ReRe--Evaluation of UtahEvaluation of Utah’’s Uinta Basins Uinta BasinOil Shale ResourceOil Shale Resource
Michael D. Vanden BergMichael D. Vanden BergUtah Geological SurveyUtah Geological Survey
October 14, 2008October 14, 2008
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
• U.S. Bureau of Land Management – funding and data
• Utah School and Trust Land Administration - funding
• U.S. Geological Survey - data
OutlineOutline
1) Scope• Development of a new basin-wide oil shale assessment
2) Methods• Creation of isopach maps• Calculating resource numbers
3) Results• Total in-place resource• Potential economic resource
Utah Oil Shale DatabaseUtah Oil Shale DatabaseUGS OpenUGS Open--File Report 469 File Report 469 –– published in 2006published in 2006
Preservation of historical oil shale data presented in a useable electronic format:– Digital Fischer assays for 581 wells– Scanned geophysical logs for 173
wells– Lithologic descriptions for 168 wells– Formation tops information for over
1,000 wells– Extensive Utah oil shale
bibliography with nearly 1,000 references
Contains all the raw data used to Contains all the raw data used to calculate new resource numberscalculate new resource numbers
Scope Scope --Oil Shale Resource EvaluationOil Shale Resource Evaluation
1) Focus - Entire Uinta Basin- Data from 293 wells spread throughout the Uinta Basin
2) Determined thickness of continuous intervals averaging 50, 35, 25, and 15 gallons per ton (GPT)
3) Created GIS-based maps- Isopachs for each richness zone- Overburden thickness – Depth to the top of each richness zone
4) Calculated resource numbers- Total in-place resource with certain constraints
UGS Special Study 128: due out this fallUGS Special Study 128: due out this fall
MethodsMethods1) Compared Fischer assay data to density and sonic logs
USGS - Coyote Wash 1
MethodsMethods1) Compared Fischer assay data to density and sonic logs
y = -85.5x + 213.5R2 = 0.84
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
Bulk Density (g/cm3)
Oil
Yie
ld fr
om F
ische
r A
ssay
(gpt
)y = -85.5x + 213.5R2 = 0.84
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
Bulk Density (g/cm3)
Oil
Yie
ld fr
om F
ische
r A
ssay
(gpt
)
USGS - Coyote Wash 1
MethodsMethods2) Created equation comparing bulk density to Fischer assays
- Used 8 wells with R2 ranging from 0.71 to 0.87- Used a reduced major axes regression fit
Reduced Major Axes Fit Relating Density and Shale Oil Yield
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6
Bulk Density (g/cm3)
Oil
Yiel
d fro
m F
isch
er A
ssay
s (g
pt) y = -66.467x + 203.996
MethodsMethods2) Created equation comparing sonic to Fischer assays
- Used 4 wells with R2 ranging from 0.64 to 0.77- Used a reduced major axes regression fit
Reduced Major Axes Fit Relating Sonic and Shale Oil Yield
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
50 70 90 110 130 150
Sonic (ft/sec)
Oil
Yiel
d fro
m F
isch
er A
ssay
s (g
pt) y = 0.766x – 49.237
MethodsMethods
1.5 miles apart1.5 miles apart
Average Average gptgpt of datasets:of datasets:Gas well = 21.4 Gas well = 21.4 gptgptU045 = 21.7 U045 = 21.7 gptgpt
2680
2700
2720
2740
2760
2780
2800
0 20 40 60 80
Shale Oil Yield (gpt)
Dep
th (f
t)
2611
2631
2651
2671
2691
2711
2731
Dep
th (f
t)
4304733453 - Pseudo-FA from density logU045 - Oil shale well with FA from core
2680
2700
2720
2740
2760
2780
2800
0 20 40 60 80
Shale Oil Yield (gpt)
