TUTORIAL

A rendezvous with controlled source electromagnetics (CSEM)

The seismic method is the best-known technology when it comes to oil and gas exploration. The interpretation
results help to decide the prospective locations for drilling hydrocarbon targets based on the range of
geological probability of success. However, like any other method, the seismic method also has some
limitations. There comes the CSEM method for rescue, which is based on entirely different physics. This is not
the first time a technology based on different physics is used. For example, gravity and magnetics which have
been used for ages, but the utility is only in the reconnaissance survey and depth to the basement. On the
other hand, the usage of CSEM has a wide spectrum. This technique can be used
GEOHORIZONS, anywhere from
April 2022
© SPG India. All rights reserved.
reconnaissance to 4D seismic to the new kid on the block, i.e., CO2 monitoring.
So why such a promising technique does not find its way into the workflow of oil companies as a routine? Let
us discuss the pros and cons of this technique, but a bit of physics first.
One of the first things which should be noted is that this technique is neither new nor has the capability to
replace seismic. Previously known as seabed logging, this technique complements seismic very well and hits
the seismic where it hurts the most, i.e., fizz gas. Even a small amount of gas in the reservoir can generate a
huge amplitude anomaly on the seismic, which is not the case with CSEM. Unless the reservoir is saturated
with over 60-70% hydrocarbon, no significant CSEM anomaly will be generated. Figure 1 by Hesthammer et
al., 2010, explains this phenomenon.

Figure 1: The change in acoustic impedance and resistivity as a function of the change in hydrocarbon saturation.
(Hesthammer et al., 2010)

The seismic method is based on sound waves, whereas, as the name suggests, CSEM is based on
electromagnetic (EM) waves and depends heavily on the Maxwell equations. The technology is a remote
resistivity sensing method that exploits the fact that hydrocarbons are electric insulators, and consequently,
the hydrocarbon-filled reservoirs are normally more resistive than surrounding water-filled sediments. This
approach uses an electromagnetic-sounding method that exploits the resistivity differences between a
reservoir containing highly resistive hydrocarbons and one saturated with conductive saline fluids. This

- Cont’d

GEOHORIZONS, November 2023

© SPG India. All rights reserved.
120
 TUTORIAL

frequency domain CSEM sounding provides the existence or otherwise of hydrocarbon-bearing layers that
can be determined, and their lateral extent and boundaries can be quantified. Such information provides
valuable complementary constraints, i.e., complements seismic on reservoir geometry and characteristics
obtained by seismic surveying.
History
Professor Chip Cox of Scripps Institution in California is hailed as the first person, along with his team, to have
initially developed the first marine source and receiver systems in the 1970s to investigate volcanic fluid
systems in the crust and mantle. The potential of electromagnetics as a geophysical tool has been known to
mankind since the early eighties when Exxon saw the potential for hydrocarbon exploration and filed a patent
for this technology for oil and gas in 1981; however, the commercialization of EM as CSEM only started with
a ‘proof of concept’ cruise in November 2000. This history is well documented (Whaley, 2008; Cooper and
MacGregor, 2020. A CSEM survey in offshore Angola in the year 2000 was funded by Statoil (now Equinor).
Such a survey requires a source and a receiver (like any other survey); however, in this case, the receivers came
from Scripps (California) and the CSEM source utilized was developed by the team at Cambridge University
(UK). This survey campaign was led by Professor Martin Sinha and Dr. Lucy MacGregor, with geoscientists from
Statoil, researchers from the University of Southampton (Cambridge), and Scripps Institute of Technology, all
of whom had been researching different aspects of the technology. The target was to locate a hydrocarbon
reservoir using CSEM, and the campaign was successful in locating it.
After the successful completion of this survey campaign, the Norwegian team founded Electro-Magnetic
GeoServices (emgs), the Southampton University (Cambridge) team formed Offshore Hydrocarbon Mapping
(OHM), and Scripps collaborated with AOA geophysics to form AGO (later sold to SLB’s WesternGeco). PGS
acquired the University of Edinburgh spin-out MTEM, along with its marine EM technology, and developed
this into a new CSEM system in which both the source and receivers are towed behind survey vessel (like
seismic acquisition). This was quite an innovative development since Chip Cox’s original surveys (1970), which
allowed high-quality marine CSEM data acquisition.
Basics
The propagation and attenuation characteristics of low-frequency electromagnetic (EM) signals in a
conductive environment can be elucidated through formulas derived from classical Maxwell's equations. These
formulas reveal that the velocity and dampening of such signals depend on two primary factors, namely, the
resistivity of the medium and the frequency of the EM signal. When examining a specific frequency, a reservoir
filled with high-resistivity hydrocarbons will manifest as a significant positive electric impedance contrast,
thereby causing both reflections and refractions.
Like seismic waves, which exhibit distinct behaviours as SH (shear horizontal component) and SV (shear vertical
component) modes in layered sediments, EM waves also exhibit specific transverse magnetic (TM) transverse
electric (TE) modes. Like their seismic counterparts, these modes display unique responses in various scenarios.

