overview of shale layers characteristics in europe ... · of unconventional resources. delivery t6b...

mmmll

Report for DG JRC in the Context of Contract JRC/PTT/2015/F.3/0027/NC

“Overview of shale layers characteristics in Europe relevant for assessment of unconventional resources”

European Unconventional Oil

and Gas Assessment

(EUOGA)

Overview of shale layers

characteristics in Europe relevant for assessment of unconventional

resources

Deliverable T6b

Overview of shale layer characteristics in Europe

Delivery T6b. Report February 2017 2

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .............................................................................................. 2 Abstract ........................................................................................................... 3 Executive summary ........................................................................................... 5 1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 7

1.1. EUOGA selection criteria for shales ............................................................. 7 2. Template for uniformly describing EU shale plays ............................................... 8

2.1. Explanation to the EUOGA Critical Parameter (CP) template..........................10 2.1.1. Non-numerical parameters ..................................................................10

2.1.2. Numerical Parameters ........................................................................10

2.1.3. Distribution functions .........................................................................13

3. General and systematic descriptions of the shale layer characteristics .................14 3.1. Overview of EUOGA shale layer compositions ..............................................19 3.2. Comparison with North American thermogenic gas shales ............................21

4. Basin overview and classification ....................................................................23 4.1. Thermogenic basins .................................................................................24 4.2. Biogenic Basins .......................................................................................27 4.3. Offshore Basins .......................................................................................27

5. References ...................................................................................................28

Appendix Volume

Appendix A Shale layer overview ........................................................................33 Appendix B Shale layer characteristics from the NGS responses .............................46 Appendix C Shale layer characteristics for reference shales .................................. 131 Appendix D Bibliography on European shale layers ............................................. 151



This report is prepared by Niels H. Schovsbo with contributions from Karen L. Anthonsen,

Christian B. Pedersen and Lisbeth Tougaard, all from the Geological Survey of Denmark

and Greenland (GEUS) as part of the EUOGA study (EU Unconventional Oil and Gas

Assessment) commissioned by JRC-IET.

The analyses, interpretations and opinions expressed in this report represent the best

judgments of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS). This report

assumes no responsibility and makes no warranty or representations as to the

productivity of any oil, gas or other mineral well. All analyses, interpretations,

conclusions and opinions are based on observations made on material supplied by the

European National Geological Surveys (NGS’s) in 2016. The information and views set

out in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official

opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the

data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the

Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the

information contained therein.

No third-party textual or artistic material is included in the publication without the

copyright holder’s prior consent to further dissemination and reuse by other third

parties. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

The report is the final version (revision 1) issued in February 2017.

Citation to this report is: Schovsbo, N.H., Anthonsen, K.L., Pedersen, C.B., Tougaard,

L., 2017. Overview of shale layers characteristics in Europe relevant for assessment

of unconventional resources. Delivery T6b of the EUOGA study (EU Unconventional Oil

and Gas Assessment) commissioned by JRC-IET to GEUS.

Abstract A compilation of critical parameters for 82 individual shale layers that meet the

EUOGA screening threshold for shale gas and oil development within the European

Union member countries including Ukraine are presented. The compilation is based on

a template send to all National Geological Surveys, which includes 30 general and

systematic descriptions for each shale layer. The systematic description furthermore

includes a full bibliographic reference database with 230 references that together with

the data delivery itself represent a state-of–the-art description of the current scientific

knowledge of European shale gas and oil research.

The shale layers occur in a total of 36 basins comprising 34 thermogenic oil and gas

bearing basins and two biogenic gas bearing basins. The European shales compare

well with prospective North American shale layers with respect to lateral extent,

thickness, TOC content, and maturity, but are slightly more clay dominated rock type

than similar North American types. This report accompanies the detailed and complete

basin-per-basin and play-by-play overview included in deliverable T4 (Geological

resource analysis of shale gas and shale oil in Europe) and comprises the numerical

description of the shale layers.



Invited Countries Completed

questionnaire

EUOGA association status

Austria Yes Participant

Belgium Yes Participant

Bulgaria Yes Participant

Croatia Yes Participant

Cyprus no No known resources

Czech Republic Yes Participant

Denmark Yes Participant

Estonia Yes No known resources

Finland Yes No known resources

France Yes Participant

Germany No The NGS are not able to participate in EU tenders

Greece No The NGS have decided not to participate

Hungary Yes Participant

Ireland Yes The NGS have decided not to participate

Italy Yes Participant

Latvia Yes Participant

Lithuanian Yes Participant

Luxembourg No No known resources

Malta Yes No known resources

Netherlands Yes Participant

Norway Yes No known resources on-shore

Poland Yes Participant

Portugal Yes Participant

Romania Yes Participant

Slovakia Yes The NGS have decided not to participate

Slovenia No Participant

Spain Yes Participant

Sweden Yes Participant

Switzerland No The NGS have decided not to participate

United Kingdom Yes Participant

Ukraine yes Participant

Overview of countries invited to participate in EUOGA and their association to the

project.



Executive summary This report provides a comprehensive introductory overview of relevant shale layer

characteristics gathered from the EUOGA participating National Geological Surveys

(NGS) in 2016. This report accompanies the detailed and complete basin-per-basin

and play-by-play overview included in deliverable T4 (Geological resource analysis of

shale gas and shale oil in Europe) and comprises the numerical description of the

shale layers. The overview is based on the returned templates describing the shale

properties and geological reports completed as part of the data gathering. The shale

layer template was prepared as part of the EUOGA project and was send to the

participating NGS (Figure 1).

The EUOGA critical parameter template for uniformly describing EU shale plays

includes 30 parameters of which 22 allow a probability density function to be defined

and six non-numerical parameters. 82 shale layers meet EUOGA screening parameters

and were selected for detailed characterisation by the NGS’s. To simplify identification

of the shale layers and to insure full integration with the GIS web portal and its

underlying geodatabases the shale layers are given a screening index value by the

GEUS team upon retrieval. The screening index number is linked to a critical

parameter (CP) sheet and is used as unique shale ID.

The data source for all parameters is added in a full bibliography with 230 references

that together with the data delivery itself represent a state-of–the-art description of

the current scientific knowledge of European shale gas and oil research. The template

includes 30 parameters of which 22 could be specified with a probability density

function (min, max, mean and mode of distribution). The return ratio (calculated for

numerical data as the ratio of the number of reported mean values to the total shales

layer number) range between 3-100% with an overall average for all parameters

(including non-numerical information) of 50%. The reported information is generally

sufficient to describe the distribution function of the TOC content (78% report a mean

value) and to some extent also the porosity distributions (35% report a mean value).

The mineralogy of the shale layers is partially documented (36% report a mean

composition). For nearly all shales the organic matter type is given and for about 47

shales (or 59%) the thermal maturity of the shales is provided.

