7

Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

Detection of Hydrocarbon Reservoirs Using the Controlled-Source Electromagnetic (CSEM) Method in the Beta Field, Deep-Water Offshore Niger Delta, Nigeria
K.C. Chiadikobi *1, O.I. Chiaghanam *2, A.O. Omoboriowo #3, M.V Etukudoh #4 and N.A. Okafor &5
*

Department of Geology, Anambra State University, Uli, Anambra State

2

kinsomino@yahoo.com oichiaghanam@yahoo.com

Department of Geology, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Rivers State

3

dayoboriowo@yahoo.co.uk 4 hodukute@yahoo.com
5

&

Department of Petroleum and Gas Engineering, University of Port Harcourt, Rivers State
arinoz84@yahoo.com

Abstract - The Controlled-Source Electromagnetic method (CSEM) detects and characterizes hydrocarbon-bearing reservoirs buried beneath a conductive sea bed by the use of electromagnetic (EM) energy. The survey was performed by towing a mobile Horizontal Electric Dipole source (HED) with a square pulse of 0.25Hz from NW-SE above an array of receivers deployed in two sets across the study area. A detailed data interpretation using a combination of forward modelling, geophysical inversion and imaging showed indications of shallow and deeper high-resistive anomalies. The shallow and deeper anomalies observed were interpreted to be caused by shallow and deepseated hydrocarbon bearing reservoirs respectively which contained residual gas saturations. It was discovered that hydrocarbon reservoirs can also be detected at electromagnetic frequencies as low as 0.25Hz in the deepwater environment. At this frequency range (0.25 1.25Hz), residual hydrocarbons were detected. CSEM data were acquired and interpreted, confirmed that the shallow anomalies were actually residual gas sands with resistivities of 2 to 3ohm-m and that the deeper high-resistive anomalies were indeed hydrocarbon-bearing sands with a resistivities of 10 to 100ohm-m. Keywords electromagnetic modelling, reservoirs, Niger resistivity. energy, hydrocarbon, Delta, demodulation,

or not. The CSEM method attempts to detect and characterize resistive layers for hydrocarbon exploration and it has great potential to reduce the risk of residual saturation. This technique has been applied in offshore environments of different geologic settings across the globe such as the offshores of Brazil (Saleh, 2006), Norway (Boulaenko et al, 2007), West Africa (Ellingsrud et al, 2002) and the Gulf of Mexico. This transformation has been driven in large part by the technical and economic challenges associated with exploration in the deepwater environment. The vast savings in terms of costs of drilling test wells into structures that do not contain hydrocarbon in economic quantity. In the present research, we have presented the results of a CSEM survey over the BETA field, offshore Niger Delta. It is hoped that the findings would yet throw more light into a deeper understanding of the deepwater Niger Delta environment. The understanding would also translate to discovery of more reserves and a reduction in the risks associated with exploration and production activities in deepwater settings.

1. Introduction
Controlled Source Electromagnetic (CSEM) is an electromagnetic method which directly senses resistivity in the subsurface. It exploits the differences in resistivity beneath the seabed to identify hydrocarbon-bearing reservoirs with great accuracy. This means that promising structures revealed by seismic surveys can be investigated further to identify whether hydrocarbons are present
_______________________________________________________________________ International Journal of Science & Emerging Technologies IJSET, E-ISSN: 2048 - 8688 Copyright ExcelingTech, Pub, UK (http://excelingtech.co.uk/)

1.1. Location of the Study Area

The study area (Beta field) is situated in the eastern part of the deepwater Niger Delta, about 223km SW of Port Harcourt (Fig. 1). It has a total area of about 1969km2 with water depth ranging from 1400m 2200m increasing approximately from the NE towards the SW corner.

8
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

characterized by stacked thrust sheets typically soling into the underlying mobile shale and is bounded by the fold belt trend to the North and the unconfined Niger Delta fan play segment to the South. These belts are typically arcuate in shape, their convex side pointing basinward. The thrust belts are the distal product of gravity sliding, induced by rapid loading of deltaic sediments near the shelf margin, causing extensional faulting. Updip extension resulted in the downdip compression near the break in the slope, with the mobile shale acting as a regional detachment surface. The mobile shales pinch out onto the basement high of the Charcot Fracture Zone, thus pinning the Western and Eastern thrust belts at this high and creating a wing-like morphology that arcs outward from the high (Weber & Daukoru - 1975, Ojo et al 2009 and Avbovbo, A. - 1978). Most of the reservoirs in the Beta field are found in the unconfined, unconsolidated mud-rich turbidites found mostly in the channels.

