# U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays Review of Emerging Resources:

July 2011

www.eia.gov U.S. Depa r tment of Energy

W ashin g t on, DC 20585T his page in t en t ionally lef t blankThe information presented in this overview is based on the report Review of Emerging Resources:

U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays, which was prepared by INTEK, Inc. for the U.S. Energy Information

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

full report is attached. 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.U.S. Energy Information Administration | Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays 4 

## Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

Background

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

recover natural gas and oil from low-permeability geologic plays—particularly, shale plays. Application of fracturing techniques

to stimulate oil and gas production began to grow rapidly in the 1950s, although experimentation dates back to the 19th century.

Starting in the mid-1970s, a partnership of private operators, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and predecessor agencies,

and the Gas Research Institute (GRI) endeavored to develop technologies for the commercial production of natural gas from the

relatively shallow Devonian (Huron) shale in the eastern United States. This partnership helped foster technologies that eventually

became crucial to the production of natural gas from shale rock, including horizontal wells, multi-stage fracturing, and slickwater fracturing. 1 Practical 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) had brought some applications within the realm of commercial viability. 2

The advent of large-scale shale gas production did not occur until Mitchell Energy and Development Corporation experimented

during the 1980s and 1990s to make deep shale gas production a commercial reality in the Barnett Shale in North-Central Texas.

As the success of Mitchell Energy and Development became apparent, other companies aggressively entered the play, so that by

2005, the Barnett Shale alone was producing nearly 0.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year. As producers gained confidence in

the ability to produce natural gas profitably in the Barnett Shale, with confirmation provided by results from the Fayetteville Shale in

Arkansas, they began pursuing other shale plays, including Haynesville, Marcellus, Woodford, Eagle Ford, and others.

Although the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) and energy projections

began representing shale gas resource development and production in the mid-1990s, only in the past 5 years has shale gas been

recognized as a “game changer” for the U.S. natural gas market. The proliferation of activity into new shale plays has increased dry

shale gas production in the United States from 1.0 trillion cubic feet in 2006 to 4.8 trillion cubic feet, or 23 percent of total U.S. dry

natural gas production, in 2010. Wet shale gas reserves increased to about 60.64 trillion cubic feet by year-end 2009, when they

comprised about 21 percent of overall U.S. natural gas reserves, now at the highest level since 1971. 3 Oil production from shale

plays, notably the Bakken Shale in North Dakota and Montana, has also grown rapidly in recent years.

To gain a better understanding of the potential U.S. domestic shale gas and shale oil resources, EIA commissioned INTEK, Inc. to

develop an assessment of onshore Lower 48 States technically recoverable shale gas and shale oil resources. This paper briefly

describes the scope, methodology, and key results of the report and discusses the key assumptions that underlie the results. The

full report prepared by INTEK is provided in Attachment A. The shale gas and shale oil resource assessment contained in the INTEK

report and summarized here was incorporated into the Onshore Lower 48 Oil and Gas Supply Submodule (OLOGSS) within the Oil

and Gas Supply Module (OGSM) of NEMS to project oil and natural gas production for the Annual Energy Outlook 2011 ( AEO2011 ).

EIA also anticipates using the assessment to inform other analyses and to provide a starting point for future work.

Scope and results

The INTEK shale resources report estimates shale gas and shale oil resources for the undeveloped portions of 20 shale plays

that have been discovered (Table 1). Eight of those shale plays are subdivided into 2 or 3 areas, resulting in a total of 29 separate

resource assessments. The total of 750 trillion cubic feet shown in Table 1 excludes three additional components of resources:

proven reserves, inferred reserves in actively developed areas and un-discovered resources as estimated by the U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS). The map in Figure 1 shows the location of the shale plays in the Lower 48 States.

Eighty-six percent of the total 750 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable shale gas resources identified in Table 1 are located

in the Northeast, Gulf Coast, and Southwest regions, which account for 63 percent, 13 percent, and 10 percent of the total,

respectively. In the three regions, the largest shale gas plays are the Marcellus (410.3 trillion cubic feet, 55 percent of the total),

Haynesville (74.7 trillion cubic feet, 10 percent of the total), and Barnett (43.4 trillion cubic feet, 6 percent of the total).

Table 1 also summarizes the INTEK shale report’s assessment of technically recoverable shale oil resources, which amount to 23.9

billion barrels in the onshore Lower 48 States. The largest shale oil formation is the Monterey/Santos play in southern California,

which is estimated to hold 15.4 billion barrels or 64 percent of the total shale oil resources shown in Table 1. The Monterey shale

play is the primary source rock for the conventional oil reservoirs found in the Santa Maria and San Joaquin Basins in southern

California. The next largest shale oil plays are the Bakken and Eagle Ford, which are assessed to hold approximately 3.6 billion

barrels and 3.4 billion barrels of oil, respectively.5 U.S. Energy Information Administration | Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

The 750 trillion cubic feet of shale gas resources in the INTEK shale report is a subset of the AEO2011 onshore Lower 48 States

natural gas shale technically recoverable resource estimate of 862 trillion cubic feet. The AEO2011 includes 35 trillion cubic feet of

proved reserves reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the EIA, 20 trillion cubic feet of inferred reserves

not included in the INTEK shale report, and 56 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered resources estimated by the USGS.

Table 1. INTEK estimates of undeveloped technically recoverable shale gas and shale oil

resources remaining in discovered shale plays as of January 1, 2009

**Onshore Lower-48 Oil and Gas Supply**

**Submodule region Shale play**  **Shale gas resources**

**(trillion cubic feet) Shale oil resources** 

**(billion barrels)**

Northeast Marcellus 410

--

Antrim 20

--

Devonian Low Thermal Maturity 14

New Albany 11

--

Greater Siltstone 8

--

Big Sandy 7

--

Cincinnati Arch* 1

--

Subtotal 472

--

Percent of total 63%

--

Gulf Coast Haynesville 75

--

Eagle Ford 21 3

Floyd-Neal & Conasauga 4

--

Subtotal 100 3

Percent of total 13% 14%

Mid-Continent Fayetteville 32

--

Woodford 22

--

Cana Woodford 6

--

Subtotal 60

--

Percent of total 8%

--

Southwest Barnett 43

--

Barnett-Woodford 32

--

Avalon & Bone Springs

-- 2

Subtotal 76 2

Percent of total 10% 7%

Rocky Mountain Mancos 21

--

Lewis 12

--

Williston-Shallow Niobraran* 7

--

Hilliard-Baxter-Mancos 4

--

Bakken

-- 4

Subtotal 43 4

Percent of total 6% 15%

West Coast Monterey/Santos

-- 15

Subtotal

-- 15

Percent of total

-- 64%

**Total onshore Lower-48 States** 750 24

*Note: From previous EIA estimates and thus not assessed in the INTEK shale report.

Subtotals and total may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.U.S. Energy Information Administration | Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays 6 Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

Figure 1. Map of U.S. shale gas and shale oil plays (as of May 9, 2011)

Source U.S. Energy Information Administration based on data from various published studies.

Upeate: May 9, 2011

Methodology

The resource estimates shown in Table 1 were developed by INTEK from publicly available company data and commercial

databases for wells and acreage currently in production. The estimates of technically recoverable resources shown in Table

1 are based on the area, well spacing, and average expected ultimate recovery (EUR) for each shale play or subportion of the

play. An effective recovery factor has been applied which reflects: (a) a probability factor that takes into account the results

from current shale gas activity as an indicator of how much is known or unknown about the shale play; (b) a recovery factor

that takes into account prior experience in how production occurs, on average, given a range of factors (including mineralogy

and geologic complexity) that affect the response of the geologic play to the application of best-practice shale gas recovery

technology; and (c) resources in the play that have already been produced or added into proved reserves.

Estimates of technically recoverable shale gas resources are certain to change over time as new wells go into production and

new technologies are developed. For example, the gas resource estimates in the INTEK shale report are predicated on the

assumption that natural gas production rates for current wells covering only a limited portion of a play are representative

of an entire play or play sub-area; however, across a single play or play sub-area there can be significant variations in depth,

thickness, porosity, carbon content, pore pressure, clay content, thermal maturity, and water content. As a result, individual

well production rates and recovery rates can vary by as much as a factor of 10.

There is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate size of technically recoverable shale gas and shale oil resources,

including but are not limited to the following:

• Because most shale gas and shale oil wells are only a few years old, their long-term productivity is untested. Consequently,

the long-term production profiles of shale wells and their estimated ultimate recovery of oil and natural gas are uncertain.

• In emerging shale plays, production has been confined largely to those areas known as “sweet spots” that have the highest

known production rates for the play. If the production rates for the sweet spots are used to infer the productive potential

of entire plays, their productive potential probably will be overstated. The INTEK shale report mitigates this problem by

differentiating the productivity of a play’s sweet spot from the productivity for rest of that play. 87 U.S. Energy Information Administration | Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

• Many shale plays are so large (e.g., the Marcellus shale) that only portions have been extensively production tested.

• Technical advancements could lead to more productive and less costly well drilling and completion.

• Currently untested shale plays, such as thin-seam plays or untested portions of existing plays, could prove to be highly

productive.

Estimating the technically recoverable oil and natural gas resource base in the United States is an evolving process. For shale

gas and oil, the evolution of resource estimates is likely to continue for some time. The size of the technically recoverable oil and

natural gas resource base in the United States becomes evident only as producers drill into geologic deposits with oil and natural

gas potential and attempt to produce from them on a commercial basis. As producers find plays to be more or less bountiful than

expected, resource estimates are adjusted to reflect that information. As time passes and our knowledge of the resource base and

future technologies and management practices improves, estimates of the technically recoverable resource base will be refined.

Consequently, the resource estimates in the current report will be modified over time as more wells are drilled and completed,

technologies evolve, and the long-term performance of shale wells becomes better established.

The estimates of shale oil and shale gas resources provided here represent a reasonable estimate of the resource potential for those

shale plays for which public information is currently available. The potential impacts of the current uncertainty regarding shale gas

resources on projected natural gas supply, consumption, and prices are described in the AEO2011 Issues in Focus article, “Prospects

for shale gas.” 9

Footnotes

1 G.E. King, Apache Corporation, “Thirty Years of Gas Shale Fracturing: What Have We Learned?”, presentation SPE 133456, SPE

Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Florence, Italy, September 2010), www.spe.org/atce/2010/pages/schedule/tech_

program/documents/spe1334561.pdf; and U.S. Department of Energy, “DOE’s Early Investment in Shale Gas Technology Producing

Results Today” (February 2, 2011), www.netl.doe.gov/publications/press/2011/11008-DOE_Shale_Gas_Research_Producing_R.

html.

2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Drilling Sideways—A Review of Horizontal Well Technology and Its Domestic Application,

DOE/EIA-TR-0565 (Washington, DC, April 1993), ftp://tonto.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/drilling_

sideways_well_technology/pdf/tr0565.pdf.

3 U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas Liquids Reserves (Washington, DC,

November 30, 2010), www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_reserves/cr.html.

4 American Association of Petroleum Geologists, “Monterey Shale Gets New Look,” Explorer, Vol. 31, No. 11 (No-vember 2010),

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2010/11nov/monterey1110.cfm.

5 Additional information and comparisons of the SEC and EIA reserves can be found in the EIA report “U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas,

and Natural Gas Liquids Proved Reserves, 2009” and a supplemental report “Top 100 Operators: Proved Reserves and Production,

Operated vs Owned, 2009”. http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_reserves/cr.html.

6 HPDI, LLC production database, and Nehring Associates (NRG), Significant Oil and Gas Fields of the United States Database.

7 The EURs presented in this report do not include natural gas plant liquids.

8 In the INTEK report, the “sweet spot” portion of the formation is referred to as the “active area.” The remaining portion of the

formation that has seen little or no drilling activity is referred to as the “undeveloped area.”

9 U.S. Energy Information Administration, A nnual Energy Outlook 2011 , DOE/EIA-0383(2011) (Washington, DC, April 2011),

“Prospects for shale gas,” www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/IF_all.cfm#prospectshale.U.S. Energy Information Administration | Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays 8 Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

T his page in t en t ionally lef t blank9 U.S. Energy Information Administration | Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays



# Attachment A

# INTEK, Inc.

R eview of Emerging Resources

U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

December 20 10

Prepared for:

Office of Energy Analysis

Energy Information Administration

U.S. Department of Energy



## Washington, D.CDisclaimer

Neither the United States Government n or any agency thereof, nor any of their employees or contractors, makes

any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness,

or usefulness of any information, app a ratus, product, or process disc losed, or represents that its use would not

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process or service by

trade name, trademark, manufacture, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement,

re c omme ndation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and

opinions expressed herein are not those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. The information

in the technology profiles was provided by the host in stitutions; there has been no independent verification of

any of this information. This work was completed under contract number DE

- EI0000564 and task order number

DE

- DT0001772. Neither INTEK, Inc., nor the Department of Energy makes any representation as to the

accuracy of the information.Review of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

i 

### Table of Contents

Executive S ummary

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... vii

I. Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 1

II. Northeast Regional Summary

................................ ................................ .................. 3

A. Marcellus Shale Gas Play

................................ ................................ ................ 5

B. Devonian Big Sandy Shale Gas Play

................................ ............................... 9

C. Devonian Low Thermal Maturity & Greater Siltstone Shale Ga s Plays

....... 13

D. New Albany Shale Gas Play

................................ ................................ .......... 15

E. Antrim Shale Gas Play

................................ ................................ .................. 19

III. Gulf Coast Regional Summary

................................ ................................ .............. 23

A. Haynesville Shale Gas Play

................................ ................................ ........... 25

B. Eagle Ford Shale Gas & Oil Play

................................ ................................ .. 29

C. Floyd

- Neal/Conasauga Shale Gas Play

................................ ......................... 33

IV. Mid

- Continent Regional Summary

................................ ................................ ....... 35

A. Fayetteville Shale Gas Play

................................ ................................ ........... 37

B. Woodford Shale Gas Play

................................ ................................ ............. 41

C. Cana Woodford Shale Gas Play

................................ ................................ .... 45

V. Southwest Regional Summary

................................ ................................ .............. 49

A. Barnett Shale Gas Play

................................ ................................ .................. 51

B. Barnett

- Woodford Shale Gas Play

................................ ................................ 55

C. Avalon & Bone Springs Shale Oil Play

................................ ........................ 57

VI. Rocky Mountain Regional Summary

................................ ................................ .... 61

A. Hilliard

- Baxter

- Mancos Shale Gas Play

................................ ....................... 63

B. Lewis Shale Gas Play

................................ ................................ .................... 65

C. Mancos Shale Gas Play

................................ ................................ ................. 67

D. Bakken Shale Oil Play

................................ ................................ ................... 69

VII. West Coast Regional Summary

................................ ................................ ............. 73

A. Monterey/Santos Shale Oil Play

................................ ................................ .... 75

VIII. Appendix A

– OLOGSS Shale Gas Data File

................................ ....................... 79Review of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

ii 

### List of Figures

Figure i U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays......

