t

Special section: Interpretation and integration of CSEM data

Downloaded 05/24/14 to 128.83.63.20. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

mCSEM data interpretation for hydrocarbon exploration:

A fast interpretation workflow for drilling decision
Marco Polo P. Buonora1, Jorlivan L. Correa2, Luciano S. Martins2, Paulo T. L. Menezes3,
Emanuel J. C. Pinho2, Joao L. Silva Crepaldi2, Mirela P. P. Ribas2,
Sergio M. Ferreira2, and Rafael C. Freitas4
Abstract
In a hydrocarbon exploration workflow, marine controlled-source electromagnetic (mCSEM) data are usually acquired after seismic interpretation for prospect identification and close-to-the-drilling decision making.
Therefore, the mCSEM interpreter must provide quick answers to the asset teams in a way that the EM interpretation can add value to that decision. To achieve that goal, Petrobras developed a fast-track mCSEM interpretation workflow that consists in identifying anomalies in the mCSEM data set by frequency normalization,
and then performing 1D CMP inversions followed by 2.5D polygonal inversions. The proposed workflow was
successfully applied to several mCSEM surveys offshore Brazil. We evaluated an application in a complex geologic setting where the reservoir dips toward allochthonous salt. The reservoir appears as a flat spot in the
seismic section, but with no significant amplitude variation with offset response. The mCSEM analysis
confirmed the seismic anomaly and extended it northward. Two drilled wells corroborated the mCSEM
interpretation.

Introduction
Seismic reflection is the real workhorse of the oil industry due to its high resolution. Seismic applications
extends from regional exploration with 2D surveys
(Matias et al., 2011), going through prospect identification and appraisal with 3D data (Foster et al., 2010), and
reservoir monitoring with 4D surveys (Lumley, 2001).
On the other hand, electromagnetic (EM) methods usually play a minor role in the oil industry because they
cannot achieve a subsurface image with comparable
spatial resolution as provided by seismic methods.
Classical applications of EM methods for hydrocarbon
exploration include time-domain electromagnetic reconnaissance surveys for detecting hydrocarbon alteration plumes (e.g., Smith and Rowe, 1997; Menezes and
Morais, 2003), and magnetotelluric (MT) surveys to help
interpretation in areas with poor seismic imaging, as in
rough topography regions (Zerilli et al., 2012), subcarbonates (Travassos and Menezes, 1999), subbasalt
(Menezes and Travassos, 2005, 2010), and subsalt (Hoversten et al., 2000) exploration.
The rise of the marine controlled-source electromagnetic (mCSEM) in the very beginning of the 2000s (Ei-

desmo et al., 2002; Ellingsrud et al., 2002) represented a

landmark in reservoir evaluation. Since then, the EM
market has experienced fast and continuous growth
in the oil industry (Constable and Srnka, 2007; Constable, 2010; Strack, 2014).
Petrobras had its first mCSEM experience in 2004/
2005 (Buonora et al., 2005), by the time the method became available at commercial scale (Constable, 2010).
Three multiclient experimental surveys were acquired
over known oil fields in the southeast Brazilian
continental margin. These surveys led to a correct interpretation of the known reservoirs and the identification
of new ones. After that, Petrobras took the decision of
building an internal group dedicated to EM methods. To
that end, Petrobras hired some EM experts, mixed them
with new talented young geophysicists, and then promoted an intensive investment in continuous education
of all its personnel. Following this guideline, Petrobras
supports such academic EM consortia as Scripps (University of California) and the Consortium for Electromagnetic Modeling and Inversion (University of
Utah) in USA and the Universidade Federal do Par
(UFPA) and Observatrio Nacional in Brazil. Beside,

Petrobras, E&P-EXP/GEOF/MNS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and Instituto de Geociencias/UFF, Niteroi, Brazil. E-mail: mpolo@petrobras.com.br.
Petrobras, E&P-EXP/GEOF/MNS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. E-mail: jorlivan@petrobras.com.br; luciano_martins@petrobras.com.br; emanueljcp@
petrobras.com.br; joaolucas@petrobras.com.br; mirela.ribas@petrobras.com.br; sergio_ferreira@petrobras.com.br.
3
Petrobras, E&P-EXP/GEOF/MNS, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and DGAP/FGEL/UERJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. E-mail: ptarsomenezes@pq.cnpq.br.
4
Petrobras, E&P-EXP/IABCS/PN, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. E-mail: rcdfreitas@petrobras.com.br.
Manuscript received by the Editor 3 October 2013; revised manuscript received 3 December 2013; published online 20 May 2014. This paper
appears in Interpretation, Vol. 2, No. 3 (August 2014); p. SH1SH11, 11 FIGS.
2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/INT-2013-0154.1. 2014 Society of Exploration Geophysicists and American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.

