Quantitative Evaluation of Key Geological Controls on Regional Eagle Ford Shale Production Using Spatial Statistics
- Yao Tian (Texas A&M University (now with University of Houston)) | Walter B. Ayers (Texas A&M University (retired)) | Huiyan Sang (Texas A&M University) | William D. McCain Jr. (Texas A&M University) | Christine Ehlig-Economides (University of Houston)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
- Publication Date
- May 2018
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 238 - 256
- 2018.Society of Petroleum Engineers
- Spatial Regression, Eagle Ford, Cumulative Production, Geological Controls, Spatial Interpolation
- 6 in the last 30 days
- 418 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
Recent progress has increased our understanding of key controls on the productivity of shale reservoirs. The quantitative relations between regional Eagle Ford Shale production trends and geologic parameters were investigated to clarify which geologic parameters exercise dominant control on well-production rates.
Previously, qualitative correlations for the Eagle Ford Shale were demonstrated among depth, thickness, total organic carbon (TOC), distribution of limestone beds, and average bed thickness with regional production. Eagle Ford production wells are horizontal, but it was necessary to use vertical wells that penetrated the Eagle Ford to map reservoir properties. No wells in the database had both production and geological parameters, and thus geological parameters could not be directly related to individual-well production. Therefore, spatial-interpolation methods derived from the Kriging and Bayesian methods with Markov-chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling algorithms were used to integrate data sets and predict geological properties at production-well locations. The spatial Gaussian-process-regression modeling was conducted to investigate the primary controls on production.
Results suggest that the 6-month cumulative production from the Eagle Ford Shale, in barrels of oil equivalent (BOE), increases consistently with depth, with Eagle Ford thickness (up to 180-ft thickness), and with TOC (up to 7%). Also, when the number of limestone beds exceeds 12, production increases with the number of limestone beds. The corresponding significance code indicates that the parameters most significant to production are TOC and depth (which relates to pressure and thermal maturation).
Concepts and models developed in this study may assist operators in making critical Eagle Ford Shale development decisions and should be transferable to other shale plays.
|File Size||4 MB||Number of Pages||19|
Alfred, D. and Vernik, L. 2013. A New Petrophysical Model for Organic Shales. Petrophysics 54 (3): 1–15. SPWLA-2013-v54n3-A4.
Banerjee, S., Carlin, B. P., and Gelfand, A. E. 2004. Hierarchical Modeling and Analysis for Spatial Data. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Banerjee, S., Gelfand, A. E., Finley, A. O. et al. 2008. Gaussian Predictive Process Models for Large Spatial Datasets. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B Met. 70 (4): 825–848. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2008.00663.x.
Baruch, E. T., Slatt, R. M., and Marfurt, K. J. 2012. Seismic Stratigraphic Analysis of the Barnett Shale and Ellenberger Unconformity Southwest of the Core Area of the Newark East Field, Fort Worth Basin, Texas. In Shale Reservoirs: Giant Resources for the 21st Century, AAPG Memoir 97, ed. Breyer J. A., 403–418. Tulsa: American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Baskin, D. K. 1997. Atomic H/C Ratio of Kerogen as an Estimate of Thermal Maturity and Organic Matter Conversion. AAPG Bull. 81 (9): 1437–1450. https://doi.org/10.1306/3B05BB14-172A-11D7-8645000102C1865D.
Bohm, G. and Zech, G. 2010. Introduction to Statistics and Data Analysis for Physicists. Hamburg, Germany: Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron.
Bowker, K. A. 2003. Recent Development of the Barnett Shale Play, Fort Worth Basin. West Texas Geol. Soc. Bull. 42 (6): 4–11.
Bowker, K. A. 2007. Barnett Shale Gas Production, Fort Worth Basin: Issues and Discussion. AAPG Bull. 91 (4): 523–533. https://doi.org/10.1306/06190606018.
Box, G. E. and Cox, D. R. 1964. An Analysis of Transformations. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B Met. 26 (2): 211–252.
Cipolla, C. L., Weng, X., Onda, H. et al. 2011. New Algorithms and Integrated Workflow for Tight Gas and Shale Completions. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 30 October–2 November. SPE-146872-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/146872-MS.
