Petroleum Exploration and Development >
Key geological factors controlling the estimated ultimate recovery of shale oil and gas: A case study of the Eagle Ford shale, Gulf Coast Basin, USA
Received date: 2020-11-28
Revised date: 2021-05-06
Online published: 2021-06-23
Supported by
PetroChina Science and Technology Department Project(2012A-4802-02);National Key Basic Research and Development Program(2014CB239000)
Based on 991 groups of analysis data of shale samples from the Lower Member of the Cretaceous Eagle Ford Formation of 1317 production wells and 72 systematic coring wells in the U.S. Gulf Basin, the estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) of shale oil and gas of the wells are predicted by using two classical EUR estimation models, and the average values predicted excluding the effect of engineering factors are taken as the final EUR. Key geological factors controlling EUR of shale oil and gas are fully investigated. The reservoir capacity, resources, flow capacity and fracability are the four key geological parameters controlling EUR. The storage capacity of shale oil and gas is directly controlled by total porosity and hydrocarbon-bearing porosity, and indirectly controlled by total organic carbon (TOC) and vitrinite re?ectance (Ro). The resources of shale oil and gas are controlled by hydrocarbon-bearing porosity and effective shale thickness etc. The flow capacity of shale oil and gas is controlled by effective permeability, crude oil density, gas-oil ratio, condensate oil-gas ratio, formation pressure gradient, and Ro. The fracability of shale is directly controlled by brittleness index, and indirectly controlled by clay content in volume. EUR of shale oil and gas is controlled by six geological parameters: it is positively correlated with effective shale thickness, TOC and fracture porosity, negatively correlated with clay content in volume, and increases firstly and then decreases with the rise ofRo and formation pressure gradient. Under the present upper limit of horizontal well fracturing effective thickness of 65 m and the lower limit of EUR of 3×104 m3, when TOC<2.3%, orRo<0.85%, or clay content in volume larger than 25%, and fractures and micro-fractures aren’t developed, favorable areas of shale oil and gas hardly occur.
Lianhua HOU , Zhichao YU , Xia LUO , Senhu LIN , Zhongying ZHAO , Zhi YANG , Songtao WU , Jingwei CUI , Lijun ZHANG . Key geological factors controlling the estimated ultimate recovery of shale oil and gas: A case study of the Eagle Ford shale, Gulf Coast Basin, USA[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2021 , 48(3) : 762 -774 . DOI: 10.1016/S1876-3804(21)60062-9
| [1] | RINE J M, SMART E, DORSEY W, et al. Comparison of porosity distribution within selected North American shale units by SEM examination of argon-ion-milled samples. Tulsa, USA: AAPG, 2013. |
| [2] | IEA. Word energy outlook. (2015-11-10)[2021-01-20]. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2015. |
| [3] | MIDDLETON R S, GUPTA R, HYMAN J D, et al. The shale gas revolution: Barriers, sustainability, and emerging opportunities. Applied Energy, 2017, 199(1):88-95. |
| [4] | SOEDER D J. Unconventional:The development of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale. Boulder: Geological Society of America Press, 2017:143. |
| [5] | SOEDER D J. The successful development of gas and oil resources from shales in North America. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2018, 163:399-420. |
| [6] | CHARPENTIER R R, COOK T A. Applying probabilistic well-performance parameters to assessments of shale-gas resources. New Orleans, LA, USA: AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibition, 2010. |
| [7] | TISSOT B P, WELTE D H. Petroleum formation and occurrence. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag, 1984:699. |
| [8] | HOU Lianhua, MA Weijiao, LUO Xia, et al. Characteristics and quantitative models for hydrocarbon generation-retention-production of shale under ICP conditions: Example from Chang 7 Member in the Ordos Basin. Fuel, 2020, 279:118497. |
