See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267458377

The Eagle Ford Shale Play South Texas: Regional Variations in Fluid Types
Hydrocarbon Production and Reservoir Properties

Article · March 2013

DOI: 10.2523/IPTC-16808-MS

CITATIONS READS

21 8,723

3 authors, including:

Yao Tian Walter B. Ayers

University of Houston Texas A&M University
11 PUBLICATIONS   127 CITATIONS    77 PUBLICATIONS   1,016 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mapping aquifer quality; utility of brackish water in reservoir stimulation View project

OCCURRENCE OF MULTIPLE FLUID PHASES ACROSS A BASIN, IN THE SAME SHALE GAS FORMATION – EAGLE FORD SHALE EXAMPLE View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Walter B. Ayers on 06 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IPTC 16808

The Eagle Ford Shale Play, South Texas: Regional Variations in Fluid
Types, Hydrocarbon Production and Reservoir Properties
Yao Tian, Walter B. Ayers, William, D. McCain, Jr. Texas A&M University

Copyright 2013, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Beijing, China, 26–28 March 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435

Abstract
The Eagle Ford Shale is one of the most active U.S. shale plays; it produces oil, gas condensate, and dry gas. To better
understand the regional and vertical variations of reservoir properties and their effects on fluid types and well performance,
we conducted an integrated, regional study using production and well log data.

Maps of the average gas-oil ratio (GOR) of the first three production months identified four fluid regions, including black oil,
volatile oil, gas condensate, and dry gas regions. Maximum oil production occurs in Karnes County, where first-month oil
production of most wells exceeds 5,000 barrels (bbl). The most productive gas region is between the Stuart City and Sligo
Shelf Margins, where first-month gas production of most wells exceeds 60 million cubic feet (MMcf).

Eagle Ford Shale petrophysical properties were analyzed in individual wells and were mapped to clarify the regionally
variations of Eagle Ford Shale reservoir properties and their controls on fluid types and well performance. In comparison to
the upper Eagle Ford, the lower Eagle Ford Shale has high gamma ray, high resistivity, low density, and long transit time
values; we infer that the lower Eagle Ford shale has higher total organic carbon and lower carbonate content than the upper
Eagle Ford Shale.

Integration of production and geological data shows that thermal maturity and structural setting of the Eagle Ford Shale
strongly influence fluid types and production rates. Plots of GOR vs. time for individual wells were constant in different
reservoir fluids. Results of this study clarify causes of vertical and lateral heterogeneity in the Eagle Ford shale and the
regional extents of fluid types. Understanding of the reservoir property differences between upper and lower Eagle Ford
Shale should assist with optimizing completion design and stimulation strategies. The results may be applicable to similar
developing shale plays.

Introduction
The Eagle Ford Shale, which has long been known as the source rock for overlying Austin Chalk (Childs et al., 1988), is
being developed as a self-sourcing reservoir (Fig. 1). The Eagle Ford Shale is composed of lower shale-rich and upper
carbonate-rich units. The Eagle Ford shale overlies the Buda Limestone and is overlain by Austin Chalk (Fig. 1). Previous
workers divided the Eagle Ford Shale into upper and lower units (Hentz and Ruppel 2010). Based on the subtle differences in
gamma ray and resistivity logs, we further divided the upper Eagle Ford Shale into the lower-upper and upper-upper Eagle
Ford Shale (Fig. 1) (Tian et al. 2012). The lower Eagle Ford is present throughout the study area, whereas the upper
EagleFord Shale is restricted to the west (Hentz and Ruppel 2010, Tian et al. 2012).

The Eagle Ford extends from outcrop to the Edwards/Sligo Shelf Margins where its depth exceeds 15,600 ft (Fig. 2) (Hentz
and Ruppel 2010, Tian et al. 2012). The Chittam anticline is the primary structural feature in the study area. Closely spaced
contours in the northeast, near the San Marcos Arch, indicate a steeper dip of the formation in that region (Fig. 2) (Tian et al.
2012). The shallow Eagle Ford Shale is thermally immature. With increasing depth and thermal maturity, the Eagle Ford
Shale enters the oil window, and basinward, hydrocarbon fluids evolve from black oil to volatile oil, gas condensate, and
finally, to dry gas, along the Edwards and Sligo Shelf Margins (EIA 2010, Fan et al 2011) (Fig.3).
2 IPTC 16808

Eagle Ford Shale lithology, reservoir fluids, and total organic carbon (TOC) vary across the Rio Grande Embayment of South
Texas. It is necessary to understand these regional variations to assess controls on Eagle Ford Shale hydrocarbon production,
determine the technical and economic risks, and evaluate potential success of the unconventional resource play.

