RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Michael Hohn Susan Pool and Jessica

RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Michael Hohn, Susan Pool, and Jessica Moore West Virginia Geological & Economic Survey

Background Approaches to estimating hydrocarbon volumes for continuous unconventional reservoirs: • Use production data to estimate recoverable resources directly • Use geologic data to estimate original hydrocarbons-in-place from which recoverable resources can be determined

Background • All hydrocarbon that could be produced (varies): – Technically recoverable (TRR)-function of geology and technology – Economically recoverable (ERR) --function of geology, technology, and economics • All the hydrocarbon that exists (fixed): – Original hydrocarbon-in-place (OHIP)--function of geology Modified from Boswell

REMAINING RESOURCES Assessment of Utica Shale Play Remaining Resources

Methodology • Probability-based U. S. Geological Survey method • Uses distributions for total assessment unit area, areas of sweet spots, EUR, and success rates • Excludes wells already producing • Monte Carlo sampling of distributions for mean, median, 5%, 95% values for total resource

Steps • Definition of total assessment units • Delineation of minimum, median, maximum area of sweet spots • Decline curve analysis for determining estimated ultimate recoveries • Success ratios • Drainage areas

Assessment Units

Producing Oil Wells

Condensate/NGL Production

Producing Gas Wells

Definition of Assessment Units: Thermal Maturity Gas Prone Overmature Oil Prone Wet Gas

Definition of Assessment Units: Oil Sweet Spot

Definition of Assessment Units: Oil Sweet Spot

Definition of Assessment Units: Wet Gas Sweet Spot

Assessment Units and Sweet Spots Oil Sweet Spot Maximum Wet Gas Sweet Spot Maximum Dry Gas Sweet Spot Maximum Oil S we et S po t. M inim um Oil Sweet Spot Minimum Wet Gas Sweet Spot Minimum Dry Gas Sweet Spot Minimum

Estimated Ultimate Recovery

Estimated Ultimate Recovery 160 000 140 000 120 000 Barrels Oil 100 000 80 000 60 000 40 000 20 000 0 0 10 20 30 Months 40 50

Estimated Ultimate Recovery 160 000 140 000 120 000 Median 1 year Barrels Oil 100 000 Median 2 years 80 000 Median 3 years 60 000 Median 4 years 40 000 Median 20 000 0 0 10 20 30 Months 40 50

Barrels Oil EUR Model Months

EUR Distributions Oil AU (MMbo) Min Med Max Sweet Spot 0. 022 0. 199 0. 628 Non Sweet Spot 0. 002 0. 022 0. 049 Wet Gas AU (Bcf) Min Med Max Sweet Spot 0. 64 5. 76 18. 84 Non Sweet Spot 0. 20 0. 64 1. 19 Gas AU (Bcf) Min Med Max Sweet Spot 0. 19 7. 09 30. 37 Non Sweet Spot 0. 039 0. 19 0. 32

Success Rates Oil AU (%) Min Med Max Sweet Spot 90 95 99 1 3 5 Min Med Max 90 95 99 5 10 40 Non Sweet Spot Wet Gas AU (%) Sweet Spot Non Sweet Spot

Results OIL MMbo Oil Assessment Unit F 95 Sweet Spot Non. Sweet Spot Total Wet Gas Assessment Unit F 95 F 50 Gas Bcf F 5 Mean F 95 3, 744 1, 908 2, 231 6, 636 17, 722 7, 949 23 49 91 52 69 191 446 216 791 1, 728 3, 788 1, 960 2, 370 6, 858 17, 960 8, 165 OIL MMbo F 50 F 5 Gas Bcf Mean Total Non. Sweet Spot Total Mean 1, 677 F 95 F 50 F 5 Mean 49, 601 106, 550 55, 980 99 379 1, 023 447 24, 484 50, 037 106, 852 56, 427 OIL MMbo F 50 F 5 23, 840 Non. Sweet Spot F 5 733 Sweet Spot Gas Assessment Unit F 95 F 50 Gas Bcf Mean F 95 F 50 220, 473 2, 862 228, 478 F 5 Mean 590, 680 1, 542, 873 6, 584 710, 341 13, 835 7, 238 598, 026 1, 549, 586 717, 579

ORIGINAL IN-PLACE RESOURCES Assessment of Utica Shale Play In -Place Resources using Volumetric Approach

Purpose • Estimate original hydrocarbon-in-place volumes for selected stratigraphic units • Determine general overall hydrocarbon distribution • Examine key parameters that may impact hydrocarbon distribution

Methodology and Data Use geologic data and volumetric approach to estimate total original hydrocarbon-inplace (OHIP): OHIP = Free + Adsorbed

Methodology and Data Use geologic data and volumetric approach to estimate total original hydrocarbon-inplace (OHIP): OHIP = Free + Adsorbed Free Hydrocarbon-in-Place OGIPfree = (feff * (1 -Sw) * (1 -Qnc) * Hfm * Ar * 4. 346*10 -5 ) / FVFg OOIPfree = (feff * (1 -Sw) * Hfm * Ar * 7758) / FVFo Adsorbed Hydrocarbon-in-Place OGIPadsorb = Gc * rfm * Hfm * Ar * 1. 3597*10 -6 ? OOIPadsorb= S 2 * 0. 001 * rfm * Hfm * Ar * 7758

Methodology and Data Hfm , rfm , f, and Sw are derived from Utica Project well logs with f and Sw adjusted for Vsh and Vker TOC is from Utica Project sample/well log data Gc is from publicly-available isotherms given TOC and pressure FVF is derived from Utica Project well logs and other publicly-available data given temperature, pressure, and gas compressibility

Methodology and Data 1. Identify and select wells meeting approach criteria 2. Examine stratigraphic picks and well log data 3. Select and extract well log data 4. Compile and derive additional required data 5. Process data and estimate volumes 6. Correct and refine data

Methodology and Data Step 1—Identify and Select Wells Searching for: • Utica, Point Pleasant, Logana penetrations • Top depth no less than 2, 500 feet (initial); ~3, 000 feet (final) • Digital well logs with, at minimum, gamma ray, bulk density/porosity, resistivity traces • Vertical non-faulted wells • Even geographic distribution

Methodology and Data Step 1—Identify and Select Wells Digital logs for wells with Utica, Point Pleasant, and/or Logana identified plus top depth greater than 2500 feet

Methodology and Data Step 1—Identify and Select Wells Full suite digital logs for wells with Utica, Point Pleasant, and/or Logana identified plus top depth greater than 2500 feet

Methodology and Data Step 1—Identify and Select Wells Full suite digital logs for wells with Utica, Point Pleasant, and/or Logana identified plus top depth greater than 2500 feet Note: Limited digital well log data

Methodology and Data Step 1—Identify and Select Wells Thermal maturity as determined from equivalent %Ro • Determined level of maturity for selected wells based on equivalent %Ro map • Divided in-place assessment into gas and oil regions • Assumed single phase in each hydrocarbon region

Methodology and Data Step 2—Examine Stratigraphic Picks and Logs Example digital well log data with stratigraphic units identified; used to review log availability through units plus assess log quality

Methodology and Data Step 3—Select and Extract Log Data Example digital well log data with stratigraphic units identified; used to review log availability through units plus assess log quality Log data: • Gamma ray • Density and porosity • Resistivity • Temperature • TOC Notes: • Normalized • Sample interval=0. 5 feet

Methodology and Data Step 4—Compile and Derive Additional Data Including: • Total Organic Carbon • Pressure • Volume of Shale • Temperature • Gas Content

Methodology and Data Step 4—Compile and Derive Additional Data Mean total organic carbon (%) for Utica Shale as derived from Consortium analytical data TOC

Methodology and Data Step 4—Compile and Derive Additional Data Mean total organic carbon (%) for Point Pleasant Formation as derived from Consortium analytical data TOC

Methodology and Data Step 4—Compile and Derive Additional Data Mean total organic carbon (%) for Logana Member of Trenton Limestone as derived from Consortium analytical data TOC

Methodology and Data Step 4—Compile and Derive Additional Data Had limited reservoir pressure data. From formation-specific well data for WV and OH, Consortium partner input, and publiclyavailable data; assumed pressure gradients (psi/ft) of: • 0. 433 for NY and 0. 6 for remaining area except. . . • 0. 5 in very small portion of southern NY • 0. 7 in small portion of north central PA • 0. 7 -0. 9 in small area including southwestern PA, northern WV panhandle, and east central OH Pressure

Methodology and Data Step 4—Compile and Derive Additional Data Corrected for volume of shale as extracted from: • X-ray diffraction (XRD) data • Maps from XRD data • Gamma ray well logs plus XRD data Volume of Shale

Methodology and Data Step 4—Compile and Derive Additional Data Temperature gradient as derived from the National Geothermal Project data Temperature

Methodology and Data Step 4—Compile and Derive Additional Data Gas content determined from publicly-available isotherms given total organic carbon (TOC) and pressure • CH 4 isotherm for various states • Isotherm used for OH given TOC and pressure • Isotherm values from NY and OH averaged for northwestern corner of PA given TOC and pressure Gas Content • CH 4 isotherm for NY • Isotherm used for NY, majority of PA, and WV given TOC and pressure Advanced Resources International, Inc.

