Geophysical Investigations of a Subsurface Structural

Anomaly, Gullebi Field, Ghadames Basin, Libya

Abdelhamed Shahlol1, Abraheem Elmasli1, Foluso Owonifaari 1, Ahmad Alzaruk 2
1Arabian Gulf Oil Company, Libya
2SLB, Libya

ABSTRACT

Gullebi Field lies in the southwestern part of Concession NC7A in the central Ghadames Basin.
The field is characterized by a northeast-southwest reverse fault named the Gullebi Fault. The
fault extension is about 45 km and is the conduit for the main hydrocarbon accumulation of the
Devonian reservoirs. Based on available seismic data and other geophysical methods that were
used in the past for hydrocarbon exploration in the field, there was evidence of a structural
complexity—a radial rim faulting system with a deep depression surrounding a central dome. This
domal structure has an average circular depression ranging from 152 to 305 m deep. The total
width of the anomaly is about 13 km in diameter, while the radius of the dome is about 3 km.
To investigate the structural complexities of this anomaly, Arabian Gulf Oil Company (AGOCO)
conducted a new airborne gravity and magnetic survey over the entire area of the NC7A
concession addition to the existing seismic data within the concession. Based on the results of all
geophysical methods used for this investigation, two hypotheses were established to identify the
origin of this anomaly. The first cause could be the possibility of an igneous or volcanic intrusion
that originated from the basement. The second theory assumed the anomaly was generated by
possible meteorite impact that created synclinal rims around the domal structure. In this paper
we present the geophysical assessment of seismic, gravity, and magnetic analyses and mapping
conducted in the area to enable the geological interpretations to be more feasible.

Key words: Gullebi Field, Concession NC7A, volcanic intrusion, meteorite impact

Introduction

This study incorporated several different geophysical methods to identify the origin of the
subsurface domal structure identified west of Libya, south-central Ghadames Basin, Concession
NC7A. The structure occurs at the Paleozoic-level siliciclastic successions, in which Devonian
sandstone formations are considered the main reservoirs in the study area. The structure was
first mapped on 2D seismic data as a domal feature, and subsequent mapping by 3D seismic
provided a different picture where the dome was surrounded by a rim syncline. This anomaly has
triggered heightened exploration activity to investigate the cause and nature of this feature.
Therefore, gravity and magnetic surveys were conducted across the entire block to be integrated
with seismic mapping for better assessment of this anomaly.
Location of the Study Area
The study area (Fig. 1) is located in the south-central part of Ghadames Basin, Concession NC7A,
which is under the supervision of AGOCO. The study area is approximately 100 km to the
southeast of Dirj City.

GeoConvention 2023 1
 Figure 1. Location of the study area in Ghadames Basin (AGOCO 2007).

Regional Tectonic Setting

The Ghadames Basin is a large intracratonic basin on the North African platform. Formed during
the early Paleozoic era, it covers an area of 350 000 km2 and straddles the borders of Libya,
Tunisia, and Algeria. The Libyan portion represents the eastern flank of the basin and covers an
area of about 183 000 km2. It has been an important hydrocarbon province since the 1950s
(Echikh 1998). The main tectonic elements bounding the Ghadames Basin are the Dahar–
Nafusah high to the north, the Qarqaf uplift and the Hoggar shield to the south, the Amguid–El
Biod high to the west, and the western flank of the younger Sirt Basin to the east.
Many of these structural features were initiated in the late Precambrian Pan-African orogeny, with
repeated reactivation of older structures occurring throughout the Phanerozoic. The basin
contains up to 5200 m of Paleozoic and Mesozoic sediments, the Paleozoic section being
separated from the Mesozoic deposits by a major regional unconformity of the Hercynian
(Devonian–Carboniferous) age (Figs. 2 and 3). This Hercynian unconformity is represented as
the most conspicuous feature of the basin, as a Paleozoic succession is overlain by a Mesozoic
basin (Hamada Basin) with a markedly different basin configuration. Erosion patterns and the
topography that developed on the surface of this regional unconformity have had a direct influence
on the petroleum systems within the basin (Hallett 2002).

GeoConvention 2023 2
 Figure 2. Tectonic elements of Ghadames Basin (after Hallet 2002).

Figure 3. North-south cross-section line of Ghadames Basin (after Hallet 2002).

GeoConvention 2023 3
 Objectives

The primary goal of this study is to characterize the possible origin of the pronounced subsurface
domal structure recognized in Concession NC7A. The effect of this anomaly on the hydrocarbon
trapping mechanism will be considered as well.

