Training Course ZetaWare

ACREDITADO ISO/IEC 17025:2005
13-LAB-004
Trinity/Genesis
Practical Petroleum System Analysis
Toolkit Training
ZetaWare, Inc.
by
Dr. Zhiyong He
Ph.D. in Geology
ZetaWare, Inc.
Piedecuesta, Colombia
September 8 to 10, 2014
ZetaWare, Inc.
Trinity/Genesis Practical Petroleum System Analysis Toolkit Training
Instructor: Dr. Zhiyong He Ph.D. in Geology, Founder of ZetaWare, Inc.

Place/Date: Gems S.A., Piedecuesta, Colombia – September 8 to 10, 2014.
Day 1 Morning:
Introduction to basin modeling: The three basic building blocks of a basin model.
Introduction to Trinity: The petroleum system analysis toolkit.
Predict oil versus gas in prospects using PVT/phase concepts and geological analog.
Learn the basics of phase behavior that determine oil vs gas in the migration process.
Learn how to convert standard source rock parameters to volumes in mmbls/km2.

Normal ranges of source rock UEP, and its significance in charge probability,
migration distance, etc.
Day 1 Afternoon:
Build a complete Trinity model from supplied map grids and temperature data.
Generate paleo-structure and maturity maps and movies. In the process, we will learn
how to import various kinds of data, fix map problems and extrapolate maps to kitchen
areas.
Determine migration patterns, fetch areas, oil and gas expulsion history for prospects.
Use probabilistic method and scenario-testing to determine prospect charge volumes
and GOR risks.
Day 2 Morning:
Learn the concepts of the thermal processes of the lithosphere and understand what
geological processes (sedimentation rates, crust thickness, etc.) affect heat flow and
how to predict it based on geological data.
Learn the basics of building 1D Genesis models, calibrate to temperature and maturity
data. Use such models to determine heat flow through time and in un-drilled kitchen
areas.
Granjas de Manzanares, Lote 27 l Km. 6 vía Piedecuesta l PBX: (+57 7) 6390080 l Piedecuesta, Colombia
Página 1 de 2
ZetaWare, Inc.
Learn how to use correlation gridding tool to make geologically reasonable source
rock (or any other) maps from very limited data.
Day 2 Afternoon:
Constrain Trinity thermal history using Genesis models and map Genesis model
results.
Using a seismic amplitude image to create a facies map and use it in hydrocarbon
migration. Learn the concepts of capillary seals related to variable reservoir facies
(channels, pinch outs) and fault barriers. Use fault polygons to create fault seals and
use it in migration modeling.
The concept of column capacity of seals and how they control vertical vs lateral
migration. Learn about the geological factors that control column heights and
migration distance and direction.
Day 3 Morning:
Learn the basics of basin geometry evolution, isostacy, flexure and how to prevent
problems with back stripping models, in order to create geologically reasonable
burial histories, paleo bathymetry and erosion maps.
Exercise: Build a model for a foreland basin with thrusting and erosion.
The concept of rifting and learn how to model rifting from lithosphere concepts. Learn
why McKenzie heat flow model for rifting should be avoided.
Day 3 Afternoon:
Learn how to use Trinity 3D to model 3D migration and migration through time. Learn
what controls lateral versus vertical migration and how to risk migration scenarios
and rank charge risks of prospects.
Typical map editing and grid manipulations required for Petroleum system analysis.
Map projection, project management, Importing and exporting data from/to ArcGIS,
Kindom, Petrel, Petrosys, Petra, etc.
User requested topics.
Granjas de Manzanares, Lote 27 l Km. 6 vía Piedecuesta l PBX: (+57 7) 6390080 l Piedecuesta, Colombia
Página 2 de 2
Introduction to
Practical Petroleum System Analysis
Zhiyong He
ZetaWare, Inc.
ZetaWare, Inc.
Copyright © ZetaWare, Inc. Interactive Petroleum System Tools
A Typical Modeling Problem
B A
Temperature , source rock, and maturity data are available from well A.
Question, What is the heat flow/thermal gradient at the kitchen?

How about source rock facies, thickness?
Is the source rock mature? when?
ZetaWare, Inc.
1D Geo-History Model
Burial history
 Depth, ages and lithology
 Compaction
Thermal history
 Heat flow, thermal conductivity
 Crust & lithosphere thickness
 Deposition rate,
 Paleo-climate, water depth,
Source rock
 Facies (quality, thickness)
 Kinetics (temperature dependency)
ZetaWare, Inc.
Genesis Model Building Exercise
• Build Leveque-1 and Barcoo 1 models from the

spreadsheet provided
• Using the same crust and lithosphere properties,
compare temperature predictions
• Why do the thermal gradients differ ?
• What happens if we use same crust and lithosphere
model for a deep water GoM well?
ZetaWare, Inc.
Key Concepts
Data uncertainty & implications
 Well data are uncertain and biased
Source rock scenarios
 Source facies and depositional environment
 Main control of fluid types and prospectivity
Heat flow in time & space
 What is the heat flow in the kitchen ?
 Sources of heat?
 How does deposition/erosion rate affect HF?
 Rifting, crust thickness changes
ZetaWare, Inc.
Uncertainty Example: Temperature Correction
J Corrigan
Temperature data need to correct for cooling by mud

circulation . Typically 10-20 °C.
** Most uncertainty comes when extrapolating to
undrilled areas and depths (kitchen)
ZetaWare, Inc.
Sensitivity: 10 °C Doubles Expelled Volume
130 °C
120 °C Expelled Oil
110 °C
Residual Oil
• Can make or break a prospect in early oil window

• Doubles the charge volume in mid oil Window
• Minimal impact in late maturity
• ±10 °C gives factor of 4 errors in HC volumes
ZetaWare, Inc.
Trinity Model Building Exercise
Build maturation model

