ISSN 10193316, Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2012, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 17–26. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2012. Original Russian Text © I.E. Varshavskaya, Yu.A. Volozh, A.N. Dmitrievskii, Yu.G. Leonov, N.V. Miletenko, M.A. Fedonkin, 2012, published in Vestnik Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk, 2012, Vol. 82, No. 2, pp. 99–109.
Science and Society The authors propose a concept that makes it possible at least to mitigate, if not to avoid, the consequences of an energy crisis, which is conceivable in the near future due to the depletion of hydrocarbon resources. This concept may either underlie the main track of negotiating the crisis or constitute a critical link in a more sophisticated strategy of providing Russia with energy resources. The authors hope that their considerations will draw the attention of the Russian government, the Russian Academy of Sciences, and ministries and departments responsible for Russia’s energy security. DOI: 10.1134/S1019331612010078
A New Concept of Developing Hydrocarbon Resources I. E. Varshavskaya, Yu. A. Volozh, A. N. Dmitrievskii, Yu. G. Leonov, N. V. Miletenko, and M. A. Fedonkin* Russia’s economy rests largely on energy carriers, such as oil and gas. However, the resources, or, more precisely, the explored reserves, of oil and gas are run ning out. The problem of future hydrocarbon sources is becoming more acute. The timing of resource deple tion for the world and for Russia is estimated in various ways, but trends are similar. We have a head start in natural gas reserves; as for oil, we are in a worse situa tion. We are counting years: experts hold that, if the current ratio of oil production to oil reserve addition continues, in fivetosix years the country risks facing serious problems in maintaining oil production at the current level.
the rocks of the Western Siberian Bazhenov Suite may be huge. However, we currently have no reliable tech nologies for forecasting deposits and extracting oil. In any case, the cost of the end product is expected to be high, but, as some specialists hold, its extraction may turn out to be more profitable than oil production in the Eastern Arctic shelf [2]. The situation with shale gas is simpler: some countries, for example, the United States, produce it. Coal reserves are great, but coal development and combustion heavily pollute the environment, including the atmosphere, which is the greatest hazard. For these reasons, coal may not be considered an adequate replacement for traditional hydrocarbons.
Out of the whole arsenal of alternative energy sources, the most serious hopes are pinned on nuclear power. It will play the main role in energy production; however, this will not happen in the near future. Nuclear energy production is limited not so much by security and environmental issues, which can be dealt with, as by the global reserves of uranium235, which can last for several decades but not more than 50 years. In the opinion of scientists, the nuclear energy indus try has no longterm prospects until a safe and eco nomical reactor and closed fuel cycle are created [1].
Other sources of both renewable and nonrenewable energy—solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and biofuel combustion—are, of course, important (especially solar energy in the long run), but they are unable to meet the needs of humankind. Thus, an adequate substitute for hydrocarbons will not emerge in the near future, not only in the power industry but also in the chemical industry. It turns out that the main objectives of the present and the near future are, first, the search for new hydrocarbon sources and, second, the boosting of R&D toward a fast reactor that would help avoid dependence on the decreasing reserves of uranium235. Work on the use of other energy sources, including primarily solar power, should continue, but this is an additional, albeit important, component of energy strategy.
The most significant of nonrenewable energy sources are shale oil, shale gas, and coal. Judging from proven data, the reserves of shale oil, for example, in * Inessa Efimovna Varshavskaya, Cand. Sci. (Geol.–Mineral.), is an advisor to the director of the RAS Geological Institute (RAS GIN). Yuri Abramovich Volozh, Dr. Sci. (Geol.–Mineral.), is chief research fellow of the RAS GIN Laboratory of Compara tive Analysis of Sedimentary Basins. Academician Anatolii Nikolaevich Dmitrievskii is director of the RAS Institute of Oil and Gas Problems (RAS IOGP). Academician Yuri Georgievich Leonov is chief research fellow at the RAS GIN. Nikolai Vasil’evich Miletenko, Dr. Sci. (Geol.–Mineral.), is a deputy director of the Department of State Policy and Regulation of Nature Management at the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources. Academician Mikhail Aleksandrovich Fedonkin is director of the RAS GIN.
In recent years, improved technologies of hydro carbon extraction and new possible hydrocarbon sources have been considered: • the resources of the Arctic basin, which have not been explored well but which are considerable accord ing to all indications; 17
18
VARSHAVSKAYA et al.