The objectives of this research were to (1) conduct production analysis to characterize the regional variations of Eagle Ford
Shale fluids and production rates, (2) map reservoir properties and TOC to clarify regional variations, and (3) integrate the
results to assess geologic controls on hydrocarbon fluid types and well production rates.

Fig. 1 – Type well log and stratigraphy of the Eagle Ford Shale, Maverick County, Texas, USA (Paloma E 1 53 well).

Eagle Ford Hydrocarbon Fluid Types

The hydrocarbon types of Eagle Ford Shale were identified by average GOR from the first three months of production. Fluid
types evolve basinward from black oil to volatile oil, gas condensate, and finally, to dry gas (Fig. 3), correlating with
increasing formation depth (Fig. 2) and thermal maturity. The production and fluid type regions are wide in southwest and
narrow in the northeast (Fig. 3), as a result of steeper structural dip with proximity to the San Marcos Arch (Fig. 2). Dry gas
wells are mainly located south of the Stuart City Shelf Margin (Fig.3).

Peak monthly well production is variable for all fluids. The most productive gas wells are located south of the Stuart City
Shelf Margin, where production commonly exceeds 80 MMcf/month/well Fig. 4). Peak production of oil wells is greatest in
Karnes and Gonzales Counties, where production exceeds 16,000 bbl/month/well (Fig.5).
IPTC 16808 3

Fig. 2 – Major structural features in the Rio Grande Embayment (Tian et al. 2012) “A” and “B” are locations of wells used
for detailed analysis. (Eagle Ford outcrop and Maverick Basin outline from Hentz and Ruppel 2010).

Fig. 3 – Fluid types of Eagle Ford Shale identified by the average GOR from first three months of production.
4 IPTC 16808

Fig 4 – Peak monthly gas production of Eagle Ford Shale wells.

Fig. 5 – Peak monthly oil production of Eagle Ford Shale wells.

After identifying the fluid types and regions, we plotted the GOR vs. time for each fluid type. GOR of black oil wells
generally increases in the first 3 months and plateaus afterwards at GORs ranging from 300 to 2,000 scf/bbl (standard cubic
feet per barrel) (Fig. 6). The GOR of volatile oil wells increases slightly during the first 5 months of production and becomes
constant at GOR between 1,000 to 10,000 scf/bbl (Fig. 7). The GOR of gas condensate wells increases slowly from initial
IPTC 16808 5

production, and it ranges from 4,000 to 20,000 scf/bbl (Fig. 8).

An average GOR plot was calculated using total gas production divided total oil production (Eq.1) The average GOR of
black oil increases during the first 3 months from approximately 700 to 1,000 scf/bbl (Fig. 6). The initial average GOR of
volatile oil wells was 2,000 scf/bbl; average GOR of volatile oil wells increases to approximately 3,000 scf/bbl during the
first 5 months and remains nearly constant afterwards (Fig. 7). The average GOR of gas condensate wells increased steadily
from initial production values of less than 10,000 to more than 18,000 scf/bbl, after 36 months of production (Fig. 8).

∑ ,
, (Eq.1)
∑ ,

Fig. 6 – GOR profile for black oil wells. The heavy red line in average GOR.

Fig. 7 – GOR profile for volatile wells. The heavy red line in average GOR.

Fig. 8 – GOR Profile for gas condensate wells. The heavy red line in average GOR.
6 IPTC 16808

Petrophysical Analyses with Well Logs

TOC is evaluated to assess the quantity of hydrocarbon that may have been generated and the amount that may be stored in
the adsorbed state (Montgomery et al. 2005, Spears and Jackson 2009). Several well logs can be used to indirectly indicate
the magnitude of TOC, including gamma ray, bulk density, and uranium logs (Passey et al. 1990). Passey’s delta logR
methods were used in this study to quantify the TOC present in Eagle Ford Shale.

Spectral Gamma Ray

Spectral gamma ray logs were used in two single well analyses to study the vertical and lateral variability of clay content and
TOC (Figs. 9 and 10). In LaSalle County Well A, we selected two intervals with similar high gamma ray responses; one
interval is located in lower Eagle Ford Shale, and the other interval is in upper Eagle Ford Shale (lower interval “a” and upper
interval “b”) (Figs. 2 and 9). Evaluation of the spectral gamma ray logs, indicated that the contributing factors for high
gamma ray responses differed between the two intervals (Fig. 9). Interval “a” has low-to-medium potassium and thorium
responses, which indicate low-to-medium clay content. In contrast, interval “b” has much higher potassium and thorium
responses, which suggest high clay content (Fig. 9). Interval “a” has significantly higher uranium response, which suggests
higher TOC concentration, whereas interval “b” has the lowest uranium response, comparison to adjacent intervals. This
suggests a low TOC in interval “b” (Fig. 9). Therefore, spectral gamma ray logs effectively demonstrate the variable reservoir
lithology and TOC variabilities of two intervals that have similar gamma ray response.