Hypothesis

To identify the anomaly mapped by seismic, two hypotheses were put forward:
An igneous intrusion. This involves a pluton resulting from the emplacement of magma into
preexisting rocks. However, the volcanic activity began along the line of the Tripoli-Tibisti axis
during the Eocene, and ring-intrusions at Jabal Awaynat on the border with Sudan have been
dated as Eocene (Echikh 1998). Volcanism in the Eocene resulted in the ring intrusions of the
Jabal Awaynat and volcanic flows on the Jabal As-Sawda.
This hypothesis can be ruled out easily for two main reasons. First, the Tertiary volcanism does
not involve the study area. The second reason comes from seismic imaging, which suggests a
different interpretation for the igneous intrusion image.
An impact structure. Impact (or shock) metamorphism occurs when high-speed projectiles called
meteorites (fragments of comets or asteroids) strike the Earth’s surface. Upon impact, the energy
of the once rapidly moving meteorite is transformed into heat energy and shock waves that pass
through the surrounding rocks (Fig. 4). The result is pulverized, shattered, and sometimes melted
rock. This hypothesis is most likely acceptable, as the seismic image is highly supporting its
characteristics.
Ring structures are good candidates to be recognized as resulting from meteorite impact craters
and are good hydrocarbon traps. The process of recognizing a new impact structure involves two
steps: (1) detection of a candidate impact site through field studies, geophysical measurements,
remote sensing, drilling programs, or (sometimes) pure accident; and (2) verification of the site
as an impact structure using geochemical methods. However, the first step is clearly documented.
The second step has yet to be started.

GeoConvention 2023 4
 Figure 4. Schematic of meteorite impact morphology (simple above and complex below) (after
Westbroek 1997).

Methodology
The first seismic survey shot in the area of interest was 2D data acquired in 1980. The
interpretation identified a seismic anomaly in a shape of domal four-way dip closure with some
faults in its southern part (Fig. 5). Although the size and areal extent of the structure was
encouraging enough to be selected as drillable structure, the quality of the seismic data and the
abnormal shape of the structure did not support this idea, and 3D seismic was recommended to
resolve all questions. This anomaly was better recognized in a 3D seismic survey that was shot
in 2007.
To further investigate the origin of this prospective anomaly, aerogravity and aeromagnetic data
were acquired in 2010. Gravity and magnetic together with seismic data were used in the study
area to explore the circular anomaly.

Results and Discussions

Gravity and Magnetic Interpretation

Gravity anomalies over impact craters depend on 1) the size and morphology of the structure, 2)
the density contrast between impacted and surrounding target rocks, and 3) the depth of the
structure, (Plado 2000). Most impact structures show a negative gravity anomaly. If filled with
relatively denser post-impact material, tectonized and/or deeply eroded, the structure may show

GeoConvention 2023 5
 positive gravity effects. Complex impact structures may also reveal gravity highs caused by
central uplift.
Gravity anomalies over impact structures are produced by different processes during cratering.
Magnetic anomalies of impact structures depend on 1) the size and shape of the structure, 2) the
intensity and orientation of magnetization of the impactites with respect to the surrounding target
rocks, 3) the ancient and present geomagnetic field, and 4) the altitude (distance from
measurement level to the source), (Plado 2000).
To better define this feature, gravity and magnetic modeling were calculated for a round density
contrast of +0.1 g/cm3 and magnetization contrast of 1 A/m oriented vertically downward and in
parallel to the normal geomagnetic field with inclination of 41.6° and declination of 1.53°. These
contrasts were taken as positive or negative for all desired areas. The model response was
estimated from the anomalous values using simple multiplication of the coefficient equal to the
desired contrast/round contrast with chosen (+) or (-) sign. The density contrast was defined by
taking the differences between the density of the anomalous structure and the density of the host
medium. In addition, the magnetization contrast was defined by taking the differences in vector
between structure magnetization and the host medium magnetization.
A gravity model contrast of 0.1 g/cm3 shows a circular pattern of local gravity anomaly with an
amplitude of 1.6 mGal and width of 7 km from the half-intensity contour. Also, for the density
contrast of -0.1 g/cm3, the same structure produced a circular negative anomaly with a minimum
of 1.6 mGal.
From the interpretation results, we concluded that the density contrast of the circular structure is
less than -/+ 0.1 g/cm3 in absolute units, compared to the regional result of 1.5 mGal. What this
means is that the higher density contrast from the basement has masked the effect of the low-
density contrast of this anomalous structure. Also, the horizontal projection of the circular structure
lies in the periphery of a negative for the first and second derivatives of the area.
Conversely, the gravity enhancement result, which is sensitive to local gravity anomalies and
space filtration, was used for the depth of the circular source. The analysis of the original data
was done by testing different parameters with radius of 8, 12, and 16 km, but radius of 8 km
seemed to truly represent this circular anomaly.
The magnetic case was treated similar to that of gravity. From the result of regional magnetic
intensity maps, there was no evidence of the existence of an intensive magnetic anomaly in the
area of interest. This means that the magnetic properties of the circular structure materials have
low values. From the model calculation, the total magnetic intensity (TMI) and reduction to Pole
(RTP) values in the range of 100 nT for a magnetic contrast of 1 A/m. These higher contrast
values are estimated from the interpretation of intensive magnetic anomalies. Because the
anomaly did not show on magnetic enhancement and sensitive derivatives of the regional area of
NC7A, it means the magnetization of circular structure is equal to or less than 0.005 to 0.1 A/m.
In conclusion, the results of gravity and magnetic surveys do not support the presence of a clear
intrusive dyke in the area of interest (Fig. 6).

