1

İnan, Sedat, Ahmed Hakami, and Mahdi A. AbuAli, 2017, A Petroleum System and
Basin Modeling Study of Northwest and East-Central Saudi Arabia: Effect of
Burial History and Adjacent Rock Lithology on the Gas Potential of the Silurian
Qusaiba Shales, in Mahdi A. AbuAli, Isabelle Moretti, and Hege M. Nordgård
Bolås, eds., Petroleum Systems Analysis—Case Studies: AAPG Memoir 114,
p. 1–35.

A Petroleum System and Basin Modeling

Study of Northwest and East-Central
Saudi Arabia: Effect of Burial History
and Adjacent Rock Lithology on the Gas
Potential of the Silurian Qusaiba Shales
Sedat İnan and Mahdi A. AbuAli
Saudi Aramco, EXPEC Advanced Research Center, P.O. Box 5074, Dhahran 31311, Saudi Arabia P.O. Box
10373 (e-mails: sedat.inan@aramco.com, mahdi.abuali@aramco.com)

Ahmed M. Hakami
Saudi Aramco, EXPLORATION Organization, Dhahran 31311 P.O. Box 9581, Saudi Arabia (e-mail:
ahmed.hakami.2@aramco.com)

ABSTRACT
Organic-rich hot shales of the Silurian Qusaiba Formation are known to have sourced oil
and gas reservoirs in the Paleozoic Petroleum System in Saudi Arabia. Recently, these shales
have attracted attention in terms of unconventional oil/gas reservoirs. Shale gas assessment
­requires evaluation of many key variables that play a role in both shale gas reservoir quality
and shale gas production quality. We have reassessed all the key factors for shale gas reservoir
quality by benchmarking with world-class gas-sorbed reservoirs and found that the Qusaiba
hot shales’ properties fulfill almost all criteria, and therefore the Qusaiba hot shales were
qualified as high-quality gas-sorbed reservoirs. Two key factors, namely burial history and
­adjacent rock lithology, were determined to be very critical and worth a detailed evaluation by
using a ­petroleum system and basin modeling approach. For better use and interpretation of
modeling results, we revisited many assumptions on oil/gas generation and retention mecha-
nisms in organic-rich shale source rocks and the model was input accordingly. The evolution
of maturity and resultant oil and gas generation from and retention/oil-gas cracking within
the Qusaiba hot shales have been modeled for estimations of present-day gas potential.
Calibrated modeling results suggest that main gas generation in the northwest part of the
Arabian Basin took place prior to the middle Carboniferous uplift and erosion episode that
caused fracturing of the organic-rich shales, but gas loss has been negligible due to the seal-
ing effect of the overlying thick warm shales. In the east-central Arabian Basin, the Qusaiba

Copyright © 2017 by The American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

DOI: 10.1306/13602023M1143699

13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 1 14/11/17 3:34 PM

 2 İNAN ET AL.

shales reached peak gas generation maturity in the Tertiary, and present-day burial depths
and temperatures are at, or very close to, maximum throughout the burial history, which en-
hanced the preservation of gas in the Qusaiba shales.
Although this study has focused on shale gas potential, our results suggest that Qusaiba
hot shales, and to some extent the overlying warm shales, have also great potential for shale
oil resources in the wider area where the Qusaiba shales are found at oil generation maturity
level.

INTRODUCTION mechanism of gas storage (free gas vs. adsorbed gas)

In conventional oil and gas exploration, the tar-
gets are the hydrocarbons that have left the source
rocks and accumulated in porous reservoir rocks
that are contained in conventional traps. Explo-
ration for unconventional hydrocarbons targets
hydrocarbons (oil and/or gas) that have been gen-
erated and retained in the source rock; in this case,
the source rock is also the reservoir for the hydro-
carbons it has generated. Source rocks of shale and
/or carbonate lithologies are explored for oil and/or
gas depending on the thermal maturity level of the
source rock(s). Commercial production of hydrocar-
bons from low-porosity and ultralow permeability
rocks requires more than finding organic carbon-rich
rocks and fracturing them (Alexander et al., 2011).
A thorough assessment based on two interdependent
but seemingly separate groups of properties, namely
(1) the shale gas reservoir quality and (2) the shale
gas production/completion quality, is required. For
economic success, obviously a given shale unit must
hold both qualities.
Based on a study of three U.S. shale basins (Bak-
ken, Eagle Ford, and Niobrara), Pathak et al. (2014)
noted that porosity, permeability, total organic carbon
(TOC) content, thickness, brittleness, composition,
and maturity of shales are all important in the gen-
eration and retention of hydrocarbons. Factors such
as depositional environment, uplift and burial, prox-
imity to porous media, presence of natural factures,
and reservoir pressure distribution over geologic time
affect the ability of shales to retain hydrocarbons and
become economically important reservoirs. Gas gen-
eration depends on the organic matter content of the
shale and its maturity (Hill et al., 2007; Milliken
et al., 2013). The gas may exist as free gas in rock
matrix and/or fracture porosity as well as adsorbed
within the nanopores of the organic matter (Curtis,
2002; Loucks et al., 2009; Hao et al., 2013; Milliken
et al., 2013); the relative proportions of each is
­c ritical for successful assessment of eventual gas
content (Chalmers and Bustin, 2008). The dominant
in a thermally mature shale is primarily a function
of burial history (O’Connor et al., 2014); whether the
shale has been uplifted and fractured after gas gener-
ation is very critical. The presence of natural fractures
and reservoir pressure distribution over geologic
time affect the ability of shales to retain hydrocarbons
and be economically productive reservoirs (Pathak
et al., 2014).
The principal objective of this study is to demon-
strate the usefulness of a basin modeling tool in stud-
ies for assessment of shale gas potential as modeling
incorporates all key variables that are known to affect
shale gas reservoir quality. We first revisit and discuss
Qusaiba hot shales’ key variables based on benchmark-
ing properties of world-class gas-sorbed reservoirs
(e.g., Barnett shales of Fort Worth Basin, Texas, U.S.A.)
considered to be affecting the eventual shale gas poten-
tial. We then focus mainly on evaluation of the role of
burial history and adjacent lithology on shale gas po-
tential by using the basin modeling approach. Then
we compare and contrast two different areas of the
Arabian Basin (the northwest and the east-central) in
terms of their distinct geological histories and evalu-
ate various conditions to estimate gas potential in each
area by using a basin modeling software (PetroMod©
2-D software suite v.2013.1, Schlumberger). Finally, we
use the results from the modeling to critically evaluate
the relationships between geological history, matura-
tion, hydrocarbon generation, and retention trends for
shale gas plays.
BASIN MODELING APPROACH
This study has focused on the utilization of petroleum
system and basin modeling approach to achieve quan-
titative (or rather semiquantitative as limitations exist
in basin modeling simulations) assessment of shale
gas potential of the Silurian Qusaiba hot shale based
mainly on comparisons of spatial variations of shale
gas potential with varying adjacent lithologies and
burial history scenarios.

