OTC 17360

Beating Caspian Geohazards, Block 1 Development, Turkmenistan

M. Galavazi and J. Wegerif, Fugro Engineers BV; Z. Razak, Petronas Carigali SDN BHD; and I. Hamilton, Fugro Survey Ltd

Copyright 2005, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, TX, U.S.A., 25 May 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
OTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of the Offshore
Technology Conference. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, OTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
The geohazard assessment for Block 1 identified multiple
geohazards in the field development area. The most significant
of these hazards are active faulting, mud volcanoes, shallow
gas and earthquakes. Less dramatic but equally important
features identified were seabed ridges and channels at or just
below seabed.
In many cases, such hazards would seriously jeopardise a
successful and safe development of a hydrocarbon field.
However, for the Block 1 development, these hazards were
identified in a timely manner such that their accompanying
risks could be incorporated in the field layout design without
major cost implications. Initial field layout was such that mud
volcanoes and shallow gas occurrences were avoided, and well
planning incorporated the location of the active faults.
In the Block 1 field development, an early understanding
of the geological setting combined with good interaction
between the structural engineers, drilling engineers and
geohazard specialists resulted in a cost-effective field design
minimising the uncertainty and financial as well as
environmental risks.
This paper illustrates that geohazards need not always have
a major impact on hydrocarbon field development. It shows
that, with the right approach and timely recognition,
successful hydrocarbon development is possible in one of the
world's most geohazard prone and complex areas.
Introduction
The Block 1 area, in which Petronas Carigali intends to
develop the Livanov, Barinov and Gubkin field, is located on
the eastern part of the Apsheron Ridge, approximately 65 km
to 95 km offshore Turkmenistan (Figure 1). The area covers
about 2000 km2 and the water depth ranges from 40 m in the
east to 100 m in the west of the area.

Figure 1. Location of Block 1 on the Turkmenistan Shelf, Caspian

Sea.

Virtually no detailed information has been published on

the geology of the Turkmenistan shelf. However, previous
experience along the Apsheron Ridge suggested that
geohazards might well pose serious problems for field
development in the Block 1 area. This is indicated by, for
instance, the presence of many collapsed platforms and wells,
which form relicts of the attempted development of the fields
during Soviet times.
To deal with the geological challenges, an extensive site
characterisation study based on 3D exploration seismic data
and regional 2DHR seismic data was performed during an
early phase of field development. The resulting 3D site model
to a depth of 1000 m sub-seabed was subsequently used to
prepare a conceptual field development plan and to perform a
realistic conceptual engineering study.
Geological Setting
The Block 1 area in the Caspian Sea lies on the Apsheron
Ridge, which forms the boundary between the South and
Central Caspian Basins.
The South Caspian Basin is thought to be a remnant of
oceanic crust from the late Mesozoic or early Tertiary Tethys
Sea, and is being subducted beneath the Eurasian plate in the

Methodology
In a geologically complex area such as Block 1 in the Caspian
Sea, it is impossible to understand local features without an indepth understanding of the regional geology. It is therefore
important to create a regional overview before zooming in on
local details. This phased approach has been adopted for the
geohazard assessment of Block 1, as shown in Figure 2.
When run in parallel to the phases of field development
(Figure 2), this phased approach reduces uncertainties and
the associated investment risks by allowing identification of
major constraints for field development at an early stage, and
results in a cost-effective and realistic field development plan.
The successive phases in the geohazards assessment are
further explained below.
Phase 1: Regional Site Characterisation. The first phase in
site characterisation involves a regional screening with regard
to geohazards, geology and geotechnics by using all available
data to produce a single coherent model of the site.
An initial literature desk study provides a first-pass
overview of the area. Based on this desk study, the actual
requirements for a site characterisation can be defined. Such
requirements could include the need for seismic hazard
modelling, slope stability analysis or other specialist input.
Interpretation of 3D exploration seismic data and regional 2D
high-resolution data further defines the hazards affecting the
development and the issues that need to be addressed for
successful field development.