Interpretation / August 2014 SH1

Downloaded 05/24/14 to 128.83.63.20. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

the company created in-house EM courses aiming to

train geophysicists and promote the EM culture to
the asset teams.
In the 20072009 triennium, Petrobras established a
technical cooperation agreement with the Schlumberger Brazilian Research Geoscience Center, held in
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The main scope of this cooperation project was to develop an EM interpretation
workflow and integrate the deep-reading EM technologies into the full cycle of oil field exploration and development. This project was responsible, among other
things, for the first marine MT (de Lugao et al., 2008;
Gallardo et al., 2012) and full-azimuth mCSEM (Zerilli
et al., 2010) surveys acquired offshore Brazil.
In 2011, Petrobras embraced an EMGS proposal to
acquire a large multiclient mCSEM campaign across
several Brazilian offshore basins (Figure 1). Data acquisition started in the Barreirinhas Basin (equatorial
margin), followed by the Ceara, Potiguar, Sergipe-

Alagoas, Espirito Santo, and Campos Basins. In total,

mCSEM data summed more than 5000 km2 coverage
(Lorenz et al., 2013). The receiver spacing varied from
500 m for detailed prospect characterization to 2000 m
for regional surveys in frontier exploration areas. Feasibility studies were responsible not only for the
receiver positioning, but also for other relevant survey
parameters, such as sampling frequencies and towing
directions.
Interpretation of that huge amount of data, at so
many different basins and prospects with different time
schedules to provide quick answers to allow the asset
teams to take drilling decisions, is a big challenge. To
that end, Petrobras developed a fast-track exploration
workflow consisting of three main steps: (1) frequency
ratio normalization, (2) CMP inversion, and (3) 2.5D
polygonal inversion. Seismic lines and induction well
logs, when available, provide important constraints to
the proposed workflow.
In the present paper, we show a case
history in a complex geologic area in Espirito Santo Basin. We acquired and interpreted, following the herein proposed
workflow, a small 3D mCSEM survey
over a lead mapped in between salt
domes. The mCSEM survey confirmed
the seismic anomaly and guided the decision to drill the prospect leading to a
major discovery in the area. Two successful wells intercepted hydrocarbon
layers at 3720 m depth. For reservoir
appraisal phases, we are applying more
detailed mCSEM interpretation workflows including 3D modeling/inversion
schemes together with well results.

Figure 1. Overview of survey locations of the Brazilian mCSEM 2011/2012 campaign offshore Brazil. Sedimentary basins: BAR, Barreirinhas; CE, Cear; POT,
Potiguar; SEAL, Sergipe-Alagoas; ES, Espirito Santo; CA, Campos; and SAN, Santos. Modified from Lorenz et al. (2013).
SH2 Interpretation / August 2014

Geologic setting
The Espirito Santo Basin (ES in Figure 1) is a typical passive margin basin,
with the tectonic evolution starting by
the time of the breakup of Gondwana.
Cainelli and Mohriak (1999) define four
regional sedimentary megasequences
along the Brazilian continental margin:
prerift, continental, transitional, and
marine. These sequences, usually separated by erosional unconformities, are
related to the prerift, rift, and passive
margin evolutional phases of the South
Atlantic Ocean opening tectonic event
(Asmus and Ponte, 1973).
The prerift megasequence occurs
only in the northeastern margin, onshore and offshore (Cainelli and Mohriak, 1999). Thick siliciclastic deposits
occur between the Espirito Santo and
Sergipe-Alagoas Basins, and tholeiitic
basalts occur in the Campos and Santos
Basins. The transitional megasequence

Downloaded 05/24/14 to 128.83.63.20. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

marks the transition between rift and drift tectonic

phases. Aptian evaporites, mainly halite and anhydrite
(Asmus and Ponte, 1973), form thick sedimentary sections in Santos, Campos, and Espirito Santo Basins. Salt
tectonics affected the overlying rocks and created a
series of listric faults in the evacuation zone, thrust
faults, and intraslope minibasins between salt domes
or salt walls (Cobbold et al., 1996). Thermal subsidence
associated to lithospheric cooling led to the deposition
of the marine megasequence. This sequence comprises
a major transgressive-regressive cycle between the
Lower Cretaceous and Recent (Milani et al., 2000). Shallow-water carbonates overlaid by thick siliciclastic
packages (platform shallow coastal fans and turbidite
deposits) are the main lithologies of the marine megasequence.
In Espirito Santo Basin deep-water regions, the observed halokinetic structures correlate with sedimentary depocenters. The mobilization of salt in the
Albo-Cenomanian period resulted in turtle back structures and extensional structures such as autochthonous
salt (pillows and diapirs) in the Cretaceous. Allochthonous salt (apophyses, salt tongs) occurs from the Upper
Cretaceous to the Lower Tertiary. The salt tectonics
also affect the sea bottom morphology at the distal portion of the basin (Mohriak et al., 2012). Figure 2 illustrates the complex geologic setting of the deep-water
Espirito Santo Basin. Huge diapirs and allochthonous
salt layers form a large tongue positioned in between
siliciclastic younger sediments (Upper Cretaceous to
Tertiary).

