Quantitative Fault Seal Prediction1

G. Yielding, B. Freeman, and D. T. Needham2

ABSTRACT
Fault seal can arise from reservoir/nonreservoir
juxtaposition or by development of fault rock having high entry pressure. The methodology for evaluating these possibilities uses detailed seismic mapping and well analysis.
A first-order seal analysis involves identifying reservoir juxtaposition areas over the fault surface by
using the mapped horizons and a refined reservoir
stratigraphy defined by isochores at the fault surface.
The second-order phase of the analysis assesses
whether the sand/sand contacts are likely to support a
pressure difference. We define two types of lithologydependent attributes: gouge ratio and smear factor.
Gouge ratio is an estimate of the proportion of finegrained material entrained into the fault gouge from
the wall rocks. Smear factor methods (including clay
smear potential and shale smear factor) estimate the
profile thickness of a shale drawn along the fault
zone during faulting. All of these parameters vary
over the fault surface, implying that faults cannot
simply be designated sealing or nonsealing.
An important step in using these parameters is to
calibrate them in areas where across-fault pressure
differences are explicitly known from wells on both
sides of a fault. Our calibration for a number of data
sets shows remarkably consistent results, despite
their diverse settings (e.g., Brent province, Niger
Delta, Columbus basin). For example, a shale gouge
ratio of about 20% (volume of shale in the slipped
interval) is a typical threshold between minimal
across-fault pressure difference and significant seal.
INTRODUCTION
Faults play an important role in creating hydrocarbon traps. For a better appreciation of the risks assoCopyright 1997. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All
rights reserved.
1Manuscript received March 7, 1996; revised manuscript received August
12, 1996; final acceptance November 21, 1996.
2 Badley Earth Sciences Ltd., North Beck House, North Beck Lane,
Hundleby, Spilsby, Lincolnshire PE23 5NB, United Kingdom.
We are grateful to Torbjrn Fristad, Dave Phelps, and Jon Arne verland
for detailed discussions of some of the data sets described in this article, and
to Robert Berg and Grant Skerlec for constructive reviews of the initial
manuscript.

AAPG Bulletin, V. 81, No. 6 (June 1997), P. 897917.

ciated with fault-controlled prospects and of the production from faulted fields, it is important to understand the processes that contribute to fault seals.
Given certain information about a fault cutting a
reservoir sequence, it is desirable to predict the likely sealing behavior of each part of the fault system.
Seals can be considered as membrane seals or
hydraulic seals, depending on their likely failure
mode (Watts, 1987). The dominant control on failure of membrane seals is the capillary entry pressure of the seal rock; that is, the pressure required
for hydrocarbons to enter the largest interconnected pore throat of the seal. When the entry pressure
has to exceed the strength of the rock in order to
breach the seal, the seal is considered a hydraulic
seal. A number of mechanisms have been recognized whereby fault planes can act as a seal (Watts,
1987; Knipe, 1992).
(1) Juxtaposition, in which reservoir sands are
juxtaposed against a low-permeability unit (e.g.,
shale) with a high entry pressure.
(2) Clay smear (i.e., entrainment of clay or shale)
into the fault plane, thereby giving the fault itself a
high entry pressure.
(3) Cataclasis, which is the crushing of sand
grains to produce a fault gouge of finer grained
material, again giving the fault a high capillary
entry pressure.
(4) Diagenesis, when preferential cementation
along an originally permeable fault plane may partially or completely remove porosity, ultimately creating a hydraulic seal.
Juxtaposition seals can be recognized explicitly
by mapping the juxtaposition of units across the
fault plane. Although juxtaposition against tight
lithologies (such as shales) will give the greatest seal
effect, juxtaposition of two sands with different capillary properties will also give rise to a measurable
pressure difference across the fault. This difference
is not due to any fault-zone material; nevertheless, it
may correspond to up to 15 m difference in oil column height between the two sands (Berg, 1975).
To identify or predict sealing by clay smear, cataclasis, or diagenesis requires an ability to relate these
mechanisms to measurable properties of the subsurface (such as lithology and fault displacement). A
further desirable feature of any predictive method
897

898

Predicting Fault Seals

Figure 1Field example of clay smears separating sandstones from Frechen lignite mines, Germany (Modified
from Weber et al., 1978). Note tapering of clay (black)
away from the source bed and the compound nature of the
clay smear in the fault zone. (No scale on original figure.)

is that it should use data that are routinely available.

At present, significant success has been achieved in
developing algorithms for predicting seal capacity
by clay smear, and this is the main focus of our
paper. Seal by cataclasis may be similarly understood in the near future, whereas seal by diagenesis
will probably be much less amenable to prediction
by simple algorithms [e.g., see Knipe (1993) for a
discussion of likely factors].
OBSERVATIONS OF CLAY SMEAR
Weber et al. (1978) presented a series of observations from experiments and outcrop studies.

They noted that faulting of sand-shale sequences

can form a continuous, multilayered, clay gouge
along the median slip plane. Clay gouge produced
experimentally proved to be an effective seal to
water flow. The structure of the shear zone is typically asymmetric with apices of sand beds pointing
in the direction of motion (Figure 1), although the
sheared sand does not coalesce into a continuous
gouge as does the clay. Observations in open-cast
mines in an unconsolidated Tertiar y deltaic
sequence show that the clay gouge zone gradually
becomes thinner away from the clay source bed.
The thickest clay gouges observed by Weber et al.
(1978) were about 0.5 m, derived from thicker (5
m) source beds.
Lindsay et al. (1993) described outcrop studies
of shale smears in a Carboniferous fluvio-deltaic
sequence. In contrast to the sequence described by
Weber et al. (1978), these rocks were lithified at
the time of faulting (burial depth about 2 km).
Lindsay et al. (1993) recognized three types of
shale smear: shear, abrasion, and injection.
(1) Shear smears are analogous to those described
by Weber et al. (1978; Figure 1). The thicknesses of
the smears generally decrease with distance from
the source bed, reaching a minimum in the region
midway between the hanging-wall and footwall
bed terminations.
(2) Abrasion smears, which are the commonest
type in this lithified sequence, comprise a waferthin veneer that is abraded by a sandstone wallrock as it slips past a shale bed. These smears tend
to be thickest when derived from thicker source
layers and when the fault throw is small. Larger
throws tend to erode the shale veneer.
(3) Injection smears are a local response to volume changes during faulting. Injection smear thickness is not readily predictable.
Where fault offset is greater than the typical bed
thicknesses, the fault zone commonly contains a
sheared melange of the various wall rocks. Berg
and Avery (1995) reported that the capillary entry
pressure of such fault rocks can be two orders of
magnitude greater than adjacent reservoir sands.
Alignment of clays in a shear zone introduces a
strong directional permeability contrast (see, for
example, Arch and Maltman, 1990).
ALGORITHMS FOR PREDICTING CLAY SMEAR
PREDICTION
The following factors control the likelihood of
clay/shale smearing: (1) thicker source beds can
produce thicker clay smears, (2) shear-type smears
decrease in thickness with distance from the
source layer, (3) abrasion-type smears decrease in