Reference shales from selected North American thermogenic and biogenic shale gas

resource systems reflecting the conditions within the core producing areas of each

basin are included for comparison with the EUOGA shales. The EUOGA shale layers

have on average quite similar values as the average of the North American shales. An

important difference for the hydrocarbon assessment is, however, that the European

shales on average have 4.9% porosity whereas the North American shales on average

have 6.3%. It must be stated that the European shales are rather poorly characterised

with respect to porosity. Furthermore the North American shale layers reflect

conditions in the core area - defined as optimal for production - an area definition that

the EUOGA database does not reflect. Mineralogical difference also exists between the

EUOGA shale layers and the North America shale types. The mineralogy of North

American shales is typical dominated by non-clay components and thus the ratio non-

clay / total clay content is higher than one. In contrast the EUOGA shales tend to be

clay dominated and have a ratio of non-clay / total clay content lower than one.

A total of 36 basins have been identified. The basins compares well with known

sedimentary basins in Europe where a shale based hydrocarbon resource system was

known to be present. The 36 EUOGA basins are grouped into 34 thermogenic

hydrocarbon basins and two biogenic shale gas basins and the shale layers assigned to

each basin are presented in this report. To ease identification a unique basins index



numbering system and a unique play acronym labelling system has been designed to

ensure as smooth data handling operations as possible.

Figure 1. Countries that have delivered critical parameters for relevant shale

formations. For Germany, data from BGR (2016) has been used for the main

unconventional shales i.e. Posidonian and Carboniferous shales (CP2012 and CP2013).



1. Introduction This report provides a first of its kind inventory of the shale oil and shale gas shale

formations in the European Union including Ukraine. A systematic description of the

European shale layers is a pre-requisite for a uniform and scientific based assessment

of the European shale resource systems. The participation of the National Geological

Surveys (NGS) in gathering the relevant data and providing the national expertise has

been absolutely crucial in fulfilling this task.

The shale layer inventory aims at presenting a solid foundation for the development of

shale gas and shale oil in Europe. The overview is based on the shale description

templates (termed critical parameters) send to the NGS’s in December 2015 and

returned to GEUS during 2016. In preparation of this report care has been taken to

represent the information gathered from the NGS’s as correctly as possible and the

data and results have been presented to all participating NGS’s.

This report accompanies the detailed and complete basin-per-basin and play-by-play

overview included in deliverable T4 (Geological resource analysis of shale gas and

shale oil in Europe). This report comprises the numerical description of the shale

layers based on data that was received during 2016 (Figure 1).

1.1. EUOGA selection criteria for shales

A set of selection criteria for defining relevant unconventional plays was defined in the

start-up phase of the EUOGA project (Table 1). These criteria were also presented and

discussed at the first EUOGA workshop in December 2015 and used by the NGS’s

during the EUOGA initial screening of relevant basins. The selection criteria follows

general accepted screening criteria that have been widely applied both in global

compilations as well as in NGS own studies (i.e. ARI, 2013; Charpentier & Cook, 2011;

Schovsbo et al., 2011, 2014; BGR, 2016).

Providing pan-European screening criteria for shales as shown in Table 1 was an

important first step for the project in order to focus on the most important units and

basins from where more detailed data subsequently was gathered. The selection

criteria in Table 1 cover both thermogenic and biogenic shale gas plays. Shallow

offshore areas are only included, where the offshore areas support the continuation of

the onshore basin plays.

For thermogenic plays the selection criteria are chosen to ensure that the right TOC

type is present (marine types I-II) in significant volumes (>2% TOC), thickness (>20

m), that the thermal maturity is high enough to ensure generation of HC (at least oil

maturity) and that the present day reservoir has maintained its integrity (low to

medium structural complexity). Present day depth above 7 km is used to exclude

shales not within reach of a well bore.

For biogenic plays the criteria is similar to those used for thermogenic plays with

respect to TOC and thickness cut-offs. The preferential maturity range for this play is

immature to wet-gas maturation since the biogenic gas generation depends on depth,

biodegradable kerogen and/or bitumen within the shale (i.e. Schultz et al., 2015). For

biogenic gas to be produced loss of reservoir integrity is typical a requirement. This is

typically formed in structural complex settings (such as in glacier induced fractured

shales) where microbial activity occur due to addition of freshwater into the shales

system (Schultz et al., 2015). Accordingly basins with biogenic gas shale plays will be

rather shallow and hence screened by applying a depth cut-off of 1 km as maximum

depth. For this play type the structural complexity is typical from medium to high.



Table 1. Selection criteria for biogenic and thermogenic shale plays. Only maximum

thermal maturity and a maximum depth cut-offs are applied since both biogenic gas

and thermogenic oil and gas plays are relevant for EUOGA.

Geological Properties: Value/comment

TOC content and type > 2%, marine type I-II

Thermal maturity < 4% Ro

Thickness > 20 m

Present day depth < 7 km

Mineralogy Brittle preferentially

Pressure regime Normal to overpressure

Structural complexity Low to moderate

Geographical Properties:

Areal distribution Onshore

Surface use Not applicable at this stage

Geomorphology of surface Not applicable at this stage

2. Template for uniformly describing EU shale plays A template for uniformly describing the EU shale plays was presented at the workshop

in Copenhagen in December 2015. The template includes input parameters relevant

for both geological and engineering properties as well as parameters for calculating

the gas and oil in place. The template includes 30 parameters of which 22 could be

specified with a probability density function (min, max, mean and mode of

distribution).

After presentation and discussion at the Copenhagen workshop the template was send

to the NGS in late December 2015 together with a step-by-step explanation and an

introduction to evaluation of each of the 30 parameters (see below).

The template was made in close connection with other EUOGA tasks dealing with

definition of the Pan-European assessment methodology (T2 and T4) and thus ensures

that the relevant data are gathered for these tasks.

The template for EU shale play descriptions, the EUOGA Critical Parameter (CP)

template is presented in Table 2.



Table 2. The EUOGA critical parameters template for uniformly describing EU shale

plays. The template holds 30 parameters of which 22 allow for a probability density

function to be defined. Six parameters are non-numerical.

EUOGA Critical Parameter (Screening criteria) Min Max Mean Distribution Source (Ref.list) Comments

Shale Name: NNCP XXXX

Age: NN

Basin:NN

Structural setting:

Facies variability:

Country:NN

1. Area extend (km2)

Offshore

Onshore

2. Thickness (gross, m)

2a. Thickness (net, m)

2b. Net/Gross (%)

3. Depth (m)

4. Density (g/cm3)

5. TOC (%)

6. Porosity (%)

7. Maturity (%VR) or graptolite equivalent

8. Reservoir pressure (psi)

9. Reservoir Temperature (°C)

10. Gas saturation (%)(Sg)

11. Oil Saturation (%) So)

12. Gas generation mgHC/g TOC (Hydrogen

index)

13. Kerogen type

14. Sorption capacity VReq. - 1,9 % (mmol/g)

15. Matrix permeability (nDarcy)

16. Adsorbed gas storage capacity (scf/ton)

17. Compressibility factor (z)

18. Bg - Gas formation volume factor

19. Langmuir Pressure (pL, psi)

20. Langmuir Volume (nL, scf/ton)

Bulk mineral constituents XRD % Source

Average clay content (%)

Average quartz-feldspars content (%)

Average carbonate content (%) Mineralogy

References



2.1. Explanation to the EUOGA Critical Parameter (CP) template

2.1.1. Non-numerical parameters

Shale Name

Name of the shale layer according to local stratigraphy.

Age

Lithostratigraphic age according to local lithostratigraphy and chronostratigraphic age

according to the international chronostratigraphic chart. If possible add the local

lithostratigraphic chart as reference.