• nontraditional sources of hardtorecover hydro carbons that have large explored reserves, such as shale oil, shale gas, and gas hydrates; • the use of nontraditional traps; and • the additional exploration of generally developed deposits of the sedimentary cover at regular depths of 5.5 km. The above sources and technologies under devel opment are, no doubt, important, but, in addition to the Arctic reserves, they will not ensure growth in the necessary volume of hydrocarbons in the near future. In relation to the probable production of hydrocar bons in the Arctic, a basic question arises: how expen sive and environmentally safe will the production of Arctic oil be? Will the construction of facilities able to withstand natural processes of the Arctic basin be eco nomically and environmentally justified? What condi tions will help avoid the risks of oil extraction and transportation? The answers to these questions are controversial, because every circumstance has not been fully analyzed. At the same time, there is an alternative to the Arc tic; it usually falls out of consideration, but, economi cally, it is probably the most profitable. It is the devel opment of abyssal horizons of oil and gas sedimentary basins that underlie currently operated strata, that is, deeper than 5.5 km. In recent years, the authors of this article and the research teams behind them have con sidered different aspects of this issue: the scientific aspect, i.e., the problem statement feasibility, includ ing the conformity of the proposed strategy of hydro carbon exploration at low depths with the current con cepts of the genesis and formation of oil and gas deposits, and the organizational–economic aspect, including the comparative analysis of possible business models [3–7]. THE CURRENT STATE OF THE OIL AND GAS COMPLEX Both specialists and government agencies at all lev els realize the real threat to the development of the oil and gas complex: its insufficient provision with resources. It is expected that in 2012 the world’s oil and gas industry will largely pass the point of no return and will enter the phase of developing residual reserves. In addition, the socalled cumulative pro duction—total production over the whole period of operation—from fields with traditional collectors and easily recoverable hydrocarbons will exceed 50% of their initially predicted resources [8]. The problem of depletion of hydrocarbon reserves appears different for Russia. Our country has a large number of undeveloped oil and gas provinces and potential oil and gas sedimentary basins. Several unique provinces with many large and giant deposits in natural reservoirs with highcapacity collectors are
located on Russian territory. This situation has allowed us to save unexplored formations for a rainy day, assuming that they had deposits with lower production capacities. Taking these advantages into account, the point of no return in the development of the Russian oil and gas complex under the current production rates is put off, although the times are different for oil and gas: for the oil production industry, it is 2020 [8], and, for gas production, it is 2040 [9]. These deadlines are determined by the specifics of the hydrocarbon market and its division into producer countries with their export capabilities and oil supply. Russia is tradition ally among the three largest producers of both gas (the United States, Russia, and Canada) and oil (Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United States). At the same time, while the Russian gas reserves are the largest in the world (30%) and Russia’s position as the world’s leading gas producer is quite justified, its position as a leading oil producer is not supported by its current reserves. These reserves are only 6–7% of the world’s oil, which is almost four times smaller than in Saudi Arabia, and practically the same as in the United States and China, which are oil importers. Owing to the above circumstances, the develop ment scenarios for the Russian oil and gas industries in the 21st century do not coincide. For the gas produc tion industry, the short and longterm priorities are the development of hardtoreach fields on the West ern Arctic shelf or in permafrost rocks and the extended reproduction of reserves in the basins of tra ditional gas production by developing deep horizons. This presupposes the development of the Russian gas industry in the 21st century in two stages [9]. The first stage (until 2040–2050) consists of devel oping the current and renewable reserves from the pre dicted resources inherited from the Soviet Union. Chronologically, the main production areas are Cen omanian gas in Western Siberia; Aptian gas in Yamal and Gydan; Valanginian–Jurassic gas in the north of Western Siberia; and gas fields in Eastern Siberia, on western Arctic shelves, and in Far Eastern seas. The second stage (from 2040–2050 and until the end of the century) will see the beginning of the devel opment of nontraditional sources: first, gas reserves from the closegrained collectors of the Ciscaucasian and CisUral depressions, Western and Eastern Sibe ria, and the Timan–Pechora Province and the coal bearing horizons of Kuzbass, Eastern Siberia, and the Timan–Pechora Province; second, the gas hydrates of the Black, Caspian, Okhotsk, and, probably, some other seas; and, third, gas from the deep horizons of developed oil and gas provinces, such as the Caspian, the Ciscaucasian, the Okhotsk, the Volga–Ural, and the Western Siberian provinces. For the oil production industry, a pressing objective is the reproduction of the current reserves against the background of their deteriorating structure and the
HERALD OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Vol. 82
No. 1
2012
A NEW CONCEPT OF DEVELOPING HYDROCARBON RESOURCES
depletion of predicted resources in industrially devel oped regions. By the deteriorating structure of reserves, we understand the decreasing share of large reservoirs with highcapacity collectors, the deterio rating geography of their distribution, and their dis placement toward hardtoreach areas. When choosing an exploration strategy, we face a dilemma: either we favor the development of already evaluated reserves in hardtoreach regions or we ini tiate a new cycle of geological and geophysical research in developed regions in order to scientifically justify nontraditional and still unevaluated challenges. The implementation of any of the above options implies a multiple increase in drilled footage and seis mic exploration compared with the current level, i.e., in funding. For example, if we maintain the current level of production and the current cost of prospecting for one barrel of oil, which is $1 US, we will need at least $3–$4 billion every year simply to reproduce the reserves (not to produce but only to reproduce), but, as a result