Back to Session
PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION
Thirty-Sixth Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2012
SHALE GAS POTENTIAL IN INDONESIA MORE TO THE EAST
Dewi Rahmalia*
ABSTRACT
The shale gas resource in Indonesia is still being
assessed. The Head of Geological Agency for
Energy and Mineral Resources Ministry, R.
Sukhyar, in September 2011, estimated the
Indonesian shale gas resource to reach 570 trillion
cubic feet (tcf) based on their latest studies
(Petromindo, 2011). This paper includes a
discussion of the shale gas potential in Western
Indonesia and Eastern Indonesia and makes a
comparison with shale gas potential in the U.S. The
aim of this paper is to encourage shale gas
development in Indonesia.
The author used a desktop study and an X-ray
diffraction study as input for this paper.
From Sumatra to Papua, Indonesia has many oil
producing basins. These basins have thick shales
with high total organic content (TOC) and offer
attractive opportunities as unconventional gas for
the future.
To better estimate the future Indonesian shale gas
potential more detailed petrographic studies and
mapping will be required.
INTRODUCTION
Indonesia has many basins that have potential for
shale gas production.
This paper analyzes the properties of shale required
for economic shale gas development.
To help appreciate this topic, it is important to
understand what is unique about the evaluation of
shale gas potential. The underlying control factors
are the physical properties of the shale and its
geological age. This paper includes comparisons
between shale gas properties in the U.S. and
Indonesia. Therein, I consider the shale qualities
and the effectiveness of hydraulic stimulation of
shale gas reservoirs.
* INPEX Corporation
IPA12-G-011
This paper also gives an idea for the shale gas
potential in Indonesia by considering mineral
composition of shale and thus predicts the proper
completion techniques for future shale gas
production.
METHODS
The objective of this study is to determine the shale
gas potential in Indonesia using a literature study
and sub-surface cores. The author collected
published literature from various journals, papers,
and existing X-ray diffraction data. These were
compared with a collection of sub-surface core data
and shale reservoir properties. The comparison
includes the mineralogy and lithology of shale gas
fields that have been produced in the U.S.
DISCUSSION AND RESULTS
Shale Gas Property
Shale is a class name for all fine-grained
argillaceous sediments, including mud, clay, and
mudstone. Shale, as defined based on the grain size,
can be defined to be clay and silt; clay < 4 microns
and silt 4 to 62 microns.
From actual examples of producing shale gas fields
in U.S., we know certain shale gas/oil criteria such
as Vitrinite Reflectance (Ro) and Total Organic
Content (TOC) values must be greater than 1%,
Hydrogen Index (HI) values are >100, and shale
thicknesses are greater than 75 ft. These must be
present for successful shale gas ventures. Shale gas
system includes adsorbed gas and pore gas. Also, in
shale gas projects, kerogen is a critical factor that
affects the quality of the shale gas.
The quality of the shale gas can be assessed by the
mineral framework and pore system. The mineral
composition of shale includes quartz, feldspar, clay
minerals, calcite, dolomite, siderite, pyrite,
phosphate and organic matter.
Reservoir porosity greatly affects the hydrocarbon
capacity, where porosity in shale gas reservoirs are
greatly affected by clay mineral content. A group of
clay minerals to be considered is the Smectite
Group.
The Smectite group is comprised of (Ca, Na, H)
(Al, Mg, Fe, Zn)2 (Si, Al) 4O10 (OH)2-xH2O. This
clay mineral group contains an H2O element that
reduces the shale porosity. Smectite will swell
during slick water fracs and thus contributes to poor
reservoir quality by reducing effective porosity.
Another clay mineral that causes concern is illite.
While high illite percentage is a benefit to hydraulic
stimulation, because illite is highly brittle, it may
cause stuck pipe.
Quartz also is very influential to shale gas
productivity; for as with illite, quartz provides
brittleness within the shale gas reservoir. The more
quartz content, the more effective will be the
