gas shale 02

© Dan Jarvie. Energy Institute, TCU / Worldwide Geochemistry Fort Worth Business Press meeting June 19, 2008 1

Unconventional Shale Resource Plays:Shale-Gas and Shale-Oil Opportunities©

Daniel M. Jarvie

Energy Institute, Texas Christian University

Worldwide Geochemistry, LLC


In Honor of “Marvelous” Marvin Gearhart

© Dan Jarvie. Energy Institute, TCU / Worldwide Geochemistry Fort Worth Business Press meeting June 19, 2008 3Dan Jarvie, Worldwide Geochemistry

Unconventional Gas as a portion of total U.S. gas production


Impact of Barnett Shale Development

• Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas:

Royalties of $1.6 MM in 2006• Denton (Texas) Independent School District:

Royalties of $12.1 MM• Energy Institute, TCU

Royalties to follow... soon!


Market Price Energy-Equivalencyoil vs. gas


Shale-Gas and Shale-OilResource Plays

1

3

5

678

9

1213

14

17

18

20

19

18

15

21

2

22

23

4

1011

16

24


Shale Resource System:a self contained petroleum system

SOURCEROCK

BARNETTSHALE

RESERVOIRROCK

SEAL ROCK

GenerationAdsorptionExpulsion

Oil Cracking

Estimate60% of

hydrocarbonsexpelled intoconventional

reservoirs

Jarvie et al., 2003


Why does Wall Street love Shale-Gas Plays?6000 square mile Barnett Shale Reservoir


EXAMPLES OF AVERAGE SOURCE POTENTIAL INDICES (SPI)

(tons HC/m2)

1. Junggar (China): 65

2. L. Congo (Cabinda): 46

3. Santa Barbara Channel (U.S.A.): 39

4. San Joaquin (U.S.A.): 38

5. Central Sumatra (Indonesia): 34

6. E. Venezuela fold and thrust belt: 27

7. Offshore Santa Maria (U.S.A): 21

Presenter

Presentation Notes

There is a calculation of a source rock’s petroleum potential based on its remaining potential, density, and thickness, called the Source Petroleum Index (SPI) (Demaison and Huizinga, 1994 in the AAPG Petroleum Systems Memoir 60). The calculation is SPI = (density x thickness x S2) / 100 to give units of tons of hydrocarbon/square meter This list shows their published list of the top SPI basins in the world.


EXAMPLES OF SPI (cont.)(tons HC/m2)

8. Middle Magdalena (Colombia): 169. North Sea (U.K.): 1510. Central Arabia (S. Arabia): 1411. Niger Delta (Nigeria): 1412. Gulf of Suez (Egypt): 1413. San Joaquin - Eoc./Oligo. (U.S.A.): 1414. Ft. Worth - Barnett (U.S.A.): 13

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Continuing this list, the Ft. Worth Basin Barnett shale actually places 14th using a SPI value computed from the average values cited previously and a thickness of 450 ft. Larry Brogdon has used illustrated the thickness of the Barnett Shale as being from the 40th floor of this building to the street, which puts the overall thickness in grand perspective.


Shale Gas Dispenser

A containerfilled withgoodies

Goodies

Barrier

Insert money

Produce 1Goodie

Top Seal/Barrier

Bottom Seal/Barrier

Jarvie, 2005

© Dan Jarvie. Energy Institute, TCU / Worldwide Geochemistry Fort Worth Business Press meeting June 19, 2008 12Dan Jarvie, Worldwide Geochemistry

Shales with a mixture of oil and gasshowing both adsorbed and free pore space hydrocarbons

stored in various little containers

Micro-reservoir compartments in a tight shalehaving free gas (gas in micropores) and adsorbed gas (gas adhering to organic surfaces)

Jarvie, 2005


Shale in Oil Window

Varioussizes of

moleculesor entities

Methaneand

other gases

Variousparaffins

Resinsand

Asphaltenes“big uglies”

Jarvie, 2005


30

25

20

15

10

5

Sha

le P

oros

ity (%

)

Shale Pore Diameter (nm)0 5 10 15 20

Largeasphaltenemolecule

Smallasphaltenemolecule

Complexring

structures

n-alkanes

Cyclohexane

Benzene

Methane

Approximate Molecular Diametersof some products in petroleum reservoirs

EffectiveDiameter

Molecule (nm)Water 0.30Methane 0.38Benzene 0.47n-alkanes 0.48Cyclohexane 0.54Complex rings 1-3Asphaltenes 5-10

Molecular Sizes

Is molecular sizethe only factor ?


