68
Shale Reservoirs Similar, yet so different 2010 3D Seismic Symposium

2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Shale ReservoirsSimilar, yet so different

2010 3D Seismic Symposium

Page 2: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

from: Canadian NEB/Murray Roth

Geography of Talks - 16th Annual 3-D Seismic Symposium - Tuesday March 16th, 20101) Shale Plays Overview: Murray Roth2) Williston Basin - Depth Imaging Workflow: Chris Besler & Greg Johnson3) Eagle Ford Shale: Galen Treadgold & Steve Sinclair4) Marcellus Shale: Jim Morris5) Woodford Shale: Richard Parkes6) Haynesville Shale: Pete Smith7) World: Bob Peebler8) Southern Uinta Dakota: Bill Keach9) Piceance Basin - Winter Acquisition: Mary Sue Purcell & DeWitt Morris10) Eagle Sandstone -Tiger Ridge Field Montana: Tanya Inks11) Tensleep Fractures - Teapot Dome: Doug Klepacki12) Montney Shale - BC Canada: B.K. Torry & Kurt Wikel

12

10

4

3

2

71

98

6

5

11

Geography of Talks - 16th Annual 3-D Seismic SymposiumTuesday March 16th, 2010

Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists & Denver Geophysical Society

Page 3: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Total Gas/Producible

Source: NEB

Page 4: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Transform proprietary information

World’s Largest Gas Fields

1

10

100

1000

10000So

uth

Pars

Mar

cellu

sHa

ynes

ville

Uren

goy

Yam

burg

Hass

i R’M

elSh

tokm

anZa

polya

rn…

Hugo

ton

Gron

inge

nBo

nave

nko

Med

vezh

yeM

ontn

eyNo

rth P

ars

Horn

Rive

rDa

ulet

aba…

Kara

chag

…Ki

shOr

enbu

rgBa

rnet

tFa

yette

ville

Khar

save

y

North American Gas

Restricted AccessRussian/FSUOther International

Source: EIA

Page 5: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Nova ScotiaEarly MississippianHorton Bluff Shale

