“UNCONVENTIONAL HYDROCARBON POTENTIAL OF

CAMBAY BASIN”

A Project Report

Submitted by

PATEL KARAN GAUTTAMBHAI VASAVA ADITYAKUMAR

PDPU PDPU
15BPE084 15BPE124

in fulfilment of

Summer Internship Programme

 Page |2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is with genuine elation and pleasure that we want to express our deep sense of
gratitude for astoundingly supportive Data Interpretation Centre (DIC)
Team, Petroleum Research Wing (PRW) during our internship at Gujarat
Energy Research and Management Institute (GERMI), Gandhinagar, Gujarat.

We are very much thankful to Dr. Anirbid Sircar, Director General, GERMI
for providing me the opportunity for doing internship at GERMI.

We are highly indebted to Mr. P.H. Rao, Principal Research Scientist for
giving us this opportunity to undertake Summer Internship Program at GERMI.
We are grateful to have his guidance throughout the training period and sharing
of his in-depth knowledge in Geophysical Data Interpretation was great learning
to us.

Our heartfelt thanks to Mr. K. Ramachandran, Scientist for helping us

throughout the internship by providing his insightful knowledge which helped
us in understanding the scope of our project. Thank you once again sir for your
constant support and help throughout the internship period.

Special thanks to Mr. Santosh Dhubia, Mr. Uday Kiran, Mr. Mousam Gogoi
and Mr. Chintan Prajapati for helping us by clearing our doubts whenever
necessary.

We are thankful to all other summer interns for sharing their knowledge and
providing friendly and learning environment which helped us in enhancing our
knowledge during internship period.

We would also like to thank our university (Pandit Deendayal Petroleum

University) and T&P cell without whom training would have been a distant
reality.
 Page |3

Contents
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 5
DEFINING CONVENTIONAL AND UNCONVENTIONAL RESERVOIRS .................................... 5
SEDIMENTARY BASIN ....................................................................................................................... 7
Types of Sedimentary Basin ............................................................................................................... 7
Evolution of Organic Matter into Oil and Gas .................................................................................. 10
Production and accumulation of Organic Matter .......................................................................... 11
Generation of Oil and Gas from Organic Matter .......................................................................... 12
Migration and Accumulation of Oil and Gas ................................................................................ 14
Petroleum System in Sedimentary Basins ........................................................................................ 15
SEDIMENTARY BASINS OF INDIA ................................................................................................ 16
SHALE GAS ......................................................................................................................................... 19
About ................................................................................................................................................ 19
History .............................................................................................................................................. 19
Technology used in shale gas extraction........................................................................................... 20
SHALE OIL .......................................................................................................................................... 22
WORLD SCENARIO FOR SHALE OIL AND SHALE GAS ............................................................ 23
Shale Gas Reserves ........................................................................................................................... 23
Shale Oil Reserves ............................................................................................................................ 24
World Examples................................................................................................................................ 25
Shale Gas fields/formations of USA ............................................................................................. 26
China ............................................................................................................................................. 28
Canadian Shale Gas Fields............................................................................................................ 29
SHALE GAS PROSPECTIVITY IN INDIA........................................................................................ 32
Cambay Basin ................................................................................................................................... 33
Krishna-Godavari Basin.................................................................................................................... 34
Cauvery Basin ................................................................................................................................... 36
Damodar Valley Basin ...................................................................................................................... 37
COMPARISON: INDIA SHALE GAS RESERVOIR V/S OTHER ................................................... 39
CAMBAY BASIN ................................................................................................................................ 40
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 40
Exploration History........................................................................................................................... 41
Structural Evolution of Basin............................................................................................................ 41
Stratigraphical evolution of cambay basin ........................................................................................ 42
 Page |4

Petroleum System of Cambay Basin................................................................................................. 44

Shale Gas Prospects in Cambay Basin .............................................................................................. 45
FRACTURED BASEMENT RESERVOIR ......................................................................................... 48
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 48
Basement Rock ............................................................................................................................. 48
Basic Requirements for Oil or Gas in Basement .......................................................................... 48
Formation of fractures....................................................................................................................... 48
Generic Classification of Natural Fracture ................................................................................... 49
Geologic Classification of Natural Fracture ................................................................................. 50
Classification of Fractured Reservoir by productivity characteristics .......................................... 52
Oil into the Basement Reservoir ....................................................................................................... 52
Fractured Basement Reservoir .......................................................................................................... 53
World Scenario of Fractured Basement Reservoir............................................................................ 54
Indian Scenario of Fractured Basement Reservoir............................................................................ 57
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 64
References ............................................................................................................................................. 65
 Page |5

INTRODUCTION

The main reason for “being so wrong” about oil's future availability is the over-reliance on
analytical techniques that fail to appreciate petroleum as an economic commodity powered by
the constant advance of technology. There is no approximate date of “running out of oil”
since there are a lot of factors to take into consideration when it comes to estimating the
reserves. By general definition of reserves, they are the discovered accumulations of
hydrocarbon which can be legally, economically and technically extractable. Such reserves
are part of conventional reservoirs. But there is lot remaining still to be explored and even if
explored there is challenge in their extraction. Such reserves form part of unconventional
reservoirs. Excessive demand over the limited supply has tempted the industry to put their
step forth in the direction of exploring and exploiting such unconventional reservoirs. The
study undertaken is a brief literature survey to explore the potential of such unconventional
reservoir of one of the most proliferous basins of India i.e Cambay Basin.

DEFINING CONVENTIONAL AND UNCONVENTIONAL RESERVOIRS

Conventional and Unconventional reservoirs both refer to some quantity of fossil fuel that
could contribute to a reserve if they could be extracted economically. But the major
difference between both lies in the method, technology, and financial investment that goes
behind exploitation of these reservoirs. Conventional reservoirs are easy to be tapped and can
be extracted by simple and commonly used methods in economical ways. Because of this
simplicity and relative cheapness, conventional oil and gas are generally some of the first
targets of development of any field. Conventional reservoirs are mostly external hydrocarbon
(HC) sourcing, meaning the HC fluid would have migrated from source rock and have
collected in some high porous and permeable reservoir rock with trap over it.

In contrast to this, Unconventional reservoirs are those which required special state of art
technologies and methods, and economics that goes behind for its exploration and
exploitation activity. Such resources can be thought of as low permeable reservoir which
requires special techniques like fracturing for creating artificial permeability and hence to its
development. Unconventional reservoirs not only include reservoirs such as tight-gas sands,
gas and oil shales, coalbed methane, but also heavy oil and tar sands, and gas-hydrate
deposits. These reservoirs require assertive recovery solutions such as stimulation treatments
or steam injection, innovative solutions that must overcome economic constraints in order to
make recovery from these reservoirs monetarily viable. So lower permeability is not only the
defining factor for unconventional resources but very high viscosity impeding the flow of
crude like heavy oil reservoir and oil sands are also categorized under unconventional
resources. So overall the resources which requires improvement in mobility of fluid i.e k/μ
(k= permeability, μ=viscocity). In most of the cases unconventional resources are self
sourced HC, meaning there has not been any migration of HC from source to reservoir rock
and production has to be carried from source rock itself. Thus source rock itself behaves as
 Page |6

reservoir and trap rock due to very less permeability. Few common points of difference
between two are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Points of difference between Conventional and Unconventional Resources 1

Conventional Reservoirs Unconventional Reservoirs

Localized structural trap “Continuous-type” deposit
External HC sourcing Self-sourced HC
Hydrodynamic Influence Minimal Hydrodynamic Influence
Significant Porosity Porosity may not be important
Permeability > 0.1 mD Permeability <0.1 mD
Minimal extraction effort Significant extraction effort
Significant production history Limited production history
Few wells for commerciality Many wells for commerciality

Table 1 highlights, general points of bifurcation of conventional and unconventional

reservoirs. Few reservoirs may show peculiar behavior from the points stated above
depending on their geological setting and type of hydrocarbon inhabitating.

Only one third of the hydrocarbon reservoirs of the world are conventional while the
remaining reservoirs are Unconventional (Hasan et. al, 2015). The reason to develop these
unconventional reservoirs in spite of being so many technological challenges, financial risk
and environmental concerns lies in the answering the supply of energy against the increasing
demands. Inspite of technological advancements except the Coal Bed Methane and the Shale
Gas, the knowledge and efforts towards other alternate resources are still in preliminary
stage.

According to analysis of 12 basins across India, atleast 91 TCF of recoverable reserves are
there of which only 42 tcf have been developed and are in production phase (GE, Bulletin)2.
Over this India holds an estimated 96 tcf of recoverable shale gas (EIA/ARI June 2016
Report) whereas Hydrate Energy International has estimated India’s Natural Gas Hydrate
potential to be approximately 933 tcf3. Coal bed Methane potential of India has been
prognosticated to be of 92 tcf (DGH, India). Numbers are enough to show the potential that
unconventional energy resources have in changing energy scenario across the country. As
such proper technology has yet to be developed to tap the gas hydrates, it is necessary as of
now to develop the prospects of shale gas and CBM as alternate source of energy to that of
conventional reserves.

1
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/presentation/3083/228d2f52914dccdf032f4aeeb26d6e1fc683.pdf
2
https://qz.com/460957/indias-massive-untapped-natural-gas-reserves-could-help-free-up-306-million-a-day-
on-imported-oil/
3
http://www.ogfj.com/articles/print/volume-14/issue-2/features/india-s-gas-hydrates.html
 Page |7

SEDIMENTARY BASIN

In general terms, a sedimentary basin is a depression of some kind capable of trapping

sediment. The geological concept of a sedimentary basin is distinct from the geographical
concept of a physiographic basin. Because not all sediment deposited accumulates for a
significant period of time in the geological record (Chapman, 1983). Thus the definition of
basin can be modified as a depression in earth’s crust capable of accumulating sediments with
significant geological age (i.e in millions of years).

Subsidence of the upper surface of the crust must take place to form such a depression.
Mechanisms that can generate sufficient subsidence to create basins include crustal thinning,
mantle-lithosphere thickening, sedimentary and volcanic loading, tectonic loading, subcrustal
loading, asthenopheric flow, and crustal densification, etc.

Types of Sedimentary Basin

The different types of sedimentary basin are:

1) Rift-related basins.

2) Subduction-related basins.

3) Transform-fault basins.

1) Rift-related basins:

a) Rift Basin:

Geological Origin: The down-dropped basin formed during rifting because of stretching and
thinning of the continental crust.

Example: East Africa Rift.

 Page |8

b) Passive margin basins:

Geological Origin: Subsidence along a passive margin, mostly due to long-term accumulation
of sediment on the continental shelf.

Example: East coast of North America.

2) Subduction-related basins:

a) Trench:

Geological Origin: Downward flexure of the subducting and non-subducting plates (sites of
accretionary wedges)

Example: Western edge of Vancouver Island.

 Page |9

b) Forearc basin:

Geological Origin: The area between the accretionary wedge and the magmatic arc, largely
caused by the negative buoyancy of the subducting plate pulling down on the overlying
continental crust.

c) Foreland basin:

Geological Origin: A depression caused by the weight of a large mountain range pushing the
adjacent crust below sea level.

Example: The sediment filled plain south of the Himalayas.

 P a g e | 10

3) Transform-fault basins:

a) Strike-slip basin:

Geological Origin: A pull-apart block(eg. Between two transform faults) that subsides
significantly.

Example: Various locations on the San Andreas Fault or the Anatolian Fault.

Evolution of Organic Matter into Oil and Gas

It is well known that the source of petroleum is plants and animals that died millions of years
ago. During the period, this high carbon content matter (organic matter) of plants and animals
was exposed to high pressure and temperature that caused them to become mature and
generate petroleum. Following section discusses the evolution process chain of organic
matter (Figure 1) i.e from where organic matter came and got accumulated, how they were
transformed into oil and gas followed by the migration of oil and gas to their accumulation in
the reservoir rock.
 P a g e | 11

Fate of Organic
Production and Matter (i.e Migration and
accumulation of formation of Oil Accumulation of
Organic Matter and Gas from Oil and Gas
Organic Matter)

Figure 1: Evolution of Organic Matter

Production and accumulation of Organic Matter

Production, accumulation and preservation of un-degraded organic matter are pre-requisites

for the existence of petroleum source rocks. First, organic matter has to be synthesized by
living organisms and thereafter it must be deposited and preserved in sediments. Depending
on further geological events, part of the sedimentary organic matter may be transformed into
petroleum-like compounds. It is important to realize that during the history of the earth the
conditions for synthesis, deposition and preservation of organic matter have changed
considerably.

Through the Cambrian and upto Devonian age, mainly marine phytoplankton and bacteria
and to some extent benthonic algae and zooplankton could have served as source material for
petroleum (Tissot and Welte, 1985a). Thereafter, terrestrial organic matter derived from land
plants offers an alternative source. But for all the biomass have their different composition
and type of organic matter, the result of which we have different compositions of crudes.
Lipid and Lipid like fractions i.e biomolecules of organisms are among the chemical
constituents playing dominant role in the formation of petroleum.

