PETROLEUM EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Volume 42, Issue 4, August 2015

Online English edition of the Chinese language journal

Cite this article as: PETROL. EXPLOR. DEVELOP., 2015, 42(4): 454–465. RESEARCH PAPER

Innovation and prospect of geophysical technology in the

exploration of deep oil and gas
SUN Longde1, FANG Chaoliang1, SA Liming1,*, YANG Ping2, SUN Zandong2
1. China National Petroleum Corporation, Beijing 100724, China;
2. Bureau of Geophysical Prospecting, CNPC, Zhuozhou 072750, China

Abstract: The global situation of distribution, reserves and production of deep oil and gas are examined systematically, the progress and
exploration achievement of onshore China deep geophysical technology are summarized, and the challenges and developing direction of
deep geophysical technology are pointed out. Aiming at the exploration of deep onshore strata in China, the article analyzes the key geo-
physical problems, such as low signal-to-noise ratio, low resolution, low imaging accuracy and low amplitude-preservation, in the explo-
ration of deep clastic, carbonate, and volcanic reservoirs, and presents the corresponding technical countermeasures such as wide-line
large-array 2-D acquisition, wide-azimuth and high-density 3-D acquisition, anisotropic pre-stack depth migration (PSDM), reverse-time
migration (RTM), complex structure modeling, and quantitative reservoir prediction. The analysis from two aspects, imaging of deep
complicated structures and prediction of deep complicated reservoirs, shows that wide-frequency, amplitude-preservation, high-accuracy
and information integration are the challenges to and key issues in the geophysical technology. It is pointed out that wide-frequency seis-
mic acquisition, rock physical modeling of complex reservoirs, high-accuracy prestack amplitude-preservation imaging, comprehensive
evaluation of complex reservoirs, non-seismic techniques, and drilling steering with seismic data are the key geophysical techniques
needed to be developed in the future.

Key words: geophysical technology; deep oil and gas exploration; deep complicated structure imaging; deep complicated reservoir prediction

Introduction
Formations between 4 500 m to 6 000 m in depth are often
referred to as “deep formations”, while formations more than
6 000 m deep are referred to as “ultra-deep formations”[1−3].
Due to high risks, high difficulties and high investments of the
oil and gas exploration in deep formations[4,5], it is crucial to
predict the location, scale and reservoir physical properties of
deep targets accurately before drilling, therefore, the explora-
tion of deep reservoirs depends more heavily and has higher
requirements on geophysical technologies than that of con-
ventional ones. Most of the major breakthroughs and
achievements in deep reservoir exploration made since 2000
are closely related to the advancements in seismic exploration
techniques[5,6]. This paper reviews these achievements and
discusses the challenges and the road ahead in the exploration
and development of deep oil and gas reservoirs.
1. Current situation of deep hydrocarbon
exploration and development
1.1. Global situation
The exploration history of deep-buried oil and gas reser-
voirs can be dated back to the 1950s[7]. In 1956, the first deep
gas reservoir (at a burial depth of 4 663 m) was found in the
Middle Ordovician Simpson carbonate rocks in Carter-Knox
gas field in the Anadarko basin, U.S.A[8]. Afterwards, along
with frequent breakthroughs in deep drilling and completion
technologies, the exploration started to move into deep reser-
voirs, and ultra-deep reservoirs (with a burial depth more than
9 000 m) constantly[3,9]. Kaskida oil & gas field on the coast
of the Gulf of Mexico is the deepest offshore sandstone gas
field discovered so far, with the target layer burying at 9 146
m deep below the sea level, it contains recoverable reserves
(oil equivalent) of close to 1×108t[2,10].
Global deep oil & gas exploration has achieved many im-
portant results[2,5−7,10]. Based on the latest information about
global deep oil & gas reservoirs, the distribution features of
global deep oil & gas was analyzed in detail by Bai and Cao[7].
In 349 oil-gas basins across the globe (excluding the lower 48
states in the U.S.A), 1595 deep oil & gas reservoirs more than
4 500 m in burial depth have been found in 87 basins[7]. The
proven and probable (2P) reserves of oil, gas and condensate
oil are 5 755×106 t, 10.08×1012 m3 and 1 383×106 t respec-

Received date: 26 Jan. 2015; Revised date: 30 Apr. 2015.