Northeast British ColumbiaMiddle DevonianHorn River Shale

Louisiana, east TexasLate JurassicHaynesville/Bossier Sh

Colorado, UtahEoceneGreen River Shale

Paradox Basin, Colorado, UtahPennsylvanianGothic Shale

Northeast British ColumbiaEarly JurassicGordondale Shale

Williston Basin, MontanaLate CretaceousGammon Shale

New Brunswick, Nova ScotiaMississippianFrederick Brook Shale

Black Warrior Basin, Alabama, MissLate MississippianFloyd/Neal Shale

West central Alberta, northeast BCJurassicFernie Shale

Arkoma Basin, ArkansasMississippianFayetteville Shale

Alberta, northeast British ColumbiaDevonian-MississippianExshaw Shale

Kansas, OklahomaPennsylvanianExcello Shale

Michigan Basin, MichiganLate DevonianEllsworth Shale

Maverick Basin, TexasLate CretaceousEagleford Shale

West central AlbertaLate DevonianDuvernay Shale

Western New YorkUpper DevonianDunkirk Shale

Black Warrior Basin, AlabamaMiddle CambrianConasauga Shale

Central Alberta, SaskatchewanCretaceousColorado Shale

MontanaCretaceousCody Shale

Eastern KentuckyEarly SilurianClinton Shale

Eastern KentuckyDevonianCleveland Shale

Paradox Basin, Colorado, UtahPennsylvanianChimney Rock Shale

Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee

Late DevonianChattanooga Shale

Arkoma Basin, OklahomaMississippianCaney Shale

Paradox Basin, UtahPennsylvanianCane Creek Shale

Palo Duro Basin, TexasPennsylvanianBend Shale

Fort Worth and Permian, TexasMississippianBarnett Shale

Vermillion Basin, Colorado, WyomingLate CretaceousBaxter Shale

Michigan Basin, MichiganLate DevonianAntrim Shale

LOCATIONPERIODFORMATION

Oklahoma, TexasLate Dev-Early MissWoodford Shale

West central Alberta, northeast British Columbia

Early CretaceousWilrich/Buckinghorse/ Garbutt/Moosebar

New York, QuebecOrdovicianUtica Shale

Appalachian BasinMississippianSunbury Shale

Southern AlbertaLate CretaceousSecond White Speckled

Appalachian BasinDevonianRhinestreet Shale

New YorkOrdovicianQueenston Shale

West central Alberta, northeast BJurassicPoker Chip Shale

Raton Basin, ColoradoCretaceousPierre Shale

West TexasDevonian-MissPercha Shale

Maverick Basin, TexasCretaceousPearsall Shale

East Kentucky, Ohio, West VirginiaDevonianOhio Shale

Alberta, northeast British ColumbiaLate JurassicNordegg/Gordondale Sh

Denver Basin, ColoradoLate CretaceousNiobrara Shale

Illinois Basin, Illinois, IndianaDevonian-Mississippian

New Albany Shale

Northeast British ColumbiaLate DevonianMuskwa Shale

Bighorn and Powder River, WyomingCretaceousMowry Shale

Arkoma Basin, ArkansasMississippianMoorefield Shale

Alberta, northeast British ColumbiaTriassicMontney-Doig Shale

Santa Maria Basin, CaliforniaMioceneMonterey Shale

San Joaquin Basin, CaliforniaMioceneMcClure Shale

New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, WVDevonianMarcellus Shale

Central UtahMississippianManning Canyon Shale

San Juan Basin, New Mexico, UintaBasin, Utah

CretaceousMancos Shale

Colorado, New MexicoLate CretaceousLewis Shale

Northeast British ColumbiaMiddle DevonianKlua/Evie Shale

Part of Ohio Shale; east Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia

DevonianHuron Shale

Paradox Basin, Colorado, UtahPennsylvanianHovenweep Shale

LOCATIONPERIODFORMATION

57 US/Canadian Shales – marcellus-shale.us

Page 6: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Economics vs Resources vs Maturity

UBS 2008

Eagle Ford

Page 7: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Oklahoma, TexasLate Devonian-Early Mississippian

Woodford Shale

North Dakota, Montana, Saskatchewan

Upper DevonianWilliston/BakkenShale (Oil)

New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia

DevonianMarcellus Shale

Northeast British ColumbiaMiddle DevonianHorn River Shale

Louisiana, east TexasLate JurassicHaynesville/Bossier Shale

Maverick Basin, TexasLate CretaceousEagleford Shale

Fort Worth and Permian basins, Texas

MississippianBarnett Shale

LOCATIONPERIODFORMATION

7 US/Canadian “Shales” for Today

marcellus-shale.us

Page 8: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Barnett

Page 9: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Barnett Map

Max Stress

Page 10: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Barnett Setting

Source: USGS

Page 11: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

BarnettStratigraphy

Source: USGS

Page 12: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

BarnettDetails

35Adsorbed Gas (%)

45Clay Content (%)

0.526Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

250Matrix Permeability (nD)

6Porosity (%)

4.5TOC (%)

2Ro

200Temperature (F)

4000Pressure (psi)

2.65Average EUR

2.8Hor Well Cost ($M)

300Thickness (feet)

7500Depth (feet)

50Producable Gas (tcf)

150GIP (bcf/sq mi)

327Total Gas (tcf)

50000Total Area Size (sq mi)

Siliceous MudstoneLithology

MississippianGeologic Age

300’

Courtesy: Devon

Page 13: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Well Crossplot/Analysis

Courtesy: Devon

Page 14: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Eagle Ford

Page 15: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Eagle Ford Map

Dry Gas

Oil

Page 16: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Eagle Ford Setting

Source: Wilcox Exploration

Page 17: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Source: USGS

Eagle FordStratigraphy

Page 18: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Eagle FordDetails

20

8

0.65

1100

11

4.5

1.5

335

5200

5.5

4.8

250

11500

9

200

84

1350

bituminous shales

Cretaceous

Adsorbed Gas (%)

Clay Content (%)

Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

Matrix Permeability (nD)

Porosity (%)

TOC (%)

Ro

Temperature (F)

Pressure (psi)

