1

Appraising and Developing

Shale Oil and Gas Reservoirs
Petrophysics

Shale Composition: Petrophysical Perspective

From Randy Miller, Integrated Reservoir Solutions, Core Lab

Shale OGIP Equation

OGIP A * h[{Eg * m * Sg} GS * ]
Where:
OGIP = Original gas in place (cubic meters)
A = Area (square meters)
h = Shale thickness (meters)
m = Matrix porosity (fraction)
Sg = Gas saturation (fraction)
Eg = Initial gas expansion factor (scm/rcm)
Gs = Gas storage capacity, as-received basis (m^3/ton)
= Shale density, as-received basis (ton/m^3)

Petrophysical
Measurements
from Core

Sampling Methodology

From Core Laboratories

CoreLabs Analysis Procedure

From Core Laboratories

GRI Reasoning for Using Crushed Samples for

Porosity Measurements

Helium was unable to contact all the pore space within an uncrushed sample
Uncontacted pores are interpreted as grains with zero density
Result was low porosity and low grain density
Crushing dramatically increases the surface area to volume ratio resulting in greater
access to pore space and more representative measurements
Core porosity needs to be decreased by 0.5-1 porosity unit to correct values to insitu conditions
From Ted Braun, SPWLA short course, 2011

GRI Measurement of Matrix Permeability

Change in pressure
with time is used to
calculate perm.

Core chips are assumed to be unfractured (crushing would have broken the core
along fractures) and the measurement is made at surface conditions
From Ted Braun, SPWLA short course, 2011

GRI Measurement of Phi, So, Sw, Grain Den.

Water volume is calculated by assuming a water density (salinity)

Oil volume = (oil weight / assumed oil density) where oil weight = weight loss of
crushed rock in excess of the water collected in the Dean Stark receiver
Pore volume = bulk volume grain volume; Porosity = pore volume / bulk volume
Sw = water volume / pore volume; So = oil volume / pore volume
From Ted Braun, SPWLA short course, 2011

Resulting Petrography and Core Data

Epifluorescence
Petrography
From Randy Miller, Integrated Reservoir Solutions, Core Lab

Matrix K vs. Total Porosity by Play

From Randy Miller, Integrated Reservoir Solutions, Core Lab

Matrix K vs. Water Saturation by Play

From Randy Miller, Integrated Reservoir Solutions, Core Lab

Distribution of Water and Gas in the Pore Space

From SPE 131350

TerraTeks Analysis Procedure

Retort method
Differentiates between free and bound fluid volumes based
upon temperature
Temperature is increased through a series of programmed
steps
250 degrees F for mobile water
600 degrees F for mobile oil
1300 degrees F for clay-bound water and bound
hydrocarbons
Allows reporting of total and effective porosities
From SPE 147456

Table of Shale Core Measurements

From Terratek

Reported Porosities from Three Different Labs

From Quinn Passey et al, AAPG Search and Discovery Article 80231

Reported Permeabilities from Three Different Labs

Service laboratories have developed their own proprietary
techniques and it is difficult to know if the differences in reported
values are due to the differences in the data or interpretations
100 nD

From Quinn Passey et al, SPE 131350

Steady-state apparatus
for measuring perms
on very tight samples

Comparison between steady-state

perms from plugs and pressure decay
perms from vendors A & B measured
on crushed samples

Exxons New
Approach For
Measuring K
on shale cores
(SPE 152257)

10

Mineralogy Comparison by Play

From Randy Miller, Integrated Reservoir Solutions, Core Lab

Shale Petrophysical Properties by Play

From Randy Miller, Integrated Reservoir Solutions, Core Lab

11

Comparison of Shale Characteristics

Basin
Age
Depth, meters
Reservoir Temperature, C
Thickness, meters
Total Porosity, %