Shale in Gas Window

Jarvie, 2005

Mostly methane

Some wet gas and liquid

hydrocarbons


HistogramHumble Database TOC

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Freq

uenc

y

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1 100.1TOC (%)

2,000 Marine Shales


Micro-Reservoir System:Porosity Increase due to Organic Carbon Decomposition

7% by mass14% by vol.

TOC of 7.00 wt. %is 14% vol. %

Assume 35% carbon lossdue to generation

4.90% porosity increase

Jarvie et al., 2007a


Pores and C-rich Areas: Barnett Shale

Areas of higher TOC

Reed, Loucks, and Jarvie, 2008

Presenter

Presentation Notes

On this fairly flat surface, much of contrast in secondary electron image is actually due to the backscattered electron component. Hence, low atomic weight carbonaceous areas are dark in color. Sample is from the Blakely #1 Well, Wise Co., Texas, 7206’


Nanopores in the Barnett Shale

Green dots are10 nm diameter

Reed, Loucks, and Jarvie, 2008

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Secondary electron image showing close-up view of area within green box from previous slide. Sample is from the Blakely #1 Well, Wise Co., Texas, 7206’


Schematic of Oil and Gas Generation:why is there more gas at higher thermal maturity?

Organic MatterSecondaryCracking

Oil

WetGas

Dead Carbon

Dry Gas

PrimaryCracking

Biodegradation


TOC in a Marine ShalePetroleum Source Rock

7.00 wt.% organic carbon

2.50 wt.% 4.50 wt.%

Hydrogen is limiting factor on conversion of organic carbon to hydrocarbons


Volumes of Oil and GasExpelled and Retained from 2.50% TOC

(at dry gas window thermal maturity)

921 mcf/af256 bo/af(1536 mcfe/af)

+658 mcf/af

Expelled

Retained


Oil vs. Gas Fairways


Geologicmaturation

seriesfrom theBarnettShale

Gage #1

Mitcham #1

Lampasas outcrop

Truit #1

Heirs #1 Young #1

Sims #2 Oliver #1

Maturation Trend Line


Geochemical Assessment of Gas Riskvarious visual and chemical thermal maturity parameters

%VRo [2.2]

Tmax-eq. %VRo [2.2]

TR (%) [100]

500-HIpd [500]

% Dry Gas [100]

% C20- [100]

Shale-Gas Region

Oil Window


T.P. Sims #2 Wise County, Texas: Geochemical LogWell name:

7630

7640

7650

7660

7670

7680

7690

7700

7710

7720

7730

7740

7750

7760

Depth(ft)2 4 6 8

TOC10 20

S2100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

HI0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

CalVRo0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

%Ro25 50 75 100

S1/TOC

© Dan Jarvie. Energy Institute, TCU / Worldwide Geochemistry Fort Worth Business Press meeting June 19, 2008 27Part 2 #27

Oryx Grant #1, Montague County Texas: Geochemical LogWell name:

7760

7780

7800

7820

7840

7860

7880

7900

7920

7940

7960

7980

8000

8020

Depth(ft)2 4 6 8

TOC5 10 15 20

S2100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

HI0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

CalVRo0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Ro25 50 75 100

S1/TOC

7760

7780

7800

7820

7840

7860

7880

7900

7920

7940

7960

7980

8000

8020

Depth(ft)


Geochemical Assessment of Gas RiskInterpreted Thermal Maturity

using visual and basic chemical data

TOC (wt.%) [10]

Ro(%) [2]

Tmax-based %VRo [2]TR (%) [100]

Gas Dryness [100]

Green area represents oil window; lines must be outside green area to indicate potentiallyproductive shale gas based strictly on the Barnett Shale gas model from the Ft. Worth Basin.

Gray area represents latest oilwindow – earliest condensate-wetgas window where commercialgas production can be achieveddepending on hydrocarbon composition and depth.

