Stratigraphic traps, Combination traps - what are they?

Petroleum traps are normally classified as structural traps or stratigraphic traps, and sometimes the
somewhat confusing term ‘combination trap’ is used. The difference between structural and
stratigraphic traps seems easy enough:
• Structural traps are the result of tectonic deformation; usually into an anticlinal shape or a
fault-bounded structure. And they can be very complex structures.
• In stratigraphic traps, HCs are trapped due to lateral facies changes from porous and
permeable reservoir into a sealing lithology.
Definitions of combination traps usually state that these are traps with both a structural and a
stratigraphic component. That is a bit confusing. Most traps that I would consider pure stratigraphic
traps have experienced some deformation. Most stratigraphic traps are (at least) tilted; many are more
strongly deformed. Does that make them combination traps? I think not.
More about combination traps later. I will first focus on stratigraphic traps and different types of
stratigraphic traps.

Stratigraphic trap types

A very comprehensive classification of stratigraphic traps has been made by Allen et al, published in
“The deliberate search for the stratigraphic trap” (2006, Geol. Soc of London); shown directly below.

This classification above is, in my view, far too complex. And it includes traps that I would never refer
to as a stratigraphic trap. For example, a hydrodynamic trap is in my opinion simply a hydrodynamic
trap that has nothing to do with stratigraphic traps. The same can be said about coal bed methane and
gas hydrate. Those types of gas accumulations are best referred to as coal bed methane and gas hydrate
respectively – not as a stratigraphic trap type.
At the same time, I do accept that there are trap types about which there may be some degree of
ambiguity how they should be classified. Does that matter? Maybe not, or maybe only sometimes – it
depends...

Does it matter what type of trap it is?

The question “does it matter” is an important one. By asking that question, we ask why we group traps
into different types. We group many things. If we want to talk about cars, it helps when we say that it
is a Sedan, SUV, Pickup truck, Hatchback, or whatever. We immediately have an impression of the car
when the type is mentioned. All classifications we make should serve a purpose - they must be
informative. It should never become an administrative exercise, blindly following some self-made rules.
In my experience as a pragmatic explorer (I like to think… ), we classify prospects into trap types,
because the name of the trap type tells us something about the attractiveness and/or risks of the prospect.
A simple anticlinal trap is generally a safer bet than a down-faulted trap. A subcrop trap is not the same
as an onlap trap, and different again from a carbonate reef trap. A few of the most common stratigraphic
traps are indicated on the figure below.

Pinch-out Truncation Channel sand Carbonate

trap trap trap Stratigraphic trap

In general, stratigraphic traps are more risky than structural traps because
lateral seal
they need more sealing to work. They do not just need an effective top seal
l (as structural traps do), they also need a seat (or bottom) seal and a lateral
l sea
sea m seal (see the figure to the left).
t op bo
t t o

