DOCSLIB.ORG

Water Management Practices Used by Fayetteville Shale Gas Producers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Water Management Practices Used by Fayetteville Shale Gas Producers Oil & Natural Gas Technology DOE Award No.: FWP 49462 Water Management Practices Used by Fayetteville Shale Gas Producers Submitted by: John A. Veil Argonne National Laboratory Argonne, IL Prepared for: United States Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory June 2011 Office of Fossil Energy About Argonne National Laboratory Argonne is a U.S. Department of Energy laboratory managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC under contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. The Laboratory’s main facility is outside Chicago, at 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois 60439. For information about Argonne, see www.anl.gov. Availability of This Report This report is available, at no cost, at http://www.osti.gov/bridge. It is also available on paper to the U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, for a processing fee, from: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 phone (865) 576-8401 fax (865) 576-5728 [email protected] 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 UChicago Argonne, LLC, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any warranty, express 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 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 document authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, Argonne National Laboratory, or UChicago Argonne, LLC. ANL/EVS/R-11/5 Water Management Practices Used by Fayetteville Shale Gas Producers prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory prepared by J.A. Veil Environmental Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory June 2011 Water Management in the Fayetteville Shale Page 1 Chapter 1 – Introduction Shale Gas Natural gas is an important energy source for the United States. Shale formations represent a growing source of natural gas for the nation and are among the busiest oil and gas plays in the country. As an indication of their importance, in less than one year’s time, the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy Information Administration (EIA) dramatically increased its estimate of the proportion of future domestic gas production that is likely to come from shale formations. Figure 1 shows a May 2010 EIA projection of the source of natural gas supplies through 2035. Shale gas supplies were anticipated to play an increasingly important role, increasing from 10% in 2009 to about 24% in 2035. Figure 1 – U.S. Natural Gas Supply by Source – Projection Released May 2010 30 Alaska 25 Gas Shale 20 Coalbed Methane 15 Conventional Tcf/year Onshore 10 Offshore Gas Associated 5 with Crude Oil Net Imports 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Source: DOE/EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2010 (EIA 2010a). Note that Tcf refers to trillion cubic feet. In contrast, Figure 2 shows an accelerated growth of shale gas over a similar period of time. The new EIA projections released in December 2010 now show that shale gas will increase from 14% of the national supply in 2009 to 45% in 2035. Water Management in the Fayetteville Shale Page 2 Figure 2 – U.S. Natural Gas Supply by Source – Projection Released December 2010 Source: DOE/EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2011 – Early Release Overview (EIA 2010b). Shale Gas Resources in the United States Important shale gas formations are found in many parts of the United States, as shown on the map in Figure 3. Much of the early rapid growth in shale gas production took place in the Barnett Shale formation near Fort Worth, Texas. As the technology evolved, operators began to explore other large shale formations in other parts of the country. The most active gas shales to date are the Barnett Shale, the Fayetteville Shale, the Antrim Shale, the Haynesville Shale, the Marcellus Shale, and the Woodford Shale. The Eagle Ford Shale, in southern Texas, has received a great deal of attention in the past year. Depending on the geographical location within the Eagle Ford Shale, a well may produce natural gas, natural gas liquids, or crude oil. A 2009 Shale Gas Primer, sponsored by DOE, includes a chart showing the gas production from several major shale gas formations (GWPC and ALL 2009 – see page 10). DOE/NETL Research Program DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) administers an Environmental Program that aims to find solutions to environmental concerns by focusing on the following program elements: 1. Produced water and fracture flowback water management, particularly in gas shale development areas, 2. Water resource management in oil and gas basins, Water Management in the Fayetteville Shale Page 3 3. Air quality issues associated with oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) activities, 4. Surface impact issues associated with E&P activities, 5. Water resource management in Arctic oil and gas development areas, 6. Decision-making tools that help operators balance resource development and environmental protection, and 7. Online information and data exchange systems that support regulatory streamlining. Figure 3 – U.S. Shale Gas Plays Source: Provided by staff from DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy. There are currently 27 extramural projects in the Environmental Program, with a total value of roughly $32 million (not including participant cost-share). Approximately $10 million of this total is directed toward projects led by industry, $9 million to projects led by universities, $11 million to state agencies and national non-profit organizations, and $2 million to national laboratories for technical support to other project partners. The project portfolio is balanced between projects focused on technology