Hammerfest Basin Composite Tectono-Sedimentary Element

2021 ◽  
pp. M57-2017-23
Author(s):  
E. Henriksen ◽  
L. Kvamme ◽  
T. A. Rydningen
Keyword(s):  
Late Jurassic ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Barents Sea ◽  
Oil Field ◽  
Upper Permian ◽  
Tectonic Event ◽  
Petroleum Potential ◽  
Isostatic Rebound ◽  
Hydrocarbon Traps ◽  
Entry Points

AbstractThe Hammerfest Basin is an E -W trending graben located between the Loppa High and the Finnmark Platform in the southern part of the Norwegian Barents Sea. Mainly siliciclastic strata of Carboniferous to Cenozoic age cover the Caledonian basement and have a total estimated thickness of 5-8 km. The basin evolved through several tectonic phases: the Carboniferous rifting, Late Jurassic rifting, the opening of the Atlantic Ocean, Oligocene reorganisation of plate movements and postglacial isostatic rebound. An E-W trending dome in the centre of the basin developed during the main extensional tectonic event in Late Jurassic. Horst structures represent the main hydrocarbon traps. Erosional channels on the flanks of the basin represent entry points for Lower Cretaceous sands. For the rest of the Cretaceous and Cenozoic intervals no significant reservoir sands are expected.The first exploration well in the Barents Sea in 1980 was located in the Hammerfest basin, and by 2019 a total of 45 wells had been drilled in the basin where 34 are classified as exploration wells. The result is 18 oil and gas discoveries, which gives a discovery rate of 53%. Two fields are now in production: the Snøhvit gas-condensate fields and the Goliat oil field.A total of 340 Msm3 (2140 Mbbl) recoverable oil equivalents have been discovered. For the middle Jurassic Play, the yet-to-find potential may be around 50 Msm3, distributed in several small structures in the basin. Following the oil discovery in the Middle Triassic interval in the Goliat structure, and because several of the previously drilled structures only penetrated the Jurassic and the uppermost Triassic section, considerable exploration potential may exist in the deeper Triassic interval in structures with the best reservoir facies. Stratigraphic traps of Cretaceous age may have a moderate petroleum potential, with excellent reservoirs encountered along the flank of the basin. Exploration potential may also exist in Upper Permian sandstones along the southern and eastern flanks of the basin. However, in large parts of the basin, the remaining potential is in the deep structures and hence is gas prone.

Alaska’s North Slope May Yet See Its Renaissance in Arctic Exploration

2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (10) ◽  
pp. 17-22
Author(s):  
Pat Davis Szymczak
Keyword(s):  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Barents Sea ◽  
Oil And Gas Industry ◽  
Gas Production ◽  
Oil Field ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Energy Information Administration ◽  
Gas Field ◽  
The Us ◽  
Arctic Exploration

It wasn’t too long ago that Arctic oil and gas exploration enjoyed celebrity status as the industry’s last frontier, chock full of gigantic unexplored hydrocarbon deposits just waiting to be developed. Fast forward and less than a decade later, the same climate change that made Arctic oil and gas more accessible has caused an about-face as governments and the world’s supranational energy companies rebrand and target control of greenhouse gases (GHG) to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. Among countries with Arctic coastlines, Canada has focused its hydrocarbon production on its oil sands which sit well below the Arctic Circle; Greenland has decided to not issue any new offshore exploration licenses (https://jpt.spe.org/greenland-says-no-to-oil-but-yes-to-mining-metals-for-evs), and while Norway is offering licenses in its “High North,” the country can’t find many takers. The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) reported that while 26 companies applied for licenses in 2013, this year’s bid round attracted only seven participants. Norway is Europe’s largest oil producer after Russia with half of its recoverable resources still undeveloped and most of that found in the Barents Sea where the NPD says only one oil field and one gas field are producing. That leaves Russia and the US—geopolitical rivals which are each blessed with large Arctic reserves and the infrastructure to develop those riches—but whose oil and gas industries play different roles in each nation’s economy and domestic political intrigues. Russia sees its Arctic reserves, particularly gas reserves, as vital to its national security, considering that oil and gas accounts for 60% of Russian exports and from 15 to 20% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP), according to Russia’s Skolkovo Energy Centre. With navigation now possible year­round along the Northern Sea Route, Russia’s LNG champion and its largest independent gas producer, Novatek, is moving forward with exploration to expand its resource base and build infrastructure to ship product east to Asia and west to Europe. https://jpt.spe.org/russian­lng­aims­high­leveraging­big­reserves­and­logistical­advantages As a result, Russia’s state­owned majors—Rosneft, Gazprom, and Gazprom Neft—are lining up behind their IOC colleague as new investment in Arctic exploration and development is encouraged and rewarded by the Kremlin. In contrast, the American Petroleum Institute reports that the US oil and gas industry contributes 8% to US GDP, a statistic that enables the US to have a more diverse discussion than Russia about the role that oil and gas may play in any future energy mix. That is unless you happen to be from the state of Alaska where US Arctic oil and gas is synonymous with Alaskan oil and gas, and where the US Geological Survey estimates 27% of global unex­plored oil reserves may lie. Though Alaska is responsible for only 4% of US oil and gas production, those revenues covered two-thirds of Alaska’s state budget in 2020 despite the state’s decline in crude production in 28 of the past 32 years since it peaked at 2 million B/D in 1988, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA).