Yielding et al.

thickness with increasing throw, and (4) multiple

source beds can give a combined continuous
smear. These relationships imply that a quantitative
approach to clay smear prediction might be possible. This section outlines different algorithms that
have been proposed by other authors and suggests
further possibilities.
Bouvier et al. (1989) presented a study of the
Nun River field in the Niger Delta. They described a
clay smear potential (CSP) as a means of estimating
the likelihood of clay smearing in areas of
sand/sand juxtaposition on faults. The clay smear
potential is stated to represent the relative amount
of clay that has been smeared from individual shale
source beds at a certain point along a fault plane.
CSP is stated to (1) increase with shale source bed
thickness, (2) increase with the number of source
beds displaced past a particular point along a fault
plane, and (3) decrease with increased fault throw.
These relationships have recently been expressed
more explicitly by Fulljames et al. (1996) as
(1)
for distance less than fault offset (this algorithm is
illustrated in Figure 2a). For a point lying within the
offset between an upthrown shale bed and the corresponding downthrown bed, the distances from
that bed and the bed thickness are measured. The
point will typically be nearer to either the
upthrown termination or the downthrown termination of the bed; the distance is measured from
the nearest termination of the bed because the
smear profile is assumed to be symmetric. If the
point lies within the offset of more than one shale
bed, smear distances and bed thicknesses are measured for all relevant beds and summed according
to equation 1. The CSP algorithm models the
behavior of shear-type smear s as previously
described; i.e., distance-tapering and an additive
effect for compound smears.
Bouvier et al. (1989) calibrated their CSP calculations against known sealing and nonsealing faults,
and divided the observed range into high, medium,
and low CSP. Low CSP represents little chance for
the presence of continuous clay smear seals that
can trap hydrocarbons. Jev et al. (1993) used the
same technique on the Akaso field (in the Niger
Delta) and quoted a CSP of less than 15 as nonsealing and a CSP of more than 30 as sealing for faults
bounding undrilled prospects. Bentley and Barry
(1991) used CSP values to constrain a reservoir simulation of Cormorant Block IV (Brent province,
northern North Sea) and found that on a production time scale a CSP of 5 marked the general
threshold for fault sealing.

899

In the CSP algorithm (equation 1), the shale bed

thickness is raised to the power of 2. This has been
justified by fluid dynamics arguments by Lehner
and Pilaar (1996), who stated that the outflux from
the shale or clay layer should be proportional to the
square of its thickness if the material undergoes
Newtonian flow. CSP as defined by equation 1 then
has dimensions of distance. We suggest that CSP
can be considered as one example of a generalized
smear factor given by (see Figure 2b)

The exponents m and n can be regarded as additional variables whose values may be justified by
experimental or observational studies. When m =
n, the result is dimensionless and is therefore independent of the units of measurement. As n increases above 1 (as in the CSP equation), thicker source
beds contribute more to the calculation than do
thin beds; i.e., they are weighted by a greater proportion than their increase in thickness.
Lindsay et al. (1993) proposed a shale smear factor to constrain the likelihood of shale smear continuity. Based on their observations of abrasion
smears in a lithified sequence, they define the shale
smear factor (SSF) as (see Figure 2c)
SSF =

Fault throw
Shale layer thickness

(3)

The shale smear factor remains constant between

the offset terminations because it does not depend
on smear distance (although lateral variations in
fault throw would have a corresponding effect on
the calculated SSF). SSF thus models the profile of
abrasion-type smears. From a study of 80 faults
(excluding composite smears), Lindsay et al. (1993)
concluded that shale smears may become incomplete for an SSF greater than 7. Smaller values of SSF
are more likely to correspond to continuous smears
and therefore to a sealing layer on the fault surface.
The values of SSF are not additive for compound
smears because thin shales give higher SSF and
dominate the sum. In such cases, a simple application of SSF values would take the minimum value
(most sealing) from the relevant shale beds at that
point on the fault.
The CSP, smear factor, and SSF algorithms
described depend upon a consideration of the
thickness and offset of individual shale beds.
However, such an approach may be difficult to
apply directly in thick heterogeneous sequences
because it is often not feasible to map every shale

900

Predicting Fault Seals

Figure 2Smear factor algorithms for estimating likelihood of clay smear on a fault plane. (a) Clay smear potential
(CSP) (Bouvier et al., 1989; Fulljames et al., 1996) given by the square of source-bed thickness divided by smear distance; (b) generalized smear factor, given by source-bed thickness divided by smear distance, with variable exponents;
(c) shale smear factor (SSF) (Lindsay et al., 1993) given by fault throw divided by source-bed thickness. Methods (a)
and (b) model the distance-tapering of shear-type smears, whereas method (c) models the form of abrasion smears.

bed and consider its effect at the fault surface. In

such cases, we suggest the simpler approach of
considering only the bulk properties of the

sequence at the scale of the reservoir mapping. We

define an attribute called the shale gouge ratio
(SGR), which is simply the percentage of shale or

Yielding et al.

901

clay in the slipped interval. Figure 3a illustrates

how this would be calculated, at a given point on a
fault surface, for explicit shale beds
SGR =

Shale bed thickness

Fault throw

) 100%

(4)

The shale thicknesses are measured in a window with a height equal to the throw; therefore,
this window represents the column of rock that
has slid past this point on the fault. The definition
can be extended for cases where the stratigraphic
breakdown is by reservoir zone rather than by
individual beds. In these cases, the net contribution of fine-grained material from each reservoir
zone can be related to the clay content and thickness of the zone. The corresponding equation is
(see Figure 3b)
SGR =

[(

) (

)] 100%

Zone thickness Zone clay fraction

Fault throw

Figure 3Gouge ratio algorithms for estimating likelihood of clay entrainment in the fault gouge zone. The
gouge ratio reflects the proportion of the sealing lithology in the rock interval that has slipped past a given
point on the fault. (a) Calculation for explicit shale/clay
beds in an otherwise shale-free sequence; z is the
thickness of each shale bed. (b) Calculation for a
sequence of reservoir zones; z is the thickness of each
reservoir zone and Vcl is the clay volume fraction in
the zone.

