Horizontal Fracturing in Shale Plays. Matt McKeon

Similar documents
and a contribution from Offshore Europe

Considerations for Infill Well Development in Low Permeability Reservoirs

Shale Gas Plays Screening Criteria A Sweet Spot Evaluation Methodology

Technology of Production from Shale

Halliburton Engineering for Success in Developing Shale Assets

What Can Microseismic Tell Us About Hydraulic Fracturing?

Shale Development and Hydraulic Fracturing or Frac ing (Fracking) What is it?

Exploration / Appraisal of Shales. Petrophysics Technical Manager Unconventional Resources

Increasing Production with Better Well Placement in Unconventional Shale Reservoirs

Fracture Geometry from Microseismic. Norm Warpinski

Keys to Successful Multi-Fractured Horizontal Wells In Tight and Unconventional Reservoirs

An Integrated Petrophysical Approach for Shale Gas Reservoirs

Source Rock Reservoir Characterization Using Geology, Geochemical and Drilling Data

Bakken and Three Forks Logging Acquisition for Reservoir Characterization and Completion Optimization

Gas Shale Hydraulic Fracturing, Enhancement. Ahmad Ghassemi

A Case Study into the Successful Evaluation and Completion Nonconventional. Jorge Viamontes, PhD VP Reservoir Intelligence, NUTECH

If your model can t do this, why run it?

SCOOP Woodford. Regional Field Study

A Review of Three North American Shale Plays: Learnings from Shale Gas Exploration in the Americas*

Research Themes in Stimulation Geomechanics. How do we optimize slickwater frac ing?

Drill Cuttings Analysis: How to Determine the Geology of a Formation and Reservoir

MAXIMIZING THE RESERVOIR ACCESS WITH COMPLETION OPTIMIZATION AND EFFECTIVENESS. Luciano Fucello, NCS Multistage Fabio Chiarandini, Gaffney & Cline

STACK/STACK EXTENSION MERAMEC /OSAGE/ WOODFORD STUDY

Optimizing Vaca Muerta Development

Stochastic Modeling & Petrophysical Analysis of Unconventional Shales: Spraberry-Wolfcamp Example

Project Geology RPSEA. GTI Project Technology. February 15, is a low. Similar to. Marcellus Gas Shale. area follows.

Ingrain has digital rock physics labs in Houston and Abu Dhabi

A Better Modeling Approach for Hydraulic Fractures in Unconventional Reservoirs

THE STUDY AND DEVELOPMENT OF GEOLOGICAL FRONTIERS: NEW DISCOVERIES AND THE ROLE OF INNOVATION, TECHNOLOGY, MULTILATERAL INVESTMENT

2015 Training Course Offerings

THE FIRST SUCSESSFUL MULTI STAGED FRACTURING IN A DEEP VOLCANIC GAS RESERVOIR IN JAPAN

Improved Cased-hole Formation Evaluation: The Added Value of High Definition Spectroscopy Measurement

Revitalizing Mature Fields

Evaluating Horizontal Cased Wells for Completion Design

2011 SEMINAR DAY SPONSORS. A wholly owned subsidiary of ExxonMobil

Jornadas de Producción, Tratamiento y Transporte de Gas El Desafío del Gas no Convencional

Five Things I Wish a Geologist Had Taught Me. Confessions of a Frac Engineer. Proposal. G&G folks often have tremendous advantages over PEs

NORTH AMERICAN ANALOGUES AND STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESS IN DEVELOPING SHALE GAS PLAYS IN EUROPE Unconventional Gas Shale in Poland: A Look at the Science

Horizontal San Andres Play

Determination of Reservoir Properties from XRF Elemental Data in the Montney Formation

A Better Modeling Approach for Hydraulic Fractures in Unconventional Reservoirs

Improving Well Performance through Multi Variate Completion Analyses in the US Bakken Shale. C. Mark Pearson

AADE Mid Continent Chapter. Bakken Shale Resource Play. Revisited. January 14, 2009 Jim Thompson

SPE Comparison of Numerical vs Analytical Models for EUR Calculation and Optimization in Unconventional Reservoirs

Core Technology for Evaluating the Bakken

Optimization of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid System in a Sand Oil Reservoir in Southwest of Iran

