1

Formation Evaluation of an Unconventional Shale Reservoir:

Application to the North Slope Alaska

A REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RESOURCE

ENGINEERING OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

By MINH TUAN TRAN

June 2014
 2

I certify that I have read this report and that in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in
quality, as partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of Science in Petroleum Engineering.

__________________________
Professor Tapan Mukerji
(Principal Advisor)
 3

I. Abstract:
Organic-rich shale (ORS) has become an increasingly important hydrocarbon resource
around the globe due to rapid depletion of conventional reservoirs. Successful exploration and
production schemes for ORS should base on reliable identification of major organic components
(kerogen in particular) and their hydrocarbon-generating potential. There is a growing need to
identify organic content in terms of quantity (Total Organic Carbon TOC) and quality (kerogen
type, thermal maturity) in promising shale formations through indirect seismic data, which is
usually the only available source of information in most exploration phases. The objective of this
study is to delineate different seismic lithofacies in North Slope Alaska (NSA) region in terms of
elastic/seismic and petrophysical properties based on core and logging data. A seismic lithofacies
is not necessarily a single rock or formation but rather a collection of geologically similar rocks
that span a comparable range of petrophysical and seismic properties (Avseth et al., 2005). A
seismic lithofacies shares characteristic sedimentologic and rock physics properties, thus serving
as a major force in controlling reservoir geometry and porosity distribution (Avseth et al., 2005).
In this study, background geology, standard triple combo logging suites, petrophysical and
geochemical analysis of core plugs are basic inputs to obtain facies definition, which is the very
first step of a more comprehensive statistical rock physics evaluation workflow. Key wells with
the most complete dataset in the area of interest are two vertical wells drilled by Great Bear
Petroleum LLC, Merak-1 and Alcor-1. Rock physics templates (RPTs) of seismic parameters
(Acoustic Impedance AI versus P-wave over S-wave ratio Vp/Vs) are constructed for each facies
to facilitate assessments of pore fluid distribution and lithology variation.
Another goal is to create useful correlations between source rock attributes (TOC,
Hydrogen Index HI) and petrophysical properties (bulk density/porosity, GR, sonic velocities) of
major NSA lithofacies. A petrophysical model proposed by Alfred and Vernik in 2012, which has
been successfully tested in Bakken shale, will be tested in the area of interest to take into account
kerogen porosity. These correlations, together with facies-specific RPTs, assist in mapping organic
richness and reservoir properties from seismic-derived attributes.
The third goal is to explore elastic anisotropy of NSA shale in both core plugs and logging
measurements. This provides a preliminary insight into possible sources of shale anisotropy in
NSA, thus enhancing the prospect of applying seismic anisotropy attributes (Amplitude-versus-
Offset data for example) to explore source rock potentials in NSA.
 4

II. Acknowledgement
First of all I would like to sincerely thank my advisor Prof. Tapan Mukerji for his support
and encouragement on this work and throughout my graduate study. Without him, this work would
not have been possible. I am looking forward to future opportunities cooperating with him in both
academic pursuit and professional work.
I would like to thank Great Bear Petroleum LLC for providing the financial support and
the comprehensive dataset of Merak-1 and Alcor-1. All the sponsors of Stanford Center for
Reservoir Forecasting (SCRF) and Basin and Petroleum System Modeling (BPSM) groups are
acknowledged.
I would like to thank Allegra Scheirer, Ken Peters, Les Magoon, and my classmates for
their valuable inputs and guidance. I would also like to thank all my friends for their support and
time to make my life at Stanford much more joyful.
Finally I would like to thank all my parents and sister; for their timely encouragement and
limitless care. Most importantly I would like to thank my dear wife Van Bui for her irreplaceable
companion and long distant love in the past 6 years.
 5

III. Contents
I. Abstract: ............................................................................................................................................ 3
II. Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................................ 4
III. Contents ............................................................................................................................................ 5

1. List of tables: ..................................................................................................................................... 6

2. List of figures: .................................................................................................................................... 6
IV. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 10
V. Geological setting............................................................................................................................ 13
VI. Dataset Description......................................................................................................................... 18
VII. Methodology................................................................................................................................... 21
VIII. Seismic Lithofacies Delineation: ..................................................................................................... 23

1. Logging Analysis: ............................................................................................................................. 23

2. Core data analysis ........................................................................................................................... 32
3. Rock physics template: ................................................................................................................... 37
IX. Application of existing petrophysical models ................................................................................. 44
X. Preliminary shale anisotropy characterization ............................................................................... 48
XI. Conclusion and Future Work .......................................................................................................... 51
XII. References ...................................................................................................................................... 52
XIII. Appendix ......................................................................................................................................... 55
 6

1. List of tables:
Table 1: Average source rock properties of major shale formations in NSA (Peters et al. 2006) .............. 17
Table 2: Merak-1 core plug set for ultrasonic measurement. WF=Weatherford. In current literature,
Shublik is subdivided into four smaller units (A, B, C and D) to emulate its complex, highly heterogeneous
nature.......................................................................................................................................................... 19
Table 3: Alcor-1 core plug set for ultrasonic measurement. Kingak is not available for coring in Alcor. Due
to pre-existing fracture, it is difficult to obtain horizontal and 45-degree plugs. ...................................... 20
Table 4: XRD analysis of Alcor-1 core plugs, covering HRZ and Shublik intervals. Illite is the main clay
component in both shale units. Minerals that are of significant amount are quartz, carbonate and illite.
.................................................................................................................................................................... 37
Table 5: Simplified composition for HRZ, Kingak and Shublik to use as inputs of soft sediment model. ... 38
Table 6: Elastic moduli of different minerals (Table 2.1, Avseth et al., 2005). NSA kerogen elastic
properties are extremely limited so typical values of kerogen modulus and density at similar maturity
level from other shale plays are taken (Vernik 1994). ................................................................................ 38
Table 7: Original plug porosity and kerogen-modified porosity based on Alfred and Vernik's model to
account for kerogen porosity...................................................................................................................... 46
2. List of figures:
Figure 1: Diagrams showing the proportion of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas
resources of Alaska by regions, including onshore and offshore (Bird, 2001). .......................................... 11
Figure 2: Generalized stratigraphic column for North Slope Alaska, emphasizing potential petroleum
source rocks, their relative ages and thickness across a cross-section. GRZ=high GR zone. The Lower
Cretaceous unconformity (LCU) lies right under Pebble shale unit (Bird 2001). ........................................ 13
Figure 3: Map showing major tectonic features of Northern Alaska. ANWR=Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge; NPRA=National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, PB=Prudhoe Bay (Bird, 2001). ................................. 14
Figure 4: Ternary diagram shows shale classification of Hue/HRZ and Shublik (blue triangles) based on
limited XRD analysis in Alcor-1 (Allix et al. 2010). Other notable shale plays are also presented in the
diagram. ...................................................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 5: Rock-Evaluation pyrolysis S2 peak (mg hydrocarbon/g TOC) versus TOC of 408 thermally
immature and early-mature samples shows that the quantity and quality of organic matter in the Shublik
Formation exceed the other three source rocks. Slopes of radiating lines equal Hydrogen Index
(100*S2/TOC) that distinguish organic matter types (Peters et al., 2006). ................................................ 17
Figure 6: Focus area is located between the NPRA and ANWR. The area of interest shows locations of
two vertical wells of interest: Alcor-1 and Merak-1. The blue dashed line indicates the area of available
3-D seismic data. Yellow blocks show Great Bear leases in NSA. Two wells Alcor-1 and Merak-1 are 1.5
miles apart and located along the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline (green dashed line). ........................................ 18
Figure 7: Diagram showing how three core plugs of different directions are taken out of core slab of
Merak-1 well at depth 10795’3”. Note that pyrite (brownish in the upper right corner) as well as
fractures on the surface of the slab are intentionally avoided. Bedding is clear at this depth so 3 core
plugs are taken. V=vertical/bedding-normal, H=horizontal/bedding-parallel, 45=45-degree-to-bedding.
.................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 8: Diagram showing quantitative seismic interpretation workflow with integration of geochemical
data. In this study, we focus on the parts of the workflow that related to the construction of a reliable
elastic and geochemical training dataset of each pre-defined lithofacies. ................................................ 22
 7

Figure 9: Diagram showing typical logging tracks used for qualitative delineation of NSA lithofacies.
From left to right for Alcor-1 well: GR (API unit), Compensated Bulk Density (gm/cc), P and S wave
velocity (m/s) and Vp/Vs. ........................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 10: Diagram showing picks for top and bottom depth of each shale of interest. Matlab is used to
color-code each facies and index their numerical values. From top to bottom: red (Hue), green (HRZ),
blue (Pebble), black (Kingak), pink (Shublik). This color code is used throughout this study. ................... 24
Figure 11: P and S wave velocities (m/s) versus bulk density (gm/cc) of different shale lithofacies in two
wells: Merak at the top and Alcor at the bottom. Graphs are of similar scale for comparison. ................ 25
Figure 12: P and S wave velocities (m/sec) versus GR (API unit) of different NSA shale lithofacies in two
wells: Merak-1 at the top and Alcor-1 at the bottom. Graphs are of similar scale for comparison. ......... 26
Figure 13: Crossplot of P-wave Velocity (m/sec) versus Density (gm/cc) in Merak-1, color-coded by GR
showing reasonable trends in Kingak, HRZ and Pebble shale. Hot color indicates higher GR while cold
color indicates lower GR. GR is a good indicator for Kingak shale trend since high GR and low GR points
stack nicely along the velocity-density trend. ............................................................................................ 27
Figure 14: Crossplot of S-wave Velocity versus Density in Merak-1, color-coded by GR showing
reasonable trend in Kingak and HRZ. GR is a good indicator for Kingak shale since Vs-density trend show
separate clusters for high GR and low GR points. ...................................................................................... 28
Figure 15: Vs versus Vp from dipole sonic log of two wells Merak and Alcor. Blue dashed lines represent
constant Vp/Vs ratio. Plots are of similar scale for comparison. ................................................................ 29
Figure 16: Relationship between compressional and shear velocity for bedding-normal (00) for Bakken,
Woodford and Bossier shale from dipole sonic logs. Dashed lines also indicate constant Vp/Vs ratio
(Vernik and Milovach, 2011). Reduced velocity ratio is observed in organic-rich shale compared to its
inorganic counterpart. ................................................................................................................................ 29
Figure 17: S2 peak (mg HC/g rock) versus TOC (wt %) of core plugs in Geomark dataset. Black lines
indicate different Level of Maturity LOM as defined by Passey et al. 1990. .............................................. 31
Figure 18: Cross-validation of TOC logs created by Passey method (blue lines) and geochemical core data
(pink dots) for different lithofacies in two wells. From left to right: Merak Hue, Merak Kingak, Merak
Shublik, Alcor Hue/HRZ, Alcor Shublik. ....................................................................................................... 31
Figure 19: Vp/Vs ratio (log-derived) versus Dry and Wet (As-received or AR) bulk density (gm/cc) of core
plugs in Alcor-1 well. Only Kingak shows slight velocity ratio increase as shale gets more compacted (bulk
density increases). ...................................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 20: Cross-validation of density values between core and log measurements. The diagonal 45-
degree slope line indicates consistency of HRZ and Shublik samples while Kingak samples need further
calibration. Shublik, Hue and HRZ show good consistency as most of the data points fall onto the
diagonal 45 degree line while Kingak shows greater value of core density compared to logging results. 33
Figure 21: P and S-wave velocities (m/sec) versus bulk density (gm/cc). Log value is denoted as circle, as-
received core as diamond and dry core as star. Saturation of as-received core does not change bulk
density much because NSA shale has low porosity. Kingak log values of density are lower than core
values possibly due to sampling bias of core plugs towards pyrite-free and unfractured intervals. ......... 33
Figure 22: Density (gm/cc) and P-wave velocity (m/sec) versus Tmax (degree C). Density shows its little
dependence on maturity due to its weak correlation within each lithofacies. .......................................... 34
Figure 23: P and S-wave velocity (feet/sec) versus HI. Each data cluster is well separated. The correlation
is weaker compared to velocity-density correlation. ................................................................................. 34
 8

