International Journal of Earth Sciences (2020) 109:1529–1546

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-020-01855-3

ORIGINAL PAPER

Petroleum geochemical characterization of the shales from tertiary

formation of Western Cambay Basin, India
Vaishali Sharma1 · Anirbid Sircar1

Received: 18 September 2019 / Accepted: 19 March 2020 / Published online: 21 April 2020
© Geologische Vereinigung e.V. (GV) 2020

Abstract
The Cambay basin of Western India has been proved as the most prominent and promising basin for major shale oil and gas
discoveries. The present work is an exploration study of shales of different tectonic blocks of Cambay basin, which charac-
terizes it as potential source as well as a reservoir for hydrocarbon generation and expulsion. Major experimental work was
done on the Cambay shale of North tectonic block of Cambay basin and it was found that the shale has good to excellent
organic richness, hybrid oil/gas bearing potential, mature shale potential, good hydrocarbon generation potential and good
kerogen transformation. On the contrary, shales of south tectonic block are at the immature phase of hydrocarbon genera-
tion and may generate hydrocarbons upon thermal maturation and deep burial. The performed analysis and interpretation
are explaining the true hydrocarbon potential of shales of Cambay basin and hence providing with a roadmap for the shale
geochemical characterization which may be useful for development of shale plays at large scale.

Keywords  Cambay basin · Source rock · Geochemistry · Thermal maturity

Introduction depositional environment, total organic carbon content and

Development of unconventional shale reservoirs is quite
challenging and difficult due to their complex structures
and ultra-low permeability and porosity (Jia et al. 2016;
Wang et al. 2016; Song et al. 2017). Advance stimulation
techniques like hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling,
and microseismicity are used to explore and extract hydro-
carbons from these ultra-tight reservoirs and have been
very successfully implemented for the development of US
Shales (Table 1). An integrated analysis of shale reservoir
and completion quality parameters provides an optimized
and unique solution to the problems and challenges associ-
ated with development of complex shale reservoirs (Caineng
et al. 2014). Reservoir quality parameters are important from
exploration point of view (Sain et al. 2014; Ma and Stephen
2015; Sharma and Sircar 2020), which include analysis of
geochemical properties such as organic matter, petroleum
system, stratigraphical sequence, geology, kerogen typ-
ing, transformation ratio, vitrinite reflectance, sweet spots,
* Vaishali Sharma
vaishali.sharma40@gmail.com
1 shale returns to its original porosity and pressure with some
Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, Gandhinagar, India
thermal maturity. Tectonics and hydrocarbon potential of
Indian western basins have also been of tremendous atten-
tion (e.g., Dasgupta and Mukherjee 2017, 2019). In the
present work, geochemical properties of shale sections of
Cambay basin were evaluated by in-depth analysis of experi-
mental and literature data to describe the hydrocarbon gen-
eration and expulsion trends in Cambay from north to south
tectonic block.
Shale acts as both source rock as well as a reservoir rock.
The high content of insoluble organic matter i.e. kerogen
in shales and its transformation into thermogenic petro-
leum with the change in temperature plays a pivotal role
in describing the generation and transformation of hydro-
carbons in shale rocks. Evolution of sedimentary organic
matter happens in three stages—diagenesis, catagenesis, and
metagenesis (Ma and Stephen 2015; Hu and Pang 2016).
The extent of thermal cracking and degradation of kerogen
into thermogenic oil and gas, often termed as transforma-
tion ratio, causes increased porosity and pressure within
the source rock. As the pressure is increased significantly
beyond geostatic pressure, the shale breaks and expulsion of
hydrocarbons (oil and gas) occurs (Hu and Pang 2016; Jar-
vie et al 2007; Ma and Stephen 2015). After expulsion, the

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

1530
retained hydrocarbons in place (Ma and Stephen 2015). All
rocks undergo a three-stage kerogen conversion process
(Campagna 2015; Ma and Stephen 2015):
Stage I: Source deposition i.e. formation of insoluble
organic matter also known as kerogen with respect to time.
Stage II: Hydrocarbon generation i.e. thermal degrada-
tion of organic matter into thermogenic petroleum.
Stage III: Hydrocarbon expulsion i.e. discharge of hydro-
carbon into the pore voids as the pressure increases beyond
geostatic pressure. Shales sometimes retains some hydrocar-
bons depending on its expulsion efficiency.
Hence, kerogen content (insoluble organic matter), its
quality and transformation with respect to temperature
need to be studied in detail as it plays an important role in
hydrocarbon generation and expulsion. Figure 1a shows the
detailed explanation of kerogen conversion and hydrocar-
bons generation. The retention of oil and gas and hydro-
carbon expulsion from source to reservoir rocks has been
illustrated in the diagram. It can be seen that upon matura-
tion some hydrocarbons get retained in the shale rock which
means that it is acting as a reservoir and at the same time,
it is acting as a source rock as hydrocarbons are getting
expelled (Xia et al. 2014; Ma and Stephen 2015; Hu and
Pang 2016).
The overall objective of the study is to evaluate the source
rock potential of dominant shale units of Cambay basin from
north to south tectonic block. Rock Eval Pyrolysis is a tech-
nique which identifies the effective source rocks in the for-
mation and quantitatively determines their potential, quality
and thermal maturity (Banerjee et al 1998; Ma and Stephen
2015). This technique also gives quantitative information
on parameters associated with shale geochemistry i.e. total
organic carbon content, free and adsorbed hydrocarbons,
kerogen typing, thermal maturity, hydrogen index, oxygen
index, production index, maximum temperature and vitrinite
reflectance etc. The application of Rock–Eval pyrolysis to
understand hydrocarbon generation and formation in shales
has been performed and very well understood by various
researchers (Table 2). In the present work, this technique has
been applied on the shale samples collected from North tec-
tonic block of the Cambay basin and important geochemical
properties in particular total organic carbon content (TOC),
free and adsorbed hydrocarbons, kerogen typing, thermal
maturity, hydrogen index, oxygen index, production index,
maximum temperature, and vitrinite reflectance, etc. were
determined to understand the true hydrocarbon potential
of northern shales (Fig. 1b). For the southern shale, open-
source data was collected and reinterpreted to understand
the hydrocarbon generation potential.
13
International Journal of Earth Sciences (2020) 109:1529–1546
Study area and sampling
The Cambay Basin has been identified as a priority area by
oil and gas pioneer researchers (like ONGC) in India for
shale gas exploration and exploitation activities. The basin
has an aerial extent of 51,800 km2 with an estimated original
gas in place of 6138 bcm and is divided into five tectonic
blocks (Fig. 2a) from north to south (Biswas 1982; Biswas
et al. 1994; Banerjee et al. 1998). The stratigraphy and shale
sections present in the Cambay basin are shown in Fig. 2b.
The present work is an attempt to understand the geo-
chemistry of four tectonic blocks of Cambay basin namely
Sanchor Patan (SP), Ahmedabad Mehsana (AM), Broach
Jambusar (BJ) and Narmada Tapti (NT) block. For San-
chor Patan tectonic block, data have been obtained from
open source literature (Sharma and Sircar 2016) and rein-
terpreted. Some data from experimentation have also been
obtained to widen the scope of geochemistry research for
this block. Shale samples (shown in Fig. 3) of Ahmedabad
Mehsana (AM) tectonic block, collected at a depth interval
of 1200–3700 m (Well D) were analyzed in Source Rock
Analyzer to obtain the geochemistry data at the temperature
programming range of 400–450 °C. Rock–Eval data of three
wells drilled through Cambay Shale of Lower Eocene to
Paleocene Age at depth interval 1200–4365 m (Well A1),
1000–2200 m (Well A2), and 1000–2700 m (Well A3) and
two wells of Eocene age at depth intervals 900–2500 m
(Well B) and 1400–2500 m (Well C) has been collected from
literature and reinterpreted (Chandra et al. 1994; Banerjee
et al 2000). For Broach Jambusar Tectonic Block, geochem-
istry data was collected (Garg and Philp 1994) from Gandhar
field of lower and middle Eocene Age and reinterpreted to
understand source rock potential and hydrocarbon genera-
tion in the two main shale formations i.e. Cambay Shale and
Hazad Shale. Geochemistry data for Narmada Tapti block
was obtained from interbedded shale formations (Mishra
et al. 2015) present within Middle Eocene lignite sequences
and reinterpreted. A detailed summary of the geochemical
data collected from shales of Cambay Basin is shown in
Table 2.
The collected literature data has been utilized to under-
stand the hydrocarbon generation and expulsion trends from
north to south tectonic blocks of Cambay. Previous authors
have worked on probing the source rock potential of differ-
ent tectonic blocks of Cambay. The work of the study is an
integration of all his data to understand how the trends will
change as we move from north to south tectonic blocks of
Cambay.
 Table 1  Data collection on geochemical analysis of different shales of the Cambay basin using Rock Eval Pyrolysis
Block Rock, age Formation Depth/Sample S1 S2 tmax S3 TOC GP PI HI OI
ID mg CO2/g TOC
m mg HC/g rock mg HC g rock ◦C mg CO2/g % mg HC/ g rock Ratio mg HC/g TOC
Rock

