DOCSLIB.ORG

Availability, Economics, and Production Potential of North American Unconventional Natural Gas Supplies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Availability, Economics, and Production Potential of North American Unconventional Natural Gas Supplies AVAILABILITY, ECONOMICS, AND PRODUCTION POTENTIAL OF NORTH AMERICAN UNCONVENTIONAL NATURAL GAS SUPPLIES Prepared for The INGAA Foundation, Inc. by: ICF International 9300 Lee Highway Fairfax, VA 22031 USA Authors: Harry Vidas and Bob Hugman F-2008-03 Copyright ® 2008 by The INGAA Foundation, Inc. November 2008 This page intentionally blank 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents........................................................................................................................ 3 1 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 9 1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 9 1.2 Resource Definitions ...................................................................................................11 1.3 Objectives...................................................................................................................13 1.4 Major Conclusions of Study.........................................................................................13 1.5 North American Natural Gas Production Forecast.........................................................16 1.6 Report Findings by Category of Unconventional Gas ....................................................18 1.7 Conclusions ................................................................................................................23 2 Introduction........................................................................................................................25 3 Data Sources.......................................................................................................................29 4 North American Natural Gas Production, Reserves, and Drilling Activity.................................31 4.1 Natural Gas Production Trends ....................................................................................31 4.2 Production by Resource Type.......................................................................................33 4.3 Natural Gas Reserves and Reserve Additions ................................................................37 4.4 Drilling Activity – U.S. and Canada...............................................................................38 4.5 Expected Future Contribution from Unconventional Natural Gas ..................................40 4.6 Implications of Forecast for Future Drilling, Industry Outlays, and Water Use .................46 4.7 Unconventional Natural Gas Production “Upside”........................................................46 4.8 Comparison of Forecast to EIA Annual Energy Outlook ................................................47 5 Tight Gas, Shale Gas, and Coalbed Methane Resources........................................................49 5.1 Published U.S. Resource Estimates ...............................................................................49 5.2 Published Canadian Resource Estimates.......................................................................55 5.3 Technology Advances Impacting Tight Gas, Coalbed Methane, and Shale Gas ..............57 5.4 Comparison of Selected Shale Play Assessments...........................................................63 5.5 Preliminary Assessment of Potential in Frontier Shale Gas Plays.....................................64 5.6 Comparison of ICF Lower-48 Shale Play Assessments with Published Assessments ........68 5.7 Natural Gas Composition and Quality ..........................................................................70 6 Regional Tight Gas, Shale Gas, and Coalbed Methane Production and Activity ......................73 6.1 Introduction................................................................................................................73 6.2 Characteristics of Major Plays ......................................................................................73 6.3 Activity Summaries and Discussion of Existing and Emerging Plays................................76 North America Play Level Production....................................................................................76 Rockies ...............................................................................................................................76 Mid-Continent ....................................................................................................................83 North and East Texas...........................................................................................................87 Texas Gulf Coast .................................................................................................................91 Southeast............................................................................................................................93 Appalachian and Midwest Basins and Eastern Canada..........................................................98 Permian Basin ...................................................................................................................104 Western Canada ...............................................................................................................107 3 7 Well Recovery and Resource Development Costs ................................................................113 7.1 National Upstream Costs...........................................................................................113 7.2 Resource Cost Approach and Results .........................................................................115 7.3 Sensitivity of Costs to Lease Bonus and Royalty Rates .................................................121 7.4 Resource Cost Summary............................................................................................121 8 Other Categories of Unconventional Gas ...........................................................................123 8.1 Oil Shale – Horizontal Drilling (Bakken Shale and Barnett Shale Oil Leg) ......................123 