Seismic Reservoir Characterization of

Shales: An Update
AAPG eSymposium, February 2012
David Paddock
Scientific Advisor Seismic Reservoir Characterization
Schlumberger Seismic Reservoir Characterization
Rick Lewis, Schlumberger Unconventional Resources (Petrophysics)
Don Lee and Colin Sayers, Schlumberger DCS Geomechanics
Roberto Suarez, Schlumberger Unconventional Resources Innovation Center
Niranjan Banik and Mark Egan, Schlumberger WesternGeco
Lei Zhang, Schlumberger DCS Seismic Reservoir Characterization
Hari Ramakrishnan, Peter Kaufman, and Brian Toelle, Schlumberger DCS GPE
Joel Le Calvez, Schlumberger DCS StimMAP Microseismic
Richard Salter, Schlumberger DCS North America

The basics: Wellbore planning

Target

Low

High

Fault Delineation

Seismic for the Life of the Asset

Exploration:
Identify lithofacies for informed pilot well locations

Confirmation
Reservoir Quality and Completion Quality mapping
Confirmation well drilling and intial completion trials
Intial bucketing of acreage
Eventual factory acreage
Contains both reservoir quality and completion quality

Acreage with no potential

Reservoir, kerogen, or maturity lacking

Challenged acreage
Reservoir, but little or no containment

Questions for defining your unconventional play

1. What should I expect from my acreage?

2. What is the optimized spacing?
3. What science do I need to optimize my capital?

Answers for defining your unconventional play

1. Introduce technologies and workflows that have a
prolonged positive effect on field development and
well spacing.
100%

80%

Normalized Production

2. Leverage processes designed for unconventional

resources that can be used to enhance ROI while
reducing risk and building confidence in decision
making.

90%

70%

60%
50%
40%

30%
20%
10%

0%

3. Educate and train personnel for current and future

projects with predictive models that encompass
geomechanics, geophysics, engineering and geology.

Fractured Reservoir Characterization and Production Prediction

Geophysics
Acquisition

Processing

Data
Conditioning

Footprint
suppressio
n, noise
attenuation

Geology
Fracture
Attributes

Fracture
Properties

Ant
Tracking

Signal DP
and
Imaging

Discrete
Fracture
Network,
IFM,
Hybrid
FractureMap

VVAZ

Seismic
Velocity
Analysis

High fidelity and bandwidth,

full/wide azimuth, long offset
seismic data

Fracture
Corridor
Mapping

AVOAz
Inversion
and
Tensors

Fracture
Area,
Length,
Density,
Aperture

Borehole Images
Mud log, mud losses, etc
Sonic Scanner Data,

Borehole
Analysis

Geological
Model

Dynamic
Model

Core and
Image Log
Interpretatio
n

Pore
Pressure
Prediction

Single well tests,

Interwell tests
Formation Tests
Production logs

HRA

Answers

Productio
n
Prediction

Petrophysic
al Analysis

Faults

Attributes

Acquisitio
n

Fracture
Model

Engineering

Structural
and
Stratigraphic
Modeling,
Facies
Modeling
and
Petrophysic
al
distribution

Simulation
/ History
Matching
Well
Ranking

Prediction
Scenarios

Frac
candidate
prediction

Shale Success: Reservoir Quality and

Completion Quality (RQ * CQ)

Drill horizontally in a stiff zone coincident with or adjacent to

your primary reservoir

Frac into an interval above (and below) which is stiff and

contains additional reservoir

Contain the frac with argillaceous ductile zones that contain

the frac energy before we get into bad rock

Stiffness stratigraphy (ductile stiff ductile) containing

reservoir

We need both Reservoir Quality and Completion Quality

RQ * CQ

Challenges and Solutions

Structure: Imaging

Sweetspot Identification: Inversion, fracture characterization

Hazard Avoidance: AntTracking

Azimuth Optimization: Stress direction prediction

Productivity Prediction: Seismic to simulation

Spacing Optimization: Seismic to simulation

Eagle Ford example: Production driver determination

Results:

Highest ranking production drivers are:

Shale Limestone

Natural fractures and thickness

Completion quality and porosity

Fractures

Acreage can be high-graded as:

Predicted well performance

OOIP
Rock quality distribution

Natural fracture PERM, md

Net pay, feet
Hydraulic fracture PERM, md
Primary porosity, percent
Initial pressure, psi/ft
Matrix PERM, nd
Ref Case

10
2/9/2012

Seismic Ant Track time slice

What can I expect from my acreage?

