Está en la página 1de 32

SPE-167177-MS

Geologic Controls of Gas Production from Tight-Gas Sandstones of the


Late Jurassic Monteith Formation, Deep Basin, Alberta, Canada.
Liliana Zambrano, and Per K. Pedersen, Geoscience Department, and Roberto Aguilera, Schulich School of
Engineering, University of Calgary

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers


This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference-Canada held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 57 November 2013.
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 necessar ily 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
Comparison of rock properties and production performance between the uppermost lithostratigraphic unit (Monteith A) and
the lowermost portion (Monteith C) of the Monteith Formation in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) in
Alberta is carried out with the use of existing gas wells. The analyses are targeted to understand the major geologic controls
that differentiate the two strata.
The approach involves multi-scale description and evaluation techniques of cores and drill cuttings, including multiple
laboratory measurements of key reservoir parameters. The ultimate goal is to understand the distribution of reservoir quality
in each stratigraphy unit within the Monteith in the study area.
This study comprises basic analytical tools available for geological characterization of tight gas Formations based on the
identification and comparison of different rock types for each lithostratigraphic unit: depositional, petrographic, and
hydraulic. As these low-permeability sandstone reservoirs have been subjected to post-depositional diagenesis, a comparison
of the various rock types allows to generate a more accurate reservoir description, and to better understand the key geologic
characteristics that control gas production potential.
It is concluded that Monteith A Unit has better rock quality than the Monteith C, due to less heterogeneous reservoir
geometry, less complex mineralogical composition, and larger pore throat apertures. These results are linked successfully
with Monteith production capabilities.
Introduction
Characterization of unconventional, low-permeability siliciclastic reservoirs has been addressed for many Formations in the
United States (Fracasso et al., 1988; Shanley et al., 2004). In an integrated approach workflow proposed by Rushing et al.
(2008) for tight sandstone reservoirs the authors state that characterization of unconventional plays requires a deep
understanding of petrographic and hydraulic rock types for defining reservoir quality of such tight rocks. Essentially, these
rock types are based on the description of the authigenic and detrital composition, and the quantification of the rock flow and
storage capacity.
The Monteith Formation is an important siliciclastic gas-bearing reservoir located in the Deep Basin of Alberta and British
Columbia. Significant gas volumes are hosted in these Late Jurassic-Early Cretaceous strata. A detailed reservoir
characterization has been performed by GFREEs researchers at the University of Calgary due to the large gas-potential in
this stratigraphic unit and the scarcity of literature regarding the major geologic controls on distribution of key reservoir
properties. Thus, rock-types identification of the Monteith sandstones is crucial to improve our understanding of these
deposits. This will benefit capital investment and gas recovery efficiency from this particular unit.

SPE-167177-MS

Keeping this in mind, results of two research projects focused on the Monteith strata are joined and are expected to provide
important feedback for future hydrocarbon exploration and development of these low-permeability gas intervals using the
available dataset. In addition, an enhanced methodology provides an excellent opportunity to improve our understanding of
other similarly underexploited, undercored tight gas reservoirs with the incorporation of different data sources and analytical
techniques presented in the here described workflow.
The purpose of this investigation is the identification of key geologic and engineering aspects of the Monteith A and
Monteith C intervals including: (1) nature of porosity and permeability, and their relation to petrophysical properties as
qualitative indicators of storage and flow capacities; (2) mineralogical composition and dominant pore geometries; (3)
identification of characteristic flow-units, (4) investigation of possible relationships between sedimentary facies, mineralogy
and diagenetic processes, and petrophysical rock properties, and (5) relationship of the previous properties and gas
production from individual wells.
The previous knowledge combined with multi-fractured stimulated horizontal wells is critical to economic success of the
Monteith tight gas reservoir, which is becoming an increasingly important producer. In order to provide support for the
results of this work and to guide future drilling and development activities; acquisition of seismic data, appropriate sampling,
and testing will be essential to create major gains in basin and play evaluation.
Geological Setting and Stratigraphic Framework
The ate urassic Early Cretaceous Monteith Formation is part of the Deep Basin Gas System in Alberta, Canada. It is
interpreted to have been deposited during the first associated sedimentary cycle of the coarser sediments of the Alberta
Foreland Basin (Poulton, 1990, 1994; Stott, 1984; Leckie et al., 1992). The stratigraphic terminology applied to this interval
has been changing significantly over the last decade as a result of more detailed geological studies.
The general stratigraphic correlation of this unit was previously delineated by Stott (1998) and was formally referred to as
Nikanassin Formation. Subsequently, Miles (2010) indicated that this stratigraphic interval (Nikanassin Formation) in the
subsurface of Alberta was possibly correlatable with the Minnes Group based on the study of outcrop exposures in
northeastern British Columbia (Figure 1). As a result, he proposed changing the name Nikanassin Formation and using in
its place Nikanassin Group. He also adapted the use of the Monteith, Beattie Peaks, and Monach Formations within the
Minnes Group (equivalent Nikanassin Group in the Alberta Deep Basin), from older to younger, respectively. However, a
careful review was provided recently by the same author (Miles et al., 2012), suggesting that the Monteith Formation
(Northeastern British Columbia) is the lithostratigraphic equivalent of the Minnes Group (or Nikanassin Group in the Alberta
Deep Basin). Consequently, he proposed an informal subdivision for this Formation consisting of the Monteith C, B and A,
from bottom-up, respectively (the previous equivalents were Monteith, Beattie Peaks, and Monach Formations, respectively).
The recent stratigraphic framework developed by Miles et al., 2012 is used in this study.
In west-central Alberta, the Monteith Formation is generally conformable with the underlying Upper Fernie Formation and
unconformable overlain by Early Cretaceous conglomeratic deposits of the Cadomin Formation (Stott, 1998; Poulton et al.,
1990; 1994). The Monteith Formation is an overall progradational sequence grading from shallow marine (Monteith C), to
coastal plains (Monteith B), and fluvial deposits (Monteith A) at the top of this stratigraphic sequence (Figure 2). Detrital
composition is represented by an upward-shift from quartz-to-chert-rich sediments. Paleoflow suggested that the quartzosematerial was derived in an axial drainage across the continental USA, whereas the chert-rich sediments were predominantly
derived from locally sourced recycled fold-thrust strata in Canadian Cordillera (Raines, 2011).
The structural configuration of the Monteith Formation corresponds to a homoclinal structure slightly dipping towards the
southwest. No major faults have been found to be present within the study area, although Solano (2010) discussed the
possible presence of SW-NE structural elements within the study area, likely linked to differential compaction of underlying
Devonian strata.
Schematic cross sections display the vertical and lateral distribution of the sandstone body geometries from the three
stratigraphic units which comprise the Monteith sequence (Figure 3, 4). It can be seen in Figure 3 that the entire Monteith
Formation thickens to the west. Its thickness ranges from 170 to 65 m in the northwest and westernmost regions decreasing to
a zero-edge in the northeast portion of the study area (Miles, 2010), where it was partially removed by
the erosion surface below the Cretaceous Cadomin unconformity. Although, net sandstone mapping is beyond the scope of
this study, sandstone distributions have been mapped by Miles et al., 2012; Kukulski et al., 2012. The thickness of the
Monteith C to the east is a partial thickness since it has been affected by erosional truncation associated with the subCadomin unconformity. Figure 4 shows thickness of the Monteith B increasing from 0 m in the east at its erosional edge
beneath the overlying Cadomin unconformity to >70 m in the west-southwest. In addition, this section outlines the erosional
truncation associated with the overlying sub-Cadomin unconformity, as well as the thinning of the Monteith A strata to the

SPE-167177-MS

northeast (thickness between 42 to 25 m). Most of the sandstone bodies from Monteith A show both lateral and vertical
amalgamation, as suggested by Kukulski et al., 2012.
Gas Production and Drilling
The Monteith Formation tight gas sandstones are part of a basin centered gas system in the Deep Basin of Alberta (Masters,
1979; Solano et al., 2010), characterized by regionally pervasive continuous accumulations with the following key elements
(Law, 2002): 1) Continuous gas saturation, 2) abnormally pressured, 3) low permeability reservoirs, and 4) no down dip
water contact. Potential gas reserves from these low porosity and permeability sandstone reservoirs have been found to be
significant (ERCB, 2005; Deng, 2011; Gonzalez, 2012). Since the discovery of the Elmworth and Wapiti area in 1976, now
referred to as the Deep Basin (Masters, 1979), production has primarily concentrated on good quality reservoirs within Lower
Cretaceous strata. Gas production within the study area commenced in August 1980 with well 100/07-15-067-10W6/00
completed in intervals within the Cadomin and Falher Formations.
Subsequently, additional development in the study area has included commingled production (and hydraulic fracturing) of the
Monteith C and Monteith A, the overlying Cadomin Formation and other younger Cretaceous intervals. The number of
Monteith stand-alone producers is relatively small, and most of the wells are located in townships T6509W6 and T6610W6.
Moreover, there are only two wells currently producing exclusively from the Monteith A unit, and two wells producing
exclusively from the Monteith C interval (as of January 2013).
Study Area and Methods
The Late Jurassic Early Cretaceous Monteith Formation currently present in the subsurface of west-central Alberta
represents an important tight-gas producing interval. The study area is located approximately 400 km northwest of
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and partly covers the north and southeast portion of the Wapiti gas field and the northwest
portion of the Red Rock gas field. The total area is 2000 km2 with the NW corner defined by township 67 range11W6, and
township 64 range 7W6 in the SE corner (Figure 5).
The stratigraphic intervals investigated in this study are informally referred to as Monteith A and Monteith C (Miles et
al., 2012), and correspond to the uppermost and lowermost portions within the Monteith Formation in the Deep Basin of
Alberta (Figure 1). The primary source of information used in this investigation are cores from 2 wells, wireline well logs
(i.e. gamma radiation, neutron, density, resistivity, induction, and sonic), drill cuttings from 15 different locations (total 915
m), and production data from 13 wells within the study area (Table 1).
Sedimentological analysis of two cores from wells 07-07-065-07W6 (Monteith C- lower), and 15-27-066-10W6 (Monteith
A- upper) were used to define the major lithofacies and depositional setting for each stratigraphic interval; samples collected
from these cores allowed the preparation of fifty-two thin sections used to carry out a standard petrographic description. In
addition, drill-cuttings samples from both stratigraphic units were selected to perform porosity and permeability analysis.
Determination of porosity in those samples was based on Archimedes principle following a procedure presented in API RP40 (Solano, 2010; Ortega, 2012; Olusola, 2013; Zambrano, 2013). The iquid Pressure Pulse method (Egermann et al.,
2002; 2006) was used in the determination of permeability in more than 220 drill cutting samples as part of this study.
A key to the approach used in this study is the characterization of sandstones bodies of the Monteith Formation trough the
combined analysis of all available data, using several cross-plots, ternary diagrams plots and stratigraphic cross-sections to
explore possible relationships between the depositional facies, the principal petrographic characteristics, and reservoir
properties for each stratigraphic unit. This integration allows comparison of the major geologic controls on production from
the Monteith A and Monteith C units, respectively.
Sedimentology
Sedimentological description of the selected cored intervals led to the identification of the 5 major lithofacies based on color,
grain size, physical sedimentary structure, composition, bedding, and physical and biogenic structures (Walker et al., 1992;
Miall, 1996). Characterization of the sedimentary facies and facies association, recognized from core analysis, provide a
general overview regarding the depositional environment of the Monteith Formation within the study area. Additional details
regarding the evolution and lateral facies changes are presented by Miles et al., 2012 in a more regional context.
The Monteith Formation within the study area can be described in terms of five facies association (Table 2). Monteith C is
represented by a coarsening- upward sequence which grades vertically into shoreface deposits (SF), to mouth bar (MB),
cross-cutting estuarine/distributary channels (CH), and coastal plain /tidal flats (CP/MTF/STF; Figure 6). Those facies

SPE-167177-MS

represent the base of a gradational succession capped by sediments from the Monteith B, and Monteith A, respectively.
Monteith B facies are dominated by thinly interbedded fine grained siltstone, mudstone and coal seams with localized, very
tight sandstones. Above the Monteith B, sediments from the Monteith A are present, and form a fining-upward sequence
characterized by thick-bedded sandstones (W/FCH) and fine-grained facies (OV/D), which cap the entire reservoir (Figure 7).
In this context, detailed facies relationships suggest that Monteith Formation contains a continuous progradational sequence
grading from shallow marine, deltaic to coastal plains, to fluvial deposits at the top of this stratigraphic sequence.
Facies Description
Facies (SF/MB/MSh) coarsens upward from mudstone to very fine grained sandstone. This succession starts with slightly
bioturbated marine mudstone which sometimes is directly overlain by muddy conglomeratic sandstones, and several upward
alternations of low-angle cross-bedded and planar parallellaminated strata. Two successions were recognized in the core
separated by some bioturbated marine mudstone, showing evidence for the progradational character of the system. These
successions are between 4 and 6 meters thick, with the thickest one on the upper part (Solano, 2010). Low diversity of trace
fossil content was observed. Also, biogenic structures are present in moderate amounts along the vertical extent of these
facies.
Facies (CH) is composed of a vertical alternation of sandstone with rip up shale clasts, followed upwards by 3D cross-bedded
sandstone, and capped by either conglomeratic sandstone (sharp contact), or planar parallel laminated and rippled sandstone
(transitional contact) (Solano, 2010). This vertical succession forms stacked in 1-2 meters thickness packages. Biogenic
structures are limited to moderate amounts of possible Macaronichnus isp and other non-identified microbioturbations, and
occasional skolithos traces.
Facies (CP/MTF/STF), approximately 10 m thick, start with black mudstone and muddy sediments with a continuous upward
increase in the presence of starved ripples grading into well-developed lenticular and wavy and rippled bedded sandstone,
capped again by muddier lithofacies (Solano, 2010). A similar sequence has been described in the literature as mixed sandy
to muddy flats in a typical siliciclastic tidal flat setting (Reineck et al., 1966; 1968). Biogenic structures are almost absent.
Facies (W/FCH) includes a matrix supported conglomerate, followed by medium to thin beds with planar to inclined tabular
cross-stratified sandstone, low cross-stratification angles (sub-parallel) sandstone, and massive (structureless) sandstone with
mud-clast dominated intervals (Zambrano, 2013). This succession is between 2 - 6 meters thick. Overall, the fluvial channels
packages consist of blocky or ning upward gamma-log signatures, with a gradationally boundary overlaid by muddy and
finer-grained deposits of OV/D.
Facies (OV/D) is composed primarily of very fine-grained sandstone, thin-medium bedded ripples and climbing ripples,
interbedded with silt, mud and small proportions of very fine sandstones. Thickness ranges from < 1.0 cm to 1 m thick.
Transitional contact is observed in most cases. Bioturbation in OV/D is absent. These OV/D facies are interpreted as having
been deposited on fluvial overbank settings or to represent the deposition of a bar-top (Kukulski, 2012).
Depositional Setting
Sedimentological description performed on two cores infers a grading upward from shallow marine toward more continental
deposits (tidal channels, and tidal flats) of the Monteith C, to coastal plain deposits of the Monteith B, and deposits of
fluvial systems of the Monteith A. According to Miles et al. (2012), the Monteith sequence represents a continuous cycle of
basin filling without having apparent breaks in the overall geologic record.
Framework Composition and Texture
A total of fifty-two (52) double-polished thin sections were prepared using core-samples from two wells within the study
area. Thin sections were impregnated with blue-dye epoxy resin to highlight porosity. Additionally, the internal geometry of
the pore system and cement were visualized from selected samples using a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) with probes
for Back Scattered Electron detection (BSE) and Cathodo-luminiscence (CL). A detailed petrographic description of the main
characteristics observed for depositional facies described above is shown in Table 3, including mineralogical composition,
cements, pore types and clay-filling material.
Thin sections of Monteith sandstones show that the mineralogical composition varies from litharenites, to sublitharenites and
quartzarenites. The average composition is Quartz (Q)= 52%, Feldspars (F) = 3%, and Rock Fragments (R)= 45%. Although
quartz is the most important detrital component, almost the same proportion of rock fragments such as chert, shales and other
lithics are also observed. The type and abundance of lithics vary at different intervals, and it appear to be closely related with
the two distinct source of provenance as suggested by Raines (2011) (Figure 8-A). He stated that the two source regions

