1887
Volume 66, Issue 8
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Time‐domain marine controlled source electromagnetic methods have been used successfully for the detection of resistive targets such as hydrocarbons, gas hydrate, or marine groundwater aquifers. As the application of time‐domain marine controlled source electromagnetic methods increases, surveys in areas with a strong seabed topography are inevitable. In these cases, an important question is whether bathymetry information should be included in the interpretation of the measured electromagnetic field or not. Since multi‐dimensional inversion is still not common in time‐domain marine controlled source electromagnetic methods, bathymetry effects on the 1D inversion of single‐offset and multi‐offset joint inversions of time‐domain controlled source electromagnetic methods data are investigated. We firstly used an adaptive finite element algorithm to calculate the time‐domain controlled source electromagnetic methods responses of 2D resistivity models with seafloor topography. Then, 1D inversions are applied on the synthetic data derived from marine resistivity models, including the topography in order to study the possible topography effects on the 1D interpretation. To evaluate the effects of topography with various steepness, the slope angle of the seabed topography is varied in the synthetic modelling studies for deep water (air interaction is absent or very weak) and shallow water (air interaction is dominant), respectively. Several different patterns of measuring configurations are considered, such as the systems adopting nodal receivers and the bottom‐towed system. According to the modelling results for deep water when air interaction is absent, the 2D topography can distort the measured electric field. The distortion of the data increases gradually with the enlarging of the topography's slope angle. In our test, depending on the configuration, the seabed topography does not affect the 1D interpretation significantly if the slope angle is less or around 10°. However, if the slope angle increases to 30° or more, it is possible that significant artificial layers occur in inversion results and lead to a wrong interpretation. In a shallow water environment with seabed topography, where the air interaction dominates, it is possible to uncover the true subsurface resistivity structure if the water depth for the 1D inversion is properly chosen. In our synthetic modelling, this scheme can always present a satisfactory data fit in the 1D inversion if only one offset is used in the inversion process. However, the determination of the optimal water depth for a multi‐offset joint inversion is challenging due to the various air interaction for different offsets.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12664
2018-07-23
2020-04-02
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AndersonW.1982. Fast Hankel transforms using related and lagged convolutions. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software8, 344–368.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BörnerR., ErnstO. and SpitzerK.2008. Fast 3D simulation of transient electromagnetic fields by model reduction in the frequency domain using Krylov subspace projection. Geophysical Journal International173, 766–780.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BrownV., HoverstenM., KeyK. and ChenJ.2012. Resolution of reservoir scale electrical anisotropy from marine CSEM data. Geophysics77, E147–E158.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. ChaveA., EverettM., MattssonJ., BoonJ. and MidgleyJ.2017. On the physics of frequency‐domain controlled source electromagnetics in shallow water. 1: isotropic conductivity. Geophysical Journal International208, 1026–1042
    [Google Scholar]
  5. CommerM. and G. A.Newman. 2007. 3D CSEM modeling and inversion for hydrocarbon reservoir mapping: the bathymetry problem. 77th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 452–456.
  6. ConstableS., ParkerR. and ConstableG.1987. Occams’ inversion: a practical algorithm for generating smooth models from electromagnetic sounding data. Geophysics52, 289–300.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. EdwardsR.N.1997. On the resource evaluation of marine gas hydrate deposits using a sea‐floor transient electric dipole‐dipole methods, Geophysics62, 63–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. EidesmoT., EllingsrudS., MacGregorL., ConstableS., SinhaM., JohansenS.et al. 2002. Sea bed logging SBL, a new method for remote and direct identification of hydrocarbon filled layers in deep water areas. First Break20, 144–152.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. GehrmannR., SchwalenbergK., RiedelM., SpenceG., SpießV. and DossoS.2016. Bayesian inversion of marine controlled source electromagnetic data offshore Vancouver Island, Canada. Geophysical Journal International204, 21–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. GoldmanM., LeviE., TezkanB. and YogeshwarP.2011. The 2D coastal effect on marine time‐domain electromagnetic measurements using broadside dBz/dt of an electrical transmitter dipole. Geophysics76, F101–F109.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. HaroonA.2016. Development of novel time‐domain electromagnetic methods for offshore groundwater studies: a data application from Bat Yam, Israel. PhD thesis, University of Cologne, Germany.
