Selected Offshore Experience
| Location | Time | Water Depth (m) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Java Sea | Spring 1999 | 21-27 |
| 2 | North Sea | Summer 2002 | 40-42 |
| 3 | Gulf of Mexico | Autumn 2002 | 12-30 |
| 4 | Latin America | Autumn 2002 | 18-2, 285 |
1 - Java Sea
The objective of the survey was to differentiate petroliferous areas from non-prospective areas. A total of 19 core locations were drilled to depths of 30 meters on an irregular survey grid pattern. Cores were collected over productive reservoirs (not revealed to Gore) and at platform sites not over reservoirs. GORE® Modules were exposed to core sediments from one-, ten-, 20- and 30-meter levels for a period to time. Organic compound signatures were compared. A distinct difference in the character and intensity of thermogenic hydrocarbons was observed when the reservoir core data was compared to the core data collected from other areas. This approach was clearly able to detect the presence of reservoir-type organic compounds when exposed to seabed cores.
2 - Central North Sea
The objective of the survey was to determine whether there were reservoir signatures over gas chimney, shallow gas reservoir, pockmark and leaking fault areas, as identified by seabed/seismic feature interpretations from the late 1980s. In addition, differences in geochemical signatures as a function of core interval were examined. A 5.25-meter vibrocore acquisition program collected 56 cores from a semiregular sample pattern. Each core was sampled at one-meter intervals (approximately 50 percent were full-length cores). GORE® Modules were exposed to core sediments. A seismic acquisition and interpretation program was conducted concurrently to verify seabed features. Cluster analysis Selected Offshore Experience procedures were used to compare geochemical signatures. Biodegradation appeared to have affected core interval data down to two meters. A strong thermogenic signature was observed over the gas reservoir area, while background-like signatures were observed over the pockmark area (remnant feature) and the gas chimney area (feature was not confirmed by seismic). There were no deep core interval data from the leaking fault area. In summary, there was excellent correlation with the concurrent seismic interpretation.
Collection of core, core sediments, and placement of sediment in jar along with GORE® Module
3 - Gulf of Mexico - Northeastern Rim
The objective of the survey was to evaluate the potential for natural gas accumulations over several prospects. More than 200 core locations, which included approximately 40 gas and dry well sites, were obtained on an irregular sample pattern using a five-foot dart program. GORE® Modules were exposed to the core sediments. Following exposure and chemical analysis, geochemical modeling was conducted and the signatures interpreted. Several gas prospects were defined, and potential reservoir configurations matched associated seismic and geologic interpretations. The GORE™ Survey assisted with identifying prospects for further developement.
4 - Latin America
The objective of the survey was to evaluate oil and gas prospectivity in three survey areas. A total of 260 core locations were obtained by drop piston core methods using a ten-foot barrel. Cores were collected from a semiregular sample pattern. No cores were collected at well sites. Water depths varied from 120 to 365 meters (Area 1 proximal), 610 to 2,285 meters (Area 1 distal), and 18 to 80 meters (Area 2). GORE® Modules were exposed to core sediments and then analyzed. Cluster analysis procedures were utilized to evaluate and interpret the geochemical signatures. Several large geochemical features (oil- and gas-like signatures) were defined which correlated closely with either Tertiary or Cretaceous structures identified from previous seismic investigations.
