Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Walter H. Pierce
and Everett Rutherford
Approach
This paper uses a novel system to quantify and map
post- Paleocene uplift and subsidence of reservoirs to
assess the impact of late uplift on gas and oil distribution
We use the tools of GIS to enable volume to volume
comparisons at reservoir elevation of gas versus oil. A
product of this work is a set of graphs which enable the
Walter H. Pierce walterhpierce@yahoo.com whpierceexploration.com
comparison and contrast of gas and oil distributions at
depth and elevation and in relation to post-Paleocene
uplift and subsidence. These graphs also enable the
comparison of gas and oil energy equivalents and
reservoir volume equivalents at the elevation and depth
of occurrence.
Kilur Karim
Mansuri Marun
Susangerd Ahwaz Gulkhari
-8000
Ramahir
Shadegan
Kupal
Chashmeh Khush
-16000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Vertical Closure (Feet) of Structure
Figure 1
Walter H. Pierce walterhpierce@yahoo.com whpierceexploration.com
The Zagros work led me to attempt to assess the role that gas
expansion might have in hydrocarbon habitat on the Arabian
Plate.
Gas Expansion
To that end I attempted to assess the process of gas
expansion by using average temperature gradients and and
assuming hydrostatic pressures to track the change in volume
of a set amount of gas would experience if a gas trap rose
through an depth change of 21,000 feet. This change is
expressed in the following graph (Fig. 2) as percent. The
graph uses standard gas reserve equations.
Background
10000
15000
20000
25000
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent change in gas volume at depth
Iran
Israel
0 Jordan
Northern Emirates
Oman
-4000
Qatar-Bahrain-Kuwait
Saudi Arabia
-8000
Syria-Lebanon
Turkey
-12000 Yemen
-16000
0 4000 8000 12000
Fig. 3
Paleogene Thickness (Feet)
Walter H. Pierce walterhpierce@yahoo.com whpierceexploration.com
What this second graph offers is a very interesting
opportunity. The Jordan trend clearly projects to a higher
elevation than the Abu Dhabi Trend. We interpret amount
of displacement of the Jordan trend to represent the
amount of post Paleocene uplift. In this way Step plots of
the Paleocene wells offer a mean of measuring the
amount post Paleocene uplift of the geographic area of a
well.
Iran
4000
E le v a tio n (F e e t) a t b a s e
Iraq
Israel
0 Jordan
Northern Emirates
Oman
-4000
Qatar-Bahrain-Kuwait
Saudi Arabia
-8000
Syria-Lebanon
Turkey
-12000 Yemen
-16000
0 4000 8000 12000
Paleogene Thickness (Feet) Fig. 4
Walter H. Pierce walterhpierce@yahoo.com whpierceexploration.com
All one needs to do is use the slope from the point distribution of
the graph (Fig. 5) and to write an equation for each data point to
derive an elevation change, either positive or negative. One can by
this by means mapping post Paleocene uplift and subsidence and
contouring the values as in the following map (Fig. 6).
-2000
-4000
-6000
-8000
-10000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Paleogene Thickness (Feet)
Fig. 5
Walter H. Pierce walterhpierce@yahoo.com whpierceexploration.com
The following map (Fig. 6) shows by contours the post Paleocene
uplift and subsidence for the Arabian Plate. An abrupt gray tone
change at the neutral line. By neutral line we show the position
where uplift changes to subsidence. The dark pattern on the map
shows pre-Paleocene subcrop. This are has undergone important
uplift but as the Paleocene is missing one can not use the same
methodology to quantify the amount of uplift.
Fig. 6
Walter H. Pierce walterhpierce@yahoo.com whpierceexploration.com
The following graphs show our attempt to characterize the oil
versus gas distribution for the Arabian Plate. You will see graphs
that post gas and oil by the energy equivalent in oil, millions of
barrels of oil equivalent and you will see graphs that post gas in
terms of barrel volumes recalculated to volumes at the pressure
and temperature of the individual field reservoir depth. We have
done this so that one can compare gas to oil volume to volume.
The reason we have done this is that we want to understand how
these natural reservoir volumes impact the displacement of oil
from traps by gas. Only in this way can we assess the relative
importance of Gussow versus “gas expansion”.
