G. Leśniak1, R. Cicha-Szot1, M. Stadtmüller1, M. Mroczkowska-Szerszeń1, L. Dudek1, G. Tallec2, A. Butcher2, H. Lemmens2, P. Such1

1Oil and Gas Institute – National Research Institute, Krakow, Poland2Oil & Gas FEI Visualization Sciences Group, Merignac, France

POSIBILITIES OF QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF POLISH SHALE-GAS ROCKS PETROPHYSICAL AND GEOMECHANICAL

PARAMETERS BY LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS AND WELL LOGS INTERPRETATION

2014-56

1 10 100 1000 100000

5

10

15

20

7,4m

Por

e vo

lum

e [%

]

Pore size Diameter (nm)

3nm

0,36m

4,5nm

2,2nm

0,92m

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1 10 100 1000 100000

5

10

15

2,57nm

45nm7,2m

0,36m

Por

e vo

lum

e [%

]

Pore size Diameter (nm)

3nm

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5.3 nm3.8 nm

1 10 100 1000 100000,000

0,001

0,002

0,003

0,004

Por

e vo

lum

e [%

]

Pore size Diameter (nm)

3,1nm

45nm

0,36m

1,8m

7,24m

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

10 100 1000 10000 1000000

5

10

15

20

25

0,36m

Por

e vo

lum

e [%

]

Pore size Diameter (nm)

3,9nm

45nm

1,8m

Quartz

PlagliokazeFeldsparCalcite

Dolomite

AnkeritePiryte

ApatiteMarcesyte

Illite + Micas

Chlorite

TOC 0.66 % Total porosity 4.94 % Secondary porosity (TOC) 0.01 %

TOC 0.48 % Total porosity 6.49 % Secondary porosity (TOC) 0.13 %

TOC 4.56 % Total porosity 9.45 % Secondary porosity (TOC) 2.42 %

TOC 4.87 % Total porosity 7.80 % Secondary porosity (TOC) 2.79 %

MINERAL COMPOSITION

PETROPHYSICAL ANALYSIS

GEOCHEMICALANALYSIS

GEOMECHANICALANALYSIS

XRD, FTIR, ICP

SEMFIB-SEM

MINERAL MAPPING

MERCURY POROSIMETRYARGON POROSIMETRY

PERMEABILITY

TOC, HI

TRIAXIALCOMPRESSION

TESTVp, Vs

WELL LOGS,SEDIMENTOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND PETROGRAPHICAL

ANALYSIS (THIN SECTION)

SEPARATED ELECTROFACIES

ELECTROFACIES CHARACTERIZATION AND

CALIBRATION

XRMI data are highest achievable well log resolution and give possibility to correlate laboratory data. Result of this correlation should be used in upscaling procedure from laboratory analyses to the standard logs and further for seismic and structural models. Precise work flow planning is essential in order to omit artefacts. Moreover, statistical representations of analyzed samples, especially in micro scale, is crucial to obtain coherent results from different analysis. In order to predict geomechanical parameters in wells from which there is no core material, but geological formation was characterized before in another parametrical well, extrapolation of petrophysical and geomechanical data is possible but should be verified on cuttings or side-wall cores by instrumental analysis and microscopic methods.

During development of shale gas reservoir exploration there will be less and less parametric wells from which cores are available and extensive research program covering standard and special core analyses is performed. It is due to demand of oil and gas companies to reduce drilling time and cost and their joyful faith in geophysical well logs, despite the cost of well logging is generally more expensive than laboratory analyses. Moreover, the possibility of control well trajectory during drilling horizontal wells, based on new sets of logs, force to perform the same measurements in the vertical sections.Therefore, calibration of well logs, not only new ones but also classic ones from which we have data from 70’s and 80’s of 20th century, becomes very relevant. Finding the relationship between well logs and petrophysical, geomechanical and mineralogical parameters will improve interpretation of well logs.Probably in the coming years laboratory analyses will be performed only on side-wall cores or cuttings. Conducting analyses on cuttings might be problematic because of novel polymeric and oil based muds which are hard to remove from rocks and small percentage of rock samples from PDP drill bits which are suitable for analysis. That is why most of the analysis will have to be perform on side-wall cores from interesting formations like sweet spots and caprocks.To be ready for this challenge methodology of transferring analytical data, which gave comprehensive rock characteristic, to well logs parameters has to be developed in order to estimation geomechanical parametres of separated facies.

Based on well logs in parametric well geophysical facies (electrofacies) might be distinguished. Electrofacies can be described as a rock type sediment exhibiting similar set of well log responses. This classification does not require any artificial data subdivision of data population but follows naturally based on the unique data values reflecting minerals and lithofacies within the interval. Procedure of facies isolation is based on finding characteristic value ranges for microelectrical curve for analyzed interval. Calibration of electrofacies separation procedure was done based on quantitative laboratory analyses and its accuracy strongly depends on the available data statistic.

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th [m

]

E,K,G [GPa]

E K G

2000 3000 4000

Vp Vs

Vp, Vs [m/s]

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th [m

]

E,K,G [GPa]

E K G

2000 3000 4000

Vp Vs

Vp, Vs [m/s]

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th [m

]

E,K,G [GPa]

E K G

2000 3000 4000

Vp Vs

Vp, Vs [m/s]

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dep

th [m

]

E,K,G [GPa]

E K G

2400 3200 4000

Vp Vs

Vp, Vs [m/s]

BackgroundQuartzK-FeldsparAlbiteCalciteDolomiteMuscoviteBiotiteKaoliniteI lliteSmectiteChloritePyriteRutileApatiteZirconMonaziteGypsum/AnhydriteHalite/NaCl MudKCl MudOthers

Visualisation of the separated organics bodies

3D visualization of the organic

material

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Quartz Clays Carbonates

Dep

th [m

]

Mineral content [%]

1 10 100 1000 10000

0

5

10

15

20

7,4m

Incr

emen

tal P

ore

Vol

ume

(%)

Pore size Diameter (nm)

3nm0,36m

4,5nm

2,2nm

0,92m

1 10 100 1000 100000

5

10

15

20

Incr

emen

tal v

olum

e [%

]

Pore size diameter [nm]

incremental volume - isotherm adsorption incremental volume - mercury intrusion

0 3 6

3720

3700

3680

3660

3640

3620

3600

3580

3560

3540

3520

3500

3480

3460

3440

3420

Dep

th [m

]

TOC[%]

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 143000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

f1 logs f2 logs f3 logs f4 logs f5 logs f6 logs f7 logs f1 lab f2 lab f3 lab f4 lab f5 lab f6 lab f7 lab f1 lab HP f2 lab HP f3 lab HP f4 lab HP f5 lab HP f6 lab HP

Vp [m

/s]

Total porosity [%]

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

10000 1000 100 10 10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pore diameter [nm]

Po

re v

olu

me

[%

]

10000 1000 100 10 10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pore diameter [nm]

Por

e vo

lum

e [%

]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10000 1000 100 10 1

Pore diameter [nm]

Por

e vo

lum

e [%

]

10000 1000 100 10 10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pore diameter [nm]

Por

e vo

lum

e [%

]