A force to be reckoned with

Leon Walker is CEO of Multi-Transient Electro-Magnetic (MTEM). He spent over 15 years’ in senior management at Schlumberger before leaving in 2003 to apply his skills and expertise to founding MTEM. Here he talks to O&G about the impact electro-magnetic surveying techniques are having on the industry.

O&G. What impact are electro-magnetic (EM) surveying techniques having on driving more efficient extraction and to identify potential new sites?

LW. EM is establishing itself as a successful technology in exploration, and as the understanding of its capabilities is recognized it will become a tool for reservoir development and monitoring. CSEM, or seabed logging, has established itself in deep water as an insurance policy against drilling dry wells, and there is certainly a large market there. However, the development applications are more widespread and also will require more than just gross resistivity identification. The new sites you ask about are going to be bypassed pay and reservoir extensions.

O&G. What limitations or challenges still exist in making the most of this surveying – for example, in terms of type and quality of data generated or how it is used?

LW. Any new technology has to satisfy two groups before it becomes broadly accepted. First is the technical community. EM is not new and because it has been around for a long time there have been many variants. This has led to a lot of false trails and dubious claims about EM methods that have held back its adoption and development. Geophysical activity has also been dominated by seismic, and as a result there is a relatively small ‘non-seismic geophysics’ community to validate this new technology. Furthermore, we are still in early days of development and the rapid progress being made by the contractors is extending the capabilities and therefore the applications for the method. This moving target makes it even more difficult for the technical client community to make judgments on the methods.

The second group is the commercial decision-makers. Quite rightly, they want to see case studies where real commercial value is being derived from the method. The case studies are being delivered now and more validation will draw the method into broader applications. Of course, we contractors always ask ourselves why there are not more early adopters, but ‘the client knows best’!

I would also add the need for interpreters to embrace EM data. We understand the physics of MTEM, we can acquire, process and invert the data, but it still comes down to the interpreter in the end. We want to work with that community to make sure we understand their needs and they understand our data.

O&G. What are the potential costs (both financial and otherwise) of not properly addressing these issues?

LW. Just as with any new technology, there are two dangers. The first is that because of the number of gatekeepers the take-up will be so slow that the investment by the financial community will not be there. The oil business is notoriously slow at taking up new technologies, despite it being a very technological business. Currently, with high oil prices, the investors are there, but they do have limited patience, of course. The second, and more dangerous, is that the take-up will be too quick and the technology applied in a haphazard way. My company is very careful to work with clients on the feasibility and design of specific surveys and applications. We do a lot of desktop modeling and site visits (on land) before we commit that a survey will be successful.

O&G. How is your own company helping to address some of these challenges and needs?

LW. First, as I said we are very careful not to over commit ourselves. Second, in our first two years, the focus has been on building the equipment, the crews and the inversion software. With good teams and processes in place, we can now turn our attention to building up our G&DG expertise. We are recruiting experienced interpreters who talk the client’s language.

O&G. What do you hope to achieve in the future – do you have any plans or strategies in place to advance your offerings and capabilities further?

LW. I see MTEM as a possible solution to a large range of problems. For example, there are many areas of the world where land seismic is very costly because of the numbers of geophones and complexity of the sources. In such circumstances, MTEM may be able to augment seismic or perhaps be used as a pre-cursor. Then there are mature basins such as the North Sea where there is a need to locate and produce reserves from exiting infrastructure. Bypassed pockets of hydrocarbons will be the target here. Our continued Product Development effort will be on improving the depth of investigation and resolution, whilst keeping productivity at acceptable levels.

There is also certainly the possibility of 4D MTEM. As I said earlier, the MTEM response depends on the saturation and that changes rapidly as the hydrocarbons are produced. Perhaps one day we will see permanent installations of MTEM cables on the ocean bottom above the reservoir. I am pleased to say the British Government is funding a research project into just this.

Oh, and one more thing. Our technique is currently 2D. I don’t see why we won’t move to 3D to offer even better solutions. Seismic did it and the EM industry will follow suit.