Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Structure 1/1
Fracture characterisation
Fracture description Fracture distribution and sampling bias Influence upon flow
Primer
Structure 1/3
North Azimuth
Horizontal plane
Structure 1/4
45/045
Planes plotted as poles. Centre of circle horizontal. Rim of circle vertical (unless otherwise labelled). Dip denoted by distance from centre of stereoplot. Azimuth denoted by angle clockwise from top of stereonet N).
Structure 1/5
Strike histogram
Petals denote strike of plane Symmetrical about centre Used commonly for fracture work
Structure 1/6
Increasing inclination
N
N E S W N
39
115
115
39/115
Dip azimuth plot: Symbols represent feature dip azimuth, scaled from 0 (North) to 360 (North) Tadpole plot emphasises dip domains, Azimuth plot emphasises azimuth domains.
Structure 1/7
Each bed is drawn as an arrow pointing to its dip azimuth. The plot is built from the base of the study interval up-section, with the tail of each feature arrow placed at the head of the previous arrow. Sections of consistent dip azimuth become apparent, boundaries may be distinguished as sharp or gradational.
Base of interval
Arrow length varied with pick confidence to emphasise good data over poor.
Used to identify subtle structural changes.
Structure 1/8
Dip angle
Base of interval
Each bed is drawn as an arrow oriented to its dip magnitude (where right is 0 and down is 90). The plot is built from the interval base up-section. Sections of consistent dip magnitude become apparent, boundaries may be distinguished as sharp or gradational. Arrow length varied with pick confidence to emphasise good data over poor. Used to identify bulk structural zonation.
Structure 1/9
Dip analysis
Analysis of bedding fabrics and key structural surfaces to produce a bulk structural zonation
Structure 1/13
Outline
Objective setting Initial visual analysis of succession Review of image data Dip picking Structural zonation Structural dip determination Structural boundary interpretation Analysis of folded successions Integration with seismic data
Structure 1/14
Objective setting
Objective Verification of seismic structure Bulk structure model in area of poor seismic data due to e.g. shallow gas Fault location and orientation to plan sidetracks Structural input to a deterministic reservoir model Reorientation of fabrics in core Input Regional information. Zones of interest. Budget? Advice on acquisition practice.
Objectives met?
Structure 1/15
Scales of measurements
Real geology and limitless resolution but limited coverage & hard to see large scale structure
Core 10000
Cumulative fault density (faults per km)
100
15 m
1 cm
Fabrics resolved down to fractions of an inch using microresistivity and acoustic tools, an inch using dipmeters and inches to feet using LWD devices
3D seismic
0.01 0.01 1
Open hole WBM resistivity tools Open hole acoustic tools Open hole OBM resistivity tools
Seismic finds largescale reflective packages but little internal detail; VSP adds more detail to under 10m resolution
Structure 1/16
Core to seismic
Structure 1/17
Data required:
Automatic dip results Open hole logs to identify lithology changes, etc. Known stratigraphy
Use overview scale (1:500 or 1:1000) to identify major zones in the context of the open hole log suite.
Structure 1/18
Image review
Close examination of images (often 1:5 to 1:20 scale) Assessment of automatic dip data
Are computed dips representative of primary bedding fabric? Do events in computed dips represent structural boundaries? Are dip artefacts present? Do outlier dips represent fractures or over-steep beds?
Recognition and description of artefacts Evaluation of types of features that are visible Core comparison where possible Construction of dip classification types Picking of a small number of manual dips to assist interpretation of automatic dips Is data representative and reliable can analysis of the automatic dip data satisfy objectives?
Structure 1/19
Structure 1/20
Cons
Using modern image logs as dipmeters misses a significant amount of information: Data is low resolution Detailed description and classification of textures is not done Automatic dips are placed at the centre of each correlation window; the position of a features within this is not known Fractures and faults are unlikely to be imaged Fine-scale fabric variations are omitted but these are important in understanding the sedimentology
Manual dip picking allows much greater interpretation resolution and confidence
Structure 1/21
Structure 1/22
Structure 1/23
Structure 1/24
ITERATIVE!
