Understanding gains on ‘new’ reservoir

Shales Closing ‘Conventional’ Gap

At what point do unconventional resources become conventional resources?

If this is possible, gas shales are certainly closing the gap.

Even though operators have produced gas from shales since the first shale-gas well in the organic-rich Dunkirk Shale (Devonian) in New York in 1821, the recent interest in gas shales began in 1981 with the first Barnett Shale well, drilled in the Fort Worth Basin in northern Texas by Mitchell Energy Corporation. Gas shales have advanced to an economic gas play since the year 2000 thanks to a combination of high gas prices, shale reservoir characterization and advances in drilling and completion technology.

The sheer number of articles and conferences describing gas-shale plays in the United States and Canada attests to the high interest level.

As for importance, the Barnett Shale alone supplies about 7 percent of the United States' annual dry-gas production.

The Marcellus Shale has helped raise the interest in shale plays.
The Marcellus Shale has helped raise the interest in shale plays.
Note the accompanying alphabetical list of many of the United States and Canada gas-shale plays in the news.

Gas shales span reservoir ages of Cambrian to Miocene, and shale formations such as the Barnett, Fayetteville and Woodford have become household names.

Some long-producing shales such as the Antrim, Huron and New Albany are seeing renewed interest – and the Haynesville Shale in Louisiana and Marcellus Shale in the Appalachian states are being compared to the Barnett Shale as the next big plays.

(The Late Devonian-Early Mississippian Bakken Shale in the Williston Basin is not on the list because it is primarily an oil play.)

Early lessons learned and shared concerning how to produce gas from shales have drastically shortened the learning curve when exporting the technology to new shale-gas plays.

One of these lessons was the importance of fractures (natural and induced) for gas production while avoiding fracture propagation into water-bearing formations with the occurrence of shale or carbonate fracture barriers.

Hydraulic slick-water fracturing and re-fracturing were the initial keys to completing the tight-shale reservoir. Today, horizontal wells – first applied to shales in 2003 – are now routinely applied to expose more of the shale to the well bore and use the shale boundaries as fracture barriers.

Recent technological advances applied to horizontal wells in shales include:

  • ♦ 3-D seismic in determining lateral length and placement.
  • ♦ Multilaterals (drilling several laterals from a single well pad).
  • ♦ Multiple frac stages within a lateral.
  • ♦ Real-time microseismic monitoring to image hydraulic-fracture treatments.
  • ♦ Simul-fracs (simultaneous hydraulic fracturing of offset parallel horizontal wells about 1,000 feet apart).
  • ♦ Seismic is playing an increasing role in shale gas appraisal and development. In addition to imaging the basic structural geometry and faults, multi-trace attributes such as coherence and volumetric curvature are being used to detect smaller-scale faults, areas of more intense fracturing and collapse features such as sinkholes.

Of course, not all organic-rich shales will be economic gas shales, even with the application of innovative completion technology. What was once thought of as a hydrocarbon source rock or cap rock must now be evaluated as a gas reservoir.

Also, it is not enough to have a thick, organic-carbon rich black shale in the gas window. Other factors such as mineralogy (e.g., clay content and types) and petrographic properties (e.g., silt stringers, laminae, bitumen network) are important to produce gas from shales.

Fortunately, research on petrophysics, geomechanics and geochemistry conducted at universities, service companies and consortia is advancing our understanding of shales as reservoirs.

Much has been learned about how to evaluate shale as a gas source rock and reservoir. Some remaining questions include:

  • ♦ What is the optimum range of thermal maturity?
  • ♦ How low or high of thermal maturity is too low or too high?
  • ♦ What depth is too shallow or too deep to be economic?
  • ♦ How important is reservoir pressure?

Energy Minerals Division members have access to the EMD members-only Web site, which has semiannual gas-shale reports, a calendar of gas-shale conferences, an extensive list of published gas-shale literature, presentations, online reports, Web links and short course notes.

Check it out – and please let me know if you have suggestions on additions to the EMD Gas Shales Committee Web site. 

