SPE 59405
Structural Evaluation of Petroleum Sealing Capacity of Faults
R. Sorkhabi, U. Suzuki, and D. Sato, TRC/Japan National Oil Corporation
Copyright 2000. Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE Asia Pacific Conference on
Integrated Modelling for Asset Management held in Yokohama, Japan, 25-26 April 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P. O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435
Abstract
Japan National Oil Corporation is conducting a five-year
project on the Evaluation of Traps and Seals. As part of
this Project we have designed a conceptual model for
evaluating faults as petroleum conduits or barriers in
sedimentary basins. This structural evaluation draws on
several geological databases from the North Sea, UK,
Niger Delta, Utah, Texas, Gulf of Mexico, Trinidad,
Persian Gulf, and Indonesia. Our model integrates
various parameters affecting the flow properties of faults
into tectonic setting and fault style, fault geometry, fault
damage zone, fault rock in contrast to host rock
characteristics, and fault chronology and time-scale
(geological, production and seismic time scales). We
distinguish between “fault traps” (due to juxtaposition of
shale against sandstone layers) and “sealing faults” (in
which mechanical and chemical changes along the fault
plane produces a barrier to petroleum flow. Allan-type
juxtaposition diagrams (fault-plane section analysis) are
useful tools to evaluate fault traps but not sealing faults.
Major processes of sealing faults include fault
compaction and cataclasis, cementation due to fluid
channeling along the fault, and clay smearing. Data on
fault rocks and their corresponding undeformed host
rocks show that faulting processes can reduce the rock
permeability by two orders of magnitude. Quantitative a
approaches for assessment of clay-smearing include
Clay Smear Potential (CSP), Shale Smear Factor (SSF),
and Shale Gouge Ratio (SGR). All these parameters
depend on the thickness of faulted shale layer and fault
throw. The available data indicate that CSP of >15, SSF
of <7, and SGR of >18% are threshold values for fault
sealing in normal faults. While across-fault direction may
be a membrane seal for petroleum flow, the fault
damage zone may actually increase the permeability for
the flow along and in the vicinity of the fault if the open
fractures are not healed by mineralization and collapse.
Analysis of fracture density, aperture, orientation, and
connectivity, as well as fault-zone diagenesis are
therefore important in fault-sealing evaluation. Our
conceptual model is helpful in exploration because faults
commonly occur in sedimentary basins and such a
model provides a tool to rank a population of fault-bound
prospects based on their relative and probable fault
sealing capacity.
Introduction
Understanding the function of faults as barriers or
conduits for subsurface fluid flow is crucial for reservoir
modelling and trap analysis. Three schools of thought
can be formulated on the hydraulic properties of faults.
Firstly, faults can be considered as effective conduits
for fluid migration. The occurrence of oil and gas seeps,
geothermal springs, and hydrothermal deposits and
mineral veins in the rocks fractured and deformed by
faults are some lines of evidence in support of this view.
Secondly, faults may form barriers to fluid flow as
indicated by grain-size reduction of rocks in the
proximity of faults and compartmentalization of
petroleum reservoirs by faults.
Thirdly, it can be assumed that both of the above
views are correct: Some faults are barriers and others
are conduits, or more accurately, a given fault may
behave both as a conduit and as a barrier at different
times. Also a fault may be transmissive vertically but a
barrier laterally or vice versa, depending upon its
geometry.
2 R. SORKHABI, U. SUZUKI, AND D. SATO
Studies over the past decade tend to support the
third school of thought; however, quantifying the sealing
capacity or leaking conditions of faults still remains a
challenge in petroleum exploration. This paper briefly
reviews the status of knowledge on this issue and offers
a conceptual model based on quantitative information
and an integration of various parameters necessary for
evaluation of individual faults as petroleum seals or
pathways.
Fault Activity and Fluid Flow
In trap analysis, it is first necessary to put the activity of
faults in a chronological context not only because
structural traps should form before oil migration
(otherwise the trap would be barren) but also because
active faults are conduits for fluids irrespective of any
other factor that may render a fault to be a trap or seal.
That oil and gas seeps are commonly found in tectonic