GeoConvention 2023 6
 Figure 5. Time-structure map top Memouniat and 2D seismic line NG 283 across the structure.

GeoConvention 2023 7
 Figure 6. Gravity and magnetic maps in the area of interest.

Seismic Data Interpretation

The first 2D seismic acquired in the area shows the structure as a huge, circular four-way dip
anticline (Fig. 7) with possible faulting at the edges. However, the size of the structure does
encourage the drilling of the anomaly. The seismic quality and peculiarity of such an anomaly in
the area changes the drilling idea to another option, where 3D seismic is essential to resolve such
uncertainties. The 3D seismic data explain the tectonic complexities of a mostly normal rim
faulting system around this structure (Fig. 8). The rim is circular with an annular deep ring syncline
and a center that is uplifted on the peak of the anomaly. This central peak (Fig. 9) resembles other
complex craters that form with an initial (transient) deep crater floor and rebound from the
compression shock of impact. Slumping of the rim further modifies and enlarges the final crater.
Time slices generated from several seismic attributes clearly revealed the structural configuration
of this circular anomaly and its associated rim faulting system (Fig. 10). This circular rim is
approximately 152 to 305 m deep; the total width of impact from the peak, up to the plateau
overlooking the structure is about 13 km in diameter (Fig. 11). The radius of this circular anomaly
from the peak to synclinal rim is calculated to be approximately 3 km, while its area is estimated
to be 28 km2. Seismic lines covering the crest of the structure show a very chaotic, weak seismic

GeoConvention 2023 8
 signal and loss of amplitude that is believed to be related to tectonic activities that occurred during
Silurian–Devonian time. A loss in amplitude on the crest made the horizon interpretation of Tahara
to the top of the Tanezzuft formation difficult around the center of the anomaly. Subsequently, the
circular rim with an annular, deep ring syncline and uplifted center on the peak of the anomaly
support the impact theory (Fig. 12).

Figure 7. Depth structure map of Tahara reservoir showing circular feature.

GeoConvention 2023 9
 Figure 8. Random seismic line in the study area showing the domal feature.

GeoConvention 2023 10
 Figure 9. 3D view of Tahara (Devonian) reservoir in depth subsea grid.

Figure 10. 3D-structural display of different time-slice attribute at 1540 ms showing fault trend.

GeoConvention 2023 11
 Central

Figure 11. Tahara depth structure grid in subsea showing the extent of the impact.

Figure 12. Fault trend on local azimuth time slice at 1520 ms.

GeoConvention 2023 12
 However, the highly fractured domal anomaly in the study area provides a type of
combination trap in very-high-porosity sandstone sequences, which needs to be explored
intensively targeting different parts of the domal structure. This is supported by a high-
amplitude anomaly in Devonian reservoirs, which could be related to the presence of gas
(Fig. 13).

Figure. 13. Multitrace attribute sweetness and Root mean square (RMS) attribute showing high
amplitude at timeslice 1326 ms.

Hydrocarbon Potential and Economic Value

Mineral deposits such as metals and hydrocarbons are associated with approximately 20% of all
known impact craters and, in some cases, the economic implications are significant (Masaytis
1989). In some structures interpreted to be impact craters (Table 1), commercial hydrocarbon
accumulations have been found. Donofrio (1981) discussed the significance for the petroleum
industry of impact craters as hydrocarbon bearing in detail.

