NORTH AMERICAN ANALOGUES AND STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESS IN DEVELOPING SHALE GAS PLAYS IN EUROPE Unconventional Gas Shale in Poland: A Look at the Science Presented by Adam Collamore Co-authors: Martha Guidry, Wes Palmer, Said Sadykhov Baker Hughes
OUTLINE Technical Challenges of Shale Plays Overview of the Geology of Poland Overview of North America Shale Plays Haynesville Shale Barnett Shale Eagle Ford Shale Shale Reservoir Evaluation 2012 Baker Hughes Incorporated. All Rights Reserved.
Shale Reservoir Technical Challenges Complex Lithology - Variation in composition and concentration with each play and within each play The complex matrices serve as the seal, reservoir, and source for the gas Must be fracture stimulated to produce at economic rates Difficult to predict the success of stimulation strategies 2012 Baker Hughes Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. Due to the lack of integrated petrophysical models that can predict the reservoir properties that contribute to the success or failure of stimulation
Paleogeography Map of Europe Middle Silurian ~425mya From Blakey, NAU Geology 2012 Baker Hughes Incorporated. All Rights Reserved.
Basins of Poland Modified from Assessment of Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resources of the Lower Paleozoic Baltic-Podlasie-Lublin Basin in Poland - Polish Geological Institute, 2012
North America Analogues Paleogeography Maps of Barnett, Haynesville, and Eagle Ford Shale Plays Barnett - Mississippian ~325mya Haynesville Upper Jurassic ~150-155mya 2012 Baker Hughes Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. Eagle Ford Late Cretaceous ~99-65mya From Blakey, NAU Geology
Depositional Environment for Haynesville Shale Late Jurassic. Facies range from bioturbated calcareous mudstone to unlaminated sliceous organic-rich mudstone From Hammes, et al 2011 From Blakey, NAU Geology
Haynesville Shale Stratigraphy and Structure Hammes etal, 2011
Depositional Environment of the Barnett shale Mississippian. Facies include calcareous siliceous mudstone and argillaceous lime mudstone, with intercalated thin beds of skeletal debris. From Loucks, et al 2007 From Blakey, NAU Geology
Barnett Shale Stratigraphy and Structure Pollastro etal, 2007
Depositional Environment of the Eagle Ford shale The Middle to Upper Cretaceous age Facies are primarily of calcareous rich mudstones Galen Treadgold etal 2010 From Blakey, NAU Geology
Eagle Ford Shale Stratigraphy and Structure
Reservoir Characteristics BARNETT HAYNESVILLE EAGLE FORD GEOLOGIC AGE MISSISSIPPIAN JURASSIC CRETACEOUS DEPTH RANGE 6000-9000 Feet 11,500-14,000 Feet 6,000-12,000 Feet THICKNESS 300-500 Feet 150-350 Feet 100-300 Feet PRESSURE 0.46-0.53 psi/ft 0.7-0.9 psi.ft 0.55-0.73 psi/ft POROSITY 3-9 % 8-15% 6-14% TOC 3-8 % 1-5% 2-6% POTENTIAL RESOURCE RECOVERY EFFICIENCY > 300 TCF > 500 TCF > 250 TCF 25-50% 25-40% 20-40% (GAS) EUR PER WELL 2-5 BCF 4.5-8.5 BCF 3.5-7 BCF IP Up to 1-9 MMCFGDP 6-30 MMCFGDP UP TO 7-17 MMCFGPD (+ CONDENSATE) Modified from Reservoir Characterization and Production Properties of Gas Shales Craig Hall, 2011
Shale Reservoir Evaluation Requirements Mineral composition Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Kerogen type & maturity Conventional petrophysical parameters Porosity Total Gas-in-Place (GIP) Geological characterization Open or mineralized fractures Geomechanical characteristics Stress regime & mechanical rock properties Planning Stimulation/completion
Shale Evaluation: An Integrated Petrophysical Approach Resistivity/Density/Neutron Mineralogy Geochemistry Lithology Mineralogy Total Organic Content Lithofacies Classification Total Porosity Siliceous Brittleness Index NMR Porosity Permeability Fluid Typing Total Organic Content Acoustic Dynamic & Static Geomechanical Properties Pressure Gradient Rotary Core Core Analyses Wes Palmer 2010 2012 Baker Hughes Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. Structural & Sedimentary Analyses Stress Regime Image Logs Fracture Characterization Microseismic
BOREHOLE IMAGE APPLICATIONS Static Image Dynamic Image
Barnett Shale Natural Shear Fracture Static Image Dynamic Image Offset Bedding Shear Fracture
Barnett Shale Natural Fractures Static Image Dynamic Image Partially Conductive and Resistive Fractures
Shear Wave Azimuthal Anisotropy Estimation is Important in Shale Plays Static Image Dynamic Image
Reservoir Characterization Requires the Identification of LITHOFACIES that are Favorable for Gas Recovery Siliceous Mudstones: Barnett Shale 45% quartz 27% illite with very minor smectite 8% calcite + dolomite 7% feldspar 5% organic matter 5% pyrite 3% siderite trace amounts of copper and phosphatic materials. (Bowker, 2002) (Loucks and Ruppel, 2007) Why? Geomechanical properties of these lithofacies often possess low fracture gradients conducive to forming extensive fracture fairways for recovery of gas.