The main exploratory plays in the deep-water Espirito Santo Basin are reservoirs dipping toward the salt
flanks. New subsalt plays, in analogy to the Gulf of
Mexico (Hart and Albertin, 2001; Wilson et al., 2002)
and Pricaspian (Volozh et al., 2003) basins, are under
investigation.
The prospect herein investigated stands in between
allochthonous salt dipping toward the salt flank.
Autochthonous salt occurs around 3000 m down below
the prospect. The mapped lead appears as a flat spot in
the 3D seismic, though with no significant amplitude
variation with offset (AVO) anomaly. That uncertainty
in the seismic response led to the acquisition of mCSEM
data to test the presence of hydrocarbon-bearing rocks.
mCSEM data set
The 3D mCSEM acquisition program covered a
21 km2 area in the ultradeep-water portion (average
water depth of 2000 m) of the Espirito Santo Basin.
EMGS acquired 38 mCSEM receivers deployed equally
spaced 1 km apart in a rectangle geometry (Figure 3).
Presurvey feasibility studies defined a full azimuth
survey with northwestsoutheast/northeastsouthwest
towing directions (Figure 3) and the source waveform
to optimize sensitivity of the resulting data to the investigated lead. The chosen complex waveform (Figure 4a)
has the advantage of equally distributing energy along
four main frequencies between 0.151.4062 Hz
(Figure 4b).
We applied an advanced workflow (Zerilli et al.,
2010) to process data at each receiver location by

Figure 2. Seismic section in the deep-water Espirito Santo Basin showing geometry of allochthonous and autochthonous
salt bodies.
Interpretation / August 2014 SH3

Downloaded 05/24/14 to 128.83.63.20. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

correcting, instantaneous measurements of dipole

length, dipole moment, dipole altitude, feather angle,
and dip. The data processing resulted in high-quality
amplitude and phase data to a source-receiver offset
of 12 km. For the highest frequencies, maximum ranges
of 45 km are typical (Figure 5).
Frequency ratio normalization
A typical preliminary step in mCSEM interpretation
is the use of data normalization to generate anomaly
maps. In this procedure, data from each receiver, at
a chosen fixed offset, are divided by data representing
the background resistivity (i.e., regional geology surrounding the reservoir). We then grid the normalized
values at all receivers to determine the areal distribution of the resistivity anomalies. Of course, the correct
choice of the background response is a critical issue.
Herein, we define the normalized value N as
E rx E ref 1, where E rx is the inline electric field at
the receiver and E ref is the reference inline electric field
representing the background.
Two traditional methodologies include the normalization by a reference receiver and normalization by a
theoretical response of a 3D background resistivity
model. Each one has advantages and drawbacks. The
use of a reference receiver relies on the assumption that
the chosen receiver describes the geoelectrical background. This can often be supported by seismic images
available along the towlines. A drawback is the bathymetry effect (Li and Constable, 2007) that cannot be removed or attenuated in the normalized data. The
normalization by a 3D background synthetic response
has the advantage of mitigating the bathymetry effect
and highlighting anomalies due to resistive bodies
within the sedimentary section. The major problem
of that approach in the exploration phase is the need
to have comprehensive knowledge about the resistivity

distribution in the study area. Although 3D seismic is

routinely available to provide the necessary structural
and stratigraphic constraints to the model building, the
absence or scarcity of drilled wells contributes to a
poor resistivity information.
Frequency ratio (FR) normalization (Buonora et al.,
2006) consists of computing the ratio between high- and
low-frequency mCSEM amplitude data at a given fixed
offset. This ratio is calculated for each receiver in a survey. The method assumes that different frequencies will
respond differently to subsurface properties due to the
skin depth effect. Lower frequencies will tend to image
the regional background geology, whereas higher
frequencies will be sensitive to localized bodies. Both

Figure 4. Waveform for the CSEM survey, shown in the

(a) time and (b) frequency domains. Courtesy of EMGS.

Figure 3. Acquisition geometry for the CSEM survey in the

Espirito Santo Basin. Also shown are the lead contour and
wells locations. The towlines are cropped in the figure, but
they do extend 10.5 km away from each end receiver.
SH4 Interpretation / August 2014

Figure 5. Typical data set for the Espirito Santo survey,

showing the overall good quality of the inline electric field.

Downloaded 05/24/14 to 128.83.63.20. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

cases will have, to some degree, the influence of

bathymetry. Hence, by using FR normalization, one
can expect to mitigate the bathymetric effect in slope
areas and enhance the target anomalous response.
To illustrate FR performance, we considered an eastbound downward slope on the seafloor with a 2000 m
unevenness along a 30 km profile (Figure 6a). The 2D
geoelectric model comprises the seawater (0.3 ohm-m)

