1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 59, Issue 6
  5. Article
Advances in Electromagnetic, Gravity and Magnetic Methods for Exploration
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

We discuss the problem of source control in controlled‐source electromagnetic (CSEM) surveying and compare and contrast equal energy transient square‐wave and transient pseudo‐random binary sequence source signatures for the same towed‐streamer electromagnetic survey line over the Peon gasfield in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. The received response of the transient square‐wave data was 11 dB greater than that of the pseudo‐random binary sequence data, due to diffusive attenuation of higher frequencies present in the more broadband pseudo‐random binary sequence signature. Deconvolution of the pseudo‐random binary sequence data recovers the total impulse response function, increases the signal‐to‐noise ratio by 32.6 dB and separates most of the air wave from the earth impulse response by the causality principle. The recovered impulse responses have more detailed information in the frequency domain than the transient square‐wave data. The pseudo‐random binary sequence data were acquired with a 10 Hz source bit rate but contain no information about the Peon gasfield at frequencies above 2 Hz. The bit rate could have been reduced to 4 Hz, increasing the signal energy below 2 Hz by 150% and thus, potentially, increasing the signal‐to‐noise ratio by a further 4 dB.

Because the total earth impulse response can be recovered from the broad‐bandwidth pseudo‐random binary sequence data, further time‐domain processing may be applied, including correlated noise removal, which can increase the signal‐to‐noise ratio by as much as 20 dB, and air wave removal using the causality principle. The information in the arrival time of the peak of the earth response provides the potential for traveltime to resistivity mapping to provide a starting model for inversion.

