Using calibrated shale gouge AUTHORS

Peter Bretan
Badleys, North Beck House,

ratio to estimate hydrocarbon North Beck Lane, Hundleby, Spilsby, Lincoln-
shire, PE23 5NB, United Kingdom;
column heights pete@badleys.co.uk
Peter Bretan received a B.Sc. degree (with
Peter Bretan, Graham Yielding, and Helen Jones honors) from Kingston University in 1981,
followed by a Ph.D. in structural geology from
Imperial College, London. Before joining Bad-
leys in 1995, he worked as a research geologist
and seismic interpreter with the Fault Analysis
ABSTRACT
Research Group at Liverpool University. At
Fault-zone composition, estimated using the shale gouge ratio (SGR) Badleys, his main tasks include software
algorithm, can be empirically calibrated with pressure data to de- training, technical support, and consulting.
fine depth-dependent seal-failure envelopes relating SGR to fault-
Graham Yielding
Badleys, North Beck
zone capillary entry pressure (FZP) by the equation: FZP (bar) =
House, North Beck Lane, Hundleby, Spilsby,
10 (SGR/27  C). C is 0.5 for burial depths less then 3.0 km (
9850 ft), C Lincolnshire, PE23 5NB, United Kingdom
is 0.25 for burial depths between 3.0 and 3.5 km (
9850–11,500 ft),
Graham Yielding received a B.A. degree in
and C is 0 where the burial depth exceeds 3.5 km (
11,500 ft).
natural sciences from Cambridge University
The seal-failure envelope provides a method to estimate the
in 1979, followed by a Ph.D. in geophysics in
maximum height of a hydrocarbon column that can be supported by 1984. He then worked for Britoil in Glasgow
the fault. Leakage of hydrocarbons across a fault occurs when the as a seismic interpreter before joining Badleys
buoyancy pressure exceeds the capillary entry pressure of the fault in 1988. His current interests include fault-
and is not confined to the crest of the structure or even to where the seal analysis, fault populations, and fracture
SGR value is lowest. prediction.
Established calibration diagrams based on across-fault pressure
Helen Jones
Badleys, North Beck House,
differences have overgeneralized the relationship between increas-
North Beck Lane, Hundleby, Spilsby, Lincoln-
ing SGR and increasing pressure support. Calibration diagrams
shire, PE23 5NB, United Kingdom
based on buoyancy pressure show that gas and oil data exhibit a
correlation between increasing SGR and increasing buoyancy pres- Helen Jones joined Badleys in 1989. Having
originally trained, worked, and published as
sure but only between SGR values of 20 and 40%. No increase in the
a biologist, Helen then swapped sciences to
strength of a seal is present, as reflected by an increase in maximum
geology to provide technical research and sup-
supportable buoyancy pressure, at SGR values greater than about port to ongoing project work. In addition, she is
40% for both gas and oil data. Column heights do not continue to the author of the manuals and online docu-
increase in the SGR range 50–100%. mentation for the TrapTester/FAPS software.
Estimating hydrocarbon column heights using seal attributes
depends upon the geologic input to the model, in particular, pres-
sure data, volumetric shale fraction, and the precision of the three- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
dimensional mapping of reservoir geometry in the vicinity of the fault. The authors are grateful to Stephen Dee and
Peter Boult for their comments on early
versions of this manuscript. Laurel Goodwin,
INTRODUCTION Fred Dula, Russell Davies, and Jim Handschy
are thanked for their constructive reviews.
Fault-seal analysis is a technique for risk assessment of the sealing
and nonsealing potential of faults in petroleum reservoirs. A meth-

Copyright #2003. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.
Manuscript received November 19, 2001; provisional acceptance May 7, 2002; revised manuscript
received June 27, 2002; final acceptance August 1, 2002.
DOI:10.1306/08010201128