South Tectonic Interbed- Tarkeshwar TG-01 3.58 58.42 420 8 24.27 62 1.401397 241 33 Mishra et al.
Narmada Tapti ded Shale Formation (2015)
Block formations
within Mid- TG-02 0.12 1.75 434 2.04 3.19 1.87 0.204706 55 64
dle Eocene
Lignite TG-03 0.13 1.2 428 1.5 2.34 1.33 0.228722 51 64
Sequences
TG-04 0.09 1.57 425 2.43 4.69 1.66 0.254277 33 52

TG-05 0.05 0.08 394 0.55 0.18 0.13 0.069231 44 306

TG-08 0.04 0.17 342 0.83 0.19 0.21 0.03619 89 437

TG-10 0.07 0.18 450 1.62 0.21 0.25 0.0588 86 771

TG-11 3.12 78.84 414 16.03 47.39 81.96 1.804012 166 34

International Journal of Earth Sciences (2020) 109:1529–1546

TG-12 2.82 68.42 415 14.34 42.28 71.24 1.673633 162 34

Babaguru RJ-01 7.12 190.11 435 3.69 25.21 197.23 0.910081 754 15 Mishra et al.
Formation (2015)
(Rajpadri RJ-02 6.62 184.6 429 3.79 26.03 191.22 0.901154 709 15
Liginites) RJ-03 3.29 60.6 432 1.51 9.35 63.89 0.481476 648 16

RJ-04 4.04 102.61 432 2.08 14.42 106.65 0.546243 712 14

RJ-05 4.94 106.76 430 2.15 14.73 111.7 0.651443 725 15

North Tectonic Lower Eocene Cambay Shale 1200–1295 0.14 0.53 434 – 1.6 0.67 0.334328 30 – Banerjee et al.
Block – to Paleocene (Well A1) (2006)
Ahmedabad
Mehsana
1605–1700 0.23 9.7 441 3.8 9.93 0.088016 239
1795–1935 0.42 10.6 440 4.9 11.02 0.186751 220
2110–2200 0.84 5.87 438 5 6.71 0.625931 119
2660–2720 3.7 5.9 444 3.9 9.6 1.503125 145
2950–3120 0.24 1.81 438 1.9 2.05 0.222439 91
3805–3900 0.05 0.3 433 0.6 0.35 0.085714 34
4280–4365 0.19 0.83 437 1.5 1.02 0.279412 48

13
1531


Table 1  (continued)
1532

Block Rock, age Formation Depth/Sample S1 S2 tmax S3 TOC GP PI HI OI

ID mg CO2/g TOC

13
m mg HC/g rock mg HC g rock ◦C mg CO2/g % mg HC/ g rock Ratio mg HC/g TOC
Rock
Lower Eocene Cambay Shale 1005–1100 0.31 1.02 435 1.9 1.33 0.442857 96
to Paleocene (Well A2) 1105–1265 0.33 1.05 437 1.3 1.38 0.31087 145
1270–1350 0.44 6.5 438 2.1 6.94 0.133141 292
1370–1460 0.51 15 433 3.3 15.51 0.108511 405
1465–1535 0.21 6.33 437 2.3 6.54 0.073853 234
1540–1595 0.74 15.5 435 3.9 16.24 0.177709 381
1720–1830 0.23 5.2 438 2.1 5.43 0.08895 212
1835–1890 0.1 1.1 444 1.2 1.2 0.1 85
2085–2200 0.21 7.6 441 3.1 7.81 0.083355 240
Lower Eocene Cambay Shale 1075–1145 0.06 1 435 1.5 1.06 0.084906 65
to Paleocene (Well A3) 1150–1195 2.6 56 429 9.6 58.6 0.425939 296
1205–1265 0.16 3 436 2 3.16 0.101266 117
1415–1535 0.15 1.29 434 1.9 1.44 0.197917 72
1540–1650 0.54 2.8 436 2.8 3.34 0.452695 99
1655–1800 0.17 1.36 439 1.5 1.53 0.166667 88
1905–2025 0.33 0.9 439 0.8 1.23 0.214634 112
2030–2080 2.87 24.9 438 5.2 27.77 0.537414 452
2530–2620 1.9 8.4 450 4.3 10.3 0.793204 197
Eocene Age Cambay Shale 922 - 16.9638 427 2.5388 5.77 16.9638 - 294 44 Chandra et al.
(Well B) 1085 1.9902 426 0.6696 0.93 1.9902 214 72 (1994)
1222 1.2351 435 0.2864 1.79 1.2351 69 16
1789 4.9815 426 0.8118 3.69 4.9815 135 22
1894 1.711 435 0.8555 2.95 1.711 58 29
2094 9.6957 437 0.3078 5.13 9.6957 189 6
2097 9.712 436 1.9424 6.07 9.712 160 32
2098 18.2865 436 1.8615 10.95 18.2865 167 17
2276 1.7542 437 1.074 3.58 1.7542 49 30
2282 5.6358 440 0.837 5.58 5.6358 101 15
2360 1.716 443 0.39 1.3 1.716 132 30
2500 1.565 435 0.8764 3.13 1.565 50 28
Eocene Age Cambay Shale 1420 1.83 25.7 423 3.58 8.14 27.53 0.54109 316 44 Mishra et al.
(Well C) 1777 0.25 1.9 426 1.02 1.99 2.15 0.231395 96 51 (1996)
2098 0.88 13.8 436 1.45 6.05 14.68 0.36267 228 24
2276 1.93 11.3 440 0.78 4.82 13.23 0.703144 235 16
2498 0.18 1.06 443 0.38 2.12 1.24 0.307742 45 18
International Journal of Earth Sciences (2020) 109:1529–1546
 Table 1  (continued)
Block Rock, age Formation Depth/Sample S1 S2 tmax S3 TOC GP PI HI OI
ID mg CO2/g TOC
m mg HC/g rock mg HC g rock ◦C mg CO2/g % mg HC/ g rock Ratio mg HC/g TOC
Rock

