|
uAbstract
uFigure captions
uIntroduction
uTectonic history
uStratigraphy/production history
uBarnett TPS
tGeneral
tSource rock
tReservoirs
tSeals
tTraps
uAssessment units
uFractured
Barnett Shale
uSummary
uReferences cited
uAcknowledgments
uAbstract
uFigure captions
uIntroduction
uTectonic history
uStratigraphy/production history
uBarnett TPS
tGeneral
tSource rock
tReservoirs
tSeals
tTraps
uAssessment units
uFractured
Barnett Shale
uSummary
uReferences cited
uAcknowledgments
uAbstract
uFigure captions
uIntroduction
uTectonic history
uStratigraphy/production history
uBarnett TPS
tGeneral
tSource rock
tReservoirs
tSeals
tTraps
uAssessment units
uFractured
Barnett Shale
uSummary
uReferences cited
uAcknowledgments
uAbstract
uFigure captions
uIntroduction
uTectonic history
uStratigraphy/production history
uBarnett TPS
tGeneral
tSource rock
tReservoirs
tSeals
tTraps
uAssessment units
uFractured
Barnett Shale
uSummary
uReferences cited
uAcknowledgments
uAbstract
uFigure captions
uIntroduction
uTectonic history
uStratigraphy/production history
uBarnett TPS
tGeneral
tSource rock
tReservoirs
tSeals
tTraps
uAssessment units
uFractured
Barnett Shale
uSummary
uReferences cited
uAcknowledgments
uAbstract
uFigure captions
uIntroduction
uTectonic history
uStratigraphy/production history
uBarnett TPS
tGeneral
tSource rock
tReservoirs
tSeals
tTraps
uAssessment units
uFractured
Barnett Shale
uSummary
uReferences cited
uAcknowledgments
uAbstract
uFigure captions
uIntroduction
uTectonic history
uStratigraphy/production history
uBarnett TPS
tGeneral
tSource rock
tReservoirs
tSeals
tTraps
uAssessment units
uFractured
Barnett Shale
uSummary
uReferences cited
uAcknowledgments
uAbstract
uFigure captions
uIntroduction
uTectonic history
uStratigraphy/production history
uBarnett TPS
tGeneral
tSource rock
tReservoirs
tSeals
tTraps
uAssessment units
uFractured
Barnett Shale
uSummary
uReferences cited
uAcknowledgments
uAbstract
uFigure captions
uIntroduction
uTectonic history
uStratigraphy/production history
uBarnett TPS
tGeneral
tSource rock
tReservoirs
tSeals
tTraps
uAssessment units
uFractured
Barnett Shale
uSummary
uReferences cited
uAcknowledgments
uAbstract
uFigure captions
uIntroduction
uTectonic history
uStratigraphy/production history
uBarnett TPS
tGeneral
tSource rock
tReservoirs
tSeals
tTraps
uAssessment units
uFractured
Barnett Shale
uSummary
uReferences cited
uAcknowledgments
uAbstract
uFigure captions
uIntroduction
uTectonic history
uStratigraphy/production history
uBarnett TPS
tGeneral
tSource rock
tReservoirs
tSeals
tTraps
uAssessment units
uFractured
Barnett Shale
uSummary
uReferences cited
uAcknowledgments
uAbstract
uFigure captions
uIntroduction
uTectonic history
uStratigraphy/production history
uBarnett TPS
tGeneral
tSource rock
tReservoirs
tSeals
tTraps
uAssessment units
uFractured
Barnett Shale
uSummary
uReferences cited
uAcknowledgments
uAbstract
uFigure captions
uIntroduction
uTectonic history
uStratigraphy/production history
uBarnett TPS
tGeneral
tSource rock
tReservoirs
tSeals
tTraps
uAssessment units
uFractured
Barnett Shale
uSummary
uReferences cited
uAcknowledgments
uAbstract
uFigure captions
uIntroduction
uTectonic history
uStratigraphy/production history
uBarnett TPS
tGeneral
tSource rock
tReservoirs
tSeals
tTraps
uAssessment units
uFractured
Barnett Shale
uSummary
uReferences cited
uAcknowledgments
uAbstract
uFigure captions
uIntroduction
uTectonic history
uStratigraphy/production history
uBarnett TPS
tGeneral
tSource rock
tReservoirs
tSeals
tTraps
uAssessment units
uFractured
Barnett Shale
uSummary
uReferences cited
uAcknowledgments
uAbstract
uFigure captions
uIntroduction
uTectonic history
uStratigraphy/production history
uBarnett TPS
tGeneral
tSource rock
tReservoirs
tSeals
tTraps
uAssessment units
uFractured
Barnett Shale
uSummary
uReferences cited
uAcknowledgments
|
Figure/Table Captions
Figure
1. Generalized diagram showing categories of conventional and continous
oil and gas accumulations. The continuous chalk or shale oil and gas
accumulations in the diagram are representative of mature, fractured
Barnett Shale in the Bend-Arch Fort Worth Basin Province . Modified from
Schenk and Pollastro (2001).
Figure
2. Schematic plan view of a Total Petroleum System showing pod of
mature source rock, distribution of known petroleum occurrences, and
boundaries of the conventional- and continuous-type assessment units.
Figure
3. Map showing major structural elements (black lines), oil (green
dots) and gas (red dots) well production, location of Newark East Field,
and boundary of USGS Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin Province (gray line).
Red lines show present-day limit of Barnett Shale (Mapel et al., 1979)
and purple lines are eastern limit of Woodford Shale (Comer, 1991).
Blue line approximates the boundary of the Barnett-Paleozoic Total
Petroleum System .