AAPG Bulletin, v. 87, no. 3 (March 2003), pp. 397 –413 397
odology for predicting fault-seal behavior in mixed clas-
tic sequences in areas of low differential stress has been
well documented in recent years (e.g., Bouvier et al.,
1989; Jev et al., 1993; Childs et al., 1997; Fulljames
et al., 1997; Knipe, 1997; Naruk and Handschy, 1997;
Yielding et al., 1997, 1999; Knipe et al., 1998).
An essential element of the fault-seal analysis meth-
odology is to calibrate the fault-seal attribute, taken as a
proxy for fault-zone composition, at faults where the
sealing behavior can be demonstrated using pressure
data from wells on either side of the fault (e.g., Fristad
et al., 1997; Yielding et al., 1997). These studies derive
an empirical relationship between fault-seal attribute
values and across-fault pressure information that is used
as a predictor of seal integrity in undrilled fault traps
(e.g., Yielding et al., 1997; Yielding, 2002).
The basis for the calibration is the observation that
many faults in petroleum reservoirs are membrane or
capillary seals (e.g., Schowalter, 1979; Watts, 1987, Grauls
et al., 2002). In a hydrocarbon-water system, leakage of
hydrocarbons through a water-wet fault zone is by cap-
illary action. Leakage of hydrocarbons through the fault
zone takes place when the difference in pressure between
the water and hydrocarbon phases (buoyancy pressure)
exceeds the pressure required for hydrocarbons to enter
and pass through the largest interconnected pore throat
in the seal (displacement or capillary entry pressure).
The driving force for capillary leakage in water-wet fault
rocks is the pressure of the hydrocarbon phase (Bjorkum
et al., 1998; see also Rodgers, 1999 for discussion).
Given that the calibration of fault-seal attributes is a
crucial step in a fault-seal analysis workflow, it is
surprising that there are relatively few accounts that
describe how the predicted fault-seal attributes are
calibrated (e.g., Fristad et al., 1997). Most works
simply note a specific seal attribute value that is able
to support a specific pressure difference (e.g., Bouvier
et al., 1989; Welbon et al., 1997; Ottesen Ellevset et al.,
1998; Childs et al., 2002). The details of the calibra-
tion (e.g., which hydrocarbon phases are juxtaposed),
depth of burial and data used have generally not been
completely documented.
In hydrocarbon exploration, the aim of calibrating
fault-seal attributes is to predict the hydrocarbon col-
umn height in prospects. Several works have described
methods for estimating the height of a hydrocarbon
column (e.g., Berg, 1975; Schowalter, 1979; Jennings,
1987; Watts, 1987; Firoozabadi and Ramey, 1988;
Vavra et al., 1992; Heum, 1996; Ingram et al., 1997;
Bjorkum et al., 1998; Fisher et al., 2001; Childs et al.,
2002). The methods relate the size (radii) of pore
398 Using Calibrated Shale Gouge Ratio to Estimate Hydrocarbon Column Heights
throats in a seal rock, the interfacial tension between
water and hydrocarbons, and the pressure differentials
caused by buoyancy forces. Lateral variations in res-
ervoir juxtaposition geometry, fault-zone property, and
strength of the seal are commonly assumed to be ho-
mogeneous along the entire length of the fault (e.g.,
Fisher et al., 2001). The methods tend to predict that
across-fault leakage will occur at the crest of the
structure where the pressure difference between the
hydrocarbons and water (buoyancy pressure) will be
highest. Ultimately, these deterministic methods re-
quire an estimate for the size of the pore throats in
fault zones and the interfacial tension of oil to water
at reservoir conditions (Jennings, 1987; O’Connor,
2000), which are generally not known in most ex-
ploration settings. Alternatively, in a very simplistic
analysis, the height of a hydrocarbon column is com-
monly estimated by simply assuming the closure is
filled down to the lowest mapped structural or strat-
igraphic spillpoint.
The aim of this contribution is to develop an em-
pirical method to estimate hydrocarbon column heights
using calibrated fault-seal attributes. We describe how
fault-seal attributes, in particular shale gouge ratio
(SGR), can be calibrated using preproduction pressure
data to derive an estimate for the capillary entry pres-
sure of a fault zone. In this context, the pore-throat size
in a fault zone controls capillary entry pressure. In gen-
eral, the smaller the pore-throat size, the higher the
capillary entry pressure required for the seal to fail, and
the greater the hydrocarbon column that can potentially
be supported. The established calibration of fault-seal
attribute data against across-fault pressure differences
(AFPD) is strongly dependent upon which fluid types
are juxtaposed at the fault surface (e.g., oil against water
or gas against water), the depth of burial, and the esti-
mate of the clay content of the fault zone. A large fault
database is used in which all the faults are extensional
normal faults developed in mixed clastic sequences.
The faults were analyzed using the FAPS software
(Freeman et al., 1998 and Yielding et al., 1999 for
details of the methodology).
CALIBRATION OF SHALE GOUGE RATIO BY
ACROSS-FAULT PRESSURE DIFFERENCE
The primary control on the seal behavior of faults un-
der static pressure conditions is likely to be the clay
content of the fault zone (Yielding et al., 1997; Knipe
et al., 1998; Yielding, 2002). Therefore, an assessment 1997; Fisher et al., 2001). However, it is generally not
of the clay content of the fault zone is necessary to possible to collect accurate pressure data for water in a
predict the likely entry pressure for hydrocarbons. fault zone. The difference in pressure can be obtained
Algorithms can be used to predict fault-zone rock type either by measuring the pressure difference between
by considering the amount of clay material that may the hydrocarbon and water phases in the same reservoir
have been entrained into the fault zone as a result of the or by measuring the difference in pressure across the
mechanical processes of faulting (Bouvier et al., 1989; fault (Fristad et al., 1997).
Jev et al., 1993; Fulljames et al., 1997; Yielding et al., We define AFPD as the observed difference between
1997; Ottesen Ellevset et al., 1998). The algorithm is in-situ pressure values at a fault surface measured at
then empirically calibrated by testing it at the bounding the same depth in the upthrown and downthrown sides
faults of hydrocarbon traps. of a fault (Figure 1). Pressure-depth data points obtained
One such algorithm that is widely used in calibra- from repeat formation tests (RFT) provide the primary
tion studies is SGR (Yielding et al., 1997; Ottesen observational measurements of subsurface pressure re-
Ellevset et al., 1998; Yielding, 2002; see also Freeman gimes. Because we are concerned with the absolute pres-
et al., 1998 for definition). Calibration studies using sure difference between the hydrocarbon and the water
alternative fault-seal attributes, such as Clay Smear Po- phases, values of AFPD are always expressed as positive
tentia, or CSP, have been described (e.g., Bouvier et al., values. This definition of AFPD assumes that the fault-
1989; Jev et al., 1993; Fulljames et al., 1997) but are zone material supports the difference in pressure be-
more qualitative compared to calibrations using the tween the upthrown and downthrown sides of a fault.
SGR algorithm. It is also assumed that the aquifer across the fault has
The key input for the SGR algorithm is the vol-
umetric shale fraction (V shale) of the intervals adjacent
to the fault. The V shale parameter is a derived product,
typically from gamma-ray or neutron-density logs, and
is commonly used as a general term to describe the
output from a petrophysicist’s interpretation of the
mineralogical content in a suite of well logs. The V shale
parameter is not necessarily the same as the actual
volumetric clay content (V clay or % phyllosilicates) of
the rock. Detailed analysis of thin sections by point
counting or by x-ray diffraction analysis is required to
determine the true volume clay content, which is seldom
carried out on cores from exploration wells. In terms of
capillary trapping, the size of the pore-throat radius
inversely governs the displacement pressures. As the
pore-throat radius is controlled by the sizes of the
mineral grains and clasts, the critical factor is whether
the presence of fine-grained material can reduce the
pore-throat sizes. Because phyllosilicate minerals are
particularly fine grained, they are most likely to be the
dominant host rock contribution to fault-seal develop-
ment. In this contribution, we use the term SGR as an
estimate of the upscaled phyllosilicate content of the
fault zone.
Seal attributes, such as SGR, must be calibrated
Figure 1. Across-fault pressure difference, or AFPD, is the
with in-situ pressure data to derive a measure for the
difference in pressure between hydrocarbons in the upthrown
‘‘strength’’ of the seal, and hence hydrocarbon column side (A) and water in the downthrown side (A0) measured at
height (e.g., Yielding et al., 1997; Yielding, 2002). Ide- the same depth on the fault surface. Where there is a common
ally, SGR values should be calibrated against the dif- aquifer, the AFPD values represent buoyancy pressures.
ference in pressure between the hydrocarbons trapped Pressure data at wells are extrapolated along horizontal
at the fault and water in the fault zone (Fristad et al., pressure gradients (hydrostatic conditions) to the fault.

Bretan et al. 399

Figure 2. Calibration plot of shale
gouge ratio against across-fault pressure
differences for sand-on-sand reservoir
juxtapositions from a variety of fault data
sets worldwide (from Yielding, 2002, re-
printed with permission from Elsevier).
Data are color coded by burial depth: less
than 3.0 km (
9850 ft) dark blue; 3.0 –
3.5 km (
9850–11,500 ft) red; 3.5–5.5 km
(
11,500–18,050 ft) green. Dashed lines
are ‘‘seal-failure envelopes’’ that represent
the maximum capillary entry pressure that
can be supported at a specific SGR value.
the same pressure as water in the fault zone. Pressure
differences arising from juxtaposed sands with different
capillary properties are not considered.
Several authors have compared seal attribute and
AFPD for sand-on-sand reservoir juxtapositions on
faults (e.g., Jev et al., 1993; Welbon et al., 1997; Fristad
et al., 1997; Yielding et al., 1997). Figure 2 is a com-
pilation plot from Yielding (2002). A bounding line
separates a region of data points derived from sealing
faults and a region devoid of data. This bounding line
has been termed the seal-failure envelope (Yielding et al.,
1997; Yielding, 2002) and shows the maximum AFPD
that can be supported at a given SGR. A feature of the
compilation plot is the apparent systematic increase
in AFPD that can be supported by increasing values
of SGR. The equation defining the seal-failure en-
velope relating SGR to AFPD (in bar; 1 bar = 105 Pa
or 14.5 psi), is
AFPDðbarÞ ¼ 10ðSGR=27CÞ ð1Þ
At burial depths less than 3.0 km (
9850 ft), C is 0.5.
For burial depths between 3.0 and 3.5 km (
9850–
11,500 ft), C is 0.25. When burial depth exceeds 3.5 km
(
11,500 ft) C is 0.
Data points that lie close to the seal-failure en-
velope represent parts of the fault surface that are ex-
400 Using Calibrated Shale Gouge Ratio to Estimate Hydrocarbon Column Heights
pected to be at or near the capillary entry pressure of
the fault zone at specific fault-zone compositions. Data
points that occur below the seal-failure envelope may
arise from sand-on-sand juxtapositions that occur struc-
turally deeper and lower down in the hydrocarbon col-
umn where pressure differences across the fault are
smaller, or at the same depth on the fault but where the
SGR values are greater. Alternatively, such data may
derive from traps that are ultimately controlled by dip
closure away from the fault instead of fault seal (Yielding
et al., 1997).
The seal-failure envelope in Figure 2 is commonly
used to derive a threshold SGR value that is taken to
represent the onset of fault sealing at a specific fault-
zone composition. An SGR value of about 15–20% is
widely considered to represent the threshold between
nonsealing and sealing behavior of faults in mixed
clastic sequences without diagenetic overprinting (see
Fristad et al., 1997; Yielding et al., 1997; Ottesen
Ellevset et al., 1998; Manzocchi et al., 1999). Yielding
et al. (1997) and Yielding (2002) corroborate this
threshold value and the overall trend of the SGR and
across-fault pressure relationship with capillary entry
and breakthrough pressure data from fault-gouge sam-
ples (Gibson, 1994, 1998). However, as we shall demon-
strate subsequently in this contribution, the general trend
of increasing SGR values supporting increasing pressure
 1200
differences at the fault may be less well defined than Oil density Burial depth
1100 > 3.5 km
the compilation shown in Figure 2 appears to suggest. 600 kg/m3 3500