and a 1 ohm-m homogeneous background with an embedded thin (50 m) resistor of 20 ohm-m. We calculated
the 2.5D mCSEM response (Abubakar et al., 2006) at 11
receivers equally spaced at 1 km. Figure 6 shows different normalization plots at the same fixed offset of
5500 m. Figure 6b displays the data normalization by
the intowing radial response at 1.25 Hz of the Rx1
receiver, Figure 6c displays the normalization by the
out-towing response at 1.25 Hz of the Rx11 receiver,
and Figure 6d shows the FR normalization calculated
at the 1.25 Hz0.25 Hz ratio. The bathymetric effect
can be clearly observed in the normalization by reference sites with the presence of spurious anomalies.
In Figure 6b, negative anomalies appear at both sides
of the depreciated positive anomaly associated with
the embedded resistor. In Figure 6c, a positive false
anomaly appears in the shallower portion of the profile.
On the other hand, the FR attenuates the bathymetric effect highlighting only the anomaly of interest
(Figure 6d).
We present in Figure 7 the FR normalization map of
Espirito Santo data at 2.0 Hz0.16 Hz ratio with a fixed
offset of 3250 m. The prospect boundary is displayed to
help in the interpretation. As expected, allochthonous
salt bodies can be associated with the highest anomaly
values (greater than 1.30 in Figure 7). The prospect
also shows expressive anomalies in the 0.7 to 1.3 range,
indicating the presence of a resistive body in depth.
Those anomalies extend the previously mapped seismic
anomaly in the northern and southeastern portions.
CMP inversion
The 2.5D and 3D mCSEM inversions are routinely
used to produce quantitative estimation of the resistivity distribution in the subsurface. Available forward
solvers use three discretization methodologies, i.e.,

Figure 6. Different types of data normalization for a synthetic mCSEM data generated by the geoelectric model shown
in (a). (b) Normalization by the intowing of Rx1 (1.25 Hz).
(c) Normalization by the out-towing of Rx1 (1.25 Hz).
(d) FR normalization (1.25 Hz0.25 Hz).

Figure 7. FR normalization map (2.0 Hz0.16 Hz, 3.25 km

offset) for the Espirito Santo survey. The two successful wells
(W1 and W2) are located within the anomalous values. Line L1
is the line used for the 1D and 2.5D inversions.
Interpretation / August 2014 SH5

Downloaded 05/24/14 to 128.83.63.20. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

finite differences, finite elements, and integral equation.

In spite of providing a comprehensive picture of the
subsurface, the computational cost is high and too slow
for early stage exploration purposes.
To yield a fast interpretation workflow, Petrobras developed a laterally constrained 1D CMP inversion using
analytical derivatives (Silva Crepaldi et al., 2011). The
goals of the CMP interpretation are twofold: quickly
identify resistivity anomalies probably associated to
the mapped leads and estimate a resistive background
model to serve as a starting model for the 2.5D polygonal inversion.
The proposed method minimizes the least-squares
residual between data in the CMP domain and the response of a set of 1D isotropic layers at each CMP
gather. These layers are laterally connected by a minimum horizontal gradient constraint. That constraint
improves the inversion stability, and it recovers geoelectric sections with geologic meaning, even for 3D
complex geologic settings (Silva Crepaldi et al.,
2011). Furthermore, by building the Jacobian matrix
with the analytical derivatives of the 1D EM responses
with respect to resistivities, we improve the performance of the code one order of magnitude faster than
conventional numerical methods (Silva Crepaldi
et al., 2011).
The CMP code was implemented as a C built-in plugin of an in-house seismic interpretation platform. Such
Figure 8. (a) Line L1 Starting model and
mesh for the 1D CMP inversion corendered
with the seismic amplitude along line L1.
The yellow rectangle indicates the position
of the seismic flat spot. (b) Line L1 The
result of that inversion corendered with the
induction log of W1 well and the seismic amplitude. Note the strong resistivity anomaly associated with the prospect. This anomaly
extrapolates northeastward the seismic response as shown in Figure 8a.

SH6 Interpretation / August 2014

integration allows the user to combine seismic, well log,

and geologic information in an easy way to build the
starting model.
Although we have applied the CMP inversion to the
inline electric field of all towlines, we examine herein,
the results of a single southwestnortheast line (L1 in
Figure 7). That line crosses the wildcat well and enables
the comparison between the mCSEM interpretation and
the well results.
Figure 8a shows the starting model in the inversion
domain with an extended lateral length of 1500 m beyond the receiver coverage and 6000 m at depth. We
fixed resistivity (100 ohm-m) and boundaries of the salt
bodies following the seismic interpretation. Outside the
salt, the model cells are populated with a free 1 ohm-m
resistivity and uniform weights for vertical and horizontal smoothness, except for the fixed water layer. We ran
the inversion for two high frequencies, 1.4062 and
2.0312 HZ, because the primary goal was to test resistivity anomalies associated to the prospect. The inversion procedure took less than 20 min in a Linux HP 820
workstation with 128 GB RAM. That allows the interpreter to quickly perform several inversion runs with
different model parameterizations. This is important
to check the stability and the ambiguity of the solutions.
The final model shows a smooth resistivity anomaly
around the seismic anomaly (Figure 8b) at 3800 m
depth. W1 well intercepted a 100-m-thick hydrocarbon

Downloaded 05/24/14 to 128.83.63.20. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

layer, at 3720 m depth, with an average resistivity of

70 ohm-m (Figure 9). The smooth resistivity anomaly
in Figure 8b shows a good depth correlation with the
induction log of W1, and in addition, it extends the resistivity anomaly associated with the prospect northward, beyond the previously known seismic anomaly.
2.5D polygonal inversion
The 2.5D nonlinear inversion algorithms are routinely used in the interpretation of mCSEM data due
their accuracy in high-contrast regions. Most existing
methods discretize the domain of interest into subdomain cells with unknown resistivity parameters to be
determined and then apply an optimization strategy
to fit the observed and calculated data responses. Several algorithms are available in the literature (e.g.,
Commer and Newman, 2008; Plessix and Mulder, 2008;
Abubakar et al., 2009) to predict resistivity distribution
in the model cells.

