scholarly journals A reservoir modeling of the early Cretaceous carbonate rock based upon sequence stratigraphy in giant oil field of the Middle East

2006 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-75
Author(s):  
Yasutaka Shirakura ◽  
Hidenori Obara ◽  
Osamu Himeno
2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Lawrence ◽  
Malalla Al Ali ◽  
Volker C. Vahrenkamp ◽  
Fatema Al Shekaili ◽  
Yahui Yin ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Lars Stemmerik ◽  
Gregers Dam ◽  
Nanna Noe-Nygaard ◽  
Stefan Piasecki ◽  
Finn Surlyk

NOTE: This article was published in a former series of GEUS Bulletin. Please use the original series name when citing this article, for example: Stemmerik, L., Dam, G., Noe-Nygaard, N., Piasecki, S., & Surlyk, F. (1998). Sequence stratigraphy of source and reservoir rocks in the Upper Permian and Jurassic of Jameson Land, East Greenland. Geology of Greenland Survey Bulletin, 180, 43-54. https://doi.org/10.34194/ggub.v180.5085 _______________ Approximately half of the hydrocarbons discovered in the North Atlantic petroleum provinces are found in sandstones of latest Triassic – Jurassic age with the Middle Jurassic Brent Group, and its correlatives, being the economically most important reservoir unit accounting for approximately 25% of the reserves. Hydrocarbons in these reservoirs are generated mainly from the Upper Jurassic Kimmeridge Clay and its correlatives with additional contributions from Middle Jurassic coal, Lower Jurassic marine shales and Devonian lacustrine shales. Equivalents to these deeply buried rocks crop out in the well-exposed sedimentary basins of East Greenland where more detailed studies are possible and these basins are frequently used for analogue studies (Fig. 1). Investigations in East Greenland have documented four major organic-rich shale units which are potential source rocks for hydrocarbons. They include marine shales of the Upper Permian Ravnefjeld Formation (Fig. 2), the Middle Jurassic Sortehat Formation and the Upper Jurassic Hareelv Formation (Fig. 4) and lacustrine shales of the uppermost Triassic – lowermost Jurassic Kap Stewart Group (Fig. 3; Surlyk et al. 1986b; Dam & Christiansen 1990; Christiansen et al. 1992, 1993; Dam et al. 1995; Krabbe 1996). Potential reservoir units include Upper Permian shallow marine platform and build-up carbonates of the Wegener Halvø Formation, lacustrine sandstones of the Rhaetian–Sinemurian Kap Stewart Group and marine sandstones of the Pliensbachian–Aalenian Neill Klinter Group, the Upper Bajocian – Callovian Pelion Formation and Upper Oxfordian – Kimmeridgian Hareelv Formation (Figs 2–4; Christiansen et al. 1992). The Jurassic sandstones of Jameson Land are well known as excellent analogues for hydrocarbon reservoirs in the northern North Sea and offshore mid-Norway. The best documented examples are the turbidite sands of the Hareelv Formation as an analogue for the Magnus oil field and the many Paleogene oil and gas fields, the shallow marine Pelion Formation as an analogue for the Brent Group in the Viking Graben and correlative Garn Group of the Norwegian Shelf, the Neill Klinter Group as an analogue for the Tilje, Ror, Ile and Not Formations and the Kap Stewart Group for the Åre Formation (Surlyk 1987, 1991; Dam & Surlyk 1995; Dam et al. 1995; Surlyk & Noe-Nygaard 1995; Engkilde & Surlyk in press). The presence of pre-Late Jurassic source rocks in Jameson Land suggests the presence of correlative source rocks offshore mid-Norway where the Upper Jurassic source rocks are not sufficiently deeply buried to generate hydrocarbons. The Upper Permian Ravnefjeld Formation in particular provides a useful source rock analogue both there and in more distant areas such as the Barents Sea. The present paper is a summary of a research project supported by the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy (Piasecki et al. 1994). The aim of the project is to improve our understanding of the distribution of source and reservoir rocks by the application of sequence stratigraphy to the basin analysis. We have focused on the Upper Permian and uppermost Triassic– Jurassic successions where the presence of source and reservoir rocks are well documented from previous studies. Field work during the summer of 1993 included biostratigraphic, sedimentological and sequence stratigraphic studies of selected time slices and was supplemented by drilling of 11 shallow cores (Piasecki et al. 1994). The results so far arising from this work are collected in Piasecki et al. (1997), and the present summary highlights the petroleum-related implications.


2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shahab D. Mohaghegh ◽  
Hafez H. Hafez ◽  
Razi Gaskari ◽  
Masoud Haajizadeh ◽  
Maher Kenawy

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. SY67-SY81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xavier Janson ◽  
Keumsuk Lee ◽  
Chris Zahm ◽  
Charles Kerans

Rudist buildups are important reservoirs in many Cretaceous fields in the Middle East, but they are generally near or below seismic resolution. The dimension, shape, and architecture of rudist buildups can be assessed using outcrop, although only partly so because of pseudo-2D observations of geobodies intersecting with the outcrop. We used ground-penetrating radar to enhance our understanding of the shape, dimension, and architecture of Albian rudist buildups in two outcrops in Texas. In the Lake Georgetown spillway, caprinid rudist buildups are 10–30 m wide and 2–7 m high. They are elliptical with an aspect ratio of as much as 1.7. They show no or very little flank development. The older buildup exposed in the Red Bluff Creek area displays 10- to 25-m-wide and 5- to 10-m-high in situ caprinid rudist mound core accumulations with as much as 100-m-wide reworked flanks in the shallower part of the depositional profile. Downdip along the depositional profile, caprinid buildups are 5–20 m wide and 3–7 m high with no flank debris. The buildups in the Lake Georgetown area have similar architecture and comparable size with the downdip buildups exposed in Red Bluff Creek. These buildups were compared with other outcropping Albian buildups in Texas that have different sizes, shapes, and stratigraphic architecture to provide dimensional data that could be used in subsurface reservoir modeling, either for calibrating variogram ranges or to build training images. The rudist buildups exposed in Texas are an order of magnitude smaller than those present in the subsurface in the Middle East, but they have comparable stratigraphic architecture. The size difference might be the result of subsurface buildups being mapped using well-log or core correlations or seismic extractions that cannot resolved at that scale of heterogeneity.


2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hector Aguilar ◽  
Aref Almarzooqi ◽  
Tarek Mohamed El Sonbaty ◽  
Leigber Villarreal

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document