Basin

Basin name, local and/or international name in case of cross-border basin.

Structural setting

Structural setting of the basin, e.g., compressional, extensional, foreland basin, etc.

Facies variability

Lateral and horizontal complexity of the facies.

Country

Name of the country where the shale gas layer is present.

2.1.2. Numerical Parameters

1. Area (km2) Offshore; Onshore

Areal extend1 of the shale layer in square kilometre, separated into onshore and

offshore area. Only shales with an onshore component will be included in the study.

2. Thickness (gross, m)

Total thickness of the shale layer.

2a. Thickness (net, m)

Thickness of the prospective part of the shale layer.

2b. Net/Gross (%)

How much of the previously defined thickness is actually prospective in percentage.

3. Depth (m)

Average depth of the top of the shale layer.

4. Density (g/cm3)

Rock density based on measurements. Including type and number of measurements

as well as uncertainty associated with the measurements in the comments.

5. TOC (%)

Average total organic carbon content.

6. Porosity (%)

Matrix porosity based on measurements. Including type and number of measurements

as well as uncertainty associated with the measurements in the comments.

1 This area is not the same as the Assessment area /prospective area for the shale

that is defined in the assessment task of the EUOGA project (T7)



7. Maturity (%Vr)

Average maturity expressed as mean vitrinite reflectance. For Lower Palaeozoic Rock

other maturity parameters such as graptolites shall be converted following Petersen et

al. (2013).

8. Reservoir pressure (Psi)

Pressure of the reservoir in pound-force per square inch.

9. Reservoir temperature (◦C)

Temperature and pressure range based on corrected well measurements, including the

number and depth range of the measurements. If not available the general thermal

and pressure gradient including indications of overpressure is given.

10. Gas saturation (%)

The percentage of pore space that is saturated with gas. This value is generally

determined during production. Indication of the given value is based on actual

production data or based on an analogue.

11. Oil saturation (%)

The percentage of pore space that is saturated with oil. This value is generally

determined during production. Indication of the given value is based on actual

production data or based on an analogue.

12. Gas generation (HI in mgHC/gTOC)

Measured hydrogen index from pyrolysis analyses.

13. Kerogen type

Organic matter type of the source rock according to the kerogen classification (Type I,

II, III or IV).

14. Sorption capacity (mmol/g)

Sorption capacity based on measurements, including type and number of

measurements as well as uncertainty associated with the measurements in the

comments.

15. Matrix permeability (nDarcy)

Matrix permeability based on measurements, include type and number of


comments.

16. Adsorbed gas storage capacity (scf/ton)

Adsorbed gas storage capacity based on measurements, including type and number of


comments.

17. Compressibility factor (z)

The ratio of the molar volume of a gas to the molar volume of an ideal gas at the

same temperature and pressure. It is used to modify the ideal gas law to account for

the real gas behaviour.

18. Bg – Gas formation volume factor, Bo – Oil formation volume factor

Gas or oil volume increase from reservoir to surface conditions. These factors are

generally measured during production. The Bg can be calculated using the ideal gas

law modified with the compressibility factor:



Bg = (Psc *z* Tres)/(Pres * Tsc); Bo is usually measured on the actual fluid during

production tests.

19. Langmuir Pressure (Pl, psi)

Is the critical desorption pressure, or the pressure at which half of the Langmuir

volume can be adsorbed. It is obtained through measurements.

20. Langmuir volume (scf/ton)

Langmuir volume is the maximum amount of gas that can be adsorbed to the shale at

infinite pressure. It is the result of adsorption measurements on rock samples used to

describe the possible amount of adsorbed gas on the sample.

Mineralogy by XRD

Average clay content (%); Average quartz-feldspars content (%); Average carbonate

content (%).



2.1.3. Distribution functions

The distribution functions can have different shapes depending on the real distribution

of values of the described parameter. The mean values for each parameter as well as

the minimum and maximum values are given.

Figure 2. Example of five different types of distributions.



3. General and systematic descriptions of the shale layer characteristics A pre-condition for the critical parameters describing the shale layers were that results

would be based on completed templates and questionnaires from the National

Geological Surveys (NGS). The completed templates had to be delivered on time and

complying with required quality criteria and where relevant, complemented with

available literature sources. Data and information from different sources was only in a

few cases in conflict and was all solved.

Information for a total of 82 shale layers was provided by the NGS’s as part of the

screening of the European basins (Table 3). To simplify identification of the shale

layers and to insure full integration with the GIS web portal and its geodatabases the

shale layers are given a unique index value by GEUS. The screening index number,

termed critical parameter (CP) index value, starts with #1001 and runs to #10872).

A second screening index number series runs from #2001 to #2019 and include

critical parameter sheets defined by GEUS or TNO from either the literature, from

merging of several other shale layers or from analogue shales. Currently 19 sheets

exist in this series including ten North American shales characterised by Jarvie (2012)

and the Antrim shale. In this series averages composition of the EUOGA shale

(CP2014), average Lower Palaeozoic EUOGA shale (CP2016), average Carboniferous

EUOGA shale (CP2017) and average Jurassic EUOGA shale (CP2018) are presented.

A complete overview of the shale layers is presented in Table 3 and a summary of the

mean values reported for the shale layers are presented in Appendix A. A full list of

the shale layer characteristics (index 1001-1087) is presented in Appendix B.

Reference shales (index 2001-2019) are presented in Appendix C. In Appendix D a full

bibliography of the literature used in defining the critical parameters are presented.

In case of several shales being reported from the same basin the NGS’s was asked to

merge the shale layers together if geological feasible. This was done for a few basins

including the Baltic (1061 summarises 1002-1003) and Lublin (1062) basins. If shale

layers were not fully described the NGSs were asked to re-submit the description with

more data if possible. Updated data was provided several times, especially for the

Moesian Basin (Romania) and the basins in Spain. In one case a new set of critical

parameters was made by the GEUS team based on several different reported critical

parameters. This was done for the Norwegian-Danish-Swedish basin where CP2001

summarises CP1015, CP1016 and CP1019 and for Germany based on data presented

by BGR (2016), (CP2012, CP2013).

The data sources for all parameters have been compiled and the data deliveries

represent a state-of–the-art description of the current scientific based knowledge of

the European shale gas and shale oil research. The template includes 30 parameters

of which 22 can be specified with a probability density function (min, max, mean and

mode of distribution). The return ratio (calculated for numerical data as the ratio of

the number of reported mean value to the total shales layers) range between 3-100%

with an overall average for all parameters (including non-numerical information) of

50%. The reported information is in general suffice to describe the distribution

function of the TOC content (78% report a mean) and to some extent also the

porosity distributions (33% report a mean). The mineralogy of the shale layers is only

to some part full documented (36% report a mean). For nearly all shale the organic

2 In the index series eight critical parameters sheets have either been replaced, made

redundant or referrers to tight plays.



matter type is given and for about 48 shales (or 59%) the thermal maturity (% Vr) of

the shales is provided (Table 4).

Table 3. Overview of the EUOGA shale critical parameters. A full overview is presented

in Appendix A. Note that CP1049 replaces CP1036; CP1050 replaces CP1037; CP1062

replaces CP1044; CP1061 summarises CP1002-1003; CP2001 summarises CP1015,

CP1016 and CP1019. In the Vienna Basin the Mikulov Marl is characterised by the near

identical CP1018 and CP1063. CP1068 and CP1069 refer to tight gas and oil plays.

CP index Shale Name Age Basin Structural setting Facies variability Country

1001 Zebrus Lower Ordovician Baltic

Foreland basin setting. Structural

setting simple

High Lateral

continuity; facies Latvia

1002 Raikiula-Adavere Llandovery (Early Silurian) Baltic


setting simple

High Lateral

continuity; facies PL, LT, LV, EE, DK

1003

Fjäcka-Mossen

(Oandu-Vormsi) Late Ordovician (Katian) Baltic


setting simple

High Lateral

continuity; facies LT, LV, PL, DK

1004 Lemeš

Late Jurassic

(Kimmeridgian -Tithonian) Dinaric Mts.

Outer Dinarides, Intraplatform

shallow through

Moderate lateral

continuity and facies

variability. Croatia

1005

Meride Fm (Besano

Fm and Perledo mob) Ladinian Lombardy

Passive margin; synrift

extensional tectonic

High lateral and

vertical variability. IT, SW

1006

Riva di solto shales

(lower lithozone) Norian Lombardy



High lateral and

vertical variability. Italy

1007 Marne di Bruntino Aptian-Albian Lombardy



High lateral and


1008 Emma limestones

Upper Triassic-Lower

Jurassic Emma Basin



High lateral and


1009

Marne di Monte

Serrone Jurassic (Toarcian)

Umbria-Marche

Basin



High lateral and


1010 Marne a Fucoidi

Cretaceous (Aptian-

Albian)

Umbria-Marche

Basin



High lateral and


1011 Argille Lignitifere Tortonian-Messinian Ribolla Basin

extensional tectonic; opening of

the Tyrrhenian basin

High lateral and


1012 Noto Shale Rhaetian Ragusa Foreland basin

Medium facies

variability Italy

1013 Streppenosa Shale

Norian-Rhaetian-

Hettangian Ragusa Foreland basin

Medium facies

variability Italy

1014

Alum Shale

Formation

M. Cambrian - E.

Ordovician Baltic

gently dipping succession to the

south-south-east

Inner and outer shelf

black shale with Sweden

1015

Alum Shale

Formation

M. Cambrian - E.

Ordovician

Sorgenfrei Tornquist

Zone

complex. Inversion in L.

Cretaceous

Outer shelf black

shale with some Sweden

1016

Alum Shale

Formation

M. Cambrian - E.

Ordovician

Danish Basin,

Höllviken Half

Foreland basin, Complex Variscan

and Alpine wrench faulting

Outer shelf black

shale with some Sweden

1017

Alum Shale

Formation

M. Cambrian - E.

Ordovician

Fennoscandian

Shield Shield platform

Inner black shale with

limestone and Sweden

1018 Mikulov Marl Malmian (Upper Jurassic) Vienna Basin Passive margin Low lateral variability A, CZ

1019

Alum Shale

Formation

M. Cambrian - L

Ordovician Norwegian-Danish



Lateral continuity high

and facies variability Denmark

1020

Catalonian Chain

Carboniferous Carboniferous Catalonian Chain High complexity Spain

2021

Iberian Lower

Cretaceous Lower Cretaceous Iberian Medium complexity Spain

1022

Iberian

Carboniferous Carboniferous Iberian High complexity Spain

1023 Duero Carboniferous Carboniferous Duero High complexity Spain

1024 Ebro Carboniferous Carboniferous Ebro High complexity Spain

1025 Ebro Eocene Eocene Ebro Low complexity

High laterally

variability Spain

1026

Guadalquivir

Carboniferous Carboniferous Guadalquivir High complexity

High vertically. Lateral

continuity high. Spain

1027

Basque-Cantabrian

Liassic Lower Jurassic (Liassic) Basque-Cantabrian Medium complexity Laterally continuous Spain

1028

Basque-Cantabrian

Lower Cretaceous Lower Cretaceous Basque-Cantabrian Medium complexity Spain

1029

Basque-Cantabrian

Upper Cretaceous Upper Cretaceous Basque-Cantabrian Medium complexity Spain

1030

Basque-Cantabrian

Carboniferous Carboniferous Basque-Cantabrian High complexity Spain

1031

Cantabrian Massif

Carboniferous Carboniferous Cantabrian Massif High complexity

High vertically

variability Spain

1032 Pyrenees Liassic Lower Jurassic (Liassic) Pyrenees Medium complexity Laterally continuous Spain




1033

Cantabrian Massif

Silurian Silurian Cantabrian Massif High complexity Spain

1034

Pyrenees Lower

Cretaceous Lower Cretaceous Pyrenees Medium complexity Spain

1035 Pyrenees Eocene Eocene Pyrenees Low complexity

High laterally

variability Spain

1038

Tandarei graptolitic

black shales

U Ordovician U Silurian L

Devonian Moesian Platform foreland basin Lateral variability

Romania,

Bulgaria

1039

Calarasi bituminous

limestones

U Devonian- L

Carboniferous Moesian Platform foreland basin

Romania,

Bulgaria

1040

Vlasin black shale

Formation U Carboniferous Moesian Platform foreland basin Lateral variability

Romania,

Bulgaria

1041 Biogenic shale U Badenian Transilvanian back-arc basin Lateral variability Romania

1042 Biogenic shale L Sarmatian Transilvanian back-arc basin Lateral variability Romania

1043 East Ukraine shales Carboniferous to Permian

Dniprovsko-

Donetska

south-eastern part of Dniprovsko-

Donetska Depression

Moderate lateral

consistence and facial Ukraine

1045

Westphalian A and B

Formations

Westphalian A and B

(Early-Pennsylvanian) Campine Basin Foreland basin

Low to moderate

variability

Belgium,

Netherland

1046 Chokier shales

Namurian (U-

Mississippian) Mons Basin Foreland basin Complex Belgium

1047 Chokier alum shales

Namurian (U-

Mississippian) Liège Basin

Variscan orogenic front and

foreland Moderate

Belgium

(Wallonia)

1048

Chokier & Souvré hot

shales

Namurian (U

Mississippian) Campine Basin low to moderate

Belgium,

Netherland

1049 Kössen Marl

Upper Triassic, Late

Norian to Rhaetian Zala Basin Hungary

1050 Tard Clay Oligocene

Hungarian

Paleogene Hungary

1051

Lower Palaeozoic

shales

Upper Cambrian to

Llandovery

Baltic Basin

(assessment area 1) simple Lateral continuity Poland

1052

Lower Palaeozoic

shales

Upper Cambrian to

Llandovery

Płock-Warsaw zone

(assessment area 2) simple Lateral continuity Poland

1053

Lower Palaeozoic

shales

Silurian (Llandovery to

Wenlock)

Podlasie Basin and

North Lublin Basin simple to complex Lateral continuity Poland

1054

Lower Palaeozoic

shales

Silurian (Llandovery to

Wenlock)

South Lublin Basin

and Narol Basin complex Lateral continuity Poland

1055

Upper Palaeozoic

shales Carboniferous

Fore-Sudetic

Monocline complex

High lateral and

vertical variability. Poland

1056

Lower Paleozoic

shales

Silurian to Lower

Devonian

Moesian Platform,

Structural unit: extensional - passive margin Lateral continuity

Bulgaria and

Romania

1057

Upper Paleozoic

shale & coal

Lower carboniferous

(Middle Mississippian,

Moesian Platform-

North Bulgarian extension (orogeny collapse) Lateral continuity

Bulgaria and

Romania

1058

J1 shale & clay

limestones Ozirovo

Jurassic (Sinemurian -

Toarcian)

Moesian Platform -

Moesian Platform & extension (Passive margin)

lateral and vertical

continuity Bulgaria

1059

J2 shale Etropole Fm

(Stefanets Mb) Aalenian Lower Bajocian

Moesian Platform

and fore Balkan extension (Passive margin)

lateral and vertical

continuity Bulgaria

1060

Oligocene shale

Ruslar Fm (equivalent Oligocene

Kamchia basin (part

of Black Sea basin) compression (Fore deep) Lateral continuity Bulgaria

1061

Upper Ordovician-

Llandovery Shales

Late Ordovician – Silurian

(Llandovery) Baltic

foreland basin setting; structural

complexity low

lateral continuity high

and facies variability Lithuania

1062 Black shale Lower Silurian Lviv-Volyn Marine -deep marine Ukraine

1063 Mikulov Marl Malmian (Upper Jurassic)

Vienna Basin; SE

Bohemian Massif Passive margin low (basinal facies) CZ

1064

Geverik Shale

Member Namurian A

Northwest European

Carboniferous Basin

Mudstones with

sandstone

intercalations,

recurring cycles of

delta progradation.

Reasonable

correlatability Netherlands

1065

Posidonia Shale

Formation Toarcian (Jurassic)

West Netherlands

Basin/Broad 14s

Basin

Large amounts of faults, some

inverse tectonics

Low; correlatable

over entire Dutch on-

and offshore Netherlands

1066

Haloze-Špilje Fm.

Shale

Neogene: Karpatian and

Badenian

Gas mature part

Mura-Zala Basin

(NW part of the

Pannonian basin

System

Sub-basins (depressions) and

inverse antiforms

Vertical and lateral;

moderate to high

Slovenia, Austria,

Hungary, Croatia




1067

Haloze-Špilje Fm.

Shale


Badenian

Oil mature part of

Mura-Zala Basin (NW

part of the Pannonian

basin System


inverse antiforms

Vertical and lateral; moderate

to high

Slovenia, Austria,

Hungary, Croatia

1068

Haloze-Špilje Fm.

Sandstone


Badenian

Gas mature part Mura-

Zala Basin (NW part of

the Pannonian basin

System


inverse antiforms


to high

Slovenia, Austria,

Hungary, Croatia

1069

Haloze-Špilje Fm.

Sandstone


Badenian

Oil mature part of

Mura-Zala Basin (NW

part of the Pannonian

basin System


inverse antiforms


to high

Slovenia, Austria,

Hungary, Croatia

1070 Kimmeridge Clay U. Jurassic Weald Basin, SE England UK

1071

Limestone Coal

Formation

Carboniferous

(Pendleian)

Midland Valley,

Scotland UK

1072

West Lothian Oil

Shale unit Carboniferous

Midland Valley,

Scotland UK

1073

Lower Limestone

Formation Carboniferous

Midland Valley,

Scotland UK

1074 Mid Lias Clay Jurassic Weald Basin, SE England UK

1075 Oxford Clay U. Jurassic (Oxfordian) Weald Basin, SE England UK

1076 Upper Lias Clay Jurassic Weald Basin, SE England UK

1077

Bowland -Hodder

unit Carboniferous Northern England UK

1078 Corallian Clay Jurassic (Oxfordian) Weald Basin, SE England UK

1079 Gullane Unit Carboniferous

Midland Valley,

Scotland UK

1080

Permo-carboniferous

shales Westphalian to Autunian

Paris Basin, Lorraine,

Alsace, South-East Basin Post-orogenic distensive basins

High lateral variability (fluvio-

lacustrine settings) France

1081 Autunian shales Permian Autun Post-orogenic distensive basins

High lateral variability (fluvio-

lacustrine settings) France

1082 Promicroceras Shales Jurassic, Sinemurian Paris Basin Sag basin Facies variability very low France

1083 Amaltheus Shales Jurassic, Pliensbachian Paris Basin Sag basin Facies variability very low France

1084 Schistes Cartons Fm Jurassic, Toarcian

Paris Basin, Jura, South-

East sag & syn-rift

Facies variability: Lateral

continuety high and facies France, Germany

1085 Sainte Suzanne Marls Bedoulian' = Aptian Aquitaine Basin post-rift series

Facies variability: Lateral

continuety high and facies France

1086

Myslejovice Fm.

(Culm) L. Carboniferous (Visean)

Culm Basin; SE

Bohemian Massif

Variscan syntectonic foreland

basin - compressional setting moderate to low Cz

1087 Lias shales Jurassic Lusitanian Pt

2012 Posidonia Lower Jurassic Germany Germany

2013 Alaunschiefer Carboniferous Germany Germany

2001

Alum Shale

Formation

M. Cambrian-L

Ordovician Norwegian-Danish



Lateral continuity high and

facies variability low.

Summary of

1014, 1016, 1019

2002 Marcellus Devonian Appalachian North America

2003 Haynesville Late Jurassic East Texas - North

Louisiana

North America

2004 Bossier Late Jurassic East Texas - North

Louisiana

North America

2005 Barnett Mississippian Forth Worth North America

2006 Fayetteville Mississippian Arkoma North America

2007 Muskwa Devonian Horn River North America

2008 Woodford Devonian Arkoma North America

2009 Eagle Ford Cretaceous Eagle Ford North America

2010 Utica Ordovician St Lawrence North America

2011 Montney Triassic Western Canada North America

2014 Mean EUOGA Europe

2016

Mean L. Palaeozoic

EUOGA shale Europe

2017

Mean Carboniferous

EUOGA shale Europe

2018

Mean Jurassic

EUOGA shale Europe

2015

Mean N. American

Shales North America

2019 Antrim Devonian Michigan-Biogenic North America



Table 4. Overview of the return ratio, the mean composition of all EUOGA shale, L.

Palaeozoic shales, Carboniferous shales, Jurassic shales and the mean composition of

the North American shales.

EUOGA Critical Parameter (Screening

criteria)

Shales with

reported value

% of

total

Mean

EUOGA

Mean L.

Palaeozoic

EUOGA

Mean

Carbonifeous

EUOGA shale

Mean

Jurassic

EUOGA shale

Mean N.

