Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T15:45:58.896Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Marine Electromagnetic Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2021

By
Lucy M. MacGregor
Edited by
Hamish Wilson ,
Keith Nunn  and
Matt Luheshi
Hamish Wilson
Affiliation:
BluEnergy Ltd
Keith Nunn
Affiliation:
Nunngeo Consulting Ltd
Matt Luheshi
Affiliation:
Leptis E&P Ltd
Get access

Summary

Marine electromagnetic (EM) methods can be used to determine the resistivity of the subsurface, which can in turn be used to investigate bothstructure and properties of the subsurface.Natural source magnetotelluric (MT) and controlled source electromagnetic (CSEM) methods have been applied to a range of exploration and exploitation problems. In areas of complex geology where seismic can struggle to produce a clear subsurface image, both CSEM and MT have been applied to improve velocity model building and hence improve the final migrated image.In reservoir characterisation problems, CSEM derived resistivity provides a valuable complement to seismically derived acoustic and elastic properties, and has been shown to reduce interpretation ambiguity, particularly in the case of hydrocarbon saturation uncertainty.In all cases, a careful multiphysics approach, in which marine EM methods are integrated with seismic and other geophysical methods, provides the most robust result.

Keywords

anisotropycontrolled-source electromagneticelectromagneticintegrationmagnetotelluric multiphysicsresistivity
Type
Chapter
Information
Integration of Geophysical Technologies in the Petroleum Industry , pp. 169 - 219
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alcocer, J. A. E, Garcia, M. V., Soto, H. S., et al., 2013. Reducing uncertainty by integrating 3D CSEM in the Mexican deepwater workflow. First Break, 31, 75–9.Google Scholar
Alumbaugh, D., Cuevas, N., Chen, J., Gao, G. and Brady, G., 2010. Comparison of sensitivity and resolution with two marine CSEM exploration methods. Expanded Abstract, SEG Annual Meeting, Denver 2010.Google Scholar
Alvarez, P., Alvarez, A., MacGregor, L., Bolivar, F., Keirstead, R. and Martin, R., 2017. Reservoir properties prediction integrating controlled source electromagnetic, pre-stack seismic and well log data using a rock physics framework: Case study in the Hoop Area, Barents Sea, Norway. Interpretation, 5(2), SE43–SE60.Google Scholar
Alvarez, A., Marcy, F., Vrijlandt, M., et al., 2018. Multi-physics characterisation of reservoir prospects in the Hoop area of the Barents Sea, Interpretation, 6 (3), SG1–SG17.Google Scholar
Andreis, D. and MacGregor, L, 2011. Using CSEM to monitor production from a complex 3D gas reservoir: A synthetic case study. The Leading Edge, September, 1070–9.Google Scholar
Andreis, D., MacGregor, L., Grana, D., Alvarez, P. and Ellis, M. 2018. Overcoming scale incompatibility in petrophysical joint inversion of surface seismic and CSEM data. Expanded Abstract, SEG Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
Attias, E., Weitemeyer, K., Holz, S., et al., 2017. High resolution imaging of marine gas hydrate structures by combined inversion of CSEM towed and ocean bottom receiver data. Geophysical Journal International, 214, 1701–14.Google Scholar
Barker, N. D., Morten, J. P. and Shantsev, D. V., 2012. Optimizing EM data acquisition for continental shelf exploration. The Leading Edge, November 2012, 1276–84.Google Scholar
Bedanta, K. G., Weitemeyer, K., Minshull, T., Sinha, M., Westbrook, G. and Marin-Moreno, H., 2016. Resistivity image beneath an area of active methane seeps in the west Svalbard continental slope. Geophysical Journal International, 207, 1286–302.Google Scholar
Bhuyian, A. H., Landro, M. and Johansen, S. E., 2012. 3D CSEM modelling and time-lapse sensitivity analysis for sub-surface CO2 storage, Geophysics, 77(5), E343–E355.Google Scholar
