|Theme||Visible||Selectable||Appearance||Zoom Range (now: 0)|
DISCUSSION STRATEGIC BASIN WIDE EXPLORATION-SESSION 1 Chairman: Mr. J. A. OELE, Director Exploration S.I.P.M. Session 1 received a large number of submittals. To provide adequate presentation and discussion time a decision was made to separate the session papers into an oral and a postal session. The oral session included 5 papers each allocated some 15 minutes. Another 6 submittals were assigned to the poster session. In his introduction the Chair- man thanked his vice-chairman for the support during the preparation of the papers and poster session. Time keeping was provided by the Scientific Secretary from Norway, Mr. K. Kolbjornsen. In his introduction the Chairman further remarked that the sequence of papers had been selected with the aim to highlight basin wide exploration stra- tegies. The first three papers would detail the present understanding of the basic parameters of hydrocar- bon formation and entrapment, the modern develop- ments in basin modelling and the need for a better understanding of the time and space relationship of sedimentary rocks. The last two papers would indi- cate the exploration technology available to the modern explorer and the resulting exploration. The first paper on `Petroleum Systems of the World' was presented by Mr. C. D. Masters of the U.S. Geological Survey standing in for the main author of the paper G. Ulmishek who was not in a position to present his paper. The second paper on `Dynamic Basin Development' was presented by Mr. R. Gabrielsen (Norway). The first question was presented by Mr. M. P. Meyer, France who asked about the impor- tance of Geographical Information Systems (G.I.S.) referenced data bases in understanding dynamic basin development. In response Mr. Gabrielsen not only agreed with the importance of a proper refer- ence data base but also indicated the necessity of linkage of various subsurface data bases via G.I.S. system to assist both the regional and detail evalu- ation by all the specialist involved in subsurface evaluations. A further question by Mr. A. Mechraou (Algeria) on the status of the POSC (Petrotechnical Open Software Corporation) initiative in relation to basin wide exploration. Mr. Gabrielsen indicated that in Norsk Hydro the data base systems recognised the POSC standards but that full integration had not yet been achieved. The third paper by Mr. P. Homewood (ELF) on `Reducing Risk in Geological models for Exploration' indicated the importance of a proper understanding of the relationship of stratigraphy and lithology (`Back to the rocks'). The fourth paper was presented by Mr. J. Hickson (Exxon) on `Seismic Interpretation Today and Tomorrow' and gave rise to a lively discussion par- ticularly on direct detection of hydrocarbons and lithology prediction by seismic methods. Mr. A. Mechraou asked about porosity predictions in reservoirs with porosities below 10%. Mr. Hickson indicated that in spite of the considerable progress made a considera
DISCUSSION DEVELOPMENTS IN EXPLORATION OF NON-TECTONIC TRAPS Chairman: E. J. GUZMAN (Mexico) Scientific Secretary: V. MUSAT (Romania) Much of the discussion centred on what appeared to have been a long-standing argument between Soviet and Romanian geologists regarding the suit- ability in the use of the term `non-anticlinal' as synonymous to `non-tectonic traps' in classifying or designating those traps generated basically by the action of Litho-Stratigraphic factors. The matter was first brought up by NELU IONUESCU (Romania), who considered the term `non-anticlinal' as not suit- able, because it suggests the shape rather than the genesis of the trap. He proposed the term `Litho- Stratigraphic' or even `non-tectonic' as more adequate. YURI V. PASHKOV (USSR) the only one of the authors attending the Congress and who made the presentation of the paper, agreed that the term `non- anticlinal' did reflect the shape rather than the genesis, however, he commented that petroleum geologists around the world used many different terms to classify these types of non-structural traps and their classification using the term `non-anticlinal' had been published last year in the Soviet Union and had gained some recognition among the soviet geologists. The same objection to the term `non-anticlinal' was brought up also by IOAN PATRUTZ (Romania) and D. PARASCHIV (Romania). The author remarked that he considered both terms `non-anticlinal' and `non-tectonic' as synonymous, however, if the term `non-anticlinal' caused so much bewilderment, he was ready to withdraw the term. Intermingled with the above mentioned remarks and arguments concerning terminology, there was first a remark by CORNELIU BARBU (Romania) congratulating G. P. OVANESOV and his collabora- tors for giving an optimistic answer to the specialists, who are pessimistic about the future of petroleum. He considers that there are still important natural oil reservoirs to be found. That the ones mentioned in the paper represents only one category, but others should exist at greater depths and below deep waters. Accordingly, he believes there is no crisis of reserves, but rather a crisis of technology and he would like to see the next Congress accentuate the technical prob- lems of exploration and enhanced oil recovery. When asked by H. PAETZ (GDR), if wells and how many had to be drilled to confirm the geophysical or paleotectonic and paleogeomorphologic inter- pretations or whether it could be done by using the data of neighbouring fields, Dr PASHKOV (USSR) answered that both things were done and that of course, in ail cases wells had to be drilled to confirm the presence of oil. H. PAETZ (GDR) also wished to know from the authors the greatest depth at which their method was more effective. To this query, the author stated that the type of traps `non-anticlinal' or `non-tectonic' varied very much in depth in the different regions of the
DAPEX (Detection of Abnormal Pressure while Drilling EXpert system) is an expert system which monitors and analyses drilling parameters in real-time during drilling. Its purpose is to perform a comprehensive pressure analysis based on data available from several sources, including surface measurements, downhole measurements (M WD) and predicted geological data. The system identifies abnormal pressure conditions as well as diagnoses their origins.
