Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
    • Journal home
    • Lyell Collection home
    • Geological Society home
  • Content
    • Online First
    • Issue in progress
    • All issues
    • Thematic Collections
    • Supplementary publications
    • Open Access
  • Subscribe
    • GSL fellows
    • Institutions
    • Corporate
    • Other member types
  • Info
    • Authors
    • Librarians
    • Readers
    • GSL Fellows access
    • Other member types access
    • Press office
    • Accessibility
    • Help
    • Metrics
  • Alert sign up
    • eTOC alerts
    • Online First alerts
    • RSS feeds
    • Newsletters
    • GSL blog
  • Submit
  • Geological Society of London Publications
    • Engineering Geology Special Publications
    • Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis
    • Journal of Micropalaeontology
    • Journal of the Geological Society
    • Lyell Collection home
    • Memoirs
    • Petroleum Geology Conference Series
    • Petroleum Geoscience
    • Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society
    • Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology
    • Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society
    • Scottish Journal of Geology
    • Special Publications
    • Transactions of the Edinburgh Geological Society
    • Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow
    • Transactions of the Geological Society of London

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Petroleum Geoscience
  • Geological Society of London Publications
    • Engineering Geology Special Publications
    • Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis
    • Journal of Micropalaeontology
    • Journal of the Geological Society
    • Lyell Collection home
    • Memoirs
    • Petroleum Geology Conference Series
    • Petroleum Geoscience
    • Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society
    • Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology
    • Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society
    • Scottish Journal of Geology
    • Special Publications
    • Transactions of the Edinburgh Geological Society
    • Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow
    • Transactions of the Geological Society of London
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow gsl on Twitter
  • Visit gsl on Facebook
  • Visit gsl on Youtube
  • Visit gsl on Linkedin
Petroleum Geoscience

Advanced search

  • Home
    • Journal home
    • Lyell Collection home
    • Geological Society home
  • Content
    • Online First
    • Issue in progress
    • All issues
    • Thematic Collections
    • Supplementary publications
    • Open Access
  • Subscribe
    • GSL fellows
    • Institutions
    • Corporate
    • Other member types
  • Info
    • Authors
    • Librarians
    • Readers
    • GSL Fellows access
    • Other member types access
    • Press office
    • Accessibility
    • Help
    • Metrics
  • Alert sign up
    • eTOC alerts
    • Online First alerts
    • RSS feeds
    • Newsletters
    • GSL blog
  • Submit

Discussion on ‘Fault seal modelling – the influence of fluid properties on fault sealing capacity in hydrocarbon and CO2 systems’, Petroleum Geoscience, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2019-126

View ORCID ProfileTitus A. Murray and View ORCID ProfileWilliam L. Power
Petroleum Geoscience, 26, 607-609, 22 July 2020, https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2020-061
Titus A. Murray
1Southern Highlands Structural Geology, Bowral, , Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Titus A. Murray
  • For correspondence: titus@shsgeo.com
William L. Power
2Power Geoscience, Perth, , Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for William L. Power
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

This discussion responds to the recent paper by Karolyté et al. (2020), in which strategies for the application of the shale gouge ratio (SGR) algorithm to fault seals in CO2 sequestration are discussed and outlined.

The authors propose that the observed hydrocarbon columns in the Katnook field in South Australia and the Boggy Creek field in Victoria are supported by fault rock seal. Fault rock seal (membrane seal) is thought to arise from a contiguous, fine-grained fault core, forming a capillary barrier for two non-miscible fluids (Yielding et al. 1997). The authors use the inferred hydrocarbon columns and pressures to calibrate and constrain the use of interfacial tension (IFT) and contact angle (CA) data for use in capillary seal calculations to forecast CO2 accumulations.

The authors have not supplied the basic geologic data to support their work, and we question the author's conclusion that fault-rock seal is active in these two fields.

Using the data provided in the paper, we were unable to create Allan maps. The maps provided in figure 2 do not show contours thus we were unable to:

  • tie the maps to the wells

  • use the maps to assess fault geometry and displacement consistency

  • check the Allan Maps that are presented.

Whilst well data have been used, the lack of comprehensive referencing of the data sources make it difficult to:

  • define a stratigraphy

  • review gas water contacts (GWC)

  • define flow units

  • assess VClay for an SGR calculation.

It should be noted that well completion reports and well logs are freely available from the respective state geologic surveys. However, the 3D models that were used to define the fault geometry are not publically available, nor adequately documented in the paper. Despite the lack of data we were able to make some preliminary inferences.

Katnook Field

The Ladbroke Grove growth fault appears to have c. 500 m of throw at the reservoir top. As the reservoir (Pretty Hill) and the top seal (Crayfish Group) are very thick, there will be a reservoir-reservoir juxtaposition across the Ladbroke Grove fault (figure 2c). The author's conclusion that the gas column of 31 m is supported by fault membrane seal is not the only explanation. The vertical seismic resolution is commonly 20–40 m and when convolved with picking uncertainty a significant systematic error is to be expected. In the absence of data and stochastic modelling of the fault geometry (Murray et al. 2019) it is suggested that the GWC could be controlled by a juxtaposition leak point rather than membrane seal. We also draw attention to the study by Boult et al. (2004), which states that the Katnook field is filled to structural spill (table 1 in Boult et al. 2004). These two points draw into question the validity of the author's figure 7 and the ‘first-to-leak-point' analysis.

To support the author's assertions an annotated map that unequivocally ties to the well data and regional fluid contact data is required. Further a quantitative analysis of fault and displacement geometries are needed (Barnett et al. 1987).

There are three additional fault dependent fields in the vicinity of Katnook (Boult et al. 2004). It would be expected that statements regarding fault seal for Katnook should consider consistency across all four fields.

Boggy Creek Field

As with Katnook, the Boggy Creek analysis does not include a structure contour map with posted contours. Neither does it provide stratigraphic/ well log data. We were unable to:

  • check the mapped GWC

  • calculate throw profiles for the Boggy Creek or Buttress faults

  • create Allan maps to determine cross fault juxtaposition.

The authors show the reservoir (Waarre Formation) juxtaposed against the Eumeralla Formation across the Buttress fault, and inferred that fault rock seal supports a 51 m gas column.

A review of the log data from Boggy Creek-1 shows a 60 m penetration of the Eumeralla (Fig. 1). Thus the available log data covers the interval where the authors concluded that a membrane fault seal is active.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Summary log from the Boggy Creek-1 well completion report. Note that the contrast in deep and shallow laterolog resistivity is minimal in the Eumeralla, consistent with very low permeability. We question the interpretation of the Eumeralla as a flow unit necessitating fault rock seal.

The gamma ray for both the Eumeralla Formation and the Belfast Formation (topseal) are similar, and relatively uniform. Also of significance are the deep and shallow laterolog data. In the Eumeralla Formation these are coincident, thus showing no drilling mud infiltration. This observation, in the absence of other data, leads us to consider the Eumeralla a seal facies.

To support the author's assertions properly annotated maps that unequivocally tie to the well data and regional fluid contact data are required. Consistent fault and displacement geometries should be illustrated. There are two other fault dependent fields in the vicinity of Boggy Creek; it would be expected that all the fields be considered. Finally an explanation as to why the Eumeralla should not be a seal and thus require fault rock seal to support a column should be provided.

Summary

Given the lack of maps and stratigraphic data we suggest that the authors have not presented a firm case for fault membrane seal. If membrane fault seal cannot be shown in these fields and the neighboring five fields, the foundation for the main body of work presented is in question, as are the conclusions (see for example the author's figure 8 and the surrounding discussion).

The authors should be commended for developing stochastic methodologies for capillary seal processes. However, we would encourage the use of similar methods to evaluate assumptions of fault membrane seal. Given uncertain data it is important to evaluate a range of solutions rather than the single possibility of fault rock seal. If fault rock seal is not occurring in these fields it is likely the authors have built on a single answer that is precisely wrong.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author contributions

WLP: formal analysis (supporting), software (supporting), validation (equal), writing - original draft (lead), writing - review & editing (lead); TAM: formal analysis (lead), software (lead), validation (equal), writing - original draft (supporting), writing - review & editing (supporting).

Data availability statement

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the Geological Survey of Victoria repository (https://earthresources.vic.gov.au/geology-exploration/maps-reports-data).

  • © 2020 The Author(s). Published by The Geological Society of London for GSL and EAGE. All rights reserved

References

  1. ↵
    1. Barnett, J.,
    2. Mortimer, J.,
    3. Rippon, J.,
    4. Walsh, J.J.
    and Watterson, J. 1987. Displacement geometry in the volume containing a single normal fault. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 71, 925–937.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  2. ↵
    1. Boult, P.J.,
    2. Lyon, P.,
    3. Camac, B.,
    4. Edwards, D.
    and McKirdy, d.M. 2004. Subsurface plumbing of the Crayfish Group in the Penola Trough: Otway Basin. In: Boult, P.J., Johns, D.R. and Lang, S.C. (eds) PESA's Eastern Australasian Basin Symposium II: Conference Proceedings. Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia (PESA), Perth, Western Australia, 14–17.
  3. ↵
    1. Karolyté, R.,
    2. Johnson, G.,
    3. Yielding, G.
    and Gilfillan, S.M.V. 2020. Fault Seal modelling - the influence of fluid properties on fault sealing capacity in hydrocarbon and CO2 systems. Petroleum Geoscience, https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2019-126
  4. ↵
    1. Murray, T.M.,
    2. Power, W.L.,
    3. Johnson, T.J.,
    4. Christie, G.J.
    and Richards, D.R. 2019. Validation and analysis procedures for juxtaposition and membrane fault seals in oil and gas exploration. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 496, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP496-2018-171
  5. ↵
    1. Yielding, G.,
    2. Freeman, B.
    and Needham, D.T. 1997. Quantitative fault seal prediction. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 81, 897–917.
    OpenUrlAbstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Petroleum Geoscience: 26 (4)
Petroleum Geoscience
Volume 26, Issue 4
November 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation tools

Discussion on ‘Fault seal modelling – the influence of fluid properties on fault sealing capacity in hydrocarbon and CO2 systems’, Petroleum Geoscience, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2019-126

Titus A. Murray and William L. Power
Petroleum Geoscience, 26, 607-609, 22 July 2020, https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2020-061
Titus A. Murray
1Southern Highlands Structural Geology, Bowral, , Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Titus A. Murray
  • For correspondence: titus@shsgeo.com
William L. Power
2Power Geoscience, Perth, , Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for William L. Power

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Permissions
View PDF
Share

Discussion on ‘Fault seal modelling – the influence of fluid properties on fault sealing capacity in hydrocarbon and CO2 systems’, Petroleum Geoscience, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2019-126

Titus A. Murray and William L. Power
Petroleum Geoscience, 26, 607-609, 22 July 2020, https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2020-061
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Email to

Thank you for sharing this Petroleum Geoscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Discussion on ‘Fault seal modelling – the influence of fluid properties on fault sealing capacity in hydrocarbon and CO2 systems’, Petroleum Geoscience, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2019-126
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Petroleum Geoscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Petroleum Geoscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Download PPT
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Article
    • Katnook Field
    • Boggy Creek Field
    • Summary
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Similar Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Discussion on ‘A knowledge database of hanging-wall traps that are dependent on fault-rock seal’, Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 496, 209–222, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP496-2018-157
  • ‘A 3D outcrop analogue model for Ypresian nummulitic carbonate reservoirs: Jebel Ousselat, northern Tunisia’ by E. Vennin et al.
Show more: Discussion
  • Most read
  • Most cited
Loading
  • Discussion on ‘Fault seal modelling – the influence of fluid properties on fault sealing capacity in hydrocarbon and CO2 systems’, Petroleum Geoscience, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2019-126
  • Influence of host rock composition on permeability reduction in shallow fault zones – implications for fault seal analysis (Vienna Basin, Austria)
  • Geoscience and decarbonization: current status and future directions
  • Reply to Discussion on ‘A knowledge database of hanging-wall traps that are dependent on fault-rock seal’, Geological Society, London, Special Publication, 496, 209–222, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP496-2018-157
  • Reply to Discussion on ‘Fault seal modelling – the influence of fluid properties on fault sealing capacity in hydrocarbon and CO2 systems’, Petroleum Geoscience, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2019-126
More...

Petroleum Geoscience

  • About the journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Submit a manuscript
  • Author information
  • Supplementary Publications
  • Subscribe
  • Pay per view
  • Alerts & RSS
  • Copyright & Permissions
  • Activate Online Subscription
  • Feedback
  • Help

Lyell Collection

  • About the Lyell Collection
  • Lyell Collection homepage
  • Collections
  • Open Access Collection
  • Open Access Policy
  • Lyell Collection access help
  • Recommend to your Library
  • Lyell Collection Sponsors
  • MARC records
  • Digital preservation
  • Developing countries
  • Geofacets
  • Manage your account
  • Cookies

The Geological Society

  • About the Society
  • Join the Society
  • Benefits for Members
  • Online Bookshop
  • Publishing policies
  • Awards, Grants & Bursaries
  • Education & Careers
  • Events
  • Geoscientist Online
  • Library & Information Services
  • Policy & Media
  • Society blog
  • Contact the Society

 

EAGE logo

Published by The Geological Society of London, registered charity number 210161

Print ISSN 
1354-0793
Online ISSN 
2041-496X

Copyright © 2021 EAGE/Geological Society of London