8.2 Oil Shale –Thermal Methods......................................................................................124 8.3 Offshore and Arctic Natural Gas Hydrates..................................................................130 8.4 Aboveground Coal to Methane.................................................................................136 8.5 Underground Coal Gasification .................................................................................144 8.6 Landfill Gas...............................................................................................................151 8.7 Biologic Methane......................................................................................................157 Agricultural Biogas ............................................................................................................157 Digester Biogas .................................................................................................................161 Wastewater Treatment Biogas ...........................................................................................164 9 Closing Discussion.............................................................................................................167 4 List of Tables Table 1 Summary of Report Findings ..........................................................................................19 Table 2 U.S. Lower-48 Dry Natural Gas Production and Reserves.................................................37 Table 3 Unconventional Well Completion Activity in the U.S. ......................................................39 Table 4 Coalbed Methane Drilling in Western Canada ................................................................40 Table 5 Summary of Natural Gas Production Forecast .................................................................45 Table 6 Summary of Published U.S. Unconventional Natural Gas Resource Assessments...............50 Table 7 ICF Natural Gas Resource Base.......................................................................................51 Table 8 Summary of Lower-48 Tight Gas Assessments................................................................52 Table 9 Summary of Lower-48 Coalbed Methane Assessments ...................................................53 Table 10 Published Lower-48 Shale Gas Assessments..................................................................55 Table 11 Published Canadian Unconventional Natural Gas Assessments ......................................56 Table 12 WCSB Shale Vertical Well Assessment for the 2003 National Petroleum Council Study ..57 Table 13 Comparison of Recent U.S. Shale Gas Assessments – Selected Plays (Not Including Recently Announced Frontier Plays).............................................................................................64 Table 14 Analysis of Existing and Emerging Shale Formation Volumes and Gas- in- Place .............67 Table 15 Comparison of Current ICF and Other Published Lower-48 Shale Assessments ..............69 Table 16 Characteristics of Major Shale Plays..............................................................................74 Table 17 Characteristics of Major Coalbed Plays .........................................................................75 Table 18 North American Basin Level Unconventional Natural Gas Production .............................77 Table 19 Rockies Unconventional Natural Gas Production by Play................................................78
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Deconstructing the Fayetteville Lessons from a Mature Shale Play
    Deconstructing the Fayetteville ©Lessons Kimmeridge 2015 from - Deconstructing a Mature the Fayetteville Shale Play June 20151 Introduction The Fayetteville shale gas play lies in the eastern Arkoma Basin, east of the historic oil and gas fields in the central and western parts of the Basin. As one of the most mature, well-developed and well-understood shale gas plays, it offers an unparalleled dataset on which we can look back and review how closely what we “thought we knew” matches “what we now know”, and what lessons there are to be learned in the development of shales and the distribution of the cores of these plays. As we have previously noted (see Figure 1), identifying the core of a shale play is akin to building a Venn diagram based on a number of geological factors. By revisiting the Fayetteville we can rebuild this diagram and overlay it on what is now a vast database of historical wells to see whether it matched expectations, and if not, why not. The data also allows us to review how the development of the play changed (lateral length, completion, etc.) and the variance in performance Figure 1: Schematic of gradational overlap of geologic between operators presents valuable lessons in attributes that define the core of an unconventional whether success is all about the rocks, or whether resource play operator knowledge/insight can make good rocks bad or vice versa. © Kimmeridge 2015 - Deconstructing the Fayetteville 2 Background The Fayetteville shale lies in the eastern Arkoma Basin and ranges in depth from outcrop in the north to 9,000’ at the southern end of the play, with drill depths primarily between 3,000’ and 6,000’.
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: a Primer
    U.S. Department of Energy • Office of Fossil Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory April 2009 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe upon privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer Work Performed Under DE-FG26-04NT15455 Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy and National Energy Technology Laboratory Prepared by Ground Water Protection Council Oklahoma City, OK 73142 405-516-4972 www.gwpc.org and ALL Consulting Tulsa, OK 74119 918-382-7581 www.all-llc.com April 2009 MODERN SHALE GAS DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES: A PRIMER ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) under Award Number DE‐FG26‐ 04NT15455. Mr. Robert Vagnetti and Ms. Sandra McSurdy, NETL Project Managers, provided oversight and technical guidance.
