Part 4 - Berg - Hughes Center

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 344. Ro versus depth plot. % Ro of the analyzed samples increases with depth, placing them within the main gas window (B=Bossier, H=Haynesville). 411
Figure 345. Rock-Eval pyrolysis analyses (Tmax), and organic maturation parameters (%Ro, TAI, kerogen coloration) obtained from visual kerogen analysis. Values obtained from the Cotton Valley – Bossier Group and Haynesville Formation samples (yellow) fall between the oil window and the principal zone of gas formation (modified after Senftle and Landis, 1991). 412
Page 1 and 2:
time frame spanning from approximat
Page 3 and 4:
the same well, Pennsylvanian plant
Page 5 and 6:
Louann Salt The Louann Salt conform
Page 7 and 8:
Norphlet deposition, in southern Ar
Page 9 and 10:
Haynesville-Buckner Formation Produ
Page 11 and 12:
Caddo, Bossier, Webster, Claiborne,
Page 13 and 14:
Smackover limestone. The Bossier gr
Page 15 and 16: Lower Cretaceous Coahuila (Hosston,
Page 17 and 18: system that includes a variety of d
Page 19 and 20: greater than 90 md, most of the Tra
Page 21 and 22: contains approximately 13 producing
Page 23 and 24: Pine Island shale, averaging 250 ft
Page 25 and 26: 10%. Calcite-lined vugs and intergr
Page 27 and 28: Lake Anhydrite was deposited above
Page 29 and 30: Sabine, Franklin, Tensas Shallow wa
Page 31 and 32: Across northern Louisiana in the pr
Page 33 and 34: Taylor Group Producing Parishes Cad
Page 35 and 36: 2,000 to 2,500 ft with net pay of 1
Page 37 and 38: productive in east-central Louisian
Page 39 and 40: North Louisiana Salt Basin. The str
Page 41 and 42: Louisiana Salt Basin. Lower Cretace
Page 43 and 44: Table 2. Oil and gas production for
Page 45 and 46: 1987; Claypool and Mancini, 1989; M
Page 47 and 48: Figure 329. Cross section A-A’. G
Page 49 and 50: generation (Table 4). The following
Page 51 and 52: Table 5. Cotton Valley-Bossier Grou
Page 53 and 54: Table 6. Cotton Valley-Group sample
Page 55 and 56: Table 7. Wells used to construct th
Page 57 and 58: Figure 336. Electric logs for wells
Page 59 and 60: Figure 338. Thin section micrograph
Page 61 and 62: Figure 340. Amoco CZ 5-7 well elect
Page 63 and 64: Table 9. Total organic carbon, rock
Page 65: Figure 343. HI versus OI diagram. T
Page 69 and 70: Figure 347. Visual kerogen analyses
Page 71 and 72: gas with some oil, not only within
Page 73 and 74: Figure 350. Burial history profile
Page 75 and 76: Figure 352. Hydrocarbon expulsion p
Page 77 and 78: Figure 354. (A) Thermal-maturity an
Page 79 and 80: Figure 356. Cross section A-A’ sh
Page 81 and 82: Figure 360. Cross section J-J’ sh
Page 83 and 84: Figure 364. Seismic cross section B
Page 85 and 86: of secondary, non-associated thermo
Page 87 and 88: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Geologic His
Page 89 and 90: peripheral fault trend and numerous
Page 91 and 92: oundary between thick transitional
Page 93 and 94: Cretaceous reservoirs have shown th
Page 95 and 96: from the southern part of the basin
Page 97 and 98: Reservoir Assessment Comparison of
Page 99 and 100: For example, Upper Cretaceous sands
Page 101 and 102: The Upper Jurassic to Lower Cretace
Page 103 and 104: Bishop, W.F., 1968, Petrology of up
Page 105 and 106: Dawson, W.C., and Callender, C.A.,
Page 107 and 108: Fisher, W.L., and McGowen, J.H., 19
Page 109 and 110: Hermann, L.A., J.A. Lott, and R.E.
Page 111 and 112: Mancini, E.A., M. Badali, T.M. Puck
Page 113 and 114: McCulloh, R.P., and Eversull, L.G.,
Page 115 and 116: Source Rock Potential of Carbonate
Page 117 and 118:
Salvador, A., 1991b, Triassic-Juras
Page 119 and 120:
Tolson, J.S., C.W. Copeland, and B.
Page 121:
Zimmerman, R.K., 1999a, A potential
show all

Part 4 - Berg - Hughes Center

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?