See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268334344

Fault Seal Analysis: A method to reduce uncertainty in Hydrocarbon Exploration.

Case study: Northern part of Cambay Basin

Conference Paper · February 2010

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.2575.3285

CITATIONS READS

6 7,920

4 authors, including:

Tusar Ranjan Sahoo

GNS Science
28 PUBLICATIONS   154 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Atlas of Petroleum Prospectivity (APP) View project

Zealandia Evolution View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tusar Ranjan Sahoo on 17 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

P-330

Fault Seal Analysis: A method to reduce uncertainty in

Hydrocarbon Exploration. Case study: Northern part of Cambay basin

Tusar Ranjan Sahoo *, Sankar Nayak, Shaktimatta Senapati, Yogendra N Singh

Petroleum Business (E&P), Reliance Industries Limited, India

Summary

Evaluating fault seal risk is an important factor in hydrocarbon exploration and production. This uncertainty in faults is
analyzed and fault categorization is made based on wall rock juxtapositions, membrane seal caused due to fault rock
deformation process and reactivation. However, wall rock juxtapositions and membrane seals are studied in detail with the help
of Triangle juxtaposition diagram. Shale Gouge Ratio (SGR) is the parameter which explains about the membrane seal. SGR is
calculated using the algorithm given by Yielding et al., (1997).

Fault seal analysis is carried out at reservoir top, Kalol Formation (Middle Eocene) in the Northern part of Cambay basin.
Faults are identified and its architecture, throw, heave and orientation are analyzed based on 2D seismic data. Here most of the
faults are NW-SE trending except few NE-SW cross-trends. Faults are studied taking VShale curve of the drilled wells in the
study area. Pseudo wells are created for this analysis and its lithology is prognosticated based on continuity of reflectors in
seismic data and available nearby well information. Taking reference from earlier workers a generalized classification of faults
is made based on SGR. Finally a communication map is prepared at the reservoir top to explain the fluid connectivity along the
faults.

Introduction Geological setting, tectonics and petroleum system of

study area
Play types in most of the fault bounded structural traps are
associated with faults. These faults may be sealing or Cambay basin is a rift sag tertiary basin in the western part
conduit to fluid flow. Most of the seal analysis involves of India. Current study area falls in Patan tectonic block.
construction of fault plane displacement, juxtaposition Many authors (Bhandari and Choudhary, 1975; Biswas et
maps and fault membrane seal. Membrane seal (clay al., 1994; Kundu and Wani, 1992) have described the
smear) is recognized as the dominant sealing mechanism geology, tectonics and stratigraphy of this basin in a great
along faults in clastic sediments (Doughty, 2003). Clay detail. A schematic geological cross section along one
smears caused primarily by abrasion and secondarily by SWNE trending 2D line is shown in Figure 1. Three stages
shearing of the host wall rocks (Lindsay et al., 1993). To of basin evolution are recognized; 1) Paleocene – Early
minimize fault risk associated in hydrocarbon exploration Eocene rift stage (synrift, period of extension), 2) Middle
and production, here an attempt has been made to classify Eocene – Early Miocene postrift (thermal subsidence)
faults mainly based on juxtaposition and clay smear (Shale stage, 3) Middle Miocene and younger stage of postrift
Gouge Ratio) analysis. structural inversion – period of compression.

Detailed integrated analysis of all the geo-scientific data

has been attempted to understand the petroleum system
model of this region based on 2D seismic data. Petroleum

Reliance Corporate Park, Building No.-11 g Floor, B-Wing, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai – 400701, India. *[email protected]
 Fault Seal Analysis

