Eagle Ford and Pimienta Shales in Mexico: A Case Study
- Marcela Cruz Luque (University of Calgary) | Roberto Aguilera (University of Calgary)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
- Publication Date
- May 2019
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 2019.Society of Petroleum Engineers
- Burgos Basin, Pimienta Formation, unconventional resources, Eagle Ford Formation, Mexican shales
- 9 in the last 30 days
- 52 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 12.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
Our objective in this paper is to highlight the potential of the Eagle Ford (Cretaceous) and Pimienta (Upper Jurassic) shales in Burgos Basin (Mexico) through a comparison with the Eagle Ford Shale in Texas. The comparison is a case study focused on real data and their interpretation, north and south of the border, including geochemistry, geology, production, and reservoir-engineering data.
Our overall approach includes the description of Eagle Ford data in Texas, as well as Eagle Ford and Pimienta data in the Burgos Basin. The geologic comparison is carried out using cross sections of the various formations and geophysical data. Geochemical and petrophysical data are compared using specialized crossplots. Production data are compared through rate transient analysis and by investigating the different flow periods observed in wells in both sides of the border. Reservoir-engineering aspects are compared using material-balance methods developed specifically for analyzing multipurpose shale petroleum reservoirs.
Results indicate that there are many similarities but also some differences between the Eagle Ford Shale in Texas and shales in Mexico. The geologic and seismic cross sections show that there is continuity of the Eagle Ford on both sides of the border. However, structural geology in Mexico tends to be more complex than that in Texas. The geological and geochemical descriptions also show important similarities in the rock mineralogy, and the quantity, quality, and maturity of the organic matter. Well-log data show the same pattern of distribution on modified Pickett plots, developed originally for evaluation of the Eagle Ford Shale in Texas. Production data in the Burgos Basin shales are characterized by long periods (several months or even years) of transient linear flow, something that compares well with the Eagle Ford in Texas. Specialized material-balance calculations, which consider multiple porosities, have been used in the Eagle Ford Shale in Texas and are shown to have similar application in the Burgos Eagle Ford and Pimienta shales. On the basis of the Eagle Ford Shale performance in Texas, and the similarities with Burgos shales, the conclusion is reached that there is significant potential in the Mexican Eagle Ford and Pimienta shales.
We present a comparison of the interpretation of real geoscience and engineering shale data collected on both sides of the border. The comparison is meaningful and suggests that the potential of shale reservoirs south of the border will be quite significant. Mexico should benefit from the lessons learned from the Texas Eagle Ford Shale.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||18|
Aguilera, R. 1980. Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, first edition. Houston, Texas: Pennwell Books.
Ahmed, T. 2006. Reservoir Engineering Handbook, third edition. Burlington, Massachusetts: Elsevier.
Arevalo-Villagran, J. A., Wattenbarger, R. A., and Samaniego-Verduzco, F. 2006. Some History Cases of Long-Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Wells. J Can Pet Technol 45 (3): 31–37. https://doi.org/10.2118/06-03-01.
Cruz Luque, M., Urban, E., Aguilera, R. F. et al. 2018. Mexican Unconventional Plays: Geoscience, Endowment and Economic Considerations. SPE Res Eval & Eng 21 (3): 533–549. SPE-189438-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/189438-PA.
Davis, A. S. and Blasingame, T. A. 2016. A Well Performance Study of Eagle Ford Shale Gas Wells Integrating Empirical Time-Rate and Analytical Time-Rate Pressure Analysis. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, 9–11 February. SPE-179119-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/179119-MS.
Dawson, W. C. 2000. Shale Microfacies: Eagle Ford Group (Cenomanian-Turonian) Northcentral Texas Outcrops and Subsurface Equivalents. Gulf Coast Assoc Geol Soc Trans 50: 607–622.
Devine, P. E. 2014. Claude Shannon Versus Gus Archie: Information Theory as a Guide to Log Evaluation Without Petrophysics. Search and Discovery Article #41480. http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/pdfz/documents/2014/41480devine/ndx_devine.pdf.html.
