrequency marine CSEM data: Methodology and synthetic studies for resolving thin resistive layers, Geophysics, 74(2), 9–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Key, K. & Constable, S. C., 2011. An inverted long‐baseline navigation system for deep‐towed em transmitter systems, in MARELEC, La Jolla CA. USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Key, K. & Lookwood, A., 2010. Determining the orientation of marine CSEM receivers using orthogonal procrustes rotation analysis, Geophysics, 75(3), F63–F70.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Kong, F., 2007. Hankel transform filters for dipole antenna radiation in a conductive medium, Geophysical Prospecting, 55, 83–89.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Lien, M. & Mannseth, T., 2008. Sensitivity study of marine CSEM data for reservoir production monitoring, Geophysics, 73(4), 151–163.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Marquardt, D.W., 1963. An algorithm for least‐squares estimation of nonlinear parameters, Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 11(2), 431–441.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Martinez, Y., Allegar, N., Thomsen, L.A., & Stoyer, C., 2010. Method for determining electromagnetic survey sensor orientation, United States Patent Application Publication 20100102820A1.
  25. Mittet, R., Aakervik, O.M., Jensen, H.R., Ellingsrud, S., & Stovas, A., 2007. On the orientation and absolute phase of marine CSEM receivers, Geophysics, 72(4), F145–F155.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Myer, D., Constable, S., & Key, K., 2010a. Broad‐band waveforms and robust processing for marine csem surveys, Geophysical Journal International.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Myer, D., Constable, S., & Key, K., 2010b. A marine EM survey of the Scarborough gas field, Northwest Shelf of Australia, First Break, 28, 77–82.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Myer, D., Constable, S., Key, K., Glinsky, M.E., & Liu, G., 2012. Marine CSEM of the Scarborough gas field, Part 1: Experimental design and data uncertainty, Geophysics, 77(4), E281–E299.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Orange, A., Key, K., & Constable, S., 2009. The feasibility of reservoir monitoring using time‐lapse marine csem, Geophysics, 74(2), F21–F29.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Streich, R. & Becken, M., 2010. Electromagnetic fields generated by finite‐length wire sources: comparison with point dipole sources, Geophysical Prospecting, 59(2), 361–374.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Summerfield, P., Gale, L., Lue, X., Phillips, T., Quintanilla, R., Eriksen, E., Rutledge, A., & Solon, K., 2005. Marine CSEM acquisition challenges, Society of Exploration Geophysicists Houston 2005 Annual Meeting.
  32. Swidinsky, A. & Edwards, R.N., 2011. Joint inversion of navigation and resistivity using a fixed transmitter and a towed receiver array: a transient marine CSEM model study, Geophysical Journal International, pp. 1–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Ward, S.H. & Hohmann, G.W., 1987. Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics, vol. 1 of Investigations in Geophysics, chap. 4 Electromagnetic Theory for Geophysical Applications, pp. 131–311, Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Weitemeyer, K., Constable, S., Key, K., & Behrens, J., 2006. First results from a marine controlled‐source electromagnetic survey to detect gas hydrates offshore Oregon, Geophysical Research Letters, 33(L03304), doi:10.1029/2005GL024896.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Weitemeyer, K.A., 2008. Marine Electromagnetic Methods for Gas Hydrate Characterization, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla CA. USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Zach, J., Frenkel, M., Ridyard, D., Hincapie, J., Dubois, B., & Morten, J.P., 2009. Marine CSEM time‐lapse repeatability for hydrocarbon field monitoring, in SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12092
Loading
Navigating marine electromagnetic transmitters using dipole field geometry
Geophysical Prospecting 62, 573 (2014); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12092
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12092
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12092
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Electromagnetics; Modelling

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

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