Maximum oil column height (m)

1000 (11,500 ft)
Water density
900 1000 kg/m3 3000
800 Burial depth
3.0 3.5 km 2500
700 (9850 11,500 ft)

Feet
EMPIRICAL METHOD TO ESTIMATE 600 2000
500
HYDROCARBON COLUMN HEIGHTS 1500
400 Burial depth
< 3.0 km 1000
300 (9850 ft)
The empirical relationship between the fault-zone 200
500
composition (SGR) and the capillary entry pressure of 100
the fault zone (AFPD) can be used to derive the 0
potential hydrocarbon column heights that each part of 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Shale gouge ratio (%)
the fault may be able to support (Childs et al., 2002). 1200
First, SGR values are calibrated, using equation 1 or 1100
Burial depth Heavy oil
3.0 3.5 km (900 kg/m3) 3500
similar equations, to derive the maximum supportable

Maximum column height (m)

1000
Water density
pressure (taken to be equivalent to capillary entry pres- 900 1000 kg/m3 3000

sure) along the fault plane. Second, density data for wa- 800 Light oil 2500
700 (600 kg/m3)
ter, oil, or gas phases at reservoir conditions are in-

corporated to translate the pressure difference (derived
from the SGR) into the maximum potential hydro-
carbon column height using equation 2 (e.g., Jennings,
1987; Schowalter, 1979):
H ¼ dP=gðrw  rh Þ ð2Þ
H is the hydrocarbon column height (in meters;
1 m = 3.2808 ft), dP is the AFPD or buoyancy pressure
(in bars) where there is a common aquifer estimated
using equation 1, Uw is the pore-water density (kg/m3),
Uh is the hydrocarbon density (kg/m3), and g is the
acceleration caused by gravity (9.81 m s  2). Example
column heights are calculated (Figure 3) on the as-
sumption that the seal-failure envelopes defined in
equation 1 apply equally to oil and gas at burial depths
greater than 2 km (because gas and oil interfacial ten-
sions converge at depth, see figure 7 of Berg, 1975).
The method is first illustrated using a schematic
cross section showing different levels of hydrocarbon
fill in an upthrown reservoir (Figure 4). In this analysis,
the reservoir is filled either with gas or with oil. Also
shown in Figure 4 are buoyancy pressure lines for oil
(green line) and gas (red line) plotted against depth.
Superimposed on the buoyancy pressure-depth profile
is the variable capillary entry pressure of the fault zone
(black line) derived by calibrating the SGR values using
equation 1 or alternatively using laboratory-derived
entry pressure measurements on gouge sample data.
As hydrocarbons progressively fill the reservoir, the
buoyancy pressure between the hydrocarbon and water
increases by a constant amount (buoyancy gradient)
moving the buoyancy pressure trend lines progressively
Feet
600 2000
500 Gas
1500
400 (300 kg/m3)
300 1000
200
500
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Shale gouge ratio (%)
Figure 3. Column heights predicted for different burial depths
at constant hydrocarbon density (a) and for different hy-
drocarbon densities at a constant burial depth (b) using equa-
tions 1 and 2. Increasing the SGR value by 1 (e.g., 25 –26%)
increases the hydrocarbon column height by about 9%. Fluid
densities in (a): 600 kg/m3 for oil, 1000 kg/m3 for water. Burial
depth in (b): 3.0– 3.5 km or approximately 9850 – 11,500 ft.
toward the right (Figure 4a). This continues until the
buoyancy pressure, either on the oil trend (Figure 4b) or
on the gas trend (Figure 4c), intersects the trend rep-
resenting the variable capillary entry pressure of the
fault zone. At the intersection point, the buoyancy
pressure is equal to the capillary entry pressure at that
fault-zone composition. Any further increases in buoy-
ancy pressure will cause the hydrocarbons to leak at
this point on the fault surface (fault-surface leak point),
because the buoyancy pressure will exceed the max-
imum supportable pressure at that SGR value. Note
that the leak point may not coincide with the crest of
the structure where the buoyancy pressure is highest,
or even where the computed SGR value is the lowest
(gas leak point in Figure 4c).
In Figure 5, the method is applied on a fault sur-
face modeled as a three-dimensional grid. Details of the

Bretan et al. 401

methodology for calculating attributes on gridded fault
surfaces using computer software such as FAPS have
been described elsewhere (e.g., Yielding et al., 1999).
Figure 5a shows a perspective view of a fault surface and
a single sand reservoir. Shale occurs above and below
the sand reservoir. As we are concerned only where the
upthrown sand is juxtaposed against downthrown sand
across the fault, shale-on-sand overlaps are not dis-
played. In Figure 5b, the fault surface is viewed looking
toward the upthrown side (direction of arrow in Figure
5a). At each grid node in the area of juxtaposition
between the two sands (cross-hatched pattern), the
SGR value is converted into the maximum hydro-
carbon column using equations 1 and 2. For clarity, only
one row of grid nodes is shown in Figure 5b. The max-
imum column height that each SGR value can support
is represented as a vertical line. The critical point in the
area of sand-on-sand reservoir juxtaposition is the grid
node that exhibits the shallowest base of the predicted
column (grid node having the shortest vertical line in
Figure 5b). This point is the trap leak point. The total
hydrocarbon column height in the upthrown sands will
be from the crest of the structure down to the base of
the shallowest column height predicted from the
calibrated SGR values (A in Figure 5b). The hydro-
carbon column height derived using empirically cali-
brated SGR values may be shorter than the height
predicted when the closure is assumed to be full to the
structural spillpoint (B in Figure 5b). If the closure were
filled to the structural spillpoint, the excess pressure
difference generated by the additional hydrocarbon
column would exceed the pressure that the fault-zone
composition could support, resulting in leakage across
the fault.