The accumulation of organic matter in sediment is controlled by a number of geological

boundary conditions. It is practically restricted to sediment deposited in aquatic
environments, which must receive a certain minimum amount of organic matter. This organic
matter can be supplied either in the form of dead or living particulate organic matter or as
dissolved organic matter. Under geological conditions prevailing on the earth's surface, all
organic matter is unstable. The conservation of organic matter is aided by a number of
factors. Low oxygen concentrations or absence of free oxygen and presence of H2S, decrease
the rate of destruction of organic matter. Under such conditions, it is not further mineralized
by direct oxidation to CO2. Nevertheless the destruction of organic matter is continued at a
lower rate by anaerobic bacteria. Thus shale rock with low permeability acts as good source
rock in two ways, 1) it cease the flow of material to flow before getting maturing to oil or gas
and 2) it decreases the flow of juvenile water in and out decreasing the amount of oxygen
carried along with water, providing proper environment for cooking of organic matter.
 P a g e | 12

Generation of Oil and Gas from Organic Matter

The physicochemical transformation of organic matter during the geological history of

sedimentary basins cannot be regarded as an isolated process. It is controlled by the same
major factors that also determine the variations of composition of the inorganic solid phase
and of the interstitial water of the sediments: biological activity in an early stage, then
temperature and pressure (Tissot and Welte, 1985b). Evolution of Organic matter is mainly
divided into three stages as shown in Figure 24:

 Diagenesis
 Catagenesis
 Metagenesis

Figure 2: Stages of Maturation of Organic Matter

Diagenesis

During early diagenesis one of the main agents of transformation is microbial activity.
Aerobic microorganisms that live in the upper most layer of sediments consume free oxygen.
Anaerobes reduce sulphates to obtain the required oxygen. Previous biogenic polymers or
"biopolymers" (proteins, carbohydrates) are destroyed by microbial activity during
sedimentation and early diagenesis. The most important hydrocarbon formed during

4
http://www.oilandgasgeology.com/oil_gas_window.jpg
 P a g e | 13

diagenesis is methane (called as methanogenesis stage). Gas produced is thus called as

biogenic gas (or hydrocarbon). The end of diagenesis stage is marked with vitrinite
reflectance of about 0.5%. This is equivalent to the boundary between brown coal and hard
coal according to the coal rank classification of the International Handbook of Coal
Petrology.

Catagenesis

Consecutive deposition of sediments results in burial of previous beds to a depth reaching

several kilometres of overburden in subsiding basins. This means a considerable increase in
temperature and pressure. Tectonics may also contribute to increase in temperature and
pressure. This stage of maturation of OM after diagenesis is called Catagenesis. Temperature
may range from about 50 to 1500C and geostatic pressure due to overburden may vary from
300 to 1000 or 1500 bars (Tissot and Welte, 1985b). Such increase again places the system
out of equilibrium and results in new changes. Organic matter experiences major changes
through progressive evolution the kerogen produces first liquid petroleum; then in a later
stage "wet gas" and condensate. This is the stage mainly responsible for formation of liquid
hydrocarbon. Temperature range in between 60 to 120 is termed as ‘Oil Window’, wherein
oil is generated majorly with small amount of gaseous hydrocarbon. Since these are severe
changes in the organic material, and since with further evolution there is no more generation
of petroleum and only limited amounts of methane this point seems to be a natural break. End
of catagenesis is marked by vitrinite reflectance of ~2.0% resembling to start of anthracite
rank of coal formation.

Metagenesis

The last stage of the evolution of sediments which is known as metagenesis is reached in
deep troughs and in geosynclinal zones. Here temperature and pressure reach high value. At
this stage the organic matter is composed only of methane and a carbon residue, where some
crystalline ordering begins to develop. Coals are transformed into anthracite. The constituents
of the residual kerogen are converted to graphitic carbon.

Pictorial summary of evolution of organic matter is as presented in following Figure 3

 P a g e | 14

Figure 3: Sources of hydrocarbons in geological setting, with regards to evolution of Organic

Matter (Tissot and Welte, 1985b)

Migration and Accumulation of Oil and Gas

Petroleum accumulations are generally found in relatively coarse-grained porous and

permeable rocks that contain little or no insoluble organic matter. It is highly improbable that
the huge quantities of petroleum found in these rocks could have originated in them from
solid organic matter of which now no trace remains. Hence, it can be concluded that the place
of origin of oil and gas is normally not identical with the locations where it is found in
economically producible conditions and that it has had to migrate to its present reservoirs
 P a g e | 15

from its place of origin. The release of petroleum compounds from solid organic particles
(kerogen) in source beds and their transport within and through the capillaries and narrow
pores of a fine-grained source bed has been termed primary migration by numerous workers.
The oil expelled from a source bed passes through wider pores of more permeable porous
rock units. This is called secondary migration as shown in Figure 4 (Tissot and Welte,
1985c).

Figure 4: Primary and Secondary migration in Petroleum system (Tissot and Welte, 1985c)

Petroleum System in Sedimentary Basins

For any sedimentary basin to be classified as petroliferous basin there must be existence of
petroleum system in the basin. Petroleum system comprises of three main components:

 Source Rock
 Reservoir rock
 Cap Rock

Source Rock: The source rock is subsurface sedimentary rock units which are made of shale
or limestone. It contains the precursors of hydrocarbon formation, organic matters (from
decays of ancient biological species) which were subjected to high temperature for long time.
The source rock host the processes that involve in the formation oil and gas until they start to
immigrate toward the upper or nearer rock(s) named reservoir due to the fluidity of oil and
gas

Reservoir Rock: This element is a kind of porous or permeable lithological unit(s) which
retains the immigrating oil and gas from source rock. Oil and gas usually accumulate on the
top of water and they are always there relatively to their difference of densities. The reservoir
 P a g e | 16

rock are basically analyzed by means of assessing their porosity a permeability but also its
analysis takes ranges into various fields such as stratigraphy, structural analysis,
sedimentology , paleontology and reservoir engineering disciplines. In case the reservoir has
yet been identified, key characteristic crucial to hydrocarbons explorationists are bulk rock
volume and net-to-gross ratio. The bulk rock volume (gross volume of the rock above the
water-hydrocarbons contact) is obtained from of sedimentary packages while the net-to-gross
ratio (the proportion of sedimentary packages in a reservoir rock) estimations are gotten from
analogues and wire lines logs. The net volume of reserves is equal to bulk rock volume
multiplied by the net-to-gross ratio.

Cap Rock/ Seal: It is a lithological unit(s) with low permeability which restricts
hydrocarbons to escape from the reservoir. It is made of chalks, shale or evaporites. Its
analysis bases on assessing the extent and thickness to know how much cap rock is efficient
to oil and gas retention. According to lithological deformation that might have been happen,
the cap rock may be found in various types. The tectonic movements the crust experiences
cause the anticline and syncline seals and the matter of consequences of their shapes; the
convex form is more enjoyable to petroleum exploration than concave one. That is why
always the seismology experiments are always carried out to assess how well they can reach
the reservoir by aiming at seal with a concave shape as to ease and make efficient the
petroleum exploration.

SEDIMENTARY BASINS OF INDIA

The sedimentary basins of India, onland and offshore up to the 200m isobath, have an areal
extent of about 1.79 million sq. km. So far, 26 basins have been recognized. In the deep
waters beyond the 200m isobath, the sedimentary area has been estimated to be about 1.35
million sq. km. The total thus works out to 3.14 million sq. km (DGH,India).

Over the last twelve years, there have been significant forward steps in exploring the
hydrocarbon potential of the sedimentary basins of India. The unexplored area has come
down to 15% which was 50% in 1995-96.

These 26 sedimentary basins of India as shown in Figure 5 are classified into 4 Category
based on their degree of prospectively as presently known which are as under:

Category-I: Basins with proved hydrocarbon occurrence and is currently commercially

producing.

The basins that fall under this category are as follows:

 Cambay Basin.
 Assam Shelf Basin.
 Mumbai Offshore Basin.
 Krishna-Godavari Basin.
 P a g e | 17

 Cauvery Basin.
 Assam- Arakan fold belt.
 Rajasthan Basin.

Category-II: Basins with known accumulation of hydrocarbons but no commercial

production achieved so far.

The basins that fall under this category are as follows:

 Kutch Basin.
 Mahanadi Basin.
 Andaman-Nicobar Basin.

Category-III: Basins having hydrocarbon shows that are considered geologically prospective

The Basins that fall under this category are as follows:

 Himalayan Foreland.
 Ganga Basin.
 Vindhyan Basin.
 Saurashtra Basin.
 Kerala-Konkan-Laskshadweep Basin.
 Bengal Basin.

Category-IV: Basins having uncertain potential which may be prospective by analogy with
similar basins in the world.

The Basins that fall under this category are as follows:

 Karewa Basin.
 Spiti-Zanskar Basin.
 Satpura-North Rewa-Damodar Basin.
 Narmada Basin.
 Deccan Syneclise.
 Bhima-Kaladgi.
 Cuddapah Basin.
 Pranhita-Godavari Basin.
 Bastar Basin.
 Chhattisgarh Basin.
 P a g e | 18

Figure 5: Map demarcating Sedimentary Basins of India (DGH, INDIA)

 P a g e | 19

SHALE GAS

About

Shales are fine-grained sedimentary rocks that can be rich sources of petroleum and natural
gas. Shale forms in very deep ocean water, lagoons, lakes and swamps where the water is still
enough to allow the extremely fine clay and silt particles to settle to the floor i.e the low
energy depositional environment. Mostly during marine environment, deposition of shale is
found to be in abundance enough to form shale bed with certain thickness. In the conditions
of high temperature and high pressure, organic material deposited along with clay particles
turns into petroleum and gas. Such thick shales are usually found to be potential source rock
of any petroleum system. Shale being prominent source rock can also act as reservoir rock.
Only a portion of hydrocarbon generated in shale is being migrated to the reservoir rock. Due
to low permeability there can be considerable accumulation of hydrocarbon in shale itself to
be extracted economically. Gas formed in shale can either be “free gas” which is trapped in
the pores and fissures of the shale rocks, or adsorbed gas which is contained in surfaces of the
rocks (Wang et. al, 2014). Such gas found in shale is called ‘Shale Gas’. To extract shale
gas, it is necessary to increase permeability of the shale artificially by using technology of
fracturing (normally termed as ‘fracing’) of the rock.

History

The first commercial gas well was drilled in the shales in 1821 in America by William Hart
who is considered in the USA the “father of natural gas” (Zhiltsov and Semenov, 2016) The
gas producing well was drilled in shale formations in the state of New York. But it took
almost a century to develop the technology for developing shale gas in economic way. In the
1920s US engineers Floyd Farris and J.B. Clark suggested the hydraulic fracturing
technology that became the platform for further researches and permitted to get down to
practical production of shale gas The USA initiated shale gas field development in the states
of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana. By the end of the last century, they were the main
sources of shale gas production. The development of these fields was facilitated by such
factors as shallow shale occurrence and their development by vertical wells. The average
production was about 5–6 billion cubic meters per year (Hegay, 2011).

In the 1950s, the former USSR also developed technologies of shale gas production, but these
researches were conducted largely for experimental purposes. But due to limited development
of shale play, USSR couldn’t take the shale gas exploitation to commercial level (Zhiltsov
and Semenov, 2016). In 1949 Company Halliburton used the hydraulic fracturing technology
in the states of Oklahoma and Texas applying water and sand as propping reagents. This
 P a g e | 20

technology proved effective, and in the next decade, a great number of fracking operations
were conducted in the USA.

The first experimental developments of gas extraction from shale plays were initiated in 1980
in the USA by Mitchell Energy and Development headed by George P. Mitchell. In the early
1980s, the company possessed the Barnett play in the Northern Texas that was considered to
have poor prospects. Many wells were drilled, but with no success and with several million
dollars of investments for 10 years. In 1997 Mitchell Energy & Development applied the
hydraulic fracking technology with the use of propping reagents in directional wells which
gave positive results and it was the testing ground for the directional drilling technology.

Around the year 2000, natural gas started to be produced on a large scale from shale in the
Barnett Shale in north-central Texas (EIA, Energy in brief, 2015). Following Mitchell, other
companies like Chesapeake, Apache, Devon Energy, and Noble Energy also started
developing shale wells. They started to expand to other shale locations such as Fayettevile in
northern Askansas, Haynesville in eastern Texas, and the Marcellus and Utica Shales in Ohio,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York (Zhiltsov and Semenov, 2016).

Due to developed technology and tremendous potential of shale reservoir, production of shale
gas on commercial scale was pioneered by the USA that accumulated considerable
experience in development of the shale gas plays. Extraction of natural gas from shale rock in
the United States (US) is one of the landmark events in the 21st century. The combination of
horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing can extract huge quantities of natural gas from
impermeable shale formations, which were previously thought to be either impossible or
uneconomic to produce.

Technology used in shale gas extraction

As shales are rock with very less permeability, in order to produce the hydrocarbon fluid
from shale, enhancement of permeability is primary requirement. In order to induce artificial
permeability shales need to be fractured. The success of shale gas recovery using fracturing
technique is greatly dependent on the shale's brittleness, since brittle shales have many pre-
existing fractures and are easy to fracture in tensile and shear modes. A combination of
laboratory and geophysical approaches are recommended for shale brittleness quantification
(Zhang et al, 2016) and accordingly fracturing plan has to be designed.

Fracturing the formations are mostly carried by using water as fluid and pressurizing water
from the surface to forcibly enter the pre-existing micro fractures and widening them,
resulting in increasing width of pre-existing fracture and also generation of new fractures
ultimately enhancing the overall permeability. This technique is known as Hydraulic
Fracturing.

There are some other fracturing techniques apart from Hydraulic technique which uses other
physical principle or some different fluid as frac fluid. Few of them are as listed below
(Bataille and Lenoir, 2013):
 P a g e | 21

Fracturing using an electric arc: this technique has been studied at Pau University in
France. An electric wave is generated, thus creating a very dense, but not widespread,
network of cracks. This method uses little water and does not require additives, but for the
moment is not considered as a viable alternative to hydraulic fracturing since it only
stimulates the rock in the immediate vicinity of the well.

Thermal fracturing: here, the rock is heated, so as to dehydrate the rock. Water in the pore
spaces beholds the overburden and also lateral stresses. Removal of water results into
imbalance in stress distribution resulting into development of fractures. This technique also
serves the purpose of upgrading hydrocarbons by converting heavy molecules into lighter one
by thermal cracking of molecules.

