2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison
-
Upload
gschlachter2 -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
0
Transcript of 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison
![Page 1: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Shale ReservoirsSimilar, yet so different
2010 3D Seismic Symposium
![Page 2: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
from: Canadian NEB/Murray Roth
Geography of Talks - 16th Annual 3-D Seismic Symposium - Tuesday March 16th, 20101) Shale Plays Overview: Murray Roth2) Williston Basin - Depth Imaging Workflow: Chris Besler & Greg Johnson3) Eagle Ford Shale: Galen Treadgold & Steve Sinclair4) Marcellus Shale: Jim Morris5) Woodford Shale: Richard Parkes6) Haynesville Shale: Pete Smith7) World: Bob Peebler8) Southern Uinta Dakota: Bill Keach9) Piceance Basin - Winter Acquisition: Mary Sue Purcell & DeWitt Morris10) Eagle Sandstone -Tiger Ridge Field Montana: Tanya Inks11) Tensleep Fractures - Teapot Dome: Doug Klepacki12) Montney Shale - BC Canada: B.K. Torry & Kurt Wikel
12
10
4
3
2
71
98
6
5
11
Geography of Talks - 16th Annual 3-D Seismic SymposiumTuesday March 16th, 2010
Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists & Denver Geophysical Society
![Page 3: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Total Gas/Producible
Source: NEB
![Page 4: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Transform proprietary information
World’s Largest Gas Fields
1
10
100
1000
10000So
uth
Pars
Mar
cellu
sHa
ynes
ville
Uren
goy
Yam
burg
Hass
i R’M
elSh
tokm
anZa
polya
rn…
Hugo
ton
Gron
inge
nBo
nave
nko
Med
vezh
yeM
ontn
eyNo
rth P
ars
Horn
Rive
rDa
ulet
aba…
Kara
chag
…Ki
shOr
enbu
rgBa
rnet
tFa
yette
ville
Khar
save
y
North American Gas
Restricted AccessRussian/FSUOther International
Source: EIA
![Page 5: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Nova ScotiaEarly MississippianHorton Bluff Shale
Northeast British ColumbiaMiddle DevonianHorn River Shale
Louisiana, east TexasLate JurassicHaynesville/Bossier Sh
Colorado, UtahEoceneGreen River Shale
Paradox Basin, Colorado, UtahPennsylvanianGothic Shale
Northeast British ColumbiaEarly JurassicGordondale Shale
Williston Basin, MontanaLate CretaceousGammon Shale
New Brunswick, Nova ScotiaMississippianFrederick Brook Shale
Black Warrior Basin, Alabama, MissLate MississippianFloyd/Neal Shale
West central Alberta, northeast BCJurassicFernie Shale
Arkoma Basin, ArkansasMississippianFayetteville Shale
Alberta, northeast British ColumbiaDevonian-MississippianExshaw Shale
Kansas, OklahomaPennsylvanianExcello Shale
Michigan Basin, MichiganLate DevonianEllsworth Shale
Maverick Basin, TexasLate CretaceousEagleford Shale
West central AlbertaLate DevonianDuvernay Shale
Western New YorkUpper DevonianDunkirk Shale
Black Warrior Basin, AlabamaMiddle CambrianConasauga Shale
Central Alberta, SaskatchewanCretaceousColorado Shale
MontanaCretaceousCody Shale
Eastern KentuckyEarly SilurianClinton Shale
Eastern KentuckyDevonianCleveland Shale
Paradox Basin, Colorado, UtahPennsylvanianChimney Rock Shale
Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee
Late DevonianChattanooga Shale
Arkoma Basin, OklahomaMississippianCaney Shale
Paradox Basin, UtahPennsylvanianCane Creek Shale
Palo Duro Basin, TexasPennsylvanianBend Shale
Fort Worth and Permian, TexasMississippianBarnett Shale
Vermillion Basin, Colorado, WyomingLate CretaceousBaxter Shale
Michigan Basin, MichiganLate DevonianAntrim Shale
LOCATIONPERIODFORMATION
Oklahoma, TexasLate Dev-Early MissWoodford Shale
West central Alberta, northeast British Columbia
Early CretaceousWilrich/Buckinghorse/ Garbutt/Moosebar
New York, QuebecOrdovicianUtica Shale
Appalachian BasinMississippianSunbury Shale
Southern AlbertaLate CretaceousSecond White Speckled
Appalachian BasinDevonianRhinestreet Shale
New YorkOrdovicianQueenston Shale
West central Alberta, northeast BJurassicPoker Chip Shale
Raton Basin, ColoradoCretaceousPierre Shale
West TexasDevonian-MissPercha Shale
Maverick Basin, TexasCretaceousPearsall Shale
East Kentucky, Ohio, West VirginiaDevonianOhio Shale
Alberta, northeast British ColumbiaLate JurassicNordegg/Gordondale Sh
Denver Basin, ColoradoLate CretaceousNiobrara Shale
Illinois Basin, Illinois, IndianaDevonian-Mississippian
New Albany Shale
Northeast British ColumbiaLate DevonianMuskwa Shale