Clarke, P. R., Portis, D. H., Barzola, G. J. et al. 2016. Assessing Well Performance in a Prolific Liquids-Rich Shale Play—An Eagle Ford Case Study. In The Eagle Ford Shale: A Renaissance in U.S. Oil Production, AAPG Memoir 110, ed. Breyer J. A., Chap. 5, 213–240. Tulsa: American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Curtis, J. B. 2002. Fractured Shale-Gas Systems. AAPG Bull. 86 (11): 1921–1938. https://doi.org/10.1306/61EEDDBE-173E-11D7-8645000102C1865D.
Davis, D. and Reynolds, S. J. 1996. Structural Geology of Rocks and Regions, second edition. New York City: Wiley.
Finley, A. O. and Banerjee, S. 2013. spBayes: Univariate and Multivariate Spatial-Temporal Modeling. R Package Version 0.3-7, http://CRAN.R-roject.org/package=spBayes.
Finley, A. O., Banerjee, S., and Gelfand, A. E. 2015. spBayes for Large Univariate and Multivariate Point-Referenced Spatio-Temporal Data Models. J. Stat. Software 63: 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v063.i13.
Finley, A. O., Banerjee, S., and Roberts, R. E. 2008. A Bayesian Approach to Quantifying Uncertainty in Multi-Source Forest Area Estimates. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 15: 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10651-007-0049-5.
Gelfand, A., Diggle. P., Guttorp, P. et al. 2010. Handbook of Spatial Statistics. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Handin, J. and Hager, R. V. Jr. 1957. Experimental Deformation of Sedimentary Rocks Under Confining Pressure: Tests at Room Temperature on Dry Samples. AAPG Bull. 41 (1): 1–50.
Handin, J., Hager, R. V. Jr., Friedman, M. et al. 1963. Experimental Deformation of Sedimentary Rocks Under Confining Pressure: Pore Pressure Tests. AAPG Bull. 47 (5): 717–755.
Hentz, T. H. and Ruppel, S. C. 2010. Regional Lithostratigraphy of the Eagle Ford Shale: Maverick Basin to East Texas Basin. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc. Trans. 60: 325–338.
Hill, D. G. and Nelson, C. R. 2000. Gas Productive Fractured Shales—An Overview and Update. GasTIPS 7 (2): 11–16.
Huang, S. and Torres-Verdi´n, C. 2015. Sonic Spatial Sensitivity Functions and Inversion-Based Layer-by-Layer Interpretation of Borehole Sonic Logs. Presented at the SPWLA 56th Annual Logging Symposium, Long Beach, California, 18–22 July. SPWLA-2015-S.
Huang, S., Yang, Q., Matuszyk, P. J. et al. 2013. High-Resolution Interpretation of Sonic Logging Measurements Using Stochastic Inversion with Spatial Slowness Sensitivity Functions. Proc., 2013 SEG Annual Meeting, Houston, 22–27 September. https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2013-0051.1.
Jarvie, D. M., Hill, R. J., Ruble, T. E. et al. 2007. Unconventional Shale-Gas Systems: The Mississippian Barnett Shale of North-Central Texas as One Model for Thermogenic Shale-Gas Assessment. AAPG Bull. 91 (4): 475–499. https://doi.org/10.1306/12190606068.
Kosanke, T. H. and Warren, A. 2016. Chapter 8: Geological Controls on Matrix Permeability of the Eagle Ford Shale (Cretaceous), South Texas, USA. In Memoir 110: The Eagle Ford Shale: A Renaissance in U.S. Oil Production, ed. J. A. Breyer, American Association of Petroleum Geologists. https://doi.org/10.1306/13541966M1103665.
Krige, D. and Kleingeld, W. 2005. The Genesis of Geostatistics in Gold and Diamond Industries. In Space, Structure and Randomness, Lecture Notes in Statistics, Vol. 183, ed. Bilodeau M., Meyer F., and Schmitt M., 5–16. New York City: Springer.
Loucks, R. G. and Reed, R. M. 2014. Scanning-Electron-Microscope Petrographic Evidence for Distinguishing Organic-Matter Pores Associated with Depositional Organic Matter versus Migrated Organic Matter in Mudrocks. GCAGS J. 3: 51–60.
Montgomery, S. L., Jarvie, D. M., Bowker, K. A. et al. 2005. Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, North-Central Texas: Gas-Shale Play with Multi-Trillion Cubic Foot Potential. AAPG Bull. 89 (2):155–175. https://doi.org/10.1306/09170404042.