13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 2 14/11/17 3:34 PM

 A Petroleum System and Basin Modeling Study of Northwest and East-Central Saudi Arabia 3
The basin modeling approach provides a determin-
istic integrated approach for reconstruction of burial
histories taking into account effective stress-driven
mechanical compaction of sedimentary layers during
burial (and uplift and erosion during basin inversion).
Determination of thermal history is conducted by in-
version of present-day thermal maturity of source rock
organic matter to optimize (best-fit) paleo-heat flow
estimations. With the dynamic forward modeling ap-
proach, geological processes in sedimentary basins such
as petroleum generation, adsorption, expulsion, migra-
tion, and accumulation based on tectonic evolution of
the basin and the source rock maturation can be better
understood over geological time periods. Moreover, the
basin modeling provides opportunities for testing dif-
ferent geological scenarios especially if a given basin
has undergone many episodes of burial and inversion
(Yalcin et al., 1997; Hantschel and Kauerauf, 2009).
We performed numerical modeling using the
­PetroMod © software suite v.2013.1 (Schlumberger).
The simulation starts with the deposition of the old-
est layer and continues until the present-day geome-
try is reached. During simulation, various geological,
geochemical, and petrophysical processes are handled
and updated at each defined time step and for each
model grid cell. This simulation takes into account
mechanical compaction, porosity reduction, and pore
pressure calculations. Subsurface temperature calcu-
lations are based on pre-assumed basal heat flow and
dynamic values of thermal conductivities that are com-
puted by taking into account the thermal conductivity
of rock matrix and pore-filling fluid. Once the tem-
perature evolution of all sedimentary layers has been
confidently established (by comparing measured vs.
calculated maturity as well as present-day model
calculations vs. measured bore hole temperatures),
modeling of hydrocarbon generation for organic-rich
source rocks can be achieved based on Arrhenius law
kinetics using a source-rock-specific kinetic data set
or any other option from the modeling archive that
is considered to be sufficiently representative to the
source rock under investigation (Yalcin et al., 1997;
Hantschel and Kauerauf, 2009).
In modeling, as the oil and/or gas is generated
from a source rock(s), following temperature his-
tory, oil expulsion, migration, retention, and cracking
to gas, calculations are calculated for each geologi-
cal time step. As far as investigating the potential
of a shale source rock is concerned, it is very critical
that careful selections of the governing physical laws
and assumptions are made because these options
will later determine the final quality of the reservoir.
In the modeling exercise, we followed the option of
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 3
oil retention within the residual kerogen network.
Accordingly, the adsorption potential (0.1 g gener-
ated hydrocarbons [HCs] per gram TOC equivalent
to 10% of the remaining TOC) applies to sum of all
components generated (Pepper and Corvi, 1995). In
the applied model, all HCs in excess of 10% of the
remaining TOC will be expelled into inorganic pore
/fracture volume, and that cracking of the adsorbed
HCs (only the liquid compounds from C 6 onward)
with increasing temperature results in the generation
of methane by secondary cracking. As the modeling
takes into account formation of organic matter poros-
ity with increasing maturation, this creates more vol-
ume for the gas generated (from kerogen or cracked
from oil) to be stored. Organic porosity becomes volu-
metrically significant only at advanced stage of ma-
turity and plays an important role for gas adsorption
(Curtis, 2002; Milliken et al., 2013). The model also al-
lows inputting Langmuir adsorption capacity for the
source rock (determined for a source rock sample of
known maturity at its subsurface pressure and tem-
perature conditions) so that available gas can be ad-
sorbed (up to adsorption capacity) within the source
rock provided that formation pressure is adequately
high. Ideally, modeling should account for and recal-
culate adsorption capacity based on changes in sub-
surface temperature or moisture. However, modeling
is capable of only adjusting adsorption capacity for
residual TOC. Therefore, adsorbed gas calculations
of modeling can be viewed at best as qualitative. In
any case, modeling considers the generated gas as ad-
sorbed gas up to the adsorption capacity and when
the generated gas exceeds this capacity, only then the
excess gas is considered as free gas in the inorganic
void space. Depending on the subsurface pressure
and temperature conditions, modeling may over-
estimate one gas type or the other. However, these
assumption-based calculations and definitions of ad-
sorbed and free gas will not cause significant errors in
calculation of the total gas content, which is the sum
of adsorbed and free gas.
The examples provided above show that capability
of recent modeling software(s) have been improved to
such an extent that they are now also useful tools for
assessments of unconventional resources. The possi-
ble shortcomings always exist in basin modeling, as
is the case for any other modeling process. The suc-
cess or even relevance of the modeling exercise and
its results will no doubt depend on (1) the quality of
input data, (2) the success and sufficiency of model
calibration by measurements, and (3) the success of
mathematics describing and handling the physical
processes.
14/11/17 3:34 PM
 4 İNAN ET AL.
THE SILURIAN QUSAIBA SHALES IN THE ARABIAN
BASIN: GEOLOGICAL SETTINGS AND PETROLEUM
SYSTEMS
Geological Settings
The geological history of the Arabian Basin, which is a
part of the Arabian Plate (Figure 1), has been discussed
in detail (e.g., Powers et al., 1966; McGillivray and Al-
Husseini, 1992; Alsharhan and Nairn, 1997; Wender
et al., 1998; Al-Hajri and Owens, 2000; Al-Husseini,
2000; Konert et al., 2001; Sharland et al., 2001; Ziegler,
2001; Faqira et al., 2009; Cantrell et al., 2014 and refer-
ences cited therein). Therefore, only a brief summary
will be presented in this chapter, and for details the
reader is referred to previous publications. The main
tectonic phases that shaped the Arabian Plate include:
• Precambrian (formation of the basement)
• Ordovician-Silurian Glaciation and Deglaciation
(Qusaiba shales source rocks deposition)
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 4
• Late Devonian to the early Carboniferous (Hercyn-
ian Orogeny structural event)
• Late Permian through the Jurassic Zagros Rifting
(Gondwana supercontinent fragmentation and
drift of the Arabian Plate to the equator with a
­favorable source and reservoirs pairs development)
• Middle to Late Cretaceous (closure of the Neo-
Tethys and the rejuvenation of Hercynian structures)
• Tertiary Zagros Orogeny (tilt of the Arabian Plate
and Zagros thrusting)
As evidenced from the sedimentary succession
(Figure 2), throughout the Paleozoic era, clastic con-
tinental and shallow-marine sedimentation prevailed
on a stable passive margin on the northeastern Gond-
wana. The Hercynian events of the Carboniferous af-
fected the area, creating regional uplift, widespread
erosion, and basement tectonism due to rejuvenation
of the preexisting weaknesses in the basement (Konert
et al., 2001). From the Permian to the Eocene, the area
was a broad stable passive margin where the deposi-
tion of mainly shallow-water carbonates with minor
Figure 1. Oil and gas fields in
the Arabian Plate and distribu-
tion of Silurian Qusaiba shales
beneath Hercynian unconformity
(after Faqira et al., 2009). MA-I
and MA-II show the two areas
selected for a 2-D basin mod-
eling study. The Unayzah fields
contain oil sourced by Qusaiba
shales.
14/11/17 3:34 PM
 A Petroleum System and Basin Modeling Study of Northwest and East-Central Saudi Arabia 5
anhydrites and shales occurred (Cantrell et al., 2014).
Since the Oligocene, the northeastern part of the ba-
sin has been undergoing shortening as a consequence
of collision of the Arabian Plate with Laurasia (Zagros
Orogeny). The resulting flexure of the Arabian Plate
underneath the Zagros fold and thrust belt created a
wedge-shaped, low-angle (less than 2°) foreland basin
(Figure 3), that has been the site of mixed evaporitic,
carbonate, and clastic sedimentation.
With respect to the Paleozoic Petroleum System
(PPS), early Silurian time has prime importance due
to deposition of organic-rich (hot) shales in a large
shelf area of the Gondwana covering present-day
North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula (Klemme and
­U lmishek, 1991). Lower Silurian organic-rich (hot)
shales have generated about 80–90% of the ­Paleozoic
sourced hydrocarbons in North Africa and the ­Arabian
­Peninsula (Klemme and Ulmishek, 1991). The lower
hot shales, of the Qusaiba Formation of the ­Qalibah
Group in Saudi Arabia, are major source rocks of the
­Paleozoic oil and gas accumulations in the Arabian
Peninsula (Alsharhan and Nairn, 1997). In most cases,
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 5
Figure 2. Generalized pre-
Mesozoic stratigraphic
column for (A) northwest
and (B) east-central Saudi
Arabian Basin.
the shales were deposited directly above upper Ordo-
vician periglacial sandstones during the initial early
­Silurian transgression that was a result of the melting
of the late Ordovician ice cap (Luning et al., 2000).
Petroleum Systems
Recently, Cantrell et al. (2014) reviewed the Tethyan
Petroleum Systems of Saudi Arabia where they de-
scribe two major petroleum systems: the PPS related
to the Paleo-Tethys and a Mesozoic Petroleum System
(MPS) associated with the Neo-Tethys (Figure 4). The
elements of the two petroleum systems (e.g., source,
reservoir, and seal characteristics) show signifi-
cant differences. The PPS is siliciclastic-dominated,
whereas the MPS is carbonate-dominated. These two
petroleum systems are separated in geological time
by the closure of the Paleo-Tethys and the amalga-
mation of Pangea, followed by subsequent breakup
of Pangea and opening of the Neo-Tethys (Cantrell
et al., 2014).
14/11/17 3:34 PM
 6 İNAN ET AL.
Figure 4. Petroleum systems of the Arabian Basin (modified
after Cantrell et al., 2014).
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 6
Figure 3. Sedimentary ­succession
and generalized structure in
the east-central Arabian Basin
­(modified from Konert et al.,
2001).
The key elements of the MPS are shown in Figure 4.
The MPS contains the Jurassic Hanifa and Tuwaiq
Mountain Formations as the principal source rocks,
with an average resident TOC content of about 3.5 wt.%,
and sometimes as high as 14.3 wt.% (Cantrell et al.,
2014). The reservoirs extend from the Middle Jurassic
to Upper Cretaceous carbonates (the major reservoir
being the Arab Formation). Regional seals are provided
by Arab anhydrites and the evaporitic Hith Formation.
The MPS has been previously discussed in detail (e.g.,
Carrigan et al., 1994; Cole et al., 1994; Cantrell et al.,
2014), and so it will not be dealt with any further in this
chapter.
Paleozoic Petroleum Systems: A summary of the
PPS is shown in Figure 4. This petroleum system
contains the basal Silurian Qusaiba hot shale, and to
a lesser extent the Qusaiba warm shales, as its princi-
pal source rocks, with reservoirs extending from the
­Ordovician to the early Triassic. Seals occur at differ-
ent stratigraphic levels, with the evaporitic ­S udair
­F ormation of the early Triassic age serving as the
­regional top seal of the PPS. Hanadir and Ra’an shales
of the Ordovician Qasim Formation may also present
some source potential.
Source Rocks: Although several intervals of fine clastics
(e.g., shales and mudstone) are potential source rocks of
various organic richness, the basal hot shale member of
the Qusaiba Formation of the Qalibah Group (Figure 2)
shows a basin-wide occurrence (­ Figure 1) and is organic
rich (Cole et al., 1994). ­Termination of glaciation at the
14/11/17 3:34 PM
 A Petroleum System and Basin Modeling Study of Northwest and East-Central Saudi Arabia 7
end of the Ordovician resulted in a major sea-level rise
during the early Silurian time, leading to deposition of
the upward-coarsening progradational Qalibah Group.
This rapid transgression caused displacement of earlier
shallow marine s­ iliciclastics and resulted in the deposi-
tion of organic-rich sediments within anoxic intra-shelf
­d epressions of the northern Gondwana (Jones and
Stump, 1999). As these intra-shelf depressions were
filled with anoxic sediments, more oxic depositional
environment led to a widespread deposition of warm,
organic-lean shales of the Qusaiba Formation (­Luning
et al., 2000). The organic-rich basal hot shale of the
Qusaiba Formation is best developed in the subsurface
of east-central Saudi Arabia, as well as in the north-
west Saudi Arabia, and has an average TOC content
of about 5 wt.%, with maximum values as high as
20 wt.% (Cole et al., 1994). Several Paleozoic oil and
gas fields in Saudi Arabia are known to have been
sourced from the basal Qusaiba hot shale (AbuAli
et al., 1991, 1999; Mahmoud et al., 1992; McGillivray and
Al-Husseini, 1992; Cole et al., 1994; Jones and Stump,
1999). This hot shale unit contains type II amorphous
organic matter, with graptolite and chitinozoans, and
ranges in thickness from 10 to 250 ft (3–70 m) as given
by Mahmoud et al. (1992), Wender et al. (1998), AbuAli
et al. (1999), and AbuAli and Littke (2005). Within the
Qusaiba Formation, a thick sequence of nonradioac-
tive, light to medium gray shale overlies the basal hot
shale. This lean shale still contains poor to moderate or-
ganic richness (up to a few weight percent TOC) with
mixed oil and gas potential (Cole et al., 1994), and due
to its thickness, it can also be a volumetrically impor-
tant source rock for hydrocarbon resources in Saudi
Arabia.
Reservoir Rocks: The main reservoirs of the PPS
are the sandstones of the Devonian Jauf Formation,
­sandstones of the Permian Unayzah Formation, and
carbonates of the Permian Khuff Formation (Fig-
ure 2). The Ordovician Sarah Formation, underlying
the ­regional Qusaiba hot shale source rock, consists
mainly of fine- to coarse-grained sandstone sequences
of ­g lacial and glacio-fluvial origin. The formation
is widely distributed in central and northwestern
Saudi Arabia. Cantrell et al. (2014) has noted that
pre-Qusaiba clastics (e.g., Sarah sandstones) are gen-
erally considered to be tight due to advanced diagen-
esis, particularly cementation by quartz overgrowths,
which has reduced reservoir quality.
Seal Rocks: The PPS contains a number of regional
seals. The pre-Qusaiba reservoirs (e.g., the late
­Ordovician Sarah sandstone Formation) are sealed by
the overlying Lower Silurian Qusaiba hot shale. The
major regional seals for the Unayzah reservoirs are
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 7
the transgressive shales and carbonates of the basal
Khuff Formation. The Khuff reservoirs are sealed by
the evaporite members associated with each carbonate
cycle, and the fine clastics of the Sudair Formation are
a regional seal for the PPS (Figure 2).
Petroleum Generation and Entrapment: Previous pe-
troleum system and basin modeling studies of the PPS
of the east-central part of the Arabian Basin (AbuAli
et al., 1999; AbuAli and Littke, 2005) suggested that
maturation and oil generation from the Qusaiba
­b asal hot shales commenced as early as the Trias-
sic. ­Accordingly, early oil expulsion began at about
210 Ma (Triassic), with peak oil expulsion occurring at
about 152 Ma (Late Jurassic) and peak gas expulsion at
about 140 Ma (Early Cretaceous) (Figure 4).
Based on modeling results, hydrocarbon expulsion
from the Silurian hot shale postdated the main phase
of trap formation during mid-Carboniferous basin in-
version in east-central Saudi Arabia (Figure 4).
The Silurian Qusaiba shales, mainly basal hot
shales and possibly, in a limited manner, the overlying
warm shales, owing to organic richness and favora-
ble ­maturity both in the northwest and east-central
­Arabian ­Basin, have sourced Paleozoic oil and gas res-
ervoirs and lately have been considered potential tar-
get for unconventional resources. Therefore, the PPS is
the main subject of this study.
Characteristics of the Qusaiba Shales
The Qusaiba Formation exists across a large part of
east-central Arabia as well as northwest Arabian B
­ asin
(Figure 1). The Qusaiba Formation contains organic-
rich hot shale at its base with a thickness from 10
to 250 ft (3–70 m), which is overlain by organic lean
shales varying from a few hundred feet to a few thou-
sand feet in thickness (Cole et al., 1994; Jones and
Stump, 1999). The basal Qusaiba shales have gen-
erated the oil and gas found in the east-central Ara-
bian Paleozoic fields (AbuAli et al., 1999; AbuAli and
Littke, 2005). The oil in the Permian Unayzah/Khuff
reservoirs in the east-central Arabia was derived from
a type II kerogen (mainly amorphous) of the Qusaiba
shales and oil entered the Unayzah/Khuff reservoirs
mainly through a combination of lateral migration
and vertical migration through faults (AbuAli et al.,
1999; AbuAli and Littke, 2005).
Key Factors of Shale Gas Reservoir Quality: A com-
plete evaluation of the gas potential of the base hot
shale unit of the Silurian Qusaiba Formation of the
Qalibah Group of the Arabian Basin must take into
account various factors as depicted in Figure 5A and B,
14/11/17 3:34 PM
 8 İNAN ET AL.
and Saudi Aramco has started a multidisciplinary
integrated approach for related works. In this study,
only the geologic features that control the gas reten-
tion and the present-day gas content of the Q ­ usaiba
shales will be discussed and compared for two
­regions in the Arabian Basin, namely the northwest-
ern province and east-central province to exemplify
(1) deep burial and gas generation followed by major
­uplift and (2) deep burial and gas generation with mi-
nor uplift, respectively. The first province (northwest)
is an analog for many Paleozoic basins in the world
where source rocks have been matured, g ­ enerated
­hydrocarbons, and later uplifted due to basin inver-
sion. Examples are the European Baltic ­Basin, Amer-
ican Forth Worth Basin, Appalachian Basin, and
Williston Basin. The second province (east-central
Arabian Basin) is analogous to the Gulf of Mexico
­Basin where Haynesville and Bossier shales have been
deeply buried and matured and present-day burial
depths and temperatures are at their peak throughout
burial and temperature history.
As shown in Figure 5A, key variables for shale gas
reservoir quality include (1) TOC content, (2) gas ther-
mal maturity, (3) basin inversion, (4) porous facies in
shale package, (5) burial rate/porosity, (6) HC genera-
tion history, (7) kerogen type, and (8) intra-kerogen
porosity/surface area. For all parameters, higher is
better except for basin inversion; no inversion is the
most favorable. Another exception is the timing of gas
generation, which shows that early gas generation in
burial history is least favorable and late gas genera-
tion is more favorable. Kerogen type cannot be clas-
sified as low or high, and it is shown in Figure 5A;
type III ­kerogen is the most favorable in terms of gas
generation. Key variables have been compiled for the
successful shale gas play, the Barnett Shale, of the Fort
Worth Basin (Texas, U.S.A.) from published litera-
ture (e.g., Curtis, 2002; Montgomery et al., 2005; Hill
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 8
Figure 5. Key factors to be con-
sidered in shale gas reservoir
quality (A) and shale gas comple-
tion quality assessment (B). The
properties of the Barnett shales,
successful gas producers in Texas,
have been collected from the
literature and are superimposed;
see the text for discussion.
et al., 2007; Jarvie et al., 2007; Bruner and Smosna,
2011; Chalmers et al., 2012; Hao et al., 2013; Romero-
Sarmiento et al., 2013, 2014) and plotted on the dia-
grams (Figure 5A and B) for comparison.
The key variables for the gas reservoir quality of
the Qusaiba hot shale in the Arabian Basin are briefly
summarized in the following based on published data
as well as unpublished company reports.
Total Organic Carbon Content: The TOC content of
the hot shale (HS) unit at the base of Qusaiba shales
is up to 8–10 wt.% and up to 1–2 wt% in the overly-
ing warm shale (WS) unit, respectively (Cantrell et al.,
2014). The HS unit ranges in thickness from 10 to 210 ft
(3–70 m), and the WS unit ranges in thickness from a
few hundred feet to a few thousand feet.
Thermal Maturity: The basal hot shale unit of the
Qusaiba Formation ranges in maturity from margin-
ally mature to over mature in the east-central and
the northwest areas of the Arabian Basin. Marginal
­maturity is confined to small areas close to the basin’s
western margins, and in majority, the Qusaiba shales
are mature with respect to gas generation in both the
northwest and east-central basin (Cole et al., 1994;
AbuAli and Littke, 2005; Cantrell et al., 2014).
Basin Inversion: The Arabian Basin has been sub-
jected to several inversions of various importance.
The regionally most extensive basin inversion that
led to basin uplift and erosion is the mid-Carbonifer-
ous (Hercynian) event. This has been more important
in the margins of the east-central basin (northwest
of Ghawar; e.g., Al Batin Arch as shown in Figure 1)
where Qusaiba shales have been brought to the surface
and eroded (Faqira et al., 2009). To the southeast of this
arch (along the Ghazal-Nuayyim-Hawtah trend), the
Qusaiba shales are overlain directly by the Permian
14/11/17 3:34 PM
 A Petroleum System and Basin Modeling Study of Northwest and East-Central Saudi Arabia 9
Unayzah clastics postdating the unconformity. Along
Ghawar and east of Ghawar, the Qusaiba shales are
overlain by silty and shaly sandstones of the Sharawra
Formation and Devonian aged succession, and uplift
and erosion during the mid-­Carboniferous has been
limited (AbuAli and Littke, 2005; Faqira et al., 2009).
In the northwest, mid-Carboniferous uplift and ero-
sion has caused possibly gas-saturated Qusaiba shales
of high maturity to be uplifted in most of the area where
much of its cover was eroded. The same effect has been
reported from southern Jordan across the border to the
northwest area of the KSA (Naylor et al., 2013).
Porous Facies in Shale Package: In the east-central
basin, both Qusaiba HS and Qusaiba WS units contain
porous facies such as sandstone and siltstone inter-
bedded with shale dominated intervals (Senalp, 2010;
Cantrell et al., 2014), which may form hybrid reser-
voirs for the Qusaiba shales and mid-Qusaiba sands.
Raji et al. (2015) have recently reported on the impor-
tance of unconventional hybrid reservoirs for oil/gas
production from Kimmeridge Clay Formation.
Burial Rate/Porosity: Burial rate of Qusaiba shales
in the depo-centers of both the east-central basin
and the northwest province was high (Senalp, 2010),
probably leading to under-compaction and retention
of higher intergranular porosity. This high porosity
in the clay-/silica-dominated shale interval may pro-
vide more intergranular volume for gas to be stored
as free gas.
HC Generation History: Gas generation from the Qusaiba
shales deposited in the depo-centers of the northwest
area took place mainly during the late D ­ evonian–early
Carboniferous; this depositional e­ pisode was followed
by the Hercynian uplift and erosional episode that
brought the gas mature ­Qusaiba shales closer to surface.
In the east-central basin, the main gas generation from
the Qusaiba shales took place during the Mesozoic to
Tertiary (AbuAli and Littke, 2005), and (as will be shown
later in this ­chapter) the Qusaiba shales are at maxi-
mum or near maximum burial depths and temperatures
throughout their burial history.
Kerogen Type: Kerogen in the HS unit of the Qusaiba
shales deposited in anoxic intra-platform depressions
was probably algal/bacterial (type II), which later lost
identity and became amorphous by bacterial activity
(Cole et al., 1994); graptolite- and chitonozoan-rich
layers are not uncommon. The WS overlying the HS
unit also contains type II kerogen with the difference
that its deposition took place in more oxic condition
(Jones and Stump, 1999). Since during deposition of
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 9
the ­Qusaiba shales (Silurian) no land plants were pre-
sent, type III kerogen should not be expected.
Intra-kerogen Porosity/Surface Area: Intra-kerogen
porosity (organic porosity) and therefore surface area
for gas adsorption are expected to be high for both HS
and WS units of Qusaiba shales at high maturity lev-
els (e.g., the gas generation maturity stage). Nanopore
development related to hydrocarbon generation (oil
and gas generation and especially oil to gas cracking)
and expulsion is warranted for high TOC intervals.
Aramco unpublished data show, as expected, devel-
opment of organic porosity for gas window maturity
kerogen contained in the hot shales.
Key Factors of Shale Gas Completion Quality: As
far as shale gas completion quality is concerned, key
variables, as shown in Figure 5B, include (1) TOC
content, (2) anisotropy, (3) upper/lower stimulation
(fracking) barriers, (4) porous facies in the shale pack-
age, (5) burial rate/porosity, (6) preexisting (natural)
fractures, (7) formation pressure, and (8) brittleness.
For all p
­ arameters the higher is the better except up-
per/lower stimulation barriers, which we classify as
the thicker is most favorable. Some of these variables
have been already discussed above, and gas comple-
tion quality will not be dealt with any further because
the scope of this study is the shale gas reservoir quality.
TWO-DIMENSIONAL BASIN MODEL
General Input and Calibration
This modeling exercise has benefitted from previous
basin modeling studies in the study area (e.g., ­AbuAli
and Littke, 2005) and has been calibrated by using all
available corrected borehole temperature and matu-
rity data. Maturity data consisted of measurements of
vitrinite reflectance equivalent (VRE) deduced from
graptolite reflectance measurements (Goodarzi and
·
Norford, 1989; Cole et al., 1994; Inan et al., 2016) on
the samples obtained from wells shown on modeled
cross sections (A-A’ and C-C’) and vitrinite reflectance
measurements from rock units younger than Silurian
and Rock Eval Pyrolysis Tmax data for samples of all
ages. In some cases, VRE was calculated from Tmax val-
ues for younger rocks using %Ro 5 (Tmax 3 0.018) 2
7.11 (Jarvie et al., 2001).
Corrected borehole temperatures were used to cali-
brate model predictions of present-day temperature
gradients. Present-day and paleo-temperatures com-
puted for each layer takes into account the heat flow
input and matrix thermal conductivity value assigned
14/11/17 3:34 PM
 10 İNAN ET AL.

