See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/294728285

Unconventional reservoirs Supervised by Dr Abdel Moktader A. El Sayed

Article · January 2016

CITATIONS READS
3 2,804

1 author:

Basma Elzafrany
Ain Shams University
6 PUBLICATIONS 26 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

X Leaders View project

Geoelectric study to detect the fresh zones, Fuka area, Northwestern Coast of Egypt View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Basma Elzafrany on 16 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Ain Shams University
Faculty of Science
Department of Geophysics

Basma Ahmed El-Sayed

Prof. Dr. Abdel Moktader A. El-Sayed

Signed by

2016
 P age |1

Acknowledgments
Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Prof. Dr. Abdel
Moktader A. El-Sayed for the continuous support of my Article, for his patience,
motivation, and immense knowledge. His guidance helped me in all the time of
research and writing.

Besides, I would like to thank Dr. Ayman Shebl, for his insightful comments and
encouragement, but also for the hard question which incented me to widen my
research from various perspectives.

My sincere thanks also goes to Dr. Said Abd El-Maaboud, for his helpful notes
and lecture about how to write the Article correctly, also for Dr. Mohammed Sobhy
Helaly, without their precious support it would not be possible to write this research.

Last but not the least, I would like to thank my classmates and my family for
supporting me spiritually throughout writing this Article and my life in general.
 P age |2

Contents
Topics Pages
Abstract 5
Introduction 6
Chapter 1 Reservoir types 8
1.1 Definitions 8
1.2 Types of Unconventional reservoirs 12

Chapter 2 Challenges and opportunities 14

2.1 Why we are interested in Unconventional reservoir 14
2.2 Challenges 16
Chapter 3 Unconventional reservoir characterization 19

3.1 Geologic setting of Non-conventional reservoirs 20

3.2 Petrophysical Aspects of Non-conventional reservoirs 22

3.3 Geochemical aspects of Non-conventional reservoirs 29

3.4 Gemechanical aspects of Non-conventional reservoirs 30

3.5 Other characteristics 33

Chapter 4 Production methodology 34

4.1 Successful Gas shale play 34

4.2 Production of Non-conventional reservoir 36

4.3 Production technique 40

4.4 Production Worldwide 44

4.5 Production in Egypt 45

Summary and conclusion 48

References 49
 P age |3

Figures
Figures Pages
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1 Comparison of Conventional and Unconventional reservoirs 10
Figure 1.2: Comparison of sandstone and shale size 11
Figure 1.3. Worldwide hydrocarbon resources. Note conventional resources 12
make up less than a third of the total
Figure 1.4: Shale Gas, Tight Sands (TGS) and Coalbed Methane (CBM) production 13
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1:US annual oil production and Hubbert’s curve 14
Figure 2.2: Age of oil production 15
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1: Depositional environment of shales 20
Figure 3.2: Burial of shale 21
Figure 3.3: Analytical view of shale with naked eye and under SEM 4000x 23
magnification images
Figure 3.4: Petrophysical model; a schematic of a clay-rich organic-rich rock solid, 25
water, and hydrocarbons.
Figure 3.5: Fishbone diagram of OGIP input parameters. 28

Figure 3.6: Stress-stain diagram 31

Figure 3.7: Plot of Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio compared with Brittleness 32

Index (BI).

Chapter 4

Figure 4.1: shale gas productivity 35

Figure 4.2 well constructing steps 41

Figure 4.3: Hydraulic fracturing 42

Figure 4.4: Multi-fractured horizontal wells 43

 P age |4

Figure 4.5: World Shale Gas and Shale oil resources 44

Figure 4.6: Hydrocarbon basins of the western desert Egypt 46

Tables
Tables Pages
Chapter 1
Table 1.1: A comparison between Unconventional and conventional reservoir 9
Chapter 3

Table 3.2: Gas types 22

Chapter 4
Table 4.3: Shale Gas Reservoir Properties and Resources of Egypt 47
 P age |5

Abstract
This Article is about the Unconventional reservoirs; what are they, what are the
differences between them and the normal Conventional reservoirs and what made us
in need for studying and exploring these reservoirs even if they are very hard to
produce and need much money and sacrifices.

It also describes a geological, petrophysical, geochemical and geomechanical study

of shale gas/oil characteristics that without it we can’t have a successful exploration
and our target is to reach the sweet spots which are defined as the most prospective
volumes of the shale play, they are primarily targeted to achieve early economic
production. From all these studies we can conclude the methodology of exploration,
as well as having a general view about the techniques used for investigation of the
shale gas/oil, and also discussing the worldwide production and in Egypt.
 P age |6

I NTRODUCTION

A IM AND PREVIOUS STUDY

The aim of this study is to know what are the Unconventional reservoirs, their
history, definitions and comparison between them and Conventional reservoir, and
also to know their different types and the reason why we return to the unconventional
resources despite of having easily production by the conventional reservoirs
discussing the challenges and economic value of it.

As well as determining the geological, petro-physical, geochemical and geo-

mechanical characteristics of unconventional reservoir, the methodology of
exploration and production worldwide, its used technique: Hydraulic fracturing and
Horizontal drilling, and finally to have a general view about the production
Worldwide and in Egypt.

History of Unconventional reservoirs

Previously known as essential component of a petroleum system as a source rock, a

seal and cap rock, mature and organically rich source rocks are now being developed
as most promising alternative source of natural gas globally. Albeit complex
multiphase gas storage and flow mechanisms, carbonaceous shale characterization
techniques have reasonably improved and taken appreciable strides forward,
especially in the last decade. Development of shale gas reservoir had been a
challenge until 2000, but due to rigorous efforts and highly sought after fast
improvement in multilateral horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing and multistage
state of the art completion techniques have made all these reservoirs economically
fit to develop and produce commercial quantities of natural gas from them. Before
going into details about geological, geochemical and petro-physical nature of shale
 P age |7

gas reservoirs and its case study in Egypt, a summarized historical background about
unconventional shale gas industry in the World.

Shale gas history

Green C. 2012; Bustin et al.,2013 illustrated the shale gas history, the events &
Development in Geoscienttfic Research and Engineering Innovation: In 1821 the
first commercial gas well drilled in USA/Appalachian Basin/Devonian Shale.
Fredonia, New York. In 1859 A commercial oil well drilled in USA, at the period of
1860's-1920's Consumption of natural gas starts from Appalachian and Illinois Basin
in local markets. In 1930's construction of a Natural gas supply/transmission through
pipelines. In 1940's Hydraulic fracturing experimented on gas well Kelpper Well
No. 1 in Grant County, Kansas. In 1970's Directional drilling is introduced in
industry. At the period of 1970's-1980's the department of Energy announced the
extensive unconventional gas potential country wide in USA. At the period of
1980's-1990's the department of Energy and Gas Research Institute announced
multi-disciplinary projects: To improve large hydraulic fracturing design. reservoir
characterization and completion techniques: To improve technology and make
Barnett shale an economical success by multi-lateral horizontal drilling hydraulic
fracturing in shale gas formations for commercial production. From 2001 to 2004
Barnett shale proved big success — A milestone in shale gas Industry. At 2005 -
2010 A major shale gas plays development intensifies in USA. Finally, in 2010
USA/Canadian Oil and Gas upstream operators took interest in overseas shale gas
plays/systems
 P age |8

Chapter 1
1 RESERVOIR TYPES

1.1 D EFINITIONS

A Conventional Reservoir is a reservoir in which buoyant forces keep hydrocarbons

in place below a sealing cap rock. Reservoir and fluid characteristics of conventional
reservoirs typically permit oil or natural gas to flow readily into wellbores. The term
is used to make a distinction from shale and other unconventional reservoirs, in
which gas might be distributed throughout the reservoir at the basin scale, and in
which buoyant forces or the influence of a water column on the location of
hydrocarbons within the reservoir are not significant.

