special topic

first break volume 31, June 2013

Changing Frontiers

Reserves estimation methods for

prospect evaluation with 3D CSEM data
Daniel Baltar1* and Friedrich Roth,1 explain how 3D controlled-source electromagnetic data
can reduce volumetric uncertainty in the reserves estimation process of prospect evaluation.

eserves are among the key pieces of information used

in prospect evaluation. The estimation of reserves
is typically done in a probabilistic way in order to
account for the large uncertainties in the parameters
that determine the reserves. The largest source of uncertainty
in the reserves estimation is usually the net rock volume
of the reservoir, which is the product of reservoir area and
net pay thickness. The controlled-source electromagnetic
(CSEM) method is sensitive to the net rock volume and the
reservoir resistivity, thus making it an excellent exploration
tool capable of reducing the volumetric uncertainty. We
present two methods that include 3D CSEM inversion data
in the net rock volume evaluation and the reserves estimation process. The first method deals with a case where a
resistivity anomaly is recovered at the prospect location; the
second method handles a case where no resistivity anomaly
is detected. Both methods are easily integrated into common
probabilistic reserves estimation processes.

Background
Estimating reserves is fundamental to the economic evaluation of exploration prospects. The probability of economic
success Pe assigned to a prospect is given by the product of
the probability Pg of discovering a flowable hydrocarbon
(HC) accumulation and the probability PMEFS of the discovered accumulation being greater than the minimum economic field size (MEFS) quantified in recoverable reserves (RR):
Pe = Pg * PMEFS = Pg * P(RR > MEFS)

(1)

(Rose 2001).
It is standard industry practice to calculate Pg by evaluating
a number of independent geologic chance factors associated

with the components of a petroleum system that are required

for a hydrocarbon accumulation to exist, i.e., source, reservoir, etc. The calculation of PMEFS requires generation of a
prospect reserves distribution to which the economic threshold can be applied. The reserves distribution is obtained from
a statistical evaluation of the reserves equation:
RR=A * Z * * (1-Sw) * Rf/Boi .

(2)

Here A is the reservoir area, Z is the net pay thickness,

is the porosity, Sw is the water saturation, Rf is the recovery
factor, and Boi is the formation volume factor. The product
of reservoir area and net pay thickness defines the net rock
volume: NRV = A * Z.
CSEM has the capability to influence both the probability of geologic success Pg and the probability of an
economic discovery PMEFS, leading to better informed exploration decision-making. Due to the strong sensitivity of
formation resistivity to hydrocarbon saturation, CSEM is a
very good direct hydrocarbon indicator (DHI) and thus can
be used to update Pg, e.g. using Bayesian risk modification
(Buland et al., 2011), based on CSEM anomaly and data
quality characteristics in analogy to seismic amplitude risk
analysis (Roden et al. 2005). The impact of CSEM on the
prospect reserves distribution results from its sensitivity to
the net rock volume. The CSEM response of a hydrocarbon
accumulation is not a local scattering phenomenum, but a
partially guided wave response the strength of which depends
on the volume of resistive reservoir rock (area x thickness).
Hydrocarbon exploration is an activity in which
uncertainties are generally high. Table 1 lists typical
uncertainties in recoverable reserves for different exploration scenarios (Rose, 2001). Uncertainty is measured by the P10/P90 ratio of the reserves distribution.

