AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

Transcription

1 Presented 6 March 2012 Components and Processes Impacting Production Success from Unconventional Shale Resource Systems Daniel M. Jarvie Worldwide Geochemistry, LLCWorldwide Brian M. Jarvie Geomark Research Rock Lab W. David Weldon and Albert Maende Wildcat Technologies 2012 Daniel M. Jarvie. All rights reserved. AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements Saudi Aramco and Aramco Services Corp. Their patented POPI technique is enhancing the understanding and completion of both conventional and unconventional reservoir systems. Slide 2of

2 Presented 6 March 2012 Talk OutlineTalk Introduction Components and Processes Affecting Shale Resource Production Source rock generation and organic porosity development Adsorption and its role in retention, storage, and expulsion fractionation Oil crossover effect (oil saturation index) Producible oil index (oil saturation less adsorption indices) Summary of all organic, inorganic, core, geological and geophysical points Slide 3of 38 General CommentsGeneral History of shale resource plays 1800s first shale gas well in Fredonia, NY Early 1900s to present Monterey Shale oil wells 1980s to present Antrim Shale biogenic gas wells History of Stimulation First stimulation in 1957 Over a million stimulated wells 1980s to present over 45,000 high energy stimulations on shale wells Mis reporting of ground water contamination The first information spits out condemnation, the facts prove the condemnations incorrect e.g., water wellsinparker County, TX were contaminated with gas most likelyfor several millions of years prior to Range Resources drilling and stimulating the Barnett Shale; case dismissed no contamination by Range proven by geochemistry of gases Economic impact: jobs, revenues Eagle Ford Shale will create tens of thousands of jobs over the next decade It will also generate billions in revenues for everyone: drillers, landowners, state/local governments, schools, citizens, ancillary service industries, and so forth Slide 4of

3 Presented 6 March 2012 North American Shale Resource Plays (red=gas, green=oil, light blue=biogenic gas, yellow unproven to date) Jarvie, 2012, AAPG Memoir 97, in press Slide 5of 38 What is a Shale Resource System? A shale resource system is any continuous organic rich rich source rock with or without juxtaposed organic lean lithofacies that can made to produce naturally generated petroleum via high energy stimulation. Slide 6of

4 Presented 6 March 2012 Matrix and Organic Porosity 6 5 y = x R² = Doig Montney Porosity (% of BV) y = x R² = TOC (wt.%) Jarvie, 2012, AAPG Memoir 97, in press Slide 7of 38 Diagrammatic Illustration of TOCDiagrammatic for a given kerogen type, e.g., Type II Oil/Bitumen Free TOC (wt.%) Generative Organic Carbon (wt.%) Non Generative Organic Carbon (wt.%) Responsible for generation of hydrocarbons Accounts for development of organic porosity Does not generate any appreciable amount of petroleum Does account for storage by adsorption Slide 8of

5 Presented 6 March 2012 Conversion of organic carbon (TOC) in wt.% to vol.% r in, A r I %into AI ntitieute evinnu I I " TOC is 7 weight iht percent which is about 14 volume percent Slide 9of 38 Formation of Organic Porosity "; I Inetrtt I no ^MIMIC ILAtroverA from Generative Organic Carbon I I fontr, P Assumptions:Assumptions: 80% conversion of kerogen 3.92 % 7.00 wt.% TOC o vol.% TOC o TOC o is 37% GOC Kerogen density is: 1.1 g/cc GOC 1.4 g/cc NGOC 100% conversion of ke rage n 4.90 % 5 4 Potential Organic Porosity Dave lopm ent 1%) 6 Slide 10 of

6 Presented 6 March 2012 Organic Porosity DevelopmentOrganic in the Barnett Shale Loucks et al., 2009 i4* 7k. Diarro,ce..nrn. Slide 11 of 38 Why are no organic pores typically seen in the oil window? Solubility of oil in kerogen and kerogen expansion Supporting evidence consists of (1) oil extractable from rock and even isolated kerogen, and (2) aromatic fractionation in Bakken Shales versus expelled Bakken oils (Jarvie et al., 2011). Literature reports fractionation of aromatics from saturated hydrocarbons in kerogen swollen with different solvents (Ertas et al. 2011) Slide 12 of