development, data gathering, and development of data management software and decision support tools. Some of these projects are referenced in this report. Program and individual project information can be found at the following NETL links: Water Management in the Fayetteville Shale Page 4 Technology Solutions for Mitigating Environmental Impacts of Oil and Gas E&P Activity http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/program/Prog101.pdf Natural Gas and Petroleum Projects, Environmental Solutions, Produced Water Management http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/Projects/ENV_TOC.html#Produced Purpose of Report Water issues continue to play an important role in producing natural gas from shale formations. This report examines water issues relating to shale gas production in the Fayetteville Shale. In particular, the report focuses on how gas producers obtain water supplies used for drilling and hydraulically fracturing wells, how that water is transported to the well sites and stored, and how the wastewater from the wells (flowback and produced water) is managed. Last year, Argonne National Laboratory made a similar evaluation of water issues in the Marcellus Shale (Veil 2010). Gas production in the Marcellus Shale involves at least three states, many oil and gas operators, and multiple wastewater management options. Consequently, Veil (2010) provided extensive information on water. This current study is less complicated for several reasons. Gas production in the Fayetteville Shale is somewhat more mature and stable than production in the Marcellus Shale. The Fayetteville Shale underlies a single state (Arkansas). There are only a few gas producers that operate the large majority of the wells in the Fayetteville Shale. Much of the water management information relating to the Marcellus Shale also applies to the Fayetteville Shale. Therefore, it can be referenced from Veil (2010) rather than being recreated here. The author has previously published a report on the Fayetteville Shale (Veil 2007) and has helped to develop an informational website on the Fayetteville Shale (Argonne and University of Arkansas 2008). Both of these sources, which are relevant to the subject of this report, are cited as references. Water Management in the Fayetteville Shale Page 5 Chapter 2 – The Fayetteville Shale The Fayetteville Shale is an unconventional natural gas reservoir located on the Arkansas side of the Arkoma Basin. The formation ranges in thickness from 50 to 550 feet and in depth from 1,500 to 6,500 feet. The shale is a Mississippian-age shale that is the geologic equivalent of the Caney Shale found on the Oklahoma side of the Arkoma Basin and the Barnett Shale found in north Texas (Argonne and University of Arkansas 2008). Location The Fayetteville Shale play stretches across Arkansas from approximately Fort Smith east to beyond Little Rock, Arkansas. It is approximately 50 miles wide from north to south. Figure 4 shows those counties that have some gas wells drilled to the Fayetteville Shale formation. According to the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission, although wells were drilled in Woodruff, Prairie, Phillips, and Lee counties, no production was attributed to any of those counties (Gates 2011). Figure 4 – Map of Arkansas Showing the Counties with Fayetteville Shale Wells Source: Map taken from Argonne and University of Arkansas (2008); updated using data from Arkansas Geology Survey (2010). Water Management in the Fayetteville Shale Page 6 The most active area of natural gas development is from western Conway County through eastern White County. Due to the less than favorable geological conditions, development further to the east is not anticipated to proceed in the near future (Gates 2011). Well Activity The website of the Arkansas Geological Survey includes a spreadsheet of Fayetteville Shale well information (Arkansas Geological Survey 2010).
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]
  • 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]
  • U.S. Shale Gas
    U.S. Shale Gas An Unconventional Resource. Unconventional Challenges. WHITE PAPER U.S. Shale Gas An Unconventional Resource . Unconventional Challenges . Executive Summary Current increasing demand and lagging supply mean high prices for both oil and gas, making exploitation of North American unconventional gas plays suddenly far more lucrative for producers. One of the most important such plays to emerge has been U.S. shale gas, with current recoverable reserves conservatively estimated at 500 to 1,000 trillion cubic feet. Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling are the key enabling technologies that first made recovery of shale gas economically viable with their introduction in the Barnett Shale of Texas during the 1990s. However, a comparison of the currently hottest shale plays makes it clear that, after two decades of development and several iterations of the learning curve, best practices are application-dependent and must evolve locally. That said, a review of current trends in these hot plays indicates that, in many cases, the impact of high-drilling density required to develop continuous gas accumulations can be minimized through early and better identification of the accumulation type and size, well- designed access and transportation networks, and cooperative planning and construction efforts, when possible. U.S. Shale Gas Geographic Potential Across the U.S., from the West Coast to the Northeast, some 19 geographic basins are recognized sources of shale gas, where an estimated 35,000 wells were drilled in 2006. Presently, significant commercial gas shale production occurs in the Barnett Shale in the Fort Worth Basin, Lewis Shale in the San Juan Basin, Antrim Shale in the Michigan Basin, Marcellus Shale and others in the Appalachian Basin, and New Albany Shale in the Illinois Basin.
