DOCSLIB.ORG

Additional Offshore Exploration Drilling in Block 2 Tanzania

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Additional Offshore Exploration Drilling in Block 2 Tanzania AUGUST 2013 Environmental Impact Statement. Additional Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration Drilling in Block 2, Tanzania Volume I Main Report FINAL PROPONENT Statoil Tanzania AS P.O. Box 713, 79 Haile Selassie, Oysterbay Dar es Salaam Tanzania SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL TO: National Environment Management Council Migombani Street Plot 29/30 Regent Estate, Mikocheni P.O. Box 63154 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Tel: +255 22 2774852/4889 Email: [email protected] 21st August 2013 PREPARED BY: COWI Tanzania. 398 Kawawa Road PO Box 1007 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Security Classification: Open - Status: Final Page 1 of 293 ADDRESS COWI Tanzania 398, Kawawa Road P.O. Box 1007 Dar es Salaam Tanzania TEL +225 22 266 6161 FAX +225 22 266 6094 WWW cowi.co.tz AUGUST 2013 STATOIL Environmental Impact Statement. Additional Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration Drilling in Block 2, Tanzania Volume I Main Report FINAL PROJECT NO. A038540 DOCUMENT NO. Final VERSION 1.0 DATE OF ISSUE 21. August 2013 PREPARED ERP, NAVO,IPON CHECKED Mathew Richmond/Statoil APPROVED Statoil Security Classification: Open - Status: Final Page 3 of 293 EIS for additional offshore drilling in Block 2, Tanzania 5 CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 15 1.1 Title and location of the project 15 1.2 Proponent and consultant conducting the EIA 15 1.3 Project description 15 1.3.1 Background for the Project 15 1.3.2 Planned wells 16 1.3.3 Operation 17 1.4 Scope of the EIS 17 1.5 Project environment 18 1.5.1 Environment in Block 2 area 18 1.5.2 Coastal areas 19 1.6 Stakeholders and stakeholder involvement 19 1.6.1 Stakeholders consulted 19 1.6.2 Stakeholders opinions and concerns 20 1.7 Impacts 21 1.7.1 Environmental and social impact significance 21 1.7.2 Environmental risk 22 1.8 Cumulative effects 23 1.9 Alternatives considered 24 1.10 Mitigating measures 24 1.11 Environmental and Social Management Plan 25 1.12 Auditing and Monitoring Plan 25 1.13 Cost benefit analysis 26 1.13.1 Costs 26 1.13.2 Benefits 26 1.14 Decommissioning 27 1.15 Conclusion 27 2 INTRODUCTION 28 2.1 Background for the Project 28 2.2 Nature of the project 29 Security Classification: Open - Status: Final Page 5 of 293 6 EIS for additional offshore drilling in Block 2, Tanzania 2.3 Structure of the EIS Report 29 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 31 3.1 Location of the Project 31 3.2 Project phases 32 3.3 Site selection and design phase 33 3.3.1 Site selection 33 3.3.2 Design of project 37 3.3.3 Drill ship 38 3.4 Mobilization phase 41 3.4.1 Delivery of good and supplies 41 3.4.2 Survey of seabed 41 3.4.3 Establishment of safety zones 41 3.5 Operation (Well-drilling) phase 42 3.5.1 Drilling procedure 42 3.5.2 Well design 45 3.5.3 Materials that will be used during the drilling operations 48 3.5.4 Blowout prevention 55 3.5.5 Occupational Health and Safety 55 3.5.6 Supply, Support Logistics 56 3.5.7 Waste generation, discharges and emissions to air 61 3.5.8 Drill stem testing 62 3.6 Decommissioning phase 65 3.7 Project alternatives 66 3.7.1 No project (no-go) alternative 66 3.7.2 Technological and process alternatives 66 3.7.3 Supply Port Base 67 3.7.4 Airport Support Base 68 3.7.5 Navigation route alternatives 68 4 POLICY, ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK 69 4.1 National policies, legislation and regulations 69 4.1.1 National policies 69 4.1.2 Principle legislation 73 4.1.3 Regulations 79 4.2 International Agreements and Conventions 83 4.3 Administrative framework 83 5 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS 87 5.1 EIA Boundaries 87 5.1.1 Primary impact areas 87 http://team.statoil.com/sites/ts-28393/permiting/EIA Block 2/Shared Documents/EIS Vol_1 Additional Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration Drilling in Block 2 Tanzania - FINAL EIS.docx EIS for additional offshore drilling in Block 2, Tanzania 7 5.1.2 Secondary impact areas 88 5.2 Environmental baseline 89 5.2.1 Physical features Tanzanian waters 89 5.2.2 Physical features in Block 2 90 5.2.3 Biological features in Block 2 91 5.2.4 Coastal Biological features 103 5.2.5 Sensitivity ranking of the Tanzanian coastline (Environment) 116 5.3 Socio-economic baseline 119 5.3.1 Economic activities in the primary influence area 119 5.3.2 Economic activities in the secondary influence area 122 5.3.3 Infrastructure and Social Services Mtwara Mikindani Municipal Council (Mtwara Urban) 130 5.3.4 Sensitivity ranking of the Tanzanian coastline (Socio-economy) 131 6 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS 133 6.1 Stakeholders identified and consulted 133 6.2 Stakeholder opinions and concerns 135 6.2.1 Positive opinions about the project 135 6.2.2 Negative concerns about the project 135 6.3 Addressing Stakeholder opinions and concerns 137 7 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS 139 7.1 EIA methodology 139 7.2 Environmental Impacts 144 7.2.1 General 144 7.2.2 Impacts during the site selection and design phase 145 7.2.3 Impacts during the mobilization/site preparation phase 145 7.2.4 Impacts during the operation (well drilling) phase 156 7.2.5 Impacts during the decommissioning/demobilization phase 210 7.2.6 Cumulative effects 216 7.3 Socio-economic impacts 217 7.3.1 Impacts during the mobilization phase 218 7.3.2 Impacts during the operation (well drilling) phase 220 7.3.3 Cumulative socio-economic impacts 229 7.4 Summary of impacts 230 7.4.1 Environmental impact significance 230 Security Classification: Open - Status: Final Page 7 of 293 8 EIS for additional offshore drilling in Block 2, Tanzania 7.4.2 Environmental risk 230 8 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MITIGATION MEASURES 236 8.1 Introduction 236 8.2 Mitigation measures for environmental impacts 237 8.2.1 Mitigating measures for accidental spills from ships 237 8.2.2 Mitigating measures for oil blow-out 241 8.2.3 Mitigating measures for the risk of introduction of invasive species via ballast water 242 8.2.4 Slop treatment 243 8.2.5 Mitigating measures for the discharge of cuttings with adhered SOBM components 244 8.2.6 Waste Management Plan 248 8.3 Occupational Health and Safety 251 8.3.1 Project phases when measures are implemented 251 8.3.2 Measures 251 8.4 Mitigation measures for socio-economic impacts 252 8.4.1 Use of local supplies and service 252 8.4.2 Employment 252 8.4.3 Health and Safety Risks 252 8.4.4 Loss from collision with other marine vessels 253 8.4.5 Piracy 254 8.4.6 Blow out 254 9 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 255 9.1 Introduction 255 9.2 Statoil's HSE Principles 255 9.3 Environmental and Social Management Plan 256 9.4 Roles and responsibilities 264 9.4.1 Role of Statoil organisation 264 9.4.2 Responsibilities the drill ship contractor 265 9.4.3 Responsibilities of the supply/security vessel contractor 265 9.4.4 Responsibilities of the Base logistics Contractor 266 9.4.5 Responsibilities of the waste management contractor 266 10 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MONITORING AND AUDIT PLAN 267 10.1 Inspections and Audits/verifications 267 10.1.1 Daily Inspections and follow up 267 10.1.2 Audits/verifications 267 10.1.3 Ad-hoc Audits/verifications 268 http://team.statoil.com/sites/ts-28393/permiting/EIA Block 2/Shared Documents/EIS Vol_1 Additional Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration Drilling in Block 2 Tanzania - FINAL EIS.docx EIS for additional offshore drilling in Block 2, Tanzania 9 10.1.4 Audit Reporting 268 10.1.5 Monitoring 268 11 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS 273 11.1 Overall cost implications 273 11.1.1 Investment costs 273 11.1.2 Environmental costs 273 11.1.3 Socio-economic costs 274 11.2 Overall potential benefits 274 11.2.1 Environmental benefits 274 11.2.2 Socio-economic benefits 274 12 DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 275 13 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 276 13.1.1 Environmental and socio-economic impact significance 277 13.1.2 Environmental risk 278 14 REFERENCES 280 Appendix A NEMC Approval letter for the Terms of Reference Security Classification: Open - Status: Final Page 9 of 293 EIS for additional offshore drilling in Block 2, Tanzania 11 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS BG: British Gas Group BOD: Biological Oxygen Demand BOP: Blow-Out Preventer CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity CH4 Methane CO: Carbon Monoxide COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand CO2: Carbon dioxide CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility DMI: Dar es Salaam Maritime Institute DREAM: Dose related Risk and Effect Assessment Model DSFA: Deep Sea Fisheries Authority DST: Drill Stem Test DWH: Deepwater Horizon EACC: East African Coastal Current EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment EIS: Environmental Impact Statement EMA Environmental Management Act ERP: Emergency Response Plan ESIA: Environmental and Social Impact Assessment ESMaP: Environmental and Social Management Plan HIV/AIDS Human immunodeficiency virus infection / acquired immunodeficiency syndrome Security Classification: Open - Status: Final Page 11 of 293 12 EIS for additional offshore drilling in Block 2, Tanzania HOCNF Harmonised Offshore Chemical Notification Format H&S Health and Safety HSE: Health Safety and Environment IBA Important Bird Areas ILO: International Labour Organisation IMT: Incident Management Team ITCZ Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature JIT Joint Industry Project Klif The Norwegian Climate and Pollution Agency LDCs Least Developed Countries LGA Local Government Authority LNG: Liquefied Natural Gas MARPOL: Marine Pollution (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships) MBREMP: Mnazi Bay-Ruvuma Estuary Marine Prk MEG Mono Ethylene Glycol MIMP: Mafia Island Marine Park MMO Marine mammal observer MPA: Marine Protected Area MRCC: Marine Rescue and Coordination MSDS: Material Safety Data Sheets MUFA: Multiple Use
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hydrocarbon Exploration Activities in South Africa
    Hydrocarbon Exploration Activities in South Africa Anthea Davids [email protected] AAPG APRIL 2014 Petroleum Agency SA - oil and gas exploration and production regulator 1. Update on latest exploration activity 2. Some highlights and important upcoming events 3. Comments on shale gas Exploration map 3 years ago Exploration map 1 year ago Exploration map at APPEX 2014 Exploration map at AAPG ICE 2014 Offshore exploration SunguSungu 7 Production Rights 12 Exploration Rights 16 Technical Cooperation Permits Cairn India (60%) PetroSA (40%) West Coast Sungu Sungu Sunbird (76%) Anadarko (65%) PetroSA (24%) PetroSA (35%) Thombo (75%) Shallow-water Afren (25%) • Cairn India, PetroSA, Thombo, Afren, Sasol PetroSA (50%) • Sunbird - Production Shell International Sasol (50%) right around Ibhubesi Mid-Basin – BHP Billiton (90%) • Sungu Sungu Global (10%) Deep water – • Shell • BHP Billiton • OK Energy Southern basin • Anadarko and PetroSA • Silwerwave Energy PetroSA (20%) • New Age Anadarko (80%) • Rhino Oil • Imaforce Silver Wave Energy Greater Outeniqia Basin - comprising the Bredasdorp, Pletmos, Gamtoos, Algoa and Southern Outeniqua sub-basins South Coast PetroSA, ExonMobil with Impact, Bayfield, NewAge and Rift Petroleum in shallower waters. Total, CNR and Silverwave in deep water Bayfield PetroSA Energy New Age(50%) Rift(50%0 Total CNR (50%) Impact Africa Total (50%) South Coast Partnership Opportunities ExxonMobil (75%) East Impact Africa (25%) Coast Silver Wave Sasol ExxonMobil (75%) ExxonMobil Impact Africa (25%) Rights and major
    [Show full text]
  • Equinor Environmental Plan in Brief
    Our EP in brief Exploring safely for oil and gas in the Great Australian Bight A guide to Equinor’s draft Environment Plan for Stromlo-1 Exploration Drilling Program Published by Equinor Australia B.V. www.equinor.com.au/gabproject February 2019 Our EP in brief This booklet is a guide to our draft EP for the Stromlo-1 Exploration Program in the Great Australian Bight. The full draft EP is 1,500 pages and has taken two years to prepare, with extensive dialogue and engagement with stakeholders shaping its development. We are committed to transparency and have published this guide as a tool to facilitate the public comment period. For more information, please visit our website. www.equinor.com.au/gabproject What are we planning to do? Can it be done safely? We are planning to drill one exploration well in the Over decades, we have drilled and produced safely Great Australian Bight in accordance with our work from similar conditions around the world. In the EP, we program for exploration permit EPP39. See page 7. demonstrate