Figure 4. Schematic 2-D cross sections

and buoyancy pressure-depth profiles for
oil (green) and gas (red) in an upthrown
reservoir during initial stages of filling (a)
and when the buoyancy pressure equals
the capillary entry pressure of the fault for
oil (b) and gas (c). The capillary entry
pressure of the fault is derived from cal-
ibrated SGR values using equation 1
(black line). Depth down to the hydro-
carbon contact is controlled where the
buoyancy pressure equals the support-
able pressure for the fault-zone compo-
sition and hydrocarbon type. The leak
point may not coincide with the crest of
the structure or even with the lowest SGR
value (c). GWC is gas-water contact, OWC
is oil-water contact.

402 Using Calibrated Shale Gouge Ratio to Estimate Hydrocarbon Column Heights

CALIBRATION OF SHALE GOUGE RATIO BY
BUOYANCY PRESSURE
The seal-failure envelope shown in Figure 2 was ob-
tained by plotting SGR against AFPD on one diagram.
Although this type of diagram does permit a general
trend of increasing SGR value supporting increasing
AFPD to be defined, the calibration implies that very
large hydrocarbon columns could be supported by very
high SGR values. We believe this to be unrealistic be-
cause the details of the generalized seal-failure envel-
ope in Figure 2 are likely to be masked by other factors
in the data.
We have reanalyzed, where possible, the calibra-
tion data according to buoyancy pressure and burial
depth of the faults. Three basic fluid type juxtapositions
can occur across faults, namely, hydrocarbons (oil or
gas) against water, hydrocarbons against other hydro-
carbons (oil-oil, gas-gas, oil-gas), and water juxtaposed
against water. Determining the values of buoyancy pres-
sure from these basic juxtaposition types can be further
complicated depending upon whether there is a
common or different aquifer across the fault, or wheth-
er the density of the hydrocarbons varies.
Figure 5. Schematic representation of a
single sand-on-sand juxtaposition along a
modeled fault surface viewed in three di-
mensions (a) and in a view looking directly
toward the upthrown side (b). Oil-bearing
sands in the upthrown side shown in gray fill
and the water-bearing downthrown sands in
outline. The SGR value at every grid node is
converted into maximum column height,
shown as a vertical line, using equations 1
and 2. Computed maximum column for only
one row of grid nodes is shown. The leak
point is the grid node having the shortest
column. The maximum column height in the
upthrown sand reservoir will be from the
crest of the structure down to the base of the
shallowest column predicted from the SGR
value (arrow A) and may be smaller than the
column height predicted using traditional fill-
to-spill methods (arrow B).
Hydrocarbons Against Water
The first general type of fluid juxtaposition is hydro-
carbons juxtaposed against water. Data used for the oil
against water (OW) and gas against water (GW)
calibration diagram should preferably satisfy two
criteria. First, pressure data are derived from two
preproduction wells situated close to the fault, having
one well located in the upthrown side and the other
well on the downthrown side. Second, the aquifer is at
the same pressure at the same depth on both sides of
the fault (common aquifer). In such cases, the pressure
in the hydrocarbon phase is higher than the pressure in
the water phase at the same depth on the fault. This
ensures that the AFPD are related to the hydrocarbon
capillary entry pressure of the fault zone. Where dif-
ferent aquifers are juxtaposed across a fault, pressure
isobars are horizontal in the reservoir but are likely to
be steeply inclined in the fault zone toward the lower
pressure aquifer (Davies et al., this volume). Each out-
er edge of the fault zone presents a different aquifer
pressure to any adjacent hydrocarbon column (Figure
6). Where there is a change in aquifer pressure across
the fault, the raw AFPD values are a combination of the
Bretan et al. 403
Figure 6. Schematic cross sections,
fault-zone detail, and pressure-depth
profile for different aquifers. Isobars are
horizontal in the reservoir but steeply
dipping in the fault zone. Where the
upthrown aquifer is at a lower pressure
than the downthrown aquifer (a), the
hydrocarbon phase is in contact with
water that is at a low pressure in the
fault zone and not the higher water
pressure in the downthrown side. Where
the upthrown aquifer is at a higher
pressure than the downthrown side (b),
the hydrocarbon phase is in contact with
water that is at a higher pressure in the
fault zone. Hydrocarbons are shown in
black, high-pressure aquifer in gray, low-
pressure aquifer in white. Dashed lines
in pressure-depth plots are water trends
used to calculate buoyancy pressure.

capillary entry pressure of the fault zone and the pres-
sure difference between the aquifers (Davies et al.,
2003, this volume). If the pressure difference were
obtained by subtracting the water pressure from the
hydrocarbon pressure in the reservoirs across the fault
measured at the same depth on the fault, the raw AFPD
value will not represent the capillary entry pressure of
the fault zone. Instead of using the raw AFPD, the buoy-
ancy pressures should be used calculated relative to the
aquifer on the appropriate side of the fault.
We have derived buoyancy pressure data for data
sets previously analyzed for raw AFPD values for oil
(OW; Figure 7) and gas (GW; Figure 8). In both plots,
the observed buoyancy pressure differences for any
particular data set tend to have a small range of SGR
values for a large range of pressure differences. The
distribution of the data points arises because the data
are typically derived from small areas of sand-sand jux-
taposition that occur at different depths in the hydro-
carbon column (Figure 7 cartoon inset). Flat tops to the
OW data point ‘‘cloud’’ arise when the data are derived
from a large area of reservoir juxtaposition containing a
gas-oil contact. In general, there is a correlation between
the SGR values and the maximum buoyancy pressures
that a given fault-zone composition can potentially sup-
port with low SGR values supporting only low buoy-
ancy pressures. However, this correlation only applies
between SGR values of 20 and 40%. Several points to
note from Figures 7 and 8 are present.
1. There are no data on the OW plot at SGR values less
than about 20% (Figure 7). All the plotted data are
from faults at burial depths less than 3.5 km (
11,500
ft). The absence of observed sealing faults at low
SGR values at shallow depths is commonly taken to
indicate that these relatively clean sandstone juxta-
positions are unaffected by diagenetic overprinting
or cataclasis and are generally nonsealing to oil. It is
possible that it simply represents incomplete data
sampling, but we consider this unlikely as many
nonsealing faults are documented at this SGR range
(Yielding, 2002). Buoyancy pressure data at SGR
values less than 20% are present on the GW plot
(Figure 8) but are only from faults having burial
depths greater than 3.5 km (
11,500 ft). Several
studies (e.g., Leveille et al., 1997; Fisher and Knipe,
1998; Knipe et al., 1998; Labaume and Moretti,
2001) have shown that porosity in cataclasites can

