GIS Masters Project by Rick Gonzalez - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – GIS Masters Project by Rick Gonzalez PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 261fda-ZDc1Z


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

GIS Masters Project by Rick Gonzalez


GIS Masters Project by Rick Gonzalez – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:106
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 64
Provided by: templeton
Tags: gis | gonzalez | masters | project | rick | spor


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: GIS Masters Project by Rick Gonzalez

GIS Masters ProjectbyRick Gonzalez
  • A GIS Approach to the Geology, Production, and
    Growth of the Barnett Shale Play in Newark East

  • Angular Uncomformity a rock unit (horizon) that
    has been previously tilted at an angle,
    subsequently eroded over time, and eventually was
    overlaid by other rocks in a horizontal manner
  • Cross Section a transect view of the subsurface
    running from well to well that uses well logs
    with formation tops correlated over the same in
    order to visualize the relative depths and
    thickening and/or thinning of formations.
  • Cumulative overall total production.
  • Dip the attitude of a rock in space in relation
    to the horizontal plane and its direction (north,
    east, southwest, southeast, etc.) measured in
    degree units.
  • Frac term given to the stimulation technique
    performed on a formation at depth in a drilled
    well also, fracturing the formation.
  • Isopach contour map of the thickness of a rock

  • Kelly Bushing (KB) the grip on the drilling
    floor of a rig that holds the drilling string in
    place as it is rotating also the point of
    elevation at the top of the Kelly Bushing that is
    used as reference and subtracted from the
    Measured Depth in order to obtain subsea values
    for formation tops.
  • Lineament a linear expression on the surface of
    the earth represented by prominent ridges or
    edges on the topography that is usually due to
    rock deformation or movement caused by stresses
    as the earths crust moves.
  • Measured Depth (MD) the measurement at a well
    from Kelly Bushing (KB) to the Total Depth (TD)
    of a well.
  • Pinch-out the point at which a formation
    eventually terminates due to thinning, or is cut
    off and is no longer present laterally as in an
    angular unconformity.

  • Stratigraphy (stratigraphic) related to the
    layering of the horizons or formations and their
    relationship to other rock units.
  • Subcrops subsurface rocks or formations.

Introduction History of Barnett Shale Drilling
  • In early existence of Newark East (1981)
    technology nonexistent to make economic wells
  • Mitchell Energy (now Devon Energy) was Barnett
    play pioneer in area
  • Gas shows showed Barnett potential
  • Tested and studied Barnett to compile a database
  • At same time developed stimulation techniques to
    frac Barnett
  • gel fracture treatment
  • Key keep the fractures contained within the
  • Need Viola Ls below and dense Marble Falls Ls
    above to contain frac
  • slick water fracture treatment
  • Wells more productive using slick water frac
  • Re-stimulation higher rates than initial
  • Play expanded rapidly thereafter

Introduction Geology
  • Barnett 45 quartz, 27 clay, 8 carbonate, 7
    feldspar, 5 organic matter, 5 pyrite, 3
  • and trace min.
  • Avg. porosity 6, very low permeability
  • Barnett Shale important b/c produces commercial
    volumes of gas (well EUR from 0.5 2 bcf)
  • Deposited over regional angular unconformity
  • Underlying Viola Ls pinches-out at this
  • Wells drilled west of Viola erosional limit
    produce a lot of water, little or no gas
  • Wet Ellenburger Limestone lies directly below
    Barnett Shale west of Viola limit

Introduction Motivation for Study
  • Arose from curiosity about the productive history
    and geology of the Barnett Shale in Newark East
  • Because the play is rapidly expanding, was met
    with reluctance from operators to share
    proprietary data.
  • Nevertheless, took it as a challenge to dig
    around for as much data to understand Barnett

Introduction Regional Setting
Muenster Arch
Bend Arch
Newark East Field
Gas Maturation Limit
Ouachita Thrust
Fort Worth Basin
Viola Limit
Introduction Regional Cross Sections
Cross sections borrowed from Recent Development
of the Barnett Shale Play, Fort Worth Basin
(Bowker, 2003)
Viola pinch-out
Erosional contact (unconformity)
Study Contents
  • Objectives
  • Literature Review
  • Data Collection and Manipulation
  • Analysis and Methods
  • Results and Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • References Cited
  • Acknowledgments

  • Gain insight to the structural geology and its
    relation to production using data
  • To map productive Barnett Shale and its adjoining
    subcrops what is the attitude of the structures?
  • Analyze surface lineaments vs. known subsurface
    fracture trends to see if relation exists.
  • Map field operators to show where present.
  • Map field expansion from beginning and show how
    it has encroached on the metroplex.

Objectives What is the significance?
  • Study is significant because of the lack of
    non-proprietary data available with respect to
    this evolving gas field, its geology, and
  • Most work done is in-house not for public
  • Newark East is rapidly becoming largest gas field
    in the U.S. and its NE of the DFW area!

