Characterization of Fault Zones for Reservoir Modeling:
An Example from the Gullfaks Field, Northern North Sea1
G. Yielding,2 J. A. Øverland,3 and G. Byberg4
ABSTRACT
A fault-seal study was performed for part of the
Gullfaks field (North Sea) as an aid to improve
reservoir management of this complexly faulted
structure. The operator’s (Statoil) map data were
used to build a three-dimensional model of the fault
network. Together with petrophysical logs, this
model was used to compute the variation of fault-
seal potential (shale gouge ratio or fault-zone per-
cent shale) on each fault surface.
Pressure data from exploration and production
wells have been projected onto the modeled fault
surfaces. The preproduction pressure differences at
sealing faults (separating different hydrocarbon
columns) provide information about the capillary
seal at the faults. Across-fault pressure drops at par-
ticular times during production also have been dis-
played. These dynamic pressure drops provide a
guide to the permeability of the fault zones after
flow has started.
The calculated fault parameters (displacement
and shale gouge ratio) can be converted to fault-
zone thickness and permeability and can be used to
derive fault transmissibility modifiers for reservoir
simulations. Maps have been produced showing
reservoir juxtaposition areas and calculated fault
permeabilities along faults throughout the study
area. These parameters are compatible with the
recorded pressure history and tracer movement
©Copyright, 1999. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
All rights reserved.
1 Manuscript received July 24, 1997; revised manuscript received
November 4, 1998; final acceptance December 4, 1998.
2Badley Earth Sciences Ltd, North Beck Lane, Hundleby, Spilsby, Lincs
PE23 5NB, United Kingdom; e-mail: graham@badleys.co.uk
3Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Prof. Olav Hanssensvei 10, N-4001
Stavanger, Norway.
4Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Prof. Olav Hanssensvei 10, N-4001
Stavanger, Norway. Present address: Statoil, 4035 Stavanger, Norway.
We are grateful to members of the PL050/050B license group, headed by
Statoil as operator, for permission to publish this study, although the views
expressed here are ours and not necessarily those of Statoil or the license
partners. We are grateful to Eva Halland of Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
for the impetus to publish this work. We also thank Jonny Hesthammer, Rob
Knipe, Donald Stone, John Berry, and Glen Cayley for their constructive
comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.
AAPG Bulletin, V. 83, No. 6 (June 1999), P. 925–951.
between wells, and will enable key reservoir man-
agement decisions to be tested and optimized.
INTRODUCTION
The Gullfaks field covers an area of approximate-
ly 50 km2 entirely confined within block 34/10 in
the Norwegian sector of the North Sea (Figure 1).
The field is one of the four big fields that have dom-
inated Norwegian oil production up to the mid-
1990s.
Gullfaks was discovered in 1978 following the
award of the concession to the group comprising
Statoil (operator), Norsk Hydro, and Saga Petro-
leum. The complexity of the field required an
extensive delineation program in which 13 wells
were drilled. Production commenced in December
1986 and is expected to continue for more than 20
yr (Erichsen et al., 1987). To date over 170 develop-
ment wells have been drilled.
Three major reservoirs make up the Gullfaks field:
the Brent Group (Middle Jurassic), the Cook
Formation (Lower Jurassic), and the Statfjord
Formation (Lower Jurassic–Upper Triassic). The total
recoverable oil reserves at Gullfaks are estimated at
307.7 million Sm 3 (standard cubic meters) (Nor-
wegian Petroleum Directorate, 1997) of which the
Brent, Cook, and Statfjord reservoirs hold 80, 5, and
15% of the reserves, respectively.
OBJECTIVES OF FAULT SEAL STUDY
In the planning and early production phase on
the Gullfaks field, it was realized that the extent of
faulting in the field would have a major impact on
the reservoir management strategy (Petterson et al.,
1990). Pressure measurements, both with repeat
formation tester (RFT) in new wells and with per-
manent downhole gauges, and the use of non-
radioactive tracers, were used to measure the
across-fault effects of the production/injection pro-
gram. Some pressure communication between the
fault compartments was evident before 1988.
925
926 Characterizing Fault Zones

61o 30
Figure 1—Location map
2 o 00
for the Gullfaks field (from
Fossen and Hesthammer,
1998). Snorre
Statfjord
Nord o
2 20 0 5 km

Vigdis Visund Nord

Visund Sør
Statfjord
Øst
Herdis
Statfjord

Tordis
61o 15

Gullfaks Profile
Vest N
Tordis Gullfaks
fault

62o

en
ab

Norway
Gr
ing
Vik
Gullfaks Sør
Bergen

60o
Shetland
platform

50 km
2o 4o
61o 00
HORST COMPLEX
-1
W DOMINO SYSTEM
ACCOMMODATION E
ZONE

Tarbert Fm.
-2 r.
Brent G
Fm
Cook
j. Fm
Statf
Unco
-3 nform
ity
eF m
L und
Fm
ist
-4 1 km e r Te
km Upp
CDP 400 480 560 640 720 800 880 960 1040 1120 1200 1280