(5)

Equation 5 reduces to equation 4 as the zonation

approaches individual beds (assuming shale/clay
beds are 100% clay material). The SGR represents,
in a general way, the proportion of shale or clay
that might be entrained in the fault zone by a variety of mechanisms. The more shaly the wall rocks,
the greater the proportion of shale in the fault
zone, and therefore the higher the capillary entry
pressure. Although this is undoubtedly an oversimplification of the detailed processes occurring in
the fault zone, it represents a tractable upscaling of
the lithological diversity at the fault surface; the
required information is simply fault displacement
and shale fraction through the sequence.
The gouge ratio algorithm can be extended to
include other lithologies in addition to shale/clay.
For example, if numerous coal beds are present
they may contribute to the fine-grained fault gouge,
although less efficiently than smeared clay. In this
case the coal units can be included in the summation and down-weighted with respect to the shale.
There is an alternative computation, widely used
in the petroleum industry, that is also referred to by
the abbreviation SGR, standing for smear gouge
ratio. This method is based on the ratio of sand to
shale that has moved past some critical portion of
the fault plane (Skerlec, 1996). Although not simply relatable to the shale gouge ratio, the smear
gouge ratio varies in an inverse manner; i.e., high
shale gouge ratio corresponds to low smear gouge
ratio and vice versa.
Equations 15 involve only a limited number of
variables; therefore, the clay smear attributes are
not independent. The SSF of Lindsay et al. (1993)

902

Predicting Fault Seals

was defined for the case of single-shale smears

(i.e., fault throw less than shale spacing). In such
cases, SSF is the reciprocal of the proportion of
shale in the rock interval displaced by the fault.
For example, a shale smear factor (SSF) of 4
implies that the shale bed thickness is 0.25 of the
throw; therefore, the rock interval displaced past
this point on the fault comprises 25% shale, and
the equivalent SGR is 25%. An SSF of 7, which
Lindsay et al. (1995) quote as a threshold for continuous smears, is similarly equivalent to an SGR
of about 14%. In cases where composite smears
are present, however, calculation of a minimum
SSF (from the thickest shale) would not exactly
correspond to the reciprocal of the smear gauge
ratio (SGR) because the SGR uses all the shale
beds in the throw window, not just the one giving the smallest SSF.
None of the attributes described is, in itself, a
measure of sealing capacity of the fault surface.
Instead, these attributes are estimates of the relative likelihood of clay smear being developed at
the fault surface. To use these attributes as estimates of seal capacity, they must be calibrated in
data sets where sealing behavior is documented
from well data. The next section describes examples of such calibration.
CALIBRATION OF CLAY SMEAR ATTRIBUTES
Fault seal is commonly recognized by differences
in hydrocarbon contacts on either side of the fault.
However, such observations give only a limited
amount of information about the degree and extent
of the fault seal. A much more comprehensive
approach is to map out the difference in pore pressure across the fault. This measurement can show
which parts of the fault surface are responsible for
separating aquifers as well as hydrocarbons, and
gives a minimum estimate of the seal capacity. The
following examples describe calibration of the clay
smear attributes in terms of the observed acrossfault pressure difference.
Our approach is to model the fault surface as a
three-dimensional grid, and use this grid as a framework for calculating a variety of attributes, such as
fault displacement, clay smear parameters, and
pore-pressure distributions. Details of the methodology are given elsewhere (Fristad et al., 1996;
Needham et al., 1996; Freeman et al., in press), and
only a brief overview is given here. The typical procedure is as follows.
(1) Produce closely spaced depth sections across
the fault. When a seismic interpretation of a structure is converted from two-way traveltime to
depth, the fault traces (sticks) picked on the vertical seismic sections are usually discarded, and

depth maps are made of the horizon surfaces only.

The faults are represented only as gaps in the horizon surfaces between the footwall and hangingwall cutoffs. (These gaps are variously referred to
as fault polygons, heave polygons, or separation
polygons.) Thus, reconstructing the fault surface
from the fault gaps on the horizon maps is important. Fault traces are drawn on depth sections
across the fault, passing through the fault gaps in
each of the horizons. In our procedure, sections
are typically at 25100 m spacing.
(2) Generate gridded fault surfaces. The group
of fault traces that comprises a single fault plane
is used to construct a grid that accurately matches the three-dimensional shape of the fault. This
grid is the base on which all the calculations of
fault attributes are performed. The grid spacing is
usually comparable to the spacing of the sections
constructed across the fault (i.e., 25100 m).
Fault throws (vertical offsets) at each horizon are
used to interpolate the throw over the fault grid.
(3) Create a geological layer model. In addition
to the seismically mapped hor izons, a more
detailed stratigraphic template is interpolated
into the fault analysis using a zonation and thicknesses based on well data. Posting of these additional horizons for both the footwall and hangingwall sides of the fault results in a detailed juxtaposition plot.
(4) Gather clay-volume data. Petrophysical analysis of well data, where available, is used to define
the clay fraction in each stratigraphic unit.
(5) Calculate clay smear attributes. Having constructed the fault grid, with detailed juxtapositions
and compositional data for all layers, we then calculate the clay smear attributes at all grid nodes, using
equations 15 as required.
(6) Compare with pressure data. Where a well
is present on each side of a fault, repeat formation tester (RFT) and other data are used to construct a pore-pressure distribution for both the
footwall and hanging wall of the fault. The difference between these distributions defines the
across-fault pressure difference for every point on
the fault surface.
The gridded fault surface, and the attributes
calculated on it, can be visualized in perspective
view (e.g., Needham et al., 1996; Freeman et al.,
in press). For reference to hydrocarbon contacts
and pore-pressure data, however, it is usually
more convenient to use a vertical strike projection (Figure 4). A vertical strike projection can be
thought of as an isometric view of the fault surface looking horizontally and perpendicular to
strike. A number of the examples that follow are
illustrated by strike projections. The examples
come from a variety of locations, such as the
Niger Delta, North Sea, and offshore Trinidad.

Yielding et al.

Figure 4Diagram illustrating the relationship between

fault plane and projection plane for a strike projection
(as used in Figures 57). Data for the fault plane are
stored as a grid, with typical grid spacing of 25100 m.

Nun River Field, Niger Delta

Bouvier et al. (1989) gave detailed strike projections of one fault (fault K) within this field, from
which we have reconstructed the fault surface.
(This surface is stored as a grid with node spacings of 100 m laterally and 50 m downdip.) Figure
5 shows three strike projections that reproduce
the geometric information in the original figures
of Bouvier et al. (1989). The throw pattern (Figure
5c) is typical of an antithetic fault, with throw
diminishing downward at the bottom of the fault
surface. The growth-faulted sequence comprises
stacked shoreface sandstones separated by fieldwide shales. Hydrocarbons are proven in a number of the footwall reservoirs (Figure 5a), thus
they will generate a buoyancy pressure where
they are trapped at the fault surface. Comparison
of the hydrocarbon distribution (Figure 5a) with
the juxtaposition pattern (Figure 5b) shows that
the hydrocarbons are trapped at sand/sand overlaps, suggesting that clay smear contributes to the
fault seal.
Figures 6 and 7 show our calculated distributions for the various clay smear attributes defined
in the previous section. (The clay smear attributes
are calculated on a refined grid of 20 10 m.)
Despite the differences between the algorithms,
there is a considerable degree of similarity among