plate boundaries is due to the fact that most neotectonic
faults are in the present plate boundaries. There is also
field evidence of fluid flow accompanying seismic faults.
Faults can be active on geological (thousands to
millions of years), production (months to decades) and
seismic (seconds to days) timescales. In trap analysis,
we are mostly concerned with geological timescale
although the activity of faults on production and seismic
timescales are relevant for petroleum development and
production.
In linking the fault activity to fluid flow and
permeability, Knipe1 utilizing Sibson’s2 model discussed
three stages: preseismic, coseismic, and postseismic
stages. In the preseismic stage, elastic strain
accumulation (α-phase) and a damage zone of low-
stress dilatant microfracturing (β-phase) take place in
the fault source area. The dilations during this stage
can draw fluids into the damage zone, but this flow rate
is less significant compared to that during the following
stages. The coseismic stage involves the rupture and
slippage along fault planes (the main shock or γ-phase).
Although the large dilations during the coseismic stage
are short-lived, they make the fault a very effective
conduit for fluid flow by creating connected channels for
different fluid pressure and temperature regimes.
During the post-seismic stage (δ-phase), fault activity by
aftershocks and afterslips decreases with time. The
length of the aftershock and afterslip period depends on
the magnitude of the main shock and accumulated
stress; it is usually on the order of weeks and months for
aftershocks although afterslips may continue to operate
for a few years. The postseismic stage provides an
important window for fluid flow in the fault zone.
Eventually, however, the permeability of the fault zone
decreases due to aseismic creep, collapse and
diagenesis1.
SPE 59405
Fault Traps and Sealing Faults
A distinction must be made between what has been
traditionally called “fault traps,” which are produced by
juxtaposition of permeable against impermeable rocks,
and “sealing faults” in which physicochemcial changes in
the rocks along the fault plane itself produce a
membrane seal for hydrocarbon accumulation.
Allan3 proposed “fault-plane section analysis” to
display the stratigraphy and geometry of rocks
juxtaposed along the fault plane. “Allan-type diagrams,”
which have been incorporated in the commercially
available software 3Dmove, can be used to understand
the type and attitude of juxtaposed rock units along the
fault plane to identify possible fault traps with their
closures and spill points. Another approach to analyse
fault traps is the use of “Juxtaposition diagrams” in the
software Juxtapostion, which demonstrates the rock
units on the hangingwall and footwall of the fault along
the strike, and these can be graphically studied in
relation to their petrophyscial data. Knipe4 describes this
procedure.
A basic assumption made by Allan3 is that faults
themselves are neither seals nor conduits. This
assumption ignores sealing faults, which have been
documented in several basins, beginning with Smith’s
pioneering work on the theory of sealing faults5 and its
application to Louisiana Gulf Coast basins6. Sealing or
leaking faults are not confined to “fault traps”; they are
associated with many other types of petroleum traps
including anticlines.
Sealing faults are produced by a combination of
processes in the fault rock. Without going into details
and debates on the definition and classification of fault
rock, the term is simply taken as a preexisting (host)
rock that has been altered physically and/or chemically
by a fault and is located close to the fault plane.
References 1, 7-9 provide good reviews of various
faulting processes that play major roles in the sealing. In
this paper, we treat some of these processes
quantitatively in terms of their effects on the flow
properties of reservoir rocks.
Clay Smearing
In sandstone reservoir rocks with intervening
mudstone/shale layers, faulting would cause the
dragging and smearing of clay layers into and along the
fault plane. Clay smearing is an important mechanism
for increasing the sealing capacity of faults. This
phenomenon was first described by Weber et al.10 along
the exposed growth faults in Germany (the Frechen
browncoal pits) as well as by laboratory experiments.
Clay smearing is achieved through three processes: (1)
Abrasion of shale by sandstone on grain-scale; (2) fault
shearing; and (3) ductile injection of shale in fault zones
due to contraction and extension (gravitational
instability) of rocks on both sides of the fault11.
SPE 59405 STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF PETROLEUM SEALING CAPACITY OF FAULTS 3

