Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
In This Section

Open Geosciences

formerly Central European Journal of Geosciences

Editor-in-Chief: Jankowski, Piotr

1 Issue per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2016 (Open Geosciences): 0.475
IMPACT FACTOR 2016 (Central European Journal of Geosciences): 1.071

CiteScore 2016: 0.87

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.349
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.753

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
In This Section

Important geological properties of unconventional resource shales

Roger Slatt
  • Institute of Reservoir Characterization and Conoco-Phillips School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma, Norman, USA
  • Email:
Published Online: 2011-12-14 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s13533-011-0042-2


The revelation of vast global quantities of potentially productive gas and oil-prone shales has led to advancements in understanding important geological properties which impact reservoir performance. Based upon research on a variety of shales, several geological properties have been recognized as being common and important to hydrocarbon production. (1) transport/depositional processes include hemipelagic ‘rain’, hyperpycnal flows, turbidity current flows, tempestites, wave-reworking, and contour currents in both shallow and deep water settings. (2) Common shale minerals include clays, quartz, calcite, dolomite, apatite, and pyrite; organic constituents include spores (Tasmanites), plant remains, biogenic quartz and calcite, and arenaceous foraminifera. (3) Porosity and permeability are characteristically low with pore sizes ranging down to the nanoscale. Main pore types include intergranular (including pores within clay floccules), porous organic matter, porous fecal pellets, and microfractures. (4) Important geochemical characteristics include organic richness (>3%), maturity (>1.1%Ro for shale gas and 0.6–0.9% for shale oil) and type (I–IV), in addition to certain biomarkers which are indicators of bottom water oxicity during deposition. Remaining hydrocarbon potential [RHP = (S1 + S2)/TOC] also reflects temporal environmental changes. ‘Isotopic reversals’ can be used to detect best producing areas in shale-gas plays. (5) Lithofacies stacking patterns and sequence stratigraphy are the result of eustatic depositional history. A general sequence stratigraphic model is presented here that highlights this commonality. (6) Geomechanical properties are key to drilling, fracturing and production of hydrocarbons. Brittle-ductile couplets at several scales occur in shale sequences. (7) Geophysical properties, when calibrated to rock properties, provide a means of regionally to locally mapping the aforementioned properties. (8) Economic and societal considerations in the exploration and development of resource shales are garnering attention. Many potentially economic shale-gas and shale-oil plays are being identified globally. Risks and uncertainties associated with gas- and oil-rich shales include the lack of long-term production histories, environmental concerns related to hydraulic fracturing, uncertainty in calculating hydrocarbons-in-place, and fluctuations in supply, demand, and price.

Keywords: shale; oil- and gas-productive; depositonal processes; shale geochemistry; shale sequence stratigraphy; shale porosity and permeability; shale composition; shale geomechanics; resource shale economics; shale seismic properties

  • [1] Jarvie D.M., Hill R.J., Ruble T.E., Pollastro R.M., Unconventional shale-gas systems: the Mississippian Barnett Shale of north-central Texas as one model for thermogenic shale-gas assessment. Am. Assoc. Petr. Geol. B., 2007, 91, 475–499

  • [2] Stow D.A.V., Bowen A.J., Origin of lamination in deep sea, fine-grained sediments. Nature, 1978, 274, 324–328 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/274324a0 [Crossref]

  • [3] Slatt R. M., Thompson P.R., Submarine slope mudstone facies, Cozy Dell Formation (Middle Eocene), California. Geomarine Letters, 1985, 5, 39–45

  • [4] O’Brien N., Slatt R.M., Argillaceous Rock Atlas, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1990 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3422-7 [Crossref]

  • [5] Bhattacharya J.P., MacEachern J.A., Hyperpycnal rivers and prodeltaic shelves in the Cretaceous seaway of North America. J. Sediment. Res., 2009, 79, 184–209 http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.026 [Crossref] [Web of Science]

