Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
*Adapted from oral presentation given at AAPG/EAGE Hydrocarbon Seals of the Middle East, January 18-20, 2016, Muscat, Oman
**Datapages © 2016 Serial rights given by author. For all other rights contact author directly.
1
Badley Geoscience Ltd, Lincolnshire, United Kingdom (graham@badleys.co.uk)
2
Univeristy of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
Abstract
Fault-bound traps represent an important class of hydrocarbon-bearing structure. Whether a fault can seal hydrocarbons on a geological
timescale may be controlled by one or more of three conditions: (1) whether the fault slip has juxtaposed reservoir against sealing intervals, (2)
whether the fault slip has created new fault rock with sealing capability where reservoir is juxtaposed against reservoir, and (3) whether the in
situ stress state is conducive to up-fault leakage out of the trap. A key first step in evaluating these conditions is a structurally-robust
interpretation of the sub-surface geometry of the reservoir layers and the faults. A three-dimensional framework model should be constructed
where fault-fault and horizon-fault intersections are built in a way that honours established structural-geological rules, particularly in regard to
fault geometry and displacement patterns. If reservoir-reservoir juxtapositions occur, the fault displacement and stratigraphic profile can be
used together to estimate the nature of the fault-rock which might be present.
In reservoir-shale sequences, clay smears provide a mechanism to introduce sealing material between juxtaposed reservoirs. A variety of
predictive techniques have been developed for clay smears, all dependent in some way on the number and thickness of clay beds in the faulted
section and the amount of fault displacement. In shale-poor sequences, whether siliciclastic or carbonate, the stress and temperature conditions
during and after faulting play an important part. In intra-sandstone faults, the processes of cataclasis and diagenetic overprinting are now well
understood, but only now is comparable progress being made to determine permeability behaviour in intra-carbonate faults. Routine prediction
of fault transmissibilities in carbonate reservoirs is the goal of this research.
References Cited
Allan, U.S., 1989, Model for hydrocarbon migration and entrapment within faulted structures: AAPG Bulletin, v. 73, p. 803-811.
Aydin, A., and Y. Eyal, 2002, Anatomy of a normal fault with shale smear: Implications for fault seal: AAPG Bulletin, v. 86, p. 1367-1381.
Childs, C., J. Watterson, and J.J. Walsh, 1997, Complexity in fault zone structure and implications for fault seal prediction, in P. Møller-
Pedersen and A.G. Koestler, eds., Hydrocarbon Seals: Importance for Exploration and Production, Norwegian Petroleum Society (NPF)
Special Publication 7, p. 61-72, Elsevier, Singapore.
Faerseth, R.B., 2006, Shale smear along large faults: Continuity of smear and the fault seal capacity: J. Geol. Soc. London, v. 163, p. 741-752.
Fossen, H., R.A. Schultz, Z.K., Shipton, and K. Mair, 2007, Deformation bands in sandstone: a review: J. Geol. Soc. London, v. 164, p. 755-
769.
Lindsay, N.G., F.C. Murphy, J.J. Walsh, and J. Watterson, 1993, Outcrop studies of shale smear on fault surfaces: Spec. Publ. Int. Ass.
Sediment, v. 15, p. 113-123.
Manzocchi, T., A.E. Heath, J.J. Walsh, and C. Childs, 2002, The representation of two phase fault-rock properties in flow simulation models:
Petroleum Geoscience, v. 8, p. 119-132.
Michine, E.A.H., 2015, Influence of host lithofacies on fault rock variation in carbonate fault zones: A case study from the Island of Malta:
Journal Structural Geology, v. 76, p. 61-79.
Solum, J.G., 2015, Static and dynamic fault seal potential in carbonates: Fourth EAGE International Conference on fault and top seals,
Alméria, Spain, September 20-24.
Sperrevik, S., P.A. Gillespie, Q.J. Fisher, T. Halvorsen, and R.J. Knipe, 2002, Empirical estimation of fault rock properties, in A.G. Koestler
and R. Hunsdale, eds., Hydrocarbon Seal Quantification, NPF Special Publication 11, p. 109-125, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Takahashi, M., 2003, Permeability change during experimental fault smearing: J. Geophys. Res., v. 108/B5, ECV 1, p. 1-15.
Tueckmantel, C., Q.J. Fisher, R.J. Knipe, H. Lickorish, and S.M. Khalil, 2010, Fault seal prediction of seismic-scale normal faults in porous
sandstone: A case study from the eastern Gulf of Suez rift, Egypt: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 27, p. 334-350.
Vrolijk, P., J.L. Urai, and M. Kettermann, 2015, Clay smear: Review of mechanisms and applications, Journal of Structural Geology, doi:
10.1016/j.jsg.2015.09.006.
Yielding, G., B. Freeman, and T. Needham, 1997, Quantitative fault seal prediction: AAPG Bulletin, v. 81, p. 897-917.
