20131206 eera-shale gas-dow v4

COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
EERA Joint Programme on Shale Gas
DoW EERA shale gas JP
EERA
EUROPEAN ENERGY RESEARCH ALLIANCE
Version: 1.4
Last modification date: 03/04/2014
Contact person: Rene Peters, rene.peters@tno.nl
Clarification on modifications made:
Madelaine Halter inserted 8-11-13 Modification on SP 5
Madelaine Halter inserted 8-11-13 Modification on SP 6
Yvonne Schavemaker inserted 6-12-13 Modification on SP5
Madelaine Halter inserted 3-4-2014 Revised SP2 and SP5

DoW JP Shale Gas
2
THE EERA JOINT PROGRAMME ON SHALE GAS
The Joint Programme on Shale Gas will establish a common knowledge platform for research on
the potential, impact and safety of shale gas development in Europe. Existing technologies and
methodologies will be evaluated and improved to establish an independent knowledge basis which
is based on sound research by 26 independent research institutes from 15 European member states.
The main drivers for setting up this program can be summarized as follows:
· It is expected that fossil fuels will dominate the European energy mix to at least 2030 (vii)
· The European Commission Energy Roadmap 2050 identifies gas as a critical fuel for the
transformation of the energy system in the direction of more renewables and lower CO2
emissions (iii).
· Shale Gas has proved to be a game changer in the US energy market;
o Increase of gas on the market can make the country self-sufficient on gas (e.g., it
drastically lowered the import of LNG) (v)
o It has lowered the gas prices in the US (i.e. US gas prices decreased by a factor
of ~3 over the last 4 years, and are a factor of ~3 lower compared to the EU) (i)
o It created new jobs (i.e. 600 000 jobs are supported by the shale gas industry in
2010) (vi)
There is a clear need for an independent knowledge basis addressing to what extent US
practices can be applied to Europe
· Shale gas source rocks are widely distributed around the world, but geological
characteristics differ. Many EU member states are investigating their shale gas resources
and may benefit from each other’s experience.
· Shale gas may play an important role in security of energy supply in EU member states(i)
· It is clear that shale gas will affect the European Union even if individual European
countries choose not to pursue this resource
Accelerated development of shale gas is accompanied by growing public concern regarding the
environmental impact of shale gas exploitation. As the European continent is densely populated,
public perception may play a much more prominent role than in remote areas where techniques
with large surface impact are common practice (e.g., grid drilling in the US). A transparent and
independent knowledge platform on Shale Gas within the framework of EERA will provide a
research-based understanding of technology and methods that address these concerns.
These drivers are the rationale behind the five sub programmes that will address the following
topics:
· Evaluate the total shale gas resources in Europe as a whole, and in the individual EU
member states based on one robust and accepted methodology, supported by the
participating research institutes.
· Safe technologies and methods to improve exploitation, e.g. understand, monitor, control
and predict the fracturing process, develop innovative fracturing fluids, proppants and
explore fluid free techniques and set up best practices.
· Assessment of the environmental impact and footprint of shale gas exploitation, of risk
mitigation measures, and of boundary conditions for minimum environmental impact.
· Assessment of energy and carbon efficiencies as well as the contribution of shale gas to
greenhouse gas and other emissions to air.
· Assessment the impact of shale gas on the economy and the energy system of Europe
including advice on improvements for the overall legal framework.
· Understanding the public awareness regarding shale gas development and develop
optimum strategies for establishing the dialogue between policy makers, NGO’s and
industrial stakeholders.
The key expertise, equipment, and infrastructure of 26 independent research institutes from 15
European member states (total committed humane resource of 185 py/y) will be used to carry out
the different research tasks within this Joint Programme.

DoW JP Shale Gas
3
Contents
THE EERA JOINT PROGRAMME ON SHALE GAS ..................................................................... 2
Contents ......................................................................................................................... 3
1. Background ........................................................................................................... 5
2. Value added .......................................................................................................... 6
3. Objectives ............................................................................................................. 6
1. Description of foreseen activities ......................................................................... 8
2. Milestones ............................................................................................................. 9
3. Participants and Human Resources ................................................................... 10
4. Infrastructures and facilities .............................................................................. 11
5. Management of the Joint Programme on Shale Gas .......................................... 11
6. Interface with other JPs ...................................................................................... 13
7. Risks .................................................................................................................... 14
8. Intellectual Property Rights of the Joint Programme on Shale Gas .................. 14
9. Contact Point for the Joint Programme on Shale Gas ....................................... 14
SP1 ASSESSMENT OF SHALE GAS POTENTIAL........................................................................ 16
1. Background ......................................................................................................... 17
2. Objectives ........................................................................................................... 17
4. Description of foreseen activities (including time line) ..................................... 18
5. Milestones ........................................................................................................... 19
6. GANT Chart ........................................................................................................ 26
7. Contact Point for the sub-programme on Assessment of Shale Gas Potential .. 26
SUMMARY RESEARCH ACTIVITY ON TECHNOLOGY FOR SAFE AND EFFICIENT
EXPLOITATION ................................................................................................................................. 28
1. Background ......................................................................................................... 29
3. Objectives ........................................................................................................... 29
6. Milestones ........................................................................................................... 33
7. GANT Chart ........................................................................................................ 37
8. Contact Point for the sub-programme 2 on Safe and efficient exploitation ....... 38
SP3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT & FOOTPRINT ...................................................................... 40
1. Background ......................................................................................................... 41
2. Objectives ........................................................................................................... 41
4. Milestones ........................................................................................................... 44
6. GANT Chart ........................................................................................................ 48
7. Contact Point for the sub-programme on Environmental impact and footprint 48
SP4 ENERGY AND CARBON EFFICIENCIES AND EMISSIONS TO AIR ............................... 50
1. Background ......................................................................................................... 51
2. Objectives ........................................................................................................... 51
4. Milestones ........................................................................................................... 53
6. GANT Chart ........................................................................................................ 55

DoW JP Shale Gas
4
7. Contact Point for the sub-programme on Energy and Carbon Efficiencies and
Emissions to Air .................................................................................................. 55
SP5 SOCIAL LICENSE TO OPERATE ........................................................................................... 57
1. Background ......................................................................................................... 57
2. Objectives ........................................................................................................... 57
3. Description of foreseen activities (including timeline) ...................................... 58
4. Milestones ........................................................................................................... 59
5. Participants and Human Resources: WP 1& 2 .................................................. 60
6. Participants and Human Resources: (WP 3, 4 & 5) .......................................... 62

DoW JP Shale Gas
5
1. Background
Shale Gas has proved to be a game changer in the US energy market, where its rapid increase
in production is about to make the nation self-supplied with respect to gas and consequently
drastically lowered the import of LNG (only 10% of the regasification capacity is required
nowi). It has also lowered the internal gas prices (from an average of near $9/MBtu in 20081
to below $3/MBtu in 2012i) and created new jobs (shale gas supported 600 000 U.S jobs in
2010ii). Shale gas source rocks are widely distributed around the world, and looking to the
US, many nations have now started to investigate their shale gas possibilities.
Fossil fuels, such as oil, natural gas and coal are by far the largest sources of energy in the EU
and are projected to dominate the European energy mix through to at least 2030. The 2°C
Scenario of the Energy Technology Perspectives (IEA/OCDE) predicts decay in natural gas
production after peaking in 2030. However, the share of unconventional gas worldwide is
expected to increase from 12% (2009) to 24% (2035) and 34% (2050)iii.
The European Commission Energy Roadmap 2050 identifies gas as a critical fuel for the
transformation of the energy system in the direction of more renewables and lower CO2
emissions. It can be argued that in Europe natural gas replacing coal and oil undoubtedly will
contribute to emission reduction in the short and medium term, and that natural gas will have
a permanent role in the future energy mix provided a solution with CCSiii.
The most important European driver for shale gas development is the potential for higher
security of energy supply, since Europe currently imports 60% of its gas requirements, a
number that is projected to rise to 80% by 2030iv. In some EU countries close to hundred
percent of the gas is imported from Russiav. The possibility for lower energy prices that might
come as the shale gas technology and experience develop is also a factor that is mentioned, as
well as the possibility for jobs created by the shale gas industry.
There are, however, several concerns related to shale gas exploration and production. The
most frequently discussed ones are faith of chemical additives to in the water used during
production, and in particular risk of polluting the ground water. There is also a debate on the
GHG emissions of shale gas (CO2 and methane) and its energy efficiency compared to other
energy sources. Concerns are also raised about land and surface impacts, noise and micro
seismic events created by the production method.
There are also questions about the total potential of shale gas in Europe as a whole and in the
member states, since there is relatively little knowledge on the source rocks for the gas, their
quality and distribution and how easily producible the gas is.
Shale Gas basins are unevenly distributed among the EU member states and are not restricted
within national borders, so EU co-operation issues related to rights and cost-benefit sharing
will have to be addressed. The basins are transnational and knowledge could be easily
transferred from one European country to another.
i
Unconventional Gas: Potential Energy Market Impacts in the European Union European Commission,
Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy and Transport, 2012.
ii HS Global Insight (Des. 2011). The Economic and Employment Contributions of Shale Gas in the US.
iii Energy Technology Perspectives 2012, OECD/IEA, ISBN: 978-92-64-17488-7
iv World Energy Outlook 2011, OECD/IEA
v BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2010
vi Final report on unconventional gas in Europe, Philippe & Partners, Brussels, November 2011
vii EU environmental framework applicable to shale gas practices, European Commission, Brussels,
Vopel, 2012.

