GeoExplo

Ltda.

Geophysical Airborne Survey

Efficacy of the SRM/MBS Method

Santiago Chile

Ecacy of the SRM/MBS Approach for Analyzing

Intra-Sedimentary Magnetic Anomalies
Abstract
Magnetic methods have long been
used to assist in the analysis of a
prospective sedimentary basins in
terms of the overall size, shape and
structure. Less frequently has
magnetic data been used for "pin
pointing" hydrocarbon
concentrations. The SRM/MBS
method, as developed by Robert
Foote, provides a tool for reducing
exploration risk by providing direct
targeting information. The method's
ecacy has been demonstrated by
statistical methods; however, the
scientic basis on which this method
is based needs to be examined. The
method depends on the magnetic
properties of the rocks in the
sedimentary section being changed
by the presence of hydrocarbons at
depth and that these changes will
produce magnetic anomalies that are
distinguishable from anomalies
produced by the magnetic basement
and other eects. These two criteria
are met in the real world and thus
the SRM/MBS method has potential.
Using the SRM/MBS method, as part
of an exploration program, has the
potential of reducing risk by focusing
on areas where there is a higher
probability of hydrocarbon
concentration.

Table of Contents
Introduction
Changes in Magnetic Character
within the Sediments above PetroReserves
Background on Magnetic Methods
The Sedimentary Residual
Magnetic (SRM) Anomaly and
Magnetic Bright Spot (MBS)
Method
Conclusions
References

Introduction
The Sedimentary Residual Magnetic (SRM) anomaly and Magnetic Bright Spot
(MBS) is demonstrated, in a number of papers and articles by Robert Foote.
Through statistical analysis of the success rate of using Sedimentary Residual
Magnetic (SRM) anomalies to focus exploration Foote has presented a
compelling case, to develop condence in this method we must look at the
science that it is based on. The SRM method depends on two points;
1. The magnetic properties of the rocks in the sedimentary
section may be changed by the presence of hydrocarbons
at depth and
2. Changes in sedimentary magnetic properties result in
magnetic eld changes that are detectable and
distinguishable from the magnetic eld anomalies
produced by magnetic basement and other eects.

Changes in Magnetic Character within the

Sediments above Petro-Reserves
Of particular interest here is the production or enhancement of magnetic
minerals in the shallow sedimentary package above concentrations of trapped
hydrocarbons. The underlying assumption is that hydrocarbons are generated
and/or trapped at depth and leak in varying quantities to the surface and
produce, through geochemical interaction, magnetic minerals in the sediments.
The existence of seeps has long been established as fact (Horvitz, 1939, 1985;
Jones and Drozd, 1983; Price, 1986). Enrichment of magnetic mineralization due
to hydrocarbon migration (Foote, R. S., 1996, Machel, H.G., 1996) is also a well
know phenomenon.
Bacteria and other microbes play a profound role in the oxidation of migrating
hydrocarbons. Their activities are directly or indirectly responsible for many of
the diverse surface manifestations of petroleum seepage. These activities,
coupled with long-term migration of hydrocarbons, lead to the development of
near-surface oxidation-reduction zones that favor the formation of hydrocarboninduced chemical and mineralogical changes. This seep-induced alteration eect
has led to the development of a varied number of geochemical exploration
techniques. Some detect hydrocarbons directly in surface and seaoor samples,
others detect seep-related microbial activity, and still others measure the
secondary eects of hydrocarbon-induced alteration using magnetic techniques
(Schumacher, 1996; Saunders et al., 1999). The gure 1 (below) shows a
generalized model of hydrocarbon microseepage and hydrocarbon-induced
eects in the sedimentary .

Figure 1: Generalized model of hydrocarbon microseepage and

hydrocarbon-induced eects in the sedimentary.
The Magnetic anomaly zone is at some depth below the surface and thus is
closer to the source and less susceptible to distortion and side seep caused my
irregularities in the sedimentary package. This provides an advantage over other
surface geochemical techniques as the anomalies will be more focused and
therefore more easily related to the hydrocarbons below. The gure 2 illustrates
a number of mechanisms for seeps. The stratagraphic model oers the simplest
interpretation of the results as the hydrocarbon source lies directly below
alteration zone.

Figure 2: Mechanisms for seeps

The presence of magnetic materialization has been observed in drill results with
direct correlation with producing well and negative correlation with dry wells
(Foote, R. S., 1996) Thus we can expect magnetic material to overly
hydrocarbons trapped at depth. The question remains can one detect these
concentrations with some degree of condence using magnetic survey
techniques?

