Disc Contents © IPA, 2006 - Proceedings of an International Conference on Petroleum Systems of
SE Asia and Australasia, 1997
Contents
PA97 - OR - 05
Search
lNDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION
Proceedings of the Petroleum Systems of SE Asia and Australasia Conference, May 1997
THE DESTRUCTION AND PRESERVATION OF GIANT LIGHT OILFIELDS
Duncan S. Macgregor*
ABSTRACT
Study of a database of 359 giant oilfields show these
to be dynamic short lived phenomena, with a median
age of 35 Ma. One third show evidence for post-
entrapment destructive processes, particularly erosion.
fault leakage and gas flushing. Biodegradation is a
destructive process most active during oil entrapment.
Re-entrapment of oil released from spilling or
breached traps is common. These processes are
illustrated with case examples from SE Asia and
throughout the world.
The main controls on oilfield preservation are post-
entrapment tectonism and seal type, with temperature
arLdhydrodynamic regimes being secondary factors.
T'estructive processes are concentrated in shallow and
deep zones and in seepage-prone traps such as
compressional anticlines. Such factors strongly
influence the distribution of preserved light oilfields,
with preservation potential maximised in tectonically
quiescent basins with evaporite or thick mudstone
seals e.g. the Middle East and the Permian Basin, or
in basin centres distant from inverted or uplifted zones
e.g. Central Sumatra. More attention is required in
prospect and regional evaluations to models involving
post-entrapment leakage and re-migration.
OBJECTIVES
This short paper summarises an already published and
more detailed paper (Macgrcgor, 1996), that presents
an integration of a number of studies on themes
related to the natural destruction of oilfields. These
include reviews of the range of destructive processes
observed in oilfields, of surface oil seepage and of the
age of the world's oilfields. Global databases,
including one comprising the 350 largest known oil
* BP Exploration Operating Co. Ltd. - Indonesia
accumulations, are interrogated to establish
relationships between these factors. This large scale
work is backed up by more focussed analyses in a
number of key petroleum provinces, including many
SE Asian examples. The main objectives of the
research presented is to develop an understanding of
the factors controlling long term preservation of
oilfields and thus contribute to the assessment of
exploration risk in settings where preservation may be
a key factor, e.g. in old intracratonic basins which
generated their petroleum in the far geological past.
Readers are referred to the full paper for lists of the
references used in this work.
DESTRUCTIVE PROCESSES AND ZONES
Oil is a mixture of organic compounds that are both
physically and chemically unstable in the subsurface.
It is therefore not surprising that a wide range of
destructive processes are identified in the world's
oilfields (Table 1). These can classified genetically by
the nature of the chemical, b i o l o g i d or physical
process that alter or remove 'fresh' light oil (generally
>30°API) in the original pool. Three groupings of
processes are identified, namely vertical leakage (on
faults, through erosion or through reservoir
overpressuring), lateral spillage (through trap tilting or
flushing, either by water or gas) and compositional
changes (cracking LO gas, biodegradationlwater
washing).
An alternative manner of classifying these processes
is by the depth ranges in which they operate (Figure
1). Destructive processes can be grouped into those
which affect shallow oilfields (e.g. seepage related to
fault leakage or erosion, biodegradation) and those
which operate at considerable depth (e.g. gas flushing
and cracking). Destructive processes can thus be seen
to be concentrated in shallow or deep destructive
843
844
zones, the depth ranges of which vary substantially
with factors such as tectonic setting, seal type,
geothermal gradient and age of petroleum system. The
base of the Shallow Destructive Zone (SDZ) is
marked either by .the depth limits of active surface
penetrating faults cutting oilfields (that facilitate
seepage) or the penetration into the subsurface of
bacteria-rich flowing groundwaters. Evaporite seals
can play a significant preservation role in preventing
fault communication to the surface and the influx of
groundwaters, and commonly imply very thin SDZs.
