Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Earth Science

ISSN 2095-0195

ISSN 2095-0209(Online)

CN 11-5982/P

Postal Subscription Code 80-963

2018 Impact Factor: 1.205

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Earth Sci.    2021, Vol. 15 Issue (3) : 631-648    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-020-0839-8
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Integration of 1D and 3D modeling schemes to establish the Farewell Formation as a self-sourced reservoir in Kupe Field, Taranaki Basin, New Zealand
S.M. Talha QADRI1(), Md Aminul ISLAM2, Mohamad Ragab SHALABY2,3, Syed Haroon ALI4
1. Department of Earth Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto M5S2E8, Canada
2. Geosciences Program, Faculty of Science, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Bandar Seri Begawan BE 1410, Negara Brunei Darussalam
3. Geology Department, Faculty of Science, Tanta University, Tanta 31527, Egypt
4. Department of Earth Sciences, University of Sargodha, Sargodha 40100, Pakistan
 Download: PDF(7639 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Along with conventional methods, this paper proposed a method in which 1D and 3D models are integrated to identify the self-sourced reservoir potential of the Farewell Formation in the Kupe Gas Field within the Taranaki Basin, New Zealand. Source rock characteristics were evaluated at both field and basin scales by investigating source rock maturity, type of organic matter, and hydrocarbon generation potential by rock pyrolysis, using Rock-Eval 2 and 6. The 1D thermal and burial history model established the rate of sedimentation and thermal history of the Kupe 4 well. Reservoir characteri-zation at field-scale was determined by seismic interpretation, well log analysis, and 3D structural and petrophysical models. The sediments of the Farewell Formation contain types II-III (oil/gas prone) and type III (gas prone) and have fair-to-excellent generation potential. The oxygen and hydrogen indices ranged from 3 to 476 mg CO2/g TOC and 26 to 356 mg HC/g TOC, respectively, whereas the thermal maturity determined by vitrinite reflectance values ranged between 0.3% and 0.72%, indicating that the Farewell Formation is in immature-to-mature hydrocarbon generation stage. Thus, Farewell Formation was verified to be a good source rock. Additionally, structural interpretations demonstrated the structural complexity of an extensional and contractional regime within the reservoir package. Multiple faults indicated a good reservoir property there with a trapping mechanism as well as migration paths. A well-log-based petrophysical analysis established the presence of up to 70% hydrocarbon saturation within the pore spaces of Farewell sandstones. The 3D models confirmed that the Farewell Formation has significant sand zones and hydrocarbon-saturated zones, thereby proving its very good reservoir characteristics. It has been proved that the 1D and 3D structural schemes, integrated with geological techniques, was vital in identifying the Kupe Field as a self-sourced reservoir.
Keywords self-sourced reservoir      Kupe Field      Farewell Formation      Taranaki Basin     
Corresponding Author(s): S.M. Talha QADRI   
Online First Date: 07 December 2020    Issue Date: 17 January 2022
 Cite this article:   
S.M. Talha QADRI,Md Aminul ISLAM,Mohamad Ragab SHALABY, et al. Integration of 1D and 3D modeling schemes to establish the Farewell Formation as a self-sourced reservoir in Kupe Field, Taranaki Basin, New Zealand[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2021, 15(3): 631-648.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/10.1007/s11707-020-0839-8
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/Y2021/V15/I3/631
Fig.1  The map shows Kupe Field (red square) bounded by Taranaki Fault and Manaia Fault within the southern inversion zone of the Taranaki Basin. The Northern Graben and Central Graben along with multiple other oil and gas fields are also shown (modified after Higgs et al., 2012).
Fig.2  The generalized stratigraphic succession showing multiple groups and formation within the Taranaki Basin (modified after Martin et al., 1994).
