Advances and Perspectives on Stratigraphic Trap Exploration-Making the Subtle Trap Obvious*

John Dolson1, Zhiyong He2, and Brian W. Horn3

Search and Discovery Article #60054 (2018)**

Posted June 18, 2018

*Adapted from extended abstract prepared in conjunction with oral presentation given at AAPG 2017 Middle East Region Geosciences Technology Workshop,
Stratigraphic Traps of the Middle East, Muscat, Oman, December 11-13, 2017
**Datapages © 2018 Serial rights given by author. For all other rights contact author directly.

1
DSP Geosciences and Delonex Energy ([email protected])
2
Zetaware, Inc.
3
ION E&P Advisors

Abstract

Stratigraphic trap exploration principles have been established for nearly 80 years since first being classified by A. I. Levorsen in 1936, and
the fundamental principles of entrapment are well understood. Advances in understanding of the wide variety of traps accelerated in the
1950’s and 70’s, including hydrodynamic and pore-throat capillary traps. In 1977, a step change occurred when Exxon geoscientists released
their classic papers on seismic stratigraphy in AAPG and SEPM publications. There remains, however, the fundamental need to integrate the
revised correlations with seismic, wells, cores, logs, and petrophysics to recognize the seal geometries, understand the oil and gas shows, and
find the traps.

Historical success rates at finding large stratigraphic, combination and hydrodynamically trapped fields, particularly giants, has remained low
for decades, primarily due to a lack of stacked pays and an inability to sufficiently image the reservoirs and seals with seismic. As a result,
stratigraphic/combination giant fields (> 500 MMBO) comprised only 10-15% of the volume despite the absolutely overwhelming numbers
of many stratigraphic traps over structural traps in many basins. Many older exploration efforts were ‘model driven’, primarily with well
logs and hand-contoured maps, and success rate remained low.

Since 2000, however, creaming curve data show a step change in volumes of oil and gas found in giant stratigraphic and combination traps,
rising to nearly 50% in the last 17 years. This is due to the impact of 3D seismic reservoir and seal imaging, along with better tools to model
hydrocarbon systems and migration.

The biggest growth in resources have been in 1) passive margin turbidite fan and channels, 2) carbonate reefs, and 3) tight gas (China
Ordos Basin). Future success rates and volumes will continue to rise, with more advances in imaging and a better understanding of migration and
charge. Unconventional reserve growth has been substantial and blurs the line between stratigraphic and source-rock related plays. The
objective today is not to look for subtle traps, but to make the subtle traps obvious. For those that learn to do that, the future is bright.
An updated database originally published by Horn (2011), provides the basis for the maps and conclusions presented in this paper.

Introduction

Stratigraphic trap principles were perhaps first articulated 81 years ago (Levorsen, 1936). M.K. Hubbert, in a classic paper, clearly outlined the
principles of understanding hydrodynamic trapping 64 years ago (Hubbert, 1953). It has been an additional 36 years since Michel
Halbouty’s classic paper on subtle traps appeared in the AAPG Bulletin (Halbouty, 1981, 1982).

Halbouty argued that big stratigraphic (subtle) traps would be a future huge resource largely because they were not being systematically
explored for. Ironically, the three largest hydrocarbon accumulations in North America at that time were stratigraphic traps, particularly East
Texas Field (unconformity trap), Hugoton (hydrodynamic/pore throat), and Prudhoe Bay (unconformity) (Sorenson, 2003, 2005; Specht et al.,
1987; Wescott and Hood, 1994). Thousands of smaller pools were more common. Giant fields were overwhelmingly in large 4- way closures
and fault traps.

The reason was fairly simple, and not just related to the effort to find these traps. Structural traps commonly have multiple stacked pay zones
and hence more volume per area. Four-way closures, more importantly, require only an effective top seal, whereas stratigraphic traps require
top, lateral, and bottom seals. While the same multiple seal systems are required for fault traps, there are more opportunities to seal across
faults than are found in one or two targeted reservoir levels in a potential stratigraphic trap. As trap size is controlled by the weakest seal, it
only takes one poor seal to reduce a promising large accumulation to a small pool. Additionally, turning a relatively thin single zone
stratigraphic trap into a giant field requires a huge aerial extent.

Seismic data quality, early in the hunt for stratigraphic (subtle) traps, was too low a resolution to make traps obvious. An example is from
East Texas Field (Figure 1). Bill Galloway, CEO of Amoco Production Co. in the 1970’s kept this seismic line framed on his bathroom wall to
remind himself what giant fields could look like in subtle traps. There is little point, however, in today’s environment, to pursuing traps with this
kind of limited resolution. The task is to use other tools to make the subtle trap obvious.

The central problem with many stratigraphic and combination traps remains the number of seals and pay zones (Figure 2). The thinner the pay
zones, the harder it is to image the trap. Couple that with multiple seals required to create the trap and the non-structural/fault traps become
increasingly difficult to find. Thinner pays with big reserves require larger aerial extent to the fields and that is limited by column height
capacity vs. structural dip. Simply stated, the lower the dip rate, the larger a stratigraphic trap with a poor seal might be.

During the late 1970’s and 1980’s, emphasis turned to principles of seismic stratigraphy first elucidated by Vail et al. (1977) and followed a
number of key papers (Haq et al., 1988; Hardenbol et al., 1998; Mitchum et al., 1993; Wagoner et al., 1988). Much of the potential impact
of these papers was lost in debates or nomenclature, techniques, eustatic seal level changes. What was still needed was much better
seismic visualization of the reservoirs and seals themselves.

In the end, it comes down to seal geometry, and the principles are well understood (Figure 3).
The fundamentals have not changed. No amount of haggling over sequence stratigraphic terms, methods, or ways to correlate fundamentally
changes the challenge of using all the data possible to quantify and explain seal geometry. Once the seal geometry is mapped properly, and all
the associated test, shows, and pressure data support the geometry, the trap becomes obvious. Speeding that process up, however, can take
a step-change with good 3D seismic.

By the mid 1990’s, more and more companies were switching from 2D to 3D seismic and showing remarkable changes in finding rates. One
quantitative example is given by Dolson et al., 1997. Seismic imaging of reservoirs was becoming increasingly important and steadily
replacing hand-drawn maps of facies belts. A key paper (Marfurt et al., 1998), showing semblance-based coherency in 3D imaging, help
launch another decade of higher resolution reservoir imaging. An excellent summary of many of these advances is in Posamentier (2006a, b).

Techniques such as wavelet facies analysis, semblance, inversion volumes, AVO, and other techniques now clearly reveal depositional trends
for the interpreter who can zero in on fine detail on the seismic. Maps of ‘amplitude blobs’ are no longer acceptable to reduce risks.

Seismic images need to show geological features clearly. If they do not, then trap, reservoir, and seal risk will remain high.

Historical Giant Field Exploration-Measuring the Impact of 3D

What has the impact been? One way to measure that is to study finding rates and volumes in giant fields. We study giant fields because they
collectively hold about 40% of the world’s reserves. AAPG has provided summaries for decades, the most recent of which is summaries by
Horn (2005) and Merrill and Sternbach (2017a,b,c). M.K. Horn (Horn, 2011), provided AAPG with a comprehensive summary of published
giant field data in GIS and Excel format. For this paper, we have updated that database from the original 996 fields to over 1142 fields, as well as
location corrections and adjusted reserve volumes on over 360 fields. Included in this new analysis are 78 fields of significant size, that could
become giants or are part of a cluster of large fields that collectively yield giant status (Figure 4).

The largest concentration of giants occurs in the Middle East, North America, and Russia, but nearly every working petroleum basin has the
potential for giant fields.

The creaming curve (Figure 5) shows historical finding rates for giant fields since the late 1800’s. Aside from earlier steep jumps caused by
opening of big North American, Russian, and Middle Eastern Fields, a noticeable shift in 2000 occurred. This shift was first noted by
Halbouty (2003), where he showed an increase in stratigraphic trap volumes in the 1990’s to 15% of the giant fields, up from an historical
value of 10%. He attributed this, correctly, to 3D seismic imaging.

A number of giant stratigraphic provinces exist in the world, summarized in Figure 6.

Most of these basins are characterized by having relatively simple and low-relief structural dip, where modest seals can result in aerially
extensive traps. The steeper the structural dip, the more limited the trap size unless outstanding seals are involved. There is a noticeable lack
of giant stratigraphic and combination traps in the Middle East, a point for later discussion. Giant stratigraphic traps are not limited by age
(Figure 7). Some of the largest gas fields in the world, in fact, occur in East Siberia in Neoproterozoic and Infracambrian stratigraphic traps
(Clarke, 1985; Dyman et al., 2001; Nakashima, 2004; Ulmishek, 2001a, b). In the Middle East, Khazzan Field, a giant tight gas accumulation
(Millson et al., 2008) produces an Infracambrian or Neoproterozoic source system, so the lack of additional giant stratigraphic and
combination traps cannot be explained on age of source rocks.

The location of the combination/stratigraphic traps found since 2000 is shown on Figure 8. The big plays have been in a variety of traps, but
turbidite plays and reefal buildups have dominated the volumes. Many of these trends are documented in Merrill and Sternbach (2017a, c)
and Stark and Smith (2017).

By far the largest accumulations have been in clastic turbidite plays, large carbonate reefs, and in tight gas, notably the Ordos Basin in China.
This is shown more clearly by breaking out the stratigraphic/combination traps found since 2000 by lithology (Figure 9).

Carbonate trends tended to have more oil than gas and the clastic plays are dominated by significant gas pays, particularly in the deep water
turbidites. Huge reserve growth in the Ordos Basin in China is due to tight gas discoveries sourced by mature coaly source rocks (Dai, 2016).

Growth of Unconventional Plays

An argument can be made that ‘unconventional traps’ are actually another variation on stratigraphic traps (He, 2017). In his paper He covers the
basics of how to model migration, entrapment, and phase with petroleum systems software in unconventional shale gas and oil plays.

Regardless of how they are classified, the numbers shown on Figure 10 show huge reserve growth globally, dominantly in North America
shale plays, where over 1000 TCF of reserves have now been found. Additional information on resource potential is most recently summarized in
EIA (2011, 2017).

These source rock plays, both oil and gas, will only grow bigger with time. Current growth is confined to mature provinces with good
infrastructure, rapidly developing technology, huge demand centers nearby, and relatively shallow depths. Emerging plays like the Vaca
Muerta in South America and Bazhenov in Russia, (EIA, 2015a, b) have substantial growth potential. In this figure, numbers shown for the
Vaca Muerta and Bazhenov plays represent an arbitrary 20% of the ‘technically recoverable’ hydrocarbons cited in the EIA reports referenced.

Tight gas traps can blur the line between unconventional and conventional discoveries. Figure 10 shows some updated information presented in
Stark and Smith (2017). For instance, Stark and Smith (2017) classify Khazzan and Sulige Fields as unconventional traps, but both of these
traps may be conventional accumulations.
Figure 11 shows the Khazzan (after Millson et al., 2008) and Sulige accumulations (Dai, 2016).

The reserve growth in the Sulige Field area, as shown, has been phenomenal, with up to 145 TCF now attributed to this field, when prior
resources 8 years earlier gave the entire basin only 18 TCF reserves. The trap is still not clear.
 Stratigraphic Trap Principles

Stratigraphic traps occur in a wide variety of depositional systems and many fundamental components are covered in Dolson et al., (1999) and
Dolson et al., (1994 a,b).

Figure 12 illustrates just some of the common depositional settings. The single most important element in stratigraphic traps exploration is
recognition of seals. Migration routes and reservoir quality are also very important, but most stratigraphic traps fail by leaky seals. Low
structural dip helps, as large traps with limited seal capacity can be developed over broad areas. Reservoir quality and diagenetic over-prints or
hydrodynamic modifications are also important (Figure 13). These kinds of traps, particularly in mature source kitchens, blur the line between
stratigraphic unconventional traps (Figure 13, bottom, after Sonnenberg and Meckel, 2017).

Sealing mechanisms as reservoirs transition downdip to tighter lithologies into many thermally mature source rock intervals becomes problematic
to explain. The transitions can be readily mapped, however, generally by noting decreasing water recoveries on wells up dip and more gas with
no water or only minor amounts within the mature source rock kitchens. On Figure 13 (bottom), the irregular dashed black line above the tight
oil and gas level schematically represents the kinds of transitional seals that occur in these settings. Common to these ‘basin centered’ or
‘thermal traps’, are some intervals that are much more prolific than others. These ‘sweet spots’ can have significantly better production from
horizontal wells and are typically subtle stratigraphic traps within the thermally mature shales. A good example is provided by Skinner et al.
(2015) in the Bakken Formation of the Williston Basin.

Techniques for screening unconventional plays are beyond the scope of this paper, but involve a fundamental understanding of the maturity,
thickness and quality of the source rocks as well as stratigraphic facies changes and lithologies within the source rocks themselves that might be
targets for horizontal drilling.

Hunting for NULFS (Nasty, Ugly, Little, Facts)

Particularly in mature basins, finding pore-throat and diagenetic traps require looking at anomalous data. The senior author calls this
‘Hunting for NULFS’ (Dolson, 2017). The term comes from a quote by Thomas Huxley over a century ago: “the great tragedy of science is the
slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact”. It might be as simple as a zone on a 4-way structural closure that has oil below structural spill
point in one reservoir, indicating that the reservoir is not within the structural trap. Or it may be a well with by-passed pay that has been written
off as ‘dry’. Our first job is to explain the obvious. The second job is to note the exception and then focus on it and try to understand it. That
may be the clue to the next great discovery.
Many big stratigraphic traps, and certainly new play concepts, come from noticing the anomaly that doesn’t fit the existing ideas of an
accumulation. This requires a sound understanding of rock petrophysics, pressure analysis, and careful examination of hydrocarbon shows.
Shows in tight rock, particularly moveable oil, can indicate a column is present. The fundamentals of shows analysis and recognition of waste
zones and techniques for estimating column height in a trap is covered in depth Dolson (2016b) and in classic papers (Schowalter, 1979;
Schowalter and Hess, 1982). Understanding how to visualize an under-developed or by-passed trap where only a better reservoir facies is
needed is a key to finding these types of traps.
 good example is the case history of the 2001 discovery of the 1.4 BBOIP Buzzard Field in the North Sea (Carstens, 2005; Dolson, 2016b,
2017; Ray et al., 2010; Robbins and Dore, 2005). This field was found on acreage dropped by BP that was presumed too far from mature
source rock to have a working petroleum system. Fortunately for the companies that drilled the discovery, there was a ‘dry hole’ downdip on
a very small structural closure that had 3.5 meters of Jurassic oil pay on the logs, but was untested. The well de-risked reservoir, seal, and
charge. 3D seismic found the up-dip turbidite fan pinch-out and lateral fault seal which formed the giant trap.

Hydrodynamic Traps

Hydrodynamic principles have long been understood and some of the most easily understood publications include those of (Dahlberg, 1982,
1995; England et al., 1987) and the topic is dealt with in detail in Dolson (2016b) with examples of how to model such traps with simple
gridding algorithms available in many software packages.

Hydrodynamic traps are often overlooked, however, particularly in deep, over-pressured basins (Dennis et al., 2005; Ferrero et al., 2012;
Muggeridge and Mahmode, 2012; O'Connor and Swarbrick, 2008; Riley, 2009; Robertson et al., 2013). An example in Egypt (Figure 14)
illustrates how long it can take to recognize some of these tilted columns.

The 4.3 TCF Temsah Field was discovered in 1977, but it took 25 years to recognize the full field size and the tilted nature of the gas/water
contact. For over 20 years, this accumulation was considered small and marginally economic, despite being a huge structural closure. This
giant structure was an exploration disappointment with the Temsah-1 discovery well, which tested a thin gas/condensate column over a
thick, over-pressured water leg. Interpreters viewed the lack of a full column as an under-filled trap. It took 5 years to drill another well,
targeting an up-dip location that might test a gas cap with no water leg. Temsah-2, however, found gas at the same structural level, but no
water. Faults were then invoked to explain the difference. What was missed was a look at the pressure data, which showed that the Temsah-2
and 1 wells had a common gas column. Had the structure been filled to spill, it would have had a column in excess of 500 meters and
resembled Figure 14A, Figure 14C and Figure 14E.

The acreage was dropped in the mid 1980’s as gas rights had not been awarded and the structure look under-filled. In the mid 1990’s Amoco
and IEOC assumed operatorship and began drilling development wells. Surprisingly, there was water at the base of many of the wells, but
the contact kept getting deeper to the northeast. The explanation was then revised to ‘complex stratigraphy, compartmentalization, perching and
faulting’. This explanation was not born out by pressure data, however, as the gas gradients showed continuity between all the wells in the gas
leg. This is a classic sign of either perching or hydrodynamic tilt (Cade et al., 1999; Dennis et al., 2005; Dolson, 2016b; Ferrero et al., 2012;
Muggeridge and Mahmode, 2012). In 2007, a BP geologist proposed a hydrodynamic tilt. By now, many other fields in the Nile Delta were
known to have gas deeper to the northward towards the deep water. It was difficult to explain all of these cases as caused by perched water
alone.

To test this concept, the senior author converted a mud-weight map of the Miocene reservoirs (Heppard et al., 2000) to a potentiometric map
(Figure 14B). Combining this map with the structure map and using Trinity software (www.zetware.com) yielded a tilted contact that almost
precisely matched the gas accumulations in the field, particularly the Temsah-1 well (Figure 14D and Figure 14E).
The hydrodynamic flow is set up by increased excess pressure to the SW of the field by shale decompaction underneath the Nile Delta. To the
northeast, the overburden is less, the water depth dramatically deeper and the resultant water flow is from SW to NE towards less excess
pressure or hydraulic head.

This phenomenon must be common to all over-pressured settings and is almost certainly over-looked. I am certain many wells have been
abandoned with gas or oil over water on what looked like failed traps. How many more big accumulations are out there waiting a downdip
well with hydrocarbon shows over water to test for a tilted contact? It is unfortunately common to find companies that do not use
potentiometric maps in migration analysis but should do so routinely where over-pressure is noted. A good Middle East example of tilted
contacts caused by water flow from the highly over-pressured South Caspian Basin is provided by Riley (2009).

Recent Case Histories: Big Discoveries Since 2000 in Frontier Exploration

Frontier and mature basin exploration requires different skills and tools. Petroleum systems analysis, depth to oil and gas windows,
pressures and basin evolution, including paleogeographic reconstructions, are essential in Frontier areas. Mature basins have abundant test
data, hydrocarbon shows, pressures, logs, and other information which must be culled through and analyzed to find anomalous oil shows,
compartmentalized reservoirs or by-passed pay. The work is data and time intensive but can yield substantial new reserves when coupled with
new 3D seismic data, a re-look at cores and better integration.

Examples of both types of plays follow.

Carbonate Reefs

Kashagan-Aktote-Kairan-Tengiz Fields, Caspian Basin

Some of the largest traps found since 2000 have been in giant carbonate reef accumulations. Figure 15 illustrates classic examples from the
North Caspian Basin.

The exploration potential of this area has been well understood since the discovery of the giant Tengiz Field in 1980. These fields have high
H2S values and are over-pressured with massive columns sealed by salt and evaporites. They are well described, particularly at Tengiz Field
by (Collins et al., 2006; Kenter et al., 2006). The giant Kashagan Field waited environmental assurances in shallow water before finally being
tested in 2000. 2D seismic was sufficient to delineate and drill these prospects. The combination of thick, permeable reservoirs surrounded by and
overlying mature source rocks and sealed by evaporites makes for a near perfect petroleum system.

It is interesting to note that an analog to these traps existed and was recognized in Egypt (Dolson, 2000; Dolson et al., 2001; Dolson et al.,
2000) and is shown on Figure 16, where it remained untested until drilled by ENI in 2015 as the Zohr Field.
Shell had acquired a very large deep-water block (Shorouk) in the late 1990’s. As shown on Figure 16C, industry efforts were focused on
Pliocene DHI clastics and deeper Miocene and Oligocene deep-water channels and fans. On the play diagram, large carbonate buildups
speculated at the Cretaceous level and proven at the Eratosthenes sea mount were clear potential targets but received low interest. The Miocene
reef target, in particular, was encased in salt, a potential outstanding seal.

The reefal play was overlooked by Shell, who drilled 9 dry or commercially unsuccessful wells on the block, and also the industry, which
remained focused on the deep clastic play. ENI, however, recognized huge biogenic gas potential (ENI, 2015a, b) and tested the well in 2015. It
remains the largest gas discovery in Egypt’s history and broke the creaming curve (Dolson, 2016a, c) completely, opening up a huge new
exploration frontier, including offshore Cyprus (Nikolaou, 2016). The prospect was a clear analog to the Tengiz Field and was so obvious
it was discovered on 2D seismic. Multiple companies turned down opportunities to participate in the discovery well, citing a number of
technical concerns which proved unfounded. The Zohr discovery is a classic case of ‘out of the box thinking’. Creaming curves don’t get
broken by chasing the same old plays over and over again until they are exhausted.

Libra and Tupi/Lulu Fields, Brazil

New seismic imaging below salt has proven to be the key in unlocking one of the largest new oil and gas provinces in the world—the sub-salt
carbonate play of the Santos Basin, offshore deep water, Brazil. This play is summarized in Figure 17 with data from the Libra Field. The
morphology, although of a different kind of carbonate, is surprising similar to that of the Kashagan Field trap. The carbonate buildups are
sealed by salt and are developed over high rift blocks best seen of Figure 18. The Libra discovery is well documented (Rassenfoss, 2017;
Carlotto et al., 2017).

The senior author first looked at this area in 2002-2003 when a new round of long-offset 2D seismic became available. At the time, the area
was considered gas prone and there was virtually no good sub-salt imaging of the Lower Cretaceous rift systems. The long-offset data,
however, revealed the deeper rifts. Petroleum systems modeling suggested the deep water would be oil mature, not gas mature. Unfortunately,
BP was unsuccessful in attempts to convince management to enter this area, despite numerous attempts by later workers. As they say, the
“rest is history” and huge interest in participating only occurred after the discovery of the giant Tupi/Lulu Field (Figure 17), in 2007 (Estrella,
2012; Feijo, 2013; Mann and Rigg, 2012).

As the structural and stratigraphic evolution of the Atlantic margins is symmetrical between parts of South America and Africa, it is only a matter
of time before many significant additional carbonate sub-salt plays are made in Africa (Mello et al., 2011; Mello et al., 1991). This has already
started with the 2012 discovery of the giant Cameia Field sub-salt carbonates (2.8 TCF, 290 MMBO condensate) in Angola (Cazier et al., 2014).

The importance of having high quality seismic imaging cannot be over-emphasized. This play was not possible without advances in acquisition
and imaging. It remains one of the most prospective trends in the world today. Additional deep rift prospects in other facies and plays will
emerge as data quality improves.
Some additional carbonate examples are those of the Perla Field (Benkovics and Asensio, 2015; Pomar et al., 2015) and the Puguang deep gas
field in China, with reservoir facies controlled by a narrow band of oolitic shoals (Ma et al., 2007).

Clastics: Deep Water Fans and Channels-DHI Driven

Perhaps the most active stratigraphic/combination trap play being made globally today is in deep-water turbidite channel and fan systems.
These plays have thick, readily imageable facies and many companies are targeting these traps in mature source rock kitchens, primarily in
Lower, Mid, and Upper Cretaceous source rocks surrounding the Atlantic margins of both South America and Africa. The play concepts and
examples cited are shown on Figure 19.

Companies such as Tullow, Kosmos, Cove Energy, ENI and Anadarko have been at the forefront of this type of exploration. One of the real play
openers was the discovery of the Jubilee Field (Dailly et al., 2017; Jewell, 2011) in offshore Ghana, West Africa. This was followed later
by the Liza discovery in a similar play offshore Guyana, South America (Spectrum, 2016). Extensions of these plays have been made for
years in the Campos Basin, Angola, and Kwanza basins. In the latter basins, salt was a significant component of trapping.

The Liza, Jubilee and other fields featured in this paper do not involve salt. They are combination or pure stratigraphic traps delineated by good
3D seismic and sound geological concepts. Increasingly, the targets are in progressively deeper water and in more distal facies (see Figure 19C).

Rovuma Basin, Mozambique

Mozambique has emerged as a giant gas province thanks to 3D seismic and exploration for a variety of traps types in the deep water offshore
Tertiary and Cretaceous trends (Faid and Carvalho, 2013). The importance of seismic imaging on developing these plays is shown on Figure
20. The East Africa Rovuma Basin is a still emerging world-class hub of huge gas resources in deep water. Cove Energy turned a 1.35 MM$
start-up company into a 1.62 BB$ buyout between 2009 and 2012, initiating acreage purchase in the undrilled Rovuma Basin, offshore
Mozambique and then drawing in partners to help fund an exploration campaign (Sharma, 2014).

Anyone working on turbidite trends has long ago ceased to be ‘model driven’. 3D seismic is essential to de-risk the traps, reservoirs and
facies. DHI support is also a common theme in these plays and was a big part of the success in the Rovuma Basin play. The hydrocarbons
are largely thermogenic, but the exact source is unknown and may be mixed layer deltaic source rocks disseminated throughout the system.
The images in Figure 20 show geometries not readily predicted from any prior geological model alone (Fonnesu, 2013; Palermo et al., 2014).

Offshore Senegal

On the west coast of Africa, offshore Senegal has become a major new gas and oil hub, led by Kosmos and Cairn Energy (UK). These plays
are targeting the deeper source systems and while not necessarily always finding the phase predicted, have done well with big traps (Figure
21).
(Reynolds, 2016) discusses some of the exploration history of the Cairn efforts which are further detailed in (Cairn_Energy, 2017). Perhaps even
more significantly, the paleo-topographic SNE-1 trap shown may become a giant trend and has analog features all around many continental
margins. It is charged from deeper, migrated oil, making the screening of these plays a bit more problematic. Outboard of the Cairn
discoveries are large accumulations in the Yakaar-1, Teranga and Tortue Fields which are testing more distal facies. Another excellent example
is detailed for the Janz-Io Gas Field, NW Shelf of Australia (Jenkins et al., 2017).

There is currently intense industry interest in the ultra-deep, distal fan fairways, where large, purely stratigraphic giants may still exist, much of
that spurred by success in the ultra-deep offshore Senegal.

Sea Lion, Falklands

Lastly, the Sea Lion discovery in the Falklands Basin (MacAulay, 2015), illustrates a common reason to test flank structural traps: syn-
depositional around older structures (Figure 22). A thorough analysis of this important play-opener is covered in the Petroleum Geoscience
thematic set of which MacAulay’s paper is 1 of 9 other papers dealing with this basin and play.

The key lesson here is one of creativity in an area written off by others. As in the case of the Zohr-1 reef discovery in Egypt, Shell and 3 other
companies had drilled key wills on large inversion structures that had failed, but with the Shell 14/10-1 well actually recovering some oil near
TD. Many of the other wells failed for lack of reservoir. Rockhopper Oil made a play looking for down-flank stratigraphic fan pinch-outs
shown in Figure 22, that would be potentially in a migration path from the deeper proven source rock and recovered oil. Seismic 3D delineated
the fan and the test was successful.

The pattern of playing downdip from dry structural highs is an old tactic, applied here in a remote basin where someone else spent the money
to prove there was a working petroleum system. Another good recent example is in offshore Myanmar with the discovery of the Shwe Field
(Yi and Lee, 2015).

A Note on DHI Exploration

Where possible, AVO analysis enabling direction hydrocarbon indicators (DHI) is essential in de-risking traps pre-drill (Figure 23). But the
analysis should include good imaging of the reservoirs themselves and perhaps most importantly, a conformance of the possible DHI
amplitudes to structure, supporting a trap. Residual gas can also create positive DHI signatures and will always remain a risk. Amplitudes that
give an AVO response but don’t have a trap geometry (amplitudes in space) remain high risk targets.