American

Shales

Shale Name 82 100 CP2014 CP2016 CP2017 CP2018 CP2015

Age 82 100

Basin 82 100

Structural setting 67 82

Facies variability: 63 77

Country 82 100

1. Area extend (km2) 56 68 6490 9773 4662 6025

Offshore 27 33 3561 4668 4234 2579

Onshore 63 77 8111 7439 5489 19712 48692

2.Gros thickness 53 65 476 353 622 165 147

2a. Net thickness 58 71 145 192 140 162 83

2b. Net/Gross 44 54 46 68 40 35 70

3. Depth (m) 65 79 2444 2195 1875 2783 2565

4. Density (g/cm3) 53 65 2,45 2,51 2,50 2,50

5. TOC (%) 64 78 3,5 4,7 3,0 4,9 3,0

6. Porosity (%) 29 35 5,2 4,8 3,8 7,1 6,3

7. Maturity (%VR) or graptolite equivalent 49 60 1,4 1,7 1,7 0,8 1,7

8. Reservoir pressure (psi) 26 32 4331 3926 3302 8189

9. Reservoir Temperature (°C) 27 33 98 74 97 126

10. Gas saturation (%)(Sg) 20 24 28 56 14 37 63

11. Oil Saturation (%) (So) 7 9 14 5 4

12.Hydrogen index 41 50 248 255 155 373 30

13. Kerogen type 63 77 II II II-II/III II II

14. Sorption capacity @ Vr 1,9 % 2 2 0,18 0,20 0,15

15. Matrix permeability 7 9 89 70 143 5 157

16. Adsorbed gas storage capacity 14 17 47 45 43 81

17. Compressibility factor (z) 8 10 0,98 1,00 0,93

18. BgGas formation volume factor 10 12 0,0112 0,0061 0,015 0,020

19. Langmuir Pressure 6 7 1230 435 1739 1290

20. Langmuir Volume 6 7 69 36 58 170

Average clay content (%) 29 35 47 53 50 34 31

Average quartz-feldspars content (%) 29 35 32 39 39 28 44

Average carbonate content (%) 29 35 21 8 11 39 25

Bulk mineral constituents XRD



3.1. Overview of EUOGA shale layer compositions

The shale layers in Europe range in age from Cambrian to Neogene. Of all shales

about 51% are Palaeozoic, about 40% Mesozoic and about 9% is younger than

Mesozoic (Table 4). The most common geological period of all the shale layers is the

Carboniferous.

The typical EUOGA shale has a marine (typical a type II) content of 3.4% TOC. The

average depth of all layers is 2.3 km and excluding the shallow biogenic shale gas

related layers, the average depth of the thermogenic layers are 3.2 km with a range

1-6 km (Figure 3). The average maturity of the shale layers is 1.3% Vr and excluding

immature layers (<0.6% Vr) the average maturity increases to 1.5% Vr.

The thermal maturity of the shale layers show, as expected, a general increase with

increasing layer depth (Figure 3). Gas mature shales reported to be at shallow depth

is a clear indication of uplifted basins in which the shale layer after maximum burial is

brought to shallow depth. This is known to have occurred in many basins and poses a

high risk on the reservoir integrity (i.e. Schovsbo et al. 2014). Contrary to this, the

EUOGA database also shows that some deeper buried shales (>3 km) are immature or

oil mature (Figure 3). Such inconsistencies could reflect that shallow buried shale

samples incorrectly have been used to indicate the maturity in the deeper parts of the

basin. In such cases maturities either modelled or inferred from a common depth vs

maturity diagram (i.e. Figure 3) will be more reasonable to use in the hydrocarbon

system evaluation.

The average TOC content versus total net-thickness for the shale layers shows a large

range in content (Figure 4). Few shale layers were reported with less than 2% TOC

and less than 20 m net thickness which is close to or below the lower threshold for the

EUOGA project. In some cases these units were merged into thicker assessment units

if the geological conditions allowed it and if it from a hypothetical shale gas or oil

production perspective was reasonable.

Thick (>100 m net) and TOC lean (<3% TOC) shales occur in some basins in Europe

notable in some of the Carboniferous rift basins, but also in younger basins such as

the Vienna Basin. These basins are typically also prolific conventional hydrocarbon

basins. TOC rich (>6%) shale layers with low to medium thickness are another

common trend in the EUOGA database (Figure 4). Such shale layers typically

characterise some of the Lower Palaeozoic basins like the Alum Shale in the

Scandinavian Basin (T1). These formations have no North American counterpart

judging from Figure 4.

The average porosity is 4.9% for the EUOGA shales and the reported gas saturations

in the EUOGA shales is 28% and the oil saturation is 14% of the total porosity volume

(Table 4). The matrix permeability averages 89 nDarcy. These values are calculated

from a rather low number of shale layers as the amount on data in the database is

quite low (Table 4). More research and data from exploration wells is required to

broaden the understanding for these key-parameters. However, we expect that as

time progresses more data will be made public available as it has been the case for

Sweden (CP 1013-1017) where important new data has recently been release

following the shale gas exploration program made by Royal Dutch Shell in 2008-2011.



Figure 3. Comparison between mean depth and the maturity of the shale layer. Shale

layer with higher maturity than expected from the general depth vs maturity trend

have most likely experienced uplift since maturation. Shale layers with much lower

maturity than predicted from the depth relation may reflect cases where deeply buried

shales were assigned to an immature (surface?) sample. In such cases the inferred

higher maturity is more reasonable to apply. Data is presented in Appendix A.

Figure 4. Comparison between mean net shale thickness and the mean TOC content.

A few shales are characterised by low thickness and low TOC content (yellow area).

These have been merged into thickener assessment units. Within the EUOGA shales

two main trends are evident; a rather lean shale but thick (pale pink area) and a

medium thick but very TOC rick (pale yellow area). Data is presented in Appendix A.



The mineralogical composition covers a wide range of compositions and the term shale

layer is used more as a collective term for fine grained sedimentary rocks. A total of

seventeen shale layers were provided with XRD total rock component (36% of all

shale layers). Of these three shales (CP1004; CP1018 (also CP1063); CP1049) have a

total carbonate content that exceed 50%. The majority of the shale layers have total

clay content that exceeds 50%. In this group total clay may range up to 80%

(CP1043). Only one shale layer (CP1047) has a high quartz and feldspar content

reported. Three shale layers (CP1037; CP1050; CP1055) have non-clay components

that exceed the total clay content (Figure 5).

3.2. Comparison with North American thermogenic gas shales

Ten reference basins and shales presented by Jarvie (2012) have been included in

order to compare the EUOGA shale layers and basins with similar North American

cases. These North American shales are all from thermogenic shale gas resource

systems and reflect conditions within the core producing areas of each basin (Jarvie

2012). The shales and basins are listed in Table 5. Details for each layer

characteristics are presented in Appendix C where similar critical parameters sheets

(i.e. Table 2) as for the EUOGA shale layers are presented for each of the North

American shales (CP2002-2011).

The grand average of all EUOGA shale layers lies quite close to the grand average of

all the North American shales (compare CP214 and CP2015 in Table 4). An important

difference for the hydrocarbon assessment is, however, that the European shales on

average have 4.9% porosity whereas the North American shales on average have

6.3%. It must be stated that the European shales are rather poorly characterised with

respect to porosity. Furthermore the North American shale layers reflect conditions in

the core-area defined as optimal for production - an area definition that the EUOGA

database does not reflect.

The mineralogical compositions of the EUOGA shale layers are rather poorly defined.