 Import grids and assign ages
 Extrapolate map surface using Smart merge tool
 Import tops from Excel and create map using correlation gridding tool
 Import temperature data and fit a temperature curve
 Add source rock (Facies, TOC, HI and thickness)
 Make maturity maps, and movies.
Charge and Migration
 Spider maps, fetch areas and charge volumes
Charge Risking
 Uncertainty in charge volumes using Monte Carlo tool
PVT and phase
 Use flash calculator to test phase scenarios and implication on reserves
ZetaWare, Inc.
Petroleum System Analysis & Risking
Using Trinity and Genesis – 3 Day course Outline
Day 1
 Introduction
 Trinity model building and Qatar example, maturation and simple migration modeling,
fetch areas and charge volumes.
 Thermal modeling concepts – predicting heat flow in kitchens.
 Afternoon: Genesis intro and Browse basin example, GoM example.
Day 2
 Phase effects in HC migration, flash calculator applications
 Introduction to seals and migration scenario testing, prospect ranking
 Facies maps and stratigraphic traps.
 Faults and 3 way traps,
 Source UEP and migration loss controls on charge risk, fluid properties.
 Using Genesis in Trinity, scaler maps
Day 3
 Advanced fault related workflows
 Hotspot tool – analyzing, and integrating data
 Unconformity and paleo-structure
 Paleo structure vs. Paleo-bathymetry, topography
ZetaWare, Inc.
Genesis Topics
Thermal history
 Crust, lithosphere and sediment layer thicknesses
 Deposition and erosion rates, thermal conductivity, salt effects.
 Calibration and best practices, thinking about the kitchen
 Paleo-climate changes, water depth, ice ages, permafrost …
 Effects of rifting and hotspot
 Igneous activity
Source rock variations
 Source facies and fluid properties
 Kinetics
Burial history
 Unconformity modeling,
 Subsidence vs deposition thickness, isostacy and flexure
 Paleo-bathymetry, topography
 Salt and shale diapirs, faults.
 Igneous intrusions
Using Genesis with Trinity
 Scaler maps
 Making maps of Genesis results
 Creating Pseudo- horizons from well data
ZetaWare, Inc.
Trinity Topics, Introductory
Source Rock Maturation
 Maturity maps
 Charge volumes and uncertainty
 Source rock UEP and prospectivity of basins
HC Migration
 Spider map tool, fetch areas
 Phase effects, oil or gas in my trap?
 Migration modeling vs risking
Simple Faults and Facies models
 Use fault polygons to create fault seal maps, 3 way prospects
 Digitize color amplitude images to create facies map
 Use depositional facies maps to model stratigraphic traps
Paleo-structure
 Back stripping vs. restoration, isostacy, flexure, tectonic subsidence
 Paleo-topography, bathymetry, erosion, salt, shale and fault movement
Prediction fluid properties
 Source facies, maturity and migration effects.
 Migration loss and fluid property lag
ZetaWare, Inc.
Trinity Advanced Topics I
Seal Capacity
 Pore throat size, fluid densities and interfacial tension,
 Observations of column heights – best and useful seal data
 Theory vs practical approach
Top seals and implication on shallow and up dip prospects
 Structure closure and vertical migration entry points
 Stacked reservoirs vs fill and spill
Lateral seals by facies
 Use facies maps in migration analysis
 Digitize color amplitude images to create facies map
Advanced fault handling in Trinity
 Fault throw calculations and practical applications
 Throw vs reservoir and seal thickness,
 Lateral seals and juxtaposition
 Fault throw and top seal, vertical migration
Migration losses
 Risk migration scenarios and rank prospects
 More on migration losses and fluid property lag
 Observed fluid property trends
ZetaWare, Inc.
Trinity Advanced Topics II
The Hotspot Tool – Integrating more data in Petroleum system analysis.
 Visualize, QC, filter, and looking for trend and relationship in data
 Show & geochemical data bases for petroleum system analysis
 Using Rock-Eval data in unconventional systems.
 Showing 3D spider results in Hotspot
Unconformity
 Basin geometry constrained erosion maps
 Topography
Complex Geology
 Salt movement through time
 Shale diapir, folding, faulting
Paleo-bathymetry considerations
 Flexure, isostacy ideas
 Practical approaches to paleo-bathymetry.
Unconventional evaluation
 Rock-Eval data and sweet spot implications
 Reserve calculation, OIP (mmbl/km2) and GIP (bcf/km2) maps
 Using HI data as maturity indicator and map fitting
 Bubble point pressure map and phase risk
ZetaWare, Inc.
The Oil vs. Gas Question
By Zhiyong He
ZetaWare, Inc.
ZetaWare, Inc.
The Gas vs. Oil Question Interactive Petroleum System Tools
• In new venture evaluation, we often find exploration

managers worry about gas flushing oil when the source rock is
in the “gas window” even when the source rock is assumed to
be an oil-prone type II or lacustrine type I.
• This is largely due to misleading figures in the literature that
simplify the concept.
• We think that the fluid type (oil, condensate or gas) in
accumulations is mostly determined by source type. Maturity
actually has very little impact.
• In this short presentation, we will discuss the aspects that
determine the fluid types in accumulations.
http://www.zetaware.com Copyright 2011, ZetaWare, Inc.

ZetaWare, Inc.
What are Oil and Gas Windows? Interactive Petroleum System Tools
This figure is a typical explanation of oil and gas windows

HC Temp. Vitrinite
Generation °C Ro (%)
found in the literature. The concept is originally based on
Windows
observed bitumen extract “A” (or Rock Eval S1) profiles, which
represent residual HC liquid in the source rock. As the source
100 0.6 rock matures, the S1 increases due to oil generation and then
120 0.8 decreases due to cracking to gas, producing a “hump” .
140 1.0
Oil Here is what we should to know: 1) The gas and oil ratio on
160 1.2
this profile, and source rock maturity (extracts/S1) in general
180 1.4 indicate only the current state of the source rock and not the
Gas hydrocarbons that has expelled from the source rock. 2) The
red area (gas window) is imagined, not measured. It may look
like a lot of gas, but the horizontal scale has nothing to do
with the amount of oil or gas that was generated or expelled.
The oil window and gas window concept does not tell us anything about what has
expelled and migrated to the traps. It only tells us the state of the HC that is left in
the source rock.

ZetaWare, Inc.
What Has Been Expelled from the Source Rock ? Interactive Petroleum System Tools
60
Cumulative HC6+ Expelled (mmstb/km2)

Cumulative HC1-5 Expelled (mmboe/km2)
50
TOC = 5.0 %
40
HI = 600 mg/g
TI = 19 mg/g
GOGI = 0.21
30
Heating rate = 2 C/my
Oil sorption= 100 mg/g
20 Gas sorption= Auto

B-Aquatic marine clay-rich 100 m
10
0
0.2 0.5 1 2
TSI: Vitrinite-LLNL (%Ro)
From a typical oil prone marine source rock, this is what has expelled over the
maturation history of the source rock. The most mature (gas window) source rock
has expelled gas that is about 20% of the total and 80% of it is oil. In typical depth of
reservoirs, this gas is not enough to saturate the oil and make a gas cap, let alone
flushing the oil out of the trap.