DoW JP Shale Gas
6
With the European continent being densely populated, public perception issues will most
certainly arise. Even though a recent study performed by the European Commission has
concluded that its existing legal framework was adequate to address shale gas extractionvi,vii,
there are, in terms of policies some points are not covered. Although different countries may
have different political position, a sound common European knowledge basis could be helpful
to this respect.
The bottom line is that Shale Gas issues may well affect EU even if individual European
countries choose not to pursue this resource. It is a potential opportunity for Europe, but
requires a rapid and comprehensive response in terms of assessment of potential, technology,
regulation and a facing a range of policy issues. Member states with an identified shale gas
potential are already starting to act.
2. Value added
The program establishes a common knowledge platform for development and evaluation of
new technologies to improve the development of shale gas fields.
The key expertise, equipment, and infrastructure of 24 research institutes from 15 European
member states (total committed humane resource of 185 py/y) will be used to carry out the
different research tasks. Contributing member states cover the most important geopolitical
regions where shale gas development may play a (future) role. Shale gas development is at
different stages in the contributing member states (i.e. from moratorium to full operation).
Accordingly, most aspects related to shale gas can be covered in the joint program.
Shale gas is not a national issue, it is a European issue. Several national shale gas initiatives
have already been started, but they look into the topic primarily from the individual member
states’ needs and points of view. It is, however, important to share knowledge, data and
experience to obtain the best possible decision bases for all member states. Shale Gas basins
are not restricted within national borders and neither should the knowledge.
The European R&D institutions will provide independent research based knowledge for the
public, politicians and decision makers. Public perception is a critical issue for all decision
makers, and the public and politicians should get access to more balanced information sources
than casual internet videos made by activists or streamlined information from industry
lobbyists. In those areas where shale gas activities are undertaken, there is also a need for
independent R&D in order to ensure continuous efforts to develop and use technology with
less environmental impact.
It is not possible to directly copy US shale gas production strategies. European gas shales are
often located deeper and some have different rock properties. They are also present in more
density populated areas. It is therefore necessary to evaluate different production strategies.
More innovation will be needed in Europe compared to USA, and the industry will need
support from R&D.
3. Objectives
The main objective is to align and share research activities at EERA institutes related to Shale
Gas exploration and production activities that cover the whole Shale Gas value chain for both
industry and government. These R&D topics are divided into the following sub programmes
(SP):
1. Assessment of shale gas potential
2. Technology for safe exploitation

DoW JP Shale Gas
7
3. Environmental impact & footprint
4. Energy and Carbon Efficiencies and Emissions to Air
5. A social license to operate are
The objectives of the Sub-Programme 1 Assessment of shale gas potential are:
1. Review state of the art technologies for the assessment of shale gas potential and
come to one EU-methodology.
2. Scientific and technological progress in the understanding of the nano to micro-scale
structure of source rocks, their original depositional environment and evolution
through geological time the reduction in uncertainties into the quantification of Shale
Gas Potential (SGP).
The objectives of the Sub-Programme 2 Technology for safe exploitation are:
1. Developing characterisation methods tailor made for gas shale reservoirs
2. Developing existing and innovative drilling techniques that improve borehole
stability
3. Improving the understanding of fracture growth aiming at better control and
prediction of the fracturing process
4. Developing innovative fracturing processes by using alternative fluids, new materials
(proppants) and fluid-free fracturing techniques
5. Increased learning from ongoing production monitoring
6. Illustrating best practices of safe and efficient shale gas exploitation by means of field
cases developed for typical European gas shales
The objectives of the Sub-Programme 3 Environmental impact and footprint are:
1. Compile a comprehensive inventory of the potential impact and footprint of shale gas
development
2. Quantify impact, footprint and risks associated with shale gas development
3. Determine potential risk mitigation measures and boundary conditions for minimum
impact and footprint
4. Develop standardized methodologies to assess impact, footprint and risks of shale gas
development.
The objectives of the Sub-Programme 4 Energy and Carbon Efficiencies and Emissions to Air
are to give a technical-scientific basis on:
1. The potential contribution of shale gas production to greenhouse gas (GHG) and other
gaseous emissions.
2. Removing environment barriers and developing innovative technology solutions.
The objectives of the Sub-Programme 5 A social license to operate are:
1. To improve understanding of the potential impact of shale gas activities on the wider
EU economy and energy system.
2. To examine the regulatory and governance challenges presented by shale gas
development at local, national and European scales.
3. To provide an in-depth understanding of European public awareness, knowledge
about, and acceptability of shale gas technology and its potential deployment in EU
Countries.
4. To understand the origins of community and national level activism and the
legitimate concerns stemming from perceptions of uncertainty and risks, critical to
guide effective public engagement around shale gas exploitation.
5. To suggest strategies of dialogue between policy makers, NGOs, industrial
stakeholders and the public regarding the social license to operate.

DoW JP Shale Gas
8
The objectives of the Sub-Programme 6 Field Case Data are:
1. To improve understanding of the environmental impact of shale gas activities in
Europe on all environmental components (i.e. air, soil and soil gas, surface and
groundwater);
2. To improve the overall legal framework for shale gas activities with respect to
environmental constrains and access of data for research purpose;
3. To improve the geological database for resource estimations
If possible, field cases will be developed for typical European gas shales to demonstrate the
application of innovative production technologies and inform public on shale gas exploitation.
Proper demonstration field cases of European gas shales are important for illustrating best
practices of safe and efficient shale gas exploitation. Activities related to such field cases will
link to all sub programme activities.
1. Description of foreseen activities
SP1: Assessment of Shale Gas Potential
Imaging and reservoir rock characterisation must be optimum at all scales: from methane
molecular size to sedimentary basin. This is the very first step to be performed in exploration
and appraisal to achieve optimum field development and to minimise its environmental
footprint.
• WP1 Basin Scale Architecture
• WP2 Micro-scale characterisation
• WP3 Methods for Shale Gas reserves estimation
SP2: Technology for safe and efficient exploitation
The objective of SP2 is to improve the efficiency and the recovery from shale gas reservoirs
with the minimum environmental impact. This will be achieved by:
- Developing characterisation methods tailor made for gas shale reservoirs
- Developing existing and innovative drilling techniques that improve borehole
stability
- Improving the understanding of fracture growth aiming at better control and
- Developing innovative fracturing processes by using alternative fluids, new materials
- Identification and development of alternative shale gas production technologies;
- Increased learning from ongoing production monitoring
SP3 Environmental impact & footprint
Environmental impact and footprint will be assessed considering population densities,
geological settings, exploitation technologies, and regulations that are specific for European
Union member states.
• WP1 Impact of surface activities on human health, safety and environment
• WP2 Impact of hydraulic fracturing & gas production
• WP3 Impact of wells & requirements of well design
• WP4 Impact on water & water management
• WP5 Benchmarks & methodologies for risk assessment
• WP6 Mitigation measures & minimizing footprint
SP4: Energy and Carbon Efficiency and Emissions to Air
The main point of difference between the GHG emissions associated with shale compared to
conventionally sourced gas lie in the extraction and production processes. There are concerns
that small leakages of methane during shale gas extraction may at least partly offset the

DoW JP Shale Gas
9
effects of lower carbon dioxide emissions from its use in place of coal or oil. The potential
contribution of shale gas production to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will be accessed.
• WP1 Emissions from Pre-production Stage
• WP2 Emissions from Production Stage
• WP3 Ambient emissions around shale gas basins
• WP4 Assessment of the current GHG emissions reporting framework
SP5: A social license to operate
The sub-programme has the following key objectives:
6. To improve understanding of the potential impact of shale gas activities on the wider EU
economy and energy system.
7. To examine the regulatory and governance challenges presented by shale gas development
at local, national and European scales.
8. To provide an in-depth understanding of European public awareness, knowledge about,
and acceptability of shale gas technology and its potential deployment in EU Countries.
9. To understand the origins of community and national level activism and the legitimate
concerns stemming from perceptions of uncertainty and risks, critical to guide effective
public engagement around shale gas exploitation.
10.To suggest strategies of dialogue between policy makers, NGOs, industrial stakeholders
and the public regarding the social license to operate.
2. Milestones
Milestone Measurable Objectives Project
Month
M1 Final JP Description of Work 1
M2 Steering Committee meeting 3
M3 JP Management Board meeting and Steering Committee meeting 6
M4 Knowledge sharing workshop
M6 Website for dissemination of results 10
M8 Knowledge sharing workshop on project results year 1
M9 Steering committee meeting 15
M10 presentation Annual report year 1
M15 Knowledge sharing workshop on project results year 2
M17 presentation Annual report year 2

DoW JP Shale Gas
10
M22 Symposium on project results
M23 Final report on project results
3. Participants and Human Resources
Name Country Role Associated to
(if associate)
Human
Resource
committed
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
BELGIUM
Belgium Associate (RWTH/KUL) 2
KU LEUVEN Belgium Associate GSB 1
UNIVERSITY OF
BULGARIA
Bulgaria Participant 35
UNIVERSITY OF
OSTRAVA
Czech Republic Participant 5
GEUS Denmark Particpant EGS 5
IFPEN France Participant and
Coordinator SP1
5
RWTH AACHEN Germany Associate GSB 2
GFZ Potsdam Germany Participant 5
KIT-ITAS Germany Associate GFZ 1
UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS Greece Participant 20
UNIVERSITY ROMA TRE Italy Participant 5
ECN Netherlands Participant 6
TNO Netherlands Coordinator JP + SP3
Participant
5
UNIVERSITY OF
GRONINGEN
Netherlands Participant 6,4
IRIS Norway Participant SINTEF 5
SINTEF Norway Coordinator SP2
Participant
6
Państwowy Instytut
Geologiczny PGI
Poland Participant 12
Instytut Energetyki Poland Associate PGI or INIG 1
INIG Oil and Gas institute
AGH, University Krakow
Poland Participant 7,5
LNEG Poland Coordinator SP4
Participant
6
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
ROMANIA
Portugal Participant 8,3
IGME Romania Participant 5
UKERC Spain Coordinator SP5
Participant
6,5
Czech Geological Survey UK Participant 4
INERIS Czech Republic Associate GFZ 5.7
Deltares Netherlands Associate TNO 2,5
ENEA Italy Associate Roma 3 2
TUEindhoven Netherlands Participant 5
University of Perugia Italy Participant Roma3 2
University of Gdansk Poland Participant 12,3
Tecnalia Spain Participant IGME 5
Adelard LLP UK Industrial
26 institutes involved – 192 fte commited