Well Depth Sample Lithology S1 S2 S3 Tmax OI HI TOC PI S2/S3 Ro
Cook-1
Cook-1
Cook-1
Cook-1
Cook-1
Cook-1
Cook-1
Cook-1
Cook-1
Cook-1
Cook-1		 1487 Cuttings Mudstone 0.15 0.72 0.87 434 95 79 0.91 0.17 0.82 0.65
2343 Core Shale 0.1 1.9 0.2 432 16 152 1.25 0.05 9.5
2508 Cuttings Shale 2.67 52.8 4.14 431 25 323 16.3 0.05 12.75
2587 Cuttings Shale 1.3 24.53 1.47 429 21 359 6.83 0.05 16.68
2667 Cuttings Shale 0.98 17.48 2.35 431 29 220 7.94 0.05 7.43
2271 Cuttings Mudstone 2.4 38.5 3.9 427 31 306 12.6 0.06 9.87 0.52
2342 Cuttings Mudstone 0.2 1.3 0.17 425 33 241 0.54 0.13 7.64 0.47
2576 Cuttings Mudstone 4.5 53.1 4.82 430 24 264 20.1 0.08 11.01
2579 Cuttings Mudstone 3.9 72 5.35 431 20 271 26.6 0.05 13.45 0.6
2643 Cuttings Coal 4.5 72.7 7.12 437 19 198 36.7 0.06 10.21 0.72
2673 Cuttings Coal 2.4 29.2 4.14 432 11 92 39.1 0.08 7.05 0.63
Fresne-1 785 Cuttings Shale 0.17 2.53 0.83 433 75 230 1.1 0.06 3.04
Kupe S-2
Kupe S-2
Kupe S-2		 3180 Cuttings Coal 7.9 181.1 24.9 435 32 233 77.6 0.04 7.27
3195 Core Mudstone 0.51 12.97 1.53 432 29 252 5.15 0.04 8.47
3200 Core Mudstone 0.03 2.99 0.34 439 33 294 1.02 0.01 8.79
Kupe S-5
Kupe S-5
Kupe S-5
Kupe S-5		 2914 Core Coal 1.27 84.55 28.8 423 50 147 57.91 0.01 2.93 0.5
2915 Core Mudstone 0.16 10.2 2.63 438 52 204 5 0.02 3.87
2939 Cuttings Coal 1.5 55.8 46.9 430 66 79 70.3 0.03 1.18 0.58
3182 Cuttings Coal 1.7 76.2 41.5 426 57 105 72 0.02 1.83 0.54
Kupe-1
Kupe-1
Kupe-1
Kupe-1
Kupe-1
Kupe-1
Kupe-1
Kupe-1
Kupe-1
Kupe-1
Kupe-1
Kupe-1
Kupe-1
Kupe-1		 3233 Cuttings Claystone 0.25 0.63 3.24 428 476 92 0.68 0.28 0.19
3261 Cuttings Claystone 0.22 0.70 0.71 426 304 104 0.68 0.24 0.98
3291 Cuttings Claystone 0.22 0.66 0.66 430 384 88 0.75 0.25 1
3322 Cuttings Claystone 0.26 0.53 0.53 424 294 79 0.67 0.33 1 0.3
3352 Cuttings Claystone 0.08 0.43 0.44 433 204 52 0.84 0.15 0.97
3383 Cuttings Claystone 0.24 0.5 0.5 415 313 52 0.95 0.32 1
3416 Cuttings Claystone 0.21 1.75 1.76 435 141 80 2.2 0.11 0.99
3447 Cuttings Claystone 0.17 2.64 2.64 436 93 88 2.98 0.06 1
3505 Cuttings Claystone 0.26 1.38 1.38 433 108 92 1.49 0.16 1
3535 Cuttings Claystone 0.22 2.54 2.49 435 82 96 2.6 0.08 1.02
3566 Cuttings Claystone 0.18 1.498 1.49 434 153 80 1.86 0.11 1.01
3599 Cuttings Claystone 0.21 2.73 2.71 434 121 100 2.69 0.07 1.01
3627 Cuttings Coal 0.24 3.22 3.22 435 83 90 3.57 0.07 1.0 0.67
3657 Cuttings Coal 0.13 1.16 1.13 431 128 69 1.63 0.1 1.02 0.6
Maui-3
Maui-3		 3319 Cuttings Shale 0.26 0.47 0.65 429 70 51 0.92 0.36 0.72
3398 Cuttings Shale 0.21 0.22 0.95 426 114 26 0.83 0.49 0.23
Maui-4
Maui-4
Maui-4
Maui-4
Maui-4
Maui-4
Maui-4		 2228 Cuttings Coal 2.74 30.65 6.25 423 47 233 13.15 0.08 4.90
2410 Cuttings Shale 1.38 7.78 2.53 423 56 174 4.46 0.15 3.07
2505 Cuttings Coal 2.79 111.4 20.53 428 30 163 69.09 0.02 5.43
2505 Cuttings Coal 2.29 71.51 8.91 427 31 252 28.56 0.03 8.02
2505 Cuttings Mudstone 0.61 21.22 2.52 427 31 266 8.02 0.03 8.42
2670 Cuttings Coal 2.73 116.3 19.73 428 28 168 69.89 0.02 5.89
2670 Cuttings Coal 1.45 52.07 9.23 428 30 170 30.9 0.03 5.64
N Tasman-1 2202 Cuttings Mudstone 1.3 42.9 7.6 429 58 330 13 0.03 5.64 0.55
Pukeko-1