What are Unconventional Resources?

Unconventional resources are hydrocarbon reservoirs that have low permeability

and porosity and so are difficult to produce. Often enhanced recovery techniques,
such as fracture stimulation or steam injection etc., must be performed, making the
process more difficult than a conventional play. Figure 1.1 describes the difference
between the Unconventional and Conventional production, as in conventional it is
not necessary to drill horizontal if we have the well vertically but, on the second
hand we produce from the source in the unconventional condition so we must have
a horizontal drilling, Also The trapping system occur at the conventional only. For
further descriptions, (table 1.1).

As we mention above, the unconventional reservoir could be shales as it is well-

known as a source of the petroleum system, the shale is a sedimentary rock that is
predominantly comprised of very fine-grained clay particles deposited in a thinly
 P age |9

laminated texture. These rocks were originally deposited as mud in low energy
depositional environments, such as tidal flats and swamps, where the clay particles
fall out of suspension. During the formation of these sediments, organic matter is
also deposited, which is measured when quoting the Total Organic Content (TOC).

Conventional Reservoir Unconventional reservoir

Contain gas can flow naturally and easily Low permeability makes the flow is
not easy
Gas and oil is migrated from the source Gas and oil does not migrate
“shale”
The reservoir rocks e.g.: The reservoir rock is the source itself
and has many types:
1-Sandstones
1- Shale Gas/Oil
2- Fractured limestones
2- Tight Sands (TGS)
3-Fractured dolomite
3- Coalbed Methane (CBM)

4- Tar sands

5- Methane Hydrates

Easily production by direct method To produce from unconventional, we

stimulate reservoir by creating a
fracture network
Table 1.1: A comparison between Unconventional and conventional reservoir
 P a g e | 10

Deep burial of this mud results in a layered rock called “Shale”, which actually
describes the very fine grains and laminar nature of the sediment, not rock
composition, which can therefore differ significantly between shales.

The difference about shales is the matrix permeabilities of typical shales (the ability
of fluids to pass through them) are very low (often termed ultra-low) compared to
conventional low permeability oil and gas reservoirs (nanodarcy 10 -9 Darcy in shales
versus millidarcy 10-2 in conventional sandstones) which means that hydrocarbons
are effectively trapped and unable to flow under normal circumstances in shale, and
 P a g e | 11

usually only able to migrate out over geologic time (Figure 1.2). The slow migration
of hydrocarbons from shales into shallower sandstone and carbonate reservoirs has
been the source of most conventional oil and gas fields, hence shales have
historically been thought of as source and seal rocks, rather than potential reservoirs,
but much of the hydrocarbon still remains bound in the shale.

Figure 1.2: Comparison of sandstone and shale size

Only a third of worldwide oil and gas reserves are conventional, the remainder are
in unconventional resources.

Examples of unconventional resources are:

o Tight Gas sands (TGS)

o Coalbed Methane (CBM)
 P a g e | 12

o Shale Gas
o Shale Oil
o Heavy Oil/Tar sands
o Methane Hydrates

Figure 1.3. Worldwide hydrocarbon resources. Note

conventional resources make up less than a third of the
total
1.2 T YPES OF UNCONVENTIONAL RESOURCES:

1. Shale Gas and Shale Oil – Wells produce from ultra-low permeability shale
formations that may also be the source rock for other gas and oil reservoirs. The
natural hydrocarbon volumes can be stored in fracture porosity, within the micro-
pores of the shale itself, or adsorbed onto the shale.

2. Tight Gas Sands (TGS) – Wells produce from low-porosity sandstones and
carbonate reservoirs. The gas is sourced outside the reservoir and migrates into the
reservoir over geological time. Some Tight Gas reservoirs have also been found to
be sourced by underlying coal and shales source rocks, in the so called Basin Centred
Gas (BCG) accumulations.

3. Coal Bed Methane (CBM) – Wells produce from coal seams which act as source
and reservoir to the produced gas. These wells often produce water in the initial
production phase, as well as natural gas. Economic CBM reservoirs are normally
shallow, as the coal matrix tends to have insufficient strength to maintain porosity at
depth.

4. Tar sands – Oil sands are either loose sands or partially consolidated sandstone
containing a naturally occurring mixture of sand, clay, and water, saturated with a
 P a g e | 13

dense and extremely viscous form of petroleum technically referred to as bitumen

(or colloquially tar due to its similar appearance, odour, and colour).

5. Methane hydrate – is a solid clathrate compound (more specifically, a clathrate

hydrate) in which a large amount of methane is trapped within a crystal structure of
water, forming a solid similar to ice. Originally thought to occur only in the outer
regions of the Solar System, where temperatures are low and water ice is common,
significant deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the
ocean floors of the Earth. Figure 1.3 describes the differences between some types.

Figure 1.4: Shale Gas, Tight Sands (TGS) and Coalbed Methane (CBM) production.
 P a g e | 14

Chapter 2
2 CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

2.1 W HY WE ARE INTERESTED IN UNCONVENTIONAL RESOURCES

Are We Running Out of Oil?

For decades, experts have been debating the timing of a peak in the discovery and
production of conventional oil reserves. In 1998, geologist Colin Campbell predicted
that global production of conventional oil would begin to decline within 10 years.
His forecast, commonly referred to as "peak oil," was endorsed and elaborated on
by many respected geologists and commentators, including Princeton Univers ity
geologist Kenneth Deffeyes. At the heart of most predictions of peak oil is a
prediction made by Marion King Hubbert in 1956. In the mid-1950s, Hubbert used
a curve-fitting technique to correctly predict that U.S. oil production would peak by
1970 (figure 2.1). The so-called Hubbert curve is now widely used in the analysis of
peaking production of conventional petroleum.

Figure 2.1:US annual oil production and Hubbert’s curve

 P a g e | 15

According to the Hubbert curve, the production of a finite resource, when viewed
over time, will resemble an inverted U, or a bell curve. This follows from the
technical limits of exploitation, where the estimated parameters of the curve
determine the rate of ascent and descent before and after the peak. "Peak oil" is the
term used to describe the situation where the rate of oil production reaches its
absolute maximum and begins to decline.