Blatter, D., Key, K., Ray, A., Gustafson, C. and Evans, R., 2019. Bayesian joint inversion of controlled source electromagnetic and magnetotelluric data to image freshwater aquifer offshore New Jersey. Geophysical Journal International, 218, 1822–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchrara, S., MacGregor, L., Alvarez, A., et al., 2015. CSEM based anisotropy trends across the Barents Sea. Expanded Abstract, SEG Annual Meeting, New Orleans, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2015–5912741.1.Google Scholar
Buland, A., Loseth, L. O., Becht, A., Roudot, M. and Rosten, T, 2011. The value of CSEM data in exploration. First Break, 29, 69–76.Google Scholar
Ceci, F., Clementi, M., Guerra, I. and Mantovani, M., 2014. Integrated interpretation and simultaneous joint inversion of CSEM and seismic datasets – The sunshine case, Expanded Abstract, EAGE Annual Meeting, 2014.Google Scholar
Chave, A., Constable, S. and Edwards, R. N., 1991. Electrical exploration methods for the seafloor. In Nambighian, M. N. (ed.), Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics, 931–96. Tulsa, OK: Society of Exploration Geophysicists.Google Scholar
Chen, J. and Hoversten, G. M., 2012. Joint inversion of marine seismic AVA and CSEM data using statistical rock physics and Markov random fields, Geophysics, 77, R65–R80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colombo, D., Keho, T. and McNeice, G., 2012. Integrated seismic-electromagnetic workflow for sub-basalt exploration in northwest Saudi Arabia. The Leading Edge, January, 42–52.Google Scholar
Colombo, D., MacNiece, G., Curiel, E. S. and Fox, A., 2013. Full tensor CSEM and MT for subsalt structural imaging in the Red Sea: Implications for seismic and electromagnetic integration. The Leading Edge, April, 436–49.Google Scholar
Colombo, D., Rovetta, D. and Turkoglu, E., 2018. CSEM regularised seismic verlocity inversion: A multiscale, hierarchical workflow for sub-salt imaging. Geophysics, 83, B241–B252.Google Scholar
Colombo, D. and Stefano, M. D., 2007. Geophysical modeling via simultaneous joint inversion of seismic, gravity, and electromagnetic data: Application to prestack depth imaging. The Leading Edge, 26(3), 326–31.Google Scholar
Commer, M. and Newman, G., 2008. New advances in three dimensional controlled source electromagnetic inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 172, 513–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Constable, S., 2010. Ten years of marine CSEM for hydrocarbon exploration. Geophysics, 75, A67–A81.Google Scholar
Constable, S., 2013. Instrumentation for marine magnetotelluric and controlled source electromagnetic sounding. Geophysical Propsecting, 61, 505–32.Google Scholar
Constable, S. and Cox, C. S., 1996. Marine controlled source electromagnetic sounding II: The PEGASUS experiment. Journal of Geophysical Research, 101, 5519–30.Google Scholar
Constable, S. C., Kowalczyk, P. and Bloomer, S., 2017. Measuring marine self potential using an autonomous underwater vehicle. Geophysical Journal International, 200, 1–8.Google Scholar
Constable, S., Orange, A., Hoversten, M. and Morrison, H. F., 1998. Marine magnetotellurics for petroleum exploration, Part 1: A sea floor equipment system. Geophysics, 63, 816–25.Google Scholar
Constable, S., Parker, R. and Constable, C., 1987. Occam’s inversion: A practical algorithm for generating smooth models from electromagnetic sounding data. Geophysics, 52, 289–300.Google Scholar
Constable, S. and Srnka, L., 2007. An introduction to marine controlled source electromagnetic methods for hydrocarbon exploration, Geophysics, 72, WA3–WA12.Google Scholar
Cox, C. S., 1981. On the electrical conductivity of the oceanic lithosphere. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 25(3), 196–201.Google Scholar
Cuevas, N. H. and Alumbaugh, D., 2011. Near source response of a resistive layer to a horizontal or vertical electric dipole excitiation. Geophysics, 76, F353–F371.Google Scholar
