Hubbry Logo
Petroleum trapPetroleum trapMain
Open search
Petroleum trap
Community hub
Petroleum trap
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Petroleum trap
Petroleum trap
Petroleum trap
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Fault trap

In petroleum geology, a trap is a geological structure affecting the reservoir rock and caprock of a petroleum system allowing the accumulation of hydrocarbons in a reservoir. Traps can be of two types: stratigraphic or structural. Structural traps are the most important type of trap as they represent the majority of the world's discovered petroleum resources.[1][2]

Structural traps

[edit]
Structural traps
Structural trap in an anticline.
Structural trap along a fault plane.
yellow: reservoir rock; green: cap rock; red: hydrocarbons (within reservoir rock)

A structural trap is a type of geological trap that forms as a result of changes in the structure of the subsurface, due to tectonic, diapiric, gravitational, and compactional processes.[3][4]

Anticlinal trap

[edit]
Anticlinal trap

An anticline is an area of the subsurface where the strata have been pushed into forming a domed shape. If there is a layer of impermeable rock present in this dome shape, then water-insoluble hydrocarbons can accumulate at the crest until the anticline is filled to the spill point (the highest point where hydrocarbons can escape the anticline).[5][6] This type of trap is by far the most significant to the hydrocarbon industry. Anticline traps are usually long oval domes of land that can often be seen by looking at a geological map or by flying over the land.

Fault trap

[edit]
Fault trap

A fault trap is formed by the movement of permeable and impermeable layers of rock along a fault plane. The permeable reservoir rock faults such that it is adjacent to an impermeable rock, preventing hydrocarbons from further migration.[7][6] In some cases, there can be an impermeable substance along the fault surface (such as clay) that also acts to prevent migration. This is known as clay smear.

Stratigraphic trap

[edit]
Stratigraphic trap
Stratigraphic trap under an unconformity.
Stratigraphic trap in a coral reef (reservoir rock) sealed in mudstones (caprock).
Stratigraphic trap associated with an evaporite diapir (pink).
blue: source rock; yellow: reservoir rock; green: cap rock; red: hydrocarbons

In a stratigraphic trap, the geometry allowing the accumulation of hydrocarbons is of sedimentary origin and has not undergone any tectonic deformation. Such traps can be found in clinoforms, in a pinching-out sedimentary structure, under an unconformity or in a structure created by the creep of an evaporite.

Salt dome trap

[edit]
Salt dome trap

In a salt dome trap, masses of salt are pushed up through clastic rocks due to their greater buoyancy, eventually breaking through and rising towards the surface. This salt mass resembles an impermeable dome, and when it crosses a layer of permeable rock, in which hydrocarbons are migrating, it blocks the pathway in much the same manner as a fault trap.[8][6] This is one of the reasons why there is significant focus on subsurface salt imaging, despite the many technical challenges that accompany it.

Pinch-out trap

[edit]
Pinch-out trap

Pinch-out traps are stratigraphic traps in which the petroleum reservoir thins around impermeable rock strata and eventually 'pinches out' with impermeable rock strata on either side, creating a trap.[6][9]

Hybrid trap

[edit]
Hybrid trap formed by the mudstone draping of tilted blocks

Hybrid traps are the combination of two types of traps. In the case of tilted blocks, the initial reservoir geometry is the one of a fault-controlled structural trap, but the caprock is generally made by the draping sedimentation of mudstones during the oceanisation process.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Petroleum trap

