Problem 1

In Figure 1 a seismic cross section is shown through a gas field, situated in a sandstone reservoir, bounded by
faults ‘1’ and ‘5’. It is internally intersected by faults ‘2’, ‘3’ and ‘4’.
A gas-water-contact has been proven by several wells in the field.

Question 1: if the seismic velocity of the gas-bearing sandstone is 3500 m/s, how thick (in metres) is the
maximum gas column observed on this section?

Question 2: given the proven extent of the gas-bearing reservoir, are faults ‘2’, ‘3’ and ‘4’ sealing or non-
sealing? Motivate your answer.

Question 3: a well is planned to be drilled into Block ‘B’. If it is given that faults ‘6’ and ‘7’ are non-sealing,
what is the pre-drill likelihood that Block ‘B’ will contain gas as well? Motivate your answer.

Question 4: after drilling of the well, it turns out that Block ‘B’ is waterbearing. What do you conclude about
the sealing nature of fault ‘5’? Motivate your answer.

Question 5: with the outcome of the well in Block ‘B’, how do you rate the likelihood (in %) that block ‘A’ will
be water-bearing as well? Motivate your answer.
 Problem 1 – Figure 1
1.5

1.6

1.7

SALT

seconds
time in
5
1.9
4 7
1 3 6
2
Top 2.0
Sandstone GWC B
A
2.1
Base
Sandstone

2.2
 Problem 1 - Solution
In Figure 1 a seismic cross section is shown through a gas field, situated in a sandstone reservoir, bounded by
faults ‘1’ and ‘5’. It is internally intersected by faults ‘2’, ‘3’ and ‘4’.
A gas-water-contact has been proven by several wells in the field.

Question 1: if the seismic velocity of the gas-bearing sandstone is 3500 m/s, how thick (in metres) is the
maximum gas column observed on this section?

The maximum thickness of the gas column is 0.1 sec on this seismic line. With a velocity of 3500 m/s this
gives a thickness of 0.1 x 3500 /2 = 175m

Question 2: given the proven extent of the gas-bearing reservoir, are faults ‘2’, ‘3’ and ‘4’ sealing or non-
sealing? Motivate your answer.

All 3 of these faults are non-sealing because the gas-water contact is at the same level in the 4
compartments of the field. This implies communication between the blocks

Question 3: a well is planned to be drilled into Block ‘B’. If it is given that faults ‘6’ and ‘7’ are non-sealing,
what is the pre-drill likelihood that Block ‘B’ will contain gas as well? Motivate your answer.

If faults 6 and 7 are non-sealing, we can conclude that out of the 6 other faults on the section, 5 faults are
proven non-sealing and fault 1 is inconclusive (no reservoir/reservoir juxtaposition). This makes it highly
likely (ca. 83%) that fault nr 5 is non-sealing as well, which means there is a 83% chance that the GWC
extends into block B as well
 Problem 1 – Solution Cont’d
Question 4: after drilling of the well, it turns out that Block ‘B’ is waterbearing. What do you conclude about
the sealing nature of fault ‘5’? Motivate your answer.

Fault ‘5’ must be sealing, otherwise the GWC of the field would also have been encountered in block B

Question 5: with the outcome of the well in Block ‘B’, how do you rate the likelihood (in %) that block ‘A’ will
be water-bearing as well? Motivate your answer.

For block A to be gasbearing as well, fault ‘1’ must be sealing. We now have 5 non-sealing faults and 1
sealing fault. Not knowing anything more about the nature of the faults we can only say that 1 in 6 faults is
sealing and that gives a chance of 17% of fault ‘1’ to be sealing as well. This then equates the chance that
block A is gas bearing, which can only be the case if Fault 1 is sealing, since the top of the reservoir in Block
A is below the GWC in the gasfield.
 Problem 1 – Figure 1 - Solution
1.5

1.6

1.7

SALT

seconds
time in
5
1.9
4 7
1 3 6
2
Top 0.1 sec 2.0
Sandstone GWC B
A
2.1
Base
Sandstone

2.2
 Problem 2
In Figure 1 you find two geological cross sections through a salt dome, overlain by a gas bearing sandstone
reservoir, which is fully encased in shale. Figure 1A depicts the situation 20 million years ago, Figure 1B
shows the present-day situation.
As the salt dome rises, the reservoir is pushed upward as well. The reservoir is closed and completely
encased in shale. In the “paleo-situation” of 20 million years ago, the aquifer is subjected to a hydrostatic
pressure regime. The gas gradient is 0.9 MPa/km.

