Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure (MICP) A Useful Tool for Improved Understanding of Porosity and

Matrix Permeability Distributions in Shale Reservoirs*

By
Robert K. Olson
1
and Murray W. Grigg
1


Search and Discovery Article 40322 (2008)
Posted October 1, 2008

*Adapted from oral presentation at AAPG Annual Convention, San Antonio, TX, April 20-23, 2008

1
Kerogen Resources, Inc., Houston, TX. (bob.olson@kerogenresources.com)

Abstract

Those involved in the exploitation of shale gas reservoirs are acutely aware of the need for accurate porosity estimates. Most error
associated with calculation of the free gas component of OGIP (original gas in place) is attributable to its over- or under-estimate.
Throughout the shale gas industry, companies generally rely on porosity values derived from tight rock analysis of conventional and
sidewall cores. Those values are then used to calibrate porosity logs through shale reservoirs. The purpose of this paper is to
demonstrate the utility of another laboratory method - Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure analysis (MICP). This tool provides data
that are equally suitable for the calibration of porosity logs and has the added advantage that the analysis can be done on fresh or
archived cuttings samples as well as core. This allows for gathering of porosity data where none was previously available. MICP
analysis is performed by placing a tarred sample in the instrument chamber which is then evacuated and flooded with mercury.
Pressure on the mercury is incrementally increased forcing mercury through progressively smaller pore throats. By the end of the
experiment (at 60,000 psia) pores accessible through throats as small as 36 in diameter are intruded. The volume of mercury forced
into the sample is equivalent to the volume of porosity accessed. Comparison of porosities derived by this method are in very good
agreement with TRA porosities. A recent study on over 2400 samples representing twenty-five shales from thirteen basins shows that
shale porosity averages 3.90% and ranges from less than 1.00% to in excess of 10%. Lower Tertiary and Upper Cretaceous shales
from the Gulf Coast and several Cretaceous shales from western basins in the US and Canada consistently exhibit higher porosities
then Paleozoic shales.

Resources, Inc.
Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure
(MICP) (MICP)-
A useful tool for improved understanding of porosity and matrix
permeability distributions in shale reservoirs p y
Robert K Olson Robert K. Olson
Murray Grigg
Kerogen Resources, Inc.
Turning Resources Into Reserves
1
Talk Outline
Overview of gas shale evaluation.
Th l f it The role of porosity.
Laboratory methods for porosity.
Results- 614 MICP analyses in 19 potential shale
gas reservoirs.
Compare laboratory measured porosity with logs.
Calculated Swanson permeability from MICP. p y
Conclusions.
Critical Factors for Shale Gas Evaluation
O i i l G I Pl (OGIP) Original Gas In Place (OGIP)
Reservoir Rock Suitable for Hydraulic
Fracture Stimulation
Fracture Barriers
Original Gas In Place (OGIP)
Two components:
Free gas resides in the pore space and is Free gas resides in the pore space and is
controlled by T
r
, P
r
, , S
o
, S
w
and
maturity. y
Adsorbed gas is held on the surfaces of
the kerogen and is controlled by T
r
, P
r
,
r r
TOC and maturity.
Total OGIP is sum of these two
components.
Free Gas
Free Gas =
t
(1-S
w
) (Bg) k Eq. 1
where: Free Gas = bcf / section foot

t
= Total porosity (fraction)
S
w
= Water saturation (fraction)
Bg* = Gas formation volume factor (scf/cf)
k = Converts scf/cf to bcf/section foot (0.27878)
(Assumes sample is in the dry gas window) (Assumes sample is in the dry gas window)
Source for most error is the estimate of porosity.
Lab Methods for Porosity Determination
Density Method
Measures grain and bulk
Injection Method
Directly measures Measures grain and bulk
density values then
derives porosity (Eq. 2).
Directly measures
pore volume by
forcing Hg into pore
Requires core plug for
bulk density
Crushed core or cuttings
space.
Requires cuttings or
crushed core.
Crushed core or cuttings
for grain density.