Davydycheva, S. and Frenkl, M. A., 2013. The impact of 3D tilted resistivity anisotropy on CSEM measurements. The Leading Edge, 32, 1374–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du, Z., Namo, G., May, J., Reiser, C. and Midgley, J., 2017. Total hydrocarbon volume in place: Improved reservoir characterisation from integration of towed streamer EM and dual sensor broadband seismic data. First Break, 35, 89–96.Google Scholar
Edwards, R. N., 1997. On the resource evaluation of marine gas hydrate deposits using seafloor transient dipole-dipole measurements. Geophysics, 62, 63–74.Google Scholar
Edwards, R. N., 2005. Marine controlled source electromagnetics: Principles, methodologies and future commercial applications. Surveys in Geophysics, 26, 675–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellingsrud, S., Eidesmo, T., Johansen, S., Sinha, M. C., MacGregor, L. M. and Constable, S., 2002. Remote sensing of hydrocarbon layers using sea-bed logging (SBL): Results of a cruise offshore West Africa. The Leading Edge, 21, 972–82.Google Scholar
Ellis, M., MacGregor, L., Vera de Newton, P., et al., 2017. Investigating electrical anisotropy drivers across the Barents Sea. Expanded Abstract, EAGE Annual Meeting, Paris, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, M., Ruiz, F., Nanduri, S., et al., 2011. Impotance of anisotropic rock physics modelling in integrated seismic and CSEM interpretation. First Break, 29, 87–95.Google Scholar
Ellis, M. E., Sinha, M. C. and Parr, R., 2010. Role of fine scale layering and grain alignment in the electrical anisotropy of marine sediments. First Break, 28, 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelmark, F., Mattsson, J., McKay, A. and Du, Z., 2014. Towed streamer EM comes of age. First Break, 32, 75–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, R. L., Sinha, M. C., Constable, S. and Unsworth, M. J., 1994. On the electrical nature of the axial melt zone at 13o North on the East Pacific Rise. Journal of Geophysical Research, 99, 577–88.Google Scholar
Fanavoll, S., Ellingsrud, S., Gabrielsen, P. T., Tharimela, R. and Ridyard, D., 2012. Exploration with the use of EM data in the Barents Sea: The potential and the challenges. First Break, 30, 89–96.Google Scholar
Fliedner, M. and Treitel, S. 2011. Stochastic inversion of CSEM and seismic data using the Neighbourhood Algorithm. Extended Abstracts, EAGE Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
Francis, T. J. G., 1977, Electrical prospecting on the continental shelf. British Geological Survey Report, 77–4.Google Scholar
Gabrielsen, P. T., Abrahamson, P., Panzer, M., Fanavoll, S. and Ellingsrud, E., 2013. Exploring frontier areas using 2D seismic and 3D CSEM data, as exemplified by multi-client data over the Skrugard and Havis discoveries in the Barents Sea. First Break, 31, 63–71.Google Scholar
Gallardo, L. A. and Meju, M. A., 2004. Joint two-dimensional DC resistivity and seismic travel time inversion with cross-gradients constraints. Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, B03311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003JB002716.Google Scholar
Gallardo, L. A. and Meju, M. A., 2007. Joint two-dimensional cross-gradient imaging of magnetotelluric and seismic traveltime data for structural and lithological classification. Geophysical Journal International, 169, 1261–72, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365–246X.2007.03366.x.Google Scholar
Gao, G., Abubakar, A. and Habashy, T. M., 2012. Joint petrophysical inversion of electromagnetic and full waveform seismic data. Geophysics, 77, D53–D68.Google Scholar
Gehrmann, R., North, L. J., Graber, S., et al., 2019. Marine mineral exploration with controlled-source electromagnetics at the TAG hydrothermal field, 26N Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Geophysical Research Letters. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2019GL082928.Google Scholar
Gist, G., Ciucivara, A., Houck, R., Rainwater, M., Willen, D. and Zhou, J-J., 2013. Case study of a CSEM false positive. Expanded Abstract, SEG Annual Meeting, Houston, 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2013–0307.1.Google Scholar