how this well can also be drilled safely. See page 14. Who are we? How will it be approved? We are Equinor, a global energy company producing oil, gas and renewable energy and are among the world’s largest We abide by the rules set by the regulator, NOPSEMA. We offshore operators. See page 15. are required to submit draft environmental management plans for assessment and acceptance before we can begin any activities offshore. See page 20. CONTENTS 8 12 What’s in it for Australia? How we’re shaping the future of energy If oil or gas is found in the Great Australian Bight, it could How can an oil and gas producer be highly significant for South be part of a sustainable energy Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Deep River and Dan River Triassic Basins: Shale Inorganic Geochemistry for Geosteering and Environmental Baseline Hydraulic Fracturing
    Deep River and Dan River Triassic basins: Shale inorganic geochemistry for geosteering and environmental baseline hydraulic fracturing By Jeffrey C. Reid North Carolina Geological Survey Open-File Report 2019-01 February 20, 2019 Suggested citation: Reid, Jeffrey C., 2019, Deep River and Dan River Triassic basins, North Carolina: Shale inorganic geochemistry for geosteering and environmental baseline hydraulic fracturing, North Carolina Geological Survey, Open File Report 2019-01, 10 pages, 4 appendices. Contents Page Contents ……………………………………………………………………………………. 1 Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………….. 2 Introduction and objectives ……………………………………………………………….. 3 Methodology and analytical techniques …………………………………………………… 4 Deep River basin (Sanford sub-basin) ……...……………………………………… 4 Dan River basin ……………………………………………………………………. 4 Summary and conclusions …………………………………………………………………. 5 References cited ……………………………………………………………………………. 6 Acknowledgement …………………………………………………………………………. 8 Figure Figure 1. Map showing the locations of the Sanford sub-basin, Deep River basin, and the Dan River basin, North Carolina (after Reid and Milici, 2008). Table Table 1. List of analytical method abbreviations used. Appendices Appendix 1. Deep River basin, Sanford sub-basin, inorganic chemistry – Certificate of analysis and data table. Appendix 2. Deep River basin inorganic chemistry – Inorganic chemistry plots by drill hole. Appendix 3. Dan River basin inorganic chemistry – Certificate of analysis and data table. Appendix 4. Dan River basin inorganic chemistry
    [Show full text]
  • Seismic Reflection Methods in Offshore Groundwater Research
    geosciences Review Seismic Reflection Methods in Offshore Groundwater Research Claudia Bertoni 1,*, Johanna Lofi 2, Aaron Micallef 3,4 and Henning Moe 5 1 Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3AN, UK 2 Université de Montpellier, CNRS, Université des Antilles, Place E. Bataillon, 34095 Montpellier, France; johanna.lofi@gm.univ-montp2.fr 3 Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research, GEOMAR, 24148 Kiel, Germany; [email protected] 4 Marine Geology & Seafloor Surveying, Department of Geosciences, University of Malta, MSD 2080 Msida, Malta 5 CDM Smith Ireland Ltd., D02 WK10 Dublin, Ireland; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 8 April 2020; Accepted: 26 July 2020; Published: 5 August 2020 Abstract: There is growing evidence that passive margin sediments in offshore settings host large volumes of fresh and brackish water of meteoric origin in submarine sub-surface reservoirs. Marine geophysical methods, in particular seismic reflection data, can help characterize offshore hydrogeological systems and yet the existing global database of industrial basin wide surveys remains untapped in this context. In this paper we highlight the importance of these data in groundwater exploration, by reviewing existing studies that apply physical stratigraphy and morpho-structural interpretation techniques to provide important information on—reservoir (aquifer) properties and architecture, permeability barriers, paleo-continental environments, sea-level changes and shift of coastal facies through time and conduits for water flow. We then evaluate the scientific and applied relevance of such methodology within a holistic workflow for offshore groundwater research. Keywords: submarine groundwater; continental margins; offshore water resources; seismic reflection 1.
