Basin Geology 8 May

STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY
Gianfranco Fontanesi
San Donato Milanese 8 May 2007

STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY
1) Structural Modelling:
a) Identification of the Structural Styles
b) Reconstruction of the tectonic phases and timing
of the deformation
c) Construction and restoration of geologic cross-
sections
d) 3D Restoration
2) Fault Seal Analysis:

a) Input Data
b) Fault Juxtaposition
c) Shale Gouge Ratio
STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY: Introduction
Structural
Modelling
Petroleum
System
Modelling
Fault Seal 2D/3D

Structural Geology Analysis Geologic Model
Dynamic
Modelling
Fault &
Fracture
Analysis
STRUCTURAL MODELLING
STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY: Structural Modelling
Recognition of the Structural Styles and Geometries:
* Provide a basic structural and geometric framework to help the seismic

interpretation
* QC of the interpreted structural (faults and horizons) features and
building of the geometric model
* Build of geologic model through the integration of the geometric model
with all the available geologic informations
2D Restoration and Balancing:
Structural Modelling * Validate the interpreted structural and geologic features

* Definition of the main deformation phases
* Definition of the timing of the deformation
3D Restoration:
* Definition of the timing of the deformation

* Creation of restored structural maps as direct input for Petroleum
System Modelling (migration path analysis)
* Definition of the timing of the trapping mechanisms related to the main
naftogenic process (expulsion and migration) as direct input for
Petroleum System Modelling
Analogue models..
represent a possible guidance in complex geology areas

and coupled with the geologic

knowledge of an area
provide the basic

information for building a
structural framework….
?
?
that can help the 2D

and 3D
seismic
interpretation..
WELL
STRIKE-SLIP FAULT
and finally the creation of a
geometric and..
WELL
of a geologic model
Reconstruction of structural evolution using 2D restoration tools
Main detachment plane
Present time geologic profile
Splitted modules along detachment plane

Reconstruction of structural evolution Restoration above detachment

using 2D restoration tools
Reconstruction of missing portions
Restoration below detachment
2D Sequential restoration
Restored profile
Reconstruction of structural evolution using 2D restoration tools
Depth converted seismic interpretation
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900
0 0
500 500
1000 1000
1500 1500
2000 2000
2500 2500
Modules restoration
3000 3000
3500 3500
4000 4000
4500 4500
5000 5000
5500 5500
6000 6000
6500 6500
7000 7000
7500 7500
8000 8000
8500 8500
9000 9000
9500 9500
10000 10000
10500 10500
11000 11000
11500 11500
12000 12000
dep000001 SPBI98R-106
W E
2050m
Present day geologic model
Sequential backstripping
Restored profile
Seismic interpretation - Depth domain
Present day geologic model
Sequential backstripping and

restoration
3D Restoration
Paleo-structural map of top reservoir layer at selected time obtained

by reconstruction through 3D restoration
Present Time 3 MY 4.8 MY 10.1MY

3D Restoration provides information about structural evolution
Structure not
present yet
Structure
delineated
? Structure already
present with
10.1 M.Y., no HC
expulsion ? ? possible extensions
Strucure likely
filled of HC
4.8 M.Y., beginning
of HC expulsion ??
3 M.Y. Peak of HC
expulsion
Top reservoir at present day

Fault Seal Analysis
STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY: Fault Seal Analysis
Faults can be considered

(irrespective of the presence or not
of movement along the fault plane)
as interruptions in the physical
continuity of a rock.
If the rock is a reservoir faults can

play an important role in fluid flows.
Two basic types of fault flow

models:
Faults in siliciclastic reservoirs:

A
detrimental to fluid flow
Faults in fractured reservoirs:
propitious to fluid flow
Fault Seal Analysis deals with the

proofing effectiveness of faults in
presence of hydrocarbons and to
test the capability of such faults in
constituting an effective closure for
a hydrocarbon trap.
As such Fault Seal Analysis is

applied for faults affecting
siliciclastic reservoirs
Structure A has two sides closing against faults

But what happens to the rocks on both sides of the fault when we have movements along the plane?
Heave
Normal fault Zones
Painted Canyon, California
Disp
T
la
h
ce m
r
o
e nt
w
FOOTWALL
HANGINGWALL
Rocks are displaced
Rocks are fractured

Two basic types of fault seal:
bl e
ea
rm
pe
Im
s
rou
Po
Juxtaposition Seal Membrane Seal
Geometric Properties of the Fault Plane Petrophysic Properties of the Fault Rock
The properties of the fault plane can change……..

