The Exploration, Appraisal and Development of Unconventional Reservoirs:

A New Approach to Petroleum Geology*

Richard K. Stoneburner1

Search and Discovery Article #41115 (2013)**

Posted February 28, 2013

*Adapted from AAPG Distinguished Lecture presented at Tulsa Geological Society Luncheon Meeting, January 29, 2013
**AAPG©2012 Serial rights given by author. For all other rights contact author directly.
1
Formerly President North America Shale Production Division, BHP Billiton Petroleum, Houston, Texas, and AAPG Distinguished Lecturer, 2012-1013
(dstoneburner2@gmail.com)

Abstract

The discovery of commercial oil and gas production from shale, or mudstone, reservoirs has dramatically changed how we explore for and
develop oil and gas accumulations. In conventional exploration, appraisal and development there is a fairly standard and accepted
application of processes and technologies. However, the processes and technologies that are employed in the exploration, appraisal and
development of mudstone reservoirs are significantly different, and they are often employed for different reasons and at different stages of
the cycle.

Prospect identification is always the initial phase of any exploration project. In most cases in the conventional world, this is a result of the
interpretation of seismic data, either 2D and/or 3D, in order to identify the areal extent of the prospect, which would typically be on the order
of a few hundred acres or in some instances a few thousand acres. However, in the unconventional world the identification is done at a basin
level and is not typically supported by seismic, but rather by detailed analysis of a few key wells and their associated petrophysical
attributes. Once those attributes are deemed to have the potential of supporting a commercially productive mudstone reservoir, then the
utilization of seismic might be employed to help define the boundaries of the reservoir. However, that would typically be the exception as
the reservoir boundaries are generally defined by the configuration of the basin, which is generally fairly well understood and can encompass
a million acres or more.

Once the prospect has been identified, the evaluation processes during the exploratory drilling phase are dramatically different. During
conventional exploration the validation of the presence, or lack, of hydrocarbons is largely done by the acquisition and interpretation of data
from open hole wireline logs. While cores, either whole or sidewall, will often be taken, they are typically acquired not to validate the
productivity of the reservoir but rather to supplement the open hole log data. In unconventional exploration, the opposite is the case. While
the open hole logs are extremely important once the discovery is made to calibrate the reservoir, the most critical data around the validation
of the quality of the reservoir is the detailed analysis of the rock acquired from whole core. While some of the attributes that are measured
from the mudstone core are common to conventional exploration, there are many more measurements that are taken on mudstone reservoirs
that are totally unique to this type of reservoir.

As the prospect moves into appraisal and development mode, there are also unique processes and technologies in the unconventional world
that are used to more fully understand the reservoir. The most important of those is the calibration, through the use of specific algorithms, of
the data acquired from the whole core data to the open hole data that is being acquired from the appraisal and development drilling. Because
the cost and time necessary to acquire an extensive collection of whole core data can be prohibitive, there will be a limited number of wells
from which whole core is taken in any given field. Therefore, it is critical to be able to calibrate the various measurements from the whole
core to the open hole log data that will be available on many more wells. This is also the point during which 3D seismic would be acquired
as opposed to the acquisition of that type of data during the identification process. In unconventional development, the primary benefit of the
3D seismic data is not to identify where you want to drill, but where you do not want to drill. Specifically, the horizontal lateral is placed to
minimize the effect of faulting on the lateral.

Throughout the entire period of field appraisal and development, the practice of geosteering is critical to the economic success of the field.
Because virtually all of the unconventional development is done with the application of horizontal drilling, it is critically important that the
drill bit maintain its position within the highest quality reservoir while the lateral is being drilled. Since the drilling operations are performed
around the clock, and unexpected changes in dip or the presence of faults can cause the bit to rapidly change its relative stratigraphic
position, a Gamma Ray tool is incorporated into the bottom hole drilling assembly in order to provide continuous measured depth Gamma
Ray log data, which is then converted to a true vertical depth (TVD) log using software designed specifically for this process. This TVD log
data is subsequently correlated with nearby well control to determine where the lateral is positioned stratigraphically at all times during the
drilling operation. When the bit has been interpreted to be out of the desired stratigraphic section, or target window, it is the responsibility of
the geosteerer to collaborate with the drilling organization to make the necessary changes to get the bit back into the target window.