South Tectonic Lower Eocene Cambay Shale 3080 1.2 3.05 449 0.45 2.3 3.05 0 133.6 19.9 Garg and Philp
Block—Jam- (Well 1) 3135 0.55 1.24 450 0.82 1.5 1.79 0.460894 84.4 56.1 (1994)
busar Broach
3175 0.6 1.21 445 0.92 1.5 1.81 0.497238 83.4 63.3
Cambay Shale 3100 1.38 1.24 448 0.41 1.9 2.62 1.000763 65.6 21.7
(Well 2) 3150 1.64 1.46 450 0.79 2.1 3.1 1.110968 70.8 38.6
Cambay Shale 3015 0.82 2.66 443 1.09 1.9 3.48 0.447701 139.2 57.5
(Well 3) 3100 0.86 1.69 442 1.96 1.7 2.55 0.573333 99.4 115.2
3150 1.48 3.14 435 2.1 2.2 4.62 0.704762 143.3 96.3
Middle Eocene Hazad Shale 2997 0.28 2.53 446 0.61 1.7 2.81 0.169395 145.5 35.3 Garg and Philp
(Well 1) (1994)
Hazad Shale 2900 0.82 1.5 423 0.49 1.6 2.32 0.565517 91.9 30.4
(Well F) 2950 0.31 0.89 449 0.38 1 1.2 0.258333 88.1 38.1
International Journal of Earth Sciences (2020) 109:1529–1546

3000 0.64 1.58 440 0.97 1.6 2.22 0.461261 96.3 59.1
3050 0.56 2.75 436 0.67 2.4 3.31 0.406042 112.6 27.6
Hazad Shale 2880 0.29 4.66 430 0.34 2.5 4.95 0.146465 183.4 13.3
(Well 3) 2900 0.36 1.44 438 0.45 1.8 1.8 0.36 81.3 25.4
2950 1.19 3.81 435 2.38 2.2 5 0.5236 172.3 107.6
North Tectonic Eocene Age Younger Cam- 1230–35 0.09 1.13 431 2.41 1.67 1.22 0.123197 61 140 Sharma and
Block Sanchor bay Shale 1235–40 0.04 0.35 429 2.02 1.12 0.39 0.114872 42 131 Sircar (2016)
Patan
1240–45 0.21 0.42 433 2.09 1.14 0.63 0.38 56 120
1245–50 0.14 0.61 437 2 1.13 0.75 0.210933 57 119
1250–55 0.3 0.34 432 1.72 1.12 0.64 0.525 106 261
1255–60 0.29 0.66 438 4.1 1.14 0.95 0.348 105 66
1260–65 0.17 0.29 435 3 1.13 0.46 0.417609 107 67
1265–70 0.08 0.17 429 3.6 1.12 0.25 0.3584 41 110
1270–75 0.08 0.05 440 1.71 1.1 0.13 0.676923 40 109
1275–80 0.17 0.12 438 2.21 1.1 0.29 0.644828 39 71
Eocene Age Older Cambay 1040 0.36 7.6 443 0.27 5.54 7.96 0.250553 137 5 Experimentally
Shale 1490 0.42 9.63 442 0.32 5.33 10.05 0.222746 181 6 Determined
(Well E)
1660 0.37 8.3 444 0.41 4.86 8.67 0.207405 171 8
1750 0.27 4.28 462 0.58 5.84 4.55 0.346549 73 10
1770 0.48 9.47 441 0.36 7.76 9.95 0.374352 122 5
1792 0.88 12.54 445 0.53 7.87 13.42 0.516066 59 7
1800 0.25 3.1 438 0.61 3.38 3.35 0.252239 92 18
1812.5 0.4 4.2 459 0.96 7.47 4.6 0.649565 56 13

13
1533


Table 1  (continued)
1534

Block Rock, age Formation Depth/Sample S1 S2 tmax S3 TOC GP PI HI OI

ID mg CO2/g TOC

13
m mg HC/g rock mg HC g rock ◦C mg CO2/g % mg HC/ g rock Ratio mg HC/g TOC
Rock

North Tec- Eocene Age Younger Cam- 1250 1.85 25.2 440.2 1.77 5.33 27.05 0.364529 473 33 Experimentally
tonic Block bay Shale 1265 2.52 45.59 436.7 1 7.98 48.11 0.417992 571 12 Determined
Ahmedabad (Well D)
Mehsana 1275 1.14 13.69 442.3 1.67 3.19 14.83 0.245219 429 52
1285 1.08 4.22 438.4 1.68 2.01 5.3 0.409585 210 84
1295 3.2 73.63 438.1 1.09 10.69 76.83 0.445243 689 10
1300 1.25 10.6 437.1 1.46 4.15 11.85 0.437764 256 35
1312 0.71 2.12 429.7 0.71 2.12 2.83 0.531873 100 34
1326 0.68 1.8 419.6 0.78 2.71 2.48 0.743065 66 29
1327 2.68 38.31 442.7 0.69 6.29 40.99 0.411252 609 11
1334 6.25 10.07 423.3 1.61 4.28 16.32 1.639093 235 38
1377 8.03 88.45 439.1 1.83 13.03 96.48 1.084483 679 14
1378 8.17 101.06 440.7 1.67 14.59 109.23 1.091278 693 11
Older Cambay 3605 2.63 5.56 453 0.25 3.47 8.19 1.114298 160 7
Shale
- Data not available