GeoConvention 2023 13
 Name Diameter (km) Age Hydrocarbons

Viewfield, 2.4 Triassic/Jurassic Commercial oil field discovered in 1968.

Saskatchewan Production of up to 6S5 m3/d (400 B/D) from
Mississippian carbonate breccia and in- situ
Mississippian in the raised rim pay
thicknesses.
Estimated reserves: 3.2 x 106 m3 (20 MMbbl)
recoverable. ɸ = 14%; k = 400 md.

Red Wing Creek, 10 Triassic/Jurassic Commercial oil field discovered in 1972.

North Dakota 870 m of pay in Mississippian carbonate
breccia from a 1.6 km diameter area within
the 6.5 km diameter central uplift. Reservoir
rocks arc steeply dipping and intensely
faulted. Estimated reserves: 6.4 x 106 m3
(40–70 MMbbl) recoverable.

Newporte, North 3.2 Late-Cambrian Oil shows found in 1977 in Cambro–

Dakota Ordovician sandstones draped over the
raised rim. Some production from highly
fractured pre-Cambrian gneiss-schist.
Ames, Oklahoma 8 Lower Ordovician Oil and gas production from dolomite on
crater rim and from brecciated granite and
dolomite on crater floor. Estimated potential
reserves:
More than 7 x 106 m3 (50 MMbbl)

Steen River, 22 Pre-Late Cretaceous Precambrian basement, complex uplifted

Alberta 760 m above regional levels. Producing 95
m3/d (600 B/D) oil. Also gas present in the
Slave Point.
Table 1. Tabulation of some commercial hydrocarbon accumulations associated with probable
impact craters (after Carpenter and Carlson 1992).

Various hydrocarbon reservoirs may exist in all parts of an impact structure, including central
uplifts, rim structures, slump terraces, and ejecta. In the case of very large impact structures, as
in this case, even disrupted and fractured rocks in the wider environs of an impact structure may
be favorable exploration targets. Donofrio (1997) reported that approximately 50% of confirmed
impact structures as well as other only suspected (i.e., no definitive evidence for impact available
yet) impact sites in petroleum provinces are commercial oil and gas fields.

GeoConvention 2023 14
 Conclusions
The use of gravity and magnetic data, together with seismic data clearly show that this circular
anomaly might have occurred during Paleozoic (probably Silurian–Devonian) time, and structural
development might not be related to the basement. Because of its circular structural form and
deep annular ring syncline, along with an uplifted center on the peak, and because the gravity
and magnetic modeling do not support a basement-involved origin, we concluded that this
anomaly could be a meteoric impact. Worldwide, the impact sites in petroleum provinces have
good commercial oil and gas fields. The high amplitude anomaly associated with the domal
structure support possible hydrocarbon accumulations in the area of interest. However, well data,
cores and updated maps will add valuable information to the future assessment of this anomaly.

References

Carpenter, R. N. and Carlson. R. 1992. The Ames Impact Crater: Oklahoma Geological Notes 52. 6. 208-223.,
December 1992, Oklahoma Geological Survey.

Donofrio, R. R. 1981. Impact Craters: Implications for Basement Hydrocarbon Production: J Petr Geol 3: 279–302.

Donofrio, R. R. 1997. Survey of Hydrocarbon-Producing Impact Structures in North America: Exploration Results to
Date and Potential for Discovery in Precambrian Basement Rock. In K. S. Johnson and J. A. Campbell, eds., Ames
Structure in Northwest Oklahoma and Similar Features: Origin and Petroleum Production (1995 Symposium), Circular
100: 17–29. Norman, Oklahoma, USA: Oklahoma Geological Survey.

Echikh, K. 1998. Geology and Hydrocarbon Occurrences in the Ghadames Basin, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya. In D. S.
Macgregor, R. T. J. Moody, and D. D. Clark-Lowes, eds., Petroleum Geology of North Africa: Special Publication 132,
p. 109–129. London, UK: Geological Society London.

Hallett, Don. 2002. Petroleum Geology of Libya. 503 p. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Inc.

Masaytis, V. L. 1989. The Economic Geology of Impact Crater. Internat Geol Rev 31: 922–933.

Plado J. 2000. Gravity and Magnetic Signatures of Meteorite Impact Structures, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tartu,
Tartu, Estonia.

Westbroek, H. 1997. Seismic Interpretation of Two Possible Meteorite Impact Craters: White Valley, Saskatchewan
and Purple Springs, Alberta. M.S. thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

GeoConvention 2023 15