Figure 9. Induction well log of W1 well at the reservoir interval showing high resistivity values (greater than 30 ohm-m)
associated with the sandstone reservoir. Marls (MRL), sandstones (SND), and shale (SHL).

The polygonal anisotropic inversion (Zerilli et al.,

2011) adopts a different approach in which the principal
idea is to use a structure-based algorithm to reconstruct
resistivities, and shapes of regions of interest based on a
priori independent information given by seismic interpretation and well logs, if available. The algorithm is
based on a Gauss-Newton minimization with multiplicative regularization and a line-search scheme to stabilize
the process (Habashy and Abubakar, 2004). The shapes
of the interesting 2D regions are defined by their vertices (nodes) and can be reconstructed along with their
positions and resistivities. The forward algorithm uses a
frequency-domain staggered-grid finite-difference solution to the total-electric-field Helmholtz equation (Abubakar et al., 2006). The inversion employs an adjoint
routine to compute the Jacobian matrix, speeding up
the inversion run time (Zerilli et al., 2011).
In the present paper, we use the CMP inversion results to determine the background resistivity to constrain the polygonal inversion. To that end, we ran
the CMP code with the same starting model shown in
Figure 8a, but with a different frequency range. We inverted the mCSEM data for all five frequencies (0.1562,
0.4688, 0.7812, 1.406, and 2.031 Hz) to recover the
regional resistivity background values. The recovered
resistivities are shown in Figure 10a. When compared
with the final model of Figure 8b (inversion for highfrequencies), one can note that the deep (below

Figure 10. (a) Line L1 Starting model and mesh of the

2.5D polygonal inversion with a free 10 ohm-m initial guess for
the reservoirs vertical resistivity. The background model derives from prior 1D-CMP inversion. (b) Line L1 Final 2.5D
model with a 70 ohm-m recovered vertical resistivity for the
reservoir corendered with the induction log of W1 well and
the seismic amplitude. The reservoir boundaries and regional
background resistivity were kept fixed in the inversion run.
Interpretation / August 2014 SH7

Downloaded 05/24/14 to 128.83.63.20. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Figure 11. Pseudosection of normalized misfit between real data and synthetic response
(Edata Esynt 1) of the 2.5D polygonal inversion: (a) 1.4062 HZ and (b) 0.1562 HZ. These
frequencies are representative of the whole
frequency range.

4800 m depth) resistive sediments (Albian carbonates)

are better represented in the low-frequency inverted
model of Figure 10a. This is, in turn, the starting model
for the 2.5D polygonal inversion. We included in this
model the thin reservoir geometry with an initial
10 ohm-m resistivity (thin polygon body in Figure 10a).
We assigned a fixed anisotropy ratio of 2 between the
vertical and horizontal resistivities. This is an average
value calculated from several triaxial induction log
measurements available in the Espirito Santo Basin.
We then inverted the inline electric field data of five
frequencies at several runs with different reservoir (thin
polygon) extensions. At each run, for a given assumed
reservoir boundary we kept fixed the background resistivities and then inverted only for the resistivity of the
thin layer representing the reservoir. Figure 10a shows
the variable mesh design with finer discretization along
the bathymetry and the thin layer, necessary for accurate calculations.
One advantage of the polygonal inversion approach
is to quickly test different interpretation scenarios such
as varying the shape and size of the target, for instance.
In the present case, the seismic interpretation predicted
a smaller body than that provided by the CMP inversions.
Therefore, we performed several robust tests with the
polygonal inversion to verify the extension of the reservoir. All results consistently demonstrate the extension
of the reservoir northward as shown in Figure 10b,
where a 70 ohm-m vertical resistivity is needed to fit
the data within a 10% error, as shown in Figure 11.
Conclusions
We presented a fast-track mCSEM data interpretation workflow for hydrocarbon exploratory purposes.
The main idea behind that workflow is to provide quick
answers to the asset teams and reduce the drilling risks.
The proposed in-house developed workflow consists
of three sequential steps: FR normalization, CMP, and
2.5 polygonal inversions. In the first step, the goal is
to identify mCSEM anomalies associated to reservoirs
in depth. To that end, we applied the FR normalization
SH8 Interpretation / August 2014

that mitigates the bathymetry effects in mCSEM data.