Figure 24: P and S wave velocity (m/sec) versus TOC (weight percentage). No correlation is recognized
even though the clusters are relatively well separated.............................................................................. 35
Figure 25: P-wave velocity (Vp in feet/sec) versus HI of other shale plays. Vp is inversely proportional to
HI. Within a single formation, the correlation between Vp and HI is reasonable and the scatter is greatly
reduced (Prasad et al., 2002a). ................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 26: P and S wave velocity versus log-derived TOC values for Merak-1. TOC and acoustic velocities
show a strong directly proportional correlation in Shublik. ....................................................................... 36
Figure 27: P and S wave velocity versus log-derived TOC values for Alcor-1. TOC and acoustic velocities
show a strong directly proportional correlation in Shublik. ....................................................................... 36
Figure 28: Crossplot of AI versus Vp/Vs of Hue/HRZ, color-coded by GR show expected change of AI and
velocity ratio with regard to GR. As GR/clay content increases, both velocity ratio and AI tend to
decrease. The colorbar indicates GR magnitude. Cluster of points in the red circle (upper left corner) are
at the same interval that logging equipment switch happens and may need to be removed to align with
the trend. .................................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 29: A rock physics template (RPT) of Hue/HRZ presented as cross-plots of Vp/Vs versus AI includes
a rock physics model locally constrained by depth (i.e., pressure), mineralogy, critical porosity and fluid
properties. The template includes porosity trends for different fluid saturation (from fully water-
saturated Sw=1 to fully gas-saturated Sw=0) assuming uniform saturation. Color bar indicates the range
of bulk density. Input parameters are highlighted in the right. Blue arrows indicate various conceptual
geologic trend: (1) decreasing porosity (or increasing bulk density), (2) increasing shaliness, (3)
increasing gas saturation. ........................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 30: Crossplot of Vp/Vs versus AI of Pebble shale unit. Density is not a driving force behind this
trend............................................................................................................................................................ 41
Figure 31: A rock physics template (RPT) of Kingak presented as cross-plots of Vp/Vs versus AI. The
template includes porosity trends for different fluid saturation (from fully water-saturated Sw=1 to fully
gas-saturated Sw=0) assuming uniform saturation. Color bar indicates the range of bulk density. Input
parameters are highlighted in the right. Blue arrows indicate various conceptual geologic trend: (1)
decreasing porosity (or increasing bulk density), (2) increasing shaliness, (3) increasing gas saturation.
The trend of increasing shaliness is shown in Figure 52. ............................................................................ 41
Figure 32: A rock physics template (RPT) of Shublik presented as cross-plots of Vp/Vs versus AI. The
template includes porosity trends for different fluid saturation (from fully water-saturated Sw=1 to fully
gas-saturated Sw=0) assuming uniform saturation. Color bar indicates the range of bulk density. Input
parameters are highlighted in the right. Blue arrows indicate various conceptual geologic trend: (1)
decreasing porosity (or increasing bulk density), (3) increasing gas saturation. The trend of increasing
shaliness is not clear as shown in Figure 53. .............................................................................................. 42
Figure 33: A rock physics template (RPT) of NSA presented as cross-plots of Vp/Vs versus AI. Colorbar
indicates different magnitudes of bulk density. Shale porosity of soft sediment model (using average
values of composition of all NSA ORS lithofacies) is drawn for reference. ................................................ 43
Figure 34: A rock physics template (RPT) of NSA presented as cross-plots of Vp/Vs versus AI. Colorbar
indicates different magnitudes of GR. Shale porosity of soft sediment model (using average values of
composition of all NSA ORS lithofacies) is drawn for reference. ................................................................ 43
Figure 35: The combined domain of pore system. Organic domain contains solid organic matter
(kerogen), organic porosity (filled with hydrocarbon Swk). Non-kerogen domain contains solid inorganic
matter (host rock or matrix) and inorganic porosity (filled with water Swnk). k-kerogen, nk-non-kerogen
 9

matrix, fk-fluid in organic domain, nfk-fluid in non-organic domain, b-bulk property. Vk is the volume of
the organic domain (kerogen matrix and its porosity) and Vnk is the volume of the inorganic domain (host
rock matrix and its porosity) (Alfred and Vernik 2012). ............................................................................. 44
Figure 36: The combined domain system with allocations of volumes. K is volume fraction of kerogen in
the solid part of the domain (Alfred and Vernik 2012)............................................................................... 45
Figure 37: Correlation between kerogen density and thermal maturity through studying core data of
various shale plays (Alfred and Vernik 2012).............................................................................................. 46
Figure 38: Apply the modified porosity to account for pore spaces in kerogen, a much better correlation
between velocity and porosity is observed (R2=0.8). Prasad’s relationship obtained from other shale
plays is superimposed for comparison in the P-wave chart. Velocities in feet/sec, PHI in percentage. My
correlation formulas are given in the box................................................................................................... 47
Figure 39: Correlation between P-wave velocity (feet/sec) and Kerogen-modified porosity in other shale
plays. Velocity correlates very well with kerogen volumetric content if we assume that about 40% of the
kerogen acts as pore space to soften the rock. The correlation coefficient between velocity and modified
porosity is now significant (R2=0.7) and does not depend on formation (Prasad et al., 2009). ................. 47
Figure 40: Cross-dipole acoustic tool measure velocities of two different directions of shear wave
polarization. Percentage of difference is plotted in the right with values range from 5-10 percent
difference. ................................................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 41: Experiment set-up. The right picture shows the oscilloscope. The left picture shows the
transducer and the core holder. Molasses is used to improve the acoustic coupling between transducers
and core sample. ......................................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 42: P and S-wave velocities versus Angle to Bedding of Shublik core plugs at different depth and
orientations. 0 degree means parallel to the bedding. 90 degree means normal to the bedding. ........... 49
Figure 43: Map of northern Alaska showing exploratory drilling density, pipeline infrastructure, and land
ownership. North of the Brooks Range, federal ownership includes NPRA, ANWR and the offshore
beyond the state-federal three-mile boundary. Ownership of nonfederal lands is divided between the
state and Native American organizations. TAPS=Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (Ken Bird 2001) .............. 55
Figure 44: Formation tops of all rock units in Merak-1. True Vertical Depth TVD is used in log analysis as
it corresponds to the depth in my vertical type well. Rocks of interest are Hue, HRZ, Pebble, Kingak and
Shublik. True Vertical Depth TVD is comparable to logging depth since both wells are vertical. .............. 56
Figure 45: Formation tops of all rock units in Alcor-1. Rocks of interest are Hue, HRZ, Pebble, Kingak and
Shublik. True Vertical Depth TVD is comparable to logging depth since both wells are vertical. .............. 57
Figure 46: Diagram showing typical logging tracks used for qualitative delineation of NSA lithofacies.
From left to right for Alcor-1 well: GR (API unit), Compensated Bulk Density (gm/cc), P and S wave
velocity (m/s) and Vp/Vs. Diagram showing picks for top and bottom depth of each shale of interest.
Matlab is used to color-code each facies and index their numerical values. From top to bottom: red
(Hue), green (HRZ), blue (Pebble), black (Kingak), pink (Shublik). This color code is used throughout this
study............................................................................................................................................................ 58
Figure 47: Young’s modulus and Bulk Modulus versus Poisson Ratio in Merak-1. Each lithofacies clusters
show a distinctive trend between bulk modulus and Poisson ratio. Shublik separate itself from other
clusters. In this figure, color code is: red (Hue), green (HRZ), blue (Pebble), black (Kingak), pink (Shublik).
.................................................................................................................................................................... 58
 10

Figure 48: Young’s modulus and Bulk Modulus versus Poisson Ratio in Alcor-1. In this figure, color code
is: red (Hue), green (HRZ), blue (Pebble), black (Kingak), pink (Shublik). Several Hue shale data points
have Poisson Ratio value of 0.5, which need to be removed. .................................................................... 59
Figure 49: Well-to-well cross correlation based on TOC and GR logs (Ken Bird 2012). Two wells of interest
are 1.5 miles apart and have shown excellent correlation in terms of petrophysical properties and source
rock character. ............................................................................................................................................ 60
Figure 50: Organic mudstone classification (Gamero-Diaz et al. 2012)...................................................... 61
Figure 51: Crossplot of AI versus Vp/Vs of Kingak, color-coded by GR show expected change of AI and
velocity ratio with regard to GR. As GR increases, both velocity ratio and AI tend to decrease. The
colobar indicates GR magnitude. ................................................................................................................ 61
Figure 52: Crossplot of AI versus Vp/Vs of Pebble, color-coded by GR show expected change of AI and
velocity ratio with regard to GR. As GR increases, both velocity ratio and AI tend to decrease. The
colobar indicates GR magnitude. ................................................................................................................ 62
Figure 53: Crossplot of AI versus Vp/Vs of Shublik, color-coded by GR show expected change of AI and
velocity ratio with regard to GR. As GR increases, both velocity ratio and AI tend to decrease. The
colobar indicates GR magnitude. ................................................................................................................ 62

IV. Introduction
Alaska, one of the least explored regions in the United States, is estimated to contain
approximately 40% of total U.S. undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas
resources, the bulk of its resources coming from Northern Alaska with more than 30 billion barrels
of oil and nearly 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (Figure 1, Bird 2001). Shale oil is gaining
abundant attention because of increasingly depleted conventional reservoirs and more advanced
technology to develop this resource. Exploration is mostly at an immature stage except the region
near the coastline located between the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska (NPRA) and the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) known as Prudhoe Bay. Fewer wells have been drilled outside
of Prudhoe Bay region (Figure 43), thus only sparse information for proper formation evaluation
and lithofacies classification is available. Traditionally, formation evaluation and production
planning of shale formations pose challenging problems due to their complex lithology, rapid areal
 11

and vertical variation of petrophysical properties. A key issue for future exploration of the NSA is
the lateral variability of source rock away from known hydrocarbon accumulations (Keller et al.,
1999).