scholarly journals New data on oil and gas potential of the Vychegda Trough

Georesursy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-38
Author(s):  
Tatyana V. Karaseva ◽  
Yury A. Yakovlev ◽  
Galina L. Belyaeva ◽  
Svetlana E. Bashkova
Keyword(s):  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Geological Structure ◽  
Petroleum System ◽  
Source Rocks ◽  
Upper Permian ◽  
Hydrocarbon Potential ◽  
Petroleum Potential ◽  
Petroleum Systems ◽  
Upper Riphean ◽  
European Part Of Russia

This article is devoted to the problem of studying the petroleum potential of the underexplored territories of the European part of Russia, in particular, the Vychegda trough. Taken a new approach to assessing the hydrocarbon potential of the Vychegda trough, based on the allocation of petroleum systems, widely used abroad. Based on a comprehensive analysis of the geological structure of the deflection and geological-geochemical results, including those obtained by the authors, two potential petroleum systems – “domanic” and “riphean” – were identified. The potential domanic petroleum system dominates in the Eastern regions and is a peripheral fragment of the regional petroleum system covering the territory of the Volga-Ural and Timan-Pechora basins. The system is linked to development in the South-Eastern part of the trough and the neighbouring Solikamsk depression of bituminous domanic and domanicoid sediments as a source rock, which is confirmed by the genetic correlation of crude oils of Devonian-Carboniferous deposits of the Northern districts of Solikamsk depression with domanic biomarker. The stratigraphic range of the domanic system is upper Devonian-upper Permian; the formation time is late Devonian-Mesozoic. The potential Riphean hydrocarbon system can be identified by the fact of oil-bitumen occurrences in the Proterozoic strata and the presence of the productive source rocks in the upper Riphean. The source rocks were at oil window. The Riphean system can cover the entire territory of the Vychegda trough, and the section from the Riphean to upper Permian sediments. The time of the system formation – Riphean-Mesozoic. Due to large thickness of the Riphean sediments, even with a large loss of hydrocarbon potential, the residual potential hydrocarbon resources of the Riphean petroleum system can be very significant. Based on the research conducted, prioritized exploration studies are substantiated.

scholarly journals Prospects for the oil and gas content of the Upper Permian deposits of the southwestern part of the Vilyui syneclise based on the analysis of sedimentary environments and geochemical conditions of oil and gas content

2021 ◽  
Vol 251 ◽  
pp. 698-711
Author(s):  
Grigorii Cherdantsev ◽  
Aleksander Zharkov
Keyword(s):  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Gas Content ◽  
Upper Permian ◽  
Geochemical Conditions ◽  
Sedimentary Environments ◽  
Hydrocarbon Traps ◽  
Marginal Part ◽  
Sediment Formation ◽  
Promising Area ◽  
River Valleys

