1887

Abstract

Summary

Resistivity anisotropy remains the bane of CSEM exploration and the results of an industry-wide benchmark test of state-of-the-art 3D unconstrained anisotropic CSEM inversion conducted in December 2016-January 2017 supports this contention. The reconstructed VTI models of horizontal and vertical resistivities (?h and ?v) from 4 leading industry service providers have conflicting structures at depth and the resistivities do not match the anisotropic logs from a control well. The reconstructed TTI models of parallel and normal resistivities from a leading industry service provider only matched the ?h well log but not ?v log at the well location. It is practically expedient to reduce structural ambiguity in ?h and ?v models and also achieve structural compatibility with other collocated physical models of the subsurface. Some lessons can be learned from biomedical imaging where it was found that precise structural information is important for the reconstruction of anisotropic resistivities, consistent with the geophysical observation of . As a possible way forward, recently proposed the use of the cross-gradient technique to structurally constrain the joint recovery of anisotropic resistivities in geophysical inversion.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201800748
2018-06-11
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Brown, V., Hoversten, M., Key, K. and Chen, J.S.
    [2012] Resolution of reservoir scale electrical anisotropy from marine CSEM data. Geophysic. 77E147–E158.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Davydycheva, S. and Frenkel, M.A.
    [2013] The impact of 3D tilted resistivity anisotropy on marine CSEM measurements. The Leading Edge, 32, 1374–1381. Nov. 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Glidewell, M.E. and Ng, K.T.
    [1997] Anatomically constrained electrical impedance tomography for three-dimensional anisotropic bodies. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, 16, 572–580.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Gribenko, A. and Zhdanov, M.S.
    [2014] Anisotropic inversion of MCSEM data based on the integral equation metho. SEG Annual Meeting, Expanded Abstract, pp.792–797, Denver2014.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Haber, E., McMillan, M. and ShekhtmanR.
    [2017] 3D anisotropic CSEM inversio. 79th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Paris, France, 12–15June 2017. Paper Th P9 09.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Meju, M.A. and Fatah, A.
    [2017] Structurally constrained 3D anisotropic inversion of marine CSEM data using a crossgradient approac. 3DEM6: 6th International Symposium on Three-Dimensional Electromagnetics, Berkeley, USA. March 2017, Expanded abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Newman, G.A., Commer, M. and Carazzone, J.J.
    [2010] Imaging CSEM data in the presence of electrical anisotropy. Geophysic. 75, 51–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Sasaki, Y.
    [2013] Anisotropic 3D inversion of marine CSEM dat. 5th International Symposium on Three-Dimensional Electromagnetics, Sapporo, Japan, May 7–9, 2013, Expanded abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. [2011] Anisotropic, joint 3D inversion of marine CSEM and MT dat. 81st SEG Annual International Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 589–593.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Tompkins, M., Weaver, R. and MacGregor, L.
    [2004] Effects of vertical anisotropy on marine active source electromagnetic data and inversion. 66th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Extended Abstracts, E026.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201800748
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201800748
Loading

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