Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.badleys.co.uk
Application of structural geological methods to E&P problems
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
Beijing
Abu Dhabi Denver
Jakarta
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
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
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
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
( a ) ( b ) ( c )
Sand A
Sand B 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.
Water-tight model
TT Provides:
Downthrown Red
juxtaposed against Yellow reservoir
up
Upthrown Yellow zones self-
down juxtaposed across
fault
Downthrown Yellow
juxtaposed against
Upthrown Green
SGR=Σ(Vsh.∆z) / T
A
3500
B
I
t below I
Constan
Constant:
Constant distance below or
above a primary horizon t abov
e II
Const
an II
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
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 (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.
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:
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.
Hydrocarbon
pressure trend
B A
Pressure difference between
hydrocarbons and water
Predicted leak
point on fault
Buoyancy pressure = capillary
threshold pressure
Maximum column
supported by this
SGR value Buoyancy pressure
(HC pressure – water pressure)
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)
Alternative OWC based on shortest column Column heights predicted from SGR
predicted from SGR
Horizon
SGR (%)
0
Geocellular Fault
100
End of model
•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
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
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).
S N
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 multiplier (TM) is the
Transmissibility Multiplier TMX
ratio between unfaulted and faulted
0 transmissibility.
• 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
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
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