Reservoir properties prediction integrating controlled-source electromagnetic, prestack seismic, and well-log data using a rock-physics framework: Case study in the Hoop Area, Barents Sea, Norway

We have developed an example from the Hoop Area of the Barents Sea showing a sequential quantitative integration approach to integrate seismic and controlled-source electromagnetic (CSEM) attributes using a rock-physics framework. The example illustrates a workflow to address the challenges of multiphysics and multiscale data integration for reservoir characterization purposes. A data set consisting of 2D GeoStreamer seismic and towed streamer electromagnetic data that were acquired concurrently in 2015 by PGS provide the surface geophysical measurements that we used. Two wells in the area - Wisting Central (7324/8-1) and Wisting Alternative (7324/7-1S) - provide calibration for the rock-physics modeling and the quantitative integrated analysis. In the first stage of the analysis, we invert prestack seismic and CSEM data separately for impedance and anisotropic resistivity, respectively. We then apply the multi-attribute rotation scheme (MARS) to estimate rock properties from seismic data. This analysis verified that the seismic data alone cannot distinguish between commercial and noncommercial hydrocarbon saturation. Therefore, in the final stage of the analysis, we invert the seismic and CSEM-derived properties within a rock-physics framework. The inclusion of the CSEM-derived resistivity information within the inversion approach allows for the separation of these two possible scenarios. Results reveal excellent correlation with known well outcomes. The integration of seismic, CSEM, and well data predicts very high hydrocarbon saturations at Wisting Central and no significant saturation at Wisting Alternative, consistent with the findings of each well. Two further wells were drilled in the area and used as blind tests in this case: The slightly lower saturation predicted at Hanssen (7324/7-2) is related to 3D effects in the CSEM data, but the positive outcome of the well is correctly predicted. At Bjaaland (7324/8-2), although the seismic indications are good, the integrated interpretation result predicts correctly that this well was unsuccessful.