Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Changing Frontiers
1
EMGS.
*
Corresponding author, E-mail: dbaltar@emgs.com
Changing Frontiers
The uncertainty is particularly high in frontier exploration HC-saturated formation resistivity scenarios on the well log
and for new play concepts. It is therefore important to use scale that would be consistent with the inversion result. These
all available information to reduce the uncertainty as much scenarios can be calculated from the transverse resistance
as possible to be able to focus the exploratory drilling on the equivalence principle, as will be derived below. All resistivities
prospects with the highest probability of economic success considered in the derivation are vertical resistivities.
and maximize the risked prospect portfolio value. Transverse resistance is the integral of resistivity over
It is well known that most of the uncertainty in the recov- depth. We define the anomalous transverse resistance (ATR)
erable reserves can be attributed to the uncertainty in the of the reservoir as the amount of transverse resistance above
net rock volume. Thus given a CSEM favourable setting, the the value that would exist if no hydrocarbons were present:
CSEM volume sensitivity can result in significant uncertainty
reduction on the reserve estimation. This makes CSEM a very .(3)
attractive ‘companion’ to seismic for prospect evaluation.
We present statistical evaluation methods for estimat- Here, ∆R is the resistivity anomaly due to hydrocarbons at
ing reserves that use anisotropic 3D CSEM inversion data the well log scale. The ATR represents the cumulative resis-
to reduce uncertainty. The methods were developed to tivity contrast over the pay zone (Figure 2).
easily integrate into common probabilistic reserves estimation
processes.
We will distinguish between the case where the 3D
CSEM inversion reconstructed a resistivity anomaly at the
prospect location and the case where no anomaly has been
reconstructed. In the presence of a CSEM anomaly, a Monte
Carlo simulation is run that uses the transverse resistance
equivalence principle to interpret the CSEM anomaly in terms
of net pay thickness and reservoir area, resulting in a net rock
volume probability distribution. This distribution can then be
used in a standard Monte Carlo simulation for recoverable
reserves based on equation (2). In the absence of a CSEM
anomaly, 3D forward modelling is used to establish maximum
non-detectable target cases, which are then used to condition
a standard Monte Carlo simulation for recoverable reserves.
We start by describing the evaluation method for the Figure 1 A hydrocarbon related resistivity anomaly in a 3D CSEM inversion
result is an upscaled version of the resistivity anomaly at the well log scale.
CSEM anomaly case. The method has been applied to real The transverse resistance equivalence can be used to interpret the CSEM
commercial exploration projects, but for reasons of com- anomaly at the well log scale. Example from Yuan et al. (2009).
mercial confidentiality, we simulate an exploration case using
the widely published CSEM data from the Troll West oil
province (TWOP) in the Norwegian North Sea to illustrate
the capability for reducing the uncertainty measured as
the P10/P90 ratio for the net rock volume, and compare
the resulting probability distribution to the actual net rock
volume. We then elaborate on the evaluation method used in
the absence of a CSEM anomaly and show how it truncates
the high end of the recoverable reserves distribution.
Given a 1D resistivity trace extracted from a 3D CSEM Assuming the background resistivity Rbg is known, equa-
inversion model, the transverse resistance equivalence princi- tions (7) and (8) allow for calculating pairs of R and ∆Z
ple (Constable, 2010) suggests that that are consistent with the CSEM resistivity trace. This is
illustrated in Figure 3. If the average pay resistivity R was
,(4) known, the net pay ∆Z could be calculated from the CSEM
net-to-gross relationship. This, however, is not the case in
exploration. As we will show in the next section, a good way
where ∆Rcsem refers to the resistivity anomaly owing to to deal with lacking information and uncertainties is to run
hydrocarbons in the CSEM resistivity trace. In other words, a Monte Carlo simulation using the CSEM inversion result
the cumulative resistivity contrast of the CSEM resistivity as input.
trace and that of the resistivity well log are equal. So far we have only considered a single resistivity trace, i.e.,
Equation (4) can be rewritten in terms of average the 1D case. It is straightforward to extend the analysis to
resistivities as the full 3D CSEM inversion model. In this case, the averaging
over the anomaly results in an average CSEM resistivity map
.(5) (Figure 5), which may then be interpreted in terms of equa-
tions (7) and (8), i.e., we iterate over each cell in an area of
Here denotes the averaging operator, ∆Zcsem is the thick- interest to achieve a full net rock volume calculation.