404 Using Calibrated Shale Gouge Ratio to Estimate Hydrocarbon Column Heights
 be destroyed by solution and reprecipitation of
quartz at temperatures exceeding 90jC [equivalent
to burial depths of 3.0 km (
9850 ft) at normal
geothermal gradients]. The diagenetic overprint re-
duces the remaining low porosity in cataclastic fault
rocks resulting in an increased seal potential. Where
diagenetic overprinting is absent, cataclastic rocks
tend to have relatively uniform, or gradually de-
creasing, permeability when the phyllosilicate con-
tent ranges from 0 to 14% (Fisher and Knipe, 2001).
2. A difference in data point distribution at SGR val-
ues above about 40% is present. On the OW plot
(Figure 7), the buoyancy pressures do not increase
above about 3 bar or 43.5 psi between SGR values of
40 and 70%. The data on the GW plot (Figure 8)
exhibit a similar ‘‘plateau’’ distribution of data
points but at higher buoyancy pressures (
12 bar or
175 psi). A combination of three factors may cause
the lack of high (> 12 bar) buoyancy pressures at
100
Buoyancy pressure (bar)
10
1
0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Shale gouge ratio (%)
SGR values above 40%. First, the absence of data
may simply reflect incomplete data sampling. Our
current fault database does not contain any reliably
mapped faults that juxtapose hydrocarbon-bearing
sands against water-bearing sands having minimum
SGR values greater than 40% and well-constrained
buoyancy pressures greater than 3 bar for oil or 12
bar for gas. Second, all the data points may originate
from sand-on-sand juxtapositions that occur lower
in the hydrocarbon column and therefore are not at
seal capacity, or from traps that are controlled by dip
closure away from the fault and not by fault seal. A
third reason for the plateau distribution of data lies
in the observation that fault-zone hydraulic pro-
cesses appear not to change when the SGR value
exceeds about 45 – 50%. A seal having an SGR value
of 90% will not be significantly stronger, and there-
fore will not support a significantly greater hydro-
carbon column, than a seal having an SGR value of
Figure 7. Shale gouge ratio against
buoyancy pressure calibration for oil-
bearing sands juxtaposed against water.
All data on the calibration plot are de-
rived from faults at burial depths less
than 3.5 km. Data color coded by depth:
less than 3.0 km (
9850 ft) dark blue;
3.0 –3.5 km (
9850 –11,500 ft) red.
(psi)
1000
100
10
70
Bretan et al. 405
Figure 8. Shale gouge ratio against
buoyancy pressure calibration for gas-
bearing sands juxtaposed against water.
Data color-coded by depth: less than
3.0 km (
9850 ft) dark blue; 3.0– 3.5 km
(
9850 – 11,500 ft) red; 3.5– 5.5 km
(
11,500 –18,050 ft) green.
40%. Microstructural (Fisher and Knipe, 1998,
2001) and oil field studies (Ottesen Ellevset et al.,
1998) indicate that phyllosilicate smear rocks having
an SGR range between 40 and 100% are likely to
have uniform permeability (< 0.001 md). Similarly,
Fulljames et al. (1997) show that the probability for
seal is independent of CSP above a certain CSP
value, although the actual value is not documented
(figure 5 of Fulljames et al., 1997).
The main point to emerge from the calibration
plots based on buoyancy pressure is that a global seal-
failure envelope based on AFPD has overgeneralized
the relationship between increasing SGR values and
increasing pressure that the fault seal can support. For
gas-bearing traps (Figure 8), depth of burial, especially
for fault rocks at the low end of the SGR spectrum
(clay-poor cataclastic fault rocks) strongly influences
406 Using Calibrated Shale Gouge Ratio to Estimate Hydrocarbon Column Heights
the seal-failure envelope. Although SGR values as low
as 10% appear capable of supporting gas columns, seal-
ing is most likely to be the result of pore-throat re-
duction by diagenetic occlusion instead of the presence
of phyllosilicates in the fault zone. For oil-bearing traps,
the effect of depth of burial cannot be fully evaluated
because all data were derived from faults at burial
depths less then 3.5 km (
11,500 ft) (oil is destroyed
at significantly greater depths). More data are still re-
quired to fully define seal-failure envelopes for the sep-
arate gas and oil calibration plots.
Hydrocarbons Against Hydrocarbons
The second general type of fluid juxtaposition is where
gas or oil-bearing intervals are juxtaposed against other
gas- or oil-bearing intervals having the same fluid den-
sity. These data provide an insight into the fluid content
of the fault zone that separates juxtaposed hydro-
carbons. In general, AFPD derived from juxtaposed hy-
drocarbons having the same fluid density exhibit a small
range of pressure differences for a large range of SGR val-
ues (Figure 9). SGR values less than about 30% can only
support low AFPD (2 bar or
30 psi), whereas SGR val-
ues greater than 40% can support high AFPD (10 bar or
145 psi).
If the fault zone is hydrocarbon saturated, sealing
does not occur by capillary mechanisms. The AFPD in
Figure 9 are likely to be a function of differences in per-
meability between the fault zone and the juxtaposed
reservoirs. Dart and Rivenaes (2000) suggest that, as a
first approximation, clay-smeared fault zones in sand-
shale sequences have the same fluid properties as a
shale cap rock and water is therefore the wetting phase.
They go on to suggest that the higher the sandstone
component of a fault zone, the less likely that it will
remain water saturated in the hydrocarbon column.
Worden et al. (1998) show that even where a rock is
full of oil, there will still be some original pore water
remaining (irreducible water saturation). Rock types
having small pore-throat sizes (e.g., clay-rich fault
rocks) will tend to have high irreducible water satu-
ration even at maximum oil saturation. The higher the
shale component of a fault zone, equivalent to high SGR
values, the more likely the fault zone will remain water
saturated in the hydrocarbon column. If fault zones sep-
arating juxtaposed hydrocarbon columns are water sat-
urated even after oil migration, then capillary entry effects
may still be important for sealing. It seems intuitive
that if the difference in depth of the hydrocarbon-
water contact is small on either side of the fault, then
the strength of the seal, as defined by the capillary
entry forces, will also be small. However, as discussed
by Fisher et al. (2001), this is not necessarily the case.
Although the pressure difference at the fault is de-
pendent on its hydraulic properties, which depend on
Figure 9. Shale gouge ratio against
across-fault pressure difference for juxta-
posed hydrocarbons. Gas-gas juxtaposi-
tions as crosses (+ ), oil-oil juxtapositions
as dots (). Data color-coded by depth:
less than 3.0 km (
9850 ft) dark blue;
3.0 –3.5 km (
9850 –11,500 ft) red; 3.5–
5.5 km (
11,500 – 18,050 ft) green.
Bretan et al. 407
fault-zone composition as reflected by SGR, the de-
tails of the SGR-AFPD relationship for juxtaposed
hydrocarbons depend upon the aquifer pressure and
the filling/migration history of the reservoirs adjacent
to the fault.
resistance seals. A similar SGR-AFPD correlation is
observed for Brent production data but having much
larger pressure differences at a given SGR (Harris et al.,
2002).

Water Against Water UNCERTAINTIES

The final general type of fluid juxtaposition is water
juxtaposed against water across a fault (Figure 10). The
AFPD do not reflect the capillary entry effects of a
membrane seal (Watts, 1987; Yielding et al., 1997).
However, there is a general relationship between SGR
values and AFPD derived from water-on-water juxta-
position. High SGR values support high AFPD values.
Very low fault-zone permeability at high SGR values
most probably causes the differences in pressure that
would retard the flow rate of water across the fault.
Heum (1996) refers to seals of this type as hydraulic
Prediction of hydrocarbon column heights is not an
exact science. The method described in the previous
section relies on the availability of pressure data and the
empirical relationship between fault-zone rock type
(estimated using the SGR algorithm) and supportable
across-fault pressures (assumed to represent the capil-
lary entry pressure for hydrocarbons). Further uncer-
tainties arise from the estimate for the V shale parameter
and the geometric construction of the structural model.
All these uncertainties should be taken into account
when estimating column heights.