Figure 1 - Regional map of Deepwater Niger Delta showing the location of the study area in red rectangle.

1.2. Objectives of the study

To detect and map the lateral extent and depth of hydrocarbon bearing reservoirs buried beneath the seafloor using controlled-source electromagnetic (CSEM) sounding method. To throw more light on the use of CSEM as a viable and complementary tool in hydrocarbon exploration.

2. Geological Setting of the Study Area

The Niger Delta of Nigeria is located on the Central West African coast within the Gulf of Guinea and is bounded to the West by Benin, to the East by Cameroon and is bounded in the south by the Island of Sao Tome and Principe. The Niger Delta deep offshore area may arbitrarily be subdivided into western and eastern components by a line running along the main distributary of the Niger River and extending it in a South-Western direction into the Atlantic basin. The deep offshore Niger Delta basin can be divided into a number of hydrocarbon play segments of differing habitat styles. The predominant hydrocarbon plays of the area are the Fold Belt East play segment in the North and the Thrust Belt East play segment in the South. The boundary between the two plays runs almost diagonal in NW-SE direction (Fig. 2). The key difference between the two play segments is the degree and intensity of thrust faulting involved in the structural evolution. The Fold Belt East play segment is characterized by large, elongate shale cored anticlines that may have originated as buried thrusts on the Middle and Upper Slope. Regional analysis suggests the presence of large, gentle shale pillows and swells, often forming simple trapping configurations in the overburden. The Thrust Belt East play segment is situated further outboard than the Fold East play segment. It is

Figure 2 - Deepwater Niger Delta East & West Fold and Thrust Belts

3. Methodology
The marine controlled-source electromagnetic (CSEM) method detects and characterizes hydrocarbon-bearing reservoirs by the use of electromagnetic (EM) energy. The basic approach here is the use of a highly-powered mobile horizontal electric dipole source and an array of receivers positioned on the seabed. The transmitting dipole emits a low frequency electromagnetic signal (typically between 0.01-10Hz) both into the seawater column and downwards into the subsurface (Fig. 3). The array of seabed receivers (which is usually 30 60 in number) measures the amplitude and the phases of the transmitted signal. The amount of voltage received depends on the resistivity structure of the subsurface. The subsurface is generally dominated by sediments with rather low resistivity. However, a hydrocarbon reservoir may have a resistivity, which is 10 50 times greater than the surrounding rocks. A survey consisting of many transmitter and receiver locations can be used to

9
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

determine a multidimensional model of the subsurface resistivity, and thus indicating whether or not the subsurface contains high resistivity hydrocarbon saturated layer. During a marine CSEM survey, periodic electromagnetic energy is continuously generated by a dipole source. The energy is transmitted in all directions, and the receivers record these energies appropriately. The three types of energy recorded by the receivers are: (a) Direct energy traveling directly from source to receiver (b) Reflected and Refracted energy from the subsurface (This includes the guided energy in the reservoir) (c) Reflected and Refracted energy from the sea-air interface. If the resistivity of the reservoir is high due to hydrocarbon saturation, the energy from the subsurface is believed to include guided energy in the reservoir. Depending on the source-receiver distance, subsurface structure and water depth, one of the above three types of energies will dominate the recorded signal. This is as illustrated below in figure 4. Figure 4 - Schematic illustration of the electromagnetic energy recorded by the receivers. (Eidesmo et al, 2002) At large water depths (more than 1500m), only a minor contribution from the airwave to the recorded signal is seen for offsets less than 10km. This contribution increases as the water depth is decreasing. In order to record maximum-guided energy in a reservoir of finite extent, both the source and the receiver should be within the limits of the reservoir. The transmitted energy has to enter the reservoir at certain angles (between 00 and about 110) in order to set up the guided mode. The guided mode is constantly leaking energy up to the surface and is therefore best recorded by the receivers located above the reservoir. However, receivers outside the reservoir will also, to some extent, record the return signal from the subsurface. Receivers equipped with both electric and magnetic sensors (E + H loggers) measure the horizontal electromagnetic field components. These are required for some advanced processing algorithms, among other Up-down separation.