Mature Basin Plays

Mature Basin exploration requires digging hard into a lot of data. Dry-hole post appraisal is critical. There is also no substitute for good, new
3D seismic and going back and looking at core data or samples carefully. Figure 24 summarizes the challenge.
In the Figure 24 example, up-dip facies from a large carbonate stratigraphic trap consisting of irregular boundaries between macro-porous
grainstones, meso-porous limestone, silty, micro-porous siliciclastic, and regional evaporite seals makes the trap identification difficult to the
untrained eye. If you drill well 4 or 3 first, you are likely to abandon the play. If you are clever, however, finding a trace of oil in very tight
rock (well 3) would suggest a substantial column at that location. The question becomes where to drill next. Your boss will probably tell
you to “drill up-dip” -- everyone knows you go up-dip of a show. Your intuition and knowledge of the area, however, tells you to look
for some better facies within that trap. Hence you argue for well number 2. After considerable haggling, you drill downdip, against the
better judgement of your supervisor and find some oil with water. You supervisor tells you to abandon the project, there is nothing there. Again,
your knowledge of capillarity, relative permeability and pressures with shows tells you from RFT data that you are indeed in the same oil
column. Newly acquired 3D seismic shows you a grainstone shoal facies just downdip of well 2. You recommend going downdip again,
to get irreducible water saturation.

Your boss thinks you are insane, and vows to drink all the oil in that downdip location. Your geophysicist likes the location, because that
seismic looks so good--“what an awesome image”, he tells you. You drill downdip, get a 10,000 BOPD well, irreducible water saturations and
can finally sleep after days of sweating out the result. Your team has a big discovery party and your boss gets a big promotion for having
allowed you to take such a huge risk on the company’s behalf. You get an ‘atta boy’ pat on the back and enough bonus to take the wife to
dinner.

If this sounds like fiction, it is not. Many astute explorers do this innately. A good documentation from a personal example is in Dolson et
al., (1998). The principles are laid out clearly (Schowalter, 1979; Schowalter and Hess, 1982). Pseudo-capillary pressure plots (Hawkins
et al., 1993) and others derived from porosity/permeability relationships estimating pore throat radius (Pittman, 1992) and detailed in Dolson
(2016) can help determine the position of an oil recovery or show in a trap quantitatively. That information can help immensely in
determining where to drill in a trap delineated only by tight oil shows in waste zones.

Mature Basin Case Histories: West Siberian Basin

Three examples from Russia’s West Siberian Basin provide good examples. The basin is the largest contiguous basin in the world and one of
the most prolific with source rocks spanning Neoproterozoic through Cretaceous age. The dominant source rock, however, is the prolific
and rich Upper Jurassic Bazhenov Shale (circled at location 3 in Figure 25).

The Jurassic system is largely confined to broad paleo-valley networks overlying heavily eroded surfaces of Paleozoic clastics and intrusive
granites and metamorphics. As shown chronostratigraphically (locations 1, 2) these broad valleys were buried by mid to later Jurassic time
when the Bazhenov seaway covered the entire basin. Progradational Lower Cretaceous (Neocomian) clastic wedges prograded from both
east and west into the Bazhenov seaway, setting up deltaic and turbidite ‘clinoform’ plays. With additional source rocks in the Lower
Jurassic and Triassic, and a regional Aptian shale transgression sealing the ‘clinoform’ package, a near perfect charge and migration setting
exists for any trap geometry.
The basin is perhaps a ‘type section’ for prolific stratigraphic traps, and has reserves in excess of 450 BBOE, with 28 BBOE in the Jurassic
system (Figure 26). Seven of the world’s largest gas fields occur in the basin, all of which are in excess of 100 TCF in size (Igoshkin et al.,
2008). More importantly, structural dip rates, as well as structural closures, have gentle dips, typically 5-10 meters per kilometer, allowing
even modest seal capacity to develop stratigraphic traps of large aerial extent.

Uvat-Ust-Teguss and Tyamskaya Fields

The Uvat-Ust-Teguss-Tyamskaya study area is in the extreme southern portion of the basin as shown on Figure 26. Jurassic paleo-
topography exerts a strong control on depositional facies, with a network of basal paleo-valleys extending over 2000 kilometers from north to
south (Figure 26A).

These fields are located on the flanks of large paleo-structural arches formed in the late Triassic. These arches have been prominent
topographic highs during multiple periods of Jurassic and Cretaceous transgressions and burial, showing up as yellow and orange colors
on both the structural (Figure 26B) and isopach maps (Figure 26D). As a result, there are hundreds of meters of onlapping reservoir, seal and
source rock geometries around the flanks. These geometries form stratigraphic traps with over 724 MMBO and 5.8 TCF of gas, covering a
3000 km2 area in the Urna complex alone.

2D seismic delineated the overall structural shape and general nature of the onlap, but not the facies. Isopach maps from Bazhenov to
Basement (“A” horizon locally) revealed a strong pattern of dendritic shapes assumed to be fluvial systems surrounding the high. The sub-
regional pattern of the basal erosional valleys is shown in Figure 26D. Stacked sandstones on logs, interbedded with some thin coals led to an
interpretation of the reservoirs as discontinuous channel sandstones.

The fluvial model was further supported not just by overall isopachs of dendritic or trellis patterns, but by time slices from 3D seismic
(Figure 27).

Onlap traps are common globally, often as shoreline sandstones. This field offers a detailed look at one of the variances of an onlap trap.
The fluvial model, with inferences of highly discontinuous reservoirs and compartmentalization, fell apart as abundant core data became
available (Dolson et al., 2014). The cores showed marine, estuarine, tidal flat, tidal channel, and shoreface sandstones. Just as importantly,
numerous paleo-sols, missing facies and a number of correlable Glossifungites ichnofacies showed that the drowning and onlap was
episodic, punctuated by periods of lowstand and exposure.

Thin coals once used to support a coastal plain model turned out to be algal-rich estuarine coals and source rocks and the reservoirs and seals
were nested in multiple incised valley fills as estuaries, tidal channels, tidal flats, and central basin muds. The uppermost levels were fully
marine coarse-grained shoreface sandstones, reworked and re-deposited in sheet-like geometries. The high compartmentalization speculated
from geological fluvial models disappeared and production later proved high connectivity between wells.
Re-correlation of the sequences (Figure 28) showed the most prolific horizon (“J2”) was actually a sheet-like geometry of reworked shoreface
and sandstones formed during marine ravinement during transgression.

The dendritic patterns of estuarine valley networks are clear on the ‘J2’ seismic image in Figure 28, as is the arcuate shoreline trend on the 3D.
These results led to a dramatic increase in the recoverable reserves. Just as significantly, in a stratal slice just below the ‘J2’, the seismic
shows a completely different pattern for the “J3”. This level is dominated by tidal flats (generally poor reservoirs) and a narrow and isolated
bay-head delta (good reservoir). At each level, the facies on seismic are different. The 3D seismic high-resolution facies analysis was
critical to predict reservoir and seal extents and compartmentalization. This field is still one of the most productive fields currently owned by
Rosneft (who bought TNK-BP in 2013).

The Tyamskaya Field area is located NW of the Uvat paleo-high and down depositional dip. The oil and gas shows could not be easily
explained, since later 3D seismic showed that only one well (202) was actually drilled on a valid structural closure (Figure 29).

Well log cross-sections using traditional ‘layer cake’ fluvial models (Figure 30) could not easily explain the oil shows or variances in reservoir
quality.

1. As data from a 500 + km2 3D seismic program became available, a new look at the core and log data revealed a more complicated story
similar to what was being uncovered in the Uvat area up-dip (Figure 31). Pressure data in well 270 to the south, indicated a possible
free water level consistent with shows in the other wells with oil. Below this level, the reservoirs were wet and tested water. Just as
importantly, well 314 drilled through tight tidal flat facies (not fluvial coastal plain) and tested oil in micro-porous facies. This well
was a classic ‘waste zone’. Capillary pressure data and SW in the well indicated a column height of at least 80-100 meters below the
cored interval.

Seismically, a large incised valley deposit filled with tidal channels and containing a well-developed, but only lightly tested bay-head delta was
delineated by the 3D data. The channel/delta image shown in Figure 29 was developed from an inversion volume modeling porosity and using
seismic wavelet facies analysis. The results were surprising, but consistent with observations in the core. The main fairway was not tested
thoroughly and well 314 was drilled within a micro-porous seal.

As at Uvat, multiple incision surfaces were found in the cored intervals and the facies once again proved to be estuarine and marine, with
multiple sequences present. Correlations of the well section, using seismic, cores, and logs, resulted in a different pattern (Figure 31). A
reservoir picture became clear with Winland plots of porosity vs. permeability with calculated pore throat aperture lines overlain (Dolson,
2016b; Pittman, 1992; Winland, 1972, 1976). Data falling below .5 mu R35 aperture are micro-porous and act as seals. These were
consistently in tidal flat facies. Values between .5 and 2 mu are meso-porous, behaving as transition zones in an accumulation and above
2 mu are macro-porous, high quality reservoirs. Tidal channels and bayhead deltas were consistently macro-porous. The high flow rates in well
202 were due to high quality bayhead delta reservoirs located 150 meters above free water, where water saturations were low. Poorer performing
wells downdip in macro-porous strata were simply very low on the trap, with low buoyancy pressure. Well 314 only flowed because it was
high in the trap, with enough buoyancy pressure to reach 30-50% Sw in tight rock (Figure 32).
Despite shooting a huge 3D survey, the total trap turned out to be larger than the survey shot. Figure 33 shows the maximum possible extent
of the trap. While parts of this trap remain speculative, the nature of the stratigraphic seals is clear. Tidal flat facies commonly rim the sides of
the valley sequences and are waste zones and seals, despite being silty and fine-grained sandstones. Visualizing porosity and permeability in
terms of pore throat size is a better way of predicting seals vs. reservoirs. Height above free water calculations can be used with capillary
pressure data, or, lacking that, with pseudo-capillary pressure curves (Dolson, 2016) to estimate position of an oil or gas show in a trap of
unknown size.

This is a huge potential trap and many analogs of this trap type occur in Jurassic and other strata elsewhere in the West Siberian Basin.

The learnings from these efforts should be applied globally. Be data driven, not ‘concept’ driven. Strive to squeeze as much stratigraphic
imaging as you can from the seismic. 3D is essential to do this, but it is up to the interpreter to use the right software, right level of detail,
and appropriate tools to achieve the right results.

Priobskoye Field Analog

Lastly, Priobskoye Field in West Siberia provides another important stratigraphic trap analog (Dolson et al., 2014; Hafizov et al., 2014).
The field is located northwest of the Tyamskaya area (Figure 34). It was discovered accidentally in 1980 and is a pure stratigraphic giant
trap. A subtle arch exists near the field, but plays no role in the trapping geometry, which is controlled by numerous deltaic pinch-outs
(Neocomian topsets) and basinal turbidite fans (Achimov facies).

Traps are set up by multiple ravinement surfaces developed during transgressions of lowstand deltaic topsets as well as pure stratigraphic
traps in the ‘Achimov’ turbidites (Figure 34E). Figure 35 summarizes a seismic view of just one of these clinoform packages. Traditional
‘layer cake’ correlations, done without seismic, cross the seismic facies and do not explain the accumulations. The term ‘Achimov’ is applied to
any facies developed at the toe of a clinoform and ‘Neocomian’ to any facies in the topsets below Aptian flooding shales. Multiple seals exist,
despite the lithostratigraphic nature of the nomenclature.

Additional detail (Hafizov et al., 2014) includes images and core facies analysis from other parts of the field. The shelf to slope transition
is clear seismically, as well as the fine-grained slope fan facies. There are few to no shelf canyon incisions and even the top-set deltaics are
fine-grained. In this part of the field, the best facies are usually meso-porous, with some isolated macro-porous zones related to meso-fauna
trace fossils creating ‘cryptic cross-bedding’. These kinds of stratigraphic traps are common across West Siberia and well understood by
most explorers.

North Slope Analog: Mature Basin Fans and Deltaics

Since 2015, a huge new stratigraphic province has been opened up in the mature North Slope passive margin of Alaska. Long considered
drilled up after the 1969 discovery of Prudhoe Bay and decades of exploration focused on the deep Triassic Shublik source rocks (Figure 36),
innovative explorers recognized pay behind pipe and stratigraphic potential in the overlying Nanashuk Formation, largely considered by
many as ‘overburden’. As in the Priobskoye Field analog, basal turbidites are termed ‘Torok’ Formation, despite the obvious diachroneity in
the correlations.

Interestingly, Caelus Energy was formed by ex-Kosmos staff members who had experience developing the turbidite plays in West African mature
source rock kitchens. They simply took their model to the North Slope and drilled a 700 km2 + turbidite fan trap at Smith Bay
(CaelusEnergyAlaska, 2017).

The Willow and Pika/Horseshoe fields keyed off pay behind pipe in a 2002 well plugged by Conoco-Phillips without testing. 3D seismic
illuminated the topset traps. The plays are still being made (AlaskaDeptNatResources, 2017a, b).

These discoveries have completely ‘broken’ the yet-to-find estimates by the USGS over several decades for this area. The play is a ‘mirror
image’ of the West Siberian Neocomian plays. Sometimes, new ideas simply take some lateral thinking and paying attention to oil shows
pays off.

Some Final Thoughts, Other Tools and Middle East Implications

Carbonate margins have the similar progradation geometries as those found in deltas (Figure 37). The figures (modified from Handford,
2007), illustrate the differences between lithostratigraphic vs. chronostratigraphic correlations in the Jurassic Smackover Formation of the
Gulf Coast.

The sequence shown in Figure 37B show obvious room for additional trapping in multiple facies, none of which are apparent in the
lithostratigraphic correlation (Figure 37A). In the Middle East, much of the production is carbonate related. It would seem impossible not to
have additional stratigraphic traps in the carbonate facies by utilizing the principles outlined in this paper.

One interesting regional observation is that the slope carbonate turbidites and breccias, productive in many basins, and particularly well
illustrated in the giant Poza Rica Field of Mexico (Janson et al., 2011) have not been discovered in giant field volumes since 2000. Many of
these carbonate breccia trends are targets of both unconventional and conventional drilling and represent down-slope trends (Janson et al.,
2007; Playton and Kerans, 2002). Are similar plays present in the Middle East?

Many additional tools are available beyond those illustrated in this paper (Figure 38).

Figure 38A shows an automated technique used at ION Geophysical (through contractors) to take seismic data and convolve a Wheeler
Diagram (Wheeler, 1958, 1964) of time equivalent strata. This kind of tool is an excellent initial screening method to identify large scale
sequence stratigraphic packages.