The top of the Deep Destructive Zone (DDZ) is
defined by the limits of gas flushing or the onset of
cracking to . gas, which are temperature-time
dependant, moving shallower with increased age of
system. Between these two zones lies an Optimum
Preservation Zone (OPZ) of variable thickness, within
which light oil is most likely to be preserved for long
periods. Any oil released from tilted traps in the OPZ
tends to be retrapped rather than lost to surface.
The top of the SDZ is the surface, where in
volumetric terms, losses are probably highest. Losses
at the surface occur in the forms of seeps, derived
from erosion of uplifted oil pools .or from shallow oil
pools with fault communication to surEace. Study of
seep distributions in Western Indonesia and elsewhere
indicate that only a minority of seeps can be directly
related to leakage from subsurface oilfields, with the
remainder seemingly representing the exhumation of
the various component parts of a petroleum system,
e.g. microtraps and migration staining. Good
relationships can be demonstrated at the basinal scale
between the intensity of seepage, as measured by
numbers of reported seeps, and oil reserves. Such
relationships are shown by work in Indonesia
(Macgregor, 1993) to break down at sub-basinal and
prospect scales, where most seeps are observed to
concentrate over tectonic features such as active
diapirs, active faults, and inverted basin margins.
Seeping oilfields tend to be concentrated in shallow,
steeply dipping, faulted anticlinal traps (Figure 2).
Seeps are rare where traps are buried beneath thick
unfaulted overburdens, e.g. central parts of Sumatra
basins, North Sea, Sirte Basin of Libya. The prime
exploration value of visible seeps in most frontier
basins lies at the regional level, in the clues they give
as to the nature, extent, and quantitative hydrocarbon
potential of a basin's source system.
The study of destructive processes in the sub-surface
has been advanced only in a few extensively drilled
.
and documented basins. Biodegradation is clearly a
highly significant shallow destructive process,
affecting the majority of the world's largest oil
accumulations. Biodegradation and heavy oil
occurrences are concentrated above 500m, but not all
shallow oil occurrences are affected (Figure 3),
suggesting complex timing, temperature and
hydrological controls. There remains a high degree of
uncertainty as to the significance of biodegradation in
the post-entrapment phase. Some evidence from API
vs. depth plots suggests that in some fields, post-
entrapment biodegradation is concentrated in zones
adjacent to oil-water contacts e.g. Duri field, Central
Sumatra. Accumulations in which the oil column is
uniformly degraded, such as the Alberta tar sands and
Central North Sea heavy oils, may have been
degraded during the process of oilfield filling.
The mechanisms by which oilfields,become displaced
by or converted to gas at depth remain poorly
understood, though the bulk of the evidence indicates
gas flushing, rather than cracking, to be the Elominant
process. Gas flushing trends are observed in the Illizi
Basin (Algeria), the Central North Sea and reef trends
in Alberta. Time seems to be an important variable
controlling the maximum depth and temperature of
major oilfields (Figure 3) with most deep ( ~ 2 5 0 0 m )
fields having been filled comparitively recently.
Maximum oilfield temperatures range from in excess
of 160°C for Tertiary petroleum systems (e.g. Central
Sumatra) to less than 100°C for older Palaeozoic
systems (e.g. Permian reservoirs of Permian Basin,
West Texas). The zone in which oil may be preserved
is consequently thought to be thickest for young
petroleum systems such as those in SE Asia.
Re-migration and re-entrapment of oil released from
breached, flushed or tilted traps seems to be common
processes in basins that have undergone deep burial or
structural tiltinghe-shaping, though as with other
subsurface destructive processes, these tend to be
identified at present only in extensively drilled data-
rich basins (e.g. Central and South Sumatra, Illizi,
Alberta, Alaska). Multiple phases of re-migration may
lead to dispersion of the oil originally reservoired and
may have the confusing effects of leading to the
filling of traps whose formation postdates oil
generation e.g. Pleistocene traps of CentraliSouth
Sumatra. Such complexities are rarely considered in
current attempts at modelling petroleum systems, but