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A petroleum trap is a geological structure consisting of a porous rock overlain by an impermeable cap rock or seal that prevents the upward migration of hydrocarbons, allowing oil and to accumulate in commercially viable quantities. In the petroleum system, traps are one of the essential elements—alongside source rocks, migration pathways, and rocks—that enable the formation of hydrocarbon accumulations suitable for and production. Traps form through a variety of geological processes, primarily involving structural deformation or stratigraphic variations in sedimentary basins. Structural traps arise from tectonic forces that , fault, or intrude rocks, creating barriers to movement; common examples include , where hydrocarbons pool at the crest of an upfolded layer beneath an impermeable seal, and fault traps, where displacement juxtaposes permeable rock against impermeable layers. represent the most prevalent type of structural trap, often spanning several miles and hosting major fields, such as the El Dorado anticline in , which has produced over 300 million barrels of . Salt domes, another structural variant, occur when buoyant salt layers pierce overlying sediments, forming traps prevalent in regions like the . Stratigraphic traps, in contrast, result from changes in rock properties or depositional environments rather than deformation, such as pinch-outs where layers thin to zero thickness or unconformities where creates an impermeable overlay on a . These traps often involve buildups or sands sealed by shales, and they can be more subtle and challenging to identify than structural ones. Many productive fields combine both structural and stratigraphic elements, enhancing trap integrity and volume. The effectiveness of a trap depends on its timing relative to generation and migration, as well as the quality of the seal to withstand from buoyant fluids over millions of years. Without a trap, hydrocarbons would escape to the surface, rendering accumulations non-viable; thus, identifying and characterizing traps through seismic imaging and geological modeling is fundamental to success.

Fundamentals of Petroleum Traps

Definition and Mechanism

A petroleum trap is a geological configuration consisting of a porous rock containing hydrocarbons that is overlain or surrounded by impermeable rock layers or other barriers, preventing the further migration and escape of and gas. This arrangement allows for the accumulation of hydrocarbons in commercially viable quantities by halting their upward movement. The concept was concisely defined by A.I. Levorsen as "the place where oil and gas are barred from further movement," emphasizing the role of geometric in trapping. The mechanism of trapping begins with hydrocarbon generation in source rocks, followed by migration driven primarily by due to the lower of and gas compared to . Primary migration involves the expulsion of newly formed hydrocarbons from the compact source rock into adjacent carrier beds, often facilitated by increased from compaction and thermal maturation, which creates micro-fractures. Secondary migration then occurs as these hydrocarbons, traveling as droplets or a continuous phase through permeable carrier beds saturated with , rise buoyantly until they encounter an impermeable seal. in the finer pores of the seal rock resists entry, while pressure gradients and forces promote separation, with gas accumulating above and both above in the due to differences. The recognition of petroleum traps emerged in the 19th century amid early oil explorations, notably following Drake's 1859 well in , which marked the start of commercial production and highlighted structural controls on accumulation. The anticlinal theory, proposed by T. Sterry Hunt in 1861 and later advanced by I.C. White in the 1880s, provided the foundational understanding that hydrocarbons accumulate in structural highs, leading to broader trap concepts by the early .

Key Components

A petroleum trap requires several essential geological components to effectively accumulate and retain hydrocarbons, driven by buoyancy forces that cause oil and gas to migrate upward until impeded. The primary elements include a rock for storage, a seal to prevent escape, and a specific to close migration pathways. The rock serves as the porous and permeable medium where hydrocarbons are stored and can flow. Common examples include and , which must exhibit sufficient —typically ranging from 10% to 30%—to hold significant volumes of oil or gas, and permeability, often measured in millidarcies (md), to allow extraction. represents the fraction of void space in the rock, directly determining storage capacity, while permeability quantifies the ease of fluid movement through interconnected pores, with viable reservoirs generally exceeding 1 md. These properties are influenced by , sorting, and diagenetic processes, ensuring economic viability only when both are adequately developed. The seal, or cap rock, is an impermeable layer overlying the that blocks upward migration. Typical materials include and evaporites, such as , which have low permeability due to fine-grained textures or mineralogy that minimizes pore connectivity. Seal integrity depends on thickness—often tens to hundreds of meters—and lateral continuity, as thinner or discontinuous seals risk leakage under pressure differentials. Effective seals maintain high entry pressures, preventing hydrocarbons from entering their pores. Trap geometry defines the three-dimensional configuration that physically encloses the hydrocarbons, preventing lateral or vertical escape. This can involve structural closure, where deformation creates an updip barrier, or stratigraphic pinch, where layers taper to zero thickness against impermeable strata. The geometry determines the trap's spill point—the lowest elevation at which hydrocarbons can be retained—limiting overall capacity. Additional elements critical to trap functionality include overburden and timing. Overburden consists of the overlying rock layers that exert lithostatic , compacting the reservoir and aiding fluid retention. Timing ensures hydrocarbons migrate into the trap before any seal breach or structural disruption occurs, preserving the accumulation. Trap capacity is ultimately constrained by the spill point, beyond which excess hydrocarbons overflow. Faults within traps can influence sealing by acting either as barriers or conduits for hydrocarbons. In general, fault seal effectiveness depends on factors like clay content in the fault gouge, which increases sealing potential, and the juxtaposition of permeable and impermeable layers across the fault plane. Principles such as gouge ratio—estimating the percentage of in the fault zone—help predict whether a fault will impede or permit migration, though actual behavior varies with stress and fluid pressures.