Pneumatic fracturing: compressed air is injected into the shale which disintegrates under
the pressure of shock waves. Compressed air guns may be used. A variation on this technique
is to use helium the rock fractures when the gas expands as it heats up underground.

But these methods are in nascent stage and are far from operational till date. Their energy
efficiency and environmental consequences are yet to be studied.

Hydraulic fracturing is well studied, assessed, proven and applied technology for shale gas
extraction. Hydraulic Fracturing (HF) is technique which uses fluid (generally water) and
solids (mainly sand or ceramic beads) in formulation of Frac fluid. Solids are called as
proppant which helps in keeping the fractures wide open even after surface pressure is
reduced, thus providing mechanical support to the formation. Various types of other
chemicals are being added in frac fluid to serve various purpose like maintaining viscosity to
keep proppant suspended, friction reducers, shale stabilizers, etc. Before injecting frac fluid,
well is perforated in order to establish connection between cased well and formation.
Perforation job is also applied in open hole to provide entry path for frac fluid to enter the
formation. ‘Plug and Perf’ is the method used for multiple perforations in a single well. Frac
fluid prepared is then pumped under a pressure higher than that of formation breakdown
pressure to create fissures in the formation. For HF job pressure normally varies from 500 to
1500 atm. Fractures formed are kept open by proppants even after surface pressure is
removed. After this water is allowed to flow from the well along with production of gas being
entrapped in the shale. Typical representation of HF job is presented in Figure 6 .

Shales have very low production rate due to low permeability. Even after artificially
increasing the permeability by HF job, flow rates from the shale formation are low to counter
the operational cost of well. So to increase the well’s overall productivity it is necessary to
increase the contact area of well bore with reservoir. Directional or mostly horizontal wells
are drilled along the formation to increase contact area. Contact area of the well to be
achieved depends on the desired production enough to meet the operational cost of well along
with profits. In the recent years, the shale gas production technology includes drilling of a
vertical well and several horizontal wells with multiple branches at the same depth. The
construction of multistep horizontal wells with the horizontal wellbore length to 3 km is
 P a g e | 22

currently practiced (Zhiltsov and Semenov, 2016). This improves significantly the efficiency
of shale gas production.

Figure 6: Horizontal well and Hydro fracturing operation for shale gas extraction

SHALE OIL

Shale Oil can be defined as Oil being entrapped in the shale rocks. Shale oil like shale gas
faces the similar problem of its extraction from such low permeable shale formations and the
same technology is being used for its recovery as that discussed for shale oil. But the point of
difference for shale oil and shale gas lies in the type of kerogen that is being cooked up in the
source rock i.e shale and also the degree of thermal maturity that has been attained defines
the generation of oil or gas in the shale rock. As shown in table Kerogen of Type III which is
mainly derived from terrestrial woody plants and humic matter results into the formation of
gas majorly. Gas can also be produced from other types of kerogen but in limited quantity
and that too depends on its thermal maturity. Vitrinite reflectance5 from the sedimentary
rocks is most widely used method to identify thermal maturity. As seen from the figure
values of Vro ranging from 0.5-1.2 is ideal for oil generation and gas is found in the rocks
with Vro >1.2. Apart from this there is not much difference in shale gas and shale oil in terms
5
Vitrinite Reflectance: The reflectance of vitrinite was first studied by coal explorationists attempting to
diagnose the thermal maturity, or rank, of coal beds. More recently, its utility as a tool for the study of
sedimentary organic matter metamorphism from kerogen to hydrocarbons has been increasingly exploited. The
key attraction of vitrinite reflectance in this context is its sensitivity to temperature ranges that largely
correspond to those of hydrocarbon generation (i.e. 60 to 120 °C). This means that, with a suitable calibration,
vitrinite reflectance can be used as an indicator of maturity in hydrocarbon source rocks.
 P a g e | 23

of its accumulation in shale formation, production from shale and also the technology used
for its production.

WORLD SCENARIO FOR SHALE OIL AND SHALE GAS

Consumption of gas is increased day by day because it’s abundant; it’s cheap and burns
cleaner than fossil fuels by offering countries a cheap, carbon-friendly way to help meet their
energy needs, shale gas has the potential to displace fossil fuels in selected locations and
potentially slow the development of renewable sources. With shale gas deposits being found
in areas that previously had no exploitable gas reserves, shale gas production could turn

Figure 7: World map with proven and probable shale gas and shale oil reserves

countries that traditionally import natural gas into producers, making them more self-
sufficient with domestic supplies and United State is one example. The “World Shale Gas
and Shale Oil Resource Assessment”, conducted by Advanced Resources International, Inc.
(ARI) for the U.S. DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA), evaluates the shale
reserves in 26 regions, containing 41 individual countries as shown in Figure 7. The in-place
and technically recoverable shale gas in the 95 shale basins and 137 shale formations has
been evaluated.

Shale Gas Reserves

Overall, for the 41 countries assessed in the EIA/ARI study, it was identified a total risked
shale gas in-place of 35,782 Tcf. Of this total, approximately 7,795 Tcf is considered the
risked, technically recoverable shale gas resource till 2013. Two-thirds of the assessed,
 P a g e | 24

technically recoverable shale gas resource is concentrated in six countries - U.S., China,
Argentina, Algeria, Canada and Mexico. The top ten countries account for over 80% of the
currently assessed, technically recoverable shale gas resources of the world (Table 1).

Table 1: Technically recoverable shale gas Resource of Top 10 countries (from EIA/ARI report,
2013)

Technically Recoverable Shale Gas Resources (tcf)

1. U.S. 1,161

2. China 1,115

3. Argentina 802

4. Algeria 707

5. Canada 573

6. Mexico 545

7. Australia 437

8. South Africa 390

9. Russia 285

10. Brazil 245

11. Others 1535

Total 7,795

Consumption of natural gas worldwide is projected to increase from 120 trillion cubic feet
(Tcf) in 2012 to 203 Tcf in 2040. Considering linear rate of increment of gas consumption by
2.96 tcf/year, Shale gas can provide the supply of natural gas for next 43 years from 2013
with prognosticated technically recoverable reserve of 7,795 tcf by year 2013.

Shale Oil Reserves

In EIA/ARI assessment, we identified a total risked shale oil in-place of 5,799 billion barrels,
with 286.9 billion barrels as the risked, technically recoverable shale oil resource. Adding the
U.S. shale oil resource increases the assessed shale oil in-place and technically recoverable
shale oil resources of the world to 6,753 billion barrels and 335 billion barrels, respectively.

Similarly, two-thirds of the assessed, technically recoverable shale oil resource is

concentrated in six countries - Russia, U.S., China, Argentina, Libya and Venezuela.
 P a g e | 25

The top ten countries (as tabulated in Table 2), account for about three-quarters of the
currently assessed, technically recoverable shale oil resources of the world.

Table 2: Technically recoverable shale oil Resource of Top 10 countries (from EIA/ARI
report, 2013)

Technically Recoverable Shale Oil Reserves (Billion Barrels)

1. Russia 75

2. U.S. 48

3. China 32

4. Argentina 27

5. Libya 26

6. Australia 18

7. Venezuela 13

8. Mexico 13

9. Pakistan 9

10 Canada 9

11. Others 65

Total 335

World Examples

Shale gas in the United States is rapidly increasing as an available source of natural gas. Led
by new applications of hydraulic fracturing technology and horizontal drilling, development
of new sources of shale gas has offset declines in production from conventional gas
reservoirs, and has led to major increases in reserves of US natural gas. Largely due to shale
gas discoveries, estimated reserves of natural gas in the United States in 2008 were 35%
higher than in 2006 (Mouawad, 2009). The economic success of shale gas in the United
States since 2000 has led to rapid development of shale gas in Canada, China and, more
recently, has spurred interest in shale gas possibilities in Europe, other asian countries, and
Australia.
 P a g e | 26

Shale Gas fields/formations of USA

Barnett Shale

The Barnett Shale is a geological formation located in the Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin in
Texas. Since 2003, the Barnett Shale has produced more than 15 trillion cubic feet of natural
gas (USGS factsheet, 2015).

Figure 8: Regions producing from Barnett shale6

The Barnett Shale was deposited during the Late Mississippian (Carboniferous of Paleozoic)
within a narrow, restricted seaway during the initial formation of the Bend Arch–Fort Worth
Basin. The shale is mainly composed of siliceous and calcareous mudstone, with a total
organic carbon content ranging from 2 to 6 wt%. The Barnett Shale serves as the primary
source rock and as a reservoir in the Bend Arch–Fort Worth Basin. Hydrocarbons generated
from the Barnett have also migrated into overlying conventional reservoirs, forming the
Barnett-Paleozoic Total Petroleum System.

Marcellus Shale

The Marcellus Middle Devonian age organic rich formation, also known as Marcellus Shale,
extends in the subsurface from New York State in the north to north eastern Kentucky and
Tennessee in the south and is the most prolific natural gas producing formation in the
Appalachian basin.

6
https://www.clovergs.com/blog/2013/revisiting-the-barnett-shale-play/
 P a g e | 27

The Lower Marcellus has a significantly higher organic matter concentration compared with
the Upper Marcellus. The Marcellus thickness ranges from 0 to 950 feet across the
Appalachian basin. Thermal maturity value in the Marcellus Shale generally increases in a
south-eastern direction, ranging from 0.5% Ro to more than 3.5% across the Appalachian
basin. Analytical results from multiple well core samples indicate that Total Organic Carbon
(TOC) content in the Marcellus formation ranges from less than 1% to 20%.

Figure 9 represented below shows the oil to gas ratio in barrels/ MMSCF. As it can be
clearly identified that south eastward direction of basin has low oil to gas ratio which
represents higher thermal maturity towards that direction. Moreover Figure 10 shows thick
deposition of Marcellus formation towards south eastern direction which indicates
prospective area for shale gas exploration and exploitation.

Figure 9: a) Extent of Marcellus Shale and b) Distribution of Oil to Gas ratio from the wells
producing from marcellus shale

EIA estimates proven reserves in the Marcellus Play of 77.2 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) at year
end 2015 which makes it one of the largest natural gas plays in the US. The May 2017 edition
of the EIA’s Drilling Productivity Report (DPR) indicates that average new-well gas
production per rig in the Marcellus play was 3.2 million cubic feet of natural gas per day
(MMcf/d) in January 2012. In June 2017, new-well gas production per rig increased to 13.4
MMcf/d. As a whole Marcellus play produced an estimated 6.3 billion cubic feet of natural
gas per day (Bcf/d) in January 2012, increasing to 19.2 Bcf/d in June 2017 (Popova et.al,
2018).
 P a g e | 28

Figure 10: Thickness of Marcellus formation across basin along AA'

China

Fuling Shale Gas Field

On the 28th of November 2012, high shale gas flow was confirmed to be 203 x 103 m3 in
Longmaxi Formation; this led to the discovery of the Fuling Shale Gas Field (Liu, 2016). On
the 10th of July in 2014, the verified geological reserves of the first shale gas field in China
were submitted to the National Reserves Committee. Comprehensive studies on the regional
sedimentary background and producing features of gas wells showed, the Longmaxi
Formation in the Fuling Shale Gas Field belongs to deep-shelf environment with organic-rich
shales. Thermal evolution of shales in Longmaxi Formation was moderate. The shale gas
reservoirs of the Fuling Longmaxi Formation were similar to the typical geological features
and producing rules in North America.

From the end of the Ordovician to the beginning of Silurian two global transgressions took
place and the shales of the Wufeng Longmaxi Formation were developed in the Sichuan
Basin and its marginal areas (Figure 11). The main target interval in the Fuling Shale Gas
Field was Wufeng Formation and the 1st sub-interval of the 1st interval of the Longmaxi
Formation The TOC of 345 samples from the four exploration wells was 0.46% - 7.13%, with
an average of 2.66%. The highest TOC of quality shales was 5.89%, with an average of
3.56%
 P a g e | 29

Figure 11: Fuling shale gas Field Gas reservoirs profile (Guo, 2013)

The production history curve of a single well showed that the time needed to produce by most
of the development wells is over one year. Well JY1HF has produced for two years, the
production yield is 6.2 x 104 m3 per day, whereas a ccumulative production is 5501 x 104 m3
(Liu, 2016). As the production and pressure were stable, it was suggested that the shale
reservoirs belong to pore reservoirs, not crack reservoirs.

Canadian Shale Gas Fields

The gas-bearing shales of Canada are concentrated in Alberta and British Columbia of
Western Canada and in Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick of Eastern Canada.
Western Canada has five large sedimentary basins that contain thick, organic-rich Shales: the
Horn River, Cordova Embayment and Liard in northern British Columbia; the Deep
Basin/Montney in central Alberta and British Columbia; and the Colorado Group in central
and southern Alberta, The five large Western Canada shale gas basins contain a total of 1,326
Tcf of risked gas in-place. The risked, technically recoverable shale gas resource for these
five Western Canada basins is estimated at 355 Tcf (EIA/ARI Report, 2013).

Eastern Canada has four potential shale gas plays, namely - - the Utica and Lorraine shales in
the St. Lawrence Lowlands of the Appalachian Fold Belt of Quebec, the Horton Bluff Shale
in the Windsor Basin of northern Nova Scotia, and the Frederick Brook Shale in the Moncton
Sub-Basin of the Maritimes Basin in New Brunswick. The two assessed Eastern Canada shale
gas basins contain 164 Tcf of risked gas inplace. The risked, technically recoverable
resources for these two basins are estimated at 33 Tcf.