Nevertheless, important differences are apparent between the two continents. The

mineralogy of North American shales are typical dominate by non-clay components

and thus the ratio non-clay / total clay is more than 1 (Figure 5). As a reflection of this

the compilation by Jarvie (2012) shows that out of the ten shales only one shale layer

(the Bossier – CP2004) has total clay content that exceeds 50%. In contract to this

the larger proportion of the EUOGA shale layers are clay dominated (Figure 5). Since

high clay content is known to pose engineering related difficulties during drilling,

completion and production of hydrocarbon resource plays in the North America, this is

a concern to a successful implementation of North American technologies to Europe.

The EUOGA database may not, however, reflect the composition within a hypothetical

core-producing area but nevertheless raises an aspect that merits better

characterisation and research.



Table 5. Overview of the North American thermogenic shale gas resource systems

used in the comparison with EUOGA shales. Data is presented in Appendix A and C.

Screening index Shale Name Age Basin

2002 Marcellus Devonian Appalachian

2003 Haynesville Late Jurassic East Texas - North Louisiana

2004 Bossier Late Jurassic East Texas - North Louisiana

2005 Barnett Mississippian Fort Worth

2006 Fayetteville Mississippian Arkoma

2007 Muskwa Devonian Horn River

2008 Woodford Devonian Arkoma

2009 Eagle Ford Cretaceous Eagle Ford

2010 Utica Ordovician St Lawrence

2011 Montney Triassic Western Canada

Figure 5. Comparison between the main mineralogical components. With current small

amount of data most EUOGA samples fall within the field defined as mix rock type to

high clay rich type. Most North American shales fall within the fields defined as silica

dominated to mix type dominated rock types. QF: Quartz and feldspar content. Data is

presented in Appendix A.



4. Basin overview and classification A comprehensive introduction and review of the EUOGA basins are presented in

Delivery T3 and T4 of the EUOGA project. Below is presented the association of shales

to the individual basins together with the basins and play naming procedures.

A total of 36 basins have been defined based in the EUOGA project based on data

reported by the national Geological Survey’s (NGS) (Figure 6). The lists of basins

(Tables 6, 7, 8) are made in parallel to the other tasks within EUOGA project and in

dialog with the NGS to ensure that only regional significant basins and plays is use.

Figure 6. Overview of basins defined in the EUOGA project (T1-T34, B1-B2, O1 see

Tables 6, 7, and 8). The EUOGA basins amount to about 50% of known onshore

sedimentary basins.



The EUOGA basins are grouped into 34 thermogenic basins and two biogenic basins.

For each basin one or several shale layers occur. The occurrences of shale layers

identified by its CP index number within each basin are presented in Tables 6, 7, and

8. Figure 6 shows a map of the EUOGA basins.

To simplify data handling, basins have been provided an index number. For

thermogenic basis the index number starts with #T1 and for biogenic basin the index

starts with #B1. This index number also provides a unique link to the GIS

geodatabase. In addition to the index number a “Play ID” acronym has been

developed for each combination of basin and shale layer that describes the basin

name (first letters), geological age of the shale layer(s) (the mid 4 letters) and the

name of the shale(s) (last letters). If more than one shale layer defines the play the

term “shales” is used in the play acronym.

The classification system (i.e. a basin index and a play acronym) recognises that well

known present day geographical defined basins may hold several – geological separate

– shale resource systems. We believe that the above classification system is a

pragmatic and practical approach, since it allows that several plays can be identified

within one basis such as Palaeozoic in addition to Mesozoic thermogenic/biogenic play.

Therefore, a system where basins are named by its geographical name and with a

special index refer to a specific geological layer and/or play is used.

4.1. Thermogenic basins

Basins with shale layers matured to oil or gas stage dominates the EUOGA database.

About eight basins have reported oil mature shales and six have reported gas matured

shales.

For about fifteen thermogenic basins, holding about 21 plays, data reported on the

shale layers allows for a good level of characterisation (Table 6). For 21 basins,

hosting 24 plays, the shale layers are currently evaluated to be less detailed

characterised with many missing parameters in the reported CP sheets (Table 7). For

these later group the NGS’ where asked to re-submit data and to execute the utmost

care for lowering the uncertainty on the shale layer craterisation. For more detailed

report on data quality please refer to deliverable T4 (Geological resource analysis of

shale gas and shale oil in Europe).

Data regarding tight gas and tight oil plays (i.e. 1068, 1069, reported by Slovenia

from the Pannonian basin) are registered in the database but not included as such in

the EUOGA project since it is outside the scope of the project to consider these play

types.



Table 6. Overview of thermogenic shale basins with shale layers that are described

with a high level of details. See deliverable T4 (Geological resource analysis of shale

gas and shale oil in Europe) for a more detailed report on data quality.

Basin

Index Play ID Basin Countries Shale(s) Age Maturity Screening (CP) index

T1 DKS_CaOr_Alum

Norwegian-Danish-

S. Sweden Dk, S, N Alum Shale Cambrian-Ordovician

Thermogenic gas.

Oil in Baltic area

1015, 1016, 1019 (merged

into 2001)

T2a Bal_OrSi_shales_a Baltic Lt, La, S

Fjäcka, Mossen,

Llandovery shales Ordovician-Silurian

Lt: Immature

elseOil mature

1014, 1001, 1061

(summarises 1002, 1003)

T2b Bal_OrSi_shales_b Baltic Pl

Cambrian to Silurian

shales Cambrian-Silurian

Oil - thermogenic

gas 1051

T2c Bal_OrSi_shales_c Baltic-Warsaw Pl

Ordovician to Silurian

shales

Upper Ordovician-

Silurian Thermogenic gas 1052

T2d Bal_OrSi_shales_d

Podlasie basin and

North Lublin Pl Silurian shales Silurian

Oil - thermogenic

gas 1053

T3 Lub_Sil_shales Podlasis - Lublin Pl, Ua Various shales Silurian

Oil - thermogenic

gas

1054, 1062 (replaced

1044)

T4b

Moe_UPal_shales

_b Moesian Platform Ru, Bg Calarasis

U. Devonian - Lower

Carboniferous &

Triassic

1039, 1040 (Ru); 1056,

1057, 1058, 1059, 1060

(Bg)

T5 DnD_Dev_shales Dniper-Donets Ua East Ukraine shales Upper Palaeozoic

Oil - thermogenic

gas 1043

T6 Sud_Car_shales The Fore-Sudetic Pl Carboniferous Lower Carboniferous Thermogenic gas 1055

T7a Pan_Tri_Kos Pannonia Hu Kössen Triassic

Oil - thermogenic

gas 1049 (replaced 1036)

T7b Pan_Oli_Tar Pannonia Hu Tard Oligocene

Oil - thermogenic

gas 1050 (replaced 1037)

T7c Pan_Neo_Hal

Pannonia, Mura-

Zala Sl Haloze-Špilje Fm. Shale Neogene

Oil - thermogenic

gas

1066&1068 (gas),

1067&1069 (oil)

T8 Vie_Jur_Mik Vienna At, Cz Mikulov U. Jurassic

Oil - thermogenic

gas 1018, 1063

T10a NW_Car_Gev

Northwest

European

Carboniferous NL, De Geverik, Alaunschiefer

Carboniferous,

Namurian A Thermogenic gas 1064, 2013

T10b NW_Car_Bow UK Carboniferous Uk Bowland, Hodder Carboniferous Thermogenic gas 1071, 1073, 1077

T22 Cam_Car_shales Campine Be Westphalian, Choiker Carboniferous Thermogenic gas 1045, 1048

T25a NW_Jur_Pos

Northwest

European Jurassic

Basin NL Posidonia Toarcian (Jurassic)

Oil - thermogenic

gas 1065

T26 Par_Jur_shales Paris Basin Fr Jurassic shales Toarcian (Jurassic)

Oil - thermogenic

gas 1080, 1082, 1083, 1084

T31 Des_Jur_Pos Germany south De Jurassic shales Toarcian (Jurassic)

Oil - thermogenic

gas 2012

T32 Dem_Jur_Pos Germany midt De Jurassic shales Toarcian (Jurassic)

Oil - thermogenic

gas 2012, 2013

T33 Den_Car_shales Germany North De Westphalian, Choiker Carboniferous thermogenic gas 2013



Table 7. Overview of thermogenic shale basins with shale layers described with a low

level of details. See deliverable T4 (Geological resource analysis of shale gas and shale

oil in Europe) for a more detailed report on data quality.