Development well

Step-out/
extension

Wildcat in known
productive trend

Wildcat in proven
trend

Wildcat in
new play or
new basin

P10/P90 ratio

2.2-7.0

5-25

10-120

55-220

120-650

Table 1 Characteristic uncertainty ranges for different hydrocarbon exploration scenarios; taken from Rose (2001).
1
*

EMGS.
Corresponding author, E-mail: dbaltar@emgs.com

2013 EAGE www.firstbreak.org

103

special topic

first break volume 31, June 2013

Changing Frontiers
The uncertainty is particularly high in frontier exploration
and for new play concepts. It is therefore important to use
all available information to reduce the uncertainty as much
as possible to be able to focus the exploratory drilling on the
prospects with the highest probability of economic success
and maximize the risked prospect portfolio value.
It is well known that most of the uncertainty in the recoverable reserves can be attributed to the uncertainty in the
net rock volume. Thus given a CSEM favourable setting, the
CSEM volume sensitivity can result in significant uncertainty
reduction on the reserve estimation. This makes CSEM a very
attractive companion to seismic for prospect evaluation.
We present statistical evaluation methods for estimating reserves that use anisotropic 3D CSEM inversion data
to reduce uncertainty. The methods were developed to
easily integrate into common probabilistic reserves estimation
processes.
We will distinguish between the case where the 3D
CSEM inversion reconstructed a resistivity anomaly at the
prospect location and the case where no anomaly has been
reconstructed. In the presence of a CSEM anomaly, a Monte
Carlo simulation is run that uses the transverse resistance
equivalence principle to interpret the CSEM anomaly in terms
of net pay thickness and reservoir area, resulting in a net rock
volume probability distribution. This distribution can then be
used in a standard Monte Carlo simulation for recoverable
reserves based on equation (2). In the absence of a CSEM
anomaly, 3D forward modelling is used to establish maximum
non-detectable target cases, which are then used to condition
a standard Monte Carlo simulation for recoverable reserves.
We start by describing the evaluation method for the
CSEM anomaly case. The method has been applied to real
commercial exploration projects, but for reasons of commercial confidentiality, we simulate an exploration case using
the widely published CSEM data from the Troll West oil
province (TWOP) in the Norwegian North Sea to illustrate
the capability for reducing the uncertainty measured as
the P10/P90 ratio for the net rock volume, and compare
the resulting probability distribution to the actual net rock
volume. We then elaborate on the evaluation method used in
the absence of a CSEM anomaly and show how it truncates
the high end of the recoverable reserves distribution.

HC-saturated formation resistivity scenarios on the well log

scale that would be consistent with the inversion result. These
scenarios can be calculated from the transverse resistance
equivalence principle, as will be derived below. All resistivities
considered in the derivation are vertical resistivities.
Transverse resistance is the integral of resistivity over
depth. We define the anomalous transverse resistance (ATR)
of the reservoir as the amount of transverse resistance above
the value that would exist if no hydrocarbons were present:
.(3)
Here, R is the resistivity anomaly due to hydrocarbons at
the well log scale. The ATR represents the cumulative resistivity contrast over the pay zone (Figure2).

Figure 1 A hydrocarbon related resistivity anomaly in a 3D CSEM inversion

result is an upscaled version of the resistivity anomaly at the well log scale.
The transverse resistance equivalence can be used to interpret the CSEM
anomaly at the well log scale. Example from Yuan et al. (2009).

CSEM anomaly evaluation using the transverse

resistance equivalence principle
Marine CSEM is a low-frequency technique. Unconstrained
CSEM inversion therefore has a resolution that is typically above the reservoir thickness (Figure1). A hydrocarbon
related resistivity anomaly in a CSEM inversion result is an
upscaled (averaged) version of the resistivity anomaly at the
well log scale.
In case the only piece of available data is the CSEM
inversion result, there are an infinite number of net pay and

104

Figure2 The anomalous transverse resistance (ATR) of the reservoir describes

the cumulative resistivity contrast due to hydrocarbons, i.e., the green shaded
area under the resistivity log curve. It is calculated by integrating the resistivity
contrast over the pay zone.