903

the plots (and to the original CSP plot shown by

Bouvier et al., 1989). The c4 and c5 clays on the
upper part of the fault both produce areas of high
potential for clay smear for all attributes. Beneath
this, a relatively clay-poor part of the sequence
gives much lower potential for clay smear.
Likelihood of clay smear then increases downward
again as the clays become thicker and more closely
spaced.
The smear factor plots (Figure 6) show the effect
of the (1/distance) factor modeling the smear taper.
Fringes of higher values occur adjacent to individual
clay beds, especially visible for the upper three
clays. Note that for clay smear potential (thickness2)
in Figure 6a there is a strong weighting toward the
thicker clays (e.g., the uppermost clay, c4, produces values greater than 30 on the left of the display, whereas the third clay, d1, does not give values above 15). The linear smear factor (Figure 6b)
has more modest differences between the thick
and thin source beds.
Figure 7 compares SSF with SGR. The color coding for SSF in Figure 7a is the inverse of that for
SGR (Figure 7b); e.g., SGR = 30% (orangered
boundary) corresponds to SSF = 3.33. This emphasizes the reciprocal relationship between these two
attributes, particularly for the upper part of the
fault where only one clay bed can contribute to the
smear at any point. On the lower part of the fault,
the SSF underestimates the smearing potential relative to the SGR because it uses only the thickest
clay bed where smears are likely to be compound.
Figure 8a shows a crossplot of these two attributes
for all the areas of sand/sand juxtaposition, and
confirms the reciprocal relationship. Note that
additional curve segments to the right of the main
segment represent points lower on the fault where
more than one clay bed contributes to the SGR calculation. At these points, the SSF value is an overestimate (i.e., shale smearing is underestimated by
the SSF value).
A crossplot of CSP against SGR is shown in
Figure 8b. Although the detailed distributions on
the fault surface exhibit differences (i.e., there is
distance-tapering with CSP but not with SGR),
there is a broad correlation between the two
attributes. The underlying relationship is expected
to be quadratic (rearranging equation 4 in terms of
bed thickness, and substituting in equation 1).
Thus, in general terms, the areas of high and low
likelihood of clay smear are the same for each
attribute, as shown by the overall similarity of color
distribution in Figures 6 and 7. If these attributes
were being used to rank fault-bound traps, similar
conclusions would be drawn from each attribute.
Values of likely across-fault pressure difference
have been calculated on the fault grid using the
buoyancy pressure generated by the hydrocarbons.

904

Predicting Fault Seals

Figure 5Strike projections of fault K in the Nun River field, Nigeria, constructed from figures in Bouvier et al. (1989).
(a) Distribution of footwall lithologies (black = shale, white = sandstone) and proven hydrocarbons in the footwall
sands (green = oil, red = gas). (b) Juxtaposition diagram showing footwall shales in black [as in (a)] and hanging-wall
shales in gray. White areas are sand/sand overlaps. Blue arrows indicate examples of sand/sand contacts where hydrocarbons are trapped at the fault [compare with arrowed locations in (a)]. (c) Fault throw (vertical offset) in meters.

Yielding et al.

905

Figure 5Continued.

According to Bouvier et al. (1989), the sequence is

normally pressured above about 3500 m for both
sides of the fault. The pressure differential at the
fault surface is therefore caused by the buoyancy
pressure of the hydrocarbons trapped in the footwall sands. Oil densities average 0.83 g/cm 3
(Evamy et al., 1978) and an in-situ density of 0.3
g/cm3 has been assumed for gas. Resultant buoyancy pressures reach about 7 bars (100 psi) at the
tops of the gas columns. In Figure 9 these acrossfault pressure differences are crossplotted against
the clay smear attributes (for sand/sand overlaps
only). For each attribute, a bounding line can be
drawn to the distribution of data points; this line
represents an estimate of the seal capacity of the
fault. The large cloud of points lying below the
dashed line on each plot indicates that many
points on the fault do not achieve their full seal
capacity because they lie outside the closure
defined by dip away from the fault. The line is
important as a calibration in describing the maximum pressure difference supportable by that part
of the fault, if other factors are favorable.
The plot for clay smear potential (Figure 9a)
shows the onset of seal at a little over 10 m, and at
a CSP of 30 there is up to 2 bars (30 psi) across-fault
pressure difference. Jev et al. (1993), in their study
of the Akaso field, Nigeria, quoted clay smear
potential of less than 15 as nonsealing and CSP
greater than 30 as sealing. The plot for SGR (Figure
9b) has a similar distribution to that for CSP. No

fault-sealed hydrocarbons are observed at values of

less than 20% because the shale content of the
slipped interval is too low. Above 20%, the maximum observed pressure difference progressively
increases, reaching about 7 bars (about 100 psi) at
an SGR of about 60%. This relationship agrees well
with the statement by Weber (1987, p. 97) that it
usually requires some 25 to 30% of shale to render
a fault sealing. The distribution for SSF (Figure 9c)
is almost a mirror image of that for SGR. Seal is not
observed at SSF greater than 6, which agrees very
well with the outcrop observations of Lindsay et al.
(1993) that shale smears may become incomplete
for an SSF greater than 7.
Picking the onset of fault seal from plots such as
Figure 9 makes the assumption that all of the pressure difference is generated by the fault-zone material. As has been noted, if the juxtaposed sands
have different capillary properties, some small
pressure difference may arise from this effect.
Definition of the onset of fault seal should not be
regarded as precise.
The plots in Figure 9 show that the greatest
across-fault pressure differences occur where gas
is trapped by fault seal. These differences occur
for two reasons. First, the much greater density
contrast between gas and water (compared to oil
and water) gives a much greater buoyancy pressure for the gas caps than the oil rims. However, if
the dip closure were favorable, we might then
expect that the same fault seal could hold back a

906

Predicting Fault Seals

Figure 6Smear factor attributes calculated for fault K, Nun River field. Attributes are displayed on a strike projection, as in Figure 5. Footwall and hanging-wall shales are shown in black. (a) Clay smear potential (CSP) as defined
by Fulljames et al. (1996); i.e., square of shale bed thickness divided by smear distance. (b) Linear smear factor; i.e.,
shale bed thickness divided by smear distance. Note that CSP gives a greater weighting to thicker shales than does
the linear smear factor (compare fringes around uppermost three shales, labeled c4c, c5c, d1).

much thicker oil column than gas column, giving

the same resultant buoyancy pressure at the fault.
A second, complicating factor is that the seal
capacity is likely to be fluid dependent. The interfacial tension for the gas-water system is generally
higher than that for the oil-water system (by a factor of up to 1.5), and therefore a given seal rock
will (generally) form a better seal against gas than
against oil (Schowalter, 1979). Note that this is the

opposite of the permeability behavior. We are

concerned here with the entry pressure into the
seal, not the flow across it when the seal capacity
is exceeded. We would therefore expect that a
fault seal would usually support a larger acrossfault pressure difference for gas than for oil. This
is not true for all oil compositions and depths (see
Watts, 1987), but is likely to apply in the majority
of cases.

Yielding et al.

907

Figure 7Comparison of (a) shale smear factor (SSF) of Lindsay et al. (1993) with (b) shale gouge ratio (SGR) for
fault K, Nun River field. For cases with noncompound smears, these two attributes are expected to have a reciprocal
relationship, and the color bars are set up to reflect this.