Preliminary site characterisation is typically performed in

the exploration and appraisal phases of field development and
results in a regional site model, which incorporates the type,
general distribution, frequency of occurrence and severity of
the identified hazards. Based on this model, the most
favourable sites for facilities may be selected.
SITE CHARACTERISATION

EXPLORATION WELL
DRILLING

LITERATURE DESK STUDY

PHASE 1

FIELD DEVELOPEMENT

HYDROCARBON FIND

REGIONAL SITE
CHARACTARISATION

APPRAISAL

CONCEPTUAL FIELD
LAYOUT
(well locations, pipeline routes
etc.)

RECONNAISSANCE
SURVEY

FINAL FIELD LAYOUT

optional

PHASE 3

HR/UHR SITE SURVEY

(well site)
(pipeline)

FEED-BACK INTO SITE MODEL

REGIONAL SITE MODEL

optional

PHASE 2

CONCEPTUAL RESERVOIR
DEVELOPMENT PLAN

DETAILED SITE
MODELLING *

GEOTECHNICAL SITE
INVESTIGATION

PHASE 4

north and the Arabian plate in the south. The Apsheron Ridge,
stretching between the Caucasus and the Kopet Dag
Mountains, is the surface expression of the subduction zone
between the South Caspian Basin and the Eurasian continental
plate (Jackson et al., 2002; Brunet et al., 2003). This
subduction zone is one of the main controls of the seismic
hazards in the Caspian Sea and particularly in the Block 1
area.
The relative motion of the Eurasian and Arabian
continental plates results in crustal compression of the region.
The mountain ranges surrounding the southern and central
Caspian Sea are fold and thrust belts formed as a result of the
crustal shortening from plate collision (Yilmaz, 1997; Jackson
et al., 2002). Thrust faulting in the Mesozoic strata caused by
subduction of the South Caspian Basin, resulted in the
formation of an anticlinal ridge, the Apsheron Ridge, in the
overlying Tertiary and Quaternary strata. Extensive, deep and
shallow seated faulting occurs along the crest of the ridge and
many of these faults are active and have offsets at seabed.
Although the South Caspian Basin is thought to have
originated in Mesozoic times, the bulk of the sedimentary
infill is of Oligocene age and younger. Approximately 10 km
of Plio-Pleistocene sediments have accumulated in the basin,
representing an average sedimentation rate of 2 km/My
(Brunet et al., 2003). This rapid, clay dominated sedimentation
combined with hydrocarbon generation and tectonic forces has
led to the formation of highly overpressured,
underconsolidated clays at Maikopian (Oligocene to Early
Miocene) level (Brunet et al., 2003). Mud volcanism occurs
where these overpressured mud and fluids escape to the
seabed.

OTC 17360

FOUNDATION DESIGN

* detailed site modelling may include:

-

probabilistic fault modelling

seismic hazard analysis
slope stability analysis
turbidity flow/debris flow modelling

Figure 2: Flow chart showing phases of site characterisation.

Phase 2: Field layout. The prime objective of Phase 2 is to

merge the preliminary site model with the conceptual reservoir
development plan to incorporate the identified geological
constraints on field development into the conceptual field
layout.
Combining the site model with the conceptual reservoir
development plan at an early stage is essential. During this
phase of field development, there is sufficient flexibility in
defining and refining the field layout. Changes to the layout
plan that are required to avoid or mitigate hazards can be
incorporated with minimal cost implications. Additionally, at
this stage tailor-made reconnaissance surveys may be
performed to further define the risk of specific hazards, when
the field layout can still be altered.
For Phase 2 to be successful, a close interaction between
the geohazard team, drilling engineers and the exploration and
production team is of the utmost importance. An iterative

