What is it about?
In some circles, discussion of the use of marine Controlled Source Electromagnetics (CSEM) for de-risking hydrocarbon prospects elicits a strong, negative response. It seems it’s the kind of reaction one might expect to the hawking of ‘Snake Oil’ or miracle cures. Admittedly, the claimed successful prediction rates are high – in the vicinity of 80%, and higher. But the question remains – if it’s so good, why isn’t everyone using it?
Featured Image
Photo by Timothy Dykes on Unsplash
Why is it important?
The claimed successful prediction rates using CSEM are high – in the vicinity of 80%, and higher. But the question remains – if it’s so good, why isn’t everyone using it?
Perspectives
To try to address some of the negative views on the use of this technology with the data we have assembled here - the (early or otherwise) failures are clearly outweighed by the many more successful predictions. In our amalgamated database, CSEM seems to ‘work’ for confidently predicting (~80%, however not a ‘silver bullet’) presence or absence of large hydrocarbons accumulation. For context, seismic only amplitude supported prospecting yields a bit more than half this number for successful prediction (see Forrest et al 2010).
Snr. Specialist, Non-seismic Geophysics Antony Price
TotalEnergies
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: What’s the problem with CSEM?, August 2022, Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
DOI: 10.1190/image2022-3739471.1.
You can read the full text:
Resources
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
