Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.

org/ by guest on September 10, 2021

Integrated Fault Seal Analysis: An Introduction

STEVEN R. OGILVIE1*, STEVE J. DEE2, ROBERT W. WILSON2 &
WAYNE R. BAILEY3
1
Ogilvie Geoscience Ltd, Blenheim Place, Aberdeen, AB25 2DN, UK
2
BP Exploration Ltd, Chertsey Road, Sunbury-on-Thames, Middlesex,
TW16 7LN, UK
3
Woodside Energy Ltd, Mia Yellagonga, Karlak, 11 Mount Street, Perth,
WA 6000, Australia
SRO, 0000-0002-5933-0157; RWW, 0000-0003-1575-2224
*Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Faults commonly trap and impact the flow of fluids such as hydrocarbons and water over a range of
timescales and therefore are of economic significance. During hydrocarbon exploration, analysis of the sealing
capacity of faults can impact both the assessment of the probability of finding hydrocarbons and also the esti-
mate of the likely resource range. During hydrocarbon field development, smaller faults can provide seals, baf-
fles and/or conduits to flow. There are relatively simple, well-established workflows to carry out a fault seal
analysis for siliciclastic rocks based primarily on clay content. There are, however, outstanding challenges
related to other rock types, to calibrating fault seal models (with static and dynamic data) and to handling uncer-
tainty. The variety of studies presented here demonstrate the types of data required and workflows followed in
today’s environment in order to understand the uncertainties, risks and upsides associated with fault-related
fluid flow. These studies span all parts of the hydrocarbon value chain from exploration to production but
are also of relevance for other industries such as radioactive waste and CO2 containment.

Faults commonly trap fluids such as hydrocarbons Bouvier et al. 1989). This in turn can be converted
and water and therefore are of economic signifi- into capillary threshold pressures (Smith 1966;
cance. In the hydrocarbon industry, faults can Schowalter 1981) that the fault rock could support
bound two- or three-way closures which pose riskier (Yielding et al. 2010). However, even in these sce-
exploration prospects than the simpler four-way narios, the industry remains divided in its assessment
closures owing to the inherent uncertainties associ- that the fault can form a seal over a geological time-
ated with predicting fault seal and column scale based on the inherent subsurface uncertainty.
heights. Juxtaposition seal (Fig. 1), where the reser- Once a field has been discovered, smaller faults
voir is completely set against non-reservoir (such as can either hinder communication (Hardman &
mudrock – grey colored unit in Fig. 1) across a fault Booth 1991; e.g. between a producer and a support-
can, at cursory assessment, be a relatively clear-cut ing injector) or enhance production (e.g. connect
case of fault seal, often resulting in pressure and stratigraphically offset flow units, or connect to an
fluid contact differences (e.g. Watts 1987; Yielding aquifer to maintain pressure support). In baffling sce-
et al. 2010). Complications, however, commonly narios, fault throw can be less than reservoir thick-
arise from natural geological uncertainty (e.g. spatial ness, but the content of the fault rock (Fig. 1c, d)
variability of the thickness and quality of reservoir itself can create permeability barriers. Conversely,
and seal units) and mapping (e.g. well calibration, faults are characteristically segmented at a range of
seismic imaging, velocity modelling; Fig. 1b), intro- scales with relay zones (Fig. 1b) that can allow or
ducing the chance of across-fault leakage. retard communication. The key fault properties that
Well-established, published algorithms provide a need to be considered during a production simulation
means to estimate fault seal capacity based on the case are permeability and thickness (Manzocchi
assessment of fault displacement and shale/clay con- et al. 1999). Estimates of fault rock permeability
tent of the faulted intervals to calculate fault rock are founded on the same algorithms to estimate
shale/clay content (e.g. shale gouge ratio, SGR, fault rock shale/clay content as for exploration-
Yielding et al. 1997; clay smear potential, CSP, focused seals.

From: OGILVIE, S. R., DEE, S. J., WILSON, R. W. & BAILEY, W. R. (eds) 2020. Integrated Fault Seal Analysis.
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 496, 1–8.
First published online May 7, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP496-2020-51
© 2020 The Author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Published by The Geological Society of London.
Publishing disclaimer: www.geolsoc.org.uk/pub_ethics
 2
Paired slip surfaces
(a) Fault / Trap Geometry Simple Anticline Trap (b) Fault Zone Architecture
Breached relay/ Fault Lens

Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on September 10, 2021

Seismic resolution

Paired slip surfaces

with a rotated
fault lens
c1
is mi Faulted
Se (compartmentalized) Singly-breached relay

500ms
Anticline Trap Fault rock
300m
2.5km
F
Top Seal
Outcrop resolution
Spill point Fault Seal
Hangingwall Normal drag
CH Trap Intact/ unbreached relay zone
HWC