Sandstone-1
Along the dip of the fault

plane or……
Sandstone-2
2.1 m 3m
displac. displac.
Normal fault Zone (15m displ.)
Normal fault Zones, Round O Quarry, Lancashire, UK Round O Quarry, Lancashire, UK
(From Childs et al. (1998) (From Childs et al. (1998)
Along the strike of

the fault plane
Round O Quarry, Lancashire, UK Moab Fault, SE Utah

(Childs et al., 1996) (Foxford et al., 1998)
Juxtaposition Sealing
Modelled Fault
Throw Analysis
Allan Maps
Footwall
Hangingwall
Juxtaposition Sealing
Sand on sand
Shale on Shale
The juxtaposition of Sand against Shale or Shale against

Shale does not represent a problem because in these
intervals the fault is considered sealing.
It is more complicated when we have juxtaposition, across

the fault plane of Sand against Sand as in this case we are
dealing with a case of MEMBRANE SEALING
Membrane Sealing
Pe
The primary control on the seal behaviour of faults under static pressure conditions is
likely to be the clay/shale content of the fault zone.
Theory: Hydrocarbon Column Height (Z) must exceed Pe (Entry or Capillary Pressure for
leackage to occur.
Z=Pe/[(ρw-ρo)g]
Membrane Sealing: Fault Rock Properties
Petrophysical properties of the

fault rock depend from a
number of different factors
among which:
•lithology of the host rocks
•cataclasis
•shale smear/gouge
•cementation
Membrane Sealing
Fault Rock Capillary Threshold Pressure

Membrane Sealing
Several algorithms have been developed to assess

the clay/shale content of the fault zone. Some of
them such the CSP (Clay Smear Potential, Bouvier
et al., 1989) are qualitative assessment while the
most used is the
SHALE GOUGE RATIO

(SGR, Yielding et al., 1997))
which can considered as
the percentage of shale or clay in the slipped

interval
and is a function of the shale/clay volume (Vshale)

of the host rocks.
Membrane Sealing
Visualization of Vshale on the fault plane. The shale layers can be easily detected
The shale volume of a rock is expressed by the Vshale Curve that is calculated through the
integration of various “lithologic” logs such as Gamma Ray, Density, etc.
This curve shows values comprised between 0 (sand) and 1 (shale).

Membrane Sealing
The SEALING POTENTIAL

of a fault is defined through
the calculation of SGR for
each potential fault throw.
The juxtaposition diagram

illustrates the range of the
calculated SGRs for all
these potential throws.
Membrane Sealing
Visualization of the SGR on the Fault Plane
SGR>35% Fault is sealing
15%<SGR>30-35% Fault is probably sealing
SGR<15% Fault is leaking

Membrane Sealing
If SGR fall in this range, seal attributes must be calibrated with in-situ pressure data to derive a measure of
the “strenght” of the seal and hence the hydrocarbon column height.
Ideally SGR values should be calibrated against the difference

in pressure between the hydrocarbons trapped at the fault
and water in the fault zone.
This difference has been called Across-Fault-Pressure-