The article discusses the prospects for the oil and gas content of the Upper Permian deposits in the southwestern marginal part of the Vilyui syneclise. In this margin, the Permian terrigenous complex with proven oil and gas productivity in the central part of the syneclise, pinches out. The study area, represented by the monoclinal slopes of the Vilyui syneclise, is considered a promising area for the exploration of non-structural hydrocarbon traps in the Upper Paleozoic sediments. The objectives of the study include identifying general patterns of sediment formation, associated mainly with the development of the alluvial complex, and substantiating the potential opportunities of migration and accumulation of hydrocarbons in the predicted traps. The research is based on the interpretation of the latest seismic surveys and prior-years geological and geophysical data. Authors carried out structural and paleo-structural analysis, identified lithofacies in the well log, generalized and analyzed the geochemical conditions of the oil and gas content of the Upper Permian deposits, traced the pinching out of the Upper Permian deposits on the southwestern margin of the syneclise, and also outlined areas of river valleys development that form zones of advanced reservoirs. The results of the studies have validated promising oil and gas accumulation zones on the southwestern slopes of the syneclise associated with non-anticlinal hydrocarbon traps. Authors also drew up a diagram of the oil and gas potential of the Upper Permian deposits. The obtained results are of interest for prospecting for oil and gas in the area under study.

HYDROCARBON SIGNIFICANCE OF UPPER PALAEOZOIC SEDIMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE KOBURRA TROUGH, GALILEE BASIN

1974 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 59
Author(s):  
R. J. Allen
Keyword(s):  
Bituminous Coal ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Geological Survey ◽  
Upper Permian ◽  
Synthetic Fuels ◽  
Tectonic Feature ◽  
Hydrocarbon Traps ◽  
Deep Wells ◽  
Show Evidence ◽  
Coal Measures

The Koburra Trough is a major tectonic feature in the northeastern Galilee Basin of Queensland. The oldest rocks identified in exploratory drilling were Devonian sandstone, shale and siltstone, possibly representing a northern extension of the Adavale Basin. These rocks contain a fossil microflora and may be prospective for hydrocarbons. Overlying them are a maximum of 1979 m of Upper Palaeozoic sediments, and a maximum of 1180 m of Triassic sediments, together comprising the Galilee Basin succession. The lithofacies of the Late Palaeozoic is dominantly sandstone-shale; the lower beds show evidence of glacial derivation, and the upper beds contain coal measures. Shows of oil and gas have been recorded from the basal part of the sequence in the two deep wells (ENL Lake Galilee −1 and FPN Koburra −1) drilled in the trough. Structural and stratigraphic factors favour the existence of hydrocarbon traps on the south-western flank. "Large" inferred reserves of Upper Permian sub-bituminous coal have been discovered in Geological Survey exploration near outcrop at the southeastern end. Preference in the use of this coal is to be given to manufacture in Queensland of synthetic fuels and petrochemicals. The geological survey petroleum statigraphic drilling campaign is providing invaluable new data on the Galilee Basin.

Groundwater in the Mesozoic hydrogeological basin of the Middle Ob (a case study of the Ust-Balykskoye oil field)

2020 ◽  
pp. 20-30
Author(s):  
I. G. Sabanina ◽  
T. V. Semenova
Keyword(s):  
Sodium Bicarbonate ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Practical Importance ◽  
Upper Jurassic ◽  
Oil Field ◽  
Reservoir Water ◽  
Petroleum Potential ◽  
Search Criterion

Despite the fact that there is the large amount of accumulated factual material, formation of hydrogeochemical conditions of deep oil and gas horizons in the Middle Ob and the West Siberian megabasin still contains many questions. This is due to numerous hydrogeodynamic and hydrogeochemical anomalies that don't have an unambiguous explanation. The presence of inversion hydrogeochemical zoning in the Lower Cretaceous and Upper Jurassic deposits and the presence of low-mineralized reservoir water of a sodium-bicarbonate composition are the peculiarity of groundwater in the considered territory. A change in the genetic type of water, a decrease in mineralization, a decrease in the content of calcium ion, and an increase in the amount of bicarbonate ion in the Mesozoic hydrogeological basin are associated with the transformation of mineral and organic matter in sedimentary rocks, when they are immersed, at the water expelling stage. The determination of the origin of low-mineralized reservoir water of a sodium-bicarbonate lying at significant depths is of great practical importance, since the relationship between the inversion of groundwater and oil content has been revealed, so this fact can be considered a search criterion for petroleum potential.

