Post by Ethan / JRyan on Aug 24, 2018 22:23:40 GMT -5
KyOil Sunday, 08/12/18 01:08:37 PM
2D vs 3D Seismic
2D vs 3D Seismic
ZN has commented on 2D vs 3D and it basically comes down to cost and availability of service providers versus the benefit. Israel does not have a developed oil and gas exploration infrastructure like Texas. So, they decided the desired result could be achieved without 3D.
Zion has commented that 3D might be done locally around MJ#1 to provide better guidance for drilling the offset wells.
The role of seismic and other studies like magnetic is to identify potential petroleum targets worthy of an exploration well. From the maps made from 2D seismic, the location for MJ#1 was identified to have a complete petroleum system:
1. Cap rock which seals oil and gas (otherwise it will migrate to the surface)
2. Reservoir rock with pores to hold the oil and gas
3. Source rock of right depth and organic matter to produce oil and gas
4. Migration path from source rock to reservoir rock
The results from drilling proved all 4 components are in place. The cap rock was shale as expected. The reservoir rock was carbonate as expected, but with the added benefit of being fractured so it has more voids to hold oil and gas. Both oil and gas were observed, so the source rock was the right depth and type to produce oil and gas. The migration path was good otherwise the oil and gas would not be in the reservoir at high pressure (just below the cap rock at 2,000 meters).
What we don't know yet is a) how much oil and gas is in the reservoir and b) how readily it will flow. Doing 3D seismic would not have told us either one of these parameters. So, at this point in the program, having done a 3D seismic versus a 2D has no relevance. The 2D said the petroleum system was there and drilling confirmed it was there.
Prior to drilling, the 3D would have offered value by reducing the risk of drilling in the wrong place. For instance, ZN released a report in 2015 that indicated the probability of finding the petroleum system in the Triassic target formation was 10% based on their 2D seismic maps. Had 3D seismic maps been used, then the probability of finding the petroleum system would have been higher, but still very risky.
Since the petroleum system was found to be there as predicted by the 2D seismic, there is no further risk to MJ#1 due to its having been located by 2D instead of 3D.
ZN has commented on 2D vs 3D and it basically comes down to cost and availability of service providers versus the benefit. Israel does not have a developed oil and gas exploration infrastructure like Texas. So, they decided the desired result could be achieved without 3D.
Zion has commented that 3D might be done locally around MJ#1 to provide better guidance for drilling the offset wells.
The role of seismic and other studies like magnetic is to identify potential petroleum targets worthy of an exploration well. From the maps made from 2D seismic, the location for MJ#1 was identified to have a complete petroleum system:
1. Cap rock which seals oil and gas (otherwise it will migrate to the surface)
2. Reservoir rock with pores to hold the oil and gas
3. Source rock of right depth and organic matter to produce oil and gas
4. Migration path from source rock to reservoir rock
The results from drilling proved all 4 components are in place. The cap rock was shale as expected. The reservoir rock was carbonate as expected, but with the added benefit of being fractured so it has more voids to hold oil and gas. Both oil and gas were observed, so the source rock was the right depth and type to produce oil and gas. The migration path was good otherwise the oil and gas would not be in the reservoir at high pressure (just below the cap rock at 2,000 meters).
What we don't know yet is a) how much oil and gas is in the reservoir and b) how readily it will flow. Doing 3D seismic would not have told us either one of these parameters. So, at this point in the program, having done a 3D seismic versus a 2D has no relevance. The 2D said the petroleum system was there and drilling confirmed it was there.
Prior to drilling, the 3D would have offered value by reducing the risk of drilling in the wrong place. For instance, ZN released a report in 2015 that indicated the probability of finding the petroleum system in the Triassic target formation was 10% based on their 2D seismic maps. Had 3D seismic maps been used, then the probability of finding the petroleum system would have been higher, but still very risky.
Since the petroleum system was found to be there as predicted by the 2D seismic, there is no further risk to MJ#1 due to its having been located by 2D instead of 3D.
2D vs 3D Seismic