Surplus gas has been reinjected into the reser-
voirs for storage. Attempts have been made to use
some of the surplus gas for WAG (water-alternating-
gas) injection to improve the displacement of attic
oil. The injected gas has been produced back from
unexpected well locations (bypassing nearby
wells). This gas movement has been documented
by the application of tracers (Kleven et al., 1995).
The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate was interest-
ed in evaluating the application of gas injection on
a larger scale as an integrated part of the reservoir
management of the field. A gas injection program
would require a better understanding of the flow
and pressure patterns in the reservoirs, particularly
across faults.
The objective of this fault seal study was to inves-
tigate the effects of the internal faults on fluid move-
ment in the Gullfaks field. Differences in original
fluid contacts (static model) and f luid pressure
changes during production (dynamic model) have
been investigated. Linkage between fault proper-
ties and differences in fluid contacts has been clear-
ly demonstrated in many studies in recent years
(e.g., Bouvier et al., 1989; Gibson, 1994; Fristad et al.,
1997; Fulljames et al., 1997; Yielding et al., 1997). It
has been more difficult to find quantitative relation-
ships for fault behavior when faults are exposed to
the short-term changes in pressure caused by pro-
duction (e.g., Jev et al., 1993). In this study, we ana-
lyze the areas of probable leakage across some of the
faults in the Gullfaks field by comparing measured
pressure differences and calculated sealing proper-
ties (expressed as predicted shale content in the fault
zone). An ultimate aim of the study was to produce a
quantitative expression (in grid format) of fault-zone
permeabilities for simulation models. These models
will enable key reservoir management decisions to
be tested and optimized.
GULLFAKS FIELD
Structural Setting of the Gullfaks field
Several phases of rifting have occurred in the
northern North Sea, with the Late Jurassic rifting
phase constituting the major contributor to the
structuring of Jurassic–Triassic reservoirs (Marsden
et al., 1990; Yielding et al., 1992). The Late Jurassic
rifting generated large rotated fault blocks on both
sides of the Viking Graben. The Gullfaks field is
located on the large westerly dipping Gullfaks fault
block on the western side of the graben (Figure 1).
The crest of the Gullfaks fault block (about 1750 m
below mean sea level) marks the highest point of any
of the fault blocks in the north Viking Graben. The
Gullfaks block is bounded by faults with large throws
(>1 km) on the southern, eastern, and northeastern
Yielding et al. 927
side. Due to rotation and footwall uplift, the eastern
part of the Gullfaks block is deeply eroded, creating a
marked hiatus that locally extends from Upper
Triassic to Upper Cretaceous (Figure 1).
The Gullfaks fault block is broken into many
smaller fault blocks (Figures 1, 2). Fossen and
Hesthammer (1998) divided the structures into a
domino-style fault system and an eastern horst com-
plex, separated by an accommodation zone (Figure
1). These subareas show significant differences with
respect to fault geometry, rotation, and internal
block deformation. The major internal faults in the
domino system strike approximately north-south
and have low dips (25 – 30°) to the east. East-
west–striking minor faults divide the major domino
blocks into smaller fault compartments. The opera-
tor’s names for the internal fault compartments (E1,
E2, etc.) are used in this study (Figure 2).
Reservoir Properties
Erichsen et al. (1987) and Petterson et al. (1990)
described the reservoir properties in the Gullfaks
field. The Brent Group and Cook Formation reser-
voirs are considered this study.
The Brent Group reservoir consists of the sand-
stone units within the Tarbert, Ness, Etive, and
Rannoch formations (Figure 3). The Tarbert
Formation consists of massive, homogeneous, and
highly permeable (3–10 d) sandstone units with a
few shale, coal, and carbonate layers. The Ness
Formation consists of thin sandstone units
interbedded with shales and coals, which act as
vertical flow- and pressure-barriers. The massive
sandstone of the Etive Formation has excellent
reservoir properties (2–7 d). Reservoir properties
degrade from top to bottom of the Rannoch
Formation (2–0.050 d).
The Cook Formation (Dunlin Group) includes
two reservoir units. The lower unit, Cook-2, com-
prises interbedded fine-grained sandstones and silt-
stones with poor to good reser voir quality
(0.010–0.120 d). The upper reservoir unit, Cook-3,
consists of medium- to fine-grained sandstones
interbedded with thin shales. Permeabilities range
from 0.5 to 4 d.
Focus of Study
This study was focused on the Brent Group
reservoirs drilled and produced from the A plat-
form (Gullfaks A area, Figure 2). The reasons for
this are three-fold.
(1) The Brent Group reservoir contains the major
part of the oil reserves of the Gullfaks field and a dense
well database exists for this reservoir. (More than 170
Figure 2—(A) Simplified top Brent fault map of the study area around the A platform showing fault compartments
and top Brent well locations (numbered wells are referred to in text). Redrawn from a map provided by field opera-
tor Statoil. The two shades of green indicate the two oil-bearing areas with OWC (oil-water contact) at 1890 m in
western compartments E2 and E3, and OWC at 1947 m elsewhere. Light red areas are gas caps in compartments E2
and G1 (gas-oil contacts 1876 and 1793 m, respectively). Small rectangles indicate the downthrown sides of faults.
The faults highlighted in red are the two examples discussed in detail. Line AB is the section shown in (B). (B) West-
east true-scale cross section along line AB [location shown in (A)] showing Statoil’s interpreted seismic horizons
[base Cretaceous, top Brent (Tarbert), top Ness, top Rannoch, base Brent, top Cook, and top Statfjord]. Also high-
lighted are faults 1 and 2, which are described in detail in the text. Oil-water contacts of 1890 m (west of fault 1) and
1947 m (east of fault 1) are shown as dashed lines.
Figure 3—Summary stratigraphic column (from Hesthammer, 1998b) illustrating the properties of the Brent, Cook, and Statfjord reservoirs in the Gullfaks
field. Production is from the high-permeability zones of the Tarbert, Ness, Etive, Rannoch, Cook, and Statfjord formations. B = Broom Formation, N = Nansen
member.
Yielding et al.
929
930 Characterizing Fault Zones
production wells have been drilled on Gullfaks, pro-
viding 110 km of standard log data, 34 km of dipmeter
data and 6 km of core.) (Hesthammer, 1998b.)
(2) First production was in the A area, so this
area would contain the earliest, least disturbed, and
most reliable reservoir pressure measurements.
(3) The quality of the acquired three-dimensional
(3-D) seismic data is best over the A area. Seismic
data quality deteriorates over the eastern (crestal)
part of the field due to gas leakage into the cap
rocks. For excellent examples of the seismic data
quality, see Hesthammer and Fossen (1997a, b) and
Hesthammer (1998a).
The detailed structural data collected in the 170
wells are incorporated into the operator’s seismic
interpretation, providing strong constraints on the
fault mapping (Fossen and Hesthammer, 1998;
Hesthammer, 1998b). The high density of the well
data results in a depth model that is not sensitive to
issues of seismic resolution. Seismic attribute analy-
sis locally enables fault detection down to as little
as 5 m offset (Hesthammer and Fossen, 1997a).
Although the study was focused on the Brent
Group reservoirs, parameters for the overlying
Upper Jurassic Shale (Viking Group) and the under-
lying Dunlin Group were added so that fault prop-
erties also could be calculated where these units
juxtapose the Brent reservoir.
Most of the Brent Group reservoir in the Gullfaks
field has a common oil/water contact at 1947 m (all
quoted depths are below mean sea level). The
exceptions are the westernmost fault blocks E2 and
E3 (Figure 2), which have a shallower oil/water
contact at 1890 m. In addition, gas caps are ob-
served in fault blocks E2 and G1 (Figure 2). The
pore pressure differences associated with the dif-
ferent contacts give calibration points for estimat-
ing the fault seal capacity (i.e., the capillary entry
pressure of the fault zone, which supports the
buoyancy force generated by the hydrocarbon col-
umn) (see Watts, 1987). For estimating the effects
of faults in the dynamic (production) model, high-
quality pressure measurements (RFT) taken in open
boreholes are used. Pressure measurements taken
early in the production history, before the start of
water injection, are expected to show a more
unique relation to the fault properties than are the
complex pressure relationships recorded after
years of production and injection. Particularly use-
ful are pressure measurements recorded in
“undrained” fault blocks, which showed pressure
depletion caused by production in adjacent blocks.
METHODOLOGY
In this section, we briefly outline the steps used
to analyze fault seal, using FAPS™ software (Fault
Analysis Projection System). A more complete
description of the general methodology used by
FAPS for fault modeling and fault-seal analysis is
given by Needham et al. (1996), Yielding et al.
(1997), and Freeman et al. (1998).
(1) Fault traces at all mapped horizons were used
to define the positions of the fault surfaces in depth.
(2) Each fault surface was modeled as a 3-D grid.
(3) Detailed reservoir zonation was derived from
well data and mapped onto the fault surfaces.
(4) RFT (pressure) measurements for each reser-
voir on both sides of the fault were input to display
the pore-pressure field in each fault block and the
across-fault pressure differences.
(5) Shale volume (Vshale) data from log studies
were assigned to the reservoir zones, and shale
gouge ratio (an estimate of sealing potential) was
calculated over the fault surface.
Fault-Surface Positions
Depth maps of subsurface horizons are typically
stored as grids in computer mapping software. For
the Gullfaks database, seven horizons had been
mapped by the operator on 3-D seismic data (base
Cretaceous, top Brent, top Ness, top Rannoch, base
Brent, top Cook, top Statfjord). Faults are represent-
ed as traces (or heave polygons) on each horizon.
Ideally, a fault would be a smooth surface passing
through the footwall and hanging-wall cutoffs
mapped on each horizon. Normally, however, faults
are mapped with heave polygons that are too wide
(see Needham et al., 1996). We therefore ensure that
the fault surfaces pass through the center line of the
polygon at each horizon. If any gap remains between
the fault and the horizon surface, the horizon is
extrapolated (“snapped”) to intersect the fault.
Fault-Surface Modeling
Each fault surface is modeled as a three-dimensional
grid, with principal axes along strike and downdip,
using a grid-cell size of 25 × 25 m (Figure 4A). The grid
matches the shape of the fault, defined by the traces at
each mapped horizon. This grid is then used as the
base on which to calculate a variety of attributes. For
example, the depth difference between footwall and
hanging wall for each horizon defines the fault throw
at that point; these observations can be gridded to give
the throw distribution over the fault surface.
Reservoir Zonation
The seven mapped horizons are reservoir bound-
aries that can be mapped on 3-D seismic data; however,
Figure 4—Sequence of diagrams showing (A) modeled fault grid with seismically mapped horizons, (B) interpolation of detailed reservoir zonation
between the mapped horizons, and (C) upthrown/downthrown overlap areas with different lithology overlaps distinguished. The viewing direction
relates to the isometric strike projections of example faults 1 and 2.
Yielding et al.
931
932 Characterizing Fault Zones
the abundant well data on Gullfaks (Petterson et al.,
1990) allow a detailed subdivision of the Brent
Group and Cook Formation reservoirs (23 and 9
zones, respectively). These reservoir zones have
been included in the fault-surface modeling in two
ways: (1) in the Brent Group, zone boundaries were
interpolated between the mapped horizons and (2)
in the Cook Formation, zones were hung at fixed
thicknesses beneath the top Cook mapped horizon.
For both methods, representative zone thick-
nesses at each fault were taken from Statoil’s iso-
chore maps of the field and mapped onto the fault
grid (see Figure 4B). Table 1 shows Brent zone
thicknesses around example fault 2 (discussed in a
following section).
Pressure Data
In excess of 2000 RFT measurements were avail-
able for the area of this study, typically at least one
or more samples in every reservoir zone in each
well. Measurement accuracy is believed to be sig-
nificantly better than 1 bar (14.5 psi). The detailed
RFT data collected in each well (immediately after
drilling) provide snapshots of the pressure field in
that fault block. The pore-pressure profile defined
by the RFT data in a well in a fault-bound block can
be used to construct the pressure field for the near
side of each bounding fault to that block. This pro-
cess involves tracking the pressure trend along
each reservoir zone from the well to the fault using
the appropriate fluid densities. It is assumed that
within each layer in each compartment there are no
pressure barriers, that is, all the changes in pressure-
field occur across the faults.
Where pressure data have been collected on
both sides of a fault, the pore-pressure field can be
constructed for upthrown and downthrown fault
blocks. The difference between these distributions
is the pressure difference across the fault zone. In
the case of static seal (preproduction) this pressure
difference is a minimum estimate of the seal capac-
ity (capillary entry pressure) of the fault zone. In
the production phase, we have identified across-
fault well pairs where RFT data were collected
close in time allowing the display of the dynamic
pressure drop at all points over the fault surface.
These pressure drops are expected to reflect the
fault-zone permeability and the production/injec-
tion history imposed on the fault blocks.
Fault-Seal Calculation (Shale Gouge Ratio)
The hydraulic properties of a fault zone through
a clastic sequence are strongly influenced by the
proportion of phyllosilicates in the fault-zone
material (Gibson, 1998; Foxford et al., 1998). Fault
gouges with less than 20% phyllosilicates generally
are cataclasites, whereas shaly gouge and clay
smears have more than 20% phyllosilicates
(Gibson, 1998). Increased phyllosilicate content
reduces the pore-throat size and correspondingly
increases the capillary entry pressure of the gouge.
Where there is sufficient driving pressure to breach
the capillary seal and force fluid across the fault
zone, the relevant property is the fault-zone perme-
ability. Permeability measurements on a wide vari-
ety of fault gouge samples (Gibson, 1998) permit a
first-order correlation between phyllosilicate con-
tent and fault-zone permeability. Increased phyl-
losilicate content results in lower permeabilities for
the fault gouge.
To estimate the composition of subsurface fault-
zones, we use an attribute called the shale gouge
ratio, or SGR (Yielding et al., 1997; Freeman et al.,
1998), which is simply the percentage of shale or
clay in the rock interval that has slipped past any
point on the fault (see Figure 5). This parameter
likely is a good guide to the proportion of phyllosil-
icates in the fault-zone material (Foxford et al.,
1998). Calculation of SGR requires input of the
shale content of the faulted section (Figure 5). The
operator’s Vshale logs for each of the development
wells were used directly to derive zonal averages of
the shale content in the Brent Group and Cook
Formation reservoir zones (see Table 1 for exam-
ples). In the fault analyses, SGR is calculated over
the fault surface on a refined grid of 5 × 5 m (i.e.,
five times the resolution of the basic fault grid pre-
viously described).
Detailed comparisons of SGR and pressure differ-
ence on the fault-surface grid allow a calibration of
the SGR calculations, which may then be used to
predict fault-zone behavior. Preproduction pressure
differences across faults provide a minimum esti-
mate of the static fault-seal capacity (capillary entry
pressure). SGR has been calibrated in this way for
a number of data sets, including the adjacent
Gullfaks Sør field (see Yielding et al., 1997). In gen-
eral, static sealing behavior is observed when SGR
is above 15–20%; higher pressure differences corre-
late with larger values of SGR.
The SGR distribution on the modeled fault sur-
face also can be used to predict fault-zone perme-
ability (Gibson, 1998; Manzocchi et al., 1999). In
turn, fault-zone permeability can be used to derive
a transmissibility modifier for each grid node on
the fault grid for input to reservoir simulation mod-
els. The transmissibility modifier is defined as the
ratio between the transmissibilities across the fault
with and without the effect of the fault-zone mate-
rial. Transmissibility modifiers can range from one
(fault has no impact on the flow) to zero (fault
completely blocks the flow). Calculation of the
Table 1. Shale Volume (Vshale) Data Used in Analyzing Example Fault 2 (Between Blocks G2 and G3)*