Literature Review
  • Many studies are proprietary.
  • Few Internet sources, but some require big
    for data and studies.
  • Found old geologic maps submitted by Mitchell
    Energy to TRC.
  • Obtained text of poster presentation at AAPG
    meeting in Dallas (April 2004).
  • USGS paper on Barnett Shale Total Petroleum
  • Study on core fracture analysis and open hole
  • Other miscellaneous papers on thermal maturation,
    organic content and lithology, field development,
    and fracture/stimulation techniques.

Data Collection and Formatting
  • Data courtesy of
  • Well header (well name, operator,
    latitude-longitude, status)
  • Production numbers
  • 2813 wells
  • Provided in comma delimited format
  • Downloaded from site
  • Opened in Excel, cleaned up, and saved (2384
    wells) as HeaderData spreadsheet
  • Lat-long converted to SPCS North Texas

Data Collection and Formatting
  • Formation (depth) data (IHS/PIs) collected from
    Oil Information Library in Downtown Fort Worth.
  • Input to spreadsheet well by well b/c system
    would not allow for batch exporting
  • Tops, GL, KB, MD, TD data were collected.
  • Due to time constraint, uniform pattern of well
    data were collected.
  • Data collected for about four and a half months,
    twice a week, for eight hours at a time
  • Another month for verification of depth tops
    using well logs on microfiche (not all wells
    could be verified)
  • Some well logs existed where no IHS data were
    available. These were used.
  • Most IHS tops were Barnett Shale (upper and
    lower) Marble Falls and Viola not reported as
    often. These obtained from logs if available.
  • Tops for total of 884 wells were obtained.
  • Only tops for vertical wells were used

Data Collection and Formatting
  • Data saved asTops spreadsheet.
  • Subtract the Measured Depth from a wells KB
    value to obtain subsea for mapping
  • Subseas calculated by opening the Tops table in
    ArcMap, creating new fields for each formation,
    then using the calculate function to obtain the
    subsea value.

Other Data Used
  • Cultural shape files such as roads, lakes,
    municipality outlines, county outlines, and
    freeways obtained from 2002 ESRI Data CDs.
  • Viola erosional limit, faults, regional
    structural elements, and lineaments were
    digitized onscreen to new shapes.
  • mask.shp created for use in interpolation
  • DEM and Hillshade grids downloaded from TNRIS in
    E00 format and converted to grid.

Cross Section Data
  • Electric well logs obtained for use in creating
    cross sections (transects of the subsurface)
    across Newark East field
  • Converted from microfiche to raster TIFF images
  • Cropped in Irfran View software, saved, and
    imported to Petra software
  • Tiffs were depth registered in Petra
  • Structural cross sections made using well
  • Created three cross sections for use in
    demonstrating dip of subsurface structures and
    thickening or thinning of formations.

Methods Geodatabase Setup
  • Geodatabase was created in ArcMap.
  • HeaderData and the Tops spreadsheet imported as
    separate tables to gdb through Access.
  • HeaderData data were added as an X-Y table event
    in ArcMap.
  • Tops table joined in ArcMap to the HeaderData
    table by the API. The API is a unique number
    assigned by the state to a well for
    identification purposes.
  • Once joined, data queried by attribute for each
  • Selected records exported to a new table in the
  • Different number of wells selected for each
    formation b/c not every well had every formation
  • Other tables created by query of joined tables
    Practical IP, Cumulative Gas, Cumulative Oil,
    Operator Name, and First Production Date

Methods Formation Structure Interpolation
  • Preliminary interpolation was done using Inverse
    Distance Weighted (IDW) method in Spatial
  • Used mask to interpolate core drilling area.
  • Preliminary maps were analyzed for data busts
    areas of bulls eye contouring.
  • Wells with busts were noted and if could not be
    verified and/or corrected they were removed.
  • Same IDW method was used to create preliminary
    maps of Practical IP, Cumulative Gas, and
    Cumulative Oil
  • 24 hour flow rate during 2nd month of production

Methods Formation Structure Interpolation
  • Before obtaining the final interpolated
    structures, three cross sections were built.
  • Allow verification of the general subsurface
  • Based on info from cross sections, Practical IP
    map, TRC maps, and well data, faults were
    interpreted and digitized on screen.
  • Faults used as barrier in IDW interpolation.
  • IDW technique p-value of 2, variable search
    radius with 12 points. Grid size of 500 feet for
    all formations.
  • P-values higher than 2 resulted in many bulls eye
    effects on the interpolation. (at high p-values
    only the immediate surrounding points influence
    the interpolation)
  • Not having enough control points on both sides of
    a fault caused problem with interpolation no
    interpolation on other side.
  • Solved problem by creating some ghost points
    (wells) on other side of fault.

