Post on 30-May-2020
Elektromagnetische Methoden
bei der Energie
Exploration & ProduktionDGG 2011
K. M Strack
www.KMSTechnologies.com
© 2011 KMS Technologies 1
Aufgabeg
Overview of electromagnetic (EM) methods in applied geophysicsapplied geophysicsViewpoint from the oil industryp y– Depth range1-6 km
Same methods for geothermal– Same methods for geothermalExamples from success storiesp
© 2011 KMS Technologies 2
Background >> Challenges>> Future
Electromagnetics in applied geophysicsg pp g p y– Rocks
Methods and their use in the industry– Methods and their use in the industryBiggest challenges/opportunities
D il k fi di il– Daily tasks: finding oil– Exploration– Production
FutureFuture
© 2011 KMS Technologies 3
Background >> Challenges>> Future
Electromagnetics in applied geophysicsg pp g p y– Rocks
Methods and their use in the industry– Methods and their use in the industryBiggest challenges/opportunitiesFFuture
© 2011 KMS Technologies 4
Electrical properties of rocks
Bulk volumeScanning electron Bulk volume model
Scanning electronMicroscope image
sandstone
ilwateroil
© 2011 KMS Technologies 5www.KMSTechnologies.comAfter Van Ditzhuijzen, 1994
Specific electrical resistivityp y
simplified:
Spec electrical resistivity is the resistance ofSpec. electrical resistivity is the resistance of the rock to electron movement through it.
Rock minerals: high resistivityRock minerals: high resistivityPore fluids: low resistivity
© 2011 KMS Technologies 6
Hydrocarbon targets
+++++++ ++++++++-- -- -- -- -- --
resistive+ +++++++++ ---
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
+-
conductive
© 2011 KMS Technologies 7
Borehole measurementsResistivity [Ωm]
Borehole measurements
Resistivity log 104
10 100
102
103
101
OIL1010 10 10 1010
Resistivity [Ωm]-1
Seawater: 0.3 Ωm
Water-bearingsediments: WATER 1 - 2 ΩmWATER
Hydrocarbonreservoirs: 10 - 100 ΩmOIL
© 2011 KMS Technologies 8
Courtesy EMGS
Background >> Challenges >> Future Industry methods marketsIndustry methods - markets
Borehole - logging 1,500 MUSD100 SAirborne 100 MUSD
Land 25 MUSDLand 25 MUSDMarine 120 MUSDMonitoring trial only,
most fieldsmost fields
excl. China & FSU
© 2011 KMS Technologies 9
Background >> Challenges >> Future Industry methods historyIndustry methods, history
Borehole - logging 1920s19 0Airborne 1950s
Land 1950sLand 1950sMarine 2000sMonitoring today
excl. China & FSU
© 2011 KMS Technologies 10
Background >> Challenges >> Future Industry NEW methodsIndustry NEW methods
Borehole - logging 3D anisotropy inductionAirborne Airborne TEMLand MagnetotelluricsLand MagnetotelluricsMarine Controlled source EMMonitoring Borehole-to-surface
excl. China & FSU
© 2011 KMS Technologies 11
Background >> Challenges >> Future
Electromagnetics in applied geophysicsg pp g p yBiggest challenges/opportunities
Daily tasks: finding oil– Daily tasks: finding oil– Exploration
P d i– ProductionExamplesFuture
© 2011 KMS Technologies 12
Background >> Challenges >> Future
Daily tasks: Borehole - loggingDaily tasks: Borehole logging– 3D induction
I i & lib ti– Inversion & calibration– Borehole-to-surface– Deep reading (>3 m from well bore)– Cross well– Geosteering
ExplorationExplorationProduction
© 2011 KMS Technologies 13
Background >> Challenges>> Future
Daily tasks: Borehole - loggingDaily tasks: Borehole logging– 3D induction– Inversion & calibration– Borehole-to-surface– Deep reading (>3 m from well bore)
Cross well– Cross well– Geosteering
ExplorationProductionProduction
© 2011 KMS Technologies 14
Background >> Challenges>> Future Crossbeds & sand/shale & siltstonesCrossbeds & sand/shale & siltstones
© 2011 KMS Technologies 15