Mapped Thickness Vshale Values from Wells Vshale Values Used

Horizon (m) A-30 A-19 A-8 A-26 Minimum Average Maximum
Top Brent
t3 21 0.193 E E 0.193 0.19 0.193
t2b2 15 0.168 0.168 0.17 0.168
t2b1 15 0.190 0.327 0.189 0.189 0.24 0.327
t2a 11 0.039 0.185 0.092 0.054 0.039 0.09 0.185
t1c 5 0.511 0.319 0.459 0.371 0.319 0.42 0.511
t1b 12 0.275 0.236 0.301 0.313 0.236 0.28 0.313
t1a 10 0.360 0.410 0.311 0.328 0.311 0.35 0.410
Top Ness
n3d 11 0.298 0.314 0.335 0.301 0.298 0.31 0.335
n3c 8 0.239 0.303 0.287 0.271 0.239 0.28 0.303
n3b 8 0.280 0.309 0.324 0.339 0.280 0.31 0.339
n3a 13 0.220 0.272 0.472 0.282 0.220 0.31 0.472
n2c 14 0.321 0.348 0.195 0.152 0.152 0.25 0.348
n2b2 14 0.428 0.366 0.405 0.336 0.336 0.38 0.428
n2b1 10 0.166 0.235 0.318 0.217 0.166 0.23 0.318
n2a 6 F 0.243 0.416 0.292 0.243 0.32 0.416
n1c 2 0.060 0.468 0.171 0.040 0.040 0.18 0.468
n1b 9 0.483 0.159 0.529 0.546 0.159 0.43 0.546
n1a 2 0.148 0.015 F 0.021 0.015 0.06 0.148
Etive 34 0.154 0.113 0.144 0.119 0.113 0.13 0.154
Top Rannoch
r3 25 0.291 0.254 0.222 0.219 0.219 0.25 0.291
r2 21 0.217 0.231 0.252 0.253 0.217 0.24 0.253
r1 14 0.360 0.319 0.336 0.336 0.319 0.34 0.360
Broom 7 0.653 0.585 0.576 0.560 0.560 0.59 0.653
Base Brent
Drake 0.535 0.523 0.558 0.533 0.523 0.54 0.558
*Original petrophysical well logs were based on 15 cm sampling recorded by the wireline tools. For this fault, Vshale logs from the four closest wells were used to derive the minimum, maximum, and
average Vshale values for each reservoir zone. F = faulted out, E = eroded.
Yielding et al.
933
934 Characterizing Fault Zones
Figure 5—Diagram
showing the definition of
shale gouge ratio (SGR).
For a sequence of reservoir
zones with specified
Vshale or Vclay (Vcl) and
thickness (∆z), the SGR
equals the net shale/clay
content in the rock
interval that has slipped
past any point on the
fault. t is the fault throw
(vertical component
of slip).
transmissibility modifier requires knowledge of
(1) the permeabilities of the juxtaposed reservoir
units, (2) the dimensions of the grid cells in the
reservoir model, and (3) the thickness and perme-
ability of the fault zone (see Manzocchi et al., 1999).
Fault-zone thickness is a function of the local fault
displacement (e.g., Evans, 1990; Manzocchi et al.,
1999).
RESULTS OF FAULT ANALYSES
A total of 23 fault segments were analyzed by the
methods outlined in the previous section. These
faults form an interconnected network that defines
a number of separated fault compartments (Figure
6A). For most faults, the throw in the Brent Group
ranges from 0 to 200 m (less than the total Brent
Group thickness). Only one of the analyzed faults
(in the southwestern part of the area) has sufficient
displacement to offset the Brent Group completely
(see Figure 6A). Fault-zone thickness for these
faults will typically be about one-hundredth of the
local displacement (e.g., Evans, 1990; Manzocchi et
al., 1999).
Before examining the spatial variation in the
calculated sealing potential (SGR), it is instructive
to consider the effect that increasing displace-
ment of a typical Brent Group section has on the
SGR calculation. This is done with a triangle or
juxtaposition diagram, first published by Bentley
and Barry (1991) and further elaborated on by
Knipe (1997). Figure 7 shows a typical Brent
sequence at the left edge of the diagram. The hori-
zontal lines represent an upthrown side to a fault,
the diagonal lines represent the downthrown side.
Throw increases linearly to the right (shown
along the top margin). The triangular and parallel-
ogram areas represent the different zone juxtapo-
sitions at various parts of a fault plane. Vshale val-
ues from example fault 2 (see Table 1) have been
assigned to the reservoir zones. At every location
on the juxtaposition diagram (Figure 7), the
Vshale values in the slipped interval have been
used to calculate SGR (as defined in Figure 5),
which is then displayed using the color coding.
Green represents very low SGR, i.e., low phyllosili-
cate content in the fault gouge. Such areas will be
expected to have low capillary entry pressure and
relatively good permeabilities. Conversely, the red
areas have high SGR, indicating shaly fault gouge
with high capillary entry pressure and low fault-
zone permeability.
The general pattern in Figure 7 is one of greater
heterogeneity at small throws (left edge of dia-
gram). When units remain self-juxtaposed (triangu-
lar areas at left edge of diagram) the calculated
SGR equals the Vshale value within the unit.
Lowest SGRs are shown where the Tarbert 2a and
Etive zones are each self-juxtaposed. The much
higher shale content of the Ness zones is evident
from the red and orange areas that encompass the
extent of the Ness-Ness overlap. At throws of more
than 100 m, the SGR values become more uniform;
 Yielding et al. 935

