Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and
Exhibition held in Vienna, Austria, 1215 J une 2006.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Analysis of pressure and water chemistry data from the
Devonian and Carboniferous formations of the Lublin Basin
indicates that two regional fluid flow systems are operating
within this basin. The Devonian basin is the juvenile basin
with compaction-induced centrifugal, lateral water movement
(before invasion by meteoric waters), and may be classified as
prospective. The Carboniferous basin is an intermediate basin
with centripetal water movement, artesian properties and
invasion of meteoric water.
In this paper author presents the hydrodynamic modelling
of hydrocarbon migration and accumulation in the Lublin
Basin, Poland. The pressure and water chemistry data have
been used to identify hydrocarbon traps within the Devonian
and Carboniferous sequences.

Introduction
The Lublin Basin has been prospected since 1956 and a dozen
of oil and natural gas fields were discovered there. Apart from
the discovered fields, attention should be paid to the high
frequency of oil and natural gas manifestations in the
Carboniferous and Devonian strata, observed in the drilling
mud and drilling fluids.
1

This paper summarises results of a review of water
chemistry and pressure data from Devonian and Carboniferous
formation of Lublin Basin. Water analyses are available for
samples collected during drill stem tests or field production;
these data have been screened to eliminate samples
contaminated with drilling or completion fluids. Aquifer
pressure measurements are available from drill stem test data
or wireline (RFT or MDT) data; the pressure data have been
screened to eliminate anomalies that are the result of
hydrocarbon effects or sampling errors. The data have been
mapped to identify directions and magnitude of fluid flow and
to identify hydrocarbon traps within the Devonian and
Carboniferous layers.

Hydrodynamic Classification of Petroleum Basins
H. Coustau et al.
2
classified sedimentary basins according to
hydrodynamic conditions and related this classification to their
petroleum potential from organic geochemical considerations.
Three main types of basins are distinguished.
1. Juvenile basins - not necessarily young, with compaction
inducted centrifugal, lateral water movement. Some examples
are Nigeria, Gulf of Mexico, North Sea, and northeast Sahara.
Petroleum interest in the basins is very strong.
2. Intermediate basins with centripetal water movement,
artesian properties, and freshwater invasions. Some examples
include the Persian Gulf, east Sahara, Paris basin, and central
Tunisia. Petroleum interest in such basins varies from very
strong to moderate and is connected with areas of low
velocities of groundwater flow and local high salinity.
3. Sanile basins with hydrostatic conditions and generally
invaded by meteoric waters. Northwest Aquitaine basin and
parts of the North Spanish basin are examples. There is little
or no petroleum interest.
Groundwater flow is initially of great importance to
secondary migration and formation of pools. However, if it is
too strong or last too long, groundwater retards the formation
of pools or even destroys the existing accumulations by
dismigration.
2, 3


Methodics of a Hydrodynamic Research
For the purpose of sedimentary basins hydrodynamic
modelling a special methodics of a quantitative evaluation of
the conditions of hydrocarbons migration and accumulation
has been worked out.
4-7

To localise potential hydrocarbon traps, the methodics of a
quantitative evaluation of the conditions of hydrocarbon
migration and accumulation is oriented to the preparation of a
number of computer-aided maps. They give a full set of
information necessary for the prospecting:
1. Structural maps of the top of water-oil-gas-bearing
horizons z(x,y).
2. Isopachous maps of water-oil-gas-bearing horizons
m(x,y).
3. Maps of reservoir parameters of water-oil-gas-bearing
horizons, among others, map of hydraulic conductivities
for fresh water K
fw
(x,y).
4. Maps of salinity of groundwater M(x,y).

SPE 100296
Hydrodynamic Modelling of the Hydrocarbon Migration and Accumulation in the
Lublin Basin
L. Zawisza, SPE, AGHU. of Science and Technology
2 SPE 100296
5. Hydrochemistry maps, among others, map of the
coefficient rNa/rCl.
6. Potentiometric maps for groundwater in terms of fresh
water H
fw
(x,y).
The issue of distribution of a potentiometric map for
groundwater lies in the analytical or numerical solution
of Laplaces equation which will have the following
form for a heterogeneous environment with varying
groundwater salinity and for steady two-dimensional
flow:
4


0 ) y , x ( H ) y , x ( K
fw fw
=
. (1)

The values of potential H
fw
determined in well conditions
from the Eq. 2 are boundary conditions for Eq. 1:

H
fw
= z + p/
fw
. (2)

Where
fw
is the specific weight of the fresh water, N/m
3
;
p is the pressure, Pa; z is the elevation of the
measurement point above the standard datum (mean sea
level), m.
7. Maps of absolute values of hydraulic head gradients for
groundwater I x y ( , ):