Gas Shale Reservoir Properties of prospective formations and Resources of Western and
Eastern Canada is as shown in following figure 12.
 P a g e | 30

Western Canada Eastern Canada

Figure 12: Gas Shale Reservoir Properties of prospective formations and Resources of Western
and Eastern Canada

In brief description of two developed basin (Horn River and Montney Basin) with higher
shale gas production is as follows

Horn River

The Horn River Basin covers an area of 8,100 mi2 in northern British Columbia and the
Northwest Territory. The Horn River basin contains a stack of organic shales, with the
Middle Devonian-age Muskwa/Otter Park and Evie/Klua most prominent as shown in litho-
stratigraphy of Horn river Basin in Figure 13. These two shale units were mapped in the
Horn River Basin to establish the prospective area with sufficient thickness and resource
concentration favorable for shale gas development Other shales in this basin include the high
organic content but lower thermal maturity Mississippian Exshaw/Banff Shale and the thick
but low organic content Late Devonian Fort Simpson Shale.

Figure 13: Litho-stratigraphy of Horn River Basin (EIA/ARI Report, 2013)

 P a g e | 31

Muskwa/Otter Park (Middle Devonian): The Middle Devonian Muskwa/Otter Park black
shale, the upper shale interval within the Horn River Group, is the main shale gas target in the
Horn River Basin. Drilling depth to the top of the Muskwa Shale ranges from 6,300 to 10,200
feet, averaging 8,000 feet for the prospective area. The organically-rich gross thickness of
420 feet covers much of the overall Muskwa/Otter Park interval of 500 feet, with a net
thickness of 380feet (EIA/ARI Report, 2013). Total organic content (TOC) in the
prospective area averages 3.5% (by wt.) for the net shale thickness investigated. Thermal
maturity (Ro) is high, averaging about 3.8%, placing this shale gas in the dry gas window.

Evie/Klua (Middle Devonian).: The Middle Devonian Evie/Klua black shale, the lower shale
interval within the Horn River Group, provides a secondary shale gas target in the Horn River
Basin. The top of the Evie/Klua shale is approximately 500 feet below the top of the
Muskwa/Otter Park Shale, separated by an organically lean rock interval. The organically-
rich Evie/Klua shale thickness, with an average TOC of 3.5%, is about 160 feet (gross) and
144 feet (net) (EIA/ARI Report, 2013). Thermal maturity (Ro) is high, at about 3.8%,
placing this shale gas in the dry gas window.

As such, the risked gas in-place is 378 Tcf of which risked technically recoverable shale gas
resource is of 132 Tcf in the Muskwa/Otter Park Shale. 110 Tcf of risked gas in-place with 33
Tcf as risked technically recoverable gas reserves are present in Evie/Klua shale

A number of major and independent companies are active in the Horn River Shale Play.
Nexen has drilled 18 horizontal wells, establishing production capacity of 100 MMcfd.

Montney Shale

The Lower Triassic Montney Shale covers a prospective area of approximately 1,900 mi2 on
the northwestern edge of the Deep Basin. Drilling depth to the top of the Upper Montney
Shale ranges from 3,000 to 9,000 feet, averaging 6,000 feet for the prospective area. The
interval from the top of the Upper Montney to the base of the Lower Montney encompasses
up to 1,000 feet, with an extensive 100- to 500-foot interval separating the two units
(EIA/ARI Report, 2013). The organically-rich gross thickness for the Montney Shale
averages 400 feet, with a net thickness of 240 feet. The total organic content in the
prospective area averages 3% for the net shale thickness. The thermal maturity (Ro) ranges
from about 1.3% on the eastern edge of the shale play to 2.0% on the western edge, placing
the shale into the dry gas window.

As such, the risked shale gas in-place is 141 Tcf for the Montney Shale with estimated risked
technically recoverable shale gas resource of 49 Tcf.
 P a g e | 32

Figure 14: Upper and Lower subdivision of Montney Formation with well illustrating typical
completion type to take production from both divisions

SHALE GAS PROSPECTIVITY IN INDIA

Having understood that shale rocks, which are originally source rock can have potential to be
a reservoir rock and can form a producing formation. Any country producing hydrocarbon
most probably will be having potential amount of hydrocarbon in source rock i.e shale rocks
of the basin which can now be classified as reservoir rock also and with enough exploration
and sufficient degree of confidence it can be converted into prospective producing
formations. With no ambiguity it can be expected that the basins that are currently not
producing may have hydrocarbon stored in their source rock itself. Extensive exploration and
in depth knowledge of presence of shale is largely known in 7 basins of India which are
under category 1 (Jain et. al, 2017). Prospect of shale gas amongst this basin can be outlined
with certainty. Brief information of the prospect of shale gas across the basins in India is
summarized as follows.

In India mainly Cambay, Krishna-Godavari, Cauvery and Damodar Valley Basin are the
basins that contain organic-rich shales and are the most prospective sedimentary basins for
carrying out shale gas activities in the country. While in some other potential reserve such as
Upper Assam, Vindhyan, Parinhita-Godavari and South Rewa it was found that shales were
thermally too immature for gas or the data with which to conduct a resource assessment were
not available (Jain et. al, 2012). Shale gas sedimentary basins of Indian subcontinent area as
highlighted in Figure 15.
 P a g e | 33

Basins such as Cambay and Cauvery Basin have horst and graben structures which are
extensively faulted. The prospective area for shale gas in these basins is restricted to a series
of isolated basin depressions rather than uniform deposition of thick shale laterally over most
part of basin.

Figure 15: Shale gas prospects in India

Cambay Basin

The Cambay Basin is an elongated, intra-cratonic rift basin of Late Cretaceous to Tertiary
located in the State of Gujarat in northwestern India. The basin covers an onshore area of
about 20,000 m2. It is bounded on its eastern and western sides by basin-margin faults.

The Deccan Trap, composed of horizontal lava flows, forms the basement of the Cambay
Basin. Above the Deccan Trap, separated by the Olpad Formation, is the Late Paleocene and
Early Eocene Cambay Black Shale. Cambay Black Shale represents the marine transgressive
episode in the basin. With a thermal maturity ranging from about 0.7% to 2%, the shale is in
the oil, wet gas and dry gas windows. The depth of the prospective area of the Cambay Black
Shale ranges from about 6,000 ft in the north to 16,400 ft in the lows of the southern fault
blocks. The Cambay Black Shale interval ranges from 1,500 to more than 5,000 ft thick in the
various fault blocks (EIA/ARI Report, 2013).

The organic matter in the shale is primarily Type II and Type III (terrestrial) with a TOC that
ranges from 2% to 4%, averaging 2.6%.

Within the overall 1,940-mi2 prospective area for the Cambay Black Shale in the Cambay
Basin, risked resource in-place of 146 Tcf for shale, of which 30 Tcf is risked, technically
recoverable shale gas. Evolution, stratigraphy, major depocenters and thickness, maturity of
shale over the Cambay basin is discussed in depth in later part of the report.
 P a g e | 34

Although the shales in the Cambay Basin have been identified as a priority by India, no plans
for exploring these shales have yet been publically announced. However, two shallower
conventional exploration wells (targeting the oil-bearing intervals in the basin) penetrated and
tested the Cambay Black Shale. Two wells in the Dholka field were identified for hydraulic
fracturing as first ever attempt in India to produce the huge untouched unconventional
resource of shale gas present in the Cambay Basin (Patel, 2014). Well D-A, a vertical well,
had gas shows in a 90-ft section of the Cambay Basin at a depth of about 4,300 ft. After
hydraulic stimulation, Well D-A produced 13 bbl/day of oil and 11 Mcfd of gas. Well D-B,
an older vertical well drilled in 1989 to a depth of 6,030 ft, also encountered the Cambay
Shale at about 4,300 ft. The well was subsequently hydrofractured and produced 13 bbl/day
of oil and 21 Mcfd of gas (EIA/ARI Report, 2013).

Krishna-Godavari Basin

The Krishna-Godavari Basin extends over a 7,800 m2 area onshore in eastern India. The basin
consists of a series of horsts and grabens. The basin contains a series of organic rich shales.
The Upper Cretaceous Raghavapuram Shale and the shallower Paleocene- and Eocene-age
shales are in the oil window hence they can be potential shale oil reservoir whereas the
Kommugudem Shale is a thick Permian-age rock interval containing alternating sequences of
carbonaceous shale, claystone, sand and coal. Mandapeta Graben, the most extensively
explored area of the Krishna Godavari Basin, provides much of the geologic characterization
data for this basin (Kahn et. al, 2000). The shale interval in this graben ranges from 945 to
1,065 m in thickness. Lithostratigraphy across mandapetta graben is as shown below in
Figure 16.

TOC of the Kommugudem Shale ranges up to 11% with a more typical range of 3% to 9%,
averaging 6%. The average depth of the shale deposited in fluvial, lower deltaic, and
lacustrine environments is 11,500 feet in the graben structures. The organically rich shale
interval is estimated at 1,000 feet, with a completable net pay of 300 feet (Saravanan et. al,
2018). Vitrinite reflectance of the Kommugudem Shale in the deep graben structures ranges
from 1.2% to 2% Ro, placing the shale inside the wet to dry gas window. Prospective area of
kommuguden shale is deposited in four grabens (Krishna Graben, Gudivada Graben,
Bantumilli Graben and Mandapatta Graben) with thermal maturity enough to have shale in
wet gas to dry gas window. Moreover these grabens have shale with high thickness making it
more attractive for shale gas development. Thick Shale deposits in the grabens can be seen in
the cross section of KG basin across Kommuguden graben in figure.
 P a g e | 35

Figure 16: Location of Krishna Godavari Basin; Hosrts and Grabens structure across basin and
litho stratigraphy across mandapetta graben showing relatively shaloower raghvapuram shale
as compared to Kommugudden formation

Figure 17: Cross Section accross mandapetta graben showing deposition of thick shale in
graben as compared to horst and thermal maturity related to different depths
 P a g e | 36

Based on an average resource concentration of for the four graben areas, estimated risked
shale gas in-place of 381 Tcf, with a risked technically recoverable resource of 57 Tcf.

The technical literature discusses 16 wells that have been drilled at the Mandapeta Graben
into or through the Permian-Triassic shale in search for hydrocarbons in conventional
Mandapeta and Gollapalli sandstone reservoirs. The information from these 16 wells has
provided valuable data for the key cross sections and other reservoir properties essential for
the shale resource assessment study of the Krishna-Godavari Basin.

Cauvery Basin

The Cauvery Basin covers an onshore area of about 9,100 m2 on the east coast of India, and
an additional area of about 9,000 m2 in the offshore. The basin comprises numerous horsts
and rifted grabens. The basin contains a thick interval of organic rich source rocks in Lower
Cretaceous Andimadam and Sattapadi shale formations which overly the Archaean basement
(Jain et. al, 20122).

The gas prone source rocks in the Cauvery Basin are the Lower Cretaceous Andimadam
Formation and the Sattapadi Shale. The source rock is generally Type III with some Type II
(Anjirwala and Bhatia, 2016). The thermally mature source rocks are limited to the deeper
Andimadam Formation which contain thermogenic natural gas. The TOC of the
Andimadam/Sattapadi Shale is estimated at 2% to 2.5%.

The Cauvery Basin contains a series of depressions (sub-basins) that hold potential for shale
gas. Ariyalur-Pondicherry and Thanjavur sub basins contains thick, thermally mature shales
(EIA/ARI Report, 2013).

Ariyalur-Pondicherry Sub-Basin. The Ariyalur-Pondicherry Depression (sub-basin) is in the

northern portion of the Cauvery Basin. The Lower Cretaceous Andimadam/ Sattapadi Shale
encompasses a 5,000 foot thick interval at a depth of 6,600 to 11,600 feet. Organic rich gross
pay ranges from 600 to 1200 ft with net pay of 450 ft. The thermal maturity of 1.15% Ro
places the shale in the wet gas window at 10,000 feet deep (EIA/ARI Report, 2013).

Thanjavur Sub-Basin. The Thanjavur Depression (sub-basin), in the center of the Cauvery
Basin, has a thick section of Andimadam and Sattapadi shale encompassing an over 8,000
foot thick interval at a depth of 5,000 feet (top of Sattapadi Shale) to 13,000 feet (base of
Andimadam Fm) with organic rich pay of 600 ft and net pay of 300 ft (EIA/ARI Report,
2013).

In the 1,010-mi2 prospective area of the Cauvery Basin, the combined Andimadam Formation
and Sattapadi Shale have an average wet shale gas resource in-place of 30 Tcf and risked,
technically recoverable shale gas is 5 Tcf.
 P a g e | 37

Figure 18: Cross section of Cauvery basin across WE line showing thicker deposition of sediments across
depressions; Thanjavur and Ariyallur-Pondicherry Sub depression have thick shale deposition with
shale gas potential

Damodar Valley Basin

The organic-rich and thermally mature Gondwanan shales of the Indian subcontinent are a
likely source for the gaseous hydrocarbons (Mani et al., 2015). Gas shows have been
encountered in the wells drilled in the Raniganj area of Damodar Valley basin, which forms
an important coal repository among the Gondwana basins of India (Padhy and Das, 2013;
Mani et al., 2015). Barakar and Raniganj are the main coal-bearing formations in the basin,
and a marine/lacustrine succession that got deposited between these continental depositions
resulted in the coal-devoid Barren Measure formation (Chandra, 1992; Mani et al., 2015).

Thermal maturity of the coals surrounding the Barren Measure shale formation suggests it to
be within the gas window, making it a potential shale gas target. The organic matter in shales
from the Jharia sub-basin of Damodar Valley show excellent organic richness. The TOC
content ranges between 2.86% and 23.09%. Organic matter is characterized by Type II/III
 P a g e | 38

and Type III kerogen, and the thermal maturities span between the mature (oil window-gas
condensate) and post-mature (dry gas) zone for hydrocarbon generation (Mani et al., 2015).

The Damodar Valley Basin comprises of a series of sub-basins (from west to east, the Hutar,
Daltonganj, Auranga, Karanpura, Ramgarh, Bokaro, Jharia and Raniganj) (Karthikeyan et.
al, 2018). Though these sub-basins share a simalar geologic history, tectonic events and
erosion since the early Triassic have caused extensive variability in the depth and thickness of
the Barren Measure Shale formation as shown in figure.

Because exploration has focused on the coal deposits within the Damodar Valley basin,
relatively little geologic data is available on the Barren Measure Shale (Mani et. al, 2017).
Thermal maturity data on coals surrounding the Barren Measure Shale suggest that it is
within the gas window, and regional studies have shown favourable TOC. Shallower burial
depth is the main limitation for the shale gas prospectively of the Barren Measure Shale in the
Damodar Valley Basin

Figure 19: Fence diagram showing presence of barren Measure shale and its thickness across
the Narmada-Son-Damodar Valley basin
 P a g e | 39

TOC is assumed to range between 3% and 6%, based on

information from INOC and ESSAR. Thermal maturity was
estimated from the coal formations surrounding the Barren
Measure Shale, indicating values between 1.1% to 1.3% Ro,
placing the shale within the wet gas window (Mishra and
Cook, 1992). Using regional stratigraphic columns,
estimated weighted average gross interval thickness in the
three prospective sub basins is of 2,100 feet, of which about
1,050 feet are organically rich and 368 feet are net shale.
Risked shale gas in- place is estimated at 27 Tcf and 5 Tcf
of risked shale gas may be technically recoverable from the
Barren Measure Shale in the Damodar Valley Basins.

Along with the Cambay Basin, the Damodar Valley Basin

has been set as a priority basin for shale gas exploration by
the Indian government (EIA Report, 2011). In late
September 2010, Indian National Oil and Gas Company
(ONGC) spudded the country’s first shale gas well, RNSG-
1, in the Raniganj sub-basin of the Damodar Valley. The
well was completed mid-January 2011, having reportedly
encountered gas flows from the Barren Measure Shale at
approximately 5,600 ft.

COMPARISON: INDIA SHALE GAS

RESERVOIR V/S OTHER

As shale gas has been proven as game changer source of

energy to meet the increasing demand of natural gas, all the
countries have started exploration of their shale gas
prospects and their exploitation. Shale gas has become an
increasingly important source of natural gas in the United
States over the past decade, and interest has spread to
potential gas shales in Canada, Europe, Asia, and Australia
North America leads the worldwide production of shale gas,
with the US and Canada having significant levels. Beyond
the US and Canada, shale gas is so far produced at a
commercial scale only in Argentina and China.

India also has potential shale gas reserves in few of the

basins as mentioned before. Comparison of shale formations
of India with that of commercially producing shale has been
shown in Figure 20.
Figure 20: Comparison of commercially producing shale formations with that of
prospective shale formations of India (Jarvie 2012; DGH, India)
 P a g e | 40

The major point of difference found is the geological age. Shales already on production are
mostly of Paleozoic Era, whereas shales found in India ranges from late Mesozoic (i.e
Cretaceous period) to Cenozoic era. Hence the shales found in India are geologically younger
than those found in US, Canada and China. Thermal maturity also showed that shales are in
oil generation to wet gas generation window. So for shales to hold gas Ro values have to be
higher than 1.2.

India basins have undergone major tectonic changes and have complex fault structures with
horst and graben formation especially western margin of India (Biswas, 1987). This results
into deposition of shale with considerable thickness in graben parts or in depocenters only. So
the continuity of the thick shale over entire basin is lacking in India as compared to
widespread thick shales over the basins that are commercially producing.

CAMBAY BASIN

Introduction

Cambay Basin is located in the western Indian state of Gujarat. Basin is located in between
210 N - 250 N latitudes and 71030’ – 79030’ E longitudes (Mohan et. al, 2008). The basin
extends from patan town in the north Gujarat through the Gulf of Cambay and then south
beneath the Arabian Sea. North part of the basin extends into Rajasthan through Sanchor
depression (Shodhganga- Chapter 2). Cambay is linear sigmoidal, NNW-SSE trending rift
basin with width of 25-80 Km Progressively widening at the southern part of the basin. Depth
ranges from 5 to 7 km with shallowest in North and deepest in south part of basin
(Chowdhary, 2004). It is intracratonic basin in form of NNW-SSE graben flanked in east by
aravalli and deccan plateau and in west by saurashtra plateau. Basin including its flanks,
covers an approximate area of 53,500 sq km of which 2,500 sq km lies in the Gulf of
Cambay. The principal lineaments in the basin are aligned in NE-SW, ENE-WSW and
NNW-SSE directions. Based on the transverse fault system, the Cambay basin is divided into
five tectonic blocks which are identical in terms of their structural styles such as fault pattern,
symmetry, size and orientation of depressions. From north to south, the blocks are:

 Sanchor-Patan Block
 Ahmedabad-Mehsana Block
 Cambay-Tarapur Block
 Broach-Jambusar Block
 Narmada–Tapti Block
 P a g e | 41

Exploration History

Information regarding thickness of sedimentary rocks, and also their lithologies and facies,
was not available prior to undertaking oil exploration in the basin. Systematic geological
investigations in the basin started in 1956, with exploration activity of ONGC. Aeromagnetic
Survey revealed a thick sequence of tertiary sediments. Following Seismic survey in basin,
first well (Lunej-1 later renamed as Cambay-1) drilled in 1958 revealed that Basin has good
potential for generation and accumulation of hydrocarbon. Since then persistent geoscientific
search has led to discovery of total of 178 Oil and Gas fields in Cambay Basin. Discovery of
oil in Ankleshwar structure in Narmada Block in 1960 had given new boost to the exploration
activity. In 1983, discovery of gandhar field with multi-pay stratigraphy trap in Broach-
Jambusar block gave more insight to the development of Cambay Basin and speeded up the
exploration activity (Mohan, 1995). A total of 12,937 gravity and magnetic stations were
measured by the ONGC in the entire Cambay Basin. The Bouguer anomaly map has helped
in identification of the major structural highs and lows in the basin. The magnetic anomaly
map also depicts the broad structural configuration of the basin. A total of more than 30,688
LKM of conventional data has been acquired. More than 2318 exploratory wells have been
drilled in Cambay Basin. Out of 244 prospects drilled, 97 are oil and gas bearing. Since
commencement of commercial production in 1961 and increased production upto 1995-96,
due to additional discoveries, Cambay basin as is matured producing area, production is now
on declining stage. ONGC plans to take redevelopment in several oil and gas fields in the
basin to offset the declining production (DGH, India).

Structural Evolution of Basin

The origin of the Cambay and other basins on the western margin of India are related to the
breakup of the Gondwana super continent in the Late Triassic/Early Jurrasic. As India drifted
away from the Africa and Madagascar, rift grabens began to form on the west coast of India,
as a result of movements along the boundary, faults of the graben initiated by reactivation of
Precambrian faulting. Cambay basin came into existence in Early cretaceous along
Precambrian Dharwar tectonic trend during northward migration of India plate after its break-
up from Gondwana. Massive eruption of the Deccan Traps (Late Cretaceous) covering almost
the whole of the Cambay Basin forms the tectonic basement over which rift sedimentation
took place. At the end of Olpad Formation (i.e Late paleocene) most of the fault systems were
active during rifting and basin was in active extension phase. Sediment infill from rift
shoulders continued during rift initiation and peak rift. Faults towards the basin margins
developed early and played major role in providing maximum creation of accommodation.
Subsequently other faults were developed and controlled the internal sedimentation in the
basin. Rifting in most of the fault systems ceased towards the end of Lower Eocene (Sahoo
and Choudhuri, 2011). Thermal subsidence started during Mid Eocene and continued till
Early Miocene. Compressional events of late Cenozoic tectonism is possibly related to
 P a g e | 42

collision of Indian plate with asian plate (in between 50 Ma to ~25 Ma). This resulted into
upliftment accompanied by folding and faulting of tertiary sequence in the area of Cambay
basin between Narmada and Tapti rivers only. Tertiaries in Narmada Tapti block have been
folded into narrow anticlinal structures separated by gentle synclinal lows. Total of 14
anticlinal features have been mapped. One of them is Ankleshwar anticline which is
promising oil producing field.

Stratigraphical evolution of cambay basin

Evolution of Cambay basin can be understood in three phases: Pre-rift, Syn-rift and Post-rift.
Development of the area as a basin was majorly during syn-rift period when basement
formation took place and sequence of thick sedimentary deposits of different environment
took place during syn-rift and post-rift period. Complete sequence of events from breakup of
Gondwana to deposition of Gujarat alluvium of recent age which led to formation of
sedimentary basin and also a prolific petroliferous basin of India i.e Cambay basin has been
tabulated as shown in following Table (Devi et. al, 2012; Chowdhary, 2004; Sahoo and
Chaudhuri, 2011).

Table 2: Stratigraphic Evolution of Cambay Basin

Millio
Part
ns of
Event/Formation Age Remarks of
annu
Basin
m
Pre Cambrian basement

Draghadhra Formation, Wadhvan

Mesozoic
Pre-Rift

Sedimentation Formation, Balasinor Formation,

Period
Navagam Limestone,Bagh beds etc

Break of Gondwana and Indian

Breakup of Gondwana 100 Late Cretaceous
plate started drifting towards north

Rifting started under extensional

regime set forth deccan volcanism.
End of Volcanic activity started around
Rift Initiation and 66.25-
Cretaceous 66.25, Bulk erruption occurred at
Basement Formation 65
Period western ghat around 66 and series
Syn -Rift

of erruptions have lasted 30,000

years

Volcanic Conglomerate, claystone,

Olpad Formation Paleocene silts etc derived from Underlying
basement formation
 P a g e | 43

Lower/Older
Late Paleocene Deposited because of major
Cambay
Cambay transgression period and contains
Shale major petroleum source beds in the
Upper/Youn basin.
ger Cambay
South
Clay stone, sand and sandstone of
Kadi Formation Midd
fluvio-deltaic deposit
Palaeocene- le
Early Eocene
Nonmarine sandstone with
interbeds of claystone and thin coal
Tharad Formation seams, mediu to coarse grained
sediments of lower delta plain of
delta front
North
Soft collision of Indian Plate with Asian plate around ~50 Ma resulting in end of rifting phase. Strong
tectonic activity resulted in the development of the Mehsana Horst and other structural highs
associated with basement faults which suggest the compressional regime

sandstone with interbeds of

claystone and in upper part
Kalol Formation
interbed of coal. Fining up
sequence, Major Reservoir Rock
North

Alternating band of sandstone and

Hazad shale. Sandstone range from fine to
member coarse grain. Main reservoir unit of
Middle Eocene Gandhar and Ankleshwar field
Ankleshw
ar Kanwa Shale unit with laminated
Formatio member calcareous shale
Post-Rift

n
Ardol Sand shale unit with shale
member intercalations rich in organic matter
Brown to greenish brown
Telwa
laminated fissile, poorly
member
fossiliferous shales South

Marine Transgression resulted into

Tarapur Shale intercalation of shale, clay,
Late Eocene- claystone and few sabdstone layers
Early Oligocene North

Dadhar Formation
South
End of Paleogene (i.e middle to upper oligocene) witnessed major tectonic activities, resulting in
widespread unconfirmity. It might be due to hard collision of Indian Plate which occurred ~25 Ma
before when the indian plate welded with asian plate.
 P a g e | 44

Mainly arenaceous section with

alternation of claystone and shale.
Babaguru formation Early Presence of Pyrites and shale
suggest shallow marine condition
with euxinic enviornment

Miocen Predominantly composed of brown

e clays and claystones with
Midd occasional sandstone and
Kand Formation
le conglomerate. Thickness ~200 m
with shallow marine depositional
enviornment

Calcareous and micaceous

Jagadia Formation Late sandstone , maximum thickness of
300m

Chocolate brown to red brown

claystones. Deposited in shallow
Broach marine oxidising environment.
Formation Thickness varies from 300-400 m
in north to around 1000m in
Broach jambusar depression

Yellow and Brown Clay along with

Pliocen
coarse sands and kankar.
Jambusar e-
Deposition in regressive shallow
Formation Reccen
marine to fluvial condition.
t
Thickness upto 300 m

Lies over Jambusar formation in

North and Jagadia formation in
Gujarat south. Comprised of alluvium
Alluvium deposited by Sabarmati, Mahi
sagar, Dadhar, Narmada and Tapti
rivers

Petroleum System of Cambay Basin

Source Rock:

Thick Cambay Shale has been the main hydrocarbon source rock in the Cambay Basin. The
Cambay formation was deposited in lagoonal to paludal environment. In the northern part of
the Ahmedabad-Mehsana Block, coal, which is well developed within the deltaic sequence in
Kalol, Sobhasan and Mehsana fields, is also inferred to be an important hydrocarbon source
rock. The total organic carbon and maturation studies suggest that shales of the
Ankleshwar/Kalol formations also are organically rich, thermally mature and have generated
 P a g e | 45

oil and gas in commercial quantities. The same is true for the Tarapur Shale. Shales within
the Miocene section in the Broach depression might have also acted as source rocks.

The Cambay Shale constitute principal source facies of Kerogen type II/III. The Total
Organic Carbon (TOC) is higher in the northern basin whereas maturity level is higher in the
south. Early oil generation and expulsion took place in the northern part of the basin. At
places, low maturity (VRo = 0.4-0.5) oil in Mehsana sub-block is attributed to oil generation
from coal. In southern part, oil generation took place since Middle Eocene time and basin
wide oil migration took place in Early Miocene time.

