1 [165832] Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. This paper was prepared for presentation at SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference (LACPEC) held in Quito, Equador, 18-20 November, 2015. This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright. Abstract Mexico has significant oil and gas resource potential in Jurassic and Cretaceous age shale formations. These shale deposits -- which correlate with productive shale plays in the USA -- appear prospective but are still in the early stage of exploration and thus remain poorly characterized. Early shale exploration wells tested mostly low rates, but a recent oil well made 500 bopd while a shale gas well reached 10.9 MMcfd. The Mexican government plans to offer shale exploration blocks through an international auction. As part of a multi- client study, the authors have greatly expanded the geologic and reservoir data set we developed during an earlier scoping- level study conducted for the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). The additional geologic data support our initial view that Mexico has some of the largest and best quality shale potential outside the US and Canada. Risked, technically recoverable resources were estimated in the EIA/ARI study at 13.1 BBO of oil and 545 Tcf of natural gas. Detailed geologic mapping and analysis indicates the two most prospective liquids-rich shale areas in Mexico occur within onshore portions of the Burgos and Tampico-Misantla basins, which have transport infrastructure and well services. Significant potential also exists in the Veracruz, Macuspana, Sabinas, and other onshore basins, but those areas tend to be structurally more complex and/or are mostly in the dry gas window. The U. Cretaceous Eagle Ford Shale (in the Burgos) and correlative Agua Nueva Formation (in the Tampico-Misantla) have high TOC and brittle carbonate-rich mineralogy, but their net prospective area is reduced due to often shallow burial depth and low thermal maturity. A better target appears to be the U. Jurassic Pimienta and La Casita formations, which can be thick (~200 m), at prospective depth over much larger areas, are in the volatile oil to wet gas windows, and frequently overpressured, although TOC is lower than in the Agua Nueva. Introduction The greater Gulf of Mexico Basin extends south from the onshore Gulf Coast of the US into northeastern Mexico (Fig. 1). Equivalent shale formations, such as the Eagle Ford and Haynesville/Bossier shale plays in the US, also are present south of the international border, where they are considered important source rocks for conventional oil and gas deposits. As such, Mexico offers relatively low-risk shale exploration targets compared with other countries, such as China and Australia, which have entirely different geologic histories and present-day settings. Our previous scoping-level study for the US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) documented that shale oil and gas resources in northeast Mexico are large and prospective (EIA/ARI, 2013). At that time, with limited geologic data, we estimated risked, technically recoverable resources in Mexico to be approximately 13.1 BBO of oil and 545 Tcf of natural gas (104 BBOE; Table 1). Our recent more detailed work, based on a much larger public data set that we compiled, generally supports this analysis, while providing more granularity on the geologic variability and prospectivity of individual basins. Mexico’s national oil company Pemex recently published its own estimates of shale oil and gas resources in Mexico, although their methodology and assumptions have not been disclosed. Pemex’ most recent estimate for shale resources in Mexico is 60.2 BBOE, comprising 31.9 BBO of oil, 36.8 Tcf of wet natural gas, and 104.1 Tcf of dry natural gas (Pemex, 2014a). These estimates include both the U. Cretaceous and U. Jurassic shales in the Tampico-Misantla, Burgos, Burro- Picachos, and other basins. The US Geological Survey independently estimated much smaller resources of 0.776 BBO, 23.474 Tcf, and 0.883 BB of natural gas liquids (mean estimates), but did not release its geologic maps (USGS, 2014). Pemex initiated shale exploration drilling in 2010 and to date has completed over 30 horizontal test wells treated with large hydraulic stimulations. A further 29 shale wells are SPE 177139 Evaluation of Mexico’s Shale Oil and Gas Potential Scott H. Stevens, SPE, and Keith D. Moodhe, SPE Advanced Resources International, Inc.
13
Embed
SPE 177139 Evaluation of Mexico’s Shale Oil and Gas Potential · This paper was prepared for presentation at SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1 [165832]
Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. This paper was prepared for presentation at SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference (LACPEC) held in Quito, Equador, 18-20 November, 2015. This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.
