Search and Discovery Article #10916 (2017)** Posted February 27, PDF Free Download

Unconventional Resource Play Potential of the Pennsylvanian Leo/Minnelusa Formations of the Powder River and Denver Basins: A Perspective via ntegrated Petroleum Systems Analysis* Michael Cheng 1, Tony Kratochvil 2, Jeff Dunleavy 3, Brian Hebler 2, and Roy Fitzsimmons 2 Search and Discovery Article #10916 (2017)** Posted February 27, 2017 *Adapted from oral presentation given at AAPG 2016 Hedberg Research Conference, The Future of Basin and Petroleum Systems Modeling, Santa Barbara, California, April 3-8, 2016 **Datapages 2017 Serial rights given by author. For all other rights contact author directly. 1 BHP Billiton Petroleum, Houston, USA (Michael.Cheng@bhpbilliton.com) 2 BHP Billiton Petroleum, Houston, USA 3 New Vistas Exploration, LLC, Austin, USA Abstract A successful unconventional resource play is often linked to commercial conventional plays; typically an unconventional source/reservoir contains petroleum of variable saturation in a mixed lithology of fine-grained siliciclastics, variable amount of carbonate, and mature organic matter deposited in a marine environment such as the Wolfcamp play in the Permian Basin and the Eagle Ford play in Texas. Based on regional understanding of stratigraphy and structural geology and a review of historical petroleum production data, our basin-scale screening efforts identified the Pennsylvanian Leo/Minnelusa Formations and equivalents of the Powder River and Denver Basins with potential for an unconventional resource play. While our evaluation is multi-disciplinary and integrated; in this presentation we focus on petroleum systems analysis including the evaluation of source potential and maturity, bulk and molecular properties of reservoir fluid and source rock (SR) extracts, 3D burial history model, reservoir pressure/temperature and PVT considerations for the purpose of evaluating reservoir fluid deliverability. We utilized a large database of historical data, including conventional oil and gas production, formation tops of more than 64,000 wells, core analyses, wireline logs, geochemistry analyses, pressure and temperature data, about 800-mile of 2D seismic interpreted with 20 synthetic ties, and relevant published literature. We analyzed basin-scale variation in SR organofacies and maturity, bulk and molecular properties of SR extracts and reservoir fluids and we built a 3D burial history model which

includes multiple stratigraphic horizons, uplift/erosion and spatially-variant temperature gradients. We then calibrated the model to observed basin-scale trends in hydrogen index (H) data and the published maturity map (Ro equivalent) for the data-rich shallower Mowry interval of Cretaceous age. Our integrated evaluation identified high-quality and mature source rock and our calibrated 3D burial history model predicts a large area with desirable maturity for the Leo/Minnelusa Formations in the Powder River and Denver Basins. However, individual source beds in the Leo/Minneulsa Formations are thin and OM-related porosity is volumetrically insignificant. While we interpret the bulk of petroleum fluids in the Leo/Minnelusa Formations likely of the same origin, the observed variability in fluid properties (bulk and molecular) appears to be at disequilibrium with predicted maturity. We interpret such disequilibrium as the result of effective lateral migration from the basin center to basin margin and we perceive limited basin-wide retention of petroleum of in-situ maturity within the Leo/Minnelusa Formations (which is confirmed by petrophysics interpretations of 20 wells in the Powder River and Denver Basins). The reservoir pressure generally is at or below hydrostatic condition, consistent with observed porosity vs. permeability data and the aforementioned interpretation of effective lateral petroleum migration. We believe the stratigraphic architecture and the Laramide-related uplift and erosion may have contributed to basin-scale dissipation of pressure and/or petroleum distribution; and that such factors collectively may have rendered the Leo/Minnelusa Formations in the Powder River and Denver Basins ineffective for a viable basin-scale unconventional resource play. References Cited Higley, D.K., D.O. Cox, and R.J. Weimer, 2003, Petroleum System and Production Characteristics of the Muddy (J) Sandstone (Lower Cretaceous) Wattenberg Continuous Gas Field, Denver Basin: Colorado: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 87/1, p. 15-37. Higley, D.K., R.R. Charpentier, T.A. Cook, T.R. Klett, R.M. Pollastro, J.W. Schmoker, and C.J. Schenk, 2003, 2002 USGS Assessment of Oil and Gas Resource Potential of the Denver Basin Province of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 002-03, 3 p. Modica, C.J., and S.G. Lapierre, 2012, Estimation of Kerogen Porosity in Source Rocks as a Function of Thermal Transformation: Example from the Mowry Shale in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 96/1, p. 87-108.