Granli, J. R., Daudina, D., Robertson, S. C., Morten, J. P., Gabrielsen, P. and Sigvathsen, B., 2018. Applying high-resolution 3D CSEM and seismic for integrated reservoir characterization. Expanded Abstract, 88th SEG Annual Meeting, 2018, 949–53, https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2018–2995351.1.Google Scholar
de Groot-Hedlin, C. and Constable, S., 1990. Occam’s inversion to generate smooth, two-dimensional models from magnetotelluric data. Geophysics, 55, 1613–24.Google Scholar
Gustafson, C., Key, K. and Evans, R., 2019. Aquifer systems extending far offshore on the US Atlantic margin. Scientific Reports, 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44611-7.Google Scholar
Hansen, K. R. and Mittet, R., 2009. Incorporating seismic horizons in inversion of CSEM data. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 2009, 694–8.Google Scholar
Hansen, K., Panzer, M., Shantsev, D. and Mittet, R., 2016. TTI inversion of CSEM data. Expanded Abstract, 86th EAGE Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
Hansen, K., Panzer, M., Shantsev, D. and Mohn, K., 2018. Comparison of TTI and VTI 3D inversion of CSEM data. Expanded Abstract, EAGE Annual Meeting, Copenhagen, 2018.Google Scholar
Harris, P., Du, Z., MacGregor, L., Olsen, W., Shu, R. and Cooper, R., 2009. Joint interpretation of seismic and CSEM data using well log constraints: An example from the Luva field. First Break, 27, 76–81.Google Scholar
Heincke, B., Moorkamp, M., Jegen, M., Hobbs, R. W. and Berndt, C., 2014. 2D and 3D joint inversion of seismic, MT and gravity data from the Faroe Shetland Basin. Expanded Abstract, EAGE Annual Meeting 2014.Google Scholar
Helwig, S., Wahab El Kaffas, A., Holten, T., Frafjord, O. and Eide, K., 2013. Vertical dipole CSEM: Technology advances and results from the Snovhit field. First Break, 31, 63–8.Google Scholar
Helwig, S., Wood, W. and Gloux, B., 2019. Vertical-vertical controlled source electromagnetic instrumentation and acquisition. Geophysical Prospecting, 67, 1582–94.Google Scholar
Hesthammer, J., Stefatos, A. and Sperrevik, S., 2012. CSEM efficiency – evaluation of recent drilling results. First Break, 30, 47–55.Google Scholar
Hokstad, K., Fotland, B., Mackenzie, G., et al., 2011. Joint imaging of geophysical data: Case history from the Nordkapp Basin, Barents Sea. Extended Abstract, SEG Annual Meeting 2011, 18–23.Google Scholar
Holten, T., Flekkoy, E. G., Singer, B., Blixt, E. M., Hanssen, A., and Maloy, K. J., 2009. Vertical source, vertical receiver electromagnetic technique for offshore hydrocarbon exploration. First Break, 27, 89–93.Google Scholar
Hoversten, G. M., Cassassuce, F., Gasperikova, E., et al., 2006. Direct reservoir parameter estimation using joint inversion of marine seismic AVA and CSEM data. Geophysics, 71, C1–C13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoversten, G. M., Constable, S. and Morrison, H. F., 2000. Marine magnetotellurics for base-of-salt mapping: Gulf of Mexico field test at the Gemini structure. Geophysics, 65, 1476–88.Google Scholar
Hoversten, G. M., Morrison, F. and Constable, S. C., 1998. Marine magentotellurics for petroleum exploration, part II: Numerical analysis of sub-salt resolution, Geophysics, 63, 826–40.Google Scholar
Hoversten, G. M., Myer, D., Key, K., Alumbaugh, D., Hermann, O. and Hobbet, R., 2015. Field test of sub-basalt hydrocarbon exploration with marine controlled source and magnetotellutic data. Geophyical Prospecting, 63, 1284–310.Google Scholar
Jegen, M. D., Hobbs, R. W., Tarits, P. and Chave, A., 2009. Joint inversion of marine magnetotelluric and gravity data incorporating seismic constraints. Preliminary results of sub-basalt imaging off the Faroe Shelf. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 282(1–4), 47–55.Google Scholar