Structural Traps

Anticlinal Traps

Anticlinal traps form through tectonic compression that causes upward arching of sedimentary strata into dome-like structures, trapping hydrocarbons beneath an impermeable seal. This process is prevalent in fold-thrust belts where horizontal stresses from plate convergence deform rock layers, creating broad anticlines that act as reservoirs for oil and gas. In regions like the of , such compression during the has generated large "whaleback" anticlines that host significant petroleum accumulations. The geometry of an anticlinal trap features a four-way dip closure, where strata dip outward from a central crest, allowing hydrocarbons to migrate upward via and accumulate at the highest point beneath the seal. The spill point, defined as the lowest elevation on the trap's periphery where hydrocarbons can overflow, limits the volume of the accumulation and occurs along the horizontal contour at the base of the structural closure. Effective seals in these traps typically consist of overlying shales or evaporites that drape conformably over the arched rocks, preventing vertical migration of fluids. Shales provide common low-permeability barriers, while evaporites offer superior sealing due to their and resistance to fracturing. Prominent examples include the Prudhoe Bay field in , a giant anticlinal trap on the Barrow Arch with an original of approximately 25 billion barrels and recoverable reserves of about 13 billion barrels in Permo-Triassic sands (original estimates), and the Salt Creek field in , one of the state's earliest and most productive anticlines formed by Laramide compression. These structures are advantageous for exploration because their surface expressions as anticlines are readily detectable through geological mapping and seismic surveys, often leading to higher success rates compared to more subtle trap types. The simplicity of their and potential for large volumes further enhance their economic viability in compressional sedimentary basins.

Fault Traps

Fault traps form through tectonic movements that displace rock layers along fault planes, creating barriers to hydrocarbon migration when a permeable reservoir rock is juxtaposed against an impermeable layer. These traps can develop via , reverse, or strike-slip faults, where sealing occurs if materials such as clay smears—generated by the ductile deformation and injection of into the fault zone—or cataclasites, formed by the crushing and of brittle rocks, accumulate along the fault plane to reduce permeability. The process typically results from extensional, compressional, or shear stresses during basin evolution, displacing strata to position reservoir sands against shales or other low-permeability units. In terms of geometry, fault traps rely on juxtaposition seals, either lateral or up-dip, where hydrocarbons accumulate against the fault plane, often enhanced by the structural dip of the that directs fluids toward the seal. Effective sealing requires sufficient fault throw—the vertical offset—to exceed the thickness of the unit, ensuring no direct communication between permeable layers across the fault; throws less than reservoir thickness may allow leakage. This configuration traps oil or gas in the hanging wall or footwall block, with the fault acting as the primary barrier, sometimes in interaction with the overlying seal to prevent vertical migration. Seal quality in fault traps is often assessed using the shale gouge ratio (SGR), a that estimates the volume percentage of within the fault zone based on the fraction in the deforming layers and the fault throw. Developed as a predictive tool, SGR values above 20% typically indicate potential sealing due to the incorporation of phyllosilicates that form low-permeability fault rock, with higher ratios correlating to better seal capacity in clastic sequences. This method integrates structural data from seismic interpretations to model fault rock composition and permeability reduction. A prominent example is the Brent field in the northern , where normal faults in the Brent Group sands create tilted fault-block traps that juxtapose permeable against shales, holding significant oil accumulations. In this field, fault throws of several hundred meters exceed reservoir thicknesses, enabling effective juxtaposition seals that have sustained production since the . Such faults demonstrate how tectonic extension during the rift phase can generate sealing barriers critical for retention. Despite their potential, fault traps carry risks of leakage if the fault plane lacks adequate sealing materials, such as insufficient clay smear or cataclasite, potentially resulting in migrated hydrocarbons and dry wells. Factors like fault reactivation from changes or of fault rock can compromise integrity, emphasizing the need for detailed seal analysis in prospect evaluation.

