This disclosure relates generally to the field of geophysical prospecting and, more particularly, to electromagnetic prospecting. More specifically, the disclosure concerns a fly-over method for electromagnetic prospecting for hydrocarbons or detection of other fluids or minerals.
1. Technical Problem Solved by the Invention
For the case of shallow hydrocarbons such as the oil sands in Alberta, Canada, a technique is sought that will map edges, depth extent, and grade (saturation) of a shallow reservoir layer. In this environment, the reservoir layer is manifested in electrical parameters as a resistive anomaly (more resistive than the non-reservoir surroundings) in an already quite resistive background. The background resistivity can range from 50-100 ohm-m whereas the reservoir, depending on quality factors, can vary from 100-1000 ohm-m. In order to be economically accessed by surface mining, the reservoir layer must exist within the upper 70 m of earth. A new technique is disclosed that is able to detect resistivity variations between 50 and 1000 ohm m, at depths of 0 to 100 m from the surface.
2. Previous Techniques and Limitations
Current airborne electromagnetic prospecting involves a helicopter or airplane towing a single receiver and single transmitter over a prospect (
The magnetic signal arising from the relatively resistive hydrocarbon is very weak and likely obscured within the noise level of a receiver flown above ground.
Exacerbating the distant-receiver problem is the fact that there is a limited range of frequencies that are both able to be transmitted with significant power, and able to invoke strong enough secondary-field anomaly from the reservoir to be detectable above the magnetic field resulting from the background geology. Geophysical inverse problems (inverting the geophysical data to infer the subsurface physical property model that gave rise to the data) often suffer from the problem of non-uniqueness, the electromagnetic problem especially so. The fewer independent geophysical observations we have, the larger the uncertainty of the recovered image of the subsurface will be. In this case, the narrower the frequency range of sensitivity to the reservoir, the weaker the constraints on the pertinent parameters of the reservoir target (e.g. aerial distribution, thickness, resistivity, depth of burial).
In order to address some of the issues, a different approach was considered by some research groups. Some relevant publications include:
U.S. Pat. No. 5,610,523, 1997 to P. J. Elliot, “Comparison of data from airborne, semi-airborne, and ground electromagnetic systems;”
R. S. Smith, et al., “Method and apparatus of interrogating a volume of material beneath the ground including an airborne vehicle with a detector being synchronized with a generator in a ground loop,” Geophysics 66, 1379-1385 (2001); and
T. Mogi, et al., “Grounded electrical-source airborne transient electromagnetic (GREATEM) survey of Mount Bandai, north-eastern Japan,” Exploration Geophysics 40(1), 1-7 Published online: 27 Feb. 2009.
Elliot's patent proposes a method of interrogating a volume of underground material located beneath a grounded loop transmitter whose transient electromagnetic signal is picked up by a receiver attached to an aircraft. Smith et al. considered an experimental semi-airborne system with a source loop placed on the ground and an airborne receiver, and investigated how the signal-to-noise level compares with the case of an earth-bounded survey and an airborne one. Mogi et al. used the semi-airborne technology with a grounded transient electromagnetic source and an airborne receiver for investigating volcanic structures.
All three of the above publications propose a semi-airborne survey method that places the source on the ground while the receiver is attached to an aircraft. Although this approach addresses some of the shortcomings of the existing technology, in particular the acquisition of multiple-offset data, the low signal-to-noise ratio for resistive targets remains a problem. With the sensitive receiver placed on a moving platform, much higher noise is generated through motional induction, than would be experienced in a stationary receiver on the ground, relative to the small signal from the reservoir. Conversely, the anomalous currents that might be induced through motion of the transmitter would be orders of magnitude smaller than the known current that drives it. In addition, the existing semi-airborne approach, by pinning a singular transmitter to the ground does not allow for the economical collection of data from multiple, sequential source locations. There is a need for a technique that mitigates the problems of weak reservoir signal relative to receiver noise and lack of constraints on the data inversion. The present inventive method satisfies this need.