SPE-167177-MS

which supplied sediment were one in the fold-thrust belt of the northern Cordillera, and the other in the southern Cordilleran
and continental deposits of the USA. Moreover, he identified two types of sandstones: a quartzose-rich zone, which is present
at the base of the Jurassic-Cretaceous sequence, and a chert-rich zone which is restricted to higher stratigraphic positions.
Basically, this is the reason for differences found through the entire stratigraphic sequence of the Monteith Formation.
According to this study, the Monteith A (upper) sandstones are mostly litharenites, with an average composition Q42F1R57;
whereas Monteith C (lower) sandstones are sub-litharenites and quartzarenites, with an average of Q77F3R20. Thus, this
interpretation seems to be consistent with the sandstone composition data proposed by Raines (2011).
Figure 8-A shows that the higher proportions of quartz are closely associated with the estuarine/distributary channels
lithofacies (CH); however, shale, feldspars and chert fragments are also observed in those samples. Chert fragments are
slightly larger than surrounding grains, having also an elongated shape with sub-angular to sub-rounded edges. Feldspar
grains show different degrees of replacement by calcite, as well as abundant alteration (mostly vacuolitization). Coastal
plain/tidal flats (CP/MTF/STF) facies are mainly litharenites, clustering in a limited region of the plot (65-75% of detrital
quarzt); for these, the major detrital components are quartz, chert, and shale, with some feldspars, micas and opaque minerals.
Also, marine facies (SF/MB/MSh) are composed of quartz (between 75 and 90% of detrital quartz), chert, shale, and feldspar
fragments, with lesser amounts of opaque minerals, detrital carbonate, and mica. Although most feldspar grains have been
partly to completely replaced by calcite precipitation, some remain unaltered. In contrast, the highest lithic content
corresponds to the fluvial channel assemblage (W/FCH), with the points located in a region of the plot that varies between
25% and 75% of detrital quartz content.
Up to five types of pore geometries can be observed in the Monteith sandstone samples. These are grouped under three major
categories: (a) intergranular pores, (b) intragranular pores, and (c) one category that includes micropores, porosity from
micro-fractures, and slot-like pores (Soeder, 1984; Figures 8-B, 9, 10). The comparison of these porosity groups with the
defined sedimentary facies is shown in Figure 8-B. It can be seen that most of the points are located in the lower portion of
the plot, towards higher values of microporosity, which is the dominant pore geometry within Monteith sandstones, mainly
associated to altered chert fragments and clays, with locally slot-like pores formed between adjacent quartz grains and some
microfractures which have been almost completely healed by silica cement. Those data points correspond to marine facies
(SF/MB/MSh), coastal plain/tidal flats (CP/MTF/STF), and overbank (OV/D) and minor proportion of within- fluvial channel
deposits (W/FCH). However, it can be noticed that samples from channelized facies (CH) within the Monteith C are more
displaced towards the intragranular values, with almost null values of intergranular porosity. In addition, the rest of the
samples from fluvial-channel deposits (W/FCH) are located towards the central part of the plot, depicting some amounts of
intergranular porosity as well as intragranular pores.
On the basis of the previous petrographic analysis the major diagenetic events recognized as affecting the pore-structure
within the analyzed samples include: mechanical compaction and deformation of ductile grains, calcite replacement,
precipitation of kaolinite filling pore-space, quartz cementation (overgrowth), chemical compaction by pressure solution and
stylolitization. However, a precise timing and order cannot be fully inferred for all of the diagenetic effects observed in this
study. Moreover, a better understanding of the diagenetic overprint requires further investigation through a detailed
petrologic study.
Petrographic Controls on Reservoir Quality
The influence of petrographic features identified such as the main rock-forming constituents, pores types and diagenetic
relations on reservoir quality were evaluated through the analysis of some ternary diagram plots which were analyzed from
core-samples of both stratigraphic units. Therefore, the documentation of the key rock-pore observations including grain size,
sorting, cements, pore-filling material, and visible pores, is of key importance for the evaluation of effective or potential of
these rocks.
A comparison between the mineralogical composition and porosity values obtained from thin sections and routine core
analysis measurements can be analyzed through the ternary plots in Figure 11 and Figure 12, respectively. Figure 11-A shows
that high porosity values estimated from thin sections appear to be preferentially clustered towards relatively higher
percentages of detrital quartz. However, no clear trend can be defined for the entire dataset as observed in Figure 11-A and
Figure 12-A.
Several differences were observed when analyzing the distribution of higher porosity values estimated from thin sections
compared to routine core analysis. For example, it was previously observed that the porosity differences observed in the
Monteith C unit might be related to the porosity type contribution (Solano, 2010). The same author proposed that most of
the microporosity (likely disconnected) accounted for several samples where these micropores might not have been
accessible to the probing gas during the routine core analysis (Figure 13). As a result, the presence of microporosity and
dissolution pores observed on thin section slides might overestimate this value by up to eight porosity units (+8% is the

SPE-167177-MS

intersection of dotted red line with the zero porosity from routine core analysis horizontal axe on this plot; notice that this line
is more or less parallel to the 45 degrees line intersecting the origin of the plot, thus a constant relationship can be inferred
between both trends). A more disperse distribution of porosity values vs. mineralogical composition is observed for the
Monteith A as shown in the plots displayed on Figure 11-C and Figure 12-C. Although the same comparison was
performed between permeability values from routine core analysis on a ternary plot of mineralogical composition (Figure
14), no conclusive trends were found for this rock property in any stratigraphic strata.
A comparison between the pore geometry groups explained above and the rock properties estimated from routine core
analysis was also investigated through several ternary plots. Additionally, ranges of porosity values estimated from thin
sections on a ternary plot of pore geometry (Figure 15) shows no clear trend when we consider samples for different
stratigraphic intervals within the reservoir. However, it can be seen for the Monteith C samples (Figure 15-B and Figure
16-B) that low porosity values are slightly biased towards the microporosity/ microfractures/slot porosity corner. In contrast,
for the Monteith A sandstones (Figure 15-C) there seems to be some segregation of porosity type relative to the rock
quality: the higher porosity values are associated to higher proportions of intergranular pores, according to Zambrano (2013).
Furthermore, the same plots were prepared with porosity and permeability values from routine core analysis of Monteith A
samples, which show relatively higher variability of the observed pore types with those rock properties (Figure 16-C and
Figure 17-C). Interestingly, it can be seen for the Monteith C that lower values of permeability are preferentially clustered
towards the microporosity/microfractures/slot porosity corner of the plot (Figure 17-B). According to Solano (2010), this
observation implies some degree of connectivity related to microporosity/ microfractures/ or slot like pores in the matrix of
theses rocks.
A similar comparison was carried out for pore types groups observed from thin sections and the structural depth of the
Monteith samples (Figure 18). Zambrano (2013) found a clear separation in the data point groups within the Monteith A
samples (Figure 18-C), indicating that in the shallowest locations the intergranular pore type is dominant, whereas the
deepest portion exhibits higher proportion of intragranular pores. So structural depth seems to be more important within the
Monteith A than it is for the Monteith C (Figure 18-B), for which the pore type fraction distribution seems to be more or
less independent of the structural depth of the samples within a few 10s Km of lateral distance (Solano, 2010).
Although there seems to be a large amount of variability and partial overlapping in porosity and permeability distributions
that account for the dominant sedimentary facies, a linear trend can be recognized in Figure 19. In this plot, which shows
porosity vs. permeability values constrained by depositional facies, the higher values of permeability are related to the
channelized facies (CH, W/FCH). In contrast, the non-channelized facies exhibit moderate to relatively low values of
permeability (SF/MB/MSh), with the exception of the finer-grained deposits associated to the overbank deposits (OV/D),
which exhibit low permeability values due to the clay-rich matrix. Despite this narrow permeability distribution, there seems
to be a wide range of porosity values partly overlapping within each of the major depositional facies.
In general, the reservoir quality seems to be better in the non-marine facies such as estuarine/distributary channel (CH) and
fluvial channels (W/FCH) compared to that of shallow-marine to coastal plain facies. Each dominant lithofacies described in
this study can be recognized by their characteristic framework grain composition, texture, and subsequent diagenetic events.
Even though such diagenetic processes have been suggested to be the most important factors affecting current reservoir
quality of the Monteith Formation; detailed petrographic and geochemical studies of diagenesis are further required to
explain this variability. Table 4 summarizes the petrophysical properties for each depositional facies.
For instance, we could try and analyze the reservoir quality as related to differences in the texture and grain size: sandstones
interpreted as estuarine/distributary channels are generally fine to medium-grained, moderately to well-sorted, whereas
sandstones in fluvial channels are poorly to moderately-sorted, medium to coarse-grained (Table 3). Figure 20 shows grain
size distribution estimated from thin sections for each depositional lithofacies, including maximum and minimum grain size
(m), median particle size (m), 25% and 75% quartiles (Q25, Q75 in m). Although there is a variation in this parameter
within these major depositional facies, according to the median grain size a dominant particle size can be observed. In
general, the grain size of the Monteith samples ranges from very-fine to coarse-grained sandstones, and this seems to be
related to the depositional environments.
Interestingly, plots in Figure 21 can be used as qualitative indicators of reservoir quality, which show that the best reservoir
quality occurs in lithofacies (CH) and within-fluvial channels (W/FCH) sandstones. The channel facies are medium to
coarse-grained, and those deposits display a distinct compositional range (Figure 8-A). Low proportion of rock fragments is
associated with distributary channel sandstones (CH) within the Monteith C, which represents the cleanest (i.e., richer in
quartz) sandstone in the sequence. Although a high proportion of rock fragments is observed in the fluvial-sandstones
(W/FCH), there are still some intergranular pores left in the pore-network, likely due to quartz cements which are
preferentially developed between quartz-quartz contacts. When the lithic content increases, the development of quartz

SPE-167177-MS

cements decrease. Sandstones from both facies have localized, relatively high porosities values mainly due to the
preservation of intergranular pore space, the development of secondary intragranular pores, and minor microporosity (Figure
8-B). In contrast, poor reservoir quality is associated with shallow-marine (SF/MB/MSh), coastal plain/tidal flats
(CP/MTF/STF), and overbank (OV/D) deposits. Overall, those sandstones are commonly composed of alternating
laminations of fine and very fine grained sandstones or siltstones, leading to a poor sorting and further reduction of
permeability, particularly in the vertical direction. The proportionally lower porosity values in these deposits might be
attributed to the considerable microporosity component in their pore-geometry. Microporosity is more abundant in
sandstones that are enriched in pore-filling clays minerals and within mineral replacement areas.
Reservoir Flow Units
A relationship between porosity, permeability and pore throat aperture (rp 35) have been used in the industry for estimating
flow units, as suggested by several authors (Kolodzie, 1980; Pitman, 1992; Aguilera, 2003). A flow-unit has been defined by
Hartmann et al., (1999) as a reservoir subdivision defined on the basis of similar pore type. The determination of pore
throat aperture represents a key parameter in the characterization of reservoir rocks which under favorable conditions can be
related to possible flow gas/oil rates for tight and shale reservoirs, as showed recently Aguilera (2013). The following
equation is used for determining pore throat radii (rp35) in microns (Aguilera (2002, 2004):
[(

(1)

where rp35 is pore-throat radius at 35% mercury saturation, k is permeability (mD) and is porosity (fraction).
Figure 22 is a cross plot of porosity and permeability on a template developed by Aguilera (2003). The poro-perm data was
measured in drill cuttings collected in both Monteith stratigraphic units (upper and lower). It is noticeable that most of the
samples from Monteith C (lower) drill cuttings concentrate on rp35 lines ranging between 0.2 and 0.5 microns, whereas data
points from Monteith A (upper) show a slight dispersion of rp35 values ranging from 0.2 to 1 micron. However, the dominant
pore throat size corresponds to the low of end mesoports (pore = pore throat).
In both units the storage capacity is restricted to porosity values smaller than 10%, with the exceptions of a few sweet-spots
identified in some wells. Although there is partial overlap in rock properties to support flow-units delineations for each
depositional facies, different pore throat apertures (rp35) are clearly delineated in Figure 23 (same data is shown in Figure 19).
Thus, a closer inspection of Figure 23 reveal for example that rock properties for depositional facies associated with the
distributary channel (CH) and within-fluvial deposits (W/FCH) are clustered in the low end of mesoports, which also
represent the best quality rocks.
On the other hand, the shallow-marine (SF/MB/MSh), coastal plain/tidal flats (CP/MTF/STF), and overbank deposits (OV/D)
are all grouped in the poorest reservoir rock types represented by microports. Most of the porosity in these depositional facies
is associated to microporosity. Essentially, two distinctive flow-units can be recognized in the Monteith sandstones that can
be grouped according to the dominant pore throat radii (Figure 24):
1.
2.

Microports: 0.2 < rp35 0.5 microns


(low-quality reservoir rock)
Low end mesoports: 0.5 < rp35 1.0 microns (higher-quality reservoir rock)

Production Association with Rock Types


Understanding geologic attributes through a detailed description of different rock types present in the Monteith sequence
helps to characterize the variability in well-performance and will maximize the utility of future drilling opportunities in this
potentially gigantic continuous gas accumulation.
The study area considered in this paper is about 2000 km2. Over 75 wells are completed to produce commingled from the
Monteith Formation and others up-hole reservoirs, making difficult to quantify the Monteith individual contribution.
However, within the study area, Monteith gas production history is available for only four wells. Individual production rates
and cumulative gas production are exclusively associated to two wells that are actually producing from the Monteith A
(upper): 100/02-15-066-10W6 and 100/04-14-066-10W6; and two wells producing from the Monteith C (lower): 100/09-11066-10W6 and 100/13-14-065-09W6. Gas rates reported for January 2013 are 8781.1 Mscf and 7276.2 Mscf (upper zone);
and 3936.3 Mscf and 9118.3 Mscf (lower zone), respectively. The cumulative gas production volumes are 945091.2 Mscf in
6 years and 853737.5 Mscf in 7 years (upper zone); and 424391.3 Mscf in 6 years and 555959.4 Mscf in 5 years (lower
zone).

SPE-167177-MS

Production history of 13 wells that penetrate the Monteith Formation within the study area (Table 1) have been extracted
from GeoScout. The data have been used as published and has not been twisted in any way with functions or exponents, just
for the sake of getting a match without due consideration to geoscience, something that quite often frustrates geologists and
geophysicists. To make comparisons consistent, the data has been normalized to the first month of production as shown on
Figure 25. The upper graph (Figure 25-A) is a log-log crossplot of monthly gas production vs. time (months) since initiation
of production. Most wells display similar slopes of approximately -0.5 indicating linear flow behavior. The middle graph
(Figure 25-B) shows a crossplot of the inverse of monthly production (1/q) vs. square root of time (time is in months). Most
of the production data tend to form approximate straight lines that once again indicate the presence of linear flow. Finally,
the bottom graph (Figure 25-C) shows a crossplot of cumulative gas production (Gp) in thousands of cubic feet (Mcf) vs.
square root of time. The approximate straight lines corroborate that linear flow is dominant in the study area, although there
are a few exceptions that are discussed later.
Surprisingly, the linear flow indications occur in 4 wells that are producing from different zones in the Monteith Formation,
and 7 out of 9 wells that are producing simultaneously using commingled completions with the younger cretaceous Cadomin
Formation. This is interpreted to be the result of hydraulic fracturing jobs needed in all these vertical wells to attain
commercial production. Given the depth of the Formations the hydraulic fractures are in all probability vertical. Thus the
observed linear flow occurs from the various Formations towards the vertical fractures.
To study flow behavior in more detail the production histories of the 13 wells presented in Figure 25 are discussed next,
individually.
Figure 26 shows the same sets of graphs discussed above for wells 100/02-15-066-10W6 and 100/04-14-066-10W6, which
produce exclusively from the Monteith A (upper unit). Figure 27 shows the same types of plots for 100/09-11-066-10W6
and 100/13-14-065-09W6, which produce exclusively from the Monteith C (lower unit).
The best production performance is provided by Upper Monteith wells 2-15 and 4-14 as compared with Lower Monteith
wells 9-11 and 13-14. Although this is difficult to notice at first glance from the upper and middle graphs in Figures 26 and
27, the result is apparent when cumulative production is compared after for example 36 months in the lower graph of each
Figure. The cumulative gas rate for the upper Monteith wells at this time (square root of time = 6) is in the order of 590
MMcf for well 2-15 and 450 MMcf for well 4-14. On the other hand, cumulative gas production at the same production time
is about 271 MMcf for well 9-11 and 409 MMcf for well 13-14.
The type of graph presented at the bottom of Figures 26 and 27 is not found in the literature, which concentrates particularly
on log-log and square root plots for analysis linear flow. However, the cumulative production vs. square root of time plot is
very powerful as shown above for linking cumulative production and rock quality. We also introduce in this paper a method
for evaluating empirically flowback, as all of these Formations have to be hydraulically fractured to achieve economic status.
The time to end of flowback is obtained by extrapolating the linear flow straight line to zero cumulative gas production. The
observation should prove valuable for future hydraulic fracturing jobs in the area.
The above results fit nicely with the geological interpretation discussed previously indicating that rock properties for
depositional facies associated with the distributary channel (CH) and within-fluvial deposits (W/FCH) are clustered in the
low end of mesoports, which also represent the best quality rocks (Wells 2-15 and 4-14). On the other hand, the shallowmarine (SF/MB/MSh), coastal plain/tidal flats (CP/MTF/STF), and overbank deposits (OV/D) are all grouped in the poorest
reservoir rock types represented by microports (Wells 9-11 and 13-14).
From the point of view of production behavior, Figure 26 shows in an almost text book fashion that linear flow is dominant,
following the flowback period. But from an economic point of view the outstanding finding is that after 72 months of
production in well 2-15 and 81 months of production in well 4-14, the performance still corresponds to an in-finite acting
reservoir. Given the cumulative production of these 2 wells, the Monteith potential is gigantic as it is a continuous gas
accumulation.
Other feature observed in Figure 26 is that all the graphs for well 2-15 show after approximately 56 months a welcome
deviation from the linear flow lines. This is the results of the micropores (the worst gas filled-porosity) feeding the mesoports
(the best quality rock). If the boundaries of the reservoir feeding this well had been reached, the deviation from the linear
flow lines would have gone in opposite directions.
The graphs in Figure 27 for wells 9-11 and 13-14 for the lower Monteith show the same type of signatures as Figure 26.
Linear flow is dominant. The performance, however, is not as good because the rocks are mostly associated with
microporosity and microports (rp35 ranging between 0.2 and 0.5 microns) as discussed previously. However, there are clear
indications of the worst micropores (0.2 to 0.3microns) feeding the slightly better microports (0.3 to 0.5 microns).

SPE-167177-MS

The link between geoscience and production data discussed above is possible because the 4 wells are producing exclusively
from the Monteith Formation. The interpretation when the Upper and Lower zones of the Monteith are produced commingled
with the Cadomin Formation is somewhat more complicated but still possible with a recently developed theoretical model
(Aguilera, 2013). This problem is discussed next.
Figure 28 shows log-log crossplots of monthly gas production vs. time (months) for 9 commingled wells. The red dashed
lines (slope = -0.5) correspond to linear flow and are clearly the most dominant. However, they are not as the text book
cases shown on Figures 26 and 27 where the wells are producing exclusively from the Monteith.
In Figure 28 there are also other straight lines with a slope of -1.0 highlighted by blue dash lines. This slope corresponds to a
period termed interlinear or transition flow by Aguilera (2013). In the case of these wells the combination of linear and
interlinear flow is the result of commingled completions. The existence of slopes equal to -0.5 and -1.0 have been
demonstrated by Aguilera as shown in the theoretical plot of dimensionless rate (qD) vs. dimensionless time (tD) presented in
Figure 29.
Figure 30 shows the same data presented in Figure 29 but now as conventional crossplots of the inverse of monthly
production vs. the square root of time (months). The graphs show indications of back flow (FB) period following hydraulic
fracturing jobs, linear flow (LF) and boundary dominated flow (BDF).
Finally, Figure 31 shows the same data displayed in Figure 31 but now as crossplots of cumulative gas productions vs. square
root of time. The crossplots show the flowback (FB) periods ending at the end of the intercept the dashed red straight lines
and zero cumulative production. Also included are linear flow (LF) and boundary dominated flow (BDF) periods.
In summary, even complex reservoirs such as the Monteith can be linked to production data by carrying out detailed
geological analysis. This is much more powerful than tweaking exponents in production decline analysis with the sole goal of
obtaining a good match.
Conclusions
This study presents a comparison of rock properties and production performance between the uppermost lithostratigraphic
unit Monteith A and the lowermost Monteith C within the Monteith Formation in the Deep Basin of Alberta. The
purpose of the evaluation is to develop comprehensive understanding of the dominant geologic controls that differentiate the
pore-characteristics, and the distribution of reservoir quality in these two stratigraphy units.
The relationships between the major depositional facies, diagenetic overprinting, dominant pore-geometry, mineralogy, and
rock properties will lead to improve productivity and gas. Although the potential of these low-permeability reservoirs in
Canada is, quite simply put, gigantic; their successful development and marketing will depend on geoscience and
technological innovations as well as the price of natural gas.
The integrated geologic analysis performed on cores and drill cutting samples from both stratigraphic units in the Deep
Basin of Alberta and the link established with production performance have led to the following conclusions:
1.

2.
3.
4.

5.
6.

7.

Mineralogical composition of the Monteith gas-bearing intervals varies from a medium-coarse grained litharenite,
poorly to moderately sorted (Upper member), to fine-medium grained litharenites to sub-litharenites, moderately to
well-sorted with occasional quartz-arenites zones (Lower member).
Permeability data from routine core analysis from the lower interval ranges from 0.01 to 0.62 mD (geomean 0.08
mD), whereas permeability from the upper ranges from 0.03 to 0.94 mD with a geomean equal to 0.16 mD.
Porosity from routine core analysis and thin sections range from near zero up to 6% in the lower unit. Porosity
ranges from close to zero to 6.8% in the upper unit,
The major diagenetic events recognized as affecting the pore-structure within the analyzed samples include:
mechanical compaction and deformation of ductile grains, calcite replacement, precipitation of kaolinite filling porespace, quartz cementation (overgrowth), chemical compaction by pressure solution and stylolitization.
Plots of porosity and permeability datapoints demonstrated a strong linear correlation between those variables
indicating that non-marine facies are more permeable and have larger pores to permit hydrocarbon production.
Basic petrographic analysis along with various plots of permeability versus other parameters like pore types,
mineralogical composition, grain size, depositional facies, and porosity values revealed that reservoir quality is
likely controlled by diagenetic processes, linking diagenesis to depositional facies, which more likely affecting the
distribution of pores types. Thus, gas storage capacity is controlled by the dominant pore-geometry.
The upper Monteith unit has larger pore throat apertures (rp35) ranging between 0.5 and 1 micron. The lower
Monteith unit has pore throat apertures ranging between 0.2 and 0.5 microns.

10

SPE-167177-MS

8.

There is a clear link between production performance and rock types. The best performance is associated with low
end mesoports. The lowest productions are associated with microports.
9. Commingled completions are characterized by combined linear and interlinear flow.
10. Flowback times can be estimated from crossplots of cumulative gas production vs. the square root of time. The end
of the flowback period occurs at the intercept of the linear flow straight line and zero cumulative production.
11. From the analysis of production data the type of flow observed in the hydraulically fractured vertical Late Jurassic
tight- gas wells is linear flow, with no evidence of reaching reservoir boundary limits.
12. Even complex reservoirs such as the Monteith can be linked to production data by carrying out detailed geological
analysis. This is much more powerful than tweaking exponents in production decline analysis with the sole goal of
obtaining a good match.
Acknowledgements
Those works were funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), ConocoPhillips,
Alberta Innovates Energy and Environment Solutions (AERI), and the Department of Geoscience at the University of
Calgary. Thanks to ConocoPhillips for providing the drill-cuttings samples used for the GFREE team. Thanks to Dr. Roland
Lenormand of Cydarex (Paris, France) for providing the Darcylog equipment for laboratory work with drill-cuttings.
Acknowledgements also to Geologic Systems Ltd. and Schlumberger for license donations to the University of Calgary.
Liliana Zambrano would also like to thank her colleagues in the GFREE team for their help and many ideas in this thesis.
Liliana would especially like to thank Nisael Solano, Ross Kukulski, and Keegan Raines for their invaluable contribution in
this work.
Nomenclature
CH= Channel
CP/MTF/STF = Coastal Plains/Muddy/Sandy Tidal Flats
SF/MB/MSh = Shoreface/Mouthbar/Marine Shale
OV/D= overbank deposits
W/FCH= within-fluvial channels
References
Aguilera, R., 2002, Incorporating Capillary Pressure, Pore Aperture Radii, Height Above Free Water Table, and Winland r35 Values on
Pickett Plots, AAPG Bulletin, v. 86, No. 4, pp. 605-624.
Aguilera, R., 2003, Geologic and Engineering Aspects of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysicists
Recorder, Vol. 28, No. 2, P. 44-49, 2003.
Aguilera, R., 2004, Integration of Geology, Petrophysics, and Reservoir Engineering for Characterization of Carbonate Reservoirs through
Pickett Plots, AAPG Bulletin, v. 88, no. 4, pp. 433446.
Aguilera, R., 2013. Flow Units: From Conventional to Tight Gas to Shale Gas to Tight Oil to Shale Oil Reservoirs. SPE paper 165350-MS.
Egermann P., Lenormand R., Longeron D., and Zarcone C. 2002. A Fast and Direct Method of Permeability Measurements on Drill
Cuttings. SPE paper 77563 presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, September 29th October 2nd 2002, San
Antonio, Texas.
Egermann P., Doerler N., Fleury M., Deflandre J., and Lenormand R. 2006. Petrophysical Measurements from Drill Cuttings: and Added
Value for the Reservoir Characterization Process. SPE paper 88684 published in the SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering,
August, pp. 303 307.
Fracasso M.A., Dutton S.P., and Finley R.J. 1988. Depositional Systems and Diagenesis of Travis Peak Tight Gas Sandstone Reservoirs,
Sabine Uplift Area, Texas. Society of Petroleum Engineers- Formation Evaluation, March 1988.
Hartmann, D. J. and Beaumont, E. A., 1999, Predicting reservoir system quality and performance: In Exploring for Oil and Gas Traps,
AAPG Treatise of Petroleum Geology, Handbook of Petroleum Geology, edited by Edward A. Beaumont and Norman H. Foster,
P. 9-1 to 9-154.
Kolodzie S.J., 1980. The Analysis of Pore Throat Size and Use of Waxman Smith to Determine OOIP in Spindle Field, Colorado. SPE
paper 9832 presented at the Society of Petroleum Engineers 55th Annual Technical Conference.
Kukulski, R.B.,2012. Fluvial Sedimentology and Stratigraphy of the Late Jurassic-Early Cretaceous Monteith Formation. Unpublished
MSc. thesis submitted to the University of Calgary.
Law, B.E. 2002. Basin-Centered Gas Systems. AAPG Bulletin, V. 86, No. 11. P. 1891-1919.
Leckie, D.A. and Smith, D.G., 1992. Regional Setting, Evolution, and Depositional Cycles of the Eastern Canada Foreland Basin.
American Association of Petroleum Geology Special Volumes, v. M55, p. 9-46.