After confirming the presence of the anomaly, CMP
1D inversion is applied to the data to have a first glance
in-depth positioning of the resistor, and provide
regional background resistivity estimate that will be
used as a priori information in the 2.5D polygonal inversion. In this last step, different interpretation scenarios
can be examined to confirm, or not, the presence of a
hydrocarbon reservoir.
Petrobras successfully applied the proposed workflow to several surveys acquired along the Brazilian offshore margin. In the present paper, we showed an
example in a complex geologic area where the investigated prospect did not show a significative seismic AVO
anomaly. The mCSEM inversion indicated the presence
of a resistor associated to the seismic target horizon.
Two successful wells corroborated the mCSEM interpretation. The discovery is going now through appraisal
phase, and more detailed mCSEM interpretation workflows integrating well results, 3D seismic, and 3D
mCSEM inversions are being applied.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Petrobras for its support and
permission to publish this paper. We are grateful to associate editor L. McGregor, M. Zhdanov, J. Nordskag, and
an anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments and
suggestions that improved the present paper. We acknowledge A. Zerilli for his continuous enthusiasm and
the ongoing support in the application of the mCSEM
method. We thank J. Lyrio for providing helpful suggestions for clarifying this work and T. Labruzzo for his support to run the 2.5D inversion code. PTLM appreciates
the support provided by a research grant from CNPq.

References
Abubakar, A., T. Habashy, V. Druskin, D. Alumbaugh, A.
Zerilli, and L. Knizhnerman, 2006, Two-and-half-dimensional forward and inverse modeling for marine CSEM

Downloaded 05/24/14 to 128.83.63.20. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

problems: 76th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 750754.

Abubakar, A., T. Habashy, M. Li, and J. Liu, 2009, Inversion
algorithms for large-scale geophysical electromagnetic
measurements: Inverse Problems, 25, 123012, doi: 10
.1088/0266-5611/25/12/123012.
Asmus, H. E., and F. C. Ponte, 1973, The Brazilian marginal
basins, in A. E. M. Nairn, and F. G. Stehili, eds., The
ocean basins and margins, vol. 1: Plenum Press, 87133.
Buonora, M. P., A. Zerilli, and T. Labruzzo, 2006, Marine
controlled source electromagnetic: New insights in data
interpretation: Presented at SEG/SBGf D&P Forum
Deep Water Challenges in Exploration, Development,
and Production..
Buonora, M. P. P., R. Reddig, W. Heelan, J. D. Schofield, A.
Zerilli, and T. Labruzzo, 2005, Some preliminary interpretation on the marine controlled source electromagnetic (MCSEM) data acquired on Campos Basin, Brazil:
Presented at 9th International Congress of the Brazilian
Geophysical Society.
Cainelli, C., and W. U. Mohriak, 1999, Some remarks on
the evolution of sedimentary basins along the Eastern
Brazilian continental margin: Episodes, 22, 206216.
Cobbold, P. R., P. Szatmari, L. S. Demercian, D. Coelho,
and E. A. Rossello, 1996, Seismic and experimental evidence for thin-skinned horizontal shortening by convergent radial gliding on evaporites, deep-water Santos
Basin, Brazil, in M. P. A. Jackson, D. G. Roberts, and
S. Snelson, eds., Salt tectonics: A global perspective:
AAPG Memoir 65, 305321.
Commer, M., and G. A. Newman, 2008, New advances in
three-dimensional controlled-source electromagnetic
inversion: Geophysical Journal International, 172,
513535, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03663.x.
Constable, S., 2010, Ten years of marine CSEM for hydrocarbon exploration: Geophysics, 75, no. 5, A67A81,
doi: 10.1190/1.3483451.
Constable, S., and L. J. Srnka, 2007, An introduction to
marine controlled-source electro-magnetic methods
for hydrocarbon exploration: Geophysics, 72, no. 2,
WA3WA12, doi: 10.1190/1.2432483.
de Lugao, P. P., S. L. Fontes, E. F. La Terra, A. Zerilli, T.
Labruzzo, and M. P. Buonora, 2008, First application
of marine magnetotellurics improves depth imaging in
the Santos Basin, Brazil: 70th Annual International
Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts,
P192.
Eidesmo, T., S. Ellingsrud, L. M. MacGregor, S. Constable,
M. C. Sinha, S. E. Johansen, F. N. Kong, and H.
Westerdahl, 2002, Sea bed logging (SBL), a new method
for remote and direct identification of hydrocarbon
filled layers in deepwater areas: First Break, 20, 144
152.
Ellingsrud, S., T. Eidesmo, S. Johansen, M. Sinha, L.
MacGregor, and S. Constable, 2002, Remote sensing of
hydrocarbon layers by seabed logging (SBL): Results