7 Presented 6 March 2012 Fractionation of Generated OilsFractionation very important in hybrid systems Composition of Generated Composition of Retained Composition of Expelled Expelled: 50% of saturates Adsorption:Adsorption: Expelled: SS% of aromatics ca.10 g petroleum per Expelled: 14% of resins 100 g TOM Sandvik et al., 1992 Retained: 40% of saturates Retained: 32 of aromatics Retained: SG% of resins Slide 13 of 38 For xxample, For Ertas et al. (2006) data suggests fractionation of aromatics, which occurs in a comparison of Bakken Shale extracts versus Bakken sourced oils ticity Ratio (Toluene/n Hepta ane) Aromat Bakken Shale Evaporative Fractionation Expulsion Fractionation Bakken Shale sourced oils Paraffinicity Ratio (n C 7 /Methylcyclohexane) Lodgepole Mound oils Parshall M. Member oils Sanish M. Member oils Sanish Three Forks oils Antelope Sanish oils Elkhorn Ranch Bakken oils Bicentennial Bakken oils Pierre Creek Bakken oils Demores Bakken oil Charlson Bakken Three Forks oil Buckhorn Bakken oil Squaw Gap Stoneview Bkk Bakken oil Sanish U. Bakken Shale extracts Sanish L. Bakken Shale extracts Parshall U. Bakken extracts Parshall L. Bakken Shale extracts Jarvie et al., 2011 Slide 14 of

8 Presented 6 March 2012 Extraction of Whole Rock Samples often yields additional oil sorbed in rock matrix and kerogen; kerogen and asphaltnes sorb oil too Free Oil in S1 Oil in S2 Total Oil els of Oil per Acre foot Total oil is the sum of S1 + extractable S2 oil: This shows that total oil is 2 3x S1 only Barr Depth (ft.) Slide 15 of 38 TOC Distribution in Various Kerogen Types (in this case with fixed TOC o ) Examples Type I TOC = 10% HI = 900 Live Carbon 75% 25% Char Type II TOC = 10% HI = 500 Live Carbon 37% 63% Char Type III TOC = 10% HI = 200 Live Carbon 25% 75% Char Slide 16 of

9 Presented 6 March 2012 Spent TOC (only NGOC remains) Type I TOC = 2.98% HI = 0 NGOC Type II TOC = 6.10% HI = 0 NGOC Type III TOC = 8.44% HI = 0 NGOC TOC original HI original GOC NGOC TOC spent % % % Percent GOC is HIoriginal / 1177 (assumes 85% carbon in petroleum/bitumen) GOC is generative organic carbon NGOC is non generative organic carbon TOCspent includes additional char formation Slide 17 of 38 Kero ogen Yield (mg HC/g R) NomographNomograph of Iso Decomposition of Lines with iso hydrogen indices Iso hydrogen index lines Iso decomposition lines TOC spent = 8.5% TOC original = 12.2% 2% for determining for TOC TOC original 600 TOC spent = 15.0% TOC original = 22.2% 500 Organic porosity in mass Total Organic Carbon (TOC, wt.%) Jarvie, 2012, AAPG Memoir 97, in press Slide 18 of

10 Presented 6 March 2012 Key to Producible Shale Oil Resource System? when high oil saturations are indicated the oil crossover effect UtilizingUtilizing the the Oil Crossover Effect : When the Oil Saturation Index > 100 mg oil/g TOCT TOC, Bazhenov Shale Western Siberia producible producible oil is 2920 present C and 51 'absolute units In vit.% and mg all/g rock, respectively] Data from Lopatin et al., 2003 Jarvie, Jarvie, 2012, 2012, AAPG AAPG Memoir 97, 97, in in press press Slide 19 of 38 Oil Content in Rock Sample as measured by thermal extraction Measured S1 (oil) S2 (kerogen) Reality Evap. Loss of oil S1 (oil) S1 (oil in S2) S2 extracted rock Overlap of free oil and oil carried over into S2 This is a function of oil type and isolated organic pores Total Oil = (S1 WR S1 S1 extracted rockextracted ) + (S2 whole rock S2 extracted rockextracted ) + E.L. Evaporative Losses = S1 x (GC Fingerprint produced oil / GC Fingerprint of extracted oil) This technique also allows prediction of GOR on shale (rock) samples. Slide 20 of