Abstract Mexico has significant oil and gas resource potential in
Jurassic and Cretaceous age shale formations. These shale
deposits -- which correlate with productive shale plays in the
USA -- appear prospective but are still in the early stage of
exploration and thus remain poorly characterized. Early shale
exploration wells tested mostly low rates, but a recent oil well
made 500 bopd while a shale gas well reached 10.9 MMcfd.
The Mexican government plans to offer shale exploration
blocks through an international auction. As part of a multi-
client study, the authors have greatly expanded the geologic
and reservoir data set we developed during an earlier scoping-
level study conducted for the US Energy Information
Administration (EIA). The additional geologic data support
our initial view that Mexico has some of the largest and best
quality shale potential outside the US and Canada. Risked,
technically recoverable resources were estimated in the
EIA/ARI study at 13.1 BBO of oil and 545 Tcf of natural gas.
Detailed geologic mapping and analysis indicates the two
most prospective liquids-rich shale areas in Mexico occur
within onshore portions of the Burgos and Tampico-Misantla
basins, which have transport infrastructure and well services.
Significant potential also exists in the Veracruz, Macuspana,
Sabinas, and other onshore basins, but those areas tend to be
structurally more complex and/or are mostly in the dry gas
window.
The U. Cretaceous Eagle Ford Shale (in the Burgos) and
correlative Agua Nueva Formation (in the Tampico-Misantla)
have high TOC and brittle carbonate-rich mineralogy, but their
net prospective area is reduced due to often shallow burial
depth and low thermal maturity. A better target appears to be
the U. Jurassic Pimienta and La Casita formations, which can
be thick (~200 m), at prospective depth over much larger
areas, are in the volatile oil to wet gas windows, and
frequently overpressured, although TOC is lower than in the
Agua Nueva.
Introduction
The greater Gulf of Mexico Basin extends south from the
onshore Gulf Coast of the US into northeastern Mexico (Fig.
1). Equivalent shale formations, such as the Eagle Ford and
Haynesville/Bossier shale plays in the US, also are present
south of the international border, where they are considered
important source rocks for conventional oil and gas deposits.
As such, Mexico offers relatively low-risk shale exploration
targets compared with other countries, such as China and
Australia, which have entirely different geologic histories and
present-day settings.
Our previous scoping-level study for the US Department
of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA)
documented that shale oil and gas resources in northeast
Mexico are large and prospective (EIA/ARI, 2013). At that
time, with limited geologic data, we estimated risked,
technically recoverable resources in Mexico to be
approximately 13.1 BBO of oil and 545 Tcf of natural gas
(104 BBOE; Table 1). Our recent more detailed work, based
on a much larger public data set that we compiled, generally
supports this analysis, while providing more granularity on the
geologic variability and prospectivity of individual basins.
Mexico’s national oil company Pemex recently published
its own estimates of shale oil and gas resources in Mexico,
although their methodology and assumptions have not been
disclosed. Pemex’ most recent estimate for shale resources in
Mexico is 60.2 BBOE, comprising 31.9 BBO of oil, 36.8 Tcf
of wet natural gas, and 104.1 Tcf of dry natural gas (Pemex,
2014a). These estimates include both the U. Cretaceous and
U. Jurassic shales in the Tampico-Misantla, Burgos, Burro-
Picachos, and other basins. The US Geological Survey
independently estimated much smaller resources of 0.776
BBO, 23.474 Tcf, and 0.883 BB of natural gas liquids (mean
estimates), but did not release its geologic maps (USGS,
2014).
Pemex initiated shale exploration drilling in 2010 and to
date has completed over 30 horizontal test wells treated with
large hydraulic stimulations. A further 29 shale wells are
SPE 177139
Evaluation of Mexico’s Shale Oil and Gas Potential
Scott H. Stevens, SPE, and Keith D. Moodhe, SPE
Advanced Resources International, Inc.
2 [177139]
planned during 2015-2019. Drilling has been concentrated in
the Burgos Basin south of Texas, along with several wells in
the Tampico-Misantla and Sabinas basins. The initial wells
have tested mostly low rates but a few recent wells were more
productive, particularly in the Pimienta Fm of the southern
Burgos Basin.
