Difference between revisions of "Surficial geochemical case history 2: stratigraphic trap"
Cwhitehurst (talk | contribs) |
Cwhitehurst (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
In this case history, the client conducted a soil gas hydrocarbon survey along the trace of the seismic line to look for evidence of hydrocarbon microseepage from a seismically defined trap at CDP 1070 (Figure 18-6, left). Propane soil gas anomalies were detected at CDP 1070 and 1096. The wildcat well drilled at CDP 1070 resulted in a new field discovery. The geochemical lead at CDP 1096 was reevaluated seismically. After additional processing, a revised interpretation (right) also predicted [[porosity]] development there and coincident with the surface geochemical anomaly. A second productive well was drilled at CDP 1096. | In this case history, the client conducted a soil gas hydrocarbon survey along the trace of the seismic line to look for evidence of hydrocarbon microseepage from a seismically defined trap at CDP 1070 (Figure 18-6, left). Propane soil gas anomalies were detected at CDP 1070 and 1096. The wildcat well drilled at CDP 1070 resulted in a new field discovery. The geochemical lead at CDP 1096 was reevaluated seismically. After additional processing, a revised interpretation (right) also predicted [[porosity]] development there and coincident with the surface geochemical anomaly. A second productive well was drilled at CDP 1096. | ||
− | [[file:surface-geochemical-exploration-for-petroleum_fig18-6.png|left|thumb|{{figure number|1}}Modified. Copyright: Rice, 1989; courtesy Oil & Gas Journal.]] | + | [[file:surface-geochemical-exploration-for-petroleum_fig18-6.png|left|thumb|{{figure number|1}}Modified. Copyright: Rice, 1989; courtesy Oil & Gas Journal.]] {{clear}} |
This is a good example, illustrating how we can use surface geochemical data to evaluate a geophysical lead and a geochemical lead. | This is a good example, illustrating how we can use surface geochemical data to evaluate a geophysical lead and a geochemical lead. |
Revision as of 15:07, 22 January 2014
Exploring for Oil and Gas Traps | |
Series | Treatise in Petroleum Geology |
---|---|
Part | Predicting the occurrence of oil and gas traps |
Chapter | Surface geochemical exploration for petroleum |
Author | Dietmar Schumacher |
Link | Web page |
Store | AAPG Store |
In this case history, the client conducted a soil gas hydrocarbon survey along the trace of the seismic line to look for evidence of hydrocarbon microseepage from a seismically defined trap at CDP 1070 (Figure 18-6, left). Propane soil gas anomalies were detected at CDP 1070 and 1096. The wildcat well drilled at CDP 1070 resulted in a new field discovery. The geochemical lead at CDP 1096 was reevaluated seismically. After additional processing, a revised interpretation (right) also predicted porosity development there and coincident with the surface geochemical anomaly. A second productive well was drilled at CDP 1096.
This is a good example, illustrating how we can use surface geochemical data to evaluate a geophysical lead and a geochemical lead.
Anomaly map
Figure 1 is a seismic section and soil gas profile of a stratigraphic trap located at approximately depth::5,600 ft (1.5 sec) in the Cretaceous Escondido Sandstone in La Salle County, Texas.
See also
- Geochemical case histories
- Geochemical case history 1: structural traps
- Geochemical case history 3: Predrill–postdrill comparison