Technically recoverable shale oil and shale gas resources: An

Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and

Shale Gas Resources: An Assessment

of 137 Shale Formations in 41

Countries Outside the United States

June 2013

dependent Statistics & Analysis

www.eia.gov

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

June 2013

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources 1

This report was prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and

analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. By law, EIA’s data, analyses, and forecasts are

independent of approval by any other officer or employee of the United States Government. The views

in this report therefore should not be construed as representing those of the Department of Energy or

other Federal agencies.

June2013

U.S.EnergyInformationAdministration|TechnicallyRecoverableShaleOilandShaleGasResources 2

Executive Summary

Thisreportprovidesaninitialassessmentofshaleoilresourcesandupdatesapriorassessmentofshale

gasresourcesissuedinApril2011.Itassesses137shaleformationsin41countriesoutsidetheUnited

States,expandingonthe69shaleformationswithin32countriesconsideredinthepriorreport.The

earlier

assessment,alsopreparedbyAdvancedResourcesInternational(ARI),wasreleasedaspartofa

U.S.EnergyInformationAdministration(EIA)reporttitledWorldShaleGasResources:An Initial

Assessmentof14RegionsoutsidetheUnitedStates.



Thereweretworeasonsforpursuinganupdatedassessmentofshaleresourcessosoonaftertheprior

report.First,geologicresearchandwelldrillingresultsnotavailableforuseinthe2011reportallowfor

amoreinformedevaluationoftheshaleformationscoveredinthatreportaswellas

othershale

formationsthatitdidnotassess.Second,whilethe2011reportfocusedexclusivelyonnaturalgas,

recentdevelopmentsintheUnitedStateshighlighttheroleofshaleformationsandothertightplaysas

sourcesofcrudeoil,leasecondensates,andavarietyofliquidsprocessedfromwetnatural gas.



AsshowninTable1,estimatesintheupdatedreporttaken inconjunctionwithEIA’sownassessmentof

resourceswithintheUnitedStatesindicatetechnicallyrecoverableresourcesof345billionbarrelsof

worldshaleoilresourcesand7,299trillioncubicfeetofworldshalegasresources.Thenewglobalshale

gasresourceestimateis10percenthigherthantheestimateinthe2011report.

Table1.Comparisonofthe2011and2013reports

ARIreportcoverage 2011Report 2013Report

Numberofcountries 32 41

Numberofbasins 48 95

Numberofformations 69 137

Technicallyrecoverableresources,includingU.S.

Shalegas(trillioncubicfeet) 6,622 7,299

Shale/tightoil(billionbarrels) 32 345

Note:The2011reportdidnotincludeshaleoil;however,theAnnualEnergy

Outlook2011

did(foronlytheU.S.)andisincludedhereforcompleteness



Althoughtheshaleresourceestimatespresentedinthisreportwilllikelychangeovertimeasadditional

informationbecomesavailable,itisevidentthatshaleresourcesthatwereuntilrecentlynotincludedin

technicallyrecoverableresourcesconstituteasubstantialshareofoverallglobaltechnicallyrecoverable

oilandnaturalgasresources.The

shaleoilresourcesassessedinthisreport,combinedwithEIA’sprior

estimateofU.S.tightoilresourcesthatarepredominantlyinshales,addapproximately11percentto

the3,012billionbarrelsofprovedandunprovedtechnically recoverablenonshaleoilresources

identifiedinrecentassessments.Theshalegasresourcesassessedinthis

report,combinedwithEIA’s

priorestimateofU.S.shalegasresources,addapproximately47percenttothe15,583trillioncubic



U.S.EnergyInformationAdministration,WorldShaleGasResources:AnInitialAssessmentof14RegionsOutsidetheUnited

States,April2011,Washington,DC

June 2013

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources 3

feet of proved and unproven nonshale technically recoverable natural gas resources. Globally, 32

percent of the total estimated natural gas resources are in shale formations, while 10 percent of

estimated oil resources are in shale or tight formations.

Table 2. Technically recoverable shale oil and shale gas unproved resources in the context of total

world resources (assessment dates shown in footnotes)

Crude oil

(billion barrels)

Wet natural gas

(trillion cubic feet)

Outside the United States

Shale oil and shale gas unproved resources

287

6,634

Other proved reserves

1,617

6,521

Other unproved resources

1,230

7,296

Total

3,134

20,451

Increase in total resources due to inclusion of shale oil and shale gas

10%

48%

Shale as a percent of total

32%

United States

EIA shale / tight oil and shale gas proved reserves

3, 4

n/a

EIA shale / tight oil and shale gas unproved resources

567

EIA other proved reserves

220

EIA other unproved resources

139

1,546

Total

223

2,431

Increase in total resources due to inclusion of shale oil and shale gas

35%

38%

Shale as a percent of total

26%

27%

Total World

Shale / tight oil and shale gas proved reserves

n/a

Shale / tight oil and shale gas unproved resources

345

7,201

Other proved reserves

1,642

6,741

Other unproved resources

1,370

8,842

Total

3,357

22,882

Increase in total resources due to inclusion of shale oil and shale gas

11%

47%

Shale as a percent of total

10%

32%

Oil & Gas Journal, Worldwide Report, December 3, 2012.

Sources: U.S. Geological Survey, An Estimate of Undiscovered Conventional Oil and Gas Resources of the World, 2012, Fact Sheet 2012-

3028, March 2012; U.S. Geological Survey, Assessment of Potential Additions to Conventional Oil and Gas Resources of the World (Outside

the United States) from Reserve Growth, 2012, Fact Sheet 2012-3052, April 2012.

U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and NG Liquids Proved Reserves With Data for 2010, Table 14. Shale

natural gas proved reserves, reserves changes, and production, wet after lease separation, 2010; year-end reserves, August 1, 2012.

Proved tight oil reserves not broken out from total year end 2010 proved reserves; will be provided in future reporting of proved

reserves.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2013 Assumptions report, Tables 9.1 through 9.5.; wet natural

gas volumes were determined by multiplying the AEO2013 dry unproved natural gas resource estimate by 1.045 so as to include NGPL.

Ibid. Table 5: Total natural gas proved reserves, reserves changes, and production, wet after lease separation, 2010; equals year-end

figure minus the wet shale gas reserves reported for the year-end.

June 2013

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources 4

Box 1: Terminology: shale oil and tight oil

Although the terms shale oil

and tight oil are often used interchangeably in public discourse, shale

formations are only a subset of all low permeability tight formations, which include sandstones and

carbonates, as well as shales, as sources of tight oil production. Within the United States, the oil and

natural gas industry typically refers to tight oil production rather than shale oil production, because it is

a more encompassing and accurate term with respect to the geologic formations producing oil at any

particular well. EIA has adopted this convention, and develops estimates of tight oil production and

resources in the United States that include, but are not limited to, production from shale formations.

The ARI assessment of shale formations presented in this report, however, looks exclusively at shale

resources and does not consider other types of tight formations.

The report covers the most prospective shale formations in a group of 41 countries that demonstrate

some level of relatively near-term promise and that have a sufficient amount of geologic data for a

resource assessment. Figure 1 shows the location of these basins and the regions analyzed. The map

legend indicates two different colors on the world map that correspond to the geographic scope of this

assessment:

• Red colored areas represent the location of basins with shale formations for which estimates of

the risked oil and natural gas in-place and technically recoverable resources were provided.

Prospective shale formations rarely cover an entire basin.

• Tan colored areas represent the location of basins that were reviewed, but for which shale

resource estimates were not provided, mainly due to the lack of data necessary to conduct the

assessment.

• White colored areas were not assessed in this report.

This is not to be confused with oil shale, which is a sedimentary rock with solid organic content (kerogen) but no resident oil

and natural gas fluids.

June 2013

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources 5

Figure 1. Map of basins with assessed shale oil and shale gas formations, as of May 2013

Source: United States basins from U.S. Energy Information Administration and United States Geological Survey; other basins

from ARI based on data from various published studies.

The estimates of technically recoverable shale oil and shale gas resources summarized in Tables 1 and 2

and presented in country-level detail in Tables 3 and 4 represent risked resources for the formations

reviewed. These estimates are uncertain given the relatively sparse data that currently exist. The

methodology is outlined below and described in more detail in the accompanying contractor report. At

the current time, there are efforts underway to develop more detailed country-specific shale gas

resource assessments. A number of U.S. federal agencies are providing assistance to other countries

under the auspices of the Unconventional Gas Technical Engagement Program (UGTEP) formerly known

as Global Shale Gas Initiative (GSGI), which the U.S. Department of State launched in April 2010.

Tables 5 and 6 provide a listing of the 10 countries holding the largest resources of shale oil and shale

gas based on this assessment of shale resources in 41 countries and prior work by EIA and USGS for the

United States.

Other U.S. government agencies that participate in the UGTEP include: the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy

(DOE/FE); the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); the U.S. Department of Interior's U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS); U.S. Department of Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM); the U.S. Department of Commerce's

Commercial Law Development Program (CLDP); and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

June 2013

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources 6

Table 3. Wet natural gas production and resources

trillion cubic feet

Region totals and selected

countries

(1)

2011 natural

gas

production

(2)

January 1, 2013

estimated proved

natural gas

reserves

(3)

2013 EIA/ARI

unproved wet shale

gas technically

recoverable

resources (TRR)

2012 USGS

conventional

unproved wet

natural gas TRR,

including reserve

growth

(4)

Total

technically

recoverable

wet natural

gas resources

Europe

145

470

184

799

Bulgaria

Denmark

France

137

Germany

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

148

Romania

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

Former Soviet Union

2,178

415

2,145

4,738

Lithuania

Russia

1,688

287

Ukraine

128

North America

403

1,685

2,223

4,312

Canada

573

Mexico

545

United States

318

567

1,546

2,431

Asia and Pacific

418

1,607

858

2,883

Australia

437

China

124

1,115

Indonesia

108

Mongolia

Thailand

South Asia

201

183

470

India

Pakistan

105

Middle East and North

Africa

26 3,117 1,003 1,651 5,772

Algeria

159

707

Egypt

100

June 2013

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources 7

Table 3. Wet natural gas production and resources (cont.)

trillion cubic feet

Region totals and

selected countries

(1)

2011 natural

gas

production

(2)

January 1, 2013

estimated

proved natural

gas reserves

(3)

2013 EIA/ARI

unproved wet

shale gas

technically

recoverable

resources (TRR)

2012 USGS

conventional

unproved wet

natural gas TRR,

including reserve

growth

(4)

Total technically

recoverable wet

natural gas

resources

Jordan

Libya

122

Morocco

Tunisia

Turkey

Western Sahara

Sub-Saharan Africa

222

390

831

1,443

Mauritania

South Africa

390

South America & Caribbean 6 269 1,430 766 2,465

Argentina

802

Bolivia

Brazil

245

Chile

Colombia

Paraguay

Uruguay

Venezuela

195

167

Subtotal of above

countries

89 3,157 7,201 NA NA

Subtotal, excluding the

United States

65 2,840 6,634 NA NA

Total World

7, 8

124

6,839

7,201

8,842

22,882

Regions totals include additional countries not specifically included in this table. Regions based on USGS regions

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3042/fs2012-3042.pdf and Figure 2.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Statistics, as of April 3, 2013.

Oil & Gas Journal, Worldwide Report, December 3, 2012.

Sources: U.S. Geological Survey,

An Estimate of Undiscovered Conventional Oil and Gas Resources of the World, 2012

, Fact

Sheet 2012-3028, March 2012; U.S. Geological Survey, Assessment of Potential Additions to Conventional Oil and Gas

Resources of the World (Outside the United States) from Reserve Growth, 2012, Fact Sheet 2012-3052, April 2012.

Includes the Kaliningrad shale gas resource estimate of 2 trillion cubic feet.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration,

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 Assumptions

report, Tables 9.1 through 9.5.;

wet natural gas volumes were determined by multiplying the AEO2013 dry unproved natural gas resource estimate by 1.045

so as to include NGPL.