Hubbert's thesis has been applied to world oil production, and peak oil advocates
have in recent years been arguing that the majority of the world's oil production was
concentrated in mature, aging fields from which the extraction of additional supplies
will be increasingly costly as mechanical or chemical aids are used to induce
artificial (as opposed to natural) lift. According to Peak Oil Theory, as each older
field peaks, world production will fall and oil prices will rise.

Clearly, we live in the age of oil, but it is drawing to a close. In the long view, it did
not last long only one century (figure 2.2).
It is hard to escape the conclusion that
recent wars have something to do with
energy resources. It is disappointing to
note that the world seems to be lurching
toward a series of energy resource wars. So
it is time for the world to start thinking Figure 2.2: Age of oil production
about new energy sources one of them is the gas and oil sources of “Unconventional
reservoir”. We will summarize the need of unconventional reservoir.

Why do we need Unconventional Reservoirs?

World daily life is built on different types of energy Despite economy suffers ups
and downs as a general trend energy demand goes up:
 P a g e | 16

1- Growing population and income per capital.

2- Modern life depends basically on electricity and/or natural gas.
3- Globalization has incremented traveling around the globe, thus increasing
different types of fuel demand for air, sea and ground transportation.

Conventional sources are running out No more giants like Saudi Arabia, the large
reserves in environmentally sensitive areas (Alaska, Florida, Pacific), the subsalt
discoveries in Brazil – expensive, counterpart in Africa – expensive Self-sufficiency
is critical for certain countries under the world political scenario.

Renewables (Wind, Solar, Biodiesel, Biomass, Geothermal, Nuclear, Hydropower,

Marine power, Anaerobic digestion/algae) are not enough to fill in the gap of total
energy demand.

2.2 C HALLENGES

Can it be extracted safely?

There are risks and challenges associated with the extraction of any mineral
resource, including shale gas. It is important that such activity is appropriately
regulated, and risks identified and managed. Three areas of potential risk which have
given rise to particular concern among policy-makers and the public are:
groundwater contamination; water sourcing and disposal; and induced seismicity.

1. Groundwater contamination

In the UK, groundwater provides 35% of our drinking water. Groundwater is also
important to support surface water flow and regulate the health of ecosystems.
Concerns have been raised about the possible contamination of groundwater by
methane, fracking fluid chemicals, and dissolved contaminants in flow back water,
as a result of shale gas operations.
 P a g e | 17

In Britain, most aquifers used for drinking water lie within the first 300 metres below
the surface, while fracking operations would take place at a depth of more than two
kilometers. Assuming wells are properly constructed, contamination of groundwater
through migration of methane and fracking fluids from shale formations to shallow
aquifers through stimulated fractures could only take place if the fractures are able
to propagate vertically through the intervening layers of rock.

2. Water sourcing and disposal

Between 9,000m3 and 29,000m3 of water is required to drill and carry out multi-
stage fracturing of each well in US operations, with multiple wells often located on
a single ‘well pad’. In areas where fresh water supplies are already under stress (or
at times when this is the case), abstracting fresh water at this level for shale gas
extraction is therefore likely to cause additional stress.

For shale gas to meet 10% of UK gas demand would require 1.2-1.6 million m3of
water annually. However, this represents only about 0.01% of licensed annual water
abstraction for England and Wales in 2010. Saline or recycled water is increasingly
being used for shale gas extraction, and work is underway to develop better
integrated water management solutions.

Some of the fluid remains in the deep sub-surface, where it aids retention of the
mechanical integrity of the rock. Between 20% and 80% returns to the surface as
flowback water, where it must be managed safely. In small amounts, this can be
disposed of in standard industrial water treatment plants. Larger volumes of fluid
require specialist processing for disposal or re-use. Flow back water may contain
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) at low levels, as is the case in
 P a g e | 18

conventional oil and gas extraction and some areas of mining, and procedures for
their effective management are well-established.

3. Induced seismicity

Induced seismicity – the release of energy stored in the Earth’s crust triggered by
human activity – is known to be caused by activities such as mining, deep quarrying,
geothermal energy production and underground fluid disposal.

In 2011, two seismic events of magnitude 2.3 and 1.5 took place in Lancashire, close
to a fracking test site operated by Cuadrilla. Operations were suspended, and
subsequent studies have suggested that hydraulic fracturing is likely to have been
the cause, by reactivating an existing fault.

The maximum magnitude of any seismic event is dependent on the mechanical

strength of the rock. The crust in most of the UK is relatively weak, and unable to
store sufficient energy for large seismic events. This means that the largest natural
earthquake we can expect is likely to be no greater than magnitude 6. However,
based on our understanding of the mechanical strength of shale and case studies of
fracking operations in the USA, it is extremely unlikely that seismic events induced
by fracking will ever reach a magnitude greater than 3. These are likely to be
detectable by few people and are highly unlikely to cause any structural damage at
the surface. To minimize the risk of seismic events even at this level, operators
should avoid drilling through or near faults, and micro seismicity should be
monitored in real time before, during and after fracking, with effective management
systems in place to respond to the results, including monitoring possible damage to
well integrity.
 P a g e | 19

Chapter 3
3 UNCONVENTIONAL R ESERVOIRS CHARACTERIZATION

The most important to study is the Shale gas/oil and its properties. The definition
best describes the reservoir is “organic-rich, and fine-grained” (Bustin, 2006).
However, the term ‘shale’ is used very loosely and—by intent—does not describe
the lithology of the reservoir. Lithological variations in American shale gas
reservoirs indicate that natural gas is hosted not only in shale but also a wide
spectrum of lithology and texture from mudstone (i.e., nonfissile shale) to siltstone
and fine-grained sandstone, any of which may be of siliceous or carbonate
composition. For simplification we will talk about shale deposition and
characteristics. Shale gas has become an increasingly important source of natural gas
in the United States since the start of this century, and interest has spread to potential
gas shales in the rest of the world. In 2000 shale gas provided only 1% of U.S. natural
gas production; by 2010 it was over 20% and the U.S. government's Energy
Information Administration predicts that by 2035, 46% of the United States' natural
gas supply will come from shale gas.

We will discuss the geological, geochemical and geomechanical aspects of shale gas
in this chapter, also petrophysical aspects must be constructed as shales ordinarily
have insufficient permeability to allow significant fluid flow to a wellbore. Most
shales are not commercial sources of natural gas, so gas production in commercial
quantities requires fractures to provide permeability. the shale gas boom in recent
years has been due to modern technology in hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to create
extensive artificial fractures around well bores and we will discuss the technique of
production in chapter 4.
 P a g e | 20

3.1 G EOLOGICAL SETTING OF SHALE GAS/OIL RESERVOIR

Depositional environment

Shale is formed in an environment that consists of calm water: for example, water
near the shores of large lakes or continental shelves at sea edges (figure 3.1). The
calmness of the water enables suspended particles like clay to eventually sink and
settle in the bottom of the lake or sea. Silica and calcium carbonate from marine life,
particularly from shells, also settle with the clay particles, and over time they form
cement for the clay particles to "lithify" that is, become rock and form shale. When
extensive organic material such as plankton and plants becomes embedded with the
shale, oil /gas shale can form.