SPE-167177-MS

11

Masters, J.A., 1979. Deep Basin Gas Trap, Western Canada. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v.63, p. 152-181.
Miall, A.D., 1996, The Geology of Fluvial Deposits: New York, Springer-Verlag, 582 p.
Miles, B.D., 2010. Unraveling the Stratigraphic Architecture of the Jurassic-Cretaceous Nikanassin Group, northwestern Alberta, Canada.
MSc Thesis, University of Calgary.
Miles, B.D., Kukulski, R.B., Raines, M.K., Zonneveld, J-P, Leier, A.L., and Hubbard, S.M., 2012, A stratigraphic framework for Late
Jurassic-Early Cretaceous gas-bearing strata (Monteith Formation) in the subsurface of northwestern Alberta: Bulletin of
Canadian Petroleum Geology, v. 60, no. 1.
Ortega, C. E. 2012. Drill Cuttings-based Methodology to Optimize Multi-stage Hydraulic Fracturing in Horizontal Wells and
Unconventional Gas Reservoirs. MSc thesis, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary.
Olusola, B.K., 2013. Drill Cuttings, Petrophysical, and Geomechanical Models for Evaluation of Conventional and
Unconventional Petroleum Reservoirs. MSc Thesis, Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary,
Canada.
Pittman E.D. 1992. Relationship of Porosity and Permeability to Various Parameters Derived from Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure
Curves from Sandstone. American AAPG Bulletin, v.76, No. 2, p. 191 198.
Poulton, T.P., Tittemore, J., and Dolby, G., 1990, Jurassic strata of northwestern (and west-central) Alberta and northeastern British
Columbia: Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, v. 38A, p. 159-175.
Poulton, T.P., Christopher, J.E., Hayes, B.J.R., Losert, J., Tittemore, J., and Gilchrist, R.D., 1994, Jurassic and Lowermost Cretaceous
Strata, in Mossop, G.D., and Shetsen, I., eds., Geological Atlas of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin: Canadian Society of
Petroleum Geologists and Alberta Research Council Special Report 4.
Raines, M.K., 2011. Stratigraphy and provenance of early foreland basin deposits, Minnes Group, British Columbia and Alberta:
Unpublished MSc. thesis submitted to the University of Calgary.
Reineck H.E., and Singh I.B. 1966. Primary Sedimentary Structures in the Recent Sediments of the Jade, North Sea. Marine Geology, v5
(1967), p. 227 235.
Reineck H.E., and Wunderlich F. 1968. Classification and Origin of Flaser and Lenticular Bedding. Sedimentology, v11, p.99 104.
Rushing J.A., Newsham K.E., and Blasingame T.A.2008. Rock Typing Key to Understanding Productivity in Tight Gas Sands. SPE
paper 114164 presented at the SPE Unconventional Reservoirs Conference, Keystone, Colorado, USA, 10-12 February 2008.
Shanley K.W., Cluff R.M., and Robinson J.W. 2004. Factors Controlling Prolific Gas Production from Low-Permeability Sandstone
Reservoirs: Implications for Resource Assessment, Prospect Development, and Risk Analysis. AAPG Bulletin, v.88, No. 8 (August
2004), p. 1083 1121.
Soeder D.J. 1984. Reservoir Properties and the Pore Structure of Tight Gas Sands. Bulletin of American Association of Petroleum
Geologists (May 1984) v68, No. 4, 530.
Solano, N. A., 2010, Reservoir Characterization of the Upper Jurassic Lower Cretaceous Nikanassin Group, MSc Thesis, Geoscience
Department, Geoscience Department, University of Calgary.
Solano, N., Zambrano, L., and Aguilera, R. 2011. Cumulative-Gas-Production Distribution on the Nikanassin Tight Gas Formation Alberta
and British Columbia, paper SPE 132923 prepared for presentation at The SPE Trinidad and Tobago Energy Resources Conference,
Port of Spain, Trinidad, June 27-30.
Stott D.F., and Glass D.J. 1984. Cretaceous Sequences of the Foothills of the Canadian Rocky Mountains. In: The Mesozoic of Middle
North America. Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 9, p. 85-107.
Stott, D.F., 1998, Fernie Formation and Minnes Group (Jurassic and Lowermost Cretaceous), Northern Rocky Mountain Foothills, Alberta
and British Columbia: Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin 516.
Walker R.G., and Plint A.G. 1992. Wave- and Storm-Dominated Shallow Marine Systems. In: Facies Models Response to Sea Level
Change. Edited by Walker R.G., and James, N.P. Geological Association of Canada. Newfoundland, Canada, 1992.
Zambrano, L. 2013. Reservoir Characterization of the Late Jurassic-Early Cretaceous Tight Gas Sandstones in the Western Canada
Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada. Unpublished MSc. Thesis, Geoscience Department, GFREE Tight Gas Research Team,
University of Calgary.

12

SPE-167177-MS

Table 1: Detailed database showing the source of information used in this study.

UWI WELL

CORES

DRILLCUTTINGS

THIN
SECTIONS

PRODUCTION
HISTORY

100/07-13-066-09W6/00
100/ 07-07-065-07W6/00
100/12-31-066-09W6/00
100/16-28-066-08W6/00
100/05-32-065-09W6/02
100/10-27-065-10W6/00
100/15-27-066-10W6/00
102/06-05-065-09W6/00
100/13-15-065-09W6/00
100/09-11-066-10W6/00
100/13-14-065-09W6/00
100/10-19-065-09W6/00
100/05-35-065-09W6/00
100/01-20-065-09W6/00
100/01-34-066-11W6/00
100/03-27-065-09W6/00
100/09-27-066-11W6/00
100/10-27-065-09W6/00
100/12-26-065-09W6/00
100/13-04-066-09W6/00
100/14-22-067-11W6/00
100/16-22-066-11W6/00

x
(lower)
x
x
x
x
(Upper)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

(Upper)
x
(Upper)
(lower)
(Upper/lower)
(Upper)
x
(lower)
(lower)
(Upper/lower)
(Upper)
(Upper)
(Upper)
x
x
x
x
(Upper)
x
x
x
x

x
(lower)
x
x
x
x
(Upper)
x
x
(lower)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
(lower)
(lower)
x
x

100/06-03-066-08W6/00
100/02-15-066-10W6/00
100/04-14-066-10W6/00

x
x
x

(lower)
(Upper)
(lower)

x
x
x

PRODUCING ZONE

STATUS

ABD
Actually Falher
Cadomin
Cadomin
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Drilled & Cased
Gething
Lowe Nik
Lowe Nik
Lower, Gething
Lower, Upper
Lower, Upper, Cadomin
Lower, Upper, Cadomin
Lower, Upper, Cadomin
Lower, Upper, Cadomin
Lower, Upper, Cadomin
Lower, Upper, Cadomin
Lower, Upper, Cadomin
Lower, Upper, Cadomin
Lower, Upper, Cadomin

ABD Zone
Pumping Gas
Pumping Gas
Pumping Gas
Pumping Gas
Susp. Gas
ABD Zone
Pumping Gas
Pumping Gas
Pumping Gas
Pumping Gas
Pumping Gas
Flowing Gas
Flowing Gas
Pumping Gas
Pumping Gas
Pumping Gas
Pumping Gas
Pumping Gas
Pumping Gas
Pumping Gas
Pumping Gas

x
(Upper)
(Upper)

Paddy
Upper Nik
Upper Nik

Pumping Gas
Pumping Gas
Pumping Gas

Table 2: Summary of Facies association interpreted from cores in both stratigraphic units.

Shifted
Depth
(MD)

Maximum
Porosity (dec)
LITHOFACIES

Grain Density

Porosity (dec)

K90 (md)

Kmax (md)

Kmax (md)
SAMPLE CORE

S21

L4a

CH

SED

FACIES
Depth
Depth
MD (m) TVDSS (m)

Roudness
Density
Grain

3079.77

-1991.67

0.62

Minimum
Kmax (md)
SortingK-Max (RCA-mD)
Average
K90 (md)
Intergranular

Average
(md)
Kvert

Sample
Kvert (md)
LITHOFACIES

C42

Sm

W/FCH

2999.65

-1993.85

0.090

Org Matter

micropores
4

11.00

Carbonates
Intergranular
Shale

MP+MFr+SP

7.00

1.00

18

0.020

0.035

98

- 0.019
- tr.sa/r
250
0.019
161
0.038
0.035
8
3 4 sr/r
240
0.025
02
0.02 0.052
95
1 2 981
600
0.025 sa/sr
0.01 0.045
0.019
14
3 5sa/r
1
240
0.026
5
0.015
0.01
0.052
11
tr. 1 r/wr
tr.
230
0.024
6
- 0.020
0.010
3
3 7 sr/r1
200
0.002 0.026
Tr
0.055
12
- 1sa/sr
75
0.037 0.052
99
0.01
0.023
95
- 4sa/sr
200
94
0.01 0.024
0.056
98
- tr.sa/sr
135
0.053
99
- 0.010
0.026
99 - 8 sr/r
310
0.043
99
- 0.002
0.056
99tr.
-sa/sr
90
0.016 0.055
98
0.01
0.016
97 tr. 11a/sa
145
- 0.019
0.021
98
0.023
99tr.
- 3 r/wr
260

22

0.015

ROCK FRAGMENTS

1-2

QZT Mono (Qm)


90

Tr

Matrix
minerals
Heavy
Total

Pores
Slot
Plagioclase
Roudness
microfractures
Total (Musc + Biot)
Micas
Slots
Sphericity
Heavy minerals
Quartz
Total porosity (%)

Sorting
Quartz
kaolinite
Minimum
Intergranular
ChertAuthigenic Clay
Dissolution
Average
intergranular
Shale
Micropores
Maximum
intragranular
K Feldspar
Microfractures

Tr

1-2

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.30

Opaque minerals
Chert
Sorting
intragranular

0.1

0.10

0.10

65

30

Tr

Tr

110

165

240

sr/r

GRAIN SIZE
(shape)

w/vw

-0

70

vfl

65

141

230

r/wr

w/vw

fl

ml

sa/sr

70

71

86

4
75

72

6
72

71
90
81
84
94
tr.
84
73

63
0

Sorting:
p= poorly sorted
m= moderately sorted
w= well sorted
vw= very well sorted

0
0 130 200 sr/r
w
4
tr. tr.
5
tr.
25 4 p/m 25- 17 43118 - 225016sa/r
Tr
- 60 397.7 tr.150 tr.va/sa - w 1
22 2 p 7 - vfl 32 fl - - fu 18sa/sr
3
tr.
4
vfl
fl
ml sa/sr
m/w
22 4 p/m 16- vfl 32 fl - 1ml 15sa/sr
5
1
tr.
100 157
260 r/wr
w/vw
27 5 p/m 11- 15 52 33 - 275 18sa/sr
Tr
2
1
55
81
200 sa/sr
m/w
24 2
4tr. 35 2- 61 - -13522sa/sr
tr.
4
w
2
3
tr.
45
95
310 sr/r
m/w
1152
- 1 18 22 1
- 40 3 65 tr. 90 -sa/sr 2 w tr.
3
60
99
145 a/sa
w/vw
246
3- - 5 36 25
- fu 4 mu 1crsu tr.sa/sr 7 p 1
ml
mu
crsl sa/sr
p/m
2445
- - 11 23 7
- ml 3 mu - crsl -sa/sr - p 4
31 18 p/m 1
234 fl 3- mu 2 2crsl 6 sa/sr
Tr - fl 4 mu 1 crsl - sr/r 3 p/m <1 - fl 5 mu
33 25 p 21
4
- -crsl 3 sa/sr
- fl 4 mu - crsl -sa/sr 2 p/m crsltr. sa/sr
45 45 p 10- ml 4- mu -tr.
- fl 5 ml 1 mu tr.sa/sr tr. p/m 3
19 7 p/m 22- vfl 5- fl 2 -ml 12sa/sr
- fl 4 ml tr. mu -sa/sr 1 p/m 27 8 p/m 264 vfl 4- fl - 1ml 14sa/sr

- 80 3 182 1 600 -sa/sr 3 m/w 1


32 16w/vw 3
34
- - 100 31156 - 4240 8 sa/sr
-

CARBONATE

Roudness:
Sphericity:
va = very angularSorting: Sphericity:
r = rounded
L = Low
Sphericity:
Sorting:
= angular
well rounded
L = aLow
p= poorly wr
sorted
r = rounded
L == Low
p= poorly sorted I = Intermediate
= sub-angular m= moderately
vwrI == Intermediate
very
well rounded
H = High
I =sa
Intermediate
sorted
wr = well
rounded
m= moderately sorted
= sub-rounden
H =sr
High
w= well sorted
vwr = very
well
rounded
H = High
w= well sorted
vw= very well sorted
vw= very well sorted

Tr

Opaque
Silica minerals
Quartz
FELDSPAR
Carbonates
Dolomite
MICA / Calcite
Chert
Quartz
PYROBITUMEN
Siderite
Shale/ Hematite