Reference Cited

Herron, M.M., and S.L. Herron, 1998, Quantitative lithology; open and cased hole application derived from integrated core chemistry and
mineralogy database, in P.K. Harvey, and M.A. Lovell, (eds.), Core-log integration: Geological Society Special Publications, v. 136, p. 81-
95.
 “The Exploration, Appraisal and
Development of Unconventional
Reservoirs: A New Approach to
Petroleum Geology”

Dick Stoneburner
Formerly President North America Shale Production Division
BHP Billiton Petroleum
Winter 2013

AAPG Distinguished Lecture Tour.DStoneburner.11.1.12

Brief History of Shale Exploration

 George Mitchell and Mitchell Energy pioneered shale exploration in the Barnett in
the early 1980‟s

 By the late 1990‟s they had proven that vertical Barnett wells were commercially
viable

 In the early 2000‟s a move was made to drill horizontally in the Barnett, but
completion technology was lagging and results were marginal

 In 2006 the use of isolated multi-stage completions was proven to be successful

which was the true game changer for horizontal drilling in shale reservoirs
 Growth of North America Shale Production
• The development of isolated multi-stage hydraulic fracturing in 2006 caused a dramatic increase in shale
production
• By 2011 the Haynesville Shale surpassed the Barnett as nation’s leading shale play

AAPG Distinguished Lecture

____ 1
Tour.DStoneburner.11.1.12 Slide 1
Unconventional Exploration
Process
 Contrasting the Methodologies of Exploration

Conventional Unconventional

 Prospect identification focuses “outside in”  Project identification focuses “inside out”

 Seismic control works “outside in”  Seismic control works “inside out”

 Stratigraphic support eventually focuses on  Stratigraphic support focuses on analysis

facies analysis local to the prospect of the entire basin

 Reservoir quality issues are relegated to  Reservoir quality analysis is required over
the area of the prospect a very broad area of the basin
Prospect Identification: Conventional Analogy

K2 Shenzi
Prospect
Neptune

Mad Dog Atlantis

0 20000

Discoveries US feet

 Deep Water Gulf of Mexico Prospect

 Structurally controlled and supported by local analogs

 At time of Prospect Identification, there were three significant analogs in the area of the prospect

 The area of the prospect was on the order of 10K acres with Resource Potential in excess of several
hundred MMBOE
Prospect Identification: Unconventional Analogy

GUADALUPE

GONZALES
BEXAR
LAVACA

WILSON DEWITT

FRIO VICTORIA
ATASCOSA
ZAVALA
GOLIAD
MAVERICK
CHOKE
CANYON
BEE
RESERVOIR
COLETO
CREEK
DIMMIT RESERVOIR
LIVE
OAK

LAKE CORPUS
CHRISTI

WEBB
DUVAL

 Eagle Ford Shale Prospect

 Known regional source rock across large petroliferous basin

 Reservoir quality and geochemical attributes poorly understood

 The area of the prospect was >10 MM acres with high-side Resource Potential of >10 BBOE
Case Study for Unconventional Exploration:
Hawkville Field

 In early 2008 the CEO of Petrohawk charged the Exploration team to find another
“Haynesville-like” play

 We targeted the Eagle Ford Shale based on its significance as a regional source rock
– Q1: Mapped the Eagle Ford across the entire Gulf Coast Basin and identified an
anomalously thick, porous and highly resistive Eagle Ford section in La Salle and
McMullen Counties

– Q2: Acquired Eagle Ford cuttings on a key well and had them analyzed for TOC,
VRo and other key parameters