www.firstbreak.org 2013 EAGE

special topic

first break volume 31, June 2013

Changing Frontiers
Given a 1D resistivity trace extracted from a 3D CSEM
inversion model, the transverse resistance equivalence principle (Constable, 2010) suggests that
,(4)

where Rcsem refers to the resistivity anomaly owing to

hydrocarbons in the CSEM resistivity trace. In other words,
the cumulative resistivity contrast of the CSEM resistivity
trace and that of the resistivity well log are equal.
Equation (4) can be rewritten in terms of average
resistivities as
.(5)
Here
denotes the averaging operator, Zcsem is the thickness of the CSEM anomaly in the CSEM resistivity trace and
Z is the actual thickness of the hydrocarbon charged reservoir interval, i.e. the net pay thickness required to evaluate
the reserve equation (2).
Given a relatively uniform background resistivity variation over the depth interval of interest defined by the CSEM
anomaly, equation (5) can be simplified to
,(6)
where Rcsem is the average value of the CSEM resistivity trace
over the CSEM anomaly interval, R is the average hydrocarbon charged reservoir resistivity over the pay zone and Rbg is
the average background resistivity.
Equation 6 can be rearranged to yield an expression for
the CSEM net-to-gross ratio
,(7)
which links the CSEM anomaly thickness Zcsem to the net
pay thickness Z according to
.(8)

Assuming the background resistivity Rbg is known, equations (7) and (8) allow for calculating pairs of R and Z
that are consistent with the CSEM resistivity trace. This is
illustrated in Figure 3. If the average pay resistivity R was
known, the net pay Z could be calculated from the CSEM
net-to-gross relationship. This, however, is not the case in
exploration. As we will show in the next section, a good way
to deal with lacking information and uncertainties is to run
a Monte Carlo simulation using the CSEM inversion result
as input.
So far we have only considered a single resistivity trace, i.e.,
the 1D case. It is straightforward to extend the analysis to
the full 3D CSEM inversion model. In this case, the averaging
over the anomaly results in an average CSEM resistivity map
(Figure5), which may then be interpreted in terms of equations (7) and (8), i.e., we iterate over each cell in an area of
interest to achieve a full net rock volume calculation.

CSEM anomaly evaluation under uncertainty

We use a Monte Carlo method to handle the uncertainties
in the evaluation of the CSEM anomaly. To do this, we must
associate a random variable with a probability distribution
to each source of uncertainty in the calculation. For net rock
volume calculations from an average resistivity map obtained
from a 3D CSEM inversion model, the main uncertainties
and corresponding random variables are the following:
n What is the background resistivity value? Variable: Rbg
n What resistivity values must be considered anomalous?
Variable: Rcutoff
n What is the average pay resistivity? Variable: R
Suitable distributions for Rbg and Rcutoff should be defined
based on the average CSEM resistivity map itself. The R
distribution must be obtained from nearby wells, analogues,
or other a priori information.
The Monte Carlo algorithm (Figure4) draws a random
value for each of the above variables. The algorithm then
iterates over all cells of the input map with average resistivity
value Rcsem above Rcutoff and calculates their contributions to
the total net rock volume for the given combination of Rbg

Figure 3 A CSEM resistivity trace extracted from a 3D CSEM inversion result can be linked to average pay resistivity R and net pay thickness Z via the transverse
resistance equivalence principle.

2013 EAGE www.firstbreak.org

105

special topic

first break volume 31, June 2013

Changing Frontiers

Figure 4 Monte Carlo algorithm for generating a net

rock volume distribution from a CSEM anomaly.

Figure 5 Generation of an average resistivity map

from a 3D CSEM inversion model (vertical resistivity).
The contours mark the top of the averaging window,
which starts 400 m above the top reservoir horizon
and ends 300 m below it. The inversion result is from
the Troll West oil province (TWOP).