Figure
4. Generalized stratigraphic subsurface section of USGS Bend Arch-Fort
Worth Basin Province showing stratigraphic extent of Barnett-Paleozoic
Total Petroleum System , source rocks, producing oil and gas reservoir
units, seal rocks, and proposed assessment units. Assessment unit
numbers refer to those listed in Table 1.
Figure
5. Events chart for Mississippian-Pennsylvanian Barnett-Paleozoic Total
Petroleum System (TPS) of the Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin Province ,
Texas, showing TPS elements and timing of trap formation and hydrocarbon
generation. Also see stratigraphic chart of Figure 4.
Hydrocarbon
generation models were summarized and modified from Jarvie et al.
(2001).
Figure
6. (A) Location map and (B) generalized cross section AA’ of north Fort
Worth Basin area showing main gas- producing area of continuous Barnett
Shale accumulation at Newark East field and the various geologic
conditions. Large bold numbers in (A) relate to the proposed continuous
Barnett Shale assessment units of Table 1. Gas window in (A)
approximates zone of gas generation, and oil window approximates zone of
oil generation. Modified from Hall (2002) and Bowker (2002).
Table 1. Plays identified in
the 1995 USGS National Oil and Gas Assessment (after Ball and Perry,
1996) and proposed assessment units (AU) for 2003 USGS National Oil and
Gas Assessment of the Barnett-Paleozoic Total Petroleum System , Bend
Arch-Fort Worth Basin Province . Assessment unit number also indicates
time span of stratigraphic units shown on Figure 4.
Return
to top.
Oil and
gas in the Bend Arch–Fort Worth Basin Province (U.S. Geological Survey
Province 045; see definition in a later section) of north-central Texas
are produced from carbonate- and clastic-rock reservoirs ranging in age
from Ordovician to Permian (Wolfcampian). The 1995 USGS National Oil
and Gas Assessment (1995 USGS Assessment) of undiscovered, technically
recoverable oil and gas identified six conventional plays in the Bend
Arch-Fort Worth Province (Ball and Perry, 1996) that are listed in
Table
1. The cumulative mean undiscovered resource for the five conventional
plays (Table
1) that were assessed was as follows: 381 million barrels
of oil (mmbo), 103.6 million barrels of natural gas liquids (mmbngl),
479 billion cubic feet (bcf)
associated gas, and 1,029 bcf
non-associated gas. In addition, an unconventional, continuous-type (Schmoker,
1996), hypothetical “Mississippian Barnett Shale” play was identified by
Ball and Perry (1996) but not assessed due to lack of data.
Continuous-type accumulations include fractured shale and fractured
chalk oil and gas, basin -centered gas, coal bed gas, and tight reservoir
gas (Figure 1). Continuous-type accumulations typically cover large
areas, have source rocks in close association with these unconventional
reservoir rocks, and are mostly gas (and in some cases oil) charged
throughout their extent (Schmoker, 1996). Continuous accumulations
commonly have transition zones (Figure 1) that grade into more
conventional accumulations (Schenk and Pollastro, 2001).
Subsequent to the 1995 USGS
Assessment, Schmoker and others (1996) and Kuskraa and others (1998)
estimated undiscovered (also referred to as undeveloped), technically
recoverable gas for the continuous Barnett fractured shale play . Using
a cell-based methodology Schmoker and others (1996) estimated a mean
undiscovered gas of about 3.4 trillion cubic feet (TCF). Using a
similar methodology, Kuskraa and others (1998) modified the input values
using more recent estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) and cell-size
(drainage area) data for Barnett wells and reported a mean undiscovered
volume of about 10 TCF for the Barnett. Although these mean estimates
of undiscovered gas for the continuous Barnett Shale play have been
‘labeled’ USGS assessments, they are not official USGS resource
numbers. However, the results of these studies, and more recent studies
(Bowker, 2002) indicate that the continuous fractured Barnett Shale may
contain the greatest undiscovered resource in the Bend Arch-Fort Worth
Basin Province .
Current
USGS assessments incorporate the total petroleum systems–assessment unit
(TPS-AU) method (Klett et al., 2000; Magoon and Schmoker, 2000) to
estimate undiscovered oil and gas rather than the play concept method
used in 1995 (Gautier et al., 1996). The total petroleum system (TPS)
includes all of the elements of the petroleum system originally defined
by Magoon and Dow (1996), but also incorporates those resources of the
petroleum system that are yet to be discovered (Figure 2). The TPS-AU
approach is preferred (USGS World Petroleum Assessment 2000) over the
play -level approach because the former incorporates the assessment unit
within a higher context level of the TPS. Moreover, the AU is based on
similar geologic elements and hydrocarbon accumulation type and may also
represent a play or group of plays. This allows for a greater
understanding of the essential elements and processes within the TPS
that relate to source, generation, migration, accumulation, and trapping
of the undiscovered resource.
Petroleum geochemistry studies by Jarvie and others (2001), Jarvie and
Claxton (2002), and in this report indicates that the organic-rich
Barnett Shale is the primary source rock for oil and gas produced from
reservoirs of Paleozoic age in the Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin Province .
Using the TPS methodology, a Barnett-Paleozoic TPS is defined here for
the purpose of assessing undiscovered hydrocarbon resources of USGS
Province 045 (Gautier et al., 1996); although the Hardeman and Sherman
(Marietta) Basins lie partly within the province , they are not
included. Accordingly, it is the purpose of this report to briefly
describe the geology, geochemistry, and methodology for assessing
undiscovered oil and gas resources in both conventional and continuous
accumulations of the Barnett-Paleozoic TPS of the Bend Arch-Fort Worth
Basin Province . Although some hydrocarbon potential remains in
conventional assessment units, assessment of this TPS focuses
particularly on the Barnett Shale continuous accumulation, which is
where the greatest undiscovered resource is expected within USGS
Province 045.