Difference (AFPD) by Bretan et al. (2003) and coincide with the
Capillary Pressure (Pc)
However, as it is generally not possible to collect accurate

pressure data for water in a fault zone, the difference in
pressure can be obtained either by measuring the pressure
difference between the hydrocarbon and water phases in the
same reservoir or by measuring the difference in pressure
across the fault.
If there is a common aquifer the Capillary Pressure coincides

with the Buoyancy Pressure
However we must take into account that sometimes the aquifer

across the fault it is not the same and that sometimes we
juxtaposition of different type of fluids. The basic types are:
hydrocarbons (oil or gas) against water

hydrocarbons against hydorcarbons
water against water
Membrane Sealing
To sum up in order to calibrate SGR values against pressure data we need the following information:
PRESSURE DATA
Oil pressure gradient
OWC
Water pressure
gradient
For each considered

layer
Membrane Sealing
FLUID JUXTAPOSITION
Oil-Water contact
Water
Oil
On hanginwall and
footwall
Membrane Sealing
FLUID PRESSURE
On the same fault

block
Membrane Sealing
DIFFERENCE IN FLUID PRESSURE
Between Footwall and

Hangingwall
Membrane Sealing
Calibration plot of SGR against across-fault-

pressure-differences (AFPD, Bretan et al.,
2003) have been collected from a variety of
fault data sets worldwide (Yielding, 2002)
and for different burial depth.
From this plot derives that there is a linear

relationship between SGR and AFPD and
that can be written as:
AFPD(bar)=10(SGR/27-C)
Where:
C=0.5 for depth less than 3.0 km
C=0.25 for depth between 3 and 3.5 km
C=0 for depth exceeding 3.5 km
Membrane Sealing
The empirical relationship between

AFPD (Pc) and SGR can then be used
to derive the Potential Hydrocarbon
Column Height that each part of the
fault may be able to support:
H=AFPD(Pc)/g(ρw-ρo)
Where:
g=gravity acceleration
ρw=pore-water density
ρo=hydrocarbon density
Membrane Sealing
Fault Seal analysis can be used in

explorative studies to define the
maximum column eight sustained by a A
fault bounded prospect:
H=AFPD(Pc)/g(ρw-ρo)

Basin Geology 8 May

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Basin Geology 8 May

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY

San Donato Milanese 8 May 2007

2) Fault Seal Analysis:

Fault Seal 2D/3D

Recognition of the Structural Styles and Geometries:

* Provide a basic structural and geometric framework to help the seismic

2D Restoration and Balancing:

Structural Modelling * Validate the interpreted structural and geologic features

* Definition of the timing of the deformation

represent a possible guidance in complex geology areas

and coupled with the geologic

provide the basic

that can help the 2D

Reconstruction of structural evolution using 2D restoration tools

Main detachment plane

Present time geologic profile

Splitted modules along detachment plane

Reconstruction of structural evolution Restoration above detachment

Restoration below detachment

Present day geologic model

Seismic interpretation - Depth domain

Present day geologic model

Sequential backstripping and

Paleo-structural map of top reservoir layer at selected time obtained

Present Time 3 MY 4.8 MY 10.1MY

Top reservoir at present day

Faults can be considered

If the rock is a reservoir faults can

Two basic types of fault flow

Faults in siliciclastic reservoirs:

Faults in fractured reservoirs:

propitious to fluid flow

Fault Seal Analysis deals with the

As such Fault Seal Analysis is

Structure A has two sides closing against faults

Rocks are displaced

Rocks are fractured

Two basic types of fault seal:

Juxtaposition Seal Membrane Seal

The properties of the fault plane can change……..

Along the dip of the fault

Along the strike of

Round O Quarry, Lancashire, UK Moab Fault, SE Utah

The juxtaposition of Sand against Shale or Shale against

It is more complicated when we have juxtaposition, across

Membrane Sealing: Fault Rock Properties

Petrophysical properties of the

•lithology of the host rocks

Fault Rock Capillary Threshold Pressure

Several algorithms have been developed to assess

SHALE GOUGE RATIO

which can considered as

the percentage of shale or clay in the slipped

and is a function of the shale/clay volume (Vshale)

This curve shows values comprised between 0 (sand) and 1 (shale).

The SEALING POTENTIAL

The juxtaposition diagram

Visualization of the SGR on the Fault Plane

SGR>35% Fault is sealing

15%<SGR>30-35% Fault is probably sealing

SGR<15% Fault is leaking

Ideally SGR values should be calibrated against the difference

This difference has been called Across-Fault-Pressure-

However, as it is generally not possible to collect accurate