ness of the CSEM anomaly in the CSEM resistivity trace and
∆Z is the actual thickness of the hydrocarbon charged reser- CSEM anomaly evaluation under uncertainty
voir interval, i.e. the net pay thickness required to evaluate We use a Monte Carlo method to handle the uncertainties
the reserve equation (2). in the evaluation of the CSEM anomaly. To do this, we must
Given a relatively uniform background resistivity varia- associate a random variable with a probability distribution
tion over the depth interval of interest defined by the CSEM to each source of uncertainty in the calculation. For net rock
anomaly, equation (5) can be simplified to volume calculations from an average resistivity map obtained
from a 3D CSEM inversion model, the main uncertainties
,(6) and corresponding random variables are the following:
n What is the background resistivity value? Variable: Rbg
where Rcsem is the average value of the CSEM resistivity trace n What resistivity values must be considered anomalous?
over the CSEM anomaly interval, R is the average hydrocar- Variable: Rcutoff
bon charged reservoir resistivity over the pay zone and Rbg is n What is the average pay resistivity? Variable: R
Figure 3 A CSEM resistivity trace extracted from a 3D CSEM inversion result can be linked to average pay resistivity R and net pay thickness ∆Z via the transverse
resistance equivalence principle.
Changing Frontiers
and R. The steps are repeated many times and a cumulative order to simulate an exploration setting. We only used the
probability distribution for the net rock volume is generated. reservoir top horizon from seismic and the results from an
So far, we have assumed that the ATR estimated by the unconstrained anisotropic 3D CSEM inversion.
CSEM inversion is a good approximation of the actual The following steps were followed to generate the input
anomalous transverse resistance of the reservoir. Following to the Monte Carlo simulation:
the derivation in the previous section, it is obvious that (1) Identify the CSEM anomaly in section view.
when the ATR is under- or overestimated, the net rock (2) Create two surfaces, one above the CSEM anomaly and
volume will be under- or overestimated in proportion to the one below by shifting the top reservoir horizon up and
error in the ATR. down respectively. (Figure 5)
CSEM inversion will typically underestimate the ATR of (3) Generate a map of the average CSEM resistivity Rcsem
the reservoir slightly. This can be accounted for in the Monte by averaging the vertical resistivity from the 3D CSEM
Carlo simulation by introducing an extra random variable inversion model between the two surfaces created in
describing the uncertainty in the estimated ATR. This is step 2. (Figure 5)
especially important when the CSEM sensitivity to the target (4) Calculate a thickness map of the averaging operator by
interval is low, e.g., for deep exploration objectives. The extra taking the difference between the two surfaces created in
random variable will naturally increase the uncertainty of step 2. In this case, the thickness was constant, but the
the resulting net rock volume probability distribution (P10/ algorithm equally applies to a laterally varying thickness.
P90 ratio). The uncertainty can be reduced by calibrating The thickness map serves to define the thickness of the
the ATR estimation by 3D forward modelling and synthetic CSEM anomaly, ∆Zcsem in equation (8).
data inversion for a representative target embedded in the (5) Define distributions for the background resistivity Rbg
background resistivity model obtained from the 3D inversion and the cut-off resistivity Rcutoff from the average CSEM
of the measured CSEM survey data. resistivity map generated in step 3.
Application to the Troll West oil province The Monte Carlo simulation tested possible reservoir scenarios
We demonstrate the performance of net rock volume esti- using the following resistivity ranges: 10 Ωm < R < 100 Ωm,
mation on the Troll West oil province (TWOP) over which 2.6 Ωm < Rbg < 3.2 Ωm, 3.3 Ωm < Rcutoff < 4.7 Ωm. To keep
a full-azimuth 3D CSEM survey was acquired in 2008 things simple, uniform probability distributions were chosen.
(Gabrielsen et al., 2009). Anisotropic 3D inversion of the Note that the range for the pay resistivity R is very large
survey data has been reported by Morten et al. (2009). since no well data were used to constrain this variable. The
No prior information about the pay resistivity, the limits for the Rbg and Rcutoff variables were chosen based on
net pay thickness, and the reservoir area was assumed in histograms derived from the average CSEM resistivity map.