Province Boundary, Structural Elements, and Tectonic
History
The boundary of USGS Province
045, Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin , is defined by State and county lines
that closely follow U.S. Congressional Districts, rather than by
geologic elements. However, the Province boundary generally follows the
Ouachita structural front to the east and southeast, the Llano Uplift to
the south, and the Texas-Oklahoma State line (the Red River) to the
north (Figure 3). The western boundary trends north-south along county
lines that define the junction with the Permian Basin Province (USGS
Province 044) where part of the eastern shelf of the Permian Basin is
included in the Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin Province (Figure 3).
Major structural features of
USGS Province 045 include the Muenster and Red River Arches to the
north, and the Bend and Lompasas Arches along the central part of the
Province . Along the eastern portion of the province is an area that
includes the Eastern and Chappel Shelves and Concho Arch, collectively
also known as the Concho Platform (Figure 3). The Mineral Wells fault
runs northeast-southwest through Palo Pinto, Parker, Wise, Denton
Counties and joins with the Newark East fault system . The fault system
bisects the Newark East Field to create a zone of poor production in
Barnett Shale gas reservoirs (Figure 3). Several faults that cut
basement and lower Paleozoic rocks in the southern part of the province
have been identified at the Ordovican Ellenburger Group stratigraphic
level. These faults and associated structures formed during the
development of the Llano Uplift and Fort Worth Basin with faulting
ending by early Missourian time (Browning and Martin, 1982: Flippen,
1982).
The evolution of the Fort
Worth Basin and Bend Arch structures are critical to understanding
burial histories and hydrocarbon generation of the Barnett-Paleozoic TPS.
The asymmetrical, wedge-shaped Fort Worth Basin is a peripheral
Paleozoic foreland basin with about 12,000 ft of strata preserved in its
deepest northeast portion and adjacent to the Muenster Arch and Ouachita
structural belt; the approximate location of its present-day axis is
shown in Figure 3. The basin is similar to other basins of the Ouachita
structural belt, such as the Black Warrior, Arkoma, Val Verde, and Marfa
Basins that formed in front of the advancing Ouachita structural belt as
it was thrust onto the margin of North America. Thrusting occurred
during a late Paleozoic (Late Mississippian and Early Pennsylvanian
time) episode of plate convergence (Flippen, 1982).
The Bend Arch extends
northward from the Llano Uplift; it is a broad subsurface,
north-plunging, positive structure. The arch formed as a hingeline by
(1) down-warping of its eastern flank due to subsidence of the Fort
Worth Basin during early stages of development of the Ouachita
structural belt in the Late Mississippian, and (2) westward tilting in
the late Paleozoic, which formed the Midland Basin . There is some
disagreement on the structural history of the Bend Arch. Flippen,
(1982) suggested that it acted as a fulcrum and is a flexure and
structural high and that only minor uplift occurred in the area to form
the unconformable surface above the Comyn Limestone. In contrast, Cloud
and Barnes (1942) suggested that periodic upwarp of the Bend flexure
from mid-Ordovician through Early Pennsylvanian time resulted in several
erosional unconformities. The Red River Arch and the Muenster Arch also
became dominant structural features during Late Mississippian and Early
Pennsylvanian time (Flippen, 1982).
Return
to top.
General Stratigraphy and Petroleum Production history
The stratigraphic section of
the Bend Arch–Fort Worth Basin Province is generalized in
Figure 4.
Producing intervals, vertical distribution of total petroleum system
elements, and proposed assessment units for the Barnett-Paleozoic TPS
are also shown in Figure 4. Oil and gas production from rocks of
Ordovician, Mississippian, and Early Pennsylvanian age in the TPS is
mostly from carbonate rock reservoirs, whereas production in the Middle
Pennsylvanian through Lower Permian part is mostly from clastic rock
reservoirs (Figure 4).
The sedimentary section in
the Fort Worth Basin is underlain by Precambrian granite and diorite.
Cambrian rocks include granite conglomerate, sandstones, and shale that
are overlain by marine carbonate rocks and shale (Flippen, 1982). No
production has been reported from Cambrian rocks. The Silurian,
Devonian, Permian, Jurassic, and Triassic are absent in the Fort Worth
Basin (Flippen, 1982).
From Cambrian to
Mississippian time, the area that is now the Fort Worth Basin was part
of a stable cratonic shelf with deposition dominated by carbonates
(Burgess, 1976). Ellenburger Group carbonate rocks represent a broad
epeiric carbonate platform that covered virtually all of Texas during
the Early Ordovician. A pronounced drop in sea level at the end of
Ellenburger deposition resulted in prolonged platform exposure and
development of extensive karst features in the upper part of the
carbonate rock sequence (Sloss, 1976; Kerans, 1988). Moreover, a later
major erosional event removed any Silurian and Devonian rocks (Figure 4;
post Viola Limestone unconformity) that may have been present in that
area (Henry, 1982).
The Barnett Shale was
deposited over the resulting unconformity. Provenance of the
terrigenous material that constitutes the Barnett Shale was from Ouchita
thrust sheets and the reactivation of older structures such as the
Muenster Arch. Clastic rocks of similar provenance dominate the
Pennsylvanian part of the stratigraphic section in the Bend Arch-Forth
Worth Basin . With progressive subsidence of the basin during the
Pennsylvanian, the western basin hinge line and carbonate shelf,
represented by carbonate rocks of the Comyn, Marble Falls, Big Saline,
and Caddo Formations, continued to migrate westward. Deposition of the
thick basinal clastic rocks of the Atoka, Strawn, and Canyon Formations
occurred at this time (Walper, 1982). These Middle and Late
Pennsylvanian age rocks consist mostly of sandstones and conglomerates
with fewer and thinner limestone beds (Figure 4). Wolfcampian age
sandstones also produce oil and gas along the western portion of the
USGS Province 50 and on the Bend Arch, Eastern Shelf, and Concho
platform.