    [Show full text]
  • Unconventional Gas and Oil in North America Page 1 of 24
    Unconventional gas and oil in North America This publication aims to provide insight into the impacts of the North American 'shale revolution' on US energy markets and global energy flows. The main economic, environmental and climate impacts are highlighted. Although the North American experience can serve as a model for shale gas and tight oil development elsewhere, the document does not explicitly address the potential of other regions. Manuscript completed in June 2014. Disclaimer and copyright This publication does not necessarily represent the views of the author or the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation of this document for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. © European Union, 2014. Photo credits: © Trueffelpix / Fotolia (cover page), © bilderzwerg / Fotolia (figure 2) [email protected] http://www.eprs.ep.parl.union.eu (intranet) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank (internet) http://epthinktank.eu (blog) Unconventional gas and oil in North America Page 1 of 24 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 'shale revolution' Over the past decade, the United States and Canada have experienced spectacular growth in the production of unconventional fossil fuels, notably shale gas and tight oil, thanks to technological innovations such as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Economic impacts This new supply of energy has led to falling gas prices and a reduction of energy imports. Low gas prices have benefitted households and industry, especially steel production, fertilisers, plastics and basic petrochemicals. The production of tight oil is costly, so that a high oil price is required to make it economically viable.
    [Show full text]
  • The Duvernay Resource
    AB & BC Montney Technical Session Thursday, February 20th, 2020 801 Seventh +15 – 667 7 Street SW THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS! AB & BC Montney Day An Update on AB and BC’s Montney Resource Play February 20th, 2020 AB & BC Montney Technical Session Thursday, February 20th, 2020 801 Seventh +15 – 667 7 Street SW QUESTIONS & ANSWERS FORMAT For this workshop, we will use CSUR`s website to make it easy for everyone to share their ideas, opinions and most importantly, questions! How it works: 1) Go to our website through the respective link: Montney Overview Session visit: https://www.csur.com/question/mo Technical Session #1 Session visit: https://www.csur.com/question/1 Technical Session #2 Session visit: https://www.csur.com/question/2 Technical Session #3 Session visit: https://www.csur.com/question/3 2) Submit your question and it will be displayed on the screen 3) Please note that “write your answer” is where you should write your question and submit your answer will complete and post your question to the speaker(s). 4) Please, make sure you are in the right link and session. 1 Page Sponsored by: AB & BC Montney Technical Session Thursday, February 20th, 2020 801 Seventh +15 – 667 7 Street SW AGENDA 08:00 – 08:25 Registration, Networking and Breakfast 08:25 – 08:30 Welcome: Al Kassam and Dan Allan Montney Play Update Moderator: Karen Spencer, University of Calgary Moderator Bio: Ms. Spencer is an experienced oil and gas Professional Engineer with a Master’s Degree in Public Policy. Her unique background includes business and financial knowledge, strong technical experience, and a policy and regulatory focus.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydraulic Fracturing in the Barnett Shale
    Hydraulic Fracturing in the Barnett Shale Samantha Fuchs GIS in Water Resources Dr. David Maidment University of Texas at Austin Fall 2015 Table of Contents I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................3 II. Barnett Shale i. Geologic and Geographic Information ..............................................................6 ii. Shale Gas Production.........................................................................................7 III. Water Resources i. Major Texas Aquifers ......................................................................................11 ii. Groundwater Wells ..........................................................................................13 IV. Population and Land Cover .........................................................................................14 V. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................16 VI. References....................................................................................................................17 2 I. Introduction Hydraulic Fracturing, or fracking, is a process by which natural gas is extracted from shale rock. It is a well-stimulation technique where fluid is injected into deep rock formations to fracture it. The fracking fluid contains a mixture of chemical components with different purposes. Proppants like sand are used in the fluid to hold fractures in the rock open once the hydraulic
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Undiscovered Resources of the Barnett-Paleozoic Total Petroleum System, Bend Arch–Fort Worth Basin Province, Texas* by Richard M
