London South Bank University

PETROPHYSICS PRESENTATION
PETROPHYSICAL EVALUATION O HAYNESVILLE SHALE !AS RESERVOIR

Prepared by:
Eneotu, Maclean Jacob - 2928554 Mohsin Hassan - "###$%& Ah'ed Hussein ( #)"*$+& ,in-s.ey/ !reen Ok0ara ( #)"#1$" Prepared for: r! Pedro ia" #8 January 2#$4 Summary This report is intended to provide an overview of the petrophysical evaluation carried out in Haynesville shale gas reservoir in the United States of America. This is important because of the role that petrophysical evaluation of reservoirs plays in the oil and gas industry in terms of exploration and reserves estimate. Various petrophysical properties were considered including mineralogy and lithology, total organic carbon T!"#, porosity, permeability, fluid saturation etc. The various methods used in evaluation in these properties in Haynesville shale gas play were considered together with comparison of different methods used for evaluation of a particular property. $or example, in terms of porosity evaluation, porosity evaluation by %&' log and porosity evaluation by crush roc( method was considered. $or Haynesville reservoir, integrated petrophysical evaluation techni)ues which involved

the use of some conventional logging tools and other unconventional methods were employed. $rom the study, it was found that the various log analyses and core analyses for the petrophysical evaluation of Haynesville shale gas reservoir were in agreement, with only little discrepancies. *n addition, unli(e other shale gas reservoirs with ultra+low porosity, the Haynesville reservoir has a relatively good porosity ,.-.#. Summary of average core analysis properties and relevant parameters for the Haynesville shale gas reservoir are shown in Appendix /. $rom the findings of this study, it was concluded that the Haynesville shale gas reserve has a good resource potential. This conclusion was based on the estimated total organic content T!"#0 this was estimated to be 1.2 wt.+..

1.0 Introduction The main ob3ective of this report was to study the petrophysical evaluation of Haynesville shale reservoir. The Haynesville shale is an unconventional gas reservoir extending from 4ast Texas to %orthwest 5ouisiana see figure 1# . The
Haynesville shale is blac(, organic+rich shale of Upper 6urassic age that is approximately /7,877 9/2,877 feet deep. Shale gas reservoirs usually have low porosity but the Haynesville shale:s porosity has been found to be usually higher than other shales, indicating its ability to contain more gas. 5ittle wonder, the recent estimate of its recoverable reserve done in 177; showed that Haynesville shale has a recoverable reserve of <8 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas, second only

to the &arcellus $ormation in the US, while its proven reserve estimation carried out in 17// showed that Haynesville shale has a proven reserve of 1;.8 trillion cubic feet of gas US 4nergy *nformation Administration, 17//#. 5i(e every other unconventional hydrocarbon reservoir, petrophysical evaluation of reservoir properties in Haynesville shale proved to be )uite challenging. =ossible factors that contributed to this challenge include variable and complex mineralogy, difficulty in ac)uiring native state core samples etc. *n addition, shale gas petrophysical interpretations could also be challenging since the gas+bearing shale deposits usually function as reservoir, source and seal at the same time. Thus, they would be characteri>ed by all three elements. Typical evaluation of shale gas reservoirs include determination of some petrophysical properties li(e total organic carbon T!"#, gas+filled porosity and total porosity, lithology and mineralogy, matrix permeability, fluid saturation mostly gas and water#, vitrinic reflectance or level of maturity etc.

?@enerally, proper petrophysical evaluation or characteri>ation of shale+gas reservoirs re)uire an integrated analysis of an extensive logging suite to determine the highly variable mineralogical composition, organic carbon content, porosity, and fluid saturations, among other relevant petrophysical properties that assist well completion decisionsA 'amire>, et., al 17//#. $or Haynesville shale, various evaluation methods were applied for determination of different petrophysical properties. $or example, mineralogy and lithology determination was done by both gamma+ray spectrometry and B+ray diffraction, total organic carbon determination was done by both the delta5og' method and from %&' log, and porosity determination was done by crush dry roc( method and also from %&' log. $or Haynesville petrophysical evaluation, the proposed wor(flow for Shale gas petrophysical evaluation as proposed by Cuirein et al., 17/7# was used as shown figure 2. This report will loo( into the results obtained from these various methods, and compare the various measurements.