11 Presented 6 March 2012 Factors Affecting S1Factors Type of sample (cuttings, SWC, core) Type of lithofacies (shale, carbonate, sandstone) Analytical instrument utilized for analysis Sample handling and processing (esp. heating) Oil based mud (OBM) or organic additives to drilling fluids Slide 21 of 38 Change in Various Geochemical Measurements due to age, sample type 25 (data from 1980s well and new offset well) rock), mg oil/g rock, or mg CO2/g r Value (wt.%, Old cuttings δ 278% Fresh RSWC δ 35% δ 547% 7.45 δ 178% δ 71% CC TOC S1 S2 S3 Measurement Jarvie, 2012 Slide 22 of

12 Presented 6 March 2012 ParshallParshall Field, Williston Field, Basin Bakken Shale, Reservoir and Oil Fingerprints Key Observations 1.1. U. U. Bakken Shale has lost very little oil, maybe less than the produced dead oil sample 2. Middle Member has lost most hydrocarbons less than C15 Key Point Shale holds the oil very tightly, whereas the dolomitic member retains very little light oil Lost U. Bakken Shale Middle Member Middle Member Produced oil Jarvie et al., 2011 Slide 23 of 38 Instrument factors on Oil Yield (S1) Results in underestimating OIP by 1.5 million barrels at 100 ft thickness Rock Eval 2 5 Rock Eval Rock Eval data from the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate HAWK Resource Workstation with POPI Barrels of Oil per Acre Foot Rock Eval is a registered trademark of Institut Francais du Petrole. HAWK Resource Workstation is a registered trademark of Wildcat Technologies, Humble, Texas POPI is a patented techniques and registered trademark of Saudi Arabian Oil Company. Slide 24 of

13 Presented 6 March 2012 Instrument factors on Oil Yield (S1) Results in underestimating OIP by 6 million barrels at 100 ft thickness Rock Eval 2 5 Rock Eval Rock Eval data from the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate HAWK Resource Workstation with POPI with POPI Barrels of Oil per Acre Foot Rock Eval is a registered trademark of Institut Francais du Petrole. HAWK Resource Workstation is a registered trademark of Wildcat Technologies, Humble, Texas POPI is a patented techniques and registered trademark of Saudi Arabian Oil Company. Slide 25 of 38 Low Oil Measurements on RE 6 Underestimate OOIP and also crossover effect resulting in potentially missed pay No oil crossover effect predicted from RE6 data; missed pay. Rock Eval 2 5 Rock Eval Rock Eval data from the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate HAWK Resource Workstation with POPI Oil Saturation Index (OSI in mg oil/g TOC) Rock Eval is a registered trademark of Institut Francais du Petrole. HAWK Resource Workstation is a registered trademark of Wildcat Technologies, Humble, Texas POPI is a patented techniques and registered trademark of Saudi Arabian Oil Company. Slide 26 of

14 Presented 6 March 2012 Claims that RE 2 and RE 6 Pyrolysis Yields are different not substantiated by published IFP data RE 2 and RE 6 data comparison in Behar et al., These data show high degree of correlation essential for compatibility of Rock Eval data. Behar et al., 2001 A M Rook-Eval 6 (Standard + Turbo) Figure 13 Correlation between Rock-Eval 2 and Rock-Eval 6 data: (a) 52 (mg(g);(b) Thurs. Slide 27 of 38 Does carrier gas make a difference? depends on analysis RE 6 uses nitrogen only Advantages Less likely to leak specific gravity 7x helium Can be generated Disadvantages: Lower thermalconductivity 5.7x lower than helium Higher Tmax correction True Tmax 40 o higher at 25 o C/min Important for kinetic measurements HAWK uses either nitrogen or heliumn Nitrogen for routine analysis including well site Helium for kinetics Slide 28 of