    Assessing Undiscovered Resources of the Barnett-Paleozoic Total Petroleum System, Bend Arch–Fort Worth Basin Province, Texas* By Richard M. Pollastro1, Ronald J. Hill1, Daniel M. Jarvie2, and Mitchell E. Henry1 Search and Discovery Article #10034 (2003) *Online adaptation of presentation at AAPG Southwest Section Meeting, Fort Worth, TX, March, 2003 (www.southwestsection.org) 1U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO 2Humble Geochemical Services, Humble, TX ABSTRACT Organic-rich Barnett Shale (Mississippian-Pennsylvanian) is the primary source rock for oil and gas that is produced from Paleozoic reservoir rocks in the Bend Arch–Fort Worth Basin Province. Areal distribution and geochemical typing of hydrocarbons in this mature petroleum province indicates generation and expulsion from the Barnett at a depocenter coincident with a paleoaxis of the Fort Worth Basin. Barnett-sourced hydrocarbons migrated westward into reservoir rocks of the Bend Arch and Eastern shelf; however, some oil and gas was possibly sourced by a composite Woodford-Barnett total petroleum system of the Midland Basin from the west. Current U.S. Geological assessments of undiscovered oil and gas are performed using the total petroleum system (TPS) concept. The TPS is composed of mature source rock, known accumulations, and area(s) of undiscovered hydrocarbon potential. The TPS is subdivided into assessment units based on similar geologic characteristics, accumulation type (conventional or continuous), and hydrocarbon type (oil and (or) gas). Assessment of the Barnett-Paleozoic TPS focuses on the continuous (unconventional) Barnett accumulation where gas and some oil are produced from organic-rich siliceous shale in the northeast portion of the Fort Worth Basin. Assessment units are also identified for mature conventional plays in Paleozoic carbonate and clastic reservoir rocks, such as the Chappel Limestone pinnacle reefs and Bend Group conglomerate, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • EMD Oil Shale Committee
    EMD Oil Shale Committee 2017 EMD Oil Shale Committee Report Justin E. Birdwell (Chair), U.S. Geological Survey November 29, 2017 Vice-Chairs: • Gerald Daub (Vice-Chair: Industry), Daub & Associates, Inc. • Dr. Lauren Birgenheier (Vice-Chair: University), University of Utah • Michael D. Vanden Berg (Vice-Chair: Government), Utah Geological Survey Advisory Group: • Dr. Alan K. Burnham, Stanford University • Dr. Jeremy Boak, Oklahoma Geological Survey, University of Oklahoma • Mr. Ronald C. Johnson, U.S. Geological Survey Special Consultants to the Committee: • John Parsons, QER Pty Ltd • Gary Aho, Sage Geotech • Indrek Aarna, Eesti Energia • Rikki Hrenko-Browning, Enefit American Oil • Ryan Clerico, Enefit American Oil • Alex Bocock, Red Leaf Resources • Christopher Hopkins, Canshale Corp. • Steven Kerr, Millcreek Mining Group • Steven Odut, Thyssenkrupp • Pierre Allix, Total S.A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Low oil prices continue to hamper oil shale development around the world. Although new production capacity in Estonia and China has come online recently, efforts in other places are on indefinite hiatus or are well behind schedule relative to what was anticipated just a few years ago. The current status remains in flux, and recent developments in conventional and unconventional crude oil plays in the United States and elsewhere indicate this will not change anytime soon. Oil shale continues to be mined processed in China and Brazil, but production updates for 2016 were not available as of the preparation of this report. In Estonia, Eesti Energia (Enefit) continued development of their co-generation Auvere power plant that is designed to utilize both oil shale and other fuel sources (wood chips, peat, gas).
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeochemical Evaluation of the Uinta Formation and Green River Formation, Piceance Creek Basin, Northwestern Colorado, USA
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses Fall 11-1-2016 Hydrogeochemical Evaluation of the Uinta Formation and Green River Formation, Piceance Creek Basin, Northwestern Colorado, USA Megan E. Masterson Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Geology Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Masterson, Megan E., "Hydrogeochemical Evaluation of the Uinta Formation and Green River Formation, Piceance Creek Basin, Northwestern Colorado, USA" (2016). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 3317. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.3297 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Hydrogeochemical Evaluation of the Uinta Formation and Green River Formation, Piceance Creek Basin, Northwestern Colorado, USA by Megan E. Masterson A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geology Thesis Committee: Robert B. Perkins, Chair Carl Palmer John Bershaw Maxwell Rudolph Portland State University 2016 ABSTRACT The Piceance Creek Basin in northwestern Colorado contains extensive oil shale deposits that produce natural gas and which could potentially yield ~1.5 trillion barrels of shale oil. However, much of the oil shale lies at depths too great for traditional mining practices and various innovative approaches for in situ conversion of kerogen to oil have been proposed. A firm understanding of the existing hydrogeochemistry is needed as resulting mineralogical changes or rock-fluid reactions may affect rock porosity and permeability.