The extra sealing that stratigraphic traps require for effectively trapping HCs
makes them not only more risky, they are also more difficult to identify than
a simple structural traps. Stratigraphic traps can (generally) not be identified
on ‘just’ a depth contour map of top reservoir. The lateral and seat seals need
to be understood as well. In some cases, the lateral seal carries large uncertainties about both presence
and precise location. In the example above, the lateral termination of the reservoir is very abrupt, as it
is an erosional truncation surface that may be mapped with a good deal of confidence. For pinch out
traps that is different. Pinch outs are normally not very abrupt. The reservoir transitions from good
reservoir poor reservoir very poor reservoir waste zone very poor seal poor seal
effective seal. That transition may occur over some distance. A well that is drilled too far updip, may
not see any reservoir; a well drilled too low, may not see any HCs. Good evidence from a seismic Direct
HC Indicator (DHI) may give some indication as to the precise location of the shale out. But even then,
the DHI may extend into a waste zone, or may not be present where the reservoir becomes very thin.
Identification of stratigraphic traps does require good understanding of the depositional setting of the
reservoir. Otherwise, lateral changes from reservoir into seal may not be correctly interpreted.
A pragmatic definition for stratigraphic traps
Stratigraphic traps are traps that require not only a top seal, but also a seat and/or lateral seal
This definition excludes some trap types from Allen at al’s classification scheme: The buried hill and
depositional mound, for example, can be identified by just mapping top reservoir, and they don’t require
a lateral and/or seat seal. In my view they are best not referred to as stratigraphic traps, as they do not
carry the same risks as ‘normal’ stratigraphic traps.
Not all subcrop traps are stratigraphic traps. If there is a structural closure at the level of the
unconformity, and if the HC-water contact conforms to the normal spill point of that closure, the trap
is a structural one. This may be the case when there is a (thin) permeable lithology directly above the
unconformity, or when the sequences stratigraphically above and/or below the reservoir are not
effective seals.
Carbonate reefs represent an ambiguous case. Reefal porous carbonates pass laterally into off-reef
shales, as shown in figure A below. That would make them stratigraphic traps. However …
We normally do not map the
A B feather edge of the reef. Top
carbonates can generally be
recognised on seismic rather
easily and mapped reefs
often look like the reef of
Figure B. This does give a
wrong impression of the
reef. It is as if the seal is
everywhere younger than the reef, which isn’t really the case, and as if the off-reef sediments must have
been deposited in very deep water, which is not necessarily always true.
Reefs are normally very attractive exploration targets: they have high initial porosity, they form their
own trap as they grow, and they develop in areas with clear water and little clastic input, which makes
that they are surrounded (and often overlain) by hemipelagic shales. Consequently, several of the
essential ingredients of HC accumulations are often automatically present in reefs: reservoir, trap and
seal. Carbonate reefs are therefore much less risky than other stratigraphic traps.
I once saw a study that investigated the rate-of-success achieved with drilling stratigraphic prospects
versus structural prospects. That study concluded that stratigraphic traps are not more risky than
structural traps. What had been done; quite a number of carbonate reef traps had been included as
stratigraphic traps. The risk profile of the group of stratigraphic traps ended up being bimodal: risky
‘real’ stratigraphic traps and attractive carbonate reefs. As a result, on average the rate-of-success for
stratigraphic traps seemed to be the same as for structural traps. This is an example where the formally
correct inclusion of carbonate reefs into the category of stratigraphic traps was not useful. It resulted in
a misleading conclusion: that it would be a myth that stratigraphic traps are more risky than stratigraphic
traps. It is best to refer to carbonate reef traps simply as a separate category. That avoids all
misunderstanding
What is not a stratigraphic trap
Building on the previous, non-stratigraphic (structural) traps are thus traps that:
• Don’t require a seat or lateral seal
• Require a top seal, and possibly a lateral fault seal or sealing lithology across a fault
• Can be identified by mapping top reservoir only
Now, structural traps may have stratigraphic
complications. Reservoir may not be present
everywhere within structural closure. But if the HC-
water contact can be related to a normal spill point of the
structural closure, the trap must surely be structural.
Examples are deep water channel belts crossing an
anticline, such as seen in deep water foldbelts, and also
in the Paleocene Nelson of the North Sea, as shown to
the left.
The Nelson Field is described in the book “the deliberate
search for the stratigraphic trap”, apparently as it was
considered a stratigraphic trap.
In the Nelson field, HCs are produced from channel
sands. The first well on the structure missed the channels
and therefore the field. Only later, when the depositional
setting was understood better, subtle thickness changes
where correctly interpreted as deep-water turbidite
channels. The HC-water contact is the same in all
channels and conforms to structural closure. Apparently thin sands connect the channels (as actually
proven by the first well that missed the well-developed channel sands), and it causes spillage at the
normal spill point of the anticlinal structure.
The Nelson Field is thus a structural trap, with stratigraphic complications. Had there been no lateral
stratigraphic changes, the Nelson field would also have been there, with a HC-water contact at the same
depth controlled by the same structural spill point. With a more continuous reservoir it might even have
been a better field.
What is a Combination Trap?
As stated above, stratigraphic traps almost always did experience some
structural deformation and/or tilting. An example is the Draugen field in
Norwegian waters, shown on the depth map of top reservoir to the left,
where the white line is the outline of the HC-filled reservoir. The field is
on a southward plunging structural nose. The structure is dip-closed to the
south, east and west. To the north the structure is ‘open’. Closure to the
north is provided by a shale out (pinch out) of the Paleocene turbiditic
reservoirs. This makes the Draugen field a stratigraphic trap. Indeed, the
structuration into a structural nose helps, but the stratigraphic closure
makes the trap ‘work’. Without the stratigraphic closure to the north, no
HCs would have been trapped at all.
The fact that the Draugen field is on a structural nose, means that the risky
stratigraphic component of the trap needs to work over only a relatively
short distance in the north of the field. And that is fortunate. But I don’t
think it is helpful to classify this field as a combination trap.

