ReRe--Evaluation of UtahEvaluation of Utah’’s Uinta Basins Uinta BasinOil Shale ResourceOil Shale Resource

Michael D. Vanden BergMichael D. Vanden BergUtah Geological SurveyUtah Geological Survey

October 14, 2008October 14, 2008

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

• U.S. Bureau of Land Management – funding and data

• Utah School and Trust Land Administration - funding

• U.S. Geological Survey - data

OutlineOutline

1) Scope• Development of a new basin-wide oil shale assessment

2) Methods• Creation of isopach maps• Calculating resource numbers

3) Results• Total in-place resource• Potential economic resource

Utah Oil Shale DatabaseUtah Oil Shale DatabaseUGS OpenUGS Open--File Report 469 File Report 469 –– published in 2006published in 2006

Preservation of historical oil shale data presented in a useable electronic format:– Digital Fischer assays for 581 wells– Scanned geophysical logs for 173

wells– Lithologic descriptions for 168 wells– Formation tops information for over

1,000 wells– Extensive Utah oil shale

bibliography with nearly 1,000 references

Contains all the raw data used to Contains all the raw data used to calculate new resource numberscalculate new resource numbers

Scope Scope --Oil Shale Resource EvaluationOil Shale Resource Evaluation

1) Focus - Entire Uinta Basin- Data from 293 wells spread throughout the Uinta Basin

2) Determined thickness of continuous intervals averaging 50, 35, 25, and 15 gallons per ton (GPT)

3) Created GIS-based maps- Isopachs for each richness zone- Overburden thickness – Depth to the top of each richness zone

4) Calculated resource numbers- Total in-place resource with certain constraints

UGS Special Study 128: due out this fallUGS Special Study 128: due out this fall

MethodsMethods1) Compared Fischer assay data to density and sonic logs

USGS - Coyote Wash 1

MethodsMethods1) Compared Fischer assay data to density and sonic logs

y = -85.5x + 213.5R2 = 0.84

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6

Bulk Density (g/cm3)

Oil

Yie

ld fr

om F

ische

r A

ssay

(gpt

)y = -85.5x + 213.5R2 = 0.84

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6

Bulk Density (g/cm3)

Oil

Yie

ld fr

om F

ische

r A

ssay

(gpt

)

USGS - Coyote Wash 1

MethodsMethods2) Created equation comparing bulk density to Fischer assays

- Used 8 wells with R2 ranging from 0.71 to 0.87- Used a reduced major axes regression fit

Reduced Major Axes Fit Relating Density and Shale Oil Yield

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6

Bulk Density (g/cm3)

Oil

Yiel

d fro

m F

isch

er A

ssay

s (g

pt) y = -66.467x + 203.996

MethodsMethods2) Created equation comparing sonic to Fischer assays

- Used 4 wells with R2 ranging from 0.64 to 0.77- Used a reduced major axes regression fit

Reduced Major Axes Fit Relating Sonic and Shale Oil Yield

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

50 70 90 110 130 150

Sonic (ft/sec)

Oil

Yiel

d fro

m F

isch

er A

ssay

s (g

pt) y = 0.766x – 49.237

MethodsMethods

1.5 miles apart1.5 miles apart

Average Average gptgpt of datasets:of datasets:Gas well = 21.4 Gas well = 21.4 gptgptU045 = 21.7 U045 = 21.7 gptgpt

2680

2700

2720

2740

2760

2780

2800

0 20 40 60 80

Shale Oil Yield (gpt)

Dep

th (f

t)

2611

2631

2651

2671

2691

2711

2731

Dep

th (f

t)

4304733453 - Pseudo-FA from density logU045 - Oil shale well with FA from core

2680

2700

2720

2740

2760

2780

2800

0 20 40 60 80

Shale Oil Yield (gpt)

Dep

th (f

t)

2611

2631

2651

2671

2691

2711

2731

Dep

th (f

t)