and R. The steps are repeated many times and a cumulative

probability distribution for the net rock volume is generated.
So far, we have assumed that the ATR estimated by the
CSEM inversion is a good approximation of the actual
anomalous transverse resistance of the reservoir. Following
the derivation in the previous section, it is obvious that
when the ATR is under- or overestimated, the net rock
volume will be under- or overestimated in proportion to the
error in the ATR.
CSEM inversion will typically underestimate the ATR of
the reservoir slightly. This can be accounted for in the Monte
Carlo simulation by introducing an extra random variable
describing the uncertainty in the estimated ATR. This is
especially important when the CSEM sensitivity to the target
interval is low, e.g., for deep exploration objectives. The extra
random variable will naturally increase the uncertainty of
the resulting net rock volume probability distribution (P10/
P90 ratio). The uncertainty can be reduced by calibrating
the ATR estimation by 3D forward modelling and synthetic
data inversion for a representative target embedded in the
background resistivity model obtained from the 3D inversion
of the measured CSEM survey data.

order to simulate an exploration setting. We only used the

reservoir top horizon from seismic and the results from an
unconstrained anisotropic 3D CSEM inversion.
The following steps were followed to generate the input
to the Monte Carlo simulation:
(1) Identify the CSEM anomaly in section view.
(2) Create two surfaces, one above the CSEM anomaly and
one below by shifting the top reservoir horizon up and
down respectively. (Figure5)
(3) Generate a map of the average CSEM resistivity Rcsem
by averaging the vertical resistivity from the 3D CSEM
inversion model between the two surfaces created in
step2. (Figure5)
(4) Calculate a thickness map of the averaging operator by
taking the difference between the two surfaces created in
step 2. In this case, the thickness was constant, but the
algorithm equally applies to a laterally varying thickness.
The thickness map serves to define the thickness of the
CSEM anomaly, Zcsem in equation (8).
(5) Define distributions for the background resistivity Rbg
and the cut-off resistivity Rcutoff from the average CSEM
resistivity map generated in step 3.

Application to the Troll West oil province

The Monte Carlo simulation tested possible reservoir scenarios

using the following resistivity ranges: 10m<R<100m,
2.6m <Rbg<3.2m, 3.3m<Rcutoff<4.7 m. To keep
things simple, uniform probability distributions were chosen.
Note that the range for the pay resistivity R is very large
since no well data were used to constrain this variable. The
limits for the Rbg and Rcutoff variables were chosen based on
histograms derived from the average CSEM resistivity map.

We demonstrate the performance of net rock volume estimation on the Troll West oil province (TWOP) over which
a full-azimuth 3D CSEM survey was acquired in 2008
(Gabrielsen et al., 2009). Anisotropic 3D inversion of the
survey data has been reported by Morten et al. (2009).
No prior information about the pay resistivity, the
net pay thickness, and the reservoir area was assumed in

106

www.firstbreak.org 2013 EAGE

first break volume 31, June 2013

special topic

Changing Frontiers
50,000 Monte Carlo samples were produced. The resulting
cumulative probability distribution for the net rock volume is
shown in Figure 6 together with the actual volume defined
by the top reservoir horizon and the known oil-water contact
(OWC). The distribution is relatively narrow with a P10/P90
ratio of less than six, which is in the order of uncertainties
typical for development or near-field exploration (see Table1).
The actual net rock volume coincides with the 60th percentile.
Other information such as analogues or seismic interpretation could be used to condition the distribution, e.g., the
higher end of the rock volume distribution could probably be
ruled out using seismic interpretation. By cross-plotting the
Monte Carlo input variables against the resulting net rock
volume samples, we found the main controlling factor in the
net rock volume estimation to be the average pay resistivity R.

