Investigating Thomas-Stieber model for property estimation of thin-bedded shaly-sand

reservoirs
Piyapa Dejtrakulwong
*
, Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory, Stanford University
Tapan Mukerji, Stanford Center for Reservoir Forecasting, Stanford University
Gary Mavko, Stanford Rock Physics Laboratory, Stanford University


Summary

This paper focuses on investigating the Thomas-Stieber
model and its application for evaluating proportions of
dispersed clay in shaly sands in thin laminated sand-shale
reservoirs. The goal of this study is to incorporate natural
variations and uncertainties which can be found in real
observations into the model and to point out some pitfalls
in the interpretation when these variations are neglected.
For a case of bimodal mixing (i.e. sand and pure shale), this
model can be used to infer sand fraction and its porosity.
However, when the sand beds within the interval of interest
consists of a range of properties (e.g. clay content), the
model cannot deterministically estimate property of each
individual sand bed. Instead, it gives an average property
of all the sand beds within the stack. The uncertainties of
the input parameters of the model can be used in stochastic
methods to quantify uncertainty of our interpretation. We
use Monte Carlo simulations propagated through the
Thomas-Stieber model to estimate the posterior
distributions of interpreted sand fractions in a Bayesian
framework.

Introduction

We use geophysical measurements at various scales to infer
the properties and structure of the subsurface. These
measured data often represent average properties of
multiple thin layers when heterogeneities are below the
resolution of the measurement tools. The lack of
knowledge about the existence and properties of thin
laminations could mislead the interpretation and thus affect
our evaluation of the reservoir. For example, a direct
application of isotropic Gassmanns equation without
accounting for the sub-resolution sand-shale lamination
would be erroneous due to the fact that fluid substitution is
likely to be applicable only in permeable sand beds
(Katahara, 2004; Skelt, 2004).

Thomas and Stieber (1975) provided a simple model
exploring how porosity could vary with shale volume
depending on the configuration of shale in the sand-shale
sequences (e.g. laminated, dispersed or structural). Thus,
by inputting properties of the pure sand and shale end-
members this model can be used to infer the shale
distribution within the rock and therefore provide evidence
of fine-scaled lamination. In some simple cases, it is also
possible to deterministically infer fractions and property of
sand within the mixing.

One assumption made in this model is that there are only
two types of rocks alternating within the lamination. In
other words, the interpretation is limited only to mixing
between sand and shale or dirty sand and shale. However,
laminations consisting of only two alternating elements
may not always be present. For example, both the sand and
shale properties within the interval of interest can vary due
to variations in amount of clay content present in each.
Dawson et al. (2008) characterized shale samples from
submarine fan in deep-water settings and reported different
types of shale due to compositions, fabric and sealing
properties. Furthermore, in real applications one needs to
estimate the two endpoint properties which are not certain.
It is essential to incorporate these variations into the
Thomas-Stieber model in order to quantify uncertainty in
our interpretation. In this paper, we explore various mixing
scenarios and stochastically apply the model to synthetic
examples.

Thomas-Stieber model

For simplicity, this model is based on an assumption that
the main factor which decreases sand porosity is shale
content.

Figure 1: An illustration of shale configuration in
sand. Marked letters (A to D) correspond to points on
the ternary diagram in Figure 2.
1965 SEG Houston 2009 International Exposition and Annual Meeting
Property estimation of thin-bedded reservoirs
Three different ways that shale can be distributed in sand
include laminated, dispersed, and structural (Figure 1).

Notations and relations between total porosity and the bulk
volume of shale (Vsh) added to the mixture can be
established as follows:
1. Clean sand and pure shale porosities are
s
and
sh
respectively.
2. When shale is dispersed into the original sand pore
space without disturbing the sand pack, total porosity
linearly decreases with Vsh. The relation follows
T =

s
(1 Vsh)
sh
.
3. When Vsh =
s
, the original pore space of sand is
completely filled with shale. At this point,
T =

sh
.
4. If we continue to add shale into the mixture, it is
equivalent to replacing voidless sand grains by shale
with porosity. As a result, total porosity linearly
increases with Vsh. In other words, in the region Vsh >

s
, we have
T =
Vsh

sh
.

The formulation following (1) to (4) completes the
dispersed-mixing category. We will specifically refer to
Vsh as Vdis in this case.