  • [6] Macquaker J., Bentley S., Bohacs K., Lazar R., Jonk R., Advective sediment transport on mud-dominated continental shelves: processes and products: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Search and Discovery Article #50281, AAPG Annual Convention, New Orleans, April 11–14, 2010, http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2010/50281macquaker/ndx_macquaker.pdf

  • [7] Abouelresh M., Slatt R.M., High-Frequency Sequence Stratigraphic Analysis of the Barnett Shale, Johnson County, Fort Worth Basin, Texas, USA. Am. Assoc. Petr. Geol. B., (in press)

  • [8] Soynika O.A., Slatt R.M., Identification and microstratigraphy of hyperpycnites and turbidites in Cretaceous Lewis Shale, Wyoming. Sedimentology, 2008, 55, 1117–1133 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2007.00938.x [Web of Science] [Crossref]

  • [9] Singh P., Lithofacies and sequence stratigraphic framework of the Barnett Shale, northeast Texas. Ph.D. thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, 2008

  • [10] Slatt R.M., Philp P.R., O’Brien N., Abousleiman Y., Singh P., Eslinger E.V., Perez R., Portas R., Baruch E.T., Marfurt K.J., Madrid-Arroyo S., Pore-to-regional scale, integrated characterization workflow for unconventional gas shales, in Breyer, J., ed., Shale reservoirs — unconventional wisdom: American Association of Petroleum Geologist Special Publication, (in press)

  • [11] Nakajima T., Hyperpycnites deposited 700 km away from river mouths in the Central Japan Sea. J. Sediment. Res., 2006, 76, 60–73 http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2006.13

  • [12] Mulder T., Chapron E., Flood deposits in continental and marine environments: character and significance. In: Slatt R.M., Zavala C. (Eds.), Sediment transfer from shelf to deepwater — revisiting the delivery mechanisms. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Studies in Geology, 2010, 61, 1–30

  • [13] Slatt R.M., O’Brien N.R., Pore types in the Barnett and Woodford gas shales: contribution to understanding gas storage and migration pathways in finegrained rocks. Am. Assoc. Petr. Geol. B., (in press)

  • [14] Schieber J., Southard J., Thaisen K., Accretion of mudstone beds from migrating floccule ripples. Science, 2007, 318, 1760–1763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1147001 [Web of Science] [Crossref]

  • [15] Loucks R. G., Ruppel S.C., Mississippian Barnett Shale: lithofacies and depositional setting of a deepwater shale-gas succession in the Fort Worth Basin, Texas. Am. Assoc. Petr. Geol. B., 2007, 92, 579–601

  • [16] Rine J.M., Ginsburg R.N., Depositional facies of a mud shoreface in Suriname, South America. J. Sediment. Petrol., 1985, 55, 633–652

  • [17] Andrews R.D., Production decline curves and payout thresholds of horizontal Woodford wells in the Arkoma Basin, Oklahoma. Shale Shaker, 2010, 60, 103–112 and 147–156

  • [18] Hennings S., Shale Gas Resources and Development, IRR’s Inaugural Shale Gas Briefing, Brisbane, March 30, 2010

  • [19] Loucks R.G., Reed R. M., Ruppel S.C., Jarvie D.M., Morphology, genesis, and distribution of nanometer-scale pores in siliceous mudstones of the Mississippian Barnett Shale. J. Sediment. Res., 2009, 79, 848–861 http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.092 [Web of Science] [Crossref]

  • [20] O’Brien N.R., Thyne G., Slatt R.M., Morphology of hydrocarbon droplets during migration: Visual example from the Monterey Formation (Miocene), California. Am. Assoc. Petr. Geol. B., 1996, 80, 1710–1718

  • [21] Philp R.R., Gilbert T.D., Biomarker distributions in Australian oils predominantly derived from terrigenous source material. Org. Geochem., 1986, 10, 69–79 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0146-6380(86)90010-0 [Crossref]

  • [22] Rodriguez M., Norelis D., Geochemical characterization of gases from the Barnett Shale, Forth Worth Basin, Texas. M.Sc. thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, 2007

  • [23] Rowe H.D., Loucks R.G., Ruppel S.C., Rimmer S.M., Mississippian Barnett formation, Fort Worth Basin, Texas: bulk geochemical inferences and Mo-TOC constraints on the severity of hydrographic restriction. Chem. Geol., 2008, 257, 6–25 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2008.08.006 [Web of Science] [Crossref]

  • [24] Fang H., Jianyu C., Yongchuan S., Yaozong L., Application of organic facies studies to sedimentary basin analysis: a case study from the Yitong Graben, China. Org. Geochem., 1993, 20, 27–42 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0146-6380(93)90078-P [Crossref]

  • [25] Miceli-Romero A.A., Geochemical characterization of the Woodford Shale, central and southeastern Oklahoma. M.Sc. thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, 2010

  • [26] Ferworn K., Zumberge J., Reed J., Brown S., Gas character anomalies found in highly productive shale gas wells, 2008 http://www.papgrocks.org/ferworn_ p.pdf

  • [27] Reed J., Brown S., Zumberge J., A best practices approach for shale gas characterization, Houston Geol. Soc. U.S. Gulf Region Mudstone/Shale Technical Program, 2010

  • [28] Rodriguez N.D., Philp R.P., Geochemical characterization of gases from the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Forth Worth Basin, Texas. Am. Assoc. Petr. Geol. B., 2010, 94, 1641–1656

  • [29] Slatt R.M., Rodriguez N.R., Comparative sequence stratigraphy and organic geochemistry of unconventional gas shales: commonality or coincidence?: Journal of Natural Gas Engineering and Science, (in press)

  • [30] Hammes U., Eastwood R., Rowe H.D., Reed R.M., Addressing conventional parameters in unconventional shale-gas systems: depositional environment, petrography, geochemistry, and petrophysics of the Haynesville shale. In: Carr T., D’Agostino T., Ambrose W.A., Pashin J., Rosen N.C. (Eds.), Unconventional Energy Resources: Making the Unconventional Conventional, 29th Annual GCSSEPM Foundation Bob F. Perkins Research Conference, Houston, 2009, 181–202

  • [31] Hammes U., Hamlin H.S., Eastwood R., Facies characteristics, depositional environments, and petrophysical characteristics of the Haynesville and Bossier shale-gas plays of east Texas and northwest Louisiana. Houston Geological Society Bulletin, 2010, 59–63

  • [32] Hammes U., Frébourg G., Haynesville and Bossier mudrocks: A facies and sequence stratigraphic investigation, east Texas and Louisiana, USA. Mar. Petrol. Geol. (in press) [Web of Science]

  • [33] Hammes U., Hamlin H.S., Ewing T.E., Geologic analysis of the upper JurassicHaynesville shale in east Texas and west Louisiana. Am. Assoc. Petr. Geol. B., 2011, 95, 1643–1666

  • [34] Bohacs K., Lazar R., Sequence stratigraphy in finegrained rocks at the field to flow-unit scale: insights for correlation, mapping and genetic controls. In: Applied Geoscience Conference, 2010, Applied Geoscience Conference of US Gulf Region, Mudstones as unconventional shale gas/oil reservoirs, Houston Geolological Society Shale Gas Technical Program, 8–9 February 2010

  • [35] Van Wagoner J.C., Mitchum R.M., Campion K.M., Rahmanian V.D., Siliciclastic sequence stratigraphy in well logs, cores, and outcrops: concepts for highresolution correlation of time and facies. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Methods in Exploration Series, 1990, 7, 55

  • [36] Wang F.P., Gale J.F.W., Screening criteria for shalegas systems. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, 2009, 59, 779–793

  • [37] Sierra R., Tran M.H., Abousleiman Y.N., Slatt R.M., Woodford Shale mechanical properties and impacts of lithofacies: 44th U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium and 5th U.S.-Canada Rock Mechanics Symposium, Salt Lake City, 2010, ARMA10-461