S. R. OGILVIE ET AL.
Base Seal Damage zone
500ms

Footwall Trap
1km 3m Moab Fault, Utah, USA After Manzocchi et al. (2008)
F

(c) Fault Seal Type (d) Fault Seal Process

Cataclasis 1
A
1
3 2

3 Mature B
1 Sst
1mm
C
Shale/ Clay Smear
Geometric/ Juxtaposition Seals
(1) Juxtaposition Seal
D
S st
Fault rock Seals Immature
(2) Membrane/ Cataclasis seal
(Self-Juxtaposition) E
50m (3) Shale/ Clay Smear After Gibson (1998)
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on September 10, 2021

INTEGRATED FAULT SEAL ANALYSIS: AN INTRODUCTION 3

As the previous paragraphs allude to, the wealth et al. 1998). During editing this volume, we became
of knowledge that the industry has accumulated acutely aware that complete and detailed analyses of
pertains mainly to siliciclastic depositional systems, fault seal, for example those that contain juxtaposi-
and this has dominantly focused on well-explored tion fault maps (Allan diagrams; Allan 1989) and/
extensional rift and passive margin settings. Sig- or description of uncertainty and alternative scenar-
nificant uncertainty remains in different reservoir ios, are not common. This may be due in part to con-
types (e.g. carbonates, basement, unconventional) fidentiality constraints intrinsic to our business, but is
and in different tectonic settings (e.g. neo-tectonic, also likely to be due to a cultural bias and the desire to
strike-slip). provide a concise answer.
Characterizing the fluid-flow properties of faults Predicting the fault seal potential is also of con-
is often seen as a specialist subject, requiring dedi- siderable value to other industries such as radioactive
cated software, and is often overlooked. However, waste containment, CO2 storage (e.g. Miocic et al.
most aspects of fault-seal analysis draw upon the 2014) and the water industry.
skills of an integrated geoscientist who can utilize
all available data and assess uncertainty in both
input data and interpretation. 3D modelling packages Fault seal processes and workflows
allow for the integration of seismic, well and core
data. This, for example, allows core-scale structures Juxtaposition or Allan (after Allan 1989) diagrams
to be quickly related to seismically resolvable faults are used to show the various juxtaposition relation-
and decisions to be efficiently made. ships and leak points that exist across a fault or
The contributions in this volume, either individu- fault zone (e.g. Bouvier et al. 1989; Clarke et al.
ally or in combination, showcase the integrated 2005). These should be accompanied by relevant
nature of a fault seal study in today’s environment maps (depth, seismic attributes etc.), seismic sec-
in order to understand the uncertainties, risks and tions (showing spill points, depth contours, structural
upsides associated with fault-related fluid flow. We crest, leak points, etc.), well correlation panels
start by highlighting the relatively simple and well- (showing clay and mineral content) and calibration
established workflows (i.e. juxtaposition analysis, data such as pressures (v. depth).
shale gouge calculations) that a geoscientist should Fault rock clay content has been correlated with
follow that help characterize fault seal potential. seal capacity and inversely correlated with perme-
There are of course certain outstanding challenges ability (e.g. Yielding et al. 2010). Therefore, the
related to geological setting (i.e. non-clastic litholo- result of algorithms that estimate fault rock petro-
gies, burial depth/diagenesis, neo-tectonics), fault physical properties are often plotted on Allan dia-
geometries and the intrinsic properties of fault rocks grams and used to assess the fault sealing potential.
(e.g. in clay-free sandstones), which remain part of These algorithms are all based on the same premise:
a future direction. Also, fault seal models need to that the higher the clay content of the faulted
be ground truthed against fluid chemistry, pressure sequence is, the higher the clay content of the fault
and field production data. Unfortunately, such studies rock and its chance and capacity to seal, either by
are quite rare in the literature but our case histories ‘smearing’ of host mudrocks into the fault rock
integrate dynamic data as well as in-situ stress data (Shale Smear Factor, SSF, Lindsay et al. 1993) or
(requirement from the summary section of Knipe by mixing of the host rock into the fault rock (SGR,