2.0 Geology of Haynesville Gas Play The Haynesville Shale is blac(, organic+rich shale mainly mudstones of Upper 6urassic age that underlies much of the @ulf "oast area of the United States, extending from 4ast Texas to %orthwest 5ouisiana. The Haynesville $ormation overlies the Smac(over $ormation and is overlain by roc(s of the "otton Valley @roup relatively solid limestone sometimes referred to as the Haynesville limestone#. Haynesville stratigraphic column is shown in figure /. $igure 1 shows an outline map of Haynesville shale reservoir showing the geographic areas covered by the gas play in 4ast Texas and %orthwest 5ouisiana.

Fig. 1 Haynesville stratigraphic column !amire"# et al.# 2011$

Fig. 2 %utline map of Haynesville shale reservoir sho&ing the geographic areas covered 'y the gas play in (ast )e*as and +orth&est ,ouisiana in dashed red. Source- (nergy Information .dministration 'ased on data from HP/I# )0 !ailroad 1ommission# ,. /ept. of +atural !esources# %perators. 2pdated 3ay 24# 2011. httpDEEwww.eia.govEoilFgasErpdEshaleusa,.pdf

5.0 Petrophysical (valuation of Haynesville Shale $or the petrophysical evaluation of Haynesville shale gas reservoir, a proposed wor(flow for shale gas reservoir as given in the literature of Cuirein et al., 17/7# was used. This wor(flow is shown in figure 2. Also the petrophysical techni)ues for laboratory evaluation of shale gas petrophysical properties as proposed by the @as 'esearch *nstitute in /;;- was used )uoted in Sondergeld et. al 17/7#. See Appendix 1.

Fig. 56 Proposed &or7flo& for Shale gas petrophysical evaluation as proposed 'y 8uirein et. al.# 2010$.

5.2 Petrophysical evaluation methods used in Haynesville shale gas reservoir for the determination of various petrophysical properties. 5.2.0 3ineralogy and ,ithology determination 5.2.1 3ulti63ineral 3ethod &ith Geochemical and Standard )riple 1om'o ,ogs. *n an attempt to develop proper evaluation methods or techni)ues for shale gas formations li(e Haynesville gas play, a lot of effort has been in to place. Some of these efforts include the use of special logging techni)ues li(e spectral elemental analysis or spectroscopy logging, geochemical logging, triple combo logging etc.

$or Haynesville shale gas play, the multi+mineral geochemical logging tool string @5T# developed by Schlumberger was used. This tool consists of four separate logging tools0 the aluminium activation clay tool AA"T#, the natural gamma+ray spectrometry tool %@T#, the compensated neutron tool "%T#, and the gamma+ray spectrometry tool @ST#. A schematic drawing of the @5T which was used in Haynesville is shown in figure 2. These four tools used three separate modes of gamma+ray spectrometry for a comprehensive elemental analysis of the formation. The %@T is located at the top of the tool string so that it can measure the naturally occurring radio nuclides, thorium Th#, uranium U#, and potassium G#, before the radioactivity is induced by the nuclear sources contained in the lower tools. The "%T, located below the %@T, carries a "alifornium 181"f# neutron source to activate the Al atoms in the formation. The AA"T, a modified %@T, is located below the 181"f source, measuring the activated gamma+rays in the formation. Scott and Smith /;<2# showed that by combining the AA"T measurement with the previous %@T measurement, the bac(ground radiation can be subtracted out and a reading of the formation Al is obtained. The gamma+ray spectrometry tool, at the base of the string, carries a pulsed neutron generator to induce prompt+capture gamma+ray reactions in the borehole and formations and a %a* Tl# scintillation detector to measure the energy spectrum of gamma rays generated by the prompt neutron capture reactions. The spectrum from the @ST, in con3unction with elemental concentrations from the %@S tool and AA"T, allows derivation of the concentration of elements in the formation roc(, such as Si, "a, $e, S, Ti, G, and @d. Hata from the tools in the string are sent by telemetry to the surface by the telemetry communication cartridge or cable communication cartridge cable communication electronics#. 5ithology and mineralogy are then determined using the elemental weight fractions from the geochemical measurements

Fig. = 6 Schematic dra&ing of the Schlum'erger geochemical logging tool string used in the Haynesville shale gas evaluation Gon>alves and (&ert# 1;;?$ 5.2.2 .nalysis of actual roc7 samples for lithology and mineralogy determination The two main methods employed in this are the B+ray diffraction analyses B'H# which measures the amount of specific minerals in a roc( sample and B+ray fluorescence analyses which measure the amount of specific elements in a roc( sample. $or Haynesville, B'H was used. The result is shown in figure 8 which shows that the most abundant mineral in Haynesville shale gas play is illite. A comparison of the results from the gamma+ray spectrometry tool with log analysis is shown in table /.