Bighorn and Powder River, WyomingCretaceousMowry Shale
Arkoma Basin, ArkansasMississippianMoorefield Shale
Alberta, northeast British ColumbiaTriassicMontney-Doig Shale
Santa Maria Basin, CaliforniaMioceneMonterey Shale
San Joaquin Basin, CaliforniaMioceneMcClure Shale
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, WVDevonianMarcellus Shale
Central UtahMississippianManning Canyon Shale
San Juan Basin, New Mexico, UintaBasin, Utah
CretaceousMancos Shale
Colorado, New MexicoLate CretaceousLewis Shale
Northeast British ColumbiaMiddle DevonianKlua/Evie Shale
Part of Ohio Shale; east Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia
DevonianHuron Shale
Paradox Basin, Colorado, UtahPennsylvanianHovenweep Shale
LOCATIONPERIODFORMATION
57 US/Canadian Shales – marcellus-shale.us
![Page 6: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Economics vs Resources vs Maturity
UBS 2008
Eagle Ford
![Page 7: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Oklahoma, TexasLate Devonian-Early Mississippian
Woodford Shale
North Dakota, Montana, Saskatchewan
Upper DevonianWilliston/BakkenShale (Oil)
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia
DevonianMarcellus Shale
Northeast British ColumbiaMiddle DevonianHorn River Shale
Louisiana, east TexasLate JurassicHaynesville/Bossier Shale
Maverick Basin, TexasLate CretaceousEagleford Shale
Fort Worth and Permian basins, Texas
MississippianBarnett Shale
LOCATIONPERIODFORMATION
7 US/Canadian “Shales” for Today
marcellus-shale.us
![Page 8: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Barnett
![Page 9: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Barnett Map
Max Stress
![Page 10: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Barnett Setting
Source: USGS
![Page 11: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
BarnettStratigraphy
Source: USGS
![Page 12: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
BarnettDetails
35Adsorbed Gas (%)
45Clay Content (%)
0.526Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)
250Matrix Permeability (nD)
6Porosity (%)
4.5TOC (%)
2Ro
200Temperature (F)
4000Pressure (psi)
2.65Average EUR
2.8Hor Well Cost ($M)
300Thickness (feet)
7500Depth (feet)
50Producable Gas (tcf)
150GIP (bcf/sq mi)
327Total Gas (tcf)
50000Total Area Size (sq mi)
Siliceous MudstoneLithology
MississippianGeologic Age
300’
Courtesy: Devon
![Page 13: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Well Crossplot/Analysis
Courtesy: Devon
![Page 14: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Eagle Ford
![Page 15: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Eagle Ford Map
Dry Gas
Oil
![Page 16: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Eagle Ford Setting
Source: Wilcox Exploration
![Page 17: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Source: USGS
Eagle FordStratigraphy
![Page 18: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Eagle FordDetails
20
8
0.65
1100
11
4.5
1.5
335
5200
5.5
4.8
250
11500
9
200
84
1350
bituminous shales
Cretaceous
Adsorbed Gas (%)
Clay Content (%)
Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)
Matrix Permeability (nD)
Porosity (%)
TOC (%)
Ro
Temperature (F)
Pressure (psi)
Average EUR
Hor Well Cost ($M)
Thickness (feet)
Depth (feet)
Producable Gas (tcf)
GIP (bcf/sq mi)
Total Gas (tcf)
Total Area Size (sq mi)
Lithology
Geologic Age
250’
Source: USGS
![Page 19: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Haynesville
![Page 20: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Haynesville Map
![Page 21: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Haynesville Setting
Source: USGS
![Page 22: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Source: USGS
HaynesvilleStratigraphy
![Page 23: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
HaynesvilleDetails
18
27
0.95
658
10
3
2.2
340
8500
6.5
7.0
225
12000
251
175
717
9000
Argillaceous/Calcareous
Upper Jurassic
Adsorbed Gas (%)
Clay Content (%)
Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)
Matrix Permeability (nD)
Porosity (%)
TOC (%)
Ro
Temperature (F)
Pressure (psi)
Average EUR
Hor Well Cost ($M)
Thickness (feet)
Depth (feet)
Producable Gas (tcf)
GIP (bcf/sq mi)
Total Gas (tcf)
Total Area Size (sq mi)
Lithology
Geologic Age
200’
![Page 24: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Horn River