Methodology and Data Step 5—Process Data and Estimate Volumes a. Estimate effective porosity b. Estimate water saturation c. Estimate formation volume factor d. Estimate free hydrocarbon volumes e. Estimate adsorbed hydrocarbon volumes

Methodology and Data Step 5—Process Data and Estimate Volumes Porosity Notes: • Determined density porosity from bulk density or used density porosity • Used both density and neutron porosity if available • Corrected for Vsh as extracted from XRD data, maps from XRD data, and gamma ray well logs+XRD data • Corrected for Vker as extracted from maps assuming linear relationship between TOC and Vker

Methodology and Data Step 5—Process Data and Estimate Volumes Water Saturation Notes: • Used Simandoux equation • Used A=1, M=1. 7, and N=1. 7 • Corrected for Vsh as extracted from XRD data, maps from XRD data, and gamma ray well logs+XRD data • Corrected for Vker as extracted from maps assuming linear relationship between TOC and Vker

Methodology and Data Step 5—Process Data and Estimate Volumes Additional Notes: • Used TOC from Utica Project analytical data and maps rather than using TOC from Passey method

Methodology and Data Step 5—Process Data and Estimate Volumes Preliminary summary results Original In-Place Resources, Average Volumes Per Unit Area Stratigraphic Unit Oil (MMbo/mi 2)* Gas (Bcf/mi 2)* Utica Shale 20. 8 53. 5 Point Pleasant Formation 15. 8 85. 1 3. 0 17. 0 Logana Member of Trenton Limestone * = average volume per square mile in the sweet spot area; sweet spot area is as defined to estimate remaining recoverable resources using the probabilistic (USGS-style) approach

Methodology and Data Step 5—Process Data and Estimate Volumes Utica Shale original in-place volumes per unit area, preliminary summary results DISCLAIMER: This map is a preliminary draft which reflects data and analyses current as of July 14, 2015. The volumetric calculations and derivative maps will likely change as additional data become available and techniques are refined. Users are cautioned that this map represents only a best estimate of trends given limited available data and should not be used as a stand-alone product. average volume per square mile in the sweet spot area; sweet spot area is as defined to estimate remaining recoverable resources using the probabilistic (USGS-style) approach Supplemental Slide 1

Methodology and Data Step 5—Process Data and Estimate Volumes Point Pleasant Formation original in-place volumes per unit area, preliminary summary results DISCLAIMER: This map is a preliminary draft which reflects data and analyses current as of July 14, 2015. The volumetric calculations and derivative maps will likely change as additional data become available and techniques are refined. Users are cautioned that this map represents only a best estimate of trends given limited available data and should not be used as a stand-alone product. average volume per square mile in the sweet spot area; sweet spot area is as defined to estimate remaining recoverable resources using the probabilistic (USGS-style) approach Supplemental Slide 2

Methodology and Data Step 5—Process Data and Estimate Volumes Logana Member of Trenton Limestone original in-place volumes per unit area, preliminary summary results DISCLAIMER: This map is a preliminary draft which reflects data and analyses current as of July 14, 2015. The volumetric calculations and derivative maps will likely change as additional data become available and techniques are refined. Users are cautioned that this map represents only a best estimate of trends given limited available data and should not be used as a stand-alone product. average volume per square mile in the sweet spot area; sweet spot area is as defined to estimate remaining recoverable resources using the probabilistic (USGS-style) approach Supplemental Slide 3

Methodology and Data Step 5—Process Data and Estimate Volumes Preliminary summary results Original In-Place Resources, Total Volumes Stratigraphic Unit Oil (MMbo)* Gas (Bcf)* Utica Shale 43, 508 1, 098, 119 Point Pleasant Formation 33, 050 1, 745, 803 6, 345 348, 476 Logana Member of Trenton Limestone * = estimated volume in the sweet spot area; sweet spot area is as defined to estimate remaining recoverable resources using the probabilistic (USGS-style) approach

Comparison of Results Resources Recoverable Resources Original In-Place Resources Current Recovery Factors Oil (MMbo)* Gas (Bcf)* 2, 611 889, 972 82, 903 3, 192, 398 3% 28% * = estimated volume in the sweet spot area; sweet spot area is as defined to estimate remaining recoverable resources using the probabilistic (USGS-style) approach

Issues • Limited amount of full-suite well log data especially for Pennsylvania and West Virginia • Limited formation pressure data • Limited core data for log-to-core calibration Supplemental Slide 4

Potential Future Work • Incorporate additional data from supplemental sources (e. g. IHS) • Incorporate additional data from wells with less than full suites of log data • Investigate additional data processing techniques • Conduct sensitivity analysis • Update EUR’s and sweet spots as play develops Supplemental Slide 5