Energy Information Administration. 2013a. Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources: An Assessment of 137 Shale Formations in 41 Countries Outside the United States. Washington, DC: US Department of Energy. https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/pdf/overview.pdf.
Energy Information Administration. 2013b. Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources: Mexico. Washington, DC: US Department of Energy. https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/pdf/Mexico_2013.pdf.
Fragoso, A., Selvan, K., and Aguilera, R. 2018. Breaking a Paradigm: Can Oil Recovery From Shales be Larger Than Oil Recovery From Conventional Reservoirs? The Answer is Yes! Presented at the SPE Canada Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 13–14 March. SPE-189784-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/189784-MS.
Granados-Hernandez, J. C., Muñoz-Cisneros, R., Caraveo-Miranda, L.-R. et al. 2017. The Emerging Unconventional Upper Jurassic Oil Play in Mexico. Presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 15–16 February. SPE-185024-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/185024-MS.
Hartmann, D. J. and Beaumont, E. A. 1999. Predicting Reservoir System Quality and Performance. In Exploring for Oil and Gas Traps, AAPG Treatise of Petroleum Geology, Handbook of Petroleum Geology, ed. E. A. Beaumont and N. H. Foster, 9-1–9-154. Tulsa, Oklahoma: American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Hentz, T. F. and Ruppel, S. C. 2010. Regional Lithostratigraphy of the Eagle Ford Shale: Maverick Basin to East Texas Basin. Gulf Coast Assoc Geol Soc Trans. 60: 325–337.
Hunt, J. M. 1979. Petroleum Geochemistry and Geology. Oxford: W. H. Freeman, p. 617. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016756800032684.
Jarvie, D. M. 1991. Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Analysis. In Source and Migration Processes and Evaluation Techniques, ed. R. K. Merril, 113–118. Tulsa, Oklahoma: American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Jarvie, D. M. 2012. Shale Resource Systems for Oil and Gas: Part 1—Shale Gas Resource Systems. In Shale Reservoirs—Giant Resources for the 21st Century: AAPG Memoir 97, ed. J. A. Breyer, Vol. 97, 69–87. Tulsa, Oklahoma: American Association of Petroleum Geologists. https://doi.org/10.1306/13321446M973489.
Jones, R. W. 1984. Comparison of Carbonate and Shale Source Rocks. In Petroleum Geochemistry and Source Rock Potential of Carbonate Rocks, ed. J. G. Palacas, Vol. 18, 163–180. Tulsa, Oklahoma: American Association of Petroleum Geologists. https://doi.org/10.1306/St1844C12.
Kucuk, F., Alam, J., and Streib, D. L. 1978. Reservoir Engineering Aspects and Resource Assessment Methodology of Eastern Devonian Gas Shales. Morgantown, West Virginia: US Department of Energy and Science Applications, Inc. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6272000.
Langford, F. F. and Blanc-Valleron, M. M. 1990. Interpreting Rock-Eval Pyrolysis Data Using Graphs of Pyrolyzable Hydrocarbons vs. Total Organic Carbon. AAPG Bull 74: 799–804. http://archives.datapages.com/data/bulletns/1990-91/data/pg/0074/0006/0000/0799.htm?q=%2BtextStrip%3A interpreting+textStrip%3A%22rock+eval%22.
Lopez, B. and Aguilera, R. 2013. Evaluation of Quintuple Porosity in Shale Petroleum Reservoirs. Presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 20–22 August. SPE-165681-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/165681-MS.
Lopez Jimenez, B. A. and Aguilera, R. 2016. Flow Units in Shale Condensate Reservoirs. SPE Res Eval & Eng 19 (3): 450–465. SPE-178619-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/178619-PA.
Lopez Jimenez, B. A. and Aguilera, R. 2017. Petrophysical Quantification of Multiple Porosities in Shale Petroleum Reservoirs With the Use of Modified Pickett Plots. SPE Res Eval & Eng 21 (1): 1–15. SPE-171638-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/171638-PA.
