Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

Nicholas J. Gianoutsos

Publications and source records attributed to Nicholas J. Gianoutsos.

29 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

Assessment of water and proppant quantities associated with petroleum production from the Bakken and Three Forks Formations, Williston Basin Province, Montana and North Dakota, 2016

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has completed an assessment of water and proppant requirements and water production associated with the possible future production of undiscovered oil and gas resources in the Three Forks and Bakken Formations (Late Devonian to Early Mississippian) of the Williston Basin Province in Montana and North Dakota. This water and proppant assessment is directly linked to the geology-based assessment of the undiscovered, technically recoverable continuous oil and gas resources that is described in USGS Fact Sheet 2013–3013.

Montana, North Dakota↗

Data cleaning methodology for monthly water-to-oil and water-to-gas production ratios in continuous resource assessments

Petroleum production data are usually stored in a format that makes it easy to determine the year and month production started, if there are any breaks, and when production ends. However, in some cases, you may want to compare production runs where the start of production for all wells starts at month one regardless of the year the wells started producing. This report describes the JAVA program the U.S. Geological Survey developed to examine water-to-oil and water-to-gas ratios in the form of month 1, month 2, and so on with the objective of estimating quantities of water and proppant used in low-permeability petroleum production. The text covers the data used by the program, the challenges with production data, the program logic for checking the quality of the production data, and the program logic for checking the completeness of the data.

Open-File Report↗

USGS assessment of water and proppant requirements and water production associated with undiscovered petroleum in the Bakken and Three Forks Formations

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has conducted an assessment of water and proppant requirements, and water production volumes, associated with possible future production of undiscovered petroleum resources in the Bakken and Three Forks Formations, Williston Basin, USA. This water and proppant assessment builds directly from the 2013 USGS petroleum assessment for the Bakken and Three Forks Formations, and it has been conducted using a new water and proppant assessment methodology that builds from the established USGS methodology for assessment of undiscovered petroleum in continuous reservoirs. We determined the assessment input values through extensive analysis of available data on per-well water and proppant use for hydraulic fracturing, including trends over time and space. We determined other assessment inputs through analysis of regional water-production trends.

Conference Paper↗

Assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources of the Mississippian Sunbury shale and Devonian–Mississippian Chattanooga shale in the Appalachian Basin Province, 2016

Using a geology-based assessment methodology, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated mean undiscovered, technically recoverable continuous resources that total 464 million barrels of oil and 4.08 trillion cubic feet of gas in the Lower Mississippian Sunbury Shale and Middle Devonian–Lower Mississippian Chattanooga Shale of the Appalachian Basin Province.

Fact Sheet↗

Assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources in sandstone reservoirs of the Cotton Valley Group, U.S. Gulf Coast, 2015

Using a geology-based assessment methodology, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated undiscovered mean volumes of 14 million barrels of conventional oil, 430 billion cubic feet of conventional gas, 34,028 billion cubic feet of continuous gas, and a mean total of 391 million barrels of natural gas liquids in sandstone reservoirs of the Upper Jurassic–Lower Cretaceous Cotton Valley Group in onshore lands and State waters of the U.S. Gulf Coast region.

Cotton Valley Group, Gulf Coast↗

Underpressure in Mesozoic and Paleozoic rock units in the Midcontinent of the United States

Potentiometric surfaces for Paleozoic strata, based on water well levels and selected drill-stem tests, reveal the control on hydraulic head exerted by outcrops in eastern Kansas and Oklahoma. From outcrop in the east, the westward climb of hydraulic head is much less than that of the land surface, with heads falling so far below land surface that the pressure:depth ratio in eastern Colorado is less than 5.7 kPa/m (0.25 psi/ft). Permian evaporites separate the Paleozoic hydrogeologic units from a Lower Cretaceous (Dakota Group) aquifer, and a highly saline brine plume pervading Paleozoic units in central Kansas and Oklahoma is attributed to dissolution of Permian halite. Underpressure also exists in the Lower Cretaceous hydrogeologic unit in the Denver Basin, which is hydrologically separate from the Paleozoic units. The data used to construct the seven potentiometric surfaces were also used to construct seven maps of pressure:depth ratio. These latter maps are a function of the differences among hydraulic head, land-surface elevation, and formation elevation. As a consequence, maps of pressure:depth ratio reflect the interplay of three topologies that evolved independently with time. As underpressure developed, gas migrated in response to the changing pressure regime, most notably filling the Hugoton gas field in southwestern Kansas. The timing of underpressure development was determined by the timing of outcrop exposure and tilting of the Great Plains. Explorationists in western Kansas and eastern Colorado should not be surprised if a reservoir is underpressured; rather, they should be surprised if it is not.

Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Nebras↗

Creating potentiometric surfaces from combined water well and oil well data in the midcontinent of the United States

For years, hydrologists have defined potentiometric surfaces using measured hydraulic-head values in water wells from aquifers. Down-dip, the oil and gas industry is also interested in the formation pressures of many of the same geologic formations for the purpose of hydrocarbon recovery. In oil and gas exploration, drillstem tests (DSTs) provide the formation pressure for a given depth interval in a well. These DST measurements can be used to calculate hydraulic-head values in deep hydrocarbon-bearing formations in areas where water wells do not exist. Unlike hydraulic-head measurements in water wells, which have a low number of problematic data points (outliers), only a small subset of the DST data measure true formation pressures. Using 3D imaging capabilities to view and clean the data, we have developed a process to estimate potentiometric surfaces from erratic DST data sets of hydrocarbon-bearing formations in the midcontinent of the U.S. The analysis indicates that the potentiometric surface is more readily defined through human interpretation of the chaotic DST data sets rather than through the application of filtering and geostatistical analysis. The data are viewed as a series of narrow, 400-mile-long swaths and a 2D viewer is used to select a subset of hydraulic-head values that represent the potentiometric surface. The user-selected subsets for each swath are then combined into one data set for each formation. These data are then joined with the hydraulic-head values from water wells to define the 3D potentiometric surfaces. The final product is an interactive, 3D digital display containing: (1) the subsurface structure of the formation, (2) the cluster of DST-derived hydraulic head values, (3) the user-selected subset of hydraulic-head values that define the potentiometric surface, (4) the hydraulic-head measurements from the corresponding shallow aquifer, (5) the resulting potentiometric surface encompassing both oil and gas and water wells, and (6) the land surface elevation of the region. Examples from the midcontinent of the United States, specifically Kansas, Oklahoma, and parts of adjacent states illustrate the process.

Book↗

Evolution of overpressured and underpressured oil and gas reservoirs, Anadarko Basin of Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas

Departures of resistivity logs from a normal compaction gradient indicate that overpressure previously extended north of the present-day overpressured zone. These indicators of paleopressure, which are strongest in the deep basin, are mapped to the Kansas-Oklahoma border in shales of Desmoinesian age. The broad area of paleopressure has contracted to the deep basin, and today the overpressured deep basin, as determined from drillstem tests, is bounded on the north by strata with near normal pressures (hydrostatic), grading to the northwest to pressures that are less than hydrostatic (underpressured). Thus the pressure regime in the northwest portion of the Anadarko Basin has evolved from paleo-overpressure to present-day underpressure. Using pressure data from drillstem tests, we constructed cross sections and potentiometric maps that illustrate the extent and nature of present-day underpressuring. Downcutting and exposure of Lower Permian and Pennsylvanian strata along, and east of, the Nemaha fault zone in central Oklahoma form the discharge locus where pressure reaches near atmospheric. From east to west, hydraulic head increases by several hundred feet in each rock formation, whereas elevation increases by thousands of feet. The resulting underpressuring of the aquifer-supported oil and gas fields, which also increases from east to west, is a consequence of the vertical separation between surface elevation and hydraulic head. A 1,000-ft thick cap of Permian evaporites and shales isolates the underlying strata from the surface, preventing re-establishment of a normal hydrostatic gradient. Thus, the present-day pressure regime of oil and gas reservoirs, overpressured in the deep basin and underpressured on the northwest flank of the basin, is the result of two distinct geologic events-rapid burial and uplift/erosion-widely separated in time.

Open-File Report↗