Characterizing Charge Risk Using Oil and Gas Geochemistry

Key questions in prospect evaluation include:

Has the trap received economic quantities of petroleum?

What types of hydrocarbons are likely to be present (oil and/or gas and in what relative proportion)?
What are the oil or gas properties (e.g., viscosity, API gravity, sulfur content, waxiness)?
Is reservoir compartmentalization an issue?
For a prospect to be charged with economic quantities of petroleum, a variety of physical and timing elements must occur in the
basin. These elements collectively comprise a petroleum system. They include:

Physical components

Petroleum source rock (to generate the petroleum)

Reservoir (to hold the petroleum)
Seal (to preserve the accumulation)
Overburden (to mature the source rock)
Processes/Timing components

Trap formation
Oil generation
Oil expulsion
Oil migration
Oil accumulation
Relative timing of these events
Oil geochemistry (oil fingerprinting) can be used in conjunction with basin modeling to quantify risk associated with many of the
components in the petroleum system. Although a comprehensive review of all applicable geochemical approaches to risk
assessment cannot be provided in this article, we outline the OilTracers approach here and discuss some of the applications in
detail.
Some of the most powerful oil fingerprinting tools we use are based on biomarkers, which are molecular fossils present in oils
and rock extracts. The biomarker distribution in an oil can be used to infer characteristics of the source rock that generated the
oil without examining the source rock itself. Specifically, biomarkers can reveal (1) the relative amount of oil-prone vs. gas-prone
organic matter in the source kerogen, (2) the age of the source rock, (3) the environment of deposition as marine, lacustrine,
fluvio-deltaic or hypersaline, (4) the lithology of the source rock (carbonate vs. shale vs. coal), and (5) the thermal maturity of
the source rock during generation (e.g., Peters and Moldowan, 1993). The attached Tables list examples of oil biomarker
parameters and the information they provide about the oil source rock.
To characterize charge risk, these biomarker parameters can be used in a variety of innovative ways. For example, specific
biomarker parameters can be calibrated against specific kerogen quality parameters in a given basin. Then, the biomarker ratios
are measured in an oil sample from the basin, and the values are projected onto calibration curves to quantitatively predict
characteristics of the source rock. This approach, pioneered by the founders of OilTracers, allows explorationists to assess
whether an oil was generated primarily from an oil-prone or gas-prone organic facies (Dahl et al., 1994; McCaffrey et al., 1994).
The information gained from oil biomarkers (source type, age, maturity, kerogen quality) when integrated into a basin
model. This information has substantial economic impact because it provides early estimates of oil quantity and GOR for
exploration targets in the area of interest.
Considered collectively, the geochemical and basin modeling evaluation of each element in a petroleum system results in an
assessment of total charge risk for a given prospect. Charge risk refers not only to petroleum quantity, but also to petroleum
quality (e.g., API gravity, viscosity, %S). Petroleum-system evaluation is intended to be an early decision-making tool, and
OilTracers recommends using the charge risk considerations described below for the most effective use of time and money. For

example, use of the approaches described here could lead you not to buy seismic data in an overcooked (post-mature) basin
when you are looking for oil. Similarly, oil geochemistry could lead you not to evaluate reservoirs or map traps in an area that
cannot possibly be charged with hydrocarbons. Below, our approach is described in more detail.

Has the trap received economic quantities of petroleum?

To evaluate the risk associated with trapping economic amounts of oil or gas, OilTracers recommends assigning projects to one
of the following three categories:

Category (1)
If a significant petroleum charge exists in nearby accumulations, and there is a known hydrocarbon source rock in the basin,
then a low to moderate charge risk usually exists. In this case, we suggest completing the following technical objectives (based
on data availability) to insure the prospect is not in a high-risk sector the basin.

Construct a diagram showing field-size distributions of oil, condensate, and gas reserves for each petroleum system in
the basin.

Determine whether the source of the petroleum in the prospect is similar to oil in nearby fields using biomarker
fingerprints of petroleum seeps, oil shows, and/or recovered oils/condensates (e.g., Peters and Moldowan, 1993).
For gases, use composition and isotope data of gas seeps and discovered gases (e.g., Schoell, 1983, 1984).

Identify whether the local sector contains an effective source rock (rock known to have generated and expelled oil)
using basic source-rock screening tools such as %TOC analyses, Rock-Eval pyrolyses, and vitrinite-reflectance
measurements (geochemical logging). Map regional source-rock richness, and complete isopach maps of the
source-rock interval, which may be used to estimate lateral source variations to help calculate a regional Source
Potential Index (SPI; Demaison and Huizinga, 1992).

Construct a hydrocarbon kitchen map showing prospect fetch areas, and determine whether the local source rock
maturity and timing are favorable (basin modeling) for the prospect. Make a timing-risk chart for each prospect or
play.

Assess whether the prospect may have been charged with a significant quantity of petroleum.
Category (2)
If the presence of a significant petroleum charge is supported by prolific, mature source rock, but no economically significant
fields occur in the basin as analogs, then a moderate to high charge risk usually exists. In this case, evaluating risk involves
applying all of the techniques described below based on sample availability.

Determine the hydrocarbon source of any available nearby seeps, shows, or oil from non-commercial fields as
described above.

Identify whether the basin contains a quantitatively significant hydrocarbon source rock using basic source-rock
screening analyses such as %TOC analysis, Rock-Eval pyrolysis, and vitrinite-reflectance measurements. Map
regional source-rock richness, and complete isopach maps of the source-rock interval, which may be used to
estimate lateral source variations to help calculate a regional Source Potential Index (SPI).

Construct hydrocarbon kitchen map showing prospect fetch areas, and determine whether the local source maturity
and timing are favorable (basin modeling) for the prospect. Make a timing-risk chart for each prospect or play.

Assess whether the prospect may have been charged with a significant quantity of petroleum.
Category (3)
If the presence of significant petroleum charge is hypothesized only due to analogs in nearby basins, then a high to moderate
charge risk usually exists. Evaluating risk in these circumstances involves demonstrating that a source-reservoir relationship
exists which is similar to those in a nearby producing basin. Oil geochemistry (oil fingerprinting) and source rock/oil correlations
are essential for such petroleum system determinations.

For each petroleum system within the analog basin, construct a field size map showing oil, condensate, and gas
reserves to show a link in basin history and source-reservoir stratigraphy between the frontier basin and producing
basin.

 Confirm that the source of any hydrocarbon seeps or shows is genetically related to petroleum from fields in nearby
prolific basins usingbiomarkers analyses for oils and gas composition and gas isotope data for gases.

Complete basic source-rock screening analyses using %TOC analyses, Rock-Eval pyrolyses, and vitrinite-reflectance
measurements to evaluate possible source rock of similar age to that within the analog basin. This is particularly
important if the expected depositional model (e.g., restricted basin or upwelling zone) and geophysical data suggest
the source facies may substantially improve in a sector where the source rock has not been penetrated.

Determine whether the local source maturity and timing are favorable (basin modeling).
Construct a hydrocarbon kitchen map of hypothetical source rock with prospect fetch areas delineated and a timing-risk
chart for each prospect or play.

Assess whether a quantitatively significant prospect charge may be expected, given the source rock thickness, analog
source rock richness, and mapped mature source fetch area.

What types of hydrocarbons are likely to be present (oil and/or gas)?

Examine the map showing oil, condensate, and gas distributions for each petroleum system to obtain an empirical view
of what has been discovered to date.

Complete source-rock evaluation and maturity assessment of the petroleum system to show the likelihood of oil vs. gas
at the prospect level. These data should be augmented with basin modeling to assess the likelihood of oil
displacement by late entry gas. These data will help reveal the types and relative amounts of hydrocarbons
entering the trap.

In a gas discovery case, evaluate down-dip oil potential by conducting a dewpoint analyses of the gas, and by
determining gas maturity and origin through compositional and isotopic analyses.