Question 1: construct the present-day pressure profile of the gas bearing layer in point “A”. (Figure 2)

As the salt is moving upward, it creates a horizontal, extensional stress field of 20 MPa in the reservoir and
its top seal which might create fractures. The overburden stress gradient is 30 MPa/km. From laboratory
experiments it appears that the seal has an angle of internal friction of 30˚ and a “cohesion” of 8 MPa.

Question 2: determine with the help of Mohr circles (Figure 3) the maximum pore pressure level in the
reservoir at which ‘seal breach’ is still avoided.

Question 3: what do you conclude for the likelihood that the reservoir is still gas bearing in present day
conditions?

Question 4: consider a case where the reservoir is not completely closed and therefore has been in contact
also during the last 20 million year with a hydrostatic pressure system: what can you say in
that case about the length of the gas column? Will it be longer/equal/shorter than the column
in Question 1?
 Problem 2 – Figure 1
A A
0

1000m

2000m

GWC

3000m

A. 20 million years BP B. Present Day

 Problem 2 – Figure 2
20 40 60 80 120
0

Pressure/Stress (MPa)

3
Depth (km)

4
 Problem 2 – Figure 3

80

60
shear stress (MPa)

40

20

40 80 120 160 200

normal stress (MPa)
 Problem 2 - Solution
In Figure 1 you find two geological cross sections through a salt dome, overlain by a gas bearing sandstone
reservoir, which is fully encased in shale. Figure 1A depicts the situation 20 million years ago, Figure 1B
shows the present-day situation.
As the salt dome rises, the reservoir is pushed upward as well. The reservoir is closed and completely
encased in shale. In the “paleo-situation” of 20 million years ago, the aquifer is subjected to a hydrostatic
pressure regime. The gas gradient is 0.9 MPa/km.
Question 1: construct the present-day pressure profile of the gas bearing layer in point “A”. (Figure 2)
In the ‘paleo-situation’, the GWC is located at 2500m. From the hydrostatic pressure at this point we can
draw the gas gradient upward to the top of the accumulation at 2000m (see fig 1). Since the reservoir is
completely closed, the pressure regime is maintained unchanged during uplift and we can construct the
present-day situation by shifting the pressure profile upward by 500m.
As the salt is moving upward, it creates a horizontal, extensional stress field of 20 MPa in the reservoir and
its top seal which might create fractures. The overburden stress gradient is 30 MPa/km. From laboratory
experiments it appears that the seal has an angle of internal friction of 30˚ and a “cohesion” of 8 MPa.
Question 2: determine with the help of Mohr circles (Figure 3) the maximum pore pressure level in the
reservoir at which ‘seal breach’ is still avoided.
The critical point is the present-day top of the structure at 1500m. Vertical stress is here 45 MPa. Together
with the horizontal stress of 20 MPa we can now draw the Mohr circle (fig.2). The Mohr Coulomb failure
line is determined by the cohesion and angle of internal friction. In order to determine the maximum
allowable pore pressure before breach, we shift the circle to the left until it touches the line. This shift is
22 Mpa, which is then the maximum pore pressure
 Problem 2 – Solution Cont’d
Question 3: what do you conclude for the likelihood that the reservoir is still gas bearing in present day
conditions?

To answer this, we need to determine the gas pressure at the top of the structure from the pressure profile
we constructed in Question 1 ( Fig.4). This pressure is 25 MPa, which is higher than the maximum allowable
pore pressure of 22 MPa. Conclusion is that the seal will be breached and gas will leak.

Question 4: consider a case where the reservoir is not completely closed and therefore has been in contact
also during the last 20 million year with a hydrostatic pressure system: what can you say in
that case about the length of the gas column? Will it be longer/equal/shorter than the column
in Question 1?