system analysis shows that in this study area, primarily (shale gouge) indicates that more is the shale to sand ratio
Older Cambay Shale and claystones in Olpad Formation more clay will be incorporated in fault zone. There are
are the main source rocks which can generate hydrocarbon. certain predictive algorithms for estimation of fault seal
Postrift Kalol Formation, synrift Kadi Formation and potential. Shale Gouge Ratio (SGR) is one of them. Shale
sandstones/siltstones in Olpad Formation are considered to Gouge Ratio (SGR) is the percentage shale or clay material
be the main reservoir units in this part of the basin. Tarapur that has slipped past a point on the fault. Outcrop studies
Shale is the regional seal for the postrift reservoir units. show that while predicting clay smear one has to consider
Intraformational shales/claystones in Kalol and Olpad certain controlling factors like clay bed thickness, number
Formation can act as good top seal for reservoir units in of clay beds present and fault throw (Kaldi, 2008). Thicker
Kalol and Olpad Formation respectively. Source rock source clay bed produces more clay smears. Shear type
maturation model shows that timing of peak migration may smears decreases in thickness with distance from clay
be after Late Miocene in this part of the basin. Postrift source layer. Abrasion smears are eroded with greater fault
inverted fault closures at Middle to Late Eocene level and throw. Multiple clay source beds can combine to produce
synrift fault closures at Paleocene and Early Eocene level more continuous clay smear. Yielding et al., (1997), has
are major play types identified in the study area. Only fault given methods for calculation of SGR in reservoir with
seal analysis of postrift inverted fault closures are discussed discrete shale/clay beds and for shaly sand reservoir with
in this paper. A depth structure map on top of Kalol discrete shale beds. SGR can be analyzed using Triangle
Formation showing drilled and pseudo wells is shown in juxtaposition diagrams in Trap Tester software (Badleys,
Figure 2. 2005).

Methodology For reservoir with discrete shale/clay beds SGR is

calculated as follows (Yielding et al., 1997).
Fault seal analysis involves three main studies. i)
Juxtaposition ii) Fault zone deformation process iii)
Reactivation (Jones and Hillis, 2003).
For shaly sand reservoir with discrete shale beds, SGR is
Juxtaposition tells us about the lithological juxtapositions calculated as follows (Yielding et al., 1997).
of Foot wall and Hanging wall along the fault. There are
various methods to show juxtaposition diagrams. Triangle
diagram is one of the methods which show a quick
interpretation of these fault juxtapositions at different Where, Vcl = Clay or Shale volume fraction, ∆z = Thickness
throws. Analyzing these juxtaposition diagrams we will be of each reservoir lithology
able to identify whether the fault seal is due to lithological
juxtapositions or due to the fault rock itself. Reactivation is an important factor while predicting fault
seal potential. Here in-situ stress field and fault geometry
Fault zone deformation process involves fault zone has to be analyzed to know the likelihood of reactivation of
diagenesis, clay smear (shale gouge), grain sliding and mapped faults and associated seal breach. However, in this
cataclasis (Kaldi, 2008). This is very important because paper reactivation risk is not studied in detail.
sometimes sand on sand juxtaposition can result fault seal
due to clay smear, cataclasis and diagenesis. Clay smear

2
 Fault Seal Analysis

Figure 1: Schematic seismo-geological cross-section representing stratigraphy and interpreted faults.

Figure 2: Depth structure map on top of Kalol Formation (considered to be potential reservoir section in the study area) showing identified faults,
drilled wells and pseudo wells (created for fault seal analysis).