Basin


T4a

Moe_LPal_shales_

a Moesian Platform Ru, Bg Lower Pal Shales U. Ord-L Dev 1038 (Ru) ; 1056 (Bg)

T9 Lom_Tri_shales Lombardi It Various shales; Triassic 1005, 1006, 1007

T11b Umb_Tri_Emm Emma It Emma Late triassic 1008

T11a Umb_Tri_shales Umbria-Marche It 1009, 1010

T14 Din_Jur_Lem Dinarids HR Lemes Jurassic 1004

T15 Can_SIJu_shales Cantabria Es Cantabia shales Silurian-Jurassic

1027, 1028, 1029, 1030,

1031, 1032

T17 Ebr_CaEo_shales Ebro Es Ebro shales

Eocene,

Carboniferous 1024, 1025

T19 Ibr_CaCr_shales Iberian Es Iberian shales

Cretaceous,

Carboniferous 1021, 1022

T12 Rib_Mio_Arg Ribolla It Argille Lignitifere Miocene Oil mature 1011

T13 Rag_Tri_shales Ragusa It shales Trias not specified 1012, 1013

T16 Gua_Car_shales Guadalquivir Es

Guadalquivir

Carboniferous shales Carboniferous 1026

T18 Due_Car_shaels Duero Es Duero shales Carboniferous 1023

T20 Cat_Car_shales Catalonia Es Catalonia shales Carboniferous Thermogenic gas 1020

T21 Pyr_JuEo_shales Pyrenees Es Pyrenees shale Jurassic-Eocene 1033, 1034, 1035

T23 Mon_Car_Cho Mons Be Choiker Carboniferous 1046

T24 Lie_Car_Cho Liège Be Choiker Carboniferous 1047

T25d NW_Jur_Wea

Northwest

European Jurassic

Basin Uk Wealden Toarcian (Jurassic)

Oil - thermogenic

gas

1070, 1074, 1075, 1076,

1078

T25c NW_Jur_Pos

Northwest

European Jurassic

Basin De Posidonia Toarcian (Jurassic)

Oil - thermogenic

gas 2012

T27 Aqu_Cre_ScS Aquitaine Fr Sainte Suzanne Marls Aptian (Cretaceous) 1085

T28a SEF_Jur_Car

South Eastern

basin Fr Schistes Cartons Fm Jurassic 1084

T28b SEF_PCA_shales

South Eastern

basin Fr Permo Carboniferous

Permian-

Carboniferous 1080

T29 Jur_Jur_shales Jura Mountains Fr Jurassic shales Toarcian (Jurassic)

Oil - thermogenic

gas 1080, 1082, 1083, 1084

T30 Lus_Jur_shales Lusitanian PT Jurassic shales Lias

Oil - thermogenic

gas 1087

T34 MV_Car_Gul

Midland Valley

Scotland UK Gullane Carboniferous Thermogenic gas 1071, 1072, 1073, 1079



4.2. Biogenic Basins

Two basins were reported to host a biogenic shale gas plays (Table 8). This includes

the Transylvanian basin (B1) and the Fennoscandian shield (B2). In all cases the

shales are immature to marginal mature and buried to less than 1 km.

Table 8. Overview of biogenic shale basins and offshore basins.

4.3. Offshore Basins

Shallow offshore areas are included in the EUOGA project if it is a natural continuation

of an onshore basin. Offshore basins that fulfil the EUOGA criteria are treated together

with the onshore basin such as for the T1 basin (Danish-Norwegian–Swedish basin)

where the offshore are a natural continuation of the onshore basin. In the data

delivery from the NGS one offshore area was provided that did not form a natural

continuation of an onshore basin (the Black Sea O1, Figure 6).

Basin


B1 Tra_Neo_shales

Transilvanian

basins Ru, Hu Neogene

Immature; proven

biogenic gas 1041, 1042

B2 Fen_CaOr_Alum

Fennoscandian

shield S Alum Shale Cambrian-Ordovician

Immature; proven

biogenic gas 1017



5. References Advanced Resources International (ARI), 2013. World Shale Gas and Oil Resources

Assessment, prepared for the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the

statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy, May, 2013.

[Also cited as: Kuuskraa, V.A., Stevens, S.H., Moodhe, K.D. 2013. World Shale Gas

and Oil Resources Assessment, prepared for the U.S. Energy Information

Administration (EIA), the statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department

of Energy, May, 2013. 750 pp.]

BGR, 2016. Schieferöl und Schiefergas in Deutschland - Potenziale und

Umweltaspekte. Bundesanslt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR) Fachbereich

B1.3. 231 p.

Charpentier, R.R., Cook, T.A., 2011, USGS Methodology for Assessing Continuous

Petroleum Resources: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–1167.

Jarvie, D.M., 2012, Shale resource systems for oil and gas: Part 1—Shale-gas

resource systems. AAPG Memoir 97, 69–87.

Schovsbo, N.H., Nielsen, A.T., Klitten, K., Mathiesen, A., Rasmussen, P., 2011, Shale

gas investigations in Denmark: Lower Palaeozoic shales on Bornholm. Geological

Survey of Denmark and Greenland Bulletin 23, 9-12.

Schovsbo, N.H., Nielsen, A.T., Gautier, D.L., 2014, The Lower Palaeo-zoic shale gas

play in Denmark. Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland Bulletin 31, 19–22.

Schulz, H.-M., Biermann, S., van Berk, W., Krüger, M., Straaten, N., Bechtel, A.,

Wirth, R., Lüders, V., Schovsbo, N.H., Crabtree, S., 2015, From shale oil to biogenic

shale gas: retracing organic-inorganic inter-actions in the Alum Shale (Middle

Cambrian-Lower Ordovician) in southern Sweden. AAPG Bulletin 99, 927–956.

Petersen, H.I., Schovsbo, N.H., Nielsen, A.T., 2013, Reflectance measurements of

zooclasts and solid bitumen in Lower Palaeozoic shales, southern Scandinavia:

correlation to vitrinite reflectance. International Journal of Coal Petrology 114, 1-18.



(this page is intentionally left blank)

overview of shale layers characteristics in europe ... · of unconventional resources. delivery t6b...

Documents