© 2011 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.01006.x
2011-09-27
2024-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.01006.x
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AmundsenH.E.F., JohansenS. and RostenT.2004. A sea bed logging (SBL) calibration survey over the Troll gas field. 66th EAGE meeting, Paris , France , Expanded Abstracts, E019.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AndersonC. and MattssonJ.2010. An integrated approach to marine electromagnetic surveying using a towed streamer and source. First Break28(5), 71–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BerkhoutA.J.1973. On the minimum‐length property of one‐sided signals. Geophysics38, 657–672.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BerkhoutA.J.1974. Related properties of minimum‐phase and zero‐phase time functions. Geophysical Prospecting22, 683–709.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BracewellR.1965. The Fourier Transform and Its Applications . McGraw‐Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. ConstableS. and CoxC.S.1996. Marine controlled‐source electromagnetic sounding 2. The PEGASUS experiment. Journal of Geophysical Research101, 5519–5530.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. ConstableS. and SrnkaL.2007. An introduction to marine controlled‐source electromagnetic methods for hydrocarbon exploration. Geophysics72, WA3–WA12.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DarnetM., SmanP.V.D., HindriksF., SandrinG., ChristianP., JensenL. and UldallA.2010. The controlled‐source electromagnetic (CSEM) method in shallow water: A calibration survey. 80th SEG meeting, Denver , Colorado , USA , Expanded Abstracts, EM 3.8.
  9. DuncanP.M., HwangA., EdwardsR.N., BaileyR.C. and GarlandG.D.1980. The development and applications of a wide band electrical sounding system using a pseudo‐noise source. Geophysics45, 1276–1296.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. EdwardsR.N.1997. On the resource evaluation of marine gas hydrate deposits using sea–floor transient electric dipole–dipole methods. Geophysics62, 63–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. EdwardsN.2005. Marine controlled source electromagnetic: principles, methodologies, future commercial applications. Surveys in Geophysics26, 675–700.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. EidismoT., EllingsrudS., MacGregorL.M., ConstableS., SinhaM.C., JohansenS.E. et al . 2002. Sea bed logging (CSEM), a new method for remote and direct identification of hydrocarbon filled layers in deepwater areas. First Break20, 144–152.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. EllingsrudS., EidesmoT., JohansenS., SinhaM., MacGregorL. and ConstableS.2002. The meter reader‐remote sensing of hydrocarbon layers by seabed logging (SBL): Results from a cruise offshore Angola. The Leading Edge21, 972–982.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. GeyerR.L. and LevinF.K.1989. Vibroseis , Geophysics Reprint Series, Vol. 11. SEG.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. GolombS.W.1955. Sequences with Randomness Properties . The Glenn L. Martin Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. GolombS.W.1982. Shift Register Sequences . Aegean Park Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. KaufmanA.A. and KellerG.V.1983. Frequency and Transient Soundings . Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. de la Kethulle de RyhoveS. and MaaøF.2008. On the removal of MT signals from SBL data. 70th EAGE meeting, Rome , Italy , Expanded Abstracts, H047.
  19. LevinsonN.1947. The Wiener RMS (root‐mean‐square) error criterion in filter design and prediction. Journal of Mathematics and Physics25, 261–278.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. LuX. and SrnkaL.J.2005. Logarithmic spectrum transmitter waveform for controlled‐source electromagnetic surveying. International Patent Application No. WO 2005/117326 A2.
  21. LuX., SrnkaL.J. and CarazzoneJ.J.2007. Method for removing air wave effect from offshore frequency domain controlled source electromagnetic data. US Patent, US 7,277,806.
  22. MittetR. and Schaug‐PettersenT.2008. Shaping optimal transmitter waveforms for marine CSEM surveys. Geophysics73, F97–F104.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. MyerD., ConstableS. and KeyK.2010. Broad‐band waveforms and robust processing for marine CSEM surveys. Geophysical Journal International184, 689–698.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. NordskagJ.I. and AmundsenL.2007. Asymptotic airwave modeling for controlled source electromagnetic surveying. Geophysics72, F249–F255.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. RobinsonE.A.1967. Statistical Communication and Detection with Special Reference to Digital Data Processing of Radar and Seismic Signals . Griffin.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. SchwalenbergK., WilloughbyE., MirR. and EdwardsR.N.2005. Marine gas hydrate electromagnetic signatures in Cascadia and their correlation with seismic blank zones. First Break23, 57–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. SheriffR.E.1973. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Exploration Geophysics . SEG.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. SrnkaL.J., CarrazoneJ.J. and EphronM.S.2006. Remote resistivity mapping. The Leading Edge25, 972–975.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. StrackK.‐M.1992. Exploration with Deep Transient Electromagnetic . Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. VozoffK.1991. The magnetotelluric method. In: Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics , Vol. 2 (ed. M.N.Nabighian ), pp. 641–707. SEG.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. WienerN.1949. Extrapolation, Interpolation and Smoothing of Stationary Time Series . MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. WrightD. and ZiolkowskiA.2007. Travel time to resistivity mapping using the multi transient electromagnetic (MTEM) method. 69th EAGE meeting, London , UK , Expanded Abstracts, D041.
  33. WrightD., ZiolkowskiA. and HallG.2006. Improving signal‐to‐noise ratio using pseudo‐random binary sequences in multi‐transient electromagnetic (MTEM) data. 68th EAGE meeting, Vienna , Austria , Expanded Abstracts, P065.
  34. WrightD., ZiolkowskiA. and HobbsB.2002. Hydrocarbon detection and monitoring with a multicomponent transient electromagnetic (MTEM) survey. The Leading Edge21, 852–864.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. ZierlerN.1959. Linear recurring sequences. Journal of the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics7, 31–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. ZiolkowskiA., HobbsB. and WrightD.2007. Multitransient electromagnetic demonstration survey in France. Geophysics72, F197–F209.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. ZiolkowskiA., ParrR., WrightD., NocklesV., LimondC., MorrisE. and LinfootJ.2010. Multi‐transient electromagnetic repeatability experiment over the North Sea Harding Field. Geophysical Prospecting58, 1159–1176.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. ZiolkowskiA. and WrightD.2007. Removal of the airwave in shallow‐marine transient EM data. 77th SEG meeting, San Antonio, Texas , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 534–538.
  39. ZiolkowskiA. and WrightD.2010. Signal‐to‐noise ratio of CSEM data in shallow water. EGM 2010 International Workshop, 11–14 April, Capri , Italy , Expanded Abstracts.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.01006.x
Loading
Comparison of pseudo‐random binary sequence and square‐wave transient controlled‐source electromagnetic data over the Peon gas discovery, Norway
Geophysical Prospecting 59, 1114 (2011); https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.01006.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.01006.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2011.01006.x
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Acquisition; Electromagnetic; Parameter estimation; Signal processing

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