OTC 17360

process to determine the ideal field layout has proven to be

most time and cost efficient.
The ultimate output of Phase 2 is a realistic conceptual
field layout, which incorporates all site-specific hazards.
Phase 3: Site-specific Data Acquisition. Once a conceptual
field layout is in place, site-specific high-resolution or ultra
high-resolution well site surveys and pipeline route surveys
can be performed. Besides providing detailed information for
siting of facilities, the interpretation of such high-resolution
seismic data is used to refine the preliminary site model. Feedback of the high-resolution data increases the reliability and
the level of detail of the site model. Due to limitations in the
vertical resolution of 2D/3D exploration seismic data,
interpretation of this data is limited to relatively large-scale
features, which can be refined with the much higher resolution
of the site-specific survey data. The increased level of detail
may aid in the understanding of complex processes occurring
across the site, such as detailed fault offset interpretation for
probabilistic fault modelling or stratigraphic mapping for
slope stability analysis.

Mapping of geohazards involved the interpretation of

- 3D exploration seismic data to 1.5 ms across the entire
Block 1 area
- regional 2D exploration seismic data across the western
half of Block 1
- high resolution 2D seismic data covering three 2kmx2km
areas
- interpretative charts of regional analogue survey side scan
sonar and sub-bottom profiler data
- four detailed geotechnical site investigations varying from
40 m to 80 m below seabed.
Based on the seabed pick on the 3D exploration seismic data,
a pseudo-bathymetry map (Figure 3a and 3b) was produced
which provided an overview of water depth variations and
seabed features. Although a 3D bathymetry has some
limitations related to the limited vertical resolution of the 3D
data, seabed features such as fault scarps, mud volcanoes,
pockmarks and carbonate mounds are readily identifiable. The
3D seismic seabed interpretation was the key to a first
understanding of the Block 1 area.

Phase 4: Foundation Design. The high-resolution well site or

pipeline route data allows for final siting of facilities. Based
on the final field layout, a geotechnical site investigation can
be planned to acquire data for foundation design.
A phased approach to site characterisation enables a cost
and time effective development of the site and ensures that
geophysical and geotechnical site surveys only need to be
performed once to obtain the required results.
Results
The first phase in the site characterisation study of Block I
consisted of a literature study to identify the major geological
constraints for development. In-house experience in the South
Caspian Basin and an extensive literature search indicated that
the Turkmenistan shelf is located in a seismically active zone
and shows complex geological features. Based on the desk
study, the key parts in the site characterisation study consisted
of a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and mapping of
geohazards to approximately 1000 m sub-seabed.
The probabilistic seismic hazard analysis was based on
historical seismic data collected from literature in an area
approximately 500 km2 around Block 1. The historic
seismicity data was grouped into deep events of the Apsheron
Ridge region and shallow events of the surrounding region.
Using the Gutenberg-Richter formulation (Gutenberg and
Richter, 1965) earthquake recurrence for each of the seismic
sources could be defined. These results were used to compute
a seismogenic model of the Block 1 area, based on which a
probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) was performed
to calculate expected peak ground accelerations.
The PSHA results indicate that peak ground accelerations
of up to 0.20 g should be considered for preliminary design.
As no detailed fault offset analysis was yet available at the
time of study, this value may represent a conservative
estimate. Further detailed analysis and mapping may provide a
more precise estimate of ground accelerations.

Figure 3a. Shaded relief map of pseudo-bathymetry western

Block 1

Figure 3b. Shaded relief map of pseudo-bathymetry Eastern

Block 1

OTC 17360

Figure 4. Regional shallow geohazard map (to 200 m sub-seabed).

With the use of the pseudo-bathymetry and sub-seabed

interpretation of the complete data set, the zone to
approximately 200 m below seabed was interpreted with
regard to geohazards that could affect facilities (Figure 4).
Drilling hazard screening was performed to a depth of
approximately 1000m below seabed (Figure 5).

Figure 5.Data example of seismic anomalies to 1000 m subseabed.

The main hazards encountered in the Block 1 area include

active faults, shallow gas, expulsion features, carbonate buildups and mass transport features.

OTC 17360

A transtensional strike slip duplex was identified in the

Block 1 area (Figure 3a), consisting of a zone of closely
spaced faults associated with thin-skinned tectonics along the
crest of the Apsheron Ridge. The pseudo-bathymetry map
shows that many of these faults have offsets in excess of 5m,
locally up to 12 m, at seabed. Sea level curves for the Caspian
Sea (Kosarev et al., 1994) indicate that during the Mangyshlak
regression approximately 10,000 years BP, sea level was well
below that of the present, suggesting that the Block 1 area was
sub-aerially exposed during this period. It is thought that subaerial exposure has resulted in the erosion of previously
formed seabed scarps. It is therefore probable that the scarps
observed at present represent fault movement over the past
10,000 years. This indicates that fault movement in the Block
1 area may be considered a significant hazard and has an
important impact on pipeline routing and facility siting.
Shallow gas in the Block 1 area is present both as a broad
zone of disseminated gas and isolated pockets of potentially
pressurised gas. The shallow disseminated gas is probably not
pressurised as no problems were encountered during drilling
of geotechnical boreholes in the past. However, the localised
pockets of potentially pressurised gas do form a drilling
hazard as they could result in uncontrolled gas blow-outs and
unstable hole conditions. Side scan sonar results from the
regional analogue survey indicate a number of wrecked
platforms, which may be attributed to gas blow-outs due to
drilling such pockets of pressurised gas.
Expulsion features are common in the Block 1 area.
Several mud volcanoes have been identified and pockmarks
and gas vents occur throughout the site. Two types of mud
volcano were observed; mud mound type and depression type
mud volcanoes, or salsas (Jakubov et al., 1971). The first type
is associated with the release of hydrocarbon fluids and mud at
seabed (Figure 6a) while at the latter type, only hydrocarbon
fluids are released, but no mud (Figure 6b) (Jakubov et al.,
1971; Hovland et al., 1997; Planke et al., 2003).

Figure 6a. Data example of mud mound type mud volcano.

Figure 6b. Data example of salsa type mud volcano.

The mud volcanoes in the Block 1 area are interpreted to be

actively seeping gas, water and locally mud, as is evidenced
by a recent mud outflow observed at seabed. The flow is
approximately 3 km long and 500 m to 900 m wide. The
flanks of the mud volcanoes are thought to be unstable as side
scan sonar results from the regional survey show evidence of
slumping. The processes associated with fluid and mud
expulsion are active and may adversely affect foundation
stability and drilling operations and are therefore important to
take into consideration for siting of facilities.
Expulsion of gas from isolated vents or seepage of gas
along faults occurs extensively in the Block 1 area. Many
faults appear to act as migration routes for gas, and seepage is
mostly concentrated in the zone of intensive faulting along the
crest of the Apsheron Ridge. In the water column, plumes of
gas and suspended material are visible on 2D seismic data,
indicating active seepage at present. Associated with the active
seepage of gas are carbonate concretions, interpreted as
methane-derived authigenic carbonates. These carbonates are
formed due to bacterial activity in the interface between gas
and sea water (Hovland, 1990; Johnson et al., 2003). The
carbonates have a rock-like character and form rough patches
on the seabed. As these patches may be underlain by soils with
reduced shear strength due to a high gas content, they may
pose a punch-through risk for facilities emplaced upon them.
Mass transport complexes as a result of slope failures are
common in the South Caspian Basin. No recent large-scale
slope failures were identified in the Block 1 area, but buried
mass transport features occur at various depths and are
generally very thick. Mass transport features may be more
prone to unstable hole conditions and loss of circulation than
undisturbed sediments.
Mapping of the different hazards has resulted in a regional
site model for the Block 1 area, which provides an overview
of the spatial distribution and zone of influence of the hazards.
This regional 3D model was used in the field layout phase to
assess the impact of geohazards on field development, and in
finding the solution to manage the associated risks.
Based on the regional site model, the initial development
concept was changed from multiple directionally drilled wells
from a single platform to a combination of directionally drilled
and vertical wells from multiple platforms. The zone of
closely spaced active faults along the crest of the Apsheron