| [9] | HOU Lianhua, MA Weijiao, LUO Xia, et al. Chemical structure changes of lacustrine Type-II kerogen under semi-open pyrolysis as investigated by solid-state 13C NMR and FT-IR spectroscopy. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 2020, 116:104348. |
| [10] | MA Weijiao, HOU Lianhua, LUO Xia, et al. Role of bitumen and NSOs during the decomposition process of a lacustrine Type-II kerogen in semi-open pyrolysis system. Fuel, 2020, 259:116211. |
| [11] | MA Weijiao, HOU Lianhua, LUO Xia, et al. Generation and expulsion process of the Chang 7 oil shale in the Ordos Basin based on temperature-based semi-open pyrolysis: Implications for in-situ conversion process. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2020, 190:106710. |
| [12] | ZOU Caineng, YANG Zhi, CUI Jingwei, et al. Formation mechanism, geological characteristics and development strategy of nonmarine shale oil in China. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2013, 40(1):15-27. |
| [13] | HOU Lianhua, LUO Xia, ZHAO Zhongying, et al. Identification of oil produced from shale and tight reservoirs in the Permian Lucaogou Shale sequence, Jimsar Sag, Junggar Basin, NW China. ACS Omega, 2021, 6:2127-2142. |
| [14] | SONG Haijing, SU Yunhe, XIONG Xiaolin, et al. EUR evaluation workflow and influence factors for shale gas well. Natural Gas Geoscience, 2019, 30(10):1531-1538. |
| [15] | LU Cheng, LIU Xiong, CHENG Minhua, et al. Research on factors influencing shale gas productivity of volumetric fractured horizontal wells. Special Oil and Gas Reservoirs, 2014, 21(4):108-112. |
| [16] | THELOY C, SONNENBERG S. Factors influencing productivity in the Bakken Play, Williston Basin. Long Beach, California, USA: AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibition, 2012. |
| [17] | PAN Linhua, CHENG Lijun, ZHANG Ye, et al. Numerical simulation of fracturing pressure in multiple clusters staged hydraulic fracture of shale horizontal well. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2015, 36(12):3640-3646. |
| [18] | YONG Rui, CHANG Cheng, ZHANG Deliang, et al. Optimization of shale-gas horizontal well spacing based on geology-engineering- economy integration: A case study of Well block Ning 209 in the national shale gas development demonstration area. Natural and Gas Industry, 2020, 40(7):42-47. |
| [19] | DONOVAN A, EVENICK J, BANFIELD L. An organofacies-based mudstone classification for unconventional tight rock & source rock plays. Tulsa, USA: Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, 2017. |
| [20] | XIONG Xiaolin. Quantitative evaluation of controlling factors on EUR of shale gas wells in Weiyuan block. China Petroleum Exploration, 2019, 24(4):532-538. |
| [21] | ZUO L H, YU W, WU K. A fractional decline curve analysis model for shale gas reservoirs. International Journal of Coal Geology, 2016, 163:140-148. |
| [22] | GASWIRTH S B, MARRA K R. Geological survey 2013 assessment of undiscovered resources in the Bakken and Three Forks Formations of the U. S. Williston Basin Province. AAPG Bulletin, 2015, 99(4):639-660. |
| [23] | MEHANA M, CALLARD J, KANG Q J, et al. Monte Carlo simulation and production analysis for ultimate recovery estimation of shale wells. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2020, 83:103584. |
| [24] | COSIMA T, STEPHEN A S. Integrating geology and engineering:Implications for production in the Bakken Play, Williston Basin. Colorado, USA: Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, 2013. |
| [25] | MA Xinhua, LI Xizhe, LIANG Feng, et al. Dominating factors on well productivity and development strategies optimization in Weiyuan shale gas play, Sichuan Basin, SW China. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2020, 47(3):555-563. |
| [26] | IEA. Drilling productivity report for key tight oil and shale gas regions. (2019-12-16)[2021-02-01]. https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/drilling/archive/2019/12/pdf/dpr-full.pdf. |
| [27] | EWING T E. Review of the tectonic history of the Lower Rio Grande Border Region, South Texas and Mexico, and implications for hydrocarbon exploration. Sipes Newsletter, 2003, 40(3):16-21. |