5. In the lamination domain, the total porosity is simply a
weighted average of porosity of all the end-members.
For clean sand laminated with pure shale, the relation is
the following:
T =
(1 Vlam)
s
+ Vlam
sh
, where
Vlam is the bulk volume of shale within the lamination.

The derived mathematical model can be graphically shown
as a ternary diagram (Figure 2). This diagram can be
constructed using the properties of clean sand and pure
shale end-members as input parameters.
Points A and E correspond to clean sand and pure shale
points whose Vsh values are 0 and 1 respectively. The line
segment AE represents lamination between clean sand and
pure shale with varying Vlam in the mixture. Line segment
AD represents the dispersed mode of mixing. Total
porosity continues to decrease with increasing volume of
dispersed shale until it reaches point D, where the original
sand pore space is completely filled with shale. Thus, the
other line segments (BE, CE and DE) correspond to
lamination between dirty sand and shale. This model is
derived initially using gamma ray responses (Thomas and
Stieber, 1975). This ternary diagram is also equivalent to
an ideal bimodal mixing (i.e. sand grains and clay particles)
(Marion, 1990). Given point F, one can infer that the point
represents lamination between 60% dirty sand and 40%
shale. The dirty sand has total porosity of 13% which is
equivalent to volume of dispersed shale (Vdis) of 0.2.

Examples

In this section, we show various scenarios of mixing and
the results of property estimation using the Thomas-Stieber
model. First, we construct vertical sequences by randomly
drawing either a sand or shale layer to insert into the
sequence. Then, each layer is assigned a value for Vclay,
specified in Table 1 for each case. Using the Thomas-
Stieber model, we obtain the corresponding porosity.
These values are considered to be the fine-scale properties.
We then upscale both Vclay and porosity using a 15-point
moving average to obtain data points. If the inference from
the model works, the results for the simulated data should
show an exact match to the up-scaled true values. Table 1
shows the parameters used for each scenario. In all cases,
we use the same ternary diagram both for generating and
inferring the properties.

True property in the
lamination
Input for the model Case
Vclay of sand Vclay of
shale
Porosity
at
Vsh=0
Porosity
at
Vsh=1
1 0.1 1 0.4 0.6
2 0.1 0.8 0.4 0.6
3 N(0.1,0.0025) 1 0.4 0.6
4 N(0.1,0.0025) 0.8 0.4 0.6
5 N(0.1,0.0025) N(0.8,0.0025) 0.4 0.6
6 N(0.1,0.0025)
N(0.2,0.0025)
0.8 0.4 0.6
Table 1: Parameter settings for each case. In cases 3 6, the
notation N(x,y) stands for normal distribution with mean x and
variance y.

The results of case 1 and 2 are shown in Figure 3. In case
1, we see an exact match of the estimated and the true
values as expected. However, when the properties of the
shale lamination change (i.e. silty shale instead of pure
shale), our sand fraction estimation could be overestimated,

Figure 2: A graphical display of Thomas-Stieber model relating
total porosity and Vsh.
1966 SEG Houston 2009 International Exposition and Annual Meeting
Property estimation of thin-bedded reservoirs
as shown in case 2. This example shows the potential
pitfall of misinterpreting the result as it appears to have a
larger amount of dirtier sand than it actually does.

From Figure 4, we see that in case 3 we can still obtain the
correct sand fractions. Furthermore, the estimated sand
property at each sampling point also matches the true
values. However, we need to keep in mind that these
properties have already been up-scaled (i.e. averaged over
several sand layers). Therefore, in this case we can only
obtain an average property of the sand in the lamination.
If the shale properties within the lamination do not
correspond to the pure shale (case 4) it further complicates
the situation and the results show even larger scatter than
observed in case 2. When the shale properties also vary
between layers (as in case 5), the relation between the true
and estimated sand fraction is not simple as other cases.

Uncertainty from the input parameters

So far, we have not included the uncertainties of the input
parameters (i.e. the sand and shale end-members) into the
model. In this section, we perform forward modeling using
Monte Carlo simulations and present results in forms of
posterior distributions of the sand property inferred from
the Thomas-Stieber model for a given data point.

Using the decomposition of conditional probability, we
have the following relation:

= = , ) | ( ) , | ( ) | , ( ) | ( dE D E P D E A P dE D E A P D A P
[1]
where A is the property of interest (e.g. sand fractions)
D is a given data point
E represents the two end-members properties.