Shale Gas Reservoir Petrophysical Workflow Components: Lithology and Mineralogy Eagle Ford Shale Barnett Shale Haynesville Shale What role does mineralogy play in shale gas evaluation? Determine TOC Reduce uncertainty in porosity calculation Identify shale lithofacies Assist with planning of stimulation and completion design including:
Pore Systems of Reservoir and Source Rocks 23
NMR Provides an Additional Measurement of TOC Lower Barnett Total matrix density computed from NMR porosity and bulk density Inorganic grain density computed from mineralogy, excluding TOC Ellenberger Limestone no TOC
Borehole Image Interpretation Summary Plot
Shale Gas Evaluation Suite Integrated Example
Advantages of Using Horizontal Borehole Images
Characterize the Lateral Fracture Bedding Fault Fault Images used to visualize the orientation of bedding Relationships of fractures to bedding and other fractures, including containment (layer-bound fractures) or pervasive (fracture corridors)
Fracture Characterization Natural open conductive fractures Natural conductive or open Partially open Hydraulically offset induced Hydraulically induced fractures Partially open fractures Hydraulically induced fractures Partially open fractures
Image Analysis to Optimize Completions Gamma Ray Real-time Gamma Ray Model Wellbore Path Stages 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Faults Shear Fractures Partial Fractures Open Fractures Faults Shear Fractures Partial Fractures Open Fractures Static Resistivity Image Depth (ft) 7,000 7,250 7,500 7,750 8,000 8,250 8,500 8,750 9,000 9,250 9,500 Dip, Angle Gamma
Shale Asset Evaluation Work Flow Lithofacies Static Reservoir Model Dynamic Reservoir Model Geomechanical Model Proppant Placement Mfrac, MShale Frac Model
QUESTIONS?
REFERENCES Blakey r. 2011, Paleogeography and geologic evolution of North America; images that track ancient landscapes of North America: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/nam.html (accessed March 2012) Hall, C.D., Reservoir Characteristics and Production Properties of Gas Shales; AAPG 2011 FEC on Unconventional Resources Hammes U. Hamilton H.S., Ewing T.E. Geologic analysis of the Upper Jurassic Haynesville in east Texas and west Louisiana AAPG Bulletin, V.95, p. 1643-1666 Loucks R., Ruppel S. Mississippian Barnett Shale: Lithofacies and depositional setting of a deep-water shalegas succession in the Fort Worth Basin, Texas AAPG Bulletin, v. 91, p. 579-601 McCann T (ed.) 2008. The Geology of Central Europe. Volume I: Pre Cambrian and Paleozoic, Geological Society, London. Belka, Z. & Narkiewicz, M. 2008. Silurian. Phelps R.M., Kerans C., and Loucks R.G., 2010, High Resolution Regional Sequence Stratigraphic Framework of Aptian through Coniacian Strata in the Comanche Shelf, Central and South Texas: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, V. 60, p. 756. Polish Geological Institute, National Research Institute, 2012. Assessment of Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resources of the Lower Paleozoic Baltic-Polasie-Lublin Basin in Poland Pollastro R., Jarvie D., Hill R., Adams C. Geologic Framework of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Barnett Paleozoic total petroleum system, Bend Arch Fort worth Basin, Texas AAPG Bulletin, V. 91, p. 405-436 Treadgold G., McClain B., Sinclair S., Nicklin D. Eagle Ford Shale Prospecting with 3D Seismic Data within a Tectonic and Depositional System Framework AAPG Search and Discovery #90122 2011