| [28] | SCOTT R J. The Maverick Basin: New technology - new success: Structure and stratigraphy of south texas and northeast mexico: Applications to exploration. Texas, USA: GCSSEPM Foundation South Texas Geological Society, 2003. |
| [29] | SALVADOR A. The geology of North America. Boulder, CO, USA: Geologic Society of America, 1991:131-180. |
| [30] | KUSKE S, HORS?ELD B, JWEDA J, et al. Geochemical factors controlling the phase behavior of Eagle Ford Shale petroleum ?uids. AAPG Bulletin, 2019, 103(4):835-870. |
| [31] | BAZAN L W, LATTIBEAUDIERE M G, PALISCH T. Hydraulic fracture design and well production results in the Eagle Ford Shale: One operator's perspective. SPE 155779, 2012. |
| [32] | DONOVAN A, STAERKER T. Sequence stratigraphy of the Eagle Ford (Boquillas) Formation in the subsurface of South Texas and outcrops of West Texas. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, 2010, 60:861-899. |
| [33] | LOWERY C M, CORBETT M J, MARK R, et al. Foraminiferal and Nano-fossil paleoecology and paleoceanography of the Cenomanian- Turonian Eagle Ford shale of southern Texas. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 2014, 413(1):49-65. |
| [34] | ENGLE M A, DOOLAN C A, PITMAN J A, et al. Origin and geochemistry of formation waters from the lower Eagle Ford Group, Gulf Coast Basin, south central Texas. Chemical Geology, 2020, 550(20):119754. |
| [35] | HENTZ T F, RUPPEL S C. Regional lithostratigraphy of the Eagle Ford shale: Maverick Basin to east Texas Basin. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, 2010, 60:325-337. |
| [36] | Drilling Info. Eagle Ford shale overview. Ramona Hovey, USA: Drilling Info, 2011. |
| [37] | USGS. Science for a Changing World. Reston, VA, USA: United States Geological Survey, 2018. |
| [38] | CHERIE T. Source mechanism analysis to determine optimal wellbore orientation in the Eagle Ford Play. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA: AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibition, 2013. |
| [39] | CHARLEZ P A, DELFINER P. A model for evaluating the commerciality of an unconventional factory development outside of North America. SPE Economics and Management, 2016, 8(2):40-49. |
| [40] | CIRILO AGOSTINHO M S, WEIJERMARS R. Petroleum business strategies for maintaining positive cash flow and corporate liquidity under volatile oil and gas prices as the sustainable Energy transition unfolds. Journal of Finance and Accounting, 2017, 5(1):34-55. |
| [41] | WEIJERMARS R, PARADIS K, BELOSTRINO E, et al. Re-appraisal of the Bakken shale play: Accounting for historic and future oil prices and applying ?scal rates in North Dakota, Montana and Saskatchewan. Energy Strategy Review. 2017, 16:68-95. |
| [42] | WEIJERMARS R, SOREK N, SENG D, et al. Eagle Ford shale play economics: U. S. Versus Mexico. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2017, 38:345-372. |
| [43] | HU Y Q, WEIJERMARS R, ZUO L H, et al. Benchmarking EUR estimates for hydraulically fractured wells with and without fracture hits using various DCA methods. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2018, 162:617-632. |
| [44] | ROBERTSON S. Generalized hyperbolic equation. SPE 18731, 1988. |
| [45] | DUONG A N. Rate-decline analysis for fracture-dominated shale reservoirs. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering. 2011, 14(3):377-387. |
| [46] | PANJA P, DEO M. Unusual behavior of produced gas oil ratio in low permeability fractured reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2016, 144:76-83. |
| [47] | JARVIE D M, HILL R J, RUBLE T E. Unconventional shale-gas systems: The Mississippian Barnett Shale of north- central Texas as one model for thermo genic shale-gas assessment. AAPG Bulletin, 2007, 91(4):475-499. |
| [48] | HOU Lianhua, MA Weijiao, LUO Xia, et al. Hydrocarbon generation-retention-expulsion mechanism and shale oil producibility of the Permian lucaogou shale in the Junggar Basin as simulated by semi-open pyrolysis experiments. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 2021, 125:104480. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |