1 / 44

WTGS Symposium Midland, Texas October 25, 2001 Geoscience Technology for the Coming Gas Economy

WTGS Symposium Midland, Texas October 25, 2001 Geoscience Technology for the Coming Gas Economy Scott W. Tinker & Eugene Kim Bureau of Economic Geology The University of Texas at Austin. Introduction.

meriel
Download Presentation

WTGS Symposium Midland, Texas October 25, 2001 Geoscience Technology for the Coming Gas Economy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WTGS Symposium Midland, Texas October 25, 2001 Geoscience Technology for the Coming Gas Economy Scott W. Tinker & Eugene Kim Bureau of Economic GeologyThe University of Texas at Austin

  2. Introduction Energy consumption in the U.S. and the world has shown a very predictable trend of “decarbonization.” Future U.S. energy consumption will be increasingly dominated by natural gas. Research and technology have been there all the way, responding as needed to the forces of supply, price, policy, and efficiency. Basic energy research should focus on advanced characterization for enhanced oil production and advanced fracture, salt, and seismic analysis for natural gas exploration and development.

  3. 1 0 0 Wood Hydrogen 8 0 Solids Gases Nonsustainable economic growth Sustainable economic growth Liquids 6 0 Coal Percentage of total market 4 0 Arab Oil Embargo Civil War WW II WW I Oil and natural gas liquids “City Gas” hydrogen 2 0 Petroleum oil Whale oil Methane 0 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 Year World Energy Consumption QAc9841c After Hefner, 1993

  4. Solids Gas, nuclear, renewables Liquids Natural gas 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 U.S. vs. World Energy Consumption 1 0 0 8 0 6 0 Percentage of total market 4 0 2 0 0 Year QAc9841c EIA production data

  5. 1 0 0 8 0 Solids Gases, Nuclear, Renewables Gases, nuclear, renewables 6 0 Percentage of total market 1970 Forecast 4 0 Actual Liquids 2 0 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 0 Year QAc9841c EIA production data U.S. Energy Consumption 1970

  6. 1 0 0 Gas price Oil price 8 0 Solids Supply Price Policy Technology 6 0 Percentage of total market Gases, nuclear, renewables 4 0 2 0 Liquids 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 0 Year QAc9841c EIA Production Data U.S. Energy Consumption 1970

  7. Liquids (Oil) 100 10 90 20 80 30 l 1975 l 1910 70 l 1980 l 1915 l 1985 l 1990 40 l 1920 l 1995 l 1925 60 l 2000 l 1930 50 l 1935 50 l 1940 l 1945 l 60 l l l l l l 1950 l l 40 l 1955 l l l l l l l 1960 l 70 l l 1965 l l 30 l l 1970 l l l 80 l 20 l l l 90 l l 10 l l l 100 l l l l l l l l l l l l 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Solids (wood, coal) Gases (natural gas, hydrogen, nuclear, renewables) U.S. Energy Consumption

  8. Btu consumption % of Total Market EIA forecast 160.00 140.00 Conservation 120.00 Coal, wood, waste 100.00 Oil U.S. consumption (Btu) 80.00 Gas, nuclear, renewables 60.00 Total consumption 8.00 40.00 6.00 Bbo 20.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 1 Quad ~ 1 Tcf Year U.S. Energy Consumption 50-Year Forecast EIA historical production data

  9. 160.00 140.00 120.00 100.00 U.S. consumption (Btu) 80.00 60.00 8.00 40.00 6.00 Bbo 20.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 Year Coal, wood, waste Oil Gas, nuclear, renewables Total U.S. Energy Consumption Drivers • Methane, hydrogen, nuclear, renewables • Efficiency high • Economic stability improved • National security risks lower • Environmental impact lower • Methane abundant • Hydrogen sustainable • Current cost/benefit is lower • Practical limits (10%) • Hidden environmental costs • Solids • Efficiency Poor • Environmental Costs • Oil • Economic Impact of Price Fluctuations • National Security Impact of Import Ratio • Efficiency Less Than Gas • Environmental Impact Moderate EIA historical production data

  10. Oil Exploration Access Assess Development Reservoir characterization Field management Environment

  11. Impact of Oil Research

  12. Technology wedge Theoretical Impact on Long-Term Oil Decline Multifield portfolio Production 0 5 10 15 Time (yr)

  13. Technology wedge 2001 2005 2009 2013 2019 U.S. Oil Production 10000000 9000000 8000000 7000000 6000000 Average daily oil production (bbl) 5000000 4000000 ~ 2,000,000,000 barrels over 20 years $50 billion gross oil value ($25 oil) 3000000 2000000 1000000 1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 Year EIA (1949-1990) and NPC (1991-2015)

  14. 30,000 Deep-water+subsalt offshore L48 Unconventional onshore 25,000 20,000 15,000 Annual natural gas production (Bcf) Tight gas, shale gas, CBM 10,000 5,000 0 1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 Year U.S. Natural Gas EIA (1949-1990) and NPC (1991-2015)

  15. “Unconventional” Gas Tight gas Shale gas Coalbed methane Deep gas Subsalt gas Gas hydrates Low-pressure gas

  16. *Advanced stimulation technology *Greater Green River Basin shale gas *Piceance Basin GRI Federal alternative fuels production credit for unconventional gas DOE Impact of Natural Gas Research Tight Gas 4,000.0 3,500.0 3,000.0 2,500.0 2,000.0 Bcf 1,500.0 State of Texas tight gas incentives 1,000.0 500.0 0.0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 GRI, 1999, GRI’s Gas Resource Database. DOE personal communication.

  17. Rocky Mountain Foreland (13.7 Tcf) Midcontinent (16.9 Tcf) Appalachian (18.3 Tcf) N Permian Basin (19.5 Tcf) Arkla-Tex (29.8 Tcf) 0 4 0 0 m i Texas Gulf Onshore (9.1 Tcf) 0 6 0 0 k m B u r e a u o f E c o n o m i c Q A c 9 7 1 5 c G e o l o g y MAJOR PRODUCTIVE TIGHT GAS BASINS (technically recoverable resources) San Juan (5.6 Tcf)* Data: NPC (2000); * based on estimates of NPC (1993); San Juan Basin tight gas resource included with oil field reserve appreciation and new fields in NPC (2000).

  18. GRI Impact of Natural Gas Research Shale Gas Antrim Shale research Appalachian Basin shales 350.0 300.0 250.0 200.0 Bcf 150.0 100.0 DOE (1976-1992) 50.0 0.0 1980 1985 1990 1995 GRI, 1999, GRI’s Gas Resource Database; DOE personal communication.

  19. M i c h i g a n A n t r i m ( 1 6 . 9 T c f ) A p p a l a c h i a n I l l i n o i s ( 2 3 . 4 T c f ) N e w A l b a n y ( 2 . 9 T c f ) Cincinnati N A r c h ( 2 . 2 T c f ) F t . W o r t h B a r n e t t S h a l e ( 7 . 2 T c f ) 0 4 0 0 m i 0 6 0 0 k m B u r e a u o f D a t a : N P C ( 2 0 0 0 ) E c o n o m i c Q A c 9 7 1 2 c G e o l o g y MAJOR PRODUCTIVE DEVONIAN SHALE BASINS (technically recoverable resources)

  20. GRI DOE Federal alternative fuels production credit for unconventional gas Impact of Natural Gas Research Coalbed Methane 1,200.0 1,000.0 800.0 $2 600.0 Bcf Wellhead price ($/Mcf) 400.0 200.0 $1 0.0 1980 1985 1990 1995 GRI, 1999, GRI’s Gas Resource Database; DOE personal communication.

  21. Powder River (24.0 Tcf) Uinta & Piceance (5.5 Tcf) Hanna-Carbon (4.4 Tcf) Northern Appalachian and PA Anthracite (10.6 Tcf) Raton-Mesa (3.7 Tcf) SW Coal Region (5.8 Tcf) San Juan (10.2 Tcf) Black Warrior (4.4 Tcf) N 0 4 0 0 m i 0 6 0 0 k m B u r e a u o f Alaska (Bering River, North Slope, Chignik and Herendeen Bay) (57.0 Tcf) D a t a : P G C ( 2 0 0 1 ) E c o n o m i c Q A c 9 7 1 4 c G e o l o g y MAJOR PRODUCTIVE COALBED METHANE BASINS (total most likely resources)

  22. Pacific Slope (8.9 Tcf) N Louisiana Slope (12.4 Tcf) Texas Slope (4.3 Tcf) 0 4 0 0 m i 0 6 0 0 k m Eastern Gulf Slope (7.6 Tcf) Gulf of Mexico OCS (47.7 Tcf) B u r e a u o f D a t a : P G C ( 2 0 0 1 ) E c o n o m i c Q A c 9 7 1 6 c G e o l o g y MAJOR PRODUCTIVE DEEP-WATER GAS BASINS (total most likely resources)

  23. Montana Folded Belt (5.2 Tcf) Wind River (5.0 Tcf) Greater Green River (8.4 Tcf) Appalachian (5.0 Tcf) San Joaquin (9.0 Tcf) Anadarko, Palo Duro (17.7 Tcf) N Permian (12.9 Tcf) LA, MS, AL Salt (15.8 Tcf) Louisiana Gulf Coast (14.5 Tcf) 0 4 0 0 m i Texas Gulf Coast (14.3 Tcf) 0 6 0 0 k m B u r e a u o f D a t a : P G C ( 2 0 0 1 ) E c o n o m i c Q A c 9 7 1 3 c G e o l o g y MAJOR PRODUCTIVE DEEP (>15,000 ft) GAS BASINS (total most likely resources)