Strength, creep and frictional properties of gas shale reservoir rocks

Rock Physics of Shales and Source Rocks. Gary Mavko Professor of Geophysics Director, Stanford Rock Physics Project

An Engineered Approach to Optimize Completion & Stimulations in Unconventional Reservoirs

Microseismic Monitoring Shale Gas Plays: Advances in the Understanding of Hydraulic Fracturing 20 MAR 16 HANNAH CHITTENDEN

Geology of the Louisiana Haynesville Shale Play

The Bakken. A Non-Shale Shale Play. August 2010

Seismic reservoir characterisation

Investigating the Barnett Shale

Optimized Recovery from Unconventional Reservoirs: How Nanophysics, the Micro-Crack Debate, and Complex Fracture Geometry Impact Operations

Scientific approach applied to multi-well pad development in Eagle Ford shale

Applying Stimulation Technology to Improve Production in Mature Assets. Society of Petroleum Engineers

Predicting Initial Production of Granite Wash Horizontal Wells Using Old Well Logs and Cores. Strong correlation, eh?

Integrated Approach to Drilling Project in Unconventional Reservoir Using Reservoir Simulation

Downloaded 01/29/13 to Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at

Microseismic Geomechanical Modelling of Asymmetric Upper Montney Hydraulic Fractures

IMPROVED RESERVOIR ACCESS THROUGH REFRACTURE TREATMENTS IN TIGHT GAS SANDS AND GAS SHALES

The North Dakota Bakken Play - Observations. Julie A. LeFever North Dakota Geological Survey

Geophysical model response in a shale gas

Fracking for Tight Oil and Shale Gas in the U.S.

HISTORY OF HARTZOG DRAW FIELD

Multiscale Investigation of Fluid Transport in Gas Shales. Rob Heller and Mark Zoback

Shale Capacity Key In Shale Modeling

East Texas Cotton Valley Sands: The Transmogrification of Historical Vertical Development to Horizontal Exploitation

Sequence Stratigraphy of a Black Shale: How to Do It, and Why It Matters

Horizontal Injectors & Producers at SACROC Clyde Findlay II & Jeremy Pitts

Approach Optimizes Completion Design

Recap and Integrated Rock Mechanics and Natural Fracture Study in the Bakken Formation, Williston Basin

Pros and Cons against Reasonable Development of Unconventional Energy Resources

Geophysical and geomechanical rock property templates for source rocks Malleswar Yenugu, Ikon Science Americas, USA

Global balance sheet of the. Resources Shale Gas in the world

Title: Application and use of near-wellbore mechanical rock property information to model stimulation and completion operations

Flow Units in Conventional and Unconventional Petroleum Reservoirs

Barnett Shale Showcases Tight-Gas Development

Hostile downhole conditions present complex challenges

What Microseismicity Tells Us About Re-fracturing An Engineering Approach to Re-fracturing Design

U.S. Unconventional Play Round-up

Effect of Pressure-Dependent Natural-Fracture Permeability on Shale-Gas Well Production

Research Article Hydraulic Fracture Extending into Network in Shale: Reviewing Influence Factors and Their Mechanism

HAYNESVILLE Regional Field Study

SPE MS. Abstract. Introduction

Unconventional Shale Plays in MT

EAGLE FORD Regional Field Study

The Evolution of the American Shale Plays: Where We Are and How We Got Here

USING EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND RESPONSE SURFACE METHODOLOGY TO MODEL INDUCED FRACTURE GEOMETRY IN SHUBLIK SHALE THESIS. Presented to the Faculty

Introduction to the Niobrara. Brief Geologic Overview and Impact on Completion Strategy. Outline

Comparison of Reservoir Quality from La Luna, Gacheta and US Shale Formations*

M. Y Soliman, PhD, PE, NAI Ali Rezaei

PETROPHYSICAL EVALUATION CORE COPYRIGHT. Saturation Models in Shaly Sands. By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:

Anastasiia Laura* GEOMECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF SHALE ROCK FROM BALTIC BASIN IN POLAND AREA

Surface seismic data have proven to be an invaluable

Geomechanical Controls on Hydraulic Fracturing in the Bakken Fm, SK

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE EAGLE FORD SHALE FRACTURE CONDUCTIVITY. A Thesis OMAR ENRIQUEZ TENORIO