Figure 38B shows a ‘quick look’ depth seismic section modeled for migration using Trinity software (also illustrated in He, 2017). The
technique is simple and fast to run, simply by converting various amplitudes to relative arbitrary seal capacity in meters of column height and
then using the map as a seal map and running it against a project set up with regional ramp structural dip. This technique is simply a good way
to look at potential migration pathways in a frontier or lightly drilled basin. Obviously, building a robust model, even on a 2D depth
section, that honors quantitative seismic velocity data, is enormously time consuming and not necessarily practical given time and effort
required if screening plays or basin. This simple technique is fast and generates ideas, so it is worth trying and then ‘ground truthing’ with
other well or seeps data at the sea floor.

Migration modeling is still in its infancy, when it comes to building full volumes of quantitative seals and reservoirs in a seismic and well
constrained 3D volume. But even simple models shown in examples Figure 38B and Figure 38D are good ways to visualize risk and generate
ideas. Many of the pitfalls and techniques are covered in Dolson, 2016 (chapter 9).

Regardless of which petroleum systems modeling software is used, it is essential to take a stab at modeling migration with facies and fault seals.
The more quantitative your model is with both seismic inversion volumes, facies visualization, and calibration to cores, fault throws, and other
seals, the more predictive the models become. But calibration to known oil and gas shows, accumulations and dry holes is the only way to
verify these models (Figure 38D). A good example of calibration of residual and continuous phase shows to migration history is from the
Barmer Basin of India (Naidu et al., in press).

In addition, one of the best tools for visualizing migration pathways and seals is fluid inclusions stratigraphy (Dolson, 2016b; Hall, 2008), and
shown on Figure 38C. The technique is relatively inexpensive and fast, involving mass crushing of cuttings and analysis of over 20 different
hydrocarbon species, as well as intensity of the inclusions. Fluid density (API gravity), water salinities, geo thermometry, temperature of
emplacement of the inclusion, and a host of other data can be generated quickly from bulk cuttings. There is no limit to age of the cuttings and
this is a cost-effective way to garner new information on old dry holes. By-passed pay, proximity to pay, and migration pathways (when
coupled with other wells with similar analysis) become more readily apparent.

Another technique frequently used to refine correlations in difficult environments is chemostratigraphy (Ramkumar, 2015). This technique can
help define subtle stratigraphic pinch outs where traditional lithostratigraphic correlations may not. Undoubtedly, new tools will continue to
evolve in the future.

The Middle East Dilemma

A fundamental problem remains in the Middle East (Figure 39). The Middle East is the world’s largest and most prolific hydrocarbon province.
Working petroleum systems exist from Neoproterozoic through Tertiary strata (Figure 39A). Even cursory seismic images (Figure 39B), show
periods of syntectonic growth and deposition.

Hydrodynamic traps are known in Qatar (He and Berkman, 1999), and over-pressured basins exist where deep basin upward flow and tilting
is documented as discussed earlier in the Caspian Basin (Riley, 2009). Abundant anhydrites and salts are interbedded with carbonate
reservoirs that could set up large stratigraphic traps. Onlap wedges are clear on many seismic sections, with an example shown in Figure 39B.
A giant tight gas accumulation (Khazzan Field), as discussed, has been found in Oman only in the last decade. In structural provinces with
steep dip, outstanding seals are required for big accumulations. Evaporites and salts provide some of those outstanding seals,
particularly along carbonate shorelines. In addition, many areas in the Middle East have more moderate dip and the flank potential of many
drilled structures offers potentially untapped prospects.

Conceptually, there is no reason why large stratigraphic traps shouldn’t exist in the Middle East. Perhaps in this region, Michel Halbouty was
right 37 years ago, arguing that these kinds of traps simply have been not been systematically explored for.

Summary

The last 17 years have seen a truly global step-change in finding rates for giant and significant combination, hydrodynamic and stratigraphic
traps. Future success will come from the increasing ability to image progressively thinner reservoir levels with 3D seismic, and with new
methods of extracting more seismic information. Success will also come from better integration of petroleum maturation, migration, and
entrapment. The line between classic stratigraphic traps and unconventional traps will continue to blur, especially as it relates to locating ‘sweet
spots’ within shale or tight gas plays.

When 3D seismic images yield images that no longer are simply ‘amplitudes in space’, but geomorphological features readily understood by
geologists, then the road to de-risking prospects has begun. Integration of migration modeling with facies and fault seals, calibrated to oil and
gas shows, provides another missing step in exploration, and is essential in mature basins.

In the last 17 years there have been many ‘winners’ and a number of losers. Many of the innovations have come from smaller, more ‘nimble’
companies with experienced staff willing to ‘think out of the box’. Many large companies have missed out on the new discoveries. Cultures of
conformity, fear of failure, over-reliance on a couple of play types, and playing the same old plays over and over with ever diminishing results
leads to failure.

The future belongs to those companies that have challenged and will continue to challenge conventional wisdom, guide decision making with
solid risk analysis and utilize as much data as possible to define the trap.

When that is done, the subtle trap becomes obvious.

Acknowledgements:

The authors wish to thank Delonex Energy for financial, time, and logistical support to present this paper in Oman, in particular Rahul Dhir and
David Ginger. Delonex colleagues Rosalie Constable, Joel Guttormsen, and Edward “Woody” Prescott provided constructive reviews and help.
Bob Merrill and Charles Sternbach at AAPG provided help with the giant fields database and additional review. Katya Volfovich and Irina
Averyanova provided some help with missing reserve and trap information in some Russian fields. Jeff Corrigan, as usual, was very helpful on
edits and petroleum systems context. George Pemberton, while not reviewing this paper, has been crucial to understanding the plays illustrated
in Russia, and is a valued partner in DSP Geosciences and Associates. Pete Stark (IHS Energy) provided some missing links in Chinese giant
field discoveries. Lastly, the senior author owes a debt of gratitude to his wife for putting up with the endless hours of mumbling while editing
the AAPG giant fields database and searching for better locations and trap information.

References Cited

Alaska_Dept_Nat_Resources, 2017a, Nanushuk Formation Brookian Topset Play: Alaska North Slope, North American Prospect Expo 2017.

Alaska_Dept_Nat_Resources, 2017b, North Slope Oil and Gas Activity Map: Anchorage, Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, 1 p.

Amirkhani, A., M. Mirzakhanian, S. Sepahvand, and J. Sadoni, 2015, Upper Cretaceous Petroleum System of Northwestern Persian Gulf:
Iranian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 7, p. 153-163.

Benkovics, L., and A. Asensio, 2015, New Evidences of an Active Strike-Slip Fault System in Northern Venezuela, Near Offshore Perla
Field, in C. Barolini and P. Mann (eds.), Petroleum Geology and Potential of the Colombian Caribbean Margin: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Memoir 108, p. 749-764.

Cade, C.A., S.M. Grant, and C.J. Witt, 1999, Integrated Petrographic and Petrophysical Analysis for Risk Reduction, Ormen Lange
Area, Norway: European Association of Geologists and Engineers 61st Conference and Technical Exhibition, 4. p.

Caelus_Energy_Alaska, 2017, Smith Bay: A world class discovery; Fact Sheet, Houston, Texas, Caelus Energy Alaska.
http://caelusenergy.com/smith-bay-project/ Website accessed June 2018.

Cairn_Energy, 2017, SNE North-1 Exploration Well Result, Cairn Energy PLC Press Release, August 7, 2017, 3. p.

Carlotto, M.A., R.C.B. da Silva, A.A. Yamato, W.L. Trindade, J.L.P. Moreira, R.A.R. Fernandes, O.J.S. Ribeiro, J.P.C. Wenceslau Peres
Gouveia Jr., D. Quicai, Z. Jungeng, and A.C. da Silva-Telles Jr., 2017, Libra: A Newborn Giant in the Brazilian Presalt Province, in R.K.
Merrill and C.A. Sternbach (eds.), Giant Fields of the Decade 2000-2010: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 113, p. 165-
176.

Carstens, H., 2005, Buzzard-A Discovery Based on Sound Geological Thinking: GEOExPro, p. 34-38.

Cazier, E.C., C. Bargas, L. Buambua, S. Cardoso, H. Ferreira, K. Inman, A. Lopes, T. Nicholson, C. Olson, A. Saller, and J. Shinol, 2014,
Petroleum Geology of Cameia Field, Deepwater Pre-salt Kwanza Basin, Angola, West Africa: AAPG International Conference and Exhibition,
Istanbul, Turkey, September 14-17, 2014, Search and Discovery Article #20275 (2014). Website accessed June 2018.

Clarke, J.W., 1985, Petroleum Geology of East Siberia: United States Geological Survey Bulletin, Open-File Report 85-367, 123 p.
Collins, J.R., J.A.M. Kenter, P.M. Harris, G. Kuanysheva, D.J. Fischer, and K.L. Steffen, 2006, Facies and Reservoir-Quality Variation in
the Late Visean to Bashkirian Outer Platform, Rim, and Flank of the Tengiz Buildup, Precaspian Basin, Kazakhstan, in P.M. Harris and L.J.
Weber (eds.), Giant Hydrocarbon Reservoirs of the World: From Rocks to Reservoir Characterization and Modeling: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Memoir 88, p. 55-95.

Dahlberg, E.C., 1982, Applied Hydrodynamics in Petroleum Exploration: New York, New York, Springer Verlag, 161 p.

Dahlberg, E.C., 1995, Applied Hydrodynamics in Petroleum Exploration, 2nd Edition: New York, New York, Springer Verlag, 295 p.

Dai, J., ed., 2016, Giant Coal-Derived Gas Fields and Their Gas Sources in China: Science Press, Beijing, China, Elsevier, 564 p.

Dailly, P., T. Henderson, K. Kanschat, P. Lowry, and S. Sills, 2017, The Jubilee Filed, Ghana: Opening the Late Cretaceous Play in the West
African Transform Margin, in R.K. Merrill and C.A. Sternbach (eds.), Giant Fields of the Decade 2000-2010: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Memoir 113, p. 257-272.

Dennis, H., P. Bergmo, and T. Holt, 2005, Tilted Oil-Water Contacts: Modelling the Effects of Aquifer Heterogeneity: Petroleum
Geology Conference Series 2005, p. 145-158.

Dolson, J.C., 2016a, Understanding Nile Delta Pressures and Hydrodynamics: Are These Keys to Unlocking New Reserves?, in B. Bosworth
and A.A. Fattah (eds.), Hydrocarbon Potential of the Sinai Micro-plate and its Surrounding Basins, Alexandria, Egypt: American
Association of Petroleum Geologists and Egyptian Petroleum Exploration Society.

Dolson, J.C., 2016b, Understanding Oil and Gas Shows and Seals in the Search for Hydrocarbons: Switzerland, Springer International Publishing
Switzerland, 486 p.
Dolson, J.C., 2016c, Unlocking Egypt's Future Petroleum Potential: The Role of Creative Ideas, Data Access and Fostering a Bigger Role for
Smaller Companies, in B. Bosworth and A.A. Fattah (eds.), Annual Monthly Meeting EPEX (Egyptian Petroleum Exploration Society),
Khalda Petroleum, Cairo, Egypt.

Dolson, J.C., 2017, Hunting for Nulfs: GEO ExPro, v. 14, p. 30-35.

Dolson, J. C., 2000, Egypt in the Next Millenium - Petroleum Potential from Offshore Trends: Mediterranean Offshore Conference.

Dolson, J.C., M.S. Bahorich, R.C. Tobin, E.A. Beaumont, L.J. Terlikoski, and M.L. Hendricks, 1999, Exploring for Stratigraphic Traps, in
E.A. Beaumont and N.H. Foster (eds.), Exploring for Oil and Gas Traps: Treatise of Petroleum Geology, Handbook of Petroleum Geology,
v. 1, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, p. 21.2-21.68.
Dolson, J.C., M.L. Hendricks, and W.A. Wescott, 1994a, Unconformity-Related Hydrocarbons in Sedimentary Sequences: Denver, Colorado,
The Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, 298 p.

Dolson, J.C., S.G. Pemberton, S. Hafizov, V. Bratkova, E. Volfovich, and I. Averyanova, 2014, Giant Incised Valley Fill and Shoreface
Ravinement Traps, Urna, Ust-Teguss and Tyamkinskoe Field Areas, Southern West Siberian Basin, Russia: AAPG Annual Convention and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, April 6-9, 2014, Search and Discovery Article #10634 (2014). Website accessed June 2018.

Dolson, J.C., K.W. Shanley, M.L. Hendricks, and W.A. Wescott, 1994b, A Review of the Fundamental Concepts of Hydrocarbon
Exploration in Unconformity Related Traps, in J.C. Dolson, M.L. Hendricks and W.A. Wescott (eds.), Unconformity-Related Hydrocarbons in
Sedimentary Sequences: The Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, Denver, Colorado, p. 1-22.

Dolson, J.C., M.V. Shann, S. Matbouly, C. Harwood, R. Rashed, and H. Hammouda, 2001, The Petroleum Potential of Egypt, in M.W.
Downey, J.C. Threet, and W.A. Morgan (eds.), Petroleum Provinces of the 21st Century: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir
74, p. 453-482.

Dolson, J.C., M.V. Shann, S.I. Matbouly, H. Hammouda, and R.M. Rashed, 2000, Egypt in the Twenty-First Century: Petroleum Potential in
Offshore Trends: GEOARABIA, v. 6, p. 211-229.

Dolson, J.C., Z.E. Sisi, J. Ader, B. Leggett, B. Sercombe, and D. Smith, 1998, Use of Cuttings, Capillary Pressure, Oil Shows and Production
Data to Successfully Predict a Deeper Oil Water Contact, Wata and Matulla Formations, October Field, Gulf of Suez, in M. Eloui (ed.),
Proceedings of the 14th Petroleum Conference, v. 1, Cairo, Egypt, The Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation, p. 298- 307.

Dolson, J.C., B. Steer, J. Garing, G. Osborne, A. Gad, and H. Amr, 1997, 3D Seismic and Workstation Technology Brings Technical Revolution
to the Gulf of Suez Petroleum Company: The Leading Edge, v. 16, p. 1809-1817.