0 81 633 20
9
Tr
8 5 1
161 633
7 -- 84 3
2
Tr
0
Tr 1.0 0.01 0
1.00
0.01
1.01
0
4
0 0 94
2
1
- 0 1
2
0.01 3.0 7.0 1.0 02.0 13.00
3
10.000 0.01 0 6 0 5
84
5
Tr 0
268017 1180 250 sa/r
I 0.00p/m
- tr. 1 tr.
1
710 11
9
4 14tr.- 7116
-11
tr. 1 tr.10.01 tr.71
110 tr.91.0271- 0.0025
4 11 tr.
5 4 tr.4Tr 714tr.I - 1 p/m
2 71
3 - 90 tr. -- 1 0.014
1.00 5
- 110 1 1650 240
sr/r
I/H 0.00w/vw0 10.01 3 0.00
4 220 1 14 1163 903 61
1
16
4
0 0.01 0
3 3 tr.- 8218
I/H95 11w/vw
110 tr.90
- 0 -2Tr 90
01
>5 90
0 16
95 3 10 4 0- 2 0.1031 0 tr.
0.10 - 6 0 - 10.1090- 0 73 15 tr.
>5
2650
80 182 600 sa/sr
H
m/w
- 1 2 1 tr.
4
81
7
5
0
5
Tr
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
1.00
0
1.00
0.00
25
5
70
0
<1
tr.
4 <1 810 -7<2 1 50 2 0- 1 1 3
4
- 51.1081- 0.0016
3 3 -- 6215
tr. 0 tr.40.1 -81
3 35 tr.
4 0 -4Tr 810 H <2 m/w
1.10 7 0
2660
100 156 240 sa/r
I/H
w/vw
2 3 5 1 1
12 84
4
6
8
4
1
0
3.0 0.01 0
3.00
0
3.01
0
22
4
70
4
Tr
1
84 24- 3 60 5 -- 1 1.051 0 12
1 0. -84
tr.4 0 - 61.0084- 0 11
18 3 -5Tr 84I/H6 12w/vw
5 10 15 14 -- 73tr.
25
1.00
2640
70 141 230 r/wr
H
w/vw
- tr. 1 tr. 1
94
4
7
5
0
4.0
0
0
4.00
0
4.00
0
5
19
72
4
1
-H 1 w/vw
94 -4 tr. - 1 -tr. 2-1
-94 - 4 - - 9442
-2 21 -- 7222
- 3 -2 - 94tr.
18
4
2
0
0.0
0
0
0.02
0
0.02
0
4
65 130 200
sr/r
I
w
tr. 3 7 1 2
13 84
6
5
25
5
0
8.0
0
1.0 9.00
0
9.00
0
11
10
75
4
1
2I 13 w 84 tr.6 3 5 7 2 1 32 tr.
5
18
13 -84 - 6 - 5 842 11
3
tr.
--1 8445
0.01 0
2670- Tr
15 - 33 0 75- 0.0
sa/sr
H 0.00p/m 0 -0.01 - 01
-3 - 7 1 86 734 10
12
7
0
Tr 11.0 0
2.0 13.00 0.00 13.00
0
15
9
71
5
1
-H 1 p/m73 -10 - 12 1 - - 3- tr.1
-73 210 tr.
3
5
25 7312 73- 24
3
tr.
-2
tr.
0
Tr
0
<155 Tr 812.0 200
0.5 0.5
0.1 1.0
2660
sa/sr
I 4.10m/w0.5 -1.60 - 2.00
4
-70 - 10 4 20 720 5 10
0
0
3-4
<1
2.0 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 3.20
50
5
45
0
<1
-I <1 4 m/w
72
14 tr.72 750.5 1100.7072- 2.0024
11
-5 - 10 4 - - 44
14 tr.7
17 720
5
<1
0 35 5 610.1 135
0
1.0
2680
sa/sr0 0.0I 1.10 w 0 -1.00 - 0.10
tr. -70 - 20 0 10 720 4 10
15
0
0.1 0.1
1.70
-I <2 0 Trw 720 -4<2 - 15
- 40.1 4151.5072- 0.1023
18Tr 721
tr. - - 1 3- 0.5 -0 0 -72
3 30 -3 10 -2 60 6
- 0 4
Tr
0.7
1sr/r0.3 0.5
Tr
2720<1 Tr 045 <1 951.5 310
I 4.00m/w0.7 -1.80 - 1.50
8
-30 1 10 9 60 750 11
6
0 1 Tr 9 <1 75
Tr
2.70 3 0.5 - 2.1075 0.1021 60 4 5 - 35
6 8 0.5- - 0.141 1 19 1 -75
I
m/w Tr -11
- 0.1
11
6
4
1
3 0 25
750
Tr
Tr
Tr40 Tr 65 1 90
0.1
1
0.1 I/H
0
2.20 w 0.1 -1.10 - 1.00
50
2770
sa/sr
- tr.
- 10 0 40 860 3
5
0 I/H
6.10 232.0 - 50.6086- 4.0010
- Tr 0 Trw 861 -3Tr - 54 - 2-tr. 0.54- 0.1 -0 0 -86
4 70 -4 5 -- 25tr.
2 0 45
86TrTr
0.1
1a/sa0
0
2.10
2640Tr Tr <160 Tr 99 1 145
H
w/vw0.1 -1.00tr. 1.00
11 -40 2 5 1355 710 15
3
1 2H 1-213w/vw
Tr 71
0
1-2 tr. 30 11 0- - 1 52 0 13
1.00 tr.
1 0 tr.71
12 0 37 71-15
150 331.0071- 0 22
5 25 15 5 tr.2 70tr.
2660
I/H
w/vw0 -1.00 - 0.00
3 tr.
- 4 3 66 700 22
0
<1
<1
0100 <11570 260
0
1r/wr0
0
1.00
30
Tr Tr3
0 I/H
1 70
0
Tr - 30 3 0- tr. 1 4- 0 tr.
1.00 1
- Tr 3 w/vw
4 5 -- 6514
-22
3 0 -70
220 - 31.0070- 0 26
4 30 tr.
1 0 -8Tr 701-

Dissolution
Quartz
Feldspar
K
Intergranular
Micropores
Rock Fragments
Plagioclase
Microfractures
FRAGMENTS
CHERT
Micas
Feldspars
Pores+ Biot)
Slot(Musc

0.01
2650
60 297.70 150
va/sa
I/H 4.00 w 1 -3.01 - 0 - tr.7
0.052 0.035
15
4
1
1.0 2.0
1.0 0.01
-va/sa
9 - 3.0-tr. 5.03 1.0 101.0 -63
150
-20
203 197.0063- 2.0034
3 4 13
0.045
18tr. 5 I/H - 0 2w 63
2 - 2.0
12.00 3

Slot Pores
Sphericity
Grain
Clay Density
Total

Carbonate

Sorting:
MSh = poorly sorted
MRoudness:
arine Shale
Roudness:
Shoreface
Mouth bar
va = very/ angular
r =varounded
rted
Marine Shale SF/MB = moderately sorted
= very angular
/ Distributary
Channel wr =awell
a=
angular
rounded
ly sorted
Shoreface / Mouth CH
bar = well sorted Tidal
= angular
CP/MTF
=
Coastal
Plain / Muddy tidal flat
sa = sub-angular
vwr =
well rounded
d Tidal / Distributary
Channel
savery
= sub-angular
Coastal
Plain / Sandy tidal flat
lat Coastal Plain CP/STF
sr = sub-rounden
/ Muddy =tidal flat
sr = sub-rounden
at Coastal Plain / Sandy tidal flat

15-27-066-10W6

18

Maximum
Dissolution
Kvert (md)
Micropores
Silica/Chert
(dec)
Porosity
Microfractures
Roudness

0.038

CORE
(fraction)

S18
3076.21
3073.694
5 3081.75
CP/STF
0.05
07-07-065-07W6
S22
L4a3071.69
CH
-1993.650.310.21
0.035 va/sa
0.05 0.015 0.035
2650 0.31
60 L4 97.7
150
w 0.19
4.31 3071.69
CP/STF
0.01 CH
2650 I/H
97.707-07-065-07W6
S23 0.05
3091.11
-2003.01 60
S19
3079.57
3077.0468
6 3091.44
CP/MTF
07-07-065-07W6
S24
L33075.05
CH
-2003.34
0.07
8 3075.05 6 CP/MTF
07-07-065-07W6
S25
L3
CH
3092.78
-2004.68
0.22
S20
3081.55
CP/MTF
07-07-065-07W63079.03
S19
L63077.03
CP/MTF 6 3075.05
-1986.950.03
0.019 3077.00
.03 3077.03
- 6 0.019
2680 0.03
250
sa/r
I
p/m0.03
CP/MTF
- CP/MTF
2680
17
11807-07-065-07W6
S20 17- L6 118
-1988.90
S21
3084.29
3081.77
3079.77
4a3071.69
CH
0.620.31 07-07-065-07W6
S18
L5
CP/STF
-1983.59
0.038 2994.22
.62 3079.77
- 4a0.038
240
sr/r
I/H
w/vw
CH
0.62
- Sr 165
- OV/D
1651
15-27-066-10W6
C41 110
-1988.42110
0.030
S22
3086.27
3083.75
3081.75 4a CH
0.21 0.21
15-27-066-10W6
C03
Sr
OV/D
2994.74
-1988.94
0.052 2997.64
.21 3081.75
0.21 0.024a0.052
2650
80 Sr 182
600
sa/sr
H
m/w
CH
0.02OV/D
2650 -1991.84
80
18215-27-066-10W6 0.21
C21 0.21
0.040
S23
3094.82
3094.29
3091.11 4 CH
0.19 0.14
07-07-065-07W6
S32
L1
MSh
3104.52
-2016.42
0.01
0.045 2660
.19 3091.11
0.14 0.014 0.045
2660 0.19
100
156
240
sa/r
I/H
w/vw
CH
0.14
0.01SF/MB
100
1562
07-07-065-07W6
S26
L2
3093.55
-2005.45
0.02
S24
3095.15
3094.62
3091.44 3 CH
0.07 0.07
07-07-065-07W6
S27
L2
SF/MB
3097.81
-2009.71
0.06
0.015 2640
.07 3091.44
0.07 0.013 0.015
2640 0.07 0.07
70 141
230
r/wr
H
w/vw 141CH
0.01SF/MB
70
07-07-065-07W6
S28
L2
-2011.69
S25
3096.49
3095.96
3092.78
3 3099.79
CH
0.220.02 07-07-065-07W6
S29
L2
SF/MB
3100.77
-2012.67
.22 3092.78
- 3 0.020
I
w 130tr.
0.020 sr/r
CH
0.22 65- 130
- 200
65
07-07-065-07W6
S30
L2
SF/MB
S26
3097.26
3096.73
3093.55
2 3101.47
SF/MB-2013.370.02 0.01
07-07-065-07W6
S31
L2
SF/MB
3102.69
-2014.59
0.11
.02 3093.55
0.01
- 2 0.026
2670 0.02 0.01
15
33- 0.026
75 sa/sr
p/m 33 SF/MB
2670 H
15
15-27-066-10W63100.99
C18
Sm3097.81
W/FCH 2 2987.06
S27
3101.52
SF/MB-1981.260.060.130
0.02
15-27-066-10W6
C01
2987.31
-1981.51
0.090
.06 3097.81
0.02 0.012 0.052
2660 0.06
55 Sp 0.01
81 W/FCH
200
I
m/w
0.052 sa/sr
SF/MB
0.02
2660
55
81 15-27-066-10W63102.97
C25
Sm3099.79
W/FCH 2 2987.80
S28
3103.50
SF/MB-1982.000.02 0.02
15-27-066-10W6
C06
.02 3099.79
0.02 0.012 0.024
2680 0.02
35 Sp 0.01
61 W/FCH
135
sa/sr
I
w 0.27061 0.024 2988.66
SF/MB
0.02
2680 -1982.86
35
15-27-066-10W63103.95
C05
Sp3100.77
W/FCH 2 2989.45
S29
3104.48
SF/MB-1983.65 - 0.680 15-27-066-10W6
-1984.08
0.280 - 3100.77
- 2 0.010
2720
310
sr/r
I
m/w
0.010 2989.88
SF/MB
-C09 45- Sp 95- W/FCH
2720
45
95
15-27-066-10W63104.65
C10
Sp3101.47
W/FCH 2 2991.01
S30
3105.18
SF/MB-1985.21 - 0.940 15-27-066-10W6
-1985.79 40
- 3101.47
- 2 0.002
2770
90 2991.59
sa/sr
w 0.3265 0.002
SF/MB
-C36 40- Sp 65- W/FCH
2770 I/H
15-27-066-10W63105.87
C07
Sp3102.69
W/FCH 2 2993.94
S31
3106.40
SF/MB-1988.140.110.200
0.07
15-27-066-10W6
C19 0.07
0.080
.11 3102.69
0.07 0.012 0.055
2640 0.11
60 Sp 0.01
99 W/FCH
145
a/sa
H
w/vw
0.055 2998.51
SF/MB
2640 -1992.71
60
99 S32
3108.23
MSh -1993.070.010.040
0.01
15-27-066-10W63106.78
C22
Sp3104.52
W/FCH 1 2998.87
15-27-066-10W6
C35 100
Sm 157
-1993.58100
0.070
.01 3104.52
0.01
- 1 0.019
2660 0.01
260
r/wr
I/H
w/vw
0.019 2999.38
MSh
0.01
- W/FCH
2660
157-

07-07-065-07W6

Original
Shifted
Corrected
Depth
Depth
SED Depth (m)
(MD)
(MD)SED
TS FACIES
WELL
FACIES
FACIES

Minimum
K90 (md)

d
)

Fragments
Rock
K Feldspar
Clays

LOWER

GRAIN SIZE
(microns)

MEAN

Detrital components (%)

clays
Authigenic
Feldspars
Plagioclase

Pore type (relative %)

Matrix
Biot)
(Musc/ +pyrobitumen
Micasmatter
Organic

UPPER

Cement

Sorting

Routine Core
Analysis

Silica
Diagenetic
Total
minerals
Heavy
Roundness
components
minerals
Opaque
/ Calcite
Dolomite

General Sample information

Carbonates
/ Hematite
Siderite

4
3
2
4
4
tr.
5
4
1

24
5
23
21
5
10
22
26
-

3
4
0

4
2
3
3
1
5
2
2
5
1
3

34
1
0

clays
Authigenic
Rock Fragments
25
3
7
2
16
2
11
2
4
11
2
24

DETRITAL COMPONENTS (%)


GrainCOMPONENTS
Shape
DETRITAL
(%)
DIAGENETIC
COMPONENTS
(%)
Porosity
(%)
DETRITAL
COMPONENTS
(%)
DIAGENETIC COMPONENTS
(microns)
Types
Rock Fragments
Sub-totals
Rock Fragments
CementSub-totals
Types
RockSub-totals
Fragments
Cement

matter / pyrobitumen
Organic
Feldspars

Porosity (%)
thin sections.
petrographic data for the Monteith Sandstone
the Size
Table 3: Detailed database showing
Grain

Quartz
Clays

General Sample Information


Routine Core Analysis
Grain Size
Grain Size Porosity (%)
Routine
Core Analysis
ple
Information
Routine Core AnalysisGrain Shape
Grain Shape
(microns)
(microns)
Types

Sphericity

SPE-167177-MS

13

Roudness
Density
Grain

Minimum
K90 (md)

K90 (md)

SED
FACIES

Sphericity

Maximum
Porosity (dec)
LITHOFACIES

Kmax (md)

Grain Density

Porosity (dec)

Sample
Kvert (md)
LITHOFACIES

C40

Sm

W/FCH

3016.90

-2011.10

0.380

0.060

98

oastal Plain / Sandy tidal flat

Tr

Tr

36

60

2.00

MP+MFr+SP

1.10

Opaque minerals
Chert
Sorting

intragranular

1.0

Pores
Slot
Plagioclase
Roudness
Total (Musc + Biot)
Micas
Sphericity
Heavy minerals
Quartz

Total porosity (%)