Fig. 1. Fault seal summary montage. (a) Fault/trap geometry: examples of how faults impact trap geometry. Upper –
simple anticline trap v. a faulted (compartmentalized) anticline trap with seismic example of a fold above a salt
structure in the southern North Sea (source: Simon Stewart, Virtual Seismic Atlas, https://www.seismicatlas.org/);
lower – footwall and hanging-wall trap showing top seal, structural spill point, fault seal and base seal, with seismic
example from the Moray Firth, UK (source: Robert Butler, Virtual Seismic Atlas, https://www.seismicatlas.org/).
(b) Fault zone architecture: a comparison of seismic resolution v. outcrop resolution showing a more detailed
sub-seismic fault architecture. Schematic cartoons of fault zone complexity, including relay ramp development
through to breached relays, and multiple slip surfaces scenarios which could impact communication across the fault
zone; modified from Manzocchi et al. (2008). (c) Fault seal type: showing the difference between juxtaposition and
fault rock seals and examples of fault rock processes (cataclasis and shale/clay smear). (d) Fault seal process (in a
mature quartzose sandstone and an immature sandstone) illustrated along a single fault plane – schematic modified
from Gibson (1998). Shale smear developed at A–B, creating a spill point at B. Unlikely to be a spill point at C (B–C
illustrated by outcrop example from Hopeman Sandstone, Inner Moray Firth, UK) as the deformation bands present at
this sand-on-sand contact will not have significantly reduced pore throats compared with the host rock. In the lower
trap, (immature sandstones), the spill point can be deeper (D–E, illustrated by outcrop example in deltaic sandstones
from Kirkmaky, Baku, Azerbaijan) as the clay content of the sandstone itself can be mixed into the fault rock by the
clay-mixing processes. The C–D portion of the fault is sealed by clay smear owing to intra-beds being present but the
D–E portion across immature, clay rich sandstones is sealed by clay mixing processes.
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on September 10, 2021

4 S. R. OGILVIE ET AL.

Yielding et al. 1997) or a combination of both (CSP, van Ojik et al. (2019) test the ability of existing
Bouvier et al. 1989; effective shale gouge ratio, empirical SGR functions (Sperrevik et al. 2002; Bre-
Knipe et al. 2004). It currently appears that SGR is tan et al. 2003; based on data from Brent Province) to
the most often used algorithm applied to exploration predict capillary pressures and across-fault pressure
and production challenges. Pressure data is needed to differences in two case studies from Permian Upper
calibrate a fault seal model if it is to be used to justify Rotliegende reservoirs. They conclude that these
future wells. To this end, SGR has been plotted functions predict the fault seal potential of faults in
against buoyancy pressure to demonstrate the higher these reservoirs with reasonable results within the
sealing capacity of fault rocks with higher shale/clay uncertainty ranges. They stress that, although these
content (Yielding et al. 2010). functions produce reasonable first estimates in high
In summary, regardless of which methods are net-to-gross rocks (low clay content), there are sev-
favoured by different companies, well-established, eral orders of magnitude of uncertainty.
essentiality deterministic workflows exist in the
industry revolving around juxtaposition analysis,
shale gouge calculations and shale/clay smear calcu- Non-clastic rocks: carbonates
lations. However, key challenges remain outside of Most of the historical focus in carbonate rocks has
these core topics, namely: been upon the distribution of natural fractures that
• seals in low clay content host rocks (van Ojik provide permeability, but recent focus has been
et al. 2019); upon fault-sealing mechanisms (e.g. Billi et al.
• non-clastic rocks (e.g. carbonates; Ferrill et al. 2003; Wennberg et al. 2013; Piane et al. 2017).
2019; Nogueira Kiewiet et al. 2019) and geo- Nogueira Kiewiet et al. (2019) employ a three-
history (e.g. burial depth, diagenesis, kinematic pronged approach in order to characterize the sealing
history); potential of faults in carbonate rocks: (1) direct shear
• the impact of stress (including neotectonics) on experiments; (2) triaxial experiments to simulate
seal/conductivity (Ferrill et al. 2019); fault reactivation; and (3) the use of smooth particle
• sub-resolution fault segmentation (relays, damage hydrodynamic models to reproduce the direct shear
zones; Shipton et al. 2019; Torabi et al. 2019); experiments. They conclude that the sealing capacity
• uncertainty analysis (Grant 2019; Knai & Les- of faults in carbonates increases with the amount of
coffit 2020; Murray et al. 2019); slip irrespective of the numerous scenarios tested.
• potential for integrated studies (e.g. Bretan et al. The ability of a fault to reactivate is generally consid-
2019; Osmond & Meckel 2019; Wilkins et al. ered to depend upon its orientation with respect to
2019). the current in-situ stresses and the magnitude of
these stresses.