Totals might not equal the sum of the components due to independent rounding.

Total of regions.

June 2013

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources 8

Table 4. Crude oil production and resources

million barrels

Region totals and

selected countries

(1)

2011 oil

production

(2)

January 1, 2013

estimated

proved oil

reserves

(3)

2013 EIA/ARI

unproved shale oil

technically

recoverable

resources (TRR)

2012 USGS

conventional

unproved oil

TRR, including

reserve growth

(4)

Total

technically

recoverable

crude oil

resources

Europe

1,537

11,748

12,900

14,638

39,286

Bulgaria

200

Denmark

805

France

4,700

Germany

254

700

Netherlands

244

2,900

Norway

733

5,366

Poland

157

3,300

Romania

600

300

Spain

150

100

Sweden

United Kingdom

426

3,122

700

Former Soviet Union

4,866

118,886

77,200

114,481

310,567

Lithuania

300

Russia

3,737

80,000

75,800

Ukraine

395

1,100

North America

6,093

208,550

80,000

305,546

594,096

Canada

1,313

173,105

8,800

Mexico

1,080

10,264

13,100

United States

3,699

25,181

58,100

139,311

222,592

Asia and Pacific

2,866

41,422

61,000

64,362

166,784

Australia

192

1,433

17,500

China

1,587

25,585

32,200

Indonesia

371

4,030

7,900

Mongolia

3,400

Thailand

152

453

South Asia

396

5,802

12,900

8,211

26,913

India

361

5,476

3,800

Pakistan

248

9,100

Middle East and North

Africa

10,986 867,463 42,900 463,407 1,373,770

Algeria

680

12,200

5,700

Egypt

265

4,400

4,600

June 2013

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources 9

Table 4. Crude oil production and resources (cont.)

million barrels

Region totals and

selected countries

(1)

2011 oil

production

(2)

January 1, 2013

estimated

proved oil

reserves

(3)

2013 EIA/ARI

unproved shale oil

technically

recoverable

resources (TRR)

2012 USGS

conventional

unproved oil

TRR, including

reserve growth

(4)

Total

technically

recoverable

crude oil

resources

Jordan

100

Libya

183

48,010

26,100

Morocco

Tunisia

425

1,500

Turkey

270

4,700

Western Sahara

200

Sub-Saharan Africa

2,264

62,553

100

140,731

203,384

Mauritania

100

South Africa

South America &

Caribbean

2,868 325,930 59,700 258,234 643,864

Argentina

279

2,805

27,000

Bolivia

210

600

Brazil

980

13,154

5,300

Chile

150

2,300

Colombia

343

2,200

6,800

Paraguay

3,700

Uruguay

600

Venezuela

909

297,570

13,400

Subtotal of above

countries

17,737 718,411 345,000 NA NA

Subtotal, excluding the

United States

14,038 693,230 286,900 NA NA

Total World

7,8

31,875

1,642,354

345,000

1,369,610

3,356,964

Regions totals include additional countries not specifically included in this table. Regions based on USGS regions

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3042/fs2012-3042.pdf and Figure 2.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Statistics, as of April 3, 2013.

Oil & Gas Journal

, Worldwide Report, December 3, 2012.

Sources: U.S. Geological Survey, An Estimate of Undiscovered Conventional Oil and Gas Resources of the World, 2012,

Fact Sheet 2012-3028, March 2012; U.S. Geological Survey, Assessment of Potential Additions to Conventional Oil and Gas

Resources of the World (Outside the United States) from Reserve Growth, 2012, Fact Sheet 2012-3052, April 2012.

Includes the Kaliningrad shale oil resource estimate of 1.2 billion barrels.

Represents unproved U.S. tight oil resources as reported in the U.S. Energy Information Administration,

Annual Energy

Outlook 2013 Assumptions report, Tables 9.1 through 9.5.

Totals might not equal the sum of the components due to independent rounding.

Total of regions.

"-" indicates zero, "0" indicates a nonzero value

June 2013

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources 10

Table 5. Top 10 countries with technically recoverable shale oil resources

Rank

Country

Shale oil

(billion barrels)

1 Russia 75

U.S.

(48)

China

Argentina

Libya

Venezuela

Mexico

Pakistan

Canada

Indonesia

World Total 345 (335)

EIA estimates used for ranking order. ARI estimates in parentheses.

Table 6. Top 10 countries with technically recoverable shale gas resources

Rank

Country

Shale gas

(trillion cubic feet)

1 China 1,115

Argentina

802

Algeria

707

U.S.

665

(1,161)

Canada

573

Mexico

545

Australia

437

South Africa

390

Russia

285

Brazil

245

World Total 7,299 (7,795)

EIA estimates used for ranking order. ARI estimates in parentheses.

When considering the market implications of abundant shale resources, it is important to distinguish

between a technically recoverable resource, which is the focus of this report, and an economically

recoverable resource. Technically recoverable resources represent the volumes of oil and natural gas

that could be produced with current technology, regardless of oil and natural gas prices and production

costs. Economically recoverable resources are resources that can be profitably produced under current

market conditions. The economic recoverability of oil and gas resources depends on three factors: the

costs of drilling and completing wells, the amount of oil or natural gas produced from an average well

over its lifetime, and the prices received for oil and gas production. Recent experience with shale gas in

June 2013

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources 11

the United States and other countries suggests that economic recoverability can be significantly

influenced by above-the-ground factors as well as by geology. Key positive above-the-ground

advantages in the United States and Canada that may not apply in other locations include private

ownership of subsurface rights that provide a strong incentive for development; availability of many

independent operators and supporting contractors with critical expertise and suitable drilling rigs and,

preexisting gathering and pipeline infrastructure; and the availability of water resources for use in

hydraulic fracturing.

Because they have proven to be quickly producible in large volumes at a relatively low cost, tight oil and

shale gas resources have revolutionized U.S. oil and natural gas production, providing 29 percent of total

U.S. crude oil production and 40 percent of total U.S. natural gas production in 2012. However, given

the variation across the world’s shale formations in both geology and above-the-ground conditions, the

extent to which global technically recoverable shale resources will prove to be economically recoverable

is not yet clear. The market effect of shale resources outside the United States will depend on their own

production costs, volumes, and wellhead prices. For example, a potential shale well that costs twice as

much and produces half the output of a typical U.S. well would be unlikely to back out current supply

sources of oil or natural gas. In many cases, even significantly smaller differences in costs, well

productivity, or both can make the difference between a resource that is a market game changer and

one that is economically irrelevant at current market prices.

EIA is often asked about the implications of abundant shale resources for natural gas and oil prices.

Because markets for natural gas are much less globally integrated than world oil markets, the rapid

growth in shale gas production since 2006 has significantly lowered natural gas prices in the United

States and Canada compared to prices elsewhere and to prices that would likely have prevailed absent

the shale boom.

Turning to oil prices, it is important to distinguish between short-term and long-term effects. The

increase in U.S. crude oil production in 2012 of 847,000 barrels per day over 2011 was largely

attributable to increased production from shales and other tight resources. That increase is likely to

have had an effect on prices in 2012. Even with that increase, global spare production capacity was low

in 2012 relative to recent historical standards – without it, global spare capacity would have been

considerably lower, raising the specter of significantly higher oil prices.

However, the situation is somewhat different in a longer-run setting, in which both global supply and

demand forces are likely to substantially reduce the sensitivity of world oil market prices to a rise in

production from any particular country or resource outside of the Organization of the Petroleum

Exporting Countries (OPEC). Undoubtedly, significant volumes of oil production from shale resources

that are economically recoverable at prices below those desired by OPEC decision-makers would add to

the challenge facing OPEC as it seeks to manage oil prices. However, the magnitude of this challenge is

probably smaller than the challenges associated with the possible success of some of its own member

countries in overcoming barriers stemming from internal discord or external constraints that have kept

their recent production well below levels that would be preferred by national governments and would

be readily supported by their ample resources. Ultimately, the possibility of significant price impacts in

response to either of these potential challenges will depend on the ability and willingness of other OPEC

June 2013

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources 12

member countries to offset the impact of higher production on prices by reducing their output or their

investment in additional production capacity. Efforts to limit the price effect of higher production could

also be supported by the demand side of the market over the long term since any persistent period of

lower prices would encourage a demand response that would tend to soften any long-term price-

lowering effects of increased production.

The methods used for estimating shale resources in the current report are similar to those used

previously. Because this report estimates shale oil resources for the first time, it distinguishes between

the oil and natural gas portions of a shale formation, which has resulted in a portion of some of the area

that was previously mapped as natural gas to now be designated as oil; consequently reducing the

natural gas resource estimate and replacing it with an oil resource estimate. Also, the current report

more rigorously applies the assessment methodology, such as the 2 percent minimum total organic

content (TOC) requirement, which in this instance reduces the prospective area and resource estimates

for some shales.

Future efforts

While the current report considers more shale formations than were assessed in the previous version, it

still does not assess many prospective shale formations, such as those underlying the large oil fields

located in the Middle East and the Caspian region. Further improvement in both the quality of the

assessments and an increase the number of formations assessed should be possible over time.

The priority of such work compared to other possible projects, including efforts to determine the likely

costs of production of oil and natural gas from shale resources around the world, will need to be

determined in the light of available budgets.

Additional Context

Development of shale resources to date

Since the release of EIA’s 2011 assessment of technically recoverable natural gas resources from

selected shale formations in 32 countries, the blossoming of interest in shale resources outside the

United States has resulted in the publication of more and better information on the geology of many

shale formations. Wells drilled in shale formations in countries such as Argentina, China, Mexico, and

Poland have also helped to clarify their geologic properties and productive potential. Therefore, the

current report incorporates more complete and better quality geologic data on many of the shale

formations examined in the first report, including areal extent, thickness, porosity, pressure, natural

faulting, and carbon content. Based on updated geologic information, a few shale formations that were

assessed in the previous report have been dropped.

It has become clear from recent developments in the United States that shale formations and other tight

plays can also produce crude oil, lease condensates, and a variety of liquids processed from wet natural

gas. For example, U.S. crude oil production rose by 847,000 barrels per day in 2012, compared with

2011, by far the largest growth in crude oil production in any country. Production from shales and

other tight plays accounted for nearly all of this increase, reflecting both the availability of recoverable

resources and favorable above-the-ground conditions for production. (For a further discussion of U.S.

shale gas and tight oil production, see Box #2.)

June 2013

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources 13

The successful investment of capital and diffusion of shale oil and shale gas technologies has continued

into Canadian shales. Canada’s tight oil production averaged 291,498 barrels per day in 2012

and its

shale gas production was 0.7 trillion cubic feet in 2012.

There has been interest expressed or

exploration activities begun in shale formations in a number of other countries, including Algeria,

Argentina, Australia, China, India, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Ukraine, and

the United Kingdom.

It is clearly important for those interested in the evolution of global markets for liquid fuels to assess the

magnitude and extent of recoverable resources from shale formations.

BOX 2: PRODUCTION FROM SHALE RESOURCES IN THE UNITED STATES

The use of horizontal drilling in conjunction with hydraulic fracturing has greatly expanded the ability of

producers to profitably produce oil and natural gas from low permeability geologic formations,

particularly shale formations. Application of fracturing techniques to stimulate oil and natural gas

production began to grow in the 1950s, although experimentation dates back to the 19th century. The

application of horizontal drilling to oil production began in the early 1980s, by which time the advent of

improved downhole drilling motors and the invention of other necessary supporting equipment,

materials, and technologies, particularly downhole telemetry equipment (i.e., measurement-while-

drilling) brought some applications within the realm of commercial viability.