Note that these early horizontal test wells were relatively
shallow, targeting shale formations at depths of 1,000 to 2,500
m. In contrast, many shale plays in the US target deeper areas,
such as the Bakken Shale in the Williston Basin, where
horizontal development is focused at depths of about 3,300 m
with greater reservoir pressure. Despite the slow start, it
appears likely that once geologic sweet spots are defined and
well completion practices refined, shale resources could play a
major role in Mexico’s plans to boost natural gas output,
reduce gas imports from the US, and maintain or even grow its
recently declining oil output.
As part of Mexico’s ongoing major reforms of the
petroleum industry, the Comisión Nacional de Hidrocarburos
(CNH) plans to hold a series of international auction rounds of
blocks with unconventional oil and gas potential. CNH has
identified an estimated 21.642 BBOE of potential in 291
blocks totaling 33,959 km2 in the Burgos, Burro-Picachos,
Tampico-Misantla and other onshore basins (SENER, 2015).
Mexico’s shale resource potential is significant, but numerous
challenges remain, including security, the availability of low-
cost well services, and a scarcity of geologic and reservoir
data on shale rock properties. On the other hand, the close
proximity to shale services, expertise, and funding sources in
the US and Canada gives Mexico a leg up over other countries
which are seeking to jump start their shale industries.
Mexico’s shale service sector is gradually building the
necessary capability for large-scale horizontal drilling
combined with massive multi-stage hydraulic stimulation.
Only a small number of horizontal shale gas and oil wells have
been tested thus far, with generally low but still encouraging
production rates. Large-scale commercial production appears
to be some years in the future. Considerable work is needed to
define the geologic “sweet spots”, develop the service sector’s
capacity to effectively and economically drill and stimulate
modern horizontal shale wells, and install the extensive
surface infrastructure needed to transport product to market.
Data Control and Methodology A significant challenge in assessing Mexico’s shale
resources is data availability. Much of the basic geologic and
well data that is publicly available in other countries is
confidential in Mexico. However, a wealth of geologic data on
source rock shales has been published over the years in
various Mexican journals and university theses. We utilized
these public sources to develop a proprietary GIS data base of
shale geology in Mexico, compiled from nearly 500 Spanish
and English language technical articles, most of which were
written “pre-shale” and concerned conventional source rock
geology. Data locations plotted on our Mexico maps provide
an indication of geologic control (Fig. 2).
With a total 5,000+ mapped shale geologic and reservoir
data points, we had reasonably good control of thickness,
depth, structure, lithology, and thermal maturity for the
principal U. Cretaceous and U. Jurassic shale targets across
northeast Mexico. Geochemical data such as TOC and HI
control were less abundant. Published log and seismic images
were mostly of poor quality and not suitable for petrophysical
analysis, though still useful for correlation and defining
general shale characteristics. We found limited data on
subsurface hydrology and shale physical properties, notably
mineralogy which was rarely of interest prior to the advent of
shale exploration.
Our methodology for assessing Mexico’s shale resources
was described in further detail in EIA/ARI, 2013. We applied
typical screening criteria of shale thickness, minimum and
maximum depth, total organic carbon content (TOC), thermal
maturity indicated by vitrinite reflectance (Ro), and
mineralogy. High-graded areas within the basins considered
prospective for shale gas and shale oil exploration were
mapped and characterized. We then estimated technically
recoverable resources (TRR) from the original oil (or gas) in
place (OOIP or OGIP) based on the range of actual recovery
factors currently achieved in North American shale plays.
Finally, we applied risk factors commonly employed by shale
operators. However, the economic viability of the TRR was
not assessed in our study.
The discrete steps in the EIA/ARI evaluation were:
1. Translate nearly 500 mostly Spanish language technical
articles and develop a GIS data base of geologic and
reservoir properties.
2. Characterize the geologic and reservoir properties of each
shale basin and formation.
3. Establish the areal extent of the shale gas and shale oil
formations.
4. Define and characterize the prospective area for each
shale gas and shale oil formation based on thickness,
depth, TOC, and thermal maturity.
5. Estimate the risked shale gas and shale oil in-place based
on a) overall play probability of success and b) play area
probability of success.
6. Using recovery factors from similar shales in the US
estimate the technically recoverable shale gas and shale
oil resource.