Background >> Challenges>> Future Micro to macro anisotropy
2.5 m
Vertical Scale
23 mMicro to macro anisotropy
25 cm2.5 mm
© 2011 KMS Technologies 16
Courtesy Baker Atlas
Background >> Challenges>> Future Example anisotropy log dataExample anisotropy log dataExample anisotropy log dataExample anisotropy log data
Oil from ‘NEW’ log
Oil from ‘OLD’ log
© 2011 KMS Technologies 17After Yu et al., 2001
Background>>> Challenges>>>Examples>>> FutureHighest value: steering the drill bitHighest value: steering the drill bit
real
m)
real3D Earth 3D Earth
Dep
th(
Displacement(m)
1D Earth
Boorehole
2D Earth
© 2011 KMS Technologies 18
Courtesy Hagiwara, Strack, Zhou 2004
Background >> Challenges >> FutureExtended dynamic range required
10 OWC distance 1 m
OWC distance 1 m
y g q
10.001
1 m5 m
25 m
1 m5 m
25 m W t i iW t i i13 d d d i
olts
)
25 m50 m25 m50 m
Water coning in a horizontal well
Water coning in a horizontal well
13 decades dynamic range
age
(Vo
ed v
olta
zin
duce TxTx RxRx
TARGET
E-18
Hz
Time (s)
© 2011 KMS Technologies 1910.0011 E-8
DGG contributors:
3D induction: A. Hoerdt, F.M. Neubauer, B. KriegshaeuserGeosteering: T. Hanstein, H. RuetergInversion: M. Echard, R. BuschThrough casing resistivity: H.-M. Maurer
© 2011 KMS Technologies 20
Background >> Challenges >> FutureBorehole Logging EM highlightsBorehole – Logging - EM highlights
Much improve New logging tools3 f3D inductions logs tie to surface EMCross well EMCross well EMLog inversion better reserve estimatesReservoir evaluaton: Through casing resistivityDeep reading LWD & geosteeringDeep reading LWD & geosteering
© 2011 KMS Technologies 21
Background >> Challenges>> Future
Daily tasks: Borehole - loggingDaily tasks: Borehole loggingExploration– Airborne Airborne TEM– Land Magnetotelluricsg– Marine Controlled source EM
ProductionProduction– Monitoring
© 2011 KMS Technologies 22
Background >> Challenges >> Future Airborne EM
Depth of penetrations got increased from a few tens to a 200 500mfew tens to a 200-500mMany EM systemsy yCommodity 100 MUSD p.a. market
Allows NEW path of integration & ground follow upo s pat o teg at o & g ou d o o up
© 2011 KMS Technologies 23
After Smith et al., 2008
Background >> Challenges >> Future Exploration: land methodsExploration: land methods
Common: magnetotelluricsRarely used: – Controlled Source EMCo t o ed Sou ce– Induced polarization
NOT dNOT used:– DC resistivityy
© 2011 KMS Technologies 24
Background >> Challenges >> Future Magnetototelluric field sourcesMagnetototelluric field sources
Earth’s Magnetic Field Massive solar outburst travels on the solar wind
The solar wind distorting earth’s magnetic field
Two magnetic fieldIt induces electric field in This fired particles
© 2011 KMS Technologies 25
Two magnetic fieldlines are reconnectingIonosphere and in extreme
cases produces Auroras.
ptowards the earth
after http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Background >> Challenges >> Future Integrated subsalt exampleIntegrated subsalt example
© 2011 KMS Technologies 26Zerilli, et al 2002UNPUBLISHED, courtesy RWE-Dea
Background >> Challenges >> Future Geothermal energy !Geothermal energy !
© 2011 KMS Technologies 27
Background >> Challenges >> Future Integrated interpretationIntegrated interpretation
Seismic and geologic g ginformation for structures
and lithologyMagnetotelluric (low resistivity) & gravity (low density) to target geothermal anomaly gydensity) to target geothermal anomaly
© 2011 KMS Technologies 28
Background >> Challenges >> Future DrillingDrilling
EM & gravity dataEM & gravity data over seismic
sectionsection
T t l !© 2011 KMS Technologies 29
Total success!
