Datapages, Inc.Print this page

Click to view presentation in PDF format.

 

Analyzing Reservoir Architecture of Isolated Carbonate Platforms*

By

Phillip Bassant1 and Paul M. (Mitch) Harris1

 

Search and Discovery Article #40295 (2008)

Posted August 7, 2008

 

*Adapted from oral presentation at AAPG Annual Convention, Calgary, Alberta, June 16-19, 2005. See companion article, “Modeling Reservoir Architecture of Isolated Carbonate Platforms,” Search and Discovery Article #40294 (2008).

Click to view list of articles adapted from presentations by P.M. (Mitch) Harris or by his co-workers and him at AAPG meetings from 2000 to 2008.

 

1 Chevron Energy Technology Company, San Ramon, California, USA ([email protected]om; [email protected])

 

Abstract

Forward stratigraphic modeling of a conceptual isolated carbonate platform produces four distinct depositional profiles, determined essentially by water depth, with characteristic facies belt dimensions and lateral relationships. Profile A (shallowest) shows a grainstone shoal margin on the high-energy edge of the platform, 250-500 m wide, with a raised rim and shallow platform interior dominated by packstones. Profile B also shows a high-energy grainstone rim, 500-1000 m wide with no significant margin relief, and a platform interior dominated by packstones. Profile C occurs in a deeper bathymetric setting; high-energy conditions flood the platform, and platform-centered grainstone shoals develop with widths of 2000 – 5000 m. Profile D (deepest profile) has deeper water packstones developed across the platform top, with no grainstone development.

In an aggrading platform with only monotonous sea-level rise and no sea-level cyclicity, only profile B develops. This is the stable-state for platform-growth in this model. During sea-level stillstands, profile A will eventually develop. During a deepening sequence, profiles B, C, and D develop in rapid succession prior to final drowning. Profiles C and D can be considered transient or unstable states, as their productivity rates are too low to keep up with sea-level rise, and thus are rare during times of monotonous sea-level rise. However, when sea-level cycles are introduced unstable profiles C and D may dominate the platform. Grainstones (profile C) or packstones (profile D) can dominate platform-top deposition throughout the cycle, with abrupt shallowing to the raised grainstone rim (profile A) occurring at maximum sea-level fall.

The depositional profiles described above have characteristic facies belt dimensions, geometries, facies-proportions and stratigraphic occurrences. These simulations help to predict facies belt geometries and constrain facies belt dimensions for isolated platform reservoirs found in the Caspian Basin.

 

uAbstract

uFigures

uConclusions

uReference

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

uAbstract

uFigures

uConclusions

uReference

 

 

Conclusions

1. N-G increases with increased accommodation rate (up to drowning threshold).

2. The simulator produces a limited number of depositional profiles (solutions) showing variations in reservoir distribution.

3. Even a simple simulation resembles reality.

4. Bathymetry alone will not uniquely define the depositional profile for a given system: multiple possibilities exist (partially dependent on rate).

5. Interpreted SB & MFS positions relative to accommodation cycle changes with cycle amplitude.

 

Reference

Weber, L.J., B.P. Francis, P.M. Harris, and M. Clark, 2003, Stratigraphy, lithofacies, and reservoir distribution, Tengiz field, Kazakhstan: Permo-Carboniferous Carbonate Platforms and Reefs, SEPM Special Publication 78, p. 351-394.

Return to top.