Part 4 - Berg - Hughes Center

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 348. Visual kerogen analysis of the Pan Am Venzina well sampled at 9,347(A), 9,357’(B) and 9,372 (C) depths. 415
gas with some oil, not only within the Bossier shale, but also in overlying Upper Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous reservoirs, particularly in the Bossier and Cotton Valley. The Bossier petroleum system includes essentially the same underburden and overburden rocks as the Smackover petroleum system. The petroleum source rocks are the Bossier shale beds. Generation of hydrocarbons was initiated in the late Early Cretaceous with the generation of secondary, non-associated thermogenic gas commencing in the Late Cretaceous (Figs. 349-351). Hydrocarbon expulsion appears minimal suggesting the Bossier has potential as a shale gas reservoir (Fig. 352). Sandstones within the Bossier and in the Cotton Valley Group also probably acted as reservoirs for the hydrocarbons that were expelled from the Bossier shale beds. Hydrocarbon Flow Pathway Modeling Hydrocarbon flow pathway modeling indicates that Smackover hydrocarbons were first generated and expelled in the Early Cretaceous from the southern part of the North Louisiana Salt Basin and migrated north and updip into the areas of the Sabine Uplift, Monroe Uplift, and northern parts of the basin (Figs. 353-355). Hydrocarbons, essentially thermogenic gas, generated and expelled in the late Early Cretaceous from the Bossier followed the same flow pathways as Smackover hydrocarbons (Figs. 356-367). However, expulsion modeling (Fig. 352) indicates that much of the gas generated from the gas- prone Type III kerogen in this source rock was retained in the Bossier and was not expelled. The low total organic carbon content of the Bossier contributed to the accumulation of in situ thermogenic gas. The IES PetroMod® 2D software application was used for the hydrocarbon flow pathway modeling. No thermogenic hydrocarbon expulsion occurred in the immediate vicinity of the Monroe Uplift, and the main source 416
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 and 66: Figure 343. HI versus OI diagram. T
Page 67 and 68: Figure 345. Rock-Eval pyrolysis ana
Page 69: Figure 347. Visual kerogen analyses
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?