Basin modeling of the Permian Basin in West Texas provides insight into undiscovered hydrocarbon resources through integration of subsurface data. High resolution 3D modeling of local geology yields improved regional understanding of fluid migration pathways. Integrating legacy well data and published structure maps digitally into basin models aids in characterization of tight reservoir systems and identification of previously unseen hydrocarbon traps.

1.  Basin modeling provides insight for
exploration and production of hydrocarbon
resources.
 Through basin modeling, exploration teams
can de-risk assets and identify yet to be
found accumulations of hydrocarbons in
mature areas such as the Permian Basin in
West Texas and New Mexico.
 Ensuring data and 3D surface integrity and
accuracy is crucial for finding economic
accumulations of hydrocarbons. GIS
integration is key to supporting basin
modelers.
 The Permian Basin in West Texas has a
wealth of historic data which can be
researched and integrated into basin
modeling methods.
 Currently, the Permian Basin is one of the
last cash flow positive developments of
unconventional resources in the US.
Further development of this extensive
resource requires better understanding of
generation, expulsion, migration, and
accumulation of hydrocarbons in self-
sourced and hybrid systems.
 Stitching high resolution local surfaces (e.g. Figure 2)
onto low resolution regional surfaces (e.g. Figure 5)
yields higher resolution regional surfaces (e.g. Figure 6),
which adds complexity required to analyze fluid
movement and entrapment in the subsurface.
 Migration and accumulation modeling are greatly
improved with the structure that is captured by
integrating the high resolution surfaces.
0
2000
4000
400
0
40
00
60
00
60
00
60
00
8000
8000
80
00
1000
0
100
00
12
000
14
000
14
00
0
1600
0
16
00
0
18000
180
00
20000
500 600 700 800 900 1000
340036003800
Permian Basin: Ellenberger Formation
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
200 km
2000
4000
4000
4000
6000
6000
8000
8000
8000
10000 10000
10000
12000
12000
14000
14000
14000
16000
16000
18000
18000
20000
22000
550 600 650 700
3400344034803520
Ellenberger Formation
5000 10000 15000 20000
50 km
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Distancein meters (1000)
12
14
16
18
20
22
Depthinfeet(1000)
2000
4000
4000
4000
6000
6000
8000
8000
8000
8000
10000
10000
10000
12000
12000
14000
14000
14000
14000
16000
16000
16000
18000
18000
18000
20000
20000
20000
550 600 650 700
3400344034803520
Ellenburger (High Resolution)
5000 10000 15000 20000
50 km
Volumetric Surface Structure Creation for Improved
Migration Accumulation in Basin Modeling
OBJECTIVE
RESULTSAPPROACH
 Empowering modern petroleum system
analysis of unconventional resources by
harnessing paper institutional knowledge
and public data into digital georeferenced
volumetric surfaces for analysis and basin
modeling.
 Stratigraphic formation data acquired from
various geological survey sources.
 Data Processing: georeferencing and
digitization or Python data conversion
depending on original data format.
 3D interpolation and merging of 3D
surfaces.
 Digitized field discovery data from public
sources as inputs for basin modelers.
 All maps are in EPSG 26713 (NAD 1927
UTM Zone 13N). Depths are in EPSG 5703
(NAVD 88 height) and displayed as feet
below mean sea level.
Student: Paul J. Barth
Advisor: Dr. John Pantano
INTRODUCTION
REFERENCES
TX
NM
A A’
TX
NM
TX
NM
1
ArcGIS. Computer software. Version 10.3, ESRI.
Trinity 3D Interactive Petroleum System Analysis and
Risking Toolkit. Computer software. Version 5.65,
ZetaWare.
West Texas Geological Society. Oil & Gas Fields in West
Texas Symposium. volumes I-VIII, 1982-2005, WTGS,
P.O. Box 1595 Midland, Texas 79702.
Gas Trap
Cross Section
Fields
1. Chapman
2. Mi Vada
3. Worsham Bayer
4. Coyanosa
5. Gomez
6. Gomez (south)
Chevron Basin Modeling Center
of Research Excellence CBM CoRE
1
2
3
4
5
6
AA
A’A’
2
3
4
5
6
3800
38503850
3900
3900
3950
4000
4000
4050
4050
4050
4100
41004100
4150
4150
4150
4150
4200
4200
4200
4200
4200
4200
42
00
4250
4250 4250
4250
42
50
4250
4250
4300
43
00
4300
4300
4300
4300
4300
4300
4300
4350
43504350
4350
4350
4350
4350
4350
440
0
4400
4400
4450
4450
4450
4500
450045
00
4500
4550
4550
455
0
455
0
4550
4550
46004600
872 876 880 884
362036253630363536403645
Kelly-Snyder Field
3800 4000 4200 4400 4600
5km
N
NN
N
CONCLUSION
 Several hydrocarbon traps are seen in the high resolution
surface (Figures 6 & 7) that can not be seen in the low
resolution surface (Figure 5).
 Legacy data digitized from conventional fields shows
insight into fluid maturity, migration pathways, and petro-
physical properties of otherwise uncharacterized regional
tight systems.
Figure 1. Contour map scan of Kelly-
Snyder Field from West Texas
Geological Survey.
Figure 2. Kelly-Snyder Field
converted into a 3D volumetric
surface.
Figure 4. Structure
map of the Ellenburger
Formation in the
Permian Basin, west
Texas. Study area
outlined in red.
Figure 5. Low resolution structure map in the Delaware Basin with A to A’ cross section. Figure 6. High resolution structure map in the Delaware Basin with A to A’ cross section and gas traps.
Distance in meters (1000)
High Resolution Surface
Low Resolution Surface
Gas Trap
Fields
1. Chapman
2. Mi Vada
3. Worsham Bayer
4. Coyanosa
5. Gomez
6. Gomez (south)
Depthinfeet(1000)
Figure 7. A to A’ cross section of Figures 4 & 5 with gas traps. (10 x Vertical Exaggeration).
0 40 80 120 160 200
22
18
14
103°00’104°00’103°00’104°00’
32°00’
31°00’
32°00’
31°00’
Cross Section
105° 103° 101°
35°
33°
31°
32°50’
32°45’
32°40’
101°00’ 100°55’
Figure 3. Reservoir description of Headlee (Devonian) Field at time of
discovery, obtained from West Texas Geological Society vol. VIII.