Low clay-content host rocks

Stress
Often, faults which juxtapose high-porosity, rela-
tively clay-free (e.g. aeolian) sandstones (e.g. Ferrill et al. (2019) use established dilation ten-
Edwards et al. 1993) create barriers to fluid flow dency and slip tendency calculations and link
and support different fluid contacts and pressure dif- them to observations at outcrop to understand past,
ferentials (e.g. Leveille et al. 1997). The clay content present and future behaviour of faults and fractures
algorithms and tools discussed above cannot be used in terms of deformation mode and fluid conductiv-
to predict fault seal potential in these sandstones. ity. They employ these techniques on mapped out-
Examples are the cataclastic deformation bands stud- crop faults in Texas (Canyon Lake Gorge, at Pinto
ied by Underhill & Woodcock (1987) in high- Creek and in the Big Bend National park) to assess
porosity (Permian) sandstones (Arran, Scotland; past stress history and promote their use to evaluate
cover photograph) and in the relatively clay-free the fault-sealing potential of faults in modern
Entrada and Navajo Sandstones of Utah (Aydin in-situ stress fields. They point out that different
1978). Instead, reliance is placed upon an under- deformation styles can occur along the same fault,
standing of the geo-history of the faulted reservoir, which has a large effect upon the ability of the
in particular, the petrophysical properties of the fault to act as a conduit or barrier along and across
fault rock, burial depths at the time of faulting the fault.
and the temperature-experienced post-faulting
(classification of Fisher & Knipe 1998; Knai & Fault zone architecture and outcrop studies
Lescoffit 2020). For example, the mechanical reduc-
tion of grain size (and porosity and permeability) Outcrops provide the ideal opportunity to study the
is more likely with increasing confining pressures various fault geometries which are important in
at depth. fault seal analysis and may not be observed at
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on September 10, 2021

INTEGRATED FAULT SEAL ANALYSIS: AN INTRODUCTION 5

seismic, core or log scale (Fig. 1b). For example, that at least a consistent terminology is used inter-
relay ramps (Fig. 1b) can provide communication nally within organizations.
pathways between fault segments (Manzocchi et al.
2017). A reservoir simulation model would predict
quite a different result if the segments were consid-
ered to be a continuous fault (either mapped on seis- Modelling approaches and handling
mic or the resolution of the model, e.g. cell size). uncertainty
Similarly, near-fault folding (e.g. ‘fault drag’)
below or close to seismic and simulation grid resolu- In the authors’ view, a description of subsurface
tion can impact communication paths across a fault uncertainty is a frequent omission in fault seal anal-
(Hesthammer & Fossen 2000). This relationship ysis publications. The reasons for this are varied (e.g.
may be neglected in a fault framework model when an industry-wide cultural bias to provide precision
using tolerance limits to ignore seismic data close and a ‘prediction’, and/or to be concise for publica-
to faults, again resulting in a different dynamic pre- tion and/or a need for confidentiality). Further, we
diction. There are currently no widely accepted note that Allan diagrams (with or without a descrip-
routines to assess this uncertainty in reservoir/simu- tion of the intrinsic uncertainties associated with
lation models, yet the impact can be significant, e.g. seismic data, mapping, stratigraphic variability, rock
pressure support (injector-producer communication, quality variations, etc.) are a frequent omission in
aquifer support), water breakthrough and compart- fault seal publications. Murray et al. (2019) outline
ment sizes. an approach to handling stratigraphic and structural
Faults are associated with sub-seismic defor- uncertainty in estimating hydrocarbon column
mation (Fig. 1b) immediately adjacent to the fault height. In analysing 96 accumulations from 42 fields
(e.g. ‘damage zone’ geometries (Caine et al. 1996), using their method, the authors concluded that pri-
normal drag, splays. segmentation), which needs to mary juxtaposition alone, without additional contri-
be considered during a fault study as it will be critical bution of fault rock membrane sealing, most
to the dynamic behaviour of the fault zone. However, closely predicts hydrocarbon columns. In explora-
caution should be exercised when attempting to tion workflows that use fault rock seal predicting
predict the extent of this deformation from fault algorithms (such as SGR) the conclusion implies
displacement: this could result in negative (i.e. ‘dam- that there may be a systematic bias overpredicting
age’) and positive (communication resulting from potential column heights. Grant (2019) takes a sto-
segmentation) outcomes. Torabi et al. (2019) col- chastic modelling approach to handle the complexity
lected structural data from scanlines across damage of composition of fault rocks. In this approach, a sto-
zones in three different geological environments: chastic model of the fault core gouge zone is used to
siliciclastics in Utah (USA), carbonates (Majella illustrate how variable distribution for fault rock
Mountain, Italy) and metamorphic rocks (western leads to differing seal predictions. Compositional
Norway). They were able to constrain damage controls on seal potential using this technique are ref-
zone width by identifying the changes in the slope erenced to a case study and compared with other pre-
of cumulative plots from frequency data. They diction algorithms. A key issue in both Murray et al.
show a stepwise power law relationship between (2019) and Grant (2019) is the probability of the
damage zone width and displacement. continuity of a sealing fault rock (cf. ‘smear’) and
Some confusion comes from the description of the location of resulting leak points along the fault
what constitutes the region of associated fractures plane (Noorsalehi–Garakani et al. 2013; Vrolijk
around a fault or compound zone of deformation et al. 2016), particularly in 3D.
bands, i.e. damage zones v. fault zones. Shipton Often, reservoir simulators use fault transmissi-
et al. (2019) addresses the key biases that need to bility multipliers to represent faults during conven-
be considered when building predictive models of tional production simulation (Manzocchi et al.
fault architecture. They provide a very useful inven- 1999), although enhanced fault representations are
tory of the commonly used terminology and the var- possible, but not common practice (Ziljstra et al.
ious ambiguities that affect our understanding of the 2007). Also, it is usually an oversimplification to
relationship between fault width and displacement. represent faults as single entities in models as the
For example, multiple slip surfaces have been inter- fault zone usually has more than one slip surface
preted on seismic data bound fault zones (Childs (Childs et al. 2009). Knai & Lescoffit (2020) pre-
et al. 2009), whereas the fault zones described by sent an alternative method to generate fault transmis-
Beach et al. (1997) and Knott et al. (1996) are regions sibility multipliers using a matrix or juxtaposition
of discrete damage around single faults. Given the table. It provides a straightforward communication
sub-seismic fault zone complexity, there remains no tool with reservoir engineers, allowing geologists
consensus on how we handle this in a seismic-to- to be more easily involved at all stages in the trans-
simulation workflow. However, we recommend missibility multiplier tuning process, handling
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on September 10, 2021

6 S. R. OGILVIE ET AL.

uncertainty and providing an efficient route to increasing focus upon unconventional reservoirs
history matching. (e.g. the faulted, oil-bearing mudstones in the over-
burden section of the Valhall Field, Central North
Sea studied by Bradley et al. 2019). Fault seal studies
Integrated studies will require close integration with geomechanical
studies in these types of reservoirs. It is also
Bretan et al. (2019) compliment footwall trap data- expected that the ability of downhole logs to com-
sets with a knowledge database of fault rock proper- pute rock (and fault) properties will improve in the
ties in hanging-wall traps that are dependent on fault future. In fact, advances in logging while drilling
rock seal. Hydrocarbon columns supported by pro- technology over the last 15 years or so have meant
cess seals are typically less than 190 m over a that time (and money) does not need to be spent
range of burial depths whereas those supported by on wireline and pipe conveyance. Also, decommis-
juxtaposition seals can exceed 600 m. The contribu- sioning and abandonment are likely to be focus
tion contains cross-plots of buoyancy pressure and areas for fault seal analysis in mature basins such
SGR, which have a similar data distribution to pub- as the North Sea, Gulf of Mexico, etc. Operating
lished calibration plots (e.g. Yielding et al. 2010). companies are likely to be interested in whether
This is a very useful addition to the global calibration or not faults that breach cap rocks are likely to be
database, enabling evaluation of the sealing potential potential pathways for hydrocarbons to the surface.
of hanging-wall traps in the same manner as for foot- This could impact the overall well abandonment
wall traps. philosophy.
Wilkins et al. (2019) use a wide range of static Whether or not a fault forms a seal, baffle or con-
(e.g. core, CT images) and dynamic data (including duit has considerable application to the exploration
well tests) to characterize the petrophysical and and production of fluids such as oil, gas and water.
flow properties of fold-related deformation bands Already, the subject is gaining traction in unconven-
in poorly lithified turbidite sandstones from the Hol- tional hydrocarbon reservoirs and in other industries
stein Field in the Gulf of Mexico. These cataclastic such as radioactive waste and CO2 containment.
deformation bands have only experienced a 1 order However, fault seal analysis is not necessarily the
magnitude reduction in permeability relative to preserve of specialists. Our objective in this volume
their host sandstones (shallower burial depths to is to make the subject accessible to all geoscientists,
those reported by van Ojik et al. 2019). Deformation engineers and practitioners with a vested interest in
band presence does, however, explain the lower than fault seal mechanisms. We do this by presenting a
expected well test permeabilities, but it is difficult to set of integrated studies to demonstrate the types of
explain the apparent mismatch between effective data required and workflows followed in today’s
permeabilities calculated from core data and those economic environment.
from well tests.
Osmond & Meckel (2019) demonstrate the
value of a combined fault seal analyses in the reser-
Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowl-
voir and the overburden rocks. Traditional fault seal edge the generous financial support provided in association
studies of reservoirs in the San Luis Pass area of the with this volume to the Geological Society and the Petro-
Texas inner Shelf suggested sizeable trapped vol- leum Group by Saudi Aramco, Badley Geoscience Ltd,
umes. However, a parallel study of high-definition Midland Valley Ltd (now part of Petroleum Experts Ltd),
seismic in the overburden and the results from wild- BP and Statoil (now Equinor). We are also very grateful
cat wells did not validate this data. They stress the for the help and support provided by the team at the geolo-
importance of studying high-definition overburden gical society and it’s publishing house.
data (in addition to conventional 3D) for reservoir
fault seal analysis and for improved interpretation
of geological history with application in hydrocar- Funding This research received no specific grant
bon prospectivity and CO2 storage. from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.

Future trends in fault seal analysis

Faults that were once a hindrance to reaching (risk of Author contributions SRO: visualization (equal),
writing – original draft (lead), writing – review & editing
wellbore instability, etc.; Ogilvie et al. 2015) deeper (lead); SJD: writing – original draft (equal), writing –
reservoir targets, could, in some geological settings, review & editing (equal); WWW: visualization (equal),
themselves become targets for production (fractures writing – original draft (equal), writing – review &
around faults) and be an integral part of a field deple- editing (equal); WRB: writing – original draft (equal),
tion plan. This will probably coincide with an writing – review & editing (equal).
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on September 10, 2021

INTEGRATED FAULT SEAL ANALYSIS: AN INTRODUCTION 7

Correction notice: The original version was incorrect. heterogeneities: Permo-Triassic Hopeman Sandstone,
There was an error in the author name for R. W. Wilson. Moray Firth, Scotland. Geological Society, London,
The author names for van Ojik and Nogueira Kiewiet in Special Publications, 73, 339–365, https://doi.org/
the references have been corrected. 10.1144/GSL.SP.1993.073.01.20
FERRILL, D.A., SMART, K.J. & MORRIS, A.P. 2019. Fault
failure modes, deformation mechanisms, dilation ten-
References dency, slip tendency, and conduits v. seals. Geological
Society, London, Special Publications, 496, https://
ALLAN, U.S. 1989. Model for hydrocarbon migration doi.org/10.1144/SP496-2019-7
and entrapment within faulted structures. AAPG Bulle- FISHER, Q.J. & KNIPE, R.J. 1998. Fault sealing processes in
tin, 73, 803–811, https://doi.org/10.1306/44B4A271- siliciclastic sediments. Geological Society, London,
170A-11D7-8645000102C1865D Special Publications, 147, 117–135, https://doi.org/
AYDIN, A. 1978. Small faults formed as deformation bands 10.1144/GSL.SP.1998.147.01.08
in sandstone. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 116, GIBSON, R.G. 1998. Physical character and fluid flow
913–930, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00876546 properties of sandstone derived fault zones. Geological
BEACH, A., BROWN, J.L., WELBON, A.I., MCCALLUM, J.E., Society, London, Special Publications, 127, 83–97,
BROCKBANK, P. & KNOTT, S. 1997. Characteristics of https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1998.127.01.07
fault zones in sandstones from NW England: applica- GRANT, N.T. 2019. Stochastic modelling of fault gouge
tion to fault transmissibility. Geological Society, Lon- zones: implications for fault seal analysis. Geological
don, Special Publications, 124, 315–324, https://doi. Society, London, Special Publications, 496, https://
org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1997.124.01.19 doi.org/10.1144/SP496-2018-135
BILLI, A., SALVINI, F. & STORTI, F. 2003. The damage zone- HARDMAN, R.F.P. & BOOTH, J.E. 1991. The significance of
fault core transition in carbonate rocks: implications normal faults in the exploration and production of
for fault growth, structure and permeability. Journal North Sea hydrocarbons. Geological Society, London,
of Structural Geology, 25, 1779–1794, https://doi. Special Publications, 56, 1–13, https://doi.org/10.
org/10.1016/S0191-8141(03)00037-3 1144/GSL.SP.1991.056.01.01
BOUVIER, J.D., KAARS-SIJPESTEIJN, C.H., KLUESNER, D.F., HESTHAMMER, J. & FOSSEN, H. 2000. Uncertainties associ-
ONYEJEKWE, C.C. & VAN DER PAL, R.C. 1989. Three- ated with fault sealing analysis. Petroleum Geoscience,
dimensional seismic interpretation and fault sealing 6, 37–45, https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo.6.1.37