3
 Fault Seal Analysis

Triangular Plot as unlikely. Higher values of Shale Gouge Ratio correlate

A fault-seal 'Triangle-type diagram' has more recently been with greater fault seal potential. SGR 0.2-0.4 v/v
developed by Knipe (1997) as a 'juxtaposition diagram'. (20%40%) is associated with phyllosilicate framework and
Triangle juxtaposition diagram provides a quick-look some clay smear fault rocks. Here fault is taken as poor seal
standalone 1D fault seal analysis tool using the well curves and will be retarding to fluid flow. For SGR 0.4-0.6 v/v
(Badleys, 2005). The various triangular and parallelogram (40%60%) fault is considered to be moderate seal. It will
areas represent the variety of bed juxtapositions on the fault be associated mainly with clay smears. For SGR > 0.6 v/v
surface. Juxtapositions that correspond to sand-sand (60%) is taken as a likely sealed fault.
contact are color-coded according to their fault-seal
potential (Shale Gouge Ratio). The diagram in this simple Fault F1 and F2
form provides a way of assessing juxtaposition and
faultseal potential at various fault throws, for a given input Fault F1 and F2 are located in the SW part of the study
stratigraphy. The model assumes that the fault throw is area. Fault F1 is a normal fault and F2 is a reverse fault at
constant vertically down the fault, and that the stratigraphy top of Kalol Formation. Timing of the fault F1 is Upper
is layer-cake. However faults having different throws at Cretaceous to Eocene. Timing of fault F2 is Upper
different stratigraphic intervals can be analyzed in 3D fault Cretaceous to Oligocene and structural inversion is started
seal analysis in Trap Tester. during Middle Eocene to Oligocene due to compressional
stress. Strike of these faults are trending NW-SE having
Observation and Interpretation maximum throw about 30m at reservoir (Kalol Formation)
top. One well FSA-1 is drilled close to these faults. So
Faults and Horizons are mapped in the study area and information from this well has been incorporated for fault
based on this interpretation few of the leads/prospects have seal analysis. Here Kalol Formation is overlain by thick
been identified in the post rift sequence (Figure 2). As most sequence of Tarapur Shale Formation. Triangle
of these play types are fault closures it is very important to juxtaposition diagram has been prepared in the depth
assess the fault seal risk involved in it. There are four interval 1100m – 1300m (TVDSS) (Figure 3). Giving a
drilled wells in this area. VShale curves of these wells are cutoff value to the VShale curve sand and shale intervals
taken for determination of SGR. For Fault seal analysis few are identified. For 0.5 (v/v) cutoffs to VShale curve only
pseudo wells are created and its lithology is prognosticated one sand interval is observed between depths 1178m1185m
based on continuity of reflectors in the available 2D (TVDSS). From seismic it is found that maximum throw is
seismic data and drilled well information. Seal analysis of 30m for this reservoir sand and it is almost constant in the
each faults are studied carefully but faults which are studied section. For throw greater than 7m there is
associated with leads/prospects identified in Kalol shale/shale, shale/sand and sand/shale juxtapositions. To
Formation are explained in this paper. Most of the faults at study fault rock properties SGR is calculated and plotted in
top of Kalol Formation are generated during Upper the triangular juxtaposition plot. Juxtaposition diagram
Cretaceous and continued till Early Eocene. Then indicates that beyond throw 7m, SGR value is greater than
subsequently these faults get reactivated during Middle 0.5.
Miocene in the study area.
From seismic it is found that at structural closure level fault
SGR is calculated and analyzed in Triangle juxtaposition throw is between 20m-30m. Since there is no sand on sand
diagram. Fault commonly contains a sheared mélange juxtaposition within this throw interval and SGR is > 0.5, it
where the fault offset is greater than the bed thickness. So is evident that fault will behave as a sealing fault.
SGR is mainly studied in the interval where fault throw is
greater than the bed thickness. For simpler calculation
purpose fault zones are taken as single fault. Taking
reference from Yielding et al., (1997), a generalized
classification of faults is made based on SGR values.
SGR<20% (or a ratio of < 0.2) are typically associated with
cataclastic fault gouge and sealing of the fault is considered

4
 Fault Seal Analysis

Figure 3: Triangle Juxtaposition diagram showing lithological Figure 4: Triangle Juxtaposition diagram showing lithological
juxtapositions and SGR for well FSA-1 juxtapositions and SGR for well FSA-3

Fault F3 Triangle Juxtaposition analysis is shown in the depth

interval of 900m – 1200m (TVDSS) in Figure 4. In the
Fault F3 is situated in the central part of the study area. It is depth interval 1012m – 1194m (TVDSS) when fault throw
a normal fault having orientation in NW-SE direction and is < 50m, mainly sand on sand juxtapositions are found.
maximum throw is about 50m at top of Kalol Formation. SGR is calculated in this interval and within maximum
Timing of the fault is Middle Eocene to Recent. Well FSA3 throw limit most of the sand on sand juxtapositions show
is drilled near to this fault. Due to unavailability of GR log, SGR < 0.2 with few showing SGR 0.2-0.4 in the lowermost
Shale beds are determined based on lithological sand unit. This suggests the fault to be a leaking one.
descriptions of well cuttings and other available log data.
Here Kalol Formation is sand dominated and overlain by Fault F4
Tarapur Shale Formation. In this well few sand intervals
along with shales are reported in Tarapur Formation. Fault F4 is situated in the central part of the study area.
This fault is a reverse fault at postrift levels and trending in
NW-SE direction. Timing of the fault is Upper Cretaceous
to recent and structural inversion started during Middle
Miocene. Maximum throw of this fault is expected to be
120m at top of Kalol Formation.

