Detecting hydrocarbons in carbonates: joint interpretation of CSEM and seismic

Femke Vossepoel1*, Mathieu Darnet1, Stéphane Gesbert1, Ezequiel Gonzalez1, Folkert Hindriks2, Roseleen Kelly2,
Alessandro Sandrin3, Line Jensen3, Anette Uldall3
1
Shell Projects and Technology
2
Shell Olie og Gasudvinding
3
Maersk Olie og Gas AS

Summary
Quantitative interpretation (QI) of seismic data has been successfully used to predict reservoir properties such as porosity and
fluid fill. In specific cases, however, adding resistivity estimates of the subsurface to the QI can reduce ambiguities in the
properties prediction. Controlled-source electromagnetic (CSEM) sounding methods provide these estimates. By making use of
their complementary nature, integration of seismic and electromagnetic datasets has been used to estimate the height of
hydrocarbon-filled porous carbonate. In this paper, we present a methodology for joint interpretation, which can help us to
discriminate tight carbonates from porous carbonates, and to differentiate between brine and hydrocarbon fill. When applied to a
field in a carbonate setting, the estimated hydrocarbon column height corresponds qualitatively with the saturation height
estimate based on production data.

Introduction a quantitative joint interpretation of CSEM and seismic

Controlled-source electromagnetic (CSEM) is a method for
imaging subsurface resistivity. This resistivity is a function
of variations in lithology and brine salinity, but more
importantly of porosity and associated pore fluid.
The physics of the CSEM is such that the spatial resolution
of the resistivity images (especially vertical) is still low
compared to seismic imaging, even though 3D multi-
azimuth acquisitions provide higher resolution and more
robust resistivity estimates of the subsurface than 2D
profiling. Therefore, some uncertainties still remain on the
origin of the resistive anomaly(ies) at the target level.
Incorporating additional constraints (e.g., seismic,
petrophysical) into the inversion process provide a possible
solution to overcome this limitation (e.g. Hansen and
Mittet, 2009, Brevik et al., 2009). This is not
straightforward, as changes in elastic properties do not
necessarily correspond to resistivity changes and vice-
versa. Only when this imaging hurdle has been resolved, a
quantitative interpretation of the resistivity image in terms
of hydrocarbon presence can give reliable results.
Assuming a reliable constrained inversion, interpretation of
the resistivity image can be further enhanced through
combination with seismic. Recent examples of joint
seismic/CSEM interpretation (e.g. Hoversten et al, 2006,
Harris et al., 2009) have demonstrated the potential of this
approach in clastic settings. Carbonate settings pose a
particular challenge, because the resistivity of the tight
layers can be similar to that of hydrocarbon bearing porous
carbonate. CSEM alone can, therefore, not unequivocally
detect the presence of hydrocarbons. The seismic method
faces a similar challenge in this environment, having
limited sensitivity to fluid fill with respect to hydrocarbon
presence. In the present paper, we present an application of
data to a field in a carbonate setting.
Methodology
The resistivity and acoustic impedance of a rock depend on
its lithological composition, porosity and fluid fill. Figure
1, a cross plot of well log data in our region of interest,
illustrates this dependency. A decrease in porosity or water
saturation can both increase resistivity considerably
(Archie’s law). Acoustic impedance (AI) is also related to
lithology, porosity and fluid fill; in many carbonate rocks,
however, the AI sensitivity to fluids is limited because of
the relative competence of the rock matrix. In summary,
resistivity and acoustic impedance provide complementary
information about lithology and porefill.
Before the actual joint CSEM/seismic interpretation takes
place, the seismic data and CSEM data are inverted
separately. The seismic data are inverted into an acoustic
impedance cube (AI), while CSEM data are inverted into
vertical transverse resistance, which is vertical resistivity
integrated over the target layer. Well data from a log in the
region of interest have been used to model correlations
between acoustic impedance to vertical resistivity. As
borehole measurements of vertical resistivity were not
available, the horizontal resistivities from the log-based
rock properties models have been scaled as a proxy for
vertical resistivity.
Figure 2 shows the correlations between horizontal
resistivity and acoustic impedance derived from the well
data. To reflect the correlations while allowing some
uncertainty, the interpretation method uses distributions of
rock properties around an average deterministic
relationship rather than fixed values. With these
relationships and the inverted rock properties (resistivity
and acoustic impedance), it is possible to obtain an estimate
 Detecting hydrocarbons in carbonates

of the partitioning of the carbonate column into the As the transverse resistance is an integrated measure, it is
following lithology classes: impossible to locate the depth and estimate the saturation
• tight carbonate profile of the hydrocarbon column within the carbonate
• upper shale layer. However we can derive an estimate of the total
• porous carbonate, high hydrocarbon saturation thickness of hydrocarbon-bearing layers.
• porous carbonate, low hydrocarbon saturation
• porous carbonate, brine filled
• deep shale

tight
tight
porous
porous hc
hc

porous
porous brine
brine

Figure 1: Cross plot of the logarithm of resistivity as a function of acoustic impedance, based on a well log in our region of interest, highlighting
three lithologies: hydrocarbon-filled porous carbonate (cyan), brine-filled porous carbonate (yellow) and tight carbonate (red). The histograms for
resistivity (left) and acoustic impedance (bottom) illustrate the ambiguity in the electric and acoustic response when considered separately. The
tight and the hydrocarbon-filled carbonates are overlapping in the resistivity domain, and the brine and the hydrocarbon-filled carbonates are
overlapping in the impedance domain.
 Detecting hydrocarbons in carbonates

Figure 2: A cross plot for acoustic impedance versus resistivity, based on a well log in our region of interest. We can recognize upper shale
(blue), brine filled porous carbonate (yellow), high saturation hydrocarbon filled porous carbonate (cyan), low saturation hydrocarbon filled
porous carbonate (dark green), deeper shale (green) and tight carbonate (red). Low saturation means Sw> 0.3 and high saturation Sw< 0.3.

Synthetic test Tight case

To validate our joint interpretation methodology, and also
to test the feasibility of joint quantitative interpretation on
our field, we performed a number of sensitivity studies
using synthetic data. In these studies, synthetic
observations have been perturbed to demonstrate the
robustness of the method. These perturbations mimic data
uncertainties such as noise, which will inevitably influence
the outcome of the joint interpretation in a real data case.
Anomalies in resistivity can be due to a number of factors,
including a difference in fluid fill or a difference in
porosity. To test the method’s ability to separate these two
effects we artificially decreased the porosity in two layers
within a cylindrical region of our model. This results in a
local increase of transverse resistance, as is illustrated in
Figure 4. The tight cylinders also induce a local change in
acoustic impedance (not shown).

One of the sensitivity studies is presented here. Data for

this study has been synthesized from the reservoir model
that is available for our field. It focuses on the sensitivity of
the estimated hydrocarbon bearing column height to
ambiguities in resistivity. Hydrocarbon bearing is in this
case defined as having water saturation below 0.3. The
sensitivity study comprises two experiments: a base case,
and a case in which an artificial tight layer was introduced.

Base case
The base case experiment is built on a transverse resistance
map and an acoustic impedance cube for the carbonate. Figure 3: Estimated hydrocarbon-bearing column height, base
These data sets have been synthesized from the porosity case (m). White contours indicate the saturation height.
and saturation of the reservoir model. Joint interpretation of
these two data sets results in an estimate of the hydrocarbon
bearing column height. Comparing this estimate to the
model-based saturation height it appears that the method
successfully locates the maximum of the pay at the same
location as the original model (see Figure 3). This
experiment confirms the discriminatory power of data
integration.

Figure 4: Transverse resistance base case (left) and tight case

(right).
 Detecting hydrocarbons in carbonates

Joint interpretation of the resulting transverse resistance
and acoustic impedance data sets results in an estimate of
hydrocarbon height that is very similar to the estimate of
the base case (compare Figure 5 to Figure 3). This implies
that the transverse resistance anomaly, related to the tight
lithology, is a function of the anomalous acoustic
impedance. Therefore, this is interpreted as a change in
porosity, not fluid fill. This result demonstrates that the
Sensitivity studies have shown that the methodology is
sufficiently stable. The method has the potential to
discriminate residual gas from economic gas; traditionally a
difficult problem to resolve using seismic data alone. The
results demonstrate that the joint interpretation of CSEM
and seismic data has the potential to detect the presence of
hydrocarbons in carbonate settings.

6164000

6164000
method is able to distinguish between porosity and fluid fill
effects.

6160000

6160000
6156000

6156000
6152000

6152000
6148000

6148000
Figure 5: Estimated hydrocarbon-bearing column height, tight
Figure 6: Transverse resistance, ranging from 500 Ohm m2 to
case (m). White contours indicate the saturation height.
1500 Ohm m2 from the CSEM data. The survey locations are
indicated by orange triangles.
Other sensitivity studies show that the method’s sensitivity
to uncertainties in acoustic impedance and CSEM inversion
remains limited (not shown). On the basis of the different
studies, we conclude that the hydrocarbon bearing column
height estimates from the joint interpretation method are
robust.

Real data interpretation

For the joint interpretation of the real data, a relative

acoustic impedance cube has been combined with the
transverse resistance map from the CSEM data over our
field (Figure 6). For the joint interpretation, we focused on
the survey lines crossing the field. The resulting estimate
for hydrocarbon column bearing height is given in Figure 7.
The solution is masked outside of the region of influence of
the CSEM receivers.
The resulting hydrocarbon column height estimate and the
saturation height map from the reservoir model are clearly
similar. The decrease in hydrocarbon column height
towards the NW and NE also corresponds to the drop in
saturation height estimated from the reservoir model. These
results illustrate that it is possible to efficiently compensate
for the lithological effects and hence to recover the
hydrocarbon related signal using this technique.
Conclusions
Figure 7: Hydrocarbon-bearing column height estimate from the
joint interpretation for the real data. Colours range from blue (0m)
to red (35m). The model estimate of the saturation height is shown
in 5 m contours.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Saad Saleh, Mark
Rosenquist and Dirk Smit for inspiring us to work on this
topic and suggesting the region of interest. Johan Volker is
acknowledged for his support of this research. Discussions
with Rupert Cole (Shell Denmark E&P) and several EPT-
RX colleagues are greatly appreciated.

The methodology presented in this paper has been shown to

potentially discriminate between resistivity effects caused
by lithology and fluid fill variations in a carbonate field.