United States and Canada Gas-Shale Plays

Antrim (Late Devonian; Michigan Basin, Michigan)

Baxter (Late Cretaceous; Vermillion Basin, Colorado, Wyoming)

Barnett (Mississippian; Fort Worth and Permian basins, Texas)

Bend (Pennsylvanian; Palo Duro Basin, Texas)

Cane Creek (Pennsylvanian; Paradox Basin, Utah)

Caney (Mississippian; Arkoma Basin, Oklahoma)

Chattanooga (Late Devonian; Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee)

Chimney Rock (Pennsylvanian; Paradox Basin, Colorado, Utah)

Cleveland (Devonian; east Kentucky)

Clinton (Early Silurian; east Kentucky)

Cody (Cretaceous; Montana)

Colorado (Cretaceous; central Alberta, Saskatchewan)

Conasauga (Middle Cambrian; Black Warrior Basin, Alabama)

Duvernay (Late Devonian; west central Alberta)

Eagleford (Late Cretaceous; Maverick Basin, Texas)

Ellsworth (Late Devonian; Michigan Basin, Michigan)

Excello (Pennsylvanian; Kansas, Oklahoma)

Exshaw (Devonian-Mississippian; Alberta, northeast British Columbia)

Fayetteville (Mississippian; Arkoma Basin, Arkansas)

Fernie (Jurassic; west central Alberta, northeast British Columbia)

Floyd/Neal (Late Mississippian; Black Warrior Basin, Alabama, Mississippi)

Frederick Brook (Mississippian; New Brunswick, Nova Scotia)

Gammon (Late Cretaceous; Williston Basin, Montana)

Gordondale (Early Jurassic; northeast British Columbia)

Gothic (Pennsylvanian; Paradox Basin, Colorado, Utah)

Green River (Eocene; Colorado, Utah)

Haynesville/Bossier (Late Jurassic; Louisiana, east Texas)

Horn River (Middle Devonian; northeast British Columbia)

Horton Bluff (Early Mississippian; Nova Scotia)

Hovenweep (Pennsylvanian; Paradox Basin, Colorado, Utah)

Huron (Devonian; member of Ohio Shale; east Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia)

Klua/Evie (Middle Devonian; northeast British Columbia)

Lewis (Late Cretaceous; Colorado, New Mexico)

Mancos (Cretaceous; San Juan Basin, New Mexico, Uinta Basin, Utah)

Manning Canyon (Mississippian; central Utah)

Marcellus (Devonian; New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia)

McClure (Miocene; San Joaquin Basin, California)

Monterey (Miocene; Santa Maria Basin, California)

Montney-Doig (Triassic; Alberta, northeast British Columbia)

Moorefield (Mississippian; Arkoma Basin, Arkansas)

Mowry (Cretaceous; Bighorn and Powder River basins, Wyoming)

Muskwa (Late Devonian; northeast British Columbia)

New Albany (Devonian-Mississippian; Illinois Basin, Illinois, Indiana)

Niobrara (Late Cretaceous; Denver Basin, Colorado)

Nordegg/Gordondale (Late Jurassic; Alberta, northeast British Columbia)

Ohio (Devonian; Appalachian Basin, east Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia)

Pearsall (Cretaceous; Maverick Basin, Texas)

Percha (Devonian-Mississippian; west Texas)

Pierre (Cretaceous; Raton Basin, Colorado)

Poker Chip (Jurassic; west central Alberta, northeast British Columbia)

Queenston (Ordovician; New York)

Rhinestreet (Devonian; Appalachian Basin)

Second White Speckled (Late Cretaceous; southern Alberta)

Sunbury (Mississippian; Appalachian Basin)

Utica (Ordovician; New York, Quebec)

Wilrich/Buckinghorse/ Garbutt/Moosebar (Early Cretaceous; west central Alberta, northeast British Columbia)

Woodford (Late Devonian-Early Mississippian; Oklahoma, Texas)

Comments (0)


Division Column-EMD Brian Cardott

Brian J. Cardott is Chair of the EMD Gas Shale Committee for 2008-09.

Division Column-EMD

The Energy Minerals Division (EMD), a division of AAPG, is dedicated to addressing the special concerns of energy resource geologists working with energy resources other than conventional oil and gas, providing a vehicle to keep abreast of the latest developments in the geosciences and associated technology. EMD works in concert with the Division of Environmental Geosciences to serve energy resource and environmental geologists.