Reserves estimation in the absence of a

CSEM anomaly
In the early days of CSEM for hydrocarbon exploration, the
absence of a CSEM anomaly was often equated with no
hydrocarbons. This simplified interpretation, however, does
not account for the volume sensitivity of CSEM. In other
words, the absence of a CSEM anomaly can only be used
to conclude that any hydrocarbon accumulation must be
smaller than the detection limit of CSEM for this particular
geologic setting and acquisition. By modelling the CSEM
sensitivity and defining a detection threshold, it is possible to
test whether a specific reservoir case is consistent or inconsistent with the CSEM observation, i.e., that no anomaly was
reconstructed by 3D CSEM inversion. Such test in turn can
be used to condition a standard Monte Carlo simulation for
recoverable reserves.
CSEM sensitivity
The sensitivity of CSEM data to a hydrocarbon accumulation is known to be a function of target characteristics (e.g.,
reservoir area, net pay thickness, pay resistivity, depth below

mud line), geologic setting (e.g., water depth, overburden

resistivity), and acquisition parameters (e.g., source current
amplitude and frequencies, available offset range, receiver
sensitivity, ambient noise). If the geologic setting and acquisition parameters are defined, the CSEM sensitivity can be
established for assumed target characteristics by 3D forward
modelling. Such modelling is best performed using the background resistivity model obtained by anisotropic 3D inversion of the measured CSEM survey data.
As a result of the transverse resistance equivalence
principle, it makes sense to analyse the CSEM sensitivity as
a function of ATR for a given reservoir area. An example of
such modelling is shown in Figure7. The reservoir is located
2200 m below mud line and has been modelled for three
different reservoir areas: 10, 30, and 75km2. For each area,
a number of ATR values have been considered to generate a
sensitivity curve. The displayed sensitivity metric is the normalized magnitude versus offset (NMvO) attribute expressed
as a percentage for the offset and frequency combination that
maximises the target response. Similar sensitivity curves can
be generated for other sensitivity metrics, e.g., the hardware
dependent sensitivity metric described in Barker et al. (2012).
Detection criterion
For the NMvO sensitivity metric, it is common to assume
a limit of 10% for reliable target detection and imaging. It is well known that the detectability depends on the
geologic complexity and the quality of the CSEM data. Thus,
for some CSEM surveys (e.g., shallow water surveys), the
NMvO detection criterion may have to be adjusted.
Given a NMvO detection criterion of 10%, the sensitivity
curves of Figure7 can be used to establish the minimum ATR
detected reliably for each modelled reservoir area, which we
will call ATR10. The dependence of ATR10 on reservoir area
A can be represented by fitting the functional
ATR10(A) = ATR10inf + r/(A-A0)(8)

Figure 6 Troll West oil province example: Estimated cumulative probability distribution for the net rock volume. The reference volume calculated from the
reservoir top and OWC coincides with the 60th percentile. The P10/P90 ratio is
less than six, which is low by common exploration standards.

2013 EAGE www.firstbreak.org

107

special topic

first break volume 31, June 2013

Changing Frontiers

Figure 7 CSEM sensitivity curves obtained by 3D forward modelling: Maximum NMvO as a function of ATR for different reservoir areas. The prospect is located
2,200m below mud line. Assuming a 10% NMvO detection criterion, the ATR threshold at which the NMvO value drops below 10% can be estimated for each
reservoir area. This threshold is called ATR10. The forward modelling uses the background resistivity model obtained by anisotropic 3D inversion of the measured CSEM survey data.

to the ATR10 samples as exemplified in Figure 8. Here,

ATR10inf is the ATR10 value for an infinite reservoir area
estimated from 1D modelling, A0 defines the minimum
theoretical reservoir area detectable by CSEM and r is a
curvature parameter. For the example case considered, the
fitting parameters are ATR10inf=540 m2, A0=5.7 km2 and
r = 2,000 m2km2. Hydrocarbon accumulations with ATR
and reservoir area above this curve are most likely to be
detected by CSEM, while those accumulations falling below
the curve are more likely to remain undetected.
Reserves estimation
In the absence of a CSEM anomaly, possible existing hydrocarbon accumulations are most likely to be below the ATR10
curve defined above. Therefore it makes sense to use this
information in the reserves estimation.
This can again be achieved through a Monte Carlo
simulation. The algorithm uses the usual probability distributions for the reservoir parameters entering the reserves

