Workflows for Fault Seal Prediction in Siliciclastics and Carbonates*

Graham Yielding1, Emma Michie1, Pete Bretan1, and Quentin Fisher2

Search and Discovery Article #41821 (2016)**

Posted June 27, 2016

*Adapted from oral presentation given at AAPG/EAGE Hydrocarbon Seals of the Middle East, January 18-20, 2016, Muscat, Oman
**Datapages © 2016 Serial rights given by author. For all other rights contact author directly.
1
Badley Geoscience Ltd, Lincolnshire, United Kingdom (graham@badleys.co.uk)
2
Univeristy of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom

Abstract

Fault-bound traps represent an important class of hydrocarbon-bearing structure. Whether a fault can seal hydrocarbons on a geological
timescale may be controlled by one or more of three conditions: (1) whether the fault slip has juxtaposed reservoir against sealing intervals, (2)
whether the fault slip has created new fault rock with sealing capability where reservoir is juxtaposed against reservoir, and (3) whether the in
situ stress state is conducive to up-fault leakage out of the trap. A key first step in evaluating these conditions is a structurally-robust
interpretation of the sub-surface geometry of the reservoir layers and the faults. A three-dimensional framework model should be constructed
where fault-fault and horizon-fault intersections are built in a way that honours established structural-geological rules, particularly in regard to
fault geometry and displacement patterns. If reservoir-reservoir juxtapositions occur, the fault displacement and stratigraphic profile can be
used together to estimate the nature of the fault-rock which might be present.

In reservoir-shale sequences, clay smears provide a mechanism to introduce sealing material between juxtaposed reservoirs. A variety of
predictive techniques have been developed for clay smears, all dependent in some way on the number and thickness of clay beds in the faulted
section and the amount of fault displacement. In shale-poor sequences, whether siliciclastic or carbonate, the stress and temperature conditions
during and after faulting play an important part. In intra-sandstone faults, the processes of cataclasis and diagenetic overprinting are now well
understood, but only now is comparable progress being made to determine permeability behaviour in intra-carbonate faults. Routine prediction
of fault transmissibilities in carbonate reservoirs is the goal of this research.

References Cited

Allan, U.S., 1989, Model for hydrocarbon migration and entrapment within faulted structures: AAPG Bulletin, v. 73, p. 803-811.

Aydin, A., and Y. Eyal, 2002, Anatomy of a normal fault with shale smear: Implications for fault seal: AAPG Bulletin, v. 86, p. 1367-1381.
Childs, C., J. Watterson, and J.J. Walsh, 1997, Complexity in fault zone structure and implications for fault seal prediction, in P. Møller-
Pedersen and A.G. Koestler, eds., Hydrocarbon Seals: Importance for Exploration and Production, Norwegian Petroleum Society (NPF)
Special Publication 7, p. 61-72, Elsevier, Singapore.

Faerseth, R.B., 2006, Shale smear along large faults: Continuity of smear and the fault seal capacity: J. Geol. Soc. London, v. 163, p. 741-752.

Fossen, H., and R.H. Gabrielsen, 2005, Strukturgeologi, Fagbokforlaget, 369 p.

Fossen, H., R.A. Schultz, Z.K., Shipton, and K. Mair, 2007, Deformation bands in sandstone: a review: J. Geol. Soc. London, v. 164, p. 755-
769.

Lindsay, N.G., F.C. Murphy, J.J. Walsh, and J. Watterson, 1993, Outcrop studies of shale smear on fault surfaces: Spec. Publ. Int. Ass.
Sediment, v. 15, p. 113-123.

Manzocchi, T., A.E. Heath, J.J. Walsh, and C. Childs, 2002, The representation of two phase fault-rock properties in flow simulation models:
Petroleum Geoscience, v. 8, p. 119-132.

Michine, E.A.H., 2015, Influence of host lithofacies on fault rock variation in carbonate fault zones: A case study from the Island of Malta:
Journal Structural Geology, v. 76, p. 61-79.

Solum, J.G., 2015, Static and dynamic fault seal potential in carbonates: Fourth EAGE International Conference on fault and top seals,
Alméria, Spain, September 20-24.