ZetaWare, Inc.
What Has Been Expelled from the Source Rock ? Interactive Petroleum System Tools
Cumulative Oil/Gas Expelled MMBOE/km2 for 100m Thick Source
Lacustrine Type I B, Marine Type II D/E, Deltaic F, Type III

1 TOC 5% TOC 5% TOC 5% TOC 5%
HI 700 HI 600 HI 330 HI 160 0.3
0.5
3
Depth km
0.8
Vitrinite Ro (%)
1.0
5
6
2.0
This figure compares the cumulative expelled fluid types in absolute mmboe/km2
volumes against maturity/depth. Now where do you draw the boundary between oil and
gas window? Note some good source rocks can expel more than 100 mmboe/km2
ZetaWare, Inc.
Gas is Mostly Dissolved in Oil Interactive Petroleum System Tools
GOR scf/stb
0 700 1200 2000 3000 4500 7000 11k 18k 41K
The green curve is the solubility of gas
in oil as a function of sub sea depth for
a typical oil from a oil prone marine
1 source rock. When the source rock has
exhausted, the cumulatively expelled
2 oil and gas equates to an oil with about
1500 scf/stb GOR.
3
Gas expelled from the source rock will
4 mostly get dissolved in oil
Depth km
accumulations. Only at shallow depths,
5 there is potential to form a gas cap and
displace oil.
6
Don’t forget this is the maximum case.
0.2 0.4 0.6
Most likely we will have lower maturity
Mass fraction of gas source next to the prospect.

ZetaWare, Inc.
What Happens in Real Basins ? Interactive Petroleum System Tools
• The lower maturity oils (low API, low GOR) tend to stay in the front of the migration “train”. We
tend to find API and GOR increasing with depth. We also tend to find lower maturity oil up-dip
from higher maturity oil. The higher maturity oil is usually near the source and can also dissolve
more gas due to its light nature.
• The end results are: we tend to only find oil accumulations when the source rock is of oil prone
type, regard less of maturity. In fact, we would be better off if the source rock is in the gas
window – as this means the source had made all the oil it could possibly make, and the overall oil
quality is higher. The additional dissolved gas may help us produce the oil too.
• In the offshore Bohai Bay basin, the Shahejie source rock in the center graben is at 6-8 km deep
and at very high maturity. The discoveries are exclusively oil, with lower API heavy oil at shallow
depths and better oil at deeper reservoirs.
• Sources for oil accumulations at Foinaven , Schiehallion and several other fields in the West of
Shetlands basin are thought to be sourced from the Jurassic Kimmeridge source which has been
in the gas window since early Tertiary. Yet, these fields contain low GOR under-saturated oil.
• In some areas of the deep water Gulf of Mexico, the source rock is about 40,000 ft deep and
many areas it is in the gas window. Yet, this area has yielded only low API oils with very low
thermogenic GOR – some at depth of 35000 ft. The oil quality is slightly better in areas the
source rock becomes more shale than marl.
• We can go on and on ….

ZetaWare, Inc.
What About Other Types of Source Rocks ? Interactive Petroleum System Tools
• Type III source rocks (hydrogen index<200) does not expel any oil, it expels mostly gas with some
condensates. Examples include the Each China Sea, and some parts of South China Sea.
• There is a wide range of source rocks that are mixed type II/III (D/E in BP classification), with HI
range 200 to 400 mostly, usually found in deltaic and shallow marine environments. The
discovered accumulations are a range between gas with condensates to light oils. The
distribution of oil vs gas seem to be mostly driven by source facies changes and is not so
dependent on maturity.
• Examples include many parts of South East Asia, (NW Shelf Australia, Brunei, ... ..), the Niger
delta, Offshore Equatorial Guinea, McKenzie delta … ... Some rift grabens that are closed to
sediment sources, like the western most Bohai grabens, Magdalene basin in Columbia, parts of
North Sea.

ZetaWare, Inc.
Any Exceptions ? Interactive Petroleum System Tools
• In Sichuan basin, China, a giant gas field was formed when an oil accumulation was buried to
>200 C depth and cracked to gas. The oil was supposedly generated from a marine carbonate oil
prone source.
• The giant North field in Qatar was charged from an possible Silurian oil prone source, perhaps
the source has spent its oil potential before the Hercynian uplift.
• Some gas/condensate fields in Santos basin, Brazil may be formed because the oil cracked to gas
under a thick layer of salt unable to migrate vertically until the salt was breached.

How Much ?
Assume hydrocarbons expel from source and

migrate vertically.
Assuming 10% porosity and 10% minimum

saturation required to flow. We would lose
hydrocarbons at the rate of 1% of rock
volume.
To migrate 100 meters vertically, we would

lose 1 m3 (6 bbls) per m2, or
6 mmbls/km2
1m
ZetaWare, Inc.
Why loss is not a simple cut off (mmb/km2)?
Because of the difference in maturity, the source rock expels 8

mmbo/km2 of oil at point A and 2 mmbo/km2 at point B into the
first carrier above.
F
As the oil from any single square km would not be enough to
saturate the migration path and make it to the reservoir by itself –
merging with oil from reset of the fetch area is required.
Some oil from pt A has already been lost when it reaches point B.
E At the tip of the first carrier (pt C), oil from points between A and
B are combined to push though the top seal to continue migration.
D
At successive “collection” points, D, E and F, oil with different
C maturity are mixed with varying contributions from different first
carriers will merge and eventually reach the reservoir.
Oil Window
B Conclusions:
1) Oil from the deeper more mature kitchen area will likely
suffer a larger loss.
Micro traps A 2) The first drop of oil that arrives at the reservoir already
has mixed maturity which will increase with time.
3) The collection and mixing process will probably dampen
the fluid property variation with maturity.
ZetaWare, Inc.
How should fluid property be lagged ?
Hundreds-millions of micro traps and first carrier beds

may serve as collection/mixing pots and delay migration
until their local seal capacity is reached. They may have
very small columns due to low effective or small closure.
Mixed fluid continue to leak/spill from the micro traps,