of extended reproduction, this amount will obviously increase. The situation is such that a strategy option should be determined in the next few years, exclusively on the basis of longterm national interests, and regardless of the positions and preferences of oil producers. The value in dispute is exceptionally high: Russia’s energy security and export revenues will already depend on this in the near future. Postponing solutions and remaining in uncertainty may turn out to be very expensive for the country. There are several causes for the current unfavorable situation with the preparation of reserves. Among the natural, or objectively inevitable, causes are the fol lowing: • the end of the epoch of discoveries of giant depos its with unique oil and gas reserves at depths less than 5 km and a small probability of finding new basins with unique or large resource potentials in the future; • the depletion of resources within the basins of tra ditional oil production at depths less than 5 km; and • a decrease in the feasible reserves, i.e., the num ber of understudied sedimentary basins in potential oil and gas regions (Eastern Siberia, the Far East, and the Arctic shelf). In addition to the above causes, there exist political and economic concerns. These are primarily the dis mantling of the Soviet form of subsurface manage ment and, as a consequence, the demolition of its orderly exploration system with a strictly regulated succession of operations, technologies, and footages of geological–geophysical research and drilling. Here we should also add the imperfection of the legislation that deals with exploration and property rights on the findings. There are also defects in the system of eco HERALD OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
19
nomic incentives for explorers in the conditions of a market economy. GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND FOR THE SUSTAINABLE FUNCTIONALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE OIL AND GAS COMPLEX A necessary condition for the sustainable function ality and development of the oil and gas complex is the extended reproduction of the current reserves and the ensured growth of the resource base. The reproduction of reserves may be ensured by improving production technologies, for example, by increasing the oil recov ery factor, intensifying the production of lowpressure gas, and by additional exploration of operating fields. In order to increase the resource base, we need broader—regional, i.e., going beyond individual fields—exploration and evaluation prospecting. The goal of these is to evaluate potential resources for pos sible production (reserve category D1–2) in regions acknowledged as promising for oil and gas, which, among others, include shelves and continental slopes, and the promising resources of oil and gas provinces under initial development (reserve category C3). Next, it is necessary to evaluate the residual resources in oil and gas provinces under development, which may be classified as frontier complexes within a domi nant oil and gas level (reserve category C3) or as deep levels of a mantle with uncertain prospects. Here, it is probably the right time to recall the suc cession of operations during oil and gas prospecting. The socalled wildcat method, where wells were drilled on the basis of general assumptions and without preliminary preparation, has sunk into oblivion (it was practically never used in Russia). However, drilling is the most expensive prospecting method; therefore, in regular practice, it follows less costly preliminary sur veys, including geological (geological survey) and geo physical studies. Drilling is also conducted at this stage, but it implies drilling a small number of special test wells, which give a real understanding of the in situ structure, and geophysical findings are tied to them. The results of this preliminary evaluation prospecting help pinpoint promising areas for deeper probes and exploration, where drilling is used much more broadly. In recent years, the potential resources of the so called nontraditional deposits in complexes with low permeability and anisotropic collectors have become an urgent topic. This refers to shale gas, shale oil, and matrix oil. Shale oil is the petroleum of bituminous series with anomalous pressures, a typical representa tive of which is the wellknown Bazhenov Suite of the Western Siberian basin [2, 10]. Matrix oil is a new vari ety of hydrocarbon materials concentrated in carbon ate reservoirs of gas condensate fields, and its resources were not accounted for by the traditional estimation of reserves. Vol. 82
No. 1
2012
20
VARSHAVSKAYA et al.
Promising and potential residual (unexplored) resources of category C3–D1 according to the data of the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources Oil, billion tons
Gas, trillion m3
Western Siberian, unique with a concentrated range Volga–Ural, large with a concentrated range Ciscaucasian, large with a scattered range Eastern Siberian, large Timan–Pechora, large with a scattered range Caspian, unique with a concentrated range
29.0 4.7 0.6 11.44 2.43 6.0
48.6 6.56 1.27 41.15 1.56 34
Continental shelf
12.53
63.7
Unique in reserves and large provinces
The choice of sites for toppriority evaluation pros pecting depends on economic and environmental fac tors. The decisive factor is economic feasibility, which is determined on the basis of the cost of production of 1 t of fuel equivalent (t f.e.) with account for residual resources (table). Now we are coming to a very important conclusion on the buildup of the country’s hydrocarbon resource base. Proceeding from the cost of the preparation of 1 t f.e. in a region and the above data about the remaining resources, we have no doubts that it would be useful to shift exploration from hardtoreach regions (shelves of the Arctic seas) toward old and developed oil and gas provinces with a developed infrastructure, which form the following priority series: the Western Siberian, the Caspian, the Volga– Ural, the Ciscaucasian, and the Timan–Pechora provinces. The question of the advisability and scope of shelf exploration should be decided individually for each sedimentary basin with account for the possibil ity of disasters (recall the consequences of the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico) and Russia’s technological lag in the development of water areas. However, this does not mean that such studies should be terminated; it is necessary to continue them because today we should acquire experience and knowledge associated with the development of shelves; in addition, real situations in different spheres, including the degree of site prepara tion, may be different. Most generally, the following geological prerequi sites may serve as the basis for submitting recommen dations to carry out a new evaluationprospecting cycle on the territory of developed oil and gas prov inces: • data or substantiated estimates about the avail ability of reserves; • data that the dominant level profile has oil and gas accumulations in frontier complexes that presumably contain unclosed traps with lithologic or stratigraphic screens; and