Figure 1: Diagrams showing the proportion of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas
resources of Alaska by regions, including onshore and offshore (Bird, 2001).

This study attempts to characterize petrophysical, geochemical and elastic properties of

major NSA shale lithofacies and build a reliable training dataset (P and S-wave velocities, bulk
density) for rock classification purposes. Previous rock classification techniques introduced in
organic shale formations are strongly dependent on a large number of core measurements to
reasonably capture shale heterogeneity, which are both time-consuming and expensive. Gupta et
al. (2012) conducted rock classification in the Woodford shale based on 300 core samples from
six different wells using measurements of TOC, porosity and clay/quartz concentration. Due to
sparse core information in my study area, well log is a viable candidate for rock classification as
it provides relatively high vertical sampling resolution, continuous interval properties and real-
time, more economical alternative. Cross-validation and proper calibration of log-derived
properties with limited core data are regularly performed throughout the study. Existing shale
petrophysical models, calibrated and constrained to NSA geology, yield various outputs which are
then verified by my training dataset to observe their applicability. In addition, integration of
available geochemical data (TOC, HI and Thermal Maturity R0) into the training dataset is
performed by building reliable connections between elastic properties and geochemical parameters
 12

of different shale lithofacies. The ultimate objective, which is outside the scope of this work, is to
facilitate the use of seismic signatures to evaluate source rock potential in newly explored shale
formations.
Several factors may contribute to the elastic anisotropic behavior of shale, which can be
classified as either intrinsic anisotropy or induced anisotropy. Intrinsic anisotropy is commonly
due to the inherent layering in the formations based on the distribution and orientation of clay
particles, kerogen matters and pore spaces in micro-scale (Tutuncu, 2010). Level of maturation of
kerogen in shale also plays a central role in overall mechanical and elastic properties as expulsion
of oil and gases introduces microcracks and fractures changing the texture of shale (Tutuncu 2010).
Shale also exhibits heterogeneous anisotropy: in high-porosity shale, porosity is a primary factor
controlling wave propagation speed whereas in low-porosity shale, bedding angle and hydrocarbon
maturity/quantity are principal forces. On the other hand, induced anisotropy is influenced by
anisotropic in-situ principal stress condition, which often results in differential closure of
microcracks in subsurface formations. Cracks that are aligned perpendicular to the major principal
stress have a higher tendency of being closed than cracks aligned in other directions (Tutuncu,
2010).
 13

V. Geological setting
Four major source rock units have been stratigraphically identified in NSA, named as Hue,
Pebble, Kingak and Shublik (Figure 2). The High Radioactive Zone (HRZ) at the bottom of Hue
shale will be later separated from the Hue shale because of its different petrophysical signature.
The most important and relevant geological features (Figure 3), depositional history and source
rock characters will be discussed here.

Figure 2: Generalized stratigraphic column for North Slope Alaska, emphasizing potential
petroleum source rocks, their relative ages and thickness across a cross-section. GRZ=high GR
zone. The Lower Cretaceous unconformity (LCU) lies right under Pebble shale unit (Bird 2001).
 14

Figure 3: Map showing major tectonic features of Northern Alaska. ANWR=Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge; NPRA=National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, PB=Prudhoe Bay (Bird, 2001).

The Triassic Shublik formation is relatively thin (less than 300 feet), regionally extensive
and lithologically heterogeneous consisting of limestone, sandstone, siltstone, phosphatic nodular
shale and calcareous shale (Parrish 1987). Shublik facies south of the Barrow Arch, part of the
Ellesmerian sequence, is of particular economic interest because it is the principal source of oil
and gas generation in the North Slope region, accounting for more than 90% of the recoverable
crude oil and 82% of the recoverable hydrocarbon gases (Bird, 2001). It is organically enriched
(TOC ranges from 0.5 to 13.1%), ranging from a strongly oil-prone Type I kerogen to a more gas-
prone Type III kerogen (Robinson et al. 1996). The lower part of Shublik Formation is part of a
transgressive systems tract dominated by laminated marls and shales deposited under suboxic to
anoxic conditions (Peters et al. 2006). This organic-rich facies of the Shublik Formation was
deposited as black limestone, marl and mudstone on a subsiding marine shelf characterized by
upwelling and anoxic conditions (Parrish, 1987; Parrish et al., 2001). The upper, regressive
Shublik contains bioturbated shale having mainly gas-prone or inert organic matter caused by
bioturbation and more oxic conditions during diagenesis (Robinson et al, 1996).
 15

The Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous Kingak shale comprises the bulk of the Beaufortian
sequence that was deposited during rift opening of the Arctic Ocean basin (Hubbard et al., 1990).
Kingak shale on the southern passive rift flank is a mud-dominated succession of prograding shelf
deposits characterized by multiple transgressive-regressive sequence sets (Houseknecht and Bird,
2004). Kingak shale contains a mixture of marine and terrigenous organic matter deposited in a
marine siliciclastic setting (Peters et al., 2006). The lower part of Kingak is typically the most
organic-rich interval with the average TOC of more than 5%.
Uplift and erosion of the rift margin produced the regional Lower Cretaceous
Unconformity (LCU). This unconformity progressively truncates all older units northward onto
the Barrow Arch. It plays an important role in many of the largest oil fields in northern Alaska:
development of enhanced porosity in sub-unconformity reservoirs, provision of a migration
pathway for hydrocarbon, juxtaposition of over-lying marine mudstone source and seal rocks, such
as Pebble shale unit and HRZ of the Hue Shale (Bird 2001).
The Pebble shale was deposited during a south-to-north marine transgression in response
to subsidence of the rift margin (Wang et al. 2014). It is characterized by a small but distinctive
proportion of pebbles and well-rounded frosted sand grains scattered through the shale (Collins,
1961; Molenaar et al., 1987). Pebble shale differs in its organic characteristics: being oil-prone in
some areas and gas-prone in others. Despite its relatively high TOC range (1.5-3.8 wt. %),
petroleum-generative potential of the Pebble shale unit varies because of differences in primary
productivity, clastic dilution, and preservation (Keller and Macquaker, 2001; Keller et al., 2002).
The Hue shale is the distal-deltaic condensed section of the Brookian sequence and was
deposited in a deep water basin plain environment (Peters et al., 2006). Its thickness ranges from
less than 50 feet thick in the west (western NPRA) to more than 600 feet thick in the east (ANWR),
showing a reflection of the west-to-east pro-gradational filling of the Colville basin (Wang et al.
2014). The upper part of the Hue shale is thicker but has considerably less generative potential
(lower TOC and HI) than the lower part because of more proximal deposition and greater clastic
dilution. The lowermost part of the Hue shale is easily marked on well logs by a characteristic high
Gamma Ray (GR) signature, widely known as gamma-ray zone (GRZ) or highly radioactive zone
(HRZ). This organic rich interval has a range of TOC from 1.9 to 3.9 wt. % (Keller et al., 1999).
In the ternary diagram commonly used for shale classification, shale can be divided into
argillaceous shale (rich in clay minerals), calcareous shale (rich in calcite) and siliceous shale (rich
 16

in biogenic and detrital quartz/feldspar). Based on limited XRD analysis and geological
background, Hue is classified as siliceous mudstone while Shublik is classified as siliceous
marlstone. Other shale classification schemes based on bulk mineralogy are also included for
reference (Appendix Figure 50).

SHUBLIK

HUE/HRZ

Figure 4: Ternary diagram shows shale classification of Hue/HRZ and Shublik (blue triangles)
based on limited XRD analysis in Alcor-1 (Allix et al. 2010). Other notable shale plays are also
presented in the diagram.

Peters et al. use well logs of more than 60 wells in NSA and Rock-Evaluation pyrolysis
analyses to map the present-day thickness of each source rock and the quantity (TOC), quality
(HI), and thermal maturity (Ro, Tmax) of the organic matter (2006). Plots of S2 peak versus TOC
are useful to compare the petroleum-generative potential of different source rocks (Langford and
Blanc-Vallenron, 1990). Slopes of lines radiating from the origin are directly related to HI
(100*S2/TOC, mg HC/g TOC). HI values of greater than 600, 300-600, 200-300, 50-200 and less
 17

than 50 mg HC/ g TOC distinguish organic matter type I (very oil prone), II (oil prone), II/III (oil
and gas prone), III (gas prone), and IV (inert), respectively (Peters et al., 2006). Type I to type IV
denotes decreasing source rock potential and value.

Figure 5: Rock-Evaluation pyrolysis S2 peak (mg hydrocarbon/g TOC) versus TOC of 408
thermally immature and early-mature samples shows that the quantity and quality of organic matter
in the Shublik Formation exceed the other three source rocks. Slopes of radiating lines equal
Hydrogen Index (100*S2/TOC) that distinguish organic matter types (Peters et al., 2006).