Figure 3.1: Depositional environment of shales and burial of extensive organic material can form
oil /gas shale.
 P a g e | 21

Shale Depositional Processes

Recent studies of sedimentary features of shales have refuted the long-held

generalization that shales are the product of deposition in quiet water environments
as ‘hemipelagic rain’. Some shales reveal a systematic fining upward or coarsening-
upward, followed by fining-upward grain-size pattern while others display
systematic stacking pattern of lithofacies that indicate temporal changes in water
depths, energy levels, and/or degree of bottom-water oxygenation. From these and
other studies, a list of potential transport, deposition, and reworking processes
include (in addition to hemipelagic rain): (1) hyperpycnal flows, (2) turbidity current
flows, (3) tempestites (storm deposits) and wave-reworked deposits; and (4)
contourites (bottom hugging slope, oceanic currents).

Shale is buried over millions of years and a biological decay occur. The gas shale
should stay deeply buried, Figure 3.2 describes the maturation from mud to gas/oil
shale.

Figure 3.2: Burial of shale

 P a g e | 22

3.2 P ETROPHYSICAL ASPECTS OF NON-CONVENTIONAL RESERVOIRS

Nature of gas storage “porosity”

the gas is present as: “Table 3.2”

Adsorbed gas gas bounded to clays and organic material
Free gas gas present in small pores and micro-fissures
Dissolved gas present in other fluid (e.g. bitumen, oil, water)
Gas storage in shale gas reservoirs occurs in the adsorbed state within kerogen, in
the released or free state within kerogen porosity, in the free state within
intergranular pore space (including micro-fractures), and in natural macro-scale
fractures. (We will not consider absorbed gas, i.e. gas dissolved in oil or water.) A
significant fraction of the free gas can be stored within kerogen porosity.

This statement is conditional upon the size of the intrakerogen pores, which in turn
is a function of the nature of the kerogen and the degree of thermal maturity. Small
intrakerogen pores may be occupied almost entirely by adsorbed gas, in which case
the free gas will occur mostly in the inorganic pores. As more of the adsorbed gas is
released into a potentially free state, kerogen porosity will increase. Larger kerogen
pore sizes may be filled with free gas but they have a relatively small adsorbed gas
content. A key challenge for petrophysics is to distinguish quantitatively between
the porosities associated with free and adsorbed gas. Furthermore, adsorbed,
released and inorganic free gas may have different properties (e.g. Ambrose et al.
2012). The amount of adsorbed gas expressed as a percentage of the total gas volume
has been reported to vary from 20–85 % within target beds of major North American
shale gas plays (e.g. Faraj et al . 2004).
 P a g e | 23

Types of porosity

There are three components of total porosity. First, there is the porosity within
natural fractures ‘Fracture porosity’, which provide flow channels to a wellbore,
perhaps via induced fractures. Second, there is ‘intergranular porosity’, which
contains electrochemically-bound water, capillary-bound water, and free fluids that
are mostly presumed to comprise gas. Intergranular porosity is non-zero in the
(petrophysical) effective porosity system only if the shale is not electrochemically
and compositionally ‘perfect’: it is always non-zero in the total porosity system.
Third, there is porosity associated with the organic content. This ‘organic porosity’
sits well below the micro-porosity range and is visible to scanning electron
microscopy (SEM) down to about five nanometers below which scanning
transmission electron microscopy (STEM) is needed to see the very small pores
(Figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3: Analytical view of shale with naked eye and under SEM 4000x magnification images
show different types of clay plates contribute to the microporosity of the sample: kaolinite (a)
and montmorillonite (b).

A useful petrophysical model has to accommodate the porosity created by gas

desorption in the kerogen. This is an important issue because this created porosity
can account for up to 50 % of the kerogen volume (e.g. Elgmati et al. 2011).
 P a g e | 24

Kerogen porosity varies with thermal maturity, so any model that takes account of
kerogen porosity will have to define kerogen properties in the light of the degree of
maturity. Moreover, a model that discriminates between intrakerogen pore space and
the kerogen itself will have to consider the organic porosity as potentially part of the
total interconnected porosity. The problem is compounded by the observation that
porosity occurs mostly within kerogen in some shales and mostly within

the intergranular pore space in others (Sondergeld et al. 2010a). Note that formation-
evaluation methods established for conventional reservoirs are likely to be stretched
in shale gas reservoirs because of a high clay-mineral content that requires a large
‘correction’ to log responses. Once the distributions of organic and inorganic
porosity have been established, they have to be related to any natural fracture
network.

As shown in Figure 2.2, a typical shale-gas rock volume is composed of matrix made
up of inorganic minerals and organic matter, along with pore space between these
components. One of the sources of disparity in the porosity values reported by
different laboratories is likely because of the way the term “porosity” is defined and
used.

Some laboratories report a “total porosity” which is the pore space that holds the
hydrocarbons, mobile water, and irreducible water composed of capillary and
surface claybound water; whereas others report an “effective” or “humidity-dried”
porosity that does not include the pore space occupied by the surface (or interlayer)
“clay-bound” water. Unfortunately, the measurement of the “clay-bound” water may
not be very accurate or precise due to variable definitions or conditions under which
it is measured (e.g., temperature, humidity), rendering the term difficult to transform
from a quantitative “effective” porosity to a quantitative “total” porosity. It is widely
accepted that core analysis of conventional rocks must be carried out at reservoir
 P a g e | 25

stress since rock properties measured in absence of stress are quite different from
measurements at reservoir stress.

Figure 3.4: Petrophysical model; a schematic of a clay-rich organic-rich rock solid, water, and
hydrocarbons. V. K. Bust et al.

Permeability

For shale gas and oil reservoirs, if there are no fractures, there will be no economical
hydrocarbon productions. Permeability of intact matrix rock is also important, and
critical for optimal well stimulations. The matrix permeability should be properly
determined in lab (and in field). Shale gas may be stored as free gas in natural
fractures and intergranular porosity, as gas adsorbed onto kerogen and clay-particle
surfaces, or as gas dissolved in kerogen. Permeability is achieved through natural
 P a g e | 26

fracture systems or hydraulic stimulation. Storage is mainly in the matrix and the
permeability is assured by the fractures.

For dry gas, no commercial rates below 0.1 mD unless well is hydraulically fractured
If multiphase flow exists, gas production is much lower In shales K< <0.1 mD, so
matrix flow is extremely low. Need to have extremely large contact areas to get
economical rates. Presence of natural fissures and fractures enhance fluid flow
tremendously.

