LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Structure contour map of the top of the Rollins or Trout Creek Sandsone. Contour interval: 500 ft. 2. Generalized Stratigraphic charts for the Piceance basin: a) northern part of study area, b) central part of study area, 3) southern part of study area. From Johnson and Finn (1986). 3. Isopach of the lies Formation (excluding the Castlegate Sandstone). Contour interval: 100 ft. 4. Isopach map of the Williams Fork Formation. Contour interval: 250 ft, 5. Generalized east-west cross section showing the lies and Williams Fork Formations, and the gas, and gas-water transition zones. 6. Cross section showing lithologies, environments of deposition, present-day formation temperatures, vitrinite reflectance, gas shows, and perforation recoveries. From Chancellor and Johnson (1986). Location of cross section on figure 1. 7. Chart showing relationship between Ro and hydrocarbon generation for type I, type II and type III organic matter. From Dow (1977). 8. Isopach map showing total thickness of sandstones ten feet or greater in the Williams Fork Formation. Contour interval: 100 ft. 9. Isopach map showing total thickness of sandstones ten feet thick or greater in the ILes Formation. Contour interval: 50 ft. 10. Approximate distance above or below the top of the Rollins or Trout Creek Sandstone to the Ro 1.1 thermal maturity level. Contour interval: 1000 ft. 11. Approximate distance above or below the top of the Rollins or Trout Creek Sandstone to the Ro 0.73 thermal maturity level. Contour interval: 1000 ft.

No abstract

ARDS (version 4.01), a modified version of the Arps.Roberts discovery process model, was used to forecast the remaining oil and gas resources in more than SO provinces, super-exploration plays, and individual plays in the onshore and offshore United States for the 1995 National Oil and Gas Assessment. The size distribution of oil and gas fields was estimated for the underlying distribution of fields; the size distribution for the remaining fields was calculated to be the difference between this distribution and that of discovered fields. The guidelines that govern the 1995 National Assessment require the underlying size distribution of fields to be estimated by using only data from two standard commercial data files (the NRG Associates field file and the Petroleum information inc. well file). However, a variety of situations required further modification of the discovery process modeling system; for example, multiple exploration plays that occurred nearly simultaneously and also displaced each other in time, and the phenomenon of field growth introduced a large bias in the forecasts produced by the discovery process models for some provinces.

No abstract

No abstract