Shows of oil and gas were
first encountered within Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin Province during the
mid-nineteenth century while drilling water wells. Some petroleum
exploration began at the end of the Civil War, and the first commercial
oil discoveries occurred in the early 1900’s (Ball and Perry, 1996). By
1960, USGS Province 045 reached a mature stage of exploration and
development, as demonstrated by the high density and distribution of
well penetrations (see Ball and Perry, 1996), and production wells
(Figure 3).
Cumulative production in USGS
Province 045 from conventional reservoirs prior to the 1995 USGS
Assessment was about 2 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 7 trillion cubic
feet of gas (TCFG). Cumulative gas production through 2001 from the
continuous Barnett fractured shale play in Wise and Denton counties was
about 440 BCF (Swindell, 2002). Cumulative gas production from the
Barnett Shale for the first half of 2002 was 94 BCF (Texas Railroad
Commission, 2202); annual production for 2002 is estimated to be about
200 BCF. Currently, more than 2.5 TCF of proven gas reserves are
assessed for Newark East Field (Bowker, 2002). These recent production
and proven reserve numbers for the Barnett play , combined with the
estimates of undeveloped Barnett resources in the studies by Schmoker
and others (1996) and Kuuskraa and others (1998), indicate that
technically recoverable continuous gas, and to a lesser extent oil, from
fractured Barnett Shale will provide the greatest additions to
near-future reserves in the Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin Province .
Barnett-Paleozoic Total Petroleum System
General
Oil and gas is produced from
reservoirs rocks of Paleozoic age within USGS Province 045. Organic
geochemical analyses of samples of oil and gas from the Fort Worth Basin
from this study and those reported by Jarvie and others (2001), indicate
that these hydrocarbons were derived from a single source rock, the
Barnett Shale. Thus, we have designated a Barnett-Paleozoic Total
Petroleum System for USGS Province 50. An approximate boundary of the
Barnett-Paleozoic TPS of the Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin Province is
shown in Figure 3. Because the Woodford Shale is also a major source
rock in the Midland Basin to the west (Figure 3), we suspect that a
composite Woodford-Barnett TPS is present in that area. Therefore,
additional geochemical analysis of hyrocarbons from reservoirs on the
Eastern Shelf and Concho Platform are needed to refine the western
boundary of the Barnett-Paleozoic TPS. Total petroleum system elements
(source, reservoir, traps, seals, maturation, thermal and burial
histories) of the Barnett-Paleozoic TPS are discussed below and
summarized in Figures 4 and
5.
Source Rock, Thermal
Maturity, and Hydrocarbon Generation
The primary source rock of
the Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin is the Mississippian-Pennsylvanian
Barnett Shale. The Barnett Shale commonly exhibits high gamma-ray log
response at the base of the unit (or basal “hot shale”). Other
potential source rocks of secondary importance (Figure 4) are of Early
Pennsylvanian age and include (1) dark fine-grained carbonate rock and
shale units within the Marble Falls Limestone, (2) black shale facies of
the Smithwick Shale (Walper, 1982; Grayson et al., 1991), and (3)
several thin Pennsylvanian age coal beds in Wise, Jack, Young, Parker,
Palo Pinto, and McCulloch Counties (Mapel et al., 1979).
The Barnett Shale source rock
was deposited over a large part of North-Central Texas; however, because
of post-depositional erosion the present distribution of the Barnett is
limited to the Bend Arch-Forth Worth Basin Province (Maple et al.,
1979). The Barnett Shale is more than 1,000 ft thick along the
southwest flank of the Muenster Arch (Maple et al., 1979; Henry, 1982).
The Barnett Shale is present within the Midland, Delaware, and Palo Duro
Basins to the west and the Hardeman Basin to the north (Figure 3). A
smaller Barnett total petroleum system is probably present in the
Hardeman Basin to the north (Figure 3). The Barnett Shale is eroded in
areas (1) along the Red River-Electra and Muenster Arches to the north,
(2) along the Llano uplift to the south where it outcrops, and (3) along
the easternmost portion of USGS Province 045 where the Barnett laps onto
the Eastern Shelf-Concho Platform (Figure 3). Small isolated remnants
of Barnett Shale have been identified on the unconformity surface of the
Ordovician Ellenburger Group carbonate rocks in the western most part of
the USGS Province 045). The Barnett is absent in the Sherman Basin to
the northeast, and absent east of the Ouachita Thrust Belt (Figure 3).
Average total organic carbon
(TOC) content in the Barnett Shale is about 4% (by weight) and TOC is as
high as about 12% in samples from outcrops along the Llano uplift on the
south flank of the Fort Worth Basin (Henk et al., 2000; Jarvie et al.,
2001). The highest average TOC for the Barnett Shale appears to follow
a depocenter that is coincident with a paleo-axis of the Fort Worth
Basin (Figure 3).
The Barnett Shale has
geochemical characteristics similar to other Devonian-Mississippian
black shales found elsewhere in the U. S. (e.g., Woodford, Bakken, New
Albany, and Chattanooga Formations). These black shales all contain
oil-prone organic matter (Type II kerogen) based on hydrogen indices
greater than 350milligrams of hydrocarbons per gram of TOC and generate
a similar type of high quality oil (low sulfur, >30 API gravity). Oils
found in the far western and northern portions of USGS Province 50 are
all typed as Barnett-sourced oils. Although decomposition of kerogen
cracking is a source of oil and gas from the Barnett Shale, the
principal source of gas in the Newark East Field is from cracking of oil
and bitumen (Jarvie et al., 2001).