Fig. 96 :ratovich and Sommer 200;$ <eys for mineralogy and lithology determination

)a'le 1- 1omparison of log determined mineralogy to core 0!/ Par7er et.# al 200;$ &ineral B'H &ineral Spectroscopy wt+.# wt+.# "hlorite /., 7 "alcite 7.7 7.8 Cuart> ,-.1 ,2.1 *llite ,.8 8 =yrite 7., /./ Siderite 7.7 7.7 Sodium feldspar ;.; //.Anhydrite <.< /7.1 Holomite /8 /<.8

5.5 )otal organic car'on )%1$ determination. T!" determination is very important in shale gas petrophysical evaluation. !ne reason for this is because it is generally used to predict the resource potential of a shale gas play as shown in table 1. Another reason for this is because of its relationship to porosity see figure -#. Thus, how much T!" is present in a shale gas can tell how much adsorbed gas the reservoir has. @enerally, T!" is associated with the organic compound0 (erogen. ?The T!" of /7 wt. is associated with an approximate (erogen volume of 17 vol.A Iust et al., 17/2#. Unfortunately, the neutron and density logs sense (erogen as an additional porosity. "onse)uently, with an actual (erogen volume of 17 vol., and without accounting for (erogen in the interpretation, the traditional neutron+density cross plot porosity will be high by 17 vol.. $or Haynesville shale gas reservoir, two methods were used for T!" determination. These are the 5.1.2 log R techni@ue and +3! method. )a'le 26 !elationship 'et&een total organic car'on and resource potential .le*ander# et. al 2011$. Total !rganic "arbon Jeight .# K 7.8 7.8 to / / to 1 1 to , , to /7 L /7 'esource =otential Very poor =oor fair @ood Very good Un(nown

Fig. 96 !elationship 'et&een total porosity and )%1 &t6A$ Passey et. al.# 2010$
log R

5.5.1

)echni@ue for )%1 determination of Haynesville Shale Gas

!eservoir *n Haynesville shale play, the total organic carbon content T!"# was estimated using the method developed by =assey et al., /;;7#. This method is called the log R techni)ues, and it uses common widely available well logs porosityEresistivity# logs to identify organic+rich shale and calculate their T!" by the empirical formula given belowD TOC =[ DLogR10(2.297 0.1688 LOM ) ] BhereT!" is the total organic carbon in wt. 5!& is the level of maturity unitless# D 5og' is the curve separation measured in logarithmic resistivity cycles M 5og '4SH E '4SHbase# + 1.8 N H4%S 9 H4%Sbase#
JhereD '4SH '4SHbase H4%S H4%Sbase M M M M deep resistivity in any >one ohm+m# deep resistivity baseline in non+source roc( ohm+m# density log reading in any >one gmEcm2# density in non+source roc( gmE cm2#

/#

To simplify the above formula, =assey et al., also gave a graphical form of the e)uation as shown in figure -.

Fig. C Graphical representation for )%1 estimation as postulated 'y Passey et al.# 1;;0$ To use the graphical form of the e)uation, 5!& and

log R

have to be (nown. To get

5!&, vitrinite reflectance 'o# values were converted to 5!& with the graph below. $or Haynesville0 the vitrinite reflectance is /.-. see appendix 1#. Thus, the level of maturity was estimated to be approximately /1 that is high thermal maturity#. Then from figure <, the total organic carbon T!"# was estimated to be approximately 1.2 wt+..