In one embodiment, the present invention is a method for semi-airborne electromagnetic prospecting for hydrocarbons (or other fluids or minerals), comprising, referring to the flowchart of
The advantages of the present invention are better understood by referring to the following detailed description and the attached drawings, in which:
The invention will be described in connection with example embodiments. However, to the extent that the following detailed description is specific to a particular embodiment or a particular use of the invention, this is intended to be illustrative only, and is not to be construed as limiting the scope of the invention. On the contrary, it is intended to cover all alternatives, modifications and equivalents that may be included within the scope of the invention, as defined by the appended claims.
In order to solve these problems of weakness in reservoir signal, and paucity in constraints, a technique is disclosed for the collection of electromagnetic recordings at many different source-receiver offsets on the earth's surface.
The present invention involves the airborne towing of a magnetic source by an aircraft flown above the survey area. In preferred embodiments of the invention, the source is a magnetic dipole, oriented horizontally or vertically. (An electric source such as an electric dipole will be unsatisfactory because it will not be able to efficiently transfer the field energy into the subsurface due to the air/ground interface acting like a Faraday cage and insolating the subsurface from the airborne electric fields.) An array of receivers is placed on the earth's surface in the survey area, as shown in
Because the receivers are placed on the ground, and only the source is airborne, the present inventive method may be referred to as reverse semi-airborne electromagnetic prospecting, the word reverse referring to the fact that in the existing semi-airborne electromagnetic prospecting (examples discussed above), the source is on the ground and the receiver is airborne. Although not part of the present invention,
The benefits of the present invention are particularly useful for shallow hydrocarbon exploration. Now the receivers are significantly closer to the target creating the anomalous field, thereby rendering its signal detectable above the noise level. This is demonstrated in
Once acquired, the raw data may be subject to a processing workflow including: GPS and amplitude corrections, de-spiking, de-noising, drift-corrections etc. These are standard industry processing steps and an overview of these steps is detailed in Nicholas C. Valleau's paper (Nicholas C. Valleau, “HEM data processing—a practical overview,” Exploration Geophysics 31, 584-594 (2000)). Although the raw data are a time series, in practice the data are commonly interpreted in the temporal frequency domain. The frequency domain data is generated by “binning” the time domain data in intervals equal with the period of the transmitted waveform and extracting the dominant frequencies by means of Fourier Transform (FT). At this stage a time to depth transformation can be carried out by means of modeling (see, for example, Gregory A. Newman and David L. Alumbaugh, “Frequency-domain modeling of airborne electromagnetic responses using staggered finite differences,” Geophysical Prospecting 43, 1021-1042, (1995)) and inversion. The airborne EM data included in the inversion can be substantially larger than other airborne EM data previously used in inversion calculations because of the multi-offset nature of the proposed data. Although this data redundancy carries a computational overhead, it also enriches the measured data set providing an important advantage over existing methods. The mechanics of the inversion may be identical to that described in any of several references on CSEM (Controlled Source EM) iterative inversion, for example Gregory A. Newman, Michael Commer, and James J. Carazzone, “Imaging CSEM data in the presence of electrical anisotropy,” Geophysics 75, F51-F61 (2010), with the exception that the transmitter and receivers are immersed in air instead of water. See PCT International Patent Application WO 08/033184, “Rapid inversion of electromagnetic reconnaissance survey data,” by Jing, et al., for a particularly efficient method of inversion. Converged inversions provide subsurface resistivity volumes which are used for integrated geological interpretation.
In a preferred embodiment, basic steps of the present inventive method, summarized in the flowchart of
In many embodiments of the invention, the survey source, i.e. the electromagnetic transmitter, will be a magnetic dipole, which can be oriented either horizontally or vertically. The electromagnetic receivers may be directional magnetometers, having 1, 2, or 3 axes depending upon how many components of the magnetic field vector one wants to measure. The receivers and transmitters may be linked to a GPS for synchronization and location purposes. The receivers may be placed on the ground in a variety of ways, including by dropping a robust package from an aircraft, or by lowering to the ground from an aircraft, or placing them by a ground-based operation.