S1 amount of hydrocarbons present in the samples, S2 hydrocarbons produced during pyrolysis as the temperature reaches to 550 °C, S3 amount of Carbon Dioxide generated from a gram of rock
at temperature 390 °C, Tmax temperature at which maximum amount of hydrocarbons are generated from kerogen degradation, HI hydrogen index which indicates the hydrogen richness of the
source rock and is equal to (S2/TOC) × 100, OI oxygen Index which indicates the oxygen richness of the source rock and is equal to (S3/TOC) × 100, TOC total organic carbon content in the sample
International Journal of Earth Sciences (2020) 109:1529–1546
International Journal of Earth Sciences (2020) 109:1529–1546 1535
Fig. 1  a The hydrocarbon generation, retention and expulsion upon
thermal maturation. It can be observed that some hydrocarbons get
retained in the rock which means that shale is acting as a reservoir
and at the same time, some are getting expelled which makes it a
good source rock. (Modified after Xia et  al. 2014). b An integrated
flow diagram showing the methodology adopted for characterizing
Organic richness of shales of Cambay Basin
Total organic carbon (TOC) content is an indicator of
organic richness and expressed as the weight percentage
(wt%) of organic carbon present in the rock. TOC con-
tent < 0.5  wt%, 0.5–1.0  wt%, 1.0–2.0  wt%, > 2.0  wt% is
an indicator of poor, fair, good and excellent source rock,
respectively (Peters and Cassa 1994). For AM Block, Eocene
age shale samples collected from younger and older Cam-
bay shale shows TOC content in the range 2% < TOC < 15%,
which may be an indication of good to excellent source rock.
Shale samples of lower Eocene to Paleocene age and Eocene
age also indicates presence of good to excellent source rocks
as TOC > 2%. Shale samples of Sanchor-Patan block shows
TOC values greater than 2.0 wt% which makes it an excel-
lent “organically rich” Miocene source rock. Obtained TOC
values of Cambay and Hazad shale of Broach Jambusar
block are in the range of 1.0–2.0 wt% which indicates the
presence of good and organically rich source rocks in the
selected depth intervals. The shales samples of Narmada-
Tapti block show high TOC values (i.e. > 10%) for Babaguru
and low TOC values for Tarkeshwar formation which makes
it an excellent and organically rich source rock. On the other
hand, low values of Tarkeshwar formation show it is organi-
cally lean with poor to fair source rock potential. The shale
units from this formation show an immature phase for the
hydrocarbon prospectively of shale plays of Cambay Basin. TOC,
Thermal Maturity, Kerogen Typing, Organic Matter, Hydrocarbon
Generation and Expulsion Potential are the key research outcomes of
this study. The characterization technique adopted is Rock-Eval pyrol-
ysis. Data have been obtained experimentally and from literature
generation of hydrocarbons (Peters and Cassa 1994). Only
samples from Narmada-Tapti block are showing immature
phase for the generation of hydrocarbons and low organic
richness content.
Based on the data, it may be stated that TOC content is
varying from high to low as we move from north to south
tectonic block.
Kerogen quality, type and maturity of shale
samples
A good organically rich and thermally mature shale is capa-
ble of producing hydrocarbons, however, determination of
its type (whether it is oil, gas, oil and gas both) needs to
be studied and given equal weight. Kerogen typing, qual-
ity, maturity are the parameters that help in understand-
ing the type of hydrocarbons that may be produced from
these organic-thermally mature shale rocks. The variation
of S2 (mg HC/g rock) with respect to the total organic car-
bon (TOC) content helps in determining kerogen quality
of shales. Hydrogen index (HI) is an indicative of kerogen
typing and helps in differentiating different types of organic
matter and generation potential of source rocks (Peters and
Cassa 1994; Nady and Hammad 2015). The differentiation
based on HI is shown in Table 3.
13

1536

13
Table 2  Advanced stimulation techniques by various researchers
Authors Salient findings Study area Country References

Duncan Craig Heddleston Shale production via horizontal drilling and hydraulic US land shale hydrocarbon plays USA Heddleston (2009)
fracturing
Russell Spears, S. Lance Jackson Reliable and accurate predictions of horizontal shale Barnett Shale, North Texas USA Spears and Jackson (2009)
gas well performance is derived using a novel multi-
component approach
Babatunde Tolulope Ajayi, Kevin Wutherich, John Feasibility study of Channel hydraulic fracturing, a Marcellus Shale USA Ajayi et al. (2011)
Sink novel technique in Marcellus shale plays is done
Javier Alejandro Franquet, Arijit Mitra, Daniel Scott Mineralogy and petrophysical analysis were used Huron Shale, West Virginia USA Franquet et al. (2011)
Warrington, Daniel Moos, Alfred Lacazette to probe quasi-static mechanical properties of the
samples
Best vertical locations of lateral wells and natural
fracture barriers were identified by integrating the
acoustic, mineralogy and geo-mechanical data
John Vermylen, Mark D. Zoback Generation of micro-earthquakes and stress evolution Barnett Shale, Texas USA Vermylen and Zoback (2011)
due to fracturing technique is probed
Sherilyn C. Williams-Stroud, Carl Wilbur Neuhaus, Source mechanism analysis of microseismic events is Marcellus Shale USA Williams et al. (2012)
Cherie Telker, Christine Remington, William done to understand the type of rock failure caused
Barker, Garrett Neshyba, Keith Blair by stimulation treatment
Ghazal Izadi, Jean-Philippe Junca, Randall Cade, Optimization of well and completion design param- Marcellus Shale USA Izadi et al. (2014)
Thomas Rowan eters is done using an integrated multidisciplinary
reservoir study
A. Zeid, J. Lee Established a holistic framework to assess and expe- – China, Poland Zeid and Lee (2016)
dite US successful shale gas development studies in
other countries
Vaishali Sharma, Anirbid Sircar, Anand Gupta Hydraulic fracturing design and 3D modeling of Cambay and Eagle Ford Shale India and USA Sharma et al. (2019)
Cambay and Eagle ford shale is presented
Vaishali Sharma, Anirbid Sircar Shale reservoir quality parameters are determined Cambay Shale India Sharma and Sircar (2020)
using various laboratory characterization technique
International Journal of Earth Sciences (2020) 109:1529–1546
International Journal of Earth Sciences (2020) 109:1529–1546 1537

Fig. 2  a The data collected from four different tectonic blocks of is also shown in the figure. (Sharma and Sircar 2018; Kumar et  al.
Cambay basin i.e. Sanchor Patan, Broach Jambusar, Ahmedabad 2017). b Source rocks and reservoir rocks are present in the thick
Mehsana and Narmada Tapti. The location of all the tectonic block Cambay shale and is shown in the stratigraphy of Cambay Shale

Fig. 3  Samples collected for Source Rock analysis from Cambay Shale formation of lower Eocene Age, Ahmedabad Mehsana Block, Cambay
Basin (Sharma and Sircar 2016)