Methods Barnett Shale Isopach
  • Next, created Barnett thickness map
  • From interpolated structures
  • Using map calculator
  • Subtract Barnett grid from Viola grid
  • Results in gross thickness map for Barnett Shale

Methods Operators and First Prod Date
  • Query of HeaderData table for Operator name
  • Saved selected records for each Operator to new
    table in gdb
  • Load x-y tables as event themes in ArcMap
  • Mapped by Operator name
  • Same with First Production Date query for date
    intervals (82-85, 86-90, 91-95, 96-98, 99-00,
  • Saved each date interval selection to new table
    in gdb
  • Load x-y tables as event themes in ArcMap
  • Map by First Prod Date

Methods Lineament and Fault Trends
  • Pick surface lineaments using DEMs
  • 65 surface lineaments digitized on screen to
    shape file.
  • Measured lineaments.
  • Measurements input to spreadsheet.
  • Data were divided trends 0 to 90 and 91 to 180
  • Mean trend of both sets calculated.

GIS Masters ProjectbyRick Gonzalez
  • Results and Discussion History and Geology

  • Where are companies operating?
  • Devon largest operator
  • Most production from Devon

First Production 1982-1985
  • 21 wells
  • Mitchell Energy

Production In 1986 - 1990
  • More wells drilled to establish database
  • on Barnett Shale
  • Also, develop completion techniques

Production In 1991 - 1995
  • Decline curve model established
  • EUR numbers assessed at that time
  • (1 BCF per well)

Production In 1996 - 1998
  • Infill drilling
  • First slick water frac (1997)
  • First refrac of Lower Barnett (1998)

Production In 1999 - 2000
  • Fracturing of Upper Barnett
  • Play starts to rapidly expand

Production In 2001 - Feb 2004
  • Horizontal drilling techniques
  • improve

Wells and Urban Places Feb 2004
  • Wells being drilled almost everywhere!
  • Somewhat limited by urban centers and local
  • HOAs, mineral rights issues, noise restrictions,
  • But Barnett has potential to produce in all
    Tarrant and Dallas county
  • Estimated total gas in place is 26.2 TCF (USGS)
  • 4 to 10 tcf recoverable

Note about Viola
  • Viola pinches-out (terminates) in far western
    Tarrant County and NW through the middle of Wise
    County against regional uncomformity.
  • West of the erosional limit Ellenburger Limestone
    is present.
  • No well logs found in OIL to examine this western
  • Wells in area are not usually drilled deep enough
    to log Ellenburger.
  • No depth tops found from database at OIL except
    for one in middle of NE Field.

Top of Marble Falls Limestone
Muenster Arch
Viola Limit
Top of Barnett Shale
Muenster Arch
Viola Limit
Top of Lower Barnett Shale
Muenster Arch
Viola Limit
Top of Viola Limestone
Muenster Arch
Viola Limit
Tops of Formations (Looking Northwest)
Cross Section A A
Marble Falls Top
Upper Barnett Top
Forestburg Top
Lower Barnett Top
Viola Top
Cross Section B - B
Marble Falls Top
Upper Barnett Top
Forestburg Top
Lower Barnett Top
Viola Top
Cross Section C C
Upper Barnett Top
Marble Falls Top
Forestburg Top
Viola Top
Lower Barnett Top
3D Model of Structures
Barnett Thickness Map
Lineament Mapping of Surface
Lineament Mapping of Surface
Lineament Mapping Results
  • In this GIS study the NE trending lineaments
    averaged 55 degrees.
  • SE trending lineaments averaged 133.
  • The subsurface faults mapped averaged 65 degrees.
  • Is there a relationship between lineaments on the
    surface and fractures in the subsurface?
  • Know from previous work (Hill, 1992) that
    drilling induced fractures have a mean strike of
    54 degrees.
  • Natural fractures have a mean strike of 114
  • Open-hole fracture tests showed mean of 60
  • results apparently document a change in the
    stress field from the time the natural fractures
    formed to the present day. (Hill, 1992)

Lineaments and Subsurface Faults
There seems to be a relationship if one
examines the means, but the data are variable.
The relation is not conclusive.
GIS Masters ProjectbyRick Gonzalez
  • Results and Discussion Production

Practical IP (Initial Potential)
Practical IP (Initial Potential)
  • Highest prod rates typically
  • occur in areas away from fault
  • zones.
  • Fracture zones tend to produce
  • more water.