– Q3: Acquired ~160,000 acres and spudded the initial test well

– Q4: Completed it in October 2008 for 7.6 Mmcf/d and 251 Bc/d
X/Y:
Feet
1454700
Hawkville Field in Early 2008
1459700
1464700
1469700
1474700
1479700
1484700
1489700
1494700
1499700
1504700
1509700
1514700
1519700
1524700
1529700
1534700
1539700
1544700
1549700
1554700
1559700
1564700
1569700
1574700
1579700
1584700
1589700
1594700
1599700
1604700
1609700
1614700
1619700
1624700
1629700
1634700
1639700
1644700
1649700
1654700
1659700
1664700
1669700
1674700
1679700
1684700
1689700
1694700
1699700
1704700
1709700
1714700
1719700
1724700
1729700
1734700
1739700
1744700
1749700
1754700
1759700
1764700
1769700
1774700
1779700
1784700
1789700
1794700
1799700
1804700
1809700
1814700
1819700
1824700
1829700
1834700
1839700
1844700
1849700
1854700
1859700
1864700
1869700
1874700
1879700
1884700
1889700
1894700
1899700
1904700
1909700
1914700
1919700
1924700
1929700
1934700
1939700
1944700
1949700
1954700
1959700
1964700
1969700
1974700
1979700
1984700
1989700
1994700
1999700
2004700
2009700
2014700
2019700
2024700
2029700
2034700
2039700
2044700
2049700
2054700
2059700
2064700
2069700
2074700
2079700
2084700
2089700
2094700
2099700
2104700
2109700
2114700
2119700
2124700
2129700
2134700
2139700
2144700
2149700
2154700
2159700
2164700
2169700
2174700
2179700
2184700
2189700
2194700
2199700
2204700
2209700
2214700
2219700
2224700
2229700
2234700
2239700
2244700
2249700
2254700
2259700
2264700
2269700
2274700
2279700
2284700
2289700
2294700
2299700
2304700
2309700
2314700
2319700
2324700
2329700
2334700
2339700
2344700
2349700
2354700
2359700
2364700
2369700
2374700
2379700
2384700
2389700
2394700
2399700
2404700
2409700
2414700
2419700
2424700
2429700
2434700
2439700
2444700
2449700
2454700
2459700
2464700
2469700
2474700
2479700
2484700
2489700
2494700
2499700
2504700
2509700
2514700
2519700
2524700
2529700
2534700
2539700
2544700
2549700
2554700
2559700
2564700
2569700
2574700
2579700
2584700
2589700
2594700
2599700
2604700
2609700
2614700
2619700
2624700
2629700
2634700
2639700
2644700
2649700
2654700
2659700
2664700
2669700
2674700
2679700
2684700
2689700
2694700
2699700
2704700
2709700
2714700
2719700
2724700
535000 535000
530000 530000
525000 525000
520000 520000
515000 515000
510000 510000
505000 505000
500000 500000
495000 495000
490000
485000
WILSON 490000
485000
480000
475000
470000
Edwards Shelf Margin 480000
475000
470000
465000
460000
DE WITT 465000
460000
455000 455000
450000 450000
445000 445000
440000 440000
435000 435000
430000 430000
425000 425000
420000 420000
415000 415000
410000 410000
405000 405000
400000 400000
395000 395000
390000 KARNES 390000
385000
380000
ATASCOSA 385000
380000
375000 ZAVALA FRIO 375000
370000 370000
365000 365000
360000 360000
355000 MAVERICK VICTORIA 355000
350000 350000
345000 345000
340000 340000
335000 335000
330000 330000
325000 325000
320000 320000
315000 315000
310000 310000
305000
300000
295000
290000
Phillips LaSalle #1 GOLIAD 305000
300000
295000
290000
285000 285000
280000 280000
275000 275000
270000 270000
265000 265000
260000 260000
255000 255000
250000 250000
245000 245000
240000 240000
235000 235000
230000
225000
MCMULLEN 230000
225000
220000 220000
215000
210000
DIMMIT 215000
210000
205000 BEE 205000
200000
195000
LA SALLE 200000
195000
190000 190000
185000 185000
180000 180000
175000 175000
170000
165000
160000
155000
Swift Pielop #1 170000
165000
160000
155000
150000 LIVE OAK 150000
145000 145000
140000 140000
135000 135000
130000 130000
125000 125000
120000 120000
115000 115000
110000 110000
105000 105000
100000 100000
95000 95000
90000 90000
85000 85000
80000 80000
75000 75000
70000 70000
65000 65000
60000 60000
55000 55000
50000 50000
45000
40000
35000
30000
Sligo Shelf Margin 45000
40000
35000
30000
25000 25000
20000 20000
15000 15000
10000 10000
5000 5000
0 0
-5000 -5000
-10000 -10000
-15000 -15000

