1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Petroleum Geoscience
  4. Volume 23, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 23, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1354-0793
  • E-ISSN:

Abstract

A new 1D bed-scale model has been built to help model shale smear in interbedded sand–shale sequences using the shale smear factor (SSF). A smear envelope is generated by mapping each potential shale smear onto the fault plane employing five different shale smear geometries. Graphical outputs then focus on the cumulative length of the resultant smears and the remaining sand–sand juxtaposition windows in the predicted shale smear envelope. The smears are evaluated stochastically with lengths that are a randomized function of the estimated Vclay content of the source shale layers, allowing the smear pattern to change with each realization. A new fragmented smear mode is developed that allows discontinuous smears to be distributed randomly on the fault plane and can be used to modify the smear pattern as fault displacement increases. The model has been tested using well data. Results show that windows in the smear envelope are commonly present, and that their frequency and location are dependent on the smear placement model and sand–shale stacking pattern. Smear fragmentation leads to more windows being preserved. The 1D model can also assess the impact of geocellular upscaling on fault seal analysis. Upscaling reduces cross-fault sand connectivity due to the elimination of thin beds. Shale smear envelopes are also reduced in length as fewer shale beds are involved, even though layers are thicker. A fault may or may not appear more sealing dependent on the layer configuration and net-to-gross ratio (NTG). The model offers results that can inform input to fault seal evaluations and allows the effect of geomodel upscaling to be more closely interrogated.

