DOCSLIB.ORG

Report, Only Shale- Understanding of the Geology, Petrophysics, and Geomechanics Gas Assessment Units and Cells Are Shown

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report, Only Shale- Understanding of the Geology, Petrophysics, and Geomechanics Gas Assessment Units and Cells Are Shown National Assessment of Oil and Gas Project Map of Assessed Shale Gas in the United States, 2012 Digital Data Series 69–Z Plate 1 CANADA Seattle Tacoma Spokane WASHINGTON Vancouver Portland MAINE MONTANA NORTH DAKOTA Antrim Eugene Duluth OREGON VERMONT MINNESOTA NEW HAMPSHIRE Minneapolis-Saint Paul NEW YORK WISCONSIN Boston Syracuse SOUTH DAKOTA Rochester MASSACHUSETTS Springfield IDAHO MICHIGAN Providence Buffalo Marcellus Devonian Antrim Continuous Gas AU HartfordRHODE ISLAND Utica Shale Gas AU CONNECTICUT WYOMING Flint Grand Rapids Milwaukee Lansing Niobrara Chalk AU Detroit Interior Marcellus AU New York City NEW JERSEY Toledo IOWA Chicago Cleveland PENNSYLVANIA Trenton Youngstown Utica Akron Foldbelt Marcellus AU Salt Lake City Philadelphia NEBRASKA UNITED STATES Fort Wayne Sacramento Omaha Northwestern NEVADA UTAH Ohio Shale AU Western Margin Marcellus AU Concord OHIO Oakland Columbus INDIANA Dayton San Jose ILLINOIS Indianapolis Cane Creek Shale Gas Denver Gothic, Chimney Rock, Devonian to Mississippian New Albany Continuous Gas AU Hovenweep Shale Gas Cincinnati WEST VIRGINIA Devonian Siltstone and Shale AU Covington Niobrara CALIFORNIA Kansas City Marcellus Richmond COLORADO Saint Louis Louisville VIRGINIA Newport News-Hampton Appalachian Devonian Norfolk KANSAS MISSOURI Gothic, Hovenweep KENTUCKY Roanoke Fayetteville Shale Gas– Western Arkansas Basin Margin AU Las Vegas New Albany Chattanooga Winston-Salem Woodford Fayetteville Caney Shale Gas AU Fayetteville Shale Gas– TENNESSEE Chattanooga NORTH CAROLINA Nashville Knoxville Thirteen Finger–Atokan Shale AU High Gamma-Ray Depocenter AU ARIZONA Los Angeles Charlotte Caney Greenville Albuquerque Oklahoma City Chattanooga ARKANSAS ATLANTIC OCEAN OKLAHOMA Huntsville NEW MEXICO Woodford Shale Gas AU SOUTH CAROLINA San Diego Phoenix Marietta Chattanooga Shale Gas AU Atlanta Augusta Woodford Shale Gas AU Birmingham Woodford Haynesville Sabine Platform Shale Gas AU Greater Newark East Frac-Barrier ALABAMA GEORGIA Tucson Continuous Barnett Shale Gas AU Legend Delaware/Pecos Basins Barnett MISSISSIPPI Dallas Haynesville Total Gas (TCFG) Continuous Shale Gas AU Bossier Fort Worth Jackson 1 Barnett 5 175° 170° 165° 160° 155° 150° 145° 140° 135° Barnett TEXAS LOUISIANA 10 Jacksonville Woodford Extended Continuous Barnett 70° Shale Gas AU Pensacola 25 Shublik - 38.41 Austin Brookian - 2.18 Delaware/Pecos Basins Woodford Houston Continuous Shale Gas AU Orlando 50 San Antonio ALASKA FLORIDA Cocoa Beach Pearsall Tampa Midland Basin Woodford/Barnett Mid-Bossier Sabine Platform Shale Gas AU Continuous Gas AU Clearwater Sarasota 75 Maverick Basin Pearsall Shale Gas AU Fort Lauderdale- West Palm Beach Eagle Ford Shale Gas AU Miami Eagle Ford 100 Shublik Shale Gas AU 65° MEXICO Gulf of Mexico Brookian Shale Gas AU Mean Shale Gas Resource Estimates (TCFG) (Undiscovered Technically Recoverable) ALASKA ALASKA Antrim–7.48 Niobrara Chalk–0.98 New Albany–3.79 Utica–37.3 Cane Creek–4.53 Marcellus–84.2 60° Fayetteville- Gothic, Chimney Rock, Other Appalachian Caney–14.38 Hovenweep–6.49 Devonian–3.95 125°W 120°W 115°W 85°W 80°W 75°W Thirteen Finger Limestone- Atoka Shale–6.85 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 MILES Woodford-Chattanooga–12.3 Barnett–26.23 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS Barnett–17.2 Woodford–15.97 Woodford–15.11 Haynesville- Explanation Bossier–65.86 Woodford-Barnett–2.82 Shale Gas Assessment Unit—Labeled with red Alaska Albers Equal Area Conic Projection text in a light red background Pearsall–8.82 Eagle Ford–50.22 Central_Meridian: -154.0 Standard_Parallel_1: 55.0 Chalk Gas Assessment Unit—Labeled with Standard_Parallel_2: 65.0 yellow text in a gold background Latitude_Of_Origin: 50.0 Datum: North American Datum 1983 Square-mile cells—Represent gas-producing wells in shale intervals. Labeled with red TCFG = Trillions of cubic feet of gas text in white background. Digital Data Series DDS–69–Z U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Map of Assessed Shale Gas in the United States, 2012 By U.S. Geological Survey National Assessment of Oil and Gas Resources Team, and Laura