Salt Dome Traps

Salt dome traps arise from the process of diapirism, in which low-density, plastic salt layers ascend buoyantly from thick formations, piercing and deforming overlying younger sedimentary rocks. This upward intrusion is facilitated by the salt's lower density compared to surrounding sediments and is typically triggered by differential loading from rapid deposition in sedimentary basins. In the , for instance, the Louann Salt, deposited in extensive basins, serves as the primary source for these structures, with diapirism initiating during the and continuing into the . Geometrically, salt domes often develop into mushroom-shaped or subcylindrical stocks with steep flanks, flat crests, and an associated caprock of , , or formed by dissolution and recrystallization at the salt-sediment interface. Radial faults commonly emanate from the dome crest, segmenting , while overlying sediments drape into anticlinal folds or into peripheral synclines. Petroleum traps form primarily in these crestal closures or along the flanks, where permeable rocks are juxtaposed against the impermeable salt, creating structural highs that impede migration. Prominent examples include the field in southeastern , discovered in 1901, which revolutionized the U.S. by producing over 151 million barrels from and Miocene flank sandstones trapped against the salt dome's edges. Such traps are prevalent in passive continental margins, notably those underlain by the Louann Salt in the and the Permian Zechstein evaporites in the , where salt movement has generated numerous commercial accumulations. Associated features include mini-basins, or rim synclines, that develop around mature domes due to salt withdrawal and localized , influencing sediment deposition and creating additional stratigraphic complexities. Hydrocarbons typically migrate upward along these radial faults or through permeable carrier beds, accumulating in drape folds or fault blocks on the dome flanks. The seal in salt dome traps is provided by the inherent impermeability of the salt mass itself, often augmented by overlying layers within the , which prevent vertical leakage of hydrocarbons. This sealing capacity is further enhanced by the high from the salt's loading, maintaining trap integrity even under elevated formation pressures.

Stratigraphic Traps

Pinch-Out Traps

Pinch-out traps form through lateral variations in sedimentary during deposition, where permeable reservoir rocks such as sandstones gradually thin and wedge out into impermeable layers like shales or mudstones. This wedging occurs due to changes in depositional environments, such as shoreline progradation or river migration, leading to a transition from coarser-grained sediments to finer-grained ones without subsequent tectonic alteration. For instance, in prograding shoreline systems, or barrier bar sands may pinch out landward into offshore shales, creating a natural boundary for fluid migration. The geometry of pinch-out traps relies on the updip termination of the against the impermeable change, which provides the lateral seal, while the top and bottom seals are typically formed by overlying and underlying low-permeability strata. Hydrocarbons accumulate updip along the gently dipping layer until they encounter the pinch-out edge, preventing further migration; this configuration often requires minimal structural dip to achieve closure. The adjacent shales or mudstones act as the primary sealing , effectively trapping without the need for faulting or folding. These traps are prevalent in deltaic and fluvial environments, where channel sands or delta-front deposits pinch out laterally into or prodelta muds. A notable example is the Slaughter Field in the Permian Basin of , where production occurs from updip porosity pinch-outs in the San Andres Formation, a carbonate-evaporite sequence with stratigraphic trapping due to dolomitized reservoir zones wedging into . Similar features are observed in other fields, such as those in the Ivishak Formation of , involving fluvio-deltaic sandstones pinching out into marine shales. Exploration for pinch-out traps presents challenges due to their subtle nature and lack of prominent structural expression, often necessitating advanced seismic techniques to delineate the lateral facies transitions and reservoir extent. Seismic attribute analysis and waveform modeling are commonly employed to image the pinch-out boundaries and predict thickness, as these traps can be overlooked in areas dominated by more obvious anticlinal features.