and remaining fluids continue to mix with later more
mature fluids.
Fluids arriving at shallow reservoir is delayed, less mature

than at the source and the charging rate may be more
steady than expulsion rates.
We may not be able to say how much is lost from each map
Oil Window
grid cell at the source level however total loss is
dependent on the fetch area and loss/km2 can be
estimated.
Micro traps
ZetaWare, Inc.
Time Lag and Migration Loss
Initial Current
Time lag Time Lag
loss
loss
Volume Expelled
Time (my) t1 t2 0
The oil arriving at the trap is delay by the time required to generate and expel
the lost volume. For example, the properties (API gravity and GOR) of the fluid
arriving today is what was expelled at t2.
This scheme also provides a way for us to constrain the estimates of migration
losses by adjusting the loss until the predicted fluid properties match those of
the reservoir.
ZetaWare, Inc.
How should fluid property be lagged ?
Initial
Charge Time lag
Volume
Expulsion
Volume
loss
Time (my)
The oil arriving at the trap is delay by the time required to generate and expel
the lost volume. The fluid properties (API gravity and GOR) are also delayed by
the same time lag.
This scheme also provides a way for us to constrain the estimates of migration
losses by adjusting the loss until the predicted fluid properties match those of
the reservoir.
ZetaWare, Inc.
Mixing at micro traps and first carrier
Reservoir
5 Ma 4 Ma 3 Ma
Mixing along migration paths, micro traps and first carrier, lag time to shallow reservoir
2 Ma 1 Ma 0 Ma
Fluid arriving at reservoir is lagged, mixed & lower maturity

ZetaWare, Inc.
Practical Thermal History Modeling
Zhiyong He
ZetaWare, Inc.
ZetaWare, Inc.
Typical Big Picture Modeling Problem
Q=? A
Temperature and maturity data is available from well A, from which a heat flow
is calculated based on assumed conductivity of rocks at the location.
Question, what is the maturity at the kitchen? What should heat flow be at the
basin center?
ZetaWare, Inc.
Basement Depth and Thermal Gradient
Bohai Bay
Geothermal Gradient (°C/100m)

Basement Depth (m)
ZetaWare, Inc.
Heat Flow and Sedimentation Rate
Nagihara & Jones, AAPG Bull. 2005

Geothermal heat flow in the northeast margin of the
Gulf of Mexico
ZetaWare, Inc.
Heat flow is NOT constant
And our samples are biased
60 μW/m2 Q=? 65 μW/m2 Q=?
Heat flow in the kitchens are typically

10~20% lower.
ZetaWare, Inc.
Where does heat flow come from?
• Radiogenic heat production (RHP) from upper crust accounts for about
50% of total heat flow,
• While reduced mantle heat flow contributes about 40%
• Sediments RHP contribute about 5% depending on thickness.
ZetaWare, Inc.
Crust/Lithosphere Thickness And Heat Flow
300 mW/m 2 40 mW/m2 60 mW/m2 70 mW/m2
v
v
v v v v v 30 km
v
v v
90 km
Not To Scale
1300 °C
Heat Flow = K·ΔT/HL + AC·HC
Where: K – thermal conductivity

ΔT – 1300 °C minus surface temperature
HL – lithosphere thickness
AC – crust radiogenic heat production rate
HC– crust thickness
ZetaWare, Inc.
Heat Flow and Sediment Thickness
Q low Q high
dz1 k1
Heat Flow:
Q = K · dT/dz
Top of aethenosphere (T=1300°C)

is at same depth.
dz2 Higher average thermal conductivity
k2 at basement highs cause higher
heat flow, for the same dT/dZ.
1300 °C 1300 °C
ZetaWare, Inc.
What Happens With Rapid Deposition ?
• Shortly after deposition of new

sediment layer, Temperature (and HF)
is temporarily depressed – relative to
new equilibrium.
• It takes time to warm the entire

section to the new equilibrium and
temperature in the entire lithosphere
needs to increase.
• Not including the entire lithosphere

in the model will under-estimate this
effect.
ZetaWare, Inc.
Transient Thermal Model
The transient model’s boundary condition is set at

1300 C and 120 km below basement. Setting a
boundary at base of sediment column (which has been
common practice) under-estimates the magnitude and
time duration of the transient effects.
Rapid sedimentation rate = 600m/my.

ZetaWare, Inc.
Sedimentation rate and heat flow
Genesis simulation of depositing a layer of shale in one my, causes heat flow at the base of the
shale to be depressed The faster the sedimentation rate, the lower the heat flow is depressed,
and the longer it takes to regain equilibrium.
At 2 km/my, heat flow is lower by 40% at the end of 1 my. It would take 40 million years to
recover 90%
ZetaWare, Inc.
Effects of Sedimentation Rate GoM
Heat flow at base of
sediment is a function
of sedimentation and
erosion rates
VRo or AFT data have

no sensitivity for this
type of thermal
history.
Example of a typical GOM well modeled with constant 1300 °C at base

lithosphere. Resulting heat flow shows rapid decrease Pleistocene to
present due to rapid sedimentation rate. This model, using Genesis,
can predict heat flow through time using the lithosphere based heat
flow model. Present day HF is calibrated with temp. data.
ZetaWare, Inc.
Effects of Uplift/Erosion
Heat flow history at
base of sediment is a
function of
sedimentation and
erosion rates
VRo or AFTA data

have no sensitivity for
this type of thermal
history.
Example of heat flow history in Murzuq basin, Libya, modeled with

constant 1300 °C at base lithosphere. Resulting heat flow shows a
period of increase to present due to rapid Alpine erosion.
The erosion amounts vary greatly and so is the difference in HF

between present day and pre-Alpine time
ZetaWare, Inc.
Reasons For Heat Flow Change
Crust thickness/composition change
 HF decreases from onshore with thicker and hotter continental
crust to oceanic crust in the deepwater.
 Local attenuations due to extension
Thickness of the sediment layer/Deposition rate
 Thicker low conductivity sediment layer lowers mantle heat flow.
 Faster sedimentation rate causes lower heat flow
Thermal conductivity changes
 Areas of sand deposits, carbonate, salt tend to have higher heat
flow, but not necessarily higher gradient.
3D Focusing
 High heat flow over salt bodies
 High relief basement highs (?)
ZetaWare, Inc.
Thermal Properties of Rocks
Rock Type Thermal Conductivity Heat Production