4.10

Slots

microfractures

micropores

Tr

9
63 20
0
- tr.
16 633
8
34
19 63- Detrital
1
-- (%)3
13
3 components
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
71 11
1
- tr. 1 tr.
p/m
I
sa/r
16
4 tr.4
tr.4 715
tr.
4
tr. tr.1 tr.71 511 tr.9 71- 25
1
6
11 90
1 3 4 2 1
w/vw
I/H
sr/r
18
3 tr.73
31 tr.
-2 90tr.
11 tr.90 - 6 - 1 905
7
81
4
- 1 2 1 tr.
m/w
H
sa/sr
3 5 -- 3015
81- 1.5016
4 0 -4 81Tr
3 65tr.
tr. 0 tr.4 0.5 -81
4.00 47 1.0 - 5 1.50
13
6
5 125 1 3 12 72 84 0 4Tr Tr
w/vw0.1 2 1.003 0.00
I/H
sa/r
1.10
0
0
1
18 0 -5 84-5
84- 0.1011
1 0 -84
5 70 15 5 -- 25tr.
2.70 tr.4 1.0 - 6 1.60
1.551 0.1 12
4
94
1
- tr. 1 tr. w/vw
H
r/wr
Tr
0
25
5
70
3.00
1.00
2.0
6.00
0
0
1
- 3.60 - 4 1.0 - - 1.1094- 1.5042 75 -2 10 -- 1522
2
- 0 -2 94tr.
1 - 0.1 1 0 94
5
6
13 84
tr. 3 7 1 2
w
I
sr/r
<1
0
60
5
35
0.10
1.00
0.5
1.60
0
0
1
5
32 tr.
- 0 -1 84-- 6018
3 30tr.
13 -84 - 6 1.0 - 5 1.20842 0.5011
10
0.1 0.1 2.70
1
73 10 12
1
- 1
p/m
H
sa/sr
0
25
5
70
0.00
1.10
0.0
1.10
0
0.1
1
25 735
3
-73 210 tr.
3- tr.1
tr.
2
-tr.
3
12 73- 24
5
0
1
-65 - 5 4 30 72 1 5 10
4
m/w 0.0 - 1.00- 0.00
I0 1.00
sa/sr
Tr
0
65
5
30
0
0.20
0.1
0.30
0
0.1 0.1
11
14 tr.72 75 110 72- 24
417 727
14 tr.4
0.1
1
15
tr. -65 - 5 0 30 72 0 4 1-2
I0 3.10w 1.0 - 1.10- 1.00
sa/sr
0
25
5
70
0.5 0.1 0.1 1.80
18 721Tr
6
-72 - 4 1.0 4150.7072- 0.1023
-0
34
-2
-3
3
16
0.1
-60 1 7 9 33 75 0 11
8
m/w 0.0 - 0.20- 0.00
sr/r0.1 I0 0.20
14 0.1 1 0 - 2.20 3 1.0 - 1.10
75Tr
4 60 14 5 -- 353 0 25
6 75- 0.1021
75 11
9
1
0.1 5.10w 1.5 - 1.10- 2.50
0.5
5
- tr.60 - 5 0 35 86 0 3Tr Tr
sa/sr0.5 I/H
2.20 23 1.0 - 5 1.10
14- 0.1 -0 0 -86
86- 0.1010
86-1
2 0 45
4 75 -4 10 -- 15tr.
0
1
3
11 -15 2 3 13 82 71 0 15
w/vw1.0 - 1.00tr. 0.50
H0 2.50
a/sa
1.70 tr.
0.552 0.1 13
12 0 37 Tr 71-1
1 0 tr.71
5 70 15 5tr.2 25tr.
151.0 33 0.6071- 0.1022
3
3 tr.75 - 7 3 18 70 0 22
w/vw1.0 - 1.10- 1.50
Tr Tr
3.60
0
1r/wr0.1 I/H
5.00 1
14- 0 tr.
4 10 -- 3014
1 0 -8 70-1
4 60tr.
222.0 - 3 1.0070- 2.0026
3 0 -70
Intergranular

Carbonates
Intergranular
Shale

CHERT FRAGMENTS

0.1

Dissolution
Quartz
Feldspar
K
Micropores
Rock Fragments
Plagioclase
Microfractures
Micas
Feldspars
Pores+ Biot)
Slot(Musc

ROCK FRAGMENTS

Matrix
minerals
Heavy
Total

QZT Mono (Qm)

25716
Tr11
TrTr
tr.
4
Tr
2
11246
Tr
24Tr <1
234
<121
<1<110
Tr 1-222
1-21-24
26

1-2

sa/sr

crsl

5
10
22
71
-

26
-

70
4

p/m

p/m

p/m -

p/m

21

5
23

86

4
75

72

1
-

p/m3

p/m4

24
6
72
1
p

p/m

25
3
7
2
16
2
11
2
4
11
2
24
71
90
81
84
94
tr.
84
73

34
1
0
tr.
p p/m
p/m p
p tr.
p/m
p/m
tr.

63
0

Sorting:
p= poorly sorted
m= moderately sorted
w= well sorted
vw= very well sorted

ml
fl

0
0
5
tr. tr.
4
- 2 16 25 4
43
tr. tr.
3
- - 18 22 2
32
4
tr.
3
sa/sr 4
fl 32 ml - 1crsl15 22
5 fu 1 ml - sa/sr tr.
vfl
18 27
sa/sr 5
fl 52 mu - 2crsu
2
crsu sa/sr
mu
fl
- 22 24
sa/sr 2
fl 2 mu - crsu
tr.
3
crsl sr/r
ml
fl
1
52 ml - 1crsl18 22
sa/sr
fl
2
tr.
3
ml sa/sr
fl
vfu
- - 5 36 25
3fl
4 mu 1 crsltr. sa/sr 7
crsl sa/sr
ml
fl
- - 11 23 7
45
fl 3 ml - crsl - sa/sr crsu sa/sr
mu
fu
3- 2 2 6 31 18
vfl 4 ml 1 crsl - sa/sr 3
vfl 5 ml - crsu 33
3 sa/sr25
4
fl 4 mu - crsu - sa/sr 2
sa/sr45
ml 4- crsl -tr.vrcrs
tr. 45
fl 5 ml 1 crsutr. sa/sr tr.
sa/sr 7
ml 5- mu 2 - crsu
12 19
fl 4 mu tr. crsu - sa/sr 1
sa/sr 8
fl 4- ml - 1crsl14 27

GRAIN
GRAIN
16 SIZE3
- 4 8 32
31 SIZE
(shape)
(microns)

Sphericity:
Roudness:
L = Low
r = rounded
va = very angularSorting: Sphericity:
Sphericity:
Sorting:
well rounded
= angular
sorted
p= poorly wr
L = aLow
p= poorly sorted I = Intermediate
L == Low
r = rounded
H = High
well rounded
very
vwrI == Intermediate
= sub-angular m= moderately
sorted
Intermediate
I =sa
m= moderately sorted
rounded
wr = well
= sub-rounden
w= well sorted
High
H =sr
w= well sorted
H = High
rounded
well
vwr = very
vw= very well sorted
vw= very well sorted

Tr

Tr

0
17 118 250
2680
1 p/m71 -11 - 9 tr. - 1
tr.I
110 165 240
90 16 3 1 4 - 2
1
I/H 11w/vw
80 182 600
2650
H 1-24 m/w
1.52 1- 1
1-2 1 5
Tr 810 -7
0tr.
156 0 240
100
2660
0.1
<2
0
Tr 1-2 Tr
I/H3-412w/vw
0.15 1- 1
<2 841 245 3 6
01
70 141 230
2640
2
3
<1
<1
Tr
Tr
Tr
1 0 94Tr -4Tr tr. -1.51 1-tr.
Tr H Tr w/vw
65 130 200
0.1 0.5
<2
0
Tr
<2
0
2I 13 w 84 tr.6 3 5 7 2 1
1
0.5
<1
0
Tr
<1
0
75
33
15
2670
0
0
3-4
0
3-4 <1
0
-H 1 p/m73 -10 - 12 1 - 0
Tr
2
3-4
0
55 3-481 0 200
2660
0.1
0
1
0
Tr
1
0
4 m/w72 -5 - 10 4 - -I
1
035 1-261 1 135
Tr 1-2 Tr
2680
1
0.1
1
0
Tr
15
4
72
-I 1 0 Tr
- tr. - w
0
045 1-295 0 310
1
1-2
0
2720
Tr1 <1 9 Tr 750 11
- <1 - 60.18 1- m/w
I
1.5
040 Tr 65 2.5 90
Tr
Tr
0
2770
0I/H
- Tr 0 <1
w 86<1 -3Tr - 50.1 - 1-tr.
1
060 Tr 99 0.5 145
0
Tr
0
2640
0.111 1- <1 tr. 3
<1 710 -15
02H <113w/vw
100
2660
1
Tr1571.5 260
0
Tr
Tr
Tr
<1 - 32 3 2- tr.
<1 700 -22
0I/H
- <1 3 w/vw

Opaque
Silica minerals
Quartz

MICA

FELDSPAR

w
60 97.7 150 va/sa I/H
2650
10%) -63 320
3
0 w 63 -20 - 9Pore
tr. (relative
- -type
I/H
Cement

Sorting:
arine Shale
MRoudness:
MSh = poorly sorted
Roudness:
Mouth bar
Shoreface
r =varounded
va = very/ angular
= very angular
arine Shale SF/MB = moderately sorted
Channel wr =awell
/ Distributary
rounded
angular
a=
= angular
bar = well sorted Tidal
horeface / Mouth CH
orted
Plain / Muddy tidal flat
Coastal
=
CP/MTF
well rounded
vwr =
sa = sub-angular
= sub-angular
savery
Channel
idal / Distributary
Plain / Sandy tidal flat
Coastal
sr = sub-rounden
sr = sub-rounden
/ Muddy =tidal flat
oastal Plain CP/STF

15-27-066-10W6

SAMPLE CORE

34-

Table 3: Detailed database showing the petrographic data for the Monteith Sandstone thin sections.
(Continuation)

0.31 0.05 0.01 0.035


3076.21 3073.694 3071.69 5 CP/STF
S18
Core
0.035 va/sa
tr.
-va/sa
w Routine
60 97.7
2650 0.31 0.05
0.05 0.015 0.035
97.7- 150
60
2650 I/H
0.01 150
CP/STF
3071.69
Analysis
information
General Sample
6 CP/MTF
3075.05
3079.57 3077.0468
S19
3075.05 6 CP/MTF
- 0.019
0.03
3077.03 6 CP/MTF
3079.03
3081.55
S20
tr.sa/r1
CORE
Depth
Depth
SED
0.019 2680
p/m
I
sa/r
250
118
2680 0.03 17
- 6 0.019
250
118
17
CP/MTF
3077.03
WELL 3081.77TS FACIES
0.038
- (fraction)
0.62
CH
3079.77
3084.29
S21
(m) TVDSS (m)
FACIES 4aMD
0.038 sr/r
3 4 sr/r2
w/vw 1651 240
I/H 110
- 4a0.038
- 240
- 165
0.62 110
CH
3079.77
0.21 0.21 0.02 0.052
3081.75 4a CH
3083.75
3086.27
S22
0.052 sa/sr
1 2sa/sr
m/w0.310
H
600
80 Sm 182
2650 0.21
0.21 0.024a0.052
182- 600
80
2650 -1995.30
0.02W/FCH
CH
3081.75
971
0.042
3001.10
C29 0.21
15-27-066-10W6
0.045
0.14 0.01
0.190.200
CH
4 3001.63
3091.11
3094.29
3094.82
S23
98
0.046
-1995.83
W/FCH
Sm
C24
15-27-066-10W6
0.045 3002.73
3 5sa/r
w/vw
I/H
sa/r
240
2660 0.19
0.14 0.014 0.045
1562 240
2660
0.01W/FCH
0.14Sl 156
CH
3091.11
931
0.047
0.090
-1996.93100
C31 100
15-27-066-10W6
0.07 0.07 0.01 0.015
3091.44 3 CH
3094.62
3095.15
S24
99
0.053
0.130
-1997.63
3003.43
W/FCH
Sl
C46
15-27-066-10W6
0.015 2640
1 98tr.
tr.
w/vw 141- 230
H
r/wr
230
70 Sp 141
2640
0.07 0.013 0.015
0.01W/FCH
CH
3091.44
0.049 r/wr
-1997.9870 0.200
3003.78
C16 0.07
15-27-066-10W6 0.07
0.020
0.22
3092.78 3 CH
3095.96
3096.49
S25
98
0.041
0.290
-1999.76
3005.56
W/FCH
Sp
C04
15-27-066-10W6
3 7 sr/r1
w 130tr. 200
I
200
65- 130
- 3 0.020
0.020 sr/r
65
- W/FCH
0.22
CH
3092.78
99
0.024
0.130
-2000.18
3005.98
Sp
C15
15-27-066-10W6
- 0.026
0.02 0.01
3093.55 2 SF/MB
3096.73
3097.26
S26
97
0.024
0.090
-2000.76
3006.56
W/FCH
Sp
C17
15-27-066-10W6
0.026
- 1sa/sr
p/m 33 - 75
75 sa/sr
33- 0.026
15
2670 0.02 0.01
- 2 SF/MB
0.01
15
2670 H
3093.55
93
0.037 0.052
W/FCH
Sp
C34
15-27-066-10W6
0.02 0.01
SF/MB-2001.220.060.090
2 3007.02
3097.81
3100.99
3101.52
S27
99
0.028
0.180
-2002.14
3007.94
W/FCH
Sp
C44
15-27-066-10W6
- 4sa/sr
m/w 81 - 200
I
81 200
55 0.01
2660 0.06 0.02
0.02 0.012 0.052
0.052 sa/sr
55
2660
SF/MB
3097.81
98
0.039 0.024
W/FCH 2 3008.95
Sm3099.79
C32
15-27-066-10W63102.97
0.02 0.01
SF/MB-2003.150.020.230
3103.50
S28
99
0.023
-2004.32
3010.12
C43
15-27-066-10W6
- tr.sa/sr
w 0.140
I
135
61 W/FCH
35 Sm 0.01
2680 0.02
0.02 0.012 0.024
0.024 sa/sr
61 - 135
35
2680
0.02
SF/MB
3099.79
97
W/FCH 2 3010.61
Sp3100.77
C50
15-27-066-10W63103.95
- 0.010
SF/MB-2004.81 3104.48
S29
990.032
-2004.91
15-27-066-10W6
- 8 sr/r
m/w0.380
I
sr/r
310
2720
- 2 0.010
0.010 3010.71
95 - 310
45
2720
- C45 45- Sp 95- W/FCH
SF/MB
3100.77
99
0.047
W/FCH 2 3012.29
Sl3101.47
C49
15-27-066-10W63104.65
- 0.002
SF/MB-2006.49 - 0.29 3105.18
S30
99
0.030
-2007.1040
3012.90
15-27-066-10W6
tr.
-sa/sr
w 0.0765 - 90
90 sa/sr
2770
- 2 0.002
0.002
2770 I/H
- C53 40- SL 65- W/FCH
SF/MB
3101.47
99
0.036 0.055
W/FCH 2 3013.41
Sl3102.69
C28
15-27-066-10W63105.87
0.07 0.01
SF/MB-2007.610.110.320
3106.40
S31
970.020 11
0.100
C33 0.07
15-27-066-10W6
tr.
w/vw
H
a/sa
145
99 W/FCH
60 Sm 0.01
2640 0.11
0.07 0.012 0.055
0.055 3013.85
a/sa
99 - 145
60
2640 -2008.05
SF/MB
3102.69
- 0.019
0.01 0.029
MSh -2008.230.010.210
3108.23
S32
99
W/FCH 1 3014.03
Sm3104.52
C48
15-27-066-10W63106.78
96
0.068
0.430
-2010.80100
Sm 157
C23 100
15-27-066-10W6
tr.
- 3 r/wr
w/vw
I/H
r/wr
260
2660 0.01
- 1 0.019
0.01
0.019 3016.60
157- 260
2660
- W/FCH
0.01
MSh
3104.52

Average
(md)
Kvert

Shifted
Depth
(MD)

Carbonate

Original
Corrected
Depth
SED Depth (m)
(MD)
FACIES

Clay

Minimum
Kmax (md)
Sorting
Average
K90 (md)
Intergranular

K-Max (RCA-mD)

Slot Pores
Sphericity
Grain Density
Total

kaolinite

Org Matter

Shifted
Depth
(MD)

Authigenic Clay

Maximum
Dissolution
Kvert (md)
Micropores
Porosity (dec)
Microfractures
Roudness

Silica/Chert

Sorting
Quartz
Minimum
Intergranular
Chert

intergranular

Carbonates
/ Hematite
Siderite

0
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
4
2
1
2

4
3
2
4
4
tr.
5
4
1

matter / pyrobitumen
Organic
Feldspars

3
4
0

Matrix
Diagenetic
Total
4
2
3
3
1
5
2
2
5
1
3

DETRITAL COMPONENTS (%)


Porosity (%)
Grain Size
Shape
COMPONENTS (%)
DIAGENETIC
(%)DETRITAL COMPONENTS
DETRITAL
DIAGENETIC COMPONENTS (%)
(%)
(%)GrainCOMPONENTS
Porosity
(microns)
Sub-totals
Rock Fragments
Types
CementSub-totals
Rock Fragments
Cement
Fragments
RockSub-totals
Types

LOWER

Dissolution
Average
Shale
Micropores
Maximum
K Feldspar
Microfractures

intragranular

clays
Authigenic
Feldspars
Plagioclase
MEAN

Carbonates
Dolomite
Chert / Calcite
Quartz
Siderite
Shale/ Hematite

PYROBITUMEN

Matrix
Biot)
(Musc/ +pyrobitumen
Micasmatter
Organic
UPPER

Quartz
Clays

Routine Core Analysis


General Sample Information
Grain Size
Grain Size Porosity (%)
utine Core Analysis
Grain Shape
Routine Core AnalysisGrain Shape
Information
(microns)
(microns)
Types

Sorting

Fragments
Rock
K Feldspar
Clays

CARBONATE

Silica
Diagenetic
Total
minerals
Heavy
components
minerals
Opaque
/ Calcite
Dolomite
Roundness

clays
Authigenic
Rock Fragments

14

SPE-167177-MS

SPE-167177-MS

15

Table 4: Petrophysical Properties for each depositional sedimentary facies of the Monteith samples obtained from core measurements.

