| PIPELINE MAPS | GULF OF MEXICO | GEOLOGY | COUNTRIES | USA ENERGY STATISTICS | Geographic.org | COUNTRY CODES | AIRPORTS | JOBS |
DOE's Unconventional Gas Research Programs 1976-1995
SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region





3.6.1. Key Objectives and Program Design


The first part of the SGR project focused on reservoirs of the Gulf Coast Basin; data-rich, field-based models well-suited for evaluating infield development. The SGR research program focused on sandstone-dominated natural gas reservoirs in fluvial-deltaic plays within the onshore Gulf Coast Basin of Texas (Figure 3.6.2).

Figure 3.6.2: Schematic Depositional Dip-Oriented Cross-Section through the Central Texas Gulf Coast Basin, Illustrating the Relative Position of Major Sand Depocenters (Hardage, et al, 1995). (Click image to enlarge)
Figure 3.6.2: Schematic Depositional Dip-Oriented Cross-Section through the Central Texas Gulf Coast Basin, Illustrating the Relative Position of Major Sand Depocenters (Hardage, et al, 1995). (Click image to enlarge)

The primary project research objectives were:
  • To establish how depositional and diagenetic heterogeneities cause, even in reservoirs of conventional permeability, reservoir compartmentalization and hence incomplete recovery of natural gas,
  • To document examples of reserve growth occurrence and potential from fluvial and deltaic sandstones of the Texas Gulf Coast Basin as a natural laboratory for developing concepts and testing applications, and
  • To demonstrate how the integration of geology, reservoir engineering, geophysics, and well log analysis/petrophysics leads to strategic recompletion and well placement opportunities for reserve growth in mature fields.
Geologic and engineering screening of 14 major gas fields in the onshore Gulf Coast Basin indicated that leading candidate gas fields in southeast, south-central, and South Texas included Lake Creek, Seeligson, Stratton-Agua Dulce, and McAllen Ranch fields.

The fields were selected by applying a methodology developed by the project for the geological and engineering screening of sandstone reservoirs.

Geologic and engineering analyses of publicly available and industry-supplied data helped to define those gas fields that were suitable as a natural laboratory for project research.

Screening of heterogeneous fluvial-deltaic reservoirs of South Texas defined the first areas of field data collection and formed a major part of early phases of the project. Producing intervals are fluvial reservoirs in the Frio Formation (Seeligson and Stratton- Agua Dulce fields) and deltaic reservoirs in the Wilcox (in Lake Creek field) and in the Vicksburg (in McAllen Ranch field). Results obtained from the initial project phase formed the basis for technical presentations to industry representatives and stressed the potential benefits of cooperating with the Secondary Gas Recovery project.

These presentations led to cooperative studies in four Gulf Coast fields. Cooperative data analyses were initiated with Shell Western Exploration and Production Inc. (SWEPI) in 1989 at McAllen Ranch field in South Texas, which is part of the gas play known as Vicksburg Deltaic Sandstone in the Rio Grande Embayment.

In 1990 and 1991, cooperative data were obtained from Mobil Exploration and Producing U.S., Inc., in Lake Creek field, which is part of the Wilcox Deltaic Sandstone in the Houston Embayment. Project research focused on integrating geologic, engineering, and formation evaluation of fluvial-dominated deltaic deposits in the lower Wilcox group. Both Stratton and Seeligson fields were candidates for detailed investigations within the Frio Fluvial-Deltaic Sandstones along the Vicksburg Fault Zone gas play.

Seeligson field was the first SGR research field study site in the Frio Formation. Starting in mid-1990, with the cooperation of Union Pacific Resources Corporation, the SGR project focused its research efforts on quantifying secondary gas resources in middle Frio gas reservoirs in Stratton field in Nueces, Kleberg, and Jim Wells Counties, Texas.

