Application of Magnetic Prospecting
in Recognition of Volcanic Reservoirs
Zhanxiang He, Liu Yunxiang, Suo Xiaodong, and Dong Weibin
BGP, CNPC, P. R. China
Abstract
Combined with susceptibility of volcanic rock determined
from core samples, an improved algorithm for separation of
potential field anomalies can increase the resolution of
magnetic data. In areas with abundant information, joint
p rocessing and interpretation of seismic, electrical and
magnetic data can significantly enhance the prospecting
effect. Within this context, magnetic method has special
advantages in recognizing volcanic reservoir. There have
been many such successful applications in China. The paper
introduces several typical and successful cases released in
China. These cases of history demonstrate the ability of
magnetic data in detecting and delineating igneous rocks and
volcanic reservoirs.
Key words: magnetic prospecting, igneous rock, volcanic
reservoir, cases
Introduction
In Tarim Basin, northwestern China, widely developed
volcanic rocks cause poor signal-to-noise ratio in seismic
data, thus make the investigation of prospective traps more
difficult. One may choose to steer away from areas of with
well developed volcanic rocks, but such volcanic regions
often host rich gas reservoirs1 as have been discovered in
Junggar Basin and Songliao Basin of China. Thus, detection
and delineation of volcanic rocks have gained much attention
in petroleum exploration.
In fact, in some complex areas with widely developed
volcanic rocks, much work has been done to recognize
lithology and lithofacies of such volcanic units based on
seismic data. Cai et al.2. utilized multi-well constraint
method and some special and effective processing and inter-
pretation methods of seismic data to study the distribution
of volcanic rocks and reservoir formation. Cao et al.3. put
forward a method on the use of high precision seismic data
to investigate the location of craters in deep underground
and identify volcanic facies. Li et al.4. also developed a
method for the quantitative estimation of volcanic reservoir
beds in deep underg round4. In complex areas with widely
developed volcanic rocks, however, it is difficult to recognize
lithology and facies of volcanic rocks only by seismic data.
This is due to the special physical property and inner struc-
t u re of volcanic rocks. Usually, seismic reflection can
describe the configuration of volcanic rocks but can’t indi-
cate its lithology and facies. More effective seismic methods
are still being investigated.
Volcanic rocks with different lithology show different phys-
ical properties such as density, susceptibility, resistivity, and
so on. These diff e rences, especially magnetic contrast
between volcanic rocks with different lithology and facies
establish an effective basis for the recognition of volcanic
rocks. If configuration of volcanic rock inferred on the basis of
seismic data can be combined with the physical properties
estimated on the basis of magnetic and EM data using high
precision and integrated interpretation methods, the problem
of recognizing volcanic rocks can be readily tackled.
In this paper, we first give a brief introduction to the data
processing methods for the recognition of volcanic rocks by
means of magnetic data. We then describe a number
successful cases that are typical of exploration in such
settings in China.
Magnetic features of volcanic rocks
Based on numerous core samples from the study area, phys-
ical properties of rocks are determined. Usually, volcanic
rocks show higher susceptibility than common sedimentary
rocks. The latter usually have susceptibilities lower than 1 to
100× 10-5SI. In contrast, acidic volcanic rocks show suscepti-
bilities of 100 to 500× 10-55SI, neutral ones always higher than
200 to 1000× 10-5SI, while basic volcanic rocks have suscepti-
bility in the range of 500 to 2000× 10-5SI. Thus the suscepti-
bility of volcanic rocks can be 20 timesas high as that of
sedimentary rocks. Accordingly, sedimentary rock, acidic
volcanic rock, neutral one and basic one shows ascending
susceptibility in turn. So, basic volcanic rocks may cause
higher magnetic anomalies than neutral one, acidic one and
sedimentary rock, and volcanic rock shows higher suscepti-
bility than sedimentary rock, while the latter often causes
negative anomalies.
Methods for separation of magnetic anomaly
Commonly, regional field can be estimated by low-pass
filtering or upward continuation. Then removing regional
field from measured magnetic anomaly yields the remained
called residual magnetic anomaly. By means of spectrum
analysis and spatial filtering5, magnetic anomalies can be
separated. In recent years, wavelet transform6 and neural