108

equation(2), which include the reservoir area A and the net

pay thickness Z. In addition, for each reservoir scenario,
the average pay resistivity R and background resistivity Rbg
needs to be established in order to calculate the corresponding ATR, ATR = Z * (R-Rbg). As before, these resistivity
values need to be vertical resistivities. The algorithm works
according to the scheme outlined in Figure9.
There are a number of ways in which the average pay
resistivity R and the background resistivity Rbg can be introduced into the calculation. The probability distribution for
Rbg can be derived from the 3D CSEM inversion model or
nearby well control. The probability distribution for R can
be obtained from analogues for which well data are available. Alternatively, pay resistivity can be calculated from
the porosity distribution and saturation distribution using
an Archie-like saturation equation and additional input
distributions defining the remaining Archie parameters
such as pore water resistivity, cementation exponent, etc.
Both approaches require a proper evaluation of expected

www.firstbreak.org 2013 EAGE

first break volume 31, June 2013

special topic

Changing Frontiers
Figure 8 Reservoir area and ATR combinations
that generate a 10% NMvO. The three points
have been picked from the modelled sensitivity
curves of Figure7 and the curve was obtained by
fitting the points with the functional of equation
(8). Reservoir cases above the curve will generate
a NMvO > 10%; reservoir cases below the curve
generate a NMvO < 10%. The prospect is located
2200 m below mud line.

Figure 9 Monte Carlo algorithm for reserves estimation in the absence of a CSEM anomaly.

electrical anisotropy in order to obtain meaningful vertical

resistivity values.
Example
Let us return to the prospect associated with the sensitivity
curves of Figure7 and impose a NMvO detection criterion
of 10%. The reservoir parameter distributions for this prospect are given by the P10 and P90 values in Table 2. All
distributions are assumed to be log normal. Figure10 shows
the recoverable reserves distribution generated by Monte
Carlo simulation with and without CSEM conditioning.
For the sake of simplicity, we have chosen to input the pay
resistivity data directly instead of deriving it from a saturation equation.
The Monte Carlo simulation was run for 100,000
iterations. Figure11 shows the reservoir area and anomalous

2013 EAGE www.firstbreak.org

transverse resistance for all Monte Carlo samples. The samples corresponding to large reservoir area and/or high ATR
(red dots) have been removed as they would have produced
an anomaly in the 3D CSEM inversion result. Since large
areas and high ATR are more likely to be associated with
high recoverable reserves, we are removing mostly large
fields from the recoverable reserves distribution. Therefore
one would expect a large impact at the high end of the
distribution (P10) and a smaller impact at the lower end of
the distribution (P90). Figure 10 shows that this is exactly
what happens: The P10 reserves are reduced by about 40%,
whereas the P90 reserves are only reduced by 23%. The
resulting reduction in expected (average) reserves is fairly
significant, about 38% from 104MMbbl to 64MMbbl. The
uncertainty in the reserves as quantified by the P10/P90 ratio
is reduced from 18 to 14.

109

special topic

first break volume 31, June 2013

Changing Frontiers
Figure 10 Recoverable reserves distribution in
the absence of a CSEM anomaly generated by
Monte Carlo simulation with and without CSEM
conditioning. The larger fields are more likely
to be detected by CSEM and thus the high end
of the distribution is more affected by the CSEM
result than the lower end. The prospect is located
2200 m below mud line. The reservoir parameter
distributions and other input to the Monte Carlo
simulation are taken from Table2.

Variable

P90

P10

Area [km ]

50

Thickness [m]

15

65

Porosity

0.23

0.33

HC saturation

0.5

0.75

Recovery factor

0.1

0.2

FVF

1.2

1.4

Rbg [m]

2.15

2.5

R [m]

10

50

Table 2 Inputs to the Monte Carlo simulation resulting in the recoverable

reserves distributions of Figure10.