) , ( ) , ( y x H y x I
fw
=
. (3)

8. Maps of absolute values of velocities of groundwater
flow v (x,y) defined by the following formula:

y) (x, H y) (x, K y) x, ( v
fw fw
=
. (4)

9. Maps of potential hydrodynamic traps for oil H
o
(x,y) and
natural gas H
g
(x,y). The following equations are used for
mapping hydrodynamic traps for oil and gas:
4-7

fw
o w
fw o
) y , x ( ) y , x (
) y , x ( z ) y , x ( H ) y , x ( H

=
(5)
fw
g w
fw g
) y , x ( ) y , x (
) y , x ( z ) y , x ( H ) y , x ( H

=
(6)
where H
fw
, H
o
, and H
g
are the potentials of water, oil and
gas, respectively, expressed in meters of column of fresh
water;
w
is the specific weight of the water in the
reservoir conditions, N/m
3
;
o
is the specific weight of
the oil in the reservoir conditions, N/m
3
; and
g
is the
specific weight of the gas in the reservoir conditions,
N/m
3
.
Hydrodynamic Modelling of the Lublin Basin in View
of Petroleum Potential
The presented hydrodynamic methods were used for analyzing
the Lublin Basin. The Zubowice horizon in the Devonian
formation and III horizon in the Carboniferous formation of
the Lublin Basin were hydrodynamically modelled. The
choice of the Zubowice and III horizons was connected with
the greatest number of hydrodynamic data, and the fact that
these horizons abounded in most of the hydrocarbons.
Hydrodynamic analyses were based on the following types
of maps: structural maps of tops of specific stratigraphic
complexes, maps of hydraulic conductivity, maps of salinity,
hydrochemical maps, potentiometric maps, maps of hydraulic
gradients and maps of flow velocity.

Devonian Basin. Formation pressure values in the Devonian
formation of the Zubowice horizon are presented in the Fig. 1.
It follows from the plot that formation pressures in the
analysed horizon are higher than the hydrostatic pressures.
A potentiometric map for groundwater in the Devonian
formation (Zubowice horizon) is presented in Fig. 3. The
analysis of the map reveals that the directions of groundwater
flow in the Devonian formation are centrifugal.
A map of hydraulic head gradients in the Devonian
formation (Zubowice horizon) is presented in Fig. 5. The
hydraulic gradient values change from 0.02 to 0.1. Zones
perspective for hydrocarbons in the Devonian formation are
determined through areas of high hydraulic gradient values,
i.e. I > 0.01.
The following inferences can be drawn from the analysis
of the Devonian formation in the Lublin Basin:
Groundwaters have variable salinity, from 20 to about
200 g/L.
Formation pressure in the specific complexes is much
higher than the hydrostatic pressure (Fig. 1).
Directions of flow in the specific complexes are
centrifugal (Figs. 3, 5, 7, 8).
Hydraulic gradients are very high, ranging from 0.002 to
0.1.
Velocities of groundwater flow are considerably high,
ranging from 2 to 40 cm/a [0.79 to 15.75 in./yr].
Oil and gas fields are accompanied by groundwater of
high salinity (over 100 g/L), with low coefficient rNa/rCl
(below 0.6), high hydraulic gradients (over 0.01) and
locally increased velocities of groundwater flow.
According to the hydrodynamic classification by H.
Coustau et al.
2
and by E.C. Dahlberg,
3
the Devonian Basin is a
young (centrifugal) basin. Hydrodynamically, this basin is
perspective for hydrocarbons.
Potential hydrocarbon traps in the Devonian formation
should be attributed to the zones of high hydraulic gradients,
high velocities of groundwater, and high salinity. These
regularities have been confirmed by the discovered oil and gas
fields (Fig. 5).