Pukeko-1		 3940 Cuttings Coal 10.6 224.6 1.99 418 3 344 65.62 0.05 112.8 0.59
4005 Cuttings Coal 8.33 176.3 2.09 417 4 336 52.76 0.04 84.39 0.59
Tab.1  Rock-Eval analysis used in the present study
Formation name Age/Ma Top/m Bottom /m Thickness/m Lithology Petroleum system elements
Surficial deposits 0.5–Recent 0 68.1 68.1 Recent sediments Overburden rock
Giant foresets 2.5–0.5 68.1 1000 932 Sandstone with interbedded mudstone Overburden rock
Tangahoe 4.0–2.5 1000 1257 257 Mudstone Overburden rock
Matemateaonga 6.0–4.0 1257 1768 568 Mixed package of sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone Overburden rock
Manganui 20.5–6.0 1768 2564 796 Claystone Overburden rock
Taimana 22–20.5 2564 2820 256 Calcareous siltstone Overburden rock
Otaraoa 32–22 2820 3054 234 Claystone Seal Rock
Farewell 63–56 3054 3334 280 Shaly sand and coal seams, and carbonaceous mudstones Source Rock
Tab.2  Input parameters for the 1D thermal burial history model for Kupe-4 well.
Fig.3  The S1 versus TOC crossplot indicating the origin of hydrocarbon in the Farewell Formation
Fig.4  The cross-plot showing TOC versus S2/S3 values indicating the quality and type of hydrocarbon expected to be generated from the analysed samples of the Farewell Formation.
Fig.5  A modified Van Krevelen diagram indicating the type of kerogen in the Farewell Formation encountered in multiple wells inlcuding wells from Kupe Field
Fig.6  A cross plot of Tmax versus HI indicating source rock maturity and type of hydrocarbon from the analysed samples derived from Farewell Formation.
Fig.7  The Tmax versus PI cross plot indicating the maturity and nature of the hydrocarbon generation within the Farewell Formation samples.
Fig.8  The cross-plot between vitrinite reflectance and Tmax data, indicating the thermal maturity of the analyzed samples from the Farewell Formation.
Fig.9  Burial history diagram of Kupe-4 well representing the burial depth of the reservoir formation and corresponding temperatures. Burial history diagram of Kupe-4 well representing the burial depth of the reservoir formation and corresponding temperatures.
Fig.10  The seismic section derived from 3D seismic volume of Kupe Field indicating multiple depositional sequences (P1-P5), multiple structural features and the identified seismic facies. The blue rectangle shows the reservoir package (later used for modeling) showing the seal (Otaraoa Formation-H1) and the reservoir (Farewell Formation-H2).
Fig.11  Well correlation established between Kupe 3B, Kupe 4 and Kupe 6 encountering the Farewell Formation at variable depths.
Fig.12  The Gamma-ray log versus Neutron porosity plot (a) for Kupe-1 well and (b) Kupe 3B well, clearly indicates that the Farewell Formation has relatively higher gamma ray values revealing the shaly sand as dominant lithological content within the Farewell Formation with the presence of carbonates and shale rich contents. The cross plot (c) Neutron porosity versus density porosity indicates dispersed shale habitat for Kupe 8 well and (d) the Neutron-density porosity versus sonic porosity indicates the presence of intergranular and secondary porosities within the Kupe 7-ST.
