You are on page 1of 83

Badleys / TrapTester

Badley Geoscience Ltd, Lincolnshire, UK

www.badleys.co.uk
Application of structural geological methods to E&P problems

Software: TrapTester (and related products)


Stretch, FlexDecomp
3rd Party Add-ons e.g. FSA for LGC

Consultancy: Global consultancy presence in all major oil and gas producing areas
Expertise in all aspects of structural geology, seismic interpretation,
structural basin analysis, fault/fault seal problems,
fracture analysis/prediction, 3D model building,
impact of structure on reservoir models

Training: In-house and public courses


Practical Structural Geology
Fault Seal Analysis
Software training
TT software clients

• Anadarko • ONGC • Dagang GRI


• Apache
• Origin • BGP
• BP
• British Gas • PDVSA • CNODC
• BGIndia • PEMEX • CNOOC
• Caltex • •
Petrodar CCSPC
• ChevronTexaco
• ConocoPhillips
• Pertamina • JiangSu
• CNSPC (Khartoum) • PetroBras • SinoPec
• CPC (Taiwan) • Petrocanada
• ENI/Agip
• QatarPetroleum
• Encana
• GNPC • Rashpetco
• GUPCO • Reliance
• Norsk Hydro • Statoil
• NIOC
• Shell (incl. Sarawak)
• Spirit (incl. Balikpapan)
• Woodside
• WNPOC
UK - Headquarters

Beijing
Abu Dhabi Denver

New Delhi Villa Hermosa


Lagos

Jakarta

Technical and Commercial support centres

Commercial support centres


TrapTester

Interp Structural Fault Seal Transmissibility 3D Stress ED


QC Analysis Analysis Mapping Analysis Modeling

Framework Property 2D/3D Well Interp &


Builder Model & Viz Seismic Processing
Interp
OpenWorks GeoFrame Other ...
Data

Different tasks have different data requirements, TT caters


for:
• fault interpretation – point sets, sticks, tsurfs
• horizon interpretation – point sets, grids, lines, tsurfs
• interpretation can be sourced from OW (binary), GeoFrame (binary), GoCad or
other ascii routes
• interpreted can be edited or generated from scratch in TrapTester
• wells from OW, GeoFrame, ascii
• seismic from OW, GeoFrame, SEGY
• cornerpoint grids ECL (SGrids ... soon)
Getting data

Binary access to wells and


seismic from OpenWorks and
GeoFrame

TT Stores and accesses multiple


concurrent 2D and 3D surveys as
* (a) direct access, (b) cached data
or (c) in BGL format

Seismic and interpretation Wells, picks and log curves


Simple key concepts to apply
during exploration and prospect generation

Displacement continuity along faults


Displacement conservation at fault linkages
Visualize interpretation in 3D
Effects of structural juxtaposition
Prediction of fault rock properties and seal potential
Idealised displacement distribution
on an isolated normal fault

Displacement contours (lines of equal displacement) are approximately elliptical and


decrease in regular fashion from a maxima close to the centre of the fault
Key point is that the abrupt irregularities in the horizon polygon geometry or throw
pattern represent areas in the data that should be checked
Perspective view of an isolated fault surface. (a) The fault is shaded to show the surface topography and the
horizon separations are shown as dark polygons on the fault surface. The separations increase smoothly
towards the centre of the fault. (b) Contoured throw on the fault surface. The throw increases systematically
from low values (blue) to high values (red). The fault continues below the deepest interpreted seismic
horizon.
From: Needham et al. 1996
Using displacement patterns to check fault
correction

Map of initial fault interpretation showing fault cuts correlated as a single fault (highlighted in blue). (b) The
pattern of throw on the fault distinguished by banded contour pattern. Two maxima are developed suggesting
that it is really two separate faults. (c) Fault recorrelated to show two separate structures. (From: Needham et
al. 1996)
Use fault throw to QC fault correlation in exploration acreage

East West 300

600

900

1200

1500 ms

At the reservoir level, decreases eastwards from a high of about 1500ms TWT at the
western end of the fault. A significant decrease in throw (from ca 650 to 200ms TWT) is
coincident with the eastern boundary of the prospect (arrowed). Fault viewed looking
towards south
Simple key concepts to apply
during exploration and prospect generation

Displacement continuity along faults


Displacement conservation at fault linkages
Visualize interpretation in 3D
Effects of structural juxtaposition
Prediction of fault rock properties and seal potential
Visualize, interpret multiple 2D, 3D surveys for fault QC and prospect generation