4.Results and Interpretation

Figure 3 - Schematic representation of the horizontal electric dipole marine CSEM method. An electromagnetic transmitter is towed close to the seafloor to maximize the coupling of electric and magnetic fields with seafloor rocks (MacGregor et al, 2005) The direct energy will dominate the recorded signal at short source-receiver offsets. As the offset increases, energy from the subsurface will gradually start to dominate the recorded signal. The offset at which this occurs greatly depends on the subsurface geology and the water depth. The energy refracted along the sea-air interface (often called air wave) will generally start to dominate the recorded signal at relatively large source-receiver offsets. This also depends strongly on the water depth and the strength of the returned signal from the subsurface. Reference Receivers To identify possible Magnitude versus Offset (MVO) and Phase versus Offset (PVO) anomalies possibly related to variations in subsurface resistivity, a reference receiver is established for the survey area. This receiver is chosen on the basis of data quality and geological setting and represents CSEM data acquired in an area with a low likelihood of subsurface hydrocarbons. This hypothesis can be tested by consideration of the levels of the field magnitudes, as the hydrocarbon bearing zones (or another high-resistive lithology) will have higher normalized amplitude levels. The in-towing part (northern-western part) of receiver Rx07 on line Beta-01 is used as a reference for both lines. This receiver has both electric and magnetic recordings. Below are the plots showing the data quality of the reference receiver for magnitude and phase on both electric and magnetic data.

10
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

5. Magnitude versus Offset (MVO) Analysis

Comparison of the MVO signatures are done by calculating normalized magnitudes relative to the reference receiver. To avoid the migration of noise from reference receiver into other data sets, a fitted curve was used to represent the reference receiver MVO. This fitted curve is created by a polynomial fit. Normalized magnitudes for all receivers are then calculated by dividing measured magnitudes by the calculated magnitudes from the fitted curve at any offset. To compensate for varying conditions during measurements, normalized data were adjusted so that values are equal at near offsets, in the range 1.0 1.5km. Normalized magnitudes around 1km indicate MVO signatures similar to the reference receiver and hence no indication of buried resistive bodies. Normalized magnitudes significantly higher than 1km at intermediate to far offsets (typically 4 to 8km) indicate increased magnitudes, which may be due to subsurface resistivity anomalies. Values larger than 1km at near offset can be caused by water depth variations or shallow resistivity anomalies. Inline variations in MVO systematics are highlighted by monitoring normalized magnitudes at a chosen offset and posting these at midpoint positions (i.e. half the offset distance) between receiver and transmitter. Normalized magnitudes are sampled as median averaged values typically within a 1.0km offset range to level out noise effects. In this study, line summary plots are made for 1km intervals with midpoints from 1.5km to 9.5km, with 0.5km spacing. The offset at which an anomaly occurs is indicative of the origin of depth of burial. By plotting all normalized responses as a function of offsets and receiver number, a pseudo section is obtained, which indicates the relative depth of the origins to anomalies. Basically, an anomaly that appears at a short offset is shallower than an anomaly that appears at longer offsets.

6. Phase Versus Offset (PVO) Analysis

The phase carries velocity information of the wave propagating from the source to the receiver. This gives subsurface resistivity information since the velocity is a function of the resistivity. In this study, analyzing phase versus offset data (PVO) is done by calculation of the phase difference for different offsets between a given receiver and the reference receiver. Furthermore, a visual inspection is performed on all receivers to map changes in the slope of the phase, as these are closely connected to changes in subsurface resistivity. The offset at which such a break occurs may be indicative of the burial depths.

11
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

6.1. Beta-01 Magnitude Figure 9 shows the line summary plots for the electric field at different offsets for different transmitter frequencies. The summary plots on the left column of the figure holds offsets between 2.5 and 3.5km for the fundamental frequency (0.25Hz), third (0.75Hz) and fifth (1.25Hz) harmonics, while the right column holds a longer offset (8.0 9.0km, 5.0 6.0km and 3.5 - 4.5km) for the base frequency (0.2 5Hz), third (0.75Hz) and fifth (1.25Hz) harmonics. The presented data have a greater focus on depth as we move from short offsets to longer offsets (from left to right column). Correspondingly, as we move downward (from base frequency to fifth harmonics), the surface-near resolution increases, but the depth of penetration decreases. The short offsets to the left of the column point at anomalies (of small magnitude) close to the surface at co-ordinates smaller than 0, between 7 and 9km and at co-ordinates larger than 20km. The normalized magnitudes are below 1.3 but they are consistent and show a trend in the data. The shallow anomalies do not increase with increasing frequency.