© 2017 The Author(s)
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1144/petgeo2016-021
2016-10-14
2024-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1144/petgeo2016-021
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aydin, A. & Eyal, Y.
    2002. Anatomy of a normal fault with shale smear: implications for fault seal. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 86, 1367–1381.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bretan, P., Yielding, G. & Jones, H.
    2003. Using calibrated shale gouge ratio to estimate hydrocarbon column heights. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 87, 397–413.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Caine, J.S., Evans, J.P. & Forster, C.B.
    1996. Fault zone architecture and permeability structure. Geology, 24, 1025–1028.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Childs, C., Walsh, J.J. & Waterson, J.
    1997. Complexity in fault zone structure and implications for fault seal prediction. In: Moller-Perdersen, P. & Koestler, A.G. (eds) Hydrocarbon Seals: Importance for Exploration and Production. Norwegian Petroleum Society, Trondheim, Norway, 61–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Childs, C., Walsh, J.J. et al.
    2007. Definition of a fault permeability predictor from outcrop studies of faulted turbidite sequence, Taranaki, New Zealand. In: Jolley, S.J., Barr, D., Walsh, J.J. & Knipe, R.J. (eds) Structurally Complex Reservoirs. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 292, 235–258, http://doi.org/10.1144/SP292.14
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Childs, C., Manzocchi, T., Walsh, J.J., Bonson, C.G., Nicol, A. & Schopfer, M.P.J.
    2009. A geometric model of fault zone and fault rock thickness variations. Journal of Structural Geology, 31, 117–127.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Ciftci, N.B., Giger, S.B. & Clennell, M.B.
    2013. Three-dimensional structure of experimentally produced clay smears: Implications for fault seal analysis. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 97, 733–757.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Clausen, J.A. & Gabrielsen, R.H.
    2002. Parameters that control the development of clay smear at low stress states: an experimental study using ring-shear apparatus. Journal of Structural Geology, 24, 1569–1586.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Cuisiat, F. & Skurtveit, E.
    2010. An experimental investigation of the development and permeability of clay smears along faults in uncemented sediments. Journal of Structural Geology, 32, 1850–1863.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Davatzes, N.C. & Aydin, A.
    2005. Distribution and nature of fault architecture in a layered sandstone and shale sequence: An example from the Moab fault, Utah. In: Sorkhubi, R. & Tsuji, Y. (eds) Faults, Fluid Flow, and Petroleum Traps. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoirs, 85, 153–180.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Doughty, T.
    2003. Clay smear seals and faults sealing potential of an exhumed growth fault, Rio Grande rift, New Mexico. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 87, 427–444.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Egholm, D.L., Clausen, O.R., Sandiford, M., Kristensen, M.B. & Korstgard, J.A.
    2008. The mechanics of clay smearing along faults. Geology, 36, 787–790.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Færseth, R.B.
    2006. Shale smear along large faults: continuity of smear and the faults seal capacity. Journal of the Geological Society, London, 163, 741–751, http://doi.org/10.1144/0016-76492005-162
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Fisher, Q.J. & Jolley, S.J.
    2007. Treatment of faults in production simulation models. In: Jolley, S.J., Barr, D., Walsh, J.J. & Knipe, R.J. (eds) Structurally Complex Reservoirs. Geological Society,London, Special Publications, 292, 219–233, http://doi.org/10.1144/SP292.13
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Fisher, Q.J. & Knipe, R.J.
    1998. Fault sealing processes in siliciclastic sediments. In: Jones, G., Fisher, Q.J. & Knipe, R.J. (eds) Faulting, Fault Sealing and Fluid Flow in Hydrocarbon Reservoirs. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 147, 117–134, http://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1998.147.01.08
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Freeman, S.R., Harris, S.D. & Knipe, R.J.
    2010. Cross-fault sealing, baffling and fluid flow in 3D geological models: tools for analysis, visualization and interpretation. In: Jolley, S.J., Fisher, Q.J., Ainsworth, R.B., Vrolijk, P.J. & Delisle, S. (eds) Reservoir Compartmentalization. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 347, 257–282, http://doi.org/10.1144/SP347.15
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Giger, S.B., Clennell, M.B., Ciftci, N.B., Harbers, C., Clark, P. & Ricchetti, M.
    2013. Fault transmissibility in clastic–argillaceous sequences controlled by clay smear evolution. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 97, 705–731.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Holland, M., Urai, J., van der Zee, W., Stanjekc, H. & Konstantyd, J.
    2006. Fault gouge evolution in highly overconsolidated claystones. Journal of Structural Geology, 28, 323–332.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Jolley, S.J., Dijk, H., Lamens, J.H., Fisher, Q.J., Manzocchi, T., Eikmans, H. & Huang, Y.
    2007. Faulting and fault sealing in production simulation models: Brent Province, northern North Sea. Petroleum Geoscience, 13, 321–340, http://doi.org/10.1144/1354-079306-733
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Kristensen, M.B., Childs, C., Olesen, N.O. & Korstgard, J.A.
    2013. The microstructure and internal architecture of shear bands in sand-clay sequences. Journal of Structural Geology, 46, 129–141.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Lindsay, N.G., Walsh, J.J., Watterson, J. & Murphy, F.C.
    1993. Outcrop studies of shale smears on fault surfaces. In: Flint, S.S. & Bryant, I.D. (eds) The Geological Modelling of Hydrocarbon Reservoirs and Outcrop Analogues. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, 113–123.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Manzocchi, T., Walsh, J.J., Nell, P. & Yielding, G.
    1999. Fault transmissibility multipliers for flow simulation models. Petroleum Geoscience, 5, 53–63, http://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo.5.1.53
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Manzocchi, T., Walsh, J.J., Tomasso, M., Strand, J., Childs, C. & Haughton, P.D.W.
    2007. Static and dynamic connectivity in bed-scale models of faulted and unfaulted turbidites. In: Jolley, S.J., Barr, D., Walsh, J.J. & Knipe, R.J. (eds) Structurally Complex Reservoirs. Geological Society,London, Special Publications, 292, 309–336, http://doi.org/10.1144/SP292.18
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Manzocchi, T., Childs, C. & Walsh, J.J.
    2010. Faults and fault properties in hydrocarbon flow models. Geofluids, 10, 94–113.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Schmatz, J., Vrolijk, P.J. & Urai, J.L.
    2010. Clay smear in normal fault zones – The effect of multilayers and clay cementation in water saturated model experiments. Journal of Structural Geology, 32, 1834–1849.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Smith, D.A.
    1966. Theoretical consideration of sealing and non-sealing faults. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 50, 363–374.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 1980. Sealing and non-sealing faults in Louisiana Gulf Coast salt basin. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 64, 145–172.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Sperrevik, S., Færseth, R.B. & Gabrielsen, R.H.
    2000. Experiments on clay smear formation along faults. Petroleum Geoscience, 6, 113–123, http://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo.6.2.113
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Sperrevik, S., Gillespie, P.A., Fisher, Q.J., Knipe, R.J. & Halvorsen, T.
    2002. Empirical estimation of fault rock properties. In: Koestler, A.G. & Hunsdale, R. (eds) Hydrocarbon Seal Quantification. Norwegian Petroleum Society (NPF), Special Publications, 11, 109–125.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Takahashi, M.
    2003. Permeability change during experimental smearing. Journal of Geophysical Research, 108, (B5), 2235, http://doi.org/10.1029/2002JB001984
     [Google Scholar]
  31. TerHeege, J.H., Wassing, B.B.T., Orlic, B., Giger, S.B. & Clennell, M.B.
    2013. Constraints on the sealing capacity of faults with clay smears from discrete element models validated by laboratory experiments. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 46, 465–478.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. van der Zee, W. & Urai, J.L.
    2005. Process of normal fault evolution in a siliciclastic sequence: a case study from Miri, Sarawak, Malaysia. Journal of Structural Geology, 27, 2281–2300.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Vrolijk, P., Urai, J.L. & Kettermann, M.
    2016. Clay Smear: Review of mechanisms and applications. Journal of Structural Geology, 86, 95–152.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Watts, N.L.
    1987. Theoretical aspects of cap-rock and fault seals for single and two phase hydrocarbon columns. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 4, 274–307.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Yielding, G.
    2002. Shale gouge ratio – calibration by geohistory. In: Koestler, A.G. & Hunsdale, R. (eds) Hydrocarbon Seal Quantification. Norwegian Petroleum Society (NPF), Special Publications, 11, 1–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 2012. Using probabilistic shale smear modelling to relate SGR predictions of column height to fault zone heterogeneity. Petroleum Geoscience, 18, 33–42, http://doi.org/10.1144/1354-079311-013
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Yielding, G., Freeman, B. & Needham, D.T.
    1997. Quantitative fault seal prediction. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 81, 897–917.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Yielding, G., Bretan, P. & Freeman, B.
    2010. Fault seal calibration: a brief review. In: Jolley, S., Fisher, Q.J., Ainsworth, R.B., Vrolijk, P.J. & Delisle, S. (eds) Reservoir Compartmentalization. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 347, 243–255, http://doi.org/10.1144/SP347.14
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1144/petgeo2016-021
Loading
A geometrical model for shale smear: implications for upscaling in faulted geomodels
Petroleum Geoscience 23, 39 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2016-021
/content/journals/10.1144/petgeo2016-021
/content/journals/10.1144/petgeo2016-021
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error