Three‐dimensional modelling of magnetotelluric data to image Sehqanat hydrocarbon reservoir in southwestern Iran

Abstract

A detailed magnetotelluric survey was conducted in 2013 in the Sehqanat oil field, southwestern Iran to map the geoelectrical structures of the sedimentary Zagros zone, particularly the boundary between the Gachsaran Formation acting as cap rock and the Asmari Formation as the reservoir. According to the electrical well logs, a large resistivity contrast exists between the two formations. The Gachsaran Formation is formed by tens to hundreds of metres of evaporites and it is highly conductive (ca. 1 Ωm–10 Ωm), and the Asmari Formation consists of dense carbonates, which are considerably more resistive (more than 100 Ωm). Broadband magnetotelluric data were collected along five southwest–northeast directed parallel lines with more than 600 stations crossing the main geological trend. Although dimensionality and strike analysis of the magnetotelluric transfer functions showed that overall they satisfied local 2D conditions, there were also strong 3D conditions found in some of the sites. Therefore, in order to obtain a more reliable image of the resistivity distribution in the Sehqanat oil field, in addition to standard 2D inversion, we investigated to what extent 3D inversion of the data was feasible and what improvements in the resistivity image could be obtained. The 2D inversion models using the determinant average of the impedance tensor depict the main resistivity structures well, whereas the estimated 3D model shows significantly more details although problems were encountered in fitting the data with the latter. Both approaches resolved the Gachsaran–Asmari transition from high conductivity to moderate conductivity. The well‐known Sehqanat anticline could also be delineated throughout the 2D and 3D resistivity models as a resistive dome‐shaped body in the middle parts of the magnetotelluric profiles.

Characterize Basin‐Scale Subsurface Using Rocket‐Triggered Lightning

“…Over the past decades, electrical magnetic (EM) surveys have been developed based on airborne, controlled‐source, or natural‐source methods (e.g., Magnetotellurics (MT) and Audio‐frequency MT (AMT)). They have been valuable tools for studying hydrogeological features such as wetlands (McLachlan et al., 2021), aquifers (Koganti et al., 2020; Korus, 2018), volcanoes and geothermal areas (Árnason et al., 2010), hydrocarbon reservoirs (He et al., 2010; Mansoori et al., 2016), ore deposits (Tuncer et al., 2006), salinity mapping (Cox et al., 2012), and fault systems (Tietze & Ritter, 2013). Generally, the artificial EM surveys are suitable for shallow depths and small areas, while the MT yields general locations of anomalies at depth with little detail.…”