Kosyu-Rogov Composite Tectono-Sedimentary Element

2021 ◽  
pp. M57-2018-35
Author(s):  
Konstantin Sobornov
Keyword(s):  
Oil And Gas ◽  
System Development ◽  
Oil Field ◽  
Source Rocks ◽  
Structural Development ◽  
Petroleum Potential ◽  
Petroleum Systems ◽  
European Part Of Russia ◽  
Bituminous Shale ◽  
World Class

AbstractThe Kosyu-Rogov Tectono-Sedimentary Element is one of the last exploration frontiers left in the European part of Russia. Up to 15 km-thick sedimentary section comprises several working petroleum systems. Multiphase structural development created various trapping configurations and numerous reservoir-seal pairs. There are several mature source rocks including the world-class Domanik bituminous shale in the area. The past exploration efforts fell short of delivering expected volumes of oil and gas reserves. This was mainly due to underestimation of technical difficulties related to exploration in the complex tectonic settings and inadequate understanding of the petroleum system development. They were in unfavourable conditions for the reservoir presence and hydrocarbon retention. Revision of the tectonostratigraphic framework of the Kosyu-Rogov CTSE shows new high-impact exploration opportunities. The large petroleum potential of the area is confirmed by the discovery of the Nertseta oil field, the biggest oil find in Russia in 2016.

Sequence stratigraphy of source and reservoir rocks in the Upper Permian and Jurassic of Jameson Land, East Greenland

1998 ◽  
pp. 43-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars Stemmerik ◽  
Gregers Dam ◽  
Nanna Noe-Nygaard ◽  
Stefan Piasecki ◽  
Finn Surlyk
Keyword(s):  
Sequence Stratigraphy ◽  
Middle Jurassic ◽  
Sedimentary Basins ◽  
Upper Jurassic ◽  
Oil Field ◽  
Source Rocks ◽  
Upper Permian ◽  
Shallow Marine ◽  
East Greenland ◽  
Reservoir Rocks