Karman, G., Ramirez, D., Voon, J. and Rosenquist, M., 2011. A decade of controlled-source electromagnetic, CSEM, in Shell: Lessons from a global look back study. Presented at the 4th NPF Biennial Petroleum Geology Conference, Bergen.Google Scholar
Karpiah, A. B., Meju, M., Miller, R. and Musafarudin, R., 2019. Improving basement depth mapping using 3D marine magnetotelluric (MT) inversion. Expanded Abstract, SEG Annual Meeting 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2019–3214939.1.Google Scholar
Key, K., 2009. 1D inversion of multicomponent, multifrequency marine CSEM data: Methodology and synthetic studies for resolving thin resistive layers. Geophysics, 74, F9–F20.Google Scholar
Key, K., 2011. Marine electromagnetic studies of seafloor resources and tectonics. Surveys in Geophysics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10712-011-9139-x.Google Scholar
Key, K., 2016. MARE2DEM: A 2D inversion code for controlled source electromagnetic and magnetotelluric data. Geophysical Journal International, 207, 571–88.Google Scholar
Key, K., Constable, S. and Weiss, C., 2006. Mapping 3D salt using the 2D marine magnetotelluric method: Case study from Gemini Prospect, Gulf of Mexico, Geophysics, 71, B17–B27.Google Scholar
Key, K. and Ovall, J., 2011. A parallel goal-oriented adaptive finite element method for 2.5–D electromagnetic modelling. Geophysical Journal International, 186, 137–54.Google Scholar
Klein, J. D., Martin, P. R. and Allen, D. F., 1997. The petrophysics of electrically anisotropic reservoirs. The Log Analyst, 38, 25–36.Google Scholar
Liang, L., Abubaker, A. and Habashy, T., 2012. Joint inversion of controlled source electromagnetic and production data for reservoir monitoring. Geophysics, 77, ID9–ID22.Google Scholar
Lien, M. and Mannseth, T., 2008. Sensitivity study of marine CSEM data for reservoir production monitoring. Geophysics, 73, F151–F163.Google Scholar
Lin, L., Abubaker, A. and Habashy, T. M., 2012. Joint inversion of controlled-source electromagnetic and production data for reservoir monitoring. Geophysics, 77, ID9–ID22.Google Scholar
Lippert, K. and Tezkan, B., 2020. On the exploration of a marine aquifer offshore Israel by long offset transient electromagnetics. Geophysical Prospecting, 68, 999–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovatini, A., Umpbach, K. and Patmore, S., 2009. 3D CSEM in a frontier basin offshore Greenland. First Break, 27, 95–8.Google Scholar
Maao, F., 2007. Fast finite-difference time-domain modelling for marine-subsurface electromagnetic problems. Geophysics, 72, A19–A23.Google Scholar
MacGregor, L., 2003. Joint analysis of marine active and passive source EM data for sub-salt or sub-basalt imaging. Expanded Abstract, 65th EAGE Annual Conference, Stavanger, 2003. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609-pdb.6.F18.Google Scholar
MacGregor, L. and Cooper, R. C., 2010. Unlocking the value of CSEM. First Break, 28, 49–54.Google Scholar
MacGregor, L. M., 1999. Marine controlled source electromagnetic sounding: Development of a regularised inversion for 2D resistivity structures. LITHOS Science Report, 1, 103–9.Google Scholar
MacGregor, L. M., 2012a. Integrating seismic, CSEM and well log data for reservoir characterization. The Leading Edge, March, 268–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacGregor, L. M., 2012b. Integrating seismic, CSEM and well log data for characterisation of reservoirs. EAGE Workshop on EM in Hydrocarbon Exploration, April 2012, Singapore.Google Scholar
MacGregor, L. M., Bouchrara, S., Tomlinson, J. T., et al., 2012. Integrated analysis of CSEM, seismic and well log date for prospect appraisal: A case study from West Africa. First Break, 30, 77–82.Google Scholar
MacGregor, L. M., Constable, S. C., and Sinha, M. C., 1998. The RAMESSES experiment III: Controlled source electromagnetic sounding of the Reykjanes Ridge at 57o45’N. Geophysical Journal International, 135, 772–89.Google Scholar