MONTNEY

BARNETT

HAYNESVILLE

MARCELLUS

MUSKWA/OOTLA

Western Canadian

Fort Worth

Gulf Coast

Appalachian

Horn River

Triassic

Mississippian

Jurassic

Devonian

Devonian

1,500 to 2,400

2,000 to 2,700

3,000 to 4,000

1,500 to 2,400

2,700 to 4,000

60 to 80

70 to 90

150 to 175

40 to 65

60 to 80

100 to 300

100 to 150

50 to 100

15 to 75

100 to 180

4 to 9

3 to 7

6 to 10

5 to 8

3 to 5

Water Saturation, %

10 to 60

20 to 50

15 to 30

10 to 40

20 to 40

Sorbed Gas, m3/mt

0.14 to 0.71

2.0 to 2.8

1.4 to 2.8

1.4 to 4.2

0.85 to 1.70

Sorbed Gas, % total

5 to 30

40 to 45

25

45 to 55

20 to 40

TOC, weight %

0.5 to 2.5

3 to 8

3 to 5

5 to 8

2 to 5

Kerogen Type

Type II

Type II

Type II

Type II

Type II

Vitrinite Reflectance, % Ro
Pressure Gradient, kg/cm2/m

0.3 to 2.5

1.2 to 2.2

1.2 to 2.5

0.9 to 3.5

1.6 to 3.0

0.09 to 0.15

0.10 to 0.13

0.18 to 0.21

0.09 to 0.16

0.12 to 0.14
140 to 280

IP, 103m3/d

50 to 150

30 to 170

140 to 550+

55 to 170

OGIP, 109m3/km2

0.1 to 3.0

0.5 to 2.2

1.6 to 2.7

0.3 to 1.6

2.0 to 3.5

0.32

0.1 to 0.4

0.32 to 0.65

0.32 to 0.65

0.16 to 0.65

Well Spacing, km2

Recovery Factor, %

20 to 30

20 to 50

30

20 to 40

20 to 30

EUR, 106m3 per well

150 to 270

60 to 140

130 to 240

100 to 150

110 to 170

Determining
Total Organic
Carbon from
Logs

12

How Organic Matter and Uranium are Related

U +6

Oxidizing
Zone

Organic matter is oxidized resulting in

products (C, N, P) that are recycled by
live organisms

U +6
U +6

U +6

U +4

U +4

U+6 (soluble) is reduced to U+4

(insoluble) when it comes in contact
with organic matter

U +6
U +4

U +6

Oxidizing
Zone

U +4

U +4
U +4

As the anoxic zone expands, organic

matter settles through the oxidizing zone
more rapidly, and therefore more organic
matter accumulates

U +6

U +4

More U+4 precipitates as the anoxic zone

expands and more organic matter is
preserved

Modified from Nick Harris, Source Rocks 101 Short Course

Relationship between Uranium and TOC

From Luning and Kolonic, 2003

13

Relationship Between TOC and GR Logs

Higher TOC
values equate to
high GR values
due to the affects
of uranium
However, not all
organic matter
contains uranium
and a spectral GR
may be needed if
Th or K are
present

> 600
API

>15%
TOC

Modified from Nick Harris, Source Rocks 101 Short Course

Identifying Organic-rich Shales from GR and RHOB

GR

Organic-rich
Shales

Nuttal et al, AAPG

Search and Discovery
Article 40171

Bulk Density

14

Delta Log R Technique

Organic-poor shales = rock matrix + water
Immature organic-rich shales = rock matrix + water +
solid organic matter
Mature organic-rich shales = rock matrix + water + solid
organic matter + hydrocarbons
As a result, compared to organic-poor shales
Immature organic-rich shales have higher apparent porosity (due
to low-density, low-velocity kerogen)
Mature organic-rich shales have higher apparent porosity and
higher resistivity (as water is displaced by generated
hydrocarbons)

Delta Log R Technique

Set the scale so that 50
microseconds/foot = 1 resistivity
cycle
Adjust the scales so that in a
shale, the sonic and resistivity
logs overlap
Elsewhere, the sonic log will plot
to the left of the resistivity log
The gap between the two curves
is proportional to the TOC
The resistivity and sonic values
here are the baseline values