Fault picked on
sections, time-slices
and horizons Fault segments

Horizon data

2D & 3D seismic
sections, time slices
Client example: Niger Delta
• 70 Interpreters
• 10 3D Cubes
• >25 2D Surveys
• 6400 Fault planes
• 5000 Wells
• Huge problem correlating faults and horizons between surveys

Client Recommendation
• ALL data loaded into a single TT project
• Correlation and QC undertaken using 3D viz in TT
• TT now adopted as preferred tool for 2D structural interpretation
Simple key concepts to apply
during exploration and prospect generation

Displacement continuity along faults


Displacement conservation at fault linkages
Visualize interpretation in 3D
Effects of structural juxtaposition
Prediction of fault rock properties and seal potential
Fault traps and side seal
geometry or property?

Juxtaposition seal only


Mainly juxtaposition seal;
minor contribution from
gouge between sands

between sands Seal


dominated by gouge
Fault zone properties I

Reduction in grain size by


fracturing. Reduction in
breccia porosity. Localized
mechanical mixing of grain
gouge fragments.

shale
smear
Fracturing of lithological
units. Mechanical mixing of
fragmented lthologies.
cataclastic def’m bands

?
Predicting fault-zone composition
II Shale Gouge Ratio (or SGR)
Well core data (cm scale)
Outcrop data (metre
Throw, T
scale)

Shale
SGR=Σ(Vsh.∆z) / T
Sand

Vsh5, ∆
z5
Slipped
Vsh4, ∆z4
interval (T)
Vsh3, ∆z3
Photo: G
Vsh2, ∆z2
Skerlec
Vsh1, ∆ z1
Shale Gouge Ratio validation: outcrop data
1

0 .9
Jn K cm

C a lc u la t e d S h a le G o u g e R a t io
0 .8
275m
275m 0 .7

0 .6

0 .5
235m
235m 0 .4

0 .3

155m
155m 0 .2
R e g r e s s io n R 2= 0 .7 1
0 .1
E x p e c te d r e la t io n s h ip
0
65m
65m 0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1
O b s e r v e d p r o p o r t io n o f s h a le y g o u g e in f a u lt z o n e

0m Outcrops provide ‘ground truth’ for assessing the SGR algorithm.


0 mTransects across the Moab Fault
S.E. Utah, Foxford et al 1998 Fault sampling should be at the appropriate scale.

There is a general correlation between observed shale content of


the Moab fault zone and the calculated SGR.
Triangle Plots

( a ) ( b ) ( c )
Sand A

Sand B Sand B

Sand C Sand C Sand B

Sand D Sand D Sand B

T h ro w = 0

T h ro w = 1 0 m

T h ro w = 2 0 m

Sand A U p th ro w n

Sand B

Sand C
Sand D

In c r e a s in g t h r o w
Triangle
curve data directly from
OpenWorks or • Identify principal
GeoFrame fault seal risks and
fault seal
opportunities
quickly using an
industry standard
technique.
• Improve
exploration team
productivity and
efficiency.

Displacement continuity along faults


Displacement conservation at fault linkages
Visualize interpretation in 3D
Effects of structural juxtaposition
Prediction of fault rock properties and seal potential
Juxtaposition of reservoirs
Detailed interpretation and model building:
Development/Appraisal/Production
Aim is to produce a “water tight” horizon and fault
framework model
Simple key concepts to apply
Pass the model into a geocellular package during exploration and prospect
Detailed validation of critical structure generation
Assess the seal potential
• Displacement continuity along faults
Predict HC column heights • Displacement conservation at fault linkages
• Effects of structural juxtaposition
Assess relative impact of certain faults on flow • Prediction of fault rock properties and seal potential
BEFORE building the geocellular model
...
...
Goal of framework building
Raw
interpretation Calculated fault properties

Water-tight model
TT Provides:

• Advanced tools for editing fault and horizon surface data


• Advanced, semi automated tools for generating and editing the
framework topology
• QC tools
• Advanced interpretation aids (e.g. fault slicing)
• Tools for building infill stratigraphy
• Fast, effective, modelling procedures (does not take years to become
expert!)
Initial model build
TT uses an automated modelling
procedure that is determined by
the fault network
(Incorrectly) unconnected fault
planes lead to a sloppy and
ungeological framework model
Faults need to be linked
where appropriate. The
process of branchline
completion between the
splay and master fault is
automated but tools exist
to optimize the
interpretation by hand.
Automated splay
intersection lines can
be adjusted according
to seismic when
displayed on the fault
surfaces. This
improves the
accuracy of the fault
model.
Here the seismic slice
from the down
thrown side of the
fault is interpreted as
though it were a row
or column.
Completed
interpretation of the
hanging wall splay
fault
Fault-attribute mapping to quality check
interpretation