    [Show full text]
  • 18 December 2020 Reliance and Bp Announce First Gas from Asia's
    18 December 2020 Reliance and bp announce first gas from Asia’s deepest project • Commissioned India's first ultra-deepwater gas project • First in trio of projects that is expected to meet ~15% of India’s gas demand and account for ~25% of domestic production Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) and bp today announced the start of production from the R Cluster, ultra-deep-water gas field in block KG D6 off the east coast of India. RIL and bp are developing three deepwater gas projects in block KG D6 – R Cluster, Satellites Cluster and MJ – which together are expected to meet ~15% of India’s gas demand by 2023. These projects will utilise the existing hub infrastructure in KG D6 block. RIL is the operator of KG D6 with a 66.67% participating interest and bp holds a 33.33% participating interest. R Cluster is the first of the three projects to come onstream. The field is located about 60 kilometers from the existing KG D6 Control & Riser Platform (CRP) off the Kakinada coast and comprises a subsea production system tied back to CRP via a subsea pipeline. Located at a water depth of greater than 2000 meters, it is the deepest offshore gas field in Asia. The field is expected to reach plateau gas production of about 12.9 million standard cubic meters per day (mmscmd) in 2021. Mukesh Ambani, chairman and managing director of Reliance Industries Limited added: “We are proud of our partnership with bp that combines our expertise in commissioning gas projects expeditiously, under some of the most challenging geographical and weather conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Frequently Asked Questions About Hydraulic Fracturing
    Frequently Asked Questions About Hydraulic Fracturing: What is hydraulic fracturing? Hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as fracing, is the process of creating small cracks, or fractures, in underground geological formations to allow oil or natural gas to flow into the wellbore and thereby increase production. Prior to initiating hydraulic fracturing, engineers and geoscientists study and model the physical characteristics of the hydrocarbon bearing rock formation, including its permeability, porosity and thickness. Using this information, they design the process to keep the resulting fractures within the target formation. In Colorado, the target formation is often more than 7,000 feet below the ground surface and more than 5,000 feet below any drinking water aquifers. To fracture the formation, special fracturing fluids are injected down the well bore and into the formation. These fluids typically consist of water, sand, and chemical additives. The pressure created by injecting the fluid opens the fractures. Sand is carried into the fractures by the fluid and keeps the fractures open to increase the flow of oil or natural gas to the well bore. The chemicals serve a variety of purposes, including increasing viscosity, reducing friction, controlling bacteria, and decreasing corrosion. Following the treatment, much of the fracturing fluid flows back up the well bore and is collected at the surface in tanks or lined pits. Why is hydraulic fracturing necessary in Colorado? Most of the hydrocarbon bearing formations in Colorado have low porosity and permeability. These formations would not produce economic quantities of hydrocarbons without hydraulic fracturing. Fracture treatment of oil and gas wells in Colorado began in the 1970s and has evolved since then.
    [Show full text]
  • Untested Waters: the Rise of Hydraulic Fracturing in Oil and Gas Production and the Need to Revisit Regulation
    Fordham Environmental Law Review Volume 20, Number 1 2009 Article 3 Untested Waters: The Rise of Hydraulic Fracturing in Oil and Gas Production and the Need to Revisit Regulation Hannah Wiseman∗ ∗University of Texas School of Law Copyright c 2009 by the authors. Fordham Environmental Law Review is produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/elr UNTESTED WATERS: THE RISE OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND THE NEED TO REVISIT REGULATION Hannah Wiseman * I. INTRODUCTION As conventional sources of oil and gas become less productive and energy prices rise, production companies are developing creative extraction methods to tap sources like oil shales and tar sands that were previously not worth drilling. Companies are also using new technologies to wring more oil or gas from existing conventional wells. This article argues that as the hunt for these resources ramps up, more extraction is occurring closer to human populations - in north Texas' Barnett Shale and the Marcellus Shale in New York and Pennsylvania. And much of this extraction is occurring through a well-established and increasingly popular method of wringing re- sources from stubborn underground formations called hydraulic frac- turing, which is alternately described as hydrofracturing or "fracing," wherein fluids are pumped at high pressure underground to force out oil or natural gas. Coastal Oil and Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy Trust,1 a recent Texas case addressing disputes over fracing in Hidalgo County, Texas, ex- emplifies the human conflicts that are likely to accompany such creative extraction efforts. One conflict is trespass: whether extend- ing fractures onto adjacent property and sending fluids and agents into the fractures to keep them open constitutes a common law tres- pass.
    [Show full text]
  • LA Petroleum Industry Facts
    February 2000 Louisiana Petroleum Public Information Series No.2 Industry Facts 1934 First oil well of commercial quantities Deepest producing well in Louisiana: Texaco-SL urvey discovered in the state: 4666-1, November 1969, Caillou Island, The Heywood #1 Jules Clement well, drilled near Terrebonne Parish, 21,924 feet total depth Evangeline, Louisiana, in Acadia Parish, which S was drilled to a depth of approximately 1,700 Existing oil or gas fields as of December 31, feet in September 1901 (counties are called 1998: 1,775 Reserves “parishes” in Louisiana). Crude oil and condensate oil produced from First oil field discovered: Jennings Field, Acadia 1901 to 1998: 16,563,234,543 barrels Parish, September 1901 Crude oil and condensate produced in 1998: First over-water drilling in America: 132,376,274 barrels Caddo Lake near Shreveport, Louisiana, (Source: Louisiana Department of Natural Resources.) circa 1905 Natural gas and casinghead gas produced from First natural gas pipeline laid in Louisiana: 1901 to 1998: 144,452,229,386 thousand Caddo Field to Shreveport in 1908 cubic feet (MFC) Largest natural gas field in Louisiana: Natural gas produced in 1998: 1,565,921,421 Monroe Field, which was discovered in 1916 thousand cubic feet (MFC) (Source: Louisiana Department of Natural Resources.) Number of salt domes: 204 are known to exist, eological 77 of which are located offshore Dry Natural Gas Proven Reserves 1997 North Louisiana 3,093 billion cubic feet Parishes producing oil or gas: All 64 of South Louisiana 5,585 billion cubic feet Louisiana’s
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysics Were Associated with Salt-Domes, and Were Detected Through Gravity Surveys with Torsion Balances and Pendulums (Geophysics 224, Section B)
    C2.9 Hydrocarbon exploration with seismic reflection Seismic processing includes the steps discussed in class: (1) Filtering of raw data (2) Selecting traces for CMP gathers (3) Static corrections (4) Velocity analysis (5) NMO/DMO corrections (6) CMP stacking. (7) Deconvolution and filtering of stacked zero offset traces (8) Migration (depth or time) Question : This sequence is for post-stack depth migration. How will it change for pre- stack depth migration? Processed seismic data can contribute to hydrocarbon exploration in several ways: ●Seismic data can give direct evidence of the presence of hydrocarbons (e.g. bright spots, oil-water contact, amplitude-versus-offset anomalies). ●Potential hydrocarbon traps can be imaged (e.g. reefs, unconformities, structural traps, stratiagraphic traps etc) ●Regional structure can be understood in terms of depositional history and the timing of regression and transgression (seismic stratigraphy, seismic facies analysis). This can sometimes give an understanding of where potential source rocks are located and the relative age of reservoir rocks. 1 C2.9.1 Direct indicators of hydrocarbons 2.9.1.1 Bright spots As shown in C1.3, a gas reservoir can have a P-wave velocity that is significantly lower that the surrounding rocks. This can lead to a high amplitude (negative polarity) reflection from the top of the reservoir. ● However, not all bright spots are hydrocarbons. They can be caused by sills of igneous rocks or other lithological contrasts. In areas of active tectonics, ponded partial melt can produce a bright spot (e.g. Southern Tibet). ● It should also be noted that true amplitudes are not always preserved in seismic data recording and processing.
