120 km²
Study Area
Total concession acreage assessed during the Kazakhstan DDT Stage One and Stage Two surveys
7
High-Priority Targets
High-intensity HSSP anomalies within Area S1, selected for exploration drilling
85–90%
Estimated Accuracy
GVI's stated confidence level for the selection of the three priority zones (S1, S2, S3)
about project
Introduction and Background
The hydrocarbon Direct Detection Technology survey was conducted in Kazakhstan in 2015.
The operator of the hydrocarbon concessions was AO Mangistaumunaigas (MMD), while TOO KAZ-Waterhanters served as the exploration-services subcontractor to MMD. KAZ-Waterhanters subsequently engaged GeoVision, Inc. (GVI) to perform a comprehensive two-stage DDT survey.
​
Read World Oil article
.png)
stage one
Stage 1 DDT Survey
In accordance with the established DDT survey procedure, the Customer provided GVI with the geographic coordinates of two concession areas. These areas are shown in Figure as polygons outlined in red.
GVI did not request or review any pre-existing geological, geophysical, drilling, or hydrocarbon-production data prior to conducting the Stage 1 survey. A substantial volume of conventional exploration data had reportedly been acquired within the concession areas during several exploration campaigns conducted over the preceding decade.
The interpretation of these earlier conventional surveys had resulted in the selection of several drilling locations, some of which subsequently encountered productive hydrocarbon intervals. These historical exploration results were not incorporated into the initial DDT interpretation.
During the Stage 1 assessment of approximately 120 km² of the Customer’s exploration acreage, GVI identified several strong- and moderate-amplitude Hydrocarbon Small Subatomic Particle (HSSP) anomalies. Within the DDT interpretive framework, these anomalies are attributed to intrinsic subatomic emissions associated with hydrocarbon-bearing formations.
The identified HSSP anomalies were interpreted as indicating the presence of subsurface hydrocarbons within the Customer’s concession areas. The anomalies delineated through laboratory processing of the satellite imagery are shown in Figure 2 as yellow polygons.
STAGE two
Stage 2 DDT Survey
Based on the strong- and moderate-amplitude responses observed across numerous HSSP anomalies, GVI and the Subcontractor agreed to proceed with Stage 2 field surveys over both of the Operator’s concession areas. The helicopter survey grid covering part of the western concession, shown on the left side of Figure 2, is presented in Figure 3.
.png)
As is typically the case, the HSSP anomalies identified from the satellite images during the DDT Stage 1 Survey are slightly transformed during the DDT Stage 2 Survey because of the greater sensitivity of mapping the HSSP emissions provided by the low-level and closely-spaced helicopter tracts and the proprietary GEO-SCAN ML2 equipment installed onboard the helicopter or if the areal extent of the survey is limited on ground transport.
The results of the more clearly defined HSSP anomalies based on the DDT Stage 2 Survey are presented in Figure 4. Analyzes and interpretation of the DDT Surveys enabled GVI to identify and designate by red and dark blue perspective areas for future exploration and commercial development. GVI notified the Subcontractor that there are discrepancies between 50 to 90 meters during coordinate converging (WGS84 and SK42) as well as with GPS inaccuracy in the area of the concessions.
.png)
Based on the intensity of the HSSP anomalies identified in the DDT Stage 2 Survey, GVI provided the Subcontractor within the limits of the identified potentially productive areas the most promising areas for conducting further exploration. For example, S1, S2 and S3 that have been identified will be shown in blue as on Figure 6. These designated areas will make it possible to rank the intrinsic emissions by intensity, to provide direct geo-references for the HSSP emissions, to determine the depth of hydrocarbon-bearing formations at the specific locations recommended for subsequent drilling targets, and to substantially narrow the area for subsequent geophysical exploration and exploration well drilling. Based on the data of Figure 5, GVI also indicated to the Subcontractor that the S1 and S2 areas were within the concessions of the Operator; however, S3 is located outside, but adjacent to the right-hand concession of the Operator.