(W/mK) (μW/m3)
Shales 1.5-2.5 1
Sandstone 2-3 0.5
Carbonate 3 0.5
Salt 6 0.01
Water 0.6 0
Granite 2-4 2-6
Peridotite 2.5 0.3
K decreases with temperature in most rocks

K Increases with effective stress
K increases decreases with increase in porosity
ZetaWare, Inc.
Temperature and heat flow
Heat flow typically increases from the

base of lithosphere toward the surface
as the RHP is cumulatively added.
Average surface heat flow is about 60

mW/m2
Mandle Heat flow about 25 to 30

mW/m2.
20 to 40 mW/m2 is generated within

the crust.
ZetaWare, Inc.
RHP of Different Rocks
ZetaWare, Inc.
Radiogenic Heat Production (RHP) through the crust
P.S. Kuma et al, 2006, Deccan (Dharwar Creton) India

GSF - Greenschist
AMF - Amphibolite
MGRF - Metasomatized granulite
The Origins of Melting Anomalies: Plates, Plumes, and Planetary Processes”

Editors: Gillian R. Foulger & Donna M. Jurdy
ZetaWare, Inc.
RHP Depth Decay
A = A0 exp(-z/D)
ZetaWare, Inc.
Oceanic Lithosphere thickness and age
Temperature profile of the Pacific upper mantle

vs. lithospheric age. Ritzwoller et al. 2004
ZetaWare, Inc.
GENESIS – Predict Heat Flow Away from Wells
Well A Well B Well C Well D Pseudo-Well Prediction

Lower Total HF
0 N S
Water
5
Crust
10
Depth (km)
Legend
15 Sediments
Sediment RHP
Total Surface HF
Crust+Mantle
20
0 100 200 300 400 Km
About 50% of the terrestrial heat flow is produced from within the earth’s crust.
Thinning crust and sediment burial (both reduces heat production and temperature as a
result) toward ultra deep water may present a maturity risk. (West Africa, Scotia and
GOM(?) examples)
ZetaWare, Inc.
Composite Well Temperatures Misleading
For several geological reasons, shallow wells drilled on/near shore or

on structure highs typically have higher gradient (heat flow) than
deep wells drilled in deeper part of basin or off shelf. Composite well
data may let us believe that a simple heat flow model is adequate
ZetaWare, Inc.
What Happens When Rifting Occurs
J. Corrigan
• Reduced mantle heat flow increases with thinning of lithosphere

• RHP from crust decreases with stretching of crust
• Transient process reduces effective heat flow
• Heat flow increases by 25% (instead of the 100% with
conventional wisdom) with stretching factor of 2
ZetaWare, Inc.
Rifting & Heat flow
Heat flow
Before rifting, normal continental heat

flow ~65 mW/m2
1300°C
Heat flow
End rifting, increase in mantle heat flow

due to elevated aethenosphere. Reduced
crust heat flow due to crust thinning &
1300°C
increased deposition rate. Net HF
increase ~30% with stretch factor of 2.
Heat flow
Present day normal mantle heat flow and

reduced crust heat flow.
Net lower heat flow in depo-centers.
1300°C
ZetaWare, Inc.
Heat Flow and Rifting
a
c
a
b
Heat flow
rifting c
time
At present day, offshore deep water has the lowest heat flow due to loss of
continental crust during rifting.
Point b, Heat flow was higher at end of rifting, sediment cover was not
sufficient to mature source rock. Maturation occurs near present day.
Point c, Although heat flow was highest at end of rifting, there was no
sediment cover and source rock is still not mature today
ZetaWare, Inc.
What Happens When Rifting Occurs
• Crust thinning may not be uniform/linear

• Loss of heat production from crust is permanent
• Added sediments may add additional source of heat
ZetaWare, Inc.
GENESIS -- Modified McKenzie Rift Modeling
Traditional basin model’s implementation of

McKenzie rift model applies to the total heat
flow. Predicts generation at depth of 1200 m
during cretaceous in Campos basin .
Genesis only applies McKenzie model to the

heat flow from aesthenosphere and allows the
radiogenic heat from lithosphere to be
reduced by stretching. Predicts generation at
present in Campos basin – consistent with data.
Traditional model
Heat flow vs. time, beta=2.8
Genesis
ZetaWare, Inc.
Simple Model: Thermal Gradient & Lithology
Thermal gradient changes against

depth may be a result of thermal
conductivities.
Q = K · ΔT/ΔZ
ZetaWare, Inc.
ZetaWare, Inc.
More on Thermal Conductivity
Clauser & Huenges
Clauser & Huenges

Schön
Temperature Pressure Porosity

Actual thermal gradient is affected by many factors and some
of which are not well understood (such as what happens when
mud rocks become over-pressured).
In addition , there are uncertainties in temperature

measurements and mineralogy and anisotropy effects on
thermal conductivity.
It is not often easy to explain temperature variations within a

well.
Schön
ZetaWare, Inc.
Temperature Depends on Time
J Corrigan
• All temperature measurements are time dependent,

BHT, DST, RFT, Production Test… …
• Most available BHT has the most errors
ZetaWare, Inc.
Horner Corrected BHT
• Hey, You say, but I have got corrected temperatures !
Yeah – But Jeff says you still have ±14 °F to worry.
• Not to forget we need to extrapolate to source depths,
away from well control & into geological past.
MEAN = 1.1
15 ST. DEV = 14
N = 46
10
Frequency
5 J. Corrigan, 98
0
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Temperature °F
ZetaWare, Inc.
10 °C Change Doubles Expelled Volume
130 °C
120 °C Expelled Oil
110 °C
Residual Oil
• Can make or break a prospect in early oil window

• Doubles the charge volume in mid oil Window
• Minimal impact in late maturity
• ±10 °C gives factor of 4 errors in HC volumes
ZetaWare, Inc.
Correlative Mapping -- Making Geologically Correct
Thermal Gradient/Heat Flow Maps
Upper right: Results of simple

gridding of geothermal gradient map
from well data.
Lower right: A curve (above) was

used to link basement depth and TG
to form a relationship, which was
used to generate a more reasonable
gradient map. Both maps honor well
data points exactly.
ZetaWare, Inc.
Boundary Condition Options
1300 °C at base lithosphere