Formation-water salinity

Water salinity leads to water conductivity and thence water resistivity, which is input
to electrical methods of evaluating water saturation. Formation-water samples from
shale gas reservoirs are scarce and, where available, they can be misleading due to
the influence of produced flowback water and free water found in natural fractures,
which may not be representative of the salinity in the shale. Moreover, water
production from shale can be variable (Zuber et al. 2002). Water may not be
produced from some shale gas pore systems because many of these have irreducible
or even sub-irreducible water saturations (Wang & Reed 2009). Against this
backdrop, formation-water salinity has been seen to be highly variable within shale
gas systems. For example, Luffel et al. (1992) reported a salinity range of 12 000–
222 000 ppm NaCl-equivalent based on Dean-Stark analysis of preserved, crushed
whole-core from the Huron Formation in Devonian shale of the Appalachian region.

As noted above, water salinity is a key unknown in resistivity derived water

saturation equations. Large variations in water resistivity over short vertical
distances have been reported with no apparent relationship to organic content or any
other petrophysical parameter (Sondergeld et al. 2010b). Where salinity analysis is
based on extracted waters from crushed core, the data represent a combination of
 P a g e | 27

electrochemically-bound and capillary-bound waters. At higher clay-mineral

contents, electrochemically-bound water will be more pronounced. At lower clay-
mineral contents, capillary-bound water will predominate. Once again, the key-well
concept can be highly beneficial, this time by providing a sampled reference set of
laboratory-measured salinity of the interstitial water along targeted lengths of the
wellbore. This dataset can be seen as potentially calibrating a log-derived method of
predicting formation-water resistivity. In so doing, note that data quality can be a
function of sample size.

Free and adsorbed gas

To characterize a shale gas reservoir properly, it is necessary to evaluate the amount

of free gas in the intergranular pore space and within the kerogen, as well as the
adsorption properties of the kerogen itself. The key question remains, i.e. whether
adsorbed gas should be included within the kerogen, thereby affecting properties
such as kerogen density, or whether it should be seen as occupying intrakerogen
porosity, in which case there is a need to distinguish between adsorbed gas and
released gas within a total intrakerogen porosity.

Total oil/gas in place

The approach described here seeks to gather all the parameters necessary for the
calculation of total gas in place. The variability of shale gas reservoirs precludes the
use of a single set of average reservoir parameters to estimate oil/gas volumes. Each
reservoir zone in each well would have its own set of average parameters.

The fishbone diagram of Figure 3.5 identifies the required input parameters to
estimate total in-place gas volumes. These parameters can be based on well-specific
core and log data, local shale-play data, or regional analogue information.
 P a g e | 28

Gas and oil in place is governed by four characteristics: pressure, temperature, gas-
filled porosity and net organically rich shale thickness. 1-Pressure: areas of higher
pressure are identified as they have higher gas concentration. (0.433 psi per foot:
normal hydrostatic gradient). 2-Temperature: A normal temperature gradient of 1oF
per foot of depth is used. 3- Gas-filled porosity: usually determined from cores and
log curves. 4- Net organically rich shale thickness: shale intervals determined from
seismic interpretation are scrutinized for organic-rich intervals using logs. A net-to-
gross thickness is then established. (discussed further in “other properties and Ch.3”)

Figure 3.5: Fishbone diagram of OGIP input parameters. Core data in green; field data in brown.
 P a g e | 29

3.3 G EOCHEMICAL ASPECTS OF NON-CONVENTIONAL RESERVOIRS

Geochemistry

We have to understand firstly the Conventional geochemical characterization of

resource shales that includes assessment of the rock’s organic richness (i.e., total

organic carbon – TOC), quality (e.g. visual kerogen analysis, hydrogen index –HI),

and maturity (e.g., vitrinite reflectance, etc.) to estimate quantity and type of
generated hydrocarbons. From Rock Eval analysis, prolific gas-shale systems are
usually characterized by high organic richness (usually > 2% TOC) and HI values
>350 mg HC/gm of rock.

TOC values generally follow the same trend as gamma-ray log response, with higher
TOC rocks exhibiting a higher API gamma-ray count. Of the various common visual
kerogen types (Types I-IV), many of the shales contain Type II kerogen (oil prone)
or Type II/III (oil/gas prone) kerogen.

Thermal maturity:

measure of the degree to which a formation has been exposed to high heat needed to
break down organic matter into hydrocarbons. Thermal maturity - useful indicator
is vitrinite reflectance (Ro); whether the rock has generated hydrocarbons and could
be an effective source rock. - prospective reservoirs have typical values ranging from
1 to 3% Ro. - higher thermal maturity leads to the presence of nanopores,
contributing to additional porosity in the shale matrix.

Organic maturity as measured by vitrinite reflectance (Ro) is usually 0.6-0.9% Ro

for shale oil and >1.1% Ro for shale gas. Thickness of organic-rich strata is quite
variable, but generally > 200 ft (65 m); thicker rocks have reduced expulsion
 P a g e | 30

efficiencies so that more hydrocarbons are retained during initial generation, thus
preserving TOC for deeper and later burial maturation and generation.

Geochemical biomarkers are very useful indicators of oxic or anoxic bottom water
conditions of mud depositional environments (e.g Steranes can be used to
differentiate marine from terrestrial organic source material, The presence of
Gammacerene in sediments indicates elevated salinity etc.).

Total organic carbon (TOC) content:

Organic matter such as micro-organism fossils and plant matter provide the carbon,
oxygen and hydrogen atoms needed to create natural gas and oil. Total organic
carbon (TOC) content - TOC of prospective areas equal to or greater than 2%. An
attractive feature of the shale gas reservoirs is its organic richness.

3.4 G EOMECHANICAL ASPECTS OF NON-CONVENTIONAL RESERVOIRS

Geomechanics

The common geological characteristics of shales influence their geomechanical

properties and thus well drilling and completions of particular interest and
importance is the ability to predict the relative brittleness or ductility of rock within
a stratified shale sequence. The two common measures of rock strength and
deformation are Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio (Figure1.6). Young’s
modulus is a measure of the amount of strain or deformation of a rock by an applied
stress or force (Figures3.6 B,3.6 C). Poisson’s Ratio is a measure of the change in
shape (degree of deformation) of a rock to an applied stress or force. A brittle rock
is one that deforms elastically as stress is applied, then breaks (ruptures) without
being plastically deformed (Figure3.6A). A ductile rock is one that undergoes plastic
deformation before breakage (rupture) at a given stress.
 P a g e | 31

Figure 3.6: A. Stress-stain diagram showing the behavior of brittle and ductile rocks due to
application of compressive stress. B. Initial dimensions of a block of rock and changes in these
dimensions upon application of stress. C. Equations for Young’s modulus (E) and Poisson’s
ratio(Pr). Symbols are given in the figures.