Shale Basins and Formations in Mexico
Large sedimentary basins extend across onshore northeast
Mexico, containing rich petroleum source rocks with suitable
thickness, depth, organic content, and thermal maturity for
shale gas/oil exploration. The two most prospective basins
appear to be the Burgos Basin, extending south of Texas, and
the smaller Tampico-Misantla Basin further to the southeast in
Veracruz and adjoining states. Other basins (Sabinas,
Veracruz, Macuspana) also have shale potential, but overall
they tend to be structurally more complex and/or in the dry gas
window and are presented in less detail here.
[177139] 3
Two principal marine-deposited shale exploration targets
are present in northeast Mexico, each one considered an
important source rock for the conventional oil and gas fields
which have been discovered in the region (Fig. 3). The Upper
Cretaceous Eagle Ford, Agua Nueva and equivalent
formations may perhaps be more familiar to US
explorationists. This shale formation has been intensively
developed in South Texas, making its direct extension into
northern Coahuila State an obvious target. But after data
gathering and analysis, we were surprised at how relatively
limited the Eagle Ford prospective area is in Mexico, due to
structural trends, insufficient burial depth, and low or high
thermal maturity.
The more prospective target appears to be the Upper
Jurassic (Tithonian) Pimienta, La Casita, and equivalent
formations. These organic-rich black shale to shaly limestone
deposits, which are near time-equivalent with the Haynesville-
Bossier Shale in Louisiana, were deposited in a broad marine
basin under anoxic conditions. Lithologies range from shales,
argillaceous limestones, to thin-bedded lime mudstone with
chert layers. While the Tithonian generally has somewhat less
TOC than the U. Cretaceous (2-3% vs 4-5% in the richer
zones), it occurs at suitable burial depth over much larger
areas, and more often is in the optimal wet gas to volatile oil
thermal maturity windows.
Furthermore, additional shale targets directly underlie the
Pimienta, such as the Taman, San Andres, Santiago and
equivalent formations of Oxfordian to Kimmeridgian age.
While not as laterally persistent as the Tithonian, these units
can be equally or more organic-rich and offer secondary shale
completion zones. An analogy could be the Three Forks and
Mid-Bakken units in the Williston Basin, now a “two-fer”
play with optionality. The Oxfordian in Mexico is about 500
m deeper than the Tithonian, giving it higher reservoir
pressure and thermal maturity, although our data control was
weaker.
Burgos Basin CNH plans to offer 124 blocks totaling 14,406 km
2 in the
Burgos Basin under Bid Rounds 2-4, with an estimated 6.486
BBOE of unconventional resources. Stretching south from the
Texas border, the Burgos has been the focus of Pemex’ initial
shale exploration activity. Two main shale targets are present:
the U. Cretaceous Eagle Ford Shale in the north Burgos, with
a relatively small prospective area just south of the Texas
border; and the U. Jurassic Pimienta and La Casita formations
in the south Burgos, extending over a much larger prospective
area and probably with greater resource potential. Mexico’s
best horizontal shale well to date, the 750-boepd Anhelido-1,
was completed here in the Pimienta Fm.
Production of natural gas from conventional sandstone
reservoirs began in the Burgos Basin as early as 1945. Gas
output peaked in 2010 and has since declined to the current
1.2 Bcfd. Condensate production associated with natural gas
also peaked in 2010, and currently is about 18,000 bbl/d and
declining (Pemex, 2014b). Shale gas development in the
Burgos could help stem the rise of, or even reduce, gas
imports from the US, which currently exceed 2 Bcfd and are
increasing quickly as major pipeline infrastructure expansions
are completed, to a reported 8 Bcfd capacity by the end of
2015 (Seelke et al., 2015).
Data availability for the Burgos Basin overall was good,
comprising over 2,000 data points (well logs, cross-section
control points, outcrop samples) extracted from more than 250
published articles and university theses, mostly in Spanish.
Basic data on depth, thickness, thermal maturity, and other
shale properties were abundant for both U. Cretaceous Eagle
Ford and U. Jurassic Pimienta formations, but the data were
not suitable for advanced petrophysical or seismic analysis.