by the model for each layer based on user defined
lithology.
The kinetic of Sweeney and Burnham (1990) has
been used for maturity (%R o ) calculation in this
model. Estimation for eroded thickness(es) at major
unconformity(ies) was made for 1-D extracted mod-
eling by varying paleo-heat flow and paleo-burial
depth until a reasonable match was obtained between
measured and computed (predicted) maturity values
that successfully model the maturity jump across the
unconformity. After geologically reasonable eroded
thickness was obtained, then heat flow was again var-
ied to obtain the best match between computed and
measured maturity profiles.
Compaction trends are also used as calibration. The
simulation can run successively until the difference
between calculated and present-day thicknesses of
all layers is obtained to be within an acceptable range
(e.g., less than 1%).
Reconstruction of 2-D Geological Cross Sections
The basin structural evolution was reconstructed along
two geologically representative cross sections, A-A’ and
C-C’ from the northwest and east-central Arabian Ba-
sin, respectively (Figure 6). These cross sections were
prepared based on regional geological cross sections

Figure 6. Arabian Basin (A) and modeled areas along representative cross sections in northwest (B) and east-central areas (C).
SG 5 the Sirhan Graben in the northwest area that extends into Jordan. Letters are for the wells used in the modeling calibration.

13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 10 14/11/17 3:34 PM

 A Petroleum System and Basin Modeling Study of Northwest and East-Central Saudi Arabia 11
correlated and calibrated based on seismic and well
data. The models consist of different stratigraphic lay-
ers, covering a present-day depth interval from the top
of the sedimentary pile down to the Upper Ordovician
Sarah sandstones underlying the target Lower Silurian
Qusaiba shales; the dominant lithology for each forma-
tion/unit has been identified and marked respectively;
for example, the Qusaiba hot shales are colored black
(Figure 7). Age and lithology of each layer were inputted
by selecting appropriate lithologies provided in the soft-
ware. Cross section A-A’ (Figure 7A) extends about 600
km (373 mi) and the lateral grid spacing is 500 m (1640 ft),
whereas C-C’ (Figure 7B) extends approximately 350 km
(217 mi) and has been simulated based on grids spacing
of 500 m (1640 ft).
As the thickness of the Qusaiba hot shales and
overlying warm shales was inputted into section A-A’
and C-C’, values were taken from well data along the
sections. For parts of the section between calibration
wells, a thickness of 50 m (164 ft) was assigned for the
Qusaiba hot shales. Since they are present in greater
thickness, the thickness values for the Qusaiba warm
shales were picked up from regional geological cross
sections based on seismic imaging.
Source Rock Properties and Kinetics of
Hydrocarbon Generation
For the Qusaiba basal hot shale unit, initial TOC con-
tent and initial hydrogen index (HI) were inverted
from present-day values and were assigned as 10 wt.%
and 600 mgHC/gTOC, respectively in accordance
with the results of analysis of immature Qusaiba hot
shales and also considering the remaining TOC content
within gas mature levels reaching several wt.% TOC.
Present-day HI values range from 10 to 90% of the ini-
tial HI depending upon maturity of the shale across
the basin. Similarly, for the overlying Qusaiba WS unit,
initial TOC content and initial HI values were inverted
from present-day values and were assigned as 2 wt.%
and 300 mgHC/gTOC, respectively. Low HI for the
warm shale implies that the kerogen contained will
mostly generate gas upon maturation. In any event,
since the purpose of this study is to demonstrate geo-
logical control on present-day gas content of the hot
shales, assuming a single initial TOC value is justified.
Hydrocarbon generation was simulated using phase-
predictive compositional kinetic models option in the
modeling software, namely the kinetic model based on
Qusaiba shale kerogen (AbuAli et al., 1999) and type
II kerogen kinetics determined on ­Toarcian shale from
the Paris Basin (Behar et al., 1997). The kinetic model
of AbuAli et al. (1999) contains eight components
(methane [C1], ethane [C2], C3–C5 [propane-pentane],
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 11
C6–C14SAT, C6–C14ARO, C151SAT, C151ARO, and NSO).
On the other hand, the Behar et al. (1997) kinetic model
contains four components (C1, C2-C5, C6-C14, and C151).
Both kinetic models provide essentially very similar
predictions for hydrocarbon generation.
Expulsion and Migration of Oil and Gas
The modeling software employs a hybrid model, which
combines both Darcy flow and flow-path models for
simulation of fluid flow. Darcy flow describes multi-
component, three-phase flow based on relative permea-
bility and capillary pressure. The carrier and noncarrier
units are based on permeability and porosity thresh-
old (1022 milli Darcy permeability and 30% porosity).
Fluid migration through low-permeability, noncarrier
units is calculated assuming Darcy flow. ­Accordingly
permeability, saturation, viscosity, and time are taken
into account. Based on the flow-path model, migration
of fluids through porous and permeable carrier units is
assumed as instantaneous, and all fluids in a carrier are
moved to the structurally highest position or leaking
into the next sedimentary unit (Hantschel and Kauer-
auf, 2009). Primary migration of oil within and out of
the source rock is based on pressure-driven oil phase
migration taking into account the relative permeabil-
ity of oil that is assumed by the modeling to be effec-
tive at a threshold value as low as 5% oil saturation.
No threshold is assumed for gas, and it migrates out of
the source rock as soon as it enters interconnected inor-
ganic pore/fracture space. In this situation, lithology of
adjacent rocks become important because oil within the
source rock can only be held by means of sealing pro-
vided by impermeable underlying and overlying rocks.
This simplistic approach of modeling leads to calcula-
tion of very early oil migration out of the source rock,
almost as early as the oil is generated. Oil expulsion
from the source rock is very efficient and thus only a
fraction of generated oil resides (retained) in the source
rock to be cracked to gas at higher temperatures. Thus,
estimating shale oil and shale gas in place utilizing this
modeling software will always overestimate the expul-
sion and underestimate the hydrocarbons left behind
within the source rock. As a partial remedy to the prob-
lem of overestimated expulsion efficiency of oil from
organic-rich source rock, the following approach has
been considered in this study.
Oil expulsion is defined as its release from the
kerogen network into inorganic volume (Stainforth
and Reinders, 1990; Sandvik et al., 1992; Pepper and
Corvi, 1995). As summarized by Mann et al. (1997),
primary migration of oil within the source rock is a
result of successive processes: (1) generated oil is dif-
fused through the kerogen network (Stainforth and
14/11/17 3:34 PM
 12 İNAN ET AL.

Figure 7. Geological cross sections of A-A’ (A) and C-C’ (B) constructed for 2-D modeling from the northwest
and east-central Arabian Basin, respectively. Also shown are the locations of wells used for calibration. Note that
depths given in this and all following figures do not reflect real depths for proprietary purposes. Lettering is used
as legend for dominant lithologies. ss 5 sandstone; sh 5 shale; Jc 5 Jurassic carbonates (limestone, dolomite,
marl); cshss 5 cretaceous age shale and sandstone; dl 5 dolomitic limestone or dolomite; shss 5 shale and
sandstone; an 5 anhydrite.