ay be more common than realised. The geologist
exploring in regions where traps and/or reservoirs
post-date oil generation needs to keep an open mind
to the possibility of late stage traps being filled
through re-migration.
Figure 1 emphasises the often complex nature of
oilfield histories and shows multiple paths that may
lead to seepage at the surface, the filling of young
traps by re-migration or the formation of heavy oils.
The most volumetrically significant destructive
processes are surface erosion, leakage on faults (both
of which give a surface expression in the form of
seepage) and gas flushing. Estimated present day rates
of destruction from these processes are consistent with
the limited age of most of the world's oilfields (Figure
4), pafticularly in the tectonic settings most prone to
seepage, e.g. thrust belts.
IMPACT ON PETROLEUM SYSTEMS AND OIL
RESERVES DISTRIBUTION
Oilfields are typically dynamic and temporary
phenomena, containing a chemically unstable and
highly mobile fluid. Oil systems follow a generation,
entrapment and destruction cycle that varies in
duration from a million gears or less (e.g. the very
rapidly seeping fields of the Santa Barbara Channel,
California) to several hundreds of millions of years
(e.g. Permian Basin, West Texas). Large oilfields
frequently show evidence for partial and/or ongoing
destruction, with at least a third of the 350 giant (>1
BBO in place) oil accumulations reviewed showing
evidence for destructive activity through one or more
of the processes identified above. The world's median
giant oilfield age is consequently limited at around 35
Ma., whilst only 10% of giant oilfields have existed
for over 75 Ma (Figure 4). Oilfields in seepage-prone
compressional traps have shorter average lives while
those in low relief anticlines and stratigraphic traps
are, on average, older.
The potential for the long term preservation of a light
oilfield is dependent on three primary factors, namely
post-entrapment tectonism, subsidence and seal type.
The age of petroleum system, heat flow history and
hydrogeological regime are important secondary
factors. A grouping of various petroleum systems,
including SE Asian basins (Figure 5), into 'high',
'moderate' and 'low' degrees of preservation is applied,
845
based on evidence for long term preservation or for
partial or complete destruction of giant light oil fields.
Definitions &d SE Asian examples are as follows:
High Preservation Oil Systems are identified through
evidence for long term preservation of large light oil
fields or by little evidence, either in the geological
record and at present day, for destructive processes
having caused significant losses to surface or to the
gas phase. An example is the Central Sumatra Basin
(Figure 5 ) , which shows little seepage, little gas and
a high proportion of light relative to heavy oil
volumes. Limited inversion and erosion, a young
petroleum system and a high geothermal gradient that
constrains the impact of biodegradation are all
important factors here. International examples include
the long-lived petroleum system of the Permian Basin,
West Texas and the Middle East. High preservation
oil provinces are generally those which contain thick
shale or evaporite seals, and show quiescent structural
histories. They tend to lie in simple uninverted or only
mildly inverted extensional basins.
Moderate Preservation Oil Systems show significant
evidence for destructive processes but seem to retain
a significant proportion of their original light oil
volume in the subsurface. These provinces may also
show evidence for a significant amount of re-
migration and re-entrapment. SE Asian examples
include, Myanmar and parts of the South Sumatra
Basin (Figure 5), where significant uplift has
occurred. Shallow pools are either exposed at the
surface, leak through faults or are degraded to heavy
oil, while light oil survives deeper in the subsurface.
Further examples include the Alaskan North Slope,
where significant re-migration and associated
degradation to heavy oil has occurred. A reduction to
moderate or even low states of preservation can also
be caused through deep burial and high temperatures,
leading to extensive gas flushing and/or cracking (e.g.
Illizi Basin, Algeria, Central North Sea, Val
VerdeIDelaware Basin of West Texas).
Low Preservation Oil Systems are systems where a
majority of the original entrapped light oil volume has
been destroyed at surface or converted to gas or heavy
oil. This high degree of destruction usually results
from the combined influence of several destructive
processes. SE Asian examples include areas of
exposed tar sands such as Buton, Sulawesi and
onshore Ceram. Further examples (e.g. Alberta,
 846
Junggar Basin of China) demonstrate that low
preservation oil provinces usually lack evaporite seals
and have typically undergone significant
compressional uplifts following generation of their
petroleum systems, allowing processes such as surface
erosion, fault leakage and oxygenated water
.influxhiodegradation to degrade a large proportion of
their oil reserves. A common characteristic of low
preservation provinces, as observed in many inverted
rifts, is very irregular or concentrated field size
distributions. An example is the Wessex Basin
(Dorset, England), where the vast majority of the
basin's reserves are concentrated in an uninverted area
and in a single field, Wytch Farm.
Preservation potential as measured on the criteria
outlined above (age of system, seal type, tectonic
history, temperature/depth profile) is a key factor
controlling the global distribution of light oil volumes,
particularly for older petroleum systems. When only
economically attractive light oil reserves are
considered, most of the worlds largest oil provinces
lie in high preservation extensional or sag settings
(e.g. Middle East, West Siberia). The impaot of
preservation on oil reserves distribution at a basinal
scale is demonstrated in the Sumatran basins, where
the largest oilfields are concentrated in non-inverted
basin centres, distant froh the seep belts on basin
margins.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Preservation potential is a major factor controlling the
distribution of large light oil fields. Prediction of the
extents of destructive zones in undrilled or lightly
drilled frontier basins should be possible in most cases
through basic seismic interpretation and
basin/geochemical analysis,' enabling a ranking of
basins on the preservative criteria listed. In addition,
integrated studies of seep belts on basin margins aid
the prediction of oil occurrences in more basinward,
higher preservation segments of the basin concerned.
The highest ranked frontier basins will be those in
which reservoirs and source rocks have remained,
throughout their history, in the intermediate depth
zones conducive to preservation. These will tend to be
either young petroleum systems or older systems with
evaporite seals and/or tectonically quiescent histories.
Even in much systems, re-migration may be
significant. Explorationists working on plays and
prospects requiring significant periods of oilfield
preservation need to consider models involving
destructive processes in or er to improve their
abilities to explore for economic quantities of
undegraded light oil.
REFERENCES
Macgregor, D.S., 1993, Relationships between
Seepage, Tectonics and Subsurface Petroleum
Reserves, Marine & Petroleum Geology 10, 6, pp.
606-619.
Macgregor, D.S., 1996, Factors Controlling the
Destruction and Preservation of Giant Light Oilfields,
Petroleum Geoscience 2, 3, pp. 197-217.
 847