4304733453 - Pseudo-FA from density logU045 - Oil shale well with FA from core

- Ground truth verses calculated yield

MethodsMethods3) Data distribution

MethodsMethods4) Calculated thickness of zones averaging 15, 25, 35, and 50 gpt

Average Average of 15 of 15 gptgpt

426 ft426 ft

USGS - Coyote Wash 1

Mahogany Mahogany BedBed

MethodsMethods4) Calculated thickness of zones averaging 15, 25, 35, and 50 gpt

Average Average of 25 of 25 gptgpt

120 ft120 ft

USGS - Coyote Wash 1

Mahogany Mahogany BedBed

MethodsMethods4) Calculated thickness of zones averaging 15, 25, 35, and 50 gpt

Average Average of 35 of 35 gptgpt

41 ft41 ft

USGS - Coyote Wash 1

Mahogany Mahogany BedBed

MethodsMethods4) Calculated thickness of zones averaging 15, 25, 35, and 50 gpt

Average Average of 50 of 50 gptgpt

12 ft12 ft

USGS - Coyote Wash 1

Mahogany Mahogany BedBed

MethodsMethods5) Created isopach maps in ArcGIS6) Calculated resource numbers for each richness zone

(15, 25, 35, 50 GPT)• Calculated volumesvolumes in ArcGIS for each richness zone at

several thickness intervals• Used the density of each richness to convert volume to massvolume to mass

• 50 GPT = 1.90 g/cm3

• 35 GPT = 2.09 g/cm3

• 25 GPT = 2.21 g/cm3

• 15 GPT = 2.34 g/cm3

• Used the richness (i.e., 50 gal per ton) to convert mass to mass to barrelsbarrels

ResultsResults

New Oil Shale Resource Estimates for UtahNew Oil Shale Resource Estimates for Utah

Total In-Place Resource at

50 GPT

31 billion bbls

Total InTotal In--Place Resource atPlace Resource at

50 GPT50 GPT

31 billion 31 billion bblsbbls

OverburdenContours

1000 ft2000 ft3000 ft4000 ft5000 ft6000 ft7000 ft

8000 ft9000 ft

MahoganyZone Outcrop

Total In-Place Resource at

35 GPT

76 billion bbls

Total InTotal In--Place Resource atPlace Resource at

35 GPT35 GPT

76 billion 76 billion bblsbbls

Total In-Place Resource at

25 GPT

147 billion bbls

Total InTotal In--Place Resource atPlace Resource at

25 GPT25 GPT

147 billion 147 billion bblsbbls

Total In-Place Resource at

15 GPT

292 billion bbls

Total InTotal In--Place Resource atPlace Resource at

15 GPT15 GPT

292 billion 292 billion bblsbbls

Total In-Place Resource

by landownership

Total InTotal In--Place ResourcePlace Resource

by landownershipby landownership25 GPT isopach

contours

100-130 ft

Total In-Place Resource at

25 GPT

Within oil and gas field = 40 billion bbls (27%)

Outside oil and gas field = 107 billion bbls (73%)

Total InTotal In--Place Resource atPlace Resource at

25 GPT25 GPT

Within oil and gas field = Within oil and gas field = 40 billion 40 billion bblsbbls (27%)(27%)

Outside oil and gas field = Outside oil and gas field = 107 billion 107 billion bblsbbls (73%)(73%)

NaturalButtes

Total In-Place Resource on BLM Lands Potentially Open

for Leasing

25 GPT

69 billion bbls

Total InTotal In--Place Resource on Place Resource on BLM Lands Potentially Open BLM Lands Potentially Open

for Leasingfor Leasing

25 GPT25 GPT

69 billion 69 billion bblsbbls

Potential Economic Resource:

Constraints:

1) 25 GPT – 147 billion bbls

Potential Economic Resource:Potential Economic Resource:

Constraints:Constraints:

1)1) 25 GPT 25 GPT –– 147 billion 147 billion bblsbbls

Potential Economic Resource:

Constraints:

1) 25 GPT – 147 billion bbls

2) Less than 3000 ft of cover – 113 billion bbls

Potential Economic Resource:Potential Economic Resource:

Constraints:Constraints:

1)1) 25 GPT 25 GPT –– 147 billion 147 billion bblsbbls

2)2) Less than 3000 ft of cover Less than 3000 ft of cover –– 113 billion 113 billion bblsbbls

Potential Economic Resource:

Constraints:

1) 25 GPT – 147 billion bbls

2) Less than 3000 ft of cover – 113 billion bbls

3) More than 5 ft thick – 111 billion bbls

Potential Economic Resource:Potential Economic Resource:

Constraints:Constraints:

1)1) 25 GPT 25 GPT –– 147 billion 147 billion bblsbbls

2)2) Less than 3000 ft of cover Less than 3000 ft of cover –– 113 billion 113 billion bblsbbls

3)3) More than 5 ft thick More than 5 ft thick –– 111 billion 111 billion bblsbbls

Potential Economic Resource:

Constraints:

1) 25 GPT – 147 billion bbls

2) Less than 3000 ft of cover – 113 billion bbls

3) More than 5 ft thick – 111 billion bbls

4) Not in conflict with oil and gas – 83 billion bbls

Potential Economic Resource:Potential Economic Resource:

Constraints:Constraints:

1)1) 25 GPT 25 GPT –– 147 billion 147 billion bblsbbls

2)2) Less than 3000 ft of cover Less than 3000 ft of cover –– 113 billion 113 billion bblsbbls

3)3) More than 5 ft thick More than 5 ft thick –– 111 billion 111 billion bblsbbls

4)4) Not in conflict with oil and gas Not in conflict with oil and gas –– 83 billion 83 billion bblsbbls

Potential Economic Resource:

Constraints:

1) 25 GPT – 147 billion bbls

2) Less than 3000 ft of cover – 113 billion bbls

3) More than 5 ft thick – 111 billion bbls

4) Not in conflict with oil and gas – 83 billion bbls

5) Not on restricted lands – 77 billion bbls

Potential Economic Resource:Potential Economic Resource:

Constraints:Constraints:

1)1) 25 GPT 25 GPT –– 147 billion 147 billion bblsbbls

2)2) Less than 3000 ft of cover Less than 3000 ft of cover –– 113 billion 113 billion bblsbbls

3)3) More than 5 ft thick More than 5 ft thick –– 111 billion 111 billion bblsbbls

4)4) Not in conflict with oil and gas Not in conflict with oil and gas –– 83 billion 83 billion bblsbbls

5)5) Not on restricted lands Not on restricted lands –– 77 billion 77 billion bblsbbls

Take Home MessageTake Home Message

• Utah’s Potential Economic Oil Shale ResourceResource =

77 billion barrels77 billion barrels

• Roughly 75%75% lessless than numbers frequently quoted, but still very large and very significantstill very large and very significant

• ReserveReserve numbers can not be calculated until commercial technology is developed

• The UGS supports the advancement of pilot projectspilot projects to firm up technology and answer pressing questions

Additional UGS Projects Additional UGS Projects --Upper Green River FormationUpper Green River Formation

1) University of Utah - Energy and Geoscience Institute and Department of Chemical Engineering- Depositional heterogeneity and fluid flow modeling of the oil shale interval of

the Green River Formation, eastern Uinta Basin, Utah2) Dr. Jessica Whiteside - Brown University

- Multiproxy paleoclimate reconstruction of Earth’s most recent extreme hothouse - Milankovitch cyclicity in the upper Green River Formation

3) TerraTek, a Schlumberger Company, Salt Lake City, UT- Continuous unconfined compressive strength profiling (TSI™ scratch testing)

and other physical property analyses of upper Green River oil shales4) UGS - NETL/DOE funded project

- Water-related issues affecting conventional oil and gas recovery and potential oil shale development in the Uinta Basin, Utah