TIGHT GAS SANDSTONE:
Is it Truly an Unconventional Reservoir?
| By Vinay K. Sahay and Staffan Kristian Van Dyke
1 2
1
Maheshwari Mining Pvt. Ltd.; India (email: geo_vinay@yahoo.co.in) 2 Nexen Petroleum U.S.A., Inc.; Dallas, U.S.A.
ABSTRACT
The objective of this paper is to evaluate
tight gas sandstones in relation to
conventional reservoirs (sandstones /
carbonates) as well as unconventional
reservoirs (coalbed methane / shale
gas), with reference to its constituent
petroleum system parameters: source,
trap, seal, reservoir properties (porosity
and permeability), and time factors (timing
of charge and migration). Our study
indicates significant differences between
tight gas sandstones as compared to
coalbed methane and / or gas shales.
Evaluation of geological evidences indicates
that tight gas sandstones, as a reservoir,
are closer to conventional type reservoirs
than unconventional type reservoirs, like
coalbed methane and shale gas. Utilizing
the framework described in this paper,
tight gas sandstone reservoirs should then
be considered as a sub-type category
within the overall conventional reservoir
definition, as the majority of its geological
properties fall within this definition, and
not that of an unconventional reservoir.
Characterizing tight gas sandstones
as an unconventional reservoir is not
appropriate, as the geological setting
/ petroleum system is different in
comparison to coalbed methane and shale
gas. Tight sandstone is only a reservoir
rock whereas coal and shale is source as
well as reservoir rock.
INTRODUCTION
Unconventional reservoirs are ones that
RO C K S H O P
Global Leaders in Wellsite Geology
Serving the petroleum industry for over 25 years
■■ Conventional Vertical / Horizontal Wells
■■ Unconventional Heavy Oil / CBM Wells
■■ International WSG / Operations Geology
17084
(403) 263-0449
cannot be produced at economic flow
rates or that do not produce economic
volumes of oil and gas without assistance
from massive stimulation treatments, such
as hydraulic fracturing (frac’ing) or special
recovery processes and technologies, such
as steam injection. Typically unconventional
reservoirs have been described as tight-
gas sands, coalbed methane, and gas
shales (Holditch, 2003; 2006). However
it is an economic definition and does not
take into account geological processes.
It is also important to understand that
a conventional (sandstone /carbonate)
reservoir with low natural pressure that
depletes very quickly (in the order of
weeks to months) and requires artificial
hydrocarbon recovery techniques to
maintain or increase its economic viability
is very similar to the economic definition
of an unconventional reservoir given above.
But such reservoirs are still categorized
as conventional. On the other hand, since
tight gas sandstones must be artificially
stimulated (frac’ed) in order to produce its
gas, it would then seem that this is the only
criterion in place required to categorize
it as an unconventional reservoir. The
objective of this paper is to evaluate tight
gas sandstones in relation to conventional
reservoirs (sandstones/carbonates) as
well as unconventional reservoirs (coalbed
methane / shale gas), with reference to its
constituent petroleum system parameters:
source, trap, seal, reservoir properties
(porosity and permeability), and time
factors (timing of charge and migration).
Strip Log
Horizontal Log
Mud Log
200, 900—
900—6th Ave SW, Calgary, Alberta T2P 3K2
www.rpsgroup.com/energy info@WellSight.com
COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL
AND UNCONVENTIONAL
RESERVOIRS
In the United States, the tight gas sandstone
definition is applied to reservoirs with
less than 0.1 mD of permeability (Meckel
and Thomasson, 2008). Our investigation
indicates that tight gas sandstones have
significantly different characteristics in
comparison to coal bed methane and shale
gas. They are:
1. Tight gas sandstones act purely as a
reservoir, whereas coal and shale act as a
source rock, as well as a reservoir.
2. Shanley and others (2004) found that
the low permeability reservoirs in the
Greater Green River Basin of Southwest
Wyoming were not part of a continuous-
type gas accumulation but were low-
permeability rocks in conventional
structural, stratigraphic, or combination
traps. Earlier, Berry (1959) and Hill
and others (1961) proposed that in
the San Juan Basin, the gas within the
sandstone reservoir was localized in
a potentiometric sink associated with
down-dip flow of water. In other words,
it is a hydrodynamic type trap, thus like
conventional trap settings.
3. Gas migrates into tight sandstones
from the nearby source rock and the
charged gas may be housed within the
reservoir due to high capillary pressure
(Continued on page 32...)
Log Manager
Log Viewer
Log Analysis
1-
1-800-
800-447-
447-1534 (403) 237-
237-9189
RESERVOIR ISSUE 8 • OCTOBER 2010 31
 Petroleum system and Conventional reservoirs Tight gas sandstone Coal bed methane
Shale gas reservoirs
other parameters (sandstone/carbonate) reservoirs reservoirs
Coal acts as a source rock Shale acts as a source rock
Source Present Present
and reservoir rock as well as reservoir rock
Entrapment by adsorption in coal Entrapment by adsorption in matrix of
Trap Present Present
matrix (trap not necessary) organic matter (trap not necessary)
Entrapment by adsorption in coal Entrapment by adsorption in matrix of
Seal Present Present
matrix (seal not necessary) organic matter (seal not necessary)
Essential for generation and migration Essential for generation and migration Time not essential. Time is significant
Time Factor
from source and entrapment of oil from source and entrapment of oil only in context of maturity and Similar to coal bed methane
(Timing and Migration)
and gas by trap and/or seal and gas by trap and/or seal generation of gas from organic matter
Reservoir Porosity High: > 10% Low: < 10% Low: < 10% Low: < 10%
Reservoir Permeability High: > 100 mD Low: < 0.1 mD Low: < 0.1 mD Low: < 0.1 mD
Initially due to natural reservoir
Dewatering and fracturing to
pressure (primary drive Fracturing, flooding (water,
Production decrease water pressure in coal Hydraulic fracturing
mechanism); secondary/tertiary steam), acidization
seams to release and flow gas
recovery methods to follow
Table 1. A comparison of petroleum system parameters of: tight gas sandstones, coal bed methane, shale gas, and conventional reservoirs.

