- Abstract
- Affiliation
- All
- Authors
- Book Series
- DOI
- EISBN
- EISSN
- Full Text
- GeoRef ID
- ISBN
- ISSN
- Issue
- Keyword (GeoRef Descriptor)
- Meeting Information
- Report #
- Title
- Volume
- Abstract
- Affiliation
- All
- Authors
- Book Series
- DOI
- EISBN
- EISSN
- Full Text
- GeoRef ID
- ISBN
- ISSN
- Issue
- Keyword (GeoRef Descriptor)
- Meeting Information
- Report #
- Title
- Volume
- Abstract
- Affiliation
- All
- Authors
- Book Series
- DOI
- EISBN
- EISSN
- Full Text
- GeoRef ID
- ISBN
- ISSN
- Issue
- Keyword (GeoRef Descriptor)
- Meeting Information
- Report #
- Title
- Volume
- Abstract
- Affiliation
- All
- Authors
- Book Series
- DOI
- EISBN
- EISSN
- Full Text
- GeoRef ID
- ISBN
- ISSN
- Issue
- Keyword (GeoRef Descriptor)
- Meeting Information
- Report #
- Title
- Volume
- Abstract
- Affiliation
- All
- Authors
- Book Series
- DOI
- EISBN
- EISSN
- Full Text
- GeoRef ID
- ISBN
- ISSN
- Issue
- Keyword (GeoRef Descriptor)
- Meeting Information
- Report #
- Title
- Volume
- Abstract
- Affiliation
- All
- Authors
- Book Series
- DOI
- EISBN
- EISSN
- Full Text
- GeoRef ID
- ISBN
- ISSN
- Issue
- Keyword (GeoRef Descriptor)
- Meeting Information
- Report #
- Title
- Volume
NARROW
GeoRef Subject
-
all geography including DSDP/ODP Sites and Legs
-
Atlantic Ocean
-
North Atlantic
-
North Sea
-
East Shetland Basin (1)
-
-
-
-
Central Graben (1)
-
Europe
-
Variscides (1)
-
Western Europe
-
United Kingdom
-
Great Britain
-
England (2)
-
Scotland (1)
-
-
-
-
-
-
commodities
-
energy sources (1)
-
oil and gas fields (1)
-
petroleum
-
natural gas
-
shale gas (1)
-
-
-
-
elements, isotopes
-
carbon (1)
-
-
fossils
-
microfossils (1)
-
palynomorphs (1)
-
-
geologic age
-
Mesozoic
-
Jurassic
-
Heather Formation (1)
-
Middle Jurassic
-
Bajocian
-
Brent Group (1)
-
-
-
Upper Jurassic
-
Fulmar Formation (1)
-
Kimmeridge Clay (1)
-
-
-
-
Paleozoic
-
Carboniferous
-
Lower Carboniferous (1)
-
Namurian (1)
-
Upper Carboniferous
-
Stephanian (1)
-
Westphalian (1)
-
-
-
Devonian
-
Middle Devonian
-
Givetian (1)
-
-
Upper Devonian
-
Frasnian (1)
-
-
-
Permian
-
Lower Permian (1)
-
-
-
-
Primary terms
-
Atlantic Ocean
-
North Atlantic
-
North Sea
-
East Shetland Basin (1)
-
-
-
-
carbon (1)
-
crust (1)
-
energy sources (1)
-
Europe
-
Variscides (1)
-
Western Europe
-
United Kingdom
-
Great Britain
-
England (2)
-
Scotland (1)
-
-
-
-
-
faults (1)
-
folds (1)
-
geophysical methods (4)
-
inclusions
-
fluid inclusions (1)
-
-
Mesozoic
-
Jurassic
-
Heather Formation (1)
-
Middle Jurassic
-
Bajocian
-
Brent Group (1)
-
-
-
Upper Jurassic
-
Fulmar Formation (1)
-
Kimmeridge Clay (1)
-
-
-
-
oil and gas fields (1)
-
orogeny (1)
-
Paleozoic
-
Carboniferous
-
Lower Carboniferous (1)
-
Namurian (1)
-
Upper Carboniferous
-
Stephanian (1)
-
Westphalian (1)
-
-
-
Devonian
-
Middle Devonian
-
Givetian (1)
-
-
Upper Devonian
-
Frasnian (1)
-
-
-
Permian
-
Lower Permian (1)
-
-
-
palynomorphs (1)
-
petroleum
-
natural gas
-
shale gas (1)
-
-
-
plate tectonics (1)
-
sedimentary rocks
-
clastic rocks
-
conglomerate (1)
-
mudstone (1)
-
sandstone (1)
-
shale (1)
-
siltstone (1)
-
-
-
sedimentation (1)
-
tectonics (1)
-
well-logging (1)
-
-
sedimentary rocks
-
sedimentary rocks
-
clastic rocks
-
conglomerate (1)
-
mudstone (1)
-
sandstone (1)
-
shale (1)
-
siltstone (1)
-
-
-
Abstract The Alma Field (formerly Argyll and then Ardmore) is located within Blocks 30/24 and 30/25 on the western margin of the Central Graben. Hamilton drilled the first discovery well 30/24-1 in 1969 and the field, named ‘Argyll’, became the first UK offshore oilfield when production commenced in 1975. Oil was produced from the Devonian Buchan Formation, Permian Rotliegend and Zechstein groups, and Jurassic Fulmar Formation from 1976 until 1992, when the field was abandoned for economic reasons. In 2002, Tuscan Energy and Acorn Oil & Gas redeveloped the field and renamed it as ‘Ardmore’. A further 5 MMbbl were produced until 2005, when the field was again abandoned due to commercial considerations. In 2011, EnQuest was awarded the licence to redevelop the field and renamed it as ‘Alma’. The field came on stream in October 2015 and has produced oil at an average c. 6000 bopd since start-up. Total ultimate recovery was expected to be about 100 MMbbl. As of end 2005, the field had produced 72.6 MMbbl as Argyll and 5 MMbbl as Ardmore. A further 4.3 MMbbl has been produced from the Alma Field to September 2017 (which includes about 0.5 MMbbl from a long-reach well drilled into the Duncan/Galia Field immediately west of Alma). In January 2020 EnQuest announced that the Alma Field would cease production early. The total production from the three phases of field development will be about 85 MMbbl of oil.