Another popular measure of a rock’s breakage characteristics is the ‘brittleness

index,’ which is a parameter based upon mineralogy and TOC content (Figure3.7).
The assumption behind the brittleness index is that quartz (and sometimes dolomite-
and/or calcite) rich rocks will be more brittle than clay- and organic-rich rocks.

Geo-mechanical and mineralogical properties are related. Rocks with a relatively

large numerical value of Poisson’s ratio and small Young’s modulus tend to have a
low brittleness index and are thus ductile. Rocks with a small Poisson’s ratio and a
large Young’s modulus tend to have a higher brittleness index and are thus relatively
brittle. According to study the brittle shale is preferable in production to facilities
the production when a hydraulic fracturing system is established.
 P a g e | 32

Figure 3.7: Plot of Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio compared with Brittleness Index (BI).

Equation for brittleness index is shown.

In addressing the petrophysical challenges in geomechanical applications, the initial

focus is on developing an understanding of the mechanical rock properties,
overburden and pore pressure variations along the wellbore in order to calculate
native state stress profiles (Mullen et al . 2007). Conventional wireline sonic, or
preferably dipole sonic logs, may be used to calculate Poisson’s ratio, Young’s
modulus, and shear or rigidity moduli from which to estimate pore pressure and net
stress. In practice these dynamic log-based properties require calibration by using
core data to estimate their static equivalents, especially Young’s modulus.

To compensate partially for an absence of core, algorithms have been developed to

convert log-based dynamic moduli to their static equivalents (Mullen et al. 2007;
Jacobi et al. 2009). Brittle rock-type compositions are recognized by a low Poisson’s
ratio and a high Young’s modulus (Rahmanian et al. 2010). Cross-plots of Poisson’s
 P a g e | 33

ratio and Young’s modulus can be used to identify brittle and ductile rock types
within the shale play (Grieser & Bray 2007; Tyagi et al. 2011).

3.5 O THER CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-CONVENTIONAL RESERVIORS

Depth:

Depth criterion: > 1000m and < 5000m. Areas shallower than 1000m have lower
pressure and gas concentration. Areas greater than 5000m have reduced permeability
entailing higher drilling and development costs.

Net pay:

The adjustment from total gas in place to net gas in place calls for the application of
net-pay criteria. There are no standard protocols for conventional reservoirs, let
alone for unconventional reservoirs. Net pay can only be measured at a wellbore.
 P a g e | 34

Chapter 4
4 P RODUCTION METHODOLOGY

4.1 S UCCESSFUL SHALE GAS PLAY

Reservoir mechanism:

During shale gas production, the reservoir pressure is lowered by dewatering (of the
fractures) and by free-gas production. This stimulates desorption and it allows the
released gas to diffuse and/or flow to the fractures. This process is partia lly
controlled by intergranular transmissibility as exposed at a fracture surface. If the
latter is smaller than fracture transmissibility, the intergranular permeation
properties will limit production. The converse can apply and the situation can change
according to the stage of production. An assessment of prevailing hydraulic
conditions brings together petrophysics, reservoir engineering and geomechanics.
Faced with these potentially different situations, the key to enhanced production

is high-volume fracture stimulation and an insight into fracture growth (e.g. Cipolla
2009). The main petrophysical challenge in selecting target zones for stimulation is
to make a meaningful assessment of fracturability, for example by targeting intervals
that are already naturally fractured (Du et al. 2009) or perhaps by using quartz
content as an indicator of brittleness (e.g. Jarvie et al. 2007).

sweet spots:

Sweet spots are defined as the most prospective volumes of the shale play. They are
primarily targeted to achieve early economic production. They are characterized by
higher resource concentrations with potential for economically viable development
 P a g e | 35

(e.g. Hashmy et al. 2011). The identification of sweet spots has been synthesized
into recognizing zones of good hydrocarbon reservoir quality (TOC and thermal
maturity, poro-perm character, fluid saturations, gas in place) and good completion
quality (stress regime, mineralogy, natural fractures). Thus, a sweet spot can be
described as a formation volume that has the following characteristics:

•• low water saturation with high TOC content and thence high kerogen content;

•• low clay content and thence high brittleness index for fracturability;

•• higher porosity;

•• higher (effective interparticle) permeability; and

•• low fracture initiation pressure preferably evidenced by natural fractures.

Elements of a successful shale gas play are summarized in figure 4.1 that we have
been describing in chapter 3.
 P a g e | 36

Figure 4.1: shale gas productivity

4.2 P RODUCTION OF NON-CONVENTIONAL RESERVOIRS

The methodology for conducting the basin- and formation-level assessments of shale
gas and shale oil resources includes the following five topics:

1. Conducting preliminary geologic and reservoir characterization of shale

basins and formation(s).

Preliminary geological and reservoir data are assembled for each major shale basin
and formation, including the following key items:

o Depositional environment of shale (marine vs non-marine)

o Depth (to top and base of shale interval)

o Structure, including major faults

o Gross shale interval

 P a g e | 37

o Organically-rich gross and net shale thickness

o Total organic content (TOC, by wt.)

o Thermal maturity (Ro)

These geologic and reservoir properties are used to provide a first order overview of
the geologic characteristics of the major shale gas and shale oil formations and to
help select the shale gas and shale oil basins and formations deemed worthy of more
intensive assessment.

2. Establishing the areal extent of the major shale gas and shale oil
formations.

Having identified the major shale gas and shale oil formations, the next step is to
undertake more intensive study to define the areal extent for each of these
formations. For this, the study team searches the technical literature for regional as
well as detailed, local cross sections identifying the shale oil and gas formations of
interest.

3. Defining the prospective area for each shale gas and shale oil formation.

An important and challenging resource assessment step is to establish the portions

of the basin that, in our view, are deemed to be prospective for development of shale
gas and shale oil. The criteria used for establishing the prospective area are
mentioned before in chapter 2 include:

1- depositional environment: An important criterion is the depositional

environment of the shale, particularly whether it is marine or non-marine.
Marine-deposited shales tend to have lower clay content and tend to be high
in brittle minerals such as quartz, feldspar and carbonates. Brittle shales
 P a g e | 38

respond favorably to hydraulic stimulation. Shales deposited in non-marine

settings (lacustrine, fluvial) tend to be higher in clay, more ductile and less
responsive to hydraulic stimulation.
2- depth: The depth criterion for the prospective area is greater than 1,000 meters
but less than 5,000 meters (3,300 feet to 16,500 feet). Areas shallower than
1,000 meters have lower reservoir pressure and thus lower driving forces for
oil and gas recovery. In addition, shallow shale formations have risks of
higher water content in their natural fracture systems. Areas deeper than 5,000
meters have risks of reduced permeability and much higher drilling and
development costs.
3- total organic content (TOC): the average TOC of the prospective area needs
to be greater than 2%.

4- thermal maturity: measures the degree to which a formation has been exposed
to high heat needed to break down organic matter into hydrocarbons.