Sperrevik, S., P.A. Gillespie, Q.J. Fisher, T. Halvorsen, and R.J. Knipe, 2002, Empirical estimation of fault rock properties, in A.G. Koestler
and R. Hunsdale, eds., Hydrocarbon Seal Quantification, NPF Special Publication 11, p. 109-125, Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Takahashi, M., 2003, Permeability change during experimental fault smearing: J. Geophys. Res., v. 108/B5, ECV 1, p. 1-15.

Tueckmantel, C., Q.J. Fisher, R.J. Knipe, H. Lickorish, and S.M. Khalil, 2010, Fault seal prediction of seismic-scale normal faults in porous
sandstone: A case study from the eastern Gulf of Suez rift, Egypt: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 27, p. 334-350.

Vrolijk, P., J.L. Urai, and M. Kettermann, 2015, Clay smear: Review of mechanisms and applications, Journal of Structural Geology, doi:
10.1016/j.jsg.2015.09.006.

Yielding, G., B. Freeman, and T. Needham, 1997, Quantitative fault seal prediction: AAPG Bulletin, v. 81, p. 897-917.
Workflows for Fault Seal Prediction in
Siliciclastics and Carbonates.

Graham Yielding,
Emma Michie, Pete Bretan, Quentin Fisher*

*University of Leeds

Carbonate
Fault Rocks
Consortium
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for financial and technical support, recent
and present, from the following organisations:

Carbonate
Fault Rocks
Consortium
 How does a fault seal?
Sealing units are juxtaposed against the reservoir
The subsurface structural framework is critical to the first-order control
of the potential connections across fault surfaces, visualized in Allan
Diagrams.

OR

Fault processes have created a seal

The fault-zone rock-type depends upon the composition of the faulted
sequence, and the burial/temperature history during and after faulting.

AND

Fault has not been reactivated or critically stressed

Assess the risk of fault reactivation in terms of in-situ stresses and
rock properties.
 How does a fault seal?
Shale
Juxtaposition Seal
(sand against shale)
Sand
Sand
Fault-rock Seal
Shale
(dominated by the
properties of the
Sand fault zone)

Shale Fault Reactivation

(dominated by
Sand stress field & fault
Shale
orientation)
 How does a fault seal?
Sealing units are juxtaposed against the reservoir
The subsurface structural framework is critical to the first-order control
of the potential connections across fault surfaces, visualized in Allan
Diagrams.
OR

Fault processes have created a seal

The fault-zone rock-type depends upon the composition of the faulted
sequence, and the burial/temperature history during and after faulting.
AND

Fault has not been reactivated or critically stressed

Assess the risk of fault reactivation in terms of in-situ stresses and
rock properties.
 Juxtaposition analysis
The basic tool of juxtaposition analysis is the Allan diagram, which is
a fault-plane section (strike projection) illustrating the stratigraphy
brought into contact at the fault plane (after Allan 1989).

upthrown

The Allan diagram shows

reservoir intervals on each side
of the fault.

Non-reservoir intervals are

typically left blank.
downthrown

re-drawn from Allan (1989)

Making a structural framework model
fault
surface
faults

horizons

3D fault horizon
polygons picks
3D fault polygons
Fault polygons are computed in 3D as the intersection lines between the
fault surface and adjacent parts of the horizon surface.
Importance of mapping faults in 3D

Reservoir horizon mapped around 2 The E-W fault is continuous, offsetting the N-S fault
crossing faults. Faults form the side-seals
into two. to traps –
mapping the
What is the age/geometrical faults The
relationship is essential to define
NW and SE blocks connect (NE/SW blocks do
of the faults? not)
the This
traps.
relationship is very difficult to see in map or
Fault-block connectivity?
section, but is obvious in 3D.
 How does a fault seal?
Sealing units are juxtaposed against the reservoir
The subsurface structural framework is critical to the first-order control
of the potential connections across fault surfaces, visualized in Allan
Diagrams.