- Cont’d

GEOHORIZONS, November 2023

© SPG India. All rights reserved. 121
 TUTORIAL

Furthermore, TE and TM modes react differently when encountering a resistive layer, such as a hydrocarbon-
filled reservoir. This distinctive response is harnessed in the processing and interpretation of CSEM data. Like
any other technology, CSEM also has certain advantages and certain limitations, which are listed in Table 1.
Table-1: Benefits and limitations of CSEM technology

BENEFITS: LIMITATIONS:
The technology has following The technology has two big limitations.
advantages: 1. Applicable only in marine environments and
1. De-risking prospects due to its not onland. Though, transient domain EM
ability to distinguish between (TDEM) is used exclusively for onland
the brine and hydrocarbon environments.
saturated reservoirs. 2. Since carbonate reservoirs are high in
2. Different physics (resistivity) resistivity, separating the background
complements seismic (velocity resistivity (carbonate matrix) from the
and density). oil/gas resistivity becomes difficult. So, only
applicable to the clastic depositional
environment.

Methodology
Marine electromagnetic surveying uses the same principles as formation evaluation to map resistivity in the
subsurface. Crystalline and volcanic rocks primarily derive their resistivity from the matrix, while a combination
of porosity, tortuosity, and the resistivity of the pore fluid influences sedimentary rock resistivity. Oil and gas
are predominantly highly resistive when contrasted with background or brine-filled sediments and exhibit a
resistivity anomaly that can be mapped using the EM method. This provides a rare insight when integrated
with seismic and/or well data.
Unlike seismic API, CSEM has AIII (Acquisition, Inversion, Interpretation, and Integration). Secondly, the CSEM
acquisition is done mostly along the 2D seismic lines or 3D prime/infill lines. This has the unique advantage
of co-rendering the seismic and CSEM resistivity information together as part of the integration of data sets.
A strong amplitude anomaly on seismic and a strong/weak anomaly on CSEM enhances/reduces the chance
of success of a costly well many times.
CSEM and MT data acquisition

Before going for acquisition, a feasibility modelling is done considering the expected resistivity, size, thickness,
and burial depth of the reservoir. The 2D/3D EM acquisition vessels are built for purpose and can handle a
large number of receivers. The frequency spectrum is customised for each survey, and the sources can
- Cont’d

122
GEOHORIZONS, November 2023
© SPG India. All rights reserved.
 TUTORIAL

illuminate hydrocarbon targets through more than 3.5 km of rock (3.5 km from mudline) at water depths down
to 3.5 km. EMGS’s new source, “deep blue”, claims for even deeper penetration (Figure 2).