50,000 Monte Carlo samples were produced. The resulting mud line), geologic setting (e.g., water depth, overburden
cumulative probability distribution for the net rock volume is resistivity), and acquisition parameters (e.g., source current
shown in Figure 6 together with the actual volume defined amplitude and frequencies, available offset range, receiver
by the top reservoir horizon and the known oil-water contact sensitivity, ambient noise). If the geologic setting and acqui-
(OWC). The distribution is relatively narrow with a P10/P90 sition parameters are defined, the CSEM sensitivity can be
ratio of less than six, which is in the order of uncertainties established for assumed target characteristics by 3D forward
typical for development or near-field exploration (see Table 1). modelling. Such modelling is best performed using the back-
The actual net rock volume coincides with the 60th percentile. ground resistivity model obtained by anisotropic 3D inver-
Other information such as analogues or seismic interpreta- sion of the measured CSEM survey data.
tion could be used to condition the distribution, e.g., the As a result of the transverse resistance equivalence
higher end of the rock volume distribution could probably be principle, it makes sense to analyse the CSEM sensitivity as
ruled out using seismic interpretation. By cross-plotting the a function of ATR for a given reservoir area. An example of
Monte Carlo input variables against the resulting net rock such modelling is shown in Figure 7. The reservoir is located
volume samples, we found the main controlling factor in the 2200 m below mud line and has been modelled for three
net rock volume estimation to be the average pay resistivity R. different reservoir areas: 10, 30, and 75 km2. For each area,
a number of ATR values have been considered to generate a
Reserves estimation in the absence of a sensitivity curve. The displayed sensitivity metric is the nor-
CSEM anomaly malized magnitude versus offset (NMvO) attribute expressed
In the early days of CSEM for hydrocarbon exploration, the as a percentage for the offset and frequency combination that
absence of a CSEM anomaly was often equated with ‘no maximises the target response. Similar sensitivity curves can
hydrocarbons’. This simplified interpretation, however, does be generated for other sensitivity metrics, e.g., the hardware
not account for the volume sensitivity of CSEM. In other dependent sensitivity metric described in Barker et al. (2012).
words, the absence of a CSEM anomaly can only be used
to conclude that any hydrocarbon accumulation must be Detection criterion
smaller than the detection limit of CSEM for this particular For the NMvO sensitivity metric, it is common to assume
geologic setting and acquisition. By modelling the CSEM a limit of 10% for reliable target detection and imag-
sensitivity and defining a detection threshold, it is possible to ing. It is well known that the detectability depends on the
test whether a specific reservoir case is consistent or incon- geologic complexity and the quality of the CSEM data. Thus,
sistent with the CSEM observation, i.e., that no anomaly was for some CSEM surveys (e.g., shallow water surveys), the
reconstructed by 3D CSEM inversion. Such test in turn can NMvO detection criterion may have to be adjusted.
be used to condition a standard Monte Carlo simulation for Given a NMvO detection criterion of 10%, the sensitivity
recoverable reserves. curves of Figure 7 can be used to establish the minimum ATR
detected reliably for each modelled reservoir area, which we
CSEM sensitivity will call ATR10. The dependence of ATR10 on reservoir area
The sensitivity of CSEM data to a hydrocarbon accumula- A can be represented by fitting the functional
tion is known to be a function of target characteristics (e.g.,
reservoir area, net pay thickness, pay resistivity, depth below ATR10(A) = ATR10inf + r/(A-A0)(8)
Figure 6 Troll West oil province example: Estimated cumulative probability dis-
tribution for the net rock volume. The reference volume calculated from the
reservoir top and OWC coincides with the 60th percentile. The P10/P90 ratio is
less than six, which is low by common exploration standards.
Changing Frontiers
Figure 7 CSEM sensitivity curves obtained by 3D forward modelling: Maximum NMvO as a function of ATR for different reservoir areas. The prospect is located
2,200 m below mud line. Assuming a 10% NMvO detection criterion, the ATR threshold at which the NMvO value drops below 10% can be estimated for each
reservoir area. This threshold is called ATR10. The forward modelling uses the background resistivity model obtained by anisotropic 3D inversion of the meas-
ured CSEM survey data.
to the ATR10 samples as exemplified in Figure 8. Here, equation (2), which include the reservoir area A and the net
ATR10inf is the ATR10 value for an infinite reservoir area pay thickness ∆Z. In addition, for each reservoir scenario,
estimated from 1D modelling, A0 defines the minimum the average pay resistivity R and background resistivity Rbg
theoretical reservoir area detectable by CSEM and r is a needs to be established in order to calculate the correspond-
curvature parameter. For the example case considered, the ing ATR, ATR = ∆Z * (R-Rbg). As before, these resistivity
fitting parameters are ATR10inf = 540 Ωm2, A0 = 5.7 km2 and values need to be vertical resistivities. The algorithm works
r = 2,000 Ωm2km2. Hydrocarbon accumulations with ATR according to the scheme outlined in Figure 9.