In 1992 and 1993, an assessment of technical applications and economic feasibility of SGR approaches in small-scale application (mini-evaluations) were conducted to track the benefits and results. In cooperation with independent gas producers, an analysis of the development and operations to find and produce secondary gas reserves was evaluated in two separate field areas.

The second focus area of the SGR project was the Fort Worth Basin of North Texas (Figure 3.6.3). This assessment of Midcontinent sandstone natural gas reservoirs in Boonsville field integrated four key disciplines: geology, geophysics, reservoir engineering and petrophysics.

Figure 3.6.2: Schematic Depositional Dip-Oriented Cross-Section through the Central Texas Gulf Coast Basin, Illustrating the Relative Position of Major Sand Depocenters (Hardage, et al, 1995). (Click image to enlarge)
Figure 3.6.2: Schematic Depositional Dip-Oriented Cross-Section through the Central Texas Gulf Coast Basin, Illustrating the Relative Position of Major Sand Depocenters (Hardage, et al, 1995). (Click image to enlarge)

The entire Atoka Group (Lower and Upper) in the project area was divided into 13 third-order genetic stratigraphic sequences (the first public comprehensive genetic sequence analysis to relate these prolific Pennsylvanian gas reservoirs to their seismic response and gas productivity).

A 26 square mile 3-D seismic survey was acquired and interpreted to test methods for delineating reservoirs in thin-bed, hard-rock environments.

Reservoir facies frameworks, assessed by integrating geological and geophysical approaches, were combined with engineering and petrophysical evaluations of produced gas volumes and reservoir quality.


- Please bookmark this page (add it to your favorites).

Copyright © 1995-2010 ITA all rights reserved.




TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cover Page

Executive Summary

1. Background

2. GRI Research into Unconventional Gas Resources

3. Structure of the Enhanced Gas Recovery Program (EGR)

  • 3.1. Eastern Gas Shales Program (1976-1992)

  • 3.1.1. Key Questions and Related R&D Goals
  • 3.1.2. Program Design and Overview of Major Projects
  • 3.1.3. Key Eastern Gas Shales Projects
  • 3.1.4. Highlights of Important Results
  • 3.1.5. Subsequent Developments in DOE and Other Research Related to Eastern Gas Shales

  • 3.2. Western Gas Sands Program (1978-1992)

  • 3.2.1. Key Questions and Related R&D Goals
  • 3.2.2. Program Design and Overview of Major Projects
  • 3.2.3. Key Western Gas Sands Projects
  • 3.2.4. Highlights of Important Results
  • 3.2.5. Subsequent Developments in DOE Research Related to Tight Gas Sands

  • 3.3. Methane Recovery from Coalbeds Program (1978-1982)

  • 3.3.1. Key Questions Related to Coal Seam Methane
  • 3.3.2. MRCP Program Design and Overview
  • 3.3.3. Key Methane Recovery from Coalbeds Projects
  • 3.3.4. Highlights of Important Results
  • 3.3.5. Subsequent Research Related to Methane Recovery from Coalbeds

  • 3.4. Deep Source Gas Project (1982-1992)

  • 3.4.1. Key Deep Source Gas Projects
  • 3.4.2. Highlights of Important Results

  • 3.5. Methane Hydrates Program (1982-1992)

  • 3.5.1. Methane Hydrates Workshop (March 1982)
  • 3.5.2. Key Questions and Related R&D Goals
  • 3.5.3. Program Design
  • 3.5.4. Major Contracted Gas Hydrates Projects
  • 3.5.5. Methane Hydrate Research Efforts of METC's In-House Organization
  • 3.5.6. Highlights of Important Results
  • 3.5.7. Subsequent Developments in Methane Hydrate Research

  • 3.6. Secondary Gas Recovery (1987-1995)

  • 3.6.1. Key Objectives and Program Design
  • 3.6.2. Major Projects
  • 3.6.3. Major Results

    4. Elements of Spreadsheet Bibliographies (by Program)

    Appendix A: Details of Major 1970-1980 Unconventional Gas Resource Assessments

    . . . Feedback