Fig. 4 6 Graph for finding ,evel of %rganic 3aturity from Ditrinite !eflectance 1rainEs Petrophysical Hand'oo7# http-FFspec2000.netF116vshtoc.htm$

5.5.2 )%1 determination 'y core analysis. A second approach for T!" evaluation in Haynesville was done by core analyses. This was carried out using %&', fluid density, bul( density and the reservoir mineralogical data. This relationship is given asD gr V TOC = m 1a# m TOC gr = b fluid ( 1 ) 1b#

TOC m gr gr m TOC = m TOC

1c#

Bhereb is the bul( density gr is the total grain density including inorganic and organic matrix constituents is the %&' total porosity fluid is the density of pore filling fluid, determined from %&' fluid typing VTOC is the volume fraction of organic matrix components mTOC is the mass fraction of organic matrix components A comparison between the well log log R $ T!" evaluation method and the core method of T!" evaluation is shown in trac( 8 of figure <. The comparison shows that both methods were reasonably in agreement.

Fig. C 6 Interpretation results for a representative Haynesville &ell 8uirein et al. 2012$ )rac7 1 presents the correlation logs# and )rac7 2 depicts the mineralogy# from left to right# 7erogen# chlorite# illite# pyrite red$# sodium feldspar orange$# calcite# @uart"# clay6'ound &ater# free &ater# and gas6filled porosity. )rac7 5

presents the fluid volumes gas# clay6'ound &ater# and free &ater$# 'ut also includes the 7erogen matri* volume. )he yello& circles represent the core gas6 filled porosity# and the green circles sho& the core porosity. )he volume of gas is 'ro7en do&n into its matri* red$ and 7erogen dull red$ gas6filled porosity. )rac7 = compares the core and &ell logs )%1. )rac7 9 presents the grain density# and )rac7 4 presents pyrite. 5.= Porosity determination =orosity calculations from neutron and log measurements usually come with significant uncertainties due to the variable mineralogies and the variable amounts of low density organic material present in these reservoirs. $urthermore, conventional logs for porosity evaluation may sense the porous (erogen often seen in a typical shale gas as an additional porosity. A typical pore structure of a shale gas showing this additional (erogen is shown in figure O.

Fig. C 6 )ypical shale gas pore structure Sondergeld# et al# 2010$ *n the petrophysical evaluation of Haynesville shale gas reservoir, two methods were used for porosity determination. These methods areD 5.=.1 +uclear 3agnetic !esonance +3!$ ,og Hue to the variable mineralogies in the Haynesville shale gas reservoir, conventional porosity logging measurements li(e the neutron and density logs were not used. 'ather an %&' log was used. The reason for this is that %&' logging measurements does not depend on the mineralogy of the matrix, except in cases in which the formation contains significant amounts of ferromagnetic or paramagnetic materials. "omparison of this method of porosity determination of shale gas reservoir and the core analysis crush dry roc(# method are shown in table , and figure ;. 5.=.2 Porosity determination 'y crush dry roc7 method This method of porosity determination of shale gas reservoir usually follows the process shown in figure O.

Fig. ? 1rush dry roc7 method of porosity determination. =( V b Vg )/ Vb BhereVb=W d / bd JhereD is porosity Vb
Vg

,#

is bul( volume is grain volume is weight of dry, crushed core sample g# is bul( density of dry whole core gEcm2#

Wd
bd

$or the gas+filled porosity, same e)uation as ,# was used, except that the bul( volume will be given as Vw =W w / bw BhereWw is weight of wet, crushed core sample g# bw is bul( density of wet whole core gEcm2#

$or the set of 18 samples selected for Haynesville petrophysical evaluation, average total porosity was 1.,< . before crushing and -.27 . after crushing. Table 2 shows the porosity results comparing the crushed samples to the whole core pieces. The gas+filled porosity estimated was ,.-..

)a'le 56 Porosity comparison of &hole core sample and crushed samples for Haynesville shale gas. Jhole "ore "rushed Samples Hepth Porosity A$ /.; /.O 2.< 2.; 2.; 1., /.Grain /ensity gFcm5$ 1.8; 1.88 1.,8 1.21., 1.22 1.,1 Porosity A$ O.< 8., /1./1.1 /1./ /2.2 -.2 Grain /ensity gFcm5$ 1.<1 1.-2 1.-O 1.8O 1.1.8; 1.-