10 140
Shale Smear Factor (SSF)
a 9 Niger Delta (psi)
b
120

Across-fault Pressure
8 Trinidad

Difference (Bar)
7 100
6
NO SEAL 80
Throw 5
4 60
3 SEAL
40
2
1 20
0 0
Throw of fault
SSF = 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Shale layer thickness Shale Smear Factor (SSF)

Clay Smear Potential (CSP)

10 140
c 9 (psi)
d Niger Delta
Across-fault Pressure

8 120
Difference (Bar)

7 100
Distance
6 NO SEAL 80
5
4 60
3 SEAL 40
2
20
1
0 0
Shale-bed thickness2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
CSP = Σ
Distance from source bed Clay Smear Potential (CSP)

10 140
Niger Delta
e Shale Gouge Ratio (SGR) 9 f (psi)
North Sea 120
Across-fault Pressure

8
Trinidad
Difference (Bar)

7 100
6
80
5
NO SEAL 60
Throw
4
SEAL
3 40
2
1 20
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Σ (shale bed thickness)
SGR = x 100% Shale Gouge Ratio (SGR %)
Fault throw
Fig. 1. Three quantitative approaches for clay smearing assessment. (a) Shale Smear Factor (SSF); (b) Available
calibration lines for SSF: Niger Delta (references 12, 13) and Trinidad (references 13, 14); (c) Clay Smear Potential
(CSP); (d) Calibration line for CSP in Niger Delta (reference 13); (e) Shale Gouge Ratio (SGR); (f) Available
calibration lines for SGR: Niger Delta (references 12, 13), North Sea (references 13, 20) and Trinidad (references
13, 14). See text for other information.
4 R. SORKHABI, U. SUZUKI, AND D. SATO
In the last decade, three quantitative approaches have
emerged to study clay smearing for the purpose of fault
sealing assessment. These include (1) Shale Smear
Factor (SSF), (2) Clay Smear Potential (SCP), and
Shale Gouge Ratio (SGR). All these parameters are
based on the thickness of faulted shale layers and the
amount of fault displacement (Fig. 1).
SSF11 is measured as the fault throw divided by the
shale layer thickness; it increases with shale layer
thickness and decreases with fault throw. SSF is most
useful when discrete faults or fault segments are the
target of fault sealing assessment. Lindsay et al.11
made a detailed study of shale smear in outcrop
samples from the Upper Carboniferous coal-bearing
rocks in England and found that the majority of
continuous smears occur when SSF is equal or less
than 8. Using the 3D seismic sections of Bouvier et al.12
from the Nun River Field in Nigeria, Yielding et al.13
worked out the SSF values in relation to cross-fault
pressure difference. An SSF value of <7 was found to be
a threshold value for sealing faults. A similar study in the
Columbus Basin, Trinidad, by Gibson14 also yields SSF
threshold value of 8. Younes15 also derived SSF of 6 for
sealing faults in the Gulf of Suez, Egypt.
CSP12,16,17 indicates the relative amount of clay that
has been smeared at a certain along the fault plane; it is
thus useful for sealing assessment of various points
rather than the whole fault plane. CSP decreases with
increasing distance from the source shale layer. Bentely
and Barry18 gave CSP>5 as sealing threshold in the
North Sea reservoir rocks. In the Niger Delta (Akaso
Field), Jev et al.19 found CSP<15 as non-sealing and
CSP>30 as highly sealing, while Yielding et al.13
studying the Nun River Filed reported CSP>10 as
sealing threshold. Obviously, like the SSF, the CSP
threshold values also depend on the cross-fault fluid
pressure differences (see Fig. 1).
SGR13 is measured as the total thickness of shale
layers in the slipped interval divided by fault throw and
expressed in percentage. SGR is a more realistic
parameter where alternations of shale and sandstone
occur in the reservoir (multiple shale layers are
13
frequently involved in faulting). Yielding et al.
14
determined SGR values of >15% for Trinidad and
15
>20% for the Niger Delta as sealing threshold. In a
more detailed study of Osberg Syd in the North Sea,
Fristad et al.20 found that SGR of >18% have significant
sealing capacity for adjacent faulted-reservoir blocks
with fluid-pressure differences as much as 9 bar.
The available calibration lines for SSF, CSP, and
SGR are illustrated in Fig. 1.
Fault Sealing at Sand-Sand Contacts
The more challenging task is to predict the flow and
petrophysical properties of faults where two sandstone
units are in contact. In this case, a quantitative
appraisal of faulting processes, fault architecture, fault
SPE 59405
rocks and their effects on fluid flow in the reservoir rock
is necessary. Toward this end, we have constructed a
database of 114 pair of fault rock and host rock samples
where the air permeability data were available for both
the host and fault rocks. These data come from
Mesozoic siliciclastic reservoir rocks, mostly from the
North Sea. The sources of data include Leveille et al.21,
Fisher and Knipe22, Gibson23, as well as the data from
two reports of the Rock Deformation Research Group of
the Leeds University (directed by Dr. Rob Knipe). The
data are divided into three categories according to the
dominant process responsible for the formation of the
fault rock: Cataclasites; Cemented Cataclasites; and
Clay Matrix Gouge (Framework Phyllosilicates) (Fig. 2).
Cataclasis refers to the mechanical production of the
fault rock by brittle deformation (breakage, frictional
sliding, and granulation). This process results in grain-
size reduction, porosity collapse (fault compaction), and
hence a decrease in the permeability. In cemented
cataclasites, cementation is the dominant feature, and
the fault-related precipitation of cement takes place in a
variety of ways, including hydrothermal fluid-rock
interactions and mineral growth due to fault-induced
changes in the temperature and pressure regime. The
framework phyllosilicate fault rock (Knipe et al.8) or clay-
matrix gouge (Gibson23) is developed in mineralogically
impure or immature sandstones with clay-phyllosilicate
content of 15%-40% (Knipe et al.8) or containing >30%
clay+mica+lithics and <60% quartz (Gibson23). This is
similar to shale-smearing process mentioned above, but
on a very small scale.
Fig. 2 demonstrates that these faulting processes
can reduce the permeability in the sandstone fault rocks
on the two orders of magnitude.
The Role of Fault Damage Zone
Faults are rarely single slip planes but rather zones of
deformation. The fault zone includes both the fault rock
and the surrounding damage zone marked by joints,
deformation bands, and mineral veins. Several studies
over the past two decades have demonstrated that the
width of the fault zone depends upon the fault
displacement.
In Fig. 3, this relationship is shown using the data
reported by Otsuki24 and Robertson25. Otsuki defines the
fault zone as the “shear zone” while Robertson
considers only the “fault gouge and breccia zone.”
Therefore, their data do not include the undisplaced
fractured rocks in the vicinity of faults. Since the data on
both axes of Fig. 3 have been plotted on log scale the
linear fit between fault displacement and ‘fault zone’
width should be considered as a first-order
approximation. Nevertheless, this line of research and
set of data is necessary for modelling the effect of
faulting on reservoir rocks. It seems that the width of
‘fault zone’ is at most one-tenth but more probably one-
hundredth of the fault displacement.
SPE 59405 STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF PETROLEUM SEALING CAPACITY OF FAULTS 5
10000
B Host Rock Permeability
B
Faulting increases the background fracture quantity
Cataclasites
G Fault Rock Permeability in the reservoir rock and this is best observed in the fault
1000 BB
BB damage zone. Both laboratory experiments and field
BB
BB
B B BB B
B BB BB B
BB B observations show that the length of fractures develop
100 BB BB G

