Lyell Collection

Geological Society, London, Special Publications

Lyell Centre  |   Lyell Collection  |   Subscriptions   |   Geological Society  |   Email alerts  |   Online bookshop  |   Help


Keywords:
Author:
Advanced search>>
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stainforth, J. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Geological Society, London, Special Publications; 2004; v. 237; p. 115-132;
DOI: 10.1144/GSL.SP.2004.237.01.08
© 2004 Geological Society of London

Physical, Chemical and Numerical Models

New insights into reservoir filling and mixing processes

John G. Stainforth

Shell International E & P, 200 N. Dairy Ashford, Houston, TX 77079, USA John.Stainforth{at}shell.com

A common assumption is that hydrocarbon charge homogenizes with the petroleum already in a trap: thus, compositional gradients reflect only subsequent segregation of the petroleum under the combined influences of gravity, temperature and diffusion. Since such homogenization would entail an unfavourable generation of potential energy, a more plausible hypothesis is that hydrocarbons stack into traps roughly in the density sequences in which they arrive. The commonly accepted model suggests that homogeneous and gravitationally unstable petroleum columns move towards graded equilibrium ones, whereas the hypothesis preferred here implies that they gradually diffuse towards equilibrium from the opposite direction, i.e. poorly mixed initial states.

According to this hypothesis, trends of oil GOR and bubble point (Pb) are controlled by either (a) the charge GOR or (b) the evolving PT conditions at the GOC, depending on the gassiness of the charge. By contrast, API gravity trends mainly reflect the integrated maturity histories of source rock kitchens during the trap filling regardless of the charge gassiness. Because trap and kitchen histories are usually (very) different, a wide spectrum of API and GOR (and Pb) combinations is possible, from minor API gradients coupled with large GOR gradients and vice versa.