Dyman, T.S., V.A. Litinsky, and G.F. Ulmishek, 2001, Geology and Natural Gas Potential of Deep Sedimentary Basins in the Former Soviet
Union: Chapter C, United States Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado, 29 p.

EIA, 2011, World Shale Gas Resources: An Initial Assessment of 14 Regions Outside the United States: Energy Information Administration
Office of Oil and Gas, Washington, D.C., USA, 365 p.

EIA, 2015a, Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources: Argentina: Energy Information Administration Office of Oil and Gas,
Washington, D.C., USA, 37 p.

EIA, 2015b, Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources: Russia: Energy Information Administration Office of Oil and Gas,
Washington, D.C., USA, 21 p.
EIA, 2017, Annual Energy Outlook 2017 with Projections to 2050: U.S. Energy Information Administration.

England, W.A., A.W. Mackenzie, D.M. Mann, and T.M. Quigley, 1987, The Movement and Entrapment of Petroleum Fluids in the
Subsurface: Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 144, p. 327-347.

ENI, 2015a, ENI Discovers a Supergiant Gas Field in the Egyptian Offshore, The Largest Ever Found in the Mediterranean Sea: ENI, p. 1.

ENI, 2015b, Goliat Field Trip, ENI, 32 p. http://www.slideshare.net/enicomes/goliat-field-trip Website accessed June 2018.

Estrella, G., 2012, Pre-Salt Production Development in Brazil: FIRST Magazine, 20th World Petroleum Congress, 4 p.

Faid, M.K., and R. Carvalho, 2013, Mozambique - The Emergence of a Giant in Natural Gas: SPTEC Advisory, 2012 Country Review,
31 p.

Feijo, F.J., 2013, Santos Basin: 40 Years from Shallow to Deep to Ultra-Deep Water: AAPG International Conference and Exhibition,
Cartagena, Colombia, September 8-11, 2013, Search and Discovery Article #10553 (2013). Website accessed June 2018.

Ferrero, M.B., S. Price, and J. Hognestad, 2012, Predicting Water in the Crest of a Giant Gas Field: Ormen Lange Hydrodynamic Aquifer
Model: Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE 153507, p. 1-13.

Fonnesu, F., 2013, The Mamba Complex Supergiant Gas Discovery (Mozambique): An Example of Turbidite Fans Modified by
Deepwater Tractive Bottom Currents: The 12th PESGB/HGS Conference on Africa E&P, London, United Kingdom.

Hafizov, S., J.C. Dolson, G. Pemberton, I. Didenko, L. Burova, I. Nizyaeva, and A. Medvedev, 2014, Seismic and Core Based Reservoir
Characterization of the Giant Priobskoye Field, West Siberia, Russia: AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, April 6-9,
2014, Search and Discovery Article #20269 (2014). Website accessed June 2018.

Halbouty, M.T., 1981, The Time Is Now for All Explorationists to Purposefully Search for the Subtle Trap: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, p. 1-10.

Halbouty, M.T., ed., 1982, The Deliberate Search for the Subtle Trap: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 32, 351 p.

Halbouty, M.T., 2003, Giant Oil and Gas Fields of the 1990s: An Introduction, in M.T. Halbouty (ed.), Giant Oil and Gas Fields of the Decade
1990-1999: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 78, p. 1-13.

Hall, D., 2008, Fluid Inclusions in Petroleum Systems, in D. Hall (ed.), AAPG Getting Started Series No. 15, American Association of Petroleum
Geologists.
Handford, C.R., 2007, Stratigraphic Mistakes and Forced Models - Lessons Learned from Flood-World, Flat-World and Lowstand World
Correlations, Moscow, Russia: Presented as an oral paper at Moscow State University, Russia, 57 p.

Haq, B.U., J. Hardenbol, and P.R. Vail, 1988, Mesozoic and Cenozoic Chronostratigraphy and Eustatic Cycles, in C.K. Wilgus, B.S. Hastings,
C.G.S.C. Kendall, H.W. Posamentier, C.A. Ross, and J.C.V. Wagoner (eds.), Sea-level Changes: An Integrated Approach: Society of
Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Publication No. 42, v. 1, p. 71-109.

Hardenbol, J., J. Thierry, M.B. Farley, T. Jacquin, P.-C.D. Graciansy, and P.R. Vail, 1998, Mesozoic and Cenozoic Sequence
Chronostratigraphic Framework of European Basins, in P.-C.D. Granciasky, J. Hardenbol, T. Jacquin, and P.R. Vail (eds.), Mesozoic and
Cenozoic Sequence Chronostratigraphic Framework of European Basins: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special
Publication 59.

Hawkins, J.M., D.L. Luffel, and T.G. Harris, 1993, Capillary Pressure Model Predicts Distance to Gas/Water, Oil/Water Contact: Oil and
Gas Journal, p. 39-43.

He, Z., 2017, Understanding Migration and Trapping in Unconventional Plays Through 3D Geospatial Data Analysis, Closing the Gap III:
Advances in Applied Geomodeling for Hydrocarbon Reservoirs, Lake Louise, Alberta, Canada: Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, p.
24.

He, Z., and T. Berkman, 1999, Interactive Charge Modeling of the Qatar Arch Petroleum Systems: AAPG Hedberg Conference on
Multi-Dimensional Basin Modeling, Colorado Springs, Colorado, American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

Heppard, P.D., J.C. Dolson, N.C. Allegar, and S.M. Scholtz, 2000, Overpressure Evaluation and Hydrocarbon Systems of Offshore Nile
Delta, Egypt: Mediterranean Offshore Conference, p. CD.

Herbert, R., 2017, Exploration Opportunities in the Middle East, Finding Petroleum Middle East Forum: Geological Society of London,
London, United Kingdom, 17 p.

Horn, M. K., 2005, Giant Oil and Gas Fields, 1868-2005: American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

Horn, M.K., 2011, Giant Oil and Gas Fields: AAPG GIS Database Updated to 2010, American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

Hubbert, M.K., 1953, Entrapment of Petroleum Under Hydrodynamic Conditions: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v.
37, p. 1954-2026.
Igoshkin, V.J., J.C. Dolson, D. Sidorov, O. Bakuev, and R. Herbert, 2008, New Interpretations of the Evolution of the West Siberian Basin,
Russia: Implications for Exploration: AAPG Annual Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, Search and Discovery Article #10161
(2008). Website accessed June 2018.

Janson, X., C. Kerans, J.A. Bellian, and W. Fitchen, 2007, Three-Dimensional Geological and Synthetic Seismic Model of Early Permian
Redeposited Basinal Carbonate Deposits, Victorio Canyon, West Texas: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 91, p.
1405-1436.

Janson, X., C. Kerans, R. Loucks, M.A. Marhx, C. Reyes, and F. Murguia, 2011, Seismic Architecture of a Lower Cretaceous Platform-To-
Slope System, Santa Agueda And Poza Rica Fields, Mexico: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 95, p. 105-146.

Jenkins, C.C., A. Duckett, B.A. Boyett, P.N. Glenton, A.A. Mills, M.C. Schapper, M.A. Williams, and J.G. McPherson, 2017, The Jansz-
Io Gas Field, Northwest Shelf Australia: A Giant Stratigraphic Trap, in R.K. Merrill and C.A. Sternbach (eds), Giant Fields of the Decade
2000-2010: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 113, p. 305-322.

Jewell, G., 2011, Exploration of the Tano Basin and Discovery of the Jubilee Field, Ghana: A New Deepwater Game-Changing
Hydrocarbon Play in the Transform Margin of West Africa: AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, April 10-13,
2011, Search and Discovery Article #110156 (2011). Website accessed June 2018.

Kenter, J.A.M., P.M. Harris, J.R. Collins, L.J. Weber, G. Kuanysheva, and D.J. Fischer, 2006, Late Visean to Bashkirian Platform Cyclicity in
the Central Tengiz Buildup, Precaspian Basin, Kazakhstan: Depositional Evolution and Reservoir Development, in P.M. Harris and L.J. Weber
(eds.), Giant Hydrocarbon Reservoirs of the World: From Rocks to Reservoir Characterization and Modeling: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Memoir 88, p. 7-54.

Levorsen, A.I., 1936, Stratigraphic Versus Structural Accumulation: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 20, p. 521-530.

Ma, Y., X. Guo, T. Guo, R. Huang, X. Cai, and G. Li, 2007, The Puguang Gas Field: New Giant Discovery in the Mature Sichuan Basin,
Southwest China: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 91, p. 627-643.

MacAulay, F., 2015, Sea Lion Field Discovery and Appraisal: A Turning Point for the North Falkland Basin: Petroleum Geoscience, v.
21, p. 111-124.

Mann, J., and J.W.D. Rigg, 2012, New Geological Insights into the Santos Basin: GEOExPro, p. 38-40.

Marfurt, K.J., R.L. Kirlin, S.L. Farmer, and M.S. Bahorich, 1998, 3-D Seismic Attributes Using a Semblance-Based Coherency Algorithm:
Geophysics v. 63, p. 1150-1165.
Mello, M.R., A.A. Bender, N.C.A. Filho, S.M. Barbanti, M.R. Franke, and C.L.C. Jesus, 2011, Correlation of the Petroleum Systems from Santos
and Namibian Offshore Basins: Offshore Technology Conference, Rio de Janeiro, 16 p.

Mello, M.R., W.U. Mohriak, E.A.M. Koutsoukos, and J.C.A. Figueira, 1991, Brazilian and West African Oils: Generation, Migration,
Accumulation and Correlation: World Petroleum Congress, p. 153-164.

Merrill, R.K., and C.A. Sternbach, 2017a, The AAPG Century-Giant fields Through the Decades: AAPG 2017 Annual Convention and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, April 2-5, 2017, Search and Discovery Article #70267 (2017). Website accessed June 2018.

Merrill, R.K., and C.A. Sternbach, 2017b, Concepts, Technology, Price, and Access Drive Giant Field Discoveries, in R.K. Merrill and C.A.
Sternbach (eds.), Giant Fields of the Decade 2000-2010: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 113, p. 1-7.

Merrill, R.K., and C.A. Sternbach, eds., 2017c, Giant Fields of the Decade 2000-2010: American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Memoir 113, 322 p.

Millson, J.A., J.G. Quinn, E. Idiz, P. Turner, and A. Al-Harthy, 2008, The Khazzan Gas Accumulation, A Giant Combination Trap in the
Cambrian Barik Sandstone Member, Sultanate of Oman: Implications for Cambrian Petroleum Systems and Reservoirs: American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 92, p. 885-917.

Mitchum, R.M., J.B. Sangree, P.R. Vail, and W.W. Wornardt, 1993, Recognizing Sequences and Systems Tracts from Well Logs, Seismic Data
and Biostratigraphy: Examples from the Late Cenozoic of the Gulf of Mexico, in P. Weimer and H.W. Posamentier (eds.), Siliciclastic
Sequence Stratigraphy, Recent Developments and Applications: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 58, p. 163-197.

Muggeridge, A., and H. Mahmode, 2012, Hydrodynamic Aquifer or Reservoir Compartmentalization?: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 96, p. 315-336.

Naidu, B.S., S.D. Burley, J. Dolson, P. Farrimond, V.R. Sunder, V. Kothari, and P. Mohapatra, in press, Hydrocarbon Generation and
Migration Modelling in the Barmer Basin of Western Rajasthan, India: Lessons for Exploration in Rift Basins with Late Stage Inversion, Uplift
and Tilting, Petroleum System Case Studies, in M.A. AbuAli, I. Moretti, and H.M. Nordgård Bolås (eds.), Petroleum Systems Analysis:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 114, p. 61-94.

Nakashima, K., 2004, Petroleum Potential in the East Siberian Region: The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan, 27 p.
http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/en/data/pdf/256.pdf. Website accessed June 2018.

Nikolaou, K.A., 2016, The Discovery of Zohr Gas Field in Egypt "A Game Changer": Impacts-Opportunities, 9th SE Europe Energy Dialogue,
The Quest for a New Energy Balance, Cyprus, Institute of Energy for South-East Europe, 16 p.
O'Connor, S.A., and R.E. Swarbrick, 2008, Pressure Regression, Fluid Drainage and Hydrodynamically Controlled Fluid Contact in the
North Sea, Lower Cretaceous, Britannia Sandstone Formation: Petroleum Geoscience, v. 14, p. 115-126.

Palermo, D., M. Galbiati, M. Famiglietti, M. Marchesini, D. Mezzapesa, and F. Fonnesu, 2014, Insights into a New Super-Giant Gas Field-
Sedimentology and Reservoir Modeling of the Coral Complex, Offshore Northern Mozambique: Offshore Technology Conference, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, OTC-24907-MS, 8 p.

Pittman, E., 1992, Relationship of Porosity and Permeability to Various Parameters Derived from Mercury Injection-Capillary Pressure
Curves for Sandstone: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 76, p. 191-198.

Playton, T.E., and C. Kerans, 2002, Slope and Toe-Of-Slope Deposits Shed from a Late Wolfcampian Tectonically Active Carbonate Ramp
Margin: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, v. 52, p. 811-820.

Pomar, L., M. Esteban, W. Martinez, D. Espino, V.C. Ott, L. Benkovics, and T.C. Leyva, 2015, Oligocene-Miocene Carbonates of the Perla
Field, Offshore Venezuela: Depositional Model and Facies Architecture, in C. Barolini and P. Mann (eds.), Petroleum Geology and Potential of
the Colombian Caribbean Margin: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 108, p. 647-674.

Posamentier, H.W., 2006a, Imaging Elements of Depositional Systems from Shelf to Deep Basin Using 3D Seismic Data: Implications for
Exploration and Development: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Dean A. McGee Funded Distinguished Lecture.

Posamentier, H.W., 2006b, Stratigraphy, Sedimentology and Geomorphology of Deep-Water Deposits Based on Analysis of 3D Seismic Data:
Reducing the Risk of Lithology Prediction: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Dean A. McGee Funded Distinguished Lecture.

Ramkumar, M., 2015, Chemostratigraphy: Concepts, Techniques, and Applications: Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Rassenfoss, S., 2017, It's Hard to Make Money in Deepwater, Even with Billions of Barrels to Produce: Journal of Petroleum Geology, v. 69, p.
7.