MacGregor, L. M. and Sinha, M. C., 2000. Use of marine controlled source electromagnetic sounding for sub-basalt exploration. Geophysical Prospecting, 48, 1091–106.Google Scholar
MacGregor, L. M., Sinha, M. C. and Constable, S., 2001. Electrical resistivity structure of the Valu Fa Ridge, Lau Basin, from marine controlled source electromagnetic sounding. Geophysical Journal International, 146, 217–36.Google Scholar
MacGregor, L. and Tomlinson, J., 2014. Marine controlled source electromagnetic methods in the hydrocarbon industry: A tutorial on method and practice, Interpretation, 2, AH13–SH32.Google Scholar
MacGregor, L., Tomlinson, J. and Maver, K. G., 2019. CSEM acquisition methods in a multi-physics context. First Break, 37, 67–72.Google Scholar
Mattsson, J., Englemark, F. and Anderson, C., 2013. Towed streamer EM: The challenges of sensitivity and anisotropy. First Break, 31, 155–9.Google Scholar
Mattsson, J., Lindqvist, P., Juhasz, R. and Bjornemo, E., 2012. Noise reduction and error analysis for a towed EM system. Expanded Abstracts, SEG Technical Program 2012, 1–5.Google Scholar
McKay, A., Mattsson, J. and Du, Z., 2015. Towed streamer EM – reliable recovery of sub-surface resistivity. First Break, 33, 75–85.Google Scholar
Medina, E., Lovatini, A., Andreasi, F. G., Re, S. and Snyder, F., 2012. Simultaneous joint inversion of 3D seismic and magnetotelluric data from the walker ridge. First Break, 30, 85–8.Google Scholar
Miotti, F., Zerilli, A., Menezes, P., Crepaldi, J. and Vianna, A., 2018. New petrophysical joint inversion workflow: Advancing on reservoir characterisation challenges, Interpretation, 6, SG33–SG39.Google Scholar
Mittet, R. and Schaug-Pettersen, T., 2008. Shaping optimal transmitter waveforms for marine CSEM surveys, Geophysics, 73, F97–F104.Google Scholar
Moorkamp, M., 2017. Integrating electromagnetic data with other geophysical observations for enhanced imaging of the earth: A tutorial and review. Surveys in Geophysics, 38, 935–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moorkamp, M., Heincke, H., Jegen, M., Roberts, A. W. and Hobbs, R. W., 2010. A framework for 3D joint inversion of MT, gravity and seismic refraction data. Geophysical Journal International, 184, 477–93.Google Scholar
Moorkamp, M., Roberts, A. W., Jegen, M., Heincke, B. and Hobbs, R. W., 2013. Verification of velocity-resistivity relationships derived from structural joint inversion. Geophysical Research Letters, 40, 1–6.Google Scholar
Morten, J. P., Roth, F., Carlsen, S. A., et al., 2012. Field appraisal and accurate resource estimation from 3D quantitative interpretation of seismic and CSEM data. The Leading Edge, 31, 447–56.Google Scholar
Myer, D., Constable, S. and Key, K., 2010. Broad band waveforms and robust processing for marine CSEM surveys. Geophysical Journal International, 184, 689–98.Google Scholar
Newman, G., Commer, M. and Carazzone, J., 2010. Imaging CSEM data in the presence of anisotropy. Geophysics, 75, F51–F61.Google Scholar
Nguyen, A. K., Hanssen, P., Mittet, R., et al., 2017. The next generation electromagnetic acquisition system. Expanded Abstract, 79th EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Paris, 2017.Google Scholar
Nguyen, A. K., Nordskag, J. I., Wiik, T., et al., 2016. Comparing large scale 3D Gauss-Newton and BFGS CSEM inversions. Expanded Abstract, SEG 86th Annual Meeting, 2016.Google Scholar
Nordskag, J., Kjosnes, A, Nguyen, K. and Hokstad, K., 2013. CSEM exploration in the Barents Sea: Joint seismic and CSEM interpretation. Expanded Abstract, SEG Annual Meeting 2013.Google Scholar
Orange, A. S., 1989. Magnetotelluric exploration for hydrocarbons. Proceedings of the IEEE, 77, 287–317.Google Scholar
Orange, A., Key, K. and Constable, S., 2009. The feasibility of reservoir monitoring using time-lapse marine CSEM. Geophysics, 74, F21 –F29Google Scholar
Pandey, D., MacGregor, L., Sinha, M. and Singh, S., 2008. Feasibility of using magnetotelluric for sub-basalt imaging at Kutch, India. Applied Geophysics, 5(1), 74-82.Google Scholar