Figure 10. Shale gouge ratio against

across-fault pressure difference for jux-
taposed aquifers. The data exhibit a small
range of pressure differences for a large
range of SGR values. Data color coded by
depth: less than 3.0 km (
9850 ft) dark
blue; 3.0–3.5 km (
9850 –11,500 ft)
red; 3.5–5.5 km (
11,500–18,050 ft)
green.

408 Using Calibrated Shale Gouge Ratio to Estimate Hydrocarbon Column Heights
Pressure Data
The lack of pressure data, especially in frontier explo-
ration areas, commonly prevents the detailed calibra-
tion of SGR values. The most ideal case is where the
SGR values are locally calibrated on the structure using
preproduction pressure data from wells located on either
side of the fault. This ensures that the predicted rela-
tionship incorporates locally derived parameters. Failing
this, the SGR values could be calibrated using pressure
data from wells in nearby parts of the same basin. In
cases where no pressure data exist, the SGR values
can be compared to calibration plots based on buoy-
ancy pressure. However, care should be taken to use
data points on these plots that were derived using a
similar methodology for calculating SGR and were ob-
tained from faults that have a similar geohistory to the
fault of interest.
Even if reliable pressure data are available, an SGR-
buoyancy pressure calibration may not derive the entry
pressure of the fault zone. Figure 11 shows a schematic
cross section and SGR-buoyancy pressure calibration
derived from a fault in the central North Sea. The upper
part of the fault is leaking because gas on either side of
the fault lies on the same pressure trend (pressure equal-
ization across the fault). The lower part is sealing, as
there is a difference in observed pressure between the
high-pressure aquifer in the downthrown side and
the lower pressure gas in the upthrown side. Below the
gas-water juxtaposition, the fault separates differently
pressured aquifers. A plot of SGR against calculated
buoyancy pressure produces a distribution of points
that is totally different to the calibration plots shown in
Figures 2 and 8. There appears to be no increase in
buoyancy pressure for increasing SGR for the area of
the fault that is separating gas from water (green in
Figure 11. Cartoon cross section,
depth-pressure plot and calibration plot
derived from a fault in the central North
Sea. Buoyancy pressure calculated using
the water trend in the upthrown side
of the fault for the juxtaposition of low-
pressure gas and high-pressure water
(green) and the gas against gas juxtapo-
sition (black). No apparent value for the
onset of fault seal is present.
Bretan et al. 409
Figure 11). The part of the fault that is leaking to gas
shows a slight increase in SGR for increasing buoyancy
pressure (black in Figure 11). Initial gas leakage
presumably occurred at a lower buoyancy pressure
corresponding to the fault entry pressure, but continued
gas charge and fill has produced longer gas columns and
higher buoyancy pressure that now exceed the entry
pressure. This example shows that, for some data sets,
the present-day pressure data cannot be used to re-
construct seal failure and hence predict column height
(see also Fisher et al., 2001).
Vshale
Several workers have discussed uncertainties in pre-
dicting fault-zone properties, especially the proportion
of fine-grained material in the fault (e.g., Childs et al.,
1997; Hesthammer and Fossen, 2000). Of key concern
is the methodology used to estimate V shale. Different
vintages of V shale analysis of the same well by different
petrophysicists working in the same company can be
alarmingly different. Fristad et al. (1997) derived the
maximum AFPD that could be supported for the min-
imum SGR value for several faults in the Oseberg Syd
field, North Sea. In their original analysis, the V shale
was derived from an initial petrophysical interpretation
of wireline logs. We have reanalyzed these data using a
revised estimate for V shale that incorporates mica and
kaolin (Figure 12). For Fault 1, the minimum SGR
value using V shale that includes mica and kaolin is 30%
compared with 18% based on the original estimate for
V shale. Application of method shown in Figures 4 and 5
using the revised V shale gives a good prediction of the
observed downthrown contacts on Fault 1.
Incorporating mica and kaolin in the estimate for
V shale translates the threshold for the onset of fault seal
(minimum SGR for the maximum AFPD) toward
higher SGR values. Given the uncertainties involved in
deriving the V shale parameter, predictions based on
SGR values that are very close to each other (e.g., 23
and 25%) should be treated with caution. Higher con-
fidence can be placed on SGR values that are more dis-
tinct (e.g., 20 and 40%) as the difference between the
values is greater than the uncertainty that may be in-
volved in estimating V shale.
Seal Failure and Hydrocarbon Charge
In this contribution, we have dealt with the behavior of
the fault seal up to the point of seal failure. We do not
consider the behavior of the fault after the hydrocarbon
410 Using Calibrated Shale Gouge Ratio to Estimate Hydrocarbon Column Heights
Figure 12. Maximum across-fault pressure difference plotted
against minimum shale gouge ratio on six faults in the Oseberg
Syd field, North Sea (for location and methodology, see Fristad
et al., 1997). Changing the method used to estimate V shale
moves the seal threshold value to higher SGR values. Faults are
numbered 1 –6. Original analysis (A); new analysis with revised
V shale having no mica (B); V shale having mica (C); and V shale
having mica and kaolin (D).
seal has been breached. Column heights may continue
to increase even after seal failure if the rate of hydro-
carbon charge is greater than the rate of across-fault
leakage. Analytical models show that hydraulic resist-
ance sealing may add up to about 15% more hydro-
carbon column than predicted by membrane sealing
(Brown, 2003, this volume). This increase in column
height over the predicted value is equivalent to
increasing the SGR value by only 2 (e.g., 20–22%;
Figure 3a). As noted above, small differences in SGR are
very likely to reflect uncertainties in estimating V shale
instead of real variations in fault-zone composition.
Geologic Model
In addition to the problems associated with defining a
seal-failure envelope, a major uncertainty with assessing
prospect risk arises from data that are used to construct a
geologic model of the prospect. A factor influencing
the ability of fault-seal analysis to predict hydrocarbon
column height is the precision of the mapping of
horizon and fault surfaces in three dimensions, and
subsequently the interpolation of the reservoir-scale
stratigraphy, rock properties, and pore-pressure data
in the vicinity of the faults. This is because faults do
not have homogeneous capillary entry properties along
their length. Different rock types will make a different