Carboniferous Basin. A plot of formation pressures in III
horizon in the Carboniferous formation is presented in Fig. 2.
It follows from the plot that formation pressure in the studied
horizon is equal to hydrostatic pressure.
SPE 100296 3
A potentiometric map of groundwater for the
Carboniferous formation (horizon III) is presented in Fig. 4. It
follows from the map that directions of groundwater are
centripetal.
A map of hydraulic head gradients in the Carboniferous
formation (III horizon) is presented in Fig. 6. The hydraulic
gradient values vary from 0.001 to 0.012. Perspective zones
for hydrocarbons in the Carboniferous formation are
determined by the zones of low hydraulic heads, i.e. I <
0.0033.
The final results of hydrodynamic analyses for the
Carboniferous formation in the Lublin Basin may be the
following:
Groundwaters in the Carboniferous formation have
varying salinity, ranging from 10 to about 200 g/L.
Formation pressures in the specific complexes slightly
differ, but generally they are equal to the hydrostatic
pressure (Fig. 2).
Directions of groundwater flow in the specific horizons
are centripetal (Figs. 4, 6, 7, 8).
Hydraulic gradients are lower than in the Devonian
formation, ranging from 0.001 to 0.012.
Velocities of groundwater flow are relatively low,
ranging from 0.1 to 5 cm/a [0.04 to 1.97 in./yr].
Oil and gas fields are accompanied by groundwater of
local high salinity (over 100 g/L), low coefficient
rNa/rCl (below 0.6), low hydraulic gradient values
(below 0.0033) and locally low velocities of groundwater
flow.
The modelling study shows the Lublin Carboniferous
Basin undergoes a moderate flux of infiltration waters.
According to the hydrodynamic classification by H. Coustau
et al.,
2
the Carboniferous Basin is an intermediate type
(centripetal), and may be classified as low-perspective.
According to the classification by E.C. Dahlberg
3
the Lublin
Carboniferous Basin is asymmetric.
Potential hydrodynamic traps in the Carboniferous
formation should be attributed to the zones of low hydraulic
gradients, low velocities of groundwater, and high salinity of
waters. These regularities are confirmed by the discovered oil
and gas fields (Fig. 6).

Conclusions
1. The results of the hydrodynamic modelling for the
Devonian formation reveal that in view of hydrodynamic
classifications be H. Coustau et al.
2
and E.C. Dahlberg,
3

the Lublin Devonian Basin is a juvenile (centrifugal)
basin. Hydrodynamically, this basin is perspective for
hydrocarbons prospecting. Potential hydrocarbon traps in
the Devonian formation should be attributed to the zones
of high hydraulic gradient values, high velocities of
groundwater, and high salinity. These regularities have
been proved by the discovered oil and gas fields.
2. It follows from the hydrodynamic modelling of
Carboniferous formation that the Lublin Carboniferous
Basin has a moderate flux of infiltration waters.
According to the hydrodynamic classification by H.
Coustau et al.,
2
the Carboniferous Basin is an
intermediate type (centripetal), and may be classified as
low-perspective. Potential hydrodynamic traps in the
Carboniferous fomation should be attributed to the zones
of low hydraulic gradient values, low velocities of
groundwater, and high salinity. These regularities have
been proved by the discovered oil and gas fields.
3. The conclusions from the analysis of results for
Zubowice horizons may be generalized for the whole
Devonian formation as most probably they make up one
hydraulic system. Similarly, conclusions resulting from
hydrodynamic analyses for III horizon may be
generalized for the whole Carboniferous formation.
4. The hydrodynamic modelling of the Lublin Devonian
Basin reveals that it is a young (centrifugal) basin which
did not undergo any hydrodynamic transformation since
its beginning.
5. The Lublin Carboniferous Basin underwent considerable
changes. Originally it was a juvenile (centrifugal) basin,
then in a intermediate stage it was centripetal and even
old (asymmetric) in the classification by E.C. Dahlberg.
3

The transition from a centrifugal to centripetal state took
place after a tectonic-structural transformation of the
Carboniferous sedimentary basin. In the course of the
transformation the Carboniferous outcrops were sheared
by erosion and consequently, the flux of infiltration
waters occurred. This may have taken took place before
the Jurassic period.

Nomenclature
H
fw
= potential of water (freshwater head), m [ft]
H
g
= potential of gas, m [ft]
H
o
= potential of oil, m [ft]
I = hydraulic head gradient, fraction
K
fw
= hydraulic conductivity for fresh water, m/s [ft/sec]
p = formation pressure, Pa [psi]
v = velocity of groundwater flow, m/s [ft/sec]
z = elevation of the measurement point above the
standard datum (mean sea level), m [ft]
H
fw
(x,y) = map of potentials for reservoir water, m [ft]
H
g
(x, y) = map of hydrodynamic gas traps, m [ft]
H
o
(x, y) = map of hydrodynamic oil traps, m [ft]
I(x, y) = map of hydraulic head gradients, friction
K
fw
(x, y) = map of hydraulic conductivities for fresh water,
m/s [ft/sec]
m(x, y) = isopachous map, m [ft]
M(x, y) = map of salinity, g/L
v(x, y) = map of flow velocities, m/s [ft/sec]
z (x,y) = structural map of the top of water-oil-bearing
horizon, m [ft]

fw
= specific weight of fresh water, N/m
3
; [lbf/ft
3
]

g
= specific weight of gas in reservoir conditions,
N/m
3
;

o
= specific weight of oil in reservoir conditions, N/m
3
;
[lbf/ft
3
]

w
= specific weight of water in reservoir conditions,
N/m
3
[lbf/ft
3
]

g
(x,y) = map of specific weight of gas in reservoir
conditions, N/m
3
[lbf/ft
3
]
4 SPE 100296

o
(x,y) = map of specific weight of oil in reservoir
conditions, N/m
3
[lbf/ft
3
]

w
(x,y) = map of specific weight of water in reservoir
conditions, N/m
3
[lbf/ft
3
]