Total, t f.e. 77.6 11.3 1.9 52.6 4.0 40 (including 14 in the Russian sector) 76.2
• data that deep horizons (deeper than 5 km) con tain highcapacity traps capable of accumulating giant and unique deposits sizewise. Note that the commercially acceptable level of production from depths of 5–8 km should be based on a reserve density of no less than 1 million tons of fuel equivalent per 1 km2; the recoverable reserves of newly opened fields should be at least 300 million tons of fuel equivalent; and the well flow rate, more than 300 t f.e. per day for at least three years of operation. Tectonically, all Russia’s oil and gas provinces where hydrocarbons are currently produced—the Volga–Ural, the Caspian, the Western Siberian, the Ciscaucasian, and the Timan–Pechora—are sedi mentary basins of ancient or young platforms. In the model variant of their sedimentary mantle, three downwardly located structural–tectonic complexes are singled out (Fig. 1) [6]: • the folded complex, rocks relating to the mantle in their geological position and deformed to a degree, which lie directly on the base; where this complex is present, these rocks start the sedimentary cover of the basin; in alternative classification systems, folded complexes are embedded in the base; • the preplate complex, which differs from the overlaying plate cover in its discontinuous spread; it corresponds to the basin development stage when the cover forms locally, within certain structures, rather than on the basin’s entire area as a continuous cover of sedimentary rocks; and • the plate complex, forming on the entire area of a sedimentary basin and determining its outlines. It is noteworthy that each of these complexes dif fers not only in its set of characteristic formations, intensity and style of dislocations, and the degree of epigenetic (secondary) rock transformations but also, as a rule, represents an independent fluid system. The overwhelming majority of oil fields that have been opened thus far in platformtype provinces is confined to the deposits of the upper plate complex and are
HERALD OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Vol. 82
No. 1
2012
A NEW CONCEPT OF DEVELOPING HYDROCARBON RESOURCES
21
(a) 3
2500 2
B
AS6
B 1
3000 NBP22
H, m
Ju
(b) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
SB–7 SB–7 SB –C R
F SB–C F R
R F
H, km Kerets depression Kerets–Pinezh graben
Arkhan gelsk protrusion
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
MidPinezh depression Kerets–Pinezh graben
Fig. 1. The structure of a sedimentary basin cover. (a) The principal diagram of the sedimentary cover struc ture [6]; (B) the crystalline basement (consolidated crust) of a basin (as part of a platform); cover complexes: (1) the folded complex; (2) the preplate complex of a sedimentary cover; (3) the plate complex of a sedimentary cover; (b) the structure of a sedimentary cover by the example of a seis mic profile through the structures of the Mezen sedimen tary basin (geological interpretation). Seismic horizons that correspond to the boundaries of complexes: (F) the base (lower boundary) of a sedimentary cover; (SB–C) the boundary between the preplate (located between the F and SB–C horizons) and plate (located above the SB–C horizon) complexes, (R) and (SB–7) sec ondorder boundaries within the complexes. The preplate complex’s geological age is the Riphean– Vendian, and that of the plate complex is the Paleozoic– Mesozoic. The preplate complex’s rocks are deformed weakly; however, the figure gives an overstated view of the intensity of deformation through the difference between the horizontal and vertical scales.
located in the zone of proto and mesocatagenesis. The deposits of the preplate complex, which is more changed than the meso and apocatagenesis stage, pri marily contain gas and condensate fields. In recent years, oil and gas fields have also been discovered in folded complex deposits, which have usually changed to the mesocatagenesis stage, and even to the crystal line rocks of the base (consolidated crust). However, since the main oil and gas complexes, which are either operating or considered as potentially productive, are confined to the deposits of the plate complex, the lat ter is viewed as the dominant (main) oil and gas level. HERALD OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
0 a
b
1
10 km 2
3
Fig. 2. The structure of the clinoform complex that fills uncompensated depressions by the example of a seismic profile with elements of seismostratigraphic interpreta tion. The Western Siberian sedimentary basin [7]. (1) The boundaries of a lateralaccretion seismic complex, (2) Kimmeridgian–Volga (the Upper Jurassic) sediments at the base of a clinoform complex that mark the deposit time of an uncompensated depression, and (3) drill wells. The clinoform complex that fills the uncompensated depression is located between seismic horizons NBP22 and AS6 .
All the known unique, giant, and large fields estab lished in the plate and preplate complexes, are situated in massive, formation–arch (anticlinal), or tectoni cally screened reservoirs. Formation reservoirs with stratigraphic or lithologic screens are rarer, and those with hydrodynamic locks are exceptions. However, increasingly more information about the confinement of large fields to nonanticlinal traps has been coming out in recent years. Such fields are especially abundant in oil and gas complexes with clinoform internal struc tures. The most illustrative example is the Upper Jurassic–Neocomian seismic complex of Western Siberia and its Achimov formation. The data of seis mic surveys obtained in recent years by the common depthpoint (CDP) method show that a clinoform structure is characteristic of practically all lithologic– stratigraphic formations of the plate complex of plat forms piled from terrigenous and terrigenous–carbon ate deposits (Fig. 2). The progradational structure is their genetic property predetermined by the specificity of the sedimentary process. These strata are cyclically structured geological bodies formed during one trans gressive–regressive cycle, i.e., a cycle of the advance– retreat of the sea. They are identified on seismic pro files as the main seismostratigraphic divisions (strata). At first, when the sea level is high, the lower transgres sive part of the cycle (series of a carbonate–clay com position) with a parallel–stratiform structure is formed. Then, when the sea level goes down, the upper part of the cycle is formed, which is piled from Vol. 82
No. 1
2012
22
VARSHAVSKAYA et al.