Structure 1/25
Structure 1/26
0 0
DIP AZIM
90 0
Top zone 1
Overall NE dip
Structure 1/27
ABRUPT CHANGE SOUTH-SOUTHEAST DIPS STEEPEN DOWNHOLE ABRUPT CHANGE SCATTERED DIPS, SHALLOW TO FLAT
Structure 1/28
Subdomain 1b Variable azimuths Serrate dip profile -complex depositional dips or faulting
Subdomain 2a Up-hole shallowing dips. Ends at steep S dips that may be faults. Fault? Subdomain 2b Up-hole shallowing dips. Ends at fault with no footwall drag - listric? Fault? Subdomain 3a Shallow NW dips
Structure 1/29
15 mins
Structure 1/30
Structure 1/31
Part 1 discussion
Automatic dips good; representative of bedding fabric, but rarely captures fractures and some spurious dips (2554 m, 2610-2620 m, below 2755 m). Shales and sandstones are present; sandstones at 2497-2543 m with some shale partings. Automatic dips good, even in sandstones Possible structural breaks: Azimuth? Dip? Lithology? Data quality? Lumpers versus splitters Start at large scale, refine later Structural zones and sub-zones? Work in isolation from other data (e.g. stratigraphy) and incorporate later?
Structure 1/32
Structure 1/33
Importance of scale
Structure 1/34
Structure 1/35
Structure 1/36
Upper hemisphere stereoplots of poles to planes and bed azimuth rose histograms. 1% Schmidt contoured poles, weighted to interpretation confidence. Only palaeohorizontal proxies used. Eigenvector and Fisher Analyses. Peak count of the weighted contour plot. Structural dip is used to de-rotate postdepositional tilt from bedding dips and the method which flattens bedding most successfully is chosen.
Schmidt
Wulff
Structure 1/37
Subsurface dip is the sum of depositional dip, compaction, soft sediment deformation and cumulative tectonic deformation
Structure 1/38
15 mins
Structure 1/39
2450
2460
2480
Dip azimuth vector walkout plot Green: shale bedding Brown: sandstone bedding
Top of interval
2640 2650
2660
2670
2680
2690
2700
Cumulative dip magnitude plot Green: shale bedding Brown: sandstone bedding
2460 2470
2710
2720
2480
2490
2730
2540
2550
2560
2570
2610
2620
2630
2640
2760
Base of interval
2760
Structure 1/40
Part 2 discussion
Zone 1 2 3 4 5 Top 2450 2543 2650 2683 2713 Base 2543 2650 2683 2713 2755 Orientation 6/260 8/290 10/320 18/320 15-28/320 Comments Includes sandstones and slumps; W dips at base Rotation to N dips at top may be depositional As above As above Progressive down hole dip increase - rotation into fault below section? Unreliable
2755
2770
Structure 1/41
Part 2 discussion
Sandstones at 2497-2542 m are problematic: Internally inconsistent cross-bedded and/or slumped West dips at base are consistent with shales above Internal NW shale parting dips are consistent with shales below Sand presence may be due to a structural change (i.e. should be derotated using shale dips above). A change in depositional slope may have led to slumping. Use the wrong structural dip, get inaccurate orientations from sandstone beds during analysis of deposition and palaeoslope.
Structure 1/42
Changes in lithology/stratigraphy? Biostratigraphical events? Open hole log responses that may indicate weathering, erosion or hiatus? A dip pattern alone is insufficient evidence for positive identification; more evidence is required.
Structure 1/43
Parallel unconformity
0 90
Angular unconformity
Structure 1/44
Structure 1/45
Structure 1/46
FW
HW
Reverse
FW
Structure 1/47
Identifying faults
It is rarely possible to demonstrate displacement unequivocally on images: we normally describe fractures and only infer faults (Parkinson et al. 1999).
Structure 1/48
Indirect observations:
Change in structural dip block rotation Juxtaposition of differing lithofacies across a discrete fracture Progressive rotation into structural boundary fault drag Enhanced fracture density damage zone Change in cement type Fluid interface (if sealing) Pressure change Hole damage (commonly washout) Change in the intensity and/or orientation of present day in-situ stress features
Structure 1/49
Caution
Structure 1/50
Structure 1/51
45 ft
2.