larger offsets and it is not fully developed on 1.25Hz. This makes it unlikely that a shallow feature causes the anomaly. As the fifth harmonics does not provide sufficient depth of penetration, no higher harmonics are shown. Figure 10 shows some of the line summary plots for the magnetic field data. The receivers with magnetic antennas were located over the prospects to have dense data coverage in this area of interest. In all, they complement the observations made from the electric field data. The anomaly over the prospect area has the same position, shape and size as on the electric data. Pseudo sections for the electric field data are shown in figure 11. The plots provide a picture of the relative depth of the anomalies. The normalized magnitudes are plotted as a function of receiver numbers and the in-and out-towing is plotted separately. The same anomaly appears in the plots at different abscises on in-and out-towing plots. The anomaly observed from the in-towing receivers (10 16) is the same as the one observed on the out-towing receivers (48).

At larger offsets, the anomalies develop. For the 0.25Hz frequency, the normalized magnitudes rise to a maximum at 11km, and decreases down to 15km where the lines ends in an unclosed anomaly around 1.5m magnitude. The first rise at 5km happens over the northern prospect while the midpoint at 11km corresponds to the northern edge of the southern group of prospects. This pattern is also observed in the third harmonic frequency (0.75Hz). The anomaly at the end of the line is larger at higher harmonics than at the base frequency suggesting that this is a fairly shallow event. A maximum appears at lower profile co-ordinates for 0.75Hz than 0.25Hz.The midpoint of 8km for 0.75Hz corresponds to the southern edge of the northern prospect. For the 5th harmonic frequency (1.25Hz), the longest offset with a satisfying signal-to-noise ratio was 3.5 4.5km. The anomaly on the middle of the line happens at

The pseudo section summarizes the interpretation explained above: The anomaly at low receivers is probably shallow and limited to the first one or two receivers. At Rx10 in-towing (Rx08 outtowing) another shallow feature appears, which becomes visible at deeper offsets as the receiver number increases (decreases). This is probably also of rather limited extension, maybe below receivers Rx09 Rx11. A deeper anomaly is visible at higher receiver numbers, from Rx14 on in-towing and Rx09 on out-towing. It appears at offsets around 4000m and has a normalized magnitude of 1.2 1.3. It also appears at similar offsets over a sweep of 6 receivers, which indicates that it is of appreciable size. In profile co-ordinates this corresponds to 10-17km.

12
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

6.3. Beta-02 Magnitude Line summary plots for the electric field data at different offsets for different transmitter frequencies are shown in figure 13. The left column holds summary plots for offsets between 2.5 and 3.5km for increasing frequencies downward, while the right column holds a longer offset (7.58.5km, 4.5 5.5km and 4.05.0km). As we move from the left column to the right (longer offsets), the presented data has a greater focus depth. As we move downwards (to higher frequency) the nearsurface resolution capabilities increases while the depth of penetration decreases simultaneously. At short offsets, all three frequencies show anomalies at the ends of line and are flat in the middle that is over the prospects area from 6 16km. The anomaly at co-ordinates larger than 16km is the more prominent. 6.2. Beta-01 Phase Figure 12 shows the line summary plots of the phase differences at two different offsets. The anomaly that was visible at short offsets on the magnitude plots is not visible on the phase line summary plots. At profile co-ordinates smaller than 2km, the phase has a somewhat odd behavior and the anomaly visible in the magnitude plots is of little interest in this context. However, the electric phase data may confirm the presence of a rather shallow body between 6 and 9km, easily visible on short offsets. After this anomaly the phase difference at short offsets approaches zero, where the rather shallow anomaly at the end of the line kicks it. This is all in good agreement with normalized magnitude plots. The development from short to long offsets is mainly recognizable on 0.25Hz, showing the phase difference at 7km. The phase difference at 3.5km approaches zero, while the phase difference at 7km increases. This adds to the earlier interpretation that from 9 10km and 5km onwards has a deeper highresistive feature.

Figure 12 Line summary plots for electric phase data along line Beta-01.