B
B
G G G
GG
parallel to σ1 (Anderson’s axis of maximum stress) and
B G
B B BB G

10 B B B
BB
G the width (aperture) of fractures develops perpendicular
Permeability (mD)

B B BB B G

BB
B BB B
G G
G
to σ3 (the minimum stress axis). Two approaches have
BB G
1 G
B
B
G
G
G
G
been used to quantify spatial distribution of fractures:
B G
G Fracture Spacing Ratio (FSR) and Fracture Density.
BB G G G G
G
0.1
B
G G
G
G
G
GG G Both these parameters allow a comparison of data from
G G G G
G G G various faults, rocks, and areas in order to understand
B
G G
G
0.01
G G
G G G
G
G
G the reservoir properties as well as the more fundamental
G G
G G G principles governing the fracture formation.
0.001 FSR is measured as the bed thickness divided by
(a) distance between adjacent fractures. Case studies show
0.0001 G G
that FSR depends upon the bed thickness (thinner beds
59 Samples
have narrower fracture spacing) and the rock type
1000 (carbonates contain fewer fractures than the more brittle
Cemented B Host Rock Permeability
Cataclasites G Fault Rock Permeability B
B siliciclastic rocks). FSR values are usually in the range
100 B of 0.7-1.3; however, faulting can increase this
B B
remarkably. For example, Becker and Gross26 measured
B B
10
G an FRS value 9 in the vicinity of a normal fault in
B B southern Israel, while the FRS values decrease to as
B