Figure 6—(A) Map view of

the analyzed faults showing
the throw (vertical offset)
distribution at the level of
top Ness Formation.
Throws reach 350 m on
the large fault (red) in the
southwest corner of the
map; on all other faults
the top Ness throw is less
than 200 m and does not
completely offset the
Brent Group. 1 and 2
indicate the locations of
the two example faults
discussed in the text.
(B) Map view of the
analyzed faults showing
shale gouge ratio (SGR) in
the Brent-Brent overlap
zones. The calculation
for each fault uses the
low-case Vshale values
from adjacent wells.
The mapped width of
each overlap zone
depends upon the fault
dip and amount of offset;
for the largest fault in the
southwest there is total
Brent Group offset and
therefore no overlap
zone. Higher SGR
correlates with higher
capillary entry pressure
and lower fault-zone
permeability.

in this region the Tarbert Formation has moved Although diagrams such as Figure 7 give a useful
past the Ness Formation to juxtapose the lower overview of the juxtaposition and seal capacity for
Brent, and the SGR represents the average Vshale in a given faulted sequence, the information is
the intervening section. removed from its structural context. To obtain such
936 Characterizing Fault Zones

Figure 7—Triangle or juxtaposition diagram illustrating the variation of shale gouge ratio (SGR) with throw for a
typical Brent Group section. Horizontal lines represent upthrown reservoir zones, and diagonal lines represent
downthrown zones. The SGR calculation uses the Vshale values (low or minimum values) listed in Table 1, for
example fault 2. Note the greater heterogeneity of SGR at small throws. Lowest values occur at the areas of Tarbert
2a and Etive self-juxtaposition; these will be the areas of poorest seal on the fault.

a context, i.e., relative to trap and hydrocarbon dis-
tribution, calculation of juxtaposition and seal
capacity must be performed in conjunction with
fault surface modeling as described in the previous
section. Figure 6B shows in map view the distribu-
tion of SGR on all 23 analyzed fault segments in the
Gullfaks A area. The color-coded areas are those
parts of the fault planes where there is Brent-Brent
overlap (see Figure 4C). A wide overlap area on the
map indicates a fault with small displacement,
whereas a narrow (or zero) overlap area corre-
sponds to larger displacement. The analysis of each
fault uses zone thickness and Vshale data from the
wells adjacent to that fault. The SGR scale can be
considered as representing static seal capacity (cap-
illary entry pressure), or being inversely related to
fault-zone permeability.
It can be seen from Figure 6B that faults with
small displacements (wide areas on map) have a
heterogeneous distribution of SGR. Faults with
large displacements (narrow areas) have a more
uniform (and moderately high) SGR distribution.
These features were predicted from the simple tri-
angle plot of Figure 7; however, because the vari-
ous reservoir zones vary in thickness and shale con-
tent throughout the study area, the detailed spatial
distribution of fault properties is not predictable
from a single triangle plot.
The Tarbert, Ness, and lower Brent reservoir
units are being produced separately because shale
and coal layers provide vertical permeability barri-
ers; thus, it is desirable to consider the connectivity
among these three Brent Group subdivisions where
they are juxtaposed at the faults. Figure 8 shows a