Based on Figure 5, the quantity (TOC and S2 peak) and quality (HI) of organic matter in
the Shublik shale (oil-prone type I or II) commonly exceed those of the other three source rocks,
which usually fall into oil and gas prone type II/III. Peters et al. 2006 have performed mass balance
calculations to determine the extent of fractional conversion of kerogen to petroleum (f) and the
original TOC (TOCo) of source rocks prior to thermal maturation, which controls directly the
ultimate yield of petroleum in the area. Table 1 provides a summary of their results. Values given
are typical average, but not by any means comprehensive in the whole area of interest:
Formation TOCo (wt %) HIo (mg HC/g TOC) Kerogen type Thickness (feet)
Shublik 2% to >4% 250-400 Type I/II 150-300
Kingak 5% 400 Type II/III 1400
Pebble 2-4% 100-250 Type IV 50-200
Hue <2% to 4-5% 200-300 Type II/III 300-500
Table 1: Average source rock properties of major shale formations in NSA (Peters et al. 2006)
 18

VI. Dataset Description

Data is provided by Great Bear Petroleum LLC. There are two comprehensive log suites
including GR tool (Spectral GR is also available), Density, Neutron, Resistivity (with different
radius of investigation) and Sonic logs of two vertical wells, Alcor-1 and Merak-1, located along
the Trans-Alaskan pipeline system in Great Bear leases (Figure 6). The sonic log includes transit
time (or slowness) of both compressional P and shear S waves (both directions of polarization of
shear wave SH and SV are also available). Two wells of interest are 1.5 miles apart and have
shown excellent correlation in terms of petrophysical properties and source rock character. Well-
to-well correlation based on GR and TOC logs is completed by Ken Bird (Appendix Figure 49).
Formation tops of each lithofacies of interest are given in Great Bear completion reports based on
mud logs and bit cutting lithology (Appendix Figure 44 and Figure 45). Core petrography are also
available in normal and ultraviolet light. Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP) and 3-D seismic are also
available for future study. Available core analysis from Corelab includes: porosity, helium
permeability, oil/gas saturation, X-ray Diffraction (XRD), computed tomography scans (CT
scans).

Figure 6: Focus area is located between the NPRA and ANWR. The area of interest shows locations
of two vertical wells of interest: Alcor-1 and Merak-1. The blue dashed line indicates the area of
available 3-D seismic data. Yellow blocks show Great Bear leases in NSA. Two wells Alcor-1 and
Merak-1 are 1.5 miles apart and located along the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline (green dashed line).
 19

In addition, Geomark and Weatherford labs conduct geochemical tests on selected core and
cuttings subsets. Cutting measurements are not included in this study due to uncertainty in depth
determination and possible mud contamination. Geochemical core data includes depth of core
samples, Leco TOC, S1 peak (free oil/gas without thermal cracking), S2 peak (hydrocarbon during
second programmed heating stage), S3 peak (CO2 during thermal cracking of kerogen), Tmax
(temperature of maximum pyrolytic degradation), Ro (vitrinite reflectance or thermal maturity
indicator), HI, Oxygen Index (OI) and Productivity Index (PI) (McCarthy et al., 2011).
I also took my own set of core plugs (Table 2 and Table 3) to measure porosity and elastic
properties (P and S wave velocities) using ultrasonic measurement devices in Stanford Rock
Physics Lab. Depths are carefully chosen to be representative of each lithofacies (picked at
homogenous and unfractured sections) and cover a wide range of porosity, TOC and lithology
based on logging signature. Visible fractures and undesirable lithology (pyrite, bioturbation) are
intentionally avoided to ensure consistency with theoretical explanations. At each depth, if bedding
direction is clear, core plugs of three different directions (bedding-normal or vertical, bedding-
parallel or horizontal, 45-degree-to-bedding) are taken, assuming that their depths are sufficiently
close to represent similar lithology and texture (Figure 7). In Alcor-1, it is more difficult to obtain
whole cylinder plugs in all directions due to pre-existing fracture propagation so 45-degree-to-
bedding and horizontal plugs are sometimes not available.

Table 2: Merak-1 core plug set for ultrasonic measurement. WF=Weatherford. In current
literature, Shublik is subdivided into four smaller units (A, B, C and D) to emulate its complex,
highly heterogeneous nature.
 20

Table 3: Alcor-1 core plug set for ultrasonic measurement. Kingak is not available for coring in
Alcor. Due to pre-existing fracture, it is difficult to obtain horizontal and 45-degree plugs.

Figure 7: Diagram showing how three core plugs of different directions are taken out of core slab
of Merak-1 well at depth 10795’3”. Note that pyrite (brownish in the upper right corner) as well as
fractures on the surface of the slab are intentionally avoided. Bedding is clear at this depth so 3
core plugs are taken. V=vertical/bedding-normal, H=horizontal/bedding-parallel, 45=45-degree-
to-bedding.
 21

VII. Methodology
Quantitative seismic interpretation (QSI, Figure 8) demonstrates how rock physics can be
applied to predict reservoir parameters, such as lithology, pore fluid and source rock character
from seismically derived attributes (Avseth et al., 2005). Based on available logs, cores and
geology, we can identify major seismic lithofacies by observing cluster separation in exploratory
crossplots of different properties. Rock physics helps convert geologic and wireline logging
information into elastic properties (P and S-wave velocities and bulk density). An additional
dimension of the desired elastic dataset, geochemical parameters, is integrated into the workflow
by establishing useful correlations between elastic and source rock properties. Outside of this
study’s scope, the training dataset can be expanded to cover “what-if” situations (varying physical
conditions not encountered in key wells) by correlated Monte Carlo simulation and fluid
substitution recipe. After performing proper scale calibration of inverted seismic data in the area
of interest, we can use this dataset to classify lithology and source rock character to detect best
producing intervals and areas. A full quantitative seismic interpretation is not part of this work. In
this study, we focus on the parts of the workflow that related to the construction of a reliable elastic
and geochemical training dataset of each pre-defined lithofacies.
I extracted well log data (density, GR, resistivity and sonic wave velocities) for exploratory
crossplots and quantitative assessment. Each lithofacies has a corresponding depth interval
(formation tops and bases) in the completion report. Based on these depth markers, we can
delineate and build a log-based training data of each facies. Preliminary quality checks are
performed to remove anomalous log readings due to equipment errors. Calibration of logging data
based on available core data is also performed (see example in Figure 20). Neutron log cannot be
used in radioactive shale intervals as cross-validation shows erroneously higher values of neutron
porosity compared to core values. A challenge of this study is the lack of petrophysical and
geochemical data in a same core plug subset because two different labs conducting their
experiments at different times. Therefore, I have to use existing correlations in the literature to
expand the available dataset. The use of crossplot between relevant log-derived properties to
separate lithofacies proves to be a fast, simple and field-applicable process. Intrinsic variability of
rock properties within a single lithofacies presents the biggest challenge of QSI: when does an
observed attribute change indicate a significant change across facies rather than a minor fluctuation
within a facies? (Avseth et al., 2005).
 22

Figure 8: Diagram showing quantitative seismic interpretation workflow with integration of

geochemical data. In this study, we focus on the parts of the workflow that related to the
construction of a reliable elastic and geochemical training dataset of each pre-defined lithofacies.
 23

VIII. Seismic Lithofacies Delineation:

1. Logging Analysis:
Popular logging tracks are plotted to verify several key signatures of each lithofacies
(Figure 9). Density of Hue/HRZ is relatively constant throughout the interval. However, HRZ has
significantly higher GR and lower sonic velocities than its overlying Hue Shale because of smaller
clastic dilution (more clay content) and less proximal deposition. A spike at 8700 feet in the density
log of Merak well is due to equipment switch after setting 9-5/8” casing. Hue and HRZ will
therefore be separated into two separate lithofacies (Figure 10). Pebble shale has a wide range of
density due to its varying inclusion of pebble and well-rounded sand grain in its fine-grained
matrix. In terms of radioactivity level and acoustic properties, Kingak shale is a relatively
homogeneous interval. Nevertheless, Kingak’s density varies considerably due to its depositional
history: a mud-dominated succession of prograding shelf deposits characterized by multiple
transgressive-regressive sequences (Wang et al., 2014). Shublik formation has abrupt high-GR
bands interbedded in between lower-GR intervals. Spikes in both GR and density track indicate
different amounts of clay and carbonate presence, respectively, throughout Shublik interval. It also
has much higher velocities of both P and S waves compared to other facies since its matrix has
greater amount of carbonate. Alcor-1 well logs show similar features and is included in the
Appendix for reference (Figure 46).
 24

Figure 9: Diagram showing typical logging tracks used for qualitative delineation of NSA
lithofacies. From left to right for Alcor-1 well: GR (API unit), Compensated Bulk Density (gm/cc),
P and S wave velocity (m/s) and Vp/Vs.

Figure 10: Diagram showing picks for top and bottom depth of each shale of interest. Matlab is
used to color-code each facies and index their numerical values. From top to bottom: red (Hue),
green (HRZ), blue (Pebble), black (Kingak), pink (Shublik). This color code is used throughout
this study.
 25

Crossplots of P and S-wave velocities versus bulk density show some separation between
different shale units (Figure 11). Shublik cluster shows slightly higher density and significantly
higher velocities than the other lithofacies. Hue cluster does have minor separation thanks to higher
P and S wave velocities and a more limited range of density. HRZ cluster forms the low-velocity
end of Hue cluster and possesses a wider range of bulk density. Pebble and Kingak shale are
difficult to distinguish from each other due to a significant overlap of these two clusters. While
Hue and HRZ display considerable fluctuation of acoustic velocity magnitude within a small range
of density, Pebble and Kingak’s shear velocities show relative independence of bulk density,
especially in Merak-1 well. Despite small distance between Merak and Alcor wells, well-to-well
lateral variability is fully demonstrated as Pebble and Kingak’s data cluster in Alcor-1 lack low-
density members. Organic matter has much lighter density (around 1.2 gm/cc) compared to other
major lithology in the matrix (clay, quartz and calcite). Due to low porosity observed in core plugs
of all lithofacies, bulk density differences are primarily controlled by organic matter or TOC
content. Therefore, the span of density range may imply the variation of organic content within
each facies and across lateral distance between two wells. Another factor that may affect bulk
density reading is trace amounts of pyrite (heavy mineral with density of 5 gm/cc) in the matrix.

Figure 11: P and S wave velocities (m/s) versus bulk density (gm/cc) of different shale lithofacies
in two wells: Merak at the top and Alcor at the bottom. Graphs are of similar scale for comparison.
 26

Crossplots of velocity and GR demonstrate a different trend (Figure 12). Despite repeated
overlap of Kingak and Pebble units, velocity-GR crossplots do show a better separation of other
clusters. Due to high carbonate content (resulting in higher velocities), Shublik cluster stands out
in high-velocity region. Varying concentration of clay mineral illite, which is related to potassium
(one of three components contributing to GR reading), explains why Shublik covers such a wide
range of GR values. Non-constant clay mineral composition indicates that there were major
changes with respect to detrital input during the deposition history of Shublik shale.