 Cooling (thickening after rifting) or heating (melting) are
slower processes that happen after thickness change.
 Not all sediment thickness changes will push down the
1300 °C isotherm.
Constant HF at base lithosphere
 Not accounting for RHP from crust exaggerates the
transient effects.
Constant HF at base sediments
 Only appropriate where sedimentation is very slow
 Can not extrapolate laterally or in geological time
ZetaWare, Inc.
Conclusions
Must use a lithosphere based heat flow

model with 1300 °C at base … …
In order to predict heat flow through time
and space
Be careful with traditional wisdom
(McKenzie rift model, etc.)
Correct geological model is essential for
estimating heat flow.
ZetaWare, Inc.
Seals and Petroleum
Migration and Charge Risk
Zhiyong He
ZetaWare, Inc.
Seals
Seals determine migration direction ( vertical vs. horizontal) and prospect charge
risk (charge access). The following three models have the same charge volume and
GOR from the left bottom, and yet result in very different accumulation patterns due
to different seal configurations.
Normal/Poor Seal Good Seal
Variable Seal Seals also determine fluid type

distribution in a two phase system.
Traps with relief greater than seal
capacity will more likely to trap oil
or and vise versa.
Copyright © ZetaWare, Inc.

Seal (Column) Capacity
r
1 1 
2 cos( )   
Column r R
Capacity ( cc ) 
g (  w  o ) cc
γ interfacial tension (N/m) R

r radius of pore throat in seal
R radius of pore in reservoir
g acceleration of gravity © zetaware, inc.
ρw water density
ρo oil density
θ contact angle (wettability) cc
Determines: Column height, Migration Direction, Charge

Question: How many of these parameters can we determine on seismic?
Offshore West Africa
Calcite
cemented
Type 2
Type 3
1
Type 4 & 5
Distal
2
3 Deep water GoM
Proximal
William Dawson et al. 2008
Search and Discovery Article #50128

Convert MICP Data to Seal Capacity
Pc Pc
Interfacial Tension (dynes/cm)
Mercury-air: 480
Subsurface Oil-Water: ~20
Subsurface Gas-Water: ~30
Buoyancy: 0.45-0.35=0.1 psi/ft Buoyancy: 0.33 psi/ft
Example: 2000 psi MICP at 10% saturation (entry pressure).
2000 psi x 20/480 = 83 psi oil displacing water

Oil column supported: 83 psi/0.1psi/ft = 830 ft = 250 meters
2000 psi x 30/480 = 125 psi gas displacing water

Gas column supported: 125psi/0.33psi/ft = 379 ft (115 m)
Buoyancy increases with increasing GOR in the oil column and decrease with
increasing CGR in the gas column. Oil and gas densities and phase also
change with PT conditions. A high GOR oil or a wet gas at high pressures may
have very similar buoyancy gradients.
Seal Capacity
Seal capacity is not a rock property – it is the property of the
interface between two rock layers, two fluids and depends on
PT conditions. Thickness of the “seal” is not relevant in
theory, but may statistically increase chance of having an
effective seal.
Sand Silt Shale

Good seal, Poor seal, No seal for
large column small column migration
1 1 
2 cos( )   
Seal capacity  r R
g (  w  o )
Petroleum migrating in carrier rocks of smaller pore sizes

requires less buoyancy to enter mudstone to continue
migration.

Role of Capillary Maps in Trinity
-- variable seal capacities in the reservoir and carrier
Silt
Spill Silt
Sand
Sand
After T. Schowalter, 1979

Role of Capillary Maps in Trinity
-- Combined oil column
P
Pcshale Shale
Pc
silt
shale
sand
Silt
Pcsilt
Sand
Pcsand
Sw
If the Pc in the top seal is able to support column down to the sand
area, the maximum column is Pcshale – Pcsand. But if there is no
sand down dip, the max column is Pcshale – Pcsilt.

Interfacial Tension (IFT or γ ) is NOT a constant !
Natural range
Gas
Tim T. Schowalter, 1999

Oil-Brine Interfacial Tension at Reservoir Conditions
William Lyons
IFT as a function of fluid densities, phase and PT
Methane-water IFT
HC-Water IFT as a function of IFT of gas-water as a

density difference. function of PT (SPE)
Firoozabadi and Ramey, 1988

Column heights of Pre-Cretaceous fields in the North Sea..

D.V. Corcoran and A. G. Doré, 2002

East Irish Sea Basin
G. Cowan et all

Leak and Spill at the Same Time
Hg
H
Ho
Pc  (  w  o )  H o  (  w   g )  H g
Once buoyancy of the combined column reaches the seal capacity (= Pc), as more oil and gas migrate into the trap,
additional gas will leak, because increasing gas column will increase buoyancy pressure and cause it to leak. And
additional oil will spill as adding oil and reducing gas column will reduce buoyancy below seal capacity and cause oil
to spill.
This happens as long as oil and gas densities are different, and the seal capacity is able to hold if the column is
entirely oil, but not if the column is entirely gas.
(  w  o )  H  Pc  (  w   g )  H
As you can see, this can happen in a wide range of capillary pressures. For a 200 meter structure closure (H), and the
typical subsurface oil density of 7g/cc and gas density of 3g/cc subsurface, any Pc between 199 psi and 85 psi will
satisfy the condition. The range is larger with a heavier oil and drier gas.
Are Faults Migration Pathways ?
Fault seals but oil leaks through shale to form stacked pay
Fault surfaces prevents vertical leaking cross fault
Leaking along faults is unlikely – stacked pay not possible
Typical Tertiary shales have 8 – 15% porosity and relatively low

seal capacity – supporting column heights of only 50 – 250
meters.
Practical Approach to Source Rocks
Zhiyong He
ZetaWare, Inc.
ZetaWare, Inc.
Key Concepts
Importance of Source Rock (organo-)

Facies Models
Well data maybe biased as wells are
typically drilled on highs, margins.
Source Rock UEP (Ultimate Expulsion
Potential) and SPI (Source Potential Index)
ZetaWare, Inc.
The Typical Modeling Problem
A
Facies, TOC, HI and Thickness =??
Well A penetrated a 100 meter section with TOC 2-3% and HI of 150-300
mg/gTOC (type II/III).
Question, should I use the above numbers to model the source kitchen? What
about kinetics?
ZetaWare, Inc.
Rock Eval – How much oil can my source rock make?
TOC : Total Organic Carbon wt%
S1 : Pre-existing, contamination,
migrated or generated HC in the
source rock.
HC Detected
S1 S2 S3 S2 : HC generated in the Rock Eval
pyrolysis process (mgHC/gRock),
proportional to TOC and Hydrogen
550 °C
content.
Tmax S3 : CO2 released, related to