Background on Magnetic Methods

The earth has a magnetic eld and we can think of this as if the earth had inside
it a simple "bar magnet" aligned to produce a north and south pole. If we
remember playing with magnets as a child we will recall how iron lings would
line up in lines emanating from one pole of the magnet and returning in the
other. In a perfect earth we can imagine these lines passing uniformly from the
earth's north pole to the south pole. In any one place the eld lines would enter
into or emanate from the earth at some angle (know as magnetic inclination)
with uniform line density. Magnetometers eectively measure the density of the
magnetic eld lines at any point and we call this measurement the magnetic eld
strength. If the earth were of one homogeneous material the magnetic eld
strength (eld line density) would vary smoothly, diminishing towards the
magnetic equator (remember the bar magnet eld lines) to a value about half
that at the poles.

The earth is, however, non-homogeneous. In addition there are a group of

minerals, particularly those containing iron or nickel, that have a special
property (known as magnetic susceptibility) that allows the magnetic eld to
pass through them more easily than free space or other material. These minerals
are called magnetic minerals. A concentration of these magnetic minerals forms
a place where the magnetic eld can pass more easily and thus the eld lines
"crowd in" to take advantage of the easy passage. This has the eect of
increasing the eld line density over those areas of concentration of magnetic
material. If a magnetometer is used to measure the eld strength along a line
crossing one of these areas of concentration one would observe an increase in
eld strength (higher eld line density due to "crowding") over the zone of
increased magnetic mineralization. Thus producing a "magnetic anomaly".
Rocks and sediments have varying amounts of magnetic minerals in them. In
broad terms igneous and metamorphic rocks (basement rocks) have higher
magnetic mineral concentrations then sediments. Thus one would expect and
indeed we observe that the largest "magnetic anomalies" over sedimentary basin
originate from the variations in magnetic mineral content in the basement rocks.
These anomalies can be tens or even hundreds of times greater than those that
might be produced by magnetic mineral concentrations in the overlying
sediments.
At this point one asks "how can we, rst identify relatively small intrasedimentary magnetic anomalies in a "jumble" of much stronger basement
originating anomalies and second on what basis do we separate the two types of
anomalies"?
The physical properties of the behavior of magnetic elds provided the solution.
As you move away from a concentration of magnetic material the concentrating
eect on the magnetic eld lines diminishes and the lines move further apart
thus producing a weaker eect. Depending on the shape of the magnetic body
this can be anywhere between a linear decrease for a half space shaped
concentration (i.e. if you double the distance between the magnetometer sensor
and the source, you half the intensity to a anomalous eect) to a cubic
relationship for relatively small sphere shaped bodies (i.e. If you double the
distance you diminish the anomalous eld strength by eight times). In practice
the factor is usually between 1/d2 and 1/d2.5 (where d is the change in distance)
so deeper sources will produce weaker magnetic anomalies. More important,
this eect results in a change in the overall shape of the anomalies with deeper
sources producing broader shaped anomalies than the anomalies produced by
shallower sources (see gure 3). In geophysical jargon we say that the deeper
magnetic bodies produce anomalies of a longer wavelength than shallower ones.

Figure 3: Cartoon illustrating the shapes of anomalies caused by deep

and shallow sources
Methods have been developed for distinguishing and separating the magnetic
anomalies cause by deep sources from those originating in the sedimentary
section. These methods are based on analyzing the wavelength (atness/shape)
of the magnetic anomalies and using ltering (linear) and non-linear methods to
separate the "shallow" anomalies from the "deeper" ones.
Frequency Domain ltering techniques have been used (Hopkins,R , and
Urquhart W.E.S. ,1990) and perfected for many years to separated and enhance
dierent aspects of magnetic anomaly data. Using these techniques one can
remove the eect of deeper sourced magnetic anomalies leaving the near
surface intra-sedimentary anomalies.
Once the shallow (high frequency - short wavelength) anomalies have been
isolated they can be studied and categorized. There are many qualitative
methods to do this most involving some sort of map presentation. The
SRM/MBS method as developed by Robert Foote analyses the data in a
quantitative way and is thus a more sound and repeatable method of exploration.