a complex with a filling of sand–clay composition with a characteristic progradational structure. The Upper Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Paleogene deposits of the Turan plateau [11]; the Upper Jurassic, Upper Cretaceous, Paleogene, and Neogene deposits of the Scythian plateau [12]; Lower and Middle Juras sic deposits in the north of the Western Siberian pla teau [13]; and Pliocene deposits in the south of the Caspian region [5] are all formed according to this pattern. Since the resource potential of these com plexes has not been studied, evaluation prospecting on these sites should be considered as a priority at the new stage of studying oil and gas provinces under the mature or closing stage of study. A classical example of an oil and gas province with several oil and gas accumulation levels is the Caspian Province, where the section of the sedimentary mass is divided into two parts by a powerful salt massive. Accordingly, there are at least two oil and gas accumu lation levels here: presalt and postsalt [5]. We have every reason to believe that there is a second preFras nian oil and gas accumulation layer in the CisUral depression of the Volga–Ural Province. In the Cas pian oil and gas province, the Aktyubinsk–Astrakhan and Central Caspian areas are of special interest: at large depths (5.5–8.0 km), seismic exploration helped discover traps associated with geological sedimentary bodies, such as large carbonate bodies, socalled intra basin Devonian platforms, and giant underwater Per mian highcapacity alluvial fans. The productivity of the Devonian carbonate intrabasin platforms has been proved by drilling the Astrakhan arch. To answer the question concerning to what extent geological prerequisites are applicable to provinces with active production with account for the fact that some results cannot be explained positively, it is neces sary to outline the main trends and objects of evalua tion prospecting in Russia in the following way: • the study of deep horizons in provinces with active production, such as the Caspian (the Lower and Middle Devonian complex of the internal sidewall zone of the Northwestern and Aktyubinsk–Astrakhan oil and gas areas and the Lower Permian–Middle Car boniferous complex of the Central Caspian oil and gas area), the Volga–Ural (the PreFrasnian complex of the CisUral oil and gas area), and the Western Sibe rian (the Paleozoic complex of the northeast of the Western Siberian plateau); • the further study of the upper potentially produc tive complexes of the dominant oil and gas accumula tion level in provinces of active production: the Volga– Ural (the Upper Permian complex of the Buzuluk depression and the East Orenburg arch) and the West ern Siberian (the Cenomanian complex of the south of the Western Siberian plateau); and
• the further study of shelf clinoform formations in provinces of active production: the Ciscaucasian (the Upper Jurassic–Cenozoic complex of the Scyth ian–Turan plateau), the Western Siberian (the Juras sic–Cretaceous complex), the Volga–Ural (the Upper Paleozoic complex of the Russian plateau), and the Caspian (the Upper Pliocene complex of the south of the Ural–Volga interfluves). SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT OF THE SUSTAINABLE FUNCTIONALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE OIL AND GAS COMPLEX In the previous century, simultaneously with the growth of hydrocarbon consumption and the expan sion of oil prospecting geography, a new science, oil and gas geology, emerged. It was targeted at explaining the regularities of hydrocarbon cluster locations and developing the hydrocarbon prospecting concept and technology that would ensure maximal oil and gas recovery from the subsurface. As data accumulated, oil and gas geology divided by the mid20th century into two relatively independent disciplines: oil studies and oilandgas field geology. The latter dealt with the development and exploitation of oil and gas deposits, as well as with the quantitative evaluation of hydrocar bon reserves in deposits. Oil studies undertook the basic problems of oil and gas genesis, the formation of their deposits, and applied issues associated with fore casting and justifying trends in prospecting and explo ration. Oil studies also proposed the theory of the organic origin of oil and the anticlinal concept of pros pecting for hydrocarbon deposits (based on the con nection of deposits with anticlinal structures), which were later combined into the single sedimentary– migration theory of naphthide genesis. This theory con siders a cluster of problems associated with the trans formation of scattered organic matter contained in precipitation in the process of its immersion into vari ous depths in sedimentary basins and possible mecha nisms of primary and secondary migration of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons, as well as their accumula tion and preservation in traps. At present, this theory is dominant. The recent assessments of the amount of global recoverable resources, as well as quantitative assessments of the predicted and potential resources of individual sedimentary basins, which serve as the basis to form energy security policy, are based on the theses of the sedimentary–migration theory of naphthide genesis [8]. The sedimentary–migration theory of naphthide genesis was primarily developed from data on the upper horizons of the stratified mantle of the earth’s crust, and it explains satisfactorily the formation of hydrocarbon deposits in the preplate and plate com plexes of sedimentary covers, as well as in the rocks of folded complexes, which some authors include in the structure of the sedimentary cover, while others
HERALD OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Vol. 82
No. 1
2012
A NEW CONCEPT OF DEVELOPING HYDROCARBON RESOURCES
include it in the structure of the basal complex. We cannot say that the inorganic origin of hydrocarbons contained in the upper horizons of the crust is flatly excluded, but it is safe to say that, in any case, their volumes are so negligent that, while being of theoreti cal interest, they are of no practical importance. As hydrocarbon deposits were discovered outside these conditions—in the rocks of the crystalline base ment, in granite masses, etc.