    [Show full text]
  • Substitute Natural Gas from Biomass Gasification
    Rapport SGC 187 Substitute natural gas from biomass gasification ©Svenskt Gastekniskt Center – mars 2008 Haldor Topsoe's methanation process TREMP Per Tunå, Lund Institute of Technology Rapport SGC 187 •1102-7371 • ISRN SGC-R-187-SE SGC:s FÖRORD FUD-projekt inom Svenskt Gastekniskt Center AB avrapporteras normalt i rapporter som är fritt tillgängliga för envar intresserad. SGC svarar för utgivningen av rapporterna medan uppdragstagarna för respek- tive projekt eller rapportförfattarna svarar för rapporternas innehåll. Den som utnyttjar eventuella beskrivningar, resultat eller dylikt i rapporterna gör detta helt på eget ansvar. Delar av rapport får återges med angivande av källan. En förteckning över hittills utgivna SGC-rapporter finns på SGC:s hemsida www.sgc.se. Svenskt Gastekniskt Center AB (SGC) är ett samarbetsorgan för företag verk- samma inom energigasområdet. Dess främsta uppgift är att samordna och effektivisera intressenternas insatser inom områdena forskning, utveckling och demonstration (FUD). SGC har följande delägare: Svenska Gasföreningen, E.ON Gas Sverige AB, E.ON Sverige AB, Göteborg Energi AB, Lunds Energikoncernen AB (publ) och Öresundskraft AB. Följande parter har gjort det möjligt att genomföra detta utvecklingsprojekt: E.ON Gas Sverige AB Göteborg Energi AB SVENSKT GASTEKNISKT CENTER AB Jörgen Held Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following people for their support throughout this thesis work. Professor Hans T. Karlsson at the Department of Chemical Engineering for his dedication to find an interesting thesis work for me. Christian Hulteberg at the Department of Chemical Engineering as he always has a good answer for everything and always had time to help me. Owe Jönsson at E.ON Gas Sverige AB and Lars A Andersson at Göteborg Energi AB for taking their time and to give valuable suggestions and ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Study Develops Fayetteville Shale Reserves, Production Forecast John Browning Katie Smye a Study of Reserve and Production Potential for the Fayette- Scott W
    Study develops Fayetteville Shale reserves, production forecast John Browning Katie Smye A study of reserve and production potential for the Fayette- Scott W. Tinker Susan Horvath ville Shale in north central Arkansas forecasts a cumulative Svetlana Ikonnikova Tad Patzek 18 tcf of economically recoverable reserves by 2050, with Gürcan Gülen Frank Male production declining to about 400 bcf/year by 2030 from Eric Potter Forrest Roberts the current peak of about 950 bcf/year. Qilong Fu Carl Grote The forecast suggests the formation will continue to be a The University of Texas major contributor to U.S. natural gas production. Austin The Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) at The University In this cross section of the Fayetteville Shale, the pay zone is identified by lines correlated between logs. Shaded areas of density-log porosity (DPhi) curve represent DPhi values less than 5%. The map shows the location of the cross section. TECHNOLOGY 1 FAYETTEVILLE POROSITY * THICKNESS (PHI*H) FIG. 2 Contours,2 density porosity-ft Stone 5 8 11 14 17 20 23 26 29 32 35 38 41 44 47 50 Batesville Van Buren Cleburne Independence Pope Conway Faulkner Area shown White Conway 0 Miles 25 Arkansas 0 Km 40 1With 60° NE trend bias to reect fault trends. 2Porosity is net from density logs (DPhi). of Texas at Austin conducted the study, integrating engineer- sient flow model for the first 3-5 years, resulting in decline ing, geology, and economics into a numerical model that al- rates inversely proportional to the square root of time, later lows for scenario testing on the basis of an array of technical shifting to exponential decline as a result of interfracture and economic parameters.