Figure 12: P and S wave velocities (m/sec) versus GR (API unit) of different NSA shale lithofacies
in two wells: Merak-1 at the top and Alcor-1 at the bottom. Graphs are of similar scale for
comparison.

The traditional GR measures total radioactivity as the sum of three radioactive elements:
thorium, potassium and uranium. Uranium (in ppm unit) has been usually found to have stronger
correlation with TOC compared to total GR (Mann et al., 1985). Therefore, another approach is to
use spectral GR, which provides relative contributions of each component to total GR. An anoxic
depositional environment (the lower part of Shublik for example) could provide a more ideal
setting for the fixation and preservation of uranium on organic matter. Post-depositional processes
are also responsible for uranium content. In carbonate-rich sediment (like Shublik), a partial
 27

exchange of carbonate and organic carbon, which is the uptake of carbon from the oxidation of
organic matter during early diagenetic cementation may have taken place (Mann et al., 1985).
Merak-1’s spectral GR log does not fully cover all the sections of interest. In a limited interval of
Hue shale that has spectral GR, uranium content associated with organic matter is the principal
cause of higher GR intensity compared to overlying inorganic layers.
GR is usually an indicator of clay content since clay minerals emit larger amount of gamma
radiation than other rock-forming minerals such as quartz and carbonate. Considering all
lithofacies in Merak-1, GR does not have a strong influence on velocity-density relationship
because data points of different clay content are not clearly separated (bottom right Figure 13 and
Figure 14). Within a single lithofacies, only in Kingak shale is GR a significant driving force in
velocity-density trend. In Kingak, velocity-bulk density trend is clear: as density increases,
velocity also increases. In addition, clusters of high GR data points separate clearly from clusters
of lower GR data points. As GR increases, P-wave velocity and density decrease accordingly.

Figure 13: Crossplot of P-wave Velocity (m/sec) versus Density (gm/cc) in Merak-1, color-coded
by GR showing reasonable trends in Kingak, HRZ and Pebble shale. Hot color indicates higher GR
while cold color indicates lower GR. GR is a good indicator for Kingak shale trend since high GR
and low GR points stack nicely along the velocity-density trend.
 28

Figure 14: Crossplot of S-wave Velocity versus Density in Merak-1, color-coded by GR showing
reasonable trend in Kingak and HRZ. GR is a good indicator for Kingak shale since Vs-density
trend show separate clusters for high GR and low GR points.

Another useful crossplot is Vp versus Vs (Figure 15). Shublik and Hue are readily
separated from other clusters. Pebble, Kingak and HRZ clusters are well overlapped. Dashed blue
lines represent lines of constant Vp/Vs ratio, which have been suggested by Vernik and Milovac
to be a good indicator of organic-rich shale (2011). Several published datasets compiled by Vernik
and in-house core and log data from Bossier, Woodford and Bakken shale plays fall within a
relatively narrow Vp/Vs range regardless of wide range of saturation, porosity, or effective stress.
These parameters seem to be secondary in controlling the reduced velocity ratio typical of organic
shales as compared to their inorganic counterpart (Vernik and Milovac, 2011). In NSA, the spread
of velocity ratio spans between values of 1.6 and 2.4, significantly wider compared to other shale
plays (Figure 16). The organic-richer Shublik has the narrowest spread and lower average value
of Vp/Vs ratio compared to other lithofacies, which supports the inverse correlation suggested by
Yan et al. 2012 between TOC content and Vp/Vs ratio.
 29

Figure 15: Vs versus Vp from dipole sonic log of two wells Merak and Alcor. Blue dashed lines
represent constant Vp/Vs ratio. Plots are of similar scale for comparison.

Figure 16: Relationship between compressional and shear velocity for bedding-normal (00) for
Bakken, Woodford and Bossier shale from dipole sonic logs. Dashed lines also indicate constant
Vp/Vs ratio (Vernik and Milovach, 2011). Reduced velocity ratio is observed in organic-rich shale
compared to its inorganic counterpart.
 30

Computation of TOC from available logs, in this case resistivity log, is necessary to
supplement the limited geochemical data. In addition to low resolution, resistivity measurements
in logging devices are strongly maturity dependent. Oil generation results in an increase in
resistivity while expelled gas (products of oil cracking at higher maturity) decreases resistivity
(Mann et al., 1985). Low resistivity therefore can indicate both immature and over-mature oil
source rocks as well as gas-only source rock. Hence, resistivity alone is not sufficient for TOC
calculation. A widely popular method to calculate TOC from logs in the industry is Passey method
(or Delta Log R technique). The method involves overlaying of a properly scaled porosity log (or
transit time log) on a resistivity curve (ideally from a deep reading tool). The separation between
two tracks results from two effects: the transit time curve responds to the presence of low-density,
low-velocity kerogen and the resistivity curve responds to the formation fluid in pore spaces
(Passey et al., 1990). Generation and expulsion of hydrocarbon from source rock contribute to the
increasing resistivity in organic-rich intervals because of the replacement of electrically conductive
pore water with non-conductive hydrocarbon. In this study, superposition of a deep resistivity and
a sonic transit time logs on a pre-defined scale (50 µsec/feet to one resistivity cycle in log scale)
shows good separation in source rock intervals (Hue, Shublik, Kingak) and decent overlap in
inorganic intervals. I pick the Miluveach sandstone (a non-source inorganic rock) to be the baseline
interval as the two curves run parallel and well overlap in this interval. Miluveach’s values of
baseline resistivity (R_baseline) and baseline transit time (∆t_baseline), as well as resistivity and
transit time of layers of interest are inputs to calculate TOC:
R
∆logR = log ( ) + 0.02 ∗ (∆t − ∆t_baseline)
R baseline
TOC = ∆logR ∗ 102.297−0.1688∗LOM
LOM is the level of maturity and is determined separately for each source rock. For type
II and III source rock, I use the crossplot of S2 peak versus TOC of core plugs to find out the LOM
value of Hue/HRZ in Merak-1 to be 8.5, Hue/HRZ in Alcor-1 to be 9.5, Kingak and Shublik in
both wells to be 12 (Figure 17).
 31

Figure 17: S2 peak (mg HC/g rock) versus TOC (wt %) of core plugs in Geomark dataset. Black
lines indicate different Level of Maturity LOM as defined by Passey et al. 1990.

Spikes in the TOC logs might be attributed to anomaly in the deep resistivity log. Cross-
validation with geochemical core data in Figure 18 shows a reasonable agreement in organic-rich
intervals in Merak-1 well (especially Shublik and Hue). Only a small portion of Kingak is matched
since we do not have enough core measurements of this thick interval. In Alcor-1, Shublik is also
sampled sparsely so this method could not guarantee the match for the whole interval.

Figure 18: Cross-validation of TOC logs created by Passey method (blue lines) and geochemical
core data (pink dots) for different lithofacies in two wells. From left to right: Merak Hue, Merak
Kingak, Merak Shublik, Alcor Hue/HRZ, Alcor Shublik.
 32

2. Core data analysis

This study lacks a complete set of core plugs with both geochemical, acoustic and
petrophysical data. Due to time constraint to carry out all experiments with all available core plugs,
I decide to correlate data of different scales (well log versus core plug). Preliminary quality check
shows that bulk density of log and core at similar depth are of reasonable agreement (Figure 20).
In Figure 19, acoustic velocities are log-derived values at the identical depths core plugs are taken
while bulk density is core plug value. Only Kingak shows slight Vp/Vs ratio increase as shale gets
more compacted (bulk density increases). Due to great Kingak thickness, depth burial and shale
compaction has a much more influential role in controlling this trend compared to thinner and
more heterogeneous Shublik and HRZ.

Figure 19: Vp/Vs ratio (log-derived) versus Dry and Wet (As-received or AR) bulk density (gm/cc)
of core plugs in Alcor-1 well. Only Kingak shows slight velocity ratio increase as shale gets more
compacted (bulk density increases).

P-wave and S-wave velocities (extracted from sonic logs at corresponding depths) are
plotted against different bulk density (log, dry core plug and as-received core plug) (Figure 21).
Log values of bulk density of Shublik and HRZ show very good consistency with core
measurements so no correction is necessary (Figure 20). However, other factors may obscure the
value of bulk density log such as varying heavy pyrite concentration and natural fracture system.
Kingak log values of density are lower than core values possibly due to sampling bias of core plugs
towards pyrite-free and unfractured intervals. Presence of heavy minerals, like pyrite (less than
10% in XRD analysis), could be ignored for the sake of simplicity.
 33

Figure 20: Cross-validation of density values between core and log measurements. The diagonal
45-degree slope line indicates consistency of HRZ and Shublik samples while Kingak samples
need further calibration. Shublik, Hue and HRZ show good consistency as most of the data points
fall onto the diagonal 45 degree line while Kingak shows greater value of core density compared
to logging results.

Figure 21: P and S-wave velocities (m/sec) versus bulk density (gm/cc). Log value is denoted as
circle, as-received core as diamond and dry core as star. Saturation of as-received core does not
change bulk density much because NSA shale has low porosity. Kingak log values of density are
lower than core values possibly due to sampling bias of core plugs towards pyrite-free and
unfractured intervals.

The feasibility of conducting petroleum source rock evaluation from well-log data is
examined by establishing useful correlations between log-derived or seismic-related attributes and
 34

source rock parameters. A full assessment of source rock potential means a complete
characterization in terms of richness, kerogen type and maturity. Log-derived density values are
presented versus the thermal maturity indicator Tmax in Figure 22, which shows that bulk density
is not maturity dependent.

Figure 22: Density (gm/cc) and P-wave velocity (m/sec) versus Tmax (degree C). Density shows
its little dependence on maturity due to its weak correlation within each lithofacies.

Figure 23: P and S-wave velocity (feet/sec) versus HI. Each data cluster is well separated. The
correlation is weaker compared to velocity-density correlation.
 35

Figure 24: P and S wave velocity (m/sec) versus TOC (weight percentage). No correlation is
recognized even though the clusters are relatively well separated.

