Архив меток: usgs assessment us

Usgs: оценки ресурсов нетрадиционных углеводородов

Продолжение записей
24 Июнь 2014 Почему важно иметь данные по shale и tight gas http://iv-g.livejournal.com/1054262.html
И комментарий в дискуссии

Сейчас самый свежие карты в разделе Assessment Summary Maps/Tables — это 2013 г., выпущенные в 2013 г.
http://energy.usgs.gov/OilGas/AssessmentsData/NationalOilGasAssessment/AssessmentUpdates.aspx

В разделе National Oil and Gas Assessment
http://energy.usgs.gov/OilGas/AssessmentsData/NationalOilGasAssessment.aspx
Свежие карты с TRR

FEBRUARY 11, 2015 Map of assessed continuous (unconventional) oil resources in the United States, 2014 http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-069/dds-069-jj/
DECEMBER 19, 2014 Map of assessed coalbed-gas resources in the United States, 2014 http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-069/dds-069-ii/
SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 Map of Assessed Tight-Gas Resources in the United States, 2014 http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-069/dds-069-hh/
THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2013 Map of Assessed Shale Gas in the United States, 2012
http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-069/dds-069-z/
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 09, 2014, Map of Assessed Shale Gas in the United States, 2012 http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-069/dds-069-z/

FRIDAY, MAY 24, 2013 National Assessment Maps and Tables Updates http://energy.usgs.gov/OilGas/AssessmentsData/NationalOilGasAssessment/AssessmentUpdates.aspx
THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2013 Map of Assessed Shale Gas in the United States, 2012 http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-069/dds-069-z/

— — —
i/ На новых картах не дают крупными цифрами суммарный запасы по США, только по отдельным бассейнам и мелко 🙂 кажется, даже, не по всем бассейнам, не проверял
ii/ Выделенная жирным шрифтом публикация 2014 г. просто ссылается на карту 2012 г 🙂
iii/ Публикации 2016 г. с оценками за 2015 г. нет 🙂

iv/ Оценки TRR геологами, бесспорно, очень творческий процесс в плане три-П, но, видимо, он тоже имеет ограничения 🙂

v/ Из итоговых оценок дискуссии 2014 г.

-i/ Usgs делает нерегулярные пересчеты по бассейнам
-ii/ Usgs делает регулярные изменения на картах и в базе.
-iii/ Ваш вывод о делении shale и tight около 2002 г. подтверждает мои догадки. В 2002 г. были отменены льготы введенные ранее по добыче нетрадиционного газа малопористых коллекторов. Который изначально фигурировал как tight в соответствующих законах США о налоговых льготах. Видимо, изначально tight был почти синонимом Continuos (кроме CBM). А потом начались переклассификации, которые идут по сей день. Вполне можно ждать продолжения линейного роста запасов и добычи shale за счет tight.
-iv/ EIA публикует регулярные данные по запасам-ресурсам.
Данные собирает с нефтяных компаний.
В данных приводятся
как достоверные величины proved reserves
так и гадательные unproved technically recoverable recources (TRR).
При этом компании в погоне за брендом, видимо, записывают TRR tight в shale, тем более что за TRR никто серьезно не следит и не анализируют.

Реклама

iv_g: записи о Usgs assessment

Читать далее

Почему важно иметь данные по shale и tight gas

Ресурсы tight gas по данным USGS

2010

2011

http://energy.usgs.gov/OilGas/AssessmentsData/NationalOilGasAssessment/AssessmentUpdates.aspx

Карта 2013 г., такая же как в 2011, а в
Eagle Ford уже бушует сланцевая революция 🙂

В западной части Монтаны, в Уиллистонском и Пермском бассейнах и бассейне западной части Мексиканского залива ресурсов tight gas не стало!
Таким образом, подтвердилось мое предположение о переброске величин из tight в shale gas

— — — — —
Вопрос: А мизерность этих исчезнувших запасов вас не смущает ?

