Tag Query Results

1 Stage 1 Review of basin evolution

Published: 21 Mar 2019, 2:48 p.m. Revised: 21 Mar 2019, 2:48 p.m.

The rationale behind the workflow for this phase of reservoir evaluation is to establish

a) the likelihood of carbonate strata development in the basin at a given point in the stratigraphy

b) assess whether a structure is likely to be a carbonate platform based on its shape, size, structural setting and seismic properties

c) if there is a high probability of a carbonate platform presence, present a range of appropriate reservoir analogues and

d) advise, based on a known set of structural, stratigraphic and sedimentological parameters, likely reservoir risks and opportunities for whatever carbonate strata may be present (eg. presence or absence of karst, presence or absence of dolostone).

The proposed workflow for each phase of work is outlined below, whilst details of the importance of determining individual parameters is described in the Appendices.

2 Stage 2 Seismic mapping of faults

Published: 21 Mar 2019, 2:51 p.m. Revised: 21 Mar 2019, 2:51 p.m.

The structural and stratigraphic framework of the basin is often a critical control on whether a carbonate platform becomes established, and where it grows. The starting point for seismic interpretation should therefore be an analysis of the literature on the region to determine plate- and basin-scale tectonic evolution. Guidance as to the importance of plate and basin-scale tectonics and stratigraphic age on the probability of carbonate platform development is given in Appendix I. In addition, examine the World Stress Map to assist in the interpretation of the effect of in situ stresses on the sealing capacity of the mapped faults.

3 Stage 3 Seismic interpretation of carbonate platforms

Published: 21 Mar 2019, 2:54 p.m. Revised: 21 Mar 2019, 2:54 p.m.

The identification of carbonate platforms on seismic data is inherantly challenging, because of poor quality imaging and the high potential for misinterpretion of high relief features, such as basement highs and volcanos, as carbonate platforms. The following workflow is modified from Burgess et al., 2013 (AAPG Bulletin) in order to improve confidence in carbonate platfom identification

4 Stage 4 Identification of Analogues

Published: 21 Mar 2019, 2:57 p.m. Revised: 21 Mar 2019, 2:57 p.m.

In order to improve confidence in seismic interpretation results, screening of potential outcrop and subsurface analogues is recommended using the Carbonate Reservoir Database

5 Stage 6 Screening Parameters

Published: 21 Mar 2019, 2:59 p.m. Revised: 21 Mar 2019, 2:59 p.m.

Once the Carbonate Reservoir Database has been reviewed, and analogues iterated with the seismic interpretation, the play should be de-risked with respect to reservoir presence, seal quality and the distribution of potential flow-controlling sedimentological, structural and diagenetic units.