Unconformity Traps

Unconformity traps form at erosional surfaces where older, porous rocks are truncated or onlap younger impermeable strata, preventing migration and allowing accumulation beneath the seal. These traps develop during periods of tectonic uplift and that expose and bevel the reservoir layers, followed by transgression and deposition of sealing rocks such as shales or mudstones. The surface itself acts as a boundary, with hydrocarbons pooling in the subcropping rocks against the impermeable . The geometry of unconformity traps typically involves truncation, where the reservoir rock is cut off by the erosional surface, or onlap, where thinner reservoir layers wedge onto the rising unconformity. In truncation traps, hydrocarbons migrate into the updip extent of the reservoir before the seal is deposited, accumulating where the porous rock abuts the impermeable layer. Onlap configurations occur when younger sediments lap onto the erosional surface, creating a lateral seal as the reservoir thins and pinches out. These geometries are often mapped using seismic data to identify the subcrop pattern beneath the unconformity. The seal in traps is primarily provided by the surface overlain by transgressive shales or other fine-grained rocks that drape the eroded topography, effectively capping the . Paleosols or features developed during subaerial exposure at the can enhance through and dissolution, particularly in or units, improving storage capacity. For effective trapping, migration must predate or coincide with the formation of the and seal deposition to ensure fluids are emplaced before the trap is sealed. A prominent example is the Kuparuk River Field on Alaska's North Slope, where sandstones are truncated at an intraformational and sealed by shales, forming a large stratigraphic trap with over 2 billion barrels of oil. traps are common in cratonic basins, such as the midcontinent of , where episodic tectonic uplift and create multiple such surfaces conducive to preservation.

Other Trap Types

Combination Traps

Combination traps, also known as hybrid traps, integrate both structural and stratigraphic elements to form effective accumulations, where neither component alone would suffice for trapping. These traps arise when tectonic processes, such as folding or faulting, interact with depositional features like pinch-outs or unconformities, modifying the geometry to create a seal that retains . For instance, faulting can juxtapose permeable rocks against impermeable layers, while stratigraphic variations provide lateral boundaries, enhancing overall trapping efficiency. The geometry of combination traps typically features mixed closures, such as a faulted bounded by a stratigraphic pinch-out, where the spill point is controlled by the interplay of both mechanisms. This dual nature often results in irregular outlines, with structural highs providing vertical closure and stratigraphic changes limiting lateral migration. Such configurations are prevalent in tectonically active basins, where post-depositional deformation alters original sedimentary architectures. Notable examples include the Sunset-Midway field in California's , which combines anticlinal folding with pinch-outs and unconformities at the Miocene-Pliocene boundary to trap heavy oil. Similarly, the Buzzard field in the UK utilizes a combination structural-stratigraphic trap involving submarine gravity flow sands pinched out against a structural dip. Another case is the Jubilee field offshore , where stratigraphic pinch-outs of turbidites are augmented by fault sealing on the Tano Basin flank. These traps are quite common globally, contributing significantly to discovered reserves, particularly in complex basin settings. In combination traps, the seal plays a dual role, with structural elements like faults providing vertical barriers and stratigraphic components such as shales or evaporites offering lateral and top seals, thereby increasing trap reliability compared to single-mechanism types. This reduces leakage risk but complicates predictive modeling due to the need to integrate seismic, sedimentological, and tectonic data. Fault seals, for example, depend on clay smear or , while changes ensure impermeable boundaries. Combination traps are classified primarily as structural-stratigraphic, where the structural feature forms the main closure and enhances it (the most common subtype), or stratigraphic-structural, where depositional elements dominate but are modified by later . This distinction aids in , as structural-stratigraphic traps often exhibit clearer seismic signatures.