......... ...... ............ .................. ...... .v i i

Fi gure ii Shale Gas Technically Recoverable Resources and Cumulative Production

...... .....ix

Figure 1 Northeast Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resources

................................ ............................. 3

Figure 2 Marcellus Shale Play

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 5

Figure 3 Marcellus Type Curve

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 8

Figure 4 Devonian

- Big Sandy Shale Play

................................ ................................ .................. 9

Figure 5 Devonian Low Thermal Maturity and Greater Siltstone Shale Plays

........................ 1 3

Figure 6 New Albany Shale Play

................................ ................................ ............................. 15

Figure 7 Antrim Shale Play

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 19

Figure 8 Gulf Coast Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resources

................................ ......................... 23

Figure 9 The Haynesville Shale Play

................................ ................................ ....................... 25

Figure 10 Haynesville Type Curve

................................ ................................ ........................... 27

Figure 11 Eagle Ford Shale Play

................................ ................................ .............................. 29

Figure 12 Eagle Ford Type Curve

................................ ................................ ............................ 32

Figure 13 Floyd

- Neal/Conasauga Shale Play

................................ ................................ ........... 33

Figure 14 Mid

- Continent Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resources

................................ ................. 35

Figure 15 Fayetteville Shale Play

................................ ................................ ............................. 37

Figure 16 Fayetteville Type Curve

................................ ................................ ........................... 39

Figure 17 Woodford Shale Play

................................ ................................ ............................... 41

Figure 18 Cana Woodford Shale Play

................................ ................................ ...................... 45

Figure 19 Cana Woodford Type Curve

................................ ................................ .................... 46

Figure 20 Southwest Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resources

................................ ........................ 49

Figure 21 The Ba rnett Shale Play

................................ ................................ ............................. 51

Figure 22 Barnett Type Curve

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 53

Figure 23 Barnett

- Woodford Shale Play

................................ ................................ .................. 55

Figure 24 Avalon and Bone Springs Shale Play

................................ ................................ ...... 57

Figure 25 Rocky Mountains Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resources

................................ ............ 61

Figure 26 Hilliard

- Baxter

- Mancos Shale Play

................................ ................................ ......... 63

Figure 27 Lewis Shale Play

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 65

Figure 28 The Mancos Shale Play

................................ ................................ ............................ 67

Figure 29 Bakken Shale Play

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 69

Figure 30 Bakken Shale Type Curve

................................ ................................ ........................ 71

Figure 31 West Coast Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resources

................................ ...................... 73

Figure 32 Monterey/Santos Shale Play

................................ ................................ .................... 75

Figure 33 Monterey/Santos Type Curve

................................ ................................ .................. 77Review of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

iii 

### List of Tables

Table i U.S Shale Gas Unproved Discovered Technically Recoverable Resource s

Summary.........

.............................. ... ............................................ .............vi i i

Table i i U.S Technically Recoverable Shale Oil Resource s

Summary

.................. ... ......... ........................................ ....... . .. .................. ..... x

Table 1 State Distribution of the Marcellus Shale Play

................................ ............................. 5

Table 2 Marcellus Average EUR and Area

................................ ................................ ................ 6

Table 3 Average General Properties for the Marcellus Shale Play

................................ ............ 6

Table 4 Marcellus Lease Holders

................................ ................................ ............................... 7

Table 5 Devonian Big Sandy Average EUR and Area

................................ ............................. 10

Table 6 Average General Properties for the Devonian Big Sandy Shale Play

......................... 10

Table 7 Devonian

- Big Sandy Lease Holders

................................ ................................ ........... 10

Table 8 Devonian Low Thermal Maturity and Greater Siltstone Average EUR and Area

...... 14

Table 9 Average General Properties for the Devonian

- Low Thermal Maturity and Greater

Siltstone Shale Plays

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 14

Table 10 New Albany Average EUR and Area

................................ ................................ ........ 16

Table 11 Average General Properties for the New Albany Shale Play

................................ .... 16

Table 12 New Albany Lease Holders

................................ ................................ ....................... 16

Table 13 Average Antrim EUR and Area

................................ ................................ ................ 20

Table 14 Average General Properties for the Antrim Shale Play

................................ ............ 20

Table 15 Antrim Lease Holders

................................ ................................ ............................... 20

Table 16 Haynesville Average EUR and Area

................................ ................................ ......... 26

Table 17 Average General Propertie s for the Haynesville Shale Play

................................ ..... 26

Table 18 Haynesville Lease Holders

................................ ................................ ........................ 26

Table 19 Eagle Ford Average EUR and Areas

................................ ................................ ......... 30

Table 20 Average General Properties for the Eagle Ford Shale Play

................................ ...... 30

Table 21 Eagle Ford Dry Gas Zone Lease Holders

................................ ................................ .. 30

Table 22 Eagle Ford Condensate Zone Lease Holders

................................ ............................ 31

Table 23 Eagle Ford Oil Zone Lease Holders

................................ ................................ .......... 31

Table 24 Floyd

- Neal/Conasauga Average EUR and Area

................................ ....................... 33

Table 25 Average General Properties for the Floyd

- Neal/Conasauga Shale Play

................... 34

Table 26 Floyd

- Neal/Conasauga Lease Holders

................................ ................................ ...... 34

Table 27 Fayetteville Average EUR and Area

................................ ................................ ......... 37

Table 28 Aver age General Properties for the Fayetteville Shale Play

................................ ..... 38

Table 29 Fayetteville Lease Holders

................................ ................................ ........................ 38

Table 30 Woodford Average EUR a nd Area

................................ ................................ ........... 41

Table 31 Average General Properties for the Woodford Shale Play

................................ ........ 42

Table 32 Woodford Lease Holders in the Arkoma and Ardmore Basins

................................ . 42

Table 33 Cana Woodford Average EUR and Area

................................ ................................ .. 45

Table 34 Average General Properties for the Cana Woodford Shal e Play

............................. 45

Table 35 Cana Woodford Lease Holders

................................ ................................ ................. 46

Table 36 Average Barnett EUR and Area

................................ ................................ ................ 52

Table 37 Average General Properties for the Barnett Shale Play

................................ ............ 52

Table 38 Barnett Core/Tier 1 Lease Holders

................................ ................................ ............ 52Review of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

iv

Table 39 Barnett South/Western Counties Lease Holders

................................ ....................... 52

Table 40 Barnett

- Woodford Average EUR and Area

................................ .............................. 55

Table 41 A verage General Properties for the Woodford Shale Play

................................ ........ 56

Table 42 Barnett

- Woodford Lease Holders

................................ ................................ ............. 56

Table 43 Avalon and Bone Spr ings EUR and Area

................................ ................................ . 58

Table 44 General Properties for the Avalon/Bone Springs Shale Play

................................ .... 58

Table 45 Avalon and Bone Springs Leas e Holders

................................ ................................ .. 58

Table 46 Hilliard

- Baxter

- Mancos Average EUR and Area

................................ ..................... 63

Table 47 Average General Properties for the Hilliard

- Baxter

- Mancos Shale Play

.................. 64

Table 48 Hilliard

- Baxter

- Mancos Lease Holders

................................ ................................ ..... 64

Table 49 Lewis Average EUR and Area

................................ ................................ .................. 65

Table 50 Average General Properties for the Lewis Shale Play

................................ .............. 66

Table 51 Mancos Average EUR and Area

................................ ................................ ............... 67

Table 52 Average General Properties for the Mancos Shale Play

................................ ........... 68

Table 53 Mancos Lease Holders

................................ ................................ .............................. 68

Table 54 Bakken Average EUR and Area

................................ ................................ ................ 69

Table 55 Average General Properties for the Bakken Shale Play

................................ ............ 70

Table 56 Bakken Lease Holders

................................ ................................ ............................... 70

Table 57 Monterey/Santos Average EUR and Area

................................ ................................ . 75

Table 58 Average General Properties for the Monterey/Santos Shale Play

............................. 76

Table 59 Monterey/Santos Lease Holders

................................ ................................ ................ 76Review of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

v 

### List of Abbreviations & Acronyms

Abbreviation / Acronym Full Text

B b bl Billion Barrels

bbl Barrel

BBO Billion Barrel s of Oil

BBOE Billion Barrels of Oil Equivalent

B cf Billion Cubic Feet

B cfe Billion Cubic Feet of Equivalent

BOE Barrels of Oil Equivalent

DOE Department of Energy

EIA Energy Information Administration

EUR Estimated Ultimate Recovery

MBOE Thousand Barrels of Oil Equivalent

MMBOE Million Barrels of Oil Equivalent

T cf Trillion Cubic Feet

T cfe Trillion Cubic Feet Equivalent

TRR Technically Recoverable Resources

USGS United States Geological SurveyReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

viReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

vii



## Executive Summary

The Energy Information Admi nistration’s (EIA) 2010 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO2010)

discussed the growing importance of shale gas as a component of natural gas production.

“...[T]he biggest questions are the size of the shale gas resource base (which by most

estimates is vast), the pr ice level required to sustain its development, and whether there are

technical or environmental factors that might dampen its development”. EIA’s AEO2010

reference case estimate for the shale gas resource base was 347 t rillion cubic feet (Tcf)

.

In recogni tion of the increasing contribution of shale gas production to th e United States , in

late 2010, a study was undertaken to review and update the resource base estimates for the

U.S. shale gas resources as well as emerging shale oil plays. These plays are i llustrated in

Figure i.

Figure i U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

Shale Gas

Significant activities are underway in the United States to explore, develop, and produce

America’s shale gas and oil plays. The shale gas plays contain “fine grained, organi c rich,

sedimentary rocks. The shales are both the source of and the reservoir for natural gas” and

oil. They are also defined by the “extremely small pore sizes [which] make them relatively

impermeable to gas flow, unless natural or artificial fractures occur”. A summary of the Executive SummaryReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

viii

unproved discovered technically recoverable resources (TRR) is provided in the following

Table.

Table i U.S. Shale Gas Unproved Discovered Technically Recoverable Resources Summary

Play Technically

Recoverable

Resource Area (sq. miles) Average EUR

Gas

(T c f ) Oil

( BBO ) Leased Unleased Gas

(B cf /

well) Oil

(M BO /

well)

Marcellus 410.34

... 10,622 84, 271 1. 18

... Big Sandy 7.40

... 8,675 1,994 0.33

... Low Thermal Maturity 13.53

... 45,844 0.3 0

... Greater Siltstone 8.46

... 22,914 0. 19

... New Albany 10.95

... 1,600 41,900 1.1 0

... Antrim 19.93

... 12,000 0.28

... Cincinnati Arch * 1.44

... NA 0.12

... Total Northeast 472.05

... 101,655 128,272 0.74

... Haynesville 74.71

... 3,574 5,426 3.57

... Eagle Ford 20.81

... 1,090 5.00

... Floyd

- Neal & Conasaug a 4. 3 7

... 2,429 0.9 0

... Total Gulf Coast 99.99

... 7,093 5,426 2.99

... Fayetteville 31.96

... 9,000 2.07

... Woodford 22.2 1

... 4,700 2.98

... Cana Woodford 5.72

... 688 5.20

... Total Mid

- Continent 59.88

... 14,388 2.45

... Barnett 43.3 8

... 4,075 2,383 1.42

... Barn ett Woodford 32.15

... 2,691 3.07

... Total Southwest 75.52

... 6,766 2,383 1.85

... Hilliard

- Baxter

- Mancos 3.77

... 16,416 0.18

... Lewis 11.63

... 7,506 1. 30

... Williston

- Shallow Niobraran * 6.61

... NA 0.4 5

... Mancos 21.02

... 6,589 1.0 0

... Total Rocky Mountain 43 .03

... 30,511 0.69

... Total Lower 48 U.S. 750. 38

... 16 0

, 413 136,081 1.02

...

* Cincinnati Arch and Williston

- Shallow Niobraran were not assessed in this report.

The 750 trillion cubic feet of shale gas resources in the INTEK shale report is a subset of the

AE O2011 onshore lo w er 48 natural gas shale resource estimate of 86 2 trillion cubic feet . The

AEO2011 includes 35 trillion cubic feet of “ proved reserves ” reported to the Securities and

Exchange Commission (SEC) and the EIA 1 , 20 trillion cubic feet of infer red reserves not

1 Additional information and comparisons of the SEC a nd EIA reserves can be found in the

EIA report “ U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas Liquids Proved Reser ves, 2009 ” Executive SummaryReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

ix

included in the INTEK shale report, and 56 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered resources

estimated by the USGS. Of th at amount, 41.4 trillion cubic feet is l o cated in Southern

California and 14.6 trillion cubic feet in the Rocky Mountain r egion. The play average

expected ultimate recoveries (EUR) are between 0.12 billion cubic feet (Bcf) and 3.6 Bcf per

well. The largest concentrations of shale gas are contained in the Northeast region which

contains the Marcellus Shale and the Gulf Coast region containing the Haynesville Shale.

Figure ii shows the technically recoverable shale gas resource and the fraction which has

already been produced. The figure shows that, excluding the Appalachian plays and some of

the newly developing plays, be tween one and three percent has been produced. The size of

the remaining resource underscores the importance that shale gas can play in U.S. natural gas

production as well as the necessity of this resource review.

Figure ii Shale Gas Technically Recoverab le Resources and Cumulative Production 2

In order to realize this production, substantial drilling is required. As the effective lifespan of

the shale gas wells is relatively short, new wells are required to maintain current production

levels as well as in crease them.

and a supplemental repo rt “ Top 100 Oper a tors: Proved Reserves and Production, Operated vs

Owned, 2009 ”.

http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/nat ural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_reserves/cr.

html

2 Due to data availability, the Appalachian plays not included in Figure ii are the Marcellus, Devonian Big

Sandy, Devonia n Low Thermal Maturity, Devonian Greater Siltstone and Cincinnati Arch. Executive SummaryReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

x

Shale Oil

In addition to the gas produced in the shale plays, condensate and plant liquids may also be

produced. Four shale oil plays were also identified and reviewed during this analysis. As

seen in the following Table, the majority of these resources are located in the

Monterey/Santos shales currently under development by OXY. The technically recoverable

resource for these four plays is approximately 24 Billion barrels of oil (BBO) across nearly

13,000 square miles. The average EUR fo r the plays is approximately 460 thousand barrels of

oil (M BO ).

Table i i U.S. Technically Recoverable Shale Oil Resources Summary

Play Technically

Recoverable

Resource Area (sq. miles) Average EUR

Gas

(Tcf ) Oil

( BBO ) Leased Unleased Gas

(Bcf /

well) Oil

(M BO /

well)

Eagle Ford

... 3.3 5 3,323

... 300

Total Gulf Coast

... 3.35 3,323

... 300

Avalon & Bone Springs

... 1.58 1,313

... 300

Total Southwest

... 1.58 1,313

... 300

Bakken

... 3.59 6,522

... 550

Total Rocky Mountain

... 3.59 6,522

... 550

Monterey/Santos

... 15.42 1,752

... 550

Total West Coast

... 15.42 1,752

... 550

Total Lower 48 U.S.

... 23.94 12,910

... 4 60

References

1. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook

2010. April 2010.

2. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administ ration. Modified by INTEK Inc.

3. Congressional Research Services. Unconventional Gas Shales: Development,

Technology, and Policy Issues. October 2009.

4. NRG & Associates and HPDI Data. Executive SummaryReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

1



## I. Introduction

This document provides a brief description of shale gas and shale oil plays in the United

States organized by chapters based on the oil and gas supply module regions. The regions

included in this document are the Northeast, Gulf Coast, Mid

- Continent, Southwest, Rocky

Mountain, and West Coast Region. Each play description includes an estimate of the resource

at the well level and across the play, description of key properties, a list of the companies

active in the play as well as their activities, a comparison against United States Geological

Survey (USGS) esti mates, and other information. This information has been collected from

publicly available data sources including USGS, the Department of Energy (DOE), individual

exploration and development companies, journal articles, and other data sources.

The resou rce estimates in the following play descriptions were developed us ing a wide variety

of data sources . These sources i nclud e institutes such as the USGS, professional associations

such as the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), commercial d atabases

from the HPDI a nd Nehring Associates (NRG) , integrated oil and gas companies, and service

companies. In addition to these public sources of data, proprietary data and insights gleamed

from conversations with experts were used to augment the estim ates of resource and other

parameters. The acreage which is reported includes sections which are currently being

produced. The Technically Recoverable Resources (TRR) provided in Table i and in the

following play descriptions are a function of the area, t he well spacing, and the play average

EUR. An effective recovery factor has been applied which reflects (a) a probability factor

which takes into account the results from current shale gas activity as an indicator of how

much is known or unknown about the shale formation, (b) a recovery factor which takes into

account prior experience in how production occurs, on average, given a range of factors

including mineralogy and geologic complexity that affect the response of the geologic

formation to the applicat ion of best practice shale gas recovery technology, and (c) the

removal of the resources in the play that have already been produced or added into proved

reserves. The EURs presented in this report do not include natural gas plant liquids.

