1,705
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Top seal integrity: Central Graben example (view source)
Revision as of 14:20, 31 January 2014
, 14:20, 31 January 2014Initial import
{{publication
| image = exploring-for-oil-and-gas-traps.png
| width = 120px
| series = Treatise in Petroleum Geology
| title = Exploring for Oil and Gas Traps
| part = Predicting the occurrence of oil and gas traps
| chapter = Evaluating top and fault seal
| frompg = 10-1
| topg = 10-94
| author = Grant M. Skerlec
| link = http://archives.datapages.com/data/specpubs/beaumont/ch10/ch10.htm
| pdf =
| store = http://store.aapg.org/detail.aspx?id=545
| isbn = 0-89181-602-X
}}
Introduction Following is an example of evaluating, or risking, top seal integrity using two traps in the Central Graben, North Sea. One trap was dry; one trap is now a producing field. Both are low-relief salt structures, a common trap style in the Central Graben, with Upper Jurassic reservoirs sealed by Upper Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous shales. A seismic line across both traps is shown in the following figure. Trap A is at the left; trap B is at the center.
[[file:evaluating-top-and-fault-seal_fig10-39.png|thumb|{{figure number|10-39}}. Copyright: Esso Exploration and Production U.K.]]
==Method==
Incremental strain was calculated from depth-converted seismic profiles over the most highly strained portion of each structure using a series of seismic sequence boundaries that could be mapped throughout the basin. The sea floor (0 Ma sequence boundary) represents the original, undeformed line length across each structure.
==Strain-time plots==
The following strain-time plots show the incremental strains affecting the top seal above each trap and the wide variation in strain magnitude as well as strain history in these traps. Trap A has a maximum strain of 4.5%, which contributes to the risk of top seal fracturing. The time of maximum strain occurred 97-60 Ma. Today, trap Ais a dry hole because of fracturing and loss of top seal integrity. Trap B has a maximum strain of only 1%, which occurred before 100 Ma, and only a 0.2% strain that occurred 97-60 Ma. Today, trap B is a producing structure with an intact top seal capable of trapping hydrocarbons in the underlying Upper Jurassic sands.
[[file:evaluating-top-and-fault-seal_fig10-40.png|thumb|{{figure number|10-40}}See text for explanation.]]
==Paleoductility analysis==
Paleoductility analysis demonstrates that the top seals in these structures were extremely ductile prior to 100 Ma and would not have fractured within the range of strains developed. Since 100 Ma, these same seals were sufficiently compacted so that fracturing could have occurred if the strain exceeded the ductility of the top seal. The only strain that contributes to seal risk is the strain that occurred after 100 Ma.
==Strain threshold for failure==
Incremental strain analysis of a group of successes and failures in the Central Graben defines a strain threshold at approximately 1.6%. In the following figure, traps with a maximum post-100 Ma incremental strain > 1.6% are dry (traps H, I, J). Traps with a strain
[[file:evaluating-top-and-fault-seal_fig10-41.png|thumb|{{figure number|10-41}}See text for explanation.]]
This empirical threshold provides an important tool for evaluating top seals. Prospects can be evaluated before drilling using incremental strain analysis. In this case, high-risk prospects are those with strains exceeding the threshold of 1.6%. Low-risk prospects are those with strains below the threshold.
==Importance to exploration==
Routine top seal analysis changes the ranking of prospects as well as the exploration strategy in the Central Graben. Large prospects, normally at the top of the ranking, unfortunately may also be large-strain, high-risk structures. The chances of success can be increased by drilling low-strain, low-risk structures. Note that prospect size and strain magnitude are not necessarily related. Large prospects could be low-relief, low-strain structures. Continued drilling in the Central Graben has confirmed this strain threshold with a larger sample of tested traps (Koch et al., 1992).
==Applying strain analysis structural styles==
Incremental strain analysis is not limited to analyzing low-relief salt structures like those to used in the above example. It can be applied to any structural style involving deformation of the top seal, including traps in foreland fold-and-thrust belts, Gulf Coast growth faults, and North Sea normal faults. Deformation may involve shortening or extension.