12,-.12,<./ 12,O.2 12,;.; 1287.8 128/.< 1281.O

The low apparent values of porosity and grain density measured on the whole core pieces were caused by incomplete penetration of the pore networ( by helium during the grain+volume measurement. $or these measurements on the whole cores, up to about 27 minutes was allowed for apparent e)uilibrium, compared with / minute or less re)uired for most reservoir roc(s. $or the very low permeability in these shales, however, 27 minutes is insufficient. "rushing the core samples improves by a factor of /7,777 the ratio of surface area to volume divided by the characteristic length that the helium has to penetrate during grain+volume measurement. This combined ratio multiplied by then permeability of the roc( sample controls the speed of the grain+volume measure. All pore space in this low+porosity formation is regarded as interconnected, despite the small pore si>es and extremely low permeability. !ther wor(ers have shown that, in low+porosity sandstones, carbonates, or crystalline roc(s, virtually all pores remaining after cementation, minerali>ation, and diagenesis retain some interconnectivity. Therefore, crushing the Haynesville shale should not create entry into any pores that previously were isolated. )a'le =6 1omparison 'et&een +3! total porosity and 1ore rushing total porosity for Haynesville Shale gas reservoir !amire"# et al 2011$. Hepth ft# *H Total porosity .# Total porosity .# %&' "ore crushing /788B88-.7 2./ ,.2/ /78-7 B8-7.7 2.8.1/ /78-8 B8-8.7 2./ /78<7 B8<7.7 2.1 8.8-

/78<,.8 /78O7 /78O,.8 /78;8 /7-77

B8<,.8 B8O7.7 B8O,.8 B8;8.7 B-77.7

2./ 1.< 1.1

,.78.1O 2.; 2.7/

Fig. ;6 1omparison of crush roc7 method and the +3! log log method$. The comparison between the two methods used in the determination of porosity of Haynesville shale gas play shown in trac( / in the figure above shows a good agreement between both methods. 5.9 Permea'ility According to =assey et al 17/7#, porosity determination of Haynesville gas play was done using the pressure or pulse decay method on crushed roc( samples. The =ulse Hecay =ermeameter See figure /7# which is widely used for ultra+low permeability tight gas sands, cap roc( and other very low permeability roc( was used. This instrument uses a pulse decay measurement techni)ue developed by "ore 5aboratories. *n this techni)ue, a small pore pressure pulse is applied to one end of a 3ac(eted sample and the pressure vs. time behaviour is observed as the pore fluid moves through the sample from one reservoir to another. *nitially both valves are open and pressure is constant throughout the system. %ext, valve / is closed and the pressure is changed slightly in the large 'eservoir /. Valve / remains closed for a few minutes to allow thermal effects to diminish particularly important if the pore fluid is gas#. Valve 1 is then closed and at time e)ual >ero, valve / is opened. A small differential

pressure between the reservoirs will be indicated by the decrease with time.

= transducer and will

=ressure in 'eservoir / remains constant during the decay. Iecause a valve is re)uired between the sample and the reservoir which applies the pressure pulse, it is desirable to apply the pressure pulse through the large reservoir so opening the valve will not significantly change the reservoir volume. After the differential has decreased by approximately 17., the decay is terminated by opening valve 1. This accelerates the e)uilibration of pressure so the next measurement can be made. As the pressure transient propagates though the sample, the computeri>ed data ac)uisition system records the delta pressure across the sample, the downstream pressure, and time. A log differential pressure times mean pressure versus time plot was displayed real time on screen. =ermeability was then calculated from a linear regression performed on the pressure time data and the results stored to a data file.

Fig. ;6 Schematic of a Pulse /ecay Permeameter :our'ie and Balls# 1;?2$ 5.4 (valuation of fluids saturation 5.4.1 Bater Saturation *n conventional reservoirs, the use of Archie e)uation can be used to determine water saturation. This e)uation is based on porosity and resistivity logs. aRw Sw T = n m T Rt