—additional concepts arose assuming the existence of abyssal oil and gas sources [14, 15] or their mixed origin. The concept of polygenic naphthide genesis appeared, which was developed by one of the authors of this article [16–18], as well as by other researchers [19]. According to this concept, the formation of deposits occurs owing to two flows of hydrocarbons: the traditional, described by the sedimentary–migration theory of naphthide genesis, and the abyssal. It is assumed that the abyssal flow is largely responsible for the formation of deposits in lower horizons of the earth’s crust in an area where fluid systems with an anomalous hydrodynamic and geostatic regime function. The concept of polygenic naphthide genesis is in its initial stage and has not yet gained acceptance; nevertheless, it is starting to affect oil and gas prospecting practices, widening the scope of exploration targets. What does the above mean for mainly practical solutions? We should distinguish two groups of explo ration targets. The first group comprises sedimentary basin com plexes that occur within depths of 5–8 km. We mainly discussed them above. Judging by geophysical, mainly seismic, exploration data, the structure of sedimentary masses at these depths, as well as the conditions in which their accumulation occurred, differs little from more studied horizons at depths less than 5–5.5 km (Fig. 3). In this respect, research methods and the cri teria of prospecting for hydrocarbon deposits would seem to be the same as for higher horizons. At the same time, larger depths effect the specific features of the hydrodynamic regime. These are primarily the occurrence of waterbearing and other horizons with excessive formation pressures. These features of the hydrodynamic regime have not been investigated properly, but it is quite likely that they influence to a greater or lesser extent the formation, distribution, and preservation of hydrocarbon deposits. Particularly here, we may assume the presence of deposits that either never occur or are not characteristic of higher horizons of the sedimentary cover. These consider ations require research into hydrodynamic processes in the conditions of these depths and the correspond ing corrections of the methods of prospecting for deposits. We should not disregard the horizons of sedimen tary covers below 8 km, but we should also not con sider them real exploration and production targets in HERALD OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
(a)
23
W
E
0 1 2 3 4 C1l
5 6 7 t, s (b) NW 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 km
C1
P1ar C2m–P1s
Lower MidDevonian carbonate massif
C2 C2d
P3 O3–S
D3–C2b
C3
D12
5 km SE
Lower MidDevonian carbonate massif
10 km
Fig. 3. Types of potential highcapacity traps in the abyssal horizons (postsalt complex) of the Caspian oil and gas province that may be related to giant deposits (seismic record with elements of geological interpretation by Yu.A. Volozh). (a) The submarine cone in the Lower Permian deposits of the Caspian depression (between seismic horizons C1 and 1
C 1 ). The profile’s vertical scale is in seconds, the double travel time of a seismic wave (from the source on the sur face to the deep horizon and back to the receiver on the surface); the time of 4–5 s roughly corresponds to the depths of 8–9 km. The indices show the following: in the rectangles, the geological age of the rocks; in the ovals, the seismic horizons; (b) the Lower Devonian carbonate mas sif within the Astrakhan arch; the vertical lines are drill wells.
the foreseeable future. At present, the study of these horizons is of scientific interest in terms of verifying and developing the concept of polygenic naphthide genesis. The second group comprises the complexes of metamorphic, magmatic, and highly catagenetically changed types of sedimentary rocks that form the crys talline basement (consolidated crust) and the deepest horizons of sedimentary covers. These formations are the first to provide data for the development of the concept of polygenic naphthide genesis. Of special attention are issues such as determining the potential Vol. 82
No. 1
2012
24
VARSHAVSKAYA et al.
types of caps in the conditions of the lower horizons of sedimentary basins with an anomalous (unconsoli dated) hydrodynamic regime and developing technol ogies to forecast traps with hydrodynamic locks in higher horizons of the cover. BUSINESS MODELS OF THE SUSTAINABLE FUNCTIONALITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE OIL AND GAS COMPLEX The experience of dealing with various basins across the world allows us to assume that, to ensure the reproduction of hydrocarbon reserves, we would have to invest about $3 billion a year in the gas industry and about $4 billion a year in the oil industry alone to con duct exploration on Russian territory at $1 to prospect 1 bbl of oil and gas. In Russia exploration is financed both by the national budget and by private companies. In 2009 the budgetary financing of exploration amounted to 18.931 billion rubles (in 2008, 21.975 bil lion rubles). The total declared expenditure of the oil and gas complex on exploration is about $1.5 billion. Only a small part of it covers exploration itself, since private companies deal mainly with additional exploration. Western companies practically do not participate in the exploration process with few exceptions, such as Shell, which operates in Kalmykia. Under the current laws, western companies do not want to take explora tion risks. There are at least three ways, or basic business models, to fulfill the exploration program in contem porary Russia. Differences between them boil down to who plans, performs, and finances the work: the gov ernment (the government business model), private companies (the oilandgas producer business model), or a combination of the government and pri vate companies (the government and oilandgas pro ducer business model). In the government business model, the government develops and sets forth an exploration program and its budget, pays for the establishment of regional corpora tions that employ the findings of research institutes to implement a certain program, and uses the results to organize auctions and sell new exploration assets to private oil and gas producers. According to this model, the existing institutions could establish specific struc tures for the scope of work to be conducted and the existing service companies could contract geophysical and drilling operations. A prototype of such work organization might be the Soviet Ministry of Geology with its network of research and production associa tions. In order to guarantee the observance of longterm national interests, this model is principally preferable, but, in the current Russian situation, it has at least two drawbacks that challenge its implementation. First of
all, there is the issue of finance. Can the country’s budget withstand an additional necessary load of at least 150 billion rubles a year? This question becomes more important as the implementation of the program entails high risks and its recoupment under the most optimistic approach is expected no earlier than in five and most probably in ten years. The second issue of the possible implementation of the program by staterun research institutes is even more acute. Industrial and academic research insti tutes, which survived the Soviet times, have accumu lated expertise in Russia’s sedimentary oilandgas basins, and some of them maintain a high level of the oretical research. To some extent, they preserve the human potential of geologists of the older and, to a smaller extent, middleaged generations. The problem that the institutes are facing today is poor ties with the industry. Contacts, with few exceptions, are unilateral, since private companies act as customers of individual scientific matters, the socalled “scientific support.” Databases that ensure the stateoftheart under standing of the structure and other characteristics of basins are not replenished or are replenished irregu larly, because they are located in oil and gas companies and, in the majority of cases, are inaccessible. The institutes, as a rule, have no resources to glean infor mation even from the Russian Federal Geological Foundation. There