Optimising Resource Plays An integrated GeoPrediction Approach

Sand Control Rock Failure

Transcription:

Horizontal Fracturing in Shale Plays Matt McKeon

Shortening the learning curve Historically: a trial-and-error process Data acquisition USA analog fields can speed up evaluation and development Quantify Construct Complete Analyze Gas Rate Sim Gas Rate Oil Rate Oil rate Sim 2

Recent plays: fracture stimulations are evolving WaterFracs 8-10 Stages 80-100 BPM 1.5 MM lbs prop 100 Mesh, 40/70 1 ppg Max 7 MM Gal 40,000 HHP 350-450 /Stage Hybrid/Conv 12-15 Stages 40-60 BPM 3-4 MM lbs prop (total) 30/60, 20/40 3-4 ppg 4 MM Gal 25,000 HHP 250-300 /Stage 2008 2009 2010 Eagle Ford 3

Even Barnett stimulation is still changing Barnett Shale Completion Roadmap Barnett Shale Completion Roadmap 90 700 35000 4500 80 600 30000 4000 70 3500 500 25000 60 3000 Avg. BP M 50 40 400 300 bbl/stag e 20000 15000 2500 2000 30 1500 20 10 s p an ft. BPM Treatment span 200 100 10000 5000 sks/stag ge bbl/stage sks/stage 1000 500 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 0 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 0 year Year 4

Shale Gas Development Process Workflow Data Acquisition 5 5

Shale parameters to enhance commercial production Gas content : > 100 scf/ton Thermal maturity (Ro) : 0.7 to 2.5+ range; 1.2 typical Permeability : greater than 100 nanodarcies Porosity : > 4% Pressure : above normal TOC : > 2% Water saturation : < 45% Well bounded & thick zone : > 100 ft Moderate clay content : < 40% Well bounded : i.e. good frac barriers Brittle shale (fracability) : i.e. low Poisson s & high YM Natural fractures : moderate presence 6

Shale Prospect Woodford Barnett Haynesville Marcellus Eagleford Bakken Porosity (%) 5.5 1-8% ~1.5 6 (Avg. ~3.8) 8-15% 3 8% 3-15% 2-12 % TVD (ft) 4,100 4,300 6,000 14,000 5,400 9,500 10,500 14,000 4,500-8,500 5,000-13,000 8,000-11,000 Thickness (ft) 53 100-220 100-500 60-350 50-300 40-500 6-15ft & 80-145 ft BHT ( F) 160 150-225 150 280-380º F 100-150 150-350 190-240 TOC (%) 3.95 3-9% 4-8% 2-5% 3-10% 0.5-9% Upper-11%-40% Lower=8%-21% Press Grad (psi/ft) 0.48.45-.68 0.52 0.85-0.93 0.4-0.7 0.4 0.85 0.5-0.6 Frac Grad (psi/ft) 0.7.7-.9 ~0.6 0.75 >0.90 0.9 1.2.88-1.1 0.70 0.85 Avg Perm (μd) 0.1 0.05-0.4 0.05 0.4 <0.005 0.2-2 400-1200 20-500 Sw (%) 27 33% <35 no free water <25 10-30 25-60 Lithology (%) Silica rich Silica- Chert 30-60% Silica rich 35-50 v/v Shale is soft (ductile) Calcite rich-in areas silica rich (in areas) organic rich High clay mineral fraction Variable formation properties Illite clay-dominated Quartz/Plagioclase/ Feldspar Carbonates Siderite/Pyrite ~3-5% carbon content High Illite-dominate clays Looks like poker chips High in Calcites Silty, sandy, dolomite grading to laminated shaly interval. Some natural fractures. Below is Sanish YM (x10 6 psi) 3.48 4-8 6-10 2-3 2-5 1-4 Upper/Lower= 2-4 Middle=4-6 PR (%) 0.206 0.15-0.25 0.13-0.25 0.23 0.27 0.19 0.23 0.20-0.27 Upper/Lower=-0.25-0.28 Middle= 0.2 0.25 Quartz, wt % 54 25-54 40-60 25-52 10-40 1 30 15-70 Plagioclase 10 7-13 2-5 8-17 0 10 0-17 1-3 feldspar, wt % Calcite, wt % 37 3.7 7-20 5-30 13-44 5 20 25-95 15-65 Smectite,wt % 2-8 1-5 - < 2 0-23 2-6 Illite, wt % 11.9 17-46 5-25 12-20 25-60 1-50 1-13 Kaolinite wt % 8 0 0 - < 2 0-14 0-2 Chlorite, wt % 11.9 1 0 4-7 0 10 0-7 1-3 Ro (Maturity of 123 1.23 075 0.75 145 1.45 0616 0.6-1.6 1 12 1.2 08 0.8 30 3.0+ 075 0.75 216 2.16 045 0.45 060 0.60 Shale) Analog Analysis

U.S. shale play: choose stimulation Frac System Barnett Woodford Haynesville Eagle Ford Marcellus Waterfrac (WF) WF /Linear Gel WF, Hybrid, & X-Linked Hybrid WF and Hybrid TVD 5,400-9,500 ft. 6,000-14,000 ft. 10,500-14,000 5,000-13,000 ft. 4,500-8,500 ft. Lateral Length 4,000 ft. 4,000 ft. 4,500 ft. 4,000 ft. 3,000-5,000 ft. Stages 4-8 6-12 10-15 12-1515 10-1414 Fluid Volume 5.0 MM (8 stg) 6.5 MM (10 stg) 5.0 MM (10 stg) 4.0 MM (12 stg) 5.0 MM (12 stg) Proppant Vol. 3.5 MM lbs. 4.5 MM lbs 2.5 MM lbs 3.5 MM lbs 5.5 MM lbs Completion Type Cemented Csg. Cemented Csg. Cemented Csg. Cemented Csg. Cemented Csg. (1)P&P (1) P&P (1) P&P (1) P&P (1) P&P (2)BASS (2) BASS (2) BASS (2) BASS (2) BASS (3)Hydrajet (3) Hydrajet (3) Hydrajet (3) Hydrajet (3) Hydrajet Span/Stage 400 ft. 400 ft. 300 ft. 250-400 ft. 150-400 ft. Clusters/Length 4 4 4-6 4-8 3-5 2-4 ft. 2-4ft. 1-2ft. 1-2ft. 2-4ft. Analog Analysis

Shale Analysis Log Where would you perforate? What is the TOC and gas content? Mineralology Lithology Brittle or Ductile? Kerogen Content Will it frac and what is the relative fracture width and barriers? Reservoir Properties Natural What is the shale Fractures? in place? Unconfined Compressive volumetric gas Strength What is the shale porosity and permeability? Where is the organic rich shale? Where are the zones of highest kerogen content Shale Type Frac Ease TOC Hydrocarbon Content SPE 115258 9

Shale fracturing simulation Designed for complex fracturing Couple available data with microseismic to optimize fluid system and frac design Recalibrate model based on post job analyses and regional variations

OBJECTIVE Maximize stimulated reservoir volume (SRV) 11

Shale fracture characteristics To create complexity you must have: 1. Pre-existing natural fissures 2. Low differential horizontal stresses (net pressure > σ m m) 3. Brittleness Ductile Brittle Tight Gas Sands Haynesville Eagleford Woodford Bakken Marcellus Barnett 12

Shale Completion Strategy: Based on Formation Brittleness & Liquid Production SPE 115258 Fracture Fracture Width Brittleness Fluid System Geometry Closure Profile 70% Slick Water 60% Slick Water 50% Hybrid 40% Hybrid 30% X-Linked 20% X-Linked 10% X-Linked Proppant Fluid Proppant Liquid Brittleness Concentration Volume Volume Production 70% Low High Low Low 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% High Low High High 13

Shale fluid decisions Shale Type Frac Type Fluid Type & Prop ppg Brittle & low clay Brittle & high clay Ductile & low clay Ductile & high clay Complex network No embedment Complex network Some embedment Less complex Moderate embedment Bi-Wing High embedment Water 0-2% KCL 0.1-2 ppg Water 2-7% KCL Linear gel. 0.1-3 ppg Water 0-2% KCL Linear gel. X-Link Tail 0.5 5 ppg Linear Gel 2-7% KCL X-Link 0.5-10 ppg 14 14