Ответ:
i/ Это не запасы, а ресурсы. Технически изведекаемые ресурсы (TRR), которых вообще нет ни в каких официальных классификациях (Petroleum Resources Management System 2007).

ii/ Поскольку эти ресурсы никак критически не осмысливаются большинством аналитиков, т.к. это специально введенная категория для оценок, за которые никак нельзя привлечь к ответу (за обман инвесторов и др.), то произвол в величинах здесь огромный.
Из наиболее ярких изменений оценок технически изведекаемых ресурсов
ii.i/ 22 Март 2012 Польша сократила оценку технически извлекаемых запасов сланцевого газа в недрах страны почти в десять раз
http://iv-g.livejournal.com/627258.html
http://iv-g.livejournal.com/627624.html

ii.ii/ 22 мая 2014 Just today, we learned that the EIA has placed a hefty downward revision on its estimate of the amount of recoverable oil in the #1 shale reserve in the US, the Monterey in California. As recently as yesterday, the much-publicized Monterey formation accounted for nearly two-thirds of all technically-recoverable US shale oil resources. he EIA now estimates these reserves to be 96% lower than it previously claimed.
http://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/85555/us-shale-oil-miracle-disappears
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-22/us-shale-oil-miracle-disappears
Не сланцевый газ, а сланцевая нефть, но величина все таже: технически извлекаемых ресурсов.

iii/ Примечательный факт: для США в целом регулярно оценки по TRR выпускает EIA (агентство энергетитческой информации) в форме ежегодников, а не USGS (геологическая служба США), у которой нет (я не нашел) ежегодников по нефтегазу; по твердым полезным ископаенмым есть, а по нефтегазу нет.
При этом на сайте USGS есть только текущие оценки, старых найти нельзя, если их не сохранять 🙂

iv/ Отличия shale от tight


Прищепа О.М., Аверьянова О.Ю. К обсуждению понятийной базы нетрадиционных источников нефти и газа – сланцевых толщ.
«Нефтегазовая геология. Теория и практика», 2013 г. (том 8),
http://www.ngtp.ru/rub/9/27_2013.pdf
Подробнее по теме в статье, указанной выше

v/ Как пример, пропавшие «мизерные» ресурсы tight gas в бассейне Paradox появились как совсем не мизерные ресурсы сланцевого газа

vi/ Если не обращать внимание на термины и то, что за ними стоит, то, действительно, ничего особенного: «здесь играем, здесь не играем, здесь рыбу заворачивали».

Usgs: Map of Assessed Shale Gas in the United States, 2012. Хронология открытий

http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-069/dds-069-z/
http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-069/dds-069-z/downloads/DDS-69-Z_ShaleGasSlideshow2012.pps

Usgs: Map of Assessed Shale Gas in the United States, 2012. Карты

First posted April 9, 2013


7832×4710

http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-069/dds-069-z/
http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-069/dds-069-z/downloads/DDS-69-Z_plate1.pdf

Данные по запасам незначительно отличаются от прошлогодних,
http://iv-g.livejournal.com/612356.html
но НГБ даны более детализировано

Usgs assessment: Undiscovered resources in in the Upper Cretaceous Eagle Ford Group, 2011

Using a geology-based assessment methodology, the U.S. Geological Survey assessed means of (1) 141 million barrels of oil (MMBO), 502 billion cubic feet of natural gas (BCFG), and 16 million barrels of natural gas liquids (MMBNGL) in the conventional Eagle Ford Updip Sandstone Oil and Gas Assessment Unit (AU); (2) 853 MMBO, 1,707 BCFG, and 34 MMBNGL in the continuous Eagle Ford Shale Oil AU; and (3) 50,219 BCFG and 2,009 MMBNGL in the continuous Eagle Ford Shale Gas AU in onshore lands and State waters of the Gulf Coast.