Hydrodynamic Traps

Hydrodynamic traps occur in petroleum reservoirs where regional , driven by topographic gradients and recharge, creates a tilted free water level that counteracts hydrocarbon . In these systems, water moves downdip through permeable aquifers, exerting a drag force on less dense and gas, which accumulate updip opposite to the flow direction. This mechanism forms without reliance on structural closures or impermeable barriers, distinguishing it from conventional traps. The concept was first rigorously described by Hubbert in 1953, emphasizing the role of unbalanced fluid potentials in driving migration and entrapment. The geometry of hydrodynamic traps features a non-horizontal oil-water contact (OWC), inclined parallel to the hydraulic gradient, often at rates of 10–40 feet per mile in documented cases. Trap effectiveness hinges on the balance between flow velocity—qualitatively governed by , where fluid movement is proportional to the hydraulic gradient and inversely to —and contrasts in fluid properties, such as water's higher compared to oil, which enhances updip oil retention. Low gradients, typically around 2 m/km, suffice to tilt the OWC by 5 m/km or more, creating spill points updip while allowing hydrocarbons to pond against the flow. This dynamic configuration can extend trap limits beyond static closures, but requires sustained drive for stability. Notable examples include the Poplar field in northeastern Montana's , where hydrocarbons in the Charles Formation are trapped by a north-northeastward tilt of approximately 40 feet per mile, confirmed through log and sample analyses ruling out stratigraphic causes. In the , the Gas Draw field demonstrates hydrodynamic influence in Lower Muddy Sandstones, forming a stratigraphic trap enhanced by regional flow from aquifer recharge. These instances highlight hydrodynamic traps' rarity yet importance in tilted basins with active systems, often comprising less than 5% of global accumulations but enabling discoveries in otherwise unpromising settings. In hydrodynamic traps, the seal role is minimal, as entrapment depends primarily on the flowing acting as a dynamic barrier rather than an impermeable cap rock. Permeable reservoirs suffice if the water flow rate exceeds hydrocarbon buoyancy-driven leakage, with providing a qualitative framework for assessing flow adequacy based on permeability heterogeneity and gradient strength. This fluidic sealing contrasts with static traps, allowing hydrocarbons to persist in open systems but demanding precise flow modeling for evaluation. Key risks in hydrodynamic traps include sensitivity to variations in recharge rates or erosional changes that alter flow directions, potentially reducing the tilt and causing downdip spillage of accumulated . Such modifications can also interact with existing structural or stratigraphic features, either enhancing or diminishing their trapping capacity over geologic time. Exploration in these systems thus requires integrating hydrogeologic to predict long-term stability.

Significance and Exploration

Economic Importance

Petroleum traps form the geological foundation for the accumulation of conventional , hosting the vast majority of the world's . As of 2024, global proven crude reserves total approximately 1.57 trillion barrels, with conventional in such traps accounting for around 80% of recoverable resources, underscoring their central role in . Giant fields, typically associated with large-scale traps like anticlines or salt domes, dominate global production, supplying about 60% of the world's output despite representing only 1% of all fields. The supergiant in exemplifies this, with a current production of approximately 3.8 million barrels per day, contributing about 4% of global supply as of 2024. With discoveries of straightforward structural traps declining, has increasingly targeted stratigraphic traps, which have yielded more and gas volumes in recent decades than other types. The economic value of discovering and developing petroleum traps underpins a multi-trillion-dollar industry; global oil and gas revenues exceeded $6 trillion in 2024, driven by trap-based production that fuels transportation, manufacturing, and energy sectors worldwide. However, exploration remains high-risk, with commercial success rates averaging 20-30%, balancing potential rewards against substantial investments in seismic surveys and drilling. A pivotal historical milestone was the 1901 Spindletop discovery in , a trap that gushed 100,000 barrels per day, sparking the U.S. oil boom, creating the modern , and shifting economic power to the Gulf Coast region. Exploitation of these traps generates significant environmental costs, with oil and gas operations responsible for about 15% of global energy-related , equivalent to 5.1 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent annually. As nations accelerate the shift to renewables—projected to supply over 80% of by 2050 under net-zero scenarios—the long-term economic dominance of traps is waning, prompting diversification in investments.