Lateral design, stage intervals & well spacing Lateral Drilled in direction on minimum horizontal stress for transverse fracturing Greater than 90 degree deviation is common practice Stay in best portion of the reservoir while drilling Longer laterals yield more production to a point cost considerations Stage intervals Number of intervals varies by shale play most 300 to 400 ft Most often, shorter intervals increase SRV and production more cost Couple with perforation interval distribution for optimum SRV from frac Well Spacing 15

Perforation clusters Typically evenly spaced along stage interval good rock or bad Number of clusters varies by shale play, less perm & complexity closer Number of perfs affect limited entry diversion The more clusters placed, the less contribute to production Placement in better rock (fracs, brittle) may enhance SRV and production 16

Shale Fracture Characteristics Definition of Brittleness from Rock Mechanics SPE 115258 Haynesville Marcellus Eagle Ford Woodford o d Barnett 70.00 56.00 42.00 28.00 14.00 00.00 BRIT

Barnett example pump schedule 4000 ft laterals Span = ± 400 ft Stage size = 15,500 bbl/stage Prop volume = 4300 sks/stage Number of stages 6 8 Prop type: 60% 100 mesh, 40% 40/70 Rate = 70 BPM End sand conc = 125 1.25 15ppg 1.5 Treating pressure = 4000 psi SRV (ft 3 )= 4/3*π*ABC A=networkA width B=frac length C=height/2 gal ppg prop lbs rate time pad 100000 80 29.76 slurry 40000 0.3 100 mesh 12000 80 12.07 slurry 40000 0.5 100 mesh 20000 80 12.18 slurry 100000 0.6 100 mesh 60000 80 30.58 slurry 100000 0.7 100 mesh 70000 80 30.71 slurry 100000 0.8 100 mesh 80000 80 30.85 slurry 100000 1 40/70 100000 80 31.12 slurry 70000 1.25 40/70 87500 80 22.02 flush 12000 80 3.57 % 100 mesh 56.34% total lbs 429500 lbs % 40/70 43.66% total time hr 3.38 hr % pad 15.38% avg ppg 0.66 ppg lbs 100 mesh 242000 lbs lbs 40/70 187500 lbs total volume 650000 gal 15,476 BBL

Formation hardness and proppant embedment 90 80 70 60 50 BHN # 40 30 20 10 0 Woodford Marcellus Floyd Eagle Ford Haynesville Bossier Barnett CV Lime Ohio SS Coal 19

Haynesville - example pump schedule 6 perforation cluster - 72 BPM Stage Fluid Volume Prop Prop Concent Rate/cluster 1 Treated Water 36000 -- 12 2 Guar (R11) 15000 100 mesh 0.5 12 7500 lb 3 Guar (R11) 20000 100 mesh 0.75 12 15000 lb 4 Guar (R11) 25000 100 mesh 1 12 25000 lb 5 HYBOR G (R27) 20000 -- 12 6 HYBOR G (R27) 45000 Main Proppant 0.5 12 22500 lb 7 HYBOR G (R27) 45000 Main Proppant 1 12 45000 lb 8 HYBOR G (R27) 45000 Main Proppant 2 12 90000 lb 9 HYBOR G (R27) 36000 Main Proppant 3 12 108000 lb 10 HYBOR G (R27) 22500 Main Proppant 4 12 90000 lb 11 Guar (R11) flush 12 Total fluid volume per stage 309500 gal Total proppant per stage 47500 lb 100 mesh Pump Time per Stage 102 minutes 355500 lb Main Proppant 12 Stages per Well Main Proppant = 40/70 PowerProp or Volume / Well = 3,714,000 gal 40/80 HydroProp or 100 mesh / Well = 570,000 lb % pad = 37% 30/60 CarboProp or Main Proppant / Well = 4,266,000 lb 30/50 InterProp or 20/40 InterPorp Estimated Pipe Friction = 3300 psi Estimated Perf Friction = 1200 psi BHTP = 11500 psi 6 perf clusters Ph = 5000 psi Volume / Cluster = 51,583 gal Surface Treating Pressure = 11000 psi 100 mesh / Cluster = 7,917 lb Main Proppant / Cluster = 59,250 lb 20

Simultaneous fracturing results Simulfrac or Zipperfrac Typically more microseismic activity Overlapping microseismic behavior Still see general fracturing behavior SPE 119896 (Rimrock)