Low
levels of maturation in the Barnett Shale at vitrinite reflectance (Ro),
estimated at 0.6-0.7%, yields oils of 38o API gravity in
Brown County. The oils found in Shackelford, Throckmorton, and Callahan
Counties as well, as in Montague County (Figure 3), are derived from the
Barnett Shale at the middle of the zone of oil generation (oil window)
thermal maturities levels (about 0.9% Ro). Although
condensate is associated with gas production in Wise County, the Barnett
source rock maturity is generally 1.1% Ro or greater. The
zone of wet gas generation (condensate or wet gas window) is in the
1.1-1.4% Ro range, whereas the primary zone of dry gas
generation (main gas window) begins at a Ro of 1.4%.
Thermal maturity of Barnett
Shale can also be derived from TOC and Rock-Eval (Tmax )
measurements. Although Tmax is not very reliable for high
maturity kerogens due to poor pyrolysis peak yields and peak shape, the
extent of kerogen transformation can be utilized. For example, Barnett
Shale having a 4.5% TOC and a hydrogen index of less than 100 is in the
wet or dry gas windows with equivalent Ro values greater than
1.1% TOC
Little
or no data are available on the variability of the Barnett Shale organic
matter content and type outside of Newark East Field (Figure 6).
Average values for low maturity Barnett Shale (Tmax < 435oC)
are about 3.26% TOC using well cuttings. This same set of samples has
initial hydrocarbon potentials of about 172 barrels of oil per acre feet
(BO/AF), which are dramatically lower than expected for the Barnett
Shale. This is probably due to a mixing of terrestrial plant organic
matter on the edges of the basin with marine organic matter common to
the Barnett.
In contrast, low maturity
Barnett Shale from outcrops in Lampasas County have initial TOC values
averaging about 12% with hydrocarbon potentials averaging 1035 BO/AF. A
good average value for the Barnett Shale is derived from the Mitcham #1
well in Brown County in which TOC is measured at 4.2% and the
hydrocarbon potential is 354 BO/AF. Using these data we can determine
that the TOC values will decrease 36% during maturation from the
immature stage to the gas-generation window. Samples from the T. P.
Simms well in the Newark East gas-producing area have average TOC values
of 4.5%, but greater than 90% of the organic matter is converted to
hydrocarbons. Thus, its original TOC was about 7.0% with an initial
estimated potential of 593 BO/AF. Any oil generated would be (1)
expelled into shallow (or deeper) horizons as in the west and north, or
(2) cracked to gas where measured vitrinite reflectance is greater than
1.1% Ro.
This study found a poor
correlation between measured Ro and present-day burial depth
for the Barnett Shale, as did Bowker (2002). Vitrinite iso-reflectance
contours commonly cross-cut both basin structure and structure contours
on the top of the Barnett Shale. Similarly, samples of Barnett Shale in
the deepest part of the Fort Worth Basin along the southwest flank of
the Muenster Arch in Denton County, record lower Ro than the
shales at shallower depths to the east and in Newark East Field. Also,
north of Lampasas County, rock samples along the Ouchita thrust front
have higher Ro than those from greater present-day depths.
Thus in many areas of the Bent Arch-Fort Worth Basin Province , thermal
maturity of the Barnett Shale determined from Ro appears to
be influenced strongly by heat-flow regimes generated from Ouchita
thrusting.
The Barnett Shale is
thermally mature for hydrocarbon generation over most of its area within
USGS Province 045 (Figure 3). The Barnett source rock is presently in
the oil-generation window along the north and west parts of the
province , and in the gas window on the east half of the
Barnett-Paleozoic TPS (Figure 6). Expulsion of high-quality oil from
the Barnett was episodic and began at low (Ro = 0.6%) thermal
maturity (Jarvie et al., 2001). Thirty-two oils from Wise and Jack
Counties were sampled and analyzed to determine the characteristics of
the generating source rock. API gravity and sulfur content were
integrated with high-resolution gas chromatography (GC) and gas
chromatography mass spectrometry (GCMS) analyses. The API gravity of
the oils ranges from 35° to 62° and sulfur contents are low (<0.2%),
which is characteristic of high thermal maturity oils. Biomarkers from
GCMS analyses show that the oils were sourced from marine shale, based
on sterane distribution and the presence of diasteranes. Carbon
isotopic analyses of the saturated and aromatic hydrocarbon fractions
support hydrocarbon generation from a single-source unit. Although more
work is required on oils of lower thermal maturity, the hydrocarbons in
Wise and Jack Counties were most likely sourced from the Barnett Shale.
In the main gas-producing
area of fractured Barnett Shale, the gas generation window is along a
trend that is sub-parallel to the Ouchita thrust front (Bowker, 2002).
Jarvie and others (2001) and Bowker (2002) reported that the British
Thermal Unit (BTU) content of Barnett gas is directly proportional to Ro
levels. Oil and gas windows for the Barnett source rock in proximity to
Newark East Field are shown in Figure 6.
Return
to top.
Reservoir Rocks
Reservoir rocks of the
Barnett-Paleozoic TPS include both clastic and carbonate rocks ranging
in age from Ordovician to Early Permian (Wolfcampian); they are listed
in the stratigraphic section and total petroleum system distribution
chart of Figure 4. Most production from conventional reservoirs is from
rocks of Pennsylvanian age, whereas the only recognized production from
an unconventional (continuous) accumulation is from the
Mississippian-Pennsylvanian fractured Barnett Shale. Conglomerate of
the Pennsylvanian Bend Group is the main producing reservoir at giant Boonsville Field of Wise and Jack Counties with cumulative production
through 2001 of more than 3 TCFG (Swindell, 2002). Jarvie and others
(2001) reported that oil sourced from the Barnett Shale is produced from
numerous reservoir rocks in the Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin , including
Barnett Shale, Caddo Formation, Canyon Group, Chappel Limestone, Bend
Group,and Ellenburger Group (Figure 4). Additional reservoir rocks of
the Barnett-Paleozoic TPS considered in this report are in the Viola
Limestone, Marble Falls Limestone, Atoka Formation, Strawn Group, and
Cisco Group (Figure 4). Historical production summaries for many of
these reservoirs are given in Ball and Perry (1996).