Triangle juxtaposition plot has been analyzed between

750m-1050m (TVDSS) in a pseudo well FSA-4 (Figure 5).
Shale beds are prognosticated based on reflections in the
seismic data and lithology of nearby wells. In this depth
interval when throw is < 120m, many sand on sand
juxtapositions are found. Within throw of 14m, sand units
are self juxtaposed and are associated with cataclastic fault

5
 Fault Seal Analysis

gouge. In the throw interval of 14-28m, sands within depths most of the sand on sand juxtapositions show SGR value
870m-883m, 946m-962m and 1005m-1015m (TVDSS), >0.5. So it indicates a sealing fault.
show SGR < 0.3. So these zones may act as poor seal.
Within throw 50m-100m most of the sand on sand
juxtapositions show SGR value between 0.4-0.6. So these
reservoir juxtapositions may act as moderate seal.

Here at structural closure level it is important to study the

fault orientation since in the central part of the fault,
orientation is not perpendicular to the regional stress
direction. There the throw varies from 40m-100m and
many minor scale faults are seen near to it. This may be
due to wider damage zone. So here though SGR is within
0.4-0.6 sealing property of the fault may be reduced.

Fault F5

This fault is situated in the northern part of the study area.

This is a reverse fault at Kalol level having orientation in
NNW-SSE direction. Timing of the fault is Upper
Cretaceous to recent and structural inversion is started
during Middle Miocene. Here the structure is a three way
dip inverted fault closure. Maximum throw is found to be
120m at top of Kalol Formation. A well FSA-5 is drilled in
the fault closure to evaluate the hydrocarbon prospectivity Figure 5: Triangle Juxtaposition diagram showing lithological
juxtapositions and SGR for pseudo well FSA-4
of the area.

Triangle juxtaposition is prepared in the depth interval

540740m (TVDSS) taking well information and VShale
curve of well FSA-5 (Figure 6). Shale and sand intervals
are identified giving a cutoff as 0.3 to VShale curve. In the
depth interval 608-620m (TVDSS), Juxtaposition diagram
shows that when throw is < 25m SGR is < 0.3. So it may
lead to cross fault migration. When throw is > 25m, in most
of the sand on sand juxtapositions SGR is calculated to be
> 0.3. This may act as moderate seal.

Fault F6

This fault is situated in the north-east part of the study area.

This is a reverse fault at Kalol Formation having
orientation in NW-SE direction. Here the structure is a two
way dip inverted fault closure. The fault is related to
structural inversion and timing of the fault Upper
Cretaceous to Recent. Maximum throw is found to be 120m
at top of Kalol Formation. Triangle juxtaposition diagram
is prepared in the pseudo well FSA-6 in the depth interval Figure 6: Triangle Juxtaposition diagram showing lithological
of 150-350m (TVDSS) (Figure 7). When throw is > 25m, juxtapositions and SGR for well FSA-5

6
 Fault Seal Analysis

Fault F7 and F8

These faults are situated in the Eastern part of the study

area. Fault F7 is an oblique slip fault (fault having dip-slip
and strike-slip component) and oriented in NE-SW
direction. Maximum throw is observed to be about 250m at
top of Kalol Formation. Fault F8 is a normal fault having
maximum throw about 130m at top of Kalol Formation and
orientation in NW-SE direction. A play type is identified
which is bounded by these two faults (Figure 2). A pseudo
well (FSA-7) is created and fault seal analysis is done with
help of Triangular juxtaposition diagram in the depth
interval 900m-1200m (TVDSS) (Figure 8). Within
maximum throw limit many sand on sand juxtapositions are
observed.