Oseberg Syd, Northern North Sea

Fristad et al. (1996) provided a fault-seal calibration for a group of structures in the Brent province
of the North Sea. The data set was constructed
from a depth-converted seismic interpretation
using the described method. The faults cut the
deltaic Brent Group reservoir sequence, which at
the time of faulting was less than 500 m deep. This
shallow burial depth would suggest that the clays
were unconsolidated during faulting, and evidence
of clay smearing is seen in core.

A number of wells drilled in different fault compartments allow a calibration of the clay smear calculations for several faults. Because of the heterogeneous nature of the Brent Group reservoir, it was
divided into eight zones (corresponding to the
zones in the reservoir model) and SGR was used
(equation 4). An example of one analyzed fault is
given in Figure 10. This figure shows two strike
projections, the first displaying the juxtaposition of
the Brent reservoir zones, and the second showing
calculated SGR. Note that there is considerable
overlap of the gross reservoir interval (Brent

908

Predicting Fault Seals

Figure 8(a) Crossplot showing relationship between

shale smear factor (SSF) and shale gouge ratio (SGR)
for fault K, Nun River field (attributes plotted in Figure
7). Data points represent all areas of sand/sand contact
on the fault surface; each point corresponds to one
grid node on the fault (attributes gridded at 20 10 m).
Note reciprocal relationship between these attributes.
(b) Crossplot showing relationship between CSP (Figure 6a) and SGR (Figure 7b) for fault K, Nun River field.
Although there is a broad scatter, there is an underlying quadratic relationship between these two
attributes.

Group), and yet a difference in oil-water contact of

about 100 m across the fault. Figure 11 shows the
pore-pressure profile across the fault. On the upper
part of the fault where the two gas columns are juxtaposed, the pressure difference reaches 9.5 bars
(about 140 psi). The SGR reaches a minimum
slightly deeper on the fault, shown on Figure 10b
by the yellow area just below the crest of the reservoir overlaps. Here, the SGR drops below 20% (to
about 18%) and the across-fault pressure difference
is almost 8 bars (116 psi). As a sensitivity analysis,
SGR calculations on this fault were rerun using a
65-layer stratigraphic model. The results showed
only minor differences compared to the coarse
model because the algorithm tends to reduce the
effect of stratigraphic complexity as the throw
increases. A coarser stratigraphic zonation is adequate, providing the zone thicknesses are less than
the fault throw.
Figure 12 shows a summary of results from the
Oseberg Syd data set. Each data point represents
the critical seal on one fault segment; i.e., the maximum pressure difference for small SGR values.
There is a very restricted range of SGR where seal
becomes effective. At an SGR of 14%, no seal is
observed, whereas at an SGR of 18%, a pressure difference of almost 8 bars (116 psi) is observed. This
high seal capacity is considerably greater than that
seen in the Nun River data set (cf. Figure 9b). These
observations are tightly constrained by good-quality
RFT data in the wells on opposite sides of the
faults. Faults where gas is trapped at the fault show
high across-fault pressure differences, consistent
with the higher interfacial tension expected for the
gas-water system. Pressure differences for trapped
oil are significantly lower (points marked by filled
circles in Figure 12).
An interesting observation is that on two fault
segments the seal is holding back an aquifer pressure (squares in Figure 12). Thus, these faults cannot be membrane seals (Watts, 1987), because a
membrane seal results from the surface tension
forces associated with a hydrocarbon phase entering the water-wet seal rock. Such surface tension
forces are not present in the case of higher pressure water attempting to enter the seal rock; however, there are two other possibilities. First, these
faults could be regarded as hydraulic seals (sensu
Watts, 1987), with a seal rock (presumably clay
smear) that would remain intact until differential
stresses reach a level that would fracture the rock.
Alternatively, the pressure drop may indicate
aquifer flow across a fault zone of low permeability; such dynamic seals are termed hydraulic resistance seals by Heum (1996). Either way, these fault
zones are analogous to shale beds that can vertically compartmentalize a reservoir into different
aquifers. It is possible that the other (gas-sealing)

Yielding et al.

909

Figure 9Plots for fault K, Nun River field, illustrating the relationship between across-fault pressure difference and
(a) clay smear potential (CSP), (b) shale gouge ratio (SGR), and (c) shale smear factor (SSF). Each point corresponds to
one grid node on the fault surface (attributes gridded at 20 10 m). Nodes where gas is trapped against the fault (red
in Figure 5a) are shown as crosses, those where oil is trapped against the fault are shown as filled circles. The lines
labeled seal capacity indicate the maximum pressure difference sustainable by a particular value of the attribute.

faults in this data set are also strong enough to

behave in the same way, but it is not possible to
confirm this without fault-rock samples.
Northern North Sea, Data Set 2
A second example from a Brent province data set
is shown in Figure 13. As with the Oseberg Syd
example, this data set is based on a depth-converted
seismic interpretation. For one fault, the porepressure profile in both walls is constrained by well
data. In this case, the fault compartments have a

shared aquifer and also a continuous gas cap; the

oil rims, however, are of different thicknesses (see
Figure 13a). This fluid distribution is diagnostic of a
lack of fault seal on the upper and lower parts of
the fault, allowing across-fault equalization of pressure in the gas cap and in the aquifer. At the level of
the oil there is sufficient seal capacity to support a
pressure difference of up to 3 bars (about 43 psi)
(see Figure 13b).
This distribution of fluids could be interpreted
as implying that the fault leaks for gas but seals for
oil. However, such an interpretation would be contrary to the likely relative values of the gas and oil

Figure 10Strike projections of a fault in the Oseberg Syd area (North Sea), from Fristad et al., 1996. (a) The juxtaposition pattern for the Brent reservoir
zones. Upthrown (footwall) zones are shown by colored fill, whereas the downthrown (hanging-wall) zones are shown as labeled black outlines. The reservoir comprises the section between top Brent and base Brent, together with the overlying Heather Sandstone (uppermost orange layer). Hydrocarbon contacts in the footwall are shown in blue dashed lines, and those in the hanging wall as black dashed lines. (b) The pattern of shale gouge ratio (SGR) calculated on the area of reservoir/reservoir overlap. The key area of low gouge ratio occurs near the crest of the overlap zone, indicated by the yellow area at UTM
6693000-6693500; here, SGR drops to about 18%, but the pressure difference across the fault is almost 8 bars (116 psi).

Figure 10Continued.

912

Predicting Fault Seals

Figure 11Pore-pressure profile across the fault illustrated in Figure 10. The two sides of the fault share a
common aquifer gradient (bottom right). In the hydrocarbon-bearing zone there is a progressive upward
increase in pressure difference across the fault. GOC =
gas-oil contact; OWC = oil-water contact.

interfacial tensions (see previous discussion).