Seal Rocks
Seal rocks in the
Barnett-Paleozoic TPS are mostly shale units and dense, low permeability
carbonate rock (Figure 4) that are distributed on both regional and
local scales. The Barnett Shale is a major regional seal for older
reservoirs, mostly porous carbonate rock reservoirs of the Ellenburger
Group. Production from the Barnett Shale is largely dependent on the
presence or absence of Marble Falls and Viola limestones (Figure 4).
Although these formations are not considered seal rocks in areas where
they are tight and not water wet, they serve as barriers (Figure 6) to
confine hydraulic-induced fracturing (referred to as frac barriers) and
help retain formation pressures during well stimulation (Bowker, 2002;
Shirley, 2002).
Traps
Traps for conventional
hydrcocarbon accumulations are mostly stratigraphic for carbonate rock
reservoirs and both structural and stratigraphic in clastic-rock
reservoirs. Combination structural and stratigraphic traps are also
common in Pennsylvanian sandstone reservoirs. Stratigraphic traps in
carbonate rocks result from (1) a combination of facies and depositional
topography, (2) erosion, (3) updip pinchout of facies, and (4)
diagenetically controlled enhanced-permeability and porosity zones. A
good example of a carbonate stratigraphic trap is the pinnacle reef
traps of the Chappel Limestone (Figure 4), in which local porous grainstone and packstone are restricted to isolated buildups or reef
clusters on low-relief paleotopography of the eroded Ellenburger Group.
Chappel pinnacle reefs are draped and sealed by the overlying Barnett
Shale. Stratigraphic traps in Atoka Formation sandstones and
conglomerates are mainly pinch outs related to facies changes or
erosional truncation. Structural traps for Pennsylvanian-age sandstones
and conglomerate reservoir rocks are mainly simple anticlines and
fault-bounded anticlines.
Proposed Assessment Units for the Barnett-Paleozoic TPS
The USGS assesses
conventional accumulations using distributions of size and number of oil
and gas fields. In contrast, continuous-type accumulations are assessed
using a distribution of both well-cell size (drainage area) and well
EURs (Schmoker et al., 1996). Five conventional assessment units are
initially proposed for the Barnett-Paleozoic TPS in the Bend Arch-Fort
Worth Basin Province and are listed in Table1; these assessment units
are also compared with plays defined for the 1995 USGS Assessment.
Most historical production in USGS Province 045 has been from
extensively explored conventional clastic reservoirs of Pennsylvanian
age, particularly the conglomerates and sandstones of the Bend Group
(Morrowan and Atokan) and fluvial-deltaic sandstones of the Strawn Group
(Desmoinesian) (Figure 3).
Continuous accumulations
commonly cover large geographic areas. Thus, multiple assessment units
are commonly defined for a particular continuous accumulation, such as
the Barnett Shale, which commonly are based on differences primarily
with regard to (1) geologic facies, thickness, structure; (2)
hydrocarbon type; (3) organic geochemistry; (4) thermal maturation (oil-
and gas-generation windows); (5) drainage area; and (6) well production
(EUR). For example, assessment units that define “sweet spots” commonly
have greater near-future resource volume potential because drainage
areas are commonly smaller and have higher mean well EUR than other
areas of lesser potential. The Greater Newark East Field is a Barnett
continuous gas “sweet spot.” Preliminary proposed assessment units for
continuous Barnett Shale gas and oil are listed in
Table1.
Fractured Barnett Shale Continuous Oil and Gas
Oil and gas are produced from
fractured Barnett Shale in the Bend Arch-Forth Worth Province .
High-quality (35-40° API gravity, low sulfur) oil is produced from the
Barnett Shale in northern and western portions of the province where the
Barnett exhibits low thermal maturity (Ro about 0.6%). Oils
of similar quality (40-50° API gravity), and condensates associated with
gas are produced in Wise County where the Barnett is of higher thermal
maturity. Gas production is from hydraulically-fractured black
siliceous shale. Calorific values of gases from Newark East Field are
commonly in the range of 1,050-1,300 BTU (Jarvie and Claxton, 2002).
The main producing facies of
the Barnett is a black, organic-rich siliceous shale with a mean
composition, by weight, of about 45% quartz, 27% clay (mostly illite/smectite,
and illite), 10% carbonate (calcite, dolomite, and siderite), 5%
feldspar, 5% pyrite, and 5% TOC (Lancaster et al., 1993; Henk et al.,
2000; Bowker, 2002). Average porosity in the productive portions of the
Barnett is about 6% and matrix permeability is measured in nanodarcies
(Lancaster et al., 1993; Bowker, 2002).
The lithology and
petrophysical characteristics of units above and below the Barnett Shale
are critical to gas production within the Barnett continuous
accumulation. The Newark East Field “sweet spot” (Figure 6) is defined
by having dense, impermeable (tight) carbonate rock units above and
below the Barnett, which act as barriers to contain hydraulic-induced
fractures during well stimulation. Viola and Simpson carbonate rocks
are more favorable barriers than the more porous, water-wet Ellenburger
Group carbonate rocks (Figure 6).
A minimum of three assessment
units (Table 1) is proposed for the Barnett Shale continuous
accumulations, each with different geologic and production
characteristics: (1) a Newark East Field gas sweet spot where the
Barnett is siliceous, thick, within the gas generation window, slightly overpressured, and enclosed by dense, tight overlying Marble Falls
Limestone and underlying Viola Limestone and Simpson Group as frac
barriers; (2) an outlying area where the Barnett is within the
gas-generation window but the subcrop is the porous Ellenburger and the
overlying Marble Falls Limestone barrier may be absent; and (3) an area
of lesser potential where overlying and underlying barriers may be
absent and production includes both oil and gas from fractured Barnett
Shale (Figure 6).