15 Presented 6 March 2012 Does Carrier Gas Mass Flow et IP t make a difference? Pyrolysis Carrier Gas Flow Rate 30 ml/min 50 ml/min 75 ml/min HAWK uses electronic mass flow controllers independent of gas pressure Kerogen (S2) Yield (mg kerogen/g rock) SR Analyzer uses manual pressure regulators to control gas flow; dependent on gas pressure only which can vary considerably Slide 29 of 38 RE2, RE6, Leco, and Elemental organic carbon analysis (TOC) TOC is consistent among all analytical techniques and no errors result in interpretive differences among kerogen types or source rock potential (the GOC portion of TOC is more important for generation, whereas NGOC is more important for organic storage). t Results from Behar et al., 2001, show that RE 6 TOC data can vary from elemental l analysis by upwards of 10 wt.% TOC. Leco TOC is inherently the best method for TOC measurements. f I r ir eft A..11. Pg. I 411. amp I Elemental analysis y.1.030x i ( 70-67% TOC via elemental Type I Type II Type III TOC Standard Rock-Eval 6 Behar et al., % TOC via RE 6 Slide 30 of

16 Presented 6 March 2012 Assessing Shale Resource Systems HAWK Resource WorkStation 1.1. Designedfor both laboratory and well site use 2. Determine oil carryover (oil in kerogen peak) 3. Determine lost oil due to evaporation from storage, handling, processing 4. Assess oil quality (API gravity, viscosity, GOR, sulfur, gas composition) 5.5. DetermineTOC, total carbon, and carbonate carbon 6. Predict organic porosity 7. Determine OOIP or GIP (equivalency) 8. Built in in shale resource comparative database 9. Built in kinetics profiles for transformation rate prediction Total Oil S1 S1 S1 Kerogen (S2) OOIP GOC NGOC New New HAWK Resource WorkStation Wildcat Technologies Available Jan 2013 Gas/MS Total Carbon Carbonate Carbon Total Sulfur Slide 31 of 38 HAWK Resource Workstation II comparison of resource with analog systemscomparison Oil Satura ation Index ((S1 x 100)/TOC) Barnett Shale gas well Barnett Shale oil well Shale Gas Test #1 Potential Production or contamination Oil Shows High Oil Contents Modest Oil Contents Low Oil Content Immature to Earliest Oil Window (kerogen type dependent) i S S. -M, Oil Window Condensate NGL Window -...f '.i* _ 1 -I Dry Gas Window ' PsiOkliVok Rock Eval Tmax ( o C) Thought ht to be a shale gas prospect but data is comparable to shale oil possibility if oil saturations (crossover) is sufficient I Slide 32 of

17 U. BAKKEN SHALE Presented 6 March 2012 EOG Resources N&D 1 05H, 1EOG Parshall Field overpressured, commercial well WO name ECG Rumen MID 1 Wan. MINMIMI [nag. NerIA 1:Mtela. Pmmur Masten Caw LAP1. 3M PnW awe La...re. (xi 'Mt 0$ ,[ 1 ir ypn Mbyyal v. V Of V 1 V 4 V a, b i6 x a.3 :v., 11. Y 0 High Producible Oil Index Jarvie et al., 2011 Slide 33 of 38 EOG Resources EOG Fertile 1 12H12H underpressuredunderpressured,, non commercial well Well name: EOG Resources Fertile 1-12H, Mountrail County, North Dakota, Parshall Field, Williston Basin (API: ) Depth: m. ft. Carbonate (%) TOC (%) Oil (mg/gr) Total Oil (mg/gr) OSI (mg/gt) AI (mg/gt) POI (bbls/af) HI corr (mg/gt) %Roe from Tmax Low Producible Oil Index M. BAKKEN L. BAKKEN SHALE 9420 Jarvie et al., 2011 Slide 34 of