Ray, F.M., S.J. Pinnock, H. Katamish, and J.B. Turnbull, 2010, The Buzzard Field: Anatomy of the Reservoir from Appraisal to Production:
Petroleum Geology Conference Series 2010, p. 369-386.

Reynolds, E., 2016, Senegal Appraisal Looks to De-Risk 2014 Discovery Success: Edison Oilblog, 1 p.
http://www.edisonthoughts.com/2015/05. Website accessed June 2018.

Riley, G., 2009, Supergiant Fields in an Overpressured Lacustrine Petroleum System: The South Caspian Basin: AAPG 2009 Distinguished
Lecture Series, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 32 p.
Robbins, J., and G. Dore, 2005, The Buzzard Field, Outer Moray Firth, Central North Sea, AAPG Annual Conference and Exhibition, Calgary,
Alberta, June 19-22, 2005, Search and Discovery #110016 (2005). Website accessed June 2018.

Robertson, J., N.R. Goulty, and R.E. Swarbrick, 2013, Overpressure Distributions in Palaeogene Reservoirs of the UK Central North Sea
and Implications for Lateral and Vertical Fluid Flow: Petroleum Geoscience, v. 19, p. 223-236.

Schowalter, T.T., 1979, Mechanics of Secondary Hydrocarbon Migration and Entrapment: American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, v. 63, p. 723-760.

Schowalter, T.T., and P.D. Hess, 1982, Interpretation of Subsurface Hydrocarbon Shows: American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, v. 66, p. 1302-1327.

Sharma, N., 2014, A New Approach to Oil-And-Gas Exploration: McKinsey & Company Newsletter, 6 p.

Skinner, O., L. Canter, M.D. Sonnenfeld, and M. Williams, 2015, Discovery of "Pronghorn" and "Lewis and Clark" Fields: Sweet-Spots
within the Bakken Petroleum System Producing from the Sanish/Pronghorn Member NOT the Middle Bakken or Three Forks: AAPG Annual
Convention and Exhibition, Long Beach, California, USA, April 22-25, 2012, Search and Discovery Article #110176 (2015). Website
accessed June 2018.

Sonnenberg, S.A., and L. Meckel, 2017, Our Current Working Model for Unconventional Tight Petroleum Systems: Oil and Gas: AAPG 2017
Annual Convention and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, April 2-5, 2017, Search and Discovery Article #80589 (2017). Website accessed June
2018.

Sorenson, R.P., 2003, A Dynamic Model for the Permian Panhandle and Hugoton Fields, Western Anadarko Basin: AAPG Mid-Continent
Section Meeting, Tulsa, Oklahoma, October 12-14, 2003, Search and Discovery Article #20015(2003). Website accessed June 2018.

Sorenson, R.P., 2005, A Dynamic Model for the Permian Panhandle and Hugoton Fields, Western Anadarko Basin: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 89, p. 921-938.

Sorkhabi, R., 2010, Why So Much Oil in the Middle East: GEO ExPro, v. 7, p. 7.

Specht, R.N., A.E. Brown, C.H. Selman, and J.H. Carlisle, 1987, Geophysical Case History, Prudhoe Bay Field, Alaskan North Slope
Geology: Volumes I and II, Pacific Section, SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology), p. 19-30.

Spectrum, 2016, Offshore Guyana: ExxonMobil Discover Oil with Liza-2 Well: Spectrum Online Newsletter, 2 p.
http://www.spectrumgeo.com/press-release/exxonmobil-discover-oil-offshore-guyana-with-liza-2-well Website accessed June 2018.
Stark, P.P., and L.K. Smith, 2017, Giant Oil and Gas Fields of the 2000: A New Century Ushers in Deeper Water, Unconventionals, and More
Gas, in R.K. Merrill and C.A. Sternbach (eds.), Giant Fields of the Decade 2000-2010: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir
113, p. 15-28.

Ulmishek, G.F., 2001a, Petroleum Geology and Resources and Resources of the Baykit High Province, East Siberia, Russia: United States
Geological Survey Bulletin 2201-F, p. 1-18.

Ulmishek, G.F., 2001b, Petroleum Geology and Resources of the Nepa-Botuoba High, Angara-Lena Terrace, and Cis-Patom Foredeep,
Southeastern Siberian Craton, Russia: United States Geological Survey Bulletin 2201-C, p. 1-16.

Vail, P.R., R.M. Mitchum, R.G. Todd, R.G. Widmier, I.S. Thomson, J.B. Sangree, J.N. Bubb, and W.G. Hatfield, 1977, Seismic Stratigraphy
and Global Changes in Sea Level, in C.E. Payton (ed.), Seismic Stratigraphy - Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration: American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 26, p. 49-212.

Wagoner, J.C.V., H.W. Posamentier, J.R.M. Mitchum, P.R. Vail, J.F. Sarg, T.S. Loutit, and J. Hardenbol, 1988, An Overview of the
Fundamentals of Sequence Stratigraphy and Key Definitions, in C.K. Wilgus, B.S. Hastings, C.G.S.C. Kendall, H.W. Posamentier, C.A.
Ross, and J.C.V. Wagoner (eds.), Sea-level Changes: An Integrated Approach: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists,
Special Publication No. 42, v. 1, p. 39-46.

Wescott, W.A., and W.C. Hood, 1994, Hydrocarbon Generation and Migration Routes in the East Texas Basin: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 78, p. 287-307.

Wheeler, H.E., 1958, Time Stratigraphy: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 42, p. 1047-1063.
Wheeler, H.E., 1964, Baselevel, Lithosphere Surface and Time-Stratigraphy: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 75, p. 599-610.

Winland, H.D., 1972, Oil Accumulation in Response to Pore Size Changes, Wyburn Field, Saskatchewan: Amoco Production Company
Report F72-G-25 (unpublished), Tulsa, Oklahoma, 20 p.

Winland, H.D., 1976, Evaluation of Gas Slippage and Pore Aperture Size in Carbonate and Sandstone Reservoirs: Amoco Production
Company Report F76-G-5 (unpublished), Tulsa, Oklahoma, 25 p.

WRI, 2013, GIS Dataset, Unconventional, Shale, Basin, Energy, World, Fracturing, Fracking: World Resources Institute, West Virginia
GIS Technical Center, Department of Geology and Geography, West Virginia University.
Yi, H., C. Lee, and K. Dae-Yeoul, 2015, Shwe Gas Development, Rakhine Offshore, Myanmar, SEAPEX Exploration Conference 2015,
Singapore, 15 p.
http://archives.datapages.com/data/southeast-asia-petroleum-exploration-society/data/027/027001/1_seapex0270006.htm Website accessed June
2018.
 2D seismic line through East Texas Field angular unconformity trap

~~~-5--B-B-O~E"U-,~n-co-n7f-o-r-m-i~ty-t-r-a~p-:v-i_n_ta~g~e__d_a_ta____________~~.~..~
~T-,~. ~
L -_ _ _ _ _ _

;,
.
Austin Chalk (Blue)
. .. . ..... . .
.

~~~~~~~~~~~
, ,
---
---,
- - ~<
,

~-~~~ -_
--'" .~ .. ..~~ .
--=-- , "r.;;.(
-~

=--:---.,.:.
iI'

__ ._-. i'
. - - -- - q
-;,.:-:.~
. i,
~...::

-:: ~-- .
-:=-=-=-- "'
-- . -.". . !
==="-'
---
!.----
_-----
..::.= .-
.--
k
-..... .
::. ':=:'

- --_.,_."' .
----
---------
,.-
-
- ~;.::~
....._. :~'-
-.--....
.-
---_
.
-~.~}J.=::
.-- ..... .

(Scales not readable) Seismic courtesy Amoco Production Company from 1980's
unconformity seminar field course
From Dolson, 2016

Figure 1. Historical 1950-1970's seismic version of a subtle trap. Image modified from Dolson (2016).
 7 Major Trap Types and Number of seals/pays
• 4-way closures
- Require effective top seal only
- Stacked pays
• Fault traps [;l
- Require multiple seals c:
I;:::::

•
- Stacked pays
Combination traps
- Require multiple seals
--
-
o

- Some stacked pays .....

" :

• Stratigraphic traps "C

-
-
Require multiple seals
Usually 1-2 pays
HydtodynamicTtaps -Cl>-
c:
• Hydrodynamic traps
- Top seal
- Can have stacked pays
• Pore-throat traps
- MuHiple seals =
- Generally 1-2 pays
• Unconventional shale
- Confined to mature source rock fairways, britue rocks, frac containers

Figure 2. Traps and seals/pay zone pairs. Unconventional traps are surpassing conventional traps in volume, but cover vast areas requiring tens
of thousands of wells to develop. A good giant strat trap in a reasonably sized area is still a good financial bargain.
 The general concept oftrap closure: Intersection of a seal with structure to form 'closure'

4-way structural closure Cross-section Simple fault seal Cross-section

4-way closure:
only trap requiring
only one seal (top)
Trap-door fault Salt wall trap Sub-salt wall trap

c_; : ,- . 0'.'

Seal across a plunging nose Stratigraphic re-entrant

Anhydrite

limestone

Channel draped over a

structural saddle Com man terms: Spill point
Spill point: the lowest geometric closure
Free water level: Base of trapped hydrocarbons ~
* seal and geometry constrained
* buoyancy pressure ~ 0
Trap filled to spill
3400 * Enough seal on weakest seal to fill trap to geometric spill point
3500 Trap not filled to spill (trap geometry not full)
* Either inadeqate seal or inadequate charge from migration

Figure 3. Closure as a concept of seal geometry. From Dolson, 2016.

Figure 4. Distribution of giant fields to year 2017. Stratigraphic and combination traps historically comprise 19% by volume, but those numbers have
changed in the last 17 years.
 Creaming curve by trap type
10000.00

Structural
1000.00

w
or:a
r:a 100.00

CLJ
.->
.....
-ItI
10,00

i o All traps
strat/combination
---------------.--------.,.~ ------I traps: impact of
o Combination
1.00 Q 3D seism ic, new
plays '" Stratigraphic
North America: North America: .. Structural
Hugoton, San Juan Basin gas, Prudhoe Bay, Kuparak
1 East Texas, Siaighter-Levelland China: Karamay complex
···. ··· Unknown
Ve nezuela: Boli var Coastal
0.10
186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Discovery year

Figure 5. Creaming curve of giant/significant traps with time.

 GianUSignificant Stratigraphic/Combination fields discovered historically to 2017

North American cratonic Caspain and West Siberian East Siberia

basins a-Urals cratonic ic
North Slope 100 0'O"W
0
60 0'O"W
0
'O"O'O"W 0"0'0" 'D"(l'O"E'\ 60 0'O"E
0
180°0'0"
Ine"i"P margin r--·'-=~\~~~'-----'-----'----"""""-r-;-~:;:-t---:-,~r-.l--t.l--.l-",,:!,,:!:;;;;::fo~-=-'-=='

Legend
I I country
EUR_MMBOE
• 5-300

• 300-500
.. 500-1000
~"~:Bir~az:i-ls~U~b-s~a~lt~S~y n~-~ri~ft~~~~~~~~~~==~~~~~~~~~~~
C 1000-2500
and Passive margin -~

'"
2500-5000
Mesozoic-Cenozoic turbidites
o(? 5000-177000
post-sa lt turbidies

__
-==-_-==-___-====::::J____ Kilometers Classes:
Giant: .5-5 BBOE
o 2,0004,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 Super G iant: > 5 BBOE
Mega Giant: > 50 BBOE

Figure 6. Major basins with giant stratigraphic and combination traps.

Figure 7. Giant stratigraphic traps by age.
Figure 8. Giant/Significant strat/combo traps made 2000.
Figure 9. Giant Stratigraphic/Combination traps by lithology and fluid type.
Figure 10. Unconventional reserve growth. Various shale basins are shown in lightly colored polygons (WRI, 2013).
 Khazzan Tight Gas Field-Late Cambrian (Oman) Sulige Field: Ordos Basin, China
Makarem High Structure depth, top Shanxi Fmt.

N •

D Fluvial channels
Gas production
D Mud-rich overbank 104/m 3

D Shallow-marine 55.
Water product ion
101m 3
D Offshore transiton zone fL"::_~-'I 0 Well location
:::::tJ=~._

......... Maximum flooding surface SOKm =u ~

" ---'- • Cities

""""Ol....... ~
Fi gures mod ified from Mill50 Jl e\ aI. , 2008. AAPG Bulletin
;;;:::
::::i:J . _ ~_
Field outline
-=.J ........

Figures modified from Dai, 2016 (Scfence Press, China, Elsevier)

-
A
SOKm

2000 Discovery, size not realized. 36,000 Km2 trap (minimum).

2006: Entire Ordos Basin given 18 TCF from all traps
2016: Sulige Field estimated 14STCF (22.4 BBOE)
2001 Discovery: 1 i i *Permian tight sandstone
eastern limit may be fault-bounded. The structural crest had pay in Proterozoic *Coal-gas source rocks
carbonates, with strong gas shows and pay in thin sands in Barik Member, *Water production both downdip and updip
leading to downdip discoveries. This is an Infra-Cambrian petroleum system.

Figure 11. Khazzan and Sulige tight gas discoveries. Khazzan is interpreted as a conventional trap, but the full limits appear to be unknown.
Sulige Field contains many discontinuous continental and fluvial reservoirs encased in mature coaly source rocks. The trap is not well understood.
 "" """P channels

Stratigraphic traps in
a sequence stratigraphic
context
"Bars" Wave Cut
~>:~~ Terraces
<c .. , ~
Transgressive Multiple opportunities
Surface of
Erosion (TSE) for exploration
Major Traps
Facies Changes Surfaces

(8S) Sequence Boundaries Systems Tract

/\ Unconformity
HST = Highstand Systems Tract
Primary Diagenetic (S8 1) =Type 1 = LSE Lowstand
I I ,, (Soil Zone/Karst)
(S8 2) = Type 2
surface of erosion TST = Transg ressive-Systems Tract
Legend ivf= incised valley fill
U Sandstone (OLS) Downlap Surfaces
LST = Lowstand Systems Tract
, -~
(=J Shale (Mfs) ;; maximum flooding surface Lsw = lowstand wedge
fIj Limestone (TS) Transgressive Surface =TS E
SMW = Shelf Margin Wedge
R Dolomite
(?,1 Anhydrite

• Hydrocarbons

Figure 12. Traps in a sequence context. Modified from Dolson et al., 1999.
 Diagenetic, Hydrodynamic and UnconventionallThermal Traps

Early, Near-Surface Diagenetic Traps

Porethroat Sediment Porethroat These traps can be
destruction infill enhancement
significant, but generally
Oil migration-porosity require all the 'tools'
preservation to identify. They are
common, but easy to
/4}:~
'Z;:: ~~~er
leg
...··c··;>:")
miss

Porous Paleo oil/water cements

Cave
contact
~ Tite floor/fill
/\~nt Hydrodynamic Traps
in lows Late Burial Diagenetic Traps

beanng/poro~
u
Relicit

Water
Tile
eep burial cementation
not complete In some
facies
Secondary
porosity
creation
E=======:s:J Upward flow is
Tar Fluidic Traps increasingly
important in

[:oJ'!~~;tPI deep, over-

pressured
basins.