Figure 2: CSEM and MT acquisition with depth tolerances. (Joshi et al., 2015)

CSEM, along with MT data, can be acquired in both 2D and 3D survey geometries with the laying of the
receivers on the seabed (like OBC) and towing the source behind the vessel a few meters below the water (like
seismic). The source is a horizontal electric dipole (HED) that transmits a discrete EM signal frequency to the
array of seafloor receivers. The receiver has four antennas on four sides for recording two orthogonal
components of the horizontal electric field at the seafloor. At the bottom of the receiver is a heavy
biodegradable base, and both the receiver and base, tied with a special rope, are dropped in water (free fall).
Because of the free fall, there is no control over placing the receiver at its designated position on the seabed
(unlike OBC nodes placed accurately by ROV). Hence, a tolerance area (which depends on water depth), say a
square area of two (2) meters by two (2) meters, is defined. If the receiver lands anywhere within this square,
then fine; otherwise, the receiver is pulled up to the vessel and dropped again until it lands within that square.
Once the survey is over, an acoustic pulse is given from the vessel, and the special arrangement in the rope
burns it, leaving the biodegradable base at the bottom and the receiver floating to the surface of the water
due to its buoyant design.
The magneto telluric (MT) data is very low-frequency and recorded concurrently with the CSEM; however, the
MT source is not controlled but natural. The receivers are left at the bottom of the sea for a few days for the
MT recording. Those years when the solar activity is high are the best years for MT data acquisition.
The 2D layouts are like seismic, typically applied in frontier basins, and frequently acquired as long regional
lines, mostly along existing 2D seismic lines. In 3D full-azimuth CSEM data, a receiver grid is laid out on the
seabed before the source is towed over the grid. This allows to register signals for various azimuth angles with
high data coverage. Such an acquisition provides improved depth and spatial resolution of the resistivity
distribution in the subsurface and provides higher confidence in anomaly interpretation. The variation in the
amplitude and phase of the received signal as the source is towed through the array of receivers can be used
to determine subseafloor resistivity structure at scales that range from a few tens of meters to several
kilometres. - Cont’d
GEOHORIZONS, November 2023
© SPG India. All rights reserved. 123
 TUTORIAL

CSEM, MT and joint inversion

The CSEM inversion is a standard tool to reconstruct the subsurface resistivity distribution that explains the
CSEM data and its geological meaning for regional exploration, prospect evaluation, reservoir characterization,
structural imaging, etc. while accounting for VTI and TTI anisotropy in the subsurface. It can integrate seismic
and well-log data into imaging workflow and has flexibility for applying different types of regularization and
constraints available as a priori information. The inversion results are delivered in SEG-Y format for easy
integration with other geophysical and geological data.
Similar to CSEM, MT data is also subjected to inversion; however, being very low-frequency data, its usage in
locating hydrocarbon is much less. It is well-suited for mapping and interpreting regional geology, salt/basalt
settings, depth to basement/deepest layer/boundary and crustal understandings. Both MT and CSEM possess
distinct sensitivity patterns and varying depths of penetration. Joint inversion leverages the complementary
nature of these data sets and produces comprehensive subsurface resistivity images, particularly in
geologically complex settings.
Interpretation and integration
As with any analytical method, CSEM surveys are susceptible to yielding a range of outcomes, including true
positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives. Among these outcomes, the true negative result,
i.e., “absence of CSEM anomaly meaning the absence of hydrocarbon”, is the most dependant and
exceptionally valuable conclusion that CSEM can provide, saving millions of dollars. CSEM data is sensitive to
resistivity, which is a very independent earth property because the physics behind the propagation of EM
fields is quite different. Unlike the seismic and gravity data, which share a common property (density), seismic
and CSEM do not have anything in common; however, there is a huge unity within this diversity i.e., they
complement each other to get a complete picture.
Integration of the data has already shown its mettle in the entire value chain, from frontier exploration (wildcat
well) to development fields (reservoir extent and volumes), which helps in making an informed choice about
exploration/appraisal/development well placement. (Chakraborty and Joshi, 2016).
Usage of CSEM and MT data
CSEM has applications in all stages of the upstream value chain. Out of the three (3) elements of the petroleum
system, seismic is most suited for trap identification but not so for reservoir fluids. Well logs are very good at
detecting fluids and mineralogy but heavily under-sampled. CSEM can detect fluids and can integrate with
seismic and well logs for a complete subsurface picture. (Table 2). The usage of CSEM is in a wide array of oil
and gas value chains. A brief snippet of these is given below.
Reservoir detection and de-risking- Because of resistive hydrocarbon and conductive brine solutions, CSEM
data can distinguish between hydrocarbon versus brine-filled reservoirs. The Hesthammer et al. (2010) concept
of over 60-70% hydrocarbon saturation for generating significant CSEM anomaly helps de-risk AVO and
seismic amplitude-driven prospects/drilling targets. Integration can find the actual volume of saturated
reservoir rock, resulting in better hydrocarbon volume estimates, further de-risking the target (Joshi et al.,
2015). - Cont’d

