Line 1: |
Line 1: |
− | [[File:Shale-smear-factor-fig2.png|thumb|300px|{{figure number|1}}Smear factor algorithms for estimating likelihood of clay smear on a fault plane. (a) Clay smear potential (CSP)<ref>Bouvier, J. D., C. H. Kaars-Sijpesteijn, D. F. Kluesner, C. C. Onyejekwe, and R. C. Van der Pal, 1989, [http://archives.datapages.com/data/bulletns/1988-89/data/pg/0073/0011/1350/1397.htm Three-dimensional seismic interpretation and fault sealing investigations, Nun River field, Nigeria]: AAPG Bulletin, v. 73, p. 1397-1414.</ref><ref>Fulljames, J. R., L. J. J. Zijerveld, R. C. M. W. Franssen, G. M. Ingram, and P. D. Richard, 1996, Fault seal processes, in Norwegian Petroleum Society, eds., Hydrocarbon seals-importance for exploration and production (conference abstracts): Oslo, Norwegian Petroleum Society, p. 5.</ref> given by the square of source-bed thickness divided by smear distance; (b) generalized smear factor, given by source-bed thickness divided by smear distance, with variable exponents; (c) shale smear factor (SSF)<ref name=Lindsay /> given by fault throw divided by source-bed thickness. Methods (a) and (b) model the distance-tapering of shear-type smears, whereas method (c) models the form of abrasion smears.]]
| + | {{publication |
| + | | image = |
| + | | width = 120px |
| + | | series = ''AAPG Bulletin,'' June 1997 |
| + | | title = Quantitative Fault Seal Prediction |
| + | | part = |
| + | | chapter = |
| + | | frompg = 897 |
| + | | topg = 917 |
| + | | author = G. Yielding, B. Freeman, and D. T. Needham |
| + | | link = http://archives.datapages.com/data/bulletns/1997/06jun/0897/0897.htm |
| + | | pdf = |
| + | | store = |
| + | | isbn = |
| + | }} |
| | | |
| Lindsay et al.<ref name=Lindsay>Lindsay, N. G., F. C. Murphy, J. J. Walsh, and J. Watterson, 1993, Outcrop studies of shale smear on fault surfaces: International Association of Sedimentologists Special Publication 15, p. 113-123.</ref> proposed a shale smear factor to constrain the likelihood of shale smear continuity. Based on their observations of abrasion smears in a lithified sequence, they define the shale smear factor (SSF) as (see [[:File:Shale-smear-factor-fig2.png|Figure 1c]]) | | Lindsay et al.<ref name=Lindsay>Lindsay, N. G., F. C. Murphy, J. J. Walsh, and J. Watterson, 1993, Outcrop studies of shale smear on fault surfaces: International Association of Sedimentologists Special Publication 15, p. 113-123.</ref> proposed a shale smear factor to constrain the likelihood of shale smear continuity. Based on their observations of abrasion smears in a lithified sequence, they define the shale smear factor (SSF) as (see [[:File:Shale-smear-factor-fig2.png|Figure 1c]]) |
Line 7: |
Line 21: |
| The shale smear factor remains constant between the offset terminations because it does not depend on smear distance (although lateral variations in fault throw would have a corresponding effect on the calculated SSF). SSF thus models the profile of abrasion-type smears. From a study of 80 faults (excluding composite smears), Lindsay et al.<ref name=Lindsay /> concluded that shale smears may become incomplete for an SSF greater than 7. Smaller values of SSF are more likely to correspond to continuous smears and therefore to a sealing layer on the fault surface. The values of SSF are not additive for compound smears because thin shales give higher SSF and dominate the sum. In such cases, a simple application of SSF values would take the minimum value (most sealing) from the relevant shale beds at that point on the fault. | | The shale smear factor remains constant between the offset terminations because it does not depend on smear distance (although lateral variations in fault throw would have a corresponding effect on the calculated SSF). SSF thus models the profile of abrasion-type smears. From a study of 80 faults (excluding composite smears), Lindsay et al.<ref name=Lindsay /> concluded that shale smears may become incomplete for an SSF greater than 7. Smaller values of SSF are more likely to correspond to continuous smears and therefore to a sealing layer on the fault surface. The values of SSF are not additive for compound smears because thin shales give higher SSF and dominate the sum. In such cases, a simple application of SSF values would take the minimum value (most sealing) from the relevant shale beds at that point on the fault. |
| | | |
− | ==Further reading==
| + | [[File:Shale-smear-factor-fig2.png|center|{{figure number|1}}Smear factor algorithms for estimating likelihood of clay smear on a fault plane. (a) Clay smear potential (CSP)<ref>Bouvier, J. D., C. H. Kaars-Sijpesteijn, D. F. Kluesner, C. C. Onyejekwe, and R. C. Van der Pal, 1989, [http://archives.datapages.com/data/bulletns/1988-89/data/pg/0073/0011/1350/1397.htm Three-dimensional seismic interpretation and fault sealing investigations, Nun River field, Nigeria]: AAPG Bulletin, v. 73, p. 1397-1414.</ref><ref>Fulljames, J. R., L. J. J. Zijerveld, R. C. M. W. Franssen, G. M. Ingram, and P. D. Richard, 1996, Fault seal processes, in Norwegian Petroleum Society, eds., Hydrocarbon seals-importance for exploration and production (conference abstracts): Oslo, Norwegian Petroleum Society, p. 5.</ref> given by the square of source-bed thickness divided by smear distance; (b) generalized smear factor, given by source-bed thickness divided by smear distance, with variable exponents; (c) shale smear factor (SSF)<ref name=Lindsay /> given by fault throw divided by source-bed thickness. Methods (a) and (b) model the distance-tapering of shear-type smears, whereas method (c) models the form of abrasion smears.]] |
− | * Yielding, G, B. Freeman, and D. T. Needham, 1997, [http://archives.datapages.com/data/bulletns/1997/06jun/0897/0897.htm?q=%2BauthorStrip%3Ayielding Quantitative Fault Seal Prediction], AAPG Bulletin, vol 81, no. 6, 897-917
| |
| | | |
| ==References== | | ==References== |
| {{reflist}} | | {{reflist}} |