Professional Documents
Culture Documents
James Brady
Tracy Campbell
Alastair Fenwick
Marcus Ganz
Stewart K. Sandberg
Houston, Texas, USA
Marco Polo Pereira Buonora
Luiz Felipe Rodrigues
Petrobras E&P
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Chuck Campbell
ACCEL Services Inc.
Houston, Texas
Leendert Combee
Oslo, Norway
Arnie Ferster
Kenneth E. Umbach
EnCana Corporation
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Tiziano Labruzzo
Andrea Zerilli
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Edward A. Nichols
Clamart, France
Steve Patmore
Cairn Energy Plc
Edinburgh, Scotland
Jan Stilling
Nunaoil A/S
Nuuk, Greenland
Oilfield Review Spring 2009: 21, no. 1.
Copyright 2009 Schlumberger.
For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Graeme
Cairns, George Jamieson, Jeff Mayville, Fred Snyder and
Xianghong Wu, Houston.
MMCI and Petrel are marks of Schlumberger.
Oilfield Review
Spring 2009
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0.000001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
Frequency, Hz
100
1,000
10,000
Geomagnetic index
16
12
Annual 2007
average
EM_FIGURE 01
2005
2006
2008
1/1/08
4/1/08
7/1/08
10/1/08
12/31/08
Date
Oilfield Review
=2
=5
= 10
= 10
~0
~0
~ 10
~1
Skin depth
Skin depth
Skin depth
Skin depth
skin depth is the distance at which the amplitude has decayed to 1/e of
the incident value. The wave in the conductive medium also experiences a
gradual delay in the phase. Since the phase change is difficult to see in this
example, one illustration (far left ) also shows an attenuated wave without
the phase change (violet). Frequency and conductivity values are relative
among these examples.
Spring 2009
Ex (t)
Marine MT
Hy (t)
Ex =
H
Marine CSEM
Basin scale
Reservoir scale
V
L
X
Ex
Z=
= i
a
Hy
Y
a =
=
=
Z=
E=
H=
t=
V=
L=
i=
formation resistivity
frequency
magnetic permeability
formation impedance
electric field
magnetic field
time
voltage drop across dipole
dipole length
1
Oilfield Review
Spring 2009
Instrumented
strayline float
Dipole for
electric field
Gas flotation
Induction coil
magnetometers
Logger
Acoustics
Burnwire release
mechanisms
Concrete
anchor
> CSEM receiver. Orthogonal dipole antennas on the receiver measure Ex and Ey and two induction coil
magnetometers measure Hx and Hy . Each tube containing an antenna is 3.6 m [12 ft] long; coupled with
the dimension of the frame, the electric dipole length formed by a pair pointing in opposite directions
is 10 m [32.8 ft]. A concrete anchor carries the receiver to the seafloor, where it remains throughout
the test. The electronic logger records for a set time. At the conclusion of the test, an acoustic signal
from the ship triggers a mechanism to burn through the wire holding the device to the anchor. Airfilled glass spheres raise the receiver to the surface, where it is retrieved and the data are captured.
In some cases, the receiver includes a vertical dipole to measure the vertical electric field, Ez (not
shown). (Image courtesy of Scripps Institution of Oceanography.)
noise in a remote part of the Norwegian countryside. In addition, data quality requires strict
adherence to deployment procedures on the
survey ship.
A concrete block attached to the bottom of
the receiver frame provides weight to take it to
the ocean floor. This concrete anchor also helps
to stabilize the instrument against forces from
sea currents; antenna rotation as tiny as 1 rad
can easily be detected by the magnetic induction coil moving in the Earths magnetic field. At
the conclusion of the survey, an acoustic signal
from surface triggers release from the block, and
air-filled glass spheres lift the receiver to surface
for retrieval.
The cost and logistics of establishing electrical connections with multiple receivers placed
on the seabed in deep water are prohibitive, so
engineers designed the receiver to operate independently and to be retrieved at the end of the
test. Each receiver carries a data logger that
controls operation and records the signals on a
compact flash card. High-resolution data from
the dipoles and magnetometers come from 24-bit
analog-to-digital converters, which accurately
record time so that the signals can be synchro-
The seabed orientation of the horizontal sensors is random. The measurement directions are
resolved to a desired orientation during processing. The newest devices have a compass, but in
the past the orientation for each receiver was
obtained either by comparison with land-based
sensors or by orientation based on the direction
of a towed source in a CSEM survey.
