Difference between revisions of "Selling a structural play"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Cwhitehurst (talk | contribs) |
Cwhitehurst (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| 1 || Relate the play to published or in-house regional tectonic reconstructions and paleogeographic maps of the time periods over which the play's structural movement(s) occurred. Determine if your concept of the structural genesis of the play on the local scale is consistent with these regional scale models. Also consider whether to modify the local structural model or the tectonic model. || Provides a context in which to place the [[deformation]] that is consistent with regional data. | | 1 || Relate the play to published or in-house regional tectonic reconstructions and paleogeographic maps of the time periods over which the play's structural movement(s) occurred. Determine if your concept of the structural genesis of the play on the local scale is consistent with these regional scale models. Also consider whether to modify the local structural model or the tectonic model. || Provides a context in which to place the [[deformation]] that is consistent with regional data. | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | 2 || Determine whether results from considering structural timing and reservoir and seal quality are consistent with current mechanical models of fold and fault generation or with current knowledge of structural styles. || Provides a check with respect to the rules of mechanics and our knowledge of general structural form. | + | | 2 || Determine whether results from considering structural timing and reservoir and seal quality are consistent with current mechanical models of [[fold]] and fault generation or with current knowledge of structural styles. || Provides a check with respect to the rules of mechanics and our knowledge of general structural form. |
|- | |- | ||
| 3 || If the structural prospect is either quite complicated or ill constrained by the data, consider physical or numerical modeling to help define geometry and probable mode of origin. || Modeling provides a heuristic approach to predicting type and position of defor-mational features that can then be tested in [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outcrop outcrop] or with subsurface data. | | 3 || If the structural prospect is either quite complicated or ill constrained by the data, consider physical or numerical modeling to help define geometry and probable mode of origin. || Modeling provides a heuristic approach to predicting type and position of defor-mational features that can then be tested in [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outcrop outcrop] or with subsurface data. | ||
Revision as of 20:44, 18 January 2016
| Exploring for Oil and Gas Traps | |
| |
| Series | Treatise in Petroleum Geology |
|---|---|
| Part | Predicting the occurrence of oil and gas traps |
| Chapter | Exploring for structural traps |
| Author | R.A. Nelson, T.L. Patton, S. Serra |
| Link | Web page |
| Store | AAPG Store |
Explaining the concept
For a structural play to be accepted, we must construct a coherent explanation of the mechanics or tectonics responsible for creating the play. Such explanations can be any of the following:
- The sequential development of the structure
- How the structure fits spatially and temporally within the regional tectonic fabric
- Appropriate physical and/or mechanical models that clarify the structure's development
Once constructed, these explanations give us greater confidence in our interpretations and a higher level of predictability in poorly constrained areas.
The table below describes the procedure for constructing such an explanation.
| Step | Task | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Relate the play to published or in-house regional tectonic reconstructions and paleogeographic maps of the time periods over which the play's structural movement(s) occurred. Determine if your concept of the structural genesis of the play on the local scale is consistent with these regional scale models. Also consider whether to modify the local structural model or the tectonic model. | Provides a context in which to place the deformation that is consistent with regional data. |
| 2 | Determine whether results from considering structural timing and reservoir and seal quality are consistent with current mechanical models of fold and fault generation or with current knowledge of structural styles. | Provides a check with respect to the rules of mechanics and our knowledge of general structural form. |
| 3 | If the structural prospect is either quite complicated or ill constrained by the data, consider physical or numerical modeling to help define geometry and probable mode of origin. | Modeling provides a heuristic approach to predicting type and position of defor-mational features that can then be tested in outcrop or with subsurface data. |
Testing the play
If we have created the minimum play requirements, then we must convince someone—either management or investors—to test the play concept. Gaining consensus from peer review bodies, risk panels, management committees, and financial advisors can require a variety of presentation formats. Whereas the presentations all share some common aspects, differences exist because of the varied focus of these groups in today's exploration environment. The table below lists suggestions for the style of presentation appropriate for various groups.
| Target Group | Style of Presentation |
|---|---|
| All groups | Control quality of all displays. This includes proper position of control and interpretive “picks” and consistency of dipping fault plane and axial surfaces between mapped horizons. One mistake can destroy the reviewer's faith in the entire project. Openly discuss strengths and weaknesses of the play. And be enthusiastic without equating approval to your own emotional well-being. |
| Peer review | Lead a discussion rather than make a presentation. Present negatives of the play up front to draw out helpful suggestions. Discuss detailed technical approaches and arguments early in the presentation. The goal is to solicit help solving problems. |
| Risk review panel (major company) | Emphasize the technical details. Present the positive and negative aspects in a more balanced manner than in the peer “problem-solving” review. Use all supportive illustrations and approaches to make a fair and accurate depiction of technical risk. The goal is technical calibration with other prospects within the exploration portfolio. |
| Management committee | Focus on technical conclusions and implications of the play to company exploration strategy. Emphasize the advantages of the play, but also disclose any technical details that increase the play's risk over other plays. The goal is to illustrate the strategic fit or importance of the play in the company's exploration portfolio. |
| Outside investors | Focus on generalities and play concepts. Check all data for accuracy. The goal is to gain commitment of capital early in the exploration process. |
See also
External links
| find literature about Selling a structural play |
|
|
|
|