is little hope in reckoning on the preparation and implementation of a serious program by staterun research institutes in their current condi tion. It is even harder to imagine a quick restoration of the professional personnel necessary for industrial purposes, the stateoftheart equipment fleet, source information acquisition and processing systems, and the like, which was lost over the past 15–20 years. The oilandgas producer business model has its pluses and minuses. It is unusual in the world for a gov ernment to take on all the risks related to oil and gas exploration, financing all work from the budget. Usu ally this burden is shifted to private and stateowned companies, which are stimulated by legal and tax ben efits. However, with its main advantage being the relief of the government from the burden of budgetary expenditures, this business model has, among other things, three large drawbacks. The first one is the com plexity and even impossibility of the government to control the qualitative side of company operations, because the existing control systems mainly account for quantitative indicators. The second drawback is shortterm interests of private companies that do not allow the government to reckon on their medium and longterm engagement. The third and greatest draw back is the absence of professional exploration teams and technologies focused on longterm and national projects. Russian higher educational establishments and academic and industrial research institutes would be
HERALD OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Vol. 82
No. 1
2012
A NEW CONCEPT OF DEVELOPING HYDROCARBON RESOURCES
unable to solve these problems, although they under stand them well, if oil and gas companies do not set real exploration tasks. Private and stateowned com panies of the Russian oil and gas sector are concerned with the needs of today; consequently, only the related areas of geology are being developed, such as addi tional exploration at production sites; and if they plan to study new areas, these areas are mainly adjacent. Such a policy yields immediate economic effects, since minimal costs increase the productive capacity of the existing fields, but this approach neglects regional and general approaches. It is true that, since production is becoming increasingly complex, interest in the geological mod eling of collectors is growing, which leads to the pro fessional growth of development geologists and field geophysicists. However, Russian oil and gas compa nies do not cultivate disciplines that underlie basin analysis, such as seismic stratigraphy, sequence stratig raphy, and sedimentation theory, which utilize high tech exploration and drilling data to the limit for the development of sedimentation models and for the accurate prediction of hydrocarbon deposits. Half of comparatively large allocations to exploration is spent on highquality seismic exploration, but the informa tion gleaned is only used partially due to the deficit of specialists and the unprofessionally stated geological problems. Some research institutes and universities have specialist teams that conduct studies within the framework of the above disciplines, but their poor backup reduces the scope and increases their lag behind the world level. The drilling stage is also geared unsatisfactorily. Production companies focus their efforts mainly on drilling readily producing wells, while the desire to economize prevails when drilling prospecting and exploratory wells: they are drilled in the old way, which does not yield new and maximally efficient well infor mation. In conclusion, we would like to mention another basic problem of working under geological risks and uncertainties. By focusing on additional exploration and the study of already developed territories, compa nies have lost the experience and, so to speak, eco nomic courage that was typical of oil geologists 20 years ago. Work with geological risks is hardly prac ticed at present. Companies have become used to high economic indicators and low geological risks. A 70– 80% drilling success rate has become common prac tice in exploration not owing to special achievements but as a consequence of the prevalence of additional exploration. Meanwhile, new prospecting implies high risks, and drilling success may reach 20% or less. The government and oilandgas producer business model integrates the best of the two previous models. It meets the realities of our time and, if implemented consistently and strategically, can ensure the comple HERALD OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
25
tion of the necessary exploration operations. This model implies the following: • the establishment of corporations and jointstock companies whose scope of activities is limited to geo logical exploration with the participation of the gov ernment and stateowned research institutes (at 20– 25%) or such corporations and companies organized on the basis of the existing enterprises; • financing through private funds and the national budget; • in order to ensure a longterm strategy, a provi sion that exploration companies should spend at least 10–20% of their budget on risky projects (parametric drilling, deep drilling, offshore drilling, etc.) should be obligatorily introduced; • providing companies that take part in the pro gram with benefits and preferences, which are global practice and which do not contradict Russian legisla tion (legal updates may be required to implement this condition); and • increasing the value of assets through commercial strikes and their sales, which will allow shareholders to repay loans that will comprise the initial capital of their companies and finance further exploration. Since we are speaking about the risks of longterm projects, which, owing to the above reasons, go beyond the capabilities of the companies, the latter may be interested in such conditions in order to reduce their risks and increase the value of their licenses. *** Currently, Russia is forming its oil and gas explora tion and production strategy for the decades ahead. We should expect that organizational forms will be approved and financial flows, including budgetary ones, will be determined according to decisions made. The current situation in this respect is extremely important, since, taking into account the inertia of a national program of this scope, it would be very costly and painful to amend a strategy after it has been approved. Therefore, now is the time to weigh the pros and cons of the key options without locking a priori on one of them. The attractiveness of each option should be assessed by two key positions: economic feasibility and environmental safety. The proposed option of prospecting for hydrocar bon deposits in the abyssal horizons of sedimentary basins can at least compete with oil and gas production the Arctic. The comparison of economic indicators will put the cost of onshore deep exploratory and pro ductive drilling on one scale and the cost of explora tion and production in the Arctic basin with a severe climate and hard ice conditions on the other. As for possible environmental pollution, we have the lessons of the 2010 disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, where the Vol. 82
No. 1
2012
26
VARSHAVSKAYA et al.