Mullen, J. 2010. Petrophysical Characterization of the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas. Presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, 19–21 October. SPE-138145-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/138145-MS.
Mullen, J., Lowry, J. C., and Nwabuoku, K. C. 2010. Lesson Learned Developing the Eagle Ford Shale. Presented at the Tight Gas Completions Conference, San Antonio, Texas, 18–20 March. SPE-138446-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/138446-MS.
Murphy, E., Praznik, G., Quirein, J. et al. 2013. A Workflow to Evaluate Mineralogy, Porosity, TOC, and Hydrocarbon Volume in the Eagle Ford Shale. Presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference and Exhibition-Asia Pacific, Brisbane, Australia, 11–13 November. SPE- 167012-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/167012-MS.
Passey, Q. R., Bohacs, K., Esch, W. L. et al. 2010. From Oil-Prone Source Rock to Gas-producing Shale Reservoir-Geologic and Petrophysical Characterization of Unconventional Shale Gas Reservoirs. Presented at the International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China, Beijing, 8–10 June. SPE-131350-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/131350-MS.
Passey, Q. R., Creaney, S., Kulla, J. B. et al. 1990. A PracticalModel for Organic Richness fromPorosity and Resistivity Logs. AAPG Bull. 74 (12): 1777–1794.
Peters, K. E. and Cassa, M. R. 1994. Applied Source Rock Geochemistry. In The Petroleum System—From Source to Trap, AAPG Memoir 60, ed. Magoon L. B. and Dow W. G., Chap. 5, 93–120. Tulsa: American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Pollastro, R. M., Jarvie, D. M., Hill, R. J. et al. 2007. Geologic Framework of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Barnett-Paleozoic Total Petroleum System, Bend Arch–Fort Worth Basin, Texas. AAPG Bull. 91 (4): 405–436. https://doi.org/10.1306/10300606008.
Quirein, J., Galford, J., Witkowsky, J. et al. 2013. Review and Comparison of Three Different Gas Shale Interpretation Approaches. Petrophysics 54 (3): 248–257. SPWLA-2013-v54n3-A5.
Quirein, J., Witkowsky, J., Truax, J. A. et al. 2010. Integrating Core Data and Wireline Geochemical Data for Formation Evaluation and Characterization of Shale-Gas Reservoirs. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 19–22 September. SPE-134559-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/134559-MS.
The R Foundation. 2013. The R Project for Statistical Computing, https://www.r-project.org/.
Ramirez, T. R., Klein, J. D., Bonnie, R. et al. 2011. Comparative Study of Formation Evaluation Methods for Unconventional Shale Gas Reservoirs: Application to the Haynesville Shale (Texas). Presented at the North American Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, 14–16 June. SPE-144062-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/144062-MS.
Ribeiro, P. J. Jr. and Diggle, P. J. 2016. Package ‘geoR’, https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/geoR/geoR.pdf (accessed 20 August 2017).
Rickman, R., Mullen, M. J., Petre, J. E. et al. 2008. A Practical Use of Shale Petrophysics for Stimulation Design Optimization: All Shale Plays Are Not Clones of the Barnett Shale. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 21–24 September. SPE-115258-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/115258-MS.
Rivoirard, J. 2005. Concepts and Methods of Geostatistics. In Space, Structure and Randomness, Lecture Notes in Statistics, Vol. 183, ed. Bilodeau M., Meyer F., and Schmitt M., 17–37. New York City: Springer.
Roberts, C. and Casella, G. 2004. Monte Carlo Statistical Methods. New York City: Springer.
Roberts, G. S. and Rosenthal, J. S. 2006. Examples of Adaptive MCMC, http://probability.ca/jeff/ftpdir/adaptex.pdf (accessed March 2018).
Scott, D. 2008. Box-Cox Transformations. In Online Statistics Education: A Multimedia Course of Study, ed. Lane D. M., 590–595, http://onlinestatbookcom/ (accessed 16 November 2017).
Skbkekas. 2009. Normal Quantile Plot of a Set of 100 Independent Standard Exponential Values (22 July 2016 revision), https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Normal_exponential_qq.svg (accessed 20 March 2018).
