Introduction
1. Geological background and exploration history
1.1. Geological setting
Fig. 1. (a) Division of structural units and (b) stratigraphic histogram in the Santos Basin, Brazil. |
1.2. Exploration history
1.2.1. Exploration of the main body of the Lula-Sugar uplift belt (2005-2010)
Table 1. Mega pre-salt oil and gas fields in the Santos Basin, Brazil |
| Field name | Type | Year of discovery | Water depth/ m | Area/ km2 | Structural unit | Discovery formation | PIIP (oil equivalent)/108 t | Relative density | GOR/ (m3·m−3) | Content of CO2/ % | Discovery well |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lula | Oil field | 2006 | 2126 | 1100 | Lula-Sugar uplift belt | Lower Cretaceous Barra Velha Formation, Itapema Formation | 35.48 | 0.865 4- 0.892 7 | 301 | 1-20 | 1-RJS-628A |
| Jupiter | Oil and gas field | 2008 | 2187 | 603 | Lula-Sugar uplift belt | Lower Cretaceous, Barra Velha Formation | 10.94 | 0.876 2- 0.952 9 | 180 | 79 | 1-RJS-652 |
| Sururu | Oil field | 2008 | 2230 | 159 | Lula-Sugar uplift belt | Lower Cretaceous Barra Velha Formation, Itapema Formation | 12.34 | 0.876 2- 0.898 4 | 611 | 8-26 | 1-RJS-656 |
| Buzios | Oil field | 2010 | 1889 | 511 | Lula-Sugar uplift belt | Lower Cretaceous Barra Velha Formation, Itapema Formation | 47.54 | 0.887 1 | 255 | 23 | 2-ANP-1- RJS |
| Libra | Oil field | 2010 | 1964 | 192 | Lula-Sugar uplift belt | Lower Cretaceous Barra Velha Formation, Itapema Formation | 17.72 | 0.892 7 | 440 | 45 | 2-ANP-2A- RJS |
| Sepia | Oil field | 2012 | 2197 | 107 | Lula-Sugar uplift belt | Lower Cretaceous Barra Velha Formation, Itapema Formation | 11.43 | 0.898 4 | 262 | 23 | 1-RJS-691A- RJS |
| Aram | Oil field | 2021 | 1905 | 798 | Aram-Uirapuru uplift belt | Lower Cretaceous Barra Velha Formation | 12.15* | 0.849 8- 0.865 4 | 350 | 5 | 1-SPS-108- SPS |
Note: the data source from IHS; and data with * represents predicted PIIP. |
1.2.2. Exploration stage in the periphery of the Lula-Sugar uplift belt (2011-2019)
1.2.3. Exploration in the Aram-Uirapuru uplift belt (2020-present)
2. Progress in the understanding of oil and gas geological theory
2.1. Identification of the structural pattern of “two uplifts and three depressions” and Aram-Uirapuru uplift belt
2.2. Oil and gas enrichment was controlled by the main hydrocarbon source kitchen in rift period
2.3. Control of paleo-structures on the scale and quality of lacustrine carbonate reservoirs
Fig. 2. Sedimentary facies of the Lower Cretaceous pre-salt Barra Velha Formation in the Santos Basin. |
Fig. 3. Pattern diagram of four types of paleogeomorphgy controlling the pre-salt carbonate reservoirs in the Santos Basin. |
Fig. 4. Types and porosity vs. permeability of pre-salt lacustrine carbonate reservoirs in the Santos Basin. (a) Intergranular pores, stromatolite, 5438.0 m, Well A; (b) Porosity vs. permeability of stromatolite reservoir; (c) Intergranular and intragranular pores, spherulite, 5058.0 m, Well B; (d) Porosity vs. permeability of spherulite reservoir; (e) Intragranular and moldic pore, coquinas, 5364.0 m, Well C; (f) Porosity vs. permeability of coquinas reservoir. |
2.4. Continuous thick salt rock controls the accumulation and preservation of oil and gas
2.5. Reconstruction of oil and gas reservoirs by CO2 charging
Fig. 5. Superimposition of CO2 distribution and Bouguer gravity anomaly in the Santos Basin (the number in the white circle is the percentage of CO2 in the oil field). |
3. Key exploration technologies
3.1. Variable velocity mapping for layer-controlled facies-controlled pre-salt structure
3.2. Prediction of lacustrine carbonate reservoirs
Table 2. Seismic facies characteristics of pre-salt carbonates of different structural types in the Santos Basin, Brazil |
| Structure type | Typical seismic profile | Seismic facies characteristics | Reservoir characteristics | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Basement uplift | ![]() | Shoal facies: sub-parallel, weakly-moderately continuous, weak-moderate amplitude | The reservoir in the uplift is developed in a large scale with small thickness. | Aram Oilfield |
| Non-shoal facies: wedge thickening, continuous, moderate-strong reflection | The reservoir quality becomes poor at the low structural position. | The low position of Aram Oilfield | ||
| Tilted fault block | ![]() | Shoal facies: S-type foreset deposit, mounded, sub-parallel, weakly continuous, weak- moderate reflection | The reservoirs in the tilted fault block are overlapped and contiguously developed with large thickness and large scale. | Northwest Libra Oilfield |
| Non-shoal facies: continuous, moderate-strong reflection | The reservoir quality becomes poor at the low structural position. | The low position of Northwest Libra Oilfield | ||
| Fault-horst in depression | ![]() | Shoal facies: mounded, weak reflection | The reservoir is distributed in strips along the horst. | Guanxuma Oilfield |
| Non-shoal facies: continuous, moderate-strong reflection | The reservoir in the graben zone is not developed. | The low position of two flanks of Guanxuma Oilfield | ||
| Volcanic high in depression | ![]() | Shoal facies: mounded, weak amplitude | The reservoir in the volcanic uplift high is limited. | Carcará Oilfield and Well B in Libra Oilfield |
| Non-shoal facies: wedge thickening, continuous, moderate-strong reflection | The reservoir is not developed at the low structural position. | Well D in Middle Libra Oilfield |
Fig. 6. Identification of carbonate shoal by highlights. |
3.3. Prediction of intrusive/effusive rock distribution
Fig. 7. Seismic prediction of intrusive rock (see the profile location in |
3.4. Hydrocarbon detection
Fig. 8. Hydrocarbon detection based on spectral decomposition in Aram block. |
3.5. Complex lithology and fluid logging identification
Fig. 9. Semi-quantitative identification of supercritical CO2 fluid in the Santos Basin. |