contribution to the fault-zone composition, depending
upon throw and lateral variation in the V shale compo-
nent, at different parts of the fault. Furthermore, the
depths of the reservoir intervals and their juxtapositions
across the fault, relative to pressure gradients, will vary
depending upon fault throw. Intervals that initially occur
in a water leg may pass along strike into an oil or gas leg.
Geologic History
Many workers have discussed burial depth at the time
of faulting and the subsequent burial history on seal
development (e.g., Knipe, 1992; Fisher and Knipe,
1998). In general, increasing the burial depth is likely to
enhance the seal potential especially for clay-poor fault
zones. However, seal integrity may be compromised if
the faults are optimally oriented for renewed slip in the
present-day tectonic stress field (Castillo, 2000). El-
evated pore pressures caused by hydrocarbons may re-
sult in hydraulic fracturing or fluid flow along faults
(Finkbeiner et al., 2001).
Faults in the database used to derive the ‘‘seal-
failure envelope’’ in Figure 2 are normal faults having
dip-slip movement. As far as the authors are aware,
there are no published calibration data for dip-slip re-
verse, oblique-slip, or strike-slip faults. The paucity of
data for oblique-slip faults may lie in the inherent
difficulty in recognizing oblique-slip motion on faults
imaged on seismic data. Note that SGR values can be
derived from faults having oblique-slip movement but
only where there is no lateral variation in the stra-
tigraphy, such as channels, that occur along the strike of
the fault. This is because the SGR value is a ratio where
the critical factor is the slip across the stratigraphy.
CONCLUSIONS
 In an exploration context, SGR values can be em-
pirically calibrated with pressure data to define
depth-dependent seal-failure envelopes. The seal-
failure envelope provides a method to estimate the
maximum height of a hydrocarbon column.
 Column heights estimated using calibrated SGR val-
ues may be smaller than columns estimated using
‘‘fill-to-structural spill’’ methods. Across-fault leak-
age of hydrocarbons is not confined to the crest of
the structure or even to areas where the computed
SGR value is lowest. The point on a fault where hy-
drocarbons may leak depends upon the buoyancy
pressure (pressure difference between the hydro-
carbon and water phases) and the three-dimensional
distribution of the variable capillary entry pressure of
the fault zone, as derived from SGR values.
 Established calibration diagrams based on AFPD have
overgeneralized the relationship between increasing
SGR values and increasing supportable pressures.
 Calibration diagrams based on buoyancy pressure
show that gas and oil data exhibit a correlation be-
tween increasing SGR and increasing buoyancy pres-
sure but only between SGR values of 20 and 40%.
More data are still required to define individual seal-
failure envelopes for oil and gas.
 The onset of seal for gas is dependent upon depth of
burial especially at SGR values less than 15%. For oil,
the onset for seal occurs at an SGR value of about 20%.
 No increase in the strength of a seal occurs, as re-
flected by an increase in maximum supportable buoy-
ancy pressure, at SGR values greater than about 40%
both for gas and for oil data. Column heights do not
continue to increase over the SGR range 50–100%.
 Estimating hydrocarbon column heights using fault-
seal attribute data ultimately depends upon the geo-
logic input into the model, in particular the pressure
data, volumetric shale fraction (V shale), of the in-
tervals and the precision of the three-dimensional
mapping and interpolation of reservoir geometry
and zonal properties in the vicinity of the fault.
REFERENCES CITED
Berg, R. R., 1975, Capillary pressure in stratigraphic traps: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 59, p. 939 – 956.
Bjorkum, P. A., O. Walderhaug, and P. H. Nadeau, 1998, Physical
constraints on hydrocarbon leakage and trapping revisited:
Petroleum Geoscience, v. 4, p. 237 – 239.
Bouvier, J. D., C. H. Kaars-Sijpesteijn, D. F. Kluesner, C. C.
Onyejekwe, and R. C. Van Der Pal, 1989, Three-dimensional
seismic interpretation and fault sealing investigations, Nun
River field, Nigeria: AAPG Bulletin, v. 73, p. 1397 – 1414.
Brown, A., 2003, Capillary pressure effects on fault sealing, AAPG
Bulletin v. 87, p. 381 – 395.
Castillo, D., 2000, Fault seal integrity in ZOC ‘‘A’’: Can it be
quantified and is it predictable?: PESA News, February/March
2000, p. 56 – 60.
Childs, C., J. Watterson, and J. J. Walsh, 1997, Complexity in fault
zone structure and implications for fault seal prediction, in P.
Møller-Pedersen and A. G. Koestler, eds., Hydrocarbon seals:
Importance for exploration and production: Norwegian
Petroleum Society (NPF) Special Publication 7, Singapore,
Elsevier, p. 61 – 72.
Childs, C., O. Sylta, S. Moriya, J. J. Walsh, and T. Manzocchi,
2002, A method for including the capillary properties of faults
in hydrocarbon migration models, in A. G. Koestler and
Bretan et al. 411
 R. Hunsdale, eds., Hydrocarbon seal quantification: Amster-
dam, Elsevier, Norwegian Petroleum Society (NPF) Special
Publication 11, p. 127 – 139.
Dart, C., and J. C. Rivenaes, 2000, Evaluation of reservoir fault
compartmentalisation — Do we have the tools we need?, in
Hydrocarbon seal quantification: Norwegian Petroleum So-
ciety Conference Extended Abstracts, Stavanger, October
2000, p. 121 – 124.
Davies, R., L. An, A. Mathis, P. Jones, and C. Cornette, 2003, Fault
seal analysis SMI36 Field, Gulf of Mexico: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 87, p. 479 – 491.
Finkbeiner, T., M. Zoback, P. Flemings, and B. Stump, 2001, Stress,
pore pressure, and dynamically constrained hydrocarbon
columns in the South Eugene Island 330 field, northern Gulf
of Mexico: AAPG Bulletin, v. 85, p. 1007 – 1031.
Firoozabadi, A., and H. J. Ramey, 1988, Surface tension of water-
hydrocarbon systems at reservoir conditions: Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, v. 27, p. 41 – 48.
Fisher, Q. J., and R. J. Knipe, 1998, Fault sealing processes in
siliciclastic sediments, in G. Jones, Q. J. Fisher, and R. J.
Knipe, eds., Faulting, fault sealing and fluid flow in hydro-
carbon reservoirs: Geological Society (London) Special Pub-
lication 147, p. 117 – 134.
Fisher, Q. L., and R. J. Knipe, 2001, The permeability of faults
within siliciclastic petroleum reservoirs of the North Sea and
Norwegian Continental Shelf: Marine and Petroleum Geology,
v. 18, p. 1063 – 1081.
Fisher, Q. J., S. D. Harris, E. McAllister, R. J. Knipe, and A. J.
Bolton, 2001, Hydrocarbon flow across faults by capillary
leakage revisited: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 18,
p. 251 – 257.
Freeman, B., G. Yielding, D. T. Needham, and M. E. Badley, 1998,
Fault seal prediction: The gouge ratio method, in M. P.
Coward, T. S. Daltaban, and H. Johnson, eds., Structural
