1887
Volume 37, Issue 11
  • ISSN: 0263-5046
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2397

Abstract

Abstract

Marine CSEM methods for subsurface investigations were developed nearly 30 years ago (Cox, 1981), and have found extensive applications within the offshore hydrocarbon exploration industry over the past 15 years (e.g. Constable, 2010). These methods detect contrasts in electrical conductivity, exploiting the fact that the electrical conductivity of hydrocarbon-saturated reservoirs is significantly smaller than in the surrounding sediments (Ell-ingsrud et al., 2002). While marine CSEM has proven itself as a valuable tool in exploration and mapping of frontier areas, there is growing increased interest in applying CSEM for near-exploration and reservoir monitoring applications. A vertical-based time domain EM exploration method (Barsukov et al., 2007) has been developed by the Norwegian geophysical company PetroMarker, founded in 2005. In the past the method has primarily been used for exploration, but since the vertical method relies on a stationary acquisition mode with very high accuracy in transmitter positioning it allows both repeatability and freedom of operation close to existing infrastructure and installations, and in vulnerable environments. Over the past few years there have also been improvements in receiver technology, allowing efficient 3D acquisition. We will present improvements to the method and a 3D field data example. We will also present investigations of the impact of the method on field data from infrastructure.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.2019033
2019-11-01
2020-02-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barsukov, P., Fainberg, E. and Singer, B.
    [2007]. A method for hydrocarbon reservoir mapping and apparatus for use when performing the method. International patent WO 2007/053025.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Constable, S.
    [2010]. Ten years of marine CSEM for hydrocarbon exploration.Geophysics, 75, 75A67–75A81.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Constable, S. and Weiss, C.
    [2006]. Mapping thin resistors and hydrocarbons with marine EM methods: Insights from 1d modeling.Geophysics, 71 (2), G43–G51.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Alumbaugh, D., Cuevas, N.H., Chen, J., Gao, G. and Brady, J.
    [2010]. Comparison of sensitivity and resolution with two marine CSEM exploration methods.80th SEG Annual International Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 3893–3897.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Edwards, R.N., Law, L.K., Wolfgram, P.A., Nobes, D.C., Bone, M.N., Trigg, D.F. and DeLaurier, J.M.
    [1985]. First Results of the MOSES experiment: Sea Sediment Conductivity and Thickness Determination, Bute Inlet, British Columbia, by Magnetometric Off-Shore Electrical Sounding.Geophysics, 50, 153–160.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Ellingsrud, S., Eidesmo, T., Johansen, S., Sinha, M.C., MacGregor, L.M. and Constable, S.
    [2002]. Remote sensing of HC layers by seabed logging (SBL): Results from a cruise offshore Angola.The Leading Edge, 21 (10), 972–982.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Goldman, M.
    [1990]. Non-conventional methods in geoelectrical prospecting, Ellis Horwood series in applied geology, Ellis Horwood, 153.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Hamilton, M.P., Mikkelsen, G., Poujardieu, R. and Price, A.
    [2010]. CSEM Survey over the Frigg Gas Field, North Sea.72nd EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Extended Abstracts, P074.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Helwig, S.L., Kaffas, A., Holten, T., Frafjord, Ø. and Eide, K.
    [2013]. Vertical dipole CSEM: technology advances and results from the Snøhvit field.First Break, 31 (4), 63–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Helwig, S.L., Wood, W., Gloux, B. and Holten, T.
    [2016]. A New Generation of Vertical CSEM Receiver.78th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Extended Abstracts, LHR1 06.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kaufman, A.K. and Keller, G. V.
    [1983]. Frequency and Transient Soundings.Methods in geochemistry and geophysics, 16, 685.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Mackie, R. L., Smith, T. J. and Madden, T. R.
    , [1994]. Three dimensional electromagnetic modeling and inversion using conjugate gradients.Geophysics, 923–935.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Morten, J.P, Berre, L., de la Kethulle de Ryhove, S. and Markhus, V.
    [2017]. 3D CSEM Inversion Of Data Affected by Infrastructure.79th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Extended Abstracts, A409.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Scholl, C. and Miorelli, F.
    [2018]. Otze – Airborne EM Inversion on unstructured model grids. AEGC, Abstract.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.2019033
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.2019033
Loading

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