Figure 11 Reservoir area and anomalous transverse resistance for all Monte
Carlo samples used to generate the recoverable reserves distributions of
Figure10. When using CSEM information, the samples corresponding to large
reservoir area and/or high ATR (red dots) have been removed as they are
expected to produce an anomaly in the 3D CSEM inversion result; the samples
marked by blue dots are kept.

Conclusions
CSEM is sensitive to the reservoir area, net pay thickness,
and pay resistivity. Two of these variables, reservoir area
and net pay thickness, constitute the main uncertainty in the
reserves calculation for a prospect: the net reservoir rock
volume. This fact makes CSEM a very useful exploration
tool for reducing the uncertainty in the estimated recoverable reserves.

110

We presented two methods for reserves estimation incorporating anisotropic 3D CSEM inversion data to effectively
reduce the uncertainty associated with the net rock volume.
The first method applies when the 3D CSEM inversion
reconstructed a resistivity anomaly at the prospect location; the second method is used in the absence of a CSEM
anomaly. Both algorithms are implemented as Monte Carlo
simulations and are straightforward to integrate into existing
probabilistic reserve estimation processes.
The examples studied demonstrate that the uncertainty
reduction resulting from the use of 3D CSEM information
can be quite large. For the simulated exploration case in
the Troll West oil province, the observed CSEM anomaly
resulted in a P10/P90 ratio for the net rock volume below six,
which is extremely low by common exploration standards.

www.firstbreak.org 2013 EAGE

special topic

first break volume 31, June 2013

Changing Frontiers
In the negative case, i.e., absence of a CSEM anomaly, the
impact on reserves in terms of P10/P90 ratio will generally
not be that strong, but the P10 and average reserves can
experience a significant reduction after the inclusion of the
3D CSEM information (~40% for the example studied).
Both results suggest that 3D CSEM can have a major
impact on the estimated reserves and their uncertainty, which
can lead to a great improvement in the prospect evaluation
and decision-making.

Constable, S. [2010] Ten years of marine CSEM for hydrocarbon

exploration. Geophysics, 75, 5, A67A81.
Gabrielsen, P. T., Brevik, I., Mittet, R. and Lseth, L.O. [2009]
Investigating the exploration potential for 3D CSEM using a calibration survey over the Troll Field. First Break, 27(6), 6775.
Morten, J.P., Bjrke, A.K. and Stren, T. [2009] CSEM data uncertainty
analysis for 3D inversion. 79th SEG Annual Meeting, Expanded
Abstracts, 28, 724728.
Morten, J.P, Roth, F., Timko, D., Pacurar, C., Nguyen, A.K. and Olsen,
P.A. [2011] 3D reservoir characterization of a North Sea oil field

Acknowledgements

using quantitative seismic & CSEM interpretation. 81st SEG Annual

We would like to thank Mrten Blixt from Blueback

Reservoir for the interesting discussions about the algorithms
and its implementation.

Roden, R., Forrest, M. and Holeywell, R. [2005] The impact of seismic

References

Rose, P.R. [2001] Risk analysis and management of petroleum explora-

Meeting. Expanded Abstracts, 30, 19031907.

amplitudes on prospect risk analysis. The Leading Edge, 24(7),
706711.

Barker, N.D., Morten, J.P. and Shantsev D.V. [2012] Optimizing EM data
acquisition for continental shelf exploration. The Leading Edge,
31(11), 12761284.
Buland, A., Lseth, L.O., Becht, A., Roudot, M. and Rsten, T. [2011].
The value of CSEM data in exploration. First Break, 29 (4), 6976.

2013 EAGE www.firstbreak.org

tion ventures. AAPG, p. 26.

Yuan, H., Pham, T., Zach, J.J, Frenkel, M.A. and Ridyard, D. [2009]
Exploration case studies in mature Gulf of Mexico basins using 3D
marine CSEM. 79th SEG Annual Meeting. Expanded Abstracts, 28,
825829.

111