B B
B G low as 0.7 away from the fault.
1 B
B B G
Fracture Density is measured as the number of
Permeability (mD)

B B
B
G
B B fractures observed along a scanline divided by the total
B
0.1
B
B
G G
length of the scanline. A large number of fracture density
B G
G
G
studies have been made, which cannot be described in
B G
B B
0.01 B G G
G
G this short paper. Two examples suffice our purpose here
G
B
B B G
G G
G G — one from surface sandstones in the southeast USA
G

0.001 G G
and the other from borehole limestones in the Persian
G
G
Gulf.
G
G
(b)
B G
G
0.0001 G G G G

33 Samples 10,000

10000
Clay Matrix Gouge 1000
Log Fault Displacement (m)

(Framework Phyllosilicates)
1000 B B
B Host Rock Permeability B B B
B
G Fault Rock Permeability
B B 100
100 B

10 B
B 10
B
B B B
Permeability (mD)

1
B
B
1
G G
0.1 G G
B G G
G G
.1
G G G G
B B G G
0.01 B
B
G G
G G
G .01
G
0.001
n = 72
0.0001 G G
.001
(c) .0001 .01 1 100
0.00001
.001 .1 10 1000
22 Samples
Log Fault Zone Thickness (m)
Fig. 2. Comparison of air permeability of host rocks
and their corresponding fault rocks produced by Fig. 3. Relationship between the amount of fault
three different faulting processes: (a) Cataclasites; displacement (m) and the thickness of fault zone
(m). There is a linear fit on log scale (first -order
(b) Cemented cataclasites; (c) Clay matrix gouge approximation) with a range (scatter) of two orders
(framework phyllosilicates). All rocks are from of magnitude. Data from references 24, 25.
siliciclastic reservoir rocks. Overall, the faulting
processes reduce the permeability on the two orders
of magnitude.
6 R. SORKHABI, U. SUZUKI, AND D. SATO SPE 59405

120
Fig. 4 Fountain Formation Arkose
110 (Pennsylvannian, Colorado)
R = 0.92, x = 139exp(-0.8y)
100
Aztec Sandstones
(Jurassic, Nevada)
Microfracture density (n/mm)

90
R = 0.74, x = 9.0exp(-0.20y)
80 Navajo-Entrada Sandstones
(Jurassic, Utah)
70 R = 0.67, x = 57.9exp(-1.2y)

60

50

Nevada

Ut ah
Colorad
o

40

30

20

10

0
.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

Distance from faults (m)

Fig. 4. Relationship between microfracture

Fig. 5
Pe

density versus distance from faults in

Study Area :
rs

ilam limestone
ia
n

(Late Cretaceous)
G

sandstone rocks (surface samples) in

ul
f

Colorado, Nevade and Utah (data from

Gulf of Oman
references 27, 28)
300 km

12
a
10
Grain supported fractures
8

6
Fractures per meter

2
0 25 50 75 100
12

10
b
Matrix supported fractures
Fig. 5. Relationship between microfracture
8 density versus distance from seismic
faults in carbonate rocks (Upper
6 Creaceous Ilam limstone ) (core samples)
in the Persian Gulf (offshore Fateh oil
field). The fracture density measurments
4
were made along horizontal wellbore
versus distances to faults (after reference
2 29).