network7 methods have also been applied in the separation of
gravity and magnetic anomalies.
The choice of a separation method depends on actual condi-
tions. If the sedimentary formations are of zero or low
magnetism, volcanic rocks are underdeveloped and subsur-
face strata are smooth, the configuration of magnetic
anomaly will not be impacted by sedimentary formations.
Thus, magnetic anomaly should be caused mainly by deep
targets. By means of higher order derivatives, magnetic
anomalies sourced from deep volcanic rocks can be extracted.
If volcanic rocks are widely present in shallow regions under-
ground, second derivative of magnetic data can only reflect
the distribution of shallow magnetic bodies. To investigate
deep volcanic rocks, other geophysical data are required to
remove the effect from shallow volcanic rocks. Usually, there
Continued on Page 46
January 2008 CSEG RECORDER 45
Focus Article Cont’d
Application of Magnetic Prospecting…
Continued from Page 45
are three approaches. The first is combining magnetic method seismic reflection coinciding a with high magnetic anomaly on
with seismic method. On the basis of primary configuration of the eastern part. The drilling indicated that the magnetic
shallow volcanic rocks inferred from seismic data, 2D joint anomaly is due to volcanic rocks. The case proved the impor-
processing of multiple lines can model shallow anomalies and tance of magnetic prospecting in well planning based on the
remove them from measured data, thus deep magnetic anom- contrast of seismic and magnetic interoretations.
alies can be obtained. The second is combining magnetic method
with electromagnetic method. We know that volcanic rocks are 2) Investigation of volcanic rocks in TY area
of high resistivity and the corresponding features are apparent
on EM sounding sections. 2D processing can again model TY is located on the northern Tarim Basin, China. Reservoirs
shallow magnetic anomalies in order to extract deep magnetic connected to buried hills are well developed there. Several
anomalies. The third is combining magnetic method with gravity finished wells in the area give evidence to the abundance of
data thereby comprehensively interpreting volcanic rocks. petroleum resources in TY area. In the area, not only volcanic
rocks are widely developed and their lithology and facies are
very complex and variable, all other geophysical anomalies also
4 Cases show complex characteristics that are confusing on seismic
section. Many years of experience in petroleum prospecting and
1) Recognizing attribute sof seismic reflection anomaly in exploration indicates that volcanic rocks are the major factors
TZH area that disturb the recognition of low-amplitude structure in the
area. On the other hand, volcanic rocks may also be an advanta-
In an exploration areas known as TZH, reflection anomalies
geous aspect for the formation of petroleum reservoir. Several
appear at 6000-m depth on the seismic section. The question is
traps accompanied by neutral-to-basic volcanic rocks have been
whether these anomalies are reef mass or volcanic rocks? If they
discovered in the area, but acidic or neutral-to-acidic intrusive
are reef mass, a large petroleum reservoir may exist there, but if
rocks are disadvantageous factors. Lithologic studies indicate
they are volcanic rocks, planned wells should be kept away from
that acidic and neutral-to-acidic intrusive rocks are of high resis-
the areas with volcanic rocks. The geological attribute of these
tivity and medium susceptibility, while neutral-to-basic volcanic
anomalies is difficult to determine solely based on seismic
rocks (eruptive rocks) are of high resistivity and high suscepti-
method. The magnetic data exhibit a slope belt whose magnitude
bility. To investigate the distribution of volcanic rocks and their
is high on the southeast and low on the northwest. According to
lithology and facies, high precision magnetic and TFEM methods
released data, there is no volcanic rocks developed in shallow
are jointly utilized to predict favorable drilling locations. A well
underground, thus there is no apparent local magnetic anomaly.
We have carried out a regiona-residual separation to obtain the
residual anomaly (Figure 1). Red lines in the figure describe the
range and configuration of anomalous bodies inferred on the
basis of seismic data. It is obvious that deep residual magnetic
anomaly extends northeastwards while seismic anomalous
bodies northwestwards. So, the seismic-derived anomalous
bodies should not be volcanic rocks. To verify the seismic and
magnetic interpretation, the client oilfield company designed aa
test well (marked in Figure 1 by the magenta dot) at a crest of