DoW JP Shale Gas
11
Name SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5 SP6 HR
commited
(py/y)
Geological Survey of Belgium 1 1 2
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven 1 1
Uni Min Geol St. Ivan Rilski 8 10 7 5 5 35
VSB - Technical Uni Ostrava 1.5 1.5 2 5
GEUS 1.5 0.5 0.5 2.5
IFPEN 2 2 0.5 0.5 5
GFZ Potsdam 5 5
ITAS 1 1
RWTH Aachen 2.5 0.5 0.5 3.5
University of Athens 10 10 20
University of Roma Tre 6 6
TNO 1 2 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 6
ECN 2.5 2.5 5
University of Groningen 0.5 0.5 1.2 4.2 6.4
IRIS 2 2
SINTEF 2 2 1 1 6
Polish Geological Institute 3 1.5 5 2 0.5 12
IEN - Instytut Energetyki 1 1
INIG - Oil and Gas Institute 7 9 2 2 20
AGH - University of Krakow x x x unspecified
LNEG 4.2 0.5 3 0.6 8.3
Geological Survey of Romania 5 5
IGME 1.5 2 2.5 0.5 6.5
UKERC 2.4 4.2 7.45 1.7 3.35 1.7 20.8
TOTAL 63.6 35.7 39.45 15.7 18.05 12.5 185
4. Infrastructures and facilities
Most of the programme members have at their disposal R&D infrastructures that they will
use for the purpose of the programme. An overview of all institutes and their facilities can be
found in Annex 1.
5. Management of the Joint Programme on Shale Gas
Governance structure
The EERA Shale Gas Joint Programme is currently organized into six sub-programmes.
This structure will allow efficient management of the JP activities. In the future, new
subprogrammes may be added. The guiding principles for the structuring of the JP into
subprogrammes are and will be thematic coherence and organisational efficiency.
JP membership
Publicly funded R&D organisations or private companies recognized as R&D organisations
by the European Commission can join the program as Participants if they commit more than
5 person years/year (py/y) to the program. Other organisations or those committing less than
5 py/y to the program can join as Associates. The contributions of an Associate, both in terms
of human resources and R&D work, are consolidated with those of the Participant that the
Associate has chosen. Several small members may associate and name one of them as

DoW JP Shale Gas
12
representative, becoming a Participant if the consolidated contribution surpasses 5 py/y. The
Participant will represent the interests of the Associates that are linked to it. Any agreements
governing the relationship between Participants and Associates are to be set up by the
respective Participants and Associates.
EERA membership is formalized by signing a Declaration of Support, JP membership (either
as participant or as associate) is formalized by signing program-specific Letter of Intent.
During the Awareness event in Brussels end of February it was decided to collect an annual
membership fee of 5000 EUR to cover the costs of internal and external communication, e.g.
webpage, bi-annual newsletter and common Steering Committee meeting expenses.
JP Steering Committee
The JP Steering Committee is composed of one representative of each JP participant. The JP
Steering Committee
• selects the Joint Programme Coordinator
• selects the Sub-programme coordinators
• reviews the progress and achievements of the JP
• provides strategic guidance to the management board
• approves new JP members (participants or associates)
• approves updates of the Description of Work of the JP.
The JP Steering Committee is chaired by the JP Coordinator; the sub-programme
coordinators participate as observers in the Committee. It convenes twice a year. The JP
coordinator and the sub-programme coordinators cannot act as representatives of their
respective R&D organisation in the Steering Committee.
JP Management Board
The JP Management Board is the executive body of the JP and is composed of the JP
Coordinator (chair) and the sub-programme coordinators.
Tasks and responsibilities:
Financial management of the JP budget (if applicable)
• Contractual oversight
• IP (intellectual property) oversight
• Scientific co-ordination, progress control, planning on programme and subprogramme
• level
• JP internal communication
• External communication with other organisations
• Reporting to Steering Committee and EERA ExCo
The JP Management board meets four times a year.
Sub-programme execution team
The Sub-programme execution team is the coordinating body on the sub-programme level. It
is composed of the sub-programme coordinator (chair) and the leaders of the projects within
the sub-programme. It meets on request.
Internal & External communication group
This group coordinates internal and external communication. The members of this group
coincide with the JPMB. During the first year the EERA JP Shale Gas webpage will be
established including presentation of the participating organisations and their key activities,
research infrastructure and contact information. There will also be a password protected
project management system for the participants.

DoW JP Shale Gas
13
JP Coordinator
The JP Coordinator (JPC) is selected by the JP steering committee for a mandate of two
years. The mandate can be renewed. The JPC chairs the Steering Committee and the
Management Board.
Tasks and responsibilities
• Coordination of the scientific activities in the joint programme and communication
• with the EERA ExCo and the EERA secretariat.
• Monitoring progress in achieving the sub-programmes deliverables and milestones.
• Reporting scientific progress and unexpected developments to the EERA ExCo.
• Propose and coordinate scientific sub-programmes for the joint programme.
• Coordinate the overall planning process and progress reporting.
Sub-programme coordinator
The Sub-programme coordinators (SPC) are selected by the JP steering committee for a
mandate of two years. The mandate can be renewed. The sub-programme coordinator takes
part in Steering Committee meetings, is a member of the management board and chairs the
sub-programme execution team.
Tasks and responsibilities
• Oversee the sub-programme projects
• Coordination of the scientific activities in the sub-programme to be carried out by the
participants according to the agreed commitment. The SPC communicates with the
contact persons to be assigned by each participant.
• Monitoring progress in achieving the sub-programmes deliverables and milestones.
• Reporting progress to joint programme coordinator
• Propose and coordinate scientific actions for the sub-programme
• Monitor scientific progress and report unexpected developments
Project leaders
The joint activities will be performed in the form of projects that are expected to be set-up in
variable configurations (in terms of project members) and in the framework of project
specific contracts. The project leaders are responsible for the execution of their projects; they
are members of the sub-programme execution team.
6. Interface with other JPs
Interface with JP on… Interface description Interface Management
JP Deep Geothermal
Energy
JP on Shale Gas contributes
from SP2 and SP3 to the JP
on deep geothermal energy
production performed within
the framework of the
European Technology Panel
on Renewable Heating and
Cooling, related to hydraulic
fracturing technology and
induced seismicity, e.g.
Hydraulic fracturing and
induced seismicity
Joint Programme coordinator
will contact the JP to ensure
both JP’s can strengthen the
knowledge base that will be
established, by aligning the
program upfront and sharing
knowledge, e.g. at committee
meetings, also from activities
relevant in other JPs.
JP Carbon Capture and Strong links with research on

DoW JP Shale Gas
14
Storage technologies for CCS
performed within the
framework of the Zero
Emissions Platform e.g.
methodologies for risk
assessment
JP Social Economics Strong links with economic
and social consequences of
the implementation of new
technologies/developments.
e.g. Public perception
7. Risks
The most important risk concerns the effective set-up of joint R&D activities (i.e. projects).
This will in general require the detailed definition of a work program, a consortium and a
legal contract. If the EERA project is to be proposed for external funding (e.g. FP7) the
corresponding procedures and rules commonly used by the programme members will be
applied. There is a natural risk unsatisfactory added value in the proposed project portfolio
funded by own resources of the participating institutes. These risks will be managed by the
Joint Programme Management Board.
8. Intellectual Property Rights of the Joint Programme on Shale Gas
IPR policies, rules and regulations as outlined in the Declaration of Support (DoS) will be
adhered to in the EERA Joint Programme Shale Gas.
9. Contact Point for the Joint Programme on Shale Gas
René Peters
Director Gas Technologies
TNO
Stieltjesweg 1
2628 CK Delft
Tel. +31 8886 66340
Mob. +316 51551566
Fax. +31 8886 60630
E-mail: rene.peters@tno.nl

DoW JP Shale Gas
15
SUB-PROGRAMME 1: Assessment of Shale
Gas Potential
A sub-programme within the Joint Programme Shale gas
EERA
Description of Work
Version: <1.2>
Last modification date: <03-07-2013>

DoW JP Shale Gas
16
SP1 Assessment of Shale Gas Potential
The aim of this Sub Programme SP1: “Assessment of Shale Gas Potential,” is to address the
need to conduct scientifically robust assessments of the shale gas resources in Europe. It is the
intention of this sub task to scientifically improve the key parameters and optimize the
methodology in assessing shale gas resources and thereby quantify the shale gas resources
assessment risks. The end goal is to develop a standard shale gas resource assessment
methodology for EU.
The SP1 programme of work is divided into three work packages (WP) that are delineated to
stimulate innovation in the various key disciplines of shale gas geosciences.
Basin scale architecture is the first work-package which is concerned with all methods and
approaches that can be used to improve the characterisation of organic bearing shale
formations at both the regional and the local (i.e. bedrock stratum or outcrop) levels and will
impact significantly our confidence in estimates of technically recoverable reserves.
The second work-package will focus research and development of sedimentary rock typing
approaches at the very small scale in space and is untitled Micro-scale characterisation. It
involves all laboratory measurement techniques and experimental workflows to characterise
the nature and geochemical properties of organic matter and mineral composition and
evaluate the fine structure of the porous space in the rocks, its fluid content capacity, its
permeability, its texture and its flow and mechanical properties (strength, brittleness), and
their inter-relationships.
Integration of knowledge, concepts, good practice approached and standardised experimental
protocol will be covered by the third work package Methods for Shale reserves estimation. In
this work package the expected deliverables should result in new guidelines and convincing
demonstration of the gain in prediction that new techniques can achieve with respect to the
current inventory of the shale gas resource in the European sedimentary basins.