0 25 50 75 100
Distance to seismic faults (m)
SPE 59405 STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF PETROLEUM SEALING CAPACITY OF FAULTS
Fig. 4 is a semi-log plot of microfracture density
versus distance from faults for sandstones samples from
southeast Utah (the Navajo-Entrada sandstones) and
Colorado (Fountain arkose formation) measured by
Anders and Wiltschko27, and the Aztec sandstones
(southeast Nevada) measured by Brock and Engelder28.
The increase in fracture density toward the faults varies
from one case to another. It is most obvious for the
Fountain arkose formation in which the background
(host rock) fracture density of <10 per millimeter at ~100
m away from the fault increases to ~100 per millimeter
near the fault contacts. This pattern, to a lesser degree,
is also seen for the Aztec sandstones. However, the
Navajo-Entrada sandstones show little increase in
fracture density, possibly because these highly porous
sandstones have accommodated intragranular slip
rather than intergranular cracking27.
Fig. 5 shows the fracture density of Late Cretaceous
Illam limestone core samples in relation to horizontal
distance from faults in the offshore Fateh oil field in the
Persian Gulf. This study was reported by Ericsson et
al.29, who divided the fractures into “grain-supported”
and “matrix-supported” fractures. The data indicate that
while the density of both fracture types increase toward
the faults, the majority of matrix-supported fractures
cluster very close (within 25 m) of the fault planes but
the faulting has produced a broader zone (nearly three
times) of grain-supported fractures.
Obviously, the increase in fracture density implies
that the fault damage zone would provide an effective
conduit for fluid flow and that the direction of the flow
would be parallel to σ1. In young and active faults with
numerous open fractures (joints) and microfractures
(Griffith cracks) in their damage zones, this effect should
be taken into account. However, open fractures can also
be healed by hydrothermal deposits (mineral veins),
diagenesis, and by mechanical collapse. This is
especially true for geologically older faults where
sufficient time has elapsed for the healing processes to
complete. Fracture healing reduces the permeability of
rocks in the fault zone.
Deformational bands are also important fault-related
features that reduce the rock permeability in the fault
zone. Deformation bands, first described by Aydin30 in
porous sandstones, are thin (0.5-2 mm) planar
structures with small amounts of offset (several
millimeters to a few centimeters) and are characterized
by localized cataclasis. Field observation show that
deformation bands are also found in relatively
undisturbed host rock, but they show much narrower
spacing (hence increased density) closer to faults.
There are not many studies of petrophysical
properties of deformation bands. In Fig. 6, we show the
results of studies by Antonellini and Aydin31 in
sandstones in the Arches National Park, Utah (Fig. 6a),
23
and by Gibson in various sandstone reservoir rocks
(mostly from the USA) (Fig. 6b). The former used
7
minipermeameter for surface rock samples while the
latter used plugs; therefore, the data in Fig. 6b show the
minimum amount of decrease in the permeability
because some contribution from the host rock
permeability is included in the measurements.
Nevertheless, both sets of data clearly demonstrate that
deformation bands reduce the rock permeability in the
fault zone by at least 1-2 orders of magnitude. The
permeability of the rock perpendicular to deformation
bands is more reduced than that parallel to deformation
bands (Fig. 6a). Deformational bands in the damage
zone enhance the capacity of faults as membrane seals
for lateral flow of hydrocarbons.
Fault Sealing Evaluation
Fault sealing analysis is a formidable task because it
involves many inter-connected factors. Our knowledge
of these factors is both non-uniform and fragmented.
Some processes (for example, fault geometry) are better
understood than others (for example, fault-related
diagenesis) are. Moreover, most faulting processes
have been studied in isolation, and the relationships
among many of the processes are poorly understood.
For a systematic and comprehensive fault sealing
analysis, various parameters need to be studied. These
parameters can be categoriezed into (1) tectonic setting
(remote stress) and fault style (type and shape); (2) fault
geometric parameters (throw, length, etc.); fault rock
characteristics (clay smearing, cataclasis, cementation,
etc.); (4) fault damage zone (fault zone width, fracture
density, orientation and connectivity, and mineral veins
and deformation bands); (5) host rock characteristics
(type and initial conditions of the matrix reservoir rock);
(5) chronology of fault activity. All these factors control
the flow properties of faults, fault zones and fault rocks.
Fig. 7 shows these factors in the form of a fish-bone.
Fig. 8 provides a conceptual model to summarize
various issues related to fault sealing evaluation
discussed in this paper. Multidisciplinary research is
required to further tackle these issues quantitatively.
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank Dr. Y. Tsuji (present director) and
Mr. H. Ishida (former director) of TRC Geology and
Geochemistry Section for encouragement throughout
this study. Thanks also to Dr. R. Knipe for permission to
use data from Rock Deformation Project reports.
References
1. Knipe, R.J.: “Influence of Fault Zone Processes and
Diagenesis on Fluid Flow,” Diagenesis and Basin
Development, Horbury and Robinson (eds.), AAPG Studies
in Geology 36 (1993), 135-151.
2. Sibson, R.H.: “Earthquakes and Rock Deformation in
Crustal Fault Zones,” Ann. Rev. Earth Planet Sci. (1986), 14,
149-175.
8 R. SORKHABI, U. SUZUKI, AND D. SATO SPE 59405