(...Continued from page 31)
conditions by virtue of low porosity
and permeability, and up-dip presence
of water due to regional or local
hydrodynamic conditions, whereas in
coal and shale gas, it is adsorbed into
the matrix of organic matter (Bustin and
others, 2009).
4. Many conventional reservoirs are
porous and permeable but do not have
enough primary energy to support
hydrocarbon production unaided at an
economic level, but are still categorized as
conventional reservoirs. According to the
unconventional reservoir definition given
above, this quality should then define these
reservoirs as unconventional, primarily
because enhanced recovery techniques
are required for them to be economically
producible. Similarly, tight gas sandstone
reservoirs need enhanced recovery
techniques like fracturing, flooding, and
acidization to make them economically
viable. However, instead of categorizing
these low primary-energy conventional
reservoirs as unconventional, it is the

Practical Oil Sands Core Logging Workshop

Dates: Every second and fourth Thursday each month from September – December, 2010
Time: 8:00 – 17:00
Instructor: Dr. Greg Hu, Loring Tarcore Labs Ltd.
Fees: $375 + 5% GST, including, lunches, materials, use of computer and core logging software
Location: Loring Tarcore Labs Ltd., Bay 2 – 666 Goddard Ave NE, Calgary

This one-day short course is refined and shorten from a popular, in-house workshop that is offered to
some oil sands companies. It emphasizes “hand-on” and “practical”. Any one will find it informative, inspiring,
and practical: whether you are a geological adviser, project geologist, or core logging geologist.