References
1. Helcel-Weil M. and Dzigielowski J.: Lublin Basin
petroleum prospecting results and their importance for future
exploration, Przegld Geologiczny (2003) 51 (9) 764-770.
2. Coustau H. et al.: Classification hydrodynamique des bassins
sedimentaires utilisations combinee avec dautres methodes pour
rationaliser lexploration dans des bassins non-productifs,
presented at the IX World Petroleum Congress, Tokyo, Japan,
1975.
3. Dahlberg E.C.: Applied Hydrodynamics in Petroleum
Exploration. Second edition, Springer Verlag, New York,
Berlin, Heidelberg, London, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong,
Barcelona, Budapest, (1995) 295.
4. Zawisza L.: Hydrodynamic condition of hydrocarbon
accumulation exemplified by the Carboniferous formation in the
Lublin Synclinorium, Poland, SPE Formation Evaluation
(1986) 1 (3) 286-294.
5. Zawisza L.: Hydrodynamic condition of hydrocarbon
accumulation exemplified by the Pomorsko and Czerwiensk oil
fields in the Polish Lowland, paper SPE 90586 presented at the
2004 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, USA, Sept. 26-29.
6. Zawisza L., Wojna-Dylg E. and Smulski R.: Hydrodynamic
condition of hydrocarbon migration and accumulation
exemplified by the Pomorsko, Czerwiensk and Zarnowiec oil
fields, Poland, paper IPTC 10925 presented at the 2005
International Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar,
Nov. 21-23.
7. Zawisza L., Wojna-Dylg E., Smulski R. and Macuda J.:
Hydrocarbon condition of hydrocarbon accumulation
exemplified by the Zarnowiec oil field, Poland, presented at the
2005 7
th
Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition,
Ravenna, Italy, March 16-18.


SI Metric Conversion Factors
ft x 3.048* E-01 = m
mile x 1.609 344* E+00 = km
psi x 6.894 759 E+03 = Pa

*Conversion factor is exact.
SPE 100296 5



Fig. 1- Pressure-depth gradient graph in Devonian formation
Formation pressures in Zubowice horizon (Devonian); a Gradient of hydrostatic pressure for fresh water; b - Gradient of
hydrostatic pressure for mineralized water (average for Devonian); c - Gradient of geostatic pressure.




Fig. 2- Pressure-depth gradient graph in Carboniferous formation
Formation pressures in horizon III (Carboniferous); a Gradient of hydrostatic pressure for fresh water; b - Gradient of hydrostatic
pressure for mineralized water (average for Carboniferous); c - Gradient of geostatic pressure.


6 SPE 100296










Fig. 3. Potentiometric map for Devonian formation.
















SPE 100296 7










Fig. 4. Potentiometric map for Carboniferous formation.
















8 SPE 100296










Fig. 5. Map of the hydraulic head gradients for Devonian formation.
















SPE 100296 9










Fig. 6. Map of the hydraulic head gradients for Carboniferous formation.
















10 SPE 100296










Fig. 7- Hydrogeological section I-I across the Lublin Basin
1 Potentiometric surface trace for Devonian formation; 2 Potentiometric surface trace for Carboniferous formation; 3 Top of
Carboniferous formation; 4 - Top of horizon III; 5 - Top of Devonian formation; 6 - Top of Zubowice horizon; 7 Faults; 8 Direction of
groundwater flow in Devonian formation; 9 Direction of groundwater flow in Carboniferous Formation; 10 Ground surface;
A Pressure-depth relationships and gradients for Carboniferous formation; B Pressure-depth relationships and gradients for
Devonian formation;



















SPE 100296 11










Fig. 8- Hydrogeological section II-II across the Lublin Basin
1 Potentiometric surface trace for Devonian formation; 2 Potentiometric surface trace for Carboniferous formation; 3 Top of
Carboniferous formation; 4 - Top of horizon III; 5 - Top of Devonian formation; 6 - Top of Zubowice horizon; 7 Faults; 8 Direction of
groundwater flow in Devonian formation; 9 Direction of groundwater flow in Carboniferous Formation; 10 Ground surface;
A Pressure-depth relationships and gradients for Carboniferous formation; B Pressure-depth relationships and gradients for
Devonian formation;