Fig.13  The 3D structural model for the reservoir package including tops of Otaraoa, Farewell and North Cape Formations along with the fault traces and drilled wells within the Kupe Field.
Fig.14  3D Gamma ray model of the reservoir formation showing zones of high and low values thus differentiating between the shale and sand regions, respectively. The model clearly shows the shaly sand nature of Farewell Formation.
Fig.15  The resistivity model for the Farewell Formation in the Kupe Field showing high resistivity values near the drilled wells.
Fig.16  3D effective porosity model revealing spatial distribution of effective porosity with high and low values along with the drilled wells.
Fig.17  3D hydrocarbon saturation model of the reservoir formation showing significant distribution of hydrocarbons.
Well Name Gross Thickness/m Net Sand Net Pay Porosity ?/% Vsh/% Sw/% SH/%
Top Base Thickness Thickness/m N:G/% Thickness/m N:G/% ?T ?e
Kupe-1 3190 3650 460 140 30.4 85.0 18.5 23.7 20.8 18.9 36.6 63.4
Kupe S-3B 3230 3445 215 126 58.6 72.3 33.6 24.4 21.7 19.3 37.3 62.7
Kupe 7-ST 3187 3495 308 132 42.3 76.1 24.8 17.5 15.1 14.7 29.9 70.1
Kupe S-8 3513 3800 287 192.5 67.1 64.9 22.6 20.4 19.2 17.7 38.4 61.6
Tab.3  Quantitative description of multiple petrophysical parameters evaluated by well log analyses
1 A O Adelu, A A Aderemi, A O Akanji, O A Sanuade, S L I Kaka, O Afolabi, S Olugbemiga, R Oke (2019). Application of 3D static modeling for optimal reservoir characterization. J Afr Earth Sci, 152: 184–196
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2019.02.014
2 O A Anyiam, J N Eradiri, A W Mode, C G Okeugo, I C Okwara, P O Ibemesi (2020). Sequence stratigraphic analysis and reservoir quality assessment of an onshore field, Central Swamp Depobelt, Niger Belt Basin, Nigeria. Arab J Geosci, 12(24): 791
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-019-4954-3
3 M Ali, A Abdelhady, A Abdelmaksoud, M Darwish, M A Essa (2019). 3D static modelling and petrographic aspects of the Albian/Cenomanian Reservoir, Komombo Basin, Upper Egypt. Nat Resour Res, 29(2): 1259–1281
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-019-09521-5
4 P A Armstrong, D S Chapman, R H Funnell, R G Allis, P J J Kamp (1996). Thermal modelling and hydrocarbon generation in an active margin basin: Taranaki Basin, New Zealand. AAPG Bull, 80: 1216–1241
5 C Barker (1974). Pyrolysis techniques for source rock evaluation. AAPG Bull, 58: 2349–2361
6 J Burrus, A Kuhfuss, B Doligez, P Ungerer (1991). Are numerical models useful in reconstructing the migration of hydrocarbons? A discussion based on the Northern Viking Graben. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ, 59(1): 89–109
https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1991.059.01.06
7 G M Chongwain, O O Osinowo, M J Ntamak-Nida, S E A Biouele, E N Nkoa (2019). Petrophysical characterization of reservoir intervals in well-X and well-Y, M-Field, offshore Douala Sub-Basin, Cameroon. J Pet Explor Prod Technol, 9(2): 911–925
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-018-0562-0
8 M Erlström , D Sopher (2019). Geophysical well log motifs, lithology, stratigraphical aspects and correlation of the Ordovician succession in the Swedish part of the Baltic Basin. Int J Earth Sci, 108(4): 1387–1407
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-019-01712-y
9 J Espitalie, L J Laporte, M Madec, F Marquis, P Leplat, J Paulet, A Boutefeu (1977). Rapid method of characterization of sea rocks, their oil potential and their degree of evolution. Rev Inst Fran. Pétrole, 32: 32–42 (in French)
10 M Franzel, S Back (2019). Three-dimensional seismic sedimentology and stratigraphic architecture of prograding clinforms, central Taranaki Basin, New Zealand. Int J Earth Sci, 108(2): 475–496
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-018-1663-1
11 M H Hakimi, M R Shalaby, W H Abdullah (2012). Diagenetic characteristic and reservoir quality of the Lower Cretaceous Biyadh sandstones at Kharir oilfield in the western central Masila Basin, Yemen. J Asian Earth Sci, 51: 109–120
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2012.03.004
12 A K M E Haque, M A Islam, M O H A M E D R Ragab Shalaby (2016). Structural modelling of the Maui Gas Field, Taranaki Basin, New Zealand. Pet Explor Dev, 43(6): 965–975
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1876-3804(16)30114-8
13 S Hemming-Sykes (2011). The influence of faulting on hydrocarbon migration in Kupe area, south Taranaki Basin, New Zealand. Dissertation for Master’s Degree. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington
14 K E Higgs, E M Crouch, J I Raine (2017). An interdisciplinary approach to reservoir characterization: an example from the early to middle Eocene Kaimiro Formation, Taranaki Basin, New Zealand. Mar Pet Geol, 86: 111–139
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2017.05.018
15 K E Higgs, P R King, J I Raine, R Sykes, G H Browne, E M Crouch, J R Baur (2012). Sequence stratigraphy and controls on reservoir sandstone distribution in an Eocene marginal marine-coastal plain fairway, Taranaki Basin, New Zealand. Mar Pet Geol, 32(1): 110–137
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2011.12.001
16 B R Ilg, S Hemmings-Sykes, A Nicol, J Baur, M Fohrmann, R Funnell, M Milner (2012). Normal faults and gas migration in an active plate boundary, southern Taranaki Basin, offshore New Zealand. AAPG Bull, 96(9): 1733–1756
https://doi.org/10.1306/02011211088
17 M A Islam, M Yunsi, S M T Qadri, M R Shalaby, A K M E Haque (2020). Three-dimensional structural and petrophysical modeling for reservoir characterization of the Mangahewa Formation, Pohokura Gas-Condensate Field, Taranaki Basin, New Zealand. Nat Resour Res,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-020-09744-x
18 J H Johnston, R H Collier, J D Collen (1990). What is the source of Taranaki oils? Geochemical biomarkers suggest it is very deep coals and shales. In: Proceedings of New Zealand Oil Exploration Conference 1989, Wellington
19 N Jumat, M R Shalaby, M Aminul Islam (2018). Integrated reservoir characterization of the Paleocene Farewell Formation, Taranaki Basin, New Zealand, using petrophysical and petrographical analyses. J Pet Explor Prod Technol, 8(3): 685–701
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-017-0420-5
20 S D Killops, A D Woolhouse, R J Weston, R A Cook (1994). A geochemical appraisal of oil generation in the Taranaki Basin, New Zealand. AAPG Bull, 78: 1560–1585
21 P R King, G P Thrasher (1996). Cretaceous‒Cenozoic geology and petroleum systems of the Taranaki Basin, New Zealand. In: Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Monograph, vol.13 (2). Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences, Lower Hutt
22 G J Knox (1982). Taranaki Basin, structural style and tectonic setting. N Z J Geol Geophys, 25(2): 125–140
https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.1982.10421405
23 K R Martin, J C Baker, P J Hamilton, G P Thrasher (1994). Diagenesis and reservoir quality of Paleocene sandstones in the Kupe South Field, Taranaki Basin, New Zealand. AAPG Bull, 78(4): 624–643
24 P K Mukhopadhay (1994). Petrographic and molecular characterization and its applications to basin Modelling. In: Mukhopadhyay PK, Dow WG, eds. Vitrinite reflectance as a maturity parameter: applications and limitations. American Chemical Society, Washington DC
25 O O Osinowo, J O Ayorinde, C P Nwankwo, O M Ekeng, O B Taiwo (2018). Reservoir description and characterization of Eni field offshore Niger Delta, southern Nigeria. J Pet Explor Prod Technol, 8(2): 381–397
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-017-0402-7
26 L N Osli, M R Shalaby, M A Islam (2018). Characterization of source rocks and depositional environment, and hydrocarbon generation modelling of the Cretaceous Hoiho Formation, Great South Basin, New Zealand. Petrol Coal, 60(2): 255–275
27 K E Peters (1986). Guidelines for the evaluating petroleum source rock using programmed pyrolysis. AAPG Bull, 70(3): 318–329