The advent of large-scale shale gas production did not occur until around 2000 when shale gas

production became a commercial reality in the Barnett Shale located in north-central Texas. As

commercial success of the Barnett Shale became apparent, other companies started drilling wells in this

formation so that by 2005, the Barnett Shale alone was producing almost half a trillion cubic feet per

year of natural gas. As natural gas producers gained confidence in their ability to profitably produce

natural gas in the Barnett Shale and confirmation of this ability was provided by the results in the

Fayetteville Shale in northern Arkansas, they began pursuing the development of other shale

formations, including the Haynesville, Marcellus, Woodford, and Eagle Ford shales.

The proliferation of drilling activity in the Lower 48 shale formations has increased dry shale gas

production in the United States from 0.3 trillion cubic feet in 2000 to 9.6 trillion cubic feet in 2012, or to

40 percent of U.S. dry natural gas production. Dry shale gas reserves increased to 94.4 trillion cubic feet

by year-end 2010, when they equaled 31 percent of total natural gas reserves.

EIA’s current estimate

National Energy Board, Michael Johnson, personal correspondence on May 10, 2013.

National Energy Board, Short-term Canadian Natural Gas Deliverability 2013-2015 – Energy Market Assessment, May 2013,

Appendix C, Table C.1, pages 69-70; figure includes the Montney formation production.

Reserves refer to deposits of oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids that are proven and readily producible.

Reserves are a subset of the technically recoverable resource estimate for a source of supply. Technically

recoverable resource estimates encompass oil and gas reserves, the producible oil and natural gas that are

inferred to exist in current oil and gas fields, as well as undiscovered, unproved oil and natural gas that can be

produced using current technology. For example, EIA's estimate of all forms of technically recoverable natural gas

resources in the United States for the Annual Energy Outlook 2013 early release is 2,326.7 trillion cubic feet, of

which 542.8 trillion cubic feet consists of unproved shale gas resources. Also included in the resource total are

304.6 trillion cubic feet of proved reserves that consist of all forms of readily producible natural gas, including 94.4

trillion cubic feet of shale gas.

June 2013

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources 14

of technically recoverable dry shale gas resources is 637 trillion cubic feet, including proved reserves of

94 trillion cubic feet.

Given a total estimated U.S. dry natural gas resource of 2,335 trillion cubic feet,

shale gas resources constitute 27 percent of the domestic natural gas resource represented in the

AEO2013 projections and 36 percent of Lower 48 onshore resources.

The growth in tight oil production shows how important shale oil production has become in the United

States. U.S. tight oil production increased from an average 0.2 million barrels per day in 2000 to an

average of 1.9 million barrels per day in 2012 for 10 select formations.

The growth in tight oil

production has been so rapid that U.S. tight oil production was estimated to have reached 2.2 million

barrels per day in December 2012. Although EIA has not published tight oil proved reserves, EIA’s

current estimate of unproved U.S. tight oil resources is 58 billion barrels.

Notable changes in shale gas estimates from the 2011 report

Shale gas resource estimates for some formations were revised lower in the current report, including

those for Norway’s Alum Shale, Poland’s Lubin Basin, Mexico’s Eagle Ford Shale in the Burgos Basin,

South Africa’s Karoo Basin, and China’s Qiongzhusi Shale in the Sichuan Basin and the Lower Cambrian

shales in the Tarim Basin. As discussed below, these adjustments, based on new information in some

cases, reflect a reduced estimate of total hydrocarbon resources, while in others they reflect a

reclassification of resources previously identified as natural gas to the category of crude oil or

condensates. This discussion is not meant to be exhaustive but rather illustrative of why some of the

shale resource estimates were reduced.

Norway’s shale gas assessment dropped from 83 trillion cubic feet in 2011 to zero in the current report

because of the disappointing results obtained from three Alum Shale wells drilled by Shell Oil Company

in 2011. The Shell wells were drilled in the less geologically complex portion of the Alum Shale that

exists in Sweden, which significantly reduced the prospects for successful shale wells in the more

geologically complex portion of the Alum Shale that exists in Norway.

Poland’s Lubin Basin shale gas resource estimate was reduced from 44 trillion cubic feet in the 2011

report to 9 trillion cubic feet in this report. The resource reduction was due to the more rigorous

application of the requirement that a shale formation have at least a 2 percent minimum total organic

content (TOC). The more rigorous application of the TOC minimum requirement, along with better

control on structural complexity, reduced the prospective area from 11,660 square miles to 2,390

square miles. For Poland as a whole, the shale gas resource estimate was reduced from 187 trillion

cubic feet in the 2011 report to 148 trillion cubic feet in this report.

Source: AEO2013 Assumptions report, Tables 9.1 through 9.5.

The 10 select formations are the Austin Chalk, Bakken, Bone Springs, Eagle Ford, Granite Wash, Monterey, Niobrara/Codell,

Spraberry, Wolfcamp, and Woodford. Some of these formations have produced oil for many decades in the higher permeability

portions of the formations.

Op. Cit. AEO2013

June 2013

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources 15

In Mexico, the Eagle Ford Shale gas resource estimate in Burgos Basin was reduced from 454 trillion

cubic feet in the 2011 report to 343 trillion cubic feet in this report. Based on better geologic data

regarding the areal extent of the formation, the prospective shale area was reduced from 18,100 square

miles in the 2011 report to 17,300 square miles. A portion of the 17,300 square miles is prospective for

oil, which reduced the area prospective for natural gas. Cumulatively, these changes resulted in a lower

shale gas resource estimate for the Burgos Basin’s Eagle Ford formation, while adding oil resources.

In South Africa, the prospective area for the three shale formations in the Karoo Basin was reduced by

15 percent from 70,800 square miles to 60,180 square miles. This reduction in the prospective area was

largely responsible for the lower South African shale gas resource estimate shown in this report. The

Whitehill Shale’s recovery rate and resource estimate were also reduced because of the geologic

complexity caused by igneous intrusions into that formation. For South Africa as a whole, the shale gas

resource estimate was reduced from 485 trillion cubic feet in the 2011 report to 390 trillion cubic feet in

this report.

In China, better information regarding the total organic content and geologic complexity resulted in a

reduction of the shale gas resource in the Qiongzhusi formation in the Sichuan Basin and Lower

Cambrian shales in the Tarim Basin. The Qiongzhusi Shale gas resource estimate was reduced from 349

trillion cubic feet in the 2011 report to 125 trillion cubic feet in this report. The lower estimate resulted

from the prospective area being reduced from 56,875 square miles to 6,500 square miles. Similarly, the

prospective area of the Lower Cambrian shales was reduced from 53,560 square miles in 2011 to 6,520

square miles in the current report, resulting in a reduction in the shale gas estimate from 359 trillion

cubic feet in 2011 to 44 trillion cubic feet now. For China as a whole, the shale gas resource estimate

was reduced from 1,275 trillion cubic feet in the 2011 report to 1,115 trillion cubic feet in this report.

Methodology

The shale formations assessed in this report were selected for a combination of factors that included the

availability of data, country-level natural gas import dependence, observed large shale formations, and

observations of activities by companies and governments directed at shale resource development. Shale

formations were excluded from the analysis if one of the following conditions is true: (1) the geophysical

characteristics of the shale formation are unknown; (2) the average total carbon content is less than 2

percent; (3) the vertical depth is less than 1,000 meters (3,300 feet) or greater than 5,000 meters

(16,500 feet), or (4) relatively large undeveloped oil or natural gas resources.

The consultant relied on publicly available data from technical literature and studies on each of the

selected international shale gas formations to first provide an estimate of the “risked oil and natural gas

in-place,” and then to estimate the unproved technically recoverable oil and natural gas resource for

that shale formation. This methodology is intended to make the best use of sometimes scant data in

order to perform initial assessments of this type.

The risked oil and natural gas in-place estimates are derived by first estimating the volume of in-place

resources for a prospective formation within a basin, and then factoring in the formation’s success

factor and recovery factor. The success factor represents the probability that a portion of the formation

is expected to have attractive oil and natural gas flow rates. The recovery factor takes into

June 2013

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources 16

consideration the capability of current technology to produce oil and natural gas from formations with

similar geophysical characteristics. Foreign shale oil recovery rates are developed by matching a shale

formation’s geophysical characteristics to U.S. shale oil analogs. The resulting estimate is referred to as

both the risked oil and natural gas in-place and the technically recoverable resource. The specific tasks

carried out to implement the assessment include:

1. Conduct a preliminary review of the basin and select the shale formations to be assessed.

2. Determine the areal extent of the shale formations within the basin and estimate its overall

thickness, in addition to other parameters.

3. Determine the prospective area deemed likely to be suitable for development based on depth, rock

quality, and application of expert judgment.

4. Estimate the natural gas in-place as a combination of free gas

and adsorbed gas

that is contained

within the prospective area. Estimate the oil in-place based on pore space oil volumes.

5. Establish and apply a composite success factor made up of two parts. The first part is a formation

success probability factor that takes into account the results from current shale oil and shale gas

activity as an indicator of how much is known or unknown about the shale formation. The second

part is a prospective area success factor that takes into account a set of factors (e.g., geologic

complexity and lack of access) that could limit portions of the prospective area from development.

6. For shale oil, identify those U.S. shales that best match the geophysical characteristics of the foreign

shale oil formation to estimate the oil in-place recovery factor.

For shale gas, determine the

recovery factor based on geologic complexity, pore size, formation pressure, and clay content, the

latter of which determines a formation’s ability to be hydraulically fractured. The gas phase of each

formation includes dry natural gas, associated natural gas, or wet natural gas. Therefore, estimates

of shale gas resources in this report implicitly include the light wet hydrocarbons that are typically

coproduced with natural gas.

7. Technically recoverable resources

represent the volumes of oil and natural gas that could be

produced with current technology, regardless of oil and natural gas prices and production costs.

Technically recoverable resources are determined by multiplying the risked in-place oil or natural

gas by a recovery factor.

Based on U.S. shale production experience, the recovery factors used in this report for shale gas

generally ranged from 20 percent to 30 percent, with values as low as 15 percent and as high as 35

percent being applied in exceptional cases. Because of oil’s viscosity and capillary forces, oil does not

flow through rock fractures as easily as natural gas. Consequently, the recovery factors for shale oil are

typically lower than they are for shale gas, ranging from 3 percent to 7 percent of the oil in-place with

exceptional cases being as high as 10 percent or as low as 1 percent. The consultant selected the

Free gas is natural gas that is trapped in the pore spaces of the shale. Free gas can be the dominant source of

natural gas for the deeper shales.

Adsorbed gas is natural gas that adheres to the surface of the shale, primarily the organic matter of the shale,

due to the forces of the chemical bonds in both the substrate and the natural gas that cause them to attract.

Adsorbed gas can be the dominant source of natural gas for the shallower and higher organically rich shales.

The recovery factor pertains to percent of the original oil or natural gas in-place that is produced over the life of a production

well.

Referred to as risked recoverable resources in the consultant report.

June 2013

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources 17

recovery factor based on U.S. shale production recovery rates, given a range of factors including

mineralogy, geologic complexity, and a number of other factors that affect the response of the geologic

formation to the application of best practice shale gas recovery technology. Because most shale oil and

shale gas wells are only a few years old, there is still considerable uncertainty as to the expected life of

U.S. shale wells and their ultimate recovery. The recovery rates used in this analysis are based on an

extrapolation of shale well production over 30 years. Because a shale’s geophysical characteristics vary

significantly throughout the formation and analog matching is never exact, a shale formation’s resource

potential cannot be fully determined until extensive well production tests are conducted across the

formation.

Key exclusions

In addition to the key distinction between technically recoverable resources and economically

recoverable resources that has been already discussed at some length, there are a number of additional

factors outside of the scope of this report that must be considered in using its findings as a basis for

projections of future production. In addition, several other exclusions were made for this report to

simplify how the assessments were made and to keep the work to a level consistent with the available

funding.

Some of the key exclusions for this report include:

• Tight oil produced from low permeability sandstone and carbonate formations that can often

be found adjacent to shale oil formations. Assessing those formations was beyond the scope of

this report.

