Quantitative fault seal assessment in hydrocarbon- compartmentalised structures using fluid pressure data

Grauls, D.; Pascaud, Frederic; Rives, T.

doi:10.1016/s0928-8937(02)80012-1

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Heum 1996; Bjørkum et al. 1998, 1999a,b; Clayton 1999; Rodgers 1999; Grauls et al. 2002; Brown 2003; Teige et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We have deliberately not addressed hydrodynamic effects in exploration, where many of the issues associated with two-phase fault rock properties in a seal-breaching context as discussed in this paper are relevant (e.g. Heum 1996; Bjørkum et al 1998Bjørkum et al , 1999aClayton 1999;Rodgers 1999;Grauls et al 2002;Brown 2003;Teige et al 2006;Underschultz 2007). Nor have we discussed the fate of reservoirs once seal capacity has been exceeded.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Faults and fault properties in hydrocarbon flow models

Manzocchi¹,

Childs²,

Walsh³

2010

Geofluids

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The petroleum industry uses subsurface flow models for two principal purposes: to model the flow of hydrocarbons into traps over geological time, and to simulate the production of hydrocarbon from reservoirs over periods of decades or less. Faults, which are three-dimensional volumes, are approximated in both modelling applications as planar membranes onto which predictions of the most important fault-related flow properties are mapped. Faults in porous clastic reservoirs are generally baffles or barriers to flow and the relevant flow properties are therefore very different to those which are important in conductive fracture flow systems. A critical review and discussion is offered on the work-flows used to predict and model capillary threshold pressure for exploration fault seal analysis and fault transmissibility multipliers for production simulation, and of the data from which the predictions derive. New flow simulation models confirm that failure of intra-reservoir sealing faults can occur during a reservoir depressurization via a water-drive mechanism, but contrary to anecdotal reports, published examples of production-induced seal failure are elusive. Ignoring the three-dimensional structure of fault zones can sometimes have a significant influence on production-related flow, and a series of models illustrating flow associated with relay zones are discussed.

show abstract

“…Heum 1996; Bjørkum et al. 1998, 1999a,b; Clayton 1999; Rodgers 1999; Grauls et al. 2002; Brown 2003; Teige et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Faults and fault properties in hydrocarbon flow models

Manzocchi¹,

Childs²,

Walsh³

2010

Geofluids

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such data are telling us about the hydrodynamic behaviour of the fault rather than its static trapping capacity (e.g. Grauls et al 2002;Harris et al 2002). This is an important distinction: in hydrodynamic systems the pressure drop between aquifers at the fault will depend upon the fault rock permeability and thickness (not threshold pressure) and the overall flow rate.…”

Section: Calibration: How Much Does the Seal Hold?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Fault seal calibration: a brief review

Yielding¹,

Bretan²,

Freeman³

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Calibration is a necessary step in the workflow for prediction of fault seal because there is no direct way to detect the hydraulic behaviour of a fault at the scale of a hydrocarbon trap. Over the last 20 years two general approaches have been developed: Measurement of hydraulic properties of fault-zone samples (lab calibration), then mapping these results onto the appropriate parts of trap-bounding faults.Design of simple algorithms which attempt to capture a salient feature of the fault zone (e.g. CSP, SSF, SGR), then looking at known trap-bounding faults to find a relationship between the algorithm and the presence or capacity of a seal (sub-surface calibration).Seal capacity is typically described by Hg–air threshold pressure in the lab or static pressure differences in the subsurface (e.g. hydrocarbon buoyancy pressure). In addition to likely interpretation and geometry errors in approaches (i) and (ii), further uncertainty is introduced when converting the calibrated seal strength to potential hydrocarbon column height, because of the variability of subsurface hydrocarbon fluids (interfacial tension). Despite these potential problems, the different methodologies typically agree reasonably well in their predictions for fault-seal capacity. However, this agreement may be largely coincidental and is likely to be a response to the heterogeneity of fault-zone structure (especially at intermediate ‘compositions’ or SGR).

show abstract

“…The description and interpretation of fault zone geometry, architecture and evolution are important for understanding and predicting the impact of faults on fluid flow in the upper crust, including groundwater flow (Bense and Van Balen, 2004;Bense and Person, 2006;Folch and Mas-Pla, 2008), hydrocarbon migration, entrapment and production (Grauls et al, 2002;Sorkhabi and Tsuji, 2005;Manzocchi et al, 2010;Wibberley et al, 2017), hydrothermal flow and mineralization (Rowland and Sibson, 2004;Person et al, 2008;Fairley 2009), nuclear waste storage (Ofoegbu et al, 2001;Gray et al, 2005), and CO 2 sequestration (Shipton et al, 2004;Agosta et al, 2008;Dockrill and Shipton, 2010). The internal structure of a fault zone may also affect its seismogenic behaviour (Sibson, 1986;Scholz, 2002;Sibson, 2003;Rice and Cocco, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%