 Very limited well control in prospective area

-20000 -20000
1454700
1459700
1464700
1469700
1474700
1479700
1484700
1489700
1494700
1499700
1504700
1509700
1514700
1519700
1524700
1529700
1534700
1539700
1544700
1549700
1554700
1559700
1564700
1569700
1574700
1579700
1584700
1589700
1594700
1599700
1604700
1609700
1614700
1619700
1624700
1629700
1634700
1639700
1644700
1649700
1654700
1659700
1664700
1669700
1674700
1679700
1684700
1689700
1694700
1699700
1704700
1709700
1714700
1719700
1724700
1729700
1734700
1739700
1744700
1749700
1754700
1759700
1764700
1769700
1774700
1779700
1784700
1789700
1794700
1799700
1804700
1809700
1814700
1819700
1824700
1829700
1834700
1839700
1844700
1849700
1854700
1859700
1864700
1869700
1874700
1879700
1884700
1889700
1894700
1899700
1904700
1909700
1914700
1919700
1924700
1929700
1934700
1939700
1944700
1949700
1954700
1959700
1964700
1969700
1974700
1979700
1984700
1989700
1994700
1999700
2004700
2009700
2014700
2019700
2024700
2029700
2034700
2039700
2044700
2049700
2054700
2059700
2064700
2069700
2074700
2079700
2084700
2089700
2094700
2099700
2104700
2109700
2114700
2119700
2124700
2129700
2134700
2139700
2144700
2149700
2154700
2159700
2164700
2169700
2174700
2179700
2184700
2189700
2194700
2199700
2204700
2209700
2214700
2219700
2224700
2229700
2234700
2239700
2244700
2249700
2254700
2259700
2264700
2269700
2274700
2279700
2284700
2289700
2294700
2299700
2304700
2309700
2314700
2319700
2324700
2329700
2334700
2339700
2344700
2349700
2354700
2359700
2364700
2369700
2374700
2379700
2384700
2389700
2394700
2399700
2404700
2409700
2414700
2419700
2424700
2429700
2434700
2439700
2444700
2449700
2454700
2459700
2464700
2469700
2474700
2479700
2484700
2489700
2494700
2499700
2504700
2509700
2514700
2519700
2524700
2529700
2534700
2539700
2544700
2549700
2554700
2559700
2564700
2569700
2574700
2579700
2584700
2589700
2594700
2599700
2604700
2609700
2614700
2619700
2624700
2629700
2634700
2639700
2644700
2649700
2654700
2659700
2664700
2669700
2674700
2679700
2684700
2689700
2694700
2699700
2704700
2709700
2714700
2719700
2724700

 Prospect was located in a regional setting between two divergent shelf margins which suggested the
presence of a “mini-basin”

 While the geochemical properties were unknown, the depth range (10,000-11,500‟) suggested a
relatively mature source rock
 Key Finding #1:
World Class Petrophysical Characteristics
Atascosa_bee_dewitt_gonzales_liveoak_lasalle_maverick_webb_wilson