Instead, we favor an explanation based on spatial
variation of the fault-zone properties as a result of
lithological layering in the Brent Group wall rocks.
SGR was calculated for the fault surfaces in this
data set using a Brent Group zonation of 15 layers.
A characteristic feature of many of the faults is that
they display areas of low SGR (<20%) on the upper
part of the fault surface, where the relatively shalefree sands of the Tarbert Formation are juxtaposed. This spatial distribution of clay smear can
explain why pressures in the gas cap are equalized
between the fault compartments. [A similar spatial
distribution was documented in Oseberg Syd by
Fristad et al. (in press) (see Figure 10b).] At slightly
deeper levels, however, the more shaly Ness
Formation contributes more fine-grained material
to the fault zone and allows a seal to develop. This
corresponds to the level at which the oil rim is
trapped beneath the gas cap. Thus, although there
is fieldwide equalization of the pressures in the gas
cap, each fault compartment contains different
thicknesses of oil rim because the oil rims are separated by shaly seals.
Figure 13c shows a crossplot of SGR against
across-fault pressure difference for the fault

Figure 12Summary of fault-seal calibrations in the

Oseberg Syd data set (Fristad et al., 1996). Each symbol
represents the critical seal point on one fault (segment).
Note the rapid onset of seal between shale gouge ratios
of 15 and 18%.

separating two wells (each point is one grid node

on the fault surface). All the data points refer to the
pressure difference between the oil rims (cf. Figure
13b). Note that the onset of pressure support is at
about 20% SGR, rising to about 3 bars (about 43
psi) at 30% SGR. This result is consistent with the
data from the Nun River and Oseberg Syd data sets
(Figures 9, 12).
Columbus Basin, Offshore Trinidad
Gibson (1994) presented observations from the
Columbus Basin, offshore Trinidad. The basin comprises a thick Tertiary sand-shale sequence cut by
normal faults during the late Pliocene and
Pleistocene. He showed that self-juxtaposed sands
form poor fault seals, and that significant fault seals
are formed when clay smearing is able to occur
down the fault plane. He applied the SSF method of
Lindsay et al. (1993) and concluded that the more
significant seals are developed where SSF is less
than 4 (i.e., the shale bed is more than 25% of the
displaced section).
Figure 14 displays Gibsons (1994) data in terms
of across-fault pressure difference. In these plots,

Yielding et al.

913

Figure 13Fault-seal calibration for North Sea data set 2. (a) Schematic cross section across the juxtaposed Brent
Group fault blocks. GOC-1 and OWC-1 are the gas-oil and oil-water contacts, respectively, for the hanging wall
(dashed lines); GOC-2 and OWC-2 are the gas-oil and oil-water contacts, respectively, for the footwall (solid lines).
(b) Pore-pressure profiles for the two sides of the fault (dashed and solid lines, respectively). Aquifer and gas pressure gradients are equal on both sides of the fault, but there is seal between the oil legs, which have different thicknesses. (c) Crossplot of shale gouge ratio (SGR) against pressure difference for parts of the fault that separate the
higher pressured oil leg from the other side of the fault.

each data point represents one reservoir top, with

observations from many different faults. The distributions of points are similar to those for Nun River
(Figure 9b, c), although with slightly different positions for the bounding lines. In comparison with
the other data sets discussed, seal appears to be
more readily developed; i.e., pressure support is
initiated at slightly lower SGR.

Calibration Summary
Figures 914 illustrate fault-seal capacity in terms
of one or more of the attributes defined in the previous section. With each of the attributes, there is a
trend or threshold that would allow likely seal
capacity (static pressure difference) to be predicted
from the value of the attribute. In general, similar

914

Predicting Fault Seals

Figure 14Fault-seal calibration for faults offshore

Trinidad (data from Gibson, 1994). (a) Gibsons data
expressed in terms of across-fault pressure difference
instead of oil column height, for comparison with other
data sets in this paper. Each point represents the apex
of a sand/sand juxtaposition at which there is a trapped
oil column. (b) The same data, but with shale smear factor (SSF) converted to shale gouge ratio (SGR) by taking
its reciprocal (e.g., SSF = 4 corresponds to SGR = 25%).

predictions about a fault would be made from any

of the attributes; i.e., there are strong correlations between them (Figure 8). In deciding which
attribute to use for fault-seal prediction in a particular
data set, the main factor should be the format of the
available lithological data. In simple, blocky sandshale sequences, either smear factors or gouge ratio
would be appropriate. Where the sequence is heterogeneous and lithological information is available on a

zone-by-zone basis, the gouge ratio calculation is

better suited.
Comparison of a calculated attribute between
data sets shows strong similarities in the inferred
relationship between the attribute and seal capacity. The relationship between seal capacity and SGR,
for example (Figures 9b, 12, 13b, 14b), shows that
for trapped oil the seal threshold is of the order of
1020% SGR. Higher values of SGR can support
progressively higher pressure differences. The supportable pressure difference is higher for gas as the
trapped phase (e.g., Figure 12), in keeping with the
higher interfacial tension for the gas-water system.
The similarity of the plots is encouraging in that
they represent data from different sequences in different areas. This implies that attributes such as
SGR can be used predictively across a range of environments. Detailed differences in the calibrations
in different areas are probably due to factors such
as shale lithology and degree of consolidation,
among others.
The inferred relationship between capillary seal
and shale gouge ratio is strongly supported by measured properties of natural gouges. Gibson (in
press) presents entry and breakthrough pressures
(from capillary injection tests) for a global data set
of fault-gouge samples, with the results expressed
in terms of the effective pore-throat radius. Those
data are replotted in Figure 15, with the pore-throat
radius converted to a capillary pressure using typical oil-water properties under reservoir conditions
(see figure caption for details). There is a strong
trend of increasing capillary pressure with increasing percentage of phyllosilicates in the gouge sample. This compositional parameter would be
expected to correspond in a general way with the
upscaled parameter, shale gouge ratio. Insofar as a
fault seal is only as strong as its weakest point, we
would expect the lower bound of the data range in
Figure 15 to be relevant to evaluation of seals in the
subsurface. When the gouge contains <20% phyllosilicates (i.e., deformation bands, Figure 15), capillary pressures extend down to 1 bar (14.5 psi) or
less; above 20% phyllosilicates, the fault rocks are
clay gouges and show significantly higher capillary
pressures. This behavior corresponds very well
with the macroscopic relationship described above
between shale gouge ratio and across-fault pressure
difference.
CATACLASIS
This section discusses cataclastic processes that,
although likely to contribute to seal capacity, are
not as readily predictable from simple measurements such as throw and composition. Cataclasis is
the brittle deformation of material in a fault zone,

Yielding et al.