Dep
th (f
t)
2611
2631
2651
2671
2691
2711
2731
Dep
th (f
t)
4304733453 - Pseudo-FA from density logU045 - Oil shale well with FA from core
- Ground truth verses calculated yield
MethodsMethods3) Data distribution
MethodsMethods4) Calculated thickness of zones averaging 15, 25, 35, and 50 gpt
Average Average of 15 of 15 gptgpt
426 ft426 ft
USGS - Coyote Wash 1
Mahogany Mahogany BedBed
MethodsMethods4) Calculated thickness of zones averaging 15, 25, 35, and 50 gpt
Average Average of 25 of 25 gptgpt
120 ft120 ft
USGS - Coyote Wash 1
Mahogany Mahogany BedBed
MethodsMethods4) Calculated thickness of zones averaging 15, 25, 35, and 50 gpt
Average Average of 35 of 35 gptgpt
41 ft41 ft
USGS - Coyote Wash 1
Mahogany Mahogany BedBed
MethodsMethods4) Calculated thickness of zones averaging 15, 25, 35, and 50 gpt
Average Average of 50 of 50 gptgpt
12 ft12 ft
USGS - Coyote Wash 1
Mahogany Mahogany BedBed
MethodsMethods5) Created isopach maps in ArcGIS6) Calculated resource numbers for each richness zone
(15, 25, 35, 50 GPT)• Calculated volumesvolumes in ArcGIS for each richness zone at
several thickness intervals• Used the density of each richness to convert volume to massvolume to mass
• 50 GPT = 1.90 g/cm3
• 35 GPT = 2.09 g/cm3
• 25 GPT = 2.21 g/cm3
• 15 GPT = 2.34 g/cm3
• Used the richness (i.e., 50 gal per ton) to convert mass to mass to barrelsbarrels
ResultsResults
New Oil Shale Resource Estimates for UtahNew Oil Shale Resource Estimates for Utah
Total In-Place Resource at
50 GPT
31 billion bbls
Total InTotal In--Place Resource atPlace Resource at
50 GPT50 GPT
31 billion 31 billion bblsbbls
OverburdenContours
1000 ft2000 ft3000 ft4000 ft5000 ft6000 ft7000 ft
8000 ft9000 ft
MahoganyZone Outcrop
Total In-Place Resource at
35 GPT
76 billion bbls
Total InTotal In--Place Resource atPlace Resource at
35 GPT35 GPT
76 billion 76 billion bblsbbls
Total In-Place Resource at
25 GPT
147 billion bbls
Total InTotal In--Place Resource atPlace Resource at
25 GPT25 GPT
147 billion 147 billion bblsbbls
Total In-Place Resource at
15 GPT
292 billion bbls
Total InTotal In--Place Resource atPlace Resource at
15 GPT15 GPT
292 billion 292 billion bblsbbls
Total In-Place Resource
by landownership
Total InTotal In--Place ResourcePlace Resource
by landownershipby landownership25 GPT isopach
contours
100-130 ft
Total In-Place Resource at
25 GPT
Within oil and gas field = 40 billion bbls (27%)
Outside oil and gas field = 107 billion bbls (73%)
Total InTotal In--Place Resource atPlace Resource at
25 GPT25 GPT
Within oil and gas field = Within oil and gas field = 40 billion 40 billion bblsbbls (27%)(27%)
Outside oil and gas field = Outside oil and gas field = 107 billion 107 billion bblsbbls (73%)(73%)
NaturalButtes
Total In-Place Resource on BLM Lands Potentially Open
for Leasing
25 GPT
69 billion bbls
Total InTotal In--Place Resource on Place Resource on BLM Lands Potentially Open BLM Lands Potentially Open
for Leasingfor Leasing
25 GPT25 GPT
69 billion 69 billion bblsbbls
Potential Economic Resource:
Constraints:
1) 25 GPT – 147 billion bbls
Potential Economic Resource:Potential Economic Resource:
Constraints:Constraints:
1)1) 25 GPT 25 GPT –– 147 billion 147 billion bblsbbls
Potential Economic Resource:
Constraints:
1) 25 GPT – 147 billion bbls
2) Less than 3000 ft of cover – 113 billion bbls
Potential Economic Resource:Potential Economic Resource:
Constraints:Constraints:
1)1) 25 GPT 25 GPT –– 147 billion 147 billion bblsbbls
2)2) Less than 3000 ft of cover Less than 3000 ft of cover –– 113 billion 113 billion bblsbbls
Potential Economic Resource:
Constraints:
1) 25 GPT – 147 billion bbls
2) Less than 3000 ft of cover – 113 billion bbls
3) More than 5 ft thick – 111 billion bbls
Potential Economic Resource:Potential Economic Resource:
Constraints:Constraints:
1)1) 25 GPT 25 GPT –– 147 billion 147 billion bblsbbls
2)2) Less than 3000 ft of cover Less than 3000 ft of cover –– 113 billion 113 billion bblsbbls
3)3) More than 5 ft thick More than 5 ft thick –– 111 billion 111 billion bblsbbls
Potential Economic Resource:
Constraints:
1) 25 GPT – 147 billion bbls
2) Less than 3000 ft of cover – 113 billion bbls
3) More than 5 ft thick – 111 billion bbls
4) Not in conflict with oil and gas – 83 billion bbls
Potential Economic Resource:Potential Economic Resource:
Constraints:Constraints:
1)1) 25 GPT 25 GPT –– 147 billion 147 billion bblsbbls
2)2) Less than 3000 ft of cover Less than 3000 ft of cover –– 113 billion 113 billion bblsbbls
3)3) More than 5 ft thick More than 5 ft thick –– 111 billion 111 billion bblsbbls
4)4) Not in conflict with oil and gas Not in conflict with oil and gas –– 83 billion 83 billion bblsbbls
Potential Economic Resource:
Constraints:
1) 25 GPT – 147 billion bbls
2) Less than 3000 ft of cover – 113 billion bbls
3) More than 5 ft thick – 111 billion bbls
4) Not in conflict with oil and gas – 83 billion bbls
5) Not on restricted lands – 77 billion bbls
Potential Economic Resource:Potential Economic Resource:
Constraints:Constraints:
1)1) 25 GPT 25 GPT –– 147 billion 147 billion bblsbbls
2)2) Less than 3000 ft of cover Less than 3000 ft of cover –– 113 billion 113 billion bblsbbls
3)3) More than 5 ft thick More than 5 ft thick –– 111 billion 111 billion bblsbbls
4)4) Not in conflict with oil and gas Not in conflict with oil and gas –– 83 billion 83 billion bblsbbls
5)5) Not on restricted lands Not on restricted lands –– 77 billion 77 billion bblsbbls
Take Home MessageTake Home Message
• Utah’s Potential Economic Oil Shale ResourceResource =
77 billion barrels77 billion barrels
• Roughly 75%75% lessless than numbers frequently quoted, but still very large and very significantstill very large and very significant
• ReserveReserve numbers can not be calculated until commercial technology is developed
• The UGS supports the advancement of pilot projectspilot projects to firm up technology and answer pressing questions
Additional UGS Projects Additional UGS Projects --Upper Green River FormationUpper Green River Formation
1) University of Utah - Energy and Geoscience Institute and Department of Chemical Engineering- Depositional heterogeneity and fluid flow modeling of the oil shale interval of
the Green River Formation, eastern Uinta Basin, Utah2) Dr. Jessica Whiteside - Brown University
- Multiproxy paleoclimate reconstruction of Earth’s most recent extreme hothouse - Milankovitch cyclicity in the upper Green River Formation
3) TerraTek, a Schlumberger Company, Salt Lake City, UT- Continuous unconfined compressive strength profiling (TSI™ scratch testing)
and other physical property analyses of upper Green River oil shales4) UGS - NETL/DOE funded project
- Water-related issues affecting conventional oil and gas recovery and potential oil shale development in the Uinta Basin, Utah