Introduction
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently completed a geology-based assessment of the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources in Upper Cretaceous strata of the U.S. Gulf Coast region, which includes parts of Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida (fig. 1). The assessed Upper Cretaceous strata in this report includes the Eagle Ford Group, which is interbedded with laterally equivalent sandstones of the Woodbine and Tuscaloosa Formations; other lateral equivalents are the Eagle Ford Shale, and,

in part, the Tuscaloosa marine shale. Nomenclature is a combination of formal and informal groups, and formation and member names that reflect the common designation and usage in the region by State, industry, U.S. Geological Survey, and academic geologists. The assessment was based on the geologic elements and petroleum processes used to define a total petroleum system (TPS), which includes petroleum source rocks (source-rock maturation and petroleum generation and migration), reservoir and seal rocks (sequence stratigraphy and petrophysical properties), and petroleum traps (trap formation, timing, and seals). Using this petroleum-system framework, the USGS defined three assessment units (AUs) for these Cenomanian−Turonian rocks: (1) the Eagle Ford Updip Sandstone Oil and Gas AU, (2) the Eagle Ford Shale Oil AU, and (3) the Eagle Ford Shale Gas AU (fig. 1).

Geologic Summary
The USGS defined the Upper Jurassic−Cretaceous−Tertiary Composite TPS and three assessment units (AUs) with technically recoverable undiscovered conventional and continuous oil and gas resources in Upper Cretaceous strata (fig. 1). The assessed conventional oil and gas undiscovered resources are in sandstone reservoirs in the Tuscaloosa and Woodbine Formations in Louisiana and Texas, respectively, whereas the continuous oil and continuous gas resources reside in the Eagle Ford Shale in Texas and the Tuscaloosa marine shale in Louisiana. Conventional resources in the Tuscaloosa and Woodbine are included in the Eagle Ford Updip Sandstone Oil and Gas AU, which encompasses an area where the Eagle Ford Shale and Tuscaloosa marine shale display vitrinite reflectance (Ro) values <0.6 percent. The conventional gas resources in the so-called “downdip” Tuscaloosa and Woodbine shelf-margin deltas previously were assessed and published in 2007 (Pitman and others, 2007). The continuous Eagle Ford Shale Oil AU lies beneath part of the conventional Eagle Ford Updip Sandstone Oil and Gas AU, immediately updip of the Lower Cretaceous shelf edge, and is defined by thermal maturity values within the Eagle Ford Shale and the Tuscaloosa marine shale that range from 0.6 to 1.2 percent Ro. Similarly, the continuous Eagle Ford Shale Gas AU is defined primarily downdip of the shelf edge where the source rocks have Ro values greater than 1.2 percent.
Resource Summary

The USGS assessed undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources in the three assessment units (table 1).

The assessed means are (1) 141 million barrels of oil (MMBO), 502 billion cubic feet of natural gas (BCFG), and 16 million barrels of natural gas liquids (MMBNGL) in the conventional Eagle Ford Updip Sandstone Oil and Gas AU; (2) 853 MMBO, 1,707 BCFG, and 34 MMBNGL in the continuous Eagle Ford Shale Oil AU; and (3) 50,219 BCFG and 2,009 MMBNGL in the continuous Eagle Ford Shale Gas AU.

For Further Information
Supporting geologic studies and the methodology used in the 2010 Jurassic and Cretaceous Gulf Coast Assessment are in progress. Assessment results are available at the USGS Central Energy Resources Science Center website:
http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/oilgas/noga

http://energy.usgs.gov/OilGas/AssessmentsData/NationalOilGasAssessment.aspx
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3003/
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3003/FS12-3003.pdf

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4505/invngn.19/0_3cd30_e1e8fc70_orig

Всего, Mean
Нефть: 995 млн. барр. = 135.58 млн.т
Газ: 52428 млрд. куб. футов = 1468 млрд. куб. метров

Usgs assessment: Undiscovered Oil Resources in the Bakken Formation, Williston Basin Province, 2008

Assessment of Undiscovered Oil Resources in the Devonian-Mississippian Bakken Formation, Williston Basin Province, Montana and North Dakota, 2008

Using a geology-based assessment methodology, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated mean undiscovered volumes of 3.65 billion barrels of oil, 1.85 trillion cubic feet of associated/dissolved natural gas, and 148 million barrels of natural gas liquids in the Bakken Formation of the Williston Basin Province, Montana and North Dakota.