The Burgos Basin is located south of the Rio Grande
Embayment, east of the Burro Salado Arch, north of the
Tampico-Misantla Basin (which contains similar Mesozoic
shale targets), and northeast of the Sierra Madre Oriental
thrust belt. The basin extends offshore but our shale study
was limited to onshore. It formed by extension associated
with salt deposition during the Jurassic to Early Cretaceous.
Later on it was affected by Laramide (late Cretaceous)
compression, followed by strike slip faulting during the
Oligocene along the Rio Bravo left-lateral fault zone (Flotte et
al., 2008). The Burgos contains a thick Tertiary sequence
which hosts numerous mostly small conventional and tight
natural gas fields.
Closely spaced mostly normal faults associated with folds
deform the Tertiary sequence and form conventional
hydrocarbon traps (Hernandez-Mendoza et al., 2008).
Fortunately, most of these faults flatten into a detachment
surface near or above the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary and
do not appear to cut the shale-prospective Mesozoic section
(Fig. 4; Ortiz-Ubilla and Tolson, 2014). Thus the geologic
structure of the Burgos may be favorable for the deeper shale
targets.
Pemex began its shale exploration program targeting the
Eagle Ford Shale and later extended to the Pimienta Fm. The
company’s first shale exploration well, the Emergente-1 well
drilled in 2010, is located just south of the Texas border. The
4,071-m well (measured depth) targeted the 175-m thick Eagle
Ford Shale at subsurface depths of 2350-2525 m. Its 1300-m
lateral was oriented due south and positioned in the organic-
rich lower Eagle Ford zone, where TOC reaches 4.5%. As the
first of its type the Emergente-1 took five months to drill,
whereas recent comparable wells in Mexico can now be
drilled in about one month. Following a 17-stage frac
employing 8 million gallons of slickwater and 42,563 sacks of
quartz sand proppant, the well produced an initial gas rate of
2.8 MMcfd (Zavala-Torres, 2014).
The Eagle Ford Shale in the nearby Habano-1 shale test
well had micritic matrix with detrital clay, planktonic
foraminifera, sealed with calcite and authigenic clay,
en Petroleo y gas de Lutitas de la Formacion Eagle Ford,
Noroeste de Villa Hidalgo, Estado de Coahuila, Noreste de
Mexico. Universidad Nacional Autonoma Mexico (UNAM),
Masters Thesis, 152 p.
Medina Eleno, L. and Valenzuela, A., 2010. Refracturamientos
Hidráulicos Para Incrementar la Producción en el Activo Integral
Burgos Reynosa. Ingeniería Petrolera, March, 12 p.
Ortiz-Ubilla, A. and Tolson, G., 2004. Interpretación Estructural
de Una Sección Sísmica en la Región Arcabuz–Culebra de la
Cuenca de Burgos, NE de México. Revista Mexicana de
Ciencias Geologicas, 21: 226-235.
Pemex, 2012. Aceite y Gas en Lutitas. Presentation dated June 21,
2012, 54 p.
Pemex, 2013. Tercera Ronda de Licitaciones en PEP Contratos
Integrales de Exploración y Producción Aceite Terciario del
Golfo. January 22, 105 p.
Pemex, 2014a. Informe Anual 2013 de Petróleos Mexicanos (Annual
Report), February 13, 2014, 662 p.
Pemex, 2014b. Presente y Futuro del Proyecto Burgos. May, 38 p.
Sanchez-Gonzalez, R. and Zauco-Martinez, T.A., 2014. Análisis De Las
Alternativas De Explotación Del Sector 6 Agua Fría-Coapechaca.
Thesis, Universidad Nacional Autónoma De México, 165 p.
Seelke, C.R. Ratner, M., Villarreal, M.A., and Brown, P., 2015. Mexico’s
Oil and Gas Sector: Background, Reform Efforts, and Implications for the
United States. Congressional Research Service, July 30, 26 p.
SENER, 2015. Plan Quinquenal de Licitaciones para la Exploración y
Extracción de Hidrocarburos 2015 – 2019. Secretaría de Energía,
Mexico, 139 p.
Soegaard, K., Ye, H., Halik, N., Daniels, A.T., Arney, J., and Garrick, S.,
2003. Stratigraphic Evolution of Latest Cretaceous to Early Tertiary
Difunta Foreland Basin in Northeast Mexico: Influence of Salt
Withdrawal on Tectonically Induced Subsidence by the Sierra Madre
Oriental Fold and Thrust Belt. In C. Bartolini, R. T. Buffler, and J.