geology in reservoir characterization: Geological Society
(London) Special Publication 127, p. 19 – 25.
Fristad, T., A. Groth, G. Yielding, and B. Freeman, 1997,
Quantitative fault seal prediction: A case study from Oseberg
Syd, in P. Møller-Pedersen and A. G. Koestler, eds., Hydro-
carbon seals: Importance for exploration and production:
Singapore, Elsevier, Norwegian Petroleum Society (NPF)
Special Publication 7, p. 107 – 124.
Fulljames, J. R., L. J. J. Zijerveld, and R. C. M. W. Franssen,
1997, Fault seal processes: systematic analyses of fault seals
over geological and production time scales, in P. Møller-
Pedersen and A. G. Koestler, eds., Hydrocarbon seals:
Importance for exploration and production: Singapore, Else-
vier, Norwegian Petroleum Society (NPF) Special Publication
7, p. 51 – 59.
Gibson, R. G., 1994, Fault-zone seals in siliciclastic strata of the
Columbus Basin, offshore Trinidad: AAPG Bulletin, v. 78,
p. 1372 – 1385.
Gibson, R. G., 1998, Physical character and fluid-flow properties of
sandstone-derived fault gouge, in M. P. Coward, T. S.
Daltaban, and H. Johnson, eds., Structural geology in reservoir
characterization: Geological Society (London) Special Pub-
lication 127, p. 83 – 97.
Grauls, D., F. Pascaud, and T. Rives, 2002, Quantitative fault seal
assessment in hydrocarbon-compartmentalised structures
using fluid pressure data, in A. G. Koestler and R. Hunsdale,
Hydrocarbon seal quantification: Amsterdam, Elsevier, Nor-
wegian Petroleum Society (NPF) Special Publication 11,
p. 141 – 156.
Harris, D., G. Yielding, P. Levine, G. Maxwell, P. T. Rose, and
P. A. R. Nell, 2002, Using shale gouge ratio (SGR) to model
faults as transmissibility barriers in reservoirs: An example
412 Using Calibrated Shale Gouge Ratio to Estimate Hydrocarbon Column Heights
from the Strathspey field, North Sea: Petroleum Geoscience,
v. 8, p. 167 – 176.
Hesthammer, J., and H. Fossen, 2000, Uncertainties associated with
fault sealing analysis: Petroleum Geoscience, v. 6, p. 37 – 45.
Heum, O. R., 1996, A fluid dynamic classification of hydrocarbon
entrapment: Petroleum Geoscience, v. 2, p. 145 – 158.
Ingram, G. M., J. L. Urai, and M. A. Naylor, 1997, Sealing processes
and top seal assessment, in P. Møller-Pedersen and A. G.
Koestler, eds., Hydrocarbon seals: Importance for exploration
and production: Singapore, Elsevier, Norwegian Petroleum
Society (NPF) Special Publication 7, p. 165 – 174.
Jennings, J. B., 1987, Capillary pressure techniques: Application to
exploration and development geology: AAPG Bulletin, v. 71,
p. 1196 – 1209.
Jev, B. I., C. H. Kaars-Sijpesteijn, M. P. A. M. Peters, N. L. Watts,
and J. T. Wilkie, 1993, Akaso Field, Nigeria: Use of integrated
3-D seismic, fault slicing, clay smearing, and RFT pressure data
on fault trapping and dynamic leakage: AAPG Bulletin, v. 77,
p. 1389 – 1404.
Knipe, R. J., 1992, Faulting processes and fault seal, in R. M. Larsen,
H. Brekke, B. T. Larsen, and E. Talleraas, eds., Structural and
tectonic modelling and its application to petroleum geology:
Stavanger, Elsevier, Norwegian Petroleum Society (NPF)
Special Publication 1, p. 325 – 342.
Knipe, R. J., 1997, Juxtaposition and seal diagrams to help analyze
fault seals in hydrocarbon reservoirs: AAPG Bulletin, v. 81,
p. 187 – 195.
Knipe, R. J., G. Jones, and Q. J. Fisher, 1998, Faulting, fault sealing
and fluid flow in hydrocarbon reservoirs: An introduction, in
G. Jones, Q. J. Fisher, and R. J. Knipe, eds., Faulting, fault
sealing and fluid flow in hydrocarbon reservoirs: Geological
Society (London) Special Publication 147, p. vii – xxi.
Labaume, P., and I. Moretti, 2001, Diagenesis-dependence of
cataclastic thrust fault zone sealing in sandstones. Example
from the Bolivian Sub-Andean Zone: Journal of Structural
Geology, v. 23, p. 1659 – 1675.
Leveille, G. P., R. Knipe, C. More, D. Ellis, G. Dudley, G. Jones,
Q. J. Fisher, and G. Allinson, 1997, Compartmentalization
of Rotliegendes gas reservoirs by sealing faults, Jupiter
fields area, southern North Sea, in K. Zeigler et al., eds.,
Petroleum geology of the southern North Sea; future potential:
Geological Society (London) Special Publication 123,
p. 87 – 104.
Manzocchi, T., J. J. Walsh, P. A. R. Nell, and G. Yielding, 1999,
Fault transmissibility multipliers for flow simulation models:
Petroleum Geoscience, v. 5, p. 53 – 63.
Naruk, S. J., and J. W. Handschy, 1997, Characterization and
prediction of fault seal parameters: empirical data (abs.):
AAPG Hedberg Research Conference on ‘‘Reservoir scale
deformation: characterisation and prediction’’, Bryce, Utah.
O’Connor, S. J., 2000, Hydrocarbon-water interfacial tension values
at reservoir conditions: Inconsistencies in the technical
literature and the impact on maximum oil and gas column
height calculations: AAPG Bulletin, v. 84, p. 1537 – 1541.
Ottesen Ellevset, S., R. J. Knipe, T. S. Olsen, Q. Fisher, and G.
Jones, 1998, Fault controlled communication in the Sleipner
Vest Field, Norwegian Continental Shelf: Detailed, quantita-
tive input for reservoir simulation and well planning, in G.
Jones, Q. J. Fisher, and R. J. Knipe, eds., Faulting, fault sealing
and fluid flow in hydrocarbon reservoirs: Geological Society
(London) Special Publication 147, p. 283 – 297.
Rodgers, S., 1999, Discussion: ‘‘Physical constraints on hydrocarbon
leakage and trapping revisited — further aspects’’: Petroleum
Geoscience, v. 5, p. 421 – 423.
Schowalter, T. T., 1979, Mechanics of secondary hydrocarbon
migration and entrapment: AAPG Bulletin, v. 63, p. 723 – 760.
Vavra, C. L., J. G. Kaldi, and R. M. Sneider, 1992, Geological
applications of capillary pressure: A review: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 76, p. 840 – 850.
Watts, N., 1987, Theoretical aspects of cap-rock and fault seals for
single- and two-phase hydrocarbon columns: Marine and
Petroleum Geology, v. 4, p. 274 – 307.
Welbon, A. L., A. Beach, P. J. Brockbank, O. Fjeld, S. D. Knott,
T. Pedersen, and S. Thomas, 1997, Fault seal analysis in
hydrocarbon exploration and appraisal: Examples from off-
shore mid-Norway, in P. Møller-Pedersen and A. G. Koestler,
eds., Hydrocarbon seals: Importance for exploration and
production: Singapore, Elsevier, Norwegian Petroleum Society
(NPF) Special Publication 7, p. 165 – 174.
Worden, R. H., N. H. Oxtoby, and P. C. Smalley, 1998, Can oil
emplacement prevent quartz cementation in sandstones?
Petroleum Geoscience, v. 4, p. 129 – 137.
Yielding, G., 2002, Shale gouge ratio — Calibration by geohistory,
in A. G. Koestler and R. Hunsdale, Hydrocarbon seal
quantification: Amsterdam, Elsevier, Norwegian Petroleum
Society (NPF) Special Publication 11, p. 1 – 15.
Yielding, G., B. Freeman, and T. Needham, 1997, Quantitative
Fault Seal Prediction: AAPG Bulletin, v. 81, p. 897 – 917.
Yielding, G., J. A. Overland, and G. Byberg, 1999, Characterization
of fault zones for reservoir modeling: An example from the
Gullfaks field, northern North Sea: AAPG Bulletin, v. 83,
p. 925 – 951.
Bretan et al. 413