Swift
Primarily oil Pielop 1 Swift Pielop #1
Significant portions de-
Log risked
GR Resistivity
AT90 Density
PHIDEDIT Log
Depth(ft)0
Early entry, low avg.
120 0 100 0.3 0 Depth(ft) Top Eagle Ford
10900 10900
10920 cost Eagle Ford 10920
Scalable
10940 Shale 10940
10960 Longer-term leases 10960
10980 Low near-term capital 10980
11000

11000 requirements 11000

11020 11020
11040 11040
11060 11060
11080 11080
11100

11100 11100
11120 11120
11140 11140
11160 11160
11180 11180
11200

11200 11200
11220 11220
11240 11240
11260 Buda 11260
11280 11280
11300

11300 11300 Base Eagle Ford

Key Finding #2:
Positive Geochemical Characteristics

Phillips LaSalle #1
D&A in 1952

Eagle Ford Shale Gas Risk Assessment Diagram

TOC (0-5)

AC

EFS
Tr (50 – 100)
Ro (0.2 – 2.2)

Minimum Threshold

BUDA Phillips LaSalle #1

Tmax (435 - 470) Dryness (0 – 100)

 Key Finding #3:
Seismic Definition of the Reservoir
MT 3D CookWest MIG TVF, 401, 1130 MT GT LR-37, 160.74
MT 3D LAKEWOOD - BURKS
MT RANCH,
GT 77-16,1482,
378.02
125 MT GT 927 MIG TVF, 1368.54
- MT GT 65-253 616 MIG TVF -
SP: 4800.0 4820.0 4840.0 4860.0 4880.0 4900.0 4920.0 4940.0 4960.0 498

Dora Martin 2H

Dora Martin PH 1

Dora Martin 1H

Dora Martin 4H

Dora Martin 2H
1.500

1H
 The anomalously thick Eagle Ford 1.600
Isochron Thick in Center of Hawkville Field
at Hawkville could be identified
with 2D seismic data 1.700

1.800

1.900

EFS Res
Res EF
EFS SR
EFRT es

2.000 Buda

 A grid of 2D data was acquired

2.100

that allowed the mapping of the 2.200

Eagle Ford Shale

entire extent of the thick Eagle
Ford reservoir 2.300

2.400

2.500

Data Courtesy of Seitel, Inc.

Hawkville Field in Late 2008

Petrohawk Energy
STS #1H
Spud Date:08/2008
1st Prod: 10/2008

Petrohawk Energy
Dora Martin #1H
Spud Date:09/2008
1st Prod: 01/2009

Fall 2008
Petrohawk Acreage Position
~160,000 net acres
The Eagle Ford Shale in 2012

Eagle Ford Shale

Competitor Map
Night View of Texas by Satellite
Unconventional Appraisal
Process
Critical Data for Effective Appraisal Program:
Core Data and “Core to Log” Data

 There is nothing more critical to the evaluation of a shale resource than the
extensive data gathered from whole core analysis:
• Measurement of “conventional” reservoir attributes such as Porosity, Sw,
Permeability, etc.

• Identify and measure the mineralogy, specifically clay minerals versus “coarse-
grained” constituents

• Measurement of key geochemical (TOC, Thermal Maturity, etc.) and geomechanical

attributes (Young‟s Modulus and Poisson‟s Ratio)

• Most importantly, calibrate core measurements to conventional open hole log

suites, therefore expanding knowledge regarding reservoir characterization,
formation evaluation (OGIP, Recovery and EUR) and optimization of the hydraulic
fracture stimulation
Pilot Wells During Appraisal Process

• Essential to acquire acceptable “grid” of open hole data subsequent to discovery

• Percentage of wells with pilot holes with complete data suite (core plus full
complement of open hole logs) is low, but it is critical to have adequate baseline of
core data

• Collective data set will enhance:

o Reservoir characterization

o Identify optimum stratigraphic target for lateral

o Help determine the optimum stimulation “recipe” (fluid compatibility ,

geomechanics, stress regime, fracture density, etc.)

o Provide basis for creating algorithms that translate core data to log data
Analytical Process from Core

 Complete Cored Interval

o Spectral Core Gamma
o Fracture & Sedimentological Description
o Core Photography