The siliceous nature of the
Barnett Shale, and its relation to fracture enhancement in the area of
Newark East Field, has been noted by Lancaster et al. (1993) and Henk
and others (2000). Thus, the geographic extent of the organic-rich
siliceous facies of the Barnett Shale is of particular interest in this
study for defining sweet spots. Also, the second assessment unit, where
the Barnett Shale subcrop is Ellenburger Group carbonate rocks, is
currently being tested by several operators. The resource potential of
this unit will be guided, in part, by the near-future results of current
testing with directional wells and various completion methods to
determine optimum completion techniques for gas recovery (Bowker, 2002;
Shirley, 2002.
Historically, typical EURs
for Barnett gas wells at Newark East Field have increased with time, as
follows: (1) 0.3-0.5 BCFG before 1990; (2) 0.6-1.0 BCFG between 1990 and
1997; and (3) 0.8-1.2 BCFG between 1998 and 2000 (Reeves. 2002).
Recently, Devon Energy reported that the mean EUR for Newark East
Barnett gas wells is 1.25 BCFG (Devon Energy Corporation, 2002; Bowker,
2002; Shirley, 2002). The progressive increase in EUR in Barnett wells
is the result of improved geologic and engineering concepts that guide
development of the Barnett continuous gas play (Reeves, 2002; Bowker,
2002). Moreover, recompletion of wells after about 5 years of
production commonly adds 0.75 BCF to its EUR (Bowker, 2002; Shirley,
2002).
Return
to top.
Summary
A Barnett-Paleozoic Total
Petroleum System has been defined for the Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin
Province , USGS Province 045. Distribution and geochemical typing of
hydrocarbons produced from Paleozoic reservoirs rocks indicate
generation, expulsion and emplacement from the organic-rich,
Mississippian-Pennsylvanian Barnett Shale. Reservoir rocks of the
Barnett-Paleozoic TPS are carbonate and clastic rocks that range in age
from Ordovician to Permian (Wolfcampian). Reservoirs are sealed by
thick shale or dense, impermeable carbonate rocks. The boundaries for
the Barnett-Paleozoic TPS are major geologic structures to the north,
south, and east. However, the western boundary of the Barnett-Paleozoic
TPS is poorly defined, and therefore only tentative at this time. The
western Barnett-Paleozoic TPS boundary splits the area of the Eastern
Shelf and Concho Platform where reservoir rocks containing
Barnett-sourced hydrocarbons are likely mixed with hydrocarbons
generated from source rocks of the Midland Basin to the west. Further
oil and gas geochemical analysis is needed to further define the common
boundary with the adjacent Midland Basin TPS.
TOC content in the Barnett
Shale averages 4% and consists of oil-prone Type II kerogen. Oils were
initially generated from the decomposition of organic matter in the
Barnett Shale at low levels of thermal maturities, whereas gas produced
from the greater Newark East Field area probably formed from secondary
cracking of oil and bitumen. Variable lateral variation in thermal
maturity of the Barnett determined from vitrinite reflectance
measurements indicates that heat flow regimes resulting from Ouchita
thrusting probably influenced hydrocarbon generation within the Fort
Worth Basin .
Preliminary analysis of the
Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin Province has identified five conventional and
three continuous assessment units for assessing undiscovered,
technically recoverable resources of the Barnett-Paleozoic TPS. The
three continuous assessment units are areas of potential Barnett Shale
production that are defined by both geologic conditions and geochemical
and thermal maturity parameters. The greatest volume of undiscovered
resource in the Barnett-Paleozoic TPS is expected from continuous gas
accumulations within the Barnett Shale.
References cited
Allard, J.,
2000, Barnett Shale play hot in North Texas: Landman, p. 26-28, Accessed
June 2002 at URL http://www.landmand.org.
Ball M. M.,
and W. J. Perry, 1996, Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin Province (045), in D.
L. Gautier, G. L. Dolton, K. I. Takahashi, and K. L. Varnes, eds., 1995
National assessment of United States oil and gas resources – Results,
methodology, and supporting data: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data
Series DDS-30, Release 2, [CD-ROM].
Bowker, K.,
2002, Recent developments of the Barnett Shale play , Fort Worth Basin ,
in Law, B.E. and Wilson, M., eds., Innovative Gas Exploration
Concepts Symposium: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists and
Petroleum Technology Transfer Council, October, 2002, Denver, CO, 16 p.
Comer, J. B,
1991, Stratigraphic analysis of the Upper Devonian Woodford Formation,
Permian Basin , West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico: Texas Bureau of
Economic Geology Report of Investigations 201, 63 p.
Devon Energy
Corporation, 2002, Mid-year company operations update and Barnett Shale
school, June 20, 2002: Accessed August 2002 at URL www.dvn.com.
Flippin, J.
W., 1982, The stratigraphy, structure, and economic aspects of the
Paleozoic strata in Erath County, North-Central Texas, in C. A. Martin,
ed., Petroleum geology of the Fort Worth Basin and Bend Arch area:
Dallas Geological Society, p. 129-155.
Gautier, D.
L., G. L. Dolton, K. I. Takahashi, and K. L. Varnes, K. L., eds., 1996,
1995 National assessment of United States oil and gas resources –
Results, methodology, and supporting data: U.S. Geological Survey
Digital Data Series DDS-30, Release 2, one CD-ROM.
Grayson, R. C.
and G. K. Merrill, eds., 1991, Carboniferous geology and tectonic
history of the Southern Fort Worth (Foreland) Basin and Concho Platform,
Texas: AAPG, 1991 Annual Convention, Dallas Geological Society
Guidebook, Field Trip No. 13, 67 p.