Crossplots of Vp, Vs and TOC, HI show good separation between different lithofacies
(Figure 23 and Figure 24). A simple correlation between geochemical and petrophysical
parameters is not easy to deduce since log response in shale intervals is complex and affected by
not only the organics but also mineralogical and pore fluid properties of the rock (Mann and
Muller, 1988). Looking closer at a single lithofacies, the correlation is stronger but it is not as
profound as velocity-density relationship. Acoustic analysis in other notable shale plays (Bakken,
Bazhenov and Niobrabra) is compiled by Vernik (Figure 25, Vernik and Nur, 1994; Vernik and
Landis, 1996; Vernik and Liu, 1997), showing that Vp increases as HI decreases, except in high
porosity shale where Vp is better correlated with porosity (or density).

Figure 25: P-wave velocity (Vp in feet/sec) versus HI of other shale plays. Vp is inversely
proportional to HI. Within a single formation, the correlation between Vp and HI is reasonable and
the scatter is greatly reduced (Prasad et al., 2002a).
 36

A statistically well-defined evaluation requires a comprehensive geochemical analysis of

extensive core sets, which is time consuming and expensive. Bit cuttings do not always reflect the
correct lithology due to caving and contamination by organic mud additives (Mann et al., 1985).
Therefore, wireline log data, which offers continuous profile of stratigraphic sections of interest
with relatively high resolution, proves to be the best alternative. This is where the TOC logs I
established earlier come in handy. In Shublik, TOC and acoustic velocities show a strong directly
proportional correlation. Hue and HRZ clusters are significantly overlapping, as do Pebble and
Kingak (Figure 26 and Figure 27).

Figure 26: P and S wave velocity versus log-derived TOC values for Merak-1. TOC and acoustic
velocities show a strong directly proportional correlation in Shublik.

Figure 27: P and S wave velocity versus log-derived TOC values for Alcor-1. TOC and acoustic
velocities show a strong directly proportional correlation in Shublik.
 37

3. Rock physics template:

Rock physics model allows to link seismic properties to geologic properties. Expanding on
the earlier rock physics diagnostics, I create rock physics templates (RPTs) of two selective seismic
parameters: Acoustic Impedance (AI, which is the product of bulk density and P-wave velocity)
and Vp/Vs ratio, for each lithofacies in NSA. Geologic trends (pressure variation, pore fluid,
sorting, and cementation) also play a role in constraining rock physics models. If we can predict
the expected change in seismic response (or seismic-derived attributes such as AI or Vp/Vs) as a
function of depositional environment or burial depth, we will increase our ability to predict
hydrocarbons in ORS (Avseth et al., 2005). This RPT approach enables me to perform rock physics
analysis not only on well-log data but also on elastic inversion results of seismic data. RPT
facilitates prediction of porosity/density as well as discrimination of different pore fluid and
pressure scenarios in the area of interest.
XRD mineralogy is available in HRZ and Shublik in Alcor-1 (Table 4). To simplify the
matrix composition, I only consider minerals that are of significant amount and critical inputs in
existing rock physics models in the literature (quartz, clay and carbonate). Note that pyrite is also
prevalent in HRZ core plugs (around 10% volume percentage) but will be ignored for the sake of
simplicity. Illite is the main clay component in both shale units. Kingak composition is assumed
based on existing literature.

Table 4: XRD analysis of Alcor-1 core plugs, covering HRZ and Shublik intervals. Illite is the
main clay component in both shale units. Minerals that are of significant amount are quartz,
carbonate and illite.

Table 5 presents the simplified lithology of HRZ and Shublik to use in the rock physics
soft sediment template. The soft sediment model uses Hertz-Mindlin contact theory (Mindlin,
 38

1949) to calculate high-porosity end members at critical porosity and the modified lower Hashin-
Shtrikman (Hashin and Shtrikman, 1963) to interpolate back to low-porosity end members. The
zero-porosity end member is a pure mineral mix of quartz, clay and calcite, assuming that other
minerals only appear as trace amounts in the matrix composition. The Matlab code, written by
Gary Mavko, needs several inputs (effective pressure, volume composition) to calculate shale
elastic properties (acoustic velocities at different saturations, bulk density). Pressure data is not
available in type wells so I assume standard lithostatic and pore pressure gradient (1 and 0.433
psi/feet respectively) for calculation of effective pressure. Therefore, the effective pressure
gradient is 0.567 psi/feet. Other inputs of the soft sediment model are mineral and fluid bulk/shear
modulus (Table 6) and critical porosity (0.7 for shale).

Clay (Illite) Calcite Quartz Kerogen

HRZ 0.3 0 0.4 0.3
Kingak 0.3 0 0.5 0.2
Shublik 0.05 0.35 0.4 0.2

Table 5: Simplified composition for HRZ, Kingak and Shublik to use as inputs of soft sediment model.

Clay mineral Bulk Modulus K (GPa) Shear Modulus µ (GPa) Density Rho (kg/m3)
Quartz 36.6 45 2650
Illite 39.4 11.7 2750
Calcite 76.8 32 2710
Kerogen 6.8 3.6 1400
Table 6: Elastic moduli of different minerals (Table 2.1, Avseth et al., 2005). NSA kerogen elastic
properties are extremely limited so typical values of kerogen modulus and density at similar maturity level
from other shale plays are taken (Vernik 1994).

This model calculates shale elastic properties and yields a Vp/Vs versus P-wave impedance
trend superimposed onto my log-derived data points. The soft sediment model examines expected
changes of these seismic attributes with regard to change in pore fluid, pressure, clay content and
mineralogy (blue arrows in Figure 29). This step also serves as a checkpoint to ensure log quality
consistency. The crossplot of AI versus Vp/Vs of my dataset (Figure 28), reveals the trend of RPT-
 39

related property change due to shaliness/clay content in Hue/HRZ (marked by blue arrow 2 in
Figure 29). The trend’s sub-branches (blue arrow 3 in Figure 29) represent expected change during
pore fluid substitution as gas displaces water in pore spaces (Sw varies from 0 to 1). Fluid
substitution recipe has to be used with caution because shale lithology (clay minerals) defy the
assumptions of Gassmann’s formula. The effects of organic content and hydrocarbon-filled pore
space will deviate the clusters of each lithofacies away from the main trend lines. The soft sediment
model does a decent job to match bulk density of low-porosity (or high-density) members. Despite
the inclusion of low-density kerogen in the model, low-density members (blue points) are not well-
positioned as they fall into a higher density zone. This is likely because the soft sediment model
does not account for effective pressure anomaly along the interval. Also, the Hertz-Mindlin elastic
contact theory, which is based on the behavior of elastic sphere pack subject to a confining
pressure, is more applicable to sand than to shale. Another explanation is that logging device
directly measures a layer of low-density organic material at those depths corresponding to dark
blue data points in these RPTs below.

Figure 28: Crossplot of AI versus Vp/Vs of Hue/HRZ, color-coded by GR show expected change
of AI and velocity ratio with regard to GR. As GR/clay content increases, both velocity ratio and
AI tend to decrease. The colorbar indicates GR magnitude. Cluster of points in the red circle
(upper left corner) are at the same interval that logging equipment switch happens and may need
to be removed to align with the trend.
 40

(2)
(1)

(3)

Figure 29: A rock physics template (RPT) of Hue/HRZ presented as cross-plots of Vp/Vs versus
AI includes a rock physics model locally constrained by depth (i.e., pressure), mineralogy, critical
porosity and fluid properties. The template includes porosity trends for different fluid saturation
(from fully water-saturated Sw=1 to fully gas-saturated Sw=0) assuming uniform saturation. Color
bar indicates the range of bulk density. Input parameters are highlighted in the right. Blue arrows
indicate various conceptual geologic trend: (1) decreasing porosity (or increasing bulk density), (2)
increasing shaliness, (3) increasing gas saturation.

To match bulk density of high porosity (or low bulk density) members, the model needs
further modifications of its inputs (shear reduction factor, coordination number in Hertz-Mindlin
model, kerogen composition and properties). Pebble crossplot of AI versus Vp/Vs does not show
much density dependence but is included for reference (Figure 30). Figure 31 shows Kingak RPT,
in which density proves to be the principal driving force of Vp/Vs-AI trend as clusters of various
density magnitude clearly separate from each other. Figure 33 shows that the soft sediment model
works well in Shublik to predict bulk density as the range of bulk density matches accurately
density values of data points. In Shublik RPT, high density members are falling in lower density
range because I do not include high-density pyrite in the model. The model is limited to two fluids’
interchangeable substitution (in this case water and gas). The predicted saturation of the soft
sediment model shows slight over-estimation of gas saturation compared to wet core plugs (at
corresponding depths of log data points). This is most likely due to an inadequate fluid preservation
process of core plugs or the omission of oil in the fluid substitution recipe in the soft-sand model.
 41

Figure 30: Crossplot of Vp/Vs versus AI of Pebble shale unit. Density is not a driving force behind
this trend.

(2) (1)

(3)

Figure 31: A rock physics template (RPT) of Kingak presented as cross-plots of Vp/Vs versus AI.
The template includes porosity trends for different fluid saturation (from fully water-saturated
Sw=1 to fully gas-saturated Sw=0) assuming uniform saturation. Color bar indicates the range of
bulk density. Input parameters are highlighted in the right. Blue arrows indicate various
conceptual geologic trend: (1) decreasing porosity (or increasing bulk density), (2) increasing
shaliness, (3) increasing gas saturation. The trend of increasing shaliness is shown in Figure 52.
 42

(1)

(3)

Figure 32: A rock physics template (RPT) of Shublik presented as cross-plots of Vp/Vs versus
AI. The template includes porosity trends for different fluid saturation (from fully water-saturated
Sw=1 to fully gas-saturated Sw=0) assuming uniform saturation. Color bar indicates the range of
bulk density. Input parameters are highlighted in the right. Blue arrows indicate various
conceptual geologic trend: (1) decreasing porosity (or increasing bulk density), (3) increasing gas
saturation. The trend of increasing shaliness is not clear as shown in Figure 53.

There are several challenges in modeling ORS composition and porosity effects on
velocities. Porosity is not easily determined from either core plugs or log data due to complication
in lithology and ambiguity in measurement accuracy, such as neutron tools in the log suite or
ultralow permeability plugs. Therefore, bulk density is used instead of porosity in the RPTs.
Additionally, fluid effects on acoustic properties are more problematic because shale lithology
defies the main assumptions of Gassmann theory (widely used for clean sandstone rocks) due to
rock (clay minerals) and fluid interaction. Grouping all lithofacies into one RPT, Figure 33 and
Figure 34 shows density demonstrates a more profound importance than GR in influencing Vp/Vs
versus AI trend.
 43

Figure 33: A rock physics template (RPT) of NSA presented as cross-plots of Vp/Vs versus AI.
Colorbar indicates different magnitudes of bulk density. Shale porosity of soft sediment model
(using average values of composition of all NSA ORS lithofacies) is drawn for reference.