Success is driven by reservoir and completions.
Reservoir quality
Fractures
Porosity
Pore pressure

Completion quality
Stress
Stiffness
Hardness
Hazard avoidance

Suggested Solutions
Success is driven by reservoir and completions.
Reservoir quality
Fractures
Azimuthal Inversion
Prediction of open vs closed
fractures

Porosity
Pre-stack inversion

Pore pressure
Surface consistent vel analysis

Completion quality
Stress

Pre-stack inversion
Curvature analysis
Pore pressure estimation
Closure stress estimation

Stiffness
Hazard avoidance

Ant Tracking

Fracture Characterization

Iain Bush

Fracture prediction

Ant Tracking
AVOAz inversion
Velocity versus azimuth
FractureMAP in gas shales

Zss/Zsf

2010 WesternGeco

Fracture prediction

Ant Tracking
AVOAz inversion
Velocity versus azimuth
FractureMAP in gas shales

Zss/Zsf

2010 WesternGeco

Fracture Characterization Seismic Solution

Acquisition

Processing

Data
Conditioning

Fracture
Attributes

Fracture
Properties

Ants
Acquisition
e.g. WAZ

2D/3D

Signal DP
and Imaging

Simulation

DFN, IFM,
Hybrid

Simulation /
History
Matching

Faults

Foot print
suppression,
noise
attenuation

FCM

Fracture
Area,
Length,
Density,
Aperture

e.g. Depth

Post-stack,
pre-stack
DP

Fracture
Model

VVAZ

AVOaz

Conditioning

Attributes

Borehole Images
Mud log, mud losses, etc
Sonic Scanner Data,

AVOA Tensors

FractureMap

Single well tests,

Interwell tests
Formation Tests
Production logs

Hay, Paddock

Fracture prediction
follow-on products
3D Mechanical Earth
Modeling
DFN
Prediction of closure
pressure
Prediction of open versus
closed fractures
Zss/Zsf

2010 WesternGeco

Porosity prediction

Pre- or post-stack inversion

Pre-stack in
Marcellus
Haynesville
Fayetteville

Post-stack in
Delaware Basin
Eagle Ford?

SEM images
Barnett

Argillaceous

Calcareous

Siliceous

Non Reservoir

Non Reservoir

Reservoir

Marcellus

Reservoir

Non Reservoir

Reservoir

Haynesville

Non Reservoir

Reservoir

no favorable depositional
facies for development of a
siliceous matrix

Porosity prediction
Interplay of rock facies, reservoir quality, and completion quality

Target

Low

High

Pore Pressure Prediction

Seismic velocity analysis

Reflector-by-reflector
Every trace
Stability
Vertical resolution

Surface-Consistent
Velocity Analysis
refined velocity picks

Surface-Consistent
Velocity Analysis
interval velocity

SCVA Vi
transformed to
pore pressure

Stress, Stiffness, and

Hardness Prediction
Stress prediction
Stiffness cubes from
pre-stack inversion
Curvature analysis
Calibrated using
SonicScanner

Stiffness
PR and YM
Hardness

Marcellus

What Works (So Far)

Fayetteville Shale

Bakken Formation

Haynesville Shale

Woodford Shale

Eagle Ford Shale

Avalon Shale

Delaware Sands

Wolfcamp Shale

Mancos Shale

Barnett Shale

Marcellus Shale

Marcellus

What Works (So Far)

Fayetteville Shale

Wolfcamp Shale

Haynesville Shale

Woodford Shale

Eagle Ford Shale

Avalon Shale

Mancos Shale

Niobrara

Delaware Sands

Barnett Shale

Marcellus Shale

Fayetteville Shale

Poissons or Vp/Vs ratio for predicting porosity

Actually predicts the lithofacies that houses the porosity

AntTracking for faults and major fracture swarms

3D Mechanical Earth Model for fractures

Pre-existing or induced? Or both?