Problem: Discrepancy in fault polygon due to anomaly in horizon interpretation that


may be due to mis-picks, absence of other faults, etc

Solution: Interpret new structure or edit horizons on sections or in 3D


or edit fault polygons directly on fault surface or edit the modelling patches
Local framework completion. Applies to all
layers and all faults in the project.
Assessment of fault Seal potential
Some goals
• Identify trap-bounding faults
• Assign risk (leaking or sealing)
• Estimate potential column heights
• Better understanding of fault zone properties
• More cost-effective reservoir management
• Increased recovery (= dollar savings)
Some Observations ...

• Paucity of fault-seal studies by oil companies

Less to do with available technology but more with the reluctance


to
incorporate routine fault-seal analysis techniques into primary
workflows

• Faults are typically regarded as a special problem

It is not sufficient to treat the faults as a ‘special problem’ but rather


as part of an integrated container framework of faults and horizons
whose ‘seal capacity’ varies over the surface of the container
Observations ...

Behaviour of faults is time-dependent

In exploration we are interested in the capillary entry pressure


of the fault zone and its ability to support an economic column
height (static trapping)

In production we are more interested in the permeability; a fault


that admits flow over geological time may become a barrier over
production time scales
Fault Seal – Towards Allan
Diagrams
Allan diagram – shows areas of juxtaposition seal and areas
of potential cross-fault leakage

Downthrown Red
juxtaposed against Yellow reservoir
up
Upthrown Yellow zones self-
down juxtaposed across
fault

Downthrown Yellow
juxtaposed against
Upthrown Green

Areas of reservoir non-overlap = juxtaposition seal at fault.


Grey = non-reservoir sealing lithology on both sides of fault
plane.
Detail of the pattern of
juxtaposition

The most import contacts here,


i.e. good reservoir to good
reservoir, are coloured dark
blue. In the absence of any
knowledge of the fault rock
properties, these are the
locations where we would
expect the fault to leak.
Volume properties – three routes

SGR=Σ(Vsh.∆z) / T
A
3500

Stratigraphic Infill Well 2


2500
3000 2000
I

B
I
t below I
Constan

Constant:
Constant distance below or
above a primary horizon t abov
e II
Const
an II

II Absolute depth 0.25 III


II
below I
Scaled
III 0.25
Absolute Depth: 0.3

Horizontal at depth value e IV


Scaled abov
0.3
IV
IV

Scaled value:
Fraction of the interval between
I – IV = primary seismic horizons two primary horizons
Dashed = markers created in Well Editor
Stratigraphy is defined in
wells and distributed by
thickness rules
Example showing a detail
of an infilled 3D model
VShale attribute within
the infill layers
VShale direct from wells using CurveMapper
Vsh
Use of an RAI cube and Slicer to volume
properties
High acoustic
impedance indicates
high V-shale
RAI scale; IESX

-1 +1
TrapTester seismic scale
0

V-shale

Low acoustic impedance,


low V-shale, probably a
gas-bearing sand
Allan Diagrams- Extra note

Allan Diagrams so far have


been produced on a layer by
layer basis.

New ways of generating volume


propertites lead to new ways of
considering Allan diagrams

The geometry of the


juxtaposition concept can be
generalized to apply to layers,
seismic voxels, curve mapped
properties or cell-cell
connections
Using properties to predict fault zone
composition
Map of SGR on a fault surface. Red = high SGR, Yellow =
intermediate SGR and Green = low SGR.

SGR=Σ(Vsh.∆z) / T Badleys has now published the calibrations from many fault seal
studies that show that “green” indicates a high probability of fault
leakage and “red” indicates a high probability of seal over geological
time scales.
Predicting seal / leaking behaviour
100 Seal
90 Leak

Shale Gouge Ratio (%)


80 Range of SGR values at
sand-sand juxtapositions
70
60
50
40
30
20 15-20% SGR
10
0

Shale Gouge Ratio (SGR) at sand-on-sand reservoir juxtaposition. Green (low Oil fields in North Sea
SGR) are potential leak points, Red (high SGR) are sealing

Fault-seal attributes (e.g. SGR, CSP) are estimates of the relative likelihood of clay
gouge or smear being developed at the fault surface.

