When Is Unconventional Conventional?

Have you noticed?

If you have a pulse and have been to an AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibition (ACE) over the past couple of years or so, or a recent AAPG International Convention and Exhibition (ICE) such as those held in Calgary or Milan, you would have noticed.

Standing room only crowds at sessions focused on gas shales have become the norm.

It’s not limited to oral sessions, either – try finding a spot to view a poster or talk to the author(s). Overcrowding is a sign of the times.

And to add to what I perceive as good news, exploration for gas, oil and liquids in shale reservoirs is no longer restricted to the United States or even North America. These so-called unconventional reservoirs are now the focus of exploration on virtually every continent in the world.

It is not surprising that many AAPG members are actively involved in shale exploration or production, of which many are EMD members who have been instrumental in organizing technical sessions – and running short courses and field trips – at the ACE and ICE meetings, and in supporting Geosciences Technology Workshops (GTWs).

Defining unconventional may not be as easy as one would think – and we are not alone in our metaphysical thoughts about what is conventional and what is not.

The bank and loan industry, and medical and military strategists have these discussions all the time. Discussions as to what is conventional and unconventional have been an ongoing part of their respective dialogues.

Generally speaking, conventional things are of the ordinary while unconventional things would be out of the ordinary.

However, what you may think is ordinary could be completely different from my ordinary.

Natural gas enthusiasts divide unconventional gas into six main categories:

  • Deep gas.
  • Tight gas sands.
  • Gas-containing shales.
  • Coalbed methane.
  • Geopressurized zones.
  • Arctic and sub-sea hydrates.

Whether these gas deposits are unconventional or not changes over time, and from deposit to deposit, with economics dictating whether a particular deposit is unconventional or not.

If a natural gas deposit is too costly to extract, it is unconventional.

For those who prefer Wikipedia, unconventional oil is defined as petroleum produced or extracted using techniques other than the conventional oil well method.

The growing interest in unconventionals is credited in large part to technological advances and innovative new processes – or a cheaper way of doing something. That is all that is needed to turn what was once deemed unconventional to conventional.

Regardless, to make sure we all know what the chatter is about, unconventionals from EMD’s perspective are:

Those energy resources that do not occur in discrete oil and gas reservoirs held in structural or stratigraphic traps in sedimentary basins.

Think gas shales, shale oil, tight gas sands, oil (tar) sands, coalbed methane, oil shales, gas hydrates, etc.

Conversation about shale reservoirs – as demonstrated at the 2010 ACE in Houston and 2011 ICE in Milan – has evolved from that of just a few years ago. Instead of looking for a talk about the next “hot” shale prospect in the United States, technical sessions are now about revising our understanding of the processes under which organic-rich shales are deposited and subsequently evolve into prolific unconventional reservoirs.

And all these new and innovative ideas about shales have spawned a host of additional questions that are being addressed by bringing new technologies into the shale discussions. The use of advanced SEM imaging to view porosity in shales, sometimes the only means to view porosity, is just one example.

New terms also are being spawned. Understanding the nature and distribution of pore types in shales is evoking terms like “nanoporosity” and “organic porosity.”

And even though the concept of unconventionals such as gas shales are becoming more mainstream, understanding flow in shales is anything but conventional. Formulating new models focused on fluid flow in rocks characterized by low porosity and permeability remains challenging.

These topics, among many others, were the subject of much discussion and debate at a recent Hedberg Conference on shales, of which EMD was a co-sponsor.

As we move forward in what is a dynamic energy landscape, topics pertaining to unconventional resources are at a premium.

The organizing committee for both this year’s ACE (April 22-25 in Long Beach, Calif.) and ICE (Sept. 16-19 in Singapore) is committed to incorporating presentations on shales and other unconventional reservoirs. Much is happening throughout the world in the area of unconventional resources.

For a comprehensive overview of current research and stages of development, check out “Unconventional Energy Resources: 2011 Review,” published in Natural Resources Research (Volume 20, Number 4, December 2011, pages 279-327). This gem contains nine unconventional energy resource commodity summaries prepared by various committees of EMD.

In the meantime, EMD remains committed to bringing pertinent information to the AAPG membership about these so-called conventional unconventionals.

