1. Update: Rock Model Council Grove Group Panoma Field, Southwest Kansas Kansas Geological Survey Hugoton Project Martin K. Dubois Alan Byrnes

2. Core Descriptions Core Analysis 10 35 14 6 4 39

3. Core Analysis Data Set

4. Core Data Sources

5. Wells with LAS Files by Consortium Members 3900 Gross 3200 Net Wells

6. Idealized Depositional Model

7. Major Lithofacies Nonmarine Shaly Siltstone Nonmarine Siltstone Dolomite Med – Coarse Grained Pkst-Grnst V. Fine – Fine Grained Pkst-Grnst Phylloid Algal Bafflestone Mudstone – Wackestone Silty Mudstone-Wkst Marine Siltstone Marine Shale

8. Lithofacies Distribution in Six Council Grove Cores

9. Council Grove Strat Column Formation Member Informal Mapped Interval top of A Shale to base of C Lime

10. Council Grove Group Structure and Isopach Maps

11. Marine vs. Nonmarine (thickness)

12. Marine vs. Nonmarine (% total)

13. Mapped Intervals Gross thickness from the top of Council Grove (A Shale) to the top of the Roca Shale (D Shale, base of Grenola, base of C Limestone) 1.Nonmarine Silstones and Sandstones 2.Nonmarne Shaley Siltstones 3.Marine Carbonates (“clean”, shallow) 4.Marine Silica-rich Rocks (deeper) These four major groups are fairly easily recognized with minimum electric log suites.

14. Nonmarine Silt and Sand vs. Shale and Silt (thickness) NM Sand (1-3), NM Silt (1-2)NM Shly Silt (1-0>1)

15. Nonmarine Silt and Sand vs. Shale and Silt (% of total nonmarine) NM Sand (1-3), NM Silt (1-2)NM Shly Silt (1-0>1)

16. Nonmarine Siltstones

17. Marine Carbonate vs. Silica-rich (thickness) Pkst-Grnst (4>5-4>6-_ _1>9), Dol. (6>8), Baff-stone (_7), Mdst-Wkst (5-0>3) Silty Mdst-Wkst (3>4-0>3), Mar. Shale, Silt, Sand (0,2-1>7)

18. Marine Carbonate vs. Silica rich (% of total marine) Pkst-Grnst (4>5-4>6-_ _1>9), Dol. (6>8), Baff-stone (_7), Mdst-Wkst (5-0>3) Silty Mdst-Wkst (3>4-0>3), Mar. Shale, Silt, Sand (0,2-1>7)

19. Med-Coarse Grained Packstone-Grainstone

20. Phylloid Algal Bafflestone cm

21. Marine Carbonate Reservoir Lithofacies (Thickness and % of Marine Rocks) Pkst-Grnst (4>5-4>6-_ _1>9), Dol. (6>8), Bafflestone (_7)

22. Conclusions 1.On a gross scale, major rock types show predictable distribution patterns throughout the Panoma Field. 2.Thinning in the marine rocks to the northwest is compensated by thickening in the nonmarine intervals. Overall thickness of the Council Grove is relatively consistent throughout Panoma. 3.The influx of quartz silt, very fine sand and clay from the west and northwest is quite dramatic, on a regional scale, and is evident in both the nonmarine and marine intervals. 4.Better marine carbonates reservoir rocks tend to be concentrated in the in the central and southeast portions of Panoma. 5.Conversely, better nonmarine reservoir rocks tend to be concentrated in the west and northwestern portion of the Panoma field