Towfish
Cable to
survey vessel
Streamer Antenna
Neutrally
buoyant cable
Tow-cable termination
300-m dipole
Transponder
A
Electrode 1
Electrode 2
2.5 m
Strain relief
Instrument
suite
Transponders
20 m
> CSEM transmitter. The transmitter comprises a towfishthe head section containing power and
instrumentationand a streamer antenna with dipole electrodes at the ends of two cables. The
dipole is the source of the CSEM signal. The signal transmission and waveform parameters are set
from the survey vessel during operations, and results are telemetered to the operators for real-time
quality control of the signal. The photograph (top) shows a towfish being removed from the ocean,
with the antenna trailing in the water.
1.5
Five-term sum
1.0
Amplitude
0.5
9 0
3 0
5 0
7 0
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2 09
EM_FIGURE
Time, s
Square wave ( 0) =
sin( 0t) +
sin(3 0t)
3
sin(5 0t)
5
sin(7 0t)
7
sin(9 0t)
9
+ ...
10
Oilfield Review
Ex
Ey
Hx
Hy
Time, min
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Frequency, Hz
0.0625
0.1875
0.25
0.315
0.4375
0.75
1.25
1.75
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
10
10
Source-receiver offset, km
> Converting time-domain measurements to amplitude versus offset. Each receiver records data for two horizontal electricand magnetic-field measurements (top). A Fourier transform converts these time-domain signals into the frequency domain.
Fourier conversions of similar measurements at many receiver locations allow development of a frequency-dependent
amplitude versus offset relationship (bottom). This can be developed for each measured component of the electric field (only
one is shown) and the magnetic field. The resistivity of the subsurface affects the shape of these curves.
Spring 2009
11
Air-wave signal
Direct sig
Water
nal
Conductor
Geologic signal
Resistor
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
-7
10
10-8
Reservoir
10-9
Background
(no resistive formation)
10-10
10-11
10-12
4
5
6
7
Source-receiver separation, km
10
> Paths from marine source to receivers. Signal energy from the marine source reaches the receivers
by following three types of paths. A direct signal passes through the water to the receiver; this signal
is strongest at the near-offset receivers. Signal energy that enters the subsurface interacts with layers
of varying resistivity and generates a response signal containing geologic information that travels up to
the receivers. Signal energy that reaches the air interface travels along the interface as an air wave,
which also travels to receivers. In shallow water or at long source-receiver offsets in deep water, the
air-wave signal is strongest.
12
distance because of its attenuation in conductive water. A second contribution comes from
the air wave. The electromagnetic field travels
to the water surface, where it encounters highly
resistive air. The resistance contrast forces
the wave propagation to follow the air/water
interface. In deep water, the air-wave signal
dominates only at long offsets, normally beyond
10km, because, unlike the signals following the
other two paths, the signal at the air/water interface has little attenuation.
The third portion of the signal travels through
the subsurface. Under the proper conditions of
frequency, water depth and subsurface conductivity, there is aEM_FIGURE
range of offsets
11 for which the
third path dominates the signal. For this path,
waves propagate into the subsurface, where they
interact with resistive formations and generate a
response field; some of that energy travels back
to the seafloor receivers. This response signal
appears at receivers at offset distances that are
typically greater than the reservoir depth below
the seabed, but at even greater offsets it attenu-
Oilfield Review
Spring 2009
1.5
1.4
Seawater
500
1.3
1.2
1.1
1,000
Frequency, Hz
1.0
1,500
2,000
2,500
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Amplitude
ratio
6
0.5
0.4
4
3
0.3
3,000
0.2
Depth, m
1
0
3,500
2,000
1.5
4,000
Basalt
4,000
6,000
8,000
Transmitter-receiver offset, m
10,000
12,000
1.4
1.3
4,500
1.2
1.1
5,000
1.0
Frequency, Hz
5,500
6,000
0.9
0.8
0.7
Phase
difference,
0.6
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
0.5
6,500
0.4
0.3
0.2
7,000
1
10
Resistivity, ohm.m
100
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
Transmitter-receiver offset, m
10,000
12,000
> Presurvey modeling. To optimize CSEM acquisition parameters, the subsurface is modeled as a
series of resistive layers (left ). Two models having identical geometries are compared. One model
incorporates a layer of highly resistive basalt (yellow and brown); the other model assigns that layer
a lower resistivity (yellow only). The two models have different phase and amplitude responses to a
simulated CSEM pulse. The amplitude ratio between the models (top right ) is maximum (red) at an
offsetdistance from source to receiverof about 7,000 m and at a frequency of about 0.7 Hz. The
phase difference (bottom right ) has a maximum (red) at about 8,500 m and at a frequency less than
0.1 Hz, and another maximum (violet) at long offset and high frequency. Based on the information in
both plots, geoscientists determined that the optimal offset to maximize the chance of detecting this
anomaly is about 8,000 m, at frequencies of 0.5 and 0.125 Hz. The contour lines indicate various levels
of receiver noise floors (labeled by the power of 10), which depend on the sensors, electronics and
the environment. Although the noise floor in some environments may be as poor as 10-14, these plots
extend to a noise floor of 10-15, which can usually be achieved.
Although marine MT and CSEM receivers Mexico, offshore Louisiana, USA.18 Exploration
have been used in studies since the 1990s, the companies have had an interest in evaluating
industrys interest has risen rapidly in the last hydrocarbon potential in subsalt formations
few years, resulting in a rapid increase in the in this area. The seismic data available at the
total number of sites evaluated. A large, multi time, a legacy survey called E-Cat, had been
phase study recently performed in the Gulf of reprocessed recently over Garden Banks, but it
Mexico included more marine MT receivers than had insufficient resolution to reliably determine
EM_FIGURE
05a
the base of a salt intrusion. The objective of the
the total deployed worldwide to that date.
new study was to integrate marine MT, fulltensor gravity and seismic measurements using
Finding the Base of Salt
In 2006, WesternGeco began a test of the MMCI an MMCI evaluation to improve the interpretaconcept in the Garden Banks area of the Gulf of tion of the base of salt.
17. A pseudosection uses approximate or pseudo spatial
coordinates. It provides a semiquantitative way to look
at spatial data.
13
Line 5
Line 4
Line 3
Line 2
Line 1
Seafloor
depth, m
750
975
1,200
Tamara well
1,425
1,650
Line 6
14
1,875
2,100
0
0
km
10
mi
10
> MT survey in Garden Banks area. The MT receivers (inset) were placed in
five north-south lines and one east-west crossline. Additional receivers were
placed in the central area, near the Tamara well. The color-coding indicates
seawater depth from bathymetry.
EM_FIGURE 13
Oilfield Review
Spring 2009
Gravity
survey
response
Density
2.1 kg/m3
2.7 kg/m3
Volume = 3,600 m3
3,600 m3
2,800 m3
Distance, km
80
40
40
2,500
5,000
80
120
SE
Resistivity, ohm.m
NW
Depth, m
10
EM_FIGURE 16
7,500
10,000
> Confirmation by drilling. MT measurements detected a high-resistivity salt intrusion (pink). The
Tamara well, drilled near MT receiver Line 3, provides a point of reference for interpretations of base of
salt. The base-salt interpretation (gray) of the best WAZ data available shows a lobe to the southeast
that is not supported by the MT resistivity data; the 35- to 50-ohm.m area of resistivity (pink) excludes
that lobe from the salt. The 3D MMCI interpretation of seismic, gravity and MT data indicates a base
of salt (white) within a few hundred vertical feet of the base determined from the well gamma ray log
(turquoise). At the base of salt, the well log resistivity (orange) decreases significantly. MT receiver
locations are shown on the seabed (white squares).
15
the analysis team obtained a consistent interpretation of the structure, including the base
of salt (below). In parts of the survey area, the
difference in interpretation of the base of salt
was almost 3,000m [9,700ft].
Distance, km
128
136
144
152
160
NW
SE
2,500
Depth, m
5,000
7,500
10,000
12,500
Distance, km
128
136
144
NW
152
160
SE
2,500
Resistivity, ohm.m
10
Depth, m
5,000
1
7,500
10,000
MMCI base salt
12,500
> Keathley Canyon interpretation. The base of salt is difficult to find in the WAZ seismic section (top).
The best pick based on the seismic data had a thick section to the right of middle (white outline, bottom).
MT resistivity data (colors) add significant new information. Combining seismic, MT and gravity data in
the MMCI evaluation improves the previous interpretations of the base of salt and gives interpreters
greater confidence in their result (yellow dashed line).
16
Oilfield Review
Spring 2009
46
48
44
42
Altitude, m
1,365
22
662
Rio de Janeiro
MT
So Paulo
135
2,286
s
rea
ya
rve
u
S
24
CSEM
s
nto
Sa
e
ad
ci
3,784
Ocean
depth, m
km
100
miles
26
48
Tupi area
100
46
44
26
42
> Marine MT and CSEM surveys, offshore Brazil. Three lines of receivers for the MT survey (red)
extended offshore toward the southeast and into deeper water. The main line was about 148 km [93 mi]
long, starting about 42 km [26 mi] offshore, and the two adjacent lines were each about 54 km [34 mi]
long. The CSEM survey lines (white) to the east of the MT survey covered the Tambuat block (red).
The map shows the ground elevation and ocean depth.
0
LTAM1
N
0
0
km
10
mi
10
Resistivity,
ohm.m
40
EM_FIGURE 17
10
1
0.4
> Combined analysis for the Tambuat block. Reservoirs (green and pink outlines, top) identified by
seismic interpretation were the targets of a CSEM and MT study. Receivers (white triangles) were laid in
orthogonal sets, and the CSEM source was towed along the same lines (black). A 2.5D MMCI inversion
based on EM and seismic data resulted in a section color-coded for resistivity, with seismic data providing
texture (bottom). Along tow line LTAM10 N, a 20-ohm.m resistive anomaly (red) is clearly distinguished from
the more-conductive background of about 1.2 ohm.m (green). Seismic results constrained the anomaly
shapeby defined control points (white circles, bottom)for the data inversion.
17
Prospect without
resistive anomalies
Volcanic flows
Volcanic
flows
Resistivity,
ohm.m
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
Prospects with
resistive anomalies
EnCana Corporation and its joint-venture exploration targets. For more information on
(JV) partners Nunaoil A/S and Cairn Energy volcanic formations, see Evaluating Volcanic
have exploration prospects in two blocks in the Reservoirs, page 36.
Before conducting the CSEM survey,
frontier basin offshore Greenland, 120 to 200km
[75 to 124 mi] west of the capital city, Nuuk. WesternGeco performed extensive 3D resistivity
The ocean depth over the prospects ranges from modeling over each prospect. This step confirmed
250 to 1,800 m [820 to 5,900 ft]. Geologists that the survey could help define the presence of
believe this areas rifting and sedimentary-fill hydrocarbon-bearing reservoirs at up to 3,000m
history is similar to that of the productive North below the seafloor. Synthetic data were used in
Sea basins. However, the nearest well control is forward-modeling and inversion methods. Based
more than 120km away, and there are no proven on well log data from key distant offset wells,
petroleum systems in the basins. The JV needed a simplified starting model was created that
a way to lessen the risk of drilling dry holes, so a included a reasonably uniform, 1.5-ohm.m clastic sedimentary
section from the seafloor to the
CSEM survey was acquired to help identify potenEM_FIGURE
26
target depth, a deeper layer with 4-ohm.m resistial hydrocarbon-bearing features.26
Sedimentary filling of the basin following rift- tivity extending to the basement, and a 60-ohm.m
ing created a fairly simple geology, with the major basement formation.
As part of this presurvey analysis, geosciencomplication coming from Paleocene volcanic
activity. The volcanic flows are easily identifiable tists optimized the design for target sensitivity,
geologically, seismically and magnetically. These presence of volcanic cover, reservoir proximity to
volcanic rocks are the only known resistive litho- basement and signal waveform, as a few examlogic units in the survey area above basement, ple parameters. This optimization helped the
and they are well separated from the Cretaceous EnCana JV plan a survey covering the vast area
in a cost-efficient way.
18
The survey layout based on this analysis comprised 24 transmitter lines and 182 receivers. The
tow-line geometry generated data from multiple
angles on the receivers. The resulting vertical
resolution was designed to be 50 m [164 ft] for
the Cretaceous targets at depths of 3,500 m
[11,500ft] below the seafloor.
A high-quality CSEM dataset was obtained in
the summer of 2008. Processing the electric- and
magnetic-field measurements yielded amplitude
and phase responses at each receiver. Starting
with electric-field responses, geoscientists
analyzed these data using a complex 3D anisotropic-resistivity model. The starting geometry
used the JVs seismic interpretation and well log
resistivity information, but no potential reservoirs
were included. The 3D inversions required considerable computation time and interpreter input.27
The results were numerically stable with electrical
models that were geologically consistent.
The inversion process identified resistive
anomalies over 8 of 14 prospects. The team used
Petrel seismic-to-simulation software to visualize
the resistivity volume data for these eight anomalies with geologic, seismic, gravity, magnetic and
marine MT data (left). The results were insensitive to reasonable variations in the starting
model, with each variation converging to a similar resistivity solution.
The known Paleocene volcanic rocks provided another indication that the inversions were
robust and geologically meaningful. Although the
isolated volcanic features were not included in
the starting models for the inversions, the inversion procedure located them correctly.
The EnCana JVs objective for obtaining the
CSEM study was to improve the assessment of
the probability that the structures were charged
with hydrocarbons. With firm data lacking prior
to the study, the hydrocarbon-charge probability
was indeterminate and the JV assigned it an initial value of 50% for each of the eight prospects.
The teams analysis increased the probability of
hydrocarbon charging for several features and
decreased it for others.
The prospect with the greatest probability
for hydrocarbon charging displays many of the
characteristics the geoscientists looked for in
the analysis. Its resistivity anomaly conforms
well with the target interval. The CSEM inversion
resistivity within the anomaly increases upward
from 10 ohm.m at the base of the structure to
35 ohm.m at the crest. Finally, the anomaly
base is flat, which could suggest a hydrocarbon/
water contact.
Oilfield Review
> Deployment of CSEM receiver. Each receiver is assembled on the deck using defined deployment
protocols. Then the receiver is hoisted and dropped at a specified location.
Spring 2009
19