Rock Properties and Stress Profiling

in Unconventional Reservoirs
R. D. Barree
Barree & Associates LLC
Calibration of Rock Properties and Stress Profile
Determination in Unconventional Reservoirs
• What are “unconventional” reservoirs?
– Tight and ultra-tight gas sands (k<0.01 md)
– Gas-shale reservoirs (?)
– CBM reservoirs
• How do we get data for calibration?
– Sonic dipole and scanner logs
– Core data
• Dynamic acoustic measurements
• Static deformation moduli

© 2009
 Estimation of Minimum In-Situ
Stress Profile
ν
Pc = [Pob − α v Pp ] + α h Pp + ε x E + σ t
(1 − ν )
• Pc = closure pressure, psi • Pp = Pore Pressure
• ν = Poisson’s Ratio • εx = regional horizontal
• Pob = Overburden Pressure strain, microstrains
• αv = vertical Biot’s • E = Young’s Modulus,
poroelastic constant million psi
• αh = horizontal Biot’s • σt = regional horizontal
poroelastic constant tectonic stress
© 2009
 Computing Poisson’s Ratio from
Sonic Log Data

The Shear to Compressional Velocity Ratio is:

2
DTS
R= 2
DTC
Where DTC and DTS are the compressional and shear travel times in
microseconds per foot.

Are the velocities representative of rock properties or other variables?

Poisson’s Ratio (ν) is defined as:

ν=
( R − 2)
(2 R − 2)
© 2009
 Effect of Gas Saturation on Apparent
Dynamic Poisson’s Ratio (ν)
0.35
DTC = φDTFL + (1 − φ )DTMA
0.3
DTS = Constant
Apparent Poisson's Ratio

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Gas Saturation
© 2009
 Effect of Saturation and Stress
on DTC, DTS, and ν
120 0.5

0.45
110
0.4
DTC A

Apparent Poisson's Ratio

DTS A
DTC B 0.35
100
DTC, DTS (µs/ft)

DTS B
PR A 0.3
PR B

90 0.25

0.2
80
0.15

0.1
70
0.05

60 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Average Net Stress, psi
© 2009
 Generation of Synthetic DTC Curves
• Curves in GOHFER presented as microseconds per
foot transit time
• Linear scaling of source curves to generate DTC
– DTC_GR=Scale*GR+Offset (0.3GR+45)
– DTC_PHIN=Scale*PHIN+Offset (80PHIN+55)
– DTC_PHIA=DTFL*PHIA+DTMA*(1-PHIA)
• DTMA=53, DTFL=187 (defaults)
– DTC_RESIST=Scale/RESIST+Offset (120/ILD+60)
• DTS can be back-calculated from R (from PR
correlation) if necessary

© 2009
Crossplots of DTC from Conductivity,
Neutron and Average Porosity

© 2009
SPE 108139
Comparison of
Measured and
Synthetic DTC
Curves
90
DTC ILD = + 65
ILD
DTC NPHI = 90 NPHI + 54

© 2009
Log Can Show Gas (DTC Stretch)
But Not Flow Capacity

Gas Frac Stages

Gas
Gas

© 2009
 Obtaining Elastic Properties
Without Complete Sonic Data
• Correlations to compressional travel time
• Lithology-based models
• Generating synthetic sonic logs
– From neutron porosity
– From resistivity or conductivity
– From gamma-ray
• Porosity based models

© 2009
 Calculations of PR from Log Data
• PR_GR=Scale*GRExp
• PR_RESIST=P1*RESISTP2
• PR_DTC uses lithology based correlations and
volume fractions to obtain a weighted
average PR
• PR_PHIA=(R-2)/(2R-2)
– R = (-B+Sqrt(B2-4AC))/(2A)
• A=YME_PHIA * DTC_PHIA2
• B=-(A+13474*RHOB*3)
• C=13474*RHOB*4
© 2009
 Poisson’s Ratio from “Correct” DTC
0.6
Predicted from Lithology

0.5

0.4
PR

0.3

PR qtz
0.2 PR clay
PR dolo
PR lime
PR coal
0.1

0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
DTc, microsec/ft
© 2009
Dynamic to Static Correlation for ν
0.4
Low Axial Stress PR
Hgh Axial Stress PR y = 0.9575x
0.35 Linear (Low Axial Stress PR)
Linear (Hgh Axial Stress PR)

y = 0.9258x
0.3
Static Poisson's Ratio

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Dynamic Poisson's Ratio
© 2009
Comparison
of Poisson’s
Ratio from
Vp/Vs and
Correlations

© 2009
 Dynamic Young’s Modulus from
Sonic Data
If Poisson’s Ratio is determined by correlation