DoW JP Shale Gas
17
1. Background
Europe has discovered its potential for Shale Gas within the last decade, with licensing
requests coming mainly from American Oil and Gas Companies, who have specialized in the
exploration and production of Shale Gas.
In the same time the U.S. Energy Information Administration published an assessment for gas
shale in Europe (15-15 .000 Bill. M3), suggesting that this new resource could become a
major game changer from dependency of the presently gas suppliers for Europe to
independent secured domestic gas supply.
Assessments of the shale gas in Europe have varied tremendously and are as such not reliable.
This has raised the need for an independent, objective science based assessment of the
European shale basins. The success and accuracy of such an improved assessment of the shale
gas resources is dependent on the identification of all the elements necessary to allow global
assessment, the best possible methodology, and the availability of all relevant data.
2. Objectives
The aim of this Sub Programme SP1: “Assessment of Shale Gas Potential,” is to address the
need to conduct scientifically robust assessments of the shale gas resources in Europe. It is the
intention of this sub task to scientifically improve the key parameters and optimize the
methodology in assessing shale gas resources and thereby quantify the shale gas resources
assessment risks. The end goal is to develop a standard shale gas resource assessment
methodology for EU.
First efforts will be used to review state of the art technologies and methodologies for the
assessment of shale gas potential and identify new research avenues. Scientific and
technological progress in the understanding of the nano to micro -scale structure of source
rocks, their original depositional environment and evolution through geological time will
bring new insight and reduced uncertainties into the quantification of Shale Gas Potential
(SGP).
footprint.
The SP1 programme of work is divided into three work packages (WP) that are delineated to
stimulate innovation in the various key disciplines of shale gas geosciences.
Basin scale architecture is the first work-package which is concerned with all methods and
approaches that can be used to improve the characterisation of organic bearing shale
formations at both the regional and the local (i.e. bedrock stratum or outcrop) levels and will
impact significantly our confidence in estimates of technically recoverable reserves.
The second work-package will focus research and development of sedimentary rock typing
approaches at the very small scale in space and is untitled Micro-scale characterisation. It
involves all laboratory measurement techniques and experimental workflows to characterise
the nature and geochemical properties of organic matter and mineral composition and
evaluate the fine structure of the porous space in the rocks, its fluid content capacity, its
permeability, its texture and its flow and mechanical properties (strength, brittleness), and
their inter-relationships.
Integration of knowledge, concepts, good practice approached and standardised experimental
protocol will be covered by the third work package Methods for Shale reserves estimation.

DoW JP Shale Gas
18
In this work package the expected deliverables should result in new guidelines and
convincing demonstrations of the gain in prediction that new techniques can achieve with
respect to the current inventory of the shale gas resource in the European sedimentary basins.
4. Description of foreseen activities (including time line)
This Sub Programme will aim at improving technologies to locate the shale gas potential in
the sub-surface, to perform better prediction in the resource inventory of European basins,
through an in-depth knowledge of the geohistory of petroleum systems from nano-scale to
basin scale. The foreseen activities will use state of the art technologies for the assessment of
shale gas potential and identify new research avenues. Scientific and technological progress in
the understanding of the nano to micro -scale structure of source rocks, their original
depositional environment and evolution through geological time will bring new insights and
reduced uncertainties into the quantification of Shale Gas Potential (SGP).
footprint. Some of the proposed research activities apparently in overlap with those of the
SP2-WP1, have to be understood as complementary. SP1 WP2 will be focused on laboratory
based characterisation methods for the assessment of original gas in place in Shale
formations. SP2 WP1 shall provide SP1 WP1 and WP2 complementary input data and shale
rock parameters in order to formulate the evolution of rock properties over geological time
scale.
The SP1 programme of work is divided into three work packages (WP) that are delineated to stimulate
innovation in the various key disciplines of shale gas geosciences.
WP1: Basin Scale Architecture
In this work-package eligible research activities should fall into one of the following topics:
WP1.1 Field Geology:
· Improved mapping of shale reservoir (thickness, areal extent, TOC content etc... );
· Sedimentary depositional models, sedimentary and organic facies variations;
· Structural styles and tectonic regimes: folds/faults/fractures present day architecture
and stress field;
· Interpretation of borehole loggings (lithofacies, petrophysics, geomechanical and
TOC determinations in uncored wells) and 2D seismic as well
WP1.2 Geophysics and Interpretation:
· Wide-angle wide-azimuth 3D seismic processing;
· Lithology and geomechanical rock properties of reservoirs and caprocks;
· Processing algorithms that correct for anisotropy;
· Elastic information through multicomponent seismic inversion;
WP1.3 Laboratory measurements
· Lithology and geomechanics: Shale and caprock mechanical properties;
WP1.4 Mathematical Modelling:
· In situ stress state prediction;
· Volumetric and qualitative prediction of gas shale occurrences by characterising and
quantifying inorganic and organic matter content, organic matter maturity and amount
of HC generated;
· Fracture networks for dual porosity modelling;
· HC expulsion and retention thresholds and relative permeability;

DoW JP Shale Gas
19
WP2: Micro-scale characterisation
WP2.1 Characterization of Shale and their organic matter at nano to micro scale
· Rock petrology : mineralogy, grain size distribution, clay content and diagenetic
pattern;
· Organic geochemistry: TOC, Rock-Eval, .kerogen type, organic facies, bio-markers
· Thermal maturity evolution: Vr, Tmax, thermic organic markers, kinetic models of
hydrocarbon degradation
· Thermodynamics models of water-rock-HC gas interactions
WP2.2 Evaluation of pore network :
· Evaluation at multi-scales of the geometry and topology of the porosity, the
mineralogical heterogeneity and organic matter 3D network
· Natural fracturing and pressure modelling in shale gas: reconstruction of geo-pressures
and linked rock-type specific failure estimation
· Permeability, porosity and calibration of Organic porosity;
· Shale fracture Capability, overpressure threshold;
· Molecular simulation in pore network;
· Process modelling of HC volume content, free versus adsorbed gas evaluation;
· Expulsion, retention/diffusion and migration mechanisms in Shale;
WP3:Methods for Shale Gas Reserves estimation
WP3.1 Best practice for assessment with advanced techniques:
· Laboratory experiment protocols and methodologies;
· Integration into models (data, processes, ...);
· Up-scaling and homogenisation techniques;
· Geohistory, Thermal, Migration and distribution of HC products;
· Pressure determination;
· Production curves;
· Possibilities of USGS methodology implementation in Europe;
WP3.2 Sweet spot identification;
· Specific Workflows;
· Sensitivity and risk analysis;
5. Milestones
Milestone Measurable Objectives Project Month
M1 Shale Gas Reserves estimation workshop 6
M2 Website for dissemination of results 10
M3 Annual report year 1 with compilation, evaluation,
and application of national research
12
M4 Minutes of workshop on results of year 2 23
M5 Annual report year 2 with extension of existing
national research and research niches
24
M6 Minutes of workshop on results of year 3 35
M7 Final report with integrated research on quantified
risks, impact and footprint of shale gas
development
36

DoW JP Shale Gas
20
Name Country Role Associated
with
Human
Resources
committed SP1
Geological Survey of
Belgium
Belgium Associate TNO 1
Katholieke Universiteit
Leuven
Belgium Associate TNO 1
Uni Min Geol St. Ivan Rilski Bulgaria Participant 8
GEUS Denmark Associate IFPEN 1.5
IFPEN France Participant -
Coordinator
SP1
2
GFZ Potsdam Germany Participant 5
RWTH Aachen Germany Associate GFZ Potsdam 2.5
University of Athens Greece Participant 10
University of Roma Tre Italy Participant 6
TNO Netherlands Participant –
JP/SP3
Coordinator
1
University of Groningen Netherlands Participant 0.5
SINTEF Norway Participant –
Coordinator
SP2
2
Polish Geological Institute Poland Participant 3
INIG - Oil and Gas Institute Poland Participant 7
AGH - University of Krakow Poland Associate PGI x
LNEG Portugal Participant –
Coordinator
SP4
4.2
Geological Survey of
Romania
Romania Participant 5
IGME Spain Participant 1.5
UK Energy Research Centre United
Kingdom
Participant –
Coordinator
SP6
2.4
Total 63.6

DoW JP Shale Gas
21
Name WP1.1 WP1.2 WP1.3. SP1 py/y
Geological Survey of Belgium 0.5 0 0.5 1
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven 1 0 0 1
Uni Min Geol St. Ivan Rilski x x x 8
GEUS 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5
IFPEN 1 0.5 0.5 2
GFZ Potsdam 2 3 0 5
RWTH Aachen 0.5 1 1 2.5
University of Athens 5 2 3 10
University of Roma Tre 1 5 0 6
TNO 0.4 0.2 0.4 1
University of Groningen 0 0.2 0.3 0.5
SINTEF 0.75 0.5 0.75 2
Polish Geological Institute 2 0.5 0.5 3
INIG - Oil and Gas Institute 3 2 2 7
AGH - University of Krakow x x x x
LNEG 2.25 0.4 1.55 4.15
Geological Survey of Romania x x x 5
IGME 0.5 0 1 1.5
UK Energy Research Centre 0.3 0.9 1.2 2.4
TOTAL 19.2 16.7 12.7 63.55
List of institutes and summaries of their track record and contributions to SP1 (listed by country
when available):
Denmark
GEUS - Peter Britze, Head of Reservoir Department, pbr@geus.dk
France
IFPEN - William Sassi, Geologist, william.sassi@ifpen.fr
WP1Stratigraphic modelling and sedimentary basin architecture, Mechanical evolution of organic rich
shale
WP2 Characterisation of nano scale organic matter porosity
WP3 Petroleum system modelling for unconventional plays reserves assessment
Germany
GFZ - Prof. Dr. Brian Horsfield, Head of Section Organic Geochemistry, horsf@gfz-potsdam.de
Org. Geochemistry – Modelling - Knowledge Transfer
Recent projects:
Gash Shales in Europe – GASH” is nearly finished and starts its second three year project phase in
autumn 2013. It is funded by oil and gas companies.
GeoEn is funded by the German Ministry for Education and Research and will be finished in April
2013. This joint project covered besides shale gas with CO2 capture, CO2 storage and geothermal
energy. A part of this project was the establishment of the shale gas information platform SHIP.
GFZ has conducted several industry-partnership projects, e.g. in the Bakken Shale formation.
Ongoing research: GeoEn projects in the Williston and Georgina Basins
Germany
Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS)