In the Ahmedabad Mehsana (AM) tectonic block, Cam-

bay shale samples of Eocene age have HI value greater than
Table 3  HI values to determine thermal maturity and kerogen typing 150 mg HC/g TOC which indicates that it has a good poten-
(Peters and Cassa 1994; Nady and Hammad 2015) tial of generating oil. Some low HI values i.e. 50–100 mg
Hydrogen index value Oil/gas generation Kerogen typing HC/g TOC are also observed which shows gas produc-
ing zones (Table 2). HI values obtained for wells drilled
HI < 50 mg HC/TOC No oil and gas Type IV
through shale formations of Lower Eocene to Paleocene
50 < HI < 150 mg HC/TOC Gas Type III
age are also greater than 150  mg HC/g TOC and some
150 < HI < 300 Oil–gas (hybrid) Type II–III
low HI values, indicative of gas zones and ultra-low value
 > 300 mg HC/TOC Oil marine Type II
i.e. < 50 mg HC/g TOC are also found in between the con-
 > 600 mg HC/TOC Oil lacustrine Type I
tinuous depth intervals. So, shales of this tectonic block are

13

1538
Fig. 4  a Kerogen quality evaluation of shale samples drilled through
Cambay shale at depth interval 1200–3700 m. The samples were ana-
lyzed in the laboratory to obtain the relevant data for analysis. b–d
The plot for the data collected (Banerjee et  al. 2000) for three dif-
ferent well of Cambay basin drilled at depth 1200–4365  m (WA1),
1000–2200  m (WA2) and 1000–2700  m (WA3) respectively. e Data
organically rich and mostly oil and oil–gas prone of marine
depositional environment (Fig. 4a–f). The kerogen typing
is mostly Type II, II-III and III which may make this shale
formation capable of producing oil and some gas. This has
also been confirmed by HI vs Tmax and HI vs OI (Oxygen
index) cross plots and is shown in Figs. 5a–f and 6a–c. HI
values for younger and older Cambay shale of SP tectonic
block are ranging in between 50 < HI < 150 mg HC/g TOC
and 150 < HI < 300 HC/g TOC which shows that the shales
may be enriched with “Gas, kerogen type—III” and “Inert,
kerogen type—IV”. The same has been observed from the
kerogen quality plot of HI vs Tmax and HI vs OI values
(Fig. 7a–c), indicating that older Cambay shale samples are
13
International Journal of Earth Sciences (2020) 109:1529–1546
collected from Eocene age of Cambay Shale (Chandra et  al. 1994)
have been reinterpreted and plot is created. f Plot generated for data
collected (Mishra et al. 1996) for shale samples of Eocene formation
at depth 1400–2500  m. The data are reinterpreted for better under-
standing on shale sections of this tectonic block
organically rich, mature and falling into gas prone and inert
regions with kerogen typing as Type III and Type IV respec-
tively. Jambusar Block (JB) Cambay and Hazad shale sec-
tions show HI values in the range: 50 < HI < 150 mg HC/g
rock and 60 < HI < 180 HC/g TOC respectively which means
that Cambay shale sections may be capable of producing
gas, unlike Hazad Shale. Hazad has mixed kerogen typing
i.e. Type II-III and hybrid (oil–gas) type of combination is
observed in this shale unit. The kerogen quality plots for
Tarkeshwar and Babaguru formations of Narmada Tapti
(NT) block are shown in Fig. 8a, b, which shows that shale
samples from Babaguru formation are more “oil prone”
and of the marine depositional environment as compared
International Journal of Earth Sciences (2020) 109:1529–1546 1539
Fig. 5  a Kerogen type and maturity evaluation of shale samples
drilled through Cambay shale at depth interval 1200–3700  m. The
samples were analyzed in the laboratory to obtain the relevant data
for analysis. b, c The plot for the data collected (Banerjee et  al.
2000) for three different well of Cambay basin drilled at depth 1200–
4365 m (WA1) and 1000–2200 m (WA2) respectively. d The plot for
to Tarkeshwar samples. High HI values i.e. > 600 mg HC/g
TOC for Babaguru and Low HI values were observed for
Tarkeshwar which also confirms the fact that Babaguru is
more oil-prone than Tarkeshwar. The Tarkeshwar formation
is immature at this stage but may be capable of producing
hydrocarbons upon thermal maturation as inferred by the HI
vs Tmax and HI vs OI plots (Fig. 8c–f).
It can be inferred that the Cambay shale is the main
source facies as seen in Table 2. The kerogen is predomi-
nantly Type III with some contribution to Type II organic
matter. It can be seen that thermal maturity in most part
of the depression is within oil window and varies in range
from 0.6% to 1%. Tmax is above 400 ℃. It may be inferred
the data collected (Banerjee et  al. 2000) for well of Cambay basin
drilled at depth 1000–2700 m (WA3). e Data collected from Eocene
age of Cambay Shale (Chandra et al. 1994) and plot is created. f Data
are generated (Mishra et al. 1996) for shale samples of Eocene forma-
tion at depth 1400–2500 m and plot of Tmax and HI is created for the
interpretation
from the data that lower part of Cambay shale in the deeper
basinal part might have entered to wet/dry gas window. The
critical moment of peak hydrocarbon expulsion is around
mid-Miocene.
Thermal maturity and generation potential
of shale samples
Thermal Maturity is predicted on the basis of Production
index and maximum temperature (Tmax) at which maxi-
mum amount of hydrocarbons are generated from kerogen
degradation. Source rocks with production index (i.e. S1/
13

1540 International Journal of Earth Sciences (2020) 109:1529–1546

Fig. 6  Hydrogen index vs oxygen index plots to identify kerogen typing of Cambay shale of Ahmedabad Mehsana tectonic block. a Plots gener-
ated from experimentation. b, c Plots generated for data collected from literature (Chandra et al. 1994; Mishra et al. 1996)

Fig. 7  a S2 vs TOC plot. b HI vs Tmax plot c. HI vs OI Plot of the data obtained for shale samples drilled through Older Cambay shale of
Eocene Age at depth interval of 1000–1900 m to understand kerogen type, quality and maturity in this formation

(S1 + S2)) in the range 0.2–0.4 and Tmax value 435–465 °C
are capable of generating oil. PI < 0.2 and Tmax < 435 °C is
an indicative of immature source rock (Nady and Hammad
2015; Nady and Mohamed 2016; Nady et al. 2015). How-
ever, PI > 0.4 and Tmax value as 470 °C reflects excellent gas
generation potential of shale. On the other hand, generation
potential (GP) is sum of the thermally free hydrocarbons
and hydrocarbons generated through kerogen pyrolysis.
GP value < 2 mg HC/g rock indicates poor generation of
hydrocarbons by source rock. GP value ranging in between
2–5 mg HC/g rock, 5–10 mg HC/g rock and > 10 mg HC/g
rock shows fair, good and very good generation potential
(GP) of source rock respectively (Nady and Hammad 2015;
Nady and Mohamed 2016; Nady et al. 2015).
The observed PI and Tmax values in the experimentally
obtained data for Well D of AM block are 0.2–0.4 and
419–450 °C respectively which shows good potential of oil
generation. Some immature zones, incapable of producing
hydrocarbons are also identified in the selected depth inter-
val as PI values < 0.2 and Tmax values < 435 °C. Other wells
A1, A2, A3, B and C shows Tmax values > 435 °C which
means oil prone zones may be present in these shale forma-
tions. Samples showing generation potential > 10 mg HC/g
rock, is an indication of very good generation potential.
Sanchor Patan (SP) samples show PI values < 0.2 which
means shales are immature at this time, but upon thermal
maturation, gas may be generated. The calculated generation
potential for SP samples is in the range of 3–10 mg HC/g