Case Study:

Geocellular and geomechanical model taken to simulation

Dual porosity model
Productivity is correctly predicted for 75% of wells
History matched with as little as six months of production

Reservoir engineers report that this is not typical

Southwestern Energy hired away Devons AntTrack expert

Understanding and Predicting Fayetteville Shale Gas

Production Through Integrated Seismic-to-Simulation
Reservoir Characterization Workflow

SPE 147226
Hariharan Ramakrishnan, Eva Peza, Shekhar Sinha, Miriam Woods, Christopher Ikeocha,
Flemming Mengel, Yves Simon, Paul Pearce, Jeff Kiester, Steven McKetta and John
Jeffers

November 1, 2011

Production Forecast Results

Hyd. Fracture parameters

Fracture half-length 250 400 ft
Fracture conductivity 5 md-ft
Fracture complexity Small fracture
complexity around primary fracture
(Natural fracture swarms in FL2)
Well landed in FL2

Key Conclusions
Numerical reservoir simulation using a dual porosity model adequately describes
the production behavior of hydraulically fractured wells in the study area
Quality of data (log, seismic, core, completion etc.) more important than the
producing time for predictive reservoir model
Reservoir Quality is strongly influenced by effective gas filled porosity

Upper Fayetteville is not always covered by hydraulic fracturing

Integration of log-core-seismic data critical to understand the reservoir and to
predict production

Value Lateral Placement and Stimulation

Optimization
A

AA Distance ~ 5.7mi

Matrix
Porosity

Fracture
Permeability

Stress
Gradient

Total Organic Carbon (TOC)

Marcellus

What Works (So Far)

Fayetteville Shale

Bakken Formation

Haynesville Shale

Woodford Shale

Eagle Ford Shale

Avalon Shale

Delaware Sands

Wolfcamp Shale

Mancos Shale

Barnett Shale

Marcellus Shale

Bakken Formation

Reservoir quality important

Thickness and/or subcrop important

Open fractures thought to be important

Have differentiated good versus bad wells using pre-stack inversion

Have delineated geobodies in the Middle Bakken

Case Study:
Phase 1

Post stack inversion, AntTracking, and curvature

Phase 2

Azimuthal pre-stack inversion and fracture tensor analysis (patented)

Stochastic pre-stack inversion

Marcellus

What Works (So Far)

Fayetteville Shale

Wolfcamp Shale

Haynesville Shale

Woodford Shale

Eagle Ford Shale

Avalon Shale

Mancos Shale

Niobrara

Delaware Sands

Barnett Shale

Marcellus Shale

Haynesville Shale

Fractures very important in some areas

Examples where the only microseismic events are on small faults

Containment variations important in some areas

Pore pressure variations important in some areas

Small faults an annoyance

AntTracking for fault delineation

Case Study 1:
3-fold variability in water production
Moderately successful in explaining
Ants as fracture proxy

No data release

Case Study 2:
Seismic used to explain variations in containment, which is a primary driver

Marcellus

What Works (So Far)

Fayetteville Shale

Wolfcamp Shale

Haynesville Shale

Woodford Shale

Eagle Ford Shale

Avalon Shale

Mancos Shale

Niobrara

Delaware Sands

Barnett Shale

Marcellus Shale

Woodford Shale

FractureMAP has been effective

Case Study:
19-fold variability in well results

Vertical wells

Looking for economic well locations

FractureMAP explained variability

No data release

Marcellus

What Works (So Far)

Fayetteville Shale

Wolfcamp Shale

Haynesville Shale

Woodford Shale

Eagle Ford Shale

Avalon Shale

Mancos Shale

Niobrara

Delaware Sands

Barnett Shale

Marcellus Shale

Eagle Ford Shale

Fractures are key: AntTracking and azimuthal analysis

Formation thickness

Reservoir quality varies slowly.

Clients claim that acoustic impedance can map reservoir quality

Overlooked faults can bring H2S from below

Case Studies:
AntTracking only seismically
Geology / production analysis finds that fractures, thickness, and porosity are the
primary drivers. HiWay increases production by 30%.

AntTrack example just south of Eagle

Ford trend in Karnes, Goliad, and Dewitt
Counties

Marcellus

What Works (So Far)

Fayetteville Shale

Wolfcamp Shale

Haynesville Shale

Woodford Shale

Eagle Ford Shale

Avalon Shale

Mancos Shale

Niobrara

Delaware Sands

Barnett Shale

Marcellus Shale

Avalon Shale

A multiclient project underway

Acoustic impedance adequate for
reservoir quality
Would still want PR and YM for
completions (may be done)

A project underway associated with

consortium work but proprietary

Gather conditioning on legacy data

is a hurdle / enabler

Completion quality evaluation

Some clients say no need
Others want to identify a frac attribute

Oil and Gas Journal map

Marcellus

What Works (So Far)