Blickwede, eds., The Circum-Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean:
Hydrocarbon Habitats, Basin Formation, and Plate Tectonics, American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 79, p. 364–394.
US Geological Survey, Assessment of Unconventional Oil and Gas
Resources in Northeast Mexico. August, 2014, 4 p.
8 [165832]
Figure 1: Shale Basins in Northeast Mexico, Showing Unconventional Exploration Blocks Scheduled for Rounds 1-4.
[177139] 9
Tith
onia
n Sh
ales
Eagl
e Fo
rd S
hale
Tith
onia
n La
Cas
itaTa
mau
lipas
Pim
ient
a
U. J
uras
sicM
. - U
. Cre
tace
ous
U. J
uras
sicL.
- M
. Cre
tace
ous
Jura
ssic
Mar
ine
Mar
ine
Mar
ine
Mar
ine
Mar
ine
600
10,0
006,
700
6,70
09,
500
9,50
09,
000
3,05
01,
550
1,00
01,
000
560
400
Org
anic
ally
Ric
h20
020
030
050
050
080
050
050
050
030
050
030
030
0
Net
16
016
021
020
040
024
020
020
020
021
020
015
015
0
Inte
rval
3,30
0 - 4
,000
4,00
0 - 1
6,40
06,
500
- 16,
400
7,50
0 - 1
6,40
05,
000
- 12,
500
9,80
0 - 1
3,10
03,
300
- 8,5
004,
000
- 8,5
007,
000
- 9,0
006,
000
- 9,5
006,
600
- 10,
000
9,80
0 - 1
2,00
010
,000
- 12
,500
Aver
age
3,50
07,
500
10,5
0011
,500
9,00
011
,500
5,50
06,
200
8,00
07,
900
8,50
011
,000
11,5
00
Hig
hly
Ove
rpre
ss.
Hig
hly
Ove
rpre
ss.
Hig
hly
Ove
rpre
ss.
Hig
hly
Ove
rpre
ss.
Und
erpr
ess.
Und
erpr
ess.
Nor
mal
Norm
alNo
rmal
Nor
mal
Norm
alN
orm
alN
orm
al
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
3.0%
4.0%
2.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
0.85
%1.
15%
1.60
%1.
70%
1.50
%2.
50%
0.85
%1.
15%
1.40
%0.
85%
0.90
%0.
85%
1.40
%
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
/Med
ium
Low
/Med
ium
Asso
c. G
asW
et G
asD
ry G
asDr
y G
asD
ry G
asD
ry G
asAs
soc.
Gas
Wet
Gas
Dry
Gas
Asso
c. G
asAs
soc.
Gas
Asso
c. G
asDr
y G
as
21.7
74.4
190.
910
0.3
131.
969
.118
.644
.783
.025
.527
.222
.470
.0To
tal
7.8
446.
476
7.5
201.
650
1.0
118.
158
.547
.745
.08.
99.
56.
614
.72,
233
0.9
111.
623
0.2
50.4
100.
223
.64.
79.
59.
00.
70.
80.
52.
954
5
Tuxp
an
(2,8
10 m
i2 )
Dep
ositi
onal
Env
ironm
ent
Mar
ine
Mar
ine
Vera
cruz
(9,0
30 m
i2 )
Shal
e Fo
rmat
ion
Eagl
e Fo
rd S
hale
Mal
trata
Mar
ine
U. C
reta
ceou
s
Bur
gos
(24,
200
mi2 )
Sabi
nas
(35,
700
mi2 )
Tam
pico
(26,
900
mi2 )
Pim
ient
a
M. -
U. C
reta
ceou
sJu
rass
ic
Reservoir Properties
Res
ervo
ir Pr
essu
re
Aver
age
TOC
(wt.