13
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

At large offsets, the 0.25Hz frequency shows an anomaly small in magnitude that extends from 515km. The anomaly is around 1.2 in normalized magnitude, but the inline data over several receivers adds confidence that it is a high-resistive feature of deep origin. The 0.75Hz and 1.25Hz frequencies show a higher level in normalized magnitudes at profile co-ordinates lower than 10km (Fig. 14). Nonetheless, a maximum point is recognizable around 11km. The magnitude is close to 1.5 at an offset of 4.0-5.0km for the 1.25Hz frequency. The normalized magnitude is close to 1.0 around 16 17km for all the three frequencies. This suggests that this anomaly is isolated from the more prominent anomaly at high profile co-ordinates. 6.4. Beta-02 Phase Line summary plots of the phase differences at two different offsets are shown below in figure 15. At short offsets, the two shallow anomalies are clearly visible, and there is literally no phase difference from profile co-ordinates 5 16km. while at long offsets, a phase difference is present up to 15km. The phase difference decreases from 10-15km. and this supports the interpretations that there are shallow anomalies at the ends of Beta-02 and a possibly deep anomaly in between. The Beta-02 phase slopes fall into offset groups. The ends of the line show early changes in phase slopes, as we would expect from a shallow anomaly, while the middle part of the line shows changes at larger offsets, typically between 5 and 7km. It seems that subsurface in this region contains a similar resistivity at shallow depth, but is more resistive at great depth compared to the reference area. Generally, the phase slope data of Beta-01 and Beta-02 are in good agreement, with each other. The observed anomaly has an elongated shape, with the longest axis along Beta-02.

differences at 0.25Hz, while the lower plots are at 0.75Hz. The left column is at comparably short offset, 3.5km and the right column at a long offset, 7.0 and 5.5km for 0.25 and 0.75Hz, respectively.

7. Depth Migration
Controlled-source electromagnetic (CSEM) uses electromagnetic data to estimate lateral extent and depth to a resistor. Depth migration requires the receiver data to be inline rotated and assumes that responses are caused by up-going fields only. Hence, the data needs to be up-down separated if water depths are shallow. However, this was not applied because the data presented here were acquired at great water depths. It is the magnitude and phase difference between an actual receiver and a selected reference receiver that is migrated. Therefore, the migration will show an image of resistivity anomalies compared to a reference data set. The source base frequency and the higher harmonics are used in the migration. Due to the exponential attenuation of electromagnetic data, there is only a limited amount of frequencies with useful signal. With a typical square source pulse of 0.25Hz emitted, frequency input to the migration algorithm is typically 0.25Hz, 0.75Hz and 1.25Hz. The controlled source electromagnetic (CSEM) depth migration requires a phase velocity model to calculate the travel times. This is a resistivity model since the phase velocity of the electromagnetic field is proportional to the resistivity. The used model is based on ID inversion of the reference receiver, which is outside the prospects area. The imaging condition includes a non-local operator that accounts for laterally propagating energy. This is important for the depth accuracy of the algorithm. The migration result is sensitive to the transverse resistance (the product of resistivity and thickness), rather than these two parameters individually. Information of the transverse resistance needs to be put into the depth migration. Depending on the aim of a given survey, such information can be more or less available and certain. In this study there is no ground truth indicating the thickness and resistivity of any highresistive bodies, a range of different parameter sets was used to evaluate the trend in migration result.

8. Background Resistivity Model

One dimensional background (1D) resistivity model was generated from forward modeling tests and plane layer inversion of the reference receiver used in the study area (Beta-01RX07). The results are shown in figures 17, 18 and 19. A 3D background resistivity model was then generated by using the bathymetry and the layer thickness and resistivity values from the ID inversion. The 3D model is therefore made of resistivity layers following the seabed topography making constant layer thickness (figure 20). In this way, the seabed topography is accounted for in the depth migration.

Figure 15 - Line summary plots for electric phase data along line Beta-02. The upper plots are phase

14
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

The final 3D background model generated is a smooth version of the 3D resistivity model for which proper 3D electromagnetic Green functions are calculated with a finite-difference algorithm.