DoW JP Shale Gas
22
Julia Hahn, Scientific staff member , julia.hahn@kit.edu
Germany
RWTH Aachen University
Bernhard M. Krooss, Research scientist, Bernhard.krooss@emr.rwth-aachen.de
Collecting geological, geochemical, mineralogical and petrophysical data on European and worldwide
gas/oil shale systems. Conducting Numerical Basin Modelling (3D) studies and Petroleum System
Analyses on selected gas/oil shale systems.
The petrophysical laboratory of EMR/LEK is equipped for high-pressure gas sorption tests on coals
and gas shales and for fluid flow tests on rocks/coals with low to extremely low permeability
coefficients. The Clay and Interface Mineralogy Group houses expertise and state of the art equipment
for (clay) mineral characterization, inorganic geochemistry, pore structure analysis and mineral
surface characterisation. The Reservoir-Petrology Group uses micro- to nano visualization techniques
to characterize the pore space and diagenetic overprints. Furthermore, the EMR Group has state-of-the-
art SEM instrumentation for FIB, BIB and microtomography.
EMR/LEK, CIM and RPR aim at combining their expertise in regional geology, basin evolution,
petroleum/natural gas geochemistry, structural diagenesis, reservoir characterization, mineralogy and
petrophysics for the estimation of unconventional hydrocarbon resources. The processes involved in
the formation of unconventional reservoirs and the production of gas and oil from these systems are of
particular interest.
Another topic of interest is the heterogeneity of gas shales on reservoir scale. This is assessed by
combining sedimentological, diagenetic, mineralogical and petrophysical analyses at outcrop scale.
Greece
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Professor Dr. Vasileios Karakitsios, Director of the Department of Historical Geology and
Paleontology, of the Faculty of Geology and Geoenvironment, President of the Hellenic
Sedimentological Association, vkarak@geol.uoa.gr
WP1 1997-2000 Scientific Responsible of the Project: Research of favorable stratigraphic and
structural conditions for hydrocarbon trapping in the Ionian basin of Epirus. Funded by the Hellenic
Petroleum S.A. (Exploration and Production Division), and the University of Athens.
1998 Scientific Responsible of the Project: Stratigraphy, Sedimentology and Organic Geochemistry of
the cuttings and cores from the Ioannina 1 Well (Western Greece). Funded by the Enterprise Oil corp.
2005-2007. Scientific Responsible of the Project: Black shale horizons in the Western Greece Mesozoic
formations: Anoxic events, indicators of rapid global paleoenvironmental changes and deposition of
petroleum source rocks. Funded by the European Social Fund and National Resources (EPEAEK II)
PYTHAGORAS II.2006-2008 Scientific Responsible of the KAPODISTRIAS Project: Evolution and
petroleum potential of the geological formations of Western Greece. Funded by the University of
Athens 2009 Scientific Responsible of the KAPODISTRIAS Project: Palaeogeographical conditions of
the Phosphorites and source rocks formation in the Ionian zone (Western Greece). Funded by the
University of Athens.
WP21993-1995 Scientific Responsible of the Project: Study of the organic matter diagenesis, evolution
and maturation of the alpine Ionian basin formations and its probable hydrocarbon production.
Location of areas with developed productive horizons. Funded by the University of Athens.
1996-1997 Scientific Responsible of the Project: Study of the Geological and Petrophysical
characteristics of the Ionian series and the structure of the Ionian basin in relationship with the
migration and trapping of its hydrocarbons (Western Greece). Funded by the University of Athens.
WP3 2010-2012 Black shale occurrences in the Ionian Zone, part of the European Project: “GASH-EBSD”
of EUROGEOSURVEYS, E.U. 2013-2015 Assessing environmental impact of possible oil shale
and shale gas exploitation in western Greece. ESF& National Funds (awaiting approval).
Italy
Dipartimento di Scienze - Sezione di Scienze Geologiche, Università “Roma tre”
Sveva Corrado, Associate Professor sveva.corrado@uniroma3.it
WP1 Ongoing project: Reconstruction of “Discrete Fracture Network” in natural reservoirs and cap-rocks
of geothermal systems: the case history of Rosario de la Frontera (NW Argentina). This sub-project
is part of an Italy-Argentina bilateral project on the assessment of the geothermal potential of
Salta and Jujuy provinces by means of geological, geochemical and geophysical exploration.

DoW JP Shale Gas
23
Funding: Fully funded by the Italian Research Ministry (Miur-CUIA 2011 and Miur-Fondo Giovani
PhD Projects 2011-2013 Funds).
Methods: Structural analysis at different scales, quantitative and qualitative analysis of the fractures
and faults diagnostic parameters. Geological mapping. Seismic sections interpretation. 3D Geological
modeling. Structural restoration. Discrete Fracture Network modeling. This approach can be totally
borrowed for the study of gas shales fabric assessment.
Staff: 1 associate professor, 1 lecturer, 1 PhD student.
Recent Project: Gas shale potential of the Baltic and Lublin basins (Poland) by means of 3D Petroleum
System Modeling. Funding: fully funded by private companies.
Staff: 1 associate professor and 1 post-doc, external industrial partners for modelling.
WP2 Ongoing project: New rationale and new analytical techniques to assess thermal maturity level
of organic matter dispersed in sediments and thermal evolution of sedimentary succession.
Funding: private companies and Miur-PhD Projects Funds 2012-2014.
Study areas: Ukraine, Poland, Angola, Sicily (Italy).
Geodynamic settings: fold&thrust belts, forelands, passive margins.
Methods: Optical analysis of dispersed organic matter for reflectance measurements, Raman and Ftir
spectroscopy on dispersed organic matter, pirolysis on whole rock; Xray diffraction on clays (whole
rock and <2micron fraction); Apatite fission tracks and U-Th/He dating on apatite, 1-D and 3-D
petroleum system modelling. Staff: 1associate professor, 2 lecturers, 2 post-docs, 1 technician in Roma
Tre; external academic partners for thermochronology; external industrial partners for pyrolisis and
3D modelling.
Ongoing project: Integrating magnetic fabric on shales and thermal evolution on dispersed organic
matter of Tertiary siliciclastic successions in the Northern Apennines (Italy). Funding: Fully funded by
the Italian Research Ministry (Miur-PhD Funds 2010-2012, Miur-Prin 2009 Project). Methods: optical
analysis of organic matter dispersed in sediments for o.m. characterisation and thermal maturity
assessment; study of anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility on sediments; XRD on clays (different
fractions). Staff: 1 full professor, 1 associate professor, 1 lecturer, 1 PhD student, 1 technician.
Recent project: origin of cleavage in the Central Pyrenees: Geometry, mechanisms and paleo-thermal
conditions. Funding: Research projects CGL2009-08969 and CGL2006-05817 (Spanish Ministry of
Education) and pre-doctoral grant AP-2009 – 0554 (Programa de formación de profesorado
universitario, Spanish Ministry of Education); “Roma Tre” Research funding.
Methods: optical analysis of organic matter dispersed in sediments; XRD on clays (different fractions);
structural analysis at the outcrop and micro scale; geological mapping.
Staff: 1 associate professor, 1 technician from Roma Tre and external academic parteners (Zaragoza
University) for field work.
The Netherlands
TNO
Rene Peters, Director Gas Technology, Coordinator EERA JP Shale Gas, Rene.peters@tno.nl
Jan ter Heege, Business Case Manager Unconventionals, SP3 coordinator
WP1
To understand the petroleum system of shale gas, TNO uses petroleum system analysis. This has been
applied to the Posidonia Shale Formation in the Netherlands and work is ongoing related to the
Geverik member of the Namurian Epen Formation. This includes 1) regional mapping of the area by
means of seismic interpretation, uncertainty assessment, fault modelling and prediction and 2)
reservoir identification and characterization by means of well log interpretation, core interpretion,
thin-section interpretation, palynological interpretation and correlating these results of various wells
throughout the basin, 2) basin modelling including temperature evolution, maturity, source rock
potential, fluid flow and corresponding pressures, porosity and permeability and 3) pressure and fluid
system analysis using pressure and effective stress distribution, hydraulic reservoir continuity, leakage
zones interpretation and petroleum system dynamics.
WP2
Quantifying variation in mineralogy, microstructure and build-up of organic rich shales, i.e. Posidonia
Shale Fm, using light thin section microscopy, XRD, isotope analyses, QEMscan, FIB-SEM and BIB-SEM.
The variation in lithology, mineralogy and pore structure are captured and quantified on
different levels of scale: meter, cm and mm scale. The variation in microstructure and mineralogy will

DoW JP Shale Gas
24
be characterised and compared for the different scales and if possible correlated to indentified log
zones.
WP3
Since 2009 TNO un-risks volume estimates for unconventional resources in the Netherlands, with
several updates on the outcome when more parameters are better understood and/or interpreted, going
from detailed characterization on basin to microscale. Using all known prospective parameters for an
unconventional resource, an estimate of their potential gas volume in place is made. The values of
these parameters used for calculations have certain uncertainties. To obtain a best estimate for a
volume in place a Monte Carlo simulation analyis has been performed, allowing the prediction of the
distribution of quantities and therefore the uncertainties in the numbers. The result of the Monte Carlo
simulation gives a low, best and high volume estimate for a specific unconventional resource in the
Netherlands. These volume estimates correspond to the range of uncertainties of contingent and
prospective resources. The Producible Gas-in-Place estimates are based on technical (recovery
The Netherlands
ECN - Paul Korting – CEO – korting@ecn.nl,,
ECN - Jeroen de Joode – Gas coordinator at ECN Policy Studies – dejoode@ecn.nl
The Netherlands
University of Groningen -Dr J.A. Beaulieu, programme manager, j.a.beaulieu@rug.nl
WP2
The University of Groningen has a strong international position on nanotechnology research for
materials (Zernike Institute for Advanced Materials and Stratingh Institute for Chemistry). Professor
Rien Herber is initiating a project to apply this technology to determine the nanostructure of shales in
order to extract critical parameters for determination of maturity, gas generating potential and
fraccing efficiency
WP3
Professor Rien Herber has a track record in reserve estimation methods for unconventional gas,
building on his experience as VP Exploration Europe in Shell. Specifically, the contribution will
address the assessment of EUR in comparison with GIIP as well as determination of economic
boundary conditions for conversion of technical reserves into economic reserves.
Norway
SINTEF- Maria Barrio, Senior Business Developer, Maria.Barrio@sintef.no
Poland
PGI - Dr Anna Becker, Energy Security Program, anna.becker@pgi.gov.pl
WP1
1. Sequence and origin of thermal events within the Polish basin and its sedimentary base – their use
for reconstruction of hydrocarbon generation processes 2. Hydrocarbon basins in Poland and their
potential for unconventional gas accumulations 3. Possibilities of occurrence and exploitation of
unconventional gas and oil accumulations in lower Paleozoic shales in Poland 4. Determination of the
potential continuous hydrocarbon accumulations (including sweet-spots recognition) within the
organic reach shale successions in Poland 5. Integration and analysis of geological data obtained from
areas licensed for exploration for unconventional hydrocarbon accumulations
WP2
Determination of the potential continuous hydrocarbon accumulations (including sweet-spots
recognition) within the organic reach shale successions in Poland
WP3
Integration and analysis of geological data obtained from areas licensed for exploration for
unconventional hydrocarbon accumulations
Poland
INIG - Maria Ciechanowska Prof., Managing Director, maria.ciechanowska@inig.pl
WP1
Imaging of subsurface structures in anisotropic media using seismic migration method, 2013 ongoing
Reconnaissance of Polish hydrocarbon basins in terms of occurrence possibilities, resources and the
possibility of exploration licensing of unconventional gas reservoirs, 2009