For simplicity, we assume that P(E | D) is known. For any
data point acquired, we have some ideas about its location,
geological setting, depth, etc. Thus, we can use this
information to constrain and estimate the distribution of the
endpoints properties. It means both distributions (but not
the specific values) of porosity of clean sand and pure shale
are known and, in our case, both are assumed to be
Gaussian and independent.

We first separately draw the two endpoints from Gaussian
distributions. In the example shown here, we assume the
porosity distribution of the shale has larger uncertainty than
the sand. Then, we use the Thomas-Stieber model to infer
the values of sand fractions and Vdis in the sand for a given
data point. Drawing multiple realizations, we obtain
distributions of sand fractions and Vdis for that particular
data point (Figure 7). Results are shown in Figures 8 and 9.
We observe that the distributions of the estimated sand
fractions for all three data points have a similar shape with
narrow spreads. However, the distribution of the estimated
Vdis at point 3 appears to have larger uncertainty than
those of the other two points. A factor that contributes to
the larger uncertainty in the result at point 3 is its location
on the ternary plot. Point 3 appears to be closer to the shale
endpoint which is assumed to be more uncertain than the
other endpoint. Therefore, by the nature or geometric of
this ternary diagram, the estimated Vdis distribution at

Figure 3: Comparison between true and estimated sand properties from
case 1 and 2.

Figure 4: Comparison between true and estimated sand properties from
case 3 and 4.

Figure 5: Comparison between true and estimated sand properties from
case 5.

Figure 6: Comparison between true and estimated sand properties from
case 6.

1967 SEG Houston 2009 International Exposition and Annual Meeting
Property estimation of thin-bedded reservoirs
point 3 is greatly influenced by the variation of the input
parameter.

Conclusion

The Thomas Stieber model can be used in evaluating thin-
bedded shaly-sand reservoirs whose bed thicknesses are too
thin to be resolved by conventional tools. This study aims
to integrate natural variations and uncertainties into the
model in order to quantify uncertainty in our interpretation
of the thin-bedded reservoirs and to reduce risk. We show
several mixing scenarios and compare the estimation using
the model with the true values. It is clear that a small
variation in the sand and shale properties can lead to
misinterpretation which will greatly affect our evaluation of
the thin-bedded reservoirs. The uncertainties in the input
parameters for Thomas-Stieber model should also be
considered. We show examples of posterior distributions
of properties using Monte Carlo simulations.

In real application, this type of analysis will help us to
better understand how the natural variations and
uncertainty in data or input parameters propagate through
models and ultimately to help us quantify uncertainty in our
reservoir evaluation.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Stanford Rock Physics and
Borehole Geophysics project and the Stanford Center for
Reservoir Forecasting.


Figure 7: Example of multiple realizations of the ternary
diagrams generated from a set of two endpoints. Three data
points are considered.

Figure 8: Posterior distributions for estimated sand fractions of
the three data points shown in Figure 7.

Figure 9: Posterior distributions for estimated volume of
dispersed shale in the sand of the three data points shown in
Figure 7.
1968 SEG Houston 2009 International Exposition and Annual Meeting
EDITED REFERENCES
Note: This reference list is a copy-edited version of the reference list submitted by the author. Reference lists for the 2009
SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts have been copy edited so that references provided with the online metadata for
each paper will achieve a high degree of linking to cited sources that appear on the Web.

REFERENCES
Dawson, W. C., W. R. Almon, K. Dempster, and S. J . Sutton, 2008, Shale variability in deep-marine depositional systems:
Implications for seal character subsurface and outcrop examples: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Search
and Discovery Article 50128, http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2008/08144dawson/ndx_dawson.pdf,
accessed 3 March 2009.
Katahara, K., 2004, Fluid substitution in laminated shaly sands: 74th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts,
17181721.
Marion, D., 1990, Acoustical, mechanical and transport properties of sediments and granular materials: Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford
University.
Skelt, C., 2004, Fluid substitution in laminated sands: The Leading Edge, 23, 485488.
Thomas, E. C., and S. J . Stieber, 1975, The distribution of shale in sandstones and its effect upon porosity: 16th Annual Logging
Symposium, SPWLA, Paper T.

1969 SEG Houston 2009 International Exposition and Annual Meeting