The N ortheast R egion includes the Marcellus, Devonian Big Sandy, Devonian Low Thermal

Maturity, Devonian Greater Siltstone

, New Albany and the Antrim shale gas plays

.

T he Gulf Coast R egion inclu d es the Haynesville, Eagle Ford and the Floyd

Neal/Conasauga shale gas an d shale oil plays.

The Mid

- C ontinent Region includes the Fayetteville, Woodford and the Cana

W oodford shale gas plays.

The Southwest R egion includes the Barnett, Barnett

- W oodford

, and the Avalon and

Bone Springs shale gas and shale oil play s

.

The Roc ky Mountain Region includes the Hilliard

- Baxter

- Mancos, Lewis, Mancos

and the Bakken shale gas and shale oil play s.

T he West Coast Region includes the Monterey/Santos shale oil play. IntroductionReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

2 IntroductionReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

3



## II. Northeast Regional Summary

The Northeast r egion includes shale gas p lays located in the Appalachian, Illinois and

Michigan B asins. The Appalachian B asin includes the Marcellus, Devonian Big Sandy,

Devonian Low Thermal Maturity, and the Devonian Greater Siltstone shale play s (Figure 1)

. New Albany is located in the Illino is B asin and the Antrim shale play is located with in the

Michigan B asin. The shale plays in the Northeast region cover a total estimated area of

229,927 square miles with an average EUR between 0.3 and 2.3 Bcf per well and

approximately 472 Tcf of technic ally recoverable gas.

Figure 1 Northeast Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resources Northeast RegionReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

4 Northeast RegionReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

5



## A. Marcellus Shale Gas Play

Play Description

The Marcellus shale gas play is located in the Appalachian B asin across the Eastern Part of

the United State s. The states which contain the shale, according to th e USGS, are provided in

Table 1

.

Table 1 State Distribution of the Marcellus Shale Play

State Areal % of Marcellus

Maryland 1.09

New York 20.06

Ohio 18.19

Pennsylvania 35.35

Virginia 3.85

West Virginia 21.33

For purposes of EIA’s modeling, the Marcellus was divided into two main units: the Active

Area and the Undeveloped Area. The active area, defined using the acr eage reportedly under

lease by the companies, is primarily located within West Virginia and Pennsylvania. This

area is 10,622 square miles. The remainder of the area, 84, 271 square miles corresponds to

the area which has not been leased by the companies. The areal extent of the Ma rcellus shale

is provided in Figure 2

.

Figure 2 Marcellus Shale Play MarcellusReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

6

Resource Estimate

As estimated by the USGS, the Marcellus shale has a total area of 95,000 square miles. The

depth of the shale ra nges between 4,000 and 8,500 with a thickness between 50 to 200 feet.

The average EUR for both the active and undeveloped areas is 2.325 Bcfe per well. The

acti ve area, as detailed in Table 2 , is 10,622 square miles and has a total TRR of 177.9 Tcf,

which is equivalent to 3.5 Bcf per well. At the well level, the overwhelming majority of

reported EURs range between 3 and 4 Bcf. Due to a development moratorium in New York,

access to resource, lack of current production, and other issues in the undeveloped section of

the Marcellus, the number of drilling locations and the total TRR is un certain . However, the

well level EUR has been estimated at 1.15 Bcf.

Table 2 Marcellus Average EUR and Area

Active Undeveloped

Area (sq. miles) 10, 622 84, 271

EUR (Bcfe/ well) 3.5 1.15

Well Spacing (wells/ sq. mile) 8 8

TRR (Tcf ) 177.90 232.44

Other average properties were estimated for the Marcellus shale play. These include the

depth, thickness, porosity, and total organic content for the shale . The values are provided in

Table 3.

Table 3 Average General Properties for the Marcellus Shale Play

Depth (ft) 6,750

Thickness (ft) 125

Porosity (%) 8

Total Organic Content (% wt) 12

Active Companies

In 2008, there were 19 co mpanies holding leases in the Marcellus shale. These companies,

along with their net a creage, are provided in Table 4

. MarcellusReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

7 Table 4 Marcellus Lease Holders

Company Net Acreage

Anadarko Petroleum 275,000

Atlas Energy Resources LLC 48 3,000

Cabot Oil & Gas 332,919

Carrizo Oil & Gas 57,000

Chesapeake 1,200,000

CNX Gas 161,000

Dominion 800,000

Equitable Resources 400,000

EXCO Resources 393,000

Penn

- Virginia 15,000

Petroleum Development 35,000

Range Resources 1,400,000

Rex Ener gy 57,000

Quest energy Partners L.P. 119,000

Southwestern Energy 100,000

Talisman 640,000

Ultra Petroleum 140,100

Unit Corp. 38,000

XTO Energy 152,000

Based upon these lease holdings, the total active area is calculated at 6,798,019 net acres

(10,62 2 square miles).

Well Costs

In 2008, Deutsche Bank reported the average well cost as between $3 and $4 million dollars.

This is approximately the level of costs reported in 2010 by the majority of the companies.

The highest reported cost is Rex Energy

– between $4.5 and $4.7 million dollars.

USGS Comparison

In 2002, the USGS conducted an assessment of the Marcellus shale. They estimated that the

total undiscovered resource is between 822 and 3,668 Bcf, with a mean of 1,925 Bcf.

Representative Type Curve

Figure 3 provides a representative type curve for a horizontal well in the Marcellus shale.

According to Chesapeake Energy, the decline rate is initially 75% and bottoms out at 6% in

the later years. MarcellusReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

8 Figure 3 Marcellus Type Curve

References

1. USGS. Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Appalachian Basin

Province . 2002.

2. Deutsche Bank. From Shale to Shining Shale. July 2008.

3. Wrightstone Gregory, Texas Keystone, Inc. Marcellus Shale

– Geologic Controls on

Prod uction. Presented at the Winter Meeting of the IOGAWV . February 2009.

4. U.S. Department of Energy. Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A

Primer. April 2009.

5. Carrizo Oil & Gas. Presented at the Howard Weil 38 th Annual Energy Conference.

M arch 24, 2010.

6. XTO Energy. Barnett vs. Marcellus

– A Comparison of Two Shale Gas Giants. June

2009.

7. Whitelight Development Inc. The Marcellus Shale Great Expedition.

8. Chesapeake Energy. Marcellus Shale Overview. 2008.

9. Chesapeake Energy. August 2010 In vestor Presentation. August 2010.

10. EQT. Analyst Presentation. March 2009.

11. ALL Consulting. Evaluating the Environmental Implications of Hydraulic Fracturing

in Shale Gas Reservoirs. Presented at the International Petroleum & BioFuels

Environmental Confe rence, Albuquerque, New Mexico. November 2008.

12. Range Resources. March Company Presentation. March 2009.

13. Range Resources. The Marcellus Shale. 2007.

14. TransEnergy Incorporated. 2008.

15. Phasis Consulting. US Shale Gas Brief. September 2008.

16. Baylor, Brand on. Marcellus Shale Decline Analysis. 2010.

17. McKinsey & Company. The Surge of North American Unconventional Gas and Its

Impact. Presented at the Conference on Energy in the USA, Paris. June 2010. MarcellusReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

9



## B. Devonian Big Sandy Shale Gas Play

Play Description

The Devonian Big Sandy shale gas play includes the Huron, Cleveland and Rhinestreet

formations located within the Appalachian B asin in Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia.

For modeling purposes, the Big Sandy was divided into two main units: the Developed A rea

and Undeveloped Area. The location of the Big Sandy shale play is provided in Figure 4

.

Figure 4 Devonian

- Big Sandy Shale Play

Resource Estimate

The USGS estimated a total area for the Big Sandy shale play as 10,669 square miles

(6,828,000 acres)

. The shale play has a n average EUR of 0.325 Bcf per well and

approximately 7.4 Tcf of technically recoverable gas. Big Sandy has a total active area of

approximately 8,675 square miles and an undeveloped area of 1,994 square miles w ith a well

spacing of 80 acres per well. According to Deutsche Bank, Big Sandy ranges from 1,600 to

6,000 feet deep and has a thickness of 50 to 300 feet. These values are provided in Tables 5

and 6

. Devoni an Big SandyReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

10 Table 5 Devonian Big Sandy Av erage EUR and Area

Active Undeveloped

Area (sq. miles) 8,675 1,994

EUR (Bcf

/ well) 0.325 0.325

Well Spacing (wells/ sq. mile) 8 8

TRR (Tcf ) 6.47 0.92

Other average properties were estimated for the Big Sandy shale play. These include the

depth, thi ckness, porosity, and total organic content for the shale. The values are provided in

Table 6

.

Table 6 Average General Properties for the Devonian Big Sandy Shale Play

Depth (ft) 3,800

Thickness (ft) 175

Porosity (%) 10

Total Or ganic Content (% wt) 3.75

Active Companies

In 2008, there were 10 companies holding leases in Big Sandy. These companies, along with

their net acreage, as reported by Deutsche Bank , are listed in Table 7

.

Table 7 Devonian

- Big San dy Lease Holders

Company Net Acreage

Cabot Oil & Gas 962,471

Chesapeake Energy 500,000

CNX Gas 193,000

Dominion 300,000

Equitable Resources 2,900,000

EXCO Resources 117,000

GeoMet 52,000

NGAS Resources 275,000

Penn

- Virginia 87,500

Range Resources 165,000

Based upon these lease holdings, the total active area is calculated at 5,551,971 net acres

(8,675 square miles).

Well Costs

In 2008, Deutsche Bank reported a well cost ranging from $0.5 to $3.0 million dollars and as

of 2009, Equitable Resources reports an average well cost of approximately $1.2 million

dollars. Devonian Big SandyReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

11

USGS Comparison

In 2002, the USGS conducted an assessment of Devonia n Big Sandy in the Appalachian

B asin. They estimated that the total undiscovered resource is between 3,877 and 9 ,562 Bcf,

with a mean of 6,323 Bcf.

References

1. Deutsche Bank. From Shale to Shining Shale. July 2008.

2. USGS

. Assessment of the Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Appalachian

Basin Province. 2002.

3. USGS

. U.S. Geological Survey Open

- File Report 200 5

- 1268 . 2005.

4. Range Resources. March Company Presentation. March 2009.

5. Wrightstone Gregory, Texas Keystone, Inc. Marcellus Shale

– Geologic Controls on

Production. Presented at the Winter Meeting of the IOGAWV. February 2009.

6. Equitable Resources. An alyst Presentation . March 2009. Devonian Big SandyReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

12 Devonian Big SandyReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

13



## C. Devonian Low Thermal Maturity & Greater Siltstone

Shale Gas Plays

Play Description

The Devonian Low Thermal Maturity shale gas play, also know as the North w estern Ohio

shale, is located within the Appalachian B asin in Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,

Tennessee and West Virginia. The location of the Greater Siltstone is also within the

Appalachian B asin in New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. The

location of the Low Thermal Maturity and Grea ter Siltstone shale plays are provided in Figure

5

.

Figure 5 Devonian Low Thermal Maturity and Greater Siltstone Shale Plays

Resource Estimate

The USGS estimated a total area for the Low Thermal Maturity as 45,844 square miles

( 29,340,000 acres) and a total area of 22,914 square miles (14,665,000 acres) for the Greater

Siltstone shale play. The Devonian Low Thermal Maturity has a n average EUR of 0.3 Bcf

per well and approximately 13.5 Tcf of technically recoverable gas. The Dev onian Gr e ater

Siltstone has a n average EUR of 0.19 Bcf per well and approximately 8.5 Tcf of technically Devonian Low Thermal Maturity & Greater SiltstoneReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

14

recoverable gas. These values are provided in Table 8 along with the average EURs and well

spacing.

Table 8 Devonian Low Therm al Maturity and Greater Siltstone Average EUR and Area

Low Thermal Maturity Greater Siltstone

Area (sq. miles) 45,844 22,914

EUR (Bcf

/ well) 0.2942 0.193

Well Spacing (wells/ sq. mile) 7 10.7

TRR (Tcf ) 13.53 8.46

Other average properties were estimat ed for the Low Thermal Maturity and Greater Siltstone

shale plays. These include the depth, thickness and porosity for the shale. Total organic

content data was not publicly available. The values are provided in Table 9

.

Table 9 Average General Properties for the Devonian

- Low Thermal Maturity and Greater Siltstone Shale

Plays

Low Thermal Maturity Greater Siltstone

Depth (ft) 3,000 2,911

Thickness (ft) 371 623

Porosity (%) 7 5.8

Total Organic Content (% wt)

---- ----

USGS Com parison

In 2002, the USGS conducted an assessment of the Low Thermal Maturity and Greate r

Siltstone in the Appalachian B asin. They estimated that the total undiscovered resource for

the Low Thermal Maturity is between 1,454 and 4,339 Bcf, with a mean of 2,654 Bcf. The

total undiscovered resource for the Greater Siltstone was estimated between 892 Bcf and

1,894 Bcf, with a mean of 1,294 Bcf.

References

1. USGS. U.S. Geological Survey Open

- File Report 2005

- 1268 . 2005.

2. USGS. Assessment of the Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Appalachian

Basin Province. 2002.

3. West Virginia Geological Economic Survey. Summary Data and Statistics: The Atlas

of Major Appalachian Gas Plays . 1996. Devonian Low Thermal Maturity & Greater SiltstoneReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

15



## D. New Albany Shale Gas Play

Play Description

The New Albany shale gas play is located in the Illinois Basin in Illinois, Indiana and

Kentucky. The location and extent of the New Albany shale is provided in Figure 6

.

Figure 6 New Albany Shale Play

Resource Estimate

The total area for the New Alb any shale play is approximately 43,500 square mi les. The total

area includes an active and undeveloped area of the play. Deutsche Bank estimated a total

active area of 1,600 square miles. Thus, the remaining area is 41,900 square miles and is

characterize d as undeveloped area. New Albany has a n average EUR of 1.1 Bcf per well and

approximately 10.95 Tcf of technically recoverable gas. The d epth of the New Albany shale

ranges from 1,000 to 4,500 and is 100 to 300 feet thick

. Due to the lack of current pr oduction

and other issues in the undeveloped section of New Albany, the average EUR, well spacing,

and total organic content is undetermined. These values are provided in Table s 10 and 11

. New AlbanyReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

16 Table 10 New Albany Average EUR a nd Area

Active Undeveloped

Area (sq. miles) 1,600 41,900

EUR (Bcf

/ well) 1.1

---- Well Spacing (wells/ sq. mile) 8

----

TRR (Tcf ) 10.95

Other properties were estimated for the New Albany shale. These include the depth,

thickness, porosity, and tot al organic content for the shale. The values are provided in Table

11

.

Table 11 Average General Properties for the New Albany Shale Play

Active Undeveloped

Depth (ft) 2,750 2,750

Thickness (ft) 200 200

Porosity (%) 12 12

Total Organic Content (% wt) 13

----

Active Companies

In 2008, there were 9 companies holding leases in the New Albany shale play. These

companies, along with their net acreage, as reported by De utsche Bank , are listed in Table 12

.

Table 12 New Albany Lease Holders

Company Net Acreage

BreitBurn Energy Partners 168,430

Carrizo Oil & Gas 22,000

CNX Gas 356,000

Continental Resources 44,000

El Paso 122,000

Forest Oil 31,900

NG AS Resources 8,750

Noble Energy 179,000

Rex Energy 92,0 00

Based upon these lease holdings, the total active area is calculated at 1,024,080 net acres

(1,600 square miles).

Well Costs

According to Deutsche Bank, New Albany has a well cost ranging from $0.8 to $1.0 million

dollars for the developed area. Due t o a lack of drilling activity and harsh terrain in the

undeveloped area, well costs in this region of the shale are undetermined.