• Coalbed methane and tight natural gas and other natural gas resources that may exist within

these countries were also excluded from the assessment.

• Assessed formations without a resource estimate, which resulted when data were judged to be

inadequate to provide a useful estimate. Including additional shale formations would likely

increase the estimated resource.

• Countries outside the scope of the report, the inclusion of which would likely add to estimated

resources in shale formations. It is acknowledged that potentially productive shales exist in

most of the countries in the Middle East and the Caspian region, including those holding

substantial nonshale oil and natural gas resources.

• Offshore portions of assessed shale oil and shale gas formations were excluded, as were shale

oil and shale gas formations situated entirely offshore.

The U.S. shale experience and international shale development

This report treats non-U.S. shales as if they were homogeneous across the formation. If the U.S.

experience in shale well productivity is replicated elsewhere in the world, then it would be expected

that shale formations in other countries will demonstrate a great deal of heterogeneity, in which the

geophysical characteristics vary greatly over short distances of a 1,000 feet or less. Shale heterogeneity

over short distances is demonstrated in a recent article that shows that oil and natural gas production

performance varies considerably across the fractured stages of a horizontal lateral and that a significant

June 2013

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources 18

number of fractured stages do not produce either oil or natural gas; in some cases, up to 50 percent of

the fractured stages are not productive.

The authors of that article noted that:

“…a study including the production logs from 100 horizontal wells showed an enormous

discrepancy in production between perforation clusters that is likely due to rock

heterogeneity.”

One reason why 3,000-to-5,000-foot horizontal laterals are employed in the United States is to increase

the likelihood that a portion of the horizontal lateral will be sufficiently productive to make the well

profitable.

Because of shale rock heterogeneity over short distances, neighboring well productivity varies

significantly, and well productivity across the formation varies even more. Shale formation productivity

also varies by depth. For example, Upper Bakken Member shale wells are less productive than Lower

Bakken Member shale wells.

Shale heterogeneity also means that some areas across the shale formation can have relatively high

productivity wells (also known as sweet spots), while wells in other regions have commensurately lower

productivities. However, because productivity also varies significantly for wells located in the same

neighborhood, a single well test cannot establish a formation’s productivity or even the productivity

within its immediate neighborhood. This complicates the exploration phase of a shale’s development

because a company has to weigh the cost of drilling a sufficient number of wells to determine the local

variation in well productivity against the risk that after drilling enough wells, the formation under the

company’s lease still proves to be unprofitable.

For those foreign shales that are expected to have both natural gas-prone and oil-prone portions,

formation heterogeneity means that there could be an extended transition zone across a shale

formation from being all or mostly natural gas to being mostly oil. The best example of this gradual and

extended transition from natural gas to oil is found in the Eagle Ford Shale in Texas, where the distance

between the natural gas-only and mostly-oil portions of the formation are separated by 20 to 30 miles,

depending on the location. This transition zone is important for two reasons.

First, a well’s production mix of oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids can have a substantial impact on

that well’s profitability both because of the different prices associated with each component and

because liquids have multiple transportation options (truck, rail, barge, pipeline), whereas large volumes

of natural gas are only economic to transport by pipeline. Because many countries have large natural

gas deposits that well exceed the indigenous market’s ability to consume that natural gas (e.g., Qatar),

the shale gas is of no value to the producer and is effectively stranded until a lengthy pipeline or LNG

Society of Petroleum Engineers, Journal of Petroleum Technology, Utpal Ganguly and Craig Cipolla (Schlumberger),

“Multidomain Data and Modeling Unlock Unconventional Reservoir Challenges,” August 2012, pages 32-37; see Figure 2 for the

variation in productivity along the fractured stages of four wells.

Of course, there will be instances where the geophysical properties of a single well rock sample are so poor (e.g. high clay

content, low porosity, low carbon content) or a well production test is so discouraging that the company abandons any further

attempts in that portion of the formation.

June 2013

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources 19

export terminal has been built to transport the natural gas to a country with a larger established

consumption market.

Second, the production of shale oil requires that at least 15 percent to 25 percent of the pore fluids be

in the form of natural gas so that there is sufficient gas-expansion to drive the oil to the well-bore. In

the absence of natural gas to provide reservoir drive, shale oil production is problematic and potentially

uneconomic at a low production rate. Consequently, producer drilling activity that currently targets oil

production in the Eagle Ford shale is primarily focused on the condensate-rich portion of the formation

rather than those portions that have a much greater proportion of oil and commensurately less natural

gas.

Shale formation heterogeneity also somewhat confounds the process of testing alternative well

completion approaches to determine which approach maximizes profits. Because of the potential

variation in neighboring well productivity, it is not always clear whether a change in the completion

design is responsible for the change in well productivity. Even a large well sample size might not resolve

the issue conclusively as drilling activity moves through inherently higher and lower productivity areas.

Shale formation heterogeneity also bears on the issue of determining a formation’s ultimate resource

potential. Because companies attempt to identify and produce from the high productivity areas first,

the tendency is for producers to concentrate their efforts in those portions of the formation that appear

to be highly productive, to the exclusion of much of the rest of the formation. For example, only about

1 percent of the Marcellus Shale has been production tested. Therefore, large portions of a shale

formation could remain untested for several decades or more, over which time the formation’s resource

potential could remain uncertain.

June 2013

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources 20

Figure 2. U.S. Geological Survey oil and gas resource assessment regions

Source: http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/WEcont/WEMap.pdf

WORLD SHALE GAS AND SHALE OIL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

Prepared for:

U.S. Energy Information Administration

At the U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC

Prepared by

Vello A. Kuuskraa, President;

Scott H. Stevens, Sr. Vice President;

Keith D. Moodhe, Sr. Consultant

ADVANCED RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL, INC.

May 17, 2013

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May 17, 2013

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STUDY RESULTS .................................................................................................... 1-1

STUDY METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................... 2-1

I. CANADA ....................................................................................................................................................... I-1

II. MEXICO....................................................................................................................................................... II-1

III. AUSTRALIA ................................................................................................................................................ III-1

IV. N. SOUTH AMERICA ................................................................................................................................ IV-1

V. ARGENTINA ................................................................................................................................................ V-1

VI. BRAZIL ....................................................................................................................................................... VI-1

VII. OTHER S. SOUTH AMERICA ................................................................................................................... VII-1

VIII. POLAND (Including Lithuania and Kaliningrad) ........................................................................................ VIII-1

IX. RUSSIA ...................................................................................................................................................... IX-1

X. EASTERN EUROPE (Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine)..................................................................................... X-1

XI. UNITED KINGDOM .................................................................................................................................... XI-1

XII. SPAIN ........................................................................................................................................................ XII-1

XIII. NORTHERN AND WESTERN EUROPE .................................................................................................. XIII-1

XIV. MOROCCO (Including Western Sahara and Mauritania) ........................................................................ XIV-1

XV. ALGERIA ................................................................................................................................................... XV-1

XVI. TUNISIA....................................................................................................................................................

XVI-1

II. LIBYA....................................................................................................................................................... XVII-1

XVIII. EGYPT.................................................................................................................................................... XVIII-1

XIX. SOUTH AFRICA ....................................................................................................................................... XIX-1

XX. CHINA........................................................................................................................................................ XX-1

XXI. MONGOLIA .............................................................................................................................................. XXI-1

XXII. THAILAND ............................................................................................................................................... XXII-1

XXIII. INDONESIA ............................................................................................................................................ XXIII-1

XXIV. INDIA/PAKISTAN .................................................................................................................................. XXIV-1

XXV. JORDAN ................................................................................................................................................. XXV-1

XXVI. TURKEY ................................................................................................................................................ XXVI-1

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May 17, 2013 1-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STUDY RESULTS

The “World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment”, conducted by Advanced

Resources International, Inc. (ARI) for the U.S. DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA),

evaluates the shale gas and shale oil resource in 26 regions, containing 41 individual countries,

Figure 1. The assessment did not include the United States, but for completeness we have

included in the Executive Summary our internal estimates of shale gas and shale oil resources

for the U.S., extracted from ARI’s proprietary shale resource data base.

The information provided in this report should be viewed as the second step on a

continuing pathway toward a more rigorous understanding and a more comprehensive

assessment of the shale gas and shale oil resources of the world. This report captures our

latest view of the in-place and technically recoverable shale gas and shale oil in the 95 shale

basins and 137 shale formations addressed by the study.

Figure 1. Assessed Shale Gas and Shale Oil Basins of the World

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May 17, 2013 1-2

The twenty-six chapters of the report discuss our current understanding of the quantity

and quality of shale gas and shale oil resources in the 41 assessed countries, Table 1. Initial

shale exploration is underway in many of these countries. New geologic and reservoir data

collected by these industry and research drilling programs will enable future assessments of

shale gas and shale oil resources to progressively become more rigorous.

Table 1. Scope of “EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment”

Continent Region

Number of

Countries

Number of

Basins

Number of

Shale

For

mations

I. Canada 1 12 13

II. Mexico 1 5 8

Subtotal 2 17 21

Australia III. Australia 1 6 11

IV. N. South America 2 3 3

V. Argentina 1 4 6

VI. Brazil 1 3 3

VII. Other S. South America 4 3 4

Subtotal 8 13 16

VIII. Poland* 3 5 5

IX. Russia 1 1 2

X. Other Eastern Europe 3 3 4

Subtotal 7 9 11

XI. UK 1 2 2

XII. Spain 1 1 1

XIII. Other Western Europe 5 5 10

Subtotal 7 8 13

Europe Total 14 17 24

XIV. Morocco** 3 2 2

XV. Algeria 1 7 11

XVI. Tunisia 1 1 2

XVII. Libya 1 3 5

XVIII. Egypt 1 4 4

XIX. South Africa 1 1 3

Subtotal 8 18 27

XX. Chi na 1 7 18

XXI. Mongolia 1 2 2

XXII. Thailand 1 1 1

XXIII. Indonesia 1 5 7

XXIV. India/Pakistan 2 5 6

XXV. Jordan 1 2 2

XXV I. Turk e y 1 2 2

Subtotal 8 24 38

41 95 137

*Includes Lithuania and Kaliningrad. **Includes Western Sahara & Mauritania

Total

North

America

South

America

Eastern

Europe

Western

Europe

Africa

Asia

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May 17, 2013 1-3

When reviewing the shale gas and shale oil resource assessments presented in this

report, it is important to consider these three points:

 First, the resource assessments in the individual regional and country chapters are

only for the higher quality, “prospective areas” of each shale gas and shale oil basin.

The lower quality and less defined areas in these basins, which likely hold additional

shale resources, are not included in the quantitatively assessed and reported values.

 Second, the in-place and technically recoverable resource values for each shale gas

and shale oil basin have been risked to incorporate: (1) the probability that the shale

play will (or will not) have sufficiently attractive flow rates to become developed; and

(2) an expectation of how much of the prospective area set forth for each shale basin

and formation will eventually be developed. (Attachment B provides a listing of the

risk factors used in this shale resource assessment study.)

 We benefited greatly from the major new efforts on assessing and pursuing shale

gas and shale oil resources, stimulated in part by the 2011 EIA/ARI study in

countries such as Algeria, Argentina and Mexico, among many others.

No doubt, future exploration will lead to changes in our understanding and assessments

of the ultimate size and recoverability of international shale gas and shale oil resources. We

would encourage the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which commissioned this unique,

“cutting edge” shale gas and shale oil resource assessment, to incorporate the new exploration

and resource information that will become available during the coming years, helping keep this

world shale resource assessment “evergreen”.

SUMMARY OF STUDY FINDINGS

Although the exact in-place and technically recovered resource numbers will change

with time, our work to date shows that the world shale gas and shale oil resource is vast.