Fayetteville Shale

Wolfcamp Shale

Haynesville Shale

Woodford Shale

Eagle Ford Shale

Avalon Shale

Mancos Shale

Niobrara

Delaware Sands

Barnett Shale

Marcellus Shale

Delaware Sands

Combined azimuthal pre-stack

inversion and AntTracking

Case Studies:
Azimuthal pre-stack inversion

Difficult to extract, despite being

modern conventional data

AntTracking
Combined analysis explanatory

Density inversion best for

identifying good versus bad
areas
Adequacy of AI was not
evaluated

Oil and Gas Journal map

Marcellus

What Works (So Far)

Fayetteville Shale

Wolfcamp Shale

Haynesville Shale

Woodford Shale

Eagle Ford Shale

Avalon Shale

Mancos Shale

Niobrara

Delaware Sands

Barnett Shale

Marcellus Shale

Wolfcamp Shale

Open fractures very important

FractureMAP and AVO Az

inversionidentify sweetspots

AVO Az inversion easily extracted from

single sensor data (anecdotal or
diagnostic?)

AntTrack: correlated with production

variations

Case Study:
30-fold variability in well results
Needed a way to predict results
Difficult seismic data area

Marcellus

What Works (So Far)

Fayetteville Shale

Wolfcamp Shale

Haynesville Shale

Woodford Shale

Eagle Ford Shale

Avalon Shale

Mancos Shale

Niobrara

Delaware Sands

Barnett Shale

Marcellus Shale

Mancos Shale

Drivers unknown

Case study
Core / log / seismic classification study underway

Marcellus

What Works (So Far)

Fayetteville Shale

Wolfcamp Shale

Haynesville Shale

Woodford Shale

Eagle Ford Shale

Avalon Shale

Mancos Shale

Niobrara

Delaware Sands

Barnett Shale

Marcellus Shale

Niobrara

Fractures are key

AntTracking
Azimuthal velocity analysis and
azimuthal pre-stack inversion

Adequate maturity / pore pressure is

required
Trace-by-trace, reflector-by-reflector
velocity analysis

Case study
None

Jarvie 2011

Marcellus

What Works (So Far)

Fayetteville Shale

Wolfcamp Shale

Haynesville Shale

Woodford Shale

Eagle Ford Shale

Avalon Shale

Mancos Shale

Niobrara

Delaware Sands

Barnett Shale

Marcellus Shale

Barnett Shale

Hazard avoidance important: AntTracking

Reservoir and completion quality: pre-stack inversion

Porosity prediction works best by predicting the lithofacies that holds it
Variations within townships
Stiffness stratigraphy and lower containment drive completion quality

Case Study:

Core analysis
Cluster classification of triple combo well logs: 20 facies identified and correlated
Seismic pre-stack inversion
Combined LithoCube / Markov Sequence Stratigraphic seismic classification

Five key facies identified

Not yet released

Marcellus

What Works (So Far)

Fayetteville Shale

Wolfcamp Shale

Haynesville Shale

Woodford Shale

Eagle Ford Shale

Avalon Shale

Mancos Shale

Niobrara

Delaware Sands

Barnett Shale

Marcellus Shale

Marcellus Shale
Previous projects

Reservoir quality impacts production more than does completion

quality by a factor of 3:1.

Youngs modulus: good wells versus bad, but not porosity

Soft is good

Compressional impedance: Vkerogen

Can successfully predict good versus bad acreage, but YM is better

Microseismic events most correlative with Poissons ratio if no faults

AntTrack features can steal frac fluid or be the prize

Case Study:

Client ready to abandon 25 square mile area after several wells

Breakeven or worse
Able to discern good versus bad acreage, confirmed by drilling.
Could have doubled their money if they had used SRC throughout program

Acreage Ranking in the Marcellus Shale:

Integrating LWD EcoScope and
SonicVision,
with 3D Seismic
Peter Kaufman1, Keith Atwood2, Gary Forrest1, Kirby Walker3,
Kevin Wutherich3, Babatunde Ajayi3, Denise Delozier3, Alex
Perakis1, Shannon Borchardt1, Ken Hauser1
(1Denver, 2Houston, 3Pittsburgh)

Production Statistics:
Production Rates

Production Metrics (up to 28)

Production Metrics

100%

90%

Normalized Production

80%
70%

60%
50%
40%

30%
20%
10%

0%

> 30% of best well

40-Year EUR
Cum Gas Produced (MCF)
Maximum Single Daily Rate (MCF)
30 Day Cum (MCF)
60 Day Cum (MCF)
90 Day Cum (MCF)
120 Day Cum (MCF)
MaxOfRunning 30Day Cum
MaxOfRunning 60Day Cum
MaxOfRunning 90Day Cum
MaxOfRunning 120Day Cum