  24. B u r e a u o f E c o n o m i c G e o l o g y Natural Gas Resources 1,400 1,200 1,000 Lower 48 total 800 Technically recoverable (Tcf) Canada total 600 SW 400 200 0 Cumulative production Proven reserves Unproven

  25. B u r e a u o f E c o n o m i c G e o l o g y SW Natural Gas Resources Gas Reserves by Region Permian Basin 80,000 San Juan Basin Texas Gulf Coast Onshore Arkla-East Texas 60,000 40,000 20,000 0

  26. B u r e a u o f E c o n o m i c G e o l o g y SW Natural Gas Resources Unconventional versus Conventional Gas Reserves 70,000 Conventional 60,000 Unconventional 50,000 40,000 Reserve reserves (Bcf) 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

  27. B u r e a u o f E c o n o m i c G e o l o g y SW Natural Gas Resources Unconventional Gas Production in Permian Basin 500 Tight gas 400 300 Production (Bcf) 200 100 0 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

  28. Oil and Gas Geoscience Research • High-frequency stratigraphy: seismic & outcrops • 4-C 3-D, 4-D, and 9-C 3-D seismic data • Rock physics • 3-D matrix and fracture modeling & simulation • Salt modeling and characterization • Deep-water sedimentation • High-level basin and play analysis • Visualization to achieve integration • Advanced technology transfer

  29. High-Frequency Stratigraphy 3-D Seismic Attributes

  30. High-Frequency Stratigraphy

  31. High-Frequency StratigraphyOrtho-Photo Draped on DEM

  32. High-Frequency Stratigraphy ILRIS Laser Image

  33. Rock Physics • BEG Austin Core Warehouse

  34. D i r e c t i o n o f w a v e p r o p a g a t i o n S V P a r t i c l e d i s p l a c e m e n t S H v e c t o r Z Z R e f l e c t e d r a y p a t h Z A X A X A X Q A b 9 1 4 5 ( b ) c 9-C 3-D Seismic Data P, SV, and SH P Z Z Z X X X

  35. F M I l o g f r a c t u r e a z i m u t h s I n t e r v a l 1 N 0 ° W E S V m a x i m u m 2 0 7 ° 9 0 r e f l e c t i v i t y C 1 1 8 0 ° S I n t e r v a l 2 N 0 ° l V e r t i c a l w e l N A z i m u t h d i r e c t i o n W E S u p e r b i n 2 7 0 ° 9 0 ° t 1 0 0 0 f 0 1 8 0 ° S 0 3 0 0 m 9-C 3-D Seismic Data Fracture Azimuth ° 0 ° 3 0 ° 6 0 ° 9 0 ° Q A c 8 4 3 1 c

  36. Fractures F2 F1 10 m Frontier Sandstone, Wyoming Plan View Fracture Traces Air Photograph Weber Sandstone Plan View Fracture Traces CL

  37. Fracture Strike Mapping Microfractures Predict Large Fractures Fracture Strike Laubach et al., 2000, The Leading Edge Laubach, 1997, AAPG Bulletin East Texas, Travis Peak Formation

  38. Previously InvisibleMicrofractures Fracture Transmitted Light CL Outcrop sample, Poland. Conventional CL. Match point

  39. Fracture IntensityQuantitative Data for Mapping and Flow Modeling Fracture Intensity Marrett et al., 1999, Geology. Stowell, 2000, SPE. West Texas, Ozona Canyon

  40. Physical Models Salt Research Seismic Studies Field Studies Numerical Models Martin Jackson, AGL, BEG

  41. 0 2 mi Target 5 Target 5 0 2 km Tiger Shoal Tiger Shoal Target 3 Target 3 Shale Shale Target 4 Target 4 Time (ms) 13,000 0 Seismic Deep-Water AnalysisRMS Amplitude QAc8574c

  42. Targets Targets IVF IVF IVF IVF IVF IVF L1700 Relic delta Relic delta L1600 L1500 L1400 L1300 Bright spots Bright spots L1200 Target 3 Target 3 L1100 Amplitude IVF Incised valley fill - + Seismic Deep-Water AnalysisStratal Slicing Exposed shelf T100 T300 T500 T700 T900 T1100 T1300 QAc6999c

  43. Summary • Resources • Supply, economics, efficiency, and technology have driven U.S. policy and consumption trends. • U.S. consumption will be increasingly dominated by natural gas and hydrogen. • Research • Advanced characterization for enhanced oil recovery • Fracture, salt, and seismic analysis for gas exploration and field development • Improved basin and play assessment for oil and gas access and field acquisition • CO2 sequestration and enhanced oil recovery • Visualization for improved integration • High-impact technology transfer

  44. Happy hunting…. And, as always, thanks!

More Related