Figure 15Plot of capillary entry and breakthrough pressures for fault gouge samples, using data from Gibson (in
press). Gibsons effective pore-throat radius has been
converted to capillary pressure using Pc = 2 cos /R,
taking = 40 mN/m (Firoozabadi & Ramey, 1988) and cos
= 1. Cataclastic deformation bands consist of fractured
detrital grains, solution deformation bands have welded grain contacts implying pressure solution, and complex deformation bands are cataclastic bands overprinted by pressure solution. Note that the increasing percent
of phyllosilicates corresponds to the increasing minimum capillary pressure.

and typically involves grain breakage and comminution. This results in a significantly reduced grain size
in the fault zone and increased grain packing. The
pore-throat radii are consequently constricted, and
the fault rock can support a pressure difference
because of the increased capillary entry pressure.
Knipe (1992) reviewed microstructural studies of
fault-zone rocks and noted that cataclastic fault
gouge may have pore-throat radii less than 0.001
mm, capable of supporting an oil column height of
up to 300 m. Observations of permeability across
cataclastic slip bands (Antonellini and Aydin, 1994;
Heath et al., 1994) showed that cataclasis may
reduce the permeability by up to four orders of magnitude in high-porosity sandstones, even with only a
few centimeters of displacement. Mandl et al. (1977)
noted in an experimental study that gouge formation
was restricted to initial displacement and did not
increase thereafter. Crawford (1995) also showed
experimentally that initial displacements produce
drastic reductions in permeability.
There is some difficulty relating the microstructural observations to field-scale fault geometries. A
number of studies (e.g., Robertson, 1983; Scholz,
1987; Evans, 1990; Knott, 1994) indicated that
thickness of the zone of deformation around a fault

915

correlates approximately linearly with displacement, such that the thickness is 0.010.1 of the displacement. If permeability continued to decrease
as the fault zone became thicker, measured fault
displacement could be used as a guide to the permeability reduction. However, this seems unlikely,
because the thicker fault zone is composed of anastomosing and en echelon strands that each have a
lower displacement than the total zone. Reservoir
modeling studies of this geometry (Omre et al.,
1994) indicated that the transmissibility of the zone
may be preserved by virtue of flow around individual fault strands; therefore, cataclasis in a faulted
sand probably has a significant effect on seal capacity at low displacements and then only increases
slowly as displacement continues to increase.
Fulljames et al. (1996) suggested that the continuity of the fault zone tends to increase with increasing displacement, and therefore there may be a critical displacement at which the transmissibility
drops to zero (i.e., the fault zone becomes a seal).
This threshold is likely to be dependent on detailed
host-rock lithology (e.g., porosity and subsequent
diagenesis).
A major control on the development of a cataclastic gouge is the magnitude of the stress on the
fault plane during movement (Watts, 1987). Thus,
generation of cataclastic gouge should be favored
by greater depth and reverse and strike-slip faulting
rather than extensional faulting. However, experimental studies (Mandl et al., 1977) showed that
some grain breakage can occur at low overburden
pressures corresponding to only 100 m of burial.
There is a common observation of cataclastic web
structure in DSDP/ODP cores from active margins.
This structure occurs even in poorly consolidated
sands with maximum burial depths of a few hundred meters (e.g., Lucas and Moore, 1986).
Cataclastic deformation bands commonly have
associated with them features of clay smear or diagenesis. Fractures in clay-bearing sandstones show
increased packing and a strong alignment of clay
particles, enhancing their seal potential (e.g., Kent
et al., 1995; Fristad et al., 1996). Zones of cataclasis
are commonly affected by cementation, and quartz
overgrowths develop on the fractured grains,
reducing the pore-throat sizes (or, in extreme cases,
blocking the pore throats), again leading to
enhanced seal potential.
CONCLUSIONS
Observations of clay/shale smears indicate that
their geometries are dependent on the thickness of
the source bed and on the fault throw or smear distance. These relationships have been used to define
a number of fault-surface attributes that describe

916

Predicting Fault Seals

the likelihood of smears being developed at a particular point on the fault surface. These attributes
are as follows.
(1) Clay smear potential (CSP) (Bouvier et al.,
1989), which is the sum of (thickness2/distance)
for shale beds.
(2) Generalized smear factor, which is the sum of
(thicknessn/distancem) for shale beds, with optional
exponents for both thickness and distance.
(3) Shale smear factor (SSF) (Lindsay et al.,
1993), equal to throw/thickness.
(4) Shale gouge ratio (SGR), which is net
shale/clay percentage in the slipped interval.
Applying these algorithms to fault surfaces in a
variety of data sets shows that they can be related
to the pore-pressure difference supported locally
by the fault; i.e., to the seal capacity. Threshold values of the attributes that differentiate between sealing and nonsealing parts of the fault can be identified. For example, the threshold value for SGR is
about 1520% (cf. 47 for SSF). A progressive
increase in seal capacity is observed with increasing gouge ratio or CSP (or decreasing SSF). The
choice of which particular algorithm to use for
fault-seal prediction in a particular data set should
be based on the available data. Smear factor methods require defining individual shale beds, whereas
the gouge ratio method can also be applied to
zoned reservoir sequences.
Ideally, any study that uses such attributes in
fault-seal prediction needs to be locally calibrated
by appropriate pressure data, as described for the
examples in this paper. However, even without
such calibration in a particular study, useful results
can still be obtained. For example, in an exploration context it may be possible to rank a series of
fault-bound prospects on the basis of their relative
values of a fault-seal attribute, although the local
relationship between attribute and seal capacity
may be unknown.
There is a matter-of-fact tendency among geologists to refer to faults either as sealing or nonsealing. This is an oversimplification, because the combination of lithologic and throw variation ensures
that the fault rock will be heterogeneous. The
methods described in this paper predict that a single fault may seal over some regions of its surface
and leak over others.
REFERENCES CITED
Antonellini, M., and A. Aydin, 1994, Effect of faulting on fluid flow
on porous sandstones: petrophysical properties: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 78, p. 355377.
Arch, J., and A. J. Maltman, 1990, Anisotropic permeability and tortuosity in deformed wet sediments: Journal of Geophysical
Research, v. 95, p. 90359045.
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. 119126.

