Wednesday, August 9, 2017

The Mancos Shale In New Mexico

BP reports a gusher: the Mancos play in New Mexico; from Bloomberg via Rigzone --
While other natural gas drillers are paying a premium for acreage in prized U.S. shale formations across Texas and Pennsylvania, BP Plc may have just found a gem in a largely ignored corner of New Mexico.
The London-based oil giant started producing from a gas well in New Mexico’s Mancos shale that could turn out to be a “significant new source of U.S. natural gas supply,” according to a statement Monday. The well averaged 12.9 million cubic feet a day in its first month, the highest output achieved in the San Juan Basin in 14 years.
Data points to follow.

For a look at the Mancos in New Mexico, see this link, which will take you to a PDF
  • "The Upper Mancos Shale in the San Juan Basin: Three plays, Conventional and Unconventional," Ronald F. Broadhead
******************************
The Colorado Mancos

For an extraordinary story on the Mancos -- but this in Colorado -- see this post.  The Colorado Mancos is linked at the sidebar at the right. For reminders, from that post:
USGS Estimates 66 Trillion Cubic Feet of Natural Gas in Colorado’s Mancos Shale Formation.

The headline fails to note that the previous USGS assessment was less than 2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas

The report begins: This is the second-largest assessment of potential shale & tight gas resources that the USGS has ever conducted. [Natural gas: Marcellus was probably the largest?]

Then this bombshell:
The Mancos Shale in the Piceance Basin of Colorado contains an estimated mean of 66 trillion cubic feet of shale natural gas, 74 million barrels of shale oil and 45 million barrels of natural gas liquids, according to an updated assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey.
This estimate is for undiscovered, technically recoverable resources.
The previous USGS assessment of the Mancos Shale in the Piceance Basin was completed in 2003 as part of a comprehensive assessment of the greater Uinta-Piceance Province, and estimated 1.6 trillion cubic feet of shale natural gas.
This is extraordinary by any standard. Natural gas:
  • In 2003, the USGS estimated the Piceance to hold 1.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
  • Now, in 2016, the USGS revises that estimate to 66 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
  • If I'm reading this correctly, this is not original natural gas-in-place but what is considered technically recoverable
This is extraordinary by any standard. Oil:
  • Seventy-four million bbls of shale oil doesn't seem to be trivial either. 
  • Original oil in place (OOIP) in the Bakken is estimated to be around 500 billion bbls of oil. At 5% primary recovery rate, that works out to 25 billion bbls of oil.   
  • So, 75 million bbls of recoverable oil in this basin seems to be a pretty big story.
******************************
North Dakota Perspective

"The Sleeping Giant" -- X-Strata.
Another natural gas formation in North Dakota.

4 comments:

  1. The EIA in one of its reports had a great drawing that illustrates the meaning of technically recoverable resources.

    https://s2.postimg.org/astk5o90p/Captura_de_pantalla_937.png

    https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/pdf/Brazil_2013.pdf

    When it comes to shale, the size of that outer elipse is much larger in relation to the inner elipses than it is for conventional reservoirs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice update on Brazil's on-shore potential.

      Delete
  2. Two points, Mr. Oksol

    The OOIP in the Bakken is estimated at 500 billion, not million, barrels.
    And, yes, when the USGS assessment of the Colorado Mancos was pegged at 66 Tcf, it was only - at that time - surpassed by the Marcellus' 2011 assessment of 84 Tcf.
    Since then, the Haynesville/Bossier formation has been evaluated at 300 Tcf.

    Whenever the Marcellus is re-assessed, expectations are it will be in the 1,000 Tcf range.
    Knowledgeable observers have stated that the underlying Utica is comparable in size to the Marcellus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are so correct. Huge mistake on my part -- that was written by me some years ago and no one caught it until now.

      You were the second person to catch that. Thank you.

      Delete