Stratigraphic traps also occur in depositional lows, where reservoir sands may have been ‘ponded’,
pinching out updip. Examples are many fields in the mini basins of the Gulf of Mexico and the Buzzard
Field in the North Sea. In Buzzard, faults have ‘helped’ the trap by providing fault closure in the north
and south of the field. The pure stratigraphic closure (by pinch-out) occurs only to the west. Still, most
everybody would consider Buzzard a real stratigraphic trap. And I agree with that. Without the
stratigraphic closure to the west, no HCs would have been trapped.
The recent successes in the Surinam-Guyana Basin are all stratigraphic traps: base-of-slope turbidite
channel complexes. For those traps to ‘work’, the reservoir sands must be disconnected from updip
feeder channels. Apparently, in the Surinam-Guyana Basin this is the case. Maybe because of a
relatively steep slope that resulted in complete by-pass of the turbidite sands on the slope.
On the other side of the South Atlantic, in the Jubilee Field of Ghana, a little bit of faulting seems to
have helped cutting off (or ‘beheading’), the HC-filled turbidite sands from updip feeder channels. Still,
most people would consider the Jubilee Field also as a pure stratigraphic trap. And so do I – some
degree of pragmatism needs to prevail.

My definition of a Combination Trap

Structural I think it is best to reserve the term combination traps just for
spill-point those structures where the upper part of the HC column is
trapped structurally, and that have a HC column extending
beyond the structural spill- or leak-point because of
stratigraphic change, as shown on the figure to the left. Such
traps are often found because a structural closure was
Extra column, trapped
stratigraphically identified (on a top reservoir map). Finding a longer column
than expected due to the stratigraphic change was then a
pleasant surprise. The risk of a prospect like this simple
example is that of a structural trap. The longer column requiring a stratigraphic trapping component
impacts the potential volumes, not the risk.
Note that it is easy to sketch such a situation in 2D, as I have done here. The trap needs to work, however,
in three dimensions. Envisioning that correctly tends to require quite a bit of mental acrobatics.
In the Draugen example one may argue that part of the HC column is trapped because of the shale-out
of the reservoir to the north, and that a longer column could be trapped only because of the presence of
the structural nose, providing closure to the east, west and south. Without the structural nose a shorter
column would have been trapped. Does that make it also a combination trap? I see the argument for
doing that. However, the pre-drill risk of the prospect was that of a stratigraphic trap. That is the
difference with the combination trap I sketched above, where the pre-drill risk was that of a structural
trap. A correct understanding of the stratigraphic lateral change from reservoir to seal to the north was
essential for understanding the Draugen trap when it was still a prospect. No HCs would have been
trapped at all without that stratigraphic trapping component. Without that understanding, the field might
not even have been drilled. (In fairness, the presence of a rather convincing DHI did play a role...)

In conclusion
Structural traps just need a top seal and/or a fault juxtaposition seal and can be identified simply on a
depth map of top reservoir.
Stratigraphic traps need in addition to a top seal also a lateral seal and/or a seat ((bottom) seal.
Normally they do not stand out on a depth map of top reservoir. More geological (depositional and/or
diagenetic) understanding is normally required to identify them.
The trapping element that causes any HCs to be trapped (or not) is the element that determines whether
it is a structural or stratigraphic trap.
Combination traps are structural traps where the column extends to below structural closure because
of some stratigraphic trapping element. One could say that my proposed use of the term combination
trap makes it a sub-group of structural traps.

I have already mentioned some trap types of the Allen et all stratigraphic classification for which I don’t
think a useful purpose is served by including them into the category of stratigraphic traps (reefs,
depositional mounds, buried hills). What about some other trap types of the scheme by Allen et al?
• The intrusive igneous body is a rather extreme oddball example. I don’t see a pragmatic reason
for including them into the category of stratigraphic traps.
• Dolomitization, cementation and tar seals are all post-depositional. This post-depositional
element provides the lateral seal, but such traps also require a seat seal (when on a flank or
structural nose). As they therefore carry the risks of stratigraphic traps, I would include them
in the category of stratigraphic traps.
• Fractured HC-bearing reservoirs (for example fractured basement) occur mostly on fault-
bounded structural highs. Not in non-deformed sequences as sketched in the Allen et al scheme
(schematically – I do understand that…). If such fractured reservoirs are indeed on a structural
high (I am thinking of, for example, the Bach Ho field in Vietnam), then it is a structural trap
with a difficult reservoir – not a stratigraphic trap.
For all other trap types, in particular the sub-unconformity types, it always needs to be established
whether there is a structural closure at the level of the unconformity; in other words, whether the
reservoir is within structural closure. If there indeed is a structural closure, it is a structural trap (with
reservoir only over part of the structure). I bet that in most companies, management would be more
inclined to drill such a trap when it is correctly classified as a structural trap than when it was presented
as a stratigraphic trap just because the main reservoir is subcropping below an unconformity, which
itself forms a structural closure.