Reservoir Rock:

There are a number of the reservoirs within the trap wacke sequence of the Olpad Formation.
These consist of sand size basalt fragments. Besides this, localized sandstone reservoirs
within the Cambay Shale as in the Unawa, Linch, Mandhali, Mehsana, Sobhasan, fields, etc
are also present. The Lower Ankleshwar formation has been deposited in a transitional
(deltaic) environment. HC presence found in the Neogene sequence in Ankleshwar structure
and in some wells in Mehsana sub block. Ankleshwar, Kalol and Kadi Formations reservoir
have most of the oil and gas reserves of the basin.

Trap Rock:

In northern part of the basin Tarapur shale is the principal cap rock whereas in southern part,
Kanwa Shale and Telwa Shale of Ankleshwar Foramtion act as cap rocks. The excellent cap
rock properties of Kanwa Shale in the south, probably responsible for poor hydrocarbon
availability for Ardol and overlain Dadhar Formation.

Fractured trap, along the eastern margin of the Broach block also yields oil. The trap rock
observed in Unawa area in Mehsana block is generally polyseal drape over anticlines.

The most significant factor that controlled the accumulation of hydrocarbons in the Olpad
Formation is the favorable lithological change with structural support and short distance
migration. The lithological heterogeneity gave rise to permeability barriers, which facilitated
entrapment of hydrocarbons. The associated unconformity also helped in the development of
secondary porosity.

Shale Gas Prospects in Cambay Basin

While looking for any shale gas prospects, the properties that are desired or are looked upon
are Total Organic Content (TOC) of the sedimentary rock, Thermal Maturity, and its
thickness. Porosity and permeability plays major role in defining or exploring any
 P a g e | 46

conventional hydrocarbon reservoir, moreover structural or stratigraphic trap are also looked
upon for confining HC within conventional Reservoirs. But as we are looking forward for
shale gas, for preliminary exploration TOC, Ro and thickness of shale deposits will suffice to
define the formation prospective for shale gas to greater confidence.

As it is well known that there needs a depression for sediments to accumulate. During rifting
phase, there was deccan basalt flow all over the basin which was the formative phase of
basin. At the places deccan basalt is found to be 2000 m thick that suggests the subsidence of
basin by 2000 m to accommodate such thick basalt trap which form basement of cambay.
Formative pahse was followed by second phase of rifting which took place along NNW-SSE
aligned marginal faults resulting in Graben.

Rifting and drifting of Indian plate

towards north was accompanied by
large scale transgression inundating
the entire Cambay Graben. This
resulted in deposition of uniform
thick dark grey to black fissile shale.
Towards north in Patan-tharad block,
sand-coal-shale bearing tharad
formation overlies trap-wacke
instead of shale. This means that
transgression of sea water was from
south of Cambay basin. Two
consequences of this episode can be
either water didn’t completely
submerge the northern part or else
northern part of basin might have
been paleo shore where water
column might not be high enough to
have thick deposition of shale or the
environment might be of higher
energy to deposit clay particles. This
shale sequence well developed
throughout basin except towards
north and on basin margin is the
Cambay shale. Source of this fine
sediments that form cambay shale
was mainly weathered trap regolith,
which supplied fine detritus to
depositional areas subsiding at rate Figure 21: Major Depocenter of Cambay Basin
slightly in excess of rate of supply of
terrigenous material (Raju, 1968). Fault related subsidence during this stage of basin filling
varied significantly with maximum subsidence taking place in Ahmedabad-Mehsana Block.
 P a g e | 47

Variations in subsidence rates along the basin axis resulted in the evolution and
differentiation of number of half grabens within the basin. Due to different depth of basement
in each block, thickness of shale found was also different.

Thus for shale gas exploration we are looking for shale deposits with high thickness. Four
major depocentres namely Patan Depression in Patan block, Warosan Depressions in
Mehsana Block, Wamaj depression in Ahmedabad Block and Tankari Depression in the
Broach Block are identified (Mohan et. al, 2006) as shown in Figure 21. Thick deposition of
sediments can be expected at these depocenters. Isopach, Thermal Maturity and TOC
contours of cambay shale across whole cambay basin were prepared as shown in Figure 22
of which Tarapur-Cambay and Broach-Jambusar were found prospective in terms of Shale
gas development.

Figure 22: (from left to right) Isopacah Map of Cambay shale; Thermal maturation of Cambay
shale; TOC of Cambay shale across the whole Cambay Basina

On the basis of above Figure 22 following Table can be formulated

Table 3: Relative comparison of different blocks of Cambay basin for shale gas potential on
basis if shale thickness, Ro and TOC

Shale Thermal
Block TOC
Thickness Maturation Remarks
(wt%)
(m) (%Ro)
Very good thickness and TOC,
Ahmedabad- 1.5-4.0 but due to lack of thermal
>1000 ~0.6-0.7
Mehsana maturity it can be prospective
area for shale oil
Good thickness and moderate
thermal maturity with low to
Tarapur-Cambay 500-1000 ~0.8-1.0 0.5-2.0
medium TOC. Prospective for
Shale oil and wet gas
 P a g e | 48

High variation of thickness,

500 to good thermal maturity with
Broach-Jambusar 0.6-2 1.0-2.0 medium TOC. Prospective area
>1000
for shale oil, wet gas and dry gas
Comparative less thick shale
deposits with low maturation
and very low to medium (at very
Narmada-Tapi <500 0.4-0.5 0.2-2
few places) TOC. Comparatively
immmature, more of research
must be done

FRACTURED BASEMENT RESERVOIR

Introduction
Fractured basement rocks are important oil and gas reservoirs in various basins worldwide
(Koning, 2015). Fractured basement reservoirs are found in metamorphic and igneous rock
where faulting has led to the creation of a fracture network, underlying a sedimentary basin 7.
Hydrocarbons have been under production from these types of rocks around the world for
many decades but since around 1990 there has been growing interest and exploration in these
formations where matrix porosity is neglible and storage and production are dominated by the
fracture system (a Type 1 reservoir of Nelson 2001) . For example, the Arabian shield
basement of Yemen and the Tertiary basement granites offshore Vietnam are two classic
areas for this type of development, and significant production has been achieved (Gutmanis,
2009).

Basement Rock
Any metamorphic or igneous rock (regardless of age) which is overlain by a sedimentary
sequence is known as Basement rock (Chandrasekhar et al, 2015).

The term ‘basement’ here refers to crystalline formations ranging from intrusive and
extrusive magmatic bodies (especially granites) to the family of low to medium grade
metamorphic rocks (Gutmanis, 2009).

Basic Requirements for Oil or Gas in Basement

 Reservoir – need fractured or weathered basement.

 Source – need hydrocarbon source rocks below, adjacent or above the basement
reservoir.
 Closure – need structural closure.
 Cap – need cap rocks above the basement reservoir (Koning, 2013).

Formation of fractures
Fracture orientations can vary considerably between reservoirs but the orientations are neither
random nor chaotic. Early fracture studies, which were based on poor or insufficient data,
provided very misleading information about fracture distribution in reservoirs.
7
https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/expertise/what-are-basement-reservoirs
 P a g e | 49

Fractures are usually formed during folding or doming of a reservoir, with the most intense
fracturing being concentrated in low-porosity rocks. In areas where the reservoirs have little
matrix permeability fractures are critical to productivity. This is especially true of basement
reservoirs where fracture porosity makes up most of the reservoir.

Fracturing typically occurs in one of two ways - either parallel or perpendicular to normal or
reverse faults. Oblique orientation is associated with wrench or shear movement. Low
porosity and shale-free intervals generally contains more fractures, although these may or
may not be mineralized (Mahmood et al, 1993).

Generic Classification of Natural Fracture

Three fracture types are observed to form at consistent and predictable angles to the three
principal stress directions during laboratory compression, extension, and tensile tests.

The basic fracture types are as follows:

1. Shear Fractures
2. Extension Fractures
3. Tension Fractures

1) Shear Fractures:

Shear fractures have displacement parallel to the fracture plane. They form at some acute
angle to the maximum compressive principal stress direction (σ1) and at an obtuse angle to
the minimum compressive stress direction (σ3) within the rock sample. Potentially, two shear
fracture orientations can develop, one on either side of, and oriented at the same angle to, σ1.

Shear fractures form when all three principal stresses are compressive. The acute angle
between shear fractures is called the conjugate angle and is dependent primarily on:

1. The mechanical properties of the material.

2. The absolute magnitude of the minimum principal stress (σ3).
3. The magnitude of the intermediate principal stress (σ2) relative to both the maximum
(σ1) and minimum (σ3) principal stresses.

2) Extension Fractures:

Extension fractures have displacement perpendicular to and away from the fracture plane.
They form parallel to σ1 and σ2 and perpendicular to σ3 . These fractures also form when all
three principal stresses are compressive.

3) Tension Fractures:

Tension fractures also have displacement perpendicular to and away from the fracture plane
and form parallel to σ1 and σ2. In terms of orientation of σ1 and displacement, these fractures
resemble extension fractures. However, to form a tension fracture, at least one principal stress
(σ3) must be negative (tensile). To form an extension fracture, all three principal stresses
must be positive (compressive).
 P a g e | 50

Also, true tensile fractures only occur in near subsurface environment, while extension
fractures can occur in all low mean stress subsurface conditions. In general, extension
fractures those that are parallel to σ1 and perpendicular to σ3 when σ3 is compressive
(positive) or when its sign is unknown; tensile fractures will be referred to only when
evidence suggests that (σ3) is negative (Nelson, 2001).

Geologic Classification of Natural Fracture

The natural fracture can be classified into four major categories:

1) Tectonic Fracture
2) Regional Fracture
3) Contractional Fracture
4) Surface Related Fracture

1) Tectonic fracture:

Tectonic fractures are those whose origin can, on the basis of orientation, distribution, and
morphology, be attributed to or associated with a local tectonic event. They are formed by the
application of surface forces. The majority of tectonic fractures tend to be shear fractures.
Folds in compressive environments where the deformation is dominated by extension
fractures. Tectonic fractures form in networks with specific spatial relationships to folds and
faults.

There are three major Fracture system in Tectonic Fracture.They are:

 Fault-Related Fracture System.

 Fold-Related Fracture System.
 Other Tectonic Fracture System.

2) Regional Fractures:

Regional fractures are those that are developed over large areas of the earth’s crust with
relatively little change in orientation, show no evidence of offset across the fracture plane,
and are always perpendicular to major bedding surfaces.

Regional fractures differ from tectonic fractures in that they are developed in a consistent and
simple geometry, have a relatively large spacing, and are developed over an extremely large
area crosscutting local structures.

These fracture systems have

 orientation variations of only 15–20º over 80 mi.

 fracture spacings ranging from just under 1 ft. to over 20 ft.
 consistent development in areas as large as the entire Michigan and Uinta Basins and one-
fourth of the Colorado Plateau.
 P a g e | 51

3) Contractional Fractures:

This type of fracture is a collection of tension or extension fractures associated with a general
bulk volume reduction throughout the rock.

These fractures are the result of:

 Desiccation
 Syneresis
 Thermal gradients
 Mineral phase changes

These fractures are initiated by internal forces to the body (body forces) rather than external
forces (surface forces), their distribution is not necessarily restricted to local geologic
structures as in tectonic. Under the right depositional and diagenetic circumstances,
contractional fractures can occur throughout the reservoir independently of the trapping
mechanism.

Desiccation Fractures: This fracture system is known to be due to shrinkage upon loss of
water in subaerial drying.

Syneresis Fractures: Syneresis is a chemical process that brings about bulk volume reduction
within sediments by subaqueous or subsurface dewatering.

Thermal Contractional Fractures: Macroscopic thermally induced fractures are those caused
by contraction of hot rock as it cools. Depending on the depth of burial, these can be either
extension or tension fractures and their generation is usually dependent on the existence of a
thermal gradient across the material.

Mineral Phase Change Fractures:This fracture system is composed of extension or tension

fractures of often-irregular geometry related to volume reduction due to mineral phase change
in the carbonate and clay constituents of sedimentary rocks.

4) Surface-Related Fractures:

This type of fracture includes fractures developed during unloading, release of stored stress
and strain, creation of free surfaces or unsupported boundaries, and weathering. Surface-
related fractures are often developed due to the application of body forces. They have not
proven to be important in hydrocarbon production to date in other than weathering surfaces
(Karst), but it is important to know their origin with respect to other fracture types present in
core.

“Weathering fracture”describes fractures that relate to the diverse processes of mechanical

and chemical weathering and mass-wasting. Weathering fractures are probably of minimal
importance to direct hydrocarbon production except possibly for such production as from the
 P a g e | 52

Precambrian granite wash in Kansas and the buried granite hills in China, and various
solution enlarged weathering fractures associated with karsting in carbonates (Nelson, 2001).

Classification of Fractured Reservoir by productivity characteristics

Naturally fractured reservoirs have been classified according to the relative contribution of
the matrix and fractures to the total fluid production.

The different types of fractured reservoirs are:

 Type 1 - Fractures provide essential porosity and permeability.

 Type 2 - Fractures provide essential permeability.
 Type 3 - Fractures provide permeability assistance.

Fractured basement reservoirs differ from other types of naturally fractured reservoirs in that
they are generally considered to have no primary porosity and are considered to be type 1
reservoirs (Narr et al, 2006).

Oil into the Basement Reservoir

Basement rock can be very old, West of Shetland is one of the oldest rock on the planet
created around 2.5 billion years ago. It is largely hard rock such as granite. The natural
position in geological time for the oil producing layer would be above the basement, but
things don't always stay the same.