battle against oil spills went on in a resort zone. It would be many times more difficult to cope with the consequences of a similar disaster in the Arctic. The authors are now developing a program of the Deep Horizons (5–8 km): the Caspian and Western CisUral project [4]. During preliminary discussions, interest in the project was expressed by oil and gas companies with license areas in this region, financial entities, and foreign companies. Owing to the territory’s size and subsurface riches, which reveal its geopolitical implications and position in the global economy, Russia has been and remains a depositary of mineral resources. The country’s inter nal needs and geopolitical considerations will not allow Russia to deviate from developing its rawmate rial industries. A rawmaterial economy needs as much theoretical support and technological improve ment as other industries. The exploration of the earth’s subsurface and oceanic depths is no easier mis sion than the exploration of outer space. Advances in geological knowledge, subsurface technology, and mineral production will stimulate the development of other natural sciences and industrial production. Rus sia should accelerate its advance along this road; par ticularly as we are lagging behind the West in some technological areas. Russian oil companies fall short of the leading foreign companies in largescale shelf exploration and production and have limited experi ence in extracting hardtorecover hydrocarbons, to say nothing of the giant lag in hydrocarbon processing. In the second half of the past century, the needs of the military and geophysics stimulated the rapid develop ment of computer technology. Similarly, the best pro ducing and processing technologies and advanced geological science may become Russia’s innovative goals. By moving in this direction, the country can accumulate significant investment resources and ensure the development of innovative processes in key industries and solutions to social concerns and other urgent problems of the Russian economy.
6. 7. 8.
9.
10. 11.
12.
13.
14.
15. 16.
REFERENCES 1. V. V. Orlov and L. I. Ponomarev, “Nuclear Energy and the Human Being,” Priroda (Moscow, Russ. Fed.), No. 3 (2011). 2. Yu. Karagodin, “On the Bazhenov Oil,” Ekspert, No. 12 (2011). 3. A. I. Varlamov, A. A. Il’inskii, N. V. Miletenko, et al., Russia’s Strategic Hydrocarbon Reserve Formation Prob lems (Nauka, St. Petersburg, 2008) [in Russian]. 4. Yu. A. Volozh, “The Caspian Oil Unites Five Coun tries,” Ross. Nedra, No. 9 (2010). 5. Yu. A. Volozh, A. N. Dmitrievskii, Yu. G. Leonov, et al., “On Strategy of the Upcoming Exploration Phase in
17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
the North Caspian Petroleum Province,” Russ. Geol. Geophys. 50 (4), 244 (2009). Yu. G. Leonov, Yu. A. Volozh, M. P. Antipov, et al., Con solidated Crust of the Caspian Region: Zoning Experience (Nauchnyi Mir, Moscow, 2009) [in Russian]. Sedimentary Basins: Research Methods, Structure, and Evolution, Ed. by Yu. G. Leonov and Yu. A. Volozh (Nauchnyi Mir, Moscow, 2004) [in Russian]. A. E. Kontorovich, “Estimate of Global Oil Resource and the Forecast for Global Oil Production in the 21st Century,” Russ. Geol. Geophys. 50 (4), 229 (2009). V. A. Skorobogatov, V. G. Fomenko, and V. S. Yakushev, “Recent Problems of Russia’s Oil and Gas Geology,” in Russia’s and Adjacent Countries’ Natural Gas Geology Problems (VNIIGAZ, Moscow, 2007) [in Russian]. I. I. Nesterov, “Oil and Gas Pools: The Fundamentals of Formation, Prospecting, and Exploitation,” Russ. Geol. Geophys. 50 (4), 312 (2009). Yu. A. Volozh, Sedimentary Basins of Western Kazakh stan (on the Basis of Seismostratigraphic Analysis), Extended Abstract of Dr. Sci. (Geol.–Mineral.) (GIN RAN, Moscow, 1991) [in Russian]. N. Ya. Kunin, S. S. Kosova, and G. Yu. Blokhina, “Seismostratigrafic Analysis of Cenozoic Sediments in Eastern Ciscaucasia in Order to Find Nonanticlinal Oil and Gas Traps,” in Seismostratigrafic Research in the USSR (Nauka, Moscow, 1990) [in Russian]. V. S. Sosedkov, “Seismogeologic Characteristics of Lower Middle Jurassic Sediments in the North of West ern Siberia,” in Seismostratigrafic Research During Oil and Gas Prospecting: Proceedings of the AllUnion Con ference (Nauka, AlmaAta, 1988) [in Russian]. B. M. Valyaev, M. N. Smirnova, and R. M. Yurkova, “Abyssal Hydrocarbon Fluids in Oil and Gas Accumu lation Processes,” in Fundamental Problems of Oil and Gas Geology and Geochemistry and Russia’s Oil and Gas Complex Development (GEOS, Moscow, 2007) [in Rus sian]. R. P. Gotikh and Yu. I. Pisotskii, Abyssal Restored Fluid Systems in Oil and Gas Formation and Accumulation Processes (GEOS, Moscow, 2007) [in Russian]. A. N. Dmitrievskii, F. A. Kireev, R. A. Bochko, et al., “Magmatogene Sedimentary Formation Complex As a New Promising Oil and Gas Prospecting Object,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk, No. 2 (1992). A. N. Dmitrievskii, “Oil and Gas Polygenesis,” Gen ezis Nefti Gaza, No. 2 (2003). A. N. Dmitrievskii, “Polygenesis of Oil and Gas,” Dokl. Earth Sciences 419 (3), 373 (2008). V. P. Gavrilov, “Mobilistic Ideas in Oil and Gas Geol ogy,” Geol. Nefti Gaza, No. 2 (2007). K. A. Kleshchev, “The Main Trends in Oil and Gas Prospecting in Russia,” Geol. Nefti Gaza, No. 2 (2007). Yu. G. Leonov, “We Still Do Not Have to Go to the Bottom for Oil,” Ross. Nedra, No. 7 (2009).
HERALD OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Vol. 82
No. 1
2012
