SPECIAL

A r c t iSECTION:
c / A T CA r c t i c / ATC

$VVHVVPHQWDQGH[SORUDWLRQULVNLQJZRUNRZVIRUFRQYHQWLRQDO
DQGXQFRQYHQWLRQDO$UFWLFUHVRXUFHV$SSOLFDWLRQVRQWKH$ODVND
1RUWK6ORSH
BJORN WYGRALA and OLIVER SCHENK, Schlumberger Aachen Technology Center
KENNETH PETERS, Schlumberger Information Solutions

A rctic oil and gas have been E&P targets for several
decades; however, the petroleum potential of this
region is far from being fully understood. Assessments of
undiscovered petroleum in the Arctic indicate that it holds
a signicant amount of the worlds undiscovered gas and oil
(Gautier et al., 2009) and recent assessments also indicate the
potential of shale resource plays for oil and gas, for example
on the Alaska North Slope (Houseknecht, 2012). In this
article, we present technology and workows for ecient
petroleum exploration risk and resource assessments for both
conventional and unconventional resources in the Arctic,
including gas hydrates. We also present a recent successful
exploration campaign which resulted in the rst technically
proven shale oil play on the Alaska North Slope.
This will demonstrate the value of applying the same ap-
proach to other Arctic petroleum provinces, resulting in: (a)
increased understanding of existing and hypothetical petro-
leum systems; (b) more accurate assessments of the remaining
potential hydrocarbon resources on a regional scale; (c) more
accurate screening of exploration opportunities and assess-
ments of exploration risk; and (d) an ecient, geology-based
and auditable approach to petroleum exploration risk and re-
source assessments for both conventional and unconventional
oil and gas.
Petroleum systems modeling
Using all available geological and geophysical (G&G) data to
create multidimensional models of petroleum systems is the
only technology that can integrate and process all available
geologic data to enable a complete assessment of the potential
value of the hydrocarbon resources. The reason is that it adds
the results of a geologic-process-based analysis to the exist-
ing G&G data to provide critical additional information.
For example, it is the only method that enables hydrocarbon
properties and oil versus gas distribution to be understood
and predicted, which is critical for the dierentiation of shale
resource plays into oil- and gas-prone targets.
Petroleum systems modeling enables the dynamics of
sedimentary basins and their associated uids to be evalu-
ated to see if past conditions were suitable for generation of
hydrocarbons to ll potential reservoirs and to be preserved.
Applications include predictions of the extent and timing of
petroleum generation and expulsion or retention from source
rocks, reconstructions of basin architecture, migration path-
ways, locations of potential traps and accumulations, and
analysis of risk based on various geologic, geochemical, or
uid-ow assumptions (Magoon and Dow, 1994; Peters et
al., 2009). The technology uses deterministic computations
Figure 1. Map of the Alaska North Slope shows the area included in
the 3D petroleum systems model (shaded). Seismic lines (gray) and
well locations (red) were used to create structure and isopach maps.
Green outlines the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska (NPRA) and
Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR).
to forward simulate (i.e., from the geologic past to the pres-
ent) the thermal history of a basin and the associated genera-
tion, migration, and accumulation of petroleum (Hantschel
and Kauerauf, 2009; Peters, 2009). These results are then
combined with statistical assessments to enable improved as-
sessments of the petroleum resources, therefore enabling the
entire sequence of analyses from petroleum exploration risk
to resource assessments to be supported.
Petroleum systems model of the Alaska North Slope
As an example, we use an Alaska North Slope 3D petroleum
system model which reconstructs, quanties, and evaluates
the individual petroleum systems, burial history, thermal
evolution, and migration, accumulation, and preservation
of hydrocarbons (Schenk et al., 2012). The results of this
geologic framework enable improved exploration risk as-
sessments and also provide an assessment of the remaining
potential hydrocarbon resources in this remote, but prolic
region. The model is also used to investigate unconventional
resources to predict the type and quantity of hydrocarbon
remaining in the source rocks, as well as for assessments of
gas-hydrate distributions.
The Alaska North Slope petroleum systems model provides
an example of an assessment study for both conventional and
unconventional resources, and is fully scalable from megare-
gional to prospect. The model was constructed and analyzed
in collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey, the worlds