Background >> Challenges >> Future Exploration: marine methodsExploration: marine methods
Common: C t ll d EM– Controlled source EM
– magnetotelluricsRarely used:
I d d l i ti– Induced polarization– DC resistivity
© 2011 KMS Technologies 30
Background >> Challenges >> Future Marine CSEM acquisitionMarine CSEM acquisition
air wave
ocean wave
sediment wave
t ttarget wave
© 2011 KMS Technologies 31Base figure From http://marineemlab.ucsd.edu/index.html
Background >> Challenges >> Future
U i th Ski d thThe skin depth δ describes how much the energy is attenuated:
Using the Skin depthThe skin depth δ describes how much the energy is attenuated:
m500s
m500ff0
≅≅=Ω
ρπμρδ (ρ = 1 Ωm, f = 1 Hz)
ff0μ
ff = 0.25 Hz
Water (0 3 Ωm): δ = 548 mWater (0.3 Ωm): δ = 548 mOverburden (1.0 Ωm): δ = 1000 mOverburden (2.0 Ωm): δ = 1414 m
© 2011 KMS Technologies 32
Background >> Challenges >> Future
E l ti i th dExploration: marine methods
ReceiverHED source
0 25 Hz0.25 Hz
0 75 Hz
0.25 Hz
0.75 Hz 0.25 Hz0.75 Hz1.25 Hz
© 2011 KMS Technologies 33
Background >> Challenges >> Future
Electric
CSEM over a DRY reservoirElectric
MVO
1E-10
1E-09
1E-08
de [
V/A
m 2
]
ude
[V/A
m2 ]
1E-13
1E-12
1E-11
lect
ric M
agni
tud
lect
ric M
agni
tu
1E-15
1E-14
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Source Receiver Offset [m]
Scal
ed E
Source Receiver Offset [m]
Sca
led
El
270
360
deg]
Dominating energies
Short Offsets
PVO
[deg
]
[ ] [ ]
90
180
Elec
tric
Pha
se [d
• Direct and lateral subsurface energyIntermediate offsets
• Subsurface energy Ele
ctric
Pha
se
00 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Source Receiver Offset [m]
Subsurface energyLarge offsets
• Energy related to a finite water layer
E
Source Receiver Offset [m]
© 2011 KMS Technologies 34
Source Receiver Offset [m]
Background >> Challenges >> Future
Electric
g g
CSEM over an OIL reservoir
1E-10
1E-09
1E-08
de [
V/A
m 2
]
ElectricMVO
ude
[V/A
m2 ]
1E-13
1E-12
1E-11
Elec
tric
Mag
nitu
lect
ric M
agni
tu
1E-15
1E-14
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Source Receiver Offset [m]
Scal
ed E
Source Receiver Offset [m]
Sca
led
El
270
360
deg]
Dominating energies
Short Offsets
PVO
[deg
]
[ ]
90
180
Elec
tric
Pha
se [d
• Direct and lateral subsurface energyIntermediate offsets
• Subsurface energy Ele
ctric
Pha
se
00 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Subsurface energyLarge offsets
• Energy related to a finite water layer
E
Source Receiver Offset [m]Source Receiver Offset [m]
© 2011 KMS Technologies 35
Source Receiver Offset [m]Source Receiver Offset [m]
Background >> Challenges >> Future tCSEM™ over a reservoirtCSEM™ over a reservoir
10 km0 Impulse 10 km0 Impulse response
Subsurface Response
Reservoir present
Reservoir absent present
© 2011 KMS Technologies 36
After Thomsen etal., SEG 2007
Background >> Challenges>> Future
Daily tasks: Borehole - loggingDaily tasks: Borehole loggingExplorationProduction– MonitoringMonitoring
© 2011 KMS Technologies 37
Background >> Challenges >> FutureMonitoring choice of methodsMonitoring – choice of methods
SENSOR CAPABILITY
RESOLVING POWER
Distance Fluid Surface to Borehole to BoreholeDistance Fluid Surface-to-surface
Borehole-to-surface
Borehole
Seismic Excellent Poor Excellent Excellent Ok (more noise)
EM Ok (5% of depth) Excellent (water to HC)
Ok Excellent Excellent (less noise & distance)
Gravity Poor Ok (oil to gas) Poor Poor (no source) Poor (no source)
Strongest S
Seismic EM/seismic Seismic/EM/ it
Seismic/EM Seismic/EM/ itSynergy gravity gravity
© 2011 KMS Technologies 38
Courtesy Welldynamics
Background >> Challenges >> Future EM it i ti l i l tiEM monitoring: time lapse simulation
3000 mTransmitter 3000 m offset, receiver 2000 m depth
5 Ω-m change / BRINE saturated
Sediment 1500 m @ 1 Ω-m 5%Reservoir 100 m @ 40-80 Ω-m
2000 m
Sediment ∞ m @ 1 Ω-m40 Ω-m change/OIL saturated 45%
Source
R i
Background model subtracted, all layers @ 1 Ω-m 40 Ω-m change in resistivity produces 45% change
© 2011 KMS Technologies 40
Receiver in borehole EM response
Background >> Challenges >> Future
EM i i l iEM monitoring: a real reservoir
After Dasgupta et al., 2009
© 2011 KMS Technologies 41
g
Background >> Challenges >> Future EM monitoring: 3D model differencesEM monitoring: 3D model differences
Thickness (m)
Removed oil
Receivers @ test well
Potential Source
locations
After Dasgupta et al 2009
© 2011 KMS Technologies 42
After Dasgupta et al., 2009