NOTE: This article was published in a former series of GEUS Bulletin. Please use the original series name when citing this article, for example: Stemmerik, L., Dam, G., Noe-Nygaard, N., Piasecki, S., & Surlyk, F. (1998). Sequence stratigraphy of source and reservoir rocks in the Upper Permian and Jurassic of Jameson Land, East Greenland. Geology of Greenland Survey Bulletin, 180, 43-54. https://doi.org/10.34194/ggub.v180.5085 _______________ Approximately half of the hydrocarbons discovered in the North Atlantic petroleum provinces are found in sandstones of latest Triassic – Jurassic age with the Middle Jurassic Brent Group, and its correlatives, being the economically most important reservoir unit accounting for approximately 25% of the reserves. Hydrocarbons in these reservoirs are generated mainly from the Upper Jurassic Kimmeridge Clay and its correlatives with additional contributions from Middle Jurassic coal, Lower Jurassic marine shales and Devonian lacustrine shales. Equivalents to these deeply buried rocks crop out in the well-exposed sedimentary basins of East Greenland where more detailed studies are possible and these basins are frequently used for analogue studies (Fig. 1). Investigations in East Greenland have documented four major organic-rich shale units which are potential source rocks for hydrocarbons. They include marine shales of the Upper Permian Ravnefjeld Formation (Fig. 2), the Middle Jurassic Sortehat Formation and the Upper Jurassic Hareelv Formation (Fig. 4) and lacustrine shales of the uppermost Triassic – lowermost Jurassic Kap Stewart Group (Fig. 3; Surlyk et al. 1986b; Dam & Christiansen 1990; Christiansen et al. 1992, 1993; Dam et al. 1995; Krabbe 1996). Potential reservoir units include Upper Permian shallow marine platform and build-up carbonates of the Wegener Halvø Formation, lacustrine sandstones of the Rhaetian–Sinemurian Kap Stewart Group and marine sandstones of the Pliensbachian–Aalenian Neill Klinter Group, the Upper Bajocian – Callovian Pelion Formation and Upper Oxfordian – Kimmeridgian Hareelv Formation (Figs 2–4; Christiansen et al. 1992). The Jurassic sandstones of Jameson Land are well known as excellent analogues for hydrocarbon reservoirs in the northern North Sea and offshore mid-Norway. The best documented examples are the turbidite sands of the Hareelv Formation as an analogue for the Magnus oil field and the many Paleogene oil and gas fields, the shallow marine Pelion Formation as an analogue for the Brent Group in the Viking Graben and correlative Garn Group of the Norwegian Shelf, the Neill Klinter Group as an analogue for the Tilje, Ror, Ile and Not Formations and the Kap Stewart Group for the Åre Formation (Surlyk 1987, 1991; Dam & Surlyk 1995; Dam et al. 1995; Surlyk & Noe-Nygaard 1995; Engkilde & Surlyk in press). The presence of pre-Late Jurassic source rocks in Jameson Land suggests the presence of correlative source rocks offshore mid-Norway where the Upper Jurassic source rocks are not sufficiently deeply buried to generate hydrocarbons. The Upper Permian Ravnefjeld Formation in particular provides a useful source rock analogue both there and in more distant areas such as the Barents Sea. The present paper is a summary of a research project supported by the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy (Piasecki et al. 1994). The aim of the project is to improve our understanding of the distribution of source and reservoir rocks by the application of sequence stratigraphy to the basin analysis. We have focused on the Upper Permian and uppermost Triassic– Jurassic successions where the presence of source and reservoir rocks are well documented from previous studies. Field work during the summer of 1993 included biostratigraphic, sedimentological and sequence stratigraphic studies of selected time slices and was supplemented by drilling of 11 shallow cores (Piasecki et al. 1994). The results so far arising from this work are collected in Piasecki et al. (1997), and the present summary highlights the petroleum-related implications.

scholarly journals Prospects of Using Hydrocarbon Deposits from the Autochthonous Miocene Formation (Eastern Carpathian Foredeep, Poland) for Geothermal Purposes

Energies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. 3102
Author(s):  
Anna Chmielowska ◽  
Anna Sowiżdżał ◽  
Barbara Tomaszewska
Keyword(s):  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Geothermal System ◽  
Vast Number ◽  
Hydrocarbon Traps ◽  
Oil And Gas Fields ◽  
Geothermal Potential ◽  
Carpathian Foredeep ◽  
And Migration ◽  
Gas Fields ◽  
Geothermal Parameters

There are many oil and gas fields around the world where the vast number of wells have been abandoned or suspended, mainly due to the depletion of reserves. Those abandoned oil and gas wells (AOGWs) are often located in areas with a prospective geothermal potential and might be retrofitted to a geothermal system without high-cost drilling. In Poland, there are thousands of wells, either operating, abandoned or negative, that might be used for different geothermal applications. Thus, the aim of this paper is not only to review geothermal and petroleum facts about the Eastern Carpathian Foredeep, but also to find out the areas, geological structures or just AOGWs, which are the most prospective in case of geothermal utilization. Due to the inseparability of geological settings with both oil and gas, as well as geothermal conditionings, firstly, the geological background of the analyzed region was performed, considering mainly the autochthonous Miocene formation. Then, geothermal and petroleum detailed characteristics were made. In the case of geothermal parameters, such as formation’s thickness, temperatures, water-bearing horizons, wells’ capacities, mineralization and others were extensively examined. Considering oil and gas settings, insights into reservoir rocks, hydrocarbon traps and migration paths issues were created. Then, for evaluating geothermal parameters for specific hydrocarbon reservoirs, their depths were established based on publicly available wells data. Thereafter, the average temperatures for selected reservoirs were set. As the effect, it turned out that most of the deposits have average temperatures of 40/50 °C, nonetheless, there are a few characterized by higher (even around 80 °C) temperatures at reasonable depths.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document