4.5 Article

Assessment of Eocene, Paleocene and Cretaceous source rocks in the West Feiran area, offshore Gulf of Suez, Egypt

期刊

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
卷 180, 期 -, 页码 756-772

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2019.05.073

关键词

Rock-eval pyrolysis; Total organic carbon (TOC); Vitrinite reflectance (VR); Geochemical source evaluation; Seismic interpretation; Gulf of Suez

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study area is located in the West Feiran area, offshore Gulf of Suez, Egypt. This gulf is a well-known petroleum prolific basin that was formed from Late-Oligocene to Early Miocene times. This study focuses on evaluating the source rocks of Eocene (Thebes Formation), Paleocene (Esna Formation) and Cretaceous (Sudr, Brown Ls., Matulla, Wata and Raha formations) of GS 197-2 and WFA-1 wells based on total organic carbon (TOC), Rock-Eval pyrolysis, vitrinite reflectance (VR), and seismic data. In this study, Thebes, Sudr and Brown Ls. are considered to have fair to very good TOC (up to 4.05 wt%) that are characterized by Type II kerogen (mainly oil-prone) and mixed Type II/III kerogen (swamp oil and gas-prone), but haven't reach the peak of hydrocarbon generation at present depth of GS 197-2 well. On the other hand, Esna, Matulla, Wata and Raha formations have relatively lower TOC (only up to 1.15 wt%). For these formations the quality of the organic matter is represented by mixed Type II/III and Type III kerogen (mainly gas-prone), but have reached the maturation and generation stages in both wells with the presence of indigenous hydrocarbons detected. Depth-structure maps of these source rocks based on seismic data interpretation indicate that the mature source rocks located in the NW direction are so much deeper than the others in the study area. Understanding regional variations of Eocene, Paleocene and Cretaceous source-rock maturities which largely depend on burial depth will help to reduce the risk for future exploration drilling within the Gulf of Suez.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据