R=
(2 − 2ν )
(1 − 2ν )
Young’s Modulus (E) can be calculated directly,
With unites of million psi:

E = 13447 ρ b
(3R − 4 )
(DTC 2 R(R − 1))
At minimum, a bulk density log (ρb) and compressional
travel time are needed

© 2009
 Young’s Modulus Estimates
Based on Velocity and Density
6
E qtz
E clay
E dolo
E lime
5
E coal
Poly. (E dolo)
Poly. (E coal)
Poly. (E qtz)
4 Poly. (E lime)
E/Dens, million psi/g/cc

Poly. (E clay)
E/Dqtz = 1E-07x - 5E-05x3 + 0.0094x2 - 0.8073x + 27.682
4

E/Dclay = 1E-07x4 - 5E-05x3 + 0.0094x2 - 0.8063x + 27.296

4 3 2
3 E/Dlime = 4E-08x - 2E-05x + 0.004x - 0.3801x + 14.974

E/Ddolo = 8E-08x - 4E-05x + 0.0078x2 - 0.6599x + 22.588

4 3

E/Dcoal = 1E-06x3 - 0.0006x2 + 0.0691x - 1.8374

0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
DTc, microsec/ft
© 2009
Calculations of YME from Log Data

• YME_GR=Scale*GR+Offset
• YME_RESIST=Y1*RESISTY2
• YME_PHIA =62*10(-0.0145*DTC_PHIA)
• YME_DTC=13474*RHOB*(3R-4)/
(DTC2*R*(R-1))
–R =(2-2*PR_DTC)/(1-2*PR_DTC)
© 2009
 Estimation of Ed from DTC Alone
18

16
y = 54857x-2.1557
14 R2 = 0.9665

12
Ed, MMpsi

10

0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160

© 2009
DTC, microsec/ft
 Correlation of Dynamic to Static
Young’s Modulus
14.000
Eissa-Kazi Linear
Power-Law Model
12.000
Measured Static Young's Modulus, MMpsi

Modified E-K Log-Linear

10.000

8.000

6.000

4.000

2.000
Log ( Es ) = Log (ρEd ) − 0.55
0.000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Computed Static Young's Modulus, MMpsi © 2009
 Biot’s Poroelastic Constant

• Internal fluid pressure is not transmitted

perfectly to the rock matrix
• Correction factor applied
– Biot’s poroelastic constant (α)
• So net effective stress is:
– σn = Pob – αPp
– This is “intergranular” stress transmitted within
the solid framework

© 2009
 Biot’s Constant & Its
Effects on Stress
• Biot’s poroelastic constant (α) is the efficiency with
which internal pore pressure offsets the externally
applied vertical total stress
• as α declines, net (intergranular) stress increases and
pore pressure variations have less impact on net stress

σt σt

α= 1 σn α<1 σn

© 2009
 Possible Correlations for α
Biot’s Poroelastic Constant

cg Kb
α = 1− = 1−
cb Kf
Data from Detournay and Cheng (1993)

Effective Porosity, fraction © 2009

 Effect of Alpha Assumptions
on Stress Calculations
Rock Stress Fluid Press Tectonics

ν
Pc = [Pob − α v Pp ] + α h Pp + ε x E + σ t
(1 − ν )
To calculate Pc assumptions must obviously be
made about α – possibilities include:
• αv = αh = f(PHIE), constant strain offset
• αv = αh = f(PHIE), constant stress offset
• αv variable, αh=1, strain offset
• αv = αh=1, strain offset © 2009
 Stress Profiles Resulting from Different
Assumptions of Alpha
Closure Stress, psi

© 2009
Depth, feet
 Correlating log to core data:
Are cores reliable?
• Removal of overburden stress while coring:
– Core disking and fracturing
• Removal of confining stress during core recovery:
– Expulsion of trapped pore pressure
– Generation of microfractures
– Anelastic strain (differential expansion) of core
• Thermal contraction
• Dessication and oxidation
• Stress cycling and non-representative stress states
• Improper restoration of saturation
© 2009
 Modulus Depends on Conditions of
Differential Stress
Measurement

E4
E5

E2
E3

E1
Axial Strain © 2009
Homogeneity and Anisotropy:
What are we measuring?