USGS Comparison

In 2007, the USGS completed an assessment of the Illinois Basin. As part of the assessment,

they estimated t he undiscovered resource for the Devonian to Mississippian New Albany

continuous gas. They estimated resources between 1.3 and 8.1 Tcf with a mean undiscovered

resource of 3.8 Tcf

. New AlbanyReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

17

References

1. U.S. Department of Energy. Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A

Primer. April 2009.

2. Deutsche Bank. From Shale to Shining Shale. July 2008.

3. USGS. Assessment of the Undiscovered Natural Gas Resources of the Illinois Basin.

August 2010.

4. Discovery Group Inc. 2007 New Albany Shale Update. June 2007.

5. Sundance Energy. Annual General Meeting. November 2006.

6. Gas Technology Institute. New Albany Shale Project

– Project Update. Presented at

Mid

- Continent Gas Shale Forum and RPSEA Member Meeting . June 2009.

7. Phasis Consulting. US Shale Gas Brief. Septe mber 2008.

8. Forest Oil Corporation. In the Zone

- 2008 Analyst Conference. April 2008.

9. Forest Oil Corporation. Analyst Conference . March 2006.

10. Marsh Operating Company. Unconventional Gas Plays SPEE. December 2007.

11. Carrizo Oil and Gas. Pritchard Capita l

- Energize 2010 Conference . January 2010.

12. GTI, RPSEA, and Restech. Spring Topical Conference 2009

- Philadelphia Shale

Evaluation. New Albany Example

- RPSEA/ GTI Project . 2009.

13. GTI and RPSEA. New Albany Shale Gas Research Project. Presented at 24 th Wor ld

Gas Conference . October 2009. New AlbanyReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

18 New AlbanyReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

19



## E. Antrim Shale Gas Play

Play Description

The Antrim shale gas play is located in the Michigan B asin in the northern part of Michigan

State. According to Red Fork Energy, the Antrim shale is the 13 th largest natural gas producer

in the United States. The location of the Antri m shale is provided in Figure 7

.

Figure 7 Antrim Shale Play

Resource Estimate

The total area of the Antrim shale play is approximately 12,000 square miles as shown in

Table 13 . The total area includes the developed and undeveloped area of the play. Based

upon the active area reported by Deutsche Bank, the developed area is approximately 527

square miles. Thus, the remaining area is 11,743 squ are miles as undeveloped area. Due to

the large difference in areas of the developed and undeveloped sections, Antrim shale is being

modeled as a single unit. The shale gas play has a n average EUR of 0.28 Bcf per well and

approximately 19.9 Tcf of technically recoverable gas. Antrim r anges from 600 to 2,200 feet

deep and is 70 to 120 feet think. AntrimReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

20 Table 13 Average Antrim EUR and Are a

Active

Area (sq. miles) 12,000

EUR (Bcf

/ well) 0.2 8

Well Spacing (wells/ sq. mile) 7

TRR (Tcf ) 19.93

Other average properties were estimated for the Antrim shale play. These include the depth,

thickness, porosity, and total organic content for the shale. The values are provided in Table

14

.

Table 14 Average General Properties for the Antrim Shale Play

D epth (ft) 1,400

Thickness (ft) 95

Porosity (%) 9

Total Organic Content (% wt) 11

Active Companies

In 2008, there were 4 companies holding leases in the Antrim shale play. These companies,

al ong with their net acreage, as reported by Deutsche Bank , are listed in Table 15

.

Table 15 Antrim Lease Holders

Company Net Acreage

Atlas Energy Resources LLC 53,000

BreitBurn Energy Partners 256,438

HighMount E&P LLC 1,778

Whiting Petroleum 25,869

Based upon these lease holdings, the total active area is calculated at 337,085 net acres (527

square miles).

Well Costs

In 2008, Deutsche Bank estimated an average well cost for the Antrim shale play ranging

from $0.3 to $0.5 million dollars.

Current Activities

Antrim shale activity began in 1980 with 9,000 completed wells as of 2008.

USGS Comparison

In 2004

, USGS conducted an assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources of the U.S.

Portion of the Michigan B asin. As part of the assessment, they evaluated the Devonian

Antrim continuous gas. Their estimate ranged from 5,864 Bcf to 9,669 Bcf with a mean of

7,475 Bcf.

Reference

1. Red Fork Energy. Red Fork Energy’s Large Shale Gas Discovery in Oklahoma

Investor Presentation . May 2010.

2. U.S. Department of Energy. Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A

Primer. April 2009. AntrimReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

21

3. Deutsche Bank. From Shale to Shining Shale. July 2008.

4. Wayne R. Goodman and Timothy R. Maness. Michigan’ s Antrim Gas Shale Play ─ A

Two

- Decade Template for Successful Devonian Gas Shale Development . April 2008.

5. USGS. Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the U.S. Portion of the

Michigan Basin. 2004.

6. Gas Technology Institute. New Albany Shal e Project

– Project Update. Presented at

Mid

- Continent Gas Shale Forum and RPSEA Member Meeting . June 2009.

7. Jenkins, Creties, DeGolyer, MacNaughton, and Boyer, Charles II. Coalbed

- and

Shale

- Gas Reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Technology. February 20 08.

8. MuleShoe Engineering. CBM and Shale Gas Upstream Facilities . 2010.

9. Milind Deo from University of Utah. Shale Gas

- Promise and Current Status . 2008.

10. Phasis Consulting. US Shale Gas Brief. September 2008.

11. Novas Consulting Oil & Gas Consultancy. US Shale Gas What’s Going On . April

2010. AntrimReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

22 AntrimReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

23



## III. Gulf Coast Regional Summary

The Gulf Coast region includes the Haynesville, Eagle Ford and the Floyd

- Neal/Conasauga

shale gas and shale oil plays. The Haynesville shale play is located in Texas and Louisiana,

Eagle Ford is located in the Texas Maverick Basin and Floyd

- Neal/Conas auga lies in the

Black Warrior B asin. The reviewed plays have a combined area of 14,752 square miles with

an aver age EUR between 0.9 and 5.0 Bcf per well and 300 M BO per well. The revi ewed

plays c ontain approximately 99.99 Tcf of tec hnically recoverable gas and 3.3 5 BBO of

technically recoverable oil.

Figure 8 Gulf Coast Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resources Gulf C oa s t RegionReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

24 Gulf Coat RegionReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

25



## A. Haynesville Shale Gas Play

Play Description

The Hay nesville shale gas play, also known as the Haynesville/Bossier shale play, is located

in East Texas and Western Louisiana. In 2007, high shale gas well production rates suggested

that the Haynesville might have significant gas reserves. The location of t he play is provided

in Figure 9

.

Figure 9 The Haynesville Shale Play

Resource Estimate

The Haynesville shale has a total area of approximately 9,000 square miles and an estimated

technically recoverable resource of 74.7 Tcf. The average EUR per well is estimated to be 3.6

Bcf

. The depth of the shale ranges between 10,500 and 13,500 feet with a thickness of 200 to

300 feet. The Haynesville was divided into two zones: active and undeveloped. The active

area corresponds with the a creage that is currently held by the companies and might be under Hayne s villeReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

26

development. The undeveloped area represents the acreage that is not currently held by

companies.

The act ive area, as detailed in Table 16 , is 3,574 square miles and has a TRR of 53.3 Tcf,

which is equivalent to 6.5 Bcf per well. At the well level, the reported EURs range between 4

and 10 Bcf. The TRR for the undeveloped area is 19.4 1 Tcf or 1.5 Bcf per well.

Table 16 Haynesville Average EUR and Area

Active Undeve loped

Area (sq. miles) 3,574 5,426

EUR (Bcf

/ well) 6.5 1.5

Well Spacing (wells/ sq. mile) 8 8

TRR (Tcf ) 53.30 19.41

Other average properties were estimated for the Haynesville Shale. These include the depth,

thickness, porosity, and total organic con tent for the shale. The values are provided in Table

17

.

Table 17 Average General Properties for the Haynesville Shale Play

Depth (ft) 12,000

Thickness (ft) 250

Porosity (%) 8.5

Total Organic Content (% wt) 2.25

Active Companie s

In 2008, there were 24 companies holding leases in the Haynesville Shale. These companies,

along with their net acreage, are listed in Table 18

.

Table 18 Haynesville Lease Holders

Company Net Acreage

Anadarko Petroleum 60,000

B erry Petroleum 4,508

Cabot Oil & Gas 50,000

Chesapeake 440,000

Comstock 53,000

Cubic Energy 6,326

Devon Energy 200,000

El Paso 27,000

Encana Corp. 325,000

Encore Acquisition 6,000

EOG Resources 150,000

EXCO Resources 107,000

Forest Oil 90,000

G MX Resources 27,500

Goodrich Petroleum 60,500

Noble Energy 18,000

Penn

- Virginia 54,000 Hayne s villeReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

27 Company Net Acreage

Petrohawk 275,000

Plains Exploration & Production 110,000

Questar 29,500

SandRidge 32,739

St. Mary Land & Exploration 50,000

Unit Corp. 11,506

XTO Energy 100, 000

Based upon these lease holdings, the total active area is calculated at 2,287,579 net acres

(3,574 square miles).

Well Costs

In 2008, Deutsche Bank reported the average well cost as between $6 and $7 million dollars.

In 2010, the cost has increased t o at least $7 million dollars. The highest cost reported by a

company is between $9.5 and $10 million dollars including at least $2 million for stimulation.

Both Petrohawk and Encana report costs averaging $9 million per well.

Current Activities

There is significant current drilling activity in the Haynesville. In August of this year, Plains

Exploration and Production reported that there were 48 rigs currently active in the play. They

further stated that 31 of these were operated by Chesapeake. This re port is consistent with

statements reported by both Chesapeake and Petrohawk.

Representative Type Curve

Figure 10 provides a representative type curve for a Haynesville well. According to

Petrohawk, the well produces 80% of the EUR within the first ten ye ars.

Figure 10 Haynesville Type Curve Hayne s villeReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

28

USGS Comparison

This play has not been evaluated by USGS.

References

1. U.S. Department of Energy. Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A

Primer. April 2009.

2. Petro hawk. Operations: Haynesville Shale and Bossier Shale. Presented at

Petrohawk Energy Corporation 2010 Analyst Meeting. May 24, 2010.

3. Deutsche Bank. From Shale to Shining Shale. July 2008.

4. Chesapeake Energy. Haynesville Shale. Presented at the America n Association of

Drilling Engineers Conference. January 2010.

5. EXCO Resources, Inc. Second Quarter 2010 Review . August 4, 2010.

6. Encana. The New Encana. Presented at the 2010 CAPP Oil & Gas Investment

Symposium. June 14, 2010.

7. Plains Exploration & Prod uction Company. 2Q 2010 Presentation. August 2010.

8. Denbury Resources Inc. Haynesville Area. May 2010.

9. ALL Consulting. Evaluating the Environmental Implications of Hydraulic

Fracturing in Shale Gas Reservoirs. Presented at the International Petroleum &

BioFuels Environmental Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico. November 2008.

10. Chesapeake Energy. August 2010 Investor Presentation. August 2010.

11. Comstock Resources. August 2010. Hayne s villeReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

29



## B. Eagle Ford Shale Gas & Oil Play

Play Description

The Eagle Ford shale ga s and oil play is located within the Texas Maverick Basin. The play

contains a high liquid component. This has led to the definition of three zones: an oil zone, a

condensate zone, and a dry gas zone. The play and the delimitation of the three zones are

provided in the following figure.

Figure 11 Eagle Ford Shale Play

The Eagle Ford shale was first discovered by Petrohawk in 2008. The initial well was located

in the Hawkville field in LaSalle County, Texas. According to the Railroad Commission of

Texas, as of September 2010, there are 162 completed wells in the Eagle Ford as well as 690

well permits.

Resource Estimate

The area for Eagle Ford was calculated using maps and other data reported by the c ompanies

who are currently leasing acres with the Eagle Ford shale play. The area of the dry gas zone

is estimated at 200 square miles. The same process was done for the oil and condensate zone

using the sum of the area for each company. The area of the condensate zone was estimated

at 890 square miles and the area for the oil zone is estimated at 2,233 square miles. Eagle

Ford has a n average EUR of 5.0 Bcf per well and 300 M BO per well. The shale gas and shale

oil play has approximately 20.81 Tcf of t echnically recoverable gas and 3.3 5 B b bl of

technically recoverable oil. Eagle For dReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

30

According to Talisman Energy and Rosetta Resources, 4 Bcf per well was reported as a

minimum value for the average EUR, and Petrohawk Energy and Murphy Oil Corporation

re ported a max imum value of 6 Bcf

. An average EUR range of 150 to 750 M BO per well was

estimated by Petrohawk Energy as well. The average EUR obtai ned for the oil zone is 300

MBO , the condensate zone has an average EUR of 4.5 Bcf and the dry gas zone has

approximately 5.5 Bcf EUR. The average well spacing ranges from 4 to 8 wells per square

mile, with dry gas zone as the lowest, condensate zone the highest and the oil zone with a well

spacing of 5 wells per square mile. The TRR for the oil zone is 3.3 5 BBO while the dry gas

and condensate zones have EURs of 4.4 and 16.4 Tcf respectively. The total TRR for the

play is 20.8 Tcf of gas and 3.3 5 BBO of liquids. These values are provided in Table 1 9

.

Table 19 Eagle Ford Average EUR and Areas

Dry Gas

Zone Condensate

Zone Oil

Zone

Area (sq. miles) 200 890 2,233

EUR (Bcf

/ well) 5.5 4.5

EUR (M BO / well) 300

Well Spacing (wells/ sq. mile) 4 8 5

TRR ( BBO ) 3.35

TRR (Tcf ) 4.38 16.43

Other average properties were estimated for the Eagle Ford s hale play. These include the

depth, thickness, porosity, and total organic content for the shale. The values are provided in

Table 2 0

.

Table 20 Average General Properties for the Eagle Ford Shale Play

Depth (ft) 7,000

Thickness ( ft) 200

Porosity (%) 9

Total Organic Content (% wt) 4.25

Active Companies

There are more than 11 companies currently holding leases in the Eagle Ford shale play.

These companies, along with their net acreage, are listed in Table s 21 through 23 for each of

the 3 Eagle Ford shale zones

.

Table 21 Eagle Ford Dry Gas Zone Lease Holders

Company Net Acreage

EOG Resources 49,000

Swift Energy 78,000 Eagle For dReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

31 Table 22 Eagle Ford Condensate Zone Lease Holders

Compan y Net Acreage

Comstock 18,000

EOG Resources 26,000

Murphy Oil Corporation 1 00,000

Petrohawk Energy Corporation 270 ,000

Pioneer Natural Resources 89,000

Rosetta Resources 29,500

Talisman 37,000

Table 23 Eagle Ford Oil Zone Le ase Holders

Company Net Acreage

Anadarko 260,000

EOG Resources 505 ,000

Goodrich Petroleum Corporation 35,000

Murphy Oil Corporation 1 00,000

Petrohawk Energy Corporation 87 ,000

TXCO Resources 442,000

In 2010, these companies have leased a total of 2, 125,500 net acres (3,321 square miles).

Future Development

Since Eagle Ford is a developing play, there is minimal information available on the future

drilling activity for the companies currently holding leases within the shale. One of the

companies to d iscuss their future development is Pioneer Natural Resources , who plans to

increase drilling activity to 6

– 7 rigs in year 2010, 10 rigs by 2011 and by 2012 they plan to

be operating 14 rigs in Eagle Ford.

Drilling Cost

According to Petrohawk Energy the average well cost ranges from 4.0 to 6.5 million dollars

per horizontal well.

USGS Comparison

This play has not been evaluated by USGS.

Representative Type Curve

Figure 12 provides a representative type curve for an Eagle Ford well. This curve was

develop ed by Petrohawk for the Hawkville Field within the condensate zone of the play.