    [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]
  • Shallow Groundwater Quality and Geochemistry in the Fayetteville Shale Gas-Production Area, North-Central Arkansas, 2011
    Prepared in cooperation with (in alphabetical order) the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission, Duke University, Faulkner County, Shirley Community Development Corporation, and the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, and the U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater Resources Program Shallow Groundwater Quality and Geochemistry in the Fayetteville Shale Gas-Production Area, North-Central Arkansas, 2011 Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5273 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Left, Drilling rig and equipment used in the Fayetteville Shale gas-production area, north-central Arkansas. Right, Pond with synthetic liner used to store water at shale gas-production facility in the Fayetteville Shale area, north-central Arkansas. Bottom, Freshwater pond and distribution lines for source water used in drilling and hydrofracturing in the Fayetteville Shale gas-production area, north-central Arkansas. All photographs by Timothy M. Kresse, U.S. Geological Survey. Shallow Groundwater Quality and Geochemistry in the Fayetteville Shale Gas-Production Area, North-Central Arkansas, 2011 By Timothy M. Kresse, Nathaniel R. Warner, Phillip D. Hays, Adrian Down, Avner Vengosh, Robert B. Jackson Prepared in cooperation with (in alphabetical order) the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission, Duke University, Faulkner County, Shirley Community Development Corporation, and the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, and the U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater Resources Program Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5273 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012 This and other USGS information products are available at http://store.usgs.gov/ U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • BHP Billiton Petroleum Onshore US Shale Briefing
    BHP Billiton Petroleum Onshore US shale briefing J. Michael Yeager Group Executive and Chief Executive, Petroleum 14 November 2011 Disclaimer Reliance on Third Party Information The views expressed here contain information that has been derived from publicly available sources that have not been independently verified. No representation or warranty is made as to the accuracy, completeness or reliability of the information. This presentation should not be relied upon as a recommendation or forecast by BHP Billiton. Forward Looking Statements This presentation includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of the US Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 regarding future events and the future financial performance of BHP Billiton. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees or predictions of future performance, and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, many of which are beyond our control, and which may cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in the statements contained in this presentation. For more detail on those risks, you should refer to the sections of our annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended 30 June 2011 entitled “Risk factors”, “Forward looking statements” and “Operating and financial review and prospects” filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. No Offer of Securities Nothing in this release should be construed as either an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell BHP Billiton securities in any jurisdiction. J. Michael Yeager, Group Executive and Chief Executive, Petroleum, 14 November 2011 Slide 2 Petroleum briefing agenda § Introduction § Part 1: Technical overview of the shale industry § Part 2: Business update J.
    [Show full text]
  • EVIDENCE of PRESSURE DEPENDENT PERMEABILITY in LONG-TERM SHALE GAS PRODUCTION and PRESSURE TRANSIENT RESPONSES a Thesis by FABIA
    EVIDENCE OF PRESSURE DEPENDENT PERMEABILITY IN LONG-TERM SHALE GAS PRODUCTION AND PRESSURE TRANSIENT RESPONSES A Thesis by FABIAN ELIAS VERA ROSALES Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Approved by: Chair of Committee, Christine Ehlig-Economides Committee Members, Robert Wattenbarger Maria Barrufet Head of Department, Dan Hill December 2012 Major Subject: Petroleum Engineering Copyright 2012 Fabian Elias Vera Rosales ABSTRACT The current state of shale gas reservoir dynamics demands understanding long- term production, and existing models that address important parameters like fracture half-length, permeability, and stimulated shale volume assume constant permeability. Petroleum geologists suggest that observed steep declining rates may involve pressure- dependent permeability (PDP). This study accounts for PDP in three potential shale media: the shale matrix, the existing natural fractures, and the created hydraulic fractures. Sensitivity studies comparing expected long-term rate and pressure production behavior with and without PDP show that these two are distinct when presented as a sequence of coupled build-up rate-normalized pressure (BU-RNP) and its logarithmic derivative, making PDP a recognizable trend. Pressure and rate field data demonstrate evidence of PDP only in Horn River and Haynesville but not in Fayetteville shale. While the presence of PDP did not seem to impact the long term recovery forecast, it is possible to determine whether the observed behavior relates to change in hydraulic fracture conductivity or to change in fracture network permeability. As well, it provides insight on whether apparent fracture networks relate to an existing natural fracture network in the shale or to a fracture network induced during hydraulic fracturing.