* Corresponding author. E-mail: yangpingbgp@126.com
Foundation item: Supported by the China National Science and Technology Major Project (2011ZX05001-002); the National Key Basic Research and Development
Program (973 Program), China (2009CB219304).
Copyright © 2015, Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development, PetroChina. Published by Elsevier BV. All rights reserved.
 SUN Longde et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2015, 42(4): 454–465
tively, equivalent to l 152.38×108 t of oil in total, accounting
for 37.8%, 53.1% and 9.1% of total 2P deep oil and gas re-
serves[7]. Geographically, north America occupies the first
place; the Middle East, and central and south Americas the
second and third places, taking up 25.1%, 22.4% and 19.9%
of global 2P deep oil and gas reserves respectively[7], of which
north America is the richest area for oil, whilst the deepest gas
fields and condensate oil fields are mostly found in the Middle
East[7]. In terms of basin types, passive continental margin
basins and foreland basins are richest in deep oil and gas, ac-
counting for 47.7% and 46.4% of the global deep oil and gas
reserves[7]. In terms of trap type, structural traps holding
73.7% of the global deep oil and gas reserves, are the most
important type of traps for deep oil & gas[7]. In terms of res-
ervoir lithology, 63.3% of the global deep petroleum reserves
are in clastic rock reservoirs, 35.0% in carbonate reservoirs,
and 1.7% in metamorphic reservoirs and magmatic rock res-
ervoirs[7]. In terms of burial depth, 86.6% of 2P recoverable
deep oil & gas reserves in the world are in reservoirs between
4 500 m and 6 000 m deep, and the 2P recoverable reserves
in reservoirs more than 7 000 m deep account for only 3.3%
of the global total[7]. In terms of series of strata, deep-buried
oil & gas is accumulated mainly in five series: the Neogene
(taking up 22.3% of the global total), the Upper Paleozoic
(22.2%), the Cretaceous (18.3%), the Paleogene (12.8%) and
the Jurassic (12.8%), which is similar to middle to shallow
reservoirs[7]. Over 30 giant oil & gas fields with a depth of
more than 4 000 m have been found so far worldwide (crite-
rion for giant oil fields: oil recoverable reserves are more than
6 850×104 t; criterion for giant gas fields: gas recoverable
reserves are more than 850×108 m3), in which 75 industrial oil
and gas reservoirs with a depth of more than 6 000 m had
been found (by 2002)[10]. Here in China, since 2008, five in-
dustrial oil & gas reservoirs (Kuqa, Tazhong, Tabei, Yuanba
and Niudong) have been found in the Tarim, Sichuan and the
Fig. 1. Statistics of deep oil & gas exploration discoveries.
− 455 −
Bohai Bay basins.
So far, more than 1000 deep-buried (4 500 m−8 130 m) oil
& gas fields have been developed all over the world[2]. In
2010, the deep oil production was 1.21×108 t and the deep gas
production was 1054×108 m3[11]. The Augur field at the coast
of the Gulf of Mexico is the deepest oil reservoir ever devel-
oped (6 511 m to 6 540 m in depth) in the world (excluding
China)[2], while the Mills Ranch Field in the Siney basin in the
Anadarko sag is the deepest gas reservoir (7 663 m to 8 103 m
in depth) ever developed[2].
The progresses in theory and technology drive the explora-
tion and development of deep oil & gas resources continu-
ously. The statistics of Wood Mackenzie[11] indicate that the
discovery of deep oil & gas shows obvious phases (Fig. 1):
before 1975, a small number of deep oil & gas reservoirs were
found; from 1975 to 2000, there were some discoveries annu-
ally; after 2000, many more were found every year, which
corresponds to the phases of fast theory and technology de-
velopment. Taking seismic technology as an example, before
1975 the main technique was 2-D seismic; from 1975 to 2000,
conventional 3-D seismic was used for oil & gas exploration
generally, while after 2000, high-precision 3-D seismic was
applied more frequently. Each innovation in seismic technol-
ogy promotes breakthroughs in deep oil & gas exploration,
and also plays a more supportive role in the exploration of
ultra-deep oil & gas reservoirs. According to IHS (Informa-
tion Handling Services) statistics, 156 reservoirs more than
6000 m deep were discovered from 1972 to 2008, and from
2000 to 2008, 105 reservoirs (66.5% of the total) were
found[11], which are attributed to the rapid development in
seismic technology such as wide azimuth and high density
seismic since 2000[1,2].
1.2. Situation of China’s onshore areas
In China, 4 500 m and 6 000 m are used as the criteria for
 SUN Longde et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2015, 42(4): 454–465
the definition of deep and ultra-deep reservoirs in general[2−7].
The depth of east China’s deep oil & gas reservoirs is usually
more than 4 500 m, whilst in west China, it is more than 6 000
m. Compared with the deep oil & gas fields overseas, those in
China often have more complex surface conditions, structural
features and reservoir characteristics, which makes their ex-
ploration and development more difficult[10]. The geological
resources of deep-buried oil & gas in China are 304×108 t and
29.12×1012 m3 respectively, with a proven ratio of 8.9% and
8.6% respectively[12], indicating that there are still huge re-
maining resources left, and the exploration prospect is bright.
In addition, due to the special geological conditions in China,
deep-buried oil & gas resources, especially deep gas resources
constitute a large proportion of the total resources (oil 28%,
gas 52%), and take more prominent position in resources[12].
In drilling conditions, the average exploration depth in the
Tarim oilfield, NW China has been over 6000 m for 5 years in
a row, and in 2011, the depth went beyond 8000 m (Well
Keshen 7 with a depth of 8023 m)[2]. In 2011, the depth of
exploration wells broke the 6000-m record in the eastern ba-
sins (Well Niudong1 with a depth of 6027 m)[2]. According to
the statistics, there have been 22 wells over 7000 m deep
drilled in the recent 10 years in China, among which 19 wells
have been drilled since 2006, accounting for 86% of the to-
tal[2]. Now the deepest well is Well Tashen1 (2006) in China,
with a drilling depth of 8408 m, and a formation temperature
of 175 °C to 180 °C. Movable oil and traces of gas were
found at about 8 000 m deep in this well, and core samples
collected from the formation indicate that the deep layer is
rich in dissolved pores, and fairly good in physical property[2].
The deepest commercial gas well in China was Well Bozi1 in
the Kuqa Depression of the Tarim Basin, in which a high gas
flow rate of 251×104 m3 per day was tested at the tubing pres-
sure of 64 MPa from the interval of 7 014 m to 7 084 m with 5
mm choke, marking the discovery of a typical clastic rock
condensate gas reservoir. The deepest commercial oil flow
well is Well Tuopu39 in the Tarim Basin, which produces 95t
oil and gas 1.2×104 m3 gas daily at the interval from 6 950 m
to 7 110 m deep[2], a karstic carbonate oil & gas reservoir.
China’s onshore oil & gas exploration depth has increased by
1 500 m to 2 000 m in recent years than in the 20th century, so
it can be seen deep-buried oil & gas reservoirs have become
an important growth area for oil and gas reserves in China[2].
Compared with overseas, the onshore deep oil & gas ex-
ploration in China is more challenging[13]. Taking deep dolo-
mite exploration in the central Sichuan Basin (Chuanzhong)
as an example, in October 1964, the gas reservoir in the Sin-
ian Dengying Formation was discovered by Well Weiji1, sub-
sequently Weiyuan large gas field was found[13]. Afterwards,
over 50 years of exploration had been fruitless, until recent
years, with the ever deepening in geologic understandings,
ever improving in seismic data quality and drilling technolo-
gies[14], consecutive breakthroughs were made, such as Well
Gaoshi1 (5 841 m) in 2011 and Well Moxi8 (5 920 m) in 2012,
− 456 −
resulting in the discovery of the huge Sinian-Cambrian mono-
lithic gas field with reserves of over 1 trillion cubic meters in
central Sichuan[14]. Other oil & gas fields such as clastic rock
reservoirs in the Kuqa foreland thrust belt of the Tarim Ba-
sin[15], carbonate reservoirs in the Taipen area[16,17], and deep
volcanic reservoirs in the Songliao Basin[18] also experienced
many twists and turns in exploration. Therefore, the progress
in theory and technology plays a key role in the rapid growth
of onshore deep-buried oil & gas reservoirs, especially geo-
physical technologies play an irreplaceable role in the discov-
ery and evaluation of deep targets[19], and are vital to the suc-
cess of the exploration and development of deep-buried oil
and gas resources.
2. Progresses in geophysical technologies and
accomplishment in the exploration of onshore
deep-buried oil & gas resources in China
This section reviews the main advancements in geophysical
technologies for the exploration of deep-buried oil & gas re-
sources in clastic, carbonate and volcanic formations in China.
2.1. Deep clastic reservoirs
The main areas for clastic reservoir exploration include the
Tarim Basin, Jungar Basin, Bohai Bay Basin and Songliao
Basin etc.
The Kuqa sub-salt structure in the Tarim Basin located in
the Tianshan foreland piedmont thrust zone, has the following
difficulties in geophysical exploration: (a) big undulation of
surface topography, poor exciting and receiving conditions,
and large amounts of noisy interference waves; (b) abundant
faults and fault blocks, fast changes in formation occurrence
and near vertical strata, giving rise to a very complex seismic
wave field. As a result, the seismic data acquired for the ex-
ploration of the Kuqa subsalt structure is often low in sig-
nal-to-noise ratio, low in imaging accuracy and uncertain in
trap delineation[15,20]. The corresponding technical measures to
solve these problems include: (a) adopting large groups of
wide-spaced 2-D survey lines and wide-azimuth 3-D seismic
acquisition techniques to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of
the original field data; (b) applying anisotropic pre-stack
depth migration with a floating datum to improve the accu-
racy of seismic imaging; (c) using complex structural model-
ing and varying velocity mapping techniques to improve the
accuracy of structural interpretation.
By applying the technical measures mentioned above, the
accuracy of seismic imaging and the signal-to-noise ratio of
the seismic data have been improved substantially (Fig. 2),
and the average depth errors have dropped to less than 2% (it
was 5% before 2008), providing powerful technical support to
the efficient and rapid exploration of oil & gas in Kuqa[15].
Relatively better in the surface conditions, the Jungar Basin
and clastic rock exploration areas in eastern China have seis-
mic data with higher signal-to-noise ratio, so the seismic
prospecting in these areas should place stress on improving
 SUN Longde et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2015, 42(4): 454–465

Fig. 2. Comparison of the old and new seismic sections through Well Bozi1 in Tarim Basin.

seismic data resolution and fidelity, and enhancing the recog-
nition and forecast ability of stratigraphic-lithologic traps. For
fault block reservoirs, close attention has to be paid to im-
prove the accuracy of fault block imaging. Taking tight sand
oil in the slope of the Qikou Sag in the Bohai Bay Basin for
example, the target layer is the lower Sha-1 to Sha-3 sub-
members of the Palaeogene Shahejie Formation with a depth
of over 4 000 m, where the reservoirs consist of several sets of
thin-layer sandstones[21,22]. The difficulties in seismic explora-
tion are as follows: (a) small thickness, poor petro-physical
properties, and fast lateral and vertical changes of sands, make
amplitude preservation, sand identification and physical prop-
erty prediction difficult; (b) rich extensional fractures and
− 457 −
severely fragmented formations add difficulty to accurate fault
block imaging and interpretation; (c) it is very difficult to
predict fractures and test oil and gas property. The pertinent
technical measures are: (a) adopting noise attenuation, bore-
hole-calibrated deconvolution and pre-stack anisotropic depth
migration to improve the seismic resolution, fidelity and
seismic data quality; (b) using phase-controlled thin-layer
prediction, anisotropic processing and pre-stack inversion to
identify reservoirs, predict fractures and detect hydrocarbons;
(c) carrying out fine stratigraphic correlation, accurate struc-
ture interpretation, detailed sedimentary reservoir study and
careful reservoir analysis[22] to meet the fine exploration re-
quirements of hydrocarbon-rich sags. By applying the above
 SUN Longde et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2015, 42(4): 454–465
technologies, three oil & gas fields with reserves of over
100-million-tons have been discovered in the Qibei slope,
Chengbei fault slope and Binhai fault nose and slope succes-
sively.
2.2. Deep carbonate reservoirs
Key exploration areas for deep carbonate reservoirs include
the Tarim Basin, Ordos Basin, Sichuan Basin and Bohai Bay
Basin, and this section takes the Tarim and Sichuan Basins as
examples.
The main exploration difficulties of the Ordovician and
Cambrian karst carbonate reservoirs in the Tarim Basin are: (a)
fractured cave reservoirs characterized by large burial depth,
small scale (the surface area of a single fractured cave body is
generally less than 0.02 km2) , and strong heterogeneity, set
very high requirements on seismic imaging accuracy and am-
plitude preservation; (b) fracture-cavity reservoirs are the key
to the formation and accumulation of hydrocarbons, and the
main factor affecting oil and gas productivity[23], so accurate
prediction of reservoir, fracture and fluid is needed to find out
location of high yield wells. Therefore, we put forward an
integrated seismic approach with core measures such as
full-azimuth and high-density seismic acquisition, pre-stack
amplitude-preserving depth migration and quantitative de-
scription of fracture-cave reservoirs etc. Fig. 3 shows an ex-
ample of the outcome of this integrated approach. The frac-
ture-cavity units with high oil & gas capacity have been iden-
tified by figuring out the size, connectivity and fluid content
of the fractured caves by using high quality seismic data ac-
quired (Fig. 3), and the high-production well ratio has in-
creased by more than 10%[23] in the Halahatang field after the
adoption of this integrated seismic approach.
After over 50 years of fruitless exploration, major break-
throughs have been made in Sinian-Cambrian carbonate res-
ervoirs in the central Sichuan Basin in recent years[14]. Taking
Fig. 3. Comparison of the wide-azimuth (a) and full-azimuth (b) 3-D coherency maps of Ha7 well area, Tarim Basin. The aspect ratio is
the ratio of the lateral width to the length of the seismic spread.
− 458 −
Cambrian Longwangmiao Formation as an example, this set
of reservoir is grain beach facies with pore reservoir formed
during the Caledonian movement superposed in local areas,
and the distribution of reservoirs controls the gas pools
strongly[14,24]. The exploration difficulties are: (a) deep burial
depth of reservoir and very weak seismic reflection make it
difficult to preserve the seismic amplitude during data proc-
essing; (b) small reflection differences of reservoirs and
non-reservoirs, and indistinctive reflection features of carbon-
ate platform margin and slope make it difficult to identify and
predict reservoirs, and describe the reef-beach facies in the
platform margin. On the basis of geological analysis, an inte-
grated approach for reservoir prediction of “finding
reef-beach facies, identifying karst regions, searching for
bright spots, and delineating reservoir traps”[25] has been
formed, and the main technical innovations are as follows[14]:
(a) the development of a “two-wide and one-small” (namely
wide azimuth, wide frequency band and small bin size ) digi-
tal seismic data acquisition technique, which broadens the
predominant frequency bandwidth to 10-70Hz, and improves
the seismic signal-to-noise ratio significantly; (b) the devel-
opment of an amplitude-preserving seismic data processing
workflow, which improves the accuracy of the structure maps,
makes the relative depth error drop to less than 1%; (c) the
development of a high-resolution quantitative seismic reser-
voir prediction workflow, which improves the overall coinci-
dence rate of reservoir thickness, porosity and gas content
prediction to 85%.
2.3. Deep volcanic reservoirs
The key exploration areas for deep volcanic reservoirs in-
clude the Carboniferous-Permian volcanic rocks in the Jungar
and Santanghu basins, Jurassic-Cretaceous volcanic rocks in
the Songliao Basin, and the Jurassic-Paleogene volcanic rocks
in the Bohai Bay Basin, etc.
 SUN Longde et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2015, 42(4): 454–465