Comments (0)


Division Column-EMD Stephen M. Testa

Stephen M. Testa is EMD President-Elect. He is currently serving as Executive Officer of the California State Mining and Geology Board since August, 2005. Testa is a Past-President of the American Geosciences Institute (AGI), the AIPG and the Los Angeles Basin Geological Society.

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

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 DEG to serve energy resource and environmental geologists. 

See Also: Bulletin Article

Understanding the distribution and geometry of reservoir geobodies is crucial for net-to-gross estimates and to model subsurface flow. This article focuses on the process of dolomitization and resulting geometry of diagenetic geobodies in an outcrop of Jurassic host rocks from northern Oman. Field and petrographic data show that a first phase of stratabound dolomite is crosscut by a second phase of fault-related dolomite. The stratabound dolomite geobodies are laterally continuous for at least several hundreds of meters (sim1000 ft) and probably regionally and are one-half meter (1.6 ft) thick. Based on petrography and geochemistry, a process of seepage reflux of mesosaline or hypersaline fluids during the early stages of burial diagenesis is proposed for the formation of the stratabound dolomite. In contrast, the fault-related dolomite geobodies are trending along a fault that can be followed for at least 100 m (328 ft) and vary in width from a few tens of centimeters to as much as 10 m (sim1–33 ft). Petrography, geochemistry, and high homogenization temperature of fluid inclusions all point to the formation of the dolomite along a normal fault under deep burial conditions during the Middle to Late Cretaceous. The high 87Sr/86Sr ratio in the dolomite and the high salinity measured in fluid inclusions indicate that the dolomitizing fluids are deep basinal brines that interacted with crystalline basement. The dolomitization styles have an impact on the dimension, texture, and geochemistry of the different dolomite geobodies, and a modified classification scheme (compared to the one from Jung and Aigner, 2012) is proposed to incorporate diagenetic geobodies in future reservoir modeling.
Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/linking-process-dimension-texture-and-geochemistry.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 3772 Bulletin Article
Transfer zones in rift basins are classified into convergent, divergent, and synthetic, based on the relative dip directions of adjacent faults within the transfer zone. Experimental models were constructed to determine the geometry, evolution, and fault patterns associated with each of these transfer zones. In addition, basement faults with initially approaching, laterally offset, and overlapping geometries were modeled. The models consisted of two layers, with stiff clay representing basement and soft clay representing the sedimentary cover. Laser scanning and three-dimensional surface modeling were used to determine the map geometry to compare the models with examples of natural structures. The experimental models showed many similarities with conceptual models but also showed more details and a few significant differences. Typically, divergent transfer zones are narrower than convergent transfer zones, for the same initial spacing between basement faults. The differences between the different initial fault configurations (approaching, laterally offset, or overlapping) are the degree of interaction of the secondary faults, the amount of overlap between the fault zones, and in some cases, the width of the transfer zone. The main faults propagate laterally and upward and curve in the direction of dip of the faults, so that the faults curve toward each other in convergent transfer zones, away from each other in divergent transfer zones, and in the same direction in synthetic transfer zones. A primary difference with schematic models is the significant component of extensional fault propagation folding (drape folding), accompanied by secondary faulting within the sedimentary cover, especially in the early stages of fault propagation. Therefore, all three types of transfer zones are characterized by significant folding and related variations in the shapes of structures. The transfer zones are marked by a progressive change in relief from the footwall to the hanging wall, resulting in a saddle-shaped geometry. The hanging walls of the faults are marked by a gentle flexure or rollover into the fault, with the amount of flexure increasing with fault throw away from the fault tip. The geometries and fault patterns of the experimental structures match some of the observations in natural structures and also provide predictive analogs for interpretation of surface and subsurface structures and the delineation of structural traps in rift basins.
Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/Experimental-models-of-transfer-zones-in-rift.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 3723 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 3935 CD-DVD

See Also: Short Course

Here is an introduction to the tools and techniques that geologists and geophysicists use to locate gas and oil, that drillers use to drill the wells and that petroleum engineers use to test and complete the wells and produce the gas and oil. Exercises throughout the course provide practical experience in well log correlation, contouring, interpretation of surface and subsurface, contoured maps, seismic interpretation, well log interpretation, and decline curve analysis.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/sc-basic-petroleum-geology-for-the-non-geologist.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 13609 Short Course

See Also: Workshop

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/extending-mature-fields-life-cycles-hero.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 14137 Workshop