Average EUR

Hor Well Cost ($M)

Thickness (feet)

Depth (feet)

Producable Gas (tcf)

GIP (bcf/sq mi)

Total Gas (tcf)

Total Area Size (sq mi)

Lithology

Geologic Age

250’

Source: USGS

Page 19: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Haynesville

Page 20: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Haynesville Map

Page 21: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Haynesville Setting

Source: USGS

Page 22: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Source: USGS

HaynesvilleStratigraphy

Page 23: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

HaynesvilleDetails

18

27

0.95

658

10

3

2.2

340

8500

6.5

7.0

225

12000

251

175

717

9000

Argillaceous/Calcareous

Upper Jurassic

Adsorbed Gas (%)

Clay Content (%)

Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

Matrix Permeability (nD)

Porosity (%)

TOC (%)

Ro

Temperature (F)

Pressure (psi)

Average EUR

Hor Well Cost ($M)

Thickness (feet)

Depth (feet)

Producable Gas (tcf)

GIP (bcf/sq mi)

Total Gas (tcf)

Total Area Size (sq mi)

Lithology

Geologic Age

200’

Page 24: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Horn River

Page 25: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Horn River Map

Page 26: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Horn River Setting

Page 27: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Horn RiverStratigraphy

Source: GSC/NEB of Canada

Page 28: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Horn RiverDetails

34

30

0.6

230

3

3

2.5

160

4800

7.5

7.0

450

8800

47

250

370

5000

Brittle Shale

Upper Devonian

Adsorbed Gas (%)

Clay Content (%)

Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

Matrix Permeability (nD)

Porosity (%)

TOC (%)

Ro

Temperature (F)

Pressure (psi)

Average EUR

Hor Well Cost ($M)

Thickness (feet)

Depth (feet)

Producable Gas (tcf)

GIP (bcf/sq mi)

Total Gas (tcf)

Total Area Size (sq mi)

Lithology

Geologic Age

200’

75’

Source: BC Ministry of Energy

Page 29: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Marcellus

Page 30: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Marcellus MapSource: DOE

Page 31: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Marcellus

Source: Cabot Presentation

Marcellus Map

Page 32: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Marcellus Setting

Page 33: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Source: USGS

MarcellusStratigraphy

Page 34: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

MarcellusDetails

50

50

0.4

1000

8

3.25

1.25

130

4000

3.75

3.5

350

7000

356

200

1500

95000

Argillaceous Mudstone

Middle Devonian

Adsorbed Gas (%)

Clay Content (%)

Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

Matrix Permeability (nD)

Porosity (%)

TOC (%)

Ro

Temperature (F)

Pressure (psi)

Average EUR

Hor Well Cost ($M)

Thickness (feet)

Depth (feet)

Producable Gas (tcf)

GIP (bcf/sq mi)

Total Gas (tcf)

Total Area Size (sq mi)

Lithology

Geologic Age

300’

Source: WVGES

Page 35: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Marcellus Well Log Crossplot

Source: WVGS

Page 36: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Woodford

Page 37: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Woodford Map

Source: Oklahoma Geologic Society

Page 38: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Woodford Setting

Source: Kuykendall and Fritz

Page 39: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

WoodfordStratigraphy

Source: Oklahoma Geologic Society

Page 40: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

46

30

0.7

500

6

7

1.5

145

3267

3.8

5

180

8000

11.4

70

23

11000

Black shale

Upper Devonian

Adsorbed Gas (%)

Clay Content (%)

Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

Matrix Permeability (nD)

Porosity (%)

TOC (%)

Ro

Temperature (F)

Pressure (psi)

Average EUR

Hor Well Cost ($M)

Thickness (feet)

Depth (feet)

Producable Gas (tcf)

GIP (bcf/sq mi)

Total Gas (tcf)

Total Area Size (sq mi)

Lithology

Geologic Age

WoodfordDetails

150’

Source: Newfield Presentation

Page 41: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Williston/Bakken

Page 42: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Sanish/Parshall

Williston/Bakken Map

Source: USGS

Page 43: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Williston/Bakken Setting