13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 12 14/11/17 3:34 PM

 A Petroleum System and Basin Modeling Study of Northwest and East-Central Saudi Arabia 13
Reinders, 1990); (2) once adsorption capacity is over-
come, oil is desorbed from kerogen network (Sandvik
et al., 1992; Pepper and Corvi, 1995) into inorganic
pore network of the source rock; (3) oil starts to ag-
gregate and when a sufficient relative permeability
(saturation threshold) is reached; (4) oil starts to flow
within and out of the source rock. Here, internal pres-
sure (or overpressure) of the source rock is considered
to aid oil expulsion. Release of oil from kerogen seems
to be an important step because kerogen is reported
to sorb (by absorption 1 adsorption 1 physical trap-
ping) as much as 100 mg oil/g of TOC (Sandvik et al.,
1992). Pepper and Corvi (1995) calculated that sorp-
tion capacity of kerogen can reach up to 200 mg oil/g
TOC. On the other hand, some have reported that ex-
pulsion of oil from organic-rich source rocks is very ef-
ficient (Leythaeuser et al., 1984; Cooles et al., 1986). As
a result, we selected the kerogen retention option, and
delay of oil migration was achieved in the simulation.
The modeling software provides an option for in-
troducing retention of generated hydrocarbons by
kerogen adsorption/entrapment. This yields more
meaningful results as up to 10% of generated oil
(0.1 g HC/g TOC) can be allowed to be retained
/­entrapped within the remaining kerogen network
and get cracked to gas at higher burial temperatures.
An assumption is made that the entire components
generated behave uniformly with respect to the ad-
sorption potential of residual carbon (remaining car-
bon after each stage of simulation).
Gas Storage in Shales
The gas is stored in shale source rocks mainly in two
forms, as adsorbed gas within the organic matter pore
space and as free gas in available intergranular pore
and fracture space as well as within organic pores. In
this context, modeling simulates inorganic ­porosity
through burial history based on effective stress and
resultant mechanical compaction. Organic matter
­p orosity is also calculated as a function of organic
matter maturation. It follows then that at the end of
each modeling simulation step, available volume for
gas within the organic and inorganic rock volume is
calculated. Gas adsorption capacity is considered by
the modeling software based on a modified Langmuir
model. In this context, a measured adsorption capacity
value (with measurement conditions representing sub-
surface pressure and temperature regime) is needed
for the source rock. Then the modeling simulates
­a dsorption capacity based on subsurface pressure,
temperature, and the residual TOC value throughout
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 13
the evolution of the organic-rich source rock. How-
ever, adverse effects of moisture on gas a­ dsorption
­capacity are not considered by modeling.
It is desirable that modeling calculations can be
compared with laboratory measurements of porosity
and gas adsorption capacities for a suite of samples
representing range of maturity. However, estimating
these shale properties in the laboratory is quite diffi-
cult and variable based on the measurement method,
and as far as shale gas adsorption capacity estimate
is concerned, organic porosity measurements are
still challenging (e.g., Chalmers et al., 2012; Curtis
et al., 2012; Romero-Sarmiento et al., 2014). For exam-
ple, ­helium, owing to its small molecular diameter,
is known to produce the highest adsorption capacity
for the organic matter–hosted nanopores. However,
this may not bear much relevance when hydrocarbon
gases are considered for adsorption.
Total methane storage capacity (MSC) includes gas
adsorption capacity, which depends on TOC content
as well as maturity of the shale source rock and availa-
ble pore space (both intergranular matrix porosity and
also organic matter pores) for free gas to accumulate.
MSC increases with increasing TOC and maturity as
the gas is mainly adsorbed on the nanopore network
within organic matter. Total methane gas adsorption
capacity measurements on shale source rocks (with
TOC contents between 1.2 and 5.3 wt.% and at gas ma-
turity level) from North America have been reported
to range from 12 to 74 standard cubic feet of meth-
ane gas per ton of rock (scf/ton) at 10,000 PSI (Heller
and Zoback, 2014), which were found to be compa-
rable with methane adsorption capacities (40 to 75
scf/ton at 10,000 PSI) r­ eported previously for Barnett
shales (Montgomery et al., 2005). European shales,
with higher TOC content (about 7.7 wt.%) and higher
maturities in the gas window, have been reported to
have methane adsorption capacity up to 275 scf/ton
at about 3600 PSI (Gasparik et al., 2014). Based on gas
adsorption experiments (the results of which cannot
be disclosed here due to proprietary reasons), meth-
ane adsorption capacity for Qusaiba hot shales are in
the same range as the ­American and European shales
for mentioned pressures. The gas content and the rela-
tive proportion of adsorbed and free gas depends on
the amount of gas generated and the total storage ca-
pacity (adsorbed gas 1 free gas) of the source rock. In
PetroMod© simulation, the accumulation of adsorbed
gas precedes that of free gas, which starts accumulat-
ing only when the amount of generated gas exceeds
the rock’s adsorption capacity. Although this is a de-
ficiency in modeling, the calculation of the total gas
content is not affected.
14/11/17 3:34 PM
 14 İNAN ET AL.
Heat Flow Analysis and Erosion Estimates
Thermal maturity of organic matter is a product of
paleo-temperature and geological time. In modeling, the
required temperature to drive maturity of (and hydro-
carbon generation from) a source rock can be achieved
by varying heat flow and/or burial depth within geo-
logically sensible limits. The best approach is to first
­focus on a best estimate of paleo-burial depth. After this
is reasonably constrained by available geological data
and a tectonic evolution model, then various paleo-
heat flow values can be tried in simulation to produce
­calculated maturity that best fit the measured maturity.
In this study, we followed this approach and we first
­estimated the thickness of eroded sections due to Middle
Carboniferous basin inversion episode, which was quite
significant in western Saudi Arabia (e.g., predicted due
to apparent dog-leg [jump in] depth-maturity trends).
To estimate erosional removal at the major ero-
sional unconformity that occurred during a mid-
Carboniferous basin inversion episode, we used 1-D
extractions from 2-D modeled sections A-A’ and C-C’
(Figures 8 and 9). After the apparent jump in maturity
profile was successfully accounted for by the model,
a reliable estimate eroded thickness of section was
achieved. We then varied the paleo-heat flow until
the entire maturity profile was fit by computed ma-
turity. There are many other erosional unconformities
in the sedimentary section, but these have been con-
sidered to have negligible effects on present-day ma-
turity of the Q­ usaiba hot shales (AbuAli and Littke,
2005). Corrected borehole temperatures were used to
calibrate present-day heat flow, which was computed
to be higher (75 mWm 22) than the paleo-heat flow
(60 mWm22) prevailing during the major maturation
and HC generation episode in northwestern Saudi
Arabia (that took place regionally prior to a mid-­
Carboniferous basin inversion). Previous basin mod-
eling studies (e.g., Cole et al., 1994; AbuAli et al., 1999;
AbuAli and Littke, 2005) confirmed that the major ero-
sional event took place during the mid-­Carboniferous
Hercynian orogeny, which is easily deduced from the
major discontinuity in the maturity-depth profiles
(e.g., jump in vitrinite reflectance equivalent maturity
profile in Figure 8). Naylor et al. (2013) reported simi-
lar broken maturity profiles from their study area in
Jordan. Quality estimations of the thickness of eroded
section during this uplift-erosion episode are very im-
portant for accurate burial history reconstruction and
matching the present-day maturities by varying paleo-
heat flow. Based on 1-D model extraction at the loca-
tion of Well S/R along the 2-D A-A’ modeling section
in the northwest and fitting the measured maturity
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 14
data with the predicted ones (Figure 8), we predicted
that the thickness of eroded section during Hercynian
unconformity was up to 2800 (meter × factor) based on
the assumption of maturity attainment when a paleo-
heat flow of 60 mWm−2 was assumed prior to uplift.
Varying paleo-heat flow will no doubt result in differ-
ent thicknesses of removal fitting the same maturity
value. However, the work of Naylor et al. (2013) on
the reconstruction of the thermal history of the Silu-
rian source rocks in Jordan (a few tens of kilometers
north of Well S/R), based on fission track and thermal
maturity data inversion, has calculated that the thick-
ness of removed section can reach 4500 m (14,764 ft)
for an assumed paleo-heat flow of 50 mWm 22 and
2000 m (6562 ft) for a paleo-heat flow of 90 mWm22, re-
spectively. It is clear that the obvious tradeoff between
assumptions of paleo-heat flow and eroded thickness
may yield many scenarios for paleo-heat flow and
eroded thickness values. A reliable value for an eroded
thickness can be obtained if a geologically consist-
ent paleo-heat flow value is fixed. We concluded that
a paleo-heat flow value of 60 mWm22 is a reasonable
assumption and any higher paleo-heat flow is not as
easily justified for early Paleozoic (Silurian-Devonian)
passive continental margin setting. Then, sensitivity
analysis revealed that a best fit between measured and
predicted maturity can be obtained when about 2800
(meter 3 factor) of eroded thickness is assumed for
location of Well S/R. About 3000 (meter 3 factor) of
Silurian-Early Carboniferous strata exist to the south-
east of the location where Hercynian erosion was not
as effective, lending support to our estimate of eroded
thickness at location of Well S/R. The thickness of the
eroded sections during the Hercynian unconformity
exhibits a varying lateral distribution along the sec-
tion A-A’ due to the differential burial/uplift history.
For example, the calibrated model based on a paleo-
heat flow of 60 mWm22 (during Silurian-Devonian)
predicts an eroded thickness of 1700 (meter 3 factor)
at the locality of Well SN (for locality of the well, re-
fer to Figure 8). However, a slightly higher heat flow
from 30 million years before present (Ma) was needed
to account for the present-day measured tempera-
ture profile (Figure 8). Therefore, a paleo-heat flow
value of 60 mWm22 was assumed from early Silurian
(about 440 Ma) to 30 Ma (similar to east-central basin
as we will discuss later), and the heat flow value was
increased sharply from 30 to 20 Ma and then gradu-
ally from 20 Ma to reach a present-day value of 75
mWm22. Recently, Naylor et al. (2013) conducted a
study on thermal evolution of the Silurian Mudawara
Formation (comparable in age, lithology, and source
rock characteristics to Silurian Qusaiba shales of this
14/11/17 4:11 PM
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 15
A Petroleum System and Basin Modeling Study of Northwest and East-Central Saudi Arabia 15

Figure 8. Computed temperature and maturity versus measured temperature and maturity based on 1-D modeling results of a well location (Well S/R) along section
A-A’ in the northwest area. The best fit for the maturity jump was achieved using a combination of 60 mWm−2 and 2800 (meter 3 factor) as thickness of the eroded
s­ ection. Paleo-heat flow was increased from 60 to 75 mWm−2 within the last 30 million years (Ma). Solid lines are computed and symbols are measured values.
Measured ­maturity data shown in symbols are not single values but rather an average of several measurements obtained from closely spaced samples.

14/11/17 3:34 PM
 16 İNAN ET AL.
study) in southern Jordan right across the border from
the Saudi Arabia. Higher heat flow values that are
predicted in our simulation for recent geological past
and the ­present day are in agreement with present-day
heat flow values reported by Naylor et al. (2013). The
present-day relatively high heat flow in the northwest
is justified by Miocene–­Pliocene volcanism and basalt
flow in the area (Naylor et al., 2013).
For the east-central basin, we revisited the earlier
­basin modeling work of AbuAli et al. (1999) and AbuAli
and Littke (2005) and found a paleo-heat flow value
close to 60 mWm−2 for the east-central basin (our section
C-C’). So our initial paleo-heat flow input was based on
AbuAli and Littke (2005) for east-central Arabia, and
then initial values were changed as needed to match
available temperature and thermal maturity (e.g., vit-
rinite reflectance estimated from graptolite reflectance
measurements as well as Rock Eval pyrolysis Tmax)
data. A basal paleo-heat flow was varied from 50 to 60
mWm−2, and it was found that 60 mWm−2 gives the best
fit between present-day measured and corrected bore-
hole temperatures, and model predicted temperatures as
well as predicted and measured maturity for well loca-
tion (W) extracted from 2-D C-C’ section (Figure 9). This
paleo-heat flow is quite reasonable and consistent with
world analogous passive continental margins including
the eastern part of the Arabian Plate (Davies, 2013). The
difference between the basal heat flow (at the base of
the sedimentary pile) and the surface heat flow is only
a few mWm−2, which accounts for the contribution of
the sedimentary pile in terms of radiogenic heat produc-
tion. It is worth noting that there is no significant jump
in calibrated thermal maturity (%Ro) versus depth pro-
file (Figure 9) and that can be taken as indication of less
significant erosional removal during mid-Carboniferous
basin inversion. We found that in the east-central area,
along the section C-C’, the thickness of eroded section
during the Hercynian unconformity does not exceed a
few hundred (meter 3 factor). In the north-central basin,
where the Hercynian arches developed (e.g., ­Al-Batin
Arch in Figure 1), the whole Devonian and most Silurian
sections were removed. Here, the Q ­ usaiba shales exist
­either beneath the unconformity surface or completely
eroded (Faqira et al., 2009). So, the basin inversion and
erosion was not as effective as it was in the northwest
province. Another interpretation could be that Qusaiba
shale maturity attained prior to basin inversion has been
reset in the east-central basin due to significant burial
during Mesozoic and Tertiary. However, considering
what is known about the basin structure in the east-
central basin, there is no convincing evidence for a major
disturbance between the pre-unconformity and post-un-
conformity sedimentary sections.
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 16
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Thermal Maturity Evolution
At the present day, the Qusaiba hot shale exhibits vari-
ations in lateral distribution of maturity due to the dif-
ferential burial history along the modeled sections A-A’
and C-C’ (Figures 10 and 11). In the northwest area
(section A-A’), Qusaiba shale maturity increases
from main oil generation maturity (about 0.8% Ro) in
the south-southwest to wet gas generation matu-
rity (,1.4% R o) in the north-northeast (Figure 10),
whereas in the east-central basin (section C-C’), matu-
rity i­ncreases from main oil generation maturity (about
0.7% Ro) in the west to dry gas generation maturity
(about 2% Ro) in the east (Figure 11). Maturity evolu-
tion of the sedimentary succession, and specifically of
the organic-rich Qusaiba shales, is shown in Figure 12
for three representative well locations, namely Wells
S/R and SN from 2-D modeled section A-A’ in the
northwest area (Figure 12A and B) and the Well W from
the 2-D modeled section C-C’ in the east-central area
(Figure 12C). From the burial history diagrams for the
selected sites in the northwest (Figure 12A and B), it is
clear that burial rate reached up to 300 m (3 factor)/Ma
during the Silurian and Devonian, but later in geologic
time, burial rate was significantly reduced to less than
100 m (3 factor)/Ma.
Accordingly, maturity level for oil and gas genera-
tion was attained at location of Well S/R (Figure 12A)
prior to Middle Carboniferous uplift and erosion and
maturity has been frozen since. At location of Well
S/N, which is about 250 km (155 mi) southwest of
Well S/R along the section A-A’, the Qusaiba shales
entered oil generation window maturity prior to mid-
Carboniferous uplift. However, maturity has been reset
and further increase in Qusaiba shale maturity, owing
to deep burial during the Tertiary, has evolved into the
gas generation maturity window (Figure 12B). Thermal
maturity evolution for the Qusaiba shales at the loca-
tion of Well W along section C-C’ in the east-central ba-
sin is depicted in Figure 12C. Accordingly, the critical
maturity for oil and subsequent gas generation was at-
tained between the Middle Jurassic and present.
Comparative maturity evolution of the Qusaiba
shales through time based on 1-D extracted modeling
of all wells along two 2-D modeled sections A-A’ and
C-C’ are given, respectively, in Figure 13A and B. The
present-day thermal maturity level of the Qusaiba
shales (along section A-A’) at well locations A, SA, and
K suggests a middle to late oil generation window,
whereas at well locations SN, S/R, and U, maturity
suggests a gas generation window. On the other hand,
14/11/17 3:34 PM
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 17
A Petroleum System and Basin Modeling Study of Northwest and East-Central Saudi Arabia 17

Figure 9. Computed temperature and maturity versus measured temperature and maturity based on 1-D modeling results of a well location (Well W) along section
C-C’ in Central Arabia. Constant heat flow of 60 mWm−2 was used. Solid lines are computed and symbols are measured values. Measured maturity data shown in
symbols are not single values but rather an average of several measurements obtained from closely spaced samples.