100000 Khr : Permeability of host rock

10000
K p: Parallel to deformation band Khr
(a) B Permeability of host rock
B
K n: Perpendicular to band G Permeability perpendicular to deformation band
10000 Khr 1000
Khr
Khr
Kp
B
B
1000 Kn 100
Permeability (mD)
B
Khr Kp

Permeability (mD)
Kp Khr
Kn B
100 10
Kp B
G
Kn
Kn Kn G

10 1 B G

Kn
B
G

1 0.1 G

G (b )
G
0.1 0.01 G
Chinle Navajo Slickrock Moab Morrison Entrada
(Entrada) (Entrada) Samples
(S. Raphael)

Fig . 6 . Role of deformation bands in reducing the permeability of sandstone reservoir rocks. (a) Data from various
stratigraphic formations in the Arches National Park, Utah (reference 31). (b) Data from various reservoir rocks (mostly in the
USA) reported in reference 23. See text for discussion.

Fault parameters Fault chronology

Fault type/shape
Tectonic setting

Fault Sealing
Evaluation
Flow Properties

Fig. 7. Fish-bone strategy for studying

various parameters controlling the sealing
capacity of faults (fault-sealing assessment)
Host Rock Fault Rock

Sandstone Shale

Shale Smear
Fluid Flow

Damage
Zone Fault Rock

Timing of Fault Acticity

Undefromed bed (Host rock) Bed

Fault Zone thickness
Fracture
Space

Due to open fracture density

and connectivity
Fault Sealing Capacity

(Damage Zone)
Permeability
Permeability
(Fault Rock)

Due to mineral veins, healed

fractures and deformation
bands
Shale Smear Factor

Shale Grouge Ratio Cataclasis & Cementation Distance from Fault

Clay Smear Potential (Fault Rock)
Fault displacement

Fracture Density

Fracture Density
(Host rock)

