Volume 57, Issue 4
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478



In this paper we show how marine controlled source electromagnetic data interpretation can be improved if the data are acquired with an expanded frequency spectrum. Especially in the case of targets located at a wide range of depths, both high‐ and low‐frequency data can provide useful information for improving the risk analysis associated with different prospects with variable size and depth. We discuss an application to a real data set acquired in deep water offshore Nigeria using two values of fundamental frequency: 0.05 Hz and 0.25 Hz. Both frequencies, together with higher frequency harmonics, have been used for multi‐frequency and multi‐dimensional modelling and inversion with excellent results.

At the end of the interpretation work, areas with different electric and magnetic anomalies were mapped and quantitatively interpreted in terms of resistivity distribution in the 3D space. Relatively high‐frequency data (0.25 Hz and the first two harmonics) were useful for constraining the shallowest part of the resistivity models, including the presence of thin resistive layers, such as the gas sand recognized in correspondence of the well previously drilled in the NW portion of the block.

Low‐frequency data (0.05 Hz) were useful for constraining the deepest portion of the models (from 2 km to 4 km below sea floor) and for characterizing the resistivity of the background.

From an exploration point of view, the whole workflow based on multi‐frequency data analysis of this electromagnetic data set was very useful for further de‐risking the different prospects previously individuated in the area using seismic information.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Dell’AversanaP.2005. The importance of using geometrical constraints in marine Controlled Source Electromagnetic data inversion. 75th SEG meeting, Houston , Texas , Expanded Abstracts, EM P1.3, P605.
  2. Dell’AversanaP.2007a. Improving interpretation of CSEM in shallow water. The Leading Edge26, 332–335.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Dell’AversanaP.2007b. Marine CSEM data interpretation: Pitfalls and possible solutions. The Leading Edge26, 686–691.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. EidesmoT., EllingsrudS., MacGregorL.M., ConstableS., SinhaM.C., JohansenS. et al . 2002. Sea bed logging, a new method for remote and direct identification of hydrocarbon filled layers in deepwater areas. First Break20, 144–152.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. GreerA., MacGregorL.M. and WeaverR.2003. Remote mapping of hydrocarbon extent using marine Active Source EM Sounding. 65th EAGE meeting, Stavanger, Norway, Expanded. Abstracts, Z‐99.
  6. MacGregorL., AndreisD., TomlinsonJ. and BakerN.2006. Controlled source electromagnetic imaging on the Nuggets‐1 reservoir. The Leading Edge25, 984–992.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. MackieR.L., SmithJ.T. and MaddenT.R.1994. Three‐dimensional electromagnetic modeling using finite difference equations: the magnetotelluric example. Radio Science29, 923–935.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. NewmanG.A. and HoverstenG.M.2000. Solution strategies for 2D and 3D electromagnetic inverse problems. Inverse Problems16, 1357–1375.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. SrnkaJ.L., CarazzoneJ.J., EphronM.S. and EriksenE.A.2006. Remote reservoir resistivity mapping. The Leading Edge25, 972–975.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. SrnkaJ.L., CarazzoneJ.J., EriksenE.A. and EphronM.S.2005. Remote reservoir resistivity mapping – An overview. 75th SEG meeting, Houston , Texas , Expanded Abstracts, EM 3.1, P569.

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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