Bulk

(
= 1 -
)
Eq. 2

Grain
MICP Analysis
Vacuum
MICP Analysis
Hg
Pressure
MICP Analysis
Pressure
Pore Volume
Mercury Porosimetry (MICP)
M l b f i i t Measures pore volume by forcing mercury into
the pore space.
Pressure controls the size of the intruded pore Pressure controls the size of the intruded pore
throat.
At 60 000 psia mercury is forced through pore At 60,000 psia mercury is forced through pore
throat diameters as small as 36 .
Methane molecular diameter is 2 16 Methane molecular diameter is 2.16 .
MICP Injection Curve
0.0015
0.0010
i
o
n

(
m
l
/
g
)

Sample Porosity = 3.32 %
n
t
a
l

I
n
t
r
u
s
0.0005
I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
0.0000
0 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Pore Throat Diameter (m)
Density Versus MICP Porosity
14.00
As Received Porosity in high maturity shales measures Gas Filled Porosity (BVG).
Reasonable agreement between Gas Filled Porosity and MICP Porosity suggesting
MICP is approximately equivalent to Gas Filled Porosity (BVG).
10.00
12.00
y

%
Gas Filled Porosity
Oil Filled Porosity
Water Filled Porosity
+
pp y q y ( )
y = 0 8953x + 0 5073
6.00
8.00
P

P
o
r
o
s
i
t
y
Gas Filled Porosity +
Total Porosity
y = 0.8953x + 0.5073
R
2
= 0.7109
4.00
M
I
C
P
0.00
2.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
As Received Porosity % [1 - (BD / GD)] x 100 Gas Filled Porosity (BVG)
Point Forward Assumption
MICP porosity measured on a sample from a
thermally mature shale (dry gas window) is
equivalent to gas filled porosity (BVG).
All Basins
Shale Porosity Distribution
40%
45%
40%
45%
30%
35%
C
o
u
n
t
30%
35%
40%
o
u
n
t
94% Barnett and 57% of all
shales analyzed have between 1
20%
25%
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

C
20%
25%
30%
a
l
i
z
e
d

C
o
shales analyzed have between 1
and 4% MICP porosity.
5%
10%
15%
N
o
r
m
Ft. Worth- Lower Barnett (n=77)
10%
15%
N
o
r
m
a
Ft. Worth- Lower Barnett (n=77)
All Shale Reservoirs (n=614)
0%
5%
<1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 >10
0%
5%
<1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 >10
% MICP Porosity (Gas Filled Porosity)
% MICP Porosity (Gas Filled Porosity)
Average MICP Porosity
5 00
6.00
s
i
t
y
)

.
Most formations analyzed have average MICP
4.00
5.00
F
i
l
l
e
d

P
o
r
o
s
porosity values >2.5%.
3.00
o
r
o
s
i
t
y

(
G
a
s

1 00
2.00
a
g
e

M
I
C
P

P
o
0.00
1.00
4 9 6 7 2 8 3 13 18 16 17 19 10 5 15 14 1 11 12
A
v
e
r
a
4 9 6 7 2 8 3 13 18 16 17 19 10 5 15 14 1 11 12
Formation/Basin Code
Average MICP Porosity
Average MICP for 19 shales 0.84% and 5.65%.
Range demonstrates significant variation in gas
storage capacity.
The Lower Barnett shale averages 2.59% MICP .
Demonstrates that shales with 2.0 to 3.0% MICP
can be successful shale gas reservoirs.
Shale Porosity Distribution By Age
0.30
0.35
54% 69%
54% of the Paleozoic shales have
<2% MICP
0.25
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
<2% MICP .
69% of the Upper Cretaceous
shales have > 3% MICP .
0.15
0.20
a
l
i
z
e
d

F
r
e
Paleozoic (n=347)
0.05
0.10
N
o
r
m
Paleozoic (n 347)
Mesozoic (n=267)
0.00
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 >10
MICP Porosity Range (%)
Common Wireline Porosity Tools
Sonic Sonic
Ne tron Neutron
Density
Sonic Porosity Contrasted With MICP
25 0
30.0
Equation used to
20.0
25.0
i
t
y
q
convert sonic transit
time to porosity over
estimates porosity
relative to MICP
15.0
o
n
i
c

P
o
r
o
srelative to MICP.
5.0
10.0
S
o
0.0
0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0
MICP Porosity
Neutron Porosity Contrasted With MICP
45.0
50.0
35.0
40.0
s
i
t
y
Neutron tool: conversion
of hydrogen
concentration to
20.0
25.0
30.0
u
t
r
o
n

P
o
r
o
s
concentration to
porosity equivalent over
estimates porosity
relative to MICP.
10.0
15.0
20.0
N
e
u
0.0
5.0
0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0
MICP Porosity
Density Porosity Contrasted With MICP
25.0
r
i
x
20.0
s
t
o
n
e