Figure 2. Magnetic anomaly map corresponding to Lower Paleozoic in TY area.

Figure 1. Deep residual magnetic anomaly in TZH area. Figure 3. Resistivity profile of 2D constraint inversion for line L2.

Continued on Page 47

46 CSEG RECORDER January 2008

 Focus Article Cont’d
Application of Magnetic Prospecting…
Continued from Page 46

Figure 4. Resistivity profile of 2D constraint inversion for line TFEM01.

is planned on the basis of seismic interpretation, which is indi-

cated by a pale circle in Figure 2, residual magnetic anomaly
map. The deep magnetic anomaly is of medium susceptibility on
the map, and a high resistivity mass appears at the same position
on 2D constrained inversion section of TFEM data in Figure 3.
Taking the known lithology information of the area into consid-
eration, it is possibly acidic or neutral-to-acidic intrusive rocks,
thus it is an unfavorable target. Well E16 drilled subsequently
penetrated the acidic intrusive rocks at 6000m deep. East to the
well is a favorable trap of volcanic reservoir where a finished
well E7 yields commercial oil flow.

3) Detection of deep volcanic reservoir in STH Basin

Well M17 in TSH Basin discovered remarkable gas resources in

Carboniferous volcanic rocks, which means a great prospect of
gas resources in the basin. Due to the overlying volcanic rocks,
however, seismic data cannot definitely indicate the develop- Figure 5. Residual magnetic anomaly map corresponding to Carboniferous.
ment and distribution of Carboniferous volcanic rocks. Thus,
TFEM and magnetic surveys are deployed to detect volcanic
mass favorable for gas accumulation. Figure 4 is the resistivity
section of 2D constrained inversion of TFEM data. The section
clearly indicates a layer with relatively high resistivity at a 2.5-
km depth, which may be Permain volcanoclastic rocks with
overflow facies. According to physical property of core samples,
the layer is of low susceptibility and well bedded, but shows
poor storage capacity. A resistive block appears below 2.5km, but
it is difficult to infer whether the unit is volcanic rock or
carbonate rock. Presence of a volcanic rock unit would be a
prospective reservoir and may contain oil gas. If it is carbonate
rock, the prospect would be rather poor. Figure 5 is the residual
magnetic anomaly map, which mainly reflects the development
of magnetic bodies at depth. Comparing the map with resistivity
section from 2D inversion of TFEM data, we can find that the
resistive block corresponds to the magnetic anomaly with high
magnitude. So, the anomalous body is inferred to be
Carboniferous volcanic rocks. Considering well M17, it maybe a
most favorable reservoir of Carboniferous volcanic rocks.

4) Predicting reservoir of Carboniferous volcanic rocks in ZD

Basin

Carboniferous volcanic rocks are usually buried at about 3300m

deep in the area and reservoir beds are always neutral-to-acidic
volcanic rocks with medium susceptibility. Magnetic anomaly

Continued on Page 48

January 2008 CSEG RECORDER 47

Focus Article Cont’d
Application of Magnetic Prospecting…
Continued from Page 47
Figure 6. Residual magnetic anomaly map corresponding to Carboniferous system
in ZD area.
with a low magnitude of 3 to 4 nT is obtained by means of sub-
balance filtering method. The topography is flat and there is no
surface disturbance in the area, and the anomaly is of large size,
so the weak anomaly is highly reliable and should correspond to
volcanic rocks. Modeling shows that the weak anomaly is
sourced from neutral-to-acidic volcanic rocks (medium-to-low
susceptibility) with magnetic intensity of 350× 10-3A/m buried at
3300m to 3800m deep (Figure 6). The anomaly matches well with
seismic-based prediction. Two wells d1 and d2 have been
planned in the area, and have good show of oil and gas but yield
no commercial oil flow. Reliable range of volcanic rocks is
mapped on the basis of magnetic anomaly, then 3D seismic
survey is deployed to verify the mapped range, finally well d4 is
planned, which discovers gas flow with large capacity, thereby
discovering a new gas reservoir. Delineation wells d7 and d8
planned subsequently delineate the reservoir. The range of
magnetic anomaly matches well with later drilling result.
Have
 you
 moved?
Do
 you
 know
 someone
 Managing Director, CSEG
who
 has
 moved?
Let
 us
 know
48 CSEG RECORDER January 2008
Conclusion
Magnetic data can reflect volcanic rocks well, so it is a necessary
approach to the investigation of igneous rocks. Recently, igneous
reservoirs discovered in China gained much attention from
oilfields. Consequently, magnetic method is seeing more and
more opportunities in hydrocarbon exploration. Special tech-
niques of data processing make it more reliable to use magnetic
anomaly to detect and delineate such igneous units in different
depths, thereby making it feasible to delineate potential targets.
However, their lithology should be determined by removing
shallow anomaly on the basis of seismic or EM method, or a
combination of both. The cases introduced in the paper demon-
strate that it is an effective approach to the investigation of
complex volcanic reservoir by combining magnetic method with
other geophysical ways. R
Acknowledgements
This work is in part supported by a grant from China Science 863
Plan (2006AA06Z201). We thank Dr. Satinder Chopra for the
encouragement to submit this article and Professor Yaoguo Li for
his help with the manuscript. We also thank Sun Weibin, Liu
Haiyin, and He Yi for their contribution and help.
Reference
1. Collection of National Workshop of Exploration Technique about Volcanic Reservoirs,
Jun. 2002.
2. Cai Xianhua, Distribution of Volcanic Rocks and Regular of Reservoir Formation in
Changling Rifting, Southern Songliao Basin, Vol. 37, 3, Jun. 2002
3. Cao Guoyin, Research and application about the location of craters in deep underground
and identification of facies of volcanic rocks, Vol.41, Supplement, Petroleum
Geopgysics, Jun. 2002
4. Li Yanmin, Discussion about Quantitive Estimation to Volcanic Reservoir Beds in Deep
Underground, Oil Geophysical Prospecting, vol.37, 2, Apr. 2002.
5. Wang Jialin, Petroleum Interpretation of Gravity and Magnetic Data, Sep. 1991., Press
of Oil Industry.
6. Qiu lin, Zhanxiang He, Chang Yanjun, Improving resolution of gravity data with
wavelet analysis and spectral method? Frontiers of Earth Science in China V1 No3 Aug
2007,P380-387
7. Zhang Shihui, Liu Tianyou, Gu Hanming, Identifying Volcanic Rock by Artificial
Neural Network [J], 38, Supplement, 2003, P84-87, Oil Geophysical Prospecting.
8. Liu Yunxiang, He Zhanxiang, Comprehensive Geophysical Technique for Identification
of Lithology of Igneous Rock, Vol.29, 2, Progress in geophysics.
Jim Racette
Tel: 403 262 0015
Fax: 403 262 7383
Email: cseg.office@shaw.ca