4. Estimating the risked shale gas and shale oil in-place (OIP/GIP).

The calculation of oil in-place for a given areal extent (acre, square mile) is
governed, to a large extent, by two key characteristics of the shale formation: net
organically-rich shale thickness and oil-filled porosity. In addition, pressure and
temperature govern the volume of gas in solution with the reservoir oil, defined by
the reservoir’s formation volume factor.

The calculation of free gas in-place for a given areal extent is governed, to a large
extent, by four characteristics of the shale formation: pressure, temperature, gas-
filled porosity and net organically-rich shale thickness. E.g estimating GIP.
 P a g e | 39

Free Gas In-Place (GIP):

The calculation of free gas in-place for a given areal extent (acre, square mile) is
governed, to a large extent, by four characteristics of the shale formation pressure,
temperature, gas-filled porosity and net organically-rich shale thickness.

1- Pressure. The study methodology places particular emphasis on identifying

areas with overpressure, which enables a higher concentration of gas to be
contained within a fixed reservoir volume. A conservative hydrostatic
gradient of 0.433 psi per foot of depth is used when actual pressure data is
unavailable.
2- Temperature. The study assembles data on the temperature of the shale
formation, giving particular emphasis on identifying areas with higher than
average temperature gradients and surface temperatures. A temperature
gradient of 1.25o F per 100 feet of depth plus a surface temperature of 60o F
are used when actual temperature data is unavailable.
3- Gas-Filled Porosity. The study assembles the porosity data from core or log
analyses available in the public literature. When porosity data are not
available, emphasis is placed on identifying the mineralogy of the shale and
its maturity for estimating porosity values from analogous U.S shale basins.
Unless other evidence is available, the study assumes the pores are filled with
gas and residual water.
4- Net Organically-Rich Shale Thickness. The overall geologic interval that
contains the organically-rich shale is obtained from prior stratigraphic studies
of the formations in the basin being appraised. The gross organically-rich
thickness of the shale interval is established from log data and cross-sections,
where available. A net to gross ratio is used to account for the organically
 P a g e | 40

barren rock within the gross organically-rich shale interval and to estimate the
net organically-rich thickness of the shale.
5. Estimating the Technically Recoverable Resource.

The technically recoverable resource is established by multiplying the risked OIP

and GIP by a shale oil and gas recovery efficiency factor, which incorporates a
number of geological inputs and analogs appropriate to each shale gas and shale oil
basin and formation. The recovery efficiency factor uses information on the
mineralogy of the shale to determine its favorability for applying hydraulic
fracturing to “shatter” the shale matrix and also considers other information that
would impact shale well productivity, such as: presence of favorable micro-scale
natural fractures; the absence of unfavorable deep cutting faults; the state of stress
(compressibility) for the shale formations in the prospective area; and the extent of
reservoir overpressure as well as the pressure differential between the reservoir
original rock pressure and the reservoir bubble point pressure.

Three basic shale gas recovery efficiency factors, incorporating shale mineralogy,

reservoir properties and geologic complexity, are used in the resource assessment.

1- Favorable Gas Recovery. A 25% recovery efficiency factor of the gas in-place
is used for shale gas basins and formations that have low clay content, low to
moderate geologic complexity and favorable reservoir properties such as an
over-pressured shale formation and high gas-filled porosity.
2- Average Gas Recovery. A 20% recovery efficiency factor of the gas in-place is
used for shale gas basins and formations that have a medium clay content,
moderate geologic complexity and average reservoir pressure and properties.
3- Less Favorable Gas Recovery. A 15% recovery efficiency factor of the gas in-
place is used for shale gas basins and formations that have medium to high clay
 P a g e | 41

content, moderate to high geologic complexity and below average reservoir

properties. A recovery efficiency factor of 30% may be applied in exceptional
cases for shale areas with exceptional reservoir performance or established rates
of well performance.

A recovery efficiency factor of 10% is applied in cases of severe under-pressure and

reservoir complexity.

4.3 P RODUCTION TECHNIQUE

Well construction
Figure 4.2 summarizes the steps of well constructing: from drilling to perforation.
 P a g e | 42

Figure 4.2 well constructing steps

Hydraulic fracturing
The term “hydraulic fracturing” is mentioned many times above so it the technique
that is used for production of shale gas. Hydraulic fracturing is a known technology
and has been used for at least 60 years. It has helped produced more than 600 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas and 7 billion barrels of oil.

Involves the pumping of a (fracturing) fluid into a formation at a calculated, pre-

determined rate and pressure to be able to crack the rock and create fractures in the
target rock formation (figure 4.3). Shale gas development typically uses water or
water-based fluids as the fracture fluids, mixed with a small amount of various
additives. Sand is the usual “proppant” material pumped, and is needed to “prop”
open the fractures once the pumping of fluids has stopped and they have leaked off
 P a g e | 43

into the formation. Initially, fractures were considered to grow as half penny-shaped
“wings” 180 degrees apart, as well as be identical in shape and size at any point in
time. However, as research and technology have progressed we now know that
created fracture growth is very complicated and in naturally-fractured reservoirs
complex fracture growth results from a typical hydraulic fracture treatment.

Figure 4.3: Hydraulic fracturing

Producible portions of shale gas formations are located many thousands of feet
below the surface, well below groundwater aquifers.

Modern hydraulic fracturing technology involves sophisticated engineering

processes designed to create distinct fracture networks in specific rock strata.
Experts continually monitor all aspects of the process, which must comply with
local, state and federal laws and regulations.
 P a g e | 44

Horizontal drilling

Another major technology often employed in producing natural gas from shale is
horizontal drilling (see figure 4.3). The shallow section of shale, wells are drilled
vertically (much like a traditional conventional gas well). Just above the target depth
– the place where the shale gas formation exists – the well deviates and becomes
horizontal. At this location, horizontal wells can be oriented in a direction that
maximizes the number of natural fractures intersected in the shale. These fractures
can provide additional pathways for the gas that is locked away in the shale, once
the hydraulic fracturing operation takes place.

Why Multi-Fractured Horizontal Wells?

1- Requirement of minimum ground disturbance.
2- Access to reservoirs under populated cities, farming areas, preserved lands,
water resources.
3- cheapest way to put in the ground
several wells at the same time!
4- Closer well spacing. Drainage area is
much smaller Pad drilling and
completion.
5- Offshore approach Centralized
facilities.
6- Smaller foot print.

Figure 4.4: Multi-fractured horizontal wells

 P a g e | 45

4.4 P RODUCTION WORLDWIDE

A successful production example at USA, more than 4 million oil and gas related
wells have been drilled in the United States since development of these energy
resources began nearly 150 years ago. At least 2 million of these have been
hydraulically fracture-treated, and up to 95 percent of new wells drilled today are
hydraulically fractured, accounting for more than 43 percent of total U.S. oil
production and 67 percent of natural gas production.

In addition to the U.S., six areas of the world have large, attractive shale gas and
shale oil resources:

Active Shale Development 1- Canada 2- Argentina

Active Shale Exploration 1- China 2- Algeria 3-Mexico 4-Australia

Figure 4.5: World Shale Gas and Shale oil resources

 P a g e | 46

The study, “World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment”, performed by
Advanced Resources International (ARI) with sponsorship of the U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA), targeted 95 shale basins and 137 shale formations
in 41 countries (excluding the U.S.), Figure 4.5.

4.5 P RODUCTION I N E GYPT

The northern portion of the Western Desert of Egypt contains a series of basins
underlain by organic-rich shales that have provided the source for the conventional
hydrocarbons production from these basins. The primary hydrocarbon basins in the
Western Desert include Abu Gharadig, Alamein, Natrun and Shoushan-Matruh
(figure 4.6). The Western Desert is the location of many of the major oil and gas
fields of Egypt, including the more recently discovered, large Jurassic fields of
Kanayes (discovered in 1992), Obayeid (discovered in 1993) and Shams (discovered
in 1997).

The basins have a thick sedimentary sequence comprising Paleozoic through

Tertiary strata that exceed 15,000 feet. Despite many years of successful discovery
of conventional oil and gas deposits, the large Western Desert hydrocarbon basins
of Egypt are still only lightly explored, particularly for their deeper formations.

The focus of our shale resource study is the Khatatba Shale within the Middle
Jurassic Khatatba Formation, also called the Kabrit Shale and the Safa Shale.

Recent activity:

The Western desert is the location of many of the major oil and gas fields of Egypt,
including the more recently discovered (Kanyes “ Jurassic fields”, Obayeid , and
 P a g e | 47

Shams ). The basins have a thick sedimentary sequence comprising Paleozoic

through Tertiary strata that exceed 15,000 feet, Despite many years of successful

Figure 4.6: Hydrocarbon basins of the western desert Egypt.

discovery of conventional oil and gas deposits, the large Western Desert
hydrocarbon basins of Egypt are still only lightly explored, particularly for their
deeper formations.

Much of the past exploration drilling in the Western Desert has targeted the
Cretaceous and shallower sediments. Recently, however, Apache has begun to
successfully explore the deeper Jurassic sediments, such as the Safa Sandstone in
the Faghur Basin of the Western Desert.
 P a g e | 48

In 2015: Royal Dutch Shell, in cooperation with US company Apache, are

excavating for shale gas in the Al-Abyad area. Excavations are occurring in the
upper layers of the ground due to its good size, with the non-traditional ways for
production rendered unnecessary.

studies are currently under preparation to assess these layers and their gas reserves,
for the foreign partner to determine the required budget for drilling wells and placing
them on production.

Characterization of Shale Oil/Gas in Egypt

According to some studies made on Egypt they have determined the formation of
Khatatba, Geologic age, depositional environment and petrophysical aspects of the
prospective areas, summarized in table 4.3 for a Shale gas study.

Table 4.3: Shale Gas Reservoir Properties and Resources of Egypt

 P a g e | 49

Summary and conclusion

 Unconventional resources are hydrocarbon reservoirs that have low
permeability and porosity and so are difficult to produce. Often enhanced
recovery techniques, such as fracture stimulation or steam injection, etc., must
be performed, making the process more difficult than a conventional play.
 Gas- and oil-bearing shales are organically-rich, fine grained sedimentary
rocks capable of producing commercially important quantities of
hydrocarbons upon artificial fracturing. These shales typically serve as the
source, reservoir and seal of the hydrocarbons produced from them.
 Conventional sources are running out No more giants like Saudi Arabia and
the sources of renewable energy are not enough to fill in the gap of total energy
demand.
 Only a third of worldwide oil and gas reserves are conventional, the remainder
are in unconventional resources. Shale gas has become an increasingly
important source of natural gas in the United States since the start of this
century.
 Studying of Geological and petrophysical aspects helps out in preparing for
an adequate design to produce the oil/gas from an Unconventional reservoir.
 Egypt has four basins in the Western Desert with potential for shale gas and
shale oil: Abu Gharadig, Alamein, Natrun and Shoushan-Matruh. The target
horizon is the organic-rich Khatatba Shale, sometimes referred to as the Kabrit
Shale or Safa Shale, within the larger Middle Jurassic Khatatba Formation.
 P a g e | 50

References
- Albert X. Cuiand Ken Glover,2014, A Practical Recommendation for Permeability Measurement
in Tight-Sand and Shale Reservoirs.

- Satinder Chopra, Ritesh Sharma, and Kurt Marfurt, 2014, Shale Gas Reservoir Characterization
Workflows.

- Wescott, W.A. et al., 2013, EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment.

- Jorge Ponce, 2013, Unconventional Reservoirs.

- Vivian K. Bust, Azlan A. Majid, Joshua u. oletu and paul F. Worthington, 2013, the petrophysics
of shale gas reservoirs: technical challenges and pragmatic solutions.

- Mark Knackstedt, Anna Carnerup,2013, Petrophysical Characterization of Unconventional

Reservoir Core At Multiple Scales.

- Cander. H ,2012, What are unconventional resources, Adapted from poster presentation at
AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibition, Long Beach, California.

- Davies, R.J., et al.,2012, Hydraulic fractures: How far can they go? Marine and Petroleum
Geology.

- Roger M. Slatt, 2011, University of Oklahoma, Important Geological Properties of

Unconventional Resource Shales.

- Fisher, K., & Warpinski, N., 2011, Hydraulic Fracture-Height Growth: Real Data, SPE 145949.

- Broderick, J., et al., 2011, Shale Gas: an updated assessment of environmental and climate
change impacts.

- Amy Myers, James A. Baker and Susan G. Baker, 2011, the status of world oil reserves:
conventional and unconventional resources in the future supply mix.
 P a g e | 51

- Q.R. Passey, K.M. Bohacs, W.L. Esch, R. Klimentidis, and S. Sinha, 2010, SPE 131350 From
Oil-Prone Source Rock to Gas-Producing Shale Reservoir – Geologic and Petrophysical
Characterization of Unconventional Shale-Gas Reservoirs.

- C.D. Rokosh, J.G. Pawlowicz, H. Berhane, S.D.A. Anderson and A.P. Beaton July 2009
ERCB/AGS Open File Report 2008-08 What is Shale Gas? An Introduction to Shale-Gas Geology
inAlberta.

- C. Green, report about the induced seismicity during hydraulic fracturing at the Preese Hall site,
Lancashire, NW England.

- Rudy Swennen, Geology, Dept. of Earth & Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven Geological
aspects of shale gas – Situation and settings.

Internet access:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate

http://www.cgg.com/default.aspx?cid=3501

http://www.slb.com/services/technical_challenges/geomechanics/reservoir_management/unconv
entional_reservoirs.aspx

http://www.adv-res.com/library.php#TightGasSands

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconventional_gas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction

http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/en/Terms/c/conventional_reservoir.a spx

View publication stats