DoW JP Shale Gas
25
Mechanical Earth Model (MEM) based on seismic and reservoir engineering data – theoretical basis,
definitions, demonstrative model, 2012 Updating of Silurian formations structural maps, 2011
Method for prediction pore pressure distribution using Petrel software, 2009 confidential
Possibility of hydrocarbon reservoirs occurrence in Paleozoic formations (Carboniferous, Devonian)
in Western Pomerania region
WP2
Geochemical methods in unconventional shale gas exploration. 2009 Construction of geological model
of unconventional gas reserves using "JewelSuite" software, 2013 ongoing. Developing a methodology
to determine the activation energy distribution for different types of kerogen using the Optkin Software,
2011. Comprehensive analysis of drill core material from Lubocino-1 well in relation to shale gas
prospecting. The study of reservoir quality and filtration properties of cores. Geochemical analysis,
2011, confidential. Interpretation of cores, cuttings and fluids (oil and gas) investigation results from
Lubocino-1 well for hydrocarbon exploration in Ordovician-Silurian shale formations, 2012
confidential. Analysis of drilling cores and rock cuttings for shale gas exploration (Lithuanian area),
2011 confidential. Laboratory investigations of rocks and fluids properties from B8 Z-5 well with
complex interpretation for unconventional gas exploration, 2012 confidential. Laboratory
investigations of cores from Lubycza Krolewska-1 well with results interpretation, 2012 confidential
WP3
Modelling and Production Simulation of Shale Gas Reservoirs (in Poland). Mutli-one-dimensional
basin modeling using PetroMod software in Paleozoic plays for assessment of prospecting for
unconventional gas resources (shale/tight gas), 2009. The Hydrocarbon balance of Miocene formation
in Carpathian Foredeep for estimation of potential resources (from Poland border to the Tarnow
meridian), 2010 confidential. The methodology of diagnosis and estimation of unconventional shale
gas / tight gas resources in the Polish reservoir conditions, 2011. Determination of the most
prospective areas for shale gas exploration in PGNiG concession areas in the border zone of the
Poland
AGH - Stanislaw Nagy, professor of gas engineering, Head of Gas Engineering Department
stanislaw.nagy@agh.edu.pl
Portugal
LNEG
Machado Leite (machado.leite@lneg.pt), Dulce Boavida (dulce.boavida@lneg.pt), Carlos Rosa
(carlos.rosa@lneg.pt), Zélia Pereira (zelia.pereira@lneg.pt)
Modelling of the structure and volume of the geological units with potential on Shale Gas
Romania
Geology, Geophysics, Geochemistry and Remote sensing - Caransebes 1, Bucharest, 012271 Romania-
Scientific Researcher, octavian.coltoi@igr.ro ; coltoi_o@yahoo.com
WP1Geochemical and stratigraphical characteristics of Silurian from eastern part of Moesian
Platform – Romanian sector, GASH Sub-Project 1 - Building a European Black Shale, Geological and
geophysical data analysis of the Mesozoic and Tertiary formations from self of the Black Sea
(Romanian)
WP3 Geological and geophysical data analysis of the Mesozoic and Tertiary formations from self of
the Black Sea (Romanian)
Spain
IGME (Spanish Geological Survey)
Roberto Martínez, Deputy Director of Research on Geological Resources, ro.martinez@igme.es
WP1 IGME has developed a study for the Ministry of Environment about the main areas of interest in
Spain for the exploration
WP3IGME has developed standards for the evaluation of reserves in Spain of many different mineral
resources and has a wide
United Kingdom
UKERC
Prof John Loughhead, Executive Director, UKERC, j.loughhead@ukerc.ac.uk
Dr Nicola Combe, Knowledge Exchange Associate, UKERC n.combe@ukerc.ac.uk

DoW JP Shale Gas
26
WP1 Dr Nick Riley, British Geological Survey, Subsurface Geological Memoirs, DECC resource
estimations; Prof. Richard Davies, Durham Energy Institute, We have staff working on basin-scale
evolution of European basins.
WP2Dr Nick Riley, British Geological Survey, Nannoscale geochemistry / mineralogy / structure,
micropore / micropermeability, micropaleontology, kerogen, microfacies.
Prof. Quentin Fisher, University of Leeds
Currently running a 3 year, £400,000 Joint Industry Project sponsored by Nexen, Chevron and EBN
investigating laboratory methods to characterize the properties of gas shales.
Prof. Richard Davies, Durham Energy Institute, We have academic working on clay chemistry and
petrography
WP3 Dr Nick Riley, British Geological Survey, UK shale gas resource assessment for DECC.
Prof. Alain C. Gringarten, Imperial College London, Characterization of shale gas production
mechanisms, as part of a JIP on Well Test Analysis in Complex Systems (see 2.1)
6. GANT Chart
Activity
Q
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
WP 1-1
WP 1-2
WP 1-3
WP 1-4
WP 2.1
WP 2.2
WP 3.1
WP 3.2
M1 M2 M3 M5 M7
M4 M6 M8
R W/S W/S W/S
W = workshop
D = draft report
R = report
Mx = milestone nr. X
S = annual status report
7. Contact Point for the sub-programme on Assessment of Shale Gas
Potential
Dr. William SASSI
IFPEN - Direction Geosciences
Geology Department
1 et 4 avenue de Bois-Préau
92852 Rueil-Malmaison - France
Tel: +33 1 47 52 63 69
Fax: +33 1 47 52 71 26
Mobile: +33 6 30 93 08 75
Email: william.sassi@ifpen.fr

DoW JP Shale Gas
27
EERA
SUB-PROGRAMME 2: Technology for safe and efficient
exploitation
An sub-programme within the Joint Program on:
Shale gas
Description of Work
Version: 1
Last modification date: 05-04-2013
Maria Barrio, SINTEF

DoW JP Shale Gas
28
Summary research activity on technology for safe and efficient
exploitation
Shale gas exploitation poses technological challenges because the hydrocarbons are directly
produced from the source rock with permeability far below the requirements for conventional
methods. For a European development, efforts are needed into a deeper upfront shale
characterization and understanding of the subsurface processes to become sufficiently
environmentally acceptable and safe in populated areas.
Production parameters and borehole stability need to be optimized in order to comply with
local laws and regulations. In particular, efforts will be dedicated to the optimization of
hydraulic fracturing as well as the identification and development of alternative production
technologies.
The objective of this sub-programme is to provide means to improve the efficiency and the
recovery from shale gas reservoirs with the minimum environmental impact. This will be
achieved by:
stability
- Increased learning from on-going production monitoring
The work is organized into five work packages covering (1) shale reservoir characterisation,
(2) horizontal drilling, (3) fracturing, (4) monitoring of fracturing and production and (5)
innovative stimulation technologies.
The tasks will be performed, mostly in parallel, over a 3 year time frame (2013 – 2016)
comprising an initial assessment of the technology status for the various countries and an
identification of topics needing and benefiting from a united European effort. Periodic
technology status reports will be elaborated as well as yearly meetings to discuss the
achievements.
11 European research institutes have signalized their capabilities to perform the research
outlined in this sub-programme (~36 py/y in total).

DoW JP Shale Gas
29
1. Background
The common characteristics of gas shale reservoirs are (i) hydrocarbons are produced directly
from the source rock; (ii) the permeability is too low to permit economic production with
conventional methods. The use of several extended horizontal wells from one surface frame
combined with hydraulic fracturing has been keys to successful development of shale gas
production in the USA. Still, the production scenario for most gas shale reservoirs shows a
rapid build-up and a relatively fast decay after 1-2 years of production. For European
development, the US technology cannot be directly implemented, but needs improvement in
order to adapt to local laws and regulations and to become sufficiently environmentally
acceptable and safe in populated areas.
In the US, experience with shale gas exploitation has been gained by drilling thousands of
wells and stimulation of the complete horizontal sections of wells. It is obvious that Europe
has to follow a different learning curve for shale gas exploitation than the one in the U.S with
much more emphasis on upfront shale characterization and modeling of subsurface processes.
Increased understanding and improved characterization will in turn increase the probability of
optimizing production parameters and borehole stability.
The success of shale gas exploitation will also critically depend on the optimization of
hydraulic fracturing, well placement and gas production. Even more, due to the restrictive
regulation on hydraulic fracturing in some European countries, alternative production
technologies (i.e. not based on hydraulic fracturing) should be identified and developed.
3. Objectives
The objective of SP2 is to improve the efficiency and the recovery from shale gas reservoirs
with the minimum environmental impact. This will be achieved by:
stability
- Increased learning from ongoing production monitoring
4. Description of foreseen activities (including time line)
The five Work Packages (WP) proposed in this Sub-project will be executed in parallel as
they cover all the relevant aspect of shale gas exploitation: characterisation, drilling,
fracturing and monitoring.
The tasks will be performed, mostly in parallel, over a 3 year time frame (2013 – 2016)
comprising an initial assessment of the technology status for the various countries and an
identification of topics needing and benefiting from a united European effort. Periodic
technology status reports will be elaborated as well as yearly meetings to discuss the
achievements.
Cross-fertilization between gas shale development and other scenarios including low
permeability rocks (e.g. tight gas sands, coal be methane) should be motivated.