According to Petrohawk, the well will produce 30 percent of the EUR in the first year, and

75% within the first ten years. Eagle For d Eagle For dReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

32 Figure 12 Eagle Ford Type Curve

References

1. Talisman Energy

. And Common ’ s Eagle Ford Assets Go to... Talisman! June 2010.

2. Railroad Commission of Texas. Eagle Ford Shale Play Highlights.

3. Swift Energy. IPAA Oil & Gas Investment Symposium . June 2010.

4. EOG Resources

. EOG Resources South Texas Eagle Ford. 2010

. 5. TXCO Resources

. Howard Weil 37 th Annual Energy Conference. March 2009

. 6. Anadarko Petroleum

. Anadarko Investor Conference. March 20 10

. 7. Goodrich Petroleum Corp oration. EnerCom

- The Oil & Gas Conference. August

20 10

. 8. Murphy Oil Corp oration. Howard Weil 2010 Energy Conference. March 2010

. 9. Rosetta Resources

. IPAA Oil & Gas Investment Symposium. Apr il 20 10

. 10. Pioneer Natural Resources

. Investor Presentation June 2010. August 20 10

. 11. Talisman Energy

. Investor Open House, May 2010 North American Operations.

May 20 10

. 12. Murphy Oil Corp oration. Howard Weil 2010 Energy Conference. March 2010

13. Petrohawk Energy. 2010 Eagle Ford Shale Overview Presented at Annual

Association of Drilling Engineers

. January 20 10

. 14. Comstock

. Comstock. September 20 10

. 15. Deutsche Bank

. From Shale to Shining Shale. July 2008. Eagle For dReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

33



## C. Floyd

- Neal/Conasauga Shale Gas Play

Play Description

The Floyd

- Neal/Conasauga shale gas play is located within Alabama and Mississippi in the

Black Warrior Basin. Due to the lack of data published on the individual shales, the Floyd

Neal and Conasauga were combined into a single play for evaluation purposes. The location

and area is proved in Figure 13

.

Figure 13 Floyd

- Neal/Conasauga Shale Play

Resource Est imate

According to Deutsche Bank, the Floyd

- Neal / Conasauga shale contains approximately 2,429

square miles of combined active net acres with an average EUR of about 0.9 Bcf per well and

4.37 Tcf of technically recoverable gas . The shale ranges from 6,000 to 10,000 feet deep and

80 to 180 feet thick with a well spacing of 2 well per square mile (320 acres per well). These

values are provided in Tables 24 and 25

.

Table 24 Floyd

- Neal/Conasauga Average EUR and Area

Active

Area (sq. mi les) 2,429

EUR (Bcf

/ well) 0.9

Well Spacing (wells/ sq. mile) 2

TRR (Tcf ) 4.3 7

Other average properties estimated for the Floyd

- Neal/Co nasauga are provided in Table 23

. These include the depth, thickness, porosity, and total organic content for the sh ale. Floyd - Neal/ConasaugaReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

34 Table 25 Average General Properties for the Floyd

- Neal/Conasauga Shale Play

Depth (ft) 8,000

Thickness (ft) 130

Porosity (%) 1.6

Total Organic Content (% wt) 1.8

Active Companies

The active companies, along with their ne t acreage, are prov ided in Table 26

.

Table 26 Floyd

- Neal/Conasauga Lease Holders

Company Net Acreage

Anadarko Petroleum 250,000

Carrizo Oil & Gas 138,000

Chesapeake Energy 287,500

Edge Petroleum 13,563

Energen 287,500

HighMoun t E&P LLC 328,038

Murphy Oil 200,000

Range Resources 50,000

These companies have leased a total of 1,5 54,601 net acres (2,429 square miles).

Current Activities

Since the Floyd

- Neal/Conasauga shale play is a new developing play, there is minimal

informat ion published for the future drilling activity for the companies who are currently

holding leases within the shale.

Well Costs

The average well cost for the Floyd

- Neal/Conasauga shale is $3.0 million dollars as reported

by Deutsche Bank.

USGS Comparison

This play h as not been evaluated by USGS.

References

1. IHS Energy. Exploration and Development Trends Southeastern States . 2007.

2. Deutsche Bank

. From Shale to Shining Shale. July 2008.

3. Cane River Resources. Broomtown Prospect Conasauga Shale Bed Methane.

4. Ke nt A Bowker with Bowker Petroleum. Recent Activity in the Floyd, Neal, and

Chattanooga Shale Plays, Black Warrior Basin, Alabama and Mississippi. 2008.

5. Mississippi Geological Society. eBulletin . 2007.

6. Carrizo Oil and Gas. Pritchard Capital

- Energize 2010 C onference . January 2010.

7. Range Resources. Company Presentation . August 2007.

8. Oil and Gas Investor. An Investor’s Guide to Shale Gas . January 2007. Floyd - Neal/ConasaugaReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

35



## IV. Mid

- Continent Regional Summary

The mid

- c ontinent region includes shale gas plays located in the Arkoma, Ar dmore and

Anadarko B asins. Located with in theses basins are the Fayetteville, Woodford and Cana

Woodford shale plays (Figure 14 )

. The total area of the reviewed plays is estimated at 14,388

square miles with an aver age EUR between 1.7 and 2.5 Bcf and app roximately 59.9 Tcf of

technically recoverable gas.

Figure 14 Mid

- Continent Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resources

Mid - Continent RegionReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

36 Mid - Continent RegionReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

37



## A. Fayetteville Shale Gas Play

Play Description

The Fayetteville shale gas play is located within the Arkoma Basin in Arkansas. Fayetteville

is divided into two main units, Central and Western based on the location of the shale.

Fayetteville Central extends from the Arkansas

- Oklahoma border to the East of Johnson,

Logan and Yell counties. Figure 1 5 shows the location a nd area of Fayetteville Central.

Figure 15 Fayetteville Shale Play

Resource Estimate

Based on the U.S. Department of Energy, the total area for the Fayetteville shale play,

including Central and Western Fayetteville, is 9,000 sq uare miles. Fayetteville Central is

4,000 square miles and the remaining shale, Fayetteville Western, is approximately 5,000

square miles. The shale gas play has a n average EUR of 1.7 Bcf per well and approximately

31.96 Tcf of technically recoverable ga s. The shale ranges from 1,000 to 7,000 feet deep and

20 to 200 feet thick. These values are summarized in Tables 27 and 28

.

Table 27 Fayetteville Average EUR and Area

Western Central

Area (sq. miles) 5,000 4,000

EUR (Bcf

/ wel l) 1.15 2.25

Well Spacing (wells/ sq. mile) 8 8

TRR (T cf ) 4.64 27.32

Other average properties estimated for the Fayetteville shale play are provided in Table 28

. These include the depth, thickness, porosity, and total organic content for the shale. FayettevilleReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

3 8 Table 28 Average General Properties for the Fayetteville Shale Play

Central/ Western

Depth (ft) 4,000

Thickness (ft) 110

Porosity (%) 5

Total Organic Content (% wt) 6.9

Active Companies

In 2008, there were 9 companies holding leases within the Fayetteville shale play. These

companies, along with their net acreage, as reported by Deutsche Bank , are listed in Table 29

.

Table 29 Fayetteville Lease Holders

Company Net Acreage

Carrizo Oil and Gas 23,900

C hesapeake 585,000

Edge Petroleum 4,692

Penn

- Virginia 14,500

PetroHawk 155,000

PetroQuest 18,000

Southwestern Energy 851,069

Storm Cat Energy 18,265

XTO Energy 300,000

T hese companies have leased a total of 1,970,426 net acres (3,079 square miles).

In 2010, XTO Energy reported that they increased their Fayetteville acreage to 380,000 net

acres. Carrizo Oil and Gas reported 26,000 net acres and Southwestern Energy has a total of

888,695 net acres in 2010.

Well Costs

According to Southwestern Energy, the average well cost completed for 2009 was $2.9

million dollars. This is within the range of $1.75 to $3.05 million dol lars as reported by

Deutsche Bank.

Current Activities

Southwestern Energy drilled and completed 249 wells within the first six months of 2010.

They plan on participating in 650 to 680 wells by the end of the year and operate on 475 to

500 wells. Currently, Chesapeake Energy is operating about 8 rigs and plans to have about 10

rigs in 20 10 to drill about 85 net well.

USGS Comparison

In 2010, the USGS conducted an assessment for the Fayetteville Shale Gas

- Western Arkansas

Basin Margin. They estimated that the total undiscovered resource is between 2,260 and

6,865 Bcf, with a mean of 4,170 Bcf.

Representative Type Curve

Figure 16 provides a representative type curve for a Fayetteville well. According to

Petrohawk, this 2.2 Bcfe Fayetteville type curve show the cumulative production and

production rate for the play. FayettevilleReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

39 Figure 16 Fayetteville Type Curve

References

1. Ad vanced Resources International. Fayetteville Shale.

2. U.S. Department of Energy. Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A

Primer. April 2009.

3. Deutsche Bank. From Shale to Shining Shale. July 2008.

4. XTO Energy. Barnett vs. Marcellus

– A Com parison of Two Shale Gas Giants. June

2009.

5. Carrizo Oil and Gas. Pritchard Capital

- Energize 2010 Conference . January 2010.

6. Southwestern Energy. August 2010 Update . August 2010.

7. Chesapeake Energy. August 2010 Investor Presentation . August 2010.

8. USGS

. Assessment of the Undiscovered Natural Gas Resources of the Arkoma Basin

Province and Geologically Related Areas. 2010.

9. Petrohawk Energy. Eagle Ford Shale & Othe r Q&A.

10. Range Resources. March Company Presentation. March 2009.

11. Howard Weil. Unconventi onal Gas and its Impact on Domestic Supply. April 2008.

12. Phasis Consulting. US Shale Gas Brief. September 2008.

13. Marsh Operating Company. Unconventional Gas Plays SPEE. December 2007.

14. Brian Teller with XTO Energy. Fayetteville Shale . January 2009. Fayettevill eReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

40 FayettevilleReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

41



## B. Woodford Shale Gas Play

Play Description

The Woodford shale gas play is divided into two sections based on the location of the shale in

Oklahoma. The Woodford Central is located in the Ardmore Basin and Woodford Western is

located in the Arkoma Basin. T he locations of the Woodford shales are provided in Figure

17

.

Figure 17 Woodford Shale Play

Resource Estimate

Advanced Resources International estimated a total area for the Woodford Shales as 2,900

square miles in the Arkoma Ba sin and 1,800 square miles in the Ardmore Basin, both

containing a well spacing of 160 acres per square mile. The shale gas play has a n average

EUR of 2.5 Bcf per well and approximately 22.2 Tcf of technically recoverable gas for both

the Western and Cent ral Woodford

. Within the Arkoma Basin, the Woodford Western ranges

from 6,000 to 13,000 feet deep with a thickness o f 150 feet and a EUR of 4.0 Bcf per well.

The Woodford Central has a depth of 5 ,000 feet with a EUR of 1.0 Bcf per well. These

average va lues are provided in Tables 30 and 31

.

Table 30 Woodford Average EUR and Area

Western Central

Area (sq. miles) 2,900 1,800

EUR (Bcf

/ well) 4.0 1.0

Well Spacing (wells/ sq. mile) 4 4

TRR (Tcf ) 19.26 2.95 WoodfordReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

42

Other average properti es were estimated for the Woodford shale play. These include the

depth, thickness, porosity, and total organic content for the shale. The values are provided in

Table 31

.

Table 31 Average General Properties for the Woodford Shale Play

Western Central

Depth (ft) 9,500 5,000

Thickness (ft) 150 250

Porosity (%) 7 6

Total Organic Content (% wt) 6.5 4

Active Companies

In 2008, there were 13 companies holding leases within Woodford. These companies, along

with their net acreage, a s reported by Deutsche Bank , are listed in Table 32

.

Table 32 Woodford Lease Holders in the Arkoma and Ardmore Basins

Company Net Acreage

Chesapeake Energy 85,000

Cimarex 25,000

Continental Resources 45,000

Devon Energy 54,000

Linn Energy 46,000

Newfield Exploration 165,000

Penn

- Virginia 40,000

Petroquest 39,500

Range Resources 13,000

St. Mary Land & Exploration 40,000

Williams Cos. 90,000

Unit Corporation 18,100

XTO Energy 160,000

These companies have leased a total o f 820,600 net acres (1,282 square miles)

Well Costs

In 2007, Marsh Operating Company estimated that well costs for the Woodford shale in the

Arkoma Basin range from $6 to $7 million dollars and in 2008 Deutsche Bank reported a

larger range of $4.6 to $8 mi llion dollars for the Woodford shale in the Arkoma and Ardmore

Basins.

Current Activities

Due to the lack of drilling activity in the Ardmore Basin, there is no data available. The

Woodford shale in the Arkoma Basin had 166 vertical wells and 37 horizonta l wells

completed in 2007. According to PetroQuest, 4 wells are completed as of August 2010 and

the company is expecting a 3

- rig Woodford program by the end of the year. Devon Energy

drilled 61 wells in 2009 and plans to have about 85 wells drilled in 20 10. WoodfordReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

43

USGS Comparison

In 2010, USGS conducted an assessment of the Woodford shale in the Arkoma Basin. They

estimated that the total undiscovered resource is between 6,065 and 14,036 Bcf, with a mean

of 10,068 Bcf. The shale gas resource in the Ardmore B asin h as not been evaluated by

USGS

.

References

1. Advanced Resources International. Woodford Shale.

2. Range Resources. March Company Presentation. March 2009.

3. Deutsche Bank. From Shale to Shining Shale. July 2008.

4. Marsh Operating Company. Unconventional Gas Plays SPEE. December 2007.

5. PetroQuest Energy. PetroQuest Energy . August 2010.

6. Devon Energy. IPAA Oil and Gas Investor Symposium . April 2010.

7. USGS. Assessment of the Undiscovered Natural Gas Resources of the Arkoma Basin

Province and Geologicall y Related Areas. 2010.

8. Howard Weil. An Update on Shale Activity in the US.

9. Howard Weil. Unconventional Gas and its Impact on Domestic Supply. April 2008.

10. ALL Consulting. Evaluating the Environmental Implications of Hydraulic Fracturing

in Shale Gas Re servoirs. Presented at the International Petroleum & BioFuels

Environmental Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico. November 2008.

11. XTO Energy. Barnett vs. Marcellus

– A Comparison of Two Shale Gas Giants. June

2009.

12. Cimarex Energy. EnerCom Oil & Gas Conf erence. August 2010.

13. United States Geological Survey. Shale Gas Resources in North America and Europe.

June 2010.

14. Spyglass Energy Group. Woodford Shale Gas in Oklahoma . 2008.

15. Phasis Consulting. US Shale Gas Brief. September 2008.

16. TransEnergy Incorpo rated. 2008.

17. Wrightstone Gregory, Texas Keystone, Inc. Marcellus Shale

– Geologic Controls on

Production. Presented at the Winter Meeting of the IOGAWV. February 2009.

18. Unit Corporation. Unit Corporation Presentation . August 2010.

19. Evolution Petroleum Corporation. Corporate Presentation . June 2010.

20. Exxon Mobil. Global Unconventional Resource Opportunity. December 2009.

21. Newfield Exploration. How the Pieces Fit Together UBS Global Oil & Gas

Conference. May 2010.

22. Newfield Exploration. Deutsch Bank

- Energy & Utilities Conference. May 2008. WoodfordReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

44 WoodfordReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

45



## C. Cana Woodford Shale Gas Play

Play Description

Cana Woodford is an emerging gas play located within the Oklahoma Anadarko Basin, about

40 miles west of Oklahoma City (Figure 18 ) . Companies have estimated that C ana Woodford

contains a high liquid content of about 65% gas, 30% NGL and 5% oil.