N data
points

OV/D
SF/MB/MSh
CP/MTF/STF
CH
W/FCH

2
7
2
5
32

0.025
0.002
0.019
0.015
0.016

0.020
0.011
0.016
0.014

Alberta Deep
Basin

2
5
2
5
32

0.04
0.03
0.10
0.21
0.18

Alberta Deep
Basin

Southern
Alberta

(Miles,2010;
Stott, 1998)

(Gibson,1979;
Stott, 1998)

0.040
0.010
0.030
0.070
0.04

0.007
0.042
0.198
0.209
0.188

Operational
nomenclature

(Stott 1998)

(Miles et al. 2012;*


Kukulski 2012;
This study)

Gething Fm.

Gething Fm.

Gething Fm.

Gladstone
Fm.

Getting Fm.

Cadomin Fm.

Cadomin Fm.

Cadomin Fm.

Cadomin Fm.

Cadomin Fm.

(informal)

Tithonian/
Volgian
Kimmeridg.
Oxfordian

Bickford Fm.
Monach Fm.
Beattie Peaks Fm.

Monteith Fm.

Upper Fernie
shale and
sandstone

Monteith A
Monteith B

Monteith C

Minnes
Group

Valanginian

Upper Fernie
shale and
sandstone

Monach Fm.

Beattie Peaks
Monteith Fm.

Upper Fernie
shale and
sandstone

Minnes Group
Kootenay Group

Hauterivian

Minnes Group
Monteith Fm.

LATE JURASSIC

0.03
0.11
0.31
0.62
0.94

Barremian

Berriasian

160

0.025
0.055
0.035
0.052
0.068

Northeastern
British
Columbia

Aptian

140

150

0.027
0.027
0.034
0.037

Minnes Group

130

N data PERMEABILITY (K-Max) (mD)


Mean Max Min Std. Dev. points Geomean Max Min Std. Dev.

Albian

EARLY CRETACEOUS

120

POROSITY (fraction)

Elk Fm.
Mist
Mountain Fm.
Morrissey Fm.

Upper Fernie
shale and
sandstone

Minnes Group
Nikanassin Fm.

110

Age

Ma

Epoch

Dep. Facies

Upper Nik.
Middle Nik.
Lower Nik.

Fernie Group

Figure 1: Stratigraphic column of the study area showing the previous nomenclatures commonly used for Nikanassin Group in the Deep Basin
and Central Alberta Foothills, also the recently one proposed by Miles et al. (2012), which will be adopted in this study (*).
A

28.6 km

GETHING FM.
FACIES

CORES

CADOMIN
MONTEITH
A

MONTEITH FORMATION

CRETACEOUS

JURASSIC

STUDY AREA

Age

PHIRCA KRCA

MONTEITH
B

MONTEITH
C
CAL

GR
ILD/
ILM

FERNIE
FM.

DPSS
NPSS

Legend
Continental
siltsone
Coarse sand/
conglomerate
Marine
Silt/claystone
Unconformity

Marine
sandstone
Continental
sandstone
Coal/ continental
Organic shale

Figure 2: A) Stratigraphic column adopted in this study, recently proposed by Miles et al. (2012). B) Wireline log suite through the Monteith,
Cadomin, and Gething Formations in wells 100/15-27-066-10W6 and 100/07-07-065-07W6. These two cored-wells were used for further
interpretations. Monteith A and C represent the two main reservoir units in this succession.

16

SPE-167177-MS

10-04-067-10W6

15-27-066-10W6

02-15-066-10W6

04-14-066-10W6 09-11-066-10W6

05-32-065-09W6 08-28-065-09W6 07-21-064-07W6

Monteith C

0.54

0.85

0.60

0.74

0.85
0.71

0.80

Monteith B

MONTEITH FORMATION

Monteith A

Cadomin
Fm.

Datum

FERNIE

NW - SE

ILD
ILM
ILS

GR
Vertical
Scale

Middle Monteith Marine Flooding Surface Datum

0 150 0.4 4000


B

STRATIGRAPHIC SECTION B-B

NetG = 0.73

0
10
20

Figure 3: Regional stratigraphic cross-section (BB) hung on the top of the middle Monteith C. This section is oriented in a NW-SE direction.
The Monteith A is most affected by erosion associated with the sub-Cadomin unconformity. Note a gamma ray cutoff established at 60 AP and
sandstones are yellow-colored to highlight regional trends within the study area. The Monteith A has a much greater net-to-gross than the
Monteith C interval.
06-05-065-09W6/2 13-15-065-09W6

Datum

Monteith B
Monteith C

MONTEITH FORMATION

Monteith A

Cadomin
Fm.

07-23-065-09W6 10-29-065-08W6 06-03-066-08W6 10-12-066-08W6 11-13-066-08W6 10-30-066-07W6 07-05-067-07W6

FERNIE

SW - NE

GR
Vertical
Scale

STRATIGRAPHIC SECTION A-A

ILD
ILM
ILS

Cadomin Datum

0 150 0.4 4000


B

10
20

Figure 4: Regional stratigraphic cross-section (AA) hung on the top of the Monteith Formation (Base of Cadomin Formation). This section is
oriented in a SW-NE direction, approximately perpendicular to the fold and thrust belt. The signature of the gamma ray and resistivity logs are
shown for each well. It is noticeable the stratigraphic thinning of the Monteith toward the northeast portion of the study area, going from 110 to
90 meters. In this section Monteith A thickness is between 42 to 25 m decreasing to zero- edge towards the east of the study area because it
has been removed by erosion associated with the Cadomin unconformity.

SPE-167177-MS

17

Map of Western Canada Deep basin showing


the study area in the Elmworth/Wapiti area

Location: 400 Km NW of Edmonton, AB.


Gas fields: Wapiti / Red Rock

Study area: NW Township 67 and Range11 (W06)


SE Township 64 and Range7 (W06)

Top Core

s
s

29902990
s

FA-1FA-1

ILM ILM
Por Por
THIN THINK(mD)K(mD)fraction)
GR GR
FACIESFACIESILD ILD
fraction)
CORE CORE
0.001 0.001
10 010 0
0
150
20 2000
13
SECTION
0
150 SECTION
20 2000
13

299529953080FA-1FA-1
FA-2FA-2

Monteith B
Monteith B

3085FA-2FA-2

30003000

Monteith C

MONTEITH FM
MONTEITH
Monteith C FM

FA-1FA-1
FA-2FA-2

3075

Well
07-07-065-07W6
Well
07-07-065-07W6
A A

FACIES

Clay

Silt
Fine

Top Core
Top Core

Silt

Very Fine

Fine
Fine
Very
Clay
Fine
VerySilt

Fine
Coarse
Coarse

Medium
Medium

Very Coarse

Coarse
Granules

Coarse
Very
Medium
Coarse
Very

Pebbles
Granules

Pebbles

Boulders

Boulders
Granules
Cobbles

Boulders
Cobbles
Cobbles
Pebbles

B B

DEPTH
FACIES(m)

MUD
Clay

SAND

DEPTH (m)

GRAVEL

GRAVEL
SAND SAND MUD MUD
GRAVEL

DEPTH (m)
FACIES

Figure 5: Location of the study area. Wells used in this study are displayed with different symbols. Subcrop edge is showing the erosional limit
of the Monteith A unit truncated by the sub- Cadomin unconformity. Adapted from Smith (1984).

FA-1FA-1
FA-1FA-1
FA-1FA-1

3090

30053005

Facies legend:
Ripples
Centimetre scale
Parallel
CP/MTF
Facies
legend
Facies
legend
Feston
Sr Sr
Flaser

CP/STF
Sl Sl

Erosional

Sp Sp
Sm Sm
CP/MTF
Fl Fl
Cl Cl

Stylolite
Ripple
Wavy
Siderite
s

CH

FA-1FA-1

Slightly
Bioturbation
Load cast

Shale clasts
Chert/ quartz clasts
Tabular crossbedding

3095
s

30103010

FA-1FA-1
FA-1FA-1

3100

SF/MB

s
s

Lithofacies:
Lithofacies:

30153015
s

SF/MB
CP/MTF
SF/MB
CP/MTF
CP/STF
CH
CP/STF

Cored

3105

CH

No No
MSh MSh
Cored

FA-1FA-1

Base Core
Base
CoreCore
Base

s
s

MSh

30203020

Figure 6: A) Wireline logs, core data and the interpreted depositional facies from the Monteith C interval (location 100/07-07-065-07W6). B)
Core-logging description with a color-coded by facies division and facies association (Solano, 2010).

Silt

Clay

Fine

MUD
Very Fine

Coarse

Medium

SAND
Very Coarse

Granules

Boulders
Cobbles

Pebbles

GRAVEL

Top Core

2990

Well 15-27-66-10W6
GR

THIN
K(mD)
150 CORE SECTION 0.001 10

Por
fraction)
0 0.13

FACIES

SPE-167177-MS

DEPTH (m)

18

FA-1
FA-2

FA-1

ILM
LITHO
ILD
FACIES 40 4000

2995

FA-1
FA-2

3000

FA-2
FA-1
FA-1

Monteith A

MONTEITH FM

CADOMIN

Facies legend
Sr
Sl
Sp
Sm
Fl
Cl

FA-1
Top FA-2

Top FA-1

3005

FA-1

FA-1
3010

FA-1
Lithofacies:
Sp

3015

Fl

Sm

Sr

Sl

No
Cored

FA-1

Base Core

3020

Figure 7: A) Wireline log showing the Gamma Ray and resistivity log responses through the Monteith A interval (location 100/15-27-06610W6). B) Core-logging description with a color-coded by facies division and facies association of interpreted channel and overbank deposits
(Zambrano, 2013).

SPE-167177-MS

19

DEP FACIES:
CH
CP/MTF / STF
SF/MB/MSh
OV/D
W/FCH

DEP FACIES:
CH
CP/MTF / STF
SF/MB/MSh
OV/D
W/FCH

Figure 8: A) Ternary plot diagram showing the distribution of the principal detrital components constrained by the sedimentary facies described
from core-samples. B) Ternary plot diagram with the pore geometry distributions estimated from thin sections, constrained by the interpreted
facies. Ternary plots corners: MP+MFr+SP = Microporosity + Micro-fractures + Slot-porosity; Intergranular porosity, and Intragranular porosity.
For the facies legend in both plots: CH= Channel; CP/MTF/STF = Coastal Plains/Muddy/Sandy Tidal Flats; SF/MB/MSh =
Shoreface/Mouthbar/Marine Shale; OV/D= overbank deposits; and W/FCH= within-fluvial channels.

20

SPE-167177-MS

Figure 9: Photomicrographs of samples from the Monteith sandstones: A) in this sample, coarse-grained sandstone, poorly-sorted, is showing
quartz cementation which has destroyed the primary porosity (red arrow). B) Coarse-grained sandstone poorly-sorted, in which quartz-cement
has developed at the quartz-to quartz contact (Red arrow). C) A ductile rock-fragment has been deformed a squeezed between detrital chert
and quartz filling pore space (red arrow). D) Intragranular porosity is shown within chert grain (yellow arrow). Ductile- fragment has been
deformed and squeezed into adjacent pores occluding porosity by mechanical compaction (orange arrow). Quartz overgrowth is the result of
quartz- cementation. E and F) Microporosity associated with kaolinite booklets. Notice the presence of kaolinite between some detrital quartz,
rock-fragments.

A) In this sample, a coarse-grained sandstone, poorly-sorted, is showing quartz cementation which has destroyed the primary porosity
(red arrow). B) Coarse-grained sandstone poorly-sorted, in which quartz-cement has developed at the quartz-to quartz contact (Red
arrow). C) A ductile rock-fragment has been deformed an squeezed between detrital chert and quartz filling pore space (red arrow).
D) Intragranular porosity is shown within chert grain (yellow arrow). Ductile- fragment has been deformed and squeezed into adjacent
pores occluding porosity by mechanical compaction (orange arrow). Quartz overgrowth is the result of quartz- cementation. E and F)
Microporosity associated with kaolinite booklets. Notice the presence of kaolinite between some detrital quartz, rock-fragments.

Figure 10: Photomicrographs of samples from the Monteith C sandstones: A) Very fine to fine, well to very well sorted sublitharenite. Clays
and insoluble organic matter are seen accumulated along two sub-horizontal stylolitic planes (blue arrow). Several authigenic dolomite crystals
are partly replacing the detrital chert fragment (red arrow). B) Sub-litharenite with a low amplitude stylolitic plane (blue arrow), and several subhorizontal microfractures have developed nearby (red arrow). C) There is an elongated mica flake showing little to non-mechanical
deformation (red arrow). Quartz overgrowth is pervasive, obliterating primary porosity of these rocks. Remnant open spaces were plugged
back by iron rich clays (Solano, 2010).