If the reservoir is not completely closed and in communication with a hydrostatic pressure regime, this
means that the pressure in the reservoir will drop during uplift. Hence the gas will expand and the column
will be longer
 Problem 2 – Figure 1 - Solution
A A
0

1000m

2000m

GWC

3000m

A. 20 million years BP B. Present Day

 Problem 2 – Figure 2 - Solution
20 40 60 80 120
0

Pressure/Stress (MPa)

2
GWCpresent day = 2000m

GWC20 miljoen BP = 2500m

3
Hy
dro
sta
Depth (km)

tisc
he
gra
di ë

4
nt
 Problem 2 – Figure 3 - Solution

80

60
shear stress (MPa)

40

20
22 MPa

40 80 120 160 200

normal stress (MPa)

σ2 = 20 MPa σ1 = 45 MPa
 Problem 2 – Figure 4 - Solution
20 40 60 80 120
0

Pressure/Stress (MPa)
At top reservoir:
Ppore = 25 MPa

2
GWCpresent day = 2000m
Hy
dro
sta
tisc

3
he
gra
di ë
Depth (km)

nt

4
 Problem 3
Stratigraphy
0 Consider the seismic depth section (Figure 1) in a geological province which was
subjected to several phases of uplift and deposition.
The chrono-stratigraphic column is given to the left.
Tertiary

Questions:
65
1) The basement rocks in the deeper part of the section mainly consist of basalts.
Upper
Cretaceous Taking into account the magnetic behaviour of the sedimentary rocks as well, you
90 can sketch the magnetic profile which we would measure along this section (top
Age in MY BP

Figure 1)
Lower
Cretaceous 2) Assuming that the deformation in the layers in location “A” is caused by movement
of the deeper salt layer, at which time did this movement start?

145 3) There are 2 main unconformities visible; indicate both on the cross section with the
U.Jurassic symbol

180 4) The unconformities at location “B” do not seem to be related to salt movement,
since there is no anomalous salt thickness observed in “B”. What else could
L.Jurassic
cause these unconformities?
210

U.Triassic 5) The government is asking to be advised about the suitability of well locations “A”
235 and “B” for safe storage of CO2 in Lower Cretaceous reservoirs. Based on the
L.Triassic geological information on the cross section, what would be your advice for each
250
location? Please motivate your answer.
 Problem 3 – Figure 1
max
Magnetic Profile

gamma
min
A B
2.5 km

1 km

2 km

SALT

3 km
BASEMENT
Question 1 Problem 3 - Solution
The magnetic profile is affected by the depth of the magnetic basement. The overlying sediments have
very low susceptibilities and therefore have no effect on the magnetic profile (see Fig.1)

Question 2
We can determine the time of growth of the salt dome by inspecting the thickness variations of the
overlying layers. The Lower and Upper Triassic do not show any lateral thickness variation over the
dome. This means that they were already deposited when the salt started to move. The Lower Jurassic
shows some light thinning over the top of the dome when compared with the flanks. This means that the
salt started to move somewhere in the time interval 210-180 MY ago.

Question 3

Unconformities are caused by erosion followed by normal deposition. We therefore need to look for
places where the base of a stratigraphic unit shows an angular relationship with the underlying unit,
accompanied by a thinning of that lower unit. On the seismic section in fig.1the 2 unconformities occur at
the base L.Cretaceous and the base Tertiary

Question 4
The unconformities are caused by an overall uplift (in 2 phases) of the deep seated magnetic basement

Question 5
In location A the L.Cretaceous layers are forming a structural closure, at least on 2D seismic, and are not
affected by faulting. This seems to be a safe location for CO2 storage, provided the closure is also
present in a 3D sense.
To the right hand side of location B the L.Cretaceous is partially eroded and also quite severely faulted.
This represents a strong risk of top- and lateral seal leakage. B is not a safe location for injection of CO2
 Problem 3 – Figure 1 - Solution
max
Magnetic Profile

gamma
min
A B
2.5 km

1 km

2 km

SALT

3 km
BASEMENT
 Problem 4
A gas field called “A” has a bulk rock volume of 5200 x 106 m3. The average porosity in the field is 11% and
the average gas-saturation 67%. Temperature is 96˚C and the initial pressure is 300 bar.

In Figure 1 you find the p/Z graph for the 26 production wells in this field.