suite of six maps where the Brent-Brent overlap
areas (from Figure 6B) are separated into specific
zone overlaps. This suite of maps provides a very
good illustration of the location of particular juxta-
positions and of their nature.
Figure 8A displays the Tarbert-Tarbert juxtaposi-
tions. In general the SGR values are low and there-
fore the fault-zone permeability will be reasonably
high. These Tarbert-Tarbert areas would be expect-
ed to provide drainage pathways between the fault
blocks in the upper part of the Brent Group. Figure
8B shows the Ness-Ness overlap areas. These have
higher SGR values than those for Tarbert because of
the higher shale content in the Ness. Streaks of
lower SGR values highlight locations where self-
juxtaposition of individual Ness sands is occurring
at low throw values, corresponding to higher per-
meability fault-zone. In Figure 8C (lower Brent self-
overlaps), the clean Etive sands give low SGR val-
ues (higher permeability fault-zone) at the updip
portion of the overlaps.
The maps showing overlaps between different
reservoirs (Figure 8D–F) generally show higher SGR
values, in agreement with Figure 7; however, a pro-
nounced feature of Figure 8E (Ness Formation
against lower Brent Group) is an overall west-to-east
decrease in SGR values and thus an increase in fault
permeability. This decrease in SGR values is caused
by an eastward cleaning of the Etive Formation and
a west-to-east change in the lower Ness units, with
shale being replaced by coal or sand.
The next two sections show in detail how two of
the analyzed fault surfaces can be characterized
geometrically and in terms of their f luid f low
behavior. The first example is the segment separat-
ing the E2 compartment from F3/4 (see Figure 2).
This fault separated different initial hydrocarbon
columns, as well as acting as a (partial) barrier to
production. The second example lies between fault
blocks G2 and G3, which originally had the same
oil-water contact but underwent differential deple-
tion once production had started.
Example Fault 1
Fault 1 forms part of the north-south boundary
between the E and F compartments (Figure 2). The
in-situ hydrocarbons and contacts in the E fault
blocks were different from those in the other fault
blocks farther east. Figure 9A is a schematic cross
section across fault 1 showing the considerable
amount of Brent-Brent and Brent-Cook juxtaposi-
tion. The Brent Group oil-water contact (OWC) on
the upthrown side lies above the downthrown
Brent Group, and hence the footwall Brent Group
oil and gas are trapped by juxtaposition against
Upper Jurassic shales. On the downthrown side,
Yielding et al. 937
however, the oil-bearing Brent Group is juxta-
posed against the upthrown water-bearing Brent
Group, i.e., there is seal for oil at the Brent-Brent
juxtaposition. Pressure data (summarized in Figure
9B) show that the Brent aquifer has pressure com-
munication across the fault; hence, the Brent-Brent
overlap area is acting as a simple capillary seal (see
Watts, 1987).
The gas-bearing Cook Formation in the footwall
is juxtaposed against downthrown water-bearing
Brent Group (Figure 9A). The pressure data (Figure
9B) show that the Cook aquifer is overpressured by
about 1.5 bar (22 psi) with respect to the down-
thrown Brent Group. The Brent-Cook overlap area
on the fault plane thus provides a permeability bar-
rier to water flow.
To show how reservoir juxtapositions change
along fault strike, Figure 10 shows views of the
fault seen from the downthrown side (see Figure 4
for viewing direction). Figure 10 shows all the
reservoir intervals on the footwall and hanging-wall
sides of the fault, respectively. The best reservoir
zones are shown in yellow, poor reservoir zones
are shown in tan, and intra-Brent nonreservoir
zones are shown in gray. Each of these figures also
shows the intervals on the other side of the fault as
a set of colored outlines. A number of splay faults in
both the footwall and hanging wall result in a rela-
tively complicated variation of juxtaposition geom-
etry along the length of the fault. Along most of the
footwall there has been erosion that has removed
variable amounts of the upper Brent Group. The
low in the footwall sequence (Figure 10A) corre-
sponds to a terrace defined by an arcuate footwall
splay (see Figure 2 for map view). The gas-bearing
Cook Formation is restricted to a small area south
of the terrace.
Figure 11A displays the initial pressure differ-
ences across fault 1 using the same view as Figure
10. All areas of reservoir-reservoir juxtaposition
are color-coded according to the difference in
pore pressure between those reservoirs. Areas of
Brent-Brent juxtaposition deeper than 1947 m (the
hanging wall OWC) have zero pressure difference
(aquifers in communication). Above 1947 m the
pressure difference gradually increases because of
the divergence between the oil gradient in the
hanging wall and the aquifer trend in the footwall
(see Figure 9B). The area of Brent-Cook juxtaposi-
tion shows a constant pressure difference of about
1.5 bar (22 psi) between the aquifers, and an
increasing difference above 2075 m because of the
divergence between Brent aquifer pressure and the
Cook Formation gas trend.
Figure 12 shows a calculated distribution of
SGR over the fault surface using fault throw and
Vshale values as indicated in Figure 5. (For each
analyzed fault, SGR distributions were calculated
Figure 8—Montage showing six maps of zone-to-zone connectivity, color-coded by shale gouge ratio (SGR).
The three maps on the left (A–C) show self-connection of the Tarbert, Ness, and lower Brent, respectively;
the three maps on the right (D–F) show connection between these divisions. White areas imply no juxtapo-
sition of the specified type. Low SGR (green) corresponds to lower seal capacity or higher fault-zone perme-
ability; high gouge ratio (red) corresponds to higher seal capacity or lower fault-zone permeability.
Figure 9—(A) Cross-section and (B) initial pore-pressure profile for the southern end of fault 1. In the cross section, water-bearing Brent Group and
Cook Formation reservoirs are yellow, oil-bearing reservoirs are green, and gas-bearing reservoirs are pink; there is no vertical exaggeration. In the
pressure profile, aquifer trends are shown blue, oil trends green, and gas trends red. Each fluid gradient is defined by 4–12 repeat formation tester
(RFT) points (shown as black symbols); the scatter of points on each pressure leg is less than the thickness of the colored lines. Footwall Brent
hydrocarbons are sealed by juxtaposition against Upper Jurassic shales. Hanging-wall Brent oil is sealed by capillary seal at the Brent-Brent overlap.
The area of Brent-Cook overlap is sealed for both gas and water.
Yielding et al.
939
940 Characterizing Fault Zones

Figure 10—Fault 1 isometric strike projections viewed looking west. In (A), upthrown (footwall) reservoir intervals
are shown color filled, with downthrown (hanging-wall) reservoir intervals outlined. In (B), the downthrown inter-
vals are color filled and upthrown intervals are outlined. Good reservoir zones are shown yellow, poor zones are
tan, and intra-Brent nonreservoirs are shown gray. On both diagrams the top Brent horizon is highlighted in red
(note variable erosion of Brent on upthrown side). The steep black lines indicate branch lines with splay faults.
Apparent reverse geometries of branch lines occur where the splay fault has a steeper dip than the main fault; these
do not correspond to reverse faults.

using high-case and low-case values of Vshale,
based on data from adjacent wells. The SGR shown
in Figure 12 uses the low-case Vshale.) Because of
the moderately high displacements on this fault
(typically 100 m throw), the SGR in the Brent-Brent
overlap represents an averaging of the Vshale
through much of the Brent Group. The SGR there-
fore is relatively insensitive to possible mapping
uncertainties.
The lowest SGR is on the upper part of the Brent-
Brent overlap zone near the northern (right) end of
the fault. Here the throw is only approximately 50 m
and there remains some Tarbert-Tarbert juxtaposi-
tion. The calculated SGR here is just under 15%
(corresponding high-case value 20%). Notice that
throughout the Brent-Cook overlap area the SGRs
are significantly higher because the Drake
Formation shales have slipped past this part of fault
surface. SGR is considered a guide to the static seal-
ing capacity (capillary entry pressure) of the fault
surface. The point of lowest SGR thus is the weak-
est point on the fault with regard to seal.
Comparison of Figures 11A and 12 shows that this
critical point is within the area where oil in the
downthrown Brent Group is juxtaposed against
water-bearing upthrown Brent Group, with a pres-
sure difference across the fault of about 1.5 bar (22
psi). Because the attributes in the two figures are
calculated on the same grid, a direct comparison of
SGR with pressure difference can be made on a
grid-node by grid-node basis. Figure 13 shows a
crossplot of these values (black symbols). The Brent-
Brent and Brent-Cook overlaps form two separate
groups of points. The Brent-Brent overlap data
show a small static seal [up to 1.5 bar (22 psi)]
developing at gouge ratios of 15–20%. This is in
excellent agreement with earlier calibrations from
various areas (Yielding et al., 1997).
Production in the footwall (west) side of fault 1
started in mid-1987 from well A-9H (see Figure 2 for

Figure 10—Continued.
location). In early 1990, wells A-27 and A-28 were
drilled into the footwall and hanging-wall blocks,
respectively. Detailed RFT measurements taken in
these wells (in most reservoir zones) show that
both fault blocks experienced pressure depletion in
the Tarbert Formation [approximately 10 bar (145
psi) in the footwall and 15–20 bar (218–290 psi) in
the hanging wall], but with little depletion in the
Ness Formation or lower Brent. We can use these
measurements in the same way as the initial pres-
sure measurements to display the pressure differ-
ence at each point on the fault surface at the time of
testing (see Figure 11B). The pressure differences
approach 20 bar (290 psi) where the depleted
downthrown Tarbert Formation is juxtaposed
against the relatively undepleted upthrown Ness
Formation and lower Brent. These pressure differ-
ences probably do not represent a capillary entry
pressure for the fault surface (although that is a pos-
sibility). It is more likely that they represent the pres-
sure drop associated with flow through the low-per-
meability fault zone. Thus, the fault was not
necessarily sealed at this time; it is leaking at a slow
rate governed by the imposed pressure difference
and the effective permeability. Presumably there was
Yielding et al. 941
some flow from the upthrown Brent (Ness) to the
depleted downthrown Tarbert Formation because
this is the direction of pressure drop. Fault-zone per-
meability is expected to be related to the SGR, as
has been discussed; therefore, it is instructive to
crossplot the dynamic pressure drops shown in
Figure 11B against the SGR values shown in Figure
12, which is done in Figure 13 (red points). For the
same SGR value the dynamic pressure drop is an
order of magnitude greater than the static seal
capacity observed before production started. The
precise magnitude of the dynamic pressure drop
depends on the pressure conditions imposed by
the reservoir production history.
Example Fault 2
Fault 2 is internal to the eastern area of fault
blocks having a common oil-water contact (see
Figure 2). On a geological time scale, it probably
did not constitute a sealing fault. It separates fault
blocks G2 and G3.
Figure 14A shows a strike projection of fault 2
viewed from the downthrown side (i.e., looking
942 Characterizing Fault Zones