In the depth interval 1041m-1087m (TVDSS) and within

throw 20m-70m most of the sand on sand juxtapositions
show SGR < 0.4. At structural closure level fault throw
varies from 30-40m for fault F7 and 100m-200m for fault
F8. Within this throw limit most of the sand on sand
juxtapositions show SGR < 0.4 for fault F7 and 0.4-0.6 for Figure 7: Triangle Juxtaposition diagram showing lithological
fault F8. So fault F7 may behave as a poor seal and Fault juxtapositions and SGR for pseudo well FSA-6
F8 as a moderate seal. Since a strike slip component is
attached with fault F7 and two faults are joining at
structural closure level. It will lead to wider damage zone.
So this fault will behave as poor seal.

Figure 8: Triangle Juxtaposition diagram showing lithological

juxtapositions and SGR for pseudo well FSA-7

7
 Fault Seal Analysis

Figure 9: Fault communication map showing sealing property of different parts of faults at reservoir top (Kalol Formation Top)

Conclusion Acknowledgements

Faults are mapped and its throw, heave and orientation are The authors would like to express their gratitude to
determined from the seismic data. Wall rock juxtapositions Reliance Industries Limited for supporting the publication
and SGR are analyzed in Triangle juxtaposition diagram. of this work.
Fault categorization is made based on wall rock
juxtapositions, SGR and reactivation. All the faults are References
studied in detail and finally a fault communication map is
prepared at reservoir top (Figure 9). Here different parts of Allan, U. S., 1989, Model for hydrocarbon migration and
the faults are differentiated based on its sealing property. entrapment within faulted structures: AAPG Bulletin, v. 73,
Broadly faults are classified as sealing unlikely, poor seal, p. 803–811.
moderate seal and likely sealed fault. Form communication
map and juxtaposition diagram it is clear that fault F4 and Badleys, 2005: Reference manual, Trap Tester, p. 4.1-4.12.
F7 are not perfect seal near the identified leads. Faults F1,
F2, F5, and F6 may behave as a moderate to a likely sealed Bhandari, L. L., and L. R. Chowdhary, 1975, Stratigraphic
fault. Fault F3 may behave as a tranmissive fault where analysis of Kadi and Kalol Formations: AAPG Bulletin, v.
sealing is unlikely. 59, p. 856-871.

Biswas, S. K., M. K. Rangaraju, J. Thomas, and S. K.

Bhattacharya, 1994, Cambay-Hazad (!) petroleum system
in the south Cambay basin, India, in L. B. Magoon and W.

8
 Fault Seal Analysis

G. Dow, eds., Petroleum system-from source to trap:

AAPG Memoir 60, p. 615-624.

Doughty, P.Ted, 2003, Clay smear seals and fault sealing

potential of an exhumed growth fault, Rio Grande rift, New
Mexico: AAPG Bulletin, v.87, p. 427-444.

Jones, R. M. and R. R. Hillis, 2003, An integrated,

quantitative approach to assessing fault seal risk: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 87, p. 507-524.

Kaldi, J., 2008, Evaluating reservoir quality, seal potential

and net pay: GEO India pre-conference training.

Knipe, R. J., 1997, Juxtaposition and seal diagrams to help

analyze fault seals in hydrocarbon reservoirs: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 81, p. 187–195.

Kundu, J., and M. R. Wani, 1992, Structural Styles and

Tectono-Stratigraphic Framework of Cambay Rift Basin,
Western India: Indian Journal of Petroleum Geology, vol.
1, p. 181-202.

Lindsay, N. G., F. C. Murphy, J. J. Walsh, and J.

Watterson, 1993, Outcrop studies of shale smears on fault
surfaces: Special Publication of the International
Association of Sedimentologists, v. 15, p. 113–123.

Yielding, G., B. Freeman, and D. T. Needham, 1997,

Quantitative fault seal prediction: AAPG Bulletin, v. 81, p.
897–917.

View publication stats