Outline ntroduction to the Workflow Unconventional Resource Play Potential of the Minnelusa FM (& equivalents) Source Potential and Maturity 3D Burial History Model Model input Model calibrations (H & Ro equivalents) Predicted maturity & reservoir fluid property Reservoir Pressure (energy) & Reservoir Architecture Predicted Liquid Producibility Summary & Conclusion 2

Key Attributes of the Eagle Ford Unconventional Resource Play Source: U.S. Energy nformation Administration and Drillinginfo nc. Note: EA calculates the initial gas-to-oil ratio for each well using the 2 nd through 4 th contiguous months of liquid and/or gas production. GORs are expressed as cubic feet per barrel (cf/bbl). The first month of production may not represent full production and thus is not included in the initial GOR calculation. Permission to use granted by Core Lab

A Workflow for Evaluating Unconventional Resource Plays Resource in-place (Storage; Rs) OOP/OGP (So * f * h * Area) Sorbed vs. fluid phase storage Reservoir deliverability (Rd) Reservoir & fluid properties: thickness & permeability (k); GOR & viscosity Reservoir energy: pressure and/or overpressure; PVT considerations Optimizing completion design (Rf) Maximize exposure to reservoir via long laterals Enhance connectivity & k (effective drainage area) via hydraulic fracturing Storage = phi * h * (1 Sw) FVF Liquid Producibility = k * h * DP * OMF m

ntroduction to the Powder River Basin and the Minnelusa FM A A Bighorn +10,000 Mountains Casper Arch Powder River Basin Black Hi lls A A +5,000 0-5,000 o 50 km -10,000 Hor i zo n t~ 1 sc~ l e in mil es Vertica l scale in feet exaggeration ~ 10:1-15,000.~ = Tup M i l.lll lu~ ( 1_55) =

Source Potential & Maturity (Minnelusa FM) Pfister Federal 42-24 TOC 20.9% H 444 BHPB SR/Fluid Database: Brown color filled circles, on the cross-plot and the map, are measured H vs. TOC samples (Minnelusa FM) at locations shown on the map 0.40 mm 0.10 mm Pfister Federal 42-24; 3,407.40 mage Source: USGS

Genetic Correlation of Oils 5.0 4.0 Sulfur (wt%) 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0.8 Dens_AP 0.6 Pr17 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Ph18 Blue & orange color filled circles are Sulfur (wt%) vs. AP gravity of oils (upper chart) and Pr17 vs. Ph18 (lower chart) on cross-plots & map

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 An ntegrated 3D Burial History Model 15 structure maps (64,000+ FM tops) Subsurface pressure & temperature data (Nehring Associates) SR & fluid geochemistry data Production data 2D seismic Wireline logs DPTHTOP Depth below ground (ft) 18000 15000 12000 18,000 15,000 12,000 9000 9,000 6000 6,000 3000 3,000 0 0 30 60 Temp_C 90 120 150 180 Temperature (degc) Well location data permission to use granted by Nehring Associates

Model Calibration A Reasonable Match between Measured and Predicted H 600, soo +----------+----------4---------~----------~----~._--~--------~ 400 +----------+----------4---------~----------~----_.._--~--------~, ",,,,,,,,,,..: - e, ;a'.:. 200.. " }!-.f '-:: 100 +----------+~~------~re~----~----;.-.. ~.. e.- -l-e.- :! o L---------~------~--------_4----~--_+--------~--------~ o 100 200 300 400 soo 600 Predict ed H Predicted H (Mowry) m ~

Model Calibration A Reasonable Match between Predicted and Published Ro Predicted Ro (Mowry) 0.1 1 300"*5 Predicted Ro (Mowry) "........, ".. mage of Ro contours: Higley, 2003 mage of Ro contours: Modica, 2012

Predicted STS (Maturity) Maps STS (Mowry) STS (Top Minnelusa) 120 100,. 120 100 ""...

Predicted GOR via Maturity GOR (Top Minnelusa) STS (Top Minnelusa) 1/X1O.0t100 110 ",0

Reservoir Pressure vs. Depth Pressure (psi) 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 2,000 r- o.... f---... 4,000 g 6,000 "'0 0 ~.. '" ~ 8,000 0 "" t c 10,000 Mi nnelu sa leo l yons Tens leep --Hydrostatic \ 1-\.. ~ -,... ~\ ". ~ r~\. 12,000 14,000 16,000 1\ \ 4th April 2016

Reservoir Pressure vs. Depth Lower reservoir pressure in contrast to the Eagle Ford o Pressure (psi) o 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 2,000 -'i 4,000 g 6,000 ~' \ ~ ", e 0.'.. '" -", - ~ 0- Q " ~ 8,000 - --,...... 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 ~ ~ 1'\ ~. \ * Minnelusa Leo lyons Tensleep --Hydrostatic Eagle Ford 4th April 2016

Reservoir Architecture Zone A: l ' thick, detected by logs but not resolved Zone B: 9" thick, barely detected by logs Zone c: 1.5' thick, logs probably reach the correct value in the centre of the bed Zone 0 : 2' thick, logs probably reach the correct value in the centre of the bed Source of images: USGS

Predicted Liquid Producibility Liquid Producibility _ k * h * ~P * OMF Liquid Producibility M 4001) mnelusa =

Summary & Conclusion Demonstrated a case study of applying an integrated workflow for evaluating unconventional reservoir deliverability The Minnelusa FM (& equivalents) is not a viable unconventional resource play due to: Effective lateral migration of hydrocarbons away from the source/reservoir intervals Low reservoir pressure/energy Thin-bed nature of the source/reservoir intervals

bh billiton