  12. HölzS., SwidinskyA., SommerM., JegenM. and BialasJ.2015. The use of rotational invariants for the interpretation of marine CSEM data with a case study from the North Alex mud volcano, West Nile Delta. Geophysical Journal International201, 224–245
    [Google Scholar]
  13. HördtA.1989. Ein Verfahren zur ‘Joint Inversion’ angewandt auf ‘Long Offset Electromagnetics’(LOTEM) und Magnetotellurik (MT), Diplomarbeit, Univ. zu Köln, Inst. für Geophys.und Meteo.
  14. HördtA. and SchollC.2004. The effect of local distortions on time‐domain electromagnetic measurements. Geophysics69, 87–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. LiY. and ConstableS.2007. 2D marine controlled‐source electromagnetic modeling, Part 2: the effect of bathymetry. Geophysics72, WA63–WA71.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. LiY. and ConstableS.2010. Transient electromagnetic in shallow water: insights from 1D modeling. Chinese Journal of Geophysics53, 737–742.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. LiY. and KeyK.2007. 2D marine controlled‐source electromagnetic modeling, part 1: an adaptive finite‐element algorithm. Geophysics72, W51–WA62.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. MarquardtD.W.1963. An algorithm for least‐squares estimation of nonlinear parameters. Journal of the Society of Indian Applied Mathematics11, 431–441.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. MittetR.2010. High‐order finite‐difference simulations of marine CSEM surveys using a correspondence principle for wave and diffusion fields. Geophysics75, F33–F50.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. MoghadasD., EngelsM. and SchwalenbergK.2015. 1D joint multi‐offset inversion of time‐domain marine controlled source electromagnetic data. Geophysical Prospecting63, 1334–1354.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. MyerD., KeyK. and ConstableS.2015. Marine CSEM of the Scarborough gas field, part 2: 2D inversion. Geophysics80, E187–E196.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. NewmanG. A.1989. Deep transient electromagnetic sounding with a grounded source over near‐surface conductors. Geophysical Journal98, 587–601.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. SasakiY.2011. Bathymetric effects and corrections in marine CSEM data. Geophysics76, F139–F146.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. SasakiY.2013. 3D inversion of marine CSEM and MT data: an approach to shallow‐water problem. Geophysics, 78(1), E59–E65.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. SchollC.2010. Resolving an onshore gas‐hydrate layer with long‐offset transient electromagnetics (LOTEM). In Geophysical Characterization of Gas Hydrates (eds M.Riedel , E. C.Willoughby and S.Chopra ), pp. 163–177. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. SchwalenbergK., RippeD., KochS. and SchollC.2017. Marine‐controlled source electromagnetic study of methane seeps and gas hydrates at Opouawe Bank, Hikurangi Margin, New Zealand. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth122, 3334–3350.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. SchwalenbergK., WoodW., PecherI., HamdanL., HenrysS., JegenM.et al. 2010. Preliminary interpretation of electromagnetic, heat flow, seismic, and geochemical data for gas hydrate distribution across the Porangahau Ridge, New Zealand. Marine Geology272, 89–98.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. UmE.2005. On the physics of galvanic source electromagnetic geophysical methods for terrestrial and marine exploration. M.S. thesis, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI.
  29. UmE., HarrisJ. and AlumbaughD.2012a. An iterative finite element time‐domain method for simulating three‐dimensional electromagnetic diffusion in earth. Geophysical Journal International190: 871–886.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. UmE., HarrisJ., AlumbaughD. and ChenJ.2012b. Numerical modeling analysis of short‐offset electric‐field measurements with a vertical electric dipole source in complex offshore environments. Geophysics77, E329–E341.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. WeitemeyerK. and ConstableS.2010. Mapping shallow geology and gas hydrate with marine CSEM surveys. First Break28, 97–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. ZiolkowskiA., WrightD. and MattssonJ.2011. Comparison of pseudo‐random binary sequence and square‐wave transient controlled‐source electromagnetic data over the Peon gas discovery, Norway. Geophysical Prospecting59, 1114–1131
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12664
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12664
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): 1D inversion , 2D problem , bathymetry , Gas‐hydrate and Transient electromagnetics
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