Barnett - refrac potential Barnett Shale: Gel Frac Barnett Shale: Refrac Water Frac 1600 SRV vs. 6-month Average Gas Flow Ra ate (Mcf/d) 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 Gel Frac Water Frac SPE 115771 (MCFD) 6-Month Average 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 y = 20.284x + 319.3 R 2 = 0.5571 200 500 0 0 180 360 540 720 900 1080 1260 1440 Time (days) 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 SRV (10 6 m3) 22

Marcellus - more height growth & planar vs. Barnett Experiment Lite frac 3000 ft lateral 6 stages 550,000 gal/stg Barnett 97 bpm rate 100,000 lb/stg Slickwater Typical More planar than Barnett Complexity More stages More perf clusters SPE 131783 Range Resources Corp

Haynesville - significant height growth Haynesville GMX fracture treatment 3,000 5,000 ft laterals 7 10 stages 300 ft spacing 2 perf clusters/stage Stimulation 300 to 500 K gal/stage 65 bpm rate 270,000 lb proppant/stage Slickwater, hybrid, & X-link SPE 12507 GMX Resources

Woodford - containment Fracture Lengths Stage 1: 2500 Stage 2: 3300 Stage 2 RF: 1400 Stage 4: 1200 Obs Carr Well Estate #113-1H Pettigrew 19-1H Obs Well #2 Treatment Pettigrew Well 18-1H Fracture Heights Stage 1: 250 Stage 2: 280 Stage 2 RF: 280 Stage 4: 280 Well contained Woodford FM SPE 110029 Antero Stage 1 events Stage 2 events Stage 2RF events Stage 3 events Looking NW

Utica Woodford Barnett Haynesville Marcellus Eagleford Bakken Porosity (%) 1-8% ~1.5 6 (Avg. ~3.8) 8-15% 3 8% 3-15% 2-12 % TVD (ft) 6,000 14,000 5,400 9,500 10,500 14,000 4,500-8,500 5,000-13,000 8,000-11,000 Thickness (ft) 100-220 100-500 60-350 50-300 40-500 6-15ft & 80-145 ft BHT ( F) 150-225 150 280-380º F 100-150 150-350 190-240 TOC (%) 3-9% 4-8% 2-5% 3-10% 0.5-9% Upper-11%-40% Lower=8%-21% Press Grad (psi/ft).45-.68 0.52 0.85-0.93 0.4-0.7 0.4 0.85 0.5-0.6 Frac Grad (psi/ft).7-.9 ~0.6 0.75 >0.90 0.9 1.2.88-1.1 0.70 0.85 Avg Perm (μd) 0.05-0.4 0.05 0.4 <0.005 0.5-2 400-1200 20-500 Sw (%) 33% <35 no free water <25 10-30 25-60 Lithology (%) Silica- Chert 30-60% Silica rich 35-50 v/v Shale is soft (ductile) Calcite rich-in areas? silica rich (in areas) organic rich High clay mineral fraction Variable formation properties Illite clay-dominated Quartz/Plagioclase/ Feldspar Carbonates Siderite/Pyrite ~3-5% carbon content High Illite-dominate clays Looks like poker chips High in Calcites Silty, sandy, dolomite grading to laminated shaly interval. Some natural fractures. Below is Sanish YM (x10 6 psi) 4-8 6-10 2-3 2-5 1-4 Upper/Lower= 2-4 Middle=4-6 PR (%) 0.15-0.25 0.13-0.25 0.23 0.27 0.19 0.23 0.20-0.27 Upper/Lower=-0.25-0.28 Middle= 0.2 0.25 Quartz, wt % 25-54 40-60 25-52 10-40 1 30 15-70 Plagioclase 7-13 2-5 8-17 0 10 0-17 1-3 feldspar, wt % Calcite, wt % 7-20 5-30 13-44 5 20 25-95 15-65 Smectite,wt % 2-8 1-5 - < 2 0-23 2-6 Illite, wt % 17-46 5-25 12-20 25-60 1-50 1-13 Kaolinite wt % 0 0 - < 2 0-14 0-2 Chlorite, wt % 1 0 4-7 0 10 0-7 1-3 Ro (Maturity of 075 0.75 145 1.45 0616 0.6-1.6 1 12 1.2 08 0.8 30 3.0+ 075 0.75 216 2.16 045 0.45 060 0.60 Shale)

Marcellus shale frac height vs aquifer depth

Thank You