    [Show full text]
  • 92 Overview of Petroleum Exploration Methods I. Drilling Techniques A
    Overview of Petroleum Exploration Methods I. Drilling Techniques a. Cable Tool Drilling – percussion drilling, natural borehole fracturing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6N0x8BnOKE b. Rotary Drilling i. Air Rotary ii. Mud Rotary – rotary bit drilling https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyZtV57eR8g c. Directional Drilling i. vertical drilling ii. horizontal drilling Horizontal drilling is a drilling process in which the well is turned horizontally at depth. It is normally used to extract energy from a source that itself runs horizontally, such as a layer of shale rock. Horizontal drilling is a common was of extracting gas from the Marcellus Shale Formation. II. Borehole Geophysics ("wireline geophysics") Overview of Wireline Operations (2 min) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGh9vRFggF8 What is well logging? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RJY4hCiWC4 a. Physical Logs i. Caliper Logging A caliper log is a well logging tool that provides a continuous measurement of the size and shape of a borehole along its depth[1] and is commonly used in hydrocarbon exploration when drilling wells. The measurements that are recorded can be an important indicator of cave ins or shale swelling in the borehole, which can affect the results of other well logs. ii. Temperature Logging iii. Pressure Logging b. Electric Logs i. SP logging - spontaneous potential The spontaneous potential log, commonly called the self potential log or SP log, is a passive measurement taken by oil industry well loggers to characterise rock formation properties. The log works by measuring small electric potentials (measured in millivolts) between depths in the borehole and a grounded electrode at the surface.
    [Show full text]
  • Chad/Cameroon Development Project
    Chad/Cameroon Development Project Project Update No. 30 Mid-Year Report 2011 Chad Export Project Project Update No. 30 Mid-Year Report 2011 This report has been prepared by Esso Exploration and Production Chad Inc., in its capacity as Operator of the Consortium and as Project Management Company on behalf of the Tchad Oil Transportation Company S.A. (TOTCO) and the Cameroon Oil Transportation Company S.A. (COTCO). Preface his Project Update, the thirtieth such report for the Chad Export Project (also referred to as the T Chad/Cameroon Development Project), covers the period from January through June, 2011. The report reflects the activities of the project operating company and its prime contractors, with a particular focus on compliance with the Environmental Management Plan (EMP). Several entities share responsibility for implementing the project. • Oilfield development and production in Chad is conducted by Esso Exploration and Production Chad Inc. (EEPCI) on behalf of the Consortium (Esso, Petronas, Chevron). • Pipeline activities in Chad are conducted by the Tchad Oil Transportation Company S.A. (TOTCO). • Pipeline activities in Cameroon are conducted by the Cameroon Oil Transportation Company S.A. (COTCO). • During construction, EEPCI provided project management services to TOTCO and COTCO. These reports are submitted through, and subject to verification by, the World Bank and Lender Group as a reporting requirement of the project’s partnership with the Bank and the two host countries. This report also represents a commitment to transparency by Esso and its co-venture partners. By publishing this information, the project wishes to make it possible for the World Bank and Lender Group, the citizens of the host countries, interested non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and others to stay well informed about the project as it unfolds.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Deep Oil and Gas Wells and Reservoirs in the U.S. by 1 211
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Summary of Deep Oil and Gas Wells and Reservoirs in the U.S. By 1 211 1 T.S. Dyman , D.T. Nielson , R.C. Obuch , J.K. Baird , and R.A. Wise Open-File Report 90-305 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature, Any use of trade names is for descriptive use only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. ^Denver, Colorado 80225 Reston, Virginia 22092 1990 CONTENTS Page Abs t r ac t............................................................ 1 Introduction........................................................ 2 Data Management..................................................... 3 Data Analysis....................................................... 6 References.......................................................... 11 Tables Table 1. The ten deepest wells in the U.S. in order of decreasing total depth............................................ 12 / 2. Total wells drilled deeper than 15,000 ft by depth for U.S. based on final well completion class.............. 13 2a. Total deep producing wells (producing at or below 15,000 ft) by depth for U.S. based on final completion class....................................... 14 3. Total wells drilled deeper than 15,000 ft by depth for U.S. based on year of completion................... 15 3a. Total deep producing wells and gas producing wells (producing at or below 15,000 ft) by depth for U.S. based on year of completion............................ 19 4. Total wells drilled deeper than 15,000 ft by depth for U.S. based on region............................... 23 4a. Total deep producing wells and gas producing wells (producing at or below 15,000 ft) for U.S. by region, province, and depth...................................
    [Show full text]