Figure 18 Cana Woodford Shale Play

Resource Estimate

Based on companies’ leased acreage for th e shale, as provided in Table 33 , the active area fo r Cana Woodford is approximately 688 square miles. Cana Woodford is said to be the world’s

deepest commercial horizontal shale play with depths that range from about 11,500 to 14,500

feet. The shal e’s EUR ranges from 4 to 12 Bcf with an average EUR of 5. 2 Bcf per well . The

TRR is estimated to be 5.7 Tcf with a well spacing of 4 wells per square miles (160 acres per

well ) as provided bellow in Table 33

.

Table 33 Cana Woodford Average EUR and Area

Active

Area (sq. miles) 688

EUR ( Bcf

/ well) 5.2

Well Spacing (wells/ sq. mile) 4

TRR (Tcf ) 5.72

Other average properties estimated for Cana Woodford are provided in Table 34 . These

include the depth, thickness, porosity, and total organic content for the shale.

Table 34 Average General Properties for the Cana Woodford Shale Play

Depth (ft) 13,500

Thickness (ft) 200

Porosity (%) 7

Total Organic Content (% wt) 6 Cana WoodfordReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

46

Active Companies

The active companies, along with their net acreage, are listed in Table 35

.

Tab le 35 Cana Woodford Lease Holders

Company Net Acreage

Devon Energy 230,000

Continental Resources 47,500

Cimarex Energy 97,000

Questar Resources 66,000

These companies have leased a total of 440,500 net acres (688 square miles)

.

Future Development

Since Cana Woodford is a new developing play, there is little information published for the

future drilling activity for the companies who are currently ho lding leases within the shale.

Drilling Cost

According to companies that report activities within Cana Woodford, the average well cost

ranges from $4 to $12 milli on dollars per horizontal well.

USGS Comparison

This play h as not been evaluated by USGS.

Representative Type Curve

Figure 19 provides a Type Curve for Cana Woodford as repor ted by Cimarex Energy

.

Figure 19 Cana Woodford Type Curve Cana WoodfordReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

47

References

1. Devon Energy. Cana Woodford Shale Presented at Annual Association of Drilling

Engineers

. January 2010.

2. Questar Resources. Investor Presentation. August 2010

. 3. Cimarex Energy. EnerCom Oil & Gas Conference. August 2010.

4. Continental Resources. Pritchard Capital Bakken Mini

- Conference. May 2010.

5. Devon Energy. Investor Meeting. August 2010.

6. Devon Energy. Devon Cana

- Woodford Update: 11 Bcfe Type Curve. June 2010.

7. Cimarex Energy. Cimarex in the Cana

- Woodford. May 2010.

8. Petrohawk Energy Corporation. Petrohawk Offers Anadarko and Arkoma Basin

Assets

. June 2010.

9. Panhandle. 2009 Annual Report. 2009. Cana WoodfordReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

48 Cana WoodfordReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

49



## V. Southwest Regional Summary

The Southwest region inclu des shale gas and shale oil plays located in the Fort Worth and

Permian B asins (Figure 20 )

. Located within these basins is the Barnett, Barnett

- Woodford

and the Avalon and Bone Springs shale play with a total area of 10,462 square miles. The

reviewed pla ys have an average per well EUR between 1.2 and 3.0 Bcf and 300 M BO

. There

is approximately 75.5 Tcf of technically recoverable gas and 1.58 B b bl of technically

recoverable oil.

Figure 20 Southwest Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource s Southwest RegionReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

50 Southwest RegionReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

51



## A. Barnett Shale Gas Play

Play Description

The Barnett shale gas play is located within the Fort Worth and Permian Basins in Texas.

The Barnett shale is divided into two sections: the “Core/Tier I” and the Undeveloped. The

Core/Tier I section corres ponds to the areas of the Barnett Shale that are currently under

development. It is primarily located in the Parker, Wise, Johnson, and other neighboring

counties. The undeveloped section corresponds with those areas of the Barnett that have not

been dev eloped by the companies. Because the Barnett extends across two petroleum basins

that are in different regions of Texas, the active and undeveloped sections of the Barnett were

further subdivided for modeling purposes. The location of the shale, as defin ed by Wood

Mackenzie, is provided in Figure 21

.

Figure 21 The Barnett Shale Play

Resource Estimate

The total area for the Barnett, as estimated by USGS is 6,458 square miles. This area is

subdivided into two sections: the Greate r Newark East Frac

- Barrier Continuous Barnett Shale

Gas (1,555 square miles) and the Extended Continuous Barnett Shale Gas (4,903 square

miles). As the development of the Barnett extended beyond the Newark East field

, the active

section of the Barnett was also extended. The remaining area is considered to be undevelope d

section of the Barnett

. The TRR in t hese sections is shown in Table 36

. The Barnett shale

gas play, including the active and undeveloped areas, has a n average EUR of 1.4 Bcf per well

and approximately 43. 37 Tcf of technically recoverable gas

. An average EUR and well

spacing for the active area are based on company data. These value s were used to calculate

the average well and TRR for the undeveloped section of the Barnett

. These av erag es are

summarized in Table 36

. BarnettReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

52 Table 36 Average Barnett EUR and Area

Active Undeveloped

Area (sq. miles) 4,075 2,383

EUR (Bcf

/ well) 1.6 1.2

Well Spacing (wells/ sq. mile) 5 .5 8

TRR (Tcf ) 23.81 19.56

Other average properties were estimated for the Barnett s hale play . These include the depth,

thickness, and porosity for the shale. The values, which are the same for the active and

undeveloped s ections, are provided in Table 37

.

Table 37 Average General Properties for the Barnett Shale Play

Depth (ft) 7,500

Thickness (ft) 300

Porosity (%) 5

Active Companies

In 2008, there were 10 companies holding leases in the Barnett Shale Core and 10 companies

in the South/Western section of the shale. These compan ies, along with their net acreage, are

listed in Table s 38 and 39 respectively.

Table 38 Barnett Core/Tier 1 Lease Holders

Company Net Acreage

Carrizo Oil & Gas 85,429

Chesapeake 260,000

Devon Energy 527,000

EnCana Corp 71,500

EOG Resources 96,000

Quicksilver 16,525

Parallel Petroleum 17,600

Range Resources 20,000

Williams Cos. 32,000

XTO Energy 125,000

Table 39 Barnett South/Western Counties Lease Holders BarnettReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

53 Company Net Acreage

Chesapeake 1 9,400

Denbury 40,400

Devon Energy 199,900

EOG Resources 554,000

EnCana Corp. 71,500

Forest Oil 34,000

Petroleum Development 8,868

Quicksilver 247,000

Range Resources 57,000

XTO Energy 125,000

These Companies have leased a total of 2,608,122 net a cres (4,075 square miles).

Well Costs

The well costs reported in 2008 and 2009 have been between $2 and $3 million dollars for a

well in the Barnett Core. The costs in the Southern and Western counties have a larger range

– between $1.6 and $3.7 million p er well. The differences in costs are consistent with EOG

Resources reported costs.

Current Activities

There is significant current drilling activity in the Barnett. There are at least 58 rigs currently

active in the shale. Of these, 14 are operated by EOG Resources and 22 by Chesapeake.

Representative Type Curve

Figure 22 provides a representative type curve for a Barnett well.

Figure 22 Barnett Type Curve BarnettReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

54

USGS Comparison

In 2003

, USGS completed an assessment of the undiscover ed oil and gas resources within the

Fort Worth Basin. As part of the study, they evaluated two assessment units within the

Barnett

- Paleozoic total petroleum system. The total undiscovered gas resource is between

21,716 Bcf and 31,521 Bcf, with a mean est imate of 26,229 Bcf.

References

1. Deutsche Bank. From Shale to Shining Shale. July 2008.

2. U.S. Department of Energy. Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A

Primer. April 2009.

3. XTO Energy. Barnett vs. Marcellus

– A Comparison of Two Shale Ga s Giants. June

2009.

4. Benedetto, Larry. Unconventional Gas and its Impact on Domestic Supply. April

2008.

5. Chesapeake Energy. Reported at

http://shale.typepad.com/barne ttshale/2009/08/chesapeake

- energy

- .html

. 6. USGS. Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Bend Arch

– Fort

Worth Basin Province of North

– Central Texas and Southwestern Oklahoma. 2003.

7. Baylor, Brandon. Marcellus Shale Decline Analysis

. 2010.

8. Phasis Consulting. US Shale Gas Brief. September 2008.

9. Range Resources. March Company Presentation . March 2009.

10. Wrightstone Gregory, Texas Keystone, Inc. Marcellus Shale

– Geologic Controls on

Production. Presented at the Winter Meeting of t he IOGAWV. February 2009.

11. TransEnergy Incorporated

12. Berman, Arthur. Shale Plays, A Time for Critical Thinking. Presented at the

Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas. October 2009.

13. Darbonne, Nissa. The Barnett Shale and Other Shale Dreams. IHS Energy User

Forum. M ay 2006.

14. Range Resources Corporation. Company Presentation. July 2010.

15. Deo, Milind. University of Utah. Shale Gas Promise and Current State. Presented at

the RPSEA Unconventional Gas Development in the Western Energy Corridor For um.

May 12, 2009.

16. Devon. Shale Gas: Understanding the Rock is Key . Presented at the Peters & Co.

Limited Energy Conference. January 28, 2009.

17. Drake, Steve. Marsh Operating Company. Unconventional Gas Plays . SPEE.

December 6, 2007.

18. Jenkins, Creties, DeGolyer, MacNaughton, and Boyer, Charles II. Coalbed

- and

Shale

- Gas Reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Technology. February 2008.

19. Bob Cluff. The Discovery Group Inc. 2007 New Albany Shale Update. Presented at

the Explorers Club Luncheon, Denver Colo rado. June 21, 2007.

20. Salehi, Iraj. Gas Technology Institute. New Albany Shale Project: Project Update

. Presented at the Mid

- Continent Gas Shale Forum and RPSEA Member Meeting. June

4, 2009.

21. Forest Oil Corporation. 2008 Analyst Conference. April 1, 2 008. BarnettReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

55



## B. Barnett

- Woodford Shale Gas Play

Play Description

The Barnett

- Woodford shale gas play is located in the Permian Basin in West Texas. The

location and area of the Barnett

- Woodford shale is provided in Figure 23

.

Figure 23 Ba rnett

- Woodford Shale Play

Resource Estimate

The Barnett

- Woodford shale play has an area of approximately 2,691 square miles combined

from th e net acreage in Table 38 and a well spacing of 160 acres per well (4 wells per square

mile). The sh a le gas play has a n average EUR of 3.0 Bcf per well and approximately 32. 2 Tcf

of technically recoverable gas. The shale ranges from 5,100 to 15,300 feet deep and 4 to 800

feet thick. These values are provided in Tables 40 and 41

.

Table 40 Bar nett

- Woodford Average EUR and Area

Active

Area (sq. miles) 2,691

EUR (Bcf

/ well) 3.0

Well Spacing (wells/ sq. mile) 4

TRR (Tcf ) 32.15 Barnett - WoodfordReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

56

Other average properties were estimated for Barnett

- Woodford. The se include the depth,

thickness and total organic content for the shale. Porosity data was not publicly available.

The values are provided in Table 41

.

Table 41 Ave rage General Properties for the Barnett

- Woodford Shale Play

Active

Depth (ft) 10,200

Thickness (ft) 400

Porosit y (%)

---- Total Organic Content (% wt) 5.5

Active Companies

In 2008, there were 8 companies holding leases in the Barnett

- Woodford Shale. These

companies, along with their net acreage, as reported by Deutsche Bank , are listed in Table 42

.

Table 42 Barnett

- Woodford Lease Holders

Company Net Acreage

Abraxas 15,000

Carrizo Oil & Gas 70,000

Chesapeake 815,000

Continental Resources 67,000

EnCana Corporation 287,000

Quicksilver 375,000

Range Resources 20,000

TXCO Resources 73 ,500

Based upon these lease holdings, the total active area is calculated at 1,722,500 net acres

(2,691 square miles).

Well Costs

According to Deutsche Bank in 2008, Barnett

- Woodford has an average well cost of $6.5

million dollars.

USGS Comparison

This p lay has not been evaluated by USGS.

References

1. Deutsche Bank. From Shale to Shining Shale. July 2008.

2. The Discovery Group Inc. Barnett Shale

- Woodford Shale pay of the Delaware Basin

- is it

Another Giant Shale Gas Field in Texas?

3. Marsh Operating Company

. Unconventional Gas Plays SPEE. December 2007. Barnett - WoodfordReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

57



## C. Avalon & Bone Springs Shale Oil Play

Play Description

The Avalon and Bone Springs shale oil play is located in the Permian Basin in Southeast New

Mexico and West Texas. The Avalon play also includes the New Mexico Leonard Shale.

Due to the lack of data published, Bone Spring and the Avalon shale are combined into a

single unit. In Figure 24 , SandRidge Energy shows the location and area of the shale play.

Figure 24 Avalon and B one Springs Shale Play

Resource Estimate

The area for Avalon and Bone Springs was calculated using maps and other data reported by

the companies who are currently leasing acres within Avalon and Bone Springs. The total

active area is approximately 1,313 square miles. The shale oil play has a n average EUR of

300 M BO per well and approximately 1.58 B b bl of technically recoverable oil

. The play has

a reported depth from 6,000 to 13,000 feet and a thickness ranging from 900 to 1,700 feet.

These values are provided in Table 43

. Avalon & Bone SpringsReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

58 Table 43 Avalon and Bone Springs EUR and Area

Active

Area (sq. miles) 1,313

EUR (M BO / well) 300

Well Spacing (wells/ sq. mile) 4

TRR ( BBO ) 1.58

Other average properties were estimated for Avalon and Bone Springs. These include the

depth and thickness. The values are provided in Table 44 . Due to the lack of publicly

reported data, the porosity and total organic content are undetermined.

Table 44 General Properties for the Avalon/ Bone Springs Shale Play

Active

Depth (ft) 8,750

Thickness (ft) 1,300

Porosity (%)

---- Total Organic Content (% wt)

----

Active Companies

In 2008, there were 6 companies holding leases in the Avalon and Bone Springs play. These

companies, along with their net a creage, are listed in Table 45

.

Table 45 Avalon and Bone Springs Lease Holders

Company Net Acreage

Chesapeake 190,000

EOG Resources 120,000

Devon Energy 235,000

SandRidge Energy 25,000

Anadarko Petroleum 170,000

C oncho 100,000

As of 2010, these companies have leased a combined total of 840,000 net acres (1,313 square

miles).

Well Costs

According to Concho, the average wel l cost within the Bone Springs p lay range from $3 to $5

million dollars.

Current Activities

Sa ndRidge Energy currently has 31 horizontal rigs drilling within the Bone Springs and

Avalon shale play and according to Concho, as of August 2010, the industry has drilled 250

horizontal wells within Bone Springs play.

USGS Comparison

In 2007, USGS assesse d the undiscovered oil and gas resources in the Permian Basin. This

was the first time they broke out the continuous gas resources. However, the Avalon shale

was not assessed at that time. Avalon & Bone SpringsReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

59

References

1. SandRidge Energy. SandRidge

- Investor Presentation

. August 2010.

2. Carrizo Oil & Gas. Presented at the Howard Weil 38 th Annual Energy Conference.

March 24, 2010.

3. USGS

. Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Permian Basin

Province of West Texas and Southeast New Mexico. 2007.

4. USGS

. Bone Spring Formation. September 2010.

5. Concho. Investor Presentation . August 2010.

6. http://www.oilshalegas.com/avalonshale.html

7. http://www.aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/81/9/1423

8. Chesapeake Energy. August 2010 Investor Presentation . August 2010.

9. Cimarex Energy. EnerCom Oil & Gas Conference. August 2010.

10. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation. Inve stor Conference. March 2010.