Thermal/Unconventional traps
~ Conventinal traps
~~
~~~~~--~~------------~~~~~~~~---- Oilwindow

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~---- Gas window

Overpressure

Bottom diagram modified from Sonnenberg and Meckel (2017)

Figure 13. Diagenetic, hydrodynamic traps and unconventional traps. Modified from Dolson et al., 1999 and Sonnenberg and Meckel, 2017.
 Temsah Field, Nile Delta: Hydrodynamic tilt in overpressured environment
A. Structure, top Serravalian reservoir, TVDSS meters B. Excess pressure from mud-weights (Hw)-feet

."":.0:;"':",'::'-
Gas field shaded red

C. Predicted entrapment in hydrostatic case (no flow)- D. Predicted entrapment, hydrodynamic case (actual).
structure in feetTVDSS structure in feet, TVDSS

E. Cross-section A-A': Hydrostatic E. Cross-section A-A': Hydrodynamic

Figure 14. Temsah Field hydro-dynamically modified gas accumulation, Egypt (From Dolson, 2016).
North Casp ian Basin Giant Stratig raphic and Comb ination Traps
,..>T,
.®.
,
,, 'CO"' " "0"0""[ 3D structural rendering of the Ka shaganfTengiz trend

U I"""''''''''
Slide cou rtesy of M itch Harris. Univ. of Miami lecture, 2017 (modified)
11" "..,.""""
o{lo 0000-111""',

Bo .. . " ..... ...,...."

50km
_ _ K"' ....:... -~
""",. ;;.;; l!I«t
Ul~:lO.f ~ 00 12"J ~_ ,.... , ' H"'"
....,. "",,", """''''''
Kashagan: Discovery 2000, 2D seismi c

May exceed 28 BBOE;

10 BBO, 20 TCF (13.3 BBOE in this paper)

Carboniferous isolated platform

Salt sealed, high pressure

plat forms
75 X 35 Km trap: 2625 Km 2
400 m column, 46 API, 16% H25 'lf Regional arches

Mod ifi ed from Kent er et aI., 2006, AAPG Memoir 88

Aktote (2003)- 5.6 TCF with oil
Kairan (2003)- 740 MMBO
Tengiz (1980)- 5.8 BBO; 11.9 TCF

Figure 15. North Caspian Basin giant reef fields.

 New play, old basin: 2015 Zohr Miocene Carbonte Reef Biogenic gas field: 30 TCF
, ,
B. Seismic time section
ms

· ---
'''- -

""·,--
•

1< --

"_c.ot _,",,,,,,, seismic!

..,.. Cwort ' "" ,.",.

D lithology
Zohr Pressures and Column
Pressu r e D@j)th(m] I Top Reser voir St ruct u re
-,..-_ _-C- 3400
Top reservoir 3456 m - 3500
628 m + column - 3600
Biogenic gas - 3700
430+ m pay 3800
- 3900
- 4000
----,"'-- 4200 -4000
• Eva portie -5000
(] r".,' ""M """, D = ) _xo", • Sha le
D T""'· ~"'. D ,e.. " ... -..,. _""",,_,..,. -6000
. TS" · lnoC~ _ _ E..... EJ ".. 'L ....... w _ Li mestone
_ K€'O.''''''''''_ E.".",~ _ ,.nE.. ~ ..-_ f~"w<~...:1 ffom [N ~ 20H: Gel .. Floid Top
• J:;1~. Eo lyJ.. ...., I:l T".,o1 """,.0;,,,
n o-..... IiJl"U l ... _~..... _T""_
Biggest fi eld in Egy pt history; Dee p wat er trend
Dolson et al.. 2001 She ll held acreag e fo r 1S+ yea rs
play schematic Drill ed 9 dry or uneconomic well s on cla sti c plays
Multiple companies turned down farm-in opportuniti es
Figu res B. D m odifi ed from EN I, 2015

Figure 16. Discovery of the giant Zohr Miocene reef complex, offshore Egypt and Cypress.
 Structural map, base of salt (m)
, I

" Dominantly
___- , post-salt
turbidites

... ,....
. ..
c::::::J "".,. __ _ ~

"' ... _'.:1("

"""1-"'-

>Om
igure from Rassenfoss, 2017, JPT - - -

Libra field: 2010 Discovery (Petrobas) NW Depth seismic showing microbial carbonate buildup (m) SE

12.725 BBOE 5500-.·

10 BBO, 14.25 TCF Gas
(m)

Aptian lacustrine carbonates

Syn-rift highs

Sub-salt carbonates potential Seismic image from Carlotta et aI., 2017, AAPG Memoir 113

> 150 BBOE

Figure 17. Libra Field carbonate build-up, Santos Basin.

Making the sub-salt rifts obvious: improved deep imaging
Initial discovery:
Slide courtesy ION geophysical
2006
Typical Exploration 3D compared to a BasinSPANTM
8.2 880, 7 TCF

• Pre-2000 vintage
Tupi (Lulu) Discovery
2D seismic had
even worse su b-
salt imaging.

Long offset data

acquired from 2000
2004 from several
vendors showed
deeper rifts and
stratigraphy.

Ion Span lines show

substantial
improvement, even
over typical 3D
seismic

Figure 18. Advances in seismic image quality have allowed the prolific Santos Basin sub-salt play to work.
 -~
Prolific traps:
A. StratiCombo traps by lithology 2000-2017 B.
-
E Thick reservoir intervals
",~~~Ie turbidite traps: value of 3D seismic
[ ~I ' I
-$' ~ 3D Seismic images reduce seal risk
f- l-"I~ .,.,.,,-
' ' ~v -~"", "'1'.... '~' ez;;t;:;~iJ1:~~~~''' .'~·l

•
"., r~~!~~~
l """"""_fIvr
•
"""'.......
l-Rovuma Basin
2-0ffshore Senega l

- ..
C ......,.T<K II II
00 ....

o >,00() 4 ,OOO 0,000 " ,000 ' 8,000 ...-""",

""'" ..>once
,00<£
- ,-""",,,,,,,,-

C. New Frontiers:
Turbidite plays: Progressively deeper water
More distal facies
There are no 'unique' models Huge reserve potential
3D seismic reservoir imaging vital Niger Delta lead example
Don't be 'analog' driven, be data driven
DHI response has been a key factor
to reduce seal and charge risk E 6000

Plays focused on mature source rock fairways ..c

a.. 7000
have yielded biggest reserves, lowest <V
0 8000
failure rate
9000

Figure 19. Deep water play fairways. Plays are being pushed seaward, sometimes beyond continental crust in ultra-deep water, in search of
terminal turbidite fan facies in pure stratigraphic traps.
 Rovuma Basin Mamba Complex North Seismic section South

Mamba Complex
2011 Discovery
53-80 TCF, 150+ TCF in trend Spectral decomposition Interpretation: Coral reservoir

Cretaceous, Paleocene-Oligocene
turbidite channel complexes

Play initiated by Cove Energy,

ENI and Anadarko

Coral Example (right)

2012 Discovery

-
10.4 TCF, 16 MMBO Condo Progradaticln"""~~_
Main channel D Proximal drift lobe D Middle drift lobe
3D seismic + DHI driven success D Lobe A D LobeB D Distal drift fines

Images modified f rom Fonnesu, 20 13 and Pa lermo et aI., 2014 D Shale

Figure 20. Rovuma Basin discovery, East Africa.

 Offshore Senegal Giani Turbidite Traps .® Mature kitchen/source rock strat traps
c'""'=c,",--__.:.o
'wcc'_ _ _'.:..:
'"c.:'n'_,-,-----"j"cc
'"'-------.----'-
"""oc"'----_----'-
"'oc
";"C-
' ----;
\ Play schematic
Tortue
FAN-l
Senegal· Bove Ultradeep
r;J
teranga-l
Yakaar-1 ,,,,,,,, '
* (
/

Fan-l
\. SNE-l
EUR..M MBOE
" - - -..
10
,
m
"'0-1DOO
Figu re from Reynolds, 20 16

I (")
,:,.
{;o
woo 1500
2500 - ~OO

O;OOO_ ·I?~
-.- FAN and SNE Discoveries

o
' ''O': .'~'

:JO 00 1<11
,, 'O'O"W

100
Ki'om ........ '
<'''() ~
~
a.. ..""
Mi
......
"flO"
)~SIlOE
---
•.
f; _"" .....
_
1"""'
, - 1
,, ~

Cairn/Kosmos discoveries
liIe<ll ~Iant' ro EBOE
- '---'''' \
jFAN-lf- \
• \
\
Fan-1: 2014 (Cairn) 1

950 MMBO PSO; P1 02.5 BBO 1

\ I
Fan-South-1 successful 310 API oil \ I
\ I
SNE-1: 2014 (Cairn) \ I
Paleotopographic: 385 MMBO f.t.N 5Ol1TIH /
SNE-1 extensions successful /
/
/
Yakaar (Teranga West): 2016: 15 TCF (Kosmos)
Tortue: 2015: 15 TCF (Kosmos)
Teranga: 2016: 15 TCF, 300 MMBO
--
101120

Figure from Cairn August 7, 201 7 press release

N

Figure 21. Cairn and Kosmos discoveries of fan, channel and other traps, offshore Senegal.
 Giant/ Significant StratTraps to 2017 A. Key seismic line
Well: Shell 14/10-1
South Atlantic Play Opener: Sea lion Fan , Falklands _$
! i I

L.egend
counuy

-
() 1000-2500

* 2500-5000
.:lo WOO-177000

__~_~_~-~_ K l orr"' e< '

"m '_ ~"'." """"

.fll 1, _
"""'"... ' "" "''',.
A lesson in creativity B. RMS amplitude
showing fan nyon
system
Sea Lion Fan: 2010, Rockhopper Oil
770 MMBO; trend will be bigger
Lower Cretaceous syn-post rift
3D seismic keying off past failures

1998 Drilling campaign (6 wells)

Inversion structural targets
Amerada Hess (2); Shell (2); Lasmo (1); IPC Falklands (1)
Dry, non-commercial; proved hydrocarbon system
Shows in all but one well
Proved world-class lacustrine source rocks Figures modified from MacAulay, 2015, GEOLSOC

Figure 22. Sea Lion fan discovery, Falklands.

 Angle Stack Example
Prestack Time Migration (PSTM) - Near Slack
Stratigrahpic/Combination Trap Helper: AVO Analysis
...
, oro. . ,.... ~

Rock property dependent: do your homework

A key factor in giant fan discoveries 2000-2017

Key pitfalls:

AVO analysis shows no conformance to structure

Deeper event near KIT boundary I seen on
offset stacks: Paleocene? channel trend (probably lithology)
Angle Stack Example
Prestack Time Migration (PSTM) - Far Stack Amplitude maps don't look like geology
......."
~
(amplitudes in space)
.T
Amplitude increases with offset !~
~_-. ":"' "
... ~ ~
1
It\< " •
3000- 1
• -~; - ~
~. ~,~ ii': Best analysis uses multiple visualization
,::.
techniques

- -
-- •
Semblance, Seismic wavlet facies
and other methods--
sooo- - - ..,. - ~
KfT boundary.-----' ~ - - - 10Km
the image has to look like geology!

Far offset: Bright Oligocene?fan and thick gas pay

section. This is a verified discovery where angle
stacks provide a basis for DHI (AVO) comparisons

Figure 23. AVO analysis is not enough by itself to de-risk DHI-driven prospects.
 Mature Basin Exploration: Details matter! Integration Counts.
Data integration:
Iso-sw lines and stratigraphic carb onate trap with waste zone

0J 0 ® @) --Cores
Temoil, Te5tsoll T~ts trace Tight (no
n" w.m~ r and water oi l, mud. light reservoir) --Petrophysics
very h igh rates
-shows, tests
-position in a trap
All 3 wells share
-capillarity
same oil gradient
lin e and common FWL
--Petroleum Systems
-migration
50 % 5W
l 00 %SW ......... FWC} ............ - -hydrodynamics
,
Pressu(C (psi)
-migration with seals
_
Grainstone _ Subtidal ~ Anhydrltlc _ Supra-t ida l
.1o(l~1 I,me, lo",e ~ sJndy Is anyhyd rite,
Experience:
Waste zone saturations
--The more you have seen,
0( ~ the more you
,,>0 recognize
$W % $W , SW % SW %

Schematic capil la ry pre"u,,, (height above free wale r) "'. SW by md type Modrf>odtrom(""lsoneU'.. 19')4
--Analog knowledge
* don't over-use it
How you view this trap depends on: * don't talk yourself
* the order in which it is drilled out of a play based
* how much experience, ability you have on statistics
* your ability to be creative and bold --Be data driven

Figure 24. Waste zones, SW variations by rock type can mask a big stratigraphic trap. See text for discussion. The more you’ve seen, the more
tools you have, the more you’ll recognize potential. From Dolson (2016).
 traps

Basement structure, oil and gas

-:;;::r= .~ <
.. 'Olw.. 'G'
I01_U~""""""'"

160_'J1'
IM_'JTrr.......... WlWl
111_'TTliIo_

----_...-
.'
--_.....
<:O. J ....,,"""-...
~~L'- ·_""'_.,
, o 90 180
;..c:;.
360 540 720
;,;;~~c=::;;;...;; Kilometers

Cases 1 and 2: UvatfTyamskaya Fields:

Onlap, incised valleys, pore-throat
Case 3: Priobskoye Field
Deltaic and turidite tra linoform nl:>\/'

Figure 25. Location of analog field cases, mature basin exploration, Russia.
 A. Jurassic-Basement Isopach with
regional paleo-valley networks
Low dip rates
.;./«'-~
3-5 meters/ km

1. Urna-Ust-Teguss
Regional high
Local closures
Onlap trap
2. Tyamskaya
Ramp dip
Pore-throat-
facies change

D. Isopach, Bazhenov-Basement (m) with gross valley networks

1. Uma-Ust-Teguss
724 MMBO
5.8 TCF
BBOE RECOVERABLE, WEST SIBERIA 1.69 BBOE
Buried paleo-high
TOTAL: 437 BBOE Strat closure>
3000 Km 2

2. Tyamskaya
>800 Km 2 trap
Huge potential
'Sweet spot'
exploration
o 30 60
".
Figure 26. Overview of Jurassic paleo-valley networks and structural, stratigraphic setting of the Urna-Ust-Tegus and Tyamskaya Field areas.
 Valley Fill Model
3D amplitude slices reveal drowned topography of incised valleys around
a large paleo-high
Jl B. C.

55KM F. G. Tidal
E.

Rooting

Initial reserves based on a complex fluvial system model.

Cores and seismic tell a different story-complex layering
of multiple incisions, transgressions. Dominantly estuarine and shoreface
onlap.

Figure 27. Time slices from 3D seismic showing the dendritic pattern of progressive drowning of the Uvat paleo-high, core data and an incised
valley-fill model which eventually replaced fluvial systems models of deposition.
 A. Core and seismic based stratigraphic section B.
111OOm.
A' J2
WEST Datum Bazhenov Sh,,1e • ' , ' tI -' --.. - .-_- ~., L
Sel~ml(tril(e ~
EAST
13

~ Shoreface J<lVloomont sands

a OeIIOIIC

_ Cenlrill 1xI,_" mud, and _",<. I'''''·'~'''''<

_ Tldaillats aoo collstal plain
_ Marine

/U
" " :-.
i/
RSlli. E

LST: Lo wsllllld Shon:facc

0-0•.----.'- . . . . -_ .. -- -- . . . . . . . . -- -- . . . . -- . . -- -- .. -- . . -- -- . . . .

1 .. ; .. . /U
su
RSM I:
••
~ :-: ·-.-.MFS TST;Tl'OOS!ress.."ely Ill('iscd Shorrla<'C:
-t'- --9-";-'- '- 1\'I~-S'- .- -- -- -_._.- -- .- -_.- .- ----

, ;, J ' \ \ 1 I .515U \\II. Si \ IIt.'. "RS

WRS,SU Cl

Rile f ..

EJ "SST Shold~ [J LST ShorefllCe G]3 LST Flu~w1 [ ] 15 1 Shofcfxc

II FSST MlId~lOI~ D '.5" Mlld,lQne o lmrnlgres~"e laB D 'I~-r ,l.l udSlone O:_ '~1"~='i......'~=====9~....~'2Kjomet&rs

Figure 28. Seismic imaging and correlations from wells and core, giant Uvat-Ust-Teguss Field, Russia. See Figure 4 for location in the West Siberian
Basin (incised valley fill and onlap example noted).
A' I§~~~
3D stroctJ ral shapa, basement
with inter;Jreted paleo-drainage oolWorIc$ and
well pene!rali0ll5
Area 2: Tyamskaya
* Down-dip from Urna High
* Only one local closure at
(202 well on section A-A'-1000 BOPD)
* Ramp dip, oil shows/ seals difficult to
explain
* Dry basement closures to the east
-reservoirs absent of thin and very tight
structure with tests and shows , Tyamskaya Ace;,,- d leo-hi
Basic test and shows data

Broad, deep paleo-valley networks

are shown in light blue lines
(B).

Within the green shaded contour

levels, all oil recoveries and shows
were not on structural closures, but
section
had similar 'down to' oil levels,
indicating a stratifgraphic trap.

"",dD'''U or I
Ilpille() -highs, basem ent
Paleo.<J rain"9"
network

-
Contour
o
- 4_ 5 9 18 27 36Kilometers IntervaI 100 m

Figure 29. Overview of Tyamskaya area dhows and paleo-geography.

 Key well: waste
zone-flowed oil
from micro-porous
Stratigraphic section flattened on Bazhenov Shale tidal flats

Traditional Jurassic 'Layer Cake" Lithostratigraphy \ /!\ (NE)

A (West)

Bazhenov
J1
J2

J10
Basement

Stacked fluvial model: no obvious traps to explain trapped oil Cored interva l • Hydrocarbons

• Oil recovery Oil show, tested

water with all 1000 BOPD on valid
(223) structural closure
(202 well)- macro-porous
facies

Figure 30. Lithostratigraphic correlations fail to reveal causes of reservoir differences or location of moveable oil. Key wells are noted.
 Basement structure with tests and shows, Tyamskaya Area
Well 314
New data: 3D seismic, cores, show sweet spots in bayhead
deltas and tidal channe ls. Waste zo ne in tida l flats.
~ ~ 1.
2:: .. Al l t b ,_•• ~~~~~I
w " \ '\'\ i. --'
- . -
> I.. \ \
o - . ,,"
..c
til
". ,, • ~.,\
'"
1lI11.U

t1J
~
-§" . -, 00 m or: -_, -": :,:~ 1I 1lQl

~ !O ~ " • •::--
•~

Pressure (psig )

G o~ §o
N • "'
71
o_-==--==
4_5 9 18 27
____-======-____36
Kilometers

Figure 31. New seismic data enhanced learnings about column height and free water levels from pressure and SW/Height functions.
 Waste
A. Tyamkinskoye Correlation Panel: Cores, Logs and Seismic
Zone

Glossifungite s (FS/SB)

"J2"

"

Basement

Manne shale _ Centra l Basin mud flooding shales Buried Fault Block - Unconformity
• Hydrocarbons
Incised va ll ey fill channels c=J 8ayhead Deltas , Cored interval (tuned on seismic
attributes)
Tidal Fl ats and Centra l Basin Basement
'Sweet s Ot': tidal channels, deltas Waste zone tidal fiats

The only viable reservoirs are

B. Well 202 Wi nland Plot
KjPlli 1\>0, ~ )5
c. .00'
We l1 31 4 Wl nland Plot
KlPHI Po« fi3S
~ lOmu
macro-porous tidal channels .00 ~~ 4 ".., '"w
'0 '0
and bay-head deltas(orange) . E 2 mu E '"W 2 mu
-" 10 1 n M!

:a"g • 5 mu :5.? . ,~
.5 mu
All other facies are seals or waste .2 110"
•• , .' "-
~ ., E
. 1 11011 ~

zones. Well 314 is a classic waste ~

,!'
zone well testing high on a longer m
column in micro-porous reservoir. ro., , 10 IS ~() 2S 30 10 IS 20 25 30
Po rosity (%) Porosity (%)

Figure 32. Final correlations and reservoir quality.

 Basement structure with tests and shows, Tyamskaya Area
N

, , - - Probable free w ater level

.. # Trap edge: Drainage basin edge
\
i
--.Q"u/~
.""
Sweet spot
Bayhead deltas
and tidal channels

Pressure (psig)
Tidal flat
~stezo nes

G o~ §o
N • "'
,,,,0
o o'qq,

o 4.5 9 18 27 36
Kilometers

Figure 33. Final trap. Wells above the blue line tested oil, below it, water. Up dip seal facies are proven by dry paleo-structures. The southern seal
is speculative, but required to explain the oil accumulations in the 270 and other southern wells.
Aptian structure and seismic profile/core wells NW
Priobskoye Field Overview SE
Well 19460 Wel1 61 1 8'
A. 8

B. ~~~-~i~~~~I~t~~~il~~~:: ~: ':~:. ~ 1",' ..:oA<1 ct;l

Plrn5kyclay

8.uhenov

Unflattened _ Achimov turbidites . - - , Delta top set san dstones

; 11~""·2·2·K·M""""" o COfed interval

Flattened on Bazhenov

c.

8nhenoy

D. Index map
> 5000 Km2 stratigraphie trap
E. Generalized stratig raphi c trap ping mecha nism: Priobskoye Field

5.3 660, 1.1 7 TCF

* Very subtle arch, no closure
* Classic 'clinoform' plays common
to this basin
• Multiple trap types
* Highly compartmentalized in 8aztlffiOv or other major flooding shale source rocks

zones _
r-l ~ Achimov Slope r o;;:to;.-;:; I Delta Incised
L - J Shale ~ tu rbidites ch,mnel$ .0 :C~o. . top ~et~ v"lIeyfill~

• Hydrocarbons . /Clinoforms / Migration palhway$

Figure 34. Priobskoye Field overview.

 Attribute slice through clinofrom
Priobskoye facies and pore throat distribution
; K/PHI Po re size
Bioturbated ~ndstones
(mu i
(ontolted sandstones

'"
..
•••
•..

• . "Porosity~%

3D view of attribute slice

Dominantly a meso-porous system
'transition zone saturations common
' hydraulic fracturing essential for best rates
*tight gas and oi l

Best reservoirs in shelf sandstone ravinement traps

Sweet spots in thicker Achimov turbidite facies

3D seismic provides a clear view of depositional facies

_ 2.5 KM

Seismic courtesy of Vladimir Igoshkin, GEOSEIS Co., Tyumen, Russia

Figure 35. Seismic facies and reservoir properties of one of the clinoform traps at the Priobskoye Field.
 Analog: old Ideas (Prlobskoye model) applied to new area: North Slope, Alaska
Atlantic margin
Giant StratTraps and Russian clinoform
type play applied to North
Slope

Overlooked clinoform
and turbidite play in
mature so urce kitchens

~....~ . .. Historica l focus:

~~~;;~:~ .... Prudhoe 8ayTriassic
;;-; Shublik
- -.,'"
•
• _ ___ -
" '''',>00 '.'~' "'''''
KI.'......"
jC,,.,,

Play rediscove red: Conoeo, Caelu 5, Repsol, Armstrong

~?=\',;~ *
3-
Ma in sou rce rocks •
•
Torok turb idite play
Topset clinoform play
i Unc.

fields:
Hoseshoe, Pika: 1.4 BBOE
2015-2017 (Armstrong, Repsol)
20 17 Conoco-PHillips Willow Discovery keyed off
North Inigok I 2002 P&A well with pay behind pipe iI 300 MMBOE

ILd''' U' Smith Bay (2 BBOE +)

3200 BaPD
inTinmiaq 2
and 6 (Lower
part of Nanushuk
Fmt topsets)

~-~~'.:--'-~~i----!=:::2r-[D)j,lsc~'overles have exceeded all

prior USGS estimates of yet-to
Fi gu res modified from Alaska Dept.Nat. Resources, 2017 find for North Slope
Willow

Figure 36. North slope deltaic and turbidite fan play--a Priobskoye look-a-like.
 carbonate plays: lithostratigraphy vs. seismic-sequence stratigraphy-Jurassic Smackover, Gulf of Mexico
Bernice and Hico-Knowles Fields
Seismic geometry and depositional model A. Lithostratigraphy-1 980's

•• Ba sinwa rd
sw NE
. '-0
10 mil es - ----»>NE
...
Bu,klle r F
... lit

32.8 m
(100')
I

Core IZl
Perf.
B. C rono-st ratigrap y using seismi c + Og5
• _ Basinwa rd
SW ,.; 10 mile s > NE
Rocks are not usually 'layer cake' •
"
• • • • •
Prograding carbonate wedges can have multiple seals
and stratigraphic traps related to higher-resolution
strata architecture

These principles apply at all scales

New ideas in old areas take new integration with

seismic, logs and cores
Figures modified from Hand ford (2007): paper present ed at Moscow St at e Universi t y. Russia
-
Packstone/g ra in st on e

Transgressive Highsta nd
_

Systems Trac t Systems Tract Syste ms Tract

r""""""]
Clast ic/carbonate Silisiclast ic sand

Figure 37. Carbonate plays. The same principles apply to carbonate shelf margins as those shown in the Priobskoye and North Slope
progradational packages. Modified from Handford (2007).
 Some other tools that unlock new ideas
A. Wheeler transform from seismic
B. Trinity quick look migration from depth seismic
Regional East
Well" W.116

Calibrated t oil shows From Dolson. 201 7: GeoExpro

Modeling 3D migration calibrated to oil geochemistry

Fluid Inclusions Stratigraphy: New Looks, Old Wells

C. A full I D.
W O< " oq

Co lor lege""
Elock: lna'ganl"
f~d Lowmolecular w .. ightorganic
EI~ :W~te 'solub! .. co mpound<
t;re<l n: Hig h", mole<:ulil ' wcig h{,

Usef,,1 inlormotion fro m l l>t>,~ plot'

• ",a i, ,hown Jl verli c.ol brea k'
·· pote n~. 1 migration p3,hway< u.-.de
the,",I,
• potential char¥d reservoirs
'po\S i bl~ hy- I'i's~d f'dY
·pro.. ", ity to p~~
• micro -secp,lge nOM , urf"e

From Dolson, 20 16
From Dolson, 20 16

Figure 38. Other tools to generate new ideas.

 The dilemma: the biggest oil province Just ONE example of a potential syn-depositional trap
in the world has the smallest concentration B.
of stratigraphic/ combination traps. Why?
A.
Santonian
Middle East Petroleum
Campan ian

Albian

Lower
Tertiary

Cretaceou s

I I etal., 201 5
Jurassic
Irania n Journal of Earth Sciences
L---' Onlap c::::::J Truncation
c.

Pal eozoic

~~~~E~~~~~~~;~~~
L HUQF-
Neoproterozoic
'"............ ,
·•
..
•
Modified from Herbert, 2017 Geolsoc Conference: *' -=
Opportunities in the Middle East and Sorkhabi, 2010, GeoExpro , " UOO',WU

Figure 39. The middle east problem. Why are there so few giant stratigraphic traps with so many giant fields and prolific petroleum systems at
multiple levels? Stratigraphic column modified from (Herbert, 2017; Sorkhabi, 2010). Seismic section modified from (Amirkhani et al., 2015).