The Pelican Field, Block 211/26a, UK North Sea
Abstract The Pelican Field lies in the East Shetland Basin, in Block 211/26, roughly 150 km NE of the Shetland Islands. It was discovered in 1975 by exploration well 211/26-4. Development was delayed until 1995 when economic development became feasible as a subsea tie back to the Cormorant Alpha Platform. The reservoir is the Middle Jurassic Brent Group, comprising sands deposited in a fluvio-deltaic, shallow-marine, wave-dominated system. The reservoir interval has an average thickness of around 300 ft, ranging from 220 ft on the crest to 400 ft in down-flank areas. The crest of the field lies at around 10 500 ft true vertical depth subsea. Current estimate of oil in place for the field is c. 500 MMbbl. The Pelican Field suffers from significant deterioration of reservoir properties with depth, leading to low recovery factors of 15–20%. To date, 21 production and injection wells have been drilled recovering a total of 76 MMbbl. Oil production started in 1996 and peak oil production was achieved at 50 000 bopd in the same year. Rates declined due to water-cut development in most of the wells and current production rates are around 2000 bopd.
Seismic and borehole-based mapping of the late Carboniferous succession in the Canonbie Coalfield, SW Scotland: evidence for a ‘broken’ Variscan foreland?
Exploration and development in the Carboniferous of the Southern North Sea: a 30-year retrospective
Abstract A review is presented of the progress of exploration for, and development of, gas fields in the Carboniferous of the UK Southern North Sea in the period since the first significant discoveries were made in 1984. The outcomes of such exploration have generally failed to live up to high initial expectations and exploration targeting of the Carboniferous has declined, the objective having come to be seen by many as difficult and risky. This review includes a summary of the published consensus regarding elements of the Carboniferous petroleum system and discusses the reasons for the decline in interest, which encompass geological complexity, interpretational and operational problems and other non-technical factors. Five areas of Carboniferous petroleum geology are identified in which the currently accepted status quo is open to challenge. More detailed discussion of these leads to the following general conclusions: (1) the distribution of source rocks and their maturation history remains poorly understood, largely as a result of the hitherto unquestioned acceptance that Westphalian coals have acted as the dominant gas source; (2) in many early wells the combination of formation damage and shortcomings in petrophysical data acquisition and evaluation has resulted in a failure to identify potential pay in low permeability formations and an overemphasis on the importance of channel sand bodies as reservoir objectives; (3) the controls on seal capacity and integrity within the Carboniferous succession have been little studied and, as a result, an unduly pessimistic view of intra-Carboniferous sealing potential has prevailed; (4) the distribution of sub-basin depocentres, and thus of basinal shale source rocks and potential hydrocarbon migration paths, remains poorly understood; and (5) conceptual models of the large-scale tectonic history of the Carboniferous basin complex have failed to evolve from early and simplistic rift and sag models, which do not adequately explain the observed distribution of stratigraphic thicknesses and are inconsistent with some published burial histories.