564 The Leading Edge May 2013

 Arctic / ATC

leading assessment agency. The

geologically complex northern Alaska
petroleum province evolved through
the tectonic stages of passive margin,
rift, foreland basin, and foreland fold
and thrust belt. Petroleum was gener-
ated from several source rock units,
and many reservoirs show evidence of
mixing of hydrocarbon source types.
Rift-related structures and a regional
break-up unconformity are critical
trapping and migration components
of the largest oil and gas accumulations
(Bird, 2001). In addition, stratigraphic
traps that developed during extensional
and compressional tectonic regimes
show signicant resource potential in
Jurassic through Cenozoic shelf and
turbidite sequences.
The 3D model encompasses Figure 2. Stratigraphic chart and present-day model geometry. The model shows the Brookian
275,000 km2 (832 520 km with a Sequence, the Lower Cretaceous Unconformity (LCU), and the pre-LCU structure maps based on
grid spacing of 1 km) and includes seismic and well data. For clarity, intermediate layers are not shown.
the Chukchi platform, the Beaufort
continental shelf, and the foothills
of the Brooks Range. The model is
based on >48,000 km of newly in-
terpreted 2D seismic and a database
(fully reviewed for quality control) of
>400 wells that include calibration
and geochemical data (Figure 1).
Particular attention was paid to
mapping onlap and truncation rela-
tions developed during passive mar-
gin and rifting stages (Mississippian
to Early Cretaceous) in recognition
of their importance as hydrocarbon-
migration pathways and traps for
the conventional plays (Schenk et
al., 2012). The overlying Brookian
Sequence with a total thickness of
up to 8000 m was deposited during
Cretaceous and Cenozoic time in a
foreland basin lled by longitudi-
nal WSW-ENE progradation (Bird,
2001) (Figure 2). The reconstruction
of this paleogeometrydiachron-
ous deposition, facies variation, and
thickness distribution as well as varia-
tions in paleobasin geometryis
a key element of this study. These
time-transgressive deposits were re-
constructed by using time lines rather
than formations. They were mapped
from surface traces and shelf edges,
and the eects of multiple Tertiary Figure 3. Modeled progradation of the Brookian Sequence deposits from southwest to northeast
erosion events were also taken into across northern Alaska for selected time slices. Cut plane is in the deepest part of the Colville Basin.
account (Figure 3). Note position of the Lower Cretaceous Unconformity (LCU).

May 2013 The Leading Edge 565

 Arctic / ATC

The model results indicate that

the thermal maturity of pre-Brookian
deposits was controlled mainly by
progradation of the Brookian Se-
quence. The time-transgressive de-
position of the Brookian Sequence
in combination with overall basin
geometry also controls hydrocarbon
generation and the direction of mi-
gration. For the conventional plays,
most migration pathways were di-
rected toward the north with hy-
drocarbons accumulating mainly in
combination structural-stratigraphic
traps along the Barrow Arch, such as
Prudhoe Bay Field. At this supergiant
accumulation, North Americas larg-
est, trap formation on the rift shoul-
der preceded expulsion, resulting in Figure 4. Plumbing system at Prudhoe Bay Field. Comparison of cross sections from Peters et al.
a major accumulation. Biomarkers (2008) and from the 3D model showing the events in early Tertiary and at present day.
show that Prudhoe Bay oil is a mix-
ture of oils derived from the Triassic
Shublik Formation and Cretaceous Hue Shale with lesser in-
put from the Jurassic Kingak Shale (Peters et al., 2008). These
results are consistent with the 3D model; the Shublik and
Kingak source rocks started to expel hydrocarbons during
the Cretaceous, mainly in the foreland basin, which migrated
northward to the rift shoulder. During Tertiary time, burial
was mainly restricted to the easternmost parts of the foreland
basin and the passive margin north of the rift shoulder where
associated tilting and subsidence resulted in hydrocarbon
generation from the Hue Shale. These hydrocarbons were ex-
pelled downward into a zone related to the Lower Cretaceous
(break-up) Unconformity (LCU) along which they migrated
toward the Barrow Arch, resulting in late-stage contribution
of Hue oil in Prudhoe Bay Field (Figure 5). Figure 5. Distribution of modeled accumulations in the Prudhoe Bay
area with reference to top of basement and some key wells. Note locally
Application to shale oil exploration rened grid in the 3D model in the Prudhoe Bay area.
The increasing awareness of the potential of unconventional
shale gas and oil as a future long-term energy source has also In a recent exploration campaign in Alaska, the Alaska
increased the interest in its potential in northern Alaska. Pe- North Slope 3D petroleum systems model was used to de-
troleum productivity from analogs in the Lower 48, for ex- lineate preferred areas for shale oil (i.e., areas where oil has
ample, are currently used for guidance on possible productiv- been retained and preserved in the source rocks). The main
ity from North Slope source rocks with similar characteristics target is the Shublik, and the value of the application has just
and geologic histories: Alaska North Slopes Shublik Forma- been conrmed by its role in discovering the rst technical-
tion is also considered the most eective source rock for ly proven shale oil play on the Alaska North slope (Bailey,
unconventional petroleum; its organic carbon content and 2012). The Alaska North Slope 3D petroleum systems model
carbonate minerals and related brittleness are similar to the shown here was used and enabled the explorer, for example,
Eagle Ford shale which constitutes a successful shale oil play to determine what leases to purchase and where to drill test
in Texas. Key uncertainties for such unconventional systems wells and to predict the locations of liquids fairways in the
arise from (1) rock properties and their variability inside one source rocks.
formation and lateral distribution, (2) geomechanical prop- Following the same workow and example, the G&G data
erties, such as brittleness, (3) organic content, (4) maturity, and the 3D Alaska North Slope petroleum systems model can
and (5) overpressure and its timing. Petroleum system mod- be analyzed with a new play-based exploration methodology
eling helps to quantify and assess these uncertainties and its to more eciently and systematically evaluate conventional
successful application in technically proving a new shale oil and unconventional plays. Maps of criteria including proper-
play is shown (Figure 4). ties derived from petroleum system modeling are converted