%)
Ther
mal
Mat
urity
(% R
o)
Cla
y C
onte
nt
Physical Extent
Pros
pect
ive
Area
(mi2 )
Thic
knes
s (ft
)
Dep
th (f
t)
Geo
logi
c Ag
e
Basic Data
Bas
in/G
ross
Are
a
Resource
Gas
Pha
se
GIP
Con
cent
ratio
n (B
cf/m
i2 )
Ris
ked
GIP
(Tcf
)
Ris
ked
Rec
over
able
(Tcf
)
Vera
cru
z
(9,0
30 m
i2)
Tam
aulip
as
Pim
ien
taM
altr
ata
L.
- M
. C
reta
ceous
Jura
ssic
U.
Cre
tace
ous
Marin
eM
arin
eM
arin
e
600
10,0
00
9,00
03,0
50
1,000
1,0
00
560
Org
an
ically
Ric
h200
200
500
500
300
500
300
Net
160
160
200
200
210
200
150
Inte
rval
3,3
00 -
4,0
00
4,0
00 -
16,4
00
3,3
00 -
8,5
00
4,000 -
8,5
006,0
00 -
9,5
00
6,6
00 -
10,
000
9,8
00 -
12,
000
Ave
rag
e3,5
00
7,5
00
5,50
06,2
00
7,900
8,5
00
11,0
00
Hig
hly
Overp
ress
.H
ighly
Overp
ress
.N
orm
al
Norm
al
Norm
alN
orm
al
Norm
al
5.0
%5.0
%3.0
%3.
0%3.0
%3.0
%3.0
%
0.8
5%1.1
5%
0.8
5%
1.15
%0.8
5%0.9
0%
0.8
5%
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
/Med
ium
Oil
Conden
sate
Oil
Conde
nsa
teO
ilO
ilO
il
43.9
15.0
37.9
17.3
36.4
33.
023.5
To
tal
15.8
89.8
119.4
18.5
12.7
11.
56.
92
75
0.9
55.3
94.
780.7
40.
51
0.4
60.2
81
3
Tu
xpan
(2,8
10 m
i2)
Sh
ale
Fo
rmatio
nE
ag
le F
ord
Sh
ale
Pim
ien
ta
Geo
log
ic A
ge
M.
- U
. C
reta
ceous
Jura
ssic
Dep
osi
tio
nal E
nvir
on
men
tM
arin
eM
arin
ePhysical Extent
Pro
sp
ectiv
e A
rea (
mi2
)
Th
ickn
ess (
ft)
Dep
th (
ft)
Basic Data
Basin
/Gro
ss A
rea
Bu
rgo
s
(24,2
00 m
i2)
Tam
pic
o
(26,9
00 m
i2)
Resource
Oil
Ph
ase
OIP
Co
ncen
tratio
n (
MM
bb
l/m
i2)
Ris
ked
OIP
(B
bb
l)
Ris
ked
Reco
vera
ble
(B
bb
l)
Reservoir
Properties
Reser
vo
ir P
ressu
re
Aver
age
TO
C (
wt.
%)
Th
erm
al M
atu
rity
(%
Ro
)
Cla
y C
on
ten
t
Tab
le 1
: E
sti
mate
d S
hale
Gas a
nd
Sh
ale
Oil R
eso
urc
es i
n M
exic
o
10 [177139]
Figure 2: The Shale Trend in Northeast Mexico is Significantly Larger than the South Texas Eagle Ford Shale Play; Data Locations for Study are Indicated
[177139] 11
Figure 3: Stratigraphy of the Burgos Basin Showing U. Cretaceous Agua Nueva (Eagle Ford) Fm and U. Jurassic Pimienta (La Casita) Fm.
Note Listric Normal Faults Cutting Tertiary Section Flatten into Detachment Surface and Don’t Affect Mesozoic Section.
Figure 4: West-East Cross Section of Burgos Basin Showing Tertiary Detachment Faults Underlain by Less Deformed Mesozoic Shales
12 [177139]
Figure 5: Unconventional Oil and Gas Exploration Blocks Planned for the Tampico-Misantla Basin (CNH)
Figure 6: Stratigraphy of Source Rock Shale Targets in the Tampico-Misantla Basin Include the U. Cretaceous
[177139] 13
U JURASSIC
PIMIENTA FM
Figure 7: Seismic Time Section Showing Generally Simple Structure of the U. Jurassic Pimienta Fm in the Tampico-Misantla Basin