26
BERG - HUGHES C E N T E R Geologic Analysis of the East Texas Basin in Navarro County Telemachos Manos
| Date post: | 16-Apr-2017 |
| Category: |
Documents |
| Upload: | telemachos-manos |
| View: | 88 times |
| Download: | 0 times |
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
Geologic Analysis of the East Texas Basin in
Navarro CountyTelemachos Manos
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
Summary• Objective
• Understand the geologic trends of Upper and Lower Cretaceous units on the west flank of the East Texas Basin, Navarro County
• Correlated 36 SP well logs across Navarro County• Even spatial distribution across fault lines and production zones.• Identified key areas where data is lacking
• Generated a Structure Map of the Base of Austin Chalk • Structure- Dips from NW-SE (structural high in NW)• Impacted by San Marcos Arch and Mexia Fault Zone
• Stratigraphic Thickness Analysis• Austin Chalk- Thickens to the Northeast• Eagle Ford Formation- Thickens to the North and West
• Upper section locally missing due to normal faulting
• Woodbine Formation-thickens to the East• Buda Formation-thickens to the East• Del Rio Formation- thickens to the Northeast
• Play Analysis• Production is greatest in areas where the thick bottom sand of the
Woodbine is directly adjacent to normal fault surfaces on the upthrown-footwall side.
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
Geologic Background -Regional
Navarro County
East Texas Basin• Jurassic Rifting of the Gulf of
Mexico• Topographically Influenced
by Sabine Uplift and passive margin.
• Louann Salt Deposits influence updip detachments
San Marcos Arch• Mid- rift high • Jurassic in age• Western extent of East
Texas Basin
Section of Study• Mid-Late Cretaceous Rocks• Del Rio through Taylor
Formation(Donovan et al., 2015)
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
Geologic Background - LocalMexia–Talco Fault Zone
• Updip detachment surface of gravity sliding due to the underlying Louann Salts
• Fault trend traces the extent of the salt body
• Graben structures are conducive to lateral migration of fluids transport pathway.
• Monoclines on up-thrown surface
(Ambrose et al., 2009)
W E
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
Methods
Gather Data
Determine Formation Boundaries and Surfaces
Generate County Base Map (36 well logs)
Transport Picked Surfaces onto Base Maps
Generate Isopachs and Structure Maps
Import Fault Surfaces from Publications
Modify Structure Maps to Adhere to Faults
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
Alb
ian
Con
iaci
anTu
roni
anC
enom
ania
n
Type Log – Navarro County42_349_31917
SP (MV) Res (Ohm)
Austin150’-480’
Eagle Ford150’-480’
K80sb
K72sb
K65sbK63sb
Upper150’-450’
Lower 35’-105’
K56sb
K58sb
K60sb
Woodbine290’-720’
Buda 40’-180’
Del Rio 60’-120’
K65mfs
K60mfs
K61mfs
K62mfs
K56mfs
Austin Chalk• High resistivity fossiliferous
limestone/chalkEagle Ford Shale
• Carbonate mudrock• Subdivided into upper and lower
member• Lower member higher TOC, gamma,
resistivityWoodbine Formation
• Interbedded shale and sand• Sand has strong reservoir potential• Morrow Payzone – primary producing
reservoirBuda Limestone
• Interbedded limestone, marl, and calcareous shale
Del Rio Shale• Calcareous silt and clay-rich shale
Georgetown• Fossiliferous micrite, marl, and mud
Type WellMexia Fault Zone
Georgetown
Morrow Payzone35’-80’
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
Incomplete Data
NW Shelf - Navarro County• Units shallow and thin to the NW.• Outside the fault zone, economically targeted reservoirs are
above the Taylor• Wells do not penetrate the Austin Chalk or Woodbine
0 2 4 6 81MilesMexia Fault Zone
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
Incomplete Data
0 1 2 3 40.5Miles
Southern Navarro County• Units shallow and thin to the W.• Outside the extent of the fault surface, Woodbine production
is minimal• Few wells penetrate the Woodbine
Mexia Fault Zone
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
Exploration Focus
0 1 2 3 40.5Miles
Mexia Fault Zone – Navarro County• Majority of production focused on fault footwall surfaces• Vertical displacement of units, Woodbine reservoir adjacent
to Eagle Ford source rock• Lateral migration of fluids
Mexia Fault Zone
Corsicana Field
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
Base of Austin StructureDepth to Base of Austin (ft.)