R.H. Biewick, compiler U.S. Geological Survey National Assessment of Oil and Gas Project Digital Data Series 69–Z U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2013 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: U.S. Geological Survey National Assessment of Oil and Gas Resources Team, and Biewick, L.R.H., compiler, 2013, Map of assessed shale gas in the United States, 2012: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series 69–Z, 16 p., 1 pl., GIS data package, http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-069/dds-069-z/. iii Contents Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1 Shale Gas Defined .........................................................................................................................................1 Historical Perspective ...................................................................................................................................2 Recovery Technologies .................................................................................................................................3 Slide Show of Shale-Gas Production through Time .................................................................................3 Print Map .........................................................................................................................................................3 Web Services .................................................................................................................................................6 Download Maps and Data ............................................................................................................................6 Summary..........................................................................................................................................................6 Acknowledgments .........................................................................................................................................6 References Cited............................................................................................................................................6 Selected References Uncited ......................................................................................................................9 Plate 1. Map of assessed shale gas in the United States, 2012 ..................................................... link Figures 1. Example of horizontal wells ........................................................................................................4 2. Map graphic that links to the hardcopy map ...........................................................................5 Table 1. Publications access table—Hyperlinks to USGS shale-gas assessment publications and web pages .................................................................................................. link Conversion Factors Inch/Pound to SI Multiply By To obtain Volume cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) SI to Inch/Pound Multiply By To obtain Length millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.) Map of Assessed Shale Gas in the United States, 2012 By U.S. Geological Survey National Assessment of Oil and Gas Resources Team, and Laura R.H. Biewick, compiler Abstract Kuuskraa, 2009). The heightened interest in shale gas began with the Barnett Shale in North Texas, followed by develop- The U.S. Geological Survey has compiled a map of ment of the Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas, the Woodford shale-gas assessments in the United States that were com- Shale in Oklahoma, the Haynesville/Bossier Formations in pleted by 2012 as part of the U.S. Geological Survey National Louisiana and Texas, the Marcellus Shale in the Appalachian Assessment of Oil and Gas Project. Using a geology-based Basin, and the Eagle Ford in Texas. Together with the Antrim assessment methodology, the U.S. Geological Survey quan- Shale in Michigan and Appalachian Basin Devonian shales, titatively estimated potential volumes of undiscovered gas these are the most active producing gas shales to date. In within shale-gas assessment units. These shale-gas assessment addition to these, others are being explored or evaluated, and units are mapped, and square-mile cells are shown to represent some are emerging from exploration to exploitation. Each proprietary shale-gas wells. The square-mile
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]