Workflows for Fault Seal Prediction in
Siliciclastics and Carbonates.
Graham Yielding,
Emma Michie, Pete Bretan, Quentin Fisher*
*University of Leeds
Carbonate
Fault Rocks
Consortium
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for financial and technical support, recent
and present, from the following organisations:
Carbonate
Fault Rocks
Consortium
How does a fault seal?
Sealing units are juxtaposed against the reservoir
The subsurface structural framework is critical to the first-order control
of the potential connections across fault surfaces, visualized in Allan
Diagrams.
OR
AND
upthrown
horizons
3D fault horizon
polygons picks
3D fault polygons
Fault polygons are computed in 3D as the intersection lines between the
fault surface and adjacent parts of the horizon surface.
Importance of mapping faults in 3D
Reservoir horizon mapped around 2 The E-W fault is continuous, offsetting the N-S fault
crossing faults. Faults form the side-seals
into two. to traps –
mapping the
What is the age/geometrical faults The
relationship is essential to define
NW and SE blocks connect (NE/SW blocks do
of the faults? not)
the This
traps.
relationship is very difficult to see in map or
Fault-block connectivity?
section, but is obvious in 3D.
How does a fault seal?
Sealing units are juxtaposed against the reservoir
The subsurface structural framework is critical to the first-order control
of the potential connections across fault surfaces, visualized in Allan
Diagrams.
OR
Data from
Takahashi (2003),
Childs et al (2007).
•Continuous •Discontinuous
smear smear
Triaxial lab
tests,
Takahashi
(2003)
throw
thickness
Upscaling clay smears
Shale Gouge
Ratio
Throw, t • Shale Smear Factor describes the
Shale
observed seal/leak potential of individual
Sand
clay or shale beds, but is less easy to
apply in a multi-layer sequence.
• A more pragmatic approach is ‘Shale
The ‘slipped
Vcl5, Δz5 Gouge Ratio’ (SGR) which is notionally
interval’ is the rock the upscaled clay content of the faulted
sequence that has Slipped
slipped past the Vcl4, Δz4
interval (t) sequence.
calculation point
(red dot). Its Vcl3, Δz3
• In simple sequences, SGR is the
thickness equals
the throw.
Vcl2, Δz2
Vcl1, Δz1 reciprocal of SSF. A seal threshold of
Yielding et al (1997) SGR~20% is often observed,
Yielding (2012) corresponding to SSF~5.
• Stochastic modelling of more complex
sand-shale sequences suggests that SGR
approximates the behaviour of multiple
breached clay smears.
Fault rocks in clean sands
Disaggregation
Cataclasites
zones
Incr. displ.
lower perm.
Vshale
Capillary Thr. Pressure (bars)
Column height (m)
2km
geohistory
0 100%
Throw
(max ~150m) Shale Gouge Ratio (SGR)
With multiple faults, different parts of several faults need to be tested against several
different potential spill points defined by the top-reservoir structure.
Predicting column heights: Trap Analysis
with multiple faults in framework model
Predicted contact
shallower than spill
Column
height (m) point. Column in
Black arrow = fault leak point (supports a column with shallower contact relative to
trap is dependent
the structural spill points) on fault seal
Orange surface = Extent of accumulation (~trap fill) supported by fault seal
geohistory
Carbonate
fields review,
from Solum
(2015)
Carbonate Fault Rock Microstructures
Examples….
High displacements.
90 m throw
• Wider variety of fault-rock development as
higher strain and more facies mixing forms
more complex fault rocks.
• Fault-rock types mainly controlled by
juxtaposed lithofacies.
• Wider range of fault-rock permeabilities.
Micrite
Grain-dom.
• Faults in carbonates are often thought to be mainly conduits due to their brittle nature
• Field work as part of the CFR project suggests however that:
– Low permeability fault rocks are extremely common
– Chemical reactivity of carbonates results in rapid healing even after fault reactivation
(unlike siliciclastics)
– Faults appear to stop fracture propagation so open fractures may not link across the
faults
Conclusions
• Structurally-robust subsurface mapping of faults and reservoirs is an
essential first step in fault-seal analysis.
• When clay/shale beds are present, clay smears tend to dominate the
seal/leak behaviour of the faults.
• SGR (Shale Gouge Ratio) provides a pragmatic way of predicting the
fault seal potential for an assemblage of clay smears on a fault
surface.
• Trap Analysis in 3 dimensions is a preferred workflow to determine
probable trap fill in a multiply-faulted prospect.
• In both clean sandstones and carbonates, fault-rock properties are
strongly controlled by different aspects of geohistory, including
lithofacies, stress, temperature and fault displacement.
• Our current work aims to better understand the controls on carbonate
fault-rock permeability, in order to populate fault transmissibilities in
production models in carbonate reservoirs.