Valhall
3.
Pre-Valhall Zone 1
5/220
Zone 2 6/140
Zone 3 8/350
Structure 1/53
Tilt
Subsurface attitude: Bedding tilted through large-scale rotation during regional tectonism
The poles to cross-bedding planes in a single unit will fall on a girdle, the pole of which (i.e. axis of curvature lies within the plane of the structural dip.
If enough sets of cross-beds are sampled, their axes of curvature will define a girdle, the pole to which is the structural dip.
Upper hemisphere stereoplot
Structure 1/54
Folds
Folds are more commonly observed in horizontal wells than the analysis of vertical wells would suggest. Identification & classification chevrons and tadpole facing directions, synclinal and anticlinal. Analysis wavelength, amplitude orientation & plunge. SCAT analysis. Dipping beds can have an effect on fluid flow, varying as a part function of up-dip and down dip fluid transport. Can be hard to track single bed in horizontal wells. Problems with dip removal non-linear changes in dips across a fold.
Structure 1/55
Structure 1/56
SCAT example
Domain 2
Domain 1
Domain 1
Axis: 5/299
Domain 2
Structure 1/57
Limb 2
Limb 1 Centre of cluster defines limb orientation Inter-limb angle measured along great circle
Fold axis is line of intersection between mean limb orientations if fold is similar
Structure 1/58
10 mins
Structure 1/59
2450
2460
2480
Dip azimuth vector walkout plot Green: shale bedding Brown: sandstone bedding
Top of interval
2640 2650
2660
2670
2680
2690
2700
Cumulative dip magnitude plot Green: shale bedding Brown: sandstone bedding
2460 2470
2710
2720
2480
2490
2730
2540
2550
2560
2570
2610
2620
2630
2640
2760
Base of interval
2760
Structure 1/60
Part 3 discussion
Fractures strike E-W and N-S; low bias as vertical well. Fracture inclinations show normal distribution around 45; may be early and rotated or compacted. Faults strike E-W and N-S. Inclinations scattered from 30-75; slightly steeper than fractures and so may be later? Fractures and faults are clustered into possible damage zones or due to mechanical stratigraphy. SCAT of whole interval shows E-W curvature axis is this the basin axis or related to E-W striking fault population? SCAT in sandstones is inconclusive; needs derotating? SCAT below 2710 m shows curvature about a NE-SW trend suggests rotation or fault drag above feature below study interval.
Structure 1/61
Part 3 discussion
Depth 2543 Type Comments Unconformity Sharp, no drag, few fractures, significant lithology change. Grade B. Unconformity Gradual azimuth rotation at top looks depositional. Grade B. U/C or fault Possible drag, fracturing but also azimuth swing as above. Grade C. U/C or fault Drag? Fractures define damage zone? Faults picked striking E-W to ENE-WSW. Grade B. Data quality End of reliable inclinometry and caliper data no geological significance. Possible drag downwards through zone above may indicate that a fault is present beneath.
2650
2683
2713
2755
Structure 1/62
2450
2450 2460 2470 2480 2490 2500 2510 2520 2530 2540 2550 2560 2570 2580 2590 2600 2610 2620 2630 2640 2650 2660 2670 2680 2690 2700 2710 2720 2730 2740 2750
Uniform bedding dips west Little expression in N-S section Cross-bedded sandstones with slumps at top; internal structure requires surface type analysis
2460 2470 2480 2490 2500 2510 2520 2530 2540 2550 2560 2570
Northerly dips at top; apparent steepening due to azimuth swing Significant steepening across fault or unconformity Beds steepen down hole. Increased scatter; drag into fault below?
2650 2660 2670 2680 2690 2700 2710 2720 2730 2740 2750 2760 2770
2760 2770
Structure 1/63
Possible faulting
B
X
A
crestal graben
well path
Eastern flank
ESE (106)
Structure 1/64
Seismic integration
Structure 1/65
Structure 1/66