To use the attributes as estimates of seal capacity, the attributes must be calibrated
in datasets where the sealing behaviour is documented from well data. The
objective is to derive an empirical relationship that can be used to estimate the
‘strength’ of the fault seal
Relationship between SGR and pressure data
Data collected from a variety of basins worldwide (inc. North Sea, mid-Norway, Grand Banks, Gulf of Mexico, Columbus Basin, Niger Delta,
Vietnam, Gulf of Thailand).
All basins are typically mixed clastic environments.
Faults dominated by extensional faulting. No strike-slip or reverse fault data.

Lines represent maximum across-fault


pressure that can be supported at a specific
gouge ratio value (seal failure envelopes).
Plotting all data onto one diagram permits
a general trend of increasing SGR value
supporting increasing across-fault pressure
difference (AFPD) to be established.
Empirical equation defining seal-failure
envelopes:

AFPD (bars) = 10 ((SGR/27) – C)


C is 0.5 for burial depths < ca. 10,000 ft
C is 0.25 for burial depths 10,000-11,500 ft
Across-fault pressure difference (AFPD) is C is 0 for burial depths > ca. 11,500 ft
taken to be equivalent to fault-zone
threshold pressure
Fault-gouge samples:
composition control on capillary entry pressure
Using calibrated Shale Gouge Ratio to estimate
hydrocarbon column heights

Workflow:
• Derive the fault-rock distribution (e.g. from SGR) from subsurface data.

• Convert SGR to fault-zone capillary threshold pressure. Apply seal-failure envelopes derived from
calibration with in-situ pressure data or from lab-derived empirical equations to estimate threshold
pressure Pc.

• Incorporate density data for water, oil or gas phases at reservoir conditions to predict column height
using the equation:

ρ w = pore water density (kg/m3); ρh = hydrocarbon density (kg/m3)


g = acceleration due to gravity (9.81 ms-2 or approx. 10ms-2)
Pc = threshold pressure in Pascals (105 Pa = 1 bar)
Predicting hydrocarbon column heights
In a simplistic approach, traps are often assumed to be filled down to the shallowest structural
spill point. The fault is considered to be sealing (and able to support the column) over the
entire fault surface.

Leakage of hydrocarbons through a [membrane] fault seal takes place when the buoyancy
pressure exceeds the pressure required for hydrocarbons to enter and pass through the largest
interconnected pore throat in the seal (capillary entry pressure).

Establishing where the buoyancy pressure equals the fault-zone entry pressure provides a
method for predicting the column height supported by an SGR value.

Pore pressure / depth profile: Buoyancy pressure / depth profile:

Pressure Buoyancy Pressure

Hydrocarbon
pressure trend
B A
Pressure difference between
hydrocarbons and water

Water pressure trend


Depth Depth
What is TrapTester predicting?
2-D fault section Fault-zone composition Capillary threshold pressure
(function of SGR)
Low SGR High SGR Low High

Predicted leak
point on fault
Buoyancy pressure = capillary
threshold pressure

Maximum column
supported by this
SGR value Buoyancy pressure
(HC pressure – water pressure)

Depth Depth Depth

• TrapTester predicts the column height that is supported by an SGR value


Estimating column heights: 3D case

Footwall (Oil) Juxtaposed reservoir sands

Hangingwall (Water)
= Shallowest column derived from SGR
= Maximum column supported by the fault

The critical part of the reservoir overlap is the point which exhibits the shallowest base of
hydrocarbon column (red arrow)

This point defines a potential spill point on the fault surface


Depth
sPre ure Bo suryancPe
Depth aGRmfblSuporevt esurp

SGR-derived spill point may be shallower then structural spill


(fill-to-spill) or contacts derived from pore pressure gradients
How can TrapTester predictions help us?
OWC based on structure filled down to Fault-plane diagram:
spill point at fault tip

Purple: OWC; black: depth contours

Solid = footwall sand; Dashed = hangingwall sand


Yellow = sand-on-sand

Alternative OWC based on shortest column Column heights predicted from SGR
predicted from SGR

Red line = column support by SGR

• TrapTester predictions provide an alternative method for estimating


column heights (ie, why some traps are under-filled)
Framework model vs. cellular model
a way to optimize cellular geometries?
(EarthGrid)
Well

Horizon

Simplified fault geometry


Framework model of faults
Simplified fault connectivity
and surfaces based on seismic
Simplified horizon geometry
interpretation

Gullfaks Public Data Release, courtesy of the Integrated model


licencees of PL050/PL050B and the Norwegian
Petroleum Directorate.
Structural differences
Framework Fault

SGR (%)
0

Fault clay content too low in geocellular fault representation


N

Geocellular Fault
100

End of model

End of geocellular fault before true end of fault.