14/11/17 3:34 PM
 18 İNAN ET AL.

Figure 10. Maturity variation along section A-A’ in the northwest area. The maturity increases from south-south-
west to north-northeast. Predicted (computed) maturity provides a good match with measured maturity data.
Measured maturity data shown as symbols are not single values but rather an average of several measurements
obtained from closely spaced samples.

Figure 11. Maturity variation along section C-C’ in the east-central Basin. The maturity increases from west to
east. Predicted (computed) maturity provides a good match with measured maturity data. Measured maturity
data shown in symbols are not single values but rather an average of several measurements obtained from
closely spaced samples.

13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 18 14/11/17 3:34 PM

 A Petroleum System and Basin Modeling Study of Northwest and East-Central Saudi Arabia 19

Figure 12. (A) Maturity evolution of su-

perimposed on burial history curves of
formations intersected in Well S/R. This is
a 1-D model extracted at locality of Well
S/R from 2-D modeled section A-A’. The
Qusaiba shales attained maturity prior
to mid-Carboniferous uplift and erosion
and the maturity has been frozen since.
(B) Maturity evolution of superimposed
on burial history curves of formations in-
tersected in Well SN. This is a 1-D model
extracted at locality of Well SN from 2-D
modeled section A-A’. The Qusaiba hot
shales attained late oil generation matu-
rity prior to mid-Carboniferous uplift and
erosion. Renewed burial during the Late
Cretaceous to the Tertiary has resulted
in reset of maturity, and so increased the
present-day maturity to gas generation
level for the Qusaiba hot shales. (C) Ma-
turity evolution of the Qusaiba hot shales
(at the base of Qusaiba Formation) at
location Well W. This is a 1-D model
extracted at locality of Well W from 2-D
modeled section C-C’ in the east-central
Basin. The Qusaiba hot shales entered
oil generation window maturity during
Jurassic and gas generation window dur-
ing Middle–Late Cretaceous; maturity
increase has been continuing up to the
present day.

13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 19 14/11/17 3:34 PM

 20 İNAN ET AL.
along the western part of section C-C’, the Qusaiba
shales are at early to late oil window maturity (e.g.,
Wells H, S, and N in Figure 13B), whereas in the cen-
tral and eastern part of the section, the Qusaiba shales
are in a wet and dry gas window maturity level (e.g.,
Wells W and T in Figure 13B).
Considering Qusaiba shale maturity as discussed
above, it is safe to qualitatively assume that in areas
of high maturity (e.g., north-northeast half of sec-
tion A-A’ in the western area and eastern half of sec-
tion C-C’ in the east-central area), the Qusaiba shales
have more gas potential. For better estimation of
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 20
Figure 13 (A) Maturity evolution
of the Qusaiba hot shales at all
well locations shown on the
2-D modeled section A-A’ in the
northwest area. With the excep-
tion of location Well S/N (which
is in the Late Cretaceous–­
Tertiary Wadi Sirhan Graben),
the maturity of the Qusaiba hot
shales was attained prior to mid-
Carboniferous uplift and erosion
and the maturity has been fro-
zen ever since. The 0.65–1.35%
vitrinite reflectance maturity
(%Ro) range is taken to suggest
oil window maturity. (B) Matu-
rity evolution of the Qusaiba hot
shales at all well locations along
the 2-D modeled section C-C’ in
east-central Basin. The Qusaiba
hot shales entered oil genera-
tion window in the Jurassic, and
maturity increase has been
continuing up to the present
day. Qusaiba hot shales in the
eastern part of the section are
deeper and more mature (e.g.,
Wells W and T). A 0.65–1.35%
vitrinite reflectance maturity
(%Ro) range is taken to suggest
oil window maturity.
present-day gas content of the Qusaiba shales, we will
discuss the necessary conditions and modeling results
of this study in the next section.
Gas Retention in Shales and Effect of
Adjacent Rock Lithology
As shales are evaluated as gas reservoir rocks, it is use-
ful to keep in mind that most marine shales that were
deposited in an anoxic environment contain hydrogen-
rich type II kerogen (Tissot and Welte, 1984) and upon
14/11/17 3:34 PM
 A Petroleum System and Basin Modeling Study of Northwest and East-Central Saudi Arabia 21

maturation generate mainly oil. The organic-rich ma-
rine shales of the pre-Devonian age (like the Silurian
Qusaiba shales) lack terrestrial organic matter, and they
should be considered to be mainly oil prone. Therefore,
an existence of commercial quantities of gas within
a marine shale containing oil-prone H-rich kerogen
­almost certainly requires oil to gas cracking, which in
turn requires a barrier to flow overlying lithology to
seal and prevent escape of gas from the source rock.
If the oil is able to migrate out of the shale, then the
amount of oil that is retained, and so available for oil
to gas cracking at an advanced maturity level, could be
limited to what the organic matter network can retain.
For clay-rich shale or mudstone, oil retention capacity
of the source rock could be a little higher, which may be
related to mineral matrix affect in addition to the oil re-
tention capacity of kerogen network (I·nan et al., 1998).
The magnitude of gas retention in a shale source
rock, all other factors held constant, will largely
depend on whether the shale source rock is an open
or closed system in terms of fluid flow into its adjacent
rock layers. In this context, a conceptual model for
fate of generated oil in open- and closed-shale source
rock systems is depicted in Figure 14. A shale source
rock rich in oil-prone kerogen that behaves as an open
system (e.g., by being adjacent to porous and perme-
able rocks) will most likely be a very efficient oil ex-
peller (Figure 14A). Part of the generated oil will be
retained by the kerogen, but a great amount of excess
oil will be able to migrate out of the shale source rock.
The retained oil, which is in relatively small amounts,
will be cracked to gas at higher burial temperatures.
A closed-system shale source rock is depicted in Fig-
ure 14B. In this scenario, shale source rock is assumed
to be underlain and overlain by impermeable adjacent
rocks (e.g., yet another shale, tight carbonate, or at an
extreme case, a salt) and behaves as a closed system;
it has no fluid communication with adjacent rocks. As

Figure 14. A conceptual model for hydrocarbon generation with increasing maturity of a source rock contain-
ing mainly oil-prone kerogen. (A) Oil expeller (open system) source rock; (B) oil retainer (sealed) source rock.
Open source rock systems expel more oil, whereas closed source rock systems retain more oil.

13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 21 14/11/17 3:34 PM

 22 İNAN ET AL.

oil is generated, a great amount of it will be retained
both within the kerogen network and also within the
intergranular pore and fracture space because the oil
cannot migrate out of the shale source rock. Severe oil
to gas cracking is expected upon further burial tem-
peratures in this system. Only a small amount of oil
can be expelled due to microfracturing of the shale
and its immediate adjacent rock owing to pressure in-
crease involving kerogen to oil and oil to gas cracking.
The amount of gas retained in this system is expected
to be much higher compared with the open-system
shale source rock shown in Figure 14A.
Before discussing the 2-D modeling results on hy-
drocarbon generation, migration, retention, adsorp-
tion, and cracking, it is convenient to demonstrate
the effect of adjacent lithologies on the gas retention
within a mature Qusaiba hot shale. For this purpose,
we conducted a 1-D modeling at a hypothetical well
location (between Wells S/R and U) along section A-A’
(Figure 10) for testing different scenarios by varying
the lithology of underlying and overlying layers of
the Qusaiba hot shale for the same burial history (Fig-
ure 15). Figure 15A shows the burial and maturation
history of the shale where shale attains gas window
maturity prior to uplift and erosion episode. Among
three scenarios, the one assuming anhydrite overlied
the hot shales results in the highest gas content for the
shale (Figure 15C), which suggests that the oil gen-
erated within the hot shale was retained in the shale
by the overlying impermeable anhydrite (e.g., caus-
ing a closed system as shown in Figure 14B). Subse-
quent gas generation by oil to gas cracking was also
retained in the source rock despite major uplift and
pressure drop. Figures 15B and D shows that when a
permeable lithology (e.g., sandstone and limestone)
overlies hot shale, sealing will not be effective, gener-
ated oil will be largely expelled, and a little amount of
oil that is retained in the source rock will be cracked
to gas upon further maturation; eventually most of
the free gas will escape the system and the adsorbed
gas will also be mostly lost during uplift and pressure
drop. This exercise shows that overlying lithology is
important for retaining the oil/gas within the shale.
The Qusaiba hot shales are indeed overlain by warm
shales that have good sealing properties. The underly-
ing Sarah sandstones are known to be also tight due to
advanced diagenesis, and thus migration of hydrocar-
bons into underlying sandstones might have been also
minimal. Therefore, Qusaiba shale gas content must
have benefitted by the presence of relatively tight un-
derlying and overlying units that might have sealed
the hot shale and protected its gas despite major uplift

Figure 15. A gas retention test by 1-D modeling of Qusaiba hot shale at a hypothetical well between Well
S/R and Well U along section A-A’ in the northwest area. See text for discussion. Impermeable adjacent
rock lithology (e.g., anhydrite) seals the shale source rock and enables more gas to be retained. (A) Bur-
ial history curve with thermal maturity (computed vitrinite reflectance maturity) superimposed. (B) Gas
adsorption versus time, assuming that the hot shales are underlain and overlain by micritic limestone
lithology. (C) Gas adsorption versus time, assuming that the hot shales are underlain by sandstone and
overlain by anhydrite lithology. (D) Gas adsorption versus time, assuming that the hot shales are under-
lain and overlain by sandstone lithology.

13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 22 14/11/17 3:34 PM

 A Petroleum System and Basin Modeling Study of Northwest and East-Central Saudi Arabia 23
and pressure drop postdating the major gas genera-
tion episode.
It has been reported that adjacent tight lithology has
positively influenced the retention of high gas content
within the gas-producing Barnett shales. Bruner and
Smosma (2011) noted that gas production from Barnett
shales in the Fort Worth Basin (Texas, U.S.A.) are max-
imized in the northeastern section of the basin where
Barnett shales are overlain and underlain by limestone
formations, namely Marble Falls and Viola-Simpson
formations (depicted in their Figure 11). The overlying
lithology of the Barnett shales varies from the Marble
Falls limestone to conglomerates and sandstones of the
Atokas-Bends groups from north to south in the Fort
Worth Basin. Bruner and Smosma (2011) interpreted
these relatively high-seal potential formations to form
barriers to fracking during reservoir stimulations and
to lead to better gas production from the Barnett shale.
Our preceding discussion on the mechanism of seal-
ing for preserving gas within the shale seems to be
quite relevant for the successful case of Barnett shale.
We then speculate that where Barnett shales contain
economic quantities of gas, the overlying and underly-
ing low permeability formations have contributed to
sealing of the shales and preserving the gas despite a
basin inversion episode following major gas genera-
tion (Montgomery et al., 2005).
Basin inversion as mentioned earlier may result in re-
duction in shale reservoir pressure and may cause gas
loss. In this context, another geological scenario was 1-D
modeled to demonstrate the effect of adjacent lithology
on pore pressure evolution of the shale source rock dur-
ing major uplift. Figure 16 shows evolution of pore pres-
sure and shale fracture pressure for the Q
­ usaiba hot shale
through time for the same burial history but varying
overlying rock lithology. Figure 16A depicts the effect of
silt/sandstone overlying organic-rich Qusaiba hot shale
and predicts that pore pressure exceeds fracture pres-
sure (between about 280 and 250 Ma) and causes fractur-
ing of the Qusaiba hot shale toward the end of a major
uplift and erosion episode. This probably leads to loss of
free gas within the intergranular pore and/or fracture
space and also results in low content of adsorbed gas in
the hot shale. On the other hand, Figure 16B shows that
when hot shale is overlain by impermeable shale (in fact
Qusaiba hot shale is overlain by warm shale), which
acts as a barrier to m ­ igration of oil/gas out of the
source rock, uplift and erosion and induced fracturing
of the source rock does not have much adverse effect
on present-day gas content of the hot shale, suggesting
that sealed shale will retain its gas. It is worth noting
that, as shown in Figure 16B, pore pressure within the
Qusaiba hot shale is predicted to be higher than shale
fracture pressure for great part of the burial history
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 23
(from shallow burial times up to present day). However,
a relatively high gas amount is retained in the hot shale
due probably to sealing by the overlying warm shales.
On the other hand, the scenario shown in Figure 16A is
an open system (due to sandstone overlying lithology)
where oil is expected to expel efficiently, leaving behind
a small amount of oil that is cracked to gas. Moreover,
breaching of hot shale source rock seems to have taken
place between about 280 and 250 Ma and that must
have caused drain of existing hydrocarbons within the
source rock.
This simple test suggests that when shale has a per-
meability barrier, the adsorbed gas content is higher
despite probable microfracturing of the shale induced
during uplift where pore pressure exceeds fracture pres-
sure. O’Connor et al. (2014) suggested that during up-
lift of gas-sorbed shale, the confining (hydrostatic)
pressure decreases and the gas volume expansion leads
to increasing pore pressure that exceeds the fracture
strength of the shale causing microfracturing as shown in
Figure 16A. In such a case, the system will leak most of its
free gas provided that the shale is not sealed by an imper-
meable unit and total gas will mostly be equal to adsorbed
gas, which will turn out to be also low due to desorption
related to pressure drop. Qusaiba hot shales are known
to be overlain by thick warm shales, which normally are
expected to prevent the Qusaiba hot shales from complete
breaching and loss of gas as shown in Figure 16B.
Burial History Control on Shale Gas Potential
It is widely accepted that basin modeling predictions
are powerful in terms of reconstruction of compac-
tion, pressure, burial, temperature, and maturation as
well as hydrocarbon generation histories (Hantschel
and Kauerauf, 2009) of organic-rich rocks. However,
most, if not all, commercially available basin models
are not yet sufficiently accounting for gas sorption
/desorption mechanisms in low-permeability shale
rocks (Bruns et al., 2015). Therefore, modeling pre-
dictions on transport and retention of hydrocarbons
within shale source rocks should be considered with
caution (Bruns et al., 2015). Here, we summarize the
state of knowledge on the gas storage mechanism in
tight shales as we will later refer to these mechanisms
to evaluate results of our basin modeling study.
Generated gas within shale is stored within intergran-
ular pore space as free gas and as adsorbed gas within
organic pores. The adsorption process and ­organic
porosity creation are therefore related to the original
TOC, k ­ erogen type, and thermal maturity (Loucks
et al., 2009; Bernard et al., 2011; Curtis et al., 2012; Mod-
ica and Lapierre, 2012; Zhang et al., 2012; Hao et al.,
14/11/17 3:34 PM
 24
İNAN ET AL.