==See also==
* [[Strain analysis of top seals]]
* [[Seal ductility]]
* [[Estimating ductility of top seals]]
* [[Estimating strain in top seals]]
==External links==
{{search}}
* [http://archives.datapages.com/data/specpubs/beaumont/ch10/ch10.htm Original content in Datapages]
* [http://store.aapg.org/detail.aspx?id=545 Find the book in the AAPG Store]
[[Category:Predicting the occurrence of oil and gas traps]]
[[Category:Evaluating top and fault seal]]
| image = exploring-for-oil-and-gas-traps.png
| width = 120px
| series = Treatise in Petroleum Geology
| title = Exploring for Oil and Gas Traps
| part = Predicting the occurrence of oil and gas traps
| chapter = Evaluating top and fault seal
| frompg = 10-1
| topg = 10-94
| author = Grant M. Skerlec
| link = http://archives.datapages.com/data/specpubs/beaumont/ch10/ch10.htm
| pdf =
| store = http://store.aapg.org/detail.aspx?id=545
| isbn = 0-89181-602-X
}}
Introduction Following is an example of evaluating, or risking, top seal integrity using two traps in the Central Graben, North Sea. One trap was dry; one trap is now a producing field. Both are low-relief salt structures, a common trap style in the Central Graben, with Upper Jurassic reservoirs sealed by Upper Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous shales. A seismic line across both traps is shown in the following figure. Trap A is at the left; trap B is at the center.
[[file:evaluating-top-and-fault-seal_fig10-39.png|thumb|{{figure number|10-39}}. Copyright: Esso Exploration and Production U.K.]]
==Method==
Incremental strain was calculated from depth-converted seismic profiles over the most highly strained portion of each structure using a series of seismic sequence boundaries that could be mapped throughout the basin. The sea floor (0 Ma sequence boundary) represents the original, undeformed line length across each structure.
==Strain-time plots==
The following strain-time plots show the incremental strains affecting the top seal above each trap and the wide variation in strain magnitude as well as strain history in these traps. Trap A has a maximum strain of 4.5%, which contributes to the risk of top seal fracturing. The time of maximum strain occurred 97-60 Ma. Today, trap Ais a dry hole because of fracturing and loss of top seal integrity. Trap B has a maximum strain of only 1%, which occurred before 100 Ma, and only a 0.2% strain that occurred 97-60 Ma. Today, trap B is a producing structure with an intact top seal capable of trapping hydrocarbons in the underlying Upper Jurassic sands.
[[file:evaluating-top-and-fault-seal_fig10-40.png|thumb|{{figure number|10-40}}See text for explanation.]]
==Paleoductility analysis==
Paleoductility analysis demonstrates that the top seals in these structures were extremely ductile prior to 100 Ma and would not have fractured within the range of strains developed. Since 100 Ma, these same seals were sufficiently compacted so that fracturing could have occurred if the strain exceeded the ductility of the top seal. The only strain that contributes to seal risk is the strain that occurred after 100 Ma.
==Strain threshold for failure==
Incremental strain analysis of a group of successes and failures in the Central Graben defines a strain threshold at approximately 1.6%. In the following figure, traps with a maximum post-100 Ma incremental strain > 1.6% are dry (traps H, I, J). Traps with a strain
[[file:evaluating-top-and-fault-seal_fig10-41.png|thumb|{{figure number|10-41}}See text for explanation.]]
This empirical threshold provides an important tool for evaluating top seals. Prospects can be evaluated before drilling using incremental strain analysis. In this case, high-risk prospects are those with strains exceeding the threshold of 1.6%. Low-risk prospects are those with strains below the threshold.
==Importance to exploration==
Routine top seal analysis changes the ranking of prospects as well as the exploration strategy in the Central Graben. Large prospects, normally at the top of the ranking, unfortunately may also be large-strain, high-risk structures. The chances of success can be increased by drilling low-strain, low-risk structures. Note that prospect size and strain magnitude are not necessarily related. Large prospects could be low-relief, low-strain structures. Continued drilling in the Central Graben has confirmed this strain threshold with a larger sample of tested traps (Koch et al., 1992).
==Applying strain analysis structural styles==
Incremental strain analysis is not limited to analyzing low-relief salt structures like those to used in the above example. It can be applied to any structural style involving deformation of the top seal, including traps in foreland fold-and-thrust belts, Gulf Coast growth faults, and North Sea normal faults. Deformation may involve shortening or extension.
==See also==
* [[Strain analysis of top seals]]
* [[Seal ductility]]
* [[Estimating ductility of top seals]]
* [[Estimating strain in top seals]]
==External links==
{{search}}
* [http://archives.datapages.com/data/specpubs/beaumont/ch10/ch10.htm Original content in Datapages]
* [http://store.aapg.org/detail.aspx?id=545 Find the book in the AAPG Store]
[[Category:Predicting the occurrence of oil and gas traps]]
[[Category:Evaluating top and fault seal]]