The Sedimentary Residual Magnetic (SRM)

Anomaly and Magnetic Bright Spot (MBS) Method
In this approach a method for the removal of the "basement-caused" variations
in the magnetic data is developed, which allows the "basement-removed" prole
to be presented as an approximate horizontal line at the vertical scale of
1.0nT/inch without data averaging. Anomalous regions along a prole line are
dened as the Sedimentary Residual Magnetic (SRM) anomalies. Anomalous
regions are then identied by the clustering of line-to-line SRM anomalies.
These SRM anomalous regions existing over two or more adjacent lines develop
the Magnetic Bright Spot (MBS)
The MBS anomalies vary in size and intensity. A formula (quantitative approach)
is developed to provide for classication of the MBS anomalies into (8) intensity
levels, which is the nal rating. The Anomalies are corrected for sea depth and
normalized to a water depth or 2000ft. The nal rating is then used to prioritize
exploration planning.
A number of articles and papers ( Foote, R. 1992, 1996, Rose and Associates,
2003) have been written demonstrating the ecacy of the SRM/MBS technique
based on statistical analysis relating to the correlation of Magnetic Bright Spot
(MBS) anomalies and producing wells and perhaps more importantly the
negative correlation between MBS and non-producing and dry wells as well as
non-producing areas.
The Rose and Associates independent study of MBS results in the Gulf of Mexico
found:
"Based solely on prospect, discovery and MBS anomaly
counts, there is a signicantly higher actual success
rate for drilled prospects associated with MBS
anomalies than for prospects where no MBS anomaly is
evident. Three hundred seventy eight (378) drilled
prospects where identied in the study area. The
results are characterized either as discoveries or dry
holes."
The following table summarizes the results.
MBS anomalies are evident on 56% of the discoveries. The critical factor to note
is that 97% of the MBS anomalies are associated with discoveries. This is over
twice the 41% success rate for discoveries without MBS anomalies. Clearly
there is statistical validity to the process.

Conclusions
The two points, on which the Sedimentary Residual Magnetic (SRM) anomaly
and Magnetic Bright Spot (MBS) method is based:
1. Evidence that the magnetic properties of the rocks in the
sedimentary section might be changed by the presence of
hydrocarbons at depth,
2. Whether these changes in magnetic properties will result
in magnetic eld changes that are detectable and
distinguishable from the magnetic eld anomalies
produced by magnetic basement and other eects,have
been examined and there is validity in both
The statistical analysis over existing elds demonstrated the ecacy of the
SRM/MBS technique. Thus there is basis in science for the approach. The test
studies show that in practice the method will enhance the success rate of an
exploration program where the SRM/MBS method in incorporated into the
methodology.

References
Foote, R. S., 1996, Relationship of near-surface magnetic anomalies to oil- and
gas-producing areas, in D. Schumacher and M. A. Abrams, eds., Hydrocarbon
Migration and Its Near-Surface Expression: AAPG Memoir 66, p. 111-126.
Hopkins,R , and Urquhart W.E.S. ,1990 Enhancement and interpretation of
aeromagnetic data from the Beaufort Sea, Mackenzie Delta Region:" 60th Ann.
Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, 677-680.
Horvitz, L., 1939, On geochemical prospecting: Geophysics, vol. 4, p. 210-228.
Horvitz, L., 1969, Hydrocarbon prospecting after thirty years, in W.B. Heroy,
ed., Unconventional Methods in Exploration for Petroleum and Natural Gas:
Dallas, Southern Methodist Univ. Press, p. 205-218.
Machel, H.G., 1996, Magnetic contrasts as a result of hydrocarbon seepage
and migration, in D. Schumacher and M.A. Abrams, eds., Hydrocarbon Migration
and Its Near-Surface Expression: AAPG Memoir 66, p. 99-109.
Ross and Associates, 2003, Gulf of Mexico Study in Cs Solutions SRM/MBS
Technology Information Book.
Saunders, D.F., K.R. Burson, J.J. Brown, and C.K. Thompson, 1993,
Combined geological and surface geochemical methods discovered Agaritta and
Brady Creek elds, Concho County, Texas: AAPG Bulletin, vol. 77, p. 1219-1240.
Schumacher, D., 1996, Hydrocarbon-induced alteration of soils and sediments,
in D. Schumacher and M.A. Abrams, eds., Hydrocarbon Migration and Its
Near-Surface Expression: AAPG Memoir 66, p. 71-89.
Thrasher, J.A., D. Strait, and R.A. Lugo, 1996a, Surface geochemistry as an
exploration tool in the South Caribbean, in D. Schumacher and M.A. Abrams,
eds., Hydrocarbon Migration and Its Near-Surface Expression: AAPG Memoir 66,
p. 373-384.
Thrasher, J.A.,. Fleet, S.J. Hay, M. Hovland, and S. Duppenbecker, 1996b,
Understanding geology as the key to using seepage in exploration: the spectrum
of seepage styles, in D. Schumacher and M.A. Abrams, eds., Hydrocarbon
Migration and Its Near-Surface Expression: AAPG Memoir 66, p. 223-241