From Passey et al, 1990

15

Delta Log R Technique

The following expression (after Passey et. al.) describes the separation
of baselined resistivity and porosity log curves;

Where

is curve separation

R is the measured formation resistivity

Rns is the resistivity of organic-poor shales
P is the porosity log reading
Pns is the porosity log reading in organic-poor shales
K is a scale factor dependent on porosity log measurement units
K = -0.02 for sonic, 2.5 for density, and -0.04 for neutron logs
TOC is calculated using
Where TOC is total organic carbon in weight percent
LOM is the level of organic maturity
The equation above predicts zero TOC where there is no curve separation (baseline
conditions). In practice, however, all shales have some organic carbon content, so it is
necessary to add 0.2 to 1.6 percent to predicted TOC. The baseline TOC content of shales
is usually determined from laboratory measurements or using local knowledge.
From Henderson Petrophysics (www.hendersonpetrophysics.com)

Delta Log R Technique

From Passey et al, 1990

Also need to estimate the Level of Organic Metamorphism (LOM)

Approximately equal to Ro * 10 at lower LOM values
For higher LOM values: If Ro = 1.1, LOM = 11; If Ro = 1.5, LOM = 12; If Ro =
1.8, LOM = 13; If Ro = 2.1, LOM = 14; If Ro = 2.3, LOM = 15; If Ro = 2.5, LOM
= 16; If Ro = 2.8, LOM = 17; If Ro = 3.3, LOM = 18; If Ro = 3.9, LOM = 19

16

Delta Log R Technique

Comparison to TOC and S2 data

From Passey et al, 1990

Resolving
Fractures with
Logs

17

Fracture Variations by Layer, Outcrop

Photo From the Austin Chalk, San Antonio

From WL Taylor and JV Grant, From Carbonate Deformation: Outcrop Analogs for Fractured
Reservoirs, 2004, Field trip associated with AAPG Annual Conv.

Fracture Variations by Layer, FMI Log

Image from a vertical well in
the Barnett Shale illustrates
the relationship between
mechanical bed thickness and
fracture height and length
The joints terminate at bed
boundaries (blue arrows)
which separate strata of
different rock mechanical
properties
Fracture height and length is,
therefore, a function of bed
thickness and fracture attitude

From C. Stamm et al, Barnett Shale, New

LWD sensor technology, SPWLA, 2007

18

Conductive Fractures in the Barnett?

The Barnett study shows that
dense, open, natural fractures
contribute to a well's
deliverability.
While low-aperture or
unfractured zones will still
flow gas, gas deliverability is
at least a magnitude less than
from a fractured interval.

The magenta-colored banding indicates open natural fractures, while the

fracture dips (Track 4, blue tadpoles) are greater than 80 or almost vertical.
Local experience guides analysts in setting a fracture aperture cut-off below
which fractures will not contribute to enhanced permeability. In the figure above,
that cut-off is 0.06 mm, as shown by the vertical green line through Track 5.
From D. Johnson, Oil and Gas Journal, January 2004

Natural & Induced Fractures from FMI Logs

Dark color is more

conductive, light color is
more resistive

Wellbore parallel fractures

are induced

Natural fractures cut the

wellbore at an angle
From Mark Larsen, Schlumberger

19

Petrophysical
Analysis
Example

Visual Log Assessment

GR log
Higher values indicate higher TOC (hot shales >150 API units)

Resistivity log
Higher resistivity values indicate greater hydrocarbon presence

Density log
Lower values (<2.53 g/cc) reflect higher porosity and/or higher TOC
Density porosity > 8 pu (limestone matrix)

Neutron log
High neutron response (>35 pu) indicative of clays or coals

Geochemical log
Presence of pyrite (associated with higher TOC)
Low clay content is a good indicator of brittleness
From R. Salter and R. Lewis, Schlumberger

20

Recommended Logging Suite

Spectral GR
Induction or Laterolog
Density with PE curve
Neutron
Acoustic scanning tool
Image log
Geochemical logging tool
Such as the Elemental
Capture Spectroscopy tool
(ECS) for mineralogy,
kerogen, matrix density