    [Show full text]
  • Maximising the Value of Surplus Ethane and Cost-Effective Design to Handle Rich Lng
    Poster PO-25 MAXIMISING THE VALUE OF SURPLUS ETHANE AND COST-EFFECTIVE DESIGN TO HANDLE RICH LNG CC Yang Process and Technology Director, LNG Foster Wheeler USA, 2020 Dairy Ashford, Houston, TX 77077, USA [email protected] Geoffrey Bothamley Business Development Manager Oil and Gas Foster Wheeler Energy Limited, Shinfield Park, Reading, Berkshire, RG2 9FW, UK [email protected] ABSTRACT Gas companies have strict requirements for the composition of the natural gas sent out from their LNG receiving terminals in order to satisfy customer requirements in terms of calorific value and quality of the composition. For LNG receiving terminals serving the North American market particularly, the C2+ content and heating value specifications are lower than most natural gases and most existing LNG baseload plants. Cost-effective management of these components enhances the LNG value chain, increasing flexibility in sourcing LNG cargoes. Several alternatives for managing C2+ components in the LNG value chain exist. Generally, extraction can occur at either the receiving terminal or upstream of the liquefaction plant. In many cases it is not cost-effective to reduce the C2 at the baseload plant, as it will reduce the LNG production rate and there may be no local market. Some LNG production plant locations, however, have grown to a size that would meet minimum economic scale for a steam cracker taking C2 and C3 as feedstock for ethylene and propylene production. To accept cargoes of rich LNG, the LNG receiving terminal has to be able to manage the C2+ components in an economically efficient manner. This paper presents a cost- effective C2+ management process design for send-out gas at the LNG receiving terminal.
    [Show full text]
  • Bossier Bossier
    CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES BOSSIER - HAYNESVILLE SHALE: NORTH LOUISIANA SALT BASIN D. A. GODDARD, E. A. MANCINI, S. C. TALUKAR & M. HORN Louisiana State University Baton Rouge , Louisiana 1 OVERVIEW Regional Geological Setting Total Organic Carbon & RockRock--EvalEval Pyrolisis Kerogen Petrography Thin Section Petrography Naturally Fractured Shale Reservoirs Conclusions 2 Gulf Coast Interior Basins Gulf Coast Interior Salt Basins Mancini and Puckett, 2005 3 TYPE LOG 4 Type Wells 5 Bossier Parish Wells 6 BossierBossier--HaynesvilleHaynesville samples in NLSB . (LA Parish) Sample (Serial #) OP/Well Name Core Interval Depth-Ft (Jackson) 10,944 (162291) AMOCO Davis Bros. Bossier Fm. 10, 945 10,948 Haynesville Fm. 12,804 12,956 12,976 (164798) AMOCO CZ 5-7 (Winn) 15,601 Bossier Fm. 15, 608 Haynesville Fm. 16,413 16,418 16,431 16,432 (166680) EXXON Pardee (Winn) 16195 Bossier Fm. 16, 200 16,400 (107545) Venzina Green #1 (Union) 9,347 Bossier Fm. 9,357 9,372 7 8 Bossier -Haynesville samples in Vernon Field Serial. # Operator Well Field Sec TWP RGE Parish Sample Depth- Ft 224274 Anadarko Fisher 16 #1 Vernon 16 16N 02W Jackson 13,175 13,770 226742 Anadarko Davis Bros 29 Vernon 29 16N 02W Jackson 14,035 15,120 231813 Anadarko Beasley 9 #2 Vernon 9 16N 02W Jackson 11,348 232316 Anadarko StewtHarrison Vernon 34 16N 03W Jackson 11,805 34 #2 9 Modified from Structuremaps.com 10 11 12 13 Analytical results of Total Organic Carbon, RockRock--EvalEval PyrolysisPyrolysis,, and Vitrinite Reflectance (Ro) in the NLSB. Depth % TOC Wt S1 S2 S3 Well Sample (Ft) % mg/g mg/g mg/g Tmax HI OI S1/TOC PI TAI Ro AMOCO DAVIS Cotton V.
    [Show full text]