Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

Petroleum Geoscience

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ohm, S. E. Articles by Beeley, H. S. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

A drilling mud additive influencing the geochemical interpretations of hydrocarbon shows

¹ ConocoPhillips Norge, P.O.Box 220, N-4098 Tananger, Norway (sverre.e.ohm{at}conocophillips.com)
² Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, PO.Box 1047 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway
³ Present address: StatoilHydro, 4035 Stavanger, Norway

Oil-based mud additives are used frequently during drilling for various purposes. The chemical compositions of these may interfere/overprint the chemical composition of hydrocarbon shows in the well and thereby complicate geochemical interpretations. This is likely to be an increasing problem as hydrocarbon findings become more subtle. It is important that the geochemist compiles a list of all additives used during drilling and obtains a sample of the pre-drill oil-based mud additives used. In the case of detailed geochemical analyses to be carried out post-drilling, it is then possible to check the influence/contamination of the additives on the hydrocarbons found.

The chemical composition of a frequently used oil-based mud additive is demonstrated to have overprinted the hopane signature of an oil-slick sample in well 35/1-1, northern North Sea. This could easily have resulted in erroneous interpretations regarding age and depositional environment of the source rock of the oil. However, the steranes used for interpretation of facies are shown to be unaffected by the mud additive. A study of shows from well 35/1-1 suggested the source of these to be an atypical developed Upper Jurassic source rock, despite the hopane signature suggesting a carbonaceous Permian source. The main argument was that a Permian source would imply higher maturities than observed. The present study reveals that the hopanes in the shows are contaminated completely by the mud additive used during drilling and, hence, a Permian source is ruled out successfully.

This paper demonstrates that if one biomarker group from the mud additive overprints that of the indigenous oil show this does not preclude other biomarker groups from truly representing the oil show.

KEYWORDS: fractures, stylolites, sandstone, Snøhvit Field, Barents Sea