from a cruise offshore Angola: The Leading Edge, 21,

972982, doi: 10.1190/1.1518433.
Foster, D. J., R. G. Keys, and F. D. Lane, 2010, Interpretation of AVO anomalies: Geophysics, 75, no. 5, A3A13,
doi: 10.1190/1.3467825.
Gallardo, L. A., S. L. Fontes, M. A. Meju, M. P. Buonora, and
P. P. de Lugao, 2012, Robust geophysical integration
through structure-coupled joint inversion and multispectral fusion of seismic reflection, magnetotelluric,
magnetic, and gravity images: Example from Santos Basin, offshore Brazil: Geophysics, 77, no. 5, B237B251,
doi: 10.1190/geo2011-0394.1.
Habashy, T. M., and A. Abubakar, 2004, A general framework for constraint minimization for the inversion of
electromagnetic measurements: Progress in Electromagnetics Research, 46, 265312, doi: 10.2528/
PIER03100702.
Hart, W., and M. Albertin, 2001, Subsalt trap archetype
classification: A diagnostic tool for predicting and prioritizing Gulf of Mexico subsalt traps, in R. H. Fillon,
N. C. Rosen, and P. Weimer, eds., 21st Annual Bob F.
Perkins Research Conference, Petroleum Systems of
Deep-Water Basins: Global and Gulf of Mexico Experience: GCSSEPM Foundation, Abstracts, 619638.
Hoversten, G. M., S. C. Constable, and H. F. Morrison, 2000,
Marine magnetotellurics for base-of-salt mapping: Gulf
of Mexico field test at the Gemini structure: Geophysics,
65, 14761488, doi: 10.1190/1.1444836.
Li, Y., and S. Constable, 2007, 2D marine controlled-source
electromagnetic modeling: Part 2 The effect of
bathymetry: Geophysics, 72, no. 2, WA63WA71, doi:
10.1190/1.2430647.
Lorenz, L., H. T. Pedersen, and M. P. Buonora, 2013, First
results from a Brazilian mCSEM calibration campaign:
Presented at 13th International Congress of the Brazilian Geophysical Society.
Lumley, D. E., 2001, Time-lapse seismic reservoir monitoring: Geophysics, 66, 5053, doi: 10.1190/1.1444921.
Matias, H., P. Kress, P. Terrinha, W. Mohriak, P. T. L.
Menezes, L. Matias, F. Santos, and F. Sandnes, 2011, Salt
tectonics in the western Gulf of Cadiz, southwest Iberia:
AAPG Bulletin, 95, 16671698, doi: 10.1306/01271110032.
Menezes, P. d. T. L., and J. M. Travassos, 2005, EM modeling of the central-northern portion of Ponta Grossa Arch,
Paran Basin, Brazil: Physics of the Earth and Planetary
Interiors, 150, 145158, doi: 10.1016/j.pepi.2004.08.031.
Menezes, P. d. T. L., and E. R. Morais, 2003, Shallow
electromagnetic exploration for hydrocarbons at
Sergipe-Alagoas Basin, Brazil: The Leading Edge, 22,
11271129, doi: 10.1190/1.1634917.
Menezes, P. T. L., and J. M. Travassos, 2010, Magnetotellurics as a modeling tool in the extensive magmatic
context of Paran Basin, Brazil: The Leading Edge,
29, 832840, doi: 10.1190/1.3462787.
Milani, E., J. Brando, P. Zaln, and L. Gamboa, 2000,
Petrleo na margem continental brasileira: Geologia,

Interpretation / August 2014 SH9

Downloaded 05/24/14 to 128.83.63.20. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

explorao, resultados e perspectivas: Revista Brasileira de Geofsica, 18, 352396, doi: 10.1590/S0102261X2000000300012.
Mohriak, W. U., P. Szatmari, and S. Anjos, 2012, Salt: Geology and tectonics of selected Brazilian basins in their
global context: Geological Society London, Special Publications, 363, 131158, doi: 10.1144/SP363.7.
Plessix, R.-E., and W. Mulder, 2008, Resistivity imaging
with controlled-source electromagnetic data: Depth
and data weighting: Inverse Problems, 24, 034012,
doi: 10.1088/0266-5611/24/3/034012.
Silva Crepaldi, J. L., M. P. Pereira Buonora, and I. Figueiredo, 2011, Fast marine CSEM inversion in the CMP
domain using analytical derivatives: Geophysics, 76,
no. 5, F303F313, doi: 10.1190/geo2010-0237.1.
Smith, R., and J. Rowe, 1997, A new regional exploration
method for detecting hydrocarbon alteration plumes:
The ALTREX method: Exploration Geophysics, 28,
286291, doi: 10.1071/EG997286.
Strack, K., 2014, Future directions of electromagnetic
methods for hydrocarbon applications: Surveys in Geophysics, 35, 157177, doi: 10.1007/s10712-013-9237-z.
Travassos, J. M., and P. T. L. Menezes, 1999, Geoelectric
structure beneath limestones of the Sao Francisco Basin, Brazil: Earth Planets Space, 51, 10471058.
Volozh, Y., C. Talbot, and A. Ismail-Zadeh, 2003, Salt structures and hydrocarbons in the Pricaspian Basin: AAPG
Bulletin, 87, 313334, doi: 10.1306/09060200896.
Wilson, L. J., S. C. Brian, D. R. Weaver, M. E. Cribbs, and A.
W. Leibold, 2002, Champlain: A subsalt discovery in the
deepwater Gulf of Mexico: Presented at the 87th AAPG
Annual Meeting.
Zerilli, A., M. P. Buonora, A. Abubakar, and T. Labruzzo,
2011, Inversion of a marine controlled source electromagnetic data using a structure-based approach: Presented at 12th International Congress of the Brazilian
Geophysical Society.
Zerilli, A., T. Labruzzo, M. P. Buonora, P. de Tarso Luiz Menezes, and A. Lovatini, 2010, 3D inversion of total field
mCSEM data: The Santos Basin case study: 80th Annual
International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 629633.
Zerilli, A., A. Lovatini, A. Battaglini, and P. D. L. Menezes,
2012, Resolving complex overthrust features using
magnetotellurics The Bolivian foothills case study:
Presented at First EAGE/ACGGP Latin American Geophysics Workshop.

Marco Polo Pereira Buonora received a B.S. in geology in Recife,

Pernambuco, Brazil. He received a Fulbright scholarship in 1974 and received
master's and Ph.D. degrees in geophysics with emphasis on gravity and magnetics from St. Louis University. He is
the manager of nonseismic geophysics
at Petrobras in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
SH10 Interpretation / August 2014

He is responsible for the acquisition, processing, and interpretation of all nonseismic data gravity, magnetic, and
EM methods, particularly mCSEM. He has been based in Rio
de Janeiro since 1969. He began his career as a geologist at
the Brazilian Ministry of Mines and Energy, working with
gravity and magnetics data acquisition and interpretation,
and later he worked for a mining company looking for base
metals and gemstones and as a geophysicist in a service
company focused on acquisition, processing, and interpretation of airborne-magnetics and gammaspectromety data.
After returning to Brazil in 1980, he joined Petrobras where
he has been active in gravity and magnetic interpretation of
several onshore and offshore sedimentary basins in Brazil.
He has worked in the areas of vertical seismic profiling, on
land and offshore, and nuclear magnetic resonance. Over
the past 10 years, he has been involved with the acquisition,
processing, and interpretation of mCSEM, and he was the
SEG 2013 Central and South America Honorary Lecturer.
He is also a part-time associate professor at Fluminense
Federal University, in Niteroi, Brazil, where he teaches applied gravity, magnetics, digital signal analysis, and inversion
of geophysical data. He is a member of SEG, EAGE, and the
Brazilian Geophysical Society, serving as president 1989
1991.

Jorlivan L. Correa received a B.S.

(2010) in geophysics from UFPA. He
has been working with electromagnetic methods since his time at university and has been a geophysicist at
Petrobras since 2012. His main interest is integration of geophysical methods for better interpretation.

Luciano dos Santos Martins received a B.A. (2010) in physics from

the Federal University of Campinas.
He began his career as a geophysicist
in 2011 at Petrobras, working with
mCSEM data. His main interests are
in integration of seismic and mCSEM
interpretation.

Paulo T. L. Menezes received a

B.S. (1986) in geology from Rio de
Janeiro State University, Brazil, an
M.S. (1990) in geophysics from the
Federal University of Par, Brazil,
and a Ph.D. (1996) in geophysics from
the National Observatory of Rio de Janeiro. In 19961997, he worked as a
consultant at Geomag Aerolevantamentos Ltda. Since 1997, he has been a professor at Rio
de Janeiro State University. He also works as a geophysicist at Petrobras. His research interests include interpretation of potential-field, seismic, and electromagnetic data.
He is a member of SEG, EAGE, and the Brazilian Geophysical Society.

Downloaded 05/24/14 to 128.83.63.20. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Emanue J. C. Pinho received a degree (2002) in physics and a Ph.D.

(2006) in cosmology. He joined the
Petrobras EM group in 2006. His main
interests are 2D and 3D EM modeling
and inversion.

Joo Lucas Silva Crepaldi received

a B.A. (2005) in physics from the
Federal University of So Carlos in
2005. He started his masters degree
at USP So Carlos with an emphasis
on quantum information. He completed
his masters degree at the National
Observatory in electromagnetic data inversion. He is a geophysicist expert in
electromagnetic methods at Petrobras.

Mirela P. P. Ribas received a B.S.

(2006) in geology from the University
of Braslia. Between 2006 and 2009,
she worked as a mineral exploration
geologist at TeckCominco S/A. Since
2009, she has worked as a geophysicist at Petrobras, in interpretation of
potential field and electromagnetic
data. Her main interests are in integration of geophysical data to regional studies.

Sergio M. Ferreira received a B.S.

(2007) in geology from the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro and
an M.S. (2011) in geophysics from
the Observatorio Nacional do Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, where his research
was focused on gravimetric data
analysis. He is a reviewer for Computers & Geosciences journal and is
a member of the Brazilian Geophysical Society. He has
been working at Petrobras since 2008, as part of the EM
team, where he has been developing expertise on the controlled-source EM method.

Rafael Correia de Freitas received

a master's degree (2005) in basin analysis from the Universidade Federal do
Paran, working with structural geology and geomathematics, integrating
surface and subsurface data. He has
been a geologist and seismic interpreter at Petrobras since 2006. His
work is focused in structural geology
and data integration applied to the definition and evaluation of exploratory areas. Currently, he is working in
Esprito Santo Basin (offshore Brazil), with subsalt opportunities.

Interpretation / August 2014 SH11