Currently, the main difficulties in deep volcanic reservoir
exploration are as follows: (a) complex geological origins and
formation mechanisms, and intersecting formations of differ-
ent lithologies and seismic velocities, lead to complex seismic
wave fields and extremely low signal-to-noise ratio; (b) com-
plex and diverse geometry of volcanoes, and fast lateral
changes in reservoir properties make it difficult to identify
exploration targets and predict reservoir properties, restricting
the prediction of fractures and pores and caves in the volcanic
rock[1,26]. To tackle these problems, in the aspect of data ac-
quisition, a high-resolution volcanic reservoir seismic acquisi-
tion workflow has been developed through optimizing acqui-
sition parameters, which is characterized by “small group
interval, long spread length, high fold coverage and
wide-spaced survey lines”, effectively enhancing energy and
signal-to-noise ratio of deep reflectors; in the aspect of proc-
essing, through strengthening pre-stack amplitude preserva-
tion, using volcanic velocity model building and anisotropic
pre-stack depth migration, the seismic imaging quality has
been improved, which can reveal the reservoir structures and
fault characteristics revealed clearly (Fig. 4); in the aspect of
interpretation, a “four-step” approach has been formulated[26,27]
for reservoir prediction, improving the accuracy of volcanic
reservoir prediction and exploration. So far, the Xushen and
Changshen gas fields in the Songliao Basin, the Kelameili gas
field in the Jungar Basin and Niudong oilfield in the
Santanghu Basin have been put into production successfully,
making volcanic reservoirs an important domain for reserve
and production growth.
2.4. Exploration results of China's onshore deep-buried
oil and gas resources
Since 2005, ten major deep oil and gas discoveries in China
in three types of deep-buried rock formations, clastic, carbonate

Fig. 4. Comparison of post-stack time migration and pre-stack depth migration sections (displayed in time) through Well Xushen1 in
the Songliao Basin.
− 459 −
 SUN Longde et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2015, 42(4): 454–465
and volcanic rocks, have been made[1], including large marine
carbonate oil & gas plays such as Tabei and Tazhong in the
Tarim Basin, large terrestrial clastic gas fields, such as Dabei
and Keshen in the Kuqa sub-salt structure in the Tarim Basin,
and large carbonate gas fields such as Longgang and
Moxi-Gaoshiti in the Sichuan Basin, as well as other deep oil
& gas fields discovered in the Ordos, Bohai Bay and Songliao
basins. These discoveries give rise to two oil production zones
with reserves of over 5×108 t, and four natural gas production
zones with reserves of over 1 000×108 m3, with total proven
oil geological reserves of 13.3×108 t, and total proven gas
geological reserves of 1.98×1012 m3[1]. Taking the Kuqa
sub-salt structure in the Tarim Basin and the dolomite forma-
tions in the central Sichuan Basin as examples, this section
introduces the onshore oil & gas exploration and development
results.
Exploration of deep complex structural reservoirs in Kuqa
slowed down after the discovery of Kela 2 gas field (in 1998)
and the Dina 2 gas field (in 2001). Due to a number of diffi-
culties including lack of geological understanding, failure in
identifying reservoir traps and shortage in exploration tech-
nology (Fig. 5a), ten exploration wells were unsuccessful in a
row, or failed to make any breakthrough[15]. Since 2005, a new
round of seismic data acquisition began aiming to improve
seismic data quality. Through the combination of 2-D
wide-spaced survey lines with 3-D wide-azimuth acquisition,
seismic data quality was substantially improved. In 2006,
Structure Keshen 2 was discovered by the 2-D wide-spaced
survey lines. In 2008, Well Keshen 2 produced 46×104 m3 of
natural gas a day, which is the first major breakthrough in
Fig. 5. Comparison of deep traps in the sub-salt structures in the Kuqa area, Tarim Basin.
− 460 −
Kuqa sub-salt deep exploration. By using these new seismic
acquisition techniques, several traps, such as Keshen 5, Bozi 1
and Awa 3 have been found and confirmed, resulting in major
oil and gas discoveries. The evaluation and development of
Dabei and Keshen gas fields were then carried out success-
fully. Based on the above exploration results, the geological
framework of the sub-salt deep structures in Kuqa, that is
“belt-shaped in north-south and sector-wisely in east-west”,
has been established, which means that Kuqa sub-salt struc-
ture distributes continuously from east to west, divides into
four to nine structural belts by regional faults in the
north-south direction, and five sections of different structural
types in the east-west direction (Fig. 5b). By 2013, 53 traps
had been found in Kuqa sub-salt deep layers with proven re-
serves of 48.1×108t of oil equivalent. Of these, 33 traps with
reserves of 36.4×108 t have been discovered since 2010, cor-
responding to the advancements in seismic technologies.
The exploration of the Sinian-Cambrian dolomite reservoir
in central Sichuan also experienced many hardships[14]. Well
Gaoshi 1 was a risky exploratory well drilled based on new
findings obtained from seismic processing and interpretation
research in 2006, and also the first breakthrough in deep
dolomite reservoirs in the Sichuan Basin 47 years after the
discovery of the Weiyuan gas field. In July 2011, Well
Gaoshi1 produced 102.14×104 m3 of gas per day from the
Dengying Formation (Sinian), marking the discovery of
Moxi-Gaoshiti giant gas field, the most significant break-
through in China’s deep-buried carbonate exploration so far.
After the breakthrough in Well Gaoshi1, a 3-D seismic survey
of 2 540 km2 was carried out in the Moxi-Gaoshiti area[14], and
 SUN Longde et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2015, 42(4): 454–465

Fig. 6. Comparison of new and old seismic data of the Moxi-Gaoshiti area and their interpretations

an integrated seismic acquisition, processing and interpreta-
tion technique has been studied. By using “two wide and one
small” high-accuracy 3-D acquisition and pre-stack wave
equation depth migration, the data quality has been improved
substantially, laying a solid foundation for further formation
evaluation, structure interpretation, and lithology and fluid
prediction (Fig. 6).
The old seismic data acquired in 2005 (Fig. 6a) shows the
sediment between the top of Dengying Formation and the
bottom of Deng-3 member is of equal-thickness. However, the
new seismic data acquired in 2012 (Fig. 6b) shows there are
steep dip reflections between the two formations, which were
interpreted as the reflections from the dipping horizons be-
tween the carbonate platform margin and the basin margin.
Following this new understanding, the aim of seismic inter-
pretation changed from identifying structures to identifying
platform margin belts, and delineating favorable regions and
targets in platform margin reefs and shoal facies by combining
reservoir prediction and fracture and fluid detection. It has
been confirmed by subsequently geological study and drilling
(Well Gaoshi17) that between the Moxi-Gaoshiti structure and
the Weiyuan-Ziyang uplift, there exists an inter-cratonic Dey-
− 461 −
ang-Anyue rift. In the rift there deposit thick Cambrian
Maidiping Formation and Qiongzhusi Formation, and rimmed
platform on both sides where develops a high-quality reser-
voir of beach facies, Deng-4 member[14]. These new under-
standings enhance the exploration potential and extend the
prospecting area of the Dengying Formation.
By June 2014, 48 exploration wells had been completed in
the Moxi-Gaoshiti area, of which 27 wells were tested for gas
production, and 23 wells tapped industrial gas flow, with a
success rate of 85%. At present, the overall controlled
gas-bearing area of the Sinian system in the eastern part of the
paleo-uplift is over 7 500 km2, and preliminary prediction
shows the total amount of gas resources in the Sin-
ian-Cambrian carbonate are as much as 5×1012 m3, and gas
reserves of about 4.404×108 m3[14] have been proved.
3. Challenges and research direction of
geophysical technologies for onshore deep oil &
gas exploration
3.1. Deep complex structure imaging
The main issues in deep complex structure imaging include
finding out the shape and distribution pattern of structures,
 SUN Longde et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2015, 42(4): 454–465
and revealing the fault distribution features and the relation-
ship between different fault blocks in deep target formations.
These issues are common in the exploration of complex
structures in foreland thrust belts, all kinds of buried hills such
as carbonate, clastic, volcanic buried hills, and reefs and shoal
facies at the platform margin. These target reservoirs are good
in quality generally, and integrity of the traps is a dominant
factor controlling oil and gas accumulation, therefore, “clear
structure imaging and accurate seismic migration” are the first
and foremost requirements in deep complex structure explora-
tion. The challenges that seismic exploration faces are as fol-
lows.
(a) The issue of low signal-to-noise ratio due to “weak sig-
nal & strong noise”. For all deep targets, seismic reflection
signals are very weak on the whole because of wave diver-
gence, attenuation and absorption during the propagation of
seismic waves, meanwhile, deep complex structural targets
are often associated with poor surface conditions or complex
subsurface geological structures (salt domes, fault blocks, etc),
resulting in the generation of all kinds of noisy interferences
with strong energy. Under the dual influence of “weak signals
& strong noise”, the seismic data of target layers is often too
low in signal-to-noise ratio to pick up horizons correctly. Well
Kela 4 in Kuqa is such an example, which was extended 3
times yet still failed to reach the target layer[15]. Similar prob-
lems had been encountered in the interpretation of the plat-
form margin slope in the Moxi-Gaoshiti area of the central
Sichuan Basin[14], and in the exploration of the high tempera-
ture ultra-deep karst reservoir in Well Niudong1 of the Baohai
Bay Basin[28].
Innovations in seismic acquisition technologies have re-
solved the issue of low signal-to-noise ratio. A large tonnage
low-frequency vibroseis source can effectively increase the
energy from deep reflectors, and the presence of low frequen-
cies is also helpful for improving the accuracy of velocity
modeling building and FWI (full waveform inversion)[29,30].
Low frequency digital sensors can record low frequency sig-
nals to the maximum limit. Moreover, adopting long offset
spread or even super-long spread is another effective way to
overcome the effect of shallow high velocity anomalies, and
increase the signal energy from deep target reflectors.
(b) The issue of inaccurate seismic imaging due to sharp
lateral changes in seismic velocity. The errors or inaccuracies
in seismic imaging caused either by undulating surface or
complex overburdens are often rooted in lateral velocity
variations. Taking the Kuqa area as an example, the relative
surface elevation difference is over 1 000 m, and the seismic
velocity varies from 350 m/s to 4 200 m/s. The strongly un-
dulating terrain and the exposure of high velocity rocks in the
near surface are way off the assumption of “surface consis-
tence” in conventional seismic migration algorithms, resulting
in severe distortion of reflection data and deviation from the
hyperbolic moveout. The static correction value is no longer
"static" because the waves do not travel vertically (there are
− 462 −
different static values for the same location). These problems
lead to serious errors in conventional seismic migration as-
suming a flat datum[20]. Moreover, the formation above the
target layer is gypsum-salt with sharp lateral changes in
lithology and thickness, and on top of the salt are highly-steep
clastic layers with dramatic local uplifts, which is way from