18 Presented 6 March 2012 Added Value of Predicted GOR values directly on shale samples ParshallParshall Field Field Predicted GOR values SanishSanish Field Field Predicted GOR values Oil Ratio (scf/stb) U. Bakken Shale GOR 465 L. Bakken Shale GOR Overall average GOR Production GOR Jarvie et al., 2011 Oil Ratio (scf/stb) Gas to Gas to U. Bakken Shale GOR 1296 L. Bakken Shale GOR 1080 Overall average GOR 800 Production GOR Jarvie et al., 2011 This prediction requires a GOR GC GC analysis that uses C 6 and C 7 hydrocarbons hydrocarbons that are used to predict GOR from organic rich rich shale samples Slide 35 of 38 Range of Understanding Range Needed for shale resource play assessment So, Sw TOTAL OIL API, GOR CROSSOVER OOIP PVT DEPTH TOC MATURITY KEROGEN TYPE BRITTLENESS P/P, DENSITY S Hmax FRAC BARRIERS FLUID SENSITIVITY GEO HAZARDS WELL COMPLETION GAS CONTENT GIP >3.0%Roe Modified from King, 2010, SPE % FREE GAS % SORBED GAS Sg, Sw Slide 36 of

19 Presented 6 March 2012 For information about the For HAWK Resource Workstation contact:contact: W 218 Higgins Street Humble, TX USA W. David Weldon, President (davidweldon@wildcattechnologies.com) Albert Maende, Sales/Geochemistry (albertmaende@wildcattechnologies.com) Jared Stewart, Engineering and Instrument Support (jaredsteward@wildcattechnologies.com Slide 37 of 38 ReferencesReferences Ertas, Deniz, Simon R. Kelemen, and Thomas C. Halsey, 2006, Petroleum Expulsion Part 1. Theory of Kerogen Swelling in Multicomponent Solvents, Energy & Fuels 2006, 20, pp Hunt, John M., 1995, Petroleum Geochemistry and Geology,, 2 nd edition, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 743p. Jarvie, Daniel M., Robert J. Coskey, Michael S. Johnson, and Jay E. Leonard, 2011, The Geology and Geochemistry ofthe theg ParshallPFieldArea Area, Mountrail County, NorthDakota inrmag's The Bakken Three ThreeT Forks Petroleum System in the Williston Basin, eds. John W. Robinson, Julie A. LeFever, and Stephanie B. Gaswirth, pp Jarvie, Daniel M., 2012, Shale resource systems for oil and gas: Part 1 Shale oil resource systems, in J. Breyer, ed., Shale reservoirs Giant resources for the 21 st century, AAPG Memoir 97, pp Jarvie, Daniel M., 2012, Components and Processes affecting producibily and commerciality of shale oil resource systems, HGS Applied Geoscience Conference, Houston, Texas, February 2012, oral presentation. King, George, 2010, Thirty Years of Gas Shale Fracturing: What Have We Learned?, SPE Lopatin, N. V., S. L. Zubairaev, I. M. Kos, T. P. Emets, E. A. Romanov, and O. V. Malchikhina, 2003, Unconventional oil accumulations lti in the Upper Jurassic Bazhenov Black Shale formation, West tsib Siberian i Basin: a self sourced sourced reservoir system, Journal of Petroleum Geology, v. 26, no. 2, p Loucks, Robert G., Robert M. Reed, Stephen C. Ruppel, Daniel M. Jarvie, 2009, Morphology, Distribution and Genesis of Nanometer Scale Pores in the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Journal Sed. Res., v. 79, pp Sandvik, E. I., W. A. Young, and D. J. Curry, 1992, Expulsion from hydrocarbon sources: the role of organic absorption: Advances in Org. Geochem. 1991, Org. Geochem., v. 19, nos. 1 3, p Wang, L. and C. Barker, 1989, Effects of organic matter content and maturity on oil expulsion from petroleum source rocks, AAPG Bull., v. 73, p (abstract). Slide 38 of