13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 24
Figure 16. Burial depth, formation pore
pressure, formation fracture pressure,
and gas content variation through time
for Qusaiba hot shale at a hypothetical
location in the northwest area. (A) Mi-
crofracturing of the hot shale is created
when pore pressure exceeds fracture
strength during uplift and erosion, re-
sulting in loss of free gas and, to some
extent, release of adsorbed gas due to
overlying permeable (siltstone/sand-
stone) unit. (B) Despite the same geo-
logical scenario as in (A) and high pore
pressure exceeding fracture pressure,
gas content of the shale remains high
due to the sealing effect of overlying im-
permeable shale layer.

14/11/17 3:34 PM
 A Petroleum System and Basin Modeling Study of Northwest and East-Central Saudi Arabia 25
2013; M ­ illiken et al., 2013). It has been shown that or-
ganic ­porosity increases with increasing maturity, due
to hydrocarbon generation and expulsion that creates
voids (e.g., ­nanopores) in the host kerogen. Milliken
et al. (2013) suggested that organic porosity decreases for
­organic-rich shale intervals because kerogen becomes
load-bearing and organic pores start to collapse. On the
other hand, Modica and Lapierre (2012) noted that or-
ganic pores do not bear loads due to their small size and
therefore do not compact. Although there are different
views on the survival of nanopores that host the adsorbed
gas throughout geological evolution, it is a well-known
fact that matrix porosity of shales decreases under ef-
fective stress by burial and also by stress-­insensitive
processes (Nordgård Bolås et al., 2004). About gas win-
dow maturity, most of the matrix pore space is elimi-
nated (Ding et al., 2012) and the organic pore volume
and, to a certain extent, microfracture volume in deeply
buried and/or uplifted shales become dominant (Hao
et al., 2013; O’Connor et al., 2014). The adsorption ca-
pacity depends on organic matter content (e.g., TOC)
and development of nanopore volumes, which starts to
­increase at maturity levels above 0.8% vitrinite reflec-
tance (e.g., for Barnett shales; Loucks et al., 2009). Ad-
sorption capacity decreases with increasing temperature
because adsorption of gas is lower at high temperatures
(Romero-Sarmiento et al., 2013). As an organic-rich shale
unit enters the hydrocarbon generation maturity win-
dow and starts to generate gas (directly from kerogen
or through oil-gas cracking), the gas will be adsorbed
in the available pore volume, and when the generation
exceeds adsorption capacity, the gas will be hosted in a
matrix and/or fracture volume of the shale as free gas;
the amount of adsorbed gas can be as much as half of
the total gas generated (Romero-Sarmiento et al., 2013).
If the shale is sealed (e.g., closed system) as Hao et al.
(2013) suggested, then the free gas will be retained as
is the case in continuously subsiding basins (e.g., Boss-
ier and Haynesville shales in the Gulf of Mexico Ba-
sin; O’Connor et al., 2014). Alternatively, the free gas
will generally be lost in uplifted old and mature basins
(e.g., Paleozoic basins that have undergone inversion;
O’Connor et al., 2014).
Factors such as burial, uplift, and presence/absence of
natural factures together with reservoir pressure distri-
bution over geologic time also affect the ability of shales
to retain hydrocarbons and be economically productive
reservoirs (Pathak et al., 2014). In a closed system, ab-
normally high fluid pressure (overpressure) would be
created by retardation of mechanical compaction due
mainly to fast burial (Ding et al., 2012) and stress-insen-
sitive diagenetic processes in shales (­ Nordgård Bolås et
al., 2004) such as clay mineral conversion, dehydration,
and hydrocarbon generation. The higher the TOC, the
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 25
more microfractures are generated, and the higher the
free gas enrichment. When post-gas generation uplift is
minimal, the generated over-­pressure is best preserved
and overpressured shale contains free gas (Ding et al.,
2012). When the basin undergoes inversion and shale is
uplifted to shallower intervals, pore pressure of the shale
may exceed the fracture strength of the rock and may
cause fracturing (Hao et al., 2013). At extreme uplift and
the resultant fracturing due to decreasing overburden
pressure, this mechanism may lead to gas undersatu-
ration of shales because the gas can escape the system
(O’Connor et al., 2014). Fractures are known to contrib-
ute to the formation of shale gas reservoirs because they
provide migration conduits and accumulation space for
gas and they help increase the total free gas accumula-
tion and desorption of adsorptive natural gas. A greater
number of microfractures developed in deeply buried
and matured organic-rich shales corresponds to rich gas
content. If the fracture size is too large, loss of natural gas
will occur (Ding et al., 2012; Hao et al., 2013). On the other
hand, if shale is not sealed because either it is thin or the
overlying unit is permeable, then shale cannot retain free
gas, and at best the gas it can hold will be equal to or less
than its adsorption capacity (Pathak et al., 2014).
To summarize, it is widely accepted that free gas can
escape the shale source rock (1) if the shale has expe-
rienced major uplift, (2) if it has been intensively frac-
tured, and more importantly, (3) if the shale is not sealed
by impermeable adjacent rock. But the adsorbed gas can
only leave the system during an extreme pressure drop
due to uplift of the shale from gas generation depths
to shallow burial depths (Hao et al., 2013; Romero-
Sarmiento et al., 2013). Therefore, burial history and the
adjacent rock’s lithology of the shale source rock seem
to chiefly determine (in addition to other critical fac-
tors such as organic richness and thermal maturity) the
ability of shales to retain economically significant gas.
In other words, the free gas lost from shales that have
experienced intensive uplift and erosion of overbur-
den rocks, postdating major gas generation, will result
in less economical present-day gas contents (Hao et al.,
2013; O’Connor et al., 2014; Pathak et al., 2014).
The geologic features that control the retention of
gas in the two areas of the Arabian Basin where the
shales have undergone different burial histories are in-
vestigated in the following section in order to estimate
gas potential for each.
Modeling Estimations of Shale Gas Potential
In 2-D modeling software, the adsorbed gas content dis-
played along the section for individual layers is actually
total gas (free plus adsorbed gas), and as we will show
14/11/17 3:34 PM
 26 İNAN ET AL.
later, the modeling results on gas content are affected
by many parameters; therefore, these values should not
be taken as definite and we recommend their use in a
rather relative sense for comparisons. Due to these re-
strictions, basin modeling results on gas potential (e.g.,
gas content) estimations of shales should be considered
with caution and need calibration possibly by mud gas
logging and well site gas desorption measurements on
pressured cores recovered from shales.
To demonstrate how model’s different results are
used collectively for gas estimation, 1-D modeling re-
sults from a hypothetical well location (about 25 km
[16 mi] west of Well W) extracted from the calibrated
2-D model (section C-C’) are plotted in Figure 17.
Multiparameter results illustrate the evolution of the
burial, temperature, and maturity as well as oil/gas
generation, methane generation due to secondary
cracking, and adsorbed (or rather total) gas contents
for the Qusaiba hot shale. Accordingly, Figure 17 can be
Figure 17. Results of 1-D model (at a hypothetical well location that is about 25 km [16 mi] west of Well W in Section C-C’)
showing temperature, maturity, oil and gas generation, oil to gas cracking, and gas retention through time for the Qusaiba hot
shale.
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 26
summarized as follows: burial depth and temperature
increase leads to steady increase in thermal maturity
until about 170 Ma when a rapid burial and tempera-
ture increase gave way to accelerated maturity and oil
generation from kerogen, which peaked at about 150
Ma (when Qusaiba hot shales were buried to more
than 4000 [meter × factor]). Generation of oil at these
relatively deep burial depths suggests that major stages
of diagenesis both in reservoir and source rock were
most likely completed prior to oil generation in the
source rock. Oil generation rate decreased as gas gen-
eration from kerogen (most probably from oil that was
retained within kerogen) increased and gas generation
reached its peak value about 125 Ma when about one-
third of the present-day gas content was accumulated
within the source rock. As temperature and maturation
continued to increase, oil to gas cracking advanced and
secondary gas production continued more or less un-
til the present, bringing the gas in place value to about
14/11/17 3:34 PM
 A Petroleum System and Basin Modeling Study of Northwest and East-Central Saudi Arabia 27

230 scf/ton. As shown in Figure 17, oil that was gener-
ated and accumulated within the source rock did not
leave the system (probably due to the positive effect of
overlying impermeable warm shale) and was mostly
cracked to gas as shale source rock organic matter ad-
vanced to higher maturity. Gas content that is displayed
as adsorbed gas is in fact total (adsorbed and free) gas.
This inference of inefficient oil expulsion form Qusaiba
hot shales is supported by the field observations that
suggest that Qusaiba-sourced oil accumulations are
found only where roof rocks have been eroded and
Qusaiba hot shales are directly overlain by carrier
/reservoir rocks in the east-central Arabian Basin.
Modeling results for total gas content for the Qu-
saiba hot shales and overlying warm (lean) shales
through time are shown for geological time slices
(representing critical moments for the organic-rich
shales in their geological history such as maximum
burial and temperature, onset of uplift and erosion,
reburial and maturity reset, etc.) in Figures 18 and 19,

Figure 18. Total (adsorbed and

free) gas potential of the Qu-
saiba shales through time across
section A-A’ in the northwest
area. Purple arrow shows the
location of 1-D burial history
curves (time scale is from 440
Ma to present). Red dots indi-
cate the geological time (with
respect burial history curve of
the Qusaiba hot shale) for the
section displayed. Note the gas
accumulations in the underlying
Sarah sandstones. (A) Modeling
results showing gas content of
Qusaiba hot shales and overly-
ing warm shales at 325 Ma.
(B) Modeling results show-
ing gas content of Qusaiba
hot shales and overlying warm
shales at 145 Ma. (C) Modeling
results showing gas content of
Qusaiba hot shales and overly-
ing warm shales at present. (D)
Modeling results showing gas
content of Qusaiba hot shales
and overlying warm shales at
present. For demonstration pur-
poses, the Sarah Formation has
been assigned a siltstone lithol-
ogy (see text for discussion).

13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 27 14/11/17 3:34 PM

 28 İNAN ET AL.
respectively, for the section A-A’ in the northwest area
and for the section C-C’ in the east-central basin.
In the northwest area, oil generation followed by gas
generation (by oil to gas cracking) from the Qusaiba hot
shales were maximum prior to the mid-Carboniferous
uplift and erosion (about 325 Ma), after which matura-
tion, and thus gas generation, was frozen for most of
the section (refer to Figure 13A for maturation history
curves of sedimentary layers at Well location S/R). It is
interesting to note what the model predicts for the lo-
cation of Well S/R, prior to the mid-Carboniferous up-
lift and erosion (about 325 Ma), which is a gas content
of about 100 scf/ton for lean shale overlying Qusaiba
hot shale and it also depicts gas migration out of shale
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 28
Figure 18. (continued)
Figure 18. (continued)
into the underlying Upper Ordovician Sarah sand-
stones. The gas content of the shales at well location
SN is much less due to insufficient burial and maturity
(Figure 18A). Figure 18B shows the gas content distri-
bution for 145 Ma and as expected the gas content has
dropped due to the preceding phase of uplift erosion
and cooling. Basin evolution during inversion might
have formed structural traps where gas migrated out
of the Qusaiba hot shales could have accumulated in
the underlying Upper Ordovician Sarah sandstone res-
ervoirs. Figure 18C depicts the present-day gas content
variation of the Qusaiba shales (both the hot shale and
overlying warm shales). At present, the shales (in this
case warm shales) with highest gas content seem to
14/11/17 3:34 PM
 A Petroleum System and Basin Modeling Study of Northwest and East-Central Saudi Arabia 29

Figure 19. Total (adsorbed and free) gas potential of the Qusaiba shales through time across section C-C’ in the
east-central basin. Purple arrow shows the location of 1-D burial history curves (time scale is from 440 Ma to
present). Red dots indicate the geological time (with respect burial history curve of the Qusaiba hot shale) for
the section displayed. Note gas accumulations in the underlying Sarah sandstones. (A) Modeling results for sec-
tion C-C’ showing gas content of Qusaiba hot shales and overlying warm shales at 132 Ma. (B) Modeling results
for section C-C’ showing gas content of Qusaiba hot shales and overlying warm shales at 65 Ma. (C) Modeling
results for section C-C’ showing gas content of Qusaiba hot shales and overlying warm shales at Present.
(D) Modeling results showing gas content of Qusaiba hot shales and overlying warm shales at present. For
demonstration purposes, the Sarah Formation has been assigned a siltstone lithology (see text for discussion).