Figure 34: A rock physics template (RPT) of NSA presented as cross-plots of Vp/Vs versus AI.
Colorbar indicates different magnitudes of GR. Shale porosity of soft sediment model (using
average values of composition of all NSA ORS lithofacies) is drawn for reference.
 44

IX. Application of existing petrophysical models

Several field-specific shale petrophysical models have already been successfully tested in
other shale plays across the States. A physically consistent solution based on partitioning the
system into kerogen and non-kerogen domains (suggested by nano-scale images) with their
associated porosities is proposed by Alfred and Vernik in 2012. The model assumes that pre-
mature organic source rock is originally and fully water saturated. Kerogen, which consists mostly
of carbon and hydrogen, is the portion of the naturally occurring organic matter that is insoluble
to organic solvents. Due to thermal maturity and alteration, kerogen gets cooked leading to the
densification of kerogen and creation of maturation-induced pore space filled with hydrocarbons
(Alfred et al. 2012). This model assumes that hydrocarbon phase occupies the kerogen-related
porosity while water occupies the non-kerogen matrix porosity. The combining investigated
volume domain is shown in Figure 35:

Figure 35: The combined domain of pore system. Organic domain contains solid organic matter
(kerogen), organic porosity (filled with hydrocarbon Swk). Non-kerogen domain contains solid
inorganic matter (host rock or matrix) and inorganic porosity (filled with water Swnk). k-kerogen,
nk-non-kerogen matrix, fk-fluid in organic domain, nfk-fluid in non-organic domain, b-bulk
property. Vk is the volume of the organic domain (kerogen matrix and its porosity) and V nk is the
volume of the inorganic domain (host rock matrix and its porosity) (Alfred and Vernik 2012).

I use Vernik’s model to calculate kerogen-modified porosity of core plugs to account for
kerogen porosity. Solid part of the domain includes kerogen and host rock. Kerogen volume
fraction in the solid, called K in Figure Figure 36, is a key input of this model. It is calculated by
 45

using log-derived TOC (weight percentage), organic carbon percentage Ck (use the value of 84 as
suggested by Vernik), kerogen density 𝛠k (use correlation in Figure 37), non-kerogen matrix
density 𝛠nk (based on XRD analysis) in the formula below:
TOC ∗ ϱm TOC ∗ ϱnk
K= =
Ck ∗ ϱk TOC ∗ (ϱnk − ϱk ) + Ck ϱk
(Alfred and Vernik 2012).

Figure 36: The combined domain system with allocations of volumes. K is volume fraction of
kerogen in the solid part of the domain (Alfred and Vernik 2012).

Kerogen density is calculated by using their proposed correlation with the Vitrinite
Reflectance (or thermal maturity indicator) Ro. The more mature (more carbon concentration) the
system is, the more kerogen gets converted to hydrocarbons and hence the kerogen becomes denser
(Alfred et al. 2012). Then the volume percentage of kerogen porosity in the total rock domain (or
the volume difference between kerogen-modified porosity and matrix porosity) ᴠk is calculated
from K and porosity.
ᴠk = K ∗ (1 − Φ)
 46

Figure 37: Correlation between kerogen density and thermal maturity through studying core data
of various shale plays (Alfred and Vernik 2012).

Since XRD analysis is only available for Alcor-1 well, Table 7 shows the modified porosity
compared to original plug porosity for only Alcor samples. The additional kerogen-related porosity
is 6% for HRZ and 3.5% for Shublik, on the average.
Depth TOC (Wt Matrix Kerogen-modified
(feet) %) porosity porosity Formation
8643 2.078 13.2 18.4
8654 2.445 9.6 16.0 HRZ
8664 2.323 11.4 17.3
10578 2.133 5.6 10.9
10588 1.314 4.0 7.3
10598 1.246 3.2 6.3
10606 1.758 2.3 6.8
10616 0.257 1.3 2.0 Shublik
10626 0.697 1.7 3.5
10634 2.485 5.7 11.8
10643 1.941 4.5 9.5
10654 0.783 4.3 6.3
Table 7: Original plug porosity and kerogen-modified porosity based on Alfred and Vernik's model
to account for kerogen porosity.

Prasad et al. have proposed a correlation between P-wave velocity and modified porosity
using this model for other notable shale plays (Bakken, Bazhenov, Niobrabra, Woodford) (Figure
39). Regardless of formation, the correlation becomes stronger when they correct the porosity to
include kerogen-related pore space. Using a similar power trend line, the correlation coefficient of
Velocity-Modified-Porosity relationship (Figure 38) is much more improved (R2=0.8) compared
 47

to the original trend between velocity and core plug porosity (R2=0.4). This suggests a possibility
of applying existing petrophysical models in cross-field applications.

Vp=4400*(PHI/100)-0.428
Vs=2300*(PHI/100)-0.428

Figure 38: Apply the modified porosity to account for pore spaces in kerogen, a much better
correlation between velocity and porosity is observed (R2=0.8). Prasad’s relationship obtained from
other shale plays is superimposed for comparison in the P-wave chart. Velocities in feet/sec, PHI
in percentage. My correlation formulas are given in the box.

Figure 39: Correlation between P-wave velocity (feet/sec) and Kerogen-modified porosity in other
shale plays. Velocity correlates very well with kerogen volumetric content if we assume that about
40% of the kerogen acts as pore space to soften the rock. The correlation coefficient between
velocity and modified porosity is now significant (R2=0.7) and does not depend on formation
(Prasad et al., 2009).
 48

X. Preliminary shale anisotropy characterization

Anisotropic behavior of shale is observed in the dipole sonic tool running in Merak-1 well
where velocities of two directions of shear wave polarization are measured as Vsxx and Vsyy.
Cross-dipole shear-wave acoustic tool provides a direct measurement of macroscopic formation
anisotropy. The percent anisotropy is computed:
Vsxx−Vsyy
Percentage = (Vsxx+Vsyy)/2

Figure 40: Cross-dipole acoustic tool measure velocities of two different directions of shear wave
polarization. Percentage of difference is plotted in the right with values range from 5-10 percent
difference.

A subset collection of core plugs in Shublik is chosen to proceed with petrophysical and
elastic measurements. Due to the time-consuming nature of both tests for shale, only bench top
equipment (Figure 41) is used for quick anisotropy measurement under low stress conditions
(usually atmospheric pressure). The difference between laboratory measured velocities and sonic
logs could be due to several reasons. Sonic log measures in situ conditions (fluid-saturated) while
ultrasonic velocities are measured in dry condition (due to the inability to preserve original fluids
during coring). Core plugs are dried up in a vacuumed container before ultrasonic velocity
measurements. Other sources of discrepancies include sampling bias towards homogenous
lithology (unfractured intervals) and size bias (smaller size of core plugs compared to logging
coverage). Following a consistent way of picking P and S-wave arrival time in the oscilloscope
 49

signal, I plot the ultrasonic velocities of samples of different orientations to observe elastic
anisotropy under atmospheric pressure (Figure 42).

Figure 41: Experiment set-up. The right picture shows the oscilloscope. The left picture shows the
transducer and the core holder. Molasses is used to improve the acoustic coupling between
transducers and core sample.

6000

5800

5600
Vp (m/s)

5400 Shublik A 10739.75ft

5200 Shublik D 10824.5

Shublik D Alcor 10637.2ft
5000

4800
0 20 40 60 80
Angle to bedding

3200
3100
3000
Vs (m/s)

2900 Shublik A 10739.75ft

2800 Shublik D 10824.5

2700 Shublik D Alcor 10637.2ft

2600
0 20 40 60 80
Angle to bedding

Figure 42: P and S-wave velocities versus Angle to Bedding of Shublik core plugs at different depth
and orientations. 0 degree means parallel to the bedding. 90 degree means normal to the bedding.
 50

A consistent observation is velocity decreases as the angle to bedding increase from 0

degree (parallel to bedding) to 90 degree (normal to bedding). This anisotropic response is
probably related to the fine, bedding-parallel lamination of organic matter and preferred orientation
of clay particles (Vernik and Nur, 1992). This intrinsic anisotropy may be further enhanced in
thermally mature shale by bedding-parallel microcracks induced by the processes of hydrocarbon
generation. A geochemical test on these samples needs to be done to observe any correlation
between thermal maturity and anisotropy. A more complete picture of microcrack effects will be
better revealed if the effect of confining pressure on P and S wave velocities is experimentally
available.
 51

XI. Conclusion and Future Work

Major shale lithofacies in North Alaska System can be qualitatively delineated in terms of
elastic and petrophysical properties using simple crossplots except Kingak and Pebble. GR proves
to be a better candidate than bulk density to qualitatively separate seismic lithofacies. Cross-plots
between elastic properties and TOC or HI show good separation among different shale but little
useful correlation is obtained. Weak inverse correlation between Vp/Vs and TOC is observed in
NSA lithofacies. Organic material is not the sole driving force controlling velocity-density trend
as mineralogy and fluid properties also play a part. Clay content plays a key role in the velocity-
density trend of Kingak assuming that it is directly related to GR.
Existing shale petrophysical model can be applied if it is properly calibrated to specific
regional geology of NSA. The soft sediment model is applied to produce NSA rock physics
templates and obtains decent match in bulk density, especially for high density members. These
templates show how various geological trends (pressure, saturation, clay content, mineralogy)
affect seismic-related attributes (acoustic impedance and velocity ratio Vp/Vs).
A training dataset of elastic properties (P and S wave velocities, bulk density) has been
built to advance in the statistical rock physics workflow. There is a need to account for different
physical scenarios across the field that might not be present at the well locations. A possible
solution is to use correlated Monte Carlo to expand the training dataset to account for natural
variability within dataset, or in other words, include cases beyond the wellbores. Future work also
involves completion of necessary experiments to fill up the core dataset, which will calibrate the
quality of the training dataset and be used to deduce more reliable correlations.
North Slope Alaska shale anisotropy is apparent both in sonic log and core measurement.
Source of anisotropy will be clearer after conducting velocity versus confining pressure test on
core plugs. Limited bench top tests on core plugs have shown that velocity decreases as angle to
bedding increases from 0 degree (parallel to bedding) to 90 degree (normal to bedding). The
prospective of identifying potential source rocks and developing completion scenarios using
wireline logs or seismic data depend on the ability to remove the intrinsic anisotropy from induced
anisotropy (Vernik 1993).