• Horizontal Axes
– Gas
• Volume at Depth (mmbo)
• Mmboe
– Oil (mmbo)
• Vertical Axes
– Depth
– Post Paleocene Uplift and Subsidence
– Elevation
Fig. 7
Walter H. Pierce walterhpierce@yahoo.com whpierceexploration.com
Gas mmboe and oil mmbo versus post Paleocene
movement
Fig. 8
Walter H. Pierce walterhpierce@yahoo.com whpierceexploration.com
Gas and oil volumes in barrels at reservoir conditions
versus post Paleocene movement
Comparing this graph to the previous shows that the gas volumes
in the sub surface are important in comparison to the oil volumes.
As can be seen in the graph there is a tendency for greater gas
volumes at equivalent post Paleocene subsidence than oil
volumes. However, there does not seem to be an tendency for
discouragement in oil distribution at high post Paleocene
subsidence depths.
Walter H. Pierce walterhpierce@yahoo.com whpierceexploration.com
Arabian Plate Pore volume occupied by Oil and Gas at reservoir conditions versus
post Eocene uplift or subsidence. Gas is symbolized by negative red deflections. Oil
is symbolized by black positive deflections.
Fig. 9
Walter H. Pierce walterhpierce@yahoo.com whpierceexploration.com
Gas mmboe and oil mmbo versus reservoir elevation
-4000
ElevationinFeet
-8000
-12000
-16000
-20000
-300000 -200000 -100000 0 100000 200000
MMBO or MMBOE
Fig. 10
Walter H. Pierce walterhpierce@yahoo.com whpierceexploration.com
Gas and oil volumes in barrels at reservoir conditions
versus reservoir elevation.
In the following graph (Fig. 11) we have recalculated the gas to
barrel volumes at reservoir depth and plotted these values
versus reservoir elevation. This graphic portrayal emphasizes
the importance of gas volume in relation to oil volume and
underlines the fact that gas volumes are large enough to
actually displace oil from traps. The graph shows that gas
volumes in the reservoir become dramatically more important
at shallow elevations. The implication is very strong that gas
at shallow elevations becomes a veritable “bully” and may not
allow the preservation of oil in shallow traps.
-4000
Elevation in Feet
-8000
-12000
-16000
-20000
-300000 -200000 -100000 0 100000 200000
Pore Vol oil and gas at depth
Fig. 11
Walter H. Pierce walterhpierce@yahoo.com whpierceexploration.com
Gussow Principle: Where it works and where it
doesn’t on the Arabian Plate
Fig. 12
Walter H. Pierce walterhpierce@yahoo.com whpierceexploration.com
Gussow “Expanded” Principle
Fig. 13
Walter H. Pierce walterhpierce@yahoo.com whpierceexploration.com
Shallow gas or not
Gas may migrate to shallower traps by gas displacement until
up dip migration is dominated by oil, as in the Gussow
principle. However, if some gas does migrate up dip far
enough to be in the range of depths (5000 ft. to 0 ft.) in Figure
2, then gas expansion may begin to play a role in occupying
substantial trap volume. In this way trap volumes at shallower
depths begin to be dominated by gas. The progressive
increase in gas volume observed in Figure 11 indicates that the
gas expansion model provides a better explanation of the
data.
Path 2
Gussow Principle with gas expansion
0
Depth (Feet) before erosion
5000
10000
15000
Comparison of Gussow
20000
versus Gussow Principle with
25000
Gas Expansion
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent change in gas volume at depth
Fig. 14
Walter H. Pierce walterhpierce@yahoo.com whpierceexploration.com
Two Paths, Two Models, and Confusion made Clear
MMBOE gas
0 100,000 200,000 300,000
0
-4000
Elevation in Feet
-8000
-12000 Fig. 15
-16000
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent Gas by Volume at depth or mmboe
Walter H. Pierce
MMBOE HC Percent
MMBO HC volume percent at depth
Oil MMBO
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000
0
-4000
Elevaton (Feet)
-8000
-12000
-16000 Fig. 16
0 20 40 60 80
Walter H. Pierce Percent mmbo HC in MMBOE or Vol in reservoir
Conclusions I
• Middle East lends itself to Post Paleogene uplift
mapping
• Query process in combination with cross plots
enable interpretation of Gussow process versus uplift
gas expansion impact on product.
• Gas as “ the bully”
• Unexpected Result
– Preferential zone of neutral uplift and subsidence
• Shallow and late uplift fields
– Gas Expansion
• Expect oil below gas
– Gussow
• Deep and late subsidence fields
– Gussow
• Expect gas below oil