Suggested minimum and “grayarea” values for potential shale gas:

TOC: 2.00% - 3.00%VRo: 1.00% - 1.20%Tmax-VRo: 1.00% - 1.20%TR: 80% - 85%Gas Dryness: 80% - 85%

85%2%

1.20%

1.20%

85%

3%


T.P. Sims #2


Geochemical Assessment of Gas RiskInterpreted Thermal Maturity

using visual and basic chemical data

TOC (wt.%) [10]

Ro(%) [2]

Tmax-based %VRo [2]TR (%) [100]

Gas Dryness [100]

Green area represents oil window; lines must be outside green area to indicate potentiallyproductive shale gas based strictly on the Barnett Shale gas model from the Ft. Worth Basin.

Gray area represents latest oilwindow – earliest condensate-wetgas window where commercialgas production can be achieveddepending on hydrocarbon composition and depth.

Suggested minimum and “grayarea” values for potential shale gas:

TOC: 2.00% - 3.00%VRo: 1.00% - 1.20%Tmax-VRo: 1.00% - 1.20%TR: 80% - 85%Gas Dryness: 80% - 85%

85%2%

1.20%

1.20%

85%

3%


Grant #1


Geochemical Logs:anomalously high normalized oil contents indicate

pay and by-passed pay

OIL or GAS PRONE ORGANIC MATTER

5000

7000

9000

11000

13000

15000

0 200 400 600 800 1000

HYDROGEN INDEX (HI)

HYDROCARBONPOTENTIAL

5000

7000

9000

11000

13000

15000

0 2 4 6 8 10

OIL POTENTIAL (S2)

Excellent

ORGANIC RICHNESS

5000

7000

9000

11000

13000

15000

0 5 10

TOC (wt.%)

DEP

TH (f

eet)

OrganicRich

NORMALIZED OIL CONTENT

5000

7000

9000

11000

13000

15000

0 50 100 150 200

NORMALIZED OIL CONTENT

Low

mat

urity

or

expe

lled

Gas Oil(mar.)

Mix Oil(lac.)

Oil/

Gas

Pro

duct

ion

or C

onta

min

atio

n

Ear

ly m

atur

e so

urce

roc

k

Mat

ure

stai

ned

sour

ce r

ock

CALCULATED MATURITY5000

7000

9000

11000

13000

15000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

CALCULATED %Ro

Oil

Zone

Con

dens

ate

Zone

Dry

Gas

Zon

e

Imm

atur

e

BypassedPay


Bakken Shale, Middle Member, and Threeforks, High residual oil content in low maturity rock indicates

potential shale-oil production

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

TOC (wt.%)

FREE

OIL

(mg

HC

/g T

OC

)

Low Saturation

Moderate Saturation

High Saturation

Oil Shows/Productive


0

10

20

30

40

50

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81.0

1.2

02

46

810

Activ

ity

HI/(HI+O

I)

TOC

Anoxic ShalesOxic Shales


HistogramHumble Database TOC

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Freq

uenc

y

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1 100.1TOC (%)

Oxic Marine ShalesLow Activity

HI/OI < 3 Anoxic Marine ShalesHigh Activity

HI/OI > 3


Geochemical Risk Parameters

TOC (wt%) [0-10]

%Ro [0.2-2.2]

Tmax (C) [390-550]

TR [0-100]

Gas Dryness [0-100]

100 - Normalized oil content [0-100]


Geological Risk Assessment

Gas in Basin? [Yes-No]

Gamma Ray [0-200]

Resistivity [0-200]

Shale Thickness [0-500]

20,000 ft. - Depth to Shale [0-20000]

Seals/Barriers Present? [Yes-No]

Sands Present ? [Yes-No]

Infrastructure ? [Yes-No]


Petrophysical-Mineralogical Risk

Permeability (nD) [0-500]

Porosity (%) [0-10]

Silica % [0-100]

Carbonate % [0-100]

100 - Shale % [0-100]

Clay Water Sensitivty [Yes-No]

50 - Water-Filled Porosity (%) [0-50]

20 - Oil-Filled Porosity (%) [0-20]

Gas Filled Porosity (%) [0-100]

Condensate only? [Yes-No]


GIP and EUR Assessments

Gas Content (scf/ton) [0-300]

Free Gas % [0-100]

Adsorbed Gas % [0-100]

GIP from Gas Content [0-300]EUR at 20% GIP [0-100]

GIP from TOC [0-300]

EUR at 20% TOC GIP [0-100]


Thank you for your participation.Peace be with you !

Barnett Shale outcrop

San Saba

Date post:	08-Mar-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	arame0001
View:	94 times
Download:	2 times

gas shale 02

Documents