Maende, A., Weldon, W. D., and Jarvie, D. M. 2013. Unconventional Shale Resource Assessment. Wildcat Technologies. https://www.wildcattechnologies.com/download_file/view_inline/161 (accessed 5 May 2019).
Martinez Contreras, J. F. 2015. Estudio Estratigráfico-Geoquímico en Petróleo y gas de Lutitas de la Formación Eagle Ford, Noroeste de Villa Hidalgo, Estado de Coahuila, Noreste de México. MS thesis, Universidad Nacional Autónoma México (UNAM), Mexico City, Mexico (January 2015).
Mattar, L. and Anderson, D. 2005. Dynamic Material Balance (Oil or Gas-in-Place Without Shut-Ins). Presented at the Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 7–9 June. PETSOC-2005-113. https://doi.org/10.2118/2005-113.
Orozco, D. and Aguilera, R. 2015. A Material Balance Equation for Stress-Sensitive Shale Gas Reservoirs Considering the Contribution of Free, Adsorbed and Dissolved Gas. Presented at the SPE/CSUR Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 20–22 October. SPE-175964-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/175964-MS.
Orozco, D. and Aguilera, R. 2017. A Material-Balance Equation for Stress-Sensitive Shale-Gas-Condensate Reservoirs. SPE Res Eval & Eng 20 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.2118/177260-PA.
Orozco, D. and Aguilera, R. 2018. Use of Dynamic Data for Estimating Average Reservoir Pressure, OGIP, and Optimum Well Spacing in Shale Gas Reservoirs. SPE Res Eval & Eng 21 (4): 1035–1044. SPE-185598-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/185598-PA.
Orozco, D., Aguilera, R., and Selvan, K. 2018. Material Balance Forecast of Huff ‘n’ Puff Gas Injection in Multiporosity Shale Oil Reservoirs. Presented at the SPE Canada Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 13–14 March. SPE-189783-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/189783-MS.
Parra, P. A., Rubio, N., Ramírez, C. et al. 2013. Unconventional Reservoir Development in Mexico: Lessons Learned From the First Exploratory Wells. Presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference–USA, The Woodlands, Texas, 10–12 April. SPE-164545-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/164545-MS.
Peters, K. E. 1986. Guidelines for Evaluating Petroleum Source Rocks Using Programmed Pyrolysis. AAPG Bull 70 (3): 318–329.
Peters, K. E. and Cassa, M. R. 1994. Applied Source Rock Geochemistry. In The Petroleum System—From Source to Trap, ed. L. B. Magoon and W. G. Dow, Vol. 60, 93–120. Tulsa, Oklahoma: American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Railroad Commission of Texas. 2018. Eagle Ford. https://www.rrc.state.tx.us/search-result?q=Eagle+Ford> (accessed 5 May 2019).
Ramirez, J. and Aguilera, R. 2016. Factors Controlling Fluid Migration and Distribution in the Eagle Ford Shale. SPE Res Eng 19 (3): 1–12. SPE-171626-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/171626-PA.
Rickman, R., Mullen, M. J., Petre, J. E. et al. 2008. A Practical Use of Shale Petrophysics for Stimulation Design Optimization: All Shale Plays are not Clones of the Barnett Shale. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 21–24 September. SPE-115258-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/115258-MS.
Rojas, G. 2003. Ingeniería de Yacimientos de Gas Condensado. Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela: Universidad de Oriente.
Stevens, S. H. and Moodhe, K. D. 2015. Evaluation of Mexico’s Shale Oil and Gas Potential. Presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Quito, Ecuador, 18–20 November. SPE-177139-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/177139-MS.
Swami, V., Settari, A., and Javadpour, F. 2013. A Numerical Model for Multi-Mechanism Flow in Shale Gas Reservoirs With Application to Laboratory Scale Testing. Presented at the EAGE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition Incorporating SPE Europec, London, 10–13 June. SPE-164840-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/164840-MS.
Tissot, B. P. and Vandenbrouke, M. 1983. Geochemistry and Pyrolysis of Oil Shales. Presented at the American Chemical Society National Meeting, Seattle, Washington, 20 March. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5762925.