Source: USGS

Page 44: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Sanish

Williston/Bakken Stratigraphy

Source: AAPG

Page 45: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Williston/BakkenDetails

0

5

0.5

10000

5

10

0.9

140

5600

1.414827391

5.5

150

10000

20.65647991

28.29654782

945.1046972

200000

Sandstone/Siltstone/Carb

Upper Dev/Lower Miss

Adsorbed Gas (%)

Clay Content (%)

Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)

Matrix Permeability (nD)

Porosity (%)

TOC (%)

Ro

Temperature (F)

Pressure (psi)

Average EUR

Hor Well Cost ($M)

Thickness (feet)

Depth (feet)

Producable Gas (tcf)

GIP (bcf/sq mi)

Total Gas (tcf)

Total Area Size (sq mi)

Lithology

Geologic Age

8200

8300

MiddleBakken

U Bkkn Shale

Lodgepole

L Bkkn Shale

Sanish

8200

8300

8250

8150

GR RES GR DEN

120’

Source: Anon

Page 46: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Horizontal Well Microseismic

Page 47: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Stimulated Reservoir Volume

Page 48: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Shale Comparisons

Page 49: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Gas in Place per Section

Source: NEB

Page 50: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

GIP Rank by BasinMarcellusEagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodfordBakken

Page 51: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Well Depth by Basin

MarcellusEagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodfordBakken

Page 52: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Thickness by Basin

MarcellusEagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodfordBakken

Page 53: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Geologic Age by BasinMarcellusEagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodfordBakken

Page 54: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Shale Crossplots

Page 55: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

GIP versus Zone Thickness0.842

MarcellusEagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodfordBakken

Page 56: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Well Measurements

Page 57: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

GIP versus TOC-0.349 Marcellus

Eagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodford

Page 58: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

GIP versus Porosity0.637

MarcellusEagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodford

Page 59: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

GIP versus Permeability0.679

MarcellusEagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodford

Page 60: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

GIP versus Temperature0.562

MarcellusEagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodford

Page 61: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

GIP versus Ro0.404

MarcellusEagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodfordBakken

Page 62: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

GIP versus Pressure Gradient0.312

MarcellusEagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodford

Page 63: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

GIP versus Adsorbed Gas-0.435

MarcellusEagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodford

Page 64: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

GIP versus Silica/Calcite/Carb-0.229 Marcellus

Eagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodford

Page 65: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

What matters most…

-.435Adsorbed Gas

.404Vitrinite Reflectance

.562Temperature

.637Porosity

.679Permeability

.842Thickness

CorrelationProperty

Page 66: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Similar…• Most shale basins fall in the Devonian-

Mississippian fairway• Economic shale reservoirs range between

150-450 feet• Devonian-Mississippian shale reservoir

wells average 7000-10,000’• Commercial shale basins generally range

between 0.2 and 1.1 microD• Shale plays are generally gas-focused• Shale plays generally have a single

economic target

Page 67: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Yet so different…• Some of the best shale gas basins are Mesozoic

and lie on the younger side of major thrust belts (Eagle Ford, Haynesville)

• Some of the best shale gas basins have deeper well depths of 10,000-13,000’ (Eagle Ford, Haynesville)

• Increasingly, shale plays are being developed as joint gas/oil assets (Barnett, Eagle Ford)

• Shale plays range from relatively flat with minimal faulting (Haynesville) to highly faulted and structural (Woodford, Marcellus, Eagle Ford) to other features like karst collapse chimneys (Barnett)

• Some shale plays have multiple, adjacent levels economic for development (Bakken)

• Differences in thickness, permeability and porosity drive gas-in-place differences between shale gas plays

Page 68: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison

Acknowledgements• Huge thanks to anonymous data donors

and bp, Devon, CGGVeritas and Global Geophysical Services

• Many sources were used for data in this study, including USGS, NEB, GSC, BC-EM, WVGS, Hart’s Unconventional Gas Center, American Oil and Gas Reporter, Oil and Gas Journal, and more

• Thanks to Michael Roth and Transform Software and Services

• Electronic version of abstract available on www.transformsw.com

• Contact me for a list of references or questions: [email protected]