13
International Journal of Earth Sciences (2020) 109:1529–1546 1541

Fig. 8  Data have been obtained for Tarkeshwar and Babaguru forma- f Are the S2 vs TOC, HI vs OI and HI vs Tmax plots of data obtained
tion of middle Eocene age to understand the source rock potential of for Babaguru Formation. The plots are constructed to understand the
this block (Mishra et al. 2015). a, c, e are the S2 vs TOC, HI vs OI kerogen type, quality and maturation in this block
and HI vs Tmax plots of data obtained for Tarkeshwar Formation. b, d,

13

1542

13
Table 4  Comparative assessment of all tectonic blocks
Direction North South

Tectonic blocks Sanchor Patan Ahmedabad Mehsana Jambusar Broach Narmada Tapti
Property Older Cambay Shale Older/Younger Cambay Shale Cambay and Hazad Shale Babaguru Formation Tarkeshwar Formation

Organic richness Excellent organically rich mio- Good to excellent Good source rock and organi- Excellent source rocks Low (low TOC values)
cene source rock (TOC > 2%) source rock are present cally rich (TOC: 1.0–2.0 wt and organically rich
(1% < TOC < 15%) %) (TOC > 10%)
Kerogen quality Gas prone Organically rich Cambay shale: Type III (Gas) Oil prone. marine depositional Immature phase of oil genera-
Hazad Shale: Type II and III environment tion
Hybrid (Oil and Gas)
Kerogen type and maturity Gas Oil producing zone Cambay shale: gas produc- Oil prone Type III
Mixed oil–gas bearing zones Gas/mixed oil–gas Bearing ing (50 < HI < 150 mg HC/g Type I
(50 < HI < 150 mg HC/g zones (HI > 150 mg HC/g rock)
TOC TOC Hazard Shale:
150 < HI < 300) In some section it is in (60 < HI < 180 HC/g TOC)
between 50–100 mg HC/g
TOC)
Thermal maturity Immature (PI < 0.2) Good potential of oil genera- Cambay shale is mature Mature Low maturity
tion (PI 0.2–0.4) (PI < 0.5)
Some Immature Zones having Hazad shale: immature
PI < 0.2 are also sandwiched (PI < 0.2)
between the mature zones
Generation potential Very good generation potential Very good generation potential Fair hydrocarbon potential Good to Excellent hydrocar- Immature
(3 < GP < 10 mg HC/g rock) (GP > 10 mg HC/g rock) GP of Cambay Shale: 1–4 mg bon potential (GP > 10 mg
HC/g rock and Hazad Shale: HC/g rock for Babaguru)
1–5 mg HC/g rock respec-
tively
Kerogen typing Type III and Type II–III Type II, Type II–III and Type Type III and Type II–III Type I Type III/Type IV
III
International Journal of Earth Sciences (2020) 109:1529–1546
International Journal of Earth Sciences (2020) 109:1529–1546 1543

Fig. 9  S1, S2 and TOC vs. Depth Plots of dominant shale units present in different tectonic blocks of Cambay Basin. a Ahmedabad Mehsana
(AM), Well D, b Sanchor Patan (SP)-Well E, c Broach Jambusar (BJ)-Well F

rock which indicates fair to good hydrocarbon generation
potential mainly gas. Some depth intervals are showing val-
ues > 10 mg HC/g rock which is an indication of very good
generation potential.
The calculated PI values for Broach Jambusar Cambay
Shale are < 0.5 and for Hazad shale are < 0.2 which means
that Cambay shale samples are mature and may generate gas
upon maturation unlike Hazad shale which is immature at
this stage (Nady and Hammad 2015; Nady and Mohamed
2016; Nady et al. 2015). However, the calculated GP values
for the Cambay and Hazad shales are in the range of 1–4 mg
HC/g rock and 1–5 mg HC/g rock respectively which is an
indicative of poor to fair hydrocarbon generation potential
(Nady and Hammad 2015). Narmada Tapti samples from
Babaguru formation shows good to excellent hydrocarbon
generation potential unlike Tarkeshwar formation which is
having GP > 10 mg HC/g rock.
Comparative assessment of geochemical
attributes of shales of Cambay Basin
Cambay basin have been divided into five tectonic blocks
and hydrocarbon accumulation in these blocks have been
discovered in shale units of Eocene to Miocene age which
are recognized as major source rocks for hydrocarbons
accumulation in Cambay Basin (Garg and Philp 1994). It
is, therefore, important to understand source rock potential
of each of the dominant shale units present in the different
tectonic blocks of Cambay Basin. A comparative assessment
of all the identified properties in Cambay basin different

