Difference between revisions of "Surficial geochemical case history 2: stratigraphic trap"
Cwhitehurst (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| isbn = 0-89181-602-X | | isbn = 0-89181-602-X | ||
}} | }} | ||
− | 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 ( | + | 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 ([[:file:surface-geochemical-exploration-for-petroleum_fig18-6.png|Figure 1]]). 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.]] |
Revision as of 21:20, 3 March 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 1). 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