28 K E Peter, M R Cassa (1994). Applied source rock geochemistry. In: Magoon L, Dow WG, eds. The petroleum system-from source-trap: AAPG Memoir, 60: 93–120
29 S M T Qadri, M R Shalaby, M A Islam, L L Hoon (2016). Source rock characterization and hydrocarbon generation modeling of the Middle to Late Eocene Mangahewa Formation in Taranaki Basin, New Zealand. Arab J Geosci, 9(10): 559
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-016-2586-4
30 S M T Qadri, M A Islam, M R Shalaby, A K M Eahsan ul Haque (2017). Seismic interpretation and structural modelling of Kupe Field, Taranaki Basin, New Zealand. Arab J Geosci, 10(14): 295
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-017-3078-x
31 S M T Qadri, M A Islam, M R Shalaby (2019a). Three-dimensional petrophysical modelling and volumetric analysis to model the reservoir potential of the Kupe Field, Taranaki Basin, New Zealand. Nat Resour Res, 28(2): 369–392
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-018-9394-3
32 S M T Qadri, M A Islam, M R Shalaby (2019b). Application of well log analysis to estimate the petrophysical parameters and evaluate the reservoir quality of the Lower Goru Formation, Lower Indus Basin, Pakistan. Geo-mech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour, 5: 271–288
33 S M T Qadri, M A Islam, M R Shalaby, Aal AK Abdel (2020). Reservoir quality evaluation of the Farewell sandstone by integrating sedimentological and well log analysis in the Kupe South Field, Taranaki Basin, New Zealand. J Petrol Explor Prod Technol
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-020-01035-8
34 M Sarma, R Kellet, S Pryde, G Reynolds (2014). Petroleum Systems Modelling: Evaluation of the Eltham Area (PEP 51150), Onshore Taranaki Basin. Wellington: New Zealand Corp
35 M Seyyedattar, S Zendehboudi, S Butt (2020). Technical and non-technical challenges of development of offshore petroleum reservoirs: Characterization and production. Nat Resour Res, 29(3): 2147–2189
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-019-09549-7
36 M R Shalaby, M H Hakimi, W H Abdullah (2011). Geochemical characteristics and hydrocarbon generation modelling of the Jurassic source rocks in Shoushan Basin, north Western Desert, Egypt. Mar Pet Geol, 28(9): 1611–1624
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2011.07.003
37 R Sykes, H Volk, S C George, M Ahmed, K E Higgs, P E Johansen, L R Snowdon (2014). Marine influence helps preserves the oil potential of the coaly source rocks: Eocene Mangahewa Formation, Taranaki Basin, New Zealand. Org Geochem, 66: 140–163
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orggeochem.2013.11.005
38 R Sykes, L R Snowdon (2002). Guidelines for assessing the petroleum potential of the coaly source rocks using rock-eval pyrolysis. Org Geochem, 33(12): 1441–1455
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0146-6380(02)00183-3
39 J G Thompson (1982). Hydrocarbon source rock analyses of Pakawau Group and Kapuni Formation sediments, northwest Nelson and offshore South Taranaki, New Zealand. N Z J Geol Geophys, 25(2): 141–148
https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.1982.10421406
40 B P Tissot, D H Welte (1984). Petroleum Formation and Occurrence. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer
41 D W Wapples (1980). Time and temperature in petroleum formation: application of Lopatin’s method to petroleum exploration. AAPG Bull, 2(6): 916–926
42 D W Wapples (1994). Maturity modelling: thermal indicators, hydrocarbon generation, and oil cracking. AAPG Mem, 60: 285–306
43 R J Weimer, C A Rebne, T L Davis (1988). Geologic and seismic models, muddy sandstone, Lower Cretaceous, Bell Creek-Rocky Point area, Powder River basin, Montana and Wyoming. In: Diedrich R, Dyka M, Miller W. eds. Eastern Powder River basin-Black Hills: Wyoming Geological Association 39th Field Conference Guidebook, 147–160
44 M R J Wyllie (1963). The Fundamentals of Well Log Interpretations. New York: Academic Press
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed