Factors controlling prolific AUTHORS

Keith W. Shanley
7 Lantana, Littleton,

gas production from Colorado 80127; shanleypk@msn.com

low-permeability sandstone Keith W. Shanley is a consulting geologist with

more than 22 years experience in exploration,
development, and research. He has published
reservoirs: Implications for numerous papers dealing with sequence
stratigraphy and reservoir architecture and has
resource assessment, prospect served as editor of several publications. He
received his B.A. degree in geology from Rice
development, and risk analysis University and his M.Sc. degree and his Ph.D.
in geology from the Colorado School of Mines.
His current research interests include sequence
Keith W. Shanley, Robert M. Cluff, and John W. Robinson stratigraphy and reservoir architecture, the
integration of petrophysics, and risk analysis.
Robert M. Cluff
The Discovery
ABSTRACT Group, Inc., 1560 Broadway, Suite 1470,
Denver, Colorado 80202;
Low-permeability reservoirs from the Greater Green River basin of
bobcluff@discovery-group.com
southwest Wyoming are not part of a continuous-type gas accumu-
Bob Cluff is a geologist with 28 years
lation or a basin-center gas system in which productivity is depen-
petroleum exploration and development ex-
dent on the development of enigmatic sweet spots. Instead, gas fields
perience. Bob’s research interests include the
in this basin occur in low-permeability, poor-quality reservoir rocks
integration of geology with petrophysics and
in conventional traps. We examined all significant gas fields in the the evaluation of nonconventional reservoirs.
Greater Green River basin and conclude that they all occur in con- Bob received his B.S. in geology from the
ventional structural, stratigraphic, or combination traps. We illus- University of California-Riverside, his M.S. from
trate this by examining several large gas fields in the Greater Green the University of Wisconsin-Madison, with
River basin and suggest that observations derived from the Greater additional studies at the University of Illinois-
Green River basin provide insight to low-permeability, gas-charged Urbana-Champaign, University of Colorado-
sandstones in other basins. We present evidence that the basin is Denver, and Metropolitan State College Denver
neither regionally gas saturated, nor is it near irreducible water sat- in geology, math and physics. Bob founded
uration; water production is both common and widespread. Low- The Discovery Group in 1987.
permeability reservoirs have unique petrophysical properties, and John W. Robinson
22 North Ranch
failure to fully understand these attributes has led to a misunder- Road, Littleton, Colorado 80127;
standing of fluid distributions in the subsurface. An understanding robinson_ jw@msn.com
of multiphase, effective permeability to gas as a function of both John W. Robinson is a consulting geologist in
varying water saturation and overburden stress is required to fully Denver and has 30 years of experience in
appreciate the controls on gas-field distribution as well as the con- exploration and development. In 1999, he and
trols on individual well and reservoir performance. Low-permeability coauthor Peter McCabe received the AAPG
gas systems such as those found in the Greater Green River basin do Wallace Pratt Award for the best paper in the
not require a paradigm shift in terms of hydrocarbon systems as some 1997 AAPG Bulletin. He received B.S. and M.S.
have advocated. We conclude that low-permeability gas systems degrees in geology from San Diego State
similar to those found in the Greater Green River basin should be University and a Ph.D. in geology from the
evaluated in a manner similar to and consistent with conventional Colorado School of Mines. His research
interests are in fluvial sedimentology and
hydrocarbon systems.
multidisciplinary reservoir studies.

Copyright #2004. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.
Manuscript received June 1, 2003; provisional acceptance August 26, 2003; revised manuscript received
March 17, 2004; final acceptance March 25, 2004.

AAPG Bulletin, v. 88, no. 8 (August 2004), pp. 1083 – 1121 1083

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The ideas expressed in this paper have emerged
over many years of trying to better under-
stand tight-gas reservoirs and a near-constant
interchange of ideas among the authors. K.W.
Shanley acknowledges the contribution of Lee
T. Shannon (Anadarko Production Co.) to
many of the ideas expressed in this paper.
Conversations with Lee regarding the nature
of tight gas date back to 1981 when both the
senior author and Lee Shannon were gradu-
ate students at the Colorado School of Mines.
Those conversations have continued to the
present. In addition, K.W. Shanley benefited
from several people at BP, where exposure to
tight-gas data sets had a profound impact.
Peter Jordan, Mike Short, Kate Hadley, and
Hunter Rowe provided management support
of joint projects between business units and
the Technology Group. Alan Skorpen, Todd
Stephenson, and Mike Bowman provided guid-
ance and support within the Technology Group.
Insights into low-permeability reservoirs were
gained through discussions with many, includ-
ing Jack Thomas, Robert Lengerich (now de-
ceased), Dennis Cox, Bill Hanson, and Kirk Hird.
In terms of understanding the risks associated
with tight-gas decisions, conversations with Peter
Carragher were instrumental. Since leaving BP,
conversations with Alan Byrnes (Kansas Geo-
logical Survey), Sue Cluff (The Discovery Group),
Bob Coskey (Platte River Associates), John
Dacy (Core Laboratories, Houston, Texas),
Tom Feldkamp (Kerr McGee, Denver, Colo-
rado), Jack Thomas (Consultant and AAPG,
Tulsa, Oklahoma), and Mihai Vasilache (SCAL
Inc., Midland, Texas) have been instrumental.
Alan Byrnes provided data on relative per-
meability, and Dan Soeder (U.S. Geological
Survey, Baltimore, Maryland) and Shirley
Dutton (Texas Bureau Economic Geology,
Austin, Texas) provided photographs of
various pore types. Discussions with Peter
McCabe and Don Gautier (U.S. Geological Sur-
vey, Denver, Colorado) and AAPG reviewers
Lee Billingsley, Lee Krystinik, Kent Bowker, and
John Lorenz helped to further focus this paper.
1084 Gas Production from Low-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs
To date, resource assessments in the Greater Green River basin
have assumed a widespread, continuous-type resource distribution.
Failure to recognize some of the fundamental elements of low-
permeability reservoirs has led to an underappreciation of the risks
associated with exploration and development investment decisions
in these settings and likely a significant overestimation of available
resource levels.
INTRODUCTION
With demand for efficient, environmentally clean sources of energy
increasing, attention is sharply focused on natural gas resources. In
North America, much of this attention is directed at those un-
conventional resources (e.g., Law and Curtis, 2002), commonly re-
ferred to as basin-centered or continuous gas accumulations. This
focus reflects (1) the very large resource estimates assigned to these
targets, (2) the perception that they are associated with high prob-
able success rates ( > 50% chance of technical recovery), and (3) the
perception that the driving forces required to bring these resources
to market are improvements in drilling and completion technolo-
gies, higher product prices, and improved land access. Because of
the large volume of gas resources attributed to these types of
accumulations, they are of interest not only to the upstream portions
of the oil and gas industry but also to the gas-transmission industry as
well as public policy entities charged with developing national energy
policy and strategies for appropriate land-use management.
Natural gas is found in both conventional traps and as con-
tinuous gas accumulations. Conventional traps are reasonably well
understood; they may be structural, stratigraphic, or a combination
of the two and are associated with seals that trap gas migrating
under buoyancy. Continuous-gas accumulations, by contrast, are
relatively poorly understood. They are thought to lack seals or traps,
the role of buoyancy is thought to be diminished, and they are com-
monly referred to as unconventional resources, although the mean-
ing of the term unconventional varies with time and perspective.
Continuous-gas accumulations are regional in extent and are thought
of as large single fields having spatial dimensions equal to or ex-
ceeding those of plays (Schmoker, 1995). Coalbed methane is per-
haps the most widely known and best understood type of continuous
gas accumulation.
In many of the Rocky Mountain basins of the western United
States, natural gas accumulations in low-permeability sandstones
are associated with widespread gas shows while drilling, a lack of
associated water production, and, as a result, have come to be re-
garded as continuous accumulations. Although gas shows are com-
mon, the productivity of wells drilled in these settings varies
dramatically. This has led to the suggestion that there are localized
areas with more favorable rock properties, sweet spots, or that varia-
tions in drilling and completion technology account for the pro-
ductivity variability.
 This paper critically examines concepts surrounding
basin-centered gas systems and challenges the hypoth-
esis that many of the gas accumulations associated with
low-permeability sandstones in the Rocky Mountain re-
gion are continuous-type accumulations. Gas accumula-
tions in many of these low-permeability reservoirs occur
in conventional traps, and considerations of reservoir,
trap geometry, and seal are critical elements. Detailed
investigation of multiphase permeability at in-situ con-
ditions has reinforced our view that petrophysical be-
havior of low-permeability reservoirs deviates substan-
tially from traditional concepts. This understanding of
trap and petrophysics explains phenomena such as the
apparent juxtaposition of water-bearing and gas-bearing
strata, the lack of well-defined gas-water contacts, the
lack of widespread produced water, subtle variations in
gas/water ratios, and dramatic variations in well pro-
ductivity over short distances, all of which are common
in basin-centered or continuous-type gas accumulations.
If these low-permeability gas accumulations are in con-
ventional traps, as we suggest, current assessments of
such areas may have substantially overestimated the
natural gas resource. Low-permeability settings similar
to those found in the Rocky Mountain region contain
substantial amounts of gas; however, the fundamental
elements of low-permeability reservoirs lead to a greater
degree of risk associated with exploration and develop-
ment of this type of resource than has been widely rec-
ognized to date.
To properly frame this discussion, we examine pre-
vious work on low-permeability gas systems, in partic-
ular the assumptions that led to the development of
basin-centered gas concepts. We review some of the
underlying petrophysical concepts and offer additional
insights based on our own work. We examine the con-
trols on existing fields in the Greater Green River basin
(GGRB) (Figure 1) and review several large gas fields as
well as a recent exploration program in the GGRB.
Finally, we discuss the implications of this work for
resource assessments and risk analysis.
REVIEW OF LOW-PERMEABILITY BASIN-
CENTERED CONCEPTS
Present Status and Understanding
Over the last 25 yr, basin-centered or continuous-type
gas accumulations have come to be regarded as a dis-
tinct hydrocarbon system with unique characteristics
distinct from conventional oil and gas accumulations
(e.g., Masters, 1979, 1984; McPeek, 1981; Law and
Dickenson, 1985; Spencer, 1987, 1989; Law et al.,
1989; Law and Spencer, 1993, in press; Surdam, 1997a;
Law, 2000, 2002a, b; Schmoker, 2002). The term basin-
centered has come to include gas systems variously re-
ferred to as deep-basin gas systems, tight-gas systems,
and continuous-type gas systems. Although in this
paper, we take issue with the notion of basin-centered
gas, we use the term to refer to those systems that, upon
initial review, appear to meet the criterion established
by earlier researchers (e.g., Schmoker, 2002; Law and
Spencer, in press). Early descriptions of basin-centered
gas had a concise list of attributes that characterized
these gas systems (e.g., Masters, 1979); however, more
recent work has recognized greater complexity and an
ever-increasing number of exceptions (e.g., Schmoker,
1995, 2002; Law, 2002a, 2003; Law and Spencer, in
press). In many basin-centered accumulations, source
rocks are thought to be in close physical proximity to
reservoir rocks, and structural and stratigraphic traps,
in the sense of conventional hydrocarbon systems, are
thought to be of little importance (e.g., National Petro-
leum Council [NPC], 1980; Law and Spencer, 1993,
in press; Surdam, 1997a; Schenk and Pollastro, 2002).
Table 1 summarizes the attributes commonly associ-
ated with basin-centered gas systems.
Commercial production of natural gas from these
basin-centered gas accumulations is generally associated
with areas described as sweet spots that have improved
productivity and/or permeability (e.g., Billingsley and
Reinert, 1994). Surdam (1997a, p. 289), for example,
characterized sweet spots ‘‘. . .as those reservoir rocks
that are characterized by porosity and permeability
values greater than the average values for tight sands at
a specific depth interval.’’ Because these reservoir rocks
have low matrix permeability, it is widely perceived
that commercial production is strongly dependent on
the presence of open natural fractures and the ability
to connect these natural fracture systems through hy-
draulic fracture stimulation (e.g., Spencer, 1989; Law
and Spencer, 1993; Schmoker, 1995; Surdam 1997a;
Popov et al., 2001). This has resulted in exploration
strategies and research programs oriented to finding
improved rock quality in the vicinity of natural frac-
tures within supposed gas-saturated portions of sedi-
mentary basins.
Development of Concepts
Regions of widespread apparent gas saturation in low-
permeability reservoirs received attention during the
Shanley et al. 1085
1086 Gas Production from Low-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs
Table 1. Summary of Characteristics Commonly Associated with Low-Permeability, Basin-Centered Gas Accumulations

Geographic area tens to hundreds of square miles

commonly in the more central, deeper portions of sedimentary basins
located in widespread gas-saturated regions
much larger than conventional oil and gas traps
Resource size very large in-place resource
low overall recovery factor
Relationship to water generally lack downdip water contacts; buoyancy is not a significant factor
generally located downdip of pervasive water-saturated rocks
water production is generally absent to very low
Trap boundaries structural and stratigraphic traps, in the conventional sense, are thought
to be of limited importance
Reservoir pressure overpressure and underpressure both common
Source rocks in close physical proximity to reservoir rocks
Reservoir permeability generally less than 0.1 md

late 1960s and early 1970s, when nuclear-based explo-
sives were used to fracture-stimulate low-permeability
reservoirs in the Piceance and San Juan basins. An ad-
ditional nuclear stimulation was contemplated on the
Pinedale anticline, in the GGRB of southwest Wyo-
ming; however, disappointing results in the Piceance
and San Juan basin projects coupled with health and
safety concerns caused the Pinedale project to be can-
celled (e.g., Martin and Shaughnessy, 1969; Shaugh-
nessy and Butcher, 1974; Law and Spencer, 1993).
The first clear description of a low-permeability gas
province in terms that are commonly associated with
basin-centered systems is by Masters (1979), who de-
scribed the deep, gas-saturated Cretaceous sandstone
reservoirs of western Alberta, the San Juan basin in New
Mexico, and Wattenberg field in the Denver basin of
Colorado (the term basin-centered likely originated
with Rose et al., 1986). Masters (1979) noted that the
reservoirs in these basins had relatively low porosity
and permeability (7 –15%, 0.15 –1.0 md), had mod-
erate water saturations (34 – 45%), and were located in
the deeper portions of their respective basins. Masters
(1979) also interpreted water-bearing strata structur-
ally updip of gas-bearing strata. To describe the transi-
tion from gas to water, Masters (1979, p. 156) stated
that ‘‘. . .the water-saturated section grades impercep-
tibly through a transition zone 5 to 10 mi wide into a
gas-saturated zone,’’ and that ‘‘. . .there is no evidence
for a stratigraphic or structural barrier between the
water and gas zones.’’ Although the updip and down-
dip portions of the stratigraphic sections described by
Masters (1979) are in broad lithostratigraphic conti-
nuity at the scale of geologic formations, more recent
work in these basins has shown that individual fluvial
sandstones and shallow-marine parasequences are not
in stratal continuity across the entire basin. As a result,
considerable stratigraphic complexity separates areas
of water saturation from areas of hydrocarbon satura-
tion. To explain the juxtaposition of water-bearing
strata that were thought to lie updip of gas-saturated
reservoirs, Masters (1979) introduced the concept of a
water block in which the relative permeability to gas
would dramatically deteriorate at higher water satura-
tions, rendering the reservoir rock incapable of
producing gas (Figure 2). The water block described
by Masters (1979) essentially formed the updip seal on
large basin-centered gas accumulations. These ideas
concerning the development of a water block continue
to the present time (e.g., Masters, 1984; Law and Dick-
enson, 1985; Spencer, 1985, 1989; Surdam 1997a; Law
and Spencer, in press). Importantly, Masters’ (1979)
description of water block introduced the geologic com-
munity to the potential importance of understanding
effective permeability and multiphase flow and indicated
that a strong petrophysical understanding would be re-
quired to decipher these low-permeability reservoirs.

Figure 1. Regional map of the Greater Green River basin (GGRB), southwest Wyoming, outlining general structure and well
locations. Locations of fields and key wells described in Table 3 and in the section titled ‘‘Trapping Mechanisms in Low-Permeability
Gas Accumulations’’ are shown with numbered circles and squares. Form-line contours drawn on top of the Mowry, contour interval
2000 ft (610 m).

Shanley et al. 1087


Figure 2. The concept of water block (Masters, 1979) has
been used to explain how, within lithologically continuous
units, downdip gas-bearing strata could be trapped by updip
water-bearing strata. In this model, water effectively provides
the updip seal.
Detailed work in the GGRB of southwest Wyo-
ming led Law et al. (1980), McPeek (1981), Law and
Smith (1986), Law (1984), Law and Dickenson (1985),
Spencer (1985, 1987, 1989), Pawlewicz et al. (1986),
Spencer and Mast (1986), and Law and Spencer (1989)
to suggest apparent relationships between thermal mat-
uration of coal-bearing strata, elevated subsurface tem-
peratures, the development of widespread areas of both
anomalous pressure and gas saturation, and the devel-
opment of low-permeability reservoir rock. A series of
conceptual models were developed by Law and Dick-
enson (1985) and were more recently modified by Law
(2000, 2002a, b) and Law and Spencer (in press). These
models suggest that connate waters are expelled dur-
ing burial and diagenesis, and that maturation of source
rocks in close proximity to low-permeability reservoirs
results in elevated subsurface temperatures, abnormally
high formation pressure, and regions of widespread,
present-day gas saturation.
1088 Gas Production from Low-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs
McPeek (1981) and Spencer (1985, 1987, 1989)
noted the apparent discrepancy between reservoir per-
meability measured in the laboratory (lower) and per-
meability calculated from well performance (higher).
They suggested that natural fractures were critical
to establishing economically significant production
and offered that these fractures might arise from the
thermal generation of natural gas. Law and Dickenson
(1985) and Law (2002b), among others, noted that
water production is relatively uncommon in many low-
permeability accumulations and suggested that vast
areas of gas-saturated rock are at irreducible water sat-
uration reflecting active gas generation and expulsion
of formation water. Spencer (1989) and Law and Spen-
cer (1993) further elaborated on the early ideas of water
block and suggested that because of the very low per-
meabilities associated with these gas accumulations, the
lack of water production, and the presumption of large
areas at irreducible water saturation, gas could not mi-
grate by buoyancy. As a result, they suggested that gas
accumulations would be widely distributed through
the reservoir-bearing interval with no discrete gas-water
contacts. Suggestions of large, gas-saturated regions
coupled with the idea that buoyancy is an ineffective
process led many authors to regard basin-center gas
provinces as comprising a unique but poorly under-
stood petroleum system.
Building on these paradigms, recent research has
focused on the origin, geometry, and detection of areas
with anomalous subsurface pressure, the detection of
areas of increased natural fracture density, and under-
standing the impact of source rocks on accumulation
type (e.g., Surdam, 1995, 1997a, b; Surdam et al., 1995,
1997a, b, 2000; Law, 2000, 2002b; ARI, 2001; Boswell
et al., 2002a, b).
PETROPHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES OF LOW-
PERMEABILITY RESERVOIRS
Understanding the differences in petrophysical behavior
between traditional reservoirs and low-permeability res-
ervoirs is critical to predicting and understanding res-
ervoir performance in low-permeability gas systems.
Low-permeability sandstone reservoirs in the United
States (e.g., Dutton et al., 1993, 1995; Byrnes, 1997)
are not dominated by ‘‘immature, muddy sandstones
with large volumes of diagenetically reactive detrital
clay matrix, but rather are generally clean sandstones
deposited in high-energy depositional settings whose
Table 2. Common Rock Property Values for Low-Permeabilty Sandstone Reservoirs in the Rocky Mountain Region
Depositional environment
Porosity
Stressed porosity
Permeability (K a, Klinkenberg corrected)
Stressed permeability (K a, Klinkenberg corrected)
Stressed effective permeability (K eg, Klinkenberg corrected)
Water saturation (producible range)
Critical gas saturation
Irreducible water
Pore type
Pore-throat description (Port R35)*
K/Phi
Hg injection displacement pressure (Hg air)
*For a description of Port R35, see Hartmann and MacMillan (1992) and Hartmann and Beaumont (1999).
intergranular pores have been largely occluded by authi-
genic cements (mainly quartz and calcite)’’ (Dutton
et al., 1993, p. 5). Despite a complex burial history,
original depositional fabric continues to exert a strong
control on productivity; those rocks that had more
favorable porosity and permeability structure during
deposition tend to remain the more attractive reser-
voir targets despite a complex burial and uplift history.
Low-permeability reservoirs are characterized by high
capillary entry pressures, high irreducible water sat-
urations, low to moderate porosity, and low permeabil-
ity (e.g., Arastoopout and Chen, 1987; Byrnes, 1997).
Table 2 summarizes petrophysical parameters com-
monly found in many low-permeability gas accumula-
tions in the Rocky Mountain region. The vast majority
of low-permeability gas reservoirs require hydraulic-
fracture stimulation to produce gas at economically ac-
ceptable rates.
Porosity and the Effect of Overburden Stress
Low-permeability reservoirs are a unique rock type with
distinct properties that differentiate them from more
traditional reservoir rocks (e.g., Soeder and Randolph,
1987; Spencer, 1989; Soeder and Chowdiah, 1990;
Dutton et al., 1993, 1995; Byrnes, 1997, 2003; Cluff
et al., in press). Soeder and Randolph (1987) and Dutton
et al. (1993) suggested a threefold rock-type classifica-
tion for low-permeability reservoirs. (1) The first type
is sandstone with open intergranular pores and pore
throats plugged by authigenic clay minerals. This pore
structure is common in reservoirs with between 10-
and 100-md permeability (md = microdarcy = 0.001
deep-water, paralic, fluvial
5–10%
5–10%
0.1– 10 md
0.001 –10 md
0.00001 –0.1 md
< 50%
40 –70%
20 –40%
slot pores dominate permeability
micro- to nanopore throats at R35 ( < 0.5 mm)
0.2– 1.0
80 –300 psia
md = 10  6 darcy). (2) The second type is sandstone
with highly altered primary pores occluded with authi-
genic cements (quartz or calcite). The majority of pores
and pore throats are reduced to narrow slots connecting
significant secondary pores created by grain dissolution
(Dutton et al., 1993). On a volumetric basis, most of
the porosity in this pore structure occurs in secondary
pores; however, flow paths are provided by the slot
pores. This pore structure is by far the most common in
low-permeability reservoirs and dominates those reser-
voirs with between 1- and 10-md permeability (Figure 3).
(3) The third type is muddy sandstone in which the
intergranular volume is largely filled with detrital clay
matrix, and porosity is dominated by microporosity.
This pore structure is common in many rocks with less
than 1 md permeability. This characterization contrasts
with earlier studies that suggested low-permeability
reservoirs were dominated by grain-supported primary
porosity identical to more conventional reservoirs, but
with pore throats plugged by authigenic clay minerals.
The effect of increasing overburden stress on po-
rosity in reservoir-quality low-permeability sandstones
is small (Figure 4). Byrnes (1997), for example, found
that routine helium porosity values measured at am-
bient conditions tend to be within 95% of those mea-
sured under in-situ conditions. Laboratory studies in-
dicate that the majority of pore volume compression
occurs with the first 2000 psi increase in net overburden
with progressively less additional decrease in pore vol-
ume with increasing stress (Figure 4). The minor re-
sponse of pore volume to changes in confining stress in
these low-permeability sandstones reflects the well-
cemented, rigid framework common to most of these
Shanley et al. 1089
Figure 3. Photomicrograph and scanning electron microscope images illustrating slot-type pores and pore throats commonly found
in low-permeability reservoirs. The slot-type pore network commonly consists of secondary, solution-derived pores that are connected
by narrow, sheetlike slots. At overburden stress, these narrow slots compress significantly, reducing permeability. (A) Frontier
Formation, Amoco Shute Creek 1, 10,779.8 ft (3285.6 m), 100, plane polarized light; (B) Williams Fork Formation, MWX 3, 5830 ft
(1777 m), 1400; (C) Travis Peak Formation, SFE 2, 8275.3 ft (2522 m), 100, plane polarized light; (D) Travis Peak Formation, SFE 2,
8275.3 ft (2522 m), 100, fluorescent light. Photographs for (B), (C), and (D) are provided courtesy of D. J. Soeder, U.S. Geological
Survey.

rocks and the fact that the slot pores that do compress
under stress make up a minor portion of the overall
pore volume.
Permeability, Relative Permeability, and the Effect of
Overburden Stress
Routine core analysis consists of permeability measure-
ments taken at relatively low pressure (approximately
0–300 psia, commonly referred to as ambient condi-
tions) and under single-phase conditions (100% gas sat-
uration, 0% brine saturation). These data are commonly
referred to as routine gas permeability (K g), air perme-
ability (K a), or absolute permeability (K abs) (in this
article we will use K g to collectively refer to K g, K a,
or K abs, unless otherwise noted). Although estimates
of K g are routinely used to guide decision making, they
do not occur in natural, subsurface settings (Byrnes,
1997). In low-permeability sandstone reservoirs, in-situ,
high-pressure permeabilities relative to a gas phase
(K eg-at stress) range from 10 to 10,000 times less than
routine gas-permeability values (K g) measured in a
laboratory. This decrease is largely caused by the com-
bined effects of gas slippage (Klinkenberg correction),
confining stress, and partial brine saturation and its
effect on effective permeability.

1090 Gas Production from Low-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs


Slippage, or Klinkenberg corrections (e.g., Bass,
1989), accounts for the difference in gas behavior at low
pressure, such as a laboratory, vs. high pressure, such as
the subsurface. These corrections can reduce routine
permeability measurements (K g ) by as much as a factor
of 3 for samples with routine permeabilities (K g) less
than 1 d (Byrnes, 1997). Permeability measurements
that have been adjusted for slippage effects are com-
monly referred to as equivalent liquid permeability,
K liq, K 1, or K inf. Slippage effects are reasonably well
understood and will not be considered further.
The differences in reservoir behavior between tra-
ditional sandstone reservoirs and low-permeability res-
ervoirs are largely caused by the combined effects of
overburden stress and partial brine saturation; we will
discuss each in some detail. It is well established that
low-permeability reservoirs experience a dramatic de-
crease in permeability (K g) as a function of increasing
overburden stress (e.g., Thomas and Ward, 1972; Byrnes
et al. 1979; Jones and Owens, 1980; Dutton et al., 1993;
Byrnes, 1997, 2003) (Figure 4). Figure 4 illustrates that
this effect is particularly pronounced for reservoirs with
a K g (at ambient conditions) of 0.5 md or less. In a study
of stress-dependent permeability, Davies and Davies
(1999) compared unconsolidated high-porosity and
high-permeability sands with low-permeability gas sand-
stones. In unconsolidated sand reservoirs, the greatest
Figure 4. Plot of porosity and
permeability at varying levels
of net overburden stress illus-
trating the effect of overburden
stress on porosity and perme-
ability for 35 core samples. For
each core sample, three levels
of net overburden are shown:
ambient conditions, 2000 psia
overburden, and 4000 psia over-
burden. Samples with an ambient
permeability of between 1 and
10 md experience a reduction
in permeability by a factor of
approximately 0.3 –0.5. Sam-
ples with an ambient perme-
ability of less than 1 md may
experience a reduction in per-
meability of as much as two
orders of magnitude to less than
0.01 md. These data are from
the Frontier Formation in the
Moxa arch region of southwest
Wyoming.
reduction in permeability as a function of increasing
stress occurs in those sands with the highest initial val-
ues of porosity and permeability. In low-permeability
sandstones, however, the greatest response to increasing
overburden stress occurred where porosity and perme-
ability were dominated by slot pores and pore throats.
Byrnes and Keighin (1993, reported in Byrnes, 1997)
reported that pore throats in low-permeability sand-
stones could decrease by 50–70% with increasing over-
burden stress. Because of the inverse relationship be-
tween stress and permeability, overpressured settings
are characterized by improved permeability relative to
normally or even subnormally pressured settings. This
improved permeability reflects the reduction in effec-
tive stress because of increased formation pressures.
Although the vast majority of permeability data are
routine measurements of K g, reservoir performance is
governed by effective permeability at reservoir condi-
tions, and an understanding of relative permeability
behavior is critical. Effective permeability (K ei) is de-
fined as the permeability of a porous medium to a fluid
in the presence of one or more additional fluids (K ei;
where i refers to water = K ew; gas = K eg; or oil = K eo).
Strictly speaking, relative permeability (K rw, K rg, K ro,
where the subscripts ‘‘w,’’ ‘‘g,’’ and ‘‘o’’ refer to water,
gas, and oil, respectively) is the ratio of the effective
permeability to a fluid at a given saturation to the fluid
Shanley et al. 1091
permeability at 100% saturation (e.g., Arps, 1964). In
practice, there is little consistency in the literature as
to whether relative permeability is referenced to K g
(100% gas saturation) or K liq (100% brine saturation),
and in many cases, K rg is referenced to K g, whereas
K rw is referenced to K liq. The relative permeability of a
pore system depends on the nature of the fluids and
their saturation, wettability, and the geometry of the
pore system. The distribution of each phase at a par-
ticular saturation controls the flow of that phase irre-
spective of any others that are present (e.g., Almon
and Thomas, 1991; Dullien, 1992).
In low-permeability reservoirs, the impact of partial
brine saturation and overburden stress on reservoir
performance is dramatic. It is not unusual in low-
permeability reservoirs for effective permeability to gas
at conditions of overburden stress (K eg-at stress) to be one
to three orders of magnitude less than routine perme-
ability (K g). Similarly, effective permeabilities to brine
(K ew-at stress) are such that for many low-permeability
reservoirs, water is essentially immobile even at high
water saturations. The relative permeability behavior
of low-permeabilty reservoirs is such that traditional
concepts surrounding critical water saturation (the wa-
ter saturation at which water ceases to flow), critical gas
saturation (the gas saturation at which gas begins to
flow), and irreducible water saturation (the water sat-
uration at which further increases in capillary pressure
produce little to no additional decrease in water sat-
uration) must be reexamined. Investigations of relative
permeability to gas in low-permeability reservoirs illus-
trate that gas permeability decreases rapidly at water
saturations above 40 –50% (e.g., Thomas and Ward,
1972; Byrnes et al., 1979; Jones and Owens, 1980;
Walls, 1981; Walls et al., 1982; Smith, 1984; Byrnes,
1997, 2003; Cluff et al., in press), such that there is a
wide range of water saturation over which both gas and
water are virtually immobile (Figures 5, 6). Figure 5,
for example, offers a comparison of traditional reser-
voir behavior with low-permeability reservoir behav-
ior. In a traditional reservoir, if we consider 2% relative
permeability as a benchmark (i.e., Cluff et al., in press),
it is clear that there is relative permeability in excess of
2% to one or both fluid phases across a wide range of
water saturation. In traditional reservoirs, critical water
saturation and irreducible water saturation occur at sim-
ilar values of water saturation. Under these conditions,
the absence of widespread water production common-
ly implies that a reservoir system is at, or near, irre-
ducible water saturation. In low-permeability reservoirs,
however, we find that over a wide range of water satura-
1092 Gas Production from Low-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs
tion, there is less than 2% relative permeability to either
fluid phase, and critical water saturation and irreducible
water saturation occur at very different water sat-
uration values. In these reservoirs, the lack of water
production cannot be used to infer irreducible water
saturation (Cluff et al., in press). In 1994, A. Byrnes (2002,
personal communication) coined the term ‘permeability
jail’ to describe the saturation region across which there is
negligible effective permeability to either water or gas.
Failure to fully understand these relationships has led
to widespread misunderstanding as to how hydrocarbon
systems are manifested in low-permeability reservoirs.
These effective permeability relationships suggest
the following: (1) The lack of water production from
low-permeability reservoirs does not imply that the
rocks are at irreducible saturation; it simply implies that
the water saturation is less than the critical water sat-
uration. There is a large range of water saturations over
which the low-permeability structure of the reservoir
may preclude any significant permeability to either gas
or water. (2) The steepness of the relative permeability
to gas curve is such that small changes in brine saturation
can result in significant changes in relative permeability.
In the subsurface, this means that wells can be drilled
very close to economic relative permeability, and yet not
produce significant gas or, in a few cases, produce some
formation water. (3) Regions where water saturations
exceed 50% are unlikely to have significant permeability
to gas. (4) The effective permeability behavior of these
low-permeability rocks should be regarded as a funda-
mental, distinguishing rock property; it cannot be al-
tered or overcome by drilling and completion technol-
ogy. (5) Because of these effective permeability
relationships, well tests have to be carefully examined
before test results can be attributed to variability in rock
permeability. Well tests that fail to produce fluids may
be derived from reservoirs with identical porosity and
permeability (K g) as those where well tests produced
significant volumes of gas. (6) Because low-permeability
reservoirs have little to no effective permeability to gas
at high water saturations, the gas that may be present at
these higher water saturations should not be considered
a resource. Failure to appreciate the unique behaviors of
low-permeability reservoir rock with respect to effective
permeability can lead to serious misconceptions and fail-
ure to appropriately understand subsurface information.
Capillary Pressure
Low-permeability reservoirs are commonly character-
ized by high to very high capillary pressures at relatively
Figure 5. Schematic illustration of capillary pressure and relative permeability relationships in traditional and low-permeability
reservoir rocks. Critical water saturation (S wc), critical gas saturation (S gc), and irreducible water saturation (S wirr) are shown. In
traditional reservoirs, irreducible water saturation and critical water saturation are similar. In low-permeability reservoirs, however,
irreducible water saturation and critical water saturation can be dramatically different. In traditional reservoirs, there is a wide range
of water saturations at which both water and gas can flow. In low-permeability reservoirs, there is a broad range of water saturations
in which neither gas nor water can flow. In some very low-permeability reservoirs, there is virtually no mobile water phase even at
very high water saturations.

Shanley et al. 1093

Figure 6. Plot of water satura-
tion and relative permeability to
gas (at overburden stress) for low-
permeability sandstone reservoirs
from several Upper Cretaceous
reservoir intervals in the Greater
Green River basin of southwest
Wyoming. Two data sets have
been merged in this figure. Data
from A. Byrnes are single-point
measurements of relative perme-
ability to gas at irreducible brine
saturation at estimates of specific
overburden stress (typically sam-
ple depth  0.5). Additional data
are multipoint measurements
of relative permeability to gas
at varying water saturations at
4000 psi overburden stress. These
data represent a wide range of
rock types; however, despite this
variation, sandstones with water
saturations greater than approx-
imately 50% have significantly
reduced relative permeability to
gas. Byrnes data set provided
courtesy of A. P. Byrnes, Kansas
Geological Survey.

moderate wetting-phase saturations. In many cases,
wetting-phase saturations of 50% are associated with
capillary pressures in excess of 1000 psia, suggesting that
a large number of pore throats are less than 0.1 mm in
diameter and are of the micro- to nanoscale (terminol-
ogy of Hartmann and Beaumont, 1999). The commonly
used concept of irreducible saturation has limited utility,
particularly in low-permeability reservoirs (e.g., Dullien,
1992). In many low-permeability sandstone reservoirs,
wetting-phase saturation continues to decrease with in-
creasing capillary pressure (e.g., Dullien 1992; Cluff,
2002). A more pragmatic approach involves calibration
of capillary pressure to wetting-phase saturation at par-
ticular gas-column heights (e.g., Byrnes, 1997; Cluff,
2002). Comparison of capillary pressure data from a
wide range of low-permeability gas reservoirs in the
GGRB suggests that gas-column heights required to
achieve acceptable levels of effective permeability to
gas or to achieve typical irreducible saturation levels
range from 300 –450 to more than 1000 ft (90 –140 to
more than 300 m).
Understanding fluid flow from the rock matrix
into the wellbore or hydraulic fracture system is largely
determined by an understanding of pore and pore-
throat geometry and its effect on multiphase flow. This
has led to a rock-catalog approach to reservoir descrip-
tion, where macroscopic core observations are com-
bined with petrographic and petrophysical information
(both wireline and laboratory measurements) to gain
insights to flow capacity and structure (e.g., Sneider
et al., 1981, 1983, 1984; Hartmann and Coalson, 1990;
Hartman and MacMillan, 1992; Gunter et al., 1997;
Hartmann and Beaumont, 1999). Fundamental to this
approach is the assumption that an understanding of
pore geometry directly relates to permeability (K g) and,
by implication, effective (K eg) and relative permeability
(K rg, K rw) (e.g., Wells and Amaefule, 1985). Capillary
pressure measurements are commonly made to aid in
understanding pore geometry and pore-throat distribu-
tion (e.g., Yuan and Swanson, 1986; Spencer, 1989;
Vavra et al., 1992; Dutton et al., 1993). Although there
is a substantial body of literature that relates perme-
ability and relative permeability to capillary pressure,
the notion of a relatively straightforward relationship
between capillary pressure and multiphase effective per-
meability has come under scrutiny (e.g., Rose, 1999).

1094 Gas Production from Low-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs

Figure 7. Core data from the Lewis Sandstone taken from two different wells in the Greater Green River basin; samples were
selected for having similar porosity and permeability (K g). These data illustrate the differences in relative permeability to gas at
overburden for rocks that have similar capillary pressure functions and, therefore, calculated pore geometry. A rock-catalog approach
would result in these three samples being classified as a single rock type, yet their performance is highly variable, particularly at
water saturations greater than 25%. FWL = free-water level, NOB = net-overburden stress.

Our own data suggest that although pore geometry and,
hence, the rock-catalog approach may satisfactorily pre-
dict routine gas permeability (K g), at ambient condi-
tions, there can be considerable uncertainty in the predic-
tion of both effective permeability to gas and relative
permeability to gas at conditions of overburden stress
particularly in low-permeability reservoirs. Figure 7, for
example, illustrates that for the range of water satura-
tions that are commonly of interest in low-permeability
reservoirs, there can be considerable variation in effective
permeability to gas for reservoirs with similar calculated
pore geometry and capillary pressure as measured at
ambient conditions. Although additional work is re-
quired, we suggest that as pore geometry becomes in-
creasingly complex and dominated by slot pores and
sheetlike pore throats that are not well described by
simple radii or cannot be regarded as a bundle of capil-
laries, fluid-flow properties deviate from classical theory,
especially at increased overburden stress. Furthermore,
capillary pressure measurements are normally recorded
at ambient confining stress, whereas we have already
discussed the extreme stress dependence of permeabil-
ity in these reservoirs. Finally, it should be recognized
that the capillary pressure data collected from samples
largely reflect the pore and pore-throat distribution at
the time of laboratory measurement. This may not be
the pore and pore-throat distribution at the time of gas
migration and charge. In basins such as the GGRB that
have experienced considerable relative uplift and where
gas migration and charge commenced before maximum
burial was reached, it is likely that simple extrapola-
tions of capillary pressure data to hydrocarbon-column
heights and saturations will be misleading. These factors
may explain the poor correlation that generally occurs
between predictions of low-permeability reservoir be-
havior based on rock-catalog solutions vs. estimates of
reservoir performance based on production logging
(e.g., Al-Qarni et al., 2001).

Shanley et al. 1095

Fractures
The role of natural fractures in contributing to im-
proved deliverability of natural gas in low-permeability,
basin-centered accumulations is poorly understood. In
many low-permeability reservoirs, it has been suggested
that gas-flow rates cannot be accounted for with the
available permeability to gas at in-situ conditions (e.g.,
Spencer, 1989; Ammer et al., 2000), thereby requiring
the contribution of significant fracture permeability.
Observations such as these, coupled with the inherently
low matrix permeability, have led to the widespread
working hypothesis that sweet spots are heavily depen-
dent on the development of a relatively dense network
of natural fractures (e.g., McPeek, 1981; Spencer, 1985,
1987, 1989; Law and Spencer, 1993, in press; Ammer
et al., 2000; Boswell et al., 2002b; Law, 2002b). Al-
though the argument in favor of natural fractures is
well understood, actual documentation of natural frac-
tures controlling deliverability is limited. In the Pice-
ance basin and the San Juan basin, researchers have
collected data supporting a positive correlation between
improved gas deliverability and the local occurrence
of natural fractures (e.g., Northrop, 1986; Finley and
Lorenz, 1989, 1995; Lorenz and Finley, 1989; Lorenz
et al., 1989; Raynolds and Pasternack, 1994; Harstad
et al., 1995; Harstad and Teufel, 1998a, b; Al-Hadrami
and Teufel, 2000). In other basins, such as the GGRB,
the role of natural fractures is much less clear. In gen-
eral, studies in the GGRB have failed to establish a
positive correlation between improved gas deliverability
and the occurrence of natural fractures (e.g., Iverson and
Surdam, 1995; Shaver and Towler, 1997; Sturm et al.,
2000, 2001; Blakeney-DeJarnett et al., 2001, Horn and
Schrooten, 2001). Many of these studies conclude that
primary depositional fabric is the predominant control
on gas deliverability. Our own work has reached similar
conclusions. In cases where geologic and petrophysical
models of pore volume have been used as input to res-
ervoir simulation and history matching, there has been
little need to modify matrix values of porosity and per-
meability (that is, the introduction of fracture perme-
ability) to achieve satisfactory results. We suggest that
fractures associated with widely spaced joint sets, on a
scale of several meters to tens of meters, are likely;
however, dense fracture networks resulting in locally
improved subsurface permeability are largely undocu-
mented in the subsurface of the GGRB. Several studies
have concluded that whereas the contribution of nat-
ural fractures to improved gas production is unclear,
they do contribute to increased rates of water flow and
1096 Gas Production from Low-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs
may impact the placement of hydraulic fractures via
stimulation methods. Furthermore, horizontal drilling
programs in the GGRB that have deliberately targeted
potential fractures as a means of boosting gas produc-
tion have failed to establish positive results (e.g., Bil-
lingsley, 1994; Branagan, 1994; Iverson and Surdam,
1995; Blakeney-DeJarnett et al., 2001). Natural frac-
tures may enhance gas production if encountered in a
structurally high position within a trap. If, however,
fractures are encountered toward the base of a trap or
outside of a trap, they are unlikely to improve gas pro-
duction and may account for increased rates of water
production.
Petrophysical Summary and Implications for
Trapping Mechanisms
The widespread occurrence of gas shows while drilling
and limited examples of produced water have led to a
model of basin-centered gas in which large portions of a
basin are interpreted as being at irreducible water sat-
uration. Within this gas-saturated region, vast resources
are thought to exist, and productivity is conceptually
governed by the occurrence of sweet spots. With the
expectation of little to no water and a large area at
irreducible saturation, two essential strategies have
evolved. First, there has been a focus on drilling and
completion technology in the supposed gas-saturated
region. This reflects an underlying assumption that lack
of commercial production reflected poor drilling prac-
tices or ineffective stimulation. Second, there is the goal
of finding better reservoir rock in the supposed gas-
saturated part of the basin, particularly areas of in-
creased natural fractures. With the perspective that
basin-centered regions are a unique type of hydrocar-
bon system, there has been comparatively little focus
on understanding trapping elements and other more
conventional aspects of the hydrocarbon system.
The most significant differences between conven-
tional reservoirs and low-permeability reservoirs lie in
the low-permeability structure itself, the response to
overburden stress, and the impact that the low-
permeability structure has on effective permeability re-
lationships under conditions of multiphase saturation
(Cluff et al., in press). Because of the effective per-
meability structure of most low-permeability reservoirs,
there is a large range of water saturations over which
both water and gas are essentially immobile. A lack of
water production (or recovery from a test) should not be
used to infer that the rocks are at, or near, irreducible
water saturation nor should these regions be regarded
as water free. Instead, low-permeability reservoirs rocks
should be regarded as having insufficient permeability to
either gas or water over a wide range of water satura-
tions. Because these transition zones are commonly
manifested by wells that fail to produce either gas or
water, drilling activity rarely extends sufficiently far
downdip to encounter the free-water level associated
with a given gas accumulation. Our work suggests that
a water phase is indeed present; however, in many
areas, because of the effective permeability structure
of the rocks, much of the water has limited mobil-
ity (e.g., Breit and Skinner, 2002; Cluff et al., in press).
Where water production in these low-permeability
reservoirs occurs, it is commonly associated with slight
improvements in reservoir quality or a loss in struc-
tural position. Figure 8 illustrates the differences en-
countered in drilling a low-permeability reservoir vs. a
more traditional one.
Much of the literature suggests that basin-centered
gas regions have little to no water production; how-
ever, we have not found that to be the case. Consider-
ation of gas-water phase behavior at reservoir temper-
ature and pressure (dew-point considerations) indicates
that for the vast majority of Cretaceous reservoirs in the
GGRB, the amount of water that can be accounted for
as condensation in the gas stream ranges from less than
0.15 to 1.5 bbl water/mmcf gas. Water production in
excess of 0.15–1.5 bbl water/mmcf gas reflects the
production of free formation water. Figure 9 is a regional
map of the GGRB illustrating water production across
the basin. Close examination of many of the large field
areas clearly indicates that there are large numbers of
wells producing formation water, and that in many
cases, the water content increases in a downdip direc-
tion. Figure 10 is a cumulative frequency plot illustrat-
ing the distribution of wells and overall gas production
as a function of water/gas ratio. If water of condensation
is benchmarked at 0.15 bbl water/mmcf gas, only 16%
of the gas wells in the GGRB have gas/water ratios less
than 0.15 bbl water/mmcf gas. These wells account for
approximately 25% of the total gas production in the
GGRB. If water of condensation is benchmarked at
1.5 bbl water/mmcf gas, approximately 35% of the
gas wells in the GGRB have gas/water ratios less than
1.5 bbl water/mmcf gas. These wells account for ap-
proximately 56% of the total gas production in the
GGRB. Irregardless of the benchmark, water produc-
tion is both common and widespread in the GGRB.
The petrophysical data discussed here suggest that
low-permeability gas reservoirs are not a unique petro-
leum system that somehow functions outside the phys-
ical laws described by buoyancy and capillary pressure.
Instead, buoyancy and capillary response must be con-
sidered in light of burial and uplift history, overburden
stress, and multiphase effective permeability. Examina-
tion of effective permeability to gas at varying water
saturations and at stress for rocks with similar pore
geometry suggests that the prediction of reservoir per-
formance based on the similarity of pore geometry and
capillary pressure alone should be reexamined. Our
data show that as the overall rock quality degrades, the
variability in effective permeability can be dramatic.
The suggestion that low-permeability production sweet
spots simply occur wherever slightly better rock prop-
erties can be located in a supposed gas-saturated portion
of a basin is, in our opinion, without support. It is clear
that low-permeability reservoirs are commonly com-
prised of a variety of rock types that are intercalated
both vertically and horizontally. Some of these rock
types have reservoir properties more akin to conven-
tional reservoirs, whereas others are dominated by the
low-permeability reservoir properties discussed in this
paper. Interbedding of these rock types commonly
results in confusing fluid relationships.
The petrophysical characteristics of low-permeabil-
ity reservoirs described here are not confined to Cre-
taceous strata of the Rocky Mountain region. Byrnes and
Castle (2000) compared reservoir properties in Paleo-
zoic low-permeability reservoirs of the Appalachian
basin with Cretaceous low-permeability reservoirs of
Wyoming (largely from the GGRB) and found them to
be virtually indistinguishable in terms of reservoir prop-
erties. As a result, it is likely that low-permeability res-
ervoirs in general will exhibit reservoir behavior similar
to those found in the GGRB.
TRAPPING MECHANISMS IN LOW-
PERMEABILITY GAS ACCUMULATIONS:
EXAMPLES FROM THE GGRB
The GGRB of southwest Wyoming is a prolific gas
province. As of October 2002, the basin has produced
approximately 10.5 tcf gas, 193 million bbl oil (11.7 tcf
equivalent), and 84 million bbl water from approxi-
mately 7150 wells. Natural gas production occurs from
reservoirs ranging in age from Pennsylvanian to Ter-
tiary, with most of the gas production occurring from
low-permeability reservoirs of Late Cretaceous age.
Many of the low-permeability reservoirs are slightly to
moderately overpressured (with respect to hydrostatic
Shanley et al. 1097
Figure 8. Schematic illustration highlighting relationships between capillary pressure, relative permeability, and position within a
trap, as represented by map and cross section views. In both cases (A) and (B), the map illustrates a reservoir body that thins and
pinches out in a structurally updip direction. The figure in (A) illustrates relationships found for a reservoir with traditional rock
properties. In conventional reservoirs, water production extends downdip to a free-water level (FWL). In the middle part of the
reservoir, both gas and water are produced, with water decreasing updip. The updip portion of the reservoir is characterized by water-
free production of gas. The figure in (B) illustrates relationships found for a reservoir with low-permeability reservoir properties. In low-
permeability reservoirs, significant water production is restricted to very low structural positions near the FWL. In many cases, the
effective permeability to water is so low that there is little to no fluid flow at or below the FWL. Above the FWL, a wide region of little to
no fluid flow exists. Farther updip, water-free gas production is found. Because of the wide region with little to no fluid flow, once
drilling encounters the wide transition zone with virtually no fluid production, drilling uncommonly extends downdip to a true FWL.

gradients), with pressure gradients (referenced to the
surface) ranging from approximately 0.43 to as much
as 0.85 psia/ft (9.793 to as much as 19.229 MPa/km).
From the perspective of petroleum systems, the GGRB
is a charge-rich basin with multiple source rock pack-
ages, including both marine and nonmarine source rocks.
Reservoirs in the GGRB include deep-water turbidites
and paralic and alluvial sandstones. Burial reconstruc-
tions suggest that gas migration from Cretaceous and
younger sources commenced approximately 40–50 Ma
(e.g., Hanson et al., 1994, in press; Burch and Cluff,
1997; Coskey, in press), and that relative uplift of
between 2000 and more than 8000 ft (610 and more
than 2440 m) has occurred. Initial gas production in the
GGRB was established in the early 1950s, and
exploration and production operations continue to be

1098 Gas Production from Low-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs

Figure 8. Continued.
active today. Because of widespread gas production
from low-permeability reservoirs, the GGRB has a rich
and comprehensive database and has emerged as a
classic basin-centered gas province.
In an attempt to better understand significant gas
accumulations in the GGRB, we examined all fields
producing from Tertiary and Cretaceous reservoirs
with an expected ultimate recovery (EUR) greater than
50 bcf (Figure 1; Table 3) (EUR from Barlow et al.,
1994). We concluded that 100% of these fields occur
in conventional traps. The cumulative production rep-
resented by the gas fields outlined in Table 3 accounts
for more than 90% of all gas production from low-
permeability reservoirs in the GGRB (production vol-
umes from Barlow et al., 1994). Approximately 38% of
the gas fields involve structural traps accounting for
50% of the gas production from the GGRB, 41% of the
gas fields involve stratigraphic traps contributing some
30% of the gas production, and 21% of the fields occur
in combination traps contributing approximately 20%
of the gas production. Wells drilled outside of primary
traps may record gas shows while drilling that are re-
lated to either (1) encountering extremely small strat-
igraphic traps, generally caused by thin, isolated fluvial
sandstones in largely continental strata, (2) encounter-
ing low-saturation, residual gas in reservoirs that are in
permeability jail (i.e., high water saturation), in which
the process of drilling destroys the pore system al-
lowing gas to be liberated, or (3) encountering gas in
the pore system of shales that are juxtaposed with
sandstone reservoirs.
To illustrate the range of trap styles, we briefly
review four fields and discuss the results of a recent
exploration program in the GGRB. It is not our intent
Shanley et al. 1099
1100 Gas Production from Low-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs
Figure 10. Cumulative frequency curve describing the distribution of gas wells and cumulative gas production as a function of
water/gas ratio expressed in barrels of water/million cubic feet of gas for gas wells producing from Tertiary –Cretaceous reservoirs in
the GGRB. Approximately 7888 gas wells contribute to this plot. Phase considerations suggest that the maximum volume of water that
can be accounted for by condensation in the gas stream ranges from approximately 0.15 to 1.5 bbl water/mmcf gas. Wells producing
at water/gas ratios in excess of these maximum values are clearly producing free formation water. If a benchmark of 1.5 bbl water/
mmcf gas is considered, approximately 35% of the gas wells in the GGRB have gas/water ratios less than 1.5 bbl water/mmcf gas.
These wells account for approximately 56% of the gas production in the GGRB.

to provide a detailed field study of each of these fields;
for that, the reader is referred to the literature. Instead,
our intent is to use these fields as typical examples of
the types of traps that are both common and prolific
gas producers and that illustrate the conventional nat-
ure of these low-permeability gas fields. We suggest
that the insights gained from the GGRB can provide
valuable analogs for other low-permeability reservoirs
both within and outside the Rocky Mountain region.
Jonah Field
The initial wells in what is now Jonah field were drilled
in 1986 and 1987; however, it was not until 1992 that
significant development and production began to occur.
Jonah field is a fault-bounded, structural trap located in
the northwestern part of the GGRB (Figures 1, 11). The
field produces gas from slightly overpressured, lentic-
ular fluvial sandstones of the Upper Cretaceous (Maas-
trichtian) Lance Formation (e.g., Robinson et al., 1995,
1996; Montgomery and Robinson, 1997; Robinson,
2000; Hanson et al., in press; Dubois et al., in press).
Through October 2003, Jonah field has produced ap-
proximately 891.1 bcf gas, 9.0 MMBO, and 2.8 million
bbl water from approximately 530 completed wells;
daily production as of October 2003 was approximately
705 mmcf gas and 6.3 million bbl oil and 4.3 million
bbl water (WOGCC). Gas-in-place estimates vary; how-
ever, Dubois et al. (in press) has suggested as much
as 8.3 tcf gas in place.

Figure 9. Regional map of the Greater Green River basin of southwest Wyoming illustrating water production, in the form of water/
gas ratio for Cretaceous reservoirs. Data from approximately 6500 wells were used to compute barrels of water per million cubic feet
of gas. Water production volumes more than 1.5 bbl water/mmcf gas reflect the production of formation water. Water/gas ratios are
overlain on a form-line structure contour map on the Mowry Shale.

Shanley et al. 1101

Table 3. Summary of Fields with Expected Ultimate Recoveries Greater than 50 bcf Gas in the Greater Green River Basin,
Southwest Wyoming*

Production Discovery EUR

Field Name Interval Year (bcf gas) Trap Description Map Number

Barlow et al., 1994; GRI 94/0363

Arch Mesaverde 1959 97 stratigraphic-unconformity 1
Baggs South Lewis 1954 64 structural and stratigraphic 2
Barrel Springs Mesaverde 1966 63 stratigraphic-updip pinch-out 3
Baxter basin S Dakota 1922 101 structural-faulted anticline 4
Baxter basin S Frontier 1922 76 structural-faulted anticline 4
Big Piney-Labarge Frontier 1959 541 structural and stratigraphic 5
Big Piney-Labarge Mesaverde 1957 62 structural-updip thrust fault, 5
lateral strike-slip fault
Big Piney-Labarge Ft. Union 1925 174 structural-stratigraphic 5
Birch Creek Dakota 1957 141 stratigraphic 6
Birch Creek Frontier 1957 230 stratigraphic 6
Bird Canyon Frontier 1973 58 stratigraphic 7
Blue Forest-Lincoln Dakota 1983 311 stratigraphic-updip pinch-out 8
Road-Monument Butte-Swan
Brady Dakota 1973 62 structural-anticline 9
Bruff Dakota 1980 256 structural-stratigraphic 10
Bruff Frontier 1961 447 structural-stratigraphic 10
Canyon Creek Mesaverde 1954 266 anticline 11
Chimney Butte Frontier 1957 64 stratigraphic 12
Church Buttes Dakota 1946 496 anticline 13
Church Buttes Frontier 1978 79 structural-anticline 13
Coal Gulch Mesaverde 1977 80 stratigraphic across broad arch 14
Desert Springs Lewis 1958 236 updip stratigraphic pinch-out 15
Dripping Rock Mesaverde 1984 85 updip stratigraphic pinch-out 16
Dry Piney Frontier 1957 75 structural-anticline 17
Echo Springs Mesaverde 1977 472 stratigraphic across broad arch 18
Fabian Ditch Dakota 1980 120 structural-stratigraphic 19
Fabian Ditch Frontier 1976 68 structural-stratigraphic 19
Fontenelle Frontier 1973 124 stratigraphic 20
Green River Bend Frontier 1958 275 stratigraphic 21
Hay Reservoir Lewis 1976 160 updip stratigraphic pinch-out 22
Hiawatha Ft. Union 1926 324 anticline 23
Hiawatha West Lewis 1930 54 combination: structural-unconformity 23
Hogsback Frontier 1955 459 faulted anticline 24
Jonah Lance 1992 1200 fault-bounded structural trap 25
Lincoln Road Frontier 1977 72 stratigraphic 26
Lost Soldier Frontier 1916 51 structural-anticline 27
Luckey Ditch Dakota 1986 224 combination: structural-stratigraphic 28
Mesa Frontier 1976 83 stratigraphic 29
Nitchie Gulch Frontier 1961 128 combination: structural-stratigraphic 30
(draped across north plunge RSU)**
Patrick Draw Mesaverde 1959 84 updip stratigraphic pinch-out 31
Pine Canyon Dakota 1964 72 combination: structural-stratigraphic 32
(draped across north plunge RSU)
Pinedale Lance 1955 – 1997 1200 anticline 33

1102 Gas Production from Low-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs

Table 3. Continued

Production Discovery EUR

Field Name Interval Year (bcf gas) Trap Description Map Number

Powder Wash Ft. Union 1931 286 structural-anticline 34

Standard Draw Mesaverde 1979 408 stratigraphic across broad arch 35
Sugarloaf Mesaverde 1953 84 structural-anticline 36
Table Rock Mesaverde 1954 257 structural-anticline 37
Table Rock/Table Rock SW Lewis 1954 66 structural and stratigraphic 37
Tip Top Frontier 1951 518 faulted anticline 38
Trail Unit Mesaverde 1958 94 structural-anticline 39
Wamsutter Mesaverde 1958 110 stratigraphic 40
West Side Canal Lewis 1964 186 combination: structural-stratigraphic 41
Whiskey Butte Frontier 1975 133 stratigraphic 42
Wild Rose Mesaverde 1974 185 stratigraphic across broad arch 43
Wilson Ranch Frontier 1972 53 stratigraphic 44
Subtotal –plays listed 11,614
Total all K-T plays in GRI 94/0363 12,638 Jonah and Pinedale added to Barlow
et al. (1994) GRI 94/0363 report
92%
*Fields largely taken from Barlow et al. (1994) with supplemental data from Cardinal and Stewart (1979) and Miller et al. (1992). Recent field developments at Jonah
and Pinedale postdate Barlow et al. (1994). Conservative EUR estimates for these fields have been added.
**RSU = Rock Springs uplift.

Hanson et al. (in press) describe the details of the
Jonah trap. Lateral seals are provided by the west fault
and the south Jonah fault, and a top seal is provided by
an upper Lance shale that extends well beyond the field
boundaries. The west fault is an en echelon, strike-slip
fault set that is near vertical and extends to the Pre-
cambrian basement. Fault throws are up to approxi-
mately 300 ft (90 m). The west fault juxtaposes the
normally pressured Lance Formation on the west with
the overpressured, commercially productive Lance For-
mation on the east. The south Jonah fault is a complex
zone of deformation containing multiple fault ele-
ments, characteristic of a dominantly strike-slip fault.
Despite the lack of significant vertical offset across
these faults, they form the lateral seals on the Jonah
accumulation, even where there is no observable ver-
tical displacement (Hanson et al., in press). Hanson et al.
(in press) suggest that Jonah was charged through
buoyancy-driven migration that resulted in both grav-
ity segregation as well as abrupt differences in gas
productivity between adjacent fault blocks internal to
the field. Buoyancy-driven migration is further sup-
ported by the suggestion of a vertical decrease in water
saturation within the producing Lance Formation
(Dubois et al., in press). Cluff and Cluff (in press) studied
the petrophysics of Jonah field and presented a water/
gas ratio map for Jonah field (Figure 12). This map
highlights the role of faults in both defining the gas
accumulation at Jonah as well compartmentalizing the
reservoir. Cluff and Cluff (in press) relate the downdip
decrease in well performance to increasing water sat-
uration and, therefore, decreasing relative permeability
to gas. Both Hanson et al. (in press) and Coskey (in press)
suggest gas migration and charge occurred prior to com-
plete burial. Coskey (in press) further suggests that the
overpressures observed today most likely reflect uplift
during the last 40 m.y. Similar conclusions regarding
the origin of overpressure in low-permeability settings
were advanced by Katahara and Corrigan, 2002.
Shanley (2001, in press) described the reservoir rocks
in Jonah field and the porosity-permeability relationships
for cores taken both within Jonah field as well as imme-
diately outside the field limits. Cores from nonproduc-
tive wells immediately outside the field have reservoir
rock properties identical to those found within the field,
negating the idea that productive fields have substantially
better rock properties than the surrounding host rock.
Hay Reservoir
Hay reservoir was discovered in 1977 and underwent
significant development and production beginning in

Shanley et al. 1103

Figure 11. Structure contour map on the base of the lower Tertiary Fort Union Formation based on three-dimensional seismic data
at Jonah field, Sublette County, Wyoming. The outline of the 3-D survey is shown. The updip fault trap that is critical to the existence
of Jonah field is clearly illustrated in this map (map provided courtesy of D. Dubois, EnCana Oil & Gas, U.S.A.). The location of the
Corona 7-24 is also shown. A core taken in the Corona 7-24 recovered virtually identical reservoir properties to cores taken within the
field boundaries. Contour interval = 100 ft. Color bar is shown in the upper right corner.

September 1978 (Figure 1). The field produces gas
from overpressured, deep-water submarine fan depos-
its in the Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) Lewis
Shale that stratigraphically pinch out in an updip struc-
tural direction (e.g., Van Horn and Shannon, 1985,
1989; Shannon, 1992; Anderson, 1994) (Figure 13).
Through September 2003, Hay reservoir has produced
approximately 149.3 bcf gas, 2.4 million bbl oil, and
297 million bbl water from approximately 59 complet-
ed wells; daily production as of September 2003 is ap-
proximately 11.4 mmcf gas and 132 bbl oil, down from
peak daily production rates of approximately 34.1 mmcf
gas and 577 bbl oil in October 1993 (WOGCC).
Van Horn and Shannon (1985, 1989) recognized
several discrete reservoir-bearing submarine fan lobes,
each of which pinches out in an updip direction; two of
these lobes, the F and G, are the principal reservoirs in
the field. Mapping of movable hydrocarbon pore vol-
ume in the major lobes (F and G of Van Horn and
Shannon, 1985, 1989) indicates that the most produc-
tive wells are located toward the updip portions of
the sandstone lobe, with production quality decreas-
ing in a downdip direction. Reservoir porosity ranges
from 5 to 12%, and permeability (K g) ranges from
0.01 to 0.35 md (Shannon, 1992; Anderson, 1994).
In an attempt to address the interrelationship between
capillary pressure, relative permeablity, and produc-
ible limits, Van Horn and Shannon (1985, 1989) con-
structed pseudo-capillary pressure and relative perme-
ability curves from wireline-derived water saturations.
Although this work predated the understanding of
permeability jail that exists today, their data clearly
indicated decreasing water saturations in an updip di-
rection. Similar observations regarding water saturation

1104 Gas Production from Low-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs

 Figure 12. Water/gas
ratio map for Jonah field
expressed in barrels of
water per thousand cubic
feet of gas. Dew-point
calculations at Jonah sug-
gest that approximately
0–1.5 bbl water can be
accounted for as water
of condensation. Water/
gas values in excess of
1.5 bbl/mmcf gas are in-
dicative of produced for-
mation water.

profiles were made at Hay reservoir by Henry et al.
(1999) and by D. Wheeler (2003, personal communica-
tion) in an integrated study of Hay reservoir incorpo-
rating a high-quality three-dimensional seismic survey.
Consideration of EUR, hydrocarbon pore volume, and
water saturation indicates that the present downdip
limit to production is approximately coincident with a
water saturation of between 40 and 45% (D. Wheeler,
2003, personal communication). This decrease in EUR
is well understood in light of Figure 6, which illustrates
the change in relative permeability as a function of water
saturation in low-permeability reservoirs. Wells drilled
in a downdip position at Hay reservoir are still in the gas
column; however, they lack effective permeability to
gas. Van Horn and Shannon (1985, 1989) suggested a
gas column of approximately 2500 ft (760 m) at Hay
reservoir with only the upper 900 ft (270 m) having
sufficient effective permeability to gas to allow for pro-
duction. Our work suggests that only the upper 750 ft
(230 m) of gas column may have effective permeability
to gas. Doelger and Morton (1999) observed the same
downdip decrease in both production quality and gas
saturation seen by Van Horn and Shannon (1985, 1989);
however, they interpreted this to reflect limited hy-
drocarbon charge. We suggest that the decrease in pro-
duction quality cannot be used to comment on the effec-
tiveness of hydrocarbon charge; instead, the downdip
decrease in gas saturation and production quality re-
flects the interplay of relative permeability and water
saturation in a low-permeability gas reservoir. Figure 13
illustrates the trapping elements of Hay reservoir.
Standard Draw-Echo Springs
The Standard Draw-Echo Springs-Coal Gulch field area
is located in the Washakie basin portion of the GGRB

Shanley et al. 1105

Figure 13. Map and cross section illustrating the nature of the updip stratigraphic trap in the principal reservoir at Hay reservoir.
(A) Structure map (250-ft [75-m] contour interval) overlain with an isopach map of gross reservoir sandstone (25-ft [7.5-m] contour
interval on bold contours) based on the integration of both three-dimensional seismic data and well control (courtesy of D. Wheeler).
Productive wells are focused near the southwestern limit of the sand, which pinches out in an updip direction. (B) Cross section with
a basal datum extending across Hay reservoir. Notice that the highest cumulative production occurs near the updip pinch-out of the
reservoir sand. To the northeast, reservoir thickness increases; however, production falls as water saturation increases, causing a
precipitous drop in effective permeability to gas.

(Figure 1). Field discoveries occurred during the pe- uous and are considered here to be a single field.
riod 1977 – 1978. Although Standard Draw, Echo Standard Draw-Echo Springs is an updip, stratigraphic
Springs, and Coal Gulch remain distinct production trap that is draped in a strike direction across the broad
units, they are geographically and geologically contig- Wamsutter arch (Figure 14). The field produces gas

1106 Gas Production from Low-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs

from overpressured, shoreface, and barrier-island de-
posits (sometimes referred to as the Almond bar), as
well as from isolated fluvial sandstones (main Almond
or upper Almond) in the Upper Cretaceous (Maas-
trichtian) Almond Formation (e.g., Burch and Cluff,
1997; Horn and Schrooten, 2001; Horn et al., 2001).
Through October 2003, the Standard Draw-Echo
Springs field area had produced approximately 975.7
bcf gas, 17.3 million bbl oil, and 4.2 million bbl water
from approximately 521 wells; daily production is ap-
proximately 155.9 mmcf gas, 1990 bbl oil, and 2233 bbl
water. Expected ultimate recovery for the field area
exceeds 1.4 tcf gas.
Burch and Cluff (1997) demonstrate a close rela-
tionship between EUR, gas in place, storage capacity,
and net sand thickness (Figure 14). With regard to the
upper Almond shoreface and barrier-island reservoir,
isopach maps of net sandstone as well as storage capac-
ity clearly delineate the field boundaries and demon-
strate the updip pinch-out of reservoir-quality sand-
stone. In general, wells with the greatest productive
capacity are located in areas with thick reservoir-
quality sandstone along the crest of the Wamsutter
arch. Reservoir porosity ranges from 7 to 15%, and per-
meability ranges from 0.01 to 1.5 md. The downdip
extent of the upper Almond reservoir is controlled by
the extent of reservoir-quality rock. Burch and Cluff
(1997) noted that the downdip extent of reservoir-
quality rock equates to a horizontal surface, suggesting
a paleo – gas-water contact and early gas charge. Basin
modeling by Hanson et al. (1994) suggest gas charge
between 40 and 50 Ma. The shoreface and barrier-
island trend can be mapped north and south of Stan-
dard Draw-Echo Springs; however, a change from
kaolinite to illite cements and increasing water satura-
tion result in a decrease in K g and K eg. These observa-
tions suggest continued diagenesis and loss of reservoir
quality adjacent to the field following initial gas charge.
This further supports the necessity of a conventional
trap for both emplacement and production of gas from
these low-permeability reservoirs.
In addition to the upper Almond reservoir, sig-
nificant production at Standard Draw-Echo Springs has
developed beneath and to the west of the shoreface
sandstones in isolated fluvial sandstones of the main
Almond (Horn and Schrooten, 2001; Horn et al., 2001).
These reservoirs average approximately 0.75 bcf/well
and enjoy favorable economics, especially given the
infrastructure of the upper Almond reservoir. The main
Almond is a low net/gross fluvial system in which res-
ervoirs are located in stratigraphically isolated sand
bodies ranging from approximately 10 to more than
40 ac (0.04 to more than 0.16 km2) in areal extent. The
trapping element for the main Almond is provided by
the isolated nature of the sand bodies themselves as well
as a basinward facies change from coastal-plain deposits
to shoreface and barrier-island deposits; the contact
between these two depositional facies is a transgressive
surface. Toward the base of the main Almond, the
Almond interfingers with higher net/gross, coarser grain
fluvial deposits of the Ericson. It is not uncommon for
well tests of the laterally extensive reservoir bodies of
the Ericson to encounter significant water production.
We interpret this water production to reflect the more
conventional reservoir properties associated with coars-
er grained strata resulting in better effective permeabil-
ity to water as well as a lack of trapping geometry in the
higher net/gross Ericson fluvial sandstones.
Swan-Blue Forest
Swan-Blue Forest field is located on the Moxa arch in
the western part of the GGRB. The Moxa arch is a
south-plunging anticline extending 120 mi (190 km)
from the LaBarge platform in the north to the Uinta
Mountains to the south (Figure 1). Swan-Blue Forest
was initially discovered in 1970 (Walters, 1992); how-
ever, significant field development did not occur until
the mid-1980s. The primary reservoir in the field is the
Lower Cretaceous Dakota and Muddy sandstones, in-
terpreted as a northeast-southwest–trending transition-
al marine sandstone associated with the Shell Creek
transgression (Figure 15); Dolson et al. (1991) inter-
preted the Dakota and Muddy as a lowstand shoreface
deposit. The Dakota and Muddy reservoir is over-
pressured (0.53 psi/ft; 11.988 MPa/km), with almost no
associated water production. Through July 2002, Swan-
Blue Forest has produced approximately 312 bcf gas,
8.2 million bbl oil, and 194 million bbl water from ap-
proximately 77 producing Dakota wells (data from IHS
Energy, Rocky Mountain Production Data CD). Aver-
age well performance amounts to 4.1 bcf gas, 106 mil-
lion bbl condensate, and 2.5 million bbl water; the best
wells in the reservoir will ultimately recover in excess
of 20 bcf gas.
A map of the reservoir-bearing interval indicates
that the northeast-southwest –trending Dakota and
Muddy can be traced along depositional strike for a dis-
tance of more than 12 mi (19 km) with a width of ap-
proximately 4 mi (6 km). The seaward edge of the sand
body is fairly straight, whereas the landward edge is
more irregular. The reservoir-bearing sandstones parallel
Shanley et al. 1107
1108 Gas Production from Low-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs
structural strike and pinch out to the northwest into
marine shales, making Swan-Blue Forest a classic com-
bination trap in which the shoreface reservoir is draped
across a prominent arch (Figure 15). The trap style ob-
served at Swan-Blue Forest is common for many of the
fields on the Moxa arch. Reservoir quality in Swan-Blue
Forest is generally better than many low-permeability,
basin-centered accumulations with porosity ranging
from 15 to 18% and permeability ranging from 50 to
125 md, with intervals exceeding 475 md (unstressed
measurements). Because of the improved reservoir
quality, many original completions were natural, with
little to no additional stimulation or treatment.
Major Oil Company Exploration Program — Northern
Greater Green River Basin
During the middle 1990s, a major oil company em-
barked on a bold test of the basin-centered gas concept.
After careful review of the available material on basin-
center gas and studying available data from Jonah field
(at that time an emerging field), the major company
determined that a large part of the northern GGRB was
gas saturated. The company secured leasehold interests
through participation in lease sales as well as farm-outs
in a large area of Sublette County in the northwestern
part of the GGRB and drilled three wells: Billy 33-16
(NWSE Sec. 16, T31N, R111W, TD 12,355 ft), Ross
33-7 (NWSE Sec. 7, T30N, R110W, TD 12,120 ft),
and Paradise 23-31 (NESW Sec. 31, T31N, R109W,
TD 12,270 ft). Because of the apparently pervasive gas
saturation, well locations were biased by considerations
of infrastructure as opposed to considerations of trap
and seal (Bowker and Cotner, 1995). All three wells
penetrated the Mesaverde Formation and drilled equiv-
alent stratigraphic sections to the producing intervals at
the nearby Jonah field (Figure 1). Despite scattered gas
shows while drilling and extensive efforts to stimulate
the wells, significant production was not established in
any of the three wells. Data released on this drilling
program indicate that all three wells encountered
reservoir-quality rock of similar porosity and perme-
ability to that found in the Jonah field (Bowker and
Cotner, 1995). Furthermore, detailed analysis of vit-
rinite profiles indicated a similar burial history for the
three wells as is derived for Jonah field, suggesting that
productivity at Jonah field is not related to enhanced
local gas generation or some anomalous thermal con-
dition. Available data suggest that although the wells
encountered gas shows, suggesting some degree of gas
charge, and comparable reservoir rock to that found in
producing fields, they did not encounter a trapping con-
figuration sufficient to cause a large accumulation to
exist. The gas shows are attributed to having encoun-
tered small, subeconomic stratigraphic traps in the
nonmarine rocks of the Lance and Mesaverde intervals
as well as intervals with high water saturation that gave
up gas shows as the pore structure was destroyed dur-
ing drilling. Tests of these intervals either resulted in
depletion on test or encountered a lack of productivity,
most likely because of low effective permeability to
gas.
ASSESSMENTS OF GAS
RESOURCES IN LOW-PERMEABILITY,
ROCKY MOUNTAIN SANDSTONES
Resource assessments of natural gas attempt to quantify
a state of knowledge regarding a geologic province, at
a particular point in time, and provide guidance for
public policy issues such as national energy policy and
land-use planning. The Rocky Mountain region is broadly

Figure 14. Maps illustrating the nature of the updip stratigraphic trap that controls the vast majority of production from the upper
Almond reservoir in the Standard Draw-Echo Springs trend (modified from Burch and Cluff, 1997). (A) Inset from a regional structure
map across the Wamsutter arch illustrating the location of the Standard Draw-Echo Springs area along the crest of the arch. The north
and south limits of the field occur at a structural elevation of approximately  3100 ft (  945 m) subsea. (B) Isopach map of net
sandstone thickness in the upper Almond with greater than 10% effective porosity. Contour interval is 4 ft (1.2 m). This map clearly
identifies the trend of the upper Almond parasequences and illustrates both the basinward (structurally updip) pinch-out into marine
shales and siltstones, as well as the landward (structurally downdip) pinch-out into coastal-plain deposits. (C) Isopach map of gas in
place for the upper Almond reservoir-bearing interval. Note the abrupt truncation at both the north and south ends of the field
caused by high water saturation and low effective permeability to gas. These limits may reflect a paleo –gas-water contact. Contour
interval is 4 mmcf gas/ac. These maps illustrate a classic stratigraphic trap geometry in which reservoir-quality sandstones pinch out
in a basinward direction that is presently in an updip structural position. Additional drilling into the deeper main Almond has
occurred throughout much of the Standard Draw-Echo Springs area. Production from these reservoirs is found in stratigraphically
isolated fluvial- and estuarine-channel deposits.

Shanley et al. 1109

Figure 15. Map and
cross section of Swan-Blue
Forest field located on
the Moxa arch of south-
west Wyoming. (A) Iso-
pach map of reservoir
thickness overlain on a
structure map. Wells pro-
ducing from this interval
are highlighted; majority
of the remaining wells
are producing from the
shallower Frontier Sand-
stone. This map illustrates
the stratigraphic nature
of the trap. To the south-
west of this field, wells
drilled at elevations sim-
ilar to the base of pro-
duction have encountered
significant water in the
Dakota interval. (B) Cross
section of the Dakota
interval illustrating the
facies change to the
southeast of Swan-Blue
Forest that controls the
distribution of reservoir-
quality sand.

characterized by low-permeability reservoirs, wide-
spread gas shows while drilling, and limited produced
water. Gas production is generally viewed as being con-
trolled by sweet spots in relatively homogenous, gas-
saturated host rock as opposed to being dominated by
conventional traps similar to more traditional oil and
gas provinces. These observations have supported a view
that large portions of these basins are gas saturated,
which necessitated an evaluation methodology differ-
ent from those used in conventional oil and gas prov-
inces. There are two primary assessment techniques
currently in use for these basin-centered areas. One as-
sessment technique is to derive an understanding of gas
in place through consideration of hydrocarbon pore
volume. This is broadly the approach followed by the
Department of Energy and the National Energy Tech-
nology Laboratory (DOE and NETL) (Boswell et al.,
2002b). The other approach is to first determine wheth-
er a petroleum system contains a continuous gas (i.e.,
basin-centered) accumulation. If gas accumulations are

1110 Gas Production from Low-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs

thought to be continuous, then a more statistical view
of the basin is taken in which cells are aggregated and
integrated with concepts related to production rate,
drilling success, drainage area, and likelihood of a sweet
spot occurring to produce an estimate of the gas re-
source. This is broadly the approach followed by the
U.S. Geological Survey in their assessments of contin-
uous gas provinces. In low-permeability reservoirs such
as those found in many of the Rocky Mountain basins,
the consequences of using either approach have in-
evitably led to very large estimates of either gas in
place or technically recoverable gas (see Table 4 for a
summary of resource estimates).
One of the earliest efforts to quantify the resource
associated with low-permeability gas accumulations
in the Rocky Mountain region was by the Supply-
Technical Advisory Task Force (1973), on behalf of
the Federal Power Commission. This effort suggested
large volumes of gas in the GGRB (240 tcf gas), the
Piceance basin (149 tcf gas), and the Uinta basin (207
tcf gas). Kuuskraa et al. (1978) estimated a resource of
241 tcf gas in place in approximately eight Rocky
Mountain basins, with some 91 tcf gas in place in the
GGRB alone. Also in 1978, the Federal Energy Reg-
ulatory Commission reviewed previous estimates of
low-permeability resources (Supply-Technical Advisory
Task Force, 1978) and augmented them with approxi-
mately 63 tcf gas in place in the San Juan basin, bringing
the total resource to some 663 tcf gas in place in the
Rocky Mountain region.
In 1980, the NPC estimated the resource in tight-
gas reservoirs (defined as reservoirs with less than
1.0 md permeability) at approximately 256 tcf gas in
place across six basins, with 136.1 tcf gas in place in
the GGRB alone. The NPC (1980) estimated econom-
ically recoverable gas to range from 35.2 to 50.2 tcf
gas in these same six basins (base case and advanced
case at $2.50/mmcf ) with 3.1 –12.3 tcf recoverable gas
estimated for the GGRB. An early assessment of low-
permeability resources in the Piceance basin by the
U.S. Geological Survey (Johnson et al., 1987) suggested
423 tcf gas in place, and a similar assessment for the
GGRB (Law et al., 1989) suggested 73 tcf gas to be
recoverable under the current conditions and 5063 tcf
gas in place for the GGRB as a whole. More recent
efforts to describe the low-permeability resources in
the GGRB include a revision of previous work by the
NPC, which suggested an undiscovered resource of
56.21 tcf gas (NPC, 1992), and the Gas Technology
Institute (GTI), which estimated an undiscovered re-
source of 55.9 tcf gas (Doelger and Morton, 1999).
In an effort to be more scientifically rigorous and to
provide guidance for public policy, the U.S. Geological
Survey undertook and completed a national assess-
ment of petroleum resources, including unconvention-
al, continuous-type gas accumulations (Gautier et al.,
1995, 1996). Within the category of continuous-type
accumulations, resource estimates were based on sub-
division of an area into cells in which cell sizes reflected
the median drainage area for producing wells in the
play type under investigation. The cells were assigned a
distribution of potential gas recovery volumes at vary-
ing probabilities of success. For many of the continuous-
type accumulations for which resource assessments
were done, the average probability of success (of finding
technically recoverable gas) exceeded 65% (e.g., Gau-
tier et al., 1995, 1996; Attanasi, 1998; Dyman et al.,
1998). Economic scenarios were then constructed to
determine how the recoverable resource varied with
changing cost of supply considerations (e.g., Attanasi,
1998). The suggestions of this work were clear. The
quantity of recoverable gas was thought to be very
large and varied directly with product price as well as
improvements in drilling and completion technology.
In the Rocky Mountain region, the U.S. Geolog-
ical Survey suggested a mean recoverable resource of
160.5 tcf gas, 568 million bbl oil, and 1829 million bbl
of natural gas liquids (NGL) across four sedimentary
basins in unconventional, continuous-type accumula-
tions hosted in sandstone reservoirs. The U.S. Geological
Survey suggested an average project success rate in ex-
cess of 60%, leading to a risked resource of approxi-
mately 96 tcf gas, 341 million bbl oil, and 1097 million
bbl NGL. This was followed in 1996 by an assessment
of the Wind River basin (Johnson et al., 1996) that
identified a mean in-place resource of approximately
995 tcf gas. More recently, the U.S. Geological Survey
has conducted additional detailed geologic studies and
new assessments of several key basins, including those
basins with large unconventional resource potential.
These studies suggest that continuous-type sandstone
reservoirs contain mean, undiscovered resources of ap-
proximately 80.6 tcf gas and 2500 million bbl NGL in
the Green River basin of southwest Wyoming, 18.8 tcf
gas and 33.4 million bbl NGL in the Uinta and Piceance
basins, and 26.2 tcf gas and 144.4 million bbl NGL in the
San Juan basin (Kirschbaum et al., 2002a, b; Ridgley
et al., 2002). The U.S. Geological Survey has extended
their assessment of continuous-type accumulations out-
side the Rocky Mountain region. In the Appalachian
basin, for example, Milici et al. (2003) has suggested
mean, undiscovered gas resources of approximately
Shanley et al. 1111
Table 4. Summary of Various Resource Assessments Focused on Low-Permeability, Basin-Centered Gas Accumulations

Report Date Report/Assessment/Reference Region Resource Assessment*

1973 Federal Power Commission; three Rocky Mountain basins 596 tcf gas in place in three basins
Supply-Technical Advisory
Task Force (1973)
Greater Green River = 240 tcf
Piceance basin = 149 tcf
Uinta basin = 207 tcf
1978 Kuuskraa et al. (1978) eight Rocky Mountain basins 241 tcf gas in place across eight basins
Greater Green River = 91 tcf
Piceance basin = 36 tcf
Uinta basin = 50 tcf
San Juan basin = 15 tcf
Wind River basin = 3 tcf
Big Horn basin = 24 tcf
Douglas Creek arch = 3 tcf
Denver basin = 19 tcf
1978 FERC 1978 modification to FPC; four Rocky Mountain basins 663 tcf gas in place in four basins
Supply-Technical Advisory
Task Force (1973)
Greater Green River = 240 tcf
Piceance basin = 150 tcf
Uinta basin = 210 tcf
San Juan basin = 63 tcf
1980 National Petroleum six Rocky Mountain basins 256 tcf gas in place in six Basins;
Council (1980) 35.2 – 50.2 tcf recoverable
Greater Green River = 136.1 tcf;
3.1 – 12.3 tcf recoverable
Piceance basin = 49.1 tcf; 12.8 tcf
recoverable
Uinta basin = 20.5 tcf; 12.2 – 14.7 tcf
recoverable
San Juan basin = 3.3 tcf; 0 – 1.5 tcf
recoverable
Wind River basin = 33.7 tcf; 7 – 8.7 tcf
recoverable
Denver basin = 13.3 tcf; 0 tcf
recoverable
1987 U.S. Geological Survey; Piceance basin 423 tcf gas in place
Johnson et al. (1987)
1989 U.S. Geological Survey; Greater Green River basin 73 tcf – current technology
Law et al. (1989)
5063 tcf gas in place
1992 National Petroleum Greater Green River basin 56.2 tcf undiscovered resource
Council (1992)
1995 – 1996 U.S. Geological Survey National four Rocky Mountain basins 160 tcf gas, 568 MMBO, 1829 million
Assessment; Gautier et al. (1995, bbl NGL technically recoverable
1996); estimates shown here resource in five basins
do not include any resources
attributed to fractured shale
or coal-bed gas resources

1112 Gas Production from Low-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs

Table 4. Continued
Report Date Report/Assessment/Reference
1996 U.S. Geological Survey –
Johnson et al. (1996)
1999 Gas Technology Institute
2000 Gas Research Institute
2001 Potential Gas Committee
estimates shown here are total
most likely resources between
0- and 15,000-ft (0- and 4570-m)
drilling depth. PGC does not
specifically address low-
permeability resources
2002 DOE and NETL; Boswell
et al., 2002b
2002 U.S. Geological Survey – Kirschbaum
et al. (2002a, b), Ridgley
et al. (2002)
estimates shown here do not
include any resources attributed
to fractured shale or coal-bed
gas resources
*NGL = natural gas liquid.
Region
Wind River basin
Greater Green River basin
Rocky Mountain region
four basin areas = Greater
Green River basin, Uinta
and Piceance basins, Wind
River basin, San Juan basin
Greater Green River basin
and Wind River basin
three basin areas = Greater
Green River basin (southwest
Wyoming), Uinta and Piceance
basins, San Juan basin
Resource Assessment*
Greater Green River = 5 plays, 119.2 tcf
mean resource; play success
rate = 50 – 70%
Uinta and Piceance basins = 6 plays,
16.7 tcf mean resource; play success
rate = 20 – 88%
San Juan basin = 3 plays, 21.0 tcf mean
resource; play success rate = 50 – 60%
Denver basin = 2 plays, 3.07 tcf,
226 MMBO mean resource; play
success rate = 50 – 60%
mean in-place resource of 995 tcf, F95 of
603 tcf, F5 of 1530 tcf in 22 identified
play opportunities
55.9 tcf undiscovered resource
new-field potential = 206 tcf
69.6 tcf gas most likely
resource in four basins
Greater Green River = 17.6 tcf
most likely
Uinta and Piceance basins = 31.0 tcf
most likely
San Juan basin = 12.8 tcf most likely
Wind River basin = 8.2 tcf most likely
3013 tcf gas in place in Greater
Green River basin in six play intervals
1332 tcf gas in place in Wind River basin
in seven play intervals
125.4 tcf gas, 2678 million bbl NGL mean
recoverable resource in three basins
Greater Green River = 80.6 tcf, 2500 million
bbl NGL mean resource in seven
assessment units
Uinta and Piceance basins = 18.8 tcf,
33.4 million bbl NGL mean resource in
seven assessment units
San Juan basin = 26.2 tcf, 144.4 million
bbl NGL mean resource in five
assessment units
Shanley et al. 1113
57.6 tcf gas and 833 million bbl NGL in continuous-
type accumulations associated with sandstone and
shale reservoirs; in excess of 75% of these resources are
assigned to low-permeability sandstone reservoirs.
The U.S. Geological Survey is not alone in the
very large resource estimates assigned to these low-
permeability targets in the Rocky Mountain region. The
Gas Research Institute (GRI) has estimated a new field
gas potential in low-permeability reservoirs in the Rocky
Mountain region to exceed 206 tcf gas (Cochener,
2000). The Potential Gas Committee (PGC) does not
specifically address gas resources in low-permeability
sandstone reservoirs; however, they have suggested
a most likely resource of 18.4 tcf gas in the GGRB,
30.6 tcf gas in the Uinta and Piceance basins, 12.2 tcf
gas in the San Juan basin, and 6.7 tcf gas in the Wind
River basin (PGC, 2003), much of which is thought
to be contained in low-permeability, so-called basin-
centered accumulations. A recent review by the GTI
suggested that in 1998, production from tight-gas sands
in the United States comprised almost 70% of gas pro-
duction from all unconventional gas resources and ac-
counted for as much as 19% of total gas production from
all sources (Prouty, 2001). This same study suggested
that total producible tight-gas resources in the United
States exceed 625 tcf gas, with an economically recov-
erable resource of almost 185 tcf gas. Recognizing the
difficulties inherent to resource estimation related to
economic considerations, the DOE and NETL recently
announced a gas-in-place estimate for the GGRB of
3013 tcf gas and a gas-in-place estimate for the Wind
River basin of 1332 tcf gas (Boswell et al., 2002a, b).
Virtually every effort to quantify gas resources in low-
permeability formations, particularly in the Rocky
Mountain region has concluded that very large natural
gas resources remain to be exploited.
As a result of these very large resource estimates,
low-permeability, basin-centered resources are expected
to become a significant part of the nation’s future
energy portfolio. The GTI, for example, suggests that
year-end gas reserves in low-permeability rocks will
more than double by the year 2015 (Cochener, 2000),
and that annual natural gas consumption could rise to
32.7 tcf by 2015, accounting for 28% of the United
States’ energy consumption (Prouty, 2001).
Implications of this Work to Resource Assessments
The initial economic modeling of Attanasi (1998) sug-
gested that although there might be large technically
recoverable gas resources in low-permeability strata,
1114 Gas Production from Low-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs
much of the gas was not economic under the assump-
tions presented. The implication of this work, however,
was clear. Because these were perceived to be contin-
uous gas accumulations, improvements in drilling and
completion technology or product price would allow
additional technically recoverable gas to become eco-
nomic, and the nation was richly endowed with tech-
nically recoverable gas in low-permeability strata. Most
forecasting groups in the United States (including the
Department of Energy and Energy Information Agency)
have assumed that a very large volume of unconven-
tional, basin-centered natural gas is available at relatively
high probabilities of success. The starting volumes for
many of these econometric models are similar to or
based on the mean resource value suggested by the U.S.
Geological Survey derived from its assessment efforts
(e.g. EIA, 2003).
Our work in the GGRB, however, suggests a very
different set of conclusions regarding resource estimates.
The widespread occurrence of gas shows while drilling
and the lack of produced water does not imply a vast
area of gas-saturated rock. Many of these gas shows
reflect sandstones with minor, residual gas saturation
(i.e., high water saturation) and negligible effective
permeability to gas in which drilling has destroyed the
pore system liberating minor amounts of gas as shows.
Other gas shows record the presence of a large number
of very small stratigraphic traps. We suggest, based on
the geometry of the fluvial sand bodies, that many of
these small traps are likely to contain less than 0.1 bcf
gas in place and may well contain less than 0.05 bcf gas
in place. The geologic conditions that cause this have
already been described. Because of relative permeabil-
ity considerations, unless reservoirs are charged to
water saturations typically less than 40 – 50%, there is
insufficient effective permeability to gas to allow for
gas production under virtually any economic scenario.
Finally, our work suggests that virtually all significant
gas fields in the GGRB occur in conventional traps.
The only fundamental distinction between the con-
ventional traps in the GGRB and those that are de-
scribed in conventional oil and gas provinces is that the
reservoir rock in the GGRB has low permeability.
Resource assessments predicated on the notion
of a continuous gas accumulation have likely over-
estimated the size of natural gas resources in low-
permeability reservoirs in the GGRB by a substantial
amount. Our work illustrates that (1) the distribution
of gas fields is controlled by an understanding of con-
ventional traps; (2) natural gas located in reservoirs at
high water saturations (i.e., permeability jail) cannot
be recovered because of effective permeability consid-
erations, unless the pore system is destroyed (i.e., drilled
and crushed), and the gas is liberated; (3) as in all con-
ventional oil and gas provinces, there are large areas that
lack significant trapping geometries and therefore are
unlikely to hold significant volumes of gas; and (4) sim-
ilar to all oil and gas provinces worldwide, there are a
large number of very small gas fields, too small to sup-
port full-cycle exploration and development. In this re-
gard, we suggest that the gas resources in the GGRB have
a field-size distribution similar (in concept) to con-
ventional oil and gas regions.
An understanding of the potential resources in the
GGRB, as well as other basins thought to contain basin-
center gas resources, cannot rest on the continuous-type
evaluation strategy. Models that incorporate discovery
process, field-size distributions, and an appreciation for
the elements needed to assess source, migration, reser-
voir, trap, and seal are needed to more clearly under-
stand the resource potential of the GGRB and other
low-permeability regions. Our work should not be taken
to suggest that exploration and production opportuni-
ties in these low-permeability settings are lacking. On
the contrary, substantial portions of these basins re-
main lightly explored, and these regions have attractive
source, reservoir, and seal considerations that warrant
continued exploration. The understanding of a diverse
set of trap styles that can occur in basins such as the
GGRB should provide ample opportunity for explora-
tion and development.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
1. Exploration efforts in low-permeability settings must
be deliberate and focus on fundamental elements of
hydrocarbon traps. We suggest that significant gas
reserves will not be extracted simply through im-
proved completion and drilling technology or by im-
proved product prices. Improvements in completion
and drilling technology will allow well-identified
geologic traps to be fully exploited, and improve-
ments in product price will allow smaller accu-
mulations or lower rate wells to exceed economic
thresholds. These elements are true in virtually every
petroleum province.
2. Petrophysics is a critical technology required for
understanding low-permeability reservoirs. Low-
permeability reservoirs behave in a fundamentally
different manner than more traditional reservoirs.
Understanding the relationships between deposition-
al fabric, pore geometry, and routine vs. effective
permeability, all under conditions of overburden
stress, are required to predict low-permeability res-
ervoir performance. A better understanding of the
relationship between rock fabric and gas produc-
tivity requires careful investigations into multiphase
permeability under conditions of varying water
saturation and net-overburden stress, as well as an
analysis of capillary pressure and net-overburden
stress. The lack of widespread water production
does not imply that vast areas of a sedimentary basin
are at irreducible water saturation. Instead, it im-
plies a complex, effective permeability-to-gas rela-
tionship. Water production, at levels well in excess
of condensation from the produced gas stream,
occurs in many gas fields in the GGRB.
3. Low-permeability reservoir systems such as those
found in the GGRB are not examples of basin-center
or continuous-type accumulations, nor are they a
unique type of petroleum system as some have sug-
gested. We suggest that the only truly continuous-
type gas accumulations are to be found in hydrocar-
bon systems in which gas entrapment is dominated
by adsorption. Perhaps the most clearly understood
and well-documented examples include coal-bed
methane, some oil-prone source rocks, and some
organic-rich shales.
4. Resource assessments of these regions have assumed
that a continuous, gas accumulation exists across a
large area locally interrupted by the development of
sweet spots. Our work suggests, however, that this
viewpoint is at odds with the reservoir characteristics
of low-permeablity reservoirs, and we find little sup-
port for this model. Much of the gas that is in low-
permeability reservoirs is in subeconomic traps
(isolated, small point-bar sandstones, for example)
or at gas saturation levels too low to have significant
effective permeability. Changes in drilling technol-
ogy, completion technology, and product price are
not going to change effective permeability. Signif-
icant production is dependent on the presence and
identification of conventional traps. Existing re-
source estimates, therefore, are likely to have been
substantially overestimated.
5. Resource assessments in these low-permeability
basin-centered regions must recognize the reservoir
properties inherent to these rocks and should inte-
grate the necessary concept of source, reservoir, trap,
seal, migration, and charge. As a result, resource as-
sessments of these low-permeability, basin-centered
areas should be done in a manner consistent with the
Shanley et al. 1115
 assessment of conventional oil and gas systems. Field-
size distributions, an understanding of the discovery
process, analog studies, and risk assessment of the
independent variables central to petroleum systems
must be incorporated; they should no longer be
assessed in a purely statistical manner. The available
data clearly indicate that the accumulations are
neither random nor simply the occurrence of some-
what improved rock quality, nor simply the result
of improved drilling and completion technology.
6. The nature of the petroleum systems within basins
such as the GGRB is not well understood nor well
documented. Early models suggested that organic
deposits intercalated with reservoirs are the source
rocks, and that generation rates in excess of leakage
(diffusion) are responsible for the overpressures
observed in many of these types of basins today.
Although these models are appealing, due to sim-
plicity, they do not accurately address many aspects
of the petroleum system that are probably in effect.
The role of uplift is poorly described in these basins,
particularly as it relates to the generation of over-
pressures and the exsolution of gas. Understand-
ing of this in a quantitative sense could provide
insights to gas charge and trap timing. Permeability
jail is an emerging concept that offers insights to
low-permeability reservoir behavior and elegantly
explains many of the observations made in basin-
centered areas. However, understanding how to
integrate this concept with more traditional rock-
typing methods and applying those learnings to sub-
surface data sets is still emerging. It is likely that
integration of these concepts will advance our petro-
physical understanding well beyond the more tradi-
tional rock-typing methods that have dominated the
scene for many years.
REFERENCES CITED
Al-Hadrami, H. K., and L. W. Teufel, 2000, Influence of
permeability anisotropy and reservoir heterogeneity on opti-
mization of infill drilling in naturally fractured tight-gas
Mesaverde sandstone reservoirs, San Juan basin: 2000 Society
of Petroleum Engineers Rocky Mountain Regional/Low
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado,
March 12 – 15, 2000, SPE Paper 60295.
Almon, W. R., and J. B. Thomas, 1991, Pore system aspects of
hydrocarbon trapping, in H. J. Gluskoter, D. D. Rice, and R. B.
Taylor, eds., Economic geology, U.S.: Geological Society of
America, The Geology of North America, v. P-2, p. 241 – 254.
Al-Qarni, A. O. et al., 2001, From reservoir specifics to stimulation
solutions: Oilfield Review, v. 12, p. 42 – 60.
1116 Gas Production from Low-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs
Ammer, J. R., G. L. Covatch, G. P. Sames, T. H. Mroz, and W. J.
Gwilliam, 2000, Technology for increased production from
low-permeability gas reservoirs: An overview of U.S. DOE’s
Gas Program — Successes and future plans: 2000 Society of
Petroleum Engineers Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Perme-
ability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, March 12 –
15, 2000, SPE Paper 60310.
Anderson, G. P., 1994, A field study of the Hay reservoir area, an
analog for exploration of Lewis reservoirs, in S. A. Sonnenberg,
compiler, First Biennial Conference — Natural gas in the
western United States: Lakewood, Colorado, Rocky Mountain
Association of Geologists and Colorado Oil and Gas Associ-
ation, October 17 – 18, 1994, Extended Abstracts.
Arastoopout, H., and S. T. Chen, 1987, Analysis of flow of gas and
water in a fractured and non-fractured low-permeability
reservoir under production: 1987 Society of Petroleum
Engineers Annual Technical Conference, Dallas, Texas.,
September 27 – 30, 1987, SPE Paper 16948.
ARI (Advanced Resources International, Inc.), 2001, Federal lands
analysis, natural gas assessment, southern Wyoming and north-
western Colorado — The Greater Green River basin study:
http://fossil.energy.gov:7778/programs/oilgas/publications/fla/
(accessed October 2003).
Arps, J. J., 1964, Engineering concepts useful in oil finding: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 48, p. 157 – 164.
Attanasi, E. D., 1998, Economics and the 1995 National Assess-
ment of United States Oil and Gas Resources: United States
Geological Survey Circular 1145, 35 p.
Barlow, J. A. Jr., M. J. Doelger, and T. J. McCutcheon, 1994,
Accessibility to the Greater Green River basin gas supply,
southwestern Wyoming: Gas Research Institute Report 94/
0363, GRI Contract No. 5093-212-2683.
Bass, D. M. Jr., 1989, Properties of reservoir rocks, in H. B. Bradley,
ed., Petroleum engineering handbook: Society of Petroleum
Engineers, chapter 26, p. 26-1 – 26-33.
Billingsley, R. L., 1994, Case history: Amoco horizontal program,
Wamsutter area, Green River basin, Wyoming, in Horizontal
well drilling and completions in the Greater Green River basin:
Gas Research Institute (GRI), Department of Energy (DOE),
and the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States
(IPAMS) sponsored Consortium for Emerging Gas Resources in
the Greater Green River Basin, November 7, 1994, p. 77 – 102.
Billingsley, R. L., and L. W. E. Reinert, 1994, The Wamsutter
sweetspot: A continuing enigma in tight formation gas (abs.):
AAPG Annual Meeting Program, v. 3, p. 104 – 105.
Blakeney-Dejarnett, B., F. H. Lim, L. F. Krystinik, and M. L. Bacon,
2001, Greater Green River Basin Production Improvement
Project: Final report of the joint Department of Energy/Union
Pacific Resources Project Contract DE-AC21-95MC31063,
CD-ROM.
Boswell, R. M., A. S. B. Douds, H. R. Pratt, K. R. Bruner, K. K. Rose,
J. A. Pancake, V. A. Kuuskraa, and R. L. Billingsley, 2002a,
Assessing technology needs of ‘‘sub-economic’’ gas resources
in Rocky Mountain basins: Gas Tips, v. 8, no. 3, p. 4 – 12.
Boswell, R. M., A. S. B. Douds, H. R. Pratt, K. K. Rose, J. A. Pancake,
K. R. Bruner, V. A. Kuuskraa, and R. L. Billingsley, 2002b,
Assessing technology needs of sub-economic resources: Phase 1.
Greater Green River and Wind River basins, Fall 2002, in
Natural gas resources of the Greater Green River and Wind River
basins of Wyoming: National Energy Technology Laboratory/
Department of Energy CD 2002/1176, Final Version, February
2003.
Bowker, K. A., and B. C. Cotner, 1995, Lance and Mesaverde of the
Hoback basin: Preliminary results from recent drilling, in
Geological characterizations of the Cretaceous gas plays in the
Greater Green River basin: Gas Research Institute (GRI),
 Department of Energy (DOE), and the Independent Petro-
leum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS) sponsored
Consortium for Emerging Gas Resources in the Greater Green
River Basin, November 6, 1995, p. 280 – 296.
Branagan, P., 1994, Reservoir modeling: Amoco horizontal well —
Champlin 254 B-2H, in Horizontal well drilling and comple-
tions in the Greater Green River basin: Gas Research Institute
(GRI), Department of Energy (DOE), and the Independent
Petroleum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS) sponsored
Consortium for Emerging Gas Resources in the Greater Green
River Basin, November 7, 1994, p. 165 – 174.
Breit, G. N., and C. C. Skinner, 2002, Produced waters database:
United States Geological Survey, Digital Data Release, May
2002: http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/prov/prodwat/index.html
(accessed December 2002).
Burch, D. N., and R. M. Cluff, 1997, A volumetric analysis of
Almond Formation (Cretaceous, Mesaverde Group) gas
production in the Coal Gulch-Echo Springs — Standard Draw
field complex, Washakie basin, southwest Wyoming: 1997 Soci-
ety of Petroleum Engineers Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting,
Casper, Wyoming, May 18 – 21, 1997, SPE Paper 38368.
Byrnes, A. P., 1997, Reservoir characteristics of low-permeability
sandstones in the Rocky Mountains: Mountain Geologist, v. 34,
p. 39 – 51.
Byrnes, A. P., 2003, Aspects of permeability, capillary pressure, and
relative permeability properties and distribution in low-
permeability rocks important to evaluation, damage, and
simulation: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists and
Rocky Mountain Region of Petroleum Technology Transfer
Council — Petroleum Systems and Reservoirs of Southwest
Wyoming Symposium, September 19, 2003.
Byrnes, A. P., and J. W. Castle, 2000, Comparison of core
petrophysical properties between low-permeability sandstone
reservoirs: Eastern U.S. Medina Group and western U.S.
Mesaverde Group and Frontier Formation: 2000 Society of
Petroleum Engineers Rocky Mountain Low Permeability Res-
ervoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, March 12 – 15, 2000:
SPE Paper 60304.
Byrnes, A. P., and C. W. Keighin, 1993, Effect of confining stress on
pore throats and capillary pressure measurements, selected
sandstone reservoir rocks (abs.): AAPG Annual Meeting
Program, v. 2, p. 82.
Byrnes, A. P., K. Sampath, and P. L. Randolph, 1979, Effect of
pressure and water saturation on permeability of western tight
sandstones: Fifth Annual Department of Energy Symposium
on Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery and Improved Drilling
Technology, Tulsa, Oklahoma, August 22 – 24, 1979, p. 1 –
15.
Cardinal, D. F., and W. W. Stewart, eds., 1979, Wyoming Oil and
Gas Fields Symposium — Greater Green River basin: Casper,
Wyoming, Wyoming Geological Association.
Cluff, R. M., 2002, Reservoir properties of low-permeability gas
sands, in Low permeability gas sands: Rocky Mountain Section
AAPG Meeting Short Course 4. Co-sponsored by Petroleum
Technology Transfer Council (PTTC) and the Wyoming
Geological Association. Volume available through PTTC.
Cluff, S. G., and R. M. Cluff, in press, Petrophysics of the Lance
Sandstone reservoirs in Jonah field, Sublette County, Wyo-
ming, in J. W. Robinson and K. W. Shanley, eds., Jonah field:
Case study of a giant tight-gas fluvial reservoir: AAPG Studies
in Geology 52.
Cluff, R. M., K. W. Shanley, and A. P. Byrnes, in press, Permeability
jail and implications for ‘‘basin-centered gas,’’ production, and
resource assessments (abs.): Rocky Mountain Section AAPG
Meeting, Denver, Colorado, August 2004.
Cochener, J. C., 2000, The long-term trends in U.S. gas supply and
prices: 2000 edition of the GRI baseline projection of U.S.
Energy supply and demand to 2015: Gas Research Institute,
GRI-00/0005.
Coskey, R. J., in press, Burial history modeling of the Jonah field
area: An unusual and possibly unique gas accumulation in
the Green River basin, Wyoming, in J. R. Robinson and K. W.
Shanley, eds., Jonah field: Case study of a giant tight-gas fluvial
reservoir: AAPG Studies in Geology 52.
Davies, J. P., and D. K. Davies, 1999, Stress-dependent permeabil-
ity: characterization and modeling: 1999 Society of Petroleum
Engineers Annual Technical Conference, Houston, Texas, SPE
Paper 56813.
Doelger, M. J., and D. K. Morton, 1999, Portfolio of emerging
natural gas resources — Rocky Mountain basins: Section 1. Green
River basin: Gas Research Institute, GRI-99/0169.1.
Dolson, J., D. Muller, M. J. Evetts, and J. A. Stein, 1991, Regional
paleotopographic trends and production, Muddy Sandstone
(Lower Cretaceous), central and northern Rocky Mountains:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 75, p. 409 – 435.
Dubois, D. P., P. J. Wynne, T. M. Smagala, J. L. Johnson, K. D.
Engler, and B. C. McBride, in press, Geology of Jonah field,
Sublette County, Wyoming, in J. W. Robinson and K. W.
Shanley, eds., Jonah field: Case study of a giant tight-gas fluvial
reservoir: AAPG Studies in Geology 52.
Dullien, F. A. L., 1992, Porous media: Fluid transport and pore
structure, 2d ed.: San Diego, California, Academic Press, 574 p.
Dutton, S. P., S. J. Clift, D. S. Hamilton, H. S. Hamlin, T. F. Hentz,
W. E. Howard, M. S. Akhter, and S. E. Laubach, 1993, Major
low-permeability sandstone gas reservoirs in the United States:
Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations
No. 211, 221 p.
Dutton, S. P., H. S. Hamlin, and S. E. Laubach, 1995, Geologic
controls on reservoir properties of low-permeability sandstone,
Frontier Formation, Moxa arch, southwestern Wyoming: Texas
Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations No. 234,
89 p.
Dyman, T. S., J. W. Schmoker, B. E. Law, R. C. Johnson, T. S.
Collett, T. M. Finn, V. F. Nuccio, and J. L. Ridgley, 1998,
Basin-centered and other continuous-type gas plays for
resource assessment, in Developing a better understanding of
basin centered gas plays: Gas Research Institute (GRI),
Department of Energy (DOE), and the Independent Petro-
leum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS) sponsored
Consortium for Emerging Gas Resources in the Greater Green
River basin, April 27, 1998, p. 33 – 53.
EIA (Energy Information Administration), 2003, Annual energy
outlook 2003 with projections to 2025: DOE/EIA 0383(2003):
www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo (accessed January 2003).
Finley, S. J., and J. C. Lorenz, 1989, Characterization and sig-
nificance of natural fractures in Mesaverde reservoirs at the
multi-well experiment site: 1989 Society of Petroleum
Engineers Rocky Mountain Regional/Low-Permeability Reser-
voirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, March 6 – 8, 1989, SPE
Paper 19007.
Finley, S. J., and J. C. Lorenz, 1995, Characterization of natural
fractures in Mesaverde core from the Multiwell experiment:
Sandia Report SAND88-1800, UC-92, U.S. Department of
Energy Contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.
Gautier, D. L., G. L. Dolton, K. I. Takahashi, and K. L. Varnes,
eds., 1995, 1995 National Assessment of United States Oil and
Gas Resources — Results, methodology, and supporting data:
United States Geological Survey, Digital Data Series DDS-30
(CD-ROM).
Gautier, D. L., G. L. Dolton, K. I. Takahashi, and K. L. Varnes,
eds., 1996, 1995 National Assessment of United States Oil and
Gas Resources — Results, methodology, and supporting data:
Shanley et al. 1117
 United States Geological Survey, Digital Data Series DDS-30,
Release 2 (CD-ROM).
Gunter, G. W., J. M. Finneran, D. J. Hartmann, and J. D. Miller,
1997, Early determination of reservoir flow units using an
integrated petrophysical method: 1997 Society of Petroleum
Engineers Annual Technical Conference, San Antonio, Texas,
October 5 – 8, 1997, SPE Paper 38679.
Hanson, W. B., V. Carrillo, and S. Ritger, 1994, Evolution of the
Wamsutter arch, Wyoming foreland, U.S.A.: Influence on for-
mation of stratigraphic traps in Upper Cretaceous Almond
shoreline sandstones (abs.): AAPG Annual Meeting Program,
v. 3, p. 163.
Hanson, W. B., V. Vega, and D. Cox, in press, Structural geology,
seismic imaging, and genesis of the giant Jonah gas field,
Wyoming, U.S.A., in J. R. Robinson and K. W. Shanley, eds.,
Jonah field: Case study of a giant tight-gas fluvial reservoir:
AAPG Studies in Geology 52.
Harstad, H., and L. W. Teufel, 1998a, Potential for infill drilling in a
naturally fractured tight-gas sandstone reservoir: 1998 Society
of Petroleum Engineers Rocky Mountain Regional/Low
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, April
5 – 8, 1998, SPE Paper 39911.
Harstad, H., and L. W. Teufel, 1998b, Drainage efficiency in nat-
urally fractured tight-gas sandstone reservoirs: 1998 Society of
Petroleum Engineers Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, March 15 – 18, 1998, SPE Paper 39974.
Harstad, H., L. W. Teufel, and J. C. Lorenz, 1995, Characterization
and simulation of naturally fractured tight-gas sandstone
reservoirs: Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical
Conference, Dallas, Texas, October 22 – 25, 1995, SPE Paper
30573.
Hartmann, D. J., and E. A. Beaumont, 1999, Predicting reservoir
system quality and performance, in E. A. Beaumont and N. H.
Foster, eds., Exploring for oil and gas traps — Treatise of
petroleum geology: AAPG Treatise of Petroleum Geology,
chapter 9, p. 9-1 – 9-54.
Hartmann, D. J., and E. B. Coalson, 1990, Evaluation of the Morrow
Sandstone in Sorrento field, Cheyenne County, Colorado, in
S. A. Sonnenberg, L. T. Shannon, K. Rader, W. F. von Drehl,
and G. W. Martin, eds., Morrow sandstones of southeast
Colorado and adjacent areas: Rocky Mountain Association of
Geologists Symposium Guidebook, p. 91 – 100.
Hartmann, D. J., and L. MacMillan, 1992, Petrophysics of the
Wasatch Formation and Mesaverde Group, natural buttes pro-
ducing area, Uinta basin, Utah, in T. D. Fouch, V. F. Nuccio,
and T. C. Chidsey, eds., Hydrocarbon and mineral resources of
the Uinta basin, Utah and Colorado: Utah Geological Associ-
ation Guidebook, v. 20, p. 175 – 192.
Henry, M., M. Williams, S. Cook, and L. Tremper, 1999, Pros-
pecting for subtle stratigraphic traps with 3-D seismic and well
information: Examples from the Lewis Formation, Red Desert
basin, Wyoming (abs.): AAPG Bulletin, v. 83, p. 1183.
Horn, B. W., and R. A. Schrooten, 2001, Development of the Echo
Springs-Standard Draw field area: Using technology to enhance
an infill program, Washakie basin, Wyoming, in D. S. Ander-
son, J. W. Robinson, J. E. Estes-Jackson, and E. B. Coalson,
eds., Gas in the Rockies: Rocky Mountain Association of
Geologists Guidebook, p. 171 – 188.
Horn, B. W., T. A. Cross, J. A. Hornbeck, M. Vielma, and M.
Zavala, 2001, Stratigraphic controls on reservoir strata: A com-
parison of fluvial and tidal reservoirs in the Almond Formation,
Coal Gulch, Wamsutter, Echo Springs, and Table Rock fields,
Washakie basin, Wyoming, in D. P. Stilwell, ed., Wyoming gas
resources and technology: Wyoming Geological Association,
52nd Field Conference Guidebook, p. 149 – 161.
Iverson, W. P., and R. C. Surdam, 1995, Tight gas production from
1118 Gas Production from Low-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs
the Almond Formation, Washakie basin, Wyoming: Society of
Petroleum Engineers Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Perme-
ability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, March 20 –
22, 1995, SPE Paper 29559.
Johnson, R. C., R. A. Crovelli, C. W. Spencer, and R. F. Mast, 1987,
An assessment of gas resources in low-permeability sandstones
of the Upper Cretaceous Mesaverde Group, Piceance basin,
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 87-357.
Johnson, R. C., T. M. Finn, R. A. Crovelli, and R. H. Balay, 1996,
An assessment of in-place gas resources in low-permeability
Upper Cretaceous and lower Tertiary sandstone reservoirs,
Wind River basin, Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Open-
File Report 96-264.
Jones, F. O., and W. W. Owens, 1980, A laboratory study of low-
permeability gas sands: SPE Paper 7551, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, v. 32, p. 1631 – 1640.
Katahara, K. W., and J. D. Corrigan, 2002, Effect of gas on poro-
elastic response to burial or erosion, in A. R. Huffman and
G. L. Bowers, eds., Pressure regimes in sedimentary basins and
their prediction: AAPG Memoir 76, p. 73 – 78.
Kirschbaum, M. A. et al., 2002a, Assessment of undiscovered oil
and gas resources of the Uinta – Piceance province of Colorado
and Utah, 2002: U.S. Geological Survey National Assessment of
Oil and Gas Fact Sheet, FS-026-02: http://geology.cr.usgs.gov
/pub/fact-sheets/fs-0026/index.html (accessed March 2002).
Kirschbaum, M. A. et al., 2002b, Assessment of undiscovered oil
and gas resources of the southwestern Wyoming, 2002: U.S.
Geological Survey National Assessment of Oil and Gas Fact
Sheet, FS-145-02: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-145-02/fs-145
-02.html (accessed December 2002).
Kuuskraa, V. A., J. P. Brashear, T. M. Doscher, and L. E. Elkins,
1978, Enhanced recovery of unconventional gas, the program:
Volume II: U.S. Department of Energy, HCP/T2705-02, 537 p.
Law, B. E., 1984, Relationships of source rocks, thermal matu-
rity, and overpressuring to gas generation and occurrence in
low-permeability Upper Cretaceous and lower Tertiary rocks,
Greater Green River basin, Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah,
in J. Woodward, F. F. Meissner, and J. L. Clayton, eds., Hy-
drocarbon source rocks of the greater Rocky Mountain re-
gion: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists Guidebook,
p. 469 – 490.
Law, B. E., 2000, What is a basin-centered gas system?: Rocky
Mountain Association of Geologists, Basin-Center Gas Sym-
posium, Denver, Colorado, October 6, 2000, not paginated.
Law, B. E., 2002a, Concepts, geographic distribution, and
exploration strategies, in Low permeability gas sands: AAPG
Rocky Mountain Section Meeting Short Course 4, September
11, 2002, Laramie, Wyoming, cosponsored by the Wyoming
Geological Association and the Petroleum Technology Trans-
fer Council.
Law, B. E., 2002b, Basin-centered gas systems: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 86, p. 1891 – 1919.
Law, B. E., 2003, A review of basin-centered gas systems with a
focus on the Greater Green River basin: Rocky Mountain
Association of Geologists and Rocky Mountain Region of Petro-
leum Technology Transfer Council — Petroleum systems and
reservoirs of southwest Wyoming Symposium, Denver, Colo-
rado, September 19, 2003.
Law, B. E., and J. B. Curtis, 2002, Introduction to unconventional
petroleum systems: AAPG Bulletin, v. 86, p. 1851 – 1852.
Law, B. E., and W. W. Dickenson, 1985, Conceptual model for
origin of abnormally pressured gas accumulations in low-
permeability reservoirs: AAPG Bulletin, v. 69, p. 1295 – 1304.
Law, B. E., and C. R. Smith, 1986, Subsurface temperature map
showing depth to 180j Fahrenheit in the Greater Green River
basin of Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey
 Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF 1504, scale 1:500,000,
1 sheet.
Law, B. E., and C. W. Spencer, eds., 1989, Geology of tight-gas
reservoirs in the Pinedale anticline area, Wyoming, and at the
multiwell experiment site, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey
Bulletin, v. 1886.
Law, B. E., and C. W. Spencer, 1993, Gas in tight reservoirs — An
emerging major source of energy, in D. G. Howell, K. Wiese,
M. Fanelli, L. Zink, and F. Cole, eds., The future of energy gases:
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1570, p. 233 – 252.
Law, B. E., and C. W. Spencer, in press, Basin-centered gas systems
and the Jonah field, in J. W. Robinson and K. W. Shanley, eds.,
Jonah field: Case study of a giant tight-gas fluvial reservoir:
AAPG Studies in Geology 52.
Law, B. E., C. W. Spencer, and N. H. Bostick, 1980, Evaluation of
organic maturation, subsurface temperature, and pressure with
regard to gas generation in low-permeability Upper Cretaceous
and lower Tertiary strata in the Pacific Creek area, Sublette
County, Wyoming: Mountain Geologist, v. 17, p. 23 – 35.
Law, B. E., C. W. Spencer, R. R. Charpentier, R. A. Crovelli, R. F.
Mast, G. L. Dolton, and C. J. Wandrey, 1989, Estimates of gas
resources in overpressured low-permeability Cretaceous and
Tertiary sandstone reservoirs, Greater Green River basin, Wyo-
ming, Colorado, and Utah, in J. L. Eisert, ed., Gas resources of
Wyoming: Wyoming Geological Association, 40th Field
Conference Guidebook, p. 39 – 61.
Lorenz, J. C., and S. J. Finley, 1989, Differences in fracture
characteristics and related production: Mesaverde Formation,
northwestern Colorado: SPE Paper 16809, Society of Petro-
leum Engineers Formation Evaluation, March 1989, p. 11 – 16.
Lorenz, J. C., N. R. Warpinski, P. T. Branagen, and A. R. Sattler,
1989, Fracture characteristics and reservoir behavior of stress-
sensitive fracture systems in flat-lying lenticular formations:
SPE Paper 15244, Journal of Petroleum Technology, v. 41,
p. 615 – 622.
Martin, W. B., and J. Shaughnessy, 1969, Project Wagon Wheel:
Wyoming Geological Association Symposium on Tertiary
Rocks of Wyoming, 21st Annual Field Conference Guidebook,
p. 145 – 152.
Masters, J. A., 1979, Deep basin gas trap, western Canada: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 63, p. 152 – 181.
Masters, J. A., 1984, Lower Cretaceous oil and gas in western
Canada, in J. A. Masters, ed., Elmworth — Case study of a
deep basin gas field: AAPG Memoir 38, p. 1 – 34.
McPeek, L. A., 1981, Eastern Green River basin: A developing giant
gas supply from deep, overpressured Upper Cretaceous
sandstones: AAPG Bulletin, v. 65, p. 1078 – 1098.
Milici, R. C., R. T. Ryder, C. S. Swezey, R. R. Charpentier, T. A.
Cook, R. A. Crovelli, T. R. Klett, R. M. Pollastro, and C. J.
Schenk, 2003, Assessment of undiscovered oil and gas
resources of the Appalachian basin province, 2002: U.S.
Geological Survey National Assessment of Oil and Gas Fact
Sheet, FS-009-03: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-009-03/fs-009
-03.html (accessed February 2003).
Miller, T. S., F. J. Crockett, and S. H. Hollis, eds., 1992, Wyoming
Oil and Gas Fields Symposium — Greater Green River basin
and overthrust belt: Wyoming Geological Association, Casper,
Wyoming, 364 p.
Montgomery, S. L., and J. W. Robinson, 1997, Jonah field, Sublette
County, Wyoming: Gas production from overpressured Upper
Cretaceous Lance sandstones of the Green River basin: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 81, p. 1049 – 1062.
Northrop, D. A., 1986, Insights into natural gas production from
low-permeability reservoirs: Society of Petroleum Engineers
Gas Technology Symposium, Dallas, Texas, June 13 – 15, 1986,
SPE Paper 17706.
NPC (National Petroleum Council), 1980, Unconventional gas
sources: Tight-gas reservoirs: Parts I and II. Report of the Com-
mittee on Unconventional Gas Sources, J. R. Bookout, Chairman.
NPC (National Petroleum Council), 1992, The potential for natural
gas in the United States: Source and Supply, v. 2, 330 p.
Pawlewicz, M. J., M. R. Lickus, B. E. Law, W. W. Dickenson, and
C. S. V. Barclay, 1986, Thermal maturity map showing
subsurface elevation of 0.8 percent vitrinite reflectance in the
Greater Green River basin of Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah:
U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF
1890, scale 1:500,000, 1 sheet.
PGC (Potential Gas Committee), 2003, Potential supply of natural
gas in the United States (December 31, 2002): Potential Gas
Agency, Colorado School of Mines, March 2003, 316 p.
Popov, M. A., V. F. Nuccio, T. S. Dyman, T. A. Gognat, R. C.
Johnson, J. W. Schmoker, M. S. Wilson, and C. Bartberger,
2001, Basin-centered gas systems of the U.S.: U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 01-135, version 1.0 (CD-ROM).
Prouty, J. L., 2001, Tight gas in the spotlight: Gas Tips, v. 7, no. 2,
p. 4 – 10.
Raynolds, R. G., and I. Pasternack, 1994, Mesaverde Group sand-
stone reservoir characteristics, San Juan basin, New Mexico and
Colorado (abs.): AAPG Annual Meeting Program, v. 3, p. 242.
Ridgley, J. L., S. M. Condon, R. F. Dubiel, R. R. Charpentier, T. A.
Cook, R. A. Crovelli, T. R. Klett, R. M. Pollastro, and C. J.
Schenk, 2002, Assessment of undiscovered oil and gas
resources of the San Juan basin province of New Mexico and
Colorado, 2002: U.S. Geological Survey National Assessment
of Oil and Gas Fact Sheet, FS-147-02: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs
/fs-147-02/fs-147-02.html (accessed December 2002).
Robinson, J. W., 2000, Discovery of Jonah field, Sublette County,
Wyoming: Mountain Geologist, v. 37, p. 135 – 143.
Robinson, J. W., D. Delozier, and R. Finch, 1995, Integrated res-
ervoir description and analysis of the Lance Formation, Jonah
field, Sublette County, Wyoming, in Geological characteriza-
tions of the Cretaceous gas plays in the Greater Green River
basin: Gas Research Institute/Department of Energy/Indepen-
dent Petroleum Association of Mountain States sponsored
Consortium for emerging gas resources in the Greater Green
River basin, p. 297 – 308.
Robinson, J. W., D. Delozier, and R. Finch, 1996, Integrated res-
ervoir description and analysis of the Lance Formation, Jonah
field, Sublette County, Wyoming (abs.): AAPG Bulletin, v. 80,
p. 980.
Rose, P. R., J. R. Everett, and I. S. Merin, 1986, Potential basin-
centered gas accumulation in Cretaceous Trinidad Sandstone,
Raton basin, Colorado, in C. W. Spencer and R. F. Mast, eds.,
Geology of tight-gas reservoirs: AAPG Studies in Geology 25,
p. 111 – 128.
Rose, W., 1999, Relative permeability ideas — Then and now
(Richards to Leverett to Yuster, and beyond): 1999 Eastern
Regional Meeting, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Charleston,
West Virginia, October 20 – 22, 1999, SPE Paper 57442.
Schenk, C. J., and R. M. Pollastro, 2002, Natural gas production in
the United States: U.S. Geological Survey National Assessment
of Oil and Gas Fact Sheet, FS-113-01: http://geology.cr.usgs.gov
/pub/fact-sheets/fs-0113-01/index.html (accessed January 2002).
Schmoker, J. W., 1995, Method for assessing continuous-type
(unconventional) hydrocarbon accumulations, in D. L. Gau-
tier, G. L. Dolton, K. I. Takahashi, and K. L. Varnes, eds.,
1995 National Assessment of United States Oil and Gas
Resources — Results, methodology, and supporting data: U.S.
Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-30 (CD-ROM).
Schmoker, J. W., 2002, Resource-assessment perspectives for un-
conventional gas systems: AAPG Bulletin, v. 86, p. 1993 – 1999.
Shanley, K. W., 2001, Fluvial reservoir description for a tight-gas
Shanley et al. 1119
 giant: Jonah field, Green River basin, Wyoming, in J. W.
Robinson and K. W. Shanley, coconvenors, Tight-gas fluvial
reservoirs: A case history from the Lance Formation, Green
River basin, Wyoming: AAPG Short Course No. 2, in asso-
ciation with the AAPG Annual Meeting, 186 p.
Shanley, K. W., in press, Fluvial reservoir description for a giant,
low-permeability gas field: Jonah field, Green River basin,
Wyoming, U.S.A., in J. R. Robinson and K. W. Shanley, eds.,
Jonah field: Case study of a giant tight-gas fluvial reservoir:
AAPG Studies in Geology 52.
Shannon, L. T., 1992, Hay reservoir, in T. S. Miller, F. J. Crockett,
and S. H. Hollis, eds., Wyoming Oil and Gas Fields Symposium—
Greater Green River basin and overthrust belt: Casper, Wyo-
ming, Wyoming Geological Association, p. 178 – 179.
Shaughnessy, J., and R. H. Butcher, 1974, Geology of Wagon
Wheel Nuclear Stimulation Project, Pinedale field, Wyoming:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 58, p. 2250 – 2259.
Shaver, M. A., and B. F. Towler, 1997, Reservoir engineering for the
Almond Formation in the Standard Draw gas field in southern
Wyoming: 1997 Society of Petroleum Engineers Rocky
Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper, Wyoming, May 18 – 21,
1997, SPE Paper 38367.
Smith, R. D., 1984, Gas reserves and production performance of
the Elmworth/Wapiti area of the deep basin, in J. A. Masters,
ed., Elmworth — Case study of a deep basin gas field: AAPG
Memoir 38, p. 153 – 172.
Sneider, R. M., H. R. King, H. E. Hawkes, and T. K. Davis, 1981,
Methods for detection and characterization of reservoir rock,
deep basin gas area, western Canada: 56th Annual Conference
of Society of Petroleum Engineers, San Antonio, Texas, SPE
Paper 10072.
Sneider, R. M., H. R. King, H. E. Hawkes, and T. K. Davis, 1983,
Methods for detection and characterization of reservoir rock,
deep basin gas area, western Canada: Journal of Petroleum
Technology, v. 35, p. 1725 – 1734.
Sneider, R. M., H. R. King, R. W. Hietala, and E. T. Connolly,
1984, Integrated rock-log calibration in the Elmworth
field — Alberta, Canada, in J. A. Masters, ed., Elmworth —
Case study of a deep basin gas field: AAPG Memoir 38, p. 205 –
282.
Soeder, D. J., and P. Chowdiah, 1990, Pore geometry in high- and
low-permeability sandstones, Travis Peak Formation, east Texas:
Society of Petroleum Engineers Formation Evaluation, De-
cember 1990, p. 421 – 430, SPE Paper 17729.
Soeder, D. J., and P. L. Randolph, 1987, Porosity, permeability, and
pore structure of the tight Mesaverde Sandstone, Piceance
basin, Colorado: Society of Petroleum Engineers Formation
Evaluation, June 1987, p. 129 – 136, SPE Paper 13134.
Spencer, C. W., 1985, Geologic aspects of tight gas reservoirs in the
Rocky Mountain region: SPE Paper 11647, Journal of Petro-
leum Technology, v. 37, p. 1308 – 1314.
Spencer, C. W., 1987, Hydrocarbon generation as a mechanism for
overpressuring in the Rocky Mountain region: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 71, p. 368 – 388.
Spencer, C. W., 1989, Review of characteristics of low-permeability
gas reservoirs in western United States: AAPG Bulletin v. 73,
p. 613 – 629.
Spencer, C. W., and R. F. Mast, eds., 1986, Geology of tight-gas
reservoirs: AAPG Studies in Geology 25, 299 p.
Sturm, S. D. et al., 2000, Multi-disciplinary analysis of tight gas
sandstone reservoirs, Almond Formation, Siberia Ridge field,
Greater Green River basin: Gas Research Institute, GRI-00/
0026, Final report for the Gas Research Institute contract
No. 5094-210-3021, January 2000.
Sturm, S. D., L. W. Evans, B. F. Keusch, and W. J. Clark, 2001,
Almond Formation reservoir characterization and sweet spot
1120 Gas Production from Low-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs
analysis in Siberia Ridge field, Wyoming, in D. S. Anderson,
J. W. Robinson, J. E. Estes-Jackson, and E. B. Coalson, eds.,
Gas in the Rockies: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists
Guidebook, p. 145 – 170.
Supply-Technical Advisory Task Force, 1973, Task force report:
National gas supply: National Gas Survey, v. II, Federal Power
Commission, 662 p.
Supply-Technical Advisory Task Force, 1978, National gas survey,
in Report to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by the
Supply-Technical Advisory Task Force on nonconventional
natural gas resources: U.S. Department of Energy, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 109 p.
Surdam, R. C., 1995, Sweetspot delineation in the Mesaverde Group,
Greater Green River basin, in Geological characterizations of
the Cretaceous gas plays in the Greater Green River basin: Gas
Research Institute (GRI), Department of Energy (DOE), and the
Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS)
sponsored Consortium for Emerging Gas Resources in the
Greater Green River basin, November 6, 1995, p. 158 – 207.
Surdam, R. C., 1997a, A new paradigm for gas exploration in
anomalously pressured ‘‘tight-gas sands’’ in the Rocky Moun-
tain Laramide basins, in R. C. Surdam, ed., Seals, traps, and
the petroleum system: AAPG Memoir 67, p. 283 – 298.
Surdam, R. C., 1997b, A new exploration strategy for anomalously
pressured reservoirs in Rocky Mountain basins: Gas Tips, v. 3,
no. 4, p. 4 – 8.
Surdam, R. C., W. P. Iverson, and P. Yin, 1995, Gas reservoir sweet
spot detection and delineation in Rocky Mountain Laramide
Basins: Gas Research Institute, GRI-95/0443, Topical Report
for GRI contract No. 5091-221-2146, October, 1995.
Surdam, R. C., Z. S. Jiao, N. K. Boyd, P. Yin, S. Stookey, R. S. Mar-
tinsen, W. P. Iverson, F. P. Miknis, S. L. Kubichek, and T. L.
Dunn, 1997a, Multidisciplinary analysis of pressure chambers
in the Powder River basin, Wyoming and Montana, in A new
innovative exploitation strategy for gas accumulations within
pressure compartments: Gas Research Institute, GRI-97/0364,
Final report for GRI contract No. 5089-260-1894, October
1997.
Surdam, R. C., Z. S. Jiao, and H. P. Heasler, 1997b, Anomalously
pressured gas compartments in Cretaceous rocks of the
Laramide basins of Wyoming: A new class of hydrocarbon
accumulation, in R. C. Surdam, ed., Seals, traps, and the
petroleum system: AAPG Memoir 67, p. 199 – 222.
Surdam, R. C., Z. S. Jiao, and N. G. K. Boyd, 2000, Detection and
delineation of basin-centered gas accumulations occurring in
Rocky Mountain Laramide basins: Rocky Mountain Association
of Geologists Basin-Centered Gas Symposium, Denver, Colo-
rado, October 6, 2000.
Thomas, R. D., and D. C. Ward, 1972, Effect of overburden pres-
sure and water saturation on gas permeability of tight sand-
stone cores: SPE Paper 3634, Journal of Petroleum Technology,
v. 24, p. 120 – 124.
Van Horn, M. D., and L. T. Shannon, 1985, Stratigraphy of the
Lewis Formation: A tectonically influenced constructional
delta and submarine fan complex of the Late Cretaceous,
southwestern Wyoming (abs.): SEPM Annual Midyear Meet-
ing Program, v. II, p. 91.
Van Horn, M. D., and L. T. Shannon, 1989, Hay reservoir field: A
submarine fan gas reservoir within the Lewis Shale, Sweet-
water County, Wyoming: Wyoming Geological Association
40th Annual Field Conference, p. 155 – 180.
Vavra, C. I., J. G. Kaldi, and R. M. Sneider, 1992, Geological
applications of capillary pressure: A review: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 76, p. 840 – 850.
Walls, J. D., 1981, Tight gas sands: Permeability, pore structure,
and clay: 1981 Society of Petroleum Engineers/Department of
 Energy Low Permeability Symposium, Denver, Colorado, May
27 – 29, 1981, SPE Paper 9871.
Walls, J. D., A. M. Nur, and T. Bourbie, 1982, Effects of pressure
and partial water saturation on gas permeability in tight sands:
experimental results: SPE Paper 9378, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, v. 34, p. 930 – 936.
Walters, F. S., 1992, Swan field (Blue Forest unit, Monument Butte
unit, Raptor unit and Lincoln Road), in T. S. Miller, F. J.
Crockett, and S. H. Hollis, eds., Wyoming Oil and Gas Fields
Symposium — Greater Green River basin and overthrust belt:
Wyoming Geological Association, Casper, Wyoming, p. 306 –
308.
Wells, J. D., and J. O. Amaefule, 1985, Capillary pressure and
permeability relationships in tight gas sands: 1985 Society of
Petroleum Engineers/Department of Energy Low Permeability
Gas Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, May 19 – 22,
1985, SPE Paper 13879.
WOGCC (Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission):
http://www.wogcc.state.wy.us. (accessed December 2003).
Yuan, H. H., and B. F. Swanson, 1986, Resolving pore space
characteristics by rate-controlled porosimetry: 1986 Society of
Petroleum Engineers/Department of Energy Fifth Symposium
on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 20 – 23,
1986, SPE Paper 14892.
Shanley et al. 1121