Detection Methods

Seismic reflection methods form the cornerstone of petroleum trap detection, utilizing to image subsurface structures. Two-dimensional (2D) reflection seismology, developed in the 1920s, involves linear arrays of sources and receivers to map basic geological features like anticlines and faults that trap hydrocarbons. Three-dimensional (3D) seismic surveys, advanced since the , provide volumetric imaging with higher resolution, enabling detailed mapping of trap geometries in complex basins by recording reflections from a grid of shot points. Amplitude versus offset (AVO) enhances fluid detection within these structures by examining how seismic amplitudes vary with source-receiver distance, revealing contrasts in rock properties indicative of hydrocarbons rather than . This technique, based on linearized Zoeppritz equations, identifies AVO anomalies such as Class III bright spots where amplitudes increase with offset due to gas saturation. Full inversion (FWI) further refines detection by iteratively updating high-resolution velocity models from the entire seismic , improving imaging beneath complex and delineating trap boundaries more accurately than traditional methods. Geophysical surveys complement seismic data for specific trap types. Gravity surveys measure subtle variations in Earth's caused by density contrasts, effectively locating salt domes with their characteristic low-density signatures that form structural traps for oil and gas. Magnetic surveys detect magnetic anomalies from basement rocks or igneous intrusions, aiding in mapping fault systems and potential trap configurations associated with salt structures. Electromagnetic (EM) methods, particularly transient EM (TEM) surveys, target shallow traps by exploiting resistivity differences between hydrocarbon-filled reservoirs and surrounding formations, with TEM providing high-resolution data for depths up to several hundred meters. Drilling exploratory wells verifies geophysical interpretations through direct sampling. Wireline logging tools, lowered into the borehole, record properties such as resistivity, , and gamma to identify reservoir rocks, seal integrity, and hydrocarbon saturation within potential traps. Borehole imaging techniques, using microresistivity or acoustic scanners, produce high-resolution images of the well wall to visualize faults, fractures, and stratigraphic features that confirm trap elements like lateral seals. Recent advancements integrate (AI) and (ML) into seismic interpretation, accelerating post-2020 workflows. AI-driven algorithms automate fault and horizon picking in 3D datasets, reducing interpretation time from weeks to hours while improving accuracy in noisy for trap delineation. Four-dimensional (4D) seismic monitoring repeats 3D surveys over time to track fluid movements and pressure changes in reservoirs, helping evaluate trap integrity and bypassed hydrocarbons during production. Detection faces significant challenges, particularly for stratigraphic traps where subtle lithological variations limit seismic resolution, often requiring resolutions below 10 meters that current methods struggle to achieve consistently. Additionally, exploratory costs range from $10 million for onshore wells to $100 million for deep offshore operations, driven by depth, location, and logistical demands.