Oxygen content.
300 °C
Trap
Temperature
CO2 HI : = S2/TOC, (mg/gTOC) the
Time most important source facies
indicator.
5% TOC · 400 HI · 100 m Thickness· 2.4 (ton/m3) = 4.8 ton/m2

= 30 mmbls/km2
ZetaWare, Inc.
UEP Examples
Thickness UEP
TOC %wt HI (mg/g)
(m) (mmbls/km2)
Kimmeridge
GoM, 5 600 100 50
W. Africa
SEA Deltaic 2 250 300 8
Bohai
Brazil 8 700 500 600
Venezuela
Hanifa
4 600 50 20
S. Hot shale
Llanos
(Gacheta 3 400 50 8
Fm)
ZetaWare, Inc.
UEP (mmboe/km2) for 100 m Source Rock
130
90% oil
mmboe/km2
50 First Carrier
75%oil Migration Loss
7
10%oil
12 mmboe/km2
6 mmboe/km2
2% TOC 5% TOC 10% TOC

200 HI 600 HI 800 HI
ZetaWare, Inc.
Source Facies and Fluid Type and Properties
A B C D/E F
Clay Poor Clay Rich Lacustrine Marine Deltaic
Deltaic Coaly
IFP Type II-S II I II/III III
Litho-facies Carbonate, Marine shales Lacustrine Fluvial Deltaic Terrigenous

Diatomaceous Shales coals & shales coals
Water Anoxic Anoxic Restricted Lower Delta, Upper Delta
restricted lake Shallow marine High input lake
Delta plain
Hydrogen 600-700 400-700 600-1000 200-500 <200
Index
Sulfur High Sulfur Normal/Low Low Low Low
sulfur
Oil API 15-25 25-40 25-40 40-50 Oil, Gas Low CGR Gas
Gravity Condensate
GOR 100-1000 200-1500 100-1500 1000-3000 >5000

(scf/bbl)
Gom Tith, Hanifa, West Africa C-T, Bohai, Brazil, NW Australia, South China Sea,
Examples Eagle Ford, KCF, Silurian hot Falklands, Cntr Niger delta, Brunei, Southern Gas Basin
Monterey shale, Bazhenov Sumatra Kutei
ZetaWare, Inc.
Typical Geochemical Features of Oils from Standard BP Organo-
facies
A B C D/E F RANK
% Sulphur 1.5 - 3.3 0 - 0.9 0 - 0.4 0 - 0.2 0 - 0.2 1

API 15 - 34 28 - 41 27 - 38 31 - 47 32 - 44 13
% Sats 26 - 43 41 - 65 47 - 69 52 - 79 52 - 73 6
% Aros 35 - 47 23 - 39 13 - 26 15 - 33 19 - 31 5
Paraffins/Naphthenes 0.1 - 0.8 0.1 - 0.8 0.1 - 1.6 0.1 - 1.4 0.3 - 1.2 15
Pr/Ph 0.6 - 1 1.1 - 2 1.8 - 3.2 2.7 - 5.6 4.5 - 7.4 2
Pr/nC17 0.2 - 0.5 0.4 - 0.8 0.3 - 0.8 0.2 - 1.5 0.4 - 2.2 8
Ph/nC18 0.3 - 0.6 0.3 - 0.7 0.1 - 0.4 0 - 0.4 0.1 - 0.3 10
nC27/nC17 paraffins (waxiness) 0.1 - 0.3 0.1 - 0.4 0.3 - 1.2 0 - 0.8 0.1 - 1.2 11
C29 Hopane/C30 Hopane 0.8 - 1.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.4 - 0.6 0.5 - 0.7 0.5 - 0.6 3
Rearranged/Regular Steranes 0.1 - 1.1 1 - 3.3 0.7 - 2.5 0.4 - 4.6 0.3 - 3.2 12
Steranes/Hopanes 0.1 - 0.5 0.4 - 1.5 0 - 0.4 0.1 - 0.8 0.1 - 0.6 9
%C27 Steranes 32 - 40 28 - 38 25 - 42 11 - 30 7 - 21 4
%C28 Steranes 19 - 30 25 - 38 22 - 33 24 - 36 24 - 31 14
%C29 Steranes 33 - 47 28 - 43 32 - 46 37 - 62 49 - 68 7
Andrew Murray (2014)

RANK based on interfacies/intrafacies variation. 1 = highest power
ZetaWare, Inc.
Typical Geochemical GC/MS Features of Oils
from Standard BP Organofacies
A B C D/E F
Whole Oil GC
Triterpanes
(m/z=191)
Steranes
(m/z=217)
ZetaWare, Inc.
Controls on source rock facies
Restricted anoxic, upwelling, warm water,
algae growth (Jurassic, Cretaceous climate
15 C warmer than present day).
Anoxic water – helps preservation
Water depth
Sediment input (terrestrial), deposition
rate (Dilution).
ZetaWare, Inc.
Primary Controls on Fluid Properties
Seal/Trap
Timing
Trap/Reservoir Temperature
OWC area,
Biodegradation Column Height
Nutrient
Migration Migration loss

Time lag
Charge Rate
Source Source facies

Fetch area
Maturity
ZetaWare, Inc.
Source Rock Classification (BP): Organofacies
Coastal Plain
Marine Shales
Carbonates or
Siliceous Rich Deltaic
Lakes
Marine Shales
Clay Rich
Source facies determines the composition of kerogen and in turn the composition
and properties of hydrocarbons generated.
ZetaWare, Inc.
Source rock type depositional environment is the
main control on LGR (Courtesy, Woodside) 140
120
140
100
120
80
100
60
80
40
60

20
40
0
20 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6
TSI: Vitrinite-LLNL (%Ro) Upp. Floodplain: > 100,000
Deep Marine: 2200 scfs/bbl scfs/bbl
(Wanaea, Enfield, Pluto) (e.g. Mungaroo Fm., Exmouth Pl.)
140
140
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6
Lower Floodplain: 9000 scfs/bbl