  • [38] Slatt R.M., Abousleiman Y., Merging sequence stratigraphy and geomechanics for unconventional gas shales. The Leading Edge, 2011, 30, 274–282 http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.3567258 [Crossref]

  • [39] Terracina J.M., Turner J.M., Collins D.H., Spillars S.E., Proppant selection and its effect on the results of fracturing treatments performed in shale formations: Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference, placecountry-regionItaly, September, 2010, SPE 135502, 17

  • [40] Baruch E.T., Slatt R.M., Marfurt K.J., Seismic analysis of the Barnett Shale and Ellenburger unconformity southwest of Newark East Field, Fort Worth Basin, Texas. In: Breyer J. (Ed.), Shale Reservoirs— Unconventional Wisdom. American Association of Petroleum Geological Special Publication, (in press)

  • [41] Chopra S., Marfurt K.J., Seismic attributes for prospect identification and reservoir characterization. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Geophysical Development Series, 2007, 11, 464

  • [42] Milner M., McLin R., Petriello J., Imaging texture and porosity in mudstons and shales: comparison of secondary and ion-milled backscatter SEM methods, Canadian Society for Unconventional Gas CSUG/SPE 138975, 2010, 10

  • [43] Penn Energy Newsletter, 10 March, 2011

  • [44] Oil and Gas J., Aug. 12, 2011

  • [45] AAPG Explorer, Nov. 2010

  • [46] Totten M.W., Jr., Electron probe micro-analysis of the Woodford Shale, south central placeStateOklahoma, M.Sc. thesis, Univ. Oklahoma, 2011

  • [47] Zheng M., Rock-based characterization of the Lower Silurian Longmaxi gas shale in the southwest Sichuan Basin, China: unpub. M.S. thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, 2011

  • [48] Slatt R.M., Portas R., Buckner N., Abousleiman Y., O’Brien N., Tran M., Sierra R., Philp P., Miceli-Romero A., Davis R., Wawrzyniec T., Outcrop/behind outcrop (quarry), multiscale characterization of the Woodford gas shale, Oklahoma. In: Breyer J. (Ed.), Shale reservoirs—unconventional wisdom: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Special Publication, (in press)

  • [49] May J.A., Anderson D.S., Mudrock reservoir deposition and stratigraphy: Not homogenous, not boring, AAPG/SEG/SPE/SPWLA Hedberg Conference “Critical Assessment of Shale Resource Plays”, 5–10 December 2010, Austin, Texas

  • [50] Badra H., Field characterization and analog modeling of fractures in the Woodford Shale, southeast Oklahoma, M.Sc. thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, 2011

About the article

Published Online: 2011-12-14

Published in Print: 2011-12-01

Citation Information: Open Geosciences, ISSN (Online) 2391-5447, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s13533-011-0042-2. Export Citation

© 2011 Versita Warsaw. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Kui Han, Yiwen Ju, Guochang Wang, Shujing Bao, Hongling Bu, and Bhupati Neupane
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2016
Roderick Perez Altamar and Kurt Marfurt
Interpretation, 2014, Volume 2, Number 4, Page T255
Payman Pirzadeh, Kevin L. Lesage, and Robert A. Marriott
Energy & Fuels, 2014, Volume 28, Number 8, Page 4993
Mehmet Melikoglu
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2014, Volume 37, Page 460
Barry Katz and Fang Lin
Marine and Petroleum Geology, 2014, Volume 56, Page 255
Mohammad Alqudah, Mohammad Ali Hussein, Sander van den Boorn, Victor M. Giraldo, Sadat Kolonic, Olaf G. Podlaha, and Jörg Mutterlose
Marine and Petroleum Geology, 2014, Volume 52, Page 93
Xianzheng Zhao, Qing Li, Zaixing Jiang, Ruifeng Zhang, and Haipeng Li
Marine and Petroleum Geology, 2014, Volume 51, Page 239

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in