 Basic Rock Properties

o Porosity characterization (GRI method)
o Steady-state nano-permeability (CT-Scan plugs)

 Reservoir Geology & Geochemistry

o Geochemistry (TOC, Pyrolysis, Vitrinite Reflectance)
o Thin Section Petrography & FIB SEM
o X-Ray Diffraction
Analytical Process from Core (continued)

 Adsorption & Desorption

o Desorbed gas content & composition
o Adsorption isotherm
o Isotope Analysis

 Completion & Stimulation

o Geomechanical Properties (Single-State & Multi-Stage)
o Proppant Embedment and Fracture Conductivity
o Capillary Suction (CST) and Roller-Oven Testing
Basic Petrophysical Workflow

lNTERPRETED cluster analysis

Core Data Xplots
LOG CURVES

facies classification
TOC
Porosity
Permeability
Saturation
Lithology
Geomechanics
ALGORITHMS
 Core to Log Calibration: TOC-Porosity-
Permeability-Saturation
Triple Combo
TOC
Fair correlation coefficient
r2 ~ 0.65
1 2 3 4 5 6
TOC

RHOB
Hydrocarbon-filled Porosity
Highest correlation coefficient
r2 ~ 0.93
Ø-Total

Total HC-filled
porosity porosity
4
Sw based
on default
Rw ~ 0.025
Ø-HC
Max Perm

Permeability
Least dependable of the algorithms
(use qualitatively and in localized zones)

Ø-HC
Core to Log Calibration: Lithology
* Key Element to Mineral Conversions
Dolomite 1.1% element data
Pyrite 3.1% QFM ~ 2.139 * Si from ECS-type element to mineral PEF
logs conversion * check
Plagioclase 3.2% Calcite ~ 2.497 Ca
Calcite + Dolomite ~ -7.5 + 2.69 (Ca + 1.455 Mg)
Pyrite = 1.8709 S 1 1 1
1
Kerogen ~ 0.83 /TOC 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
Clay ~ (1- sum of above)
Quartz
15.4%
(Source : Herron and Herron, 1998)
Clay
15.2% Carbonate
Calcite
60.9% (chalk)
composite lithofacies
display

marl calcareous
mudstone

clay-rich argillaceous siliceous

mudstone mudstone mudstone
 Core to Log Calibration: Geomechanics

1 1 1
4 5 6

Use as a “proxy” for estimating

Vs | DTS
when dipole or sonic scanner
data is unavailable
r2 ~ 0.94 Track 14
Softer

1. Use industry standard Uniaxial

algorithms Compressive
to calculate dynamic elastic Strength
modulii (UCS *)
(Vp, Vs, RhoB) from DTC or Vp
Young’s Modulus Lambda
Static ~ 0.65 * Dynamic Mu
R2 ~ 59% Bulk Modulus
Harder
P-wave Modulus
Poisson‟s Ratio
Young‟s Modulus
Static YM

2. Convert from dynamic to static

modulii for fracture propagation
modeling Softer
Dynamic-static relationships
are derived from multi-stage
Triaxial testing where both static
and dynamic measurements
are collected simultaneously
Dynamic YM
 Core to Log: QC and Interpretation
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
GR-TOC PORO-PERM FRACTURE
RES SATURATION LITHOLOGY PROPAGATION

Top Shale

Base Shale

Rock properties
TOC Sweetspot Frac properties
from ECS-type tool should dovetail with
distribution screening from DTC-DTS
geomechanical descriptions
Facies Extraction Using Geomechanical Data

F
Facies extracted from Crossplot

B
YOUNG’S MODULUS

Cluster Analysis
Poisson’s Ratio vs.

