Later, 3:07 p.m. CDT: a reader talked about the Avalon / Bone Spring; in his/her comment to me:
From DI Blog:On the Permian, watch out for same target layer under different names (e.g., EOG and a few others calls "Avalon" what a lot of the rest of the industry calls "Bone Spring"). Same can occur in other basins (e.g. "Utica" versus "Huron/Point Pleasant").
For example, when querying horizontal Bone Spring wells in the Delaware Basin, a few of the most common reported reservoir naming conventions are some iteration of the spelling of Bone Spring, Trend Area and Wolfbone Trend (yes even for horizontals). This may very well be sufficient for some analytical workflows; however, it is not a true apples to apples comparison.
The Delaware Basin Play Assessment divides the Avalon/Bone Spring formations into eight interpreted zones.
For the scope of this post, I have limited the zones down to four: the Avalon and the First, Second, and Third Bone Spring intervals.
Lithological properties vary within each respective zone and can therefore offer differing approaches to completion design and ultimately oil and gas production volumes. The cross section below showing gamma ray and deep resistivity logs indicates the varying stratigraphic sequences picked on changing geologic events in the Leonardian-aged section.
The entire Avalon/Bone Springs has a thickness that ranges from roughly 2,000 to 4,000 feet, depending on the portion of the basin under observation. The isopach map below gives a spatial representation of the gross thickness of the entire Avalon/Bone Springs section throughout the Delaware Basin. This may even shed a bit more light on the range in possibilities of where a lateral wellbore can be strategically placed.
Wow, I'm in a good mood. The "comments app" seems to be working again, albeit a bit squirrelly.
But what really puts me into a good mood is the fact that the USGS is reporting new assessments, updated assessments, and first-time assessments for oil and gas plays across the US. I have posted several of them in the past twelve hours. Some of the posts still need some cleaning up. I haven't linked all the posts yet, but for now, simply scroll down. I think there are about three USGS assessments regarding the Permian Province -- that's the official name, I guess.
The Permian Province is made up of three basins: the Midland to the east; the Central Basin; and, the Delaware Basin to the west.
In the Permian Province there are several plays. Right now it appears the USGS has only recently assessed or re-assessed the Spraberry (conventional and unconventional) in the Midland and the Wolfcamp in the Midland. Apparently the Spraberry is only under the Midland whereas the Wolfcamp underlies the entire Permian Province (east to west, if not north to south).
In addition to these two, Mike Filloon lists a few others, in his October 16, 2015, posting. Some of them he mentions:
- Avalon shale
- Bone Spring, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd
- Wolfcamp, upper and lower
The "Wolfberry" is an old term: it encompasses the Wolfcamp and the Spraberry in the Midland Basin.
Blogging Will Be Intermittent Today
Due To Family Commitments
I'm with Sophia this morning: gymnastics and swimming lessons.
Then we head over to a water polo tournament with the oldest granddaughter, Arianna.
My wife and Olivia are at an all-day art/painting workshop.
We have the granddaughters all week, through tomorrow, Sunday. Their parents are out-of-town, on business/pleasure.
I have serious doubts about the "expertise" of Art Berman and all the "Peak Oil" folks after seeing the USGS assessments of the Permian.
Their new, and, in some cases, first ever, assessments show incredible numbers for the Permian. The recent assessments include only part of the entire Permian and from well data using Permian shale 1.0 technology. The Bakken is clearly into Bakken 2.0 and, in some cases, Bakken 2.5.
Maybe more on this later. But clearly, Art Berman and the "Peak Oil" folks have seriously underestimated the fossil resources in the US.