View column archives

See Also: Bulletin Article

The Sierra Diablo Mountains of west Texas contain world-class exposures of Lower Permian (Leonardian) platform carbonates. As such, these outcrops offer key insights into the products of carbonate deposition in the transitional icehouse to greenhouse setting of the early to middle Permian that are available in few other places. They also afford an excellent basis for examining how styles of facies and sequence development vary between inner and outer platform settings.

We collected detailed data on the facies composition and architecture of lower Leonardian high-frequency cycles and sequences from outcrops that provide more than 2 mi (3 km) of continuous exposure. We used these data to define facies stacking patterns along depositional dip across the platform in both low- and high-accommodation settings and to document how these patterns vary systematically among and within sequences.

Like icehouse and waning icehouse successions elsewhere, Leonardian platform deposits are highly cyclic; cycles dominantly comprise aggradational upward-shallowing facies successions that vary according to accommodation setting. Cycles stack into longer duration high-frequency sequences (HFSs) that exhibit systematic variations in facies and cycle architectures. Unlike cycles, HFSs can comprise symmetrical upward-shallowing or upward-deepening facies stacks. High-frequency sequences are not readily definable from one-dimensional stratigraphic sections but require dip-parallel two-dimensional sections and, in most cases, HFS boundaries are best defined in middle platform settings where facies contrast and offset are greatest. These studies demonstrate that HFSs are the dominant architectural element in many platform systems. As such, the lessons learned from these remarkable outcrops provide a sound basis for understanding and modeling carbonate facies architecture in other carbonate-platform successions, especially those of the middle to upper Permian.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/outcrop-based-characterization-leonardian.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 3661 Bulletin Article

The Molasse Basin represents the northern foreland basin of the Alps. After decades of exploration, it is considered to be mature in terms of hydrocarbon exploration. However, geological evolution and hydrocarbon potential of its imbricated southernmost part (Molasse fold and thrust belt) are still poorly understood. In this study, structural and petroleum systems models are integrated to explore the hydrocarbon potential of the Perwang imbricates in the western part of the Austrian Molasse Basin.

The structural model shows that total tectonic shortening in the modeled north–south section is at least 32.3 km (20.1 mi) and provides a realistic input for the petroleum systems model. Formation temperatures show present-day heat flows decreasing toward the south from 60 to 41 mW/m2. Maturity data indicate very low paleoheat flows decreasing southward from 43 to 28 mW/m2. The higher present-day heat flow probably indicates an increase in heat flow during the Pliocene and Pleistocene.

Apart from oil generated below the imbricated zone and captured in autochthonous Molasse rocks in the foreland area, oil stains in the Perwang imbricates and oil-source rock correlations argue for a second migration system based on hydrocarbon generation inside the imbricates. This assumption is supported by the models presented in this study. However, the model-derived low transformation ratios (lt20%) indicate a charge risk. In addition, the success for future exploration strongly depends on the existence of migration conduits along the thrust planes during charge and on potential traps retaining their integrity during recent basin uplift.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/evaluation-of-hydrocarbon-generation-and-migration.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 5771 Bulletin Article

See Also: CD DVD

Desktop /Portals/0/images/_site/AAPG-newlogo-vertical-morepadding.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 4059 CD-DVD

See Also: Energy Policy Blog

As Arctic ice thins and retreats, growing commercial access–from cruise ships to oil and gas drilling–will increase the risk of an oil spill. A recent National Research Council report found that resources, technology, research, manpower, funding and logistics are inadequate to respond to an Arctic oil spill.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/National-Academies-US-Inadequately-Prepared-for-an-Arctic-Oil-Spill-2014-04apr-30-hero.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 12896 Energy Policy Blog

See Also: Online e Symposium

The geochemistry of formation fluids (water and hydrocarbon gases) in the Uinta Basin, Utah, is evaluated at the regional scale based on fluid sampling and compilation of past records.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/oc-es-green-river-shales-geochemical-basin-study.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 1436 Online e-Symposium