investigations, Nun River field, Nigeria. AAPG Bulletin, KNAI, T.A. & LESCOFFIT, G. 2020. Efficient handling of fault
73, 1397–1414, https://doi.org/10.1306/44B4AA5A- properties using the Juxtaposition Table Method. Geo-
170A-11D7-8645000102C1865D logical Society, London, Special Publications, 496,
BRADLEY, T., FJELD, P.H., SCOTT, J. & OGILVIE, S. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP496-2018-192
Overcoming coring challenges in a new unconventional KNIPE, R.J., JONES, G. & FISHER, Q.J. 1998. Faulting, fault
play offshore by integration of formation evaluation sealing and fluid flow in hydrocarbon reservoirs: an
data. SPE 195866, SPE Annual Technical Conference introduction. Geological Society, London, Special Pub-
and Exhibition, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 Septem- lications, 147, vii–xxi, https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.
ber to 2 October 2019, 13, https://doi.org/10.2118/ SP.1998.147.01.01
195866-MS KNIPE, R.J., FREEMAN, S., HARRIS, S.D. & DAVIES, R.K.
BRETAN, P., YIELDING, G. & JONES, H. 2003. Using cali- 2004. Structural uncertainty and scenario modelling
brated shale gouge ratio to estimate column heights. for fault seal analysis. Proceedings of the AAPG
AAPG Bulletin, 87, 397–413, https://doi.org/10. Annual Convention Abstracts, Dallas, TX, 18–21 April,
1306/08010201128 13, A77.
BRETAN, P.G., YIELDING, G. & SVERDRUP, E. 2019. A knowl- KNOTT, S.D., BEACH, A., BROCKBANK, P.J., BROWN, J.L.,
edge database of hanging wall traps that are dependent MCCALLUM, J.E. & WELBON, A.I. 1996. Spatial and
on fault seal. Geological Society, London, Special mechanical controls on normal fault populations. Jour-
Publications, 496, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP496- nal of Structural Geology, 18, 359–372, https://doi.
2018-157 org/10.1016/S0191-8141(96)80056-3
CAINE, J.S., EVANS, J.P. & FORSTER, C.B. 1996. Fault zone LEVEILLE, G.P., KNIPE, R. ET AL. 1997. Compartmentalisation
architecture and permeability structure. Geology, 24, of Rotliegendes gas reservoirs by sealing faults, Jupiter
1025–1028, https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(1996) Fields area, southern North Sea. Geological Society,
024%3C1025:FZAAPS%3E2.3.CO;2 London, Special Publications, 123, 87–104, https://
CHILDS, C., MANZOCCHI, T., WALSH, J.J., BONSON, C.G., doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1997.123.01.06
NICOL, A. & SCHOPFER, M.P.J. 2009. A geometric LINDSAY, N.G., MURRAY, F.C., WALSH, J.J. & WATTERSON, J.
model of fault zone and fault rock thickness variations. 1993. Outcrop studies of shale smears on fault surfaces.
Journal of Structural Geology, 31, 117–127, https:// In: FLINT, S.S. & BRYANT, I.D. (eds) The Geological
doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2008.08.009 Modelling of Hydrocarbon Reservoirs and Outcrop
CLARKE, S.M., BURLEY, S.D. & WILLIAMS, G.D. 2005. Analogues. International Association of Sedimentolo-
A three-dimensional approach to fault seal analysis: gists, Special Publications, 15, 113–123, https://doi.
fault-block juxtaposition and argillaceous smear model- org/10.1002/9781444303957.ch6
ling. Basin Research, 17, 269–288, https://doi.org/10. MANZOCCHI, T., WALSH, J.J., NELL, P. & YIELDING, G. 1999.
1111/j.1365-2117.2005.00263.x Fault transmissibility multipliers for flow simulation
EDWARDS, H.E., BECKER, A.D. & HOWELL, J.A. 1993. Com- models. Petroleum Geoscience, 5, 53–63, https://doi.
partmentalization of an aeolian sandstone by structural org/10.1144/petgeo.5.1.53
 Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on September 10, 2021