Figure 11—(A) Fault 1 isometric strike projection showing static (preproduction) pressure difference across the
fault at the reservoir-reservoir overlaps. Pressure scale is ±4 bar (±58 psi). (B) Fault 1 isometric strike projection
showing dynamic pressure drop between juxtaposed reservoirs in early 1990, based on RFT (repeat formation
tester) data from wells A-27 and A-28. Pressure scale is ±40 bar (±580 psi).

west). The color coding shows the calculated SGR
in the reservoir-reservoir overlap areas using the
low-case Vshale values from adjacent wells. (Table
1 shows Vshale values from the wells, and the mini-
mum and maximum values used in the calcula-
tions). A prominent feature of the plot is the area of
lower SGR values in the lower Brent Group, espe-
cially on the southern half of the fault where offset
of the clean Etive Formation is small.
In Figure 14B, the low SGR distribution has been
used to calculate transmissibility modifier at all
reservoir-reservoir overlaps. As intermediate steps,
fault-zone permeability and thickness were calcu-
lated from SGR and fault throw, respectively [see
Manzocchi et al. (1999) for further details].
Because a number of variables affect the transmissi-
bility modifier, it does not necessarily have a simple
relationship with SGR. In general, juxtapositions of
highly permeable reservoirs have a lower transmis-
sibility modifier (near zero) because the fault zone
has a significant effect on the transmissibility.
Conversely, when low-permeability reservoirs are
juxtaposed, the fault zone has relatively less effect
and the transmissibility modifier is higher (i.e.,
nearer to 1). These relationships are developed fur-
ther in the next section.
The first well drilled in block G3 was A-8 in mid-
1987; RFT data showed only very minor depletion.
Well A-8 production began in June 1987. Well A-10
was drilled into block G2 in July 1987 and found 7.5
bar (110 psi) depletion in the Rannoch/Etive forma-
tions. This depletion must have been caused either
by A-8 production in G3 or by ongoing production
to the east in block H1, or both. Well A-11 (RFT
September 1987) in G3 found that drawdown by A-8
production had now reached 24 bar (350 psi).
At the end of 1988, RFT measurements were
taken in rapid succession in well A-18 (block G3)
and well A-19 (blocks G2/G3). Well A-19 pene-
trated fault 2, passing from Etive Formation in
the downthrown block G2 to Rannoch
Formation in the upthrown block G3 (see Figure
16). Between these units, well A-19 found a 6 bar
(90 psi) pressure difference. In every other well,
the Rannoch/Etive formations form a continuous
pressure compartment because of the lack of shaly

Figure 11—Continued.
breaks. Well A-19, therefore, is directly sampling
the pressure drop at one point on the fault surface.
Wells A-18 and A-19 together provide pressure
profiles for both sides of the fault for late 1988. In
the footwall (G3), depletion was greatest in the
Rannoch/Etive formations and in the upper Ness
Formation (produced in A-14). In the hanging-wall
(G2), depletion was more uniform (Rannoch and
Ness production from A-10). The difference
between these depletion patterns at the fault sur-
face is illustrated in Figure 15A, which is a view of
the fault from the downthrown side. In general,
upthrown block G3 is more depleted than block
G2 (blue-gray in Figure 15A) as there were more
producing wells in G3; however, the central (red-
brown in Figure 15A) part of the Brent-Brent
overlap zone shows downthrown G2 depletion
locally greater than G3. The complexity of this
plot is illustrative of the complex nature of the
fault response to production.
One year after wells A-18 and A-19 were drilled,
another pair of wells (A-16A and A-26) were drilled
in blocks G3 and G2, respectively, allowing a second
measurement of pressures in both blocks. By this
time, the Ness and Tarbert pressures in G2 and G3
Yielding et al. 943
had dropped substantially because of production,
but pressures in the lower Brent Group had recov-
ered to near-original as the rate of water injection in
several wells exceeded the rate of production.
Figure 15B shows the calculated pressure drop at
the fault surface at this time. Juxtaposition of
downthrown depleted Ness Formation against
upthrown recovered lower Brent Group gives a
very large pressure drop (>40 bar; 580 psi) in the
central part of the overlap area. This contrasts
with the lower part of the overlap area (lower
Brent against lower Brent), where the pressure
drop is only about 5 bar (73 psi) from footwall to
hanging wall, and also with the upper part of the
fault (downthrown Tarbert) where the footwall
was slightly more depleted.
The pressure observations summarized in Figure
15 highlight a number of points. First, the changing
production/injection pattern can produce not only
changes in the across-fault pressure drops, but also
complete reversals in the direction of the pressure
drop. If these pressure drops are associated with
fluid flow, then the direction of fluid flow across
the fault would have reversed between late 1988
and late 1989. Second, the direction of pressure
944 Characterizing Fault Zones

Figure 12—Fault 1 isometric strike projection showing low-case shale gouge ratio (SGR) at all reservoir-reservoir
overlaps. Lowest SGR is at the upper right part of the Brent-Brent overlap where there is some Tarbert-Tarbert jux-
taposition. Note the higher values for the Brent-Cook overlap area caused by smearing of the Drake Formation
shales.

drop (and, therefore, fluid flow) can be in different
directions on different parts of the same fault at the
same time.
In March 1991 nonradioactive tracer was injected
into Rannoch Formation in well A-11 in upthrown
block G3 (Figure 2) during a phase of gas injection
(Kleven et al., 1995). There was rapid detection of
tracer across the fault in block G2 (lower Ness in
well A-19) after only 1–2 months. This contrasted
with detection in other wells in injection block G3,
where the tracer did not appear for more than 3 yr.
These observations imply that the dominant flow
direction in the G3 lower Brent at well A-11 was
across the fault into block G2. This flow route can
be easily understood in terms of the juxtapositions
and SGR on the southern part of the fault, together
with the prevailing pressure regime. The juxtaposi-
tion geometry is shown simplified in the cross sec-
tion in Figure 16; green coloring on the fault indi-
cates low SGR, whereas red coloring indicates high
SGR (cf. Figure 14A). Injection of tracer was into the
Rannoch Formation of well A-11, and tracer would
therefore have risen into the overlying Etive For-
mation because the Rannoch/Etive behaves as a con-
tinuous sand (no shale breaks). The Etive Formation
is juxtaposed against lowermost Ness at fault 2, and
Figure 14A suggests that SGR is relatively low on this
area of the fault (i.e., relatively high fault permeabili-
ty). Flow across the fault into the lower Ness thus is
likely. Pressure measurements from early 1991 sug-
gest that the pattern seen in Figure 15B was continu-
ing, i.e., strong pressure drive from footwall Etive
Formation into depleted hanging-wall Ness
Formation.
Well A-10, the Rannoch producer closest to the
A-11 Rannoch injector, did not detect tracer until
a year after injection. Figure 16 shows that the
route from A-11 Rannoch to A-10 Rannoch would
be a difficult one, passing down at the fault offset
at a region where the SGR is rising (fault perme-
ability decreasing). Thus, most of the tracer mov-
ing into block G2 would have bypassed the A-10
Rannoch section and is likely to have been higher
in the sequence.
 Yielding et al. 945

Figure 13—Crossplot
showing static and
dynamic pressure drops
vs. SGR (shale gouge ratio)
for fault 1. Each plotted
point represents one grid
node on the modeled fault
surface. The black points
relate SGR (Figure 12) to
static pressure difference
(Figure 11A); the dense
grouping at the bottom
center derives from the
Brent-Brent overlap,
whereas the grouping at
the lower right comes
from the Brent-Cook
overlap. The red points
relate SGR (Figure 12) to
dynamic pressure drop
in early 1990 (Figure 11B).