Panzner, M., Morten, J. P., Weilull, W. W. and Borge, A., 2016. Integrated seismic and electromagnetic model building applied to improve subbasalt depth imaging in the Faroe-Shetland Basin. Geophysics, 81(1), E57–E68.Google Scholar
Price, A., Twarz, C. and Gabrielsen, P., 2019. Building confidence in CSEM for exploration – Benchmarking. Expanded Abstract, 89th SEG Annual meeting, San Antonio. 10.1190/segam2019–3214720.1.Google Scholar
Ramananjaona, C. and MacGregor, L., 2010. 2.5D inversion of CSEM data in a vertically anisotropic earth. Journal of Physics, Conference Series, 255, 012004.Google Scholar
Ramananjaona, C., MacGregor, L. and Andreis, D., 2011. Inversion of marine electromagnetic data in a uniaxial anisotropic stratified earth. Geophysical Prospecting, 59, 341–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlumberger, C., Schlumberger, M. and Leonardon, E. G., 1934. Electrical exploration of water-covered areas. Transactions of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, 110, 122–34.Google Scholar
Schwalenberg, K., Willoughby, E., Mir, R. and Edwards, R. N., 2005. Marine gas hydrate electromagnetic signatures in Cascadia and their correlation with seismic blank zones. First Break, 23, 57–63.Google Scholar
Simandoux, P., 1963. Dielectric measurements in porous media and application to shaly formation. Revue de L’Institut Français du Pétrole, 18, 193–215.Google Scholar
Sinha, M. C., Constable, S. C., Peirce, C., et al., 1998. Magmatic processes at slow spreading ridges: Implications of the RAMESSES experiment at 57o45’ North on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. 135, 731–74.Google Scholar
Sinha, M. C., Patel, P. D., Unsworth, M. J., Owen, T. R. E. and MacCormack, M. R. J., 1990. An active source EM sounding system for marine use. Marine Geophysical Research, 12, 59–68.Google Scholar
Smallwood, J., White, R. S. and Staples, R., 1998. Deep crustal reflectors under Reydarfjordur, eastern Iceland: Crustal accretion above the Iceland mantle plume. Geophysical Journal International, 134, 277–90.Google Scholar
Srnka, L. J., 1986. Method and apparatus for offshore electromagnetic sounding utilizing wavelength effects to determine optimum source and detector positions. U. S. Patent 4,617,518.Google Scholar
Stadtler, C, Fichler, C., Hokstad, K., Myrlund, E. A., Wienecke, S. and Fitland, B., 2014. Improved salt imaging in a basin context by high resolution potential field data: Nordkapp Basin, Barents Sea. Geophysical Prospecting, 62, 615–30.Google Scholar
de Stefano, M., Andreasi, F. G., Re, S., Virgilio, M. and Snyder, F. F., 2011. Multiple domain, simultaneous joint inversion of geophysical data with application to sub-salt imaging, Geophysics, 76, R69–R80.Google Scholar
Tseng, H-W., Stalnaker, J., MacGregor, L. and Ackermann, R., 2015. Multi-dimensional analysis of the SEAM controlled source electromagnetic data: The story of a blind test of interpretation workflows. Geophysical Prospecting, 63, 1383–402.Google Scholar
Unsworth, M., Travis, B. and Chave, D., 1993. Electromagnetic induction by a finite electric dipole over a 2D earth. Geophysics, 58, 198–214.Google Scholar
Vozoff, K., 1972. The magnetotelluric method in the exploration of sedimentary basins. Geophysics, 37, 98–141.Google Scholar
Weitemeyer, K., Constable, S. and Trehu, A., 2011. A marine electromagnetic survey to detect gas hydrate at Hydrate Ridge, Oregon. Geophysical Journal International, 187(1), 45–62.Google Scholar
Young, P. D. and Cox, C. S., 1981. Electromagnetic active source sounding near the East Pacific Rise. Geophysical Reseach Letters, 8, 1043–6.Google Scholar
Yuan, J. and Edwards, R. N., 2000. The assessment of marine gas hydrates through electrical remote sounding: Hydrate without the BSR? Geophysical Research Letters, 27, 2397–400.Google Scholar
Ziolkowski, A., Hobbs, B. A. and Wright, D., 2007. Multitransient electromagnetic demonstration survey in France. Geophysics, 72, 197–209.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×