SPE-167177-MS

21

Total porosity
THs(%)

A Monteith Formation

Lower
(Monteith C)

0-3
3-6
>6

Total porosity
THs(%):
0-3
3-6
>6
Total porosity
THs(%)

C Upper
(Monteith A)

0-3
3-6
>6

Figure 11: A) Ternary plot diagram showing the distribution of the principal detrital components, constrained by the total porosity estimated
from thin sections from the Monteith Sandstones. Monteith C and A are separated in ternary plots B) and C), respectively.
Total porosity
RCA (%):

A Monteith Formation

0-2
2-4
>4

Lower
(Monteith C)

Total porosity
RCA (%):
0-2
2-4
>4
Total porosity
RCA (%):
0-2
2-4
>4

Upper
(Monteith A)

Figure 12: A) Ternary plot diagram showing the distribution of the principal detrital components, constrained by porosity estimated from routine
core analysis from the entire reservoir. Monteith C and A are separated in ternary plots B) and C), respectively.

22

SPE-167177-MS

Figure 13: Comparison of porosity values estimated from thin sections, and the porosity from routine core analysis. The size of the bubbles
represents the sum of dissolution + microporosity from thin section analysis (Solano, 2010).
Permeability
(md):

A Monteith Formation

0 - 0.03
0.03 - 0.1
> 0.1

B Lower

(Monteith C)

Permeability
(md)RCA:
0 - 0.03
0.03 - 0.1
> 0.1
Permeability
(md):
0 - 0.03
0.03 - 0.1
> 0.1

C Upper
(Monteith A)

Figure 14: A) Ternary plot diagram showing the distribution of the principal detrital components, constrained by permeability values from
routine core analysis of the Monteith Sandstones. Monteith C and A are separated in ternary plots B) and C), respectively.

SPE-167177-MS

23

Total porosity
THs(%)

A Monteith Formation

0-3
3-6
>6

B Lower
(Monteith C)

Total porosity
THs(%):
0-3
3-6
>6
Total porosity
THs(%)
0-3
3-6
>6

C Upper
(Monteith A)

Figure 15: A) Ternary plot diagram showing the pore geometry distribution estimated from thin sections of the Monteith samples, constrained
by the total porosity estimated also from thin sections. Monteith C and A are separated in ternary plots B) and C), respectively.
Total porosity
RCA (%):

A Monteith Formation

0-2
2-4
>4

B Lower
(Monteith C)

Total porosity
RCA (%):
0-2
2-4
>4

Total porosity
RCA (%):
0-2
2-4
>4

C Upper
(Monteith A)

Figure 16: A) Ternary plot diagram showing the pore geometry distribution estimated from thin sections of the Monteith samples, constrained
by porosity values from routine core analysis. Monteith C and A are separated in ternary plots B) and C), respectively.

24

SPE-167177-MS

Permeability
(md):

A Monteith Formation

0 - 0.03
0.03 - 0.1
> 0.1

Lower
(Monteith C)

Permeability
(md) RCA:
0 - 0.03
0.03 - 0.1
> 0.1

Permeability
(md):
0 - 0.03
0.03 - 0.1
> 0.1

Upper
(Monteith A)

Figure 17: A) Ternary plot diagram showing the distribution of pore geometry of the Monteith samples, constrained by permeability values from
routine core analysis. Monteith C and A are separated in ternary plots B) and C), respectively.
DEPTH (TVDSS,m):

A Monteith Formation

-1980 (-1990)
-1990 (-2000)

DEPTH (TVDSS,m):

-2000 (-2010)

B Lower

(Monteith C)

-2010 (-2020)

-1980 (-1990)

-1990 (-2000)
-2000 (-2010)
-2010 (-2020)
DEPTH (TVDSS,m):
-1980 (-1990)
-1990 (-2000)

-2000 (-2010)

Upper
(Monteith A)

-2010 (-2020)

Figure 18: Ternary plot diagrams representing percentages of the principal pore geometries observed on thin sections from the Monteith
samples. Structural depth of the samples is used as additional constraint in all plots, respectively.

SPE-167177-MS

25

Porosity and Permeability from Routine Core Analysis

Permeability RCA (mD)

1.00

0.10
CH
CP/MTF/STF

SF/MB/MSh
OV/D
W/FCH

0.01
0.00

0.02

0.04
0.06
Porosity RCA (fraction)

0.08

0.10

1100

Median

Q75

Max

N. samples

1200

Q25

OV/D
SF/MB/MSh
CP/MTF/STF
CH
W/FCH

GRAIN SIZE (microns)

Min

Depositional
facies

Figure 19: Porosity vs. permeability plot constrained by the major depositional facies. Facies legend= CH= Channel; CP/MTF/STF = Coastal
Plains/Muddy/Sandy Tidal Flats; SF/MB/MSh = Shoreface/Mouthbar/Marine Shale; OV/D= overbank deposits; and W/FCH= within-fluvial
channels.

75
15
17
65
100

140
63
103
141
323

150
81
108
156
350

160
97
113
165
391

265
310
250
600
1000

3
7
2
5
34

VCL

Max

1000
900

CU

800
700
600

CL

500
400

MU

300

ML

200

FU

100

VFU
VFL

Q75
Median
Q25

FL

Min
1
2
3
CP/MTF/STF
OV/D
SF/MB/MSh

4
CH

5
W/FCH

Figure 20: Figure showing a plot with the grain size distribution estimated in the petrographic analysis for each depositional facies, as well as
Table with the data. The bottom and top of the box correspond to the 25th and the 75th percentile (the lower and the upper quartile,
respectively), and the red circle near the middle of the box is the 50th percentile (the median). Max=Maximum; Min=minimum; Q75= upper
quartile; Q25= lower quartile, and median particle size (m). Same facies legend description as plot above.

26

SPE-167177-MS

1.00

0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00

Porosity (fraction)

Permeability (mD)

10.00

0.10

Mean

0.01
OV/D

SF/MB/MSh

CP/MTF

CH

W/FCH

Mean

OV/D

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Average quarzt
Average feldspar

OV/D

SF/MB/MShCP/MTF/STF

SF/MB/MSh CP/MTF

CH

W/FCH

Depositional Sedimentary Facies

Average of rock fragments (%)

Average of detrital grains (%)

Depositional Sedimentary Facies

CH

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Average rock fragments

OV/D

W/FCH

SF/MB/MShCP/MTF/STF

CH

W/FCH

Depositional Sedimentary Facies

Depositional Sedimentary Facies

Figure 21: Composite figure showing: A) Semi-log cross-plot of depositional facies vs. permeability (mD).B) Cross-plot of depositional facies
vs. porosity (fraction). Line red represents mean values of porosity and permeability for each depositional facies. C) Plot of depositional facies
vs. average content of quartz (black circles) and feldspar (blue triangle). D) Plot of depositional facies vs. average content of rock fragments.
Facies legend= CH= Channel; CP/MTF/STF = Coastal Plains/Muddy/Sandy Tidal Flats; SF/MB/MSh = Shoreface/Mouthbar/Marine Shale;
OV/D= overbank deposits; and W/FCH= within-fluvial channels.

7 wells with DC Monteith C (Lower)


10000

rp35

well 100/13-15-065-09W6/00
1000

well 100/09-11-066-10W6/00

10

0.1

0.2

20

well 100/02-15-066-10W6/00
well 100/09-11-066-10W6/00

1000

10

well 100/05-35-065-09W6/00

well 100/10-19-065-09W6/00
100

well 100/05-32-065-09W6/00
well 100/13-14-065-09W6/00

well 100/12-31-066-09W6/00

10

well 100/07-13-066-09W6/00

0.5

0.1

0.2

microports

0.5

microports

rp35

mesoports

well 100/06-03-066-08W6/00

mesoports

Permeability, kmax (mD)

well 100/16-28-066-08W6/00
10

well 100/10-27-065-10W6/00

macroports

well 100/09-11-066-10W6/00

macroports

well 100/04-14-066-10W6/00
100

10000

B
megaports

20

CHART FOR ESTIMATING PORE THROAT APERTURE (Source:


Aguilera, CSEG Recorder, Feb 2003)

megaports

well 102/06-05-065-09W6/00

9 wells with DC Monteith A (Upper)

Permeability, kmax (mD)

CHART FOR ESTIMATING PORE THROAT APERTURE (Source:


Aguilera, CSEG Recorder, Feb 2003)

0.01

0.01

0.001

0.001
0

10

15

20

25

30

10

15

20

25

30

Porosity (%)

Porosity (%)
Servipetrol, 2003

Servipetrol, 2003

Figure 22: A) Porosity vs. permeability distribution from the Monteith C samples (drill cuttings from 7 wells; Solano, 2010) within and integrated
cross-plot showing flow units for conventional, tight gas, and shale gas reservoirs based on rp35 pore throat apertures (microns). B) Porosity
vs. permeability distribution from the Monteith A samples (drill cuttings from 9 wells; Zambrano, 2013). Cross-plot template adapted from
Aguilera (2010).

SPE-167177-MS

27

CHART FOR ESTIMATING PORE THROAT APERTURE (Source:


Aguilera, CSEG Recorder, Feb 2003)
10000

rp35

1000

20

10

macroports

100

10
2

0.1

microports

0.5

mesoports

Permeability, kmax (mD)

megaports

OV/D
W/FCH
CH
CP/MTF
SF/MB/MSh

0.2

0.01

0.001
0

10

12

Porosity (%)
Servipetrol, 2003

Figure 23: A) Semi-log crossplot showing porosity vs. permeability distribution for each depositional lithofacies. Facies legend= CH= Channel;
CP/MTF/STF = Coastal Plains/Muddy/Sandy Tidal Flats; SF/MB/MSh = Shoreface/Mouthbar/Marine Shale; OV/D= overbank deposits; and
W/FCH= within-fluvial channels. (Solano, 2010; Zambrano,2013)
CHART FOR ESTIMATING PORE THROAT APERTURE (Source:
Aguilera, CSEG Recorder, Feb 2003)
10000

rp35
20

DC_Monteith A (Upper)

1000

RCA_Monteith C (Lower)

10

macroports

RCA_Monteith A (Upper)
100

2
10
1

mesoports

0.5

0.2

0.1

microports

Permeability, kmax (mD)

megaport

DC_Monteith C (lower)

0.01

0.001
0

10

15

20

25

30

Porosity (%)

Servipetrol, 2003

Figure 24: Porosity vs. permeability crossplot including drill-cuttings and routine core analysis data from both stratigraphic units (upper and
lower Monteith).The squares are data from the Monteith A (upper), whereas the triangles are data from the Monteith C.(Solano, 2010;
Zambrano,2013).

28

SPE-167177-MS

Figure 25: Production history normalized to the first day of production of 13 wells actually producing from the Monteith Formation. Notice the
presence of linear flow in the log-log plot A (slope = -0.5) and the plot B (1/q vs. square root of time). Plot C is showing normalized cumulative
production vs. square root of time for each well, confirming a production trend that fell below the -0.5 straight line and the boundary effect may
not be seen as well.

SPE-167177-MS

29

Slope = -0.5 (linear flow)

Slope = -0.5 (linear flow)

Flowback

Flowback

Flowback
Flowback

linear flow
linear flow

linear flow
Flowback

Flowback

linear flow

Figure 26: Production history normalized to the first day of production for 2 wells actually producing from the Monteith A (upper unit). Data are
plotted as published by GeoScout without any modifications. Note that production behavior is dominated by linear flow following the hydraulic
fracturing flowback period. The red arrows point to gas contribution from microports to mesoports. The end of flowback period corresponds to
approximately the time where the dashed red straight line intercepts zero cumulative production in the bottom graphs.

30

SPE-167177-MS

Slope = -0.5 linear flow

Slope = -0.5 linear flow

linear flow
linear flow

linear flow

Flowback

Flowback

C
linear flow

Figure 27: Production history normalized to the first day of production of 2 wells actually producing from the Monteith C (lower unit). Data are
plotted as published by GeoScout without any modifications. Note that production behavior is dominated by linear flow following the hydraulic
fracturing flowback period. The red arrows point to gas contribution from microports of approximately 0.2 to 0.3 microns to microport from
approximately 0.3 to 0.5 microns. The end of flowback period corresponds to approximately the time where the dashed red straight line
intercepts zero cumulative production in the bottom graphs. Production performance in this case (microports) is not as good as in Figure 26
where the Monteith rocks start as microports but go up to mesoports.

SPE-167177-MS

31

-1.0
-0.5

-0.5
-0.5
Flowback

Flowback

Flowback

-1.0

BDF?

-1.0
Flowback

-0.5

-0.5

Flowback

BDF

-1.0

-1.0
-0.5

-0.5

-1.0

Flowback

Flowback

BDF

Figure 28: Log-log plot of production history normalized to the first day of production for 9 wells actually producing commingled from the
Monteith A (upper), Monteith C (lower), and the overlying Cadomin Formation. The red dashed lines with a slope of 0.5 indicate linear flow
following the hydraulic fracturing backflow period. The blue dashed lines with slope of 1.0 indicate interlinear flow. BFD indicates boundary
dominated flow.

Decline Rate with Unrestricted Inter-Linear Transition Flow


Triple Porosity Model Dominated by Linear Flow
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02

Linear Flow (slope = -0.5)


Unrestricted Transition (slope = -1.00)

1.E+01

qD

1.E+00

Linear

1.E-01
1.E-02

Transition

1.E-03
1.E-04

Linear

1.E-05
1.E-06

tD

Figure 29: Theoretical crossplot of dimensionless rate (qD) vs. dimensionless time (tD) for a model with three different types of porosities. The
straight lines with slopes = -0.5 indicate linear flow. The straight lines with slopes =-1.0 indicate interlinear flow (Source: Aguilera, 2013). Note
that this theoretical model displays the same slopes as the actual commingled production data from the Monteith A (upper), Monteith C
(lower), and the overlying Cadomin Formation shown in Figure 28.

32

SPE-167177-MS

BDF

FB

FB

LF
LF

LF

FB

BDF
BDF?

FB

LF

LF

LF

FB

BDF

FB
LF
LF

LF

Figure 30: Plot of 1/q vs. square root of time for 9 wells actually producing commingled from the Monteith A (upper), Monteith C (lower), and
the overlying Cadomin Formation. FB is the flowback period. LF is linear flow period. BFD is boundary dominated flow. The data corresponds
to the same 9 wells shown in Figure 28.

LF

BDF
LF

LF
FB

FB

FB

LF

BDF

LF

LF

FB

FB

FB

LF

LF

LF
FB

FB

FB

Figure 31: Plot of cumulative production vs. square root of time of 9 wells actually producing commingled from the Monteith A (upper),
Monteith C (lower), and the overlying Cadomin Formation. FB is the flowback period. LF is linear flow period. BFD is boundary dominated flow.
The data corresponds to the same 9 wells shown in Figures 28 and 30.