Berg, R. R., 1975, Capillary pressure in stratigraphic traps: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 59, p. 939956.
Berg, R. R., and A. H. Avery, 1995, Sealing properties of Tertiary
growth faults, Texas Gulf Coast: AAPG Bulletin, v. 79,
p. 375393.
Bouvier, J. D., C. H. Kaars-Sijpesteijn, D. F. Kluesner, C. C.
Onyejekwe, and R. C. Van der Pal, 1989, Three-dimensional
seismic interpretation and fault sealing investigations, Nun
River field, Nigeria: AAPG Bulletin, v. 73, p. 13971414.
Crawford, B. R., 1995, Experimental observations of the normal
stress dependency of cataclastic fault sealing through production of fractal fault gouge distributions, in H. D. Johnson and
M. P. Coward, eds., Structural geology in reservoir characterisation and field development (conference abstracts): Geological
Society, London, p. 1112.
Evamy, B. D., J. Haremboure, P. Kamerling, W. A. Knaap, F. A.
Molloy, and P. H. Rowlands, 1978, Hydrocarbon habitat of
Tertiary Niger Delta: AAPG Bulletin, v. 62, p. 139.
Evans, J. P., 1990, Thickness-displacement relationships for fault
zones: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 12, p. 10611065.
Firoozabadi, A., and H. J. Ramey, 1988, Surface tension of waterhydrocarbon systems at reservoir conditions: Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, v. 27, p. 4148.
Freeman, B., G. Yielding, D. T. Needham, and M. E. Badley, in
press, Fault seal prediction: the gouge ratio method, in H. D.
Johnson and M. P. Coward, eds., Structural geology in reservoir
characterisation and field development: Geological Society
Special Publication, London.
Fristad, T., A. Groth, G. Yielding, and B. Freeman, 1996, Quantitative
fault seal predictiona case study from the Oseberg Syd area, in
Norwegian Petroleum Society, eds., Hydrocarbon sealsimportance for exploration and production (conference abstracts):
Oslo, Norwegian Petroleum Society, p. 8.
Fulljames, J. R., L. J. J. Zijerveld, R. C. M. W. Franssen, G. M.
Ingram, and P. D. Richard, 1996, Fault seal processes, in
Norwegian Petroleum Society, eds., Hydrocarbon seals
importance for exploration and production (conference
abstracts): Oslo, Norwegian Petroleum Society, p. 5.
Gibson, R. G., 1994, Fault-zone seals in siliciclastic strata of the
Columbus Basin, offshore Trinidad: AAPG Bulletin, v. 78,
p. 13721385.
Gibson, R. G., in press, Physical character and fluid-flow properties of sandstone-derived fault gouge, in H. D. Johnson and
M. P. Coward, eds., Structural geology in reservoir characterisation and field development: Geological Society Special
Publication, London.
Heath, A. E., J. J. Walsh, and J. Watterson, 1994, Estimation of the
effects of subseismic sealing faults on effective permeabilities
in sandstone reservoirs, in J. O. Aasen, E. Berg, A. T. Buller, O.
Hjelmeland, R. M. Holt, J. Kleppe, and O. Torsaeter, eds., North
Sea oil and gas reservoirs III: Dordrecht, Kluwer, p. 173183.
Heum, O. R., 1996, A fluid dynamic classification of hydrocarbon
entrapment: Petroleum Geoscience, v. 2, p. 145158.
Jev, B. I., C. H. Kaars-Sijpesteijn, 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. 13891404.
Kent, S. R., W. T. Shea, R. J. Chuchla, L. Lemke, and A. Deshpande,
1995, Permeability impairment by sub-seismic faults: A case
study in the Skagerrak Formation, central North Sea, in H. D.
Johnson and M. P. Coward, eds., Structural geology in reservoir
characterisation and field development (conference abstracts):
Geological Society, London, p. 2728.
Knipe, R. J., 1992, Faulting processes and fault seal, in R. M.
Larsen, H. Brekke, B. T. Larsen, and E. Talleras, eds., Structural
and tectonic modelling and its application to petroleum geology: Amsterdam, Elsevier, p. 325342.
Knipe, R. J., 1993, The influence of fault zone processes and diagenesis on fluid flow, in A. D. Horbury and A. D. Robinson, eds.,

Yielding et al.

Diagenesis and basin development: AAPG Studies in Geology

36, p. 135151.
Knott, S. D., 1994, Fault seal analysis in the North Sea: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 77, p. 778792.
Lehner, F. K., and W. F. Pilaar, 1996, On a mechanism of clay
smear emplacement in synsedimentary normal faults, in
Norwegian Petroleum Society, eds., Hydrocarbon seals
importance for exploration and production (conference
abstracts): Norwegian Petroleum Society, Oslo, p. 4.
Lindsay, N. G., F. C. Murphy, J. J. Walsh, and J. Watterson, 1993,
Outcrop studies of shale smear on fault surfaces: International
Association of Sedimentologists Special Publication 15,
p. 113123.
Lucas, S. E., and J. C. Moore, 1986, Cataclastic deformation in
accretionary wedges: Deep-Sea Drilling Project Leg 66, southern Mexico, and on-land examples from Barbados and Kodiak
Islands, in J. C. Moore, ed., Structural fabrics in Deep-Sea
Drilling Project cores from forearcs: Geological Society of
America Memoir 166, p. 89103.
Mandl, G., L. N. J. de Jong, and A. Maltha, 1977, Shear zones in
granular material: Rock Mechanics, v. 9, p. 95144.
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. 189199.

917

Omre, H., K. Solna, N. Dahl, and B. Torudbakken, 1994, Impact of

fault heterogeneity in fault zones on fluid flow, in J. O. Aasen,
E. Berg, A. T. Buller, O. Hjelmeland, R. M. Holt, J. Kleppe, and
O. Torsaeter, eds., North Sea oil and gas reservoirs III:
Dordrecht, Kluwer, p. 185200.
Robertson, E. C., 1983, Relationship of fault displacement to
gouge and breccia thickness: Mining Engineering, v. 35,
p. 14261432.
Scholz, C. H., 1987, Wear and gouge formation in brittle faulting:
Geology, v. 15, p. 493495.
Schowalter, T. T., 1979, Mechanics of secondary hydrocarbon
migration and entrapment: AAPG Bulletin, v. 63, p. 723760.
Skerlec, G. M., 1996, Risking fault seal in the Gulf Coast (abs.):
AAPG Annual Convention Program and Abstracts, v. 5,
p. A131.
Watts, N., 1987, Theoretical aspects of cap-rock and fault seals for
single- and two-phase hydrocarbon columns: Marine and
Petroleum Geology, v. 4, p. 274307.
Weber, K. J., 1987, Hydrocarbon distribution patterns in Nigerian
growth fault structures controlled by structural style and
stratigraphy: Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,
v. 1, p. 91104.
Weber, K. J., G. Mandl, W. F. Pilaar, F. Lehner, and R. G. Precious,
1978, The role of faults in hydrocarbon migration and trapping
in Nigerian growth fault structures: Offshore Technology
Conference 10, paper OTC 3356, p. 26432653.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Graham Yielding
Graham Yielding received a B.A.
degree in natural sciences from
Cambridge University in 1979, followed by a Ph.D. in geophysics in
1984. He then worked for Britoil in
Glasgow as a seismic interpreter,
before joining Badleys in 1988. His
current interests include fault seal
analysis and fault populations.
Brett Freeman
Brett Freeman graduated from
London University in 1980 with a
B.Sc. degree and from Nottingham
University in 1983 with a Ph.D. He
taught structural geology at the
University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne
for five years prior to joining Badleys
in 1988. His current interests
include fault geometry and the sealing behavior of faults.

Tim Needham
Tim Needham received his B.Sc.
degree in geology from Imperial
College, London (1981) and a
Ph.D. from the University of Leeds
(1984). After postdoctoral research
at Durham University and a lectureship in structural geology at
Goldsmiths College, London, he
joined Robertson Research International in 1988. He joined Badley
Earth Sciences as a structural geologist in 1992. His recent interests have centered on fault
seal analysis, fault populations, and analysis of natural
fracture systems.