165 Sealing processes and top seal assessment G.M. Ingram, JL, Ural and M.A. Naylor Hiydrocarbon entrapment takes place when the rocks defining the hounding susfaces of «valid tapping geometry possess bydrocasbon sealing properties. Consideration of subsucface hydrocarbon sels should therefore have a high priority in an explocaion programme, Inthe following contribution we suggest a simple approach 1 top seal assessment, present e review of the physics of capillary sealing and flow barriers, discuss Satie (capillary) versus dynamic sealing and present a technique for assessing the effect of sub-seismic fault populations upon layered silt ‘onelshale top seal sequences. Introduction Top seals prevent the vertical migration of hydro- carbons out of traps and commonly comprise fine grained rocks, which have much reduced pore throat radii compared with reservoir rocks. They may act as, static seals and also as permeable flow barriers, such as seals which permit slow leakage to take place by Darcy flow, or diffusion seals which allow light hydrocarbons to pass in solution through the pore fluid. A water-wet seal will act as a capillary seal to hydrocarbons, unless the buoyancy pressure exceeds the capillary entry pressure, at which point leakage will occur by permeable, two-phase flow. However, the pore throats in claystone, or shale top seals are commonly so small that significant leakage may only ‘occur after hydrofracturing of the formation, or by forming linked, permeable, dilatant fracture networks through the seal, during deformation. Layered top seals, ie, shale seals with significant intercalations of leaky layers, may leak if sufficient small faults are present to form a tortuous, fault-linked leak path, due to across-fault juxtaposition. Assessment of hydrocarbon top seals, using a rigor- ‘ous strategy, is essential for a sound prospect appraisal A simplified strategy for top seal assessment (Fig. 1) is, introduced below, which draws on assessments of sev- eral sealing and leakage processes, considered to repre- sent key controls on retention (Fig. 2). Aspects of top- ‘and fault-sealing are interrelated in petrophysical terms, ‘Most traps are formed from a combination of dip- and fault-closures, therefore both seal types depend on one ‘another to maintain overall trap integrity. For this rea~ son, a collective approach is recommended, linking elements of both top- and fault-seals. Static top seals: capillary sealing Capillary seals rely on the balance between op- posing forces of gravity (buoyancy) and capillarity order to seal, For a water-filled reservoir rock, un- ¢erlain by a source rock and overlain by a top seal rock, hydrocarbons initially expelled from the source rock will accumulate to form small droplets at the base of the reservoir. As accumulation of hydrocar- bons progresses further, the droplets coalesce and buoyancy pressure increases until the reservoir capil- lary entry pressure has been exceeded, at which time the hydrocarbons will begin to move into the reser voir and migrate vertically. The migrating hydrocar- bons will eventually encounter the overlying top seal rock and spread out along the sealing boundary. A capillary seal acts as a perfect seal to these hydrocar- bons until the hydrocarbon buoyancy pressure, ex- erted by the increasing column, exceeds the top seal capillary entry pressure, at which point leakage will take place by permeable two-phase flow. ‘The height of static hydrocarbon columns sealed by capillary seals can be theoretically calculated us- ing the following standard equations (Berg, 1975; Schowalter, 1979; Watts, 1987): p, = 272088 a) r where (using SI units) P, is capillary entry pressure (= maximum sustainable pressure difference across the fluid—fluid interface; Pa); y is the surface tension (Nim); 6 is the wetting angle (degrees) and r is the pore throat radius (m). ‘This relationship can be used to calculate the hydrocarbon column (h) held by a capillary seal: Hydrocarbon Seats: Inportance far Exploration and Production edited by P. Meller Pedersen and A,G, Koestler. NDF Special Publication 7, pp. 165-174, Elsevier, Singapore, © Norwegian Petroleum Society (NPF) 1997166 GM. Ingram, J. Urai and MA, Naylor Fig. 1. Simplified evaluation stategy for top seal assessment. The flow chart begins by determining if Fults throws are greater than the ‘op seal thickness. IF so, then a fault seal analysis isan additional requirement, Top seals are simplified into three main types: (1) mas: sive shale 2) layered shale/sandsil, and (3) massive tata of other ‘coarser grined lithologies. Key top seal risks and the data required to ‘carry out their assessments are shown in the flow chart. The rectan- ‘les represent leakage scenarios and the ellipses indicate data which will contribute 10 analysis of the scenarios (abbreviations: Fluid P, formation fluid pressure: 8 hor, minimum horizontal stress: Ent P, copllary entry pressure: HC prop's, hydrocarbon physical properties, including weting characteristics). 2yoos8 __P rede hp where Ap is the brine-hydrocarbon density difference and P, is the seal entry pressure. Laboratory measurements of capillary entry pres- sures are commonly performed on Hg-air systems. To calculate maximum hydrocarbon column heights, mercury-air capillary pressure data must first be con- verted to hydrocarbon—water pressures, using the following equation (Watts, 1987): @ GB) Poe = where Pay is the mercury entry pressure and Pay. is the hydrocarbon-water entry pressure. Significant columns can be retained by Pzijg> 1 MPa, Our catabase indicates mercury-air capillary entry pressures for siltstones between 20 and 30 MPa (equivalent to a 400-700 m column of 30° API oil sealed at 2.5 km depth), and 45-55 MPa for mud- stones (900-1200 m oil columns). For shales, these values can be very much greater (2000 m oil cok umn). However, for very large columns, the strength of the formation becomes an important factor in order to resist seal hydrofracturing, Capillary sealing versus seal thickness Capillary seating effects take place at the interface between the non-wetting phase in a reservoir and the wetting phase within a top seal, The capillary forces exerted at this interface are in no way related to the thickness of the seal above, Therefore the existence of a relationship between top seal thickness and seal- ‘ng capacity is not expected in the field. Thicker seals, may be better equipped to resist breaching by faults, but will not retain greater columns by capillary resis- tance. Wetting Capillary sealing effects are controlled by wetting phenomena which, for hydrocarbons in general, are poorly constrained. In real sub-surface situations, the assumption of a water-wet seal is reasonable for an initially hydrocarbon-free seal. This may be less likely in dynamic situations where capillary seals may leak periodically in the presence of active charge. The wetting properties of seals may change through time: an initially water-wet seal may evolve into a hydro- carbon-wet seal, due to the adsorption of a variety of compounds from crude oil, such as asphaltenes (Anderson, 1986). This may ultimately result in a top seal which has no capillary seal capacity and leaks via two-phase flow. Dynamic leakage: control due to top seal wetting characteristics Background Permeability and capillary displacement pressure (defined as the pressure at which significant wetting phase saturation of the seal occurs, commonly 5% of the pore volume) are related by an inverse function (Fig. 3) (Ibrahim et al., 1970): Jog P, = -0.33(log k) 0.2611 «@ where Pa is displacement pressure (MPa) and k is per- meability (mD). This function was used in numerical simulations of the variation in hydrocarbon column height in a trap through time, The simulations aimed to model the results of leakage in traps of varying shape and seal leakiness, in the presence of active charge equivalent to a typical Central North sea drainage area of 50 km, over a 60 million year period.Sealing processes and top seal assessment 167 pillary seal e® Hydrotractured seal Permeable seal/fiow barrier BRITTLE DUCTILE Low attective pressure High effective pressure > iat Seal may fk \ Fauttdp ne BR] Loany bec win sea Leaky bed ost by faut JF Leak pain Nonvatan Seal romaine ight Fig. 2 Key seal and leak mechanisms pertaining 0 top sal integrity. Capillary seal: the sealing takes place atthe hydocarbon-water interface and 8 sharp pressure discontinuity is preserved across the seal (not illutated pressure profile). Permeable seal, hydrocarbons have invaded the sea and a gradient of pressure is maintained throughout. Hydrofracture, the hydrocarbon pressure may become high enough 10 exceed the facture srength of the seal and leakage will ake place through Feactures. Boron sul-linked leak path, Small faults may link wp leaky strata ina top seal. thus forming a tortuous, bu effective, leak pathway over geological time Three seal wetting scenarios are envisaged for the simulations: the seal is initially hydrocarbon-wet and remains hydrocarbon-wet; a capillary seal becomes hydrocarbon-wet after capillary breakthrough and subsequent leakage; and a capillary seal remains ‘water-wet throughout the charge/leakage cycle. These scenarios were modelled and the results are discussed in the following sections. Darcy flow simulation To illustrate these top seal leakage dynamics, model calculations of simple Darcy flow were per- formed. Noting that the flux out of a trap is a function of the hydrocarbon column length, and taking a rea- sonable column length to volume relationship (V= Ci? where C is a constant and h is the height of the closure, Fig. 4a), the dynamic behaviour of the system was modelled by numerically solving the re- sulting differential equation by an explicit time step- ping procedure: V, = Vis AQ", O84) © where V is the volume in the trap, Ar is the time step and Q is the flow rate. Results are shown in Fig. 4, for a simple influx