Those skilled in the art of Airborne EM data acquisition would find it straightforward to carry out a survey as described above, and will appreciate the gain in the signal level as a result of the more suitable survey geometry afforded by the present inventive method.
The foregoing description is directed to particular embodiments of the present invention for the purpose of illustrating it. It will be apparent, however, to one skilled in the art, that many modifications and variations to the embodiments described herein are possible. All such modifications and variations are intended to be within the scope of the present invention, as defined by the appended claims.
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application 61/814,589, filed Apr. 22, 2013, entitled REVERSE SEMI-AIRBORNE ELECTROMAGNETIC PROSPECTING, the entirety of which is incorporated by reference herein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4686474 | Olsen | Aug 1987 | A |
4742305 | Stolarczyk | May 1988 | A |
4792761 | King et al. | Dec 1988 | A |
4831383 | Ohnishi et al. | May 1989 | A |
4875015 | Ward | Oct 1989 | A |
5050129 | Schultz | Sep 1991 | A |
5175500 | McNeill | Dec 1992 | A |
5189644 | Wood | Feb 1993 | A |
5210691 | Freedman et al. | May 1993 | A |
5265192 | McCormack | Nov 1993 | A |
5357893 | Ruffa | Oct 1994 | A |
5373443 | Lee et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5406206 | Safinya et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5467018 | Ruter et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
5563513 | Tasci et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5594343 | Clark et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5610523 | Elliot | Mar 1997 | A |
5629626 | Russell | May 1997 | A |
5706194 | Neff et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5764515 | Guerillot et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5770945 | Constable | Jun 1998 | A |
5825188 | Montgomery et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5835883 | Neff et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5841733 | Bouyoucos et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5884227 | Rabinovich et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5905657 | Celniker | May 1999 | A |
6037776 | McGlone | Mar 2000 | A |
6049760 | Scott | Apr 2000 | A |
6088656 | Ramakrishnan et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6094400 | Ikelle | Jul 2000 | A |
6101448 | Ikelle et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6115670 | Druskin et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6138075 | Yost | Oct 2000 | A |
6181138 | Hagiwara et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6253100 | Zhdanov | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6253627 | Lee et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6256587 | Jericevic et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6278948 | Jorgensen et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6304086 | Minerbo et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6311132 | Rosenquist et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6332109 | Sheard et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6339333 | Kuo | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6393363 | Wilt et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6424918 | Jorgensen et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6430507 | Jorgensen et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6466021 | MacEnany | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6470274 | Mollison et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6476609 | Bittar | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6493632 | Mollison et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6502037 | Jorgensen et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6529833 | Fanini et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6533627 | Ambs | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6534986 | Nichols | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6593746 | Stolarczyk | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6594584 | Omeragic et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6671623 | Li | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6675097 | Routh et al. | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6686736 | Schoen et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6711502 | Mollison et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6724192 | McGlone | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6739165 | Strack | May 2004 | B1 |
6765383 | Barringer | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6813566 | Hartley | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6816787 | Ramamoorthy et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6842006 | Conti et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6842400 | Blanch et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6846133 | Martin et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6876725 | Rashid-Farrokhi et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6883452 | Gieseke | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6888623 | Clements | May 2005 | B2 |
6901029 | Raillon et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6901333 | Van Riel et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6914433 | Wright et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6950747 | Byerly | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6957708 | Chemali et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6958610 | Gianzero | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6985403 | Nicholson | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6993433 | Chavarria et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6999880 | Lee | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7002349 | Barringer | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7002350 | Barringer | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7023213 | Nichols | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7035525 | Weeks et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7062072 | Anxionnaz et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7092315 | Olivier | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7109717 | Constable | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7113869 | Xue | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7114565 | Estes et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7116108 | Constable | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7126338 | MacGregor et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7142986 | Moran | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7187569 | Sinha et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7191063 | Tompkins | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7203599 | Strack et al. | Apr 2007 | B1 |
7227363 | Gianzero et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7250768 | Ritter et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7257049 | Laws et al. | Aug 2007 | B1 |
7262399 | Hayashi et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7262602 | Meyer | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7307424 | MacGregor et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7328107 | Strack et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7337064 | MacGregor et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7347271 | Ohmer et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7356412 | Tompkins | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7362102 | Andreis | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7382135 | Li et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7400977 | Alumbaugh et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7411399 | Reddig et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7453763 | Johnstad | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7456632 | Johnstad et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7477160 | Lemenager et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7482813 | Constable et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7483792 | MacGregor et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7502690 | Thomsen et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7536262 | Hombostel et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7542851 | Tompkins | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7565245 | Andreis et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7659721 | MacGregor et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7660188 | Meldahl | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7683625 | Milne et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7805250 | Colombo et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7822552 | Bittleston | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7884612 | Conti | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7928732 | Nichols | Apr 2011 | B2 |
7987074 | Carazzone et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
8008920 | Lu et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8014988 | Wahrmund et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8078404 | Sjolie et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8095345 | Hoversten | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8099239 | MacGregor et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
20020043976 | Holladay, III et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020172329 | Rashid-Farrokhi et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20050128874 | Herkenhoff et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050237063 | Wight et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20060186887 | Strack et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20070280047 | MacGregor et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070288211 | MacGregor et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080007265 | Milne et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080008920 | Alexandrovichserov et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080029420 | Tong | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080105425 | MacGregor et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080106265 | Campbell | May 2008 | A1 |
20090005997 | Willen | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090083006 | Mackie | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090204330 | Thomsen et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090243613 | Lu et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090254320 | Lovatini et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090265111 | Helwig et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090306900 | Jing et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090309599 | Ziolkowski | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100014384 | Colombo et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100017131 | Glinsky et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100017132 | Glinsky et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100085055 | Barsukov et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100179761 | Burtz et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100225322 | Kramer | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100244843 | Francesca Spiotta | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20110098929 | Tabanou et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110098996 | Nichols et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20130185033 | Tompkins et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2 402 745 | Aug 2005 | GB |
2 410 635 | Dec 2006 | GB |
WO 199807050 | Feb 1998 | WO |
WO 2004109338 | Dec 2004 | WO |
WO 2005085909 | Sep 2005 | WO |
WO 2006052145 | May 2006 | WO |
WO 2006073315 | Jul 2006 | WO |
WO 2006135568 | Dec 2006 | WO |
WO 2008008124 | Jan 2008 | WO |
WO 2008033184 | Mar 2008 | WO |
WO 2008054880 | May 2008 | WO |
WO 2008062024 | May 2008 | WO |
WO 2008085063 | Jul 2008 | WO |
WO 2011050139 | Apr 2011 | WO |
WO 2012129654 | Oct 2012 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Ito, T. et al. (2009), “Grounded electrical-source airborne transient electromagnetic (GREATEM) survey of Mount Bandai, north-eastern Japan,” Exploration Geophysics 40(1), pp. 1-6. |
Newman, G.A. et al. (1995), “Frequency-doman modeling of airborne electromagnetic responses using staggered finite differences,” Geophysical Prospecting 43, pp. 1021-1042. |
Newman, G.A. et al. (2010), “Imaging CSEM data in the presence of electrical anisotropy,” Geophysics 75, pp. F51-F61. |
Smith, R.S. et al. (2001), “A comparison of data from airborne, semi-airborne, and ground electromagnetic systems,” Geophysics 66(5), pp. 1379-1385. |
Valleau, n. C. (2000), “HEM data processing—a practical overview,” Exploration Geophysics 31, pp. 584-594. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140312905 A1 | Oct 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61814589 | Apr 2013 | US |