DISCUSSION during production were typically 2–20 bar (29–290

Analysis was performed for 23 fault segments in
the Gullfaks A area. Where possible, across-fault
pressure differences have been calculated using
RFT data from well pairs. These data fall into two
classes: (1) appraisal wells that encountered differ-
ent initial hydrocarbon columns on each side of a
fault and (2) development wells drilled close in
time and providing a snapshot of the dynamically
evolving pressure field. For every fault, SGR and
pressure difference data on the fault grid were
crossplotted to identify the critical areas (i.e., high
pressure drops supported by lowest values of SGR).
Figure 17 summarizes this information for all ana-
lyzed faults. The two classes of pressure data plot as
two separate groups on the SGR-∆P crossplot.
Initial pressure differences were all relatively small
(<2 bar; 29 psi), whereas the pressure differences
psi), occasionally 40 bar (580 psi).
The initial pressure differences correspond to
static seal, where the capillary entry pressure at the
fault surface is able to balance the buoyancy pres-
sure associated with a hydrocarbon column. The
small pressure differences are typical of those seen
in other data sets where SGR is low, e.g., the near-
by Gullfaks Sør field (see Yielding et al., 1997).
The onset of static seal often occurs at SGR values
between 15 and 20%, with increasing seal capaci-
ty at higher SGR values (Yielding et al., 1997).
The low critical SGRs (and associated pressure
differences) in the Gullfaks data set indicate that
the faults are only weak static seals. The clean
sands in the Tarbert and Etive formations, togeth-
er with the modest fault displacements, are not
conducive to shaly gouge production. Many of
the faults, therefore, have leaky zones that have
946 Characterizing Fault Zones

Figure 14—(A) Fault 2 isometric strike projection showing low SGR distribution in reservoir overlap zones (using
minimum values from Table 1). Note the area of low SGR on the deeper part of the Brent-Brent overlap, adjacent to
the Etive Formation. (B) Fault 2 isometric strike projection showing transmissibility modifier in overlap zone.
Transmissibility modifier of 1 means the fault zone does not change the transmissibility between juxtaposed cells,
whereas a modifier of 0 corresponds to a completely impermeable fault.
 Yielding et al. 947

Figure 15—(A) Fault 2 isometric strike projection showing dynamic pressure drop between juxtaposed reservoirs in
late 1988 based on RFT (repeat formation tester) data from wells A-18 and A-19. (B) Fault 2 isometric strike projec-
tion showing dynamic pressure drop between juxtaposed reservoirs in late 1989 based on RFT data from wells A-
16A and A-26.

allowed equalization of oil-water contacts (e.g., Ness Formation), but there are enough holes in the
green areas in Figure 6B). Note that some parts of fault-surface seal that the overall sealing capacity is
the faults are likely to be well sealed (e.g., in the small.
948 Characterizing Fault Zones

Figure 16—Cross section of the

southern part of fault 2 between
wells A-11 and A-10. On the fault
trace, red indicates high SGR,
green indicates low SGR.
Tracer injected into the Rannoch
Formation in well A-11 traveled
rapidly to the lower Ness
Formation at producing
well A-19, across an area of fault
plane with low SGR (high
permeability).

The pressure drops associated with production

greatly exceed those seen in the initial pressure dis-
tribution. These pressure drops also occur at lower
values of SGR (10–15%) where the degree of static
seal (if any) would be small. These pressure drops
are probably all dynamic, i.e., they are associated
with some flow across the fault. In these cases the
size of the pressure difference is not simply a prop-
erty of the fault, but is strongly dependent upon
the reservoir management. Production from one
fault block will cause a pressure drawdown, and
once this exceeds the static seal capacity on an
adjacent fault, flow will begin across that fault. The
flow will act to reduce the pressure drop, but the rate
at which it can do this is determined by the perme-
ability and thickness of the fault zone. Even when
the seal is breached, the pressure drop may contin-
ue to increase because the production from one
fault block exceeds the rate at which fluid can pass
across the fault. Ultimately an equilibrium would be
reached where the flow and pressure drop attained
constant values, but this may not occur on the pro-
duction time scale. Instead, varying pressure drops Figure 17—Crossplot of critical SGR-∆P pairs from all
are imposed on the fault by the rate of production/ analyzed faults. The critical area on a fault is defined
injection in adjacent fault blocks; therefore, the pres- as the location of high pressure-drop supported by
sure drops would not necessarily correlate directly low values of SGR. (The SGR values represent an
average from high and low Vshale data.) Initial (pre-
with fault-zone permeability. One would be expect, production) pressure differences were small and
however, that fault zones of higher permeabilities reflect weak capillary seals. Production pressure
would sustain smaller pressure drops than faults of drops were much larger and correspond to across-
low permeability in situations where production fault flow. The data point plotted as a filled circle
rates are comparable. This expectation is supported represents the penetration of example fault 2 by well
by the observation in Figure 17 that there is a trend A-19, where the pressure drop was measured directly
of increasing dynamic pressure drop with increasing in the well.