High pressure exploration drilling is a knowledge-intensive operation which imposes strong requirements on the quality of the information gathered before and while drilling. DAPEX (Detection of Abnormal Pressure while Drilling EXpert system) is an expert system which monitors and analyses drilling parameters in real-time during drilling. Its purpose is to perform a comprehensive pressure analysis based on data available from several sources, including surface measurements, downhole measurements (MWD) and predicted geological data. The system identifies abnormal pressure conditions as well as diagnoses their origins. DAPEX is an interactive analysis tool for the field geologists on the drilling rig, and is intended to be used primarily on high pressure exploration wells. The system was put into its first field test on a North Sea high pressure well in January 1992.
Tony Hayward earned a PhD degree in geology from the U. of Edinburgh before starting his career with BP in 1982. Following a series of technical and commercial roles in BP Exploration in the U.K., France, and China, he moved to Colombia as Exploration Manager, and, in September 1995, he became President of BP Venezuela. In August 1997, he returned to London as Director of BP Exploration. Hayward became Group Vice President of BP Amoco Exploration and Production as well as a member of the group's Upstream Executive Committee in 1999. He was appointed Group Treasurer in 2000. He became Chief Executive, Exploration and Production, in January 2003.
Oil company involvement in Canadian mineral exploration in 1968 will bereviewed, based on a 35-company questionnaire. Evidence of increases in companyinvolvement in 1967 and 1968 to more direct participation in 1969 will bepresented and shown by data on expenditures for those years and other pertinentinformation. Increases in the number of companies and amounts of spendingreflect a significant movement of oil and gas companies into the mineralsfield. Philosophical and economical aspects of oil company thinking will bediscussed as they pertain to prospecting. The conclusion is drawn that the moveof oil companies to mineral exploration is a logical transfer of men and ideasgeared to changing times and the need for diversification of interests. Oilcompany activity in Canada will be reviewed; special reference will be made tonorthern Saskatchewan, and the implications of the Gulf Minerals uraniumoccurrence will be assessed.
A REVIEW of oil company involvement in Canadian mineral exploration in 1968is presented in this paper, and comparisons are made to activity in 1967 and1969. The word "involvement" rather than "participation" is used because, forthe most part, oil companies have been involved in exploration by way ofindirect participation through joint ventures and syndicates that areprincipally conducted by contractors, consultants or mining companies. Thiswill change in 1969 and succeeding years; based on the level of activity andintensity of pursual in 1967 and 1968, oil companies will move from involvementto direct participation. Data to support this conclusion is presented, asderived from a questionnaire from thirty-five responding oil companies workingin Canada. To begin with, an oil company for the purposes of thisdiscussion is an organization that derives most, if not all, of its income fromsome form of oil and gas operation; this would even include pipeline ortransmission companies, because they are now mineral explorers. The ultimatesources of oil company money is not considered, only the fact that it is spentin Canada. Monies expended 1967, 1968 and 1969 To illustrate oil companyactivity, Figure 1 shows expenditures for the years 1967, 1968 and 1969, and itcan be seen that in the number of companies spending $500,000 on exploration istwice that for the year 1967. Total spending for the same years is estimated at$7 million (1967), $13 million (1968) and $20 million (1969). Due to recentpermit acquisition in Keewatin, mostly by oil companies, a figure closer to $21million maybe more accurate.