Multi‐dimensional analyses of the SEAM controlled source electromagnetic data—the story of a blind test of interpretation workflows. (November 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Tseng, Hung‐Wen; Stalnaker, Jack; MacGregor, Lucy M.; Ackermann, Rolf V.
• Is Part Of: Geophysical prospecting. Volume 63:Number 6(2015:Nov.)
• Page Start: 1383
• Page End: 1402
• Publication Date: 2015-11
• Subjects: Seabed logging -- Interpretation -- Integrated geophysics; Prospecting -- Geophysical methods -- Periodicals; 622.15
• DOI: 10.1111/1365-2478.12327
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0016-8025

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Using a subset of the SEG Advanced Modeling Program Phase I controlled‐source electromagnetic data, we apply our standard controlled‐source electromagnetic interpretation workflows to delineate a simulated hydrocarbon reservoir. Experience learned from characterizing such a complicated model offers us an opportunity to refine our workflows to achieve better interpretation quality. The exercise proceeded in a blind test style, where the interpreting geophysicists did not know the true resistivity model until the end of the project. Rather, the interpreters were provided a traditional controlled‐source electromagnetic data package, including electric field measurements, interpreted seismic horizons, and well log data. Based on petrophysical analysis, a background resistivity model was established first. Then, the interpreters started with feasibility studies to establish the recoverability of the prospect and carefully stepped through 1D, 2.5D, and 3D inversions with seismic and well log data integrated at each stage. A high‐resistivity zone is identified with 1D analysis and further characterized with 2.5D inversions. Its lateral distribution is confirmed with a 3D anisotropic inversion. The importance of integrating all available geophysical and petrophysical data to derive more accurate interpretation is demonstrated.