< 30% of best well

Compilation of Potential Production Drivers

Completion Parameters

Well
Geometry

Drilling Parameters
Total Lateral Length (TMD)
Depth Change Landing to TD
Well TVDSS (Landing point)

Effective Porosity (PIGN)

Total Porosity (PIGT)
Water Saturation (SUWI)
TOC (WSM1)

Seismic Parameters

# Stages
Average Length per Stage
# Perforation Clusters per Stage
Cluster Length
Perforation shots per foot
100 Mesh M#
40/70 M#
30/50 M#
20/40 M#
Max PPA Achieved
# Prop per Ft Lat
Prop M# Category
Fluid Type
Avg Rate
Max Rate
Breakdown Pressure
Pre-job ISIP
Pre-FG
Post-frac ISIP
Post FG
Net Pressure
HHP
Gel
Total Slurry

Production Metrics
40-Year EUR
Cum Gas Produced (MCF)
Maximum Single Daily Rate (MCF)
30 Day Cum (MCF)
60 Day Cum (MCF)
90 Day Cum (MCF)
120 Day Cum (MCF)
MaxOfRunning 30Day Cum
MaxOfRunning 60Day Cum
MaxOfRunning 90Day Cum
MaxOfRunning 120Day Cum

Fraction in
Zone

%Sweet

%Sweet and Zone 1/2

%LM high GR
%UM

RHOZ

SIGMA

Aluminum (DWAL WALK2)

Calcium (DWCA WALK2)
Iron (DWFE WALK2)

Silicon (DWSI WALK2)

Sulfur (DWSU WALK2)

LM Neg Amplitude

Onondaga Amplitude
Seismic Ant Avg

Max Pos Curvature

Production Metrics

RT

NPHU

Marcellus Isochron

Cherry Valley Amplitude

Completion Parameters

Triple Combo

Upper Marcellus

Sweet Zone and Zone 1&2

Nuclear
Spectroscopy

Zone 1&2

Shear Slowness (DTSM)

Poisson's Ratio (PR)

Sweet Zone

LM High GR Zone

Compressional Slowness (DTCO)

Seismic Attributes

Zone 4

Sonic

Reservoir quality has the greatest impact on production

Correlation with several different log measurements
Correlation with several different seismic attributes
Areal variability in reservoir quality dominates operational
Petrel lateral placement zone)
decisions (completion,
Three times as much impact as completion variables
DECIDE!
Dominance of reservoir quality necessitates
normalization to quantify impact of operational practices
Total Lower Marcellus

Length in Zone

Petrophysics

Geologic Parameters

Production Impacted by Completion Practices

Data indicates that reservoir quality
has 3x impact of completion quality
Normalize by (effective porosity)2

Varying job sizes, lateral lengths, and

well placement impact simulated
reservoir volume
Normalize by ESV, determined from
hydraulic fracture modeling calibrated
with StimMap results

Better production correlates with:

Shorter stage lengths

Higher rates per cluster
Greater sand volume
Lower ISIP
Days shut in before production i.e.,
reservoir seasoning

Probability Green or Cyan Seismic Facies

Marcellus Treasure Map with Well Results
Worst

Best
Not yet completed

Marcellus Shale
Previous projects

Reservoir quality impacts production more than does completion

quality by a factor of 3:1.

Youngs modulus: good wells versus bad, but not porosity

Soft is good

Compressional impedance: Vkerogen

Can successfully predict good versus bad acreage, but YM is better

Microseismic events most correlative with Poissons ratio if no faults

AntTrack features can steal frac fluid or be the prize

Can drive finding costs down by 41% by leaving 68% of acreage fallow
60/40 rule: 60% of production from 40% of the acreage. 13% error rate.

Can drive finding costs down by 31% by leaving 50% of acreage fallow
75/50 rule: 75% of production on 50% of the acreage. 13% error rate.

Conclusions
Seismic reservoir characterization works

Productivity prediction on several seismic to simulation

projects
Production drivers vary from shale to shale
Fractures and pore pressure in the last year have been
found to be surprisingly important
Wells in seismic sweetspots typically have 95% higher EUR
Can make the difference between breakeven and doubling
your money in an acreage position

Thank You. Questions?

David Paddock
Scientific Advisor Seismic Reservoir Characterization
Schlumberger Seismic Reservoir Characterization

Help Us Help You!

Please give us your feedback

and suggestions
CLICK HERE
(A new browser window will open)