References

  1. https://glossary.slb.com/terms/t/trap
  2. https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/faq/energy/petroleum/Petroleum_geology_intro.pdf
  3. https://www.e-education.psu.edu/png301/node/8
  4. https://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Oil/primer05.html
  5. https://chasm.kgs.ku.edu/ords/oil.ogf4.IDProdQuery?FieldNumber=1000146901
  6. https://people.wou.edu/~taylors/es486_petro/text/Ch7_traps_seals.pdf
  7. http://www.geol.lsu.edu/hart/EARTH_SCIENCE/COURSES/PET_GEOL/migration_files/migration.htm
  8. https://www.wvgs.wvnet.edu/www/geology/geoldvog.htm
  9. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1959JPetT..11...11P/abstract
  10. https://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/beaumont02/images/beaumont02.pdf
  11. https://www.e-education.psu.edu/png301/node/583
  12. https://wiki.aapg.org/Reservoir
  13. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapg/aapgbull/article/89/4/435/40213/Sandstone-vs-carbonate-petroleum-reservoirs-A
  14. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapg/aapgbull/article/68/11/1752/37747/Evaluating-Seals-for-Hydrocarbon-Accumulations1
  15. http://store-assets.aapg.org/documents/previews/ADD781M85/CHAPTER01.pdf
  16. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/book/chapter-pdf/3837241/9781629810928_ch13.pdf
  17. https://people.wou.edu/~taylors/es486_petro/7_Traps_Seals.pdf
  18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264817216300769
  19. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapg/aapgbull/article/73/7/812/38473/Structural-Interpretation-of-Hydrocarbon-Traps
  20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240604196_The_influence_of_tectonics_on_the_entrapment_of_oil_in_the_Dezful_Embayment_Zagros_Foldbelt_Iran
  21. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/book/chapter-pdf/3836440/9781629810775_ch05.pdf
  22. https://www.saltworkconsultants.com/evaporites-as-seals/
  23. https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/ppr/response/sum_fy06/060302301/factsheets/060302301_factsheet_PB.pdf
  24. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapg/aapgbull/article/54/10/1969/554335/Geology-and-Discovery-of-Prudhoe-Bay-Field-Eastern
  25. https://www.hartenergy.com/ep/exclusives/prudhoe-bay-once-lifetime-discovery-175011
  26. https://main.wsgs.wyo.gov/energy/oil-gas/oil-gas-facts/conventional-traps
  27. https://www.arab-oil-naturalgas.com/petroleum-traps-part-1/
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191814115300390
  29. https://wiki.aapg.org/Fault_seal_analysis_for_reservoir_development
  30. https://ugspub.nr.utah.gov/publications/open_file_reports/OFR-150_v.1.pdf
  31. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsl/pg/article/13/4/321/100500/Faulting-and-fault-sealing-in-production
  32. https://archives.datapages.com/data/bulletns/1997/06jun/0897/0897.htm
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928893702800030
  34. https://geoexpro.com/the-brent-oil-gas-field/
  35. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapg/aapgbull/article/91/9/1231/132865/Methodology-for-risking-fault-seal-capacity
  36. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1144/pdf/OFR2012_1144.pdf
  37. https://www.beg.utexas.edu/files/publications/contract-reports/CR1985-Seni-1.pdf
  38. https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/science-and-policy/plate-tectonic-stories/zechstein-reef/
  39. https://wiki.aapg.org/Depositional_trap_regime
  40. https://www.arab-oil-naturalgas.com/petroleum-traps-part-2/
  41. https://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Oil/primer04.html
  42. http://www.ogs.ou.edu/pdf/PetSystemsB.pdf
  43. https://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/halbouty03/images/ch21.pdf
  44. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapg/aapgbull/article/70/7/888/38171/Porosity-Distribution-in-San-Andres-Formation
  45. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapg/aapgbull/article/83/10/1320/39626/Geology-and-Stratigraphy-of-Fluvio-Deltaic
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11142507/
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264817222005384
  48. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/book/1472/chapter/107176771
  49. https://wiki.aapg.org/index.php?title=Mapping_unconformities&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop
  50. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapg/aapgbull/article/78/6/857/39044/Unconformities-and-Porosity-Development-in
  51. http://store-assets.aapg.org/documents/previews/ADD563M49/CHAPTER01.pdf
  52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376736108700979
  53. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapg/aapgbull/article/67/6/1014/37688/Geology-and-Regional-Setting-of-Kuparuk-Oil-Field
  54. https://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/226/Newell/index.html
  55. https://ocw.tudelft.nl/wp-content/uploads/PGeo_L6_Petroleum_Geology_-_Lecture_6_08.pdf
  56. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsl/books/edited-volume/1558/chapter/107302342/The-Buzzard-Field
  57. https://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2018/51475cronin/ndx_cronin.pdf
  58. https://wiki.aapg.org/Combination_trap
  59. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapg/aapgbull/article/37/8/1954/33940/Entrapment-of-Petroleum-Under-Hydrodynamic
  60. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article/78/4/501/39025/hydrodynamic-effects-on-mission-canyon
  61. https://archives.datapages.com/data/rmag/mg/1981/lin.pdf
  62. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264817218302125
  63. https://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2014/41314green/ndx_green.pdf
  64. https://www.gem.wiki/Ghawar_Oil_and_Gas_Project_(Saudi_Arabia)
  65. https://www.iea.org/reports/emissions-from-oil-and-gas-operations-in-net-zero-transitions
  66. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/21-TTG-ExplorationTech.pdf
  67. https://repository.sustech.edu/bitstream/handle/123456789/27497/Seismic%2520Sequences........pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  68. https://ijmge.ut.ac.ir/article_23906_d75bbd86040d5ee3fdddbeed707753bd.pdf
  69. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825220303937
  70. https://www.slb.com/products-and-services/innovating-in-oil-and-gas/reservoir-characterization/seismic/seismic-imaging/earth-model-building/full-waveform-inversion
  71. https://www.baingeo.com/images/ResolvingComplexSaltusingGravMag.pdf
  72. https://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/226/Stander/index.html
  73. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/24/9646
  74. https://www.slb.com/resource-library/oilfield-review/defining-series/defining-logging
  75. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/cspg/bcpg/article-abstract/42/2/137/57610/The-use-of-borehole-imaging-techniques-in-the
  76. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393950778_Artificial_intelligence_in_seismic_data_processing_Applications_challenges_and_future_directions_in_the_oil_and_gas_sector
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1875510020301669
  78. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249551631_The_deliberate_search_for_the_stratigraphic_trap_An_introduction
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.