![Page 25: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Horn River Map
![Page 26: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Horn River Setting
![Page 27: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Horn RiverStratigraphy
Source: GSC/NEB of Canada
![Page 28: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Horn RiverDetails
34
30
0.6
230
3
3
2.5
160
4800
7.5
7.0
450
8800
47
250
370
5000
Brittle Shale
Upper Devonian
Adsorbed Gas (%)
Clay Content (%)
Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)
Matrix Permeability (nD)
Porosity (%)
TOC (%)
Ro
Temperature (F)
Pressure (psi)
Average EUR
Hor Well Cost ($M)
Thickness (feet)
Depth (feet)
Producable Gas (tcf)
GIP (bcf/sq mi)
Total Gas (tcf)
Total Area Size (sq mi)
Lithology
Geologic Age
200’
75’
Source: BC Ministry of Energy
![Page 29: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Marcellus
![Page 30: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Marcellus MapSource: DOE
![Page 31: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Marcellus
Source: Cabot Presentation
Marcellus Map
![Page 32: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Marcellus Setting
![Page 33: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Source: USGS
MarcellusStratigraphy
![Page 34: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
MarcellusDetails
50
50
0.4
1000
8
3.25
1.25
130
4000
3.75
3.5
350
7000
356
200
1500
95000
Argillaceous Mudstone
Middle Devonian
Adsorbed Gas (%)
Clay Content (%)
Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)
Matrix Permeability (nD)
Porosity (%)
TOC (%)
Ro
Temperature (F)
Pressure (psi)
Average EUR
Hor Well Cost ($M)
Thickness (feet)
Depth (feet)
Producable Gas (tcf)
GIP (bcf/sq mi)
Total Gas (tcf)
Total Area Size (sq mi)
Lithology
Geologic Age
300’
Source: WVGES
![Page 35: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Marcellus Well Log Crossplot
Source: WVGS
![Page 36: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Woodford
![Page 37: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Woodford Map
Source: Oklahoma Geologic Society
![Page 38: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Woodford Setting
Source: Kuykendall and Fritz
![Page 39: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
WoodfordStratigraphy
Source: Oklahoma Geologic Society
![Page 40: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
46
30
0.7
500
6
7
1.5
145
3267
3.8
5
180
8000
11.4
70
23
11000
Black shale
Upper Devonian
Adsorbed Gas (%)
Clay Content (%)
Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)
Matrix Permeability (nD)
Porosity (%)
TOC (%)
Ro
Temperature (F)
Pressure (psi)
Average EUR
Hor Well Cost ($M)
Thickness (feet)
Depth (feet)
Producable Gas (tcf)
GIP (bcf/sq mi)
Total Gas (tcf)
Total Area Size (sq mi)
Lithology
Geologic Age
WoodfordDetails
150’
Source: Newfield Presentation
![Page 41: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Williston/Bakken
![Page 42: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Sanish/Parshall
Williston/Bakken Map
Source: USGS
![Page 43: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Williston/Bakken Setting
Source: USGS
![Page 44: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Sanish
Williston/Bakken Stratigraphy
Source: AAPG
![Page 45: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Williston/BakkenDetails
0
5
0.5
10000
5
10
0.9
140
5600
1.414827391
5.5
150
10000
20.65647991
28.29654782
945.1046972
200000
Sandstone/Siltstone/Carb
Upper Dev/Lower Miss
Adsorbed Gas (%)
Clay Content (%)
Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)
Matrix Permeability (nD)
Porosity (%)
TOC (%)
Ro
Temperature (F)
Pressure (psi)
Average EUR
Hor Well Cost ($M)
Thickness (feet)
Depth (feet)
Producable Gas (tcf)
GIP (bcf/sq mi)
Total Gas (tcf)
Total Area Size (sq mi)
Lithology
Geologic Age
8200
8300
MiddleBakken
U Bkkn Shale
Lodgepole
L Bkkn Shale
Sanish
8200
8300
8250
8150
GR RES GR DEN
120’
Source: Anon
![Page 46: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Horizontal Well Microseismic
![Page 47: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Stimulated Reservoir Volume
![Page 48: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Shale Comparisons
![Page 49: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Gas in Place per Section
Source: NEB
![Page 50: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