•The geocellular fault is too transmissive towards its tip, and is too short in the model.
•The geocellular fault throw is forced to be 0 at its lateral boundary, where the true displacement is
greater.
Structural omissions

• The number of faults included in the model


usually depends on criteria imposed by
limitations imposed by the model building
process (Y-faults, fault size, intersection
geometry etc.).

• Shouldn’t we decide on what faults to


include based on their likely effect on fluid
communication between reservoir layers…

• …and their effect on fluid flow?

Horizon dip azimuth


Calculation of SGR – towards transmissibility
(TXMmapper)
Vshale

Vsh4, ∆z4
Throw Vsh3, ∆z3
Vsh2, ∆z2
Vsh1, ∆z1

Vshale
1

SGR (%)
100

0
SGR = Σ(Vsh.∆z) / t x100%

0
Fault properties in reservoir simulation:
transmissibility multipliers
Reservoir simulators usually incorporate fault properties implicitly as
transmissibility multipliers - the ratio by which the slab of fault-zone
material degrades the transmissibility between juxtaposed cells.
The multiplier depends on the size and permeability of the juxtaposed cells
as well as the thickness and permeability of the fault zone.
The transmissibility multiplier is model-dependent
t = Fault-zone thickness
t, kfz
Kfz = Fault-zone permeability

k1 k2 K1 K2 = Cell permeability

A L = Distance between cell centers


A = Area of connection between cells
L
TM =
Fault-gouge samples: control on permeability

General decrease in
permeability with increasing
phyllosilicates in gouge
• Clay-smear samples show
very low permeability.
• Gouges generated from
clean sands have very
variable properties that
depend on their geological
history (depth at time of
faulting, maximum burial
depth – greater depths give
lower permeabilities).
Fault-gouge samples: control on permeability

Comparison of permeability
measurements on core samples
(symbols) and predicted permeability
(solid lines).

Zf = Initial burial depth (during


faulting)
Zmax = Maximum burial depth
Vf = Clay fraction of fault rock

From Sperrevik et al 2002

kf = 80000.exp-[19.4Vf + 0.00403zmax + (0.0055zf - 12.5)(1 - Vf)7]

Pf = 31.84.kf-0.3848 where Pf = Hg/air threshold pressure


Examples of transmissibility multiplier
calculations
• Gullfaks reservoir model contains >50
faults, 25 zones, 38 rows and 87 columns.

• Our examples come from the Northern part


of the model.

Gullfaks reservoir model


An example: the “big fault”
Vshale

S N

Vshale • Big fault tips out to the south (left)


1
Footwall
• Towards the centre of the fault the
maximum throw corresponds to the
0
juxtaposition of Tarbert Sands against
Etive and Rannoch sands.
Hangingwall

Throw (m) Throw


• Shale Gouge Ratio in this area is higher
0 because of the intervening more shaley
Ness Fm.

• The fault should be more transmissive


150 towards the tip where self juxtaposition
SGR
SGR (%) of of the Tarbert Etive and Rannoch
100
Fms occurs.

0
Transmissibility

Transmissibility

S N
•Unfaulted transmissibility is the flow
Transmissibility potential across a fault that has no fault rock
(mDm)
(such as clay smear, cataclasis or diagenetic
0.0002
alteration).
Unfaulted

•Faulted transmissibility implicitly


incorporates permeability, using SGR, and a
0.02 thickness of fault rock products into the
calculation of potential flow.

Faulted
•Transmissibility multiplier (TM) is the
Transmissibility Multiplier TMX
ratio between unfaulted and faulted
0 transmissibility.

•Low transmissibilty multipliers occur


where the fault impedes flow.
1
Transmissibility Multipliers: Examples
Recent examples of reservoir simulation using geologically-driven
transmissibility multipliers:

• Heidrun Field
Fault-zone permeability derived from core analysis & applied to
juxtaposition diagrams. Accurate prediction of water breakthrough.