hydraulic stimulation but if, the quartz content is
small the shale will be more plastic and thus will be
less effective to hydraulic simulation.
Another common factor, as seen in producing shale
gas fields in the United States, is the age of the
shale reservoir which primarily ranges in age from
Paleozoic to Mesozoic (Figures 1- 2).
In those old basins, the clay minerals are usually
trioctahedral smectite, Mg-rich chlorite,
interstratified chlorite/smectite and corrensite.
Diagenesis of Smectite to chlorite depicts a trend
toward diminished swelling and increased stability
(Chang et al., 1986; Kook Son-Byeong et al., 2001).
While in younger basins, clay minerals are
dioctahedral and make mechanical instability.
U.S. vs. Indonesia Shale Gas Mineralogy and
Lithology
Mississippian Barnett Shale is one example of a
successful shale gas project with shale gas resources
~25-252 Tcf (Schlumberger, 2005).
Barnett Shale generally contains less than one-third
clay minerals, according to Bowker (2002), these
clays are dominantly illite with minor smectite
percentage. Illite in the Barnett Shale reservoir
interval is approximately 27% with minor Smectite
percentage (Bowker, 2003).
The Barnett formation in the Northern Fort Worth
Basin, Texas (Figure 2), is a siliceous mudstone
(Papazis, 2005). The thickness of the Barnett Shale
interval is approximately 300-500 ft. TOC of the
Barnett Shale ranges from 3-13% wt (Montgomery
et al., 2005), with Ro> 1.4% (Jarvie et al., 2007).
The percentage of quartz in the Barnett Shale
reservoir interval is 45% (Bowker, 2003a)
(Figure 3). Therefore the operation of hydraulic
stimulation is very good and creates multi-planar
fractures.
Most of the shale gas plays in the U.S., such as the
Fayetteville, Haynesville, Marcellus and Woodford
have high silica content, with average above 40%
(Tudor, Pickering, Holt, 2010). If we summarize
and analyze the geological age of shale gas plays in
the U.S., an average of U.S. shale gas geological
age is Mesozoic-Paleozoic (Tudor, Pickering, Holt,
2010).
One could initially consider the potential of shale
gas in Indonesia in the West. Both the South
Sumatra Basin and Central Sumatra Basin have
shale gas potential. In the South Sumatra Basin, one
potential shale gas reservoir would be the Gumai
Shale with Ro approximately 0-0.5%, TOC 0.34-
0.39% wt (Pertamina 2011), with an average
thickness of 100-300 ft. Smectite percentage in
Gumai Shale is around 5% and illite-smectite
approximately > 10%. Potential Yield (PY) is 0.53-
0.81 mg HC/g (Hermiyanto and Sudini, 2009).
Based on these criteria Gumai Shale could likely
produce gas. Since the Gumai Shale is Late
Oligocene Early Miocene in age, drilling and
completion operations will require competent
technology because of the possibilities of tight holes
or getting stuck during drilling or completions.
In the North Sumatra Basin, the Middle Miocene
Baong Shale has TOC> 1-2% wt, Ro> 1.3, with
shale thickness > 30 m and high quartz content
(PPPTMGB ,2011) (Figure 4). From the X-ray
diffraction analysis, it is known that the Smectite
content has ranges of 3-33% where the average is
14.3% and Illite content ranges from 4 to 18% with
an average of 8% (PPPTMGB, 2011)
In Eastern Indonesia, prospects for shale gas are
somewhat different because the basins age in
Eastern Indonesia are older than those in Western
Indonesia.
Shale in Jurassic interval in Masela Field ,
Bonaparte Basin is more accurately described as a
claystone and siltstone. Nevertheless, the shale
fulfills the criteria, with TOC> 2.0% wt, Ro> 0.6%
(Corelab, 2003a) and shale thickness up to 90 ft.
From the X-ray diffraction analysis, Illite-Smectite
content ranges between 0-18%, with minor Smectite
of approximately 0-9.8%, and a high value of
Quartz of >30% (Corelab, 2003a) (Figure 5).
From the X-ray diffraction analysis shows that the
percentage of smectite in mixed-layer illite/smectite
in Jurassic shale decreases down-hole from 60-70%
to 15-20% (Corelab, 2003b) (Figure 6).
The potential of shale gas in eastern Indonesia in
the old basins with depth > 2000 m, the production
stage will be easier because of minimum swelling
clay and increasing stability in completion.
CONCLUSION
In Western Indonesia, Gumai Shale and Baong
Shale have potential for shale gas. One potential