and reservoir area above this curve are most likely to be There are a number of ways in which the average pay
detected by CSEM, while those accumulations falling below resistivity R and the background resistivity Rbg can be intro-
the curve are more likely to remain undetected. duced into the calculation. The probability distribution for
Rbg can be derived from the 3D CSEM inversion model or
Reserves estimation nearby well control. The probability distribution for R can
In the absence of a CSEM anomaly, possible existing hydro- be obtained from analogues for which well data are avail-
carbon accumulations are most likely to be below the ATR10 able. Alternatively, pay resistivity can be calculated from
curve defined above. Therefore it makes sense to use this the porosity distribution and saturation distribution using
information in the reserves estimation. an Archie-like saturation equation and additional input
This can again be achieved through a Monte Carlo distributions defining the remaining Archie parameters
simulation. The algorithm uses the usual probability distri- such as pore water resistivity, cementation exponent, etc.
butions for the reservoir parameters entering the reserves Both approaches require a proper evaluation of expected
electrical anisotropy in order to obtain meaningful vertical transverse resistance for all Monte Carlo samples. The sam-
resistivity values. ples corresponding to large reservoir area and/or high ATR
(red dots) have been removed as they would have produced
Example an anomaly in the 3D CSEM inversion result. Since large
Let us return to the prospect associated with the sensitivity areas and high ATR are more likely to be associated with
curves of Figure 7 and impose a NMvO detection criterion high recoverable reserves, we are removing mostly large
of 10%. The reservoir parameter distributions for this pros- fields from the recoverable reserves distribution. Therefore
pect are given by the P10 and P90 values in Table 2. All one would expect a large impact at the high end of the
distributions are assumed to be log normal. Figure 10 shows distribution (P10) and a smaller impact at the lower end of
the recoverable reserves distribution generated by Monte the distribution (P90). Figure 10 shows that this is exactly
Carlo simulation with and without CSEM conditioning. what happens: The P10 reserves are reduced by about 40%,
For the sake of simplicity, we have chosen to input the pay whereas the P90 reserves are only reduced by 23%. The
resistivity data directly instead of deriving it from a satura- resulting reduction in expected (average) reserves is fairly
tion equation. significant, about 38% from 104 MMbbl to 64 MMbbl. The
The Monte Carlo simulation was run for 100,000 uncertainty in the reserves as quantified by the P10/P90 ratio
iterations. Figure 11 shows the reservoir area and anomalous is reduced from 18 to 14.
Changing Frontiers
In the negative case, i.e., absence of a CSEM anomaly, the Constable, S. [2010] Ten years of marine CSEM for hydrocarbon
impact on reserves in terms of P10/P90 ratio will generally exploration. Geophysics, 75, 5, A67–A81.
not be that strong, but the P10 and average reserves can Gabrielsen, P. T., Brevik, I., Mittet, R. and Løseth, L.O. [2009]
experience a significant reduction after the inclusion of the Investigating the exploration potential for 3D CSEM using a calibra-
3D CSEM information (~40% for the example studied). tion survey over the Troll Field. First Break, 27(6), 67–75.
Both results suggest that 3D CSEM can have a major Morten, J.P., Bjørke, A.K. and Støren, T. [2009] CSEM data uncertainty
impact on the estimated reserves and their uncertainty, which analysis for 3D inversion. 79th SEG Annual Meeting, Expanded
can lead to a great improvement in the prospect evaluation Abstracts, 28, 724–728.
and decision-making. Morten, J.P, Roth, F., Timko, D., Pacurar, C., Nguyen, A.K. and Olsen,
P.A. [2011] 3D reservoir characterization of a North Sea oil field
Acknowledgements using quantitative seismic & CSEM interpretation. 81st SEG Annual
We would like to thank Mårten Blixt from Blueback Meeting. Expanded Abstracts, 30, 1903–1907.
Reservoir for the interesting discussions about the algorithms Roden, R., Forrest, M. and Holeywell, R. [2005] The impact of seismic
and its implementation. amplitudes on prospect risk analysis. The Leading Edge, 24(7),
706–711.
References Rose, P.R. [2001] Risk analysis and management of petroleum explora-
Barker, N.D., Morten, J.P. and Shantsev D.V. [2012] Optimizing EM data tion ventures. AAPG, p. 26.
acquisition for continental shelf exploration. The Leading Edge, Yuan, H., Pham, T., Zach, J.J, Frenkel, M.A. and Ridyard, D. [2009]
31(11), 1276–1284. Exploration case studies in mature Gulf of Mexico basins using 3D
Buland, A., Løseth, L.O., Becht, A., Roudot, M. and Røsten, T. [2011]. marine CSEM. 79th SEG Annual Meeting. Expanded Abstracts, 28,
The value of CSEM data in exploration. First Break, 29 (4), 69–76. 825–829.