11. PLS Inc. Prospect Centre. Market Alert . April 14, 2010.

12. PLS Inc. A&D Transactions. Market Alert. July 2010. Avalon & Bone SpringsReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

60 Avalon & Bone SpringsReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

61



## VI. Rocky Mountain Regional Summary

The Rocky Mountain region includes shale gas and shale oil plays in the Gre ater Green River,

San Juan , Uinta, and Williston B asin s

. Located within these basins are the Hilliard

- Baxter

Mancos, Lewis, Mancos and the Bakken shale play s with a combined area of 37,033 square

miles (Figure 25 )

. The reviewed plays have an avera ge EUR between 0.18 and 1.3 Bcf and

55 M BO

. There is approximately 43.0 Tcf of tec hnically recoverable gas and 3.59 B b bl of

technically recoverable oil.

Figure 25 Rocky Mountains Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resources Rocky Mountain RegionReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

62 Rocky Mountain RegionReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

63



## A. Hilliard

- Baxter

- Ma ncos Shale Gas Play

Play Description

The Hilliard

- Baxter

- Mancos shale gas play is located in the Greater Green River Basin in

Wyoming and Colorado. According to Deutsche Bank, this is an environmentally sensitive

region with high bottomhole pressures that complicates drilling completions. The location of

the shale play is provided in Figure 26

.

Figure 26 Hilliard

- Baxter

- Mancos Shale Play

Resource Estimate

According to USGS , the total active area for Hilliard

- Baxter

- Mancos is 16 ,416 square miles.

The shale gas play has a n average EUR of 0.18 Bcf per well and approximately 3.77 Tcf of

technically recoverable gas

. The depth for the shale ranges from 10,000 to 19,500 square

miles and is 2,850 to 3,300 feet thick. These values are provided in Table 46

.

Table 46 Hilliard

- Baxter

- Mancos Average EUR and Area

Active

Area (sq. miles) 16,416

EUR (Bcf

/ well) 0.18

Well Spacing (wells/ sq. mile) 8

TRR (Tcf ) 3.77 Hilliard - Baxter - MancosReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

64

Other average properties were estimated for the H illiard

- Baxter

- Mancos shale play. These

include the depth, thickness, porosity, and total organic content for the shale. These values

are provided in Table 47

.

Table 47 Average General Properties for the Hilliard

- Baxter

- Mancos Sha le Play

Active

Depth (ft) 14,750

Thickness (ft) 3,075

Porosity (%) 4.25

Total Organic Content (% wt) 1.75

Active Companies

In 2008, there were 5 companies holding leases in the Hilliard

- Baxter

- Mancos shale play.

These companies, along with their net acreage, as reported by Deutsche Bank , are listed in

Table 48

.

Table 48 Hilliard

- Baxter

- Mancos Lease Holders

Company Net Acreage

Anadarko Petroleum unspecified

Devon Energy 157,000

Kodiak Oil & Gas 19,879

Questar 146,000

Ultr a Petroleum 62,756

Based upon these lease holdings, the total active area is calculated at 385,634 net acres (603

square miles).

Well Costs

In 2008, Deutsche Bank reported an average well cost of $20 million dollars for the Hil liard

Baxter

- Mancos shale pl ay.

Current Activities

There is minimal information published for the current and future drilling activities of the

companies who are currently ho lding leases within the shale.

USGS Comparison

In 2002, the USGS conducted an assessment of the Hilliard

- Baxte r

- Mancos shale play. Their

estimated area was 16,416 square miles. The USGS estimat ed that the total undiscovered

resource for Hilliard

- Baxter

- Mancos continuous gas between 4.9 and 22.7 Tcf with a mean

undiscovered resource of 11.8 Tcf.

References

4. Deutsc he Bank. From Shale to Shining Shale. July 2008.

5. United States Geological Survey. Assessment of the Undiscovered Natural Gas

Resources of the Arkoma Basin Province and Geologically Related Areas. 2010.

6. Rice University. The Impacts of Cap

- and

- Trade, RP S, and Electric Vehicles on the

North American Natural Gas Market. June 2010. Hilliard - Baxter - MancosReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

65



## B. Lewis Shale Gas Play

Play Description

The Lewis shale gas play is located in the San Juan B asin in Colorado and New Mexico. The

location of the Lewis shale is provided in Fi gure 27

.

Figure 27 Lewis Shale Play

Resource Estimate

According to USGS, the area for the Lewis shale play is approxim ately 7,506 square miles.

The d epth of the Lewis shale ranges from 1,640 to 8,202 feet deep and is 200 to 300 f eet

thick. The shale gas play has a n average EUR of 1.3 Bcf per well and approximately 11.6 T cf

of technically recoverable gas

. The well spacing for Lewis is estimated at 200 acres per well

(3 wells per square mile). The ses average valu es are provided i n Table 49

.

Table 49 Lewis Average EUR and Area

Active

Area (sq. miles) 7,506

EUR (Bcf

/ well) 1.3

Well Spacing (wells/ sq. mile) 3

TRR (Tcf ) 11.63 LewisReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

66

Other average properties were estimated for the Lewis shale play. These prope rties include

depth, thickness and porosity as provided in Table 50 . Due to a lack of current production

and other issues within the play, the total organic content is undetermined.

Table 50 Average General Properties for the Lewis Shale Play

Active

Depth (ft) 4,500

Thickness (ft) 250

Porosity (%) 3.5

Total Organic Content (% wt)

----

Active Companies

Information on the active companies and their leased acreage is not currently available.

Well Costs

Information on the well dr illing and completion costs is not currently available.

USGS Comparison

In 2002, USGS conducted an assessment of the Lewis shale play. They estimated that the

total undiscovered resource for the Lewis continuous gas is between 8,315 and 12,282 Bcf

with a mean undiscovered resource of 10,177 Bcf.

References

1. http://www.bjservices.com/website/index.nsf/webpages/Shale

- Lewis

Page?OpenDocument

2. USGS

. Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas of the San Juan Basin Province of

New Mexico and Colorado

. 2002.

3. USGS

. San Juan Basin, Province 5022 (Province 22). 2003 Continuous Assessment

Input Data . 2003.

4. Jenkins, Creties, DeGolyer, MacNaughton, and Boyer, Charles II. Coalbed

- and

Shale

- Gas Reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Technology. February 2008.

5. John B Curtis. Shale Gas: From Onerous Stepchild to Premier Resource . 2008. LewisReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

67



## C. Mancos Shale Gas Play

Play Description

The Mancos shale gas pl ay is located within the Ui nta B asin in Colorado and Wyoming

(Figure 2 8 )

.

Figure 28 The Mancos Shale Play

Resource Estimate

In 2002, The Mancos shale was assessed by USGS as the Uinta Continuous Gas within the

Mancos/Mowry total petroleum system. At that t ime, the median assessment area was

estimated to be 4,217,000 acres (6,589 square miles). The EUR for the Mancos, apart from

the Mesaverde, Wasatch, and other formations in the Uinta Basin, was reported as

approximately 1 .0 Bcf per well. The shale gas pl ay is estimated to have 21.02 Tcf of

technically recoverable gas

. Typical well spacing for the Mancos shale was 40 to 80 acres.

No company data was available in order to determine a minimum or maximum value for the

EUR.

The Average calculated EUR for the Manc os shale is provided in Table 51

.

Table 51 Mancos Average EUR and Area

Active

Area (sq. miles) 6,589

EUR (Bcf

/ well) 1 .0

Well Spacing (wells/ sq. mile) 8

TRR (Tcf ) 21.02

The shale is estimated to be between 13,000 and 17, 500 feet deep and have an average

thickness of 3,000 feet. The average values calculated for the Mancos shale are provided in

Table 52

. MancosReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

68 Table 52 Average General Properties for the Mancos Shale Play

Depth (ft) 15,250

Thickness (ft ) 3,000

Porosity (%) 3.5

Total Organic Content (% wt) 14

Active Companies

In 2008, there were 9 companies holding leases in the Mancos shale play. These companies,

along with their net a c reage, are listed in Table 53

.

Table 53 M ancos Lease Holders

Company Net Acreage

Anadarko Petroleum 60,000

Berry Petroleum 4,508

Cabot Oil & Gas 50,000

Chesapeake 440,000

Comstock 53,000

Cubic Energy 6,326

Devon Energy 200,000

El Paso 27,000

EnCana Corp. 325,000

These companies have lea sed a combined total of 1,165,834 net acres (1,8 22 square miles).

These companies were just beginning to test and develop their acreage. No additional data

could be found regarding their activities specifically in the Mancos shale.

USGS Comparison

In 2002

, USGS completed an assessment of the Uinta Piceance B asin within Colorado and

Utah. As part of the assessment, they examined the continuous gas within the

Mancos/Mowry Total Petroleum System. USGS estimated that the area of the shale was

6,589 square mi les and contained between 1.8 Tcf and 4.9 Tcf. The mean estimated resource

is 3.1 Tcf of natural gas.

References

1. Deutsche Bank. From Shale to Shining Shale. A Primer on North American Natural

Gas Shale Plays. July 2008.

2. USGS. Assessment of Undiscovere d Oil and Gas Resources of the Uinta

- Piceance

Province of Colorado and Utah. 2002

. MancosReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

69



## D. Bakken Shale Oil Play

Play Description

The Bakken shale oil play is located within the Williston Basin in Montana and North Dakota

(Figure 29 ) . While the shale extends into the Canadian provinces of Manitoba and

Saskatchewan, only the United States portion is considered in this evaluation. This oil field

could contain 3.65 billion barrels which would be the largest finding in U.S history.

Figure 29 Bakken Shale Play

Resource Estimate

Based on the leaseholders combined net acreage for Bakken, the area is approximately 6,522

square miles in the United States. The shale oil play has a n average EUR of 55 0 M BO per

well and approximately 3.59 Bb bl of technically recoverable oil

. The Bakken shale ranges

from 4,500 to 7,500 feet deep with a mean of 6,000 feet and an average thickness of 22 feet.

According to Kodiak Oil and Gas Corporation and other companies, the well spacing ranges

from 320 to 1,280 a cres per well with a mean of 640 acres per well (1 well per square mile).

These values are provided in Table 54.

Table 54 Bakken Average EUR and Area

Active

Area (sq. miles) 6,522

EUR ( M BO / well) 55 0

Well Spacing (wells/ sq. mi le) 1

TRR ( BBO ) 3. 59

Other average properties estimated for Bakken are provided in Table 55 . These include the

depth, thickness, porosity, and initia l oil saturation for the shale. BakkenReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

70 Table 55 Average General Properties for the Bak ken Shale Play

Depth (ft) 6,000

Thickness (ft) 22

Porosity (%) 8

Initial Oil Saturation (%) 68

Active Companies

The active companies, along with their net acreage, are liste d in Table 56

.

Table 56 Bakken Lease Holders

Company Ne t Acreage

Brigham Exploration 358,200

Concho Resources 11,193

Continental Resources 589,937

Encore Acquisition Company 70,000

GeoResources 49,000

Hess Corporation 500,000

Kodiak Oil and Gas Corporation 9,565

Marathon Oil Corporation 350,000

MDU Re sources 56,000

Newfield Exploration 400,000

Oasis Petroleum 159,500

Parshall Field 18,188

Petroleum Development 16,200

Questar 89,000

Rosetta Resources 291,000

SM Energy 78,000

Southern Alberta Basin 224,000

Unit Corporation 12,750

Whiting Petro leum Corporation 442,092

XTO Energy 450,000

These companies have leased a total of 4,174,625 acres (6,522 sq. miles).

Current Activities

There are extensive activities within the Bakken shale play . Nearly all of the reported lease

holders have given info rmation about their 2010 development plans. Companies are running

at least 45 rigs in 2010 and have indicated that number will increase to more than 54. Of

these, 14 are operated by Continental Resources, 12 by EOG Resources, and 5 by Marathon

Oil Corpora tion. In addition, many of the companies have significant capital programs

devoted to the Bakken shale. Kodiak Oil and Gas Corporation has stated they plan to spend

$60 millions dollars, Oasis will spend $144 million dollars in the West Williston B asin, a nd

Whiting Petroleum Corporation will spend $284 million dollars for operations in the Sanish

and Parshall sect ions of the Bakken shale play. BakkenReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

71

Well Costs

Well cost range form $5.5 to $8.5 million dollars. The vast majority of the companies which

provide data have costs less than $7.2 million dollars. The lowest price, $5.5 million dollars,

is also reported by Whiting Petroleum Corporation and Marathon Oil Corporation. In

addition, Marathon Oil Corporation repo rts operating costs are less tha n $5 per bar rel in the

Bakken play.

USGS Comparison

In 2008, USGS conducted an assessment of the Bakken shale. The total undiscovered

resource is estim ated between 3,063 and 4,319 MM OE, with a mean at 3,645 MMBO of total

continuous resources.

Representative Type Curv e

Figure 30 provides a representative type curve for Middle Bakken/ Three Forks area from

Oasis Petroleum for Bakken in West Williston and East Nesson

.

Figure 30 Bakken Shale Type Curve BakkenReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

72

References

1. http://www.oilshalegas.com/bakkenshale.html

. 2. http://www.transformsw.com/resources/studies.html

. 3. Rosetta Resources

. Rosetta Resources. August 2010.

4. Kodiak Oil and Gas Corporation. Corporate Presentation. August 2010.

5. Denbury Resources. Spring Analyst Mee t ings. May 2010.

6. Continental Resources. Bakken Shale: The Game

- Changer fr o m Hart’s Developing

Uncon v entional Oil Conference 2010. May 2010.

7. Whiting Petrole um Corporation. Current Corporate Information. August 2010.

8. USGS. Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Williston Basin

Province of North Dakota, Montana, and South Dakota . 2008.

9. Oasis Petroleum. Oasis Petroleum Company Presentation

. August 2010.

10. Concho. Raymond James Boston Spring Investors Conference . June 2010.

11. GeoResources. GeoResources, Inc Corporate Profile . August 2010.

12. SM Energy. Macquarie Capital USA Small

- & Mid

- Cap Conference. June 2010.

13. Deutsche Bank

. From Shale t o Shining Shale. July 2008.

14. QEP Resources. Investor Presentation. August 2010.

15. Newfield Exploration. How the Pieces Fit Together UBS Global Oil & Gas

Conference. May 2010.

16. EOG Resources

. EOG Resources South Texas Eagle Ford. 2010.

17. Marathon Oil Corpo ration. UBS Global Oil & Gas Conference. May 2010.

18. Hess Corporation. Bernstein Strategic Decisions Conference . June 2010.

19. Brigham Exploration Company. EnerCom

- The 2010 Oil & Gas Conference. August

2010.

20. MDU Resources. A Strong Infrastructure Utilit y Resources is the Heart of Energy our

Economy Construction Materials. March 2010. BakkenReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

73



## VII. West Coast Regional Summary

The West Coast region includes shale oil plays in the San Joaquin and Los Angeles B asins

(Figure 31 ). Located within these basins is the Mont erey/Santos shale oil play with a to t al

area estimated at 1,752 square miles. The reviewed play has an average EUR of 550 M BO

per well and approximately 15.4 2 B b bl of technically recoverable oil.

Figure 31 West Coast Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resources West Coast RegionReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

74 We st Coast RegionReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

75



## A. Monterey/Santos Shale Oil Play

Play Description

The Monterey/Santos shale oil play includes the Lower Monterey and Santos shales and is

located in the San Joaquin and Los Angeles B asins in California . The general location of the

Monterey/Santos shale play is provided in Figure 32

.

Figure 32 Monterey/Santos Shale Play

Resource Estimate

The active area for the Monterey/Santos shale play is approximately 1,752 square miles in the

San Joaquin and Los Angele s B asin. The depth of the shale ranges from 8,000 to 14,000 feet

deep and is between 1,000 and 3,000 feet thick. The shale oil play has a n average EUR of

550 M BO per well and approximately 15.4 2 B b bl of technically recoverable oil

. These

average values are provided in Table 57.