Question 1: what will be the final produced gas volume of this field (at standard conditions)?

Question 2: what is the average net-to-gross ratio of the reservoir in this field?

Question 3: not all production wells in this field follow the general linear p/Z trend. Which 2 explanations
can you give for the deviating p/Z behaviour of well AA (indicated by the light blue triangles)?
Problem 4 – Figure 1

p/Z plot for field A

(26 wells)

Well AA

21
 Problem 4 - Solution
A gas field called “A” has a bulk rock volume of 5200 x 106 m3. The average porosity in the field is 11% and
the average gas-saturation 67%. Temperature is 96˚C and the initial pressure is 300 bar.

In Figure 1 you find the p/Z graph for the 26 production wells in this field.

Question 1: what will be the final produced gas volume of this field (at standard conditions)?

We find this value by extrapolating the p/Z plot to the point where p=0. From the graph we find 75 BCM.

Question 2: what is the average net-to-gross ratio of the reservoir in this field?

First we need to transform the total production at standard conditions to initial reservoir conditions. Hence
we need to determine the expansion factor E = 284.38 p / ZT
From the graph we read that initially the p/Z value is 330 bar. Temperature is given at 96˚C = 369˚K

Hence E = 284.38 x 330 / 369 = 254. The gas volume at reservoir conditions is therefore 75 / 254 = 0.3 BCM

The gas bearing pore volume is Vbulk x N/G x Porosity x SG = 5200 x 106 x 0.11 x 0.67 x N/G = 383 x 106 x N/G

Hence 0.3 x 109 = 383 x 106 x N/G so N/G = 0.78 or 78%

 Problem 4 – Solution Cont’d

Question 3: not all production wells in this field follow the general linear p/Z trend. Which 2 explanations
can you give for the deviating p/Z behaviour of well AA (indicated by the light blue triangles)?

In any case Well AA is draining a reservoir compartment which is separated from the other wells, probably
by partially sealing faults.
Explanation 1: the volume which is ‘seen’ by this well is very large, more than 200 BCM if we extrapolate the
trend towards p=0. This is very unlikely and should be in line with the reservoir map.

Explanation 2: the pressure in this block is supported by an active aquifer, which compensates partly for the
pressure decline in the gas. This would for instance be the case if the well is drilled close to the GWC
Problem 4 – Figure 1 - Solution

p/Z plot for field A

(26 wells)

p/Zinitial = 330 bar

Well AA

Total Production:
75 BCM

24
 Problem 5
Below you find 9 statements; some are true, some are false.
Please indicate for each statement whether it is true or false.

1. The inclination of the paleo-magnetic field is related to the paleo-latitude true/false?

2. The concept of ‘accomodation space’ in stratigraphy is determined by climate true/false?

3. Salt structures are better determined on magnetic profiles than on gravity profiles true/false?

4. The seismic response of a series of lithological contrasts in the subsurface is determined by the true/false?
convolution of the source wavelet with the reflection time-series.

5. The so-called “lower bound” pressure is determined by the fracture propagation pressure derived from true/false?
leak off tests in wells

6. The gamma-ray logging tool contains a radio-active source true/false?

7. In tight sandstones the relative permeability for gas is zero at water saturations larger than 50% true/false?

8. Alluvial fans usually yield poor reservoirs true/false?

9. The thermal conductivity in sandstones is lower than in salt true/false?

 Problem 5 - Solution
Below you find 9 statements; some are true, some are false.
Please indicate for each statement whether it is true or false.

1. The inclination of the paleo-magnetic field is related to the paleo-latitude true

2. The concept of ‘accomodation space’ in stratigraphy is determined by climate false

3. Salt structures are better determined on magnetic profiles than on gravity profiles false

4. The seismic response of a series of lithological contrasts in the subsurface is determined by the true
convolution of the source wavelet with the reflection time-series.

5. The so-called “lower bound” pressure is determined by the fracture propagation pressure derived from false
leak off tests in wells

6. The gamma-ray logging tool contains a radio-active source false

7. In tight sandstones the relative permeability for gas is zero at water saturations larger than 50% true

8. Alluvial fans usually yield poor reservoirs true

9. The thermal conductivity in sandstones is lower than in salt true