GEOHORIZONS, November 2023

© SPG India. All rights reserved. 124
 TUTORIAL

Table 2: Capabilities of various data sets in prospect evaluation.

CSEM Seismic Well

Data

Imaging structure X Yes X

Detecting fluids Yes X Yes

Determining X X Yes
mineralogy

What may go wrong? Measures AVO and amplitude anomalies may Severely
resistivity, not be due to lithology variations. (DHI under-
hydrocarbons. issues). Saturation is difficult to sampled
determine mostly. laterally.

Geobody characterization, volumetrics, and PoS/CoS- In the prolific clastic basins like the Kutai basin
(Indonesia), where ENI recently made a five (5) tcf gas discovery, the main challenge before drilling is size
quantification. Provided the reservoir is in the detection range of CSEM, the inverted results can accurately
estimate the areal extent of the geo-body and accordingly estimate PoS/CoS (Joshi et al., 2016 and Joshi et
al., 2017). Basin floor fans, which are more resistive than their surrounding shale, are particularly well suited
for geobody detection by CSEM. (Chan et al., 2016).
The major factors in the uncertainty of volume are (1) the areal extent and (2) net thickness. Interestingly,
CSEM data is inherently sensitive to these two parameters and hence well placed to estimate the volumes
better and predict PoS/CoS. (Baltar and Roth, 2013). To embed 3D CSEM in an evaluation workflow, a set
approach is followed, elaborated in length by Baltar et al., 2015.
Appraisal, 4D and CO2 monitoring-The first movers with CSEM data acquisition, especially in the Barents Sea
and the Gulf of Mexico, are investing in CSEM for appraisal well planning, e.g., Pingvin discovery in Bjørnøya
Basin, Barents Sea (Baltar et.al., 2015). Another usage of CSEM is 4D. Time-lapse CSEM enables monitoring of
the changes in reservoir saturation, highlighting undrained compartments and providing data for the operator
to make informed decisions. Finally, CO2 monitoring, the new kid on the block. CO2 is resistive and hence can,
therefore, be used to monitor the injection and increase in saturation of CO2 in the reservoir used for
CO2 storage.