SGR. The higher SGRs and pressure drops are associ-
ated with juxtapositions of Ness units. The trend line
shown to the left of the data points in Figure 17
describes in a general way the limit of fault behavior
observed during production from Gullfaks A area
Brent Group. (This trend is not necessarily applicable
to other data sets.)
In reservoir simulation models, the flow between
adjacent grid cells is calculated with a form of
Darcy’s equation. The transmissibility between two
cells depends upon a representative permeability
between the cell centers. The transmissibility mod-
ifier at a point on a fault surface defines the factor
by which the transmissibility between adjacent cells
is reduced by the presence of the fault zone. These
factors comprise an important input to reservoir
simulation models. We have shown that the modifi-
er depends upon the fault-zone permeability and
thickness, which, in turn, can be considered as
functions of SGR and fault displacement, respective-
ly. Figure 18 indicates the general form of the rela-
tionship between gouge ratio and transmissibility
modifier. Consider two juxtaposed reservoir units
with particular permeability. Within the overlap
area between these units there will be a range of
SGR caused by variations in throw, unit thickness,
Yielding et al. 949
Figure 18—Relationship between
SGR and transmissibility
modifier. The three curves A, B,
and C, show typical relationships
for medium-permeability, good
and poor reservoirs respectively.
The red points are data calculated
for fault 2 using a constant
fault-zone thickness of 0.3 m.
Using a variable fault-zone
thickness increases the range of
transmissibility modifiers at any
given gouge ratio, as indicated
by the vertical dashed lines.
and other variables. As SGR increases, fault-zone
per meability and transmissibility modifier
decrease (curve A in Figure 18). Superimposed on
this relationship will be a scatter caused by varia-
tions in fault-zone thickness (assumed dependent
upon fault throw).
The position of the curve relative to the origin in
Figure 18 indirectly represents the contrast between the
permeability of the fault zone and the permeability of
the juxtaposed reservoir units. For highly permeable
reservoirs with low Vshale content, the calculated
SGR values in the juxtaposition tends to be lower.
Although low SGR corresponds to relatively perme-
able fault zone, it is the contrast between the fault-
zone permeability and the reservoir permeability
that defines the transmissibility modifier. This con-
trast may be large or small, hence the curve on the
figure shifts to the left (low SGR) and becomes
steeper (variable transmissibility modifier) (see
curve B in Figure 18). The Gullfaks fault data tend
to occupy this part of the crossplot.
Conversely, for low-permeability (tight) reser-
voirs the contrast between reservoir and fault zone
is generally small and so transmissibility modifiers
tend to be large (near 1). Only at high values of SGR
does the fault-zone permeability become so low as
950 Characterizing Fault Zones
to have a significant effect. The curve therefore
shifts up and to the right (see curve C in Figure 18).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Fault-surface modeling of the faults in the
Gullfaks A area has provided a framework for visual-
izing reservoir zone juxtapositions at faults.
(2) Pressure data from appraisal and development
wells can be incorporated into the fault-surface model-
ing to provide displays of the across-fault pressure
differences before and during production. Prepro-
duction static pressure differences were small, corre-
sponding to weak capillary seals on parts of the fault
surfaces. By contrast, dynamic pressure drops during
production range up to an order of magnitude
greater.
(3) The dynamic pressure drops across fault sur-
faces provide a general guide to the permeability
of the fault zones once the modest capillary seal
has been breached and across-fault flow has start-
ed. However, an overriding control on dynamic
pressure drop is the reservoir management strate-
gy, i.e., the degree to which pressure drawdown
is imposed in particular fault-blocks in this area of
poor aquifer support. Flow across a fault can
reverse direction as the production/injection pat-
tern changes. In addition, flow can be in opposite
directions on different parts of the same fault at the
same time.
(4) The fault-surface modeling also includes pre-
dictive algorithms (SGR) that can be used to derive
fault-zone permeabilities and transmissibility modi-
fiers for reservoir simulation studies. Areas of high-
er SGR (>∼20%) on the fault surface correspond to
shale-smeared fault zone and lower fault-zone per-
meability. The relationship between SGR and trans-
missibility modifier is more complex, depending
also on the reservoir permeabilities and fault-zone
thickness. In the Gullfaks field the fault zones with
calculated high and low SGR are compatible with
the recorded pressure histories and tracer move-
ments between wells.
REFERENCES CITED
Bentley, M. R., and J. J. Barry, 1991, Representation of fault
sealing in a reservoir simulation: Cormorant Block IV, UK
North Sea: Society of Petroleum Engineers Reprint no. 22667,
p. 119–126.
Bouvier, J. D., C. H. Kaars-Sijpesteijn, d. F. Kluesner, C. C.
Onyejekwe, and R. C. Van der Paal, 1989, Three-dimensional
seismic interpretation and fault sealing investigations, Nun
River field, Nigeria: AAPG Bulletin, v. 73, p. 1397–1414.
Erichsen, T., M. Helle, J. Henden, and A. Rognebakke, 1987,
Gullfaks, in Spencer, A. M., ed., Geology of the Norwegian oil
and gas fields: London, Graham and Trotman, p. 273–286.
Evans, J. P., 1990, Thickness-displacement relationships for fault
zones: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 12, p. 1061–1065.
Fossen, H., and J. Hesthammer, 1998, Structural geology of the
Gullfaks field, northern North Sea, in M. P. Coward, T. S.
Daltaban, and H. Johnson, eds., Structural geology in reservoir
characterisation: Geological Society Special Publication 127,
p. 231–261.
Foxford, K. A., J. J. Walsh, J. Watterson, I. R. Garden, S. C.
Guscott, and S. D. Burley, 1998, Structure and content of the
Moab fault zone, Utah, U.S.A., and its implications for fault-seal
prediction, in G. Jones, Q. J. Fisher, and R. J. Knipe, eds.,
Faulting, fault sealing and fluid flow in hydrocarbon reservoirs:
Geological Society Special Publication 147, p. 87–103.
Freeman, B., G. Yielding, D. T. Needham, and M. E. Badley, 1998,
Fault seal prediction: the gouge ratio method, in M. P.
Coward, T. S. Daltaban, and H. Johnson, eds., Structural
geology in reservoir characterisation: Geological Society
Special Publication 127, p. 19–25.
Fristad, T., A. Groth, G. Yielding, and B. Freeman, 1997, Quantitative
fault seal prediction—a case study from Oseberg Syd area, in P.
Møller-Pedersen and A. G. Koestler, eds., Hydrocarbon seals:
importance for exploration and production: NPF (Norwegian
Petroleum Society) Special Publication 7, p. 107–124.
Fulljames, J. R., L. J. J. Zijerveld, and R. C. M. W. Franssen, 1997,
Fault seal processes: systematic analyses of fault seals over
geological and production time scales, in P. Møller-Pedersen and
A. G. Koestler, eds., Hydrocarbon seals: importance for ex-
ploration and production: NPF (Norwegian Petroleum Society)
Special Publication 7, p. 51–59.
Gibson, R. G., 1994, Fault-zone seals in siliciclastic strata of the
Columbus Basin, offshore Trinidad: AAPG Bulletin, v. 78,
p. 1372–1385.
Gibson, R. G., 1998, Physical character and fluid-flow properties
of sandstone-derived fault gouge, in M. P. Coward, T. S.
Daltaban, and H. Johnson, eds., Structural geology in reservoir
characterisation: Geological Society Special Publication 127,
p. 83–97.
Hesthammer, J., 1998a, Evaluation of the timedip, correlation and
coherence maps for structural interpretation of seismic data:
First Break, v. 16, p. 151–167.
Hesthammer, J., 1998b, Integrated use of well data for structural
control of seismic interpretation: Petroleum Geoscience, v. 4,
p. 97–109.
Hesthammer, J., and H. Fossen, 1997a, Seismic attribute analysis
in structural interpretation of the Gullfaks field, northern
North Sea: Petroleum Geoscience, v. 3, p. 13–26.
Hesthammer, J., and H. Fossen, 1997b, The influence of seismic
noise in structural interpretation of seismic attribute maps:
First Break, v. 15, p. 209–219.
Jev, B. I., C. H. Kaars-Sijpersteijn, M. P. A. M. Peters, N. L. Watts, and J. T.
Wilkie, 1993, Akaso field, Nigeria: use of integrated 3-D seismic,
fault-slicing, clay smearing and RFT pressure data on fault
trapping, and dynamic leakage: AAPG Bulletin, v. 77, p. 1389–1404.
Kleven, R., O. Høvring, S. T. Opdal, T. Bjørnstad, Ø. Dugstad, and
I. A. Hundere, 1995, Non-radioactive tracing of injection gas in
reservoirs: Society of Petroleum Engineers Reprint 35651, 11 p.
Knipe, R. J., 1997, Juxtaposition and seal diagrams to help analyze
fault seals in hydrocarbon reservoirs: AAPG Bulletin, v. 81,
p. 187–195.
Manzocchi, T., J. J. Walsh, P. Nell, and G. Yielding, 1999, Fault
transmissibility multipliers for flow simulation models,
Petroleum Geoscience, v. 5, p. 53–63.
Marsden, G., G. Yielding, A. M. Roberts, and N. J. Kusznir, 1990,
Application of flexural cantilever simple-shear/pure-shear
model to continental lithosphere extension to the formation of
the northern North Sea basin, in D. J. Blundell and A. D.
Gibbs, eds., Tectonic evolution of the North Sea rifts: Oxford,
Oxford University Press, p. 240–261.
Needham, D. T., G. Yielding, and B. Freeman, 1996, Analysis of
fault geometry and displacement patterns, in P. G. Buchanan
and D. A. Nieuwland, eds., Modern developments in structural
interpretation, validation and modelling: Geological Society
Special Publication 99, p. 189–199.
 Yielding et al. 951

Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, 1997, The petroleum
resources on the Norwegian continental shelf: Norwegian
Petroleum Directorate, Stavanger, publication YA-787, 50 p.
Petterson, O., A. Storli, E. Ljosland, and I. Massie, 1990, The
Gullfaks field: geology and reservoir development, in A. T.
Buller, E. Berg, O. Hjelmeland, J. Kleppe, O. Torsæter, and
J. O. Aasen, eds., North Sea oil and gas reservoirs—II: London,
Graham and Trotman, p. 67–90.
Watts, N. L., 1987, Theoretical aspects of cap-rock and fault seals
for single- and two-phase hydrocarbon columns: Marine and
Petroleum Geology, v. 4, p. 274–307.
Yielding, G., M. E. Badley, and A. M. Roberts, 1992, The structural
evolution of the Brent Province, in A. C. Morton, R. S. Haszel-
dine, R. M. Giles, and S. Brown, eds., Geology of the Brent
Group: Geological Society Special Publication 61,
p. 27–43.
Yielding, G., B. Freeman, and D. T. Needham, 1997, Quantitative
fault-seal prediction: AAPG Bulletin, v. 81, p. 897–917.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Graham Yielding Geir Byberg

Graham Yielding received a B.A. Geir Byberg is a staff engineer
degree in natural sciences from with Statoil working on reservoir
Cambridge University in 1979, fol- evaluation. Previously he was with
lowed by a Ph.D. in geophysics in Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
1984. He then worked for Britoil in (1980–1997), working with petro-
Glasgow as a seismic interpreter physics and reservoir develop-
before joining Badleys in 1988. His ments. He holds an M.S. degree in
current interests include fault-seal petroleum engineering from Rog-
analysis and fault populations. aland University.

Jon Arne Øverland

Jon Arne Øverland graduated
from Stavanger Technical College
in 1973. After working for BP
Norway and Geco, he joined the
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
(NPD) in 1980. At NPD his main
tasks have been seismic interpreta-
tion and resource estimation of
producing fields and finds in the
development phase. His interests
focus on the use of seismic data for
reservoir characterization and reservoir management.