M
a
t
r
Conversion of bulk
density to porosity
significantly over
10 0
15.0
o
s
i
t
y

L
i
m
e
ssignificantly over
estimates porosity
relative to MICP.
5.0
10.0
e
n
s
i
t
y

P
o
r
o
0.0
0 0 3 0 6 0 9 0 12 0 15 0
D
e
0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0
MICP Porosity
Common Wireline Porosity Tools
Sonic Sonic
Ne tron Neutron
Density
Logs fail to accurately derive porosity because the general log equations do Logs fail to accurately derive porosity because the general log equations do
not account for the kerogen and heavy mineral content of organic rich shales.
Our challenge is to develop log equations that take these complex mixtures of
silt and clay size materials and arrives at a more reasonable estimate of silt and clay size materials and arrives at a more reasonable estimate of
porosity.
Resources, Inc.
Permeability
23
Permeability
Numerous models are in the literature that relate
permeability to MICP measurements.
Excellent review: Comisky, et al., 2007, SPE
110050.
We chose Swanson (1981) model to derive We chose Swanson (1981) model to derive
permeability estimates.
Swanson Permeability- All Reservoirs Relative to Barnett
0.7
0.8
While the absolute Swanson
permeability may be questionable-
0.5
0.6
n
d
a
n
c
e
permeability may be questionable
Comparison relative to the Barnett
should be reasonable.
0 3
0.4
a
l
i
z
e
d

A
b
u
n
0.2
0.3
N
o
r
m
a
Lower Barnett (n=42)
All Reservoirs (n=486)
0
0.1
<1x10-5 10-5 to 10-4 10-4 to 10-3 10-3 to 10-2 10-2 to 10-1 10-1 to 1 >1 mD <10
-5
10
-5
to 10
-4
10
-4
to 10
-3
10
-3
to 10
-2
10
-2
to 10
-1
10
-1
to 10
0
>10
0
Swanson Permeability (D)
Swanson Permeability (By Reservoir Age)
0 5
0.6
0.4
0.5
d
a
n
c
e

0.3
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

A
b
u
n
d
Paleozoic Reservoirs (n=265)
Upper Cretaceo s Reser oirs (n 221)
0 1
0.2
N
o
r
m
Upper Cretaceous Reservoirs (n=221)
0
0.1
<1x10-5 10-5 to 10-4 10-4 to 10-3 10-3 to 10-2 10-2 to 10-1 10-1 to 1 >1 mD <10
-5
10
-5
to 10
-4
10
-4
to 10
-3
10
-3
to 10
-2
10
-2
to 10
-1
10
-1
to 10
0
>10
0
Swanson Permeability (D)
Average Permeability
0.900
1.000
a
r
c
y
)

.
)
12/19 reservoirs have similar or better
permeability than the Lower Barnett.
0.700
0.800
i
t
y

(
m
i
c
r
o
D
a
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

(

D
)
p y
7/19 reservoirs may be permeability
challenged.
0.400
0.500
0.600
n

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
a
n
s
o
n

P
e
r
m
0.200
0.300
0.400
a
g
e

S
w
a
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

S
w
a
0.000
0.100
9 6 4 7 3 8 18 17 5 11 1 13 15 2 12 10 14 16 19
A
v
e
r
a
A
9 6 4 7 3 8 18 17 5 11 1 13 15 2 12 10 14 16 19
Basin/Formation Code
Conclusions
MICP provides estimate of gas filled porosity.
The average MICP for 19 shales are
between 0.84% and 5.65%.
That wide range demonstrates significant
variation in gas storage capacity.
The Barnett shale averages 2.59% MICP
which shows that shales with 2.0 to 3.0%
MICP can be successful shale gas
reservoirs.
Conclusions (Cont.) ( )
MICP advantage- can be done on cuttings.
Logs respond to kerogen and heavy minerals
which must be accounted for in equations q
used to convert log measures to porosity.
Swanson permeability estimates can be p y
normalized to Barnett for comparison
between prospective plays.
References

Comisky, J.T., K.E. Newsham, J.A. Rushing, and T.A. Blasingame, 2007, A comparative study of capillary-pressure-based empirical models for estimating
absolute permeability in tight gas sands, in Innovate a Golden Opportunity for People and Technology: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 11-14
November, Anaheim, California: CD-ROM, SPE 110050.

Swanson, B.F., 1981, Simple correlation between permeabilities and mercury capillary pressures: Journal of Petroleum Technology, v. 33/12, p. 2498-2504.