There is a tendency for researchers to focus on mechanisms and algorithms when it comes to migration modeling. You may have heard debates over Darcy vs IP, and finite element vs finite difference, local grid refinement, etc. at modeling conferences, such as the one later this month in Houston. My opinion is that all these do not matter (compared with other factors we often ignore). The theory of fluid flow in porous media have been figured out more than 60 years ago (Darcy, Hubbert). There is not really any debate that oil and gas will migration up dip as long as there is a carrier bed.
The biggest problem is that many carrier beds are often below seismic resolution. A 5 meter sand is typically not recognizable but will easily divert migration laterally. The presence and absence of carrier beds and their extent and connectivity are basically not observable in most cases and migration modeling based on different assumptions of these will yield very different answers.
The other large uncertainties are paleo-geometries. Typically basin modeling tools back strip layers of sediments to "determine" paleo-strucutre. This more often than not produce the wrong paleo-geometry. This is because (1) basins form before sediments are deposited, the sediments fills the lows in the basin (not the way basin models are constructed), and (2) that depositing 1 km of sediment does not cause basin to subside 1 km, it subsides much less because of isostacy (the mantle material is denser than sediment), and (3) the shape of the basin does not change following exact the shape of the newly deposited sediment layer, because the lithosphere has finite rigidity. For example, building a city like Houston does cause subsidence, but perhaps only a few centimeters. Not taking into account these first order effects will certainly give wrong answers to paleo-migration.
In reality, even present day geometries are often incorrect. Seismic interpretation are often very uncertain. Two interpreters may and often make different structure maps based on the same data. The structure maps can only be treated as "models" themselves, not data. Have you run a migration model using geometries based on 2D seismic and 3D seismic data? Are they not very different? I would even argue, that 3D seismic still is not enough to resolve migration paths exactly, a fault with 5 meter throw may still not be visible on seismic but it will change migration direction.
Seals are as important as carriers - they determine lateral vs vertical migration, yet the parameters that determine seal capacity are uncertain by a factor of 2 to several orders of magnitude. I will perhaps talk about seals in my next post.
Given these large uncertainties, our time is better spend trying to improve the geological model by making and requiring better maps, testing scenarios of carrier presence, extent and taking into account the first order large scale geological processes (isostacy, paleo-bathymetry, flexure, etc) rather than worrying about 3rd or 4th order things like flow mechanisms, and mathematical algorithms. We also should treat our modeling software as tools to help us think about the problems rather than giving us answers.
The biggest problem is that many carrier beds are often below seismic resolution. A 5 meter sand is typically not recognizable but will easily divert migration laterally. The presence and absence of carrier beds and their extent and connectivity are basically not observable in most cases and migration modeling based on different assumptions of these will yield very different answers.
The other large uncertainties are paleo-geometries. Typically basin modeling tools back strip layers of sediments to "determine" paleo-strucutre. This more often than not produce the wrong paleo-geometry. This is because (1) basins form before sediments are deposited, the sediments fills the lows in the basin (not the way basin models are constructed), and (2) that depositing 1 km of sediment does not cause basin to subside 1 km, it subsides much less because of isostacy (the mantle material is denser than sediment), and (3) the shape of the basin does not change following exact the shape of the newly deposited sediment layer, because the lithosphere has finite rigidity. For example, building a city like Houston does cause subsidence, but perhaps only a few centimeters. Not taking into account these first order effects will certainly give wrong answers to paleo-migration.
In reality, even present day geometries are often incorrect. Seismic interpretation are often very uncertain. Two interpreters may and often make different structure maps based on the same data. The structure maps can only be treated as "models" themselves, not data. Have you run a migration model using geometries based on 2D seismic and 3D seismic data? Are they not very different? I would even argue, that 3D seismic still is not enough to resolve migration paths exactly, a fault with 5 meter throw may still not be visible on seismic but it will change migration direction.
Seals are as important as carriers - they determine lateral vs vertical migration, yet the parameters that determine seal capacity are uncertain by a factor of 2 to several orders of magnitude. I will perhaps talk about seals in my next post.
Given these large uncertainties, our time is better spend trying to improve the geological model by making and requiring better maps, testing scenarios of carrier presence, extent and taking into account the first order large scale geological processes (isostacy, paleo-bathymetry, flexure, etc) rather than worrying about 3rd or 4th order things like flow mechanisms, and mathematical algorithms. We also should treat our modeling software as tools to help us think about the problems rather than giving us answers.