Cumulative Gas Produced
  • Most production occurs away
  • from major faulting.
  • Middle part of field is oldest
  • thus most prod is from there

Cumulative Gas Produced(Close Up and Inset With
Cumulative Oil Produced
  • Most crude prod come from
  • northern area
  • Near edge of oil generation
  • window in Montague, Cook,
  • Clay, and Jack Counties

Cumulative Oil Produced
GIS Masters ProjectbyRick Gonzalez
  • Conclusions

  • Objective was to gain an understanding of geology
    and production in Newark East field.
  • Interpolation of Barnett Shale and adjoining
    subcrops data demonstrated structures below
  • Interpolation of production data demonstrated
    areas of high and low production
  • How are two related?
  • Demonstrated that faulted areas are not good for
    drilling poor production rates occur in these
  • Communiation with Ellenburger below
  • Also, who are the Operators?
  • Demonstrated the major operators on map
  • Field growth and relationship with urban limits
  • Demonstrated growth over time and its
    encroachment on urban centers, present state

  • Is there a relationship between surface
    lineaments and subsurface fracturing/faulting?
  • It would seem that there is a relationship
    because the means for both sets of data are
  • Could not conclusively demonstrate this
    relationship because of the statistical
    variability of the data.

  • Related to GIS approach of mapping not just
    Barnett Shale, but also formations above and
    below it since these have not been mapped in
    non-proprietary works.
  • Study helps to understand the geologic structures
    in the most active gas play in the U.S.
  • Also, a comparison of area surface lineaments
    versus subsurface fracturing/faulting might be of
    interest to others as such comparison does not
  • Study helps to understand current drilling rate
    and expansion in DFW area
  • Study helps understand who the major companies
    are that operate in the field

Future Research
  • Incorporate additional wells outside the core
    area and update current well data.
  • Should include data for the formations below the
    Viola Limestone group if they exist.
  • Would be of interest to know the structural
    interface between the Viola and Ellenburger
  • A more thorough analysis of surface lineaments
    compared to subsurface fracturing/faulting might
    be more indicative of whether or not the two are

References Cited
  • Adams, G., 2004, Challenges of urban drilling
    abs Barnett Shale Symposium II, Brookhaven
    College, Richardson, Texas.
  • 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, 16p.
  • Henry, J. D., 1982, Stratigraphy of the Barnett
    Shale (Mississippian) and associated reefs in the
    northern Fort Worth basin Dallas Geological
    Society paper, 21 p.
  • Hill, R. E., 1992, Analysis of natural and
    induced fractures in the Barnett Shale, Mitchell
    Energy Corporation, T. P. Sims No. 2, Wise
    County, Texas Gas Research Institute Report
    GRI-92/0094, 51 p.
  • 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
  • Jarvie, D. M.,2003, The Barnett shale as a model
    for unconventional shale gas exploration,
    presentation for AAPG meeting Accessed June 2004
    at URL http//
  • Kuuskraa, V. A., G. Koperna, J. W. Schmoker, and
    J. C Quinn, 1998, Barnett Shale rising star in
    Fort Worth basin Oil Gas Journal, v. 96, no.
    21, p. 67-68, 71-76.
  • Lancaster, D. E. et al, 1992, Reservoir
    evaluation, completion techniques, and recent
    results from Barnett Shale development in the
    Fort Worth basin Society of Petroleum Engineers,
    SPE paper 24884, 12 p.

References Cited
  • Pollastro, R. M. et al, 2003, Assessing
    undiscovered resources of the Barnett-Paleozoic
    total petroleum system, Bend Arch-Fort Worth
    basin province, Texas Search and Discovery
    Article 10034 AAPG Southwest Section Meeting,
    Fort Worth, Texas. 17 p.
  • Steward, D. B., 2004, Personal communication
    discussion on the Barnett Shale.
  • Thomas, J. D., 2003, Integrating synsedimentary
    tectonics with sequence stratigraphy to
    understand the development of the Fort Worth
    basin abs AAPG Southwest Section Meeting, Fort
    Worth, 9 p.
  • Williams, P., 2002, The Barnett Shale Oil and
    Gas Investor, v. 22, no 3, p34-45.
  • Zhao, H. and Givens, N., 2004, The Barnett
    Shale not so simple after all poster AAPG
    National Meeting, Dallas.

I would like to thank the following individuals
and/or companies who made this study possible
either by donation of their digital data or
access to their hard copy files. Their
contributions to this project are very much
appreciated The Oil Information Library in Fort
Worth and Mr. Roy English for his help while
researching at the library and
Charles Hopkins for the production data he
provided Dan B. Steward and Natalie B. Givens
at Republic Energy Inc. in Dallas for taking the
time to discuss the Barnett Shale and providing
material for research Dr. Robert Stern at the
University of Texas at Dallas and Bill Harrison,
Geoff Ice, Yvette Chovanec, Steve Vonfeldt,
Martin Selznick and Debbie Fierros at Rosewood
Resources, Incorporated for their support and
encouragement on this project. Also, my wife
Alicia for putting up with me while engrossed in
this work. Most of all to the Lord for finally
getting me to the end of this degrees work. If
anyone was left out please know it was not
intentional. Thanks to all!