A new workflow is presented here combining temporal analysis of fault seal capacity with a newly developed method of determining the uncertainties associated with fault seal studies. Recognised uncertainties in the geometry of geological models and in lithological data used for fault seal calculations are combined and possible deviations due to these uncertainties are run as a Monte Carlo simulation. Results enable quantification of all possible fault seal parameters. Temporal fault seal studies utilising structural restoration techniques to examine geological model configuration, and resultant fault seal throughout the history of hydrocarbon movement in the subsurface is also carried out. Incorporating our newly developed uncertainty modelling workflow with temporal fault seal modelling greatly reduces the risk inherent in resource definition which is dependent on faults for migration/seal. A number of global datasets are utilised to highlight the efficacy of this workflow combination, with this abstract focussing on the Cape Egmont Fault, Taranaki Basin, New Zealand.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Akamine, J., and Caers, J.
    [2007] A workflow to account for uncertainty in well-log data in 3D geostatistical reservoir modelling, Stanford Center for Reservoir Forecasting, Stanford, CA.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Allan, U.S.
    [1989] Model for hydrocarbon migration and entrapment within faulted structures. AAPG bulletin, 73(7), 803–811.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Fulljames, J. R., Zijerveld, L. J. J. & Franssen, R. C. M. W.
    [1997] Fault seal processes: systematic analysis of fault seals over geological and production time scales. In: Moller-Pedersen, P. & Koestler, A. G. (eds)Hydrocarbon Seals, Importance for Exploration and production. Norwegian Petroleum Society, Special Publication, 7, 51–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Gibbs, A. D.
    [1983] Balanced cross-section construction from seismic sections in areas of extensional tectonics. Journal of structural geology, 5(2), 153–160.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Lindsay, N. G., Murphy, F. C., Walsh, J. J., Watterson, J., Flint, S., & Bryant, I.
    [1993] Outcrop studies of shale smears on fault surfaces. The geological modelling of hydrocarbon reservoirs and outcrop analogues, 15, 113–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Manzocchi, T., Walsh, J.J., Nell, P. and Yielding, G.
    [1999] Fault transmissibility multipliers for flow simulation models. Petroleum Geoscience, 5(1), pp.53–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Reilly, C., Nicol, A., Walsh, J. J., & Kroeger, K. F.
    [2016] Temporal changes of fault seal and early charge of the Maui Gas-condensate field, Taranaki Basin, New Zealand. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 70, 237–250.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Sclater, J. G., and Christie, P. A.
    [1980] Continental stretching: An explanation of the post-mid-Cretaceous subsidence of the central North Sea basin. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 85(B7), 3711–3739.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Verrall, P.
    [1981] Structural interpretation with application to North Sea problems. Geological Society Course Notes, No. 3, Lectures 13-27.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Withjack, M. O. and Peterson, E. T.
    [1993] Prediction of normal-fault geometries--a sensitivity analysis. AAPG Bulletin77,(1) 1860–1873.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Yielding, G., Freeman, B., & Needham, D. T.
    (1997). Quantitative fault seal prediction. AAPG bulletin, 81(6), 897–917.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error