Figure 23: Sequential formation of fractured basement reservoir8

1) Here we have illustrated schematically layers of rock that build up over many millions of
years. Somewhere above the basement, oil producing source rock was formed. West of
Shetland it is the Kimmeridge Clay, famous for the quality and volume of oil it has
produced in the UK's North Sea.

8
https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/expertise/what-are-basement-reservoirs
 P a g e | 53

2) Over millions of years, movement caused by tectonic forces can cause disruption in the
layers of rock. Here, the basement has been forced up by as much as a kilometre. A couple
of important things happen: the movement and heavy faulting has created an extensive
fracture network. It has also resulted in the oil producing layer being at a lower level than
the basement.
3) At the top of the structure a trap is formed in which oil can accummulate with a thick seal
of muds and clays above. As the oil producing rock forces out hydrocarbons they move up
the flank and into the basement through the fracture network.
4) Gradually the hydrocarbons become trapped at the top of the basement reservoir structure
by the thick layer of shale and clay that defines the seal. Once structural closure is at
capacity, oil at the edges of the closure will tend to 'spill' making its way to the surface or
into other shallower traps.
5) However, one of the great attractions of fractured basement reservoirs is that oil can be
found outside of structural closure. Oil backfills down through the highly permeable
fracture network. In the basement there is no permeability in the rock, so the oil cannot
escape but is trapped for explorers to find. We call this the 'jellyfish' model.
6) Of particular interest are flank accumulations, that is, oil that accumulates on the margins
of the basement structure proximal to the source rock. These accumulations have the
potential to be very significant.

While discussing the favourable conditions required in basement reservoirs, mentions that all
basement highs are uplifted over a period of time and exposed for a long geological time. The
sediments much younger deposited in the flanks and over the highs provide the source and
seal mechanism. for basement play. Meaning that the oil generated in the flank sediments
move to the highs and the overlying sedimentary sequence takes care of seal role (Sircar,
2004). Mumbai high offshore field in Mumbai
offshore basin is typical example of such geological
setting.

Fractured Basement Reservoir

In certain places these massive basement structures
have been pushed up and violently fractured by
earthquakes and other tectonic forces.

Unlike sandstone reservoirs that hold oil in the rock

and have provided much of the world’s oil over
decades, fractured basement rock is very hard and
brittle, composed of rocks such as granite. Billions
of cracks have been created when the basement
structures moved through tectonic action, resulting
Figure 24: Faulted and fractured
basement rock outcrop
 P a g e | 54

in seismic scale faults and highly connected fracture networks.

It is these faults and fractures that are most interesting because that is where, under the right
conditions, significant volumes of oil accumulate. The oil is not in the rock, it is in the cracks
between the rock.

Fractured basement reservoirs are found in metamorphic and igneous rock where faulting has
led to the creation of a fracture network, underlying a sedimentary basin.

For better fractured basement reservoir evaluation, four elements are considered critical:

 Fracture class and density.

 Orientation (strike) and dip magnitude.
 Fracture aperture
 Fractured porosity.

Though fractures play important role for basement reservoir production but other factors like
drawdown pressure, formation damage, maximum horizontal stress and fracture orientation
degree of connectedness affects productivity (Goyal et al, 2013). The well to be drilled
should be placed in direction perpendicular to maximum fracture orientation to develop
optimum contact of reservoir with wellbore. One such model is as shown in Figure 25.

Figure 25: A schematic diagram showing suggested well path for

utilizing the maximum number of fracture intersections around a
hypothetical dipping normal fault plane
 P a g e | 55

World Scenario of Fractured Basement Reservoir

Figure 26: Countries with Fractured basement reservoirs

Case Study:

1) Egypt:

The basement oil fields of Egypt are located approximately 196 km southeast of Suez on the
west shore of the Gulf of Suez. Oil is produced mainly from the Hurghada and Gemsah
fields. The Gemsah oil field is located on a granite buried hill. Oil is found in a coral reef that
lies above the granite ridge and is probably of Miocene age. However, it is not a basement
reservoir.

The Gulf of Suez contains many recently discovered basement reservoirs, such as the Zeit
Bay field and the offshore Ashrafi field. These produce approximately 25, 000 barrels of oil
per day and are found in fractured basement reservoir rocks of granite and granodiorite
intrusions. Two fault sets are associated with the basement rocks, contributing to the
increased porosity and permeability of the reservoirs.

Zeit Bay Field:

The Zeit Bay field is a northwest-southeast trending structure which measures approximately
2.5 km by 4.5 km located in the southwest corner of the Gulf of Suez. The field was
discovered in 1981 when well QQ 89-1 found gas. In October of the same year, the appraisal
well, QQ 89-2, intersected a 830 ft thick oil leg 2 km south of well QQ 89- 1.
 P a g e | 56

The Zeit Bay field fractured basement contains nearly one-third of the total oil in place for
the field and the flow rates per well varied from 700 bbl/day to 10,000 bbl/day. Due to its
well established production potential, 60% of the field's development wells were drilled down
to the basement. Bay basement consists of granitic rocks of pegmatitic to coarse porphyritic
texture.

The reservoir in Zeit Bay is an hydraulically communicating sequence of PreCambrian

igneous and metamorphic rocks as well as sedimentary reservoirs. The 830 ft thick oil
column covers the total reservoir sequence. The field commenced production in 1984
reaching approximately 80,000 bbl/day and by 1991 it was estimated that 65% of the
recoverable oil had been produced.

A significant proportion of early production was from basement wells with individual flow
rates of up to 10,000 bbl/day being recorded. Pressure maintenance by gas injection was
implemented in 1987. Out of 36 production wells drilled in the Zeit Bay field, 24 wells
penetrated the fractured basement, 14 of these were completed as open hole basement
producers (GeoScience Limited Report, 2013).

2) United States, California:

Production has ceased in most fields, however Wilmington field in South California is still
active. There are approximately 300 million barrels remaining from the original estimated
reserves of 3 billion barrels, making it the 3rd largest oil field in the whole of the USA. Oil
has been produced from fractured basement metamorphic rocks in five fields of the Pacific
Coast province, California.

These are

1) Edison and Mountain View in the San Joaquin Valley,

2) Wilmington, El Segundo,
3) Playa del Rey in the Los Angeles Basin.

Few wells produce oil from the basement rocks alone. Most are multiple completions in the
basement schist and the overlying schist conglomerate.

Wilmington Field:

The Wilmington oil field is located in the city of Wilmington as shown in Figure 279 and
includes the harbour area of Long Beach. The discovery well was completed in January 1932
with oil production from the Union Pacific E-47 well during May 1945. The schist reservoir
was encountered at a depth of 5,787 ft (1,764 m). Production from well E-47 was initially

9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_Oil_Field
 P a g e | 57

387 bbl/day. However, in 1946 rates of 1,200 bbl/day to 2,000 bbl/day were established from
wells producing from the schist reservoir.

Figure 27: Map demarcating Wilmington oil field

Wilmington has produced more than 22 million barrels of oil from the basement reservoir.
Eight productive zones are present in the Wilmington field. Of these, seven are in Pliocene
and Miocene sediments with the eighth in the fractured basement schist, known as 237
Basement. The productive zone in the schist does not extend below 6,200 ft (1,890 m).

The Wilmington field is the third largest oil field in the USA in term of cumulative
production, at 2.8 billion barrels (GeoScience Limited Report, 2013).

Indian Scenario of Fractured Basement Reservoir

1) Barmer Basin:

Weathered and fractured crystalline Basement emerged as the important unconventional play
in the Barmer Basin. Natural fractures play a very significant role in the migration and
hydrocarbon storage in crystalline fractured and weathered crystalline Basement reservoirs.
Fields of Barmer basin are as shown in Figure 28.
 P a g e | 58

Figure 28: Rajasthan basin and its major oil fields

Saraswati Oil field

Several small structures are developed on the Saraswati terrace by a series of domino-style
tilted rotational fault blocks. The Tertiary and Mesozoic sedimentary sequence overlie the
Malani Igneous Suite, which is predominantly a quartz-alkali feldspar-plagioclase porphyritic
rhyodacite in this area. The Saraswati structure lies on a terrace formed at the footwall of a
major normal fault near its eastern boundary. Western structure bounding fault offset source
rock Barmer Hill formation downward into the rift zone which is juxtaposed to the fractured
and weathered crystalline Basement reservoir in its footwall in the Saraswati Filed of Barmer
basin as shown in the seismo-geological cross section (Figure 29). This structural bounding
fault has acted a migration conduit for hydrocarbon from Barmer Hill source rock formation
in hanging wall to the fractured and weathered basement in the footwall

Well ‘A’ drilled about 45m of the Basement and flowed oil during the testing from the
Basement interval while Well ‘B’ was drilled about 203 m in basement.
 P a g e | 59

Figure 29: Seismological section of Basement Reservoir across well in Saraswati

field, Barmer basin

Mangala oil field

Wells Mangala-3, 5 & 6 encountered 125m net pay in the high quality oil bearing Fatehgarh
sands followed by 30m oil column in underlying fractured basement (Cairn Energy, E&P,
Oct. 2004). Production indicated 1084 bopd from basement with API of 41.5 degree
confirming basement rock as a viable target in the heavily faulted areas of basin.

Raageshwari

Modest volumes of gas from basement rocks with minor oil shows(untested).Gas was also
found in fractured volconics at a depth of 3000m @1 MMcf/d (Cairn Energy press release
2005) (Chandrasekhar et al, 2015).

2) Mumbai High Field:

Mumbai field located in the western offshore of India established the hydrocarbon
accumulations in the Basement rocks through drilling exploratory wells. The field is giant
paleohigh of the Precambrian granitic rocks overlain by Deccan Traps at some parts and
clastics and carbonates over the greater part of the area. Mumbai High located in a passive
margin set up is split into longitudinal strips by a number of basement controlled faults which
resulted in horsts and grabens. The largest basement uplifted feature is Mumbai High, with
Tertiary carbonate hydrocarbon reservoir. The drilled well data indicates the basement rocks
of varied lithlogy consisting of granite gneiss, biotite schist, phyllites and basalts.

Mumbai High is a multilayered oil field having major reservoirs as fractured basement, basal
clastics, L-V, L-IV, L-III, S1 & L-I. The field is on commercial production of oil and gas
since 1976. Hydrocarbon was established in the Basal Clastics/Basement rocks in 1981.
 P a g e | 60

Production rate in 2015 was over 3500 bopd from Basal Clastics and basement. Through well
logs it was found that reservoir in basement have average thickness of 200 m. Intensity of
fractures were more near the faults.

Mumbai High field was put on production in 1976 and production from basement was started
by August 1981. Production from basement was started through well AP with oil rate of 1100
bopd with nil water cut. Cummulative production is 2.54 MMt, which amounts to about 2.4%
of in place oil. Average daily rate production during 1981-82 was 4000 bopd, in 1992-2001 it
was 2000 bopd with 50% water cut, from 2002-2012 it was 1000 bopd with 70% water cut.
So during 2012-13, six wells were added and oil rate was 3778 bopd with 52% water cut
(Chandrasekhar et.al, 2015).

The illustrated example in Figure 30 clearly bring out two different plays. The basaltic flows
over structural high in well A (Figure 31)and role of faults/ fractures in the granitic rocks in
well B. Inclined or horizontal well should be drilled to have better understanding of the
fracture distribution and improve the success ratio (Satyanaryana et al, 2010).

Figure 30: a) Well A drilled over a domal feature shown on structure contour map; b) Well B at
fault zone on structure map

Figure 31: Geological cross section showing favourable condition at well A

 P a g e | 61

3) Krishna-Godavari Basin:

Although 56 wells have penetrated the basement but none was planned to probe a basement
prospect. Only five were tested, out of which, one well showed HC indication and rest four
were proven to be dry. Majority of the wells entering into basement have been drilled on the
Kaza Kaikalur high, Bantumilli high and Endamuru high. Some of the wells have been drilled
in Krishna sub basin, PG basin, Kakinada high also.

As most of the locations targeted the shallower prospects in the overlying sediments, the
suitability of basement prospects were largely ignored and the basement drilling was done in
order to enhance the geological understanding of the basin. The basement prospects have
never been delineated or attempted. In most of the wells, penetration in the basement are
negligible or are not in proximity of fault zones. Hence it can be said that the basement plays
of KG Basin remain a virgin prospect and yet to be explored (Chandrasekhar et al, 2015).

FRACTURED BASEMENT RESERVOIR IN CAMBAY BASIN

In Cambay basin deccan trap basalt were laid down by multiple lava flows during paleocene
to upper cretaceous times. Deccan trap forms technical basement of petroliferous Cambay
basin, a narrow elongated rift graben extending N-S on the western margin of India (Kumar
et. al, 2002). Due to extensive tectonism Cambay basin has complex fault structures, along
with horst and graben. This indicates there might be possibility of fractured basement
reservoir which had been charged by adjacent (due to relative motion of two adjacent blocks)
or overlying kitchen i.e source rock. Hydrocarbon discoveries have been made in reservoirs
within Kadi, Cambay shale, and Olpad formations. Re-interpretation of borehole images of
one of the drilled wells that was tested in Cambay Shale indicated that the object which
produced oil on testing is actually perforated in a fractured zone in Deccan Traps. This
observation prompted us to study well data of all the wells in the area, which brought out that
many wells have actually penetrated Deccan Traps. The drilled trap section ranges from
about 50m to 400m (Jamkhindikar et. al, 2013). But previously cuttings from the deccap trap
were miss-interpreted as that of Olpad formation which is trap derivatives.