    [Show full text]
  • I Report Title Resource Assessment of the In-Place and Potentially Recoverable Deep Natural Gas Resource of the Onshore Interior
    Report Title Resource Assessment of the In-Place and Potentially Recoverable Deep Natural Gas Resource of the Onshore Interior Salt Basins, North Central and Northeastern Gulf of Mexico Type of Report Final Report Reporting Period Start Date October 1, 2003 Reporting Period End Date September 30, 2006 Principal Author Ernest A. Mancini (205/348-4319) Department of Geological Sciences Box 870338 202 Bevill Building University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0338 Date Report was Issued November 15, 2006 DOE Award Number DE-FC26-03NT41875 Name and Address of Participants Ernest A. Mancini Donald A. Goddard Paul Aharon Roger Barnaby Dept. of Geological Sciences Center for Energy Studies Box 870338 Louisiana State University Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0338 Baton Rouge, LA 70803 i 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, express 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 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
    [Show full text]
  • Revision of Some of Girty's Invertebrate Fossils from the Fayetteville Shale (Mississippian) of Arkansas and Oklahoma Introduction by MACKENZIE GORDON, JR
    Revision of Some of Girty's Invertebrate Fossils from the Fayetteville Shale (Mississippian) of Arkansas and Oklahoma Introduction By MACKENZIE GORDON, JR. Corals By WILLIAM J. SANDO Pelecypods By JOHN POJETA, JR. Gastropods By ELLIS L. YOCHELSON Trilobites By MACKENZIE GORDON, JR. Ostracodes By I. G. SOHN GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 606-A, B, C, D, E, F Papers illustrating and describing certain of G. H. Girty' s invertebrate fossils from the Fayetteville Shale UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1969 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WALTER J. HICKEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 70-650224 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washing.ton, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS [The letters in parentheses preceding the titles are those used to designate the chapters] Page (A) Introduction, by Mackenzie Gordon, Jr _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 (B) Corals, by William J. Sando__________________________________________________________________________________ 9 (C) Pelecypods, by John Pojeta, Jr _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 15 (D) Gastropods, by Ellis L.
    [Show full text]
  • EMD Shale Gas and Liquids Committee Annual Report, FY 2014
    EMD Shale Gas and Liquids Committee Annual Report, FY 2014 Neil S. Fishman, Chair March 30, 2014 Vice Chairs: Brian Cardott, (Vice Chair, Government), Oklahoma Geological Survey, Norman, OK Harris Cander (Vice Chair, Industry), BP, Houston, TX Sven Egenhoff, (Vice Chair, University), Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO Advisory Committee (in alphabetical order): Kent Bowker, Bowker Petroleum, The Woodlands, TX Ken Chew, IHS (retired), Perthsire, Scotland Thomas Chidsey, Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, UT Russell Dubiel, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO Catherine Enomoto, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA William Harrison, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI Ursula Hammes, Bureau of Economic Geology, Austin, TX Shu Jiang, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT Margaret Keller, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA Julie LeFever, North Dakota Geological Survey, Grand Forks, ND Peng Li, Arkansas Geological Survey, Little Rock, AR Jock McCracken, Egret Consulting, Calgary, AB Stephen Nordeng, North Dakota Geological Survey, Grand Forks, ND Rich Nyahay, New York Museum, Albany, NY Stephen Sonnenberg, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO Michael D. Vanden Berg, Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, UT Rachel Walker, Countrymark Energy Resources, LLC, Indianapolis, IN INTRODUCTION It is a pleasure to present this Annual Report from the EMD Shale Gas and Liquids Committee. This report contains information about specific shales across the U.S., Canada, Europe, China, as well as SE Asia from which hydrocarbons are currently being produced or shales that are of interest for hydrocarbon exploitation. The inclusion in this report of shales from which any hydrocarbon is produced reflects the expanded mission of the EMD Shale Gas and Liquids Committee to serve as a single point of access to technical information on shales regardless of the hydrocarbons produced from them (e.g., gas, oil, condensate).
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Vertical Location on Hydraulic Fracture Conductivity In
    THE INFLUENCE OF VERTICAL LOCATION ON HYDRAULIC FRACTURE CONDUCTIVITY IN THE FAYETTEVILLE SHALE A Thesis by KATHRYN ELIZABETH BRIGGS Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Chair of Committee, Ding Zhu Committee Members, A. Daniel Hill Michael Pope Head of Department, A. Daniel Hill May 2014 Major Subject: Petroleum Engineering Copyright 2014 Kathryn Elizabeth Briggs ABSTRACT Hydraulic fracturing is the primary stimulation method within low permeability reservoirs, in particular shale reservoirs. Hydraulic fracturing provides a means for making shale reservoirs commercially viable by inducing and propping fracture networks allowing gas flow to the wellbore. Without a propping agent, the created fracture channels would close due to the in-situ stress and defeat the purpose of creating induced fractures. The fracture network conductivity is directly related to the well productivity; therefore, the oil and gas industry is currently trying to better understand what impacts fracture conductivity. Shale is a broad term for a fine-grained, detrital rock, composed of silts and clays, which often suggest laminar, fissile structure. This work investigates the difference between two vertical zones in the Fayetteville shale, the FL2 and FL3, by measuring laboratory fracture conductivity along an artificially induced, rough, aligned fracture. Unpropped and low concentration 30/70 mesh proppant experiments were run on samples from both zones. Parameters that were controllable, such as proppant size, concentration and type, were kept consistent between the two zones. In addition to comparing experimental fracture conductivity results, mineral composition, thin sections, and surface roughness scans were evaluated to distinguish differences between the two zones rock properties.
    [Show full text]