 Shale Gas Resources. Overall, for the 41 countries assessed in the EIA/ARI study,

we identified a total risked shale gas in-place of 31,138 Tcf. Of this total,

approximately 6,634 Tcf is considered the risked, technically recoverable shale gas

resource, not including the U.S., Table 2A. Adding the U.S. shale gas resource

increases the assessed shale gas in-place and technically recoverable shale gas

resources of the world to 35,782 Tcf and 7,795 Tcf, respectively.

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May 17, 2013 1-4

 Shale Oil Resources. The previous EIA/ARI study did not assess shale oil

resources, thus the 2013 report represents a major new expansion of scope. In this

EIA/ARI assessment, we identified a total risked shale oil in-place of 5,799 billion

barrels, with 286.9 billion barrels as the risked, technically recoverable shale oil

resource, not including the U.S., Table 2B. Adding the U.S. shale oil resource

increases the assessed shale oil in-place and technically recoverable shale oil

resources of the world to 6,753 billion barrels and 335 billion barrels, respectively.

Two-thirds of the assessed, technically recoverable shale gas resource is concentrated

in six countries - - U.S., China, Argentina, Algeria, Canada and Mexico. As shown on Figure 2,

the top ten countries account for over 80% of the currently assessed, technically recoverable

shale gas resources of the world.

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

concentrated in six countries - - Russia, U.S., China, Argentina, Libya and

$XVWUDOLD. The top

en countries, listed on Figure 2, account for about three-quarters of the currently assessed,

technically recoverable shale oil resources of the world.

Importantly, much of this shale resource exists in countries with limited endowments of

conventional oil and gas supplies such as South Africa, Jordan and Chile or resides in countries

where conventional hydrocarbon resources have largely been depleted, such as Europe.

Table 2A. Risked Shale Gas In-Place and Technically Recoverable: Seven Continents

Continent

Risked

Gas In

-Place

(Tcf)

Risked Technically

Recoverable

(Tcf)

North America (Ex. U.S.) 4,647 1,118

Australia 2,046 437

South America 6,390 1,431

Europe 4,895 883

Africa 6,664 1,361

Asia 6,495 1,403

Sub-Total 31,138 6,634

U.S. 4,644 1,161

TOTAL 35,782 7,795

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May 17, 2013 1-5

Table 2B. Risked Shale Oil In-Place and Technically Recoverable: Seven Continents

Continent

Risked

Oil In-Place

(B bbl)

Risked Technically

Recoverable

(B bbl)

North America (Ex. U.S.) 437 21.9

Australia 403 17.5

South America 1,152 59.7

Europe 1,551 88.6

Africa 882 38.1

Asia 1,375 61.1

Sub-Total 5,799 286.9

U.S. 954 47.7

TOTAL 6,753 334.6

The tabulation of shale resources at the country-level (excluding the U.S.) is provided in

Table 3. More detailed information on the size of the shale gas and shale oil resource, at the

basin- and formation-level, is provided in Attachment A.

Significant additional shale gas and shale oil resources exist in the Middle East, Central

Africa and other countries not yet included in our study. Hopefully, future editions of this report

will address these important potential shale resource areas.

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment



May 17, 2013 1-6

Figure 2. Assessed World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resources (42 Countries, including U.S.)













EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May 17, 2013 1-7

Table 3. Risked Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resources In-Place and Technically Recoverable,

41 Countries Assessed in the EIA/ARI Study

Continent Region Country

Risked Gas

In-Place

(Tcf)

Technically

Recoverable

(Tcf)

Risked Oil

In-Place

(Billion bbl)

Technically

Recoverable

(Billion bbl)

2,413 573 162 8.8

2,233 545 275 13.1

4,647 1,118 437 21.9

Australia 2,046 437 403 17.5

Colombia 308 55 120 6.8

Venezuela 815 167 269 13.4

1,123 222 389 20.2

3,244 802 480 27.0

1,279 245 134 5.3

Bolivia 154 36 11 0.6

Chile 228 48 47 2.3

Paraguay 350 75 77 3.7

Uruguay 13 2 14 0.6

744 162 150 7.2

6,390 1,431 1,152 59.7

Poland 763 148 65 3.3

Lithuania 4 0 5 0.3

Kaliningrad 20 2 24 1.2

1,921 285 1,243 74.6

Bulgaria 66 17 4 0.2

Romania 233 51 6 0.3

Ukraine 572 128 23 1.1

872 195 33 1.6

134 26 17 0.7

42 8 3 0.1

France 727 137 118 4.7

Germany 80 17 14 0.7

Netherlands 151 26 59 2.9

Denmark 159 32 0 0.0

Sweden 49 10 0 0.0

1,165 221 190 8.3

Europe 4,895 883 1,551 88.6

95 20 5 0.2

3,419 707 121 5.7

114 23 29 1.5

942 122 613 26.1

535 100 114 4.6

1,559 390 0 0.0

6,664 1,361 882 38.1

4,746 1,115 644 32.2

55 4 85 3.4

22 5 0 0.0

303 46 234 7.9

India 584 96 87 3.8

Pakistan 586 105 227 9.1

35 7 4 0.1

163 24 94 4.7

6,495 1,403 1,375 61.1

31,138 6,634 5,799 286.9

*Includes Western Sahara & Mauritania

Grand Total

Asia

XX. Ch i n a

XXI. Mongolia

XXII. Thailand

XXIII. Indonesia

XXIV. India/Pakistan

XXV. Jordan

XXV I. Tu r k e y

Total

XII. Spain

XIII. Other Western Europe

Subtotal

Africa

XIV. Morocco*

XV. Algeria

XVI. Tunisia

XVII. Libya

XVIII. Egypt

XIX. South Africa

Total

Western

Europe

XI. UK

VII. Other S. South America

Subtotal

Total

Eastern

Europe

VIII. Poland

IX. Russia

X. Other Eastern Europe

Subtotal

South

America

IV. N. South America

Subtotal

V. Argentina

VI. Brazil

North

America

I. Canada

II. Mexic o

Total

III. Australia

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May 17, 2013 1-8

COMPARISON OF STUDY FINDINGS

Since the publication of the first EIA/ARI shale gas resource assessment in 2011,

considerable new information has become available, helping provide a more rigorous resource

assessment. New basins and countries have been added to the list. Data from more recently

drilled exploration wells have helped constrain the resource size and quality - - sometimes

increasing and sometimes reducing the resource estimates. With new information, some areas

of prospective shale basins previously placed in the “gas window” are now classified as wet

gas/condensate. In addition, associated gas from shale oil plays has been incorporated into the

shale gas resource estimate.

Table 4 provides a comparison of the world shale gas resources included in the current

(year 2013) EIA/ARI assessment with the initial EIA/ARI shale gas resource assessment

published in 2011.

Table 5 provides a more detailed comparison and discussion of the differences between

the 2011 and the current (2013) EIA/ARI estimates of risked, technically recoverable shale gas

resources for 16 selected countries.

Table 4. Comparison of 2011 EIA/ARI Study and

Current EIA/ARI Study of Assessed World Shale Gas Resources

2011

2013

Risked Risked

Continent Recoverable Recoverable

(Tcf) (Tcf)

North America (Ex. U.S.) 1,069 1,118

Australia 396 437

South America 1,225 1,431

Europe 624 883

Africa 1,042 1,361

Asia 1,404 1,403

Total 5,760 6,634

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May 17, 2013 1-9

Table 5. Selected Comparison of 2011 and Current EIA/ARI Estimates

of World Shale Gas Resources

Risked, Technically Recoverable

Shale Gas Resources (Tcf)

Discussion

April 2011 Report

May 2013 Report

1. North America

• Canada

388

573

7 basins vs. 12 basins.

• Mexico

681

545

Better data on areal extent.

2. South America

• Argentina 774

802

Improved dry and wet gas areal

definitions.

• Brazil

226

245

New dedicated chapter.

• Venezuela 11

167

Included associated gas; better

data.

3. Europe

• Poland 187

148

Higher TOC criterion, better data

on Ro.

• France

180

137

Better data on SE Basin in France.

• Norway 83

Eliminated speculative area for

Alum Shale.

• Ukraine

128

Added major basin in Ukraine.

• Russia

285

New dedicated chapter.

4. Africa

• Algeria

230

707

1 basin vs. 7 basins.

• Libya 290

122

Higher TOC criterion; moved area

to oil.

• South Africa 485

390

Reduced area due to igneous

intrusions.

• Egypt

100

New dedicated chapter.

5. Asia

• China

1,225

1,115

Better data; higher TOC criterion.

• India/Pakistan 114

201

Expanded assessment for

Pakistan.

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May 17, 2013 1-10

Beyond the resource numbers, the current EIA/ARI “World Shale Gas and Shale Oil

Resource Assessment” represents a major step-forward in terms of the depth and “hard data” of

the resource information assembled for 137 distinct shale formations and 95 shale basins in 41

countries. In Table 6, we strive to more fully convey the magnitude of differences in these two

shale resource assessments.

Table 6. Comparison of Scope and Coverage,

EIA/ARI 2011 and 2013 World Shale Gas Resource Assessments

EIA/ARI 2011 Report

EIA/ARI 2013 Report

No. of Regions (Chapters)

No. of Countries

No. of Basins

No. of Formations

137

Resource Coverage

• Shale Gas



• Shale Oil

Not requested



No. of Pages

355

~700

No. of Original Maps

~70

~200

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May 17, 2013

Attachment A

Size of Assessed Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resources,

at Basin- and Formation-Levels

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

Attachment A

Size of Assessed Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resources, at Basin- and Formation-Levels

May 17, 2013 Attachment A-1

Continent Region Ba sin Formation

Risked Gas

In-Place

(Tcf)

Technically

Recoverable

(Tcf)

Risked Oil

In-Place

(Billion bbl)

Technically

Recoverable

(Billion bbl)

Muskwa/Otter Park 376 94 0 0.0

Evie/Klua 154 39 0 0.0

Cordova Muskwa/Otter Park 81 20 0 0.0

Liard Lower Besa River 526 158 0 0.0

Deep Basin Doig Phosphate 101 25 0 0.0

Alberta Basin Banff/Exshaw 5 0 11 0.3

East and West Shale Basin Duvernay 483 113 67 4.0

Deep Basin North Nordegg 72 13 20 0.8

NW Alberta Area Muskwa 142 31 42 2.1

Southern Alberta Basin Colorado Group 286 43 0 0.0

Williston Basin Bakken 16 2 22 1.6

Appalachian Fold Belt Utica 155 31 0 0.0

Windsor Basin Horton Bluff 17 3 0 0.0

Eagle Ford Shale 1,222 343 106 6.3

Tithonian Shales 202 50 0 0.0

Eagle Ford Shale 501 100 0 0.0

Tithonian La Casita 118 24 0 0.0

Tampico Pimienta 151 23 138 5.5

Tamaulipas 9 1 13 0.5

Pimienta 10 1 12 0.5

Veracruz Maltrata 21 3 7 0.3

Roseneath-Epsilon-Murteree (Nappamerri) 307 89 17 1.0

Roseneath-Epsilon-Murteree (Patchawarra) 17 4 9 0.4

Roseneath-Epsilon-Murteree (Tenappera) 1 0 3 0.1

Maryborough Goodwood/Cherwell Mudstone 64 19 0 0.0

Carynginia 124 25 0 0.0

Kockatea 44 8 14 0.5

Canning Goldwyer 1,227 235 244 9.7

L. Arthur Shale (Dulcie Trough) 41 8 3 0.1

L. Arthur Shale (Toko Trough) 27 5 22 0.9

M. Velkerri Shale 94 22 28 1.4

L. Kyalla Shale 100 22 65 3.3

Australia

Cooper

Perth

Georgina

Beetaloo

North America

Canada

Mexico

Horn River

Burgos

Sabinas

Tuxpan

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

Attachment A

Size of Assessed Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resources, at Basin- and Formation-Levels

May 17, 2013 Attachment A-2

Continent Region Basin Formation

Risked Gas

In-Place

(Tcf)

Technically

Recoverable

(Tcf)