  • 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]
  • Evaluation of the Depositional Environment of the Eagle Ford
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2012 Evaluation of the depositional environment of the Eagle Ford Formation using well log, seismic, and core data in the Hawkville Trough, LaSalle and McMullen counties, south Texas Zachary Paul Hendershott Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Earth Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Hendershott, Zachary Paul, "Evaluation of the depositional environment of the Eagle Ford Formation using well log, seismic, and core data in the Hawkville Trough, LaSalle and McMullen counties, south Texas" (2012). LSU Master's Theses. 863. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/863 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EVALUATION OF THE DEPOSITIONAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE EAGLE FORD FORMATION USING WELL LOG, SEISMIC, AND CORE DATA IN THE HAWKVILLE TROUGH, LASALLE AND MCMULLEN COUNTIES, SOUTH TEXAS A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for degree of Master of Science in The Department of Geology and Geophysics by Zachary Paul Hendershott B.S., University of the South – Sewanee, 2009 December 2012 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my committee chair and advisor, Dr. Jeffrey Nunn, for his constant guidance and support during my academic career at LSU.
    [Show full text]
  • Eagle Ford Group and Associated Cenomanian–Turonian Strata, U.S
    U.S. Gulf Coast Petroleum Systems Project Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources in the Eagle Ford Group and Associated Cenomanian–Turonian Strata, U.S. Gulf Coast, Texas, 2018 Using a geology-based assessment methodology, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated undiscovered, technically recoverable mean resources of 8.5 billion barrels of oil and 66 trillion cubic feet of gas in continuous accumulations in the Upper Cretaceous Eagle Ford Group and associated Cenomanian–Turonian strata in onshore lands of the U.S. Gulf Coast region, Texas. −102° −100° −98° −96° −94° −92° −90° EXPLANATION Introduction 32° LOUISIANA Eagle Ford Marl The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Continuous Oil AU TEXAS assessed undiscovered, technically MISSISSIPPI Submarine Plateau-Karnes Trough Continuous Oil AU recoverable hydrocarbon resources in Cenomanian–Turonian self-sourced continuous reservoirs of 30° Mudstone Continuous Oil AU the Upper Cretaceous Eagle Ford Group Eagle Ford Marl Continuous and associated Cenomanian–Turonian Gas AU Submarine Plateau–Karnes strata, which are present in the subsurface Trough Continuous Gas AU 28° across the U.S. Gulf Coast region, Texas Cenomanian–Turonian Mudstone Continuous (fig. 1). The USGS completes geology- GULF OF MEXICO Gas AU based assessments using the elements Cenomanian–Turonian 0 100 200 MILES Downdip Continuous of the total petroleum system (TPS), 26° Gas AU 0 100 200 KILOMETERS which include source rock thickness, MEXICO NM OK AR TN GA organic richness, and thermal maturity for MS AL self-sourced continuous accumulations. Base map from U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service TX LA FL Assessment units (AUs) within a TPS Map are defined by strata that share similar Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, and Devonian Marcellus Shale, Appalachian Basin
    DOE/NETL-2011/1478 A Comparative Study of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, and Devonian Marcellus Shale, Appalachian Basin U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 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. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors greatly thank Daniel J. Soeder (U.S. Department of Energy) who kindly reviewed the manuscript. His criticisms, suggestions, and support significantly improved the content, and we are deeply grateful. Cover. Top left: The Barnett Shale exposed on the Llano uplift near San Saba, Texas. Top right: The Marcellus Shale exposed in the Valley and Ridge Province near Keyser, West Virginia. Photographs by Kathy R. Bruner, U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Bottom: Horizontal Marcellus Shale well in Greene County, Pennsylvania producing gas at 10 million cubic feet per day at about 3,000 pounds per square inch.
    [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]