566 The Leading Edge May 2013

 Arctic / ATC

and temperature, and pressure/tem-

perature modeling is the core task of
petroleum systems modeling simula-
tors. With specic adaptations such
as high-resolution, locally rened
grids and short simulation time steps,
these simulators can now be used to
model not only the position of the
GHSZ (Figure 7), but also the gen-
eration of biogenic and thermogenic
gas and its migration into the GHSZ
and the formation of gas hydrates in
the available pore space. The Alaska
North Slope 3D model has proven to
be an ideal test case for the applica-
tion of gas-hydrate modeling as it is
a permafrost-controlled system with
proven gas-hydrate occurrences.
Figure 6. Total play chance map for shale oil potential in a selected source rock on the Alaska In an additional study area in
North Slope. Information including organic matter content of the source rock and quality,
maturation, depth, and thickness is extracted from the 3D petroleum systems model and assessed the Eastern Nankai Trough in Japan,
with a play chance workow. Green indicates areas with a higher chance of success and red with 3D petroleum systems modeling is
lower. used to not only determine the ex-
tent of the GHSZ through geologic
to chance-of-success maps for hydrocarbon generation, reten- time, but also to directly simulate the generation of methane
tion, and pore volume that may be coupled with nongeo- from biogenic sources and the formation of gas hydrates in
logic factors, such as access and drilling depth required to the available pore space in the GHSZ as well as the resulting
reach target reservoirs. These play-based maps are expressed eects of the gas hydrates on the physical properties of the
in probability units and then combined to create maps of the sediments. The methodology which has been calibrated in the
overall play chance of success. The maps highlight sweet spots test area can then be applied to frontier areas in Japan and will
in the shale play, and can also be used to dene more accurate enable predictions of gas-hydrate resources to be based on better
oil- or gas-assessment units for resource assessments for both understanding of the controlling factors and with greater con-
conventional and unconventional reservoirs (Figure 6). dence, even in areas with sparse data (Fujii et al., 2013).