13

1544
Fig. 10  Hydrocarbon gen-
eration and expulsion trends of
dominant shale units present
in different tectonic blocks of
Cambay Basin. a Ahmedabad
Mehsana, Well D (AM), b
Sanchor Patan, Well E (SP), c
Broach Jambusar, Well F (BJ)
blocks has been shown and tabulated in Table 4. Following
observations are the key observations for Cambay Basin’s
tectonic blocks:
1. Good to excellent organic richness,
2. Type III/Type II–III/Type I kerogen typing
3. Hybrid, gas, and oil-bearing potential
4. Immature to mature
5. Good generation potential and
6. Fair to Good Kerogen Conversion or Hydrocarbon gen-
eration
Only Sanchor Patan and a few Narmada Tapti shale sam-
ples are showing immature phase of oil generation. However,
they have good to excellent potential of generating hydrocar-
bons at greater depths of deep burial and deposition. Other
tectonic blocks—Ahmedabad Mehsana, Jambusar Broach,
Babaguru Formation of Narmada Tapti shows good genera-
tion potential and mature phase of oil and gas generation.
13
International Journal of Earth Sciences (2020) 109:1529–1546
Hydrocarbon generation and expulsion
potential
Cambay is a synform with antiform within the graben as
target location. The basin is bounded western basin margin
fault and eastern basin margin faults. The graben is divided
into five tectonic blocks by five transverse faults. The basin
is developed by syn sedimentation and development of half
grabens. The Cambay shale in the Eocene pay acts both
as source and reservoirs. The Tmax in Cambay basin about
450 °C The depositional environment is fresh water and
expulsion continued from Eocene to Paleogene time.
To understand the hydrocarbon generation and expulsion
trends in the shale formation of different tectonic blocks of
Cambay basin, the variation of S1, S2 and TOC has been
plotted (Fig. 9) with respect to depth. Ahmedabad Mehsana
(AM) tectonic block samples (Well D) show the presence
of free hydrocarbons (S1) in the entire depth interval which
is very low varying in between 0.5 and 9.0 mg HC/g rock
(Fig. 9a). However, remaining hydrocarbon potential (S2)
of the samples for most of the depth zone is very high
i.e. > 40 mg HC/g rock in the maximum temperature range
of 419–450 °C which means that the region is organically
rich and may be capable of generating hydrocarbons (mainly
International Journal of Earth Sciences (2020) 109:1529–1546 1545
oil) upon maturation and complete thermal degradation of
kerogen. The hydrocarbon generation and expulsion pro-
file of Well D have been shown in Fig. 10a which shows
the variation of S1 + S2/TOC with respect to depth. In the
depth zone, 1265–1285 m, free/residual hydrocarbons were
observed in the range of 1–2 mg HC/g rock and amount of
generated hydrocarbons (S2) are more than 13 mg HC/g
rock.
The most favorable and maximum hydrocarbon genera-
tion has been found in the deeper sections of Cambay shale
in between 1377–1378 m at maximum temperatures 440 °C
and TOC content above 13 wt%. It means deeper sections
are more sensitive to temperature variation and more likely
to generate hydrocarbons. After generation, some hydro-
carbons may also get expelled and the trend of expulsion
with respect to depth is represented as low peaks in Fig. 10a.
Based on the observed values and trends, it can be concluded
that the selected shale units of well D can generate and expel
hydrocarbon which may be oil or combination of oil and gas.
From the plots of Sanchor Patan (SP) tectonic block—well
E, it can be observed that the hydrocarbons are continu-
ously generating till depth 1490 m and a sharp decline is
noted at depth 1750 m (Fig. 10b). The point where the sharp
decline was observed is known as “Expulsion Threshold”
after which it may be possible that generated hydrocarbons
are expelled and migrated into organically lean source rocks
(Zheng et al. 2019). A sharp peak was again observed above
depth points 1770 m which indicates more generation of
hydrocarbons (Fig. 10b). As indicated in Fig. 9b, highest
S2 values (i.e. 12.84 mg HC/g rock) observed in the sam-
ples is at depth 1792 m having TOC content as 7.87 wt%.
The amount of free/residual hydrocarbon is very low in the
region. Broach Jambusar (BJ) samples, well F show very
less amount of free hydrocarbons and generated hydrocar-
bons i.e. < 1.0 mg HC/g rock as shown in Fig. 9c. However,
the shale units may be capable of generating hydrocarbons as
observed in Fig. 10c, although the amount may be very less.
Conclusions
Geochemistry of shales of northern and southern tectonic
blocks of Cambay basin have been studied in detail with the
available data and it has been found that shales of northern
Cambay are organically rich, thermally mature source rocks
and may be capable of generating oil and oil–gas both as
kerogen typing is III and II-III. Shales of lower southern
Cambay (mainly Tarkeshwar formation of Narmada Tapti)
show immature phase of hydrocarbon generation but may
produce oil upon thermal maturation and deep burial. Good
and thermally mature source rocks are present in the stratas
of the Cambay basin. However, more pilot wells need to be
drilled in Cambay and additional data mining is required
for better geochemical characterization of shales of Cambay
basin.
Acknowledgements  The authors extend their sincere thanks to Prof.
Chandra Rai, Director & Eberly Chair and Prof. Subhash Shah, Emeri-
tus Professor, MPGE, The University of Oklahoma, USA, for giving
an opportunity to work in IC3 Laboratory of MPGE to complete all
the necessary experimentation and data generation. The authors also
thank Dr. Soumyajit Mukherjee (IIT Bombay), handling editor for his
thoughtful comments and efforts towards improving our manuscript.
We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their review,
useful and helpful comments on our manuscript.
References
Ajayi BT, Walker KJ, Wutherich K, Sink J (2011) Channel hydraulic
fracturing and its applicability in the Marcellus Shale. In: SPE
Eastern regional meeting. Society of Petroleum Engineers. https://
doi.org/10.2118/149426-MS
Banerjee A, Jha M, Mittal A, Thomas N, Misra K (2000) The effec-
tive source rocks in the north Cambay Basin, India. Mar Pet Geol
17:1111–1129. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0264​-8172(00)00049​-0
Banerjee A, Sinha AK, Jain AK, Thomas NJ, Misra KN, Chandra K
(1998) A mathematical representation of Rock-Eval hydrogen
index vs Tmax profiles. Org Geochem 28:43–55. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/S0146​-6380(97)00119​-8
Banerjee S, Dutta S, Paikaray S, Mann U (2006) Stratigraphy, sedi-
mentology and bulk organic geochemistry of black shales from
the Proterozoic Vindhyan Supergroup (central India). J Earth Syst
Sci 115:37–47. https​://doi.org/10.1007/BF027​03024​
Caineng Z, Yang Z, Zhang G et al (2014) Conventional and uncon-
ventional petroleum orderly accumulation: Concept and practical
significance. Petrol Explor Dev 41:14–30
Campagna DJ (2015a) AV what makes a play unconventional?: explor-
ing for the unconventional play. Adapted from AAPG DPA Play-
maker Calgary Alberta
Chandra K, Mishra CS, Samanta U, Gupta A, Mehrotra KL (1994)
Correlation of different maturity parameters in the Ahmedabad-
Mehsana block of the Cambay basin. Org Geochem 21:313–321.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6380(94)90193​-7
Dasgupta S, Mukherjee S (2017) Brittle shear tectonics in a nar-
row continental rift: asymmetric non-volcanic Barmer basin
(Rajasthan, India). J Geol 125:561–591
Dasgupta S, Mukherjee S (2019) Remote sensing in lineament iden-
tification: Examples from western India. In: Billi A, Fagereng A
(eds) Problems and solutions in structural geology and tectonics
developments in structural geology and tectonics book series, vol
5. Elsevier, Oxford
El Nady MM, Hammad MM (2015) Organic richness, kerogen types
and maturity in the shales of the Dakhla and Duwi formations in
Abu Tartur area, Western Desert, Egypt: Implication of Rock-
Eval pyrolysis. Egypt J Pet 24:423–428. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/J.
EJPE.2015.10.003
El Nady MM, Mohamed NS (2016) Source rock evaluation for
hydrocarbon generation in Halal oilfield, southern Gulf of
Suez, Egypt. Egypt J Pet 25:383–389. https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.
EJPE.2015.09.003
El Nady MM, Ramadan FS, Hammad MM, Lotfy NM (2015) Evalua-
tion of organic matters, hydrocarbon potential and thermal matu-
rity of source rocks based on geochemical and statistical methods:
Case study of source rocks in Ras Gharib oilfield, central Gulf of
Suez Egypt. Egypt JPet. 24:203–211. https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.
EJPE.2015.05.012
13