Fig. 9 – Spectral gamma ray analysis of Eagle Ford Shale, Well A, Harle 1, LaSalle County. See Fig. 2 for well location.

In Wilson County, where only lower Eagle Ford Shale is present, Well B has a high gamma ray response, medium thorium
and potassium responses, and high uranium responses, compared to Austin chalk and Buda limestone (Figs. 2 and 10).
Therefore, in Wilson County, lower Eagle Ford Shale has medium clay content and high TOC (Fig. 10).

Gamma Ray and Bulk Density of Lower Eagle Ford Shale

We calculated the average well log bulk density of the lower Eagle Ford Shale to investigate regional variations of lithology
and TOC. We presumed that higher gamma ray and lower bulk density suggest high clay content, higher TOC, or both. There
is a strike-elongate trend of high gamma ray response (greater than 80 API units) from north Maverick County to Caldwell
County (Fig. 11). The average gamma ray response decreases from northwest to southeast in the study area (Fig. 11). The
average bulk density trend of the lower Eagle Ford is inverse to the gamma ray trend. There is a strike-elongate, high-density
trend updip and parallel to the Sligo Shelf Margin (Fig. 12). Generally, bulk density increases from northwest to southeast
IPTC 16808 7

(Fig. 12).

Fig. 10 – Spectral gamma ray analysis of Eagle Ford Shale, Well B, Pruski Henry 1, Wilson County. See Fig. 2 for well
location.

Fig. 11 – Average gamma ray response of the lower Eagle Ford Shale.
8 IPTC 16808

Fig. 12 – Average of bulk density of lower Eagle Ford Shale.

TOC of Eagle Ford Shale

We mapped the average TOC for the lower Eagle Ford, lower-upper and upper-upper Eagle Ford Shale units with Passey’s
Delta Log R methods (Passey et al. 1990, Passey et al. 2010). The first method of TOC determination utilized bulk density
and deep resistivity logs (Eq.2). The second method employed sonic and deep resistivity logs (Eq. 3).

Equation 2: ∆ / 2.5 ) (Eq. 2)

3: ∆ / 0.02 ∆ ∆ ) (Eq. 3)

. .
4: ∆ 10 (Eq. 4)

It is critical to obtain the proper baseline values of bulk density ( ), sonic log (∆ ), and deep resistivity
( ) for TOC calculations. Due to the regional variability of reservoir properties, it would not be accurate to apply
universal baseline values of bulk density, sonic log, or deep resistivity to the entire database. Differences among baseline
values from wells farther apart should be expected. Therefore, the first step of TOC calculation was to determine baseline
values for individual well logs (Passey 1990). The level of maturity (LOM) was also required for the TOC calculations (Eq.
4). Eagle Ford LOM values from a contour map (Cardneaux 2012) were used to assign LOM values at individual well
locations used in this study, by interpolation (Fig. 13). By integrating the LOM values from previous work (Cardneaux 2012),
we were able to calculate and map TOC for the Eagle Ford Shale (Figs. 14 through 18).

Using bulk density and deep resistivity (Eq. 2), the average TOC of lower Eagle Ford Shale increases from southeast to
northwest. TOC is lowest (2%) in a strike-elongate trend from Webb County northeastward through McMullen County,
approximately between the Stuart City and Sligo Shelf Margins (Fig. 14). Average TOC of lower Eagle Ford Shale is greatest
in Zavala and Frio Counties (more than 10%) (Fig.14).

Using bulk density and deep resistivity (Eq. 2), the average TOC of lower Eagle Ford Shale shows similar regional trends as
the results calculated from bulk density and deep resistivity (Figs. 14 and 15). The TOC increases from southeast to
Northwest. The minimum average TOC of the lower Eagle Ford Shale is approximately 2% in a strike-elongate trend from
Webb through McMullen Counties. TOC is highest (>8%) in Zavala and Frio Counties (Fig. 15).

To improve well controls for the lower Eagle Ford Shale, we combined the TOC results from both methods (Eqs. 2 and 3).
The regional southwest to northeast trend of increasing TOC is present (Fig. 16). Local areas of high TOC are present in the
IPTC 16808 9

eastern part of the study area, in Karnes and Gonzales Counties (Fig. 16).