C
Young’s Modulus
Lambda*Rho vs. Mu*Rho
(or any other attribute

E
combination)

A-2
D
A-1 A-3

A-4

POISSON’S RATIO
The Whole Core Itself:
Macro Observations From the Eagle Ford
Marl Foraminifer Marl Foram-Rich Marl

Limestone Calcareous Shale Ash Beds/Bentonite

Courtesy of Core Laboratories

 The Relationship of Eagle Ford Core
to Gamma Ray Showing
Significant Vertical Heterogeneity
GR DEPTH
0 200 FT
Courtesy of Core Laboratories
PS
COREGR_
0 api 200
PS
K 72 SB
PS PS

PS
K 69 SB PS
12750 PS PS
PS
PS PS PS

PS PS

12800
K 65 MFS PS PS

PS

12850 PS PS
K 64 SB PS

PS PS
PS
PS PS
12900 BUDA
PS
PS
K63 SB

PS PS
Buda PS
12950
 Mineralogical Analysis: Relationship of Texture
and Composition to Shale Reservoir Quality

• Epi-fluorescence Petrography Silica-Filled

Algal Cyst
o Lithology
o Rock Type
o Mineralogy
o Micro-Fractures

• X-ray Diffraction Analysis

o Mineralogy
o V Clay

• SEM Analysis
0.1 mm

Courtesy of Core Laboratories

Micro-Textural Relationships:
The Importance of Scale to Proper Reservoir
Identification

0.5 mm

Standard 30-micron-thick slide: Ultra-Thin (20-micron) slide:

No apparent grain support which Significant grain support which
would suggest poor reservoir quality leads to better reservoir quality
Courtesy of Core Laboratories
The Importance of “Coarse-Grained
Constituents”: MINERALOGY by XRD
Haynesville Shale
(Elm Grove Plantation #63 Well)
10387.0

Bossier
10475.0
10643.0
10843.0
10925.0
Depth, feet

11029.5
11047.5
11065.0

Haynesville
11086.5
11107.0
11131.5
11154.5
11176.5
11189.5

0 20 40 60 80 100
Volume Percent
Qtz Ksp Plg Cal Dol Pyr I/S I/M Chl Ker

Courtesy of Core Laboratories

The Importance of “Coarse-Grained
Constituents”:
Marcellus Shale

Courtesy of Core Laboratories

The Importance of “Coarse-Grained
Constituents”: MINERALOGY by XRD
Eagle Ford Shale (PC-Q #1H)

11334.0
11350.5
11366.5
11382.5
11398.0
11414.0
Depth, feet

11430.0 Austin Chalk

11446.0
11462.0
11478.5
11495.0
11510.5
11526.0
11542.0
11558.0 Eagle Ford
11574.0
11590.0
11606.0
11623.0
Buda

0 20 40 60 80 100
Volume Percent
Qtz Plg Cal Dol Pyr Mar I/S I/M Chl Kao Ker

Courtesy of Core Laboratories

 Eagle Ford: Mineralogical Variation Across the
Trend
Maverick Basin Area Hawkville Area San Marcos Area East Texas Area

QTZ %
• Clay content
increases from west
to east
20%

• Kerogen content
remains relatively
constant
CARBONATE % 40%
• Increase in clay
resultant from clastic
influence of the East
Texas Basin
60%

CLAY %
80%

KEROGEN %
100%
XRD Data from Core Lab
The Relationship of Porosity and Permeability to
Mineralogy: Can’t Have One Without the Other
BASIC ROCK PROPERTIES
1.00E-01
1.00E-02
3 MMCFGPD V
1.00E-03 1 md 8 MMCFGPD H
Effective Gas Permeability, md

1.00E-04
1.00E-05
16 MMCFGPD H
1.00E-06 1 md
Raam Unit #3 (Barnett)
1.00E-07
(Haynesville)
1.00E-08 Mr Bill 1-30 (Caney)
1.00E-09 Mr Bill 1-30 (Woodford)
1.5 MMCFGPD V
Barnett (Avg)
1.00E-10
Haynesville (Avg)
1.00E-11
Caney (Avg)
1.00E-12 Woodford (Avg)
250 MCFGPD V
1.00E-13
1.00E-14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Gas-Filled Porosity, percent
Courtesy of Core Laboratories
 Source Rock Reservoirs: Observed Maturity
Effects
Organo Water Saturation Pore Pressure Recovery
Maturity (Ro) Oil Gravity (API) GOR Porosity Gradient Factor
Burial Depth 0.5

0.6

0.7
Oil Window

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1 Maximum Liquids Recovery Zone?