1546
Franquet JA, Mitra A, Warrington DS, Moos D, Lacazette A (2011)
Integrated acoustic, mineralogy, and geomechanics characteriza-
tion of the Huron Shale, Southern West Virginia, USA. In: Cana-
dian unconventional resources conference. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. https://doi.org/10.2118/148411-MS
Garg AK, Philp RP (1994) Pyrolysis-gas chromatography of
asphaltenes/kerogens from source rocks of the Gandhar Field,
Cambay Basin, India. Org Geochem 21:383–392. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/0146-6380(94)90200​-3
Heddleston DC (2009) Horizontal-well-production logging deployment
and measurement techniques for US Land Shale Hydrocarbon
Plays. In: SPE production and operations symposium. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. https://doi.org/10.2118/120591-MS
Hu T, Pang X (2016) Hydrocarbon generation and expulsion char-
acteristics of lower-middle Permian Lucaogou formation in
Jimusar sag, eastern margin, Junggar basin, northwest china:
Implications for tight oil accumulation potential. In: International
Conference and Exhibition, Barcelona, Spain, 3–6 April 2016.
Society of Exploration Geophysicists and American Association
of Petroleum Geologists, pp 349–349. https://doi.org/10.1190/
ice2016-6313595.1
Izadi G, Junca JP, Cade R, Rowan T (2014) Production perfor-
mance in Marcellus Shale: multidisciplinary study of hydraulic
fracturing. In: Abu Dhabi international petroleum exhibition
and conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers. https://doi.
org/10.2118/171817-MS
Jarvie DM, Hill RJ, Ruble TE, Pollastro RM (2007) Unconventional
shale-gas systems: the Mississippian Barnett Shale of north-cen-
tral Texas as one model for thermogenic shale-gas assessment. Am
Assoc Pet Geol Bull 91:475–499. https​://doi.org/10.1306/12190​
60606​8
Jia C, Zheng M, Zhang Y (2016) Some key issues on the uncon-
ventional petroleum systems. Pet Res 1:113–122. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/S2096​-2495(17)30036​-4
Kang S, Gao CH (2014) Shale gas boom in the USA inspires Chinese
operators. In: SPE/EAGE European unconventional resources
conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
https://doi.org/10.2118/167723-MS
Kumar S, Ojha K, Bastia R, Garg K, Das S, Mohanty D (2017) Evalu-
ation of Eocene source rock for potential shale oil and gas gen-
eration in north Cambay Basin, India. Mar Pet Geol 88:141–154
Ma YZ, Stephen HA (2015) Unconventional oil and gas resources
handbook: evaluation and development. Gulf Professional Pub-
lishing, Houston
Mishra CS, Samanta U, Gupta A, Thomas NJ, Misra KN (1996)
Hydrous pyrolysis of a Type III source: fractionation effects dur-
ing primary migration in natural and artificially matured sam-
ples. Org Geochem 25:489–505. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0146​
-6380(96)00136​-2
Mishra S, Mani D, Kavitha S, Patil DJ, Kalpana MS, Vyas DU, Dayal
AM (2015) Pyrolysis results of shales from the South Cambay
basin, India: implications for gas generation potential. J Geol Soc
India 85:647–656. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1259​4-015-0262-z
Mishra S, Patel BK (2011) Gas shale potential of Cambay formation,
Cambay basin, India. In: Proc. 2nd South Asian geoscience con-
ference and exhibition, GEO India, pp 1–5
13
International Journal of Earth Sciences (2020) 109:1529–1546
Peters KE, Cassa MR (1994) Applied source rock geochemistry. In:
Magoon LB, Dow WG (eds) The petroleum system from source
to trap, vol 60. AAPG Memoirs, pp 93–120
Sain K, Rai M, Sen MK (2014) A review on shale gas prospect in
Indian sedimentary basins. J Indian Geophys Union 18:183–194
Sharma V, Sircar A (2016) Shale gas potential of North Cambay Basin,
Gujarat, India. J Indian Assoc Sedimentol 33:51–57
Sharma V, Sircar A (2018) Integrated petrophysical and geomechani-
cal characterization of Cambay Shale, Cambay Basin, India. In
RDPETRO 2018: research and development petroleum confer-
ence and exhibition, Abu Dhabi, UAE. American Association
of Petroleum Geologists, Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers, and Society
of Petroleum Engineers
Sharma V, Sircar A, Gupta A (2019) Hydraulic fracturing design and
3D modeling: a case study from Cambay Shale and Eagleford
Shale. Multiscale Multidiscip Model Exp Des 2(1):1–13
Sharma V, Sircar A (2020) Multi-technique characterization of shale
reservoir quality parameters. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 75:103125
Song Y, Li Z, Jiang Z, Luo Q, Liu D, Gao Z (2017) Progress and devel-
opment trend of unconventional oil and gas geological research.
Pet Explor Dev Elsevier 44(4):675–685. https​://doi.org/10.1016/
S1876​-3804(17)30077​-0
Spears R, Jackson SL (2009) Development of a predictive tool for
estimating well performance in horizontal shale gas wells in the
Barnett Shale, North Texas, USA. Petrophysics 50
Vermylen J, Zoback MD (2011) Hydraulic fracturing, microseismic
magnitudes, and stress evolution in the Barnett Shale, Texas,
USA. In: SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference. Soci-
ety of Petroleum Engineers. https​://doi.org/10.2118/14050​7-MS
Wang H, Ma F, Tong X, Liu Z, Zhang X, Wu Z et al (2016) Assess-
ment of global unconventional oil and gas resources. Pet Explor
Dev 43(6):925–940
Williams-Stroud SC, Neuhaus CW, Telker C, Remington C, Barker
W, Neshyba G, Blair K (2012) Temporal evolution of stress
states from hydraulic fracturing source mechanisms in the
Marcellus Shale. In: SPE Canadian unconventional resources
conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers. https://doi.
org/10.2118/162786-MS
Xia D, Guthrie JM, Burke C, Crews S, Tang Y (2014) Predicting hydro-
carbon composition in unconventional reservoirs with a compo-
sitional generation/expulsion model. Org Geochem. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.orgge​ochem​.2014.02.009
Zeid A, Lee J (2016) Unconventional shale gas development: appli-
cation of USA Key success factors to other countries in inter-
national markets. In: Abu Dhabi international petroleum exhibi-
tion & conference. Society of petroleum engineers. https://doi.
org/10.2118/183443
Zheng D, Pang X, Ma X, Li C, Zheng T, Zhou L (2019) Hydrocarbon
generation and expulsion characteristics of the source rocks in
the third member of the Upper Triassic Xujiahe Formation and its
effect on conventional and unconventional hydrocarbon resource
potential in the Sichuan Basin. Mar Pet Geol 109:175–192