9. Depth Migration Images

Performing depth migration requires input of the expected transverse rsistance of the study area. The transverse resistance is the product of the thickness and resistivity of the resistor. For the study area, these values are highly uncertain; therefore a range of different scenarios was imaged. The frequency input to the depth migration is 0.25Hz, 1.25Hz and a single transverse resistance value. This was then followed by running a scan over several transverse resistances of the Beta prospects provided from seismic data. The transverse resistances used in the scan are 100, 1000, 5000, 10,000 and 100,000m2. In general, an increase of the transverse resistance will increase the depth of burial to the resistor. The migrated image show where the recorded field deviated from the background field. For all the migration images presented, red color is used to indicate a positive resistivity anomaly compared to the reference area. Blue color is used to indicate migration artifacts from the positive red lobe (due to low data sampling both in space and frequency). It could also be used to indicate a negative resistivity anomaly. Green color represents no difference from the reference area. The following plots shown are unsealed with respect to amplitude. This means that the contrast in the plot is not the determinant of the strength of the measured anomaly. 9.1. Beta-01 Figures 21 to 26 show the depth migrated images for Beta-01 for the different values of transverse resistance. These migrated images, however, show a conductive anomaly above the resistive anomaly. This artifact is probably introduced to partly compensate for the deeper resistive anomaly. Table 1 summaries the depth to the centre of the main resistive anomalies as a function of transverse resistance. Figure 27 is a plot of the migrated depths as a function of the transverse resistance used (as the transverse resistance increases, the migration depth also increase).

15
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

16
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

Table 1 - Migrated depths as a function of transverse resistance for Beta-01. The depths are read as the midpoints of the main resistive anomaly. Transverse (m) 100 500 1,000 5,000 10,000 100,000 Resistance Migrated Depth (m) 3,500 3,500 3,800 4,700 4,800 4,900

9.2. Beta-02 Figures 28 to 33 show the migrated images for Beta-02, which strikes along the main direction of the prospects. The depth migration results for Beta-02 complements the results of Beta-01. Compared with corresponding illustration of Beta-01, it is evident that same transverse resistances yield anomalies at the same depth. As the transverse resistance increases, the depth migration increases. Table 2 also summaries the depth to the centre of the main resistive anomalies as a function of transverse resistance.

17
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

Table 2 - Migrated depths to large resistive anomaly on Beta-02. The depths are read as the midpoints of the main resistive anomaly. Transverse Resistance (m) 100 500 1,000 5,000 10,000 100,000

as a function of transverse resistance presence of both shallow and deep resistive objectives. The offset at which these anomalies occurred are indicative of its depth of burial. The anomalies that occurred at shorter offsets are considered to be of shallower depths of burial than those anomalies which appear at longer offsets (deeper depths). Beta-01: Analysis of the phase and magnitude data for Beta-01 showed that shallow anomalies with magnitude less than 1.3 occurred consistently at short offsets (2.5-3.5km) while at larger offsets of 8-9km, anomalies with magnitude as high as 1.5 were detected. Anomalies that were visible at short offsets on the magnitude plots were not seen on the phase line summary plots (Fig. 3.8) as the phase difference at 3.5km approached zero. As the frequency increased, the phase difference increased again at 7km (longer offset) where some anomalies interpreted to be of deeper depths were detected. 10.1. Beta-02:

Migrated Depth (m) 3,500 3,500 3,800 4,700 4,800 4,900

10.

Discussion/conclusion

Analysis of the Phase versus Offset data (PVO) and Magnitude versus Offset (MVO) data was done by calculating the phase and magnitude difference for different offsets between a given receiver and the reference receiver. After a careful analysis of the PVO and MVO data for Beta-01 and Beta-02, some clear indications of anomalies were detected. The electromagnetic data interpreted indicated the As seen above, it can be deduced that anomalies with normalized magnitudes of about 1.5 which occurred at intermediate to far offsets (typically 4 to 8km) may be as a result of deep-seated subsurface resistive prospects. Anomalies with normalized magnitude values ranging from 1.2 - 1.3 at near offsets were as a result of shallow-seated resistive prospects. This strongly suggests the presence of commercial hydrocarbons in the deeper objectives and residual saturations of hydrocarbon in the shallower objectives. From this study, it was also discovered that hydrocarbon reservoirs can also be detected using electromagnetic frequencies as low as 0.25Hz in the deepwater environment. At this frequency range (0.25 1.25Hz), residual hydrocarbons were detected which was not detected in the seismic data previously acquired over the study area. This prospect was tested by an appraisal well a few weeks after the CSEM survey was acquired and

Anomalies with magnitude of about 1.2 were detected at the ends of the line for short offsets (2.53.5km) in all the frequencies. At larger offsets, there are also indications of anomalies with magnitude close to 1.5. These anomalies that occurred at larger offsets are isolated from the more prominent shallower ones. At short offsets, no phase difference was observed but it was observed at longer offsets. This supports the interpretation of Beta-01 that there are shallow anomalies observed at both ends of the coordinates with a possible deeper anomaly in between. For Beta-01 and -02, it was also observed that at higher frequencies the near-surface resolution increased as the depth of penetration decreased. interpreted. The results from the wells confirmed that the shallow anomalies were actually good quality reservoir sands with residual gas saturations having resistivity values of 2m - 3m and the deeper highresistive anomalies were indeed hydrocarbon-bearing sands with resistivity of 10 - 100m as predicted by the CSEM interpretation. This study helps to stress the fact that CSEM technology can be used to detect and distinguish between commercial hydrocarbon accumulations and residual saturations (which is caused by trap failure resulting in the leakage of hydrocarbons).

11. Conclusion
CSEM Survey was performed on two lines covering the Beta prospects deepwater offshore Niger Delta, Nigeria. Deepwater Nigeria is an ideal setting for applications of the CSEM technology because it is characterized by:

18
Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 No 1 January, 2012

1. Strong resistivity contrasts between hydrocarbonsaturated and wet/residual-saturated sands 2. Sufficient water depth to reduce airwave related distortions 3. Absence of deep resistors unrelated to hydrocarbons e.g. salt, volcanics, carbonate rocks, hydrates or crystalline basement. The raw receiver data consisting of a continuous time series of receiver fields, source current and navigation data was transformed into an interpretable form using the following processing flow; demodulation, channel summation, calibration and inline rotation. Detailed data interpretation using a combination of forward modeling, geophysical inversion and imaging showed indications of shallow alongside with seismic method as this will lead to increase in exploration efficiency, accurate

and deeper high-resistive anomalies. These anomalies were interpreted to be as a result of deeper seated hydrocarbon accumulations and residual hydrocarbon saturations as confirmed by results from wells later drilled into the prospect.

This study has illustrated the predictive power of the CSEM technology in the detection of hydrocarbon accumulations especially in a favorable deepwater environment. Although its limitation lies in its inability to have a high depth resolution with increased frequency, it is of utmost importance that the CSEM technology be integrated as an important geophysical tool identification and evaluation of prospects, and reduction in exploration risks and costs. hydrocarbon layers by Seabed Logging (SBL): Results of a cruise offshore West Africa. The Leading Edge. Vol. 21: pp. 972-982. [5] MacGregor, L. M., Andreis, D., Tomlinson, J. and Barker, N. 2005. Controlled-source electromagnetic imaging on the Nuggets-1 reservoir. The Leading Edge. Vol. 25: pp. 984992. [6] Ojo, E.A., Fadiya, L.S. and Ehinola, O.A. 2009. Bionization and correlation of BDX-1 and BDX-2 wells of Deep Offshore Niger Delta using calcareous nannofossils. Search and Discover Article. 50194. [7] Saleh, S. 2006. Towards a new era in Seabed Logging. Geophysical Exploration. Vol. 10: pp. 40-43. [8] Weber, K.J. and Daukoru, E.M. 1975. Petroleum geological aspects of the Niger Delta. Nigerian Journal of Mining and Geology. Vol. 12: pp. 9-22

References
[1] Avbovbo, A.A. 1978. Tertiary Lithostratigraphy of Niger Delta. AAPG Bulletin. Vol. 62, No.2: pp. 295-300. [2] Boulaenko, M., Hasthammer, J., Verehagin, A., Gelting, P., Davies, R. and Wedberg, T. 2007. Marine CSEM Technology - The Luva Case. Houston Geological Society Bulletin. Vol. 90: pp. 23-43. [3] Eidesmo, T., Ellingsrud, S., MacGregor, L. M., Constable, S., Sinha, M. C., Westerdahl, H. and Kong, F. N. 2002: Remote detection of hydrocarbon-filled layers using marine controlled source electromagnetic sounding - A paper submitted to EAGE 64th Conference & Exhibition, Florence, Italy, May 27th -30th, 2002: World Oil. 220(5): pp. 19-25. [4] Ellingsrud, S., Eidesmo, T., Johansen, S., Sinha, M. C., MacGregor, L. M. and Constable, S. C. 2002. Remote sensing of