Background >> Challenges >> Future EM monitoring: Surface to surfaceEM monitoring: Surface-to-surface
0 8
1
1500 m offset2000 m offset2500 ff t
0 4
0.6
0.8 2500 m offset3000 m offset3500 m offset
0
0.2
0.4
r effe
ct (%
)
-0.4
-0.2
0
Res
ervo
ir
NO TIME LAPSE VARIATION
-0.8
-0.6
10-3 10-2 10-1 100-1
Time (s)
© 2011 KMS Technologies 43
Background >> Challenges >> Future EM monitoring: Borehole to surfaceEM monitoring: Borehole-to-surface
0.1
1500 m offset2500 m offset3500 m offset
-0.1
0
onse
(nV
)
4500 m offset5500 m offset
OFFSET VARIATIONS
-0.2
1D m
odel
resp
o
-0.3
diffe
renc
e fro
m 1
-0.5
-0.4
Vol
tage
d
10-3 10-2 10-1 100-0.6
Time (s)
© 2011 KMS Technologies 44
Time (s)
Background >> Challenges >> Future EM for Monitoring summaryEM for Monitoring summary
Surface-to-surface CSEM– Commercial land/marine– Needs improvement, low coverage– LOWEST value due to selective applications
Single-well CSEMSingle well CSEM – Feasibility shown– In research phase
MEDIUM HIGH l ff i b d– MEDIUM to HIGH value: cost effectiveness, best dataThe future
– Permanent sensors: HIGHEST valuePermanent sensors: HIGHEST value– Borehole-to-surface 4D: INTERIM HIGHEST– Under field trial
© 2011 KMS Technologies 45
Background >> Challenges >> FutureFuture is defined by:Future is defined by:
More surface data (10 maybe 1000 times)( 0% O )Lower cost per site (50% NOW) new hardware
Operational integrationOperational integration – With seismic Shared cost base
Integration: – Exploration strategy: airborne & land/marineExploration strategy: airborne & land/marine– GP methods: gravity/EM; seismic/EM
C– Calibration to boreholes– Land – transition zone - marine
© 2011 KMS Technologies 46
Background>>> Challenges>>>Examples>>> FutureMore surface dataMore surface data
OBC
Umbilical
OBC
NodesNodes
• Multi-components anisotropy• Link to seismic acquisition processing etc• Link to seismic acquisition, processing, etc.• Land & marine!!!
© 2011 KMS Technologies 47
Background >> Challenges >> FutureFutureFuture
More surface data (10 maybe 1000 times)( 0% O )Lower cost per site (50% NOW) new hardware
Operational integrationOperational integration – With seismic Shared cost base
Integration: – Exploration strategy: airborne & land/marineExploration strategy: airborne & land/marine– GP methods: gravity/EM; seismic/EM
C– Calibration to boreholes– Land – transition zone - marine
© 2011 KMS Technologies 48
Background >> Challenges >> Future
S ll l t h dSmaller, lower cost hardware
Fluxgates 3 components Induction coils T & F domainFluxgates – 3 components Induction coils – T & F domain
© 2011 KMS Technologies 49
Background >> Challenges >> FutureFuture is defined by:Future is defined by:
More surface data (10 maybe 1000 times)Lower cost per site (50% NOW) new hardware
Operational integrationOperational integration – With seismic Shared cost base
Integration: – Exploration strategy: airborne & land/marineExploration strategy: airborne & land/marine– GP methods: gravity/EM; seismic/EM– Calibration to boreholes– Land – transition zone - marine
© 2011 KMS Technologies 50
Background >> Challenges >> FutureIntegrated seismic/EM operation:Integrated seismic/EM operation:
© 2011 KMS Technologies 51
Background >> Challenges >> FutureFuture is defined by:Future is defined by:
More surface data (10 maybe 1000 times)( 0% O )Lower cost per site (50% NOW) new hardware
Operational integrationOperational integration – With seismic Shared cost base
Integration: – Exploration strategy: airborne & land/marine Exploration strategy: airborne & land/marine – GP methods: gravity/EM ; seismic/EM ()– Calibration to boreholes ()– Land – transition zone – marine ()
© 2011 KMS Technologies 52
( )
Background >> Challenges >> FutureDGG b th t t ib t dDGG members that contributed
R. Busch, M. Eckard, O. Engels, T, Hanstein, A Hoerdt H Joedike B Kriegshaeuser J &A. Hoerdt, H. Joedike, B. Kriegshaeuser, J. & I. Loehken, H.-M. Maurer, F.M. Neubauer, J. Schoen, P. Weidelt, P. Wolfgram
© 2011 KMS Technologies 53
Background >> Challenges >> FutureAcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
Individuals: N. Allegar, L. Bell, D. Colombo, S. Dasgupta E Dory T Hanstein Y MartinezDasgupta, E. Dory, T. Hanstein, Y. Martinez, P. Pandey, C. Stoyer, L. Thomson, P. Wolfgram, G. Yu, A.Zerilli, Q. Zhou
Organizations: Aramco BP GOK RWE DeaOrganizations: Aramco, BP, GOK, RWE-Dea, Shell, WellDynamics, Wintershall
© 2011 KMS Technologies 54