Sandstone

Limestone

Fault zone width Bed Thickness Distance from Fault

Fig. 8. A conceptual model for fault architecture and relationships (unquantified) among various parameters that control
the flow properties of faults in reservoir rocks and petroleum traps
SPE 59405 STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF PETROLEUM SEALING CAPACITY OF FAULTS
3. Allan, U.S.: “Model for Hydrocarbon Migration and
Entrapment within Faulted Structures,” AAPG Bulletin
(1989), 73, 803-811.
4. Knipe, R.J.: “Juxtaposition and Seal Diagrams to Help
Analyze Fault Seals in Hydrocarbon Reservoirs,” AAPG
Bulletin (1997), 81, 187-195.
5. Smith, D.A.: “Theoretical Considerations of Sealing and
Non-sealing Faults,” AAPG Bulletin (1966), 50, 363-374.
6. Smith, D.A: “Sealing and Nonsealing Faults in Louisiana
Gulf Coast Salt Basin,” AAPG Bulletin (1980), 64, 145-172.
7. Knipe, R.J.: “Fault Processes and Fault Seal,” Structural
and Tectonic Modelling and Its Application to Petroleum
Geology, Larsen et al. (eds.), NPF Special Publication
(1992), 1, 325-342.
8. Knipe, R.J. et al.: “Fault Seal Analysis: Successful
Methodologies, Application and Future Directions,”
Hydrocarbon Seals: Importance for Exploration and
Production, Moller-Pederson and Koestler (eds.), NPF
Special Publication (1997), 7, 15-40.
9. Knipe, R.J., et al.: “Faulting, Fault Sealing and Fluid Flow in
Hydrocarbon Reservoirs: An Introduction,” Faulting, Fault
Sealing and Fluid Flow in Hydrocarbon Reservoirs, Jones
et al. (eds.), Geological Society Special Publication (1998),
147.
10 Weber, K.J., et al.: “The Role of Faults in Hydrocarbon
Migration and Trapping in Nigerian Growth Fault
Structures,” 10th Annual Offshore Technology Conference
Proceedings (1978), 4, 2643-2653.
11. Lindsay, N.G. et al.: “Outcrop Studies of Shale Smears on
Fault Surfaces,” Special Publication of International
Association of Sedimentologists (1993), 15, 113-123.
12. Bouvier, J.D. et al.: “Three-dimensional Seismic
Interpretation and Fault Sealing Investigations, Nun River
Field, Nigeria,” AAPG Bulletin (1989) 73, 1397-1414.
13. Yielding, G. et al.: “Quantitative Fault Seal Prediction,”
AAPG Bulletin (1997), 81, 897-917.
14. Gibson, R.G.: “Fault-zone Seals in Siliciclastic Strata of the
Columbus Basin, Offshore Trinidad,” AAPG Bulletin (1994),
78, 1372-1385.
15. Younes, A.I.: “Shale Smear Evaluation Along the Hadahid
Fault, Gulf of Suez, Egypt,” Stanford Rock Fracture Project
Annual Report (1998), 9, C1-9.
16. Spenksnijder, A.: “The Structural Configuration of
Cormorant Block IV in Context of the Northern Viking
Graben Structural Framework,” Geol. Mijnbouw. (1987),
65, 357-379.
17. Fulljames, J.R. et al.: “Fault Seal Processes: Systematic
Analysis of Fault Seals over Geological and Production
Timescales,” Hydrocarbon Seals: Importance for
Exploration and Production, Moller-Pederson and Koestler
(eds.), NPF Special Publication (1997), 7, 51-59.
18. Bentley, M.R., and Barry, J.J.: “Representation of Fault
Sealing in a Reservoir Simulation: Cormorant Block IV, UK
North Sea,” Society of Petroleum Engineers Reprint No.
22667 (1991), 119-126.
19. Jev, B.I. et al.: “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 (1993), 77, 1389-1404.
20. Fristad, T. et al.: “Quantitative Fault Seal Prediction: A
Case Study from Osberg Syd.” Hydrocarbon Seals:
Importance for Exploration and Production, Moller-
9
Pederson and Koestler (eds.), NPF Special Publication
(1997), 7, 107-124.
21. Leveille, G.P. et al.: “Compartmentalization of
Rotliegendes Gas Reservoirs by Sealing Faults, Jupiter
Field Area, Southern North Sea,” Petroleum Geology of the
Southern North Sea: Future Potential, Ziegler et al. (eds.),
Geological Society Special Publication (1997), 123, 87-
104.
22. Fisher, Q.J, and Knipe, R.J.: Fault Sealing Processes in
Siliciclastic Sediments,” Faulting, Fault Sealing and Fluid
Flow in Hydrocarbon Reservoirs, Jones et al. (eds.),
Geological Society Special Publication (1998), 147, 117-
134.
23. Gibson, R.G.: “Physical Character and Fluid-flow
Properties of Sandstone-derived Fault Zones,” Structural
Geology in Reservoir Characterization, Coward et al.
(eds.), Geological Society Special Publication (1998), 127,
83-97.
24. Otsuki, K.: “On the Relationship Between the Width of
Shear Zone and the Displacement Along Fault,” Jour. Geol.
Soc. Japan (1978), 84, 661-669.
25. Robertson, E.C.: “Relationship of Fault Displacement to
Gouge and Breccia Thickness,” Mining Engineering,
Transactions of American Institute of Mining Engineering
(1983), 35, 1426-1432.
26. Becker, A., and Cross, M.R.: “Mechanism for Joint
Saturation in Mechanically Layered Rocks: An Example from
Southern Israel,” Tectonophysics (1996), 257, 224-237.
27. Anders, M.H., and Wiltschko, D.V.: “Microfracturing,
Paleostress and the Growth of Faults,” Jour. Struct. Geol.
(1994), 16, 795-815.
28. Brock, W.G., and Engelder, T.: “Deformation Associated
with the Movement of the Muddy Mountain Overthrust in
the Buffington Window, Southeastern Nevada,” GSA
Bulletin (1977), 88, 1667-1677.
29. Ericsson, J.B. et al.: “Facies and Curvature Controlled 3D
Fracture Models in a Cretaceous Carbonate Reservoir,
Arabian Gulf,” Faulting, Fault Sealing and Fluid Flow in
Hydrocarbon Reservoirs, Jones et al. (eds.), Geological
Society Special Publication (1998), 147, 299-312.
30. Aydin, A.: “Small Faults Formed as Deformation Bands in
Sandstones,” Pure and Applied Geophysics (1978), 116,
913-930.
31. Antonellini, M., and Aydin, A.: “Effect of Faulting on Fluid
Flow in Porous Sandstones: Petrophysical Properties,”
AAPG Bulletin (1994), 78, 355-377.