the conventional “horizontally-layered medium” assumption.
Consequently conventional seismic migration yields errone-
ous results, causing a common phenomenon known as “crests
with springs and traps with wheels” in the early exploration,
and severely hindering the exploration of deep oil & gas[15].
Although with the application of float-datum seismic mi-
gration, anisotropic migration, reverse time migration (RTM)
and full waveform inversion (FWI)[31], the above issues are
resolved to some extent, resulting in clearer structural shape,
fault reflector, salt dome boundary and buried hill topography,
as well as higher signal-to-noise ratio, in fact, these high pre-
cision seismic algorithms are heavily dependent on the quality
of the original seismic data, and they require wide frequency
content, high signal-to-noise ratio, and accurate velocity mod-
els, which in turn limits their applicability in deep oil and gas
exploration. The exploration practice in the Kuqa area indi-
cates that the accuracy of the velocity model can be improved
through the integration of seismic, gravity, magnetic and elec-
tric data, as well as geological data.
3.2. Deep complex reservoir prediction
Deep complex reservoir prediction involves the delineation
of reservoir geometry, the prediction of reservoir physical
properties, oil or gas content and the analysis of reservoir
sealing conditions. This is necessary for a majority of onshore
limestone and dolomite reservoirs, clastic stratigraphic traps
and lithological traps in China, because although these reser-
voirs often have good source and cap conditions, strong res-
ervoir heterogeneity and complex relationship between oil,
gas and water restrict the exploration process and the produc-
tion profit. Study on deep complex reservoirs requires accu-
rate reservoir characterization, reliable fluid prediction and
comprehensive risk evaluation. For this purpose, the chal-
lenges that seismic exploration faces are as follows.
(a) The issue of untrue seismic amplitude due to various
acquisition and processing techniques. “True amplitude” or
“amplitude-preservation” means the preservation of the am-
plitude of the original wave field in an ideal situation. In prac-
tice, it often means the preservation of the relative amplitudes
in migrated sections, preservation of AVO relationship in
prestack gathers, and preservation of AVOZ relationship in
azimuthal trace gathers. This is the most basic requirement
and urgent need for lithology and fluid prediction, and frac-
ture detection[32,33]. However, in reality, it is hard to fully re-
store the true amplitudes in data acquisition and processing
because of the effects of the acquisition geometry and the
applications of various noise suppression and amplitude com-
pensation procedures[33].
 SUN Longde et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2015, 42(4): 454–465
To solve this issue, seismic data should be acquired con-
tinuously with even and symmetric distribution of sources and
receivers and without alias as far as possible, to provide high
quality seismic field data for pre-stack migration. In acquisi-
tion, the application of “two-wide and one-high” approach
(wide frequency band, wide azimuth and high fold coverage),
and the wide-frequency digital sensors are conducive to “am-
plitude-preserving” seismic data acquisition and processing[34].
In processing, the use of processing modules that change the
relative relationship of amplitudes needs to be avoided, and
the use of accurate advanced algorithms such as FWI and
local angle domain migration is highly recommended.
(b) The issue of low seismic resolution due to deep-burial
depth and high-frequency absorption. Besides constantly
higher requirement on vertical seismic resolution in thin res-
ervoir prediction, higher lateral seismic resolution is often
needed for identifying small-scale reservoir bodies (such as
fractured-cave bodies in the Tarim Basin), lithological
anomalous bodies, and stratigraphic pinchout lines, therefore
seismic resolution must be improved from seismic signal ex-
citation and recording, and data processing. In the short term,
wide-frequency seismic sources and full-bandwidth digital
sensors, as well as wide-frequency reverse-time seismic mi-
gration are some practical answers to this question. Other
measures such as cross-well seismic and shear wave explora-
tion are also effective for improving seismic resolution, and
can be considered in the mid-and-long term.
(c) The issue of integrated reservoir evaluation due to com-
plex reservoir environment. Similar to finding “sweet points”
in unconventional oil & gas exploration, the aim of integrated
reservoir evaluation is to find high-quality formations. But,
unlike unconventional reservoirs such as shale reservoirs,
these deep-buried reservoirs are more complex in their envi-
ronmental surroundings, and more rigorous in oil and gas
accumulation conditions, hence it is harder to achieve a stable
and high yield of oil and gas.
Take the carbonate karst reservoirs in the Tarim Basin as an
example. To locate a well with high and sable production, in
addition to find “bead” reflections, it is also important to fig-
ure out the sealing conditions of caprock, the connectivity
between the cave bottom and the aquifers, the development of
fractures around the cave and their connectivity with other
fractured-cave bodies, as well as the location, size, physical
properties and oil and gas contents. Therefore, data interpreta-
tion must cover the analysis of macro tectonic activities and
sedimentary environment, examination of local fracture sys-
tems, palaeo-geomorphology, ancient drainage systems,
weathering-leaching processes, thermal dissolution, as well as
the reservoir location, scale and physical properties, the
amount of sedimentary fillings, the connectivity and evalua-
tions of fractures, and so on, and all these must be in detail
and reliable[23]. Afterwards, a multi-dimensional integrated
analysis of the findings from the above detailed investigations
should be carried out to pick out the most favorable well loca-
− 463 −
tions and the best well type. Furthermore, the predicted struc-
tures and reservoirs should be revised according to the latest
drilling information, and the drilling plans be adjusted in real
time[35] to ensure accurate locating of targets.
Therefore, integrated evaluation of deep complex reservoirs
should move towards the approach of “prestack, multi-di-
mensional, combination, and integration”. The “prestack”
approach includes both AVO and AVOZ. The “multi-dimen-
sional” approach includes not only time-lapse seismic
(4-dimensions), but also 5-D data cubes consisting of the
conventional 3-D seismic (X, Y, Z, coordinates), plus the
azimuth and offset coordinates. The “combination” approach
combining different seismic attributes, often requires image
processing and 3-D visualization to realize. The “integration”
approach is a combination of different disciplines such as
seismic and geological data integration, seismic and
non-seismic data integration, and seismic and production data
integration, etc. Recently the micro-seismic technique has
been applied successfully in several areas[36]. The integration
of micro-seismic and conventional seismic data offers more
accurate calibration of fractures and caves, and promises to be
one of the important measures for detailed reservoir charac-
terization.
Through in-depth research of the above issues, geophysical
exploration technologies for onshore deep oil & gas reservoirs
will probably make leaps. We aim to achieve the following
targets in China: (a) widen the frequency bandwidth of raw
seismic data by 12 Hz in east China and by 8 Hz in west
China; (b) improve the accuracy of seismic imaging, to reduce
structural depth error to less than 2%, and enhance drilling
success rate to more than 65%; (c) improve the accuracy of
reservoir prediction, to make the success rate of clastic lithol-
ogy traps reach more than 65%, the drilling success rate of
carbonate fractured-cave reservoirs and volcanic reservoirs
more than 90%, and coincidence rate of oil & gas content
prediction more than 85%; (d) improve the ability to identify
thin layers and small fault blocks, making sands 2 m thick in
eastern China and 5m in western China, and faults with
minimum fault throw of 5 m in fault block oil & gas reser-
voirs identifiable. For overseas deep oil & gas exploration, the
target is an improvement of more than 10% of all technical
indicators.
4. Conclusions
Accounting for a large proportion of China's total oil & gas
resources, deep oil & gas resources in China have a huge ex-
ploration and development potential. Currently, the explora-
tion of deep oil & gas resources in China has entered a key
stage. The importance and complexity of deep oil & gas ex-
ploration has driven the continuous advancements in relevant
technologies, and kept China at the edge of geophysical tech-
nologies for deep oil & gas exploration. Since 2005, substan-
tial progresses have been made in geophysical technologies
for deep oil & gas exploration, and a series of key problems
 SUN Longde et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2015, 42(4): 454–465
have been solved effectively, leading to some major discover-
ies and a steady growth in deep oil & gas reserves.
Facing an ever increasing demand for improving accuracy
and reliability, further developments of geophysical technolo-
gies for deep oil & gas exploration should focus on the fol-
lowing six areas:
(1) Broad-band digital seismic data acquisition technology,
including accurate and broad-band vibroseis source with low
distortion, full-band digital seismic sensor, digital multi-
channel recording system (more than 500 000 channels) , and
an open platform for seismic acquisition software, etc;
(2) Technologies for building rock physics models of com-
plex reservoirs, including models for carbonate, volcanic rock
and tight sandstone, together with dispersion analysis and
corresponding software tools;
(3) High accurate amplitude-preserving seismic imaging
technologies, including RTM, FWI and LAD (Local Angle
Domain) migration, as well as relevant techniques in noise
reduction, true-amplitude recovering and accurate velocity
model building, etc.;
(4) Integrated interpretation technologies for complex res-
ervoirs, including pre-stack seismic inversion, high resolution
seismic inversion, petro-physical property inversion, fluid
detection, anisotropic fracture prediction, integrated reservoir
evaluation, and dynamic and static reservoir modeling, as well
as integrated modeling of complex structures in mountain
front ;
(5) Other geophysical technologies such as gravity, mag-
netic and electric methods, including equipment and software
for high resolution 3-D electric and magnetic survey, velocity
model building and structural interpretation constrained by
non-seismic data, and software for joint seismic and non-seis-
mic inversion, as well as engineering seismic technologies
such as micro-seismic monitoring and dynamic reservoir
monitoring;
(6) Dynamic seismic-guided drilling technologies, includ-
ing fast and efficient dynamic seismic prediction, and the abil-
ity to make real-time update of the predicted seismic results
based on the latest drilling information, hence to adjust the
drilling trajectory and improve the success rate of deep drill-
ing.
References
[1] Sun Longde, Sa Liming, Dong Shitai. New challenges for the
future hydrocarbon in China and geophysical technology strat-
egy. Oil Geophysical Prospecting, 2013, 48(2): 317–324.
[2] Sun Longde, Zou Caineng, Zhu Rukai, et al. Formation, distri-
bution and potential of deep hydrocarbon resources in China.
Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2013, 40(6):
641–649.
[3] Dyman T S, Crovelli R A, Bartberger C E, et al. Worldwide
estimates of deep natural gas resources based on the US Geo-
logical Survey World Petroleum Assessment 2000. Natural
− 464 −
Resources Research, 2002, 11(6): 207–218．
[4] Du Xiaodi, Yao Chao. Inevitability of hydrocarbon exploration
in deep zones. Marine Origin Petroleum Geology, 2001, 6(1):
1–5.
[5] Zhao Wenzhi, Hu Suyun, Li Jianzhong, et al. Changes and
enlightenment of onshore oil/gas exploration domains in China:
Experience and perception in the past decade. China Petroleum
Exploration, 2013, 18(4): 1–10.
[6] Zhai Guangming, Wang Shihong & He Wenyuan. Hotspot
trend and enlightenment of global ten-year hydrocarbon explo-
ration. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2012, 33(S1): 14–19.
[7] Bai Guoping & Cao Binfeng. Characteristics and distribution
patterns of deep petroleum accumulations in the world. Oil &
Gas Geology, 2014, 35(1): 19–25.
[8] Reedy H J. Carter-Knox gas field, Oklahoma, in natural gases
of North America: Part 3, Natural gases in rocks of the Paleo-
zoic age. In: AAPG Memoir 9. Tulsa: AAPG, 1968:
1467–1491.
[9] Hu Wenrui, Bao Jingwei & Hu Bin. Trend and progress of
global oil and gas exploration. Petroleum Exploration and De-
velopment, 2013, 40(4): 409–413.
[10] Tuo Jincai. Research status and advances in deep oil and gas
exploration. Advance in Earth Sciences, 2002, 17(4): 565–571.
[11] Wood Mackenzie. Woodmac PathFinder. [2015-01-20].
http://portal.woodmac.com/web/woodmac/home-page.http://po
rtal.woodmac.com/web/woodmac/home-page.
[12] Jia Chengzao, Zhao Wenzhi, Hu Suyun, et al. New round of
conventional petroleum resources evaluation in China. Beijing:
PetroChina Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration & De-
velopment, 2007.
[13] Luo Zhili, Sun Wei, Dai Hansong, et al. Reviews of the explo-
ration history of stratigraphic wells in the Sichuan Basin and
analysis of the obtained geological effects. Natural Gas Indus-
try, 2012, 32(4): 9–12.
[14] Du Jinhu, Zou Caineng, Xu Chunchun, et al. Theoretical and
technical innovations in strategic discovery of a giant gas field
in the Cambrian Longwangmiao Formation of the central Si-
chuan paleo-uplift, Sichuan Basin. Petroleum Exploration and
Development, 2014, 41(3): 268–277.
[15] Wang Zhaoming, Xie Huiwen, Li Yong, et al. Exploration and
discovery of large and deep subsalt gas fields in the Kuqa fore-
land thrust belt. China Petroleum Exploration, 2013, 18(3):
1–11.
[16] Wang Zhaoming, Yu Hongfeng, Ji Yungang, et al. Key tech-
nologies for discovery of giant marine carbonate oil & gas
fields in the Tazhong area, Tarim Basin. Xinjiang Petroleum
Geology, 2011, 32(3): 218–223.
[17] Zhou Xinyuan, Yang Haijun, Han Jianfa, et al. Cases of the
discovery and exploration of marine fields in China (part 12):
Lunnan Ordovician oil & gas field in the Tarim Basin. Marine
Origin Petroleum Geology, 2009, 14(4): 67–77.
[18] Zhong Qigang, Mei Jiang, Yan Shicai, et al. Deep natural gas
exploration and development engineering technology im-
provement and its further development in the northern Daqing
 SUN Longde et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2015, 42(4): 454–465
Oilfield. Oil Forum, 2010(6): 23–27.
[19] He Wenyuan & Hao Meiying. Study of the Application of a
new technology in petroleum exploration. Acta Geological
Sinica, 2011, 85(11): 1823–1833.
[20] Fu Liyun, Xiao Youjun, Sun Weijia, et al. Seismic imaging
studies of complex high and steep structures in the Kuqa de-
pression. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 2013, 56(6):
1985–2001.
[21] Han Guomeng, Zhou Suyan, Tang Lulu, et al. Geological con-
ditions for lower Es1 tight sandstone oil in the Qibei slope of
the Qikou depression. China Petroleum Exploration, 2014,
19(6): 89–96.
[22] Liu Guoquan, Liu Zicang, Wu Xuesong, et al. Practice and
recognition of lithologic reservoir exploration in the Qikou sag
slope zone. China Petroleum Exploration, 2012, 17(3): 12–18.
[23] Yang Ping, Sun Zandong, Liang Xianghao, et al. Seismic tech-
nology for predicting highly profitable wells in the frac-
tured-vuggy carbonate reservoirs. Petroleum Exploration and
Development, 2013, 40(4): 502–506.
[24] Xu Chunchun, Shen Ping, Yang Yueming, et al. Accumulation
conditions and enrichment patterns of natural gas in the Lower
Cambrian Longwangmiao Fm reservoirs of the
Leshan-Longnüsi Paleohigh, Sichuan Basin. Natural Gas In-
dustry, 2014, 34(3): 1–7.
[25] Li Yalin, Wu Furong, Liu Dingjin, et al. Distribution rule and
exploration prospect of the Longwangmiao Fm reservoirs in
the Leshan-Longnüsi Paleouplift, Sichuan Basin. Natural Gas
Industry, 2014, 34(3): 61–66.
[26] Du Jinhu, Zhao Bangliu, Wang Xishuang, et al. Achievements
and successful experience of PetroChina in geophysical re-
search. China Petroleum Exploration, 2011, 16(Z1): 1–7.
[27] Xu Ligui, Xia Yiping, Liu Wanhui. Integrative application of
geophysical prospecting data to interpret deep volcanic rock in
− 465 −
superposed basins. Oil Geophysical Prospecting, 2009, 44(1):
70–74.
[28] Zhao Xianzheng, Jin Fengming, Wang Quan, et al. Niudong 1
ultra-deep and ultra-high temperature subtly buried hill field in
the Bohai Bay Basin: discovery and significance. Acta Petrolei
Sinica, 2011, 32(6): 915–927.
[29] Plessix R E, Baeten G, de Maag J W, et al. Application of
acoustic full waveform inversion to a low-frequency
large-migration land data set. Denver: SEG Extend Abstract,
2010.
[30] Tao Zhifei, Zhao Yonglin & Ma Lei. Low frequency seismic
and low frequency vibrator. Equipment for Geophysical Pros-
pecting, 2011, 21(2): 71–76.
[31] Li Zhenchun. Research status and developmental trends for
seismic migration technology. Oil Geophysical Prospecting,
2014, 49(1): 1–21.
[32] Shang Xinmin. Summary and discussion of amplitudes preser-
vation and evaluation method in seismic data processing. Geo-
physical Prospecting for Petroleum, 2014, 53(2): 188–195.
[33] Chen Baoshu, Wang Xiaojiang, Li Songkang, et al. Key tech-
nique research and application of relative amplitudes preserva-
tion and processing with high resolution for offshore seismic
data. China Offshore Oil and Gas, 2008, 20(3): 162–166.
[34] Liu Zhenwu, Sa Liming, Dong Shitai, et al. Current status of
the kernel seismic acquisition equipment and its development
direction. Oil Geophysical Prospecting, 2013, 48(4): 663–676.
[35] Liu Zhenwu, Sa Liming, Yang Xiao, et al. Horizontal well
drilling guided by a seismic-centered multi-discipline software
platform. Oil Geophysical Prospecting, 2013, 48(6): 932–937.
[36] Liu Zhenwu, Sa Liming, Wu Furong, et al. Micro-seismic
monitor technology status for unconventional resource E&P
and its future development in CNPC. Oil Geophysical Pros-
pecting, 2013, 48(5): 843–853.