Re-migration of Oil
g$ Influx of Other Fluids

field examples
AR = Alberta Reefs
K= Kuparuk, Alaska
KK = Kirkuk, Iraq
PB = Prudhoe Bay, Alaska
0 = Orinoco Tar Belt, Venezuela
U = Ugnu, Alaska
ZI = Lower Zagros Reservoirs, Iraq
Zu = Upper Zagros Reservoirs, Iraq

FIGURE 1 - The figure summarises the main destructive processes identified, their relative depth ranges,
their surface effects and their relationships to migration and entrapment histories. Processes
are shown in circles and hydrocarbon accumulation types in boxes. Uplift and subsidence of
oil pools is shown as continuous lines while migration of oil is shown as dashed lines.
848

CA 28%

ALL FIELDS

OTH 2%

DIA 4%

SCA = Steep
Compressional Anticline
LRA = Low Relief Anticline
EXB = Extensional Block
DIA = Diapir
UPP = Updip Pinchout
STR = Stratigraphic
OTH = Other
n.k. = not known

FIGURE 2 - Analysis of trap type distribution for the 350 largest oil accumulations in the world and for
seeping fields within that dataset. Note the large expansion of the compressional trap segment
for seeping fields.
 849

AP
Gravi
0
0 Orinoco
Crl[3m omri oyates VaCuUrn
Athabasca n c a
Masjid-i-Suleiman
cz
00 0 P..:.---Bradford
0 E
Ugnu n
0
WestSak 0 0
Spraberry
a n"0 d t4s 0 - deepest
giant field
filled prior
to
Cretaceous
a
0 0
r - i R
U Y

0
Marlim ci

large number
w 0 of fields cooked
preserved light
to gas?, e.g.
oilfields below
a Permian basin,
3000m are Albetta
a
predominantly
I recently sourced cli
a
(70% f i i M in Cardenas
Neogene]

FIGURE 3 - API value versus depth for 350 giant oilfields. Note the irregular API distribution at shallow
depths, which reflects the irregularity of biodegradation. Practically all surviving deep fields
were filled in the T'ertiaqT, suggesting a tendency for such deep fields to be gas flushed 01
cracked with time.
850

billion
barrels
in place Mid East, Venezuela,
N.Sea, Calif., Mexico, SE Asia

E. Siberia (exact timing

uncertain)

I 100hna 20dMa 300 h a 400hfa 500hna I

no. of giant
fields

158
Accumulations

108

Tar ( 4 0API)
Heavy Oil (10-20AP
50- Light Oil (>20API)

time slice
Tertl Cret.1 Jurl Tr. 1 P e r . w DedsilI Ordl camd.
I00 h a 20d Ma 300 hila 400 h a 500 h a

FIGURE 4 - Volume/Number ot Giant Oilfields plotted against age of interpreted oil emplacement (from
numerous literature references). Note the sharp near exponential decline in oil volumes with
increased age of petroleum system, indicative of a high destruction rate.
 85 1

PreservationlDestruction State in S.E.Asian Systems

HP >1 --Mp-Lp-- -t

ASSAM Naga Thrust Belt

Assarn Foreland Basin Central Arch AA A A
NW SE

* --LP M
-*P
- L
P
-+
-
Eastern Yenangyaung
BURMA Outcrops sail,, B~~~~ Minbu Anticlines Pegu Yornas
AAA AA A
W E

-LP~ *-. -MP-+ -.-Hp-. . ~ t

Tarniang Alur Siwah High

N. SUMATRA Deep (Diapirisrn) Offshore Basin
Barisan Uplift AA A
sw NE

i L P M
-p
-- -Hp- __ _.________~

. .
t -~
C. SUMATRA
Dalu Dalu Uplift Central Deep Minas High Rokan Uplift
SW NE

...
Muara Enirr;'hiclinoriurn Muara ~~i~ Pendoqo
S. SUMATRA (Diapirisrn) Deep Anticlinoriurn
Garba Mtns. (Barisan Uplift) A A A
S N

-Hp -+-MP-
BARAM (onshore)
---f .Belait Anticline
-~ L
P
- F

Seria wu Belait Svncline A A

---___---
A Seem 3 = ? DiaDiric Anticline Scale
10 Km
@ Large petroleum Fields
0 Small Detroleum Fields
0 Probable Source kitchenArea
A Mud Volcanoes ReservoirKarrier Bed 2Kml

L : Light oil (>20°API) HP : High Preservation System

H : Heavy oil (<20°API) MP Moderate Preservation System
'

LP : Low Preservation System

9000334/1.fh5 Modified After Macgregor (1993)

FIGURE 5 - Schematic cross-sections of a number of SE Asian petroleum provinces, showing interpreted

regional variations in preservation state. The largest fields in most of these systems lie in high
preservztion areas basinward of seep belts that represent areas of partial petroleum system
destruction.

DESTRUCTIVE, PROCESSES A FFEGTING OHd ACCUMULATIONS
OVEWWSSIJRJWG (Capillary or bqdraulic failure
et the seal)
TABLE 1
---
Possible Evidence / Effects
- l_sl_ll II
Flowing surface seeps (fault associated).
High level re-enhapped oil system below more
comnetent seals
Surface seeps and impregnations.
Outcropping ?ar sands.
Reworked bitumen in sediments.
EII__I_.__I.-ll----^~.
Mud Volcanoes and associated seeps.
Residual shows in traps at fracture pressure.
Shows in overburden.
High level re-trapped oil system in younger reservoirs
and/or traps. _I__I_.
Evidence for re-migration e.g. oil in young structures.
Seepage on carrier bed outcrops.
Residual oil columns in destroyed traps. ~ - l . - _ l l . l .
Residual oil columns in’ freshwater saturated
reservoirs within valid traps.
Tilting o f oil-water contacts.
Existence of hydrodynamic traps.
.~ _l_l “I_
Spillfuli field with significant ga.s column.
Trends o f increasing gas content in fields close to
kitchen.
Heavy oil 1 tar sand occurrence.
Heavy oil throughout column suggests degradation
occurred during oilfield f i h g 4PI decrease %awards Sands.
QWC suggests post-entrqment alteration
Geochemical evidence foe loss o f ligbt hydrocllthons
(chromatography)
__gl_ l__”l_l__lilllll___le~---
Gas or gas-sondensate accumulation
olugged with pvsobiturnen