• Snorre Field
Transmissibility multipliers derived from SGR analysis. Excellent history
match achieved, compared to using non-geological ‘default’ multipliers.

• Scott Field
Transmissibility multipliers derived from SGR analysis. Excellent history
match achievable after 1 day instead of 3 months.
TMX key benefits
24.0 Scott Field - Block Ib
PRODUCTION DATA
20.0
ALL FAULTS CLOSED
Cumulative Water SELF JUXTAPOSED OPEN
Production MODIFIED OPEN (3 months)
(STB*106)
SGR METHOD (<1 day)
12.0

8.0
Simulation
Results: Water 4.0
Production vs.
Time 0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
ALL FAULTS CLOSED (all Tm = 0)
Time
SELF JUXTAPOSED OPEN (Tm = 1; non-juxtaposed Tm = 0)
MODIFIED OPEN (manual input to modify cell-by-cell multipliers)
Fault reactivation risk
likelyhood of faults being active under present day stress
conditions
Main geomechanical relationships in TrapTester
Slip Tendency Fracture Stability

(∆P)
∆P

Ratio of shear to normal stress Pore pressure increase required to


induce failure
Risk of slip increases as the ratio
approaches the coeff. friction (~0.6) Assumes fault rock has mechanical
strength
Fault-plane diagrams: geomechanical attributes
Fracture stability Slip tendency

Green: small increase in pore pressure Red: high slip tendency


required to induce failure (~ high risk of Yellow: low slip tendency
reactivation)
Regions on the fault with low fracture
Blue: large increase in pore pressure (~ stability (green) coincide with high slip
low risk of reactivation) tendency (red)
Fracture prediction - FaultED
Introduction to Elastic Dislocation methodology
A ‘fault panel’ is a rectangular dislocation with uniform slip,
embedded in an elastic medium. Using the equations of Okada
(1992), the resulting displacement and strain tensor can be
computed at any observation point in the medium.
The corresponding stress tensor and failure mode (if any) at the
observation point can then be computed using appropriate
material properties.

Mapped faults in the subsurface can


be approximated by an array of
rectangular fault panels, each of
uniform slip.
Define ‘observation grid’ upon
which strains, displacements &
stresses are calculated.
FaultED modeling: Workflow

1: Build faulted framework model 2: Panel faults (rectangular


fault panels)

3: Include regional strain estimates.


Forward model deformation to match 4: View model properties
observed horizon geometry
Example: Thrust anticline

1. Thrust fault with


displacement pattern
(blue: 0, red:700m slip).

2. Observation grid set up


around thrust fault (node
spacing 200m).

3. ED forward model
deforms the observation
grid to mimic the
hangingwall anticline.
Comparison of example reservoir horizon and
modelled observation grid

horizon model

Model does not include regional tilting, effects of other faults, or local diapirism
FaultED modelling workflow: Predictions
Elastic strain tensor Most-favourable fracture orientations

Volumetric strain Maximum Coulomb Shear Stress (MCSS)

Normal Strike Reverse


Axes of strain tensor
slip
A ‘pseudo-stress’ tensor is calculated from Stress tensor is used to predict the mode and
the strain tensor (incorporating material orientation of likely failure planes at all
properties) nodes on the grid
Maximum Coulomb Shear Stress
(proximity-to-failure indicator), Small faults
map view concentrated in
high-MCSS region
at east end of main
thrust

fa u lt
h rust
in t
ma
small faults
mapped on seismic
(Sand 2)
Predicted fracture orientations,
map view

normal faults
tear fault at
E end of fold
reverse faults
on back limb
fau lt
ru s t
n th
mai

strike-slip
faults
How do observed and
reverse predicted fracture orientations
faults compare in detail?…..
Coloured squares show ED Predicted
local angular misfit fault-trace
between mapped and azimuth (o)
predicted fault strikes

Mapped fault-trace azimuth (o)

Mean angular misfit = 23.6o.


Cf 45o for random set,
and 62o for faults // main thrust
angular misfit
0o 90o (bad)
(perfect)
Simple key concepts to apply
at all stages
Displacement continuity along faults
Displacement conservation at fault linkages
Visualize interpretation in 3D
Effects of structural juxtaposition
Prediction of fault rock properties and seal potential

Leverage all the above to build defensible 3D Models


To risk effectively seal / leak behaviour
To assess risk of reactivation
To predict fracture densities and orientations
To build TXM maps for fault-flow behaviour during production

You might also like