- Cont’d

GEOHORIZONS, November 2023

© SPG India. All rights reserved. 125
 TUTORIAL

Endpoint
Resistivity is an important rock property for hydrocarbon exploration since hydrocarbon-charged reservoirs
are characterized by high resistivity. Furthermore, structures that can be difficult to image reliably with seismic,
like salt, basalt, and basement, are typically associated with a high resistivity contrast, making EM methods an
excellent complementary measurement to seismic for structural imaging and geological model building. EM
methods are widely used in the onshore mining industry and are expected to play a leading role in the
emerging marine hydrocarbon exploration industry.
CSEM is a proven technology that should be routinely considered to help solve certain classes of exploration
and production challenges, especially when seismic data alone cannot provide a satisfactory answer. In areas
where seismic data already exists, CSEM data can be added to provide additional information that helps define
the presence and quality of hydrocarbons. In such areas, CSEM and legacy seismic data may be more cost-
effective than new seismic data acquisition and may offer a lower environmental footprint.
References
1. Baltar, D. and F. Roth, 2013. Reserves estimation methods for prospect evaluation with 3D CSEM data, First Break,
31(6), 103-111.
2. Baltar, D., N. Barker, R. Joshi, and F. Roth, 2015. Improved volumetric calculation with 3D CSEM, SPG: 11th Biennial
International Conference & Exposition, Jaipur (India)
3. Baltar, D., N. Barker, R. Joshi, and F. Roth,2015. Improving Prospect Volume Assessments with 3D CSEM, Asia
Petroleum Geoscience Conference and Exhibition, Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia).
4. Chan, M.A.C.M., R. M. Joshi, N. J. A. Muhamad, and S. Chakraborty, 2016. CSEM Method in the Deepwater Plays
of the Kutai Basin, presented at AAPG Asia Pacific Region, Geosciences Technology Workshop, Characterization
of Asian Hydrocarbon Reservoirs, Bangkok (Thailand).
5. Chakraborty, S., and R. M. Joshi, 2016, CSEM in today's market conditions: How it can help spend less and extract
more, presented at AAPG Asia Pacific Region, Geosciences Technology Workshop, Characterization of Asian
Hydrocarbon Reservoirs, Bangkok, (Thailand).
6. Cooper, R., and L. MacGregor, 2020, Renewed interest in CSEM in oil and gas exploration, Geo ExPro, November
issue,1-7 available at https://geoexpro.com/renewed-interest-in-csem-in-oil-and-gas-exploration/.
7. Hesthammer, J., A. Stefatos, M. Boulaenko and S. Fanavoll, 2010, CSEM performance in light of well results, The
Leading Edge, 29(1), 34-41. https://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.3284051.
8. Joshi, R. M., A. Hernandianto and A. Flipov, 2015. Utilizing the Controlled Source ElectroMagnetic (CSEM) method
for de-risking exploration in deepwater plays of the Kutai Basin, Proceedings, Indonesian Petroleum Association,
Thirty-Ninth Annual Convention & Exhibition, Jakarta (Indonesia).

- Cont’d

GEOHORIZONS, November 2023

© SPG India. All rights reserved. 126
 TUTORIAL

References (Cont’d)
8. Joshi, R. M., S. Chakraborty, R. D. Ibinga, A. K. William and L. L. Uri, 2016. Mapping un-explored resistive geo-
bodies using 3D CSEM technology: A Case study of CSEM geo-body characterization from Rapak-Ganal area in
Kutai basin, Makassar Strait, Indonesia, Proceedings, Indonesian Petroleum Association, Fortieth Annual
Convention & Exhibition, Jakarta (Indonesia).
9. Joshi, R. M. S. Chakraborty, R. Dilindi and L. L. Uri, 2017. How CSEM based volumetrics can be used in regional
understanding of field size distribution, presented at the AAPG/EAGE/MGS 3rd Oil & Gas Conference, Yangon
(Myanmar).
10. Whaley, J., 2008. CSEM continues to stride forward, Geo ExPro, April issue, 30-32, available at
https://archives.datapages.com/data/geo-expro-magazine/005/005002/pdfs/30.htm.

Dr. Ritesh Mohan Joshi, an exploration geophysicist, holds Ph. D. degree from IIT Bombay and a master’s
degree (M. Tech.), from IIT Roorkee (India). He is currently working for Oil India Ltd. as DGM (Geophysics).
Dr. Joshi is an expert in CSEM data analysis, interpretation, and integration. His experience in CSEM comes
from his association with one of the pioneers in EM services (M/s EMGS Asia Pacific, Malaysia), where in the
capacity of ‘Exploration Advisor (Asia-Pacific), he was involved with various CSEM surveys across the globe,
including but not limited to Barents Sea (Norway), North-West Shelf-Carnarvon basin (Australia), Taranaki
Basin (New Zealand), Kutai Basin & Makassar Strait (Indonesia), Sabah and Sarawak Basins (Malaysia),
Andaman Basin (Thailand), Gulf of Mexico (both USA and Mexico), KG Basin (India), Brunei offshore,
Myanmar offshore and offshore West Africa. As an interpreter and integrator of CSEM with various other
geoscientific datasets, Dr. Joshi extracted value and helped clients generate / save money by upgrading /
downgrading the released location for exploratory / appraisal / development drilling for hydrocarbons.

GEOHORIZONS, November 2023

© SPG India. All rights reserved. 127