Risked Oil

In-Place

(Billion bbl)

Technically

Recoverable

(Billion bbl)

Middle Magdalena Valley La Luna/Tablazo 135 18 79 4.8

Llanos Gacheta 18 2 13 0.6

Colombia/Venezuela Maracaibo Basin La Luna/Capacho 970 202 297 14.8

Los Molles 982 275 61 3.7

Vaca Muerta 1,202 308 270 16.2

Aguada Bandera 254 51 0 0.0

Pozo D-129 184 35 17 0.5

Austral-Magallanes Basin L. Inoceramus-Magnas Verdes 605 129 131 6.6

Parana Basin Ponta Grossa 16 3 0 0.0

Parana Basin Ponta Grossa 450 80 107 4.3

Solimoes Basin Jandiatuba 323 65 7 0.3

Amazonas Basin Barreirinha 507 100 19 0.8

Paraguay Ponta Grossa 46 8 14 0.5

Uruguay Cordobes 13 2 14 0.6

Paraguay/Bolivia Chaco Basin Los Monos 457 103 75 3.8

Chile Austral-Magallanes Basin Estratos con Favrella 228 48 47 2.3

Baltic Basin/Warsaw Trough Llandovery 532 105 25 1.2

Lublin Llandovery 46 9 0 0.0

Podlasie Llandovery 54 10 12 0.6

Fore Sudetic Carboniferous 107 21 0 0.0

Lithuania/Kaliningrad Baltic Basin Llandovery 24 2 29 1.4

West Siberian Central Bazhenov Central 1,196 144 965 57.9

West Siberian North Bazhenov North 725 141 278 16.7

Carpathian Foreland Basin L. Silurian 362 72 0 0.0

Dniepr-Donets L. Carboniferous 312 76 23 1.1

Ukraine/Romania L. Silurian 48 10 2 0.1

Romania/Bulgaria Etropole 148 37 8 0.4

N. UK Carboniferous Shale Region Carboniferous Shale 126 25 0 0.0

S. UK Jurassic Shale Region Lias Shale 8 1 17 0.7

Spain Cantabrian Jurassic 42 8 3 0.1

Lias Shale 24 2 38 1.5

Permian-Carboniferous 666 127 79 3.2

Southeast Basin Lias Shale 37 7 0 0.0

Posidonia 78 17 11 0.5

Wealden 2 0 3 0.1

Epen 94 15 47 2.4

Geverik Member 51 10 6 0.3

Posidonia 7 1 5 0.3

Sweden Alum Shale - Sweden 49 10 0 0.0

Denmark Alum Shale - Denmark 159 32 0 0.0

Paris Basin

Lower Saxony

West Netherlands Basin

Scandinavia Region

Western Europe

France

Germany

Netherlands

Eastern Europe

Poland

Russia

Ukraine

Moesian Platform

South America

Colombia

Argentina

Brazil

Neuquen

San Jorge Basin

Parana Basin

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

Attachment A

Size of Assessed Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resources, at Basin- and Formation-Levels

May 17, 2013 Attachment A-3

Continent Region Basin Formation

Risked Gas

In-Place

(Tcf)

Technically

Recoverable

(Tcf)

Risked Oil

In-Place

(Billion bbl)

Technically

Recoverable

(Billion bbl)

Tindouf L. Silurian 75 17 5 0.2

Tadla L. Silurian 20 3 0 0.0

Frasnian 496 106 78 3.9

Tannezuft 731 176 9 0.5

Illizi Tannezuft 304 56 13 0.5

Mouydir Tannezuft 48 10 0 0.0

Frasnian 50 9 5 0.2

Tannezuft 256 51 0 0.0

Frasnian 467 93 0 0.0

Tannezuft 295 59 0 0.0

Frasnian 94 16 6 0.2

Tannezuft 542 105 8 0.3

Tindouf Tannezuft 135 26 2 0.1

Tannezuft 45 11 1 0.0

Frasnian 69 12 28 1.4

Tannezuft 240 42 104 5.2

Frasnian 36 5 26 1.3

Sirte/Rachmat Fms 350 28 406 16.2

Etel Fm 298 45 51 2.0

Murzuq Tannezuft 19 2 27 1.3

Shoushan/Matruh Khatatba 151 30 17 0.7

Abu Gharadig Khatatba 326 65 47 1.9

Alamein Khatatba 17 1 14 0.6

Natrun Khatatba 42 3 36 1.4

Prince Albert 385 96 0 0.0

Whitehill 845 211 0 0.0

Collingham 328 82 0 0.0

Ghadames

Sirte

Karoo Basin

Ghadames/Berkine

Ahnet

Timimoun

Reggane

Ghadames

Africa

Morocco

Algeria

Tunisia

Libya

Egypt

South Africa

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

Attachment A

Size of Assessed Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resources, at Basin- and Formation-Levels

May 17, 2013 Attachment A-4

Continent Region Basin Formation

Risked Gas

In-Place

(Tcf)

Technically

Recoverable

(Tcf)

Risked Oil

In-Place

(Billio

n bbl)

Technically

Recoverable

(Billio

n bbl)

Qiongzhusi 500 125 0 0.0

Longmaxi 1,146 287 0 0.0

Permian 715 215 0 0.0

L. Cambrian 181 45 0 0.0

L. Silurian 415 104 0 0.0

Niutitang/Shuijintuo 46 11 0 0.0

Longmaxi 28 7 1 0.0

Qixia/Maokou 40 10 5 0.2

Mufushan 29 7 0 0.0

Wufeng/Gaobiajian 144 36 5 0.2

U. Permian 8 2 1 0.1

L. Cambrian 176 44 0 0.0

L. Ordovician 377 94 0 0.0

M.-U. Ordovician 265 61 31 1.6

Ketuer 161 16 129 6.5

Pingdiquan/Lucaogou 172 17 109 5.4

Triassic 187 19 134 6.7

Songliao Basin Qingshankou 155 16 229 11.5

East Gobi Tsagaantsav 29 2 43 1.7

Tamtsag Tsagaantsav 26 2 43 1.7

Thailand Khorat Basin Nam Duk Fm 22 5 0 0.0

C. Sumatra Brown Shale 41 3 69 2.8

S. Sumatra Talang Akar 68 4 136 4.1

Naintupo 34 5 0 0.0

Meliat 25 4 1 0.0

Tabul 4 0 11 0.3

Kutei Balikpapan 16 1 17 0.7

Bintuni Aifam Group 114 29 0 0.0

Cambay Basin Cambay Shale 146 30 54 2.7

Krishna-Godavari Permian-Triassic 381 57 20 0.6

Cauvery Basin Sattapadi-Andimadam 30 5 8 0.2

Damodar Valley Barren Measure 27 5 5 0.2

Sembar 531 101 145 5.8

Ranikot 55 4 82 3.3

Hamad Batra 33 7 0 0.0

Wadi Sirhan Batra 2 0 4 0.1

SE Anatolian Dadas 130 17 91 4.6

Thrace Hamitabat 34 6 2 0.1

Total 31,138 6,634 5,799 286.9

Turkey

Tarakan

Lower Indus

Asia

China

Sichuan Basin

Yangtze Platform

Jianghan Basin

Greater Subei

Tarim Basin

Junggar Basin

Mongolia

Indonesia

India

Pakistan

Jordan

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May 17, 2013

Attachment B

Risk Factors Used for Shale Gas and Shale Oil Formations

in the EIA/ARI Resource Assessment

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

Attachment B

Risk Factors Used for Shale Gas and Shale Oil Formations in the EIA/ARI Resource Assessment

May 17, 2013 Attachment B-1

Continent Region Basin Formation

Play

Success

Factor

Prospective

Area Success

Factor

Composite

Success

Factor

Muskwa/Otter Park 100% 75% 75%

Evie/Klua 100% 75% 75%

Cordova Muskwa/Otter Park 100% 60% 60%

Liard Lower Besa River 100% 50% 50%

Deep Basin Doig Phosphate 100% 50% 50%

Alberta Basin Banff/Exshaw 100% 40% 40%

East and West Shale Basin Duvernay 100% 70% 70%

Deep Basin North Nordegg 100% 50% 50%

NW Alberta Area Muskwa 100% 50% 50%

Southern Alberta Basin Colorado Group 80% 35% 28%

Williston Basin Bakken 100% 60% 60%

Appalachian Fold Belt Utica 100% 40% 40%

Windsor Basin Horton Bluff 100% 40% 40%

Eagle Ford Shale 100% 60% 60%

Tithonian Shales 60% 50% 30%

Eagle Ford Shale 80% 50% 40%

Tithonian La Casita 60% 30% 18%

Tampico Pimienta 70% 50% 35%

Tamaulipas 70% 50% 35%

Pimienta 70% 50% 35%

Veracruz Maltrata 70% 75% 53%

Roseneath-Epsilon-Murteree (Nappamerri) 100% 75% 75%

Roseneath-Epsilon-Murteree (Patchawarra) 100% 60% 60%

Roseneath-Epsilon-Murteree (Tenappera) 100% 60% 60%

Maryborough Goodwood/Cherwell Mudstone 75% 50% 38%

Carynginia 100% 60% 60%

Kockatea 100% 60% 60%

Canning Goldwyer 75% 40% 30%

L. Arthur Shale (Dulcie Trough) 75% 50% 38%

L. Arthur Shale (Toko Trough) 75% 50% 38%

M. Velkerri Shale 100% 50% 50%

L. Kyalla Shale 100% 50% 50%

Australia

Cooper

Perth

Georgina

Beetaloo

North America

Canada

Horn River

Mexico

Burgos

Sabinas

Tuxpan

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

Attachment B

Risk Factors Used for Shale Gas and Shale Oil Formations in the EIA/ARI Resource Assessment

May 17, 2013 Attachment B-2

Continent Region Basin Formation

Play

Success

Factor

Prospective

Area Success

Factor

Composite

Success

Factor

Middle Magdalena Valley La Luna/Tablazo 80% 70% 56%

Llanos Gac

heta 55% 45% 25%

Colombia/Venezuela Maracaibo Basin La Luna/Capacho 70% 50% 35%

Los Molles 100% 50% 50%

Vaca Muerta 100% 60% 60%

Aguada Bandera 50% 40% 20%

Pozo D-129 60% 40% 24%

Austral-Magallanes Basin L. Inoceramus-Magnas Verdes 75% 60% 45%

Parana Basin Ponta Grossa 40% 30% 12%

Solimoes Basin Jandiatuba 50% 30% 15%

Amazonas Basin Barreirinha 50% 30% 15%

Paraguay Ponta Grossa 40% 30% 12%

Uruguay Cordobes 40% 40% 16%

Paraguay/Bolivia Chaco Basin Los Monos 50% 30% 15%

Chile Austral-Magallanes Basin Estratos con Favrella 75% 60% 45%

Baltic Basin/Warsaw Trough Llandovery 100% 40% 40%

Lublin Llandovery 60% 35% 21%

Podlasie Llandovery 60% 40% 24%

Fore Sudetic Carboniferous 50% 35% 18%

Lithuania/Kaliningrad Baltic Basin Llandovery 80% 40% 32%

West Siberian Central Bazhenov Central 100% 45% 45%

West Siberian North Bazhenov North 75% 35% 26%

Carpathian Foreland Basin L. Silurian 50% 40% 20%

Dniepr-Donets L. Carboniferous 50% 40% 20%

Ukraine/Romania L. Silurian 55% 40% 22%

Romania/Bulgaria Etropole 50% 35% 18%

N. UK Carboniferous Shale Region Carboniferous Shale 60% 35% 21%

S. UK Jurassic Shale Region Lias Shale 80% 40% 32%

Spain Cantabrian Jurassic 80% 50% 40%

Lias Shale 100% 50% 50%

Permian-Carboniferous 80% 40% 32%

Southeast Basin Lias Shale 60% 30% 18%

Posidonia 100% 60% 60%

Wealden 75% 60% 45%

Epen 75% 60% 45%

Geverik Member 75% 60% 45%

Posidonia 75% 60% 45%

Sweden Alum Shale - Sweden 60% 50% 30%

Denmark Alum Shale - Denmark 60% 40% 24%

Lower Saxony

Netherlands

West Netherlands Basin

Scandinavia Region

Western Europe

France

Paris Basin

Germany

Eastern Europe

Poland

Russia

Ukraine

Moesian Platform

South America

Colombia

Argentina

Neuquen

San Jorge Basin

Brazil

Parana Basin

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

Attachment B

Risk Factors Used for Shale Gas and Shale Oil Formations in the EIA/ARI Resource Assessment