Fresh/brackish lakes: 1600 scfs/bb
(Plover Fm., Browse, Sunrise, Angel etc)
(Nebo, Gage Roads oils)
ZetaWare, Inc.
Variations of API Gravity for Each SR Type
ZetaWare, Inc.
Calibrations: Cumulative Oil API for
Different SRs at Different Maturities
60
50 D/E
C
40
30
B
20
A
10
Cumulative API Gravity of Expelled Oil

90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Thermal Stress (ºC)
 Initially expelled oil for class A (clay poor) source rock is around 12-16 API
 In contrast, typical DE (deltaic) source rocks expel oils in the 40 to 50 range
ZetaWare, Inc.
Cumulative GLR, Source facies and Maturity
50000
© ZetaWare, Inc.
F
10000 D/E
B
1000
A C
Cumulative GLR of Expelled (scf/stb)

100
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Thermal Stress (ºC)
ZetaWare, Inc.
Kinetics assumes first order reaction
1
A-Aquatic marine clay-poor
B-Aquatic marine clay-rich
C-Aquatic non-marine (lacustrine)
D/E-Terrigenous terrestrial w ax/resin
0.8
F-Terrigenous terrestrial lignin-rich
0.6
dx  E 
 A  exp  x
0.4 dt  RT 
E: Activation Energy
0.2
A: Frequency factor
R: Gas Constant
0
50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Temperature (C)
ZetaWare, Inc.
Custom, Multi-component Kinetics
A
Samples
Type, TOC, HI and Thickness =?
Are we really going to know all

these from samples at this well ?
ZetaWare, Inc.
Expulsion Mechanism/Efficiency
S1/TOC or TE/TOC trends at immature and expelling maturity levels

suggest sorption by solid organic matter may be the dominant mechanism
controlling expulsion. These trends in different basins average about 100
mg/g TOC. (From Pepper & Corvi, 1995)
ZetaWare, Inc.
Hydrogen Index and GOR
1 1
0.8 0.8
Marine Lacustrine
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
Oil Retained
Oil Retained
0.2 0.2
0
1 0
1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0.8 Temperature (C) 0.8 Temperature (C)
Terr. Oil prone Terr. Gas prone
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
Oil Retained
0.2 Oil Retained 0.2
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Temperature (C) Temperature (C)
The composition of expelled products are controlled by both the generative

potential of oil and gas (GOGI) as well as expulsion. The gas prone
terrestrial facies has 55% oil generative potential, but expels only gas
because the oil is well below the expulsion threshold.
ZetaWare, Inc.
Hydrogen Index and Expelled HC GOR
600 600
500 Marine 500 Lacustrine
HI = 600 HI = 600
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
Expelled HC mg/g TOC

0 0
50 100 150 200 250 300 50 100 150 200 250 300
600 600
500 Deltaic 500 Terrestrial
HI = 330 HI = 150
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100

0 0
50 100 150 200 250 300 50 100 150 200 250 300
Temperature (ºC) Temperature (ºC)
ZetaWare, Inc.
ACREDITADO ISO/IEC 17025:2005
13-LAB-004
GranjasdeManzanares,Lote27lKm.6víaPiedecuestalPBX:(+577)6390080lPiedecuesta,Colombia

Training Course ZetaWare

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Training Course ZetaWare

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Training Course ZetaWare

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACREDITADO ISO/IEC 17025:2005

Trinity/Genesis Practical Petroleum System Analysis Toolkit Training

Instructor: Dr. Zhiyong He Ph.D. in Geology, Founder of ZetaWare, Inc.

Learn how to convert standard source rock parameters to volumes in mmbls/km2.

User requested topics.

Question, What is the heat flow/thermal gradient at the kitchen?

• Build Leveque-1 and Barcoo 1 models from the

Temperature data need to correct for cooling by mud

120 °C Expelled Oil

• Can make or break a prospect in early oil window

Build maturation model

Using Trinity and Genesis – 3 Day course Outline

• In new venture evaluation, we often find exploration

http://www.zetaware.com Copyright 2011, ZetaWare, Inc.

This figure is a typical explanation of oil and gas windows

http://www.zetaware.com Copyright 2011, ZetaWare, Inc.

Cumulative HC6+ Expelled (mmstb/km2)

20 Gas sorption= Auto

http://www.zetaware.com Copyright 2011, ZetaWare, Inc.

Cumulative Oil/Gas Expelled MMBOE/km2 for 100m Thick Source

Lacustrine Type I B, Marine Type II D/E, Deltaic F, Type III

http://www.zetaware.com Copyright 2011, ZetaWare, Inc.

http://www.zetaware.com Copyright 2011, ZetaWare, Inc.

http://www.zetaware.com Copyright 2011, ZetaWare, Inc.

http://www.zetaware.com Copyright 2011, ZetaWare, Inc.

Assume hydrocarbons expel from source and

Assuming 10% porosity and 10% minimum

To migrate 100 meters vertically, we would

Because of the difference in maturity, the source rock expels 8

Hundreds-millions of micro traps and first carrier beds

Mixed fluid continue to leak/spill from the micro traps,

Fluids arriving at shallow reservoir is delayed, less mature

Fluid arriving at reservoir is lagged, mixed & lower maturity

Geothermal Gradient (°C/100m)

Nagihara & Jones, AAPG Bull. 2005

60 μW/m2 Q=? 65 μW/m2 Q=?

Heat flow in the kitchens are typically

300 mW/m 2 40 mW/m2 60 mW/m2 70 mW/m2

Where: K – thermal conductivity

Top of aethenosphere (T=1300°C)

• Shortly after deposition of new

• It takes time to warm the entire

• Not including the entire lithosphere

The transient model’s boundary condition is set at

Rapid sedimentation rate = 600m/my.

VRo or AFT data have

Example of a typical GOM well modeled with constant 1300 °C at base

VRo or AFTA data

Example of heat flow history in Murzuq basin, Libya, modeled with

The erosion amounts vary greatly and so is the difference in HF

Rock Type Thermal Conductivity Heat Production

K decreases with temperature in most rocks

Heat flow typically increases from the

Average surface heat flow is about 60

Mandle Heat flow about 25 to 30

20 to 40 mW/m2 is generated within

P.S. Kuma et al, 2006, Deccan (Dharwar Creton) India

The Origins of Melting Anomalies: Plates, Plumes, and Planetary Processes”

Temperature profile of the Pacific upper mantle