1887

Abstract

Summary

In recent years, oil and gas production from unconventional resources has been of particular importance in the United States and Canada. In Mexico on the other hand, the current status of shale development still remains in the exploration phase. Nevertheless, despite its incipient evolution, the Upper Jurassic shale play has demonstrated very prospective characteristics, particularly because of the type of produced hydrocarbons (i.e. light-oil and NGL’s) and the brittle nature of its reservoir rock.

This paper describes the advances in the evaluation of the unconventional Jurassic Oil Play in Mexico. Production test results and descriptive analyses made in terms of their textural, petrophysical, geochemical and mineralogical conditions of this emerging play are presented. Comparison to other producing shale plays is also discussed and reveal encouraging potential.

This work aims to increase the level of understanding of the unconventional Upper Jurassic Pimienta formation that eventually may contribute to Mexico’s oil output. Additionally, the Mexican authority plans to offer shale exploration blocks through an international auction in the future. The content of this paper may help as reference to describe the basic elements of this play.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201702656
2017-11-23
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Araujo, O., Garza, D., García, D. and Ortiz, R.
    2014. First Production Results from Pimienta Oil Source Rock Reservoir, a Promising Shale: Case History from Burgos Basin, Mexico. Soc. Of Petroleum Engineers, SPE-169420-MS.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Carrillo-Bravo, J.
    1965. Estudio Geológico de una parte del Anticlinorio de Huayacocotla. Boletin de la Asoc. Mex. De Geólogos Petroleros, vol. 7, núm 5–6, p. 17–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. De La Vega, N.A. and Ramírez, V.J.
    2013. El Gas de Lutitas (Shale Gas) en México. Recursos, Explotación, Usos, Impactos. Economía, Vol. 12, Núm. 34. UNAM.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Eguiluz de Antuñano, S.; Aranda, M. and MarrettR.
    2000. Tectónica de la Sierra Madre Oriental, México. Bol. Soc. Geol. Mex. V. 80, 1–26 p.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. EIA
    EIA, 2011. Review of Emerging Resources: US Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays. US Department of Energy.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. EIA/ARI
    EIA/ARI, 2013. World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment. Advanced Resources International, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Granados-Hernandez, J.-C., Muñoz-Cisneros, R., Caraveo-Miranda, L.-R., Guerrero-Tristán, M.-M., García-Ortega, M., & Padilla-Bastida, R.
    (2017, February15). The Emerging Unconventional Upper Jurassic Oil Play in Mexico. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/185024‑MS
    https://doi.org/10.2118/185024-MS [Google Scholar]
  8. GRI (Gas Research Institute)
    GRI (Gas Research Institute)1996. Development of Laboratory and Petrophysical Techniques for Evaluating Shale Reservoirs, final report. Houston, Tx.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Heim, A.
    1926. Notes on the Jurassic of Tamanzunchale (Sierra Madre Oriental, México): Eclogae Geologica Helvetiae, v. 20, 84–87 p.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Herwanger, J.; Bottrill, A. and Mildren, S.
    2015. Uses and abuses of the Brittleness Index with applications to Hydraulic Stimulation. Soc. Of Petroleum Engineers, SPE-URTeC-2172545.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Jarvie, D. M.; Hill, R. J.; Ruble, T. E. and Pollastro, R. M.
    2007. Unconventional shale-gas systems: the Mississippian Barnett Shale of North-Central Texas as one model for thermogenic shale-gas assessment. AAPG bull.91, 475–499 p.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Lancaster, D.E.; Guidry, F.K.; Lowry, P.H.; Graham, R.L. and Hill, D.G.
    1991. GRI’s Devonian Shales Research Program: A Progress Report. Soc. Of Petroleum Engineers, SPE-23420.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Lozano-Maya, J. R.
    2013. The United States experience as a reference of success for shale gas development: The case of Mexico. Journal of Energy Policy, Elsevier, no. 62, 70–78 p.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Luffel, D.L. and Guidry, F.K.
    1992. New Core Analysis Methods for Measuring Reservoir Rock Properties of Devonian Shale. Journal of Petroleum Technology, November1992, pp. 1184–1190.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ma, Y. and Holditch, S.
    2015. Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources Handbook; Evaluation and Development. Gulf Professional Publishing, 1st. edition.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Nelson, P.
    2009. Pore-throat sizes in sandstones, tight sandstones, and shales. AAPG bull., v. 93, no. 3, 329–340 p.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Parra, P.A., Rubio, N., Ramírez, C., Guerra, B. Exler, V., Campos, I., Trejo, M., Olguin, J., Vargas, C., Valbuena, R., Soler, D., Weimann, M., Lujan, V., Bonningue, P., Reyes, P., Martinez, R., Muñoz, R., Rodríguez, E. and García, M.
    2013. Unconventional Reservoir Development in Mexico: Lessons Learned From the First Exploratory Wells. Soc. Of Petroleum Engineers, SPE-164545.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Sarkar, S.; Marfurt, K. and Slatt, R.
    2010. Effect of volcanic bodies on hydrocarbon reservoirs in the North-Eastern part of Chicontepec Foredeep, Mexico. AAPG Search and Discovery Article #50279.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. SENER
    SENER, 2014. Resultados de la Resolutión de la Secretaría de Energía sobre el requerimiento de áreas de exploratión (http://www.gob.mx/sener/reformas/avances-de-la-reforma-energetica-ronda-cero).
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Stevens, S.H. and Moodhe, K.D.
    2015. Evaluation of Mexico’s Shale Oil and Gas Potential. Soc. Of Petroleum Engineers, SPE-177139-MS.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Swanson, B.
    1981. A simple correlation between permeabilities and mercury capillary pressures. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 2498–2507 p.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Tepper, B.; Baechele, G.; Keller, J. and Walsh, R.
    2013. Petrophysical evaluation of shale oil & gas opportunities in emerging plays; some examples and learning’s from the Americas. Intl. Petroleum Technology Conference, IPTC-16926.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Tunstall, T. et al.
    2014. Economic impact of the Eagle Ford Shale. Institute for Economic Development. Center for Community and Business Research. The University of Texas at San Antonio.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Valenzuela, A., Parra, P., Gigena, L., Weimann, M., Villareal, R., Acosta, N. and Potapova, E.
    2014. Novel Dynamic Diversion Applied in Stimulation of Shale Plays in North Mexico. Soc. Of Petroleum Engineers, SPE-170902-MS.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Wang, F. P. and Gale, J. F.
    2009. Screening criteria for shale-gas systems. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Society Transactions59, 779–793 p.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201702656
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201702656
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error