Deepening towards the
SE
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
A-A’ Cross Section345543154933931341353411133784
A A’
A
A’
K60mfs
K61mfs
K62mfs
Austin
UEFLEF
BudaDel Rio
Georgetown
Woodbine
SW NE
K62mfs
K61mfsK60mfs
Mexia Fault Zone
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
A-A’ Cross Section – Fault Interpretation345543154933931341353411133784
A A’
A
A’
K60mfs
K61mfs
K62mfs
Austin
UEFLEF
BudaDel Rio
Georgetown
Woodbine
SW NE
UEFLEF
Woodbine
Mexia Fault Zone
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
B-B’ Cross Section345793160734480339313186231430 34987B B’
Austin
UEFLEF
BudaDel Rio
Georgetown
WoodbineK60mfs
K61mfs
K62mfs
B
B’
NW SE
Mexia Fault Zone
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
B-B’ Cross Section – Fault Interpretation345793160734480339313186231430 34987B B’
Austin
UEFLEF
BudaDel Rio
Georgetown
WoodbineK60mfs
K61mfs
K62mfs
B
B’
NW SE
Mexia Fault Zone
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
Austin Isopach Map
Thickness (ft)Thickening towards
the NE
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
Upper Eagle Ford Isopach Map
Thick
enin
g to
ward
s
the
NE
Thickness (ft)
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
Lower Eagle Ford Isopach Map
Thickness (ft)Thickening
towards the NW
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
Woodbine Isopach Map
Thickness (ft)
Thickening towards the
NE Woodbine
Delta
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
Woodbine Morrow Payzone Isopach Map42_349_31917
SP (MV) Res (Ohm)
Austin150’-480’
Eagle Ford150’-480’
K80sb
K72sb
K65sbK63sb
Upper150’-450’
Lower 35’-105’
K56sb
K58sb
K60sb
Woodbine290’-720’
Buda 40’-180’
Del Rio 60’-120’
K65mfs
K60mfs
K61mfs
K62mfs
K56mfs
Georgetown
Morrow Payzone35’-80’
(Hill & Guthrie, 1943)
Thickness (ft)
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
Woodbine Net to Gross Ratio
Shale
More Sand towards the W
Sand
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
Buda Isopach Map
Thickening towards the SE
Thickness (ft)
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
Del Rio Isopach Map
Thickening towards
the NEThickness (ft)
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
Controls on Production• Production is greatest where thick Woodbine sand reservoirs are
adjacent to fault surfaces on the upthrown footwall.
(Modified from Hill & Guthrie, 1943)
Woodbine
Morrow Payzone
‘Old’ Corsicana Field
LEF
UEF
No Production
High TOC LEF directly adjacent to lower
Woodbine Reservoir
Drilled pre-1920s
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
Structure Contours accounting for Fault Surfaces
Depth to Base of Austin (ft)
Thickness of Morrow (ft)
Stoeser et al., (2005)
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
Conclusions• Objective
• Understand the geologic trends of Upper and Lower Cretaceous units on the west flank of the East Texas Basin, Navarro County
• Correlated 36 SP well logs across Navarro County• Even spatial distribution across fault lines and production zones.• Identified key areas where data is lacking
• Generated a Structure Map of the Base of Austin Chalk • Structure- Dips from NW-SE (structural high in NW)• Impacted by San Marcos Arch and Mexia Fault Zone
• Stratigraphic Thickness Analysis• Austin Chalk- Thickens to the Northeast• Eagle Ford Formation- Thickens to the North
• Upper section locally missing due to normal faulting
• Woodbine Formation-thickens to the East• Buda Formation-thickens to the East• Del Rio Formation- thickens to the Northeast
• Play Analysis• Production is greatest in areas where the thick bottom sand of the
Woodbine is directly adjacent to normal fault surfaces on the upthrown-footwall side.
BERG - HUGHESC E N T E R
References• Ambrose, W. A., Hentz, T. F., Bonnaffe, F., Loucks, R. G., Brown Jr, L. F., Wang, F. P.,
& Potter, E. C. (2009). Sequence-stratigraphic controls on complex reservoir architecture of highstand fluvial-dominated deltaic and lowstand valley-fill deposits in the Upper Cretaceous (Cenomanian) Woodbine Group, East Texas field: Regional and local perspectives. AAPG bulletin, 93(2), 231-269.
• Donovan, A. & Gardner, R. (2015) "Chronostratigraphic Relationships of the Woodbine and Eagle Ford Groups Across Texas." Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Journal, v. 4, p. 67–87.
• Hill, H. B. & Guthrie, R. K. (1943) “Analysis of Oil Production in the Near-Depleted Mexia-Powell Fault Fields of Texas”. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations. R. I. 3712. August 1943
• Stoeser, Douglas B., Green, Gregory N., Morath, Laurie C., Heran, William D., Wilson, Anna B., Moore, David W., and Bradley S. Van Gosen (2005). “Preliminary Integrated Geologic Map Databases for the United States Central States: Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana”. The State of Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1351, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO.
Special Thanks to:• Melissa Meyer• Clyde Findlay• Charlie Niles• Eric Peavey