© 2009
Types of Formation Anisotropy

© 2009
 Oriented Anisotropic Core Data:
What does it mean?
σz=σv σr≠σv
σz=σh

σr=σh B σr≠σH
σz≠σv
σr≠σH
σr≠σH

A Optimum angle
for shear along
horizontal
σr≠σh C
bedding © 2009
 Anisotropy Characterized by
Velocity-Frequency Response

Intrinsic Anisotropy

Stress-Induced Anisotropy

© 2009
Marcellus Outcrop and Core
Character

© 2009
Bitumen Filled Fractures in Shale

© 2009
 Clay Content in Shales
• Total GR is affected by more than clays
– Uranium from precipitated minerals and organics
– Potassium from feldspars
• May need spectral GR to differentiate sources
• Often using thorium only as an analog to clay
content is more reliable
• May need to consider a complex multi-mineral
analysis using a complete log suite
– Don’t try this at home – seek professional help

© 2009
 V-Shale (or V-Clay?) Estimates from
Gamma-Ray Index
1

0.9

(GR − GRsand )
0.8

GRI =
0.7
(GRshale − GRsand )
0.6 Clavier
Steiber_1
VSHALE

Steiber_2
0.5
Larinov_Paleo
Larinov_Tert
0.4 Linear

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
GRI © 2009
 Effect of Organics (Uranium) on DTC
and Estimated Vshale
Sonic Slowing due to Separation due to
Gas and TOC Effects Uranium in Organics

DTC from
Resistivity

DTC from
PHIN and GR

DTC Measured

Measured total GR
© 2009
and GR_SPEC
 Constructing Total GR from Spectral GR
Components
• Spectral GR gives three components of GR signal
– Uranium, (U) ppm
– Thorium, (Th) ppm
– Potassium, (K) % or v/v
• Theoretical calibration factors have been derived
• For practical use, the following conversions are
recommended:
– API=U(ppm) * 8.0
– API=Th(ppm) * 4.0
– API=K(%) * 14.0 or K(v/v) * 1400
• Total GR is the sum of the converted components
• In organic and feldspathic shale the Th signal correlates better
to clay content

© 2009
TOC% Related to Uranium Count Rate
(for Lewis Shale – La Gesse)

SPE 114963

© 2009
 Are All Shales the Same?
Brittle vs. Ductile Behavior

© 2009
Definition of Brittleness Based on
E (YMS_C) and ν (PR_C)

Ductile Rocks

YM_BRIT = ((YMS_C - 1)/(8- 1)) * 100

PR_BRIT = (( PR_C- 0.4)/ (0.15 - 0.4)) * 100
Brittle Rocks
BRIT = (YM_BRIT + PR_BRIT) / 2

© 2009
 Proposed Brittleness Indicators
• Mike Mullen (2008)
Brittleness = 0.071YME − 1.43 PR + 0.5

• Dan Jarvie (2007)

Quartz
Brittleness =
Quartz + Carbonate + Clay
• Fred Wang (2008)
Brittleness =
(1 + a( Ro − b) )Quartz
Quartz + Carbonate + Clay
© 2009
Proposed Fracture Stimulation
Choices Based on Brittleness

Mullen, SPE 115258 © 2009

Definition of Brittle-Ductile Failure

Quasi-plastic or strain-hardening Brittle failure or strain-softening

© 2009
 Ternary Diagram of the mineralogy of four Barnett
Shale Wells

Quartz
SPE 115258

Quartz Rich

Carbonate Clay
© 2009
Ternary Diagram of the mineralogy of all Shales in the
North America Database

Quartz
1: Brittle quartz rich
2: Brittle carbonate
3,4: Ductile, hard to frac

Carbonate Clay
© 2009
 Example of Stress Profile Results
Stress DTS/DTC Stress PR_RESIST

POIS and
PRRESIST PRACT

PRDTC
DTC
DTCRESIST

© 2009
 Pore Pressure Variations in Shale
• High TOC%, Ro, GRU, Rt, and low ρb:
– Hydrocarbon source in the gas generation window
– All the problems with sonic and GR log
interpretation
– Possible high pore pressure
• Gas may be trapped in low “matrix” perm (down to 10-15
darcy)
• Pore pressure builds to frac gradient
• Gas escapes through generated expulsion fractures
– Possible alteration of static mechanical properties
© 2009
Pore Pressure Calibration from
Multiple DFITs
TVD,m

© 2009
Closure Stress Calibration with
Variable Pore Pressure
TVD,m

Probable Horizontal
Fracture

© 2009
 Conclusions for Unconventional
Reservoir Profiling
• No log or core measurements adequately represent
the in-situ rock properties
• Core properties in the lab may be altered from field
conditions
• Conventional sonic log processing can give misleading
results
• Pore pressure variations can be localized and large
• Less “scientific” methods that honor reservoir
conditions may give better results
• In-situ stress cannot be calculated from core and log
properties and may be difficult to measure
• A “best possible” stress measurement is necessary for
any meaningful calibration
© 2009