May 17, 2013 Attachment B-3

Continent Region Ba sin Formation

Play

Success

Factor

Prospective

Area Success

Factor

Composite

Success

Factor

Tindouf L. Silurian 50% 40% 20%

Tadla L. Silurian 50% 50% 25%

Frasnian 100% 50% 50%

Tannezuft 100% 50% 50%

Illizi Tannezuft 50% 40% 20%

Mouydir Tannezuft 50% 40% 20%

Frasnian 50% 40% 20%

Tannezuft 50% 40% 20%

Frasnian 50% 40% 20%

Tannezuft 50% 40% 20%

Frasnian 50% 40% 20%

Tannezuft 50% 40% 20%

Tindouf Tannezuft 50% 40% 20%

Tannezuft 100% 65% 65%

Frasnian 100% 65% 65%

Tannezuft 100% 50% 50%

Frasnian 100% 50% 50%

Sirte/Rachmat Fms 80% 50% 40%

Etel Fm 80% 50% 40%

Murzuq Tannezuft 100% 50% 50%

Shoushan/Matruh Khatatba 80% 60% 48%

Abu Gharadig Khatatba 80% 60% 48%

Alamein Khatatba 70% 35% 25%

Natrun Khatatba 70% 35% 25%

Prince Albert 50% 30% 15%

Whitehill 60% 40% 24%

Collingham 50% 30% 15%

Egypt

South Africa

Karoo Basin

Tunisia

Ghadames

Libya

Ghadames

Sirte

Africa

Morocco

Algeria

Ghadames/Berkine

Ahnet

Timimoun

Reggane

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

Attachment B

Risk Factors Used for Shale Gas and Shale Oil Formations in the EIA/ARI Resource Assessment

May 17, 2013 Attachment B-4

Continent Region Basin Formation

Play

Success

Fac

tor

Prospective

Area Success

Fac

tor

Composite

Success

Fac

tor

Qiongzhusi 100% 70% 70%

Longmaxi 100% 70% 70%

Permian 60% 50% 30%

L. Cambrian 80% 70% 56%

L. Silurian 80% 70% 56%

Niutitang/Shuijintuo 60% 40% 24%

Longmaxi 60% 40% 24%

Qixia/Maokou 50% 40% 20%

Mufushan 40% 30% 12%

Wufeng/Gaobiajian 40% 30% 12%

U. Permian 40% 30% 12%

L. Cambrian 50% 70% 35%

L. Ordovician 50% 65% 33%

M.-U. Ordovician 50% 50% 25%

Ketuer 50% 50% 25%

Pingdiquan/Lucaogou 60% 60% 36%

Triassic 60% 60% 36%

Songliao Basin Qingshankou 100% 50% 50%

East Gobi Tsagaantsav 40% 50% 20%

Tamtsag Tsagaantsav 40% 50% 20%

Thailand Khorat Basin Nam Duk Fm 50% 30% 15%

C. Sumatra Brown Shale 75% 60% 45%

S. Sumatra Talang Akar 50% 35% 18%

Naintupo 40% 50% 20%

Meliat 40% 50% 20%

Tabul 40% 50% 20%

Kutei Balikpapan 40% 40% 16%

Bintuni Aifam Group 40% 40% 16%

Cambay Basin Cambay Shale 100% 60% 60%

Krishna-Godavari Permian-Triassic 75% 60% 45%

Cauvery Basin Sattapadi-Andimadam 50% 50% 25%

Damodar Valley Barren Measure 80% 50% 40%

Sembar 40% 30% 12%

Ranikot 40% 30% 12%

Hamad Batra 100% 40% 40%

Wadi Sirhan Batra 100% 40% 40%

SE Anatolian Dadas 100% 60% 60%

Thrace Hamitabat 60% 60% 36%

India

Pakistan

Lower Indus

Asia

China

Sichuan Basin

Yangtze Platform

Jianghan Basin

Greater Subei

Tarim Basin

Jordan

Turkey

Junggar Basin

Mongolia

Indonesia

Tarakan

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

Attachment C

May 17, 2013 Attachment C-1

Estimates of U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resources Extracted from

Advanced Resources International’s Proprietary Shale Resource Data Base

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

Attachment C

May 17, 2013 Attachment C-2

Estimates of U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resources Extracted from

Advanced Resources International’s Proprietary Shale Resource Data Base

BACKGROUND

While not within the scope of work of the EIA/ARI study of world shale gas and shale oil

resources, for purposes of completeness we have provided information from Advanced

Resources International’s (ARI) proprietary shale resource data base on U.S. shale gas and

shale oil resources.

The overall estimate of 1,161 Tcf of risked, technically recoverable wet and dry shale

gas for the U.S. represents an aggregation of information from 15 shale basins and 70 distinct

and individually addressed plays, Table B-1. For example, the resource estimate for the major

Marcellus Shale play in the Appalachian Basin is the sum of eight individually assessed plays,

where each play has been partitioned to capture differences in geologic and reservoir conditions

and in projected well performance across this vast basin. (We used an average shale gas

recovery factor of 25% to estimate the U.S. shale gas resource in-place.)

The overall estimate of 47.7 billion barrels of risked, technically recoverable shale oil and

condensate for the U.S. represents an aggregation of information from 8 shale basins and 35

distinct and individually assessed plays, Table A-1. (We used an average shale oil recovery

factor of 5% to estimate the U.S. shale oil resource in-place.)

For completeness, the U.S. has already produced 37 Tcf of shale gas plus modest

volumes of shale oil/condensate, from major shale plays such as the Barnett, Fayetteville and

Bakken, among others. These volumes of past shale gas and shale oil production are not

included in the above remaining reserve and undeveloped shale resource values.

Advanced Resources has plans for performing a major update of its shale gas and shale

oil resource base this year, incorporating emerging shale resource plays such as the

Tuscaloosa Marine Shale in Louisiana, the Eaglebrine (Woodbine/Eagle Ford) in East Texas,

and the Mancos Shale in the San Juan Basin.

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

Attachment C

May 17, 2013 Attachment C-3

Table A-1. U.S. Remaining Shale Gas Reserves and Undeveloped Resources

Remaining Remaining

Reser

ves and Reserves and

Distinct Undeveloped Distinct Undeveloped

Plays Resources Plays Resources

(#) (Tcf) (#) (Billion Barrels)

1. Northeast

▪ Marcellus 8 369 2 0.8

▪ Utica 3 111 2 2.5

▪ Other 3 29 - -

2. Southeast

▪ Haynesville 4 161 - -

▪ Bossier 2 57 - -

▪ Fayetteville 4 48 - -

3. Mid-Continent

▪ Woodford* 9 77 5 1.9

▪ Antrim 1 5 - -

▪ New Albany 1 2 - -

4. Texas

▪ Eagle Ford 6 119 4 13.6

▪ Barnett** 5 72 2 0.4

▪ Permian*** 9 34 9 9.7

5. Rockies/Great Plains

▪ Niobrara**** 8 57 6 4.1

▪ Lewis 1 1 - -

▪ Bakken/Three Forks 6 19 5 14.7

TOTAL 70 1161 35 47.7

Resources

Shale Gas

Shale Oil

*Woodford includes Ardmore, Arkoma and Anadarko (Cana) basins.

**Barnett includes the Barnett Combo.

***Permian includes Avalon, Cline and Wolfcamp shales in the Delaware and Midland sub-basins.

****Niobrara Shale play includes Denver, Piceance and Powder River basins.

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May 17, 2013 Attachment D-1

Attachment D

Authors of “World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment”

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

Attachment D

Authors of “World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment”

May 17, 2013 Attachment D-2

Study Authors

Three individuals, each a long-term member of Advanced Resources International, Inc.,

are the authors of this “International Shale Gas Resource Assessment”, namely: Vello A.

Kuuskraa, President; Scott H. Stevens, Sr. Vice President; and Keith Moodhe, Sr. Consultant.

Messrs. Kuuskraa, Stevens and Moodhe (plus Tyler Van Leeuwen) were the primary authors of

the previous (April, 2011) version of the world shale gas resource assessment.

In addition, numerous EIA, DOE, DOI, USGS and State Department staff provided

valuable review and comments throughout the development of this study. In particular staff from

EIA included Aloulou Fawzi (project manager), Philip Budzik, Margaret Coleman, Troy Cook,

David Daniels, Robert King, Gary Long, James O’Sullivan, A. Michael Schaal, John Staub, and

Dana Van Wagener. We are appreciative of their thoughtful input.

Vello A. Kuuskraa, President of Advanced Resources International, Inc. (ARI), has over 40

years of experience assessing unconventional oil and gas resources. Mr. Kuuskraa headed

the team that prepared the 1978, three volume report entitled “Enhanced Recovery of

Unconventional Gas” for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that helped guide

unconventional gas R&D and technology development efforts during the formative period

1978-2000. He is a member of the Potential Gas Committee and has authored over 100

technical papers on energy resources. Mr. Kuuskraa is a 2001 recipient of the Ellis Island

Medal of Honor that recognizes individuals for exceptional professional contributions by

America's diverse cultural ancestry. He currently serves on the Board of Directors of

Southwestern Energy Company (SWN), on the Board of Directors for Research Partnership to

Secure Energy for America (RPSEA) and on the National Petroleum Council. Mr. Kuuskraa

holds a M.B.A., Highest Distinction from The Wharton Graduate School and a B.S., Applied

Mathematics/ Economics; from North Carolina State University.

Scott H. Stevens, Sr. Vice President of Advanced Resources International, Inc. (ARI), has 30

years of experience in unconventional gas and oil resources. Mr. Stevens advises Major oil

companies, governments, and financial industry clients on shale gas/oil and coalbed methane

investments in North America and abroad. After starting his career with Getty and Texaco in

1983 working the liquids-

rich Monterey shale deposit in California, Stevens joined ARI in 1991.

He has initiated or evaluated hundreds of unconventional oil & gas drilling projects in the USA,

Australia, Chile, China, Indonesia, Poland, and other countries. Mr. Stevens holds a B.A. in

Geology (Distinction) from Pomona College, an M.S. in Geological Science from Scripps

Institution of Oceanography, and an A.M. in Regional Studies – East Asia (Economics and

Chinese) from Harvard University.

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

Attachment D

Authors of “World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment”

May 17, 2013 Attachment D-3

Keith Moodhe, Sr. Consultant with Advanced Resources International, Inc. (ARI ), has eight

years of experience with unconventional resources in the U.S. and globally. He is an expert in

geographic information system (GIS) mapping and analysis of shale gas/oil and coalbed

methane geologic and reservoir properties. During his career he has constructed a geologic

data base of shale properties in China; assessed the shale and CBM resource potential of

major basins in Southeast Asia, Indonesia, Australia, and South America; and conducted

geologic and GIS analysis of domestic and global shale resources for the U.S. Energy

Information Administration (EIA) and various industry and investment firms. Mr. Moodhe holds

a B.S. in Geology with a minor in Economics from the College of William & Mary.

EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May, 17, 2013 2-1

SHALE GAS AND SHALE OIL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

This report sets forth Advanced Resources’ methodology for assessing the in-place and

recoverable shale gas and shale oil resources for the EIA/ARI “World Shale Gas and Shale Oil

Resource Assessment.” The methodology relies on geological information and reservoir

properties assembled from the technical literature and data from publically available company

reports and presentations. This publically available information is augmented by internal (non-

confidential) proprietary prior work on U.S. and international shale gas and shale oil resources

by Advanced Resources International.

The report should be viewed as an initial step toward future, more comprehensive

assessments of shale gas and shale oil resources. As additional exploration data are gathered,

evaluated and incorporated, the assessments of shale oil and gas resources will become more

rigorous.

RESOURCE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The methodology for conducting the basin- and formation-level assessments of shale

gas and shale oil resources includes the following five topics:

1. Conducting preliminary geologic and reservoir characterization of shale basins and

formation(s).

2. Establishing the areal extent of the major shale gas and shale oil formations.

3. Defining the prospective area for each shale gas and shale oil formation.

4. Estimating the risked shale gas and shale oil in-place.

5. Calculating the technically recoverable shale gas and shale oil resource.

Each of these five shale gas and shale oil resource assessment steps is further

discussed below. The shale gas and shale oil resource assessment for Argentina’s Neuquen

Basin is used to illustrate certain of these resource assessment steps.

Study Methodology EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May, 17, 2013 2-2

1. Conducting Preliminary Geologic and Reservoir Characterization of

Shale Basins and Formation(s).

The resource assessment begins with the compilation of data from multiple public and

private proprietary sources to define the shale gas and shale oil basins and to select the major

shale gas and shale oil formations to be assessed. The stratigraphic columns and well logs,

showing the geologic age, the source rocks and other data, are used to select the major shale

formations for further study, as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 for the Neuquen Basin of

Argentina.

Preliminary geological and reservoir data are assembled for each major shale basin and

formation, including the following key items:

 Depositional environnent of shale (marine vs non-marine)

 Depth (to top and base of shale interval)

 Structure, including major faults

 Gross shale interval

 Organically-rich gross and net shale thickness

 Total organic content (TOC, by wt.)

 Thermal maturity (Ro)

These geologic and reservoir properties are used to provide a first order overview of the

geologic characteristics of the major shale gas and shale oil formations and to help select the

shale gas and shale oil basins and formations deemed worthy of more intensive assessment.

Study Methodology EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May, 17, 2013 2-3

Figure 1: Prospective Shale Basins of Argentina

Study Methodology EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May, 17, 2013 2-4

Figure 2. Neuquen Basin Stratigraphy

The Vaca Muerta and Los Molles are Jurassic-age shale formations.

Modified from Howell, J., et al., 2005

LOS MOLLES FM

VACA MUERTA FM

Study Methodology EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May, 17, 2013 2-5

2. Establishing the Areal Extent of Major Shale Gas and Shale Oil

Formations.

Having identified the major shale gas and shale oil formations, the next step is to

undertake more intensive study to define the areal extent for each of these formations. For this,

the study team searches the technical literature for regional as well as detailed, local cross-

sections identifying the shale oil and gas formations of interest, as illustrated by Figure 3 for the

Vaca Muerta and Los Molles shale gas and shale oil formations in the Neuquen Basin. In

addition, the study team draws on proprietary cross-sections previously prepared by Advanced

Resources and, where necessary, assembles well data to construct new cross-sections.

The regional cross-sections are used to define the lateral extent of the shale formation in

the basin and/or to identify the regional depth and gross interval of the shale formation.

Figure 3: Neuquen Basin SW-NE Cross Section

(Structural settings for the two shale gas and shale oil formations, Vaca Muerta and Los Molles)

Mosquera et al., 2009

LOS MOLLES FM

VACA MUERTA FM

PALEOZOIC BASMENT

A A’

SW NE

FRONTAL

SYNCLINE

HUINCUL

ARCH

Los Molles Gas

Los Molles Oil

Vaca Muerta Oil

Vaca Muerta Gas

Vaca Muerta Hydrocarbon Migration Pathways

Los Molles Hydrocarbon Migration Pathways

LOS MOLLES FM

VACA MUERTA FM

PALEOZOIC BASMENT

A A’

SW NE

FRONTAL

SYNCLINE

HUINCUL

ARCH

Los Molles Gas

Los Molles Oil

Vaca Muerta Oil

Vaca Muerta Gas

Vaca Muerta Hydrocarbon Migration Pathways

Los Molles Hydrocarbon Migration Pathways

Study Methodology EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May, 17, 2013 2-6

3. Defining the Prospective Area for Each Shale Gas and Shale Oil

Formation.

An important and challenging resource assessment step is to establish the portions of

the basin that, in our view, are deemed to be prospective for development of shale gas and

shale oil. The criteria used for establishing the prospective area include:

 Depositional Environment. An important criterion is the depositional environment of

the shale, particularly whether it is marine or non-marine. Marine-deposited shales

tend to have lower clay content and tend to be high in brittle minerals such as quartz,

feldspar and carbonates. Brittle shales respond favorably to hydraulic stimulation.

Shales deposited in non-marine settings (lacustrine, fluvial) tend to be higher in clay,

more ductile and less responsive to hydraulic stimulation.

Figure 4 provides an illustrative ternary diagram useful for classifying the mineral

content of the shale for the Marcellus Shale in Lincoln Co., West Virginia

Figure 4. Ternary Diagram of Shale Mineralogy (Marcellus Shale).

Source: Modified from AAPG Bull. 4/2007, p. 494 & 495

JAF028263.PPT

Calcite (C) Clay (Cly)

Quartz (Q)

Study Methodology EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May, 17, 2013 2-7

 Depth. The depth criterion for the prospective area is greater than 1,000 meters but

less than 5,000 meters (3,300 feet to 16,500 feet). Areas shallower than 1,000

meters have lower reservoir pressure and thus lower driving forces for oil and gas

recovery. In addition, shallow shale formations have risks of higher water content in

their natural fracture systems. Areas deeper than 5,000 meters have risks of

reduced permeability and much higher drilling and development costs.

 Total Organic Content (TOC). In general, the average TOC of the prospective area

needs to be greater than 2%. Figure 5 provides an example of using a gamma ray

log to identify the TOC content for the Marcellus Shale in the New York (Chenango

Co.) portion of the Appalachian Basin.

Organic materials such as microorganism fossils and plant matter provide the

requisite carbon, oxygen and hydrogen atoms needed to create natural gas and oil.

As such TOC and carbon type (Types I and II) are important measures of the oil

generation potential of a shale formation.

Figure 5. Relationship of Gamma Ray and Total Organic Carbon

Study Methodology EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May, 17, 2013 2-8

 Thermal Maturity. Thermal maturity measures the degree to which a formation has

been exposed to high heat needed to break down organic matter into hydrocarbons.

The reflectance of certain types of minerals (Ro%) is used as an indication of

Thermal Maturity, Figure 6. The thermal maturity of the oil prone prospective area

has a Ro greater than 0.7% but less than 1.0%. The wet gas and condensate

prospective area has a Ro between 1.0% and 1.3%. Dry gas areas typically have

an Ro greater than 1.3%. Where possible, we have identified these three

hydrocarbon “windows”.

Figure 6. Thermal Maturation Scale

 Geographic Location. The prospective area is limited to the onshore portion of the

shale gas and shale oil basin.

The prospective area, in general, covers less than half of the overall basin area.

Typically, the prospective area will contain a series of higher quality shale gas and shale oil

areas, including a geologically favorable, high resource concentration “core area” and a series

of lower quality and lower resource concentration extension areas. However, this more detailed

delineation of the prospective area is beyond the scope of this initial resource assessment.

Study Methodology EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May, 17, 2013 2-9

Finally, shale gas and shale oil basins and formations that have very high clay content

and/or have very high geologic complexity (e.g., thrusted and high stress) are assigned a high

prospective area risk factor or are excluded from the resource assessment. Subsequent, more

intensive and smaller-scale (rather than regional-scale) resource assessments may identify the

more favorable areas of a basin, enabling portions of the basin currently deemed non-

prospective to be added to the shale gas and shale oil resource assessment. Similarly,

advances in well completion practices may enable more of the very high clay content shale

formations to be efficiently stimulated, also enabling these basins and formations to be added in

future years to the resource assessment.

The Neuquen Basin’s Vaca Muerta Shale illustrates the presence of three prospective

areas - - oil, wet gas/condensate and dry gas, Figure 7.

Figure 7. Vaca Muerta Shale Gas and Shale Oil Prospective Areas, Neuquen Basin

Study Methodology EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May, 17, 2013 2-10

A more detailed resource assessment, including in-depth appraisal of newly drilled

exploration wells, with modern logs and rigorous core analyses, will be required to define the

next levels of resource quality and concentration for the major international shale plays.

4. Estimating the Risked Shale Gas and Shale Oil In-Place (OIP/GIP).

Detailed geologic and reservoir data are assembled to establish the oil and gas in-place

(OIP/GIP) for the prospective area.

a. Oil In-Place. The calculation of oil in-place for a given areal extent (acre, square

mile) is governed, to a large extent, by two key characteristics of the shale formation - - net

organically-rich shale thickness and oil-filled porosity. In addition, pressure and temperature

govern the volume of gas in solution with the reservoir oil, defined by the reservoir’s formation

volume factor.

 Net Organically-Rich Shale Thickness. The overall geologic interval that contains

the organically-rich shale is obtained from prior stratigraphic studies of the formations

in the basin being appraised. The gross organically-rich thickness of the shale

interval is established from log data and cross-sections, where available. A net to

gross ratio is used to account for the organically barren rock within the gross

organically-rich shale interval and to estimate the net organically-rich thickness of the

shale.

 Oil- and Gas-Filled Porosity. The study assembles porosity data from core and/or

log analyses available in the public literature. When porosity data are not available,

emphasis is placed on identifying the mineralogy of the shale and its maturity for

estimating porosity values from analogous U.S shale basins. Unless other evidence

is available, the study assumes the pores are filled with oil, including solution gas,

free gas and residual water.

 Pressure. The study methodology places particular emphasis on identifying over-

pressured areas. Over-pressured conditions enable a higher portion of the oil to be

produced before the reservoir reaches its “bubble point” where the gas dissolved in

the oil begins to be released. A conservative hydrostatic gradient of 0.433 psi per

foot of depth is used when actual pressure data is unavailable because water salinity

data are usually not available.

Study Methodology EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment

May, 17, 2013 2-11

 Temperature. The study assembles data on the temperature of the shale formation.

A standard temperature gradient of 1.25

F per 100 feet of depth and a surface

temperature of 60

F are used when actual temperature data are unavailable.

The above data are combined using established reservoir engineering equations and

conversion factors to calculate OIP per square mile.

OIP =

A is area, in acres (with the conversion factors of 7,758 barrels per acre foot).

h is net organically-rich shale thickness, in feet.

φ is porosity, a dimensionless fraction (the values for porosity are obtained from

log or core information published in the technical literature or assigned by

analogy from U.S. shale oil basins; the thermal maturity of the shale and its

depth of burial can influence the porosity value used for the shale).

) is the fraction of the porosity filled by oil (So) instead of water (Sw) or gas

), a dimensionless fraction (the established value for porosity (φ) is

multiplied by the term (So) to establish oil-filled porosity; the value Sw defines

the fraction of the pore space that is filled with water, often the residual or

irreducible reservoir water saturation in the natural fracture and matrix

porosity of the shale; shales may also contain free gas (Sg) in the pore

space, further reducing oil-filled porosity.

is the oil formation gas volume factor that is used to adjust the oil volume in

the reservoirs, typically swollen with gas in solution, to oil volume in stock-

tank barrels; reservoir pressure, temperature and thermal maturity (Ro)

values are used to estimate the

value. The procedures for calculating B

are provided in standard reservoir engineering text.

In addition, B

can be

printed with permission in McCain, W.D., “The Properties of Petroleum Fluids,

Second Edition (1990)”, p. 320.

Ramey, H.J., “Rapid Methods of Estima