About This Item

Share This Item

The AAPG/Datapages Combined Publications Database

AAPG Bulletin

Abstract

AAPG Bulletin, V. 91, No. 9 (September 2007), P. 1231-1246.

Copyright copy2007. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.

DOI:10.1306/03080706051

Methodology for risking Previous HitfaultNext Hit seal capacity: Implications of Previous HitfaultNext Hit zone architecture

Roald B. Farseth,1 Eivind Johnsen,2 Susanne Sperrevik3

1Hydro ASA, Research Centre, Box 7190, N-5020 Bergen, Norway; [email protected]
2Eni Norge AS, Box 101 Forus, N-4064 Stavanger, Norway; [email protected]
3Statoil ASA, Box 7200, N-5020 Bergen, Norway; [email protected]

ABSTRACT

We introduce a methodology for quantifying the risk associated with a seal for Previous HitfaultNext Hit-bounded prospects. Applying this methodology, the aspects of Previous HitfaultNext Hit seal are confined within four main risk categories. The methodology allows comparable criteria to be applied in the risking procedure to reduce uncertainty in Previous HitfaultNext Hit seal assessments. As a foundation for the methodology, we combine onshore and offshore data from large faults and demonstrate how architecture and the distribution of Previous HitfaultNext Hit rocks may influence sealing capacity. Despite the variable and complex structure of Previous HitfaultNext Hit zones, we have observed Previous HitfaultNext Hit zone characteristics that appear in common to the faults investigated, and we consider these factors to be crucial in the risking of Previous HitfaultNext Hit seal predictions. The Previous HitfaultNext Hit zones in our database, typically bounded by external slip surfaces, represent two main categories: (1) a layer of shale smear entrained into the Previous HitfaultNext Hit zone and derived from a thick shale source layer within the sequence offset by the Previous HitfaultNext Hit and (2) Previous HitfaultNext Hit zones characterized by internal slip surfaces, slivers of footwall and hanging-wall–derived material rotated along the Previous HitfaultNext Hit zone and commonly enclosed in a matrix of shaly-silty Previous HitfaultNext Hit gouge. This study highlights the disparity between the complexity of actual faults and the abrasion-type shale gouge ratio (SGR) algorithm currently used in the industry to estimate sealing capacity of faults, which assumes that the seismically derived throw is concentrated in a single Previous HitfaultNext Hit plane. We discuss how this may influence sequence juxtaposition across a Previous HitfaultNext Hit, the associated SGR values, and ultimately, the Previous HitfaultTop seal risking.

Pay-Per-View Purchase Options

The article is available through a document delivery service. Explain these Purchase Options.

Watermarked PDF Document: $14
Open PDF Document: $24

AAPG Member?

Please login with your Member username and password.

Members of AAPG receive access to the full AAPG Bulletin Archives as part of their membership. For more information, contact the AAPG Membership Department at [email protected].