Monitoring of changes in brine chemistry (salinity and temperature), during water-flooding is important for injector optimisation, understanding efficiency, detecting early water breakthrough, locating bypassed hydrocarbons or detecting scaling in the heterogeneous reservoir. It is already known that water injection into the oil-leg of a hydrocarbon reservoir can be monitored by both seismic acquisition and also CSEM methods. The problem of an interfering pressure signal for seismic impacts quantitative evaluation for time-lapse analysis, whilst with EM there are the counterbalancing effects of salinity and temperature. CSEM becomes favoured when the pressure effects on seismic are dominant, or heavy oil is present with similar acoustic properties as the formation and injected waters. The quality of measurement for both methods is influenced by reservoir facies variations, acquisition repeatability and overburden heterogeneity. Time-lapse seismic is unlikely to detect brine distributions injected into the water-leg or aquifer, although it may detect associated pressure up effects. However our calculations show that it may be possible for time-lapse CSEM to distinguish the inter-mixing of different brines in the subsurface hydrocarbon reservoir. Specifically, low salinity injection or injection into a highly saline formation can clearly be detected with this technique.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Batzle, M., and Wang, Z.
    [1992] Seismic properties of pore fluids. Geophysics, 57(11), 1396–1408.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Constable, S.
    [2013] Review paper: Instrumentation for marine magnetotelluric and controlled source electromagnetic sounding. Geophysical Prospecting, 61(sup 1), 505–532.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Crain, E. R.
    [1986] The Log Analysis Handbook. Tulsa: Pennwell Publishing. Retrieved November 30, 2011, accessed via: http://www.spec2000.net/00-resume.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Han, D., and Batzle, M.
    [2000] Velocity, density and modulus of hydrocarbon. SEG Annual Meeting Technical Program, Expanded Abstracts, 1892–1866, Tulsa: Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Key, K.
    [2009] 1D inversion of multicomponent, multifrequency marine CSEM data: Methodology and synthetic studies for resolving thin resistive layers. Geophysics, 74(2), F9–F20.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Martin, K., and MacDonald, C.
    [2010] The Schiehallion Field: Applying a geobody modelling approach to piece together a complex turbidite field. Aberdeen: Devex.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. McGuire, P. L., Chatham, J. R., Paskvan, F. K., Sommer, D. M., and Carini, F. H.
    [2005] Low salinity oil recovery: An exciting new EOR opportunity for Alaska’s North Slope. Irvine: SPE.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Rafle, M. Y., and Youngblood, W. E.
    [1987] Advances in Quantitative Reservoir Description and Monitoring in Saudi Arabia. 12th World Petroleum Congress. Houston, USA: World Petroleum Congress.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Rider, M., and Kennedy, M.
    [2013] The Geological Interpretation of Well Logs (Third ed.). Glasgow: Rider-French Consulting Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. State of Alaska, Alaska Oil and Gas Conversation Commission
    [2011] Retrieved 2014, accessed from http://doa.alaska.gov/ogc/annual/current/18_Oil_Pools/Endicott%20-%20Oil/Endicott,%20Ivishak%20Oil/1_Oil_1.htm
  11. Youngblood, W. E.
    [1980] The application of pulsed neutron decay time logs to monitor waterfloods with changing salinity, SPE, 957–963.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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