Table 57 Monterey/Santos Average EUR and Area

Active

Area (sq. miles) 1,752

EUR (M BO / well) 550

Well Spacing (wells/ sq. mile) 16

TRR ( BBO ) 15. 4 2 Monterey/Santos

CaliforniaReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

76

Other average properties were estimated for the Mont erey/Santos shale. These include the

depth, thickness, porosity, and total organic content for the shale. Th e values are provided in

Table 58

.

Table 58 Average General Properties for the Monterey/Santos Shale Play

Active

Depth ( ft) 11,250

Thickness (ft) 1,875

Porosity (%) 11

Total Organic Content (% wt) 6.5

Active Companies

The companies, along with their net acreage who are currently holding leases within the

Monterey/Santos shale play as of 2010, are listed in Table 59

.

Ta ble 59 Monterey/Santos Lease Holders

Company Net Acreage

Berry Petroleum 6,500

National Fuel Gas Company (NFG) 14,000

Occidental Petroleum Company (Oxy) 873,000

Plains Exploration and Production 70,000

Venoco 158,000

Based upo n these lease holdings, the total active area is calculated at 1,121,500 net acres

(1,752 square miles).

Well Costs

Plains Exploration and Production Company reports an average gross well cost in 2010 of

$1.2 million dollars per well . Oxy reports cost for vertical well ranging from $2 to $2.5

million and horizontal we ll costs ranging fro m $5 to 7 million

. They also report finding and

development costs between $8 and 18 dollars/ BOE , depending upon the field.

Current Activities

Oxy Corporation has undertake n a 4

- year development program and remains the largest

leaseholder within the Monterey/Santos play. Seneca Resources/ NFG first went into

production in February 2010 and have completed a 14 well development program. In 2010,

Venoco completed their 1 st ho rizontal well in the Monterey B asin and plan to increase their

net acreage.

USGS Comparison

This play has not been evaluated by USGS.

Representative Type Curve

Figure 33 provides a representative type curve reported by Oxy Corporation for a vertical

well, horizontal well, and for the Elk Hills Area “shale” vertical well within the

Monterey/Santos shale play. Monterey/SantosReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

77 Figure 33 Monterey/Santos Type Curve

USGS Comparison

In 2003, the USGS conducted an assessment of the San Joaquin Basin. At that time, they did

not asses s the unconventional resources.

References

1. Todd Stevens with Oxy Corporation. Monterey/Santos Unconventional . May 2010.

2. Venoco Corporation. September Update . September 2010.

3. Plains Exploration and Production Company. 2Q 2010 Presentation. August 2010.

4. Seneca Resources and National Fuel Gas Corporation. EnerCom Oil and Gas

Conference . August 2010.

5. USGS. Assessment of the Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the San Joaquin

Basin Province of Monterey/Santos

. 2003.

6. http://www.ogj.com/ogj/en

- us/index/article

- tools

- template.articles.oil

- gas

journal.exploration

- de velopment

- 2.2010.05.oxy

- sees_major_growth.html

7. http://western

- energy.com/pages/focus_areas.htm Monterey/SantosReview of Emerging U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays

78 Monterey/SantosReview of Emerging U.S. Gas Shale a nd Shale Oil Plays

79 

## VIII. Appendix A

– OLOGSS Shale Gas Data File

The following table provides the key information con tained in the shale gas data file used in

the Onshore Lower 48 Oil and Gas Supply Submodule (OLOGSS). Within the OLOGSS

model database, each shale play/subplay has 3 well productivity categories to capture the

large variation in well EUR that exists within a play : 1) Best Area, which covers 30 percent of

the total play/subplay wells, 2) Average Area , which covers 30 percent of the play/subplay

wells, and 3) Below Average Area, which covers 40 percent of the play/subplay wells. The

EURs presented in this re port do not include natural gas plant liquids.

Play Name Basin

Area

(sq.

miles) Well

Spacing

(wells/sq.

mile) Avg.

Depth

(ft) EUR (Bcf/well)

Top 10% Next

20% Next

30% Next

40% Success

Rate (fr)

Appalachia

- Big Sandy

Central Act 8675 8 3800 0.65 0. 49 0.33 0.16 0.86

Best Area 2603 8 3800 0.86 0.65 0.43 0.22 0.86

Average Area 2603 8 3800 0.65 0.49 0.33 0.16 0.86

Below Average Area 3470 8 3800 0.49 0.37 0.24 0.12 0.86

Appalachia

- Big Sandy

Extension 1994 8 3800 0.65 0.49 0.33 0.16 0.86

Best Area 598 8 3800 0.86 0.65 0.43 0.22 0.86

Average Area 598 8 3800 0.65 0.49 0.33 0.16 0.86

Below Average Area 798 8 3800 0.49 0.37 0.24 0.12 0.86

Appalachia

- Greater

Siltstone Area 22914 11 2911 0.58 0.29 0.19 0.06 0.74

Best Area 6874 11 2911 0.77 0.39 0.26 0.08 0.74

Average Area 6874 11 2911 0.58 0.29 0.19 0.06 0.74

Below Average Area 9166 11 2911 0.44 0.22 0.14 0.04 0.74

Appalachia

- Low

Thermal Maturity 45844 7 3000 0.90 0.45 0.30 0.08 0.74

Best Area 13753 7 3000 1.20 0.60 0.40 0.10 0.74

Average Area 13753 7 3000 0.90 0.45 0.30 0.08 0.74

Below Average Area 18338 7 3000 0.68 0.34 0.23 0.06 0.74

Michigan Antrim 12000 7 1400 0.58 0.43 0.24 0.14 0.95

Best Area 3600 7 1400 0.77 0.57 0.32 0.19 0.95

Average Area 3600 7 1400 0.58 0.43 0.24 0.14 0.95

Belo w Average Area 4800 7 1400 0.44 0.32 0.18 0.11 0.95

Illinois New Albany

Developing Area 1600 8 2750 3.30 1.67 1.10 0.26 0.5

Best Area 480 8 2750 4.39 2.22 1.46 0.35 0.5

Average Area 480 8 2750 3.30 1.67 1.10 0.26 0.5

Below Average Area 640 8 2750 2.48 1.25 0.83 0.20 0.5

Cincinnati Arch

- Devonian Shales 6000 4 1800 0.36 0.18 0.12 0.03 0.5

Best Area 1800 4 1800 0.48 0.24 0.16 0.04 0.5

Average Area 1800 4 1800 0.36 0.18 0.12 0.03 0.5

Below Average Area 2400 4 1800 0.27 0.14 0.09 0.02 0.5

Williston

- Shallow

Niobraran 10000 2 1000 1.35 0.68 0.45 0.14 0.58

Best Area 3000 2 1000 1.80 0.90 0.60 0.18 0.58 AppendixReview of Emerging U.S. Gas Shale a nd Shale Oil Plays

80

Average Area 3000 2 1000 1.35 0.68 0.45 0.14 0.58

Below Average Area 4000 2 1000 1.01 0.51 0.34 0.10 0.58

Fort Worth Barnett

- Core

Area P 1426 5 75 00 3.20 2.40 1.60 0.80 0.95

Best Area 428 5 7500 4.26 3.19 2.13 1.06 0.95

Average Area 428 5 7500 3.20 2.40 1.60 0.80 0.95

Below Average Area 570 5 7500 2.40 1.80 1.20 0.60 0.95

Fort Worth Barnett

-

Extension P 1906 8 7500 2.40 1.80 1.20 0.60 0.75

Bes t Area 572 8 7500 3.19 2.39 1.60 0.80 0.75

Average Area 572 8 7500 2.40 1.80 1.20 0.60 0.75

Below Average Area 762 8 7500 1.80 1.35 0.90 0.45 0.75

Fort Worth Barnett

- Core

Area F 2649 5 7500 3.20 2.40 1.60 0.80 0.95

Best Area 795 5 7500 4.26 3.19 2.13 1.06 0.95

Average Area 795 5 7500 3.20 2.40 1.60 0.80 0.95

Below Average Area 1060 5 7500 2.40 1.80 1.20 0.60 0.95

Fort Worth Barnett

-

Extension F 477 8 7500 2.40 1.80 1.20 0.60 0.75

Best Area 143 8 7500 3.19 2.39 1.60 0.80 0.75

Average Area 143 8 7 500 2.40 1.80 1.20 0.60 0.75

Below Average Area 191 8 7500 1.80 1.35 0.90 0.45 0.75

Woodford

- Barnett

-

Active 2691 4 10200 6.00 4.50 3.00 1.50 0.75

Best Area 807 4 10200 7.98 5.99 3.99 2.00 0.75

Average Area 807 4 10200 6.00 4.50 3.00 1.50 0.75

Below Average Area 1076 4 10200 4.50 3.38 2.25 1.13 0.75

Lewis Shale 7506 3 4500 3.25 2.44 1.30 0.82 0.95

Best Area 2252 3 4500 4.32 3.25 1.73 1.09 0.95

Average Area 2252 3 4500 3.25 2.44 1.30 0.82 0.95

Below Average Area 3002 3 4500 2.44 1.83 0.98 0.62 0.9 5

Fayetteville

- Central 4000 8 4000 6.74 3.38 2.25 0.68 0.94

Best Area 1200 8 4000 8.96 4.50 2.99 0.90 0.94

Average Area 1200 8 4000 6.74 3.38 2.25 0.68 0.94

Below Average Area 1600 8 4000 5.06 2.54 1.69 0.51 0.94

Fayetteville

- West 5000 8 4000 3.45 1.75 1.15 0.35 0.88

Best Area 1500 8 4000 4.59 2.33 1.53 0.46 0.88

Average Area 1500 8 4000 3.45 1.75 1.15 0.35 0.88

Below Average Area 2000 8 4000 2.59 1.31 0.86 0.26 0.88

Woodford

- Western

Arkoma 2900 4 9500 11.97 6.00 4.00 1.20 0.9

Best Area 870 4 9500 15.92 7.98 5.32 1.60 0.9

Average Area 870 4 9500 11.97 6.00 4.00 1.20 0.9

Below Average Area 1160 4 9500 8.98 4.50 3.00 0.90 0.9

Woodford

- Central OK

Fold Belt 1800 4 5000 2.99 1.50 1.00 0.30 0.86

Best Area 540 4 5000 3.98 2.00 1.33 0.40 0.86

Average Area 540 4 5000 2.99 1.50 1.00 0.30 0.86

Below Average Area 720 4 5000 2.24 1.13 0.75 0.23 0.86

Woodford

- Cana 688 4 13500 15.56 7.80 5.20 1.50 0.86

Best Area 206 4 13500 20.69 10.37 6.92 2.00 0.86 AppendixReview of Emerging U.S. Gas Shale a nd Shale Oil Plays

81

Average Area 206 4 13500 15.56 7.80 5.20 1.50 0.86

Below Average Area 726 4 13500 11.67 5.85 3.90 1.13 0.86

Haynesville Shale

Developed 3574 8 12000 13.00 9.75 6.50 3.25 0.75

Best Area 1072 8 12000 17.29 12.97 8.65 4.32 0.75

Average Area 1072 8 12000 13.00 9.75 6.50 3.25 0.75

Below Average Area 1430 8 12000 9.75 7.31 4.88 2.44 0.75

Haynesville Shale

Undeveloped 5426 8 12000 3.00 2.25 1.50 0.75 0.75

Best Area 1628 8 12000 3.99 2.99 2.00 1.00 0.75

Average Area 1628 8 12000 3.00 2.25 1.50 0.75 0.75

Below Average Area 2170 8 12000 2.25 1.69 1.13 0.56 0.75

Appalachia

- Marcellus

Dev 10622 8 6750 7.00 5.25 3.50 1.75 0.7

Best Area 3187 8 6750 9.31 6.98 4.66 2.33 0.7

Average Area 3187 8 6750 7.00 5.25 3.50 1.75 0.7

Below Average Area 4249 8 6750 5.25 3.94 2.63 1.31 0.7

Appalachia

- Marcellus

Und

- MD 920 8 6750 2.30 1.73 1.15 0.58 0.7

Best Area 276 8 6750 3.06 2.30 1.53 0.77 0.7

Average Area 276 8 6750 2.30 1.73 1.15 0.58 0.7

Below Average Area 368 8 6750 1.73 1.30 0.86 0.44 0.7

Appalachia

- Marcellus

Und

- NY 16926 8 6750 2.30 1.73 1.15 0.58 0 .7

Best Area 5078 8 6750 3.06 2.30 1.53 0.77 0.7

Average Area 5078 8 6750 2.30 1.73 1.15 0.58 0.7

Below Average Area 6770 8 6750 1.73 1.30 0.86 0.44 0.7

Appalachia

- Marcellus

Und

- OH 15348 8 6750 2.30 1.73 1.15 0.58 0.7

Best Area 4604 8 6750 3.06 2.3 0 1.53 0.77 0.7

Average Area 4604 8 6750 2.30 1.73 1.15 0.58 0.7

Below Average Area 6139 8 6750 1.73 1.30 0.86 0.44 0.7

Appalachia

- Marcellus

Und

- PA 29828 8 6750 2.30 1.73 1.15 0.58 0.7

Best Area 8948 8 6750 3.06 2.30 1.53 0.77 0.7

Average Area 8948 8 6750 2.30 1.73 1.15 0.58 0.7

Below Average Area 11931 8 6750 1.73 1.30 0.86 0.44 0.7

Appalachia

- Marcellus

Und

- VA 3249 8 6750 2.30 1.73 1.15 0.58 0.7

Best Area 975 8 6750 3.06 2.30 1.53 0.77 0.7

Average Area 975 8 6750 2.30 1.73 1.15 0.58 0.7

Bel ow Average Area 1300 8 6750 1.73 1.30 0.86 0.44 0.7

Appalachia

- Marcellus

Und

- WV 18000 8 6750 2.30 1.73 1.15 0.58 0.7

Best Area 5400 8 6750 3.06 2.30 1.53 0.77 0.7

Average Area 5400 8 6750 2.30 1.73 1.15 0.58 0.7

Below Average Area 7200 8 6750 1.73 1 .30 0.86 0.44 0.7

Eagleford Shale

- DRY

GAS 200 4 7000 11.00 8.25 5.50 2.75 0.892

Best Area 60 4 7000 14.63 10.97 7.32 3.66 0.892

Average Area 60 4 7000 11.00 8.25 5.50 2.75 0.892

Below Average Area 80 4 7000 8.25 6.19 4.13 2.06 0.892 AppendixReview of Emerging U.S. Gas Shale a nd Shale Oil Plays

82

Eagleford Shale

- WET

GAS 890 8 7000 9.00 6.75 4.50 2.25 0.892

Best Area 267 8 7000 11.97 8.98 5.99 2.99 0.892

Average Area 267 8 7000 9.00 6.75 4.50 2.25 0.892

Below Average Area 356 8 7000 6.75 5.06 3.38 1.69 0.892

Floyd/Neal

- Conasauga 2429 2 8000 1.80 1.35 0.90 0. 45 0.906

Best Area 729 2 8000 2.39 1.80 1.20 0.60 0.906

Average Area 792 2 8000 1.80 1.35 0.90 0.45 0.906

Below Average Area 972 2 8000 1.35 1.01 0.68 0.34 0.906

Uinta Mancos 6589 8 15250 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.95

Best Area 1977 8 15250 2.66 2.00 1.33 0.67 0.95

Average Area 1977 8 15250 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.95

Below Average Area 2636 8 15250 1.50 1.13 0.75 0.38 0.95

GGB Hilliard Baxter

Mancos 16416 8 14750 0.36 0.27 0.18 0.09 0.8

Best Area 4925 8 14750 0.48 0.36 0.24 0.12 0.8

Average Area 4925 8 14750 0.36 0.27 0.18 0.09 0.8

Below Average Area 6566 8 14750 0.27 0.20 0.14 0.07 0.8 Appendix