13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 29 14/11/17 3:34 PM

 30 İNAN ET AL.
be present in the middle of the section (corresponding
to late Cretaceous-Tertiary graben) near Well SN (see
Figure 7) in addition to what the conventional Sarah
sandstone gas accumulation site model predicts. The
modeling results do not show meaningful a concentra-
tion of gas (only up to a few scf/ton) for the hot shale
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 30
Figure 19. (continued)
Figure 19. (continued)
units due probably to efficient expulsion of oil and
also migration of gas (formed by cracking of the small
amount of oil retained) into underlying sandstones and
possible into overlying fractured lean shale.
The model predicts, on the other hand, high gas
content, up to several tens of scf per ton for the lean
14/11/17 3:35 PM
 A Petroleum System and Basin Modeling Study of Northwest and East-Central Saudi Arabia 31
(warm) shales (Figure 18A–C). The higher gas content
of shales predicted by the modeling is quite interesting
from an exploration point of view and deserves some
explanation. The possible reasons for this occurrence
of high gas content in warm shales are (1) although the
warm shales are lean in organic (initial 2 wt.% TOC)
compared to organic-rich hot shales (10 wt.% TOC),
the warm shales are several times thicker than the hot
shale and they are assumed to contain partially oxi-
dized and therefore mainly gas-prone kerogen (a HI
value of 300 mgHC/gTOC is assumed), so the in situ
generated gas within the warm shales would be higher
compared with the hot shales, which are expected to
mainly generate oil upon maturation because of the
dominantly hydrogen-rich amorphous type kerogen
they contain; (2) since the organic matter is dispersed
in the warm shale (only 2 wt.% initial TOC), the gener-
ated oil was probably insufficient to form an organic
network that is a prerequisite for oil expulsion (Stain-
forth and Reinders, 1990), and so oil was cracked to
gas; (3) the warm shales are underlain and overlain by
shales; they have been sealed within impermeable lay-
ers, and so it is more likely that a smaller amount of
gas has left the warm shale system.
The Sarah sandstones are known to display low
porosity and permeability characteristics and are con-
sidered secondary reservoirs (Cantrell et al., 2014).
Therefore, to simulate this tightness, and just for the
purpose of demonstrating the effect of the lithology
of the underlying formation on the gas content of the
Qusaiba shales, we assigned a typical siltstone lithol-
ogy for the Sarah Formation. The modeling results
are shown for the present day in Figure 18D where
gas contents of the Qusaiba shales are higher. This is
partly due to less down-dip migration of hydrocar-
bons from Qusaiba shales into the underlying Sarah
Formation.
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 31
Modeling predicts a gradual increase of gas content
in the Qusaiba shale with geological time along section
C-C’ in the east-central basin (Figure 19A–C) and the
highest concentration is predicted for the present day
(Figure 19C). Again, modeling predicts gas accumu-
lation in the underlying Sarah sandstones, especially
in the western part of the section, suggesting up-dip
migration of hydrocarbons (e.g., oil and gas) from the
deeper parts of the basin in the east to shallower parts
of the basin in the west. The explanations provided
for the modeling results that predict high gas contents
for the warm shales in section A-A’ can also be offered
for the high presence of gas in the warm shale along
the section C-C’ in the east-central basin. Deepening
of the basin in the east and shallow burial in the west
seems to have created good juxtaposition of the Qu-
saiba hot shales and the underlying Upper Ordovician
Sarah sandstones, and that oil and gas expelled from
the Q­ usaiba hot shales have entered the Sarah sand-
stones and up-dip migrated toward west and accumu-
lated where stratigraphic and/or structural traps were
formed. The model clearly predicts a charge of oil and
gas from the hot shale into, and accumulations pos-
sibly underlying, the Sarah sandstone. As a last step,
to simulate this tightness, and just for the purpose of
demonstrating the effect of the lithology of the un-
derlying formation on the gas content of the Qusaiba
shales, we assigned a typical siltstone lithology for the
Sarah Formation. The modeling results are shown for
the present day in Figure 19D where the gas content
of the Qusaiba shales is higher. This is partly due to
limited down-dip migration of hydrocarbons from
­Qusaiba shales into the underlying Sarah Formation.
Figure 20 summarizes the oil and gas generation from
Qusaiba shales versus time along the sections from the
northwest and east-central basin. Qusaiba shales entered
a marginal maturity zone with respect to oil generation
Figure 20. Timing of oil and gas
generation from the Qusaiba
hot shale for different parts of
the Arabian Basin. Green bars
depict episode(s) for oil genera-
tion, red bars depict episode(s)
for gas generation. SG 5 Sirhan
Graben in the northwest area
(see text for discussion).
14/11/17 3:35 PM
 32 İNAN ET AL.
prior to regional uplift and an erosional episode during
Middle Carboniferous. The major oil generation started
in the east-central Arabian Basin where Qusaiba shales
were buried to great depths starting from the late Juras-
sic in the eastern part, and Early Cretaceous in the west-
ern part of the east-central basin. The Qusaiba shales
entered the gas generation window since the late Creta-
ceous in the deeper part of the east-central basin.
In the northwest area, oil generation from the
­Qusaiba shales commenced prior to the regional uplift
and erosional episode during the Middle ­Carboniferous
and in the north-northeast part of the basin where
Qusaiba shales were buried deep by deposition of
­Devonian and Lower Carboniferous units, gas genera-
tion maturity had already been attained. In the north-
west area, the maturity, and therefore hydrocarbon
generation from the Qusaiba shales, was frozen until
the Cretaceous where Qusaiba was buried under the
Jurassic to Tertiary sedimentary pile in the Sirhan gra-
ben (middle part of section A-A’, e.g., location of Well
SN in Figure 18C). In the rest of the northwest area, no
further maturation and related hydrocarbon generation
has taken place since the pre-mid-Carboniferous uplift.
Comparison of the present-day gas content of the
shales for different burial histories representing different
parts of the Arabian Basin is given in Figure 21. Natu-
rally, the east-central part of the Arabian Basin (no. 1 on
map in Figure 21), and especially where Qusaiba shales
are at economically producing depths (e.g., ,12,000 ft
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 32
[3658 m]), must be a good target for shale gas production
because at these depths (and maturity), the shales must
contain gas as modeling predicts (Figure 19). Here, inef-
ficient oil expulsion due to overlying warm shales must
have led to oil-gas cracking and retention of generated
gas. The northwest area also has potential for shale gas,
especially in the graben area (shown as no. 2 on map in
Figure 21) where partial loss of the gas that was gener-
ated prior to Middle carboniferous uplift and erosion epi-
sode can be expected. The modeling results for the NNE
part of section A-A’ in the northwest area show the least
gas potential at present as in this area relatively more gas
loss is expected due to more intense uplift and erosion of
the cover rock. In addition to shale gas, the 2-D modeling
study predicted for both parts of the basin, oil, and gas
migration into (and possible and accumulation within)
the underlying Upper Ordovician Sarah sandstones.
CONCLUSIONS
An evaluation of the Silurian Qusaiba hot shales in
terms of their potentials as gas-sorbed reservoirs have
been made by benchmarking their properties with
that of world-class gas-sorbed shale reservoirs (e.g.,
Barnett shales). In this context, two main factors,
namely burial history and adjacent rock lithology,
stand out to be very critical for present-day gas con-
tent of the shales.
Figure 21. Shale gas potential
estimates versus burial history
variation for the Qusaiba hot
(and overlying lean) shales in the
­Arabian Basin. OGG 5 onset of gas
generation. Time scales for burial
history curves are from 440 Ma to
the present day.
14/11/17 3:35 PM
 A Petroleum System and Basin Modeling Study of Northwest and East-Central Saudi Arabia 33
A 2-D petroleum system and basin modeling study
has been conducted to compare and contrast geologi-
cal histories (e.g., burial and/or uplift as well as litho-
logical variation of adjacent rocks) and their effects on
present-day gas potentials of the Qusaiba hot shales in
the Arabian Basin. The results obtained from the mod-
eling study of two areas, namely the east-central and
northwest part of the Arabian Basin, are generalized
to provide insights into the relationships between geo-
logical history, maturation, oil and gas generation, and
retention trends for shale plays.
We have shown that present-day gas content var-
ies based on the geological history of the Qusaiba hot
shales, as well as the lithology of rocks overlying and
underlying the Qusaiba hot shales. High gas contents
are estimated where impermeable adjacent rock lithol-
ogy (e.g., overlying warm shales) seals the shale source
rock and enables retention of generated oil. This seal-
ing continues to be effective for the retention of the gas
to be generated from oil cracking at higher maturities.
The fact that the organic lean warm shales overlie
the gas maturity hot shales across the basin, and gen-
erally at economically producible depths, makes the
hot shales world-class gas-sorbed reservoirs.
Deep burial and gas generation followed by major
uplift of the organic-rich Qusaiba shales in the northwest
area of the Arabian Basin probably has resulted in slight
gas loss because fractured organic-rich shales were over-
lain by thick warm shales that acted as a seal. Therefore,
success for finding gas-sorbed shales’ “sweet spots”
will largely depend on existence of adjacent migration-
barrier lithologies that will help preserve the gas within
the shale. This setting is analogous to Paleozoic basins
such as the European Baltic Basin, American Fort Worth
­Basin, Appalachian Basin, and the Williston Basin.
Deep burial and gas generation with minor uplift
of the organic-rich Qusaiba shales in the east-central
province has led to high gas potential in the east-cen-
tral Arabian Basin. This setting is analogous to the
Gulf of Mexico Basin where Haynesville and Bossier
shales have been deeply buried and matured, and
­present-day burial depths and temperatures are at their
peaks throughout the burial and temperature history.
Although this study has focused on the issue of
shale gas potential, our study clearly indicates that
Qusaiba hot shales, and to some extent also the warm
shales, embrace great potential for shale oil resources.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Saudi
Aramco) and the Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral
Resources for permission to publish this chapter. We
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 33
thank our colleagues at Saudi Aramco. We extend our
appreciation to Mr. Maher I. Al-Marhoon for his in-
terest and support for this study. We thank Mr. Hafiz
J. Shammery and Mr. Abdelghayoum Ahmed for their
comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
We appreciate the contributions from two anonymous
reviewers whose comments and suggestions greatly
improved the manuscript. We acknowledge the great
help and enthusiasm we received from the editors of
this volume. We finally thank the AAPG Technical
Publications Team Leader Miss Beverly Molyneux and
the production team for their excellent work.
REFERENCES
AbuAli, M. A., U. A. Franz, J. Shen, F. Monnier, M. D.
Mahmoud, and T. M. Chambers, 1991, Hydrocarbon
generation and migration in the Paleozoic sequence of
Saudi Arabia: Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE 21376,
p. 345–356.
AbuAli, M. A., J. L. Rudkiewicz, J. G. McGillivray, and F. Be-
har, 1999, Paleozoic petroleum system of Central Saudi
Arabia: GeoArabia, v. 4, no. 3, p. 321–335.
AbuAli, M. A., and R. Littke, 2005, Paleozoic petroleum sys-
tems of Saudi Arabia: A basin modeling approach: Geo-
Arabia, v. 10, no. 3, p. 131–168.
Al-Hajri, S., and B. Owens, 2000, Sub-surface palynostratig-
raphy of the Palaeozoic of Saudi Arabia, in S. Al-Hajri
and B. Owens, eds., Stratigraphic palynology of the Pal-
aeozoic of Saudi Arabia: GeoArabia Special Publication 1,
Gulf PetroLink, Bahrain, p. 10–17.