Application to gas-hydrates assessments Application to petroleum resource assessments

Gas hydrates are pressure/temperature-controlled accumula-
tions of mostly methane which occur in sediments within
the gas-hydrate stability zone (GHSZ) at relatively shallow
depths, either in permafrost or in deep-water environments.
There are widely dierentiating assessments of global gas-
hydrate resources, but even the most conservative estimates
consider gas-hydrate resources to be several times larger than
all of the worlds conventional and unconventional oil, gas,
and coal combined. Methane hydrates are therefore consid-
ered the worlds largest reservoir of fossil fuel. They have not
yet been proven commercial, but recent progress in develop-
ing appropriate production methods has provided encourag-
ing results. Production methods include methane extraction
coupled with CO2 sequestration, in which the CO2 replaces
and releases the methane from the hydrates, and which was
technically proven for permafrost hydrates in a production
test in 2012 on the Alaska North Slope (Schoderbek, 2012).
The preferred production method for oshore deep-water gas
hydrates is depressurization and the rst larger-scale produc-
tion test will be performed by JOGMEC in 2013.
Gas-hydrate exploration and resource assessments are
supported by petroleum systems modeling as hydrate forma-
tion and stability is predominantly controlled by pressure
Petroleum resource assessments are used to quantify discov-
ered and undiscovered petroleum that is technically and eco-
nomically recoverable within a certain time frame (e.g., 30
years). An assessment is usually undertaken over a large area,
either a country, a basin, region, or potential concession area
to evaluate its hydrocarbon potential. Resource assessments
are especially important for government and state agen-
cies that are responsible for the release of areas to national
and foreign companies for oil and gas exploration. Nation-
ally owned resources cannot be divested to foreign entities
without knowing the relative and potential value of the re-
sources. It is understood that what is technically recoverable
can change signicantly due, for example, to new technical
developments, and what is economically recoverable can also
change signicantly due for example to oil/gas prices. Rapid
changes are also possible because of, for example, the devel-
opment of new resource types such as shale resource plays,
coal-bed methane and gas hydrates.
Unlike petroleum reserves which must be discovered by
drilling and are then assessed according to well-dened and
generally accepted standards (e.g., SPE), petroleum resource
assessments are less well dened. They are often disconnected
from the underlying geoscience data, they are not necessarily

568 The Leading Edge May 2013

 Arctic / ATC
Figure 7. Extent of gas-hydrate stability zone on the Alaska North Slope at 250,000 years before present, 120,000 years before present, and at
present. Green area is hydrate and ice; red area is hydrate and water stability zone.
based on a rigorously applied methodology, key risk factors
are frequently not included and they are not covered by a
fully auditable workow. The value of the results is therefore
limited and there can be signicant dierences, even with the
same given data. It is therefore essential to standardize meth-
ods and tools for resource assessments, based on scientically
sound and industry-standard geoscientic analyses, to docu-
ment the procedures that are used, and to ensure that the
analysis is complete, ecient, and relevant to support petro-
leum exploration activities.
Some specic requirements that need to be fullled by
petroleum resource assessment methodologies and workows
include: (1) close coupling with complete workows from
national data repositories to data packages used for lease sales
and bid rounds, using industry standard G&G data-handling
tools, (2) application to the widely diering types and quality
of data availability in various basins from frontier to well-
explored areas, (3) provision of rigorous, scientically based
and objective assessment methodology, (4) consideration of
all key exploration risk factors enabling the entire range of
assessments from megaregional to play and even to prospect
scale to be handled as required, (5) complete integration of
uncertainty analyses and risk assessments and delivery of
output in industry standard formats, and (6) applicability to
support both conventional and unconventional petroleum
resource assessments.
Application to Arctic areas
The U.S. Geological Survey assessed the area north of the Arc-
tic Circle and concluded that approximately 30% of the worlds
undiscovered gas and 13% of the worlds undiscovered oil may
be found there, most likely oshore with water depths of less
than 500 m (Gautier et al., 2009). Undiscovered natural gas
is largely concentrated in Russia and here mainly in the Rus-
sian Arctic. Currently the activities focus is the South Kara Sea,
which represents the continuation of the West Siberian Basin.
The Kara Sea, Barents Sea, and Pechora Sea are now the most
explored areas of the Russian Arctic (Bishop et al., 2011). How-
ever, many areas in the eastern Russian Arctic, for example
the Chukchi basin, are in an initial exploration phase. In all
Arctic areas, oil versus gas prospectivity is a key factor which
can be addressed by petroleum systems modeling, even if
only sparse data are available.
570 The Leading Edge May 2013
Summary and conclusions
The workow from G&G data to petroleum systems model-
ing that we have demonstrated using the Alaska North Slope
model is eminently suited for applications in the Arctic. We
have shown a case study of the successful delineation of a
new shale oil unconventional play on the Alaska North Slope
and thereby proven its eectivity as a tool for exploration risk
and resource assessments in the Arctic. It is particularly suit-
ed to delineating oil versus gas prospectivity and resources
for both conventional and unconventional reservoirs as well
as for gas hydrates, all critical topics in Arctic exploration.
The exploration risk assessment workow that has been
demonstrated using the Alaska North Slope 3D model can be
subdivided into three main steps: (1) data reviewed for qual-
ity control and assembly of an integrated G&G data model;
(2) petroleum systems modeling to obtain process based in-
formation; and (3) mapping all G&G and petroleum systems
data into play chance maps and assessment units.
These steps can then be extended to cover risk/uncer-
tainty analysis for all G&G and petroleum systems data and
statistical assessment of resources for conventional and un-
conventional oil and gas.
Even with sparse data, petroleum systems modeling can
be used to more denitively indicate the type of hydrocarbon
likely to be discovered and therefore to more accurately delin-
eate assessment units. If the entire workow from the origi-
nal G&G data and petroleum systems modeling to the nal
statistical analysis of the resources is ecient, the assessment
can then be constantly updated and maintained as new data
become available. It then provides an opportunity to regularly
re-evaluate the petroleum potential of the assessment unit(s),
and the Alaska North Slope model is an excellent example
of the benets of being able to extend an exploration risking
workow into a complete resource assessment system.
References
Bailey, A., 2012, The oils there: Petroleum News, 17, no. 39, 115.
Bird, K. J., 2001, Alaska: A twenty-rst century petroleum province,
in M. W. Downey, J. C. Threet, and W. A. Morgan, eds., Petro-
leum provinces of the Twenty-rst century: AAPG Memoir 74,
137165.
Bishop, A., C. Bremner, A. Laake, C. Strobbia, P. Parno, and G. Uts-
kot, 2010/2011, 2011, Petroleum potential of the ArcticChal-
lenges and solutions: Oileld Review, 22, no. 4, 3649.
 Arctic / ATC
Fujii, T., T. Ukita, Y. Komatsu, B. Wygrala, T. Fuchs, W. Rottke,
and T. Aung, 2013, Gas-hydrate system modeling in the eastern
Nankai Trough, Japan: presented at AAPG Annual Convention.
Gautier, D. L., K. J. Bird, R. R. Charpentier, A. Grantz, D. W. House-
knecht, T. R. Klett, T. E. Moore, J. K. Pitman, C. J. Schenk, J.
H. Schuenemeyer, K. Srensen, M. E. Tennyson, Z. C. Valin,
and C. J. Wandrey, 2009, Assessment of undiscovered oil and gas
in the Arctic: Science, 324, no. 5931, 11751179, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1126/science.1169467.
Hantschel, T. and A. I. Kauerauf, 2009, Fundamentals of basin and
petroleum systems modeling: Springer Verlag.
Houseknecht, D. W., 2012, Assessment of potential oil and gas re-
sources in source rocks of the Alaska North Slope, 2012: USGS
Fact Sheet 20122013.
Magoon, L. B. and W. G. Dow, 1994, The petroleum systemfrom
source to trap: AAPG Memoir 60.
Peters, K. E., L. Ramos, J. E. Zumberge, Z. C. Valin, and K. J. Bird,
2008, De-convoluting mixed crude oil in Prudhoe Bay Field,
572 The Leading Edge May 2013
North Slope, Alaska: Organic Geochemistry, 39, no. 6, 623645,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orggeochem.2008.03.001.
Peters, K. E., ed., 2009, Basin and petroleum system modeling: AAPG
Getting Started Series 16.
Peters, K. E., O. Schenk, and B. Wygrala, 2009, Exploration para-
digm shift: The dynamic petroleum system concept: Swiss Bulletin
fuer Angewandte Geologie, 14, no. 12, 6571.
Schenk, O., K. J. Bird, L. B. Magoon, and K. E. Peters, 2012, Pe-
troleum system modeling of northern Alaska, in K. E. Peters, D.
Curry, and M. Kacewicz, eds., Basin and petroleum system model-
ing: AAPG Hedberg Series no. 4, 317338.
Schoderbek, D., 2012, Progress report rst half 2012ConocoPhil-
lips Gas-hydrate production test: ConocoPhillips Anchorage for
U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Labora-
tory.
Corresponding author: BWygrala@slb.com