OR

Fault processes have created a seal

The fault-zone rock-type depends upon the composition of the faulted
sequence, and the burial/temperature history during and after faulting.
AND

Fault has not been reactivated or critically stressed

Assess the risk of fault reactivation in terms of in-situ stresses and
rock properties.
 Fault rocks

Interbedded reservoirs and clays/shales

Clay smears, shaly gouge

Sandstone reservoirs Carbonate reservoirs

Disaggregation zones, Breccias, cataclasites,
cataclasites recrystallised
 Clay smears
Observations of real and synthetic shale smears suggest
that smears become discontinuous (i.e. non-sealing) at
Throw/Thickness (Shale Smear Factor SSF) ~4-8.
(e.g. Lindsay et al 1993, Aydin & Eyal 2002, Takahashi 2003, Faerseth 2006).

Data from
Takahashi (2003),
Childs et al (2007).

•Continuous •Discontinuous
smear smear

Triaxial lab
tests,
Takahashi
(2003)
throw
thickness
 Upscaling clay smears
Shale Gouge
Ratio
Throw, t • Shale Smear Factor describes the
Shale
observed seal/leak potential of individual
Sand
clay or shale beds, but is less easy to
apply in a multi-layer sequence.
• A more pragmatic approach is ‘Shale
The ‘slipped
Vcl5, Δz5 Gouge Ratio’ (SGR) which is notionally
interval’ is the rock the upscaled clay content of the faulted
sequence that has Slipped
slipped past the Vcl4, Δz4
interval (t) sequence.
calculation point
(red dot). Its Vcl3, Δz3
• In simple sequences, SGR is the
thickness equals
the throw.
Vcl2, Δz2
Vcl1, Δz1 reciprocal of SSF. A seal threshold of
Yielding et al (1997) SGR~20% is often observed,
Yielding (2012) corresponding to SSF~5.
• Stochastic modelling of more complex
sand-shale sequences suggests that SGR
approximates the behaviour of multiple
breached clay smears.
 Fault rocks in clean sands
Disaggregation
Cataclasites
zones

Incr. displ.
lower perm.

Reservoir Small flt Large flt

Fault-rock properties depend on
• fault displacement
• depth of burial during faulting
• burial depth (temp.) after faulting
From Sperrevik et al (2002), Fossen &
Gabrielsen (2005), Fossen et al (2007),
Tueckmantel et al (2010)
Fault seal, static vs dynamic

from Manzocchi et al (2002), re-drawn by Vrolijk et al (2015)

Workflows for siliciclastic sequences
Trap Analysis for Exploration

Vshale
Capillary Thr. Pressure (bars)
Column height (m)

2km
geohistory
0 100%
Throw
(max ~150m) Shale Gouge Ratio (SGR)

Shale Gouge Ratio (%clay in fault)

 Predicting column heights: Trap Analysis
with multiple faults in framework model

3D horizon structure, and

top-reservoir spill points.

With multiple faults, different parts of several faults need to be tested against several
different potential spill points defined by the top-reservoir structure.
 Predicting column heights: Trap Analysis
with multiple faults in framework model

Predicted contact
shallower than spill
Column
height (m) point. Column in
Black arrow = fault leak point (supports a column with shallower contact relative to
trap is dependent
the structural spill points) on fault seal
Orange surface = Extent of accumulation (~trap fill) supported by fault seal

Dashed line = predicted hydrocarbon contact

 Workflows for siliciclastic sequences
Fault Transmissibilities for Production

Fault-rock permeability (mD)

geohistory

Shale Gouge Ratio

(from Vshale and throw)

Computation of fault transmissibility multipliers can be performed at all faulted

connections in a simulation model, based on geological cell properties such as
Vshale and permeability. This workflow is now well established in clastics.
 Fault rocks in carbonates
• In principle, fault seal prediction in carbonate-dominated rocks can be
approached in the same way as for quartz-rich sandstones.
• However, calcite differs in its rheology and solubility, being much more
reactive at low temperatures.
• Cementation is common at shallow burial depths, leading to embrittlement
and fracturing.
• This behaviour reduces the chances of long-term static seal, but low-
permeability fault rocks are likely to be a key component of carbonate
reservoirs.