Al-Husseini, M. I., 2000, Origin of the Arabian plate struc-
tures: Amar collision and Najd rift: GeoArabia, v. 5,
no. 4, p. 527–542.
Alexander, T., J. Baihly, C. Boyer, B. Clark, G. Waters,
V. Jochen, et al., 2011, Shale gas revolution: Oilfield Review,
v. 23, no. 3, p. 40–55.
Alsharhan, A. S. and A. E. M. Nairn, 1997, Sedimentary ba-
sins and petroleum geology of the Middle East: Elsevier
Science B.V., Amsterdam, 843 p.
Behar, F., M. Vandenbroucke, Y. Tang, F. Marquis, and
J. Espitalié, 1997, Thermal cracking of kerogen in open
and closed systems: Determination of kinetic parameters
and stoichiometric coefficients for oil and gas generation:
Organic Geochemistry, v. 26, p. 321–339.
Bernard, S., B. Horsfield, H.-M. Schulz, R. Wirth, A. Schreiber,
and N. Sherwood, 2011, Geochemical evolution of organic-
rich shales with increasing maturity: A STXM and TEM
study of the Posidonia Shale (Lower Torcian, northern
Germany): Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 31, p. 70–89.
Bruner, K. R., and R. Smosna, 2011, A comparative study of the
Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, and Devonian
Marcellus Shale, Appalachian Basin: U.S. Department of
Energy Report, DOE/NETL-2011/1478, 106 p.
Bruns, B., R. Littke, M. Gasparik, J.-D. van Wees, and S. Nel-
skamp, 2015, Thermal evolution and shale gas potential
14/11/17 3:35 PM
 34 İNAN ET AL.
estimation of the Wealden and Posidonia Shale in NW-
Germany and the Netherlands: A 3D basin modelling
study: Basin Research, p. 1–32, DOI: 10.1111/bre.12096.
Cantrell, D. L., P. G. Nicholson, G. W. Hughes, M. A. Miller,
A. G. Bhullar, S. T. Abdelbagi et al., 2014, Tethyan petro-
leum systems of Saudi Arabia, in L. Marlow, C. Kendall,
and L. Yose, eds., Petroleum systems of the Tethyan re-
gion: AAPG Memoir 106, p. 613–639.
Carrigan, W. J., G. A. Cole, E. L. Colling, and P. J. Jones, 1994,
Geochemistry of the Upper Jurassic Tuwaiq Mountain
and Hanifa Formation petroleum source rocks of eastern
Saudi Arabia, in B. J. Katz, ed., Petroleum source rocks:
Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 67–87.
Chalmers, G. R. L., and R. M. Bustin, 2008, Lower ­Cretaceous
gas shales in northeastern British Columbia: Part I.
­Geological controls on methane sorption capacity: Bulle-
tin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, v. 56, p. 1–21, DOI:
10.2113/gscpgbull.56.1.1.
Chalmers, G. R., R. M. Bustin, and I. M. Power, 2012, Char-
acterization of gas shale pore systems by porosimetry,
pycnometry, surface area, and field emission scanning
electron microscopy/transmission electron microscopy
image analyses: Examples from the Barnett, Woodford,
Haynesville, Marcellus, and Doig units: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 96, p. 1099–1119, DOI: 10.1306/10171111052.
Cole, G. A., M. A. AbuAli, S. M. Aoudeh, W. J. Carrigan, H.
H. Chen, E. L. Colling, et al., 1994, Organic geochemistry
of the Paleozoic petroleum system of Saudi Arabia: En-
ergy & Fuels, v. 8, p. 1425–1442.
Cooles G., A. S. Mackenzie, and T. M. Quigley, 1986, Calcu-
lation of petroleum masses generated and expelled from
source rocks: Organic Geochemistry, v. 10, p. 235–245.
Curtis, M. E., C. H. Sondergeld, R. J. Ambrose, and S. C. Rai,
2012, Microstructural investigation of gas shales in two
and three dimensions using nanometer-scale resolution
imaging: AAPG Bulletin, v. 96, p. 665–677.
Curtis, J. B., 2002, Fractured shale-gas systems: AAPG
­Bulletin, v. 86, p. 1921–1938.
Davies, J. H., 2013, Global map of solid Earth surface heat
flow: Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems, v. 14,
p.1–15, DOI: 10.1002/ggge.20271.
Ding, W., Chao Li, C. Li, C. Xu, K. Jiu, W. Zeng, and L. Wu,
2012, Fracture development in shale and its relationship to
gas accumulation: Geoscience Frontiers, v. 3, no. 1, p. 97–105.
Faqira, M., M. Rademakers, and A. M. Afifi, 2009, New in-
sights into the Hercynian orogeny, and their implications
for the Paleozoic hydrocarbon system in the Arabian
plate: GeoArabia, v. 14, no. 3, p. 199–228.
Gasparik, M., R. P. Bertie, Y. Gensterblum, A. Ghanizadeh,
B. M. Krooss, and R. Littke, 2014, Geological controls on
the methane storage capacity in organic-rich shales: Inter-
national Journal of Coal Geology, v. 123, p. 34–51.
Goodarzi, F., and B. S. Norford, 1989, Variation of graptolite
reflectance with depth of burial: International Journal of
Coal Geology, v. 11, p. 127–141.
Hantschel, T., and A. I. Kauerauf, 2009, Fundamentals of ba-
sin and petroleum systems modeling: Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 476 p.
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 34
Hao, F., H. Zou, and Y. Lu, 2013, Mechanisms of shale gas
storage: Implications for shale gas exploration in China:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 97, no. 8, p. 1325–1346.
Heller, R., and M. Zoback, 2014, Adsorption of methane and
carbon dioxide on gas shale and pure mineral samples: Jour-
nal of Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources, v. 8, p. 14–24.
Hill, R. J., D. M. Jarvie, J. Zumberge, M. Henry, and R. M. Pollas-
tro, 2007, Oil and gas geochemistry and petroleum systems
of the Fort Worth Basin: AAPG Bulletin, v. 91, p. 445–473.
·
Inan, S., M. N. Yalçın, and U. Mann, 1998, Expulsion of oil
from petroleum source rocks: Inferences from pyroly-
sis of samples of unconventional grain size: Organic
­Geochemistry, v. 29, p. 45–61.
·
I nan, S., F. Goodarzi, A. Schmidt Mumm, K. Arouri,
S. Qathami, O. H. Ardakani, et al., 2016, The Silurian
Qusaiba hot shales of Saudi Arabia: An integrated assess-
ment of thermal maturity: International Journal of Coal
Geology, v. 159, p. 107–119.
Jarvie, D. M., R. J. Hill, T. E. Ruble, and R. M. Pollastro, 2007,
Unconventional shale-gas systems: The Mississippian
Barnett Shale of north-central Texas as one model for
thermogenic shale-gas assessment: AAPG Bulletin, v. 91,
no. 4, p. 475–499, DOI: 10.1306/12190606068.
Jarvie, D. M., L. C. Brenda, H. Floyd, and J. T. Breyer, 2001,
Oil and shale gas from the Barnett Shale, Ft. Worth Basin,
Texas, AAPG National Convention, June 3–6, 2001, Den-
ver, CO: American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, v. 85, no. 13 (Supplement), A100 p.
Jones, P. J., and T. Stump, 1999, Depositional and tectonic set-
ting of the Lower Silurian hydrocarbon source rock facies,
Central Saudi Arabia: AAPG Bulletin, v. 83, p. 314–332.
Klemme, H. D., and G. F. Ulmishek, 1991, Effective petro-
leum source rocks of the world: Stratigraphic distribu-
tion and controlling depositional factors: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 75, p. 1809–1851.
Konert, G., A. M. Afifi, S. A. Al-Hajri, and H. J. Droste, 2001,
Paleozoic stratigraphy and hydrocarbon habitat of the
Arabian plate: GeoArabia, v. 6, no. 3, p. 407–442.
Leythaeuser, D., M. Radke, and R. G. Schaefer, 1984, Effi-
ciency of petroleum expulsion from shale source rocks:
Nature, v. 311, p. 745–748.
Loucks, R. G., R. M. Reed, S. C. Ruppel, and D. M. Jarvie, 2009,
Morphology, genesis, and distribution of ­nanometer-scale
pores in siliceous mudstones of the Mississippian Barnett
Shale: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 79, p. 848–861,
DOI: 10.2110/jsr.2009.092.
Lüning, S., J. Craig, D. K. Loydell, P. Storch, and B. Fitches,
2000, Lower Silurian “hot shales” in North Africa and
Arabia: Regional distribution and depositional model:
Earth Science Reviews, v. 49, p. 121–200.
Mahmoud, M. D., D. Vaslet, and M. I. Al-Husseini, 1992, The
Lower Silurian Qalibah Formation of Saudi Arabia: An
important hydrocarbon source rock: AAPG Bulletin, v. 76,
p. 1491–1506.
Mann, U., T. Hantschel, R. G. Schaefer, B. Krooss, D.
Leythaeuser, R. Littke, et al., 1997, Petroleum migration:
Mechanisms, pathways, efficiencies and numerical simu-
lations, in D. H. Welte, B. Horsfield, and D. R. Baker, eds.,
14/11/17 3:35 PM
 A Petroleum System and Basin Modeling Study of Northwest and East-Central Saudi Arabia 35
Petroleum and basin evolution: Springer, Heidelberg,
p. 397–515.
McGillivray, J. G., and M. I. Al-Husseini, 1992, The Paleo-
zoic petroleum geology of central Arabia: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 76, p. 1473–1490.
Milliken, K. L., M. Rudnicki, D. A. Awwiller, and T. Zhang,
2013, Organic matter-hosted pore system, Marcellus For-
mation (Devonian), Pennsylvania: AAPG Bulletin, v. 97,
p. 177–200, DOI: 10.1306/07231212048.
Modica, C. J., and S. G. Lapierre, 2012, Estimation of kerogen
porosity in source rocks as a function of thermal transfor-
mation: Example from the Mowry Shale in the Powder
River Basin of Wyoming: AAPG Bulletin, v. 96, p. 87–108.
Montgomery, S. L., D. M. Jarvie, K. A. Bowker, and R. M.
Pollastro, 2005, Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth
basin, north-central Texas: Gas-shale play with multi-tril-
lion cubic foot potential: AAPG Bulletin, v. 89, p. 155–175.
Naylor, D., M. Al-Rawi, G. Clayton, M. J. Fitzpatrick, and
P. F. Green, 2013, Hydrocarbon potential in Jordan:
Journal of Petroleum Geology, v. 36, p. 205–236.
Nordgård Bolås, H. M., C. Hermanrud, and G. M. G. Teige,
2004, Origin of overpressures in shales: Constraints from
basin modeling: AAPG Bulletin, v. 88, p. 193–211.
O’Connor, S., S. Green, and A. Edwards, 2014, What is the
impact of geopressure on unconventional plays?: EAGE
First Break, v. 32, p. 91–97.
Pathak, M., M. Deo, J. Craig, and R. Levey, 2014, Geologic
controls on production of shale play resources: Case
of the Eagle Ford, Bakken and Niobrara: Unconven-
tional Resources Technology Conference (URTeC), DOI:
10.15530/urtec-2014-1922781, 8 p.
Pepper, A. S., and P. J. Corvi, 1995, Simple kinetic models of
petroleum formation. Part III: Modelling an open system:
Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 12, no. 3, p. 417–452.
Powers, R. W., L. F. Ramirez, D. D. Redmond, and E. L. El-
berg Jr., 1966, Geology of the Arabian peninsula, sedi-
mentary geology of Saudi Arabia: USGS Professional
Paper, 560-D, 150 p.
Raji, M., D. R. Grocke, H. C. Greenwell, J. G. Gluyas, and
C. Cornford, 2015, The effect of interbedding on shale res-
ervoir properties: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 67,
p. 154–169.
Romero-Sarmiento, M. F., M. Ducros, B. Carpentier,
F. Lorant, M. C. Cacas, S. Pegaz-Fiornet, et al., 2013,
Quantitative evaluation of TOC, organic porosity and
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 35
gas retention distribution in a gas shale play using
petroleum system modeling: Application to the Missis-
sippian Barnett Shale: Marine and Petroleum Geology,
v. 45, p. 315–330.
Romero-Sarmiento, M. F., J. N. Rouzaud, S. Bernard,
D. Deldicque, M. Thomas, and R. Littke, 2014, Evolution
of Barnett Shale organic carbon structure and nanostruc-
ture with increasing maturation: Organic Geochemistry,
v. 71, p. 7–16.
Sandvik, E. I., W. A. Young, and D. J. Curry, 1992, Expulsion
from hydrocarbon sources: The role of organic absorp-
tion: Organic Geochemistry, v. 19, p. 77–87.
Schlumberger, 2013, PetroMod© Version 2003.1 User Guide:
Schlumberger, Jülich, Germany, 243 p.
Senalp, M., 2010, Stratigraphy and sedimentology of Paleo-
zoic succession in Saudi Arabia. Book 1: Cambrian to
­Silurian: Saudi Aramco Confidential Publication, 412 p.
Sharland, P. R., R. Archer, D. M. Casey, R. B. Davies, S. H.
Hall, A. P. Heward, et al. 2001, Arabian plate sequence
stratigraphy: GeoArabia Special Publication 2, Gulf
PetroLink, Bahrain, 371 p.
Stainforth, J. G., and J. E. A. Reinders, 1990, Primary migra-
tion of hydrocarbons by diffusion through organic matter
networks, and its effect on oil and gas generation: Or-
ganic Geochemistry, v. 16, p. 61–74.
Sweeney, J. J., and A. K. Burnham, 1990, Evaluation of a sim-
ple model of vitrinite reflectance based on chemical kinet-
ics: AAPG Bulletin, v. 74, p. 1559–1570.
Tissot, B. P., and D. H. Welte, 1984, Petroleum Formation and
Occurrence: Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 699 p.
Yalcin, M. N., R. Littke, and R. F. Sachsenhofer, 1997, Ther-
mal history of sedimentary basins, in D. H. Welte,
B. Horsfield, and D. R. Baker, eds., Petroleum and basin
evolution: Springer, Heidelberg, p. 71–167.
Wender, L. E., J. W. Bryant, M. F. Dickens, A. S. Neville, and
A. M. Al-Moqbel, 1998, Paleozoic (Pre-Khuff) hydrocar-
bon geology of the Ghawar Area, eastern Saudi Arabia:
GeoArabia, v. 3, p. 273–302.
Zhang, T. W., G. S. Ellis, S. C. Ruppel, K. Milliken, and
R. S. Yang, 2012, Effect of organic matter type and ther-
mal maturity on methane adsorption in shale-gas sys-
tems: Organic Geochemistry, v. 47, p. 120–131.
Ziegler, M. A., 2001, Late Permian to Holocene paleofacies
evolution of the Arabian Plate and its hydrocarbon occur-
rences: GeoArabia, v. 6, p. 445–504.
14/11/17 3:35 PM
13941_ch01_ptg01_hr_001-036.indd 36 14/11/17 3:35 PM