DoW JP Shale Gas
30
WP 1: Gas & Oil Shale reservoir characterization.
Permeability
Geological classification of gas "shales" with respect to heterogeneity, mineralogy, clay
content etc. will be developed. Further, new methods for permeability measurements under in
situ conditions, within matrix, natural fractures and induced fractures will be developed.
Gas flow in fracture reservoirs
Modelling of multi-phase (gas / condensate / oil / water) flow in fractured low permeability
reservoirs, possibly linked with geomechanical simulators will be conducted. In order to
ensure a good link to SP1, SP2 should examine these issues from a reservoir and engineering
perspective.
Anisotropy
Shale anisotropy and its influence on fluid flow, geomechanics and seismics will be studied.
Many conventional models assume isotropy eventually providing wrong conclusions.
High resolution multi-scale reservoir characterization
Integrated reservoir characterization utilizing all relevant datasets is required to quantify
spatial heterogeneity of gas shales in both vertical and horizontal sections. Petrophysical (well
logs), geophysical (seismic surveys, well tests, production data), geomechanical (experiments
and models), and microscopical (FIB/BIB-SEM, CT) characterization methods will be
integrated and tested on field or core data.
The SP2 approach (as different from SP1) will focus on integrating laboratory data with field
data with the objective of optimizing production parameters. Following this approach,
geological (static modeling) and geobiological (microfossil type, biofacies analysis)
characterization methods might be considered to a certain extent.
Results of detailed characterization at different spatial scales (from regional to micro-scale)
will be integrated to derive the heterogeneous reservoir properties of shale gas reservoirs. The
results will be used to determine optimum well placement and stimulation treatments and
integrated into 3D shale formation numerical models.
The ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) (and other offspring ensemble based methods) has been
demonstrated to be an effective and popular tool for history matching petroleum reservoirs.
The EnKF is a data assimilation method where the essence is to update an ensemble of
models by means of measured data. The method is suitable for real-time applications, is easy
to implement and readily provides an uncertainty estimate which is essential in planning new
installations and optimal production strategies. Application of EnKF family of methods to
match and optimise production may prove to be essential for shale gas reservoirs.

DoW JP Shale Gas
31
WP 2: Drilling of horizontal wells in gas shale reservoirs.
Well integrity
The impact of cement quality and long term well integrity issues will be assessed. Screening
criteria for long term monitoring of shale gas wells will be developed. Investigation of
cementation quality of horizontal wells as well as development of minimal requirements for
cementation quality as a function of eventual methane leakages via annular fractures behind
casing will be performed.
WP2 will also look at well design, fracture design, well plugging abandonment and in
general, all engineering aspects necessary to implement SP3 recommendations on safety (e.g.,
well instrumentation as well as following the guidelines established in SP1.
A number of “self-healing” cements and various chemical solutions (including gelation and
foaming agents) were recently developed and introduce to oil and gas market. Those
technologies could be reviewed and their applicability to shale gas production wells screened.
Borehole stability
Borehole stability issues with respect to pre-existing fractures, shale anisotropy and possible
effects of interactions between shale and drilling fluid will be analyzed. Moreover, it will be
investigated novel drilling fluids (such as nanomodifiers or environmental friendly fluids)
which improve borehole stability.
A practical approach for well bore stability could be safe mud weight window design which
provides the range of equivalent densities or pressures of drilling fluid that avoid drilling
problems (fracturing, breakouts).
Alternatively, the possibility of using managed pressure drilling and ways to use back-pressure
MPD equipment for well control (by both mud pulse telemetry and wired pipe data)
may be looked upon as potential future drilling techniques.
Advanced drilling techniques
Low porosity reservoir can present drilling challenges in terms of drillability. Innovative
drilling techniques will be investigated.
In addition, it will be investigated to what extent multilateral well configurations can be an
alternative for hydraulic fracturing. Modelling of productivity, NPV or UR of shale gas
reservoirs using closed-loop production optimization tools projected over the lifecycle of the
well will be performed. The results will be used to determine optimum field development for
better appraisal of shale gas reservoirs.
WP3: Fracturing in gas shale reservoirs.
Fracturing optimization
One of the most important challenges in exploitation of European shale gas is to optimize the
design of fracturing jobs so that maximum production is achieved with minimum number of
wells and stimulation.

DoW JP Shale Gas
32
Modeling of fracturing will be performed using geomechanical and fluid flow simulators to
predict fracture initiation, propagation, stress perturbation, and fluid flow. Numerical
fracturing simulators need to be developed that can account for heterogeneous reservoir
properties, existing fracture networks and variations in stress field. Discontinuum models to
model fracture initiation and propagation, continuum models to model hydro-mechanical
interaction between reservoir and fractures, and analytical descriptions of flow through
fractures will be combined.
Smart proppants and hydraulic fracturing fluids
During fracturing the formed fractures are kept open, due to the injected material like sand or
ceramic, enabling the fluid flowback and later the flow of oil and gas into the well. Studies of
proppant embedment and fracture conductivity for various proppants are important
characteristic for supporting hydrocarbon recovery and will be studied. In addition, new
chemicals for proppants will be investigated. In particular, the development and application of
smart (nano-)tracer technology based on responsive tracer particles will be addressed.
Application of switchable viscosity fluids for conformance treatment and optimized hydraulic
fracturing will be investigated. The effectiveness of biocides in fracturing fluids will be
investigated and improved.
WP4: Monitoring of fracturing operations and production from gas shales.
Monitoring can be implemented both during fracturing and during production. Optimized use
and improved interpretation of μseismicity can help locating events and understand their
origin (shear vs. tensile) while reservoir scale monitoring by e.g. permanent seismic sensors,
including development of necessary rock physics tools to image recovery will provide
information during production.
Utilisation of advanced permanent downhole gauge (pressure, temperature, rates) analysis
could allow to gain better understanding of reservoir parameters (porosity, permeability)
changes as a result of stress changes (fracturing, production, shut-in, effect of neighbouring
wells) in-situ. This methodology was proved for a number of oil and gas producing formation
and could be essential in reducing uncertainty linked to reservoir parameters in shale gas
production.
Coupling (micro)seismic monitoring and geomechanical modelling of fault reactivation
The unique combination of geomechanical modelling, seismic monitoring and well test
analysis can be used to validate and improve predictions of fracture network development.
History matching of geomechanical and reservoir flow models based on seismic monitoring
and well test analysis during gas production can be used to optimize shale gas exploitation.
Monitoring can also be used to provide clear-cut criteria indicating when risk mitigation
measures are required. Technology and guidelines for micro-seismic monitoring will be
studies and further developed.
Other monitoring technologies
Among many methods monitoring the results of unconventional formation stimulating
treatments there is fractures mapping with the use of tiltmeters registering the occurrence of
any tilts. Besides fractures monitoring this method is also useful in well placement desing,
well horizontal sections design, waste injection monitoring or surface subsidence monitoring.

DoW JP Shale Gas
33
Monitoring and analysis of microbes in-situ may provide a valuable tool to asses water
quality in-situ and confirm safety of the fracturing jobs.
Monitoring of drill cutting and other flow back fluids during well operation could be essential
for increasing the knowledge about reservoir and carrying out safe well operations.
Baseline monitoring
The need for baseline definition and acquisition as well as the current lack of measurements
will be addressed in a European context. The opportunity of establishing proper baseline
before operations eventually start should be fully explored. This task should have a clear link
to SP3. The work in this task will address the technology development needed to support the
requirements established in SP3.
Baseline monitoring should cover reservoir properties, reference for seismicity measurements,
etc.
WP5: Innovative stimulation technologies
Some European countries have banned the use of hydraulic fracturing by law (France,
Romania). This work package will focus on other possible methods to unlock the trapped gas
in the unconventional reservoirs.
When the fracturing fluid is water-based so called formation or permeability damage may
occur, due to swelling of clay minerals or other physical and chemical mechanisms.
Minimization of the damage is possible due to partial or complete substituting water by
for e.g. gases. Fracturing fluids prepared in such a way are called energized fluids. Other
choices of environmentally friendly fracking fluids, possibly having a positive effect on
recovery, and that have low post-damage effects (e.g. to avoid solids production) will also be
assessed (for instance, propane).
Other fracturing alternatives to hydraulic fracturing will be investigated, e.g. thermal
fracturing, electrofracturing.
Injection of CO2 could provide a sound alternative to conventional recovery technologies.
Carbon dioxide could, potentially, be injected above fracturing pressure therefore increasing
well injectivity and replacing water in fracturing operations. Compositional effects between
methane and CO2 might result in increased gas recovery. This, however, requires addressing
questions associated with CO2 injection scheme, and backproduction. The shale gas
reservoirs, in this case, would be used not only to produce natural gas, but also as a carbon
storage sites.
6. Milestones
Milestone Measurable Objectives Project Month
M1 Technology status report delivered 6, 18, 30
M2 Annual report 12,24,34
M3 Yearly workshop conducted 13,25,35
M4 Midt-term review performed 18
M5 Final review performed 36