Carbonate
fields review,
from Solum
(2015)
 Carbonate Fault Rock Microstructures
Examples….

• Grain-dominated carbonates deform on the

grain-scale, breaking down individual fossil
clasts creating fault rocks such as
protocataclasites and cataclasites.

• Micrite-dominated carbonates disperse the

deformation such that fractures dominate, to
break up the rock into a variety of different
breccia types.

Overprinting mechanisms also occur:

• recrystallisation by mechanical e-twinning (micrite-
dominated carbonates),
• cementation by aggrading neomorphism (grain-
dominated carbonates),
from Michie (2015) • fracturing (micrite- and grain-dominated carbonates).
Carbonate Fault Rock – Displacement control
Low displacements.
12 m throw
• Limited variety of fault-rock development
• Fault-rock type mainly controlled by self-
juxtaposed lithofacies
• However, at juxtapositions of different
lithofacies, the stronger lithofacies (grain-
dominated carbonate) dominates.
• Low fault-rock permeabilities.

High displacements.
90 m throw
• Wider variety of fault-rock development as
higher strain and more facies mixing forms
more complex fault rocks.
• Fault-rock types mainly controlled by
juxtaposed lithofacies.
• Wider range of fault-rock permeabilities.

Examples from Malta, Michie (2015)

Carbonate Fault Rock – Displacement control
results from slip surfaces juxtaposing different lithofacies • The temporal evolution of fault
12 m 90 m rocks influences the
petrophysical properties of the
fault core.
• (a) Less lithofacies mixing (at
lower displacements) creates
fewer fault rock types, all with
similar low permeabilities.
• (b) The increased complexities
in fault rock microstructures at
higher displacements create a
larger range of permeabilities,
with a higher mean.
• Evolution of fault rock, therefore,
creates a low-perm fault core at
lower displacements, evolving to
a higher permeability fault core
at higher displacements.
• This behaviour contrasts with
sandstone fault-rock.
Fault transmissibility multipliers, 0-60 m displacement

Micrite
Grain-dom.

Lowest fault-rock perm: micrite/micrite

Highest fault-rock perm: micrite/grain, high displ.

Medium fault-rock perm: grain/grain

• Highest fault transmissibility multipliers (red) on large-

displacement faults juxtaposing different lithofacies.

• Small multipliers (reduced flow) on self-juxtapositions.

These relationships are the

opposite of those seen in
sandstone reservoirs.
 Ongoing research – Carbonate Fault Rock project
• We have begun a systematic sampling programme of carbonate fault-rocks from a wide
variety of lithofacies and a variety of tectonic environments.
• The fault-rock samples are being analyzed in the state-of-the-art Wolfson Multiphase
Flow Laboratory, Leeds University.
• Producing carbonate fields will be re-examined to better understand the role of faults.
• The new-found relationships will be used to develop the first software tool for the
prediction of fault transmissibilities in carbonate reservoirs.

• Faults in carbonates are often thought to be mainly conduits due to their brittle nature
• Field work as part of the CFR project suggests however that:
– Low permeability fault rocks are extremely common
– Chemical reactivity of carbonates results in rapid healing even after fault reactivation
(unlike siliciclastics)
– Faults appear to stop fracture propagation so open fractures may not link across the
faults
 Conclusions
• Structurally-robust subsurface mapping of faults and reservoirs is an
essential first step in fault-seal analysis.
• When clay/shale beds are present, clay smears tend to dominate the
seal/leak behaviour of the faults.
• SGR (Shale Gouge Ratio) provides a pragmatic way of predicting the
fault seal potential for an assemblage of clay smears on a fault
surface.
• Trap Analysis in 3 dimensions is a preferred workflow to determine
probable trap fill in a multiply-faulted prospect.
• In both clean sandstones and carbonates, fault-rock properties are
strongly controlled by different aspects of geohistory, including
lithofacies, stress, temperature and fault displacement.
• Our current work aims to better understand the controls on carbonate
fault-rock permeability, in order to populate fault transmissibilities in
production models in carbonate reservoirs.