Introduction
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) completed an assessment of the undiscovered oil and associated gas resources of the Upper Devonian–Lower Mississippian Bakken Formation in the U.S. portion of the Williston Basin of Montana and North Dakota and within the Williston Basin Province (fig. 1). The assessment is based on geologic elements of a total petroleum system (TPS) that include (1) source-rock distribution, thickness, organic richness, maturation, petroleum generation, and
migration; (2) reservoir-rock type (conventional or continuous), distribution, and quality; and (3) character of traps and time of formation with respect to petroleum generation and migration.
Detailed framework studies in stratigraphy and structural geology and the modeling of petroleum geochemistry, combined with historical exploration and production analyses, were used to aid in the estimation of the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and associated gas resources of the Bakken Formation in the United States. Using this framework, the USGS defined a Bakken-Lodgepole TPS (fig. 1) and seven assessment units (AU) within the TPS. For the Bakken Formation, the undiscovered oil and associated gas resources within six of these assessment units were quantitatively estimated (fig. 2, table 1). A conventional AU within the Lodgepole Formation was not assessed.

Bakken Formation and Bakken-Lodgepole Total Petroleum System
The Upper Devonian–Lower Mississippian Bakken Formation is a thin but widespread unit within the central and deeper portions of the Williston Basin in Montana, North Dakota, and the Canadian Provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The formation consists of three members: (1) lower shale member, (2) middle sandstone member, and (3) upper shale member. Each succeeding member is of greater geographic extent than the underlying member. Both the upper and lower shale members are organic-rich marine shale of fairly consistent lithology; they are the petroleum source rocks and part of the continuous reservoir for hydrocarbons produced from the Bakken Formation. The middle sandstone member varies in thickness, lithology, and petrophysical properties, and local development of matrix porosity enhances oil production in both continuous and conventional Bakken reservoirs. Within the Bakken-Lodgepole TPS, the upper and lower shale members of the Bakken Formation are also the source for oil produced from reservoirs of the Mississippian Lodgepole Formation.

Geologic Model and Assessment Units
The geologic model used to define AUs and to assess the Bakken Formation resources generally involves thermal maturity of the Bakken shale source rocks, petrophysical character of the middle sandstone member, and structural complexity of the basin. Most important to the Bakken-Lodgepole TPS and the continuous AUs within it are (1) the geographic extent of the Bakken Formation oil generation window (fig. 2), (2) the occurrence and distribution of vertical and horizontal fractures, and (3) the matrix porosity within the middle sandstone member. The area of the oil generation window for the Bakken continuous reservoir was determined by contouring both hydrogen index and well-log resistivity values of the upper shale member, which is youngest and of greatest areal extent.

The area of the oil generation window for the Bakken Formation was divided into five continuous AUs: (1) Elm Coulee–Billings Nose AU, (2) Central Basin–Poplar Dome AU, (3) Nesson–Little Knife Structural AU, (4) Eastern Expulsion Threshold AU, and (5) Northwest Expulsion Threshold AU. A sixth hypothetical conventional AU, a Middle Sandstone Member AU, was defined external to the area of oil generation.

Resource Summary
The USGS assessed undiscovered oil and associated gas resources in five continuous (unconventional) AUs and one conventional AU for the Bakken Formation (fig. 2; table 1). For continuous oil resources, the USGS estimated a total mean resource of 3.65 billion barrels of oil, which combines means of 410 million barrels in the Elm Coulee–Billings Nose AU, 485 million barrels in the Central Basin–Poplar Dome AU, 909 million barrels in the Nesson–Little Knife Structural AU, 973 million barrels in the Eastern Expulsion Threshold AU, and 868 million barrels in the Northwest Expulsion Threshold AU. A mean resource of 4 million barrels was estimated for the conventional Middle Sandstone Member AU. The assessment of the Bakken Formation indicates that most of the undiscovered oil resides within a continuous composite reservoir that is distributed across the entire area of the oil generation window (fig. 2) and includes all members of the Bakken Formation. At the time of this assessment, only a limited number of wells have produced from the Bakken continuous reservoir in the Central Basin–Poplar Dome AU, the Eastern Expulsion Threshold AU, and the Northwest Expulsion Threshold AU. Therefore, there is significant geologic uncertainty in these estimates, which is reflected in the range of estimates for oil (table 1).

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3021/
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3021/pdf/FS08-3021_508.pdf