Sondergeld, C. H., Newsham, K. E., Comisky, J. T. et al. 2010. Petrophysical Considerations in Evaluating and Producing Shale Gas Resources. Presented at the SPE Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 23–25 February. SPE-131768-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/131768-MS.
Spears, R. and Jackson, S. L. 2009. Development of a Predictive Tool for Estimating Well Performance in Horizontal Shale Gas Wells in the Barnett Shale, North Texas, USA. Petrophysics 50 (1): 19–31. SPWLA-2009-v50n1a1.
Sun, T., Merletti, G., Patel, H. et al. 2015. Advanced Petrophysical, Geological, Geophysical and Geomechanical Reservoir Characterization–Key to the Successful Implementation of a Geo-Engineered Completion Optimization Program in the Eagle Ford Shale. Presented at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, San Antonio, Texas, 20–22 July. URTEC-2152246-MS. https://doi.org/10.15530/URTEC-2015-2152246.
Texas Railroad Commission (TRC). 2014. Texas Eagle Ford Shale Drilling Permit Issued Each Year. http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/media/8675/eaglefordproduction_drillingpermits_issued.pdf (accessed February 2014).
Tian, Y., Ayers, W. B., and McCain, W. D. Jr. 2012. Regional Analysis of Stratigraphy, Reservoir Characteristics, and Fluid Phases in the Eagle Ford Shale. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc. Trans., Austin, Texas, 21–24 October, 471–483.
Tian, Y., Ayers, W. B., and McCain, W. D. Jr. 2013. The Eagle Ford Shale Play, South Texas: Regional Variations in Fluid Types, Hydrocarbon Production and Reservoir Properties. Presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Beijing, 26–28 March. IPTC-16808-MS. https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-16808-MS.
Tian, Y., Ayers, W. B., and McCain, W. D. Jr. 2014. Regional Impacts of Lithologic Cyclicity and Reservoir and Fluid Properties on Eagle Ford Shale Well Performance. Presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, 1–4 April. SPE-169007-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/169007-MS.
US Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2011. Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays, https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/usshalegas/pdf/usshaleplays.pdf (accessed July 2011).
US Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2012. Emerging Oil & Gas Supplies: Future Prospects for Oil & Gas Production, https://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/staub_06272012.pdf (accessed 16 March 2018).
US Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2014. U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves, https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/archive/2013/index.php (accessed 21 January 2017).
US Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2016. U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves, Year-end 2015, https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/ (accessed 21 January 2017).
Wan, J., Barnum, R. S., Digloria, D. C. et al. 2013. Factors Controlling Recovery in Liquid Rich Unconventional Systems. Presented at the International Petroleum Technology Convergence, Beijing, 26–28 March. IPTC-17103-MS. https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-17103-MS.
Wang, F. P. and Gale, J. F. W. 2009. Screening Criteria for Shale-Gas Systems. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc. Trans. 59: 779–793.
Wang, F. P., Hammes, U., and Li, Q. 2013. Overview of the Haynesville Shale Properties and Production. In Memoir 105: Geology of the Haynesville Gas Shale in East Texas and West Louisiana, ed. Hammes U. and Gale J., Chap. 8, 155–177. Tulsa: American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Wang, G. and Carr, T. R. 2013. Organic-Rich Marcellus Shale Lithofacies Modeling and Distribution Pattern Analysis in the Appalachian Basin. AAPG Bull. 97 (12): 2173–2205. https://doi.org/10.1306/05141312135.
Wilk, M. B. and Gnanadesikan, R. 1968. Probability Plotting Methods for the Analysis of Data. Biometrika 55 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.2307/2334448.
Yu, W., Huang, S., Wu, K. et al. 2014. Development of a Semi-Analytical Model for Simulation of Gas Production in Shale Gas Reservoirs. Presented at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Denver, 25–27 August. URTEC-1922945-MS. https://doi.org/10.15530/URTEC-2014-1922945.
Zhang, Y. and Srinivasan, S. 2005. Markov Chain Monte Carlo for Modelling Permeability Variations in Reservoirs. J Can Pet Technol 44 (3): 40–45. PETSOC-05-03-03. https://doi.org/10.2118/05-03-03.
Zhao, H., Givens, N. B., and Curtis, B. 2007. Thermal Maturity of the Barnett Shale Determined from Well-Log Analysis. AAPG Bull. 91 (4): 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1306/10270606060.