.png)
The areas S1, S2, and S3 outlined in blue of Figure 6 are considered the most productive with an estimated accuracy between 85% and 90%. To confirm the selection of the three areas of most prospective production, a 3D model of the intensity of intrinsic radiation from the HSSP anomalies is presented in Figure 6
detailed analysis
Detailed Analysis of Prospective Area S1
Because satellite images were acquired from different viewing geometries, the positions and configurations of the primary HSSP anomalies identified during the Stage 1 DDT survey exhibited minor spatial offsets and geometric distortions. These anomaly boundaries were subsequently refined using the higher-resolution data acquired during the Stage 2 field survey.
Comparison of the Stage 1 results shown in Figure 2 with the Stage 2 interpretations presented in Figures 4 and 5 indicates that several additional hydrocarbon anomalies were identified and delineated during the field survey.
.png)
A more detailed interpretation of the HSSP anomalies is presented at an enlarged map scale in Figure 7. The interpreted DDT anomalies are also superimposed on a structural contour map of the top of the Paleozoic horizon, allowing their spatial relationship to the subsurface structure to be evaluated.
GVI identified seven anomalies in Figure 7 as high-priority targets for exploration and development drilling. GVI recommends that the initial well be drilled at Target 1. This proposed location lies approximately 70 m from a highly productive existing well reported to produce approximately 1,400 metric tons of hydrocarbons per day, equivalent to about 10,220 barrels per day.
Deliverables
Deliverables Provided to the Subcontractor
Stage 2 DDT surveys were conducted primarily by helicopter, with one survey segment completed using a ground vehicle. Following data acquisition, the survey measurements were processed and interpreted, and a series of anomaly and target maps was prepared.
The interpreted anomalies were assigned geographic coordinates with estimated positional uncertainties of approximately 50–90 m. These uncertainties reflect differences between the WGS 84 and SK-42 coordinate reference systems, together with the limitations of GPS accuracy within the survey area.
Interpretation of the DDT survey results enabled GVI to delineate prospective areas for future exploration and commercial development. These areas are shown in red and dark blue on the relevant maps. GVI also recommended drilling locations positioned near the points of maximum interpreted HSSP response.
The results were presented in three-dimensional models, including the example shown in Figure 8, which illustrates proposed drilling-pad locations and the interpreted depths to hydrocarbon-bearing formations. Several drilling targets, including S1-2 and S1-3, were identified in areas that had not previously been recognized using conventional exploration methods.
GVI provided the Subcontractor with estimates of the depths to the interpreted productive hydrocarbon intervals, as illustrated in Figure 8. The deliverables also included preliminary estimates of potential hydrocarbon resources and the identification of prospective areas extending beyond the boundaries of the Operator’s existing concession acreage.
The Stage 1 satellite-based interpretation provided only preliminary anomaly locations, with an estimated spatial accuracy of approximately 10–15%. These anomaly boundaries and target locations were subsequently refined using the higher-resolution measurements acquired during the Stage 2 field surveys.
.png)
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions and Recommendations
1. DDT identified and mapped hydrocarbon anomalies across approximately 120 km², with positional accuracy of 50–90 m, accounting for local GPS and coordinate-system limitations.
2. Integration of DDT results with geological and geophysical data enabled the identification of prospective zones, estimation of productive-horizon depths, and preliminary resource assessment.
3. Three priority exploration areas (S1, S2, and S3) were identified, including prospective targets within and beyond the existing concession boundaries, with recommended locations for development and exploration wells.
4. The strongest anomalies correlate with fault intersections and fractured/decompacted reservoir zones, which are associated with higher-producing wells and favorable conditions for hydrocarbon accumulation.
5. The survey results influenced subsequent drilling plans: according to the report, the operator and subcontractor revised their plans based on the DDT findings, with expected savings of millions of dollars and an additional drilling campaign planned for 2016.