Evaluate what possible other factors could affect the preservation and/or retention of hydrocarbons in the trap (e.g.,
partial gas loss). This includes examining the possibility of evaporative fractionation of the low molecular weight
hydrocarbons using 'Light Hydrocarbon Analysis' (Thompson, 1987) and looking for evidence of 'gas chimneys'
from seismic and/or 'hydrocarbon-related diagenetic zones' (HRDZs).

What are the oil or gas properties (viscosity, API gravity, sulfur, waxiness)?

Directly measure the bulk properties of oils from nearby fields or from the discovery well (e.g., API gravity, %S, pour
point, oil viscosity) and perform gas chromatography analysis to allow characterization of post emplacement
alteration history.

Directly measure basic gas properties of gas from nearby fields or from the discovery well. Gas composition data
include abundance and distribution of hydrocarbon gases, inert gases such as CO2 or N2, unusual supplemental
byproducts such as helium, and deleterious species such as H2S and mercury. In addition, commercial gas
properties such as gas heating value in BTU/ft3, mixed LPG potential, and condensate yield should also be
measured.

Predict oil or gas properties indirectly from knowledge of source type, thermal maturity, and secondary alteration (e.g.,
biodegradation, water washing, and preferential gas loss) when fluid samples are not available for direct analysis.

Is reservoir compartmentalization an issue?

Imagine possible reservoir compartmentalization issues that might be encountered given the reservoir distribution and
trap style. Poor reservoir connectivity may economically break an exploration play, particularly in deep, offshore
reservoirs or in structurally or stratigraphically complex reservoirs. Reservoir compartmentalization issues should
be considered in initial screening economics, and again be addressed in the pre-drill exploration phase based on
data available from nearby fields in the same type of play.

 Evaluate vertical reservoir continuity between reservoir zones if the initial well is a discovery. Integrate gas (composition
and isotope) and oil (chromatography) data with geological and engineering information (e.g., wireline log
information, RFT pressure data) to corroborate vertical compartmentalization.

Evaluate lateral reservoir continuity in successful delineation wells using gas chromatography of oils or condensates
and isotope analysis of gases. Integrate with other geological and engineering information (e.g., 3-D seismic
interpretation, pressure data) to corroborate lateral compartmentalization.

Evaluate vertical/lateral reservoir compartmentalization in inadequately constrained development projects. Simple

models of reservoir connectivity are often not correct and lead to errors in reserve-size calculations and increased
development and production costs. Many development projects carry as much risk (albeit different kinds) as
exploration projects, yet the dollar stakes for development projects are much higher.
For more information on the techniques described here, or to discuss a specific project, e-mail us at info@oiltracers.com, or call
us at U.S. (214) 584-9169.

References
Dahl J. E., Moldowan J. M., Teerman S. C., McCaffrey M. A., Sundararaman P., Pena M. and Stelting C. E. (1994). Source rock
quality determination from oil biomarkers I. - An example from the Aspen Shale, Scully's Gap, Wyoming. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 78 (10), 1507-1526.
Demaison, G., and B. J. Huizinga (1991) Genetic classification of petroleum systems: American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, v. 75, p. 1626-1643.
McCaffrey M. A., Dahl J., Sundararaman P., Moldowan J. M. and Schoell M. (1994). Source rock quality determination from oil
biomarkers II. - A case study using Tertiary-reservoired Beaufort Sea oils. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin
78 (10), 1527-1540.
Peters, K. E., and J. M. Moldowan (1993) The Biomarker Guide, Interpreting molecular fossils in petroleum and ancient
sediments, Prentice Hall, 363 p.
Schoell, M. (1983) Genetic characterization of natural gases: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 67, p.
2225-2238.
Schoell, M. (1984) Stable isotopes in petroleum research, in J. Brooks, and D. H. Welte, eds., Advances in Petroleum
Geochemistry, v. 1: London, Academic Press, p. 215-245.
Thompson, K. F. M. (1987) Fractionated aromatic petroleums and the generation of gas-condensates: Organic Geochemistry, v.
11, p. 573-590.
Thompson, K. F. M. (1988) Gas-condensate migration and oil fractionation in deltaic systems: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v.
5, p. 237-246.