.
 52

XII. References
Alfred, D., Vernik, L., 2012, Cartagena, Colombia, A new petrophysical model for organic shales:
SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium.
Allix, P., A. Burnham, M. Herron, and R. Kleinberg, 2010, Gas Shale, Oil Shale, and Oil-Bearing
Shale: Similarities and Differences: AAPG Search and Discovery 90122.
Aranibar, A., Saneifar, M., Heidari, Z., 2013, Denver, Colorado, Petrophysical rock typing in
organic-rich source rocks using well logs: SPE 168913, presented at the Unconventional
Resources Technology Conference.
Avseth, P., Mukerji, T., Mavko, G., 2005, Quantitative seismic interpretation: Applying rock
physics tools to reduce interpretation risk: Cambridge University Press.
Bird, K.J., 1985, The framework geology of the North Slope of Alaska as related to oil-source rock
correlation, in L.B. Magoon and G.E. Claypool, eds., Alaska North Slope Oil/Rock
Correlation Study. AAPG Studies in Geology #20, p. 3-29.
Bird, K.J., 2001, Alaska: A twenty-first-century petroleum province, in M.W. Downey, J.C.
Threet, and W.A. Morgan, eds., Petroleum Provinces of the Twenty-first Century: AAPG
Memoir 74, p. 137-165.
Collins, F.R., 1961, Core tests and test wells, Barrow area, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 305-K, 569-644.
Gamero-Diaz, H., Miller, C., and Lewis, R., 2012, A classification scheme for organic mudstones
based on bulk mineralogy: AAPG Southwest Section meeting.
Hashin, Z., and Shtrikman, S., 1963, A variational approach to the elastic behavior of multiphase
materials. J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 11, 127-140.
Houseknecht, D.W., and K.J. Bird, 2004, Sequence stratigraphy of the Kingak Shale (Jurassic–
Lower Cretaceous), National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska: AAPG Bulletin, v. 88, p. 279–
302.
Hubbard, R.J., S.P. Edrich, and R.P. Rattey, 1990, Geological evolution and hydrocarbon habitat
of the ‘Arctic Alaska microplate’, in J. Brooks, ed., Classic Petroleum Provinces: London,
Geological Society Special Publication, v. 50, p. 143–187.
Keller, M. A., 2002, Petroleum source potential of the Beaufortian succession of the NPRA and
Colville Delta area, NSA, based on sonic and resistivity logs: AAPG Bulletin, v. 86, p.
1148.
 53

Keller, M.A., and Macquaker J.H.S., 2001, High resolution analysis of petroleum source potential
and lithofacies of Lower Cretaceous mudstone core pebble shale unit and GRZ of Hue
Shale, Mikkelsen Bay State #1 well, NSA, in D.W.Houseknecht, ed., NPRA Core
Workshop: Petroleum plays and systems in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska: SPEM
Core Workshop 21, p. 37-56.
Keller, M.A., K.J. Bird, and K.R. Evans, 1999, Petroleum source rock evaluation based on sonic
and resistivity logs, in The Oil and Gas Resource Potential of the 1002 Area, Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, by ANWR Assessment team, U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 98-34, 62 p.
Langford, F.F., and M.-M. Blanc-Valleron, 1990, Interpreting Rock-Eval pyrolysis data using
graphs of pyrolyzable hydrocarbons vs. TOC: AAPG Bulletin, v. 74, p. 799-804.
Liu, X., Vernik, L., Nur. A., 1995, Petrophysical properties of the Monterey formation and fracture
detection from the sonic log: SEG Annual Meeting, 8-13 October, Houston, Texas.
Mann, U., Leythaeuser, D., Muller, P.J., 1985, Relation between source rock properties and
wireline log parameters: An example from Lower Jurassic Posidonia Shale, NW-Germany:
Advances in Organic Geochemistry. v. 10, p. 1105-1112.
Mindlin, R.D., 1949, Compliance of elastic bodies in contact. J. Appl. Mech., 16, 259-268.
Molenaar, C.M., Bird, K.J., and Kirk, A.R., 1987, Cretaceous and Tertiary stratigraphy of
northeastern Alaska, in I. Tailleur, and P. Weimer, eds., Alskan North Slope Geology:
Bakersfield, California,, Pacific Section, Society of Economic Palentologists and
Mineralogists and Alaska Geological Society, p. 513-528.
Parrish, J.T., 1987, Lithology, geochemistry, and depositional environment of the Triassic Shublik
Formation, northern Alaska, in I. Tailleur and P. Weimer, eds., Alaskan North Slope
Geology: Bakersfield and Anchorage, the Pacific Section, SEPM and the Alaska
Geological Society, p. 391-396.
Parrish, J.T., M.T. Whalen, and E.J. Hulm, 2001, Shublik Formation lithofacies, environments,
and sequence stratigraphy, Arctic Alaska, U.S.A., in Houseknecht, D.W., ed., Petroleum
Plays and Systems in the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska: SEPM (Society for
Sedimentary Geology) Core Workshop No. 21, p. 89–110.
Passey, Q.R., Creaney, S., Kulla, J.B., Moretti, F.J., and Stroud J.D., 1990, A practical model for
organic richness from porosity and resistivity logs: AAPG Bulletin, v.74, p.1777-1794.
 54

Peters, K.E., L.B. Magoon, K.J. Bird, Z.C. Valin, and M.A. Keller, 2006, North Slope, Alaska,
Source rock distribution, richness, thermal maturity, and petroleum charge: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 90, p. 261-292.
Prasad, M., Kenechukwu, C., McEvoy, E., Batzle, M., 2009, Denver, Colorado, Maturity and
impedance analysis of organic-rich shales: SPE 123531, presented at the 2009 SPE Rocky
Mountain Petroleum Technology Conference.
Robison, V.D., L.M. Liro, C.R. Robison, W.C. Dawson, and J.W. Russo, 1996, Integrated
geochemistry, organic petrology, and sequence stratigraphy of the Triassic Shublik
Formation, Tenneco Phoenix #1 well, North Slope, Alaska, U.S.A.: Organic Geochemistry,
v. 24, p. 257-272.
Tutuncu, A.N., 2010, Salt Lake City, Utah. Anisotropy, compaction and dispersion characteristics
of reservoir and seal shales: presented at the 44th US Rock Mechanics Symposium.
Vernik, L., 1993, Microcrack-induced versus intrinsic elastic anisotropy in mature HC-source
shales: Geophysics, Vol. 58, No. 11, P. 1703-1706.
Vernik, L., and Nur, A., 1994, Ultrasonic velocity and anisotropy of hydrocarbon source rocks:
Geophysics, 57: 727-7351.
Vernik, L., and Landis, C., 1996, Elastic anisotropy of source rocks: Implications for hydrocarbon
generation and primary migration: AAPG Bull., 80: 531-544.
Vernik, L. and Liu, X., 1997, Velocity anisotropy in shales: A petrophysical study: Geophysics,
62: 521-532.
Yan, F., Han, D., Yao, Q., 2012, Oil shale anisotropy measurement and sensitivity analysis: SEG
Las Vegas Annual Meeting.
Wang Y., Peters, K., Moldowan, J.M., Bird, K., and Magoon, L.B., 2014, Cracking, mixing, and
geochemical correlation of crude oils, North Slope, Alaska: AAPG Bulletin.
 55

XIII. Appendix

Figure 43: Map of northern Alaska showing exploratory drilling density, pipeline infrastructure,
and land ownership. North of the Brooks Range, federal ownership includes NPRA, ANWR and
the offshore beyond the state-federal three-mile boundary. Ownership of nonfederal lands is
divided between the state and Native American organizations. TAPS=Trans-Alaska Pipeline
System (Ken Bird 2001)
 56

Figure 44: Formation tops of all rock units in Merak-1. True Vertical Depth TVD is used in log
analysis as it corresponds to the depth in my vertical type well. Rocks of interest are Hue, HRZ,
Pebble, Kingak and Shublik. True Vertical Depth TVD is comparable to logging depth since both
wells are vertical.
 57

Figure 45: Formation tops of all rock units in Alcor-1. Rocks of interest are Hue, HRZ, Pebble,
Kingak and Shublik. True Vertical Depth TVD is comparable to logging depth since both wells are
vertical.
 58

Figure 46: Diagram showing typical logging tracks used for qualitative delineation of NSA
lithofacies. From left to right for Alcor-1 well: GR (API unit), Compensated Bulk Density
(gm/cc), P and S wave velocity (m/s) and Vp/Vs. Diagram showing picks for top and bottom
depth of each shale of interest. Matlab is used to color-code each facies and index their numerical
values. From top to bottom: red (Hue), green (HRZ), blue (Pebble), black (Kingak), pink
(Shublik). This color code is used throughout this study.

Figure 47: Young’s modulus and Bulk Modulus versus Poisson Ratio in Merak-1. Each
lithofacies clusters show a distinctive trend between bulk modulus and Poisson ratio. Shublik
separate itself from other clusters. In this figure, color code is: red (Hue), green (HRZ), blue
(Pebble), black (Kingak), pink (Shublik).
 59

Figure 48: Young’s modulus and Bulk Modulus versus Poisson Ratio in Alcor-1. In this figure,
color code is: red (Hue), green (HRZ), blue (Pebble), black (Kingak), pink (Shublik). Several Hue
shale data points have Poisson Ratio value of 0.5, which need to be removed.
 60

Figure 49: Well-to-well cross correlation based on TOC and GR logs (Ken Bird 2012). Two wells
of interest are 1.5 miles apart and have shown excellent correlation in terms of petrophysical
properties and source rock character.
 61

Figure 50: Organic mudstone classification (Gamero-Diaz et al. 2012).

Figure 51: Crossplot of AI versus Vp/Vs of Kingak, color-coded by GR show expected change of
AI and velocity ratio with regard to GR. As GR increases, both velocity ratio and AI tend to
decrease. The colobar indicates GR magnitude.
 62

Figure 52: Crossplot of AI versus Vp/Vs of Pebble, color-coded by GR show expected change of
AI and velocity ratio with regard to GR. As GR increases, both velocity ratio and AI tend to
decrease. The colobar indicates GR magnitude.

Figure 53: Crossplot of AI versus Vp/Vs of Shublik, color-coded by GR show expected change of
AI and velocity ratio with regard to GR. As GR increases, both velocity ratio and AI tend to
decrease. The colobar indicates GR magnitude.
63