GIP Rank by BasinMarcellusEagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodfordBakken
![Page 51: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Well Depth by Basin
MarcellusEagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodfordBakken
![Page 52: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Thickness by Basin
MarcellusEagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodfordBakken
![Page 53: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Geologic Age by BasinMarcellusEagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodfordBakken
![Page 54: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Shale Crossplots
![Page 55: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
GIP versus Zone Thickness0.842
MarcellusEagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodfordBakken
![Page 56: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Well Measurements
![Page 57: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
GIP versus TOC-0.349 Marcellus
Eagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodford
![Page 58: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
GIP versus Porosity0.637
MarcellusEagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodford
![Page 59: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
GIP versus Permeability0.679
MarcellusEagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodford
![Page 60: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
GIP versus Temperature0.562
MarcellusEagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodford
![Page 61: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
GIP versus Ro0.404
MarcellusEagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodfordBakken
![Page 62: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
GIP versus Pressure Gradient0.312
MarcellusEagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodford
![Page 63: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
GIP versus Adsorbed Gas-0.435
MarcellusEagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodford
![Page 64: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
GIP versus Silica/Calcite/Carb-0.229 Marcellus
Eagle FordHaynesvilleHorn RiverBarnettUticaWoodford
![Page 65: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
What matters most…
-.435Adsorbed Gas
.404Vitrinite Reflectance
.562Temperature
.637Porosity
.679Permeability
.842Thickness
CorrelationProperty
![Page 66: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
Similar…• Most shale basins fall in the Devonian-
Mississippian fairway• Economic shale reservoirs range between
150-450 feet• Devonian-Mississippian shale reservoir
wells average 7000-10,000’• Commercial shale basins generally range
between 0.2 and 1.1 microD• Shale plays are generally gas-focused• Shale plays generally have a single
economic target
![Page 67: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
Yet so different…• Some of the best shale gas basins are Mesozoic
and lie on the younger side of major thrust belts (Eagle Ford, Haynesville)
• Some of the best shale gas basins have deeper well depths of 10,000-13,000’ (Eagle Ford, Haynesville)
• Increasingly, shale plays are being developed as joint gas/oil assets (Barnett, Eagle Ford)
• Shale plays range from relatively flat with minimal faulting (Haynesville) to highly faulted and structural (Woodford, Marcellus, Eagle Ford) to other features like karst collapse chimneys (Barnett)
• Some shale plays have multiple, adjacent levels economic for development (Bakken)
• Differences in thickness, permeability and porosity drive gas-in-place differences between shale gas plays
![Page 68: 2010 3D Symposium-Murray Roth US Shale Comparison](https://reader033.fdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051819/54e7f8444a79591c758b4b47/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
Acknowledgements• Huge thanks to anonymous data donors
and bp, Devon, CGGVeritas and Global Geophysical Services
• Many sources were used for data in this study, including USGS, NEB, GSC, BC-EM, WVGS, Hart’s Unconventional Gas Center, American Oil and Gas Reporter, Oil and Gas Journal, and more
• Thanks to Michael Roth and Transform Software and Services
• Electronic version of abstract available on www.transformsw.com
• Contact me for a list of references or questions: [email protected]