8 S. R. OGILVIE ET AL.

MANZOCCHI, T., HEATH, A.E., PALANANTHAKUMAR, B., Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 50, 363–374, https://
CHILDS, C. & WALSH, J.J. 2008. Faults in conventional doi.org/10.1306/5D25B48F-16C1-
flow simulation models: a consideration of representa- 11D7-8645000102C1 865D
tional assumptions and geological uncertainties. Petro- SPERREVIK, S., GILLESPIE, P.A., FISHER, Q.J., HALVORSEN, T.
leum Geoscience, 14, 91–110, https://doi.org/10. & KNIPE, R.J. 2002. Empirical estimation of fault
1144/1354-079306-775 rock properties. Norwegian Petroleum Society, Special
MANZOCCHI, T., CHILDS, C., ISLAM, M.S., TELLES, I. & Publications, 11, 109–125, https://doi.org/10.1016/
HEATH, A.E. 2017. Representation of small-scale fault S0928-8937(02)80010-8
partitioning in reservoir modelling. In: Handling TORABI, A., ELLINGSEN, T.S.S., JOHANNESSEN, M.U., ALAEI,
Fault Seals, Baffles, Barriers and Conduits: Cost Effec- B., ROTEVATN, A. & CHIARELLA, D. 2019. Fault zone
tive and Integrated Fault Seal Analysis, 15–17 Novem- architecture and its scaling laws: where does the dam-
ber 2017. Geological Society, London (abstract). age zone start and stop? Geological Society, London,
MIOCIC, J.M., JOHNSON, G. & GILFILLAN, S.M.V. 2014. Fault Special Publications, 496, https://doi.org/10.1144/
seal analysis of a natural CO2 reservoir in the Southern SP496-2018-151
North Sea. Energy Procedia, 63, 3364–3370, https:// UNDERHILL, J.R. & WOODCOCK, N.H. 1987. Faulting mech-
doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.365 anisms in high-porosity sandstones; New Red Sand-
MURRAY, T.A., POWER, W.L., JOHNSON, T.J., CHRISTIE, G.J. stone, Arran, Scotland. Geological Society, London,
& RICHARDS, D.R. 2019. Validation and analysis proce- Special Publications, 29, 91–105, https://sp.lyellcollec
dures for juxtaposition and membrane fault seals in tion.org/content/29/1/91
oil and gas exploration. Geological Society, London, VAN OJIK, K., SILVIUS, A., KREMER, Y. & SHIPTON, Z.K.
Special Publications, 496, https://doi.org/10.1144/ 2019. Fault seal behavior in Permian Rotliegend reser-
SP496-2018-171 voir sequences: case studies from the Dutch Southern
NOGUEIRA KIEWIET, M., LIMA, C. ET AL. 2019. An experimen- North Sea. Geological Society, London, Special
tal and numerical investigation of the hydromechanical Publications, 496, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP496-
behavior of carbonate fault zones upon reactivation: the 2018-189
impact of carbonate mud sealing layers and overall VROLIJK, P.J., URAI, J.L. & KETTERMAN, M. 2016. Clay
research outcomes. Geological Society, London, Spe- smear: review of mechanisms and applications. Journal
cial Publications, 496, https://doi.org/10.1144/ of Structural Geology, 86, 95–152, https://doi.org/10.
SP496-2018-153 1016/j.jsg.2015.09.006
NOORSALEHI–GARAKANI, S., KLEIN VENNEKATE, G.J., VRO- WATTS, N.L. 1987. Theoretical aspects of cap-rock and fault
LIJK, P. & URAI, J.L. 2013. Clay-smear continuity and seals for single and two-phase hydrocarbon columns.
normal fault zone geometry – first results from exca- Marine and Petroleum Geology, 4, 274–307, https://
vated sandbox models. Journal of Structural Geology, doi.org/10.1016/0264-8172(87)90008-0
57, 58–80, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2013.09.008 WENNBERG, O.P., CASINI, G., JAHANPANAH, A., LAPPONI, F.,
OGILVIE, S.R., BARR, D., ROYLANCE, P. & DORLING, M. 2015. INESON, J., WALL, B.G. & GILLESPIE, P. 2013. Deforma-
Structural geology and well planning in the Clair Field. tion bands in chalk, examples from the Shetland Group
In: Geological Society, London, Special Publications, of the Oseberg field, North Sea, Norway. Journal of
421, 197–212, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP421.7 Structural Geology, 56, 103–117, https://doi.org/10.
OSMOND, J.L. & MECKEL, T.A. 2019. Enhancing trap and 1016/j.jsg.2013.09.005
fault seal analysis by integrating observations from WILKINS, S.J., DAVIES, R.K. & NARUK, S.J. 2019. Subsurface
HR3D seismic data with well logs and conventional observations of deformation bands and their impact on
3D seismic data, Texas inner shelf. Geological Society, hydrocarbon production within the Holstein Field, Gulf
London, Special Publications, 496, https://doi.org/10. of Mexico, USA. Geological Society, London, Special
1144/SP496-2018-142 Publications, 496, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP496-
PIANE, C.D., BEN CLENNELL, M., KELLER, J.V.A., GIWELLI, A. 2018-139
& LUZIN, V. 2017. Carbonate hosted fault rocks: a YIELDING, G., FREEMAN, B. & NEEDHAM, T. 1997. Quantita-
review of structural and microstructural characteristic tive fault seal prediction. AAPG Bulletin, 81, 897–917,
with implications for seismicity in the upper crust. Jour- https://doi.org/10.1306/522B498D-1727-11D7-8645
nal of Structural Geology, 103, 17–36, https://doi.org/ 000102C1865D
10.1016/j.jsg.2017.09.003 YIELDING, G., BRETAN, P. & FREEMAN, B. 2010. Fault Seal
SCHOWALTER, T.T. 1981. Prediction of caprock seal capac- Calibration: a brief review. Geological Society, Lon-
ity. AAPG, 65, 987–988. don, Special Publications, 347, 243–255, https://doi.
SHIPTON, Z.K., ROBERTS, J.J., COMRIE, E.L., KREMER, Y., org/10.1144/SP347.14
LUNN, R.J. & CAINE, J.S. 2019. Fault fictions: systematic ZILJSTRA, E.B., REEMST, P.H.M. & FISHER, Q.J. 2007.
biases in the conceptualization of fault zone architec- Incorporation of fault properties into production
ture. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, simulation models of Permian reservoirs from the
496, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP496-2018-161 southern North Sea. Geological Society, London, Spe-
SMITH, D.A. 1966. Theoretical consideration of sealing cial Publications, 292, 295–308, https://doi.org/10.
and non-sealing faults. American Association of 1144/SP292.17