Grayson, R.
C., Jr., G. K. Merrill, L. L. Lambert, and M. J. Pranter, 1991,
Carboniferous geology and tectonic history of the southern Fort Worth
(foreland) Basin and Concho Platform, in R. C. Grayson and G. K.
Merrill, eds., Carboniferous geology and tectonic history of the
Southern Fort Worth (foreland) Basin and Concho Platform, Texas: AAPG,
1991 Annual Convention, Dallas Geological Society Guidebook, Field Trip
No. 13, p. 3-67.
Hall, J.,
2002, Barnett Shale geology, in Devon Energy Corporation,
Mid-year operations update and Barnett Shale school, June 20, 2002:
Accessed August 2002 at URL www.dvn.com.
Henk, F., J.
Breyer, and D. M. Jarvie, 2000, Lithofacies, petrology, and geochemistry
of the Barnett Shale in conventional core and Barnett Shale outcrop
geochemistry [abs], in L. Brogden, ed., Barnett Shale Symposium, Fort
Worth Texas, Oil Information Library of Fort Worth, Texas, p. 7.
Jarvie, D. M.,
B. L. Claxton, F. Henk, and J. T. Breyer, 2001, Oil and shale gas from
the Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin , Texas [abs.]; AAPG Annual Meeting,
Program and Abstracts, p. A100.
Jarvie, D. M.,
and B. L. Claxton, 2002, Barnett Shale oil and gas as an analog for
other black shales [abs.]: AAPG Midcontinent Meeting, New Mexico.
Kerans, C.,
1988, Karst-controlled reservoir heterogeneity in Ellenburger Group
carbonates of West Texas: AAPG Bulletin, v. 7, p. 1160-1183.
Klett, T. R.,
J. W. Schmoker, and T. S. Ahlbrandt, 2000, Assessment hierarchy and
initial province ranking, Chapter AR, in U.S. Geological Survey World
Energy Assessment Team, U.S. Geological Survey World Petroleum
Assessment 2000 – Description and results, USGS Digital Data Series
DDS-60, Version 1.0, CD-ROM, Disk one, 31 p.
Kuuskraa, V.
A., G. Koperna, J. W. Schmoker, and J. C. Quinn, 1998, Barnett Shale
rising star in Fort Worth Basin : Oil and Gas Journal, v. 96, no. 21, p.
71-76.
Lancaster, D.
E., S. McKettta, and P. H. Lowry, 1993, Research findings help
characterize Fort Worth Basin ’s Barnett Shale: Oil and Gas Journal, v.
91, p. 59-64.
Magoon, L. B.,
and W. G. Dow, 1994, The petroleum system , in L. B. Magoon, and W. G.
Dow, eds., The Petroleum system – From source to trap: AAPG Memoir 60,
p. 3-24.
Magoon, L. B.,
and J. W. Schmoker, 2000, The total petroleum system – The natural fluid
network that constrains the assessment unit, Chapter PS, in U.S.
Geological Survey World Energy Assessment Team, U.S. Geological Survey
World Petroleum Assessment 2000 – Description and results, USGS Digital
Data Series DDS-60, Version 1.0, CD-ROM, Disk one, 31 p.
Mapel, W. J.,
R. B. Johnson, G. O. Bachman, and K. L. Varnes, 1979, Southern
Mid-Continent and southern Rocky Mountains Region, in L. C. Craig, and
W. C. Connor, eds., Paleotectonic investigations of the Mississippian
System in the United States: Part 1 – Introduction and regional analyses
of the Mississippian System : U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1010, p. 161-187.
Reeves, S.,
2002, Gas shales – Production and potential: Conference on gas shales –
Production and potential, Strategic Research Institute, June 2002,
Denver, CO, 40 p.
Schenk, C. J.,
and R. M. Pollastro, 2001, Natural gas production in the United States:
National Assessment of Oil and Gas Series, U.S. Geological Survey Fact
Sheet FS-113-01, 2 p.
Schmoker, J.
W., 1996, Method for assessing continous-type (unconventional)
hydrocarbon accumulations, in D. L. Gautier, G. L. Dolton, K. I.
Takahashi, and K. L. Varnes, eds., 1996, 1995 National assessment of
United States oil and gas resources – Results, methodology, and
supporting data: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-30,
Release 2, [CD-ROM].
Schmoker, J.
W., C. J. Quinn, R. A. Crovelli, V.F. Nuccio, and T. C. Hester, 1996,
Production characteristics and resource assessment of the Barnett Shale
continuous (unconventional) gas accumulation, Fort Worth Basin , Texas:
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-254, 20 p.
Shirley, K.,
2002, Barnett Shale living up to potential: AAPG Explorer, v. 23, no. 7,
p.18-27.
Sloss, L. L.,
1976, Areas and volumes of cratonic sediments, western North America and
eastern Europe: Geology, v. 4, p. 272-276.
Swindell, G.
S, 2002, Newark East Barnett Shale gas field, cumulative production
graph: Accessed December 2002 at URL
http://gswindell.com/newark.htm.
Walper, J. L.,
1982, Plate tectonic evolution of the Fort Worth Basin , in
Martin, C.A., ed., Petroleum geology of the Fort Worth basin and Bend
arch area: Dallas Geological Society, p. 237-251.
The
authors are grateful for the constructive reviews of the manuscript by
Deborah Higley, Michael Brownfield, and William Keefer. We would also
like to thank Republic Energy, Inc. for permission to sample several of
their oil and gas wells for geochemical analyses in hopes to further
understand the Barnett-Paleozoic Total Petroleum System . This study has
also benefited from discussions with the Discovery Group, Denver, CO.
Return
to top.
|