Ridge inhibits the extensive use of directional drilling

techniques, as the wells would cross active faults, risking
drilling operations and the integrity of the wells.
Use of the regional site model has allowed for the selection
of well sites with a safe stand-off distance from expulsion
features, shallow gas occurrences and faults. It has prevented
the performance of detailed site surveys at sites unsuitable for
development, thereby saving time a money. Drilling hazards,
such as pressurised gas pockets and active faults could be
minimised.
The regional site model is also used for routing of infield
and export pipelines, such that steep slopes and faults are
avoided. Steep ridges are difficult, if not impossible to cross
due to the limitation of pipeline curvature, while fault
movement may potentially rupture pipes.
High-resolution seismic data for a number of well sites has
recently been acquired, and the high-resolution data has been
incorporated into the preliminary site model to update and
refine it. This allows the site model to become progressively
more detailed and reliable, which in turn allows for more
detailed assessment of siting of future facilities.
Conclusions
The site characterisation study for the Block 1 area has shown
that, even in a geologically complex area, geohazards need not
necessarily have a negative impact on offshore hydrocarbon
development, as long as they are recognised at an early stage
of development.
The phased approach adopted for this study has resulted
in the timely recognition of major constraints to field
development. The regional site model, produced in the
exploration and appraisal phases of field development, was
combined with the conceptual reservoir development plan to
optimise field layout.
Assessing geohazards as early as the conceptual phase in
field development allows upfront risk assessments for
proposed drilling and platform sites and relocation of facilities
to low-risk areas before spending large sums on detailed
surveys in high-risk areas.
The main result of the study was to change the
development concept from a single platform with multiple
deviated wells to multiple platforms with vertical wells. The
presence of closely-spaced active faults limits the possibilities
for directional drilling. At this early stage, changing the
conceptual reservoir development plan involved minimal cost
implications.
Key to the success of this approach was the close
interaction between the geohazard team and the drilling
engineers and exploration and production teams.
References
Brunet, M-F., Korotaev, M.V., Ershov, A.V. and Nikishin, A.M.,
(2003). The South Caspian Basin: a review of its evolution
from subsidence modelling. Sedimentary Geology Vol. 156, pp
119-148
Gutenberg, B. and Richter, C.F. (1956). Earthquake Magnitude,
Intensity, Energy and Acceleration. B. Seism. Soc. Am., Vol.
46, No.2, pp. 143-145.
Hovland, M., 1990, Do carbonate reefs form due to fluid seepage?,
Terra Nova Vol. 2, pp 8-18.

OTC 17360

Hovland, M., Hill, A. and Stokes, D. (1997). The structure and

geomorphology of the Dashgil mud volcano, Azerbaijan.
Geomorphology vol. 21, pp 1-15.
Jackson, J., Priestley, K., Allen, M., and Berberian, M. (2002).
Active Tectonics of the South Caspian Basin. Geophys. J. Int.,
Vol. 148, pp. 214-245
Jakubov A.A., Ali-Zade A.A. and Zeinalov, M.M. (1971), Mud
volcanoes of the Azerbaijan SSR: atlas (in Russian).
Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences, Baku.
Johnson, J.E., Goldfinger, C. and Suess, E. (2003). Geophysical
constraints on the surface distribution of authigenic carbonates
across the Hydrate Ridge region, Cascadia margin. Marine
Geology vol. 202, pp 79-120.
Kosarev, A.N. and Yablonskaya, E.A. (1994), The Caspian Sea.
Planke, S., Svensen, H., Hovland, M., Banks, D.A. and Jamtveit, B.
(2003). Mud and fluid migration in active mud volcanoes in
Azerbaijan, Geomarine Letters, vol. 23, pp 258-268
Yilmaz, Y. (1997). Techtonics of the East Anatolian-Caspian
Regions. The Leading Edge, p 89-891