Topics include:
Typical depth markers: marker types and their core and log expressions

Principles of core depth correction

Common oil sands facies and their core and log signatures

Identification of common ichnofacies on core and their significance in facies interpreation

Wabiskaw-McMurray Stratigraphy and their depositional model evolution

Common core sample types for lab testings and general sample selection guidelines

Core depth correction: core-based vs image-based with software assistance


For more information and registration, please call 403-874-4588 or visit: http://www.tarcore.com/training/

32 RESERVOIR ISSUE 8 • OCTOBER 2010

 authors’ opinion that they should remain
classified as conventional reservoirs,
and that tight gas sandstones should be
classified as a sub-type within the overall
conventional reservoir petroleum system.
5. The only correlatable property of tight
sandstones to coal and shale is their low
porosity and permeability similarity, unlike
the higher porosities and permeabilities
typically seen in conventional sandstone /
carbonate reservoirs.
The geological aspects discussed above
suggest that tight gas sandstone as
a reservoir is closer to conventional
reservoirs (sandstone / carbonates) than to
coalbed methane and shale gas reservoirs.
Table 1 summarizes the petroleum system
and other parameters with respect to tight
gas sandstones, coalbed methane, shale gas,
and conventional reservoirs to elucidate the
similarities between these reservoir types.
CONCLUSION
Evaluation of the above geological aspects
suggests that tight gas sandstones, as a
reservoir, are closer to conventional type
reservoirs than to unconventional type
reservoirs, like coalbed methane and shale
gas. It is clear that tight gas sandstones
act simply as a reservoir, whereas coal
and shale act as a source rock as well as
a reservoir for the gas. Tight sandstones
may become a hydrocarbon reservoir only
when a potential source rock is available
within the basin, or a nearby region, capable
of charging the reservoir. Utilizing the
framework described in this paper, tight gas
sandstone reservoirs should be considered
as a sub-type conventional reservoir, as the
majority of its geological and petroleum
system parameters fall within this definition,
and not that of an unconventional reservoir.
REFERENCES
Berry, F. A. F. 1959. Hydrodynamics and
chemistry of the Jurassic and Cretaceous
systems in the San Juan Basin, northwestern
New Mexico and southwestern Colorado.
Stanford University, Ph.D. thesis, 269 p.
Bustin, R. M., Bustin, A., Ross, D.,
Chalmers, G., Murthy, V., Laxmi, C., and
Cui, X. 2009. Shale gas opportunities and
challenges. Search and Discovery Article
40382. http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/
documents/2009/40382bustin/ndx_bustin.pdf
Hill, G. A., Colburn, W. A., and Knight, J.
W. 1961. Reducing oil finding costs by use
of hydrodynamic evaluations, in petroleum
exploration, gambling game or business venture.
Institute of Economic Petroleum Exploration,
Development, and Property Evaluation.
Englewood, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, p. 38-69
Holditch, S. A. 2003. The increasing role of
unconventional reservoirs in the future of the oil
and gas business. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
http://www.spe.org/jpt/print/archives/2003/11/
JPT2003_11_management.pdf
Holditch, S. A. 2006. Tight gas sands (SPE Paper
103356). Journal of Petroleum Technology, v.
58, no. 6, p. 86-94.
Meckel, L. D. and Thomasson, M. R. 2008.
Pervasive tight-gas sandstone reservoirs: An
overview. In: S. P. Cumella, K. W. Shanley, and
W. K. Camp (eds.). Understanding, exploring,
and developing tight-gas sands. 2005 Vail
Hedberg Conference. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists. Hedberg Series, no. 3,
p. 13-27.
Shanley, K. W., Cluff, R. M., and Robinson, J. W.
2004. Factors controlling prolific gas production
from low-permeability sandstone reservoirs:
Implications for resource assessment, prospect
development, and risk analysis. American
Association of Petroleum Geologist Bulletin, v.
88, p. 1083-1121.
RESERVOIR ISSUE 8 • OCTOBER 2010 33