shale gas in Eastern Indonesia is the Jurassic Masela
shale which is fulfills all criteria of shale gas. But
Jurassic shale in Masela is very deep and lies
offshore, so it would be difficult to develop. Yet
Jurassic shale in Masela area can be analogue for
other old shales in Eastern Indonesia.
It will be necessary to conduct further shale studies
in Eastern Indonesia to find the new shale gas
prospect, because of the high potential of shale
gas/oil in old basins with minor illite/smectite
percentage and high quartz content (Corelab, 2003a,
2003b)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author thanks the Technical Program
Committee of IPA for selecting this paper to be
published, and for reviewing this paper. INPEX
Corporation and INPEX Masela are acknowledged
for supporting the author to conduct and publish this
paper. Toru Akutsu (INPEX), Henry Bandjarnahor
(INPEX), BP MIGAS, MIGAS contributed
significant literature, unpublished data, and
discussions.
REFERENCES CITED
Bowker, K.A., 2002, Recent developments of the
Barnett Shale play, Fort Worth Basin, in D.E. Law
and M.Wilson, eds., Innovative Gas Exploration
Concepts Symposium: Rocky Mountain Association
of Geologists and Petroleum Technology Transfer
Council, October, Denver, Colorado, 16 p.
Bowker, K.A., 2003, Recent development of the
Barnett Shale play, Fort Worth Basin: West Texas
Geological Society Bulletin, v.42, no.6, p.1-11.
Chang, H.K., Mackenzie, F.T., Schoonmaker, J.,
1986, Comparisons between the diagenesis of
dioctahedral and trioctahedral smectite Brazilian
offshore basins: Clays and Clay Minerals, 34, 407-
423.
Corelab., 2003a, Core Description, Petrographic,
Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and X-Ray
Diffraction (XRD) Analyses of Core Samples from
the Abadi-B Well, and XRD Analysis of cutting
samples from Abadi-B Well, Timor Sea Eastern
Indonesia, 2003.
Corelab., 2003b, Petrographic, Scanning Electron
Microscopy (SEM) and X-Ray Diffraction (XRD)
Analyses on Twenty-Nine Samples from the
Twenty-Nine Samples in the Abadi-A Well, Timor
Sea Eastern Indonesia, 2003.
Courtesy of Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Energy
Information Administration., 2010
Hermiyanto, M.H., N. Sudini., 2009, Organic
petrology and Rock Eval characteristics in selected
surficial samples of the Tertiary Formation South
Sumatra Basin: Indonesia Geological Journal, v.4
No.3, p.215 -227.
Jarvie, D.M., R. J. Hill, T. E. Ruble, R.
M.Pollastro., 2007, Unconventional shale-gas
systems: The Mississippian Barnett Shale of north-
central Texas as one model for thermogenic shale-
gas assessment: AAPG Bulletin, v.91, p.475-499.
Kook Son-Byeong., Yoshimura, T., Fukusawa, H.,
2001, Diagenesis of dioctahedral and trioctahedral
smectites from alternating beds in Miocene to
Pleistocene rocks of the Niigata basin Japan: Clays
and Clay Minerals,49, 333-346.
Montgomery, S.L., D.M. Jarvie, K.A. Bowker, and
R.M. Pollastro, 2005, Mississippian Barnett Shale,
Fort Worth Basin, north-central Texas: Gas-shale
play with multi-trillion cubic foot potential: AAPG
Bulletin, v.89, p.155-175.
Papazis, P.K., 2005, Petrographic characterization
of the Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, Texas:
Masters thesis, University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, Texas, 142 p., CD-ROM (SW0015),
available from Bureau of Economic Geology,
University of Texas at Austin.
Pertamina., 2011, Shale Gas Progress study at
Lemigas presentation.
Petromindo , 2011, Sept , News Briefs PPPTMGB
LEMIGAS at Lemigas presentation., 2011
Schlumberger., 2005, Shale gas white paper.
 Figure 1 - U.S. vs Indonesia Geological Age

Figure 2 - Shale Gas Plays in U.S.

(Energy Information Administration based on data from various published studies. Updated : March 10, 2010)
Figure 3 - Jarvie et al. (2007): Unconventional shale-gas systems: The Mississippian Barnett Shale of
north-central Texas as one model for thermogenic shale gas assessment- AAPG Bulletin 91
(4):475-499

Figure 4 - Ternary diagram of Baong Shale, North Sumatra Basin (PPPTMGB LEMIGAS at
Lemigas presentation on Nov 22, 2011)
 Figure 5 - Ternary diagram of Abadi Claystone and Siltstone, Masela field (Corelab, 2003a)

Figure 6 - The percentage of smectite in mixed-layer illite/smectite Jurassic Shale vs Depth

(Corelab, 2003b)