DoW JP Shale Gas
34
Name2
(acronym)
Country Role3 Associated to
(if associate)
Human
Resource
committed
(py/y)
SINTEF Norway SP2 Coordinator 2
Uni Min Geol St. Ivan Rilski Bulgaria Participant 10
GEUS Denmark Associated IFPEN 0,5
IFPEN France
Participant –
Coordinator SP1 2
RWTH Aachen Germany Associate GSB 0,5
TNO Netherlands
Participant –
Coordinator SP3 2
IRIS Norway Participant 4
Polish Geological Institute Poland Participant 1,5
INIG - Oil and Gas Institute Poland Participant 4
AGH - University of Krakow Poland Participant unspecified
IGME Spain Participant 2
UK Energy Research Centre4 UK
Participant –
Coordinator SP6 4,2
British Geological Survey UK Associated UKERC
Durham Energy Institute UK Associated UKERC
Durham University UK Associated UKERC
University of Edinburgh UK Associated UKERC
University of Leeds UK Associated UKERC
Imperial College London UK Associated UKERC
University of Manchester UK Associated UKERC
An indicative distribution of resources is included:
Organisation acronym WP2.1 WP2.2 WP2.3 WP2.4 WP2.5 SP2 py/y
SINTEF 0,75 0,5 0,75 0 2
Uni Min Geol St. Ivan Rilski 10 5 5 0 20
GEUS 0,25 0 0,25 0 0,5
IFPEN 0,5 0 0 1 0,5 2
RWTH Aachen 0 0 0,5 0 0 0,5
TNO 1 0,25 0,5 0,25 2
IRIS 2 0 0 0 2
Polish Geological Institute 0,5 0 0,5 0,5 1,5
INIG - Oil and Gas Institute 1 1 1,5 0,5
4
AGH - University of Krakow x x x x x
IGME 0,5 0 0,5 1 2
UK Energy Research Centre 2,4 0 0,9 0,9 4,2
TOTAL 7,9 4,75 7,4 5,65 35,7
2 Full names of institutes and summaries of their track record and contributions to SP3 are listed
below.
3 Institutes with a total contribution of min. 5 py/y to the whole JP are listed as participants.
4 UKERC is coordinating contributions from institutes in the United Kingdom (combined py/y for UK
institutes is given).

DoW JP Shale Gas
35
List of institutes and summaries of specific elements in their track record and contributions with
special relevance to SP2 (listed by country):
Bulgarian institutes:
University of Mining and Geology "St. Ivan Rilski"
Dr. Dimitar Merachev, dimerachev@gmail.com
Participant in the GASH project and their Geochemistry laboratory for Mine equipment, Solid rock.
Education and Research Laboratory of Phase Method and Radiography Structural Analysis
Education and Research Laboratory of Electronic Microscopy
Danish institutes:
Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS)
Dr. Peter Britze- Head of Reservoir Department, pbr@geus.dk
France institutes:
IFP Energies nouvelles (IFPEN)
Dr. William Sassi, william.sassi@ifpen.fr
Seismic methods for unconventional reservoirs
Fracture hydromechanical modeling
German institutes:
RWTH Aachen University
Bernhard M. Krooss, Research scientist, Bernhard.krooss@emr.rwth-aachen.de
EMR-RPR studies the natural fracture systems in unconventional reservoir rocks in terms of location,
timing, distribution and cementation. Current projects focus on unconventional Upper Carboniferous
rocks in northern Germany.
Dutch institutes:
TNO
Dr. Jan ter Heege- Business Case Manager Unconventional Gas, jan.terheege@tno.nl
Norwegian institutes:
SINTEF
Dr. Maria Barrio, Senior Business Developer, Maria.Barrio@sintef.no
Coordination SP2
Formation physics:
- Geomechanical modelling of fracture propagation in intact and naturally fractured gas shale
environments, through use and development of discrete element techniques.
- Laboratory measurements –using cores and core fragments- of rock mechanical and petrophysical
parameters (such as brittleness) of gas shales, with relevance for exploration and production.
- Effect of in situ stress an inherent shale anisotropy on fracture propagation (through modelling and
use of true triaxial experiments).
- Multiscale petrographical and petrophysical evaluation of shale properties.
Well integrity:
- Integrity of annular sealants, such as cement and other sealant materials
- Influence of thermal cycling on well integrity
- Cement-formation bonding
- Well leakages and development of microannuli
- Characterization of well barrier materials
- Well abandonment.
IRIS
Dr. Roman Berenblyum, Roman.Berenblyum@iris.no
Simulation of EOR in Clastic Reservoirs
Transient well flow modeling and modern estimation techniques for accurate production allocation
Reservoir data assimilation for realistic geology
Estimation of pressure dependent fracture parameters

DoW JP Shale Gas
36
Automated drilling
Environmental monitoring
Microbial EOR
Polish institutes:
AGH University of Science & Technology
Prof. Stanislaw Nagy- Head of Gas Engineering Department, stanislaw.nagy@agh.edu.pl
Quantitative analysis of well logs to determine the lithological formation, porosity, inflow and filtration
parameters
Optimization of drilling parameters, including the selection of drilling technology, tools, drilling fluids
and cementing vertical and horizontal holes for shale gas 2013-2016
Integrated Reservoir, Exploration & Gas Extraction System for Shale Gas – 2013-1016
Effective technologies in geoengineering, conventional & non-conventional oil & gas reservoirs
(including coal-bed methane) 2011-2015
Evaluation of impact of drilling & fracturing process for natural environment 2012-2013
INIG- Oil and Gas Institute
Prof. Maria Ciechanowska- Managing Director, maria.ciechanowska@inig.pl
Extensive national research covering:
Anisotropy models of rocky medium and correlation of the mineralogical indices of brittleness with the
acoustic properties of rocks
Dispersion analysis of acoustic velocities in Polish shale rocks: effects of petrophysical properties and
mineralogy, 2013 ongoing
Drill core analysis and study of geomechanical properties of rocks
Laboratory for rocks and fluids properties investigations with complex interpretation for
unconventional gas exploration
Quantitative description of wellbore stability problems in swelling shales in dynamic conditions with
due account for wellbore stress and strains, including models
Simulation of fracture zones, testing of fracturing fluids for hydraulic fracturing and impact of various
chemical composition of fracturing fluids on pore fluids
Polish Geological Institute – National Research Institute (PGI-NRI)
Dr. Anna Becker, Energy Security Program, anna.becker@pgi.gov.pl
Determination of the potential continuous hydrocarbon accumulations (including sweet-spots
recognition) within the organic reach shale successions in Poland
Hydrocarbon basins in Poland and their potential for unconventional gas accumulations
Monitoring of ground surface settlement on the area of three selected shale gas exploration localities
(WP4)
Spanish Institutes:
Instituto Geológico Y Minero de España (Spanish Geological Survey, IGME)
Dr. Roberto Martínez- Deputy Director of Research on Geological Resources, ro.martinez@igme.es
(WP3.1, 3.2, 3.4-3.6)
Multi-phase modelling related to gas and CO2 storages
Large experience in classification of mineral resources
Expertise within rock mechanics of shales of the University of La Coruña
Studies of seismicity and monitoring tools (together with the Institute of Earth Science Jaume Almera)
UK institutes:
UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC)
Prof. John Loughhead- Executive Director, j.loughhead@ukerc.ac.uk
Dr. Valeria Branciforti- Knowledge Exchange Associate, v.branciforti@ukerc.ac.uk
Coordination of contributions from institutes in the United Kingdom
British Geological Survey
Ed Hough et al.

DoW JP Shale Gas
37
Predictive Stratigraphic Analysis, controls on shale reservoir architecture & quality, how to identify
and predict “sweet spots”.
Fracture propagation/imaging.
Microseismic monitoring.
University of Edinburgh
Dr Mark Chapman, Dr. Chris McDermott
Investigations of anisotropic rock physics mode, brittleness index and fraction of brittle minerals.
Calibration of the models against core and log data from the Barnett shale
Development of rock physics templates for improved data integration
Experimental investigation of fracture propagation and permeability; equipment to simulate in situ
reservoir conditions of true tri-axial conditions.
University of Leeds
Prof. Quentin Fisher
Laboratory methods to characterize the properties of gas shales and use of microseismic and
geomechanical modelling of fracturing.
Microseismic monitoring of the hydraulic fracturing process.
State-of-the-art finite element modelling to optimize the fraccing process (e.g. spacing and sequencing
of both wells and fractures)
Imperial College London
Prof. Alain C. Gringarten
Characterization of shale gas production mechanisms, as part of a JIP on Well Test Analysis in
Complex Systems
Durham Energy Institute
Prof. Richard Davies
Involved in a multi-company consortium involving 6 researchers, across 3 universities called ReFINe
(Research Fracking in Europe).
University of Manchester
Prof. Kevin TaylorRock geomechanics and fracturing. Capabilities include: ability to measure elastic
(seismic) properties from room pressure up to a few hundred MPa (i.e., over the whole of the
interesting pressure range); ability to measure gas and fluid permeabilities using a range of methods
including ones which we have used on rocks with the range of permeabilities that shale gas reservoirs
have; ability to hydrofracture samples under controlled effective pressures; ability to make
measurements of failure stresses and frictional properties under a wide range of temperature,
confining pressure and pore fluid pressure conditions; Expertise in characterizing deformation
microstructures using a wide range of electron-optical techniques. Expertise in field scale
fracture/fault characterization
7. GANT Chart
Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
WP1: Characterisation
WP2: Drilling
WP3: Fracturing
WP4: Monitoring
WP5: Alternative
production methods
Technology status report M1 M1 M1
Annual report of activities M2 M2 M2
Annual workshop M3 M3 M3
Midt-term review M4
Final review M5

DoW JP Shale Gas
38
8. Contact Point for the sub-programme 2 on Safe and efficient exploitation
Maria Barrio
SINTEF Petroleum Research
S.P. Andersensvei 15b, 7465 Trondheim, Norway
+47 995 34 665

DoW JP Shale Gas
39
SUB-PROGRAMME 3: Environmental impact
& footprint
A sub-programme within the Joint Programme Shale gas
EERA
Description of Work
Version: 2.0
Last modification date: 28-03-2013
Jan ter Heege, TNO

20131206 eera-shale gas-dow v4

20131206 eera-shale gas-dow v4

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to 20131206 eera-shale gas-dow v4

Similar to 20131206 eera-shale gas-dow v4 (20)

More from Pomcert

More from Pomcert (19)

20131206 eera-shale gas-dow v4