Wet-Gas

1.2

1.3

1.4
Dry Gas

1.5

1.6

1.7
Courtesy of Core Laboratories
The Importance of Stress

Isotropic „Tempered‟ Glass Anisotropic „Natural‟ Glass

Courtesy of Core Laboratories
Measuring Stress: Essential to Understand
Geomechanics of the Reservoir

 Laboratory Measurement
oStatic and Dynamic Measurements on Core Samples (Young‟s
Modulus)

 Log Data
oFull-Waveform Acoustic Logs (Dipole Sonic)
oBulk density
oLithology
Definition of Fracture Geometry

Fracture Width
Height
Growth

Closure
Stress
Fracture

Embedment
Production Zone
Zone
Courtesy of Core Laboratories
Unconventional Development
Process
3D Seismic Data: Critical to a Successful
Development Program

• The cost of 3D seismic data is minimal in the total field development cost

• 3D seismic data is critical in identifying faults and dip changes that could compromise the
stratigraphic targeting of a horizontal wellbore

• Merged ~650 square miles of acquired proprietary data and licensed data in Hawkville
Field
Geo-Steering: An Important New Geoscience Skill
Set

 Horizontal drilling creates significant geological challenges

 Unforeseen dip changes and/or faults can cause a well to be

out of zone for a large portion of a lateral

 The combination of utilizing 3D seismic data and Measured

Depth (MD) to True Vertical Depth (TVD) Gamma Ray
correlation allows the geologist to direct the drilling operation
to allow the well to stay within the target window

 The post-drill geologic interpretation of the wellbore also

provides insight into the completion design and can cause the
completion engineer to vary certain stages of the hydraulic
fracture stimulation depending on the inferred reservoir quality
within each stage
Pre-Drill Well Plan Prior to 3D Seismic Data
Acquisition

 Well plan is designed using subsurface

mapping from well control and regional
2D seismic data
11,000’
 Degree of confidence in the interpretation
is fairly low

Target Line: 11578’ TVD @ Zero Vertical Section Assuming Average 2 degree dip
 Pre-Seismic Geosteering Interpretation at TD
Pilot Hole Gamma Ray

Vertical Section Montage

Horizontal Hole MD Gamma Ray

Horizontal Hole TVD Gamma Ray

3D Seismic Acquired After Completion

Faulting
Geosteering Interpretation Using 3D Seismic Data

Faults were conduit for “frac

hit” by pressure and fluid
transmission from offset well
completion
Stage by Stage Fracture Stimulation Montage

Lost lateral section

from “frac hit” from
offset well
Microseismic Data: Down-Hole View of Fracture
Geometry

Monitor Well

Fault plane
conduit for
“frac hit”
induced by
offset well

Lost Lateral Section

Down-hole geophones
Conclusions

 The geologic aspects of the Exploration process in shale reservoirs require

an “inverted” thought process as compared to conventional exploration and
usually is done with insufficient knowledge of reservoir quality

 The geologic aspects of the Appraisal process in shale reservoirs are highly
dependent on an understanding of the “nano” elements of the reservoir and
require a tremendous amount of data gathering and analysis over an
extremely large area

 The geologic aspects of the Development process in shale reservoirs have

generated a new set of skills, the most prominent being geo-steering, which is
exciting, challenging and cross functional with several engineering disciplines
Acknowledgments

 BHP Billiton Petroleum colleagues, specifically Vanon Sun Chee Fore, Terry
Gebhardt, John Goss, Alan Frink, Andy Pepper, Melissa Florian and Kelley
O‟Brien

 Core Laboratories, specifically Randy Miller

 Seitel, Inc.