Commercial production of oil from Deccan Traps was found in Padra and Gamij fields near
the eastern basin margin of Cambay. Basin proves that Deccan Traps can constitute a viable
hydrocarbon reservoir in Cambay Basin. The migration of oil from the source rock of
Cambay shale formations to Deccan Traps may take place in two ways (Jamkhindikar et. al,
2013).

 First, the oil generated in the overlying sediments above Deccan Traps can be
squeezed out in the top, weathered layer of Deccan Trap due to overburden pressure.
This weathered layer can help in the migration of oil up-dip, locally to suitable places
providing entrapment conditions.
 P a g e | 62

 Second, the faults cutting across Deccan Traps, Olpad and Cambay shales may
provide permeable conduits for oil to migrate for long distances and charge porous
and permeable beds up -dip within Deccan Traps.

Padra Field

Padra field, discovered in 1977, is a small field situated on the eastern margin of south
cambay basin as shown in Figure 32 where the basalt is found at depths of 400m in east to
about 800m in the west towards the basin axis. The deccan basement is overlain by younger
sedimentary formations consisting of trap wacke, claystone and shale. The hydrocarbon
shows observed in the basement while drilling wells for sedimentary section envinced interest
in the basement section which later proved to be a commercial and major producer of oil in
Padra Field.

As per degree of alteration, basement core were classified in to three categories; slightly
altered to pristine (fresh) basalts, moderately altered basalt, and highly altered basalt (Kumar
et. al, 2002). The slightly altered basalt is massive and has no potential for being a reservoir
rock. The highly altered basalts are dominantly made up of clay minerals—mostly smectite,
and have lost recognizable textural attributes of igneous rock. These clays host microporosity,
but have no effective permeability. The moderately altered basalts host remnants of
spheroidal weathering both on megascopic and microscopic scale.

Figure 32: Location of Padra field near Eastern flank of Cambay Basin
 P a g e | 63

Wells have been completed barefoot mostly against the basement section and production
rates vary from 4 to 25 m3/day with negligible water cut as of 2002. Oil production from
Padra basement commenced in May-1993. A total of 112 wells have been drilled in Padra
field, of which 48 have been found to be hydrocarbon bearing in Trap.

Fracture dip, azimuth and fracture intensity study reveals well PD-A has produced about 30
MMt while well PD-B falling in a poor fracture intensity area has given poor influx only
(Figure 33). Well PD-C is structurally deeper with respect to PD-A, but PD-C produced oil
significantly whereas PD-A produced both oil and water. Notable amount of gas was also
produced from the structurally deeper well i.e. PD-C (Figure 34)

The result suggests that the trapping mechanism in this sort of basement reservoir is
completely different than other conventional ones. Basement reservoirs behave differently
from conventional reservoirs and the occurrences of hydrocarbon is more governed by the
presence or absence of fracture rather than its structural position.

Figure 33: Variation in Fracture Intensity affects the productivity (Sarkar et. al,
2016)

Figure 34: Well Fluid Production Pattern (Sarkar et. al, 2016)
 P a g e | 64

CONCLUSION

Shale gas have tremendous potential to stand amongst energy providing resources in ever
increasing demand of energy against depleting conventional oil and gas reservoirs. But still
we have long way to go in identifying shale gas rich unconventional reservoirs and basins.
There have been examples set signifying the role of shale gas/oil in forming energy mix of
any country. Moreover, technically recoverable shale gas reserve of the world are sufficient
enough to provide the gas demands for more than 4 decades with current quantity and rate of
gas consumption per year. Technological advancement and geological understanding can be
helpful to tap the shale gas potential in place but technically not recoverable at present.

India, as growing economy and developing country demands high consumption of energy.
Shale gas have essential part to play in supply of energy, sufficient to decrease imports of
hydrocarbon. At present, India’s Category-1 basins have younger shales as compared to other
commercially shale gas producing countries. Shales found are mostly in oil to wet gas
generating window in terms of their thermal maturity. Moreover, tectonically affected basins
of India (mostly with horst and graben structures) lack in continuous deposition of thick shale
sequence which may be one of the reasons for not having large shale gas potential in basins
of India. As it is well known that shale gas can be found in source rock itself so the basins not
commercially producing or Category-II, III and IV should also be explored for presence of
shale gas in source rock.

Cambay basin has potential to hold shale gas in Cambay Shale formation. Though
commercial production has not yet started, exploratory wells have been drilled for
development of this unconventional hydrocarbon reservoir. Preliminary study and literature
review have shown, Tarapur- Cambay and Broach-Jambusar block may have high probability
of shale gas which was deduced from parameters like shale thickness, TOC and thermal
maturity.

Though shale gas have impeccable role to play but water contamination problem associated
with the development of shale reservoirs for shale gas had posed major challenges and hence
limits its application. Ways to curb the problems related discharge of water used for hydro-
fracturing job, huge volume of water required, and contamination of fresh water aquifer due
to unsafe discharge has to be found out.

Fractured basement reservoir also forms important part of unconventional reservoirs.

Accumulation in granitic or basaltic basement has been area of rising interest for companies
and countries looking for oil and gas. Examples have been set worldwide and even in India
showing commercial production from fractured basement reservoirs. More of geological,
geomechanical and geophysical studies has to required to understand nature, orientation and
type of fractures in basement rock which can be potential reservoir for hydrocarbon
accumulation in commercial and producible quantity.
 P a g e | 65

REFERENCES

1. Anirbid Sircar, 2004, “Hydrocarbon Production from Fractured Basement Formations”

Current Science, 87(2), pp- 147-151
2. Anjirwala, H., Bhatia, M., 2016. Shale Gas Scenario in India and Comparison with 5,
1069–1075.
3. Bataille, C., Lenoir, J.-C., 2013. Alternative techniques to hydraulic fracturing in the
exploration and exploitation of non-conventional hydrocarbons deposits 33, 1–4.
4. Biswas, S.K., 1987. Regional tectonic framework, structure and evolution of the western
marginal basins of India. Tectonophysics 135, 307–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-
1951(87)90115-6
5. Chandra, D., 1992. Jharia Coalfield. Mineral Resources of India 5. Geological Society of
India, Bangalore, p. 149.
6. Chandrasekhar, N., Mane, P.H., Rajappan, P., 2015. Basement Hydrocarbon
Exploration- Overview of petroleum system, Multi-component seismic analysis ,
identification of fractures and status of Indian basin exploration 36–46.
7. Chapter 1 Concepts of Sedimentary Basins, Editor(s): R.E. Chapman, Developments in
Petroleum Science, Elsevier, Volume 16, 1983, Pages 1-22, ISSN 0376-7361
8. Chowdhary, L.R., 2004, Petroleum Geology of the Cambay Basin Gujrat, India
9. Devi, K.L., Sircar, A., Karmakar, G.P., 2012. Hydrocarbon potential evaluation of Lower
Cambay Shale and Olpad Formation in Cambay Basin, India: a review. International
Journal of Geology, Earth and Environmental Sciences 2, 137–146.
10. EIA / ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment, prepared by Advanced
Resources International, (Ari)), June2013.
11. Goyal, U., Chitnis, S.N., Ray, B.B., 2013. Challenges in identifying hydrocarbon
potential in fractured Basement in Mumbai High field. 10th Biennial International
Conference & Exposition 1–8.
12. Hasan, S.Z., Rasheed, M.A., Harinarayana, T., 2015. Shale gas: A non-conventional
hydrocarbon as future energy resource of India. Journal of the Geological Society of
India 85, 322–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-015-0221-8
13. Hegay AM (2011) Effect of shale gas development on the gas industry in the USA. The
USA and Canada 7:61–76
14. Jad Mouawad, "Estimate places natural gas reserves 35% higher,", New York Times, 17
June 2009, accessed 27 June 2018.
15. Jain, T., Sharma, A., Agarwal, A., 2012. Current Scenario and Future Prospects of Shale
Gas in India. AAPG International Convention and Exhibition 80276, 16–19.
16. Jarvie D.M., Shale resource systems for oil and gas: part 1dShale-gas resource systems,
in: J.A. Breyer (Ed.), Shale ReservoirsdGiant Resources for the 21st Century. AAPG
Memoir 97, AAPG, Tulsa, 2012, pp. 69-87.
17. Kahn, et al., 2000. “Generation and Hydrocarbon Entrapment within Gondwana
Sediments of the Mandapeta Area, KrishnaGodavari Basin.” Organic Geochemistry, vol.
31, p. 1495-1507.
 P a g e | 66

18. Karthikeyan, S., Johny, A., 2018. Study of Cauvery Basin , Damodar Valley Basin for
Shale Oil and Gas, Int. J. of Inova. Res. In Sci. Technol., 4 (10) 58-65
19. Koning, T., 2013. Fractured and Weathered Basement Reservoirs: Best Practices for
Exploration and Production - Examples from USA, Venezuela, and Brazil. AAPG 2013
Annual Convention & Exhibition. 19-22 May 2013, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 41250.
20. Koning, T., 2015. Exploring & Developing Fractured Basement Opportunities - Globally
& Locally 2–3.
21. Liu, R., 2016. Features of the first great shale gas field in China. Journal of Natural Gas
Geoscience 1, 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnggs.2016.05.005
22. Mani, D., Kalpana, M.S., Patil, D., J., Dayal, A.M, 2017; Chapter 3 Organic Matter in
Gas Shales: Origin,Evolution, and Characterization;; in ed Dayal, A.M., . Shale Gas :
Exploration and Environmental and Economic Impacts, pp 25-54
23. Mani, D., Patil, D.J., Dayal, A.M., Prasad, B.N., 2015. Thermal maturity, source-rock
potential and kinetics of hydrocarbon generation in Permian shales of Damodar Valley
Basin, Eastern India. Mar. Petroleum Geol. 66, 1056–1072.
24. Mohan ,M., 1995, Cambay Basin- A Promise of Oil and Gas Potential, Journal of
Palaeontological Society of India, 40, pp 41-47
25. Mohan, R., Sharma, R., Baral, J., 2006. Deep Gas Exploration In Cambay Basin , India –
A Case Study. International Conference & Exposition on Petroleum Geophysics 228–
234.
26. Mohan, R., Tiwari, S.N., Mayor, S., n.d. Evidences of Multiple Phases of Basin
Inversion in Narmada Block , South Cambay Basin, Gujarat, India, 7th International
Conference and Exposition on Petroleum geophysics by SPG, Hyderabad. 2008.
27. Narr, Wayne, David S. Schechter, and Laird B. Thompson. 2006. Naturally fractured
reservoir characterization. Richardson, TX: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
28. Nelson, R.A., 2001. Geologic Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, Geologic
Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-088415317-
7/50005-1
29. Nurmi, R., Akbar, M., Standen, E., Sharma, S., Panwar, P., Chaturvedi, J.G., Dennis, B.,
1993. Finding Fractures in deep and Tight Rocks. Middle East Well Evaluation Review
25–43.
30. Padhy, P.K., Das, S.K., 2013. Shale oil and gas plays: Indian sedimentary basins.
Geohorizons 18 (1), 20–25.
31. Patel H. J., “Geologic Assessment of Drilling , Completion , and Stimulation Methods in
Selected Gas Shale Plays Table of Contents” An Undergraduate Research Scholars
Thesis, May 2014.
32. Popova, O., Long, G., Little, J., Peterson, C., Davis, N., Geary, E., Butterfield, A.,
Panarelli, E., Volke, A., Mariner-volpe, B., 2018. Marcellus , Utica / Point Pleasant
Provide 91 % of U . S . Shale Gas Production Growth since Start of 2012 * 70324.
33. S.S. Zhiltsov and A.V. Semenov, “Shale Gas: History of Development”, in “Shale Gas:
Ecology, Politics, Economy”, ed Sergey S. Zhiltsov, Springer Publication, Feb., 2017
34. Sahoo, Tusar & Choudhuri, Mainak. (2011). Tectono-Sedimentary Evolution of
Northern part of Cambay Basin. 10.13140/2.1.1264.6080.
35. Saravanan, P.S., Johny, A., Kumar, A., Peter, A., L., Divakar, G., 2018. Study of
Cambay and Krishna-Godavari Basin for Shale Oil and Gas, Int. J. of Inova. Res. In Sci.
Technol., 4 (11), 63–72.
36. Satyanaryana, P., Sinha, P.K., Gupta, D.K., Sathe, A. V, Katuyar, G.C., 2010.
Hydrocarbon prospectivity of the Basement of Mumbai High Field 1–6.
 P a g e | 67

37. Shodhganga Chapter 2: geology of cambay Basin and Gandhar oilfield

38. T.L. Guo, Evaluation of highly thermally mature shale-gas reservoirs in complex
structural parts of the Sichuan Basin, J. Earth Sci. 24 (6) (2013) 863e873.
39. Tissot, B., P., Welte, D., H., 1985a, “Production and Accumulation of Organic Matter: A
Geological Perspective” in “Petroleum formation and Occurrence” Second Edition,
Springer Publishers
40. Tissot, B., P., Welte, D., H., 1985b, “ Fate of Orgonic Matter in Sedimentary Basins:
Generation of Oil and Gus” in “Petroleum formation and Occurrence” Second Edition,
Springer Publishers
41. Tissot, B., P., Welte, D., H., 1985c, “The migration and accumulation of Oil and Gas” in
“Petroleum formation and Occurrence” Second Edition, Springer Publishers
42. Wang, Q., Chen, X., Jha, A.N., Rogers, H., 2014. Natural gas from shale formation - The
evolution, evidences and challenges of shale gas revolution in United States. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.065
43. Zhang, Decheng & P.G, Ranjith & Perera, Samintha. (2016). The brittleness indices used
in rock mechanics and their application in shale hydraulic fracturing: A review. Journal
of Petroleum Science and Engineering. 143. 10.1016/j.petrol.2016.02.011.