CSEM fluid monitoring methodology using real data examples

PreviousNext No AccessSecond International Meeting for Applied Geoscience & EnergyCSEM fluid monitoring methodology using real data examplesAuthors: Kurt StrackDonald C. AdamsCésar Barajas-OlaldeSofia DavydychevaRyan J. KlapperichYardenia MartinezKris MacLennanAndri Yadi PaembonanWesley D. PeckMaxim SmirnovKurt StrackKMS TechnologiesSearch for more papers by this author, Donald C. AdamsUniversity of North DakotaSearch for more papers by this author, César Barajas-OlaldeUniversity of North DakotaSearch for more papers by this author, Sofia DavydychevaKMS TechnologiesSearch for more papers by this author, Ryan J. KlapperichUniversity of North DakotaSearch for more papers by this author, Yardenia MartinezKMS TechnologiesSearch for more papers by this author, Kris MacLennanUniversity of North DakotaSearch for more papers by this author, Andri Yadi PaembonanKMS TechnologiesSumatera Institute of TechnologySearch for more papers by this author, Wesley D. PeckUniversity of North DakotaSearch for more papers by this author, and Maxim SmirnovKMS TechnologiesLulea Technical UniversitySearch for more papers by this authorhttps://doi.org/10.1190/image2022-3751658.1 SectionsSupplemental MaterialAboutPDF/ePub ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail AbstractElectromagnetic measurements can significantly contribute to imaging and monitoring of the reservoir fluid movement for hydrocarbon, geothermal, and CO2 sequestration scenarios. Among electromagnetic measurements, passive methods such as magnetotellurics (MT) give a good overview picture while controlled source electromagnetics (CSEM) addresses more details of the flood front location. Since Earth’s resistivities vary over several orders of magnitude, adopting the methodology to the target resistivity is important. For conductive targets, we usually use magnetic fields and for resistive targets the electric fields (but not exclusively). Using field data from hydrocarbon and CO2 applications, we illustrate the importance of a workflow and adaption to the target on hand. Verifying the geophysical acquisition and processing steps with 3D modeling and checking them against a 3D anisotropic log-derived model maintains confidence in the workflow and minimizes the influence on the data. This allows us to predict data validity and to certify the data with respect to the borehole logs. Keywords: CSEM, EM monitoring, CO2 monitoring, CSEM borehole calibration, reservoir monitoringPermalink: https://doi.org/10.1190/image2022-3751658.1FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Second International Meeting for Applied Geoscience & EnergyISSN (print):1052-3812 ISSN (online):1949-4645Copyright: 2022 Pages: 3694 publication data© 2022 Published in electronic format with permission by the Society of Exploration Geophysicists and the American Association of Petroleum GeologistsPublisher:Society of Exploration Geophysicists HistoryPublished Online: 15 Aug 2022 CITATION INFORMATION Kurt Strack, Donald C. Adams, César Barajas-Olalde, Sofia Davydycheva, Ryan J. Klapperich, Yardenia Martinez, Kris MacLennan, Andri Yadi Paembonan, Wesley D. Peck, and Maxim Smirnov, (2022), "CSEM fluid monitoring methodology using real data examples," SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts : 677-681. https://doi.org/10.1190/image2022-3751658.1 Plain-Language Summary KeywordsCSEMEM monitoringCO2 monitoringCSEM borehole calibrationreservoir monitoringPDF DownloadLoading ...