From Erik Rylander, Schlumberger

Generic Petrophysical Approach for Shale Gas

Computational process
Determine the mineralogy (including kerogen)
Compute TOC from kerogen (function of kerogen type and
maturity)
Compute sorbed gas using Langmuir isotherms for samples with
variable TOC values
Determine effective porosity and Sw; compute free gas
Convert free gas into scf/ton and add to adsorbed gas to obtain
total gas

Key outputs
Gas saturation, porosity, hydrocarbons in place per unit
Can apply reservoir and pay cutoffs if desired

From Erik Rylander, Schlumberger

21

Mineralogy and TOC

Need to combine the
geochemical log output
with knowledge of which
components are present in
the shale (from X-ray
diffraction and petrography)
Typically these are calcite,
quartz, pyrite, illite,
kaolinite, kerogen, and
porosity
Kerogen is then converted
to TOC
From Keith Bartenhagen, Schlumberger

Conversion of Kerogen to TOC

Kerogen contains carbon
and other elements
As kerogen matures,
carbon content increases
Need to assume a value for
K based on thermal
maturity

Maturity Constants
Type
I
II
Diagnesis
1.25
1.34
End of Catagenesis
1.20
1.19

III
1.48
1.18

22

Example Isotherms for Six Lewis Shale Samples of

Varying OM Content, San Juan Basin
CH4 Sorption Isotherms for
Six Lewis Shale Samples of Varying OM Content
(Jennings, Greaves, & Bereskin, 1997)
50
TOC
Content,
wt-%

Volume Sorbed, scf/t

45
40

0.57%
0.70%
0.92%
1.15%
1.42%
1.82%

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

500

1000

Pressure, psia

Kerogen,
TOC and
Sorbed
Gas

From Keith Bartenhagen,

Schlumberger

1500

2000

23

Free Gas Calculation

Need to calculate
porosity and Sw values
from the logs that
match core-derived
values
May have to change
parameters along the
well to get a match
Need to know clay
content, matrix density,
Rw, and electrical
properties
From Keith Bartenhagen, Schlumberger

Void Space Correction

Accounts for the volume of measured

free space occupied by the sorbed gas
Shale A shows a decrease of 14.2% of
free gas and 11.6% of total gas
Shale B shows a decrease of 30.2% of
free gas and 17.1% of total gas
From Ray Ambrose et al, SPE 131772

24

Conversion of Free Gas to SCF/ton

From R. Salter and R. Lewis, Schlumberger

Total Gas Log

80
200

K. Bartenhagen,
Schlumberger

25

Net Reservoir and Pay Flags

Net Reservoir
>2% Gas-filled porosity
Pay
>4 pu effective porosity
<45% Sw
>2% TOC
>100 nanodarcies permeability
Technique will likely underestimate the total moveable
gas, but can be used to identify wells with the highest
productivity/EUR and help explain why they are so good
From R. Salter and R. Lewis, Schlumberger

A Rigorous Petrophysical Workflow

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

Load, quality assure, and edit log and core data

Shift the cores to the log depths
Apply environmental corrections, if necessary
Determine if there are sufficient core samples
Set parameter values based on available logs & cores
Compute TOC from logs and cores
Compute fluid density
Compute average inorganic matrix density and TOC density
Compute total porosity corrected for the volume of kerogen
Convert TOC (weight percent) to bulk volume of kerogen
Recalculate apparent matrix values for the presence of kerogen
Compute Sw and bulk volume gas (gas-filled porosity)
Compute free, sorbed and total gas
Compute gas-in-place
Compute lithologic volumes
From Log-Core Calibrated Shale Gas Evaluation Procedures, a Weatherford document

26

Summary
Petrophysics is critical for
Estimating production potential
Selecting completion intervals and designs
Identifying poor performers
Quantifying non-shale reservoirs, stimulation barriers, and waterbearing intervals

Keys to successful evaluation include

Gathering sufficient, high-quality data
Calibrating the logs to other data
Innovations that will allow us to better quantify gas storage and
flow capacity