To apply the above e)uation, the following properties in addition to total porosity have to be (nownD 'esistivity of the roc( 't# 'oc( electric parameters a, m and n# $ormation water resistivity *t is pertinent to note here that in conventional reservoirs, Archie attributed the increase of true formation resistivity relative to the resistivity of water to hydrocarbon occupying part of the pore space. The presence of conductive solids in the form of clay minerals was later treated as excess conductivity or a non+Archie component in the saturation e)uation, because it was seen to reduce formation resistivity. However, in shale gas reservoirs petrophysics, a third component exists in the form of solid (erogen which has a reveres or opposite effect to clay minerals in that it increases formation resistivity. The %&' tool could have offered a potential solution for the evaluation of water saturation independent of resistivity measurement. However, the measured data may not properly represent the co+existence of free and adsorbed gas. The gas adsorbed to the surface of the (erogen is problematic and may not respond in the same way as free gas because there are solid+li(e constituents associated with its composition 'amire> et al. 17//#. *n Haynesville shale gas play, a new approach was used called the ?pseudo+Archie approachA. *n this method, the Archie e)uation was used but the cementation and saturation exponents were different from their respective defaults, m M n M 1. *n this case, it was m M n M /.<. To calculate water saturation from log analysis, it is important to establish formation+ water salinity. Iecause formation water rarely is produced from the Haynesville shale, water salinity is essentially un(nown. Through use of the cores from some air+ drilled wells, the water salinity was measured directly on crushed core samples. A sample split of 17g of crushed roc( was mixed and e)uilibrated with /77m5 of ion+ free distilled water. "hloride ion was then measured on a water sample with an ion chromatograph and, in some cases, by titration. This chloride content was then converted to sodium chloride and allocated bac( to the bul( volume of formation water measured in a companion crushed sample with the analysis procedures described previously. *n the Haynesville shale gas play, the formation water salinity was measured to be /;7,777 ppm /;7 (ppm#. 5.4.2 Gas saturation Sg$The gas saturation was obtained when water saturation S&$ in the samples were subtracted from / that is one minus S& that is 16S&$.

1onclusions At the end of this study, the following conclusions can be drawn P 4valuation of Haynesville shale gas petrophysical properties gas play li(e every other was )uite challenging due to variable mineralogies and lithologies. P An integrated approach is the best way for shale gas petrophysical evaluation. P =seudo+Archie water saturation evaluation method was used in Haynesville shale gas reservoir evaluation.

P P P P

*nformation gathered from the various evaluation methods was useful in optimi>ing the stimulation methods for the Haynesville shale. There was agreement between various methods used for the evaluation of a particular petrophysical property of the Haynesville shale. The Haynesville shale gas play has good porosity compared to other shale gas play. &ost of Haynesville shale gas reservoir mineral compositions are illite.

Group !eflection

As a group, our interpersonal s(ills were significantly developed. This was because the four people in the group were on different wavelengths0 those with natural presentation s(ill, those with good grasp of the sub3ect studied, etc. As a group, new things were learnt in the course of wor(ing on this pro3ect. $rom the several meetings held, the group became a proper functioning unit through a blend of concession and coaction, thereby enhancing our interpersonal development. !n what could have been done differently to improve in the future, the group agreed that communication is very important in every team wor(, and as such the forum on Ilac(board could have been used a lot better to share information and for general communication. !verall, all members of the group agreed that the exercise was a good one to underta(e. Personal !eflections 3aclean Gaco' (neotu 6 $unctioning as the group leader in this pro3ect has helped enhanced my leadership and team+ wor(ing s(ills. The pro3ect was )uite challenging as we had to choose a difficult case study shale gas#. At the end, it was worthwhile. 3ohsin Hassan This pro3ect has given me the opportunity to learn something new and also develop my inter+personal s(ills. .hmed Hussein Jor(ing on this pro3ect was really interesting as it gave me the chance to really get interested in the world of unconventional petroleum resources. <ingsley Green %7para 6 A very exciting pro3ect to wor( on. * believe my team+ wor(ing s(ill has improved significantly.

!eferences Iourbie, T., Q Jalls, 6. /;O1#. =ulse decay permeabilityD Analytical solution and experimental test. Old SPE Journal, 22 8#, </;+<1/. R!nlineS Available fromD httpDEEwww.onepetro.orgEmslibEappE=review.doT paper%umberM7777;<,,Qsociety"odeMS=4 RAccessedD 7/ Hecember 17/2S. Iratovich, &., Q Sommer, H. A. 177;#. Application of an Integrated Petroph !ical E"aluation Approach to #orth American Shale $a! %e!er"oir!& inD 1nd S=J5A 'egional Symposium, &umbai, *ndia, %ovember 177;. Society of =etrophysicists and Jell 5og Analysis, pp. /+/,. R!nlineS Available fromD httpDEEspwlaindia.orgEdownload.phpTfolder%ameMpast...a==5*"AT*!%.pdf RAccessedD 1; %ovember 17/2S. Iust, V. G., &a3id, A. A., !letu, 6. U., Q Jorthington, =. $. 17/2#. The Petroph !ic! of Shale $a! %e!er"oir!' Technical Challenge! and Pragmatic Solution! , inD *nternational =etroleum Technology "onference, Iang(o(, Thailand, $ebruary 17/1. *nternational =etroleum Technology "onference *=T" /,-2/#, pp. /+/-. R!nlineS Available fromD httpDEEwww.onepetro.orgEmslibEappE=review.doTpaper%umberM*=T"+ /,-2/+&SQsociety"odeM*=T" RAccessedD 1; %ovember 17/2S. =ar(er, &., Iuller, H., =etre, 6., Q Hreher, H. 177;#. (a ne!"ille Shale) Petroph !ical E"aluation, inD S=4 'oc(y &ountain =etroleum Technology "onference, Henver, "olorado, USA, April 177;. Society of =etroleum 4ngineers S=4 /11;2<#, pp. /+//. R!nlineS Available fromD httpDEEwww.onepetro.orgEmslibEappE=review.doTpaper%umberMS=4+/11;2<+ &SQsociety"odeMS=4 RAccessedD 27 %ovember 17/2S. =assey, C., Iohacs, G., 4sch, J., Glimentidis, '., Q Sinha, S. 17/7#. *rom Oil) Prone Source %oc+ to $a!)Producing Shale %e!er"oir)$eologic and Petroph !ical Characteri,ation of -ncon"entional Shale)$a! re!er"oir! , inD *nternational !il and @as "onference and 4xhibition, "hina, 6une 17/7. Society of =etroleum 4ngineers S=4 /2/287#, pp. /+1<. R!nlineS Available fromD httpDEEwww.onepetro.orgEmslibEappE=review.doTpaper%umberMS=4+/2/287+ &SQsociety"odeMS=4 RAccessedD 1O %ovember 17/2S. 'amire>, T., Glein, 6., Ionnie, '., Q Howard, 6. 17//#. Comparati"e Stud of *ormation E"aluation .ethod! for -ncon"entional Shale $a! %e!er"oir!' Application to the (a ne!"ille Shale /Te0a!1, inD %orth American Unconventional @as "onference and 4xhibition, Joodlands, Texas, USA, 6une 17//. Society of =etroleum 4ngineers S=4 /,,7-1#, pp. /+2/. R!nlineS Available fromD httpDEEwww.onepetro.orgEmslibEappE=review.doTpaper%umberMS=4+/,,7-1+ &SQsociety"odeMS=4 RAccessedD 1; %ovember 17/2S. Sondergeld, "., %ewsham, G., "omis(y, 6., 'ice, &., Q 'ai, ". 17/7 1& Petroph !ical Con!ideration! in E"aluating and Producing Shale $a! %e!ource! , inD S=4 Unconventional @as "onference, =ittsburgh, =ennsylvania, USA, $ebruary 17/7. Society of =etroleum 4ngineers /2/<-O+&S#, pp. /+2,. R!nlineS Available fromD

httpDEEwww.onepetro.orgEmslibEservletEonepetropreviewTidMS=4+/2/<-O+&S RAccessedD 7/ Hecember 17/2S. .PP(+/I0 1 )a'le =6 Summary of average core analysis properties and relevant parameters for the Haynesville shale gas play !amire"# et. al.# 2011$. =roperty E =arameter Value Units "omment &ineralogyD Total "lay 2/ wt+. B'H, dominantly illite, chlorite T!" 1.2 wt+. T!" content by 5eco analyser @as+filled porosity ,.. @'* crushed sample Total porosity -.2 . @'* crushed sample Average permeability 7.778mH low permeability Vitrinite reflectance /.. High thermal maturity Thinner than other area Haynesville thic(ness ;8 ft penetrations $luid pressure gradient 7.<8 psiEft 4stimated, H$*T analysis @eothermal gradient 1.788 U$E/77ft Iresch and "arpenter,177; $ormation water salinity /;7 (ppm "ore crushing and leaching Average water 2/.O saturation Average clay bound /;./ water

.PP(+/I0 2

Petrophysical )echni@ues for (valuating Shale !eservoir as proposed 'y the Gas !esearch Institute in 1;;4 Sondergeld et. al.# 2010$

.PP(+/I0 5 S%3( 1%!(S 2S(/ F%! H.H+(SDI,,( SH.,( G.S !(S(!D%I! (D.,2.)I%+