Improving Success of Surface Geochemical Surveys: 7 Pitfalls to Avoid

Abstract

The phenomenon of hydrocarbon microseepage has been well documented, and forms the basis for numerous direct and indirect hydrocarbon detection methods. Over the years, these hydrocarbon exploration surveys have resulted in significant successes and some equally significant apparent failures or disappointments. How can we improve the probability of success of these geochemical and non-seismic hydrocarbon detection surveys? A review of several hundred geochemical surveys identifies seven major pitfalls that contribute to survey failure or interpretation ambiguity. These surveys were conducted in geologically and environmentally diverse settings, and used a variety of survey designs and analytical methods. The seven pitfalls to avoid are the following: 1. Survey objectives poorly defined 2. Improper survey design 3. Too few samples 4. Poor data quality 5. Interpretation errors 6. Absence of good analogs 7. Data integration poor or incomplete For a successful surface geochemical survey one must select the right analytical methods, use proper survey design, calibrate with a good geologic analog or recent discovery, and fully integrate surface and subsurface data. The discovery of a surface geochemical anomaly does not guarantee discovery of commercially significant volumes of hydrocarbons. However, it has been well documented that prospects associated with such hydrocarbon anomalies are 4 to 6 times more likely to result in commercial discoveries than similar prospects lacking such microseepage anomalies.

AAPG Datapages/Search and Discovery Article #90217 © 2015 International Conference & Exhibition, Melbourne, Australia, September 13-16, 2015