Fig. 13 – Level of Maturity of lower Eagle Ford Shale, (LOM values interpreted Cardneaux 2012, Fig. 37)

Fig. 14 – TOC of lower Eagle Ford, determined using resistivity and bulk density logs (Eq. 1).
10 IPTC 16808

Fig. 15 – TOC of lower Eagle Ford, determined using resistivity and sonic logs (Eq. 2).

Fig. 16 – TOC of lower Eagle Ford Shale, determined using data from Eqs. 1 and 2.

Vertically, the average TOC of the Eagle Ford Shale decreases from 10% in the lower Eagle Ford Shale to 5% in the upper
units (Figs. 16 through 18). The maximum TOC of lower-upper Eagle Ford Shale is approximately 7% in Zavala and Frio
Counties (Fig. 17). Regionally, TOC of the lower-upper Eagle Ford Shale increases from south to north (Fig. 17). The TOC
of the upper-upper Eagle Ford Shale differs from other Eagle Ford Shale units (Fig. 18); it is greatest (5%) in south Maverick
County (Fig. 18).
IPTC 16808 11

Fig. 17 – Average TOC of lower-upper Eagle Ford Shale, determined using Eqs. 1 and 2.

Fig. 18 – Average TOC of upper-upper Eagle Ford Shale from Eqs. 1 and 2.

Conclusions
From NW to SE, Eagle Ford fluids evolve from oil, to gas condensate and, finally, to dry gas, reflecting greater depth and
thermal maturity. GOR vs. time plots differ among three fluid types in terms of increasing rate. And the difference will
impact the ultimate recovery of the each fluid type . Lithology and TOC of the Eagle Ford Shale vary vertically and areally.
A strike-elongate trend of high gamma ray response and low density extends from Maverick County northeast through
Guadalupe County, indicating high TOC, high shale content, or both. Spectral gamma ray logs indicate both lateral and
vertical variations of reservoir properties. In the lower Eagle Ford Shale, a strike-elongate trend of low and high TOC (Delta
R method) extends from southwest to northeast. TOC of the lower Eagle Ford Shale ranges from 2 to 12%. TOC of the lower
 12 IPTC 16808

upper Eagle Ford Shale is highest (7%) in Zavala and Frio Counties. In the upper upper Eagle Ford Shale, TOC is greatest
(5%) in Dimmit and Maverick Counties.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank IHS and MJ Systems for the well logs, and Drillinginfo for the production data. A special thank you
goes to Crisman Institute for funding the project.

References
Cardneaux, A.P. 2012. Mapping of the Oil Window in the Eagle Ford Shale Play of Southwest, Texas Using Therma
Modeling and Log Overlay Analysis. MS thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana (August 2012).
Childs, O., Steele, E. G. and Salvador, A.1988. Correlation of Stratigraphic Units in North America (COSUNA) Project, Gulf
Coast Region: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 93, p. 231-269.
EIA. 2010. Eagle Ford Shale Play,Western Gulf Basin, South Texas. Map retrieved June 2010.
http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/rpd/shaleusa9.pdf.
Fan, L., Martin, R., Thompson, J., et al. 2011. An Integrated Approach for Understanding Oil And Gas Reserves Potential.
SPE paper 148751 presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, Canada, 15-17.
Hentz, T. F., and Ruppel, S. C. 2010. Regional Lithostratigraphy of the Eagle Ford Shale: Maverick Basin to East Texas
Basin: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions v.60, p.325-338.
Montgomery, S.L., Jarvie, D.M., Bowker, K.A. Pollastro, R.M. 2005. Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, North-
Central Texas: Gas-Shale Play with Multi-Trillion Cubic Foot Potential. AAPG Bulletin 89 (2): 155-175.
Passey, Q.R., Creaney, S., Kulla, J.B., et al. 1990. A Practical Model for Organic Richness from Porosity and Resistivity
Logs. AAPG Bulletin-American Association of Petroleum Geologists 74 (12): 1777-1794.
Passey, Q.R., Bohacs, K.M., Esch, W.L., et al. 2010. From oil-prone source rock to gas-producing shale reservoir-geologic
and petrophysical characterization of unconventional shale gas reservoirs, Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper 131350
presented at International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China, 8-10 June 2010, Beijing, China.
Spears, R.W. and Jackson, S.L. 2009. Development of a Predictive Tool for Estimating Well Performance in Horizontal
Shale Gas Wells in the Barnett Shale, North Texas, USA. Petrophysics 50 (1): 19-31.
Tian, Yao, Ayers, W. B., and McCain, W. D., Jr. 2012. Regional Analysis of Stratigraphy, Reservoir Characteristics, and
Fluid Phases in the Eagle Ford Shale. Paper presented at Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies and the Gulf
Coast Section of SEPM, October 21-24, Austin, Texas.

View publication stats